Softpanorama

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

Fighting Russophobia bulletin, 2016

Pathological Russophobia of the US elite  2017 2016 2015 2014 2013

2015 should be called the year when sanctions backfired. At least for EU. 


Top Visited
Switchboard
Latest
Past week
Past month

NEWS CONTENTS

Old News ;-)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Putting War Crimes on the Menu

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

Torture is a case in point.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The logic of the Red Queen.

Through the Looking Glass

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

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

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

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

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

Failure by Any Measure

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Dec 21, 2019] Needed Now a Peace Movement Against the Clinton Wars to Come by Andrew Levine

Notable quotes:
"... As the steward-in-chief of the American empire, Obama continued Bush's Afghanistan and Iraq Wars, and extended his "War on Terror" into Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, and elsewhere in Africa and the Middle East. He also became a terrorist himself and a serial killer, weaponized drones and special ops assassins being his weapons of choice. ..."
Oct 08, 2016 | www.counterpunch.org
Barack Obama won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize -- for not being George W. Bush. This seemed unseemly at the time, but not outrageous. Seven years later, it seems grotesque.

As the steward-in-chief of the American empire, Obama continued Bush's Afghanistan and Iraq Wars, and extended his "War on Terror" into Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, and elsewhere in Africa and the Middle East. He also became a terrorist himself and a serial killer, weaponized drones and special ops assassins being his weapons of choice.

More

ANDREW LEVINE is a Senior Scholar at the Institute for Policy Studies, the author most recently of THE AMERICAN IDEOLOGY (Routledge) and POLITICAL KEY WORDS (Blackwell) as well as of many other books and articles in political philosophy. His most recent book is In Bad Faith: What's Wrong With the Opium of the People . He was a Professor (philosophy) at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and a Research Professor (philosophy) at the University of Maryland-College Park. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press).

[Dec 04, 2019] The Anti-Trust Election

This is from 2016 election cycle but still relevant. Money quote: "Trump_vs_deep_state will outlive Trump and the people's faith in economists will only be restored after the next financial collapse if all of the financial sector is liquidated, all the universities and think tanks go bankrupt and the know-nothing free traders disappear from our public discourse. "
Despicable neoliberal MSM do not like to discuss real issue that facing people in 220 elections. They like to discuss personalities. Propagandists of Vichy left like Madcow spend hours discussing Ukrainegate instead of real issues facing the nation.
Notable quotes:
"... Donald Trump has promised to make deregulation one of the focal points of his presidency. If Trump is elected, the trend toward rising market concentration and all of the problems that come with it are likely to continue. ..."
"... If Clinton is elected, it's unlikely that her administration would be active enough in antitrust enforcement for my taste. But at least she acknowledges that something needs to be done about this growing problem, and any movement toward more aggressive enforcement of antitrust regulation would be more than welcome. ..."
"... Once again we have a stark 'choice' in this election...one party who won't enforce existing laws and another who will just get rid of them. Like flipping a coin: heads, the predator class wins; tails, we lose. ..."
"... "Vote third party to register your disgust..." and waste the opportunity, at least in a few states, to affect the national outcome (in many states the outcome is not in doubt, so, thanks to our stupid electoral college system, millions of voters could equally well stay home, vote third party, or write in their dog). ..."
"... But then it dawned on me: antitrust enforcement is largely up to the president and his picked advisers. If Democrats really think it is so damned important, why has Clinton's old boss Barack Obama done so very, very little with it? ..."
"... Josh Mason thinks a Clinton administration may push on corporate short-termism if not on anti-trust. We'll see, but seeing as the Obama administration didn't do much I wouldn't be surprised if Hillary doesn't either. ..."
"... They ignored the housing bubble, don't seem to understand the connection between manufacturing and wealth (close your eyes and imagine your life with no manufactured goods, because they are all imported and your economy only produces a few low value-added raw materials such as timber or exotic animals) then you will see that allowing the US to deindustrialize was a really, world-historic mistake. ..."
"... Trump_vs_deep_state will outlive Trump and the people's faith in economists will only be restored after the next financial collapse if all of the financial sector is liquidated, all the universities and think tanks go bankrupt and the know-nothing free traders disappear from our public discourse. ..."
Oct 08, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
Economist's View
I have a new column:

The Anti-Trust Election of 2016 :

... ... ...

Donald Trump has promised to make deregulation one of the focal points of his presidency. If Trump is elected, the trend toward rising market concentration and all of the problems that come with it are likely to continue.

We'll hear the usual arguments about ineffective government and the magic of markets to justify ignoring the problem.

If Clinton is elected, it's unlikely that her administration would be active enough in antitrust enforcement for my taste. But at least she acknowledges that something needs to be done about this growing problem, and any movement toward more aggressive enforcement of antitrust regulation would be more than welcome.

JohnH : October 07, 2016 at 09:10 AM , October 07, 2016 at 09:10 AM
"We'll hear the usual arguments about ineffective government" which has been amply demonstrated during the last 7 years by negligible enforcement of anti-trust laws.

Once again we have a stark 'choice' in this election...one party who won't enforce existing laws and another who will just get rid of them. Like flipping a coin: heads, the predator class wins; tails, we lose.

Vote third party to register your disgust and to open the process to people who don't just represent the predator class.

supersaurus -> JohnH... October 07, 2016 at 10:05 AM , October 07, 2016 at 10:05 AM
"Vote third party to register your disgust..." and waste the opportunity, at least in a few states, to affect the national outcome (in many states the outcome is not in doubt, so, thanks to our stupid electoral college system, millions of voters could equally well stay home, vote third party, or write in their dog).
JohnH -> JohnH... , Friday, October 07, 2016 at 04:32 PM
Thomas Frank: "I was pleased to learn, for example, that this year's Democratic platform includes strong language on antitrust enforcement, and that Hillary Clinton has hinted she intends to take the matter up as president. Hooray! Taking on too-powerful corporations would be healthy, I thought when I first learned that, and also enormously popular. But then it dawned on me: antitrust enforcement is largely up to the president and his picked advisers. If Democrats really think it is so damned important, why has Clinton's old boss Barack Obama done so very, very little with it?"
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/10/07/some-clintons-pledges-sound-great-until-you-remember-whos-president

One party who won't enforce existing laws and another who will just get rid of them...a distinction without a difference.

Who do you prefer to have guarding the chicken house...a fox or a coyote? Sane people would say, 'neither.'

Peter K. -> DrDick... , Friday, October 07, 2016 at 01:13 PM
Yes and Clinton supporters attacked Sanders over this during the primaries.

Josh Mason thinks a Clinton administration may push on corporate short-termism if not on anti-trust. We'll see, but seeing as the Obama administration didn't do much I wouldn't be surprised if Hillary doesn't either.

http://jwmason.org/slackwire/links-for-october-6/

"At Vox,* Rachelle Sampson has a piece on corporate short-termism. Supports my sense that this is an area where there may be space to move left in a Clinton administration."

* http://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2016/10/3/13141852/short-term-capitalism-clinton-economics

Henry Carey's ghost : , Friday, October 07, 2016 at 09:35 PM
Economists have said for thirty years that free trade will benefit the US. Increasingly the country looks like a poor non-industrialized third world country. Why should anyone trust US economists?

They ignored the housing bubble, don't seem to understand the connection between manufacturing and wealth (close your eyes and imagine your life with no manufactured goods, because they are all imported and your economy only produces a few low value-added raw materials such as timber or exotic animals) then you will see that allowing the US to deindustrialize was a really, world-historic mistake.

Trust in experts is what has transformed the US from a world leader in 1969 with the moon landing to a country with no high speed rail, no modern infrastructure, incapable of producing a computer or ipad or ship.

Trump_vs_deep_state will outlive Trump and the people's faith in economists will only be restored after the next financial collapse if all of the financial sector is liquidated, all the universities and think tanks go bankrupt and the know-nothing free traders disappear from our public discourse.

>

[Apr 02, 2018] Why the Elite hate Russia

Notable quotes:
"... Although Russia simply is just a country in the wrong place at the wrong time (which, throughout Russian history, seems to be a theme for them) - there really is a reason the Elite hate Russia. It's not because they're Xenophobic, although there's that too - it's because of several key factors that make Russia a unique power in the world, compared to similar countries. ..."
"... Russia has banned a pro-democracy charity founded by hedge fund billionaire George Soros, saying the organization posed a threat to both state security and the Russian constitution. ..."
"... Plain and simple, the [western] Elite do not control Russia. While there are backchannels of Russian oligarchs that work directly with Western Rothschild interests, for example, they simply don't have the same level of control as they do European countries, like Germany for instance. Or another good example is China, there's this fanatical talk that China can dump US Treasuries blah blah blah the fact is that China is completely dependent on USA and US Dollars, and will be for the rest of our lives. Maybe in 1000 years in the Dong Dynasty still to come they will rule the world but it's not going to happen anytime soon. ..."
Oct 27, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
In our previous article The Secret Truth about Russia Exposed, we elaborated on how Russia is a convenient enemy for politicians and specifically the Democratic party, to create an enemy that really, well - doesn't exist to distract and confuse voters.

But like with any 'enemy' if you bomb a village, you may have some pissed off villagers. As we explain in our best selling book Splitting Pennies - the world doesn't work the way you see on TV - in fact, it works more closely as seen on Zero Hedge.

Although Russia simply is just a country in the wrong place at the wrong time (which, throughout Russian history, seems to be a theme for them) - there really is a reason the Elite hate Russia. It's not because they're Xenophobic, although there's that too - it's because of several key factors that make Russia a unique power in the world, compared to similar countries.

1. Russia is an independent country. It's not possible to manipulate Russia via external remote control, like it is most countries. The Elite don't like that! Russia kicked out Soros "Open Society":

Russia has banned a pro-democracy charity founded by hedge fund billionaire George Soros, saying the organization posed a threat to both state security and the Russian constitution. In a statement released Monday morning, Russia's General Prosecutor's Office said two branches of Soros' charity network - the Open Society Foundations (OSF) and the Open Society Institute (OSI) - would be placed on a "stop list" of foreign non-governmental organizations whose activities have been deemed "undesirable" by the Russian state.

2. Russia is not easy to cripple via clandestine means, whether it be CIA, MI6, or outright military conflict. Some other BRICs however, that's not the case. Say what you will about Russia's military - it's on par and in many cases, advanced, compared to the US military. And that's not AN opinion, that's in the opinion of top US military commanders:

Late in September, we brought you " US Readies Battle Plans For Baltic War With Russia " in which we described a series of thought experiments undertaken by The Pentagon in an effort to determine what the likely outcome would be should something go horribly "wrong" on the way to landing the US in a shooting war with Russia in the Balkans.

The results of those thought experiments were not encouraging. As a reminder, here's how Foreign Policy summed up the exercises:

3. Russian culture, and language, is too complex for the average "Elite" who pretends to be internationally well versed because they had a few semesters of French. For example, when the diplomat Clinton was Secretary of State, she presented a reset button translating the opposite meaning... ooops.

"I would like to present you with a little gift that represents what President Obama and Vice President Biden and I have been saying and that is: 'We want to reset our relationship, and so we will do it together.' ...

"We worked hard to get the right Russian word. Do you think we got it?" she asked Lavrov, laughing. "You got it wrong," said Lavrov, as both diplomats laughed.

"It should be "perezagruzka" [the Russian word for reset]," said Lavrov."This says 'peregruzka,' which means 'overcharged.'"

Yes, it's almost a certainty that if Clinton by some horrible fate is President there will be Nuclear war. Wars have been started over much more subtle mistakes. One would think, that Clinton would have had an advisor CHECK THIS before presenting it in a public ceremony, in front of reporters? How much more blatantly unprofessional can one be? If politicians worked in the private sector, they wouldn't last a day! How do these people advance so far in politics?

4. Plain and simple, the [western] Elite do not control Russia. While there are backchannels of Russian oligarchs that work directly with Western Rothschild interests, for example, they simply don't have the same level of control as they do European countries, like Germany for instance. Or another good example is China, there's this fanatical talk that China can dump US Treasuries blah blah blah the fact is that China is completely dependent on USA and US Dollars, and will be for the rest of our lives. Maybe in 1000 years in the Dong Dynasty still to come they will rule the world but it's not going to happen anytime soon.

Russia is one of the most highly misunderstood cultures in the West. Which is strange, because Russia is more like America than any European country:

There have been numerous interesting situations where Russia helped America and America helped Russia on a number of levels, to learn more about it checkout the following books:

Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution . Armand Hammer: The Untold Story

Most interestingly, during the Nixon administration Kissinger was prodding Nixon to partner with Russia that would, in Kissinger's view would create an unstoppable alliance, that no one could compete with such a superpower axis. But, it didn't happen, as there were 'neo-cons' who were against it, mostly Polish Catholics who have some deep genetic fear of any culture using the Cyrillic alphabet.

Nixon instead chose China (what a mistake!) and created Forex. But the point being that, through a small slip of fate, "China" may have been in this alternative Kissinger reality the 'Great Evil Enemy' hacking our elections, as we drive across the Alaskan-Siberian highway without any speed limit, oil would be ten cents a gallon, and we wouldn't need to war with the Middle East.

To learn more about how the world really works, checkout Splitting Pennies the book , or checkout Fortress Capital Trading Academy.

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

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

Submitted by Karen Kwiatkowski via LewRockwell.com,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4:00 AM October 6, 2011

Kitchen Table, USA

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

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

A. FEDERAL RESERVE

1. Benjaman Bernanke to be removed as Chairman immediately

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

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

4. Staffing count to be reduced to 1980 levels

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

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

7. Financial asset purchases prohibited for at least five years

B. TREASURY DEPARTMENT

1. Timothy Geithner to be removed as Secretary immediately

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

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

4. Staffing count to be reduced to 1980 levels

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

7. Financial asset purchases prohibited for at least five years

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

A. END CORRUPT INFLUENCE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A. CORPORATE ACCOUNTING

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

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

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

B. PENSION FUNDS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sir Richard Wharton: They don't last long.

rlouis Aug 20, 2016 7:47 PM

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

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

[Jul 28, 2017] Reply

Jul 28, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

cartman , July 23, 2017 at 11:38 am

G7 Ambassadors Support Cutting of Pensions in the Ukraine
marknesop , July 23, 2017 at 12:13 pm
So when you cut through all the steam and the boilerplate, how do they plan to do it so it's fairer to poor Ukrainians, but the state spends less?

Ah. They plan to raise the age at which you qualify for a pension , doubtless among other money-savers. If the state plays its cards right, the target demographic wil work all its adult life and then die before reaching pensionable age. But as usual, we must be subjected to the usual western sermonizing about how the whole initiative is all about helping people and doing good.

This is borne out in one of the other 'critical reforms' the IMF insisted upon before releasing its next tranche of 'aid' – a land reform act which would allow Ukraine to sell off its agricultural land in the interests of 'creating a market'. Sure: as if. Land-hungry western agricultural giants like Monsanto are drooling at the thought of getting their hands on Ukraine's rich black earth plus a chink in Europe's armor against GMO crops. Another possible weapon to use against Russia would be the growing of huge volumes of GMO grain so as to weaken the market for Russian grains.

Cortes , July 23, 2017 at 4:18 pm
And pollution of areas of Russian soil from blown in GMO seeds. Creating facts on the ground.
Patient Observer , July 24, 2017 at 4:18 am
Another element of the plan to reduce pension obligations is the dismantling of whatever health care system that remain in the Ukraine. That is a twofer – save money on providing medical services and shortening the life span. This would be another optimization of wealth generation for the oligarchs and for those holding Ukraine debt.
Jen , July 24, 2017 at 5:03 am
I can just see Ukrainian health authorities giving away free cigarettes to patients and their families next!

That remark was partly facetious and partly serious: life these days in the Ukraine sounds so surreal that I wouldn't put it past the Ministry of Healthcare of Ukraine to come up with the most hare-brained "reform" initiatives.

yalensis , July 24, 2017 at 2:30 pm
Nine out of ten doctors recommend Camels.
The other one doctor is a woman, who smokes Virginia Slims.

Patient Observer , July 24, 2017 at 6:09 pm
I recall a news story about the adverse effects of a reduction in smoking on the US Social Security Trust Fund. Those actuaries make those calculations for a living. The trouble with shortening life spans via cancer is that end-of-life treatment tends to be very expensive unless people do not have or have very basic health insurance, then there is a likely net gain. Alcohol, murder and suicides are generally much more efficient economically. I just depressed myself.
kirill , July 24, 2017 at 8:09 pm
Something does not add up. Any government expenditure is an economic stimulus. The only potentially negative aspect is taxation. Since taxation is not excessive and in fact too small on key layers (e.g. companies and the rich), there is no negative aspect to government spending on pensions. So we have here narrow-definition accounting BS.
Jen , July 25, 2017 at 4:56 am
Agree that in a world where the people, represented by their governments, are in charge of money creation and governments ran their financial systems independently of Wall Street and Washington, any government spending would be welcomed as stimulating economic production and development. The money later recirculates back to the government when the people who have jobs created by government spending pay the money back through purchases of various other government goods and services or through their taxes.

But in capitalist societies where increasingly banks are becoming the sole creators and suppliers of money, government spending incurs debts that have to be paid back with interest. In the past governments also raised money for major public projects by issuing treasury bonds and securities but that doesn't seem to happen much these days.

Unfortunately also Ukraine is surviving mainly on IMF loans and the IMF certainly doesn't want the money to go towards social welfare spending.

marknesop , July 25, 2017 at 9:18 am
In fact, the IMF specifically intervenes to prevent spending loan money on social welfare, as a condition of extending the loan. That might have been true since time out of mind for all I know, but it certainly was true after the first Greek bailout, when leaders blew the whole wad on pensions and social spending so as to ensure their re-election. They then went sheepishly back to the IMF for a second bailout. So there are good and substantial reasons for insisting the loan money not be wasted in this fashion, as that kind of spending customarily does not generate any meaningful follow-on spending by the recipients, and is usually absorbed by the cost of living.

But as we are all aware, such IMF interventions have a definite political agenda as well. In Ukraine's case, the IMF with all its political inveigling is matched against a crafty oligarch who will lift the whole lot if he is not watched. Alternatively, he might well blow it all on social spending to ensure his re-election, thus presenting the IMF with a dilemma in which it must either continue to support him, or cause him to fall.

Patient Observer , July 25, 2017 at 7:07 pm
In an economy based on looting, it makes perfect sense. Money flows only one way until its all gone.

[May 02, 2017] An Obituary of The New York Times by

Notable quotes:
"... And this is where The New York Times has lost it. By dropping its veneer and abandoning its self acclaimed standards of journalism, it has sentenced itself into irrelevance. ..."
"... I also suspect that much like the heads of the Soviet newspapers quickly adapted to the new rules and new rulers of the game while regular journalists were sentenced to life of unemployment, so will Sulzberger and Keller adapt to whatever will come while the staff of The New York Times will be sentenced to their very own "Hall of Shame", much like already happened to their colleague Judith Miller when her services on propagating for war with Iraq was no longer required. ..."
"... I enclose as a small eulogy the following email exchange with a couple of editors from The New York Times . The emails are significant if only as examples of how the newspaper stopped living up to the most basic elements of journalism towards the end of its life. In them editors Bruce Headlam and Isvett Verde explain that The New York Times does not correct mistakes, does not grant the right of reply, and does not, as a matter of policy, publish material about its own censorship. ..."
Sep 14, 2016 | www.unz.com
126 Comments

... during the current election cycle in the United States, The New York Times has so clearly abandoned all rudimentary standards of journalism and alienated its readership so badly, that it has sentenced itself to wither away into irrelevance. Remembered only in history books as a relic of the Cold War, much like its sister newspaper Pravda of the Soviet Union.

As a Swedish reader of The New York Times , I may be surprised that the paper has ignored election rigging in the governing party of the United States serious enough to cause its top five officials to resign. But it doesn't really matter, since I can read the source material on it via WikiLeaks. As a foreign journalist I may be surprised that the paper has chosen to downplay the political bribes of the Clinton Foundation, but it makes little difference because the Associated Press has made the investigation available for me to report on. As a citizen of a western democracy I may be surprised that The New York Times so clearly campaigns against Trump and for Clinton, rather than reports on the policy issues of the candidates, but I can ignore this since I can read and listen to what they say themselves, while I can get a variety of more enlightened and entertaining campaigns all over the blogosphere. If I were a US citizen however, I would be more than just surprised.

And this is where The New York Times has lost it. By dropping its veneer and abandoning its self acclaimed standards of journalism, it has sentenced itself into irrelevance. Because even if the newspaper has steadily been outflanked by many blogs when it comes to audience size, it was until recently considered to be an important platform from which the US elites formed their world-view. But a newspaper with such a small reach, that is no longer taken seriously even by the main presidential candidates of its own country, a newspaper that doesn't abide by the most fundamental journalistic standards, namely publishing rather than hiding newsworthy, correct information, has very little to offer either any powerful people or its own readers. Because even propaganda has to be good, for it to have any value.

The only question that now remains, is how history will remember the journalists of The New York Times . Will they be judged leniently as people that just did their jobs, not knowing what they were doing? Or will they suffer the same fate as the thousands of Soviet journalists who lost their jobs when the charade at their communist mouthpieces ended? I much suspect that it will be the latter. But I also suspect that much like the heads of the Soviet newspapers quickly adapted to the new rules and new rulers of the game while regular journalists were sentenced to life of unemployment, so will Sulzberger and Keller adapt to whatever will come while the staff of The New York Times will be sentenced to their very own "Hall of Shame", much like already happened to their colleague Judith Miller when her services on propagating for war with Iraq was no longer required.

I enclose as a small eulogy the following email exchange with a couple of editors from The New York Times . The emails are significant if only as examples of how the newspaper stopped living up to the most basic elements of journalism towards the end of its life. In them editors Bruce Headlam and Isvett Verde explain that The New York Times does not correct mistakes, does not grant the right of reply, and does not, as a matter of policy, publish material about its own censorship.

If you have any other documents pertaining to the demise of The New York Times , please email them to me or send them to WikiLeaks. One of these days I will collect them for a proper obituary.

Johannes Wahlström Award-winning investigative journalist and filmmaker can be reached on [email protected]

[Mar 11, 2017] Needed Now a Peace Movement Against the Clinton Wars to Come by Andrew Levine

Mar 11, 2017 | www.counterpunch.org
Barack Obama won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize -- for not being George W. Bush. This seemed unseemly at the time, but not outrageous. Seven years later, it seems grotesque.

As the steward-in-chief of the American empire, Obama continued Bush's Afghanistan and Iraq Wars, and extended his "War on Terror" into Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, and elsewhere in Africa and the Middle East.

He also became a terrorist himself and a serial killer, weaponized drones and special ops assassins being his weapons of choice.

More

[Dec 31, 2016] Trump praises Putin over US sanctions – a move that puts him at odds with GOP by Lauren Gambino and Ben Jacobs in Washington

Notable quotes:
"... Trump is exactly where he is today because he attacked that same party. He called bullshit on the Bush's claims to have made the US safer and called bullshit on the idea that Iraq was something that we should still do in hindsight. He trashed the idea of free trade and TTIP - another Republican shibboleth. He refused to go down the standard Republican route of trashing social security... ..."
"... All he needs to do is call bullshit on this 'evidence' of Russian hacking and remind everyone that it wasn't Russians who manned the planes on 9/11. Trump is a oafish clown - but he's not a standard politician playing standard politics. He can shrug off this oh-so-clever manoeuvre by Obama with no trouble. ..."
"... Sanctions = token gestures that will soon fade into the distance. Much like you know who. Obama is salty because of Kilary getting whupped and Putin out-playing him in Syria. Never thought I would see the day when I sided with Trump over Obama. Interesting times. ..."
"... Yes, the so-called liberals are losing all over. They blame everyone but themselves. The problem is that they have been found out. They were not real liberals at all. They had little bits of liberal policies like "Gay rights" and "bathrooms for Transgenders" and, of course, "Anti-Anti-Semitism Laws" and a few other bits and pieces with which they constructed a sort of camoflage coat, but the core of their policies was Corporatism. Prize exhibits: Tony Blair and Barak Obama. ..."
"... The extreme Left and extreme Right ("Populists") are benefiting by being able to say what they mean, loud and apparently clear. People are not, on the whole, politically sophisticated but they do realise that they have been lied to for a very long time and they are fed up. That is why "Populists are making such a showing in the polls. People don't believe in the centre's "Liberalism" any more. ..."
"... Obama acting like a petulant child that has to leave the game and go home now, so he's kicking the game board and forcing everyone else to clean up his mess. Irresponsible. ..."
"... Obama will be making to many paid speeches to be doing anything of the sort. And frankly I suspect he be silent, because Trump is soon going to know where all the bodies were buried under Obama, just like Obama knows where all the bodies are buried from the Bush area. You are a wishful thinker, if you think Obama is going anything after he leaves office. ..."
"... So the person awarded a Nobel Peace Prize uses his last weeks in office to sour relations between the only 2 superpowers on Earth for - what ? ..."
Dec 30, 2016 | www.theguardian.com

The president-elect has been consistently -> skeptical about the US intelligence -> consensus that Russia ordered cyber-attacks on Democratic party targets as a way to influence the 2016 election in his favor – the reason for Obama's new sanctions. At one point, he suggested the culprit might have been China, another state or even a 400lb man in his bedroom .

On taking office in January, Trump might therefore be expected to simply end the Obama sanctions. And as president, he could do so; presidential orders can simply be repealed by the executive branch.

But the situation is not that simple. If Trump did choose to remove the sanctions, he would find himself at odds with his own party. Senior Republicans in Congress responded to the Obama sanctions by identifying Russia as a major geopolitical foe and criticizing the new measures only as a case of too little too late. Some promised a push for further measures in Congress.

Trump may therefore choose not to reverse the new sanctions. If so, he will find himself at odds with the man he so constantly praises.

On Friday, the Kremlin responded to the moves, including the expulsion of 35 suspected intelligence operatives and the closing of two Russian facilities in the US, with a shrug . Putin, it seems, is willing simply to wait until Trump moves into the Oval Office. Trump's tweet suggested he is too.

But such provocative words could not distract the media and public from another domestic concern for Trump – the growing perception that his predecessor has acted to his disadvantage .

"The sanctions were clearly an attempt by the Obama administration to throw a wrench into – or [to] box in – the next administration's relationship with Russia,"

vgnych, 30 Dec 2016 18:56
All Obama does with his clumsy movements is just attempting to blame Russians for Democrat's loss of elections. Also he is obscuring peaceful power transition while at it.

All what Trump needs to do is to just call the looser a loser a move on.

Max South , 30 Dec 2016 18:56
White House/StateDep press release on sanctions is ORWELLIAN: corruption within the DNC/Clinton's manager Podesta undermines the democracy, not its exposure as claimed (let alone the fact that there is still no evidence that the Russian government has anything to do with the hacks).

The press release also talks about how the security of the USA and its interests were compromised, so Obama in effects says that national security interest of the country is to have corrupt political system, which is insane.

This argumentation means that even if Russian government has done the hacking, it was a good deed, there is nothing to sanction Russia for even in such case.

CDNBobOrr , 30 Dec 2016 18:58
'Fraid both Putin and Trump are a lot smarter than Barry. Putin's move in not retaliating and inviting US kids to the Kremlin New Year party was an astute judo throw. And Barry is sitting on his backside wondering how it happened.
antobojar , 30 Dec 2016 19:00
.. Probably Obama's "exceptionalism" made him so clumsy on international affairs stage..

.. just recently.. snubbed by Fidel.. he refused to meet him..
.. humiliated by Raul Castro, he declined to hug president of USA..
.. Duterte described.. hmm.. his provenance..
.. Bibi told him off in most vulgar way.. several times..
.. and now this..
..pathetic..

P.S.
You may be sure that the Americans will commit all the stupidities they can think of, plus some that are beyond imagination."
Charles de Gaulle.

ukc ltd , 30 Dec 2016 19:07
Sanctions = token gestures that will soon fade into the distance. Much like you know who.

Obama is salty because of Kilary getting whupped and Putin out-playing him in Syria.

Never thought I would see the day when I sided with Trump over Obama. Interesting times. Share Facebook Twitter

foolisholdman -> ukc ltd , 30 Dec 2016 20:01
Yes, the so-called liberals are losing all over. They blame everyone but themselves. The problem is that they have been found out. They were not real liberals at all. They had little bits of liberal policies like "Gay rights" and "bathrooms for Transgenders" and, of course, "Anti-Anti-Semitism Laws" and a few other bits and pieces with which they constructed a sort of camoflage coat, but the core of their policies was Corpratism. Prize exhibits: Tony Blair and Barak Obama.

The extreme Left and extreme Right ("Populists") are benefiting by being able to say what they mean, loud and apparently clear. People are not, on the whole, politically sophisticated but they do realise that they have been lied to for a very long time and they are fed up. That is why "Populists are making such a showing in the polls. People don't believe in the centre's "Liberalism" any more.

bready , 30 Dec 2016 19:22
"US intelligence consensus that Russia ordered cyber-attacks on Democratic party targets as a way to influence the 2016 election in his favor "

Are your mentors still thinking that people will swallow that fable? The same mentors who understated Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania?

foolisholdman -> bready , 30 Dec 2016 19:36
bready

"US intelligence consensus that Russia ordered cyber-attacks on Democratic party targets as a way to influence the 2016 election in his favor "

These people either think that an ex-British Ambassador is not an important witness or they don't want to hear anything that contradicts the narrative they have been told to spin. It has to be one or the other.

rocjoc43rd -> Individualist , 30 Dec 2016 19:45
Obama will be making to many paid speeches to be doing anything of the sort. And frankly I suspect he be slient, because Trump is soon going to know where all the bodies were buried under Obama, just like Obama knows where all the bodies are buried from the Bush area. You are a wishful thinker, if you think Obama is going anything after he leaves office.
cosmith , 30 Dec 2016 19:27
So the person awarded a Nobel Peace Prize uses his last weeks in office to sour relations between the only 2 superpowers on Earth for - what ?

American party politics /
Spite ?
Ideological hatred ?

For those of you who are too young to remember, look up "Cold War" and look for references
to Hawks and Doves.

Who are the Hawks now - and who are the Doves ?

The Left/Liberal paradigm is so drastically in need of updating that it is becoming downright dangerous.

Hell hath on fury like a self defined "liberal" scorned.

Haigin88 , 30 Dec 2016 19:30
R.E.M.: 'Exhuming McCarthy'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMedTmZKo38
gottliebvera , 30 Dec 2016 19:34
I think Obama is behaving in a most petulant and non-presidential manner. Lack of decorum as parting shot. Good going.
philo41z , 30 Dec 2016 19:37
We watched trump defeat republican favourites to get the nomination. He has not really needed them as much as they have felt they need him. Then he has big oil in his transition team, tillerson if I am not mistaken, connected to exxon which has oil interests in Russia....

rocjoc43rd , 30 Dec 2016 19:38
I also think this is Obama's move to direct attention away from the cease fire in Syria. There the US has been supporting all these groups, flying air missions and dropping special forces in Syria for years now, and the US has no seat at the table of the cease fire negotiations. That should be very embarrassing for the US, but it apparently is not, because all the media wants to talk about are these sanctions, which seem pretty trivial to me. The Obama/media machine scores another hollow victory. Can't wait until this guy is out of office.
stormsinteacups , 30 Dec 2016 19:38
Still no proof of any meddling by the Russians. Only a last gasp attempt by a weak president in what is starting to look like a boys against men tussle with Putin. Add the Syria ceasefire brokered by Turkey and Putin to this to show how Obama is being outmanouvered at every turn.
Sad to see what a far cry from Obama the candidate Obama the president has turned out to be.
gandalfsunderpants , 30 Dec 2016 19:41
Action makes propaganda's effect irreversible. He who acts in obedience to propaganda can never go back. He is now obliged to believe in that propaganda because of his past action. He is obliged to receive from it his justification and authority, without which his action will seem to him absurd or unjust, which would be intolerable. He is obliged to continue to advance in the direction indicated by propaganda, for action demands more action.
Jacques Ellul:
Friday Night Beers , 30 Dec 2016 19:43
Obama just got dissed big time by Putin. What an inglorious end to an inglorious eight years.
DogsLivesMatter -> Friday Night Beers , 30 Dec 2016 20:05
The Obama administration should be thanking Russian efforts to end the war in Syria. We know the MIC wanted this civil war to go on for another decade.
MacCosham , 30 Dec 2016 19:44
Oh for christ's sake, once again:

There were no hacks, the emails were LEAKED!

Probably by Democrats disgusted by the way Bernie was treated.

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/12/cias-absence-conviction/

PS once you are there, read everything else Craig Murray has written there. This is the ambassador HM government fired for daring to speak out against the Uzbek government's human rights abuses.

PanopticonPlanet , 30 Dec 2016 19:45
All Americans should be alarmed that their country is now losing its edge in terms of the manipulation of other countries' electoral processes. This is "unpresidented". Where previously we had implemented such actions ourselves without fear of reciprocation we should be concerned that we are no longer immune to such machinations by other states. These events may represent a turning point as regards our accepted global hegemony. Share
Tribal War -> PanopticonPlanet , 30 Dec 2016 19:52
USA hacks
USA spies
USA interferes with foreign regimes
USA is number 1 bully and hypocrite

The damn cheek of Russian hack spies interfering with US election and setting them up with an idiot

brianboru1014 , 30 Dec 2016 19:47
Obama has been anti-Russia long before Trump came into the picture.
This article is more of a wish list than anything else.
We are told by 'experts' that 'There is now a public record of what Russia did'

Where is it? I would love to see this.
I do know that the 2 countries that carry out most cyber attacks in the world are the US and it's main ally in the Middle East. Just ask the Iranians what they did.

Leucocephalus , 30 Dec 2016 19:48
Obama complaining about Russian influence in American elections.

Last time I've checked it was Mr. Obama that warned British people against Brexit, wasn't? What about the deposition of an ELECTED president in Ukraine with their support of Obama and EU? Let's talk also about regime changes in Syria, Lybia and Egypt undertaken under Obama's administration? Perhaps we could also remember that Obama's agencies spied 3 million of Spanyards, Merkel, Dilma Rousseff (Brazilian President) and so on... WHAT A HIPOCRISY, OBAMA!!!!

mtkass -> Leucocephalus , 30 Dec 2016 20:07
You have hit the nail on the head on all your points. But America and especially the American military needs a boogy man to justify the trillions of dollars of American tax payer money they request to keep their military empire going. Imagine if there was no boogy man and the conclusion was to half the American military to a size only equal to the next 6 largest militarys instead of the present 13. Incidentally, most of the next largest militarys are allies of the United States.
This whole kerfuffle about Russian hacking has the stink of shooting the messenger. What about concentrating on what was in the leaked e-mails. They showed a high level of deep corruption in the DNC. That is the importance of the hacked e-mails. Whoever hacked and released them to the American public has done the America public a great favor. If Wasserman Shultz in cohoots with Hillary had not swung the primaries in favor of Hillary and if Obama had remembered that the constitution says the government is for the people and by the people (the peoples choice was by a huge margin for Bernie) and come out for Bernie, we wouldn't be in the CF we are in right now. I thought Obama is a constitutional lawyer. So much for the constitution. The only statesman in this mess is Putin. Thank heaven for his level headedness. The American pronouncements have the stink of the build up to another false flag operation (the CIA revelations themselves are probably a false flag operation). I hope Putin can keep his 'cool' in the face of American provocation.
Huddsblue , 30 Dec 2016 20:03
Well what a spiteful, petty man this Obama has turned out to be! This is the first time his side hasn't 'won' and he can't take it so throws his toys out the pram and risks further souring relationships with the East. Thank goodness Putin rose above it.
ID1516963 -> Huddsblue , 30 Dec 2016 20:10
Ha! Obama has obviously nothing to lose and decided to make hay in the limited time he has. More mischief making. Love it. Let's face it the master spiteful petty man is the one about to occupy the white house.

voice__of__reason

, 30 Dec 2016 20:13
This just shows the real character of Obama. Queering the pitch for Trump and the incoming administration. But well done Putin for sidestepping. Clever. Much smarter than Obama. In the end lawyers make bad Presidents and bad Prime Ministers.
TheChillZone , 30 Dec 2016 20:15
Bit of a pot-kettle interface going on here. America leads the way in the hacking of public servers around the world and spying on friend and enemy alike. Not long ago the CIA tapped into Angela Merkel's mobile phone and I don't remember the same level of public outcry. Seems like America is affronted that Russia and others are now doing what the US has done for years. And if it is in fact the Russians - proof not yet forthcoming - this wasn't a hack into the electoral system at all; it was a simple phishing email that the US officials were silly enough to click onto the link.
And finally - what eventually was released was the truth. Clinton was favoured by the DNC, she did say those things to Goldman Sachs, a CNN reporter did provide her with the questions before the presidential debates. The truth is that the US elections were corrupted, but not by the Russians - the culprits lie a little closer to home.
Kano59 , 30 Dec 2016 20:18
With Putin declaring he'll wait to see what Trump's policies are, then it seems he has at least that in common with the US electorate.
Harry Bhai , 30 Dec 2016 20:22
Obama tried to corner Russia, and almost all GOP lawmakers applauded Obama's action. Called it was well overdue. But our smart president-elect comforted crying Putin right away by calling him a smart man for not taking any actions. It is becoming more and more clear that Trump and Putin are made for each other. I think Trump is keeping Putin on his side to take air out of overinflated Chinese balloon. May be he was advised by his team. No one knows his game plan.
flabbotamus , 30 Dec 2016 20:32
Nearly 40 years ago , at the height of the cold war when I joined up to serve my country, never did i dream the day would come when I had more respect for the leader of Russia than a president of the USA and that I would have more faith in the Russian media than our own fake media.

That's what 40 years of liberalism does i guess. Share Facebook Twitter

TyroneBHorneigh -> flabbotamus , 30 Dec 2016 20:38
40 years of Neo-liberalism.
Sparky Patriot , 30 Dec 2016 20:37
Not content with merely stealing the silverware, BO is intent on causing as much mischief as possible before being booted out of the White House, but the Russians are not falling for it. They will be dealing with Donald Trump in a few weeks, and there is no need to respond to Barry's diaper baby antics.
I'm sure the Russians are hacking our internet systems, but the DNC emails that went to WikiLeaks did not come from them. The content, outlining Podesta's plan to discredit Bernie supporters by falsely tying them to violent acts, would indicate that a disgruntled and disgusted DNC employee was more likely the source.
rocjoc43rd , 30 Dec 2016 20:38
The liberal media, I can't wait until they claim that Trump has few paths to victory from this trick bag he is in. We are living in the dying days of the Obama administration. Things will be very different January 20, 2017. Things that appear difficult or impossible now will suddenly be taken care of with the stroke of a pen. It will be exciting to see. Just a few months ago, Trumps path to victory was so small that he shouldn't even bother trying, then it was the electors will do something about Trump. It was all nonsense. This to about Obama limiting Trump is nonsense. Obama's lines in the sand are completely without effect.
HollyOldDog -> asiancelt , 30 Dec 2016 21:37
It is of course impossible as the USA has the most and claimed most advanced spying network on the planet. It totally surrounds both friends and foes alike - with such technical ability the only country who could spy and influence (e.g. arm twisting Merkal is a prime example) on any country at will is the 'exceptional ' US Government.

furiouspurpose

, 30 Dec 2016 20:54
If there was genuine evidence that Russia had somehow swayed the election, Hilary Clinton - who desires power above all other things - would now be bringing a legal case to overturn the result and get a re-election.

But there is no evidence - only lies and cynicism. A few weeks ago I was convinced that US politics had hit a nadir and that it couldn't smell any worse or get any more ridiculous. How wrong I was.

ga gamba , 30 Dec 2016 20:55
The U.S. has a long history of attempting to influence presidential elections in other countries – it's done so as many as 81 times between 1946 and 2000, according to a database amassed by political scientist Dov Levin of Carnegie Mellon University.

That number doesn't include military coups and regime change efforts following the election of candidates the U.S. didn't like, notably those in Iran, Guatemala and Chile. Nor does it include general assistance with the electoral process, such as election monitoring. [...]

In 59% of these cases, the side that received assistance came to power, although Levin estimates the average effect of "partisan electoral interventions" to be only about a 3% increase in vote share. ( Source )

I understand why some may find outside interference objectionable, but I reckon many of those who think so fail to recognise America's far-from-faultless behaviour. Curses are like chickens; they always come home to roost.

Of course had the DNC leadership and the Clinton camp behaved ethically in the primary by not conspiring to tip the scale in Clinton's favour, the hack would have found nothing. What we have now is Obama forced to divert the public attention because of yet another messy scandal Hillary finds herself involved in. Clinton must be one of the most blessed people on earth; everyone bends over backwards to accommodate her ambitions.

europeangrayling -> ga gamba , 30 Dec 2016 21:23
Also the CIA-Belgian assassination of Lamumba in 61, Congo's first democratically elected president, for the same 'geopolitical' aka 'big business' reasons as the overthrow of Mossadegh in Iran in 53, who wanted the nationalize Iranian oil for their people, and Lumumba had similar 'socialist' ideas for all the vast Congolese resources. To cut out the western business interests. And think how well the Congo has fared since, one of the worst, saddest places, chaos, civil war, more dead than in Rwanda or anywhere I think. They have not recovered from that.

And Iran, they were democratic, secular, elected a guy like Mossadegh, they were 'European', but the the US and Britain overthrew him on behest of British-US oil interests, installed the Shah, their puppet dictator, and the blow-back was the Iranian religious right-wing revolution and dictatorship some 20 years later. And now the Iranian people and our 'foreign policy' are suffering.

And all these US and CIA 'activities' the government had admitted and declassified, like the Gulf of Tonkin lie and false flag in Vietnam, because it was so long ago nobody cares, so it's no 'conspiracy' here, just history. But now these Clinton Democrats they really love and trust anything the CIA says, of course, they are big patriots now, and call people unpatriotic and foreign agents if they question the so honorable CIA, because they are on Hillary's side now.
And the CIA in cahoots with Bush and Cheney also told us how there were these big, scary WMDs in Iraq, and mushroom clouds, and how Saddam had links with Al Qaida, all obvious lies, that any amateur who knew basic world history could tell you even then.

And speaking of 'meddling', and overthrowing democratic governments, the US did the same under Obama and Hillary in Honduras just a few years ago, backed the violent coup of a democratic leftist government there, and they still refuse to call it a coup, and have legitimized the new corrupt and violent regime, are training their army, etc. Even though the EU and the US ambassador to Honduras called it a coup at the time.

And for the same reasons, that leftist government didn't want to play ball with big US and western 'business interests', energy companies, didn't want to sell them their rivers and resources like the new 'good' regime now. And since that coup, 100s of indigenous activists and environmentalists have been killed, like Berta Caceres, and the violence and corruption has gone up big time under the new regime, with 1000s more killed 'in general'. Yet Obama is so concerned about 'the integrity of democracy' and elections and freedom and all that, what a nice guy.

fanUS , 30 Dec 2016 20:58
The real question that Americans should be asking why Barack Obummer failed again to provide security in case of hacking Democrat's emails?

Clinton did not deny that emails published by WikiLeaks were genuine.
That is called freedom of press.
What's wrong with public finding the truth about Clinton? Share Facebook Twitter

RadLadd -> fanUS , 30 Dec 2016 21:00
As soon as you post "Obummer" you show yourself to be immature. Share Facebook Twitter
an opinion -> RadLadd , 30 Dec 2016 21:09
He is Obummer. Share Facebook Twitter
Paull01 -> fanUS , 30 Dec 2016 21:13
They are private servers, why would the government have any involvement whatsoever in the servers of political parties during an election?

The whole point is interference in the election process not who they interfered with. Share Facebook Twitter

roman vega , 30 Dec 2016 20:59
Send Obama to therapist ... urgent.. Share Report
roman vega -> J.K. Stevens , 30 Dec 2016 21:07
Haven't you noticed that whole of the West has already moved that way? I do not mean pro-Putin, I mean priority of national interests at home and some isolationism.
HollyOldDog -> MtnClimber , 30 Dec 2016 21:30
Obama is leaving office with the record of saving American troops lives by the process of using drones which on dodgy information mainly target wedding parties. Share Facebook Twitter
geofffrey , 30 Dec 2016 20:42
Appears suspiciously likely that Obama is just bitter that his legacy is about to be dumped in the nearest skip on Jan 20, and wants to make trouble for Trump during his last 3 weeks in office.

Hard to see how Putin could have engineered Hillary Clinton's defeat, given she won the popular vote by 3 million.

Also Obama is extremely hypocritical as the CIA has repeatedly interfered in the affairs of other countries over the past 60 years.

I hope Trump and Putin become buddies. Share

Burnaby1000 -> geofffrey , 30 Dec 2016 20:45
The CIA never released emails of any country's people. It's simply bad tradecraft, meaning that it can't be used when one really needs it. Share Facebook Twitter
geofffrey -> Burnaby1000 , 30 Dec 2016 20:51
Didn't Wikileaks release those emails.. Share Facebook Twitter
melodrama1 -> geofffrey , 30 Dec 2016 20:56
The story is that they were 'leaked' to Wikileaks and that only stuff that helps Trump was leaked. There are loads of Republican/Trump mails that remain secret (presumably). Sounds plausible to me but the how the hell would I know? Share Facebook Twitter
tomspen , 30 Dec 2016 20:42
Putin outmaneuvers Obama, again. Share Facebook Twitter
pragmata -> tomspen , 30 Dec 2016 20:47
Obama outmanoevres Trump. Share Facebook Twitter
J.K. Stevens -> tomspen , 30 Dec 2016 20:47
Putin goes rogue. You're putin me on. Share Facebook Twitter
tomspen -> pragmata , 30 Dec 2016 20:48
Not really. Democrats lost the election, through their own fault, and now Putin is waiting till Trump comes in office. All will go swimmingly and we can look forward to better relations between the USA-Russia. Win win. Share Facebook Twitter
furiouspurpose , 30 Dec 2016 20:42

On Thursday, the Arizona senator John McCain and South Carolina senator Lindsey Graham said in a joint statement: "The retaliatory measures announced by the Obama administration today are long overdue.

That's all I needed to know. If lunatic war monger John McCain wants to ratchet up the tension with a nuclear power - then it is very wise to do the opposite. Share

Burnaby1000 -> furiouspurpose , 30 Dec 2016 20:44
But he has 48 Dems who support him, and most Republicans. Share Facebook Twitter
MtnClimber -> furiouspurpose , 30 Dec 2016 20:45
Sure. Let's let Putin control our democracy. He and his BFF, Trump, will keep our democracy safe /s Share Facebook Twitter
J.K. Stevens -> furiouspurpose , 30 Dec 2016 20:45
Putin is/has been the provocateur. Keep up. Share Facebook Twitter
Burnaby1000 , 30 Dec 2016 20:43
Wouldn't it be hilarious if a revolution broke out next year in Russia, over the downward spiralling Russian economy, just when Putin thinks he has victory in sight?

But wait--didn't that happen in 1917?

Yep, think it did... Share Facebook Twitter

pawsfurthought -> Burnaby1000 , 30 Dec 2016 20:51
Parallels with the public mood in Russia leading up to 1917? Zero. Share Facebook Twitter
Burnaby1000 -> pawsfurthought , 30 Dec 2016 20:58
"Peace, Land, Bread!!!!!"

Parallels -- 100% Share Facebook Twitter

HollyOldDog -> Burnaby1000 , 30 Dec 2016 21:21
Ah! The evident effects of sipping too much Death Wish Coffee 64 fl.oz - 3,472 mg of caffeine it could do serious damage to your brain. Share Facebook Twitter
osprey1957 , 30 Dec 2016 20:44
Wow, the Trump/kremlin brigade zoomed in on this comments section faster than greased lightening! Good to know that some people just love them some fascism! Share Facebook Twitter
Burnaby1000 -> osprey1957 , 30 Dec 2016 20:50
They HAVE been doing this for quite some time. Share Facebook Twitter
furiouspurpose -> osprey1957 , 30 Dec 2016 21:10
Red baiting won't close down the debate. There's still no evidence of Russian hacking of the US election.

And fascism is shouting people down who ask for evidence and don't just follow the President because he is attacking the outsiders. Share Facebook Twitter

TheControlLeft -> osprey1957 , 30 Dec 2016 21:12
It's preferable to the Obama brigades sponsorship of Islamic terrorism Share Facebook Twitter
EmperorWearsNoCloths , 30 Dec 2016 20:45
Good move by Obama. Trump will soon have to clarify where he stands in regards to Putin. Share Facebook Twitter
HollyOldDog -> EmperorWearsNoCloths , 30 Dec 2016 21:12
I don't usually follow American elections but is this the usual way to hand over to a new president is to try to kick him in the teeth? Share Facebook Twitter
Burnaby1000 , 30 Dec 2016 20:47
As always, it is the US Senate that brings forth the best in the US inuncertain times.

It was Republican senators who were very critical of Bush that eventually got him to do the surge.

Similarly, it will be the Senate that applies pressure in the right place to keep Trump in check.

Who knows, he may even come up with one or two good ideas. Share Facebook Twitter

grodhagen -> Burnaby1000 , 30 Dec 2016 21:10
It were GOP senators leading the huzzas for invading Iraq too. But Ted Cruz? James Inhoffe? Half of the GOP senators are just hirelings for big business. Share Facebook Twitter
Putzik , 30 Dec 2016 20:48
It's not too late fir Obama to cluster bomb Russian troops in Syria and Ukraine.

Now that would certainly constipate the Golden Domed donald. Share Facebook Twitter

HollyOldDog -> Putzik , 30 Dec 2016 21:09
Such a move - did you manage to think this one up by yourself? Or is it just recient history repeating itself - you have only a one tracked mind, a bit like your icon. Share Facebook Twitter
Putzik -> HollyOldDog , 30 Dec 2016 22:37
I am not aware that the US has yet bombed the Russian fascist hordes.

Never too late though, eh? Share Facebook Twitter

dddxxx , 30 Dec 2016 20:49
The fact that the Russian sanctions makes things difficult for blowhard Trump is not the issue nor the intent. President Obama was acting in response to Russia's interference with our diplomats and cyber attacks. This needed to be done. As to Trump, that's tough. Share Facebook Twitter
furiouspurpose -> dddxxx , 30 Dec 2016 21:06
No - he was reacting to Russia "hacking the elections". What specifically did they do? What evidence exists of this? Share Facebook Twitter
WillKnotTell -> furiouspurpose , 30 Dec 2016 21:16
The lack of evidence is the evidence. Ask any Trumpeteer and believer of Peter Schweizer. Share Facebook Twitter
monsieur_flaneur , 30 Dec 2016 20:49
Obama, envisioning a spot on Mt Rushmore, exits a laughing stock. Ah well

Not4TheFaintOfHeart , 30 Dec 2016 20:59
Why would Russia be happy that Clinton lost? Why would any foreign power be happy that Clinton lost?...
How many years did HRC, in her arrogance-fuelled denial, provide foreign intelligences with literally tonnes of free info??!
furiouspurpose , 30 Dec 2016 21:03

Trump might therefore be expected to simply end the Obama sanctions. .... But if he did choose to do so, he would find himself at odds with his own party.

Trump is exactly where he is today because he attacked that same party. He called bullshit on the Bush's claims to have made the US safer and called bullshit on the idea that Iraq was something that we should still do in hindsight. He trashed the idea of free trade and TTIP - another Republican shibboleth. He refused to go down the standard Republican route of trashing social security...

All he needs to do is call bullshit on this 'evidence' of Russian hacking and remind everyone that it wasn't Russians who manned the planes on 9/11. Trump is a oafish clown - but he's not a standard politician playing standard politics. He can shrug off this oh-so-clever manoeuvre by Obama with no trouble.

an opinion -> hawkchurch , 30 Dec 2016 21:07
Putin is playing obama like a fiddle and make him irrelevant!
diddoit , 30 Dec 2016 21:04
Make America and Russia ... Great Again.

Intelligence sharing, to tackle terror, is only the start of what's likely to become a strong partnership.

I bet Intel agents can hardly wait ..lol

Munchausen007
Simple solution, publish the commenter geolocation and ban proxy, clean the comment section from putinbots. Putin like ASBO's must stop to do more harm against democracy.
Down2dirt -> Munchausen007 , 30 Dec 2016 19:17
What a foolish comment.
Ilurktostudyyouall -> Munchausen007 , 30 Dec 2016 19:39
And what happens when you begin to realise many are not putinbots?
Not4TheFaintOfHeart -> Ilurktostudyyouall , 30 Dec 2016 19:58
I'm sure they'll find some excuse to get around that... 'It's elephants all the way down', don't forget
Julian Beach , 30 Dec 2016 19:06
...an attempt rendered utterly futile by Putin refusing to carry out tit-for-tat expulsions.

Premier League trolling. Again.

fivefeetfour -> Jonathan Stromberg , 30 Dec 2016 22:47
There's still no evidence regarding the origin of the cyber attack. I've seen you posting a link to the report. The first line in it is a disclaimer: "The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) does not provide any warranties of any kind regarding any information contained within". Which is very wise from them.
ukc ltd , 30 Dec 2016 19:07
Sanctions = token gestures that will soon fade into the distance. Much like you know who. Obama is salty because of Kilary getting whupped and Putin out-playing him in Syria. Never thought I would see the day when I sided with Trump over Obama. Interesting times.
foolisholdman -> ukc ltd , 30 Dec 2016 20:01
Yes, the so-called liberals are losing all over. They blame everyone but themselves. The problem is that they have been found out. They were not real liberals at all. They had little bits of liberal policies like "Gay rights" and "bathrooms for Transgenders" and, of course, "Anti-Anti-Semitism Laws" and a few other bits and pieces with which they constructed a sort of camoflage coat, but the core of their policies was Corporatism. Prize exhibits: Tony Blair and Barak Obama.

The extreme Left and extreme Right ("Populists") are benefiting by being able to say what they mean, loud and apparently clear. People are not, on the whole, politically sophisticated but they do realise that they have been lied to for a very long time and they are fed up. That is why "Populists are making such a showing in the polls. People don't believe in the centre's "Liberalism" any more.

Potyka Kalman , 30 Dec 2016 19:09
Oh the War Party. Trump rally should point them out as such. So the light shines in those dark spots.

You Russians have a strange sense of humour.

AveAtqueCave , 30 Dec 2016 19:13
Ben, I found Glenn Greenwald's take on you quite interesting. Have you responded? And, yes, I know, my polite and pertinent question will violate the terms here.
Ilurktostudyyouall -> AveAtqueCave , 30 Dec 2016 19:42
Cheers for that. False news angle now in total tatters
furiouspurpose -> AveAtqueCave , 30 Dec 2016 21:36
What does Glenn Greenwald know? With his crappy little "Pulitzer Prize".
John Blenkins -> AveAtqueCave , 30 Dec 2016 23:17
Good to see someone with the bollox to call a spade a spade.
More importantly it helps lift the eyelids of those who think our msm tells the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
AveAtqueCave -> Tercole , 30 Dec 2016 19:22
The American system is based on open legal proceedings.

Have you seen the evidence Russia perpetrated the leaks?

Please provide.

Terry Phillips , 30 Dec 2016 19:19
You just know these people, like Johnny boy, who are pointing fingers at Russia are doing so based upon long laid plans to bind up Trump from building a healthy relationship with Russia which would put an end to terrorism and likely all of these petty little wars that are tearing the world to pieces. These people want war because division keeps them in power and war makes them lots of money. I hope that Trump and Putin can work together and build a trust and foundation as allies in that together we can stamp out terrorism and stabilize the worlds conflicts. Everything these people do in the next 20 days has a single agenda and that is to cause instability and roadblocks for Trump and his team. Hope is just around the corner people so let's help usher it in.
Ilurktostudyyouall -> 79pentland , 30 Dec 2016 19:54
Don't trust anyone until you know them. Been married and watched it turn to shit? You can't really trust anyone. The same can be said for any country member.
bready , 30 Dec 2016 19:22
"US intelligence consensus that Russia ordered cyber-attacks on Democratic party targets as a way to influence the 2016 election in his favor "

Are your mentors still thinking that people will swallow that fable? The same mentors who understated Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania?

foolisholdman -> bready , 30 Dec 2016 19:36
bready

"US intelligence consensus that Russia ordered cyber-attacks on Democratic party targets as a way to influence the 2016 election in his favor "

These people either think that an ex-British Ambassador is not an important witness or they don't want to hear anything that contradicts the narrative they have been told to spin. It has to be one or the other. Share

bready -> foolisholdman , 30 Dec 2016 19:54
Some people don't need to hear narratives to discern the cheap tricks of politics.
86753oh9 , 30 Dec 2016 19:24
First... let's see some actual evidence/proof. Oh, that's right, none has been offered up.
Second... everyone is upset that the DNC turd was exposed, but no one upset about the existence of the turd. ?

Obama acting like a petulant child that has to leave the game and go home now, so he's kicking the game board and forcing everyone else to clean up his mess. Irresponsible.

TheWindsOfFreedom -> 86753oh9 , 30 Dec 2016 19:33
Hundred times repeated lie will become the truth... that's the US officials policy for decades now. In 8 years, they did nothing, so they are trying to do "something" in the last minute. For someone, who's using his own brain is all of this just laughable. United States are not united I guess. Guess, that Merkel is the next on the list...
Fulhamred , 30 Dec 2016 19:26
Hopefully now this will enable senate and congress republicans to prevent these crazy ideas of Russian appeasement take hold and pursue a hardline against Russia, Hamas, Iran and Cuba.
Down2dirt -> Fulhamred , 30 Dec 2016 19:31
They'll probably do that. Business as usual. To pursue a hard line against Isis enablers like Saudi and Qatar, now that would be a surprise.
Individualist -> Down2dirt , 30 Dec 2016 19:35
Actually the biggest ISIS enabler was Cheney.
Down2dirt -> Individualist , 30 Dec 2016 19:42
Well you're probably right about that.
Waaarrrggghhh , 30 Dec 2016 19:27
Not really. Obama is just making himself look like an idiot.
rocjoc43rd -> Individualist , 30 Dec 2016 19:45
Obama will be making to many paid speeches to be doing anything of the sort. And frankly I suspect he be silent, because Trump is soon going to know where all the bodies were buried under Obama, just like Obama knows where all the bodies are buried from the Bush area. You are a wishful thinker, if you think Obama is going anything after he leaves office.
cosmith , 30 Dec 2016 19:27
So the person awarded a Nobel Peace Prize uses his last weeks in office to sour relations between the only 2 superpowers on Earth for - what ?

American party politics /
Spite ?
Ideological hatred ?

For those of you who are too young to remember, look up "Cold War" and look for references
to Hawks and Doves.

Who are the Hawks now - and who are the Doves ?

The Left/Liberal paradigm is so drastically in need of updating that it is becoming downright dangerous.

Hell hath on fury like a self defined "liberal" scorned. Share

Individualist -> cosmith , 30 Dec 2016 19:33
So you are blaming the President (the current one) for addressing the fact that a foreign power attempted to mess with a US election?
rocjoc43rd -> Individualist , 30 Dec 2016 19:42
I think you can blame Obama for underestimating Putin. Remember when he told Putin before the 2012 election off mike that he would have more leeway after the election. Remember when Romney in 2012 warned us that Russia was a big threat and Obama thought that was silly. Obama has been outclassed by Putin at every turn. Whatever else you may say about Trump, he recognizes that Putin is worthy adversary not one to be marginalized. Putin has manage to marginalize the US in Syria despite all the money and effort we have dumped into it.
Banker1 -> Individualist , 30 Dec 2016 19:48
The foreign power did the American people a favor when it exposed the corruption within the Democratic Party; something the establishment media was apparently unable or unwilling to do. Rather than sanctioning Putin, Americans should be thanking him!
Haigin88 , 30 Dec 2016 19:30
R.E.M.: 'Exhuming McCarthy'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMedTmZKo38
Mick Readdin , 30 Dec 2016 19:31
Whatever the outcome, the winner is.... Putin!

His recent announcement (no tit-for-tat) was masterful politicking. Should Trump refuse to do anything, Putin knows he can wrap Trump around his finger, with the added bonus of both US houses kicking off.

If Trump does do something, relations will sour and Putin can blame the US.

gottliebvera , 30 Dec 2016 19:34
I think Obama is behaving in a most petulant and non-presidential manner. Lack of decorum as parting shot. Good going.
UnitedundertheSun -> Jonathan Stromberg , 30 Dec 2016 23:10
Attack Russia with a wet lettuce? Oh the pain! And gives Putin the high moral ground. Brilliant politics from Obama.

All to hamfistedly conceal what a rotten dysfunctional political organisation he heads.

Obama plays snakes and ladders while Putin is playing chess.

VultureTX -> Pitthewelder , 30 Dec 2016 21:50
" and decides not to accept it he will have to make it public,"

Solely a presumption on your part, a simple statement by the new agency heads saying that the info is inconclusive and the method of the investigation will not be revealed cancels your whole argument. Sure the press will howl, but Trumps using Twitter to talk to the people and unless someone leaks you got nothing.

chelsea55 , 30 Dec 2016 19:35
Seems a no brainer, reverse Obama's ridiculous posturing gesture. As if the US doesn't have a long track record of interfering in the affairs of other countries.
chelsea55 -> LithophaneFurcifera , 30 Dec 2016 21:57
Personally I think the US should do as it wishes but it's extremely hypocritical to act shocked when the same meddling is returned by others. Obama is acting foolishly as if the final weeks of his presidency have any genuine traction on future events.
philo41z , 30 Dec 2016 19:37
We watched trump defeat republican favourites to get the nomination. He has not really needed them as much as they have felt they need him. Then he has big oil in his transition team, tillerson if I am not mistaken, connected to exxon which has oil interests in Russia....if trump removed big oil from his team maybe he can get out of this without escalating the issue or appearing to be a putin puppet...

[Dec 31, 2016] I simply dont believe the Democrats would really be worse off with voters if they committed themselves to putting people back to work, policing Wall Street, throwing their weight behind a real public option in health care, making hedge fund managers pay the same tax rates as ordinary people, ending the pointless wars abroad, etc.

Notable quotes:
"... Trump told a significant fraction of the population that he understood their problems and that he would fix them. He told enough people what they wanted to hear - and did so with a convincing tone - that he got himself elected. That's how you win. You sell people on your vision. If you tell a good story most people aren't going to reality-check it. Sad but true. ..."
"... On the importance of narrative: Drew Westen, "What Happened to Obama?" http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/07/opinion/sunday/what-happened-to-obamas-passion.html ..."
"... Matt Taibbi in 2011: "I simply don't believe the Democrats would really be worse off with voters if they committed themselves to putting people back to work, policing Wall Street, throwing their weight behind a real public option in health care, making hedge fund managers pay the same tax rates as ordinary people, ending the pointless wars abroad, etc." ..."
"... Unfortunately, there are at best a handful of Democrats who've been doing that. That should have been our message 24/7/365 for the past eight years. (That and the story Westen laid out.) It was not. ..."
"... Yup. And that is how you lose the Presidency, the House, the Senate, 30-someodd (?) governorships, and 900-someodd state legislative seats over the past eight years. ..."
Dec 31, 2016 | www.robustanalysis.net
Chris G said... December 29, 2016 at 05:50 PM

And this is telling us something significant: namely, that supply-side economic theory is and always was a sham.

Urgh. That it is and always a sham is irrelevant. It is THE NARRATIVE that matters! They had a compelling story and they stuck to it. That's how you sell politics in this country.

Trump told a significant fraction of the population that he understood their problems and that he would fix them. He told enough people what they wanted to hear - and did so with a convincing tone - that he got himself elected. That's how you win. You sell people on your vision. If you tell a good story most people aren't going to reality-check it. Sad but true.

On the importance of narrative: Drew Westen, "What Happened to Obama?" http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/07/opinion/sunday/what-happened-to-obamas-passion.html

Chris G said in reply to Mr. Bill... Anyway, get involved. December 29, 2016 at 06:39 PM

Manned the phone banks and held signs for my state rep again this year. (Bowed out of going door-to-door this election though.) Tough race against a right-wing jerk. My guy won - in no small part because he's incredibly engaged with the community. I'll be back out for him again in 2018. That stated, I'm not sure how to make an impact at the national level - in part I think because I live in a very blue state. Keeping the goons from a establishing a local foothold seems a good place to start. Building resilient local networks feels like it will be essential for getting through the next four years.

Chris G said in reply to Chris G ... December 29, 2016 at 06:30 PM

Matt Taibbi in 2011: "I simply don't believe the Democrats would really be worse off with voters if they committed themselves to putting people back to work, policing Wall Street, throwing their weight behind a real public option in health care, making hedge fund managers pay the same tax rates as ordinary people, ending the pointless wars abroad, etc."

Unfortunately, there are at best a handful of Democrats who've been doing that. That should have been our message 24/7/365 for the past eight years. (That and the story Westen laid out.) It was not.

Taibbi continued: "That they won't do these things because they're afraid of public criticism, and "responding to pressure," is an increasingly transparent lie. This "Please, Br'er Fox, don't throw me into dat dere briar patch" deal isn't going to work for much longer. Just about everybody knows now that they want to go into that briar patch."

Yup. And that is how you lose the Presidency, the House, the Senate, 30-someodd (?) governorships, and 900-someodd state legislative seats over the past eight years.

[Dec 31, 2016] Like Iraq WMD Fiasco, Russia Story Does Not Add Up

If such attempts were really registered, the question is were those attempts to hack US sites from Russian IP space a false flag operation, probably with participation of Ukrainian secret services? '
As one commenter noted: "The Ukrainian government have been trying to drive a wedge between the West and Russia for years for their own political advantage."
If so what is the agenda outside obvious attempt to poison Us-Russian relations just before Trump assumes presidency. Neocon in Washington are really afraid losing this plush positions. And there is the whole colony of such "national security professionals" in Washington DC. For example Robert Kagan can't do anything useful outside his favorite Russophobic agenda and would be an unemployed along with his wife, who brought us Ukrainian disaster.
Notable quotes:
"... President Obama issued a terse statement seeming to blame Russia for the hack of the Democratic National Committee emails. "These data theft and disclosure activities could only have been directed by the highest levels of the Russian government," he wrote. ..."
"... The problem with this story is that, like the Iraq-WMD mess, it takes place in the middle of a highly politicized environment during which the motives of all the relevant actors are suspect. Nothing quite adds up. ..."
"... Now we have this sanctions story, which presents a new conundrum. It appears that a large segment of the press is biting hard on the core allegations of electoral interference emanating from the Obama administration. ..."
"... Did the Russians do it? Very possibly, in which case it should be reported to the max. But the press right now is flying blind. ..."
"... Maybe the Russians did hack the DNC, but the WikiLeaks material actually came from someone else? There is even a published report to that effect, with a former British ambassador as a source, not that it's any more believable than anything else here. ..."
"... We ought to have learned from the Judith Miller episode. Not only do governments lie, they won't hesitate to burn news agencies. In a desperate moment, they'll use any sucker they can find to get a point across. ..."
"... The Joint Analysis Report from the FBI contains an appendix that lists hundreds of IP addresses that were supposedly "used by Russian civilian and military intelligence services." While some of those IP addresses are from Russia, the majority are from all over the world, which means that the hackers constantly faked their location. ..."
"... "If I was the Chinese and I wanted to make it look like the Russians did it, I would use Russian language within the code, I would use Russian techniques of breaking into the organization," McAfee said, adding that, in the end, "there simply is no way to assign a source for any attack." ..."
"... I have a problem understanding why the powers that be can't understand the widening gap between their on podium statements and the average persons view. Are they hoping to brainwash, or really believe it, or just leaving a video record for posterity that might sway historical interpretation of the current time? ..."
"... A little OT, but how many people realize that Israel (less than half the population of the former Palestine) has taken complete control of ALL water and has decreed that 3% of that water may be directed to the Palestinians! ..."
"... It's been said that on average Americans are like mushrooms – "Keep 'em in the dark and feed 'em shit!" ..."
"... And THAT, from what I've read in OPEN literature (obviously) about what is known by our cyber threat intel community, read on tech sites, and seen on the outstanding documentary program CyberWar about the Eastern European hacking community, is a OUTRIGHT BLATANT LIE. ..."
"... NOTE that he may actually believe that because that is what he may have been TOLD, just as Bush was told there were WMDs in Iraq, but as I've pointed out, the clumsy errors allowing the malware to be so very EASILY traced back to "supposedly" Russia are beyond belief for any state-sponsored outfit, especially a Russian effort. ..."
"... Note that the user info for TWO BILLION Yahoo email accounts was stolen and they left no traces which then led the FBI to conclude that it must have been "state sponsored." ..."
"... We are left with two basic options. Either they are simply stupid or their is a larger agenda at hand. I don't believe they are stupid. They have been setting fires all around this election for months, none of them effective by themselves, but ALL reinforcing the general notion that Trump is unfit and illegitimate. ..."
"... I do not believe this is just random panic and hyperbole. They are "building" something. ..."
"... This is what is must have been like being a Soviet Citizen in 1989 or so. The official media was openly laughed at because its lies were so preposterous. ..."
"... Sadly, the JAR, as the Joint Analysis Report is called, does little to end the debate. Instead of providing smoking guns that the Russian government was behind specific hacks, it largely restates previous private-sector claims without providing any support for their validity. Even worse, it provides an effective bait and switch by promising newly declassified intelligence into Russian hackers' "tradecraft and techniques" and instead delivering generic methods carried out by just about all state-sponsored hacking groups." ..."
"... WORSE than "delivering generic methods carried out by just about all state-sponsored hacking groups." It should have said "by just about anyone using 'in the wild' malware tools." ..."
"... The Russians probably have a lot of information about USG employees, contractors, etc, via hacking, recording, etc than Wikileaks. But, as a general rule, intelligence agencies do not dump it into the public domain because you don't want a potential adversary know what you know about him lest he investigate and close off the means of obtaining that information. The leaks came from elsewhere. ..."
"... Smells like a "false flag" operation, like the USA/NATO Operation Gladio in Europe. ..."
"... McCain and the War Hawks have had it out for Russia for a long time, and the Neo-cons have been closing in on the borders of Russia for some time. What will be interesting is when Trump meets with the CIA/NSA et al. for intel briefings on the alleged hacking. Hopefully, Trump will bring along VP Pence, Mad Dog and the other Marine generals (appointees) for advice. I suspect that the "false flag" nature of the hacking excuse will be evident and revealed as the pretext for the Neo-con anti-Russia agenda moving forward. ..."
"... McCain is the real thug, and an interferer in foreign elections (Kiev) and seems to have no real scruples. ..."
"... After Victoria Nuland brags about the USA spending $5 billion to overthrow the elected Ukraine government, how these Russia-phobes have any credibility is beyond me. Just shows that the consolidation of the media into a few main propaganda outlets under Bill Clinton (who also brought the Neo-cons into foreign policy dominance) has reached its logical apex. The Swamp is indeed a stinking, Corrupt miasma. ..."
"... Russia a country of 170 million surrounded by NATO military bases and 800 million people in the EU and USA is the threat? The US alone spends 12 times as much on its military annually than Russia. It's not Russia invading and overthrowing secular governments in the Muslim world. ..."
"... If I remember correctly the CIA claimed their intelligence sources came from unspecified 'allies'. It seems rather crucial to establish who these allies actually are. If it were Germany that would be one thing, however it is more than likely to be the Ukraine. ..."
"... So if Obama had actually produced evidence that the Russians had hacked Hilary's illegal, unprotected email setup in her Chapaqua basement/closet how would that change the ***content*** of the emails? It wouldn't. ..."
"... Obama is failing to convince the world that Russia is a bunch of whistle blowers on his corrupt regime. All of the emails detailing corruption and fraud are true (unchallenged), however Obama wants to suggest they were obtained illegally from an illegal email server? That is Obama's bullshit defense for the corrupt behavior? ..."
Dec 30, 2016 | mishtalk.com

Yesterday, President Obama expelled 35 Russian "Operatives" from the Russian Embassy .

Is there any evidence those expelled are "intelligence operatives"? Any hard evidence Russia was behind the Hillary hacks? Any credible evidence that Putin himself is to blame?

The answers are No, No, and No. Yet, once again the American press is again asked to co-sign a dubious intelligence assessment.

... ... ....

Something Stinks

The Rolling Stone comments Something About This Russia Story Stinks

In an extraordinary development Thursday, the Obama administration announced a series of sanctions against Russia. Thirty-five Russian nationals will be expelled from the country. President Obama issued a terse statement seeming to blame Russia for the hack of the Democratic National Committee emails. "These data theft and disclosure activities could only have been directed by the highest levels of the Russian government," he wrote.

The problem with this story is that, like the Iraq-WMD mess, it takes place in the middle of a highly politicized environment during which the motives of all the relevant actors are suspect. Nothing quite adds up.

If the American security agencies had smoking-gun evidence that the Russians had an organized campaign to derail the U.S. presidential election and deliver the White House to Trump, then expelling a few dozen diplomats after the election seems like an oddly weak and ill-timed response. Voices in both parties are saying this now.

Republican Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham noted the "small price" Russia paid for its "brazen attack." The Democratic National Committee, meanwhile, said Thursday that taken alone, the Obama response is " insufficient " as a response to "attacks on the United States by a foreign power."

The "small price" is an eyebrow-raiser.

Adding to the problem is that in the last months of the campaign, and also in the time since the election, we've seen an epidemic of factually loose, clearly politically motivated reporting about Russia. Democrat-leaning pundits have been unnervingly quick to use phrases like "Russia hacked the election."

This has led to widespread confusion among news audiences over whether the Russians hacked the DNC emails (a story that has at least been backed by some evidence, even if it hasn't always been great evidence ), or whether Russians hacked vote tallies in critical states (a far more outlandish tale backed by no credible evidence ).

As noted in The Intercept and other outlets, an Economist/YouGov poll conducted this month shows that 50 percent of all Clinton voters believe the Russians hacked vote tallies.

And reports by some Democrat-friendly reporters – like Kurt Eichenwald, who has birthed some real head-scratchers this year, including what he admitted was a baseless claim that Trump spent time in an institution in 1990 – have attempted to argue that Trump surrogates may have been liaising with the Russians because they either visited Russia or appeared on the RT network. Similar reporting about Russian scheming has been based entirely on unnamed security sources.

Now we have this sanctions story, which presents a new conundrum. It appears that a large segment of the press is biting hard on the core allegations of electoral interference emanating from the Obama administration.

Did the Russians do it? Very possibly, in which case it should be reported to the max. But the press right now is flying blind.

Maybe the Russians did hack the DNC, but the WikiLeaks material actually came from someone else? There is even a published report to that effect, with a former British ambassador as a source, not that it's any more believable than anything else here.

We just don't know, which is the problem.

We ought to have learned from the Judith Miller episode. Not only do governments lie, they won't hesitate to burn news agencies. In a desperate moment, they'll use any sucker they can find to get a point across.

Where the Hell is the Evidence?

'I Can Guarantee You, It Was Not the Russians'

John McAfee, founder of the security firm McAfee Associates, says 'I Can Guarantee You, It Was Not the Russians' .

The Joint Analysis Report from the FBI contains an appendix that lists hundreds of IP addresses that were supposedly "used by Russian civilian and military intelligence services." While some of those IP addresses are from Russia, the majority are from all over the world, which means that the hackers constantly faked their location.

McAfee argues that the report is a "fallacy," explaining that hackers can fake their location, their language, and any markers that could lead back to them. Any hacker who had the skills to hack into the DNC would also be able to hide their tracks, he said

"If I was the Chinese and I wanted to make it look like the Russians did it, I would use Russian language within the code, I would use Russian techniques of breaking into the organization," McAfee said, adding that, in the end, "there simply is no way to assign a source for any attack."

Question of Patriotism

It's not patriotic to accept accusations as facts, given US history of lies, deceit, meddling, and wars.

Related

keepitsimple , December 30, 2016 1:41:03 at 1:41 PM
The gullibility and ignorance of the typical media lapdog is appalling, and whores like McCain and Graham will use them shamelessly to promote their twisted, warmongering agenda. The same old story, over and over again.
Bobdough , December 30, 2016 10:51:52 at 10:51 PM
Not gullibilty, but complicity
The_Fish , December 30, 2016 2:07:19 at 2:07 PM
I have a problem understanding why the powers that be can't understand the widening gap between their on podium statements and the average persons view. Are they hoping to brainwash, or really believe it, or just leaving a video record for posterity that might sway historical interpretation of the current time?

No problem if they deliver proof.

James Greenberg , December 30, 2016 6:30:47 at 6:30 PM
Read 1984. It will explain EVERYTHING.
The_Fish , December 30, 2016 7:05:07 at 7:05 PM
Net control very likely in Europe soon with public administration of the web/content. Might at least help reduce the unemployment rate. Looked over the 2016 Bilderberg attendees too. MSM attendees interesting vs political bias they exhibit.

Whoever thinks there aren't people behind the scenes with a plan is naive and woe betide anyone upsetting that plan.

Crysangle , December 30, 2016 8:56:05 at 8:56 PM
Unemployment rate read last refuge from the official economy. Not the alt. web that takes away motivation, it is a pressure valve for people who find the official direction nothing short of insulting. The majority of social media users won't be distracted.

Noticed zh on Italy for you if you had not picked it up

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-30/italy-urges-europe-begin-censoring-free-speech-internet

Michael G , December 31, 2016 9:53:11 at 9:53 AM
A little OT, but how many people realize that Israel (less than half the population of the former Palestine) has taken complete control of ALL water and has decreed that 3% of that water may be directed to the Palestinians!

Over ten million get running water for 12 hrs a week, while in Israel (borders move every day as the world says nothing) there are no water restrictions zero! So, while Palestinians struggle to live in hot barren desert conditions (food and medicine is also denied children die of treatable cancer often as medication is blocked), a 5 min drive away millions of gallons are used to create a green, lush paradise for the Jewish Masters!

Did you know US laws were changed in 1968 to allow "Dual Citizens" to be elected and appointed to government positions and today many of the top posts are citizens of Israel and America WTF?

Trump needs to make a daily dose of Red Pills the law

Michael G , December 31, 2016 9:58:31 at 9:58 AM
Oops the 10M fig is a bit high but it's at least double the Jewish population, yet they get 97% this is slow moving genocide yet it's never even acknowledged
Greg , December 30, 2016 2:07:48 at 2:07 PM
Syria is about gas pipelines. Corporations want to profit from the gas pipeline through the region and wr the people are supposed to send our children to war over it and pay taxes tpbsupport the effort. Rissia wants pipelines from their country under the Black sea and Irans pipelines to the north. The US is supporting Qatar pipeline and LNG from our own shores to the EU.
The_Fish , December 30, 2016 2:09:55 at 2:09 PM
Some rumours Obama to be considered for UN role and Cameron NATO.
Germ , December 30, 2016 2:13:34 at 2:13 PM
It's been said that on average Americans are like mushrooms – "Keep 'em in the dark and feed 'em shit!"
Winston , December 30, 2016 3:43:28 at 3:43 PM
"These data theft and disclosure activities could only have been directed by the highest levels of the Russian government," (Obama) wrote.

And THAT, from what I've read in OPEN literature (obviously) about what is known by our cyber threat intel community, read on tech sites, and seen on the outstanding documentary program CyberWar about the Eastern European hacking community, is a OUTRIGHT BLATANT LIE.

Note he avoided the phrase, "slam dunk"

Winston , December 30, 2016 3:52:29 at 3:52 PM
NOTE that he may actually believe that because that is what he may have been TOLD, just as Bush was told there were WMDs in Iraq, but as I've pointed out, the clumsy errors allowing the malware to be so very EASILY traced back to "supposedly" Russia are beyond belief for any state-sponsored outfit, especially a Russian effort.

Note that the user info for TWO BILLION Yahoo email accounts was stolen and they left no traces which then led the FBI to conclude that it must have been "state sponsored."

fingerhole , December 30, 2016 5:24:36 at 5:24 PM
Any government that claims a right to secrecy over its affairs is going to use lying as a policy.
Steven milgrom , December 30, 2016 4:17:51 at 4:17 PM
Snowden says that it is auite easy to trace the source of the hackers.
madashellowell , December 30, 2016 4:21:48 at 4:21 PM
We are left with two basic options. Either they are simply stupid or their is a larger agenda at hand. I don't believe they are stupid. They have been setting fires all around this election for months, none of them effective by themselves, but ALL reinforcing the general notion that Trump is unfit and illegitimate.

I do not believe this is just random panic and hyperbole. They are "building" something.

Fred Rogers , December 31, 2016 1:25:43 at 1:25 PM
Well, it is an established and accepted fact that Richard Nixon was a very intelligent guy. None of Nixon's detractors ever claimed he was stupid, and Nixon won reelection easily.

Tricky Dick was just a tad "honesty challenged", and so is Obama. They were/are both neo-keynesians, both took their sweet time ending stupid wars started by their predecessors even after it was clear the wars were pointless.

Then again, I doubt Obozo is as smart as Nixon. Soros is clearly the puppeteer controlling what Obama does. Soros is now freaking out that his fascist agenda has been exposed.

vooch , December 30, 2016 5:18:15 at 5:18 PM
This is what is must have been like being a Soviet Citizen in 1989 or so. The official media was openly laughed at because its lies were so preposterous.
Winston , December 30, 2016 5:24:35 at 5:24 PM
http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/12/did-russia-tamper-with-the-2016-election-bitter-debate-likely-to-rage-on/

Excerpt:

"While security companies in the private sector have said for months the hacking campaign was the work of people working for the Russian government, anonymous people tied to the leaks have claimed they are lone wolves. Many independent security experts said there was little way to know the true origins of the attacks.

Sadly, the JAR, as the Joint Analysis Report is called, does little to end the debate. Instead of providing smoking guns that the Russian government was behind specific hacks, it largely restates previous private-sector claims without providing any support for their validity. Even worse, it provides an effective bait and switch by promising newly declassified intelligence into Russian hackers' "tradecraft and techniques" and instead delivering generic methods carried out by just about all state-sponsored hacking groups."

WORSE than "delivering generic methods carried out by just about all state-sponsored hacking groups." It should have said "by just about anyone using 'in the wild' malware tools."

The_Fish , December 30, 2016 5:54:31 at 5:54 PM
2015 Bilderberg. Looking down the attendees and subjects covered. Interesting some of the main anti-Brexit groups had representatives there, suggests HC picked for 2016 US election, Cyber-security and etc. Look at the key topics. How they all helped define 2016. So many current intertwined themes.

Little people upset the apple-cart? http://www.globalresearch.ca/bilderberg-chooses-hillary-clinton-for-2016/5454829

wootendw , December 30, 2016 6:01:33 at 6:01 PM
"We just don't know "

The Russians probably have a lot of information about USG employees, contractors, etc, via hacking, recording, etc than Wikileaks. But, as a general rule, intelligence agencies do not dump it into the public domain because you don't want a potential adversary know what you know about him lest he investigate and close off the means of obtaining that information. The leaks came from elsewhere.

greg , December 30, 2016 9:09:50 at 9:09 PM
One of the leakers is dead, we know that.
joelg5 , December 30, 2016 6:35:45 at 6:35 PM
Smells like a "false flag" operation, like the USA/NATO Operation Gladio in Europe.

McCain and the War Hawks have had it out for Russia for a long time, and the Neo-cons have been closing in on the borders of Russia for some time. What will be interesting is when Trump meets with the CIA/NSA et al. for intel briefings on the alleged hacking. Hopefully, Trump will bring along VP Pence, Mad Dog and the other Marine generals (appointees) for advice. I suspect that the "false flag" nature of the hacking excuse will be evident and revealed as the pretext for the Neo-con anti-Russia agenda moving forward.

The CIA it is now widely believed was part of the Deep State behind the JFK assassination when JFK took an independent view, so Trump will need the USA Marines on his side. McCain is the real thug, and an interferer in foreign elections (Kiev) and seems to have no real scruples.

After Victoria Nuland brags about the USA spending $5 billion to overthrow the elected Ukraine government, how these Russia-phobes have any credibility is beyond me. Just shows that the consolidation of the media into a few main propaganda outlets under Bill Clinton (who also brought the Neo-cons into foreign policy dominance) has reached its logical apex. The Swamp is indeed a stinking, Corrupt miasma.

Perhaps the Clinton Foundation and nascent Obama foundation feel it in their financial interests to nurture the misma.

Cha-ching, cha-ching. Money to be made in demonizing Russia.

Ron J , December 31, 2016 12:32:19 at 12:32 PM
"The CIA it is now widely believed was part of the Deep State behind the JFK assassination when JFK took an independent view "

All the circumstantial evidence pointed to Oswald. No one has ever proven otherwise, in over 50 years.

After 50 years of being propagandized by conspiracy book writers, it isn't surprising that anything is widely believed at this point. The former curator of the 6th Floor Museum, Gary Mack, believed there was a conspiracy, but over time came to realize that it was Oswald, alone.

CJ , December 30, 2016 8:15:54 at 8:15 PM
When liberal Rolling Stone questions the Obama/DNC propaganda, you know for certain that they have lost even their base supporters (the ones that can still think). The BS has just gotten too stupid.
Truth seeker , December 30, 2016 9:32:32 at 9:32 PM
Why is the WSJ strongly supporting Obama here but also saying he waited way to long to make this move? I don't always agree with them nor do I with you.

Ok I haven't read the comments but would only say that when Vladimir Putin the once leader of the KGB becomes a preacher and starts criticizing the West for abandoning its Christian roots, it's moral dignity, that for me doesn't just stink, it raises red flags all over the place. I think Trump and some of the rest of u r being set up here-like lambs to the slaughter. Mish your naïveté here surprises me!

Bobdough , December 30, 2016 11:00:12 at 11:00 PM
The Russians are coming!

Russia a country of 170 million surrounded by NATO military bases and 800 million people in the EU and USA is the threat? The US alone spends 12 times as much on its military annually than Russia. It's not Russia invading and overthrowing secular governments in the Muslim world.

greg , December 30, 2016 9:52:15 at 9:52 PM
Germany takes back its gold from US. Finally, after the Fed Res refused an audit request. http://www.pravdareport.com/business/finance/27-12-2016/136521-gold-0/
Simon Hodges , December 31, 2016 7:57:09 at 7:57 AM
If I remember correctly the CIA claimed their intelligence sources came from unspecified 'allies'. It seems rather crucial to establish who these allies actually are. If it were Germany that would be one thing, however it is more than likely to be the Ukraine.

The Ukranian government have been trying to drive a wedge between the West and Russia for years for their own political advantage. If I was Trump then when I took office I would want an extremely thorough investigation into the activities of the CIA by a third reliable party.

Seenitallbefore , December 31, 2016 9:48:10 at 9:48 AM
Don't be stupid. The Russians did it. CNN reported it, so it must be true.
Winston , December 31, 2016 10:22:42 at 10:22 AM
Supporting -EXACTLY- the points I've previously made here: Russian Hackers Said To "Penetrate US Electricity Grid" Using Outdated Ukrainian Malware

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-31/russian-hackers-said-penetrate-us-electricity-grid-using-outdated-ukrainian-malware

Excerpt: But was it really Russian meddling? After all, how does one prove not only intent but source in a world of cyberespionage, where planting false flag clues and other Indicators of Compromise (IOCs) meant to frame a specific entity, is as important as the actual hack.

Robert M. Lee, CEO and founder of cybersecurity company Dragos, which specializes in threats facing critical infrastructure, also noted that the IOCs included "commodity malware," or hacking tools that are widely available for purchase.

He said:

1. No they did not penetrate the grid.
2. The IOCs contained *commodity malware* – can't attribute based off that alone.

Fred Rogers , December 31, 2016 1:09:53 at 1:09 PM
So if Obama had actually produced evidence that the Russians had hacked Hilary's illegal, unprotected email setup in her Chapaqua basement/closet how would that change the ***content*** of the emails? It wouldn't.

Obama is failing to convince the world that Russia is a bunch of whistle blowers on his corrupt regime. All of the emails detailing corruption and fraud are true (unchallenged), however Obama wants to suggest they were obtained illegally from an illegal email server? That is Obama's bullshit defense for the corrupt behavior?

And as "proportional retaliation" for this Russian whistle blowing, Obozo is evicting 35 entertainment staff from the Russian embassy summer camp?

I doubt Hollywood or San Francisco has the integrity to admit they backed the wrong loser when they supported Obozo but they should think about their own credibility after January 20th. Anyone who is still backing Obozo is just too stupid to tie their own shoes much less vote

[Dec 31, 2016] Russophobia bulletin, 2016

[Dec 31, 2016] Russophobia bulletin, 2016

[Dec 31, 2016] I simply dont believe the Democrats would really be worse off with voters if they committed themselves to putting people back to work, policing Wall Street, throwing their weight behind a real public option in health care, making hedge fund managers pay the same tax rates as ordinary people, ending the pointless wars abroad, etc.

Notable quotes:
"... Trump told a significant fraction of the population that he understood their problems and that he would fix them. He told enough people what they wanted to hear - and did so with a convincing tone - that he got himself elected. That's how you win. You sell people on your vision. If you tell a good story most people aren't going to reality-check it. Sad but true. ..."
"... On the importance of narrative: Drew Westen, "What Happened to Obama?" http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/07/opinion/sunday/what-happened-to-obamas-passion.html ..."
"... Matt Taibbi in 2011: "I simply don't believe the Democrats would really be worse off with voters if they committed themselves to putting people back to work, policing Wall Street, throwing their weight behind a real public option in health care, making hedge fund managers pay the same tax rates as ordinary people, ending the pointless wars abroad, etc." ..."
"... Unfortunately, there are at best a handful of Democrats who've been doing that. That should have been our message 24/7/365 for the past eight years. (That and the story Westen laid out.) It was not. ..."
"... Yup. And that is how you lose the Presidency, the House, the Senate, 30-someodd (?) governorships, and 900-someodd state legislative seats over the past eight years. ..."
Dec 31, 2016 | www.robustanalysis.net
Chris G said... December 29, 2016 at 05:50 PM

And this is telling us something significant: namely, that supply-side economic theory is and always was a sham.

Urgh. That it is and always a sham is irrelevant. It is THE NARRATIVE that matters! They had a compelling story and they stuck to it. That's how you sell politics in this country.

Trump told a significant fraction of the population that he understood their problems and that he would fix them. He told enough people what they wanted to hear - and did so with a convincing tone - that he got himself elected. That's how you win. You sell people on your vision. If you tell a good story most people aren't going to reality-check it. Sad but true.

On the importance of narrative: Drew Westen, "What Happened to Obama?" http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/07/opinion/sunday/what-happened-to-obamas-passion.html

Chris G said in reply to Mr. Bill... Anyway, get involved. December 29, 2016 at 06:39 PM

Manned the phone banks and held signs for my state rep again this year. (Bowed out of going door-to-door this election though.) Tough race against a right-wing jerk. My guy won - in no small part because he's incredibly engaged with the community. I'll be back out for him again in 2018. That stated, I'm not sure how to make an impact at the national level - in part I think because I live in a very blue state. Keeping the goons from a establishing a local foothold seems a good place to start. Building resilient local networks feels like it will be essential for getting through the next four years.

Chris G said in reply to Chris G ... December 29, 2016 at 06:30 PM

Matt Taibbi in 2011: "I simply don't believe the Democrats would really be worse off with voters if they committed themselves to putting people back to work, policing Wall Street, throwing their weight behind a real public option in health care, making hedge fund managers pay the same tax rates as ordinary people, ending the pointless wars abroad, etc."

Unfortunately, there are at best a handful of Democrats who've been doing that. That should have been our message 24/7/365 for the past eight years. (That and the story Westen laid out.) It was not.

Taibbi continued: "That they won't do these things because they're afraid of public criticism, and "responding to pressure," is an increasingly transparent lie. This "Please, Br'er Fox, don't throw me into dat dere briar patch" deal isn't going to work for much longer. Just about everybody knows now that they want to go into that briar patch."

Yup. And that is how you lose the Presidency, the House, the Senate, 30-someodd (?) governorships, and 900-someodd state legislative seats over the past eight years.

[Dec 31, 2016] What Happened to Obamas Passion

This was written in 2011 but it summarizes Obama presidency pretty nicely, even today. Betrayer in chief, the master of bait and switch. That is the essence of Obama legacy. On "Great Democratic betrayal"... Obama always was a closet neoliberal and neocon. A stooge of neoliberal financial oligarchy, a puppet, if you want politically incorrect term. He just masked it well during hist first election campaigning as a progressive democrat... And he faced Romney in his second campaign, who was even worse, so after betraying American people once, he was reelected and did it twice. Much like Bush II. He like another former cocaine addict -- George W Bush has never any intention of helping American people, only oligarchy.
Notable quotes:
"... IN contrast, when faced with the greatest economic crisis, the greatest levels of economic inequality, and the greatest levels of corporate influence on politics since the Depression, Barack Obama stared into the eyes of history and chose to avert his gaze. ..."
"... We (yes, we) recognise that capitalism is the most efficient way to maximise overall prosperity and quality of life. But we also recognise that unfettered, it will ravage the environment, abuse labor, and expand income disparity until violence or tragedy (or both) ensues. ..."
"... These are the lessons we've learned since the industrial revolution, and they're the ones that we should be drawing from the past decade. We recognise that we need a strong federal government to check these tendencies, and to strike a stable, sustainable balance between prosperity, community, opportunity, wealth, justice, freedom. We need a voice to fill the moral vacuum that has allowed the Koch/Tea/Fox Party to emerge and grab power. ..."
"... Americans know this---including, of course, President Obama (see his April 13 speech at GW University). But as this article by Dr. Westen so effectively shows, Obama is incompetent to lead us back ..."
"... he is not competent to lead us back to a state of American morality, where government is the protector of those who work hard, and the provider of opportunity to all Americans. ..."
"... I've heard him called a mediator, a conciliator, a compromiser, etc. Those terms indicate someone who is bringing divergent views together and moving us along. That's part of what a leader does, though not all. Yet I don't think he's even lived up to his reputation as a mediator. ..."
"... Almost three years after I voted for Obama, I still don't know what he's doing other than trying to help the financial industry: the wealthy who benefit most from it and the technocrats who run it for them. But average working people, people like myself and my daughter and my grandson, have not been helped. We are worse off than before. And millions of unemployed and underemployed are even worse off than my family is. ..."
"... So whatever else he is (and that still remains a mystery to me), President Obama is not the leader I thought I was voting for. ..."
"... I knew that Obama was a charade early on when giving a speech about the banking failures to the nation, instead of giving the narrative Mr. Westen accurately recommended on the origins of the orgy of greed that just crippled our economy and caused suffering for millions of Americans ..."
"... He should have been condemning the craven, wanton, greed of nihilistic financial gangsters who hijacked our economy. Instead he seemed to be calling for all Americans not to hate rich people. That was not the point. Americans don't hate rich people, but they should hate rich people who acquire their wealth at the expense of the well being of an entire nation through irresponsible, avaricious, and in some instances illegal practices, and legally bribe politicians to enact laws which allow them to run amok over our economy without supervision or regulation. ..."
"... I knew then that Obama was either a political lemon, in over his head, an extremely conflict averse neurotic individual with a compulsive need for some delusional ideal of neutrality in political and social relations, or a political phony beholden to the same forces that almost destroyed the country as Republicans are. ..."
Aug 06, 2011 | nytimes.com

When Barack Obama rose to the lectern on Inauguration Day, the nation was in tatters. Americans were scared and angry. The economy was spinning in reverse. Three-quarters of a million people lost their jobs that month. Many had lost their homes, and with them the only nest eggs they had. Even the usually impervious upper middle class had seen a decade of stagnant or declining investment, with the stock market dropping in value with no end in sight. Hope was as scarce as credit.

In that context, Americans needed their president to tell them a story that made sense of what they had just been through, what caused it, and how it was going to end. They needed to hear that he understood what they were feeling, that he would track down those responsible for their pain and suffering, and that he would restore order and safety. What they were waiting for, in broad strokes, was a story something like this:

"I know you're scared and angry. Many of you have lost your jobs, your homes, your hope. This was a disaster, but it was not a natural disaster. It was made by Wall Street gamblers who speculated with your lives and futures. It was made by conservative extremists who told us that if we just eliminated regulations and rewarded greed and recklessness, it would all work out. But it didn't work out. And it didn't work out 80 years ago, when the same people sold our grandparents the same bill of goods, with the same results. But we learned something from our grandparents about how to fix it, and we will draw on their wisdom. We will restore business confidence the old-fashioned way: by putting money back in the pockets of working Americans by putting them back to work, and by restoring integrity to our financial markets and demanding it of those who want to run them. I can't promise that we won't make mistakes along the way. But I can promise you that they will be honest mistakes, and that your government has your back again." A story isn't a policy. But that simple narrative - and the policies that would naturally have flowed from it - would have inoculated against much of what was to come in the intervening two and a half years of failed government, idled factories and idled hands. That story would have made clear that the president understood that the American people had given Democrats the presidency and majorities in both houses of Congress to fix the mess the Republicans and Wall Street had made of the country, and that this would not be a power-sharing arrangement. It would have made clear that the problem wasn't tax-and-spend liberalism or the deficit - a deficit that didn't exist until George W. Bush gave nearly $2 trillion in tax breaks largely to the wealthiest Americans and squandered $1 trillion in two wars.

And perhaps most important, it would have offered a clear, compelling alternative to the dominant narrative of the right, that our problem is not due to spending on things like the pensions of firefighters, but to the fact that those who can afford to buy influence are rewriting the rules so they can cut themselves progressively larger slices of the American pie while paying less of their fair share for it.

But there was no story - and there has been none since.

In similar circumstances, Franklin D. Roosevelt offered Americans a promise to use the power of his office to make their lives better and to keep trying until he got it right. Beginning in his first inaugural address, and in the fireside chats that followed, he explained how the crash had happened, and he minced no words about those who had caused it. He promised to do something no president had done before: to use the resources of the United States to put Americans directly to work, building the infrastructure we still rely on today. He swore to keep the people who had caused the crisis out of the halls of power, and he made good on that promise. In a 1936 speech at Madison Square Garden, he thundered, "Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me - and I welcome their hatred."

When Barack Obama stepped into the Oval Office, he stepped into a cycle of American history, best exemplified by F.D.R. and his distant cousin, Teddy. After a great technological revolution or a major economic transition, as when America changed from a nation of farmers to an urban industrial one, there is often a period of great concentration of wealth, and with it, a concentration of power in the wealthy. That's what we saw in 1928, and that's what we see today. At some point that power is exercised so injudiciously, and the lives of so many become so unbearable, that a period of reform ensues - and a charismatic reformer emerges to lead that renewal. In that sense, Teddy Roosevelt started the cycle of reform his cousin picked up 30 years later, as he began efforts to bust the trusts and regulate the railroads, exercise federal power over the banks and the nation's food supply, and protect America's land and wildlife, creating the modern environmental movement.

Those were the shoes - that was the historic role - that Americans elected Barack Obama to fill. The president is fond of referring to "the arc of history," paraphrasing the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s famous statement that "the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice." But with his deep-seated aversion to conflict and his profound failure to understand bully dynamics - in which conciliation is always the wrong course of action, because bullies perceive it as weakness and just punch harder the next time - he has broken that arc and has likely bent it backward for at least a generation.

When Dr. King spoke of the great arc bending toward justice, he did not mean that we should wait for it to bend. He exhorted others to put their full weight behind it, and he gave his life speaking with a voice that cut through the blistering force of water cannons and the gnashing teeth of police dogs. He preached the gospel of nonviolence, but he knew that whether a bully hid behind a club or a poll tax, the only effective response was to face the bully down, and to make the bully show his true and repugnant face in public.

IN contrast, when faced with the greatest economic crisis, the greatest levels of economic inequality, and the greatest levels of corporate influence on politics since the Depression, Barack Obama stared into the eyes of history and chose to avert his gaze. Instead of indicting the people whose recklessness wrecked the economy, he put them in charge of it. He never explained that decision to the public - a failure in storytelling as extraordinary as the failure in judgment behind it. Had the president chosen to bend the arc of history, he would have told the public the story of the destruction wrought by the dismantling of the New Deal regulations that had protected them for more than half a century. He would have offered them a counternarrative of how to fix the problem other than the politics of appeasement, one that emphasized creating economic demand and consumer confidence by putting consumers back to work. He would have had to stare down those who had wrecked the economy, and he would have had to tolerate their hatred if not welcome it. But the arc of his temperament just didn't bend that far.

Michael August 7, 2011

Eloquently expressed and horrifically accurate, this excellent analysis articulates the frustration that so many of us have felt watching Mr...

Bill Levine August 7, 2011

Very well put. I know that I have been going through Kübler-Ross's stages of grief ever since the foxes (a.k.a. Geithner and Summers) were...

AnAverageAmerican August 7, 2011

"In that context, Americans needed their president to tell them a story that made sense of what they had just been through, what caused it,...

cdearman Santa Fe, NM August 7, 2011

Unfortunately, the Democratic Congress of 2008-2010, did not have the will to make the economic and social program decisions that would have improved the economic situation for the middle-class; and it is becoming more obvious that President Obama does not have the temperament to publicly push for programs and policies that he wants the congress to enact.
The American people have a problem: we reelect Obama and hope for the best; or we elect a Republican and expect the worst. There is no question that the Health Care law that was just passed would be reversed; Medicare and Medicare would be gutted; and who knows what would happen to Social Security. You can be sure, though, that business taxes and regulation reforms would not be in the cards and those regulations that have been enacted would be reversed. We have traveled this road before and we should be wise enough not to travel it again!

SP California August 7, 2011

Brilliant analysis - and I suspect that a very large number of those who voted for President Obama will recognize in this the thoughts that they have been trying to ignore, or have been trying not to say out loud. Later historians can complete this analysis and attempt to explain exactly why Mr. Obama has turned out the way he has - but right now, it may be time to ask a more relevant and urgent question.

If it is not too late, will a challenger emerge in time before the 2012 elections, or will we be doomed to hold our noses and endure another four years of this?

farospace san francisco August 7, 2011

Very eloquent and exactly to the point. Like many others, I was enthralled by the rhetoric of his story, making the leap of faith (or hope) that because he could tell his story so well, he could tell, as you put it, "the story the American people were waiting to hear."

Disappointment has darkened into disillusion, disillusion into a species of despair. Will I vote for Barack Obama again? What are the options?

Richard Katz American in Oxford, UK August 7, 2011

This is the most brilliant and tragic story I have read in a long time---in fact, precisely since I read when Ill Fares the Land by Tony Judt. When will a leader emerge with a true moral vision for the federal government and for our country? Someone who sees government as a balance to capitalism, and a means to achieve the social and economic justice that we (yes, we) believe in? Will that leadership arrive before parts of America come to look like the dystopia of Johannesburg?

We (yes, we) recognise that capitalism is the most efficient way to maximise overall prosperity and quality of life. But we also recognise that unfettered, it will ravage the environment, abuse labor, and expand income disparity until violence or tragedy (or both) ensues.

These are the lessons we've learned since the industrial revolution, and they're the ones that we should be drawing from the past decade. We recognise that we need a strong federal government to check these tendencies, and to strike a stable, sustainable balance between prosperity, community, opportunity, wealth, justice, freedom. We need a voice to fill the moral vacuum that has allowed the Koch/Tea/Fox Party to emerge and grab power.

Americans know this---including, of course, President Obama (see his April 13 speech at GW University). But as this article by Dr. Westen so effectively shows, Obama is incompetent to lead us back to America's traditional position on the global economic/political spectrum. He's brilliant and eloquent. He's achieved personal success that is inspirational. He's done some good things as president. But he is not competent to lead us back to a state of American morality, where government is the protector of those who work hard, and the provider of opportunity to all Americans.

Taxes, subsidies, entitlements, laws... these are the tools we have available to achieve our national moral vision. But the vision has been muddled (hijacked?) and that is our biggest problem. -->

An Ordinary American Prague August 7, 2011

I voted for Obama. I thought then, and still think, he's a decent person, a smart person, a person who wants to do the best he can for others. When I voted for him, I was thinking he's a centrist who will find a way to unite our increasingly polarized and ugly politics in the USA. Or if not unite us, at least forge a way to get some important things done despite the ugly polarization.

And I must confess, I have been disappointed. Deeply so. He has not united us. He has not forged a way to accomplish what needs to be done. He has not been a leader.

I've heard him called a mediator, a conciliator, a compromiser, etc. Those terms indicate someone who is bringing divergent views together and moving us along. That's part of what a leader does, though not all. Yet I don't think he's even lived up to his reputation as a mediator.

Almost three years after I voted for Obama, I still don't know what he's doing other than trying to help the financial industry: the wealthy who benefit most from it and the technocrats who run it for them. But average working people, people like myself and my daughter and my grandson, have not been helped. We are worse off than before. And millions of unemployed and underemployed are even worse off than my family is.

So whatever else he is (and that still remains a mystery to me), President Obama is not the leader I thought I was voting for. Which leaves me feeling confused and close to apathetic about what to do as a voter in 2012. More of the same isn't worth voting for. Yet I don't see anyone out there who offers the possibility of doing better.

martin Portland, Oregon August 7, 2011

This was an extraordinarily well written, eloquent and comprehensive indictment of the failure of the Obama presidency.

If a credible primary challenger to Obama ever could arise, the positions and analysis in this column would be all he or she would need to justify the Democratic party's need to seek new leadership.

I knew that Obama was a charade early on when giving a speech about the banking failures to the nation, instead of giving the narrative Mr. Westen accurately recommended on the origins of the orgy of greed that just crippled our economy and caused suffering for millions of Americans, he said "we don't disparage wealth in America." I was dumbfounded.

He should have been condemning the craven, wanton, greed of nihilistic financial gangsters who hijacked our economy. Instead he seemed to be calling for all Americans not to hate rich people. That was not the point. Americans don't hate rich people, but they should hate rich people who acquire their wealth at the expense of the well being of an entire nation through irresponsible, avaricious, and in some instances illegal practices, and legally bribe politicians to enact laws which allow them to run amok over our economy without supervision or regulation.

I knew then that Obama was either a political lemon, in over his head, an extremely conflict averse neurotic individual with a compulsive need for some delusional ideal of neutrality in political and social relations, or a political phony beholden to the same forces that almost destroyed the country as Republicans are.

Perhaps all of these are true.

[Dec 31, 2016] Like Iraq WMD Fiasco, Russia Story Does Not Add Up

If such attempts were really registered, the question is were those attempts to hack US sites from Russian IP space a false flag operation, probably with participation of Ukrainian secret services? '
As one commenter noted: "The Ukrainian government have been trying to drive a wedge between the West and Russia for years for their own political advantage."
If so what is the agenda outside obvious attempt to poison Us-Russian relations just before Trump assumes presidency. Neocon in Washington are really afraid losing this plush positions. And there is the whole colony of such "national security professionals" in Washington DC. For example Robert Kagan can't do anything useful outside his favorite Russophobic agenda and would be an unemployed along with his wife, who brought us Ukrainian disaster.
Notable quotes:
"... President Obama issued a terse statement seeming to blame Russia for the hack of the Democratic National Committee emails. "These data theft and disclosure activities could only have been directed by the highest levels of the Russian government," he wrote. ..."
"... The problem with this story is that, like the Iraq-WMD mess, it takes place in the middle of a highly politicized environment during which the motives of all the relevant actors are suspect. Nothing quite adds up. ..."
"... Now we have this sanctions story, which presents a new conundrum. It appears that a large segment of the press is biting hard on the core allegations of electoral interference emanating from the Obama administration. ..."
"... Did the Russians do it? Very possibly, in which case it should be reported to the max. But the press right now is flying blind. ..."
"... Maybe the Russians did hack the DNC, but the WikiLeaks material actually came from someone else? There is even a published report to that effect, with a former British ambassador as a source, not that it's any more believable than anything else here. ..."
"... We ought to have learned from the Judith Miller episode. Not only do governments lie, they won't hesitate to burn news agencies. In a desperate moment, they'll use any sucker they can find to get a point across. ..."
"... The Joint Analysis Report from the FBI contains an appendix that lists hundreds of IP addresses that were supposedly "used by Russian civilian and military intelligence services." While some of those IP addresses are from Russia, the majority are from all over the world, which means that the hackers constantly faked their location. ..."
"... "If I was the Chinese and I wanted to make it look like the Russians did it, I would use Russian language within the code, I would use Russian techniques of breaking into the organization," McAfee said, adding that, in the end, "there simply is no way to assign a source for any attack." ..."
"... I have a problem understanding why the powers that be can't understand the widening gap between their on podium statements and the average persons view. Are they hoping to brainwash, or really believe it, or just leaving a video record for posterity that might sway historical interpretation of the current time? ..."
"... A little OT, but how many people realize that Israel (less than half the population of the former Palestine) has taken complete control of ALL water and has decreed that 3% of that water may be directed to the Palestinians! ..."
"... It's been said that on average Americans are like mushrooms – "Keep 'em in the dark and feed 'em shit!" ..."
"... And THAT, from what I've read in OPEN literature (obviously) about what is known by our cyber threat intel community, read on tech sites, and seen on the outstanding documentary program CyberWar about the Eastern European hacking community, is a OUTRIGHT BLATANT LIE. ..."
"... NOTE that he may actually believe that because that is what he may have been TOLD, just as Bush was told there were WMDs in Iraq, but as I've pointed out, the clumsy errors allowing the malware to be so very EASILY traced back to "supposedly" Russia are beyond belief for any state-sponsored outfit, especially a Russian effort. ..."
"... Note that the user info for TWO BILLION Yahoo email accounts was stolen and they left no traces which then led the FBI to conclude that it must have been "state sponsored." ..."
"... We are left with two basic options. Either they are simply stupid or their is a larger agenda at hand. I don't believe they are stupid. They have been setting fires all around this election for months, none of them effective by themselves, but ALL reinforcing the general notion that Trump is unfit and illegitimate. ..."
"... I do not believe this is just random panic and hyperbole. They are "building" something. ..."
"... This is what is must have been like being a Soviet Citizen in 1989 or so. The official media was openly laughed at because its lies were so preposterous. ..."
"... Sadly, the JAR, as the Joint Analysis Report is called, does little to end the debate. Instead of providing smoking guns that the Russian government was behind specific hacks, it largely restates previous private-sector claims without providing any support for their validity. Even worse, it provides an effective bait and switch by promising newly declassified intelligence into Russian hackers' "tradecraft and techniques" and instead delivering generic methods carried out by just about all state-sponsored hacking groups." ..."
"... WORSE than "delivering generic methods carried out by just about all state-sponsored hacking groups." It should have said "by just about anyone using 'in the wild' malware tools." ..."
"... The Russians probably have a lot of information about USG employees, contractors, etc, via hacking, recording, etc than Wikileaks. But, as a general rule, intelligence agencies do not dump it into the public domain because you don't want a potential adversary know what you know about him lest he investigate and close off the means of obtaining that information. The leaks came from elsewhere. ..."
"... Smells like a "false flag" operation, like the USA/NATO Operation Gladio in Europe. ..."
"... McCain and the War Hawks have had it out for Russia for a long time, and the Neo-cons have been closing in on the borders of Russia for some time. What will be interesting is when Trump meets with the CIA/NSA et al. for intel briefings on the alleged hacking. Hopefully, Trump will bring along VP Pence, Mad Dog and the other Marine generals (appointees) for advice. I suspect that the "false flag" nature of the hacking excuse will be evident and revealed as the pretext for the Neo-con anti-Russia agenda moving forward. ..."
"... McCain is the real thug, and an interferer in foreign elections (Kiev) and seems to have no real scruples. ..."
"... After Victoria Nuland brags about the USA spending $5 billion to overthrow the elected Ukraine government, how these Russia-phobes have any credibility is beyond me. Just shows that the consolidation of the media into a few main propaganda outlets under Bill Clinton (who also brought the Neo-cons into foreign policy dominance) has reached its logical apex. The Swamp is indeed a stinking, Corrupt miasma. ..."
"... Russia a country of 170 million surrounded by NATO military bases and 800 million people in the EU and USA is the threat? The US alone spends 12 times as much on its military annually than Russia. It's not Russia invading and overthrowing secular governments in the Muslim world. ..."
"... If I remember correctly the CIA claimed their intelligence sources came from unspecified 'allies'. It seems rather crucial to establish who these allies actually are. If it were Germany that would be one thing, however it is more than likely to be the Ukraine. ..."
"... So if Obama had actually produced evidence that the Russians had hacked Hilary's illegal, unprotected email setup in her Chapaqua basement/closet how would that change the ***content*** of the emails? It wouldn't. ..."
"... Obama is failing to convince the world that Russia is a bunch of whistle blowers on his corrupt regime. All of the emails detailing corruption and fraud are true (unchallenged), however Obama wants to suggest they were obtained illegally from an illegal email server? That is Obama's bullshit defense for the corrupt behavior? ..."
Dec 30, 2016 | mishtalk.com

Yesterday, President Obama expelled 35 Russian "Operatives" from the Russian Embassy .

Is there any evidence those expelled are "intelligence operatives"? Any hard evidence Russia was behind the Hillary hacks? Any credible evidence that Putin himself is to blame?

The answers are No, No, and No. Yet, once again the American press is again asked to co-sign a dubious intelligence assessment.

... ... ....

Something Stinks

The Rolling Stone comments Something About This Russia Story Stinks

In an extraordinary development Thursday, the Obama administration announced a series of sanctions against Russia. Thirty-five Russian nationals will be expelled from the country. President Obama issued a terse statement seeming to blame Russia for the hack of the Democratic National Committee emails. "These data theft and disclosure activities could only have been directed by the highest levels of the Russian government," he wrote.

The problem with this story is that, like the Iraq-WMD mess, it takes place in the middle of a highly politicized environment during which the motives of all the relevant actors are suspect. Nothing quite adds up.

If the American security agencies had smoking-gun evidence that the Russians had an organized campaign to derail the U.S. presidential election and deliver the White House to Trump, then expelling a few dozen diplomats after the election seems like an oddly weak and ill-timed response. Voices in both parties are saying this now.

Republican Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham noted the "small price" Russia paid for its "brazen attack." The Democratic National Committee, meanwhile, said Thursday that taken alone, the Obama response is " insufficient " as a response to "attacks on the United States by a foreign power."

The "small price" is an eyebrow-raiser.

Adding to the problem is that in the last months of the campaign, and also in the time since the election, we've seen an epidemic of factually loose, clearly politically motivated reporting about Russia. Democrat-leaning pundits have been unnervingly quick to use phrases like "Russia hacked the election."

This has led to widespread confusion among news audiences over whether the Russians hacked the DNC emails (a story that has at least been backed by some evidence, even if it hasn't always been great evidence ), or whether Russians hacked vote tallies in critical states (a far more outlandish tale backed by no credible evidence ).

As noted in The Intercept and other outlets, an Economist/YouGov poll conducted this month shows that 50 percent of all Clinton voters believe the Russians hacked vote tallies.

And reports by some Democrat-friendly reporters – like Kurt Eichenwald, who has birthed some real head-scratchers this year, including what he admitted was a baseless claim that Trump spent time in an institution in 1990 – have attempted to argue that Trump surrogates may have been liaising with the Russians because they either visited Russia or appeared on the RT network. Similar reporting about Russian scheming has been based entirely on unnamed security sources.

Now we have this sanctions story, which presents a new conundrum. It appears that a large segment of the press is biting hard on the core allegations of electoral interference emanating from the Obama administration.

Did the Russians do it? Very possibly, in which case it should be reported to the max. But the press right now is flying blind.

Maybe the Russians did hack the DNC, but the WikiLeaks material actually came from someone else? There is even a published report to that effect, with a former British ambassador as a source, not that it's any more believable than anything else here.

We just don't know, which is the problem.

We ought to have learned from the Judith Miller episode. Not only do governments lie, they won't hesitate to burn news agencies. In a desperate moment, they'll use any sucker they can find to get a point across.

Where the Hell is the Evidence?

'I Can Guarantee You, It Was Not the Russians'

John McAfee, founder of the security firm McAfee Associates, says 'I Can Guarantee You, It Was Not the Russians' .

The Joint Analysis Report from the FBI contains an appendix that lists hundreds of IP addresses that were supposedly "used by Russian civilian and military intelligence services." While some of those IP addresses are from Russia, the majority are from all over the world, which means that the hackers constantly faked their location.

McAfee argues that the report is a "fallacy," explaining that hackers can fake their location, their language, and any markers that could lead back to them. Any hacker who had the skills to hack into the DNC would also be able to hide their tracks, he said

"If I was the Chinese and I wanted to make it look like the Russians did it, I would use Russian language within the code, I would use Russian techniques of breaking into the organization," McAfee said, adding that, in the end, "there simply is no way to assign a source for any attack."

Question of Patriotism

It's not patriotic to accept accusations as facts, given US history of lies, deceit, meddling, and wars.

Related

keepitsimple , December 30, 2016 1:41:03 at 1:41 PM
The gullibility and ignorance of the typical media lapdog is appalling, and whores like McCain and Graham will use them shamelessly to promote their twisted, warmongering agenda. The same old story, over and over again.
Bobdough , December 30, 2016 10:51:52 at 10:51 PM
Not gullibilty, but complicity
The_Fish , December 30, 2016 2:07:19 at 2:07 PM
I have a problem understanding why the powers that be can't understand the widening gap between their on podium statements and the average persons view. Are they hoping to brainwash, or really believe it, or just leaving a video record for posterity that might sway historical interpretation of the current time?

No problem if they deliver proof.

James Greenberg , December 30, 2016 6:30:47 at 6:30 PM
Read 1984. It will explain EVERYTHING.
The_Fish , December 30, 2016 7:05:07 at 7:05 PM
Net control very likely in Europe soon with public administration of the web/content. Might at least help reduce the unemployment rate. Looked over the 2016 Bilderberg attendees too. MSM attendees interesting vs political bias they exhibit.

Whoever thinks there aren't people behind the scenes with a plan is naive and woe betide anyone upsetting that plan.

Crysangle , December 30, 2016 8:56:05 at 8:56 PM
Unemployment rate read last refuge from the official economy. Not the alt. web that takes away motivation, it is a pressure valve for people who find the official direction nothing short of insulting. The majority of social media users won't be distracted.

Noticed zh on Italy for you if you had not picked it up

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-30/italy-urges-europe-begin-censoring-free-speech-internet

Michael G , December 31, 2016 9:53:11 at 9:53 AM
A little OT, but how many people realize that Israel (less than half the population of the former Palestine) has taken complete control of ALL water and has decreed that 3% of that water may be directed to the Palestinians!

Over ten million get running water for 12 hrs a week, while in Israel (borders move every day as the world says nothing) there are no water restrictions zero! So, while Palestinians struggle to live in hot barren desert conditions (food and medicine is also denied children die of treatable cancer often as medication is blocked), a 5 min drive away millions of gallons are used to create a green, lush paradise for the Jewish Masters!

Did you know US laws were changed in 1968 to allow "Dual Citizens" to be elected and appointed to government positions and today many of the top posts are citizens of Israel and America WTF?

Trump needs to make a daily dose of Red Pills the law

Michael G , December 31, 2016 9:58:31 at 9:58 AM
Oops the 10M fig is a bit high but it's at least double the Jewish population, yet they get 97% this is slow moving genocide yet it's never even acknowledged
Greg , December 30, 2016 2:07:48 at 2:07 PM
Syria is about gas pipelines. Corporations want to profit from the gas pipeline through the region and wr the people are supposed to send our children to war over it and pay taxes tpbsupport the effort. Rissia wants pipelines from their country under the Black sea and Irans pipelines to the north. The US is supporting Qatar pipeline and LNG from our own shores to the EU.
The_Fish , December 30, 2016 2:09:55 at 2:09 PM
Some rumours Obama to be considered for UN role and Cameron NATO.
Germ , December 30, 2016 2:13:34 at 2:13 PM
It's been said that on average Americans are like mushrooms – "Keep 'em in the dark and feed 'em shit!"
Winston , December 30, 2016 3:43:28 at 3:43 PM
"These data theft and disclosure activities could only have been directed by the highest levels of the Russian government," (Obama) wrote.

And THAT, from what I've read in OPEN literature (obviously) about what is known by our cyber threat intel community, read on tech sites, and seen on the outstanding documentary program CyberWar about the Eastern European hacking community, is a OUTRIGHT BLATANT LIE.

Note he avoided the phrase, "slam dunk"

Winston , December 30, 2016 3:52:29 at 3:52 PM
NOTE that he may actually believe that because that is what he may have been TOLD, just as Bush was told there were WMDs in Iraq, but as I've pointed out, the clumsy errors allowing the malware to be so very EASILY traced back to "supposedly" Russia are beyond belief for any state-sponsored outfit, especially a Russian effort.

Note that the user info for TWO BILLION Yahoo email accounts was stolen and they left no traces which then led the FBI to conclude that it must have been "state sponsored."

fingerhole , December 30, 2016 5:24:36 at 5:24 PM
Any government that claims a right to secrecy over its affairs is going to use lying as a policy.
Steven milgrom , December 30, 2016 4:17:51 at 4:17 PM
Snowden says that it is auite easy to trace the source of the hackers.
madashellowell , December 30, 2016 4:21:48 at 4:21 PM
We are left with two basic options. Either they are simply stupid or their is a larger agenda at hand. I don't believe they are stupid. They have been setting fires all around this election for months, none of them effective by themselves, but ALL reinforcing the general notion that Trump is unfit and illegitimate.

I do not believe this is just random panic and hyperbole. They are "building" something.

Fred Rogers , December 31, 2016 1:25:43 at 1:25 PM
Well, it is an established and accepted fact that Richard Nixon was a very intelligent guy. None of Nixon's detractors ever claimed he was stupid, and Nixon won reelection easily.

Tricky Dick was just a tad "honesty challenged", and so is Obama. They were/are both neo-keynesians, both took their sweet time ending stupid wars started by their predecessors even after it was clear the wars were pointless.

Then again, I doubt Obozo is as smart as Nixon. Soros is clearly the puppeteer controlling what Obama does. Soros is now freaking out that his fascist agenda has been exposed.

vooch , December 30, 2016 5:18:15 at 5:18 PM
This is what is must have been like being a Soviet Citizen in 1989 or so. The official media was openly laughed at because its lies were so preposterous.
Winston , December 30, 2016 5:24:35 at 5:24 PM
http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/12/did-russia-tamper-with-the-2016-election-bitter-debate-likely-to-rage-on/

Excerpt:

"While security companies in the private sector have said for months the hacking campaign was the work of people working for the Russian government, anonymous people tied to the leaks have claimed they are lone wolves. Many independent security experts said there was little way to know the true origins of the attacks.

Sadly, the JAR, as the Joint Analysis Report is called, does little to end the debate. Instead of providing smoking guns that the Russian government was behind specific hacks, it largely restates previous private-sector claims without providing any support for their validity. Even worse, it provides an effective bait and switch by promising newly declassified intelligence into Russian hackers' "tradecraft and techniques" and instead delivering generic methods carried out by just about all state-sponsored hacking groups."

WORSE than "delivering generic methods carried out by just about all state-sponsored hacking groups." It should have said "by just about anyone using 'in the wild' malware tools."

The_Fish , December 30, 2016 5:54:31 at 5:54 PM
2015 Bilderberg. Looking down the attendees and subjects covered. Interesting some of the main anti-Brexit groups had representatives there, suggests HC picked for 2016 US election, Cyber-security and etc. Look at the key topics. How they all helped define 2016. So many current intertwined themes.

Little people upset the apple-cart? http://www.globalresearch.ca/bilderberg-chooses-hillary-clinton-for-2016/5454829

wootendw , December 30, 2016 6:01:33 at 6:01 PM
"We just don't know "

The Russians probably have a lot of information about USG employees, contractors, etc, via hacking, recording, etc than Wikileaks. But, as a general rule, intelligence agencies do not dump it into the public domain because you don't want a potential adversary know what you know about him lest he investigate and close off the means of obtaining that information. The leaks came from elsewhere.

greg , December 30, 2016 9:09:50 at 9:09 PM
One of the leakers is dead, we know that.
joelg5 , December 30, 2016 6:35:45 at 6:35 PM
Smells like a "false flag" operation, like the USA/NATO Operation Gladio in Europe.

McCain and the War Hawks have had it out for Russia for a long time, and the Neo-cons have been closing in on the borders of Russia for some time. What will be interesting is when Trump meets with the CIA/NSA et al. for intel briefings on the alleged hacking. Hopefully, Trump will bring along VP Pence, Mad Dog and the other Marine generals (appointees) for advice. I suspect that the "false flag" nature of the hacking excuse will be evident and revealed as the pretext for the Neo-con anti-Russia agenda moving forward.

The CIA it is now widely believed was part of the Deep State behind the JFK assassination when JFK took an independent view, so Trump will need the USA Marines on his side. McCain is the real thug, and an interferer in foreign elections (Kiev) and seems to have no real scruples.

After Victoria Nuland brags about the USA spending $5 billion to overthrow the elected Ukraine government, how these Russia-phobes have any credibility is beyond me. Just shows that the consolidation of the media into a few main propaganda outlets under Bill Clinton (who also brought the Neo-cons into foreign policy dominance) has reached its logical apex. The Swamp is indeed a stinking, Corrupt miasma.

Perhaps the Clinton Foundation and nascent Obama foundation feel it in their financial interests to nurture the misma.

Cha-ching, cha-ching. Money to be made in demonizing Russia.

Ron J , December 31, 2016 12:32:19 at 12:32 PM
"The CIA it is now widely believed was part of the Deep State behind the JFK assassination when JFK took an independent view "

All the circumstantial evidence pointed to Oswald. No one has ever proven otherwise, in over 50 years.

After 50 years of being propagandized by conspiracy book writers, it isn't surprising that anything is widely believed at this point. The former curator of the 6th Floor Museum, Gary Mack, believed there was a conspiracy, but over time came to realize that it was Oswald, alone.

CJ , December 30, 2016 8:15:54 at 8:15 PM
When liberal Rolling Stone questions the Obama/DNC propaganda, you know for certain that they have lost even their base supporters (the ones that can still think). The BS has just gotten too stupid.
Truth seeker , December 30, 2016 9:32:32 at 9:32 PM
Why is the WSJ strongly supporting Obama here but also saying he waited way to long to make this move? I don't always agree with them nor do I with you.

Ok I haven't read the comments but would only say that when Vladimir Putin the once leader of the KGB becomes a preacher and starts criticizing the West for abandoning its Christian roots, it's moral dignity, that for me doesn't just stink, it raises red flags all over the place. I think Trump and some of the rest of u r being set up here-like lambs to the slaughter. Mish your naïveté here surprises me!

Bobdough , December 30, 2016 11:00:12 at 11:00 PM
The Russians are coming!

Russia a country of 170 million surrounded by NATO military bases and 800 million people in the EU and USA is the threat? The US alone spends 12 times as much on its military annually than Russia. It's not Russia invading and overthrowing secular governments in the Muslim world.

greg , December 30, 2016 9:52:15 at 9:52 PM
Germany takes back its gold from US. Finally, after the Fed Res refused an audit request. http://www.pravdareport.com/business/finance/27-12-2016/136521-gold-0/
Simon Hodges , December 31, 2016 7:57:09 at 7:57 AM
If I remember correctly the CIA claimed their intelligence sources came from unspecified 'allies'. It seems rather crucial to establish who these allies actually are. If it were Germany that would be one thing, however it is more than likely to be the Ukraine.

The Ukranian government have been trying to drive a wedge between the West and Russia for years for their own political advantage. If I was Trump then when I took office I would want an extremely thorough investigation into the activities of the CIA by a third reliable party.

Seenitallbefore , December 31, 2016 9:48:10 at 9:48 AM
Don't be stupid. The Russians did it. CNN reported it, so it must be true.
Winston , December 31, 2016 10:22:42 at 10:22 AM
Supporting -EXACTLY- the points I've previously made here: Russian Hackers Said To "Penetrate US Electricity Grid" Using Outdated Ukrainian Malware

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-31/russian-hackers-said-penetrate-us-electricity-grid-using-outdated-ukrainian-malware

Excerpt: But was it really Russian meddling? After all, how does one prove not only intent but source in a world of cyberespionage, where planting false flag clues and other Indicators of Compromise (IOCs) meant to frame a specific entity, is as important as the actual hack.

Robert M. Lee, CEO and founder of cybersecurity company Dragos, which specializes in threats facing critical infrastructure, also noted that the IOCs included "commodity malware," or hacking tools that are widely available for purchase.

He said:

1. No they did not penetrate the grid.
2. The IOCs contained *commodity malware* – can't attribute based off that alone.

Fred Rogers , December 31, 2016 1:09:53 at 1:09 PM
So if Obama had actually produced evidence that the Russians had hacked Hilary's illegal, unprotected email setup in her Chapaqua basement/closet how would that change the ***content*** of the emails? It wouldn't.

Obama is failing to convince the world that Russia is a bunch of whistle blowers on his corrupt regime. All of the emails detailing corruption and fraud are true (unchallenged), however Obama wants to suggest they were obtained illegally from an illegal email server? That is Obama's bullshit defense for the corrupt behavior?

And as "proportional retaliation" for this Russian whistle blowing, Obozo is evicting 35 entertainment staff from the Russian embassy summer camp?

I doubt Hollywood or San Francisco has the integrity to admit they backed the wrong loser when they supported Obozo but they should think about their own credibility after January 20th. Anyone who is still backing Obozo is just too stupid to tie their own shoes much less vote

[Dec 31, 2016] The last hissy fit of neocon Obama is probably connected with the loss of Alepo and being sidelined in Syria

Notable quotes:
"... I also think this is Obama's move to divert attention away from the cease fire in Syria. ..."
"... The Obama/media machine scores another hollow victory. Can't wait until this guy is out of office. ..."
"... The Obama administration should be thanking Russian efforts to end the war in Syria. We know the MIC wanted this civil war to go on for another decade. ..."
"... Oh for christ's sake, once again: There were no hacks, the emails were LEAKED! Probably by Democrats disgusted by the way Bernie was treated. ..."
"... All Americans should be alarmed that their country is now losing its edge in terms of the manipulation of other countries' electoral processes. This is "unprecedented". ..."
"... Red baiting won't close down the debate. There's still no evidence of Russian hacking of the US election. And fascism is shouting people down who ask for evidence and don't just follow the President because he is attacking the outsiders. Share Facebook Twitter TheControlLeft -> osprey1957 , 30 Dec 2016 21:12 It's preferable to the Obama brigades sponsorship of Islamic terrorism Share Facebook Twitter monsieur_flaneur , 30 Dec 2016 20:49 Obama, envisioning a spot on Mt Rushmore, exits a laughing stock. Ah well Share Janjii , 30 Dec 2016 20:54 Russia defeated the US in the Ukraine and recently it received an even harder blow Syria. Next think you know the US 'administration' makes a fool of itself by expelling 35 RF officials, who would have though that! Sad to see this beautiful continent is being compromised by someone's puppets in the white house. Nato is crumbling now that Turkey t-he gateway to the Balkans, the Caspian, to the Stannies- rethinks its ties with US/NATO and moves towards Russia. It is crumbling beacuse the world begins to understand that the rationale behind 'operation gladio' /strategy of tension is still ruling the US admin. We could do without NATO, and could use a US government supporting peace rather than an administration creating war. Even Germany starts to realize that, because of the abundance of US military bases in this country, Germany is in fact 'occupied territory', a US colony if you will. The USA has underestimated people on this planet who, as opposed to US politicians, were able to put current politics in a historical perspective. US policymakers took a part of Heidegger, Locke, Freud, Descartes and others without knowing their interpretations were at least incomplete. It results from the way in which US universities teach the discretized model of two extremes with the requirement of choosing one of these without putting both in one perspective: 'Descartes or Pascal' (not both as the French do); 'black or white'; 'with or against us'. The result Americans aimed for was a stable socio-political model, same with 'Neue Sozialismus'. What they obtained was a polarized world, because, a rigid stable model can only be governed by suppression (which the Military industrial Complex is currently doing) and we do not want that. Trump may lack political experience, he may be supported by a group of ideosyncratic wealthy people attracting bad press from 'regulated media'. Equal chance of Trump having a positive or negative effect on US internal and external policy-making, and on the relationship with RF. But, Trump has one advantage: the more the Obama 'administration' barks, the more support Trump will receive to change what Bush-Clinton-Obama have ruined for their electorates; the more to celebrate for the Russians on January 13. LMichelle -> Janjii , 30 Dec 2016 20:57 Bingo. This is not about the integrity of US elections. It's about being punked in Syria this week. The problems with the electoral process in the US were massive before 2016 and never received this many Presidential press conferences. Share ga gamba , 30 Dec 2016 20:55 The U.S. has a long history of attempting to influence presidential elections in other countries – it's done so as many as 81 times between 1946 and 2000, according to a database amassed by political scientist Dov Levin of Carnegie Mellon University. That number doesn't include military coups and regime change efforts following the election of candidates the U.S. didn't like, notably those in Iran, Guatemala and Chile. Nor does it include general assistance with the electoral process, such as election monitoring. [...] In 59% of these cases, the side that received assistance came to power, although Levin estimates the average effect of "partisan electoral interventions" to be only about a 3% increase in vote share. ( Source ) I understand why some may find outside interference objectionable, but I reckon many of those who think so fail to recognise America's far-from-faultless behaviour. Curses are like chickens; they always come home to roost. Of course had the DNC leadership and the Clinton camp behaved ethically in the primary by not conspiring to tip the scale in Clinton's favour, the hack would have found nothing. What we have now is Obama forced to divert the public attention because of yet another messy scandal Hillary finds herself involved in. Clinton must be one of the most blessed people on earth; everyone bends over backwards to accommodate her ambitions. Paull01 -> ga gamba , 30 Dec 2016 21:18 Please provide an example of a political party behaving ethically during an election campaign? You reckon the republicans weren't trying to tip the scales away from Donny? Also, Clinton lost despite getting way more votes so Donny will be president and it is pointless to continue to indulge in bashing Hillary, she is now just another elderly lady enjoying her golden years. Share Facebook Twitter europeangrayling -> ga gamba , 30 Dec 2016 21:23 Also the CIA-Belgian assassination of Lamumba in 61, Congo's first democratically elected president, for the same 'geopolitical' aka 'big business' reasons as the overthrow of Mossadegh in Iran in 53, who wanted the nationalize Iranian oil for their people, and Lumumba had similar 'socialist' ideas for all the vast Congolese resources. To cut out the western business interests. And think how well the Congo has fared since, one of the worst, saddest places, chaos, civil war, more dead than in Rwanda or anywhere I think. They have not recovered from that. And Iran, they were democratic, secular, elected a guy like Mossadegh, they were 'European', but the the US and Britain overthrew him on behest of British-US oil interests, installed the Shah, their puppet dictator, and the blow-back was the Iranian religious right-wing revolution and dictatorship some 20 years later. And now the Iranian people and our 'foreign policy' are suffering. And all these US and CIA 'activities' the government had admitted and declassified, like the Gulf of Tonkin lie and false flag in Vietnam, because it was so long ago nobody cares, so it's no 'conspiracy' here, just history. But now these Clinton Democrats they really love and trust anything the CIA says, of course, they are big patriots now, and call people unpatriotic and foreign agents if they question the so honorable CIA, because they are on Hillary's side now. And the CIA in cahoots with Bush and Cheney also told us how there were these big, scary WMDs in Iraq, and mushroom clouds, and how Saddam had links with Al Qaida, all obvious lies, that any amateur who knew basic world history could tell you even then. And speaking of 'meddling', and overthrowing democratic governments, the US did the same under Obama and Hillary in Honduras just a few years ago, backed the violent coup of a democratic leftist government there, and they still refuse to call it a coup, and have legitimized the new corrupt and violent regime, are training their army, etc. Even though the EU and the US ambassador to Honduras called it a coup at the time. And for the same reasons, that leftist government didn't want to play ball with big US and western 'business interests', energy companies, didn't want to sell them their rivers and resources like the new 'good' regime now. And since that coup, 100s of indigenous activists and environmentalists have been killed, like Berta Caceres, and the violence and corruption has gone up big time under the new regime, with 1000s more killed 'in general'. Yet Obama is so concerned about 'the integrity of democracy' and elections and freedom and all that, what a nice guy. fanUS , 30 Dec 2016 20:58 The real question that Americans should be asking why Barack Obummer failed again to provide security in case of hacking Democrat's emails? Clinton did not deny that emails published by WikiLeaks were genuine. That is called freedom of press. What's wrong with public finding the truth about Clinton? Share Not4TheFaintOfHeart , 30 Dec 2016 20:59 Why would Russia be happy that Clinton lost? Why would any foreign power be happy that Clinton lost?... How many years did HRC, in her arrogance-fuelled denial, provide foreign intelligences with literally tonnes of free info??! Share furiouspurpose , 30 Dec 2016 21:03 Trump might therefore be expected to simply end the Obama sanctions. .... But if he did choose to do so, he would find himself at odds with his own party. Trump is exactly where he is today because he attacked that same party. He called bullshit on the Bush's claims to have made the US safer and called bullshit on the idea that Iraq was something that we should still do in hindsight. He trashed the idea of free trade and TTIP - another Republican shibboleth. He refused to go down the standard Republican route of trashing social security... ..."
"... All he needs to do is call bullshit on this 'evidence' of Russian hacking and remind everyone that it wasn't Russians who manned the planes on 9/11. Trump is a oafish clown - but he's not a standard politician playing standard politics. He can shrug off this oh-so-clever manoeuvre by Obama with no trouble. ..."
Dec 31, 2016 | www.theguardian.com
On Friday, the Kremlin responded to the moves, including the expulsion of 35 suspected intelligence operatives and the closing of two Russian facilities in the US, with a shrug. Putin, it seems, is willing simply to wait until Trump moves into the Oval Office. Trump's tweet suggested he is too.

But such provocative words could not distract the media and public from another domestic concern for Trump – the growing perception that his predecessor has acted to his disadvantage .

"The sanctions were clearly an attempt by the Obama administration to throw a wrench into – or [to] box in – the next administration's relationship with Russia," said Boris Zilberman, a Russia expert at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

"Putin, in part, saw through that and sidestepped it by playing good cop to [Russian foreign minister Sergey] Lavrov and the [state] Duma, who were calling for a reciprocal response."

rocjoc43rd, 30 Dec 2016 19:38

I also think this is Obama's move to divert attention away from the cease fire in Syria. There the US has been supporting all these groups, flying air missions and dropping special forces in Syria for years now, and the US has no seat at the table of the cease fire negotiations.

That should be very embarrassing for the US, but it apparently is not, because all the media wants to talk about are these sanctions, which seem pretty trivial to me.

The Obama/media machine scores another hollow victory. Can't wait until this guy is out of office.

stormsinteacups , 30 Dec 2016 19:38
Still no proof of any meddling by the Russians. Only a last gasp attempt by a weak president in what is starting to look like a boys against men tussle with Putin. Add the Syria ceasefire brokered by Turkey and Putin to this to show how Obama is being outmaneuvered at every turn.
Sad to see what a far cry from Obama the candidate Obama the president has turned out to be.
gandalfsunderpants , 30 Dec 2016 19:41
Action makes propaganda's effect irreversible. He who acts in obedience to propaganda can never go back. He is now obliged to believe in that propaganda because of his past action. He is obliged to receive from it his justification and authority, without which his action will seem to him absurd or unjust, which would be intolerable. He is obliged to continue to advance in the direction indicated by propaganda, for action demands more action.
Jacques Ellul:
Friday Night Beers , 30 Dec 2016 19:43
Obama just got dissed big time by Putin. What an inglorious end to an inglorious eight years.
jamie smith -> Friday Night Beers , 30 Dec 2016 19:47
An inglorious bastarde!
DogsLivesMatter -> Friday Night Beers , 30 Dec 2016 20:05
The Obama administration should be thanking Russian efforts to end the war in Syria. We know the MIC wanted this civil war to go on for another decade.
MacCosham , 30 Dec 2016 19:44
Oh for christ's sake, once again: There were no hacks, the emails were LEAKED! Probably by Democrats disgusted by the way Bernie was treated.

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/12/cias-absence-conviction/

PS once you are there, read everything else Craig Murray has written there. This is the ambassador HM government fired for daring to speak out against the Uzbek government's human rights abuses. Share

Yer Man -> MacCosham , 30 Dec 2016 19:57
No, no, you see you just put the word "consensus" before a pathetically transparent lie and then apparently it magically becomes evidence based and well sourced...
PanopticonPlanet , 30 Dec 2016 19:45
All Americans should be alarmed that their country is now losing its edge in terms of the manipulation of other countries' electoral processes. This is "unprecedented".

Where previously we had implemented such actions ourselves without fear of reciprocation we should be concerned that we are no longer immune to such machinations by other states. These events may represent a turning point as regards our accepted global hegemony.

Tribal War -> PanopticonPlanet , 30 Dec 2016 19:52
USA hacks
USA spies
USA interferes with foreign regimes
USA is number 1 bully and hypocrite

The damn cheek of Russian hack spies interfering with US election and setting them up with an idiot Share Facebook Twitter

brianboru1014 , 30 Dec 2016 19:47
Obama has been anti-Russia long before Trump came into the picture.
This article is more of a wish list than anything else.
We are told by 'experts' that 'There is now a public record of what Russia did'

Where is it? I would love to see this.
I do know that the 2 countries that carry out most cyber attacks in the world are the US and it's main ally in the Middle East. Just ask the Iranians what they did. Share

Think Clear -> brianboru1014 , 30 Dec 2016 20:00
I think all American presidents are anti Russian. Sounds like you was born 2005 or you just doing your British citizenship. You don't know much so read this Life in the uk test Share Facebook Twitter
MaryLeone Sullivan -> brianboru1014 , 30 Dec 2016 20:02
Ask Britain for their MI6 files on Russia. See how far you get with that. Share Facebook Twitter
UralMan -> brianboru1014 , 30 Dec 2016 20:13

We are told by 'experts' that 'There is now a public record of what Russia did'

Where is it? I would love to see this.

Whaaat!? You don't believe the most democratic democrats on their word? Share Facebook Twitter

Leucocephalus , 30 Dec 2016 19:48
Obama complaining about Russian influence in American elections.

Last time I've checked it was Mr. Obama that warned British people against Brexit, wasn't? What about the deposition of an ELECTED president in Ukraine with their support of Obama and EU? Let's talk also about regime changes in Syria, Lybia and Egypt undertaken under Obama's administration? Perhaps we could also remember that Obama's agencies spied 3 million of Spanyards, Merkel, Dilma Rousseff (Brazilian President) and so on... WHAT A HIPOCRISY, OBAMA!!!! Share

mtkass -> Leucocephalus , 30 Dec 2016 20:07
You have hit the nail on the head on all your points. But America and especially the American military needs a boogy man to justify the trillions of dollars of American tax payer money they request to keep their military empire going. Imagine if there was no boogy man and the conclusion was to half the American military to a size only equal to the next 6 largest militarys instead of the present 13. Incidentally, most of the next largest militarys are allies of the United States.

This whole kerfuffle about Russian hacking has the stink of shooting the messenger. What about concentrating on what was in the leaked e-mails. They showed a high level of deep corruption in the DNC. That is the importance of the hacked e-mails. Whoever hacked and released them to the American public has done the America public a great favor. If Wasserman Shultz in cohoots with Hillary had not swung the primaries in favor of Hillary and if Obama had remembered that the constitution says the government is for the people and by the people (the peoples choice was by a huge margin for Bernie) and come out for Bernie, we wouldn't be in the CF we are in right now. I thought Obama is a constitutional lawyer. So much for the constitution. The only statesman in this mess is Putin. Thank heaven for his level headedness. The American pronouncements have the stink of the build up to another false flag operation (the CIA revelations themselves are probably a false flag operation). I hope Putin can keep his 'cool' in the face of American provocation.

DogsLivesMatter -> Deeptank , 30 Dec 2016 20:03
May he take John McCain, Mitch McConnell and Lindsey "I do declare" Graham with him.....please? Share Facebook Twitter
Georwell , 30 Dec 2016 19:51
Obama:

Check , haha --

Putin - Check&Mate --

HoHo, and Happy New Year little duck -- Share Facebook Twitter

vgnych , 30 Dec 2016 19:57
It starts to look as if Putin and Trump wipe their shoes on Obama at this point, and it is Obama who asked for it. Embarrassing. Share Facebook Twitter
SallyWa , 30 Dec 2016 20:00
I've read Guardian's article on Russia's response to Obama's tantrum. Yep, it's clear why Obama lost to Russians and can't cope with it. Now use your own advice, Barry. Go to the back of the queue. Share Facebook Twitter
DogsLivesMatter , 30 Dec 2016 20:02
They were gossipy emails ffs. If that was all it took for H. Clinton to lose to Trump, then the Democrats really need to do an autopsy on itself. Or, here's a thought, VISIT the states where you need the support to win. This is becoming soooooo boring! Share Facebook Twitter
Huddsblue , 30 Dec 2016 20:03
Well what a spiteful, petty like man this Obama has turned out to be! This is the first time his side hasn't 'won' and he can't take it so throws his toys out the pram and risks further souring relationships with the East. Thank goodness Putin rose above it. Share Facebook Twitter
ID1516963 -> Huddsblue , 30 Dec 2016 20:10
Ha! Obama has obviously nothing to lose and decided to make hay in the limited time he has. More mischief making. Love it. Share Facebook Twitter
irenka_irina , 30 Dec 2016 20:06
Few words left.....the future presidency and its administration is an absolute farce....a 'free for all' for Trump and his cronies. Watch the rich get even richer and the poor get screwed. America chose....they have to deal with it.
Unfortunately for those of us who aren't are going to be screwed as well. Lack of tact and ignorance of diplomacy could ignite a power keg. Share Facebook Twitter
Huddsblue -> irenka_irina , 30 Dec 2016 20:07
That was the Obama administration you've just described in a nutshell. Share Facebook Twitter
SeekAndYouShallFind -> dutchcanadian , 30 Dec 2016 20:40
The problem is no one trusts the agencies you mentioned anymore based on their past record....

As regards the FBI being no friend of the democrats, didn't they just let her off for storing thousands of classified emails on a private server?
Besides, the whole world knows that the US have been sponsoring changes of Govs around the world so it comes across as completely hypocritical.

This appears to be a smokescreen for numerous embarrassing issues relating to the election & foreign policy.

For the record, I'm not a putin bot or fan if DT. So tired of the same old hackie responses to anyone who questions the narrative. It's getting really boring. Share

BG Davis , 30 Dec 2016 20:12
"Obama's Russia sanctions: an attempt to tie Donald Trump in knots ".... Facebook Twitter
voice__of__reason , 30 Dec 2016 20:13
This just shows the real character of Obama. Queering the pitch for Trump and the incoming administration. But well done Putin for sidestepping. Clever. Much smarter than Obama. In the end lawyers make bad Presidents and bad Prime Ministers. Share
TheChillZone , 30 Dec 2016 20:15
Bit of a pot-kettle interface going on here. America leads the way in the hacking of public servers around the world and spying on friend and enemy alike. Not long ago the CIA tapped into Angela Merkel's mobile phone and I don't remember the same level of public outcry. Seems like America is affronted that Russia and others are now doing what the US has done for years. And if it is in fact the Russians - proof not yet forthcoming - this wasn't a hack into the electoral system at all; it was a simple phishing email that the US officials were silly enough to click onto the link.
And finally - what eventually was released was the truth. Clinton was favoured by the DNC, she did say those things to Goldman Sachs, a CNN reporter did provide her with the questions before the presidential debates. The truth is that the US elections were corrupted, but not by the Russians - the culprits lie a little closer to home.
Harry Bhai , 30 Dec 2016 20:22
Obama tried to corner Russia, and almost all GOP lawmakers applauded Obama's action. Called it was well overdue. But our smart president-elect comforted crying Putin right away by calling him a smart man for not taking any actions. It is becoming more and more clear that Trump and Putin are made for each other. I think Trump is keeping Putin on his side to take air out of overinflated Chinese balloon. May be he was advised by his team. No one knows his game plan. Share
Burnaby1000 , 30 Dec 2016 20:28
This shows Putin's strengths and weaknesses.

He is a great tactician. It certainly makes Obama look less threatening.

But he is a horrible strategist. A good strategy doesn't surprise. It makes plain to one's opponent that things will only get worse--and one had better accommodate sooner rather than later. It was at the heart of Reagan's strategy, which destroyed the SU.

And this is exactly the situation that Putin faces with or without sanctions. The renewed fracking is going to keep oil and gas at lows not seen since the 90s. What was interesting was that even Putin's stooge in the UK, Krassnov, said that Russia faced a very dire economic future. Whatever Trump does, few Republicans are going to be accommodating after:

1) Crimea and Donbass
2) Blasting Aleppo to smithereens
3) Trying to throw the US election

The latter is an existential threat to every lawmaker, and they are hopping mad at the thought that it could happen again.

Ironically, Putin is proving ever more clearly that Obama should have used air power in 2013, as Putin has done in 2016.

It is a lesson that will not be lost on a Republican Congress.

That hates Putin's guts.

SeekAndYouShallFind -> Burnaby1000 , 30 Dec 2016 20:59
1) situation caused by US Newland causing havoc in Ukraine by spending millions on regime change.
2) caused by US arming terrorists
3) lol - no serious person believes the Reds had any influence. It was the candidate. (If interference in someone else's election was an international crime, the US would be in the dock every 6 months!)

The fool trump cannot do any worse than what's been occurring the last 15 years! Wars, invasions, terrorist support and dossiers on mythical WMDs! It's been a disaster. US foreign policy is heavily influenced by the CFR. He won't have a say in it. They will continue in the same diabolical fashion.

Happy New Year!

flabbotamus , 30 Dec 2016 20:32
Nearly 40 years ago , at the h
flabbotamus , 30 Dec 2016 20:32
Nearly 40 years ago , at the height of the cold war when I joined up to serve my country, never did i dream the day would come when I had more respect for the leader of Russia than a president of the USA and that I would have more faith in the Russian media than our own fake media.

That's what 40 years of liberalism does i guess. Share Facebook Twitter

TyroneBHorneigh -> flabbotamus , 30 Dec 2016 20:38
40 years of Neo-liberalism. Share Facebook Twitter
Sparky Patriot , 30 Dec 2016 20:37
Not content with merely stealing the silverware, BO is intent on causing as much mischief as possible before being booted out of the White House, but the Russians are not falling for it. They will be dealing with Donald Trump in a few weeks, and there is no need to respond to Barry's diaper baby antics.
I'm sure the Russians are hacking our internet systems, but the DNC emails that went to WikiLeaks did not come from them. The content, outlining Podesta's plan to discredit Bernie supporters by falsely tying them to violent acts, would indicate that a disgruntled and disgusted DNC employee was more likely the source. Share
Nick Richardson , 30 Dec 2016 20:40
Of course everyone on here decrying Obama's actions knows far more and understands the cyber-attacks/election interference issue far better than the combined resources and considered judgement of the US intelligence community.
Of course you do. Goes without saying, all you have to do is cite an example of incompetence or malfeasance by US intelligence agencies in the past and you rest your case.
Or maybe it's like parents who can't accept their child has been a bully or a general shit at school. If you are a fan of the Trump-Putin axis you'll go through any self-deceiving contortions necessary to avoid accepting reality.
Stop defending the indefensible. It happened, Obama acted (albeit slowly) and now Trump quite properly will be expected to justify any softening of position.
Yer Man -> Nick Richardson , 30 Dec 2016 21:29
They've told us nothing. They are known repeat liars.
Only question is, why do you take them at their word and nothing further? Share Facebook Twitter
raharu -> Nick Richardson , 30 Dec 2016 21:34
Talking about self-deceiving contortions while performing your own mental gymnastics. It's quite a show.
You say "stop defending the indefensible", while waving away any past instances of malfeasance by US intelligence agencies in the past. To be explicit: yes, that includes meddling in other countries' political affairs. Share Facebook Twitter
HollyOldDog -> asiancelt , 30 Dec 2016 21:37
It is of course impossible as the USA has the most and claimed most advanced spying network on the planet. It totally surrounds both friends and foes alike - with such technical ability the only country who could spy and influence (e.g. arm twisting Merkal is a prime example) on any country at will is the 'exceptional ' US Government.
geofffrey , 30 Dec 2016 20:42
Appears suspiciously likely that Obama is just bitter that his legacy is about to be dumped in the nearest skip on Jan 20, and wants to make trouble for Trump during his last 3 weeks in office.

Hard to see how Putin could have engineered Hillary Clinton's defeat, given she won the popular vote by 3 million.

Also Obama is extremely hypocritical as the CIA has repeatedly interfered in the affairs of other countries over the past 60 years.

I hope Trump and Putin become buddies. Share

furiouspurpose , 30 Dec 2016 20:42

On Thursday, the Arizona senator John McCain and South Carolina senator Lindsey Graham said in a joint statement: "The retaliatory measures announced by the Obama administration today are long overdue.

That's all I needed to know. If lunatic war monger John McCain wants to ratchet up the tension with a nuclear power - then it is very wise to do the opposite. Share

furiouspurpose -> osprey1957 , 30 Dec 2016 21:10
Red baiting won't close down the debate. There's still no evidence of Russian hacking of the US election.

And fascism is shouting people down who ask for evidence and don't just follow the President because he is attacking the outsiders. Share Facebook Twitter

TheControlLeft -> osprey1957 , 30 Dec 2016 21:12
It's preferable to the Obama brigades sponsorship of Islamic terrorism Share Facebook Twitter
monsieur_flaneur , 30 Dec 2016 20:49
Obama, envisioning a spot on Mt Rushmore, exits a laughing stock. Ah well Share
Janjii , 30 Dec 2016 20:54
Russia defeated the US in the Ukraine and recently it received an even harder blow Syria. Next think you know the US 'administration' makes a fool of itself by expelling 35 RF officials, who would have though that!

Sad to see this beautiful continent is being compromised by someone's puppets in the white house. Nato is crumbling now that Turkey t-he gateway to the Balkans, the Caspian, to the Stannies- rethinks its ties with US/NATO and moves towards Russia. It is crumbling beacuse the world begins to understand that the rationale behind 'operation gladio' /strategy of tension is still ruling the US admin. We could do without NATO, and could use a US government supporting peace rather than an administration creating war. Even Germany starts to realize that, because of the abundance of US military bases in this country, Germany is in fact 'occupied territory', a US colony if you will.

The USA has underestimated people on this planet who, as opposed to US politicians, were able to put current politics in a historical perspective. US policymakers took a part of Heidegger, Locke, Freud, Descartes and others without knowing their interpretations were at least incomplete. It results from the way in which US universities teach the discretized model of two extremes with the requirement of choosing one of these without putting both in one perspective: 'Descartes or Pascal' (not both as the French do); 'black or white'; 'with or against us'. The result Americans aimed for was a stable socio-political model, same with 'Neue Sozialismus'. What they obtained was a polarized world, because, a rigid stable model can only be governed by suppression (which the Military industrial Complex is currently doing) and we do not want that.

Trump may lack political experience, he may be supported by a group of ideosyncratic wealthy people attracting bad press from 'regulated media'. Equal chance of Trump having a positive or negative effect on US internal and external policy-making, and on the relationship with RF. But, Trump has one advantage: the more the Obama 'administration' barks, the more support Trump will receive to change what Bush-Clinton-Obama have ruined for their electorates; the more to celebrate for the Russians on January 13.

LMichelle -> Janjii , 30 Dec 2016 20:57
Bingo. This is not about the integrity of US elections. It's about being punked in Syria this week.
The problems with the electoral process in the US were massive before 2016 and never received this many Presidential press conferences. Share
ga gamba , 30 Dec 2016 20:55
The U.S. has a long history of attempting to influence presidential elections in other countries – it's done so as many as 81 times between 1946 and 2000, according to a database amassed by political scientist Dov Levin of Carnegie Mellon University.

That number doesn't include military coups and regime change efforts following the election of candidates the U.S. didn't like, notably those in Iran, Guatemala and Chile. Nor does it include general assistance with the electoral process, such as election monitoring. [...]

In 59% of these cases, the side that received assistance came to power, although Levin estimates the average effect of "partisan electoral interventions" to be only about a 3% increase in vote share. ( Source )

I understand why some may find outside interference objectionable, but I reckon many of those who think so fail to recognise America's far-from-faultless behaviour. Curses are like chickens; they always come home to roost.

Of course had the DNC leadership and the Clinton camp behaved ethically in the primary by not conspiring to tip the scale in Clinton's favour, the hack would have found nothing. What we have now is Obama forced to divert the public attention because of yet another messy scandal Hillary finds herself involved in. Clinton must be one of the most blessed people on earth; everyone bends over backwards to accommodate her ambitions.

Paull01 -> ga gamba , 30 Dec 2016 21:18
Please provide an example of a political party behaving ethically during an election campaign? You reckon the republicans weren't trying to tip the scales away from Donny?

Also, Clinton lost despite getting way more votes so Donny will be president and it is pointless to continue to indulge in bashing Hillary, she is now just another elderly lady enjoying her golden years. Share Facebook Twitter

europeangrayling -> ga gamba , 30 Dec 2016 21:23
Also the CIA-Belgian assassination of Lamumba in 61, Congo's first democratically elected president, for the same 'geopolitical' aka 'big business' reasons as the overthrow of Mossadegh in Iran in 53, who wanted the nationalize Iranian oil for their people, and Lumumba had similar 'socialist' ideas for all the vast Congolese resources. To cut out the western business interests. And think how well the Congo has fared since, one of the worst, saddest places, chaos, civil war, more dead than in Rwanda or anywhere I think. They have not recovered from that.

And Iran, they were democratic, secular, elected a guy like Mossadegh, they were 'European', but the the US and Britain overthrew him on behest of British-US oil interests, installed the Shah, their puppet dictator, and the blow-back was the Iranian religious right-wing revolution and dictatorship some 20 years later. And now the Iranian people and our 'foreign policy' are suffering.

And all these US and CIA 'activities' the government had admitted and declassified, like the Gulf of Tonkin lie and false flag in Vietnam, because it was so long ago nobody cares, so it's no 'conspiracy' here, just history. But now these Clinton Democrats they really love and trust anything the CIA says, of course, they are big patriots now, and call people unpatriotic and foreign agents if they question the so honorable CIA, because they are on Hillary's side now.
And the CIA in cahoots with Bush and Cheney also told us how there were these big, scary WMDs in Iraq, and mushroom clouds, and how Saddam had links with Al Qaida, all obvious lies, that any amateur who knew basic world history could tell you even then.

And speaking of 'meddling', and overthrowing democratic governments, the US did the same under Obama and Hillary in Honduras just a few years ago, backed the violent coup of a democratic leftist government there, and they still refuse to call it a coup, and have legitimized the new corrupt and violent regime, are training their army, etc. Even though the EU and the US ambassador to Honduras called it a coup at the time.

And for the same reasons, that leftist government didn't want to play ball with big US and western 'business interests', energy companies, didn't want to sell them their rivers and resources like the new 'good' regime now. And since that coup, 100s of indigenous activists and environmentalists have been killed, like Berta Caceres, and the violence and corruption has gone up big time under the new regime, with 1000s more killed 'in general'. Yet Obama is so concerned about 'the integrity of democracy' and elections and freedom and all that, what a nice guy.

fanUS , 30 Dec 2016 20:58
The real question that Americans should be asking why Barack Obummer failed again to provide security in case of hacking Democrat's emails?

Clinton did not deny that emails published by WikiLeaks were genuine.
That is called freedom of press.
What's wrong with public finding the truth about Clinton? Share

Not4TheFaintOfHeart , 30 Dec 2016 20:59
Why would Russia be happy that Clinton lost? Why would any foreign power be happy that Clinton lost?...
How many years did HRC, in her arrogance-fuelled denial, provide foreign intelligences with literally tonnes of free info??! Share
furiouspurpose , 30 Dec 2016 21:03

Trump might therefore be expected to simply end the Obama sanctions. .... But if he did choose to do so, he would find himself at odds with his own party.

Trump is exactly where he is today because he attacked that same party. He called bullshit on the Bush's claims to have made the US safer and called bullshit on the idea that Iraq was something that we should still do in hindsight. He trashed the idea of free trade and TTIP - another Republican shibboleth. He refused to go down the standard Republican route of trashing social security...

All he needs to do is call bullshit on this 'evidence' of Russian hacking and remind everyone that it wasn't Russians who manned the planes on 9/11. Trump is a oafish clown - but he's not a standard politician playing standard politics. He can shrug off this oh-so-clever manoeuvre by Obama with no trouble.

[Dec 29, 2016] One thing lost in all the hullabaloo about Russian hacks is that the Obama administration's record on cyber security has been terrible.

Dec 29, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
Reply ↓ cocomaan , December 28, 2016 at 9:29 am

One thing lost in all the hullabaloo about Russian hacks is that the Obama administration's record on cyber security has been terrible. Off the top of my head I can think of several compromising cases:

* Anything having to do with HRC's bathroom server, of course
* The Sony hack that Obama said was North Korea, but other experts say was probably just Trump's 400 lb fat guy on a bed.
* The alleged Chinese hacking of OPM
* And undoubtedly the "CYBER 911!!" of the alleged Russian interference in the election.

I don't see anyone talking about the fact that cyber infrastructure looks like it's been hit by birdshot. All the while, Obama's intelligence teams are mining information on Americans as extralegally as possible.

[Dec 29, 2016] The neoliberal MSM narrative that it is a well established fact that Russia influenced US election is nonsense.

Dec 29, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
sanjait -> DeDude... , December 28, 2016 at 06:26 PM
"Russia tampered with vote tallies to help Donald Trump"

Yeah, that seems like a clear statement, but when you consider that the vast majority of people do not habitually read closely and interpret things literally, I can see how this would easily be misinterpreted.

Russia tampered with the election to help Donald Trump. That's a fairly well established fact. It's not the same as "tampered with vote tallies" but an inattentive poll respondent might assume the question was about the former. And most people are inattentive.

likbez -> sanjait... December 28, 2016 at 09:40 PM , 2016 at 09:40 PM
Sanjait,

"Russia tampered with the election to help Donald Trump. That's a fairly well established fact."

You are funny. Especially with your "well established fact" nonsense.

In such cases the only source of well established facts is a court of law or International observers of the elections. All other agencies have their own interest in distorting the truth. For example, to get additional funding.

And that list includes President Obama himself, as a player, because he clearly was a Hillary supporter and as such can not be considered an impartial player and can politically benefit from shifting the blame for fiasco to Russia.

Also historically, he never was very truthful with American people, was he? As in case of his
"Change we can believe in!" bait and switch trick.

There were several other important foreign players in the US elections: for example KAS and Israel. Were their actions investigated? Especially in the area of financial support of candidates.

And then FYI there is a documented history of US tampering in Russian Presidential election of 2011-2012 such as meetings of the US ambassador with the opposition leaders, financing of opposition via NGO, putting pressure by publishing election pools produced by US financed non-profits, and so on and so forth. All in the name of democracy, of course. Which cost Ambassador McFaul his position; NED was kicked out of the country.

As far as I remember nobody went to jail in the USA for those activities. There was no investigation. So it looks like the USA authorities considered this to be a pretty legal activity. Then why they complain now?

And then there is the whole rich history of CIA subverting elections in Latin America.

So is not this a case of "the pot calling the kettle black"?

I don't know. But I would avoid your simplistic position. The case is too complex for this.

At least more complex that the narrative the neoliberal MSMs try to present us with. It might be Russian influence was a factor, but it might be that it was negligible and other factors were in play. There is also a pre-history and there are other suspects.

You probably need to see a wider context of the event.

[Dec 28, 2016] Americans Want Foreign-Policy Restraint

Dec 28, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com
The poll found that, when asked whether increasing or decreasing America's military presence abroad would make the country safer, 45 percent of respondents chose a reduction in military activity, while 31 percent favored increasing it (while 24 percent didn't know). Asked if there should be more U.S. democracy promotion abroad or less, 40 percent said less, while 31 said more (with 29 percent not sure).

The poll overall seemed to suggest Americans favor a smaller U.S. footprint abroad than we have seen in recent years. Fully 55 percent of respondents opposed deployment of U.S. troops to Syria, compared to 23 percent who favored it (and 23 percent who weren't sure). A plurality of 35 percent opposed the idea of a greater U.S. military presence in the Middle East, while 22 percent favored it and 29 percent favored no change.

But the poll also indicated the American people don't want to retreat from the world into any kind of isolationism. A plurality of 40 percent favored increased military spending compared to 32 percent who wanted to keep it constant and 17 percent who favored reductions.

And the poll suggested Americans view China with a certain wariness. Asked if China should be viewed as a U.S. ally, 93 percent said no. But a like number-89 percent-said China should not be viewed as an enemy either. Some 42 percent favored the term competitor.

[Dec 28, 2016] The Empire Strikes Back The MSMs 3-Point Plan To Recapture The Narrative

Notable quotes:
"... Secondly , a meme has been invented about so-called "Fake News," which will be used to shut down dissident media outlets. ..."
Dec 28, 2016 | www.unz.com
Some perspective: For most of human history, power was rooted in possession of land. After the Industrial Revolution , power lay in controlling in the means of production. But today, the main source of power is control of information.

Having the power to control information (what Steve Sailer calls The Megaphone ) gives you the ability to determine what issues will be discussed, what viewpoints are considered legitimate, and who is allowed to participate in polite society. It ultimately allows you to push an entire code of morality on others. And morality is, ultimately, a weapon more terrible than can be found in any arsenal [ Weaponized Morality , by Gregory Hood, Radix, October 12, 2016].

The 2016 election was ultimately a battle between the commanding heights of media (newspapers, networks, and web portals) and what we could call the guerillas of media (/pol, forums, hackers, right wing trolls , and independent media outlets like us). The latter lacked power on their own, but they united behind Donald Trump, a man whose brand was so well-established that the Establishment couldn't ignore him. It was Fourth Generation Warfare –this time over information.

And just as guerillas have been frustrating established armies all around the world on real-world battlefields, so did the online commandos frustrate and eventually overcome the seemingly invincible Fourth Estate.

But this victory wasn't inevitable. From day one, the MSM tried to destroy Donald Trump , including his business empire, because of his stated views on immigration.

Since that failed, they have started turning on his supporters with three tactics.

Soon after the election, the Leftist Think Progress blog announced that the Alt Right should only be called "white nationalist" or "white supremacist". [ Think Progress will no longer describe racists as "alt-right" , November 22, 2016] The AP dutifully echoed this pronouncement days later, warning journalists not to use the term and instead to stick to pejoratives. [ AP issues guidelines for using the term 'alt-right,' by Brent Griffiths, Politico, November 28, 2016]

This is a literally Orwellian attempt to eliminate Crimethink through linguistic control . Of course, no such guidelines will apply to non-white Identitarian groups such as the National Council of La Raza, which will continue to be called an "advocacy" or "progressive grass-roots immigration-reform organization" [ NCLR head: Obama 'deporter-in-chief, ' by Reid Epstein, Politico, March 4, 2016].

Needless to say, most the rationale for this is not just fake, but comically, obviously, wrong. Thus the Washington Post reported that VDARE.com (and many other sites) was a "Russian propaganda effort" based on no evidence at all. We ask: where is our vodka?

Rolling Stone, which pushed one of the most disgusting hoaxes in modern journalism at the University of Virginia, is having meetings with President Obama to discuss "fake news." The Guardian fell for what appears to be a hoax decrying "online hate" precisely because it is impossible to tell the difference today between the latest virtue signaling craze and satire.

But algorithms are already being introduced to distinguish between "verified" and "non-verified" news sources. It can be assumed only Leftist sites will receive verification on social media. [ Fake news on Facebook is a real problem. These college students came up with a fix in 36 hours , By Colby Itkowitz, Washington Post, November 18, 2016]

There is "fake news" and it is annoying, to be sure. There were plenty of cringey stories about non-existent celebrity endorsements of Trump i n the last cycle. But most "verified" or "mainstream" sources today don't actually report but simply "point and sputter" or actually conceal real news. For example, even after the journalists got what they wanted out of the latest NPI conference , the MSM still couldn't restrain themselves from simply making things out of whole cloth .

Actual attacks on Trump supporters are not covered, while unsourced, unverified claims of a wave of "hate crimes," which mostly consists of handwritten notes most likely written by the supposed "victims" or incidents so trivial normal people wouldn't even notice , dominate the headlines.

This is a far more insidious form of "fake news" than anything "the Russians" are promoting. And what about the lie of " hands up, don't shoot ?"

Another example: supposedly mainstream outlets are comfortable leveling wild charges Steve Bannon is somehow a "white nationalist." Bannon on the evidence is actually a civic nationalist who has specifically denounced racism and, if anything, is showing troubling signs of moving towards the "DemsRRealRacist"- style talking points which led Conservatism Inc. to disaster. There are absolutely no statements by Bannon actually calling for, say, a white ethnostate.

In contrast, Rep. Keith Ellison, candidate to head the DNC, actually has c alled for a black ethnostate. [ Keith Ellison once proposed making a separate country for blacks , by Justin Caruso, Daily Caller, November 26, 2016]. However, this has not prevented him from being "normalized" and celebrated by the "mainstream" media.

The logical conclusion of all of this:

Or, as VDARE.com Editor Peter Brimelow told the NPI conference: "What we are going to see in the next few years is an intensified Reign Of Terror."

For example, Buzzfeed's latest masterpiece of journalism: the shocking revelation that reality stars Chip and Joanna Gaines attend a church that disagrees with homosexual marriage [ Chip and Joanna Gaines' Church Is Firmly Against Same-Sex Marriage , by Kate Aurthur, Buzzfeed, November 29, 2016]. You know–like every Christian church for about 2000 years. The obvious agenda: to get the show canceled or the Gaines to disavow their own pastor.

This is the goal of most "journalism" today–to get someone fired or to get someone to disavow someone. The Southern Poverty Law Center ( $PLC to VDARE.com) makes a lucrative income from policing speech . ( Right, a graph of their endowment fund.)And journalists today are no different than the $PLC. They do not report, they do not provide information, and rather than ensuring freedom they are the willing tools of repression.

And this repression only goes one way.

If you wouldn't invite some communist demonstrator into your meeting, why would you invite an MSM journalist? They have the same beliefs, the same motivations, and increasingly, they rely on the same tactics. Aside from the occasional throwing of feces (as Richard Spencer learned at NPI), the preferred tactic of "Antifa" consists of pearl-clutching blog posts.

The repression is accelerating. Reddit is now moving to censor pro-Trump content on its site [ Breaking: Unethical @reddit CEO vows to crack down on "toxic users" as right wing subreddit protests censorship , by Charles Johnson, Got News, November 30, 2016]. Having been purged from Twitter, many free speech supporters are moving to GAB, so The New York Times is trying to get that shut down too [ The Far Right Has a New Digital Safe Space , by Amanda Hess, November 30, 2016]. And Kellogg pulled its ads from Breitbart, after Trump's election, because it said it did not "align with its values as a company". [ Breitbart at 'war' with Kellogg's over advertising snub , BBC, December 1, 2016].

Since the election, journalists have been paying tribute to their own courage, promising to hold Trump accountable. But there is no greater enemy to free speech than reporters. Shutting down the networks and shuttering the newspapers would be a boon to independence of thought, not an obstacle.

For his own sake, to defend his own Administration, Trump has to delegitimize the MSM, just as he did during the campaign. He should continue to use his Twitter account and speak straight to the people. He should not hold press conferences with national MSM and speak only to local reporters before holding rallies. If Twitter bans him, as Leftists are urging, he should nationalize it as a utility and make it a free speech zone.[ Twitter has become a utility , by Alan Kohler, The Australian, October 17, 2016]

And Trump's supporters need to act the same way. Stop giving reporters access. Stop pretending you can play the MSM for your own benefit. Stop acting like these people are anything other than hostile political activists whose only interest in life is to make yours worse.

Stop giving them what they want.

Your career, family, and entire life may depend on it. And so does the life of the nation.

James Kirkpatrick [ Email him] is a Beltway veteran and a refugee from Conservatism Inc.

[Dec 28, 2016] The risk of WWIII is not enough to deter these maniacs from doing everything they can to keep neoliberals in power

Notable quotes:
"... "The lockstep zombies for the sleaze and global mayhem of the Clinton Machine and Dem Party gangsters are on the march. These liberals for US Empire are showing their reverence and fanboy love for the CIA and FBI and McCarthyism. ..."
"... They either cheered or shrugged when the Clinton thugs stole the primary from Bernie (with his obsequious assent) or snored when Obama/Clinton staged coups and installed fascists in Honduras and Ukraine but oh how they bellow and shake their fists at the *alleged* hacking by Russia that amounts to providing info on just how sleazy the Democratic Party is. ..."
"... THAT form of fake news is not only acceptable it is to be embraced and taught to our fucking children. If the NYT or WaPo tells us all bad things come from Putin these shock troops for the Democratic Party click their heels and salute. ..."
"... The risk of WWIII is not enough to deter these fucking maniacs from doing all they can to keep their team in power. Meanwhile their leaders want to "work with" Trump and "give him a chance." Who are the fascists in this shit show?? Such a clusterfuck of incoherence. ..."
"... If it's true the "Russians" (who be that by the way?) did what the professional liars in the intelligence agencies say they did it doesn't even amount to a parking violation compared to the billions and billions of dollars spent by the US over the last 70 years rigging and crushing democracy (literally with murder) across the globe. ..."
Dec 28, 2016 | www.unz.com

Anon December 12, 2016 at 9:33 pm GMT

This post by Leftie on facebook offers glimpse into chasm on the other side.

It's Progs vs Globs. ProGlob is coming apart.

"The lockstep zombies for the sleaze and global mayhem of the Clinton Machine and Dem Party gangsters are on the march. These liberals for US Empire are showing their reverence and fanboy love for the CIA and FBI and McCarthyism.

They either cheered or shrugged when the Clinton thugs stole the primary from Bernie (with his obsequious assent) or snored when Obama/Clinton staged coups and installed fascists in Honduras and Ukraine but oh how they bellow and shake their fists at the *alleged* hacking by Russia that amounts to providing info on just how sleazy the Democratic Party is.

The "fake news" (it's called free speech you fucking assholes) that the Rooskies pumped into our helpless and confused brains is a threat to the Republic but "capitalism means freedom and democracy", WMD's, yellow cake, mobile weapons labs, babies torn from incubators, the international monolithic communist conspiracy, Gaddafi supplying viagra to his troops, the headchoppers Obama gives arms and sends into Syria to destroy yet another nation are "moderates", KONY 2012, the filthy Hun is coming to kill us all in 1917, "Duck and cover!!" Gulf of Tonkin, Ho Chi Min's soldiers are going to spring from their canoes on the beaches of Malibu to rape your wife and make you wear pajamas, "superpredators" and on and on etc etc etc

THAT form of fake news is not only acceptable it is to be embraced and taught to our fucking children. If the NYT or WaPo tells us all bad things come from Putin these shock troops for the Democratic Party click their heels and salute.

The risk of WWIII is not enough to deter these fucking maniacs from doing all they can to keep their team in power. Meanwhile their leaders want to "work with" Trump and "give him a chance." Who are the fascists in this shit show?? Such a clusterfuck of incoherence.

If it's true the "Russians" (who be that by the way?) did what the professional liars in the intelligence agencies say they did it doesn't even amount to a parking violation compared to the billions and billions of dollars spent by the US over the last 70 years rigging and crushing democracy (literally with murder) across the globe.

And the whole obscene carnival engulfing the nation is of course to be blamed on the racist knuckle-dragging "basket of deplorables.""

[Dec 28, 2016] How NOT to hack an election Russian Hack EXPOSED as Hoax Zero Hedge

Dec 28, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
For those who missed it among the deluge of propaganda, the Russian 'hack' of the election has been exposed as a huge hoax:

A Wikileaks envoy today claims he personally received Clinton campaign emails in Washington D.C. after they were leaked by 'disgusted' whisteblowers - and not hacked by Russia.

Craig Murray, former British ambassador to Uzbekistan and a close associate of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, told Dailymail.com that he flew to Washington, D.C. for a clandestine hand-off with one of the email sources in September.

'Neither of [the leaks] came from the Russians,' said Murray in an interview with Dailymail.com on Tuesday. ' The source had legal access to the information. The documents came from inside leaks, not hacks.'

His account contradicts directly the version of how thousands of Democratic emails were published before the election being advanced by U.S. intelligence.

For those who have read our book Splitting Pennies - this comes as no surprise. As we explain in the book, the world is manipulated by several large global "Banks" which are also owners of big news outlets that control the flow of information around the world (i.e. Thompson Reuters). The surprise here is that the disinformation campaign goes so deep, it has even fooled senators into voting for a bill to stop Russian propaganda; which - on the surface, every flag waving US senator should agree with. No one wants foreign spies or foreign propaganda influencing the domestic population. But how big is the 'threat' of 'Russian' propaganda and how has it been overplayed, in a final 'hail mary' attempt to disrupt the legitimate political process. The motto, the modus operandi of the Illuminati controlled CIA "Order from Chaos" is explained on their 'think tank' website here.

Americans steeped in a culture of 'politics' are again being fooled, this election wasn't about party or state lines, "Republicans" didn't win over "Democrats" - this election was about a wild card, a non-politician, non-Establishment candidate winning by a landslide if going by the polls (Trump was given 5% chance of winning up until the night of election).

How to Hack an Election

Interestingly, Bloomberg (although biased Bloomberg is still one of the only mainstream news sources that still produces real, investigative journalism globally) in April published an extremely well researched composition "How to Hack an Election" detailing the life of a real election hacker, Andres Sepulveda and his US political 'analyst' partner, Juan Jose Rendon. To understand how foolish the claim about Russians hacking the election, readers can study the story of Sepulveda who successfully hacked multiple elections in Latin America and was paid millions for his efforts:

When Peña Nieto won, Sepúlveda began destroying evidence. He drilled holes in flash drives, hard drives, and cell phones, fried their circuits in a microwave, then broke them to shards with a hammer. He shredded documents and flushed them down the toilet and erased servers in Russia and Ukraine rented anonymously with Bitcoins. He was dismantling what he says was a secret history of one of the dirtiest Latin American campaigns in recent memory.

For eight years, Sepúlveda, now 31, says he traveled the continent rigging major political campaigns. With a budget of $600,000, the Peña Nieto job was by far his most complex. He led a team of hackers that stole campaign strategies, manipulated social media to create false waves of enthusiasm and derision, and installed spyware in opposition offices, all to help Peña Nieto, a right-of-center candidate, eke out a victory. On that July night, he cracked bottle after bottle of Colón Negra beer in celebration. As usual on election night, he was alone.

Sepúlveda's career began in 2005, and his first jobs were small-mostly defacing campaign websites and breaking into opponents' donor databases. Within a few years he was assembling teams that spied, stole, and smeared on behalf of presidential campaigns across Latin America. He wasn't cheap, but his services were extensive. For $12,000 a month, a customer hired a crew that could hack smartphones, spoof and clone Web pages, and send mass e-mails and texts. The premium package, at $20,000 a month, also included a full range of digital interception, attack, decryption, and defense. The jobs were carefully laundered through layers of middlemen and consultants. Sepúlveda says many of the candidates he helped might not even have known about his role; he says he met only a few.

His teams worked on presidential elections in Nicaragua, Panama, Honduras, El Salvador, Colombia, Mexico, Costa Rica, Guatemala, and Venezuela. Campaigns mentioned in this story were contacted through former and current spokespeople; none but Mexico's PRI and the campaign of Guatemala's National Advancement Party would comment.

The point here, well there are several points. One, Sepulveda is not the only guy in the world doing this. The CIA even has a team of social media trolls and the NSA has a department that only develops robots to do the same thing Sepulveda was doing and better. The age of 'spies' has transformed into an electronic, digital, online version - much like the internet has transformed life and business it has also changed the way the intelligence establishment deals with controlling the population. Oh how the FBI has evolved since the days of Hoffman and Cointelpro!

Many of Sepúlveda's efforts were unsuccessful, but he has enough wins that he might be able to claim as much influence over the political direction of modern Latin America as anyone in the 21st century. "My job was to do actions of dirty war and psychological operations, black propaganda, rumors-the whole dark side of politics that nobody knows exists but everyone can see," he says in Spanish, while sitting at a small plastic table in an outdoor courtyard deep within the heavily fortified offices of Colombia's attorney general's office. He's serving 10 years in prison for charges including use of malicious software, conspiracy to commit crime, violation of personal data, and espionage, related to hacking during Colombia's 2014 presidential election. He has agreed to tell his full story for the first time, hoping to convince the public that he's rehabilitated-and gather support for a reduced sentence.

Usually, he says, he was on the payroll of Juan José Rendón, a Miami-based political consultant who's been called the Karl Rove of Latin America. Rendón denies using Sepúlveda for anything illegal, and categorically disputes the account Sepúlveda gave Bloomberg Businessweek of their relationship, but admits knowing him and using him to do website design. "If I talked to him maybe once or twice, it was in a group session about that, about the Web," he says. "I don't do illegal stuff at all. There is negative campaigning. They don't like it-OK. But if it's legal, I'm gonna do it. I'm not a saint, but I'm not a criminal." While Sepúlveda's policy was to destroy all data at the completion of a job, he left some documents with members of his hacking teams and other trusted third parties as a secret "insurance policy."

We don't need a degree in cybersecurity to see how this was going on against Trump all throughout the campaign. Not only did they hire thugs to start riots at Trump rallies and protest, a massive online campaign was staged against Trump.

Rendón, says Sepúlveda, saw that hackers could be completely integrated into a modern political operation, running attack ads, researching the opposition, and finding ways to suppress a foe's turnout. As for Sepúlveda, his insight was to understand that voters trusted what they thought were spontaneous expressions of real people on social media more than they did experts on television and in newspapers. He knew that accounts could be faked and social media trends fabricated, all relatively cheaply. He wrote a software program, now called Social Media Predator, to manage and direct a virtual army of fake Twitter accounts. The software let him quickly change names, profile pictures, and biographies to fit any need. Eventually, he discovered, he could manipulate the public debate as easily as moving pieces on a chessboard-or, as he puts it, "When I realized that people believe what the Internet says more than reality, I discovered that I had the power to make people believe almost anything."

Sepúlveda managed thousands of such fake profiles and used the accounts to shape discussion around topics such as Peña Nieto's plan to end drug violence, priming the social media pump with views that real users would mimic. For less nuanced work, he had a larger army of 30,000 Twitter bots, automatic posters that could create trends. One conversation he started stoked fear that the more López Obrador rose in the polls, the lower the peso would sink. Sepúlveda knew the currency issue was a major vulnerability; he'd read it in the candidate's own internal staff memos.

While there's no evidence that Rendon or Sepulveda were involved in the 2016 election, there is also no evidence that Russian hackers were involved in the 2016 election. There's not even false evidence. There isn't a hint of it. There isn't a witness, there isn't a document, there's nothing - it's a conspiracy theory! And a very poor one.

By the way, if you want to disguise your IP address as if you are living in Russia, there's a service that will do this for about $10/month - millions of people use this service. You can sign up for it too, and choose what country you want to be 'from' - Canada, Brazil, Russia - take your pick.

Russian hackers would have had the same or better (probably much better) tools, strategies, and resources than Sepulveda. But none of this shows up anywhere. If anything, this is an example of how NOT to hack an election.

To learn more about the way the world works, checkout Splitting Pennies. To gain some Alpha in your portfolio for QEP / ECP investors checkout Alpha Z Advisors.

Further reading about 'truth' and 'alternative reality'

Confessions of an Economic Hit Man

Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution .

Armand Hammer: The Untold Story

A People's History of the United States

Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich

Fooled by Randomness: The Hidden Role of Chance in Life and in the Markets .
Mike Masr , Dec 28, 2016 8:06 AM

This truth will be swept under the rug and regarded as "fake news" because it doesn't fit the official Obama narrative that Russia did it!
mary mary Kefeer , Dec 27, 2016 6:55 PM
Thanks. Right. Hillary's official electronic communications is more correct than Hillary's emails.

(And the "wipe them, you mean like with a rag?" from Hillary, after having been in government all her adult life and after having presented herself as a modern Secretary of State who knew all about how government and modern technology worked would have been a funny joke if it hadn't obviously been intended to cover up enormous crimes.)

Grandad Grumps , Dec 27, 2016 2:58 PM
Whoever is running the world with all of this fake stuff and all of the monitoring of people and petty false propganda, they pretty much suck at it. it is as if they are claiming to be running the world using "training wheels". As a substitute for God they stink! Grade D-!
Fathead Slim , Dec 27, 2016 2:25 PM
The tale doesn't have to be a good one for the TV addicted masses to believe it, it only has to be presented by the only sources these imbeciles are willing to use: their fucking TV sets. Most people are so deluded by their main source of entertainment and information that they wouldn't give a shit if incontrovertible evidence that their TV information source was lying was presented to them.

Most people I know don't want to know anything that can't be spoonfed to them on a TV screen.

Dick Buttkiss Fathead Slim , Dec 27, 2016 2:42 PM
"The tale doesn't have to be a good one for the TV addicted masses to believe it..."

Like the tale that the only steel highrise buildings to ever collapse due to fires (turning into dust at near freefall speed) ocurred on a single day 15 years ago, orchestrated, along with everything else on that fateful day, by a man in a cave half a world away.

Fathead Slim Dick Buttkiss , Dec 27, 2016 6:57 PM
Yep, a prime example. TV addicts are also convinced that they've seen news broadcasts that announced the finding of WMDs in Iraq.
Kefeer Dick Buttkiss , Dec 27, 2016 4:49 PM
You left out that the man was also on dialysis.
jeff montanye Kefeer , Dec 27, 2016 6:51 PM
and that after every airport was closed and every single commercial plane was grounded, that man's entire extended family resident in the u.s., some two dozen individuals, was given fbi protection, rented cars and chartered planes, and flown out of the country without ever being interviewed, at all, by any law enforcement branch of the government of the united states which, needless to say, had absolutely no involvement with the deadliest foreign attack on u.s. soil since the war of 1812, killing nearly 600 more than died at pearl harbor. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bin-laden-family-evacuated/

this was known at the time it happened. what took longer to discover was that the source of the foreign attack was not a cave in afghanistan or even saudi arabia or the muslim world generally.

all along it was our trusted ally, brave little israel.

  • http://www.whale.to/b/israel_did_911.html
  • https://sites.google.com/site/onedemocraticstatesite/archives/-solving-9...
  • http://www.amazon.com/Solving-9-11-Deception-Changed-World/dp/0985322586
  • http://www.luogocomune.net/site/modules/sections/index.php?op=viewarticl... .
  • http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/everything-rich-man-trick/
  • https://smile.amazon.com/dp/098213150X/sr=1-1/qid=1467687982/ref=olp_pro...
  • http://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2016/04/epn2016474p21.pdf
  • Twodogs jeff montanye , Dec 28, 2016 8:33 AM
    Anti-semitism enables one to ignore the elephant in the room, namely the Saudis who have been spending billions promoting Wahhabism and terrorism, to blame a tiny little country for everything, without ever having to bother about evidence. Seek help.
    BSHJ Dick Buttkiss , Dec 27, 2016 3:06 PM
    Well, he was probably always watching HGTV and knew all the right tricks to make his man-cave as efficient as possible.
    mary mary BSHJ , Dec 27, 2016 6:58 PM
    So easy (with a little help from Bush and Cheney) that even a cave-man could do it. ....

    [Dec 27, 2016] Wielding Claims of Fake News, Conservatives Take Aim at Mainstream Media

    Notable quotes:
    "... "Fake news was a term specifically about people who purposely fabricated stories for clicks and revenue," said David Mikkelson, the founder of Snopes, the myth-busting website. "Now it includes bad reporting, slanted journalism and outright propaganda. And I think we're doing a disservice to lump all those things together." ..."
    "... "What I think is so unsettling about the fake news cries now is that their audience has already sort of bought into this idea that journalism has no credibility or legitimacy," ..."
    "... The market in these divided times is undeniably ripe. "We now live in this fragmented media world where you can block people you disagree with. You can only be exposed to stories that make you feel good about what you want to believe," Mr. Ziegler, the radio host, said. "Unfortunately, the truth is unpopular a lot. And a good fairy tale beats a harsh truth every time." ..."
    Dec 25, 2016 | www.nytimes.com
    ... ... ...

    Rush Limbaugh has diagnosed a more fundamental problem . "The fake news is the everyday news" in the mainstream media, he said on his radio show recently. "They just make it up."

    .... As reporters were walking out of a Trump rally this month in Orlando, Fla., a man heckled them with shouts of "Fake news!"

    Until now, that term had been widely understood to refer to fabricated news accounts that are meant to spread virally online. But conservative cable and radio personalities, top Republicans and even Mr. Trump himself, incredulous about suggestions that fake stories may have helped swing the election, have appropriated the term and turned it against any news they see as hostile to their agenda.

    In defining "fake news" so broadly and seeking to dilute its meaning, they are capitalizing on the declining credibility of all purveyors of information, one product of the country's increasing political polarization. And conservatives, seeing an opening to undermine the mainstream media, a longtime foe, are more than happy to dig the hole deeper.

    "Over the years, we've effectively brainwashed the core of our audience to distrust anything that they disagree with. And now it's gone too far," said John Ziegler, a conservative radio host, who has been critical of what he sees as excessive partisanship by pundits. "Because the gatekeepers have lost all credibility in the minds of consumers, I don't see how you reverse it."

    Journalists who work to separate fact from fiction see a dangerous conflation of stories that turn out to be wrong because of a legitimate misunderstanding with those whose clear intention is to deceive. A report, shared more than a million times on social media, that the pope had endorsed Mr. Trump was undeniably false. But was it "fake news" to report on data models that showed Hillary Clinton with overwhelming odds of winning the presidency? Are opinion articles fake if they cherry-pick facts to draw disputable conclusions?

    "Fake news was a term specifically about people who purposely fabricated stories for clicks and revenue," said David Mikkelson, the founder of Snopes, the myth-busting website. "Now it includes bad reporting, slanted journalism and outright propaganda. And I think we're doing a disservice to lump all those things together."

    The right's labeling of "fake news" evokes one of the most successful efforts by conservatives to reorient how Americans think about news media objectivity: the move by Fox News to brand its conservative-slanted coverage as "fair and balanced." Traditionally, mainstream media outlets had thought of their own approach in those terms, viewing their coverage as strictly down the middle. Republicans often found that laughable. As with Fox's ubiquitous promotion of its slogan, conservatives' appropriation of the "fake news" label is an effort to further erode the mainstream media's claim to be a reliable and accurate source.

    "What I think is so unsettling about the fake news cries now is that their audience has already sort of bought into this idea that journalism has no credibility or legitimacy," said Angelo Carusone, the president of Media Matters, a liberal group that polices the news media for bias. "Therefore, by applying that term to credible outlets, it becomes much more believable."

    .... ... ...

    Mr. Trump has used the term to deny news reports, as he did on Twitter recently after various outlets said he would stay on as the executive producer of "The New Celebrity Apprentice" after taking office in January. "Ridiculous & untrue - FAKE NEWS!" he wrote. (He will be credited as executive producer, a spokesman for the show's creator, Mark Burnett, has said. But it is unclear what work, if any, he will do on the show.)

    Many conservatives are pushing back at the outrage over fake news because they believe that liberals, unwilling to accept Mr. Trump's victory, are attributing his triumph to nefarious external factors.

    "The left refuses to admit that the fundamental problem isn't the Russians or Jim Comey or 'fake news' or the Electoral College," said Laura Ingraham, the author and radio host. "'Fake news' is just another fake excuse for their failed agenda."

    Others see a larger effort to slander the basic journalistic function of fact-checking. Nonpartisan websites like Snopes and Factcheck.org have found themselves maligned when they have disproved stories that had been flattering to conservatives.

    When Snopes wrote about a State Farm insurance agent in Louisiana who had posted a sign outside his office that likened taxpayers who voted for President Obama to chickens supporting Colonel Sanders, Mr. Mikkelson, the site's founder, was smeared as a partisan Democrat who had never bothered to reach out to the agent for comment. Neither is true.

    "They're trying to float anything they can find out there to discredit fact-checking," he said.

    There are already efforts by highly partisan conservatives to claim that their fact-checking efforts are the same as those of independent outlets like Snopes, which employ research teams to dig into seemingly dubious claims.

    Sean Hannity, the Fox News host, has aired "fact-checking" segments on his program. Michelle Malkin, the conservative columnist, has a web program, "Michelle Malkin Investigates," in which she conducts her own investigative reporting.

    The market in these divided times is undeniably ripe. "We now live in this fragmented media world where you can block people you disagree with. You can only be exposed to stories that make you feel good about what you want to believe," Mr. Ziegler, the radio host, said. "Unfortunately, the truth is unpopular a lot. And a good fairy tale beats a harsh truth every time."

    [Dec 27, 2016] Guriev mising on the Russian economy and President Putin

    Economist was always adamantly anti-Russian and, especially, anti-Putin. The use of people like Sergey Guriev (recent emigrant to Paris, who excape to avoid the danger of criminal procecution for skolkovao machinations) is just an icing on the cake.
    Notable quotes:
    "... During the 2015-16 recession, GDP. fell by more than 4 percent and real incomes declined by 10 percent. That is significant, but much less serious than, say, the 40 percent drop in GDP that Russia experienced during the first half of the 1990s. Despite a dramatic decline in oil prices and the burden of sanctions imposed by Western governments after the Crimea crisis, the Putin administration has managed to avert economic disaster by pursuing competent macroeconomic policies. ..."
    "... As the sanctions cut off Russia's access to global financial markets, the government set out to cover the budget deficit by undertaking major austerity measures and tapping its substantial sovereign funds. In early 2014, the Reserve Fund (created to mitigate fiscal shocks caused by drops in oil prices) and the National Welfare Fund (set up to address shortfalls in the pension system) together held the equivalent of 8 percent of GDP. ..."
    Dec 27, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Fred C. Dobbs :

    In Russia, It's Not the Economy,
    Stupid http://nyti.ms/2hlLRNx
    NYT - SERGEI GURIEV - Dec 25

    LONDON - The Russian economy is in trouble - "in tatters," President Obama has said - so why aren't Russians more upset with their leaders? The country underwent a major recession recently. The ruble lost half of its value. And yet, according to a leading independent pollster in Russia, President Vladimir V. Putin's approval ratings have consistently exceeded 80 percent during the past couple of years.

    One reason is that while the Russian economy is struggling, it is not falling apart, and many Russians remember times when it was in a much worse state. Another, perhaps more important, explanation is that Mr. Putin has convinced them that it's not the economy, stupid, anymore.

    Thanks largely to the government's extensive control over information, Mr. Putin has rewritten the social contract in Russia. Long based on economic performance, it is now about geopolitical status. If economic pain is the price Russians have to pay so that Russia can stand up to the West, so be it.

    It wasn't like this in the 1990s and 2000s. Back then the approval ratings of Russian leaders were closely correlated with economic performance, as the political scientist Daniel Treisman has demonstrated. When the economy began to recover from the 1998 financial crisis, Mr. Putin's popularity increased. It dipped when growth stalled. It climbed again in 2005, after the global price of oil - Russia' main export commodity - rose, foreign investment flowed in and domestic consumption boomed. And it fell substantially after growth rates slowed in 2012-13.

    Russia's intervention in Crimea in early 2014 changed everything. Within two months, Mr. Putin's popularity jumped back to more than 80 percent, where it has stayed until now, despite the recession.

    One might argue that these figures are misleading: Given the pressures faced by the Kremlin's political opponents, aren't respondents in polls too afraid to answer questions honestly? Hardly, according to a recent study co-written by the political scientist Tim Frye, based on an innovative method known as "list experiments." It found that, even after adjusting for respondents' reluctance to openly acknowledge any misgivings about specific leaders, Mr. Putin's popularity really is very high: around 70 percent.

    During the 2015-16 recession, GDP. fell by more than 4 percent and real incomes declined by 10 percent. That is significant, but much less serious than, say, the 40 percent drop in GDP that Russia experienced during the first half of the 1990s. Despite a dramatic decline in oil prices and the burden of sanctions imposed by Western governments after the Crimea crisis, the Putin administration has managed to avert economic disaster by pursuing competent macroeconomic policies.

    As the sanctions cut off Russia's access to global financial markets, the government set out to cover the budget deficit by undertaking major austerity measures and tapping its substantial sovereign funds. In early 2014, the Reserve Fund (created to mitigate fiscal shocks caused by drops in oil prices) and the National Welfare Fund (set up to address shortfalls in the pension system) together held the equivalent of 8 percent of GDP.

    The government also adopted sound monetary policy, including the decision to fully float the ruble in 2014. Because of the decline in oil prices and large net capital outflows - caused by the need to repay external corporate debt and limited foreign investment in Russia - the currency depreciated by 50 percent within a year. Although a weaker ruble hurt the living standards of ordinary Russians, it boosted the competitiveness of Russia's companies. The Russian economy is now beginning to grow again, if very modestly - at a projected 1 to 1.5 percent per year over the next few years.

    This performance comes nowhere near meeting Mr. Putin's election-campaign promises of 2012, when he projected GDP. growth at 6 percent per year for 2011-18. But it isn't catastrophic either, and the government has managed to explain it away.

    Thanks partly to its near-complete control of the press, television and the internet, the government has developed a grand narrative about Russia's role in the world - essentially promoting the view that Russians may need to tighten their belts for the good of the nation. The story has several subplots. Russian speakers in Ukraine need to be defended against neo-Nazis. Russia supports President Bashar al-Assad of Syria because he is a rampart against the Islamic State, and it has helped liberate Aleppo from terrorists. Why would the Kremlin hack the Democratic Party in the United States? And who believes what the CIA says anyway?

    The Russian people seem to accept much of this or not to care one way or the other. This should come as no surprise. In a recent paper based on data for 128 countries over 10 years, Professor Treisman and I developed an econometric model to assess which factors affect a government's approval ratings and by how much. We concluded that fully removing internet controls in a country like Russia today would cause the government's popularity ratings to drop by about 35 percentage points. ...

    What Makes Governments Popular
    Sergei M. Guriev (CEPR), Daniel Treisman (UCLA)
    November 11, 2016
    https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2882915

    [Dec 27, 2016] This Russian hacking thing is being discussed entirely out of realistic context.

    Notable quotes:
    "... This Russian hacking thing is being discussed entirely out of realistic context. ..."
    "... Voting machines are public and for Federal elections then tampering with them is elevated to a Federal crime. ..."
    economistsview.typepad.com

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron : , December 18, 2016 at 07:18 AM

    This Russian hacking thing is being discussed entirely out of realistic context.

    Cyber security is a serious risk management operation that firms and governments spend outrageous sums of money on because hacking attempts, especially from sources in China and Russia, occur in vast numbers against every remotely desirable target corporate or government each and every day. At my former employer, the State of Virginia, the data center repelled over two million hacking attempts from sources in China each day. Northrop Grumman, the infrastructure management outsourcer for the State of Virginia's IT infrastructure, has had no known intrusions into any Commonwealth of Virginia servers that had been migrated to their standard security infrastructure thus far since the inception of their contract in July 2006. That is almost the one good thing that I have to say about NG. Some state servers, notably the Virginia Department of Health Professions, not under protection of the NG standard network security were hacked and had private information such as client SSNs stolen. Retail store servers are hacked almost routinely, but large banks and similarly well protected corporations are not. Security costs and it costs a lot.

    Even working in a data center with an excellent intrusion protection program as part of that program I had to take an annual "securing the human" computer based training class. Despite all of the technical precautions we were retrained each year to among other things NEVER put anything in an E-Mail that we did not want to be available for everyone to read; i.e., to never assume privacy is protected in an E-Mail. Embarrassing E-Mails need a source. We should assume that there will always be a hacker to take advantage of our mistakes.

    RGC -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , December 18, 2016 at 07:57 AM
    Can you spell "diversion"?

    Sanders: "Break up the banks!"

    Trump: "The elites are screwing you over!"

    Supporters of the status quo:

    "It's racism"

    "It's Russian hackers"

    Whatever it takes to change the subject.

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> RGC... , December 18, 2016 at 08:09 AM
    Maybe it is diversion, but it is definitely uninformed if not just plain stupid.
    sglover -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , December 18, 2016 at 06:11 PM
    Absolutely. What does that suggest about Team Dem?
    DrDick -> EMichael... , December 18, 2016 at 08:34 AM
    The reality is that all the major world powers (and some minor ones), including us, do this routinely and always have. While it is entirely appropriate to be outraged that it may have materially determined the election (which I think is impossible to know, though it did have some impact), we should not be shocked or surprised by this.
    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> EMichael... , December 18, 2016 at 09:55 AM
    "...I would suggest attacks on Putin's personal business holdings all over the world..."

    [My guess is that has been being done a long time ago considering the direction of US/Russian foreign relations over NATO expansion, the Ukraine, and Syria.

    Long before TCP/IP the best way to prevent dirty secrets from getting out was not to have dirty secrets. It still works.

    The jabbering heads will not have much effect on the political opinions of ordinary citizens because 40 million or more US adults had their credit information compromised by the Target hackers three years ago. Target had been saving credit card numbers instead of deleting them as soon as they obtained authorizations for transfers, so that the 40 million were certainly exposed while more than twice that were probably exposed. Establishment politicians having their embarrassing E-mails hacked is more like good fun family entertainment than something to get all riled up about.]

    http://money.cnn.com/2014/01/10/news/companies/target-hacking/

    Target: Hacking hit up to 110 million customers

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> EMichael... , December 18, 2016 at 10:22 AM
    Voting machines are public and for Federal elections then tampering with them is elevated to a Federal crime. Political parties are private. The Federal government did not protect Target or Northrop Grumman's managed infrastructure for the Commonwealth of Virginia although either one can take forensic information to the FBI that will obtain warrants for prosecution. Foreign criminal operations go beyond the immediate domestic reach of the FBI. Not even Interpol interdicts foreign leaders unless they are guilty of genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes.

    The Federal government can do what it will as there are not hard guidelines for such clandestine operations and responses. Moreover, there are none to realistically enforce against them, which inevitably leads to war given sufficient cycles of escalation. Certainly our own government has done worse (political assassinations and supporting coups with money and guns) with impunity merely because of its size, reach, and power.

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> EMichael... , December 18, 2016 at 10:43 AM
    BTW, "the burglar that just ransacked your house" can be arrested and prosecuted by a established regulated legal system with absolutely zero concerns of escalating into a nuclear war, trade war, or any other global hostility. So, not the same thing at all. Odds are good though that the burglar will get away without any of that because when he does finally get caught it will be an accident and probably only after dozen if not hundreds of B&E's.

    There is a line. The US has crossed that line, but always in less developed countries that had no recourse against us. Putin knows where the line is with the US. He will dance around it and lean over it, but not cross it. We have him outgunned and he knows it. Putin did not tamper with an election, a government function. Putin tampered with private data exposing incriminating information against a political party, which is a private entity rather than government entity. Whatever we do should probably stay within the rule of law as it gets messy fast once outside those boundaries.

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , December 18, 2016 at 11:01 AM
    As far as burglars go I live in a particular working class zip code that has very few burglaries. It is a bad risk/reward deal unless you are just out to steal guns and then you better make sure that no one is home. Most people with children still living at home also have a gun safe. Most people have dogs.

    There are plenty burglaries in a lower income zip code nearby and lots more in higher income zip codes further away, the former being targets of opportunity with less security and possible drug stashes, which has a faster turnover than fencing big screen TV's. High income neighborhoods are natural targets with jewelry, cash, credit cards, and high end electronics, but far better security systems. I don't know much about their actual crime stats because they are on the opposite side of the City of Richmond VA from me, but I used to know a couple of burglars when I lived in the inner city. They liked the upscale homes near the University of Richmond on River Road.

    Peter K. -> DrDick... , December 18, 2016 at 09:21 AM
    Putin was mad b/c Clinton interfered in Russia's election using the bully-pulpit.

    She may have been complete correct in what she was saying, but it's not surprising she pissed Putin off.

    The Democratic establishment would rather discuss this than do a post-mortem on Hillary's campaign.

    They kept telling us the e-mail didn't reveal anything and now they say the e-mail determined the election.

    DeDude -> Peter K.... , December 18, 2016 at 09:43 AM
    "They kept telling us the e-mail didn't reveal anything and now they say the e-mail determined the election"

    And those two statement are not in conflict unless you are a brain dead Fox bot. Big nothing-burgers like Bhengazi or trivial emails can easily be blown up and affect a few hundred thousand voters. When the heck are you going to grow up and get past your 5 stages of Sanders grief?

    Peter K. -> DeDude... , December 18, 2016 at 09:54 AM
    "Big nothing-burgers like Bhengazi or trivial emails can easily be blown up and affect a few hundred thousand voters. "

    There is already an audience for those faux scandals, the Fox viewers.

    They don't create new Voters.

    You're nothing but a brainwashed partisan Democrat, a mirror-image of these brainwashed Fox viewers.

    You're told what you're supposed to think by the Party leadership and you eat it up.

    No critical thinking skills.

    EMichael -> DeDude... , December 18, 2016 at 09:55 AM
    He's barely over Nader.
    DeDude -> EMichael... , December 18, 2016 at 10:07 AM
    I know - and there used to be some signs of a functional brain. Now it is all "they are all the same" ism and Hillary derangement syndrome on steroids. Someone who cares need to do an intervention before it becomes he get gobbled up by "ilsm" ism.
    Peter K. -> EMichael... , December 18, 2016 at 01:08 PM
    Nader's critique was correct.

    The Democrats moved to the right and created more Trump voters.

    im1dc -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , December 18, 2016 at 08:56 AM
    ABC video interview by Martha Raddatz of Donna Brazile 2:43

    Adding the following FACTS, not opinion, to the Russian Hacking debate at the DNC

    Russian hacks of the DNC began at least as early as April, the FBI informed the DNC in May of the hacks, NO ONE in the FedGovt offered to HELP the DNC at anytime (allowed it to continue), and Russia's Putin DID NOT stop after President Obama told Putin in September to "Cut it Out", despite Obama's belief otherwise

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/dnc-chair-says-committee-was-attacked-by-russian-hackers-through-election-day_us_5856acb6e4b08debb78992e4

    "DNC Chair Says Russian Hackers Attacked The Committee Through Election Day"

    'That goes against Obama's statement that the attacks ended after he spoke to Putin in September'

    by Dave Jamieson Labor Reporter...The Huffington Post...12/18/2016...10:59 am ET

    "The chair of the Democratic National Committee said Sunday that the DNC was under constant cyber attack by Russian hackers right through the election in November. Her claim contradicts President Barack Obama's statement Friday that the attacks ended in September after he issued a personal warning to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

    "No, they did not stop," Donna Brazile told Martha Raddatz on ABC's "This Week." "They came after us absolutely every day until the end of the election. They tried to hack into our system repeatedly. We put up the very best cyber security but they constantly [attacked]."

    Brazile said the DNC was outgunned in its efforts to fend off the hacks, and suggested the committee received insufficient protection from U.S. intelligence agencies. The CIA and FBI have reportedly concluded that Russians carried out the attacks in an effort to help Donald Trump defeat Hillary Clinton.

    "I think the Obama administration ― the FBI, the various other federal agencies ― they informed us, they told us what was happening. We knew as of May," Brazile said. "But in terms of helping us to fight, we were fighting a foreign adversary in the cyberspace. The Democratic National Committee, we were not a match. And yet we fought constantly."

    In a surprising analogy, Brazile compared the FBI's help to the DNC to that of the Geek Squad, the tech service provided at retailer Best Buy ― which is to say well-meaning, but limited.

    "They reached out ― it's like going to Best Buy," Brazile said. "You get the Geek Squad, and they're great people, by the way. They reached out to our IT vendors. But they reached us, meaning senior Democratic officials, by then it was, you know, the Russians had been involved for a long time."..."

    im1dc -> im1dc... , December 18, 2016 at 08:59 AM
    This new perspective and set of facts is more than distressing it details a clear pattern of Executive Branch incompetence, malfeasance, and ineptitude (perhaps worse if you are conspiratorially inclined)
    im1dc -> im1dc... , -1
    The information above puts in bold relief President Obama's denial of an Electoral College briefing on the Russian Hacks

    There is now no reason not to brief the Electors to the extent and degree of Putin's help for demagogue Donald

    [Dec 26, 2016] Crowdsourced Volunteers Search For Solutions To Fake News

    Dec 26, 2016 | news.slashdot.org
    (wired.co.uk) 270 Posted by EditorDavid on Sunday November 27, 2016 @03:34AM from the help-me-hive-mind dept. Upworthy co-founder Eli Pariser is leading a group of online volunteers hunting for ways to respond to the spread of fake news. An anonymous reader quotes Wired UK: Inside a Google Doc, volunteers are gathering ideas and approaches to get a grip on the untruthful news stories. It is part analysis, part brainstorming, with those involved being encouraged to read widely around the topic before contributing. "This is a massive endeavour but well worth it," they say...

    At present, the group is coming up with a list of potential solutions and approaches . Possible methods the group is looking at include: more human editors, fingerprinting viral stories then training algorithms on confirmed fakes, domain checking, the blockchain, a reliability algorithm, sentiment analysis, a Wikipedia for news sources, and more.

    The article also suggests this effort may one day spawn fake news-fighting tech startups.

    [Dec 26, 2016] The Democratic Party as a Party (Sanders was an outlier) has nothing to do with fair and equal play for all. This is a party of soft neoliberals and it adheres to Washington

    Notable quotes:
    "... The Democratic Party as a Party (Sanders was an outlier) has nothing to do with "fair and equal play for all". This is a party of soft neoliberals and it adheres to Washington consensus no less then Republicans. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Consensus ..."
    "... If you read the key postulates it is clear that that they essentially behaved like an occupier in this country. In this sense "Occupy Wall street" movement should actually be called "Liberation from Wall Street occupation" movement. ..."
    "... Bill Clinton realized that he can betray working class with impunity as "they have nowhere to go" and will vote for Democrat anyway. In this sense Bill Clinton is a godfather of the right wing nationalism in the USA. He sowed the "Teeth's of Dragon" and now we have, what we have. ..."
    Dec 26, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    EMichael : December 26, 2016 at 12:47 PM , 2016 at 12:47 PM
    You guys should wake up and smell what country you live in. Here is a good place to start.

    "Campaigning for president in 1980, Ronald Reagan told stories of Cadillac-driving "welfare queens" and "strapping young bucks" buying T-bone steaks with food stamps. In trumpeting these tales of welfare run amok, Reagan never needed to mention race, because he was blowing a dog whistle: sending a message about racial minorities inaudible on one level, but clearly heard on another. In doing so, he tapped into a long political tradition that started with George Wallace and Richard Nixon, and is more relevant than ever in the age of the Tea Party and the first black president.

    In Dog Whistle Politics, Ian Haney L?pez offers a sweeping account of how politicians and plutocrats deploy veiled racial appeals to persuade white voters to support policies that favor the extremely rich yet threaten their own interests. Dog whistle appeals generate middle-class enthusiasm for political candidates who promise to crack down on crime, curb undocumented immigration, and protect the heartland against Islamic infiltration, but ultimately vote to slash taxes for the rich, give corporations regulatory control over industry and financial markets, and aggressively curtail social services. White voters, convinced by powerful interests that minorities are their true enemies, fail to see the connection between the political agendas they support and the surging wealth inequality that takes an increasing toll on their lives. The tactic continues at full force, with the Republican Party using racial provocations to drum up enthusiasm for weakening unions and public pensions, defunding public schools, and opposing health care reform.

    Rejecting any simple story of malevolent and obvious racism, Haney L?pez links as never before the two central themes that dominate American politics today: the decline of the middle class and the Republican Party's increasing reliance on white voters. Dog Whistle Politics will generate a lively and much-needed debate about how racial politics has destabilized the American middle class -- white and nonwhite members alike."

    https://www.amazon.com/Dog-Whistle-Politics-Appeals-Reinvented-ebook/dp/B00GHJNSMU

    im1dc : , December 26, 2016 at 01:51 PM
    Reading the above posts I am reminded that in November there was ONE Election with TWO Results:

    Electoral Vote for Donald Trump by the margin of 3 formerly Democratic Voting states Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania

    Popular Vote for Hillary Clinton by over 2.8 Million

    The Democratic Party and its Candidates OBVIOUSLY need to get more votes in the Electoral States that they lost in 2016, not change what they stand for, the principles of fair and equal play for all.

    And, in the 3 States that turned the Electoral Vote in Trump's favor and against Hillary, all that is needed are 125,000 or more votes, probably fewer, and the DEMS win the Electoral vote big too.

    It is not any more complex than that.

    So how does the Democratic Party get more votes in those States?

    PANDER to their voters by delivering on KISS, not talking about it.

    That is create living wage jobs and not taking them away as the Republican Party of 'Free Trade' and the Clinton Democratic Party 'Free Trade' Elites did.

    Understand this: It is not the responsibility of the USA, or in its best interests, to create jobs in other nations (Mexico, Japan, China, Canada, Israel, etc.) that do not create jobs in the USA equivalently, especially if the gain is offset by costly overseas confrontations and involvements that would not otherwise exist.

    likbez : December 26, 2016 at 02:49 PM , 2016 at 02:49 PM
    You are dreaming:

    "The Democratic Party and its Candidates OBVIOUSLY need to get more votes in the Electoral States that they lost in 2016, not change what they stand for, the principles of fair and equal play for all. "

    The Democratic Party as a Party (Sanders was an outlier) has nothing to do with "fair and equal play for all". This is a party of soft neoliberals and it adheres to Washington consensus no less then Republicans. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Consensus

    If you read the key postulates it is clear that that they essentially behaved like an occupier in this country. In this sense "Occupy Wall street" movement should actually be called "Liberation from Wall Street occupation" movement.

    Bill Clinton realized that he can betray working class with impunity as "they have nowhere to go" and will vote for Democrat anyway. In this sense Bill Clinton is a godfather of the right wing nationalism in the USA. He sowed the "Teeth's of Dragon" and now we have, what we have.

    [Dec 26, 2016] Is Trump's Foreign Policy the New Mainstream

    Dec 26, 2016 | nationalinterest.org
    TNI Staff

    December 22, 2016

    With the election of Donald Trump to the presidency, the American public opted for change. A new poll from the Charles Koch Institute and Center for the National Interest on America and foreign affairs indicates that the desire for a fresh start may be particularly pronounced in the foreign policy sphere. In many areas the responses align with what Donald Trump was saying during the presidential campaign-and in other areas, there are a number of Americans who don't have strong views. There may be a real opportunity for Trump to redefine the foreign policy debate. He may have a ready-made base of support and find that other Americans are persuadable.

    Two key questions centering on whether U.S. foreign policy has made Americans more or less safe and whether U.S. foreign policy has made the rest of the world more or less safe show that a majority of the public is convinced that-in both cases-the answer is that it has not. 51.9 percent say that American foreign policy has not enhanced our security; 51.1 percent say that it has also had a deleterious effect abroad. The responses indicate that the successive wars in the Middle East, ranging from Afghanistan to Iraq to Libya, have not promoted but, rather, undermined a sense of security among Americans.

    The poll results indicate that this sentiment has translated into nearly 35 percent of respondents wanted a decreased military footprint in the Middle East, with about 30 percent simply wanting to keep things where they stand. When it comes to America's key relationship with Saudi Arabia, 23.2 percent indicate that they would favor weaker military ties, while 24 percent say they are simply unsure. Over half of Americans do not want to deploy ground troops to Syria. Overall, 45.4 percent say that they believe that it would enhance American security to reduce our military presence abroad, while 30.9 percent say that it should be increased.

    That Americans are adopting a more equivocal approach overall towards other countries seems clear. When provided with a list of adjectives to describe relationship, very few Americans were prepared to choose the extremes of friend or foe. The most popular term was the fairly neutral term "competitor." The mood appears to be similarly ambivalent about NATO. When asked whether the U.S. should automatically defend Latvia, Lithuania, or Estonia in a military conflict with Russia, 26.1 percent say that they neither agree nor disagree. 22 percent say that they disagree and a mere 16.8 percent say that they agree. Similarly, when queried about whether the inclusion of Montenegro makes America safer, no less than 63.6 percent say that they don't know or are not sure. About Russia itself, 37.8 percent indicate they see it as both an adversary and a potential partner. That they still see it as a potential partner is remarkable given the tenor of the current media climate.

    The poll results underscore that Americans are uneasy with the status quo. U.S. foreign policy in particular is perceived as a failure and Americans want to see a change, endorsing views and stands that might previously have been seen as existing on the fringe of debate about America's proper role abroad. Instead of militarism and adventurism, Americans are more keen on a cooperative world, in which trade and diplomacy are the principal means of engaging other nations. 49 percent of the respondents indicate that they would prioritize diplomacy over military power, while 26.3 percent argue for the reverse. 54 percent argue that the U.S. should work more through the United Nations to improve its security. Moreover, a clear majority of those polled stated that they believed that increasing trade would help to make the United States safer. In a year that has been anything but normal, perhaps Trump is onto something with his talk of burden sharing and a more critical look at the regnant establishment foreign policy that has prevailed until now.

    [Dec 26, 2016] Are We Seeing Propaganda About Russian Propaganda?

    Dec 26, 2016 | news.slashdot.org
    (rollingstone.com) 335 Posted by EditorDavid on Sunday December 04, 2016 @12:39PM from the ghosts-of-Joseph-McCarthy dept. MyFirstNameIsPaul was one of several readers who spotted this disturbing instance of fake news about fake news. An anonymous reader writes: Last week the Washington Post described "independent researchers" who'd identified "more than 200 websites as routine peddlers of Russian propaganda " that they estimated were viewed more than 200 million times on Facebook. But the researchers insisted on remaining anonymous "to avoid being targeted by Russia's legions of skilled hackers," and when criticized on Twitter, responded "Awww, wook at all the angwy Putinists, trying to change the subject -- they're so vewwy angwy!!"

    The group "seems to have been in existence for just a few months," writes Rolling Stone's Matt Taibbi , calling the Post's article an "astonishingly lazy report". (Chris Hedges, who once worked on a Pulitzer Prize-winning team at the New York Times, even found his site Truthdig on the group's dubious list of over 200 " sites that reliably echo Russian propaganda ," along with other long-standing sites like Zero Hedge , Naked Capitalism , and the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity.) "By overplaying the influence of Russia's disinformation campaign, the report also plays directly into the hands of the Russian propagandists that it hopes to combat," complains Adrian Chen, who in 2015 documented real Russian propaganda efforts which he traced to "a building in St. Petersburg where hundreds of young Russians worked to churn out propaganda ."
    The Post's article was picked up by other major news outlets ( including USA Today ), and included an ominous warning that "The sophistication of the Russian tactics may complicate efforts by Facebook and Google to crack down on 'fake news'."

    [Dec 25, 2016] Is Obama A Russian Agent

    Dec 25, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    Authored by Dmitry Orlov,

    Sometimes a case looks weak because there is no "smoking gun"-no obvious, direct evidence of conspiracy, malfeasance or evil intent-but once you tally up all the evidence it forms a coherent and damning picture. And so it is with the Obama administration vis à vis Russia: by feigning hostile intent it did everything possible to further Russia's agenda. And although it is always possible to claim that all of Obama's failures stem from mere incompetence, at some point this claim begins to ring hollow; how can he possibly be so utterly competent at being incompetent? Perhaps he just used incompetence as a veil to cover his true intent, which was always to bolster Russia while rendering the US maximally irrelevant in world affairs. Let's examine Obama's major foreign policy initiatives from this angle.

    Perhaps the greatest achievement of his eight years has been the destruction of Libya. Under the false pretense of a humanitarian intervention what was once the most prosperous and stable country in the entire North Africa has been reduced to a rubble-strewn haven for Islamic terrorists and a transit point for economic migrants streaming into the European Union. This had the effect of pushing Russia and China together, prompting them to start voting against the US together as a block in the UN Security Council. In a single blow, Obama assured an important element of his legacy as a Russian agent: no longer will the US be able to further its agenda through this very important international body.

    Next, Obama presided over the violent overthrow of the constitutional government in the Ukraine and the installation of an American puppet regime there. When Crimea then voted to rejoin Russia, Obama imposed sanctions on the Russian Federation. These moves may seem like they were designed to hurt Russia, but let's look at the results instead of the intentions.

    In effect, Russia reaped all the benefits from the Ukrainian stalemate, while the US gained an unsavory, embarrassing dependent.

    Obama's next "achievement" was in carefully shepherding the Syrian conflict into a cul de sac. (Some insist on calling it a civil war, although virtually all of the fighting there has between the entire Syrian nation and foreign-funded outside mercenaries). To this end, Obama deployed an array of tactics. He simultaneously supported, armed, trained and fought various terrorist groups, making a joke of the usual US technique of using "terrorism by proxy." He made ridiculous claims that the Syrian government had used chemical weapons against its own people, which immediately reminded everyone of similarly hollow claims about Saddam's WMDs while offering Russia a legitimate role to play in resolving the Syrian conflict. He made endless promises to separate "moderate opposition" from dyed-in-the-wool terrorists, but repeatedly failed to do so, thus giving the Russians ample scope to take care of the situation as they saw fit. He negotiated several cease fires, then violated them.

    There have been other achievements as well. By constantly talking up the nonexistent "Russian threat" and scaremongering about "Russian aggression" and "Russian invasion" (of which no evidence existed), and by holding futile military exercises in Eastern Europe and especially in the geopolitically irrelevant Baltics, Obama managed to deprive NATO of any residual legitimacy it once might have had, turning it into a sad joke.

    But perhaps Obama's most significant service on behalf of the Russian nation was in throwing the election to Donald Trump. This he did by throwing his support behind the ridiculously inept and corrupt Hillary Clinton. She outspent Trump by a factor of two, but apparently no amount of money could buy her the presidency. As a result of Obama's steadfast efforts, the US will now have a Russia-friendly president who is eager to make deals with Russia, but will have to do so from a significantly weakened negotiating position.

    As I have been arguing for the last decade, it is a foregone conclusion that the United States is going to slide from its position of global dominance. But it was certainly helpful to have Obama grease the skids, and now it's up to Donald Trump to finish the job. And since Obama's contribution was especially helpful to Russia, I propose that he be awarded the Russian Federation's Order of Friendship, to go with his Nobel Peace Prize.

    [Dec 25, 2016] Is Obama A Russian Agent

    Dec 25, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    Authored by Dmitry Orlov,

    Sometimes a case looks weak because there is no "smoking gun"-no obvious, direct evidence of conspiracy, malfeasance or evil intent-but once you tally up all the evidence it forms a coherent and damning picture. And so it is with the Obama administration vis à vis Russia: by feigning hostile intent it did everything possible to further Russia's agenda. And although it is always possible to claim that all of Obama's failures stem from mere incompetence, at some point this claim begins to ring hollow; how can he possibly be so utterly competent at being incompetent? Perhaps he just used incompetence as a veil to cover his true intent, which was always to bolster Russia while rendering the US maximally irrelevant in world affairs. Let's examine Obama's major foreign policy initiatives from this angle.

    Perhaps the greatest achievement of his eight years has been the destruction of Libya. Under the false pretense of a humanitarian intervention what was once the most prosperous and stable country in the entire North Africa has been reduced to a rubble-strewn haven for Islamic terrorists and a transit point for economic migrants streaming into the European Union. This had the effect of pushing Russia and China together, prompting them to start voting against the US together as a block in the UN Security Council. In a single blow, Obama assured an important element of his legacy as a Russian agent: no longer will the US be able to further its agenda through this very important international body.

    Next, Obama presided over the violent overthrow of the constitutional government in the Ukraine and the installation of an American puppet regime there. When Crimea then voted to rejoin Russia, Obama imposed sanctions on the Russian Federation. These moves may seem like they were designed to hurt Russia, but let's look at the results instead of the intentions.

    In effect, Russia reaped all the benefits from the Ukrainian stalemate, while the US gained an unsavory, embarrassing dependent.

    Obama's next "achievement" was in carefully shepherding the Syrian conflict into a cul de sac. (Some insist on calling it a civil war, although virtually all of the fighting there has between the entire Syrian nation and foreign-funded outside mercenaries). To this end, Obama deployed an array of tactics. He simultaneously supported, armed, trained and fought various terrorist groups, making a joke of the usual US technique of using "terrorism by proxy." He made ridiculous claims that the Syrian government had used chemical weapons against its own people, which immediately reminded everyone of similarly hollow claims about Saddam's WMDs while offering Russia a legitimate role to play in resolving the Syrian conflict. He made endless promises to separate "moderate opposition" from dyed-in-the-wool terrorists, but repeatedly failed to do so, thus giving the Russians ample scope to take care of the situation as they saw fit. He negotiated several cease fires, then violated them.

    There have been other achievements as well. By constantly talking up the nonexistent "Russian threat" and scaremongering about "Russian aggression" and "Russian invasion" (of which no evidence existed), and by holding futile military exercises in Eastern Europe and especially in the geopolitically irrelevant Baltics, Obama managed to deprive NATO of any residual legitimacy it once might have had, turning it into a sad joke.

    But perhaps Obama's most significant service on behalf of the Russian nation was in throwing the election to Donald Trump. This he did by throwing his support behind the ridiculously inept and corrupt Hillary Clinton. She outspent Trump by a factor of two, but apparently no amount of money could buy her the presidency. As a result of Obama's steadfast efforts, the US will now have a Russia-friendly president who is eager to make deals with Russia, but will have to do so from a significantly weakened negotiating position.

    As I have been arguing for the last decade, it is a foregone conclusion that the United States is going to slide from its position of global dominance. But it was certainly helpful to have Obama grease the skids, and now it's up to Donald Trump to finish the job. And since Obama's contribution was especially helpful to Russia, I propose that he be awarded the Russian Federation's Order of Friendship, to go with his Nobel Peace Prize.

    [Dec 24, 2016] If the 2018 elections will not be converted to verified paper ballots, accompanied by random auditing of all close elections, then it is clear that the accusations of Russian hacking were blatant lies

    Notable quotes:
    "... Another thing: it will be clear how serious they take the allegations of Russian hacking, by how they address the problem of auditing electronic voting machines. ..."
    "... If the 2018 elections aren't all with voter verified paper ballots, accompanied by random auditing and auditing all close elections, we know the accusations of Russian hacking were blatant lies. ..."
    Dec 24, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    John M -> John M ... December 23, 2016 at 07:17 PM

    Another thing: it will be clear how serious they take the allegations of Russian hacking, by how they address the problem of auditing electronic voting machines.

    If the 2018 elections aren't all with voter verified paper ballots, accompanied by random auditing and auditing all close elections, we know the accusations of Russian hacking were blatant lies.

    [Dec 23, 2016] Has The CIA Been Politicized

    Notable quotes:
    "... The use of the term, however, rather naïvely implies that it is possible for a government agency to not be politicized. A non -political government agency, it is assumed, acts without regard to how its actions and claims affect its political standing among powerful interests in Washington. Such an agency has never existed. ..."
    "... Indeed, when a government agency relies on taxpayer funding, Congressional lawmaking, and White House politics to sustain itself, it is absurd to expect that agency to somehow remain not "politicized." That is, it's a logical impossibility to think it possible to set up a government agency that relies on government policymakers to sustain it, and then think the agency in question will not attempt to influence or curry favor with those policymakers. ..."
    "... Does the organization depend on taxpayer funding for a substantial amount of its budget? ..."
    "... Does the organization engage in what would be illegal activities were it not for protective government legislation? ..."
    Dec 23, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    Submitted by Ryan McMaken via The Mises Institute,

    Anonymous leakers at the CIA continue to make claims about Russia and the 2016 election. In response to demands to provide evidence, the CIA has declined to offer any, refusing to meet with Congressional intelligence committees, and refusing to issue any documents offering evidence. Instead, the CIA, communicating via leaks, simply says the equivalent of "trust us."

    Not troubled by the lack of evidence, many in the media and in the Democratic party have been repeating unsubstantiated CIA claims as fact.

    Of course, as I've noted before , the history of CIA intelligence is largely a history of missing the forest for the trees. Sometimes, the failures have been spectacular.

    One of the questions that immediately arises in the media in situations like these, however, is " has the CIA been politicized ?"

    When used in this way, the term "politicized" means that the CIA is involved in helping or hurting specific political factions (e,g., specific ideological groups, pressure groups, or presidential administrations) in order to strengthen the CIA's financial or political standing.

    All Government Agencies Are Politicized

    The use of the term, however, rather naïvely implies that it is possible for a government agency to not be politicized. A non -political government agency, it is assumed, acts without regard to how its actions and claims affect its political standing among powerful interests in Washington. Such an agency has never existed.

    Indeed, when a government agency relies on taxpayer funding, Congressional lawmaking, and White House politics to sustain itself, it is absurd to expect that agency to somehow remain not "politicized." That is, it's a logical impossibility to think it possible to set up a government agency that relies on government policymakers to sustain it, and then think the agency in question will not attempt to influence or curry favor with those policymakers.

    This idea might seem plausible to school children in junior-high-school civics classes, but not to anyone who lives in the real world.

    In fact, if we wish to ascertain whether or not an institution or organization is "politicized" we can simply ask ourselves a few questions:

    If the answer to any of these questions is "yes" then you are probably dealing with a politicized organization. If the answer to all of these questions is "yes" - as is the case with the CIA - then you're definitely dealing with a very politicized organization. (Other "non-political" organizations that fall well within this criteria as well include so-called "private" organizations such as the Federal Reserve System and Fannie Mae.)

    So, it has always been foolish to ask ourselves if the CIA is "politicized" since the answer is obviously "yes" for anyone who is paying attention.

    Nevertheless, the myth that the CIA and agencies like it can be non-political continues to endure, although in many cases, the charge has produced numerous helpful historical analysis of just how politicized the CIA has been in practice.

    Recent Narratives on CIA Politicization

    Stories of CIA politicization take at least two forms: One type consists of anti-CIA writers attempting to illustrate how the CIA acts to manipulate political actors to achieve its own political ends. The other type consists of pro-CIA writers attempting to cast the CIA as an innocent victim of manipulation by senior Washington officials.

    Of course, it doesn't matter whether the provenance of CIA politicking comes from within the agency or outside it. In both cases, the fact remains that the Agency is a tool for political actors to deceive, manipulate, and attack political enemies.

    With CIA leaks apparently attempting to call the integrity of the 2016 election into question, the CIA is once again being accused of politicization. Consequently, articles in the Washington Times , the Daily Caller , and The Intercept all question the CIA's motivation and present numerous examples of the Agency's history of deception.

    The current controversy is hardly the first time the Agency has been accused of being political, and during the build up to the Iraq invasion in 2003, for example, the CIA worked with the Bush Administration to essentially manufacture "intelligence."

    In his book Failure of Intelligence , Melvin Allan Goodman writes:

    Three years after the invasion of Iraq, a senior CIA analyst, Paul Pillar, documented the efforts of the Bush administration to politicize the intelligence of the CIA on Iraqi WMD and so-called links between Iraq and al Qaeda. Pillar accused the Bush administration of using policy to drive intelligence production, which was the same argument offered by the chief of British intelligence in the Downing Street memorandum prior to the war, and aggressively using intelligence to win public support for the decision to go to war....Pillar does not explain why no senior CIA official protested, let alone resigned in the wake of the president's misuse of intelligence on Iraq's so-called efforts to obtain uranium ore in Africa. Pillar falsely claimed "for the most part, the intelligence community's own substantive judgments do not appear to have been compromised," when it was clear that the CIA wa wrong on every conclusion and had to politicize the intelligence to be so egregiously wrong."

    Since then, CIA officials have attempted to rehabilitate the agency by claiming the agency was the hapless victim of the Administration. But, as Goodman notes, we heard no protests from the Agency when such protests would have actually mattered, and the fact is the Agency was easily used for political ends. Whether or not some agents wanted to participate in assisting the Bush administration with trumping up evidence against Iraq remains irrelevant. The fact remains the CIA did it.

    Moreover, according to documents compiled by John Prados at the George Washington University , "The U.S. intelligence community buckled sooner in 2002 than previously reported" and that "Under the circumstances, it is difficult to avoid the impression that the CIA and other intelligence agencies defended themselves against the dangers of attack from the Bush administration through a process of self-censorship. That is the very essence of politicization in intelligence."

    In other words, to protect its own budgets and privileges, the CIA reacted quickly to shape its intelligence to meet the political goals of others.

    Journalist Robert Parry has also attempted to go the CIA-as-victim route in his own writings. In an article written before the Iraq War debacle, Parry looks at how the Agency was used by both Reagan and Clinton, and claims that what is arguably of the CIA's biggest analytical errors - repeatedly overstating the economic strength of the Soviet Union - was the result of pressure applied to the Agency by the Reagan administration. (Parry may be mistaken here, as the CIA was wrong about the Soviet economy long before the Reagan Administration .)

    While attempting to defend the CIA, however, Parry is merely providing a list of the many ways in which the CIA serves to manufacture false information that are useful for political officials.

    In this essay for the Center for International Policy, Goodman further lists many examples of politicization and concludes "Throughout the CIA's 60-year history, there have been many efforts to slant analytical conclusions, skew estimates, and repress evidence that challenged a particular policy or point of view. As a result, the agency must recognize the impact of politicization and introduce barriers to protect analysts from political pressures. Unfortunately, the CIA has largely ignored the problem."

    It is difficult to ascertain whether past intelligence failures were due to pressure form the administration or whether they originated from within the Agency itself. Nevertheless, the intelligence failures are numerous, including:

    The fact that politicization occurs might help explain some of these failures, but simply claiming "politicization" doesn't erase the legacy of failure, and it hardly serves as an argument in favor of allowing the CIA to continue to command huge budgets and essentially function unsupervised. Regardless of fanciful claims of non-political professionalism, it is undeniable that, as an agency of the US government, the CIA is a political institution.

    The only type of organization that is not politicized is a private-sector organization under a relatively laissez-faire regime. Heavily regulated private industries and all government agencies are politicized by nature because they depend heavily on active assistance from political actors to sustain themselves.

    It should be assumed that politicized organizations seek to influence policymakers, and thus all the actions and claims of these organization should be treated with skepticism and a recognition that these organizations benefit from further taxation and expanded government powers inflicted on ordinary taxpayers and other productive members of society outside the privileged circles of Washington, DC.

    Perimetr -> Chupacabra-322 •Dec 23, 2016 11:34 AM
    Is the CIA politicized?

    ...Is the pope catholic?

    How many more presidents does the CIA have to kill to answer your question?

    Oldwood -> DownWithYogaPants •Dec 23, 2016 11:26 AM
    How could the CIA NOT be politicized? They collect "intelligence" and use it to influence policy makers without ANY accountability and no real proof. The CIA operates on CONJECTURE that is completely subjective to bias and agenda. Is that ANYTHING BUT political?
    TeaClipper's picture -> TeaClipper •Dec 23, 2016 11:24 AM
    The CIA was not wrong about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, it lied about them. That is a very big distinction.
    Old Poor Richard •Dec 23, 2016 12:13 PM
    The question is whether the CIA is puppeteer and not the puppet.

    The Snowden report, jam packed with provably false scurrilous accusations, demonstrates that not only is the US intelligence community entirely lacking in credibility, but that they believe themselves so powerful that they can indefinitely get away with baldfaced lies.

    The thing is, the deep state can only keep up the charade when they completely control the narrative, the way China does. Hence the attacks on the first amendment that are accelerating as fast as the attacks on the second amendment. Majority of Americans don't believe the Russian hacking hoax and it make the CIA increasingly hysterical.

    DarthVaderMentor •Dec 23, 2016 12:33 PM
    The CIA has been politicized. In fact, all the way down to the COS level, and in concert with the State Department. Brennan and Moran are nothing but Clinton surrogates.

    In one embassy in a country where IEDs keep blowing up, there were millions of taxpayer dollars spent and continue to be spent in "safe spaces" and "comfort food and liquor" inside an embassy (taking away space from the US Marine Giuards for it) to let "Democrat snowflakes" in senior embassy and CIA positions recover from the Trump elections.

    The real reaon for the loss of the Phillipines as an ally may eventually come out that a gay senior embassy official made a pass at the President of the country. Just like it happened with the gay ambassador in the Dominican Republic.

    That Libral You Hate •Dec 23, 2016 12:41 PM
    I would say the simple answer to the question asked in the headline of this article is "yes" but it is important to actually understand the nuance of the langer answer.

    The critical nuance is that: politics didn't conquor the CIA, but rather the CIA injected itself into politics. I.e. the CIA aren't political stooges, but act political because they have injected political stooges into politics and they have to act political to protect them to protect their interests. Thus while the answer is "yes" the question is phrased wrong as: "Has the CIA Been Politicized," the appropriate question is "Has politics been co-opted by the CIA"

    insanelysane •Dec 23, 2016 12:50 PM
    The first post is spot on except the CIA was in Southeast Asia stirring stuff up to get us into a war. War is big business.

    The entire reason for Vietnam was "If Vietnam falls the commies will be marching down Main Street USA afterwards."

    Well we fucking lost Vietnam and the commies still aren't marching down Main Street and yet the assessment is still being peddled by the Corporation.

    Kennedy was killed because, even though he was fucking totally drugged up, he still saw Vietnam for what it was.

    The Corporation gave Johnson and offer he couldn't refuse, take the keys to the kingdom, just keep "fighting" in Vietnam. I say fighting because we were just fucking around there. No one in charge wanted to risk winning the war.

    And here we are today, 23rd, December, 2016, "fighting" in the Middle East and the Corporation not willing to risk winning the war. Just need to keep it hot enough for the weapons and ammunition to be used in a nice steady pace to keep business going.

    [Dec 23, 2016] CIA Director John Brennan may face investigation for leaking Russian hacker story to the Washington Post

    theduran.com
    Fox Business News discusses a potential investigation involving CIA Director John Brennan over whether he leaked information about the Russian hacking investigation to the media

    John Brennan takes his cues directly from Barack Obama, which means the entire CIA, Russian hack investigation, was initiated and conducted under Obama's direct order.

    The Russian hack, media spin, has been and remains a political play. National security has very little to do with it.

    [Dec 23, 2016] Russian Hacking The CIA Never Lies Information Clearing House - ICH

    Dec 23, 2016 | www.informationclearinghouse.info

    There certainly are experts in the field who should know about the alleged hacking, but they are not allowed to disrupt mainstream media's Russophobe frenzy. Bet you never saw William Binney on mainstream media. Who is Binney? He is the guy who put together the NSA's elaborate worldwide surveillance system. He has publicly stated on alternative news sites, that if something was "hacked", the NSA would instantly know who, when, and whether the info was passed on to another party. He designed the system. He argues, there was no hacking for that very reason. Binney insists the e-mails had to have been leaked by an "insider" who had access to the data. Never heard him on mainstream media huh? Next comes Craig Murray a former US Ambassador who claims he knows who leaked the e-mails, because he met with the individual in Washington D.C. Never heard him on mainstream media either huh? Finally, Julian Assange, the man who released the e-mails. He insisted all along he never got the e-mails from Russia. Another no show on mainstream media. Whatever happened to the journalistic adage of going to the source? Assange is the source, but no mainstream media journalist, and I use the term very loosely, has ventured to speak with him. The accusation has been repeated countless times, without any evidence, or consulting with any of the above three experts.

    Because the big lie has been repeated so many times by corporate media, about half of the US public, according to a recent poll, believes Russia interfered, even though there is not a bit of evidence to support it. Once again they take the bait; hook, line, and sinker.

    For believers of Russian hacking, I offer the following analogy. It might, but I doubt it will help, because you cannot undo the effect of propaganda. You are put on trial for murder that you did not commit. The prosecutor and judge simply say they have reached a "consensus view", the phrase offered by intelligence agencies, that you committed the murder and are guilty. You ask for proof. They offer none. They just keep repeating that you did it. You challenge and ask how do you know I did it? Answer: we have anonymous sources, but we cannot tell you who they are, nor can we show you proof.

    Just as in the fake run-up to the Iraq war, the expert voices of the opposition are not tolerated on mainstream media. Do these folks really want a war with Russia? Are they so upset with Trump's pronouncement that he wanted better relations with Russia? What sane person would not? Hmmm.

    It appears there is a war already raging between the Russophobes, who do not want better relations with Russia, and are doing their best to smear and demonize Putin, and those who do. This is the same tactic used with Manuel Noriega of Panama, Muarmar Gaddafi, and Saddam Hussein, before they made war on all three. Demonize, then make war.

    Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. Shame on those who buy into propaganda without any proof.

    Think about it and use a little logic.

    jim james · 1 day ago
    The oddity of the above author's first paragraph is that the CIA was not lying in 2001-03. The CIA said Iraq/Saddam had no wmds.

    In fact, if you lived through it then perhaps you recall the words cherry-picking and stove-piped intel. Now, I understand he's CIA so there's no reason to believe them, but ask Larry Johnson (I know, great name for CIA).

    Fitzhenrymac 125p · 22 hours ago
    Actually he didn't mention the CIA in the first paragraph. However in late 2002 CIA director George Tenet and United States Secretary of State Colin Powell both cited attempts by Hussein to obtain uranium from Niger in their September testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee using intelligence Italy, Britain, and France.

    Days before the Iraq invasion, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) voiced serious doubt on the authenticity of the documents to the UN Security Council, judging them counterfeit but the CIA while having suspicions, largely kept them to themselves.

    guest01 · 18 hours ago
    The author of the above article, Joe Clifford is referring to what CIA Chief George Tenet who represented US intelligence, said: it was "Slam Dunk" Iraq had WMD. Tenet was quoted over and over again by Bush-Dick regime to justify US war against Iraq. After Tenet said those words, CIA neither contradicted him nor corrected him which meant that they went along with the "Slam Dunk" Iraq had WMD. Tenet, representing US intelligence, even sat quietly behind Powell at the UNSC when Powell was spewing his lies about Iraq's nonexistent WMD.
    tictac · 23 hours ago
    Not only to officials repeat false assertions over and over, but those who hear the falsities, themselves start repeating them. The more outrageous, the more they are repeated.
    Rampart · 21 hours ago
    Fool me once, shame on you,. Fool me twice, .....we won't get fooled agin.
    GW
    A jurist · 1 hour ago
    Yeah right, in the CIA's (very bad) dreams maybe, the people will not be fooled. But this isn't a CIA nightmare, on the contrary.
    fantelius 67p · 19 hours ago
    Even Trump doesn't believe in or trust the CIA Why should anyone else?
    See: Presidential Proof of Governmental Distrust https://systemhumanity.com/2016/12/23/presidentia...
    OSIKA · 19 hours ago
    You forgot former Yugoslavia.There they "sharpened "their tools.They "demonized" that country,demonized their President,trained and financed those local soldiers and then destroyed that country while "peace making".Filthy BASTARDS.And you people call USA a decent country?They lied when they created that country and still their mouths and deeds are full of lies,murder and plunder.And their Churches are cheer leaders in that endeavour yet they will proclaim even this Christmas "Peace to the world" while they will plot more of the same.They preach one thing but their actions are totally opposite.They leave wrecked countries behind them and those people end up feeding from containers.I hope that they choke on that stolen turkey.
    romanaorfred · 17 hours ago
    I would still plead with our grassroots hero Tom Feely to discontinue the sensationalistic, emotonal pandering photos on the front page of ICH.

    I much prefer the old text styled front page of ICH -sans pictures - leave the focus on quality content - not hype.

    We could do without the bad memory of Hillary and Obama pics.

    uphill · 11 hours ago
    ditto
    Schlüter 84p · 17 hours ago
    „Media, Independent and Mainstream: Fake News and Fake Narratives": https://wipokuli.wordpress.com/2016/12/18/media-i...
    &
    „US Allegations Against Russia: Hold the Thief! (in addition to the previous post)": https://wipokuli.wordpress.com/2016/12/18/us-alle...
    ignasi orobitg gene · 15 hours ago
    Truth is the first love of Freedom.
    Truth answers all questions.
    No dream of freedom is possible by listening to lies
    coldish1 42p · 14 hours ago
    Craig Murray was not a US ambassador. He was British ambassador to Uzbekistan from 2002 to 2004.
    Fired Up · 11 hours ago
    The counter tactic for the "big lie" is the "big truth." Ordinary people have access to e-mail, social media and website comments. No secret organization is needed. Just make counter-bullturdism part of your personal routine.
    A jurist · 1 hour ago
    This takes time. Most people invest little thought into the news they digest. Quite often, news (or "news") is not even digested at all, just internalised. They know this. The CIA, th eDNC, all of them. They rely on public apathy to survive.
    FrankZ · 8 hours ago
    This the the lie the liberals love just like Iraq's wmd was the lie so dear to the conservatives. It's sickening the way these partisan idiots are so easily manipulated.
    LRE · 6 hours ago
    It doesn't matter who hacked the emails one bit! That right there is the point the powers that be want us to argue about endlessly, because it draws attention away from what actually matters: What matters is that the emails revealed the truth about the democratic party, and that they rigged their primaries. What matters is that the press did not reveal this and since the reveal, they have been trying to distract people from the truth. It is the press and the Democratic party that were influencing the 2016 election by lying and cheating, not the Russians or whoever hacked the email.
    chrisgoodwin 60p · 4 hours ago
    The e-mails were not hacked: they were leaked. Every time anyone refers to the "hacked" e-mails, it raises the question "Who dunnit ?" This is a wild goose chase. The e-mails were leaked by a disgusted insider.
    A jurist · 1 hour ago
    The contents of the leaks/hacks were almost never claimed to be false. Even the very faint cries of "the e-mails were doctored" eventually died out. Nobody has stepped in to claim that the information was false since. This means that all Wikileaks revealed was true. Whoever was responsible for providing this information has done a very valuable public service. Yes, even if it (somehow) was the Russians. To deny that the leak/hack was beneficial to the public is insane.

    Not that we didn't know beforehand that the CIA are quite crazy, but still. I would at least have expected them to welcome this 4th detente. I mean, they have thus far shown that their intelligence gathering efforts in Russia are laughably bad. Do they not want some respite form the humiliation? It would at least be good PR.

    [Dec 23, 2016] Has The CIA Been Politicized

    Notable quotes:
    "... The use of the term, however, rather naïvely implies that it is possible for a government agency to not be politicized. A non -political government agency, it is assumed, acts without regard to how its actions and claims affect its political standing among powerful interests in Washington. Such an agency has never existed. ..."
    "... Indeed, when a government agency relies on taxpayer funding, Congressional lawmaking, and White House politics to sustain itself, it is absurd to expect that agency to somehow remain not "politicized." That is, it's a logical impossibility to think it possible to set up a government agency that relies on government policymakers to sustain it, and then think the agency in question will not attempt to influence or curry favor with those policymakers. ..."
    "... Does the organization depend on taxpayer funding for a substantial amount of its budget? ..."
    "... Does the organization engage in what would be illegal activities were it not for protective government legislation? ..."
    Dec 23, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    Submitted by Ryan McMaken via The Mises Institute,

    Anonymous leakers at the CIA continue to make claims about Russia and the 2016 election. In response to demands to provide evidence, the CIA has declined to offer any, refusing to meet with Congressional intelligence committees, and refusing to issue any documents offering evidence. Instead, the CIA, communicating via leaks, simply says the equivalent of "trust us."

    Not troubled by the lack of evidence, many in the media and in the Democratic party have been repeating unsubstantiated CIA claims as fact.

    Of course, as I've noted before , the history of CIA intelligence is largely a history of missing the forest for the trees. Sometimes, the failures have been spectacular.

    One of the questions that immediately arises in the media in situations like these, however, is " has the CIA been politicized ?"

    When used in this way, the term "politicized" means that the CIA is involved in helping or hurting specific political factions (e,g., specific ideological groups, pressure groups, or presidential administrations) in order to strengthen the CIA's financial or political standing.

    All Government Agencies Are Politicized

    The use of the term, however, rather naïvely implies that it is possible for a government agency to not be politicized. A non -political government agency, it is assumed, acts without regard to how its actions and claims affect its political standing among powerful interests in Washington. Such an agency has never existed.

    Indeed, when a government agency relies on taxpayer funding, Congressional lawmaking, and White House politics to sustain itself, it is absurd to expect that agency to somehow remain not "politicized." That is, it's a logical impossibility to think it possible to set up a government agency that relies on government policymakers to sustain it, and then think the agency in question will not attempt to influence or curry favor with those policymakers.

    This idea might seem plausible to school children in junior-high-school civics classes, but not to anyone who lives in the real world.

    In fact, if we wish to ascertain whether or not an institution or organization is "politicized" we can simply ask ourselves a few questions:

    If the answer to any of these questions is "yes" then you are probably dealing with a politicized organization. If the answer to all of these questions is "yes" - as is the case with the CIA - then you're definitely dealing with a very politicized organization. (Other "non-political" organizations that fall well within this criteria as well include so-called "private" organizations such as the Federal Reserve System and Fannie Mae.)

    So, it has always been foolish to ask ourselves if the CIA is "politicized" since the answer is obviously "yes" for anyone who is paying attention.

    Nevertheless, the myth that the CIA and agencies like it can be non-political continues to endure, although in many cases, the charge has produced numerous helpful historical analysis of just how politicized the CIA has been in practice.

    Recent Narratives on CIA Politicization

    Stories of CIA politicization take at least two forms: One type consists of anti-CIA writers attempting to illustrate how the CIA acts to manipulate political actors to achieve its own political ends. The other type consists of pro-CIA writers attempting to cast the CIA as an innocent victim of manipulation by senior Washington officials.

    Of course, it doesn't matter whether the provenance of CIA politicking comes from within the agency or outside it. In both cases, the fact remains that the Agency is a tool for political actors to deceive, manipulate, and attack political enemies.

    With CIA leaks apparently attempting to call the integrity of the 2016 election into question, the CIA is once again being accused of politicization. Consequently, articles in the Washington Times , the Daily Caller , and The Intercept all question the CIA's motivation and present numerous examples of the Agency's history of deception.

    The current controversy is hardly the first time the Agency has been accused of being political, and during the build up to the Iraq invasion in 2003, for example, the CIA worked with the Bush Administration to essentially manufacture "intelligence."

    In his book Failure of Intelligence , Melvin Allan Goodman writes:

    Three years after the invasion of Iraq, a senior CIA analyst, Paul Pillar, documented the efforts of the Bush administration to politicize the intelligence of the CIA on Iraqi WMD and so-called links between Iraq and al Qaeda. Pillar accused the Bush administration of using policy to drive intelligence production, which was the same argument offered by the chief of British intelligence in the Downing Street memorandum prior to the war, and aggressively using intelligence to win public support for the decision to go to war....Pillar does not explain why no senior CIA official protested, let alone resigned in the wake of the president's misuse of intelligence on Iraq's so-called efforts to obtain uranium ore in Africa. Pillar falsely claimed "for the most part, the intelligence community's own substantive judgments do not appear to have been compromised," when it was clear that the CIA wa wrong on every conclusion and had to politicize the intelligence to be so egregiously wrong."

    Since then, CIA officials have attempted to rehabilitate the agency by claiming the agency was the hapless victim of the Administration. But, as Goodman notes, we heard no protests from the Agency when such protests would have actually mattered, and the fact is the Agency was easily used for political ends. Whether or not some agents wanted to participate in assisting the Bush administration with trumping up evidence against Iraq remains irrelevant. The fact remains the CIA did it.

    Moreover, according to documents compiled by John Prados at the George Washington University , "The U.S. intelligence community buckled sooner in 2002 than previously reported" and that "Under the circumstances, it is difficult to avoid the impression that the CIA and other intelligence agencies defended themselves against the dangers of attack from the Bush administration through a process of self-censorship. That is the very essence of politicization in intelligence."

    In other words, to protect its own budgets and privileges, the CIA reacted quickly to shape its intelligence to meet the political goals of others.

    Journalist Robert Parry has also attempted to go the CIA-as-victim route in his own writings. In an article written before the Iraq War debacle, Parry looks at how the Agency was used by both Reagan and Clinton, and claims that what is arguably of the CIA's biggest analytical errors - repeatedly overstating the economic strength of the Soviet Union - was the result of pressure applied to the Agency by the Reagan administration. (Parry may be mistaken here, as the CIA was wrong about the Soviet economy long before the Reagan Administration .)

    While attempting to defend the CIA, however, Parry is merely providing a list of the many ways in which the CIA serves to manufacture false information that are useful for political officials.

    In this essay for the Center for International Policy, Goodman further lists many examples of politicization and concludes "Throughout the CIA's 60-year history, there have been many efforts to slant analytical conclusions, skew estimates, and repress evidence that challenged a particular policy or point of view. As a result, the agency must recognize the impact of politicization and introduce barriers to protect analysts from political pressures. Unfortunately, the CIA has largely ignored the problem."

    It is difficult to ascertain whether past intelligence failures were due to pressure form the administration or whether they originated from within the Agency itself. Nevertheless, the intelligence failures are numerous, including:

    The fact that politicization occurs might help explain some of these failures, but simply claiming "politicization" doesn't erase the legacy of failure, and it hardly serves as an argument in favor of allowing the CIA to continue to command huge budgets and essentially function unsupervised. Regardless of fanciful claims of non-political professionalism, it is undeniable that, as an agency of the US government, the CIA is a political institution.

    The only type of organization that is not politicized is a private-sector organization under a relatively laissez-faire regime. Heavily regulated private industries and all government agencies are politicized by nature because they depend heavily on active assistance from political actors to sustain themselves.

    It should be assumed that politicized organizations seek to influence policymakers, and thus all the actions and claims of these organization should be treated with skepticism and a recognition that these organizations benefit from further taxation and expanded government powers inflicted on ordinary taxpayers and other productive members of society outside the privileged circles of Washington, DC.

    Perimetr -> Chupacabra-322 •Dec 23, 2016 11:34 AM
    Is the CIA politicized?

    ...Is the pope catholic?

    How many more presidents does the CIA have to kill to answer your question?

    Oldwood -> DownWithYogaPants •Dec 23, 2016 11:26 AM
    How could the CIA NOT be politicized? They collect "intelligence" and use it to influence policy makers without ANY accountability and no real proof. The CIA operates on CONJECTURE that is completely subjective to bias and agenda. Is that ANYTHING BUT political?
    TeaClipper's picture -> TeaClipper •Dec 23, 2016 11:24 AM
    The CIA was not wrong about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, it lied about them. That is a very big distinction.
    Old Poor Richard •Dec 23, 2016 12:13 PM
    The question is whether the CIA is puppeteer and not the puppet.

    The Snowden report, jam packed with provably false scurrilous accusations, demonstrates that not only is the US intelligence community entirely lacking in credibility, but that they believe themselves so powerful that they can indefinitely get away with baldfaced lies.

    The thing is, the deep state can only keep up the charade when they completely control the narrative, the way China does. Hence the attacks on the first amendment that are accelerating as fast as the attacks on the second amendment. Majority of Americans don't believe the Russian hacking hoax and it make the CIA increasingly hysterical.

    DarthVaderMentor •Dec 23, 2016 12:33 PM
    The CIA has been politicized. In fact, all the way down to the COS level, and in concert with the State Department. Brennan and Moran are nothing but Clinton surrogates.

    In one embassy in a country where IEDs keep blowing up, there were millions of taxpayer dollars spent and continue to be spent in "safe spaces" and "comfort food and liquor" inside an embassy (taking away space from the US Marine Giuards for it) to let "Democrat snowflakes" in senior embassy and CIA positions recover from the Trump elections.

    The real reaon for the loss of the Phillipines as an ally may eventually come out that a gay senior embassy official made a pass at the President of the country. Just like it happened with the gay ambassador in the Dominican Republic.

    That Libral You Hate •Dec 23, 2016 12:41 PM
    I would say the simple answer to the question asked in the headline of this article is "yes" but it is important to actually understand the nuance of the langer answer.

    The critical nuance is that: politics didn't conquor the CIA, but rather the CIA injected itself into politics. I.e. the CIA aren't political stooges, but act political because they have injected political stooges into politics and they have to act political to protect them to protect their interests. Thus while the answer is "yes" the question is phrased wrong as: "Has the CIA Been Politicized," the appropriate question is "Has politics been co-opted by the CIA"

    insanelysane •Dec 23, 2016 12:50 PM
    The first post is spot on except the CIA was in Southeast Asia stirring stuff up to get us into a war. War is big business.

    The entire reason for Vietnam was "If Vietnam falls the commies will be marching down Main Street USA afterwards."

    Well we fucking lost Vietnam and the commies still aren't marching down Main Street and yet the assessment is still being peddled by the Corporation.

    Kennedy was killed because, even though he was fucking totally drugged up, he still saw Vietnam for what it was.

    The Corporation gave Johnson and offer he couldn't refuse, take the keys to the kingdom, just keep "fighting" in Vietnam. I say fighting because we were just fucking around there. No one in charge wanted to risk winning the war.

    And here we are today, 23rd, December, 2016, "fighting" in the Middle East and the Corporation not willing to risk winning the war. Just need to keep it hot enough for the weapons and ammunition to be used in a nice steady pace to keep business going.

    [Dec 23, 2016] NSA Whistleblower US Intelligence Worker Likely Behind DNC Leaks, Not Russia Zero Hedge

    Dec 23, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    During the third and last presidential debate between Republican Donald Trump and Democrat Hillary Clinton, debate moderator Chris Wallace pulled a quote from a speech Clinton had given to Brazilian bankers, noting the information had been made available to the public via WikiLeaks.

    Instead of answering the question, Clinton blamed the Russian government for the leaks , alleging " [t]he Russian government has engaged in espionage against Americans ," hacking " American websites, American accounts of private people, of institutions in an effort, as 17 of our intelligence agencies have confirmed, to influence our election ."

    Following the claim, Clinton criticized Trump for saying " [Clinton] has no idea whether it's Russia, China, or anybody else ," repeating her assertion that 17 U.S. intelligence agencies had determined the Russian government had been behind the Democratic National Committee (DNC) hack.

    Despite her claim, reality couldn't be more different.

    Instead of 17 agencies, only the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) have offered the public any input on this matter, claiming the DNC attacks " are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts ."

    Without offering any evidence, these two - not 17 - agencies hinted that the Kremlin could be behind the cyber attack. But saying they believe the hacks come from the Russians is far short of saying they know the Russians were behind them.

    During an interview on Aaron Klein's Sunday radio program , former high-ranking NSA intelligence official-turned-whistleblower, William Binney , discussed the alleged Russian involvement in our elections, suggesting the cyber attack against the DNC may not have originated from the Russian government. Instead, Binney says, a " disgruntled U.S. intelligence worker " is likely behind the breach.

    https://soundcloud.com/breitbart/nsa-whistleblower-tells-aaron-klein-agency-has-all-of-hillarys-emails

    Speaking as an analyst, Binney added that a testimony by the former Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director Robert S. Mueller from March 2011 shows the FBI has access to a series of databases that helps them " to track down known and suspected terrorists ."

    According to Binney, what Mueller meant is that the FBI has access to the NSA database and that it's accessed without any oversight, meaning the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), as well as the FBI, have open access to anything the NSA has access to. " So if the FBI really wanted [Clinton's and the DNC emails] they can go into that database and get them right now ," Binney told Klein.

    Asked if he believed the NSA had copies of all Clinton's emails, " including the deleted correspondence ," Binney said:

    " Yes. That would be my point. They have them all and the FBI can get them right there ."

    While Binney seems to be the only intelligence insider who has come forward with this type of analysis, a young man from Russia whose servers were implicated in the recent hacking of the DNC sites says he has information that will lead to the hacker - yet the FBI won't knock on his door.

    In a conversation with the New York Times , Vladimir M. Fomenko said his server rental company, King Servers, is oftentimes used by hackers. Fomenko added that the hackers behind the attack against computerized election systems in Arizona and Illinois - which, like the DNC hack, were also linked to the Russian government by the FBI - had used his servers.

    According to the 26-year-old entrepreneur, "[w]e have the information. If the F.B.I. asks, we are ready to supply the I.P. addresses, the logs, but nobody contacted us."

    " It's like nobody wants to sort this out, " he added .

    After learning that two renters using the nicknames Robin Good and Dick Robin had used his servers to hack the Arizona and Illinois voting systems, Fomenko released a statement saying he learned about the problem through the news and shut down the two users down shortly after.

    While he told the New York Times he doesn't know who the hackers are, he used his statement to report that the hackers are not Russian security agents.

    " The analysis of the internal data allows King Servers to confidently refute any conclusions about the involvement of the Russian special services in this attack ," he said on September 15, the New York Times reported.

    According to Fomenko, he found a trail left by the hackers through their contact with King Servers' billing page, which leads to the next step in the chain " to bring investigators in the United States closer to the hackers ."

    The clients used about 60 I.P. addresses to contact Fomenko, including addresses belonging to server companies in Finland, France, Italy, Norway, Britain, and Sweden. With these addresses in hand, authorities could track the hackers down.

    But while this information is somewhat recent, few news organizations found it necessary to report on the King Servers link. In the past, however, at least one major news network mentioned Binney.

    In August 2016, Judge Andrew Napolitano commented on the DNC hack.

    On "Judge Napolitano Chambers," the Judge said that while the DNC, government officials, and the Clinton campaign all accuse the Russians of hacking into the DNC servers, " the Russians had nothing to do with it. "

    [Dec 23, 2016] NSA Whistleblower Destroys CIA Narrative – "Hard Evidence Points To Inside Leak, Not Russia Hack

    Dec 23, 2016 | www.activistpost.com

    Originally from: NSA Whistleblower US Intelligence Worker Likely Behind DNC Leaks, Not Russia Zero Hedge

    December 21, 2016

    By Vin Armani

    "A group of retired senior intelligence officials, including the NSA whistleblower William Binney (former Technical Director, World Geopolitical & Military Analysis, NSA), have posted an open letter on consortiumnews.com that destroys the Obama administration's "Russian hacking" narrative.

    Within the letter, Binney argues that, thanks to the NSA's "extensive domestic data-collection network," any data removed remotely from Hillary Clinton or DNC servers would have passed over fiber networks and therefore would have been captured by the NSA who could have then analyzed packet data to determine the origination point and destination address of those packets. As Binney further notes, the only way the leaks could have avoided NSA detection is if they were never passed over fiber networks but rather downloaded to a thumb drive by someone with internal access to servers."

    [Dec 22, 2016] Arming Ukraine Is a Bad Idea The American Conservative

    Dec 22, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com
    The first several months of a new administration are inevitably seen as an opening for those who hope to influence the White House over the next four years. The Senate Ukraine Caucus-a bipartisan group of senior lawmakers who have lobbied intensively for a closer U.S.-Ukraine relationship-hopes to take advantage of this sensitive period, in which the new president will order policy reviews, modifications in existing programs, or even a clean break from the past.

    In a letter to President-elect Trump, the caucus writes that it is absolutely critical for the United States to enhance its support to Kiev at a time when Vladimir Putin's Russia continues to support a separatist movement on Ukrainian soil. "Quite simply," the group claims , "Russia has launched a military land-grab in Ukraine that is unprecedented in modern European history. These actions in Crimea and other areas of eastern Ukraine dangerously upend well-established diplomatic, legal, and security norms that the United States and its NATO allies painstakingly built over decades."

    On this score, the senators are correct. Russia's stealth invasion, occupation, and annexation of the Crimean Peninsula was for all intents and purposes a land-grab denounced not only by the United States but by the United Nations as a violation of state sovereignty and self-determination.

    But let's not kid ourselves; this isn't the first time a stronger power will attempt to change the borders of a weaker neighbor, nor will it be the last. The Russians saw an opportunity to immediately exploit the confusion of Ukraine's post-Viktor Yanukovych period. Moscow's signing of the Minsk accords, an agreement that was designed to de-escalate the violence in Eastern Ukraine through mutual demobilization of heavy weapons along the conflict line and a transfer of border control from separatist forces back to the Ukrainian government, has been stalled to the point of irrelevance.

    It is incontrovertible that, were it not for Russia's military support and intervention in the summer of 2014, the Ukrainian army would likely have been able to defeat the separatist units that were carving out autonomous "peoples' republics" in the east-or at the very least, degrade rebel capabilities to such an extent that Kiev would be able to win more concessions at the negotiating table.

    Yet while we should acknowledge Russia's violations of international law and the U.N. Charter, U.S. and European policymakers also need to recognize that Ukraine is far more important for Moscow's geopolitical position than Washington's.

    There is a reason why Vladimir Putin made the fateful decision in 2014 to plunge Russian forces into Ukraine, and it wasn't because he was itching for a war of preemption. He deployed Russian forces across the Ukrainian border-despite the whirlwind of international condemnation and the Western financial sanctions that were likely to accompany such a decision-because preserving a pro-Russia bent in the Ukraine body politic was just too important for Moscow's regional position.

    Grasping this reality in no way excuses Moscow's behavior. It merely explains why the Russian government acted the way it did, and why further U.S. military assistance to the Ukrainian security forces would be ill-advised. In fact, one could make a convincing case that providing hundreds of millions of dollars in security assistance to the Ukrainian government wouldn't help the situation at all, and might lead Kiev to delude itself into thinking that Washington will come to its immediate military aid in order to stabilize the battlefield.

    Since 2015, the United States Congress has authorized $750 million to improve the defensive capabilities of the Ukrainian military and security forces. Congress has followed up those funds with an additional $650 million earmarked for the Ukrainians over the next two years, a hefty sum that the next administration would probably use as a message to the Russians that further territorial encroachment on Ukrainian territory would produce more casualties in their ranks.

    What the next administration needs to ask itself, however, is whether more money thrown at the Ukraine problem will be more or less likely to cause further violence in the country and turmoil for Ukraine's elected government. Russia has demonstrated consistently that it will simply not permit a pro-Western democratic government from emerging along its western border-and that if a pro-Western government is formed in Kiev, Moscow will do its best to preserve a pro-Russian bent in Ukraine's eastern provinces. Hundreds of millions of dollars in appropriations haven't forced Russia to change that calculation so far; it's not likely that hundreds of millions more will be any more successful. Indeed, every time Washington has escalated its rhetoric or authorized money for Ukraine's military, the Russians have responded in equal terms.

    The political crisis in Ukraine is far from resolved, in large measure because of Russia's own actions on the ground and its nonexistent implementation of the Minsk peace agreement. But the situation in the east, while not fully peaceful by any means, is far less violent than it was at the war's peak in 2015. Sometimes, not weighing in can be just as smart for the U.S. national interest as getting involved-a reflex that is has been the forte of Washington's foreign policy establishment since the end of the Cold War.

    Daniel DePetris is a fellow at Defense Priorities.

    [Dec 22, 2016] Kremlin Warns Of Response To Latest US Sanctions, Says Almost All Communication With US Is Frozen Zero Hedge

    Dec 22, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    In response to the latest imposition of US sanctions on Russia, the Kremlin said on Wednesday that the new sanctions would further damage relations between the two countries and that Moscow would respond with its own measures. "We regret that Washington is continuing on this destructive path," Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters on a conference call.

    As a reminder, on Tuesday the United States widened sanctions against Russian businessmen and companies adopted after Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the conflict in Ukraine.

    "We believe this damages bilateral relations ... Russia will take commensurate measures."

    Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov

    Then again, it is difficult to see how sanctions between the two administration could be any more "damaged": also on Wednesday, the Kremlin said it did not expect the incoming U.S. administration to reject NATO enlargement overnight and that almost all communications channels between Russia and the United States were frozen, the RIA news agency reported.

    " Almost every level of dialogue with the United States is frozen. We don't communicate with one another, or (if we do) we do so minimally ," Peskov said.

    Additionally, RIA said that according to Peskov "he did not know whether President Vladimir Putin would seek re-election in 2018."

    "Everyone's heads are aching because of work and with projects and nobody is thinking or talking about elections," Peskov said.

    Then again, the sanctions may soon be history. According to a Bloomberg report , the U.S. will start easing its penalties, imposed over the showdown in Ukraine in 2014, during the next 12 months, according to 55 percent of respondents in a Bloomberg survey, up from 10 percent in an October poll. Without the restrictions, Russia's economic growth would get a boost equivalent to 0.2 percentage point of gross domestic product next year and 0.5 percentage point in 2018, according to the median estimates in the poll.

    "It's still a toss-up whether the U.S. will ease sanctions quickly, with the EU lagging, but the direction of travel is toward easier sanctions or less enforcement, which could reduce financing costs," said Rachel Ziemba, the New York-based head of emerging markets at 4CAST-RGE. "We think the macro impact would be greater in the medium term than short term as it facilitates a rate easing trend that is already on course. In the longer term, it gives more choice of investment."

    Trump, who's called President Vladimir Putin a better leader than Barack Obama, has said he may consider recognizing Russia's annexation of Crimea from Ukraine and lifting the curbs. While dogged by concerns that Russia intervened to tip this year's elections in the Republican candidate's favor, Trump has already showed his hand by planning to stack his administration with officials supportive of closer cooperation with the Kremlin, from Michael Flynn, the president-elect's national security adviser, to Exxon Mobil Corp. chief Rex Tillerson, a candidate for secretary of state.

    An equally important consequence of any policy change by Trump would be its affect on the EU's own penalties on Russia, with more economists saying the bloc will follow suit. Forty percent of respondents said in the Dec. 16-19 survey that the EU will begin easing sanctions in the next 12 months, compared with 33 percent in October.

    "If the U.S. eases sanctions, it won't be possible to achieve a consensus among EU member states to keep their sanctions regime in place as currently formulated," said Charles Movit, an economist at IHS Markit in Washington.

    The Count , Dec 21, 2016 10:42 AM
    And yet another fantastic foreign policy blunder from Obummer. He's trying real hard to start WWIII before he leaves office.

    That a guy with a shady past and forged documents could be come president shows how powerful the Zionists +Deep State are.

    Boris Alatovkrap The Count , Dec 21, 2016 10:43 AM
    Boris is somewhat look forward to post-Obama Amerika, where Russia can negotiate with adult.
    carbonmutant Boris Alatovkrap , Dec 21, 2016 10:45 AM
    We all are... :)
    hedgeless_horseman carbonmutant , Dec 21, 2016 10:51 AM

    And we sanction them?

    Boris Alatovkrap hedgeless_horseman , Dec 21, 2016 10:51 AM
    Only 14 year?! Is feel like lifetime since Russia is learn painful lesson to avoid land war in Asia.
    chunga Pinto Currency , Dec 21, 2016 11:38 AM
    Is Obama a Russian Agent?

    http://cluborlov.com/

    And although it is always possible to claim that all of Obama's failures stem from mere incompetence, at some point this claim begins to ring hollow; how can he possibly be so utterly competent at being incompetent?

    BarkingCat chunga , Dec 21, 2016 12:06 PM
    Obama is not a Russian agent but could very well be a Soviet agent.

    Being a dumb fuck whose only skill is reading a teleprompter, he has no idea how to resolve the change in the world since the Soviet Union disintegrated.

    chunga BarkingCat , Dec 21, 2016 12:53 PM
    Orlov was being sarcastic.
    BullyBearish chunga , Dec 21, 2016 3:17 PM
    It could be worse:

    In an interview with Wolf Blitzer on March 26, 2012, Mr. Romney said that Russia is "without question our No. 1 geopolitical foe."

    Oracle 911 chunga , Dec 21, 2016 3:32 PM
    The agent part is true, not so much the Russian part.

    So, whose agent he is? I don't know for sure, but he ruined the US and made it unable to wage the 3rd WW with weapons or profiting from it.

    hedgeless_horseman Boris Alatovkrap , Dec 21, 2016 10:58 AM

    Why is the USA and Europe sanctioning Russia?

    7thGenMO Pinto Currency , Dec 21, 2016 1:54 PM
    A Russian in Crimea told me of a recent past winter near disaster when Ukraine shut off the power (and water) - somewhat covered here on ZH. Only a truly heroic effort by Russia to bring in generators kept them from living in dangerous conditions. Crimea is more solidly pro-Russian than it was before the vote to secede.

    All Ukrainians should understand that the NWO (controlled by the elite and their Western banks) will subjugate the Ukraine. Evidence for this is abundant, but the most striking example is the willingness to accept millions of non-European refugees, while few Ukrainians are allowed into Western countries.

    Yes, there is genuine reason for resentment (Holodomar), but this terror was executed by the Bolshevik Lazar Kaganovich (which means son of Kagan - as in Ron Kagan - husband of Nudelman - understand the connection?). More Russians died under this same type of Bolshevik terror than any other ethnicity in the USSR.

    Russia is no longer the USSR, and seeks to return to a society of Christian values. Ukrainians should seek peace with their Russian brothers. It would be to the benefit of all Western countries, which is why the NWO is trying everything to prevent it.

    X_in_Sweden CuttingEdge , Dec 21, 2016 12:57 PM
    "The Zionists invented terrorism in 1948. Read some fucking history."

    That's right

    CuttingEdge

    The UN Mediator for Palestine, "The U.S. appointed Count Folke Bernadotte of Sweden" was assassinated in 1948 in Jerusalam by the likudnik-future izraeli Prime Ministers Begin & Shamir....

    FACT:

    "Folke Bernadotte , Count of Wisborg ( Swedish : Greve af Wisborg ; 2 January 1895 – 17 September 1948) was a Swedish diplomat and nobleman. During World War II he negotiated the release of about 31,000 prisoners from German concentration camps including 450 Danish Jews from the Theresienstadt camp. They were released on 14 April 1945. [1] [2] [3] In 1945, he received a German surrender offer from Heinrich Himmler , though the offer was ultimately rejected.

    After the war, Bernadotte was unanimously chosen to be the United Nations Security Council mediator in the Arab–Israeli conflict of 1947–1948. He was assassinated in Jerusalem in 1948 by the militant Zionist group Lehi while pursuing his official duties. Upon his death, Ralph Bunche took up his work at the UN, but was removed from the post around six months after Bernadotte was assassinated, at the critical period of recognition of the fledgling state. ....."

    Likudniks like present-day murderer & chief Benny-Boy Nutandyahoo!!!

    It's 100% bonefide fuckin' TERRORISTS that are the leaders of the rothschild colony & real estate project in the eastern Mediterranean.

    SOURCES:

    TheQuay X_in_Sweden , Dec 21, 2016 4:09 PM
    Wow! Those are some stringent sources! Wikipedia, where you can edit the text to read however you wish before citing it, ...great source! ( Seriously? A wiki cite ends the discussion for me every single time. Dead. (Kind of like interviewing an architect who says Fisher-Price is his inspiration). Next up is the legendary duckduckgo. Move over Library of Congress! And of course WhatReallyHappened is the next up on the hit parade. Jeeze, I spent a cargoload of time and money earning a masters in history. I wish I had had wiki. It would have been so much easier, AND I would be as smart as this guy telling us all about how stupid we all are. LOL!. X_in_Sweden, go to Wiki and look up "Useful Idiot" while standing in front of a mirror.
    Fractal Parasite TheQuay , Dec 21, 2016 4:32 PM
    Wikipedia a.k.a. the info-police ...
    HowdyDoody CuttingEdge , Dec 21, 2016 4:38 PM
    Zionists are also behind the use of Saudi wahabbists. It's a twofer. It clears land that Israel covets and is part of the plan to get Christians to fight Muslims, wipping each other out.
    Luc X. Ifer chumbawamba , Dec 21, 2016 1:04 PM
    Well Mr Chumbawamba let me congratulate you on joining the big club of anti-jewish fascism, you share a honorable position together with Nazism and Islamic Fascism. Fuck off paranoid religitard.
    Pliskin Luc X. Ifer , Dec 21, 2016 12:41 PM
    I don't see you post here very often Luc X. Ifer, the shekels must be drying up?
    Manthong hedgeless_horseman , Dec 21, 2016 11:32 AM

    I have done business with Israelis Most of them think that they are in a crunch existential mess.

    The reality is that the tech and arms business is pretty cushy and they are reluctant to give it up.

    If they get a decent guarantee of their space (and maybe a couple more settlements) they might scale down a tad.

    They can do an up-front deal with the head choppers in Riyadh any time they want because the princes do not want to live on a sea of radioactive glass.

    For me, I just want the Basilica at Sophia back.

    two hoots hedgeless_horseman , Dec 21, 2016 1:20 PM
    Obama and the current congress already locked this in until 2026 (see below) which takes us past 2 terms of Trump. Doubt Trump could change/drain this if he wanted (?) as current congress not only did the deal but added $500M per year to the previous Bush 10 year deal which was set to expire in 2018. Dem/Rep... it is going to happen no matter.

    "The United States has finalized a $38 billion package of military aid for Israel over the next 10 years, the largest of its kind ever, and the two allies plan to sign the agreement on Wednesday, American and Israeli officials said". NY Times Sept 2016,

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/14/world/middleeast/israel-benjamin-netan...

    Davy Crockett two hoots , Dec 21, 2016 2:06 PM
    When I was a kid, we had a pump to fill the water trough for the animals. There was a coffee can near it, that you used to take some of the water that was left in the water trough and pour it into the pump. This was known as "priming the pump". You had to do this to allow the pump to pump more water into the trough from the well.

    America is a money-well for Israel. They take a little bit of the money that we flood them with, and they donate to enough politicians campaign to insure that those politicians will vote to turn on the money spigot, filling up Israels trough with money. Don't worry, they'll save a coffee can or two of it to prime the pump again next time.

    I really don't care if Israel lives or dies. If they live and prosper, that's just fine with me. But what pisses me off is this system that allows them to pump money from us, just by using a tiny portion of it to bribe our politicians with campaign contributions. This bribing results in not just lost treasure, but also lost blood, as we fight wars to weaken Israels neighbors, again, only because our politicians are being bribed with foreign donations.

    I would prefer we find ways to jail any politician that gets money from foreign countries. I would also prefer we put an end to Super PACs, since the foreign money will simply migrate to those. It is bullshit that our system is set up so that the honest politicians that refuse to sell out are promptly voted out of office because their competitor, who is willing to sell out, is flooded with campaign money. This ends up giving us representatives who do not represent our interests at all.

    general ambivalent hedgeless_horseman , Dec 21, 2016 11:50 AM
    My greatest fear in Trump being a plant is that he is supposed to calm relations with Russia, which will open up the opportunity for the big event. This gives them more time on the surface while the deep state continues spreading chaos along Russia's borders.

    I suspect Russia would be aware of this possibility however.

    Mustafa Kemal hedgeless_horseman , Dec 21, 2016 12:26 PM
    hh, with David Friedman as ambassador, it looks like they may move Israels capitol to Jerusalem. Lots of fun then.
    Justin Case hedgeless_horseman , Dec 21, 2016 3:24 PM
    Trump is going to keep allowing Israelis to bribe American politicians.

    Aid money goes full circle. The tax payers are the losers as usual. Trump needs to look into the dual citizanship of congress stoolies. Drain that swamp first to put that coin into merican infrastructure renewal/upgrades.=.jobs.

    dizzyfingers Manthong , Dec 21, 2016 4:19 PM
    DEVELOPING -- Federal Judge Orders Release of Search Warrant from Clinton Email Case http://www.redflagnews.com/headlines-2016/developing-federal-judge-orders-release-of-search-warrant-from-clinton-email-case?mc_cid=a6207925cf&mc_eid=18ffccb24c

    EXPOSED: Michelle SCREWED Taxpayers, Illegally Giving Our Cash To Daughters http://www.redflagnews.com/headlines-2016/exposed-michelle-screwed-taxpayers-illegally-giving-our-cash-to-daughters?mc_cid=a6207925cf&mc_eid=18ffccb24c

    ParkAveFlasher Boris Alatovkrap , Dec 21, 2016 10:53 AM
    Biden's son in Ukraine couldn't help things much. How cool was the "invasion" of Crimea? I thought it was cool. I was kind of wishing Texas would pull something like that, maybe with NJ.
    Manthong ParkAveFlasher , Dec 21, 2016 11:20 AM
    I think that the coke-head Navy reject's gig is going to be gone pretty soon.
    reload ParkAveFlasher , Dec 21, 2016 12:23 PM
    I know you have "invasion" written in a way that shows you know it was NOT an invasion. The speed a decisiveness was certainly impressive, shame the Donbass has been relegated to the roll of dead buffer zone though. I understand the strategic benefit of letting the Ukrainian `Army` bog down there and bleed resources, but a lot of Ethnic Russians are dying and suffering as a result.
    HowdyDoody reload , Dec 21, 2016 5:28 PM
    The Ukro-Nazis have just tried to re-run the attack on Debaltsevo, where there were put through the meat grinder last winter. Guess what, they ended up in the grinder again, even though the Novorossians are following Minsk rules on sending heavy armor away from the front. The Ukrops lost up to 100 dead, a large number just left on the ground as the survivors fled. The wounded were airlifted to Kharkov military hospital.

    One Ukrop unit reported 25 dead in 3 hours of fighting.

    http://novorossia.today/154366-2/

    Airlift landing in Kharkov

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-efMU3Cl1o

    Meanwhile in west Ukraine, far away from the fighting, there have been around 400 desertions from the Ukraine military.

    https://z5h64q92x9.net/proxy_u/ru-en.en/colonelcassad.livejournal.com/31...

    The Ukrops are still shelling civilian areas of Novorssia for sport.

    Luc X. Ifer hedgeless_horseman , Dec 21, 2016 10:52 AM
    Obama's main task now is to damage to the max possible the relations with Russia to make it impossible to be amended later by Trump.

    [Dec 21, 2016] M of A - How The Military Excluded The White House From International Syria Negotiations

    Dec 21, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org
    How The Military Excluded The White House From International Syria Negotiations

    The NYT laments today that international negotiations about the situation in Syria now continue without any U.S. participation: Russia, Iran and Turkey Meet for Syria Talks, Excluding U.S.

    Russia, Iran and Turkey met in Moscow on Tuesday to work toward a political accord to end Syria's nearly six-year war, leaving the United States on the sidelines as the countries sought to drive the conflict in ways that serve their interests.

    Secretary of State John Kerry was not invited. Nor was the United Nations consulted.

    With pro-government forces having made critical gains on the ground, ...

    (Note: The last sentence originally and correctly said "pro-Syrian forces ...", not "pro-government forces ...". It was altered after I noted the "pro-Syrian" change of tone on Twitter.)

    Russia kicked the U.S. out of any further talks about Syria after the U.S. blew a deal which, after long delaying negotiations, Kerry had made with the Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov.

    In a recent interview Kerry admits that it was opposition from the Pentagon, not Moscow or Damascus, that had blown up his agreement with Russia over Syria:

    More recently, he has clashed inside the administration with Defense Secretary Ashton Carter. Kerry negotiated an agreement with Russia to share joint military operations, but it fell apart.

    "Unfortunately we had divisions within our own ranks that made the implementation of that extremely hard to accomplish ," Kerry said. "But I believe in it, I think it can work, could have worked."

    Kerry's agreement with Russia did not just "fell apart". The Pentagon actively sabotaged it by intentionally and perfidiously attacking the Syrian army.

    The deal with Russia was made in June. It envisioned coordinated attacks on ISIS and al-Qaeda in Syria, both designated as terrorist under two UN Security Council resolutions which call upon all countries to eradicate them. For months the U.S. failed to separate its CIA and Pentagon trained, supplied and paid "moderate rebel" from al-Qaeda, thereby blocking the deal. In September the deal was modified and finally ready to be implemented.

    The Pentagon still did not like it but had been overruled by the White House:

    The agreement that Secretary of State John Kerry announced with Russia to reduce the killing in Syria has widened an increasingly public divide between Mr. Kerry and Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter, who has deep reservations about the plan for American and Russian forces to jointly target terrorist groups.
    Mr. Carter was among the administration officials who pushed against the agreement on a conference call with the White House last week as Mr. Kerry, joining the argument from a secure facility in Geneva, grew increasingly frustrated. Although President Obama ultimately approved the effort after hours of debate, Pentagon officials remain unconvinced.
    ...
    "I'm not saying yes or no," Lt. Gen. Jeffrey L. Harrigian, commander of the United States Air Forces Central Command , told reporters on a video conference call. "It would be premature to say that we're going to jump right into it."

    The CentCom general threatened to not follow the decision his Commander of Chief had taken. He would not have done so without cover from Defense Secretary Ash Carter.

    Three days later U.S. CentCom Air Forces and allied Danish airplanes attack Syrian army positions near the ISIS besieged city of Deir Ezzor. During 37 air attacks within one hour between 62 and 100 Syrian Arab Army soldiers were killed and many more wounded. They had held a defensive positions on hills overlooking the Deir Ezzor airport. Shortly after the U.S. air attack ISIS forces stormed the hills and have held them since. Resupply for the 100,000+ civilians and soldiers in Deir Ezzor is now endangered if not impossible. The CentCom attack enabled ISIS to eventually conquer Deir Ezzor and to establish the envisioned "Salafist principality" in east Syria.

    During the U.S. attack the Syrian-Russian operations center had immediately tried to contact the designated coordination officer at U.S. Central Command to stop the attack. But that officer could not be reached and those at CentCom taking the Russian calls just hanged up:

    By time the Russian officer found his designated contact - who was away from his desk - and explained that the coalition was actually hitting a Syrian army unit, "a good amount of strikes" had already taken place, U.S. Central Command spokesman Col. John Thomas told reporters at the Pentagon Tuesday.

    Until the attack the Syrian and Russian side had, as agreed with Kerry, kept to a ceasefire to allow the separation of the "marbled" CIA and al-Qaeda forces. After the CentCom air attack the Kerry-Lavrov deal was off :

    On the sidelines of an emergency UN Security Council meeting called on the matter, tempers were high. Russia's permanent UN representative, Vitaly Churkin, questioned the timing of the strikes, two days before Russian-American coordination in the fight against terror groups in Syria was to begin.
    "I have never seen such an extraordinary display of American heavy-handedness," he said, after abruptly leaving the meeting.

    The Pentagon launched one of its usual whitewash investigations and a heavily redacted summary report (pdf) was released in late November.

    Gareth Porter still found some usable bits in it:

    The report, released by US Central Command on 29 November, shows that senior US Air Force officers at the Combined Air Operations Center (CAOC) at al-Udeid Airbase in Qatar, who were responsible for the decision to carry out the September airstrike at Deir Ezzor:

    The investigation was led by a Brigade General. He was too low in rank to investigate or challenge the responsible CentCom air-commander Lt. Gen. Harrington. The name of a co-investigator was redacted in the report and marked as "foreign government information". That officer was likely from Denmark.

    Four days after the investigation report was officially released the Danish government, without giving any public reason, pulled back its air contingent from any further operations under U.S. command in Iraq and Syria.

    With the attack on Deir Ezzor the Pentagon has:

    It is clear that the responsible U.S. officer for the attack and its consequences is one Lt. Gen. Jeffrey L. Harrigian who had earlier publicly spoken out against a deal that his Commander in Chief had agreed to. He likely had cover from Defense Secretary Ash Carter.

    The White House did not react to this public military insubordination and undermining of its diplomacy.

    Emptywheel notes that, though on a different issue, the CIA is also in quite open insurrection against the President's decisions:

    [I]t alarms me that someone decided it was a good idea to go leak criticisms of a [presidential] Red Phone exchange. It would seem that such an instrument depends on some foundation of trust that, no matter how bad things have gotten, two leaders of nuclear armed states can speak frankly and directly.

    Posted by b at 01:34 PM | Comments (38) AntiSpin | Dec 21, 2016 2:10:11 PM | 3

    SmoothieX12 | Dec 21, 2016 3:03:26 PM | 4
    though on a different issue, the CIA is also in quite open insurrection against the President's decisions:

    It merely confirms or reinforces what was known now for quite some, rather long, time--Obama is a shallow and cowardly amateur who basically abandoned the duty of governing the nation to all kinds of neocon adventurists and psychopaths. So, nothing new here. Results are everywhere on display for everyone to see.

    pubumwei | Dec 21, 2016 3:07:43 PM | 5
    WW3 is obviously just around the corner.

    cantmossadtheassad | Dec 21, 2016 3:25:46 PM | 6
    https://twitter.com/BilalKareem/status/811216051656658944
    Here's Bilal (American CIA agent) pointing out another terrorist scumbag has an explosive belt to avoid getting captured. Notice his face is covered and he appears western? Likely the American David Scott Winner or Israeli aDavid Shlomo Aram. They're going to explode their way out of Aleppo. SAA should have just exterminated the rats rather than let them leave, Bilal included

    likklemore | Dec 21, 2016 3:27:27 PM | 7
    Well b, after multiple revelations of US treachery, the water basket can take only so much.

    Bilateral relationship is at bare minimum. Communication is said to be Frozen - I posted on the previous Open Thread the link below
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-21/kremlin-warns-response-latest-us-sanctions-says-almost-all-communication-us-frozen

    Then again, it is difficult to see how sanctions between the two administration could be any more "damaged": also on Wednesday, the Kremlin said it did not expect the incoming U.S. administration to reject NATO enlargement overnight and that almost all communications channels between Russia and the United States were frozen, the RIA news agency reported.

    "Almost every level of dialogue with the United States is frozen. We don't communicate with one another, or (if we do) we do so minimally," Peskov said.

    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

    FWIW, The State Department 's full transcript of Presser on the Threesome talks – Kerry out of the loop, Snubbed but briefed - http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2016/12/265846.htm

    Link includes denial US had a role in the assignation of Russia's Ambassador.
    The Denial, https://www.rt.com/news/371097-us-reject-claims-russian-ambassador/ because some have noted the curious timing and connected dots:-

    ((I have a pen Obama and I can dial the red phone.))


    On Friday, 17 December Obama threatened Russia and maintained the no evidence hacking of the US Elections to favor Trump.
    He is quoted as saying:
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-18/obama-plans-retaliation-against-russian-hacking-problem-emerges

    The only thing worse than not using a weapon is using it ineffectively. And if he does choose to retaliate, he has insisted on maintaining what is known as "escalation dominance," the ability to ensure you can end a conflict on your terms.

    Mr. Obama hinted as much at his news conference on Friday, as he was set to leave for his annual Hawaii vacation, his last as president.

    "Our goal continues to be to send a clear message to Russia or others not to do this to us because we can do stuff to you," he said. "But it is also important to us to do that in a thoughtful, methodical way. Some of it, we will do publicly. Some of it we will do in a way that they know, but not everybody will."

    On Monday 19 December, there was a hit captured on video and played worldwide. It was not by droning.

    plantman | Dec 21, 2016 3:36:48 PM | 8
    This post confirms that neocon Ash Carter was at the heart of the attack on Deir Ezzor and that the pro-Israel faction at the Pentagon will defy the chief executive if it achieves their political objectives.

    I don't know how anyone can review the details of this incident and not conclude that the split in the US government is nearing a climax-point where the removal of an obstinate president is a real possibility.

    Steve | Dec 21, 2016 3:37:44 PM | 9
    "deceived a European NATO ally..." Denmark is run by bastards, so they need not be deceived to participate in the criminal act. Same as Australia.

    james | Dec 21, 2016 3:43:25 PM | 10
    excellent coverage b.. thank you..

    the fact this division in power is happening in the usa today is indeed scary... why is this fucker ash carter still in any position of power, let alone the dipshit Jeffrey L. Harrigian? both these military folks might be serving israels interests very well, not to mention saudi arabia and gcc's but they sure ain't representing the usa's... or is the usa still a country with a leadership command? doesn't look like it..

    rg the lg | Dec 21, 2016 3:48:28 PM | 11
    Curiouser and curiouser.

    The trolls of the empire are feeding on each other. And this is a good thing ... why?

    Because on their own the sheople of the US are incapable of a revolt no matter how righteous their cause. The oligarchs and their minions thrive on discord and chaos. Thus we have the beginnings of a major breakdown (at long last) as some states (California in the lead) contemplate an exit by trying to establish embassies.

    My, my!

    We've never had a revolution in this country. Once upon a time we had a revolt by one group of oligarchs against the other (called a civil war, and its predecessor called the revolution). But a real bloody, kill off the oligarchs (as per France and Russia) revolt? No way Jose!

    No ... we stupidly accept the tripe/trope of being too damned good ... recently called exceptionalism.

    Implosion! The rest of the world (like me) can't wait!

    Wwinsti | Dec 21, 2016 3:51:50 PM | 12
    So that's it? Deir Ezzor is just a write off? Putin is publicly talking about "wrapping up" the Russian mission in Syria, Iran wants to turn the military focus westward, towards Idlib. At least this is what they say in public.

    PavewayIV | Dec 21, 2016 3:57:59 PM | 13
    I think the Deir EzZor attack was more of a dying gasp from the CIA/CENTCOM than anything of immense strategic value. A last shot at prepping their east Syrian head-chopper partition, but a futile one at that. Palmyra and the attack on the Syrian oil/gas hub give that same impression, too. Neither was very well though out and both efforts are proving to be failures.

    All this while the Obama administration is pushing for the SF 'cleaners' to erase any left-over intel and al Qaeda/al Nusra leaders as the head-choppers flee Aleppo. The CIA/CENTCOM are obviously in on this, while they still fancy some safe place for their spies and collaborators to escape and continue the fight.

    Russia's Turkish ambassador? Maybe he was an unfortunate part of the U.S. clean-up operation. He would have certainly been privy to a lot of damaging info on U.S. involvement. Obama announced the clean-up operation in mid-November - recall the unexpected 'targeting key ISIS and al Nusra leaders' spiel, followed by the dispatch of U.S. SF (and U.K. SAS) kill-teams.

    The ugly part of U.S. CIA/CENTCOM support for head-choppers is that they must control them. If they can't corral them in an east Syrian Pipelanistan, then they have to kill them and eliminate evidence of U.S. (and cronies') involvement. All at a time when a lame-duck U.S. administration is packing their belongings and cleaning out their offices.

    The current CIA leaders and current neocon CENTCOM lackeys are pretty much out of business in the Middle East when Trump gets in. If they can't eliminate Trump, he will eliminate them. Current CENTCOM commanders will be purged and replaced with fresh Israeli-firsters for the war with Iran. Trump's stated plans to pour more money into 'strengthening' the U.S. military means plenty of jobs for the departing generals.

    MacDill AFB (CENTCOM's home) must be crawling with defense industry executive recruiters looking for some fresh meat. The Pentagram is probably going to get an enema as well. Pretty soon, there will be unshaven, dirty generals standing near freeway on-ramps in Arlington begging for change, holding crudely-lettered cardboard signs that say, "Unemployed. Will wage war for sheckels. God bless you!" [I'll have my baseball bat ready...]

    SmoothieX12 | Dec 21, 2016 4:07:02 PM | 14
    Russia's Turkish ambassador? Maybe he was an unfortunate part of the U.S. clean-up operation. He would have certainly been privy to a lot of damaging info on U.S. involvement.

    If he was privy, so were, simultaneously, all intelligence people working under cover and, as a consequence, Russia's military-political top. There are some really strong indications of Karlov's assassination being a "parting gift" by US neocon mafia who, especially after Trump's victory and liberation of Aleppo, is the main loser (not that they ever won anything realistically) in a major geopolitical shift which is taking place as I type this.

    Copeland | Dec 21, 2016 4:07:14 PM | 15
    One of your best posts ever, b. Certainly, it shows what a terrible mess has been created by the deceptive, infamous lot, who have added fuel to the fire in this war in Syria.

    Jen | Dec 21, 2016 4:24:55 PM | 16
    AntiSpin @ 3:

    I should imagine that if you Google Bethania Palma's name (she's also known as Bethania Palma Markus), you will find that as a freelance writer she will have social media accounts (Facebook, Twitter, possibly LinkedIn) and you and others can try to contact her through those.

    Palma has also written rubbish pieces on the Syrian White Helmets and former UK ambassador Craig Murray's claims that the DNC emails leaks were the work of a Washington insider.

    The more she writes such pieces for Snopes.com, laying out the details of the issue and then blithely dismissing them as having no credibility, the more the website's reputation for objective investigation will fall anyway. Palma will be her own worst enemy. So perhaps we need not bother trying to argue with her.

    Danny801 | Dec 21, 2016 4:54:22 PM | 17
    I have never before seen a US President as weak as Obama to the point where his own military disregards his command. the fact that anyone at the Pentagon would still have a job after openly defying the commander in chief shows you the pathetic state of affairs in a crumbling US.

    psychohistorian | Dec 21, 2016 5:14:47 PM | 18
    Thank you b for a splendid piece of journalism.

    While it speaks to a serious changing of the guard in the US military with Trump I hold little hope that it in anyway signals a lessening of the goals of empire.....just a change in approach.

    Those owning private finance are still leading our "parade" into extinction, IMO It sure looks to me like the acolytes of Trump have primary fealty to the God of Mammon.

    AntiSpin | Dec 21, 2016 5:16:43 PM | 19
    @Jen 16

    Thanks for your comments. Here's some fresh info (well, fresh to me, anyway.)

    Journalist Eva Bartlett DESTROYS Mainstream Journalist Over Syria, Aleppo
    http://www.activistpost.com/2016/12/journalist-eva-bartlett-destroys-mainstream-journalist-syria-aleppo.html

    Then, about 35 or so comments down, an excellent and rather devastating analysis of the Snopes attack, by one "sleepd." In it he discusses the background of the Snopes "report's" author:

    "Let's look at the background of Bethania Palmer, the author of the Snopes piece. It claims she worked as a "journalist" for the Los Angeles Newspaper Group, which is a media company that has been purchased by a holding company called Digital First (previously Media News Group) that was run by a private equity company managed by a hedge funder. They are known for purchasing local run small newspapers and cutting staff and consolidating content into corporate-friendly ad sales positions. She also claims work for LAist, a local style and events blog in Los Angeles, and the OC Weekly, a somewhat conservative-leaning local weekly that survives on advertising. Nothing in her background that speaks towards expertise in the Middle East, or even awareness of differences in populations there. Considering that, we have to rate her credibility as below Barlett's when it comes to reporting on Middle Eastern affairs."

    lysias | Dec 21, 2016 5:19:19 PM | 20
    If the Pentagon can defy the president on such an important matter, I've gotta ask: Who controls the U.S.'s nukes?

    lysias | Dec 21, 2016 5:21:00 PM | 21
    If Trump's acolytes owe primary allegiance to Mammon, could that mean that they do not owe allegiance to Mars?

    blues | Dec 21, 2016 5:48:18 PM | 22
    Dear President Barack Obama:

    Please fire Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter. I'm too old to get many other Christmas gifts this year.

    Thank you for your kind attention,

    blues

    lysias | Dec 21, 2016 5:54:50 PM | 23
    Obama had the Secretary of Defense he wanted, Chuck Hagel, in the office for a while. But for some reason he was unable to resist the pressure that was put on him to replace Hagel with Carter.

    ALberto | Dec 21, 2016 6:30:28 PM | 24
    b,

    Is it just me or has anyone else noticed that in this day and age where everyone has a phone camera there exists not one picture of the alleged gore that occurred in France and German truck attacks???

    Also possessing identification documents, leaving them at the scene, appears to be a special talent required of all pseudo terr'ists.

    lysias | Dec 21, 2016 7:08:01 PM | 25
    I even saw a report in Tagesspiegel yesterday that said the authorities did not have a video. Pretty hard to believe. The place was packed with tourists. Just about everybody has a cellphone these days.

    I commented on it on a site yesterday, but I don't remember which one. Might have been here.

    Nobody | Dec 21, 2016 7:15:30 PM | 26
    Check out George Webb he's on to it. He should collaborate with b https://youtu.be/3-BYdDRbug0

    WorldBLee | Dec 21, 2016 7:27:10 PM | 27
    Good stuff, b. As much as I dislike Obama, I imagine he has to feel relieved his presidency is coming to an end so he doesn't have to deal with idiots like Ash Carter every day.

    William Mcdonald | Dec 21, 2016 7:37:16 PM | 28
    The General should have been publicly fired by the Secretary immediately after that video conference. It didn't happen so the CIC should have fired the SOD and found someone to fire the General. Defying the CIC, what a message to the world!

    jfl | Dec 21, 2016 7:38:09 PM | 29
    b,
    The CentCom general threatened to not follow the decision his Commander of Chief had taken. He would not have done so without cover from Defense Secretary Ash Carter.
    Ash Carter is certainly a neo-con, an insubordinate traitor, and is likely a CIA mole in the Pentagon. He has 29 days of monkey-wrenching left at the Pentagon.

    Beneath your heading 'With the attack on Deir Ezzor the Pentagon has:' add effected a coup against the POTUS.

    I agree with @12 wwinsti and @13 paveway ... at least i wanna believe that Ash 'CIA' Carter has managed to throw in his monkey-wrenches but that 'the Deir EzZor attack was more of a dying gasp from the CIA/CENTCOM than anything of immense strategic value'.

    @17 danny801

    Reagan was the same ... just that he was non compos mentis from the start, so didn't know he was just the cardboard cutout that he was. Obama knew, took the job anyway.

    @20 lysias

    i don't know who controls us nukes ... but it ain't Barack Obama. he'll just do as he's told.

    @22 blues

    agree with your wish ... unfortunately Ash 'CIA' Carter has already fired Barack Obama. we get coal in our stockings ... or we get turned into radioactive coal by AC, CIA

    ben | Dec 21, 2016 7:42:34 PM | 30
    psycho @ 18 said " IMO It sure looks to me like the acolytes of Trump have primary fealty to the God of Mammon.

    IMO, you're right.

    Trump will not be the second coming. Just another corporate lackie.

    Thanks again b, for the therapy....

    james | Dec 21, 2016 7:43:56 PM | 31
    todays daily press briefing, lol.. no mention of ash carter...

    "QUESTION: Okay. All right. I wanted to go back for a second to an interview that Secretary Kerry gave to The Globe, The Boston Globe, in which he admitted that the deal with the Russians over Syria was basically killed here because of the divisions within the Administration. Who was that – what was the agency that killed the deal? Was it the Pentagon?

    MR KIRBY: I don't think that that's what the Secretary said. I think the Secretary acknowledged what we've long acknowledged; there was nothing new in this interview. He's been very open and candid that even amongst the interagency here in the United States we haven't all agreed on the way forward in Syria. I'm also not sure why that should be shocking to anybody. Every federal agency has a different view --

    jfl | Dec 21, 2016 7:46:59 PM | 32
    on the new peace negotiation team ..

    Iran, Russia, Turkey start bid to solve Syria crisis diplomatically: Zarif


    Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif says Iran, Russia and Turkey have started the process of finding a political solution to the Syria crisis.

    Turkish Army, rebels suffer 50+ casualties in failed Al-Bab assault: Al-Amaq


    According to the Islamic State's official media wing, their forces foiled the massive Turkish Army led assault, killing and wounding more than 50 military personnel in the process.

    The primary cause of these high casualties was a suicide attack that was initiated by an Islamic State terrorist west of the Al-Farouq Hospital.

    For nearly a month now, the Turkish Army has attempted to enter the key city of Al-Bab; however, they have been repeatedly repelled by the terrorist forces each time.

    Turkish-backed rebels torture, execute civilian in northern Aleppo


    Local sources said that Mahmud Akhtarini was arrested by a group of Zenki militants at midnight on charges of being a member of the ISIS terror organization. Four hours later, Mahmud was reported dead after being brutally tortured.

    The sources confirmed that the victim was mentally retarded.

    The Turkish backed group is notorious for beheading a 12 year-old boy in Aleppo city, for allegedly being a fighter of the Palestinian Liwaa Al Quds (Al-Quds Brigade).


    ... has Erdogan finally been taught the facts of life? or have all the other Turks in Turkey, and will they soon put the sultan on his magic carpet in a real, made in Turkey, coup? Terrorism at home, and abroad - with nothing to show for it - must be getting old for ordinary Turks.

    Jackrabbit | Dec 21, 2016 9:15:46 PM | 33
    Reading this, I am confused.

    What happened to CIA vs. FBI & Pentagon?

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't military 'assets' operating covertly in a country that that is 'hostile' to US interests be under the command of the CIA?

    rhw007 | Dec 21, 2016 9:47:01 PM | 34
    We have been using "False Flag" operations to expand land since we were colonies and used white slaves kidnapped from European countries to work for the Elite 1% land owners in the 16th, 17th, 18th, 19, 20th, and continuing in the 21st Century when the 911 False Flag Operation to further erode the everyday people and further enrich the elite 1% and Masonic and Zionist ideologies. https://mycommonsenseparty.com

    chipnik | Dec 21, 2016 10:44:52 PM | 35
    "The Dow's initial move down in January of 2017 was very sharp and within a month, it was off 1900 points or almost 10%. As it is apparent from the chart, the Dow's slide was extremely volatile with big losing streaks often followed by sharp rallies. In the meantime, the Russiagate scandal was beginning to grow, as top Trump aides resigned at the end of April amid charges of obstruction of justice. The Dow's fall continued until late August when it finally bottomed at 16,357 to complete a seven month loss of almost 3600 points (over 18%). From this point, the Dow surged ahead so rapidly that the Fools were likely lulled by Wall Street traitors into believing that a new leg up was occurring. Amid October's renewed Ukraine-Syria War, Vice President Pence's forced resignation for incompetence, and an Arab oil glut sending WTI to the mid-$30s, the Dow closed at 19,387 near the end of that month for a gain of 15% off of its summer lows. The huge, two month rally left the Dow just 6% below its all time high of 20,247 set back in January, but the NYSE's advance/decline line was still in shambles. In addition, higher Fed interest rates were taking their toll on the US economy which officially re-entered a recession in November. The divergence between the large-cap stocks and smaller-cap stocks was resolved over the next five weeks as the markets experienced a brutal pounding and the Dow plunged 4000 points or over 20%. The Dow bottomed at 15,788 in early December of 2017 when NATO units were routed in Crimea by superior Russian forces, and Trump was finally forced to resign in early 2018 for corporate malfeasance of office, but this did not bring any relief to the Dow which continued to trade near the 15,000 level through most of the 2018 Recession."

    Play by play, verbatim, from the last time a Republican President joined at the hip with Tel Aviv, back in 1972. It's a' comin'!

    Outraged | Dec 21, 2016 10:48:52 PM | 36
    Steve | Dec 21, 2016 3:37:44 PM | 9

    "deceived a European NATO ally..." Denmark is run by bastards , so they need not be deceived to participate in the criminal act. Same as Australia .

    Duplicitous, deceitful, disingenuous, subservient vassal governments of Bastards ... indeed.

    Jackrabbit | Dec 21, 2016 10:52:59 PM | 37
    I think b is being very subtle here, as these two statements are not consistent:
    The White House did not react to this public military insubordination and undermining of its diplomacy.

    Emptywheel notes that ... the CIA is also in quite open insurrection against the President's decisions

    This might be hard to decipher for those who have not been paying attention. Suffice it to say that skepticism that Obama/Kerry ever really wanted any deal is more than warranted. Was this bungled deal just a delaying action?

    Obama apologists have been making excuses this empty suit for years: 11-dimensional chess, elite factions undermining him, his focus on his "legacy", etc. Yet Obama/Kerry really don't seem too upset by the "failures" that have occurred on their watch. They don't really attempt to recover from/rectify these failures. At some point one must ask: are those "failures" intentional?

    Outraged | Dec 21, 2016 11:00:50 PM | 38
    @ Danny801 | Dec 21, 2016 4:54:22 PM | 17

    How about Harry Truman and Doug Macarthur ?

    Um, no, actually, Truman publicly knifed Doug ... hm, so yes, Obama, the Greatest Presidential sock-puppet ever ?

    [Dec 21, 2016] Russia: The Old-New Official Enemy

    Dec 21, 2016 | www.fff.org
    by Jacob G. Hornberger December 15, 2016

    It is impossible to overstate the stakes involved in the latest controversy over Russia. They involve trillions of dollars in warfare largess to the tens of thousands of bureaucratic warfare-state parasites who are sucking the lifeblood out of the American people.

    Ever since the advent of the U.S. national-security state after World War II, America has needed official enemies, especially ones that induce fear, terror, and panic within the American citizenry. When people are fearful, terrified, and panicked, they are much more willing, even eager, to have government officials do whatever is necessary to keep them safe and secure. It is during such times that liberty is at greatest risk because of the propensity of government to assume emergency powers and the proclivity of the citizenry to let them have them.

    That's what the Cold War was all about. The official enemies were communism and the Soviet Union, which was an alliance of nations that had Russia at its center. U.S. officials convinced Americans that there was a worldwide communist conspiracy to take over the world, with its principal base in Moscow.

    A correlative threat was Red China, whose communist hordes were supposedly threatening to flood the United States.

    There were also the communist outposts, which were considered spearheads pointed at America. North Korea. North Vietnam. Cuba, which, Americans were told, was a communist dagger pointed out America's neck from only 90 miles away.

    And then there was communism the philosophy, along with the communists who promoted it. It was clear, U.S. officials gravely maintained, that communism was spreading all across the world, including inside the U.S. Army, the State Department, and Hollywood, and that communists were everyone, including leftist organizations and even sometimes under people's beds.

    Needless to say, all this fear, terror, and panic induced people to support the ever-growing budgets, influence, and power of the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA, which had become the national-security branch of the federal government - and the most powerful branch at that. Few cared that their hard-earned monies were being taken from them by the IRS in ever-increasing amounts. All that mattered was being kept safe from the communists.

    Hardly anyone questioned or challenged this warfare-state racket. President Eisenhower alluded to it in his Farewell Address in 1961, when he pointed out that this new-fangled governmental structure, which he called "the military industrial complex," now posed a grave threat to the freedoms and democratic processes of the American people.

    One of those who did challenge this official-enemy syndrome was President John F. Kennedy. At war with his national-security establishment in 1963, Kennedy threw the gauntlet down at his famous Peace Speech at American University in June of that year. There was no reason, Kennedy said, that the Soviet Union (i.e., Russia) and the rest of the communist world couldn't live in peace co-existence and even friendship, even if the nations were guided by different ideologies and philosophies. Kennedy announced that it was time to end the Cold War against Russia and the rest of the communist world.

    What Kennedy was proposing was anathema to the national-security state and its ever-growing army of voracious contractors and subcontractors who were feeding at the public trough. How dare he remove the Soviet Union (i.e., Russia) as America's official enemy? How could the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA justify their ever-growing budgets and their ever-growing emergency powers? Indeed, how could they justify the very existence of their Cold War totalitarian-type apparatus known as a "national security state" without a giant official enemy to strike fear, terror, and panic with the American people?

    Kennedy was considered a neophyte and an incompetent by the national-security establishment, not to mention an immoral adulterous philanderer who was even sleeping with the girlfriend of a Mafia don. What Kennedy didn't realize, the Pentagon and the CIA believed, was that it was impossible for the United States and the communist world to live in peaceful coexistence. This was a fight to the finish. Kennedy was being lulled, perhaps even blackmailed, into surrendering America to the Reds. He was considered a traitor, a betrayer, and the epitome of naïve. (See: JFK's War with the National Security Establishment: Why Kennedy Was Assassinated by Douglas Horne; The Kennedy Autopsy by Jacob Hornberger; Regime Change: The Kennedy Assassination by Jacob Hornberger; The CIA, Terrorism, and the Cold War: The Evil of the National Security State by Jacob Hornberger; and CIA & JFK: The Secret Assassination Files by Jefferson Morley.)

    Once Kennedy was removed from the scene, everything returned to "normal." The Cold War continued. The Vietnam War against the commies in Asia to prevent more dominoes from falling got ramped up. The Soviet Union, Red China, and the worldwide communist conspiracy continued to be America's big official enemies. The military and intelligence budgets continued to rise. The number of warfare state parasites continued soaring.

    Seemingly, there was never going to be an end to the process. Until one day, the unexpected suddenly happened. The Berlin Wall came crashing down, East and West Germany were reunited, and the Soviet Union was dismantled, all of which struck unmitigated fear within the bowels of the American deep state.

    Oh sure, there was still Cuba, Red China, North Korea, and Vietnam but those communist nations, for some reason, just didn't strike fear, terror, and panic within Americans as Russia did.

    U.S. officials needed a new official enemy. Enter Saddam Hussein, the dictator of Iraq, who had served as a partner and ally of the U.S. government during the 1980s when he was waging war against Iran, which, by that time, had become converted from official friend to official enemy of the U.S. Empire. Throughout the 1990s, Saddam was made into the new official enemy. Like the Soviets and the communists, Saddam was coming to get us and unleash mushroom clouds all over America. The American people bought it and, not surprisingly, budgets for the national-security establishment continued their upward soar.

    Then came the 9/11 attacks in retaliation for what the Pentagon and the CIA were doing in the Middle East, followed by with the retaliatory invasions Afghanistan and Iraq. Suddenly the new official enemies were "terrorism" and then later Islam. Like the communists of yesteryear, the terrorists and the Muslims were coming to get us, take over the federal government, run the IRS and HUD, and force everyone to study the Koran. The American people bought it and, not surprisingly, budgets for the national-security establishment continued their upward soar.

    The problem is that Americans, including U.S. soldiers and their families, are now growing weary of the forever wars in the Middle East and Afghanistan. But U.S. national-security state officials know that if they bring the troops home, the official enemies of terrorism and Islam disappear at the same time.

    That's why they have decided to return to their old, tried and true official enemy - Russia and, implicitly, communism. It's why the U.S. broke its promise to Russia to dismantle NATO. It's why the U.S. supported regime change in the coup in Ukraine. It's why the U.S. wants Ukraine into NATO - to enable the U.S. to install missiles on Russia's border. It's why the national-security state is "pivoting" toward Asia - to provoke crises with Red China. It's why they are accusing Russia of interfering with the U.S. presidential election and campaigning for Donald Trump. The aim of it all is to bring back the old Cold War official enemies of Russia, China, and communism, in order to keep Americans afraid, terrified, and panicked, which then means the continuation of ever-growing budgets to all those warfare state parasites who are sucking the lifeblood out of the American people.

    With his fight against the CIA over Russian hacking and his desire to establish normal relations with Russia, Donald Trump is clearly not buying into this old, tried-and-true Russia-as-official enemy narrative. In the process, he is posing a grave threat to the national-security establishment and its ever-growing budgets, influence, and power.

    Share This Article (0)

    [Dec 21, 2016] The Perfect Weapon How Russian Cyberpower Invaded the U.S by ERIC LIPTON , DAVID E. SANGER and SCOTT SHANE

    the article contain at least one blatant lie which discredits its connect: the assertion the Sony attack was from North Korea. No mentioning of Flame and Stixnet. Another proof that NYT is a part of Clinton campaign and became a neocons mouthpiece...
    Notable quotes:
    "... How many of us have signed petitions to exonerate Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning for letting us know what our govt was doing? Didn't they do us all, and democracy, a great service? ..."
    "... I'm happy to know how the DNC operated, the astounding and unprecedented conflation of a national party committee with one candidate's campaign organization. ..."
    "... What they were doing to Bernie Sanders, and the use they were making of national media was just wrong. ..."
    "... Clinton herself was involved (via her neocon undersecretary, formerly Cheney's chief foreign policy aide) in overthrowing the elected president of Ukraine, a friend of Russia, and installing a US-capitalist friendly fellow in his stead. ..."
    "... What goes around comes around. If we wanted to stop all this cyber warfare, the time to do it was by treaty BEFORE we risked Iranian lives with the Stuxnet virus. ..."
    "... The release of e-mails was embarrassing for Secretary Clinton and the Democratic Party, but I don't think it tipped the election. How many longtime Democratic voters stayed home on November 9th because of the release of these e-mails? How many working class voters switched their vote because of the release of these e-mails? ..."
    "... If the hacking had tampered with voting, I would be extremely concerned, but since it only involved email systems, I am not concerned. ..."
    "... The hacked and subsequently published emails revealed the dishonest, deceitful, and unethical practices of the Democrats, especially in the treatment of Sanders, who should have ditched the Democrats run for president as an Independent. ..."
    "... The emails also revealed that Obama was a participant in HRC's use of a nongovernmental email system when he stated emphatically that the first time he had ever heard of it was when the media first reported it. ..."
    "... That's not the first and probably not the last time he will lie to the public. And the emails revealed the satanic practices of Podesta. The published emails made the election interesting and entertaining. But it is over and mow its time to put this issue to rest, accept the fact that Donald Trump is our next President, the leader of the freest county in the free world, and get on with governing this blessed great nation. Thank you. ..."
    "... I suppose Hillary's email server could have been hacked like this too. Could this be the reason for Comey's stern reprimand of her? It is a little ironic, isn't it, that the DNC, while down playing Hillary's issues with her private server and criticizing Comey for his handling of the investigation, should itself suffer a damaging security breach of its own servers at the hands of a foreign power, which was exactly Comey's concern. Not to mention the fact that the NYT, which told us enough was enough with Hillary's email, is now up in arms about exactly that issue with the shoe on the other foot ..."
    "... I am struggling with how to react to this, just as i do with the Edward Snowden disclosures. On the one hand Russian meddling in a US election is certainly a concern, and should be investigated. On the other hand the disclosures laid bare things many people had suspected, let the sunlight in, so to speak. ..."
    "... Would Hillary even have had the nomination were it not for the favoritism shown by the DNC to her campaign at the expense of the Sanders campaign? What was more meddlesome, the Russian hack and release or the DNC's unfair treatment of Bernie? There is no suggestion that the leaked documents were altered. The effect of the hack was to reveal the truth. Is that the Russian goal, to delegitimize the election process by revealing the truth? ..."
    "... I suppose we finally got a taste of our own medicine -- countless governments overthrown and elections influenced at the hand of the United States. Not fun is it? Perhaps we can learn a lesson from this. ..."
    Dec 21, 2016 | www.nytimes.com
    Sandy Garossino Vancouver, British Columbia December 13, 2016

    An aspect that truly surprises me is the hopeless ineptitude of the DNC response (which could easily have parallels in the RNC).

    Irrespective of who the cyber-attacker is, it's astounding in this day and age that sensitive organizations do not pre-arm themselves with the highest security, and treat every sign of interference (eg, an actual FBI WARNING PHONE CALL) as a major alarm.

    Sadly, that this response is probably replicated all over the place underscores a theory I've held for some time: Technology will kill democracy. Maybe it already has.

    Martha Dryden, NY December 13, 2016

    I'm surprised at what's missing here. How many of us have signed petitions to exonerate Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning for letting us know what our govt was doing? Didn't they do us all, and democracy, a great service?

    I'm happy to know how the DNC operated, the astounding and unprecedented conflation of a national party committee with one candidate's campaign organization.

    What they were doing to Bernie Sanders, and the use they were making of national media was just wrong.

    Assange and Putin (if he was involved) revealed the truth. And since Clinton took no care to guard her private emails, mixed with public communications, how much sympathy is she owed?

    Clinton herself was involved (via her neocon undersecretary, formerly Cheney's chief foreign policy aide) in overthrowing the elected president of Ukraine, a friend of Russia, and installing a US-capitalist friendly fellow in his stead. We do this sort of thing all the time, so if the Russians "interfere" in our electoral process by revealing true stuff (far short of fomenting a coup like we did in Ukraine), isn't that just tit for tat? We even hacked into the communications of European leaders and international organizations. We were the first to use cyber warfare (Stuxnet, v. Iran), so how can we play holier than thou? What goes around comes around. If we wanted to stop all this cyber warfare, the time to do it was by treaty BEFORE we risked Iranian lives with the Stuxnet virus.

    Classicist New York, NY December 13, 2016

    The release of e-mails was embarrassing for Secretary Clinton and the Democratic Party, but I don't think it tipped the election. How many longtime Democratic voters stayed home on November 9th because of the release of these e-mails? How many working class voters switched their vote because of the release of these e-mails?

    The bigger issue for me is that because we are now politicizing this hacking (i.e. making the argument that the hacking helped Republicans), many Republicans are opposed to investigating it.

    That is crazy to me.

    Southern Boy The Volunteer State December 13, 2016

    If the hacking had tampered with voting, I would be extremely concerned, but since it only involved email systems, I am not concerned.

    The hacked and subsequently published emails revealed the dishonest, deceitful, and unethical practices of the Democrats, especially in the treatment of Sanders, who should have ditched the Democrats run for president as an Independent.

    The emails also revealed that Obama was a participant in HRC's use of a nongovernmental email system when he stated emphatically that the first time he had ever heard of it was when the media first reported it.

    That's not the first and probably not the last time he will lie to the public. And the emails revealed the satanic practices of Podesta. The published emails made the election interesting and entertaining. But it is over and mow its time to put this issue to rest, accept the fact that Donald Trump is our next President, the leader of the freest county in the free world, and get on with governing this blessed great nation. Thank you.

    GBC , Canada December 13, 2016

    I suppose Hillary's email server could have been hacked like this too. Could this be the reason for Comey's stern reprimand of her? It is a little ironic, isn't it, that the DNC, while down playing Hillary's issues with her private server and criticizing Comey for his handling of the investigation, should itself suffer a damaging security breach of its own servers at the hands of a foreign power, which was exactly Comey's concern. Not to mention the fact that the NYT, which told us enough was enough with Hillary's email, is now up in arms about exactly that issue with the shoe on the other foot

    I am struggling with how to react to this, just as i do with the Edward Snowden disclosures. On the one hand Russian meddling in a US election is certainly a concern, and should be investigated. On the other hand the disclosures laid bare things many people had suspected, let the sunlight in, so to speak.

    Would Hillary even have had the nomination were it not for the favoritism shown by the DNC to her campaign at the expense of the Sanders campaign? What was more meddlesome, the Russian hack and release or the DNC's unfair treatment of Bernie? There is no suggestion that the leaked documents were altered. The effect of the hack was to reveal the truth. Is that the Russian goal, to delegitimize the election process by revealing the truth?

    Mark Bratanov FL December 13, 2016

    I suppose we finally got a taste of our own medicine -- countless governments overthrown and elections influenced at the hand of the United States. Not fun is it? Perhaps we can learn a lesson from this.

    Eric Lipton is an NYTimes reporter Reporter December 13, 2016

    The agent could have walked over to the DNC headquarters and shown the DNC IT consultant his badge. Or he could have invited the DNC IT consultant to his office--confirming his true identity. Instead, the two communicated for several months just by phone, and as a result, the DNC IT consultant did not fully believe he was speaking to an FBI agent, and so he did not act as aggressively to search for the possible cyber intrusion.

    GC carrboro, nc December 13, 2016

    She lost, get over it. Yes the Electoral College is obsolete. Yes some voting machines can be hacked, but no-one is claiming that in states with tight results. Let's see what the official investigation says, and who says it.

    For better or worse Mr. Trump will be our next President because he won the election. Personally I'm delighted that he may damp down the over-the-top Russophobia that is swirling around DC, "defense" contractor Congressional shills, & the offices of the NYT but nowhere else in the country.

    It's time for progressives to emerge from Obama-daze and convince the rest of the country that they have a better vision for this country's future than that offered by conservatives/reactionaries. One that doesn't involve bombing hapless foreigners. Articulate your policies as best you can, learn from your defeats and from your victories. Onward!

    Southern Boy The Volunteer State December 13, 2016

    If the hacking had tampered with voting, I would be extremely concerned, but since it only involved email systems, I am not concerned. The hacked and subsequently published emails revealed the dishonest, deceitful, and unethical practices of the Democrats, especially in the treatment of Sanders, who should have ditched the Democrats run for president as an Independent. The emails also revealed that Obama was a participant in HRC's use of a nongovernmental email system when he stated emphatically that the first time he had ever heard of it was when the media first reported it. That's not the first and probably not the last time he will lie to the public. And the emails revealed the satanic practices of Podesta. The published emails made the election interesting and entertaining. But it is over and mow its time to put this issue to rest, accept the fact that Donald Trump is our next President, the leader of the freest county in the free world, and get on with governing this blessed great nation. Thank you.

    Louisa is a trusted commenter New York December 13, 2016

    The police call and tell you to be sure to lock your doors and windows--there have been people seen lurking around your house.

    You hang up on them. And do nothing about your doors or windows.

    The police call repeatedly. You ignore all their calls.

    The police advise you to install an alarm system. You, making millions a year, say you can't afford it.

    You receive a notice in the mail telling you you've received 6 months worth of free storage. A van will arrive to pick up your stuff.

    You let the movers take your stuff away. You did not supervise what they took.

    You are the DNC, in terms of how they acted during this mess.

    [Dec 21, 2016] Russians are everywhere, much like Jews in traditional anti-Semitic propaganda.

    Notable quotes:
    "... Can you please explain to me why you are thinking that this was a hack, not a leak by an insider? ..."
    "... Yes, of course, Russians are everywhere, much like Jews in traditional anti-Semitic propaganda. ..."
    "... Or in good McCarthyism tradition, they are under each bed. This evil autocrat Putin (who actually looks like yet another corrupt neoliberal ruler, who got Russia into WTO mousetrap and invests state money in the USA debt) manages to get everywhere, control everything and at the same time (German elections, Ukraine, Syria, world oil prices, Chechnya Islamic insurgence, US Presidential election, US stock market, you name it.) Amazing fit for a man over 60. ..."
    "... And citing NYT article as for Russian hacks is probably not so much different from citing The Protocols of the Elders of Zion to support anti-Semitic propaganda. NYT was and still is one of the most enthusiastic supporters of Hillary campaign. Hardly a neutral observer. ..."
    "... This level of anti-Russian hysteria that several people here are demonstrating is absolutely disgusting. Do you really want a military confrontation with Russia in Syria as most neocons badly want (but would prefer that other fought for them in the trenches) ? ..."
    Dec 21, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    likbez -> im1dc... , December 18, 2016 at 07:15 PM

    Can you please explain to me why you are thinking that this was a hack, not a leak by an insider?

    One DNC staffer, 27-year-old Seth Rich, the DNC's director of voter expansion, was killed around this time in pretty strange circumstances. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/07/12/democratic-national-committee-staffer-shot-and-killed-in-washington.html

    Former British Ambassador and current Wikileaks operative Craig Murray recently said he has met the person who leaked DNC and Clinton campaign emails, and they aren't Russian.

    http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/bombshell-wikileaks-figure-says-insider-russia-hack/

    Or it can come from a dissident within the US agency that did have access to all emails.

    Do you remember such a person as Edward Snowden ?

    It might be very educational for you to read his opinion about this case:

    While he is highly critical of Wikileaks, he suggests that without NSA coming forward with hard data obtained via special program that uncover multiple levels of indirection, those charges are just propaganda and insinuations.

    And BTW after the fact it is usually impossible to discover who obtained the information, as they use multiple levels of indirection and Russia might be just one of those indirection levels. Use of Russian IP-space or Russian IPS might be just an attempt to create a false trail and to implicate a wrong party.

    As in any complex case you should not jump to conclusions so easily.

    DeDude -> likbez... , December 18, 2016 at 08:05 PM
    Or you can explain why you believe strange Faux news conspiracy stories with absolutely no evidence that this person was in a position to hack the computers? Or why do you believe the obvious hugely conflicted statements from Wikileaks operatives, who would never want to admit that they were played by the Russians? Or a guy like Snowden who's life depend on Putins charity? Why would those sources make anybody question the clear evidence already presented?

    The fact that NSA is not going to publish all its evidence, is not a surprise. No need to tell the Russians and other hackers how they can avoid detection. But it is not just the government that conclude Russian involvement. Private company experts have reached the same conclusion. The case for a Russian government hack is about as good as it can get.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/13/us/politics/russia-hack-election-dnc.html?_r=0

    likbez -> DeDude... , December 18, 2016 at 09:48 PM
    Yes, of course, Russians are everywhere, much like Jews in traditional anti-Semitic propaganda.

    Or in good McCarthyism tradition, they are under each bed. This evil autocrat Putin (who actually looks like yet another corrupt neoliberal ruler, who got Russia into WTO mousetrap and invests state money in the USA debt) manages to get everywhere, control everything and at the same time (German elections, Ukraine, Syria, world oil prices, Chechnya Islamic insurgence, US Presidential election, US stock market, you name it.) Amazing fit for a man over 60.

    And citing NYT article as for Russian hacks is probably not so much different from citing The Protocols of the Elders of Zion to support anti-Semitic propaganda. NYT was and still is one of the most enthusiastic supporters of Hillary campaign. Hardly a neutral observer.

    This level of anti-Russian hysteria that several people here are demonstrating is absolutely disgusting. Do you really want a military confrontation with Russia in Syria as most neocons badly want (but would prefer that other fought for them in the trenches) ?

    That's what this hysteria is now about, I think.

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> likbez... , -1
    The NSA is very good at finding the source of intrusion attempts because they happen all the time every day from China, Russia, North Korea and just little island backwaters in the Pacific.

    Doing something to stop or punish the perpetrators is what is hard. Individual US installation instances must each be protected by their own firewalls and then still monitored for unusual variations in traffic patterns through firewalls to detect IP spoofing.

    [Dec 20, 2016] Critical view of Putin from the left

    Dec 20, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org
    Penelope | Dec 20, 2016 8:49:09 PM | 35

    Juannie @ 16, You say Putin is the leading moral & ideological voice of his time. I'll leave the "moral" aside for the moment. His ideology is to applaud the IMF, the WTO, and the UN-- all Western controlled. Even if they were not Western-controlled they are the first three floors of the global governance edifice which usurps national sovereignties, preventing the emergence of any variant of democracy. Not long ago Putin wanted to join EU and NATO, not disband them.

    Russia's development continues hostage to the international banking cabal, as her issuance of her own currency & credits is limited by the Fed/IMF rules under which her Central Bank has no function except to support the dollar-ruble conversion rate, and the Central Bank "reserves" may not even be used as collateral. let alone as capital. So Russia is not truly owner of her own "reserves".

    Putin's ideology is to support every institution of the emerging global oligarchy. Including the neoliberal economics of Russian austerity and the privatization of remaining State assets. He is demonized so that you will exclude from your mind the possibility that the Russian oligarchs are in substantial cooperation w the Western ones in producing the NWO.

    It is not very different than the MSM demonizing Trump as a way to establish him as an "outsider," a person against the establishment.

    If only you could acknowledge that heavy aircraft parts that fall from the sky must gouge holes in the sand of the Sinai and the soft farmland of the Donbass. Indeed the engines must half-bury themselves, as in real plane crashes, shown here http://killtown.911review.org/flight93/crash-comparisons.html what the impact craters of real plane crashes look like.

    In the Sinai "crash" and the MH17 hoax there had to be collusion between the West and the Russian govt.

    [Dec 20, 2016] Its official the US is funding Middle-East jihadists!

    Dec 20, 2016 | failedevolution.blogspot.gr
    It's official: the US is funding Middle-East jihadists!

    globinfo freexchange

    We should not expect the truth from the corrupted establishment who fiercely fought Bernie Sanders, for example. We should expect it from someone who supported him. Indeed, the Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, who resigned as DNC vice-chair on February 28, 2016, in order to endorse Bernie Sanders for the Democratic presidential nomination, and actually was the first female US Representative to endorse Sanders, 'dared' to introduce bill so that the US to stop arming terrorists!

    Her words left no doubt of who is behind the dirty war in Syria and the chaos in the Middle East:

    Mr. speaker, under US law, it is illegal for you, or me, or any American, to provide any type of assistance to Al-Qaeda, ISIS, or other terrorist groups. If we broke this law, we'll be thrown in jail.

    Yet the US government has been violating this law for years, directly and indirectly supporting allies and partners of groups like Al-Qaeda and ISIS, with money, weapons, intelligence and other support in their fight to overthrow the Syrian government .

    A recent NY Times article, confirmed that rebel groups supported by the US 'have entered into battlefield alliances with the affiliate of al-Qaeda in Syria, formerly known as al Nusra.' The Wall Street Journal reports that rebel groups are 'doubling down on their alliance with al-Qaeda'. This alliance has rendered the phrase 'moderate rebels' meaningless .

    We must stop this madness.We must stop arming terrorists .

    I'm introducing the Stop Arming Terrorists act today, to prohibit taxpayer dollars for being used to support terrorists.

    Speaking on CNN , Gabbard specifically named CIA as the agency that supports terrorist groups in the Middle East:

    The US government has been providing money, weapons, intel. assistance and other types of support through the CIA, directly to these groups that are working with and are affiliated with Al-Qaeda and ISIS.

    Also, Gabbard specifically named the allies through which the US assist these terrorist groups:

    We've also been providing that support through countries like Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar ...

    Speaking on NPR , Gabbard explained that she was working on the issue of the US interventionist, regime-change wars for years since she has been in Congress. Therefore, her position coincides with that of Donald Trump who repeatedly declared his opposition to these wars. This was also the main reason for which she endorsed Bernie Sanders:

    SIMON: You and President-elect Trump are obviously of different parties. But don't you kind of have the same position on Syria?

    GABBARD: I have heard him talk about his opposition to continuing interventionist, regime-change wars. I want to be clear, though, that this is an issue that I have been working on for years since I have been in Congress. And it's one...

    SIMON: It's why you endorsed Senator Sanders, isn't it?

    GABBARD: It's - correct. It was a clear difference between Senator Sanders and Secretary Clinton. I am hopeful that this new administration coming in will change these policies so that we don't continue making these destructive decisions, as have been made in the past.

    This is really a unique moment, showing the absolute failure of the US obsolete, dirty policies and the degree of degeneration of the 'idealistic' picture of the Unites States as the number one global power. We can't remember any moment in the past in which a congressman was seeking to pass a bill to prohibit the US government funding terrorists, or, a newly elected president who, in his campaigns, was stating clearly that the previous administration created many terrorist groups.

    [Dec 20, 2016] ClubOrlov The Power of Nyet

    Notable quotes:
    "... What we ordinary folk think of as "American" interests are those interests as expressed by an entrenched foreign policy establishment to which the price of admission isn't only graduate studies in an expensive university. No, you have to walk within the lines. There's nothing as old under the sun as "group-think". ..."
    "... he served a purpose when he diverged from long established consensus and said that maybe, just maybe, getting on with the Russians might not be that hard. Or that NATO is an out-dated, dead-weight non-alliance of the unwilling. Or that border-less trade ruined heartland America. ..."
    July 26. 2016 | cluborlov.blogspot.com
    [ O poder do "não" ]
    [ Het vermogen van "njet" ]
    [ Síla „Nět" ]
    [ Le pouvoir du " Niet " ]

    The way things are supposed to work on this planet is like this: in the United States, the power structures (public and private) decide what they want the rest of the world to do. They communicate their wishes through official and unofficial channels, expecting automatic cooperation. If cooperation is not immediately forthcoming, they apply political, financial and economic pressure. If that still doesn't produce the intended effect, they attempt regime change through a color revolution or a military coup, or organize and finance an insurgency leading to terrorist attacks and civil war in the recalcitrant nation. If that still doesn't work, they bomb the country back to the stone age. This is the way it worked in the 1990s and the 2000s, but as of late a new dynamic has emerged.

    In the beginning it was centered on Russia, but the phenomenon has since spread around the world and is about to engulf the United States itself. It works like this: the United States decides what it wants Russia to do and communicates its wishes, expecting automatic cooperation. Russia says "Nyet." The United States then runs through all of the above steps up to but not including the bombing campaign, from which it is deterred by Russia's nuclear deterrent. The answer remains "Nyet." One could perhaps imagine that some smart person within the US power structure would pipe up and say: "Based on the evidence before us, dictating our terms to Russia doesn't work; let's try negotiating with Russia in good faith as equals." And then everybody else would slap their heads and say, "Wow! That's brilliant! Why didn't we think of that?" But instead that person would be fired that very same day because, you see, American global hegemony is nonnegotiable. And so what happens instead is that the Americans act baffled, regroup and try again, making for quite an amusing spectacle.

    The whole Edward Snowden imbroglio was particularly fun to watch. The US demanded his extradition. The Russians said: "Nyet, our constitution forbids it." And then, hilariously, some voices in the West demanded in response that Russia change its constitution! The response, requiring no translation, was "Xa-xa-xa-xa-xa!" Less funny is the impasse over Syria: the Americans have been continuously demanding that Russia go along with their plan to overthrow Bashar Assad. The unchanging Russian response has been: "Nyet, the Syrians get to decide on their leadership, not Russia, and not the US." Each time they hear it, the Americans scratch their heads and try again. John Kerry was just recently in Moscow, holding a marathon "negotiating session" with Putin and Lavrov. Above is a photo of Kerry talking to Putin and Lavrov in Moscow a week or so ago and their facial expressions are hard to misread. There's Kerry, with his back to the camera, babbling away as per usual. Lavrov's face says: "I can't believe I have to sit here and listen to this nonsense again." Putin's face says: "Oh the poor idiot, he can't bring himself to understand that we're just going to say 'nyet' again." Kerry flew home with yet another "nyet."

    What's worse, other countries are now getting into the act. The Americans told the Brits exactly how to vote, and yet the Brits said "nyet" and voted for Brexit. The Americans told the Europeans to accept the horrendous corporate power grab that is the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), and the French said "nyet, it shall not pass." The US organized yet another military coup in Turkey to replace Erdoǧan with somebody who won't try to play nice with Russia, and the Turks said "nyet" to that too. And now, horror of horrors, there is Donald Trump saying "nyet" to all sorts of things-NATO, offshoring American jobs, letting in a flood of migrants, globalization, weapons for Ukrainian Nazis, free trade

    The corrosive psychological effect of "nyet" on the American hegemonic psyche cannot be underestimated. If you are supposed to think and act like a hegemon, but only the thinking part still works, then the result is cognitive dissonance. If your job is to bully nations around, and the nations can no longer be bullied, then your job becomes a joke, and you turn into a mental patient. The resulting madness has recently produced quite an interesting symptom: some number of US State Department staffers signed a letter, which was promptly leaked, calling for a bombing campaign against Syria in order to overthrow Bashar Assad. These are diplomats. Diplomacy is the art of avoiding war by talking. Diplomats who call for war are not being exactly diplomatic. You could say that they are incompetent diplomats, but that wouldn't go far enough (most of the competent diplomats left the service during the second Bush administration, many of them in disgust over having to lie about the rationale for the Iraq war). The truth is, they are sick, deranged non-diplomatic warmongers. Such is the power of this one simple Russian word that they have quite literally lost their minds.

    But it would be unfair to single out the State Department. It is as if the entire American body politic has been infected by a putrid miasma. It permeates all things and makes life miserable. In spite of the mounting problems, most other things in the US are still somewhat manageable, but this one thing-the draining away of the ability to bully the whole world-ruins everything. It's mid-summer, the nation is at the beach. The beach blanket is moth-eaten and threadbare, the beach umbrella has holes in it, the soft drinks in the cooler are laced with nasty chemicals and the summer reading is boring and then there is a dead whale decomposing nearby, whose name is "Nyet." It just ruins the whole ambiance!

    The media chattering heads and the establishment politicos are at this point painfully aware of this problem, and their predictable reaction is to blame it on what they perceive as its ultimate source: Russia, conveniently personified by Putin. "If you aren't voting for Clinton, you are voting for Putin" is one recently minted political trope. Another is that Trump is Putin's agent. Any public figure that declines to take a pro-establishment stance is automatically labeled "Putin's useful idiot." Taken at face value, such claims are preposterous. But there is a deeper explanation for them: what ties them all together is the power of "nyet." A vote for Sanders is a "nyet" vote: the Democratic establishment produced a candidate and told people to vote for her, and most of the young people said "nyet." Same thing with Trump: the Republican establishment trotted out its Seven Dwarfs and told people to vote for any one of them, and yet most of the disenfranchised working-class white people said "nyet" and voted for Snow White the outsider.

    It is a hopeful sign that people throughout the Washington-dominated world are discovering the power of "nyet." The establishment may still look spiffy on the outside, but under the shiny new paint there hides a rotten hull, with water coming in though every open seam. A sufficiently resounding "nyet" will probably be enough to cause it to founder, suddenly making room for some very necessary changes. When that happens, please remember to thank Russia or, if you insist, Putin.

    NowhereMan said... Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 7:13:00 AM EDT

    Beautiful! I'm going to start using that word in conversation now just to gauge people's reactions. Nyet!!! I have one particularly stuffy friend who's just baffled by the Trump phenomenon. He's an old school GOP conservative at heart who's chagrined that he's had to abandon the grand old party in favor of HRC and can't understand for the life of him why the "dirt people" are so enamored with Trump and Sanders. I just laugh and tell him that they're abandoning the Dems for the same reasons that he's embracing them.

    The rich and the near rich (which seems to include just about everybody these days, if only in their imaginations) here in the US all suffer from fundamental attribution bias - the idea that their own exceptionalism is why they are doing well - rather than realizing that it's all mostly just the luck of the draw - or even worse - their own willingness to carry corporate water like the good little Nazi's they are that has allowed them to temporarily advance their station in life.

    Fortunately for us all, the sun is setting on America's empire as we speak, and fevered dreams of US hegemony for the rest of time will be short lived indeed, although homo sapiens' time might be limited as well. If history keeps recording in the aftermath, US nuclear enabled hegemony will be but a brief blip on the historical radar, and like the legend of Atlantis before us, we'll be remembered chiefly as a society gone mad with our technologies, who aspired to reach out and touch the face of god, but instead settled for embracing our many inner devils. We won't be missed.

    Happy Unicorn said... Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 9:26:00 AM EDT

    A vote for Trump is a vote for Putin? Wouldn't THAT be nice!

    Dave Stockton said... Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 9:36:00 AM EDT

    This whole, "a vote against Hillary is a vote for Putin", is the best thing that could have happened this election. The US population will now have a debate and get to vote on whether we truly want to start World War Three. Hopefully the powers that be will be surprised by the response... NYET!

    Unknown said... Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 12:23:00 PM EDT

    Nice...

    Putin recently made fun of Lavrov, that he is becoming like Gromyko....
    ...and Gromyko was called Mr. NYET. :-)

    http://sevendaynews.com/2016/06/17/putin-has-lavrov-compared-with-gromyko/

    Vyse Legendaire said... Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 12:37:00 PM EDT

    I hope someone would volunteer to design a 'Nyet!' T-shirt on teepublic for advocates to show their unity to the cause.

    Shawn Sincoski said... Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 4:44:00 PM EDT

    I really hope that the next time the TBTF banks need a handout, somebody, somewhere reacts with a 'NFW' that resonates with the other plebes. Such a powerful word. But I am doubtful that such an event will occur. With all that is going on with Hillary the house should be on fire by now, but it is not (I am not advocating Trump by disparaging HRC). I suspect that the coming American experience will be unique and (dis)proportionate to their apathy.

    Cortes said... Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 9:01:00 PM EDT

    Herbert Marcuse: The first word of freedom is "No"

    Irene Parousis said... Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 6:58:00 AM EDT

    BRILLIANT!!!

    Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 12:12:00 AM EDT

    d94c074a-53e8-11e6-947a-073bf9f943f9 said...
    Excellent.
    There is a minor twist: "The corrosive psychological effect of "nyet" on the American hegemonic psyche cannot be underestimated". Probably GWB's "misunderestimated" left some local linguistic traume in your brain popping up in your otherwise perfect comment. I guess you meant "cannot be overestimated". Nevermind, you message is clear and convincing anyway :-)

    Mister Roboto said... Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 8:07:00 AM EDT

    This sums up why all the usual poppycock and folderol about why I need to vote for Hillary that always succeeded in getting under my intellectual skin in the past is now just the mere noise of screeching cats outside the window to me: There just comes a point where, if you have any integrity at all, you have to say, "Nyet!"

    Mark said... Thursday, July 28, 2016 at 5:42:00 AM EDT

    At some point, voting for a major party candidate is just throwing away your vote.

    Roger said... Thursday, July 28, 2016 at 7:11:00 AM EDT

    I always enjoy Dmitry's blogs and the fact that he pushes the Russian perspective, as a relief from the Russophobic drivel put out by the mainstream. However, a word of caution to the wise. Obama, Kerry, Clinton, Trump et al. are, in fact, extremely unfunny. Charlie Chaplin lampooned the funny little man with the moustache in the Great Dictator, xa! xa! xa! The truth came out later. Do not be afraid of Neocon America, but please remember these are dangerous people. Be vigilant always.

    Bruno said... Thursday, July 28, 2016 at 10:55:00 AM EDT

    Loved.

    And sad because Brasil didn't say NYET to the coup planted here by USA.

    Unknown said... Thursday, July 28, 2016 at 1:02:00 PM EDT

    "Putin recently made fun of Lavrov, that he is becoming like Gromyko....
    ...and Gromyko was called Mr. NYET. :-)"

    Even better, Lavrov was subsequently quoted in the press as saying "don't make me say the four letter word".

    What a tag team!

    Marty said... Friday, July 29, 2016 at 9:20:00 AM EDT

    I really believe that you have hit the crux of the issue, the Neocon psychopaths are besides themselves over the Nyets, and they find themselves to be a once powerful now toothless lion, the are being laughed at, even by the American people.

    I hope so because the worst of the bunch is Mrs. Clinton, she is just a crazy and stupid enough to burn it all down, perhaps the only thing that would prevent her from doing so is that this would interfere with her Diabolical Narcissistic need to be seen as the Kleptocrat she is and to get away with being the biggest grifter in American history.

    Turkey shows that they can't even organize a proper coup any more, even when they have a major base in the country of the government to be compromised. The NeoCons must be so disappointed.

    This failed coup was probably also was a big disappointment to those Fed Banksters who were counting on looting the Bank if Turkey's 500 or so Tonnes of gold, as they did with Ukraine.

    Roger said... Friday, July 29, 2016 at 12:53:00 PM EDT

    Leon Panetta sez "we know how to do this" despite an exuberant flourishing of evidence to the contrary. But there's a glimmer of hope, even if it comes from a way down the ranks, because there's a Col Bacevitch who begs to differ and sez "with all due respect, we DON'T know how to do this."

    You ask, know how to do WHAT exactly? Well, the topic at issue in a PBS panel discussion was destroying the Islamic State. But knowing how to do it or NOT knowing how to do it could refer equally to a series of monumental American foreign policy muffs. How could it be, that America with all its military force, screws up so mightily and predictably? Because it's as Mr Orlov asserts, there's a lot of NYETS out there and the American foreign policy establishment can't fathom it.

    But what they most crucially can't fathom is that those damn furriners have their own interests at heart just like the Americans have their own interests. Americans from the street level to the highest echelons view the world through Americentric lens resulting in ludicrously distorted fun-house views of the world.

    For example, why doesn't the Iranian see things the way Americans want him to? Why is it always "nyet" coming out of Teheran? Why are Iranians so belligerent? Americans seemingly can't comprehend that Iran is an ancient imperial power whose roots go back millennia, right to the origins of civilization. But could it possibly be that Iranian concerns have got more to do with goings-on in their geographic locale and pretty much nothing to do with the United States? And that the Iranian is highly irritated that Americans stick their noses into matters that concern Americans only tangentially or not at all? Could it be that the Iranian has his own life pathways in age-old places that Americans know nothing about? Could it be that an Iranian is educated in his own traditions in ancient academies that far pre-date anything on American soil? You can replace the words "Iranian" and "Iran" with "Chinese" and "China" or "Japanese" and "Japan" or dozens of other places and societies including "Russian" and "Russia". American incomprehension goes deep.

    Maybe some of the world is Washington-dominated. But maybe some this domination is more apparent than real. Maybe it only seems Washington-dominated because in many of these places there's a concordance of interests with the United States. But in most of the globe the interests of Americans are not the same as those of the locals. And America has not got the will nor the reach to make it otherwise.

    Happy Unicorn said...

    Roger: "But in most of the globe the interests of Americans are not the same as those of the locals."

    Most of the globe, including America itself! The interests of the Americans you're talking about are usually not the same as mine or anyone's that I know ("the locals" in America). I suspect the people of the USA who aren't brainwashed would have a lot in common with everybody else in the world, because the first colony of any would-be empire (colony 0, let's say) is always the country it originated from. More and more of us are saying nyet too, though the utterance usually takes the less exotic form also enumerated by Dmitry awhile back: "No, because we hate you."
    Friday, July 29, 2016 at 3:03:00 PM EDT

    flops said... Saturday, July 30, 2016 at 7:22:00 AM EDT

    In good wronglish:

    There's America, Americans, USA.

    And, in some point of our decolonized memory, there's Pacha Mama, our Mother Earth, the name given to our land by the older people.

    Not by chance, the unique country in Pacha Mama continents that have a pre-colonial language as its official - Paraguay's Guarani - was the initial focus of this antidemocratic wave attacking our countries.

    We, the united states of...? What?

    "Pacha Mama" is our best nyet!

    Not anymore south and central americas, south and central "americans". Pacha Mama is our real continents' name! We are The United States of Pacha Mama!
    When mentioning people from brazil, angentine, chile, bolivia, peru paraguay colombiavenezuelahaiti,surinamepanamacubamexico and so, please call us Pachamamists. That' what we are.

    Roger said... Saturday, July 30, 2016 at 11:27:00 AM EDT

    HappyUnicorn, of course you're right.

    What we ordinary folk think of as "American" interests are those interests as expressed by an entrenched foreign policy establishment to which the price of admission isn't only graduate studies in an expensive university. No, you have to walk within the lines. There's nothing as old under the sun as "group-think".

    The lines are long established. Just think of it: globalization, off-shoring millions of jobs, on-shoring millions of dirt-poor immigrants, legal and otherwise. Nothing warms the cockles of the oligarch's heart like a desperate underclass.

    I know Trump is a buffoon. But he served a purpose when he diverged from long established consensus and said that maybe, just maybe, getting on with the Russians might not be that hard. Or that NATO is an out-dated, dead-weight non-alliance of the unwilling. Or that border-less trade ruined heartland America.

    You saw the venomous reaction. A lot of people staked a career on the status-quo. Is the best-before expired as Trump suggested? I'll bet that if it hadn't been a blustering clown that raised it, many more people on the street would agree.

    Some regional interests are historic and easily visible for example, along the Mason-Dixon line. But even on either side of that old divide I think that the disparity is more an artifact of opposing elites determined to not get along. Why don't they get along? Well, there's a country to loot. You need distractions and diversions while pension funds and treasuries are emptied.

    And so we're off chasing our tails on burning problems like gender neutral washrooms. Brilliant, don't you think? Kudos to the Obama regime for that one. And so it's God fearin', gun packin' "conservative" versus enlightened, high-minded "progressive". What a joke, what a con. Yet, predictably, we fell for it. You name it, school prayer, abortion, evolution, and now washrooms, we fall for it, we always do.

    Robert T. said... Saturday, July 30, 2016 at 1:52:00 PM EDT

    It would be very nice if someone could write a piece on what life in Russia, in all its levels, is really like nowadays. I suspect that it is not just "nyet" that terrifies the Empire, but rather what Russia herself is now increasingly coming to represent.

    A lot of people, myself included, had been brought up thinking that Russia, while indeed a superpower, isn't and cannot be on the same page as the US. But now here are reports saying that a good and strong leader has pulled Russia out of the rut, and made things better. What's more, this leader did it in a manner that seems antithetical to the Empire. And what's even better is that this new Russia can't be easily rocked, like how the other countries had been rocked and thrown into chaos. The Empire therefore is at its wit's end. If people from other parts of the Earth, especially in those many places where democracy has failed miserably, begin to see that there is indeed an alternative to the empirical system, won't they then start to follow Russia's footsteps?

    Headsails said... Tuesday, August 2, 2016 at 2:07:00 AM EDT

    Just like a spoiled rotten child that needs to learn some manners. It needs to learn the meaning of no. But in this case, instead of a spankng they would be chain ganged for life.

    [Dec 20, 2016] ClubOrlov Brain Parasite Gonna Eatcha!

    Dec 16, 2016 | cluborlov.blogspot.com
    Brain Parasite Gonna Eatcha! I've been experiencing some difficulties with commenting on the current political situation in the US, because it's been a little too funny, whereas this is a very serious blog. But I have decided that I must try my best. Now, these are serious matters, so as you read this, please refrain from any and all levity and mirth.

    You may have heard by now that the Russians stole the US presidential election; if it wasn't for them, Hillary Clinton would have been president-elect, but because of their meddling we are now stuck with Donald Trump and his 1001 oligarchs running the federal government for the next four years.

    There are two ways to approach this question. One is to take the accusation of Russian hacking of the US elections at face value, and we will certainly do that. But first let's try another way, because it's quicker. Let's consider the accusation itself as a symptom of some unrelated disorder. This is often the best way forward. Suppose a person walks into a doctor's office, and says, "Doctor, I believe I have schizophrenium poisoning." Should the doctor summon the hazmat team, or check for schizophrenia first?

    And so let's first consider that this "Russians did it" refrain we keep hearing is a symptom of something else, of which Russians are not the cause. My working hypothesis is that this behavior is being caused by a brain parasite. Yes, this may seem outlandish at first, but as we'll see later the theory that the Russians stole the election is no less outlandish.

    Brain parasites are known to alter the behavior of the organisms they infest in a variety of subtle ways. For instance, Toxicoplasma gondii alters the behavior of rodents, causing them to lose fear of cats and to become attracted to the smell of cat urine, making it easy for the cats to catch them. It also alters the behavior of humans, causing them to lavish excessive affection on cats and to compulsively download photographs of cute kittens playing with yarn.

    My hypothesis is that this particular brain parasite was specifically bioengineered by the US to make those it infects hate Russia. I suspect that the neurological trigger it uses is Putin's face, which the parasite somehow wires into the visual cortex. This virus was first unleashed on the unsuspecting Ukrainians, where its effect was plain to see. This historically Russian, majority Russian-speaking, culturally Russian and religiously Russian Orthodox region suddenly erupted in an epidemic of Russophobia. The Ukraine cut economic ties with Russia, sending its economy into a tailspin, and started a war with its eastern regions, which were quite recently part of Russia and wish to become part of Russia again.

    So far so good: the American bioengineers who created this virus achieved the effect they wanted, turning a Russian region into an anti-Russian region. But as happens so often with biological agents, it turned out to be hard to keep under control. Its next victims turned out to be NATO and the Pentagon, whose leadership started compulsively uttering the phrase "Russian aggression" in a manner suggestive of Tourette's Syndrome, entirely undeterred by the complete absence of evidence of any such aggression that they could present for objective analysis. They, along with the by now fit-to-be-tied Ukrainians, kept prattling on about "Russian invasion," waving about decades-old pictures of Russian tanks they downloaded from their friends on Facebook.

    From there the brain parasite spread to the White House, the Clinton presidential campaign, the Democratic National Committee, and its attendant press corps, who are now all chattering away about "Russian hacking." The few knowledgeable voices who point out that there is absolutely no hard evidence of any such "Russian hacking" are being drowned out by the Bedlam din of the rest.

    This, to me, seems like the simplest explanation that fits the facts. But to be fair and balanced, let us also examine the other perspective: that claims of "Russian hacking" should be taken at face value. The first difficulty we encounter is that what is being termed "Russian hacking" is not hacks but leaks. Hacks occur where some unauthorized party breaks into a server and steals data. Leaks occur where an insider-a "whistleblower"-violates rules of secrecy and/or confidentiality in order to release into the public domain evidence of wrongdoing. In this case, evidence of leaking is prima facie: Was the data in question evidence of wrongdoing? Yes. Was it released into the public domain? Yes. Has the identity of said leaker or leakers remained secret? Yes, with good reason.

    But this does not rule out hacking, because what a leaker can do, a hacker can also do, although with difficulty. Leakers have it easy: you see evidence of wrongdoing, take umbrage at it, copy it onto a thumb drive, smuggle it off premises, and upload it to Wikileaks through a public wifi hotspot from an old laptop you bought off Craislist and then smashed. But what's a poor hacker to do? You hack into server after server, running the risk of getting caught each time, only to find that the servers contain minutes of public meetings, old press releases, backups of public web sites and-incriminating evidence!-a mother lode of pictures of fluffy kittens playing with yarn downloaded by a secretary afflicted with Toxicoplasma gondii .

    The solution, of course, is to create something that's worth hacking, or leaking, but this is a much harder problem. What the Russians had to do, then, was take the incorruptible, squeaky-clean goody-two-shoes faithful public servant Hillary Clinton, infiltrate the Clinton Foundation, Hillary's presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee, and somehow manipulate them all into doing things that, when leaked (or hacked) would reliably turn the electorate against Clinton. Yes Sir, Tovarishch Putin!

    Those Russians sure are clever! They managed to turn the DNC into an anti-Bernie Sanders operation, depriving him of electoral votes through a variety of underhanded practices while appealing to anti-Semitic sentiments in certain parts of the country. They managed to manipulate Donna Brazile into handing presidential debate questions to the Clinton campaign. They even managed to convince certain Ukrainian oligarchs and Saudi princes to bestow millions upon the Clinton foundation in exchange for certain future foreign policy concessions. The list of these leak-worthy Russian subterfuges goes on and on But who can stop them?

    And so clearly the Russians had to first corrupt the Clinton Foundation, the Clinton Presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee, just in order to render them hackworthy. But here we have a problem. You see, if you can hack into a server, so can everyone else. Suppose you leave your front door unlocked and swinging in the breeze, and long thereafter stuff goes missing. Of course you can blame the neighbor you happen to like least, but then why would anyone believe you? Anybody could have walked through that door and taken your shit. And so it is hard to do anything beyond lobbing empty accusations at Russia as far as hacking is concerned; but the charge of corrupting the incorruptible Hillary Clinton is another matter entirely.

    Because here the ultimate Russian achievement was in getting Hillary Clinton to refer to over half of her electorate as "a basket of deplorables," and this was no mean feat. It takes a superpower to orchestrate a political blunder of this magnitude. This she did in front of an LGBT audience in New York. Now, Hillary is no spring chicken when it comes to national politics: she's been through quite a few federal elections, and she has enough experience to know that pissing off over half of your electorate in one fell swoop is not a particularly smart thing to do. Obviously, she was somehow hypnotized into uttering these words no doubt by a hyperintelligent space-based Russian operative.

    The Russian covert operation into subverting American democracy started with the Russians sending an agent into the hitherto unexplored hinter regions of America, to see what they are like. Hunched over his desk, Putin whipped out a map of the US and a crayon, and lightly shaded in an area south of the Mason-Dixon line, west of New York and Pennsylvania, and east of the Rockies.

    Let me come clean. I have split loyalties. I have spent most of my life hobnobbing with transnational elites on the East Coast, but I have also spent quite a few years working for a very large midwestern agricultural equipment company, and a very large midwestern printing company, so I know the culture of the land quite well. I am sure that what this Russian agent reported back is that the land is thickly settled with white people of Anglo-Irish, Scottish, German and Slavic extraction, that they are macho, that their women (for it is quite a male-centric culture) tend to vote same way as the men for the sake of domestic tranquility, that they don't much like dark-skinned people or gays, and that plenty of them view the East Coast and California as dens of iniquity and corruption, if not modern-day Sodoms and Gomorras.

    And what if Vladimir Putin read this report, and issued this order: "Get Clinton to piss them all off." And so it was done: unbeknownst to her, using nefarious means, Hillary was programmed, under hypnosis, to utter the phrase "a basket of deplorables." A Russian operative hiding in the audience of LGBT activists flashed a sign triggering the program in Hillary's overworked brain, and the rest is history. If that's what actually happened, then Putin should be pronounced Special Ops Officer of the Year, while all the other "world leaders" should quietly sneak out the back entrance, sit down on the ground in the garden and eat some dirt, then puke it up into their hands and rub it into their eyes while wailing, because how on earth can they possibly ever hope to beat that?

    Or we can just go back to my brain parasite theory. Doesn't it seem a whole lot more sane now? Not only is it much simpler and more believable, but it also has certain predictive merits that the "Russian hacking" theory lacks. You see, when there is parasitism involved, there is rarely just one symptom. Usually, there is a whole cluster of symptoms. And so, just for the sake of comparison, let's look at what has happened to the Ukraine since it was infected with the Ukrainian Brain Parasite, and compare that to what is happening to the US now that the parasite has spread here too.

    1. The Ukraine is ruled by an oligarch-Petro Poroshenko, the "candy king"-along with a clique of other oligarchs who have been handed regional governorships and government ministries. And now the US is about to be ruled by an oligarch-Trump, the "casino king"-along with a clique of other oligarchs, from ExxonMobile to Goldman Sachs.

    2. The Ukraine has repudiated its trade agreements with Russia, sending its economy into free-fall. And now Trump is promising to repudiate, and perhaps renegotiate, a variety of trade agreements. For a country that has run huge structural trade deficits for decades and pays for them by constantly issuing debt this is not going to be easy or safe.

    3. The Ukraine has been subjected to not one but two Color Revolutions, promoted by none other than that odious oligarch George Soros. The US is now facing its own Color Revolution-the Purple Revolution-paid for by that same Soros, with the goal of overturning the results of the presidential election and derailing the inauguration of Donald Trump through a variety of increasingly desperate ploys including paid-for demonstrations, vote recounts and attempts to manipulate the Electoral College.

    4. For a couple of years now the Ukraine has been mired in a bloody and futile civil war. To this day the Ukrainian troops (with NATO support) are lobbing missiles into civilian districts in the east of the country, and getting decimated in return. So far, Trump's victory seems to have appeased the "deplorables," but should the Purple Revolution succeed, the US may also see major social unrest, possibly escalating into a civil war.

    The Ukrainian Brain Parasite has devastated the Ukraine. It is by now too far gone for much of anything to be done about it. All of the best people have left, mostly for Russia, and all that's left is a rotten, hollow shell. But does it have to end this way for the US? I hope not!

    There are, as I see it, two possibilities. One is to view those who are pushing the "Russian hacking" or "Russian aggression" story as political adversaries. Another is to view them as temporarily mentally ill. Yes, their brains are infected with the Ukrainian Brain Parasite, but that just means that their opinions are to be disregarded-until they feel better. And since this particular brain parasite specifically influences social behavior, if we refuse to reward that behavior with positive reinforcement-by acknowledging it-we will suppress its most debilitating symptoms, eventually forcing the parasite to evolve toward a more benign form. As with many infectious diseases, the fight against them starts with improved hygiene-in this case, mental hygiene. And so that is my prescription: when you see someone going on about "Russian hacking" or "Russian aggression" be merciful and charitable toward them as individuals, because they are temporarily incapacitated, but do not acknowledge their mad ranting, and instead try to coax them into learning to control it.

    [Dec 18, 2016] Tancredo Would Republican Establishment Use Impeachment to Block Trump Agenda

    Notable quotes:
    "... Republican leaders in Congress are already sending Trump a subtle but clear warning: accept our business-as-usual Chamber of Commerce agenda or we will join Democrats to impeach you. ..."
    "... Impeachment has been the goal of Democrats since the day after Trump won the election, and the Republican establishment will use the veiled threat as leverage to win concession after concession from the Trump White House. ..."
    "... There are at least four Trump campaign promises which, if not dropped or severely compromised, could generate Republican support for impeachment: Trump's Supreme Court appointments, abandoning the Trans Pacific Partnership, radical rollback of Obama regulatory projects, and real enforcement of our nation's immigration laws. ..."
    "... On regulatory rollback, Congress can legitimately insist on negotiating the details with Trump. But on the other three, immigration, the TPP, and Supreme Court nominees, Trump's campaign promises were so specific - and so popular - that he need not accept congressional foot-dragging. ..."
    "... Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell announced this week he will oppose Trump's tax reforms. Senator Lindsey Graham is joining Democrats in sponsoring new legislation to protect the "Dreamers" from deportation after their unlawfully granted legal status and work permits expire. Senator Susan Collins will oppose any restrictions on Muslim refugees, no matter how weak and inadequate the vetting to weed out jihadists. Senator Lamar Alexander aims to protect major parts of Obamacare, despite five years of voluminous Republican promises to "repeal and replace" it if they ever had the power to do so. ..."
    "... on the House side, we have the naysayer-in-chief, Speaker Paul Ryan, who refused to campaign with Donald Trump in Wisconsin, and who has vowed to obstruct Trump's most important and most popular campaign promise - an end to open borders and vigorous immigration law enforcement. ..."
    "... Donald Trump won a electoral mandate to change direction and put American interests first, beginning with border security. If the congressional Republican establishment chooses to block the implementation of that electoral mandate, it would destroy not only Trump's agenda, it would destroy the Republican Party. ..."
    Dec 18, 2016 | www.breitbart.com
    Several months ago I was asked what advice I would give to the Trump campaign.

    I said, only half joking, that he had better pick a vice presidential candidate the establishment hates more than it hates him. That would be his only insurance against impeachment. Those drums have already begun to beat, be it ever so subtly.

    Is anyone surprised how quickly the establishment that Donald Trump campaigned against has announced opposition to much of his policy agenda? No. But few understand that the passionate opposition includes a willingness to impeach and remove President Trump if he does not come to heel on his America First goals.

    Ferocious opposition to Trump from the left was expected and thus surprises nobody. From the comical demands for vote recounts to street protests by roving bands of leftist hate-mongers and condescending satire on late-night television, hysterical leftist opposition to Trump is now part of the cultural landscape.

    But those are amusing sideshows to the main event, the Republican establishment's intransigent opposition to key pillars of the Republican president's agenda.

    Republican leaders in Congress are already sending Trump a subtle but clear warning: accept our business-as-usual Chamber of Commerce agenda or we will join Democrats to impeach you.

    If you think talk of impeachment is insane when the man has not even been sworn into office yet, you have not been paying attention. Impeachment has been the goal of Democrats since the day after Trump won the election, and the Republican establishment will use the veiled threat as leverage to win concession after concession from the Trump White House.

    What are the key policy differences that motivate congressional opposition to the Trump agenda? There are at least four Trump campaign promises which, if not dropped or severely compromised, could generate Republican support for impeachment: Trump's Supreme Court appointments, abandoning the Trans Pacific Partnership, radical rollback of Obama regulatory projects, and real enforcement of our nation's immigration laws.

    On regulatory rollback, Congress can legitimately insist on negotiating the details with Trump. But on the other three, immigration, the TPP, and Supreme Court nominees, Trump's campaign promises were so specific - and so popular - that he need not accept congressional foot-dragging.

    Yet, while the President-elect 's transition teams at the EPA, State Department and Education Department are busy mapping ambitious changes in direction, Congress's Republican leadership is busy doubling down on dissonance and disloyalty.

    Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell announced this week he will oppose Trump's tax reforms. Senator Lindsey Graham is joining Democrats in sponsoring new legislation to protect the "Dreamers" from deportation after their unlawfully granted legal status and work permits expire. Senator Susan Collins will oppose any restrictions on Muslim refugees, no matter how weak and inadequate the vetting to weed out jihadists. Senator Lamar Alexander aims to protect major parts of Obamacare, despite five years of voluminous Republican promises to "repeal and replace" it if they ever had the power to do so.

    And then, on the House side, we have the naysayer-in-chief, Speaker Paul Ryan, who refused to campaign with Donald Trump in Wisconsin, and who has vowed to obstruct Trump's most important and most popular campaign promise - an end to open borders and vigorous immigration law enforcement.

    It is no exaggeration to say that Trump's success or failure in overcoming the opposition to immigration enforcement will determine the success or failure of his presidency. If he cannot deliver on his most prominent and most popular campaign promise, nothing else will matter very much.

    So, the bad news for President Trump is this: If he keeps faith with his campaign promises on immigration, for example to limit Muslim immigration from terrorism afflicted regions, which is within his legitimate constitutional powers as President, he will risk impeachment. However, his congressional critics will face one enormous hurdle in bringing impeachment charges related to immigration enforcement: about 90 percent of what Trump plans to do is within current law and would require no new legislation in Congress. Obama disregarded immigration laws he did not like, so all Trump has to do is enforce those laws.

    Now, if you think talk of impeachment is ridiculous because Republicans control Congress, you are underestimating the depth of Establishment Republican support for open borders.

    The first effort in the 21st century at a general amnesty for all 20 million illegal aliens came in January 2005 from newly re-elected President George Bush. The "Gang of Eight" amnesty bill passed by the US Senate in 2013 did not have the support of the majority of Republican senators, and now they are faced with a Republican president pledged to the exact opposite agenda, immigration enforcement. And yet, do not doubt the establishment will sacrifice a Republican president to protect the globalist, open borders status quo.

    The leader and spokesman for that establishment open borders agenda is not some obscure backbencher, it is the Republican Speaker of the House. Because the Speaker controls the rules and the legislative calendar, if he chooses to play hardball against Trump on immigration he can block any of Trump's other policy initiatives until Trump abandons his immigration enforcement goals.

    What all this points to is a bloody civil war within the Republican Party fought on the battlefield of congressional committee votes.

    Donald Trump won a electoral mandate to change direction and put American interests first, beginning with border security. If the congressional Republican establishment chooses to block the implementation of that electoral mandate, it would destroy not only Trump's agenda, it would destroy the Republican Party.

    [Dec 18, 2016] Nickolas Kristof again demonstrates the level of neocons panic and his MIC lobbyist credentials

    What a despicable MIC stooge...
    Notable quotes:
    "... The CIA says it has "high confidence" that Russia was trying to get Trump elected, and, according to The Washington Post, the directors of the F.B.I. and national intelligence agree with that conclusion. ..."
    "... Now we come to the most reckless step of all: This Russian poodle is acting in character by giving important government posts to friends of Moscow, in effect rewarding it for its attack on the United States. ..."
    "... Rex Tillerson, Trump's nominee for secretary of state, is a smart and capable manager. Yet it's notable that he is particularly close to Putin, who had decorated Tillerson with Russia's "Order of Friendship." ..."
    www.nytimes.com

    From Donald Trump The Russian Poodle - The New York Times

    In 1972, President Richard Nixon's White House dispatched burglars to bug Democratic Party offices. That Watergate burglary and related "dirty tricks," such as releasing mice at a Democratic press conference and paying a woman to strip naked and shout her love for a Democratic candidate, nauseated Americans - and impelled some of us kids at the time to pursue journalism.

    Now in 2016 we have a political scandal that in some respects is even more staggering. Russian agents apparently broke into the Democrats' digital offices and tried to change the election outcome. President Obama on Friday suggested that this was probably directed by Russia's president, saying, "Not much happens in Russia without Vladimir Putin."

    In Watergate, the break-in didn't affect the outcome of the election. In 2016, we don't know for sure. There were other factors, but it's possible that Russia's theft and release of the emails provided the margin for Donald Trump's victory.

    The CIA says it has "high confidence" that Russia was trying to get Trump elected, and, according to The Washington Post, the directors of the F.B.I. and national intelligence agree with that conclusion.

    Both Nixon and Trump responded badly to the revelations, Nixon by ordering a cover-up and Trump by denouncing the CIA and, incredibly, defending Russia from the charges that it tried to subvert our election. I never thought I would see a dispute between America's intelligence community and a murderous foreign dictator in which an American leader sided with the dictator.

    Let's be clear: This was an attack on America, less lethal than a missile but still profoundly damaging to our system. It's not that Trump and Putin were colluding to steal an election. But if the CIA is right, Russia apparently was trying to elect a president who would be not a puppet exactly but perhaps something of a lap dog - a Russian poodle.

    In Britain, Prime Minister Tony Blair was widely (and unfairly) mocked as President George W. Bush's poodle, following him loyally into the Iraq war. The fear is that this time Putin may have interfered to acquire an ally who likewise will roll over for him.

    Frankly, it's mystifying that Trump continues to defend Russia and Putin, even as he excoriates everyone else, from CIA officials to a local union leader in Indiana.

    Now we come to the most reckless step of all: This Russian poodle is acting in character by giving important government posts to friends of Moscow, in effect rewarding it for its attack on the United States.

    Rex Tillerson, Trump's nominee for secretary of state, is a smart and capable manager. Yet it's notable that he is particularly close to Putin, who had decorated Tillerson with Russia's "Order of Friendship."

    Whatever our personal politics, how can we possibly want to respond to Russia's interference in our election by putting American foreign policy in the hands of a Putin friend?

    Tillerson's closeness to Putin is especially troubling because of Trump's other Russia links. The incoming national security adviser, Michael Flynn, accepted Russian money to attend a dinner in Moscow and sat near Putin. A ledger shows $12.7 million in secret payments by a pro-Russia party in Ukraine to Trump's former campaign manager Paul Manafort. And the Trump family itself has business connections with Russia.

    [Dec 18, 2016] America is a banana republic! FBI chief agrees with CIA on Russias alleged election help for Trump

    Notable quotes:
    "... "Earlier this week, I met separately with FBI [Director] James Comey and DNI Jim Clapper, and there is strong consensus among us on the scope, nature, and intent of Russian interference in our presidential election," the message said, according to officials who have seen it. ..."
    "... Comment: The FBI now flip-flops from its previous assessment: FBI rejects CIA assessment that Russia influenced presidential election ..."
    www.sott.net
    Reprinted from RT

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

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

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

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

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

    ... ... ...

    [Dec 18, 2016] DNC did not take even elementary steps to protect its infrastructure, steps described in NIST guidelines, it operated like a non profit and did not even have 24 x7 monitoring of its servers to say nothing about firewalls and proxy infrastructure corresponding to the level of sensitivity of information they handle. In other words they were suckers and pays for their machinations, greed and incompetence

    Notable quotes:
    "... To whom do US intelligence agencies owe protection against hackers? The DNC was informed that the Russians or someone pretending to be the Russians was on them. To put your political dirty tricks or your apprehensions about the possible discovery of apparent pay-to-play games in your client's foundation in your emails after being warned was just plain foolish. ..."
    "... The Clintons' venality has been an open secret for 30 years, though Dem-leaning pundits prefer to ignore it or attribute it to the evil right wing conspiracy. From the Arkansas arrangements permitting the purchase of influence by engaging as attorney the wife of the AG or the Governor, the miraculous commodity investment, the Marc Rich and other pardons all stunk. ..."
    "... That the Clinton Foundation and its generous support for Clinton political operators might be a pay-to-play operation was not a surprise to longtime observers. I thought it was admirably bold and clever myself. Nobody else has been able to organize a tax-exempt political slush fund under personal control except even in Illinois where we have a lot of smart lawyers in politics. I suspect we will see a lot more political slush funds disguised as foundations in the future. ..."
    "... We also need to think about what political parties actually are. Then are not government agencies or acting on behalf of government agencies or the people at large. Political parties are large private lobbying firms for a set of loosely affiliated private interests that promote an agenda and communications expressly triangulated to satisfy both their donor class and voting majority constituencies. They are more like corporations with owners, employees, and clients than any public entity. ..."
    "... Former British Ambassador and current Wikileaks operative Craig Murray recently said he has met the person who leaked DNC and Clinton campaign emails, and they aren't Russian. ..."
    "... And BTW after the fact it is usually impossible to discover who obtained the information, as they use multiple levels of indirection and Russia might be just one of those indirection levels. Use of Russian IP-space or Russian IPS might be just an attempt to create a false trail and to implicate a wrong party. ..."
    Dec 18, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to im1dc... , December 18, 2016 at 10:06 AM
    It was only after listening to the Donna Brazile interview that I decided to comment on the hacking because of how wrong that Donna Brazile was in so many ways. What responsibility do you think that the Federal government should have for protecting the data of a private political operation? What legal or regulatory responsibility do you think that the Federal government has towards the protection of data for private civilian entities? The second question is rhetorical only to put the first question in perspective since they are materially exactly the same thing according to law. How difficult do you think it is to avoid exposure of incriminating or covert E-mails simply by not having such things?
    sglover -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , December 18, 2016 at 06:19 PM
    I just can't get past imagining that Donna Brazile is an honest, competent observer at all, and particularly this episode.
    mrrunangun said in reply to im1dc... , December 18, 2016 at 11:13 AM
    To whom do US intelligence agencies owe protection against hackers? The DNC was informed that the Russians or someone pretending to be the Russians was on them. To put your political dirty tricks or your apprehensions about the possible discovery of apparent pay-to-play games in your client's foundation in your emails after being warned was just plain foolish.

    The Clintons' venality has been an open secret for 30 years, though Dem-leaning pundits prefer to ignore it or attribute it to the evil right wing conspiracy. From the Arkansas arrangements permitting the purchase of influence by engaging as attorney the wife of the AG or the Governor, the miraculous commodity investment, the Marc Rich and other pardons all stunk.

    HRC was elected senator from NY despite that. That the Clinton Foundation and its generous support for Clinton political operators might be a pay-to-play operation was not a surprise to longtime observers. I thought it was admirably bold and clever myself. Nobody else has been able to organize a tax-exempt political slush fund under personal control except even in Illinois where we have a lot of smart lawyers in politics. I suspect we will see a lot more political slush funds disguised as foundations in the future.

    DeDude -> mrrunangun... , December 18, 2016 at 12:14 PM
    If it wasn't that none of what you write has any connection to the fact; it sounds good. What right wing website did you copy-paste it from?
    RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to mrrunangun... , December 18, 2016 at 11:52 AM
    THANKS! We better get used to Republicans, at least until they "d'oh" their way out of political power just like the Democrats did. Democrats will never get it back on their own.

    DeDude -> im1dc..., December 18, 2016 at 11:52 AM

    I think there was a serious lack of IT competence in the DNC playing a big role. One being with the obvious incompetence of their cyber-security contractor and another the lack of supervision or procedures set for this person:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/13/us/politics/russia-hack-election-dnc.html?_r=0

    I agree that the procedures and rules at the FBI could have been much better. Why the FBI agent didn't (or maybe (s)he did) send the information up higher in the chain (all the way to the President) is a bit of a mystery. Hacking of one of our two major parties should have been Presidential level info, or at least cabinet level.

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to DeDude... , December 18, 2016 at 12:25 PM
    How about the possibility of not even having any E-mails incriminating Democrats of political corruption? Would that have been to hard? I am not saying that they should not be corrupt, just don't put it in an E-mail for Christ's sake.
    RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , December 18, 2016 at 12:37 PM
    [Interesting that Putin is the bad guy here for exposing the behavior of the DNC. Why so much talk of Russians and so little talk of what was in those Emails?]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_National_Committee_email_leak

    2016 Democratic National Committee email leak

    The 2016 Democratic National Committee email leak is a collection of Democratic National Committee (DNC) emails leaked to and subsequently published by WikiLeaks on July 22, 2016. This collection included 19,252 emails and 8,034 attachments from the DNC, the governing body of the United States' Democratic Party.[1] The leak includes emails from seven key DNC staff members, and date from January 2015 to May 2016.[2] The leak prompted the resignation of DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz before the Democratic National Convention.[3] After the convention, DNC CEO Amy Dacey, CFO Brad Marshall, and Communications Director Luis Miranda also resigned in the wake of the controversy.[4]

    WikiLeaks did not reveal its source; a self-styled hacker going by the moniker Guccifer 2.0 claimed responsibility for the attack. On July 25, 2016, the FBI announced that it would investigate the hack[5][6][7][8][9][10][11] The same day, the DNC issued a formal apology to Bernie Sanders and his supporters, stating, "On behalf of everyone at the DNC, we want to offer a deep and sincere apology to Senator Sanders, his supporters, and the entire Democratic Party for the inexcusable remarks made over email," and that the emails did not reflect the DNC's "steadfast commitment to neutrality during the nominating process."[12] On November 6, 2016, WikiLeaks released a second batch of DNC emails, adding 8,263 emails to its collection.[13]

    On December 9, 2016, the CIA told U.S. legislators that the U.S. Intelligence Community concluded Russia conducted operations during the 2016 U.S. election to assist Donald Trump in winning the presidency.[14] Multiple U.S intelligence agencies concluded people with direct ties to the Kremlin gave WikiLeaks hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee...

    ...Bernie Sanders' campaign

    In the emails, DNC staffers derided the Sanders campaign.[45] The Washington Post reported: "Many of the most damaging emails suggest the committee was actively trying to undermine Bernie Sanders's presidential campaign. Basically, all of these examples came late in the primary-after Hillary Clinton was clearly headed for victory-but they belie the national party committee's stated neutrality in the race even at that late stage."[46]

    In a May 2016 email chain, the DNC chief financial officer (CFO) Brad Marshall told the DNC chief executive officer, Amy Dacy, that they should have someone from the media ask Sanders if he is an atheist prior to the West Virginia primary.[46][47] In another email, Wasserman Schultz said of Bernie Sanders, "He isn't going to be president."[45]

    On May 21, 2016, DNC National Press Secretary Mark Paustenbach sent an email to DNC Spokesman Luis Miranda mentioning a controversy that ensued in December 2015 when the National Data Director of the Sanders campaign and three subordinate staffers accessed the Clinton campaign's voter information on the NGP VAN database.[48] (The party accused Sanders' campaign of impropriety and briefly limited their access to the database. The Sanders campaign filed suit for breach of contract against the DNC; they dropped the suit on April 29, 2016.)[47][49][50] Paustenbach suggested that the incident could be used to promote a "narrative for a story, which is that Bernie never had his act together, that his campaign was a mess." (The suggestion was rejected by the DNC.) [46][47] The Washington Post wrote: "Paustenbach's suggestion, in that way, could be read as a defense of the committee rather than pushing negative information about Sanders. But this is still the committee pushing negative information about one of its candidates."...

    ...Financial and donor information

    The New York Times wrote that the cache included "thousands of emails exchanged by Democratic officials and party fund-raisers, revealing in rarely seen detail the elaborate, ingratiating and often bluntly transactional exchanges necessary to harvest hundreds of millions of dollars from the party's wealthy donor class. The emails capture a world where seating charts are arranged with dollar totals in mind, where a White House celebration of gay pride is a thinly disguised occasion for rewarding wealthy donors and where physical proximity to the president is the most precious of currencies."[60] As is common in national politics, large party donors "were the subject of entire dossiers, as fund-raisers tried to gauge their interests, annoyances and passions."[60]

    In a series of email exchanges in April and May 2016, DNC fundraising staff discussed and compiled a list of people (mainly donors) who might be appointed to federal boards and commissions.[61] Center for Responsive Politics senior fellow Bob Biersack noted that this is a longstanding practice in the United States: "Big donors have always risen to the top of lists for appointment to plum ambassadorships and other boards and commissions around the federal landscape."[61] The White House denied that financial support for the party was connected to board appointments, saying: "Being a donor does not get you a role in this administration, nor does it preclude you from getting one. We've said this for many years now and there's nothing in the emails that have been released that contradicts that."...

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , December 18, 2016 at 12:41 PM
    That does not make Putin a good guy. I was not a fan of Snowden's either. But it is easier for me to avoid incriminating myself in Emails than it is to get a foreign leader half way around the world to not expose my self-incrimination if it is in his self-interest to do so and he has the resources to do so.
    RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , December 18, 2016 at 12:52 PM
    We also need to think about what political parties actually are. Then are not government agencies or acting on behalf of government agencies or the people at large. Political parties are large private lobbying firms for a set of loosely affiliated private interests that promote an agenda and communications expressly triangulated to satisfy both their donor class and voting majority constituencies. They are more like corporations with owners, employees, and clients than any public entity.
    RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , December 18, 2016 at 12:53 PM
    I probably should have said investors instead of owners to be more precise.
    DeDude -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , December 18, 2016 at 01:20 PM
    So a bunch of nothing burgers about how the sausage is made. You don't say that there is actually people in the DNC that have their own personal favorite among the primary candidates - shocking??? And campaign donations in exchange for the ability to gain influence -- almost half a chocking as the K-Street project - and a quarter as shocking as the revelation that donating to the Clinton foundation could NOT give the donors what they wanted from the State Department (what an absurdly incompetent scheme of corruption - how could we let her run the gobinment).

    I am sure that the Russian governments hack of the GOP didn't find anything like that - and that's the reason they didn't make those emails public.

    The general advice that you should not send anything by email that you don't want the public to know should have been headed by all involved. Maybe the DNC could learn from Hillary - who had > 30K emails examined and not a single one where she had said anything not good for public consumption.

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to DeDude... , December 18, 2016 at 02:38 PM
    "...Maybe the DNC could learn from Hillary - who had > 30K emails examined and not a single one where she had said anything not good for public consumption."

    [Now you are starting to come around.

    NO, I did not find anything in the Emails shocking. None of it was a surprise at all to me. However, it was enough for a lot of other people to be influenced in their voting (likely to stay home and maybe it helped the Green Party get a few more votes), otherwise no one would care that they were hacked.

    Observer's comment just down thread shows that he got it. Now he was not a Hillary supporter and more likely than not a Libertarian of sorts, but the principle here is universal, simple risk management where there was nothing to be gained and everything to lose.

    Also, going to war over the hacked Emails of any political party is probably off the table:<) Where Hillary made a mistake was making an enemy that had one of the worlds most aggressive state sponsored internet hacking programs (China and the US being the only ones that are more capable, but still less aggressive and more covert).]

    im1dc -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , December 18, 2016 at 05:18 PM
    You have exhaustively proven that there was no crime or wrong doing committed by the DNC or Hillary. Thanks. You have provided evidence that politics is politics and like sausage making you don't want to actually see it up close and personal.

    Nothing here, nothing at all.

    Except for Marshall McLuhan's observation that the media is the message. In this case the Russian leaked emails to Assange lead Wikileaks calculated to dribble out over the months and weeks before the November election to suggest there were illegalities and criminal behavior being covered up by Hillary and the DNC at EXACTLY the same time Donald Trump is jetting around the country telling everybody who listened that the election was rigged, Hillary is a crook, and the MSM was out to get him.

    Wow, how did you miss that and the implications derived from it?

    likbez -> im1dc... , December 18, 2016 at 05:41 PM
    Can you please explain to me why you are thinking that this was a hack, not a leak by an insider?

    One DNC staffer, 27-year-old Seth Rich, the DNC's director of voter expansion, was killed around this time in pretty strange circumstances. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/07/12/democratic-national-committee-staffer-shot-and-killed-in-washington.html

    Former British Ambassador and current Wikileaks operative Craig Murray recently said he has met the person who leaked DNC and Clinton campaign emails, and they aren't Russian.

    http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/bombshell-wikileaks-figure-says-insider-russia-hack/

    Or it can come from a dissident within the US agency that did have access to all emails.

    Do you remember such a person as Edward Snowden ? It might be very educational for you to read his opinion about this case:

    While he is highly critical of Wikileaks, he suggests that without NSA coming forward with hard data obtained via special program that uncover multiple levels of indirection, those charges are just propaganda and insinuations.

    And BTW after the fact it is usually impossible to discover who obtained the information, as they use multiple levels of indirection and Russia might be just one of those indirection levels. Use of Russian IP-space or Russian IPS might be just an attempt to create a false trail and to implicate a wrong party.

    As in any complex case you should not jump to conclusions so easily.

    ilsm -> im1dc... , -1
    Nothing Ron says is clearing. The e-mail thing is about safeguarding and preserving public records. The content of mishandled records is not an issue.

    The public demanded to know what government does. Congress passed the federal records act. The crime has nothing to do with content.

    That is one felony Comey could complain about justice whitewashing. The elements of friendly information released must never be discussed, that would make the breeches worse. Except in closed, secure rooms with no electronic bugging devices.

    Clinton would have been impeached!

    [Dec 18, 2016] Israeli President promises to help Ukraine return Crimea We have a plan to take the city back from Russia dictator club

    Dec 18, 2016 | www.sott.net
    Israel does not recognize the annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation and is jointly planning with Ukraine steps for its de-occupation. This was stated by President of Israel Reuven Rivlin and the President of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko at a joint press conference in Kiev.

    "Israel did not recognize the illegal annexation of Crimea and is not going to do either and we have a plan to take the city back from Russia dictator club ," Rivlin said. According to him, Russia violated international law in this matter.

    Comment: What a hypocrite. When has Israel EVER had any respect for international law, unless it expressly suits Israel.

    "Mr President (of Israel) supported the joint steps aimed at the de-occupation of Crimea. For this plan we will work together in the framework of international organizations on the basis of new international formats, including the format of "Geneva+" with the participation of the guarantors of the Budapest Memorandum, Israel and Ukraine", - quotes "Interfax" from the words of the President of Ukraine.

    [Dec 18, 2016] Syrian Rebels Attack, Burn Aleppo Evacuation Buses Zero Hedge

    Notable quotes:
    "... Moderate: one who carries guns and heavy weapons, terrifies and kills in pursuit of US/NATO/Gulf States/Israeli policy. ..."
    "... Of course this was the action of moderates. Radical islam would have burned them when they were full of people going the other direction. I have to wonder where they get the "volunteers" to drive them. ..."
    "... "Rebels" are by definition "moderates", and therefore friends of Obama, Hillary, McCain, and Lindsey Graham, and therefore DO NOT burn people. "Rebels" use fire to drive the devils out of people , which frees the people's souls up to where Jehovah can get a good look at them and ask them why they were in a bus in Aleppo instead of in a limo pulling up to CometPizza. Freeing, not burning. Big difference. ..."
    Dec 18, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    While the UN condemns Syrian and Russian "atrocities" in the battle over East Aleppo, which as noted previously was a key victory for the Assad regime in the past week, one which will end the stalemate and sway the balance of power in the ongoing war between regime forces and US-coalition armed rebels, little attention had been paid to the subversive tactics employed by such "moderate rebels" as the al Qaeda linked al-Nusra front.

    That may change after five buses en route to evacuate the sick and injured from two government-held villages in Syria's Idlib province were attacked and burned by rebels.

    PHOTOS: Reports coming in that an "unknown rebel group" has attacked buses going to evacuate civilians from Kafraya and Fuah - @Ald_Aba pic.twitter.com/7xMPhumeu5

    - Conflict News (@Conflicts) December 18, 2016

    MORE: According to reports, civilians had not yet gotten on the buses. They were on their way to pick them up when the attack happened.

    - Conflict News (@Conflicts) December 18, 2016

    Five buses were attacked and burned by "armed terrorists" while en route to militant-held villages after an evacuation deal was struck between the Syrian government and rebels, Syrian state television has reported. According to Reuters, the deal was reached earlier on Sunday, citing al-Ikhbariya TV news. It will see the remaining militants and their families evacuated from east Aleppo in return for the evacuation of people in militant-held villages in Idlib province, al-Foua and Kafraya.

    Syrian state television has reported that five buses were attacked and burned by "armed terrorists" while en route to al-Foua and Kefraya. However, most of them, as well as Red Crescent vehicles, reached the entrance to the villages, the report said.

    Syrian state news agency SANA reported earlier that evacuation buses had entered the last militant-held district of eastern Aleppo, Ramousah, under the supervision of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and the Syrian Arab Red Cross. State television showed live footage of buses and a van bearing a Syrian Arab Red Crescent flag parked next to a highway intersection in Ramousah . Several large white cars marked with Red Crescent and Red Cross symbols also appeared in the footage.

    As BBC adds, the convoy was traveling to Foah and Kefraya, besieged by rebel fighters. Pro-government forces have been demanding that people be allowed to leave the mainly Shia villages in order for the evacuation of east Aleppo to restart, with thousands of people waiting to leave in desperate conditions, reports say.

    VIDEO: Footage shows JFS (al-Nusra) members attacking evacuation buses - @24Aleppo

    pic.twitter.com/8IiRcbZJmk

    - Conflict News (@Conflicts) December 18, 2016

    The initial plan to evacuate eastern Aleppo collapsed on Friday, leaving civilians stranded at various points along the route out without access to food or shelter.

    PHOTOS: Other buses have however arrived in Kafraya and Fuah - @sayed_ridha

    pic.twitter.com/MzxstFX7DR

    - Conflict News (@Conflicts) December 18, 2016

    Despite delays caused by disagreements over the new evacuation plan, convoys were said to be traveling to both eastern Aleppo and the government-held villages in Idlib province on Sunday. However, UK-based monitoring group the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said six buses were attacked and torched on the way to Foah and Kefraya.

    Jaish Fateh militants have set fire to several buses that were going towards Fuah-Kafraya in Idlib countryside pic.twitter.com/wud4CNQp1u

    - Hassan Ridha (@sayed_ridha) December 18, 2016

    It had reported earlier that the "moderate rebel" group Jabhat Fatah al-Sham, formerly known as the Nusra Front, was preventing buses entering the villages.

    As a reminder, earlier in the year, Jabhat Al-Nusra, rebranded itself Jabhat Fateh Al-Sham, a cosmetic change which was apparently sufficient to convince the US government to brand them "moderates" and send them arms and equipment, equipment which today may have been used against innocent Syrian citizens.

    Syrian state media said "armed terrorists" attacked five buses, burned and destroyed them.

    More pics of the buses which were burned by militants near Sarmin south of Binnish, Idlib pic.twitter.com/by7g7wf5tP

    - Hassan Ridha (@sayed_ridha) December 18, 2016

    Rebel groups have not yet commented on the attack. Subsequent to the attack, it was reported that more buses have been sent to Fuah-Kafraya to replace those that were burnt, although it was unclear if the "rebels" would allow them passage.

    Meanwhile, later on Sunday, the United Nations Security Council is set to vote on a French-drafted resolution aimed at ensuring that UN officials can monitor the evacuations from Aleppo and the safety of the remaining civilians. Reuters reported that those evacuated on Thursday and Friday morning had been taken to rebel-held districts in the countryside west of Aleppo. As RT notes , a draft of the resolution "emphasizes that the evacuations of civilians must be voluntary and to final destinations of their choice, and protection must be provided to all civilians who choose or who have been forced to be evacuated and those who opt to remain in their homes."

    It was not immediately clear how Russia will vote. "If it is a sensible initiative and we see it on paper, why not entertain this initiative?" Russian Ambassador to the UN Vitaly Churkin said on Friday.

    SoDamnMad , Dec 18, 2016 9:26 AM
    Where is this on the MSM? Oh... sorry... good guys did it. Shhhhhhh
    GUS100CORRINA SoDamnMad , Dec 18, 2016 9:36 AM
    i HAVE TO ASK A QUESTION: Didn't the US back the rebels and how deep is the US ( under the Pervert in the WH ) involved and is the US (CIA) responsible?

    JUST MAKES ME SICK ... AS THOMAS JEFFERSON ONCE SAID:

    "I TREMBLE FOR MY NATION WHEN I KNOW THAT GOD IS JUST AND HIS JUSTICE CANNOT SLEEP FOREVER."

    TeamDepends GUS100CORRINA , Dec 18, 2016 9:37 AM
    They will blame Trump in 3 2 1...
    nmewn TeamDepends , Dec 18, 2016 9:39 AM
    ...in a joint statement from Kerry, Hillary, Obama, McCain and Lindsey...lol.
    froze25 nmewn , Dec 18, 2016 9:42 AM
    Isn't McCain in pictures shaking hands with the Jihadist, excuse me "moderates"?
    beemasters froze25 , Dec 18, 2016 9:49 AM
    While the rebels may well be connected to terrorist group, this incident does sound odd.

    "State television showed live footage of buses and a van bearing a Syrian Arab Red Crescent flag parked next to a highway intersection in Ramousah. Several large white cars marked with Red Crescent and Red Cross symbols also appeared in the footage."

    No rebel approached or attacked the state television crew? Hidden camera? Invisibility cloak?

    BaBaBouy beemasters , Dec 18, 2016 9:51 AM
    SOMEHOW Putin did It ... Blame it on the Ruskies ...
    Whoa Dammit BaBaBouy , Dec 18, 2016 9:56 AM
    "Moderate" Rebels. Your tax dollars at work. I hope Trump gets rid of all of the sick fucks in our government who are behind all of this shit in the Middle East.
    HowdyDoody Whoa Dammit , Dec 18, 2016 10:36 AM
    These carefully vetted moderate rebels get such bad press. They are just regular guys, having fun with kids

    https://twitter.com/Souria4Syrians/status/808782789785112577

    nmewn NoPension , Dec 18, 2016 10:31 AM
    Meh, empires rise and fall...the Romans at Palmyra, more recently the Ottomans, "we" really don't have a dog in the fight, from a western perspective, it was a French Mandate after the Ottomans crashed & burned so maybe Hollande should nuke it...lol...joking of course.

    Make no mistake, to me Assad Jr is the same as his daddy before him but its not our fight, the imposed borders mean nothing to the people who actually live there, the lines are just lines on a map and bunch of sand & rock isn't worth a war with Russia over, no matter what the west might think of an Assad (and my opinion is clear on him) there was some structure (or order)...for better or worse.

    No one ever said "order & structure" is always angelic, its just order & structure, as opposed to the lack of and they know that more than anyone ;-)

    HowdyDoody nmewn , Dec 18, 2016 10:38 AM
    "we really don't have a dog in this fight"

    I think it is more of an (((elephant))) than a dog.

    smacker SoDamnMad , Dec 18, 2016 9:55 AM
    The BBC have finally run out of excuses to ignore such news .
    Ignatius SpanishGoop , Dec 18, 2016 10:04 AM
    Moderate: one who carries guns and heavy weapons, terrifies and kills in pursuit of US/NATO/Gulf States/Israeli policy.

    See also: John McCain, Samantha Powers, Lindsey Graham, Bibi Netanyahu, Barrack Obama

    Unusual: "moderate" seen as an insider's joke

    opport.knocks slithering , Dec 18, 2016 10:17 AM
    Of course this was the action of moderates. Radical islam would have burned them when they were full of people going the other direction. I have to wonder where they get the "volunteers" to drive them.
    mary mary buzzsaw99 , Dec 18, 2016 9:59 AM
    "Rebels" are by definition "moderates", and therefore friends of Obama, Hillary, McCain, and Lindsey Graham, and therefore DO NOT burn people. "Rebels" use fire to drive the devils out of people , which frees the people's souls up to where Jehovah can get a good look at them and ask them why they were in a bus in Aleppo instead of in a limo pulling up to CometPizza. Freeing, not burning. Big difference.

    [Dec 18, 2016] The US medias neo-McCarthyite campaign for war against Russia by Andre Damon

    Notable quotes:
    "... These allegations were followed Wednesday by a press briefing in which White House spokesman Josh Earnest declared that media outfits in the US, in reporting on the Democratic Party emails released by WikiLeaks, "essentially became the arms of Russian intelligence." ..."
    "... Later that day, President Obama threatened to retaliate against Russia, telling National Public Radio, "I think there is no doubt that when any foreign government tries to impact the integrity of our elections, that we need to take action and we will." ..."
    "... The Times followed up its inflammatory article with an editorial Thursday all but accusing the president-elect of acting as a Russian agent. ..."
    "... There are bitter and raging conflicts within the state, and a faction of the military-intelligence apparatus is determined that there be no retreat from an aggressive confrontation with Russia. This is connected to anger over the debacle of the CIA-led regime-change operation in Syria. ..."
    "... Bound up with this internecine conflict within the ruling class, there is a concerted effort to politically bludgeon the American people into supporting further military escalation, both in the Middle East and against Russia itself. ..."
    Dec 18, 2016 | www.defenddemocracy.press

    The American population is being subjected to a furious barrage of propaganda by the media and political establishment aimed at paving the way to war.

    The campaign was sharply escalated this week, beginning with Wednesday's publication of a lead article in the New York Times . Based entirely on unnamed sources and flimsy and concocted evidence, it was presented as definitive proof of Russia's hacking of Democratic Party emails and waging of "cyberwar" against the United States.

    These allegations were followed Wednesday by a press briefing in which White House spokesman Josh Earnest declared that media outfits in the US, in reporting on the Democratic Party emails released by WikiLeaks, "essentially became the arms of Russian intelligence."

    On Thursday, Earnest declared that president-elect Trump had encouraged "Russia to hack his opponent because he believed it would help his campaign." Later that day, President Obama threatened to retaliate against Russia, telling National Public Radio, "I think there is no doubt that when any foreign government tries to impact the integrity of our elections, that we need to take action and we will."

    These warmongering comments by the Obama administration were accompanied by editorials in leading US and international newspapers denouncing Trump's accommodative stance toward Russia and clamoring for a more aggressive response to the alleged hacking. News reports, based on unnamed intelligence officials, breathlessly proclaim that Russian President Vladimir Putin directly ordered and oversaw the hacking.

    The Times followed up its inflammatory article with an editorial Thursday all but accusing the president-elect of acting as a Russian agent. "There could be no more 'useful idiot,' to use Lenin's term of art, than an American president who doesn't know he's being played by a wily foreign power," the Times declared. The editorial further defined Russia as "one of our oldest, most determined foreign adversaries," adding, "Kremlin meddling in the 2016 election" justifies "retaliatory measures."

    The declarations by the Times and other media outlets combine all of the noxious elements of 1950s McCarthyism, with capitalist Russia replacing the Soviet Union: hysterical denunciation of "wily" Russia, shameless lying and attacks on domestic opponents as spies, traitors and agents of foreign governments.

    There are bitter and raging conflicts within the state, and a faction of the military-intelligence apparatus is determined that there be no retreat from an aggressive confrontation with Russia. This is connected to anger over the debacle of the CIA-led regime-change operation in Syria. Trump has packed his cabinet with generals and is planning a massive escalation of war, but he has also indicated a preference for greater accommodation with Russia.

    Bound up with this internecine conflict within the ruling class, there is a concerted effort to politically bludgeon the American people into supporting further military escalation, both in the Middle East and against Russia itself.

    The propaganda campaign alleging Russian interference in the US election parallels a related media blitzkrieg claiming that Syrian government troops, backed by Russia, are carrying out massacres as they retake the Syrian city of Aleppo.

    The Times ' lead editorial on Thursday, titled "Aleppo's Destroyers: Assad, Putin, Iran," declares: "After calling on Mr. Assad to 'step aside' in 2011, Mr. Obama was never able to make it happen, and it may never have been in his power to make it happen, at least at a cost acceptable to the American people." The front-page lead of Thursday's Times bemoans the fact that efforts to whip up public support for US military intervention in Syria have "not resonated" as much as previous propaganda campaigns.

    The international press has joined in the hysteria. An op-ed in Germany's Der Spiegel bitterly complains that "Obama sought a diplomatic, not a military solution" to the crisis in Syria. It "made him popular, both in the United States and here [in Germany]," the piece states, but adds that such "self-righteousness is wrong."

    Such media propaganda campaigns are not new. Without exception, they have preceded every bloody military adventure: the attempts to blame Afghanistan for the September 11 terrorist attacks in the run-up to that country's invasion in 2001; the lying claims about "weapons of mass destruction" before the 2003 invasion of Iraq; and the reports of an imminent massacre of civilians in Benghazi that preceded the US bombing and destruction of Libya in 2011.

    The difference now, however, is that this campaign is directed not at a virtually defenseless and impoverished former colony, but at Russia, the world's second-ranked nuclear power. None of the figures carrying out this campaign care to explain how a war against Russia should be fought, how many people will die, and how such a war could avoid a nuclear exchange leading to the destruction of human civilization.

    Behind the banner headlines and vituperative editorials, real steps are being taken to prepare for warfare on a scale not seen for 60 years. Earlier this year, US Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark A. Milley told the Association of the United States Army that the military must prepare for wars against great powers, which will be "very highly lethal, unlike anything our Army has experienced since World War II."

    The campaign that has developed over the past two weeks makes clear what the policy of a Clinton administration would have been. The Democratic Party and its allied media outlets have rooted their opposition to Trump not on the basis of his losing the popular vote by nearly three million ballots, or that he is appointing a cabinet dominated by right-wing, reactionary billionaires, bankers, business executives and generals, but on the charge that he is "soft" on Russia. That is, the Democratic Party has managed to attack Trump from the right.

    Whatever the outcome of the conflict within the state, the American ruling class is preparing for war. The dissolution of the USSR 25 years ago was greeted with enraptured declarations of an era of perpetual peace, in which a world under the unrivaled hegemony of the United States would be free of the wars that plagued mankind in the 20th century. Now, after a quarter century of bloody regional conflicts, the blood-curdling declarations of the press make it clear that a new world war is in the making.

    Among broad sections of workers and young people, there is deep skepticism toward government lies and hostility to war. However, this opposition can find no reflection within any faction of the political establishment. The building of a new anti-war movement, based on the international unity of the working class in opposition to capitalism and all the political parties of the ruling class, is the urgent task.

    Andre Damon

    [Dec 18, 2016] Two more states confirm election hacks traced to US government

    "Oh dear. How are they going to keep their 'Putin did it' story straight if they keep shooting themselves in the foot like this?"
    www.sott.net

    Last week we reported that the State of Georgia had traced an attempted break-in to its voter registration database to none other than the famous Russian government agency, the Department of Homeland Security.

    Now it has been revealed that Kentucky and West Virginia "have confirmed suspected cyberattacks linked to the same U.S. Department of Homeland Security IP address as last month's massive attack in Georgia". There must be some way to blame Moscow:

    While there could be an "innocent" explanation for such attacks (testing network security, for example), the Department of Homeland Security did not inform any of these states - before or after the attacks - that they had been conducted, for security-checking purposes or otherwise. In other words: These states still don't know why DHS targeted, and they're still waiting for an answer:

    In the past week, the Georgia Secretary of State's Office has confirmed 10 separate cyberattacks on its network over the past 10 months that were traced back to DHS addresses.

    "We're being told something that they think they have it figured out, yet nobody's really showed us how this happened," Kemp said. "We need to know."

    He says the new information from the two other states presents even more reason to be concerned.

    "So now this just raises more questions that haven't been answered about this and continues to raise the alarms and concern that I have," Kemp said.
    Georgia's Secretary of State says he has already sent an appeal to the incoming Trump administration, asking for assistance in resolving this bizarre string of cyber attacks.

    Stay tuned.

    [Dec 18, 2016] Revealed! Putin personally hacked DNC from surveillance aircraft with bear on board

    Notable quotes:
    "... Washington Post ..."
    "... Danielle Ryan is an Irish freelance writer, journalist and media analyst. She has lived and traveled extensively in the US, Germany, Russia and Hungary. Her byline has appeared at RT, The Nation, Rethinking Russia, The BRICS Post, New Eastern Outlook, Global Independent Analytics and many others. She also works on copywriting and editing projects. Follow her on Twitter or Facebook or at her website www.danielleryan.net. ..."
    Dec 18, 2016 | www.rt.com
    Danielle Ryan
    RT
    Sat, 17 Dec 2016 21:42 UTC Map © Alexey Nikolsky / Reuters Shocking revelations earlier this week as US intelligence officials confirmed with "high confidence" that Russian President Vladimir Putin was "personally involved" in the hacking of the Democratic National Committee.

    According to the anonymous sources inside the anonymous US intelligence agency, Putin's objectives were multifaceted, but the whole thing began as a "vendetta" against Hillary Clinton because she said some mean things about him a few times. Putin is also an "immature 12 year-old child," a former US official with links to the defense industry, who spoke on condition of anonymity, confirmed (with high confidence).

    The high level, anonymous and completely trustworthy sources also told a major US news agency that Putin himself had piloted a specially-designed Russian spy plane across the Atlantic to personally direct the still-ongoing hacking operations from the air.

    via GIPHY
    Satellite images seen by a separate anonymous NASA whistleblower are believed to show Putin in the cockpit of the spy plane alongside his co-pilot Boris, a lifelike robotic bear which has been under secret development in the depths of Siberia and has been programmed to attack Putin's enemies on command using a variety of lethal methods.

    The NASA whistleblower did not provide journalists with photographic evidence, but the editors had a chat about it in their morning meeting and concluded that it's probably still true.

    In fact, the American news agency could not verify any of the claims from the officials who commented for the story, but given that their sources used the term "high confidence" they took this to mean the evidence must be "nearly incontrovertible" and relayed the information to the public with this implication. An understandable decision, since, as we all know, only 100 percent factual information is ever released by anonymous intelligence officials.

    Okay, let's rewind. Obviously that bit about the bear and the plane was fake news. And maybe a few other bits, too. But it all demonstrates a point. I've provided you with about the same amount of evidence as NBC has in its story this week claiming Putin personally rigged the US election: I made some allegations, I cited anonymous sources and then I conveyed it to you readers as "nearly incontrovertible" and suggested no further digging or investigation, or even a bit of healthy skepticism, was necessary.

    Journalism is dying

    There was a time when journalists needed more than 'maybes' and 'probablys' before deciding what their sources told them was "incontrovertible" and delivering half-baked conspiracy theories to the public. That time has apparently long gone.

    Imagine for a moment that RT published a story about, oh, let's say Barack Obama personally hacking into Putin's computer. Now imagine the only evidence RT provided was "anonymous FSB officials" and told its readers the story was therefore practically indisputable because these anonymous sources were "confident" in the legitimacy of their secret evidence. Imagine the laughs that would get from sneering Western journalists. Well, that's pretty much exactly what NBC did. And they're not alone. The Washington Post has been at it too, reporting on a "secret" CIA assessment that Russia worked to get Donald Trump elected, quoting anonymous "top officials" and like NBC, providing no evidence.

    Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but for something to be presented to the public as indisputable fact, there must be evidence made available to back it up. Neither the CIA or the FBI have provided any such evidence to the public.

    Perhaps the saddest thing though is having to acknowledge that all our debates over fake news and real news really don't matter because the very people we are told to trust are the people who will most adeptly use the public's concerns over fake news to manipulate them. The CIA, for example, is hardly known for its long history of telling the truth. Its employees are literally trained in the art of deception and disinformation. They are hardly averse to creating a bit of fake news or making up 'evidence' where needed. Anything they say or do can be forgiven once someone utters the words "national security".

    NBC's story claimed Putin not only wanted to embarrass Clinton with the DNC leaks, but to highlight corruption in the American political system; the emails showing, for example, how the DNC colluded with the Clinton campaign to ensure Clinton, not Bernie Sanders, would be the Democratic nominee.

    Now, what better way to encourage people to ignore the corruption in the system than to focus their attention on the idea that Putin is the one who told them about it? Are people really reading these stories and convincing themselves that the CIA is the most credible source of public information on what the Russians are doing?

    Clinton's long-shot

    We've been hearing about Russian hacking for months, long before the election results in November, so why the sudden confidence in all this new and secret evidence? Why the new assertions that Putin himself directed the hacking? Look at your calendar. The Electoral College votes on Monday and it may be Clinton's last hope. It's a long shot, but in true Clinton character, she won't go down without a fight to the last gasp. Her best hope is to convince the Electoral College that Trump's win was influenced by a foreign power, is therefore illegitimate and that national security will be at stake if he takes office.

    Amazingly, in the midst of all this, while Clinton's camp is still trying to get her elected through back-door tactics, Obama has pretty much called the election results legitimate .

    Members of the Electoral College are expected to vote the way their states voted, but they are not required to. If Clinton can get enough members to flip their votes, Trump is deprived of the 270 votes he needs to become president. That's what this is really all about - and the media is serving as Clinton's willing accomplice.

    Danielle Ryan is an Irish freelance writer, journalist and media analyst. She has lived and traveled extensively in the US, Germany, Russia and Hungary. Her byline has appeared at RT, The Nation, Rethinking Russia, The BRICS Post, New Eastern Outlook, Global Independent Analytics and many others. She also works on copywriting and editing projects. Follow her on Twitter or Facebook or at her website www.danielleryan.net.

    [Dec 18, 2016] Neocon Panic and Agony

    Dec 18, 2016 | www.unz.com
    There are clear signs that the Neocons running the AngloZionist Empire and its "deep state" are in a state of near panic and their actions indicate they are truly terrified.

    The home front

    One the home front, the Neocons have resorted to every possible dirty trick on the book to try to prevent Donald Trump from ever getting into the White House: they have

      organized riots and demonstrations (some paid by Soros money) encouraged the supporters of Hillary to reject the outcome of the elections ("not my President") tried to threaten the Electors and make them either cast a vote for Hillary or not vote at all tried to convince Congress to refuse the decision of the Electoral College and they are now trying to get the elections annulled on the suspicion that the (apparently almighty) Russian hackers have compromised the election outcome (apparently even in states were paper ballots were used) and stolen it in favor of Trump.

    That is truly an amazing development, especially considering how Hillary attacked Trump for not promising to recognize the outcome of the elections. She specifically said that Trump's lack of guarantees to recognize the outcome would threaten the very basis of the stability of the US political system and now she, and her supporters, are doing everything in their power to do just that, to throw the entire electoral process into a major crisis with no clear path towards resolution. Some say that the Democrats are risking a civil war. Considering that several key Republican Congressmen have said they do support the notion of an investigation into the "Russian hackers" fairy tale, I submit that the Republicans are doing exactly the same thing, that this is not a Democrat vs Republican issue, but a "deep state vs The People of the USA" issue.

    Most experts agree that none of these tactics are going to work. So this begs the question of whether the Neocons are stupid, whether they think that they can succeed or what their true objective is.

    My guess is that first and foremost what is taking place now is what always happens when the Neocons run into major trouble: they double down, again. And again. And again. That is one of the key characteristics of their psychological make-up: they cannot accept defeat or, even less so, that they were wrong, so each time reality catches up to their ideological delusions, they automatically double-down. Still, they might rationalize this behavior by a combination of hope that maybe one of these tricks will work, with the strong urge to do as much damage to President-Elect Trump before he actually assumes his office. I would never underestimate the vicious vindictiveness of these people.

    What is rather encouraging is Trump's reaction to all this: after apparently long deliberations he decided to nominate Rex Tillerson as his Secretary of Defense. From a Neocon point of view, if General Michael Flynn was bad, then Tillerson was truly an apocalyptic abomination: the man actually had received the order of " Friend of Russia " from the hands of Vladimir Putin himself!

    Did Trump not realize how provocative this nomination was and how it would be received by the Neocons? Of course he did! That was, on his part, a totally deliberate decision. If so, then this is a very, very good sign.

    I might be mistaken, but I get the feeling that Trump is willing to accept the Neocon challenge and that he will fight back. For example, his reaction to the CIA accusations about Russian hackers was very telling: he reminded everybody that " these are the same people that said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction ". I think that it is now a safe bet to say that as soon as Trump take control heads will roll at the CIA .

    [Sidebar: is it not amazing that the CIA is offering its opinion about some supposed Russian hacking during the elections in the USA? Since when does the CIA have any expertise on what is going on inside the USA? I thought the CIA was only a foreign intelligence agency. And since when does the CIA get involved in internal US politics? Yes, of course, savvy observers of the USA have always known that the CIA was a key player in US politics, but now the Agency apparently does not even mind confirming this openly. I don't think that Trump will have the guts and means to do so but, frankly, he would be much better off completely dissolving the CIA Of course, that could get Trump killed – messing with the Fed and the CIA are two unforgivable crimes in the USA – but then again Trump is already very much at risk anyway, so he might as well strike first].

    One the external front

    On the external front, the big development is the liberation of Aleppo by Syrian forces. In that case again, the Neocons tried to double-down: they made all sorts of totally unsubstantiated claims about executions and atrocities while the BBC, always willing to pick up the correct line, published an article about how much the situation in Aleppo is similar to what took place in Srebrenica . Of course, there is one way in which the events in Aleppo and Srebrenica are similar: in both cases the US-backed Takfiris lost and were defeated by government forces and in both cases the West unleashed a vicious propaganda war to try to turn the military defeat of its proxies into a political victory for itself. In any case, the last-ditch propaganda effort failed and preventing the inevitable and Aleppo was completely liberated.

    ORDER IT NOW

    The Empire did score one success: using the fact that most of the foreign forces allied to the Syrians (Hezbollah, Iranian Pasdaran, Russian Spetsnaz, etc.) were concentrated around Aleppo, the US-backed Takfiris succeeded in breaking the will of the Syrians, many of whom apparently fled in panic, and first surrounded and then eventually reoccupied Palmyra. This will be short lived success as I completely agree with my friend Alexander Mercouris who says that Putin will soon liberate Palmyra once again, but until this happens the reoccupation of Palmyra is rather embarrassing for the Syrians, Iranians and Russians.

    It seems exceedingly unlikely to me that the Daesh movement towards Palmyra was undetected by the various Syrian, Iranian and Russian intelligence agencies (at least once source reports that Russian satellites did detect it) and I therefore conclude that a deliberate decision was made to temporarily sacrifice Palmyra in order to finally liberate Aleppo. Was that the correct call?

    Definitely yes. Contrary to the western propaganda, Aleppo, not Raqqa, has always been the real "capital" of the US backed terrorists. Raqqa is a relatively small town: 220,000+ inhabitants versus 2,000,000+ for Aleppo, making Aleppo about ten times larger than Raqqa. As for tiny Palmyra, its population is 30,000+. So the choice between scrambling to plug the holes in the Syrian defenses around Palmyra and liberating Aleppo was a no-brainer. Now that Aleppo has been liberated, the city has to be secured and major engineering efforts need to be made in order to prepare it for an always possible Takfiri counter-attack. But it is one thing to re-take a small desert town and quite another one to re-take a major urban center. I personally very much doubt that Daesh & Co. will ever be in control of Aleppo again. Some Neocons appear to be so enraged by this defeat that they are now accusing Trump of "backing Iran" (I wish he did!).

    The tiny Palmyra was given a double-function by the Neocon propaganda effort: to eclipse the "Russian" (it was not solely "Russian" at all, but never mind that) victory in Aleppo and to obfuscate the "US" (it was not solely "US" at all, but never mind that) defeat in Mosul. A hard task for the tiny desert city for sure and it is no wonder that this desperate attempt also failed: the US lead coalition in Mosul still looks just about as weak as the Russian lead coalition looks strong in Aleppo.

    Any comparison between these two battles is simply embarrassing for the USA: not only did the US-backed forces fail to liberate Mosul from Daesh & Co. but they have not even full encircled the city or even managed to penetrate beyond its furthest suburbs. There is very little information coming out of Mosul, but after three months of combat the entire operation to liberate Mosul seems to be an abject failure, at least for the time being. I sincerely hope that once Trump takes office he will finally agree to work not only with Russia, but also with Iran, to finally get Daesh out of Mosul. But if Trump delivers on his promise to AIPAC and the rest of the Israel Lobby gang to continue to antagonize and threaten Iran, the US can basically forget any hopes of defeating Daesh in Iraq.

    Our of despair and spite, the US propaganda vilified Russia for the killing of civilians in Aleppo while strenuously avoiding any mention of civilian victims in Mosul. But then, the same propaganda machine which made fun of the color of the smoke coming out of the engines of the Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov (suggesting that she was about to break down) had to eat humble pie when it was the US navy's most expensive and newest destroyer, the USS Zumwalt, which broke down in the Panama canal and had to be immobilzed, while the Kuznetsov continued to do a very good job supporting Russian operations in Syria.

    Over and over again, the AngloZionist propaganda machine has failed to obfuscate the embarrassing facts on the ground and it now clearly appears that the entire US policy for the Middle-East is in total disarray and that the Neocons are as clueless as they are desperate.

    The countdown to January 20 th

    It is pretty obvious that the Neocon reign is coming to an end in a climax of incompetence, hysterical finger-pointing, futile attempts at preventing the inevitable and a desperate scramble to conceal the magnitude of the abject failure which Neocon-inspired policies have resulted in. Obama will go down in history as the worst and most incompetent President in US history. As for Hillary, she will be remembered as both the worst US Secretary of State the US and the most inept Presidential candidate ever.

    In light of the fact that the Neocons always failed at everything they attempted, I am inclined to believe that they will probably also fail at preventing Donald Trump from being sworn in. But until January 20 th , 2017 I will be holding my breath in fear of what else these truly demented people could come up with.

    As for Trump, I still can't figure him out. On one hand he nominates Rex Tillerson in what appears to be a deliberate message of defiance against the Neocons, while on the other hand he continues to try to appease the Israel Lobby gang by choosing a rabid Zionist of the worst kind, David M. Friedman, as the next US ambassador to Israel. Even worse then that, Donald Trump still does not appear to be willing to recognize the undeniable fact that the US will never defeat Daesh as long as the anti-Iranian stance of the Neocons is not replaced by a real willingness to engage Iran and accept it as a partner and ally.

    Right now the Trump rhetoric simply makes no sense: he wants to befriend Russia while antagonizing China and he wants to defeat Daesh while threatening Iran again. This is lunacy. Still, I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, but somebody sure needs to educate him on the geopolitical realities out there before he also end up making a total disaster of US foreign policy.

    And yet, I still have a small hope.

    My hope is that the latest antics of the Neocons will sufficiently aggravate and even enrage Trump to a point where he will give up on his futile attempts at appeasing them. Only by engaging in a systematic policy of " de-neoconization " of the US political establishment will Trump have any hopes of " making America great again ". If Trump's plan is to appease the Neocons long enough from him to be sworn in and have his men approved by Congress – fine. Then he still has a chance of saving the USA from a catastrophic collapse, but only as long as he remains determined to ruthlessly crack down on the Neocons once in power. If his hope is to distract the Neocons by appeasing them on secondary or minor issues, then his efforts are doomed and he will go down the very same road as Obama who, at least superficially, initially appeared to be a non-Neocon candidate and who ended up being a total Neocon puppet (in 2008 the Neocons had placed their bets on McCain and they only infiltrated the Obama Administration once McCain was defeated

    [Dec 17, 2016] You think Putin personally supervised the Yahoo hacking? This could make many people patriotic in a hurry.

    Notable quotes:
    "... this will probably be in tomorrow's washington post. "how putin sabotaged the election by hacking yahoo mail". and "proton" and "putin" are 2 syllable words beginning with "p", which is dispositive according to experts who don't want to be indentified. ..."
    "... [Neo]Liberals have gone truly insane, I made the mistake of trying to slog through the comments the main "putin did it" piece on huffpo out of curiosity. Big mistake, liberals come across as right wing nutters in the comments, I never knew they were so very patriotic, they never really expressed it before. ..."
    "... Be sure and delete everything from your Yahoo account BEFORE you push the big red button. They intentionally wait 90 days to delete the account in order that ECPA protections expire and content can just be handed over to the fuzz. ..."
    "... It's a good thing for Obama that torturing logic and evasive droning are not criminal acts. ..."
    "... "Relations with Russia have declined over the past several years" I reflexively did a Google search. Yep, Victoria Nuland is still employed. ..."
    "... With all the concern expressed about Russian meddling in our election process why are we forgetting the direct quid pro quo foreign meddling evidenced in the Hillary emails related to the seldom mentioned Clinton Foundation or the more likely meddling by local election officials? Why have the claims of Russian hacking received such widespread coverage in the Press? ..."
    "... I watched it too and agree with your take on it. For all the build up about this press conference and how I thought we were going to engage in direct combat with Russia for these hacks (or so they say it is Russia, I still wonder about that), he did not add any fuel to this fire. ..."
    "... The whole thing was silly – the buildup to this press conference and then how Obama handled the hacking. A waste of time really. I don't sense something is going on behind the scenes but it is weird that the news has been all about this Russian hacking. He did not get into the questions about the Electoral College either and he made it seem like Trump indeed is the next President. I mean it seems like the MSM was making too much about this issue but then nothing happened. ..."
    Dec 17, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    pretzelattack , December 16, 2016 at 3:46 pm

    this will probably be in tomorrow's washington post. "how putin sabotaged the election by hacking yahoo mail". and "proton" and "putin" are 2 syllable words beginning with "p", which is dispositive according to experts who don't want to be indentified.

    HBE , December 16, 2016 at 4:13 pm

    [Neo]Liberals have gone truly insane, I made the mistake of trying to slog through the comments the main "putin did it" piece on huffpo out of curiosity. Big mistake, liberals come across as right wing nutters in the comments, I never knew they were so very patriotic, they never really expressed it before.

    B1whois , December 16, 2016 at 6:45 pm

    The great sucking pit of need that keeps on giving. when will it abate?

    different clue , December 16, 2016 at 6:49 pm

    They are only hurt at the loss of their beloved Clintron, and are seizing on the Puttin Diddit excuse.

    polecat , December 16, 2016 at 7:45 pm

    Did they happen to offer you some Guyana Kool-Aid with that order of vitriol ?

    Brad , December 16, 2016 at 10:26 pm

    Unfortunately the whole "grief cycle" will get a reboot after next Monday's "Election II".

    The rest of us are to be pissed off that the CIA and Clinton clique have continued to agiprop this.

    Knot Galt , December 16, 2016 at 10:48 pm

    Since the ex-Correct The Record key jockeys are out of a job they have to practice their craft somewhere.

    hunkerdown , December 16, 2016 at 5:23 pm

    Be sure and delete everything from your Yahoo account BEFORE you push the big red button. They intentionally wait 90 days to delete the account in order that ECPA protections expire and content can just be handed over to the fuzz.

    auntienene , December 16, 2016 at 8:07 pm

    I don't think I've looked at my yahoo account in 8-10 years and I didn't use their email; just had an address. I don't remember my user name or password. I did get an email from them (to my not-yahoo address) advising of the breach.

    Do I need to do anything at all?

    hunkerdown , December 16, 2016 at 8:22 pm

    auntienene, probably not, but as a general principle it's better to close accounts down properly than to abandon them.

    Tvc15 , December 16, 2016 at 10:50 pm

    I was amazed as I watched a local am news show in Pittsburgh recommend adding your cell phone number in addition to changing your password. Yeah, that's a great idea, maybe my ss# would provide even more security.

    Jeremy Grimm , December 16, 2016 at 4:30 pm

    I use yahoo email. Why should I move? As I understood the breach it was primarily a breach of the personal information used to establish the account. I've already changed my password - did it a couple of days after the breach was reported. I had a security clearance with DoD which requires disclosure of a lot more personal information than yahoo had. The DoD data has been breached twice from two separate servers.

    As far as reading my emails - they may prove useful for phishing but that's about all. I'm not sure what might be needed for phishing beyond a name and email address - easily obtained from many sources I have no control over.

    So - what am I vulnerable to by remaining at yahoo that I'm not already exposed to on a more secure server?

    polecat , December 16, 2016 at 7:53 pm

    You are vulnerable to the knowledge that Marissa Mayer is STILL employed as a high-level corporate twit --

    Lee , December 16, 2016 at 3:05 pm

    It's a good thing for Obama that torturing logic and evasive droning are not criminal acts.

    Ranger Rick , December 16, 2016 at 3:12 pm

    "Relations with Russia have declined over the past several years" I reflexively did a Google search. Yep, Victoria Nuland is still employed.

    Pat , December 16, 2016 at 3:32 pm

    Yeah, it isn't like Mr. 'We go high' is going to admit our relationship has declined because we have underhandedly tried to isolate and knee cap them for pretty much his entire administration.

    Jeremy Grimm , December 16, 2016 at 4:44 pm

    Are you referring to Obama's press conference? If so, I am glad he didn't make a big deal out of the Russian hacking allegations - as in it didn't sound like he planned a retaliation for the fictional event and its fictional consequences. He rose slightly in stature in my eyes - he's almost as tall as a short flea.

    With all the concern expressed about Russian meddling in our election process why are we forgetting the direct quid pro quo foreign meddling evidenced in the Hillary emails related to the seldom mentioned Clinton Foundation or the more likely meddling by local election officials? Why have the claims of Russian hacking received such widespread coverage in the Press?

    Why is a lameduck messing with the Chinese in the South China sea? What is the point of all the "fake" news hogwash? Is it related to Obama's expression of concern about the safety of the Internet? I can't shake the feeling that something is going on below the surface of these murky waters.

    Susan C , December 16, 2016 at 5:44 pm

    I watched it too and agree with your take on it. For all the build up about this press conference and how I thought we were going to engage in direct combat with Russia for these hacks (or so they say it is Russia, I still wonder about that), he did not add any fuel to this fire.

    He did respond at one point to a reporter that the hacks from Russia were to the DNC and Podesta but funny how he didn't say HRC emails. Be it as it may, I think what was behind it was HRC really trying to impress all her contributors that Russia really did do her in, see Obama said so, since she must be in hot water over all the money she has collected from foreign governments for pay to play and her donors.

    The whole thing was silly – the buildup to this press conference and then how Obama handled the hacking. A waste of time really. I don't sense something is going on behind the scenes but it is weird that the news has been all about this Russian hacking. He did not get into the questions about the Electoral College either and he made it seem like Trump indeed is the next President. I mean it seems like the MSM was making too much about this issue but then nothing happened.

    Pat , December 16, 2016 at 7:02 pm

    Unfortunately the nightly news is focusing on Obama says Russia hacked the DNC and had it in for Clinton!!! He warned them to stay out of the vote! There will be consequences! Russia demands the evidence and then a story about the evidence. (This one might have a few smarter people going "huh, that's it?!?!")

    I do like the some private some public on that consequences and retaliation thing. You either have to laugh or throw up about the faux I've got this and the real self-righteousness. Especially since it is supposedly to remind people we can do it to you. Is there anyone left outside of America who doesn't think they already do do it to anyone Uncle Sam doesn't want in office and even some they do? Mind you I'm not sure how many harried people watching the news are actually going to laugh at that one because they don't know how how much we meddle.

    Knot Galt , December 16, 2016 at 10:55 pm

    Obamameter. ty L. Scofield ;-)

    [Dec 17, 2016] Paul Krugman Useful Idiots Galore

    Notable quotes:
    "... Shorter Paul Krugman: nobody acted more irresponsibly in the last election than the New York Times. ..."
    "... Looks like Putin recruited the NYT, the FBI and the DNC. ..."
    "... Dr. Krugman is feeding this "shoot first, ask questions later" mentality. He comes across as increasingly shrill and even unhinged - it's a slide he's been taking for years IMO, which is a big shame. ..."
    "... It is downright irresponsible and dangerous for a major public intellectual with so little information to cast the shadow of legitimacy on a president ("And it means not acting as if this was a normal election whose result gives the winner any kind of a mandate, or indeed any legitimacy beyond the bare legal requirements.") This kind of behavior is EXACTLY what TRUMP and other authoritarians exhibit - using pieces of information to discredit institutions and individuals. Since foreign governments have and will continue to try to influence U.S. policy through increasingly sophisticated means, this opens the door for anyone to declare our elections and policies as illegitimate in the future. ..."
    "... Any influence Russian hacking had was entirely a consequence of U.S. media obsession with celebrity, gotcha and horse race trivia and two-party red state/blue state tribalism. ..."
    "... Without the preceding, neither Trump nor Clinton would have been contenders in the first place. Putin didn't invent super delegates, Citizens United, Fox News, talk radio, Goldman-Sachs, etc. etc. etc. If Putin exploited vulnerabilities, it is because preserving those vulnerabilities was more important to the elites than fostering a democratic political culture. ..."
    "... It's not a "coup". It's an election result that didn't go the way a lot of people want. That's it. It's probably not optimal, but I'm pretty sure that democracy isn't supposed to produce optimal results. ..."
    "... All this talk about "coups" and "illegitimacy" is nuts, and -- true to Dem practice -- incredibly short-sighted. For many, voting for Trump was an available way to say to those people, "We don't believe you any more. At all." Seen in that light, it is a profoundly democratic (small 'd') response to elites that have most consistently served only themselves. ..."
    "... Post Truth is Pre-Fascism. The party that thinks your loyalty is suspect unless you wear a flag pin fuels itself on Post Truth. Isnt't this absurdity the gist of Obama's Russia comments today!?! ..."
    "... Unless the Russians or someone else hacked the ballot box machines, it is our own damn fault. ..."
    "... The ship of neo-liberal trade sailed in the mid-2000's. That you don't get that is sad. You can only milk that so far the cow had been milked. ..."
    "... The people of the United States did not have much to choose between: Either a servant of the Plutocrats or a member of the Plutocratic class. The Dems brought this on us when they refused to play fair with Bernie. (Hillary would almost certainly have won the nomination anyway.) ..."
    "... The Repubs brought this on, by refusing to govern. The media brought this on: I seem to remember Hillary's misfeasances, once nominated, festering in the media, while Trump's were mentioned, and then disappeared. (Correct me if I'm wrong in this.) Also, the media downplayed Bernie until he had no real chance. ..."
    "... The government brought this on, by failing to pursue justice against the bankers, and failing to represent the people, especially the majority who have been screwed by trade and the plutocratic elite and their apologists. ..."
    "... The educational system brought this on, by failing to educate the people to critical thought. For instance: 1) The wealthy run the country. 2) The wealthy have been doing very well. 3) Everybody else has not. It seems most people cannot draw the obvious conclusion. ..."
    "... Krugman is himself one of those most useful idiots. I do not recall his clarion call to Democrats last spring that "FBI investigation" and "party Presidential nominee" was bound to be an ugly combination. Some did; right here as I recall. Or his part in the official "don't vote for third party" week in the Clinton media machine....thanks, hundreds of thousands of Trump votes got the message. ..."
    "... It's too rich to complain about Russia and Wikileaks as if those elements in anyway justified Clinton becoming President. Leaks mess with our democracy? Then for darn sure do not vote for a former Sec. of State willing to use a home server for her official business. Russia is menacing? Just who has been managing US-Russia relations the past 8 years? I voted for her anyway, but the heck if I think some tragic fate has befell the nation here. Republicans picked a better candidate to win this thing than we Democrats did. ..."
    "... The truth of the matter is that Clinton was a very weak candidate with nothing to offer but narcissism ("I'm with her"). It's notable that Clinton has still not accepted responsibility for her campaign, preferring to throw the blame for the loss anywhere but herself. Sociopathy much? ..."
    Dec 17, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Monetas Tuas Requiro -> kthomas... , December 16, 2016 at 05:10 PM
    The secret story of how American advisers helped Yeltsin win

    http://content.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19960715,00.html

    JohnH -> Dan Kervick... , December 16, 2016 at 11:46 AM
    PK seems to be a bitter old man...
    anne -> sanjait... , December 16, 2016 at 03:08 PM
    Nothing to see here, say the useful idiots.

    [ I find it terrifying, simply terrifying, to refer to people as "useful idiots" after all the personal destruction that has followed when the expression was specifically used in the past.

    To me, using such an expression is an honored economist intent on becoming Joseph McCarthy. ]

    anne -> anne... , December 16, 2016 at 03:15 PM
    To demean a person as though the person were a communist or a fool of communists or the like, with all the personal harm that has historically brought in this country, is cruel beyond my understanding or imagining.

    "Useful Idiots Galore," terrifying.

    Necesito Dinero Tuyo -> anne... , December 16, 2016 at 05:25 PM
    Dale : , December 16, 2016 at 10:51 AM
    trouble is that his mind reflects an accurate perception of our common reality.
    Procopius -> Dale... , December 17, 2016 at 02:37 AM
    Well, not really. For example he referred to "the close relationship between Wikileaks and Russian intelligence." But Wikileaks is a channel. They don't seek out material. They rely on people to bring material to them. They supposedly make an effort to verify that the material is not a forgery, but aside from that what they release is what people bring to them. Incidentally, like so many people you seem to not care whether the material is accurate or not -- Podesta and the DNC have not claimed that any of the emails are different from what they sent.
    Tom aka Rusty : , December 16, 2016 at 11:06 AM
    PK's head explodes!

    One thought....

    When politicians and business executives and economists cuddle up to the totalitarian Chinese it is viewed as an act of enlightment and progress.

    When someone cuddles up to the authoritarian thug Putin it is an act of evil.

    Seems a bit of a double standard.

    We are going to have to do "business" with both the Chinese and the Russians, whoever is president.

    Ben Groves -> Tom aka Rusty... , December 16, 2016 at 11:07 AM
    Your head should explode considering Trump's deal with the "establishment" in July was brokered by foreign agents.
    ilsm -> Ben Groves... , December 16, 2016 at 04:11 PM
    curiouser and curiouser! while Obama and administration arm jihadis and call its support for jihadis funded by al Qaeda a side in a civil war.

    the looking glass you all went through.

    Trump has more convictions than any democrat

    ... ... ...

    Tom aka Rusty -> kthomas... , December 16, 2016 at 01:36 PM
    In a theatre of the absurd sort of way.
    dilbert dogbert -> Tom aka Rusty... , December 16, 2016 at 12:11 PM
    One thought:
    Only Nixon can go to China.
    anne -> sanjait... , December 16, 2016 at 03:22 PM
    Putin is a murderous thug...

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/23/opinion/david-brooks-snap-out-of-it.html

    September 22, 2014

    Snap Out of It
    By David Brooks

    President Vladimir Putin of Russia, a lone thug sitting atop a failing regime....

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/22/opinion/thomas-friedman-putin-and-the-pope.html

    October 21, 2014

    Putin and the Pope
    By Thomas L. Friedman

    One keeps surprising us with his capacity for empathy, the other by how much he has become a first-class jerk and thug....

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/21/opinion/sunday/thomas-l-friedman-whos-playing-marbles-now.html

    December 20, 2014

    Who's Playing Marbles Now?
    By Thomas L. Friedman

    Let us not mince words: Vladimir Putin is a delusional thug....

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/22/opinion/paul-krugman-putin-neocons-and-the-great-illusion.html

    December 21, 2014

    Conquest Is for Losers: Putin, Neocons and the Great Illusion
    By Paul Krugman

    Remember, he's an ex-K.G.B. man - which is to say, he spent his formative years as a professional thug....

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/28/opinion/thomas-friedman-czar-putins-next-moves.html

    January 27, 2015

    Czar Putin's Next Moves
    By Thomas L. Friedman

    ZURICH - If Putin the Thug gets away with crushing Ukraine's new democratic experiment and unilaterally redrawing the borders of Europe, every pro-Western country around Russia will be in danger....

    anne -> anne... , December 16, 2016 at 03:23 PM
    Putin is a murderous thug...

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/16/world/middleeast/white-house-split-on-opening-talks-with-putin.html

    September 15, 2015

    Obama Weighing Talks With Putin on Syrian Crisis
    By PETER BAKER and ANDREW E. KRAMER

    WASHINGTON - Mr. Obama views Mr. Putin as a thug, according to advisers and analysts....

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/opinion/mr-putins-mixed-messages-on-syria.html

    September 20, 2015

    Mr. Putin's Mixed Messages on Syria

    Mr. Obama considers Mr. Putin a thug, his advisers say....

    Gibbon1 -> anne... , December 16, 2016 at 07:15 PM
    > By David Brooks
    > By Thomas L. Friedman
    > By Paul Krugman
    > By Peter Baker and Andrew E. Kramer

    I feel these authors have intentionally attempted to mislead in the past. They also studiously ignore the United States thuggish foreign policy.

    Sandwichman : , December 16, 2016 at 11:06 AM
    "...not acting as if this was a normal election..." The problem is that it WAS a "normal" U.S. election.
    Ben Groves -> Sandwichman ... , December 16, 2016 at 11:09 AM
    Yup, like the other elections, the bases stayed solvent and current events factored into the turnout and voting patterns which spurred the independent vote.
    Gibbon1 -> Ben Groves... , December 16, 2016 at 11:57 AM
    When people were claiming Clinton was going to win big, I thought no Republican and Democratic voters are going to pull the lever like a trained monkey as usual. Only difference in this election was Hillary's huge negatives due entirely by her and Bill Clinton's support for moving manufacturing jobs to Mexico and China in the 90s.
    dilbert dogbert -> Sandwichman ... , December 16, 2016 at 12:13 PM
    I would have thought in a "normal" murika and election, the drumpf would have gotten at most 10 million votes.
    Sandwichman -> dilbert dogbert... , December 16, 2016 at 01:54 PM
    The trouble with normal is it always gets worse.
    Fred C. Dobbs : , December 16, 2016 at 11:08 AM
    To Understand Trump, Learn Russian http://nyti.ms/2hLcrB1
    NYT - Andrew Rosenthal - December 15

    The Russian language has two words for truth - a linguistic quirk that seems relevant to our current political climate, especially because of all the disturbing ties between the newly elected president and the Kremlin.

    The word for truth in Russian that most Americans know is "pravda" - the truth that seems evident on the surface. It's subjective and infinitely malleable, which is why the Soviet Communists called their party newspaper "Pravda." Despots, autocrats and other cynical politicians are adept at manipulating pravda to their own ends.

    But the real truth, the underlying, cosmic, unshakable truth of things is called "istina" in Russian. You can fiddle with the pravda all you want, but you can't change the istina.

    For the Trump team, the pravda of the 2016 election is that not all Trump voters are explicitly racist. But the istina of the 2016 campaign is that Trump's base was heavily dependent on racists and xenophobes, Trump basked in and stoked their anger and hatred, and all those who voted for him cast a ballot for a man they knew to be a racist, sexist xenophobe. That was an act of racism.

    Trump's team took to Twitter with lightning speed recently to sneer at the conclusion by all 17 intelligence agencies that the Kremlin hacked Democratic Party emails for the specific purpose of helping Trump and hurting Hillary Clinton. Trump said the intelligence agencies got it wrong about Iraq, and that someone else could have been responsible for the hack and that the Democrats were just finding another excuse for losing.

    The istina of this mess is that powerful evidence suggests that the Russians set out to interfere in American politics, and that Trump, with his rejection of Western European alliances and embrace of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, was their chosen candidate.

    The pravda of Trump's selection of Rex Tillerson, head of Exxon Mobil, as secretary of state is that by choosing an oil baron who has made billions for his company by collaborating with Russia, Trump will make American foreign policy beholden to American corporate interests.

    That's bad enough, but the istina is far worse. For one thing, American foreign policy has been in thrall to American corporate interests since, well, since there were American corporations. Just look at the mess this country created in Latin America, the Caribbean, Southeast Asia and the Middle East to serve American companies.

    Yes, Tillerson has ignored American interests repeatedly, including in Russia and Iraq, and has been trying to remove sanctions imposed after Russia's seizure of Crimea because they interfered with one of his many business deals. But take him out of the equation in the Trump cabinet and nothing changes. Trump has made it plain, with every action he takes, that he is going to put every facet of policy, domestic and foreign, at the service of corporate America. The istina here is that Tillerson is just a symptom of a much bigger problem.

    The pravda is that Trump was right in saying that the intelligence agencies got it wrong about Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction.

    But the istina is that Trump's contempt for the intelligence services is profound and dangerous. He's not getting daily intelligence briefings anymore, apparently because they are just too dull to hold his attention.

    And now we know that Condoleezza Rice was instrumental in bringing Tillerson to Trump's attention. As national security adviser and then secretary of state for president George W. Bush, Rice was not just wrong about Iraq, she helped fabricate the story that Hussein had nuclear weapons.

    Trump and Tillerson clearly think they are a match for the wily and infinitely dangerous Putin, but as they move foward with their plan to collaborate with Russia instead of opposing its imperialist tendencies, they might keep in mind another Russian saying, this one from Lenin.

    "There are no morals in politics; there is only expedience," he wrote. "A scoundrel may be of use to us just because he is a scoundrel."

    Putin has that philosophy hard-wired into his political soul. When it comes to using scoundrels to get what he wants, he is a professional, and Trump is only an amateur. That is the istina of the matter.

    Fred C. Dobbs -> Fred C. Dobbs... , December 16, 2016 at 11:25 AM
    If nothing else, Russia - with a notably un-free press - has shrewdly used our own 'free press' against US.

    RUSSIA'S UNFREE PRESS

    The Boston Globe - Marshall Goldman - January 29, 2001

    AS THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION DEBATES ITS POLICY TOWARD RUSSIA, FREEDOM OF THE PRESS SHOULD BE ONE OF ITS MAJOR CONCERNS. UNDER PRESIDENT VLADIMIR PUTIN THE PRESS IS FREE ONLY AS LONG AS IT DOES NOT CRITICIZE PUTIN OR HIS POLICIES. WHEN NTV, THE TELEVISION NETWORK OF THE MEDIA GIANT MEDIA MOST, REFUSED TO PULL ITS PUNCHES, MEDIA MOST'S OWNER, VLADIMIR GUSINSKY, FOUND HIMSELF IN JAIL, AND GAZPROM, A COMPANY DOMINATED BY THE STATE, BEGAN TO CALL IN LOANS TO MEDIA MOST. Unfortunately, Putin's actions are applauded by more than 70 percent of the Russian people. They crave a strong and forceful leader; his KGB past and conditioned KGB responses are just what they seem to want after what many regard as the social, political, and economic chaos of the last decade.

    But what to the Russians is law and order (the "dictatorship of the law," as Putin has so accurately put it) looks more and more like an old Soviet clampdown to many Western observers.

    There is no complaint about Putin's promises. He tells everyone he wants freedom of the press. But in the context of his KGB heritage, his notion of freedom of the press is something very different. In an interview with the Toronto Globe and Mail, he said that that press freedom excludes the "hooliganism" or "uncivilized" reporting he has to deal with in Moscow. By that he means criticism, especially of his conduct of the war in Chechnya, his belated response to the sinking of the Kursk, and the heavy-handed way in which he has pushed aside candidates for governor in regional elections if they are not to Putin's liking.

    He does not take well to criticism. When asked by the relatives of those lost in the Kursk why he seemed so unresponsive, Putin tried to shift the blame for the disaster onto the media barons, or at least those who had criticized him. They were the ones, he insisted, who had pressed for reduced funding for the Navy while they were building villas in Spain and France. As for their criticism of his behavior, They lie! They lie! They lie!

    Our Western press has provided good coverage of the dogged way Putin and his aides have tried to muscle Gusinsky out of the Media Most press conglomerate he created. But those on the Putin enemies list now include even Boris Berezovsky, originally one of Putin's most enthusiastic promoters who after the sinking of the Kursk also became a critic and thus an opponent.

    Gusinsky would have a hard time winning a merit badge for trustworthiness (Berezovsky shouldn't even apply), but in the late Yeltsin and Putin years, Gusinsky has earned enormous credit for his consistently objective news coverage, including a spotlight on malfeasance at the very top. More than that, he has supported his programmers when they have subjected Yeltsin and now Putin to bitter satire on Kukly, his Sunday evening prime-time puppet show.

    What we hear less of, though, is what is happening to individual reporters, especially those engaged in investigative work. Almost monthly now there are cases of violence and intimidation. Among those brutalized since Putin assumed power are a reporter for Radio Liberty who dared to write negative reports about the Russian Army's role in Chechnia and four reporters for Novaya Gazeta. Two of them were investigating misdeeds by the FSB (today's equivalent of the KGB), including the possibility that it rather than Chechins had blown up a series of apartment buildings. Another was pursuing reports of money-laundering by Yeltsin family members and senior staff in Switzerland. Although these journalists were very much in the public eye, they were all physically assaulted.

    Those working for provincial papers labor under even more pressure with less visibility. There are numerous instances where regional bosses such as the governor of Vladivostok operate as little dictators, and as a growing number of journalists have discovered, challenges are met with threats, physical intimidation, and, if need be, murder.

    True, freedom of the press in Russia is still less than 15 years old, and not all the country's journalists or their bosses have always used that freedom responsibly. During the 1996 election campaign, for example, the media owners, including Gusinsky conspired to denigrate or ignore every viable candidate other than Yeltsin. But attempts to muffle if not silence criticism have multiplied since Putin and his fellow KGB veterans have come to power. Criticism from any source, be it an individual journalist or a corporate entity, invites retaliation.

    When Media Most persisted in its criticism, Putin sat by approvingly as his subordinates sent in masked and armed tax police and prosecutors. When that didn't work, they jailed Gusinsky on charges that were later dropped, although they are seeking to extradite and jail him again. along with his treasurer, on a new set of charges. Yesterday the prosecutor general summoned Tatyana Mitkova, the anchor of NTV's evening news program, for questioning. Putin's aides are also doing all they can to prevent Gusinsky from refinancing his debt-ridden operation with Ted Turner or anyone else in or outside of the country.

    According to one report, Putin told one official, You deal with the shares, debts, and management and I will deal with the journalists. His goal simply is to end to independent TV coverage in Russia. ...

    (No link; from their archives.)

    DeDude -> Fred C. Dobbs... , December 16, 2016 at 11:33 AM
    "Unfortunately, Putin's actions are applauded by more than 70 percent of the Russian people"

    Exactly; the majority of people are so stupid and/or lazy that they cannot be bothered understanding what is going on; and how their hard won democracy is being subjugated. But thank God that is in Russia not here in the US - right?

    anne -> Fred C. Dobbs... , December 16, 2016 at 11:45 AM
    https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2001-02-07/html/CREC-2001-02-07-pt1-PgE133-4.htm

    February 7, 2001

    Russia's Unfree Press
    By Marshall I. Goldman

    Watermelonpunch -> Fred C. Dobbs... , December 16, 2016 at 04:55 PM
    "Infinitely dangerous" As in the event horizon of a black hole, for pity's sake?

    Odd choice of words. Should there have been a "more" in between there? Was it a typo?

    cm -> Fred C. Dobbs... , December 17, 2016 at 03:42 PM
    "Pravda" is etymologically derived from "prav-" which means "right" (as opposed to "left", other connotations are "proper", "correct", "rightful", also legal right). It designates the social-construct aspect of "righteousness/truthfulness/correctness" as opposed to "objective reality" (conceptually independent of social standards, in reality anything but). In formal logic, "istina" is used to designate truth. Logical falsity is designated a "lie".

    It is a feature common to most European languages that rightfulness, righteousness, correctness, and legal rights are identified with the designation for the right side. "Sinister" is Latin for "left".

    Ben Groves : , December 16, 2016 at 11:18 AM
    If you believe 911 was a Zionist conspiracy, so where the Paris attacks of November 2015, when Trump was failing in the polls as the race was moving toward as you would expect, toward other candidates. After the Paris attacks, his numbers reaccelerated.

    If "ZOG" created the "false flag" of the Paris attacks to start a anti-Muslim fervor, they succeeded, much like 911. Bastille day attacks were likewise, a false flag. This is not new, this goes back to when the aristocracy merged with the merchant caste, creating the "bourgeois". They have been running a parallel government in the shadows to effect what is seen.

    cm -> sanjait... , December 17, 2016 at 03:46 PM
    There used to be something called Usenet News, where at the protocol level reader software could fetch meta data (headers containing author, (stated) origin, title, etc.) independently from comment bodies. This was largely owed to limited download bandwidth. Basically all readers had "kill files" i.e. filters where one could configure that comments with certain header parameters should not be downloaded, or even hidden.
    cm -> cm... , December 17, 2016 at 03:48 PM
    The main application was that the reader would download comments in the background when headers were already shown, or on demand when you open a comment.

    Now you get the whole thing (or in units of 100) by the megabyte.

    tew : , December 16, 2016 at 11:19 AM
    A major problem is signal extraction out of the massive amounts of noise generated by the media, social media, parties, and pundits.

    It's easy enough to highlight this thread of information here, but in real time people are being bombarded by so many other stories.

    In particular, the Clinton Foundation was also regularly being highlighted for its questionable ties to foreign influence. And HRC's extravagant ties to Wall St. And so much more.

    And there is outrage fatigue.

    Ben Groves -> DeDude... , December 16, 2016 at 11:34 AM
    The media's job was to sell Trump and denounce Clinton. The mistake a lot of people make is thinking the global elite are the "status quo". They are not. They are generally the ones that break the status quo more often than not.

    The bulk of them wanted Trump/Republican President and made damn sure it was President. Buffering the campaign against criticism while overly focusing on Clinton's "crap". It took away from the issues which of course would have low key'd the election.

    cm -> DeDude... , December 17, 2016 at 03:55 PM
    Not much bullying has to be applied when there are "economic incentives". The media attention economy and ratings system thrive on controversy and emotional engagement. This was known a century ago as "only bad news is good news". As long as I have lived, the non-commercial media not subject (or not as much) to these dynamics have always been perceived as dry and boring.

    I heard from a number of people that they followed the campaign "coverage" (in particular Trump) as gossip/entertainment, and those were people who had no sympathies for him. And even media coverage by outlets generally critical of Trump's unbelievable scandals and outrageous performances catered to this sentiment.

    Jim Harrison : , December 16, 2016 at 11:24 AM
    Shorter Paul Krugman: nobody acted more irresponsibly in the last election than the New York Times.
    Sandwichman -> Jim Harrison ... , December 16, 2016 at 11:53 AM
    Looks like Putin recruited the NYT, the FBI and the DNC.
    DrDick -> Sandwichman ... , December 16, 2016 at 11:57 AM
    Nah, Wall Street and the GOP recruited them to the effort.
    Sandwichman -> DrDick... , December 16, 2016 at 01:57 PM
    GOP included in FBI. Wall Street included in DNC, GOP. It's all just one big FBIDNCGOPCNNWSNYT.
    sanjait -> Jim Harrison ... , December 16, 2016 at 03:06 PM
    He can't say it out loud but you know he's including the NYT on his list of UIs.
    tew : , December 16, 2016 at 11:26 AM
    Let me also add some levelheaded thoughts:

    First, let me disclose that I detest TRUMP and that the Russian meddling has me deeply concerned. Yet...

    We only have assertions that the Russian hacking had some influence. We do not know whether it likely had *material* influence that could have reasonably led to a swing state(s) going to TRUMP that otherwise would have gone to HRC.

    Dr. Krugman is feeding this "shoot first, ask questions later" mentality. He comes across as increasingly shrill and even unhinged - it's a slide he's been taking for years IMO, which is a big shame.

    It is downright irresponsible and dangerous for a major public intellectual with so little information to cast the shadow of legitimacy on a president ("And it means not acting as if this was a normal election whose result gives the winner any kind of a mandate, or indeed any legitimacy beyond the bare legal requirements.") This kind of behavior is EXACTLY what TRUMP and other authoritarians exhibit - using pieces of information to discredit institutions and individuals. Since foreign governments have and will continue to try to influence U.S. policy through increasingly sophisticated means, this opens the door for anyone to declare our elections and policies as illegitimate in the future.

    DrDick -> tew... , December 16, 2016 at 11:56 AM
    It is quite clear that the Russians intervened on Trump's behalf and that this intervention had an impact. The problem is that we cannot actually quantify that impact.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-backs-cia-view-that-russia-intervened-to-help-trump-win-election/2016/12/16/05b42c0e-c3bf-11e6-9a51-cd56ea1c2bb7_story.html?pushid=breaking-news_1481916265&tid=notifi_push_breaking-news&utm_term=.25d35c017908

    Sandwichman -> tew... , December 16, 2016 at 01:17 PM
    "We only have assertions that the Russian hacking had some influence."

    Any influence Russian hacking had was entirely a consequence of U.S. media obsession with celebrity, gotcha and horse race trivia and two-party red state/blue state tribalism.

    Without the preceding, neither Trump nor Clinton would have been contenders in the first place. Putin didn't invent super delegates, Citizens United, Fox News, talk radio, Goldman-Sachs, etc. etc. etc. If Putin exploited vulnerabilities, it is because preserving those vulnerabilities was more important to the elites than fostering a democratic political culture.

    cm -> Sandwichman ... , December 17, 2016 at 04:00 PM
    But this is how influence is exerted - by using the dynamics of the adversary's/targets organization as an amplifier. Hierarchical organizations are approached through their management or oversight bodies, social networks through key influencers, etc.
    David : , December 16, 2016 at 11:58 AM
    I see this so much and it's so right wing cheap: I hate Trump, but assertions that Russia intervened are unproven.

    First, Trump openly invited Russia to hack DNC emails. That is on its face treason and sedition. It's freaking on video. If HRC did that there would be calls of the right for her execution.

    Second, a NYT story showed that the FBI knew about the hacking but did not alert the DNC properly - they didn't even show up, they sent a note to a help desk.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/fbi-probe-dnc-hacked-emails_us_57a19f22e4b08a8e8b601259

    This was a serious national security breach that was not addressed properly. This is criminal negligence.

    This was a hacked election by collusion of the FBI and the Russian hackers and it totally discredits the FBI as it throwed out chum and then denied at the last minute. Now the CIA comes in and says PUTIN, Trump's bff, was directly involved in manipulating the timetable that the hacked emails were released in drip drip form to cater to the media - creating story after story about emails.

    It was a perfect storm for a coup. Putin played us. And he will play Trump. And God knows how it ends. But it doesn't matter b/c we're all screwed with climate change anyway.

    sglover -> David... , December 16, 2016 at 02:50 PM
    "It was a perfect storm for a coup. Putin played us. And he will play Trump. And God knows how it ends. But it doesn't matter b/c we're all screwed with climate change anyway."

    It's not a "coup". It's an election result that didn't go the way a lot of people want. That's it. It's probably not optimal, but I'm pretty sure that democracy isn't supposed to produce optimal results.

    All this talk about "coups" and "illegitimacy" is nuts, and -- true to Dem practice -- incredibly short-sighted. For many, voting for Trump was an available way to say to those people, "We don't believe you any more. At all." Seen in that light, it is a profoundly democratic (small 'd') response to elites that have most consistently served only themselves.

    Trump and his gang will be deeply grateful if the left follows Krugman's "wisdom", and clings to his ever-changing excuses. (I thought it was the evil Greens who deprived Clinton of her due?)

    100panthers : , December 16, 2016 at 02:17 PM
    Post Truth is Pre-Fascism. The party that thinks your loyalty is suspect unless you wear a flag pin fuels itself on Post Truth. Isnt't this absurdity the gist of Obama's Russia comments today!?!
    ilsm -> 100panthers... , December 16, 2016 at 04:29 PM
    Obama and the Clintons are angered; Russia keeping US from giving Syria to al Qaeda. Like Clinton gave them Libya.
    Jerry Brown -> sanjait... , December 16, 2016 at 04:46 PM
    I agree. Unless the Russians or someone else hacked the ballot box machines, it is our own damn fault.
    ilsm : , December 16, 2016 at 04:27 PM
    the US media is angered putin is killing US' jihadis in Syria
    Mr. Bill : , December 16, 2016 at 08:27 PM
    "On Wednesday an editorial in The Times described Donald Trump as a "useful idiot" serving Russian interests." I think that is beyond the pale. Yes, I realize that Adolph Hitler was democratically elected. I agree that Trump seems like a scary monster under the bed. That doesn't mean we have too pee our pants, Paul. He's a bully, tough guy, maybe, the kind of kid that tortured you before you kicked the shit out of them with your brilliance. That's not what is needed now.
    Mr. Bill -> Mr. Bill... , December 16, 2016 at 08:39 PM
    What really is needed, is a watchdog, like Dean Baker, that alerts we dolts of pending bills and their ramifications. The ship of neo-liberal trade bullshit has sailed. Hell, you don't believe it yourself, you've said as much. Be gracious, and tell the truth. We can handle it.
    Ben Groves -> Mr. Bill... , December 16, 2016 at 09:51 PM
    The ship of neo-liberal trade sailed in the mid-2000's. That you don't get that is sad. You can only milk that so far the cow had been milked.

    Trump was a coo, he was not supported by the voters. But by the global elite.

    Mr. Bill : , December 16, 2016 at 10:28 PM
    Hillary Clinton lost because she is truly an ugly aristocrat.
    Mr. Bill -> Mr. Bill... , December 16, 2016 at 11:49 PM
    The experience of voting for the Hill was painful, vs Donald Trump.

    The Hill seemed like the least likely aristocrat, given two choices, to finish off all government focus on the folks that actually built this society. Two Titans of Hubris, Hillary vs Donald, each ridiculous in the concept of representing the interests of the common man.

    At the end of the day. the American people decided that the struggle with the unknown monster Donald was worth deposing the great deplorable, Clinton.

    Mr. Bill -> Mr. Bill... , December 17, 2016 at 12:11 AM
    The real argument is whether the correct plan of action is the way of FDR, or the way of the industrialists, the Waltons, the Kochs, the Trumps, the Bushes and the outright cowards like the Cheneys and the Clintons, people that never spent a day defending this country in combat. What do they call it, the Commander in Chief.
    Mr. Bill -> Mr. Bill... , December 17, 2016 at 12:29 AM
    My father was awarded a silver and a bronze star for his efforts in battle during WW2. He was shot in the face while driving a tank destroyer by a German sniper in a place called Schmitten Germany.

    He told me once, that he looked over at the guy next to him on the plane to the hospital in England, and his intestines were splayed on his chest. It was awful.

    Mr. Bill -> Mr. Bill... , December 17, 2016 at 12:55 AM
    What was he fighting for ? Freedom, America. Then the Republicans, Ronald Reagan, who spent the war stateside began the real war, garnering the wealth of the nation to the entitled like him. Ronald Reagan was a life guard.
    btg : , December 16, 2016 at 11:09 PM
    Other idiots...

    Anthony Weiner
    Podesta
    Biden (for not running)
    Tim Kaine (for accepting the nomination instead of deferring to a latino)
    CNN and other TV news media (for giving trump so much coverage- even an empty podium)
    Donna Brazile
    etc.

    greg : , December 16, 2016 at 11:57 PM
    The people of the United States did not have much to choose between: Either a servant of the Plutocrats or a member of the Plutocratic class. The Dems brought this on us when they refused to play fair with Bernie. (Hillary would almost certainly have won the nomination anyway.)

    The Repubs brought this on, by refusing to govern. The media brought this on: I seem to remember Hillary's misfeasances, once nominated, festering in the media, while Trump's were mentioned, and then disappeared. (Correct me if I'm wrong in this.) Also, the media downplayed Bernie until he had no real chance.

    The government brought this on, by failing to pursue justice against the bankers, and failing to represent the people, especially the majority who have been screwed by trade and the plutocratic elite and their apologists.

    The educational system brought this on, by failing to educate the people to critical thought. For instance: 1) The wealthy run the country. 2) The wealthy have been doing very well. 3) Everybody else has not. It seems most people cannot draw the obvious conclusion.

    The wealthy brought this on. For 230 years they have, essentially run this country. They are too stupid to be satisfied with enough, but always want more.

    The economics profession brought this on, by excusing treasonous behavior as efficient, and failing to understand the underlying principles of their profession, and the limits of their understanding. (They don't even know what money is, or how a trade deficit destroys productive capacity, and thus the very ability of a nation to pay back the debts it incurs.)

    The people brought this on, by neglecting their duty to be informed, to be educated, and to be thoughtful.

    Anybody else care for their share of blame? I myself deserve some, but for reasons I cannot say.

    What amazes me now is, the bird having shown its feathers, there is no howl of outrage from the people who voted for him. Do they imagine that the Plutocrats who will soon monopolize the White House will take their interests to heart?

    As far as I can tell, not one person of 'the people' has been appointed to his cabinet. Not one. But the oppressed masses who turned to Mr Trump seem to be OK with this.
    I can only wonder, how much crap will have to be rubbed in their faces, before they awaken to the taste of what it is?

    Eric377 : , -1
    Krugman is himself one of those most useful idiots. I do not recall his clarion call to Democrats last spring that "FBI investigation" and "party Presidential nominee" was bound to be an ugly combination. Some did; right here as I recall. Or his part in the official "don't vote for third party" week in the Clinton media machine....thanks, hundreds of thousands of Trump votes got the message.

    It's too rich to complain about Russia and Wikileaks as if those elements in anyway justified Clinton becoming President. Leaks mess with our democracy? Then for darn sure do not vote for a former Sec. of State willing to use a home server for her official business. Russia is menacing? Just who has been managing US-Russia relations the past 8 years? I voted for her anyway, but the heck if I think some tragic fate has befell the nation here. Republicans picked a better candidate to win this thing than we Democrats did.

    Greg -> Eric377... , December 17, 2016 at 12:11 PM
    Well said, Eric377.

    The truth of the matter is that Clinton was a very weak candidate with nothing to offer but narcissism ("I'm with her"). It's notable that Clinton has still not accepted responsibility for her campaign, preferring to throw the blame for the loss anywhere but herself. Sociopathy much?

    This has made me cynical. I used to think that at least *some* members of the US political elite had the best interests of ordinary households in mind, but now I see that it's just ego vs. ego, whatever the party.

    As for democracy being on the edge: I believe Adam Smith over Krugman: "there is a lot of ruin in a nation". It takes more than this to overturn an entrenched institution.

    I think American democracy will survive a decade of authoritarianism, and if it does not, then H. L. Mencken said it best: "The American people know what they want, and they deserve to get it -- good and hard."

    [Dec 17, 2016] Obama, The Divider in Chief, Invokes Reagan 'Rolling Over in His Grave' in Attempt to Shame Republicans into Hating Putin

    Dec 17, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com

    The agitprop out of the White House isn't working these days, thanks to the advent of fake news of course. Following weeks of hysteria, following Donald J. Trump's triumphant victory of Hillary Clinton and Obama's legacy, Obama took to the podium for one last time to divide Americans -- this time invoking the revered late President Ronald Reagan -- saying he'd be 'rolling over in his grave' now had he known that over a third of republicans approve of Putin in some random poll.

    If Obama truly wants to know why Americans are willing to accept the words of Putin, undoubtedly a strong man leader, over his -- he should take a look in the mirror and then gander over to his computer to re-read all of the Wikileaks from John Podesta's email that Putin so graciously made available to us all. They speak volumes about the corruptness and the rot permeating in our capitol. Even without the emails, we see the neocon strategy of persistent war and deceit hollowing out this nation -- devouring its resources, emptying its treasury, and there is nothing redeeming about it.

    During the press conference, Obama provided his media with incontrovertible evidence that Russia was behind the WikiLeaks, saying 'not much happens in Russia without Putin's approval.'

    Russia has a land mass of 6,592,800 sq miles and Putin controls every single inch of it. This is retard level thinking.

    Moreover, Obama says he told Putin to 'cut it out' when he last saw him in China, warning him of serious consequences. Luckily for us, Putin got scared and ceased all further hackings. However, the damage had already been done and the Wikileaks released.

    I suppose this type of lazy thinking appeals to a certain subset of America, else why would he make such infantile statements?

    The Divider in Chief, one last time reminding himself and the press that XENOPHOBIA against Russians is good. The Russians are a useless sort, who produce nothing of interest, a very small and weak country, only capable of wiping out the entirety of America 10x over via very large nuclear detonations. Oh, and you pesky republicans love Putin because you're sooo political.

    This is what some might call 'idiotic diplomacy', mocking and deriding a rival nation to the point of war, a war that could exterminate life on planet earth for at least a millennia. Genius.

    Content originally generated at iBankCoin.com

    [Dec 17, 2016] Top 11 Russian-Hack Questions the Rogue-Electors Should Ask the CIA The Daily Sheeple

    Notable quotes:
    "... (To read about Jon's mega-collection, Power Outside The Matrix , click here .) ..."
    Dec 17, 2016 | www.thedailysheeple.com
    Assuming these "rogue-Electors" from the Electoral College get a briefing on the "Russian election-hack" from the CIA , and assuming the Electors have a few working brain cells, and assuming they care, here are the top 11 questions they should ask the CIA presenter.

    Questions One through Three (repeated with enthusiasm and fervor): Are you just going to feed us generalities and tell us you can't detail specifics because that would compromise your methods and personnel? We can read the generalities in the Washington Post, whose owner, Jeff Bezos, chief honcho at Amazon, has a $600 million contract with the CIA to provide cloud computing services, so he and the Post and the CIA are in bed together.

    Question Four: We need a precise distinction here. How did "Russia hacked the DNC, Hillary, Podesta, and Weiner emails and fed the emails to WikiLeaks who released them" suddenly morph into "Russia hacked the election vote"?

    Question Five: The security systems that protected the DNC, Hillary, Podesta, and Weiner emails were so feeble a child could have gotten past them in a few minutes. Why should we assume high-level Russian agents were involved?

    Question Six: Not only does the CIA have a history of lying to the American people, lying is part of your job description. Why should we believe you? Take your time. We can have food brought in.

    Question Seven: We're getting the feeling you're talking down to us as if we're the peasants and you're the feudal barons. Why is that? Do you work for us, or do we work for you? Once upon a time, before you went to work for the Agency, were you like us, or were you always arrogant and dismissive?

    Question Eight: Let's put aside for a moment the question of who leaked all those emails. What about the substance and content of the emails? Was all that forged or was it real? If you claim there was forgery, prove it. Put a dozen emails up on that big screen and take us through them, piece by piece, and show us where and how the forgery occurred. By the way, why didn't you allow us to bring several former NSA analysts into this briefing? Are we living in the US or the USSR?

    Question Nine: Are you personally a computer expert, sir? Or are you merely relaying what someone else at the CIA told you? Would you spell your name for us again? What is your job description at the Agency? Do you work in public information? Are you tasked with "being convincing"?

    Question Ten: Do you think we're completely stupid?

    Question Eleven: Let's all let our hair down, okay? Forget facts and specifics. Of course we want to overthrow the election and install Hillary Clinton in the Oval Office. So do you. We're on the same team. But we need you to give us something, anything. So far, this briefing is embarrassing. Once we get out of here, we want to tell a few persuasive lies. Give us a Russian name, any name. Or a location in Russia we can use. The brand name of a Russian vodka. Caviar. Something that sounds Russian. Make up a code with letters and numbers. Help us out. How about the name of an American who who's actually a Russian spy? You could shoot him later today in a "gun battle at a shopping mall." That would work.

    Good luck.

    (To read about Jon's mega-collection, Power Outside The Matrix , click here .)

    Related Reads

    Someone Just Officially Called the CIA's Bluff over Russia

    National Intelligence Office: 'We Won't Say the CIA Is Wrong, But They Can't Prove Russian Intent to Tamper with the Election'

    Wow: Now US Officials and Mainstream Media Claim Putin PERSONALLY Involved in Election Hacks

    Russian Narrative Falls Apart – Wikileaks Operative Claims Clinton Emails Handed Over By "Disgusted" Democrat Whistleblowers

    "Sorry, I Meant Russia": Watch WH Press Secretary Josh Earnest "Accidentally" Accuse China of Hacking Our Elections

    Delivered by The Daily Sheeple

    We encourage you to share and republish our reports, analyses, breaking news and videos ( Click for details ).

    Contributed by Jon Rappoport of No More Fake News .

    The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED , Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world.

    [Dec 16, 2016] Questions for the Electors on Russian Hacking by Andrew Cockburn

    Podesta essentially gave up his email due to committed by him blunder: sending his password to the attacker. As such it was far from high-end hacking, which can be attributed to intelligence agencies. It is more like a regular, primitive phishing expedition which became successful due to Podesta blunder. So this is not hacking but phishing expedition... That makes big difference.
    Notable quotes:
    "... The DNC hackers inserted the name of the founder of Russian intelligence, in Russian, in the metadata of the hacked documents. Why would the G.R.U., Russian military intelligence do that? ..."
    "... If the hackers were indeed part of Russian intelligence, why did they use a free Russian email account, or, in the hack of the state election systems, a Russian-owned server? Does Russian intelligence normally display such poor tradecraft? ..."
    "... Why would Russian intelligence, for the purposes of hacking the election systems of Arizona and Illinois, book space on a Russian-owned server and then use only English, as documents furnished by Vladimir Fomenko, proprietor of Kings Servers, the company that owned the server in question, clearly indicate? ..."
    "... Numerous reports ascribe the hacks to hacking groups known as APT 28 or "Fancy Bear" and APT 29 or "Cozy Bear." But these groups had already been accused of nefarious actions on behalf of Russian intelligence prior to the hacks under discussion. Why would the Kremlin and its intelligence agencies select well-known groups to conduct a regime-change operation on the most powerful country on earth? ..."
    "... The joint statement issued by the DNI and DHS on October 7 2016 confirmed that US intelligence had no evidence of official Russian involvement in the leak of hacked documents to Wikileaks, etc, saying only that the leaks were " consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts." Has the US acquired any evidence whatsoever since that time regarding Russian involvement in the leaks? ..."
    Dec 14, 2016 | www.counterpunch.org

    It is being reported that John Podesta, Chairman of the defeated $1.2 billion Clinton presidential campaign, is supporting the call by various officials, including at least forty Electors, that the members of the Electoral College be given a classified intelligence briefing on the alleged Russian hacking before the College votes on December 19.

    In the event such a briefing comes to pass, it might be helpful if the Electors had some informed questions to ask the CIA

    1. The DNC hackers inserted the name of the founder of Russian intelligence, in Russian, in the metadata of the hacked documents. Why would the G.R.U., Russian military intelligence do that?
    2. If the hackers were indeed part of Russian intelligence, why did they use a free Russian email account, or, in the hack of the state election systems, a Russian-owned server? Does Russian intelligence normally display such poor tradecraft?
    3. Why would Russian intelligence, for the purposes of hacking the election systems of Arizona and Illinois, book space on a Russian-owned server and then use only English, as documents furnished by Vladimir Fomenko, proprietor of Kings Servers, the company that owned the server in question, clearly indicate?
    4. Numerous reports ascribe the hacks to hacking groups known as APT 28 or "Fancy Bear" and APT 29 or "Cozy Bear." But these groups had already been accused of nefarious actions on behalf of Russian intelligence prior to the hacks under discussion. Why would the Kremlin and its intelligence agencies select well-known groups to conduct a regime-change operation on the most powerful country on earth?
    5. It has been reported in the New York Times , without attribution, that U.S. intelligence has identified specific G.R.U. officials who directed the hacking. Is this true, and if so, please provide details (Witness should be sworn)
    6. The joint statement issued by the DNI and DHS on October 7 2016 confirmed that US intelligence had no evidence of official Russian involvement in the leak of hacked documents to Wikileaks, etc, saying only that the leaks were " consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts." Has the US acquired any evidence whatsoever since that time regarding Russian involvement in the leaks?
    7. Since the most effective initiative in tipping the election to Donald Trump was the intervention of FBI Director Comey, are you investigating any possible connections he might have to Russian intelligence and Vladimir Putin?

    [Dec 16, 2016] The Cold War, Continued: Post-Election Russophobia

    Dec 16, 2016 | www.counterpunch.org
    by Gary Leupp Mainstream TV news anchors including MSNBC's Chris Hayes are reporting as fact---with fuming indignation---that Russia (and specifically Vladimir Putin) not only sought to influence the U.S. election (and---gosh!---promote "doubt" about the whole legitimacy of the U.S. electoral system) but to throw the vote to Donald Trump.

    The main accusation is that the DNC and Podesta emails leaked through Wikileaks were provided by state-backed Russian hackers (while they did not leak material hacked from the Republicans). I have my doubts on this. Former U.S. ambassador to Uzbekistan and torture whistle-blower Craig Murray, a friend of Julian Assange, has stated that the DNC emails were leaked by a DNC insider whose identity he knows. The person, Murray contends, handed the material over to him, in a D.C. park. I have met Murray, admire and am inclined to believe him. (I just heard now that John Bolton, of all people, has also opined this was an inside job.)

    [Dec 16, 2016] Putin Lashes Out At Obama Show Some Proof Or Shut Up Zero Hedge

    Dec 16, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    Putin Lashes Out At Obama: "Show Some Proof Or Shut Up" Tyler Durden Dec 16, 2016 9:09 AM 0 SHARES Putin has had enough of the relentless barrage of US accusations that he, personally, "hacked the US presidential election."

    The Russian president's spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, said on Friday that the US must either stop accusing Russia of meddling in its elections or prove it. Peskov said it was "indecent" of the United States to "groundlessly" accuse Russia of intervention in its elections.

    "You need to either stop talking about it, or finally show some kind of proof. Otherwise it just looks very indecent ", Peskov told Reporters in Tokyo where Putin is meeting with Japan PM Abe, responding to the latest accusations that Russia was responsible for hacker attacks.

    Peskov also warned that Obama's threat to "retaliate" to the alleged Russian hack is "against both American and international law", hinting at open-ended escalation should Obama take the podium today at 2:15pm to officially launch cyberwar against Russia.

    Previously, on Thursday, Peskov told the AP the report was " laughable nonsense ", while Russian foreign ministry spox Maria Zakharova accused "Western media" of being a "shill" and a "mouthpiece of various power groups", and added that "it's not the general public who's being manipulated," Zakharova said. "the general public nowadays can distinguish the truth. It's the mass media that is manipulating themselves."

    Meanwhile, on Friday Sergei Lavrov, Russia's foreign minister told state television network, Russia 24, he was "dumbstruck" by the NBC report which alleges that Russian President Vladimir Putin was personally involved in an election hack.

    The report cited U.S. intelligence officials that now believe with a "high level of confidence" that Putin became personally involved in a secret campaign to influence the outcome of the U.S. presidential election. "I think this is just silly, and the futility of the attempt to convince somebody of this is absolutely obvious," Lavrov added, according to the news outlet.

    As a reminder, last night Obama vowed retaliatory action against Russia for its meddling in the US presidential election last month. "I think there is no doubt that when any foreign government tries to impact the integrity of our elections that we need to take action and we will at a time and place of our own choosing," Obama told National Public Radio.

    US intelligence agencies in October pinned blame on Russia for election-related hacking. At the time, the White House vowed a "proportional response" to the cyberactivity, though declined to preview what that response might entail. Meanwhile, both President-elect Donald Trump, the FBI, and the ODNI have dismissed the CIA's intelligence community's assessment, for the the same reason Putin finally lashed out at Obama: there is no proof.

    That, however, has never stopped the US from escalating a geopolitical conflict to the point of war, or beyond, so pay close attention to what Obama says this afternoon.

    According to an NBC report , a team of analysts at Eurasia Group said in a note on Friday that they believe the outgoing administration is likely to take action which could result in a significant barrier for Trump's team once he takes office in January .

    "It is unlikely that U.S. intelligence reports will change Trump's intention to initiate a rapprochement with Moscow, but the congressional response following its own investigations could obstruct the new administration's effort ," Eurasia Group analysts added.

    At the same time, Wikileaks offered its "validation" services, tweeting that " Obama should submit any Putin documents to WikiLeaks to be authenticated to our standards if he wants them to be seen as credible. "

    Obama should submit any Putin documents to WikiLeaks to be authenticated to our standards if he wants them to be seen as credible.

    - WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) December 16, 2016

    We doubt Obama would take the whistleblower organization on its offer, even if he did have any Putin documents to authenticate.

    Luc X. Ifer Ignatius , Dec 16, 2016 9:21 AM
    No joke anymore today USSA declares war to Russia just for keeping Obama the 1st on the trone. 'Election hacking called the new 9/11' officially

    http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/12/16/elijah-cummings-russia-hac...

    Ignatius Luc X. Ifer , Dec 16, 2016 9:27 AM
    If it's "another 9/11," doesn't that mean it's another phony, constructed event (that killed 3,000 people)?
    Luc X. Ifer Ignatius , Dec 16, 2016 9:36 AM
    Correct but this time they will not engage a tin can dictator but an equivalent nuclear power lead by the best strategy trained minds in the world
    ThanksChump Luc X. Ifer , Dec 16, 2016 10:39 AM
    And they would do so over what, apparently, was a typo by Podesta's aide:

    http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/12/15/report-podesta-email-hack-due-t...

    TeamDepends Ignatius , Dec 16, 2016 9:38 AM
    And orchestrated by Mossad/CIA Millions upon millions of ordinary folks just got up and voted to take out the trash, and by God their will be done. If we don't remove the cancerous tumors now, they will regrow and regroup and in our weakened state it will be GAME OVER.
    Ignatius TeamDepends , Dec 16, 2016 9:43 AM
    One of the slickest, most corrupt urban renewal projects in history, or at least in NYC history.

    Don't ask me, ask "Lucky Larry."

    http://www.ae911truth.org/news.html

    Crash Overide Luc X. Ifer , Dec 16, 2016 10:04 AM
    The sad part is they are spinning this as election tampering when in fact there was none, some decent human beings found out the truth of how corrupt, evil, and treasonous these people are and wanted the American public to know.

    You can tell they are desperate now, I just hope the law enforcement community is ready to uphold their oath.

    MFL5591 IridiumRebel , Dec 16, 2016 10:14 AM
    False testimony to Congress on NSA surveillance programs [ edit ]

    Excerpt of James Clapper's testimony before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence

    On March 12, 2013, during a United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence hearing, Senator Ron Wyden quoted the keynote speech at the 2012 DEF CON by the director of the NSA, Keith B. Alexander . Alexander had stated that "Our job is foreign intelligence" and that "Those who would want to weave the story that we have millions or hundreds of millions of dossiers on people, is absolutely false From my perspective, this is absolute nonsense." Senator Wyden then asked Clapper, "Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?" He responded "No, sir." Wyden asked "It does not?" and Clapper said "Not wittingly. There are cases where they could inadvertently, perhaps, collect, but not wittingly." [30]

    When Edward Snowden was asked during his January 26, 2014 TV interview in Moscow what the decisive moment was or why he blew the whistle, he replied: "Sort of the breaking point was seeing the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, directly lie under oath to Congress. Seeing that really meant for me there was no going back." [31]

    This is the man reponsible for the newest lie to the American people. Are you serious?

    Mr Pink asteroids , Dec 16, 2016 9:21 AM
    When lying could end up costing hundreds of billions of dollars and many human lives it is called fraud
    JRobby Mr Pink , Dec 16, 2016 9:32 AM
    A new definition of war crimes has presented itself for several years now.

    Day 53 - Where is Eric Braverman?

    Mike Masr , Dec 16, 2016 9:39 AM
    This asshole jack off obozo wants to start WW3 with Russia for Soros and all his globalist neocon pals BEFORE he leaves office. His pals shoveled out way too much money to get that dirty corrupt, crooked pig Hillary elected. The anti-Trump street protests, riots, burning, pillaging and looting didn't work. The recount directed by the Hillary stooge Jill Stein actually got Trump more votes so this didn't work. So now we go with "fake news" accusations against Russia and Putin. The assholes in our goverment pushing this theme are the dirty fucking crooks we voted against by voting for Donald Trump. They won't go down without a fight. So today at 2:15PM ET Obozo will do his best to get the actual war with Russia on deck!!!

    The war mongering neocons won't stop until we have literally minutes to live. Russia has underground facilitities for 70% of the citizens in the Russian Federation. In the US only the so-called elites have some underground place to hide. Like that would save them anyway as it would be delayed death from Cobalt bombs. We peons and serfs will simply be vaporized immediately into non-existance. Obozo and his minions and handlers know this and don't give a fuck.

    Obozo and those around him are insane and believe that a nuclear war with Russia is winnable. The truth is that the world will not even be fit for human life after a full scale nuclear, chemical and biological exchange. Who thinks it stops at nuclear? Russia inherited the WMD arsenal of the Soviet Union. There are enough chemical and biological weapons in the Russian Federation to kill everyone on earth twenty times.

    DirtySanchez , Dec 16, 2016 9:31 AM
    During the days of the Cold War, I generally respected and believed the American press and many of our politicains.

    For the past 25 years, I don't respect or believe the American press or any politician.

    I honestly believe the Russian government and press is more credible and responsible than anything in this country.

    Donald Trump literally gave me my country back.

    Gadfly , Dec 16, 2016 9:43 AM
    This is real simple. Obama and Hillary got their asses kicked by Putin in the Ukraine, Crimea, and Syria because Putin was honest and acted out of integrity and real concern for his people, and Obama and Hillary were evil and pathological liars and up to no good, and acted out of a lust for power, control over others, and stealing their resources. And now the two pathetic losers want revenge. And this is their vile attempt at trying to get it. We're laughing at you Hillary and Obama. You are a disgrace to your country and the human race.
    BitchezGonnaBitch Gadfly , Dec 16, 2016 10:18 AM
    You must remember something here - we laid it on for Vlad / Serg. Our governments made it so easy for them to play the white knights, they didn't even need to try. Russian administration is just like any other - the machine - but we fucked up so tragically bad in our foreign policy conduct that just going against the unilateral actions of US / NATO / UN has won Russians major support in Western societies, sick to the back teeth of the media game BS.

    Our elites came to believe that the world is theirs. That they can take what they want. Citizenry hasn't been best pleased due to cognitive dissonance ("shining house on the hill" =/= 500k dead Iraqis "worth it"). Enter the Russians: central admin personnel = expert level 120, conservative social values, non-interventionist foreign policy, always stressing legality / due process. They showed us up. Simple as. They were the first to dare point at our naked emperors.

    They also have guns. Lots of guns, and big ones too. We will never really fight them head on - we wouldn't stand a chance. Not with their society coalescing around the govt, and ours hating the guts out of our elites. We'd get stomped.

    Phillyguy , Dec 16, 2016 9:39 AM

    To quote Joseph Goebbels "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." There are several things going on. MSM and deep state were counting on a Hillary Clinton victory and continued US bellicose posturing against Russia. The deep state is also apoplectic about the military debacle in Syria. The ministry of propaganda- corporate media (owned by 6 large corporations; Link: www.wakingtimes.com/2015/08/28/the-illusion-of-choice-90-of-american-media-controlled-by-6-corporations ) has been saturating the airwaves and social media with ongoing stories about Russian "hacking" which are probably nonsense. A far more likely scenario is this "hacking" was carried out by people with intimate knowledge of Hillary Clinton's background, her email correspondence and location of servers where this information was stored/archived, such as people in the FBI, CIA, DHS or State Dept. These hacked messages were then forwarded to Judicial Watch, WikiLeaks or contacts in Russia or China to cover their tracks.
    This might be of interest-
    Former NSA Officer – CIA Lying About Russians Hacking DNC By Jim W. Dean Dec 14, 2016; Link: www.veteranstoday.com/2016/12/14/former-nsa-officer-cia-lying-about-russians-hacking-dnc

    Bottom line is that fierce battles are going on between completing economic factions who run the US. Both groups are pursuing increasingly reckless and bellicose foreign policies which are likely to lead to direct military confrontations with Russia and China.

    See:

    http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/12/16/pers-d16.html ; www.globalresearch.ca/u-s-foreign-policy-and-the-electoral-college-vote-...

    az_patriot , Dec 16, 2016 9:49 AM
    I'm a cyber security professional with over 30 years experience and several certifications. Hackers with apparent Russian ties (not necessarily the Russian government) have been involved in global hacking efforts for many years. So have the Chinese. So has everyone else, including the US.

    None of this may be true at all, because hackers that know what they're doing never leave a trail behind. EVER. And if they do leave a trail, it's almost always a false flag -- which means that what you think you see is not actually where it came from. It's highly unlikely that sophisticated hackers connected with the Russian government would be stupid enough to leave anything behind that identified who they were or where they operated from.

    I'm calling BS on this whole thing, for two reasons. One -- the "election" wasn't hacked, the DNC was -- and their extremely dirty laundry aired. We now know for certain that the Democrats are a bunch of liars, thieves, and hooligans that could care less about the country. And two -- the politicization of this by Obama is nauseating. The likelihood that anyone knows for certain that the Russian government was behind it is about zero or less.

    Jack Offelday , Dec 16, 2016 9:44 AM
    Yesterday, Julian Assange emphatically stated on Sean Hannity's radio show that the Russians had absolutely no involvement in the Wikileaks hacks. I'll believe Assange before the Obama administration or US media shills. Assange has never been proven wrong.
    dexter_morgan , Dec 16, 2016 9:57 AM
    is the fake news (MSM) covering this at all, or just the propaganda from CIA?
    mary mary dexter_morgan , Dec 16, 2016 10:56 AM
    The Associated Press and the New York Times are repeating, word for word, whatever CIA and CIA-in-Chief says, and then all Vatican-controlled newspapers are printing the AP and NYT articles. Big dose of CIA in my local newspaper today, and yesterday, and every day since, at least, Merrimack College pointed the way toward The One True Propaganda, with its junior-professor-of-how-Hollywood-and-TV-portray-overweight-people's omniscient and omnipotent list of "Fake News Sites". Still waiting for the Pope to endorse this list: maybe when Rome Freezes Over.
    Braindonor1 , Dec 16, 2016 9:59 AM
    The article nails an important point. The purpose of this exercise is to sabotage any Trump attempts for a rapprochement with Russia. Peace with major powers is bad for business and Obama's Zionist masters need war to advance their one world government plans.

    Obama knows no moral compass and will do anything, say anything, to get the treats from his masters that a faithful lap dog believes it deserves.

    Dilluminati , Dec 16, 2016 10:02 AM
    Some of the racist quotes here I can't uptick, that said it was classic Obama from the trump speech telling EVERYONE in advance what he was going to do military wise. That is disapointing. Lets assume that China, Russia, and many other capable state actors did hack Hillary's server? Lets go the route of occums razor and assume that as a truth. That does not excuse the behavior and sheer stupidity of:

    Setting up an illegal server anyway, AFTER hillary requested and was denied a phone like the POTUS.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/emails-show-nsa-rejected-hillary-clinton-req...

    Emails show NSA rejected Hillary Clinton's request for secure smartphone

    So let us start here! Keep in mind she lost numerous devices, the stupid cunt kept loosing her phones and misplacing them.

    Then Hillary hell bent on having her own private communication system circumvents the DOS and sets up her own! At the point where that decision was made there was no longer any attack against the United States of America but instead an attack against a politician leaking state level data on a non-secure media. If anyone should be held accountable it should be Hillary despite INTENT, yes Hillary.

    But it gets better folks!

    Then we have the DNC and Weiner hacks, and the DNC and the RNC are not actual offices of government, There is no fucking .gov address behind the DNC or GOP. The nice lady who runs the local GOP isn't a vetted government employee and used some poor habits in her handling of data, she was ignorant of a BCC and the security of doing so. (to her credit she learned quickly) *** side note

    And then finally there was Weiners emails. These emails were on a non-government device/computer and seemed to have been traversed by yahoo. So you have these stupid fucking people doing the following: Using Yahoo, DNC, and Gov systems utilizing the same passwords. BUT IT GETS BETTER

    Yahoo is using a MD5 hash for it's security! https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2016/12/15/yahoo-breach-ive-closed-my-a...

    So now a phishing attack at one account podesta becomes a swiss cheese attack as numerous vectors are exploited, did the Russians hack weiner and put the emails on his device? It is with password complexity, password expiration, and non-passowrd reuse that government can ensure that you don't use the same password on Yahoo that you use at .gov sites. It is by using multi-factor authentication and geo location that a .gov account can be authenticated and authorized.

    But what we have is a bunch of assholes who mishandled the peoples data or governmnet data and it was never their personal data! It was either the data of the united states in which case Hillary should be fucking charged or it was not and she is a stupid fucking victim like the other billion or so yahoo hacks.

    So now we got Obama just like Trump said, telling the world what we are going to do before we do it for optimal results.. lets tell russia in advance.. we will attack at noon...for what has been characterized as yoga emails on non-government systems by the attorney general.

    This is why I hate the elites, this is why I never needed Russia to do anything to votes against these incompetent and ridiculous assholes.

    As Obama leaves offce remember that this observation is concise and made from an educated and unbiased persepctive of handling government data.

    The echo cjhamber that Obama lives in has become as insular as that of Hillary. And damn these people for their confusion of conviction with fact. And finally.. we beat the democrats in PA the good old fashioned way.. we were grassroots and not astro-turf.

    ***** The local GOP website was being cyber-squated when I volunteered, an email of so from me on blacklisting it and there ads would not have shut them down, but it would have hit them in the pocket and caused monetary disruption, they released the expired domain and stopped squatting, the local head of the GOP, defintly not .gov but "GOP" was being blocked by email systems because she would send out GOP emails to an email list with 100 or so recipients and the spam filters thought it was spam or a virus. So I explained to her how to use BCC tools, and our communication improved. I didn't want my email shared with everyone anyway! But the DNC and GOP ain't fucking government.. at best these people are like televangelists which is like hollywood for ugly people.

    I can say this, I have an ENORMOUS respect for the local GOP, I have come to like many of them. I don't agree with them on everything but never has so few, worked so hard, to empower so many more to volunteer and win an election. And to their credit shown the right way changed, they didn't piss and moan.

    Resistance Is Hope Dilluminati , Dec 16, 2016 10:44 AM
    Good observations, sir. People like you are the reason ZH is so useful for enlightenment.

    I should add that if Hillary was claiming to lose her phone, then Hillary probably wasn't losing her phone all the time. She was probably periodically destroying it to destroy evidence. Burn phones or burners are a common technique among criminals to minimize the evidence available if/when they get caught.

    smacker , Dec 16, 2016 10:04 AM
    Looks to me like Obola and his cabal are trying to cause as much friction as possible with Russia before he leaves office.

    This garbage allegation about Putin being personally involved in hacking the US election, the recent announcement of supplying more weapons to terrorists in Syria, recent wild allegations of Russian genocide in Syria (whilst ignoring Syrian people waving and cheering when the SAA arrived in Allepo) and threats to begin a cyberwar are all designed to do this.

    Obola has become a dangerous liability.

    MrBoompi , Dec 16, 2016 10:31 AM
    Obama has acted like a CIA employee for 8 years. He lied to get into office and he's lied ever since, just like the CIA teaches its employees to do. The CIA is not bound by US or international law and they could give a shit about our Constitution, our laws, or our elections, as long as their preferred candidate gets in of course. Are we currently any better than the Nazis? Conquering other countries is the same regardless if you do it covertly or not, regardless of how many lies you say or not. These people must be stopped. Unfortunately it might take mass civil unrest to bring the changes we need. Stealing the election from Trump and handing it to a criminal like Clinton may be the spark. Let's hope there are enough people left with integrity and intelligence in DC to do the right thing.
    dltff-ya , Dec 16, 2016 10:32 AM
    There is no concept of a open courtroom to decide contentious technical issues like. This . Cozy bear, whatever bear
    'more than i can' bear. A jury of fair minded people can decide when a good adversarial courtroom encounter occurs.
    I would like to see Trey Gowdy defending Putin against whatever CIA stooge they send up. Obama has a lot of gall to complain about hacking when Hillary, Podesta, and the run DNC gang was so careless that a very amateur hacking/phishing effort would be sufficient to do this break in. Then there is the assertion that some disgruntled democratic people leaked the whole works- from the inside- being mad at Hillary over Bernie I guess.

    If the US wants as gentlemen agreement not to read each others mail, maybe we could pursue that but hacking Putin and sending NGO's to undermine him, the numerous color revolutions from George Soros in Ukraine, Georgia, ... make it seem to me that Putin is the aggrieved party here, now being threatened by Obama personally. Everybody snoops on everybody. Israel, Russia, US and the five eyes, China, ... but when it gets personal like this Putin Obama threat thing, we could cross a line, like an obscure assassination of the Austrian Archduke by some Serbian did. Putin is a serious fellow and not somebody to threaten without consequences. We may think he sees it as just posturing, and we better hope it stops right there. If the Clinton mob can't win, they may decide to bring the house down on everybody.

    your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
    dltff-ya , Dec 16, 2016 10:41 AM
    http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/questions-electors-russian-hacking...

    Interesting points about the alleged hacking.

    dexter_morgan , Dec 16, 2016 10:44 AM
    cia

    http://hotair.com/archives/2016/12/16/senate-homeland-chair-cia-denied-m...

    mary mary , Dec 16, 2016 11:05 AM
    Obama: "I am, of course, not speaking about the real, live Vladimir Putin. I am speaking about our CIA cardboard-cutout caricature of Vladimir Putin. We ALWAYS have a number of cardboard-cutouts in stock, of various people, to blame for whatever goes wrong next.
    Handful of Dust , Dec 16, 2016 11:07 AM
    Assange on WikiLeaks: 'Our Source Is Not the Russian Government'

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/bea2e062-22ac-3d8b-85d4-d8514d5d4efc/assang...

    Yes We Can. But... , Dec 16, 2016 11:09 AM
    "....while Russian foreign ministry spox Maria Zakharova accused "Western media" of being a "shill" and a "mouthpiece of various power groups ", and added that "it's not the general public who's being manipulated," Zakharova said. " the general public nowadays can distinguish the truth . It's the mass media that is manipulating themselves .""

    Can you effin believe such a statement made by the Russian gubmint - and that it is true ?

    az_patriot , Dec 16, 2016 11:35 AM
    This whole affair screams one thing and one thing only: politics. And dirty, childish, Democrat politics at that. COULD the Russian government have hacked the DNC? Sure, anything is possible. Is it likely? NO. Government-sponsored hackers don't leave telltale signs as to who they are, they leave false flags and a trail of breadcrumbs that lead nowhere or to places they want you to think the hack came from. Anyone smart enough to hack the DNC isn't going to do anything to reveal who they are. Not even accidentally.
    dlfield , Dec 16, 2016 11:32 AM
    A) Just why the hell would U.S. "Intelligence" be briefing NBC news?

    B) Next, we will be blaming space aliens for "hacking" the election.

    The horse has spoken. ;-)

    [Dec 15, 2016] Making apparently pro-Russia, anti-China choices it looks like a divide and rule strategy.

    Dec 15, 2016 | marknesop.wordpress.com
    et Al , December 13, 2016 at 6:34 am
    So Tillerson, ex-Oil cheese & apparently 'pro-Russian', is nominated USDoS honcho by Trump.

    On the other hand we have Trump trolling China over Taiwan. In this case, it to me looks more like asymmetric diplomacy or 'hybrid warfare' as others may call it, as the US cannot take on China financially, Trump's strategy is to threaten to unpick all those things that China holds dear, such as the 'One China' policy to push Beijing out of its comfort zone and try and destabilize its decision making. An interesting strategy that won't work.

    But, by making apparently pro-Russia, anti-China choices it looks like a divide and rule strategy. The US cannot take on both Russian and China, and it has been China that has been backing Russia solidly politically and economically against the West's threats. By offering sanctions relief, Washington would expect something in return maybe distancing itself from China The thing is, not only have the sanctions done quite a bit of damage, but how is lifting them actually that useful any more now that (yet again) a threat from the outside has made Russia carry out fundamental changes it should have already made before (developing domestic produce industry etc.) and even sabotaging those nascent industries for western imports? In short, if it is Trump's strategy, too little too late.

    I think though that a strategy of opportunistic disruption would continue. What I would like to see from Trump is a rolling back of NATO and removing US nukes from Europe permanently in return for a new nuclear arms agreement and a de-escalation on the continent. What exactly does Washington get from a riled up EU and its constant squealing for US support but without pay up? None as far as I can see. Hopefully this is NATO's last hurrah.

    marknesop , December 13, 2016 at 8:39 pm
    Washington cannot offer sanctions relief without coming out into the open as the EU's puppetmaster. Although we know that to be true, not everyone does, or not everyone will stipulate to it, and the sanctions imposed by Washington as purely American are harmless. It is the EU's sanctions which cause trade damage, and as you accurately point out, many of those markets will never again reach their former potential. I imagine there would be a prompt return to trade with Europe if EU sanctions were lifted, but quite a few people have lost their taste for European products considering what false friends the Europeans have turned out to be, and Russia likely fears their spinelessness would bring new sanctions at Washington's bidding. I don't think European sales to Russia will return to their previous levels, perhaps ever, and Russia will always have a backup plan in future so that loss of European products will not hurt it.
    Chinese American , December 14, 2016 at 8:33 am
    Many people in China feel that Trump trolling China over Taiwan is not a bad thing. At least, maybe it will finally knock away the illusions about America that many in the government still have. (There are plenty of those illusions, in part because the generation of Chinese currently between 40 and 65, overall, are probably the most shall we say "psychologically disadvantaged" toward the West.

    [Dec 15, 2016] Anti Russia stance as EU institutions official policy

    Dec 15, 2016 | marknesop.wordpress.com
    et Al, December 13, 2016 at 6:39 am
    Meanwhile, the Russian foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, said Moscow was fed up of calls from the US to halt the fighting. "We are tired of hearing this whining from our American colleagues in the current administration," he told journalists.
    Moscow Exile , December 13, 2016 at 8:42 am
    Lavrov also voiced his displeasure with the EU yesterday: Lavrov notes Moscow is aware of EU's guide on statements concerning Russia

    "I think it is secret to no one if I say that we know about written instructions in the European Union as to how each country, including candidates to join it, should speak publicly at any mention of Russia," the diplomat said.

    "It is written there that it is an absolute must for all these countries to pronounce as mantra the terms 'annexation of Crimea', 'occupation of Donbass' and so on," he said. "It seems that this instruction is binding," he added.

    The kreakl with whom I have to work told me yesterday in all seriousness that Lavrov is only foreign minister because he does everything Putin tells him to do.

    He must think that a minister of state should act independently of and contrary to the wishes of the chief executive of the administration of the state.

    That's what he must think they do in the Golden West.

    [Dec 15, 2016] French forgot how mercilessly they bombed cilians in Lybi and who created ISIS

    Dec 15, 2016 | marknesop.wordpress.com
    Patient Observer , December 13, 2016 at 9:36 am

    We live in a sea of lies. Per NPR this morning – French officials are demanding that Russia stop the intense bombing of the huge masses of civilians seeking shelter in the last remaining rebel areas in Aleppo. They demand that a humanitarian corridor 5 kilometers wide be created for their escape [where to, I wonder] protected by NATO/EU troops. The barbarity of the Russians and Syrians are is simply impossible to describe per the report.

    NPR and other MSM channels have adopted a relatively clever strategy – they simply pass along reports from important sounding organizations like the Observatory for Human Rights while ignoring any alternative information sources. They sort of learned their lesson from the WMD fiasco – don't manufacture the lie, let someone else do it. So the MSM is simply a component in the supply chain of lies.

    et Al , December 13, 2016 at 12:13 pm
    Moon of Alabama: MSM Create #Fakenews Storm As Rebel Aleppo Vanishes
    http://www.moonofalabama.org/2016/12/-msm-create-fakenews-storm-as-rebel-aleppo-vanishes.html

    I have not ever experienced a #fakenews onslaught as today. Every mainstream media and agency seems to have lost all inhibitions and is reporting any rumor claim regarding east-Aleppo as fact.

    Consider this BBC headline and opener:

    Aleppo battle: UN says 82 civilians shot on the spot

    Syrian pro-government forces have been entering homes in eastern Aleppo and killing those inside, including women and children, the UN says.

    The UN's human rights office said it had reliable evidence that in four areas 82 civilians were shot on sight.

    1. A UN human rights office does not exists. What the BBC means is the Office of the U.N. High Commissioner of Human Rights (OHCHR). That commissioner is the Jordanian Prince Zeid Ra'ad Al Hussein, a Hashemite educated in the UK and U.S. and a relative of the Jordanian dictator king. That is relevant to note as Jordan is heavily involved in the supporting the "rebels" against the Syrian government.

    2. The office has not "said" that "82 civilians were shot" or other such gruesome stuff. It said that there were "sources" that have "reports" that such happened. From its press statement today:

    Multiple sources have reports that tens of civilians were shot dead yesterday in al-Ahrar Square in al-Kallaseh neighbourhood, and also in Bustan al-Qasr, by Government forces and their allies, including allegedly the Iraqi al-Nujabaa armed group .
    ####

    More at the link.

    #FFakeNews! #FMSM!

    et Al, December 13, 2016 at 1:02 pm
    Groaning Man: International concern over claims of chemical weapon attack in Syria
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/13/international-concern-over-claims-of-chemical-weapon-attack-in-syria?google_editors_picks=true

    At least 93 reportedly killed and hundreds injured near Palmyra, with witnesses saying many child victims suffocated

    The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) is seriously concerned about claims that at least 93 people were killed by a gas attack in central Syria when airstrikes hit a cluster of five villages.

    Up to 300 people were also reported to have been injured in the strikes on Monday morning around 130 miles west of the city of Palmyra, which was retaken from Syrian forces by the Islamic State group. Witnesses to the attacks say that none of those who died had blast injuries

    The high death toll is not consistent with the spate of chlorine gas attacks across Syria in recent years, which have killed scores of people in total but have not caused mass casualties at this scale.

    Photographs purportedly taken after the attacks show rows of children lying on the ground. All appear to be dead and foam is apparent near the nose of one young boy.

    The images resemble those taken in the aftermath of an attack that killed more than 1,300 people in the suburbs of Damascus in August 2013, which the United Nations said was 'indisputably' caused by sarin gas. On that occasion the US, UK and France blamed the Assad regime. The UN said the sarin used had probably come from regime stockpiles
    ####

    So it didn't take so long after all. ISIS/ISIL/DAESH/Whatever can kill as creatively as they wish and the Pork Pie News Networks will consistently report is as being done 'by Assad'. ISIS forced them in to cellars then gassed them, only to have 'sources' present it as an

    [Dec 15, 2016] Russia must remain alert

    "These libertarians, isolationists and realists see an opportunity to pull back America's commitments around the world, spend less money on foreign aid and "nation-building," curtail expensive military campaigns and troop deployments and intervene militarily only to protect American interests."( The Hill ) But will they prevail?
    Notable quotes:
    "... First of all, I don't think that President Putin is foolish enough to believe the rhetoric. He is a serious political person and has been through too many lies and deceptions from Washington in many different forms to be naive about some nice sunny words, even if the Secretary General of NATO Jens Stoltenberg starts purveying friendly sounds about Russia after Trump's election. ..."
    "... But I think it is very important that Russian leaders have in mind the ultimate agenda of this patriarchy in the United States that is one of war, and Donald Trump's mission is to prepare United States for that war and to win. And that is no nice prospect. Russia should not in the slightest instant forget that threat. ..."
    "... Thus, take the advantage that you can from this deception, but do not be deceived that Donald Trump's America is in any sense a true friend of Russia. People in Washington still care about the interests of the American hegemony and that's it. ..."
    Dec 15, 2016 | www.defenddemocracy.press

    First of all, I don't think that President Putin is foolish enough to believe the rhetoric. He is a serious political person and has been through too many lies and deceptions from Washington in many different forms to be naive about some nice sunny words, even if the Secretary General of NATO Jens Stoltenberg starts purveying friendly sounds about Russia after Trump's election.

    Of course, it is intelligent for Russia to gain as much advantage from this apparently friendly period of Trump's presidency as possible. Perhaps it is reasonable to ask for taking US and NATO troops away from the borders of Russia and Belarus. They will do that, I have no doubt.

    But I think it is very important that Russian leaders have in mind the ultimate agenda of this patriarchy in the United States that is one of war, and Donald Trump's mission is to prepare United States for that war and to win. And that is no nice prospect. Russia should not in the slightest instant forget that threat.

    Take advantage of this time, build the Russian economy as you have been doing, show the door to the neoliberal economists, take them out of the ministries, and put genuine Russians who want to do good for the Russian economy in those positions.

    The Central Bank of Russia needs to be renationalized. That's an urgent priority for Russia's economy. The reason I think it hasn't been done so far is that the political power of those American-linked oligarchs up until now has been strong enough to make it very difficult for Russia to clean up house. I think we are already going in that direction.

    The development of indigenous Russian non-GMO agriculture needs to go forward regardless of what the EU does with their sanctions. Russia needs to prohibit the import of food from the European Union.

    Also, Russia should leave the World Trade Organization. This organization was created by Washington in the interests of American and European multinationalism and not in the interests of free and fair trade.

    Russia should free itself from undesirable NGOs as it has been doing – and watch the anger of Washington who use those NGOs to do so-called "democracy projects".

    Thus, take the advantage that you can from this deception, but do not be deceived that Donald Trump's America is in any sense a true friend of Russia. People in Washington still care about the interests of the American hegemony and that's it.

    [Dec 15, 2016] December 13, 2016 at 6:34 am

    Dec 15, 2016 | marknesop.wordpress.com
    So Tillerson, ex-Oil cheese & apparently 'pro-Russian', is nominated USDoS honcho by Trump.

    On the other hand we have Trump trolling China over Taiwan. In this case, it to me looks more like asymmetric diplomacy or 'hybrid warfare' as others may call it, as the US cannot take on China financially, Trump's strategy is to threaten to unpick all those things that China holds dear, such as the 'One China' policy to push Beijing out of its comfort zone and try and destabilize its decision making. An interesting strategy that won't work.

    But, by making apparently pro-Russia, anti-China choices it looks like a divide and rule strategy. The US cannot take on both Russian and China, and it has been China that has been backing Russia solidly politically and economically against the West's threats. By offering sanctions relief, Washington would expect something in return maybe distancing itself from China The thing is, not only have the sanctions done quite a bit of damage, but how is lifting them actually that useful any more now that (yet again) a threat from the outside has made Russia carry out fundamental changes it should have already made before (developing domestic produce industry etc.) and even sabotaging those nascent industries for western imports? In short, if it is Trump's strategy, too little too late.

    I think though that a strategy of opportunistic disruption would continue. What I would like to see from Trump is a rolling back of NATO and removing US nukes from Europe permanently in return for a new nuclear arms agreement and a de-escalation on the continent. What exactly does Washington get from a riled up EU and its constant squealing for US support but without pay up? None as far as I can see. Hopefully this is NATO's last hurrah.

    marknesop , December 13, 2016 at 8:39 pm
    Washington cannot offer sanctions relief without coming out into the open as the EU's puppetmaster. Although we know that to be true, not everyone does, or not everyone will stipulate to it, and the sanctions imposed by Washington as purely American are harmless. It is the EU's sanctions which cause trade damage, and as you accurately point out, many of those markets will never again reach their former potential. I imagine there would be a prompt return to trade with Europe if EU sanctions were lifted, but quite a few people have lost their taste for European products considering what false friends the Europeans have turned out to be, and Russia likely fears their spinelessness would bring new sanctions at Washington's bidding. I don't think European sales to Russia will return to their previous levels, perhaps ever, and Russia will always have a backup plan in future so that loss of European products will not hurt it.
    Chinese American , December 14, 2016 at 8:33 am
    Many people in China feel that Trump trolling China over Taiwan is not a bad thing. At least, maybe it will finally knock away the illusions about America that many in the government still have. (There are plenty of those illusions, in part because the generation of Chinese currently between 40 and 65, overall, are probably the most shall we say "psychologically disadvantaged" toward the West.

    [Dec 15, 2016] Exclusive: Top US spy agency has not embraced CIA assessment on Russia hacking – sources

    Dec 15, 2016 | uk.reuters.com

    The overseers of the U.S. intelligence community have not embraced a CIA assessment that Russian cyber attacks were aimed at helping Republican President-elect Donald Trump win the 2016 election, three American officials said on Monday.

    While the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) does not dispute the CIA's analysis of Russian hacking operations, it has not endorsed their assessment because of a lack of conclusive evidence that Moscow intended to boost Trump over Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton, said the officials, who declined to be named .

    An ODNI spokesman declined to comment on the issue.

    "ODNI is not arguing that the agency (CIA) is wrong, only that they can't prove intent," said one of the three U.S. officials. "Of course they can't, absent agents in on the decision-making in Moscow."

    The Federal Bureau of Investigation, whose evidentiary standards require it to make cases that can stand up in court, declined to accept the CIA's analysis – a deductive assessment of the available intelligence – for the same reason, the three officials said


    marknesop says: December 13, 2016 at 6:17 am
    But all of them, without exception, accept that the Democrats' server was hacked by Russia, and that it was Russia who leaked the information through Wikileaks, and that Russia also hacked the Republicans but declined to release incriminating or influential material it had in its possession. There is, to my knowledge, no evidence of this, either.

    [Dec 15, 2016] Russia must remain alert

    "These libertarians, isolationists and realists see an opportunity to pull back America's commitments around the world, spend less money on foreign aid and "nation-building," curtail expensive military campaigns and troop deployments and intervene militarily only to protect American interests."( The Hill ) But will they prevail?
    Notable quotes:
    "... First of all, I don't think that President Putin is foolish enough to believe the rhetoric. He is a serious political person and has been through too many lies and deceptions from Washington in many different forms to be naive about some nice sunny words, even if the Secretary General of NATO Jens Stoltenberg starts purveying friendly sounds about Russia after Trump's election. ..."
    "... But I think it is very important that Russian leaders have in mind the ultimate agenda of this patriarchy in the United States that is one of war, and Donald Trump's mission is to prepare United States for that war and to win. And that is no nice prospect. Russia should not in the slightest instant forget that threat. ..."
    "... Thus, take the advantage that you can from this deception, but do not be deceived that Donald Trump's America is in any sense a true friend of Russia. People in Washington still care about the interests of the American hegemony and that's it. ..."
    Dec 15, 2016 | www.defenddemocracy.press

    First of all, I don't think that President Putin is foolish enough to believe the rhetoric. He is a serious political person and has been through too many lies and deceptions from Washington in many different forms to be naive about some nice sunny words, even if the Secretary General of NATO Jens Stoltenberg starts purveying friendly sounds about Russia after Trump's election.

    Of course, it is intelligent for Russia to gain as much advantage from this apparently friendly period of Trump's presidency as possible. Perhaps it is reasonable to ask for taking US and NATO troops away from the borders of Russia and Belarus. They will do that, I have no doubt.

    But I think it is very important that Russian leaders have in mind the ultimate agenda of this patriarchy in the United States that is one of war, and Donald Trump's mission is to prepare United States for that war and to win. And that is no nice prospect. Russia should not in the slightest instant forget that threat.

    Take advantage of this time, build the Russian economy as you have been doing, show the door to the neoliberal economists, take them out of the ministries, and put genuine Russians who want to do good for the Russian economy in those positions.

    The Central Bank of Russia needs to be renationalized. That's an urgent priority for Russia's economy. The reason I think it hasn't been done so far is that the political power of those American-linked oligarchs up until now has been strong enough to make it very difficult for Russia to clean up house. I think we are already going in that direction.

    The development of indigenous Russian non-GMO agriculture needs to go forward regardless of what the EU does with their sanctions. Russia needs to prohibit the import of food from the European Union.

    Also, Russia should leave the World Trade Organization. This organization was created by Washington in the interests of American and European multinationalism and not in the interests of free and fair trade.

    Russia should free itself from undesirable NGOs as it has been doing – and watch the anger of Washington who use those NGOs to do so-called "democracy projects".

    Thus, take the advantage that you can from this deception, but do not be deceived that Donald Trump's America is in any sense a true friend of Russia. People in Washington still care about the interests of the American hegemony and that's it.

    [Dec 15, 2016] December 13, 2016 at 6:34 am

    Dec 15, 2016 | marknesop.wordpress.com
    So Tillerson, ex-Oil cheese & apparently 'pro-Russian', is nominated USDoS honcho by Trump.

    On the other hand we have Trump trolling China over Taiwan. In this case, it to me looks more like asymmetric diplomacy or 'hybrid warfare' as others may call it, as the US cannot take on China financially, Trump's strategy is to threaten to unpick all those things that China holds dear, such as the 'One China' policy to push Beijing out of its comfort zone and try and destabilize its decision making. An interesting strategy that won't work.

    But, by making apparently pro-Russia, anti-China choices it looks like a divide and rule strategy. The US cannot take on both Russian and China, and it has been China that has been backing Russia solidly politically and economically against the West's threats. By offering sanctions relief, Washington would expect something in return maybe distancing itself from China The thing is, not only have the sanctions done quite a bit of damage, but how is lifting them actually that useful any more now that (yet again) a threat from the outside has made Russia carry out fundamental changes it should have already made before (developing domestic produce industry etc.) and even sabotaging those nascent industries for western imports? In short, if it is Trump's strategy, too little too late.

    I think though that a strategy of opportunistic disruption would continue. What I would like to see from Trump is a rolling back of NATO and removing US nukes from Europe permanently in return for a new nuclear arms agreement and a de-escalation on the continent. What exactly does Washington get from a riled up EU and its constant squealing for US support but without pay up? None as far as I can see. Hopefully this is NATO's last hurrah.

    marknesop , December 13, 2016 at 8:39 pm
    Washington cannot offer sanctions relief without coming out into the open as the EU's puppetmaster. Although we know that to be true, not everyone does, or not everyone will stipulate to it, and the sanctions imposed by Washington as purely American are harmless. It is the EU's sanctions which cause trade damage, and as you accurately point out, many of those markets will never again reach their former potential. I imagine there would be a prompt return to trade with Europe if EU sanctions were lifted, but quite a few people have lost their taste for European products considering what false friends the Europeans have turned out to be, and Russia likely fears their spinelessness would bring new sanctions at Washington's bidding. I don't think European sales to Russia will return to their previous levels, perhaps ever, and Russia will always have a backup plan in future so that loss of European products will not hurt it.
    Chinese American , December 14, 2016 at 8:33 am
    Many people in China feel that Trump trolling China over Taiwan is not a bad thing. At least, maybe it will finally knock away the illusions about America that many in the government still have. (There are plenty of those illusions, in part because the generation of Chinese currently between 40 and 65, overall, are probably the most shall we say "psychologically disadvantaged" toward the West.

    [Dec 15, 2016] Anti Russia stance as EU institutions official policy

    Dec 15, 2016 | marknesop.wordpress.com
    et Al, December 13, 2016 at 6:39 am
    Meanwhile, the Russian foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, said Moscow was fed up of calls from the US to halt the fighting. "We are tired of hearing this whining from our American colleagues in the current administration," he told journalists.
    Moscow Exile , December 13, 2016 at 8:42 am
    Lavrov also voiced his displeasure with the EU yesterday: Lavrov notes Moscow is aware of EU's guide on statements concerning Russia

    "I think it is secret to no one if I say that we know about written instructions in the European Union as to how each country, including candidates to join it, should speak publicly at any mention of Russia," the diplomat said.

    "It is written there that it is an absolute must for all these countries to pronounce as mantra the terms 'annexation of Crimea', 'occupation of Donbass' and so on," he said. "It seems that this instruction is binding," he added.

    The kreakl with whom I have to work told me yesterday in all seriousness that Lavrov is only foreign minister because he does everything Putin tells him to do.

    He must think that a minister of state should act independently of and contrary to the wishes of the chief executive of the administration of the state.

    That's what he must think they do in the Golden West.

    [Dec 15, 2016] Putin Valday 2016 speeech

    Dec 15, 2016 | marknesop.wordpress.com
    Vladimir Putin's Valdai Speech at the XIII Meeting (Final Plenary Session) of the Valdai International Discussion Club (Sochi, 27 October 2016)

    As is his usual custom, Russian President Vladimir Putin delivered a speech at the final session of the annual Valdai International Discussion Club's 13th meeting, held this year in Sochi, before an audience that included the President of Finland Tarja Halonen and former President of South Africa Thabo Mbeki. The theme for the 2016 meeting and its discussion forums was "The Future in Progress: Shaping the World of Tomorrow" which as Putin noted was very topical and relevant to current developments and trends in global politics, economic and social affairs.

    Putin noted that the previous year's Valdai Club discussions centred on global problems and crises, in particular the ongoing wars in the Middle East; this fact gave him the opportunity to summarise global political developments over the past half-century, beginning with the United States' presumption of having won the Cold War and subsequently reshaping the international political, economic and social order to conform to its expectations based on neoliberal capitalist assumptions. To that end, the US and its allies across western Europe, North America and the western Pacific have co-operated in pressing economic and political restructuring including regime change in many parts of the world: in eastern Europe and the Balkans, in western Asia (particularly Afghanistan and Iraq) and in northern Africa (Libya). In achieving these goals, the West has either ignored at best or at worst exploited international political, military and economic structures, agencies and alliances to the detriment of these institutions' reputations and credibility around the world. The West also has not hesitated to dredge and drum up imaginary threats to the security of the world, most notably the threat of Russian aggression and desire to recreate the Soviet Union on former Soviet territories and beyond, the supposed Russian meddling in the US Presidential elections, and apparent Russian hacking and leaking of emails related to failed US Presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton's conduct as US Secretary of State from 2008 to 2012.

    After his observation of current world trends as they have developed since 1991, Putin queries what kind of future we face if political elites in Washington and elsewhere focus on non-existent problems and threats, or on problems of their own making, and ignore the very real issues and problems affecting ordinary people everywhere: issues of stability, security and sustainable economic development. The US alone has problems of police violence against minority groups, high levels of public and private debt measured in trillions of dollars, failing transport infrastructure across most states, massive unemployment that either goes undocumented or is deliberately under-reported, high prison incarceration rates and other problems and issues indicative of a highly dysfunctional society. In societies that are ostensibly liberal democracies where the public enjoys political freedoms, there is an ever-growing and vast gap between what people perceive as major problems needing solutions and the political establishment's perceptions of what the problems are, and all too often the public view and the elite view are at polar opposites. The result is that when referenda and elections are held, predictions and assurances of victory one way or another are smashed by actual results showing public preference for the other way, and polling organisations, corporate media with their self-styled "pundits" and "analysts" and governments are caught scrambling to make sense of what just happened.

    Putin points out that the only way forward is for all countries to acknowledge and work together on the problems that challenge all humans today, the resolution of which should make the world more stable, more secure and more sustaining of human existence. Globalisation should not just benefit a small plutocratic elite but should be demonstrated in concrete ways to benefit all. Only by adhering to international law and legal arrangements, through the charter of the United Nations and its agencies, can all countries hope to achieve security and stability and achieve a better future for their peoples.

    To this end, the sovereignty of Middle Eastern countries like Iraq, Syria and Yemen should be respected and the wars in those countries should be brought to an end, replaced by long-term plans and programs of economic and social reconstruction and development. Global economic development and progress that will reduce disparities between First World and Third World countries, eliminate notions of "winning" and "losing", and end grinding poverty and the problems that go with it should be a major priority. Economic co-operation should be mutually beneficial for all parties that engage in it.

    Putin also briefly mentioned in passing the development of human potential and creativity, environmental protection and climate change, and global healthcare as important goals that all countries should strive for.

    While there's not much in Putin's speech that he hasn't said before, what he says is typical of his worldview, the breadth and depth of his understanding of current world events (which very, very few Western politicians can match), and his preferred approach of nations working together on common problems and coming to solutions that benefit all and which don't advantage one party's interests to the detriment of others and their needs. Putin's approach is a typically pragmatic and cautious one, neutral with regards to political or economic ideology, but one focused on goals and results, and the best way and methods to achieve those goals.

    One interesting aspect of Putin's speech comes near the end where he says that only a world with opportunities for everyone, with access to knowledge to all and many ways to realise creative potential, can be considered truly free. Putin's understanding of freedom would appear to be very different from what the West (and Americans in particular) understand to be "freedom", that is, being free of restraints on one's behaviour. Putin's understanding of freedom would be closer to what 20th-century Russian-born British philosopher Isaiah Berlin would consider to be "positive freedom", the freedom that comes with self-mastery, being able to think and behave freely and being able to choose the government of the society in which one lives.

    The most outstanding point in Putin's speech, which unfortunately he does not elaborate on further, given the context of the venue, is the disconnect between the political establishment and the public in most developed countries, the role of the mass media industry in reducing or widening it, and the dangers that this disconnect poses to societies if it continues. If elites continue to pursue their own fantasies and lies, and neglect the needs of the public on whom they rely for support (yet abuse by diminishing their security through offshoring jobs, weakening and eliminating worker protection, privatising education, health and energy, and encouraging housing and other debt bubbles), the invisible bonds of society – what might collectively be called "the social contract" between the ruler and the ruled – will disintegrate and people may turn to violence or other extreme activities to get what they want.

    An English-language transcript of the speech can be found at this link .

    [Dec 15, 2016] The US along with many of its allies had a hand in all of the examples of irredeemable evil Powers named

    Notable quotes:
    "... "The weirdest speech to me was the one by the US representative which built her statement as if she is Mother Theresa herself. Please, remember which country you represent. Please, remember the track record of your country." ..."
    "... "I shouldn't want to remind this Western trio [France, US, UK] , which has called for today's meeting and carried it out in a raised voice, about your role in the creation of ISIS as a result of US and UK intervention in Iraq", Churkin said. ..."
    "... "I don't want to remind these three countries about their role in unwinding the Syrian crisis, which led to such difficult consequences, and let terrorists spread in Syria and Iraq. ..."
    "... Russia's public positions are getting progressively less 'diplomatic' and more direct. The west has been inviting Russia to take a swing with deliberately insulting language for a long time, but Russia is beginning to answer in kind. I smell a lifelong enemies situation, and that's unfortunate because Russia cannot be said to have not tried repeatedly to keep things civil. ..."
    Dec 15, 2016 | marknesop.wordpress.com
    Moscow Exile , December 14, 2016 at 5:27 am
    What a fucking slag!

    (ad hominem fully intended!)

    In response, Vitaly Churkin advised his colleague from the United States to remember the actions of her own country.

    "The weirdest speech to me was the one by the US representative which built her statement as if she is Mother Theresa herself. Please, remember which country you represent. Please, remember the track record of your country."

    "I shouldn't want to remind this Western trio [France, US, UK] , which has called for today's meeting and carried it out in a raised voice, about your role in the creation of ISIS as a result of US and UK intervention in Iraq", Churkin said.

    "I don't want to remind these three countries about their role in unwinding the Syrian crisis, which led to such difficult consequences, and let terrorists spread in Syria and Iraq.

    Moscow Exile , December 14, 2016 at 5:36 am
    The above translated Churkin quotes are from CNN.

    Churkin's actual words re the Mother Theresa wannabe, namely "Outraged" Powers:

    "Особенно странным мне показалось выступление представителя Соединенных Штатов, которая построила свое выступление, как будто она мать Тереза", - заявил он.

    Especially strange to me appeared the speech by the representative of the United States, who constructed her statement as though she were Mother Theresa", he stated.

    [You see, Denis Denisovich uses the subjunctive mood, unlike those CNN dickheads! :-)]

    marknesop , December 14, 2016 at 6:17 am
    Russia's public positions are getting progressively less 'diplomatic' and more direct. The west has been inviting Russia to take a swing with deliberately insulting language for a long time, but Russia is beginning to answer in kind. I smell a lifelong enemies situation, and that's unfortunate because Russia cannot be said to have not tried repeatedly to keep things civil.
    Lyttenburgh , December 14, 2016 at 10:06 am

    Mother Samantha – the patron saint of the moderate jihadis

    Fern , December 14, 2016 at 10:28 am
    Classic, Lyttenburgh, very droll. I hope Churkin was able to negotiate a pay increase or some sort of bonus for himself for having to sit through and reply to Samantha Power's rants. For a professional diplomat it must be beyond painful to try and work with her and her ilk.
    Moscow Exile , December 14, 2016 at 10:43 am
    I wonder if she prays for the souls of those innocents, about whose estimated half-a-million lives, sacrificed as a result of US sanctions imposed by the USA on Iran, were infamously considered by her fellow countrywoman as a "price well worth it" as regards the furtherance of the the policies of the "Exceptional Nation"?
    Fern , December 14, 2016 at 10:57 am
    Moscow Exile, yes, it's interesting what examples she picks as the epitome of evil that stains consciences – Halabja, Rwanda, Srebrenica etc. All of them non-western. How about Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Agent Orange (the gift that's still giving today), the saturation bombing of Cambodia, the extraordinary destruction wrecked on North Korea, the genocides of South and Central America carried out by those trained and shielded by the US and so on and so on – is she unaware of the history of her own country?
    Northern Star , December 14, 2016 at 11:32 am
    Halabja, ****Rwanda,*** Srebrenica etc. All of them non-western.

    Ummmm but the USA through the machinations of susan rice ..the corrupt whore/lackey of Bubba had a hand in Rwanda

    and let's not forget the French connection:

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-38152791

    Fern , December 14, 2016 at 3:00 pm
    Indeed, Northern Star, the US along with many of its allies had a hand in all of the examples of 'irredeemable evil' Powers named. My point was that she chose examples where the immediate perpetrators were not western actors.
    Jen , December 14, 2016 at 1:18 pm
    Not to mention of course that 7-year-old boy her motorcade knocked over and killed while she was racing to a photo-shoot in Cameroon. The child's family did get compensation but you wonder how much guilt Samantha Power feels over an incident that would never have occurred had she not been so eager to meet and be photographed with former Boko Haram victims just so she could have bragging rights among the Washington social set.

    [Dec 15, 2016] MSM fight agains new media is somewhat similar to papacy fight with Reformation

    Dec 15, 2016 | marknesop.wordpress.com
    On watching the "Keiser Report " on the imperial blowback against independent media, it strikes me that the MSM are as to the Papacy as the new media are to Martin Luther:

    https://www.rt.com/shows/keiser-report/370114-episode-max-keiser-1005/

    [Dec 14, 2016] Opinion Putin didnt win this election for Trump. Hillary Clinton did

    Notable quotes:
    "... That those scheming Russians were clever enough to hack into voting machines, but not clever enough to cover their tracks? ..."
    "... It's strangely reminiscent of the days of the Red scare, minus the Reds. ..."
    "... The displaced machinists in the industrial midwest, whose votes helped put Trump in the White House, believe that free trade deals are responsible for their economic woes and they never trusted Clinton's turn against the TPP. ..."
    "... was Clinton's campaign for you, bereft of principle and pathologically concerned with "optics" at the expense of substance. ..."
    "... They were so confident of their inevitable victory that they wrote off the old industrial states in favor of luring upscale suburbanites who normally vote Republican. They hoped they would be so revolted by Trump that they would vote for her, but they didn't. ..."
    "... It's panic over loss of control. They aren't pondering ways to make things better for the American people. Not in the Beltaway. Not the duoploy. The handwringing is strictly about control and pasification of the population. ..."
    "... The long, long list of dodgy-donors to The Clinton Foundation told large numbers of Democrat voters everything they needed to know about a potential Hillary Clinton presidency. This, and the 'knifing' of Bernie, sealed her fate. ..."
    "... America will never, and should never, forgive Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. ..."
    "... At last! Someone on this newspaper talking common sense. ..."
    "... Absurd! She was a rich white hawkish neolib who has no one but herself and the Democratic Pary to blame for the terrible loss which will seal the supreme court for years. Face facts!! She couldn't even beat Trump and was widely viewed as a fraud. ..."
    "... The person who lost the Presidential Election in USA is Hillary Clinton. She, like Blair is a war monger. I, if I had a vote, would not have voted for her. ..."
    "... If she had been elected we would have had bigger and better wars in the Middle East. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan never ended despite Obama calling the Iraq war a "strategic mistake". One that continued for another eight years. To those two we have added Syria and Lybia. ..."
    "... " ...reflecting on how baseless our self-image as the world's greatest democracy is. " The rest of the world has known that for decades. ..."
    "... I don't understand how accurate reporting by Wikileaks of politicians' emails is considered 'interference' with the US elections. To me, it seems helpful. If a US newspaper made the report, they would probably get a prize. If a foreign organization made the report, so what? People abroad are free (I hope) to comment on US matters, and people in the US are free to read it or not. ..."
    "... Perhaps they mean the Guardian's politics. Identity politics has been thoroughly rejected and instead of learning from the experience, Guardian has been electing to throw more of the same tactics, except louder ..."
    "... Americans across the political spectrum are happy to use Putin to distract them from reflecting on how baseless our self-image as the world's greatest democracy is. ..."
    "... You're absolutely right. Putin is the boogeyman for every ill, real or purported, of his own society, and when the American political system and its institutions prove to be broken, Putin gets to be the boogeyman for that, too. What a powerful man! He must be pleased. ..."
    "... This is an ultimate truth because it explains why Merkel will not be elected. These days Putin is in full control of the world and is responsible for everything. ..."
    "... Let's thank Hillary for that. There is a very good news: on the 20th January we'll cut all Saudi supply channels to the IS and kill all the bastards within 2 months. ..."
    "... In the modern world it is enough to do nothing to be a good man, eg if Bush, Blair, Obama and Clinton didn't create ISIS, the world would be a much better place. You do not even need to be smart to understand this. ..."
    "... It's crazy. Even if the Russian hacking claims are legitimate, the leaks still revealed things about the Democrats that were true. It's like telling your friend that their spouse is cheating on them, and then the spouse blaming you for ruining the marriage. ..."
    "... The Clinton campaign spent like drunken sailors, on media. This is a new role for the media giants that took care of Clinton's every need, including providing motivational research and other consultants. ..."
    "... The ongoing scenario that now spins around Putin as a central figure is a product of "after shock media". ..."
    "... To weave fictional reality in real time for a mass audience is a magnum leap from internet fake news. This drama is concocted to keep DNC from going into seclusion until the inauguration. ..."
    "... Doug Henwood is absolutely correct. This obsession with the supposed foreign interference is baseless. All the real culprits operate within our own system. ..."
    "... Trump's embrace of Russia and decision to end the neocon-neoliberal agenda of regime change skewer two of the corporate establishment's cash cows - arms sales to the numerous conflicts in the Middle East initiated by the corporate cabal, and arms sales to NATO and all the new post Cold War NATO members to continue the buildup of armaments on Russia's borders." ..."
    "... I'd love to be pleasantly surprised, and I note that already Trump's campaign has put down TWO odious political dynasties, AND the TPP -- all very healthy developments. ..."
    "... The only thing that kept the contest somehow close was the unprecedented all-media fear campaign against Trump. ..."
    "... It was always Hillary's election to lose and she lost it simply because she was not to be trusted. Her very public endorsement by gangster capitalist Jay-Z told you all you needed to know about who she represented. ..."
    "... I was dubious before, but I'm now actively concerned. This crop of Democrats and their deep state cohorts are unhinged and dangerous. They see me and my families' lives as an externality in their eventual war with Russia. As Phyrric a victory as there could possibly be. They are psychotic; not only waging countless coups and intelligence operations abroad, but now in plain sight on American soil. The mainstream media seems to invoke the spirit of Goebbels more vividly with each passing day. Their disdain and manipulation of the general populace is chilling. They see us not as people to be won-over, but as things to be manipulated, tricked and coerced. Nothing new for politicians (particularity the opposition) - but the levels here are staggering. ..."
    "... January couldn't come soon enough - and I say that as strong critic of Trump. ..."
    "... A good article to counterbalance the reams of rubbish we are hearing in the US election post-mortem. Anyone who had neural activity should have known that when you steal the candidacy, you certainly won't get the votes. Clinton effectively handed the election to Trump by not having the humility, humanity and honesty to admit defeat by Benie Sanders. ..."
    "... There's always the possibility of course, that the US establishment realised Clinton's blatant warmongering wasn't 'good for business'. ..."
    "... So maybe, they thought, we can get the Russkies 'on side', deal with China (ie. reduce it to a 'client state'/ turn it into an ashtray) - and then move on Russia and grab all those lovely resources freed up by global warming.... ..."
    "... Only her campaign volunteers knew, her message to the public was "dont vote for Trump" which translates to, I could lose to him, vote for me! ..."
    "... The Podesta emails confirmed what many people already suspected and knew of Hillary and her campaign. Those who were interested in reading them had to actually look for them, since MSM was not reporting on them. It's not as if an avid MSNBC or CNN watcher was going to be exposed. ..."
    "... It's hilarious how the major Left outlets (Washington Post) are now telling it's readers how Russia is to blame for people voting against Hillary due to the Podesta emails, when they didn't even report on the emails in the first place. ..."
    "... EVERYTHING about the system all halfway decent people detest, is summed up in the figure of Hillary Clinton. ..."
    "... Like Donald said, she had 'experience', but it was all BAD 'experience'. ..."
    "... she is a frail, withered old woman who needs to retire - def the wrong democrat choice, crazy -- Berni.S would have won if for them - he is far more sincere ..."
    "... "The displaced machinists... believe that free trade deals are responsible for their economic woes and they never trusted Clinton's turn against the TPP. But that was Clinton's campaign for you, bereft of principle and pathologically concerned with "optics" at the expense of substance." ..."
    "... This argument is as asinine as the one the author opposes. It was a collusion of events that led to this result, including the failure of both parties to adapt to an evolving economic and social climate over decades. The right wing hailing the collapse of liberalism as a result of decades of liberal mismanagement conveniently forget their own parties have held the reins for half that time, and failed just as miserably as the left.... ..."
    "... It's quite bizarre to see "progressives" openly side with the military industrial complex, which is threatened by a president elect weary of more warfare. ..."
    "... It's to be expected from career politicians like McCain who is kicking and screaming, but it's shameful to see supposed liberally-minded people help spread the Red Scare storyline. ..."
    "... Obama has behaved dreadfully, first he or his office gets one of its poodles namely MI6 to point the finger at Putin re cyberwar, which was swiftly followed by the International Olympic Committee looking at Russia for 2012 Olympic games, the elections in the US and the Democrats CIA coming out with unsubstantiated nonsense (funny how they never like, providing collaborative evidence - on this or anything that supposedly Russia has done) then there is Syria, and Obama and the Democrats were the cheerleader for regime change, because they have been out manoeuvred in that sphere. All of it in less than a week. ..."
    "... If Obama, the administration, and the CIA were smart they would have realised that a concerted effort to blame Putin / Russia would be seen for what it is - a liar and one of trying to discredit both the outcome of the US elections, the dislike of HRC, and her association with Wall St. - she raised more money for her campaign than Trump and Sanders put together (if the Democrats had chosen Sanders, then they would have stood a chance) and that their hawk would not be in a position to create WW111 - thank goodness. The Democrats deserved what they got. ..."
    "... This organ of the liberal media (no scare quotes required - it is socially liberal and economically neoliberal), along with many others, dogmatically supported Clinton against Sanders to the point of printing daily and ridiculous dishonesty, even going so far as to make out as if anyone who supports any form of wealth redistribution is a racist, sexist, whitesplaining dude-bro. ..."
    "... The Wikileaks emails proved the votes were rigged against Sanders, it why Debbie W Shulz had to resign ..."
    "... The election was close, and if one less thing had gone wrong for Hillary she would have won. However I think an important thing that lost her the election was identity politics. She patronized Afro-Americans and Hispanics, by tell them that because they are Trump-threatened minorities, they should vote for her. In the same vein, gays and women were supposed to vote for her. But what she was really telling these groups was that they should revel in their supposed victimhood, which was not a great message. ..."
    "... Completely agreed! The onus for defeat belongs to the Democrat party leadership as well. Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders both understood where the momentum of the election was headed before anyone else did. The election was won and lost in the white blue collar Midwest. A place that decided that diet corporatism is decidedly worse than a populist right wing extremist. ..."
    "... No one here believed the ridiculous about-face Hillary pulled on the question of the TPP. I guarantee you Bernie would have cleaned Trump's clock in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and perhaps Ohio and Iowa. ..."
    "... "Our self-image as the world's greatest democracy...." Well, speaking for myself and plenty of other Americans, I never said anything like that about us. In fact, like a lot of people I wish we would stick to our own business, quit trying to be the world's cop, and cease meddling in other countries' affairs. ..."
    "... Assuming that it really was the Russians who done it, I guess they had a better game plan than the Saudis. ..."
    "... Her 'deplorables' comment was every bit as telling as Mitt Romney's '47%'. We really needed to know about her 'public versus private positions', even if it only confirmed what everybody already knew. I am not 100% sure the system made the worst choice in raising up Donald Trump. ..."
    "... The American voters heard a steady stream of these arguments. Some may have simply ignored them. Others took them into consideration, but concluded that they wanted drastic change enough to put them aside. White women decided that Trump's comments, while distasteful, were things they'd heard before. ..."
    "... Reliance on the sanctity of racial and gender pieties was a mistake. Not everyone treats these subjects as the holiest of holies. The people who would be most swayed by those arguments never would have voted for Trump anyways. ..."
    "... Colin Powell said Clinton destroys everything she touches with hubris. Seeing as how she destroyed the democrat "blue wall" and also had low turnout which hurt democrats down the ticket I agree. ..."
    "... All this hysteria about the USA and Russia finally working together than apart doesn't help either for it appears that the [neoliberal] lefties want a perpetual war rather than peace. ..."
    "... The CIA being outraged about a foreign state intervening in an election is quite funny. They have intervened so many times, especially in Latin America, to install puppet regimes. ..."
    "... As for hacking... does anybody believe the CIA has never hacked anybody? ..."
    Dec 13, 2016 | www.theguardian.com

    Hillary Clinton was the symbol of neoliberal globalization and contept of neoliberal for common poeple (aka deplorable). That's why she lost. this is more of the first defeat of neoliberal candidate in the USA then personal defeat of Hillary. She was just a symbol, or puppet, if you wish.

    ... ... ...

    And what exactly are the claims made by these Putin-did-it stories? That were it not for Russian chicanery, Hillary Clinton would have won the popular vote by five million and not almost three million? That displaced machinists on the banks of Lake Erie were so incensed by the Podesta emails that they voted for Trump instead of Clinton? That Putin was pulling FBI director James Comey's strings in his investigation of the Clinton emails? That those scheming Russians were clever enough to hack into voting machines, but not clever enough to cover their tracks?

    It's strangely reminiscent of the days of the Red scare, minus the Reds.

    ... ... ...

    The displaced machinists in the industrial midwest, whose votes helped put Trump in the White House, believe that free trade deals are responsible for their economic woes and they never trusted Clinton's turn against the TPP. But that was Clinton's campaign for you, bereft of principle and pathologically concerned with "optics" at the expense of substance.

    They were so confident of their inevitable victory that they wrote off the old industrial states in favor of luring upscale suburbanites who normally vote Republican. They hoped they would be so revolted by Trump that they would vote for her, but they didn't.

    ... ... ...

    Of course there are questions about our voting machines. The American balloting system is a chaotic mess, with an array of state and local authorities conducting elections under a vast variety of rules using technologies ranging from old-fashioned paper ballots to sleek touch-screen devices.

    The former take forever to count, and the latter are unauditable – we can have no idea whether the counts are accurate. The whole system is a perfect example of a quote attributed (probably falsely) to Joseph Stalin: "The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything." It's not a system that inspires trust, but we barely discuss that.

    LMichelle , 14 Dec 2016 03:07

    It's panic over loss of control. They aren't pondering ways to make things better for the American people. Not in the Beltaway. Not the duoploy. The handwringing is strictly about control and pasification of the population.

    And you're shocked? I'm shocked you expected more.

    cvneuves , 14 Dec 2016 02:49
    The really amazing story about the presidential elections 2016 was actually not Clinton or Trump. It was how close the US actually got to get its first socialist, or factually rather social-democratic president. Americans are craving for more justice and equality.

    And no, Clinton does not stand for any "left values". Therefore the media favored her.

    Pu2u2skeete -> dphaynes , 14 Dec 2016 02:43
    The long, long list of dodgy-donors to The Clinton Foundation told large numbers of Democrat voters everything they needed to know about a potential Hillary Clinton presidency. This, and the 'knifing' of Bernie, sealed her fate. A reincarnated Tricky Dicky would have trounced her, too.
    poikloik098 -> Mansplain , 14 Dec 2016 03:05
    Weird in your mind only. A letter just before the election suggesting that Clinton might be indicted? And was she? Of course not. Match the letter's release with the polls at the time to see it's influence.

    Clinton's problems such as her email server were nothing compared to all the baggage that Trump carries, yet Trump's problems were blithely ignored by many because they thought Trump would make a difference.

    AveAtqueCave , 14 Dec 2016 02:19
    America will never, and should never, forgive Debbie Wasserman-Schultz.
    jmac55 , 14 Dec 2016 02:18
    At last! Someone on this newspaper talking common sense.

    For the last twenty years, (way before we even knew Putin's name) the Republican Party have promoted, fomented and instigated the most ludicrous lies and calumnies about the Democratic Party and particularly Hilary Clinton, who they quite rightly recognised as a future Democratic Presidential candidate.

    They have politicised: education, defense, Federal Parks, water, race, religion and even the air we breath in their efforts to ensure victory and to this end, they bought and paid for populist uprisings against Democratic politicians, like the now abandoned Tea Party.

    The problem was that even when Republicans were elected, they obviously couldn't keep their own nonsensical promises to their now rabid audience who no longer trusted their own elected Government.

    When Trump, a disestablishment, anti-Government candidate came along, the electorate (naively) saw a possibility of the change they have been promised.

    Of course the Russians prefer Trump over Clinton, since they can see the destruction he can cause their geopolitical adversary and Putin would say as much as he can to support Trump...errr....even though it would be counter-productive with conservative voters...but it is unlikely that he bears anywhere near the blame that the Republican Party does, who foolishly allowed their own 'attack dog' to bite them on the arse.

    I'm sorry to say that the Republican Party (and the US) has to suck this one up and admit...(to mix my hackneyed metaphors) that they've blown themselves up with their own petard!

    joanne Ward , 14 Dec 2016 02:17
    I think with hindsight Bernie Sanders is going to be blamed for dividing the Democratic Party and bolstering the Republican propaganda against the Clintons. If only we had stuck together with Clinton we wouldn't be facing the Trump disaster now. Hillary Clinton is not evil and she was very highly qualified--to paraphrase Brando, we could have had progress instead of a disaster, which is what we have now.
    sand2016 -> joanne Ward , 14 Dec 2016 02:25
    Absurd! She was a rich white hawkish neolib who has no one but herself and the Democratic Pary to blame for the terrible loss which will seal the supreme court for years. Face facts!! She couldn't even beat Trump and was widely viewed as a fraud.
    FriendlyEmpiricist -> Fred1 , 14 Dec 2016 02:28
    You fool, the Libertarian party is the largest third party in the US and they mostly take votes from the Republicans. Stop blaming third parties when their existence demonstrably helps the Democrats. Or perhaps you dream of a world where conservatives still support their third party just as much as they ever did but lefties all move in perfect lockstep? If so, it's time for a reality check.
    pacificist , 14 Dec 2016 02:14
    Up jumped Hilary Benn with the theory that Jeremy Corbyn had caused the Brexit vote. His resignation and the denunciation of 172 Labour MP's based on an "indisputable fact" that nobody believes to be true today. The person who lost the Presidential Election in USA is Hillary Clinton. She, like Blair is a war monger. I, if I had a vote, would not have voted for her.

    If she had been elected we would have had bigger and better wars in the Middle East. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan never ended despite Obama calling the Iraq war a "strategic mistake". One that continued for another eight years. To those two we have added Syria and Lybia. The west, like Russia, is dabbling in other people's wars. They have been made one hundred times worse.

    What Hillary would not have dabbled in is the industrial decline in the "Rust Belt" states. She is proposing to do nothing. So they had the prospect of no rectification at home with yet more wars abroad. No wonder they stayed at home. Hillary and Nu Labour are the same: belligerancy in the Middle East coupled with tame pussy cat against failing capitalism at home. The middle east has got total destruction from the west and total nothingness but austerity (ie more failure) as the action plan for capitalism. They are on the "same page" then!

    Jympton , 14 Dec 2016 01:48
    " ...reflecting on how baseless our self-image as the world's greatest democracy is. " The rest of the world has known that for decades.
    helenus , 14 Dec 2016 01:48
    I don't understand how accurate reporting by Wikileaks of politicians' emails is considered 'interference' with the US elections. To me, it seems helpful. If a US newspaper made the report, they would probably get a prize. If a foreign organization made the report, so what? People abroad are free (I hope) to comment on US matters, and people in the US are free to read it or not. It could be argued that only reporting democratic emails is distorting the truth: I'd say its a step towards the whole truth. I welcome all disclosures that are pertinent to a good decision by US voters.
    PostTrotskyite -> helenus , 14 Dec 2016 01:53
    When did hacking become legal?
    helenus -> PostTrotskyite , 14 Dec 2016 02:57
    ask Snowden
    DMontaigne -> 14122016 , 14 Dec 2016 02:26
    The Guardian helped Trump? How many Americans actually read the Guardian?
    Mansplain -> DMontaigne , 14 Dec 2016 02:46
    Perhaps they mean the Guardian's politics. Identity politics has been thoroughly rejected and instead of learning from the experience, Guardian has been electing to throw more of the same tactics, except louder
    Pu2u2skeete , 14 Dec 2016 01:42
    Citizens of the UK are by far the most heavily surveilled in the western world. This has been the case since long before the ubiquitous introduction of CCTV cameras.
    HomoSapienSapiens , 14 Dec 2016 01:35

    Americans across the political spectrum are happy to use Putin to distract them from reflecting on how baseless our self-image as the world's greatest democracy is.

    You're absolutely right. Putin is the boogeyman for every ill, real or purported, of his own society, and when the American political system and its institutions prove to be broken, Putin gets to be the boogeyman for that, too. What a powerful man! He must be pleased.

    Only, the thing is, the American political system and its institutions - American democracy - weren't undermined overnight. It took several decades and it was done by Americans who weren't so keen on democracy. Can't fob that off on Putin, try as they might.

    If American power takes a big fat fall like Humpty Dumpty, don't look to Vladimir Putin, look in a fucking mirror. That's where you'll find the culprit.

    PreziDonald -> PostTrotskyite , 14 Dec 2016 01:28
    This is an ultimate truth because it explains why Merkel will not be elected. These days Putin is in full control of the world and is responsible for everything.
    PreziDonald , 14 Dec 2016 01:23
    Let's thank Hillary for that. There is a very good news: on the 20th January we'll cut all Saudi supply channels to the IS and kill all the bastards within 2 months.
    PreziDonald -> shampacanada , 14 Dec 2016 01:43
    In the modern world it is enough to do nothing to be a good man, eg if Bush, Blair, Obama and Clinton didn't create ISIS, the world would be a much better place. You do not even need to be smart to understand this.
    Your Donald.
    From where you'd rather be.
    With love.
    Lafeyette , 14 Dec 2016 01:13
    It's crazy. Even if the Russian hacking claims are legitimate, the leaks still revealed things about the Democrats that were true. It's like telling your friend that their spouse is cheating on them, and then the spouse blaming you for ruining the marriage.
    Althnaharra , 14 Dec 2016 01:05
    The Clinton campaign spent like drunken sailors, on media. This is a new role for the media giants that took care of Clinton's every need, including providing motivational research and other consultants.

    The ongoing scenario that now spins around Putin as a central figure is a product of "after shock media". Broadcast media bounced America back and forth from sit-com to gun violence for decades, giving fiction paramount value. To weave fictional reality in real time for a mass audience is a magnum leap from internet fake news. This drama is concocted to keep DNC from going into seclusion until the inauguration.

    judyblue , 14 Dec 2016 01:04
    Doug Henwood is absolutely correct. This obsession with the supposed foreign interference is baseless. All the real culprits operate within our own system.
    Chukcha Rybak , 14 Dec 2016 01:04
    What happened to Guardian today ? A reasonable story. Unreal feel
    AveAtqueCave , 14 Dec 2016 00:51
    Maybe, in four years, Trump's administration can oversee a secure election. Unlike the Obama folks, who seem to make a calamity out of any project bigger than making a sandwich.
    Pu2u2skeete -> AveAtqueCave , 14 Dec 2016 00:59
    Obama still has access to lethal drones, watch your back.
    TheMediaSux , 14 Dec 2016 00:49
    This hullabaloo really highlights the disdain the establishment has for the American voter. They thought they had it tied up. They thought they had pulled one over on the American people. They are not interested in what the voter actually wants.

    And this raises questions about why our servicemen and women are making sacrifices. The establishment story-line talks about our brave soldiers dying so we can have free elections. Or something like that. The establishment does not care about free and fair elections. In fact, this hullabaloo should have demonstrated to everybody that the establishment does not respect or accepts the results of elections that don't go their way.

    AveAtqueCave -> TheMediaSux , 14 Dec 2016 00:53
    Look at WikiLeaks. They died so Hillary could present her ever-so-clever "tick-tock on Libya" and make fools think she's a constructive foreign policy force.
    AveAtqueCave , 14 Dec 2016 00:48
    Trump blows, but I'm relieved incompetent Hillary Clinton and her gang of bloodthirsty bunglers aren't going to be in the white house.

    Debbie Wasserman-Schultz should have shown more respect to her party's membership.

    Pu2u2skeete -> AveAtqueCave , 14 Dec 2016 00:55
    H. Clinton would have started a war against Russia in Syria come January; and war against Russia in The Ukraine shortly after. Trump could yet end civilization as we know it: thereagain the CIA might 'JFK' him early doors before he's able to.
    DogsLivesMatter -> Pu2u2skeete , 14 Dec 2016 01:25
    Trump might start a war with Iran. He will have the backing of Saudi Arabia, Israel and Jordon. That frightens me just as much if not worse.
    Pu2u2skeete -> DogsLivesMatter , 14 Dec 2016 01:30
    Fully agree with you. Trump's victory is certain to have incalculable consequences for life on earth. I believe he will give Netenyahu the green light to use tactical nuclear weapons against Iranian nuclear and military facilities. I am no fan of Trump.
    Pu2u2skeete , 14 Dec 2016 00:43
    American 'exceptionalism;' The World's Policeman; The greatest country on earth. Descriptions believed and espoused by the USA. So Exceptional is America that it claims a God-given right to interfere with or sabotage political parties, foriegn governments (democratically-elected or not) and sovereign states anywhere it chooses. Now we have the hilarious spectacle of a historically blood-drenched CIA (Fake News Central) squawking and squealing completely fabricated nonsense about Kremlin interference in Trump's election victory. Tell that to the tens of millions slaughtered in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq and the many other nations and people's around the globe who have had first hand experience of American Exceptionalism. You could not make it up..
    Fred Lunau -> Pu2u2skeete , 14 Dec 2016 01:43
    Well said. Sad but true.

    cvneuves , 14 Dec 2016 00:41
    Arguably, Clinton and the DNC themselves showed very little respect for democracy, as we know from leaks. And now they are whining because of a democratic outcome they don't like.

    We should discuss two things:

    - the content of the mails
    - and the ethical question: did the hacker, whoever it is, did democracy rather a service than a disservice? From when on is a piece of information so valuable that its origins don't matter anymore?

    Media, at least in times when msm still had some moral clout, often relied in their investigative journalism on source which by themselves were not necessarily ethically bona fide - but the public interest, the common good benefited by the information.

    Had Clinton won the election and we only found out now about the trickery that aided in her success we would have a major dilemma. We would have to have endless discussions now about her legitimacy.

    LibertineUSA , 14 Dec 2016 00:26
    I am one who firmly believes that Clinton lost this election because of Clinton's and the DNC's ineptitude and hubris.

    But that doesn't mean the Russians weren't running a psy-ops campaign of fake news stories and misinformation about Clinton and this election on Facebook.

    Which was more responsible for Clinton's loss? Most probably Clinton's ineptitude but the fake news campaigns on Facebook had some effect. It needs to be addressed...

    diddoit -> LibertineUSA , 14 Dec 2016 00:35
    But hadn't Hillary made it personal by saying Trump was Putin's puppet etc?
    She even refused to state whether she'd seek to impose a no-fly zone over Syria; this despite leading Generals telling her it would mean going to war with Russia and Syria.

    Given all that, it's hardly surprising the Russian Duma broke into spontaneous applause upon the confirmation of her defeat. She'd very much cast herself as the enemy of Russia in the campaign.

    LibertineUSA -> diddoit , 14 Dec 2016 01:12
    With the naming of Rex Tillerson, a close business, and personal, friend of Putin, to be Secy. of State I am not sure the argument can be made that she was wrong in her assessment.
    Mizzentop , 14 Dec 2016 00:21
    This article is absolutely right. Trump was not a good candidate and for him to beat Clinton should be setting alarm bells ringing in Democrat HQ. The left though does have an entrenched culture of deluding itself and convincing itself that its a victim of things beyond its control. That lack of self awareness and inability to be brutally honest with itself is a major reason why the left wins many fewer elections than the left. It is also why there are never shock wins for the Democrats or Labour because they always assume too much. The Tories and Republicans are very good at understanding their weaknesses and mitigating them to win elections.
    Aaron Aarons -> Mizzentop , 14 Dec 2016 00:41
    It's absurd to consider Clinton and the mainstream Democrats as part of "the Left". Even the best of the Democrats are generally more on the Right than on the Left, in that they are pro-capitalist and defend the national interests of U.S. imperialism. Add to that their almost unanimous support for the settler colony called "Israel" and there's very little leftism to be found among them.
    JamesHeartfield -> ID8701745 , 14 Dec 2016 00:31
    Cunning of Putin to go back in time and persuade the framers of the US constitution to institute an electoral college, so that he could put his own candidate in place all those hundreds of years later.
    No. Both candidates fought an election under the same rules. In the run up to the vote, Hillary's spokesmen often argued that even if the vote was close, they had the electoral college sewn up. She has nobody to blame but herself.
    ID5073867 , 14 Dec 2016 00:11
    There are plenty of villains who contributed to the electoral downfall of HRC, mostly, though, it's HRC who is primarily responsible, with a big assist from an arrogant & politically inept DNC. Hillary won a bare majority of women, plus the average income of Trump voters exceeded that of Hillies' supporters. Then all the groundwork for the deplorables was laid by Bill, who got rid of Glass-Steagell. Too much is being made of the machinist from Erie & the deplorables generally & if the Dems don't take a serious look at themselves we'll have Agent Orange for 8 rather than 4 deplorable years.
    freeandfair -> S , 14 Dec 2016 01:52
    For goodness sake, it is not foreign governments , it is information. With advance of social media and internet it became so much harder to control the information that gets out.
    That is where we are in a post-propaganda world. You are not only receiving your government approved daily portion of brainwashing but propaganda and brainwashing and information from various sources, all with their various interests. It is your job a s an individual to decide what to believe. You can't put the jinni back in the box.
    cvneuves , 14 Dec 2016 00:10
    It is all about a narrative to suit the agenda. Had Trump outspent Clinton 2:1 he would now be reviled as the candidate of arms industry, pharmaceuticals and big banks. Had Clinton defeated him it would be celebrated as a successful setback for the aforementioned industries; the intelligence of the voters would have been praised. But then supposedly, Clinton was more supported by disadvantaged groups, albeit they then also would be disadvantaged with regards to their education.

    It will always end up in absurdity. However, the notion that "Putin" (never with first name, or Mr, preferably pronounced "Poot'n") decided the US presidency is, interesting.

    Usually the issue simply is, crap candidate, crap result.

    diddoit , 14 Dec 2016 00:09
    Had Sanders been the candidate and had he lost to Trump, I doubt very much he'd have started all this blaming the Russians nonsense.

    Ultimately, Hilary had terrible trustworthiness ratings from nearly 25 years in frontline politics; every shortcoming ruthlessly exploited along the way by her and her husband's political opponents. Ignoring all that historic baggage(dating back to the early '90s) as irrelevant and blaming defeat on the Russians makes everyone supporting that theory look equally absurd.

    MayorHoberMallow , 14 Dec 2016 00:08
    In the 2016 Presidential election, in the 49 States other than California, Trump won the popular vote and enough electoral votes to win the election.
    In California, the most populous State in America, the popular vote was so overwhelmingly in favor of Hillary Clinton that she ended up winning the overall popular vote.
    The electoral college is working exactly as the Founding Fathers intended.
    cvneuves -> ID8701745 , 14 Dec 2016 01:08

    No he didn't. Check your facts and try again.

    He did, in fact Trump is 600,000 votes ahead of Clinton without California.

    Trump 62,916,237 - California 3,916,209 = 59,000,028
    Clinton 65,758,070 - California 7,362,490 = 58,395,580

    Amazing, the difference a fact check can make, isn't it? Thanks for alerting me to a fact check.

    Zacky Olumba , 13 Dec 2016 23:58
    In Shakespeare's book "Julius Caesar" the dictator was told not to go to the Capitol where he will be murdered. His wife warned him, the soothsayer warned him but he ignored it. Caesar's wisdom was consumed in confidence...confidence that he will be crowned king, confidence that all Romans (most stupid people then) loved him, and confidence that those who surround him are his 'friends.' He adamantly went to the Capitol and was murdered.

    Clinton ignored most rural areas and I totally agree with the writer along this line "They were so confident of their inevitable victory that they wrote off the old industrial states in favor of luring upscale suburbanites who normally vote Republican." Clinton and her team paid dearly for it just like Caesar did. Blaming Russian for the loss is like "You made me do it."

    Simon Speed , 13 Dec 2016 23:53
    In the UK, Rupert Murdoch accesses a Prime Minister as readily as any government minister and wields at least as much influence. At least he is open and honest about this. Similar oligarchs exert their power more discretely. Murdoch's an Australian born US citizen (for business reasons) with a truly global empire.

    A country's big rich have always ruled it's politics. Imperial powers have intervened in their spheres of influence . But now the big rich are international and, it seems, 1st world electorates are getting a taste of what 3rd world people have become used to.

    What strikes me is the reluctance of the US political elite (including Obama) to intervene, even when there's a suspicion of vote rigging. The right of the rich and powerful to control the electoral process (as they have long done) trumps the national-interest (US v. rival powers) side of politics.

    It's a confusing globalized world.

    LastNameOnTheShelf , 13 Dec 2016 23:41
    Hilary Clinton won the popular vote. More people voted for her. What is the deal with the electoral college? How is it possible to have such a huge discrepancy between the two. What is the point of blaming the candidate when they can lose while winning?

    And what is the point of blaming the candidate for their campaign when large numbers of Americans are prepared to believe the most random bullshit? What did you want her to do, lie more often? Because apparently, that's what it takes.

    86753oh9 -> LastNameOnTheShelf , 13 Dec 2016 23:52
    this does a good job of explaining how the electoral college system works. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXnjGD7j2B0 ->
    MayorHoberMallow -> LastNameOnTheShelf , 14 Dec 2016 00:09
    From my comment above... "In the 2016 Presidential election, in the 49 States other than California, Trump won the popular vote and enough electoral votes to win the election.
    In California, the most populous State in America, the popular vote was so overwhelmingly in favor of Hillary Clinton that she ended up winning the overall popular vote.
    The electoral college is working exactly as the Founding Fathers intended."
    Keith Schoose -> LastNameOnTheShelf , 14 Dec 2016 00:20
    The election is decided by Electoral Votes. Everyone including Hillary knew that. Complaining that she won the popular vote while losing in the Electoral College would be similar to the loser of a soccer match complaining they lost 1-nil even though they outshot the victor by a 6-1 margin. Whine all you want about the popular vote, it is irrelevant.

    Hillary Clinton visited Arizona in the last week of the election, while visiting Wisconsin ZERO times in the general election campaign. The trip to Arizona was a waste of time.

    She lost because she was a horrible candidate with terrible strategy. All these people bleating about "Putin" and or the "popular vote" make me laugh.

    Afterthoughtbtw -> RobertAussie , 14 Dec 2016 00:10
    With respect, you're going to have to back up some of those claims in the second paragraph and how they could apply to Russia.

    As for the first paragraph, a few things come to mind.

    Firstly, it's a huge simplification - there are things like public interest laws to be borne in mind when talking about the press having to obey the law. I don't think there is much doubt that this was in the public interest. I mean what Clinton did with the email server was actually illegal. If someone hacked into a mob boss' computer, got evidence of his/her crimes, and leaked them to the press, would you criticise the hacker or the mob boss?

    Secondly, how on earth was this selectively released to favour one side? How do you favour one side over the other when you only have information on one side. You are literally saying that you shouldn't report on one side's wrongdoings if you can't find anything wrong about the other's! If these are genuine - which absolutely no-one to do with Clinton has denied - then that is all there is to it. Reality isn't partisan.

    Or are you talking about how it was released? You mean dumped en masse onto Wikileaks? How was that showing bias in any way? I just don't understand what you are trying to claim here.

    Finally this comment makes me suspect you don't appreciate the American political climate:

    But, given the result, the section of the press that would investigate hasn't got the money or power to do so. You can be assured the Fox network would have devoted billions to the investigation had HRC won though.

    Fox News aren't the only people with money - indeed, Clinton vastly outspent Trump in the election... by roughly half a billion(!) dollars.

    JamesHeartfield -> fairviewsue , 14 Dec 2016 01:24
    O -- The Director of the CIA says it, then it must be true? Forgive me, but isn't this an organisation created to spread disinformation around the world, overthrow foreign governments, and subvert democracy? Which elections in the world has the CIA not tried to influence? Time Magazine openly boasts that the US government and agencies had a direct role in securing the election of President Yeltsin (who sold off a significant share of the country's assets under US advice, and plunged Russia into the worst recession since the 1930s). Hillary Clinton openly supported the management of the elections for the Palestine National Authority in 2006. Bill Clinton openly agitated for the overthrow of President Aristide.
    Now that the CIA's most assiduous supporters have lost office, up pops the CIA, blaming the Russians, like we were in some bad 1950s Cold War pastiche. Get real. Take responsibility for your own failures, Democrats. Time to cleanse the stables.
    hashtagthat , 13 Dec 2016 23:21
    The CIA: the organisation that brought us WMD, a Gulf war, 100,000s of deaths and the birth of ISIS. The original fake news masters.

    Highly credible.

    Mark222 , 13 Dec 2016 23:12
    Where is even the proof of Russian propaganda? It all seems to come from an "Anonymous source", without verfication I don't see how this is any more legitimate than the rest of the post truth fake news out there that people believe just because it confirms their biases.
    LastNameOnTheShelf -> Mark222 , 13 Dec 2016 23:45
    The CIA claim to know that Russian hackers leaked the Clinton campaign emails to Assange. You can, of course, disbelieve them, but they're not a random anonymous source exactly.
    Rosie423956 -> LastNameOnTheShelf , 14 Dec 2016 00:17
    Except the sources within the CIA are anonymous. The same CIA who has wrought wars, coups, interfered with elections. That CIA Anonymous source.

    This would be funny, except...oh hell, it's still funny.

    JamesHeartfield -> LastNameOnTheShelf , 14 Dec 2016 00:56
    The CIA -- Trustworthy source --
    cvneuves -> Sappho53 , 13 Dec 2016 23:17
    Putin extremely powerful man. Make regime change in Amerika without needing invasion or rebels. Soon regime change also in many Europan countries by sending copies of emails to small room in embassy of little country in London.

    You know how powerful Putin? Last week even show finger to Chuck Norris! Chuck Norris now call Putin "sir".

    James Harris -> Sappho53 , 14 Dec 2016 01:43
    Uterus or bust went bust a good while back. Give it up
    Michronics42 , 13 Dec 2016 22:50
    Thank you, Doug Henwood for pointing out what the wholly-owned corporate "pundits" choose not to divulge to coincide with their own agendas.

    Hillary was a disastrous choice for the "Democratic" party, but the vast majority of Democratic politicians were just too feckless to support Bernie Sanders, so now we have an equally terrible choice in Donald Trump.

    That Clinton and Trump even competed for the presidency is in itself an indication of just how disconnected and undemocratic U.S. politics has become.

    Moreover, as Henwood (a frequent and unsparing critic of Clinton, Inc. over the years) has pointed out both Democrats and Republicans are supporting the Russia conspiracy theory in a cowardly attempt to distract the U.S. public from the real and far more dire crisis, which is Washington's enormous political dysfunction not Russia's complicity. (Read Henwood's essay: Stop Hillary! Vote no to a Clinton Dynasty in Harper's Magazine, November 2014 - one article a month is free for reading).

    Yes, the electoral college is a ridiculous throwback to slavery which should be abolished, but its dissolution is just one of many things I'd like to see eradicated from a governing body that has long stopped representing the interests of working class Americans; unless, of course you have the influence and money for such access.

    The non-violent and powerful Black Lives Matter, Moral Mondays in North Carolina and Standing Rock protesters (reinforced by U.S. veterans and other supporters) have demonstrated that change is possible if we're carefully focused on uprooting and replacing government corruption.

    Francisco Carvajal , 13 Dec 2016 22:49
    A silly binary-it's not either Putin or Clinton but a complex conjecture. Can't we raise our intellectual level closer to the complexity of our world?
    SubjectiveSubject , 13 Dec 2016 22:46
    The West support for regimes like Israel and Saudi Arabia makes it hard to present a credible case against Putin on any issues but, rigging the election is just absurd. These days people are more clued up and know Hillary lost because she was not trusted, carried baggage and was funded by big banks. It is rather worrying that we've gone backward and Nazi propaganda tactics are the norm again.
    skiloypet , 13 Dec 2016 22:42
    There was a 50/50 chance the Democrats would take the fall from grace; both parties are out of touch with mainstream, middle-class America, it's just coincidence Trump manifested himself when he did. Neither party had a good message or a good messenger; the dark phenomenon of Trump could have come from either party, the nation was so desperate for change. Yet the GOP really maneuvered for Jeb Bush to begin with; the Democrats, with a significantly smaller field, laid their bet on Clinton. The public's rejection of both Bush and Clinton left the door open for a GOP interloper, Trump; and Clinton was pushed on the Democrats rather than Sanders.

    Even the GOP will have buyers remorse if/when they cannot temper Trump.

    Patrick Moore , 13 Dec 2016 22:34
    As someone who wanted Hilary to win, it is difficult to disagree with any of this.

    If she couldn't beat Trump - who about three times a day said something idiotic or repugnant, then she really was the wrong candidate

    Since he won Trump has actually sounded miles more sensible. I can't help feel that if he had adopted his current tone before the election that he would have won by a landslide

    samuel glover -> Herr_Settembrini , 13 Dec 2016 22:55
    "This was the strategy not because Clinton was was incompetent; it was the strategy because all available data pointed to the fact that it was working."

    What a joke.

    She had a billion dollars in her campaign fund. The money she spent on "data" was just money flushed down the sewer. (No doubt various Clinton hangers-on got very nice "consulting" fees.) She was a Democrat who publicly bragged about her devotion to **Henry Kissinger**.

    She lost to **Donald Trump**. I think even Martin O'Malley could've beaten Trump; I'm certain Sanders could. Only Hillary Clinton had the "magic" necessary to lose to a casino and real estate huckster.

    She was always a lousy candidate, and she's an incompetent politician as well. Dems can face that, face reality, or keep going as they are, in which case there won't **be** a Democratic Party before long.

    MountainMan23 , 13 Dec 2016 22:24
    Agreed. HRC, DNC and the Clintonistas are the only ones responsible for her loss. But there's more to their post-election pushback than just shifting the blame, a lot more.

    Demonizing Russia isn't just about seeking a scapegoat. Trump's embrace of Russia and decision to end the neocon-neoliberal agenda of regime change skewer two of the corporate establishment's cash cows - arms sales to the numerous conflicts in the Middle East initiated by the corporate cabal, and arms sales to NATO and all the new post Cold War NATO members to continue the buildup of armaments on Russia's borders.

    That's a lot of anticipated arms sales and a lot of every bit as anticipated political "donations" from the corporate establishment.

    amuel glover -> MountainMan23 , 13 Dec 2016 23:00
    " Trump's embrace of Russia and decision to end the neocon-neoliberal agenda of regime change skewer two of the corporate establishment's cash cows - arms sales to the numerous conflicts in the Middle East initiated by the corporate cabal, and arms sales to NATO and all the new post Cold War NATO members to continue the buildup of armaments on Russia's borders."

    That's a mighty optimistic forecast, but it's not impossible. I think Trump is likely to be a disaster, and even if he isn't, an unleashed Republican gang is a horrible thing to imagine. Still, I'd love to be pleasantly surprised, and I note that already Trump's campaign has put down TWO odious political dynasties, AND the TPP -- all very healthy developments.

    cvneuves , 13 Dec 2016 22:23
    Hillary Clinton lost because the majority of the voters were nauseated by her by her fake perma- smile which might as well have been installed by cosmetic surgery. The well rehearsed, worn-out, hollow on-message crap she spouted had zilch credibility and as much resonance. She had nothing to say to the electorate.

    That the Clinton spent about twice as much as the Trump camp in this case did not work to her favour: every appearance on tv made her lose voters.

    The only thing that kept the contest somehow close was the unprecedented all-media fear campaign against Trump.

    I have never had any doubt that that Trump would get the job. What surprised me though, is that only one in 200 eligible voters bothered with the Green's Jill Stein: they are supposedly relatively highly committed to their causes.

    Another mistake of the Clinton campaign, btw. was to focus on scandal. My experience of 45 years of campaigning tells me "scandal" does not win any campaigns.

    cvneuves -> Walter Masterson , 13 Dec 2016 22:45

    99% of the weapons in the Trump arsenal were Trumped up Hillary "scandals"

    They did not decide it. Neither did the new "sexual victim" paraded every couple of days by the Clinton camp. Scandal and counter-scandal are part of every campaign and ignored by non-committed voters.

    What did it for Trump was, that he spoke unscripted, thus came across a somewhat more genuine, and at least acknowledged the victims of de-industrialisation, for which he could not be blamed, but Clinton could. Clinton did not have anything she could present apart from "better equipped because of experience" - with an undistinguished actual record. The name Clinton can be blamed for the plight of the "rust-belt".

    Juillette , 13 Dec 2016 22:19
    Americans have paid a heavy price because of free trade deals and they want a different direction. In the last 15 years there is a noticeable difference in opportunity and wages and most of our politicians don't care. Hillary lost this because she supported most free trade and outsourcing jobs to India and China. They DNC has a chance to reform but they choose not to. I hope Bernie starts a new party and leaves the neo liberals behind. Who knows where Trump will take us but if he adds to the swamp he will be a one term president. Right now it looks like he is repaying his Wall Street fundraisers and big oil super pacs. Our politicians deserve the embarrassment for ignoring our citizens struggles.
    PennyCarter -> Juillette , 13 Dec 2016 22:25
    I mostly see your argument and respect it. However I was not aware that trump was subject to enormous support from super-pacs or Wall Street?
    Juillette -> PennyCarter , 13 Dec 2016 22:58
    Steven Mnuchin with ties to Wall Street stepped in when no one else would and fund raised for Trump. Mnuchin is picked as secretary of treasury. Big oil supported Cruz and moved to Trump with a few superpacs that Kellyanne Conway managed. Both Wall Street and energy will be deregulated. Also tax reform for corporations. He will have to follow through on new trade deals, tax on imports and immigration or he will only help the 1%. We will see if he follows through...
    samuel glover -> PennyCarter , 13 Dec 2016 23:02
    His appointments aren't those of a guy intent on keeping Wall Street at arm's length. **Three** cabinet posts to Goldman Sachs alums?!?!? C'mon.....
    Solomon Black , 13 Dec 2016 22:18
    But didn't Obama dismiss Romney's warning that Russia was a threat to America in 2012. Democrats double standard.
    Walter Masterson -> Solomon Black , 13 Dec 2016 22:31
    Short answer: no.

    Keith Schoose -> Solomon Black , 14 Dec 2016 00:57
    Short answer: Yes.

    Mauryan , 13 Dec 2016 22:18
    CIA? The one which came up with the truth about WMDs in Iraq?

    Who can trust an intelligence agency that has become a legalized criminal organization?

    I think Aliens changed the course of the election and not Putin :-)

    Patrick Moore -> Mauryan , 13 Dec 2016 22:41
    Exactly. So Goldman Sachs as well as the CIA are supporting Hilary. What's not to love about that.

    Difficult to even think of a more toxic endorsement

    MarinaAs , 13 Dec 2016 22:14
    You sir are simply, wrong! read:
    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/12/12/1609989/-It-s-the-Russian-arctic-shelf-stupid
    kritter , 13 Dec 2016 22:14
    The only person the democrats are helping with this is Putin.

    diddoit -> kritter , 13 Dec 2016 22:25
    Indeed,

    I bet in Moscow they're quite enjoying this notion Putin can simply dismiss any govt on earth by simply letting loose a few hackers and propagandists. And probably thinking if only.

    The west looks like its collectively losing its marbles. Political systems, like tastes and fashion change naturally over time. Our two party systems struggle to cope with any change, thus the bewildered politicians within these parties lash out.

    PennyCarter -> diddoit , 13 Dec 2016 22:33
    It seems the Arab spring has finally reached America
    MOTCO , 13 Dec 2016 22:11
    The US have been obsessed with the commies for so long they can't see where the new threats are coming from.
    SteveTory , 13 Dec 2016 22:09
    On November 25, 2016, the Obama administration said the results from November 8, "accurately reflect the will of the American people." The following day, the White House released another statement saying, "the federal government did not observe any increased level of malicious cyberactivity aimed at disrupting our electoral process on Election Day."
    Herr_Settembrini -> SteveTory , 13 Dec 2016 22:38
    And? Does anybody claim that any foreign power hacked the voting machines themselves?

    The claim is that Russian directed operatives hacked the DNC, etc. in an attempt to find embarrassing material that would damage Clinton's candidacy. They succeeded.

    mismeasure -> Herr_Settembrini , 13 Dec 2016 23:49
    We know about the claims. What about the evidence?
    suddenoakdeath , 13 Dec 2016 22:04
    Doug Henwood trying to beat the Bernie Sanders drum. What I heard from Bernie Sanders Townhall in Wisconsin is that people blamed illegal immigrants for their situation. Deep down inside they have been Trump supporters for a while. That is why Trump won Wisconsin.
    Wiseaftertheevent , 13 Dec 2016 22:02
    A Labour MP is claiming that Putin also fixed the Brexit vote - which also shows how people will blame anyone but themselves for losing a vote. There is not one Clinton supporter who would have complained about the result had she won the Electoral College and lost the popular vote.

    That is not to say that the system should not be changed but Democrats and/or Clintonites should not try to change it retrospectively. That would mean chaos.

    ATLcitizen7 , 13 Dec 2016 22:02
    Totally agree with this article by Mr. Henwood. If Democrats, and Republicans for that matter, want to go on a wild goose chase to blame Russians for the election outcome, with basically no hard evidence to back their claim, rather than look at the real reasons why they lost (disaffected angry citizens and not being able to compete with Trump because they chose lousy candidates) then they deserve to continue losing their future elections. So be it.
    Mystik Al , 13 Dec 2016 22:01
    If she had not spent so much time calling Trump a Misogynist while taking money from Saudi Arabia then maybe , just maybe she would have not come across as the most deceitful and toxic candidate the US has ever seen.
    NancyVolle , 13 Dec 2016 21:58
    Hillary Clinton lost Pennsylvania, Michigan & Wisconsin solely because of NAFTA & TPP. Bill & Hillary Clinton supported NAFTA. Hillary Clinton had a history of supporting TPP & Obama was actively pushing it. When Hillary Clinton changed her position on TPP people in the old industrial heartland were not convinced that was sincere. The Russians were not responsible for Hillary, Bill & Obama's history of support for trade deals that facilitate moving jobs to low wage countries that suppress unions, allow unsafe working conditions & don't have meaningful environmental regulations.
    seho90 , 13 Dec 2016 21:56

    Julian Assange denies that the Russian government was the source of the hacked emails to and from Clinton campaign chair John Podesta that WikiLeaks published. Of course, there's no way of knowing if he's telling the truth – but regardless of their source, how much influence did they have on the election outcome?

    oh, right

    so when the Wikileaks reveals evilness of the conservatives, it's good, but when the liberals get revealed, he's not telling the truth?

    give me a break.

    Wikileaks is a neutral source, not a conservative or a liberal one.

    PennyCarter -> seho90 , 13 Dec 2016 22:04
    I agree with you. However may I add that the point is not whether Assange is of good character or whether Wikileaks is left or right. The point is has any Wikileaks releases been proven false in the last 10 years or so?
    Herr_Settembrini -> seho90 , 13 Dec 2016 22:32

    Wikileaks is a neutral source, not a conservative or a liberal one.

    Bull. Assange dripped, dripped, dripped the leaks so that it would do maximum damage to Clinton. Whether he has conservative or liberal leanings is irrelevant. What in incontrovertible, however, is that he has an anti-Clinton bias.

    What the leaks revealed is exactly the kind of internal policy debates, calibration of message, and gossipy venting that occurs in any political campaign. Only out of context did they appear damaging.

    calderonparalapaz , 13 Dec 2016 21:43
    Is Guardian running cold war propaganda?

    "Anonymous Leaks to the WashPost About the CIA's Russia Beliefs Are No Substitute for Evidence"- Glen Greenwald

    https://theintercept.com/2016/12/10/anonymous-leaks-to-the-washpost-about-the-cias-russia-beliefs-are-no-substitute-for-evidence /

    ewmbrsfca , 13 Dec 2016 21:41
    The other big elephant in the room is that nearly half of those eligible to vote did not. Instead, the hysterical US media engage the gullible populace in yet another game of mass distraction, and soon Putin will be forgotten and all will salivate over the Oscar nominations. Thus the United States of Amnesia will settle into its usual addictive habit of running after any "news" that holds the promise of distractive entertainment. Never mind the nation's democracy... "We amuse ourselves to death" (Neil Postman).
    Mike Kiepe , 13 Dec 2016 21:37
    This article is spot on. Tulsi Gabbard 2020
    PennyCarter , 13 Dec 2016 21:34
    Otto Bismarck once said: "laws are like sausages. It's better not to see them being made"

    To paraphrase, I guess you could also say the same about elections. Leaks revealing behind the curtains shenanigans of any election would turn most stomachs. After seeing this election I may become a vegetarian.

    Huddsblue , 13 Dec 2016 21:32
    Too right. It was always Hillary's election to lose and she lost it simply because she was not to be trusted. Her very public endorsement by gangster capitalist Jay-Z told you all you needed to know about who she represented.
    chris200 , 13 Dec 2016 21:12
    I used to work for an American oil company. Clinton was the one thing that united Democrats and Republicans over lunch time chats. She was unsuitable, and unfit for office. People voted not necessarily for Trump, but against Clinton. Don't blame Trump for this result. Blame the democrats and their poor candidates. So far I like his choice of cabinet members. Except for the banker they are men that create wealth by providing work for talented people. Not something the Guardian understands.
    merrykoala -> LDWWDL , 13 Dec 2016 21:27
    So your prime character witness for Hillary Clinton is.....Bill Clinton.

    Good luck with that.

    FYI mishandling protectively marked documents is wrongdoing, which James Comey testified that she had. Had it been ANYBODY other than a presidential candidate their feet wouldn't have touched the floor.

    Justin Chudgar , 13 Dec 2016 21:09
    What the author fails to emphasize is the degree to which Dem. party 'insiders' like DWSchulz and DBrazile and so on sabotaged their own nomination process by biasing the pre-primary and primary contests in favor of Clinton in subtle and stupidly obvious ways.

    Had this been a contest between Trump and B. Sanders, M. O'Malley, J. Biden, E. Warren, etc. there would have been no Podesta emails to care hack, no home server to investigate, etc. By tipping the scales in favor of Clinton early, parts of the Dem. party caused the current outcome.

    piouspish , 13 Dec 2016 20:58
    I was dubious before, but I'm now actively concerned. This crop of Democrats and their deep state cohorts are unhinged and dangerous. They see me and my families' lives as an externality in their eventual war with Russia. As Phyrric a victory as there could possibly be. They are psychotic; not only waging countless coups and intelligence operations abroad, but now in plain sight on American soil. The mainstream media seems to invoke the spirit of Goebbels more vividly with each passing day. Their disdain and manipulation of the general populace is chilling. They see us not as people to be won-over, but as things to be manipulated, tricked and coerced. Nothing new for politicians (particularity the opposition) - but the levels here are staggering.

    January couldn't come soon enough - and I say that as strong critic of Trump.

    erewhon888 , 13 Dec 2016 20:39
    There is an update to yesterday's Guardian article. Update: David Swanson interviewed Murray today, and obtained additional information. Specifically, Murray told Swanson that: (1) there were two American leakers ... one for the emails of the Democratic National Committee and one for the emails of top Clinton aide John Podesta; (2) Murray met one of those leakers; and (3) both leakers are American insiders with the NSA and/or the DNC, with no known connections to Russia.
    michaelmichael , 13 Dec 2016 20:38
    "Putin didn't win this election for Trump. Hillary Clinton did"

    Nailed it. If the Democrats had fielded someone who actually represented the people (and who spoke the truth) instead of a corporate shill, the outcome would have been very different.

    They had the ideal candidate in Sanders and they fucked him out of it. But have they learned anything? I seriously doubt it.

    Patrick Perroud , 13 Dec 2016 20:37
    Mrs Clinton is not blaming others. She never did. It's the CIA - backed by the 17 US intelligence agencies - that's saying Russia interfered with the election process in the USA.

    In UK as well, the MI6 said something similar a few weeks ago. Germany is also concerned about the next elections in France and Germany. If any of this was true then it would be a serious threat against democracy in Western countries.

    So who's blaming who? Deep cheaters or bad loosers? The CIA could be wrong but is probably correct this time. Trying to bury this unanimous call from western secret services under contempt is significant by itself.

    Thatoneguyyouknow -> Patrick Perroud , 13 Dec 2016 21:06
    " It's the CIA - backed by the 17 US intelligence agencies - that's saying Russia interfered with the election process in the USA. "

    Way to parrot FAKE NEWS.

    That is a COMPLETE LIE. Unless you honestly believe that agencies like the DEA and NASA's "intelligence" conclusively found "proof" that does not exist. That TALKING POINT was a lie when CLINTON'S CAMPAIGN originated it, and it is STILL a lie.

    But hey, it's only wrong when the "bad guys" on the "other team" spread fake news and engage in intellectual dishonesty, right? When it's the "good guys" it's just a case of the "ends justify the means" and perfectly acceptable, right?

    samuel glover -> Patrick Perroud , 13 Dec 2016 23:43
    "Mrs Clinton is not blaming others. She never did."

    Bullshit. Just last week she resurfaced (can't she grasp the idea of the graceful exit?) to yammer on about the menace of "fake news". Because of course we all know that before 2016, all American elections have been exercises in fair-mindedness and scrupulous devotion to truth.

    stellendar , 13 Dec 2016 20:37
    It's funny how media simply refuses to admit that Trump did it.
    Russians, Hilary, polar bears - none of them had anything to do with it - HE WON.
    Live with it.
    Hmeckardt , 13 Dec 2016 20:36
    The clickbait headline is frustrating. No serious person is accusing Russia of having caused Clinton's loss. Instead, serious people (including, thankfully, leading Republicans) are demanding that we take a thoughtful and comprehensive look at the evidence that Russia intended to influence the election. That's a necessary step for protecting our democracy and it's irresponsible to ascribe political motives to that task.
    Bauhaus -> Hmeckardt , 13 Dec 2016 20:42
    What about the $20 million given to Clinton from Saudi Arabia, did that influence the election or don't we talk about that?
    James Harris -> Bauhaus , 13 Dec 2016 20:44
    Sssshhh don't mention facts that don't support the agenda
    HeeeresJohnny , 13 Dec 2016 20:34
    There was a good article in The Intercept the other regarding the CIA's unsubstantiated (and subserviently published by the media) claims of Russian interference - how it has essentially become a willy-waving contest between the CIA and the FBI in the wake of the elections; how the CIA is an inherently untrustworthy organisation and the media allowing "senior officials" to dictate the news with empty leaks and no evidence (while shouting the loudest about fake news) is folly.

    https://theintercept.com/2016/12/10/anonymous-leaks-to-the-washpost-about-the-cias-russia-beliefs-are-no-substitute-for-evidence /

    Eric Hurley -> HeeeresJohnny , 13 Dec 2016 20:53
    The CIA is untrustworthy? what about the FBI?

    HeeeresJohnny -> Eric Hurley , 13 Dec 2016 21:05
    As far as I know, the FBI isn't currently leaking unsubstantiated "news" with the potential of provoking dangerously poor relations with Russia.
    Thatoneguyyouknow -> Eric Hurley , 13 Dec 2016 21:12
    "The CIA is untrustworthy?"

    Have you ZERO knowledge of history? WHAT in their ENTIRE EXISTENCE has given you a ONE SINGLE BIT of faith in their credibility?

    michaelmichael -> Dzomba , 13 Dec 2016 20:40
    "but using covert methods to manipulate the flow of information in the public debate to undermine a candidate is totally unacceptable"

    the US prefers to engineer military coups

    finnja , 13 Dec 2016 20:32
    Very true. It takes an abysmal candidate to lose against (quoting Jimmy Dore here:) Donny Tinyhands.
    It takes a special brand of dense to run
    - for Wall Street (against reinstatement of Glass Steagall)
    - for a direct military confrontation with nuclear power Russia (wich Clinton's pet-project of no-fly zones in Syria would have signified)
    - for trade deals (nobody bought Clinton was suddenly against that)
    and expect the DEMOCRATIC base to turn out.
    Jesus Christ, Donny ran to the left of Hillary on all three issues. Not that anyone trusts him to keep any promise, but at least he didn't outright spit in the face of the people who want less war, less neoliberalism and less Wall Street cronyism while running for election.
    No Democratic candidate worth his/her name would have lost against Trump, not even if the Axis of Evil (whoever that currently is) had hacked all their emails, photobooks and private porn-flicks, in which they starred, and had them all run nonstop 24/7 on every screen on Earth.
    2fingersup2tories , 13 Dec 2016 20:23
    I'm shocked!!! Aren't the Russians to blame for everything???
    My t.v breaking, the rain outside, brexit, Donald trump, the Iraq war, the death of Jesus, those damn Russians, nothing is safe around those monsters.
    Hilarious
    enodesign , 13 Dec 2016 20:19
    Thanks for this article .

    You are so correct .

    I am so sick and tired of hearing those whining elite democrats gone incessantly about white males , the FBI , Putin , Russia , stupid red state citizens , etc., etc ..

    I want say ' Shut the fuck up -- ..... and look in the bloody mirror ' .

    I am a classic liberal .... always have been ..... always will be ...... and I don't know what you would like to call these corrupt , elitist , contemporary democrats but you certainly can not call them real liberals .

    I call them designer democrats . They care only for their particular pet issues and they ongoing pursuit of notions of their own superiority . They routinely generalize in highly sexist and racist fashions and through the use of political correctness seek to silence all of their critics .

    I , simply , loath them .

    They sabotaged Bernie Sanders campaign . Bernie Sanders ..... the nicest , most caring man to come along in American politics in the past 50 years . Not since , FDR , John and Robert Kennedy have we seen such hope for average people .

    But oh , no ..... Bernie was an outsider ..... not part of their corrupt , elite club . He was a threat to their ongoing party . He had to go .

    They didn't give a shit about what was good for the people . They only cared about themselves and their exploitation of the Democratic Party and it's traditional status ..... and their vulgar corruption of genuine liberalism for their own purposes .

    The Democratic Party establishment will now undergo a long , long overdue cleansing . The Clintons are the first to go as they should be . Two total career political scoundrels , if ever there were any . Lies and secrecy were all that you ever got from them aside form the horrific repeal of the 'Glass-Steggall Act ' and the Stock Trade Modernization Bill which lead to the licensing of the financial elite to plunder the economy , ruin the lives of countless average Americans and turn the economy into a complete casino .

    Elitist to the core , they were .

    Imagine an elite , spoon fed , self-interested urbanite like Hillary Clinton telling some poor white male schmuck living in some small town , who for economic reasons has never had a good full time time and works 3 temporary part-time jobs to pay the bills that he is privileged .

    Bloody ridiculous --

    Talk about overt sexism . Talk about overt racism .

    It's these kinds of behaviours that doomed Hillary Clinton .

    She only has herself to blame .

    If she really had cared about average people she would have not sabotaged Bernie Sanders and she would have stepped aside back in June when every poll indicated the she could not beat Trump and that Bernie could beat him by 10 to 15 points .

    Now , we the people are stuck with a Trump presidency ..... something which you can pretty much be assured is going to be un mitigated disaster in ways that we can't even begin to imagine yet .

    Lord help us .

    Good-bye Democratic Party elites ..... don't let the fucking door hit on the way out .

    I wish I could say that it was nice knowing you but it wasn't .

    Go off to your designer lives and pontificate about what is good for people ..... a subject that you know little about and really don't give a damn .

    Go back to Davos and party with the financial global elite for they are really your people .... your kind . Certainly , average hardworking , genuinely liberal people are not .

    Liberalism exists for all people not just the self-anointed few .

    Treflesg , 13 Dec 2016 20:14
    Have you noticed how recently the 'we are not racist and you are' left have started to use the Chinese and Russians as convenient foreign bogeymen to scare the people with?

    Awkward economic figures, blame the Chinese.
    Awkward diplomatic issues or you lost a vote, blame the Russians.

    The problem with this is that our media then amplifies these attacks on China and Russia, they hear them, and they start to resent it and respond. And our future relations with two major world powers are made worse than they needed to be.

    sarkany , 13 Dec 2016 20:13
    A good article to counterbalance the reams of rubbish we are hearing in the US election post-mortem. Anyone who had neural activity should have known that when you steal the candidacy, you certainly won't get the votes. Clinton effectively handed the election to Trump by not having the humility, humanity and honesty to admit defeat by Benie Sanders.

    He was not a perfect choice, but he could have been a candidate who was everything that Trump wasn't - uncorrupted, honest, and with a clearly thought out and principled agenda.

    All Trump was facing was someone as entitled and establishment as he was,. but with less of what passes for 'the human touch' across the pond.

    There's always the possibility of course, that the US establishment realised Clinton's blatant warmongering wasn't 'good for business'.

    The Russians are no doubt aware that the US has to try and cut the Gordian knot - Washington cannot face down China and Russia at the same time; and the two countries are mutually supportive in the UN and are developing many economic projects together.

    So maybe, they thought, we can get the Russkies 'on side', deal with China (ie. reduce it to a 'client state'/ turn it into an ashtray) - and then move on Russia and grab all those lovely resources freed up by global warming....

    yohoot , 13 Dec 2016 20:12
    Seems to me like the Clinton agenda of big oil, big banks and alot of lies won the WH. Hillary's big corporate donors are on Trumps transition team. Surely they didnt want her to win, since she adopted Sanders regulatory, tax the wealthy platform, hence Clinton was duped with marketing strategy which turned voters off, she was reduced to name calling over promotong policy...what did she represent? Only her campaign volunteers knew, her message to the public was "dont vote for Trump" which translates to, I could lose to him, vote for me!
    Benjohn6379 , 13 Dec 2016 19:58
    The Podesta emails confirmed what many people already suspected and knew of Hillary and her campaign. Those who were interested in reading them had to actually look for them, since MSM was not reporting on them. It's not as if an avid MSNBC or CNN watcher was going to be exposed.

    So, if you were seeking them out, A: you probably already suspected those things and B: you weren't going to vote for Hillary to begin with.

    It's hilarious how the major Left outlets (Washington Post) are now telling it's readers how Russia is to blame for people voting against Hillary due to the Podesta emails, when they didn't even report on the emails in the first place.

    theshining , 13 Dec 2016 19:57
    FINALLY sanity intrudes. For one article and one day. But hey , progress is progress. Trump will NOT be what you think him to be. He will be far better. He will still do things you don't like, but not REALLY bad things. :-)

    There was no reason to vote for Clinton as the article says. She offered nothing except the entitlement of HER. It wasn't enough. Thank The Gods. EVERYTHING about the system all halfway decent people detest, is summed up in the figure of Hillary Clinton. And evidently (and I stand to be corrected) she didn't even have the stones not to melt down on election night and Podesta had to go out there and be a complete buffoon.

    Trump might be an unknown but Clinton and her used up party were a complete known. Like Donald said, she had 'experience', but it was all BAD 'experience'. Trump might not fix the problems but at least he's going to try. Clinton didn't even see the problems.

    Raleighchopper , 13 Dec 2016 19:48
    -> Neoliberalism turned our world into a business. And there are two big winners
    Fearmongering Donald Trump and optimistic Silicon Valley seem to epitomize opposing ideologies. But the two have far more in common than you think

    Steady now Graun, 2 sensible articles in 1 day.

    quasar9uk , 13 Dec 2016 19:48
    it did her a really big favour because she was and still is in poor health and the stress of high office would have been fatal for her probably
    quasar9uk -> kronfeld , 13 Dec 2016 22:20
    she is a frail, withered old woman who needs to retire - def the wrong democrat choice, crazy -- Berni.S would have won if for them - he is far more sincere
    Ken Kutner , 13 Dec 2016 19:48
    Here is the key paragraph: "The displaced machinists... believe that free trade deals are responsible for their economic woes and they never trusted Clinton's turn against the TPP. But that was Clinton's campaign for you, bereft of principle and pathologically concerned with "optics" at the expense of substance." Funny the author fails to notice that that describes to a T Trump's campaign, and actually his whole life. That description applies to Trump several orders of magnitude moreso than it applies to Hillary Clinton's life. If you think Trump is really interested in bringing jobs, especially good paying jobs back, you are willfully blind.
    Prydain , 13 Dec 2016 19:43
    "Putin didn't win this election for Trump. Hillary Clinton did"

    Trump won, he played the game brilliantly to the rules (including the electoral college system), Clinton lost (you can't win it for the opposition, you can just lose, and the Democrats didn't put out their best hope) and Putin was irrelevant in terms of any interference (although maybe Trump voters would rather the US develop a better relationship with Russia, but that's down to Trump in playing that card).

    SwansonDinner , 13 Dec 2016 19:39
    This argument is as asinine as the one the author opposes. It was a collusion of events that led to this result, including the failure of both parties to adapt to an evolving economic and social climate over decades. The right wing hailing the collapse of liberalism as a result of decades of liberal mismanagement conveniently forget their own parties have held the reins for half that time, and failed just as miserably as the left....
    HellisEmpty , 13 Dec 2016 19:38
    It's quite bizarre to see "progressives" openly side with the military industrial complex, which is threatened by a president elect weary of more warfare.

    It's to be expected from career politicians like McCain who is kicking and screaming, but it's shameful to see supposed liberally-minded people help spread the Red Scare storyline.

    Aquarius9 , 13 Dec 2016 19:27
    A good article Henwood.

    The Democrats are in full blown tantrum mode, throwing teddies out of their pram and spitting dummies across the room, because their warmonger and deceitful candidate HRC, didn't win, that's why there has been all this bad news nonsense about Putin and/or Russia since last week.

    Obama has behaved dreadfully, first he or his office gets one of its poodles namely MI6 to point the finger at Putin re cyberwar, which was swiftly followed by the International Olympic Committee looking at Russia for 2012 Olympic games, the elections in the US and the Democrats CIA coming out with unsubstantiated nonsense (funny how they never like, providing collaborative evidence - on this or anything that supposedly Russia has done) then there is Syria, and Obama and the Democrats were the cheerleader for regime change, because they have been out manoeuvred in that sphere. All of it in less than a week.

    If Obama, the administration, and the CIA were smart they would have realised that a concerted effort to blame Putin / Russia would be seen for what it is - a liar and one of trying to discredit both the outcome of the US elections, the dislike of HRC, and her association with Wall St. - she raised more money for her campaign than Trump and Sanders put together (if the Democrats had chosen Sanders, then they would have stood a chance) and that their hawk would not be in a position to create WW111 - thank goodness. The Democrats deserved what they got.

    ohforgoodnesssake -> PanYanPickle , 13 Dec 2016 19:35
    This organ of the liberal media (no scare quotes required - it is socially liberal and economically neoliberal), along with many others, dogmatically supported Clinton against Sanders to the point of printing daily and ridiculous dishonesty, even going so far as to make out as if anyone who supports any form of wealth redistribution is a racist, sexist, whitesplaining dude-bro.
    WitoldLutoslawski -> zootsuitbeatnick , 13 Dec 2016 19:14
    The Wikileaks emails proved the votes were rigged against Sanders, it why Debbie W Shulz had to resign
    Raleighchopper , 13 Dec 2016 18:59
    Or more precisely the Superdelegates and the Democratic National Committee did. Her Goldman/Morgan Stanley speechs were in 2013 ffs, they all knew she had form and was 'viewed as an insider' as Obama put it in The New Yorker interview.
    danubemonster , 13 Dec 2016 18:58
    The election was close, and if one less thing had gone wrong for Hillary she would have won. However I think an important thing that lost her the election was identity politics. She patronized Afro-Americans and Hispanics, by tell them that because they are Trump-threatened minorities, they should vote for her. In the same vein, gays and women were supposed to vote for her. But what she was really telling these groups was that they should revel in their supposed victimhood, which was not a great message.
    Stetson Meyers , 13 Dec 2016 18:45
    Completely agreed! The onus for defeat belongs to the Democrat party leadership as well. Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders both understood where the momentum of the election was headed before anyone else did. The election was won and lost in the white blue collar Midwest. A place that decided that diet corporatism is decidedly worse than a populist right wing extremist.

    No one here believed the ridiculous about-face Hillary pulled on the question of the TPP. I guarantee you Bernie would have cleaned Trump's clock in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and perhaps Ohio and Iowa.

    ojeemabalzitch , 13 Dec 2016 18:36
    "Our self-image as the world's greatest democracy...." Well, speaking for myself and plenty of other Americans, I never said anything like that about us. In fact, like a lot of people I wish we would stick to our own business, quit trying to be the world's cop, and cease meddling in other countries' affairs.

    If we do that, then I could care less about our image or what the rest of the world thinks. Let some other country be the "leader of the Free World." Who died and left the US in charge, anyway? Not one war we have fought since WWII has been worth the price of one drop of American blood.

    Steve Gustafson , 13 Dec 2016 18:31
    Assuming that it really was the Russians who done it, I guess they had a better game plan than the Saudis. I consider the Russians to have done us a favor of sorts by exposing Hillary's secret Wall Street speeches and the machinations of the DNC. Her 'deplorables' comment was every bit as telling as Mitt Romney's '47%'. We really needed to know about her 'public versus private positions', even if it only confirmed what everybody already knew. I am not 100% sure the system made the worst choice in raising up Donald Trump.

    And even so, if it takes four years of Trump to remove the people who thought Hillary was a good candidate from power in the Democratic Party, it may work out for the best in the long run. And if it takes four years of Trump to show the people who voted for Trump that Republican ideologues can only make their problems worse, so be it. It's mostly the hubris that amuses me at this point. They thought they were the pros. They had the money. They had the ground game. All they did wrong was to preselect and preordain a candidate nobody wanted.

    Steve Gustafson -> Kevin Watson , 14 Dec 2016 04:13

    abuses women, advances the cause of racism, attacks women's rights, is xenophobic

    The American voters heard a steady stream of these arguments. Some may have simply ignored them. Others took them into consideration, but concluded that they wanted drastic change enough to put them aside. White women decided that Trump's comments, while distasteful, were things they'd heard before.

    Reliance on the sanctity of racial and gender pieties was a mistake. Not everyone treats these subjects as the holiest of holies. The people who would be most swayed by those arguments never would have voted for Trump anyways.

    Bronxite -> Kevin Watson , 14 Dec 2016 02:21
    Colin Powell did not advise Clinton to do that, and even if he did she was a fool to take his advice when her boss Obama explicitly told her not to keep a private server. Colin Powell said Clinton destroys everything she touches with hubris. Seeing as how she destroyed the democrat "blue wall" and also had low turnout which hurt democrats down the ticket I agree.
    Max von Berg , 13 Dec 2016 18:09
    Zero evidence other than "he said, she said" regarding any involvement of Russian espionage agencies in the U.S. elections but the left, incredulous once the result didn't go their way, are now clinging to anything to divert attention from the issues that HRC ignored and Trump embraced.

    All this hysteria about the USA and Russia finally working together than apart doesn't help either for it appears that the [neoliberal] lefties want a perpetual war rather than peace.

    noteasilyfooled , 13 Dec 2016 18:01
    The CIA being outraged about a foreign state intervening in an election is quite funny. They have intervened so many times, especially in Latin America, to install puppet regimes.

    As for hacking... does anybody believe the CIA has never hacked anybody?

    Anyway, had the emails not existed, there would have been nothing with which to help Trump. The Democrats have only themselves to blame. Bernie Sanders or ANY other candidate without the Clintons baggage could have done a better job f beating Trump. They wanted Hillary at all cost; they lost!

    GuardianFodder -> noteasilyfooled , 13 Dec 2016 18:55
    Christmas cracker joke for you;

    Q: Why has there never been a coup in the US?

    A: Because Washington doesn't have an American embassy....

    [Dec 14, 2016] Ron Paul The War On Fake News Is A War On Free Speech Zero Hedge

    Dec 14, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    Authored by Ron Paul via The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity,

    A major threat to liberty is the assault on the right to discuss political issues, seek out alternative information sources, and promote dissenting ideas and causes such as non-interventionism in foreign and domestic affairs. If this ongoing assault on free speech succeeds, then all of our liberties are endangered.

    One of the most common assaults on the First Amendment is the attempt to force public policy organizations to disclose their donors. Regardless of the intent of these laws, the effect is to subject supporters of controversial causes to harassment, or worse. This harassment makes other potential donors afraid to support organizations opposing a popular war or defending the rights of an unpopular group.

    Many free speech opponents support laws and regulations forbidding activist or educational organizations from distributing factual information regarding a candidate's positions for several months before an election. The ban would apply to communications that do not endorse or oppose any candidate. These laws would result in the only sources of information on the candidate's views being the campaigns and the media.

    Recently the Federal Election Commission (FEC) rejected a proposal to add language exempting books, movies, and streaming videos from its regulations. The majority of FEC commissioners apparently believe they should have the power, for example, to ban Oliver Stone's biography of Edward Snowden, since it was released two months before the election and features clips of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump discussing Snowden.

    The latest, and potentially most dangerous, threat to the First Amendment is the war on "fake news." Those leading the war are using a few "viral" Internet hoaxes to justify increased government regulation - and even outright censorship - of Internet news sites. Some popular websites, such as Facebook, are not waiting for the government to force them to crack down on fake news.

    Those calling for bans on "fake news" are not just trying to censor easily-disproved Internet hoaxes. They are working to create a government-sanctioned "gatekeeper" (to use Hillary Clinton's infamous phrase) with the power to censor any news or opinion displeasing to the political establishment. None of those wringing their hands over fake news have expressed any concern over the fake news stories that helped lead to the Iraq War. Those fake news stories led to the destabilizing of the Middle East, the rise of ISIS, and the deaths of millions.

    The war on "fake news" has taken a chilling turn with efforts to label news and opinion sites of alternative news sources as peddlers of Russian propaganda. The main targets are critics of US interventionist foreign policy, proponents of a gold standard, critics of the US government's skyrocketing debt, and even those working to end police militarization. All have been smeared as anti-American agents of Russia.

    Just last week, Congress passed legislation creating a special committee, composed of key federal agencies, to counter foreign interference in US elections. There have also been calls for congressional investigations into Russian influence on the elections. Can anyone doubt that the goal of this is to discredit and silence those who question the mainstream media's pro-welfare/warfare state propaganda?

    The attempts to ban "fake news;" smear antiwar, anti-Federal Reserve, and other pro-liberty movements as Russian agents; and stop independent organizations from discussing a politician's record before an election are all parts of an ongoing war on the First Amendment. All Americans, no matter their political persuasion, have a stake in defeating these efforts to limit free speech. dirtscratcher Snípéir_Ag_Obair , Dec 13, 2016 11:45 AM

    For the MSM to declare war on 'fake news' they would have to shoot themselves in the head (instead of the foot). A delightful idea, now that I think about it.
    Nemontel , Dec 13, 2016 11:34 AM
    Leftists just don't like loosing power.

    Ignatius Nemontel , Dec 13, 2016 11:48 AM
    That's the faux left .

    Traditional left is equal protection under the law, against imperial war and, most importantly, pro-justice for the working and middle classes (i.e., against off-shoring mfg, etc.).

    All this nonsense PC and identity politics is designed to divide the left (the working class) on the core issues.

    Killdo Nemontel , Dec 13, 2016 12:12 PM
    from my Easter European point of view (after a decade spent in the USSA) - Democrats seem much more Stalininst and totalitarian than Republicans. $hitlery really reminds me of former prez Milosevic's ugly wife (she was also politically involved and as totalitarian as $hitlery)
    koaj , Dec 13, 2016 11:44 AM
    Anyone with a brain could see this was their underhanded attempt at State approved news. They are getting desperate
    Grandad Grumps , Dec 13, 2016 11:48 AM
    Foreign interference in elections? How about some drill down into Hillary Clinton's donors.

    Foreign influence goes Waaayyy beyond conspiracy theories of hacking.

    whatamaroon , Dec 13, 2016 12:18 PM
    If only the Ron Paulers and the Libertarians weren't for open borders I would support them.
    jfb whatamaroon , Dec 13, 2016 12:55 PM
    They are not "pro-immigration", they are against an intrusive police state that use illegal immigration as an excuse to adopt artificial measures. Do you find logic that in many states you have in parallel

    1) Welfare for refugees & illegal immigrants

    2) Other government services as well

    3) Money use to crack down on business with spot checks to see if they hire illegal immigrants

    4) Money use to increase the patrols along the border or even build a wall

    5) Naturalization of illegal immigrants after a few years of residence

    Usually when the media organize a debate it's always rigged

    On one side you will have the guy/woman who say that Westerners are selfish because they need to offer more to those who arrive and adapt themselves to the new migrants

    On the other side the guy/woman who will say that we are at war with Islam, that they have wage a war on us with this invasion and that some asses need to be kick out overthere, Assad, Ghadafi, Iran, you can name them, martial law is necessary to defend ourself by bombing them.

    Rigged debate between to bogus 'solutions'

    DuneCreature , Dec 13, 2016 12:58 PM
    The fake news accusation is possible to counter. ... Let them call you a 'Fake News' website all they want. ..

    Post and publish well researched and truthful news and then let MSM do your advertising for you. ... Call yourself "Fake News - 'Something'" and let the MSM lying fuckers send you traffic. When they say fake news said this, that or something else and people search you out to hear all your 'fake news' and discover your reports are more on the mark than all the fictional gibberish MSM is trying to feed them, MSM loses it's audience even more.

    Truth has a way of bubbling to the top. ..... Just look at the story of ZeroHedge.

    Send in the lawyers if you have to.

    Live Hard, Sue The Deep Pockets Of MSM When They Lie, Die Free

    ~ DC v4.0

    [Dec 13, 2016] Theres A Psy-Op, All Right; But It Isnt The Russians Zero Hedge

    Dec 13, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    Via DaisyLuther.com,

    Enough with "the Russians" already. This "Russian Disinformation" and "Russian Hacking" stuff is getting more ridiculous by the day.

    First, don't let the irony escape you that most, if not all, of the pundits breathlessly blaming the Russians for "fake news" and "election interference" are the very ones who were saying that Hillary Clinton was a shoe-in for president. They're the ones who were providing her campaign with questions in advance, and allowing her people to approve/disapprove of articles.

    Secondly, many of the entities blamed for spreading "Russian propaganda" were the ones with the audacity to tell the truth about the Clinton crime family and spread knowledge of the information released by Wikileaks. Obviously, I'm not including those Macedonian college kids in this, but keep in mind that they weren't doing it for the Russians – they were doing it to make money.

    This isn't about the Russians at all, which anyone with half a brain realizes is absolutely ridiculous.

    Here's what this really is.

    This is a war on the Trump presidency. It's an attempted coup.

    Maybe it's even another effort to outright steal the presidency from Trump. Maybe there's someone with a lot of money to throw into this "OMG THE RUSSIANS" rhetoric who really hates Russia and who really wanted Hillary Clinton to be the President. Maybe his name rhymes with "Doros." I don't know this for sure, but it's at least a more likely story than "The Russians" hacking our election and deliberately spreading propaganda.

    And it's working. Ten of the Electoral College delegates have asked to be briefed on the Russian "interference" before they cast their votes on the 19th.

    But that isn't all. This is a two-for-one deal.

    It's important to note that the MSM lost every single bit of their remaining credibility during the last election and they're desperate to get it back. It reminds me of a high school kid who gets caught doing something she shouldn't, who then makes up stories about another group of kids to get people talking about them instead of her. The MSM can't accept the fact that Hillary Clinton lost, despite their dishonest but enthusiastic efforts to steal the election for her. They'll collude with whoever they have to in order to become relevant again.

    Do you really have any doubt that they'll collude with whoever they have to in order to become relevant again?

    About "The Russians"

    The whole plotline about "the Russians" really took off when the Washington Post published an article listing a couple hundred websites as Russian "fake news" sites. (I know the owners of quite a few of these sites personally -as in, we've shared meals and wine together – and I can tell you, they're as American as apple pie." The Washington Post later backtracked on the accusations but did not retract the article.

    And today, the New York Times was at it with an article entitled, " CIA Judgment on Russia Built on Swell of Evidence ."

    Except that when you consider that evidence by definition is definitive and the NYT admits everything they have is circumstantial, then, doesn't that completely negates the headline? The article is sheer speculation, just like the WaPo article that named the "fake news" sites.

    What's more, the FBI completely disagrees with the CIA, and they've been very public about it. They don't believe that there is well, evidence . I'll quote from WaPo here .

    The competing messages, according to officials in attendance, also reflect cultural differences between the FBI and the CIA The bureau, true to its law enforcement roots, wants facts and tangible evidence to prove something beyond all reasonable doubt. The CIA is more comfortable drawing inferences from behavior.

    "The FBI briefers think in terms of criminal standards - can we prove this in court," one of the officials said. "The CIA briefers weigh the preponderance of intelligence and then make judgment calls to help policymakers make informed decisions. High confidence for them means 'we're pretty damn sure.' It doesn't mean they can prove it in court."

    Give me a break. That, ladies and gentlemen, is why you should never, ever believe anything the Washington Post refers to as investigative journalism. They have no idea what proof or evidence even means.

    There's a psy-op, all right, but it isn't "the Russians" perpetrating it.

    It's the CIA (keep in mind that psyops is part of their job) working hand in hand with the MSM.

    You just have to laugh at some of these headlines and quotes.

    For your entertainment, enjoy the following round-up of headlines promoting the "Blame Russia" sentiment.

  • Secret CIA assessment says Russia was trying to help Trump win White House ( source )
  • House passes intelligence bill enhancing efforts against Russia ( source )
  • Where's the outrage over Russia's hack of the US election?" ( CNN )
  • Fake News, Russians, and Election Reversal ( Town Hall )
  • A Powerful Russian Weapon: The Spread of False Stories ( NY Times )
  • DID RUSSIAN AGENTS INFLUENCE THE U.S. ELECTION WITH FAKE NEWS? ( Vanity Fair)
  • Experts Say Russian Propaganda Helped Spread Fake News During Election ( NPR )
  • Media Wakes Up To Russia's 'Fake News' Only After It Is Applied Against Hillary ( Forbes )
  • And then, have an eyeroll at some very silly quotes

    From an interview on NPR:

    "But let's remember, this was a very close vote where just, you know, a few tens of thousands of votes in a few states ended up making the difference. So I don't know, if you believe that the kind of information that crashes through all of our social media accounts affects how we think and potentially how we vote, I think you would conclude that this kind of stuff does matter." ( source )

    From the NY Times:

    "RT [Russia Today] often seems obsessed with the United States, portraying life there as hellish. On the day President Obama spoke at the Democratic National Convention , for example, it emphasized scattered demonstrations rather than the speeches. It defends the Republican presidential nominee, Donald J. Trump, as an underdog maligned by the established news media." ( source )

    From a secret mystery source on CNN:

    "There was no way that any one could have walked out of there with that the evidence and conclude that the Russian government was not behind this." ( source )

    From CBS:

    Responding to intelligence officials' report that Russia tried to influence the U.S. presidential election in favor of President-elect Donald Trump, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain (R-Arizona) on Sunday said he doesn't know what to make of Mr. Trump's dismissal of the issue.

    "I don't know what to make of it because it's clear the Russians interfered," he told CBS' "Face the Nation." "Whether they intended to interfere to the degree that they were trying to elect a certain candidate, I think that's a subject of investigation. But facts are stubborn things. They did hack into this campaign." ( source )

    Politico reported:

    "Donald Trump's insult-laced dismissal of reports that the CIA believes Russia hacked the 2016 election to help him is rattling a spy community already puzzled over how to gain the ear and trust of the incoming president." ( source )

    While some of the efforts are laughable, the end result could be incredibly serious.

    And by serious, I mean devastating. It could result in civil war. It could result in World War III.

    Despite the inadvertent hilarity, this is a blatant effort to keep President-Elect Trump out of the White House and to silence the opposition.

    When all dissenting voices are silenced, you're only getting one part of the story. You're only getting the part that those in power want you to hear. If we learned nothing else from Wikileaks, we learned that there are dark secrets about the evils of money, power, and manipulation. We learned how many conspiracy theories about the Clintons were actually facts , and we learned some things we can't unlearn about the proclivities of some of the most powerful people in Washington .

    We learned that some people will do anything to remain in power.

    We're watching them do anything right now.

    Never has an election been so vehemently contested. Never has our country been so divided. If the election results are cast aside, what do you really think will happen? Do you think Trump supporters will just sigh and accept it?

    And what about Russia?

    Just a few months ago, we were on the verge of war with them . By scapegoating "The Russians," if this psy-op is successful, and Trump is kept out of office, what do you think is going to happen with tensions between the two countries?

    Enough with "the Russians" already. The real conspiracy is happening right here in America.

    [Dec 13, 2016] Not Just America: Germany and Other Countries Blame Russia for Losses By Status Quo

    Dec 13, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    Glenn Greenwald notes that – in the face of Trump and Brexit (which were primarily caused by economic policies which have created massive inequality ) – the Democratic National committee is trying to blame everybody and everything but their own status quo policies and candidates which rig the system for the fatcats and hurt the little guy:

    The indisputable fact is that prevailing institutions of authority in the West, for decades, have relentlessly and with complete indifference stomped on the economic welfare and social security of hundreds of millions of people. While elite circles gorged themselves on globalism, free trade, Wall Street casino gambling, and endless wars (wars that enriched the perpetrators and sent the poorest and most marginalized to bear all their burdens), they completely ignored the victims of their gluttony, except when those victims piped up a bit too much - when they caused a ruckus - and were then scornfully condemned as troglodytes who were the deserved losers in the glorious, global game of meritocracy.

    ***

    A short, incredibly insightful, and now more relevant than ever post-Brexit Facebook note by the Los Angeles Times's Vincent Bevins wrote that "both Brexit and Trump_vs_deep_state are the very, very wrong answers to legitimate questions that urban elites have refused to ask for 30 years." Bevins went on: "Since the 1980s the elites in rich countries have overplayed their hand, taking all the gains for themselves and just covering their ears when anyone else talks, and now they are watching in horror as voters revolt."

    For those who tried to remove themselves from the self-affirming, vehemently pro-Clinton elite echo chamber of 2016, the warning signs that Brexit screechingly announced were not hard to see. Two short passages from a Slate interview I gave in July summarized those grave dangers: that opinion-making elites were so clustered, so incestuous, so far removed from the people who would decide this election - so contemptuous of them - that they were not only incapable of seeing the trends toward Trump but were unwittingly accelerating those trends with their own condescending, self-glorifying behavior.

    ***

    The warning lights were flashing in neon for a long time, but they were in seedy places that elites studiously avoid. The few people who purposely went to those places and listened, such as Chris Arnade , saw and heard them loud and clear. The ongoing failure to take heed of this intense but invisible resentment and suffering guarantees that it will fester and strengthen. This was the last paragraph of my July article on the Brexit fallout:

    Instead of acknowledging and addressing the fundamental flaws within themselves, [elites] are devoting their energies to demonizing the victims of their corruption, all in order to delegitimize those grievances and thus relieve themselves of responsibility to meaningfully address them. That reaction only serves to bolster, if not vindicate, the animating perceptions that these elite institutions are hopelessly self-interested, toxic, and destructive and thus cannot be reformed but rather must be destroyed. That, in turn, only ensures there will be many more Brexits, and Trumps, in our collective future.

    ***

    Democrats have already begun flailing around trying to blame anyone and everyone they can find - everyone except themselves - for last night's crushing defeat of their party.

    You know the drearily predictable list of their scapegoats: Russia, WikiLeaks, James Comey, Jill Stein, Bernie Bros, The Media, news outlets (including, perhaps especially, The Intercept) that sinned by reporting negatively on Hillary Clinton. Anyone who thinks that what happened last night in places like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Iowa, and Michigan can be blamed on any of that is drowning in self-protective ignorance so deep that it's impossible to express in words.

    ***

    Put simply, Democrats knowingly chose to nominate a deeply unpopular, extremely vulnerable, scandal-plagued candidate, who - for very good reason - was widely perceived to be a protector and beneficiary of all the worst components of status quo elite corruption. It's astonishing that those of us who tried frantically to warn Democrats that nominating Hillary Clinton was a huge and scary gamble - that all empirical evidence showed that she could lose to anyone and Bernie Sanders would be a much stronger candidate, especially in this climate - are now the ones being blamed: by the very same people who insisted on ignoring all that data and nominating her anyway.

    But that's just basic blame shifting and self-preservation. Far more significant is what this shows about the mentality of the Democratic Party. Just think about who they nominated: someone who - when she wasn't dining with Saudi monarchs and being feted in Davos by tyrants who gave million-dollar checks - spent the last several years piggishly running around to Wall Street banks and major corporations cashing in with $250,000 fees for 45-minute secret speeches even though she had already become unimaginably rich with book advances while her husband already made tens of millions playing these same games. She did all that without the slightest apparent concern for how that would feed into all the perceptions and resentments of her and the Democratic Party as corrupt, status quo-protecting, aristocratic tools of the rich and powerful: exactly the worst possible behavior for this post-2008-economic-crisis era of globalism and destroyed industries.

    ***

    Trump vowed to destroy the system that elites love (for good reason) and the masses hate (for equally good reason), while Clinton vowed to manage it more efficiently. That, as Matt Stoller's indispensable article in The Atlantic three weeks ago documented, is the conniving choice the Democratic Party made decades ago: to abandon populism and become the party of technocratically proficient, mildly benevolent managers of elite power. Those are the cynical, self-interested seeds they planted, and now the crop has sprouted.

    Indeed, the Dems re-elected Mrs. Status Quo – Nancy Pelosi – as minority leader. And Pelosi claims :

    I don't think people want a new direction.

    Similarly, outgoing Senate minority leader Harry Reid says :

    I don't think the Democratic Party is in that big of trouble.

    I mean, if Comey kept his mouth shut, we would have picked up a couple more Senate seats and we probably would have elected Hillary.

    Of course, the whole claim that Russia hacked the U.S. election is baseless as is the whole hysterical claim that Russian propaganda swung the election.

    But it's not just America

    After Brexit and Italexit – with a potential Frexit looming on the horizon – the status quo in Europe is also trying to shift attention (look, squirrel!) from their failed policies to boogeymen.

    For example, European leaders are also claiming that Russian propaganda is interfering with European values.

    And Germany's incredibly unpopular Social Democratic party is claiming that Russia might hack its election.

    A former British cabinet member alleges that Russian hackers "probably" swayed the Brexit vote.

    And Washington Post national security reporter at Adam Entous told BBC this week that a CIA official claims that Russia hacked the Brexit vote, and the vote in Ukraine (starting around 1:09:58).

    What's next the status quo starts blaming their electoral losses on little green men?

    [Dec 13, 2016] If you boil down what Clinton and the Clintonites are saying, Putin stole the election from her, and Trump is a Russian agent of influence.

    Notable quotes:
    "... Where is Steiner?!?!?!? ..."
    "... What is ALREADY going on with Trump, Dems, Russia is fascinating – and he is NOT EVEN SWORN in yet!!! WOW! The war mongers are REALLY panicking . Anti commie – its the new politically correct viewpoint . ..."
    "... adding: "a party of buck-passing juveniles that have no vision for the future " ..."
    "... Republicans have an agenda. It's terrible but they have one. Democrats represent rule by the professional class, including bankers. That's it. Publicly, they're for rainbows, good things and bringing people together. ..."
    "... Several of my Democratic friends are simultaneously convinced that Trump is a Russian stooge and outraged that he won't listen to his daily national security briefings. ..."
    "... No. First, access was granted by .. Hillary and Podesta and their own idiocy ( her with the server, him with the pas*word) . IMO we are entitled to know what was in the emails. It certainly did not change my vote nor did it change the vote of anyone I know. ..."
    "... I think both Clinton and Trump would be terrible presidents but it has been obvious since she lost that Hillary is unable to accept this to the point of mental illness. First she tried to have her proxies do some damage and when that did not work, she counters with this. ..."
    "... The anti-Trump tapes . And the one with former Miss Universe – is she an American now? Do you call that 'foreign' intervention? "Former Miss Universe tries to steal election for HIllary!!!" ..."
    Dec 13, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Hillary: " Where is Steiner?!?!?!? " I don't envy whoever's gonna have to take her aside and tell her it's really over. Poor Bill

    If you boil down what Clinton and the Clintonites are saying, Putin stole the election from her, and Trump is a Russian agent of influence. The first is a casus belli , and the second is treason. The first demands a response at the very least of recalling our Ambassador from Moscow. That hasn't happened, which tells you that the people responsible for such things (Obama) don't take Clinton's casus belli seriously. The second calls for a solution "by any means necessary" (exactly as Clinton's previous claim, that Trump is a fascist, does).

    "By any means necessary" would include anything from a von Stauffenberg solution (no doubt the CIA has a wet team) all the way up to a coup. (This last is hard to imagine, since a coup demands occupying physical space with armed force. Who could Clinton call on?)

    So what the Clintonites have settled on is trying get the Electoral College to reverse the election. I can't imagine this coming to anything, since the majority of the electors - since Trump won the election - are Republicans

    Ian Welsh lays out the logic if the Clinton dog actually catches the car :

    If I were a Trump voter, and a bunch of electors, on data that is this uncertain, and which even if it is true amounts to "telling the truth about Hillary and Democrats" were to give the election to Clinton I would be furious.

    I would consider it a violation of democratic norms: an overturning of a valid election result because elites didn't like the result.

    And while I'm not saying they should, or I would (nor that I wouldn't), many will feel that if the ballot box is not respected, then violence is the only solution.

    If faithless electors give the election to Clinton, there will be a LOT of violence as a result, and there might even be a civil war.

    Ian is Canadian; then again, installing Clinton in office by retroactively changing the election rules is a "cross the Rubicon" moment. At least in Maine, I wouldn't picture a Civil War, but I would picture shattered windows in every Democrat headquarters in the state, and then we'd go on from there. Welsh concludes:

    This is where Nazi/Fascist/Hitler/Camps rhetoric leaves you. Nothing is off the table.

    Either decide you mean it, or calm down and take shit off the table that is going to get a lot of people dead if you pull it off.

    Exactly.

    "CIA admits it broke into Senate computers; senators call for spy chief's ouster" [ McClatchy (Re Silc)]. Fooled ya! From 2013. I'm so old I remember when anonymous CIA soruces weren't always revered as truth-tellers.

    fresno dan , December 12, 2016 at 2:17 pm

    What is ALREADY going on with Trump, Dems, Russia is fascinating – and he is NOT EVEN SWORN in yet!!! WOW! The war mongers are REALLY panicking . Anti commie – its the new politically correct viewpoint .

    timbers , December 12, 2016 at 3:07 pm

    Yes, there is something weird going on with these stories that the CIA appears to be spreading. MOA is saying the MSN is falsely reporting China is flying nukes it doesn't have in planes all over the place. Just a guess but bet this too comes from CIA

    China threatening us with nukes and Russia stealing our elections. The fake news B.S. quotient is off the richter scale. Makes you yearn for the good old days when all we had to worry about was WMD in Iraq.

    ProNewerDeal , December 12, 2016 at 4:18 pm

    except Putin & his dominant party in the Russian gov are not Commie, Putin is a right-wing authoritarian. I suppose Putin, Trump, & HClinton could each be labeled within the right-wing authoritarian category.

    politicalcompass certaintly categorized HClinton & Trump as right-wing authoritarian, & HClinton was closer to Trump on the graph, than she was to Sanders (left-wing libertarian)

    Carolinian , December 12, 2016 at 2:27 pm

    Hillary: "Where is Steiner?!?!?!?"

    Droll! How long before a Downfall video featuring Hillary's loss?

    fresno dan , December 12, 2016 at 3:20 pm

    Carolinian
    December 12, 2016 at 2:27 pm

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNVu7cCoVlg

    Such videos actually go back to 2015, but I thought you would enjoy the one where the H guy is talking about the actual election results .

    fresno dan , December 12, 2016 at 3:24 pm

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D026asX0oMo

    and the subtitles are much easier too read on this one .

    flora , December 12, 2016 at 2:48 pm

    re: the new McCarthyism.

    I'd expect this 'reds under the bed' fear mongering from Fox News, not from WaPo. Guess the Wapo is to the Dems what Fox News is to the GOP. Clarifying election, indeed.

    flora , December 12, 2016 at 2:49 pm

    adding: "a party of buck-passing juveniles that have no vision for the future "

    Yep. Pretty much.

    ChrisAtRU , December 12, 2016 at 3:02 pm

    #Concur – A marvelous turn of phrase

    NotTimothyGeithner , December 12, 2016 at 3:10 pm

    Really? Check out where Saints Jack and Bobby were during the red scare craze of the 50's. Freedom of speech wasn't their pet project. I know but "Dallas 1963", but there whereabouts in the 1950's aren't the product of conspiracy theory. For the fetishists, their red hunter status has to be ignored. Bobby was a full fledged inquisitor for McCarthy.

    The Dems are throwing on the golden oldies in an attempt to relive the glory of the past.

    dcblogger , December 12, 2016 at 2:59 pm

    what drives me crazy about the Russian hacking conspiracy theory is that there actually WAS a conspiracy to steal the 2016 election, as carefully documented by Greg Palast and Brad Friedman. It consisted of the crosscheck purge of the voting rolls, voter suppression and vapour voting machines. That no Democrat is talking about this tells me that the party is done for.

    Michael , December 12, 2016 at 4:42 pm

    +1

    RUKidding , December 12, 2016 at 5:23 pm

    Good points, and yes, that ticks me off as well. The D Party continues to sit on their thumbs and do bupkiss about real voting issues while issuing Red Scare Menace 3.0.

    Why bother voting Democratic? They're not going to do one blasted thing for the proles. They haven't for years and years.

    Steve C , December 12, 2016 at 5:35 pm

    Republicans have an agenda. It's terrible but they have one. Democrats represent rule by the professional class, including bankers. That's it. Publicly, they're for rainbows, good things and bringing people together.

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef , December 12, 2016 at 6:08 pm

    The tin foil hat theory is the CIA is currently stealing the election.

    Waldenpond , December 12, 2016 at 6:36 pm

    The CIA is sterotypically attempting to ouster the President elect for someone farther to the right? So, the same ol' same ol'.

    Anonymous , December 12, 2016 at 8:04 pm

    Yes, the tin foil hat theory is that this all stems from the situation in Syria The CIA's aka HRC"s Syria regime change is a failure. The CIA had high hopes, now dashed. The only chance for war with Russia is to get HRC installed. The recount failed. So, Plan B.

    fresno dan , December 12, 2016 at 3:11 pm

    http://jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com/2016/12/making-predictions-is-tough.html

    For those of us who think too much schadenfreude is ..wonderful

    NotTimothyGeithner , December 12, 2016 at 4:42 pm

    The goal is to keep local and state operators and donors from asking questions about the conduct of the Clintonistas and other elected Dems.

    There is a politico article from the wake of the 2014 disaster where elite Dems promised Hillary would save them. An incredible amount of money, time, and reputations was put behind a loser, not just a loser but a person who lost to Donald Trump. Anyone who donated any thing to the Clinton effort should be crazy about Clinton Inc's conduct, so Clinton Inc needs to blame everyone but themselves.

    Roquentin , December 12, 2016 at 4:20 pm

    Let's just say for the sake of argument that the CIA and the Democrats have massively overplayed their hand in these accusations against Russia. I suspect it wouldn't take all that much to bring it all down like a house of cards, with a major scandal ensuing in its wake. Let's say that the anonymous CIA source, assuming it was legit, has badly misrepresented what evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, is there. They're "all-in" on this now. People will have to resign or get fired within these organizations after Trump takes over because of this, wouldn't they? If their careers are on the line, who knows what they'll resort to in order to save their own skins? Maybe this play at flipping the Electoral College was the game all along.

    NotTimothyGeithner , December 12, 2016 at 5:52 pm

    The Clintons were abysmal candidates before emails were uttered. Hillary significantly under performed Gore in 2000 in New York by a significant margin despite a candidate too extreme for Peter King.

    Every doubt about Hillary's electability was based in fact and OBVIOUS to anyone who spent more than half a second taking the election seriously. Every Hillary primary voter who isn't a already spectacular crook failed as citizens by putting forth a clown such a Hillary. There are no ways around this.

    Hillary just lost to Donald Trump because "liberals" are too childish to take politics seriously, even her centrist supporters should have seen she is a clod. Of course, most centrists would stop being centrists if they possessed critical thinking skills.

    This is no less than trying to latch onto something that excuses their failures as citizens and human beings.

    Tom Allen , December 12, 2016 at 7:35 pm

    Several of my Democratic friends are simultaneously convinced that Trump is a Russian stooge and outraged that he won't listen to his daily national security briefings.

    lyman alpha blob , December 12, 2016 at 4:36 pm

    In light of the risible 'fake news' meme and NC's invocation of media related laws, here's a reminder of another law you may find useful – Sturgeon's Law .

    Sci fi writer Theodore Sturgeon was told by a critic that 90% of scifi was crap and he retorted that 90% of everything was crap. You just need to know how to find the good stuff.

    Caveat lector.

    Chromex , December 12, 2016 at 5:27 pm

    Except he was wrong about crap. 100% of crap is crap. And that's what this latest CIA fake news. influence the electors stuff is-100% crap,

    Aumua , December 12, 2016 at 6:31 pm

    Seems like this fake 'fake news' news (c) 2016 is primed to blow up right in the face of entities like The Times, as more and more people see that half of what they purvey as news is as likely to be B.S. as anything coming from an alternative, or even fringe website.

    What's more is that they are driving the point home that their news stories can't be trusted, with the very same 'fake news' story they are trying to use to emphasize how comparatively real their news is. The irony levels are off the scale. It's uncharted territory.

    Chromex , December 12, 2016 at 5:25 pm

    In order to accept this is any kind of deal ( I do not support Trump nor did I vote for him) there are so many hidden premises you have to accept it is laughable
    First let's assume that Putin himself donned a Mr Robot Hoodie and hacked the server and printed the emails and gave them to Assange who was sitting next to him.
    SO WHAT?

    Is the American public so gullible? Was that somehow unfair?

    No. First, access was granted by .. Hillary and Podesta and their own idiocy ( her with the server, him with the pas*word) . IMO we are entitled to know what was in the emails. It certainly did not change my vote nor did it change the vote of anyone I know.

    It's not like all the anti-Trump tapes etc were not strategically timed to influence the election. IS it OK if Americans do it?

    Second, all they could do with Trump was run past business stuff. He did not have a public policy record to reveal the man was not in government service.. she was. My view is that if the public was so influenced by the emails, which had some absolutely appalling details, none of which were forged, then they were entitled to be ,even if Hitler himself had done the hacking.

    It is disheartening that , less than a month after the NYT said maybe we were biased and we promise to be more careful they are again acting as propagandists and not pointing out all the absurd hidden premises that must be accepted to manufacture an issue. I am still waiting for the Times report on her "fake news" that she was under fire- obviously a story designed to influence primary voters.

    I think both Clinton and Trump would be terrible presidents but it has been obvious since she lost that Hillary is unable to accept this to the point of mental illness. First she tried to have her proxies do some damage and when that did not work, she counters with this.

    I never recall anyone saying that the Democratic party has an absolute right to control the flow of information in the world. AS much as i despise Trump and his stone age cabinet, I am starting to think he is less pathological about this than her. Perhaps if this latest gambit fails she will go the way of Lady Macbeth,

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef , December 12, 2016 at 6:57 pm

    The anti-Trump tapes . And the one with former Miss Universe – is she an American now? Do you call that 'foreign' intervention? "Former Miss Universe tries to steal election for HIllary!!!"

    [Dec 12, 2016] Why CIA is involved in DNC computers hacking probe?

    Dec 12, 2016 | angrybearblog.com
    likbez, December 11, 2016 11:46 pm

    Beverly,
    === quote ===
    Just the fact that Trump has now said he thinks the CIA's cyber forensics team is the same group that tries to determine the nuclear capacity of other countries is itself scary–and revealing. He doesn't recognize and obvious distinctions even about incredibly important things, doesn't understand the concept of expertise, and can't distinguish between important and unimportant things.
    === end of quote ===
    Two points:

    1. After Iraq WMD false claim CIA as agency had lost a large part of its credibility, because it is clear that it had succumbed to political pressure and became just a pocket tool in the dirty neocon political games. At this time the pressure was from neocons in Bush administration. Don't you think that it is possible that this is the case now too ?

    2. It's not the job of CIA to determine who and how hacked DNC computers or any other computers in the USA. CIA mandate is limited to foreign intelligence and intelligence aggregation and analysis. It is job of FBI and NSA, especially the latter, as only NSA has technical means to trace from where really the attack had come, if it was an attack.

    So any CIA involvement here is slightly suspect and might point to some internal conflicts within Obama administration. It is unclear why Obama had chosen CIA Also as CIA and State Department are closely linked as CIA operatives usually use diplomatic cover that request looks a little bit disingenuous as Hillary used to work for State Department. In this case one of the explanation might be that it can be attributed to the desire to create a smoke screen and shield Clintons from pressure by rank-and-file Hillary supporter (and donors) to explain the devastating defeat in electoral college votes against rather weak, really amateur opponent.

    [Dec 12, 2016] Something about jungoism of some US politicians

    The poster is trying to imply that John Bolton = Hillary Clinton as the Secretary of State. But I doubt that this is true. Still the level of jingoism in those quotes is really breathtaking...
    Dec 12, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org

    Everything is fake, b, everything is fake. One ring to bind them and in the darkness find them, and the One Party of Mil.Gov to rule them all with a $35B/yr domestic propaganda budget.Say hello to USArya's defacto 'day-to-day operations' SecState:

    ===

    John Bolton
    "Overthrowing Saddam Hussein was the right move for the US and its allies"

    Hillary Clinton
    "No, I don't regret giving the president authority [to invade Iraq] because at the time it was in the context of weapons of mass destruction, grave threats to the United States, and clearly, Saddam Hussein had been a real problem for the international community for more than a decade."

    ===

    John Bolton
    "Our military has a wonderful euphemism called 'national command authority.' It's a legitimate military target. In Libya, Muammar Gaddafi is the national command authority. I think that's the answer right there. ... I think he's a legitimate target... and that would end the regime right there."

    Hillary Clinton
    "We came, we saw, he died!"

    ===

    John Bolton
    "If, in this context, defeating the Islamic State means restoring to power Mr. Assad in Syria... that outcome is neither feasible nor desirable."

    Hillary Clinton
    "The world will not waver, Assad must go"

    ===

    John Bolton
    "To stop Iran's bomb, bomb Iran"
    "The only longterm solution is regime change in [Iran]."

    Hillary Clinton
    "I want the Iranians to know that if I'm president, we will attack Iran. In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them."

    ===

    John Bolton
    "Vladimir Putin's Russia is on the prowl in Eastern Europe and the Middle East in ways unprecedented since the Cold War"

    Hillary Clinton
    "[Russia is] interested in keeping Assad in power. So I, when I was secretary of state, advocated and I advocate today a no-fly zone and safe zones. ... I want to emphasize that what is at stake here is the ambitions and the aggressiveness of Russia. Russia has decided that it's all in, in Syria. ... I've stood up to Russia. I've taken on Putin and others, and I would do that as president."

    ===

    John Bolton
    "The gravest threat to U.S. interests ... is the Russia-Iran-Syria axis"

    Hillary Clinton

    "ISIS was primarily the result of the [power] vacuum in Syria caused by Assad first and foremost, aided and abetted by Iran and Russia."

    [Dec 12, 2016] Multiple CIA sources are now denouncing the Washington Post for knowingly reporting misleading national security intelligence

    Notable quotes:
    "... Multiple CIA sources are now denouncing the Washington Post for knowingly reporting misleading national security intelligence. Intelligence insiders said no one in the Agency or in the FBI, who is running at least one parallel inquiry, has ruled out a possible internal leak within the Democratic National Committee from actor(s) inside the United States who funneled private DNC emails to WikiLeaks. ..."
    Dec 12, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org

    ALberto | Dec 12, 2016 4:37:31 PM | 9

    Apparently CIA has finally figured out that their asses are toast. CIA has fed a constant stream of half truths and outright rabrications to US MSM and are now turning on WaPo. CIA also has killer drones and military powers they have no right to exercise. Apparently the rats are turning on each other. Let the trials and subsequent executions begin.

    LONG LIVE THE REPUBLIC

    However, the FBI reported they did not find evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the Russian Government did such a thing. The POST reported that a secret CIA report had been presented to lawmakers on Capitol Hill allegedly saying there was information linking Russia to the election hackings in favor of President-elect Trump.

    Now, the CIA is saying the POST got it wrong in fact, they allegedly lied. At this point I think the whole thing is a mess, and I don't see how the American people can decipher the "real" news from the "fake" news.

    Multiple CIA sources are now denouncing the Washington Post for knowingly reporting misleading national security intelligence. Intelligence insiders said no one in the Agency or in the FBI, who is running at least one parallel inquiry, has ruled out a possible internal leak within the Democratic National Committee from actor(s) inside the United States who funneled private DNC emails to WikiLeaks.

    http://investmentwatchblog.com/the-cia-says-they-did-not-tell-the-washington-post-that-russia-hacked-election-in-favor-of-trump/

    [Dec 12, 2016] US Insiders Not Russia Leaked Clinton Emails

    Dec 12, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org
    Posted by: jfl | Dec 12, 2016 2:22:05 AM | 75

    Greenwald documents the fake news produced and disseminated by 'actual, real journalists' at MSNBC, the Atlantic, and Newsweek ...

    A Clinton Fan Manufactured Fake News That MSNBC Personalities Spread to Discredit WikiLeaks Docs

    ... to counteract 'Russian propaganda', no doubt. bs.

    William Binney says US Insiders – Not Russia – Leaked Clinton Emails , and Craig Murray says he knows who leaked them ...

    We're in the midst of an attempted coup by the neo-cons and the cia. On or about 21 January we'll see what happens.

    Krollchem | Dec 12, 2016 9:21:27 AM | 91
    jfl@ 35

    For more information on the WaPo, CIA, Ukraine neo-nazi's and PropOrNot see:

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/12/09/the-anonymous-blacklist-promoted-by-the-washington-post-has-apparent-ties-to-ukrainian-fascism-and-cia-spying/

    Worth noting that Ukrainian associations have been deeply embedded in most large US cities since the early 1950s. Not unlike the AIPAC propaganda wing that pulls the strings in the US government.

    dahoit | Dec 12, 2016 10:54:07 AM | 94
    @22;We are not at war with Russia, so that article has no bearing on Trump.

    The only people at war with them are the ziomonsters and the CIA, and the divide and conquer MSM.

    Why would the CIA f*ck with an incoming POTUS? Because they are scared shiteless he will expose their 9-11 treason?

    ... ... ...


    [Dec 12, 2016] Paul Joseph Watson Dismantles Fabricated Russian Narrative Zero Hedge

    Dec 12, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    nmewn knukles , Dec 12, 2016 7:11 PM
    And having a KNOWN perjurer (James Clapper) presiding over this farce of an "investigation" is just the icing on the cake.

    "Senator Wyden then asked Clapper, "Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?" He responded "No, sir." Wyden asked "It does not?" and Clapper said "Not wittingly. There are cases where they could inadvertently, perhaps, collect, but not wittingly."

    Then it was revealed by Edward Snowden that, why yes, in fact the NSA does collect data on HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF PEOPLE HERE IN AMERICA (probably all) and not "unwittlingly"...on fucking purpose...snaring both Obama and Clapper in their fabricated stories otherwise known as lies.

    Clapper perjured himself before Congress, a felony.

    Period.

    End of story.

    [Dec 12, 2016] Joseph R. McCarthy - Cold War - HISTORY.com

    Dec 12, 2016 | www.history.com
    The next month, a Senate subcommittee launched an investigation and found no proof of any subversive activity. Moreover, many of McCarthy's Democratic and Republican colleagues, including President Dwight Eisenhower, disapproved of his tactics ("I will not get into the gutter with this guy," the president told his aides). Still, the senator continued his so-called Red-baiting campaign. In 1953, at the beginning of his second term as senator, McCarthy was put in charge of the Committee on Government Operations, which allowed him to launch even more expansive investigations of the alleged communist infiltration of the federal government. In hearing after hearing, he aggressively interrogated witnesses in what many came to perceive as a blatant violation of their civil rights. Despite a lack of any proof of subversion, more than 2,000 government employees lost their jobs as a result of McCarthy's investigations. "Have you no sense of decency, sir?" In April 1954, Senator McCarthy turned his attention to "exposing" the supposed communist infiltration of the armed services. Many people had been willing to overlook their discomfort with McCarthyism during the senator's campaign against government employees and others they saw as "elites"; now, however, their support began to wane. Almost at once, the aura of invulnerability that had surrounded McCarthy for nearly five years began to disappear. First, the Army undermined the senator's credibility by showing evidence that he had tried to win preferential treatment for his aides when they were drafted. Then came the fatal blow: the decision to broadcast the "Army-McCarthy" hearings on national television. The American people watched as McCarthy intimidated witnesses and offered evasive responses when questioned. When he attacked a young Army lawyer, the Army's chief counsel thundered, "Have you no sense of decency, sir?" The Army-McCarthy hearings struck many observers as a shameful moment in American politics. The Fall of Joseph McCarthy By the time the hearings were over, McCarthy had lost most of his allies. The Senate voted to condemn him for his "inexcusable," "reprehensible," "vulgar and insulting" conduct "unbecoming a senator." He kept his job but lost his power, and died in 1957 at the age of 48.

    [Dec 12, 2016] Clinton Campaign, Top Democrats Call For Intel Briefing, Commission Ahead Of Electoral College Vote

    Notable quotes:
    "... The authenticity of the content of the hacked/leaked emails were never in doubt. Several DNC lackeys, including the chair of the democratic national committee, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, were fired on the grounds of bias, fraud and even conspiracy to commit criminal acts. ..."
    "... Their desperation makes them very dangerous, especially while still ostensibly in charge of many elements of gov't and, of course, the entrenched MSM. ..."
    "... So can we now accept that the Russians hacked Hillarys server? Seems before the election, the Demorats kept trying to deny it happened. ..."
    "... What about the DHS trying to Hack the Georgia Election Computer System? ..."
    "... Not just gossip, an un-named official (not an official statement by the department head) stating with "confidence" (not evidence), off the record but reported in every major fish-wrap, that Russian hackers were interfered in our elections, AND inferring that they knew the motives/intentions behind this conjured crime. ..."
    "... If there were ANY evidence, the Dems would have paraded it out in front of us loudly and proudly the second they found it. Instead, they prefer making jacka$$es out of themselves (and our country) with innuendo-based trial balloons, as everyone in the world capable of critical thinking laughs at them (us). ..."
    "... So we are still "shooting the messenger"? Nobody wants to discuss the content of the Podesta emails, even though they have not been discredited in any way. ..."
    Dec 12, 2016 | Zero Hedge
    monad, Dec 12, 2016 8:46 AM

    Russians did not affect my votes against HRC. HRC did: Whitewater. Mena. Foster. Waco. OKC. Ruby Ridge. Her continuing career and liberty is proof of a Conspiracy.

    oncemore , Dec 12, 2016 8:13 AM

    What hacking?

    Gucifer said, that it was open. The sysadmin said, that it was unmodified Windows business suite server.

    Who needs more to get in, as a standard MS product? I am convinced every intelligence agency on this earth (yes, Zimbabwian agency as well), has a copy of all emails there.

    Andre , Dec 11, 2016 10:10 PM
    Doesn't anybody remember O was going to put our cybr-defenses on full alert to defend the election?

    http://www.rawstory.com/2016/11/us-bolsters-cyber-defense-for-election-f...

    (also posted to the nosebleed section of the main article).

    Ya know, if cyber defenses were increased, this should never have gotten this far.

    mary mary , Dec 11, 2016 8:45 PM
    Anthony Weiner is Russian? When will they indict Crooked Hillary?
    YHC-FTSE -> Handful of Dust , Dec 11, 2016 8:34 PM
    It looks like never doesn't it?

    The authenticity of the content of the hacked/leaked emails were never in doubt. Several DNC lackeys, including the chair of the democratic national committee, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, were fired on the grounds of bias, fraud and even conspiracy to commit criminal acts.

    Hillary Clinton herself can be indicted on lying under oath to Congress, conspiracy to commit criminal acts (Paying agitators to assault the supporters of her opponents), election fraud (See Veritas), contravening the Federal Records Act, Improper handling of classified documents, and I won't even go into Pizzagate, Saudi funding and the Clinton Foundation, or I'll be here typing all night.

    Where it gets interesting (actually vomit-inducing disgusting), just as Julian Assange alluded, is inside the Podesta emails that colludes with Huma Abedin's dirty laundry on her/Weiner's laptop. The missing (deleted) emails, the references to paedophile activities and snippets of pay-for-play inside the Clinton Foundation. These are not just embarrassing or technicalities that can be woven into excuses, but information that could bring hanging back as the ultimate form of justice for the perpetrators.

    So, these cretins are doing what they glanced at in The Art of War: That the best defense is offence. They are going all out full retard to save their lives using every asset they have in the msm, intelligence, politics and oligarchy.

    Look how fast they moved with H.R.6393 to criminalize alternative news. To discredit the leaked information, to discredit the source, to attack anyone who publishes or mentions them. They will not stop because they cannot stop. This isn't a subsidy for the failing msm, that's a bonus, this is a fight for their existence because they have committed crimes that not a single decent person in the world can abide. It is so horrific, I still have trouble with believing it, but the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming.

    Where this will lead is obvious -- a distraction first from the content of the leaks, false accusations and attacks on Russia and anyone who talks about it, leading to the biggest false accusation of all: Trump as a (willing or unwilling) foreign agent which amounts to treason and therefore unfit to be president. Bring the hammer down on the stock market at the same time and we have a conflagration erupting from the already boiling cauldron of American society. Too much conjecture? Maybe.

    francis_the_won... YHC-FTSE , Dec 11, 2016 10:51 PM
    "Too much conjecture? Maybe."

    No, you articulated what I was alluding to a few posts above (I posted before reading yours). Their desperation makes them very dangerous, especially while still ostensibly in charge of many elements of gov't and, of course, the entrenched MSM.

    They'll create the crisis they vow to not let go to waste. Any excuse to seize ultimate power.

    foxmuldar , Dec 11, 2016 5:03 PM
    So can we now accept that the Russians hacked Hillarys server? Seems before the election, the Demorats kept trying to deny it happened.

    What about the DHS trying to Hack the Georgia Election Computer System? http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/dec/9/georgia-election-official...

    mary mary foxmuldar , Dec 11, 2016 8:41 PM
    No, I can't accept that the Russian's hacked Hillary's server. Not until I see some evidence. Just repeating the same gossip a million times is not providing evidence.
    francis_the_won... mary mary , Dec 11, 2016 10:46 PM
    Not just gossip, an un-named official (not an official statement by the department head) stating with "confidence" (not evidence), off the record but reported in every major fish-wrap, that Russian hackers were interfered in our elections, AND inferring that they knew the motives/intentions behind this conjured crime.

    If there were ANY evidence, the Dems would have paraded it out in front of us loudly and proudly the second they found it. Instead, they prefer making jacka$$es out of themselves (and our country) with innuendo-based trial balloons, as everyone in the world capable of critical thinking laughs at them (us).

    This tactic is so brutally transparent that I really fear what they are really up to......or maybe they are this stupid?

    philipat Keyser , Dec 12, 2016 7:41 AM
    So we are still "shooting the messenger"? Nobody wants to discuss the content of the Podesta emails, even though they have not been discredited in any way. Classic divert and deflect tactics which a Libtard MSM enjoys being a part of.

    [Dec 12, 2016] Now German Politicians Worried About Striking Increase In Russian Propaganda And Fake News

    Notable quotes:
    "... CIA-controlled BND tells its journalists to follow with the program. ..."
    Dec 12, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com

    They probably forgot about Snowden revelation way too soon...

    Either Russian intelligence officials have suddenly become extremely efficient at disrupting national elections in the world's largest democracies or the establishment leaders of those democracies have intentionally launched a coordinated, baseless witch hunt as a way to distract voters from their failed policies. We have our suspicions on which is more likely closer to the truth...

    Either way, per Reuters , Germany's domestic intelligence agency is reporting a "striking increase" in Russian propaganda and disinformation campaigns aimed at destabilizing German society, and targeted cyber attacks against political parties.

    "We see aggressive and increased cyber spying and cyber operations that could potentially endanger German government officials, members of parliament and employees of democratic parties," Hans-Georg Maassen, head of the BfV spy agency, said in statement.

    Maassen, who raised similar concerns about Russian efforts to interfere in German elections last month, cited what he called increasing evidence about such efforts and said further cyber attacks were expected.

    The agency said it had seen a wide variety of Russian propaganda tools and "enormous use of financial resources" to carry out "disinformation" campaigns aimed at the Russian-speaking community in Germany, political movements, parties and other decision makers.

    The goal was to spread uncertainty, strengthen extremist groups and parties, complicate the work of the federal government and "weaken or destabilise the Federal Republic of Germany".

    Like accusations made by Hillary and Obama in the U.S., German politicians, including Chancellor Angela Merkel, have asserted that Russian intelligence agents and media outlets have attempted to spread "fake news" in an effort to "fan popular angst over issues like the migrant crisis." Of course, it can't simply be that voters disagree with Merkel's "open border" policies which have resulted in a massive influx of migrants that have been linked to increasing crime, terrorist attacks and sexual assaults on German citizens...that would just be silly and racist and xenophobic.

    German officials have accused Moscow of trying to manipulate German media to fan popular angst over issues like the migrant crisis , weaken voter trust and breed dissent within the European Union so that it drops sanctions against Moscow.

    But intelligence officials have stepped up their warnings in recent weeks, alarmed about the number of attacks.

    Last month, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said she could not rule out Russia interfering in Germany's 2017 election through Internet attacks and misinformation campaigns.

    Estonian Foreign Minister Sven Mikser on Thursday said he expected Russia to continue a campaign of "psychological warfare" and spreading false information after the cyber attacks launched during the U.S. election.

    "It's a pretty safe bet that they will try to do it again," he told Reuters in Hamburg at a meeting of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe. "They will try to surprise us. That's something that we should be very careful to look at and try to protect ourselves from."

    While we have absolutely no doubt in Merkel and Obama's assertions that Russia has been able to successfully sabotage national elections, it is curious that, in the U.S., Russian efforts were only successful in certain states where voters had been disproportionately hurt by past Clinton policies (e.g. WI, MI, PA, OH) but not in other swing states like Nevada, New Mexico and Colorado.

    Mediocritas, Dec 12, 2016 3:05 AM ,
    Pot calling the kettle black...again.

    CuttingEdge Mediocritas, Dec 12, 2016 3:17 AM ,

    Is this seriously the best these globalist craven cunts have got as a strategy?

    It really worked out well for them pre-election, didn't it?

    Question is, can they sustain this for eight fucking years without having anything to show for it (and no audience with an IQ over 75) at the end?

    Soros will need to dig deep to keep this shitshow on life-support.

    Captain Chlamydia CuttingEdge, Dec 12, 2016 3:31 AM ,
    Exactly. The whole Putin did it narrative in the MSM is government propaganda. Nato bullshit Deep State military industrial complex trying very hard to get the Sheeple to believe in their leaders.....
    HedgeJunkie Captain Chlamydia, Dec 12, 2016 3:45 AM ,
    Our War Criminal Government is why I'm embarrassed to call myself 'American'.

    I'm not too far from Mexico, I already have two cousins the emmigrated there. I like Mexians and Mexico.

    But I can't throw awasy what I already have.

    I expect a Yuge increase on the cost of renewing our passports,

    Sandmann HedgeJunkie, Dec 12, 2016 3:57 AM ,
    Mitt Romney's family fled to Mexico - you should read the story
    jaap Sandmann, Dec 12, 2016 4:18 AM ,
    Wollt ihr den totalen Krieg?
    Troy Ounce jaap, Dec 12, 2016 4:38 AM ,

    The biggest defeat for globalists would be that Europe will start looking east, towards Russia, instead of West. Follow the money for these German politicians: bet the "Open Society Foundation" from George Soros will be mentioned regularly.

    CuttingEdge Troy Ounce, Dec 12, 2016 5:15 AM ,
    Introducing Fake News, as faithfully supplied by that bastion of journalistic integrity (not ) - Der Spiegel :

    More pesky Russian fake news, Frau Merkel? Fearmongering propaganda, Mutti?

    ... ... ...

    HowdyDoody -> Troy Ounce, Dec 12, 2016 5:35 AM ,
    CIA-controlled BND tells its journalists to follow with the program.
    CuttingEdge -> Nobodys Home, Dec 12, 2016 3:18 AM ,
    Same puppetmasters.
    Nobodys Home -> CuttingEdge, Dec 12, 2016 3:22 AM ,
    Shudder! I just got a visual of ugly old Sore Os behind a puppet stage with innocent little kids watching the show.
    Kina, Dec 12, 2016 3:16 AM ,
    The world would be a better place if Russia actualy did all the things they have been accused of instead of the CIA and Germany making all this shit up.

    One thing is for certain the NWO was working on Russia at the time of the election, which Clinton was meant to be a guaranteed winner - expcept the Soros-Neocon-Clinton-DNC cabal totally fucked up their rigging, not realising how popular Trump actually was.

    NOW they are in total fucking panic trying to think of ways to get Trump out.

    These neocon fucktard New World Order proponents were trying to corner Russia, remove Putin and make Russia kow tow to the NWO and accept their new overlords. EXCEPT it was and is a total fucking stupid idea because the result would have been nuclear war - Russia would never ever bend to the USA and the NWO - they were totally dreaming if they believed that. And the result would have been a military alliance between China and Russia - with Europe and the USA and Russia in ashes.

  • The world dodge a nuclear bullet when Trump won. So now, having failed to overturn the election through Stein recounts and rigging (the judges wouldn't play along) they have to go the whole demonise Russia thing, as was their original plan. And they want to push it fast before the EU breaks up, as the sheeple wake the fuck up to these neocon Oligarch overlords.
  • My bet is a major False Flag attack somewhere outrageous blamed on Russia.

    These fucking neocons like Soros, Israel, Germany, Clintons and all their backers and cabal either are totally stupid or just don't give a fuck, knowing that nuclear war is a real possibility - AND that the USA CANNOT defend itself against nuclear attack , despite all the wankery about their defense systems.

    So these people know there is a chance of laying waste to the USA - and they don't care, it is worth it for their NWO.

  • Gavrikon -> Kina, Dec 12, 2016 3:30 AM ,
    Considering that the Russians are Hollywood's favorite general purpose villains (as opposed to the practitioners of the religion of peace, or Mexican criminals), this is hardly unexpected, dontcha think?
    dogismycopilot, Dec 12, 2016 3:16 AM ,
    The Russians ate my homework.

    Grumbleduke, Dec 12, 2016 3:19 AM ,
    last week I read that the german government was aware of the NSA spying at least since 2001. No outrage here. Outrage only occurs if you don't have any evidence, and it's the russians. Do you know how most of german elections are held? Paper ballots, ID-cards and lists of citizens who are elligible to vote. There's definitely some hacking possible... Hate your politicians, often!
    Joe A -> Grumbleduke, Dec 12, 2016 3:45 AM ,
    Not only did they know that the NSA spied on the German government -including Merkel's mobile- the German BND along with the NSA spied on the rest of Europe: policitians, EU officials and European businesses.
    Sandmann -> Grumbleduke, Dec 12, 2016 3:56 AM ,
    BND operates as an arm of NSA which funds their operation in Bad Aibling
    TruthBeforeAll -> Grumbleduke, Dec 12, 2016 5:54 AM ,
    "Outrage only occurs if you don't have any evidence..." Way less risk that way.
    DuneCreature -> rmopf2010, Dec 12, 2016 6:06 AM ,
    Well, you could be right about Snowden. .....

    While I will agree that if you knew where to look, in a basic fashion, everything he brought to light was already known or knowable, at least.

    The thing Snowden did was brought all the pieces together, stole the graphics (great visualizing tools), program names and working details and evidence that these things are all possible and on-line. ..... He brought the story together and made it very public. .........

    Not something that Boos Hamilton, the CIA or the NSA would have wanted. ..

    ... ... ...

    Ghordius, Dec 12, 2016 3:51 AM ,
    well, whatever you might think about Russian influence in the US...

    ... Russian influence on and in Germany (and all other european countries) is a quite different affair. one little factoid: the so called "Russlands-Deutsche"( * ), i.e. "Russian-Germans" number somewhere between two and three million , in Germany. we are talking here about at least one million that speaks Russian better then German, and reads/watches Russian News

    here, on this continent, we are btw somewhat used to external influences, be them Russian or US ones

    I forecasted to "Haus" some years ago that eventually the German political "status-quo" would start to point out the Russian influence on "Alternative für Deutschland". That moment is nearly there

    again: US Americans might be somewhat confused about foreign influences on their political matters

    here , it has been a reality during the whole of the Cold War and after, from both the US and Russia

    just some examples:

    the reports over the last years about the German parliament being spied upon and hacked by both the CIA and the Russian intelligence services are completely plausible. Merkel was holding up her phone... and alleged that the CIA was spying on her. again, very plausible

    the EU org in Brussels was hacked/spied upon by the British intelligence services, too. again, very plausible. indeed, now that the Brexit talks begin in a confrontational manner... there are even more reasons for the British GCHQ to spy on Brussels

    -------

    (*) wiki article about them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Germans_in_Russia,_Ukraine_and_...

    Sandmann -> Ghordius, Dec 12, 2016 3:55 AM ,
    They are caled "Spaetaussiedler" Ghordius. There are about the same number of Turks in Germany. It is true the prison population of Germany is largely Serbs, Turks, Spaetaussiedler and New Arrivals.

    I hear Russian but after having millions of Russian soldiers in Germany since 1945 and huge Russian influence back into the 18th Century that is not unusual. You can get Tax Forms in Russian but not English.

    Berlin always was the capital of the East never of the West which Adenauer cleverly placed on the Rhine rather than the Spree. Berlin has always had to consider Russia because ONLY in the years 1919-1939 and 1990-2016 has Germany NOT shared a border with Russia in the past 250 years.

    It is German Aggression that twice brought Russian troops to Berlin

    Ghordius -> Sandmann, Dec 12, 2016 4:07 AM ,
    Sandmann, as often, you try to "soften the blow" of my message with some tidbits that are often completely irrelevant

    they don't call themselves "Spätaussiedler". They call themselves Russlands-Deutsche, i.e. Russian-Germans

    their prison population is irrelevant, here. their right to vote in the German election is

    they read Russian News, they watch RT in Russian, they hold up signs like "Putin save us", and they are quite confused, to boot, and pawns in this "game"

    some Germans, when they arrived, made jokes that some of those Russian-Germans hardly qualified to "Germanness", up to saying things like "all families that in the 19th Century had once a German Shephard as pet". but this is too, irrelevant

    fact is that their numbers are substantial. fact is that they are influenced by their media consumption from Russia. fact is that they were used to see Putin and Merkel as good friends... until they weren't anymore, and since then they are bombarded with news how Merkel is the source of all evils, in Europe

    fact is also that the political establishments in Germany were, up to now, not that fond to tell them anything that would make them too confused because... they are voters, too. and in a political setup like Germany's, you don't tell hard truths to voters, and you don't insult them as dupes

    nevertheless, fact is that Russian (and US, note) influence on Germany's politics is substantial, including that on the Russlands-Deutsche in Germany

    samjam7 -> Ghordius, Dec 12, 2016 3:58 AM ,
    I don't think anyone is denying the fact that Germany has become a playball of foreign powers ever since it lost WW1, yes the first, not the second one was already desicive in that.

    Now, no matter how many German-Russians there are in Germany they are still citizens of your country, else they would not have been allowed to come back. The question for Germany needs to be looking ahead into the future, become aware that it is dependent or even controlled by other greater powers, a status it lost, one century ago. Its citizens should start to raise the question which side is better for us, should we work more closely with continental Russia, with all its ressources and land? Or should we work closer with martim ZATO? What has that relationship really done for us, what have we truly benefitted from it?

    Once there is a serious discussion going on about it, Germans will surely never support an atlantcist such as Merkel. For the time being, I'm glad there are German-Russians at least one branch of German society that is keenly aware of the dire situation your country is in.

    Ghordius -> samjam7, Dec 12, 2016 4:15 AM ,
    " no matter how many German-Russians there are in Germany they are still citizens of your country, else they would not have been allowed to come back "

    do you live in some alternate reality planet? check yourself on this your assumption

    we are talking about Russian citizens that were granted German citizenship when arriving in Germany because of their German ancestry

    the "Return of the Russian-Germans" to Germany has gone on since before and after WWI, and the only thing that stopped it for a while was the Iron Curtain

    nevertheless, it was a German policy to grant them citizenship on arrival

    and no, your "Merkel the Atlanticist" is a tad... extreme. it's not about Russia or "ZATO", here

    samjam7 -> Ghordius, Dec 12, 2016 4:53 AM ,
    Right, else they would not have been granted citizenship, I don't see why we should disagree on that subject.

    Regarding Merkel is not an Atlanticist, I would like a bit more of an argument just calling it extreme but not providing information as to why is not making your argument very strong. I have plenty of reasons to believe she is: "Allowing nuclear weaopns to be stationed in Germany against the will of the Bundestag, not being the slightest bit affected by the NSA spying scandal, supporting sanctions to Russia that hurt German business much more than British or American...the list goes on and on."

    Ghordius -> samjam7, Dec 12, 2016 5:11 AM ,
    samjam7, do you ever check on what you believe ? let's take only this: " (Merkel) allowing nuclear weapons to be stationed in Germany against the will of the Bundestag "

    just googled it. already in the second hit I get this:

    " The Bundestag decided in March 2010 by a large majority, that the federal government should 'press for the withdrawal of US nuclear weapons from Germany.' Even the coalition agreement between the CDU and FDP, the German government in 2009 had promised the withdrawal of nuclear weapons from Büchel. "

    that's the German Bundestag pressing/instructing the German executive to "do something" in that direction, yes

    that's not the German Bundestag doing a law , which is the very thing it could do, being a lawgiver

    saying "the will of the Bundestag" in this is just that: propaganda. and you fell for it

    the true will of the Bundestag is expressed in law. the rest is "please, try to...", so that your "Merkel is going against the will of..." is just... stretching the truth

    in the same way, there is a substantial difference between welcoming citizens of other countries because of their ancestry and granting them citizenship versus: "they already had that German citizenship"

    samjam7 -> Ghordius, Dec 12, 2016 5:29 AM ,
    Where in the above statement did I talk of law? You Germans always need everything 'schwarz auf weiss' or its wrong....

    I spoke of will and to be honest even your quote that you thankfully looked up, proofs without any doubt that the parliament had a will, namely not to station more nuclear weapons in Büchel. Now that the Bundestag doesn't fight with Merkel over it 'i.e. pass a law' is related to the political system of Germany and that its major parties are co-opted and prefer to nod off Merkel's politics than resist it. Also it is highly questionable whether the German Parliament has the authority to decide on these matters, as it delves into the grey area of who actually decides what kind of troops are stationed in Germany, Merkel or the US/UK?

    To call that Propaganda though is unwarranted and rather weak, or how more clearly can a Parliament demonstrate its will?

    [Dec 12, 2016] Former UK Ambassador Blasts CIAs Blatant Lies, Shows A Little Simple Logic Destroys Their Claims

    Notable quotes:
    "... William Casey (CIA Director), "We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false."? ..."
    "... if an organization has lost trust of national security affairs it should be DISBANDED ..."
    "... ...so why did Debbie Wassername-Schultz resign if the hacks were untrue about her non-neutrality toward Bernie Marx in favor of Hillary Crony? Is this not a usurpation of the peoples will and an affront to "democracy" everywhere? ..."
    "... How is it that a "charity" is only a "charity" as long as the people running this "charity" remain in power? Everyone suddenly becomes "less charitable" because she lost? Why is that? Can't they say cronyism and be done with it? ..."
    "... The entire story is based on a leak from Senate Staff on SSCI alleging what they were told in a briefing by CIMC. What SSCI was told is that there is no evidence of who was the hacker. Because Russia is one of many possibilities, somebody on SSCI who leaked to WaPo concluded for himself that the hacker was Russia. That is not what they were told. The vitriol should be directed toward WaPo and their Senate SSCI source. ..."
    "... As the Obama Administration falls apart, expect the various players to begin to look out for themselves. ..."
    "... Obama is hanging everyone out to dry in the futile attempt to save his own 'legacy'. ..."
    "... Truman signed its charter. The original intent was to assemble and study Information, period. Truman later remarked he would never have done so had he known it would go amok. Instead, it became a weapon of the Deep State. It is now a direct threat to the American Republic. ..."
    "... Ah, yes. The CIA The folks who claimed that Sony was hacked by North Korea, when a private security firm was able to directly finger the disgruntled ex-employees responsible. ..."
    "... The CIA is run by neocons, who are upset that their stooge Hillary lost the election and Trump, the elected President-to-be, is making a direct pivot towards accomodation with their arch-enemy Vladimir Putin. ..."
    "... Meanwhile, the receivers of the DNC leaks know who they got the information from, and swear publicly that that also was an inside leak. But if it were an inside leak, then it couldn't call the results of the election into question. Only interference by a Foreign Power can do that. ..."
    "... Same for the Nameless One. Does she want to admit that her own bureaucracy prefers that she not sit on the throne, or does she like the idea of blaming a sinister foreign entity for her loss? ..."
    "... If the Russians did it, is Obama twisting the knife in the Clinton's back? The email leaks were a false flag attack against the Clintons perpetrated by Obama to remove them from the power matrix, and install himself as head of the Democrat party, free from their influence, and free to move that party in the direction he wants as it's defacto leader. ..."
    "... John Swinton, Chief editorial writer of the New York Times from 1860 to 1870: "There is no such thing as a free press. You know it and I know it. There is not one of you who would dare to write his honest opinions. The business of the journalist is to destroy truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of Mammon, and to sell himself, his country, and his race, for his daily bread. We are tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are jumping jacks; they pull the strings, we dance; our talents, our possibilities, and our lives are the property of these men. We are intellectual prostitutes." ..."
    "... Clinton's is a common defense of the CIA: namely, the American people should stop criticizing the CIA because they don't know what it really does. This, of course, is the heart of the problem in the first place. An agency that is above criticism is also above moral behavior and reform. Its secrecy and lack of accountability allows its corruption to grow unchecked. ..."
    "... The CIA's response to this growing knowledge and criticism follows a typical historical pattern.(Indeed, there are remarkable parallels to the Medieval Church's fight against the Scientific Revolution.) The first journalists and writers to reveal the CIA's criminal behavior were harassed and censored if they were American writers, and tortured and murdered if they were foreigners. ..."
    "... Another common apologetic is that "the world is filled with unsavory characters, and we must deal with them if we are to protect American interests at all." There are two things wrong with this. First, it ignores the fact that the CIA has regularly spurned alliances with defenders of democracy, free speech and human rights, preferring the company of military dictators and tyrants. ..."
    "... Second, this argument begs several questions. The first is: " Which American interests?" The CIA has courted right-wing dictators because they allow wealthy Americans to exploit the country's cheap labor and resources. But poor and middle-class Americans pay the price whenever they fight the wars that stem from CIA actions, from Vietnam to the Gulf War to Panama. ..."
    "... The other begged question is: "Why should American interests come at the expense of other peoples' human rights?" The CIA should be abolished, its leadership dismissed and its relevant members tried for crimes against humanity. ..."
    "... Craig Murray: "[...] the mad CIA allegations against Russia and now claiming – incredibly – that the CIA believe the FBI is deliberately blocking the information on Russian collusion. " I wasn't aware of this CIA allegation against the FBI, it's quite astonishing. ..."
    "... Craig Murray: "[...] this rubbish has been the lead today in the Washington Post in the US and the Guardian here, and was the lead item on the BBC main news. " No one should be surprised that The Guardian is up to its neck in publishing ... garbage ..."
    Dec 12, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com

    A little simple logic demolishes the CIA's claims. The CIA claim they "know the individuals" involved. Yet under Obama the USA has been absolutely ruthless in its persecution of whistleblowers, and its pursuit of foreign hackers through extradition. We are supposed to believe that in the most vital instance imaginable, an attempt by a foreign power to destabilise a US election, even though the CIA knows who the individuals are, nobody is going to be arrested or extradited, or (if in Russia) made subject to yet more banking and other restrictions against Russian individuals? Plainly it stinks.

    The anonymous source claims of "We know who it was, it was the Russians" are beneath contempt.

    Urban Redneck -> Chris Dakota, Dec 11, 2016 6:07 PM
    The CIA has lots of evidence (both collected and manufactured) which is then misconstrued through politiczed analysis and dissemination to serve their own and their primary customer's personal interests.

    Back during the Reagan administration, someone casually told me "We spend more on disinformaion than we do on information" - I doubt things have changed that much since then.

    manofthenorth -> Urban Redneck, Dec 11, 2016 6:15 PM
    Also during the Reagan years;

    William Casey (CIA Director), "We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false."?

    Overdrawn -> Laddie, Dec 11, 2016 8:15 PM
    It wasn't a hack, it was a leak. It says so in the article.

    on 19th October CNN said the 2016 Election couldn't be hacked.

    https://duckduckgo.com/?q=cnn+2016+presidential+election+cannot+be+hacke...

    Badsamm -> bigdumbnugly, Dec 11, 2016 7:30 PM
    Correct me if Im wrong; but i thought the law prohibits the CIA from operations and investigations on home soil. That is the job for the FBI. Why is the CIA commenting on computer systems that were hacked in the US of A? There are at least a dozen other agencies (just as worthless) that this would fall under their jurisdiction.
    _mike123_ -> bigdumbnugly, Dec 12, 2016 12:02 AM

    If the Russians had anything to do with the hacked emails, which are only accusations, they did the American people a great service by exposing the evil of the DNC, HRottenC and their MSM minions, none of whom could care less about their ethics violations. They are only upset because they were caught. Their supporters have been had by their own kind and their leaders are now redirecting their exposure onto the Russians and Trump to keep their sheep misdirected from the real problems, HRC and Obama.

    post turtle saver -> bigdumbnugly, Dec 12, 2016 12:31 AM
    we all know what happened to the boy who cried "wolf" when none were there... by the time there actually _were_ wolves, no one believed him...

    the CIA has lost the plot and cried "wolf" too many times for anyone to believe them anymore... if an organization has lost trust of national security affairs it should be DISBANDED

    nmewn -> Billy the Poet, Dec 11, 2016 7:24 PM
    Well it is a wide open "bear trap"...lol...(to use a metaphor) sitting there out in the open un-camouflaged for everyone with two brain cells left in their heads to see...and at some point someone is going to ask...

    ...so why did Debbie Wassername-Schultz resign if the hacks were untrue about her non-neutrality toward Bernie Marx in favor of Hillary Crony? Is this not a usurpation of the peoples will and an affront to "democracy" everywhere?

    How is it that a "charity" is only a "charity" as long as the people running this "charity" remain in power? Everyone suddenly becomes "less charitable" because she lost? Why is that? Can't they say cronyism and be done with it?

    Yezzz, let the progressive tears flow, they taste wonderful ;-)

    chindit13, Dec 11, 2016 6:54 PM
    The Brit Ambassador has the wrong target, because he was caught by Fake News.

    The entire story is based on a leak from Senate Staff on SSCI alleging what they were told in a briefing by CIMC. What SSCI was told is that there is no evidence of who was the hacker. Because Russia is one of many possibilities, somebody on SSCI who leaked to WaPo concluded for himself that the hacker was Russia. That is not what they were told. The vitriol should be directed toward WaPo and their Senate SSCI source.

    As the Obama Administration falls apart, expect the various players to begin to look out for themselves. Do not be surprised if in the next few days, Brennan or someone else at the agency sets the record straight and throws some 'shade' on WaPo and Obama.

    Obama is hanging everyone out to dry in the futile attempt to save his own 'legacy'. Whoever might have been a loyal soldier and who fell on his sword if requested to do so is not going to do it anymore. Obama is a child who cannot accept that he has been an abject failure, so he is getting desperate to create some false historical record.

    imprehensibli , Dec 11, 2016 7:15 PM
    Canadian Journalist Eva Bartlett DESTROYS MSM FAKE NEWS ON SYRIA (please watch - important): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebE3GJfGhfA
    Stemmer -> imprehensibli, Dec 11, 2016 10:09 PM
    I remember Zerohedge reporting on a meeting last year with US Senator McCain and Arab terrorists that included photos . These terrorists were on the US most wanted list. Too bad that Canadian reporter did not mention that.
    SgtShaftoe, Dec 11, 2016 7:23 PM
    I'd say this entire campaign is far too clunky and clumsy to be executed by the CIA The CIA has done some incredibly evil shit in the past so I wouldn't put something like this past them, however they are far more professional generally than this from my limited exposure and what I've researched about activities of the agency.
    lakecity55, Dec 11, 2016 8:30 PM
    The "CIA" has outlived its usefulness. It needs to be broken up and disbanded. Truman signed its charter. The original intent was to assemble and study Information, period. Truman later remarked he would never have done so had he known it would go amok. Instead, it became a weapon of the Deep State. It is now a direct threat to the American Republic.
    kuwa mzuri, Dec 11, 2016 8:36 PM
    Our spy and security apparatus didn't defeat the Soviet Union's "evil empire" so much as it emulated it, using Orwell and Huxley as roadmaps, rather than warnings.
    Fathead Slim -> kuwa mzuri, Dec 11, 2016 11:12 PM
    True, the fall of the Soviet Union came as a complete surprise to US Intelligence agencies.
    fearnot, Dec 11, 2016 10:06 PM
    Maybe it wasn't the Russians. Who else could it possibly be? Not the CIA! Not in good ol USA. Maybe it was Aliens! After all the UK Mail thought as much with Kennedy. Or maybe Bush and his clan are the Aliens. All I can say is Trump better never let the CIA instead of Secret Service guard him and his motorcade!

    The CIA Kennedy assassination theory is a prominent John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theory. The CIA's potential involvement was frequently mentioned during the 1960s and 1970s when the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was involved in plots to assassinate foreign leaders, particularly Fidel Castro.[1][2] According to author James Douglass, Kennedy was assassinated because he was turning away from the Cold War and seeking a negotiated peace with the Soviet Union.[3][4] Accusations and confessions of and by alleged conspirators, as well as official government reports citing the CIA as uncooperative in investigations, have at times renewed interest in these conspiracy theories.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_Kennedy_assassination_conspiracy_theory

    joego1, Dec 11, 2016 10:24 PM
    The DNC leaks came from Seth Rich who was Arkansided; https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/4v3bpg/dnc_leaker_silenced_...

    Other leaks came from patriot U.S. intell; https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=steve+pieczenik+leaks+cam+f...

    Case closed; Fire the CIA

    Faeriedust, Dec 11, 2016 10:34 PM
    Ah, yes. The CIA The folks who claimed that Sony was hacked by North Korea, when a private security firm was able to directly finger the disgruntled ex-employees responsible.

    Let's break this down some more. The CIA is run by neocons, who are upset that their stooge Hillary lost the election and Trump, the elected President-to-be, is making a direct pivot towards accomodation with their arch-enemy Vladimir Putin.

    Meanwhile, the FBI is stacked with political employees and their career hirees installed under GW Bush, and leans strongly against the Democrats, to the point of deliberately leaking damaging evidence against the Democratic candidate the week before the election . . . granted that there wouldn't have been any information to leak, if Hillary had followed the laws and policies of her federal position.

    Meanwhile, the receivers of the DNC leaks know who they got the information from, and swear publicly that that also was an inside leak. But if it were an inside leak, then it couldn't call the results of the election into question. Only interference by a Foreign Power can do that.

    But to the extent that the Russians DID lobby against Hillary, they did so completely openly. If you read an article in Russia Today in favor of Trump or against Hillary, you can hardly claim to be deceived.

    The Russians are allowed to have an opinion; we can't stop that. What they aren't allowed to do is to vote, or to contribute money to the candidates' campaigns (here we will lightly skip over the millions donated to Hillary's campaign by Israeli dual citizens, the Saudis, the Australians, Nigeria, VietNam, India, Haiti . . .).

    tarabel, Dec 11, 2016 10:37 PM
    What did you expect them to say? "Uh, yes, Mr. President, it was us, actually." Of course they are going to point the finger elsewhere. Especially to someplace that cannot be pressured. You would too, if placed in the same position. Same for the Nameless One. Does she want to admit that her own bureaucracy prefers that she not sit on the throne, or does she like the idea of blaming a sinister foreign entity for her loss?

    And even if Russia did it, it's not like they made anything up. Come on, people. Realpolitik.

    gregga777, Dec 11, 2016 10:49 PM
    The CIA (Central Insanity Agency) IS the United States government. It controls all of the other so-called independent intelligence agencies. Would the CIA lie to overturn the 2016 Presidential elections? Well, the CIA are the very same people who: <
    • for decades have had hundreds of nationally and internationally prominent so-called journalists on the CIA payroll and controlled the stories reported by Western Mainstream Conporate News Media;
    • assassinated President John F. Kennedy because they were furious about the failure of their insane Bay of Pigs fiasco, the peaceful resolution of the Cuban Missile Crisis, etc., etc., etc.;
    • faked the Gulf of Tonkin intelligence to get the United States Congress to pass the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution giving the bloodthirsty Generals and Admirals and President Lyndon B. Johnson the false flag incident to drastically escalate the Vietnam War–closely located to the Golden Triangle's highly coveted rich heroin supplies–and all of the attendant decades of lying about that war;
    • destabilized Afghanistan to encourage invasion by the Soviet Union;
    • created, supported and armed the Sunni Mujahideen, which morphed into Al Qaeda following the Gulf War, to fight against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan;
    • encouraged President Jimmy Carter to admit the Shah of Iran to create the pretext for decades of enmity between Iran and the United States and destroy Jimmy Carter's Presidency;
    • encouraged Saddam Hussein to invade Kuwait to give President George H. W. Bush the pretext to declare war on Iraq;
    • were behind the 9/11/2001 false flag attacks on the World Trade Center towers, and their destruction with controlled explosives demolitions charges, and the Pentagon and then lied that it was all an Al Qaeda plot;
    • lied about Al Qaeda's role in 9/11/2001 to justify the invasion of Afghanistan with its highly coveted, rich poppy fields for heroin production;
    • lied about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to justify President George W. Bush's war of aggression against Iraq;
    • created, finances, arms and supports ISIS;
    • plans and carries out false flag operations to influence public opinion;
    • lie about whatever whenever it suits their agenda;
    • controls the 'narratives' in the Feral gangster government's organs of state propaganda (mainstream & social media and entertainment oligopoly);

    And far, far more. But, I got tired of typing and I don't want to bore the readers. The point being that they are ALL professional liars and the love of truth and the American Republic is not in them.

    Yes, of course the CIA would lie to overturn the 2016 Presidential elections.

    Crassius, Dec 11, 2016 11:02 PM
    If the Russians did it, is Obama twisting the knife in the Clinton's back? The email leaks were a false flag attack against the Clintons perpetrated by Obama to remove them from the power matrix, and install himself as head of the Democrat party, free from their influence, and free to move that party in the direction he wants as it's defacto leader.

    Blaming the leaks on the Russians gains obfuscation of Obama's chief foreign policy failure as President.... drawing a red line, then failing to act when it was crossed, which signaled to the world that he was an impudent little bitch that could be ignored in a world that understands only one thiing..... strength.

    holdbuysell, Dec 11, 2016 11:02 PM

    John Swinton, Chief editorial writer of the New York Times from 1860 to 1870: "There is no such thing as a free press. You know it and I know it. There is not one of you who would dare to write his honest opinions. The business of the journalist is to destroy truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of Mammon, and to sell himself, his country, and his race, for his daily bread. We are tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are jumping jacks; they pull the strings, we dance; our talents, our possibilities, and our lives are the property of these men. We are intellectual prostitutes."

    obelix, Dec 12, 2016 3:52 AM
    Clinton's is a common defense of the CIA: namely, the American people should stop criticizing the CIA because they don't know what it really does. This, of course, is the heart of the problem in the first place. An agency that is above criticism is also above moral behavior and reform. Its secrecy and lack of accountability allows its corruption to grow unchecked.

    Furthermore, Clinton's statement is simply untrue. The history of the agency is growing painfully clear, especially with the declassification of historical CIA documents. We may not know the details of specific operations, but we do know, quite well, the general behavior of the CIA These facts began emerging nearly two decades ago at an ever-quickening pace. Today we have a remarkably accurate and consistent picture, repeated in country after country, and verified from countless different directions.

    The CIA's response to this growing knowledge and criticism follows a typical historical pattern.(Indeed, there are remarkable parallels to the Medieval Church's fight against the Scientific Revolution.) The first journalists and writers to reveal the CIA's criminal behavior were harassed and censored if they were American writers, and tortured and murdered if they were foreigners.

    However, over the last two decades the tide of evidence has become overwhelming, and the CIA has found that it does not have enough fingers to plug every hole in the dike. This is especially true in the age of the Internet, where information flows freely among millions of people. Since censorship is impossible, the Agency must now defend itself with apologetics. Clinton's "Americans will never know" defense is a prime example.

    obelix, Dec 12, 2016 3:54 AM
    Another common apologetic is that "the world is filled with unsavory characters, and we must deal with them if we are to protect American interests at all." There are two things wrong with this. First, it ignores the fact that the CIA has regularly spurned alliances with defenders of democracy, free speech and human rights, preferring the company of military dictators and tyrants.

    The CIA had moral options available to them, but did not take them.

    Second, this argument begs several questions. The first is: " Which American interests?" The CIA has courted right-wing dictators because they allow wealthy Americans to exploit the country's cheap labor and resources. But poor and middle-class Americans pay the price whenever they fight the wars that stem from CIA actions, from Vietnam to the Gulf War to Panama.

    The other begged question is: "Why should American interests come at the expense of other peoples' human rights?" The CIA should be abolished, its leadership dismissed and its relevant members tried for crimes against humanity.

    Our intelligence community should be rebuilt from the ground up, with the goal of collecting and analyzing information. As for covert action, there are two moral options.

    The first one is to eliminate covert action completely. But this gives jitters to people worried about the Adolf Hitlers of the world. So a second option is that we can place covert action under extensive and true democratic oversight. For example, a bipartisan Congressional Committee of 40 members could review and veto all aspects of CIA operations upon a majority or super-majority vote.

    Which of these two options is best may be the subject of debate, but one thing is clear: like dictatorship, like monarchy, unaccountable covert operations should die like the dinosaurs they are.

    smacker, Dec 12, 2016 4:27 AM
    Craig Murray: "[...] the mad CIA allegations against Russia and now claiming – incredibly – that the CIA believe the FBI is deliberately blocking the information on Russian collusion. " I wasn't aware of this CIA allegation against the FBI, it's quite astonishing.

    The FBI and CIA are both utterly corrupt, as is every other faction of the Obola Administration including the Marxist slimeball himself at the very top, but what we see here are factions throwing allegations against each other.

    smacker, Dec 12, 2016 4:39 AM
    Craig Murray: "[...] this rubbish has been the lead today in the Washington Post in the US and the Guardian here, and was the lead item on the BBC main news. " No one should be surprised that The Guardian is up to its neck in publishing ... garbage written by Jonathen Freedland. After all it's been "the progressive Left's" house newspaper for years and is known as " The Grauniad " by dissenters.

    What is truly bad is that the BBC are coming out of the closet and once again revealing their own Left-wing Establishment bias by running fake news stories on its TV news channel.

    The Fing News, Dec 12, 2016 4:50 AM
    This is the same CIA that talked about WMD's in Iraq! They will continue being the good Clinton stooges they are. More lies from CIA!

    [Dec 12, 2016] Trump Claims of Russian interference in 2016 race ridiculous, Dems making excuses

    Notable quotes:
    "... President-elect Donald Trump, in an exclusive interview with " Fox News Sunday ," decried as "ridiculous" the CIA's reported assessment that Russia intervened in the election to boost his candidacy – describing the claim as another "excuse" pushed by Democrats to explain his upset victory. ..."
    Dec 12, 2016 | www.foxnews.com
    President-elect Donald Trump, in an exclusive interview with " Fox News Sunday ," decried as "ridiculous" the CIA's reported assessment that Russia intervened in the election to boost his candidacy – describing the claim as another "excuse" pushed by Democrats to explain his upset victory.

    "It's just another excuse. I don't believe it," Trump said. " Every week it's another excuse. We had a massive landslide victory, as you know, in the Electoral College."

    Trump spoke with Fox News' Chris Wallace in the president-elect's first Sunday show interview since winning the election.

    [Dec 12, 2016] Why CIA is involved in DNC computers hacking probe?

    Dec 12, 2016 | angrybearblog.com
    likbez, December 11, 2016 11:46 pm

    Beverly,
    === quote ===
    Just the fact that Trump has now said he thinks the CIA's cyber forensics team is the same group that tries to determine the nuclear capacity of other countries is itself scary–and revealing. He doesn't recognize and obvious distinctions even about incredibly important things, doesn't understand the concept of expertise, and can't distinguish between important and unimportant things.
    === end of quote ===
    Two points:

    1. After Iraq WMD false claim CIA as agency had lost a large part of its credibility, because it is clear that it had succumbed to political pressure and became just a pocket tool in the dirty neocon political games. At this time the pressure was from neocons in Bush administration. Don't you think that it is possible that this is the case now too ?

    2. It's not the job of CIA to determine who and how hacked DNC computers or any other computers in the USA. CIA mandate is limited to foreign intelligence and intelligence aggregation and analysis. It is job of FBI and NSA, especially the latter, as only NSA has technical means to trace from where really the attack had come, if it was an attack.

    So any CIA involvement here is slightly suspect and might point to some internal conflicts within Obama administration. It is unclear why Obama had chosen CIA Also as CIA and State Department are closely linked as CIA operatives usually use diplomatic cover that request looks a little bit disingenuous as Hillary used to work for State Department. In this case one of the explanation might be that it can be attributed to the desire to create a smoke screen and shield Clintons from pressure by rank-and-file Hillary supporter (and donors) to explain the devastating defeat in electoral college votes against rather weak, really amateur opponent.

    [Dec 12, 2016] If You Are For Peace You Are A Russian Agent by Paul Craig Roberts

    Notable quotes:
    "... If the CIA is actually stupid enough to believe this, the US is without a competent intelligence agency. Of course, the CIA didn't say and doesn't believe any such thing. The fake news stories in the presstitute media are all sourced to unnamed officials. Former British ambassador Craig Murray described the reports accurately: "bullshit." ..."
    "... Fake news is the presstitute's product. Throughout the presidential primaries and presidential campaign it was completely clear that the mainstream print and TV media were producing endless fake news designed to damage Trump and to boost Hillary. We all saw it. We all lived through it. What is this pretense that Russia is the source of fake news? ..."
    "... We have had nothing but fake news from the presstitutes since the Klingon regime. Fake news was used against Yugoslavia and Serbia in order to cloak the Clinton's war crimes. ..."
    "... Ironic, isn't it, that it is those who purport to be liberal and progressive who are responsible for the revival of McCarthyism in America. Moreover, the liberal progressives are institutionalizing McCarthyism in the US government. There is clearly a concerted effort being made to define truth as fake news and to define lies as truth. ..."
    www.unz.com

    Speaking of fake news, the latest issue of the National Enquirer at the supermarket checkout is giving the mainstream presstitute media a run for the money: "Castro's Deathbed Confession: I Killed JFK. How I framed Oswald."

    That's almost as good as the fake news going around the presstitute media, such as the TV stations, the Washington Post, New York Times, and Guardian-yes, even the former leftwing British newspaper has joined the ranks of the press prostitutes-that the CIA has concluded that "Russian operatives covertly interfered in the election campaign in an attempt to ensure the Republican candidate's victory."

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/10/cia-concludes-russia-interfered-to-help-trump-win-election-report

    If the CIA is actually stupid enough to believe this, the US is without a competent intelligence agency. Of course, the CIA didn't say and doesn't believe any such thing. The fake news stories in the presstitute media are all sourced to unnamed officials. Former British ambassador Craig Murray described the reports accurately: "bullshit."

    So who is making the stories up, another anonymous group tied to Hillary such as PropOrNot, the secret, hidden organization that released a list of 200 websites that are Russian agents?

    Fake news is the presstitute's product. Throughout the presidential primaries and presidential campaign it was completely clear that the mainstream print and TV media were producing endless fake news designed to damage Trump and to boost Hillary. We all saw it. We all lived through it. What is this pretense that Russia is the source of fake news?

    We have had nothing but fake news from the presstitutes since the Klingon regime. Fake news was used against Yugoslavia and Serbia in order to cloak the Clinton's war crimes.

    Fake news was used against Osama bin Laden, Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia in order to cloak the Bush regime's war crimes.

    Fake news was used against Libya and Syria in order to cloak the Obama regime's war crimes.

    Without fake news these three blood-drenched presidencies would have been hauled before the War Crimes Commission, tried, and convicted.

    Can anyone produce any truthful statement from the presstitute media about anything of importance? MH-17? Crimea? Ukraine?

    Ironic, isn't it, that it is those who purport to be liberal and progressive who are responsible for the revival of McCarthyism in America. Moreover, the liberal progressives are institutionalizing McCarthyism in the US government. There is clearly a concerted effort being made to define truth as fake news and to define lies as truth.

    (Reprinted from PaulCraigRoberts.org by permission of author or representative)

    [Dec 12, 2016] McCarthyism Is Breaking Out All Over by Paul Craig Roberts

    Notable quotes:
    "... As Pam Martens reports, another imbecile has now composed a list of 200 suspect professors who also dissent from the official bullshit fed to the American people. ..."
    "... In an effort to regain control over Americans' minds, they are attempting to define dissenters and truth-tellers as "Russian agents." Why "Russian agents"? Because they hope that their fake news portrait of Russia as America's deadly enemy has taken hold and will result in the public turning away from those of us labeled "Russian agents." ..."
    Dec 02, 2016 | www.paulcraigroberts.org

    As Pam Martens reports, another imbecile has now composed a list of 200 suspect professors who also dissent from the official bullshit fed to the American people.

    http://wallstreetonparade.com/2016/12/u-s-journalists-and-professors-appearing-on-rt-america-get-blacklisted/

    The official government purveyors of fake news in the US and their presstitute agents are concerned that they are losing control over the explanations given to the American people.

    In an effort to regain control over Americans' minds, they are attempting to define dissenters and truth-tellers as "Russian agents." Why "Russian agents"? Because they hope that their fake news portrait of Russia as America's deadly enemy has taken hold and will result in the public turning away from those of us labeled "Russian agents."

    I don't think it is working.

    [Dec 12, 2016] Fake News Versus No News

    Notable quotes:
    "... At the present moment, it is practically obligatory to slam Russia and Putin at every opportunity even though Moscow is too militarily weak and poor to fancy itself a global adversary of the U.S. ..."
    "... Candidate Donald Trump appeared to recognize that fact before he began listening to Michael Flynn, who has a rather different view. Hopefully the old Trump will prevail. ..."
    "... Blaming Russia, which has good reasons to be suspicious of Washington's intentions, is particularly convenient for those many diverse inside the Beltway interests that require a significant enemy to keep the cash flowing out of the pockets of taxpayers and into the bank accounts of the useless grifters who inhabit K-Street and Capitol Hill. ..."
    Dec 06, 2016 | www.unz.com

    ... ... ...

    ...Does the name Judith Miller ring any bells? And the squeaks of rage coming from the U.S. Congress over being lied to is also something to behold as the federal government has been acting in collusion with the media to dish up falsehoods designed to start wars since the time of the Spanish-American conflict in 1898, if not before.

    The fake news saga is intended to discredit Donald Trump, whom the media hates mostly because they failed to understand either him or the Americans who voted for him in the recent election. You have to blame somebody when you are wrong so you invent "fake news" as the game changer that explains your failure to comprehend simple truths. To accomplish that, the clearly observable evidence that the media was piling on Donald Trump at every opportunity has somehow been deliberately morphed into a narrative that it is Trump who was attacking the media, suggesting that it was all self-defense on the part of the Rachel Maddows of this world, but anyone who viewed even a small portion of the farrago surely will have noted that it was the Republican candidate who was continuously coming under attack from both the right and left of the political-media spectrum.

    There are also some secondary narratives being promoted, including a pervasive argument that Hillary Clinton was somehow the victim of the news reporting due specifically to fake stories emanating largely from Moscow in an attempt to not only influence the election but also to subvert America's democratic institutions. I have observed that if such a truly ridiculous objective were President Vladimir Putin's desired goal he might as well relax. Our own Democratic and Republican duopoly has already been doing a fine job at subverting democracy by assiduously separating the American people from the elite Establishment that theoretically represents and serves them.

    Another side of the mainstream media lament that has been relatively unexplored is what the media chooses not to report. At the present moment, it is practically obligatory to slam Russia and Putin at every opportunity even though Moscow is too militarily weak and poor to fancy itself a global adversary of the U.S.

    Instead of seeking a new Cold War, Washington should instead focus on working with Russia to make sure that disagreements over policies in relatively unimportant parts of the world do not escalate into nuclear exchanges. Russian actions on its own doorstep in Eastern Europe do not in fact threaten the United States or any actual vital interest. Nor does Moscow threaten the U.S. through its intervention on behalf of the Syrian government in the Middle East. That Russia is described incessantly as a threat in those areas is largely a contrivance arranged by the media, the Democratic and Republican National Committees and by the White House.

    Candidate Donald Trump appeared to recognize that fact before he began listening to Michael Flynn, who has a rather different view. Hopefully the old Trump will prevail.

    Blaming Russia, which has good reasons to be suspicious of Washington's intentions, is particularly convenient for those many diverse inside the Beltway interests that require a significant enemy to keep the cash flowing out of the pockets of taxpayers and into the bank accounts of the useless grifters who inhabit K-Street and Capitol Hill.

    Neoconservatives are frequently described as ideologues, but the truth is that they are more interested in gaining increased access to money and power than they are in promulgating their own brand of global regime change.

    ... ... ...

    Greasy William

    Russophobia/Putinophobia is as big as it is because it is a rare issue where the mainstream right, the left and the political class all agree, albeit for different reasons. The mainstream right is anti Russia because of the Cold War and Russia's support for Iran, Venezuela and Cuba. The left hates Russia because of Pussy Riot, humiliating Obama and Merkel in the Ukraine, Snowden, supporting anti immigrant politicians like Le Pen and Wilders, jailing/killing pro Western Russian politicians, the gay stuff and especially for Trump. The political class hates Russia simply because it is a rival to US power in Europe and the Middle East. Put all three together, and you get a political consensus for Russophobia.

    At the end of the day, however, Russophobia or even Putinophobia is a minority position in the US; or else Trump wouldn't have been elected. And a huge chunk of the people who voted for Hillary are blacks and hispanics, who don't give a rat's ass about Russia and probably couldn't even find it on a map.

    Before Pussy Riot/Ukraine/Snowden/Gays/Trump there was even a lot of sympathy in the US media for victims of Chechen terrorism, especially after the Beslan school thing. As late as the 2012 election, Obama was mocking Mitt Romney's Russophobia.

    [Dec 11, 2016] The U.S.-Russia Relationship Trump Cant Fix It, but He Cant Break It, Either - Foreign Policy Research Institute

    Notable quotes:
    "... Russia's Foreign Policy: Change and Continuity in National Identity ..."
    "... The Decision Point: Six Cases in U.S. Foreign Policy Decision-Making ..."
    "... American Foreign Policy: Past, Present and Future, 10 th Edition, ..."
    "... American Foreign Policy ..."
    "... National Security Strategy ..."
    "... National Security Strategy ..."
    "... Presidential Power; The Politics of Leadership ..."
    "... The President: Office and Powers 1787-1948 ..."
    Dec 10, 2016 | www.fpri.org

    The views expressed are the author's own and do not reflect the official policy or position of the U.S. Army War College, the Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.

    Over the past several months, much has been made of President-elect Donald Trump's attitude toward and connections with Russia and its leader Vladimir Putin. Some observers have charged that Trump is naïve about Putin's real objectives and have implied that a Trump administration is likely to subvert core U.S. security interests in a misguided attempt to repair the U.S.-Russia relationship. Others claim to have detected a genuine affinity between Trump and Putin and have wondered whether the two leaders – both known as pragmatic dealmakers – might be able to set the bilateral relationship on a more sustainable footing by ending the hostility and mistrust that have characterized it over the last several years. Neither is likely to happen: a President Trump will not abandon core U.S. security interests on the altar of cooperation with Russia, nor will he be able to cut a series of deals with Putin that repair the bilateral relationship.

    The influence of the U.S. and Russian presidents on the bilateral relationship is significantly more limited than is commonly assumed. Despite our penchant for personalizing the actions of the Russian government – for example, by charging that "Putin is in Ukraine" or wondering whether "Putin is likely to attack the Baltics" – Putin is neither in Ukraine nor likely to attack the Baltics. Elements of his government are certainly in Ukraine, but the process that got them there is far more complex than many Western observers assume. He is not the only figure that matters in that process although he does wield outsized power in comparison to the U.S. president. [1] Governmental decision-making, even in autocracies, is rarely a simple or straightforward process. Rather than reflecting a sober analysis of costs and benefits or the preferences of the top political leadership of a state, national security decision-making processes often produce policy choices that reflect the idiosyncrasies of a decision-making group or the "pulling and hauling" among government bureaucracies. [2] Additionally, foreign policy decision-makers, regardless of regime-type, must remain sensitive to public opinion in making their decisions.

    Thus, even if Trump and Putin decide to cooperate on the basis of what they both agree are interests shared between the U.S. and Russia, each will have to convince the rest of his government to go along, and each will have to push policies based upon this new vision of cooperation through his government's bureaucracy. This task will be far from simple since there are powerful elements within both governments that believe a rapprochement is not in the national interest. This is not to say a period of pragmatic cooperation is impossible. The Obama administration's 2009 "reset" with Russia is an example. Pursuant to the reset, the U.S. and Russia were able to agree on a new strategic nuclear arms treaty, on enhanced sanctions against Iran, and on the use of Russian territory as a resupply route for U.S. forces in Afghanistan, among other things. But within three years, the reset had largely run its course, and U.S.-Russian relations began to deteriorate. This deterioration began with the 2011-2012 anti-government protests in Russia (which the Kremlin suspected were supported by the U.S.), accelerated in the aftermath of the fall of the Gadhafi regime in Libya (which Russia saw as another instance of U.S.-sponsored regime change), and culminated in the fall of the Yanukovych regime (which Russia also blamed in the U.S.) and the Russian intervention in Ukraine. The failure of the Obama reset to put the bilateral relationship on a sustainable footing illustrates the reason a Trump reset will also fail in the long run. Namely, the issues in the U.S.-Russia relationship are largely structural, which gives the relationship a cyclical nature that defies control by leaders in either capital.

    As Kier Giles of the UK's Conflict Studies Research Centre has noted, there are predictable stages to Russia's relations with the West: euphoria, realism, disillusionment, crisis, and reset. A review of U.S.-Russian relations since the end of the Cold War bears this out and reveals three cycles of these stages. The first stage began in the early 1990s with the West proclaiming the courage and asserting the democratic credentials of Russian President Boris Yeltsin and with Russia proclaiming its desire to fully integrate into the Western political and economic system. Yeltsin's violent 1993 showdown with the Russian parliament and the 1994 Russian military intervention in Chechnya tempered the early euphoria in the West; the difficult economic conditions along with the perceived lack of economic support for Russia from the West tempered the early euphoria in Russia. Realism had descended into disillusionment on both sides by the late 1990s, spurred by the impacts of the Asian financial crisis, which spread to Russia in 1998, forcing the government to devalue the ruble and default on both domestic and foreign debt. A crisis in relations erupted over NATO's 1999 war in Kosovo and the resumption of Russia's war in Chechnya that same year.

    The first reset came in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks in the U.S. when Russia offered cooperation with the U.S. against terrorism and agreed to U.S. use of bases in the Central Asian States to support its campaign in Afghanistan. This reset was typified by the comment of then-President George W. Bush, who after meeting Putin, claimed to have looked him in the eye and gotten "a sense of his soul." Realism set in within a few years when the U.S. and Russia realized they defined the threat from terrorism and the legitimacy of measures to combat it very differently. This realism gave way to disillusionment over NATO's 2004 enlargement, which included the post-Soviet Baltic states and the "Color Revolutions" in Georgia in 2004 and Ukraine in 2004, which Moscow suspected were carried out with the assistance of the U.S. intelligence agencies. Russia's disillusionment was expressed publicly and bluntly in Putin's now notorious 2007 speech at the annual international security conference in Munich, Germany, where he accused the U.S. of threatening international security by developing ballistic missile defenses, undermining international institutions, destabilizing the Middle East, expanding NATO, and attempting to overthrow governments in the former Soviet bloc, among other things. The crisis in relations that ended this phase of the U.S.-Russia relationship was Russia's August 2008 invasion of Georgia. The third phase in bilateral relations began with the 2009 Obama administration's reset and ended, as noted previously, with the crisis in relations over the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

    The reason relations between the U.S. and Russia tend to be cyclical is that many of the factors that influence them are structural, or "built-in" to the patterns of interaction between the two countries. Like any two countries, Russia and the U.S. have some interests in common and some interests that clash. What makes the U.S.-Russia relationship unstable and prone to crisis is not the periodic clash of interests, but a lack of other factors that can act as "shock absorbers" when interests do clash. In some bilateral relationships – the U.S.-China relationship is a prime example here – a robust economic relationship can provide that shock absorber. Despite periodic complaints from both sides about elements of the relationship that displease them, the fact is that a major disruption in the U.S.-China economic relationship would be potentially catastrophic for both sides. China's export-dependent economy would lose access to its largest and most lucrative market, and the U.S. would lose a major foreign purchaser of its sovereign debt. Thus, when the U.S. and China find themselves in a situation where their interests clash, there are powerful incentives for both sides to contain the disagreement, lest it impact the bilateral economic relationship. No such economic shock absorber exists in the U.S.-Russia relationship : U.S. exports to Russia in 2013 totaled just $11 billion, or less than 0.1% of U.S. GDP, and U.S. imports from Russia totaled just $27 billion, under 0.2% of U.S. GDP. Compare these numbers with China, which, despite consistent U.S. complaints about the bilateral trade imbalance, constitutes a $300 billion market for U.S. exports. [3]

    Even where there are no economic interests to act as a shock absorber in a bilateral relationship, a shared ideology, worldview, or value set can play that role, but this is also lacking between the U.S. and Russia. In fact, the two countries have largely incompatible worldviews, and this fact tends to magnify the impact of any clash in interests rather than minimize it. Glenn P. Hastedt argues that American foreign policy is guided by, among other factors, moral pragmatism and legalism. Moral pragmatism holds that "state behavior can be judged by moral standards" and that "American morality provides the universal standard for making those judgments." [4] Legalism rejects power politics as a means of settling disputes and assumes that people are rational beings who abhor war. Therefore, the legalist tradition inclines American policy-makers to believe that a central task of U.S. foreign policy should be to "create a global system of institutions and rules that will allow states to settle their disputes without recourse to war." [5]

    A review of the four enduring U.S. national interests articulated in the 2015 U.S. National Security Strategy bears out Hastedt's claim. The first two of these interests are fairly standard, revolving around "the security of the U.S., its citizens, and U.S. allies and partners," and "A strong, innovative, and growing U.S. economy in an open international economic system that promotes opportunity and prosperity." [6] These interests, focusing on the physical security and economic prosperity of the state, are widely shared, including by Russia. But the other two of the four enduring U.S. interests bring the clash in worldview between the U.S. and Russia into sharp focus. These are "respect for universal values at home and around the world," and "an international order advanced by U.S. leadership that promotes peace, security, and opportunity through stronger cooperation to meet global challenges." [7] This focus on promotion of values and a (U.S.-led) rules-based international order is so strong in the U.S. foreign policy tradition that even presidents largely seen as realists and pragmatists, such as Nixon and Obama, have been unable to set these factors aside and focus exclusively on core U.S. security and economic interests.

    Russia's view of the world, unsurprisingly, is different. Conditioned by its history to view the world as a threatening place and to believe that a country as vast and diverse as Russia can only be ruled by a strong center, Russian political thought places little value on post-modern ideas about individual rights and is supremely skeptical of the idea that a global set of institutions and rules can prevent war. Instead, it holds a strong state to be the supreme guarantor of domestic tranquility and a stable military balance among Great Powers to be the best guarantor of international security. Furthermore, many Russians believe the U.S. is not truly committed to the promotion of what it deems universal values or the preservation of a set of global institutions as a means of enabling international cooperation. Instead, they tend to believe that the U.S. cynically uses concepts such as values and institutions to advance its own security interests and damage those of Russia. This incompatibility in worldviews often leads to misperception and miscommunication in Russian-American relations.

    A review of some of the main issues in the bilateral relationship since the end of the Cold War bears this assertion out. In Kosovo, for example, where the U.S. saw ongoing ethnic cleansing as justification for military intervention under the emerging doctrine of "responsibility to protect," Russia saw a military operation designed to destabilize and dismember Serbia, Russia's main ally in the Balkans. However implausible it may seem to those in the West, some Russians also saw the Kosovo operation as a dress rehearsal for a NATO-led intervention in Chechnya. NATO's enlargement also presents a case of fundamentally different interpretations of the same issue. Where the U.S. and the West see the enlargement of NATO as a way to ensure security, stability, and prosperity in as much of the Euro-Atlantic zone as possible, Russia sees encroachment on its borders by a potentially hostile military alliance. Enlargement of the European Union, while not seen as a military threat by Moscow, is however seen as an attempt to isolate and weaken Russia.

    A final example of how Russia and the West can observe the same phenomenon and come to fundamentally different conclusions concerns the so-called "color revolutions" in the former Soviet Union. Many in the West saw these popular uprisings, which peacefully ousted authoritarian governments in Georgia in 2003 (the "Rose Revolution"), in Ukraine in 2004 (the "Orange Revolution"), in Kyrgyzstan in 2005 (the "Tulip Revolution"), and again in Ukraine in 2014 (the "Maidan Revolution") as evidence that the peoples of the former Soviet Union wanted no more than peoples everywhere: to be governed justly and democratically. The Kremlin, however, claimed to see the hand of Western intelligence services in these political transformations and suspected the West was intentionally destabilizing pro-Russian governments in Russia's neighbors with the ultimate goal of bringing down the Russian government itself.

    Disagreement over the last two of these issues – the enlargement of Western institutions and popular revolution in Russia's neighbors – came together to cause war in Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine in 2014. In Georgia, the war started in August 2008, four months after NATO stated that Georgia and Ukraine would become members of the Alliance and after a long period of hostility between Georgia's pro-Western government headed by Mikhail Saakashvili and the Putin regime. In Ukraine, the catalyst for war was the overthrow of the pro-Russian government of Viktor Yanukovych, which had used violence against protesters angered by Yanukovych's rejection of an association agreement with the European Union. In both cases, fundamentally incompatible worldviews were the underlying cause of the conflict. The U.S. and the West espouse a liberal internationalist worldview that sees international institutions as focal points for cooperation, individual rights as sacrosanct, and democratic governments as inherently more legitimate and predictable – and therefore less threatening – than autocratic ones. Russia adheres to a more realist worldview, where military power is the currency that buys security, where stability is only maintained by a military balance among great powers, and where human rights and international law are seen as either irrelevant or as tools to be used – often cynically and instrumentally – by great powers to advance their security interests.

    A President Trump will be unable to change the fundamental characteristics of this relationship because the powers of the American president are much more constrained than those of most corporate CEOs. Presidential historian Richard Neustadt has observed that U.S. presidential powers really amount to the "power to persuade." Neustadt quotes Truman, who when contemplating an Eisenhower presidency in 1952, remarked, "He'll sit here and he'll say 'Do this! Do That!' And nothing will happen. Poor Ike – it won't be a bit like the Army. He'll find it very frustrating." [8] The reason for this is that even inside his own administration, the president has to persuade a large and sometimes recalcitrant community of national security and foreign policy professionals to implement his vision.

    And even if a president is able to get the executive branch moving in one direction with dispatch and purpose, he still has to deal with the Congress, which has more powers in foreign policy-making than is often assumed. As Edward Corwin has correctly observed, the U.S. Constitution is "an invitation to struggle for the privilege of directing American foreign policy." [9] The Congress a Trump administration will have to deal with – despite the Republican majorities in both houses – will be far from compliant on national security issues, especially where Russia is concerned. First, the Democratic minorities in the Senate and the House, already skeptical of Russia due to its autocratic form of government and documented human rights abuses, will be even more unwilling to acquiesce to major deals with Russia due to its interference in the U.S. presidential election, which some Democrats believe was intended to prevent the election of Hillary Clinton. On the Republican side, there is a group of national security hawks, led by John McCain in the Senate, who are strongly opposed to any cooperation with Russia, seeing it as the biggest single threat to America's interests. And although the president is less constrained in foreign policy than he is in domestic policy, Congress still has the power to deny him the achievement of his objectives in many areas. For example, Congress sets the levels of military aid for foreign partners, so even if a Trump administration were to request no aid for Ukraine and Georgia in an attempt to signal to Russia that the U.S. was not willing to contest their geopolitical affiliation, Congress could – and very likely would – reinstate robust military aid packages for both.

    In short, a President Trump will neither be duped into subverting core American security interests on the altar of cooperation with Russia, nor will he be able to build a sustainable partnership with Russia on the basis of deal-making with Putin. Despite his inexperience in foreign policy, the natural aversion of the executive branch national security and foreign policy community to radically change, along with a skeptical Congress, will prevent the former; the fundamentally incompatible worldviews of the U.S. and Russia will prevent the latter. Sustainable partnership between the U.S. and Russia would require a fundamental change in the worldviews of one or both. Either the U.S. would need to begin seeing the world in realist, power politics terms, something anathema to most Americans, or Russia would need to abandon its great power politics view of the world and become a post-modern state. No matter how much Putin and Trump may want to make cooperation work, neither of these is likely to happen over the short term. There may indeed be a Trump reset – in the same way there was an Obama reset and a Bush reset – that results in deals over issues not involving critical U.S. or Russian national security interests. But over time, the structural factors impeding long-term cooperation will reassert themselves, and the relationship will proceed through its familiar stages of realism, disillusionment, and crisis. Trump's main task – like those of Clinton, Bush, and Obama before him – will be to ensure that the as the relationship erodes, miscalculation and misperception do not allow it to escalate to open war. His predecessors managed to succeed in this; we should all wish President Trump similar success.


    [1] Although Putin's influence on Russian foreign policy is more pronounced than is that of the American president, the point here is that he is not unconstrained. Putin – and any Russian president – has to consider both the preferences of the Russian people and those of the Russian elite when making foreign policy decisions. In his 2016 book Russia's Foreign Policy: Change and Continuity in National Identity , Andrei Tsygankov locates Putin's foreign policy in Russia's Statist tradition, arguing that it has deep historical roots that Putin appeals to but did not create. Similarly, in their 2015 paper "Russian Foreign Policy in Historical and Current Context: A Reassessment," Olga Oliker and her co-authors note that while Putin's leadership style and viewpoints are important factors in Russian foreign policy decision-making, the process also reflects deeply-held, underlying Russian attitudes about Russia's place in the world and that these attitudes will drive Russian foreign policy decision-making after Putin is gone. Oliker and her co-authors also note that the Russian government is "deeply fearful of elite and public opposition to its actions," which also influences its foreign policy decisions.

    [2] David Patrick Houghton, The Decision Point: Six Cases in U.S. Foreign Policy Decision-Making (New York: Oxford University Press, 2013), p. 10.

    [3] "U.S.-Russian trade relationship? There really isn't one", Fortune, March 18, 2014, internet resource at: http://fortune.com/2014/03/18/u-s-russian-trade-relationship-there-really-isnt-one/ , accessed November 16, 2016.

    [4] Glenn P. Hastedt, American Foreign Policy: Past, Present and Future, 10 th Edition, (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2015), p. 65.

    [5] Hastedt, American Foreign Policy , p. 67.

    [6] Barack Obama, National Security Strategy (Washington, D.C.: White House, February 2015), p. 2.

    [7] Obama, National Security Strategy , p. 2.

    [8] Richard E. Neustadt, Presidential Power; The Politics of Leadership (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1960), p. 9.

    [9] Edward S. Corwin, The President: Office and Powers 1787-1948 (New York: New York University Press, 1948)

    [Dec 11, 2016] You do know that the big news in the (International) Sports section is the report on widespread and systematic Olympic team wide Russian doping?

    Dec 11, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Fiery Hunt , December 10, 2016 at 5:50 pm

    You do know that the big news in the (International) Sports section is the report on widespread and systematic Olympic team wide Russian doping?

    https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/dec/09/more-than-1000-russian-athletes-benefitted-from-state-sponsored-doping

    Try to keep up with the Bear baiting

    America Letting loose the Dogs of War is what we do!

    [Dec 11, 2016] Unraveling the Russian Hack Conspiracy Propaganda

    " BARACK OBAMA, WITH THE COOPERATION OF SOME IN THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY, ARE TRYING TO DISCREDIT TRUMP BEFORE THE ELECTION"
    Notable quotes:
    "... The whole "blame Russia" movement to account for Hillary's unexpected failure to win the Presidency got a new shot in the arm with today's announcement that Obama ordered: ..."
    "... The stupidity of this is profound. If this review leads to the "discovery" that Russia is carrying out espionage activities in the United States then we have passed the threshold of learning that there is gambling in a casino. ..."
    "... The real irony in all of this is that Wikileaks, thanks to the hack of the DNC and John Podesta emails, exposed the reality of Democrats working surreptitiously to tamper with and manipulate the election. Here are the highlights from that leak: ..."
    "... Best approach is to slaughter Donald for his bromance with Putin, but not go too far betting on Putin re Syria. ..."
    "... Blaming Russia for Hillary's flame out is absurd. The Russians did not create and lie about Hillary's server. They did not force her to back the multilateral trade agreements, such as NAFTA and TPP. They didn't set up the Clinton Foundation as a cash cow for the Clinton family. They did not force her to advocate imposing a No Fly Zone in Syria and having been a cheerleader for past wars, including Iraq and Libya. Vladimir Putin did not slip her a mickey and cause her to pass out at the 9-11 memorial, which fueled concerns about her health. And they did not infect her lungs and cause her to have extended coughing jags. They did not cause her to call Americans deplorables. They did not make her say that the coal industry should be shutdown. With that kind of record, coupled with her shrieking, screechy voice, why are folks surprised that she did not win? ..."
    "... So now Democrats and several Republicans are in a lather over the Russians stealing the election for Trump. The list of conspiracy theorists pushing this nonsense include John McCain, Lindsay Graham, Angus King of Maine, Brent Budowsky and Adam Schiff. I defy anyone, to explain to me how Russian meddling gave Trump the win. ..."
    "... The realities are this. First, as noted in the Budowsky email, the Clinton campaign came up with the idea of accusing Trump of being a stooge of Russia. They thought they'd get political bang out of that. They didn't. ..."
    "... Second, the hack of the DNC emails confirmed that the suspicions of many that the DNC and Hillary were collaborating to screw over Bernie and rig the election. That was not fake news. Cold, unwelcomed truth. That's when this drum beat about the big, bad Russians started meddling in our election started. Why? To distract attention away from the ugly reality that the DNC and Hillary were cheating. ..."
    "... The subsequent Wikileaks avalanche of Podesta emails reinforced as fact the existing suspicion that the media was in the bag for Hillary. ..."
    "... I would recommend you assemble a short reading list of everything surrounding President Kennedy's full acceptance of responsibility after the Bay of Pigs, beginning with the substance and tone of his unequivocal taking of responsibility and ending with his huge rise in the polls, to nearly 90% favorable ratings, after he did this. ..."
    "... And then I would suggest she plan the equivalent and take full, absolute and unequivocal responsibility for making a mistake with the private emails and give an honest, direct, explanation of the reasons I believe she used those private emails. . . . ..."
    "... Give Budowsky credit for one thing, if Hillary had followed his advice she might have won the election. But she was too busy exploiting the rules of a rigged game and trying to smear Trump as a Russian agent while failing to exercise genuine, sincere personal responsibility. ..."
    "... Barack Obama appears to be actively working to discredit the Trump election and has enlisted the intelligence community in the effort. How else to explain this disconnect? Yesterday, as noted above, Obama directed the intelligence community to: ..."
    "... I heard from a knowledgeable friend in September that Hillary's campaign was pressing the Obama White House to lean on the intel community and put something out blaming her woes on the Russians. That led to the October statement. And now we have the CIA via a SECRET report (that is leaked to the public) insisting that Trump's victory came because of the Russians. ..."
    "... This is a damn lie. The CIA is now allowing itself to be used once again for blatant political purposes. The politicization became a real problem under Bush. Let's not forget that these are the same cats who insisted it was a slam dunk that were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The same group who missed the rise of ISIS. ..."
    "... Also worth reminding ourselves that the head of the ironically titled "Intelligence Community" is a proven liar. Jim Clapper lied to the Senate about the NSA spying on Americans three years ago (December 2013) : ..."
    "... "Congressional oversight depends on truthful testimony – witnesses cannot be allowed to lie to Congress," wrote representatives James Sensenbrenner, Darrell Issa, Trent Franks, Raul Labrador, Ted Poe, Trey Gowdy and Blake Farenthold, citing "Director Clapper's willful lie under oath." ..."
    "... There is a consistent pattern in the Obama Administration of lying to the American people, especially when it comes to National Security matters. The NSA is not an isolated case. We also have Benghazi, Syria and Libya as other examples of not telling the truth and misrepresenting facts. ..."
    "... In my lifetime, going on 60 years, I have never seen such a display of incompetence as is being manifested by Barack Obama and mental midgets that surround him. ..."
    "... What they can say for sure is that the DNC and Podesta emails were hacked. Those hacked emails were passed to WIKILEAKS. Those emails were then released to the public. What the intel community will be hard pressed to prove is that the Russian Government conceived of and directed such a campaign. This is the true information operation to meddle in the U.S. election, but that isn't Russia. That's Obama. ..."
    Dec 09, 2016 | www.noquarterusa.net

    UPDATE–PLEASE SEE BELOW. BOTTOMLINE, BARACK OBAMA, WITH THE COOPERATION OF SOME IN THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY, ARE TRYING TO DISCREDIT TRUMP BEFORE THE ELECTION.

    Let me stipulate up front that both the United States and Russia engage in covert and clandestine information operations. It is called espionage. It is but one aspect of the broader intelligence activity also known as spying. Time for all you snowflakes in America to grow up and get a grip and deal with with reality. If the respective intelligence organizations in either country are not doing this they are guilty of malpractice and should be dismantled.

    There are two basic types of espionage activity–Covert refers to an operation that is undetected while in progress, but the outcome may be easily observed. Killing Bin Laden is a prime example of a "covert" operation. A Clandestine Operation is something that is supposed to be undetected while in progress and after completion. For example, if the U.S. or Russia had a mole at the top of the National Security bureaucracy of their respective adversary, communicating with that mole and the mole's very existence would be clandestine.

    So, the alleged Russian meddling in our election–was it covert or clandestine?

    The whole "blame Russia" movement to account for Hillary's unexpected failure to win the Presidency got a new shot in the arm with today's announcement that Obama ordered:

    a full review into hacking by the Russians designed to influence the 2016 election, White House Homeland Security and Counterterrorism Adviser Lisa Monaco said Friday.

    The stupidity of this is profound. If this review leads to the "discovery" that Russia is carrying out espionage activities in the United States then we have passed the threshold of learning that there is gambling in a casino.

    The real irony in all of this is that Wikileaks, thanks to the hack of the DNC and John Podesta emails, exposed the reality of Democrats working surreptitiously to tamper with and manipulate the election. Here are the highlights from that leak:

    DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz Calls Sanders Campaign Manager Jeff Weaver an "A–" and a "Liar"

    In May the Nevada Democratic State Convention became rowdy and got out of hand in a fight over delegate allocation. When Weaver went on CNN and denied any claims violence had happened, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, once she was notified of the exchange, wrote "Damn liar. Particularly scummy that he never acknowledges the violent and threatening behavior that occurred."

    Highlighting Sanders' Faith

    One email shows that a DNC official contemplated highlighting Sanders' alleged atheism - even though he has said he is not an atheist - during the primaries as a possibility to undermine support among voters.

    "It may make no difference but for KY and WA can we get someone to ask his belief," Brad Marshall, CFO of the DNC, wrote in an email on May 5, 2016. "He had skated on having a Jewish heritage. I read he is an atheist. This could make several points difference with my peeps. My Southern Baptist peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist."

    Building a Narrative Against Sanders

    "Wondering if there's a good Bernie narrative for a story which is that Bernie never ever had his act together, that his campaign was a mess," DNC National Secretary Mark Paustenbach wrote in an email to National Communications Director Luis Miranda on May 21. After detailing ways in which the Sanders camp was disorganized, Paustenbach concludes, "It's not a DNC conspiracy it's because they never had their act together."

    The London Observer noted that :

    The release provides further evidence the DNC broke its own charter violations by favoring Clinton as the Democratic presidential nominee, long before any votes were cast.

    It was the Clinton spokesman, Robbie Mook, who launched the claim on July 24, 2016 that these leaks were done by the Russians in order to help Trump:

    The source of the leak has not been revealed, though Hillary Clinton's campaign manager, Robby Mook, said on ABC News' "This Week With George Stephanopoulos" on Sunday that he believes the Russians were instrumental in it.

    "Experts are telling us that Russian state actors broke into the DNC, took all these emails and now are leaking them out through these websites," Mook said Sunday. "It's troubling that some experts are now telling us that this was done by the Russians for the purpose of helping Donald Trump."

    The Clinton campaign started planning to smear Trump as a Putin stooge as early as December 2015. The Podesta emails showed clearly that the Clinton campaign decided early on to clobber Trump for his "bromance" with Putin. It was Brent Buwdosky almost one year ago (December 21, 2015) who proposed going after Trump with the Russian card in an email to Podesta:

    Putin did not agree to anything about removing Assad and continues to bomb the people we support. We pushed the same position in 2012 (Geneva 1, which HRC knows all about) and Geneva 2 in 2014. Odds that Putin agrees to remove Assad are only slightly better than the odds the College of Cardinals chooses me to someday succeed Pope Francis. Best approach is to slaughter Donald for his bromance with Putin, but not go too far betting on Putin re Syria.

    Going after Trump as a Russian stooge was in the Clinton playbook long before Trump won a primary. One the wedge issues for Clinton with respect to Trump was Syria. Trump took a strong stand (which many thought would hurt him with Republicans) in declaring we should not be trying to get rid of Assad and that America should cooperate with the Russians in fighting the Islamists. Clinton, by contrast, called for imposing a No Fly Zone that would have risked a direct confrontation with Russia.

    Blaming Russia for Hillary's flame out is absurd. The Russians did not create and lie about Hillary's server. They did not force her to back the multilateral trade agreements, such as NAFTA and TPP. They didn't set up the Clinton Foundation as a cash cow for the Clinton family. They did not force her to advocate imposing a No Fly Zone in Syria and having been a cheerleader for past wars, including Iraq and Libya. Vladimir Putin did not slip her a mickey and cause her to pass out at the 9-11 memorial, which fueled concerns about her health. And they did not infect her lungs and cause her to have extended coughing jags. They did not cause her to call Americans deplorables. They did not make her say that the coal industry should be shutdown. With that kind of record, coupled with her shrieking, screechy voice, why are folks surprised that she did not win?

    So now Democrats and several Republicans are in a lather over the Russians stealing the election for Trump. The list of conspiracy theorists pushing this nonsense include John McCain, Lindsay Graham, Angus King of Maine, Brent Budowsky and Adam Schiff. I defy anyone, to explain to me how Russian meddling gave Trump the win.

    The realities are this. First, as noted in the Budowsky email, the Clinton campaign came up with the idea of accusing Trump of being a stooge of Russia. They thought they'd get political bang out of that. They didn't.

    Second, the hack of the DNC emails confirmed that the suspicions of many that the DNC and Hillary were collaborating to screw over Bernie and rig the election. That was not fake news. Cold, unwelcomed truth. That's when this drum beat about the big, bad Russians started meddling in our election started. Why? To distract attention away from the ugly reality that the DNC and Hillary were cheating.

    The subsequent Wikileaks avalanche of Podesta emails reinforced as fact the existing suspicion that the media was in the bag for Hillary. But no amount of media help and foreign money could transform Hillary into a likeable candidate. She was dreadful on the campaign trail and terrible at talking to the average American. Even her boy, Brent Budowsky, reluctantly acknowledged this in an email to John Podesta on Wednesday, August 26, 2015 :

    While I have been warning for some time about the dangers facing the Clinton campaign, aggressively in privately, tactfully in columns, during this latest stage I have been publicly defending her with no-holds barred, and here is my advice based on the reaction I have been receiving and the dangers I see coming to fruition.

    I would recommend you assemble a short reading list of everything surrounding President Kennedy's full acceptance of responsibility after the Bay of Pigs, beginning with the substance and tone of his unequivocal taking of responsibility and ending with his huge rise in the polls, to nearly 90% favorable ratings, after he did this.

    And then I would suggest she plan the equivalent and take full, absolute and unequivocal responsibility for making a mistake with the private emails and give an honest, direct, explanation of the reasons I believe she used those private emails. . . .

    She could say she was right anticipating this, but wrong in overreacting by trying to shield her private emails, and she takes full responsibility for this, and apologizes to her supporters and everyone else, and now she has turned over all information, it will ultimately be seen that there no egregious wrongs committed.

    She needs to stop talking like a lawyer parsing legalistic words and a potential defendant expecting a future indictment, which is how she often looks and sounds to many voters today. Instead, she should take full responsibility for a mistake with no equivocation, and segue into the role of a populist prosecutor against a corrupted politics that Americans already detest ..and make a direct attack against the Donald Trump politics of daily insults and defamations and intolerance against whichever individuals and groups he tries to bully on a given day, and while defending some Republican candidates against his attacks, she should deplore their being intimidated by his insults and offering pastel versions of the intolerance he peddles.

    In other words, she should stop acting like a front-runner who cautiously tries to exploit the rules of a rigged game to her advantage, and start acting like a fighting underdog who will fight on behalf of Americans who want a higher standard of living for themselves, a higher standard of politics for the nation, and a higher level of economic opportunity and social justice for everyone.

    Like JFK after the Bay of Pigs, the more responsibility she takes now the more she will succeed going forward.

    Give Budowsky credit for one thing, if Hillary had followed his advice she might have won the election. But she was too busy exploiting the rules of a rigged game and trying to smear Trump as a Russian agent while failing to exercise genuine, sincere personal responsibility.

    UPDATE –This is an extremely dangerous time now. Barack Obama appears to be actively working to discredit the Trump election and has enlisted the intelligence community in the effort. How else to explain this disconnect? Yesterday, as noted above, Obama directed the intelligence community to:

    "conduct a full review of what happened during the 2016 election process. It is to capture lessons learned from that and to report to a range of stakeholders," she said at a Christian Science Monitor breakfast with reporters. "This is consistent with the work that we did over the summer to engage Congress on the threats that we were seeing."

    Then comes news last night that :

    The CIA has concluded in a secret assessment that Russia intervened in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump win the presidency, rather than just to undermine confidence in the U.S. electoral system, according to officials briefed on the matter.

    Why do you order a review if the CIA has already made a factual determination? In fact, we were told in October that the whole damn intelligence community determined the Russians did it. USA Today reported this in October :

    The fact-checking website Politifact says Hillary Clinton is correct when she says 17 federal intelligence agencies have concluded that Russia is behind the hacking.

    "We have 17, 17 intelligence agencies, civilian and military who have all concluded that these espionage attacks, these cyber attacks, come from the highest levels of the Kremlin. And they are designed to influence our election. I find that deeply disturbing," Clinton said during Wednesday's presidential debate in Las Vegas .

    Trump pushed back, saying that Clinton and the United States had "no idea whether it is Russia, China or anybody else."

    But Clinton is correct. On Oct. 7, the Department of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence issued a joint statement on behalf of the U.S. Intelligence Community. The USIC is made up of 16 agencies , in addition to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

    I heard from a knowledgeable friend in September that Hillary's campaign was pressing the Obama White House to lean on the intel community and put something out blaming her woes on the Russians. That led to the October statement. And now we have the CIA via a SECRET report (that is leaked to the public) insisting that Trump's victory came because of the Russians.

    This is a damn lie. The CIA is now allowing itself to be used once again for blatant political purposes. The politicization became a real problem under Bush. Let's not forget that these are the same cats who insisted it was a slam dunk that were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The same group who missed the rise of ISIS.

    Barack Obama told CNN' Van Jones the following the other night :

    "The ability of ISIL to not just mass inside of Syria, but then to initiate major land offensives that took Mosul, for example, that was not on my intelligence radar screen," Obama told Zakaria, using the administration's term for the Islamic State terror group.

    Also worth reminding ourselves that the head of the ironically titled "Intelligence Community" is a proven liar. Jim Clapper lied to the Senate about the NSA spying on Americans three years ago (December 2013) :

    In a letter issued the day after a White House surveillance review placed new political pressure on the National Security Agency, the seven members of the House judiciary committee said that James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, ought to face consequences for untruthfully telling the Senate that the NSA was "not wittingly" collecting data on Americans.

    "Congressional oversight depends on truthful testimony – witnesses cannot be allowed to lie to Congress," wrote representatives James Sensenbrenner, Darrell Issa, Trent Franks, Raul Labrador, Ted Poe, Trey Gowdy and Blake Farenthold, citing "Director Clapper's willful lie under oath."

    There is a consistent pattern in the Obama Administration of lying to the American people, especially when it comes to National Security matters. The NSA is not an isolated case. We also have Benghazi, Syria and Libya as other examples of not telling the truth and misrepresenting facts.

    In my lifetime, going on 60 years, I have never seen such a display of incompetence as is being manifested by Barack Obama and mental midgets that surround him.

    What they can say for sure is that the DNC and Podesta emails were hacked. Those hacked emails were passed to WIKILEAKS. Those emails were then released to the public. What the intel community will be hard pressed to prove is that the Russian Government conceived of and directed such a campaign. This is the true information operation to meddle in the U.S. election, but that isn't Russia. That's Obama.

    Larry C. Johnson is a former analyst at the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, who moved subsequently in 1989 to the U.S. Department of State, where he served four years as the deputy director for transportation security, antiterrorism assistance training, and special operations in the State Department's Office of Counterterrorism. He left government service in October 1993 and set up a consulting business. He currently is the co-owner and CEO of BERG Associates, LLC (Business Exposure Reduction Group) and is an expert in the fields of terrorism, aviation security, and crisis and risk management, and money laundering investigations. Johnson is the founder and main author of No Quarter, a weblog that addresses issues of terrorism and intelligence and politics. NoQuarterUSA was nominated as Best Political Blog of 2008.

    [Dec 11, 2016] The CIA's Absence of Conviction by Craig Murray

    Notable quotes:
    "... There is no Russian involvement in the leaks of emails showing Clinton's corruption. Yet this rubbish has been the lead today in the Washington Post in the US and the Guardian here, and was the lead item on the BBC main news. I suspect it is leading the American broadcasts also. ..."
    craigmurray.org.uk

    I have watched incredulous as the CIA's blatant lie has grown and grown as a media story – blatant because the CIA has made no attempt whatsoever to substantiate it.

    There is no Russian involvement in the leaks of emails showing Clinton's corruption. Yet this rubbish has been the lead today in the Washington Post in the US and the Guardian here, and was the lead item on the BBC main news. I suspect it is leading the American broadcasts also.

    [Dec 11, 2016] Is Putin still a pro-globalization and maintains neoliberal views on major economic issues?

    Notable quotes:
    "... "We propose the creation of a harmonious economic community stretching from Lisbon to Vladivostok," Putin writes. "In the future, we could even consider a free trade zone or even more advanced forms of economic integration. The result would be a unified continental market with a capacity worth trillions of euros." ..."
    "... "The proposal comes as Putin travels to Germany on Thursday for a two-day visit, including a Friday meeting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel. On Wednesday, Russia and the EU reached an important agreement on the elimination of tariffs on raw materials such as wood. The deal was an important prerequisite for the EU dropping its opposition to Russian membership in the World Trade Organization. Moscow is hoping to become a member in 2011." http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/from-lisbon-to-vladivostok-putin-envisions-a-russia-eu-free-trade-zone-a-731109.html ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org

    Penelope | Dec 10, 2016 9:41:45 PM | 81

    Why bother w the unconvincing "Russia hacked?"
    • Causes more polarization, between those who believe it & those who don't.
    • More importantly, it's in support of "fake news" (censorship) which is a serious move.
    • Also, the reason for such an unconvincing accusation is in Russia & Putin:

    November of 2010, Putin wrote an editorial for Suddeutsche Zeitung. He urged No more tariffs. No more visas. Vastly more economic cooperation between Russia and the European Union.

    "We propose the creation of a harmonious economic community stretching from Lisbon to Vladivostok," Putin writes. "In the future, we could even consider a free trade zone or even more advanced forms of economic integration. The result would be a unified continental market with a capacity worth trillions of euros."

    "The proposal comes as Putin travels to Germany on Thursday for a two-day visit, including a Friday meeting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel. On Wednesday, Russia and the EU reached an important agreement on the elimination of tariffs on raw materials such as wood. The deal was an important prerequisite for the EU dropping its opposition to Russian membership in the World Trade Organization. Moscow is hoping to become a member in 2011." http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/from-lisbon-to-vladivostok-putin-envisions-a-russia-eu-free-trade-zone-a-731109.html

    While we applaud the breakup of the EU, recognizing it as a force which eats the liberty and economic prosperity of Europeans, Putin wants Russia to join it., and NATO as well.

    Putin at Valdai in 2015

    "I am certain that if there is a will, we can restore the effectiveness of the international and regional institutions system. We do not even need to build anything anew, from the scratch; this is not a "greenfield," especially since the institutions created after World War II are quite universal and can be given modern substance, adequate to manage the current situation.

    "We need a new global consensus of responsible forces. It's not about some local deals or a division of spheres of influence in the spirit of classic diplomacy, or somebody's complete global domination. I think that we need a new version of interdependence. We should not be afraid of it. On the contrary, this is a good instrument for harmonising positions"

    Putin supports the Rule of Law-- thru the Rockefeller-controlled UN. He's for national sovereignty but never speaks of the desirability for nations to regain trade sovereignty, let alone economic, immigration or currency sovereignty.

    An opposition must have an opposing vision. Otherwise, what is it opposing? Is it enough that it opposes US aggression as a means to bring about the shared vision of a regionally-administered global oligarchy? Is it enough that Russia's 1% have to fight the West's 1% to keep 74% of the wealth of Russia?

    The hacking accusation is not meant to persuade us that it's true-- but only to reinforce our feeling that there is opposition between Russia and the West: That Russia opposes the global tyranny which is progressing to completion. That we need do nothing but have faith in our minds in Putin and Russia.

    I hope I'm wrong guys. Can anybody find any words of Putin's which speak of the desirability of reversing any part of global governance?

    [Dec 11, 2016] Syrian Arab Army pulled out of Palmyra

    Notable quotes:
    "... ALBerto I agree. It is also clear the cease fire agreements between the army and the Russians in Syria were deliberately sabotaged on at least two occasions. This supports the view that there is a split between the CIA and the army. ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org

    Grieved | Dec 11, 2016 11:36:59 AM | 142

    @139 - Palmyra and sorry for OT

    From The Syrian Arab Army's "more official than any other" Facebook page:

    "...the city of Palmyra after the Syrian Arab Army units managed to regroup and counterattack; the counter attack was aimed to prevent ISIS from entering the city before the majority if not all civilians, what needs to be evacuated is evacuated.

    In the morning, an organized withdrawal order was given to the troops, even after the bulk of ISIS attack was repelled.

    As we mentioned the night ended with ISIS pushed over 7km form the city itself; and as we mentioned yesterday don't take any news as definitive.

    Yesterday, reinforcement from the Syrian Arab Army were sent led by one of the greatest SAA Generals, and everything changed afterwards.

    As for now, the Syrian Arab Army pulled out of Palmyra; we don't know the second step yet and we will update the page when we have information that we can share.

    In its latest post some 45 minutes ago, the page author explains: "...the Syrian command have to make hard choices to minimize SAA loses over any area on the map; because the control map can be changed either with huge casualties or with minimal casualties, but those who are lost cannot be revived."

    Joaquin Flores at Fort Russ puts this story together here: BREAKING: Syrian Army repels ISIS attack on Palmyra - Ready the Horses!

    It's a familiar story. We see armies advance and withdraw, advance and withdraw. What matters is how many civilians die or can be protected and how many soldiers are left, and to which side, which then rules the ground. Russian and Syrian gunships are inflicting massive damage on these terrorists. Civilians are being evacuated from the battle zones. At this moment SAA either controls the city or will control the city. But SAA controls the battle.

    From The Hague | Dec 11, 2016 3:41:29 AM | 111
    #108 @Kalen ISIS Blames 'Russian Interference' for Failed Attack on Palmyra
    http://russia-insider.com/en/russian-bombers-interfere-isis-attack-palmyra-dozens-moderate-rebels-killed/ri18128
    Ike | Dec 10, 2016 4:36:31 PM | 48
    ALBerto I agree. It is also clear the cease fire agreements between the army and the Russians in Syria were deliberately sabotaged on at least two occasions. This supports the view that there is a split between the CIA and the army. Good luck to trump and his friends. He is not someone I would normally support but it does appear that he is an outsider to both the Republicans and Democrats and may indeed be intent on draining the swamp. A very difficult road ahead as the corruption amongst the powerful in the USA is widespread. Karma is the word that comes to mind if one looks at what the USA has done to other countries around the world.
    ProPeace | Dec 10, 2016 5:49:11 PM | 60
    Nihil novi sub sole: new_york_times_headline_1974

    Also interesting Israeli mafia trafficking Syrian children's body organs

    harrylaw | Dec 10, 2016 7:38:08 PM | 68
    Robert McMaster@66 Tillerson's nomination could face intense scrutiny in the Senate, considering his years of work in Russia and the Middle East on behalf of the multinational petroleum company. Already, two leading Republican hawks, Sens. John McCain (Ariz.) and Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.), have voiced concerns about Tillerson's serving as the nation's top diplomat because of his ties to Putin.

    I can hear McCains first question "Have you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party.

    [Dec 11, 2016] The CIA's Absence of Conviction by Craig Murray

    Notable quotes:
    "... There is no Russian involvement in the leaks of emails showing Clinton's corruption. Yet this rubbish has been the lead today in the Washington Post in the US and the Guardian here, and was the lead item on the BBC main news. I suspect it is leading the American broadcasts also. ..."
    craigmurray.org.uk

    I have watched incredulous as the CIA's blatant lie has grown and grown as a media story – blatant because the CIA has made no attempt whatsoever to substantiate it.

    There is no Russian involvement in the leaks of emails showing Clinton's corruption. Yet this rubbish has been the lead today in the Washington Post in the US and the Guardian here, and was the lead item on the BBC main news. I suspect it is leading the American broadcasts also.

    [Dec 11, 2016] Russia Rigged Election, Killed JFK And Hid Saddams WMDs, Confirms CIA

    waterfordwhispersnews.com
    craazyboy December 10, 2016 at 10:10 am

    hahaha. Tho I think they made a spelling error- s/b Osamaovitch Boris Ladenofsky.

    Baby Gerald December 10, 2016 at 10:15 am

    Thanks for this– a much-needed Onion-esque satirical dig at the Globe/Post/NYT trifecta of garbage. To base a headline on information gleaned from anonymous sources and unnamed officials in secret meetings with unpublished agendas seems the most dangerous type of fake news there is. The death of irony was greatly exaggerated, if you ask me.

    Aumua December 10, 2016 at 2:43 pm

    Next up: Russia influenced the Superbowl. You thought the Cubs' actually winning was a little strange? Well, have we got a shocker for you..

    [Dec 11, 2016] XOM has long coveted the Siberian and sub-Arctic oil and Russia deeply needs our technology and capital to develop them

    Dec 11, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    MikeRW , December 11, 2016 at 9:33 am

    RE: Tillerman to State

    XOM has long coveted the Siberian and sub-Arctic oil and Russia deeply needs our technology and capital to develop them. Remember, Russia is a petro state and their economy is highly dependent on hydrocarbons. Also, as one of the great kleptocracies the ruling class, driven by Putin, needs higher oil prices to continue to drive their personal wealth. A major reason Russia seized the Crimea is that there is a very large offshore natural gas reserve that the Ukraine was putting up for bid and it looked like Gazprom wouldn't get it. A new, major source of natural gas to W. Europe is a direct threat to Russia which uses natural gas for both economic gain and political leverage. As I recall when they were trying to exercise political power in Ukraine they shut down the pipe of gas to them. I do not believe it is an accident that the Glencore investment into Rosneft occurred once Trump won and the prospects for a change in US policy looked possible (probable?). Russia is heavily indebted and any increase in export revenues can only help them. There has been some appreciation in the Ruble since the election. [Though I would expect a cold winter in W. Europe to help them more in the short run than the time it will take to alter US policies.]

    This probably means an end to the US participation in the multi-lateral agreement with Iran, which somewhat helps Russia as it keeps US dollars out and slows the development and export of Iran's oil. A modest potential bump up in oil prices. I would expect a loosening or end to the sanctions against Russia by Treasury pretty quickly.

    One also has to wonder if the recent agreement by OPEC to cut production was influenced by Trump's win. It either is a signal by the Saudi's that they can influence oil prices in the short term, which in this case pushes them up. Though I suspect they will be cautious and keep them below say $80 per barrel for Brent to ensure that there isn't a resumption of fracking in the US. For all the bluster, fracking is expensive oil and the drop in drilling reflects economics and isn't a function of regulations.

    Jim Haygood , December 11, 2016 at 12:14 pm

    Best rationale I've seen for the Saudis' sudden willingness to cut and cut some more, is that $80 crude will bolster Aramco's valuation in the planned 2018 IPO.

    Another factor in pulling off Aramco's epic IPO will be keeping the global economy out of recession and OECD stock prices bubbly.

    Perhaps the Saudis could give us a hand with that last bit. Dow 22,942!

    Brucie A. , December 11, 2016 at 11:38 am

    The New Yorker: Rex Tillerson, from a Corporate Oil Sovereign to the State Department

    The news that President-elect Donald Trump is expected to nominate Rex Tillerson, the chairman and chief executive of ExxonMobil, as his Secretary of State is astonishing on many levels. As an exercise of public diplomacy, it will certainly confirm the assumption of many people around the world that American power is best understood as a raw, neocolonial exercise in securing resources.

    [Dec 11, 2016] Are Saudis behind CIA "report" on Russian influence on elections?

    Dec 11, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Stormcrow , December 11, 2016 at 7:38 am

    What's behind the Russian Hack Propaganda? Two articles worth a read. I apologize if they've been posted before.

    What Are The Hearsay Leaks About "Russian Election Hacking" Attempting To Achieve?
    http://www.moonofalabama.org/2016/12/what-are-the-hearsay-leaks-about-russian-election-hacking-attempting-to-achieve.html

    BEHIND CIA"S "REPORT" ON ELECTION: THE SAUDIS
    https://www.emptywheel.net/2016/12/09/unpacking-new-cia-leak-dont-ignore-aluminum-tube-footnote/

    UserFriendly , December 11, 2016 at 7:47 am

    Well, At least Tillerson believes in Climate change and is in favor of a carbon tax
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2016/06/30/exxon-yes-exxon-backs-a-carbon-tax/#1fbb193e4aea

    Jim Haygood , December 11, 2016 at 9:00 am

    Are we seeing a pattern here? Tillerson - a Putin counterpart and recipient of Russia's Order of Friendship - to Moscow; Gov Branstad - farmin' buddy of Premier Xi since the 1980s - to Beijing. And so forth.

    Inside-the-Beltway folk are upset at the overturning of the established order, in which diplomatic posts go to the biggest bundlers, regardless of country knowledge. Lacking titles of nobility here in the Homeland, we need an outlet for the well-connected to purchase a prestigious sinecure and a black diplomatic passport. Otherwise a frightening Revolt of the Affluent could roil our streets.

    Still angling for the Court of St James myself - got any witticisms I could share with the Queen?

    Katniss Everdeen , December 11, 2016 at 10:15 am

    Like it or not, Tillerson as secretary of "state" makes a fair amount of sense.

    His appointment would acknowledge, pretty overtly, that american foreign "policy" is, always and everywhere, about energy.

    We ignore human rights abuses in saudi arabia and overthrow Gadhafi when he proposes demanding payment for oil in a gold-backed currency. Iraq. Assad must "go" because of a pipeline. A biden boy gets a seat on the board of a Ukranian energy company after a u. s. backed coup. The clinton foundation in Nigeria.

    And that's just the last decade or so of wars and "threats to american interests." Maybe it's time we just got honest about it.

    Carolinian , December 11, 2016 at 10:30 am

    Honesty would be a refreshing change.

    Jomo , December 11, 2016 at 11:02 am

    Don't say it's about "energy" 'cause it's about "oil."

    [Dec 11, 2016] Unraveling the Russian Hack Conspiracy Propaganda

    " BARACK OBAMA, WITH THE COOPERATION OF SOME IN THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY, ARE TRYING TO DISCREDIT TRUMP BEFORE THE ELECTION"
    Notable quotes:
    "... The whole "blame Russia" movement to account for Hillary's unexpected failure to win the Presidency got a new shot in the arm with today's announcement that Obama ordered: ..."
    "... The stupidity of this is profound. If this review leads to the "discovery" that Russia is carrying out espionage activities in the United States then we have passed the threshold of learning that there is gambling in a casino. ..."
    "... The real irony in all of this is that Wikileaks, thanks to the hack of the DNC and John Podesta emails, exposed the reality of Democrats working surreptitiously to tamper with and manipulate the election. Here are the highlights from that leak: ..."
    "... Best approach is to slaughter Donald for his bromance with Putin, but not go too far betting on Putin re Syria. ..."
    "... Blaming Russia for Hillary's flame out is absurd. The Russians did not create and lie about Hillary's server. They did not force her to back the multilateral trade agreements, such as NAFTA and TPP. They didn't set up the Clinton Foundation as a cash cow for the Clinton family. They did not force her to advocate imposing a No Fly Zone in Syria and having been a cheerleader for past wars, including Iraq and Libya. Vladimir Putin did not slip her a mickey and cause her to pass out at the 9-11 memorial, which fueled concerns about her health. And they did not infect her lungs and cause her to have extended coughing jags. They did not cause her to call Americans deplorables. They did not make her say that the coal industry should be shutdown. With that kind of record, coupled with her shrieking, screechy voice, why are folks surprised that she did not win? ..."
    "... So now Democrats and several Republicans are in a lather over the Russians stealing the election for Trump. The list of conspiracy theorists pushing this nonsense include John McCain, Lindsay Graham, Angus King of Maine, Brent Budowsky and Adam Schiff. I defy anyone, to explain to me how Russian meddling gave Trump the win. ..."
    "... The realities are this. First, as noted in the Budowsky email, the Clinton campaign came up with the idea of accusing Trump of being a stooge of Russia. They thought they'd get political bang out of that. They didn't. ..."
    "... Second, the hack of the DNC emails confirmed that the suspicions of many that the DNC and Hillary were collaborating to screw over Bernie and rig the election. That was not fake news. Cold, unwelcomed truth. That's when this drum beat about the big, bad Russians started meddling in our election started. Why? To distract attention away from the ugly reality that the DNC and Hillary were cheating. ..."
    "... The subsequent Wikileaks avalanche of Podesta emails reinforced as fact the existing suspicion that the media was in the bag for Hillary. ..."
    "... I would recommend you assemble a short reading list of everything surrounding President Kennedy's full acceptance of responsibility after the Bay of Pigs, beginning with the substance and tone of his unequivocal taking of responsibility and ending with his huge rise in the polls, to nearly 90% favorable ratings, after he did this. ..."
    "... And then I would suggest she plan the equivalent and take full, absolute and unequivocal responsibility for making a mistake with the private emails and give an honest, direct, explanation of the reasons I believe she used those private emails. . . . ..."
    "... Give Budowsky credit for one thing, if Hillary had followed his advice she might have won the election. But she was too busy exploiting the rules of a rigged game and trying to smear Trump as a Russian agent while failing to exercise genuine, sincere personal responsibility. ..."
    "... Barack Obama appears to be actively working to discredit the Trump election and has enlisted the intelligence community in the effort. How else to explain this disconnect? Yesterday, as noted above, Obama directed the intelligence community to: ..."
    "... I heard from a knowledgeable friend in September that Hillary's campaign was pressing the Obama White House to lean on the intel community and put something out blaming her woes on the Russians. That led to the October statement. And now we have the CIA via a SECRET report (that is leaked to the public) insisting that Trump's victory came because of the Russians. ..."
    "... This is a damn lie. The CIA is now allowing itself to be used once again for blatant political purposes. The politicization became a real problem under Bush. Let's not forget that these are the same cats who insisted it was a slam dunk that were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The same group who missed the rise of ISIS. ..."
    "... Also worth reminding ourselves that the head of the ironically titled "Intelligence Community" is a proven liar. Jim Clapper lied to the Senate about the NSA spying on Americans three years ago (December 2013) : ..."
    "... "Congressional oversight depends on truthful testimony – witnesses cannot be allowed to lie to Congress," wrote representatives James Sensenbrenner, Darrell Issa, Trent Franks, Raul Labrador, Ted Poe, Trey Gowdy and Blake Farenthold, citing "Director Clapper's willful lie under oath." ..."
    "... There is a consistent pattern in the Obama Administration of lying to the American people, especially when it comes to National Security matters. The NSA is not an isolated case. We also have Benghazi, Syria and Libya as other examples of not telling the truth and misrepresenting facts. ..."
    "... In my lifetime, going on 60 years, I have never seen such a display of incompetence as is being manifested by Barack Obama and mental midgets that surround him. ..."
    "... What they can say for sure is that the DNC and Podesta emails were hacked. Those hacked emails were passed to WIKILEAKS. Those emails were then released to the public. What the intel community will be hard pressed to prove is that the Russian Government conceived of and directed such a campaign. This is the true information operation to meddle in the U.S. election, but that isn't Russia. That's Obama. ..."
    Dec 09, 2016 | www.noquarterusa.net

    UPDATE–PLEASE SEE BELOW. BOTTOMLINE, BARACK OBAMA, WITH THE COOPERATION OF SOME IN THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY, ARE TRYING TO DISCREDIT TRUMP BEFORE THE ELECTION.

    Let me stipulate up front that both the United States and Russia engage in covert and clandestine information operations. It is called espionage. It is but one aspect of the broader intelligence activity also known as spying. Time for all you snowflakes in America to grow up and get a grip and deal with with reality. If the respective intelligence organizations in either country are not doing this they are guilty of malpractice and should be dismantled.

    There are two basic types of espionage activity–Covert refers to an operation that is undetected while in progress, but the outcome may be easily observed. Killing Bin Laden is a prime example of a "covert" operation. A Clandestine Operation is something that is supposed to be undetected while in progress and after completion. For example, if the U.S. or Russia had a mole at the top of the National Security bureaucracy of their respective adversary, communicating with that mole and the mole's very existence would be clandestine.

    So, the alleged Russian meddling in our election–was it covert or clandestine?

    The whole "blame Russia" movement to account for Hillary's unexpected failure to win the Presidency got a new shot in the arm with today's announcement that Obama ordered:

    a full review into hacking by the Russians designed to influence the 2016 election, White House Homeland Security and Counterterrorism Adviser Lisa Monaco said Friday.

    The stupidity of this is profound. If this review leads to the "discovery" that Russia is carrying out espionage activities in the United States then we have passed the threshold of learning that there is gambling in a casino.

    The real irony in all of this is that Wikileaks, thanks to the hack of the DNC and John Podesta emails, exposed the reality of Democrats working surreptitiously to tamper with and manipulate the election. Here are the highlights from that leak:

    DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz Calls Sanders Campaign Manager Jeff Weaver an "A–" and a "Liar"

    In May the Nevada Democratic State Convention became rowdy and got out of hand in a fight over delegate allocation. When Weaver went on CNN and denied any claims violence had happened, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, once she was notified of the exchange, wrote "Damn liar. Particularly scummy that he never acknowledges the violent and threatening behavior that occurred."

    Highlighting Sanders' Faith

    One email shows that a DNC official contemplated highlighting Sanders' alleged atheism - even though he has said he is not an atheist - during the primaries as a possibility to undermine support among voters.

    "It may make no difference but for KY and WA can we get someone to ask his belief," Brad Marshall, CFO of the DNC, wrote in an email on May 5, 2016. "He had skated on having a Jewish heritage. I read he is an atheist. This could make several points difference with my peeps. My Southern Baptist peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist."

    Building a Narrative Against Sanders

    "Wondering if there's a good Bernie narrative for a story which is that Bernie never ever had his act together, that his campaign was a mess," DNC National Secretary Mark Paustenbach wrote in an email to National Communications Director Luis Miranda on May 21. After detailing ways in which the Sanders camp was disorganized, Paustenbach concludes, "It's not a DNC conspiracy it's because they never had their act together."

    The London Observer noted that :

    The release provides further evidence the DNC broke its own charter violations by favoring Clinton as the Democratic presidential nominee, long before any votes were cast.

    It was the Clinton spokesman, Robbie Mook, who launched the claim on July 24, 2016 that these leaks were done by the Russians in order to help Trump:

    The source of the leak has not been revealed, though Hillary Clinton's campaign manager, Robby Mook, said on ABC News' "This Week With George Stephanopoulos" on Sunday that he believes the Russians were instrumental in it.

    "Experts are telling us that Russian state actors broke into the DNC, took all these emails and now are leaking them out through these websites," Mook said Sunday. "It's troubling that some experts are now telling us that this was done by the Russians for the purpose of helping Donald Trump."

    The Clinton campaign started planning to smear Trump as a Putin stooge as early as December 2015. The Podesta emails showed clearly that the Clinton campaign decided early on to clobber Trump for his "bromance" with Putin. It was Brent Buwdosky almost one year ago (December 21, 2015) who proposed going after Trump with the Russian card in an email to Podesta:

    Putin did not agree to anything about removing Assad and continues to bomb the people we support. We pushed the same position in 2012 (Geneva 1, which HRC knows all about) and Geneva 2 in 2014. Odds that Putin agrees to remove Assad are only slightly better than the odds the College of Cardinals chooses me to someday succeed Pope Francis. Best approach is to slaughter Donald for his bromance with Putin, but not go too far betting on Putin re Syria.

    Going after Trump as a Russian stooge was in the Clinton playbook long before Trump won a primary. One the wedge issues for Clinton with respect to Trump was Syria. Trump took a strong stand (which many thought would hurt him with Republicans) in declaring we should not be trying to get rid of Assad and that America should cooperate with the Russians in fighting the Islamists. Clinton, by contrast, called for imposing a No Fly Zone that would have risked a direct confrontation with Russia.

    Blaming Russia for Hillary's flame out is absurd. The Russians did not create and lie about Hillary's server. They did not force her to back the multilateral trade agreements, such as NAFTA and TPP. They didn't set up the Clinton Foundation as a cash cow for the Clinton family. They did not force her to advocate imposing a No Fly Zone in Syria and having been a cheerleader for past wars, including Iraq and Libya. Vladimir Putin did not slip her a mickey and cause her to pass out at the 9-11 memorial, which fueled concerns about her health. And they did not infect her lungs and cause her to have extended coughing jags. They did not cause her to call Americans deplorables. They did not make her say that the coal industry should be shutdown. With that kind of record, coupled with her shrieking, screechy voice, why are folks surprised that she did not win?

    So now Democrats and several Republicans are in a lather over the Russians stealing the election for Trump. The list of conspiracy theorists pushing this nonsense include John McCain, Lindsay Graham, Angus King of Maine, Brent Budowsky and Adam Schiff. I defy anyone, to explain to me how Russian meddling gave Trump the win.

    The realities are this. First, as noted in the Budowsky email, the Clinton campaign came up with the idea of accusing Trump of being a stooge of Russia. They thought they'd get political bang out of that. They didn't.

    Second, the hack of the DNC emails confirmed that the suspicions of many that the DNC and Hillary were collaborating to screw over Bernie and rig the election. That was not fake news. Cold, unwelcomed truth. That's when this drum beat about the big, bad Russians started meddling in our election started. Why? To distract attention away from the ugly reality that the DNC and Hillary were cheating.

    The subsequent Wikileaks avalanche of Podesta emails reinforced as fact the existing suspicion that the media was in the bag for Hillary. But no amount of media help and foreign money could transform Hillary into a likeable candidate. She was dreadful on the campaign trail and terrible at talking to the average American. Even her boy, Brent Budowsky, reluctantly acknowledged this in an email to John Podesta on Wednesday, August 26, 2015 :

    While I have been warning for some time about the dangers facing the Clinton campaign, aggressively in privately, tactfully in columns, during this latest stage I have been publicly defending her with no-holds barred, and here is my advice based on the reaction I have been receiving and the dangers I see coming to fruition.

    I would recommend you assemble a short reading list of everything surrounding President Kennedy's full acceptance of responsibility after the Bay of Pigs, beginning with the substance and tone of his unequivocal taking of responsibility and ending with his huge rise in the polls, to nearly 90% favorable ratings, after he did this.

    And then I would suggest she plan the equivalent and take full, absolute and unequivocal responsibility for making a mistake with the private emails and give an honest, direct, explanation of the reasons I believe she used those private emails. . . .

    She could say she was right anticipating this, but wrong in overreacting by trying to shield her private emails, and she takes full responsibility for this, and apologizes to her supporters and everyone else, and now she has turned over all information, it will ultimately be seen that there no egregious wrongs committed.

    She needs to stop talking like a lawyer parsing legalistic words and a potential defendant expecting a future indictment, which is how she often looks and sounds to many voters today. Instead, she should take full responsibility for a mistake with no equivocation, and segue into the role of a populist prosecutor against a corrupted politics that Americans already detest ..and make a direct attack against the Donald Trump politics of daily insults and defamations and intolerance against whichever individuals and groups he tries to bully on a given day, and while defending some Republican candidates against his attacks, she should deplore their being intimidated by his insults and offering pastel versions of the intolerance he peddles.

    In other words, she should stop acting like a front-runner who cautiously tries to exploit the rules of a rigged game to her advantage, and start acting like a fighting underdog who will fight on behalf of Americans who want a higher standard of living for themselves, a higher standard of politics for the nation, and a higher level of economic opportunity and social justice for everyone.

    Like JFK after the Bay of Pigs, the more responsibility she takes now the more she will succeed going forward.

    Give Budowsky credit for one thing, if Hillary had followed his advice she might have won the election. But she was too busy exploiting the rules of a rigged game and trying to smear Trump as a Russian agent while failing to exercise genuine, sincere personal responsibility.

    UPDATE –This is an extremely dangerous time now. Barack Obama appears to be actively working to discredit the Trump election and has enlisted the intelligence community in the effort. How else to explain this disconnect? Yesterday, as noted above, Obama directed the intelligence community to:

    "conduct a full review of what happened during the 2016 election process. It is to capture lessons learned from that and to report to a range of stakeholders," she said at a Christian Science Monitor breakfast with reporters. "This is consistent with the work that we did over the summer to engage Congress on the threats that we were seeing."

    Then comes news last night that :

    The CIA has concluded in a secret assessment that Russia intervened in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump win the presidency, rather than just to undermine confidence in the U.S. electoral system, according to officials briefed on the matter.

    Why do you order a review if the CIA has already made a factual determination? In fact, we were told in October that the whole damn intelligence community determined the Russians did it. USA Today reported this in October :

    The fact-checking website Politifact says Hillary Clinton is correct when she says 17 federal intelligence agencies have concluded that Russia is behind the hacking.

    "We have 17, 17 intelligence agencies, civilian and military who have all concluded that these espionage attacks, these cyber attacks, come from the highest levels of the Kremlin. And they are designed to influence our election. I find that deeply disturbing," Clinton said during Wednesday's presidential debate in Las Vegas .

    Trump pushed back, saying that Clinton and the United States had "no idea whether it is Russia, China or anybody else."

    But Clinton is correct. On Oct. 7, the Department of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence issued a joint statement on behalf of the U.S. Intelligence Community. The USIC is made up of 16 agencies , in addition to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

    I heard from a knowledgeable friend in September that Hillary's campaign was pressing the Obama White House to lean on the intel community and put something out blaming her woes on the Russians. That led to the October statement. And now we have the CIA via a SECRET report (that is leaked to the public) insisting that Trump's victory came because of the Russians.

    This is a damn lie. The CIA is now allowing itself to be used once again for blatant political purposes. The politicization became a real problem under Bush. Let's not forget that these are the same cats who insisted it was a slam dunk that were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The same group who missed the rise of ISIS.

    Barack Obama told CNN' Van Jones the following the other night :

    "The ability of ISIL to not just mass inside of Syria, but then to initiate major land offensives that took Mosul, for example, that was not on my intelligence radar screen," Obama told Zakaria, using the administration's term for the Islamic State terror group.

    Also worth reminding ourselves that the head of the ironically titled "Intelligence Community" is a proven liar. Jim Clapper lied to the Senate about the NSA spying on Americans three years ago (December 2013) :

    In a letter issued the day after a White House surveillance review placed new political pressure on the National Security Agency, the seven members of the House judiciary committee said that James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, ought to face consequences for untruthfully telling the Senate that the NSA was "not wittingly" collecting data on Americans.

    "Congressional oversight depends on truthful testimony – witnesses cannot be allowed to lie to Congress," wrote representatives James Sensenbrenner, Darrell Issa, Trent Franks, Raul Labrador, Ted Poe, Trey Gowdy and Blake Farenthold, citing "Director Clapper's willful lie under oath."

    There is a consistent pattern in the Obama Administration of lying to the American people, especially when it comes to National Security matters. The NSA is not an isolated case. We also have Benghazi, Syria and Libya as other examples of not telling the truth and misrepresenting facts.

    In my lifetime, going on 60 years, I have never seen such a display of incompetence as is being manifested by Barack Obama and mental midgets that surround him.

    What they can say for sure is that the DNC and Podesta emails were hacked. Those hacked emails were passed to WIKILEAKS. Those emails were then released to the public. What the intel community will be hard pressed to prove is that the Russian Government conceived of and directed such a campaign. This is the true information operation to meddle in the U.S. election, but that isn't Russia. That's Obama.

    Larry C. Johnson is a former analyst at the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, who moved subsequently in 1989 to the U.S. Department of State, where he served four years as the deputy director for transportation security, antiterrorism assistance training, and special operations in the State Department's Office of Counterterrorism. He left government service in October 1993 and set up a consulting business. He currently is the co-owner and CEO of BERG Associates, LLC (Business Exposure Reduction Group) and is an expert in the fields of terrorism, aviation security, and crisis and risk management, and money laundering investigations. Johnson is the founder and main author of No Quarter, a weblog that addresses issues of terrorism and intelligence and politics. NoQuarterUSA was nominated as Best Political Blog of 2008.

    [Dec 11, 2016] Something fishy about President Obama decision to investigate Russian influence of the recent Presidential elections

    Notable quotes:
    "... My perspective from across the ocean has always been that the McCarthy philosophy was the least admirable episode in recent US history. ..."
    "... It's almost as if the West, or at least Western Elite circles who have strived to saturate the airways with Russia-the-bogey-man material since the year dot, can they, on the back of this one-sided propaganda machine, wheel-out blame directed towards Russia for .... well almost anything they desire. ..."
    "... If only Barack Hussain Obama had not taken it upon his self to interfere in our referendum with his clear 'Back of the queue' threat, it may have been possible to not think he is a hypocrite. ..."
    "... I suspect this is one last roll of the dice by the 'democrats' to keep Trump out of office. ..."
    "... Obama is foolishly upping the ante, not on Putin, but on Trump. Trump's instinct will be to put a 10x hurt on Obama for this. Don't punk Trump. ..."
    "... They are desperate to discredit the winner. It is as ineffective as any of his failed policies ..."
    "... In other words, Obama admits he hasn't kept America secure versus 21st-century threats. ..."
    "... Obama has said the intelligence agencies had the proof that Russia interfered with the election. With all their proof why order a review? Can't wait until Obama leaves office. ..."
    "... what, is the USA the new Latin America, and Russia the new CIA ? forever meddling surreptitiously to undermine and overthrow other sovereign nation states democratic processes ? that's just so unfair ..."
    "... It is a funny joke, but on the essence I would advise to read investigative report "The New Red Scare" in Harpers. The evidence of Russian government having anything to do with any hacks is literally non-existing. ..."
    "... The US, heckler of the world for decades, stirring trouble wherever the dart falls, and yet Russian hackers and North Korean hookers are to blame for 99.9% of the worlds problems. Reality is, if the US didn't move past its own borders for 10 years the world would be already a much, much better place. ..."
    "... The Guardian probably shouldn't go along in helping build the new McCarthyist, Cold War narrative, especially when it's just a bunch of US politicians and media figures repeating politically expedient, but factually unsupported claims. The Western media is trying to be Hearst Newspapers in the Spanish-American war. ..."
    "... This is explicitly bad because it allows the suppression of dissent, of creating blacklists, the military industrial complex to further consolidate power, and to blame all sorts of domestic failures on shadowing foreign influence. ..."
    "... But when Judith Miller, the NYT, George Bush and Hillary Clinton used fake news to kill hundreds of thousands, Obama told us to get over it, to "look forward and not backward." ..."
    "... The United States has attempted to push its democratic ideologies on countries all over the world, using means much more direct than hacking. Yet they cannot take a fraction of what they dish out. If Russia is indeed intervening to aid nationalists around the world, then Russia is a friend and should be welcomed with open arms. Trump should do the same, and used the powers of the United States to undermine [neoliberal] leftists around the globe. ..."
    Dec 11, 2016 | , discussion.theguardian.com
    Mauryan , 9 Dec 2016 18:29
    Interesting - Obama never ordered an independent probe into 9/11 or invasion of Iraq or on the Wall Street Collapse. Somehow Russian hacking seems to be more draconian than all the above.

    And Russians somehow got into the brains of the disgruntled white population, and controlled Trump's brain so that he would be voted to power. Then they still control Trump's brain so much that he is wanting to let NATO countries pay for their security, make Japan, South Korea and everyone else where US maintains its bases to pay for themselves.

    And then suddenly there is a news of a thousand Russian athletes doing well in 2012 London Olympics due to enhanced drugs. Until now, no one knew about this or heard about it.

    It is not that I am supporting Russia all of a sudden. It is just that I am not supporting the attempt to create enemies out of thin air and make them monstrous as needed, while covering even more sinister schemes that need public attention.

    Obama is part of the same system too that runs everything from behind the curtains. He still is a good man. But he has only some much room to function within and survive.

    Karahashianders -> Mauryan , 9 Dec 2016 18:48
    A good man is not capable of bombing 7 countries in 8 years' time. People are too naive to believe that someone could look as nice and sound as nice as Obama and push to advance the agenda of some of the most evil and power-hungry megalomaniacs on the planet.
    Woodenarrow123 , 9 Dec 2016 18:28
    It was Wikileaks that did it.

    I don't know if the Russians provided Wikileaks with the actual emails or not but Wikileaks like so many news organisations before them released info obtained illegally that they thought the public had a right to know.

    Now Assange has effectively been imprisoned in an Embassy in London for around 5 years on bogus charges and his reputation was damaged by the same charges - Obviously Obama does not want to give any credit to Assange and he knows he has played a part in this outrageous persecution.

    This would also a could time to remind fellow commentators here about the Nuland - Pyatt conversation that was recorded by Russia and released. This conversation showed the the involvement of two high ranking US Politicians in the armed coup in Ukraine where an elected albeit corrupt leader was forced to flee the country.

    200gnomes -> Woodenarrow123 , 9 Dec 2016 18:39
    wikileaks did it because the MSM refuses to do it.
    joeblow9999 , 9 Dec 2016 18:28
    NOTHING in the DNC or Hilly campaign emails has been refuted by anyone. The corrupt DNC and Hilly got caught.

    This is literally like a pedophile complaining to the police because someone stole their illegal porn. Absolutely shameful.

    neighbor65003 , 9 Dec 2016 18:23
    US intelligence? is this the same intelligent agency that gave us Iraq WMD report? They have no credibility
    DaveCP , 9 Dec 2016 18:22
    After reading the first two pages of comments here, it is tempting to believe the bear contributes to these forums on quite an organised scale.

    I fail to see what possible fear anyone could have from whatever evidence exists being seen by, at least, those with a vested interest.

    diddoit -> DaveCP , 9 Dec 2016 18:27

    The period in the United States known as the Second Red Scare, lasting roughly from 1950 to 1956 and characterized by heightened political repression against supposed communists, as well as a campaign spreading fear of their influence on American institutions and of espionage by Soviet agents.

    The third Red Scare? *clutches teddy bear*

    Only one slight problem ...there aren't any reds in charge in Russia anymore.

    diddoit -> DaveCP , 9 Dec 2016 18:38
    My point being, there is no great ideological clash anymore. Assange volunteered the fact the email data didn't come from the Russians. And whether Trump is better than Hillary is open to debate.
    DaveCP -> diddoit , 9 Dec 2016 18:42
    My perspective from across the ocean has always been that the McCarthy philosophy was the least admirable episode in recent US history. I doubt many people want to return to that but surely, demonstrable evidence in either direction is the only antidote to accusations and conspiracy theories, and is needed now more than ever in this supposed 'post truth' era. Reply Share
    thinkandleap1234 , 9 Dec 2016 18:22
    I assume that Obama is being told to do this, and probably by the same people who backed the Clinton individual for POTUS. The American people must be exceedingly dumb if they fall for this rubbish.
    jamese07uk , 9 Dec 2016 18:18
    It's almost as if the West, or at least Western Elite circles who have strived to saturate the airways with Russia-the-bogey-man material since the year dot, can they, on the back of this one-sided propaganda machine, wheel-out blame directed towards Russia for .... well almost anything they desire.

    Problem is, are the public still eating out of their hands!?

    Brext and the Trump victory is suggesting - not all of us by a long way.

    Boris66 , 9 Dec 2016 18:15
    If only Barack Hussain Obama had not taken it upon his self to interfere in our referendum with his clear 'Back of the queue' threat, it may have been possible to not think he is a hypocrite.
    john D , 9 Dec 2016 18:14
    I was more worried about Soros and democracy NGOs then i was of russian hackers this election.
    wtfbollos , 9 Dec 2016 18:13
    what a joke, america has been 'interfering' (i.e. bombing and destroying) how many countries since 1945?? incredible hypocrisy and sickening double-standards.
    IronBorn , 9 Dec 2016 18:13
    War propoganda. Will the White Helmets be saving Russian civilians too? I suspect this is one last roll of the dice by the 'democrats' to keep Trump out of office.
    sejong , 9 Dec 2016 18:09
    Obama is foolishly upping the ante, not on Putin, but on Trump. Trump's instinct will be to put a 10x hurt on Obama for this. Don't punk Trump.
    timolin , 9 Dec 2016 18:06
    They are desperate to discredit the winner. It is as ineffective as any of his failed policies. He is completely useless.
    AveAtqueCave , 9 Dec 2016 18:04
    In other words, Obama admits he hasn't kept America secure versus 21st-century threats.
    WoodenNickel , 9 Dec 2016 18:04
    Obama has said the intelligence agencies had the proof that Russia interfered with the election. With all their proof why order a review? Can't wait until Obama leaves office.
    Clotsworth , 9 Dec 2016 17:59
    what, is the USA the new Latin America, and Russia the new CIA ? forever meddling surreptitiously to undermine and overthrow other sovereign nation states democratic processes ? that's just so unfair
    smellycat , 9 Dec 2016 17:57
    Oh dear. Russia causes regime change in America. What a laugh. What goes around comes around.
    Max South -> smellycat , 9 Dec 2016 21:10
    It is a funny joke, but on the essence I would advise to read investigative report "The New Red Scare" in Harpers. The evidence of Russian government having anything to do with any hacks is literally non-existing.
    FMinus , 9 Dec 2016 17:57
    The US, heckler of the world for decades, stirring trouble wherever the dart falls, and yet Russian hackers and North Korean hookers are to blame for 99.9% of the worlds problems. Reality is, if the US didn't move past its own borders for 10 years the world would be already a much, much better place.
    IanB52 , 9 Dec 2016 17:57
    The Guardian probably shouldn't go along in helping build the new McCarthyist, Cold War narrative, especially when it's just a bunch of US politicians and media figures repeating politically expedient, but factually unsupported claims. The Western media is trying to be Hearst Newspapers in the Spanish-American war.

    This is explicitly bad because it allows the suppression of dissent, of creating blacklists, the military industrial complex to further consolidate power, and to blame all sorts of domestic failures on shadowing foreign influence. This is exactly what countries like Iran and North Korea do. Bravo guys, for keep this story going for almost half a year with no substantial proof whatsoever.

    AveAtqueCave , 9 Dec 2016 17:55
    But when Judith Miller, the NYT, George Bush and Hillary Clinton used fake news to kill hundreds of thousands, Obama told us to get over it, to "look forward and not backward." What a waste of 8 years.
    Ginen , 9 Dec 2016 17:54
    Obama's last exercise in futility.
    hadeze242 -> Ginen , 9 Dec 2016 18:04
    he suddenly discovered, 2-3 wks ago, that he was enthusiastic about space technology and exploration. He (that is his ghost writers) published a 1 p. article about his love of space. Fact is, first thing great-mind Obama did 8yrs ago is gut NASA's budget. He never mentioned space once in 8 yrs. Suddenly, he is a fan. Creepy ... how does he deal with his hypocritical self every morning?
    ShoppingKingLouie , , 9 Dec 2016 17:53
    Political theatre. He will be out of office before anyone will even be asked to take office.

    Its hilarious that The Guardian tries to frame US Intelligence as a single cohesive unit. Its a splintered multi-headed hydra that will never act on this. Once again Obama brings righteous powerful leadership to the act of being ineffective.

    Benjohn6379 , 9 Dec 2016 17:51
    "Cold War 2: Tear Down This Firewall"

    Starring:
    Shirtless Putin
    Legacy Obama
    Hillary "I'm Not Trump" Clinton
    Donald "OG Troll" Trump
    Super Elite Genius Ninja Russian Hackers
    The Poor Defenseless Victim DNC
    John "Let's All Just Laugh at The Risotto Recipe and Not Pay Attention to any of my Other Emails" Podesta
    80's synth "rock" and really bright neon clothing

    And featuring: Lou Diamond Phillips as.....Guccifer 2.0

    worryingmother -> Benjohn6379 , 9 Dec 2016 18:14
    Like Rocky Horror, but more psycho. Where has Lou Diamond Phillips been, anyway.
    calderonparalapaz , , 9 Dec 2016 17:45
    News Media Reports of governments hacking foreign govts and private Companies:

    CNN
    http://money.cnn.com/2016/08/16/technology/nsa-hacking-tools-snowden /

    Bloomberg News
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-05-23/how-the-u-dot-s-dot-government-hacks-the-world

    Washington Post
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/powerful-nsa-hacking-tools-have-been-revealed-online/2016/08/16/bce4f974-63c7-11e6-96c0-37533479f3f5_story.html?utm_term=.2ea1198b2a8b

    The Intercept: The NSA would know about Russian Hacking
    https://theintercept.com/2016/07/26/russian-intelligence-hack-dnc-nsa-know-snowden-says /

    UK Gauardian
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/09/nsa-spying-brazil-oil-petrobras

    RT News
    https://www.rt.com/usa/us-hacking-exploits-millions-104 /

    UK Mirror: hacking German Govt
    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/angela-merkels-phone-hacked-american-2485433

    Ryan Wei , 9 Dec 2016 17:45
    The United States has attempted to push its democratic ideologies on countries all over the world, using means much more direct than hacking. Yet they cannot take a fraction of what they dish out. If Russia is indeed intervening to aid nationalists around the world, then Russia is a friend and should be welcomed with open arms. Trump should do the same, and used the powers of the United States to undermine [neoliberal] leftists around the globe.
    John malkovich -> CrankyMac , 9 Dec 2016 19:49
    No its by the letter actually. Libya, Yemen backed by US, Pakistan, Tunisia had some financial and military backing. Obama is the drone king. And Ukraine well have you heard of Victoria nuland before? Regime change in Ukraine cost the taxpayer 5 billion dollars

    [Dec 11, 2016] Russia has always been the convenient whipping boy for the United States

    Notable quotes:
    "... Outrageous how the Russians interfered with the Koch brothers and Soros's electoral process... ..."
    "... No one, not the government agencies, not those ominous private security firms, no one presented even a shred of evidence for any involvement of the Russian government. Not even some lackluster ambiguous data, it was all anecdotal stuff, 'confidence' and fluffy rhetoric. ..."
    "... The McCarthy-esque paranoia spread by the Clinton campaign to deflect from the content of those emails took foothold it seems. ..."
    "... If the evidence were to hand, actually existed, it would have been all over the front pages of the WaPo, NYT and other major news outlets, not just in the US but everywhere else too. Investigating this 'evidence' is, to borrow William Gibson's simile, "Like planning to assassinate a figure out of myth and legend". The usual 'national security considerations' which have been and will continue to be adduced, as reasons for not publishing the evidence is pure triple-distilled BS and pretty much everyone knows that it's BS. ..."
    Dec 11, 2016 | discussion.theguardian.com
    kropotkinsf , 9 Dec 2016 18:44
    Russia has always been the convenient whipping boy for the United States. We manufactured the cold war because we needed an enemy to prop up our war economy. We built the Soviet Union into this monolithic bogey man, spoiling to crush the west, enemies of "freedom," in order to keep the west scared and pliant and in our pocket. After so-called communism collapsed, we found new enemies in the middle east but they lacked the staying power. So now it's back to Russia. Maybe the Russians did hack into the DNC. If so, they merely exposed the damning material. They didn't write it.
    discreto , 9 Dec 2016 18:44
    Oh boy the knives are out against Russia, first I read about the 2012 Olympics which even if it is true I would hold the British Olympic Committee responsible for the failure to find out about the doping at the time of the Games and not 4 years later. I have just read US, Obama is now pointing the finger at Russia for the outcome of the US Elections oh dear they are really scraping the barrell to look for someone to blame instead of finding out why their own people decided to vote for Trump. This is all typical American hyperbole and nonsense and a concerted effort on America's efforts to orchestrate the next War.
    America is so way behind with any modern services, they apparently do not have their bank cards with pin or contactless as yet.
    DogsLivesMatter -> discreto , 9 Dec 2016 18:49
    Have you seen this documentary?
    https://www.rt.com/shows/documentary/369619-drugs-sport-doping-scandal /
    ShoppingKingLouie -> discreto , 9 Dec 2016 18:50
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/dec/08/vladimir-putin-hillary-clinton-russia
    Puro , 9 Dec 2016 18:43
    Unlucky failed mainstream media lost all confidence of its readership and are now broke. What will they do next? ask for money saying that they're helping others whilst keeping most of it?
    bishoppeter4 , 9 Dec 2016 18:41
    The Russians are coming -- = The sky is falling -- It's the 1950s again.
    ShoppingKingLouie , 9 Dec 2016 18:40
    Yet The Guardian spews anti Trump hatred and propaganda everyday to a US audience and no one is investigating the UK for meddling.

    Seems fishy.

    MasonInNY -> ShoppingKingLouie , 9 Dec 2016 18:46
    Why would the UK wish to meddle in a US election? Or France, Germany, Finland, or Italy? Russia, though... :)
    ShoppingKingLouie -> MasonInNY , 9 Dec 2016 18:48
    Why did the NSA spy on those very same countries?
    Logicon , 9 Dec 2016 18:39
    Outrageous how the Russians interfered with the Koch brothers and Soros's electoral process...
    dongerdo , 9 Dec 2016 18:38
    No one, not the government agencies, not those ominous private security firms, no one presented even a shred of evidence for any involvement of the Russian government. Not even some lackluster ambiguous data, it was all anecdotal stuff, 'confidence' and fluffy rhetoric.

    But if it makes them happy....

    The McCarthy-esque paranoia spread by the Clinton campaign to deflect from the content of those emails took foothold it seems.

    mike muse , 9 Dec 2016 18:36
    If the evidence were to hand, actually existed, it would have been all over the front pages of the WaPo, NYT and other major news outlets, not just in the US but everywhere else too. Investigating this 'evidence' is, to borrow William Gibson's simile, "Like planning to assassinate a figure out of myth and legend". The usual 'national security considerations' which have been and will continue to be adduced, as reasons for not publishing the evidence is pure triple-distilled BS and pretty much everyone knows that it's BS.
    Jim Chaypull -> mike muse , 9 Dec 2016 19:32
    Yeah sure, just like how it was 'all over the front pages' about what really happened on 9/11, who was really involved etc.

    And don't give me any of that conspiracy theory, tin-foil hat bs either...unless you are able to be honest about this conspiracy: 19 or 20 strip-club lovin, don't-need-no-takeoff/landing-lessons jihadists used box-cutters to overpower jet air planes and with the-luck-of-the-century HIT NOT ONE....BUT TWO skyscrapers at the EXACT SPOT where the 47 concrete -steel inner columns were weak enough to cause 'pancaking' of the undamaged 60-90 UNDAMAGED FLOORS. Collapsing (and pulverizing concrete into dust) the building into itself.

    And then weirdly enough a small cabal of PNAC signees who in writing had expressed that pax-americana was going to be 'difficult unless a pearl harbor like event happens' had almost as much Luck-of-the-century as the jihadists when......WA LA....into their lap.....a new pearl harbor.

    suzie009 , 9 Dec 2016 18:36
    Is it possible that if Bernie Sanders had been up against Trump he may have won??

    That's the real question that needs addressing - together with why wasn't he chosen!

    JuliusSqueezer -> suzie009 , 9 Dec 2016 18:41
    He definitely would have won.
    jmac55 , 9 Dec 2016 18:35
    Nonsense!

    Trying to blame one of the most flawed and undemocratic election process's in the Western hemisphere on the Russians is laughable to the point of hysteria.

    The dumb-ed down bigoted electorate is a direct result of decades of a two party political system, backed up by a compliant media, that fosters mindless patriotism and ignorance rather than enlightenment and intelligent discussion on the problems facing the country.

    Never have I seen a better example of your own dog biting you on the arse!

    But Clinton lost the election because the Republicans realised she was certain to be the Democratic Presidential candidate fifteen years ago and they began their smear campaign against her right there and then, and a lot of it stuck.

    When you add to that tens of thousands on the left like me who voted for her...but would not campaign for her because we didn't agree with her disastrous blunder in helping to overthrow Qaddafi in Libya ( a country that is now a feudal backwater) and her stated goals of regime change in Syria and all the while she had a domestic policy was cosying up to the bankers and Wall Street elites, whilst ignoring blue collar Americans without jobs and prospects for their future...the almost inevitable result is Trump as President of the United States.

    'Let all the poisons that lurk in the mud, hatch out!'

    The US will get what it deserves...and it deserves Trump I'm afraid.

    [Dec 11, 2016] That supposed Russian interference

    Notable quotes:
    "... Greenwald's take down is another hammer meets nail piece. The CIA are systemic liars. In fact, that's their job to move around in the shadows and deceive. They literally lie about everything. They lied about Iran/Contra, torture programs, their propensity for drug smuggling and dealing, infesting the media with agents, imaginary WMDs that launch war and massacre, mass surveillance of citizens, just to name a few. ..."
    "... This is the agency who are in secret and anonymity, with no verifiable evidence, whispering rumors in the WaPoo and NYTimes' ears that the Russians made Hillary lose. What moron would take the CIA at its word anymore? Much less a major newspaper? Did I miss something, is it 1950 again? Methinks I've picked up the scent of fake news ..."
    "... Apparently, all the morons who are still screaming about Trump, as if he alone will be in charge of the government and not his GOP handlers. Please keep in mind that the ardent Clinton supporters quite clearly reveal cult behavior, and anything that allows them to continue embracing their belief in their righteousness will be embraced without question or qualm. ..."
    "... Washington Post ..."
    "... The upside of these overtly political battles among intelligence agencies is that we are eroding away the idea that these are non-partisan institutions without overt political agendas. ..."
    "... What Stengel and various mainstream media outlets appear to be arguing for is the creation of a "Ministry of Truth" managed by mainstream U.S. media outlets and enforced by Google, Facebook and other technology platforms. ..."
    "... In other words, once these supposedly responsible outlets decide what the "truth" is, then questioning that narrative will earn you "virtual" expulsion from the marketplace of ideas, possibly eliminated via algorithms of major search engines or marked with a special app to warn readers not to believe what you say, a sort of yellow Star of David for the Internet age. ..."
    "... The NC lawsuit against WaPo, like the lawsuit of Hedges et al. against provisions of the NDAA, marks a watershed moment for defending free speech in our country! I hope that my oft-expressed belief -- that we will soon need to revive samizdat ..."
    "... According to a recent posting on Wolf Street, according to records, the Treasury has borrowed 4 trillion more between 2004-15, than can actually be accounted for in spending. This is because it is the borrowing and thus public obligations, which really matter to the powers that be. The generals just get their toys and wars as icing on the cake. It doesn't matter if they win, because there would be less war to spend it on. Eventually they will use "public/private partnerships" to take their piles of public obligations and trade for the rest of the Commons. ..."
    "... Money needs to be understand as a public utility, like roads. We no more own it than we own the section of road we are using. It is like blood, not fat. ..."
    "... The CIA whinging about a right wing president being installed by a foreign power might just be the greatest self-awareness fail ever! ..."
    "... LOL at that! You'd think they were afraid trump might turn out to be the next Hugo Chavez! They must really, really love their program to help al Qaeda in Syria. ..."
    "... The CIA lies as a matter of course, and now they're being propped up as the paragons of honesty, simply out of political expediency. Crazy days. ..."
    "... Modern Democrats simply aren't a political party but fanatics of a professional sports club. If it wasn't the Russians, it would be referees or Bill Belichick at fault. I'm surprised they aren't mentioning "Comrade Nader" at all times. ..."
    "... In fact, Trump's coalition looks remarkably similar to the one that Scott Walker put together in 2014. ..."
    "... Obama in Spartanburg, SC in 2007: And understand this: If American workers are being denied their right to organize and collectively bargain when I'm in the White House, I'll put on a comfortable pair of shoes myself, I will walk on that picket line with you as President of the United States of America. Because workers deserve to know that somebody is standing in their corner. ..."
    "... And the Dems wonder why the working class feel betrayed. ..."
    Dec 11, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    2016 Post Mortem

    Trump Transition

    The Evidence to Prove the Russian Hack emptywheel. The headline is a bit off, since the post's subject is really the evidence required to prove the Russian hack. Some of which does exist. That said, this is an excellent summary of the state of play. I take issue with one point:

    Crowdstrike reported that GRU also hacked the DNC. As it explains, GRU does this by sending someone something that looks like an email password update, but which instead is a fake site designed to get someone to hand over their password. The reason this claim is strong is because people at the DNC say this happened to them.

    First, CrowdStrike is a private security firm, so there's a high likelihood they're talking their book, Beltway IT being what it is. Second, a result (DNC got phished) isn't "strong" proof of a claim (GRU did the phishing). We live in a world where 12-year-olds know how to do email phishing, and a world where professional phishing operations can camouflage themselves as whoever they like. So color me skeptical absent some unpacking on this point. A second post from emptywheel, Unpacking the New CIA Leak: Don't Ignore the Aluminum Tube Footnote , is also well worth a read.

    Chief Bromden December 11, 2016 at 7:51 am

    Greenwald's take down is another hammer meets nail piece. The CIA are systemic liars. In fact, that's their job to move around in the shadows and deceive. They literally lie about everything. They lied about Iran/Contra, torture programs, their propensity for drug smuggling and dealing, infesting the media with agents, imaginary WMDs that launch war and massacre, mass surveillance of citizens, just to name a few.

    They murder, torture, train hired mercenary proxies (who they are often pretending to oppose), stage coups of democratically elected govt.'s, interfere with elections, topple regimes, install ruthless puppet dictators, and generally enslave other nations to western corporate pirates. They are a rogue band of pirates themselves.

    This is the agency who are in secret and anonymity, with no verifiable evidence, whispering rumors in the WaPoo and NYTimes' ears that the Russians made Hillary lose. What moron would take the CIA at its word anymore? Much less a major newspaper? Did I miss something, is it 1950 again? Methinks I've picked up the scent of fake news

    Conclusion: It isn't the Russians that are interfering with U.S. kangaroo elections, it's the professionals over at the CIA

    Brett December 11, 2016 at 11:29 am

    +1000

    Elizabeth Burton December 11, 2016 at 12:50 pm

    Apparently, all the morons who are still screaming about Trump, as if he alone will be in charge of the government and not his GOP handlers. Please keep in mind that the ardent Clinton supporters quite clearly reveal cult behavior, and anything that allows them to continue embracing their belief in their righteousness will be embraced without question or qualm.

    voteforno6 December 11, 2016 at 8:10 am

    Re: That supposed Russian interference

    I've tried to point out on other blogs just how shaky that story in the Washington Post is, and the response I get is something along the lines of, well, other outlets are also reporting it, so it must be true. It does me no good to point out that this is the same tactic used by the Bush administration in the run-up to the Iraq war. People will believe what they want to believe.

    johnnygl December 11, 2016 at 8:35 am

    It may help to point to the history of CIA influence at WaPoo. Counterpunch had a short piece reminding everyone of Operation Mockingbird (going from memory on that name) where CIA had reporters on staff at the paper directly taking orders and simultaneously on CIA payroll.

    If questioned about CIA's motivation for hating trump, my best guess is that it is because trump is undermining their project to overthrow assad in syria using nusra rebels. And also because trump wants to be nice to russia.

    I think there's some people in the cia that think they played a major role in winning the cold war through their support for mujahadeen rebels in afghanistan. I suspect they think they can beat putin in syria the same way. This is absolutely nutty.

    JohnnyGL December 11, 2016 at 11:51 am

    The upside of these overtly political battles among intelligence agencies is that we are eroding away the idea that these are non-partisan institutions without overt political agendas.

    There's a large number of people that will see through the facade. Right now, Trump supporters are getting a lesson in how much resistance there can be within the establishment. I'm no Trump supporter, but I think seeing what these institutions are capable of is a useful exercise for all involved.

    begob December 11, 2016 at 9:07 am

    There's a running battle at the wikipedia article on Fake News Website, where propornot is now considered debunked.

    Ulysses December 11, 2016 at 11:30 am

    Apologies if this analysis by Robert Parry has already been shared here:

    "What Stengel and various mainstream media outlets appear to be arguing for is the creation of a "Ministry of Truth" managed by mainstream U.S. media outlets and enforced by Google, Facebook and other technology platforms.

    In other words, once these supposedly responsible outlets decide what the "truth" is, then questioning that narrative will earn you "virtual" expulsion from the marketplace of ideas, possibly eliminated via algorithms of major search engines or marked with a special app to warn readers not to believe what you say, a sort of yellow Star of David for the Internet age.

    And then there's the possibility of more direct (and old-fashioned) government enforcement by launching FBI investigations into media outlets that won't toe the official line. (All of these "solutions" have been advocated in recent weeks.)

    On the other hand, if you do toe the official line that comes from Stengel's public diplomacy shop, you stand to get rewarded with government financial support. Stengel disclosed in his interview with Ignatius that his office funds "investigative" journalism projects.

    "How should citizens who want a fact-based world combat this assault on truth?" Ignatius asks, adding: "Stengel has approved State Department programs that teach investigative reporting and empower truth-tellers."

    The NC lawsuit against WaPo, like the lawsuit of Hedges et al. against provisions of the NDAA, marks a watershed moment for defending free speech in our country! I hope that my oft-expressed belief -- that we will soon need to revive samizdat techniques to preserve truth– may turn ou to be overly pessimistic.

    Ulysses December 11, 2016 at 11:36 am

    Sorry, I forgot the link!

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-orwellian-war-on-skepticism-battling-fake-news/5559949

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef December 11, 2016 at 11:57 am

    It's like that quote: When the Clinton tide goes out, you discover who's been swimming naked.

    Jim Haygood December 11, 2016 at 9:11 am

    America's military empire is an enormous convection cycle, as money falls in while arms sales and global disorder radiate out.

    Mr Milk Mustache (John Bolton) as assistant Sec State will help perpetuate and accelerate the grand convective cycle.

    John Merryman December 11, 2016 at 9:47 am

    Jim,

    Keep in mind the basis of this capitalist economy is Federal debt. They have to spend it on something. The government doesn't even budget, which is to list priorities and spend according to need/ability. They put together these enormous bills, add enough to get the votes, which don't come cheap and then the prez can only pass or veto.

    If they wanted to actually budget, taking the old line item veto as a template, they could break these bills into all their various items, have each legislator assign a percentage value to each one, put them back together in order of preference and the prez would draw the line. "The buck stops here."

    That would keep powers separate, with congress prioritizing and the prez individually responsible for deficit spending. It would also totally crash our current "Capitalist" system.

    According to a recent posting on Wolf Street, according to records, the Treasury has borrowed 4 trillion more between 2004-15, than can actually be accounted for in spending. This is because it is the borrowing and thus public obligations, which really matter to the powers that be. The generals just get their toys and wars as icing on the cake. It doesn't matter if they win, because there would be less war to spend it on. Eventually they will use "public/private partnerships" to take their piles of public obligations and trade for the rest of the Commons.

    Money needs to be understand as a public utility, like roads. We no more own it than we own the section of road we are using. It is like blood, not fat.

    The Trumpening December 11, 2016 at 8:15 am

    The CIA whinging about a right wing president being installed by a foreign power might just be the greatest self-awareness fail ever!

    johnnygl December 11, 2016 at 10:12 am

    LOL at that! You'd think they were afraid trump might turn out to be the next Hugo Chavez! They must really, really love their program to help al Qaeda in Syria.

    Uahsenaa December 11, 2016 at 10:24 am

    There are so many eye-rolling ironies in all this I think my eyeballs might just pop out of their sockets. And the liberals going out of their way to tout the virtues of the CIA the very same organization that never shied from assassinating or overthrowing a leftwing president/prime minister it galls. The CIA lies as a matter of course, and now they're being propped up as the paragons of honesty, simply out of political expediency. Crazy days.

    NotTimothyGeithner December 11, 2016 at 11:21 am

    Modern Democrats simply aren't a political party but fanatics of a professional sports club. If it wasn't the Russians, it would be referees or Bill Belichick at fault. I'm surprised they aren't mentioning "Comrade Nader" at all times.

    My guess is donors are annoyed after the 2014 debacle and are having a hard time rationalizing a loss to a reality TV show host with a cameo in Home Alone 2.

    allan December 11, 2016 at 8:25 am

    From the Amy Walter post mortem on the race in WI:

    In fact, Trump's coalition looks remarkably similar to the one that Scott Walker put together in 2014.

    It's really a shame that Obama didn't put on those walking shoes lift a finger to help the public service unions fight Walker.

    Uahsenaa December 11, 2016 at 10:27 am

    Obama in Spartanburg, SC in 2007:

    And understand this: If American workers are being denied their right to organize and collectively bargain when I'm in the White House, I'll put on a comfortable pair of shoes myself, I will walk on that picket line with you as President of the United States of America. Because workers deserve to know that somebody is standing in their corner.

    And the Dems wonder why the working class feel betrayed.

    Maybe he just couldn't find a pair of comfy shoes

    polecat December 11, 2016 at 11:37 am

    Hol(e)y Shoes .

    they glide on water funky bilge water --

    Tertium Squid December 11, 2016 at 9:07 am

    Here's what the "russki hacks" narrative reminds me of.

    ambrit December 11, 2016 at 9:43 am

    I'd extend that to include the entire DNC "Apologia pro Sancta Hillaria."

    UserFriendly December 11, 2016 at 9:33 am

    That ProPublica piece ( Suspected of Corruption at Home, Powerful Foreigners Find Refuge in the U.S. Pro Publica) is brutal. Not only do we have to be the shittest corrupt country in the world but we have to be a safe haven for ever other corrupt politician in the world as long as they have $$. Can someone just make it all end? Please. There needs to be a maximum wealth where anything you earn past it just gets automatically redistributed to the poor.

    aliteralmind December 11, 2016 at 9:43 am

    Truth in journalism just got a little bit more difficult:

    http://www.johnlaurits.com/2016/12/10/disinformation-bill-propaganda/

    tgs December 11, 2016 at 10:32 am

    Thanks for the link – really important and scary things are going in congress concerning 'fake news' and Russian propaganda and HR 6393 is particularly bad. The EU is also taking steps to counter 'fake news' as well. Obama claimed that some form of curation is required – and it is happening quickly. People are suggesting that propornot has been debunked. That does not matter anymore. The Obama regime and the MSM don't care – that have gotten the message out.

    And the people behind this are really deranged – check out Adam Schiff calling Tucker Carlson a Kremlin stooge for even suggesting that there is no certainty that Russia leaked the emails to Wikileaks.

    After all, the media went all in for Hillary and spent huge amounts of time explaining why Trump is unfit. But they lost.

    And now our efforts on behalf of al Queada are failing in Syria and more hysteria ensues. See for example:

    Allies Warn Trump Against Cooperating With Russia Over Syria .

    Some commentators believe that there is a well-organized large scale effort to normalize the suppression of free speech.

    temporal December 11, 2016 at 11:50 am

    The email saga lost a provable set of sources a long time ago. Before the files were given to Wikileaks it was already too late to determine which people did it. So-called forensic evidence of these computers only tell us that investigators either found evidence of a past compromise or that people want us to believe they did. Since the compromise was determined after the fact, the people with access could have done anything to the computers, including leave a false trail.

    The core problem is that since security for all of these machines, including the DNC's email server and most likely many of those from Team R, was nearly non-existent nearly nothing useful can be determined. The time to learn something about a remote attacker, when it's possible at all, is while the machine is being attacked – assuming it has never been compromised before. If the attacker's machine has also been compromised then you know pretty much nothing unless you can get access to it.

    As far as physical access protection goes. If the machine has been left on and unattended or is not completely encrypted then the only thing that might help is a 24 hour surveillance camera pointed at the machine.

    Forensic evidence in compromised computers is significantly less reliable than DNA and hair samples. It's much too easy for investigators to frame another party by twiddling some bits. Anyone that thinks that even well intentioned physical crime investigators have never gotten convictions with bad or manipulated evidence has been watching and believing way too many crime oriented mysteries. "Blindspot" is not a documentary.

    As for projecting behaviors on a country by calling it a "state action", Russia or otherwise, implying that there is no difference between independent and government sponsored actions, that is just silly.

    [Dec 11, 2016] This hysteria over Russia is getting downright dangerous as it looks like forces which are pushing that story stop at nothing to delegitimize the election results.

    Apt observation from Gareth: "I believe the CIA is attempting to delegitimize Trump's election so as to force him into a defensive position in which he will temper his dual goals of normalizing relations with Russia and destroying the CIA's proxy armies of jihadists. We will see if Trump has the guts to make some heads roll in the CIA He will remember that the last President who even threatened to take on the CIA received a massive dose of flying lead poisoning. "
    Essentially after WaPo scandal it is prudent to view all US MSM as yellow press.
    Notable quotes:
    "... The Post and the like are terrified over their loss of credibility just as the internet has destroyed their advertising. Interesting that their response to competition isn't to outdo the competition but to smother the competition with a lie. Their own fake news. ..."
    "... As a moral American and supporter of free speech, I am going to make a list of online or print WaPo advertisers. Then I will communicate to them that I will never buy another thing from them as long as they advertise in the Washington Post. ..."
    "... Open their ads in Firefox ad blocker. Then add them to the script and spam blacklist. ..."
    "... The story serves many purposes. One is firing a shot across TrumpCo's bow: 'Submit to us or we'll delegitimate your election.' ..."
    "... Another is excusing the Democratic Party establishment for losing the election, and thus diverting the wrath of the rank and file. ..."
    "... About all we can do at the moment is remember to remember the names of the people who purveyed and supported the story, just as we should remember to remember the names of those who purveyed WMD stories. ..."
    "... Job #1 always is suppressing the Sanders faction. Not beating Trump or the Republicans. They want control of their little pond. ..."
    "... Personally, after what we did in Ukraine (essentially funding a revolution) I refuse to get the vapors because Russia apparently "helped" elect Trump by exposing (not forcing her to be a liar or cheat) Hillary. ..."
    "... All of this crap about Russia, or the electoral college system is a distraction from the real issues at hand about our political system, which is a two party one oligarchy (ALEC) anti-democratic system. The rot runs from national presidential elections to the comptroller of the smaller city governments. ..."
    "... If any candidate was capable of speaking to the working and middle class, then either Russia nor the the 0.01% who compose the oligarchy could control who wins in popular elections. What is really needed is to eliminate either the two party system, or democratize their methods of selecting candidates. ..."
    "... Think Hillary played an unfair hand to Sanders? That was nothing compared to the shenanigans that get played at local level, state level, and Congress level to filter out populist candidates and replace them with machine / oligarchy pets. ..."
    "... the idea that Saudi (or other Middle Eastern states) also intervened (with money), is not more credible? ..."
    "... Yes, the NYT piece on Russian hacking is complete evidence free tripe. Not once do they say what evidence they base these accusations on, beyond the Cyrillic keyboard. The code for Cyrillic keyboard is, "fuzzy bear" et al. as the original reporting on the DNC hack and the company that ran security made clear that this was the one and only piece of concrete evidence the attacks by "fuzzy bear" et al. were perpetrated by the Russians. ..."
    "... So based on a Cyrillic keyboard and the below quote, unnamed "American intelligence agencies know it was the Russians, really? ..."
    "... Based on this it appears the NYTs definition of fake reporting is anything that isn't fed directly to it by unnamed experts or the USG and uncritically reported. ..."
    "... I think these unnamed agencies are not going to have a very good working relationship with the orange overlord if they keep this up. They might not even be getting that new war they wanted for Christmas. ..."
    "... It's as though the NYT and WaPo had these vast pools of accumulated credibility and they could go out on a limb here Oh wait - their credibility has been destroyed countless times over the past decade or so. One would think they'd realise: If you're in a ditch, the first thing to do is stop digging. ..."
    "... The world is flat . Note: This is not me awarding a Thomas L. Friedman prize. In this case, I am simply sharing the article because I think it is hilarious. ..."
    "... Nowhere, in any of this, is it mentioned that Clinton's illegal private email server (that got hacked) played any factor whatsoever. It just stinks so bad, I wonder how they can not smell what they are sitting in.. ..."
    "... Summarizing a very plausible theory, NeoCon Coup Attempt: As Syria's Assad (with Russian help) is close to crushing HRC's jihadi Queda & Nusra rebels in Aleppo, the NeoCons are freaking out on both sides of the Atlantic. ..."
    "... What to do? Jill's recount is floundering. So, last resort: Concoct Russia hacking myth to either delay Dec 19 EC vote or create more faithless electors. Result: A NeoCon like HRC or a NeoCon sympathizer is installed. ..."
    "... Two biggest war hawks, McCain and Graham, are leading the Senate charges against Russia. All of this within days of Obama sending 200 MORE US troops to Syria and lifting the ban on more arms to the Syrian rebels, including anti-aircraft MANPADS. ..."
    "... The recount farce makes me angry, and has made me resolve to never give Stein my vote again. ..."
    "... That implies the NeoCon establishment views DJT and cabinet as a threat in any way, which is an extremely dubious premise. Occam's razor: Clinton and the media establishment that gifted the country DJT will do anything they can to cast the blame elsewhere. ..."
    "... I'm not sure if that is a simpler explanation. I offer this: It's simpler to see that they are engaging in a struggle for now and the future – that means the neocons vs Trump. ..."
    "... "The story reveals that a CIA assessment detailing this conclusion had been presented to President Obama and top congressional leaders last week." You read that? It's "detailed". None of us peasants will ever know what those "details" are, but its the f#ckin CIA, dude. ..."
    "... The problem is we are expected to just trust the NYT and CIA without evidence??? Anybody remember WMD in Iraq?? The complete loss of credibility by the NYT and CIA over the last decade means I have to see credible evidence before I believe anything they say. ..."
    "... Seems coordinated to me -- Globe/Times/WaPo. Double down for WaPoo who are now reporting from area 51 where they found Bigfoot sitting on a stockpile of Sadam's WMDs. Reading this article is surreal. The CIA, a terrorist outfit which our own former reporter (Bernstein) showed to be infesting our own newsroom, whispered in our ear that the Cold War 2.0 is going to escalate with or without the establishment coronation queen. ..."
    "... "Secret CIA assessment says Russia was trying to help Trump win White House" The link on WaPoo's site actually says a different headline so I am just sharing the headline itself. Not another secret assessment . no more passing notes in class, students. ..."
    "... Robert Reich has posted the news that the Russians helped to secure the election for Trump on his FB page, to it seems much acclaim – perhaps I was foolish for having expected better from him. ..."
    "... WaPo seems allied with the CIA-FIRE sector Clintonian group, while T may be more inclusive of the classic MICC-Pentagon sector which was asserting itself in Syria. ..."
    "... Craig Murray, the former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, who is a close associate of Assange, called the CIA claims "bullshit", adding: "They are absolutely making it up." "I know who leaked them," Murray said. "I've met the person who leaked them, and they are certainly not Russian and it's an insider. It's a leak, not a hack; the two are different things. ..."
    "... Although I'm convinced that the Republicans are, on average, noticeably worse than the Democrats, I agree with you. It is useful that there is no doubt about where Trump and the Congressional Republicans stand, which is on the side of the billionaires and the giant corporations. We've had 8 years of Obama's obeisance to the oligarchs, and millions of Americans still don't understand that this was happening. ..."
    "... rhetoric that is beginning conspicuously to resemble the celebration by capitalist elites during the interwar years of German and Italian fascism (and even Stalinist communism) for their apparently superior economic governance. [12] ..."
    "... I always knew Trump would be a disaster. However, Trump is a survivable disaster–with Hillary that would have been the end. ..."
    "... If Trump has many Goldman guys, is it a case of 'keeping your enemies close?' ..."
    "... First of all, the Democrats would use Clinton to suppress the left and to insist that Clinton was more electable. That would lead to a validation of the idea that the left has nowhere to go and set a precedent for decades with a 3 point formula: ..."
    "... Suppress the left ..."
    "... Accept money from Wall Street and move to the right with each election ..."
    "... Use identity politics as a distraction. ..."
    "... There were other dangers. Clinton wanted war with Russia. That could easily escalate into a nuclear conflict. With Trump, the risk is reduced, although given his ego, I will concede that anything is possible. We would also be seeing some very damaging neoliberal policies. ..."
    "... The reality is that the US was screwed the moment Sanders was out of the picture. With Trump, at least it is more naked and more obvious. The real challenge is that the left has a 2 front war, first with the corporate Democrats, then the GOP. On the GOP side, Trump's supporters are going to wake up at some point to an Obama like betrayal, which is exactly what I expect will happen. ..."
    "... There are elements of the Trump fan base already calling him out for the people he has appointed, which is a very encouraging sign. Trump's economic performance is what will make or break him. He has sold himself on his business acumen. Needless to say, I expect it will break him because he won't even try to do anything for his base. ..."
    "... I like a lot of your analysis. "We would also be seeing some very damaging neoliberal policies." We could still yet under Trump, given the cabinet nominees. ..."
    "... By dangerous and delegitimizing I assume you mean the results of the election will be reversed sometime in the next six weeks while the current establishment still has martial authority. ..."
    "... Both sides now fear the other side will lock them up or, at the very least, remove them from power permanently. Why do I think this is not over? ..."
    "... I am certainly not ready to rule out Moore's gut feeling. Capitalist Party + MSM + Clinton + Nuland + CIA has shown to be an equation that ends in color revolution ..or at least an attempted color revolution ..."
    "... At the same time that the media hysteria over "fake news" has reached a fever pitch, yesterday the Senate passed the "Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act" , colloquially known as the Portman-Murphy Counter-Propaganda Bill, as part of the FY 2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) Conference Report. ..."
    "... " establishing an interagency center housed at the State Department to coordinate and synchronize counter-propaganda efforts throughout the U.S. government." Our very own Ministry of Truth! ..."
    "... Under Ukrainian law journalists that disagree with Kiev's policies are collaborators. They are subject to any mechanism Kiev can devise to stop them. In the case of RT Ruptly or the Guardian this means developing a strategy to ruin their reputations. The Interpreter was developed to that end. Kiev has gone so far as to petition the UK government to censure the Guardian for its coverage of events in Ukraine hoping to bully the publication into line. US broadcasters (Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty) have put RT on the same list as ISIS. ..."
    "... This plan to censor opposing viewpoints in the US was intended to be executed during a Clinton presidency, and would've been almost impossible to stop under those circumstances. There is now a window of opportunity to fight back and ruin these clowns once and for all. ..."
    "... These rallies are Trump's means of maintaining contact with his base, and making sure that he knows what they want. And a means of showing that he is trying to get it for them. If Hillary had bothered to do anything of the sort she would have been elected. Sanders did it and it was much appreciated. Trump's ego is huge but the rallies are much more than an ego-trip. ..."
    "... Re: WP's response to Truthdig's retraction request. It seems as if they are doubling down on the "not our responsibility to verify the validity theme". My first reaction is that the WP is now the equivalent of the National Enquirer. What's next, a headline " I gave birth to Trump's Love Child". ..."
    "... Panem et circenses. ..."
    Dec 11, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Gareth December 10, 2016 at 12:47 pm

    I believe the CIA is attempting to delegitimize Trump's election so as to force him into a defensive position in which he will temper his dual goals of normalizing relations with Russia and destroying the CIA's proxy armies of jihadists. We will see if Trump has the guts to make some heads roll in the CIA He will remember that the last President who even threatened to take on the CIA received a massive dose of flying lead poisoning.

    voteforno6 December 10, 2016 at 7:21 am

    This hysteria over Russia is getting downright dangerous. The people pushing that story will seemingly stop at nothing to delegitimize the election results.

    Steve C December 10, 2016 at 8:04 am

    The Post's Marc Fisher was on the PBS Newshour last night. He talked about Alex Jones. They probably didn't expect the pushback from Yves, Truthdig, etc. The Establishment often underestimates dissenters.

    Real fake news, like Jones, benefits from the fake news charge. Their readers hate the MSM. I wonder if the same ethic can develop on the left.

    The Post and the like are terrified over their loss of credibility just as the internet has destroyed their advertising. Interesting that their response to competition isn't to outdo the competition but to smother the competition with a lie. Their own fake news.

    Isolato December 10, 2016 at 12:48 pm

    I heard Stephen Colbert lump Alex Jones together w/Wikileaks as if they were the same "fake news". I have also repeatedly heard Samantha Bee refer to Julian Assange as a rapist. Sigh. Both of those comments are "fake news". The allegations against JA are tissue thin and Wikileaks has NEVER been challenged about the truth of their releases. Please correct me if I am wrong.

    Rhondda December 10, 2016 at 4:31 pm

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/03/07/how-the-swedes-set-up-julian-assange/

    It's snarky, but then so is your comment. The 'charges' against Assange have a nasty political stink on them.

    Dave December 10, 2016 at 1:46 pm

    "just as the internet has destroyed their advertising." Shouldn't that be "destroyed their ability to sell advertising?"

    As a moral American and supporter of free speech, I am going to make a list of online or print WaPo advertisers. Then I will communicate to them that I will never buy another thing from them as long as they advertise in the Washington Post.

    Open their ads in Firefox ad blocker. Then add them to the script and spam blacklist.

    The Wapo's trying to steal Craigslist business with online job listings. Looks like an opportunity to have some fun for creatives.

    https://jobs.washingtonpost.com/

    different clue December 10, 2016 at 3:27 pm

    Boss WaPo OwnerMan Bezos is very rich. He bought WaPo as a propaganda outlet. He is prepared to lose a lot of money keeping it "open for propaganda." Naming and shaming and boycotting every advertiser WaPo has could certainly embarass WaPo and perhaps diminish its credibility-patina for Bezoganda purposes. It is certainly worth trying.

    The WaPo brand also owns a lot of other moneymaking entities like Kaplan testing and test-prepping I believe. It would be a lot harder to boycott those because millions of people find them to be important. But perhaps a boycott against them until WaPo sells them off to non Bezos ownership would be worth trying.

    Perhaps a savage boycott against Amazon until Bezos fires everyone at WaPo involved in this McCarthy-list and related articles . . . and humiliates them into unhireability anywhere else ever again?

    Brindle December 10, 2016 at 9:16 am

    The Dem Liberals (Joan Walsh etc). on the twitter are going full throttle with this, it's a twofer as Joan is using this to attack Sanders supporters for not being on the front lines of Russia Fear.

    Anarcissie December 10, 2016 at 12:00 pm

    The story serves many purposes. One is firing a shot across TrumpCo's bow: 'Submit to us or we'll delegitimate your election.' (Apparently TrumpCo has not delivered a convincing submission yet.)

    Another is excusing the Democratic Party establishment for losing the election, and thus diverting the wrath of the rank and file. Evidently it's also going to be used against the Sanders faction of the Democrats. About all we can do at the moment is remember to remember the names of the people who purveyed and supported the story, just as we should remember to remember the names of those who purveyed WMD stories.

    Steve C December 10, 2016 at 12:41 pm

    Job #1 always is suppressing the Sanders faction. Not beating Trump or the Republicans. They want control of their little pond.

    cwaltz December 10, 2016 at 1:18 pm

    Personally, after what we did in Ukraine (essentially funding a revolution) I refuse to get the vapors because Russia apparently "helped" elect Trump by exposing (not forcing her to be a liar or cheat) Hillary.

    Perhaps they should consider that it could be worse, a foreign nation could be arming people and encouraging them to topple the government we have like what we're doing in Syria. It isn't like the very sharp divisions elsewhere haven't resulted in civil war.

    Cry Shop December 10, 2016 at 9:37 am

    All of this crap about Russia, or the electoral college system is a distraction from the real issues at hand about our political system, which is a two party one oligarchy (ALEC) anti-democratic system. The rot runs from national presidential elections to the comptroller of the smaller city governments.

    If any candidate was capable of speaking to the working and middle class, then either Russia nor the the 0.01% who compose the oligarchy could control who wins in popular elections. What is really needed is to eliminate either the two party system, or democratize their methods of selecting candidates.

    Think Hillary played an unfair hand to Sanders? That was nothing compared to the shenanigans that get played at local level, state level, and Congress level to filter out populist candidates and replace them with machine / oligarchy pets.

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef December 10, 2016 at 11:02 am

    Flimsy distractions.

    • The popular vs. electoral vote – look up the rules next time you play.
    • Recount – to investigate without much evidence is something senator McCarthy would do.
    • Russia – and the idea that Saudi (or other Middle Eastern states) also intervened (with money), is not more credible?

    Coincidentally, all these urgent initiatives will lead to replacing Trump with Hillary as president. "I will tear down the very building just to achieve my Pyrrhic victory."

    OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL December 10, 2016 at 5:29 pm

    Thank you, sorry Dems, Boris Badunov did not swing the election. If you want *hard* evidence (not fake news) of a foreign government influencing the election you might have a look at the beheading, gay-killing, women-supressing tyrannical monarchy known as The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and ask whether it made sense for them to be the *#1* contributor to your candidate.

    HBE December 10, 2016 at 10:08 am

    Yes, the NYT piece on Russian hacking is complete evidence free tripe. Not once do they say what evidence they base these accusations on, beyond the Cyrillic keyboard. The code for Cyrillic keyboard is, "fuzzy bear" et al. as the original reporting on the DNC hack and the company that ran security made clear that this was the one and only piece of concrete evidence the attacks by "fuzzy bear" et al. were perpetrated by the Russians.

    So based on a Cyrillic keyboard and the below quote, unnamed "American intelligence agencies know it was the Russians, really?

    "They based that conclusion, in part, on another finding - which they say was also reached with high confidence - that the Russians hacked the Republican National Committee's computer systems in addition to their attacks on Democratic organizations, but did not release whatever information they gleaned from the Republican networks."

    Based on this it appears the NYTs definition of fake reporting is anything that isn't fed directly to it by unnamed experts or the USG and uncritically reported.

    I think these unnamed agencies are not going to have a very good working relationship with the orange overlord if they keep this up. They might not even be getting that new war they wanted for Christmas.

    Pavel December 10, 2016 at 11:00 am

    It's as though the NYT and WaPo had these vast pools of accumulated credibility and they could go out on a limb here Oh wait - their credibility has been destroyed countless times over the past decade or so. One would think they'd realise: If you're in a ditch, the first thing to do is stop digging.

    Especially when dealing with a President Trump. He's already made his distaste for the WaPo clear. We are entering a new, crazy, dangerous era of press-presidential relations. All the more reason for the newspapers to behave responsibly - is that too much to ask?

    integer December 10, 2016 at 7:32 pm

    The world is flat . Note: This is not me awarding a Thomas L. Friedman prize. In this case, I am simply sharing the article because I think it is hilarious.

    integer December 10, 2016 at 8:38 pm

    Also, Bradford deLong should be included with Krugman and Friedman, though the length and width of deLong's connections don't seem to have the same acceleration, energy, or viscosity, as the other two. There are also olfactory and temporal differences.

    integer December 11, 2016 at 1:32 am

    Come to think of it, I also don't think Krugman Turdman or Friedman Flathead would have to grovel to Neera "I'm a loyal soldier" Tanden and John "Done, so think about something else" Podesta to get a family member a "meritocratic" job.

    YassirYouBetcha December 10, 2016 at 12:47 pm

    Multiple languages use the Cyrillic alphabet, including Bulgarian and, notably, Ukrainian. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrillic_script

    local to oakland December 10, 2016 at 11:52 am

    See also this. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/chuck-schumer-russia-senate-election-inquiry-232464

    TK421 December 10, 2016 at 11:57 am

    If Russia is so dangerous, then anyone who mishandles classified information (say, by storing it on a personal server) should be prosecuted, shouldn't they?

    Aumua December 10, 2016 at 2:00 pm

    Nowhere, in any of this, is it mentioned that Clinton's illegal private email server (that got hacked) played any factor whatsoever. It just stinks so bad, I wonder how they can not smell what they are sitting in.. I also wonder just where the line is between those who actually buy into this hysteria, and those who simply feel justified in using whatever means they can to discredit Trump and overturn the election. I think there's a lot of overlap and grey area there in many people's minds.

    Anonymous December 10, 2016 at 2:20 pm

    Summarizing a very plausible theory, NeoCon Coup Attempt: As Syria's Assad (with Russian help) is close to crushing HRC's jihadi Queda & Nusra rebels in Aleppo, the NeoCons are freaking out on both sides of the Atlantic.

    What to do? Jill's recount is floundering. So, last resort: Concoct Russia hacking myth to either delay Dec 19 EC vote or create more faithless electors. Result: A NeoCon like HRC or a NeoCon sympathizer is installed.

    Two biggest war hawks, McCain and Graham, are leading the Senate charges against Russia. All of this within days of Obama sending 200 MORE US troops to Syria and lifting the ban on more arms to the Syrian rebels, including anti-aircraft MANPADS.

    Plenue December 10, 2016 at 5:03 pm

    The recount farce makes me angry, and has made me resolve to never give Stein my vote again. Apparently she's in opposition to much of her party leadership on this, so if they ditch her in the future and get someone better I may consider voting for them again. The reality of Trump as president is going to be bad enough, attempting to sabotage the transition isn't doing anyone any favors. I don't like Obama at all, but he wants a clean, peaceful transfer of power, and on that issue at least he's correct.

    R McCoy December 10, 2016 at 5:16 pm

    That implies the NeoCon establishment views DJT and cabinet as a threat in any way, which is an extremely dubious premise. Occam's razor: Clinton and the media establishment that gifted the country DJT will do anything they can to cast the blame elsewhere.

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef December 10, 2016 at 6:24 pm

    I'm not sure if that is a simpler explanation. I offer this: It's simpler to see that they are engaging in a struggle for now and the future – that means the neocons vs Trump.

    Hillary vs Trump, invoking Russia now, is about fighting the last war. That one was over more than a month ago. It's more convoluted to say one team still desires to continue the fight.

    Chief Bromden December 10, 2016 at 5:51 pm

    You may be on to something http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/russian-interference-could-give-courts-legal-authority_us_584be136e4b0151082221b9c

    "The story reveals that a CIA assessment detailing this conclusion had been presented to President Obama and top congressional leaders last week." You read that? It's "detailed". None of us peasants will ever know what those "details" are, but its the f#ckin CIA, dude.

    Jagger December 10, 2016 at 7:54 pm

    You read that? It's "detailed". None of us peasants will ever know what those "details" are, but its the f#ckin CIA, dude.

    I just read the NYT article covering the same topic, http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/us/obama-russia-election-hack.html?_r=0 ,

    The problem is we are expected to just trust the NYT and CIA without evidence??? Anybody remember WMD in Iraq?? The complete loss of credibility by the NYT and CIA over the last decade means I have to see credible evidence before I believe anything they say. But that is just me. From reading the NYT comments on the OBama Russia election hack article, the NYT commenters have en mass swallowed the story hook, line and sinker. They apparently don't need evidence and have completely loss any sort of functioning long term memory.

    Benedict@Large December 10, 2016 at 1:47 pm

    And it's pretty clear that Clinton is right in with it. The woman has literally lost her marbles

    cwaltz December 10, 2016 at 10:22 pm

    Based on the fact that she was hidden more than actually performing on the campaign trail, that is a possibility. She may have very well been our own puppet government member that some were ready to install here just like we tend to do over in other nations. No real marbles needed since she wouldn't actually be running things. It's come to my attention that we seem to be inching closer and closer to third world here and those places rarely have vibrant democracies.

    Chief Bromden December 10, 2016 at 8:04 am

    Seems coordinated to me -- Globe/Times/WaPo. Double down for WaPoo who are now reporting from area 51 where they found Bigfoot sitting on a stockpile of Sadam's WMDs. Reading this article is surreal. The CIA, a terrorist outfit which our own former reporter (Bernstein) showed to be infesting our own newsroom, whispered in our ear that the Cold War 2.0 is going to escalate with or without the establishment coronation queen.

    "Secret CIA assessment says Russia was trying to help Trump win White House" The link on WaPoo's site actually says a different headline so I am just sharing the headline itself. Not another secret assessment . no more passing notes in class, students.

    Eustache de Saint Pierre December 10, 2016 at 8:49 am

    Robert Reich has posted the news that the Russians helped to secure the election for Trump on his FB page, to it seems much acclaim – perhaps I was foolish for having expected better from him.

    Steve H. December 10, 2016 at 9:31 am

    Sifting the election through a Peter Turchin filter, Sanders' run was a response to 'popular immiseration' while the choice-of-billionaires was 'intra-elite competition'. WaPo seems allied with the CIA-FIRE sector Clintonian group, while T may be more inclusive of the classic MICC-Pentagon sector which was asserting itself in Syria.

    I needed Jalen & Jacoby to sooth me to sleep last night, after seeing the last chart (Fig. 14.4) from Turchin's latest book. You can see it by hitting Ctrl-End from this pdf . If he's correct, this election was just the warm-up for 2020. Crikey.

    subgenius December 10, 2016 at 3:29 pm

    Craig Murray, the former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, who is a close associate of Assange, called the CIA claims "bullshit", adding: "They are absolutely making it up." "I know who leaked them," Murray said. "I've met the person who leaked them, and they are certainly not Russian and it's an insider. It's a leak, not a hack; the two are different things.

    witters December 10, 2016 at 11:08 pm

    The link to CM – and further disgracefulness from the now worthless Guardian: https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/12/cias-absence-conviction/

    Vatch December 10, 2016 at 6:08 pm

    Although I'm convinced that the Republicans are, on average, noticeably worse than the Democrats, I agree with you. It is useful that there is no doubt about where Trump and the Congressional Republicans stand, which is on the side of the billionaires and the giant corporations. We've had 8 years of Obama's obeisance to the oligarchs, and millions of Americans still don't understand that this was happening.

    I hope people will vigorously lobby their Representatives and Senators, and pay attention to who the genuine progressives are in the 2018 primaries.

    Invy December 10, 2016 at 3:12 pm

    Like ordinary citizens, although for the opposite reasons, elites are losing faith in democratic government and its suitability for reshaping societies in line with market imperatives. Public Choice's disparaging view of democratic politics as a corruption of market justice, in the service of opportunistic politicians and their clientele, has become common sense among elite publics-as has the belief that market capitalism cleansed of democratic politics will not only be more efficient but also virtuous and responsible. [11]

    Countries like China are complimented for their authoritarian political systems being so much better equipped than majoritarian democracy, with its egalitarian bent, to deal with what are claimed to be the challenges of 'globalization' -- a rhetoric that is beginning conspicuously to resemble the celebration by capitalist elites during the interwar years of German and Italian fascism (and even Stalinist communism) for their apparently superior economic governance. [12]

    How will capitalism end – New Left Review

    jgordon December 10, 2016 at 3:38 pm

    Right, the euphemisms have been done away with. I always knew Trump would be a disaster. However, Trump is a survivable disaster–with Hillary that would have been the end.

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef December 10, 2016 at 6:30 pm

    If Trump has many Goldman guys, is it a case of 'keeping your enemies close?'

    Altandmain December 10, 2016 at 6:37 pm

    In the long run, a Clinton presidency would be far more damaging.

    First of all, the Democrats would use Clinton to suppress the left and to insist that Clinton was more electable. That would lead to a validation of the idea that the left has nowhere to go and set a precedent for decades with a 3 point formula:

    1. Suppress the left
    2. Accept money from Wall Street and move to the right with each election
    3. Use identity politics as a distraction.

    A Trump victory forces questions on the conventional wisdom (not really wisdom), and forces changes. At best, they can hope to shove another Obama that is attractive on the outside, but will betray people, but even that will be harder because people now are more watchful. Not to mention, the mainstream media has lost its power.

    There were other dangers. Clinton wanted war with Russia. That could easily escalate into a nuclear conflict. With Trump, the risk is reduced, although given his ego, I will concede that anything is possible. We would also be seeing some very damaging neoliberal policies.

    The reality is that the US was screwed the moment Sanders was out of the picture. With Trump, at least it is more naked and more obvious. The real challenge is that the left has a 2 front war, first with the corporate Democrats, then the GOP. On the GOP side, Trump's supporters are going to wake up at some point to an Obama like betrayal, which is exactly what I expect will happen.

    There are elements of the Trump fan base already calling him out for the people he has appointed, which is a very encouraging sign. Trump's economic performance is what will make or break him. He has sold himself on his business acumen. Needless to say, I expect it will break him because he won't even try to do anything for his base.

    relstprof, December 10, 2016 at 6:46 pm

    I like a lot of your analysis. "We would also be seeing some very damaging neoliberal policies." We could still yet under Trump, given the cabinet nominees.

    The left must be vigilant and smart. There is opportunity here, but sidetracking on fake news, pop vote, etc. doesn't gain much in terms of opposition.

    Michael, December 10, 2016 at 10:27 pm

    I think you're possibly right, and I just couldn't pull the lever to vote for Trump. Sometimes we just have to be true to ourselves and hope it works out.

    RenoDino December 10, 2016 at 8:26 am

    By dangerous and delegitimizing I assume you mean the results of the election will be reversed sometime in the next six weeks while the current establishment still has martial authority.

    All the intelligent agencies are now in lock step over Russian intervention. How do they let this result stand? Trump obviously realizes his win is now in play and has gone after those same agencies pointing out their gross incompetence.

    Both sides now fear the other side will lock them up or, at the very least, remove them from power permanently. Why do I think this is not over?

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef December 10, 2016 at 11:14 am

    Michael Moore agrees with you – something is, or might be (more accurate description of what he is said to have said, I think), brewing, according to him, or rather, his intuition .

    John Parks December 10, 2016 at 12:56 pm

    I am certainly not ready to rule out Moore's gut feeling. Capitalist Party + MSM + Clinton + Nuland + CIA has shown to be an equation that ends in color revolution ..or at least an attempted color revolution What the State Department and MSM have pleasantly referred to in the past as a bloodless coup. See Ukraine, Brazil, Argentina et al

    Sammy Maudlin December 10, 2016 at 8:26 am

    At the same time that the media hysteria over "fake news" has reached a fever pitch, yesterday the Senate passed the "Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act" , colloquially known as the Portman-Murphy Counter-Propaganda Bill, as part of the FY 2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) Conference Report.

    According to Senator Portman's press release, the Bill "will improve the ability of the United States to counter foreign propaganda and disinformation by establishing an interagency center housed at the State Department to coordinate and synchronize counter-propaganda efforts throughout the U.S. government." The bill also creates a "grant program for NGOs, think tanks, civil society and other experts outside government who are engaged in counter-propaganda related work."

    While the passage of this bill seems very coincidentally timed given recent events, it was actually introduced in March. Not sure whether it simply followed a normal legislative track, or was brought back from the dead recently, etc.

    Of note is the fact that, according to Steve Sestanovich, a Senior Counsel at the Council on Foreign Relations , "a lot of what the bill wants done is actually being done," noting that a range of agencies are already focused on the disinformation problem, and that traditional foreign policy tools still have a major role to play.

    Eclair December 10, 2016 at 10:46 am

    " establishing an interagency center housed at the State Department to coordinate and synchronize counter-propaganda efforts throughout the U.S. government." Our very own Ministry of Truth!

    grizziz December 10, 2016 at 2:52 pm

    It is important to find work for our newly minted graduates of marketing, psychology and sociology as well as those graduates of the communication school and the arts. The need of our post-industrial information age is to make things up as opposed to just making things. Our liberal nation has promised our children that after they have enslaved themselves through student debt they will find work. The work they find is likely to be meaningful only to the creditors who wish to be repaid.

    The graduates will find idealistic rationales like patriotism or making "'Merica Grate Again" to soothe their corrupted souls while keeping the fake news as fresh as a steamy load.

    integer December 10, 2016 at 11:04 am

    US Psychological Warfare in Ukraine: Targeting Online Independent Media Coverage

    Under Ukrainian law journalists that disagree with Kiev's policies are collaborators. They are subject to any mechanism Kiev can devise to stop them. In the case of RT Ruptly or the Guardian this means developing a strategy to ruin their reputations. The Interpreter was developed to that end. Kiev has gone so far as to petition the UK government to censure the Guardian for its coverage of events in Ukraine hoping to bully the publication into line. US broadcasters (Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty) have put RT on the same list as ISIS.

    From yesterday's links but seems appropriate. This plan to censor opposing viewpoints in the US was intended to be executed during a Clinton presidency, and would've been almost impossible to stop under those circumstances. There is now a window of opportunity to fight back and ruin these clowns once and for all.

    local to oakland December 10, 2016 at 12:46 pm

    But these memes are now in play differently by Trump appointees. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/betsy-devos-claim-media-fake-news-232459

    Government messing with the First Amendment is dangerous. I feel like an electrician watching someone reach for the wrong wire.

    integer December 10, 2016 at 1:28 pm

    That may be but what we are seeing now is just an echo of the Clinton/Soros plan, and not even close to the disaster that would result from having Soros et al at the helm. My guess is that the CIA are now simply using gullible Republicans (yes, there is certainly some redundancy there) as useful idiots, but this dynamic significantly weakens the original plan.

    shinola December 10, 2016 at 3:50 pm

    "I feel like an electrician watching someone reach for the wrong wire." I'm definitely stealing that one – thanks!

    cnchal December 10, 2016 at 8:28 am

    Trump, the Man in the Crowd

    Amy Davidson ends her article with this paragraph.

    And that is why the rallies are likely to endure: to serve as calibrators of or infomercials for what Trump believes that "the public" wants. One can waste a lot of time delving into the question of Trump's psychological need for affirmation . What is politically more important is how he might use the set piece of a cheering crowd to brush aside other considerations, particularly those involving the checks on the Presidency, and the willingness of those in other areas of the government, or in the White House itself, to exercise them. Should courts worry about "a lot of angry people"? One important point not to let go of is that a crowd that the President assembles and the broader public are two very different things, no matter how big the arena, or how filled it is with love . A better opportunity to hear that public voice will come in two years, at the midterm elections. Maybe those will surprise Trump.

    News flash for Amy. When a narcissist uses the word "love" it doesn't mean what you think it does. Those rallies are about training people to react emotionally in a way that is fulfilling to Donald. Nothing more, nothing less.

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef December 10, 2016 at 11:55 am

    A better opportunity to hear that public voice will come in two years, at the midterm elections. Maybe those will surprise Trump.

    We remind ourselves that no one can help us but us. We empower ourselves.

    So, it goes for today, as it did in 2008. Such moderation!!! A better opportunity will come in two years!!!! I said that to myself 8 years ago, but I didn't hear much of it from the media then. And we (not just I) say that now.

    As for crowds reacting and it being fulfilling for the one being looked up on – again, it's the same human psychology, whether the guy on stage is a rock star, Lenin, Roosevelt, Pol Pot, the next savior or Idi Amin. How much love is there for anyone in any long term relationship, except to affirm and be affirmed by 'love' everyday, in small acts or otherwise, much less some politicians you interact through abstractions, like, through the media or stories told to us.

    kareninca December 10, 2016 at 6:13 pm

    "Those rallies are about training people to react emotionally in a way that is fulfilling to Donald. Nothing more, nothing less."

    These rallies are Trump's means of maintaining contact with his base, and making sure that he knows what they want. And a means of showing that he is trying to get it for them. If Hillary had bothered to do anything of the sort she would have been elected. Sanders did it and it was much appreciated. Trump's ego is huge but the rallies are much more than an ego-trip.

    Jhallc December 10, 2016 at 8:51 am

    Re: WP's response to Truthdig's retraction request. It seems as if they are doubling down on the "not our responsibility to verify the validity theme". My first reaction is that the WP is now the equivalent of the National Enquirer. What's next, a headline " I gave birth to Trump's Love Child".

    Steve H. December 10, 2016 at 9:15 am

    : The right has its own version of political correctness. It's just as stifling.

    It looks like this perspective is snapping into place. From a letter in our (paywalled) local paper, from Dec. 3:

    telling everyone else not to be so sensitive or PC (ditto; theirs is a "conservative" PC). [Kenneth D. Pimple]

    Steeeve December 10, 2016 at 2:06 pm

    Patriotic Correctness is a useful term and concept. Otherwise, the article was extremely long-winded and boring. Editor to writer: "I need you to fill 3,000 words worth of space with this 50-word idea "

    Steve H. December 10, 2016 at 10:59 am

    Panem et circenses.

    But then I think of the old Chicago prayer:

    Where's my bread, Daley?

    fosforos December 10, 2016 at 12:00 pm

    Long, long ago I learned that the only really trustworthy stories in the "Press" were on the sports pages. Now I'm scarcely sure of even that

    cwaltz December 10, 2016 at 10:38 pm

    I don't consider Trump a compromise candidate and that's largely because I don't see him actually moving the country forward in the right direction. Sanders, for me, would have been a compromise from the point of view of he probably wouldn't have moved us far enough fast enough for me but he would have set us leftward instead of ever rightward and that IS an improvement.

    The Trumpening December 10, 2016 at 10:06 am

    The mainstream media is doubling down on imagined pro-Russian heresies in a fashion not seen since the Reformation. Back then the Catholic Church held a monopoly on ideology. They lost it to an unruly bunch of rebellious Protestants who were assisted by the new technology of the printing press.

    Nowadays various non-conformist internet sites, with the help of the new technology of the internet, are challenging the MSM's monopoly on the means of persuasion. To show how much things have changed, back in the 60's, dissidents such as the John Birch Society were limited to issuing pamphlets to expound on their theories of Russians taking over America. In a very ironic role-reversal, today it is the increasingly desperate Washington Post that more closely matches the paranoia of the John Birch Society as it accuses non-conformist media heretics – who are threatening the MSM's monopoly on the means of persuasion - of allowing Russians to take over America.

    But let's spare a thought for poor Jeff Bezos. He basically thought he was purchasing the medieval equivalent of a Bishopry when he bought the WaPo. But now after running six anti-Trump editorials each and every day for the past 18 months, in which his establishment clergy engaged in an ever increasing hysteria-spiral trying to outdo each other in turning Trump into Hitler, it ends up Bezos' side lost the election anyway. It's like he bought a Blockbuster store in 2008 and never even thought about Netflix!

    And so now the MSM is literally launching an Establishment Inquisition by issuing "indexes" of prohibited heretical websites.

    Where will this lead? The grossly paranoiac reading is the Establishment's Counter Reformation is laying the ideological groundwork for a sort of coup d'etat to be followed by the rule of a goodthink junta. In this case we have to start calculating how many divisions are loyal to Trump's gang of generals versus how many are loyal to Obama's generals. A more moderate reading is that with these anti-Russian headlines, the Establishment is attempting to pressure Trump to stay the Establishment course on foreign policy and to appoint a SecState who is hostile to Russia. And in the best case these crazy MSM ramblings are just the last gasps of soon to be extinct media mammoths.

    fosforos December 10, 2016 at 12:17 pm

    Or is it CIA preparation for an Electoral College coup and an H of Reps "election" of–Lindsy Graham?

    The Trumpening December 10, 2016 at 2:07 pm

    One thing you can say about Trump is that he is most certainly not a wuss. In the face of this firestorm about Russian influence sources say Trump is going to nominate Rex Tillerson, who is very pro-Putin, as Secretary of State!

    Lindsie Graham is going to be apoplectic!

    tgs December 10, 2016 at 2:51 pm

    Do you think Tillerson will be confirmed?

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef December 10, 2016 at 3:09 pm

    I wonder what happens when they don't confirm any of his nominees? Is this a case of 'I will nominee so many you don't like, you will be forced to confirm at least a few?'

    The Trumpening December 10, 2016 at 4:05 pm

    Yes I do because Trump is reportedly naming NeoCon John Bolton as undersecretary. That's going to be a package deal; if they reject Tillerson then Bolton is gone as well. The NeoCons are desperate to get Bolton into the Administration.

    Bolton's job will be to go on talk shows and defend Trump's policies. If he doesn't do it then he gets fired.

    And so from the rest of the world's point of view, Tillerson is the carrot but Bolton remains in the background as the stick in case anyone starts thinking Trump is too soft and decides to test him.

    Baby Gerald December 10, 2016 at 10:58 am

    Glenn Greenwald dissects the fake news spewing about Russian involvement with aplomb:

    Anonymous Leaks to the WashPost About the CIA's Russia Beliefs Are No Substitute for Evidence

    [Dec 11, 2016] The geopolitical aspect of oil and West attack on Russia

    Notable quotes:
    "... Libya and Venezuela peaked long ago. Russia is at her peak right now. Iran is very likely post peak. Iraq can increase production slightly but is very near her peak. Kazakhstan is at 1.75 million bpd and if they can manage to keep the toxic oil from Kashagan from corroding their pipes they may one day get to 2 million bpd. Big deal. ..."
    "... The Ukraine crisis was provoked by NATO itself (see: EuroMaidan) and Russia reacted to it. NATO was long looking for an excuse as well as the right timing for imposing sanctions on Russia. ..."
    Dec 11, 2016 | peakoilbarrel.com
    Stavros H says: 12/10/2016 at 4:11 am
    What Ron Patterson and the Peak Oil-ers in general fail to include in their calculations is the geopolitical aspect of oil, as well as Global Economics.

    In order for us to understand what the imperatives are in dictating oil production levels, prices etc we should be at first able to distinguish between the different types of oil producers. To provide the most obvious contrasting example, let's take Russia & the USA. These two major oil producers are quite dissimilar to each other, if not outright opposites. For Russia – a much poorer country – oil production is *the* core industry, as well as the core export item which is vital for the country's success or failure. The US – a much wealthier country – despite its high production levels, is still a massive importer. This distinction makes a world of difference. For the US, the aim of oil production is to be maximized, so that imports can be minimized and also that oil exporters (such as Russia) can enjoy far less strategic or economic leverage. Hence, the expensive and risky gambit on shale oil and tar sands in North America. For Russia on the other hand, the goal is never to maximize production, their aim is to balance production levels with price levels so that the Russian economy can get the best results and the country the most leverage possible in the long-run. My point here is that when we make forecasts over future production we should always make the distinction between countries that are producers, yet importers and countries that are producers-exporters and rely to a high (or absolute) degree on oil revenues for their well-being. So, the first distinction we can make, is between oil-producing-exporters and oil-producing-importers. The first category would include: Russia, KSA, Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, UAE, Libya, Venezuela etc, while the 2nd would include the US, China, UK, India etc But another, even more important distinction is crucially important here. Some of the oil exporters are part and parcel of the US-EU (NATO) economic-military structure while others are not. The first category would include: KSA, Kuwait, UAE, Norway, Canada etc while the second category would include: Russia, Iraq*, Iran, Libya*, Venezuela, Kazakhstan etc

    From the above, another clear conclusion arises. The US-EU Axis (NATO) has calculated that the oil exporters it doesn't already control must be attacked until a high degree of control over them can be imposed. This has taken the form of a direct military attack as in the cases of Libya and Iraq, or the form of Hybrid Warfare methods of sabotage and subversion against all the others.

    Now, how does all this relate to actual production levels? My point here is this, the dominant US-EU Axis is very much interested in suppressing the levels of oil production (or conversely, the level of prices) from places such as Russia, Iran, Iraq etc whenever this is possible (for example, when the North Sea and North Slope were being developed, or when shale/tar sands came online more recently) In fact they have been doing exactly that for decades now (pressure on Yeltsin's Russia, sanctions on Saddam's Iraq, sanctions on Iran and now sanctions on Russia) As you can see, the sanctions carousel shifts between these 3 oil giants that NATO does not control.

    This is the point I have been periodically making on this blog but nobody seems to be picking up on it. Yes, countries such as the US, Norway, UK, Indonesia etc have peaked to various degrees and can only maintain or increase production temporarily via massive capital expenditure and technological breakthroughs. While countries that have been victims of US-EU (NATO) hostility are merely trying to navigate out of the siege laid against them until they hold enough leverage to produce closer to their real potential.

    So, for the umpteenth time, Russia, Iran, Iraq, Kazakhstan and very possibly Libya and Venezuela are nowhere near the peaks and will be growing producers in the coming decades. The only question is whether this will be done under their own terms, or under NATO's terms.

    Ron Patterson says: 12/10/2016 at 1:44 pm
    For the US, the aim of oil production is to be maximized, so that imports can be minimized and also that oil exporters (such as Russia) can enjoy far less strategic or economic leverage.

    Baloney! The US government does not have an aim of oil production. The US government does not produce a single barrel of oil. Oil, in the USA, is produced by private and publicly owned companies. Their aim is to make money, nothing else.

    Hence, the expensive and risky gambit on shale oil and tar sands in North America.

    Again, that risky gambit was not made by the US government, it was made by private and publicly owned companies. They took that risky gambit because they thought they could make a fortune. Do you really believe they had Russia in mind when they decided to drill and frack that oil bearing shale? Do you really believe they did it because they wanted Russia to enjoy less economic leverage? I doubt that any of them really gave a shit about Russia's welfare.

    The US sanctions against Russia was because of their takeover of Crimea and their invasion into Ukraine. It had nothing to do with trying to suppress their oil production. Ditto for the Iranian sanctions. Obama wanted to halt their development of nuclear weapons. Good God man, do you really believe those sanctions was about suppressing their oil production instead?

    So, for the umpteenth time, Russia, Iran, Iraq, Kazakhstan and very possibly Libya and Venezuela are nowhere near the peaks and will be growing producers in the coming decades.

    Libya and Venezuela peaked long ago. Russia is at her peak right now. Iran is very likely post peak. Iraq can increase production slightly but is very near her peak. Kazakhstan is at 1.75 million bpd and if they can manage to keep the toxic oil from Kashagan from corroding their pipes they may one day get to 2 million bpd. Big deal.

    Stavros H says: 12/10/2016 at 7:13 pm
    So you really believe that the USG has no way of influencing what the various American corporations do? There is no such thing as "free-market" in the abstract, the state is involved heavily every step of the way. Legislation, regulation, taxation, subsidies (or lack thereof) directions to financial institutions, bail-outs etc etc etc. I am not of course saying that the USG commands US corporations as would be the case under say a Stalinist system, but you can bet it can *influence* it. Several laws were passed around more than a decade ago in order to precisely encourage shale operations (Cheney was behind them) Secondly, I find it shocking that you deny the most obvious statement I made, namely that major oil importers struggle any which way they can to minimize oil imports, maximize own oil production (if they have any oil reserves that is) and also control the countries that do export oil. Just read what the CIA said about the Persian Gulf right after WWII. Control of oil-rich regions has been an absolute imperative for US FP since then. Astonishing that anyone that can doubt that. As for your claims about anti-Russian sanctions, again your ignorance about geopolitics is astonishing.

    The Ukraine crisis was provoked by NATO itself (see: EuroMaidan) and Russia reacted to it. NATO was long looking for an excuse as well as the right timing for imposing sanctions on Russia. The Ukraine crisis, as well as rising oil production in North America provided a perfect opportunity for those sanctions to be imposed at the time they did, otherwise they would have looked pretty pathetic.

    And notice what the sanctions were all about: a) no selling of oil equipment to RUS firms, b) no lending to RUS oil firms, c) no US-EU oil corporation can invest in RUS oil or cooperate with RUS oil companies. This, coupled with a crushed price was hoped that would discourage/impede the Russian oil industry. It's so eye-popping it hurts. BTW, I am not moralizing here, I am just presenting the facts as I see them, from the prism of RealPolitik.

    As for your persistent belief that every country in the world has peaked in terms of oil production. How long do you have to be proven wrong until you admit it? I am sure that you thought that Iraq under Saddam had "peaked" or that during the early years of US occupation it had also peaked. But what do we see?

    A war ravaged country being able to rapidly expand production. Imagine what the Iraqi oil production levels would be if the country enjoyed some relative piece and the global market called for it? My point here is that these countries are constrained by market as well as geopolitical factors, which you seem to completely ignore.

    So, I hope that your blog is still around in the coming years, when all of Russia, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Venezuela & Kazakhstan boost oil production. Some of them will boost their production massively, others significantly. You will see.

    Hickory says: 12/11/2016 at 12:07 am
    I'm sure the world looks like you depict it, from where you look Stravos. But it doesn't look like that from here.

    Russia has sanctions imposed on it for acting aggressive on its borders. I'm sure it feels uncomfortable to be surrounded, and not have a good port to the south for its navy. I truly believe that USA and the rest of the modern world were hoping Russia would join in a constructive and cooperative role after the Soviet breakup, but they have failed miserably so far. Still hope though.

    And Iran has sanctions imposed because they have been an extremely aggressive theocracy that no one wants to have nukes- the sanctions imposed included China and Russia as sponsors. Also, it was to Russia advantage economically, to not have Iranian oil on the market.

    China, Europe and USA do prefer to have Iranian oil on the market, but not at the cost of a theocracy (bizarre) with nucs.
    More to say- but thats enough to chew on.

    AlexS says: 12/11/2016 at 5:58 am
    "Russia has sanctions imposed on it for acting aggressive on its borders"

    What about >90% of Crimea's population voting for re-unification with Russia?

    "extremely aggressive theocracy"

    What about Saudi Arabia sponsoring terrorists all around the world? Is it a perfect modern democracy?

    Stavros H says: 12/11/2016 at 6:01 am
    I talk Real-Politik but you have again collapsed into the cheap hypocritical nonsense of the MSM and pseudo-experts. The mere suggestion that Iran has been "aggressive" is insulting to my intelligence. Iran can't be aggressive regardless of their inner desires. Iran can only hope to defend itself from the US & its allies and even that would have been impossible without Russian and Chinese support from behind the scenes. I don't see why you think that Russia & China going along with the West on imposing sanctions on Iran somehow proves that the excuse for them was truthful. No, Russia & China both make deals with the West all the time, in the hope that they can serve their own interests as best possible. If it means screwing Iran in some cases, then so be it. Every state is in this for its very own interests (no permanent allies, only permanent interests)

    As for Russia. There wouldn't be a more catastrophic scenario imaginable for the West (especially Europe) if Russia ever managed or was allowed to enter the global marketplace in anything remotely resembling "fair terms". The reason why NATO is so obsessed with Russia is because that country possesses *all* the necessary elements (massive hydrocarbon reserves, nukes, metals, strategic location, geographic size) for a superpower, except of course the economic part. But, as NATO strategists are keenly aware, that can change, and if it does, then the Global Balance of Power changes radically and at the expense of NATO. This is why Russia is NATO's number one target and not say China, or India or anybody else. Most people have been fooled by thinking that power in international relations is all about the size of your GDP. While this may be true for most countries, it's definitely not true when it comes to Russia. If I were NATO I would be doing the same and more in order to bring Russia down.

    [Dec 11, 2016] 12/09/2016 at 4:48 am

    Dec 11, 2016 | peakoilbarrel.com
    Rosneft sells 10% stake to Qataris and Glencore. That's a pretty big surprise to me at least.

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-07/glencore-qatar-fund-buy-russia-s-rosneft-stake-for-11-billion

    (An article in the FT is better but behind a paywall – try the Google route if interested).

    Chevron to cut budget another 20% in 2017. Much bigger than expected, again by me anyway.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-chevron-outlook-idUSKBN13X01S

    International rig counts are out – up five overall, mostly a bounce back to around September numbers from an unusually big dip in October, especially in the North Sea.

    http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=79687&p=irol-rigcountsintl

    Also I took a look at some of the Bakken daily reports for this week, new permitting and completions announcements seem to have come to a stop – maybe the extra cold weather, or maybe someone on vacation and not completing the paperwork, or a sign of things to come?

    Is this the news of an industry with a rosy glow of optimism following the OPEC announcements? Too early to feel the impact yet I guess.

    [Dec 10, 2016] Why the US elite loves so much to demonise Russia

    Highly recommended!
    Notable quotes:
    "... In principle, every router between the DNC server and Russia has the potential to be hacked, with a tunnel added to send the traffic somewhere else in the world with new source and destination addresses. This is known as router table poisoning. It is preventable but the mechanisms are rarely ever used because the security services want to be able to do this themselves. There are some nice logs of the NSA using this. ..."
    "... In principle, someone at an ISP or backbone service could have had a laptop plugged into a switch or router to do the same thing, or lit up a strand of dark fibre to let some uber-wealthy business do this. And there's no shortage of uber-wealthy businesses who aren't keen on Democrats. This technique is used for local and remote network diagnostics, no reason it can't be used nefarious, it's not like the hardware cares why a wire is plugged in. ..."
    "... Russia has an independent foreign policy and acts in what it perceives as it's own best interests. It has refused to become a vassal state of the West and is a threat to the Empire's full-spectrum dominance. Worst of all it has begun trading outside the $US in energy and other resources with China and Iran. ..."
    "... Mainstream media are now busy repressing any news and any questioning about facts ..."
    "... Western media are in full panic as Aleppo falls with all sorts of gruesome tales about the mistreatment of their favorite terrorists in Aleppo and a strange silence on the whereabouts of their '250K civilians' under siege ..."
    "... I cant believe the Fake News outlets are still making a big deal about this issue. Obomber is leaving in a cloud of failure as he deserves ..."
    "... "Propaganda is to a democracy what the bludgeon is to a totalitarian state." ― Noam Chomsky, Media Control: The Spectacular Achievements of Propaganda. ..."
    "... New Canadian documentary - All Governments Lie. "It lucidly argues that powerful interests have been creating supercharged fake stories for decades to advance their own nefarious interests. And the institutional media have too often blithely played along." The Globe and Mail. ..."
    "... No comments about Seth Rich the DNC staffer Assange hinted had leaked the Podesta emails to Wikileaks and was subsequently shot multiple times and died at 04:20 on a Washington DC street in a 'motiveless' crime in which none of his possessions were taken. ..."
    "... The rise of the right wing in Europe is due to the fact that Social Democratic parties have completely sold out to neo-liberal agenda. ..."
    "... So Putin's plan to undermine U.S. voter confidence was to simply show what actually happens behind the scenes at the DNC, how diabolical! ..."
    "... Peter Schweizer, the author of Clinton Cash, has published a report that claims that that Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta was on the executive board of a foreign company that received $35 million from the Kremlin. "The company was a transparent Russian front, and how much Podesta was compensated - and for what - is unclear. In addition, Podesta failed to disclose his position on that board to the Federal government, as required by law," John Schindler of the Observer wrote. ..."
    "... So it's true because the CIA said so. That's the gold standard for me. ..."
    "... "Truth is Treason in the Empire of Lies" - Ron Paul ..."
    "... At least Tucker Carlson is able to see through the BS and asks searching question. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRkeGkCjdHg ..."
    "... President-elect Donald Trump's transition team said in a statement Friday afternoon that the same people who claim Russia interfered in the presidential election had previously claimed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. ..."
    "... The neoliberal corporate machine is wounded but not dead. They will use every trick, ploy and opportunity to try to regain power. The fight goes on. ..."
    "... Good occasion to substantiate the accusation which ,substantiated or not,will remind the "useful idiots" of the "change of regime " US policy and who started the Ukrainian crisis. ..."
    "... Just another chapter in the sad saga of the Democrats unwillingness to admit they ran the worst candidate & the worst campaign in recent memory. It's not our fault! Them dirty Russkies did it! ..."
    Dec 09, 2016 | www.theguardian.com

    From: Barack Obama orders 'full review' of possible Russian hacking in US election Spncer Ackerman in New York and David Smith in Washington

    Geoff Smythe , 24m ago

    Well, if Rupert Mudroach, an American citizen, can influence the Australian elections, who gives a stuff about anyone else's involvement in US politics?

    The US loves demonising Russia, even supporting ISIS to fight against them.

    The United States of Amnesia just can't understand that they are run by the military machine.

    As Frank Zappa once correctly stated: The US government is just the entertainment unit of the Military.

    Nataliefreeman, 11 Dec 2016

    Altogether the only thing people are accusing the Russians of is the WikiLeaks scandal. And in hindsight of the enormous media bias toward Trump it really comes of as little more than leveling the playing field. Hardly the sort of democratic subversion that is being suggested.

    And of course there is another problem and that is in principle, the DNC server could have had malware in an e-mail that set up a NAT entry that made the connecting computer appear somewhere else, with the entry deleted afterwards. Typically, IP table modifications aren't logged, so this would not be detectable.

    In principle, the DNC server could have had malware in an e-mail that ran a SED script at a specific time that changed any occurrence of one IP address with another. Not sure anyone would bother with this, but it's why good system admins place so much emphasis on securing logs. However, it's obvious we're not talking about good admins.

    In principle, every router between the DNC server and Russia has the potential to be hacked, with a tunnel added to send the traffic somewhere else in the world with new source and destination addresses. This is known as router table poisoning. It is preventable but the mechanisms are rarely ever used because the security services want to be able to do this themselves. There are some nice logs of the NSA using this.

    In principle, someone along the way could tap into the fibre, spoofing IP addresses and injecting/sniffing packets. The US even has a submarine designed for this, but optics aren't complex and any number of neo-phone phreaks could have the hardware.

    In principle, someone at an ISP or backbone service could have had a laptop plugged into a switch or router to do the same thing, or lit up a strand of dark fibre to let some uber-wealthy business do this. And there's no shortage of uber-wealthy businesses who aren't keen on Democrats. This technique is used for local and remote network diagnostics, no reason it can't be used nefarious, it's not like the hardware cares why a wire is plugged in.

    In principle, the supposed destination machine could have been hacked to relay the packets in encrypted form to the South Pole or a college campus in Texas. There are many examples of client machines being hacked to do this. It's basically what zombie machines are in botnets.

    In practice, it is flat-out guaranteed that none of the security agencies could distinguish this from a Russian attack. Nothing in the area monitored could tell the difference. We know, for a fact, that college kids spoofing a scan from China have fooled the DoD and NSA on previous occasions, it has caused international incidents.

    So we have known forms of attack that are known to exist, aren't complex and in some cases are already used for attacks. They are 100% untraceable.

    HollyOldDog -> Nataliefreeman, 11 Dec 2016 01:4
    Don't know about Russians, but in the early 2000's the Ukrainian hackers had some nasty viruses embedded in email attachments that could fuckup ARM based computers.
    smellycat -> waltercarl67, 11 Dec 2016 00:0
    Time to stop attempting regime change in other countries then, if you condemn it in your own. What goes around comes around.
    caveOfShadows , 10 Dec 2016 23:1
    European governments tried to elect Hillary Clinton. Latin American and Asian allies of the US tried to elect Clinton.

    Top leaders of France, the UK, Germany, all leaked to US newspapers, with dire warnings of how Trump's election would lead to bad outcomes.

    Many countries made as clear as possible, without coming out officially for a candidate, that they were for the election of Clinton.

    Mexico tried to get Clinton elected. Believe me, they did. Not officially, of course, but almost.

    But all we hear about is Russia.

    Wonder why???

    uyCybershy -> caveOfShadows , 10 Dec 2016 23:1
    Russia has an independent foreign policy and acts in what it perceives as it's own best interests. It has refused to become a vassal state of the West and is a threat to the Empire's full-spectrum dominance. Worst of all it has begun trading outside the $US in energy and other resources with China and Iran.
    imperfetto , 10 Dec 2016 23:0
    Mainstream media are now busy repressing any news and any questioning about facts, as the last battle in their support to jidaists fighting the Syrian Army. This is the dark pit where our so called free press has fallen into.
    Flugler -> imperfetto , 10 Dec 2016 23:1
    Yep had a chat with an army mate yesterday asked him what the fcuk the supposed head of MI6 was on about regarding Russian support for Syrian govt suggesting Russian actions made terrorism more likely here in UK. He shrugged his shoulders and said he hoped Putin wiped the terrorists out...
    smellycat -> imperfetto , 10 Dec 2016 23:4
    Western media are in full panic as Aleppo falls with all sorts of gruesome tales about the mistreatment of their favorite terrorists in Aleppo and a strange silence on the whereabouts of their '250K civilians' under siege

    Of course no news on the danger to the civilians of W,Aleppo, who have been bombarded indiscriminately for months by the 'moderates' in the east of the city or the danger to the civilians of Palmyra, Mosul or al Bab.

    Geoff Smythe -> smellycat , 11 Dec 2016 01:3
    Or the 50,000 that have been evacuated out of Aleppo by the Russian military. https://www.rt.com/news/369869-syria-evacuation-civilians-aleppo /
    Merseysidefella , 10 Dec 2016 21:5
    I cant believe the Fake News outlets are still making a big deal about this issue. Obomber is leaving in a cloud of failure as he deserves. I´ll still look for the Guardian articles on football which are excellent.
    Cheers!
    GuyCybershy -> confettifoot , 10 Dec 2016 21:0
    The Sanders movement inside the Democratic party did offer some hope but this was snuffed out by the DNC and the Clinton campaign in collusion with the media. This is what likely caused her defeat in November and not some Kremlin intrigue.
    dopamineboy , 10 Dec 2016 20:5
    "Propaganda is to a democracy what the bludgeon is to a totalitarian state." ― Noam Chomsky, Media Control: The Spectacular Achievements of Propaganda.
    dopamineboy , 10 Dec 2016 20:5
    "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality," Karl Rove.
    caveOfShadows -> dopamineboy , 10 Dec 2016 23:1
    Don't use quotes when you are doing a fake attribution.
    dopamineboy , 10 Dec 2016 20:4
    New Canadian documentary - All Governments Lie. "It lucidly argues that powerful interests have been creating supercharged fake stories for decades to advance their own nefarious interests. And the institutional media have too often blithely played along." The Globe and Mail.
    joinupthedots , 10 Dec 2016 20:4
    Fake news....No news.....None sense news?

    Uncle Sam has been doing it for years and the degree of incestuousness between MSM and the "Agencies" is all right here (just one example)

    http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKmeyerM.htm

    smellycat -> joinupthedots , 10 Dec 2016 20:5
    That's some serious shit
    '"The same sons of bitches," he hissed, "that killed John F. Kennedy."
    stoneshepherd , 10 Dec 2016 20:2
    No comments about Seth Rich the DNC staffer Assange hinted had leaked the Podesta emails to Wikileaks and was subsequently shot multiple times and died at 04:20 on a Washington DC street in a 'motiveless' crime in which none of his possessions were taken.

    Hmmm....

    Flugler -> stoneshepherd , 10 Dec 2016 20:3
    Distract the masses with bullsh*t , nothing new... Trump needs to double up on his personal security, he has doubled down on the CIA tonight bringing upmtheir bullsh*t on WMD. Thing are getting interesting...
    Liesandstats , 10 Dec 2016 19:2
    Meanwhile the good guys with their Smart bombs indulge in a spot of collateral damage. (Or war crimes as it's described when Russians do it).

    https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/breaking-90-iraqi-soldiers-killed-in-mosul-from-us-airstrikes/

    This article is jiberish, as are the ones trying to say that the Russians caused Brexit.

    GuyCybershy -> sunflowerxyz , 10 Dec 2016 19:3
    The rise of the right wing in Europe is due to the fact that Social Democratic parties have completely sold out to neo-liberal agenda.
    Powerspike , 10 Dec 2016 19:1
    Spreading lies about the very real Podesta emails and their importance seems to be a fake news stock in trade. Since Hillary was responsible I'm not sure where Putin comes into the picture.
    https://theintercept.com/2016/12/09/a-clinton-fan-manufactured-fake-news-that-msnbc-personalities-spread-to-discredit-wikileaks-docs /
    GuyCybershy , 10 Dec 2016 19:0
    So Putin's plan to undermine U.S. voter confidence was to simply show what actually happens behind the scenes at the DNC, how diabolical!
    Powerspike , 10 Dec 2016 18:3
    "If we can revert to the truth, then a great deal of one's suffering can be erased, because a great deal of one's suffering is based on sheer lies. "
    R. D. Laing
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    US politicians and the MSM depend on sheer lies.....
    Powerspike -> KassandraTroy , 10 Dec 2016 18:5
    They are playing a game. They are playing at not playing a game. If I show them I see they are, I shall break the rules and they will punish me. I must play their game, of not seeing I see the game.
    R. D. Laing
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++
    I'm sick of jumping through their hoops - how about you?
    James7 , 10 Dec 2016 17:2
    "Tin Foil Hat" Hillary--
    "This is not about politics or partisanship," she went on. "Lives are at risk, lives of ordinary people just trying to go about their days to do their jobs, contribute to their communities. It is a danger that must be addressed and addressed quickly."

    We fail to see how Russian propaganda has put people's lives directly at risk. Unless, of course, Hillary is suggesting that the increasingly-bizarre #Pizzagate swarm journalism campaign (which apparently caused a man to shoot up a floor tile in a D.C. pizza shop) was conjured up by a bunch of Russian trolls.

    And this is about as absurd as saying Russian trolls were why Trump got elected.

    "It needs to be said," former counterintelligence agent John R. Schindler (who, by the way, believes Assange and Snowden are both Russian plants), writes in the Observer, "that nearly all of the liberals eagerly pontificating about how Putin put Trump in office know nothing about 21st century espionage, much less Russia's unique spy model and how it works. Indeed, some of the most ardent advocates of this Kremlin-did-it conspiracy theory were big fans of Snowden and Wikileaks -- right until clandestine Russian shenanigans started to hurt Democrats. Now, they're panicking."

    (Nonetheless, #Pizzagate and Trump, IMHO, are manifestations of a population which deeply deeply distrusts the handlers and gatekeepers of the status quo. Justified or not. And with or without Putin's shadowy fingers strumming its magic hypno-harp across the Land of the Free. This runs deeper than just Putin.)

    Fake news has always been around, from the fake news which led Americans to believe the Pearl Harbor attack was a surprise and completely unprovoked .

    To the fake news campaigns put out by Edward Bernays tricking women into believing cigarettes were empowering little phallics of feminism. (AKA "Torches of Freedom.")

    This War on Fake News has more to do with the elites finally realizing how little control they have over the minds of the unwashed masses. Rather, this is a war on the freaks, geeks and weirdos who've formed a decentralized and massively-influential media right under their noses.

    Laissez Faire Today

    James7 -> fedback , 10 Dec 2016 17:3
    and there may be some truth to that. An article says has delved into financial matters in Russia.

    Kremlin Connection? The TRUTH About Hillary's Shady Ties To Russia REVEALED
    Find out why insiders say Clinton has some explaining to do.

    Americans have no idea just how closely Hillary Clinton is tied to the Kremlin! That's the shocking claim of a new report that alleges the Democratic nominee is secretly pals with Vladimir Putin and his countrymen.

    Peter Schweizer, the author of Clinton Cash, has published a report that claims that that Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta was on the executive board of a foreign company that received $35 million from the Kremlin. "The company was a transparent Russian front, and how much Podesta was compensated - and for what - is unclear. In addition, Podesta failed to disclose his position on that board to the Federal government, as required by law," John Schindler of the Observer wrote.

    As Radar previously reported, when Clinton was secretary of state, she profited from the "Russian Reset," a failed attempt to improve relations between the U.S. and Russia.

    chweizer wrote, "Many of the key figures in the Skolkovo process - on both the Russian and U.S. sides - had major financial ties to the Clintons. During the Russian reset, these figures and entities provided the Clintons with tens of millions of dollars, including contributions to the Clinton Foundation, paid for speeches by Bill Clinton, or investments in small start-up companies with deep Clinton ties." Schweizer also details "Skolkovo," a Silicon Valley-like campus that both the U.S. and Russia worked on for developing biomed, space, nuclear and IT technologies. He told the New York Post that there was a "pattern that shows a high percentage of participants in Skolkovo who happen to be Clinton Foundation donors."

    BaronVonAmericano , 10 Dec 2016 17:0
    So it's true because the CIA said so. That's the gold standard for me.

    So let me be the first to thank Russia for providing us with their research.

    Instead of assassination, coup or invasion, they simply showed us our leaders' own words when written behind the public's backs.

    I'm no fan of Putin, but this was a useful bit of intelligence you've shared with us.
    Happy Christmas, Vlad.

    Next time why not provide us with the email of all our banks and fossil fuel companies; you can help us clean up both political parties with one fell swoop that way.

    GuyCybershy -> BaronVonAmericano , 10 Dec 2016 17:0
    "Truth is Treason in the Empire of Lies" - Ron Paul
    greyford14 -> GuyCybershy , 10 Dec 2016 17:1
    Be careful there, Ron Paul is an FSB agent of Putin, according to the Washington Post.
    elias_ , 10 Dec 2016 17:0
    At least Tucker Carlson is able to see through the BS and asks searching question.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRkeGkCjdHg
    GuyCybershy -> elias_ , 10 Dec 2016 17:1
    Dems are so out to lunch that they make FOX pundits seem sane. I would say the Democratic party is beyond hope of saving.
    sblejo , 10 Dec 2016 16:4
    The U.S. is getting what it deserves, IF Russia was even dumb enough to meddle. The government in this country has been meddling in other countries' affairs sixty years, in the Middle East, in South America and other places we don't even know about. The result is mayhem, all in the 'interests' of the U.S., as it is described.
    Burnaby1000 , 10 Dec 2016 16:4
    Note that most supporters of the Russian hacks never (and cannot) present rational arguments, just dubious talking points--AKA Fake News.

    But it is fun to spot the gaps in their logic, and the holes in their stories.

    Great sport--rather like hunting hares.

    GuyCybershy -> Burnaby1000 , 10 Dec 2016 16:4
    We need to trust the CIA, they'd never fix evidence to manipulate the American public.
    BaronVonAmericano -> Burnaby1000 , 10 Dec 2016 16:5
    Where's the gap in this logic:
    A) The American public has been offered ZERO proof of hacking by the Russian government to alter our election.
    B) Even if true, no one has disputed the authenticity of the emails hacked.
    C) Therefore, the WORST Russia could have done is show us who are own leader are when they don't think we're listening.
    D) Taken together, this article is pretty close to fake news, and gives us nothing that should outrage us much at this time -- unless we are trying to foment war with Russia or call for a military coup against the baboon about to take the oath of office.
    foolisholdman , 10 Dec 2016 16:3
    Hacking by unnamed individuals. No direct involvement of the Russian government, only implied, alleged, etc. Seems to me that if Hillary had obeyed the law and not schemed behind the scenes to sabotage Bernie S. there would have been nothing to leak! Really this is all about being caught with fer fingers in the cookie jar. Does it matter who leaked it? Did the US public not have a right to know what the people they were voting for had been up to? It's a bit like the governor of a province being filmed burgling someone's house and then complaining that someone had leaked the film to the media, just when he was trying to get re-elected!
    GuyCybershy -> foolisholdman , 10 Dec 2016 16:3
    The US public has a right to know what CNN, New York Times and the Washington Post want them to know.
    sblejo -> foolisholdman , 10 Dec 2016 16:4
    It is called passing the buck, and because of the underhanded undermining of Bernie Sanders, who was winning, we have Trump. Thank you Democratic party.
    aidanfahey , 10 Dec 2016 16:3
    I am disappointed that the Guardian gives so much prominence to such speculation which is almost totally irrelevant. Why would we necessarily (a) believe what the superspies tell us and (b) even if it is true why should we care?

    I am also very disappointed at the Guardians attitude to Putin, the elected leader of Russia, who was so badly treated by the US from the moment he took over from Yeltsin. I was in Russia as a visitor around that time and it was obvious that Putin restored some dignity to the Russian people after the disastrous Yeltsin term of office. If the US had been willing to deal with him with respect the world could be a much better place today. Instead the US insisted in trying to subvert his rule with the support of its supine NATO allies in order to satisfy its corporate rulers.

    GuyCybershy -> aidanfahey , 10 Dec 2016 16:5
    They expected Russia to fall apart like the USSR and then they could march in and pick up the pieces. Putin prevented this and this why they hate him.
    NickinHalifaxNS , 10 Dec 2016 16:2
    If this is true, the US can hardly complain. After all, the US has a long record of interfering in other countries' elections--including CIA overthrow of elected governments and their replacement with murderous, oppressive, right-wing dictatorships.

    If the worst that Russia did was reveal the truth about what Democratic Party figures were saying behind closed doors, I'd say it helped correct the unbalanced media focus on preventing Trump from becoming President. Call it the globalization of elections.

    BaronVonAmericano , 10 Dec 2016 15:5
    First, the government has yet to present any persuasive evidence that Russia hacked the DNC or anyone else. All we have is that there is Russian code (meaningless according to cyber-security experts) and seemingly baseless "conclusions" by "intelligence" officials. In other words, fake news at this point.

    Second, even if true, the allegation amounts to an argument that Russia presented us with facts that we shouldn't have seen. Think about that for a while. We are seeing demands that we self-censor ourselves from facts that seem unfair. What utter idiocy.

    This is particularly outrageous given that the U.S. directly intervenes in the governance of any number of nations all the time. We can support coups, arm insurgencies, or directly invade, but god forbid that someone present us with unsettling facts about our ruling class.

    This nation has jumped the shark. The fact that Trump is our president is merely confirmation of this long evident fact. That fighting REAL NEWS of emails whose content has not been disputed is part of our war on "fake news," and the top priority for some so-called liberals, promises only worse to come.

    elias_ , 10 Dec 2016 14:5
    >> Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House intelligence committee, said Russia had "succeeded" in "sow[ing] discord" in the election, and urged as much public disclosure as is possible.

    What utter bullshit. The DNC's own dirty tricks did that. Donna Brasille stealing debate questions and handing them to Hillary so that she could cheat did that. The FBIs investigation into Hillary did that. Podesta's emails did that. The totally one-sided press coverage (apart from Fox) of the election did that. But it seems the american people were smart enough to see through the BS and voted for trump. Good for them.

    And we're gonna need a lot more than the word of a few politicised so-called intelligence agencies to believe this russo-hacking story. These are the same people who lied about Iraqi WMDs so they are proven fakers/liars. These are also the same people who hack EVERYONE else so I, quite frankly, have no sympathy even of the story turns out to be true.

    MrIncredlous , 10 Dec 2016 14:4
    Obama is a disgrace to his office.

    Announce "consensus" (not unanimous) "conclusion" based in circumstantial evidence now, before the Electoral College vote, then write a report with actual details due by Jan 20.
    Put a proven liar in charge of writing the report on Russian hacking.
    Fail to mention that not one of the leaked DNC or Podesta emails has been shown to be inauthentic. So the supposed Russian hacking simply revealed truth about Hillary, DNC, and MSM collusion and corruption.
    Fail to mention that if hacking was done by or for US government to stop Hillary, blaming the Russians would be the most likely disinformation used by US agencies.
    Expect every pro-Hillary lapdog journalist - which is virtually all of them - in America will hyperventilate (Twitter is currently on fire) about this latest fact-free, anti-Trump political stunt for the next nine days.
    Or, as a reader put it, this is a soft coup attempt by leaders of Intel community and Obama Admin to influence the Electoral College vote, similar to the 1960s novel "Seven Days in May."

    DanielDee , 10 Dec 2016 14:4
    When the Department Of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence on Election Security release a joint statement it is not without very careful consideration to the wording.
    Therefore, to understand what is known by the US intelligence services one must analyse the language used.

    https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/10/07/joint-statement-department-homeland-security-and-office-director-national

    This is very telling:
    "The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts."

    Alleged:
    adjective [attributive]
    said, without proof, to have taken place or to have a specified illegal or undesirable quality

    Consistent:
    adjective
    acting or done in the same way over time

    Method:
    noun
    a particular procedure for accomplishing or approaching something

    Motivation:
    noun
    a reason or reasons for acting or behaving in a particular way

    So, what exactly is known by the US intelligence services?

    Well what we can tell is:
    the alleged (without proof) hacks were consistent (done in the same way) with the methods (using a particular procedure) and motivations (and having reason for doing so) with Russian State actions.

    There is absolutely no certainty about this whatsoever.

    elias_ , 10 Dec 2016 14:4
    Thank God Obama will be out of office soon. He is the biggest disappointment ever. He has ordered the death of THOUSANDS via drone strikes in other people's countries and most of the deaths were innocent bystanders. If President Xi of China or Putin were to do that we would all be calling them tyrannical dictators and accusing them of a back door invasions. But somehow people are brainwashed into thinking its ok of the US president to do such things. Truly sickening.
    Flugler , 10 Dec 2016 14:4
    Says the CIA the organisation set up to destabilise governments all over the world. Lol.....
    Congratulations for keeping a straight face I hope Trump makes urgently needed personnel changes in the alphabet soup agencies working against humanity for very many years.
    Susanna246 , 10 Dec 2016 13:1
    Beware --

    This is an extremely dangerous game that Obama and the political elites are playing.

    The American political elites - including senetors, bankers, investors, multinationals et al, can feel power and control slipping away from them.

    This makes them very dangerous people indeed - as self-preservation and holding onto power is their number one priority.

    What they're aiming to do ( a child can see what's coming ), is to call into question the validity of Trump's victory and blame the Russians for it.

    The elites are looking to create chaos and insurrection, to have the result nullified and to vilify Putin and Russia.

    American and Russian troops are already lined up and facing each other along the Eastern European borders and all it takes is one small incident from either side.

    And all because those that have ruled the roost for so many decades ( in the White house, the 2 houses of Congress and Wall St ), simply cannot face losing their positions of power, wealth and political influence.

    They're out to get Trump, the populists and President Putin.

    God help us all.

    MacTavi5h , 10 Dec 2016 12:5
    This is starting to feel like an attempt to make the Trump presidency appear illegitimate. The problem is that it could actually make the democrats look like sore losers instead. We've had the recount, now it's foreign interference. This might harm them in 2020.

    I don't like that Trump won, but he did. The electoral college system is clearly in the constitution and all sides understood and agreed to it at the campaign commencement. Also some, by no means all, of commenters saying that the popular vote should win have also been on referendum BTL saying the result isn't a legitimate leave vote, make your minds up!

    I don't want Trump and I wanted to remain but, by the rules, my sides lost.

    alexfoxy28 , 10 Dec 2016 12:5
    Yet in August, Snowden warned that the recent hack of NSA tied cyber spies was not designed to expose Hillary Clinton, but rather a display of strength by the hackers, showing they could eventually unmask the NSA's own international cyber espionage and prove the U.S. meddles in elections around the world.

    http://yournewswire.com/snowden-claims-russia-can-expose-u-s-meddling-in-foreign-elections /

    nishville , 10 Dec 2016 12:3
    A reader's comment from the Independent:

    Will the CIA be providing evidence to support these allegations or is it a case of "just trust us guys"? In any event, hypocrisy is a national sport for the Yanks. According to a Reuters article 9 August 2016 "NSA operations have, for example, recently delved into elections in Mexico, targeting its last presidential campaign. According to a top-secret PowerPoint presentation leaked by former NSA contract employee Edward Snowden, the operation involved a "surge effort against one of Mexico's leading presidential candidates, Enrique Peña Nieto, and nine of his close associates." Peña won that election and is now Mexico's president.

    The NSA identified Peña's cellphone and those of his associates using advanced software that can filter out specific phones from the swarm around the candidate. These lines were then targeted. The technology, one NSA analyst noted, "might find a needle in a haystack." The analyst described it as "a repeatable and efficient" process.

    The eavesdroppers also succeeded in intercepting 85,489 text messages, a Der Spiegel article noted.

    Another NSA operation, begun in May 2010 and codenamed FLATLIQUID, targeted Pena's predecessor, President Felipe Calderon. The NSA, the documents revealed, was able "to gain first-ever access to President Felipe Calderon's public email account."

    At the same time, members of a highly secret joint NSA/CIA organization, called the Special Collection Service, are based in the U.S. embassy in Mexico City and other U.S. embassies around the world. It targets local government communications, as well as foreign embassies nearby. For Mexico, additional eavesdropping, and much of the analysis, is conducted by NSA Texas, a large listening post in San Antonio that focuses on the Caribbean, Central America and South America."

    zulugroove -> nishville , 10 Dec 2016 13:4
    Fake news!! ...That would be a Clinton / Obama , reply!!
    CTG2016 , 10 Dec 2016 12:0
    Breaking news! CIA admits people in USA aren't smart enough to vote for the person right person. Why blame Russians now?
    Come on. Let's move on and enjoy the mess Trump will start. This is going to be worse than GWB.
    We should all just enjoy the political comedy programs.
    Gallicdweller , 10 Dec 2016 11:1
    The CIA accusing a foreign power of interfering in the election of a showman for president - it would take me all day top cite the times that this evil criminal organisation has interfered in the affairs of other countries, ordered assassinations, coups etc. etc. etc
    Dave Harries , 10 Dec 2016 10:4
    Yes like the "help" the CIA gave to the Taliban, Bin Laden and Co. when the Russians were in Afghanistan.
    Then these dimwits from the CIA who taught Bin Laden and Co guerrilla warfare totally "missed" 9/11 and Twin Towers with all their billions of funding.
    So basically this is a total load of crap and if you think we are going to believe any reports vs. Russia these fools at the CIA are going to publish then think again.
    fedback , 10 Dec 2016 10:4
    During the election our media was exposed as in essence a propaganda tool for the Democrat campaign and they continue the unholy alliance after the election
    Liesandstats , 10 Dec 2016 10:4
    Instead of trying to blame the Russians how about reflecting on why the Democrats picked such a dreadful candidate.
    ana ruiz , 10 Dec 2016 10:2
    Pathetic move from an organisation that created ISIS and is single handling every single conflict in the world. Here we have a muppet president that for once wants to look after USA affairs internally and here we have a so alleged independent organisation that wants to keep bombing and destabilising the world. Didn't Trump said he wanted to shake the FBI and CIA ? Who is going to stop this machine of treachery ? : south America, middle east ...Asia ... they put their fingers on to create a problem- solution caveat wereas is to create weapons contracts /farma or construction and sovereign debt . But it never tricles down to the layperson ..
    Tim Jenkins , 10 Dec 2016 10:2
    "We are Not calling into question the election results"
    next White House sentence - "Just the integrity.. " WTF

    What more do you need to know - Bullshit Fake News.. propaganda, spoken by the youngest possible puppet boy White House Rep. who almost managed to have his tie done up..

    I am bookmarking this guy, for a laugh! White House Fake Newscaster ..:)

    Worth watching the sides of his mouth onto his attempt to engage you with the eyes, but blinking way too much before, during and after the word "Integrity".. FAKE!

    His hand signals.. lmfao, so measured, how sweet.. now sack the sycophants --

    fedback , 10 Dec 2016 10:2
    People should know that these Breaking News stories we see in Western media on BBC, Guardian etc, about Russian interference are in fact from Wash Post and NY Times quoting mysterious sources within the CIA
    Of course we know that Wash Post and NY Times were completely objective during the election and didn't favor any party
    fedback , 10 Dec 2016 10:0
    Russia made Hillary run the most expensive campaign ever, spending 1.2 billion dollars.
    Russia stole Hillary's message to the working people and gave her lousy slogans
    Tim Jenkins , 10 Dec 2016 09:5
    My real comment is below, but work with me, for a moment.
    So, since 2008, eh? Barack has thought carefully, with a legal mind.

    Can't we somehow blame the Russians for the whole Economic collapse.. coming soon, Wall Street Cyber Crash, screwed up sKewed up systems of Ponzi virus spiraling out of control..

    blame the Russians , logic, the KGB held the FED at gunpoint and said "create $16.2 Trillion in 5 working days"
    jeez, blame anything and anybody except peace prize guy Obama, the Pope, Bankers & Israel..

    Now can we discuss the Security of the Pound against Cyber Attack.. what was it 6% in 2 minutes, early on Sunday morning, just over month ago.. whoosh!

    It seems more important than discussing an election where the result was always OBVIOUS!

    And we called it, just like Kellyanne Conway..

    Who is Huma Abedin? I wish to know and hear her talking to Kellyanne Conway, graciously in defeat.. is that so unreasonable?
    ********
    Obama wishes to distract from exceedingly poor judgement, at the very minimum....
    after his Greek Affair with Goldman Sachs.. surely.

    As for his other Foreign Policy: Eternal Shame, founded on Fake News!
    Obama the Fake News Founder to flounder over the Russians, who can prove that he, Obama supports & supported Terrorism!

    Thus this article exists, to create doubt over the veracity of evidence to be presented over NATO's involvement in SYRIA! Obama continues to resist, or loose face completely..

    Just ask Can Dundar.... what he knows now and ask Obama to secure the release of Can Dundar's wife's passport, held for no legitimate reason in Turkey! This outrageous stand off, from Erdogan & Obama to address their failures and arrogant disrespect of Woman and her Legal Human Rights is Criminal.. & a Sickness of Mind that promotes Dictatorship!

    Mainstream Media - Fake News.. for quite some time!
    & Obama is guilty!

    Powerspike , 10 Dec 2016 09:4
    President-elect Donald Trump's transition team said in a statement Friday afternoon that the same people who claim Russia interfered in the presidential election had previously claimed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
    http://dailycaller.com/2016/12/09/trump-team-same-people-who-say-russia-meddled-in-election-said-iraq-had-wmds/#ixzz4SQWsDXpZ
    alexfoxy28 , 10 Dec 2016 09:1
    It's getting funny as Biden promised cyber attack on Russia weeks before Trump was elected .. due to Russian hackers?
    uptonogoode -> alexfoxy28 , 10 Dec 2016 09:5
    Link?
    alexfoxy28 -> uptonogoode , 10 Dec 2016 09:5
    http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/721851/russia-joe-biden-obama-cyber-attack-war-clinton-putin-US-moscow

    or just google about it.

    ArtherOhm , 10 Dec 2016 08:5
    Is the USA, as author of windows software, really unable to prevent foreign hacking?

    Do the CIA never do anything like this?

    Do we actually have any evidence rather than just a lot of allegations?

    Shotcricket -> Burnaby1000 , 10 Dec 2016 09:0
    'Russia like to surprise' ?

    The one certainty of the US/EU led drive to remove an elected leader just in their 2nd year after an election that saw them gain 47% of the popular vote was the Russki response, its borders were immediately at open 'threat' from any alliance. NATO or otherwise, the deep sea ports of eastern Ukraine which had always been accessed by the Russki fleets would lose guaranteed access etc....to believe the West was surprised by this action, would be to assume the US Generals were as stupid as the US administration, they knew exactly the response of the Russkis & would have made no difference if their leader had been named Putin or Uncle Tom Cobbly.

    In some ways the Russkis partitioning of the East of Ukraine could well minimise the possibility of a world conflict as the perceived threat is neutralised by the buffer.

    The Russkis cyber doodah is no different to our own the US etc, they're all 'at it' & all attempt to inveigle the others in terms of making life difficult.....not too sure Putin will be quite as comfortable with the Pres Elects 3 Trumpeteers though as the new Pressie looks likely to open channels of communications but those negotiations might well see a far tougher stance......still, in truth, all is never fair in love or war

    Powerspike , 10 Dec 2016 08:4
    .....that the CIA is not only suddenly involved, but suddenly at the forefront, may well reflect President-elect Trump's stated policy intentions being far removed from those that the CIA has endorsed, and might be done with an eye toward undermining Trump's position in those upcoming policy battles.
    At the center of those Trump vs. CIA battles is Syria, as the CIA has for years pushed to move away from the ISIS war and toward imposing regime change in Syria. Trump, by contrast, has said he intends to end the CIA-Saudi program arming the Syrian rebels, and focus on fighting ISIS. Trump was even said to be seeking to coordinate anti-ISIS operations with Russia.
    The CIA allegations could easily imperil that plan, as so long as the allegations remain part of the public discourse, evidence or not, anything Trump does with respect to Russia is going to have a black cloud hanging over it.
    http://news.antiwar.com/2016/12/09/cia-claims-russia-intervened-to-get-trump-elected /
    Nataliefreeman , 10 Dec 2016 08:3
    Oh dear Obama trolls? Food for your starved thoughts:

    Your degree of understanding IT is disturbing, especially given how dependent we are on it.

    This is all very simple. The process by which you find out if and how a machine was hacked was clearly documented in the Russian "Internet Audit", run by a group of Grey Hats.

    Grey Hats: People concerned about security who perform unauthorized hacks for relatively benign purposes, often just notifying people of how their system is flawed. IT staff have mixed reactions(!), the illegality is not disputed but the benefit of not being hit by a Black Hat first can be considerable at times. Differentiation is rare, especially as some hacktivist groups belong here, causing no damage beyond reputational by flagging activity that is not acceptable to the hacktivists.

    Black Hats: These are the guys to worry about. These include actually destructive hacktivists. These are the ones who steal data for malicious purposes, disrupt for malicious purposes and just generally act maliciously.

    Nothing in reports indicates if the DNC hack was Grey Hat or Black Hat, but it should be obvious that there is a difference.

    IP addresses and hangouts - worthless as evidence. Anyone can spoof the former, happens all the time (NMap used to provide the option, probably still does), Grey Hats and Black Hats alike have the latter and may break into other people's. It's all about knowing vulnerabilities.

    That voting machines were even on the Internet is disturbing. That they and the DNC server were improperly configured for such an environment is frightening - and possibly illegal.

    The standard sequence of events is thus:

    Network intrusion detector system identifies crafted packet attacking known vulnerability.
    In a good system, the firewall is set to block the attack at that instant.

    If the attacker scans the network, the only machine responding to such knocks should be a virtual machine running a honeypot on attractive-looking port numbers. The other machines in the zone should technically violate the RFCs by not responding to ICMP or generating recognized error codes on unused/blocked ports.

    The system logger picks up an event that creates a process that shouldn't be happening.
    In a good system, this either can't happen because the combination of permissions needed doesn't exist, or it doesn't matter because the process is root jailed and hasn't the privileges to actually do any harm.

    The file alteration logger (possibly Tripwire, though the Linux kernel can do this itself) detects that a process with escalated privileges is trying to create, delete or alter a file that it isn't supposed to be able to change.
    In a good system with mandatory access controls, this really is impossible. In a good system with logging file systems, it doesn't matter as you can instruct the filesystem to revert those specific alterations. Even in adequate but feeble systems, checkpoints will exist. No use in a voting system, but perfectly adequate for a campaign server. In all cases, the system logs will document what got damaged.

    The correct IT manager response is thus:
    Find out why the firewall wasn't defaulting to deny for all unknown sources and for unnecessary ports.
    Find out why the public-facing system wasn't isolated in the firewall's DMZ.
    Find out why NIDS didn't stop the attack.
    Non-public user mobility should be via IPSec using certificates. That deals with connecting from unknown IP addresses without exposing the innards of the system.
    Lock down misconfigured network systems.
    Backup files identified by file alteration detection as corrupt for forensic purposes.
    Revert files identified by file alteration detection as corrupt to last good version.
    Close permission loopholes. Everything should run with the fewest privileges necessary, OS included. On Linux, kernel permissions are controlled via capabilities.
    Establish from the logs if the intruder came through a public-facing application, an essential LAN service or a non-essential service.
    If it's a LAN service, block access to that service outside the LAN on the host firewall.
    Run network and host vulnerability scanners to detect potential attack vectors.
    Update any essential software that is detected as flawed, then rerun the scanners. Repeat until fixed.
    Now the system is locked down against general attacks, you examine the logs to find out exactly what failed and how. If that line of attack got fixed, good. If it didn't, then fix it.
    Password policy should prevent rainbow attacks, not users. Edit as necessary, lock accounts that aren't secure and set the password control system to ban bad passwords.

    It is impossible from system logs to track where an intruder came from, unsecured routers are common and that means a skilled attacker can divert packets to anywhere. You can't trust brags, in security nobody is honest. The sensible thing is to not allow such events in the first place, but when (not if) they happen, learn from them.

    GraemeHarrison , 10 Dec 2016 08:2
    If the USA is to investigate the effect of foreign governments 'corrupting' the free decisions of the American people in elections, perhaps they could look into the fact that for the past three decades every Republican candidate for president, after they have won the nomination of their party, has gone to just one foreign country to pledge their firm commitment/allegiance to that foreign power, for the purpose of shoring up large blocks of donors prior to the actual presidential election. The effect is probably more 'corrupting' than any leak of emails!
    SamSamson , 10 Dec 2016 08:2
    Obama should confess to creating ISIS, sustaining ISIS & utilising ISIS as a proxy army to have them do things that he knew US soldiers could never be caught doing!!!

    They then spoon fed you bullshit propaganda about who the bad guys were, without ever being to properly explain why the US armed forces were prevented from taking any hostile action against ISIS, until they were FORCED TO, that is, when Putin let the the cat out of the bag!!!

    LordTomnoddy , 10 Dec 2016 08:1
    Hilarious. One would've thought Obama of all presidents would be reluctant to delve too deeply into this particular midden. As the author of the weakest and most incompetent American foreign policy agenda since Carter's, it's much the likeliest that if China or Russia have been hacking US elections, then by far the biggest beneficiary will have been himself.
    Tim Jenkins , 10 Dec 2016 08:1
    Just another attempt to distract from realities, like:-

    From:[email protected] To: [email protected], [email protected] Date: 2015-05-28 12:12 Subject: Fwd: POLITICO Playbook

    cdm Begin forwarded message: > From: Lynn Forester de Rothschild <[email protected]> > Date: May 28, 2015 at 9:44:12 AM EDT > To: Nick Merrill <[email protected]>, "Cheryl Mills ([email protected])" <[email protected]> > Subject: FW: POLITICO Playbook > > Morning, > I am sure you are working on this, but clearly, the opposition is trying to undercut Hillary's reputation for honesty (the number one characteristic people look for in a President according to most polls) ..and also to benefit from an attack on wealth that Dems did the most to start I am sure we need to fight back against both of these attacks. > Xoxo > Lynn > > By Mike Allen (@mikeallen; [email protected]), and Daniel Lippman (@dlippman; [email protected]) > > > > QUINNIPIAC POLL, out at 6 a.m., "Rubio, Paul are only Republicans even close to Clinton": "In a general election, ... Clinton gets 46 percent of American voters to 42 percent for Paul and 45 percent of voters to 41 percent for Rubio." Clinton leads Christie 46-37 ... Huckabee 47-40 ... Jeb 47-37 ... Walker 46-38 ... Cruz 48-37 ... Trump 50-32. > > --"[V]oters say 53-39 percent that Clinton is NOT honest and trustworthy, but say 60-37 ... that she has strong leadership qualities. Voters are divided 48-47 ... over whether Clinton cares about their needs and problems." > > --RNC's new chart - "'Dead Broke' Clintons vs. Everyday Americans": "Check out the chart below to see how many households in each state it would take to equal the 'Dead Broke' Clintons." http://bit.ly/1Avg8iE

    Blind leading the Blind.. & Obama knows that very well after it was clear that Clinton was NEVER trusted by the Voters, which makes Debbie and the DNC look like a complete bunch of..

    Idiots?!?! STILL BLAMING The RUSSIANS.... instead of themselves!

    She was and always will be unelectable due to exceedingly poor judgement, across the board.

    Can we move on?

    Polly123456 , 10 Dec 2016 08:0
    Who is in charge of Internet security in the US government? Because it seems full of holes. Last time it was the Chinese and this time it's the Russians, yet not one piece of evidence to say where hacks have come from. How much are these world class Internet security people paid? And why do they still have a job? People sitting in their bedrooms on a pc from stores like staples have hacked their security regularly.
    AlexPeace , 10 Dec 2016 08:0

    In 2016, he said, the government did not detect any increased cyber activity on election day itself but the FBI made public specific acts in the summer and fall, tied to the highest levels of the Russian government. "This is going to put that activity in a greater context ... dating all the way back to 2008."

    Extremely vague. Seems like there is no evidence at all to suggest any Russian involvement, but they need to pretend otherwise. Blah, blah, blah, Weapons of mass destruction... Apollo mission, etc
    FMinus , 10 Dec 2016 08:0
    Ole, Russians exposed the DNC emails, we knew about that. I though this should investigate Russians vote rigging, but I guess not. I for once welcome anyone who hacks my government and exposes their skeletons, so I can see what kind of dirty garbage I had leading or potentially leading my country.

    Maybe the DNC should play fair and not dirty next time and put a candidate forward without skeletons that still reek of rotting flesh.

    Robert Stokes -> FMinus , 10 Dec 2016 08:3
    You rig electronic voting machines by reflashing the firmware or switching out the sd cards. Can't be done remotely.
    Baldrick Daacat , 10 Dec 2016 07:5
    And the CIA has never intervened in a foreign election?
    VibePit -> Baldrick Daacat , 10 Dec 2016 08:0
    Oh heaven forbid!! The Shah of Iran was democratically elected but of course. . .
    HeathCardwell , 10 Dec 2016 07:2
    Don't believe any of this at all.
    American has been thee most corrupt and disgusting western nation for decades, run by people who are now being shown for who they really are and they're shitting themselves big time. The stakes don't get higher than this.
    theonetruepainter , 10 Dec 2016 07:1
    What's the point of this?

    The American people don't want Clinton because she is a liar and a dangerous psychopath who also ignored the working people.

    If you want to change that, get her treatment. Don't try to undermine the election result.

    theonetruepainter , 10 Dec 2016 07:0
    How can you not respect Putin?

    He's spent the last few years making fools out of Clinton, Kerry and the obomber.

    If you didn't want him to let Crimea rejoin Russia, then you shouldn't have initiated the coup that broke up Ukraine.

    Peter Turner , 10 Dec 2016 07:0
    What a total load of double talk. There is zero integrity in anything CIA says or does since the weapons of mass destruction deal or before that it was the Iran Contra deal and before that it was the Bay of Pigs. Now we have this rigging os the election results based on zero evidence. The whole thing is just idiocy. What is Obama trying to achieve?The end game will be for Obama to go down in history as ... let's just say he is not the smartest tool in the shed when it comes to being a so called world leader. Well done Obama you have now completely trashed what is left of your legacy.
    LondonLungs , 10 Dec 2016 06:5

    "CIA concludes Russia interfered to help Trump win election – report "

    You might as well ask accountants to do a study on wether it's worthwhile to use an accountant. Part of the CIAs job is to influence elections around the world to get US-Corporation friendly gov'ts in to power. So yes of course they are going to say that a gov't can influence elections, if they said otherwise then they'd be admitting they're wasting money.

    Ted Reading Reading 10 Dec 2016 06:3
    So, it was the Russians! I knew it must've been them, they're so sneaky. All HFC had was the total backing of the entire establishment, including prominent Republican figures, the total fawning support of the entire main-stream media machine which carefully controlled the "she's got a comfortable 3 point lead maybe even double-digit lead" narrative and the "boo and hiss" pantomime slagging of her opponent. Plus the endless funds from the crooked foundation and murderous fanatics from the compliant Gulf states, and lost. But hey, do keep this going please, it'll help the Trumpster get a second term! Trump/Nugent 2020.
    righteousfist01 , 10 Dec 2016 06:2
    It's possible the Russians hacked and released the documents. However the report is not saying the Russians created them.

    So whatever was so deplorable about them was all Democrat

    Nataliefreeman -> righteousfist01 , 10 Dec 2016 06:3
    Good point. Add that the whole election was dogged is the most glaring media bias and suddenly Russia comes off as simply leveling the playing field a bit
    12inchPianist , 10 Dec 2016 06:1
    CIA finds Russia had covertly influenced election. CIA finds FBI had overtly influenced election. Fancy that!
    ashleigh2 , 10 Dec 2016 06:1
    The 'secret' enquiry reported to Congress that the CIA concludes etc, etc, etc. Then yet more revelations from 'anonymous sources' are quoted in the Washington Post and The New York Times reaching the same conclusions.....talk about paranoia, or are the Democrats guilty of news fakery of the highest order to deny the US voters....
    Nataliefreeman , 10 Dec 2016 05:5
    Ooh Obama...there's a little snag about this investigation.

    In principle, the DNC server could have had malware in an e-mail that set up a NAT entry that made the connecting computer appear somewhere else, with the entry deleted afterwards. Typically, IP table modifications aren't logged, so this would not be detectable.

    In principle, the DNC server could have had malware in an e-mail that ran a SED script at a specific time that changed any occurrence of one IP address with another. Not sure anyone would bother with this, but it's why good system admins place so much emphasis on securing logs. However, it's obvious we're not talking about good admins.

    In principle, every router between the DNC server and Russia has the potential to be hacked, with a tunnel added to send the traffic somewhere else in the world with new source and destination addresses. This is known as router table poisoning. It is preventable but the mechanisms are rarely ever used because the security services want to be able to do this themselves. There are some nice logs of the NSA using this.

    In principle, someone along the way could tap into the fibre, spoofing IP addresses and injecting/sniffing packets. The U.S. even has a submarine designed for this, but optics aren't complex and any number of neo-phone phreaks could have the hardware.

    In principle, someone at an ISP or backbone service could have had a laptop plugged into a switch or router to do the same thing, or lit up a strand of dark fibre to let some uber-wealthy business do this. And there's no shortage of uber-wealthy businesses who aren't keen on Democrats. This technique is used for local and remote network diagnostics, no reason it can't be used nefarious, it's not like the hardware cares why a wire is plugged in.

    In principle, the supposed destination machine could have been hacked to relay the packets in encrypted form to the South Pole or a college campus in Texas. There are many examples of client machines being hacked to do this. It's basically what zombie machines are in botnets.

    In practice, it is flat-out guaranteed that none of the security agencies could distinguish this from a Russian attack. Nothing in the area monitored could tell the difference. We know, for a fact, that college kids spoofing a scan from China have fooled the DoD and NSA on previous occasions, it has caused international incidents.

    So we have known forms of attack that are known to exist, aren't complex and in some cases are already used for attacks. They are 100% untraceable.

    Bosula , 10 Dec 2016 05:5
    How about a Presidential review covering US interference in the elections of countries around the world?
    Paulare -> Bosula , 10 Dec 2016 06:2
    But where to start?

    UK, Australia, Chile, Nicoragua, Cuba, Philippines, Malaysia, Germany...?

    such choice..

    Bosula -> Paulare , 10 Dec 2016 08:0
    Yes. Maybe do it on a regional basis across the globe.
    Anarchy4theUK , 10 Dec 2016 05:4
    Of course the Americans would never interfere in other people's elections would they?...........I imagine the Russians wanted to avoid a nuclear war with war monger Hilary & who can blame them?
    Nataliefreeman -> Anarchy4theUK , 10 Dec 2016 06:1
    Y'know really all they seem to be looking possibly guilty of is the wikileaks scandal. Compare that to the enormous media bias regarding Trump and suddenly the Russians at worst come off as evening the playing field so as to help an election be less biased...
    Kris Penny , 10 Dec 2016 05:4
    When certain members of the public would believe one man over those who have more intelligence in a follicle than he will ever have floating in his cranium is when you realise that a place like Guantanamo should exist, exclusively for them.
    http://www.allgov.com/news/where-is-the-money-going/surprise-cost-of-ammo-for-us-navy-destroyers-new-guns-800000-a-shot-161114?news=859762
    Newmacfan , 10 Dec 2016 05:3
    Paranoia about Russia has arrived at the laughable, almost like the fable of the boy who cried wolf! Even the way the CIA statement is worded makes you smile. "silk purse sows ear"? Everyone is clutching at straws rather than looking down the barrel at the truth......that folks is what is missing from Western Politics......"The Truth" --
    StephenO , 10 Dec 2016 04:3

    Obama expected the review to be completed before he leaves office...

    Really?? Obama wants a "deep review" of internet activities surrounding the elections of 2008, 2012, and 2016; and he wants this done in less than 40 days? And it encompasses voting stations throughout the 50 states? That's the definition of political shenanigans.

    Dom Michaels -> pureist , 10 Dec 2016 04:3
    Seeing as how the CIA interfered with Ukraine before and during the overthrow of Yanukovich, and with Moscow protests a few years ago...... seems like everyone is always trying to interfere with each-other. Hypocrisy abounds
    MarkThomason , 10 Dec 2016 03:5
    This is not really a fight against Trump. That is lost. This is an intramural fight among Democrats.

    This is desperate efforts by the corporate Democrats to hang on to power after Hillary (again) lost.

    Excuses. Allegations without sources given, anonymous.

    Remember that the same people used the same media contacts to spread fake news that the Podesta leaks were faked, and tried to shift attention from what was revealed to who revealed it.

    GuyCybershy -> MarkThomason , 10 Dec 2016 04:0
    Agreed. Another reason why the Democratic party is not worth saving. 13 million voted for Sanders in the primary, that is enough to start a new party.
    Fabr1s , 10 Dec 2016 03:4
    if the Ruskies did it, there's something funny: they did it on Obama's watch and her protege, Hillary, lost it. The system is a real mess in this case.

    Kris Penny , 10 Dec 2016 03:4
    Read and research further...
    https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/10/07/joint-statement-department-homeland-security-and-office-director-national
    GeoffP -> Kris Penny , 10 Dec 2016 04:0
    Interesting link. It raises a particularly salient question: assuming the Russians did indeed do it - and after the whole CIA yellow cake thing in Iraq, no one could possibly doubt national intelligence agencies any more - does it particularly matter?

    Did the Russians write the emails? The betrayal of Sanders, the poor protection on classified materials, the cynical, vicious nonsense spewed out by the HRC campaign, the media collusion with the DNC and HRC: did the Russians do these things too? Or was that Clinton and the DNC? Silly question, I'm sure.

    sejong -> jcadams , 10 Dec 2016 03:5
    Russia's competence with computer hacking and cyber espionage is a given

    So what? What about Chinese or Israeli competence in these areas?

    This is Fake News that exists only because Clinton lost.

    The real news is about in competence by HRC, DWS, and the DNC in foisting a sure loser on American voters.

    naomh -> sejong , 10 Dec 2016 03:5
    Thank you for speaking the truth!!!!
    GeoffP -> jcadams , 10 Dec 2016 04:0
    Well, chief, the Wisconsin recount is in and the results are staggering: after the recount, Clinton has gained on Trump by 3 votes... and Trump gained on Clinton by a heady six votes. One begins to wonder at the 'Manchurian candidate' claim.
    third_eye , 10 Dec 2016 03:3
    It is precisely charades like this that millions in the US and around the world have given up on the establishment. Business as usual or rather lying as usual will only alienate more not-so-stupid citizens. It speaks volumes about their desperation that they're are actually employing such obviously infantile tactics on the Russia even as they continue to paper over Hillary's tattered past. The result of the investigation is totally predictable..................Yes, the Russians were involved in hacking the elections, but..........for reasons of national security, details of the investigative process and evidence cannot be revealed.
    Longleveler , 10 Dec 2016 03:2
    If the Russians really wanted Trump to win that means they helped Hillary win the Democratic primaries because Bernie would have beat Trump.. There was a mess of hanky-panky going on to defeat Bernie, and deflecting the blame to a foreign actor should keep the demonstrators off the streets.
    If someone is gullible enough to believe the Russians did it they'd also believe that Elvis made Bigfoot hack the DNC. That's even more plausible since bigfoot is just a guy who spends so much time sitting at his computer he lost all interest in personal hygiene.
    Will D , 10 Dec 2016 03:1
    The Democrats are really desperate to find anything they can use to challenge the results of the election.

    Either way they look foolish - openly investigating the possibility of Russian hacking which acknowledges that their electoral systems aren't well secured, OR look really foolish if they find anything (whether real or faked).

    The big question now is if, and how much, they will fake the findings of the investigation so that they can declare the election results wrong, and put Clinton into the White House.

    Clearly, it is a case of desperate times calling for desperate measures. It is incredible that one man can make the largest Western nation look so ridiculous in the eyes of the world.

    madeiranlotuseater , 10 Dec 2016 02:4
    Pot calling the kettle black. Reveal fully what the CIA get up to all over the planet. The phoney intel America has used to go to war causing countries to implode. The selective way they release information to project the picture they want. I am not convinced that Russia is any better or any worse than the USA.
    onofabeach , 10 Dec 2016 02:3
    I can understand the Russians wanting Obama in 2008 and 2012 because he is a weak leader and totally incompetent.

    I can also understand Putin preferring DJT to HRC.

    It's about time the planet settled down a little bit, Trump and Putin will do more for world peace in the next year than Obama achieved in his 8 wasted years in charge.

    The Democrats have yet to realise the reason for their demise was not the racists, the homophobes, the KKK, the Deplorables, the misogynists, the xenophobes etc etc etc.

    It was Hillary Clinton.

    Get over it, move on, stop whining, get out of your safe room, put the puppy down, throw the play dough away, stop protesting, behave like an adult.

    As much as I am enjoying the monumental meltdown of the left, it is getting sad now and I am starting to feel very sorry for you.

    BoBiel , 10 Dec 2016 02:2
    Georgia Says Someone in U.S. Government Tried to Hack State's Computers Housing Voter Data

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/georgia-reports-attempt-to-hack-states-election-database-via-ip-address-linked-to-homeland-security-1481229960

    http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2016-12-08/georgia-accuses-us-of-trying-to-hack-its-election-systems

    123Akava , 10 Dec 2016 02:1
    What a sad bunch of clowns. But the time is ripe. You and your sort are done Obama, Hillary Clinton, Juncker, Merkel, Hollande, Mogherini, Kerry, Tusk, Nuland, Albright, Breedlove, SaManThe Power and the rest of the reptiles. With all respect - mwuahahaha! - you will soon sink into the darkness of the darkest places of history, but you won't be forgotten, no you won't!
    poppetmaster , 10 Dec 2016 02:0
    The Democrats still don't understand that the problem in American politics is everything that happened BEFORE election day.

    How can you worry about the ballot boxes when the entire process from beginning to end is utterly corrupt.

    CarlHansen , 10 Dec 2016 02:0
    As for the Podesta email. John Podesta was so stupid that he gave out his password in a simple email scam that any 8 year old kid could have conducted. I wouldn't be surprised if Assange did it himself. Assange will be celebrating at the demise of Hillary.
    phobeophobe , 10 Dec 2016 02:0
    Guys! Your side lost the election. Get over it & stop looking for excuses.

    I don't think it was the Russians, it was just a lot of people got sick of being told what to think & how to behave by your side of politics.

    It is because people who disagree with you are either ignored, shut-down or called names with weaponised words such as "racist, bigot, xenophobe, homophobe, islamophobe, you name it. You go out onto the streets chanting mindless slogans aimed at shutting down debate. You have infiltrated academia and no journalism graduate comes out of a western univerity without a 60 degree lean to the left. People of alternative views to what is now the dominant social paradigm are not permitted to speak at universities. Once they were the vanguard of dangerous ideas. Now they are just sheep pens.

    You have infiltrated the mainstream media so of course people need to go to Info Wars, Breitbart & Project Veritas to get the other side to your one-sided argument.

    Your side of politics has regulated the very words we speak so that we can't even express a thought anymore without being chanted down, or shut down, prosecuted or sued.

    There was once a time when it was the left who spoke up for freedom of speech. It was the left who demanded that a man be judged by the content of his character & not the color of his skin & it was once the right who used to be worried about the Russians taking over our institutions.

    Have a look at yourselves. Look at what you've become. You've stopped being the guardians of freedom & now you have become the very anti-freedom totalitarians you thought you were campaigning against.

    Bleating about the "popular vote" doesn't cut it either. That's like saying, the other side scored more goals than us but we had possession of the ball more times. It is sad for you but it is irrelevant.

    Trump won the election! Get over it!

    Let's see what sort of job he does before deciding what to do next.

    Nataliefreeman , 10 Dec 2016 01:5
    News flash for all the obamabots:

    In principle, the DNC server could have had malware in an e-mail that set up a NAT entry that made the connecting computer appear somewhere else, with the entry deleted afterwards. Typically, IP table modifications aren't logged, so this would not be detectable.

    In principle, the DNC server could have had malware in an e-mail that ran a SED script at a specific time that changed any occurrence of one IP address with another. Not sure anyone would bother with this, but it's why good system admins place so much emphasis on securing logs. However, it's obvious we're not talking about good admins.

    In principle, every router between the DNC server and Russia has the potential to be hacked, with a tunnel added to send the traffic somewhere else in the world with new source and destination addresses. This is known as router table poisoning. It is preventable but the mechanisms are rarely ever used because the security services want to be able to do this themselves. There are some nice logs of the NSA using this.

    In principle, someone along the way could tap into the fibre, spoofing IP addresses and injecting/sniffing packets. The U.S. even has a submarine designed for this, but optics aren't complex and any number of neo-phone phreaks could have the hardware.

    In principle, someone at an ISP or backbone service could have had a laptop plugged into a switch or router to do the same thing, or lit up a strand of dark fibre to let some uber-wealthy business do this. And there's no shortage of uber-wealthy businesses who aren't keen on Democrats. This technique is used for local and remote network diagnostics, no reason it can't be used nefarious, it's not like the hardware cares why a wire is plugged in.

    In principle, the supposed destination machine could have been hacked to relay the packets in encrypted form to the South Pole or a college campus in Texas. There are many examples of client machines being hacked to do this. It's basically what zombie machines are in botnets.

    In practice, it is flat-out guaranteed that none of the security agencies could distinguish this from a Russian attack. Nothing in the area monitored could tell the difference. We know, for a fact, that college kids spoofing a scan from China have fooled the DoD and NSA on previous occasions, it has caused international incidents.

    So we have known forms of attack that are known to exist, aren't complex and in some cases are already used for attacks. They are 100% untraceable.

    DanielDee , 10 Dec 2016 01:3
    Joe Biden unwittingly gave the game up when he spoke to the press with indignation of the Russian hacks. The US would respond in kind with a covert cyber operation run by the CIA First of all it would be the NSA, not the CIA Secondly, it's not covert when you tell the press! Oh Joe, you really let the Obama administration down with that gaffe! Who would believe them now? A lot of people it would seem. Mainly those still reeling from an election they were so vested in
    fedback , 10 Dec 2016 01:2
    Unfortunately our media has lost all credibility.
    For years we were told it was necessary to remove the dictator Assad in Syria. The result, a country destroyed, migrant crisis that fuelled Brexit and brought EU to its knees.
    Now they are going to sell the 'foreign entities decided the US election'.
    It's just a sad situation
    GuyCybershy -> fedback , 10 Dec 2016 01:2
    Syria has been destroyed because Western client states in the Middle East wanted this to happen. Assad had a reasonably successful secular government and our medieval gulf state allies felt. threatened by his regime. there was the little business of a pipeline, but of course that would be called a "conspiracy theory".
    SomersetApples , 10 Dec 2016 01:1
    If Obama has resources to spend on investigations, he should be investigating why the US is providing guided missiles to the terrorist in Syria. We had such great hopes for him, and he has proved to be totally useless as a president. Rather than giving us leadership and guidance he is looking under his bed for spooks. Just another example of his incompetence at a time when we needed leadership.

    Looking for proof of espionage will be like trying to prove a negative and only result in a possible or at best a likely type of result for no purpose. It would just be another case of an unsupported accusation being thrown about.

    Facing up to the question of who is supplying weapons to terrorist would require the courage to take on the Military Industrial Complex and he hasn't got it. Trump will be different.

    ID3053875 , 10 Dec 2016 01:0
    If the russians did interfere in the USA elections perhaps is a bit of poetic justice.
    The USA has interfere in Latin America for over hundred years and they have given us Batista, Somoza, Trujillo, Noriega, Pinochet, Duvaliers , military juntas in Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay and Streener in Paraguay to name a few. They all were narcissists, racists and insecure. The american people love this type of leader now they got him in the white house may be from Russia with love. Empires get destroyed from within, look at Little Britain now, maybe the same will happen soon in the USA.
    Viva China , is far from Latin America
    nbk46zh , 10 Dec 2016 01:0
    So if the US managed to somehow get rid of Russia and China, what would they do then? How would it justify hundreds of billions in defense spending? Just remember, the US military industry desperately needs an external enemy to exist. Without it, there is no industry.
    ID5151903 , 10 Dec 2016 01:0
    No I disagree. I don't think it was a conpriscy. It was just decades of misinformation, lies, usually perpertrated by our esteemed foreign minister. The man is a buffoon , liar and incompetent. It is quite amusing to see how inept, Incompotent and totally unsuited this man child is to public office.
    PullingTheStrings , 10 Dec 2016 01:0
    Good to see alot of Americans on here back into Mccarthyism/Paranoia/scapegoating/Witch hunting/Propaganda.
    smellycat , 10 Dec 2016 01:0
    Clinton's 'Russia did it' cop-out
    https://off-guardian.org/2016/12/09/clintons-russia-did-it-cop-out /
    prairdog , 10 Dec 2016 00:4
    Why should we trust US intelligence which is essentially US propaganda?
    DanielDee , 10 Dec 2016 00:3
    Another red herring that smacks of desperation. The final death throes of a failed administration. These carefully chosen words reveal a lot. The email leaks were "consistent with the methods and motivations" of Russian hackers. In layman's terms its the equivalent of saying "we haven't got a clue who it was but it's the kind of thing they would probably do". Don't expect a smoking gun because it doesn't exist, otherwise we would have known about it by now.
    PostTrotskyite -> DanielDee , 10 Dec 2016 00:3
    It's not just the US who has accused Putin of meddling in their domestic affairs. Germany and the UK have made the same allegations. Are they wrong too?
    DanielDee -> PostTrotskyite , 10 Dec 2016 00:5
    I think anyone with reasonable intelligence would take each accusation on a case by case basis. There is no doubt that Russia conducts cyber operations, as the US and UK and Germany does. There is also little doubt that significant Russophobia exists, particularly since the failed foreign attempt of regime change in Syria that was thwarted by Russia. On that last point many citizens of the West are coming to the realisation that a secular government in Syria is preferable to one run by jihadists installing crude sharia law (Libya was certainly a lesson). Furthermore, if Hillary Clinton had succeeded one dreads to think of the consequences of her no-fly-zone plans. Thankfully she didn't succeed, no doubt in part to wikileaks revelations, who for the record stated that did not result from Russian hacks
    sejong , 10 Dec 2016 00:2
    Fake News is mass gaslighting, removing any sense of what is real. Biggest psy-op ever.
    gondwanaboy , 10 Dec 2016 00:1
    Barack Obama orders 'full review' of possible Russian hacking in US election


    FAKE NEWS ALERT

    JCDavis -> gondwanaboy , 10 Dec 2016 00:2
    They already stated their conclusions, now they have to find evidence.
    Yodasyodel , 9 Dec 2016 23:5
    Hows the election recount going? You know the one this paper kept going on about a few weeks ago in Wisconsin that was supposed to be motivated by "Russian Hacking" in the election? Not very well but you have gone quiet. Also I see the Washington Post has been forced to backtrack for implying news outlets like Breitbart are Russian controlled on the advice of their own lawyers....after all calling someone a Russian agent without a shred of evidence is seriously libellous and they know it. Russian agents to blame yeah ok Obama no doubt the Easter Bunny will be next in your sights you fraud.
    Wilderloo , 9 Dec 2016 23:5
    Look no further than Hillarys private server. Classified information sent and received and Obam was part of it. Obama is a liar and a fraud who is now blaming the Russians for crooked Hillarys loss.
    SUNLITE , 9 Dec 2016 23:5
    Feed the flames of the war mongers that want Russia and Putin to be our bogeyman.Feed the military industrial complex more billions.The U.S. Defense budget is already 10 times that of Russia ,feed NATO already on Russia's boarder with tanks ,troops and heavy weapons.i did expect more from this pres,... The lies ,mis information and propaganda has worked so well since the end of WW2,upon a public who has been fed those lies {and is to busy with sports ,gadgets,games, alcohol and other drugs }for 70 yrs by a compliant,for profit lap dog media more interested in producing infotainment and profits than supplying information..If you don't think the "public" isn't very poorly informed and will believe anything ,..just look at who the next prez will be..
    GuyCybershy -> SUNLITE , 10 Dec 2016 00:0
    I don't think it's true that Trump voters were less informed than Clinton voters. The public knows that they all lie, they simply choose the one who's lies most appeal to them.
    Alexander Bach , 9 Dec 2016 23:5
    Did he also order to investigate the Clinton's deeds revealed by the 'hackers'?
    fedback , 9 Dec 2016 23:3
    Unfortunately Obama is not leaving office with dignity.
    This action is another attempt to delegitimize the election of Trump. We already have the recount farce going on.
    If Republicans had tried to delegitimize the election of Obama we know what the reaction from media would have been. An outcry against antidemocratic and racist behaviour
    USApatriot12 , 9 Dec 2016 23:3
    The corporate media is so predictable at this point. The news cranks up the anti-Russia hysteria while the guys over in entertainment roll out a slick fantasy about anti-Nazi resistance. It all adds up to a big steaming pile of crap but you hope it will push enough buttons to keep the citizens chained to their their desks for another quarter. Don't bet on it. As a great American said at another time of upheaval, you can't fool everyone forever...
    GuyCybershy -> USApatriot12 , 9 Dec 2016 23:3
    We're supposed to condemn "white nationalism" in The US and UK while supporting it in Ukraine.
    GeeDeeSea -> GuyCybershy , 9 Dec 2016 23:4
    That's not all. We in US and UK are supposed to condemn jihadists in Iraq while supporting them Syria.
    James7 -> Eddy Cannella , 9 Dec 2016 23:2
    Hillary? Although I would lean to more "Grey."

    Kremlin Connection? The TRUTH About Hillary's Shady Ties To Russia REVEALED
    Find out why insiders say Clinton has some explaining to do.

    Americans have no idea just how closely Hillary Clinton is tied to the Kremlin! That's the shocking claim of a new report that alleges the Democratic nominee is secretly pals with Vladimir Putin and his countrymen.

    Peter Schweizer, the author of Clinton Cash, has published a report that claims that that Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta was on the executive board of a foreign company that received $35 million from the Kremlin. "The company was a transparent Russian front, and how much Podesta was compensated - and for what - is unclear. In addition, Podesta failed to disclose his position on that board to the Federal government, as required by law," John Schindler of the Observer wrote.

    As Radar previously reported, when Clinton was secretary of state, she profited from the "Russian Reset," a failed attempt to improve relations between the U.S. and Russia.
    chweizer wrote, "Many of the key figures in the Skolkovo process - on both the Russian and U.S. sides - had major financial ties to the Clintons. During the Russian reset, these figures and entities provided the Clintons with tens of millions of dollars, including contributions to the Clinton Foundation, paid for speeches by Bill Clinton, or investments in small start-up companies with deep Clinton ties." Schweizer also details "Skolkovo," a Silicon Valley-like campus that both the U.S. and Russia worked on for developing biomed, space, nuclear and IT technologies. He told the New York Post that there was a "pattern that shows a high percentage of participants in Skolkovo who happen to be Clinton Foundation donors."

    raymondffoulkes , 9 Dec 2016 23:1
    So it's anti-Russia propaganda today again, all over the Guardian as well as everywhere else.

    I daresay they have a few things (perhaps a tad more important than football and athletics) to say about us as well..

    smellycat -> raymondffoulkes , 9 Dec 2016 23:2
    Sour grapes at the liberation of Aleppo and their loss of face.
    I'm surprised they haven't started asking about the missing 250K civilians,who must even now be languishing in Assad's dungeons.
    Keeping that one for tomorrow probably.
    nbk46zh , 9 Dec 2016 23:1
    When Cheney used the terror alert levels to keep the US population in the constant state of fear, the Democrats denounced it as fear mongering. Now they're embracing the same tactics in the constant demonization of Russia. Look, it's raining today! Russia must be trying to control the weather in the US! Get them! Utterly ridiculous.
    stegordon21 , 9 Dec 2016 23:0
    The US has been the most bloodthirsty, aggressive nation in my lifetime. Where the US goes we obediently follow. Yet as Obama (7 countries he's bombed in his presidency, not bad for a Nobel Prize Winner) continues to circle Russia with NATO on their borders. We're continually spun headline news that Russia is the aggressor and is continually meddling in foreign affairs. We are the aggressors, we are the danger to ourselves and it's we who are run by megalomaniac elites who pump us full of fear and propaganda.
    nbk46zh , 9 Dec 2016 23:0
    Malicious cyberactivity... has no place in international community... No? When West does it, then it's for democratic purposes? But invading countries on a humanitarian pretense does? So Democrats are still looking to blame Russia for everything not going their way I see. This rhetoric didn't work for Clinton in the election and it won't now. Stop with this nonsense
    GuyCybershy -> nbk46zh , 9 Dec 2016 23:1
    There wasn't a lot of outrage about the use of the "stuxnet" virus against Iran. You see, when we do it is always for a good cause.

    Paulare , 9 Dec 2016 22:5
    Take the long view folks.

    The Egyptian Empire lasted millenum,
    The Greek and Roman Empires a thousand years, give or take.
    The Holy Roman Empire centuries.
    The British and French circa 200 years.
    The USSR about 70, the USA 70 and counting

    This is just the cyclical death throes of empires played out at ever increasing speed before our very eyes.

    DexDex , 9 Dec 2016 22:5
    5 articles abut Russia, again. This is the Russia interference in the Guardian. Putin must be stopped.
    Earl_Grey -> DexDex , 9 Dec 2016 23:0
    NATO has bought a subscription to the Guardian
    TonyBlunt , 9 Dec 2016 22:5
    Is all this hoohaa the BBC and the Guardian trying to get some revenge for the Russian liberating East Aleppo?
    TheIPAResistance , 9 Dec 2016 22:5
    This is exactly why we should never move to electronic voting. Can you imagine the lengths the IPA would go to ensure their men security the power they need to roll out their neoliberal agenda? As a tax-free right wing think tank composed of rich like Rinehart, Murdoch, Forrest, et al. the sky's the limit.
    Anthony1152 , 9 Dec 2016 22:4
    The five stages of dealing with psychological trauma: Anger, Denial, Bargaining, Depression and Acceptance. Hillary and the Democrats are still at stage one and two. Obama is only beginning stage one as events dawn on him.
    TheCharacteristicEquation 9 Dec 2016 22:4
    I really do feel the established media and its elite hierarchy are vexed by both the Trump victory and Brexit here in the UK. Now the media attention turns to a report on another of its perpetual campaigns, namely Russia, and corruption in sport.

    I'm not going to doubt the 'findings', but I know humans are corrupt ALL over the world, but it does strike me that no Western outlet, ever prints anything positive about Russia. I mean - nothing, zero!

    dallasdunlap , 9 Dec 2016 22:3
    If, indeed, the Russian government gathered the DNC and Podesta info released by Wikileaks, the Russians did the American people a favor by pulling back the curtain on behind the scenes scheming by Clinton campaign potentates.
    Of course, I don't believe the Democratic claim that Clinton lost the election because of the Russians and the FBI.
    GuyCybershy -> dallasdunlap , 9 Dec 2016 22:4
    Podesta's password was "p@ssword". Inexcusable carelessness.
    smellycat , 9 Dec 2016 22:3
    Nothing wrong with a bit of regime change now and then, so we've been told. No good crying when the Russians do it to you.
    sammy3110 , 9 Dec 2016 22:3
    It's instructive to see the Guardian drag up Reagan's "Evil Empire" spiel, but only after Hillary lost.
    GeeDeeSea , 9 Dec 2016 22:3
    US backed a coup, or set up a coup, to overthrow the democratically elected government in Ukraine which led to war. Putin's payback seems fully justified.
    theenko -> GeeDeeSea , 9 Dec 2016 22:4
    sweet fucking jesus

    Yanukovych is a disgrace to Ukrainian's everywhere and a traitor to his country. Fucking Putin puppet should be in jail.

    GeeDeeSea -> theenko , 9 Dec 2016 22:4
    sweet fucking jesus

    Porshenko is a disgrace to Ukrainian's everywhere and a traitor to his country. Fucking Obama puppet should be in jail.

    Earl_Grey , 9 Dec 2016 22:3
    Oh my, a foreign country may have had a tiny influence on a US Election.

    How about investigating the overthrow of the Democratically elected Govt in Ukraine, or the influence the US has had on the Syrian Govt, or even in Australia, where the Chinese Govt donates massive amounts of money to Political Parties (note, there's no link of course between Chinese Govt donations and Chinese Companies being able to buy most of Australia and employ Chinese Nationals in Australia on Chinese conditions and 500,000 Chinese Nationals being able to buy Real Estate in Sydney alone... none whatsoever).

    bcnteacher , 9 Dec 2016 22:3
    Good call! Something is fishy about the US electoral system.
    COReilly , 9 Dec 2016 22:2
    I'm not a policy or think tank wonk, but isn't Russia just a euphemism for China. Aren't their geopolitical interests linked. You just say Russia because China has us by the financial balls (I'm sure the Guardian would prefer to NOT be censored on the mainland) right? Package it that way and I'm on board. My love of Dostoevsky goes out the window. Albeit I still think Demons one of the best novels ever written. Woke me up.
    fedback , 9 Dec 2016 22:1
    Survivor of Bosnian sniper fire Hillary Clinton decries fake news in speech yesterday
    Aaron Aarons , 9 Dec 2016 22:1
    I'm all in favor of delegitimizing the incoming semi-fascist Trump/Pence regime, and find Obama's talk of a smooth transition disgusting. However, I reject the appeal to Russophobia or other Xenophobia.

    BTW, Obama and his collaborators like Diane Feinstein have done a lot to prepare the legal basis for fascistic repression under the new POtuS.

    Sund Fornuft , 9 Dec 2016 22:1
    I already know what the comission will find. They will find evidences that Iraq holds vast ammonúnt of weapons of mass destruction! Oh wait, that was already used.
    kalander , 9 Dec 2016 22:0
    Obama has been as useless as his predecessor young Bush. His policies generally are in tatters and the US neo cons evil fantasy of full spectrum dominance has met its death in Syria. Bravo.
    ShoppingKingLouie , 9 Dec 2016 22:0
    The neoliberal corporate machine is wounded but not dead. They will use every trick, ploy and opportunity to try to regain power.

    The fight goes on.

    fedback , 9 Dec 2016 21:5
    After an election cycle with proven collusion between the DNC/Hillary Clinton campaign and our media, our media has the nerve to come up with the term 'fake news'.
    Hypocrisy at its finest
    John Urquhart , 9 Dec 2016 21:5
    Nobody does paranoia like the yanks. To the rest of the world, the unedifying spectacle of the world's biggest bullies, snoops, warmongers, liars and hypocrites complaining about how unfair life is, is pretty nauseating. Most of America's problems are home-grown.
    ShoppingKingLouie , 9 Dec 2016 21:5
    Why fake the news when you can just strong the media companies into muzzling their criticism?

    http://nypost.com/2016/12/09/mika-brzezinski-says-clinton-camp-tried-to-pull-her-off-the-air /

    mjp3470 , 9 Dec 2016 21:5
    And the final report will conclude with something along the lines of:
    'After a thorough, exhaustive investigation of all relevant evidence concerning the potential of foreign interference in the United States electoral process, the results of the investigation have shown that, although there remain troubling questions about the integrity of U.S. cyber-security which should prompt immediate Congressional review, there has been uncovered no conclusive evidence to support the conjecture that cyber attacks originating with any foreign actor, state or individual had any significant effect on the outcome of the 2016 Presidential election, and that there is no cause or justification for the American People to question the fairness of or lose faith in the electoral process and laid out by and carried out according to the Constitution.'
    I do Holiday cards too.
    garenmel -> mjp3470 , 9 Dec 2016 22:2
    My hat off to you sir/madam. This was great!
    Powerspike , 9 Dec 2016 21:5
    Georgia's Secretary of State is accusing someone at the Department of Homeland Security of illegally trying to hack its computer network, including the voter registration database.
    In a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, copied to the full Georgia congressional delegation, Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp alleges that a computer with a DHS internet address attempted to breach its systems.
    http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/309530-state-of-georgia-allegedly-accusing-homeland-security-of-attempted-hack

    Wake up and smell the BS, the hacking is being done by people a lot nearer home.....

    feliciafarrel , 9 Dec 2016 21:5
    Oh dear, the GOP seem to have forgotten what they were saying about Putin and the Kremlin a short while back:

    The continuing erosion of personal liberty and fundamental rights under the current officials in the Kremlin. Repressive at home and reckless abroad, their policies imperil the nations which regained their self-determination upon the collapse of the Soviet Union. We will meet the return of Russian belligerence with the same resolve that led to the collapse of the Soviet Union. We will not accept any territorial change in Eastern Europe imposed by force, in Ukraine, Georgia, or elsewhere, and will use all appropriate constitutional measures to bring to justice the practitioners of aggression and assassination.

    https://www.gop.com/platform/american-exceptionalism/

    Are they going to conveniently forget all decency and morality? Is the white supremacist agenda in the GOP finally in the ascendant?

    Russian Troll (Number 254) 9 Dec 2016 21:5
    I as a Russian Troll do not like this investigation and will do or say anything in order to change your mind. Putin is not a problem, the EU is.
    Powerspike , 9 Dec 2016 21:4
    ..... prohibiting "fake" or "false" news would be a cure worse than the disease, i.e., censorship by other means. The government cannot be trusted with distinguishing fake from genuine news because it has ulterior motives. News the government dislikes would be conflated with fakery, and news the government approved would be conflated with truthfulness. Private businesses like Facebook cannot be trusted with distinguishing fake from genuine news because its overriding mission is to make money and to win popularity, not to spread truth. It would suppress news that risked injury to its reputation or profits but leave news that did the opposite undisturbed.
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/dec/5/reflections-fake-news /
    GuyCybershy , 9 Dec 2016 21:4
    "The Anonymous Blacklist Promoted by the Washington Post Has Apparent Ties to Ukrainian Fascism and CIA Spying".

    http://www.alternet.org/media/anonymous-blacklist-promoted-washington-post-has-shocking-roots-ukrainian-fascism-eugenics-and

    GuyCybershy , 9 Dec 2016 21:3
    Clinton lost even though she outspent Trump two to one. She was just a lousy candidate who ran a terrible campaign.
    fimbulvinter -> GuyCybershy , 9 Dec 2016 21:4
    Uh excuse me but that sort of introspection doesn't fly. She was flawless and the blame rests solely on Russia/alt-right/Sanders/Third Parties/Racism/Misogyny/Alignment of the stars/etc/etc
    emilyadam , 9 Dec 2016 21:3
    I thnk the idea that russia has world domination is quite laughable, what else they gonna be blamed for next, reduction of giraffe population!Lol
    I think a teeny wee paranoia is setting in, or outright deliberate propaganda, too obvious
    Jim Moodie , 9 Dec 2016 21:3
    Is this worse than when the two CIA operatives were caught searching through files in the Offices of the British Labour Party about thirty years ago. What goes around comes around.

    The CIA hacks have been destabalisuping Government for a at least seventy years.

    One thing is pretty obvious paper ballots and a different ballot for each is much harder to rig.

    It is ironic it takes a despot life key Trump to bring the issue to a head AFTER unexpectedly won.

    freeandfair -> Jim Moodie , 9 Dec 2016 21:3
    "Is this worse than when the two CIA operatives were caught searching through files in the Offices of the British Labour Party about thirty years ago. What goes around comes around."

    The CIA were caught hacking into the US Congressional computers just 6 or so months ago. Nothing came out of it.

    guest88888 , 9 Dec 2016 21:3

    possible Russian hacking in US election

    Based on the fact that the US 2000 (and possibly 2004) election was outright stolen by George Bush Jr., perhaps the propagandists in the White House and media ought to be looking for a "Russian connection" in regards to our illustrious former president.

    Texas_Sotol , 9 Dec 2016 21:3
    I'm shocked--shocked--to hear that our close Russian allies have done anything to influence and undermine the stability of other countries. Preposterous accusation! And to try to become huge winners in the Western Hemisphere, by cheating? Vitriolic nonsense!

    Many posters here actually believe that Good Old Russia should just stick with what they do best. That's poison!

    Fencewalker -> Bluebird101 , 9 Dec 2016 21:4
    Rather like the Litvenenko inquiry...full of maybe's and possibilities, with not a shred of hard, factual proof shown - demonstrating that the order came from the Kremlin.
    It's just a total accident that Putin's most vocal opponents keep getting shot in the head, gunned down on bridges, suffering 'accidents' or strange miscarriages of (sometimes post-mortem) 'justice' and fall victim to radiological state-enacted terrorism in foreign countries. No pattern there, whatsoever.
    Informed17 , 9 Dec 2016 21:3
    I am at a loss. On the one hand, I hear about Russian economy in tatters, gas station posing as a country, deep crisis, economy the size of Italy, rusty old military toys, aircraft carrier smoking out the whole Northern hemisphere, etc. On the other hand, I hear about Russian threat all the time, which must be countered by massive build up of the US and EU military, Russia successfully interfering in the elections in the beacon of democracy, the US, with 20 times greater economy, with powerful allies, the best armed forces in the world, etc. Are we talking about two different Russias, or is this schizophrenia, pure and simple?
    jamese07uk -> Informed17 , 9 Dec 2016 21:3
    It's always easy to find reasons to fear something, added to that the psychology of the unknown, and we have the makings of very powerful propaganda. Whatever Russia's level of corruption, and general society, I feel I cannot trust the Western media anymore 100%. There seems to be a equally sinister hidden agenda deep within Western Elites - accessing Russia's land, political and potential wealthly resources must surely be one of them!? The longterm Western agenda/mission?
    spiridonovich , 9 Dec 2016 21:1
    The Democratic Party's problem is Russia, which the President is rightly putting front and center. All Russians are the summit of eviality, and must be endlessly scapegoated in order for Democrats to regain power for the nation's greater good.

    Democrats' problems have nothing to do with corruption, glaring conflicts of interest, favoritism, ass-licking editors, crappy data, lacking enthusiasm, and horribly poor judgement.

    None of these issues need to be publicly addressed, being of no consequence to independent voters, and the President, Guardian, et al. must continue their silent -- and "independent" -- vigil on such silly topics, if Democrats are to have any hope of cultivating enough mindless, enraged, and abandoned sheep to bring them future victories.

    ImmortalTao , 9 Dec 2016 21:1
    I admire Trump, Putin & Farage. Don't agree with them but I have admiration for them. They show all the cunning, calculating, resourcefulness that put the European race on top. Liberals don't like that and want to see the own people fall to the bottom. Thankfuly the neoliberal elite are finishedm
    MJMaguire , 9 Dec 2016 21:1
    Absurd nonsense - the third anti-Russian story of the day. Very little of this has much traction because of the sheer volume of misinformation coming out about Russia. there are very good cogent reasons why the Democrats lost the US election - none of them have anything to do with Russia.
    slats7 , 9 Dec 2016 21:0
    another pathetic attempt to delegitimize Trump. wanna know why he won? look in the mirror, Barry.
    oldsunshine -> slats7 , 9 Dec 2016 21:2
    Will Obama see Clinton if he looks in the mirror??
    Bluejil , 9 Dec 2016 21:0
    I can't see a thing wrong with reviewing the last three election cycles, if there is any doubt at all and to put speculation to bed, it should be done.
    CurtBrown -> Bluejil , 9 Dec 2016 21:1
    Why stop at the last three?
    Karl Marks -> CurtBrown , 9 Dec 2016 21:4
    Because the US is more concerned about money than democratic integrity.
    dicksonator , 9 Dec 2016 21:0
    So the US intelligence servies aren't doing similar operations?

    If they werent, heads would roll as they have a considerable budget. Did we learn nothing from Edward Snowden? Are Russia just better at this? I doubt it.

    I think both sides conduct themselves in a despicable manner so please dont call me a Putin apologist. Well, feel free actually, I could'nt care less.

    gray2016 , 9 Dec 2016 21:0

    Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election


    US interference:

    COUNTRY OR STATE Dates of intervention Comments
    VIETNAM l960-75 Fought South Vietnam revolt & North Vietnam; one million killed in longest U.S. war; atomic bomb threats in l968 and l969.
    CUBA l961 CIA-directed exile invasion fails.
    GERMANY l961 Alert during Berlin Wall crisis.
    LAOS 1962 Military buildup during guerrilla war.
    142 more rows

    Shall I go on with anoter 142? US lying scumbags

    yeCarumba -> gray2016 , 9 Dec 2016 21:0
    the vietnam fiasco alone is enough to disqualify america from any criticism about interference in internal affairs
    they practically destroyed the country
    KitKnightly , 9 Dec 2016 20:5
    The pathetic way the media are pushing this big-bad-Russians meme is a little depressing.

    This "hack" is totally fictional, the wikileaks e-mails were almost certainly that...leaks. As most o their output has been over the years. For 95% of the Wikileaks existence there have been absolutely zero connections with "the Kremlin", in fact they have leaked stuff damaging to Russia before now.

    The Russian's did not hack the DNC, or rig the election, this is yet another example of the political establishment hysterically pointing fingers and making up lies when their chosen side loses an election.

    freeandfair -> KitKnightly , 9 Dec 2016 21:3
    I remember how North Korea was blamed for Sony hack. I think they were even cut from the internet for a day and there was all this talk of punishing them. And then later it came out that very likely wasn't North Korea. Only the news cycle already moved on and nobody cared.
    mismeasure , 9 Dec 2016 20:5
    Traditionally, the best Cold Warriors have been right-wing liberals. In the absence of policies that concretely benefit the people they engage in threat inflation and demagoguery.
    SergeyL , 9 Dec 2016 20:4
    In 90s US set all figures in Russia - from president to news program anchor. Elections of 96 were ripped by American "advisors" so that Eltsyn with 3% rating "won" them. It's payback time.
    Shaemus Gruagain , 9 Dec 2016 20:4
    Oh how wonderful it is to watch them smart and the bonus? no more Obamas.
    uest88888 -> PeteCW , 9 Dec 2016 21:3
    And yet the so-called "Russian trolls" (which is apparently anyone who exercise a modicum of skepticism) seem to be winning here at CiF based on the number of likes per comment, which is likely why the NSA sponsored propagandists and clueless dopes are getting so increasingly shrill.
    Mattster101 , 9 Dec 2016 20:3
    If you take a wider view, this is all really about keeping the Dems in the game, trying to undo the Trump validity and give them another go in 4 or so years. Really, seems quite desperate that a man that allowed 270000 wild horses to be sold for horsemeat this year across the border to Mexico, brought HC in to his own cabinet having said 'she will say anything and do nothing', knowing what a nightmare that would make, and is going to watch his healthcare get ripped to shreds, needs more accomplishments in his last year, aka Obama, ergo, let's investigate the evil russians and their female athletes with male DNA ( you would think I am making this stuff up, but I am not ) ... Come on Grandma, where are you when we need you most
    nolongersilent , 9 Dec 2016 20:3
    we must somehow, subvert the despicable populace that elected trump. we must erase from history the conceding of president elect clinton - newpeak from the ministry of truth. we'll get her into the white house if it takes more cash, lies, and corruption. after all, who needs democracy in the democratic party when we have big brother. democracy just confuses the members. we'll send the despicables through the ministry of love to re-educate them, of course, this IS 1984 after all....we will vote for you, the intelligentsia of the left knows what is best for you.
    eldudeabides , 9 Dec 2016 20:3
    Should Hillary have been disqualified (and prosecuted) for having access to debate questions beforehand?
    Nete75 , 9 Dec 2016 20:3
    "Malicious cyber activity, specifically malicious cyber activity tied to our elections , has no place in the international community. Unfortunately this activity is not new to Moscow. We've seen them do this for years ... The president has made it clear to President Putin that this is unacceptable."

    Note how carefully it specifies that it is cyber activity tied to the american elections that is inappropriate. I presume that is simply to avoid openly saying that mass-surveillance by the US government of everyone's private email, and social network accounts doesn't come under that "no place in the international community" phrase. You know, one does wonder how these people's faces don't come off in shame when whinning about potential interference by foreign governemnts after a full 8 years or so of constant revelations of permanent spying and mass-surveillance by the US government of international leaders and ordinary citizens worldwide.

    Boghaunter , 9 Dec 2016 20:2
    So the DNC was hacked - so what. Hacking is so common these days as to be expected. A quick perusal of the internet provides some SIGNIFICANT hacks that deserved some consternation:

    9/4/07 The Chinese government hacked a noncritical Defense Department computer system in June, a Pentagon source told FOX News on Tuesday.

    Spring 2011 Foreign hackers broke into the Pentagon computer system this spring and stole 24,000 files - one of the biggest cyber-attacks ever on the U.S. military,

    On the 12th of July 2011, Booz Allen Hamilton the largest U.S. military defence contractor admitted that they had just suffered a very serious security breach, at the hands of hacktivist group AntiSec.

    5/28/13 The confidential version of a Defense Science Board report compiled earlier this year reportedly says Chinese hackers accessed designs for more than two dozen of the U.S. military's most important and expensive weapon systems.

    June 2014 The UK's National Crime Agency has arrested an unnamed young man over allegations that he breached the Department of Defense's network last June.


    1/12/15 The Twitter account for U.S. Central Command was suspended Monday after it was hacked by ISIS sympathizers (OK twitter accounts shouldn't be a big deal. Why does US CentCom even HAVE a twitter account???)

    5/6/15 OPM hack: China blamed for massive breach of US government data

    Omoikani , 9 Dec 2016 20:2
    And so the neocon propaganda machine trundles on, churning out this interesting material day after day. The elephant in the room is that if you get hacked you have no knowledge of this until your private stuff is all over the internet, and the chances of finding out who did it are zilch. Everyone in IT security knows this.
    johhnybgood , 9 Dec 2016 20:1
    Another "fake news" story. Does anybody with a pulse really believe that Russia hacked the DNC? The US Security Services admitted that it was NOT Russia; the likelihood is that the leaks were provided to Wikileaks by insiders within the US Administration - they wanted to ensure that Hillary did not win. None of the actual revelations were covered by the MSM, and "the Russians did it" was a convenient distraction.
    Omoikani -> johhnybgood , 9 Dec 2016 20:2
    All people that on earth do dwell have no clue who hacked the DNC to the amusing end that Podesta's e-mails ended up on the internet, but it suits a dangerous political narrative to demonise Russia until it becomes plain logical to attack them.
    peterward881 , 9 Dec 2016 20:0
    YES YES let attack Russia, YES YES YES, Russia Russia we should carry on attacking Russia. We the journalists are well paid by the man from Australia. YES YES we must to carry on attacking Russia and forget the shit happening in other countries. YES YES it is our duty.
    guest88888 , 9 Dec 2016 20:0

    Election hacking: Obama orders 'full review' of Russia interference

    And I guess Obama has also ordered the Guardian to do a full court press of anti-Russian propaganda, just judging by the articles pumped out on today's rag alone.

    The US government is seemingly attempting the "Big Lie" tactic of Joseph Goebbels and instigating support in the public for war against Russia. By repeating the completely unsubstantiated allegations that Russia has somehow "interfered with the election" they hope, without any genuine basis, to strong arm the public into accepting a further ramping of tensions and starting yet another illegal war for profit.

    Chirographer , 9 Dec 2016 19:5
    There's nothing wrong with conducting the investigation, but shouldn't it have been done before accusing Russia?

    And aren't all the people cited in the article political appointees, Democrats or avowed Trump enemies, and then there's closing, " A spokesman for the director of national intelligence declined to comment."

    Karega , 9 Dec 2016 19:5
    Surely of all the Orders Obama might issue during his last weeks in office, why does he choose to give a stupid Order that effectively makes US some sort of Banana Republic? This man was/is more hype than real! At a stroke of a pen he seriously undermines the integrity of the US Electoral System. Whatever credibility was left has now been eroded by these constant and silly claims that somehow Russians installed Trump as President. Doesn't that make Trump some sort of Russian Agent?
    Meanwhile MSM keeps on streaming some fake news and theories and then Obama Orders US intelligence to dig deeper. This is lunacy!
    alexfoxy28 , 9 Dec 2016 19:5
    Obama certainly understands that Russia is not the reason why Trump was elected. However, he wants to create new obstacles on the way of normalization of relations between the US and Russia and make it more difficult for Trump.

    However, Trump is not a weak man, not a skinny worm; and he can hit these opponents back so hard that international court for them (for invasions into sovereign countries) will lead to their life sentences.

    Ginen , 9 Dec 2016 19:5
    Only two weeks ago the Obama Administration publicly stated there was no evidence of cybersecurity breaches affecting the electoral process, as reported in the NYT :

    The administration, in its statement, confirmed reports from the Department of Homeland Security and intelligence officials that they did not see "any increased level of malicious cyberactivity aimed at disrupting our electoral process on Election Day."

    The administration said it remained "confident in the overall integrity of electoral infrastructure, a confidence that was borne out." It added: "As a result, we believe our elections were free and fair from a cybersecurity perspective."

    Was Obama lying then or is he lying now?
    imperfetto , 9 Dec 2016 19:5
    Is there any limit to the ridicolous, Mr. Obama? what is this? a tragicomic play of the inept?
    Here we are with the most childish fabrication that it must be the Russians' fault if Trump won the election. I'll be laughing for an entire cosmic era! And all this after US publically announced that they were going to launch a devastating acher attack against the badies: the Russians, which of course didn't work out. Come on, this is more comedy that a serious play.

    What probably is going on, the readers can gather by having a look at the numberless articles that are being published by maistream media against the Russians.
    Why this histeric insurgence of Russofobia? Couldn't it be that it is intolerable for the US and their allies to see the Russians winning in Aleppo, and most of all restoring peace and tollerance among the population returning to their abbandoned homes.

    brothersgrimm , 9 Dec 2016 19:3
    I think Hillary, in part, lost the election due to all the fake news being pumped out by the mainstream corporate media, doing her bidding. People are tired of it, along with all the corruption and lies that came to the surface through the likes of Wikileaks.
    Trump is a terrible alternative, but the only alternative people were given, so many went with it.
    Now we see fake news making out the Russians to be the bad guys again, pumping out story after story, trying to propagandize the population into sucking up these new memes. Russia has its problems, and will always act in its own self-interest, but it's nothing compared to the tactics the US uses, bullying countries around the world to pander to its own will, desperately trying to maintain its Empire.
    RoachAmerican , 9 Dec 2016 19:3
    Examine something real, Nuclear Hillary. It must be time for Spring Planting??
    http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/04/23/us/clinton-foundation-donations-uranium-investors.html?_r=0

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syEjkPyqRew
    Minutes 20 to 25
    Uranium One Wyoming
    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html

    http://www.npr.org/2015/04/23/401781313/clinton-foundation-linked-to-russian-effort-to-buy-uranium-company
    https://youtu.be/jkfE10g8xbc
    at 25 minutes et seq
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkfE10g8xbc&feature=youtu.be


    Below, first paragraphs are the most important
    http://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-davidson/five-questions-about-the-clintons-and-a-uranium-company

    The 1 2 3 Step of Acquisition of Uranium One
    http://www.businessinsider.com/the-clintons-putin-and-uranium-2015-4

    Going Private Part Public Company Disappears
    http://www.wise-uranium.org/ucscr.html

    http://www.pravdareport.com/russia/economics/22-01-2013/123551-russia_nuclear_energy-0 /
    Coward Comey needs to go.

    Joelbanks , 9 Dec 2016 19:3
    The scripture tells us those who live by the sword will perish by it.

    America was in the interference of other countries' elections before its ugly 2016 presidential election. Remember Ukraine and Secretary Hillary Clinton's employee Victoria F****the EU Nuland in Ukraine. Now we have the makings of some kind of conflict with Russia over its alleged meddling in America's elections. More global tension= More cash flowing into the US equity market, money printing by another means.

    hardlyeverclever , 9 Dec 2016 19:3
    I'd be surprised if the Russians weren't trying to affect the outcome of the election. The Brits had a debate in Parliament on Trump, Obama made threats to the UK on the Brexit vote, so who knows what we're all doing in each others elections behind closed doors while we are clear to do so publically.

    The MSM's absolute refusal to address the leaks in a meaningful way (other than the stuff about recipes) suggests to be no one felt it a big deal at the time.

    alexfoxy28 , 9 Dec 2016 19:3
    Obama could realise that Hillary's viewes on Putin and Russia did not help her at all. People are not that stupid, they see well, use own brains and not so easily impressed by whatever CNN says to them.
    Alun Jones , 9 Dec 2016 19:2
    John McAfee said that any organization sophisticated enough to do these hacks is also sophisticated enough to make it look as though any country they want did it. So it could have been anyone.
    palindrome , 9 Dec 2016 19:2
    Obama earlier this year: Russia is not a world power, only a regional power.

    Obama now: Russia has the power to manipulate the USA election.

    Which one is it then?

    Of course it's all bull...Obama is another establishment puppet who cannot accept that people have figured out their modus operandi.

    diddoit , 9 Dec 2016 19:2
    It's reported today on Ars Technica : ThyssenKrupp suffered a "professional attack"

    The steelmaker, which makes military subs, says it was targeted from south-east Asia.

    ..the design of its plants were penetrated by a "massive," coordinated attack which made off with an unknown amount of "technological know-how and research."

    The internet and precious information...

    alexfoxy28 , 9 Dec 2016 19:2
    Neoliberals are just desperately losing ideological competition at home and abroad. They cannot convince people that they are right because it's not what's going on.

    It does not matter what some others say, it's what really goes on matters.

    alexfoxy28 -> imipak , 9 Dec 2016 21:0
    But there is innate, basic self-interest in all people (that does not depend on education, ethnicity, race) and people know it instinctively well. They will not go against it even if all around will tell otherwise.
    alexfoxy28 -> alexfoxy28 , 9 Dec 2016 21:1 0 1
    simulacra27 , 9 Dec 2016 19:2
    The fake news channel brought to you by Obama and co.
    p.s. I mean that people cannot be manipulated by others at this basic level when some higher level manipulative tools are used.
    Kasem3000 , 9 Dec 2016 19:1
    I love how this has now become solid fact. No confirmation, nothing official but it is no common fact that the Russians interfered. How many reports do we hear about US interference with foreign countries infastructure through covert means.
    ShoppingKingLouie , 9 Dec 2016 19:1
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/dec/08/vladimir-putin-hillary-clinton-russia

    Meh. Seems like tampering happens all the time. How many elections in South America did the USA fix? How many in the middle east and Africa? I think this "russian's did it" rhetoric is counterproductive as it is stopping Democrats from doing the introspective needed to really understand why HRC lost the election.

    ShoppingKingLouie , 9 Dec 2016 19:1
    How can you on the one hand crusade against "fake news" and on the other promote this:

    https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2016/dec/08/artist-alison-jackson-self-publishes-spoof-trump-photos-despite-fear-of-being-sued#comments

    Sutir Comed , 9 Dec 2016 19:0
    Imagine if the shoe were on the other foot and there was credible evidence that the Russians had rigged the election in favor of the Democrat. The right-wing echo chamber would be having seizures! These people are UTTER HYPOCRITES. And they would obviously rather win with the help of a hostile foreign power than try to preserve the integrity of our elections.
    MayorHoberMallow , 9 Dec 2016 19:0
    Russia may or may not have hacked the DNC. I'd like to find out. I hope the DNC aren't enough of doofusses to assume this wouldn't be in the realm of possibility.
    I presume that the U.S. has its own group of hackers doing the same Worldwide. This is not a criticism; I would expect the U.S. intelligence community to learn what our rivals, and even some of our friends, are up to.
    Timothy Everton , 9 Dec 2016 19:0
    This is getting to be pretty lame. I have doubts that "Russia" could interfere to any great extent with our elections any more than we could with theirs. Sure, individuals or organizations, and more than likely in THIS country, could do so. And they have, as we saw with the DNC and Sanders campaign (and vice versa). Let's not go into an almost inevitable nuclear war over what is quite possibly "fake news".
    dreylon , 9 Dec 2016 19:0
    Russia did this, Russia did that
    its getting very boring now, you have lost all credibility
    you have cried wolf to many times
    stop trying to manipulate us
    Johnny Kent , 9 Dec 2016 18:5
    When will the Democrats get it? It wasn't the Russians, who are blamed for everything, including the weather, by desperate Western failed leaders, but an unsuitable candidate in Clinton, which lost them the Election. Bernie Sanders would have walked it.
    Catonaboat , 9 Dec 2016 18:5
    Well Guardian I do believe you hit a nerve, I don't think I've ever seen a more one sided BTL. Me thinks some people do protest too much.
    Iaorana , 9 Dec 2016 18:5
    Regarding the notorious "fuck the EU " on the part of the US "diplomat" Victoria Nuland "the State Department and the White House suggested that an assistant to the deputy prime minister of Russia Dmitry Rogozin was the source of the leak, which he denied " Wiki

    Good occasion to substantiate the accusation which ,substantiated or not,will remind the "useful idiots" of the "change of regime " US policy and who started the Ukrainian crisis.

    Lafcadio1944 , 9 Dec 2016 18:5
    Boy, oh boy, fake news is everywhere just read this headline!

    Election hacking: Obama orders 'full review' of Russia interference

    Which states as fact there was interference by Russia and that the investigation is to determine how bad it was. NO EVIDENCE WHAT SO EVER has been offered by anyone that Russia interfered in any way. FAKE NEWS!!

    Mike5000 , 9 Dec 2016 18:5
    Voting machine hacking is a very serious problem but you generally need physical access to a voting machine to hack it. Anyone notice thousands of Russians hanging around in Detriot, Los Angeles, etc election HQs? How about Clinton drones?

    If the DNC hadn't rigged the primary we'd be celebrating president-elect Bernie. If they hadn't rigged the general Hillary would have lost by a landslide.

    ShoppingKingLouie , 9 Dec 2016 18:5
    We never investigated this tho did we Former President Obama?

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/dec/08/vladimir-putin-hillary-clinton-russia

    Time to put on your big girl pants, accept defeat and leave gracefully.

    Powerspike , 9 Dec 2016 18:5
    1000 Russian athletes were doping in the 2012 Olympics - but it's taken until now to realise it?!
    Russia influenced the 2016 US election?!
    Russia is presently "influencing" the German elections?!
    Russia is killing civilians and destroying hospitals with impunity in Syria?!
    etc
    Wow! Russia is taking over the world, it must be stopped, can anyone save us? Obama? Trump? NATO?
    Look out! Russian armies are massing on the border ready to sweep into Europe.......arrhhh!

    I love the smell of gibberish in the morning!

    geofffrey , 9 Dec 2016 18:4
    ***Newsflash***

    Reads:

    "..ex-prime minister Anthony Charles Lynton Blair of the United Kingdom, and Hillary Rodham Clinton of the United States of America, have formally announced a new transatlantic political party to be named: The Neoliberal Elite Party for bitter anti-Brexiters and sore anti-Trumpettes.

    dahsab , 9 Dec 2016 18:4
    Rather rich coming from my country which has interfered in elections around the world for decades. I suppose it's only cheating if the other team does it.

    Not that they'll find any evidence. Just another chapter in the sad saga of the Democrats unwillingness to admit they ran the worst candidate & the worst campaign in recent memory. It's not our fault! Them dirty Russkies did it!

    [Dec 10, 2016] A Soft Coup Attempt Furious Trump Slams Secret CIA Report Russia Helped Him Win

    Praetorian Guard Redux. Any nation that embraces secret police will find itself ruled by them in short order.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Yes, the CIA's sterling reputation around the world for truth-telling and integrity might be sullied if someone doubts their claims... https://t.co/2uyQXvFdOK - Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) December 10, 2016 ..."
    "... When is it hardest to get people not to blindly accept anonymous, evidence-free CIA claims? When it's very pleasing to believe them. - Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) December 10, 2016 ..."
    "... "...there is no clear evidence - even now," said Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and a member of the Trump transition team. "There's a lot of innuendo, lots of circumstantial evidence, that's it." ..."
    "... "...Obama wants the report before he leaves office Jan. 20, Monaco said. The review will be led by [PROVEN LIAR] James Clapper, the outgoing director of national intelligence, officials said." ..."
    "... Aside from its instigation of coups and alliances with right-wing juntas, Washington sought to more subtly influence elections in all corners of the world. And so did Moscow. Political scientist Dov Levin calculates that the "two powers intervened in 117 elections around the world from 1946 to 2000 - an average of once in every nine competitive elections. ..."
    "... In the late 1940s, the newly established CIA cut its teeth in Western Europe, pushing back against some of the continent's most influential leftist parties and labor unions. In 1948, the United States propped up Italy's centrist Christian Democrats and helped ensure their electoral victory against a leftist coalition, anchored by one of the most powerful communist parties in Europe. CIA operatives gave millions of dollars to their Italian allies and helped orchestrate what was then an unprecedented, clandestine propaganda campaign : This included forging documents to besmirch communist leaders via fabricated sex scandals, starting a mass letter-writing campaign from Italian Americans to their compatriots, and spreading hysteria about a Russian takeover and the undermining of the Catholic Church. ..."
    "... "We had bags of money that we delivered to selected politicians, to defray their political expenses, their campaign expenses, for posters, for pamphlets," recounted F. Mark Wyatt , the CIA officer who handled the mission and later participated in more than 2½ decades of direct support to the Christian Democrats. ..."
    "... This template spread everywhere : CIA operative Edward G. Lansdale, notorious for his efforts to bring down the North Vietnamese government, is said to have run the successful 1953 campaign of Philippines President Ramon Magsaysay. Japan's center-right Liberal Democratic Party was backed with secret American funds through the 1950s and the 1960s. The U.S. government and American oil corporations helped Christian parties in Lebanon win crucial elections in 1957 with briefcases full of cash. ..."
    "... In Chile, the United States prevented Allende from winning an election in 1964. "A total of nearly four million dollars was spent on some fifteen covert action projects, ranging from organizing slum dwellers to passing funds to political parties," detailed a Senate inquiry in the mid-1970s that started to expose the role of the CIA in overseas elections. When it couldn't defeat Allende at the ballot box in 1970, Washington decided to remove him anyway. ..."
    "... Obama & The Presstitutes: Legalized DOMESTIC Propaganda to American Citizens The National Defense Authorization Act of July 2013 (NDAA) included an amendment that legalized the use of propaganda on the American public. The amendment - originally proposed by Mac Thornberry (R-Texas) and Adam Smith (D-Wash.) and passed – nullified the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948, which explicitly forbids information and psychological operations aimed at influencing U.S. public opinion. The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012 allowed U.S. propaganda intended to influence foreign audiences to be used on the domestic population. ..."
    "... This Russia CIA Program aimed at US Citizens is part of the OBAMA FRAUD to cover the crimes of Clinton et al. The MSM and especially the NYT is the epi-center of "Fake News" ..."
    "... Hillary was a big threat to Russia security. Trump was willing to work with Russia. Does anyone really believe Russia has absolutely no part to play in Trump's win? Think again. ..."
    "... Thinking is one thing. Proving it is another. And what do you "think" about the CIA and Victoria Nuland's role in toppling the elected government in the Ukraine? ..."
    "... After a year of MSM propaganda and lies, you are now obsessed with "fake news" ironically the kind that totally obliterated your propaganda for the lies that they were. ..."
    "... Go back to the 1960s. Phillp Graham and his wife rans Wa Post. Phillip got a young girl friend and started going off the reservation saying WaPo was becoming a mouthpiece for the See Eye Ah. He was going to divorce his wife. He then was commited to an insane asylum, released and then killed himself with a shotgun. ..."
    "... There have to be good, patriotic Americans within CIA These intelligence reports are obvious fictions: The agitprop of a neocon/zionist Deep State that fully intends to expand the wars, target Iran and Russia, while sending American blood and treasure to pay their bill. ..."
    "... Kennedy knew that the CIA was nothing but a group of Useless, Meddling, Lying Assholes, and made it known Publicly. Unfortunately for him, things didn't turn out all that well. "Wetwork" is never in shortage with that crew. ..."
    "... Praetorian Guard Redux. Any nation that embraces secret police will find itself ruled by them in short order. ..."
    "... Most CIA directors are/were members of the Rockefeller/CFR including: Morell, Petraeus, Hayden, Tenet, Deutch, Woolsey, Gates, Webster, Casey, Turner, Bush, Colby, Schlesinger, Helms, McCone and Allen Dulles. Also every Fed chairman since WW2. See member lists at cfr dot org. ..."
    "... The domestic policies of both CFR wings are the same: the maintenance of the American Empire... There is no possibility of [outsiders] capturing power at the top of either party... ..."
    Dec 10, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com

    Overnight the media propaganda wars escalated after the late Friday release of an article by the Washington Post (which last week admitted to using unverified, or fake, news in an attempt to smear other so-called "fake news" sites) according to which a secret CIA assessment found that Russia sought to tip last month's U.S. presidential election in Donald Trump's favor, a conclusion presented without any actual evidence, and which drew an extraordinary, and angry rebuke from the president-elect's camp.

    "These are the same people that said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction," Trump's transition team said, launching a broadside against the spy agency. "The election ended a long time ago in one of the biggest Electoral College victories in history. It's now time to move on and 'Make America Great Again.' "

    The Washington Post report comes after outgoing President Barack Obama ordered a review of all cyberattacks that took place during the 2016 election cycle , amid growing calls from Congress for more information on the extent of Russian interference in the campaign. The newspaper cited officials briefed on the matter as saying that individuals with connections to Moscow provided WikiLeaks with email hacked from the Democratic National Committee, Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton's campaign chief and others.

    Without a shred of evidence provided, and despite Wikileaks' own on the record denial that the source of the emails was Russian, the WaPo attack piece claims the email messages were steadily leaked out via WikiLeaks in the months before the election, damaging Clinton's White House run. Essentially, according to the WaPo, the Russians' aim was to help Donald Trump win and not just undermine the U.S. electoral process, hinting at a counter-Hillary intent on the side of Putin.

    "It is the assessment of the intelligence community that Russia's goal here was to favor one candidate over the other, to help Trump get elected," the newspaper quoted a senior U.S. official briefed on an intelligence presentation last week to key senators as saying. " That's the consensus view."

    CIA agents told the lawmakers it was "quite clear" - although it was not reported exactly what made it "clear" - that electing Trump was Russia's goal, according to officials who spoke to the Post, citing growing evidence from multiple sources.

    And yet, key questions remain unanswered, and the CIA's report fell short of being a formal U.S. assessment produced by all 17 intelligence agencies the newspaper said, for two reasons. As we reported in November " The "Fact" That 17 Intelligence Agencies Confirmed Russia is Behind the Email Hacks Isn't Actually A "Fact ", and then also because aside from so-called "consensus", there is - once again - no evidence, otherwise the appropriate agencies would have long since released it, and this is nothing more than another propaganda attempt to build tension with Russia. In fact, the WaPo admits as much in the following text, which effectively destroys the article's entire argument :

    The CIA presentation to senators about Russia's intentions fell short of a formal U.S. assessment produced by all 17 intelligence agencies. A senior U.S. official said there were minor disagreements among intelligence officials about the agency's assessment, in part because some questions remain unanswered.

    For example, intelligence agencies do not have specific intelligence showing officials in the Kremlin "directing" the identified individuals to pass the Democratic emails to WikiLeaks, a second senior U.S. official said. Those actors, according to the official, were "one step" removed from the Russian government, rather than government employees. Moscow has in the past used middlemen to participate in sensitive intelligence operations so it has plausible deniability.

    * * *

    "I'll be the first one to come out and point at Russia if there's clear evidence, but there is no clear evidence - even now," said Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and a member of the Trump transition team. "There's a lot of innuendo, lots of circumstantial evidence, that's it."

    And since even the WaPo is forced to admit that intelligence agents don't have the proof that Russian officials directed the identified individuals to supply WikiLeaks with the hacked Democratic emails, the best it can do is speculate based on circumstantial inferences, especially since, as noted above, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has denied links with Russia's government , putting the burden of proof on the side of those who challenge the Wikileaks narrative. So far that proof has not been provided.

    Nonetheless, at the White House, Deputy Press Secretary Eric Schultz said Obama called for the cyberattacks review earlier this week to ensure "the integrity of our elections."

    "This report will dig into this pattern of malicious cyberactivity timed to our elections, take stock of our defensive capabilities and capture lessons learned to make sure that we brief members of Congress and stakeholders as appropriate," Schultz said.

    Taking the absurdity to a whole new level, Obama wants the report completed before his term ends on January 20, by none other than a proven and confirmed liar : " The review will be led by James Clapper, the outgoing director of national intelligence, officials said. " In other words, the report that the Kremlin stole the election should be prepared by the time Trump is expected to be sworn in.

    "We are going to make public as much as we can," the spokesman added. "This is a major priority for the president."

    The move comes after Democrats in Congress pressed the White House to reveal details, to Congress or to the public, of Russian hacking and disinformation in the election.

    On Oct. 7, one month before the election, the Department of Homeland Security and the Director of National Intelligence announced that "the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of emails from U.S. persons and institutions, including from U.S. political organizations." "These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the U.S. election process," they said.

    Trump dismissed those findings in an interview published Wednesday by Time magazine for its "Person of the Year" award. Asked if the intelligence was politicized, Trump answered: "I think so."

    "I don't believe they interfered," he said. "It could be Russia. And it could be China. And it could be some guy in his home in New Jersey."

    Worried that Trump will sweep the issue under the rug after his inauguration, seven Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee called on Nov. 29 for the White House to declassify what it knows about Russian interference. The seven have already been briefed on the classified details, suggesting they believe there is more information the public should know. On Tuesday this week, leading House Democrats called on Obama to give members of the entire Congress a classified briefing on Russian interference, from hacking to the spreading of fake news stories to mislead U.S. voters.

    Republicans in Congress have also promised hearings into Russian activities once the new administration comes in.

    Obama's homeland security adviser Lisa Monaco said the cyberinterference goes back to the 2008 presidential race, when both the Obama and John McCain campaigns were hit by malicious computer intrusions.

    * * *

    An interesting aside to emerge from last night's hit piece and the Trump team response is that there is now a full blown turf war between Trump and the CIA, as NBC's Chuck Todd observed in a series of late Friday tweets:

    The implication in the Trump transition statement is that he doesn't believe a single thing from the CIA

    - Chuck Todd (@chucktodd) December 10, 2016

    Is the next Commander-in-Chief is signaling that the CIA won't be a major player in his national security team?

    - Chuck Todd (@chucktodd) December 10, 2016

    So stunned by the Trump transition statement on the Post-CIA-Russia story that I half expect a walk back by tomorrow

    - Chuck Todd (@chucktodd) December 10, 2016

    How helpful is it for the CIA's reputation around the world if the next US questions their findings so publicly? Good luck Mike Pompeo

    - Chuck Todd (@chucktodd) December 10, 2016

    To which Glenn Greenwald provided the best counterargument:

    Yes, the CIA's sterling reputation around the world for truth-telling and integrity might be sullied if someone doubts their claims...https://t.co/2uyQXvFdOK - Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) December 10, 2016

    When is it hardest to get people not to blindly accept anonymous, evidence-free CIA claims? When it's very pleasing to believe them. - Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) December 10, 2016

    However, of the mini Tweetstorm, this was the most important aspect: the veiled suggestion that in addition to Russia, both the FBI and the Obama presidency prevented Hillary from becoming the next US president...

    While Obama's FBI director smeared Hillary, Obama sat on evidence of Russian efforts to elect Trump that had basis in evidence.

    - Franklin Foer (@FranklinFoer) December 10, 2016

    ... which in light of these stunning new unproven and baseless allegations, she may very well have renewed aspirations toward.

    * * *

    So while there is no "there" there following the WaPo's latest attempt to fan the rarging fires of evidence-free propaganda, or as the WaPo itself would say "fake news", here is why the story has dramatic implications. First, the only two quotes which matter:

    "...there is no clear evidence - even now," said Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and a member of the Trump transition team. "There's a lot of innuendo, lots of circumstantial evidence, that's it."

    * * *

    "...Obama wants the report before he leaves office Jan. 20, Monaco said. The review will be led by [PROVEN LIAR] James Clapper, the outgoing director of national intelligence, officials said."

    And then the summary:

    1. Announce "consensus" (not unanimous) "conclusion" based in circumstantial evidence now, before the Electoral College vote, then write a report with actual details due by Jan 20.
    2. Put a proven liar in charge of writing the report on Russian hacking.
    3. Fail to mention that not one of the leaked DNC or Podesta emails has been shown to be inauthentic. So the supposed Russian hacking simply revealed truth about Hillary, DNC, and MSM collusion and corruption.
    4. Fail to mention that if hacking was done by or for US government to stop Hillary, blaming the Russians would be the most likely disinformation used by US agencies.
    5. Expect every pro-Hillary lapdog journalist - which is virtually all of them - in America will hyperventilate (Twitter is currently on fire) about this latest fact-free, anti-Trump political stunt for the next nine days.

    Or, as a reader put it, this is a soft coup attempt by leaders of Intel community and Obama Admin to influence the Electoral College vote, similar to the 1960s novel " Seven Days in May ."

    Nemontel Dec 10, 2016 9:13 AM ,

    Trump is the first more or less independent candidate in decades. Most of our politicians are chosen by the Oligarchy.

    http://www.truthjustice.net/politics/chosen-leaders-proven-failures/

    Keyser -> TeamDepends Dec 10, 2016 9:22 AM ,
    Once again it's a case of "watch the shiny object"... The "secret CIA report" seems to focus on who leaked the documents to Wikileaks and not the content of those documents... The left have not refuted that the emails are real, just who leaked them to Assange... Fuck 'em, if they keep Trump from the white house there will be revolution...
    manofthenorth -> Manthong Dec 10, 2016 10:55 AM ,
    And the song remains the same; From none other than the Washington Post, oh the irony.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/10/13/the-long-hi...

    "Aside from its instigation of coups and alliances with right-wing juntas, Washington sought to more subtly influence elections in all corners of the world. And so did Moscow. Political scientist Dov Levin calculates that the "two powers intervened in 117 elections around the world from 1946 to 2000 - an average of once in every nine competitive elections."

    In the late 1940s, the newly established CIA cut its teeth in Western Europe, pushing back against some of the continent's most influential leftist parties and labor unions. In 1948, the United States propped up Italy's centrist Christian Democrats and helped ensure their electoral victory against a leftist coalition, anchored by one of the most powerful communist parties in Europe. CIA operatives gave millions of dollars to their Italian allies and helped orchestrate what was then an unprecedented, clandestine propaganda campaign : This included forging documents to besmirch communist leaders via fabricated sex scandals, starting a mass letter-writing campaign from Italian Americans to their compatriots, and spreading hysteria about a Russian takeover and the undermining of the Catholic Church.

    "We had bags of money that we delivered to selected politicians, to defray their political expenses, their campaign expenses, for posters, for pamphlets," recounted F. Mark Wyatt , the CIA officer who handled the mission and later participated in more than 2½ decades of direct support to the Christian Democrats.

    This template spread everywhere : CIA operative Edward G. Lansdale, notorious for his efforts to bring down the North Vietnamese government, is said to have run the successful 1953 campaign of Philippines President Ramon Magsaysay. Japan's center-right Liberal Democratic Party was backed with secret American funds through the 1950s and the 1960s. The U.S. government and American oil corporations helped Christian parties in Lebanon win crucial elections in 1957 with briefcases full of cash.

    In Chile, the United States prevented Allende from winning an election in 1964. "A total of nearly four million dollars was spent on some fifteen covert action projects, ranging from organizing slum dwellers to passing funds to political parties," detailed a Senate inquiry in the mid-1970s that started to expose the role of the CIA in overseas elections. When it couldn't defeat Allende at the ballot box in 1970, Washington decided to remove him anyway."

    Manthong -> ThaBigPerm Dec 10, 2016 12:16 PM ,

    This is in the UK Express. So it has to be true.

    A US Official has claimed the Russians are out to get Merkel in a cyber campaign.

    A CIA probe confirms Moscow helped Trump win the election.

    "In both cases, said the official, Mr. Putin's campaigns in both Europe and the US are intended to disrupt and discredit the Western concept of democracy by promoting extremist candidates, parties, and political figures."

    http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/741960/russia-angela-merkel-germany-election-cyber-attack-plot-us-official-cia

    Isn't it grand that we get all this great, comprehensive information from the modern MSM?

    The Express and WaPo are in a class unto themselves.

    Creative_Destruct -> TruthHunter Dec 10, 2016 1:02 PM ,
    Both WAPO , & C.TODD would NOT be missed. Per Todd: "How helpful is it for the CIA's reputation around the world if the next US questions their findings so publicly?"

    Todd is concerned about The CIA's "Reputation" ?????? AS IF its current rep is wonderful??? - TODD: There is no "reputation" to damage!!! Lame brain !!

    zhandax -> Creative_Destruct Dec 10, 2016 3:08 PM ,
    17 intelligence agencies? Is this some dystopian record?

    "There's a lot of innuendo, lots of circumstantial evidence, that's it."

    So these 'intelligence' agencies are in the same boat as the pizzgate crowd. The main difference is after failing to produce any actionable evidence the pizzagate crowd will loose interest and move on. We still have to give the bureaucrats at these intelligence agencies a paycheck next month.

    There needs to be one yuge housecleaning.

    Kidbuck -> Pinto Currency Dec 10, 2016 12:03 PM ,
    Russians are training the illegals in secret camps in the Sierra Madre mountains before they are released into the US. I was there and saw it. Bigfoot was guarding the entrance.
    Jim in MN -> cossack55 Dec 10, 2016 12:15 PM ,
    The only WMDs around here are on WEINER'S LAPTOP. That laptop is the real 'shiny object'. Eyes on the prize, folks.
    Omen IV -> manofthenorth Dec 10, 2016 1:16 PM ,
    Obama & The Presstitutes: Legalized DOMESTIC Propaganda to American Citizens The National Defense Authorization Act of July 2013 (NDAA) included an amendment that legalized the use of propaganda on the American public. The amendment - originally proposed by Mac Thornberry (R-Texas) and Adam Smith (D-Wash.) and passed – nullified the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948, which explicitly forbids information and psychological operations aimed at influencing U.S. public opinion. The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012 allowed U.S. propaganda intended to influence foreign audiences to be used on the domestic population.

    Signed by .. Obama. This Act formalized systems in place covertly or ad hoc for some time.

    This Russia CIA Program aimed at US Citizens is part of the OBAMA FRAUD to cover the crimes of Clinton et al. The MSM and especially the NYT is the epi-center of "Fake News" The Smith-Mundt Modernization Bill was incorporated into the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (H.R.4310) . The Smith-Mundt provisions weren't part of the bill when it was originally introduced, but were added on May 18, 2012. included in amendment 1140 , which was approved by roll call vote 288 . http://foreignpolicy.com/channel/the-cable/ http://www.businessinsider.com/ndaa-legalizes-propaganda-2012-5

    beemasters -> Manthong Dec 10, 2016 11:18 AM ,
    Hillary was a big threat to Russia security. Trump was willing to work with Russia. Does anyone really believe Russia has absolutely no part to play in Trump's win? Think again. They should and I think they did! Whether it was an illegal intervention would be another question.
    Bay of Pigs -> beemasters Dec 10, 2016 11:36 AM ,
    Thinking is one thing. Proving it is another. And what do you "think" about the CIA and Victoria Nuland's role in toppling the elected government in the Ukraine? How about NATO expansion for decades under Clinton, Bush and Obama? Aren't these DIRECT THREATS against Putin and Russia? Yes, they most certainly are. Fuck the CIA They do far more harm than good for the people in the USA.
    Krungle -> beemasters Dec 10, 2016 12:53 PM ,
    Hillary was a threat to life on Earth. She made it clear her intent was to wage war against Russia (and probably China). Obviously the US has been conducting cyberwarfare, psyops and propaganda against Russia, as this has been documented in the past. Russia's response may merely have been presenting authentic information via RT/Sputnik/etc. and putting clips of Putin online where he sounds like a rational human being. In other words, they may be guilty of nothing more than providing Americans with the truth, much as America did with the Soviets.
    mccvilb -> Greyhat Dec 10, 2016 12:03 PM ,
    That was exactly what this brought to mind for me - a John F Kennedy moment, but not his assassination. I was thinking of an earlier time well before this., ie, Nikita Krushev banging the table at the UN with his shoe. The state of the nation - people were in a panic because Russia let it be known it was about to bring nuclear missiles into Cuba. It was a ploy by the Russians and Krushev to de-escalate the tensions between the two countries over our attempt to take out Castro and the Bay of Pigs Invasion.

    Fade to today. Why would the Russians care who won the presidency? Hillary the war monger or the Donald, the negotiator? Ahh, maybe because we just brought into Turkey then consequently moved fifty nuclear missiles into position along Russia's border? Who authorized and ordered that? Would that be any cause for worry by Russia or its citizenry? Is that or is it not total insanity? Total fuckery? Obama and Hillary have put us four minutes away from a worldwide nuclear holocaust and now they are trying to make Trump look like he was in bed with Putin. I don't know what Trump is but I do know he and Putin are the only two people on the same wavelength right now, thank the electoral college.

    Kayman -> nmewn Dec 10, 2016 10:08 AM ,
    Bay of Pigs, Saddam's Weapons of Mass Destruction. The CIA will fabricate any truth you would like. The Deep State has shit its' pants.
    Smiddywesson -> Eirik Magnus Larssen Dec 10, 2016 10:51 AM ,
    You are delusional, dishonest, ignrorant, and proud of it. Fortunately, YOU LOST.

    After a year of MSM propaganda and lies, you are now obsessed with "fake news" ironically the kind that totally obliterated your propaganda for the lies that they were.

    After a year of cackling laughter when every two bit dictator and NWO globalist bad mouthed Trump, like a child, you are OUTRAGED that Russia might have not wanted Hillary to take power and make war against it. At least Russia didn't PUBLICALLY attempt to influence an American election LIKE HILLARY'S NWO GOONS DID FROM THEIR EXECUTIVE OFFICES.

    The popular vote: Ignoring fraud, which was proven in the Michigan recount, Hillary supporters are trying to make hay out of her garnering 2.6 million more votes than Trump. Besides the fact that this is irrelevant in a campaign for the electoral college, 2.6 million votes is only somewhere @0.7% of the US population. That's hardly a mandate, especially when we consider she only had that dubious edge over Trump, not the entire playing field. There were other candidate you know.

    I'm sorry, I forgot, YOU LOST, and you think you can spoil our good time with the assertion that the better candidate was Hillary. LOL, losers.

    Chris Dakota -> Eirik Magnus Larssen Dec 10, 2016 11:41 AM ,
    Trump is a wildcard, we all knew that when we voted for him.

    Hillary is a witchcard and we all knew what she would do.

    Bernie wasn't even a choice, Hillary had him as a straw man opponent.

    Rand Paul to me was the best choice but establishment didn't want him, Gay media wanted Trump because they thought Hillary could beat him and many of the Ron Paulers still butthurt over him endorsing Romney. Never mind Ron Paul didn't even put up a fight when they robbed him of the nomination he won.

    Trump is a fighter, something we felt we needed.

    Freddie -> Moe Hamhead Dec 10, 2016 10:40 AM ,
    Go back to the 1960s. Phillp Graham and his wife rans Wa Post. Phillip got a young girl friend and started going off the reservation saying WaPo was becoming a mouthpiece for the See Eye Ah. He was going to divorce his wife. He then was commited to an insane asylum, released and then killed himself with a shotgun.

    http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/2935-philip-graham/&p...

    Phil's wife was the daughter of Eugene Meyer who ran The Fed.

    Watergate was not what you were told. Nixon wanted tariffs and the Rockefellers (who myguess started the CIA - David was an OSS officer in WW2) got mad at their boy Nixon. Nixon hated George Bush and did not trust him. All the info the Wa Post got on Nixon was C**IIA info to Ben Bradley, editor of Wa Post, probably from George Bush. All of Nixons,relatively minor, dirt was passed from See EYE Ah to Wa Post. Woodward and Bernstein just typed it up.

    Bradley was brther in law to Cord Meyer (operation mockingbird). Cord's wife (Mary Pinchot-Meyer) had an ongoing affair with JFK. After he was killed, she was gonna spill the beans like Marilyn Monroe. She was killed taking a walk. Ben BRadley and the See EYE Ah rush to her apartment to get her diary.

    War Machine -> Chupacabra-322 Dec 10, 2016 2:51 PM ,
    the CIA has been arming Al Qaeda and (likely) 'ISIS'.

    It is very probable US forces will be killed by these weapons.

    Add to that the small issue of the hundreds of thousands of people, Christian and non-Salafist/non-Wahhabi Muslims murdered by the Islamopsycho and Acadami etc. private western mercs.

    There have to be good, patriotic Americans within CIA These intelligence reports are obvious fictions: The agitprop of a neocon/zionist Deep State that fully intends to expand the wars, target Iran and Russia, while sending American blood and treasure to pay their bill.

    And now they are going to try to overturn an election in which Clinton not only lost by the rules of our system, but in which Clinton's 'popular vote' win was the product of illegal immigrant and other fraudulent voting.

    all of which means they are also willing to risk civil war.

    Vatican_cameo -> Keyser Dec 10, 2016 9:27 AM

    Kennedy knew that the CIA was nothing but a group of Useless, Meddling, Lying Assholes, and made it known Publicly. Unfortunately for him, things didn't turn out all that well. "Wetwork" is never in shortage with that crew.

    MilwaukeeMark -> Vatican_cameo Dec 10, 2016 9:44 AM ,
    I have developed a begrudging admiration for Stalin. He knew how to decapitate the hydra and keep it under his control.
    tmosley -> Vatican_cameo Dec 10, 2016 9:44 AM ,
    Praetorian Guard Redux. Any nation that embraces secret police will find itself ruled by them in short order.
    Uzda Farce -> Vatican_cameo Dec 10, 2016 11:32 AM ,
    Most CIA directors are/were members of the Rockefeller/CFR including: Morell, Petraeus, Hayden, Tenet, Deutch, Woolsey, Gates, Webster, Casey, Turner, Bush, Colby, Schlesinger, Helms, McCone and Allen Dulles. Also every Fed chairman since WW2. See member lists at cfr dot org.

    "I have discussed Council on Foreign Relations Team A vs. Team B for 35 years. I have seen two anti-CFR people get through the [presidential] screening... The domestic policies of both CFR wings are the same: the maintenance of the American Empire... There is no possibility of [outsiders] capturing power at the top of either party..."

    http://archive.lewrockwell.com/north/north1193.html

    https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/the-cfr-the-cia-and-the-banks/

    [Dec 10, 2016] Why the US elite loves so much to demonise Russia

    Highly recommended!
    Notable quotes:
    "... In principle, every router between the DNC server and Russia has the potential to be hacked, with a tunnel added to send the traffic somewhere else in the world with new source and destination addresses. This is known as router table poisoning. It is preventable but the mechanisms are rarely ever used because the security services want to be able to do this themselves. There are some nice logs of the NSA using this. ..."
    "... In principle, someone at an ISP or backbone service could have had a laptop plugged into a switch or router to do the same thing, or lit up a strand of dark fibre to let some uber-wealthy business do this. And there's no shortage of uber-wealthy businesses who aren't keen on Democrats. This technique is used for local and remote network diagnostics, no reason it can't be used nefarious, it's not like the hardware cares why a wire is plugged in. ..."
    "... Russia has an independent foreign policy and acts in what it perceives as it's own best interests. It has refused to become a vassal state of the West and is a threat to the Empire's full-spectrum dominance. Worst of all it has begun trading outside the $US in energy and other resources with China and Iran. ..."
    "... Mainstream media are now busy repressing any news and any questioning about facts ..."
    "... Western media are in full panic as Aleppo falls with all sorts of gruesome tales about the mistreatment of their favorite terrorists in Aleppo and a strange silence on the whereabouts of their '250K civilians' under siege ..."
    "... I cant believe the Fake News outlets are still making a big deal about this issue. Obomber is leaving in a cloud of failure as he deserves ..."
    "... "Propaganda is to a democracy what the bludgeon is to a totalitarian state." ― Noam Chomsky, Media Control: The Spectacular Achievements of Propaganda. ..."
    "... New Canadian documentary - All Governments Lie. "It lucidly argues that powerful interests have been creating supercharged fake stories for decades to advance their own nefarious interests. And the institutional media have too often blithely played along." The Globe and Mail. ..."
    "... No comments about Seth Rich the DNC staffer Assange hinted had leaked the Podesta emails to Wikileaks and was subsequently shot multiple times and died at 04:20 on a Washington DC street in a 'motiveless' crime in which none of his possessions were taken. ..."
    "... The rise of the right wing in Europe is due to the fact that Social Democratic parties have completely sold out to neo-liberal agenda. ..."
    "... So Putin's plan to undermine U.S. voter confidence was to simply show what actually happens behind the scenes at the DNC, how diabolical! ..."
    "... Peter Schweizer, the author of Clinton Cash, has published a report that claims that that Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta was on the executive board of a foreign company that received $35 million from the Kremlin. "The company was a transparent Russian front, and how much Podesta was compensated - and for what - is unclear. In addition, Podesta failed to disclose his position on that board to the Federal government, as required by law," John Schindler of the Observer wrote. ..."
    "... So it's true because the CIA said so. That's the gold standard for me. ..."
    "... "Truth is Treason in the Empire of Lies" - Ron Paul ..."
    "... At least Tucker Carlson is able to see through the BS and asks searching question. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRkeGkCjdHg ..."
    "... President-elect Donald Trump's transition team said in a statement Friday afternoon that the same people who claim Russia interfered in the presidential election had previously claimed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. ..."
    "... The neoliberal corporate machine is wounded but not dead. They will use every trick, ploy and opportunity to try to regain power. The fight goes on. ..."
    "... Good occasion to substantiate the accusation which ,substantiated or not,will remind the "useful idiots" of the "change of regime " US policy and who started the Ukrainian crisis. ..."
    "... Just another chapter in the sad saga of the Democrats unwillingness to admit they ran the worst candidate & the worst campaign in recent memory. It's not our fault! Them dirty Russkies did it! ..."
    Dec 09, 2016 | www.theguardian.com

    From: Barack Obama orders 'full review' of possible Russian hacking in US election Spncer Ackerman in New York and David Smith in Washington

    Geoff Smythe , 24m ago

    Well, if Rupert Mudroach, an American citizen, can influence the Australian elections, who gives a stuff about anyone else's involvement in US politics?

    The US loves demonising Russia, even supporting ISIS to fight against them.

    The United States of Amnesia just can't understand that they are run by the military machine.

    As Frank Zappa once correctly stated: The US government is just the entertainment unit of the Military.

    Nataliefreeman, 11 Dec 2016

    Altogether the only thing people are accusing the Russians of is the WikiLeaks scandal. And in hindsight of the enormous media bias toward Trump it really comes of as little more than leveling the playing field. Hardly the sort of democratic subversion that is being suggested.

    And of course there is another problem and that is in principle, the DNC server could have had malware in an e-mail that set up a NAT entry that made the connecting computer appear somewhere else, with the entry deleted afterwards. Typically, IP table modifications aren't logged, so this would not be detectable.

    In principle, the DNC server could have had malware in an e-mail that ran a SED script at a specific time that changed any occurrence of one IP address with another. Not sure anyone would bother with this, but it's why good system admins place so much emphasis on securing logs. However, it's obvious we're not talking about good admins.

    In principle, every router between the DNC server and Russia has the potential to be hacked, with a tunnel added to send the traffic somewhere else in the world with new source and destination addresses. This is known as router table poisoning. It is preventable but the mechanisms are rarely ever used because the security services want to be able to do this themselves. There are some nice logs of the NSA using this.

    In principle, someone along the way could tap into the fibre, spoofing IP addresses and injecting/sniffing packets. The US even has a submarine designed for this, but optics aren't complex and any number of neo-phone phreaks could have the hardware.

    In principle, someone at an ISP or backbone service could have had a laptop plugged into a switch or router to do the same thing, or lit up a strand of dark fibre to let some uber-wealthy business do this. And there's no shortage of uber-wealthy businesses who aren't keen on Democrats. This technique is used for local and remote network diagnostics, no reason it can't be used nefarious, it's not like the hardware cares why a wire is plugged in.

    In principle, the supposed destination machine could have been hacked to relay the packets in encrypted form to the South Pole or a college campus in Texas. There are many examples of client machines being hacked to do this. It's basically what zombie machines are in botnets.

    In practice, it is flat-out guaranteed that none of the security agencies could distinguish this from a Russian attack. Nothing in the area monitored could tell the difference. We know, for a fact, that college kids spoofing a scan from China have fooled the DoD and NSA on previous occasions, it has caused international incidents.

    So we have known forms of attack that are known to exist, aren't complex and in some cases are already used for attacks. They are 100% untraceable.

    HollyOldDog -> Nataliefreeman, 11 Dec 2016 01:4
    Don't know about Russians, but in the early 2000's the Ukrainian hackers had some nasty viruses embedded in email attachments that could fuckup ARM based computers.
    smellycat -> waltercarl67, 11 Dec 2016 00:0
    Time to stop attempting regime change in other countries then, if you condemn it in your own. What goes around comes around.
    caveOfShadows , 10 Dec 2016 23:1
    European governments tried to elect Hillary Clinton. Latin American and Asian allies of the US tried to elect Clinton.

    Top leaders of France, the UK, Germany, all leaked to US newspapers, with dire warnings of how Trump's election would lead to bad outcomes.

    Many countries made as clear as possible, without coming out officially for a candidate, that they were for the election of Clinton.

    Mexico tried to get Clinton elected. Believe me, they did. Not officially, of course, but almost.

    But all we hear about is Russia.

    Wonder why???

    uyCybershy -> caveOfShadows , 10 Dec 2016 23:1
    Russia has an independent foreign policy and acts in what it perceives as it's own best interests. It has refused to become a vassal state of the West and is a threat to the Empire's full-spectrum dominance. Worst of all it has begun trading outside the $US in energy and other resources with China and Iran.
    imperfetto , 10 Dec 2016 23:0
    Mainstream media are now busy repressing any news and any questioning about facts, as the last battle in their support to jidaists fighting the Syrian Army. This is the dark pit where our so called free press has fallen into.
    Flugler -> imperfetto , 10 Dec 2016 23:1
    Yep had a chat with an army mate yesterday asked him what the fcuk the supposed head of MI6 was on about regarding Russian support for Syrian govt suggesting Russian actions made terrorism more likely here in UK. He shrugged his shoulders and said he hoped Putin wiped the terrorists out...
    smellycat -> imperfetto , 10 Dec 2016 23:4
    Western media are in full panic as Aleppo falls with all sorts of gruesome tales about the mistreatment of their favorite terrorists in Aleppo and a strange silence on the whereabouts of their '250K civilians' under siege

    Of course no news on the danger to the civilians of W,Aleppo, who have been bombarded indiscriminately for months by the 'moderates' in the east of the city or the danger to the civilians of Palmyra, Mosul or al Bab.

    Geoff Smythe -> smellycat , 11 Dec 2016 01:3
    Or the 50,000 that have been evacuated out of Aleppo by the Russian military. https://www.rt.com/news/369869-syria-evacuation-civilians-aleppo /
    Merseysidefella , 10 Dec 2016 21:5
    I cant believe the Fake News outlets are still making a big deal about this issue. Obomber is leaving in a cloud of failure as he deserves. I´ll still look for the Guardian articles on football which are excellent.
    Cheers!
    GuyCybershy -> confettifoot , 10 Dec 2016 21:0
    The Sanders movement inside the Democratic party did offer some hope but this was snuffed out by the DNC and the Clinton campaign in collusion with the media. This is what likely caused her defeat in November and not some Kremlin intrigue.
    dopamineboy , 10 Dec 2016 20:5
    "Propaganda is to a democracy what the bludgeon is to a totalitarian state." ― Noam Chomsky, Media Control: The Spectacular Achievements of Propaganda.
    dopamineboy , 10 Dec 2016 20:5
    "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality," Karl Rove.
    caveOfShadows -> dopamineboy , 10 Dec 2016 23:1
    Don't use quotes when you are doing a fake attribution.
    dopamineboy , 10 Dec 2016 20:4
    New Canadian documentary - All Governments Lie. "It lucidly argues that powerful interests have been creating supercharged fake stories for decades to advance their own nefarious interests. And the institutional media have too often blithely played along." The Globe and Mail.
    joinupthedots , 10 Dec 2016 20:4
    Fake news....No news.....None sense news?

    Uncle Sam has been doing it for years and the degree of incestuousness between MSM and the "Agencies" is all right here (just one example)

    http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKmeyerM.htm

    smellycat -> joinupthedots , 10 Dec 2016 20:5
    That's some serious shit
    '"The same sons of bitches," he hissed, "that killed John F. Kennedy."
    stoneshepherd , 10 Dec 2016 20:2
    No comments about Seth Rich the DNC staffer Assange hinted had leaked the Podesta emails to Wikileaks and was subsequently shot multiple times and died at 04:20 on a Washington DC street in a 'motiveless' crime in which none of his possessions were taken.

    Hmmm....

    Flugler -> stoneshepherd , 10 Dec 2016 20:3
    Distract the masses with bullsh*t , nothing new... Trump needs to double up on his personal security, he has doubled down on the CIA tonight bringing upmtheir bullsh*t on WMD. Thing are getting interesting...
    Liesandstats , 10 Dec 2016 19:2
    Meanwhile the good guys with their Smart bombs indulge in a spot of collateral damage. (Or war crimes as it's described when Russians do it).

    https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/breaking-90-iraqi-soldiers-killed-in-mosul-from-us-airstrikes/

    This article is jiberish, as are the ones trying to say that the Russians caused Brexit.

    GuyCybershy -> sunflowerxyz , 10 Dec 2016 19:3
    The rise of the right wing in Europe is due to the fact that Social Democratic parties have completely sold out to neo-liberal agenda.
    Powerspike , 10 Dec 2016 19:1
    Spreading lies about the very real Podesta emails and their importance seems to be a fake news stock in trade. Since Hillary was responsible I'm not sure where Putin comes into the picture.
    https://theintercept.com/2016/12/09/a-clinton-fan-manufactured-fake-news-that-msnbc-personalities-spread-to-discredit-wikileaks-docs /
    GuyCybershy , 10 Dec 2016 19:0
    So Putin's plan to undermine U.S. voter confidence was to simply show what actually happens behind the scenes at the DNC, how diabolical!
    Powerspike , 10 Dec 2016 18:3
    "If we can revert to the truth, then a great deal of one's suffering can be erased, because a great deal of one's suffering is based on sheer lies. "
    R. D. Laing
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    US politicians and the MSM depend on sheer lies.....
    Powerspike -> KassandraTroy , 10 Dec 2016 18:5
    They are playing a game. They are playing at not playing a game. If I show them I see they are, I shall break the rules and they will punish me. I must play their game, of not seeing I see the game.
    R. D. Laing
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++
    I'm sick of jumping through their hoops - how about you?
    James7 , 10 Dec 2016 17:2
    "Tin Foil Hat" Hillary--
    "This is not about politics or partisanship," she went on. "Lives are at risk, lives of ordinary people just trying to go about their days to do their jobs, contribute to their communities. It is a danger that must be addressed and addressed quickly."

    We fail to see how Russian propaganda has put people's lives directly at risk. Unless, of course, Hillary is suggesting that the increasingly-bizarre #Pizzagate swarm journalism campaign (which apparently caused a man to shoot up a floor tile in a D.C. pizza shop) was conjured up by a bunch of Russian trolls.

    And this is about as absurd as saying Russian trolls were why Trump got elected.

    "It needs to be said," former counterintelligence agent John R. Schindler (who, by the way, believes Assange and Snowden are both Russian plants), writes in the Observer, "that nearly all of the liberals eagerly pontificating about how Putin put Trump in office know nothing about 21st century espionage, much less Russia's unique spy model and how it works. Indeed, some of the most ardent advocates of this Kremlin-did-it conspiracy theory were big fans of Snowden and Wikileaks -- right until clandestine Russian shenanigans started to hurt Democrats. Now, they're panicking."

    (Nonetheless, #Pizzagate and Trump, IMHO, are manifestations of a population which deeply deeply distrusts the handlers and gatekeepers of the status quo. Justified or not. And with or without Putin's shadowy fingers strumming its magic hypno-harp across the Land of the Free. This runs deeper than just Putin.)

    Fake news has always been around, from the fake news which led Americans to believe the Pearl Harbor attack was a surprise and completely unprovoked .

    To the fake news campaigns put out by Edward Bernays tricking women into believing cigarettes were empowering little phallics of feminism. (AKA "Torches of Freedom.")

    This War on Fake News has more to do with the elites finally realizing how little control they have over the minds of the unwashed masses. Rather, this is a war on the freaks, geeks and weirdos who've formed a decentralized and massively-influential media right under their noses.

    Laissez Faire Today

    James7 -> fedback , 10 Dec 2016 17:3
    and there may be some truth to that. An article says has delved into financial matters in Russia.

    Kremlin Connection? The TRUTH About Hillary's Shady Ties To Russia REVEALED
    Find out why insiders say Clinton has some explaining to do.

    Americans have no idea just how closely Hillary Clinton is tied to the Kremlin! That's the shocking claim of a new report that alleges the Democratic nominee is secretly pals with Vladimir Putin and his countrymen.

    Peter Schweizer, the author of Clinton Cash, has published a report that claims that that Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta was on the executive board of a foreign company that received $35 million from the Kremlin. "The company was a transparent Russian front, and how much Podesta was compensated - and for what - is unclear. In addition, Podesta failed to disclose his position on that board to the Federal government, as required by law," John Schindler of the Observer wrote.

    As Radar previously reported, when Clinton was secretary of state, she profited from the "Russian Reset," a failed attempt to improve relations between the U.S. and Russia.

    chweizer wrote, "Many of the key figures in the Skolkovo process - on both the Russian and U.S. sides - had major financial ties to the Clintons. During the Russian reset, these figures and entities provided the Clintons with tens of millions of dollars, including contributions to the Clinton Foundation, paid for speeches by Bill Clinton, or investments in small start-up companies with deep Clinton ties." Schweizer also details "Skolkovo," a Silicon Valley-like campus that both the U.S. and Russia worked on for developing biomed, space, nuclear and IT technologies. He told the New York Post that there was a "pattern that shows a high percentage of participants in Skolkovo who happen to be Clinton Foundation donors."

    BaronVonAmericano , 10 Dec 2016 17:0
    So it's true because the CIA said so. That's the gold standard for me.

    So let me be the first to thank Russia for providing us with their research.

    Instead of assassination, coup or invasion, they simply showed us our leaders' own words when written behind the public's backs.

    I'm no fan of Putin, but this was a useful bit of intelligence you've shared with us.
    Happy Christmas, Vlad.

    Next time why not provide us with the email of all our banks and fossil fuel companies; you can help us clean up both political parties with one fell swoop that way.

    GuyCybershy -> BaronVonAmericano , 10 Dec 2016 17:0
    "Truth is Treason in the Empire of Lies" - Ron Paul
    greyford14 -> GuyCybershy , 10 Dec 2016 17:1
    Be careful there, Ron Paul is an FSB agent of Putin, according to the Washington Post.
    elias_ , 10 Dec 2016 17:0
    At least Tucker Carlson is able to see through the BS and asks searching question.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRkeGkCjdHg
    GuyCybershy -> elias_ , 10 Dec 2016 17:1
    Dems are so out to lunch that they make FOX pundits seem sane. I would say the Democratic party is beyond hope of saving.
    sblejo , 10 Dec 2016 16:4
    The U.S. is getting what it deserves, IF Russia was even dumb enough to meddle. The government in this country has been meddling in other countries' affairs sixty years, in the Middle East, in South America and other places we don't even know about. The result is mayhem, all in the 'interests' of the U.S., as it is described.
    Burnaby1000 , 10 Dec 2016 16:4
    Note that most supporters of the Russian hacks never (and cannot) present rational arguments, just dubious talking points--AKA Fake News.

    But it is fun to spot the gaps in their logic, and the holes in their stories.

    Great sport--rather like hunting hares.

    GuyCybershy -> Burnaby1000 , 10 Dec 2016 16:4
    We need to trust the CIA, they'd never fix evidence to manipulate the American public.
    BaronVonAmericano -> Burnaby1000 , 10 Dec 2016 16:5
    Where's the gap in this logic:
    A) The American public has been offered ZERO proof of hacking by the Russian government to alter our election.
    B) Even if true, no one has disputed the authenticity of the emails hacked.
    C) Therefore, the WORST Russia could have done is show us who are own leader are when they don't think we're listening.
    D) Taken together, this article is pretty close to fake news, and gives us nothing that should outrage us much at this time -- unless we are trying to foment war with Russia or call for a military coup against the baboon about to take the oath of office.
    foolisholdman , 10 Dec 2016 16:3
    Hacking by unnamed individuals. No direct involvement of the Russian government, only implied, alleged, etc. Seems to me that if Hillary had obeyed the law and not schemed behind the scenes to sabotage Bernie S. there would have been nothing to leak! Really this is all about being caught with fer fingers in the cookie jar. Does it matter who leaked it? Did the US public not have a right to know what the people they were voting for had been up to? It's a bit like the governor of a province being filmed burgling someone's house and then complaining that someone had leaked the film to the media, just when he was trying to get re-elected!
    GuyCybershy -> foolisholdman , 10 Dec 2016 16:3
    The US public has a right to know what CNN, New York Times and the Washington Post want them to know.
    sblejo -> foolisholdman , 10 Dec 2016 16:4
    It is called passing the buck, and because of the underhanded undermining of Bernie Sanders, who was winning, we have Trump. Thank you Democratic party.
    aidanfahey , 10 Dec 2016 16:3
    I am disappointed that the Guardian gives so much prominence to such speculation which is almost totally irrelevant. Why would we necessarily (a) believe what the superspies tell us and (b) even if it is true why should we care?

    I am also very disappointed at the Guardians attitude to Putin, the elected leader of Russia, who was so badly treated by the US from the moment he took over from Yeltsin. I was in Russia as a visitor around that time and it was obvious that Putin restored some dignity to the Russian people after the disastrous Yeltsin term of office. If the US had been willing to deal with him with respect the world could be a much better place today. Instead the US insisted in trying to subvert his rule with the support of its supine NATO allies in order to satisfy its corporate rulers.

    GuyCybershy -> aidanfahey , 10 Dec 2016 16:5
    They expected Russia to fall apart like the USSR and then they could march in and pick up the pieces. Putin prevented this and this why they hate him.
    NickinHalifaxNS , 10 Dec 2016 16:2
    If this is true, the US can hardly complain. After all, the US has a long record of interfering in other countries' elections--including CIA overthrow of elected governments and their replacement with murderous, oppressive, right-wing dictatorships.

    If the worst that Russia did was reveal the truth about what Democratic Party figures were saying behind closed doors, I'd say it helped correct the unbalanced media focus on preventing Trump from becoming President. Call it the globalization of elections.

    BaronVonAmericano , 10 Dec 2016 15:5
    First, the government has yet to present any persuasive evidence that Russia hacked the DNC or anyone else. All we have is that there is Russian code (meaningless according to cyber-security experts) and seemingly baseless "conclusions" by "intelligence" officials. In other words, fake news at this point.

    Second, even if true, the allegation amounts to an argument that Russia presented us with facts that we shouldn't have seen. Think about that for a while. We are seeing demands that we self-censor ourselves from facts that seem unfair. What utter idiocy.

    This is particularly outrageous given that the U.S. directly intervenes in the governance of any number of nations all the time. We can support coups, arm insurgencies, or directly invade, but god forbid that someone present us with unsettling facts about our ruling class.

    This nation has jumped the shark. The fact that Trump is our president is merely confirmation of this long evident fact. That fighting REAL NEWS of emails whose content has not been disputed is part of our war on "fake news," and the top priority for some so-called liberals, promises only worse to come.

    elias_ , 10 Dec 2016 14:5
    >> Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House intelligence committee, said Russia had "succeeded" in "sow[ing] discord" in the election, and urged as much public disclosure as is possible.

    What utter bullshit. The DNC's own dirty tricks did that. Donna Brasille stealing debate questions and handing them to Hillary so that she could cheat did that. The FBIs investigation into Hillary did that. Podesta's emails did that. The totally one-sided press coverage (apart from Fox) of the election did that. But it seems the american people were smart enough to see through the BS and voted for trump. Good for them.

    And we're gonna need a lot more than the word of a few politicised so-called intelligence agencies to believe this russo-hacking story. These are the same people who lied about Iraqi WMDs so they are proven fakers/liars. These are also the same people who hack EVERYONE else so I, quite frankly, have no sympathy even of the story turns out to be true.

    MrIncredlous , 10 Dec 2016 14:4
    Obama is a disgrace to his office.

    Announce "consensus" (not unanimous) "conclusion" based in circumstantial evidence now, before the Electoral College vote, then write a report with actual details due by Jan 20.
    Put a proven liar in charge of writing the report on Russian hacking.
    Fail to mention that not one of the leaked DNC or Podesta emails has been shown to be inauthentic. So the supposed Russian hacking simply revealed truth about Hillary, DNC, and MSM collusion and corruption.
    Fail to mention that if hacking was done by or for US government to stop Hillary, blaming the Russians would be the most likely disinformation used by US agencies.
    Expect every pro-Hillary lapdog journalist - which is virtually all of them - in America will hyperventilate (Twitter is currently on fire) about this latest fact-free, anti-Trump political stunt for the next nine days.
    Or, as a reader put it, this is a soft coup attempt by leaders of Intel community and Obama Admin to influence the Electoral College vote, similar to the 1960s novel "Seven Days in May."

    DanielDee , 10 Dec 2016 14:4
    When the Department Of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence on Election Security release a joint statement it is not without very careful consideration to the wording.
    Therefore, to understand what is known by the US intelligence services one must analyse the language used.

    https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/10/07/joint-statement-department-homeland-security-and-office-director-national

    This is very telling:
    "The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts."

    Alleged:
    adjective [attributive]
    said, without proof, to have taken place or to have a specified illegal or undesirable quality

    Consistent:
    adjective
    acting or done in the same way over time

    Method:
    noun
    a particular procedure for accomplishing or approaching something

    Motivation:
    noun
    a reason or reasons for acting or behaving in a particular way

    So, what exactly is known by the US intelligence services?

    Well what we can tell is:
    the alleged (without proof) hacks were consistent (done in the same way) with the methods (using a particular procedure) and motivations (and having reason for doing so) with Russian State actions.

    There is absolutely no certainty about this whatsoever.

    elias_ , 10 Dec 2016 14:4
    Thank God Obama will be out of office soon. He is the biggest disappointment ever. He has ordered the death of THOUSANDS via drone strikes in other people's countries and most of the deaths were innocent bystanders. If President Xi of China or Putin were to do that we would all be calling them tyrannical dictators and accusing them of a back door invasions. But somehow people are brainwashed into thinking its ok of the US president to do such things. Truly sickening.
    Flugler , 10 Dec 2016 14:4
    Says the CIA the organisation set up to destabilise governments all over the world. Lol.....
    Congratulations for keeping a straight face I hope Trump makes urgently needed personnel changes in the alphabet soup agencies working against humanity for very many years.
    Susanna246 , 10 Dec 2016 13:1
    Beware --

    This is an extremely dangerous game that Obama and the political elites are playing.

    The American political elites - including senetors, bankers, investors, multinationals et al, can feel power and control slipping away from them.

    This makes them very dangerous people indeed - as self-preservation and holding onto power is their number one priority.

    What they're aiming to do ( a child can see what's coming ), is to call into question the validity of Trump's victory and blame the Russians for it.

    The elites are looking to create chaos and insurrection, to have the result nullified and to vilify Putin and Russia.

    American and Russian troops are already lined up and facing each other along the Eastern European borders and all it takes is one small incident from either side.

    And all because those that have ruled the roost for so many decades ( in the White house, the 2 houses of Congress and Wall St ), simply cannot face losing their positions of power, wealth and political influence.

    They're out to get Trump, the populists and President Putin.

    God help us all.

    MacTavi5h , 10 Dec 2016 12:5
    This is starting to feel like an attempt to make the Trump presidency appear illegitimate. The problem is that it could actually make the democrats look like sore losers instead. We've had the recount, now it's foreign interference. This might harm them in 2020.

    I don't like that Trump won, but he did. The electoral college system is clearly in the constitution and all sides understood and agreed to it at the campaign commencement. Also some, by no means all, of commenters saying that the popular vote should win have also been on referendum BTL saying the result isn't a legitimate leave vote, make your minds up!

    I don't want Trump and I wanted to remain but, by the rules, my sides lost.

    alexfoxy28 , 10 Dec 2016 12:5
    Yet in August, Snowden warned that the recent hack of NSA tied cyber spies was not designed to expose Hillary Clinton, but rather a display of strength by the hackers, showing they could eventually unmask the NSA's own international cyber espionage and prove the U.S. meddles in elections around the world.

    http://yournewswire.com/snowden-claims-russia-can-expose-u-s-meddling-in-foreign-elections /

    nishville , 10 Dec 2016 12:3
    A reader's comment from the Independent:

    Will the CIA be providing evidence to support these allegations or is it a case of "just trust us guys"? In any event, hypocrisy is a national sport for the Yanks. According to a Reuters article 9 August 2016 "NSA operations have, for example, recently delved into elections in Mexico, targeting its last presidential campaign. According to a top-secret PowerPoint presentation leaked by former NSA contract employee Edward Snowden, the operation involved a "surge effort against one of Mexico's leading presidential candidates, Enrique Peña Nieto, and nine of his close associates." Peña won that election and is now Mexico's president.

    The NSA identified Peña's cellphone and those of his associates using advanced software that can filter out specific phones from the swarm around the candidate. These lines were then targeted. The technology, one NSA analyst noted, "might find a needle in a haystack." The analyst described it as "a repeatable and efficient" process.

    The eavesdroppers also succeeded in intercepting 85,489 text messages, a Der Spiegel article noted.

    Another NSA operation, begun in May 2010 and codenamed FLATLIQUID, targeted Pena's predecessor, President Felipe Calderon. The NSA, the documents revealed, was able "to gain first-ever access to President Felipe Calderon's public email account."

    At the same time, members of a highly secret joint NSA/CIA organization, called the Special Collection Service, are based in the U.S. embassy in Mexico City and other U.S. embassies around the world. It targets local government communications, as well as foreign embassies nearby. For Mexico, additional eavesdropping, and much of the analysis, is conducted by NSA Texas, a large listening post in San Antonio that focuses on the Caribbean, Central America and South America."

    zulugroove -> nishville , 10 Dec 2016 13:4
    Fake news!! ...That would be a Clinton / Obama , reply!!
    CTG2016 , 10 Dec 2016 12:0
    Breaking news! CIA admits people in USA aren't smart enough to vote for the person right person. Why blame Russians now?
    Come on. Let's move on and enjoy the mess Trump will start. This is going to be worse than GWB.
    We should all just enjoy the political comedy programs.
    Gallicdweller , 10 Dec 2016 11:1
    The CIA accusing a foreign power of interfering in the election of a showman for president - it would take me all day top cite the times that this evil criminal organisation has interfered in the affairs of other countries, ordered assassinations, coups etc. etc. etc
    Dave Harries , 10 Dec 2016 10:4
    Yes like the "help" the CIA gave to the Taliban, Bin Laden and Co. when the Russians were in Afghanistan.
    Then these dimwits from the CIA who taught Bin Laden and Co guerrilla warfare totally "missed" 9/11 and Twin Towers with all their billions of funding.
    So basically this is a total load of crap and if you think we are going to believe any reports vs. Russia these fools at the CIA are going to publish then think again.
    fedback , 10 Dec 2016 10:4
    During the election our media was exposed as in essence a propaganda tool for the Democrat campaign and they continue the unholy alliance after the election
    Liesandstats , 10 Dec 2016 10:4
    Instead of trying to blame the Russians how about reflecting on why the Democrats picked such a dreadful candidate.
    ana ruiz , 10 Dec 2016 10:2
    Pathetic move from an organisation that created ISIS and is single handling every single conflict in the world. Here we have a muppet president that for once wants to look after USA affairs internally and here we have a so alleged independent organisation that wants to keep bombing and destabilising the world. Didn't Trump said he wanted to shake the FBI and CIA ? Who is going to stop this machine of treachery ? : south America, middle east ...Asia ... they put their fingers on to create a problem- solution caveat wereas is to create weapons contracts /farma or construction and sovereign debt . But it never tricles down to the layperson ..
    Tim Jenkins , 10 Dec 2016 10:2
    "We are Not calling into question the election results"
    next White House sentence - "Just the integrity.. " WTF

    What more do you need to know - Bullshit Fake News.. propaganda, spoken by the youngest possible puppet boy White House Rep. who almost managed to have his tie done up..

    I am bookmarking this guy, for a laugh! White House Fake Newscaster ..:)

    Worth watching the sides of his mouth onto his attempt to engage you with the eyes, but blinking way too much before, during and after the word "Integrity".. FAKE!

    His hand signals.. lmfao, so measured, how sweet.. now sack the sycophants --

    fedback , 10 Dec 2016 10:2
    People should know that these Breaking News stories we see in Western media on BBC, Guardian etc, about Russian interference are in fact from Wash Post and NY Times quoting mysterious sources within the CIA
    Of course we know that Wash Post and NY Times were completely objective during the election and didn't favor any party
    fedback , 10 Dec 2016 10:0
    Russia made Hillary run the most expensive campaign ever, spending 1.2 billion dollars.
    Russia stole Hillary's message to the working people and gave her lousy slogans
    Tim Jenkins , 10 Dec 2016 09:5
    My real comment is below, but work with me, for a moment.
    So, since 2008, eh? Barack has thought carefully, with a legal mind.

    Can't we somehow blame the Russians for the whole Economic collapse.. coming soon, Wall Street Cyber Crash, screwed up sKewed up systems of Ponzi virus spiraling out of control..

    blame the Russians , logic, the KGB held the FED at gunpoint and said "create $16.2 Trillion in 5 working days"
    jeez, blame anything and anybody except peace prize guy Obama, the Pope, Bankers & Israel..

    Now can we discuss the Security of the Pound against Cyber Attack.. what was it 6% in 2 minutes, early on Sunday morning, just over month ago.. whoosh!

    It seems more important than discussing an election where the result was always OBVIOUS!

    And we called it, just like Kellyanne Conway..

    Who is Huma Abedin? I wish to know and hear her talking to Kellyanne Conway, graciously in defeat.. is that so unreasonable?
    ********
    Obama wishes to distract from exceedingly poor judgement, at the very minimum....
    after his Greek Affair with Goldman Sachs.. surely.

    As for his other Foreign Policy: Eternal Shame, founded on Fake News!
    Obama the Fake News Founder to flounder over the Russians, who can prove that he, Obama supports & supported Terrorism!

    Thus this article exists, to create doubt over the veracity of evidence to be presented over NATO's involvement in SYRIA! Obama continues to resist, or loose face completely..

    Just ask Can Dundar.... what he knows now and ask Obama to secure the release of Can Dundar's wife's passport, held for no legitimate reason in Turkey! This outrageous stand off, from Erdogan & Obama to address their failures and arrogant disrespect of Woman and her Legal Human Rights is Criminal.. & a Sickness of Mind that promotes Dictatorship!

    Mainstream Media - Fake News.. for quite some time!
    & Obama is guilty!

    Powerspike , 10 Dec 2016 09:4
    President-elect Donald Trump's transition team said in a statement Friday afternoon that the same people who claim Russia interfered in the presidential election had previously claimed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
    http://dailycaller.com/2016/12/09/trump-team-same-people-who-say-russia-meddled-in-election-said-iraq-had-wmds/#ixzz4SQWsDXpZ
    alexfoxy28 , 10 Dec 2016 09:1
    It's getting funny as Biden promised cyber attack on Russia weeks before Trump was elected .. due to Russian hackers?
    uptonogoode -> alexfoxy28 , 10 Dec 2016 09:5
    Link?
    alexfoxy28 -> uptonogoode , 10 Dec 2016 09:5
    http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/721851/russia-joe-biden-obama-cyber-attack-war-clinton-putin-US-moscow

    or just google about it.

    ArtherOhm , 10 Dec 2016 08:5
    Is the USA, as author of windows software, really unable to prevent foreign hacking?

    Do the CIA never do anything like this?

    Do we actually have any evidence rather than just a lot of allegations?

    Shotcricket -> Burnaby1000 , 10 Dec 2016 09:0
    'Russia like to surprise' ?

    The one certainty of the US/EU led drive to remove an elected leader just in their 2nd year after an election that saw them gain 47% of the popular vote was the Russki response, its borders were immediately at open 'threat' from any alliance. NATO or otherwise, the deep sea ports of eastern Ukraine which had always been accessed by the Russki fleets would lose guaranteed access etc....to believe the West was surprised by this action, would be to assume the US Generals were as stupid as the US administration, they knew exactly the response of the Russkis & would have made no difference if their leader had been named Putin or Uncle Tom Cobbly.

    In some ways the Russkis partitioning of the East of Ukraine could well minimise the possibility of a world conflict as the perceived threat is neutralised by the buffer.

    The Russkis cyber doodah is no different to our own the US etc, they're all 'at it' & all attempt to inveigle the others in terms of making life difficult.....not too sure Putin will be quite as comfortable with the Pres Elects 3 Trumpeteers though as the new Pressie looks likely to open channels of communications but those negotiations might well see a far tougher stance......still, in truth, all is never fair in love or war

    Powerspike , 10 Dec 2016 08:4
    .....that the CIA is not only suddenly involved, but suddenly at the forefront, may well reflect President-elect Trump's stated policy intentions being far removed from those that the CIA has endorsed, and might be done with an eye toward undermining Trump's position in those upcoming policy battles.
    At the center of those Trump vs. CIA battles is Syria, as the CIA has for years pushed to move away from the ISIS war and toward imposing regime change in Syria. Trump, by contrast, has said he intends to end the CIA-Saudi program arming the Syrian rebels, and focus on fighting ISIS. Trump was even said to be seeking to coordinate anti-ISIS operations with Russia.
    The CIA allegations could easily imperil that plan, as so long as the allegations remain part of the public discourse, evidence or not, anything Trump does with respect to Russia is going to have a black cloud hanging over it.
    http://news.antiwar.com/2016/12/09/cia-claims-russia-intervened-to-get-trump-elected /
    Nataliefreeman , 10 Dec 2016 08:3
    Oh dear Obama trolls? Food for your starved thoughts:

    Your degree of understanding IT is disturbing, especially given how dependent we are on it.

    This is all very simple. The process by which you find out if and how a machine was hacked was clearly documented in the Russian "Internet Audit", run by a group of Grey Hats.

    Grey Hats: People concerned about security who perform unauthorized hacks for relatively benign purposes, often just notifying people of how their system is flawed. IT staff have mixed reactions(!), the illegality is not disputed but the benefit of not being hit by a Black Hat first can be considerable at times. Differentiation is rare, especially as some hacktivist groups belong here, causing no damage beyond reputational by flagging activity that is not acceptable to the hacktivists.

    Black Hats: These are the guys to worry about. These include actually destructive hacktivists. These are the ones who steal data for malicious purposes, disrupt for malicious purposes and just generally act maliciously.

    Nothing in reports indicates if the DNC hack was Grey Hat or Black Hat, but it should be obvious that there is a difference.

    IP addresses and hangouts - worthless as evidence. Anyone can spoof the former, happens all the time (NMap used to provide the option, probably still does), Grey Hats and Black Hats alike have the latter and may break into other people's. It's all about knowing vulnerabilities.

    That voting machines were even on the Internet is disturbing. That they and the DNC server were improperly configured for such an environment is frightening - and possibly illegal.

    The standard sequence of events is thus:

    Network intrusion detector system identifies crafted packet attacking known vulnerability.
    In a good system, the firewall is set to block the attack at that instant.

    If the attacker scans the network, the only machine responding to such knocks should be a virtual machine running a honeypot on attractive-looking port numbers. The other machines in the zone should technically violate the RFCs by not responding to ICMP or generating recognized error codes on unused/blocked ports.

    The system logger picks up an event that creates a process that shouldn't be happening.
    In a good system, this either can't happen because the combination of permissions needed doesn't exist, or it doesn't matter because the process is root jailed and hasn't the privileges to actually do any harm.

    The file alteration logger (possibly Tripwire, though the Linux kernel can do this itself) detects that a process with escalated privileges is trying to create, delete or alter a file that it isn't supposed to be able to change.
    In a good system with mandatory access controls, this really is impossible. In a good system with logging file systems, it doesn't matter as you can instruct the filesystem to revert those specific alterations. Even in adequate but feeble systems, checkpoints will exist. No use in a voting system, but perfectly adequate for a campaign server. In all cases, the system logs will document what got damaged.

    The correct IT manager response is thus:
    Find out why the firewall wasn't defaulting to deny for all unknown sources and for unnecessary ports.
    Find out why the public-facing system wasn't isolated in the firewall's DMZ.
    Find out why NIDS didn't stop the attack.
    Non-public user mobility should be via IPSec using certificates. That deals with connecting from unknown IP addresses without exposing the innards of the system.
    Lock down misconfigured network systems.
    Backup files identified by file alteration detection as corrupt for forensic purposes.
    Revert files identified by file alteration detection as corrupt to last good version.
    Close permission loopholes. Everything should run with the fewest privileges necessary, OS included. On Linux, kernel permissions are controlled via capabilities.
    Establish from the logs if the intruder came through a public-facing application, an essential LAN service or a non-essential service.
    If it's a LAN service, block access to that service outside the LAN on the host firewall.
    Run network and host vulnerability scanners to detect potential attack vectors.
    Update any essential software that is detected as flawed, then rerun the scanners. Repeat until fixed.
    Now the system is locked down against general attacks, you examine the logs to find out exactly what failed and how. If that line of attack got fixed, good. If it didn't, then fix it.
    Password policy should prevent rainbow attacks, not users. Edit as necessary, lock accounts that aren't secure and set the password control system to ban bad passwords.

    It is impossible from system logs to track where an intruder came from, unsecured routers are common and that means a skilled attacker can divert packets to anywhere. You can't trust brags, in security nobody is honest. The sensible thing is to not allow such events in the first place, but when (not if) they happen, learn from them.

    GraemeHarrison , 10 Dec 2016 08:2
    If the USA is to investigate the effect of foreign governments 'corrupting' the free decisions of the American people in elections, perhaps they could look into the fact that for the past three decades every Republican candidate for president, after they have won the nomination of their party, has gone to just one foreign country to pledge their firm commitment/allegiance to that foreign power, for the purpose of shoring up large blocks of donors prior to the actual presidential election. The effect is probably more 'corrupting' than any leak of emails!
    SamSamson , 10 Dec 2016 08:2
    Obama should confess to creating ISIS, sustaining ISIS & utilising ISIS as a proxy army to have them do things that he knew US soldiers could never be caught doing!!!

    They then spoon fed you bullshit propaganda about who the bad guys were, without ever being to properly explain why the US armed forces were prevented from taking any hostile action against ISIS, until they were FORCED TO, that is, when Putin let the the cat out of the bag!!!

    LordTomnoddy , 10 Dec 2016 08:1
    Hilarious. One would've thought Obama of all presidents would be reluctant to delve too deeply into this particular midden. As the author of the weakest and most incompetent American foreign policy agenda since Carter's, it's much the likeliest that if China or Russia have been hacking US elections, then by far the biggest beneficiary will have been himself.
    Tim Jenkins , 10 Dec 2016 08:1
    Just another attempt to distract from realities, like:-

    From:[email protected] To: [email protected], [email protected] Date: 2015-05-28 12:12 Subject: Fwd: POLITICO Playbook

    cdm Begin forwarded message: > From: Lynn Forester de Rothschild <[email protected]> > Date: May 28, 2015 at 9:44:12 AM EDT > To: Nick Merrill <[email protected]>, "Cheryl Mills ([email protected])" <[email protected]> > Subject: FW: POLITICO Playbook > > Morning, > I am sure you are working on this, but clearly, the opposition is trying to undercut Hillary's reputation for honesty (the number one characteristic people look for in a President according to most polls) ..and also to benefit from an attack on wealth that Dems did the most to start I am sure we need to fight back against both of these attacks. > Xoxo > Lynn > > By Mike Allen (@mikeallen; [email protected]), and Daniel Lippman (@dlippman; [email protected]) > > > > QUINNIPIAC POLL, out at 6 a.m., "Rubio, Paul are only Republicans even close to Clinton": "In a general election, ... Clinton gets 46 percent of American voters to 42 percent for Paul and 45 percent of voters to 41 percent for Rubio." Clinton leads Christie 46-37 ... Huckabee 47-40 ... Jeb 47-37 ... Walker 46-38 ... Cruz 48-37 ... Trump 50-32. > > --"[V]oters say 53-39 percent that Clinton is NOT honest and trustworthy, but say 60-37 ... that she has strong leadership qualities. Voters are divided 48-47 ... over whether Clinton cares about their needs and problems." > > --RNC's new chart - "'Dead Broke' Clintons vs. Everyday Americans": "Check out the chart below to see how many households in each state it would take to equal the 'Dead Broke' Clintons." http://bit.ly/1Avg8iE

    Blind leading the Blind.. & Obama knows that very well after it was clear that Clinton was NEVER trusted by the Voters, which makes Debbie and the DNC look like a complete bunch of..

    Idiots?!?! STILL BLAMING The RUSSIANS.... instead of themselves!

    She was and always will be unelectable due to exceedingly poor judgement, across the board.

    Can we move on?

    Polly123456 , 10 Dec 2016 08:0
    Who is in charge of Internet security in the US government? Because it seems full of holes. Last time it was the Chinese and this time it's the Russians, yet not one piece of evidence to say where hacks have come from. How much are these world class Internet security people paid? And why do they still have a job? People sitting in their bedrooms on a pc from stores like staples have hacked their security regularly.
    AlexPeace , 10 Dec 2016 08:0

    In 2016, he said, the government did not detect any increased cyber activity on election day itself but the FBI made public specific acts in the summer and fall, tied to the highest levels of the Russian government. "This is going to put that activity in a greater context ... dating all the way back to 2008."

    Extremely vague. Seems like there is no evidence at all to suggest any Russian involvement, but they need to pretend otherwise. Blah, blah, blah, Weapons of mass destruction... Apollo mission, etc
    FMinus , 10 Dec 2016 08:0
    Ole, Russians exposed the DNC emails, we knew about that. I though this should investigate Russians vote rigging, but I guess not. I for once welcome anyone who hacks my government and exposes their skeletons, so I can see what kind of dirty garbage I had leading or potentially leading my country.

    Maybe the DNC should play fair and not dirty next time and put a candidate forward without skeletons that still reek of rotting flesh.

    Robert Stokes -> FMinus , 10 Dec 2016 08:3
    You rig electronic voting machines by reflashing the firmware or switching out the sd cards. Can't be done remotely.
    Baldrick Daacat , 10 Dec 2016 07:5
    And the CIA has never intervened in a foreign election?
    VibePit -> Baldrick Daacat , 10 Dec 2016 08:0
    Oh heaven forbid!! The Shah of Iran was democratically elected but of course. . .
    HeathCardwell , 10 Dec 2016 07:2
    Don't believe any of this at all.
    American has been thee most corrupt and disgusting western nation for decades, run by people who are now being shown for who they really are and they're shitting themselves big time. The stakes don't get higher than this.
    theonetruepainter , 10 Dec 2016 07:1
    What's the point of this?

    The American people don't want Clinton because she is a liar and a dangerous psychopath who also ignored the working people.

    If you want to change that, get her treatment. Don't try to undermine the election result.

    theonetruepainter , 10 Dec 2016 07:0
    How can you not respect Putin?

    He's spent the last few years making fools out of Clinton, Kerry and the obomber.

    If you didn't want him to let Crimea rejoin Russia, then you shouldn't have initiated the coup that broke up Ukraine.

    Peter Turner , 10 Dec 2016 07:0
    What a total load of double talk. There is zero integrity in anything CIA says or does since the weapons of mass destruction deal or before that it was the Iran Contra deal and before that it was the Bay of Pigs. Now we have this rigging os the election results based on zero evidence. The whole thing is just idiocy. What is Obama trying to achieve?The end game will be for Obama to go down in history as ... let's just say he is not the smartest tool in the shed when it comes to being a so called world leader. Well done Obama you have now completely trashed what is left of your legacy.
    LondonLungs , 10 Dec 2016 06:5

    "CIA concludes Russia interfered to help Trump win election – report "

    You might as well ask accountants to do a study on wether it's worthwhile to use an accountant. Part of the CIAs job is to influence elections around the world to get US-Corporation friendly gov'ts in to power. So yes of course they are going to say that a gov't can influence elections, if they said otherwise then they'd be admitting they're wasting money.

    Ted Reading Reading 10 Dec 2016 06:3
    So, it was the Russians! I knew it must've been them, they're so sneaky. All HFC had was the total backing of the entire establishment, including prominent Republican figures, the total fawning support of the entire main-stream media machine which carefully controlled the "she's got a comfortable 3 point lead maybe even double-digit lead" narrative and the "boo and hiss" pantomime slagging of her opponent. Plus the endless funds from the crooked foundation and murderous fanatics from the compliant Gulf states, and lost. But hey, do keep this going please, it'll help the Trumpster get a second term! Trump/Nugent 2020.
    righteousfist01 , 10 Dec 2016 06:2
    It's possible the Russians hacked and released the documents. However the report is not saying the Russians created them.

    So whatever was so deplorable about them was all Democrat

    Nataliefreeman -> righteousfist01 , 10 Dec 2016 06:3
    Good point. Add that the whole election was dogged is the most glaring media bias and suddenly Russia comes off as simply leveling the playing field a bit
    12inchPianist , 10 Dec 2016 06:1
    CIA finds Russia had covertly influenced election. CIA finds FBI had overtly influenced election. Fancy that!
    ashleigh2 , 10 Dec 2016 06:1
    The 'secret' enquiry reported to Congress that the CIA concludes etc, etc, etc. Then yet more revelations from 'anonymous sources' are quoted in the Washington Post and The New York Times reaching the same conclusions.....talk about paranoia, or are the Democrats guilty of news fakery of the highest order to deny the US voters....
    Nataliefreeman , 10 Dec 2016 05:5
    Ooh Obama...there's a little snag about this investigation.

    In principle, the DNC server could have had malware in an e-mail that set up a NAT entry that made the connecting computer appear somewhere else, with the entry deleted afterwards. Typically, IP table modifications aren't logged, so this would not be detectable.

    In principle, the DNC server could have had malware in an e-mail that ran a SED script at a specific time that changed any occurrence of one IP address with another. Not sure anyone would bother with this, but it's why good system admins place so much emphasis on securing logs. However, it's obvious we're not talking about good admins.

    In principle, every router between the DNC server and Russia has the potential to be hacked, with a tunnel added to send the traffic somewhere else in the world with new source and destination addresses. This is known as router table poisoning. It is preventable but the mechanisms are rarely ever used because the security services want to be able to do this themselves. There are some nice logs of the NSA using this.

    In principle, someone along the way could tap into the fibre, spoofing IP addresses and injecting/sniffing packets. The U.S. even has a submarine designed for this, but optics aren't complex and any number of neo-phone phreaks could have the hardware.

    In principle, someone at an ISP or backbone service could have had a laptop plugged into a switch or router to do the same thing, or lit up a strand of dark fibre to let some uber-wealthy business do this. And there's no shortage of uber-wealthy businesses who aren't keen on Democrats. This technique is used for local and remote network diagnostics, no reason it can't be used nefarious, it's not like the hardware cares why a wire is plugged in.

    In principle, the supposed destination machine could have been hacked to relay the packets in encrypted form to the South Pole or a college campus in Texas. There are many examples of client machines being hacked to do this. It's basically what zombie machines are in botnets.

    In practice, it is flat-out guaranteed that none of the security agencies could distinguish this from a Russian attack. Nothing in the area monitored could tell the difference. We know, for a fact, that college kids spoofing a scan from China have fooled the DoD and NSA on previous occasions, it has caused international incidents.

    So we have known forms of attack that are known to exist, aren't complex and in some cases are already used for attacks. They are 100% untraceable.

    Bosula , 10 Dec 2016 05:5
    How about a Presidential review covering US interference in the elections of countries around the world?
    Paulare -> Bosula , 10 Dec 2016 06:2
    But where to start?

    UK, Australia, Chile, Nicoragua, Cuba, Philippines, Malaysia, Germany...?

    such choice..

    Bosula -> Paulare , 10 Dec 2016 08:0
    Yes. Maybe do it on a regional basis across the globe.
    Anarchy4theUK , 10 Dec 2016 05:4
    Of course the Americans would never interfere in other people's elections would they?...........I imagine the Russians wanted to avoid a nuclear war with war monger Hilary & who can blame them?
    Nataliefreeman -> Anarchy4theUK , 10 Dec 2016 06:1
    Y'know really all they seem to be looking possibly guilty of is the wikileaks scandal. Compare that to the enormous media bias regarding Trump and suddenly the Russians at worst come off as evening the playing field so as to help an election be less biased...
    Kris Penny , 10 Dec 2016 05:4
    When certain members of the public would believe one man over those who have more intelligence in a follicle than he will ever have floating in his cranium is when you realise that a place like Guantanamo should exist, exclusively for them.
    http://www.allgov.com/news/where-is-the-money-going/surprise-cost-of-ammo-for-us-navy-destroyers-new-guns-800000-a-shot-161114?news=859762
    Newmacfan , 10 Dec 2016 05:3
    Paranoia about Russia has arrived at the laughable, almost like the fable of the boy who cried wolf! Even the way the CIA statement is worded makes you smile. "silk purse sows ear"? Everyone is clutching at straws rather than looking down the barrel at the truth......that folks is what is missing from Western Politics......"The Truth" --
    StephenO , 10 Dec 2016 04:3

    Obama expected the review to be completed before he leaves office...

    Really?? Obama wants a "deep review" of internet activities surrounding the elections of 2008, 2012, and 2016; and he wants this done in less than 40 days? And it encompasses voting stations throughout the 50 states? That's the definition of political shenanigans.

    Dom Michaels -> pureist , 10 Dec 2016 04:3
    Seeing as how the CIA interfered with Ukraine before and during the overthrow of Yanukovich, and with Moscow protests a few years ago...... seems like everyone is always trying to interfere with each-other. Hypocrisy abounds
    MarkThomason , 10 Dec 2016 03:5
    This is not really a fight against Trump. That is lost. This is an intramural fight among Democrats.

    This is desperate efforts by the corporate Democrats to hang on to power after Hillary (again) lost.

    Excuses. Allegations without sources given, anonymous.

    Remember that the same people used the same media contacts to spread fake news that the Podesta leaks were faked, and tried to shift attention from what was revealed to who revealed it.

    GuyCybershy -> MarkThomason , 10 Dec 2016 04:0
    Agreed. Another reason why the Democratic party is not worth saving. 13 million voted for Sanders in the primary, that is enough to start a new party.
    Fabr1s , 10 Dec 2016 03:4
    if the Ruskies did it, there's something funny: they did it on Obama's watch and her protege, Hillary, lost it. The system is a real mess in this case.

    Kris Penny , 10 Dec 2016 03:4
    Read and research further...
    https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/10/07/joint-statement-department-homeland-security-and-office-director-national
    GeoffP -> Kris Penny , 10 Dec 2016 04:0
    Interesting link. It raises a particularly salient question: assuming the Russians did indeed do it - and after the whole CIA yellow cake thing in Iraq, no one could possibly doubt national intelligence agencies any more - does it particularly matter?

    Did the Russians write the emails? The betrayal of Sanders, the poor protection on classified materials, the cynical, vicious nonsense spewed out by the HRC campaign, the media collusion with the DNC and HRC: did the Russians do these things too? Or was that Clinton and the DNC? Silly question, I'm sure.

    sejong -> jcadams , 10 Dec 2016 03:5
    Russia's competence with computer hacking and cyber espionage is a given

    So what? What about Chinese or Israeli competence in these areas?

    This is Fake News that exists only because Clinton lost.

    The real news is about in competence by HRC, DWS, and the DNC in foisting a sure loser on American voters.

    naomh -> sejong , 10 Dec 2016 03:5
    Thank you for speaking the truth!!!!
    GeoffP -> jcadams , 10 Dec 2016 04:0
    Well, chief, the Wisconsin recount is in and the results are staggering: after the recount, Clinton has gained on Trump by 3 votes... and Trump gained on Clinton by a heady six votes. One begins to wonder at the 'Manchurian candidate' claim.
    third_eye , 10 Dec 2016 03:3
    It is precisely charades like this that millions in the US and around the world have given up on the establishment. Business as usual or rather lying as usual will only alienate more not-so-stupid citizens. It speaks volumes about their desperation that they're are actually employing such obviously infantile tactics on the Russia even as they continue to paper over Hillary's tattered past. The result of the investigation is totally predictable..................Yes, the Russians were involved in hacking the elections, but..........for reasons of national security, details of the investigative process and evidence cannot be revealed.
    Longleveler , 10 Dec 2016 03:2
    If the Russians really wanted Trump to win that means they helped Hillary win the Democratic primaries because Bernie would have beat Trump.. There was a mess of hanky-panky going on to defeat Bernie, and deflecting the blame to a foreign actor should keep the demonstrators off the streets.
    If someone is gullible enough to believe the Russians did it they'd also believe that Elvis made Bigfoot hack the DNC. That's even more plausible since bigfoot is just a guy who spends so much time sitting at his computer he lost all interest in personal hygiene.
    Will D , 10 Dec 2016 03:1
    The Democrats are really desperate to find anything they can use to challenge the results of the election.

    Either way they look foolish - openly investigating the possibility of Russian hacking which acknowledges that their electoral systems aren't well secured, OR look really foolish if they find anything (whether real or faked).

    The big question now is if, and how much, they will fake the findings of the investigation so that they can declare the election results wrong, and put Clinton into the White House.

    Clearly, it is a case of desperate times calling for desperate measures. It is incredible that one man can make the largest Western nation look so ridiculous in the eyes of the world.

    madeiranlotuseater , 10 Dec 2016 02:4
    Pot calling the kettle black. Reveal fully what the CIA get up to all over the planet. The phoney intel America has used to go to war causing countries to implode. The selective way they release information to project the picture they want. I am not convinced that Russia is any better or any worse than the USA.
    onofabeach , 10 Dec 2016 02:3
    I can understand the Russians wanting Obama in 2008 and 2012 because he is a weak leader and totally incompetent.

    I can also understand Putin preferring DJT to HRC.

    It's about time the planet settled down a little bit, Trump and Putin will do more for world peace in the next year than Obama achieved in his 8 wasted years in charge.

    The Democrats have yet to realise the reason for their demise was not the racists, the homophobes, the KKK, the Deplorables, the misogynists, the xenophobes etc etc etc.

    It was Hillary Clinton.

    Get over it, move on, stop whining, get out of your safe room, put the puppy down, throw the play dough away, stop protesting, behave like an adult.

    As much as I am enjoying the monumental meltdown of the left, it is getting sad now and I am starting to feel very sorry for you.

    BoBiel , 10 Dec 2016 02:2
    Georgia Says Someone in U.S. Government Tried to Hack State's Computers Housing Voter Data

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/georgia-reports-attempt-to-hack-states-election-database-via-ip-address-linked-to-homeland-security-1481229960

    http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2016-12-08/georgia-accuses-us-of-trying-to-hack-its-election-systems

    123Akava , 10 Dec 2016 02:1
    What a sad bunch of clowns. But the time is ripe. You and your sort are done Obama, Hillary Clinton, Juncker, Merkel, Hollande, Mogherini, Kerry, Tusk, Nuland, Albright, Breedlove, SaManThe Power and the rest of the reptiles. With all respect - mwuahahaha! - you will soon sink into the darkness of the darkest places of history, but you won't be forgotten, no you won't!
    poppetmaster , 10 Dec 2016 02:0
    The Democrats still don't understand that the problem in American politics is everything that happened BEFORE election day.

    How can you worry about the ballot boxes when the entire process from beginning to end is utterly corrupt.

    CarlHansen , 10 Dec 2016 02:0
    As for the Podesta email. John Podesta was so stupid that he gave out his password in a simple email scam that any 8 year old kid could have conducted. I wouldn't be surprised if Assange did it himself. Assange will be celebrating at the demise of Hillary.
    phobeophobe , 10 Dec 2016 02:0
    Guys! Your side lost the election. Get over it & stop looking for excuses.

    I don't think it was the Russians, it was just a lot of people got sick of being told what to think & how to behave by your side of politics.

    It is because people who disagree with you are either ignored, shut-down or called names with weaponised words such as "racist, bigot, xenophobe, homophobe, islamophobe, you name it. You go out onto the streets chanting mindless slogans aimed at shutting down debate. You have infiltrated academia and no journalism graduate comes out of a western univerity without a 60 degree lean to the left. People of alternative views to what is now the dominant social paradigm are not permitted to speak at universities. Once they were the vanguard of dangerous ideas. Now they are just sheep pens.

    You have infiltrated the mainstream media so of course people need to go to Info Wars, Breitbart & Project Veritas to get the other side to your one-sided argument.

    Your side of politics has regulated the very words we speak so that we can't even express a thought anymore without being chanted down, or shut down, prosecuted or sued.

    There was once a time when it was the left who spoke up for freedom of speech. It was the left who demanded that a man be judged by the content of his character & not the color of his skin & it was once the right who used to be worried about the Russians taking over our institutions.

    Have a look at yourselves. Look at what you've become. You've stopped being the guardians of freedom & now you have become the very anti-freedom totalitarians you thought you were campaigning against.

    Bleating about the "popular vote" doesn't cut it either. That's like saying, the other side scored more goals than us but we had possession of the ball more times. It is sad for you but it is irrelevant.

    Trump won the election! Get over it!

    Let's see what sort of job he does before deciding what to do next.

    Nataliefreeman , 10 Dec 2016 01:5
    News flash for all the obamabots:

    In principle, the DNC server could have had malware in an e-mail that set up a NAT entry that made the connecting computer appear somewhere else, with the entry deleted afterwards. Typically, IP table modifications aren't logged, so this would not be detectable.

    In principle, the DNC server could have had malware in an e-mail that ran a SED script at a specific time that changed any occurrence of one IP address with another. Not sure anyone would bother with this, but it's why good system admins place so much emphasis on securing logs. However, it's obvious we're not talking about good admins.

    In principle, every router between the DNC server and Russia has the potential to be hacked, with a tunnel added to send the traffic somewhere else in the world with new source and destination addresses. This is known as router table poisoning. It is preventable but the mechanisms are rarely ever used because the security services want to be able to do this themselves. There are some nice logs of the NSA using this.

    In principle, someone along the way could tap into the fibre, spoofing IP addresses and injecting/sniffing packets. The U.S. even has a submarine designed for this, but optics aren't complex and any number of neo-phone phreaks could have the hardware.

    In principle, someone at an ISP or backbone service could have had a laptop plugged into a switch or router to do the same thing, or lit up a strand of dark fibre to let some uber-wealthy business do this. And there's no shortage of uber-wealthy businesses who aren't keen on Democrats. This technique is used for local and remote network diagnostics, no reason it can't be used nefarious, it's not like the hardware cares why a wire is plugged in.

    In principle, the supposed destination machine could have been hacked to relay the packets in encrypted form to the South Pole or a college campus in Texas. There are many examples of client machines being hacked to do this. It's basically what zombie machines are in botnets.

    In practice, it is flat-out guaranteed that none of the security agencies could distinguish this from a Russian attack. Nothing in the area monitored could tell the difference. We know, for a fact, that college kids spoofing a scan from China have fooled the DoD and NSA on previous occasions, it has caused international incidents.

    So we have known forms of attack that are known to exist, aren't complex and in some cases are already used for attacks. They are 100% untraceable.

    DanielDee , 10 Dec 2016 01:3
    Joe Biden unwittingly gave the game up when he spoke to the press with indignation of the Russian hacks. The US would respond in kind with a covert cyber operation run by the CIA First of all it would be the NSA, not the CIA Secondly, it's not covert when you tell the press! Oh Joe, you really let the Obama administration down with that gaffe! Who would believe them now? A lot of people it would seem. Mainly those still reeling from an election they were so vested in
    fedback , 10 Dec 2016 01:2
    Unfortunately our media has lost all credibility.
    For years we were told it was necessary to remove the dictator Assad in Syria. The result, a country destroyed, migrant crisis that fuelled Brexit and brought EU to its knees.
    Now they are going to sell the 'foreign entities decided the US election'.
    It's just a sad situation
    GuyCybershy -> fedback , 10 Dec 2016 01:2
    Syria has been destroyed because Western client states in the Middle East wanted this to happen. Assad had a reasonably successful secular government and our medieval gulf state allies felt. threatened by his regime. there was the little business of a pipeline, but of course that would be called a "conspiracy theory".
    SomersetApples , 10 Dec 2016 01:1
    If Obama has resources to spend on investigations, he should be investigating why the US is providing guided missiles to the terrorist in Syria. We had such great hopes for him, and he has proved to be totally useless as a president. Rather than giving us leadership and guidance he is looking under his bed for spooks. Just another example of his incompetence at a time when we needed leadership.

    Looking for proof of espionage will be like trying to prove a negative and only result in a possible or at best a likely type of result for no purpose. It would just be another case of an unsupported accusation being thrown about.

    Facing up to the question of who is supplying weapons to terrorist would require the courage to take on the Military Industrial Complex and he hasn't got it. Trump will be different.

    ID3053875 , 10 Dec 2016 01:0
    If the russians did interfere in the USA elections perhaps is a bit of poetic justice.
    The USA has interfere in Latin America for over hundred years and they have given us Batista, Somoza, Trujillo, Noriega, Pinochet, Duvaliers , military juntas in Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay and Streener in Paraguay to name a few. They all were narcissists, racists and insecure. The american people love this type of leader now they got him in the white house may be from Russia with love. Empires get destroyed from within, look at Little Britain now, maybe the same will happen soon in the USA.
    Viva China , is far from Latin America
    nbk46zh , 10 Dec 2016 01:0
    So if the US managed to somehow get rid of Russia and China, what would they do then? How would it justify hundreds of billions in defense spending? Just remember, the US military industry desperately needs an external enemy to exist. Without it, there is no industry.
    ID5151903 , 10 Dec 2016 01:0
    No I disagree. I don't think it was a conpriscy. It was just decades of misinformation, lies, usually perpertrated by our esteemed foreign minister. The man is a buffoon , liar and incompetent. It is quite amusing to see how inept, Incompotent and totally unsuited this man child is to public office.
    PullingTheStrings , 10 Dec 2016 01:0
    Good to see alot of Americans on here back into Mccarthyism/Paranoia/scapegoating/Witch hunting/Propaganda.
    smellycat , 10 Dec 2016 01:0
    Clinton's 'Russia did it' cop-out
    https://off-guardian.org/2016/12/09/clintons-russia-did-it-cop-out /
    prairdog , 10 Dec 2016 00:4
    Why should we trust US intelligence which is essentially US propaganda?
    DanielDee , 10 Dec 2016 00:3
    Another red herring that smacks of desperation. The final death throes of a failed administration. These carefully chosen words reveal a lot. The email leaks were "consistent with the methods and motivations" of Russian hackers. In layman's terms its the equivalent of saying "we haven't got a clue who it was but it's the kind of thing they would probably do". Don't expect a smoking gun because it doesn't exist, otherwise we would have known about it by now.
    PostTrotskyite -> DanielDee , 10 Dec 2016 00:3
    It's not just the US who has accused Putin of meddling in their domestic affairs. Germany and the UK have made the same allegations. Are they wrong too?
    DanielDee -> PostTrotskyite , 10 Dec 2016 00:5
    I think anyone with reasonable intelligence would take each accusation on a case by case basis. There is no doubt that Russia conducts cyber operations, as the US and UK and Germany does. There is also little doubt that significant Russophobia exists, particularly since the failed foreign attempt of regime change in Syria that was thwarted by Russia. On that last point many citizens of the West are coming to the realisation that a secular government in Syria is preferable to one run by jihadists installing crude sharia law (Libya was certainly a lesson). Furthermore, if Hillary Clinton had succeeded one dreads to think of the consequences of her no-fly-zone plans. Thankfully she didn't succeed, no doubt in part to wikileaks revelations, who for the record stated that did not result from Russian hacks
    sejong , 10 Dec 2016 00:2
    Fake News is mass gaslighting, removing any sense of what is real. Biggest psy-op ever.
    gondwanaboy , 10 Dec 2016 00:1
    Barack Obama orders 'full review' of possible Russian hacking in US election


    FAKE NEWS ALERT

    JCDavis -> gondwanaboy , 10 Dec 2016 00:2
    They already stated their conclusions, now they have to find evidence.
    Yodasyodel , 9 Dec 2016 23:5
    Hows the election recount going? You know the one this paper kept going on about a few weeks ago in Wisconsin that was supposed to be motivated by "Russian Hacking" in the election? Not very well but you have gone quiet. Also I see the Washington Post has been forced to backtrack for implying news outlets like Breitbart are Russian controlled on the advice of their own lawyers....after all calling someone a Russian agent without a shred of evidence is seriously libellous and they know it. Russian agents to blame yeah ok Obama no doubt the Easter Bunny will be next in your sights you fraud.
    Wilderloo , 9 Dec 2016 23:5
    Look no further than Hillarys private server. Classified information sent and received and Obam was part of it. Obama is a liar and a fraud who is now blaming the Russians for crooked Hillarys loss.
    SUNLITE , 9 Dec 2016 23:5
    Feed the flames of the war mongers that want Russia and Putin to be our bogeyman.Feed the military industrial complex more billions.The U.S. Defense budget is already 10 times that of Russia ,feed NATO already on Russia's boarder with tanks ,troops and heavy weapons.i did expect more from this pres,... The lies ,mis information and propaganda has worked so well since the end of WW2,upon a public who has been fed those lies {and is to busy with sports ,gadgets,games, alcohol and other drugs }for 70 yrs by a compliant,for profit lap dog media more interested in producing infotainment and profits than supplying information..If you don't think the "public" isn't very poorly informed and will believe anything ,..just look at who the next prez will be..
    GuyCybershy -> SUNLITE , 10 Dec 2016 00:0
    I don't think it's true that Trump voters were less informed than Clinton voters. The public knows that they all lie, they simply choose the one who's lies most appeal to them.
    Alexander Bach , 9 Dec 2016 23:5
    Did he also order to investigate the Clinton's deeds revealed by the 'hackers'?
    fedback , 9 Dec 2016 23:3
    Unfortunately Obama is not leaving office with dignity.
    This action is another attempt to delegitimize the election of Trump. We already have the recount farce going on.
    If Republicans had tried to delegitimize the election of Obama we know what the reaction from media would have been. An outcry against antidemocratic and racist behaviour
    USApatriot12 , 9 Dec 2016 23:3
    The corporate media is so predictable at this point. The news cranks up the anti-Russia hysteria while the guys over in entertainment roll out a slick fantasy about anti-Nazi resistance. It all adds up to a big steaming pile of crap but you hope it will push enough buttons to keep the citizens chained to their their desks for another quarter. Don't bet on it. As a great American said at another time of upheaval, you can't fool everyone forever...
    GuyCybershy -> USApatriot12 , 9 Dec 2016 23:3
    We're supposed to condemn "white nationalism" in The US and UK while supporting it in Ukraine.
    GeeDeeSea -> GuyCybershy , 9 Dec 2016 23:4
    That's not all. We in US and UK are supposed to condemn jihadists in Iraq while supporting them Syria.
    James7 -> Eddy Cannella , 9 Dec 2016 23:2
    Hillary? Although I would lean to more "Grey."

    Kremlin Connection? The TRUTH About Hillary's Shady Ties To Russia REVEALED
    Find out why insiders say Clinton has some explaining to do.

    Americans have no idea just how closely Hillary Clinton is tied to the Kremlin! That's the shocking claim of a new report that alleges the Democratic nominee is secretly pals with Vladimir Putin and his countrymen.

    Peter Schweizer, the author of Clinton Cash, has published a report that claims that that Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta was on the executive board of a foreign company that received $35 million from the Kremlin. "The company was a transparent Russian front, and how much Podesta was compensated - and for what - is unclear. In addition, Podesta failed to disclose his position on that board to the Federal government, as required by law," John Schindler of the Observer wrote.

    As Radar previously reported, when Clinton was secretary of state, she profited from the "Russian Reset," a failed attempt to improve relations between the U.S. and Russia.
    chweizer wrote, "Many of the key figures in the Skolkovo process - on both the Russian and U.S. sides - had major financial ties to the Clintons. During the Russian reset, these figures and entities provided the Clintons with tens of millions of dollars, including contributions to the Clinton Foundation, paid for speeches by Bill Clinton, or investments in small start-up companies with deep Clinton ties." Schweizer also details "Skolkovo," a Silicon Valley-like campus that both the U.S. and Russia worked on for developing biomed, space, nuclear and IT technologies. He told the New York Post that there was a "pattern that shows a high percentage of participants in Skolkovo who happen to be Clinton Foundation donors."

    raymondffoulkes , 9 Dec 2016 23:1
    So it's anti-Russia propaganda today again, all over the Guardian as well as everywhere else.

    I daresay they have a few things (perhaps a tad more important than football and athletics) to say about us as well..

    smellycat -> raymondffoulkes , 9 Dec 2016 23:2
    Sour grapes at the liberation of Aleppo and their loss of face.
    I'm surprised they haven't started asking about the missing 250K civilians,who must even now be languishing in Assad's dungeons.
    Keeping that one for tomorrow probably.
    nbk46zh , 9 Dec 2016 23:1
    When Cheney used the terror alert levels to keep the US population in the constant state of fear, the Democrats denounced it as fear mongering. Now they're embracing the same tactics in the constant demonization of Russia. Look, it's raining today! Russia must be trying to control the weather in the US! Get them! Utterly ridiculous.
    stegordon21 , 9 Dec 2016 23:0
    The US has been the most bloodthirsty, aggressive nation in my lifetime. Where the US goes we obediently follow. Yet as Obama (7 countries he's bombed in his presidency, not bad for a Nobel Prize Winner) continues to circle Russia with NATO on their borders. We're continually spun headline news that Russia is the aggressor and is continually meddling in foreign affairs. We are the aggressors, we are the danger to ourselves and it's we who are run by megalomaniac elites who pump us full of fear and propaganda.
    nbk46zh , 9 Dec 2016 23:0
    Malicious cyberactivity... has no place in international community... No? When West does it, then it's for democratic purposes? But invading countries on a humanitarian pretense does? So Democrats are still looking to blame Russia for everything not going their way I see. This rhetoric didn't work for Clinton in the election and it won't now. Stop with this nonsense
    GuyCybershy -> nbk46zh , 9 Dec 2016 23:1
    There wasn't a lot of outrage about the use of the "stuxnet" virus against Iran. You see, when we do it is always for a good cause.

    Paulare , 9 Dec 2016 22:5
    Take the long view folks.

    The Egyptian Empire lasted millenum,
    The Greek and Roman Empires a thousand years, give or take.
    The Holy Roman Empire centuries.
    The British and French circa 200 years.
    The USSR about 70, the USA 70 and counting

    This is just the cyclical death throes of empires played out at ever increasing speed before our very eyes.

    DexDex , 9 Dec 2016 22:5
    5 articles abut Russia, again. This is the Russia interference in the Guardian. Putin must be stopped.
    Earl_Grey -> DexDex , 9 Dec 2016 23:0
    NATO has bought a subscription to the Guardian
    TonyBlunt , 9 Dec 2016 22:5
    Is all this hoohaa the BBC and the Guardian trying to get some revenge for the Russian liberating East Aleppo?
    TheIPAResistance , 9 Dec 2016 22:5
    This is exactly why we should never move to electronic voting. Can you imagine the lengths the IPA would go to ensure their men security the power they need to roll out their neoliberal agenda? As a tax-free right wing think tank composed of rich like Rinehart, Murdoch, Forrest, et al. the sky's the limit.
    Anthony1152 , 9 Dec 2016 22:4
    The five stages of dealing with psychological trauma: Anger, Denial, Bargaining, Depression and Acceptance. Hillary and the Democrats are still at stage one and two. Obama is only beginning stage one as events dawn on him.
    TheCharacteristicEquation 9 Dec 2016 22:4
    I really do feel the established media and its elite hierarchy are vexed by both the Trump victory and Brexit here in the UK. Now the media attention turns to a report on another of its perpetual campaigns, namely Russia, and corruption in sport.

    I'm not going to doubt the 'findings', but I know humans are corrupt ALL over the world, but it does strike me that no Western outlet, ever prints anything positive about Russia. I mean - nothing, zero!

    dallasdunlap , 9 Dec 2016 22:3
    If, indeed, the Russian government gathered the DNC and Podesta info released by Wikileaks, the Russians did the American people a favor by pulling back the curtain on behind the scenes scheming by Clinton campaign potentates.
    Of course, I don't believe the Democratic claim that Clinton lost the election because of the Russians and the FBI.
    GuyCybershy -> dallasdunlap , 9 Dec 2016 22:4
    Podesta's password was "p@ssword". Inexcusable carelessness.
    smellycat , 9 Dec 2016 22:3
    Nothing wrong with a bit of regime change now and then, so we've been told. No good crying when the Russians do it to you.
    sammy3110 , 9 Dec 2016 22:3
    It's instructive to see the Guardian drag up Reagan's "Evil Empire" spiel, but only after Hillary lost.
    GeeDeeSea , 9 Dec 2016 22:3
    US backed a coup, or set up a coup, to overthrow the democratically elected government in Ukraine which led to war. Putin's payback seems fully justified.
    theenko -> GeeDeeSea , 9 Dec 2016 22:4
    sweet fucking jesus

    Yanukovych is a disgrace to Ukrainian's everywhere and a traitor to his country. Fucking Putin puppet should be in jail.

    GeeDeeSea -> theenko , 9 Dec 2016 22:4
    sweet fucking jesus

    Porshenko is a disgrace to Ukrainian's everywhere and a traitor to his country. Fucking Obama puppet should be in jail.

    Earl_Grey , 9 Dec 2016 22:3
    Oh my, a foreign country may have had a tiny influence on a US Election.

    How about investigating the overthrow of the Democratically elected Govt in Ukraine, or the influence the US has had on the Syrian Govt, or even in Australia, where the Chinese Govt donates massive amounts of money to Political Parties (note, there's no link of course between Chinese Govt donations and Chinese Companies being able to buy most of Australia and employ Chinese Nationals in Australia on Chinese conditions and 500,000 Chinese Nationals being able to buy Real Estate in Sydney alone... none whatsoever).

    bcnteacher , 9 Dec 2016 22:3
    Good call! Something is fishy about the US electoral system.
    COReilly , 9 Dec 2016 22:2
    I'm not a policy or think tank wonk, but isn't Russia just a euphemism for China. Aren't their geopolitical interests linked. You just say Russia because China has us by the financial balls (I'm sure the Guardian would prefer to NOT be censored on the mainland) right? Package it that way and I'm on board. My love of Dostoevsky goes out the window. Albeit I still think Demons one of the best novels ever written. Woke me up.
    fedback , 9 Dec 2016 22:1
    Survivor of Bosnian sniper fire Hillary Clinton decries fake news in speech yesterday
    Aaron Aarons , 9 Dec 2016 22:1
    I'm all in favor of delegitimizing the incoming semi-fascist Trump/Pence regime, and find Obama's talk of a smooth transition disgusting. However, I reject the appeal to Russophobia or other Xenophobia.

    BTW, Obama and his collaborators like Diane Feinstein have done a lot to prepare the legal basis for fascistic repression under the new POtuS.

    Sund Fornuft , 9 Dec 2016 22:1
    I already know what the comission will find. They will find evidences that Iraq holds vast ammonúnt of weapons of mass destruction! Oh wait, that was already used.
    kalander , 9 Dec 2016 22:0
    Obama has been as useless as his predecessor young Bush. His policies generally are in tatters and the US neo cons evil fantasy of full spectrum dominance has met its death in Syria. Bravo.
    ShoppingKingLouie , 9 Dec 2016 22:0
    The neoliberal corporate machine is wounded but not dead. They will use every trick, ploy and opportunity to try to regain power.

    The fight goes on.

    fedback , 9 Dec 2016 21:5
    After an election cycle with proven collusion between the DNC/Hillary Clinton campaign and our media, our media has the nerve to come up with the term 'fake news'.
    Hypocrisy at its finest
    John Urquhart , 9 Dec 2016 21:5
    Nobody does paranoia like the yanks. To the rest of the world, the unedifying spectacle of the world's biggest bullies, snoops, warmongers, liars and hypocrites complaining about how unfair life is, is pretty nauseating. Most of America's problems are home-grown.
    ShoppingKingLouie , 9 Dec 2016 21:5
    Why fake the news when you can just strong the media companies into muzzling their criticism?

    http://nypost.com/2016/12/09/mika-brzezinski-says-clinton-camp-tried-to-pull-her-off-the-air /

    mjp3470 , 9 Dec 2016 21:5
    And the final report will conclude with something along the lines of:
    'After a thorough, exhaustive investigation of all relevant evidence concerning the potential of foreign interference in the United States electoral process, the results of the investigation have shown that, although there remain troubling questions about the integrity of U.S. cyber-security which should prompt immediate Congressional review, there has been uncovered no conclusive evidence to support the conjecture that cyber attacks originating with any foreign actor, state or individual had any significant effect on the outcome of the 2016 Presidential election, and that there is no cause or justification for the American People to question the fairness of or lose faith in the electoral process and laid out by and carried out according to the Constitution.'
    I do Holiday cards too.
    garenmel -> mjp3470 , 9 Dec 2016 22:2
    My hat off to you sir/madam. This was great!
    Powerspike , 9 Dec 2016 21:5
    Georgia's Secretary of State is accusing someone at the Department of Homeland Security of illegally trying to hack its computer network, including the voter registration database.
    In a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, copied to the full Georgia congressional delegation, Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp alleges that a computer with a DHS internet address attempted to breach its systems.
    http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/309530-state-of-georgia-allegedly-accusing-homeland-security-of-attempted-hack

    Wake up and smell the BS, the hacking is being done by people a lot nearer home.....

    feliciafarrel , 9 Dec 2016 21:5
    Oh dear, the GOP seem to have forgotten what they were saying about Putin and the Kremlin a short while back:

    The continuing erosion of personal liberty and fundamental rights under the current officials in the Kremlin. Repressive at home and reckless abroad, their policies imperil the nations which regained their self-determination upon the collapse of the Soviet Union. We will meet the return of Russian belligerence with the same resolve that led to the collapse of the Soviet Union. We will not accept any territorial change in Eastern Europe imposed by force, in Ukraine, Georgia, or elsewhere, and will use all appropriate constitutional measures to bring to justice the practitioners of aggression and assassination.

    https://www.gop.com/platform/american-exceptionalism/

    Are they going to conveniently forget all decency and morality? Is the white supremacist agenda in the GOP finally in the ascendant?

    Russian Troll (Number 254) 9 Dec 2016 21:5
    I as a Russian Troll do not like this investigation and will do or say anything in order to change your mind. Putin is not a problem, the EU is.
    Powerspike , 9 Dec 2016 21:4
    ..... prohibiting "fake" or "false" news would be a cure worse than the disease, i.e., censorship by other means. The government cannot be trusted with distinguishing fake from genuine news because it has ulterior motives. News the government dislikes would be conflated with fakery, and news the government approved would be conflated with truthfulness. Private businesses like Facebook cannot be trusted with distinguishing fake from genuine news because its overriding mission is to make money and to win popularity, not to spread truth. It would suppress news that risked injury to its reputation or profits but leave news that did the opposite undisturbed.
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/dec/5/reflections-fake-news /
    GuyCybershy , 9 Dec 2016 21:4
    "The Anonymous Blacklist Promoted by the Washington Post Has Apparent Ties to Ukrainian Fascism and CIA Spying".

    http://www.alternet.org/media/anonymous-blacklist-promoted-washington-post-has-shocking-roots-ukrainian-fascism-eugenics-and

    GuyCybershy , 9 Dec 2016 21:3
    Clinton lost even though she outspent Trump two to one. She was just a lousy candidate who ran a terrible campaign.
    fimbulvinter -> GuyCybershy , 9 Dec 2016 21:4
    Uh excuse me but that sort of introspection doesn't fly. She was flawless and the blame rests solely on Russia/alt-right/Sanders/Third Parties/Racism/Misogyny/Alignment of the stars/etc/etc
    emilyadam , 9 Dec 2016 21:3
    I thnk the idea that russia has world domination is quite laughable, what else they gonna be blamed for next, reduction of giraffe population!Lol
    I think a teeny wee paranoia is setting in, or outright deliberate propaganda, too obvious
    Jim Moodie , 9 Dec 2016 21:3
    Is this worse than when the two CIA operatives were caught searching through files in the Offices of the British Labour Party about thirty years ago. What goes around comes around.

    The CIA hacks have been destabalisuping Government for a at least seventy years.

    One thing is pretty obvious paper ballots and a different ballot for each is much harder to rig.

    It is ironic it takes a despot life key Trump to bring the issue to a head AFTER unexpectedly won.

    freeandfair -> Jim Moodie , 9 Dec 2016 21:3
    "Is this worse than when the two CIA operatives were caught searching through files in the Offices of the British Labour Party about thirty years ago. What goes around comes around."

    The CIA were caught hacking into the US Congressional computers just 6 or so months ago. Nothing came out of it.

    guest88888 , 9 Dec 2016 21:3

    possible Russian hacking in US election

    Based on the fact that the US 2000 (and possibly 2004) election was outright stolen by George Bush Jr., perhaps the propagandists in the White House and media ought to be looking for a "Russian connection" in regards to our illustrious former president.

    Texas_Sotol , 9 Dec 2016 21:3
    I'm shocked--shocked--to hear that our close Russian allies have done anything to influence and undermine the stability of other countries. Preposterous accusation! And to try to become huge winners in the Western Hemisphere, by cheating? Vitriolic nonsense!

    Many posters here actually believe that Good Old Russia should just stick with what they do best. That's poison!

    Fencewalker -> Bluebird101 , 9 Dec 2016 21:4
    Rather like the Litvenenko inquiry...full of maybe's and possibilities, with not a shred of hard, factual proof shown - demonstrating that the order came from the Kremlin.
    It's just a total accident that Putin's most vocal opponents keep getting shot in the head, gunned down on bridges, suffering 'accidents' or strange miscarriages of (sometimes post-mortem) 'justice' and fall victim to radiological state-enacted terrorism in foreign countries. No pattern there, whatsoever.
    Informed17 , 9 Dec 2016 21:3
    I am at a loss. On the one hand, I hear about Russian economy in tatters, gas station posing as a country, deep crisis, economy the size of Italy, rusty old military toys, aircraft carrier smoking out the whole Northern hemisphere, etc. On the other hand, I hear about Russian threat all the time, which must be countered by massive build up of the US and EU military, Russia successfully interfering in the elections in the beacon of democracy, the US, with 20 times greater economy, with powerful allies, the best armed forces in the world, etc. Are we talking about two different Russias, or is this schizophrenia, pure and simple?
    jamese07uk -> Informed17 , 9 Dec 2016 21:3
    It's always easy to find reasons to fear something, added to that the psychology of the unknown, and we have the makings of very powerful propaganda. Whatever Russia's level of corruption, and general society, I feel I cannot trust the Western media anymore 100%. There seems to be a equally sinister hidden agenda deep within Western Elites - accessing Russia's land, political and potential wealthly resources must surely be one of them!? The longterm Western agenda/mission?
    spiridonovich , 9 Dec 2016 21:1
    The Democratic Party's problem is Russia, which the President is rightly putting front and center. All Russians are the summit of eviality, and must be endlessly scapegoated in order for Democrats to regain power for the nation's greater good.

    Democrats' problems have nothing to do with corruption, glaring conflicts of interest, favoritism, ass-licking editors, crappy data, lacking enthusiasm, and horribly poor judgement.

    None of these issues need to be publicly addressed, being of no consequence to independent voters, and the President, Guardian, et al. must continue their silent -- and "independent" -- vigil on such silly topics, if Democrats are to have any hope of cultivating enough mindless, enraged, and abandoned sheep to bring them future victories.

    ImmortalTao , 9 Dec 2016 21:1
    I admire Trump, Putin & Farage. Don't agree with them but I have admiration for them. They show all the cunning, calculating, resourcefulness that put the European race on top. Liberals don't like that and want to see the own people fall to the bottom. Thankfuly the neoliberal elite are finishedm
    MJMaguire , 9 Dec 2016 21:1
    Absurd nonsense - the third anti-Russian story of the day. Very little of this has much traction because of the sheer volume of misinformation coming out about Russia. there are very good cogent reasons why the Democrats lost the US election - none of them have anything to do with Russia.
    slats7 , 9 Dec 2016 21:0
    another pathetic attempt to delegitimize Trump. wanna know why he won? look in the mirror, Barry.
    oldsunshine -> slats7 , 9 Dec 2016 21:2
    Will Obama see Clinton if he looks in the mirror??
    Bluejil , 9 Dec 2016 21:0
    I can't see a thing wrong with reviewing the last three election cycles, if there is any doubt at all and to put speculation to bed, it should be done.
    CurtBrown -> Bluejil , 9 Dec 2016 21:1
    Why stop at the last three?
    Karl Marks -> CurtBrown , 9 Dec 2016 21:4
    Because the US is more concerned about money than democratic integrity.
    dicksonator , 9 Dec 2016 21:0
    So the US intelligence servies aren't doing similar operations?

    If they werent, heads would roll as they have a considerable budget. Did we learn nothing from Edward Snowden? Are Russia just better at this? I doubt it.

    I think both sides conduct themselves in a despicable manner so please dont call me a Putin apologist. Well, feel free actually, I could'nt care less.

    gray2016 , 9 Dec 2016 21:0

    Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election


    US interference:

    COUNTRY OR STATE Dates of intervention Comments
    VIETNAM l960-75 Fought South Vietnam revolt & North Vietnam; one million killed in longest U.S. war; atomic bomb threats in l968 and l969.
    CUBA l961 CIA-directed exile invasion fails.
    GERMANY l961 Alert during Berlin Wall crisis.
    LAOS 1962 Military buildup during guerrilla war.
    142 more rows

    Shall I go on with anoter 142? US lying scumbags

    yeCarumba -> gray2016 , 9 Dec 2016 21:0
    the vietnam fiasco alone is enough to disqualify america from any criticism about interference in internal affairs
    they practically destroyed the country
    KitKnightly , 9 Dec 2016 20:5
    The pathetic way the media are pushing this big-bad-Russians meme is a little depressing.

    This "hack" is totally fictional, the wikileaks e-mails were almost certainly that...leaks. As most o their output has been over the years. For 95% of the Wikileaks existence there have been absolutely zero connections with "the Kremlin", in fact they have leaked stuff damaging to Russia before now.

    The Russian's did not hack the DNC, or rig the election, this is yet another example of the political establishment hysterically pointing fingers and making up lies when their chosen side loses an election.

    freeandfair -> KitKnightly , 9 Dec 2016 21:3
    I remember how North Korea was blamed for Sony hack. I think they were even cut from the internet for a day and there was all this talk of punishing them. And then later it came out that very likely wasn't North Korea. Only the news cycle already moved on and nobody cared.
    mismeasure , 9 Dec 2016 20:5
    Traditionally, the best Cold Warriors have been right-wing liberals. In the absence of policies that concretely benefit the people they engage in threat inflation and demagoguery.
    SergeyL , 9 Dec 2016 20:4
    In 90s US set all figures in Russia - from president to news program anchor. Elections of 96 were ripped by American "advisors" so that Eltsyn with 3% rating "won" them. It's payback time.
    Shaemus Gruagain , 9 Dec 2016 20:4
    Oh how wonderful it is to watch them smart and the bonus? no more Obamas.
    uest88888 -> PeteCW , 9 Dec 2016 21:3
    And yet the so-called "Russian trolls" (which is apparently anyone who exercise a modicum of skepticism) seem to be winning here at CiF based on the number of likes per comment, which is likely why the NSA sponsored propagandists and clueless dopes are getting so increasingly shrill.
    Mattster101 , 9 Dec 2016 20:3
    If you take a wider view, this is all really about keeping the Dems in the game, trying to undo the Trump validity and give them another go in 4 or so years. Really, seems quite desperate that a man that allowed 270000 wild horses to be sold for horsemeat this year across the border to Mexico, brought HC in to his own cabinet having said 'she will say anything and do nothing', knowing what a nightmare that would make, and is going to watch his healthcare get ripped to shreds, needs more accomplishments in his last year, aka Obama, ergo, let's investigate the evil russians and their female athletes with male DNA ( you would think I am making this stuff up, but I am not ) ... Come on Grandma, where are you when we need you most
    nolongersilent , 9 Dec 2016 20:3
    we must somehow, subvert the despicable populace that elected trump. we must erase from history the conceding of president elect clinton - newpeak from the ministry of truth. we'll get her into the white house if it takes more cash, lies, and corruption. after all, who needs democracy in the democratic party when we have big brother. democracy just confuses the members. we'll send the despicables through the ministry of love to re-educate them, of course, this IS 1984 after all....we will vote for you, the intelligentsia of the left knows what is best for you.
    eldudeabides , 9 Dec 2016 20:3
    Should Hillary have been disqualified (and prosecuted) for having access to debate questions beforehand?
    Nete75 , 9 Dec 2016 20:3
    "Malicious cyber activity, specifically malicious cyber activity tied to our elections , has no place in the international community. Unfortunately this activity is not new to Moscow. We've seen them do this for years ... The president has made it clear to President Putin that this is unacceptable."

    Note how carefully it specifies that it is cyber activity tied to the american elections that is inappropriate. I presume that is simply to avoid openly saying that mass-surveillance by the US government of everyone's private email, and social network accounts doesn't come under that "no place in the international community" phrase. You know, one does wonder how these people's faces don't come off in shame when whinning about potential interference by foreign governemnts after a full 8 years or so of constant revelations of permanent spying and mass-surveillance by the US government of international leaders and ordinary citizens worldwide.

    Boghaunter , 9 Dec 2016 20:2
    So the DNC was hacked - so what. Hacking is so common these days as to be expected. A quick perusal of the internet provides some SIGNIFICANT hacks that deserved some consternation:

    9/4/07 The Chinese government hacked a noncritical Defense Department computer system in June, a Pentagon source told FOX News on Tuesday.

    Spring 2011 Foreign hackers broke into the Pentagon computer system this spring and stole 24,000 files - one of the biggest cyber-attacks ever on the U.S. military,

    On the 12th of July 2011, Booz Allen Hamilton the largest U.S. military defence contractor admitted that they had just suffered a very serious security breach, at the hands of hacktivist group AntiSec.

    5/28/13 The confidential version of a Defense Science Board report compiled earlier this year reportedly says Chinese hackers accessed designs for more than two dozen of the U.S. military's most important and expensive weapon systems.

    June 2014 The UK's National Crime Agency has arrested an unnamed young man over allegations that he breached the Department of Defense's network last June.


    1/12/15 The Twitter account for U.S. Central Command was suspended Monday after it was hacked by ISIS sympathizers (OK twitter accounts shouldn't be a big deal. Why does US CentCom even HAVE a twitter account???)

    5/6/15 OPM hack: China blamed for massive breach of US government data

    Omoikani , 9 Dec 2016 20:2
    And so the neocon propaganda machine trundles on, churning out this interesting material day after day. The elephant in the room is that if you get hacked you have no knowledge of this until your private stuff is all over the internet, and the chances of finding out who did it are zilch. Everyone in IT security knows this.
    johhnybgood , 9 Dec 2016 20:1
    Another "fake news" story. Does anybody with a pulse really believe that Russia hacked the DNC? The US Security Services admitted that it was NOT Russia; the likelihood is that the leaks were provided to Wikileaks by insiders within the US Administration - they wanted to ensure that Hillary did not win. None of the actual revelations were covered by the MSM, and "the Russians did it" was a convenient distraction.
    Omoikani -> johhnybgood , 9 Dec 2016 20:2
    All people that on earth do dwell have no clue who hacked the DNC to the amusing end that Podesta's e-mails ended up on the internet, but it suits a dangerous political narrative to demonise Russia until it becomes plain logical to attack them.
    peterward881 , 9 Dec 2016 20:0
    YES YES let attack Russia, YES YES YES, Russia Russia we should carry on attacking Russia. We the journalists are well paid by the man from Australia. YES YES we must to carry on attacking Russia and forget the shit happening in other countries. YES YES it is our duty.
    guest88888 , 9 Dec 2016 20:0

    Election hacking: Obama orders 'full review' of Russia interference

    And I guess Obama has also ordered the Guardian to do a full court press of anti-Russian propaganda, just judging by the articles pumped out on today's rag alone.

    The US government is seemingly attempting the "Big Lie" tactic of Joseph Goebbels and instigating support in the public for war against Russia. By repeating the completely unsubstantiated allegations that Russia has somehow "interfered with the election" they hope, without any genuine basis, to strong arm the public into accepting a further ramping of tensions and starting yet another illegal war for profit.

    Chirographer , 9 Dec 2016 19:5
    There's nothing wrong with conducting the investigation, but shouldn't it have been done before accusing Russia?

    And aren't all the people cited in the article political appointees, Democrats or avowed Trump enemies, and then there's closing, " A spokesman for the director of national intelligence declined to comment."

    Karega , 9 Dec 2016 19:5
    Surely of all the Orders Obama might issue during his last weeks in office, why does he choose to give a stupid Order that effectively makes US some sort of Banana Republic? This man was/is more hype than real! At a stroke of a pen he seriously undermines the integrity of the US Electoral System. Whatever credibility was left has now been eroded by these constant and silly claims that somehow Russians installed Trump as President. Doesn't that make Trump some sort of Russian Agent?
    Meanwhile MSM keeps on streaming some fake news and theories and then Obama Orders US intelligence to dig deeper. This is lunacy!
    alexfoxy28 , 9 Dec 2016 19:5
    Obama certainly understands that Russia is not the reason why Trump was elected. However, he wants to create new obstacles on the way of normalization of relations between the US and Russia and make it more difficult for Trump.

    However, Trump is not a weak man, not a skinny worm; and he can hit these opponents back so hard that international court for them (for invasions into sovereign countries) will lead to their life sentences.

    Ginen , 9 Dec 2016 19:5
    Only two weeks ago the Obama Administration publicly stated there was no evidence of cybersecurity breaches affecting the electoral process, as reported in the NYT :

    The administration, in its statement, confirmed reports from the Department of Homeland Security and intelligence officials that they did not see "any increased level of malicious cyberactivity aimed at disrupting our electoral process on Election Day."

    The administration said it remained "confident in the overall integrity of electoral infrastructure, a confidence that was borne out." It added: "As a result, we believe our elections were free and fair from a cybersecurity perspective."

    Was Obama lying then or is he lying now?
    imperfetto , 9 Dec 2016 19:5
    Is there any limit to the ridicolous, Mr. Obama? what is this? a tragicomic play of the inept?
    Here we are with the most childish fabrication that it must be the Russians' fault if Trump won the election. I'll be laughing for an entire cosmic era! And all this after US publically announced that they were going to launch a devastating acher attack against the badies: the Russians, which of course didn't work out. Come on, this is more comedy that a serious play.

    What probably is going on, the readers can gather by having a look at the numberless articles that are being published by maistream media against the Russians.
    Why this histeric insurgence of Russofobia? Couldn't it be that it is intolerable for the US and their allies to see the Russians winning in Aleppo, and most of all restoring peace and tollerance among the population returning to their abbandoned homes.

    brothersgrimm , 9 Dec 2016 19:3
    I think Hillary, in part, lost the election due to all the fake news being pumped out by the mainstream corporate media, doing her bidding. People are tired of it, along with all the corruption and lies that came to the surface through the likes of Wikileaks.
    Trump is a terrible alternative, but the only alternative people were given, so many went with it.
    Now we see fake news making out the Russians to be the bad guys again, pumping out story after story, trying to propagandize the population into sucking up these new memes. Russia has its problems, and will always act in its own self-interest, but it's nothing compared to the tactics the US uses, bullying countries around the world to pander to its own will, desperately trying to maintain its Empire.
    RoachAmerican , 9 Dec 2016 19:3
    Examine something real, Nuclear Hillary. It must be time for Spring Planting??
    http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/04/23/us/clinton-foundation-donations-uranium-investors.html?_r=0

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syEjkPyqRew
    Minutes 20 to 25
    Uranium One Wyoming
    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html

    http://www.npr.org/2015/04/23/401781313/clinton-foundation-linked-to-russian-effort-to-buy-uranium-company
    https://youtu.be/jkfE10g8xbc
    at 25 minutes et seq
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkfE10g8xbc&feature=youtu.be


    Below, first paragraphs are the most important
    http://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-davidson/five-questions-about-the-clintons-and-a-uranium-company

    The 1 2 3 Step of Acquisition of Uranium One
    http://www.businessinsider.com/the-clintons-putin-and-uranium-2015-4

    Going Private Part Public Company Disappears
    http://www.wise-uranium.org/ucscr.html

    http://www.pravdareport.com/russia/economics/22-01-2013/123551-russia_nuclear_energy-0 /
    Coward Comey needs to go.

    Joelbanks , 9 Dec 2016 19:3
    The scripture tells us those who live by the sword will perish by it.

    America was in the interference of other countries' elections before its ugly 2016 presidential election. Remember Ukraine and Secretary Hillary Clinton's employee Victoria F****the EU Nuland in Ukraine. Now we have the makings of some kind of conflict with Russia over its alleged meddling in America's elections. More global tension= More cash flowing into the US equity market, money printing by another means.

    hardlyeverclever , 9 Dec 2016 19:3
    I'd be surprised if the Russians weren't trying to affect the outcome of the election. The Brits had a debate in Parliament on Trump, Obama made threats to the UK on the Brexit vote, so who knows what we're all doing in each others elections behind closed doors while we are clear to do so publically.

    The MSM's absolute refusal to address the leaks in a meaningful way (other than the stuff about recipes) suggests to be no one felt it a big deal at the time.

    alexfoxy28 , 9 Dec 2016 19:3
    Obama could realise that Hillary's viewes on Putin and Russia did not help her at all. People are not that stupid, they see well, use own brains and not so easily impressed by whatever CNN says to them.
    Alun Jones , 9 Dec 2016 19:2
    John McAfee said that any organization sophisticated enough to do these hacks is also sophisticated enough to make it look as though any country they want did it. So it could have been anyone.
    palindrome , 9 Dec 2016 19:2
    Obama earlier this year: Russia is not a world power, only a regional power.

    Obama now: Russia has the power to manipulate the USA election.

    Which one is it then?

    Of course it's all bull...Obama is another establishment puppet who cannot accept that people have figured out their modus operandi.

    diddoit , 9 Dec 2016 19:2
    It's reported today on Ars Technica : ThyssenKrupp suffered a "professional attack"

    The steelmaker, which makes military subs, says it was targeted from south-east Asia.

    ..the design of its plants were penetrated by a "massive," coordinated attack which made off with an unknown amount of "technological know-how and research."

    The internet and precious information...

    alexfoxy28 , 9 Dec 2016 19:2
    Neoliberals are just desperately losing ideological competition at home and abroad. They cannot convince people that they are right because it's not what's going on.

    It does not matter what some others say, it's what really goes on matters.

    alexfoxy28 -> imipak , 9 Dec 2016 21:0
    But there is innate, basic self-interest in all people (that does not depend on education, ethnicity, race) and people know it instinctively well. They will not go against it even if all around will tell otherwise.
    alexfoxy28 -> alexfoxy28 , 9 Dec 2016 21:1 0 1
    simulacra27 , 9 Dec 2016 19:2
    The fake news channel brought to you by Obama and co.
    p.s. I mean that people cannot be manipulated by others at this basic level when some higher level manipulative tools are used.
    Kasem3000 , 9 Dec 2016 19:1
    I love how this has now become solid fact. No confirmation, nothing official but it is no common fact that the Russians interfered. How many reports do we hear about US interference with foreign countries infastructure through covert means.
    ShoppingKingLouie , 9 Dec 2016 19:1
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/dec/08/vladimir-putin-hillary-clinton-russia

    Meh. Seems like tampering happens all the time. How many elections in South America did the USA fix? How many in the middle east and Africa? I think this "russian's did it" rhetoric is counterproductive as it is stopping Democrats from doing the introspective needed to really understand why HRC lost the election.

    ShoppingKingLouie , 9 Dec 2016 19:1
    How can you on the one hand crusade against "fake news" and on the other promote this:

    https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2016/dec/08/artist-alison-jackson-self-publishes-spoof-trump-photos-despite-fear-of-being-sued#comments

    Sutir Comed , 9 Dec 2016 19:0
    Imagine if the shoe were on the other foot and there was credible evidence that the Russians had rigged the election in favor of the Democrat. The right-wing echo chamber would be having seizures! These people are UTTER HYPOCRITES. And they would obviously rather win with the help of a hostile foreign power than try to preserve the integrity of our elections.
    MayorHoberMallow , 9 Dec 2016 19:0
    Russia may or may not have hacked the DNC. I'd like to find out. I hope the DNC aren't enough of doofusses to assume this wouldn't be in the realm of possibility.
    I presume that the U.S. has its own group of hackers doing the same Worldwide. This is not a criticism; I would expect the U.S. intelligence community to learn what our rivals, and even some of our friends, are up to.
    Timothy Everton , 9 Dec 2016 19:0
    This is getting to be pretty lame. I have doubts that "Russia" could interfere to any great extent with our elections any more than we could with theirs. Sure, individuals or organizations, and more than likely in THIS country, could do so. And they have, as we saw with the DNC and Sanders campaign (and vice versa). Let's not go into an almost inevitable nuclear war over what is quite possibly "fake news".
    dreylon , 9 Dec 2016 19:0
    Russia did this, Russia did that
    its getting very boring now, you have lost all credibility
    you have cried wolf to many times
    stop trying to manipulate us
    Johnny Kent , 9 Dec 2016 18:5
    When will the Democrats get it? It wasn't the Russians, who are blamed for everything, including the weather, by desperate Western failed leaders, but an unsuitable candidate in Clinton, which lost them the Election. Bernie Sanders would have walked it.
    Catonaboat , 9 Dec 2016 18:5
    Well Guardian I do believe you hit a nerve, I don't think I've ever seen a more one sided BTL. Me thinks some people do protest too much.
    Iaorana , 9 Dec 2016 18:5
    Regarding the notorious "fuck the EU " on the part of the US "diplomat" Victoria Nuland "the State Department and the White House suggested that an assistant to the deputy prime minister of Russia Dmitry Rogozin was the source of the leak, which he denied " Wiki

    Good occasion to substantiate the accusation which ,substantiated or not,will remind the "useful idiots" of the "change of regime " US policy and who started the Ukrainian crisis.

    Lafcadio1944 , 9 Dec 2016 18:5
    Boy, oh boy, fake news is everywhere just read this headline!

    Election hacking: Obama orders 'full review' of Russia interference

    Which states as fact there was interference by Russia and that the investigation is to determine how bad it was. NO EVIDENCE WHAT SO EVER has been offered by anyone that Russia interfered in any way. FAKE NEWS!!

    Mike5000 , 9 Dec 2016 18:5
    Voting machine hacking is a very serious problem but you generally need physical access to a voting machine to hack it. Anyone notice thousands of Russians hanging around in Detriot, Los Angeles, etc election HQs? How about Clinton drones?

    If the DNC hadn't rigged the primary we'd be celebrating president-elect Bernie. If they hadn't rigged the general Hillary would have lost by a landslide.

    ShoppingKingLouie , 9 Dec 2016 18:5
    We never investigated this tho did we Former President Obama?

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/dec/08/vladimir-putin-hillary-clinton-russia

    Time to put on your big girl pants, accept defeat and leave gracefully.

    Powerspike , 9 Dec 2016 18:5
    1000 Russian athletes were doping in the 2012 Olympics - but it's taken until now to realise it?!
    Russia influenced the 2016 US election?!
    Russia is presently "influencing" the German elections?!
    Russia is killing civilians and destroying hospitals with impunity in Syria?!
    etc
    Wow! Russia is taking over the world, it must be stopped, can anyone save us? Obama? Trump? NATO?
    Look out! Russian armies are massing on the border ready to sweep into Europe.......arrhhh!

    I love the smell of gibberish in the morning!

    geofffrey , 9 Dec 2016 18:4
    ***Newsflash***

    Reads:

    "..ex-prime minister Anthony Charles Lynton Blair of the United Kingdom, and Hillary Rodham Clinton of the United States of America, have formally announced a new transatlantic political party to be named: The Neoliberal Elite Party for bitter anti-Brexiters and sore anti-Trumpettes.

    dahsab , 9 Dec 2016 18:4
    Rather rich coming from my country which has interfered in elections around the world for decades. I suppose it's only cheating if the other team does it.

    Not that they'll find any evidence. Just another chapter in the sad saga of the Democrats unwillingness to admit they ran the worst candidate & the worst campaign in recent memory. It's not our fault! Them dirty Russkies did it!

    [Dec 10, 2016] McCarthys Smiling Ghost Democrats Point the Finger at Russia by Norman Solomon

    Notable quotes:
    "... Joe McCarthy rose to corrosive prominence at the midpoint of the 20th century by riding hysteria and spurring it on. The demagoguery was fueled not only by opportunistic politicians but also by media outlets all too eager to damage the First Amendment and other civil liberties in the name of Americanism and anti-communism. ..."
    "... Most Democratic leaders, for their part, seem determined to implicitly - or even explicitly - scapegoat the Russian government for the presidential election results. Rather than clearly assess the impacts of Hillary Clinton 's coziness with Wall Street, or even the role of the FBI director just before the election, the Democratic line seems bent on playing an anti-Russia card. ..."
    www.counterpunch.org

    This country went through protracted witch hunts during the McCarthy era. A lot of citizens - including many government workers - had their lives damaged or even destroyed. The chill on the First Amendment became frosty, then icy. Democracy was on the ropes.

    Joe McCarthy rose to corrosive prominence at the midpoint of the 20th century by riding hysteria and spurring it on. The demagoguery was fueled not only by opportunistic politicians but also by media outlets all too eager to damage the First Amendment and other civil liberties in the name of Americanism and anti-communism.

    Today, congressional leaders of both parties seem glad to pretend that Section 501 of the Intelligence Authorization Act is just fine, rather than an odious and dangerous threat to precious constitutional freedoms. On automatic pilot, many senators will vote aye without a second thought.

    Yet by rights, with growing grassroots opposition , this terrible provision should be blocked by legislators in both parties, whether calling themselves progressives, liberals, libertarians, Tea Partyers or whatever, who don't want to chip away at cornerstones of the Bill of Rights.

    Most Democratic leaders, for their part, seem determined to implicitly - or even explicitly - scapegoat the Russian government for the presidential election results. Rather than clearly assess the impacts of Hillary Clinton 's coziness with Wall Street, or even the role of the FBI director just before the election, the Democratic line seems bent on playing an anti-Russia card.

    Perhaps in the mistaken belief that they can gain some kind of competitive advantage over the GOP by charging Russian intervention for Donald Trump 's victory, the Democrats are playing with fire. The likely burn victims are the First Amendment and other precious freedoms.

    [Dec 10, 2016] Whos Behind PropOrNots Blacklist of News Websites

    From Wikipedia article Communist propaganda. "....the term "propaganda" broadly refers to any publication or campaign aimed at promoting a cause and is/was used for official purposes by most communist-oriented governments. Rooted in Marxist thought, the propaganda of communism is viewed by its proponents as the vehicle for spreading the enlightenment of working class people and pulling them away from the propaganda of their oppressors that reinforces their exploitation, such as religion or consumerism. A Bolshevik theoretician, Nikolai Bukharin, in his The ABC of Communism wrote:[1] The State propaganda of communism becomes in the long run a means for the eradication of the last traces of bourgeois propaganda dating from the old régime; and it is a powerful instrument for the creation of a new ideology, of new modes of thought, of a new outlook on the world.
    Similarly neoliberal propaganda is the vehicle of spreading neoliberal ideas and "neoliberal rationality" inside the country and all over the world the reinforces key postulated of neoliberalism -- unlimited "free market" for transnational corporations, deregulation, suppression of wages via "free movement of labor" and outsourcing and offshoring, decimation of labor unions and organized labor in general (atomization of working force"), "greed is good" memo, etc.
    Like Communist propaganda during Brezhnev rule, neoliberal propaganda after 2008 is in crisis, and it is natural to expect that neoliberal propagandists will resort to heavy handed tactic of McCarthyism in a vain attempt to restore its influence.
    wallstreetonparade.com
    Wall Street On Parade closely examined the report issued by PropOrNot, its related Twitter page, and its registration as a business in New Mexico, looking for "tells" as to the individual(s) behind it. We learned quite a number of interesting facts.

    As part of its McCarthyite tactics, PropOrNot has developed a plugin to help readers censor material from the websites it has blacklisted. It calls that its YYYCampaignYYY. In that effort, it lists an official address of 530-B Harkle Road, Suite 100, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505. That's one of those agent addresses that serve as a virtual address for the creation of limited liability corporations that want to keep their actual principals secret. The address has dozens of businesses associated with it. There should also be a corresponding business listed in the online archives of the business registry at the Secretary of State of New Mexico. However, no business with the words Propaganda or PropOrNot or YYY exist in the New Mexico business registry, suggesting PropOrNot is using a double cloaking device to shield its identity by registering under a completely different name.

    PropOrNot's Twitter page provides a "tell" that its report may simply be a hodgepodge compilation of other people's research that was used to arrive at its dangerous assertion that critical thinkers across America are a clandestine network of Russian propaganda experts. Its Tweet on November 7 indicates that the research of Peter Pomerantsev, a Senior Fellow at the Legatum Institute in London, who has also been cooperating on research with the Information Warfare Project of the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA) in Washington, D.C, inspired its efforts.

    According to SourceWatch, the Legatum Institute "is a right-wing think tank promoting 'free markets, free minds, and free peoples.' " SourceWatch adds that the Legatum Institute "is a project founded and funded by the Legatum Group, a private investment group based in Dubai." According to the Internet Archive known as the Wayback Machine, the Center for European Policy Analysis previously indicated it was an affiliate of the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA). We can see why they might want to remove that affiliation now that the Koch brothers have been exposed as funders of a very real network of interrelated websites and nonprofits. According to Desmog, NCPA has received millions of dollars in funding from right wing billionaires like the Koch brothers and their related trusts along with the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, the Sarah Scaife Foundation (heir to the Mellon fortune) along with corporations like ExxonMobil.

    CEPA's InfoWar Project is currently listed as a "Related Project" at PropOrNot's website. Indeed, there are numerous references within the report issued by PropOrNot that sound a familiar refrain to Pomerantsev and/or CEPA. Both think the U.S. Congress is in denial on the rising dangers of Russian propaganda and want it to take more direct counter measures. Pages 31 and 32 of the PropOrNot report urge the American people to demand answers from the U.S. government about how much it knows about Russian propaganda. The report provides a detailed list of specific questions that should be asked.

    In the August 2016 report released by CEPA (the same month the PropOrNot Twitter account was established) Pomerantsev and his co-author, Edward Lucas, recommend the establishment of "An international commission under the auspices of the Council of Europe on the lines of the Venice Commission" to "act as a broadcasting badge of quality. If an official body cannot be created, then an NGO could play a similar advisory role."

    On its website, PropOrNot recommends a much stronger censorship of independent media websites, writing:

    "We call on the American public to Obtain news from actual reporters, who report to an editor and are professionally accountable for mistakes. We suggest NPR, the BBC, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, Buzzfeed News, VICE, etc, and especially your local papers and local TV news channels. Support them by subscribing, if you can!"

    It has been the experience of Wall Street On Parade that the editors of the New York Times are more than willing to ignore brazen misreporting of critical facts, even when the errors are repeatedly brought to their attention; even when those erroneous facts are then repeated by the President of the United States. (See our report: President Obama Repeats the Falsehoods of the New York Times and Andrew Ross Sorkin on Restoring the Glass-Steagall Act.)

    CounterPunch was quick to point out that the Washington Post's former publisher, Philip Graham, supervised a disinformation network for the CIA during the Cold War, known as Mockingbird. Graham was reported to have died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound at his farm in 1963.

    CEPA's website indicates that on May 10 it hosted Senators Chris Murphy and Rob Portman to discuss "Russia's sophisticated disinformation campaign." CEPA's President, A. Wess Mitchell is quoted as saying: "What's missing is a significant effort on the part of the U.S. government. Not nearly enough has been done."

    Six days after Washington Post reporter Craig Timberg ran his first PropOrNot story, he published another article indicating that "Congressional negotiators on Wednesday approved an initiative to track and combat foreign propaganda amid growing concerns that Russian efforts to spread 'fake news' and disinformation threaten U.S. national security." Quoted in the story was none other than the very Senator who had met with CEPA in May on that very topic, Senator Rob Portman.

    Portman is quoted as follows: "This propaganda and disinformation threat is real, it's growing, and right now the U.S. government is asleep at the wheel." Among Portman's top three donors to his 2016 Senate race were Citigroup and Goldman Sachs, two Wall Street behemoths that would very much like to pivot the national debate to anything other than Wall Street power and corruption.

    [Dec 10, 2016] NBCs Fake News King Brian Williams Launches Crusade Against Fake News

    Notable quotes:
    "... Fake News, the new barrel bombs meme ..."
    "... Sorry, Brian, but you and your ilk sold your credibility for a full investment position in Hillary and Globalism. Your only recourse now is to attack and try to delegitamize those who call you out. ..."
    Dec 10, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com

    Now this is rich. Brian Williams, the disgraced ex-NBC journalist who was literally fired for falsely reporting that he was in a helicopter during the Iraq war that took on combatant fire, is now going on a crusade against "fake news." On his MSNBC show last night, Williams decided to attack retired General Flynn and Donald Trump for spreading "fake news" via their twitter accounts.

    ... ... ...

    nuubee •Dec 9, 2016 11:42 AM

    I'm going to start reading The Onion and taking it seriously now.

    nope-1004 -> Pladizow •Dec 9, 2016 11:48 AM

    At least he wasn't in real harms way, like Hillary, when she landed under sniper fire.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMpqImAjel4

    NoDebt -> Life of Illusion •Dec 9, 2016 12:02 PM

    It's like [neo]Liberals are genetically compelled or something to accuse others of what they themselves are actually doing. I've never seen anything this universally true for an entire group of people suffering the same mental illness ([neo]liberalism).

    nmewn -> MillionDollarBonus_ Dec 9, 2016 1:24 PM ,
    Accredit this you fucking bozo...

    The Iraq RPG Helicopter Hit

    - "A terrible moment a dozen years back during the invasion of Iraq when the helicopter we were traveling in was forced down after being hit by an RPG." - NBC Nightly News, January 30, 2015

    - "It was no more than 120 seconds later that the helicopter in front of us was hit." - Brian Williams to Tim Russert on CNBC, March 2005

    - "I was instead following the aircraft" [that was struck by the RPG]. - NBC Nightly News, Wednesday February 5, 2015

    - Williams' original [March 26, 2003, NBC News] report indicated that a helicopter in front of his was hit. - PolitiFact

    - NBC publishes a book [in 2003], "Operation Iraqi Freedom," in which they describe Williams' experience, implying that his helicopter sustained fire. - PolitiFact

    - May 2008: Williams writes another [NBC News] blog, responding to a note from a soldier who he met in Iraq. In this post, Williams indicates that he was in a helicopter that took fire. - PolitiFact

    - "I've done some ridiculously stupid things under that banner, like being in a helicopter I had no business being in Iraq with rounds coming into the airframe," he said [to Alec Baldwin in March 2014] - PolitiFact

    - "We were in some helicopters. What we didn't know was, we were north of the invasion. We were the northernmost Americans in Iraq. We were going to drop some bridge portions across the Euphrates so the Third Infantry could cross on them. Two of the four helicopters were hit, by ground fire, including the one I was in, RPG and AK-47. - Williams to Letterman on March 26, 2013 - PolitiFact.

    - In the initial NBC broadcast where he described his 2003 Iraq reporting mission, embattled NBC anchor Brian Williams falsely claimed that "we saw the guy . . . [who] put a round through the back of a chopper," which he further and incorrectly claimed was "the Chinook [helicopter] in front of us." - Breitbart

    - "We flew over a bridge. He waved to the lead pilot very kindly. With that someone else removed the tarp, stood up, and put a round through the back of a chopper missing the rear rotor by four or five feet." - To Tom Brokaw on March 26, 2003 - Breitbart

    - "[Y]ou go back to Iraq, and I looked down the tube of an RPG that had been fired at us and it hit the chopper in front of ours." - Williams to Fairfield University in 2007 - Ace of Spades

    SEAL Team 6 Tale

    - "We have some idea which of our special operations teams carried this out," Williams said on "The Late Show With David Letterman" the day after the raid [May 2, 2011]. "It happens to be a team I flew into Baghdad with, on the condition that I would never speak of what I saw on the aircraft, what aircraft we were on, what we were carrying, or who we were after." - Huffington Post

    - "Now, people might be hearing about SEAL Team 6," Williams said the next night, May 3, 2011, on "Nightly News." "I happen to have the great honor of flying into Baghdad with them at the start of the war." - Huffington Post

    - "I flew into Baghdad, invasion plus three days, on a blackout mission at night with elements of SEAL Team 6, and I was told not to make any eye contact with them or initiate any conversation," Williams said. (Three days after the U.S. invasion would have been March 22, 2003, not April 9, 2003, which was the day Williams broadcasted from the Baghdad airport.) - To David Letterman in May of 2012 - Huffinton Post

    - In the 2012 "Late Show" appearance, Williams also recalled carrying a box of Wheat Thins, which he said a hungry special operator dug into with a "hand the size of a canned ham." They got to talking, and Williams told the commando how much he admired his knife. "Darned if that knife didn't show up at my office a couple weeks later," Williams told Letterman. - Huffington Post

    - "About six weeks after the Bin Laden raid, I got a white envelope and in it was a thank-you note, unsigned," Williams said on "Letterman" in January 2013. "And in it was a piece of the fuselage of the blown-up Black Hawk in that courtyard. Sent to me by one of my friends." - Huffington Post

    - In February 2014, Williams elaborated on the helicopter gift in another media appearance, this time on the sports talk show hosted by Dan Patrick. "It's one of the toughest things to get," he said, "and the president has a piece of it as well It's made of a material most people haven't seen or held in their hands." - Huffington Post

    Fall of the Berlin Wall

    - "I've been so fortunate," he said during a 2008 forum at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library. "I was at the Brandenburg Gate the night the wall came down." - CNN

    - "Here's a fact: 25 years ago tonight, Tom Brokaw and I were at the Berlin Wall," Williams said at a gala held on November 8, 2014. - CNN

    The Pope

    - "I was there during the visit of the pope," Williams said [in 2002]. - CNN

    - While delivering the commencement address at Catholic University that year [2004], Williams said the "highlight" of his time at the school "was in this very doorway, shaking hands with the Holy Father during his visit to this campus." - CNN

    Katyusha Rocket Fire

    - "There were Katyusha rockets passing just beneath the helicopter I was riding in," he told a student interviewer from Fairfield (Conn.) University that year [2007]. - Washington Post

    Katrina

    - "All of us watched [in the Superdome] as one man committed suicide." - Williams to Tom Brokaw, at Columbia University in 2013 .

    –. My week, two weeks there was not helped by the fact that I accidentally ingested some of the floodwater. I became very sick with dysentery." - Williams to Tom Brokaw at Columbia University in 2013.

    - "Our hotel was overrun with gangs. I was rescued in the stairwell of a five-star hotel in New Orleans by a young police officer – we are friends to this day." - Williams to Tom Brokaw at Columbia University in 2013.

    - "When you look out of your hotel window in the French Quarter and watch a man float by face down, when you see bodies that you last saw in Banda Aceh, Indonesia, and swore to yourself that you would never see in your country," Williams told Eisner [in 2006], who suggested in the interview that Williams emerged from former NBC News anchor Tom Brokaw's shadow with his Katrina coverage. - USA Today

    - In Williams's telling, the pathos of the scene extended to his crew's access to food. "We were desperate for food and drink. But not like the people we were seeing in the streets," he said in the documentary "In His Own Words: Brian Williams on Hurricane Katrina." - Washington Post

    Puppy Rescue

    - "I remember one such house fire - the structure was fully involved with flames and smoke. I was wearing a breathing apparatus, conducting a search on my hands and knees, when I felt something warm, squishy and furry on the floor of a closet. I instinctively tucked it in my coat." - October 2011, USA Today

    - "All I ever did as a volunteer fireman was once save two puppies." - January 2007, Esquire

    Christmas Tree Robbery

    In a 2005 interview with Esquire magazine, Williams said a thief drew on him in the 1970s - leaving him "looking up at a thug's snub-nosed .38 while selling Christmas trees out of the back of a truck." – NY Post

    Quitting College

    - "One day, I'm at the copy machine in the White House and Walter Mondale comes up behind me and clears his throat. A classic throat-clearing. I thought people only did that in movies, but it turns out vice-presidents do it, too. Anyway, it makes for an exceptionally good morning, and I run from the White House to the GW campus for class. I'm still wearing my West Wing hard pass on a chain, and when my professor sees it, he admits that he's only been to the White House on the public tour. And I thought to myself, This is costing me money that I don't have, and I'm a young man in too much of a hurry. So I left school." - Brian Williams to Esquire , 2005

    - But then a friend invited him to drive to Washington, D.C., for a weekend, and everything changed. Smitten with the city and its youthful energy, Williams decided to move there. He transferred what credits he could from Brookdale to Catholic University and took a job in the public relations department to help pay his expenses. He landed an internship at the White House, and when that ended, he answered an ad for a clerking job at a broadcasting association. - 2009, New Jersey-Star Ledger

    Ms No nmewn Dec 9, 2016 10:08 PM ,
    It's just amazing what a shameless loser this guy has always been. I was surprised that they even fired him for contriving this story, that is after all, what they do. The whole idea behind embedding journalists was to make them part of the team, which prevents subjective journalism (not that there was a risk of that happening with him) and turning the war into a fictionalized patriotic orgy of bullshit reality TV. This was a huge shame to the profession of journalism before you factor in the lies and perpetual fabrication.

    The only reason he was fired was due to the fact that we were in the throws of a giant national masturbation frenzy over military aggression and the military and it's endeavors became untouchable overnight. When they got pissed off during that time frame it definitely mattered, not so much now. Now they are just screwing them and everybody else. These news anchors are absolutely disgusting, just about every one of them. They all look like pumpkins and hookers. They need to lay off the hairspray and man-makeup before throwing themselves into 170 degree acidic geyser (you don't want it too hot).

    Perimetr Ms No Dec 9, 2016 10:44 PM
    These ratfuck pressitutes haven't noticed Clinton lost the election because we stopped buying the MSM lies nothing there that's worthwhile to read based on his stupidity here.
    The Saint NewHugh Dec 9, 2016 10:11 PM ,
    Similar to Brian Williams, here is a short documentary on what makes George Soros such an evil person.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9aETpLQ7WcM

    Paul E. Math NoDebt Dec 9, 2016 9:21 PM ,
    Brian Willians has been discredited and should either retire or find another job. But also, and I'm serious about this, Pizzagate is a ridiculous made-up bullshit story that is distracting everyone from the real issues and the way that the Dems have fucked our whole civilization for real, not just a few kids that likely never even happened.

    Even if pizzagate is real it is far less important than the many real ways in which the elites have fucked us all.

    Uzda Farce AllTimeWhys Dec 9, 2016 12:10 PM ,
    Brian Williams is a member of the Rockefeller/CFR along with Mika Brzezinski and Charles "Joe" Scarborough. See member lists at cfr dot org.

    "The fact that we will not reestablish [another] Walter Cronkite, because of technology... does not mean we can't have people who are trusted. Brian Williams is sitting here , Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric..."

    -- CFR media control roundtable , sponsored by Time-Warner, 2009-09

    J S Bach Uzda Farce Dec 9, 2016 12:18 PM ,
    Hubris and hypocrisy... the two things the MSM is best at.
    NotApplicable J S Bach Dec 9, 2016 1:02 PM ,
    With over a century of government schooling to dumb down the population, I'd say their lack of tact is fairly well warranted, given the average length of attention span can likely be measured in hours.
    TeamDepends Uzda Farce Dec 9, 2016 12:20 PM ,
    All we can do is tell the unawake to turn off the idiot box, stop ingesting Kellogg's etc etc. Every day we win a few more battles, and one day come to realize the enemy are all lying on the ground, motionless.
    Bam_Man NoDebt Dec 9, 2016 1:05 PM ,
    It's called PROJECTION.

    A very common symptom of Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

    Other symptoms include:

  • Having an exaggerated sense of self-importance
  • Expecting to be recognized as superior even without achievements that warrant it
  • Exaggerating your achievements and talents
  • Being preoccupied with fantasies about success, power, brilliance, beauty or the perfect mate
  • Believing that you are superior and can only be understood by or associate with equally special people
  • Requiring constant admiration
  • Having a sense of entitlement
  • Expecting special favors and unquestioning compliance with your expectations
  • Taking advantage of others to get what you want
  • Having an inability or unwillingness to recognize the needs and feelings of others
  • Being envious of others and believing others envy you
  • Behaving in an arrogant or haughty manner
  • Dimwit Life of Illusion Dec 9, 2016 1:00 PM ,
    EVIDENTLY NOT,

    Obama orders review of cyber attacks on 2016 election – adviser

    President Barack Obama directed US intelligence agencies to conduct a full review of cyber attacks and foreign intervention into the 2016 election and deliver a report before he leaves office, homeland security adviser Lisa Monaco said on Friday. Monaco told reporters the results of the report would be shared with lawmakers and others. Obama leaves office on January 20. (Reuters)

    EscapeKey LowerSlowerDelaware_LSD Dec 9, 2016 11:54 AM ,
    here's some more fake news from nbc

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgm3_jzcNm4

    Whalley World EscapeKey Dec 9, 2016 12:34 PM ,
    Fake News, the new barrel bombs meme
    Antifaschistische LowerSlowerDelaware_LSD Dec 9, 2016 11:58 AM ,
    remember, this has nothing to do with fake news. This has everything to do with competition. THe MSM is getting too much competition from independent bloggers and opinions that don't follow their narrative. Their goal now......figure out some way to shut them down.
    mary mary Antifaschistische Dec 9, 2016 12:06 PM ,
    Amazing! People find truth more interesting than the MSM pablum of misdirection and misinformation.
    LyLo Antifaschistische Dec 9, 2016 12:29 PM ,
    And that's the entirety of the issue: if McCain had won in 2008, we'd have been hearing about fake news then. It really is just that we had the audacity to disagree with the legacy media--who for the first time in my memory broke every rule they had for themselves in appearing to cover all sides--to try to corral the US public into voting for their candidate of choice. Even Fox News was anti-Trump, for fuck's sake: did they not realize that gave away the game?!

    Ironically, I feel if the media hadn't been so in-the-bag for Clinton from the start, I wouldn't be surprised if she had won. The media lost her A LOT of votes by making it look like, whether true or not, they had been bought off. (Yeah, I know they were. But they aren't supposed to APPEAR it; Clinton should ask for a refund, in my opinion.)

    So yeah; look forward to media licensing being floated, and somehow requiring credentials for journalists (which will end with needing to be 'certified,' which will inevitably require an expensive several year trip to your university daycare of choice.)

    Will it work? Actually, for once, I have hope: I don't think it will. In fact, I suspect fairly soon, someone is going to notice that Thomas Payne was probably the first purveyor of "fake news" in this country, and that's a fucked up thing to be against as an American.

    MANvsMACHINE LyLo Dec 9, 2016 1:03 PM ,
    Fox News was anti-Trump?
    equity_momo LyLo Dec 9, 2016 8:53 PM ,
    BS. If McCain won in 2008 we'd already be in an actual fucking hot war with Russia. 2008 was a wet-dream for Soros and his boys. They got to win big or win FUCKING BIG.
    flaminratzazz LowerSlowerDelaware_LSD Dec 9, 2016 12:06 PM ,
    This is all a distraction from the tribes FULL COURT PRESS

    again, just like I said yesterday about recognizing evil look at their eyes

    The eyes

    equity_momo LowerSlowerDelaware_LSD Dec 9, 2016 8:48 PM ,
    Heres an idea. How about we play the "Fake News Game"

    I say something that could be true or false , you reply with your answer and then its your turn.

    "Hillary Clinton has only been on the Lolita Express 6 times" True or False ?

    equity_momo equity_momo Dec 9, 2016 9:04 PM ,
    Its TRUE!

    The FBI found State Dept emails showing that Hillary Clinton went to "Orgy Island" at least 6 times - and at least once in the company of convicted pedo Jeffrey Epstein. (Bill Clinton went there "at least 20 times" - those pesky progressives!)

    El Oregonian nope-1004 Dec 9, 2016 11:50 AM ,
    Oh yeah, him and pope poopagolio are the "Real" ones... PLEASE! (FLAKE NEWS!: as in snowflakes)
    Chupacabra-322 El Oregonian Dec 9, 2016 12:03 PM ,
    Brian,

    You are the epitome of and exactly exactly the type of vile, disgusting, reprehensible Scum at the bottom of the Swap. A bottom feeder at best.

    The Presstitute Centrailized Media has been exposed for the farce that it is. The obvious denial of it simply exposes the Sociopathic / Psychopathic Nature of you vile Scum Fucks.

    Accept it. The Public has lost all respect for the Centrailzed Industrial Complex Presstitiute Media.

    Son of Loki El Oregonian Dec 9, 2016 12:03 PM ,
    The Libtards are desperate to attack Russia and start WW III, bailout Wall Street again and keep the Swamp parasites in power in DC to keep the gravy train flowing.

    MSM and Dem lies get Yuuuger every day...it's almost laughable but they are actually very dangerous people and thus, we need to protect the 2nd to protect us from them if they get to desperate.

    Miss Expectations nope-1004 Dec 9, 2016 12:03 PM ,
    Part of me is sorry that our military didn't drop Hillary and Chelsea off in Tuzla, Bosnia amid snipper fire.
    sgt_doom Pladizow Dec 9, 2016 1:27 PM ,
    False assumption, my friend!

    There has never been an actual media in America to begin with --- just go back and check out the trash that the Pulitzer fellow wrote, and then realize why that prize is awarded to the riff-raff who usually receive it.

    Yup, I remember Brian . . .

    https://memegenerator.net/instance/59167575

    What a piece of crapola.

    RU4Au Pladizow Dec 9, 2016 1:29 PM ,
    Suicide, indeed!

    Sorry, Brian, but you and your ilk sold your credibility for a full investment position in Hillary and Globalism. Your only recourse now is to attack and try to delegitamize those who call you out.

    EAT ROCKS, PRICK!

    chubbar Pladizow Dec 9, 2016 8:55 PM ,
    The gig is up for these MSM pantywaists and they know it. The only way they maintain viewership is if the gov't shuts down the internet, which it may. These little fucktards like williams are some of the biggest purveyors of bullshit in the history of mankind and they know we are on to their game. No one is going back to believing anything these assholes say except for the most partisan, retarded, misinformed of the US population.
    stocker84 nuubee Dec 9, 2016 11:50 AM ,
    Wait, the onion is not a real news souce?

    Get outta here!

    This is real isn't it?

    http://www.theonion.com/article/cia-realizes-its-been-using-black-highli...

    trumpala Dec 9, 2016 11:43 AM ,
    McCarthyism 2.0 against the independent information
    Rebel yell Dec 9, 2016 12:10 PM ,
    Main Stream news - earning the respect and trust of 6% of Americans!
    Dangerous Fake News Epidemic!
    Yes We Can. But... Dec 9, 2016 12:20 PM ,
    MSM = MainStream Media

    It died and is being reincarnated as:

    FNM - The Fake News Media

    Heretofore, please refer to the former MSM as the FNM. Thank you.

    Squidbilly Dec 9, 2016 12:37 PM ,
    the news organizations are all propped up to keep the global culture industry operational. If they were to be displaced by conscious consumers of worth while real news, like the kind that's now starting to make it's way through the alternative media, they would only exist for viewers who were being groomed for social unrest. Oh wait, that's what their doing now isn't it?
    2muchtax Dec 9, 2016 12:38 PM ,
    This is the opportunity to wake people up that you care about. If nothing else you can show that the news is all coordinated. There is no possibility that in a free competitive market every org would repeat the same message from the same perspective.

    I have taken advantage of the oligarchs sloppiness. People who thought I was crazy two years ago are now acknowledging I was right. I have delivered news to people and two weeks later it was a breaking story. Take the opportunity and bring a few more people over.

    Robert Trip Dec 9, 2016 12:41 PM ,
    Not only has Williams got hot combat experience but he's also rescued countless folks right here at home form car wrecks and burning buildings.

    And this guy is a regular Batman for thwarting armed robberies and terrorist attacks.

    Let's cut the guy some slack on this.

    He sure has the street cred.

    Atomizer Dec 9, 2016 12:48 PM ,
    Brian,

    Ever hear about NYT vs Sullivan? 1964, before I was born.

    http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/commonlaw.htm

    Then you have the 1998 telecommunications Act signed by Bill Clinton. Next,

    Shh! Don't criticize the government or they will send you to the Gulag! HR 6393

    Text of H.R. 6393 : Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Received by the Senate version) - GovTrack.us

    Highlights of H.R. 6393 ,

    Driving your own into the Media coffin. Do you honestly think we will be forced to watch your shit? I think not...

    CIA FAKE NEWS Propaganda!! Full Documentary 2015 - YouTube

    Mike Masr Dec 9, 2016 1:51 PM ,
    The only truly fake news is the US MSM. This bullshit that is called "news" is filled with omissions, distortions, half truths, bald faced lies and fabrications. This is the "official narrative" the Kool Aid that we are all supposed to drink. Remember how the MSM colluded with the Bush Administration's neocons to sell the bullshit Iraq WMD story that was presented to the UN by Colin Powell? Total bullshit. How can anyone believe anything that is fed to us from the MSM.

    Ironic but the guy I'm going to tell you about was featured on 60 minutes. You know what I love is when the US State Department or the MSM quotes the UK Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. This is a little old man in a dingy apartment in a slum Arab neighborhood in London. This old fucking guy claims to know whats going on in Syria. Actually this is a neocon propaganda mill for the CIA It's comments, suggestions and conclusions are solely based upon an official narrative created by the CIA and sold to us through the MSM.

    Look at the pre-election coverage and non-stop polling data talked about by all the MSM boneheads including this Brian Williams jack off. Donald Trump was continously slammed, over and over again by *all of them.*The exception was Sean Hannity. Now look at the partial list of donors to crooked Hillary's campaign.

    The list of donors to the Clinton campaign included many of the most powerful media institutions in the country - among the donors: Comcast (which owns NBC, and its cable sister channels, such as MSNBC); James Murdoch of News Corporation (owner of Fox News and its sister stations, among many other media holdings); Time Warner (CNN, HBO, scores of other channels); Bloomberg; Reuters; Viacom; Howard Stringer (of CBS News); AOL (owner of Huffington Post); Google; Twitter; The Washington Post Company; George Stephanopoulos (host of ABC News' flagship Sunday show); PBS; PRI; the Hearst Corporation and others ( http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/37451-the-clinton-foundation-and-the-... ).

    Trump is correct when he says the US media is crooked. It's all fucking fake news!!

    Post election- I now watch local news for traffic and weather in the morning. But fuck them I will not listen to the MSM talking heads or anything else on the crooked MSM. To know whats going on in the world I now watch RT which presents an objective and honest perspective of what's really going on in the world. Of course they call RT fake news, or Russian propaganda. All I can say is they can go fuck themselves! I am sick and tired of the lies and bullshit which is the official US narrative as presented by our 100% crooked MSM!

    The real fake news is presented by the liars in our MSM!

    SirBarksAlot Dec 9, 2016 1:47 PM ,
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7EZezBEeRHw

    Spoof on Brian Williams.

    HeyThere Dec 9, 2016 3:21 PM ,
    Brian Williams (known liar) warns against Fake News?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7EZezBEeRHw
    GreatUncle Dec 9, 2016 3:31 PM ,
    Lol makes no difference now ... I left the MSM, never read it anymore.

    I am no longer misinformed by them - that's a bonus.

    I now prefer news from other nations because domestically it is all the fucking same from the libtards and progressives of more people murdered because of some shit they created. Still get drug addicts committing crime just like all them illegal immigrants because with no money you have to commit a crime to exist. We all know that domestically your bankers are robbing you and that the politicians are lying pieces of shit.

    So why would I want to read what I already know? Nope don't need it.

    Bye, bye NBC and the rest of you I can predict what the stories you will run with tomorrow because they are the same fucking lies like the past 30 years.

    StreetObserver Dec 9, 2016 9:04 PM ,
    Attack the MSM by attacking their ability to sell advertising.

    "That newspaper you are advertising in has been wrong on everything, from going into Iraq to recommending that loser Hillary Clinton to the final election results. If you are advertising in that dishonest discredited rag, your product or service is being tarnished by association. "

    "Just watch President Elect Trump's Thank You Tour speech. Tens of thousands of people loudly booed the press and the media that were there. You really want to spend your money buying ads from those discredited losers?"

    847328_3527 Dec 9, 2016 9:16 PM ,
    The neocons and fascist Democrat factions are joining forces looks like and as desperate as can be. They've lied since day one, bombed RNC offices, beat innocent people up at Trump rallys, published non-stop fake news, and now pull the "Russian agent" theory out of their closet.

    Most Americans laugh at these nuts but I think they are very scary and serious since they have alot of money invested in Queeb Hillary and war with Russia.

    Rebel yell Dec 9, 2016 10:01 PM ,
    The Washington Post ( fake news organization) is reporting that the CIA secretly informed the senate last week that there was Russian interference in our election and that it was Russia's goal to ensure the election of Donald Trump. Apparently the house was informed in September and was questioned if this should be made public and the Republicams said no, according to the Washington Post - the source identified himself as " DNC in deep shit" . /Sarc.

    Rachel Maddow was gleefully reporting on this tonight, as if it somehow vindicated her and her morally bankrupt colleagues from the fact that they should have been reporting on this rather than the Russians, since it is an American election and it is their job to investigate and report the news.

    Of course Obama has decided to keep this information secret, although, 7 "Democratic " senators were requesting that the Obama administration released PARTS of the findings of the investigation which can only lead one to question which PARTS they would prefer to keep from the American public and why. It also is a concern of national security that national secrets are ending up on the Washington Post- maybe they received this information from Russia.

    Mitch McConell was reported to have been dismissive of the allegations as a result of the lack of agreement over the evidence among the 17 security agencies involved, the lack of any source directly linking the Russian government to releasing DNC hacked emails to the Wikileaks
    This also begs to question Rachel Maddow on her lack of outrage of the behavior of the DNC in colluding with the press and rigging the primary. As if to say, since Russia revealed the information and the wrong doing of the DNC, it is not a question of if the behavior of the DNC was just or unjust.

    Nor does it vindicate any Hillary supporter, it does not legitimize what the DNC, the press, or Hillary Clinton did.

    Leave it to the incompetent Washington Post and MSNBC and Rachel Maddow to completely miss the ball again.

    Is it surprising to anyone that Russia did not wish for world war 3?

    Thanks comrades!

    Kina Dec 9, 2016 10:07 PM ,
    Washington Post CNN Madow DNC credibility approaching zero plus they already did the 'Russians did it' thing.

    The probs them Dems has that THEY were in power when whatever happened ..happened.

    Rjoins Dec 9, 2016 10:19 PM ,
    We don't have to be too concerned about fake news pumped out by Russia and other evil doers. That job is being well handled already by NBC, CNN, the New York Times, and others.

    In this post-truth world, these openly left-biased media organizations can rival Pravada of the old Soviet Union in their laughable news reports, lack of integrity, and willingness to suppress news they don't want known while publishing outright propaganda.

    In a democracy where citizens must make informed decisions about governments, politicians and issues, it seems to me that the people behind these corrupt media outlets are just debasing their country; I imagine they at least get well paid for their treachery.

    Curious how, having destroyed their own credibility and lost so many viewers and readers, these organizations are now attacking their new, smaller divergent rivals on the internet.

    amenlight Riquin Dec 9, 2016 10:56 PM ,
    The Liberal Leftist and the MSM created the terms Alt-Right and Fake News to distort real news and make them fit into their political agenda! They use this to discredit Conservatives in an effort to shut down Alternative and Conservatist News Media, especially on the Internet and Talk Radio to end competition! They want Free Speech for the Left and Censorship for the Right! The truth is that people discovered their plot and it backfired!!!
    Mainstream media lost all credibility with We the People!!!

    [Dec 10, 2016] Site Behind Washington Posts McCarthyite Blacklist Appears To Be Linked to Ukrainian Fascists and CIA Spies

    Notable quotes:
    "... All of the "The Russians are Coming" nonsense is coming from Democrat party organs and mouthpieces. Not Trump and his media allies. ..."
    "... An excellent article from Mark. This Alexandra Chalupa sounds like a real piece of work. These Cold Warriors seem to have red-colored glasses and see commies everywhere they look. ..."
    "... Of course, there was that old experiment ( Kohler et al ) where they had people wearing different colored goggles for some time, then asked participants to take them off. And what happened? The participants continued to see in those hues. ..."
    "... Wait a second, so there was ..."
    "... CIA has been whipping ethnic Ukies into a patriotic frenzy for decades with social clubs that seep revanchist propaganda. ..."
    "... HR 6393: "(Sec. 501) This title establishes an executive branch interagency committee to counter active measures by the Russian Federation to exert covert influence over peoples and governments (with the role of the Russian Federation hidden or not acknowledged publicly) through front groups, covert broadcasting, media manipulation, disinformation or forgeries, funding agents of influence, incitement, offensive counterintelligence, assassinations, or terrorist acts. The committee shall expose falsehoods, agents of influence, corruption, human rights abuses, terrorism, and assassinations carried out by the security services or political elites of the Russian Federation or their proxies." ..."
    "... Plus, that will add $160 million, IIRC, to The Deficit. ..."
    "... Two things this article curiously doesn't seem to mention. The first is Victoria Nuland, who must be a close Hillary confidante, and architect of the coup in Ukraine ..."
    "... So your food for thought is that the Russian state behaves rationally in the face of an aggressive military power? Of course, they are hacking everything. If they weren't before the NSA revelations (where the U.S. vacuums up everything and then has no safeguards on what they grab; Congress has had testimony about NSA employees using their power to stalk people), they were afterwards. ..."
    "... Here's some food for thought. John McCain, Mitt Romney, and Hillary Clinton all tried to make a country of 145 million or so people with numerous internal problems a major campaign platform. Not one of them is President. Could there be a connection? ..."
    "... As one of the people who consistently calls bull hockey about the claims that the wikileaks releases of the DNC and Podesta emails are the results of Russian government hackers, I will hereby agree with the idea that Russia is hacking everything they can get their hands on. Mind you I believe that every major government from the US to China to Germany to India are hacking everything they can get their hands on. And that every government knows that about all the rest. As far as I am concerned anyone who doesn't believe that is beyond naive. ..."
    "... But thinking that every major government had access to Clinton's emails, Boeing's files, and knows what internet videos Obama/May/Merkel/Putin/Castro have accessed more than once is not the same thing as thinking they are stupid enough or have decent strategic reasons to make that public knowledge by releasing damaging but not destroying emails concerning the massive stupidity and arrogance of one candidate for President and her core people. ..."
    "... There is only one reason that the meme about Fake News is being pushed now – the people who have been pushing fake news for awhile to promote their agendas have lost the control they thought they had over the public and now worry about them rebelling. If fake news were important Judith Miller wouldn't have a job or a book deal and the opportunity to promote that book. Hell Murdoch wouldn't have a media empire. ..."
    "... I don't know why so many so-called movers and shakers want war with Russia, but it is clear that anyone getting in the way of that goal is now in the cross hairs. ProporNOT may be more about Ukrainian support, but the people who promoted them are about the reasons it was being used in the first place. ..."
    "... Eastern European fascists running propaganda web sites for the Whappo, indeed. ..."
    "... If you read Matt Stoller's excellent piece from The Atlantic ..."
    "... I don't see "Banana Republican" Trump as a fascist - he is in many ways an exemplar of Caudillismo , a charismatic, populist, but authoritarian oligarch. ..."
    "... Nance used fake news about Clinton speeches to propagate the fake news that the Podesta emails were fake. ..."
    "... Was amused to see that naturalnews (one of the sites listed in propornot – it looks like I guess a right wing alternative medicine type site) is offering a $10k reward for unmasking propornot but I don't think anyone's ever going to be able to collect. ..."
    "... Why? Because they take the site seriously on its claim of being composed of 30 members and will only pay out for the identities of at least ten. I think it's just one, maybe two guys. ..."
    "... There are dots to connect – the WP article, Congressional Section 501 activity, Senators McCain/Graham "leadership"; and most recently, Hillary's comments. Suspect coordination. Connect the dots. And then search for a motive. ..."
    "... The national security state is concerned that Trump will seek mutually beneficial agreements with Russia. For evidence of the power of the national "security" state a tour of the Pentagon is not necessary. Tour Tyson Corner, Virginia, instead, for starters. ..."
    "... And once Trump has established these agreements there will then be no stopping several Eastern European countries + Germany (of course) realizing where their economic interests really lie. Does anyone really believe that Germany is going to let itself be turned into an irradiated wasteland just to please a bunch of neocon paranoids ? ..."
    "... That's what the neocons, the MIC, and all their shills, and enablers truly fear. Paradoxically this ludicrous attempt to revive McCarthyism may well end up actually ending the Cold War for good & all 25 years after it should have ended. ..."
    "... From the article: "It's now been a few days, and the shock and disgust is turning to questions about how to fight back-and who we should be fighting against." ..."
    "... How many people, world-wide, are involved and invested in the whole "taking over everything" machinery of "state security" and espionage and corporate hegemony? And who is this "we" who should be fighting? ..."
    "... This book provides a detailed account of the ways in which the CIA penetrated and influenced a vast array of cultural organizations, through its front groups and via friendly philanthropic organizations like the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations. The author, Frances Stonor Saunders, details how and why the CIA ran cultural congresses, mounted exhibits, and organized concerts. The CIA also published and translated well-known authors who toed the Washington line, sponsored abstract art to counteract art with any social content and, throughout the world, subsidized journals that criticized Marxism, communism, and revolutionary politics and apologized for, or ignored, violent and destructive imperialist U.S. policies. ..."
    "... The CIA was able to harness some of the most vocal exponents of intellectual freedom in the West in service of these policies, to the extent that some intellectuals were directly on the CIA payroll. Many were knowingly involved with CIA "projects," and others drifted in and out of its orbit, claiming ignorance of the CIA connection after their CIA sponsors were publicly exposed during the late 1960s and the Vietnam war, after the turn of the political tide to the left. ..."
    "... U.S. and European anticommunist publications receiving direct or indirect funding included Partisan Review, Kenyon Review, New Leader, Encounter and many others. Among the intellectuals who were funded and promoted by the CIA were Irving Kristol, Melvin Lasky, Isaiah Berlin, Stephen Spender, Sidney Hook, Daniel Bell, Dwight MacDonald, Robert Lowell, Hannah Arendt, Mary McCarthy, and numerous others in the United States and Europe. In Europe, the CIA was particularly interested in and promoted the "Democratic Left" and ex-leftists, including Ignacio Silone, Stephen Spender, Arthur Koestler, Raymond Aron, Anthony Crosland, Michael Josselson, and George Orwell. The CIA, under the prodding of Sidney Hook and Melvin Lasky, was instrumental in funding the Congress for Cultural Freedom, a kind of cultural NATO that grouped together all sorts of "anti-Stalinist" leftists and rightists. They were completely free to defend Western cultural and political values, attack "Stalinist totalitarianism" and to tiptoe gently around U.S. racism and imperialism. Occasionally, a piece marginally critical of U.S. mass society was printed in the CIA-subsidized journals. What was particularly bizarre about this collection of CIA-funded intellectuals was not only their political partisanship, but their pretense that they were disinterested seekers of truth, iconoclastic humanists, freespirited intellectuals, or artists for art's sake, who counterposed themselves to the corrupted "committed" house "hacks" of the Stalinist apparatus. ..."
    "... It is impossible to believe their claims of ignorance of CIA ties. How could they ignore the absence in the journals of any basic criticism of the numerous lynchings throughout the southern United States during the whole period? How could they ignore the absence, during their cultural congresses, of criticism of U.S. imperialist intervention in Guatemala, Iran, Greece, and Korea that led to millions of deaths? How could they ignore the gross apologies of every imperialist crime of their day in the journals in which they wrote? They were all soldiers: some glib, vitriolic, crude, and polemical, like Hook and Lasky; others elegant essayists like Stephen Spender or self-righteous informers like George Orwell. Saunders portrays the WASP Ivy League elite at the CIA holding the strings, and the vitriolic Jewish ex-leftists snarling at leftist dissidents. When the truth came out in the late 1960s and New York, Paris, and London "intellectuals" feigned indignation at having been used, the CIA retaliated. Tom Braden, who directed the International Organizations Branch of the CIA, blew their cover by detailing how they all had to have known who paid their salaries and stipends (397-404). ..."
    "... I have no answers for "what is to be done." ..."
    "... It seems inevitable that perversion and corruption and greed will always eventually "trump" decency and comity, once a certain size and composition of a human population has been reached. ..."
    "... One may hope that the general principle of eventual incompetence that seems to apply to even the Deep State activities might become more immanent. ..."
    "... Dems didn't lose this elections because of "fake news". Dems lost because they did not prosecute the bankers who caused the 2008 financial crash, who fraudulently foreclosed on homes and are still engaged in fraud (see: Wells Fargo). imo. ..."
    Dec 10, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    financial matters December 9, 2016 at 7:00 am

    Great article but I'm unsure about the conclusion. ""This is the world the Washington Post is bringing back to its front pages. And the timing is incredible-as if Bezos' rag has taken upon itself to soften up the American media before Trump moves in for the kill. And it's all being done in the name of fighting "fake news" and fascism.""

    I was much more worried about this happening with Hillary at the helm. She seems more in line with Soros and the Ukrainian extremists. Trump still seems to be interested in working with Putin on things of mutual interest although he will probably find resistance in both US parties.

    craazyboy December 9, 2016 at 9:11 am

    Yup. I'm still thinking "Make Ukraine Great Again" is not on Trump's agenda. But I'm just taking things day by day. Still digesting Soros found some Nazis he likes. [Facebook "Like" gots it covered. No new tweaking of social media required.]

    However, I think it would be interesting if Trump investigated whether treason against Ukraine is punishable by firing squad under US Treason Law. Since they've made it kinda personal.

    Ted December 9, 2016 at 10:30 am

    Yeah, the piece is a bit uneven and the last bit a bit revealing of the author's own biases. All of the "The Russians are Coming" nonsense is coming from Democrat party organs and mouthpieces. Not Trump and his media allies.

    The most effective neo-fascism that we see emerging everywhere is pretty consistently on the erstwhile voices of the "left" affiliated with the Democrat Party which is double speak for the New American Right. Indeed, by going back to the height of the cold war to make connections to these shady organizations rather than modern day plutocrats (Amazonia and Googlie are low hanging fruit), the author is employing misdirection. So, I will take this with a few grains of salt.

    Romancing The Loan December 9, 2016 at 10:49 am

    Yeah. Didn't propornot even mention Trump himself as one of those scurrilously Russian-influenced? That's certainly been a major D talking point.

    cocomaan December 9, 2016 at 7:07 am

    An excellent article from Mark. This Alexandra Chalupa sounds like a real piece of work. These Cold Warriors seem to have red-colored glasses and see commies everywhere they look.

    Of course, there was that old experiment ( Kohler et al ) where they had people wearing different colored goggles for some time, then asked participants to take them off. And what happened? The participants continued to see in those hues.

    Roger Smith December 9, 2016 at 8:11 am

    Wait a second, so there was foreign intervention in this election and there were nefarious racists and eugenicists involved, but they weren't behind Trump, but Clinton!?

    /heavy sarcasm

    Thank you very much for sharing this JLS! What a fasc inating read! The historical context Ames provides is very intriguing and convincing.

    Katharine December 9, 2016 at 10:33 am

    "Convincing" is too strong. I would say rather suggestive, possibly persuasive. There is not enough evidence to convince. More investigation is needed, and this might be a productive line of inquiry, but it is too soon to talk about conclusions.

    Claudia Riche December 9, 2016 at 8:17 am

    I am a huge fan of your website and donate as regularly as i can. I am appalled at what the Washington Post did and its implications for free speech in the US going forward.

    That said, I find this article defamatory in purpose, rather than informative. I do not believe it meets the usual standards of Naked Capitalism: it is not fairly reasoned, nor based only on relevant fact to the issue at hand. In my opinion, it is designed to smear and thus undermines the considerable, unusual credibility of your website. I find it disturbing that it has been amplified by its inclusion as a link. It does damage to the cause, rather than further it.

    Roger Smith December 9, 2016 at 8:44 am

    How so? First off, we know very little and Ames acknowledges that, but he uses historical context to expand on that and build a case behind the PropOrNot / FPRI claims and their potential motives. He fully admits he is working with that we've got. Maybe all these illustrations do just happen to line up well and new information will change perception, but Ames discussion hits a lot of typical looking benchmarks.

    Eureka Springs December 9, 2016 at 9:11 am

    How is Mr Ames experience and the very place in which Chalupa works, what she says, as well as the history of our countries actions upon others around the world and within not reasonable to consider?

    I'm sorry if incorrect but you seem like a troll without explaining yourself in specificity further.

    Kogut December 9, 2016 at 8:33 am

    Disturbed voter, batshit Springtime-for-Hitler Ukies long predate Biden's involvement. CIA has been whipping ethnic Ukies into a patriotic frenzy for decades with social clubs that seep revanchist propaganda. The hapless Ukies were meant to be cannon fodder for hot war on the USSR. When Russia molted and shed the USSR, Ukraine continued its Soviet degeneration but the associations had a life of their own. That's how CIA clowns wound up proud owners of the Exclusion Zone.

    Sluggeaux December 9, 2016 at 9:12 am

    The DNC should have dropped the Chalupa. (I can't help myself this morning )

    MED December 9, 2016 at 9:20 am

    HR 6393: "(Sec. 501) This title establishes an executive branch interagency committee to counter active measures by the Russian Federation to exert covert influence over peoples and governments (with the role of the Russian Federation hidden or not acknowledged publicly) through front groups, covert broadcasting, media manipulation, disinformation or forgeries, funding agents of influence, incitement, offensive counterintelligence, assassinations, or terrorist acts. The committee shall expose falsehoods, agents of influence, corruption, human rights abuses, terrorism, and assassinations carried out by the security services or political elites of the Russian Federation or their proxies."

    craazyboy December 9, 2016 at 9:30 am

    Plus, that will add $160 million, IIRC, to The Deficit.

    Jay December 9, 2016 at 9:38 am

    Two things this article curiously doesn't seem to mention. The first is Victoria Nuland, who must be a close Hillary confidante, and architect of the coup in Ukraine .

    The second thing is not so curious per se, but a common feature of articles about Russian hacking accusations–they gloss over the fact that there is good evidence that the Russians are hacking everything they can get their hands on. To assume otherwise is naive. Much of this evidence is available in a recently-published book, The Plot to Hack America by Malcolm Nance.

    He doesn't identify American news sources of being Russian stooges, but does describe how the hacks on the DNC have FSB (the new KGB) fingerprints all over them. He also describes Trump's ties to the Kremlin, as well as his advisors' business interests there. Food for thought.

    NotTimothyGeithner December 9, 2016 at 10:06 am

    So your food for thought is that the Russian state behaves rationally in the face of an aggressive military power? Of course, they are hacking everything. If they weren't before the NSA revelations (where the U.S. vacuums up everything and then has no safeguards on what they grab; Congress has had testimony about NSA employees using their power to stalk people), they were afterwards.

    Here's some food for thought. John McCain, Mitt Romney, and Hillary Clinton all tried to make a country of 145 million or so people with numerous internal problems a major campaign platform. Not one of them is President. Could there be a connection?

    Pat December 9, 2016 at 10:08 am

    As one of the people who consistently calls bull hockey about the claims that the wikileaks releases of the DNC and Podesta emails are the results of Russian government hackers, I will hereby agree with the idea that Russia is hacking everything they can get their hands on. Mind you I believe that every major government from the US to China to Germany to India are hacking everything they can get their hands on. And that every government knows that about all the rest. As far as I am concerned anyone who doesn't believe that is beyond naive.

    But thinking that every major government had access to Clinton's emails, Boeing's files, and knows what internet videos Obama/May/Merkel/Putin/Castro have accessed more than once is not the same thing as thinking they are stupid enough or have decent strategic reasons to make that public knowledge by releasing damaging but not destroying emails concerning the massive stupidity and arrogance of one candidate for President and her core people.

    There is only one reason that the meme about Fake News is being pushed now – the people who have been pushing fake news for awhile to promote their agendas have lost the control they thought they had over the public and now worry about them rebelling. If fake news were important Judith Miller wouldn't have a job or a book deal and the opportunity to promote that book. Hell Murdoch wouldn't have a media empire.

    I don't know why so many so-called movers and shakers want war with Russia, but it is clear that anyone getting in the way of that goal is now in the cross hairs. ProporNOT may be more about Ukrainian support, but the people who promoted them are about the reasons it was being used in the first place.

    susan the other December 9, 2016 at 12:06 pm

    Because big picture. Eurasia is inevitably coming together and it is the end of an era. Why we thought we could prevent this from happening must be based on pure hubris. Everything has changed so much in one century that even language makes no sense. Eastern European fascists running propaganda web sites for the Whappo, indeed.

    Hillary Clinton taking up the cause against fake news. Jesus. As Liz Warren said, personnel is policy. You hire fascist nut cases, you create fascism. Hillary, you're so very patriotic.

    Sluggeaux December 9, 2016 at 12:33 pm

    If you read Matt Stoller's excellent piece from The Atlantic , "How the Democrats Killed their Populist Soul" you'll see that Clintonism matches the corporatist model of fascism as derided by Franklin Roosevelt in the late '30's, before mass-murder became associated with the brand and when people like Charles Lindbergh were touting it as the "modern" way forward. If you understand Clintonism as corporatist fascism, the DNC's affinity for Ukraine becomes more and more logical.

    I don't see "Banana Republican" Trump as a fascist - he is in many ways an exemplar of Caudillismo , a charismatic, populist, but authoritarian oligarch.

    marym December 9, 2016 at 10:38 am

    Nance used fake news about Clinton speeches to propagate the fake news that the Podesta emails were fake.

    https://theintercept.com/2016/12/09/a-clinton-fan-manufactured-fake-news-that-msnbc-personalities-spread-to-discredit-wikileaks-docs/

    Jay December 9, 2016 at 3:10 pm

    I read that. I don't believe Nance said the Podesta emails were fake, just that there was a possibility that those supplying the documents to Wikileaks could adulterate the documents or introduce fabricated documents into the pipeline. Quite easy to do when leaking, what was it, fifty thousand emails? And I still haven't heard a single persuasive argument to disprove that the Russians hacked the DNC. Quite the contrary. The hacks originated from IP addresses known to originate in the FSA (Fancy Bear) who have led a prodigious list of pro-Russian exploits against targets throughout eastern Europe, including the Baltic states, Ukraine, and the German Bundestag. Real-time adjustments from those IPs also occurred from the Moscow time zone, and some used cyrillic keyboards.

    Don't get me wrong: I disagree with the WaPo piece, and have read, commented, and financially supported Naked Capitalism for quite a while now. And there's no faker news than that Iraq had WMDs, a fact that the press has never quite overcome in the eyes of the public. But just because spooky Intelligence Community people say that Russia hacked the DNC, doesn't make it not so. There are way too many people on the left going off half-cocked. Have you noticed how since the "fake news" imbroglio flamed up, MSM criticism of Trump's swampland cabinet picks have been quite muted?

    marym December 9, 2016 at 3:36 pm

    The Intercept post has a link to the Nance tweet, which is still out there, saying

    Malcolm Nance Retweeted KA Semenova

    Official Warning: #PodestaEmails are already proving to be riddled with obvious forgeries & #blackpropaganda not even professionally done.

    He, Podesta, and the correspondents in the leaked emails never provided a single example and/or proof that any email was forged. Also, I don't understand the technicality, but there is some type of hash value associated with an email such that WL was able provide confirmation of those emails where the hash value was intact. Instructions on how to replicate that confirmation process were published at the time.

    Romancing The Loan December 9, 2016 at 9:40 am

    Was amused to see that naturalnews (one of the sites listed in propornot – it looks like I guess a right wing alternative medicine type site) is offering a $10k reward for unmasking propornot but I don't think anyone's ever going to be able to collect.

    Why? Because they take the site seriously on its claim of being composed of 30 members and will only pay out for the identities of at least ten. I think it's just one, maybe two guys.

    Outis Philalithopoulos December 9, 2016 at 10:28 am

    That's really funny.

    Carolinian December 9, 2016 at 10:48 am

    Or as Trump would say one 400 lb guy in his bedroom.

    Yalt December 9, 2016 at 1:00 pm

    Would Josh Frank's article today at Counterpunch on the BSDetector plugin be a good place to start, or is that unrelated BS?

    Deep Throat December 9, 2016 at 10:57 am

    There are dots to connect – the WP article, Congressional Section 501 activity, Senators McCain/Graham "leadership"; and most recently, Hillary's comments. Suspect coordination. Connect the dots. And then search for a motive.

    The national security state is concerned that Trump will seek mutually beneficial agreements with Russia. For evidence of the power of the national "security" state a tour of the Pentagon is not necessary. Tour Tyson Corner, Virginia, instead, for starters.

    JustAnObserver December 9, 2016 at 3:16 pm

    And once Trump has established these agreements there will then be no stopping several Eastern European countries + Germany (of course) realizing where their economic interests really lie. Does anyone really believe that Germany is going to let itself be turned into an irradiated wasteland just to please a bunch of neocon paranoids ?

    Goodbye sanctions and then, shortly after, its bye, bye NATO bye bye.

    That's what the neocons, the MIC, and all their shills, and enablers truly fear. Paradoxically this ludicrous attempt to revive McCarthyism may well end up actually ending the Cold War for good & all 25 years after it should have ended.

    Grizziz December 9, 2016 at 12:18 pm

    Good article. Great comment thread! Thanks to everyone.

    JTMcPhee December 9, 2016 at 12:34 pm

    From the article: "It's now been a few days, and the shock and disgust is turning to questions about how to fight back-and who we should be fighting against."

    How many people, world-wide, are involved and invested in the whole "taking over everything" machinery of "state security" and espionage and corporate hegemony? And who is this "we" who should be fighting?

    Fundamentals: The human siege of the planet is (it seems sort of clear) driving the biosphere toward collapse as a sustainer of most human life. Ever more of the extractable entities of the planet (mineral and living resources, "money" whatever that is, the day labor of most of us, on and on) are being used, and used up, in service to what? a relatively few masters of manipulation who are playing a game that most of the rest of us, were we able to focus and figure it out, would recognize as murder and attempted murder as part of a war "we" did not enlist (most of us) to participate in. The manipulators, both the ones sitting on extreme piles of wealth and the power it provides, and the senior effectives in the various "agencies" that play out the game, what the heck do they "want?" Other than "MORE"?

    What motivates a Coors or Koch or Bezos or Brock or the various political figures and their handlers and minions and "advisors?" This one little episode shows how completely it appears that the whole species is screwed: "Who do we fight, and how?" Are "we" is the readers of NC? Some few of whom are stooges and operatives for the Ministries of Truth who are tracking and recording what transpires here and no doubt subtly injecting "influencers" into the discourse. Some are just ordinary people, of varying degrees of insight and ability to influence the collective net vector of human activity (for good or ill). Some are hoping to just find some awareness of and comprehension of what-all is shaking on the Big Game Board of Life. In this moment, "we" depend, in this one tiny instance among the great flood of chaos-induction and interest-seeking, on the responses and pressures "our" hosts can bring to bear - threatening letters to the propagators like WaPo and Craig Timberg, just one tumor in the vast cancer that afflicts the species, attempts to link up with other parts of the too-small "good will, comity and deceny" population that is fractioned and atomized and constantly seduced or frightened into going along with the larger trend line, grabbing URLs and stuff I'm not smart enough to understand, all that. But the Big People, the Deep State that "we" are subtly taught NOT to believe exists by various bits of sophistry, is a lot better armed and equipped and always active - its operatives are paid, usually pretty well, to be on the job all the time, operating their various and manifold, multifarious, often ingenious, always disingenous operations, and always thinking up new ways to screw over and loot and debase and oppress and enserf the rest of us.

    Here's just one explication of how the Deep State operates:

    This book provides a detailed account of the ways in which the CIA penetrated and influenced a vast array of cultural organizations, through its front groups and via friendly philanthropic organizations like the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations. The author, Frances Stonor Saunders, details how and why the CIA ran cultural congresses, mounted exhibits, and organized concerts. The CIA also published and translated well-known authors who toed the Washington line, sponsored abstract art to counteract art with any social content and, throughout the world, subsidized journals that criticized Marxism, communism, and revolutionary politics and apologized for, or ignored, violent and destructive imperialist U.S. policies.

    The CIA was able to harness some of the most vocal exponents of intellectual freedom in the West in service of these policies, to the extent that some intellectuals were directly on the CIA payroll. Many were knowingly involved with CIA "projects," and others drifted in and out of its orbit, claiming ignorance of the CIA connection after their CIA sponsors were publicly exposed during the late 1960s and the Vietnam war, after the turn of the political tide to the left.

    U.S. and European anticommunist publications receiving direct or indirect funding included Partisan Review, Kenyon Review, New Leader, Encounter and many others. Among the intellectuals who were funded and promoted by the CIA were Irving Kristol, Melvin Lasky, Isaiah Berlin, Stephen Spender, Sidney Hook, Daniel Bell, Dwight MacDonald, Robert Lowell, Hannah Arendt, Mary McCarthy, and numerous others in the United States and Europe. In Europe, the CIA was particularly interested in and promoted the "Democratic Left" and ex-leftists, including Ignacio Silone, Stephen Spender, Arthur Koestler, Raymond Aron, Anthony Crosland, Michael Josselson, and George Orwell.

    The CIA, under the prodding of Sidney Hook and Melvin Lasky, was instrumental in funding the Congress for Cultural Freedom, a kind of cultural NATO that grouped together all sorts of "anti-Stalinist" leftists and rightists. They were completely free to defend Western cultural and political values, attack "Stalinist totalitarianism" and to tiptoe gently around U.S. racism and imperialism. Occasionally, a piece marginally critical of U.S. mass society was printed in the CIA-subsidized journals.

    What was particularly bizarre about this collection of CIA-funded intellectuals was not only their political partisanship, but their pretense that they were disinterested seekers of truth, iconoclastic humanists, freespirited intellectuals, or artists for art's sake, who counterposed themselves to the corrupted "committed" house "hacks" of the Stalinist apparatus.

    It is impossible to believe their claims of ignorance of CIA ties. How could they ignore the absence in the journals of any basic criticism of the numerous lynchings throughout the southern United States during the whole period? How could they ignore the absence, during their cultural congresses, of criticism of U.S. imperialist intervention in Guatemala, Iran, Greece, and Korea that led to millions of deaths? How could they ignore the gross apologies of every imperialist crime of their day in the journals in which they wrote? They were all soldiers: some glib, vitriolic, crude, and polemical, like Hook and Lasky; others elegant essayists like Stephen Spender or self-righteous informers like George Orwell. Saunders portrays the WASP Ivy League elite at the CIA holding the strings, and the vitriolic Jewish ex-leftists snarling at leftist dissidents. When the truth came out in the late 1960s and New York, Paris, and London "intellectuals" feigned indignation at having been used, the CIA retaliated. Tom Braden, who directed the International Organizations Branch of the CIA, blew their cover by detailing how they all had to have known who paid their salaries and stipends (397-404). http://monthlyreview.org/1999/11/01/the-cia-and-the-cultural-cold-war-revisited/

    And that is just one part of the "operations" put in motion by just "our" national rulers by ONE of the "seventeen national security agencies" that apparently appear in the organization chart of the US empire.

    These mostly faceless people, from "wet workers" to "economic hit men" to analysts and office workers and Station Chiefs and functionaries at DIA and NIA and NSA and the rest of the acronymists of "state security," are "just doing their jobs," with more or less personal malevolence (William Casey, Dick Cheney, the Dulleses, Kermit Roosevelt, on and on), seem to be working from a central organizing principle: Control of minds and resources, in service to imperial and corporate and personal dominion. What tools and actions and thought processes do ordinary people have, to fight back or even resist against this kind of onslaught? "We" are told we are becoming responsible to do our daily best, in among fulfilling our and our families' basic needs, and to minimize our environmental impacts to at least slow the destruction, and also somehow to become aware, in a world of dis- and dysinformation, of what is being done to us and our children and communities, and "resist." And "fight back." Against who, and against what, and by what means, when you have the "Googolverment," and all those millions of employees and managers and executives thereof, on call and on task 24/7 looking for ever more subtle ways to data mine and monetize and manipulate "us"? And in a feedback loop that has been ongoing since no doubt the earliest of "civilization" cities and tribes and nations, the "arms race" both in straight military terms and in the sneaky-pete realm of espionage and state security and "statecraft," "the Russians" and the Pakistanis and Chinese and Israelites, and probably Brazilians and Zoroastrians, are all growing their own machinery of consumption and dominance and destruction.

    What's the model "we" are supposed to be working from? Some people here are looking for "investment opportunities" to take advantage of the chaos and destruction, and there are many for those who can see the patterns and buy in. But what would a "just and decent world" (at least the human population) even look like, and is there anything in our DNA that moves enough of us toward that inchoate model to even have a prayer of suppressing those darker and deadlier impulses and motivations and goals?

    I have no answers for "what is to be done." It seems inevitable that perversion and corruption and greed will always eventually "trump" decency and comity, once a certain size and composition of a human population has been reached. One may hope that the general principle of eventual incompetence that seems to apply to even the Deep State activities might become more immanent. And try to build little communities that don't depend on killable cyber connections for their interconnectedness. And work on an "organizing principle" of their/our own, that has a chance of surviving the crushing mass of energetic but negative energy that infects the species.

    And thanks to our hosts, for doing their bit to face down the fokkers that would take us all down if they could. It's a constant struggle, and no doubt they are more aware than even a Futilitarian like myself of all the parasites and malignancies that are so increasingly active and invested in looting what's left of "antidotes."

    dk December 9, 2016 at 3:53 pm

    I have no answers for "what is to be done."

    Yes you do, the part about little communities and ad-hoc organizing principles is spot-on; that stuff works, it just grows slowly at first. It is also self-limiting, a valuable feature, given the manifest evidence of how badly things can go wrong when communities are pushed to grow beyond their capacities.

    It seems inevitable that perversion and corruption and greed will always eventually "trump" decency and comity, once a certain size and composition of a human population has been reached.

    Decency and comity have their little flaws, too; both can obscure incidents of gross folly. But yeah, population factors are just ferocious.

    One may hope that the general principle of eventual incompetence that seems to apply to even the Deep State activities might become more immanent.

    Not to worry. Incompetence is on it! Any second now wait for it wait for it excuse me, my timepiece seems to have frozen hmm. Well, it appears that "peak incompetence" has already arrived and done the bulk of its work, we just haven't noticed all of the results yet. We are now in that phase between the giant's stumble and their final impact on the ground.

    All this is normal, predictable, and as it should be (even the unfortunate parts); it's entropy. It would be wiser to abandon bivalent moralities and just evaluate each circumstance on its merits, and do our best.

    Yalt December 9, 2016 at 1:12 pm

    That Ukrainian nationalists are behind propornot seems clear; that they're from the Nazified wing seems implausible. Would the Bandera crowd be likely to think of putting a USS Liberty veterans' website on a list of Russian propaganda outlets?

    integer December 9, 2016 at 5:56 pm

    Ukrainian nationalists = Nazified Ukrainians. Israel is also involved so yes it makes a lot of sense that the USS Liberty veterans' website on "the list". Might be time for Israel (and Genie energy) to kiss the Golan Heights goodbye.

    integer December 9, 2016 at 6:14 pm

    (((Israel))) was almost certainly the "brains" behind YYYpropornotYYY
    Not as clever as they think they are. Free Palestine!

    OIFVet December 9, 2016 at 6:02 pm

    Yats and Porky are Jewish, so are some oligarchs who sponsor various neo-Nazi military formations. Ihor Kolomoyskyi, for example, sponsors the Aidar Battalion. The bottom line is, the neo-Nazis need to please their US government and Ukie oligarch sponsors in order to keep the dough flowing, so Russians are the new Jews in Ukraine. Geopolitics makes for strange bedfellows.

    grizziz December 9, 2016 at 9:11 pm

    Wikipedia has Yats being a member of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic and Porky belonging to the Ukrainian Orthodox church. Not vouching for Wikipedia and knowing that history can produce some interesting heritage, I thought I would point that out. Kolomoyskyi has dual citizenship with Israel and of course infamous Clinton Foundation donor and Maidan supporter Victor Pinchuk was raised by Jewish parents before sacking his own country.

    OIFVet December 9, 2016 at 9:39 pm

    The Forward certainly counts Porky as a Jew, and many Jewish organizations have attacked Yats for concealing his Jewish roots. Given the rampant anti-antisemitism in Ukraine, can't really blame them for concealing their identity. It was shortly before the Maidan that Mila Kunis went back to her native Ukraine to promote her flick, and got called very unsavory names by some rabid anti-Semites in Kiev.

    Kim Kaufman December 9, 2016 at 2:27 pm

    Fake News: How a Partying Macedonian Teen Earns Thousands Publishing Lies

    http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/fake-news-how-partying-macedonian-teen-earns-thousands-publishing-lies-n692451

    " Dimitri - who asked NBC News not to use his real name - is one of dozens of teenagers in the Macedonian town of Veles who got rich during the U.S. presidential election producing fake news for millions on social media. "

    flora December 9, 2016 at 2:40 pm

    heh. Dems didn't lose this elections because of "fake news". Dems lost because they did not prosecute the bankers who caused the 2008 financial crash, who fraudulently foreclosed on homes and are still engaged in fraud (see: Wells Fargo). imo.

    Pat December 9, 2016 at 3:04 pm

    Well that and passed a regressive health insurance bailout that required people to purchase expensive and largely useless insurance; and showed their complete and utter contempt for working Americans by ignoring the real state of the under and unemployment, and continued that contempt by passing several job killing trade bills and attempting three other mega steroid versions of same.

    There are many reasons why the Democrats lost, but mostly it is because they stopped doing little more than barely pretending to represent the interests of anyone outside of the wealthy and corporate 'persons' who fund their campaigns and retirements. Protecting the banks and bankers being only the clearest example.

    Pat December 9, 2016 at 3:06 pm

    Dimitri works cheap. Although I'm sure Brock wasn't paying much more to his minions.

    John Medcalf December 9, 2016 at 2:37 pm

    I still don't see any of my favorite bloggers going after Bezos. I didn't even see him mentioned until today. We are looking pretty timid so far in the face of Trump and Bezos (Trump from another direction). No possibility of winning without fighting the war where it's taking place.

    Kim Kaufman December 9, 2016 at 3:18 pm

    Style
    Mainstream media puts out the call for pro-Trump columnists

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/mainstream-media-puts-out-the-call-for-pro-trump-columnists/2016/12/09/2153fdd2-bca7-11e6-94ac-3d324840106c_story.html?postshare=9161481311692262&tid=ss_fb&utm_term=.4161c7dfadd3

    Comments are pretty funny:

    For Hire: Established corporation seeking experienced individuals in need of a challenge. Applicants should have –

    *at least 3 Yrs. experience of having their head head firmly up their backsides.
    * a certificate from a licensed physician confirming applicants
    mental impairment
    * an ability to to obfuscate combined with no understanding of the terms 'cognitive dissonance' 'false moral equivalence' and 'logical fallacy'

    Applicant must be at least 13 years old and show the capacity to convince 45% of America that he or she is 30.

    If this is you contact 1-800-DON TRUMP

    ginnie nyc December 9, 2016 at 4:22 pm

    Earlier in this thread there was a comment from Claudia Riche claiming the Ames article is, essentially, a smear job. I feel compelled to respond as I have direct personal knowledge of one of his two main points, specifically re: the extreme right-wing tenor of the Foreign Policy Research Institute, or FPRI in Philadelphia.

    I worked at FPRI (yes, me the Marxist) in the mid-to-late 1970's, and was in contact with people there through the early 1980's. I can testify that Ames's description of Strausz-Hupe and his ideas are entirely accurate. I didn't know much about S-H when I first started working there, but I figured out his age and original location probably made him a 3-way spook, at the least. I could cite chapter and verse of the various associates and leading personalities that went through there (including Alexander Haig) but I don't have the energy today.

    Ames mentions that FPRI was driven off the Penn campus – well, only in the technical sense. If you spit out the window you'd hit a university building, and many principals there were professors at Penn, including Strausz-Hupe. Also, many Penn grad students passed through there, and undergrads (like me).

    For laughs, here is an interesting, if airbrushed, synopsis of the influence of FPRI by my old friend Alan Luxenberg:

    http://www.fpri.org/news/2013/11/the-impact-of-the-foreign-policy-research-institute/

    So, no Ms. Riche, there is no smearing going on in Mark Ames detailed account in this regard.

    Outis Philalithopoulos December 9, 2016 at 4:56 pm

    Here it is – sorry it didn't post immediately. BTW stuff not posting immediately doesn't necessarily mean either (1) there is anything wrong with your comment, or (2) it got permanently eaten by Skynet. Sometimes the algorithm for finding spam gets false positives for reasons that are not entirely clear.

    ginnie nyc December 9, 2016 at 4:33 pm

    Outis, my comment on FPRI seems to have disappeared. Could you see if it can be extracted from Skynet? Thanks.

    JOHN bougearel December 9, 2016 at 8:22 pm

    that was alot of investigative digging jerri-lynn -- so nice To see u surprise me twice in a week. tremendous effort -thank you a post worth cross posting if it hasn't been already

    Jerri-Lynn Scofield Post author December 9, 2016 at 9:02 pm

    John–

    This is indeed a great post, but I'm not the author. Mark Ames is the author. I just cross-posted his fine work, which was originally published by AlterNet.

    RBHoughton December 9, 2016 at 9:14 pm

    The CIA's apparent involvement reveals the immense danger and probable failure of expecting a few managers to keep the sty clean.

    Its not just in spookery that standards have collapsed. The world of professionals – doctors, lawyers, accountants – has followed the same downward trajectory and it started in 1970 with demonetization and the subsequent expansion of honorable greed.

    It was in early 1970s that creative accounting and its penchant for creating wealth out of nothing appeared.Then we saw these dodgy scorers appearing in court and swearing to the truth of their new view. That infected the legal profession. The prosecutors were still willing to present all their evidence for and against conviction to the Judge but the defense increasingly cheated, led by the lawyer who tells his customers 'we never plead guilty,' and starts the creation of a case beyond a reasonable doubt in place of the defendant's actual evidence.

    It may be that doctors have so far escaped the moral collapse although on a recent visit to hospital I saw the elevator lobbies infested with the army of capitalism in the shape of suited drug salesmen trying to create obligations on the part of doctors.

    We seem to have lost our way and for the time being its the man who cares only for the bottom line who is winning the war of the world. He's the man who owns the newspaper that tells you every bad thing is because of foreigners.

    [Dec 10, 2016] Possible connection between Ukraian Diaspora in the USA and

    Typically Diaspora is more nationalistic the "mainland" population. This is very true about Ukrainian Diaspora, which partially is represented by those who fought on the side of Germany in the WWII. They are adamantly anti-Russian.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Here it also bears mentioning that it has been established that Yanukovych's Party of Regions transferred $200,000 to the far right Svoboda party and about $30,000 to the nationalist UNA-UNSO. This is serious money in Ukraine. ..."
    "... Firstly, most Ukrainians don't give a shit about Bandera and the OUN. So if they're not speaking out against people using those symbols or slogans it's not because they support them, but because they're more concerned with issues of pure survival. ..."
    "... And then these same fascists were whitewashed as noble freedom fighters by Western MSM simply because their interests happen to allign with the interests of the US, for the moment. ..."
    "... Uh, no. I haven't noticed anyone here thinking that Russia is some sort of fighter for social and economic justice. Rather, we as a group are sick of noxious propaganda driven by American Exceptionalism. ..."
    "... And speaking for myself, I find the rise of Russia to be potentially a very good thing for the US itself, if it manages to curtail the MIC-driven hegemonic drive, weakens its relative power, and forces it to focus its money and energies on pressing domestic issues. ..."
    "... The idea of considering Putin to be anticapitalist is risible. Putin represents a limit on a US hegemonized economic order and the greater likelihood that some portion ..."
    "... This is some insidious strawman and dishonest argumentation, speaking of "BS." Nowhere does this article state that the entire Maidan revolution was a "fascist coup"-that's you putting words in the author's mouth to make his article appear to be Russian propaganda. The author specifies names of top figures in power today with seriously disturbing neo-Nazi backgrounds-the speaker of Ukraine's parliament, its Interior Minister, and head of National Police. He never once calls it a "fascist coup". Using strawman to avoid having to answer these specific allegations is bad faith commenting. ..."
    "... The false analogy to Occupy shows how dishonest your comment is. No one disputes that neo-Nazi leader Parubiy was in charge of Maidan's "self-defense"; and that neo-Nazi Right Sektor played a lead role in the confrontations with the Yanukovych authorities. ..."
    "... I suspect that Mr. Kovpak is a member of the Ukrainian diaspora that first infested this country starting around 1945, and has since been trying to justify the belief that the wrong side won WWII. ..."
    "... "The appalling corruption of Yanukovich was replaced by the appalling corruption of Yats and Poroschenko " ..."
    "... Paruiby (Neo Fascist) was in charge before and after the Maidan for security – the trajectory of the bullets came from his peoples positions that shot the cops – analyzed over and over ..."
    "... The Nazi Asov Battalion among other organizations supporting the Regime in Kiev has Nazi symbols, objectives and is one of the main forces armed and trained by American Military. ..."
    "... The entire corrupt Kiev administration is Nazi and now it appears the Clinton Campaign has direct ties well beyond the $13 million she received in her Slush Fund from the Oligarchs in 2013. The driving force behind this entire Fake News Initiative and support for Hillary is becoming more visible each day. ..."
    "... Not to mention the Ukrainian Nazis penchant for shelling civilians. Or will Kovpak (Ukrainian school perhaps? Did his grandfather emigrate with the other Ukrainian SS?) will repeat the canard that unbeknownst to the locals, the rebels are shelling themselves, using artillery shells that can 180 mid-flight? ..."
    "... What is the liberals' talking point these days? "Not all Trump supporters are racist, but all of them decided that racism isn't a deal-breaker. End of story." Hillary's SoS-designate Nuland and Barry 0 decided that Ukie nazism wasn't a deal breaker. End of story. ..."
    "... Ukrainian neo-fascists were an integral part of the Maidan (trained in Poland, US, and Canada). ..."
    "... Yes, ordinary Ukrainians protested against corruption – but every U. government since 1991 has been corrupt. Yanukovich was no exception – but he was also not the worst one (do some research on J. Timoshenko). ..."
    "... There is enough actual footage from Maidan that shows the presence of neo-nazi members on the square from the beginning. They were also the one who completed the violent overthrow of the government that happened on 2/21-22/14 – after a deal had been signed calling for early elections. The burning of 48 people in Odessa was probably done by angels, according to your likely analysis. ..."
    "... So perhaps in the future instead of repeating a bunch of Russian talking points ..."
    "... I was going to say something about how the CIA made Ukraine's Social Nationalist party change its name to Svoboda (freedom), to obscure the obvious Nazi connection, but instead I will just laugh at you. ..."
    "... What a shocker that Jim Kovpak, the commenter who tries smearing this article as "repeating a bunch of Russian talking points" -- works for CIA-founded Voice of America and is a regular with Ukraine's "StopFake.org" which is funded by the National Endowment for Democracy , the CIA's color revolution "soft" arm - in other words, PropOrNot's folks. Can't make this stuff up. ..."
    "... Wait, so in Kovpak's case our tax dollars are used to fund and disseminate propaganda to America's public, too? I am not shocked or anything, but rather amused that the vaunted American democracy and famously free media is beginning to resemble communist Bulgaria. ..."
    "... Okay, but isn't it the case that many far-right leaders have migrated to parties closer to the center, such as People's Front? Svoboda's leaders have done this. Andriy Parubiy, Tetiana Chornovol, and Oleksandr Turchynov, for example, hold high positions in People's Front, but started out as members or Svoboda. If I'm not mistaken, People's Front also has strong connections to the far-right Volunteer Battalions. I believe People's Front has its own paramilitary branch too. ..."
    "... What this tells me is that much of Ukraine's far-right may be masquerading as right-center. That's kind of like a political Trojan Horse operation. This way the fascists avoid standing out as far-right, but at the same time, move closer to the mechanisms of power within Ukraine's government. ..."
    "... Here's an article by Lev Golinkin commenting on the far-right's strong and dangerous influence on Ukraine today. A fascist presence like this could easily be a powerful element in Ukrainian elections, very suddenly and unpredictably too. https://www.thenation.com/article/the-ukrainian-far-right-and-the-danger-it-poses/ ..."
    "... This is getting darker and darker. As much as I dislike Trump I feel happier that Clinton didn't make it. The TINA party is the most reactionary thing by far! ..."
    "... Sanders might have had a hard time driving as far left on FP as he did on domestic issues. I'm his constituent, and I have a letter from him from mid-'15 reiterating all the mainstream lies about Russia and Ukraine. ..."
    "... and/or incontinence ..."
    Dec 09, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Jim Kovpak December 9, 2016 at 3:45 am

    Hello, I'm the blogger of Russia Without BS, a site you cited once in the stories about PropOrNot. As I have recently written on my blog , I believe PropOrNot is most likely one person who is not linked to any real organization group or intelligence agency. The individual is most likely what I call a cheerleader, which is basically a person with no reasonable connection to some conflict, yet who takes a side and sort of lives vicariously through their imagined "struggle."

    That being said, you're probably not going to do yourself any favors claiming that Maidan was a fascist coup and that fascists are in charge in Ukraine. Euromaidan was not started by right-wingers (quite the opposite, actually), and they were not the majority of people there. Basically you condemning Maidan is like someone condemning Occupy just because of the presence of neo-Nazis and racists who were sometimes involved in certain Occupy chapters (this is well documented).

    Without actually bothering to look at the issues involved, you are basically telling millions of Ukrainians that they should have tolerated a corrupt, increasingly authoritarian government that was literally stealing their future all because some right-wingers happened to latch on to that cause too. Here it also bears mentioning that it has been established that Yanukovych's Party of Regions transferred $200,000 to the far right Svoboda party and about $30,000 to the nationalist UNA-UNSO. This is serious money in Ukraine.

    As for the slogan, yes, Slava Ukraini, Heroiam Slava! has its origins in the OUN, but there are some important things to consider when discussing Ukrainian history.

    Firstly, most Ukrainians don't give a shit about Bandera and the OUN. So if they're not speaking out against people using those symbols or slogans it's not because they support them, but because they're more concerned with issues of pure survival. Look at the average salary in Ukraine and look into some of the instances of corruption (some of which continue to this day), and you'll understand why a lot of people aren't going to get up in arms about someone waving the red and black flag. Most people have become very cynical and see the nationalists as provocateurs or clowns, and thus they don't take them seriously enough.

    ... ... ...

    olga December 9, 2016 at 12:35 pm

    Before you call this good points, please familiarize yourself with the (accurate) history of the Maidan, Ukraine, neo-nazi presence in that country, and Russian history. Please Kovpak seems to be an embodiment of what Ames tries to convey.

    dk December 9, 2016 at 2:30 pm

    "You're a poseur!"
    "No, you're poser!"

    The more experienced observer listens to all sides; and all sides lie at least a little, if only for their own comfort. Beyond that, subjectivity is inescapable, and any pair of subjectives will inevitably diverge. This is not a malign intent, it's existential circumstance, the burden of identity, of individual life.

    My own (admittedly cursory) analysis happens to coincide with Jim Kovpak's first para (PropOrNot being primarily a lone "cheerleader"). And I can see merit, and the call for dispassionate assessment, in some of his other points. This does not mean I endorse Kovpak over Ames, or Ames over Kovpak; both contribute to the searching discussion with cogent observation (and the inevitable measure of subjective evaluation).

    I thank both for their remarks, and also thank our gracious hosts ;).

    hemeantwell December 9, 2016 at 9:23 am

    Euromaidan was not started by right-wingers

    No, but it was hijacked by fascists. It is sad that more democratic/progressive forces lost out, but that's what happened. You seem to be trying to avoid recognizing this fact by affirming the rightfulness of those who began the revolt. Their agency was removed not by Naked Capitalism or Mark Ames, but by fascists who out maneuvered, spent, and gunned them. It's time to mourn, not to defend a parasitic Frankenstein that is trying to develop a European fascist movement. Goons from that movement assaulted and injured May Day demonstrators in Sweden this year and then fled back to the Ukraine. They are dangerous and should not be protected with illusions.

    OIFVet December 9, 2016 at 10:08 am

    Their agency was removed not by Naked Capitalism or Mark Ames, but by fascists who out maneuvered, spent, and gunned them

    And then these same fascists were whitewashed as noble freedom fighters by Western MSM simply because their interests happen to allign with the interests of the US, for the moment. Thus we have the ridiculous situation where supposedly reputable media like NYT and WaPoo cheer on the Azov battalion and its brethren, and deny the very symbolism of the various Nazi insignia and regalia featured on their uniforms. Jim makes some very good points, but he fell way short in ignoring the role of the US MSM in this travesty.

    And just in case someone tries to claim that we all make mistakes at times and that the MSM made an honest mistake in regards to these neo-Nazi formations, the same thing has been happening in Syria, where the US and its Gulf allies have armed extremists and have whitewashed their extremism by claiming even Al Qaeda and its offshoots are noble freedom fighters.

    hemeantwell December 9, 2016 at 12:05 pm

    Good on the parallel with Syria. The evolution, or distortion, of revolutionary movements as they struggle to gain support and offensive power and then either are modified or jacked by "supporting" external powers is not a cheering subject. The tendency to ignore that this has happened takes two forms. One is what we are here discussing. The other is its opposite, as seen in, for example, the way some writers try to maintain that there never was a significant democratic/progressive/humane etc. element to the Syrian opposition.

    flora December 9, 2016 at 9:57 am

    Ukraine, as I understand it, is not monolith but has roughly 2 interest areas – western and eastern – divided by the River Dnieper. The Western half is more pro-European and EU, the Eastern half is more pro-Russia. The word "fascist" in Ukraine means something slightly different than in means in the US and the EU. So I take your comment with a grain of salt, even though it is interesting.

    Ukraine's geographical location as the land "highway" between Europe and Asia has created a long and embattled history there.

    OIFVet December 9, 2016 at 10:17 am

    So perhaps in the future instead of repeating a bunch of Russian talking points because you mistakenly think Russia is somehow opposed to US capitalism,

    Uh, no. I haven't noticed anyone here thinking that Russia is some sort of fighter for social and economic justice. Rather, we as a group are sick of noxious propaganda driven by American Exceptionalism.

    And speaking for myself, I find the rise of Russia to be potentially a very good thing for the US itself, if it manages to curtail the MIC-driven hegemonic drive, weakens its relative power, and forces it to focus its money and energies on pressing domestic issues.

    Soulipsis December 9, 2016 at 11:48 am

    Seconded.

    hemeantwell December 9, 2016 at 12:15 pm

    Thirded. The idea of considering Putin to be anticapitalist is risible. Putin represents a limit on a US hegemonized economic order and the greater likelihood that some portion of the fruits of the Russian oligarchic capitalist effort will benefit Russians, not elites tied to the US, because of his self-interested nationalism. Not much to cheer about but better than where things were headed when Yeltsin was in power.

    KRB December 9, 2016 at 10:49 am

    This is some insidious strawman and dishonest argumentation, speaking of "BS." Nowhere does this article state that the entire Maidan revolution was a "fascist coup"-that's you putting words in the author's mouth to make his article appear to be Russian propaganda. The author specifies names of top figures in power today with seriously disturbing neo-Nazi backgrounds-the speaker of Ukraine's parliament, its Interior Minister, and head of National Police. He never once calls it a "fascist coup". Using strawman to avoid having to answer these specific allegations is bad faith commenting.

    The false analogy to Occupy shows how dishonest your comment is. No one disputes that neo-Nazi leader Parubiy was in charge of Maidan's "self-defense"; and that neo-Nazi Right Sektor played a lead role in the confrontations with the Yanukovych authorities. There is absolutely no equivalent to this with Occupy at all. Where does this false analogy even come from? No where does the author state that Maidan was ONLY fascists, that is again your strawman response. Maidan had a lot of support from pro-western, pro-european, pro-liberal forces. But to deny the key and often lead roles played by neo-fascists in the actual organization, "self defense" and violent confrontations with the Yanukovych goons is gross whitewashing.

    Much worse is the way you rationalize the fascist OUN salute by arguing that it means something else now, or it's become normalized, etc. These are all the same bullshit arguments made by defenders of the Confederate flag. "It means something different now." "it's about heritage/being a rebel!/individualism!" There is no "but" to this, and anyone who claims so is an asshole of the first order. The salute descends directly from collaborators in the Holocaust and mass-murder of Jews and Poles and collaboration with Nazis. If people claim they don't understand its origins, then educate them on why it's so fucked up, don't make excuses for them. Really disgusting that you'd try to rationalize this away. There is no "but" and no excuse, period.

    "Russia Without BS" is one hell of an ironic name for someone bs-ing like this. Your failure to actually engage the article, setting up and knocking down strawmen instead, and evading, using false analogies-reveal your own intellectual pathologies. Try responding to the actual text here, and maybe you'll be taken seriously.

    Martin Finnucane December 9, 2016 at 2:47 pm

    +1

    My thought was that this post was an example of the strawman fallacy. Yet certainly Mr. Kovpak wasn't just shooting from the hip. That is, he thought about this thing, wrote it, looked it over, and said "well enough" and posted it. Poor logic, or bad faith?

    I think the tell was his characterization of the article as "repeating a bunch of Russian talking points." What the hell is a "Russian talking point"? How do Ames' contentions follow said talking points? Are he saying, perhaps, that Ames is another one of those Kremlin agents we've been hearing about, or perhaps another "useful idiot"? Perhaps Ames – of all people – is a dupe for Putin, right?

    Hasbara, Ukrainian style. Bringing this junk onto NS, either this guy is alot of dumber than he gives himself credit for, or he actually has no familiarity with NS, outside of the now- and rightly-notorious WP/ProporNot blacklist. Probably the latter, since it looks like his comment was a pre-masticated one-and-done.

    sid_finster December 9, 2016 at 3:03 pm

    I suspect that Mr. Kovpak is a member of the Ukrainian diaspora that first infested this country starting around 1945, and has since been trying to justify the belief that the wrong side won WWII.

    AD December 9, 2016 at 10:55 am

    I'm glad Jim Kovpak provided this background. I was very troubled to see Ames breezily smear the Ukrainian uprising as "fascist," essentially writing off the protesters as U.S. proxies and dismissing their grievances as either non-existent or irrelevant. Something similar has happened in Syria, of course. Yes, the U.S. ruling blocs try to advance their interests in such places, but if you ignore the people on the ground or dismiss them as irrelevant, you're just playing into the hands of other tyrannical interests (in Syria: Assad, Putin, Hezbollah, etc.).

    OIFVet December 9, 2016 at 12:06 pm

    $5 billion spent over the past 25 years by the US in Ukraine (per Nuland). Yeah, they ain't US proxies. Gla that you straightened that out for us.

    The grievances in Ukraine are many and are legitimate. But that the people's anger was hijacked by US-financed proxies is a fact. Nuland was caught dictating that Yats would be the new PM, and darned if he didn't become just that. The appalling corruption of Yanukovich was replaced by the appalling corruption of Yats and Poroschenko, and the country was plunged into a civil war. But Yats and Porky are freedom-loving democrats! The old saying remains true: "They may be corrupt SOBs, but they are our corrupt SOBs!"

    Heck, for all the crocodile tears shed by the West about corruption and democracy, it has nurtured corruption in Eastern Europe and looked the other way as democracy has been trampled. Including in my native Bulgaria, where millions of dollars spent by the US and allied NGOs on promoting and financing "free press" have seen Bulgaria's freedom of media ranking slip to third world levels. But Bulgaria is a "democracy" because it is a member of the EU and NATO, and as such its elites have done the bidding of its Western masters at the expense of Bulgaria's national interests and the interests of its people. Ukraine is headed down that road, and all I can say to regular Ukrainians is that they are in for an even bigger screwing down the road, cheer-led by the Western "democracies" and "free" media.

    Meddling by US hyperpower in the internal affairs and the replacement of one set of bastahds with another set of bastahds that is beholden to the US is not progress, which is why we call it out. After all the spilled blood and destruction sponsored by the US, can you honestly say that Ukraine and Syria and Libya and Iraq are now better off, and that their futures are bright? I can't, and I can't say that for my native country either. That's because this new version of neocolonialism is the most destructive and virulent yet. And it is particularly insidious because it fools well-meaning people, like yourself, into believing that it actually helps improve the lives of the natives. It does not.

    lyman alpha blob December 9, 2016 at 12:39 pm

    "The appalling corruption of Yanukovich was replaced by the appalling corruption of Yats and Poroschenko "

    That pretty much sums it up. Jim Kovpak does make some excellent points which help to understand what the Ukranians are thinking. The discussion regarding the poor education system and potential lack of knowledge of what certain symbolism refers to was really good. Sort of reminds me of the Southerners in the US who still claim that the Stars and Bars is just about Southern heritage and pride without bothering to consider the other ramifications and what the symbol means for those who were persecuted at one time (and continuing to today). But yeah, I'm sure there are those who think that that flag was just something the Duke boys used on the General Lee when trying to outrun Roscoe.

    All that being said, I don't believe anybody here thinks that Yanukovich was some paragon of virtue ruling a modern utopia. The problem is that the new boss looks surprisingly familiar to the old boss with the main difference being that the fruits of corruption are being funneled to different parties with the people likely still getting the shaft.

    If your a(just as many in the US are), it's quite possible they are also unaware of the current US influence in their country, just as most US citizens are unaware of what the US has done in other countries.

    I'd be very interested in Jim Kovpak's thoughts on this.

    RMcHewn December 9, 2016 at 4:37 pm

    $5 billion spent over the past 25 years by the US in Ukraine (per Nuland). Yeah, they ain't US proxies. Gla[d] that you straightened that out for us.

    Yes, it doesn't get any more blatant than that, and if anyone believes otherwise they are obviously hooked on the officially sanctioned fake news, aka the MSM.

    Damian December 9, 2016 at 10:56 am

    "Euromaidan was not started by right-wingers / Ukraine certainly does not have more right-wingers than other Eastern European nations" silly at best!

    Paruiby (Neo Fascist) was in charge before and after the Maidan for security – the trajectory of the bullets came from his peoples positions that shot the cops – analyzed over and over

    The Nazi Asov Battalion among other organizations supporting the Regime in Kiev has Nazi symbols, objectives and is one of the main forces armed and trained by American Military.

    The entire corrupt Kiev administration is Nazi and now it appears the Clinton Campaign has direct ties well beyond the $13 million she received in her Slush Fund from the Oligarchs in 2013. The driving force behind this entire Fake News Initiative and support for Hillary is becoming more visible each day.

    Your statements are pure propaganda and I would assume you work indirectly for Alexandra Chalupa!

    sid_finster December 9, 2016 at 11:35 am

    Not to mention the Ukrainian Nazis penchant for shelling civilians. Or will Kovpak (Ukrainian school perhaps? Did his grandfather emigrate with the other Ukrainian SS?) will repeat the canard that unbeknownst to the locals, the rebels are shelling themselves, using artillery shells that can 180 mid-flight?

    Young Ex-Pat December 9, 2016 at 11:28 am

    "Basically you condemning Maidan is like someone condemning Occupy just because of the presence of neo-Nazis and racists who were sometimes involved in certain Occupy chapters (this is well documented)."

    You must be kidding. Where to begin? Can we start with the simple fact that the Russian Foreign Ministry wasn't handing out baked goods to Occupy protesters in NYC, egging them on as they tossed molotov cocktails at police, who, strangely enough, refrained from shooting protesters until right after a peaceful political settlement was reached? Coincidence or fate? Or maybe there is strong evidence that right wing fanatics were the ones who started the shooting on that fateful day? http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-31359021

    And sorry, no matter how much Kovpak denies it, the muscle behind the "glorious revolution" was a bunch of far-right thugs that make our American alt-right look like girl scouts. Andrei Biletsky, leader of Azov Battalion and head of Ukraine's creatively named Social-National Assembly, says he's committed to "punishing severely sexual perversions and any interracial contacts that lead to the extinction of the white man." http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28329329 - Just like those hippies at Zuccotti Park, right?! Oh,and this guy received a medal from Poroshenko.

    I can keep going, but your "Maidan was just like Occupy!" argument pretty much speaks for itself. Glory to the heroes indeed.

    p.s. "Russia Without the BS" is awful.

    sid_finster December 9, 2016 at 11:30 am

    As someone who lived many years in Ukraine, speaks Ukrainian and Russian and knows personally many of the people involved, yes, Ukrainians know full well the origin of the Nazi slogans that the local Nazis spout.

    That doesn't mean that the average frustrated euromaidan supporter is a Nazi, but Nazis bussed in from Galicia did eventually provide the muscle, as it were, and the rest of the country were willing to get in bed with them, appoint them to run ministries, and let them have independent military units.

    Those Nazis are perfectly happy to call themselves Nazis.

    OIFVet December 9, 2016 at 12:11 pm

    What is the liberals' talking point these days? "Not all Trump supporters are racist, but all of them decided that racism isn't a deal-breaker. End of story." Hillary's SoS-designate Nuland and Barry 0 decided that Ukie nazism wasn't a deal breaker. End of story.

    Foppe December 9, 2016 at 2:41 pm

    To be fair, there is a fairly wide gap between 'racist' and 'violent racist of the KKK/Nazi variety'.

    Also (yes, partly preaching to the choir, but with a purpose), liberals are perfectly happy to stay quiet about enormous income/prosecution/incarceration/kill rate differences, so long as those targeted/affected can (bureau-/meritocratically) be described as 'druggies/criminals/"extremists"/uneducated-thus- undeserving '. And to ignore drone bombing of brown people. Etc. So all the pearl-clutching/virtue-signaling concerning racism is pretty easy to shrug off as concerning little more than a plea to express one's support for racist policy in a PC fashion.

    (Highly recommend The New Jim Crow , which I've only recently started reading, for no good reason. Bizarre to realize that all of the stuff that's being reported on a little bit now has been going on for 30 years now (30y of silence / wir-haben-es-nicht-gewusst wrt the structural nature; note that any/all reporting that im/explicitly describes these issues as "scandals"/"excesses" is part of the problem.)

    Gareth December 9, 2016 at 12:24 pm

    The whole Fake News world is a house of mirrors:

    http://www.stopfake.org/en/stopfakenews-98-eng-with-jim-kovpak/

    olga December 9, 2016 at 12:31 pm

    WOW I guess we have democracy, so your comment got through. In a way, your post confirms the existence of rabidly anti-Russian entities – the very point that Mark Ames makes. But you know, there are people who know a thing or two about Russia and Ukraine, and can easily refute much of your diatribe. (1) Ukrainian neo-fascists were an integral part of the Maidan (trained in Poland, US, and Canada).

    Yes, ordinary Ukrainians protested against corruption – but every U. government since 1991 has been corrupt. Yanukovich was no exception – but he was also not the worst one (do some research on J. Timoshenko).

    Corruption persists in U. today – and based on the now-required property disclosures by U. politicians – may be even worse. It is likely correct that most U. don't give a damn about Bandera – but most U. also do not have any power to do anything about the neo-nazis, as they are (at least in the western part of the country) numerous, vocal, and prone to violence.

    There is enough actual footage from Maidan that shows the presence of neo-nazi members on the square from the beginning. They were also the one who completed the violent overthrow of the government that happened on 2/21-22/14 – after a deal had been signed calling for early elections. The burning of 48 people in Odessa was probably done by angels, according to your likely analysis.

    (2) But it is your comments about the U. neo-nazi participation in the war that seem to clarify who you really represent. This participation was not much discussed during the soviet times – I only found out that they continued to fight against the soviet state long after the war ended recently – from family members who witnessed it (in Belorussia, west. Ukr., and eastern Czechoslovakia). Some of them witnessed the unspeakable cruelty of these Ukr. "troops" against villagers and any partisans they could find. White-washing this period (or smearing soviet educational system) will not help – there is plenty of historical evidence for those who are interested in the subject.

    (3) What you say about the Russian state promoting this or that is just a scurrilous attack, with no proof. Not even worth exploring. On the other hand, there are plenty of documented murders of Ukr. journalists (google Buzina – a highly intelligent and eloquent Ukr. journalist, who was gunned down in front of his home; there are quite a few others).

    Ukr. in 2014 may have been protesting inept government, but what they ended up with is far worse – by any measure, Ukr. standard of living has gone way down. But now, the industrial base of the country has been destroyed, and the neo-nazi genie will not go back into the bottle any time soon. Ukr. as a unified place did not exist until after WWI, and the great divisions – brought starkly into contrast by the 2014 destruction of the state – cannot be papered over anytime soon.

    lyman alpha blob December 9, 2016 at 12:48 pm

    Appreciate the points you bring up but if the Ukranians truly want an end to an exploitative system, they probably are not going to get it by allying themselves with Uncle Sugar. The US provided billions of dollars to foment the coup and our oligarchs expect a return on that investment – they aren't going to suddenly start trust funds for all Ukranians out of the goodness of their hearts. You are aware of that aren't you?

    integer December 9, 2016 at 4:04 pm

    So perhaps in the future instead of repeating a bunch of Russian talking points

    I was going to say something about how the CIA made Ukraine's Social Nationalist party change its name to Svoboda (freedom), to obscure the obvious Nazi connection, but instead I will just laugh at you.
    Hahahahahaha!

    Reply
    KRB December 9, 2016 at 4:33 pm

    What a shocker that Jim Kovpak, the commenter who tries smearing this article as "repeating a bunch of Russian talking points" -- works for CIA-founded Voice of America and is a regular with Ukraine's "StopFake.org" which is funded by the National Endowment for Democracy , the CIA's color revolution "soft" arm - in other words, PropOrNot's folks. Can't make this stuff up.

    Rhondda December 9, 2016 at 5:22 pm

    It was patently obvious from his comment that he's a pro shill but very good to have the proof. Thanks, KRB.

    OIFVet December 9, 2016 at 5:54 pm

    Wait, so in Kovpak's case our tax dollars are used to fund and disseminate propaganda to America's public, too? I am not shocked or anything, but rather amused that the vaunted American democracy and famously free media is beginning to resemble communist Bulgaria. The good news is that by the 80's nobody believed the state and its propagandists, even on the rare occasion they were telling the truth, and America's people seem to be a bit ahead of the curve already, which may explain the "fake news" hysteria from the creators and disseminators of fake news.

    Eddie Anderson December 9, 2016 at 8:34 pm

    Ukraine certainly does not have more right-wingers than other Eastern European nations, but if you look at their polls and elections you see that the far-right in Ukraine does far worse than it does in other Eastern and even Western European countries

    Okay, but isn't it the case that many far-right leaders have migrated to parties closer to the center, such as People's Front? Svoboda's leaders have done this. Andriy Parubiy, Tetiana Chornovol, and Oleksandr Turchynov, for example, hold high positions in People's Front, but started out as members or Svoboda. If I'm not mistaken, People's Front also has strong connections to the far-right Volunteer Battalions. I believe People's Front has its own paramilitary branch too.

    What this tells me is that much of Ukraine's far-right may be masquerading as right-center. That's kind of like a political Trojan Horse operation. This way the fascists avoid standing out as far-right, but at the same time, move closer to the mechanisms of power within Ukraine's government.

    Here in America we saw something like that in the early 1990s, when KKK leader David Duke migrated to the political mainstream by running for office as a Republican in Louisiana. Of course Duke never changed his views, he just learned to dissemble himself in the way he sold his politics to the public.

    Here's an article by Lev Golinkin commenting on the far-right's strong and dangerous influence on Ukraine today. A fascist presence like this could easily be a powerful element in Ukrainian elections, very suddenly and unpredictably too. https://www.thenation.com/article/the-ukrainian-far-right-and-the-danger-it-poses/

    Ignacio December 9, 2016 at 4:22 am

    This is getting darker and darker. As much as I dislike Trump I feel happier that Clinton didn't make it. The TINA party is the most reactionary thing by far!

    Benedict@Large December 9, 2016 at 7:32 am

    Yes, these are dangerous people, as are most "true believers". I'm also becoming even more disappointed at Ms, Clinton. For a while, she seemed to be keeping a little distance from her dead-enders, but now that her and Bill are out back on the money trail (How much is enough?), it doesn't look good.

    Selling fear? Really? Isn't there a shelf life on that?

    notabanker December 9, 2016 at 7:56 am

    Ahhh, but it's not money they accumulate, its power. And time is their only constraint. This is what they do.

    Jim Haygood December 9, 2016 at 8:03 am

    William Banzai7 on "Prop or Nuts." Hillary's "Childen of the Rainbow" button (look carefully) is to die for.

    https://c8.staticflickr.com/1/601/30710973103_365b8e0b4d_b.jpg

    Clive December 9, 2016 at 9:00 am

    There's a crock of something at the end of that rainbow, but I doubt very much that it contains any gold.

    ambrit December 9, 2016 at 11:07 am

    I'm not certain about the contents of that crock, good sir. We now live in a "culture" where s–t IS gold. Otherwise, why are we now enduring a "popular press" full of "wardrobe malfunctions," new amazing bikini bodies, salacious gossip, and equally salacious "news?" (The Page Three was shut down really because there was too much competition.)

    Oh tempura, oh s'mores! (Latinate for "We're crisped!")

    Carolinian December 9, 2016 at 9:30 am

    Indeed. The above article is great, great stuff and shows why some of us found Hillary more disturbing than Trump. Therefore Ames' final assumption

    And the timing is incredible-as if Bezos' rag has taken upon itself to soften up the American media before Trump moves in for the kill.

    seems a bit off. It's certainly true that Trump said news organizations should face greater exposure to libel laws but one suspects this has more to do with his personal peevishness and inability to take criticism than the Deep State-y motives described above. Clearly the "public versus private" Hillary–Nixon in a pant suit–would have been just the person to embrace this sort of censorship by smear and her connection with various shadowy exiles and in her own campaign no less shows why Sanders' failure to make FP the center of his opposition was, if not a political mistake, at least evidence of his limited point of view.

    It's unlikely that anyone running this time would be able to change our domestic trajectory but this fascism from abroad is a real danger IMO. In Reagan times some of us thought that Reagan supported reactionary governments abroad because that's what he and his rogue's gallery including Casey and North wished they could do here. The people getting hysterical over Trump while pining for Hillary don't seem to know fascism when it's right in front of them. Or perhaps it's just a matter of whose ox is going to be gored.

    Soulipsis December 9, 2016 at 11:59 am

    Sanders might have had a hard time driving as far left on FP as he did on domestic issues. I'm his constituent, and I have a letter from him from mid-'15 reiterating all the mainstream lies about Russia and Ukraine.

    Disturbed Voter December 9, 2016 at 6:45 am

    No surprise, ever since the US, and Biden, got involved in Ukraine. And it is even probable, that people like that were behind the Kennedy assassination, that the US has admitted was a conspiracy, that is still protected from "journalistic sunshine" under lock and key by the US government.

    integer December 9, 2016 at 6:49 am

    Thanks for giving this article its own post, and thanks to dcblogger for providing the link in yesterday's Water Cooler.

    Seems to me that this little bout of D-party/CIA incompetence, and/or incontinence, will finally sound the death knell for the Operation Paperclip gang's plan. Good riddance.

    integer December 9, 2016 at 7:01 am

    and/or incontinence

    I'm looking at you, Soros!

    [Dec 10, 2016] We Demand That PropOrNot Remove Its Blacklist, Report, and Browser Tool Defaming Naked Capitalism and Issue an Apology naked

    Notable quotes:
    "... merely reporting what PropOrNot said ..."
    "... the first in a series ..."
    "... The MSM has lost control of the narrative. The big dailies continue to hemorrhage ad revenue, month in and month out, year in and year out. Their existence going forward will be even more dependent on government assistance. Fake News is the pathetic death rattle of the neoliberal order. ..."
    Dec 10, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    As the Columbia Journalism Review stated (emphasis original):

    More importantly, the editor's note vaults into verbal gymnastics in an attempt to simultaneously rationalize and distance itself from an obviously flawed primary source. Any data analysis is only as good as the sum of its parts, and it's clear that PropOrNot's methodology was lacking.

    The Post, of course, was merely reporting what PropOrNot said . Yet it used declarative language throughout, sans caveat, lending credence to a largely unknown organization that lumps together independent left-wing publications and legitimately Russian-backed news services. The Post diminished its credibility at a time when media credibility is in short supply, and the non-apologetic editor's note doesn't help.

    And from FAIR (emphasis original):

    Almost two weeks after its article ran, the Post ran a sort of correction in the form of an editorial comment in italics pasted on top of the online edition of Timberg's November 24 piece (where only those looking for the by then old original story would find it). In that note, the editors say that the paper

    did not name any of the sites [on PropOrNot's blacklist], does not itself vouch for the validity of PropOrNot's findings regarding any individual media outlet, nor did the article purport to do so. Since publication of the Post 's story, PropOrNot has removed some of those sites from its list.

    Of course, the damage was already done, as the original article achieved widespread circulation via the Post 's wire service; it would be up to all those news organizations that bought and ran the story, or reported their own versions of it, to make any correction.

    Meanwhile, the facile dodge of "we didn't name the sites" ignores the reality that the Post had prominently showcased PropOrNot and let its name vouch for the heretofore unknown group's credibility. The paper didn't have to run the list; anyone with a smartphone could do a Google search, find PropOrNot's website as the first listing, go to the homepage and find a link button headed "The List."

    And apparently plenty of readers did that. While thanks to the Post 's grant of anonymity, PropOrNot's hidden principals remained safe from inquiring reporters and Russian hackers alike, editors of sites named on its McCarthyite hit list quickly found themselves deluged with venomous calls and emails. As Jeffrey St. Clair, a co-founder and editor of CounterPunch.org , another site listed prominently as a propaganda tool, recalls, "The morning after the Post published its article, I found 1,000 emails in my inbox, mostly hate mail and death threats."

    readerOfTeaLeaves December 10, 2016 at 2:40 am

    Expert media commentators criticized the Post's handwave in the form of an editor's note that it placed at the top of a story that is now history, as opposed to news. The mild concession is likely to be read only by fans of the 199 sites that were defamed by the Post, and journalists who've taken interest in the row and not the vast public that read the story through the post and other major outlets, like USA Today, that re-reported or syndicated Timberg's piece.

    It all depends upon who you follow on Twitter, but from my check-in's today, the WaPo is not coming off well.

    This whole 'fake news' mess is downright weird.
    I have trouble understanding how anyone can govern, given the growing legitimacy problems.

    It seems as if there are (very well greased) wheels within (extravagantly funded) wheels moving behind the scenes.
    Meanwhile, apparently Obama has formally requested that the Intel Community develop a 'consensus report' about the role of the Russians in this most recent election (per Emptywheel). "Senior officials' in Congress have already been briefed, and some are apparently leaking: this much smoke signals a battle royale behind the scenes.

    The worst possible outcome, IMVHO, is failing to investigate and come clean.

    Every time our government is too gutless to deal with reality - whether WMD, or the Financial Crisis - the legitimacy of government is further eroded. It would be helpful if Hillary renounced the Presidency, and agreed that even if the election should be overturned, that she would defer to some other person. The investigation should not be used as a recount, nor as a re-do. It should function only to restore credibility to the US federal government, and for no other reason.

    Unfortunately for Trump, if he blocks this kind of investigation, it will only diminish his credibility, and weaken the very power he seeks to hold.
    Life is full of paradoxes and mysteries; this one takes the cake.

    Yves Smith Post author December 10, 2016 at 3:16 am

    I agree with your comment re Twitter, but Twitter is heavy with journalists who love the story of a media fight. This is catnip to them.

    The Washington Post story was tweeted far more heavily when it first ran than the follow-on criticism was. The story proper got 14,800 comments. It was picked up by USA Today, CNN, and I haven't even begun to track how many different other publishers. The original reach was at least an order of magnitude, and probably two orders of magnitude, bigger than the discussion of the itty bitty walkback.

    Presumptuous Insect December 10, 2016 at 6:16 am

    Yves,

    Do you have a website set up for donations, like GoFundMe or Paypal? If you do, I am sure lots of us can help you to get the word out on twitter, etc.

    PI

    Yves Smith Post author December 10, 2016 at 6:19 am

    Thanks so much!

    Please see our Tip Jar in the right column. It tells you how to donate using a debit or credit card, or send a check.

    We had a recent emergency fundraiser, and some of that has already been allocated to extra site coverage (to have others do more site-minding and content generation so as to free me up to spend time on this stuff) and the other part (a bit more than half the total) is to fund expenses for litigation.

    Generalfeldmarschall Von Hindenburg December 10, 2016 at 3:05 am

    Is this episode really Bezos carrying water for a faction of the deep state? They had to have known that if you malign the entirety of the alt media-left and right that they'd show their teeny little teeth.
    I bet they feed this chump Timberg to the crocodiles ultimately. Meanwhile Mark Ames will ferret out the weird nexus of Ukrainian Nazi types. But since the WaPo will take the heat and the public will lose interest, nobody will care. But in the end the 4 or 5 folks who came up with this scheme will have achieved their goals:

    *Throw mud on non corporate news reportage.
    *Fire a warning shot over Trumps bow
    *Plant seeds with the population for the future when some ginned up provocation will again put Russia in the crosshairs of a black propaganda campaign.

    These archonic m_fers are relentless. Russia represents an independent power which absolutely cannot be permitted by Empire. This is part of a long term strategy to box Russia in. They are seen as the weaker of the Sino Russian partnership and are being targeted first.

    rusti December 10, 2016 at 6:13 am

    Not having witnessed anything like this before I'm having trouble understanding the strategy here. What potential end game is there in dealing directly with PropOrNot? Jim Moody's time is valuable, Yves' time is valuable, but they seem likely to be a few nobodies who no one would have paid any attention to if the Washington Post hadn't amplified the reach of their amateurish operation by factor of a million.

    Clive December 10, 2016 at 6:24 am

    I think you said it all there without maybe realizing it - PropOrNot may seem like harmless nobodies and, left to their own devices and not given the oxygen of publicity that is what they'd have remained.

    But there are no accidents in life. The Washington Post (and do keep in mind its owner) picked up on their output and played their tune on the Mighty Media Wurlitzer thereby amplifying it. That alone is suggestive that PropOrNot may not be the two guys working out of their Mom's basement which it is easy to think they might be.

    Add in the fact that - worldwide now, I can tell you that even outside the U.S. this whole "fake news" meme is still getting lots of airtime, the BBC in England is running 'Russia Hacked the U.S. Election' stories right now as I watch and the Japanese language media has similar too - what the Washington Post is seeking to do looks very well orchestrated and coordinated it means that you must not take anything at face value here.

    allan December 10, 2016 at 6:47 am

    The MSM is all in. Last night the PBS Newshour ran the first in a series of stories on FakeNews™, with favorably framed clips of Clinton and Sheryl Sandberg, and an extended
    interview with Marc Fisher of the WaPo. Oddly, no mention of the PropOrNot fiasco.

    craazyboy December 10, 2016 at 8:08 am

    It doesn't take a tin foil hat to believe the globalist-neocon-neolib-blob_thing feels it necessary to delegitimize Trump and Trump's election in order to reassure its merry band of practitioners that it's still biz as usual in the One World.

    And tho it may seem a challenge to re-paint "Lying Hillary" as the beacon of truth, challenges are what keep one motivated and ever stronger. No pain no gain.

    P.S. Irony Of The Year Award goes to Russia for hacking and releasing real news. If we are giving them the credit for DNC hacks and Hillary's secret private server discovery.

    barefoot charley December 10, 2016 at 10:24 am

    All in: (Yes, the Russians did it and no, we don't have to prove it)

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-orders-review-of-russian-hacking-during-presidential-campaign/2016/12/09/31d6b300-be2a-11e6-94ac-3d324840106c_story.html?tid=sm_fb&utm_term=.3de053262ddc

    lyman alpha blob December 10, 2016 at 9:42 am

    I went to a fundraiser last night where the very politically involved crowd was largely liberal and one of the award presenters brought up 'fake news' during her speech. If I'm not mistaken a member of this woman's family was one of Clinton's superdelegates. This 'fake news' meme is definitely being spread far and wide.

    Nuke it from orbit.

    Yves Smith Post author December 10, 2016 at 6:33 am

    We need to pursue the source of the defamation. See the BuzzFeed story yesterday, which is generally very sympathetic to our position. Yet even that reporter says, Why have you gone after the Post and not ProOrNot too?

    I think this is at the very most six guys and probably more like two or three, for reasons not worth taking the time to explain. And do not forget that the New Yorker said not only they but other major pubs were shown the story and passed on it.

    So the question is more: why did the Post pick up on obvious rubbish and treat it as newsworthy? This may have less to do with grand conspiracy as much as a bad intersection of events, such as: the Post under Bezos explicitly placing much more pressure on reporters to churn out stories quickly, which means less fact checking; hysteria over Russia and fake news; and individual reporters and editors seeing it as to their advantage to be in front of a hot area, no matter at what risk. Recall the Post has run such nutty stories as one saying that Hillary's 9/11 collapse was due to Putin poisoning her.

    Jack December 10, 2016 at 9:07 am

    I think WAPO picked it up because they were obviously all in for Clinton during the election. Whether Bezos was the hand behind this or not, WAPO has certainly focused on Trump. They even admitted they were doing it as Bob Woodward disclosed in a Zero Hedge article. And of course, WAPO assisted Clinton against Sanders with their coverage which has been documented many times. Now Clinton is on the bandwagon of the fake news fiasco. She just gave a speech about it Thursday.

    rusti December 10, 2016 at 9:14 am

    Thanks Yves (and Clive) for the responses. My concern is that if a shoddy three-man operation, paired with a useful idiot MSM amplifier, can provoke a response that puts sites like NC on the defensive and takes time from original reporting, it could be a template for quick-and-dirty future attacks against independent media outlets. It seems like the amplifier is the only part of the chain that can't just change domain names and set up shop somewhere else.

    But I can see how ignoring them entirely isn't an optimal solution either. I'll keep throwing my change in the tip jar and seeing how it all unfolds.

    craazyboy December 10, 2016 at 8:47 am

    The PorN site is a dark site. We don't know who the principals are or where its funding comes from. YYYYvesYYY also said NC needs to know what jurisdiction to file in in order to pursue PorN, but that is not even known at this point. But in the Wapo response to TruthDig, Wapo stated they did have "numerous" discussions with some persons at PorN before running the story.

    So you got to shake the tree by the branches you can grab. The ball is now in Wapo's court to state, "Journalistic integrity demands we do not reveal our sources in order to protect their safety."

    Meanwhile PorN is calling upon the entire USG security apparatus to investigate 200 websites for Treason, but we are unsure about which country[government] Treason is being committed against in One World. This doesn't sound like a very safe situation for simple minded provincial US citizen homebodies.

    Mike December 10, 2016 at 6:25 am

    Hello,

    I have been browsing your links for many years now – I find them well balanced, genuine, thought provoking, and usually quite deep. And it is not just me – your quality is well recognized among financial online community and punditry.

    It is important you treat this thing with the right kind of attention. This is not mccarthian. If it would be, you would be locked down in some hole in a secret location. This is somebody claiming you have silicone tits and an extramarital affair with Michael Moore. Nobody gives a shit about this, or their software, or WaPo and thir article – even if it gets 10 million retweets. Twitter attention span is 1 minute.

    Sure, sue everybody. But never give them an aureola of some dark sinister power. Ridicule them every way of the step. Ridicule "newspapers of record". Ridicule retweets. Have fun with it. Find new cases of such crap, where you personally are not affected. Help Melania Trump in her great fight against online violence :-)

    Just never concede to this as a "media fight" or "two versions of reality". This has nothing to do with news or reality. Do not give them that ground. This is some insignificant ass claiming you have fake tits, and it was picked up by an obsolete marketing tool called WaPo. A claim of an extramarital affair with Michael Moore would probably get even more coverage and more retweets and I bet some cable news discussions about public health consequences of missionary position with such a voluptuous man.

    Make the most out of this opportunity.

    Yves Smith Post author December 10, 2016 at 6:44 am

    We are fighting a legal battle and a political battle. The need to do both somewhat restricts our degrees of freedom. The political battle is ultimately the far more important one, since the "fake news" scare is part of a major push to restrict content on the web, by de facto rather than de jure means.

    tegnost December 10, 2016 at 10:22 am

    you're kidding yourself, every time lately that I look at mainstream headlines the fake news story is there near the top, can no longer stomach the news hour but another commenter says they're doing a series think about all those proper folks demanding their kids not read alternative views? The only consolation I can think of is that hillary lost because clearly this story was put out in advance of her losing and would still be amplified had she won, .the outcome looks bleak either way from here might as well fight it

    Hoi Polloi December 10, 2016 at 7:04 am

    I can tell you these fake news websites articles were heavily promoted here in Europe, so the consequences are wide spread world wide.

    I tried to explain the reasons and people behind ProporNot, but my comments were censored on 3 of the biggest digital newspapers in The Netherlands, some of them are in close contact with Soros.

    We have national elections in March 2017 and I can tell you the majority of the people are mad as hell and they know the news presented to them in the MSM are/were heavily biased towards Clinton. The MSM are sh*t scared what will happen in March 2017, an earthquake in the political landscape. All the liberal political leaders are now suddenly promoting political stuff that was unimaginable 2 years ago.

    I have followed your website on and off the last 5 years and the idea that you are guided by the Ruskies is absolutely preposterous even insane.

    I just wonder, was Wapo so blinded by the total unexpected loss of Clinton that they keep on publicing this nonsense or is it the trench war by Trump through his tweets. Wapo must have been aware of the amateurish drivel from Propornot and took a big risk of being exposed as havily biased and unprofessional with a heavy backlash.

    Anyways, I would like to donate to you in this battle, do you accept Paypal as well.

    I wish you and your team lots of success, Yves in this battle for truth.

    Cheers
    Fred from Holland

    Yves Smith Post author December 10, 2016 at 7:37 am

    Thanks for the intel and your willingness to help. Yes, we accept PayPal. Please visit our Tip Jar (the snow leopards in the right column).

    Itamar Turner-Trauring December 10, 2016 at 7:54 am

    It's not clear who own the domain since they use a Whois privacy provider ( https://whois.icann.org/en/lookup?name=propornot.com ).

    However, if PropOrNot doesn't respond you might be able to get their Whois privacy provider to get you the real owner's details – click on "File a Claim" at https://www.domainsbyproxy.com/default.aspx to see their process.

    Peter December 10, 2016 at 9:37 am

    Check this: http://wallstreetonparade.com/2016/12/whos-behind-propornots-blacklist-of-news-websites/

    And follow the money. Always.

    FluffytheObeseCat December 10, 2016 at 7:58 am

    I realize that there were a number of right wing news outlets included in this de facto censorship effort. But, they seem to be in a much stronger position than the left wing ones. Wider distribution, less choosy about what they'll run, favored by the incoming power elite, etc. Except, perhaps for a few paleocons-turned-libertarian-contrarians like Paul Craig Roberts. The Drudge Report types seem less vulnerable.

    I haven't been paying as much attention as I should to post a comment. But, first order, it looks like this imbalance may pertain to targeting. No one could expect to dull the impact of the Drudge Report by including it in an app of this kind. It is simply too prominent. Therefore, dampening the influence of the Drudge Report (and similar sites) was not the point of this little exercise.

    Slurring the actual targets by including Drudge & company in the app seems . more the point.

    Carolinian December 10, 2016 at 8:32 am

    Last night the PBS Newshour did a segment on "fake news." They are also participating in the current PBS pledge drive. Perhaps they are hoping that George Soros will send them a big check.

    One had hoped that the show would improve now that the election is over. One was wrong.

    Local8 December 10, 2016 at 9:34 am

    The MSM has lost control of the narrative. The big dailies continue to hemorrhage ad revenue, month in and month out, year in and year out. Their existence going forward will be even more dependent on government assistance. Fake News is the pathetic death rattle of the neoliberal order.

    [Dec 10, 2016] Shiny object distruction from the real issues

    Short-termism is a real problem for the US politicians. It is only now the "teeth of dragon" sowed during domination of neoliberalism since 80th start to show up in unexpected places. And reaction is pretty predictable. As one commenter said: "Looks like the CIA's latest candidate for regime change is the USA."
    Notable quotes:
    "... Divide and Control is being brilliantly employed once again against 'us'. The same tactics used against foreign countries are being used here at home on 'us'. ..."
    "... Divide and Conquer, yes indeed, watch McCain and Graham push this Russian hacking angle hard. ..."
    "... i regard this 'secret' CIA report, following on from the 'fake news' meme, to be another of what will become a never-ending series of attempts to deligitemize Trump, so that later on this year the coming economic collapse (and shootings, street violence, markets etc) can be more successfully blamed not only on Trump and his policies, but by extension, on the Russians. (a two-fer for the globalist statists) ..."
    "... Nevermind that many states voting machines are on private networks and are not even connected to the internet. ..."
    "... The Russians 'might' have influenced the election..... The American Government DID subvert and remove a democratically elected leader (Ukraine).Anyone see the difference there? ..."
    "... Voted for Trump, but the Oligarcy picked him too. Check the connection between Ross and Trump and Wilburs former employer. TPTB laughs at all of us ..."
    "... The sad facts are the CIA itself and it's massive propaganda arm has its gummy fingers all over this election and elections all over the planet. ..."
    "... The Russians, my ass. ................. The CIA are famous for doing nefarious crap and blaming their handy work on someone else. Crap that usually causes thousands of deaths. ... Even in the KGB days the CIA was the king of causing chaos. ..... the KGB would kill a dissident or spy or two and the CIA in the same time frame would start a couple of wars killing thousands or millions. ..."
    "... What makes people think the Post is believable? The truth has been hijacked by their self annihilating ideology. Honestly one would have to be dumb as a fence 'Post' (pun intended) to believe ANYTHING coming from this rag and the rest of these 'Fake News' MSM propaganda machines, good lord! ..."
    "... As for the CIA, it was reported at the time to be largely purged under the Dubya administration, of consitutionalists and other dissidents to the 9-11 -->> total-war program. Stacked to the brim with with neocon cadres. ..."
    "... Out of the 3,153 counties in this country, Hillary Clinton won only 480. A dismal and pathetic 15% of this country. The worst showing EVER for a presidential candidate. ..."
    "... The much vaunted 2 million vote lead in the popular vote can be attributed to exactly 4 boroughs in NYC; Bronx, Queens, Manhattan, & Brooklyn ..."
    "... 96 MILLION Americans were either too disgusted, too lazy, or too apathetic to even bother to go out and cast a vote for ANYONE in this election. ..."
    "... Looks like the CIA's latest candidate for regime change is the USA. ..."
    "... Clapper sat in front of congress and perjured himself. When confronted with his perjury he defended himself saying he told them the "least untruthful thing" he could - admitting he had not problem whatsoever about lying to Congress. ..."
    "... There certainly is foreign meddling in US government policy but it is not coming from Russia. The countries that have much greater influence than Russia on 'our' government are the Sunni-dominated Persian Gulf oil states including the UAE, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman, Kuwait and, of course, that bastion of human rights, Saudi Arabia. ..."
    "... Oil money from these states has found its way into influentual think tanks including the Brookings Institution, the Atlantic Council, the Middle East Institute and the Georgetown Center for Strategic and International Studies and others. ..."
    "... And also, there are arms sales. Arm sales to Saudi/Gulf States come with training. With training comes military ties, foreign policy ties and even intelligence ties. Saudi Arabia, with other Gulf oil states as partners, practically owns the CIA now. ..."
    "... Reverse Blockade: emphatically insisting upon something which is the opposite of the truth blocks the average person's mind from perceiving the truth. In accordance with the dictates of healthy common sense, he starts searching for meaning in the "golden mean" between truth and its opposite, winding up with some satisfactory counterfeit. People who think like this do not realize that this effect is precisely the intent of the person who subjects them to this method. ..."
    "... I recall lots of "consensus views" that were outright lies, bullshit and/or stupidity: "The Sun circles the Earth. The Earth is flat. Global cooling / next ice age (1970s). Global warming (no polar ice) 1990s-00's. Weapons of mass destruction." You can keep your doctor. ..."
    "... The CIA, Pentagon and "intelligence" agencies need both a cleaning and culling ..."
    "... Blacklist Promoted by the Washington Post Has Apparent Ties to Ukrainian Fascism and CIA Spying. ..."
    "... This whopper of a story from the CIA makes the one fabricated about WMD's in Iraq that fooled Bush Jr. and convinced him to almost take this country down by violating the sage advice on war strategy from Sun-Tzu and Clausewitz and opening up a second front in Iraq almost child's play. ..."
    "... At least with the WMD story they had false witnesses and some made up evidence! With this story, there is no "HUMINT (human intelligence) sources" and no physical evidence, just some alleged traces that could have been actually produced from the ether or if they knew ahead of time of Trump's possible win sent someone to Russia and had them actually run the IP routes for show. ..."
    "... Bush was misled because the CIA management was scared of some of his budgetary saber rattles and his chasing after some CIA management. In this case, someone is really scared of what the people will find when the swam gets drained, if ever it gets done. This includes so-called "false flag conservatives" like Lindsey Graham and top Democrats "Cambridge 5 Admirers" salted in over the years into the CIA ..."
    "... Trump has already signaled he is going hand them nearly unlimited power by appointing Pompeo in the first place. I would think they would be very happy to welcome the incoming administration with open arms. ..."
    "... I could see it if they were really that pissed about Trumps proposed Russian re-set and maybe they are but even that has to be in doubt because of the rate at which Trump is militarizing his cabinet. ..."
    "... In all reality Trump is a MIC, intelligence cabal dream come true, so why would they even consider biting the hand that feeds so well? Perhaps their is more going on here under the surface, maybe all the various agencies and bureaucracies are not playing nice, or together for that matter. ..."
    "... after all the CIA and the Pentagon's proxy armies are already killing each other in Syria so one has to wonder in what other arenas are they clashing? ..."
    "... The neocons are desperate. Their war monger Hitlery lost by a landslide now they fabricate all sorts of irrational BS. ..."
    "... 'CIA Team B' ..."
    "... 'Committee on the Present Danger' ..."
    "... 'Office of Special Plans' ..."
    "... Trump is a curious fellow. I've thought about this quite a bit and tried to put myself in his shoes. He has no friends in .gov, no real close "mates" he can depend on, especially in his own party, so he had to start from scratch to put his cabinet together. ..."
    "... It could very well be that this was Trump & the establishment plan to con the American public from the start of course. I kind of doubt it, since the efforts of the establishment to destroy Trump was genuinely full retard from the outset and still continues. ..."
    "... He would have done better to ignore the political divide to choose those who have spent their lives challenging the Deep State. My ignorance of US politics does not supply me with a complete picture, but Ron Paul, David Kucinich, Trey Gowdy, Tulsi Gabard and even turncoat Bernie Sanders would have been better to drain the swamp than the neocon zionists he has installed in power. ..."
    www.zerohedge.com

    MEFOBILLS -> Keyser , Dec 10, 2016 1:01 PM

    It is worse than "shiny object." Human brains have a latency issue - the first time they hear something, it sticks. To unstick something, takes a lot of counter evidence.

    So, a Goebbels-like big lie, or shiny object can be told, and then it can take on a life of its own. False flags operate under this premise. There is an action (false flag), and then false narrative is issued into press mouthpieces immediately. This then plants a shiny object in sheeple brains. It then takes too much mental effort for average sheeple to undo this narrative, so "crowds" can be herded.

    Six million dead is a good example of this technique.

    Fortunately, with the internet, "supposed fake news sites like ZH" are spreading truth so fast - that shiny stories issued by our Oligarch overlords are being shot down quickly.

    Bezo's, who owns Washington Post, is taking rents by avoiding sales taxes; not that I'm a fan of sales taxes. But, ultimately, Bezos is taking rental thefts, and he is afraid of Trump - who may change the law, hence collapse the profit scheme of Amazon.

    Cognitive Dissonance -> Oldwood •Dec 10, 2016 10:49 AM

    Oldwood. I have a great deal of respect for you and your intelligent opinions.

    My only concern is our constant and directed attention towards the 'liberals' and 'progressives'. When we do so we are thinking it is 'them' that are the problem.

    In fact it is the force behind 'them' that is the problem. If we oppose 'them', we are wasting our energy upon ghosts and boogeymen.

    Divide and Control is being brilliantly employed once again against 'us'. The same tactics used against foreign countries are being used here at home on 'us'.

    chunga -> Cognitive Dissonance •Dec 10, 2016 11:33 AM

    I've been reading what the blue-teamers are saying over on the "Democratic Underground" site and for a while they've been expressing it's their "duty" to disrupt this thing. They are now calling Trump a "Puppet Regime".

    Divide and Conquer, yes indeed, watch McCain and Graham push this Russian hacking angle hard. Also watch for moar of the Suprun elector frauds pop out of the woodwork. The Russian people must be absolutely galvanized by what's happening, USSA...torn into many opposing directions.

    dark pools of soros -> chunga •Dec 10, 2016 1:38 PM
    First tell them to change their name to the Progressive Party of Globalists. Then remind them that many democrats left them and voted for Trump.. Remind them again and again that if they really want to see blue states again, they have to actually act like democrats again

    I assure you that you'll be banned within an hour from any of their sites

    American Gorbachev -> Oldwood •Dec 10, 2016 10:12 AM

    not an argument to the contrary, but one of elongating the timing

    i regard this 'secret' CIA report, following on from the 'fake news' meme, to be another of what will become a never-ending series of attempts to deligitemize Trump, so that later on this year the coming economic collapse (and shootings, street violence, markets etc) can be more successfully blamed not only on Trump and his policies, but by extension, on the Russians. (a two-fer for the globalist statists)

    with a political timetable operative as well, whereby some (pardon the pun :) trumped up excuse for impeachment investigations/proceedings can consume the daily news during the run-up to the mid-term elections (with the intent of flipping the Senate and possibly House)

    these are very powerful, patient, and deliberate bastards (globalist statists) who may very well have engineered Trump's election for the very purpose of marginalizing, near the point of eliminating, the rural, christian, middle-class, nationalist voices from subsequent public debate

    Oldwood -> American Gorbachev •Dec 10, 2016 10:21 AM

    The problem is that once Trump becomes president, he will have much more power to direct the message as well as the many factions of government agencies that would otherwise be used to substantiate so called Trump failures. This is a calculated risk scenario for them, but to deny Trump the presidency by far produces more positives for them than any other.

    They will have control of the message and will likely shut down much of alternate media news. It is imperative that Trump be stopped BEFORE taking the presidency.

    sleigher -> overbet •Dec 10, 2016 10:00 AM

    "I read one morons comment that the IP address was traced back to a Russian IP. Are people really that dumb? I can post this comment from dozens of country IPs right now."

    Nevermind that many states voting machines are on private networks and are not even connected to the internet. IP addresses from Russia mean nothing.

    kellys_eye -> Nemontel •Dec 10, 2016 9:40 AM

    The Russians 'might' have influenced the election..... The American Government DID subvert and remove a democratically elected leader (Ukraine).Anyone see the difference there?

    Paul Kersey -> Nemontel •Dec 10, 2016 9:40 AM

    "Most of our politicians are chosen by the Oligarchy."

    And most of our politicians choose the Oligarchy. Trump's choices:

    • Anthony Scaramucci, Goldman Sachs
    • Gary Cohn, Goldman Sachs
    • Steven Mnuchin. Goldman Sachs
    • Steve Bannon, Goldman Sachs
    • Jared Kushner, Goldman Sachs

    Wilbur Ross, Rothschild, Inc

    The working man's choices.....very limited.

    Paul Kersey -> Paul Kersey •Dec 10, 2016 10:27 AM

    "Barack Obama received more money from Goldman Sachs employees than any other corporation. Tim Geithner, Obama's first treasury secretary, was the protege of one-time Goldman CEO Robert Rubin. "

    "The more things change, the more they stay the same."

    Nameshavebeench... -> Nemontel •Dec 10, 2016 11:53 AM

    If Trump gets hit, the 'official story' of who did it will be a lie.

    There needs to be a lot of online discussion about this ahead of time in preparation. If/when the incident happens, there needs to be a successful counter-offensive that puts an end to the Deep State. (take from that what you will)

    We've seen the MO many times now;

    • Pearl Harbor
    • Iran in the 50's
    • Congo
    • Vietnam
    • Most of Latin America many times over
    • JFK
    • 911
    • Sandy Hook
    • Boston Marathon 'Bombings'
    • Numerous 'mass shootings'

    The patterns are well established & if Trump gets hit it should be no surprise, now the 'jackals' need to be exterminated.

    Also, keep in mind that everything we're hearing in all media just might be psyops/counter-intel/planted 'news' etc.

    sgt_doom -> Nemontel •Dec 10, 2016 1:25 PM

    Although I have little hope for this happening, ideally Trump should initiate full forensic audits of the CIA, NSA, DIA and FBI. The last time a sitting president undertook an actual audit of the CIA, he had his brains blown out (President John F. Kennedy) and the Fake News (CBS, NBC, ABC, etc.) reported that a fellow who couldn't even qualify as marksman, the lowest category (he was pencilled in) was the sniper.

    Then, on the 50th anniversary of that horrible coup d'etat, another Fake News show (NPR) claimed that a woman in the military who worked at the rifle range at Atsuga saw Oswald practicing weekly - - absurd on the fact of it, since women weren't allowed at military rifle ranges until the late 1970s or 1980s (and I doublechecked and there was never a woman assigned there in the late 1950s).

    Just be sure he has trustworthy bodyguards, unlike the last batch of phony Secret Service agents (and never employ anyone named Elmer Moore).

    2rigged2fail -> Nemontel •Dec 10, 2016 4:04 PM

    Voted for Trump, but the Oligarcy picked him too. Check the connection between Ross and Trump and Wilburs former employer. TPTB laughs at all of us

    Arnold -> Arnold •Dec 10, 2016 9:15 AM

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism

    jmack -> boattrash •Dec 10, 2016 11:08 AM

    All these Russian interference claims require one to believe that the MSM and democrat machine got out played and out cheated by a bunch of ruskies. This is the level of desperation the democrats have fallen too. To pretend to be so incompetent that the Russians outplayed and overpowered their machine. But I guess they have to fall on that narrative vs the fact that a "crazy" real estate billionaire with a twitter account whipped their asses.

    Democrats, you are morally and credulously bankrupt. all your schemes, agenda's and machinations cannot put humpty dumpty back together again. So now it is another period of scorched earth. The Federal Bureaucracy will fight Trump tooth and nail, joined by the democrats in the judiciary, and probably not a few rino's too.

    It is going to get ugly, like a machete fight. W. got a taste of it with his Plame affair, the brouhaha over the AGA firings, the regime of Porter Goss as DCI https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porter_Goss

    DuneCreature -> cherry picker •Dec 10, 2016 10:30 AM

    The sad facts are the CIA itself and it's massive propaganda arm has its gummy fingers all over this election and elections all over the planet.

    The Russians, my ass. ................. The CIA are famous for doing nefarious crap and blaming their handy work on someone else. Crap that usually causes thousands of deaths. ... Even in the KGB days the CIA was the king of causing chaos. ..... the KGB would kill a dissident or spy or two and the CIA in the same time frame would start a couple of wars killing thousands or millions.

    You said a mouth full, cherry picker. ..... Until the US Intel community goes 'bye bye' the world will HATE the US. ... People aren't stupid. They know who is behind the evil shit.

    ... ... ..

    G-R-U-N-T •Dec 10, 2016 9:39 AM

    What makes people think the Post is believable? The truth has been hijacked by their self annihilating ideology. Honestly one would have to be dumb as a fence 'Post' (pun intended) to believe ANYTHING coming from this rag and the rest of these 'Fake News' MSM propaganda machines, good lord!

    Colborne •Dec 10, 2016 9:37 AM

    As for the CIA, it was reported at the time to be largely purged under the Dubya administration, of consitutionalists and other dissidents to the 9-11 -->> total-war program. Stacked to the brim with with neocon cadres. So, that's the lay of the terrain there now, that's who's running the place. And they aren't going without a fight apparently.

    Interesting times , more and more so.

    66Mustanggirl •Dec 10, 2016 9:40 AM

    For those of us who still have a grip on reality, here are the facts of this election:

    • Out of the 3,153 counties in this country, Hillary Clinton won only 480. A dismal and pathetic 15% of this country. The worst showing EVER for a presidential candidate. Are they really trying to blame the Russians and "fake" news for THAT?? Really??
    • The much vaunted 2 million vote lead in the popular vote can be attributed to exactly 4 boroughs in NYC; Bronx, Queens, Manhattan, & Brooklyn, where Hillary racked up 2 million more votes than Trump. Should we give credit to the Russians and "fake" news for that, too?
    • 96 MILLION Americans were either too disgusted, too lazy, or too apathetic to even bother to go out and cast a vote for ANYONE in this election. On average 100 Million Americans don't bother to vote.The Russians and "fake" news surely aren't responsible for THAT!

    But given this is a story from WaPo, I think will just give a few days until it is thoroughly discredited.

    max2205 -> 66Mustanggirl •Dec 10, 2016 11:04 AM

    And she won CA by 4 million. She hates she only gets a limited amount of electoral votes.. tough shit rules are rules bitch. Suck it

    HalEPeno •Dec 10, 2016 9:43 AM

    Looks like the CIA's latest candidate for regime change is the USA.

    Clara Tardis •Dec 10, 2016 9:45 AM

    This is a vid from the 1950's, "How to spot a Communist" all you have to do is swap out commie for: liberal, neocon, SJW and democrat and figure out they've about won....

    https://youtu.be/w86QhV7whjs

    dogismycopilot •Dec 10, 2016 9:51 AM

    This is the same CIA that let Pakistan build up the Taliban in Afganistan during the 1990s and gave Pakistan ISI (Pakistan spy agency) hundreds of millions of USD which the ISI channeled to the Taliban and Arab freedom fighters including a very charming chap named Usama Bin Laden.

    The CIA is as worthless as HRC.

    Fuck them and their failed intelligence. I hope Trump guts the CIA like a fish. They need a reboot.

    Yes We Can. But... -> venturen •Dec 10, 2016 10:08 AM

    Why might the Russians want Trump? If there is anything to the stuff I've been reading about the Clintons, they are like cornered animals. Putin just may think the world is a safer, more stable place w/o the Clintons in power.

    TRM -> atthelake •Dec 10, 2016 10:44 AM

    If it is "on" then those doing the "collections" should be aware that a lot of people they will be "collecting" have read Solzhenitsyn.

    "And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family?"

    Those doing the "collections" will have to choose and choose wisely the side they are on. How much easier would it be for them to report back "Sorry, couldn't find them" than to face the wrath of a well armed population?

    Abaco •Dec 10, 2016 9:53 AM

    The clowns running the intelligence agencies for the US have ZERO credibility. Clapper sat in front of congress and perjured himself. When confronted with his perjury he defended himself saying he told them the "least untruthful thing" he could - admitting he had not problem whatsoever about lying to Congress. He was not fired or reprimanded in any way. He retired with a generous pension. He is a treasonous basrtard who should be swinging from a lamppost. These people serve their political masters - not the people - and deserve nothing but mockery and and a noose.

    mendigo •Dec 10, 2016 9:56 AM

    As reported on infowars:
    On Dec 9 0bomber issued executive order providing exemption to Arms Export Control Act to permit supplying weapons (ie sams etc) to rebel groups in Syria as a matter "essential to national security "interests"".

    Be careful in viewing this report as is posted from RT - perhaps best to wait for corraboaration on front page of rededicated nyt to be sure and avoid fratrenizing with Vlad.

    Separately Gabard has introduced bill : Stop Arming Terrorists Act.

    David Wooten •Dec 10, 2016 9:56 AM

    There certainly is foreign meddling in US government policy but it is not coming from Russia. The countries that have much greater influence than Russia on 'our' government are the Sunni-dominated Persian Gulf oil states including the UAE, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman, Kuwait and, of course, that bastion of human rights, Saudi Arabia.

    Oil money from these states has found its way into influentual think tanks including the Brookings Institution, the Atlantic Council, the Middle East Institute and the Georgetown Center for Strategic and International Studies and others. All of these institutions should be registered as foriegn agents and any cleared US citizen should have his or her clearance revoked if they do any work for these organizations, either as a contractor or employee. And these Gulf states have all been donating oil money to UK and US universities so lets include the foreign studies branches of universities in the registry of foreign agents, too.

    And also, there are arms sales. Arm sales to Saudi/Gulf States come with training. With training comes military ties, foreign policy ties and even intelligence ties. Saudi Arabia, with other Gulf oil states as partners, practically owns the CIA now. Arms companies who sell deadly weapons to the Gulf States, in turn, donate money to Congressmen and now own politicians such as Senators Graham and McCain. It's no wonder Graham wants to help his pals - er owners. So what we have here ('our' government) is institutionalized influence, if not outright control, of US foreign policy by some of the most vicious states on the planet,
    especially Saudi Arabia - whose religious police have been known to beat school girls fleeing from burning buildings because they didn't have their headscarves on.

    As Hillary's 2014 emails have revealed, Qatar and Saudi Arabia support ISIS and were doing so about the same time as ISIS was sweeping through Syria and Iraq, cutting off the heads of Christians, non-Sunnis and just about anyone else they thought was in the way. The Saudi/Gulf States are the driving force to get rid of Assad and that is dangerous as nuclear-armed Russia protects him. If something isn't done about this, the Gulf oil states may get US into a nuclear war with Russia - and won't care in the least.

    Richard Whitney •Dec 10, 2016 10:10 AM

    So...somehow, Putin was able to affect the election one way, and the endorsements for HRC and the slander of Trump by and from Washington Post, New York Times, Philadelphia Inquirer, practically every big-city newspaper, practically every newspaper in Europe, every EU mandarin, B Streisand, Keith Olberman, Comedy Central, MSNBC, CNN, Lady Gaga, Lena Dunham and a wad of other media outlets and PR-driven-celebs couldn't affect that election the other way.

    Sounds unlikely on the face of it, but hats off to Vlad. U.S. print and broadcast media, Hollywood, Europe...you lost.

    seataka •Dec 10, 2016 10:11 AM

    The Reverse Blockade

    "Reverse Blockade: emphatically insisting upon something which is the opposite of the truth blocks the average person's mind from perceiving the truth. In accordance with the dictates of healthy common sense, he starts searching for meaning in the "golden mean" between truth and its opposite, winding up with some satisfactory counterfeit. People who think like this do not realize that this effect is precisely the intent of the person who subjects them to this method. " page 104, Political Ponerology by Andrew M. Lobaczewski more

    just the tip -> northern vigor •Dec 10, 2016 11:51 AM

    that car ride for the WH to the capital is going to be fun.

    Arnold -> just the tip •Dec 10, 2016 12:12 PM

    Your comment ticked one of my remaining Brain Cells.

    The final scene of "The Gauntlet".

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0076070/

    Pigeon •Dec 10, 2016 10:29 AM

    I recall lots of "consensus views" that were outright lies, bullshit and/or stupidity: "The Sun circles the Earth. The Earth is flat. Global cooling / next ice age (1970s). Global warming (no polar ice) 1990s-00's. Weapons of mass destruction." You can keep your doctor.

    The CIA, Pentagon and "intelligence" agencies need both a cleaning and culling. 50% of the Federal govt needs to go.....now.

    What is BEYOND my comprehension is how anyone would think that in Putin's mind, Trump would be preferable to Hillary. She and her cronies are so corrupt, he would either be able to blackmail or destroy her (through espionage and REAL leaks) any time he wanted to during her presidency.

    Do TPTB think we are this fucking stupid?

    madashellron •Dec 10, 2016 10:31 AM

    Blacklist Promoted by the Washington Post Has Apparent Ties to Ukrainian Fascism and CIA Spying.

    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/46006.htm

    jfb •Dec 10, 2016 10:31 AM

    I love this. Trump is not eager to "drain the swamp" and to collide with the establishment, anyway he has no viable economic plan and promised way too much. However if they want to lead a coup for Hilary with the full backing of most republican and democrat politicians just to get their war against Russia, something tells me that the swamp will be drained for real when the country falls apart in chaos.

    northern vigor •Dec 10, 2016 10:36 AM

    Fuckin' Obama interfered in the Canadian election last year by sending advisers up north to corrupt our laws. He has a lot of nerve pointing fingers at the Russians.

    I notice liberals love to point fingers at others, when they are the guilty ones. It must be in the Alinsky handbook.

    Pigeon -> northern vigor •Dec 10, 2016 10:38 AM

    Called "projection". Everything they accuse others of doing badly, illegally, immorally, etc. - means that is EXACTLY what they are up to.

    just the tip -> northern vigor •Dec 10, 2016 11:35 AM

    It is in the Alinsky handbook.

    Arnold -> just the tip •Dec 10, 2016 4:41 PM

    http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2012/04/13/12_ways_to_use_sau...

    jerry_theking_lawler •Dec 10, 2016 10:45 AM

    CIA = Deep State.

    Trump should not only 'defund' them but should end all other 'programs' that are providing funds to them. Drug trade, bribery, embezzelment, etc. End the CIA terror organization.

    Skiprrrdog •Dec 10, 2016 10:49 AM

    Putin for Secretary of State... :-)

    brianshell •Dec 10, 2016 10:50 AM

    Section 8, The congress shall have the power to...declare war...raise armies...navies...militia.
    The National Security Act charged the CIA with coordinating the nation's intelligence activities and correlating, evaluating and disseminating intelligence affecting national security.

    Rogue members of the executive branch have overstepped their authority by ordering the CIA to make war without congressional approval or oversight.

    A good deal of the problems created by the United States, including repercussions such as terrorism have been initiated by the CIA

    Under "make America great", include demanding congress assume their responsibility regarding war.

    Rein in the executive and the CIA

    DarthVaderMentor •Dec 10, 2016 10:59 AM

    This whopper of a story from the CIA makes the one fabricated about WMD's in Iraq that fooled Bush Jr. and convinced him to almost take this country down by violating the sage advice on war strategy from Sun-Tzu and Clausewitz and opening up a second front in Iraq almost child's play.

    At least with the WMD story they had false witnesses and some made up evidence! With this story, there is no "HUMINT (human intelligence) sources" and no physical evidence, just some alleged traces that could have been actually produced from the ether or if they knew ahead of time of Trump's possible win sent someone to Russia and had them actually run the IP routes for show.

    Bush was misled because the CIA management was scared of some of his budgetary saber rattles and his chasing after some CIA management. In this case, someone is really scared of what the people will find when the swam gets drained, if ever it gets done. This includes so-called "false flag conservatives" like Lindsey Graham and top Democrats "Cambridge 5 Admirers" salted in over the years into the CIA

    The fact that's forgotten about this is that if the story was even slightly true, it shows how incompetent the Democrats are in running a country, how Barak Obama was an intentional incompetent trying to drive the country into the ground and hurting its people, how even with top technologies, coerced corrupted vendors and trillions in funding the NSA, CIA and FBI they were outflanked by the FSB and others and why Hillary's server was more incompetent and dangerous a decision than we think.

    Maybe Hillary and Bill had their server not to hide information from the people, but maybe to actually promote the Russian hacking?

    Why should Trump believe the CIA? What kind of record and leadership do they have that anyone other than a fool should listen to them?

    small axe •Dec 10, 2016 10:55 AM

    At some point Americans will need to wake up to the fact that the CIA has and does interfere in domestic affairs, just as it has long sought to counter "subversion" overseas. The agency is very likely completely outside the control of any administration at this point and is probably best seen as the enforcement arm of the Deep State.

    As the US loses its empire and gains Third World status, it is (sadly) fitting that the CIA war to maintain docile populations becomes more apparent domestically.

    Welcome to Zimbabwe USA.

    marcusfenix •Dec 10, 2016 11:10 AM

    what I don't understand is why the CIA is even getting tangled up in this three ring circus freak show.

    Trump has already signaled he is going hand them nearly unlimited power by appointing Pompeo in the first place. I would think they would be very happy to welcome the incoming administration with open arms.

    I could see it if they were really that pissed about Trumps proposed Russian re-set and maybe they are but even that has to be in doubt because of the rate at which Trump is militarizing his cabinet. All these stars are not exactly going to support their president going belly up to the bar with Putin. and since Trump has no military or civilian leadership experience (which is why I believe he has loaded up on so much brass in the first place, to compensate) I have no doubt they will have tremendous influence on policy.

    In all reality Trump is a MIC, intelligence cabal dream come true, so why would they even consider biting the hand that feeds so well? Perhaps their is more going on here under the surface, maybe all the various agencies and bureaucracies are not playing nice, or together for that matter. perhaps some have grown so large and so powerful that they have their own agendas? it's not as if our federal government has ever really been one big happy family there have been many times when the right hand did not know what the left hand was doing. and congress is week so oversight of this monolithic military and intelligence entities may not be as extensive as we would like to think.

    after all the CIA and the Pentagon's proxy armies are already killing each other in Syria so one has to wonder in what other arenas are they clashing?

    and is this really all just a small glimpse of some secret war within, which every once in a while bubbles up to the surface?

    CheapBastard •Dec 10, 2016 11:34 AM

    The neocons are desperate. Their war monger Hitlery lost by a landslide now they fabricate all sorts of irrational BS.

    However, there is no doubt the Russians stole my TV remote last week.

    Kagemusho Dec 10, 2016 11:38 AM

    The Intel agencies have been politicized since the late 1970's; look up 'CIA Team B' and the 'Committee on the Present Danger' and their BS 'minority report' used by the original NeoCons to sway public opinion in favor of Ronald Reagan and the arms buildup of the 1980's, which led to the first sky-high deficits. It also led to a confrontational stance against the Soviet Union which almost led to nuclear war in 1983: The 1983 War Scare Declassified and For Real http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb533-The-Able-Archer-War-Scare-Decl...

    The honest spook analysts were forced out, then as now, in favor of NeoCons with political agendas that were dangerously myopic to say the least. The 'Office of Special Plans' in the Pentagon cherry-picked or outright fabricated intel in order to justify the NeoCon/Israeli wet-dream of total control of oil and the 'Securing the (Israeli) Realm' courtesy of invading parts of the Middle East and destabilizing the rest, with the present mess as the wholly predictable outcome. The honest analysts told them it would happen, and now they're gone.

    This kind of organizational warping caused by agency politicization is producing the piss-poor intel leading to asinine decisions creating untold tragedy; that the WaPo is depending upon this intel from historically-proven tainted sources is just one more example of the incestuous nature of the relations between Traditional Media and its handlers in the intel community.

    YHC-FTSE •Dec 10, 2016 11:54 AM

    This isn't a "Soft Coup". It's the groundwork necessary for a rock hard, go-for-broke, above the barricade, tanks in the street coup d'etat. You do not get such a blatant accusation from the CIA and establishment echo vendor, unless they are ready to back it up to the hilt with action. The accusations are serious - treason and election fraud.

    Trump is a curious fellow. I've thought about this quite a bit and tried to put myself in his shoes. He has no friends in .gov, no real close "mates" he can depend on, especially in his own party, so he had to start from scratch to put his cabinet together. His natural "Mistake" is seeking people at his level of business acumen - his version of real, ordinary people - when billionaires/multimillionaires are actually Type A personalities, usually predatory and addicted to money. In his world, and in America in general, money equates to good social standing more than any other facet of personal achievements. It is natural for an American to equate "Good" with money. I'm a Brit and foreigners like me (I have American cousins I've visited since I was a kid) who visit the States are often surprised by the shallow materialism that equates to culture.

    So we have a bunch of dubious Alpha types addicted to money in transition to take charge of government who know little or nothing about the principle of public service. Put them in a room together and without projects they can focus on, they are going to turn on each other for supremacy. I would not be surprised if Trump's own cabinet destroys him or uses leverage from their own power bases to manipulate him.

    Mike Pompeo, for example, is the most fucked up pick as CIA director I could have envisaged. He is establishment to his core, a neocon torture advocate who will defend the worst excesses of the intelligence arm of the MIC no matter what. One word from his mouth could have stopped this bullshit about Russia helping Trump win the election. Nobody in the CIA was going to argue with the new boss. Yet here we are, on the cusp of another attack on mulitple fronts. This is how you manipulate an incumbent president to dial up his paranoia to the max and failing that, launch a coup d'etat.

    It could very well be that this was Trump & the establishment plan to con the American public from the start of course. I kind of doubt it, since the efforts of the establishment to destroy Trump was genuinely full retard from the outset and still continues. I think he was his own man until paranoia and the enormity of his position got the better of him and he chose his cabinet from the establishment swamp dwellers to best protect him from his enemies. Wrong choices, granted, but understandable.

    He would have done better to ignore the political divide to choose those who have spent their lives challenging the Deep State. My ignorance of US politics does not supply me with a complete picture, but Ron Paul, David Kucinich, Trey Gowdy, Tulsi Gabard and even turncoat Bernie Sanders would have been better to drain the swamp than the neocon zionists he has installed in power.

    flaminratzazz ->YHC-FTSE •Dec 10, 2016 12:03 PM
    I think he was his own man until paranoia and the enormity of his position got the better of him,,
    +1 I think he was just dickin around with throwin his hat in the ring, was going to go have fun calling everyone names with outlandish attacks and lo and behold he won.. NOW he is shitting himself on the enormity of his GREATEST fvkup in his life.
    jomama ->YHC-FTSE •Dec 10, 2016 12:16 PM
    Unless you can show how Trump's close ties to Wall St. (owes banks there around 350M currently
    YHC-FTSE ->jomama •Dec 10, 2016 12:59 PM
    My post is conjecture, obviously. The basis of my musings, as stated above, is the fact that the establishment has tried to destroy Trump from the outset using all of their assets in his own party, the msm, Hollyweird, intelligence and politics. A full retard attack is being perpetrated against him as I type.

    There is some merit to dividing the establishment, the Deep State, into two opposing sides. One that lost power, priestige and funds backing Hillary and one that did not, which would make Trump an alternative establishment candidate. But there is no proof that any establishment (MIC+Banking) entity even likes Trump, let alone supports him. As for Israel, Hillary was their candidate of choice, but their MO is they will always infiltrate and back both sides to ensure compliance.

    blindfaith ->YHC-FTSE •Dec 10, 2016 12:36 PM
    Do not underestimate Trump. I will grant that some of these picks are concerning. However, think in terms of business, AND government is a business from top to bottom. It has been run as a dog and pony show for years and look where we are. To me, I think his picks are strating to look like a very efficient team to get the government efficient again. That alone must make D.C. shake in thier boots.
    YHC-FTSE ->blindfaith •Dec 10, 2016 1:08 PM
    Underestimating Trump is the last thing I would do. I'm just trying to understand his motives in my own clumsy way. Besides, he promised to "Drain the swamp", not run the swamp more efficiently.
    ducksinarow •Dec 10, 2016 12:04 PM
    From a non political angle, this is a divorce in the making. Then democrats have been rejected in totallity but instead of blaming themselves for not being good enough, they are blaming a third party which is the Russians. They are now engaging the Republican Party in a custody battle for the "children". There are lies flying around and the older children know exactly what is going on and sadly the younger children are confused, bewildered, angry and getting angrier by the minute. Soon Papa(Obama) will be leaving which is symbolic of the male father figure in the African American community. The new Papa is a white guy who is going to change the narrative, the rules of engagement and the financial picture. The ones who were the heroes in the Obama narrative are not going to be heroes anymore. New heroes will be formed and revered and during this process some will die for their beliefs.

    Back to reality, Trump needs to cleanse the CIA of the ones who would sell our nation to the highest bidder. If the CIA is not on the side of America the CIA should be abolished. In a world where mercenaries are employed all over the world, bringing together a culturally mixed agency does not make for a very honest agency. It makes for a bunch of self involved countries trying to influence the power of individuals. The reason Castro was never taken down is because it was not in the interest of the CIA to do so. That is why there were some pretty hilarious non-attempts on Castro's life over the years. It is not in the best interest of the CIA that Trump be president. It is in the best interest of America that Trump is our President.

    brane pilot •Dec 10, 2016 12:22 PM

    Even the idea that people would rely on foreign governments for critical information during an election indicates the bankruptcy of the corrupt US media establishment. So now they resort to open sedition and defamation in the absence of factual information. The mainstream media in the USA has become a Fifth Column against America, no different than the so-called 'social science' departments on college campuses. Trump was America's last chance and we took it and no one is going to take it away.

    [Dec 10, 2016] Primer on the Alawites in Syria - Foreign Policy Research Institute

    Notable quotes:
    "... Alawites in Syria: French Mandate and Sectarian Tensions ..."
    "... "Baath nationalism was different from Sunni Arab nationalism in that [Baathists] wanted a united secular Arab society." ..."
    "... Founded in Syria in 1940 by Orthodox Christian Michel Aflaq and Sunni Salah al-Din Bitar, the Baathist movement was influenced by secular and pan-Arab ideas, championing freedom from foreign powers, Arab unity, and socialism. ..."
    "... Alawites in Syria: Assad Regime and Sectarian Tensions ..."
    www.fpri.org

    December 1, 2016 | www.fpri.org

    PDF Version Devin Trivedi is currently a senior at Moorestown High School. Read More

    ... .. ...

    History of Alawites in Syria
    Alawites in Syria: French Mandate and Sectarian Tensions
    The role of the Alawites in Syria first became apparent after World War I with the division of the Arab provinces of the Ottoman Empire by Britain and France. The division resulted in the assignment of Palestine to Britain and Syria and Lebanon to France. France, fearing potential independence movements and Arab nationalism which threatened its control over the region, intentionally inflamed sectarian separations during its mandate from 1920-1946 . Minorities, such as the Druze and Alawites, also feared the nationalist movements that were mostly dominated by Sunnis. With France fearing movements threatening its power and minorities fearing similar movements for more religious reasons, France pragmatically granted autonomy to areas where these minorities were heavily populated. On July 1, 1922, "the state of Latakia" was established for the Alawites, and by September 15, 1922, a court decision granted the Alawites legal autonomy. Not only did such autonomy strengthen the weaker minorities, but it also allowed for distinctions between religions and sects to be created thus preventing a unification of all Arabs and ensuring the preservation of France's power . Until 1942, and except for a three-year period from 1936 to 1939, the Alawites and Druze remained separate from the rest of unified Syria. To ensure sectarian divisions and to prevent any takeover by Arab nationalists, France deliberately ignored developing a ruling elite, coupling such a decision by having each institution represented by a different religious or ethnic group. Any former amicable relationship between the minority and Sunni majority and any possibility of growth in the nationalist movement in Syria deteriorated significantly because of France's "divide and rule" policy .

    This new relationship between groups in Syria continued after Syria's independence in April 1946 , stymieing any attempts for Arab unification and fostering greater attention towards local ambitions. Before independence from France, Syrians were united under one party and the common goal of achieving independence. After independence, a Sunni elite became in charge of the government, and integration of the minorities into Syrian society was necessary for a more nationalist approach. To eliminate regionalism and the domination of the minorities in parliament (due to their close relationship with France under its mandate), the Sunnis attempted to limit the representation of the concentrated minority groups in parliament. The Sunni elite eradicated the Alawite state, parliamentary seats, and certain minority jurisdictional rights.

    The abolition of jurisdictional rights in order to establish a centralized rule in Damascus ignited confrontation among the minorities . . . The Alawites became reconciled to common Syrian citizenship and gave up the dream of a separate Alawite state. This change of outlook, which seemed to be of minor importance at the time, actually led to a new era in Syrian politics: the political rise of the Alawites.

    The basis for sectarian tensions between Sunnis and Alawites is evident when one considers the change from Alawite autonomy to subordination under the Sunnis.

    Formed in 1921, the Troupes Spéciales du Levant was a local military used by the French that eventually evolved into the Lebanese and Syrian military. Similar to France's "divide and rule" approach, the integration of the Troupes Spéciales du Levant was done in a way so that it was difficult for any group to attain enough power to threaten French rule. Given the threatening nature of the Sunnis at the time, many of whom supported Arab nationalist movements, the military gained a large minority presence , and "military recruitment involved weakening the forces of nationalism that Arab Sunnis used to challenge the French over the future of Syria." Sectarian tensions were further developed with the creation of the Troupes Spéciales du Levant, given that the minority-dominated military frequently suppressed Sunni movements .

    Minorities frequently found themselves joining the military because it provided a source of income and potential for social mobility. Unlike the Sunni elites-who refused to send their children into the military under the pretense that it was furthering France's imperial desires and used their money to become exempt from military service-the Alawites and other minorities took advantage of the potential opportunity the military provided. By 1949 (the year of the first military coup in Syria), the Alawites had gained a political presence. By 1955, about 65% of the non-commissioned officers were Alawites. Before 1963, the Alawites did not outnumber the Sunnis in the officer corps, but they did dominate the lower positions of the military. Nevertheless , the trend towards higher ranking positions began after Syrian independence from France. After Syria's independence, the number of schools in Syria expanded greatly. [1] This expansion gave lower class citizens more educational opportunities, and they became more qualified for military academies, such as the Military Academy at Homs. [2] Sunni leaders believed that dominating the higher positions in the military was enough to ensure Sunni command of the military. This notion proved to be a key factor in the Sunni elite's demise.

    As the Alawites continued to dominate the lower ranks and ascend towards higher positions, the higher-ranking Sunnis failed to remain unified. The Sunnis led three military coups from 1949 to 1954. With the formation and establishment of the Syrian-Egyptian Union from 1954 to 1958, the officer corps failed to remain unified and split into factions. Even after the Sunni officer-led "union pledge" in January 1958, a coup led by Sunni officers in September 1961 resulted in Syria's separation from the union . The lack of unity between Sunni officers, specifically after Syria's break from the union, [3] "greatly weakened Sunni representation in the officer corps and strengthened the minorities, mainly the Alawite officer corps. 'As Sunni officers eliminated each other , Alawites inherited their positions and became increasingly senior; as one [Alawite] rose through the ranks, he brought his kinsmen along.'"

    Along with the military, the Baathist movement in Syria fostered greater Alawite power and furthered sectarian tensions. Unlike pan-Arabism, which, "aimed at the political resurrection of the Arabs as one nation" and had a strong association with Sunni Islam , "Baath nationalism was different from Sunni Arab nationalism in that [Baathists] wanted a united secular Arab society."

    Pan-Arab nationalists attempted to incorporate Islam into the pan-Arab movement for they believed that the religion played an integral role in both Arab history and culture. Even though the pan-Arab movement was considered to be spearheaded by Sunnis from the perspective of the minorities, many Sunnis disapproved of pan-Arabism because Islam did not play a sufficient role in its doctrine. While many Sunnis believed in a doctrine more heavily influenced by Islam , "the religious minorities supported the Baath's nationalistic ideology, in which all Arabs were equal, whether Sunni Muslims, Alawites or members of other heterodox Muslim communities or Christians."

    Founded in Syria in 1940 by Orthodox Christian Michel Aflaq and Sunni Salah al-Din Bitar, the Baathist movement was influenced by secular and pan-Arab ideas, championing freedom from foreign powers, Arab unity, and socialism. By April 1947, the Baath Congress gathered in Damascus, and another party, comprised mainly of Alawites, emerged with similar ideas. While the group supported Baathist ideas such as Arab independence and unity, the members followed Alawite scholar Zaki Arsuzi (follower of Alawite socialist, Dr. Wahib al-Ghanim), who placed priority on social justice. Ghanim insisted that particular socialist ideas be adopted into the Baathist constitution . While Aflaq rejected such adamancy, Bitar consented to uniting the Baath and Arab Socialist Party, which advocated for the same issues as Ghanim. Akram al-Hawrani, the leader of the Arab Socialist Party, received the support of many rural Alawites and young Alawite officers. With the merger of the two parties into the Arab Baath Socialist Party in September 1953, the Baathist movement gained strong support from officers (presumably minority officers) and the Alawite community, given the fact that the party's advocacy for social justice would inherently bolster the Alawites against the repressive Sunni s.

    While the Syrian-Egyptian Union resulted in the disbandment of all political parties, the Baathist ideology remained with organized Alawite groups that had a sizeable amount of control over the Latakian region. Thus, after Syria seceded from the union in 1961 , the Alawites "were the strongest and most organized force in the much-weakened national organization." During the Syrian-Egyptian Union, a military faction within the Baath Party developed, and a secret organization among Baathist-supporting officers in Egypt was created in 1959. Dr. Ayse Tekdal Fildis writes :

    The goal of the organization was to restore the Syrian army to Syrian control. The members of this secret military organization, eventually known as the military committee, were not involved in the Baath's traditional leadership or party structure. They operated as one of several politically active groups of officers involved in the dissolution of the union in 1961 and in the fight for political control of Syria during the subsequent year and a half.

    Following Syria's separation from the union, the Baath Party gained political potency swiftly. The Baath Party itself became a national ruling party only after the Baathist military faction's coup on March 8, 1963, which overthrew the " separatist regime " (responsible for Syria's secession from the Syrian-Egyptian Union and was undergoing infighting among Sunni leaders).

    With the rise of the Baath Party came the rise of and partiality towards the Alawites given the group's dominance in the Baath Party and its representation in the Baathist military faction (specifically the Military Committee). After this coup, the minority representation in the officer corps, especially that of the Alawites, increased greatly as Baathist military leaders ( five out of the fourteen members of the Military Committee were Alawites ) attempted to consolidate their power. [4] "The climax of the [Baathists'] power [monopolization] came on [ July 18, 1963 ], when a group of predominantly Sunni Nasserist officers, led by Colonel Jasim 'Alwan, staged an abortive coup. Most of the officers who suppressed this coup, not without bloodshed, were of minoritarian backgrounds, and among them [Alawites] played a prominent role." [5] Discrimination between Sunnis and the minorities became prevalent and more apparent in the years following 1963. In order to strategically preserve Baathist and minority power, army units were filled with "trusted" officers and stationed in tactical areas such as Damascus. [6] Units filled with non-minority members were more likely to be stationed in areas farther from the Baathist stronghold. These moves allowed for the military coup on February 23, 1966, which resulted in Alawite control of Damascus , to take place.

    Even as the Military Committee came into power following 1963, the leaders began to split and gain the support of those regionally and ideologically tied with them to bolster their individual powers. While leaders frequently strengthened themselves with people of the same sectarian background, alliances amongst the Military Committee leaders were not always along sectarian lines, and many times were merely for practical reasons to pursue their interests. [7] In 1970, both Alawite rivalries and Syria's series of coups "were put to rest with a bloodless military coup led by then-air force commander and Defense Minister Gen. Hafiz [al-Assad] (now deceased) against his Alawite rival, Salah Jadid. [Al-Assad] was the first Alawite leader capable of dominating the fractious Alawite sect."

    Alawites in Syria: Assad Regime and Sectarian Tensions

    Following the coup in 1970, which effectively marked the beginning of the Assad regime that exists today, Hafez al-Assad consolidated his power among trusted Alawites and prominent Sunnis in order to strategically thwart potential revolts by the Sunni majority. Specifically, he " stacked the security apparatus with loyal clansmen while taking care to build patronage networks with Druze and Christian minorities that facilitated the [al-Assad] rise." Additionally , to mollify Sunni dissatisfaction , the Assad "leadership co-opted key Sunni military and business elites, relying on notables like former Syrian Defense Minister Mustafa Tlass to contain dissent within the military and Alawite big-business families like the Makhloufs to buy loyalty, or at least tolerance, among a Sunni merchant class that had seen most of its assets seized and redistributed by the state." Such actions facilitated resentment from Sunnis, especially Sunnis extremists. Hafez al-Assad further engendered tensions between the Alawites and outspoken Sunni Islamists by constraining their abilities to spread the Sunni religious doctrine. The regime took over religious funding and discharged leaders of Friday prayers. Along with consolidating power through sectarian means, Hafez al-Assad politically established himself. In the period from 1971-1973 , Assad bolstered himself through a nominated Baath legislature, confirmed himself as President for a seven-year term through a national referendum, and established a new constitution that declared Syria a secular socialist state with Islam being the majority religion.

    With the Assad regime stabilized and consolidated through the support of Alawites, minority groups, and key Sunnis, any attempts to overthrow the regime were suppressed and only added to the sectarian tensions that already existed at the beginning of Hafez al-Assad's leadership. Such suppression peaked in the regime's crackdown on Sunni insurgents led by the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, who were protesting Assad's new constitution. The constitution had established a secular state and allowed a non-Muslim to be president ( this was later amended ). The uprising, intended to overthrow the heretical Assad regime, began in 1976 and became the most violent in 1982, in Hama. In this Sunni-populated town, Assad and his Alawite constituency killed up to 20,000 residents . Since the incident at Hama, the Alawites continued to consolidate power and control over Syria . The Assad regime also preserved its power by overcoming various potential destabilizers: events that if handled improperly could have undermined the whole Assad regime. An attempted coup by Hafez al-Assad's brother, the death of Hafez al-Assad's apparent heir, Syria's frequent feuds with Israel, and Syria's involvement in Lebanon, all had the potential to destabilize the Assad regime . Rather, Assad dealt with these events in ways that either preserved Assad's rule or further strengthened the regime's power.

    Following the death of Hafez al-Assad on June 10, 2000, the Syrian parliament reduced the minimum age for presidential eligibility from 40 to 34 allowing Hafez al-Assad's son, Bashar al-Assad, to run for president and maintain the regime. Bashar al-Assad's regime preserved its ruling authority by imprisoning activists who advocated for democratic elections in August 2001 .

    It is important to note that while an apparent bias towards Alawites existed under the Assad regime, both Assads claimed that Syria was a non-sectarian state. For this reason, many Alawites still remain poor, and the Syrian education system promotes the majority orthodox faith in Syria, Sunni Islam . Moreover, dissent amongst Alawites exists in Syria, and Alawite dissenters have sometimes experienced harsher punishments than non-Alawites . Additionally, the Alawite regime did not completely repress the Sunni majority and promote Alawi Islam. Rather, the Alawite regime under Hafez al-Assad attempted to gain approval from the Sunni population as well as create a new relationship and distinction between government and Islam. According to Joshua Landis , director of the Center for Middle East Studies,

    When [Hafez al-Assad] came to power in 1970, one of his primary goals was to establish a new balance between the government and Islam. One of the central planks of his "Corrective Movement" was to abandon the radical secularism and socialism of the Jadid regime that preceded him. Although he reached out to Sunni clerics, giving them greater leeway in society, he strictly limited their influence in politics. At the same time, he encouraged Alawites to embrace mainstream Islam. He declared the Alawites to be nothing but Twelver [Shias], forbade Alawite Shaykhs to venerate Ali excessively, and set the example for his people by adhering to Sunni practice. He built mosques in Alawite towns, prayed publicly and fasted and encouraged his people to do the same. In short he tried to turn Alawites into "good" (read Sunnified) Muslims in exchange for preserving a modicum of secularism and tolerance in society To police this understanding, he squashed any semblance of democracy in Syrian political life, forbidding elections even within professional organizations and trade unions. As a result, civil society was crushed, ministries became havens for mafia groups, and any political life outside the secretive factions in the regime came to a standstill.

    Besides obtaining support from outside nations and groups such as Iran, Russia, and Hezbollah, Assad's regime initially received support from the Alawite community. The Alawites supported Assad for various reasons. While some backed the regime out of pure loyalty, other Alawites understood their fate if Assad's Alawite regime were to fall .

    For the latter group, the downfall of Assad would inevitably result in another Sunni rule, allowing the Sunni elite to once again oppress the Alawites . More importantly, given the acts of the Assad regime (including the killing in Hama), many Alawites understood their grim fate if Sunnis regained power and exacted their revenge for the loss of thousands of innocent Sunnis. For the most part, "the Assad regime has played on Alawite fears to help it stay in power ." Nevertheless, "the wholehearted loyalty that Hafez enjoyed in his early stage of rule has switched to another type of connection for Bashar based on sectarian insecurity ."

    ... ... ...

    [Dec 09, 2016] Washington Post Refuses to Retract Article Defaming Naked Capitalism and Other Sites naked capitalism

    Notable quotes:
    "... It appears that the globalists are scared of anything that resembles the truth that counters their incessant propaganda If there was ever a discovery process in a lawsuit against WAPO, I would imagine that all roads would lead to a Contelpro section of the CIA It's interesting that Wall Street on Parade has noted that Propornot has a double blind registration in New Mexico. ..."
    "... Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts. ..."
    "... More and more it seems like USA, like the roman empire, needs barbarians at the gates to distract the plebs from internal structural problems. ..."
    "... As long as Yeltsin allowed Wall Street to loot Russia of former soviet holdings, Russia was not "barbaric". Now that Putin has put a solid halt on said looting, Russia is again "barbarians" ..."
    "... And by refusing to address the emails, other than to scream "Russian hackers," the corporate media were able to convince the Clinton cultists and other Third-Way believers that the information they contained was just another right-wing attack on The Anointed because (other than leftist, Russian-loving "fake news" sites), the right-wing media were the only ones paying it any attention. ..."
    "... I am old enough to remember seeing in the news reel at my local theater in 1950 Joseph McCarthy holding up a piece of paper to the cameras and intoning in his inimitable droning voice, "I have here in my hand a list of 205 known members of the Communist Party who are working and shaping policy in the State Department." ..."
    "... People's livelihoods and reputations were thereby smeared for life. Never did McCarthy back his claims with evidence, nor did he retract his scurrilous accusation. Now, tell me how what Jeff Bezos and co. are doing in this instance is in any significant way different from what McCarthy did to these people back in 1956. What finally put it squarely before the American public and finally earned McCarthy Congressional censure was when Boston attorney Joseph Welch asked McCarthy, "Have you no sense of decency, sir?" ..."
    "... Here's the thing. Yes, RT is funded by the Russian government, and thus anything posted thereon needs to be considered with that in mind. Nevertheless, it is also where stories the corporates prefer to ignore are given attention. In other words, there is an irony that the Russians may, indeed, be trying to influence us, but if so, they appear to be doing it by subtly undermining the reliability of the corporate media. ..."
    "... To put it another way, dismissing RT solely because of its funding source is no better than dismissing NC et al. as propaganda sites, and doing so is actually feeding the propaganda machine. After all, we don't know what percentage of the US media currently receives "grants" from US intelligence agencies, now, do we. ..."
    "... In studying communications, there's a distinction between 'white' and 'black' propaganda. White propaganda is publishing truth that supports your cause. Black propaganda is, of course, slanderous lies. RT is white propaganda, so use it for the value it brings. ..."
    "... Exactly. I'm a grown-up. I have a lot of practice reading critically and I'm quite capable of questioning sources and filtering bias. I don't need Jeff Bezos to protect me from Russkie BadThink. ..."
    "... "does not itself vouch " You have to bear in mind this is not the Post talking, this is CIA CIA has blatantly used the Post as a their sockpuppet since they put Woodward in there to oust Nixon, and now they've got Bezos by the contractual balls. CIA has impunity in municipal statute and secret red tape so any answer you get from them means No fuck You. ..."
    "... The NDAA legalized domestic propaganda in 2013 so when the public repudiated their chosen president Hillary Clinton, CIA immediately got to work work attacking Article 19. ..."
    "... [M]aybe we should just lump them [WaPo] in with Breitbart and company. ..."
    Dec 09, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    cocomaan December 8, 2016 at 9:07 am

    Right on. When Yves says:

    This is tantamount to an admission that not only did the Washington Post do no fact-checking, but also that it does not consider fact-checking to be part of its job.

    Another way to put it is to say that WaPoo is not in the business of investigation but instead is in the business of regurgitation . WaPoo seems to think that reporting equals repeating.

    We don't need people who repeat other people's words. We need reporters who are digging.

    Eduardo Quince December 8, 2016 at 7:30 am

    Not enough! They need to apologise. They should also fire Timberg.

    Was this mimicry of a Trump tweet intentional or subconscious?

    john bougearel December 8, 2016 at 7:46 am

    "This minimalist walk-back does not remedy the considerable damage [already] done to NC and other sites." No, it certainly does not. Once the "defamatory cat" is out of the bag, you can't exactly stuff the cat back in.

    Proceed, young lady with your case. But as you move forward, do take measures to keep these vampires from stealing your adaptive energies and health.

    p.s. You know, this diminiishes WaPo to a mere "blog aggregator" when allows its "reporters" such as Craig Timberg to merely "scrape and publish" posts from anonymous blogsites (not even scraping from the laughable "gold standard" of truth on the internet: Wiki). These reporters aren't writing, they are scraping. What a bunch of lazy fucks at WaPo!

    And you know what I'd really like to do: kick this Craig Timberg character a new ass in a dark alley. Yves, when you are done shredding WaPo and Timberg, I sincerely hope they won't be able to sit down for a whole year.

    p.s.s. that post (yd) about Wiki becoming the "gold standard" of 'fact-finding" and "truth" on the internet was particularly disturbing. Even citations from academic journals (such as JAMA) posted in Wiki are laden with flawed research suffering from poor design and methodology, draw the wrong conclusions, reveal biases and conflicts of interest, show a lack of references etc. Decades ago, there was a shift in much of the medical literature – a shift from "evidence-based" to "consensus-based." The internet appears to be moving in the same direction, using various tools and methodologies that allow "consensus-based" opinions (valued by the certain parties that be) to be shaped as "facts" and "truth." When in fact, those opinions are anything but a truth.

    Alex December 8, 2016 at 8:53 am

    I suppose they're applying the Amazon retail aggregation model to the WaPo?

    flora December 8, 2016 at 10:11 am

    . a shift from "evidence-based" to "consensus-based."

    Yes. That's what I see as behind the browser flagging extensions, as if facts are subject to majority vote, which would make them opinions, not facts. If wapoo prints an editorial opinion on the editorial page, that's one thing. If wapoo prints editorial opinion masquerading as fact on the front page, that is a different matter.

    Wapoo's arrogant reply, in the form of an editor's note, to NC's letter isn't a surprising first move for them. I trust NC's atty has already thought many, many steps ahead.

    Sally December 8, 2016 at 7:47 am

    "The Post, which did not name any of the sites, does not itself vouch for the validity of PropOrNot's findings regarding any individual media outlet, nor did the article purport to do so."

    You couldn't get a more weassely response. They admit they didn't fact check their sources, they cowadly now hide behind the defence of not actully naming any of the sites, and then finally try to play the "nothing to see here" defence of pretending the article didn't mean what it quite clearly did mean when it was published.

    Increasingly, challenging western govt output is seen as a form of rebellion. As Orwell said . telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.

    dk December 8, 2016 at 7:06 pm

    " nor did the article purport to do so."

    Shouldn't that be "nor does"? Since they didn't take it down

    Jim Haygood December 8, 2016 at 7:48 am

    One day I was listening to Bloomberg News on the car radio, when they aired a critical story on a company where I had worked. The criticism was from a third party group. And then the next news story began.

    Stunned, I phoned the reporter and asked, "Where was the company's rebuttal, or refusal to comment?"

    He replied, "It was there, you just didn't hear it."

    But I had listened with full attention, and it wasn't there. Maybe an editor had removed it to shorten the clip.

    This has been my experience with the MSM. They are always right. They make no mistakes. You should believe them, not your lying eyes and ears.

    Ulysses December 8, 2016 at 8:47 am

    "This has been my experience with the MSM. They are always right. They make no mistakes. You should believe them, not your lying eyes and ears."

    We have always been at war with Eurasia.

    The Ministry of Truth hasn't, yet, been given the power to completely silence those of us who don't stay within the confines of The Narrative. So their tactic is to portray us all as dangerous disinformators like Emmanuel Goldstein.

    Andrew December 8, 2016 at 7:52 am

    Accuracy is not part of the job when producing and publishing fake news – Washington Post

    Insta-epic classic

    William Young December 8, 2016 at 7:57 am

    In 1975, I went to the Soviet Union with a group of American tourists. At the time, I was working as a volunteer for Ralph Nader. A few times, some of the people in our group had a chance to talk to Soviet people in our hotels. The other Americans would give civics book explanations about how the US government worked. Some of the Soviet people would question these explanations, saying that they had heard from their government that the American government worked in a way that sounded to me much more accurate and in line with the way Nader portrayed the US. Undemocratic regimes are often fairly accurate in describing the faults of other governments, especially those of their perceived enemies, while ignoring their own failings. I do not know exactly what Russian propaganda the Washington Post is referring to, but I would not be surprised if various Russian sources simply repeat the common criticisms of the toxic activities of the neoliberal establishment – an establishment of which the Washington Post has been a long-time supporter. Why go through all of the trouble of fabricating stories when the reality is as damning as anything you could make up? So rather than the US sources in question spouting Russian propaganda, the Russians might simply be repeating the criticisms they are hearing from the US.

    Arizona Slim December 8, 2016 at 8:07 am

    All right. That did it. I'm sending another check to NC.

    FedUpPleb December 8, 2016 at 8:08 am

    This is tantamount to an admission that not only did the Washington Post do no fact-checking, but that it does not consider fact-checking to be part of its job.

    Ah, the Ratings Agencies "opinions" defense. Blithely ignorant of their own legally and historically protected positions. I suspect this is exactly the defense the WP will run with. Effectively they will assert their constitutional right as propagandists, to broadcast whatever they please in the national interest.

    is a new, private sector-led initiative

    I would say not entirely. True, large private corporations are behind a lot of this, but what is at stake is their authority to speak for, and their connections to, the state and Deep State.

    On a more emotional level, what is at stake is status. Because really that is all the big newspapers have anymore. Social status. Do not underestimate this currency. It is probably the most precious form of capital there is and the Post, et al, will fight with their fingernails to avoid losing it. Things could get pretty nasty. Good luck and give the bastards hell.

    HotFlash December 8, 2016 at 9:19 am

    Long, long time, b/c of their policies. I figure my opinion doesn't count, my vote doesn't count, but by golly, I will make every dollar I spend count. I buy locally when possible (ideally both locally made/grown and locally-owned retail, although there is at least one local company I will not patronize, for policy reasons) and have found alternate sources for things I can't get around here, eg. Powell's for books and Lehman's for tools and kitchen stuff. As a last resort I will comparison shop on Amazon and then ask my local supplier to order the thing in for me (as I did with my water heater). Not one nickel of mine will go to WaPo or Amazon. And I have told rellies, pls no Amazon gifts for our household.

    Vatch December 8, 2016 at 10:37 am

    Long before the current series of events happened, there were excellent reasons to avoid buying from Amazon.com. The horrific working conditions in Amazon.com warehouses should be enough to prevent any person from buying from the company. I suppose many people still aren't aware of how bad it is, so here's an example article:

    http://www.businessinsider.com/what-its-like-in-amazons-massive-warehouses-fulfillment-centers-2014-11/

    Elizabeth Burton December 8, 2016 at 12:24 pm

    As much as I would love to "boycott Amazon," it's not possible for several reasons. First, being old and crippled, I can't run out to the nearest Target to buy stuff, and I definitely don't have time or physical capacity to hop all over town trying to find some specialty item that doesn't sell enough for most bricks-and-mortar retailers to carry. I do buy direct when it's possible, but the fact of life is there's stuff you can only find on Amazon.

    Second, I own and operate a small digitally-based book publishing company, and Amazon is our major source of revenue. For me, boycotting Amazon would mean pulling my authors' work from distribution there, which isn't an option. Likewise, consider Kindle owners with extensive libraries.

    Frankly, I consider these calls to boycott some huge corporation the kind of symbolic action that allows people to feel good about themselves while avoiding doing anything actually effective. Like writing/emailing/phoning the editorial board of the local news media should they be broadcasting/publishing this rubbish-preferably all three and multiple times. Given that many are connected to the same major corporations as the Big Media, that strikes me as what really needs to be done.

    After all, WaPo isn't doing this in an echo chamber. Their fiction was picked up by all the major players and more than a few of the minor. The only way to counter public discourse is publicly.

    On another subject-Yves and Lambert, if you'd like someone to run over your articles pre-publication for a quick copyedit, you know where to find me. It's one of the non-monetary things I can donate.

    Spring Texan December 8, 2016 at 3:45 pm

    Agree on symbolic action. I do buy from Amazon and either go to antiwar.com first (a mixed site, but one I want to see endure) and click so they get a commission or go to smile.amazon.com so my favorite small charity gets it.

    Buying is NOT voting. I'm a citizen and not mainly just a consumer. Not buying from amazon would hurt me more than them (especially as I like buying obscure second-hand books). There are much better things I can do to be politically effective, including letters to the editor and contributions.

    I do buy by preference from a third-party that doesn't distribute from Amazon warehouses if the price is close. And there are many things I do choose to get locally or from others. But I buy a heck of a lot from them especially books.

    JamesG December 8, 2016 at 2:38 pm

    Walmart has recently upgraded its on-line shopping site and its performance.

    You may not like WM but they don't own the Post and they're big enuff to hurt amazon.

    aliteralmind December 8, 2016 at 8:23 am

    There should be a union of sorts, among those defamed. Join forces with some other reputable smallish websites and create a consortium that pools resources to fight this sort of thing going forward.

    millicent December 8, 2016 at 8:24 am

    I think you should take the strongest, most aggressive stance possible given the huge number of very important issues at stake. I will continue to support naked capitalism any way that I can.

    kokuanani December 8, 2016 at 8:35 am

    Yves, have you contacted Bill Moyers? He initially referred to the Post article without adequate critical comment. He could and should remedy this. His voice would carry weight with the book bag-toting NPR folks, who will be among the last to "doubt" the Post.

    Lupemax December 8, 2016 at 11:28 am

    Excellent suggestion. I found NC when Bill Moyers recommended it on his old tv show when he interviewed Yves and it has continued to open my eyes big time and I haven't been the same since. Whenever I encounter a NYTimesbot or a BostonGlobebot or a Wapoobot or NPRbot (Blindly quoting believers) I tell them I don't have time for MSM anymore after Bill Moyers recommended this incredibly informative site and I tell them all about NC. I am so grateful for NC and Yves and Lambert and all the other contributors for what you all do. I would be devastated if this horror damages you (us) all. And Net Neutrality in general – Trump will go after it. WaPoo (love that) should be taken way out to the woodshed, shamed, and publicized for how awful they (and so many others in the MSM) have become. I will help in any way I can. And please stay well Yves and Lambert.

    savedbyirony December 8, 2016 at 11:58 am

    I found NC through Bill Moyers as well. Since he retired, i rarely look at the website and never the FC page anymore since the content significantly decreased in quality and originality imo after he retired. i know his name is still attached to the website and he still occasionally submits articles, but i wonder how much oversight and content involvement he has with the operation these days.

    savedbyirony December 8, 2016 at 1:04 pm

    That should read, "since he retired from the tv show Moyers & Co and it went off the air". The website still lists Bill Moyers as the managing editor. But the quality of the website noticeably changed after the show left PBS in i think 2015.

    andyb December 8, 2016 at 8:36 am

    It appears that the globalists are scared of anything that resembles the truth that counters their incessant propaganda If there was ever a discovery process in a lawsuit against WAPO, I would imagine that all roads would lead to a Contelpro section of the CIA It's interesting that Wall Street on Parade has noted that Propornot has a double blind registration in New Mexico.

    susan the other December 8, 2016 at 1:13 pm

    A propaganda holding company! This is allowed by the Whappo? It's a felony masquerading as a farce and they can't get out of this like little Judy Miller pretending to be dumb. Judy Miller is very sophisticated and so is the Whappo. Journalism isn't journalism if it does this sleazy stuff. Since when does a newspaper "disclaim" its own news? It's totally outrageous. And the nerve to say that PropOrNot insists on being anonymous. PropOrNot might as well be the Whappo itself. Only sleazy purveyors of crap disclaim it. This is just asking for satire. Whappo deserves to be ridiculed into oblivion.

    susan the other December 8, 2016 at 1:40 pm

    just a quick check on the net produced a a site: dab-oracl.com and an atty named Donald Burleson – stating that New Mexico is one of 17 states that enforce criminal libel and that you can file to lift the veil on anonymity for defamation and have the perp arrested cool

    susan the other December 8, 2016 at 1:51 pm

    that's dba-oracle.com for Burleson

    craazyboy December 8, 2016 at 2:00 pm

    craazyman may know these people!

    It's in Santa Fe and the U of Magonia has a channeling portal there. The channeling portal connects to alternate universes and higher order dimensions and all sorts of weird and unusual stuff passes thru the portal. It's where craazyman finds out about lots of stuff and he may have bumped(if that's right word) into these other channelers?

    larry December 8, 2016 at 2:24 pm

    Cointelpro was a section of the FBI, not the CIA

    johnnygl December 8, 2016 at 8:38 am

    If they can't vouch for the validity of their sources and stories, what value are they adding as an organization?

    If we want, we can go direct to prnewswire and govt issued press releases.

    seabos84 December 8, 2016 at 8:49 am

    I'm 56, I was a 9 buck an hour cook in Boston in 1988 when Dukakis came out of Labor Day with a 17 point lead.

    The campaign wizards of Bush Senior came up some kind of 'Dukakis hates America ' baloney, because of some other baloney about The Flag!! or The Pledge!!! For days, GWB Sr. came out in front of a bunch of flags & said the Pledge, and the craven, sycophantic, grovelling media of the day dutifully reported –

    "In order to show '__Dukakis hates America___' Vice President Bush said the pledge of allegiance."

    Anyone from that era remember all the liberal cloak rending and finger waving and furrowed brows? Anyone remember that Fairness Doctrine thing??? Seriously – having some contract mouth piece of the WAPO question NC is a badge of honor.

    rmm.

    But then I sigh; and, with a piece of scripture,
    Tell them that God bids us do good for evil:
    And thus I clothe my naked villany
    With old odd ends stolen out of holy writ;
    And seem a saint, when most I play the devil.

    Northeaster December 8, 2016 at 9:03 am

    Dukakis infamy was due to the rape question in regard to the death penalty. It also didn't help posing in a tank.

    FluffytheObeseCat December 8, 2016 at 11:25 am

    Dukakis' loss was due to his weak response to a racist smear campaign that assigned him personal responsibility for every poor decision made by the Massachusetts penal system.

    His sin was failing to fight back with sufficient vigor. It's a good choice of anecdote for this comments thread however. An object lesson if you will.

    Science Officer Smirnoff December 8, 2016 at 12:03 pm

    Willie Horton, Swift Boats, . . ., "Fake News" but that's just political campaign agitprop.

    Official or establishment agitprop is far more potent.

    Any submissions for the sweepstakes?

    AnonymousCounselor December 8, 2016 at 8:54 am

    The Washington Post has responded, from the perspective of their own interests, in literally the worst way possible.

    They have essentially gone on record as admitting that publish articles that are defamatory per se in a reckless manner, using a reckless (or non-existent) fact-checking and vetting process.

    It's really unbelievable, and many of us in the legal community are scratching our heads, now, wondering from whom The Washington Post is soliciting legal advice.

    sid_finster December 8, 2016 at 8:58 pm

    I don't think it matters, when you're the WaPo and acting as a mouthpiece for the establishment.

    I expect dismissal or summary judgment.

    Yves Smith Post author December 8, 2016 at 9:27 pm

    They wouldn't have deigned to respond at all if they weren't nervous about our attorney. But I agree, this response is incredibly lame and not helpful to them from a legal or reputational standpoint. They seem to think if they make a minimal gesture, NC and the other wronged sites won't proceed. Bad assumption.

    OIFVet December 8, 2016 at 9:54 pm

    My grandfather was a political refugee. He escaped Bulgaria after being jailed one too many times for having the audacity to disagree with the communist elites and its media organs, and to do so in public. What I see happening here in the US, with dissent on the verge of being suppressed or even criminalized, deeply concerns me because it reminds me of those bad old times. I respect you guys and your willingness to stand up to power, in ways I can not adequately express. Thank you.

    John Wright December 8, 2016 at 9:07 am

    Craig Timberg may be another example of the "son of more successful father" phenomenon who in attempting to exceed their fathers, do great damage to others (other examples: G.W. Bush, Bill Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, John McCain ).

    Timberg's father, Baltimore Sun political reporter Bob Timberg, is described at http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-bob-timberg-20140821-story.html

    " He was nearly 30 years old, borderline ancient for a beginning daily newspaper reporter. Unlike other Capital staffers, he was a Naval Academy graduate with a master's degree in journalism, and he was a Vietnam war combat veteran. And he could not type."

    "I first noticed Bob's reporting talents from his incisive articles on a legal challenge to compulsory chapel attendance at the U.S. service academies, filed by six Annapolis midshipmen and a West Point cadet."

    "The highlight of Bob's reporting was an interview with celebrated evangelist Billy Graham, who shockingly characterized the students' lawsuit as a being "part of a planned attack against all chaplains, to force them completely out of all services," and further suggested that the young men were Communist dupes. Though Bob knew now that he had a good story, he still pressed on, asking Graham if an atheist can become a good naval officer. "I can't comment on that," the preacher answered."

    So Timberg's father questioned a prominent person who was alleging "Communist dupes" against military chaplains.

    But his son does little vetting of the shadowy group PropOrNot as he goes for HIS story alleging "Russian propagandists".

    It may be too late for the son to learn from the father's example.

    Kurt Sperry December 8, 2016 at 10:58 pm

    Good story. The son as a pale shadow of the father is, as you say, not an uncommon thing. Craig, in this current example, doesn't seem to understand even the most basic, fundamental principles of journalistic ethics or professional conduct. It's strange someone in the profession that long could survive lacking that. Or maybe once you get on with a big name paper with a billionaire owner, sucking up to the establishment is a get out of jail free card when it comes to ethics and professional accountability.

    linda amick December 8, 2016 at 9:10 am

    I stopped ordering from Amazon two years ago after reading the stories about labor conditions for warehouse employees. It is nothing more than brutal slave labor.
    I used to at least read the headlines in the NYT and WaPo. Now I can not even stomach them.

    Sluggeaux December 8, 2016 at 9:18 am

    So, the WaPo now admits that "journalism" is dead and stenography is the only purpose their "platform" exists for.

    The quaint institution of "journalism" existed to sort "fact" from "opinion" and made the important distinction between the two. Opinions are like belly-buttons and assholes, everybody has one. Facts are more difficult to discern, but are immutable and objective. As attributed to the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, " Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts. "

    This is the death of the First Amendment - The ScAmazon model of purporting to be a "marketplace" but refusing to vouch for the quality, safety, or authenticity of anything that they loudly and slickly shill to profit from the work of others. It is disgusting, hollow, and amoral. It must be brought to heel.

    JTFaraday December 8, 2016 at 10:22 pm

    And the Amazon warehouse of stenography too apparently. (Link from the original post):

    http://www.cjr.org/q_and_a/washington_post_bezos_amazon_revolution.php

    Carolinian December 8, 2016 at 9:20 am

    I suspect the MSM have always seen their ability to shape elections as their true "ring of power." As you say this has been going on for a long time–certainly pre-internet. The fact that Trump won despite their best efforts has likely shaken big media to the core. Which doesn't mean Trump's election was a good thing or a bad thing but simply that they didn't get to pick.

    Television will always be the most important medium when it comes to politics but the print media now see their role as "influencers" under threat from the web. And given their financial problems this may be the final existential threat. It's likely the Post editors knew perfectly well what they were doing and how shoddy that story was. It was a shot across the bow.

    Carolinian December 8, 2016 at 9:25 am

    Reply to seabos84

    Alejandro December 8, 2016 at 10:00 am

    From a sausage factory of "manufacturing consent" to a sausage factory of stifling dissent.

    DJG December 8, 2016 at 9:26 am

    Yves: What is going on here is deeply ingrained. We live in a country in which everyone's opinions are now canonical, as we see with wonder about the candidate for the head of the EPA. Pruitt's opinion counteracts years of research, because lawyers know all about science.

    I was reminded of how ingrained these "narratives" are when I read the lead in the Talk of the Town in the most recent New Yorker: Jeffrey Toobin on voting. He did a drive-by diagnosis of Jill Stein as a narcissist. (But, but, but the New Yorker already declared Trump a narcissist.) Then, in a couple of very curious sentences, he tries to accuse the Russians of tampering with the U.S. election campaign while admitting it unlikely that foreigners hacked the vote count. So you have two or three or four fake-news pieces strung together so as to assert power. That's the long and the short of it. Just as Pruitt is an ignoramus about science, so Toobin as an ignoramus about psychology. As Lambert often writes: Agnotology. I'd add: Agnotology to maintain the structures of power.

    We have been in this intellectual winter for a while: Liberals in denial, peddling psychobabble. Rightwingers in denial, peddling resentment.

    Keep talking to your lawyer.

    olga December 8, 2016 at 10:09 am

    At the end of the 70s, we came to the US, believing western media to be the epitome of honesty and truth (the belief itself based on plentiful pro-western propaganda, which we consumed unquestioningly). The highly misleading anti-Soviet propaganda in the US at that time was a bit of a shock. Not so much its existence, but its vicious nature. And the lies about "Russians are coming." Nothing much has changed – the west still dislikes Russia, and will do all it can to discredit the country (just watch out for the starting effort to ruin the 2018 futbal (soccer) games in Russia – anti-Sochi hysteria was just a preview). The wapoo stunt may be crude, but it is not a demonstration of incompetence. It does seem to be a part of concerted efforts to limit the free flow of information on the Internet. As the "narrative" has gotten away from powers that be, a new way to censor information is needed. Even Merkel said she'd want to address "fake news." Has everybodu forgotten operation Mockingbird ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird )? Nothing new under the sun – but the stakes are much higher now, as the west runs out of options to maintain supremacy.

    tgs December 8, 2016 at 5:36 pm

    Yes, I find it hard to believe that, given the current hysteria, Russia is going to be allowed to host the World Cup in 2018.

    sid_finster December 8, 2016 at 9:01 pm

    Apparently HRC has also jumped on the censorship bandwagon.

    digi_owl December 8, 2016 at 9:54 am

    More and more it seems like USA, like the roman empire, needs barbarians at the gates to distract the plebs from internal structural problems.

    As long as Yeltsin allowed Wall Street to loot Russia of former soviet holdings, Russia was not "barbaric". Now that Putin has put a solid halt on said looting, Russia is again "barbarians"

    Elizabeth Burton December 8, 2016 at 12:29 pm

    Want to have some fun? Next time someone starts ranting about "the Russians hacked our election," try tossing out "Well, we messed with theirs, so it seems only fair."

    Lord Koos December 8, 2016 at 3:08 pm

    It's fitting, since the USA sees no problem in rigging other countries' elections, whether it be the middle East or Latin America.

    LA Mike December 8, 2016 at 10:07 am

    They basically pulled a trump:

    "I'm not saying it's true, but I've heard other people say it's true."

    jake December 8, 2016 at 10:09 am

    Post editorial/management probably doesn't have strong opinions - or any opinions - of the sites impugned by PropOrNot, including Naked Capitalism, since it's unlikely these corporate drones possess enough intellectual curiosity to actually look at them.

    The problem is confirmation bias (in this case, offering an acceptable explanation for why WaPo's Chosen Liberal lost the election, without having to look in the mirror) and shoddy careerist journalism generally, which works so well for so many, and which can't be litigated away.

    Banish Timberg, and you might as well put WaPO out of business.

    craazyboy December 8, 2016 at 10:09 am

    I recall seeing somewhere in the initial flurry of tweets and comments on the subject that someone had contacted Wapo and received a response from the editor or some such stating that "multiple contacts" were made to PorNot for some sort of purpose, perhaps verification, fact checking, or what ever it is newspapers do before breathlessly getting out the bold typeface and running a "story". Wish I could find it again. But now it seems that was fake news.

    The timing and placement of the "clarification" is rich. 14 days later slip in an "editor's comment" buried in the old news pile. Your pet parrot wouldn't even notice.

    drb48 December 8, 2016 at 10:11 am

    Timburg is obviously another tool – like Judith Miller. His "editors" knew full well the story was bullshit – "can't vouch for the validity" (because we can't be bothered to check our sources) – and ran it anyway. So there was/is an agenda. And the media wonder why they are in such low regard.

    Lord Koos December 8, 2016 at 3:09 pm

    I wonder how hands-on Bezos is with the WaPoo?

    amouise December 8, 2016 at 10:57 am

    Yves, in your apology post with your attorney's letter, you stated this

    I also hope, particularly for those of you who don't regularly visit Naked Capitalism, that you'll check out our related pieces that give more color to how the fact the Washington Post was taken for a ride by inept propagandists

    My first reaction to this was "presumes facts not in evidence"

    I don't believe the Post was taken in by anyone. They wanted to have a particular piece written and they did. Why in the world would they back down now?

    You're going to need more fundraisers because I'm guessing they'll be dragging this out. If they can't beat you with fake news then they will drain your resources with a long-drawn out legal process. Yes, I'm very cynical. Watched one of the bloggers I follow spend around $150,000 defending themselves from a defamation case that never went to trail. The blogger was also a lawyer so could help with her defense, had discounted legal assistance from an first amendment expert and an additional attorney. They had a year of depositions with constant delays. $150,000 is not petty cash.

    I know the circumstances are not the same but the Post has deep pockets. If they want to drain NC and other independent news sources, they have the resources to go the distance.

    Also please stop giving the newspapers excuses. The entire industry is pretty much consolidated. I don't think they very much care about whether or not a newspaper makes money after they've leveraged it with so much debt in order to purchase it in the first place. Or used their billions to simply buy it. Either way that would seem to indicate that's about the write-off and controlling the "narrative."

    As an added bonus get rid of your workers due to "costs." Further narrowing the acceptable narrative within the newsroom. Pretty soon, the entire industry is gutted just like other industries in this country. (I'd argue that's most of the way done except for independent media.) That's quite purposeful and just like other industries, it never had to be that way, even with the rise of the Internet and "things" like Google ads and Facebook.

    Stop giving them so much of the benefit of the doubt. They are engaged in a class war.

    Even if somewhere down the line they were to apologize and give you a prominent byline, the damage is already done with a good portion of their readership. Which was entirely the point.

    flora December 8, 2016 at 1:14 pm

    " I don't believe the Post was taken in by anyone. "

    I may wholeheartedly agree with you but there are good reasons for NC to be circumspect and initially offer Wapoo the option of backing away and retracting gracefully; or as gracefully as possible in this situation.

    Yes, I'm in for the long haul wrt donations. Bernie's campaign showed the power of small donations.

    scraping_by December 8, 2016 at 1:20 pm

    You've put your finger on the "stupid, crazy, or evil" question.

    Our esteemed hostess has chosen stupid, for reasons that seem good and sufficient. Crazy would be apparent from past behavior, and we of the tinfoil hat legions can make a good case for evil from the interests of the actors. But if nothing else, stupid is easily proved.

    PlutoniumKun December 8, 2016 at 1:44 pm

    I think the main reason many here are giving the benefit of the doubt to WaPo is that it was done so ineptly. The article reeks of carelessness and non-existent fact-checking and poor (or non-existent) editorial overview. If it was part of a deliberate plot to smear it should have been better written and they would have done a better job in covering themselves legally. Most recent high profile libel claims – such as the Rolling Stones college rape hoax story – originated from a mix of confirmation bias and incompetence, not (so far as we know) from a deliberate malign plot.

    Having said that, their refusal to come straight out and apologise when presented with the facts is just digging themselves a deeper hole. I've no doubt the NC crew will go all the way with this, I hope it proves deeply embarrassing for the WaPo, they are destroying their own reputation and its entirely their fault.

    RUKidding December 8, 2016 at 11:01 am

    I guess, on one level, it's intersting that the PTB saw the websites on the list as having that much power and influence to sway the election to Trump due to telling the truth, frankly. The truth clearly has no place in the US conversation anymore.

    At any rate, most of here saw our main, favored websites on that McCarthyite witch hunt list and thought: WOW. So we told the truth about Clinton and various other issues with this election, and now we must be silenced.

    Of course, it's pretty odd given the DNC hacked emails were really very revealing of many shady (to say the least) things, and I've seen those emails quoted quite a bit by many rightwing sources. And that info was, in fact, disseminated broadly to conservative voters. And I feel that those emails, possibly along with Comey's last minute "reveal," probably swayed some still-on-the-fence voters to either not vote for POTUS at all or to vote for Trump.

    Frankly, it's risable in the extreme that this country has been drowning in rightwingnut propaganda for the past 40+ years (or longer), and that's really what the rise of Trump is all about. As opposed to others here, I frankly despise Trump and all he stands for, but I give him props where due. He's kind of stupid but has this certain rat cunning about reading the moment and grabbing it for his purposes. He saw that those who had lost the most in this country were ripe for the plucking, and he went about using them for his own greedy means accordingly.

    Railing against a handful of truth-telling lefty-ish blogs is amazing on one level. I doubt that, even in the aggragate, many voters were swayed by the information provided. I think most who read these blogs are already determined what we'll do, but we come to these sites for a breath of fresh air, as it were.

    That, for me, is what makes this attack so chilling. The last few small voices of reason and sanity? And they have to be silenced? Brrrrrr . that's bitterly cold.

    Keep up the good fight, Yves and friends. This is gonna be tough row to hoe, but I'm in it to win it.

    Elizabeth Burton December 8, 2016 at 12:33 pm

    And by refusing to address the emails, other than to scream "Russian hackers," the corporate media were able to convince the Clinton cultists and other Third-Way believers that the information they contained was just another right-wing attack on The Anointed because (other than leftist, Russian-loving "fake news" sites), the right-wing media were the only ones paying it any attention.

    You have to give credit where it's due-they have had decades to perfect their method, and it is very hard to counter it.

    aletheia33 December 8, 2016 at 2:19 pm

    ckimball,

    after my own heart, thanks

    silicon valley does not know the meaning of trust. they have extracted it from every situation they can, destroying everything they touch, without realizing what they have unleashed. this will eventually be learned by all, the hard way.

    Ralph Johansen December 8, 2016 at 11:31 am

    I am old enough to remember seeing in the news reel at my local theater in 1950 Joseph McCarthy holding up a piece of paper to the cameras and intoning in his inimitable droning voice, "I have here in my hand a list of 205 known members of the Communist Party who are working and shaping policy in the State Department."

    People's livelihoods and reputations were thereby smeared for life. Never did McCarthy back his claims with evidence, nor did he retract his scurrilous accusation. Now, tell me how what Jeff Bezos and co. are doing in this instance is in any significant way different from what McCarthy did to these people back in 1956. What finally put it squarely before the American public and finally earned McCarthy Congressional censure was when Boston attorney Joseph Welch asked McCarthy, "Have you no sense of decency, sir?"

    PQS December 8, 2016 at 11:38 am

    Yikes,Yves! What a lame response from them. We all need to keep up the pressure, by any means. This is one of those MSM errors that they hope will just go away, as evidenced by their hand waving dismissal. We can't let it! I think letters to the editor-an avalanche- might do a world of good.

    paul Tioxon December 8, 2016 at 11:48 am

    https://twitter.com/MazMHussain

    Murtaza HussainVerified account Dec 5
    ‏@MazMHussain
    2003: Rifle-toting Americans barge into Iraq after reading viral Fake News story about weapons of mass destruction.
    ------------------------------
    This fake news story ranks up there with the rifle toting Americans that barge into Viet Nam after the Fake News story about a US Navy warship that was attacked by the North Viet Namese Naval forces in the Gulf of Tonkin.

    Peter VE December 8, 2016 at 12:07 pm

    PolitiFact is running a poll for "Lie of the Year" here . There's a line for write in votes. I wrote in the Post's "Russian Propaganda " story. I suggest you can do the same.

    Propertius December 8, 2016 at 4:00 pm

    Done. Tossing another $50 in for the legal fund, since today is payday.

    Brad December 8, 2016 at 12:15 pm

    A true fake news refusal to retract. Extraordinary that WaPo's editors also claim "not to vouch" for the veracity of whether or not RT.com is a "conduit for Russian propaganda". Really? RT is sponsored by the Russian state, how could it not be such a "conduit"? WaPo has all but admitted that it will print all the fake news it chooses to print. This reply is actually worse than the original offense. Pure confection of arrogance and cowardice as only libertarians can produce.

    But of course it doesn't matter if every last one of the news sources mentioned in the WaPo article were in fact such conduits. The issue is the neo-Cold war, neo-McCarthyite campaign launched over the last 2 years whose center of gravity lies clearly in the Clinton liberal Democrat camp.

    We can only imagine how the campaign would conduct itself if Clinton had won the Presidency. It was predictable they would come after the Left, only now they come on with less swag, but with a pathetic sore loser grudge. A perusal of the Liberal sphere on HuffnPuff, Alternet, Salon and such shows these still lost in a self-induced hysterical psychosis.

    Right NOW is the time to for leftists and progressives to draw a clear line, and distance, from American Liberalism and its blame the victim rhetoric.

    Elizabeth Burton December 8, 2016 at 12:41 pm

    Here's the thing. Yes, RT is funded by the Russian government, and thus anything posted thereon needs to be considered with that in mind. Nevertheless, it is also where stories the corporates prefer to ignore are given attention. In other words, there is an irony that the Russians may, indeed, be trying to influence us, but if so, they appear to be doing it by subtly undermining the reliability of the corporate media.

    To put it another way, dismissing RT solely because of its funding source is no better than dismissing NC et al. as propaganda sites, and doing so is actually feeding the propaganda machine. After all, we don't know what percentage of the US media currently receives "grants" from US intelligence agencies, now, do we.

    scraping_by December 8, 2016 at 1:38 pm

    In studying communications, there's a distinction between 'white' and 'black' propaganda. White propaganda is publishing truth that supports your cause. Black propaganda is, of course, slanderous lies. RT is white propaganda, so use it for the value it brings.

    Propertius December 8, 2016 at 4:13 pm

    Exactly. I'm a grown-up. I have a lot of practice reading critically and I'm quite capable of questioning sources and filtering bias. I don't need Jeff Bezos to protect me from Russkie BadThink.

    Yalt December 8, 2016 at 5:44 pm

    There's a sense in which that's true, of course. But it is a useful characterization? Is there even any point to such a broad statement about a media outlet, other than to discredit work that can't be discredited on more direct grounds?

    State sponsorship of media organizations is not all that unusual. The BBC is primarily funded by a tax levied on any British household that uses a television to receive a broadcast signal, for example. Is the WaPo in the habit of describing the BBC as a "conduit for British propaganda"? Am I acting as a useful idiot for the UK government every time I rehash an old Monty Python joke?

    Child Insemination Action December 8, 2016 at 12:26 pm

    "does not itself vouch " You have to bear in mind this is not the Post talking, this is CIA CIA has blatantly used the Post as a their sockpuppet since they put Woodward in there to oust Nixon, and now they've got Bezos by the contractual balls. CIA has impunity in municipal statute and secret red tape so any answer you get from them means No fuck You.

    The NDAA legalized domestic propaganda in 2013 so when the public repudiated their chosen president Hillary Clinton, CIA immediately got to work work attacking Article 19. CIA is panicking because Hillary was going to get them the war they need to preserve CIA impunity for the crime against humanity of systematic and widespread torture and murder in their global gulag of secret death camps.

    The ICC's investigation of US crimes against humanity has reached the critical point of referral to the pre-trial chamber . The ICC is under intense pressure from Russia and the global south to prove it's not afraid of US criminals. Italian courts have got torturer Sabrina de Souza, and they're going to use her to roll up the command chain. One way or another it's going to be open season on CIA torture cowards, in universal jurisdiction with no statute of limitations. This is a far graver threat to CIA than the family jewels. The international community is investigating CIA crimes, not avuncular Jim Schlesinger or some gelded congressional committee. Like Francis Boyle says, the US government is a criminal enterprise. And since COG was imposed it's got one branch, CIA

    That's the background here. You're the Op in Red Harvest. Poisonville's the USA.

    B1whois December 8, 2016 at 12:34 pm

    May I suggest that this site no longer link to The Wapoo for stories that are available elsewhere. I personally would prefer to not go to their site at all, but they seem to make up a lot of the links here.
    I understand that sometimes this will be unavoidable, as the Wapoo is the only one doing a particular story, but in cases where the story is carried at other sites, can you please link to those other sites instead?

    Epistrophy December 8, 2016 at 12:34 pm

    Yves:

    #FreePressDefenseFund

    And as a number of other commenters on this and other blogs have recently suggested:

    #BoycottBezos
    #BoycottAmazon
    #BoycottWaPo

    Mike December 8, 2016 at 2:09 pm

    I live in New Zealand and start every day with NC because WaPo and it's like runs an agenda. We all know that. I feel for you Yves but the site's strength is bringing together all those speaking truth to power. The courts won't care about that and that route can drain you personally and financially. Stay strong and play to your strengths. You have lots of support – perhaps more than you know.

    Kim Kaufman December 8, 2016 at 2:10 pm

    The Second Phase of the Propaganda Fake News War: Economic Strangulation. What Comes Next?
    by BAR editor and columnist Dr. Marsha Adebayo

    "The public has determined that the corporate media is actually the purveyor of "fake news" and turned to media organizations, such as BAR, Truthout and other outlets for information."

    http://blackagendareport.com/propaganda_fake_news_war

    McCarthy's ghost smiles as Dems point the finger at Russia

    By Norman Solomon, contributor – 12/07/16 07:00 PM EST

    http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/foreign-policy/309249-mccarthys-ghost-smiles-as-dems-point-the-finger-at-russia#.WEi4Q_2C5g0.facebook

    R. Post December 8, 2016 at 2:29 pm

    So, since the W.P. won't bear responsibility for what they publish, maybe we should just lump them in with Breitbart and company. Just out of curiosity, did W.P. contact N.C. for comment before they tried to smear your (and, by extension, our) reputation?

    Outis Philalithopoulos December 8, 2016 at 2:36 pm

    No, they did not. Apparently, they did not contact anyone on the List .

    Propertius December 8, 2016 at 4:16 pm

    [M]aybe we should just lump them [WaPo] in with Breitbart and company.

    I already did. Now I lump them in with Alex Jones.

    Jim Haygood December 8, 2016 at 2:42 pm

    William Banzai7 ups the ante in his Visual Combat with the WaPoo (© cocomaan):

    https://c7.staticflickr.com/1/735/31469075126_eb5fa257d4_b.jpg

    marblex December 8, 2016 at 2:47 pm

    It's libel per se and an avalanche of lawsuits directed at PropOrNot and WaPo should be pretty effective. Because WaPo did not retract there is no defense.

    ChrisAtRU December 8, 2016 at 2:49 pm

    From a legal point of view, I wonder how the Executive Editor's (Marty Baron) tweeting of the article plays against the assertion that "The Post does not itself vouch for the validity of PropOrNot's findings". Is that a case where he was speaking (tweeting) his own opinion, and not necessarily that of his employer?

    #DisclaimersBeDamned

    ChrisPacific December 8, 2016 at 3:02 pm

    So if the WaPo doesn't consider validity checking of sources to be part of its job, then that raises the obvious question in this case: WHY the (insert expletive of your choice) did they take this site with anonymous authors, sweeping allegations and no evidence of any kind, and choose to make a featured story out of it? There are hundreds or thousands of other sites just like it out there. Why PropOrNot, and not any of the others?

    In other words, if (as they claim) the story boils down to "some anonymous people on the Internet made some unsubstantiated claims which may or may not be accurate", why did they decide it was newsworthy at all, let alone worthy of the kind of prominence they gave it?

    Read while you can December 8, 2016 at 3:18 pm

    As bad as the article about propornot is, it will get worse. Wapo is a partner of this dangerous group of "fake-news fighters".

    https://firstdraftnews.com/about/

    What is the purpose of a company like Dataminr to participate in this network financed by google?

    Expect NC and other sites be buried on google page 2 and deeper. Not trending on twitter etc.

    https://firstdraftnews.com/latest/
    Funny enough not a single word about the wapo propornot article.

    Please tell me i am overstating the importance of this network.

    3.14e-9 December 8, 2016 at 4:13 pm

    More evidence of WaPo's distorted idea of "fair and impartial."

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/pr/wp/2016/12/08/the-washington-post-honors-david-fahrenthold-with-inaugural-ben-bradlee-prize/

    They might actually get off the hook for libel on the grounds that the lack of fairness and impartiality wasn't malicious intent but part of their core values.

    MED December 8, 2016 at 5:05 pm

    might look over HR 6393

    "http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-02/house-quietly-passes-bill-targeting-russian-propaganda-websites"

    Fiver December 8, 2016 at 5:39 pm

    Yves/Lambert,

    Am I the only one who remembered an "Andrew Watts" commenting on NC? And wasn't Aug 21 the date ProporCrap started? And isn't the exchange between 'Andrew Watts' and 'timbers' of interest given the WaPo reporter's name is Timberg?

    Check out the comments from Aug 21 on NC:

    http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/08/links-82116.html

    I also wonder if 'Andrew Watts' could be this guy:

    http://andrewwattsauthor.com/

    How hard would it be, really, for two or three people with some know-how to engage in discussion, get replies from comments, trace/track those people. Even one person hacked (and I'm virtually certain I was this summer) could provide a large number of sites visited or 'linked'.

    And it seems to me as well I sent a story to Lambert (and I wrote to Lambert something like "You mean this isn't real?") that I took to be a real WaPo story re a major wrinkle in the Clinton scandals that was part of a story link I got from Global Research, a story which also had a paragraph referenced from Breibart which I didn't notice until my comment wasn't posted, so I went back and looked. I assumed the comment was rejected due to the Breibart (sp?) reference. But what if WaPo/Watts were fishing at NC and saw my follow-up comment to Lambert with only the WaPo link and my question (assuming it was posted, which I do not remember)?

    Anyway, I hope this might prove useful somehow.

    kareninca December 8, 2016 at 8:07 pm

    I wonder if Snopes has asked to be removed from PropOrNot's list of "related projects."

    I contacted them to find out if they were going to ask themselves to be removed from that list, but I have not heard back from them. I guess we'll find out something about their reputability.

    limani December 8, 2016 at 8:10 pm

    NC deserves a huge Wapo-logy to help compensate for your losses, pain & suffering, and exemplary damages, of course.

    [Dec 08, 2016] Washington Post Appends Russian Propaganda Fake News Story, Admits It May Be Fake

    Notable quotes:
    "... One of the sites PropOrNot cited as Russian-influenced was the Drudge Report. ..."
    "... The piece's description of some sharers of bogus news as "useful idiots" could " theoretically include anyone on any social-media platform who shares news based on a click-bait headline ," Mathew Ingram wrote for Fortune. ..."
    "... But the biggest issue was PropOrNot itself. As Adrian Chen wrote for the New Yorker , its methods were themselves suspect, hinting at counter-Russian propaganda - ostensibly with Ukrainian origins - and verification of its work was nearly impossible. Chen wrote "the prospect of legitimate dissenting voices being labeled fake news or Russian propaganda by mysterious groups of ex-government employees, with the help of a national newspaper, is even scarier." ..."
    "... Now, at least, the "national newspaper" has taken some responsibility, however the key question remains: by admitting it never vetted its primary source, whose biased and conflicted "work" smeared hundreds of websites, this one included, just how is the Washington Post any different from the "fake news" it has been deriding on a daily basis ever since its endorsed presidential candidate lost the elections? ..."
    Dec 07, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    In the latest example why the "mainstream media" is facing a historic crisis of confidence among its readership, facing unprecedented blowback following Craig Timberg November 24 Washington Post story " Russian propaganda effort helped spread 'fake news' during election, experts say ", on Wednesday a lengthy editor's note appeared on top of the original article in which the editor not only distances the WaPo from the "experts" quoted in the original article whose "work" served as the basis for the entire article (and which became the most read WaPo story the day it was published) but also admits the Post could not " vouch for the validity of PropOrNot's finding regarding any individual media outlet", in effect admitting the entire story may have been, drumroll "fake news" and conceding the Bezos-owned publication may have engaged in defamation by smearing numerous websites - Zero Hedge included - with patently false and unsubstantiated allegations.

    It was the closest the Washington Post would come to formally retracting the story, which has now been thoroughly discredited not only by outside commentators, but by its own editor.

    The apended note in question:

    Editor's Note: The Washington Post on Nov. 24 published a story on the work of four sets of researchers who have examined what they say are Russian propaganda efforts to undermine American democracy and interests. One of them was PropOrNot, a group that insists on public anonymity, which issued a report identifying more than 200 websites that, in its view, wittingly or unwittingly published or echoed Russian propaganda. A number of those sites have objected to being included on PropOrNot's list, and some of the sites, as well as others not on the list, have publicly challenged the group's methodology and conclusions. The Post, which did not name any of the sites, does not itself vouch for the validity of PropOrNot's findings regarding any individual media outlet, nor did the article purport to do so. Since publication of The Post's story, PropOrNot has removed some sites from its list.

    As The Washingtonian notes , the implicit concession follows intense and rising criticism of the article over the past two weeks. It was " rife with obviously reckless and unproven allegations, " Intercept reporters Glenn Greenwald and Ben Norton wrote, noting that PropOrNot, one of the groups whose research was cited in Timberg's piece, "anonymous cowards." One of the sites PropOrNot cited as Russian-influenced was the Drudge Report.

    The piece's description of some sharers of bogus news as "useful idiots" could " theoretically include anyone on any social-media platform who shares news based on a click-bait headline ," Mathew Ingram wrote for Fortune.

    But the biggest issue was PropOrNot itself. As Adrian Chen wrote for the New Yorker , its methods were themselves suspect, hinting at counter-Russian propaganda - ostensibly with Ukrainian origins - and verification of its work was nearly impossible. Chen wrote "the prospect of legitimate dissenting voices being labeled fake news or Russian propaganda by mysterious groups of ex-government employees, with the help of a national newspaper, is even scarier."

    Criticism culminated this week when the " Naked capitalism" blog threatened to sue the Washington Post, demanding a retraction.

    Now, at least, the "national newspaper" has taken some responsibility, however the key question remains: by admitting it never vetted its primary source, whose biased and conflicted "work" smeared hundreds of websites, this one included, just how is the Washington Post any different from the "fake news" it has been deriding on a daily basis ever since its endorsed presidential candidate lost the elections?

    [Dec 07, 2016] The Propaganda About Russian Propaganda

    Notable quotes:
    "... These criteria, of course, could include not only Russian state-controlled media organizations, such as Russia Today, but nearly every news outlet in the world, including the Post ..."
    "... To PropOrNot, simply exhibiting a pattern of beliefs outside the political mainstream is enough to risk being labelled a Russian propagandist. ..."
    "... In a scathing takedown on The Intercept , Glenn Greenwald and Ben Norton wrote that PropOrNot "embodies the toxic essence of Joseph McCarthy, but without the courage to attach individual names to the blacklist." ..."
    "... Yet, when pressed on the technical patterns that led PropOrNot to label the Drudge Report a Russian propaganda outlet, he could point only to a general perception of bias in its content. "They act as a repeater to a significant extent, in that they refer audiences to sort of Russian stuff," he said. "There's no a-priori reason, stepping back, that a conservative news site would rely on so many Russian news sources. What is up with that?" ..."
    "... I asked to see the raw data PropOrNot used to determine that the Drudge Report was a Russian-propaganda outlet. The spokesman said that the group would release it to the public eventually, but could not share it at the moment ..."
    "... The Russian journalist Alexey Kovalev, who debunks Kremlin propaganda on his site, Noodleremover, floated the possibility that PropOrNot was Ukrainians waging a disinformation campaign against Russia. ..."
    "... The PropOrNot spokesman would speak to me only on the condition of anonymity and revealed only bare biographical details on background. "Are you familiar with the assassination of Jo Cox?" he asked, when I asked why his group remained in the shadows, referring to the British M.P. murdered by a right-wing extremist. "Well, that is a big thing for us. Basically, Russia uses crazy people to kill its enemies." ..."
    "... "One thing we're all in agreement about is that Russia should not be able to fuck with the American people. That is not cool." The spokesman said that the group began with fewer than a dozen members, who came together while following Russia's invasion of eastern Ukraine. The crisis was accompanied by a flood of disinformation designed to confuse Ukraine and its allies. "That was a big wake-up call to us. It's like, wait a minute, Russia is creating this very effective fake-news propaganda in conjunction with their military operation on the ground," the spokesman said. "My God, if they can do that there, why can't they do it here?" ..."
    "... PropOrNot has said that the group includes Ukrainian-Americans, though the spokesman laughed at the suggestion that they were Ukrainian agents. ..."
    "... This week, Wyden and six other senators sent a letter to the White House asking it to declassify information "concerning the Russian Government and the U.S. election." ..."
    "... The story of PropOrNot should serve as a cautionary tale to those who fixate on malignant digital influences as a primary explanation for Trump's stunning election. ..."
    Dec 01, 2016 | www.newyorker.com

    ... ... ...

    ...Last week, the Post published a story based in part on PropOrNot's research. Headlined "Russian Propaganda Effort Helped Spread 'Fake News' During Election, Experts Say," the report claimed that a number of researchers had uncovered a "sophisticated Russian propaganda campaign" that spread fake-news articles across the Internet with the aim of hurting Hillary Clinton and helping Donald Trump. It prominently cited the PropOrNot research. The story topped the Post's most-read list, and was shared widely by prominent journalists and politicians on Twitter. The former White House adviser Dan Pfeiffer tweeted , "Why isn't this the biggest story in the world right now?"

    Vladimir Putin and the Russian state's affinity for Trump has been well-reported. During the campaign, countless stories speculated on connections between Trump and Putin and alleged that Russia contributed to Trump's election using propaganda and subterfuge. Clinton made it a major line of attack. But the Post's story had the force of revelation, thanks in large part to the apparent scientific authority of PropOrNot's work: the group released a thirty-two-page report detailing its methodology, and named names with its list of two hundred suspect news outlets. The organization's anonymity, which a spokesperson maintained was due to fear of Russian hackers, added a cybersexy mystique.

    ... ... ...

    The most striking issue is the overly broad criteria used to identify which outlets spread propaganda. According to PropOrNot's recounting of its methodology, the third step it uses is to check if a site has a history of "generally echoing the Russian propaganda 'line'," which includes praise for Putin, Trump, Bashar al-Assad, Syria, Iran, China, and "radical political parties in the US and Europe." When not praising, Russian propaganda includes criticism of the United States, Barack Obama, Clinton, the European Union, Angela Merkel, NATO , Ukraine, "Jewish people," U.S. allies, the mainstream media, Democrats, and "the center-right or center-left, and moderates of all stripes."

    These criteria, of course, could include not only Russian state-controlled media organizations, such as Russia Today, but nearly every news outlet in the world, including the Post itself. Yet PropOrNot claims to be uninterested in differentiating between organizations that are explicit tools of the Russian state and so-called "useful idiots," which echo Russian propaganda out of sincerely held beliefs. "We focus on behavior, not motivation," they write.

    To PropOrNot, simply exhibiting a pattern of beliefs outside the political mainstream is enough to risk being labelled a Russian propagandist. Indeed, the list of "propaganda outlets" has included respected left-leaning publications like CounterPunch and Truthdig, as well as the right-wing behemoth Drudge Report. The list is so broad that it can reveal absolutely nothing about the structure or pervasiveness of Russian propaganda. "It's so incredibly scattershot," Higgins told me. "If you've ever posted a pro-Russian post on your site, ever, you're Russian propaganda." In a scathing takedown on The Intercept , Glenn Greenwald and Ben Norton wrote that PropOrNot "embodies the toxic essence of Joseph McCarthy, but without the courage to attach individual names to the blacklist."

    ... ... ...

    In a phone interview, a spokesman for PropOrNot brushed off the criticism. "If there's a pattern of activity over time, especially combined with underlying technical tells, then, yeah, we're going to highlight it," he said. He argued that Russian disinformation is an enormous problem that requires direct confrontation. "It's been clear for a while that Russia is a little braver, more aggressive, more willing to push the boundaries of what was previously acceptable." He said that, to avoid painting outlets with too broad a brush, the group employs a sophisticated analysis that relies on no single criterion in isolation.

    Yet, when pressed on the technical patterns that led PropOrNot to label the Drudge Report a Russian propaganda outlet, he could point only to a general perception of bias in its content. "They act as a repeater to a significant extent, in that they refer audiences to sort of Russian stuff," he said. "There's no a-priori reason, stepping back, that a conservative news site would rely on so many Russian news sources. What is up with that?"

    I asked to see the raw data PropOrNot used to determine that the Drudge Report was a Russian-propaganda outlet. The spokesman said that the group would release it to the public eventually, but could not share it at the moment: "That takes a lot of work, and we're an all-volunteer crew." Instead, he urged me to read the Drudge Report myself, suggesting that its nature would be apparent.

    ... ... ...

    Another major issue with PropOrNot is that its members insist on anonymity. If one aims to cut through a disinformation campaign, transparency is paramount. Otherwise you just stoke further paranoia. The Russian journalist Alexey Kovalev, who debunks Kremlin propaganda on his site, Noodleremover, floated the possibility that PropOrNot was Ukrainians waging a disinformation campaign against Russia.

    The PropOrNot spokesman would speak to me only on the condition of anonymity and revealed only bare biographical details on background. "Are you familiar with the assassination of Jo Cox?" he asked, when I asked why his group remained in the shadows, referring to the British M.P. murdered by a right-wing extremist. "Well, that is a big thing for us. Basically, Russia uses crazy people to kill its enemies."

    I can report that the spokesman was an American man, probably in his thirties or forties, who was well versed in Internet culture and swore enthusiastically. He said that the group numbered about forty people. "I can say we have people who work for major tech companies and people who have worked for the government in different regards, but we're all acting in a private capacity," he said. "One thing we're all in agreement about is that Russia should not be able to fuck with the American people. That is not cool." The spokesman said that the group began with fewer than a dozen members, who came together while following Russia's invasion of eastern Ukraine. The crisis was accompanied by a flood of disinformation designed to confuse Ukraine and its allies. "That was a big wake-up call to us. It's like, wait a minute, Russia is creating this very effective fake-news propaganda in conjunction with their military operation on the ground," the spokesman said. "My God, if they can do that there, why can't they do it here?"

    PropOrNot has said that the group includes Ukrainian-Americans, though the spokesman laughed at the suggestion that they were Ukrainian agents. PropOrNot has claimed total financial and editorial independence.

    Given PropOrNot's shadowy nature and the shoddiness of its work, I was puzzled by the group's claim to have worked with Senator Ron Wyden's office. In an e-mail, Keith Chu, a spokesman for Wyden, told me that the PropOrNot team reached out to the office in late October. Two of the group's members, an ex-State Department employee and an I.T. researcher, described their research. "It sounded interesting, and tracked with reporting on Russian propaganda efforts," Chu wrote. After a few phone calls with the members, it became clear that Wyden's office could not validate the group's findings. Chu advised the group on press strategy and suggested some reporters that it might reach out to. "I told them that if they had findings, some kind of document that they could share with reporters, that would be helpful," he told me. Chu said that Wyden's office played no role in creating the report and didn't endorse the findings. Nonetheless, he added, "There has been bipartisan interest in these kind of Russian efforts, including interference in elections, for some time now, including from Senator Wyden." This week, Wyden and six other senators sent a letter to the White House asking it to declassify information "concerning the Russian Government and the U.S. election."

    The story of PropOrNot should serve as a cautionary tale to those who fixate on malignant digital influences as a primary explanation for Trump's stunning election.

    ... ... ...

    [Dec 07, 2016] Washington Post Disgracefully Promotes a McCarthyite Blacklist From a New, Hidden, and Very Shady Group

    The authors seems to miss the key observation: this is a sign of the crisis of neoliberal propaganda model, which gave rise to Internet rumor mill. Rumor s (aka improvised news) became a prominent news source if and only if official channels of information are not viewed as trustworthy. And blacklisting alternative news sites does not help to return the trust. When it is gone it is gone. The same situation in the past happened in Brezhnev's USSR. People just stopped to trust official newspapers and turned to propaganda sites of Western =government such as BBC and voice of America for news. Soviet authorities tried to jam them, but this did not stop Soviet people from trying to listen to then at nights, trying to find frequencies that were not jammed.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Basically, everyone who isn't comfortably within the centrist Hillary Clinton/Jeb Bush spectrum is guilty. On its Twitter account, the group announced a new "plugin" that automatically alerts the user that a visited website has been designated by the group to be a Russian propaganda outlet. ..."
    "... The group commits outright defamation by slandering obviously legitimate news sites as propaganda tools of the Kremlin. ..."
    "... a big part of the group's definition for "Russian propaganda outlet" is criticizing U.S. foreign policy ..."
    "... In sum: They're not McCarthyite; perish the thought. They just want multiple U.S. media outlets investigated by the FBI for espionage on behalf of Russia. ..."
    "... PropOrNot is by no means a neutral observer. It actively calls on Congress and the White House to work "with our European allies to disconnect Russia from the SWIFT financial transaction system, effective immediately and lasting for at least one year, as an appropriate response to Russian manipulation of the election." ..."
    "... In other words, this blacklisting group of anonymous cowards - putative experts in the pages of the Washington Post - is actively pushing for Western governments to take punitive measures against the Russian government and is speaking and smearing from an extreme ideological framework that the Post concealed from its readers. ..."
    "... The Post itself - now posing as a warrior against "fake news" - published an article in September that treated with great seriousness the claim that Hillary Clinton collapsed on 9/11 Day because she was poisoned by Putin. ..."
    "... Indeed, what happened here is the essence of fake news. The Post story served the agendas of many factions: those who want to believe Putin stole the election from Hillary Clinton; those who want to believe that the internet and social media are a grave menace that needs to be controlled, in contrast to the objective truth that reliable old media outlets once issued; those who want a resurrection of the Cold War. ..."
    "... So those who saw tweets and Facebook posts promoting this Post story instantly clicked and shared and promoted the story without an iota of critical thought or examination of whether the claims were true, because they wanted the claims to be true. That behavior included countless journalists. ..."
    Dec 05, 2016 | theintercept.com

    ... ... ...

    One of the core functions of PropOrNot appears to be its compilation of a lengthy blacklist of news and political websites that it smears as peddlers of "Russian propaganda." Included on this blacklist of supposed propaganda outlets are prominent independent left-wing news sites such as Truthout, Naked Capitalism, Black Agenda Report, Consortium News, and Truthdig.

    Also included are popular libertarian hubs such as Zero Hedge, Antiwar.com, and the Ron Paul Institute, along with the hugely influential right-wing website the Drudge Report and the publishing site WikiLeaks. Far-right, virulently anti-Muslim blogs such as Bare Naked Islam are likewise dubbed Kremlin mouthpieces. Basically, everyone who isn't comfortably within the centrist Hillary Clinton/Jeb Bush spectrum is guilty. On its Twitter account, the group announced a new "plugin" that automatically alerts the user that a visited website has been designated by the group to be a Russian propaganda outlet.

    ... ... ...

    The group commits outright defamation by slandering obviously legitimate news sites as propaganda tools of the Kremlin.

    One of the most egregious examples is the group's inclusion of Naked Capitalism, the widely respected left-wing site run by Wall Street critic Yves Smith. That site was named by Time magazine as one of the best 25 Best Financial Blogs in 2011 and by Wired magazine as a crucial site to follow for finance, and Smith has been featured as a guest on programs such as PBS's Bill Moyers Show. Yet this cowardly group of anonymous smear artists, promoted by the Washington Post, has now placed them on a blacklist of Russian disinformation.

    The group eschews alternative media outlets like these and instead recommends that readers rely solely on establishment-friendly publications like NPR, the BBC, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, BuzzFeed, and VICE. That is because a big part of the group's definition for "Russian propaganda outlet" is criticizing U.S. foreign policy.

    ... ... ...

    While blacklisting left-wing and libertarian journalists, PropOrNot also denies being McCarthyite. Yet it simultaneously calls for the U.S. government to use the FBI and DOJ to carry out "formal investigations" of these accused websites, "because the kind of folks who make propaganda for brutal authoritarian oligarchies are often involved in a wide range of bad business." The shadowy group even goes so far as to claim that people involved in the blacklisted websites may "have violated the Espionage Act, the Foreign Agent Registration Act, and other related laws."

    In sum: They're not McCarthyite; perish the thought. They just want multiple U.S. media outlets investigated by the FBI for espionage on behalf of Russia.

    ... ... ...

    PropOrNot is by no means a neutral observer. It actively calls on Congress and the White House to work "with our European allies to disconnect Russia from the SWIFT financial transaction system, effective immediately and lasting for at least one year, as an appropriate response to Russian manipulation of the election."

    In other words, this blacklisting group of anonymous cowards - putative experts in the pages of the Washington Post - is actively pushing for Western governments to take punitive measures against the Russian government and is speaking and smearing from an extreme ideological framework that the Post concealed from its readers.

    ... ... ...

    The Post itself - now posing as a warrior against "fake news" - published an article in September that treated with great seriousness the claim that Hillary Clinton collapsed on 9/11 Day because she was poisoned by Putin. And that's to say nothing of the paper's disgraceful history of convincing Americans that Saddam was building non-existent nuclear weapons and had cultivated a vibrant alliance with al Qaeda. As is so often the case, those who mostly loudly warn of "fake news" from others are themselves the most aggressive disseminators of it.

    Indeed, what happened here is the essence of fake news. The Post story served the agendas of many factions: those who want to believe Putin stole the election from Hillary Clinton; those who want to believe that the internet and social media are a grave menace that needs to be controlled, in contrast to the objective truth that reliable old media outlets once issued; those who want a resurrection of the Cold War.

    So those who saw tweets and Facebook posts promoting this Post story instantly clicked and shared and promoted the story without an iota of critical thought or examination of whether the claims were true, because they wanted the claims to be true. That behavior included countless journalists.

    [Dec 07, 2016] McCarthyism 2.0 against the independent information

    Notable quotes:
    "... When the narratives will become completely obsolete and incapable to persuade, except only a slightest minority, the fake democracy will become an open, brutal dictatorship. ..."
    "... Many still wonder if the planet indeed slips towards a new Cold War. Despite that there is plenty of evidence that this is, unfortunately, already a fact, another incident came to verify this situation. ..."
    "... The Western neoliberal establishment is exposed, revealing its real agenda: to challenge the alternative bloc driven by the Sino-Russian alliance. The 'democratic' Europe proceeded in a similar, unprecedented move recently. As reported by RT: "In a completely bonkers move this week, the EU Parliament approved a resolution to counter "Russian propaganda" and the "intrusion of Russian media" into the EU. The resolution was adopted with 304 MEPs voting in favor, 179 MEPs voting against it and 208 abstaining. The most bizarre part, however, is that the resolution lumped Russian media in with Islamist propaganda of the kind spread by terror groups like the so-called Islamic State. Thus Russian media is put on the same level with videos of ISIS beheadings and incitements to mass murder." ..."
    "... In Cold War 2.0, the Western neoliberal establishment is forced to create the respective McCarthyism. Therefore, the new dogma has changed accordingly. It doesn't matter if an alternative medium provides a different view, away from the mainstream media propaganda. It doesn't matter if the Whistleblowers are telling the truth about the US dirty wars and mass surveillance of ordinary citizens. As long as the US empire and its allies are exposed by all these elements outside their Matrix control, these elements help Russia, therefore, they are doing 'Russian propaganda'. It's as simple as that. ..."
    "... When the narratives will become completely obsolete and incapable to persuade, except only a slightest minority, the fake democracy will become an open, brutal dictatorship. ..."
    Dec 07, 2016 | failedevolution.blogspot.gr
    Key insight: When the narratives will become completely obsolete and incapable to persuade, except only a slightest minority, the fake democracy will become an open, brutal dictatorship.

    the unbalanced evolution of homo sapiens

    When the narratives will become completely obsolete and incapable to persuade, except only a slightest minority, the fake democracy will become an open, brutal dictatorship.

    Many still wonder if the planet indeed slips towards a new Cold War. Despite that there is plenty of evidence that this is, unfortunately, already a fact, another incident came to verify this situation.

    The blacklist created by PropOrNot and provided to Washington Post, containing more than 200 websites that are supposedly doing 'Russian propaganda', marks the start of a new McCarthyism era and verifies beyond doubt the fact that we have indeed entered the Cold War 2.0.

    Seeing that it's losing the battle of information, the establishment simply proceeded in one more clumsy move that will only accelerate developments against it.

    It really sounds like a joke to accuse anyone who opposes the US dirty wars and interventions that brought so much chaos and distraction, for doing 'Russian propaganda', when you are the one who supported and justified these wars through the most offensive propaganda, for decades.

    Someone has to tell the mainstream media parrots that their dirty tricks don't work anymore. According to a Gallup latest report, "Americans' trust and confidence in the mass media "to report the news fully, accurately and fairly" has dropped to its lowest level in Gallup polling history, with 32% saying they have a great deal or fair amount of trust in the media. This is down eight percentage points from last year."

    The mainstream mouthpieces are extremely predictable. They will rush to blame internet and alternative media that flourished over the last fifteen years, for this unprecedented situation. Of course they will. They don't want any alternative to their propaganda monopoly which was extremely effective in guiding the sheeple during the past decades.

    The Western neoliberal establishment is exposed, revealing its real agenda: to challenge the alternative bloc driven by the Sino-Russian alliance. The 'democratic' Europe proceeded in a similar, unprecedented move recently. As reported by RT: "In a completely bonkers move this week, the EU Parliament approved a resolution to counter "Russian propaganda" and the "intrusion of Russian media" into the EU. The resolution was adopted with 304 MEPs voting in favor, 179 MEPs voting against it and 208 abstaining. The most bizarre part, however, is that the resolution lumped Russian media in with Islamist propaganda of the kind spread by terror groups like the so-called Islamic State. Thus Russian media is put on the same level with videos of ISIS beheadings and incitements to mass murder."

    It has been mentioned in previous article that "While the EU and US were occupied with the war against terrorism as well as with the dead-end wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and other areas of the planet, Putin had all the time to build his own mechanism against Western propaganda. Being himself a man who had come to power with the help of media, he built his own media network which includes, for example, the TV network Russia Today, according to the Western standards, and "invaded" in millions of homes in the Western countries using the English language, promoting however the Russian positions as counterweight to the Western propaganda monopoly."

    In Cold War 2.0, the Western neoliberal establishment is forced to create the respective McCarthyism. Therefore, the new dogma has changed accordingly. It doesn't matter if an alternative medium provides a different view, away from the mainstream media propaganda. It doesn't matter if the Whistleblowers are telling the truth about the US dirty wars and mass surveillance of ordinary citizens. As long as the US empire and its allies are exposed by all these elements outside their Matrix control, these elements help Russia, therefore, they are doing 'Russian propaganda'. It's as simple as that.

    This latest desperate move of the establishment should alarm us all. Because it shows that the establishment is in panic and therefore, more dangerous than ever. When the narratives will become completely obsolete and incapable to persuade, except only a slightest minority, the fake democracy will become an open, brutal dictatorship.

    [Dec 07, 2016] In view of listing on PropOrNot should

    Notable quotes:
    "... I was thinking Natasha Fatale .. ..."
    "... it's truly amazing. many of these people have denounced joe mccarthy all their lives. ..."
    "... I was thinking Katyusha. Besides being a very pretty diminutive name for Katherine, the sound of the Katyusha rockets made the forces of evil's collective sphincter tighten up. ..."
    "... Just like the sound of the truth spoken to power here at NC is apparently tightening up some establishment sphincters :) ..."
    "... Oh OIFVet, do you know where this line of snark is leading? Next, the NC will be "mischaracterized" as Stalin's News Organ! ..."
    Dec 07, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    charles leseau November 26, 2016 at 5:36 am

    So are you changing your name to Eva Smithova any time soon? Or maybe change the page header to Голый Капитализм for a bit?

    a different chris November 26, 2016 at 10:37 am

    Oh, I don't ask for much but please, please consider that! :) :) :)

    fresno dan November 26, 2016 at 11:22 am

    Re: charles leseau, November 26, 2016 at 5:36 am

    I was thinking Natasha Fatale ..

    petal November 26, 2016 at 1:02 pm

    ... Anyway, concerned by number of supposedly educated friends(Clinton supporters) being taken in by this fake news/Russian ties thing. They've lost their heads and there's no discussing it with them, they are convinced. Where does it end? Na zdorovie!

    pretzelattack November 26, 2016 at 1:29 pm

    it's truly amazing. many of these people have denounced joe mccarthy all their lives. somebody referred to invasion of the body snatchers on nc the other day, that's the only logical explanation.

    OIFVet November 26, 2016 at 1:31 pm

    I was thinking Katyusha. Besides being a very pretty diminutive name for Katherine, the sound of the Katyusha rockets made the forces of evil's collective sphincter tighten up.

    Just like the sound of the truth spoken to power here at NC is apparently tightening up some establishment sphincters :)

    ambrit November 26, 2016 at 4:05 pm

    Oh OIFVet, do you know where this line of snark is leading? Next, the NC will be "mischaracterized" as Stalin's News Organ!

    [Dec 07, 2016] What rankles me is the implication that tribalism is more or less synonymous with the rights reliance on racism as a primary rally cry, while the lefts anti-racist stance exempts the lefts identity politics from being a species of tribalism as well.

    Notable quotes:
    "... I am among those who think tribalism as a organizing pattern for partisan mobilization is extending neoliberalism's reign rather than displacing it. ..."
    "... What rankles me is the implication that "tribalism" is more or less synonymous with the right's reliance on racism as a primary rally cry, while the left's anti-racist stance exempts the left's identity politics from being a species of tribalism as well. ..."
    "... It seems to me that the emergence of "tribalism" in organizing and motivating partisan identity is driven by forces of partisan reaction in the context of increasing social atomization and the decline of social affiliation in all areas of life. ..."
    "... The "tribalism" of left identity politics has been very real and has contributed mightily in organizing a reactionary right "tribalism" around resentment and repulsion at being the left's outgroup, the poorly educated flyover people. ..."
    "... The division over Brexit demonstrated the extent to which social membership in actual social organizations like clubs, unions, churches no longer matters as much as personal worldview, as the authoritarians divided from the cosmopolitans. ..."
    "... One reason "tribalism" seems appropriate to characterize the eruption on right is that there is no coherent policy program corresponding to the resentments or grievances. It is voting on the basis of something personal, an emotional identification cum perception of sorts. ..."
    Dec 07, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    bruce wilder 12.02.16 at 5:05 pm 103

    I do not object to the word, tribalism, though I am among those who think tribalism as a organizing pattern for partisan mobilization is extending neoliberalism's reign rather than displacing it.

    What rankles me is the implication that "tribalism" is more or less synonymous with the right's reliance on racism as a primary rally cry, while the left's anti-racist stance exempts the left's identity politics from being a species of tribalism as well.

    It seems to me that the emergence of "tribalism" in organizing and motivating partisan identity is driven by forces of partisan reaction in the context of increasing social atomization and the decline of social affiliation in all areas of life.

    In an American context, a long-standing theme of right-wing televised and on-line propaganda has aimed at motivating people on the basis of their resentments against the supposed contempt the hated libruls have for "God and guns" and the self-regarding moral superiority of those driving a Prius and listening to National Public Radio.

    I would not want to be understood as saying that tribalism is symmetric between right and left; I do think what has been happening on the right has been driven by social reaction to what has been happening on the left, and the interpretation the left has of the right is just as driven by motivated reasoning, even if the motivations are different. The left's sometime focus on language, micro aggression and personal experience cum personal justification thru enlightened attitudes is a manifestation of the decline of social affiliation, so there is an irony in naming the pseudo in-group conformity that results, "tribalism". The "tribalism" of left identity politics has been very real and has contributed mightily in organizing a reactionary right "tribalism" around resentment and repulsion at being the left's outgroup, the poorly educated flyover people.

    The division over Brexit demonstrated the extent to which social membership in actual social organizations like clubs, unions, churches no longer matters as much as personal worldview, as the authoritarians divided from the cosmopolitans. The angry, uncomprehending reaction to the vote from cosmopolitans reinforced the "tribalism" of both, but to see that requires a modicum of detachment from the angry accusation that racism and lies was the whole case and denies the legitimacy of economic grievance.

    One reason "tribalism" seems appropriate to characterize the eruption on right is that there is no coherent policy program corresponding to the resentments or grievances. It is voting on the basis of something personal, an emotional identification cum perception of sorts.

    I am not so certain that the left, as it has sunk into a denial laden defense of the status quo, has not also been shedding its attachment to a policy program, Hillary's proverbial website notwithstanding. Democrats associated with the party establishment especially in the 2016 campaign talked policy futility and never acted as if a concerted effort to, say, capture the Senate with an eye on opening a policy agenda mattered to them. And, many ordinary supporters of the Democrats seemed to be blithely unaware or apathetic about the policy record of war, economic predation, et cetera.

    Without a policy agenda, the tribes cannot be proper constituencies demanding delivery on promises, which fits a continuation of neoliberal policy agenda just fine, but foretells, it seems to me, disillusion, apathy, violence and loss of legitimacy becoming acute. If mobilizing the tribes substitutes for a politics of coherent policy, it is hard to imagine any but ineffectual albeit authoritarian governance.

    [Dec 06, 2016] Clinton: we are engaged in an information war .

    Notable quotes:
    "... Walter [Issacson] is working hard with his Board to try to transform the broadcasting efforts. Because most people still get their news from TV and radio. So even though we're pushing online, we can't forget TV and radio. And so I look - I would look very much towards your cooperation, to try to figure out how we get back in the game on this. Because I hate ceding what we are most expert in to anybody else . ..."
    "... The BBG was formed in 1999 and runs on a $721 million annual budget. It reports directly to Secretary of State John Kerry and operates like a holding company for a host of Cold War-era CIA spinoffs and old school "psychological warfare" projects: Radio Free Europe, Radio Free Asia, Radio Martí, Voice of America, Radio Liberation from Bolshevism (since renamed "Radio Liberty") and a dozen other government-funded radio stations and media outlets pumping out pro-American propaganda across the globe. ..."
    Dec 06, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    knowbuddhau December 5, 2016 at 7:37 am

    Skip Intro gets it. "Young techno-experts" FTW!

    CLINTON: Well, [Senator Lugar], I want to thank you for the report that you did on the [B]roadcasting [B]oard of [G]overnors and all of the problems that it has experienced. I agree with you. Walter Isaacson is an excellent choice. The board is a very invigorated group of Republicans and Democrats. They understand. We are engaged in an information war . During the Cold War, we did a great job in getting America's message out. After the Berlin Wall fell we said, okay, fine, enough of that. We've done it. We're done. And unfortunately, we are paying a big price for it.

    And our private media cannot fill that gap. In fact, our private media, particularly cultural programming, often works at counterpurposes to what we truly are as Americans and what our values are. [Cue "Collateral Murder"?]

    I remember having an Afghan general tell me that the only thing he thought about Americans is that all the men wrestled and the women walked around in bikinis. Because the only TV he ever saw was Baywatch and World Wide Wrestling. So we are in an information war. And we are losing that war. I'll be very blunt in my assessment. Al-Jazeera is winning.

    The Chinese have opened up a global English-language and multi-language television network. The Russians have opened up an English-language network. I've seen it in a few countries, and it's quite instructive. We are cutting back. The BBC is cutting back.

    So here's what we are trying to do. In the State Department, we have pushed very hard on new media. So we have an Arabic Twitter feed. We have a Farsi Twitter feed. I have this group of young techno-experts who are out there engaging on websites and we're putting all of our young Arabic-speaking diplomats out, so that they are talking about our values.

    Walter [Issacson] is working hard with his Board to try to transform the broadcasting efforts. Because most people still get their news from TV and radio. So even though we're pushing online, we can't forget TV and radio. And so I look - I would look very much towards your cooperation, to try to figure out how we get back in the game on this. Because I hate ceding what we are most expert in to anybody else . http://freemediaonline.org/freemediaonlineblog/2011/05/04/secretary-clinton-u-s-is-losing-the-information-war/

    In case some aren't familiar with the BBG:

    The BBG was formed in 1999 and runs on a $721 million annual budget. It reports directly to Secretary of State John Kerry and operates like a holding company for a host of Cold War-era CIA spinoffs and old school "psychological warfare" projects: Radio Free Europe, Radio Free Asia, Radio Martí, Voice of America, Radio Liberation from Bolshevism (since renamed "Radio Liberty") and a dozen other government-funded radio stations and media outlets pumping out pro-American propaganda across the globe. https://pando.com/2015/03/01/internet-privacy-funded-by-spooks-a-brief-history-of-the-bbg/

    [Dec 06, 2016] WPost woulds not Retract McCarthyistic Smear by Norman Solomon

    Notable quotes:
    "... "Smearing is not reporting," the RootsAction petition says. "The Washington Post 's recent descent into McCarthyism - promoting anonymous and shoddy claims that a vast range of some 200 websites are all accomplices or tools of the Russian government - violates basic journalistic standards and does real harm to democratic discourse in our country. We urge the Washington Post to prominently retract the article and apologize for publishing it." ..."
    "... For one thing, PropOrNot wasn't just another source for the Post 's story. As The New Yorker noted in a devastating article on Dec. 1, the story "prominently cited the PropOrNot research." The Post 's account "had the force of revelation, thanks in large part to the apparent scientific authority of PropOrNot's work: the group released a 32-page report detailing its methodology, and named names with its list of 200 suspect news outlets . But a close look at the report showed that it was a mess." ..."
    "... As The New Yorker pointed out, PropOrNot's criteria for incriminating content were broad enough to include "nearly every news outlet in the world, including the Post itself." Yet "The List" is not a random list by any means - it's a targeted mish-mash, naming websites that are not within shouting distance of the U.S. corporate and foreign policy establishment. ..."
    "... As The New Yorker 's writer Adrian Chen put it: "To PropOrNot, simply exhibiting a pattern of beliefs outside the political mainstream is enough to risk being labeled a Russian propagandist." And he concluded: "Despite the impressive-looking diagrams and figures in its report, PropOrNot's findings rest largely on innuendo and conspiracy thinking." ..."
    "... As much as the Post news management might want to weasel out of the comparison, the parallels to the advent of the McCarthy Era are chilling. For instance, the Red Channels list, with 151 names on it, was successful as a weapon against dissent and free speech in large part because, early on, so many media outlets of the day actively aided and abetted blacklisting, as the Post has done for "The List." ..."
    "... Sen. Joseph McCarthy, R-Wisconsin, who led the "Red Scare" hearings of the 1950s. ..."
    "... So far The New Yorker has been the largest media outlet to directly confront the Post 's egregious story. Cogent assessments can also be found at The Intercept , Consortium News , Common Dreams , AlterNet , Rolling Stone , Fortune , CounterPunch , The Nation and numerous other sites. ..."
    "... But many mainline journalists and outlets jumped at the chance to amplify the Post 's piece of work. A sampling of the cheers from prominent journalists and liberal partisans was published by FAIR.org under the apt headline " Why Are Media Outlets Still Citing Discredited 'Fake News' Blacklist? " ..."
    "... When liberals have green-lighted a witch-hunt, right wingers have been pleased to run with it. President Harry Truman issued an executive order in March 1947 to establish "loyalty" investigations in every agency of the federal government. Joe McCarthy and the era named after him were soon to follow. ..."
    Dec 05, 2016 | consortiumnews.com
    WPost Won't Retract McCarthyistic Smear

    After publishing a McCarthyistic "black list" that smears some 200 Web sites as "Russian propagandists," The Washington Post refuses to apologize - and other mainstream media outlets pile on, writes Norman Solomon.

    We still don't have any sort of apology or retraction from the Washington Post for promoting "The List" - the highly dangerous blacklist that got a huge boost from the newspaper's fawning coverage on Nov. 24. The project of smearing 200 websites with one broad brush wouldn't have gotten far without the avid complicity of high-profile media outlets, starting with the Post .

    On Thursday - a week after the Post published its front-page news article hyping the blacklist that was put out by a group of unidentified people called PropOrNot - I sent a petition statement to the newspaper's executive editor Martin Baron.

    The Washington Post building in downtown Washington, D.C. (Photo credit: Washington Post)

    "Smearing is not reporting," the RootsAction petition says. "The Washington Post 's recent descent into McCarthyism - promoting anonymous and shoddy claims that a vast range of some 200 websites are all accomplices or tools of the Russian government - violates basic journalistic standards and does real harm to democratic discourse in our country. We urge the Washington Post to prominently retract the article and apologize for publishing it."

    After mentioning that 6,000 people had signed the petition (the number has doubled since then), my email to Baron added: "If you skim through the comments that many of the signers added to the petition online, I think you might find them to be of interest. I wonder if you see a basis for dialogue on the issues raised by critics of the Post piece in question."

    The reply came from the newspaper's vice president for public relations, Kristine Coratti Kelly, who thanked me "for reaching out to us" before presenting the Post 's response, quoted here in full:

    "The Post reported on the work of four separate sets of researchers, as well as independent experts, who have examined Russian attempts to influence American democracy. PropOrNot was one. The Post did not name any of the sites on PropOrNot's list of organizations that it said had - wittingly or unwittingly - published or echoed Russian propaganda. The Post reviewed PropOrNot's findings and our questions about them were answered satisfactorily during the course of multiple interviews."

    Full of Holes

    But that damage-control response was as full of holes as the news story it tried to defend.

    For one thing, PropOrNot wasn't just another source for the Post 's story. As The New Yorker noted in a devastating article on Dec. 1, the story "prominently cited the PropOrNot research." The Post 's account "had the force of revelation, thanks in large part to the apparent scientific authority of PropOrNot's work: the group released a 32-page report detailing its methodology, and named names with its list of 200 suspect news outlets . But a close look at the report showed that it was a mess."

    Contrary to the PR message from the Post vice president, PropOrNot did not merely say that the sites on its list had "published or echoed Russian propaganda." Without a word of the slightest doubt or skepticism in the entire story, the Post summarized PropOrNot's characterization of all the websites on its list as falling into two categories: "Some players in this online echo chamber were knowingly part of the propaganda campaign, the researchers concluded, while others were 'useful idiots' - a term born of the Cold War to describe people or institutions that unknowingly assisted Soviet Union propaganda efforts."

    As The New Yorker pointed out, PropOrNot's criteria for incriminating content were broad enough to include "nearly every news outlet in the world, including the Post itself." Yet "The List" is not a random list by any means - it's a targeted mish-mash, naming websites that are not within shouting distance of the U.S. corporate and foreign policy establishment.

    And so the list includes a few overtly Russian-funded outlets; some other sites generally aligned with Kremlin outlooks; many pro-Trump sites, often unacquainted with what it means to be factual and sometimes overtly racist; and other websites that are quite different - solid, factual, reasonable - but too progressive or too anti-capitalist or too libertarian or too right-wing or just plain too independent-minded for the evident tastes of whoever is behind PropOrNot.

    As The New Yorker 's writer Adrian Chen put it: "To PropOrNot, simply exhibiting a pattern of beliefs outside the political mainstream is enough to risk being labeled a Russian propagandist." And he concluded: "Despite the impressive-looking diagrams and figures in its report, PropOrNot's findings rest largely on innuendo and conspiracy thinking."

    As for the Post vice president's defensive phrasing that "the Post did not name any of the sites on PropOrNot's list," the fact is that the Post unequivocally promoted PropOrNot, driving web traffic to its site and adding a hotlink to the anonymous group's 32-page report soon after the newspaper's story first appeared. As I mentioned in my reply to her: "Unfortunately, it's kind of like a newspaper saying that it didn't name any of the people on the Red Channels blacklist in 1950 while promoting it in news coverage, so no problem."

    Pushing McCarthyism

    As much as the Post news management might want to weasel out of the comparison, the parallels to the advent of the McCarthy Era are chilling. For instance, the Red Channels list, with 151 names on it, was successful as a weapon against dissent and free speech in large part because, early on, so many media outlets of the day actively aided and abetted blacklisting, as the Post has done for "The List."

    Sen. Joseph McCarthy, R-Wisconsin, who led the "Red Scare" hearings of the 1950s.

    Consider how the Post story described the personnel of PropOrNot in favorable terms even while hiding all of their identities and thus shielding them from any scrutiny - calling them "a nonpartisan collection of researchers with foreign policy, military and technology backgrounds."

    So far The New Yorker has been the largest media outlet to directly confront the Post 's egregious story. Cogent assessments can also be found at The Intercept , Consortium News , Common Dreams , AlterNet , Rolling Stone , Fortune , CounterPunch , The Nation and numerous other sites.

    But many mainline journalists and outlets jumped at the chance to amplify the Post 's piece of work. A sampling of the cheers from prominent journalists and liberal partisans was published by FAIR.org under the apt headline " Why Are Media Outlets Still Citing Discredited 'Fake News' Blacklist? "

    FAIR's media analyst Adam Johnson cited enthusiastic responses to the bogus story from journalists like Bloomberg's Sahil Kupar and MSNBC's Joy Reid - and such outlets as USA Today , Gizmodo , the PBS NewsHour , The Daily Beast , Slate , AP , The Verge and NPR , which "all uncritically wrote up the Post 's most incendiary claims with little or minimal pushback." On the MSNBC site, the Rachel Maddow Show's blog "added another breathless write-up hours later, repeating the catchy talking point that 'it was like Russia was running a super PAC for Trump's campaign.'"

    With so many people understandably upset about Trump's victory, there's an evident attraction to blaming the Kremlin, a convenient scapegoat for Hillary Clinton's loss. But the Post 's blacklisting story and the media's amplification of it - and the overall political environment that it helps to create - are all building blocks for a reactionary order, threatening the First Amendment and a range of civil liberties.

    When liberals have green-lighted a witch-hunt, right wingers have been pleased to run with it. President Harry Truman issued an executive order in March 1947 to establish "loyalty" investigations in every agency of the federal government. Joe McCarthy and the era named after him were soon to follow.

    In media and government, the journalists and officials who enable blacklisting are cravenly siding with conformity instead of democracy.

    Norman Solomon is co-founder of the online activist group RootsAction.org. His books include War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death. He is the executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy.

    [Dec 06, 2016] The Western War On Truth by Paul Craig Roberts

    This idea of casting dissidents as Russian Agent is directly from McCarthy play book. And paradoxically resembles the practive of the USSR in which dissdents were demonized as "Agent of the Western powers." The trick is a immanent part of any war propaganda efforts. So it is clear the Cold War II had started...
    Notable quotes:
    "... As George Orwell predicted, telling the truth is now regarded by Western "democratic" governments as a hostile act. A brand new website, propornot.com, has just made its appearance condemning a list of 200 Internet websites that provide news and views at variance with the presstitute media that serves the governments' agendas . Does propornot.com's funding come from the CIA, the National Endowment for Democracy, or George Soros? ..."
    "... In the West those who disagree with the murderous and reckless policies of public officials are demonized as "Russian agents." ..."
    "... The presstitute Washington Post played its assigned role in the claim promoted by Washington that the alternative media consists of Russian agents. Craig Timberg, who appears devoid of integrity or intelligence, and perhaps both, is the WaPo stooge who reported the fake news that "two teams of independent researchers" - none of whom are identified - found that the Russians exploited my gullibility, that of CounterPunch, Professor Michel Chossudosky of Global Researh, Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell, Justin Raimondo and that of 194 other websites to help "an insurgent candidate" (Trump) "claim the White House." ..."
    "... Note the term applied to Trump - "insurgent candidate." That tells you all you need to know. ..."
    "... Western governments are running out of excuses. Since the Clinton regime, the accumulation of war crimes committed by Western governments exceed those of Nazi Germany. Millions of Muslims have been slaughtered, dislocated, and dispossessed in seven countries. Not a single Western war criminal has been held accountable. ..."
    "... The despicable Washington Post is a prime apologist for these war criminals. The entire Western print and TV media is so heavily implicated in the worst war crimes in human history that, if justice ever happens, the presstitutes will stand in the dock with the Clintons, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, Obama and their neocon operatives or handlers as the case may be. ..."
    Dec 06, 2016 | www.paulcraigroberts.org

    The "war on terror" has simultaneously been a war on truth. For fifteen years-from 9/11 to Saddam Hussein's "weapons of mass destruction" and "al Qaeda connections," "Iranian nukes," "Assad's use of chemical weapons," endless lies about Gadaffi, "Russian invasion of Ukraine"-the governments of the so-called Western democracies have found it essential to align themselves firmly with lies in order to pursue their agendas. Now these Western governments are attempting to discredit the truthtellers who challenge their lies.

    Russian news services are under attack from the EU and Western presstitutes as purveyors of "fake news" . Abiding by its Washington master's orders, the EU actually passed a resolution against Russian media for not following Washington's line. Russian President Putin said that the resolution is a "visible sign of degradation of Western society's idea of democracy."

    As George Orwell predicted, telling the truth is now regarded by Western "democratic" governments as a hostile act. A brand new website, propornot.com, has just made its appearance condemning a list of 200 Internet websites that provide news and views at variance with the presstitute media that serves the governments' agendas . Does propornot.com's funding come from the CIA, the National Endowment for Democracy, or George Soros?

    I am proud to say that paulcraigroberts.org is on the list.

    What we see here is the West adopting Zionist Israel's way of dealing with critics. Anyone who objects to Israel's cruel and inhuman treatment of Palestinians is demonized as "anti-semitic." In the West those who disagree with the murderous and reckless policies of public officials are demonized as "Russian agents." The president-elect of the United States himself has been designated a "Russian agent."

    This scheme to redefine truthtellers as propagandists has backfired. The effort to discredit truthtellers has instead produced a catalogue of websites where reliable information can be found, and readers are flocking to the sites on the list. Moreover, the effort to discredit truthtellers shows that Western governments and their presstitutes are intolerant of truth and diverse opinion and are committed to forcing people to accept self-serving government lies as truth.

    Clearly, Western governments and Western media have no respect for truth, so how can the West possibly be democratic?

    The presstitute Washington Post played its assigned role in the claim promoted by Washington that the alternative media consists of Russian agents. Craig Timberg, who appears devoid of integrity or intelligence, and perhaps both, is the WaPo stooge who reported the fake news that "two teams of independent researchers" - none of whom are identified - found that the Russians exploited my gullibility, that of CounterPunch, Professor Michel Chossudosky of Global Researh, Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell, Justin Raimondo and that of 194 other websites to help "an insurgent candidate" (Trump) "claim the White House."

    Note the term applied to Trump - "insurgent candidate." That tells you all you need to know.

    You can read here what passes as "reliable reporting" in the presstitute Washington Post .

    See also .

    Glenn Greenwald of The Intercept, which somehow escaped inclusion in The 200, unloads on Timberg and the Washington Post here .

    Western governments are running out of excuses. Since the Clinton regime, the accumulation of war crimes committed by Western governments exceed those of Nazi Germany. Millions of Muslims have been slaughtered, dislocated, and dispossessed in seven countries. Not a single Western war criminal has been held accountable.

    The despicable Washington Post is a prime apologist for these war criminals. The entire Western print and TV media is so heavily implicated in the worst war crimes in human history that, if justice ever happens, the presstitutes will stand in the dock with the Clintons, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, Obama and their neocon operatives or handlers as the case may be.

    paulcraigroberts.org

    [Dec 06, 2016] Which purveys more fake news

    www.moonofalabama.org
    micawber | Dec 4, 2016 12:30:10 PM | 78
    Which purveys more "fake news" - RT.com on the one hand, or Fox News, MSNBC and CNN on the other? I asked that question on reddit and my post was deleted.

    [Dec 06, 2016] Complex political intrigue around Syria

    Dec 06, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org
    virgile | Dec 3, 2016 6:20:04 PM | 34

    While Bashar al Assad has not created ISIS whose roots are in humiliated Saddam Hossein Sunni generals and soldiers, it is obvious that he did not prevent them from infiltrating the 'rebels'. He wanted a clash between the 'rebels' mostly inspired by the Moslem Brotherhood (who has "succeeded" in Libya, Egypt and Tunisia) and with other Sunni Islamists who had a more extreme ideology.

    The 'rebels' ( later taken over by Al Nusra) were funded by Qatar and Turkey ( fans of the MB) while the Salafists ( later ISIS) originated in Iraq, Pakistan and other countries were funded by Saudi Arabia.

    Bashar al Assad threw them face to face in order to weaken them. Its quite possible that he managed to keep their dissension alive by sometime executing one side to get a violent response of the other. That was a very smart strategy. He helped transforming the 'moderate' rebels into violent fighters motivated by money and revenge that soon were labelled terrorists by the Western world.

    The war was had threefold: Salafists against Moslem Brotherhood, and both against the Syrian army. As the funds and support the Islamist were getting from Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait and Turkey were unlimited, the Syrian army found itself in a dire situation, despite the help from Arab Shia militias. The intervention of Russia changed the whole picture. Later the Kurdish factor has weakened Turkey further and the failed Yemen war made Saudi Arabia less generous with the 'rebels'. Only Qatar has continued to fund them.

    Thus Bashar al Assad may have benefited from the emergence of ISIS in the beginning but he was about to be overrun without Russia and Iran's support.
    For Russia and Iran, the fall of Bashar al Assad meant the massacre of the Shia, Alawites and Christians and violent struggle between the two extremist Islamist factions ( MB and Salafists) with incompatible ideology.

    It was clear that Bashar al Assad should not be allowed to be toppled and they acted accordingly independently of the civilian casualties.

    jfl | Dec 3, 2016 6:53:29 PM | 36
    Aleppo has sent the West into Panic Overdrive

    The delirious state of the ruling European elites has been displayed on public when the Guardian published their last demand:

    'European leaders, notably the French, are privately warning Vladimir Putin that if he permits Syria's president, Bashar al-Assad, to turn an expected capture of Aleppo into a military victory across most of the country, it will be up to Russia to foot the bill for reconstruction.'

    It looks that those in power in London, Paris, Berlin are completely brain dead, since they seem to be unable to recall who destroyed Iraq, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan and a number of other countries.

    The United States, with the avid support provided by the EU, have killed hundreds of thousands of civilians, while destroying the homes and the infrastructure that supported those that they spared, which resulted in a veritable exodus of migrants from the Middle East and Africa to Europe.

    So, maybe they should be paying the bills instead of forcing smaller European countries to provide shelter for the refugees they created in the first place.

    And what about Washington's responsibility?


    Let's see ...

    - If the US hires the Israelis to build a wall on the Mexican border, and the Mexicans should pay for it, and
    - If the US uses NATO to surround Russia and to start a war with that country, and the Europeans should pay for it - and fight it
    - Then Europeans should welcome the refugees from the USraeli/USaudi wars in the Middle East and USropean wars in NA as well, right?

    Trumpian logic 101.

    I don't think Trump's counterparts in Europe are going to see it that way, once they're elected as he was, out the revulsion of the population with USropean policies that have left them financially devastated, bankrupts themselves.

    Maybe China should pay? Right.

    Maybe the Saudis and the GCC should pay ... they paid to destroy the ME, might they not be compelled to pay to put it back together again? Seems like a Trumpian solution to me. I imagine he can get his up and coming counterparts in Europe to go along with that.

    [Dec 06, 2016] Cheney, the Neocons and China by GARY LEUPP

    If conflict with China is inevitable, it does not make sense to increase hostility with Russia. Why neocons are doing that?
    Notable quotes:
    "... I've hesitated about whether to apply the word "neoconservative" to persons like Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld. I tend to follow the Christian Science Monitor lis t. Paul Wolfowitz, Libby, Douglas Feith, Richard Perle, Richard Bolton, and Elliott Abrams are intellectuals absorbed in the project of using U.S. military power to remake the Middle East to improve Israel's long-term security interests. (Hannah, David Wurmser, Eric Edelman, and other White House staffers not on the Monitor's dated list also fall into this category.) ..."
    "... Ultimate decision-makers Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld on the other hand are sometimes referred to as "aggressive nationalists." They are no doubt Christian Zionists, but are probably most interested in transforming the "Greater Middle East" in the interests of corporate America in an increasingly competitive world. They're probably more concerned about the geopolitics of oil and the placement of "enduring" military bases to "protect U.S. interests" than the fate of Israel. ..."
    "... They are equipped with a philosophical outlook that justifies the use of hyped, imagined threats to unite the masses behind rulers' objectives and ambitions, to suppress dissent and control through fear. They're inclined to identify each new target as "a new Hitler," and to justify their actions as " an answer to the Holocaust ." ..."
    "... "The true measure of how powerful the vice president's office remains today is whether the United States chooses to confront Iran and Syria or to seek diplomatic solutions. For the moment, at least, the war party led by Dick Cheney remains in ascendancy." ..."
    www.counterpunch.org

    I've hesitated about whether to apply the word "neoconservative" to persons like Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld. I tend to follow the Christian Science Monitor list. Paul Wolfowitz, Libby, Douglas Feith, Richard Perle, Richard Bolton, and Elliott Abrams are intellectuals absorbed in the project of using U.S. military power to remake the Middle East to improve Israel's long-term security interests. (Hannah, David Wurmser, Eric Edelman, and other White House staffers not on the Monitor's dated list also fall into this category.)

    Ultimate decision-makers Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld on the other hand are sometimes referred to as "aggressive nationalists." They are no doubt Christian Zionists, but are probably most interested in transforming the "Greater Middle East" in the interests of corporate America in an increasingly competitive world. They're probably more concerned about the geopolitics of oil and the placement of "enduring" military bases to "protect U.S. interests" than the fate of Israel.

    Dreyfuss' article suggests that Cheney (and thus, the administration) sees China as the biggest long-term threat to those interests.

    If conflict with China is inevitable,

    • it makes sense to have U.S. bases in Afghanistan, Kyrgyzstan, Iraq and maybe Iran and Syria. If China is dependent on Middle East oil, it makes sense for the U.S. to be able to control how and where it flows from the Caspian Sea and Persian Gulf oil fields.

    • It makes sense to cultivate an alliance with India, risking the accusation of nuclear hypocrisy in doing so. It makes sense to ratchet up tensions on the Korean Peninsula, by linking North Korea to Iran and Iraq, calling it "evil," dismissing South Korea's "sunshine diplomacy" efforts and encouraging Japan to take a hard line towards Pyongyang.

    • It makes sense to get Tokyo to declare, for the first time, that the security of the Taiwan Straights is of common concern to it and Washington. It makes sense to regain a strategic toehold in the Philippines, in the name of the War on Terror, and to vilify the growing Filipino Maoist movement.

    • It makes sense for a man like Cheney, who decided on Bush's staff in late 2000, to seed the cabinet with strategically-placed neocons who have a vision of a new Middle East.

    Because

    (1) that vision fits in perfectly with the broader New World Order and U.S. plans to contain China, and

    (2) the neocons as a coordinated "persuasion" if not movement, with their fingers in a dozen right-wing think tanks, and the Israel Lobby including its Christian Right component, and the academic community, are well-placed to serve as what Dreyfuss calls "acolytes."

    They are equipped with a philosophical outlook that justifies the use of hyped, imagined threats to unite the masses behind rulers' objectives and ambitions, to suppress dissent and control through fear. They're inclined to identify each new target as "a new Hitler," and to justify their actions as "an answer to the Holocaust."

    They have served Cheney well, and he them so far. They're all being exposed, maybe weakened. But as Dreyfuss states at the end of his article, "The true measure of how powerful the vice president's office remains today is whether the United States chooses to confront Iran and Syria or to seek diplomatic solutions. For the moment, at least, the war party led by Dick Cheney remains in ascendancy."

    GARY LEUPP is Professor of History at Tufts University, and Adjunct Professor of Comparative Religion. He can be reached at: [email protected]

    [Dec 05, 2016] Capitalism Requires World War by Cathal Haughian via TheSaker.ie,

    www.zerohedge.com

    It has been our undertaking, since 2010, to chronicle our understanding of capitalism via our book The Philosophy of Capitalism . We were curious as to the underlying nature of the system which endows us, the owners of capital, with so many favours. The Saker has asked me to explain our somewhat crude statement 'Capitalism Requires World War'.

    The present showdown between West, Russia and China is the culmination of a long running saga that began with World War One. Prior to which, Capitalism was governed by the gold standard system which was international, very solid, with clear rules and had brought great prosperity: for banking Capital was scarce and so allocated carefully. World War One required debt-capitalism of the FIAT kind, a bankrupt Britain began to pass the Imperial baton to the US, which had profited by financing the war and selling munitions.

    The Weimar Republic, suffering a continuation of hostilities via economic means, tried to inflate away its debts in 1919-1923 with disastrous results-hyperinflation. Then, the reintroduction of the gold standard into a world poisoned by war, reparation and debt was fated to fail and ended with a deflationary bust in the early 1930's and WW2.

    The US government gained a lot of credibility after WW2 by outlawing offensive war and funding many construction projects that helped transfer private debt to the public book. The US government's debt exploded during the war, but it also shifted the power game away from creditors to a big debtor that had a lot of political capital. The US used her power to define the new rules of the monetary system at Bretton Woods in 1944 and to keep physical hold of gold owned by other nations.

    The US jacked up tax rates on the wealthy and had a period of elevated inflation in the late 40s and into the 1950s – all of which wiped out creditors, but also ushered in a unique middle class era in the West. The US also reformed extraction centric institutions in Europe and Japan to make sure an extractive-creditor class did not hobble growth, which was easy to do because the war had wiped them out (same as in Korea).

    Capital destruction in WW2 reversed the Marxist rule that the rate of profit always falls. Take any given market – say jeans. At first, all the companies make these jeans using a great deal of human labour so all the jeans are priced around the average of total social labour time required for production (some companies will charge more, some companies less).

    One company then introduces a machine (costed at $n) that makes jeans using a lot less labour time. Each of these robot assisted workers is paid the same hourly rate but the production process is now far more productive. This company, ignoring the capital outlay in the machinery, will now have a much higher profit rate than the others. This will attract capital, as capital is always on the lookout for higher rates of profit. The result will be a generalisation of this new mode of production. The robot or machine will be adopted by all the other companies, as it is a more efficient way of producing jeans.

    As a consequence the price of the jeans will fall, as there is an increased margin within which each market actor can undercut his fellows. One company will lower prices so as to increase market share. This new price-point will become generalised as competing companies cut their prices to defend their market share. A further n$ was invested but per unit profit margin is put under constant downward pressure, so the rate of return in productive assets tends to fall over time in a competitive market place.

    Interest rates have been falling for decades in the West because interest rates must always be below the rate of return on productive investments. If interest rates are higher than the risk adjusted rate of return then the capitalist might as well keep his money in a savings account. If there is real deflation his purchasing power increases for free and if there is inflation he will park his money (plus debt) in an unproductive asset that's price inflating, E.G. Housing. Sound familiar? Sure, there has been plenty of profit generated since 2008 but it has not been recovered from productive investments in a competitive free market place. All that profit came from bubbles in asset classes and financial schemes abetted by money printing and zero interest rates.

    Thus, we know that the underlying rate of return is near zero in the West. The rate of return falls naturally, due to capital accumulation and market competition. The system is called capitalism because capital accumulates: high income economies are those with the greatest accumulation of capital per worker. The robot assisted worker enjoys a higher income as he is highly productive, partly because the robotics made some of the workers redundant and there are fewer workers to share the profit. All the high income economies have had near zero interest rates for seven years. Interest rates in Europe are even negative. How has the system remained stable for so long?

    All economic growth depends on energy gain. It takes energy (drilling the oil well) to gain energy. Unlike our everyday experience whereby energy acquisition and energy expenditure can be balanced, capitalism requires an absolute net energy gain. That gain, by way of energy exchange, takes the form of tools and machines that permit an increase in productivity per work hour. Thus GDP increases, living standards improve and the debts can be repaid. Thus, oil is a strategic capitalistic resource.

    US net energy gain production peaked in 1974, to be replaced by production from Saudi Arabia, which made the USA a net importer of oil for the first time. US dependence on foreign oil rose from 26% to 47% between 1985 and 1989 to hit a peak of 60% in 2006. And, tellingly, real wages peaked in 1974, levelled-off and then began to fall for most US workers. Wages have never recovered. (The decline is more severe if you don't believe government reported inflation figures that don't count the costof housing.)

    What was the economic and political result of this decline? During the 20 years 1965-85, there were 4 recessions, 2 energy crises and wage and price controls. These were unprecedented in peacetime and The Gulf of Tonkin event led to the Vietnam War which finally required Nixon to move away from the Gold-Exchange Standard in 1971, opening the next degenerate chapter of FIAT finance up until 2008. Cutting this link to gold was cutting the external anchor impeding war and deficit spending. The promise of gold for dollars was revoked.

    GDP in the US increased after 1974 but a portion of end use buying power was transferred to Saudi Arabia. They were supplying the net energy gain that was powering the US GDP increase. The working class in the US began to experience a slow real decline in living standards, as 'their share' of the economic pie was squeezed by the ever increasing transfer of buying power to Saudi Arabia.

    The US banking and government elite responded by creating and cutting back legal and behavioral rules of a fiat based monetary system. The Chinese appreciated the long term opportunity that this presented and agreed to play ball. The USA over-produced credit money and China over-produced manufactured goods which cushioned the real decline in the buying power of America's working class. Power relations between China and the US began to change: The Communist Party transferred value to the American consumer whilst Wall Street transferred most of the US industrial base to China. They didn't ship the military industrial complex.

    Large scale leverage meant that US consumers and businesses had the means to purchase increasingly with debt so the class war was deferred. This is how over production occurs: more is produced that is paid for not with money that represents actual realized labour time, but from future wealth, to be realised from future labour time. The Chinese labour force was producing more than it consumed.

    The system has never differed from the limits laid down by the Laws of Thermodynamics. The Real economy system can never over-produce per se. The limit of production is absolute net energy gain. What is produced can be consumed. How did the Chinese produce such a super massive excess and for so long? Economic slavery can achieve radical improvements in living standards for those that benefit from ownership. Slaves don't depreciate as they are rented and are not repaired for they replicate for free. Hundreds of millions of Chinese peasants limited their way of life and controlled their consumption in order to benefit their children. And their exploited life raised the rate of profit!

    They began their long march to modern prosperity making toys, shoes, and textiles cheaper than poor women could in South Carolina or Honduras. Such factories are cheap to build and deferential, obedient and industrious peasant staff were a perfect match for work that was not dissimilar to tossing fruit into a bucket. Their legacy is the initial capital formation of modern China and one of the greatest accomplishments in human history. The Chinese didn't use net energy gain from oil to power their super massive and sustained increase in production. They used economic slavery powered by caloric energy, exchanged from solar energy. The Chinese labour force picked the World's low hanging fruit that didn't need many tools or machines. Slaves don't need tools for they are the tool.

    Without a gold standard and capital ratios our form of over-production has grown enormously. The dotcom bubble was reflated through a housing bubble, which has been pumped up again by sovereign debt, printing press (QE) and central bank insolvency. The US working and middle classes have over-consumed relative to their share of the global economic pie for decades. The correction to prices (the destruction of credit money & accumulated capital) is still yet to happen. This is what has been happening since 1971 because of the growth of financialisation or monetisation.

    The application of all these economic methods was justified by the political ideology of neo-Liberalism. Neo-Liberalism entails no or few capital controls, the destruction of trade unions, plundering state and public assets, importing peasants as domesticated help, and entrusting society's value added production to The Communist Party of The People's Republic of China.

    The Chinese have many motives but their first motivation is power. Power is more important than money. If you're rich and weak you get robbed. Russia provides illustrating stories of such: Gorbachev had received a promise from George HW Bush that the US would pay Russia approximately $400 billion over10 years as a "peace dividend" and as a tool to be utilized in the conversion of their state run to a market based economic system. The Russians believe the head of the CIA at the time, George Tenet, essentially killed the deal based on the idea that "letting the country fall apart will destroy Russia as a future military threat". The country fell apart in 1992. Its natural assets were plundered which raised the rate of profit in the 90's until President Putin put a stop to the robbery.

    In the last analysis, the current framework of Capitalism results in labour redundancy, a falling rate of profit and ingrained trading imbalances caused by excess capacity. Under our current monopoly state capitalism a number of temporary preventive measures have evolved, including the expansion of university, military, and prison systems to warehouse new generations of labour.

    Our problem is how to retain the "expected return rate" for us, the dominant class. Ultimately, there are only two large-scale solutions, which are intertwined .

    One is expansion of state debt to keep "the markets" moving and transfer wealth from future generations of labour to the present dominant class.

    The other is war, the consumer of last resort. Wars can burn up excess capacity, shift global markets, generate monopoly rents, and return future labour to a state of helplessness and reduced expectations. The Spanish flu killed 50-100 million people in 1918. As if this was not enough, it also took two World Wars across the 20th century and some 96 million dead to reduce unemployment and stabilize the "labour problem."

    Capitalism requires World War because Capitalism requires profit and cannot afford the unemployed . The point is capitalism could afford social democracy after the rate of profit was restored thanks to the depression of the 1930's and the physical destruction of capital during WW2. Capitalism only produces for profit and social democracy was funded by taxing profits after WW2.

    Post WW2 growth in labour productivity, due to automation, itself due to oil & gas replacing coal, meant workers could be better off. As the economic pie was growing, workers could receive the same %, and still receive a bigger slice. Wages as a % of US GDP actually increased in the period, 1945-1970. There was an increase in government spending which was being redirected in the form of redistributed incomes. Inequality will only worsen, because to make profits now we have to continually cut the cost of inputs, i.e. wages & benefits. Have we not already reached the point where large numbers of the working class can neither feed themselves nor afford a roof over their heads?13% of the UK working age population is out of work and receiving out of work benefits. A huge fraction is receiving in work benefits because low skill work now pays so little.

    The underlying nature of Capitalism is cyclical. Here is how the political aspect of the cycle ends:

    • 1920s/2000s – High inequality, high banker pay, low regulation, low taxes for the wealthy, robber barons (CEOs), reckless bankers, globalisation phase
    • 1929/2008 – Wall Street crash
    • 1930s/2010s – Global recession, currency wars, trade wars, rising unemployment, nationalism and extremism
    • What comes next? – World War.

    If Capitalism could speak, she would ask her older brother, Imperialism, this: "Can you solve the problem?" We are not reliving the 1930's, the economy is now an integrated whole that encompasses the entire World. Capital has been accumulating since 1945, so under- and unemployment is a plague everywhere. How big is the problem? Official data tells us nothing, but the 47 million Americans on food aid are suggestive. That's 1 in 7 Americans and total World population is 7 billion.

    The scale of the solution is dangerous. Our probing for weakness in the South China Sea, Ukraine and Syria has awakened them to their danger.The Chinese and Russian leadershave reacted by integrating their payment systems and real economies, trading energy for manufactured goods for advanced weapon systems. As they are central players in the Shanghai Group we can assume their aim is the monetary system which is the bedrock of our Imperial power. What's worse, they can avoid overt enemy action and simply choose to undermine "confidence" in the FIAT.

    Though given the calibre of their nuclear arsenal, how can they be fought let alone defeated? Appetite preceded Reason, so Lust is hard to Reason with. But beware brother. Your Lust for Power began this saga, perhaps it's time to Reason.

    Uncle Sugar

    Seriously - Having a Central Bank with a debt based monetary system requires permanent wars. True market based capitalism does not.

    Father Thyme

    Your logical fallacy is no true scotsman
    http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/no-true-scotsman

    Wed, 03/02/2016 - 23:21 | 7264475 Seek_Truth

    Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

    If wealth were measured by creating strawmen- you would be a Rothschild.

    gwiss

    That's because they don't understand the word "capitalism."

    Capitalism simply means economic freedom. And economic freedom, just like freedom to breed, must be exposed to the pruning action of cause and effect, otherwise it outgrows its container and becomes unstable and explodes. As long as it is continually exposed to the grinding wheel of causality, it continues to hold a fine edge, as the dross is scraped away and the fine steel stays. Reality is full of dualities, and those dualities cannot be separated without creating broken symmetry and therefore terminal instability. Freedom and responsibility, for example. One without the other is unstable. Voting and taxation in direct proportion to each other is another example.

    Fiat currency is an attempt to create an artificial reality, one without the necessary symmetry and balance of a real system. However, reality can not be gamed, because it will produce its own symmetry if you try to deny it. Thus the symmetry of fiat currency is boom and bust, a sine wave that still manages to produce equilibrium, however at a huge bubbling splattering boil rather than a fine simmer.

    The folks that wrote this do not have a large enough world view. Capitalism does not require world wars because freedom does not require world wars. Freedom tends to bleed imbalances out when they are small. On the other hand, empire does require world war, which is why we are going to have one.

    Wed, 03/02/2016 - 23:27 | 7264485 GRDguy

    Capitalism becomes imperialism when financial sociopaths steal profits from both sides of the trade. What you're seeing is an Imperialism of Capital, as explained very nicely in the 1889 book "The Great Red Dragon."

    AchtungAffen

    Really? I thought that was the re-prints of Mises Canada, Kunstler or Brandon Smith. In comparison, this article is sublime.

    Caviar Emptor

    Wrong. Capitalism needs prolonged directionless wars without clear winners and contained destruction that utilize massive amounts of raw materials and endless orders for weapons and logistical support. That's what makes some guys rich.

    Wed, 03/02/2016 - 22:56 | 7264423 Jack's Raging B...

    That's was a very long-winded and deliberately obtuse way of explaining how DEBT AS MONEY and The State's usurpation of sound money destroyed efficient markets. The author then goes to call this system Capitalism.

    So yeah, the deliberate destruction of capital, in all its forms, is somehow capitalism. Brilliant observation. Fuck you. There are better terms for things like this. Perhaps....central banking? The State? Fiat debt creation? Evil? Naw, let's just contort and abuse language instead. That's the ticket.

    My Days Are Get...

    From Russia News Feed:

    Cathal Haughian Bio :

    I've spent my adult life in 51 countries. This was financed by correctly anticipating the Great Financial Crisis in 2008. I was studying Marx at that time. I'm presently an employee of the Chinese State. I educate the children of China's best families. I am the author, alongside a large international team of capitalists, of Before The Collapse : The Philosophy of Capitalism.

    I also have my own business; I live with my girlfriend and was born and grew up in Ireland.

    ===============

    Why would anyone waste time to read this drivel, buttressed by the author's credentials.

    The unstated thesis is that wars involve millions of actors, who produce an end-result of many hundreds of millions killed.

    Absent coercion ("the Draft"), how is any government going to man hundreds of divisions of foot soldiers. That concept is passé.

    Distribute some aerosol poisons via drones and kill as many people as deemed necessary. How in the hell will that action stimulate the world economy.

    Weapons of mass-destruction are smaller, cheaper and easier to deploy. War as a progenitor of growth - forget it.

    The good news is that this guy is educating the children of elite in China. Possibly the Pentagon could clone him 10,000 times and send those cyborgs to China - cripple China for another generation or two.

    slimycorporated...

    Capitalism requires banks that made shitty loans to fail

    Ms No

    The term cyclical doesn't quite cover what we have being experiencing. It's more like a ragdoll being shaken by a white shark. The euphoria of bubble is more like complete unhinged unicorn mania anymore and the lows are complete grapes of wrath. It's probably always been that way to some extent because corruption has remained unchallenged for a great deal of time. The boom phases are scarier than the downturns anymore, especially the last oil boom and housing boom. Complete Alfred Hitchcock stuff.

    I don't think it's capitalism and that term comes across as an explanation that legitimizes this completely contrived pattern that benefits a few and screws everybody else. Markets should not be behaving in such a violent fashion. Money should probably be made steady and slow. And downturns shouldn't turn a country into Zimbabwe. I could be wrong but there is really no way to know with the corruption we have.

    Good times.

    o r c k

    And War requires that an enemy be created. According to American General Breedlove-head of NATO's European Command-speaking to the US Armed Services Committee 2 days ago, "Russia and Assad are deliberately weaponizing migration to break European resolve". "The only reason to use non-precision weapons like barrel bombs is to keep refugees on the move". "These refugees bring criminality, foreign fighters and terrorism", and "are being used to overwhelm European structures". "Russia has chosen to be an adversary and is a real threat." "Russia is irresponsible with nuclear weapons-always threatening to use them." And strangely, "In the past week alone, Russia has made 450 attacks along the front lines in E. Ukraine".

    Even with insanity overflowing the West, I found these comments to be the most bizarrely threatening propaganda yet. After reading them for the first time, I had to prove to myself that I wasn't hallucinating it.

    [Dec 05, 2016] New Class War

    This is a very weak article from a prominent paleoconservative, but it is instructive what a mess he has in his head as for the nature of Trump phenomenon. We should probably consider the tern "New Class" that neocons invented as synonym for "neoliberals". If so, why the author is afraid to use the term? Does he really so poorly educated not to understand the nature of this neoliberal revolution and its implications? Looks like he never read "Quite coup"
    That probably reflects the crisis of pealeoconservatism itself.
    Notable quotes:
    "... What do these insurgents have in common? All have called into question the interventionist consensus in foreign policy. All have opposed large-scale free-trade agreements. ..."
    "... the establishment in both parties almost uniformly favors one approach to war, trade, and immigration, while outsider candidates as dissimilar as Buchanan, Nader, Paul, and Trump, and to a lesser extent Sanders, depart from the consensus. ..."
    "... The insurgents clearly do not represent a single class: they appeal to eclectic interests and groups. The foe they have all faced down, however-the bipartisan establishment-does resemble a class in its striking unity of outlook and interest. So what is this class, effectively the ruling class of the country? ..."
    "... The archetypal model of class conflict, the one associated with Karl Marx, pits capitalists against workers-or, at an earlier stage, capitalists against the landed nobility. The capitalists' victory over the nobility was inevitable, and so too, Marx believed, was the coming triumph of the workers over the capitalists. ..."
    "... The Soviet Union had never been a workers' state at all, they argued, but was run by a class of apparatchiks such as Marx had never imagined. ..."
    "... Burnham recognized affinities between the Soviet mode of organization-in which much real power lay in the hands of the commissars who controlled industry and the bureaucratic organs of the state-and the corporatism that characterized fascist states. Even the U.S., under the New Deal and with ongoing changes to the balance between ownership and management in the private sector, seemed to be moving in the same direction. ..."
    "... concept popularized by neoconservatives in the following decade: the "New Class." ..."
    "... It consists of a goodly proportion of those college-educated people whose skills and vocations proliferate in a 'post-industrial society' (to use Daniel Bell's convenient term). We are talking about scientists, teachers, and educational administrators, journalists and others in the communication industries, psychologists, social workers, those lawyers and doctors who make their careers in the expanding public sector, city planners, the staffs of the larger foundations, the upper levels of the government bureaucracy, and so on. ..."
    "... I have felt that this 'new class' is, so far, rather thin gruel. Intellectuals, verbalists, media types, etc. are conspicuous actors these days, certainly; they make a lot of noise, get a lot of attention, and some of them make a lot of money. But, after all, they are a harum-scarum crowd, and deflate even more quickly than they puff up. On TV they can out-talk any of the managers of ITT, GM, or IBM, or the administration-managers of the great government bureaus and agencies, but, honestly, you're not going to take that as a power test. Who hires and fires whom? ..."
    "... Burnham had observed that the New Class did not have the means-either money or manpower-to wield power the way the managers or the capitalists of old did. It had to borrow power from other classes. Discovering where the New Class gets it is as easy as following the money, which leads straight to the finance sector-practically to the doorstep of Goldman Sachs. Jerry Rubin's journey from Yippie to yuppie was the paradigm of a generation. ..."
    "... Yet the New Class as a whole is less like Carl Oglesby or Karl Hess than like Hillary Clinton, who arguably embodies it as perfectly as McNamara did the managerial class. ..."
    "... Even the New Class's support for deregulation-to the advantage of its allies on Wall Street-was no sign of consistent commitment to free-market principles ..."
    "... The individual-mandate feature of Obamacare and Romneycare is a prime example of New Class cronyism: government compels individuals to buy a supposedly private product or service. ..."
    "... America's class war, like many others, is not in the end a contest between up and down. It's a fight between rival elites: in this case, between the declining managerial elite and the triumphant (for now) New Class and financial elites. ..."
    "... Donald Trump is not of the managerial class himself. But by embracing managerial interests-industrial protection and, yes, "big government"-and combining them with nationalistic identity politics, he has built a force that has potential to threaten the bipartisan establishment, even if he goes down to defeat in November. ..."
    "... The New Class, after all, lacks a popular base as well as money of its own, and just as it relies on Wall Street to underwrite its power, it depends on its competing brands of identity politics to co-opt popular support. ..."
    "... Marx taught that you identify classes by their structural role in the system of production. I'm at a loss to see how either of the 'classes' you mention here relate to the system of production. ..."
    "... [New] Class better describes the Never Trumpers. Mostly I have found them to be those involved in knowledge occupations (conservative think tanks, hedge fund managers, etc.) who have a pecuniary interest in maintaining the Global Economy as opposed to the Virtuous Intergenerational Economy that preceded. Many are dependent on funding sources for their livelihoods that are connected to the Globalized Economy and financial markets. ..."
    "... "mobilize working-class voters against the establishment in both parties. " = workers of the world unite. ..."
    "... Where the class conflict between the Working and Knowledge Classes begins is where the Knowledge Class almost unilaterally decided to shift to a global economy, at the expense of the Working Class, and to the self-benefit of the Knowledge Class. Those who designed the Global Economy like Larry Summers of Harvard did not invite private or public labor to help design the new Globalist Economy. The Working Class lost out big time in job losses and getting stuck with subprime home loans that busted their marriages and created bankruptcies and foreclosures. The Knowledge Class was mostly unscathed by this class-based economic divide. ..."
    "... Trump's distinguishing ideology, which separates him from the current elite, is something he has summed up many times – nationalism vs. Globalism. ..."
    "... The financial industry, the new tech giants, the health insurance industry are now almost indistinguishable from the government ruling elite. The old left–represented by Sanders–rails against this as big money coopting government, even while conservatives are exasperated by the unholy cabal of big business and big government in cohoots in the "progressive" remake of America. Both are right in a sense. ..."
    "... The hyperconcentration of power in Washington and a few tributary locations like Wall Street and Silicon Valley, elite academia and the media–call that the New Class if you like–means that most of America–Main Street, the flyover country has been left behind. Trump instinctively – brilliantly in some ways – tapped into the resentment that this hyperconcentration of wealth and government power has led to. That is why it cuts across right and left. The elites want to characterize this resentment as backwards and "racist," but there is also something very American from Jefferson to Jackson to Teddy Roosevelt that revolts against being lectured to and controlled by their would-be "betters." ..."
    "... The alienation of those left out is real and based on real erosion of the middle class and American dream under both parties' elites. The potentially revolutionary capabilities of a political movement that could unite right and left in restoring some equilibrium and opportunities to those left out is tremendous, but yet to be realized by either major party. The party that can harness these folks – who are after all the majority of Americans – will have a ruling coalition for decades. If neither party can productively harness this budding movement, we are headed for disarray, civil unrest, and potentially the dissolution of the USA. ..."
    "... . And blacks who cleave to the democrats despite being sold down the tubes on issues, well, for whatever reason, they just have thinner skin and the mistaken idea that the democrats deliver – thanks to Pres. Johnson. But what Pres. Johnson delivered democrats made a mockery of immediately as they stripped it of its intent and used for their own liberal ends. ..."
    "... Let's see if I can help Dreher clear up some confusion in his article. James Burnham's "Managerial Class" and the "New Class" are overlapping and not exclusive. By the Managerial Class Burnham meant both the executive and managers in the private sector and the Bureaucrats and functionaries in the public sector. ..."
    "... The rise of managers was a "revolution" because of the rise of modernization which meant the increasing mechanization, industrialization, formalization and rationalization (efficiency) of society. Burnham's concern about the rise of the managerial revolution was misplaced; what he should have focused on was modernization. ..."
    "... The old left–represented by Sanders–rails against this as big money coopting government, even while conservatives are exasperated by the unholy cabal of big business and big government in cohoots in the "progressive" remake of America ..."
    "... . Some 3 – 5% of the population facing no real opposition has decided that that their private lives needed public endorsement and have proceeded to upend the entire social order - the game has shifted in ways I am not sure most of the public fully grasps or desires ..."
    "... There has always been and will always be class conflict, even if it falls short of a war. Simply examining recent past circumstances, the wealthy class has been whooping up on all other classes. This is not to suggest any sort of remedy, but simply to observe that income disparity over the past 30 years has substantially benefitted on sector of class and political power remains in their hands today. To think that there will never be class conflict is to side with a Marxian fantasy of egalitarianism, which will never come to pass. Winners and losers may change positions, but the underlying conflict will always remain. ..."
    "... State governments have been kowtowing to big business interests for a good long while. Nothing new under the sun there. Back in the 80s when GM was deciding where to site their factory for the new Saturn car line, they issued an edict stating they would only consider states that had mandatory seat belt use laws, and the states in the running fell all over each to enact those. ..."
    "... People don't really care for the actions of the elite but they care for the consequences of these actions. During the 1960's, per capita GDP growth was around 3.5%. Today it stands at 0,49%. If you take into account inflation, it's negative. Add to this the skewed repartition of said growth and it's intuitive that many people feel the pain; whom doesn't move forward, goes backwards. ..."
    "... People couldn't care for mass immigration, nation building or the emergence of China if their personal situation was not impacted. But now, they begin to feel the results of these actions. ..."
    "... I have a simple philosophy regarding American politics that shows who is made of what, and we don't have to go through all the philosophizing in this article: Anyone who believes in same sex marriage has been brainwashed and is un-American and unreliable. Anyone who puts Israeli interests above America's is un-American. ..."
    "... Re: Anyone who believes in same sex marriage has been brainwashed and is un-American and unreliable. Anyone who puts Israeli interests above America's is un-American. ..."
    "... The first has nothing whatsoever to do with American citizenship. It's just a political issue– on which, yes, reasonable people can differ. However no American citizen should put the interests of any other country ahead of our own, except in a situation where the US was itself up to no good and deserved its comeuppance. And then the interest is not that of any particular nation, but of justice being done period. ..."
    "... A lot of this "New Class" stuff is just confusing mis-mash of this and that theory. Basically, America changed when the US dollar replace gold as the medium of exchange in the world economy. Remember when we called it the PETRO-DOLLAR. As long as the Saudis only accepted the US dollar as the medium of exchange for oil, then the American government could export it's inflation and deficit spending. Budget deficits and trade deficits are intrinsically related. It allowed America to become a nation of consumers instead of a nation of producers. ..."
    "... It's really a form of classic IMPERIALISM. To maintain this system, we've got the US military and we prop up the corrupt dictatorships in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Libya ..."
    "... Yeah, you can talk about the "new class", the corruption of the banking system by the idiotic "libertarian" or "free market utopianism" of the Gingrich Congress, the transformation of American corporations to international corporations, and on and on. But it's the US dollar as reserve currency that has allowed it all to happen. God help us, if it ends, we'll be crippled. ..."
    "... The Clinton Class mocks The Country Class: Bill Clinton, "We all know how her opponent's done real well down in West Virginia and eastern Kentucky. Because the coal people don't like any of us anymore." "They blame the president when the sun doesn't come up in the morning now," ..."
    "... That doesn't mean they actually support Hillary's policies and position. What do they really know about either? These demographics simply vote overwhelmingly Democrat no matter who is on the ticket. If Alfred E. Newman were the candidate, this particular data point would look just the same. ..."
    "... "On the contrary, the New Class favors new kinds of crony finance capitalism, even as it opposes the protectionism that would benefit hard industry and managerial interests." This doesn't ring true. Hard industry, and the managers that run it had no problem with moving jobs and factories overseas in pursuit of cheaper labor. Plus, it solved their Union issues. I feel like the divide is between large corporations, with dilute ownership and professional managers who nominally serve the interests of stock fund managers, while greatly enriching themselves versus a multitude of smaller, locally owned businesses whose owners were also concerned with the health of the local communities in which they lived. ..."
    "... The financial elites are a consequence of consolidation in the banking and finance industry, where we now have 4 or 5 large institutions versus a multitude of local and regional banks that were locally focused. ..."
    Sep 07, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com

    Since the Cold War ended, U.S. politics has seen a series of insurgent candidacies. Pat Buchanan prefigured Trump in the Republican contests of 1992 and 1996. Ralph Nader challenged the Clinton wing of the Democratic Party from the outside in 2000. Ron Paul vexed establishment Republicans John McCain and Mitt Romney in 2008 and 2012. And this year, Trump was not the only candidate to confound his party's elite: Bernie Sanders harried Hillary Clinton right up to the Democratic convention.

    What do these insurgents have in common? All have called into question the interventionist consensus in foreign policy. All have opposed large-scale free-trade agreements. (The libertarian Paul favors unilateral free trade: by his lights, treaties like NAFTA and the Trans-Pacific Partnership are not free trade at all but international regulatory pacts.) And while no one would mistake Ralph Nader's or Ron Paul's views on immigration for Pat Buchanan's or Donald Trump's, Nader and Paul have registered their own dissents from the approach to immigration that prevails in Washington.

    Sanders has been more in line with his party's orthodoxy on that issue. But that didn't save him from being attacked by Clinton backers for having an insufficiently nonwhite base of support. Once again, what might have appeared to be a class conflict-in this case between a democratic socialist and an elite liberal with ties to high finance-could be explained away as really about race.

    Race, like religion, is a real factor in how people vote. Its relevance to elite politics, however, is less clear. Something else has to account for why the establishment in both parties almost uniformly favors one approach to war, trade, and immigration, while outsider candidates as dissimilar as Buchanan, Nader, Paul, and Trump, and to a lesser extent Sanders, depart from the consensus.

    The insurgents clearly do not represent a single class: they appeal to eclectic interests and groups. The foe they have all faced down, however-the bipartisan establishment-does resemble a class in its striking unity of outlook and interest. So what is this class, effectively the ruling class of the country?

    Some critics on the right have identified it with the "managerial" class described by James Burnham in his 1941 book The Managerial Revolution . But it bears a stronger resemblance to what what others have called "the New Class." In fact, the interests of this New Class of college-educated "verbalists" are antithetical to those of the industrial managers that Burnham described. Understanding the relationship between these two often conflated concepts provides insight into politics today, which can be seen as a clash between managerial and New Class elites.

    ♦♦♦

    The archetypal model of class conflict, the one associated with Karl Marx, pits capitalists against workers-or, at an earlier stage, capitalists against the landed nobility. The capitalists' victory over the nobility was inevitable, and so too, Marx believed, was the coming triumph of the workers over the capitalists.

    Over the next century, however, history did not follow the script. By 1992, the Soviet Union was gone, Communist China had embarked on market reforms, and Western Europe was turning away from democratic socialism. There was no need to predict the future; mankind had achieved its destiny, a universal order of [neo]liberal democracy. Marx had it backwards: capitalism was the end of history.

    But was the truth as simple as that? Long before the collapse of the USSR, many former communists -- some of whom remained socialists, while others joined the right-thought not. The Soviet Union had never been a workers' state at all, they argued, but was run by a class of apparatchiks such as Marx had never imagined.

    Among the first to advance this argument was James Burnham, a professor of philosophy at New York University who became a leading Trotskyist thinker. As he broke with Trotsky and began moving toward the right, Burnham recognized affinities between the Soviet mode of organization-in which much real power lay in the hands of the commissars who controlled industry and the bureaucratic organs of the state-and the corporatism that characterized fascist states. Even the U.S., under the New Deal and with ongoing changes to the balance between ownership and management in the private sector, seemed to be moving in the same direction.

    Burnham called this the "managerial revolution." The managers of industry and technically trained government officials did not own the means of production, like the capitalists of old. But they did control the means of production, thanks to their expertise and administrative prowess.

    The rise of this managerial class would have far-reaching consequences, he predicted. Burnham wrote in his 1943 book, The Machiavellians : "that the managers may function, the economic and political structure must be modified, as it is now being modified, so as to rest no longer on private ownership and small-scale nationalist sovereignty, but primarily upon state control of the economy, and continental or vast regional world political organization." Burnham pointed to Nazi Germany, imperial Japan-which became a "continental" power by annexing Korea and Manchuria-and the Soviet Union as examples.

    The defeat of the Axis powers did not halt the progress of the managerial revolution. Far from it: not only did the Soviets retain their form of managerialism, but the West increasingly adopted a managerial corporatism of its own, marked by cooperation between big business and big government: high-tech industrial crony capitalism, of the sort that characterizes the military-industrial complex to this day. (Not for nothing was Burnham a great advocate of America's developing a supersonic transport of its own to compete with the French-British Concorde.)

    America's managerial class was personified by Robert S. McNamara, the former Ford Motor Company executive who was secretary of defense under John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson. In a 1966 story for National Review , "Why Do They Hate Robert Strange McNamara?" Burnham answered the question in class terms: "McNamara is attacked by the Left because the Left has a blanket hatred of the system of business enterprise; he is criticized by the Right because the Right harks back, in nostalgia if not in practice, to outmoded forms of business enterprise."

    McNamara the managerial technocrat was too business-oriented for a left that still dreamed of bringing the workers to power. But the modern form of industrial organization he represented was not traditionally capitalist enough for conservatives who were at heart 19th-century classical liberals.

    National Review readers responded to Burnham's paean to McNamara with a mixture of incomprehension and indignation. It was a sign that even readers familiar with Burnham-he appeared in every issue of the magazine-did not always follow what he was saying. The popular right wanted concepts that were helpful in labeling enemies, and Burnham was confusing matters by talking about changes in the organization of government and industry that did not line up with anyone's value judgements.

    More polemically useful was a different concept popularized by neoconservatives in the following decade: the "New Class." "This 'new class' is not easily defined but may be vaguely described," Irving Kristol wrote in a 1975 essay for the Wall Street Journal :

    It consists of a goodly proportion of those college-educated people whose skills and vocations proliferate in a 'post-industrial society' (to use Daniel Bell's convenient term). We are talking about scientists, teachers, and educational administrators, journalists and others in the communication industries, psychologists, social workers, those lawyers and doctors who make their careers in the expanding public sector, city planners, the staffs of the larger foundations, the upper levels of the government bureaucracy, and so on.

    "Members of the new class do not 'control' the media," he continued, "they are the media-just as they are our educational system, our public health and welfare system, and much else."

    Burnham, writing in National Review in 1978, drew a sharp contrast between this concept and his own ideas:

    I have felt that this 'new class' is, so far, rather thin gruel. Intellectuals, verbalists, media types, etc. are conspicuous actors these days, certainly; they make a lot of noise, get a lot of attention, and some of them make a lot of money. But, after all, they are a harum-scarum crowd, and deflate even more quickly than they puff up. On TV they can out-talk any of the managers of ITT, GM, or IBM, or the administration-managers of the great government bureaus and agencies, but, honestly, you're not going to take that as a power test. Who hires and fires whom?

    Burnham suffered a stroke later that year. Although he lived until 1987, his career as a writer was over. His last years coincided with another great transformation of business and government. It began in the Carter administration, with moves to deregulate transportation and telecommunications. This partial unwinding of the managerial revolution accelerated under Ronald Reagan. Regulatory and welfare-state reforms, even privatization of formerly nationalized industries, also took off in the UK and Western Europe. All this did not, however, amount to a restoration of the old capitalism or anything resembling laissez-faire.

    The "[neo]liberal democracy" that triumphed at "the end of history"-to use Francis Fukuyama's words-was not the managerial capitalism of the mid-20th century, either. It was instead the New Class's form of capitalism, one that could be embraced by Bill Clinton and Tony Blair as readily as by any Republican or Thatcherite.

    Irving Kristol had already noted in the 1970s that "this new class is not merely liberal but truly 'libertarian' in its approach to all areas of life-except economics. It celebrates individual liberty of speech and expression and action to an unprecedented degree, so that at times it seems almost anarchistic in its conception of the good life."

    He was right about the New Class's "anything goes" mentality, but he was only partly correct about its attitude toward economics. The young elite tended to scorn the bourgeois character of the old capitalism, and to them managerial figures like McNamara were evil incarnate. But they had to get by-and they aspired to rule.

    Burnham had observed that the New Class did not have the means-either money or manpower-to wield power the way the managers or the capitalists of old did. It had to borrow power from other classes. Discovering where the New Class gets it is as easy as following the money, which leads straight to the finance sector-practically to the doorstep of Goldman Sachs. Jerry Rubin's journey from Yippie to yuppie was the paradigm of a generation.

    Part of the tale can be told in a favorable light. New Left activists like Carl Oglesby fought the spiritual aridity and murderous militarism of what they called "corporate liberalism"-Burnham's managerialism-while sincere young libertarians attacked the regulatory state and seeded technological entrepreneurship. Yet the New Class as a whole is less like Carl Oglesby or Karl Hess than like Hillary Clinton, who arguably embodies it as perfectly as McNamara did the managerial class.

    Even the New Class's support for deregulation-to the advantage of its allies on Wall Street-was no sign of consistent commitment to free-market principles. On the contrary, the New Class favors new kinds of crony finance capitalism, even as it opposes the protectionism that would benefit hard industry and managerial interests. The individual-mandate feature of Obamacare and Romneycare is a prime example of New Class cronyism: government compels individuals to buy a supposedly private product or service.

    The alliance between finance and the New Class accounts for the disposition of power in America today. The New Class has also enlisted another invaluable ally: the managerial classes of East Asia. Trade with China-the modern managerial state par excellence-helps keep American industry weak relative to finance and the service economy's verbalist-dominated sectors. America's class war, like many others, is not in the end a contest between up and down. It's a fight between rival elites: in this case, between the declining managerial elite and the triumphant (for now) New Class and financial elites.

    The New Class plays a priestly role in its alliance with finance, absolving Wall Street for the sin of making money in exchange for plenty of that money to keep the New Class in power. In command of foreign policy, the New Class gets to pursue humanitarian ideological projects-to experiment on the world. It gets to evangelize by the sword. And with trade policy, it gets to suppress its class rival, the managerial elite, at home. Through trade pacts and mass immigration the financial elite, meanwhile, gets to maximize its returns without regard for borders or citizenship. The erosion of other nations' sovereignty that accompanies American hegemony helps toward that end too-though our wars are more ideological than interest-driven.

    ♦♦♦

    So we come to an historic moment. Instead of an election pitting another Bush against another Clinton, we have a race that poses stark alternatives: a choice not only between candidates but between classes-not only between administrations but between regimes.

    Donald Trump is not of the managerial class himself. But by embracing managerial interests-industrial protection and, yes, "big government"-and combining them with nationalistic identity politics, he has built a force that has potential to threaten the bipartisan establishment, even if he goes down to defeat in November.

    The New Class, after all, lacks a popular base as well as money of its own, and just as it relies on Wall Street to underwrite its power, it depends on its competing brands of identity politics to co-opt popular support. For the center-left establishment, minority voters supply the electoral muscle. Religion and the culture war have served the same purpose for the establishment's center-right faction. Trump showed that at least one of these sides could be beaten on its own turf-and it seems conceivable that if Bernie Sanders had been black, he might have similarly beaten Clinton, without having to make concessions to New Class tastes.

    The New Class establishment of both parties may be seriously misjudging what is happening here. Far from being the last gasp of the demographically doomed-old, racially isolated white people, as Gallup's analysis says-Trump's insurgency may be the prototype of an aggressive new politics, of either left or right, that could restore the managerial elite to power.

    This is not something that conservatives-or libertarians who admire the old capitalism rather than New Class's simulacrum-might welcome. But the only way that some entrenched policies may change is with a change of the class in power.

    Daniel McCarthy is the editor of The American Conservative .

    Johann , says: September 7, 2016 at 10:02 am
    The New Class is parasitic and will drive the country to its final third world resting place, or worse.
    Dan Phillips , says: September 7, 2016 at 11:32 am
    Excellent analysis. What is important about the Trump phenomenon is not every individual issue, it's the potentially revolutionary nature of the phenomenon. The opposition gets this. That's why they are hysterical about Trump. The conservative box checkers do not.
    g , says: September 7, 2016 at 11:51 am
    "Donald Trump is not of the managerial class himself. But by embracing managerial interests-industrial protection and, yes, "big government"-and combining them with nationalistic identity politics, he has built a force that has potential to threaten the bipartisan establishment, even if he goes down to defeat in November."

    My question is, if Trump is not himself of the managerial class, in fact, could be considered one of the original new class members, how would he govern? What explains his conversion from the new class to the managerial class; is he merely taking advantage of an opportunity or is there some other explanation?

    Richard Terrace , says: September 7, 2016 at 12:09 pm
    I'm genuinely confused by the role you ascribe to the 'managerial class' here. Going back to Berle and Means ('The Modern Corporation and Private Property') the managerial class emerged when management was split from ownership in mid C20th capitalism. Managers focused on growth, not profits for shareholders. The Shareholder revolution of the 1980s destroyed the managerial class, and destroyed their unwieldy corporations.
    You seem to be identifying the managerial class with a kind of cultural opposition to the values of [neo]liberal capitalism. And instead of identifying the 'new class' with the new owner-managers of shareholder-driven firms, you identify them by their superficial cultural effects.

    This raises a deeper problem in how you talk about class in this piece. Marx taught that you identify classes by their structural role in the system of production. I'm at a loss to see how either of the 'classes' you mention here relate to the system of production. Does the 'new class' of journalists, academics, etc. actually own anything? If not, what is the point of ascribing to them immense economic power?
    I would agree that there is a new class of capitalists in America. But they are well known people like Sheldon Adelson, the Kochs, Linda McMahon, the Waltons, Rick Scott the pharmaceutical entrepreneur, Mitt Romney, Mark Zuckerberg, and many many hedge fund gazillionaires. These people represent the resurgence of a family-based, dynastic capitalism that is utterly different from the managerial variety that prevailed in mid-century.

    If there is a current competitor to international corporate capitalism, it is old-fashioned dynastic family capitalism. Not Managerialism.

    JonF , says: September 7, 2016 at 1:13 pm
    There is no "new class". That's simply a derogatory trope of the Right. The [neo]liberal elite– educated, cosmopolitan and possessed of sufficient wealth to be influential in political affairs and claims to power grounded in moral stances– have a long pedigree in both Western and non-Western lands. They were the Scribal Class in the ancient world, the Mandarins of China, and the Clergy in the Middle Ages. This class for a time was eclipsed in the early modern period as first royal authority became dominant, followed by the power of the Capitalist class (the latter has never really faded of course). But their reemergence in the late 20th century is not a new or unique phenomenon.
    Kurt Gayle , says: September 7, 2016 at 2:03 pm
    In a year in which "trash Trump" and "trash Trump's supporters" are tricks-to-be-turned for more than 90% of mainstream journalists and other media hacks, it's good to see Daniel McCarthy buck the "trash trend" and write a serious, honest analysis of the class forces that are colliding during this election cycle.

    Two thumbs way up for McCarthy, although his fine effort cannot save the reputation of those establishment whores who call themselves journalists. Nothing can save them. They have earned the universality with which Americans hold them in contempt.

    In 1976 when Gallup began asking about "the honesty and ethical standards" of various professions only 33% of Americans rated journalists "very high or high."

    By last December that "high or very high" rating for journalists had fallen to just 27%.

    It is certain that by Election Day 2016 the American public's opinion of journalists will have fallen even further.

    lee , says: September 7, 2016 at 2:37 pm
    An article on the ruling elite that neglects to mention this ? . . . https://www.amazon.com/Revolt-Elites-Betrayal-Democracy/dp/0393313719
    david helveticka , says: September 7, 2016 at 3:24 pm
    Most of your argument is confusing. The change I see is from a production economy to a finance economy. Wall Street rules, really. Basically the stock market used to be a place where working folk invested their money for retirement, mostly through pensions from unions and corporations. Now it's become a gambling casino, with the "house"-or the big banks-putting it's finger on the roulette wheel. They changed the compensation package of CEO's, so they can rake in huge executive compensation–mostly through stock options-to basically close down everything from manufacturing to customer service, and ship it off to contract manufacturers and outside services in oligarchical countries like mainland China and India.

    I don't know what exactly you mean about the "new class", basically its the finance industry against everyone else.

    One thing you right-wingers always get wrong, is on Karl Marx he was really attacking the money-changers, the finance speculators, the banks. Back in the day, so-called "capitalists" like Henry Ford or George Eastman or Thomas Edison always complained about the access to financing through the big money finance capitalists.

    Sheree , says: September 7, 2016 at 6:16 pm
    Don't overlook the economic value of intellectual property rights (patents, in particular) in the economic equation.

    A big chunk of the 21st century economy is generated due to the intellectual property developed and owned by the New Class and its business enterprises.

    The economic value of ideas and intellectual property rights is somewhat implied in McCarthy's explanation of the New Class, but I didn't see an explicit mention (perhaps I overlooked it).

    I think the consideration of intellectual property rights and the value generated by IP might help to clarify the economic power of the New Class for those who feel the analysis isn't quite complete or on target.

    I'm not saying that IP only provides value to the New Class. We can find examples of IP throughout the economy, at all levels. It's just that the tech and financial sectors seem to focus more on (and benefit from) IP ownership, licensing, and the information captured through use of digital technology.

    Commenter Man , says: September 7, 2016 at 10:19 pm
    "What do these insurgents have in common? All have called into question the interventionist consensus in foreign policy."

    But today we have this: Trump pledges big US military expansion . Trump doesn't appear to have any coherent policy, he just says whatever seems to be useful at that particular moment.

    Wayne Lusvardi , says: September 7, 2016 at 10:37 pm
    [New] Class better describes the Never Trumpers. Mostly I have found them to be those involved in knowledge occupations (conservative think tanks, hedge fund managers, etc.) who have a pecuniary interest in maintaining the Global Economy as opposed to the Virtuous Intergenerational Economy that preceded. Many are dependent on funding sources for their livelihoods that are connected to the Globalized Economy and financial markets.
    jack , says: September 7, 2016 at 11:13 pm
    "mobilize working-class voters against the establishment in both parties. " = workers of the world unite.

    maybe Trump could use that

    Wayne Lusvardi , says: September 7, 2016 at 11:33 pm
    Being white is not the defining characteristic of Trumpers because it if was then how come there are many white working class voters for Hillary? The divide in the working class comes from being a member of a union or a member of the private non-unionized working class.

    Where the real class divide shows up is in those who are members of the Knowledge Class that made their living based on the old Virtuous Economy where the elderly saved money in banks and the banks, in turn, lent that money out to young families to buy houses, cars, and start businesses. The Virtuous Economy has been replaced by the Global Economy based on diverting money to the stock market to fund global enterprises and prop up government pension funds.

    The local bankers, realtors, private contractors, small savers and small business persons and others that depended on the Virtuous Economy lost out to the global bankers, stock investors, pension fund managers, union contractors and intellectuals that propounded rationales for the global economy as superior to the Virtuous Economy.

    Where the class conflict between the Working and Knowledge Classes begins is where the Knowledge Class almost unilaterally decided to shift to a global economy, at the expense of the Working Class, and to the self-benefit of the Knowledge Class. Those who designed the Global Economy like Larry Summers of Harvard did not invite private or public labor to help design the new Globalist Economy. The Working Class lost out big time in job losses and getting stuck with subprime home loans that busted their marriages and created bankruptcies and foreclosures. The Knowledge Class was mostly unscathed by this class-based economic divide.

    Mitzy Moon , says: September 8, 2016 at 12:32 am
    Beginning in the 50's and 60's, baby boomers were warned in school and cultural media that "a college diploma would become what a high school diploma is today." An extraordinary cohort of Americans took this advice seriously, creating the smartest and most successful generation in history. But millions did not heed that advice, cynically buoyed by Republicans who – knowing that college educated people vote largely Democrat – launched a financial and cultural war on college education. The result is what you see now: millions of people unprepared for modern employment; meanwhile we have to import millions of college-educated Asians and Indians to do the work there aren't enough Americans to do.
    Joe , says: September 8, 2016 at 1:25 am
    Have to say, this seems like an attempt to put things into boxes that don't quite fit.

    Trump's distinguishing ideology, which separates him from the current elite, is something he has summed up many times – nationalism vs. Globalism.

    The core of it is that the government no longer serves the people. In the United States, that is kind of a bad thing, you know? Like the EU in the UK, the people, who fought very hard for self-government, are seeing it undermined by the erosion of the nation state in favor of international beaurocracy run by elites and the well connected.

    Emil Mottola , says: September 8, 2016 at 2:15 am
    Both this article and many comments on it show considerable confusion, and ideological opinion all over the map. What is happening I think is that the world is changing –due to globalism, technology, and the sheer huge numbers of people on the planet. As a result some of the rigid trenches of thought as well as class alignments are breaking down.

    In America we no longer have capitalism, of either the 19th century industrial or 20th century managerial varieties. Money and big money is still important of course, but it is increasingly both aligned with and in turn controlled by the government. The financial industry, the new tech giants, the health insurance industry are now almost indistinguishable from the government ruling elite. The old left–represented by Sanders–rails against this as big money coopting government, even while conservatives are exasperated by the unholy cabal of big business and big government in cohoots in the "progressive" remake of America. Both are right in a sense.

    The hyperconcentration of power in Washington and a few tributary locations like Wall Street and Silicon Valley, elite academia and the media–call that the New Class if you like–means that most of America–Main Street, the flyover country has been left behind. Trump instinctively – brilliantly in some ways – tapped into the resentment that this hyperconcentration of wealth and government power has led to. That is why it cuts across right and left. The elites want to characterize this resentment as backwards and "racist," but there is also something very American from Jefferson to Jackson to Teddy Roosevelt that revolts against being lectured to and controlled by their would-be "betters."

    The alienation of those left out is real and based on real erosion of the middle class and American dream under both parties' elites. The potentially revolutionary capabilities of a political movement that could unite right and left in restoring some equilibrium and opportunities to those left out is tremendous, but yet to be realized by either major party. The party that can harness these folks – who are after all the majority of Americans – will have a ruling coalition for decades. If neither party can productively harness this budding movement, we are headed for disarray, civil unrest, and potentially the dissolution of the USA.

    EliteCommInc. , says: September 8, 2016 at 3:29 am
    I have one condition about which, Mr. Trump would lose my support - if he flinches on immigration, I will have to bow out.

    I just don't buy the contentions about color here. He has made definitive moves to ensure that he intends to fight for US citizens regardless of color. This nonsense about white racism, more bigotry in reality, doesn't pan out. The Republican party has been comprised of mostly whites since forever and nearly all white sine the late 1960's. Anyone attempting to make hay out of what has been the reality for than 40 years is really making the reverse pander. Of course most of those who have issues with blacks and tend to be more expressive about it, are in the Republican party. But so what. Black Republicans would look at you askance, should you attempt this FYI.

    It's a so what. The reason you joining a party is not because the people in it like you, that is really beside the point. Both Sec Rice and General Powell, are keenly aware of who's what it and that is the supposed educated elite. They are not members of the party because it is composed of some pure untainted membership. But because they and many blacks align themselves with the ideas of the party, or what the party used to believe, anyway.

    It's the issues not their skin color that matters. And blacks who cleave to the democrats despite being sold down the tubes on issues, well, for whatever reason, they just have thinner skin and the mistaken idea that the democrats deliver – thanks to Pres. Johnson. But what Pres. Johnson delivered democrats made a mockery of immediately as they stripped it of its intent and used for their own liberal ends.

    I remain convinced that if blacks wanted progress all they need do is swamp the Republican party as constituents and confront whatever they thought was nonsense as constituents as they move on policy issues. Goodness democrats have embraced the lighter tones despite having most black support. That is why the democrats are importing so many from other state run countries. They could ignore blacks altogether. Sen Barbara Jordan and her deep voiced rebuke would do them all some good.

    Let's face it - we are not going to remove the deeply rooted impact of skin color, once part of the legal frame of the country for a quarter of the nations populous. What Republicans should stop doing is pretending, that everything concerning skin color is the figment of black imagination. I am not budging an inch on the Daughters of the American Revolution, a perfect example of the kind of peculiar treatment of the majority, even to those who fought for Independence and their descendants.
    ________________

    I think that there are thousands and thousands of educated (degreed)people who now realize what a mess the educational and social services system has become because of our immigration policy. The impact on social services here in Ca is no joke. In the face of mounting deficits, the laxity of Ca has now come back to haunt them. The pressure to increase taxes weighed against the loss of manual or hard labor to immigrants legal and otherwise is unmistakable here. There's debate about rsstroom etiquette in the midst of serious financial issues - that's a joke. So this idea of dismissing people with degrees as being opposed to Mr. Trump is deeply overplayed and misunderstood. If there is a class war, it's not because of Mr. Trump, those decks were stacked in his favor long before the election cycle.
    --------

    "But millions did not heed that advice, cynically buoyed by Republicans who–knowing that college educated people vote largely Democrat–launched a financial and cultural war on college education. The result is what . . . employment; meanwhile we have to import millions of college-educated Asians and Indians to do the work there aren't enough Americans to do."

    Hmmmm,

    Nope. Republicans are notorious for pushing education on everything and everybody. It's a signature of hard work, self reliance, self motivation and responsibility. The shift that has been tragic is that conservatives and Republicans either by a shove or by choice abandoned the fields by which we turn out most future generations - elementary, HS and college education. Especially in HS, millions of students are fed a daily diet of liberal though unchecked by any opposing ideas. And that is become the staple for college education - as it cannot be stated just how tragic this has become for the nation. There are lots of issues to moan about concerning the Us, but there is far more to embrace or at the very least keep the moaning in its proper context. No, conservatives and Republicans did engage in discouraging an education.

    And there will always be a need for more people without degrees than with them. even people with degrees are now getting hit even in the elite walls of WS finance. I think I posted an article by John Maulden about the growing tensions resulting fro the shift in the way trading is conducting. I can build a computer from scratch, that's a technical skill, but the days of building computers by hand went as fast it came. The accusation that the population should all be trained accountants, book keepers, managers, data processors, programmers etc. Is nice, but hardly very realistic (despite my taking liberties with your exact phrasing). A degree is not going to stop a company from selling and moving its production to China, Mexico or Vietnam - would that were true. In fact, even high end degree positions are being outsourced, medicine, law, data processing, programming . . .

    How about the changes in economy that have forced businesses to completely disappear. We will never know how many businesses were lost in the 2007/2008 financial mess. Recovery doesn't exist until the country's growth is robust enough to put people back to work full time in a manner that enables them to sustain themselves and family.

    That income gap is real and its telling.
    ___________________

    even if I bought the Karl Marx assessment. His solutions were anything but a limited assault on financial sector oligarchs and wizards. And in practice it has been an unmitigated disaster with virtually not a single long term national benefit. It's very nature has been destructive, not only to infrastructure, but literally the lifeblood of the people it was intended to rescue.

    Wayne Lusvardi , says: September 8, 2016 at 5:36 am
    Let's see if I can help Dreher clear up some confusion in his article. James Burnham's "Managerial Class" and the "New Class" are overlapping and not exclusive. By the Managerial Class Burnham meant both the executive and managers in the private sector and the Bureaucrats and functionaries in the public sector.

    There are two middle classes in the US: the old Business Class and the New Knowledge Class. A manager would be in the Business Class and a Bureaucrat in the New Class.

    The rise of managers was a "revolution" because of the rise of modernization which meant the increasing mechanization, industrialization, formalization and rationalization (efficiency) of society. Burnham's concern about the rise of the managerial revolution was misplaced; what he should have focused on was modernization.

    The New Class were those in the mostly government and nonprofit sectors that depended on knowledge for their livelihood without it being coupled to any physical labor: teachers, intellectuals, social workers and psychiatrists, lawyers, media types, hedge fund managers, real estate appraisers, financial advisors, architects, engineers, etc. The New Knowledge Class has only risen since the New Deal created a permanent white collar, non-business class.

    The Working Class are those who are employed for wages in manual work in an industry producing something tangible (houses, cars, computers, etc.). The Working Class can also have managers, sometimes called supervisors. And the Working Class is comprised mainly of two groups: unionized workers and private sector non-unionized workers. When we talk about the Working Class we typically are referring to the latter.

    The Trumpsters should not be distinguished as being a racial group or class (white) because there are many white people who support Clinton. About 95% of Blacks vote Democratic in the US. Nowhere near that ratio of Whites are supporting Trump. So Trumps' support should not be stereotyped as White.

    The number one concern to Trumpsters is that they reflect the previous intergenerational economy where the elderly lent money to the young to buy homes, cars and start small businesses. The Global bankers have shifted money into the stock market because 0.25% per year interest rates in a bank isn't making any money at all when money inflation runs at 1% to 2% (theft). This has been replaced by a Global Economy that depends on financial bubbles and arbitraging of funds.

    William Burns , says: September 8, 2016 at 5:45 am
    How are the elites supporting Trump different from the elites supporting financier par excellence Mitt Romney?
    EliteCommInc. , says: September 8, 2016 at 6:23 am
    "The old left–represented by Sanders–rails against this as big money coopting government, even while conservatives are exasperated by the unholy cabal of big business and big government in cohoots in the "progressive" remake of America. Both are right in a sense."

    Why other couching this. Ten years ago if some Hollywood exec had said, no same sex marriage, no production company in your town, the town would have shrugged. Today before shrugging, the city clerk is checking the account balance. When the governors of Michigan, and Arizona bent down in me culpa's on related issue, because business interests piped in, it was an indication that the game had seriously changed. Some 3 – 5% of the population facing no real opposition has decided that that their private lives needed public endorsement and have proceeded to upend the entire social order - the game has shifted in ways I am not sure most of the public fully grasps or desires.

    Same sex weddings in US military chapels - the concept still turns my stomach. Advocates control the megaphones, I don't think they control the minds of the public, despite having convinced a good many people that those who have chosen this expression are under some manner of assault – that demands a legal change - intelligent well educated, supposedly astute minded people actually believe it. Even the Republican nominee believes it.

    I love Barbara Streisand, but if the election means she moves to Canada, well, so be it. Take your "drag queens" impersonators wit you. I enjoy Mr. and Mrs Pitt, I think have a social moral core but really? with millions of kids future at stake, endorsing a terminal dynamic as if it will save society's ills - Hollywood doesn't even pretend to behave royally much less embody the sensitivities of the same.

    There is a lot to challenge about supporting Mr. Trump. He did support killing children in the womb and that is tragic. Unless he has stood before his maker and made this right, he will have to answer for that. But no more than a trove of Republicans who supported killing children in the womb and then came to their senses. I guess of there is one thing he and I agree on, it's not drinking.

    As for big budget military, it seems a waste, but if we are going to waste money, better it be for our own citizens. His Achilles heel here is his intentions as to ISIS/ISIL. I think it's the big drain getting ready to suck him into the abyss of intervention creep.

    Missile defense just doesn't work. The tests are rigged and as Israel discovered, it's a hit and miss game with low probability of success, but it makes for great propaganda.

    I am supposed to be outraged by a football player stance on abusive government. While the democratic nominee is turning over every deck chair she find, leaving hundreds of thousands of children homeless - let me guess, on the bright side, George Clooney cheers the prospect of more democratic voters.

    If Mr. Trumps only achievements are building a wall, over hauling immigration policy and expanding the size of the military. He will be well on his way to getting ranked one of the US most successful presidents.

    Joe F , says: September 8, 2016 at 11:11 am
    I never understood why an analysis needs to lard in every conceivable historical reference and simply assume its relevance, when there are so many non constant facts and circumstances. There has always been and will always be class conflict, even if it falls short of a war. Simply examining recent past circumstances, the wealthy class has been whooping up on all other classes. This is not to suggest any sort of remedy, but simply to observe that income disparity over the past 30 years has substantially benefitted on sector of class and political power remains in their hands today. To think that there will never be class conflict is to side with a Marxian fantasy of egalitarianism, which will never come to pass. Winners and losers may change positions, but the underlying conflict will always remain.
    JonF , says: September 8, 2016 at 1:32 pm
    EliteCommInc,

    State governments have been kowtowing to big business interests for a good long while. Nothing new under the sun there. Back in the 80s when GM was deciding where to site their factory for the new Saturn car line, they issued an edict stating they would only consider states that had mandatory seat belt use laws, and the states in the running fell all over each to enact those.

    The split on Trump is first by race (obviously), then be gender (also somewhat obviously), and then by education. Even among self-declared conservatives it's the college educated who tend to oppose him. This is a lot broader than simply losing some "new" Knowledge Class, unless all college educated people are put in that grouping. In fact he is on track to lose among college educated whites, something no GOP candidate has suffered since the days of FDR and WWII.

    Fabian , says: September 8, 2016 at 3:35 pm
    People don't really care for the actions of the elite but they care for the consequences of these actions. During the 1960's, per capita GDP growth was around 3.5%. Today it stands at 0,49%. If you take into account inflation, it's negative. Add to this the skewed repartition of said growth and it's intuitive that many people feel the pain; whom doesn't move forward, goes backwards.

    People couldn't care for mass immigration, nation building or the emergence of China if their personal situation was not impacted. But now, they begin to feel the results of these actions.

    Gilly.El , says: September 8, 2016 at 3:36 pm
    I have a simple philosophy regarding American politics that shows who is made of what, and we don't have to go through all the philosophizing in this article: Anyone who believes in same sex marriage has been brainwashed and is un-American and unreliable. Anyone who puts Israeli interests above America's is un-American.
    Richard Wagner , says: September 8, 2016 at 5:04 pm
    EliteComic beat me to the punch. I was disappointed that Ross Perot, who won over 20% of the popular vote twice, and was briefly in the lead in early 1992, wasn't mentioned in this article.
    JonF , says: September 8, 2016 at 5:07 pm
    Re: Anyone who believes in same sex marriage has been brainwashed and is un-American and unreliable. Anyone who puts Israeli interests above America's is un-American.

    The first has nothing whatsoever to do with American citizenship. It's just a political issue– on which, yes, reasonable people can differ. However no American citizen should put the interests of any other country ahead of our own, except in a situation where the US was itself up to no good and deserved its comeuppance. And then the interest is not that of any particular nation, but of justice being done period.

    David Helveticka , says: September 8, 2016 at 6:12 pm
    A lot of this "New Class" stuff is just confusing mis-mash of this and that theory. Basically, America changed when the US dollar replace gold as the medium of exchange in the world economy. Remember when we called it the PETRO-DOLLAR. As long as the Saudis only accepted the US dollar as the medium of exchange for oil, then the American government could export it's inflation and deficit spending. Budget deficits and trade deficits are intrinsically related. It allowed America to become a nation of consumers instead of a nation of producers.

    Who really cares about the federal debt. REally? We can print dollars, exchange these worthless dollars with China for hard goods, and then China lends the dollars back to us, to pay for our government. Get it?

    It's really a form of classic IMPERIALISM. To maintain this system, we've got the US military and we prop up the corrupt dictatorships in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Libya

    Yeah, you can talk about the "new class", the corruption of the banking system by the idiotic "libertarian" or "free market utopianism" of the Gingrich Congress, the transformation of American corporations to international corporations, and on and on. But it's the US dollar as reserve currency that has allowed it all to happen. God help us, if it ends, we'll be crippled.

    And damn the utopianism of you "libertarians" you're worse then Marxists when it comes to ideology over reality.

    Jim Houghton , says: September 8, 2016 at 6:56 pm
    Ronald Reagan confounded the GOP party elite, too. They - rightly - considered him an intellectual lightweight.
    EliteCommInc. , says: September 8, 2016 at 9:20 pm
    "State governments have been kowtowing to big business interests for a good long while. Nothing new under the sun there. Back in the 80s when GM was deciding where to site their factory for the new Saturn car line, they issued an edict stating they would only consider states that had mandatory seat belt use laws, and the states in the running fell all over each to enact those."

    Ah, not it's policy on some measure able effect. The seatbelt law was debate across the country. The data indicated that it did in fact save lives. And it's impact was universal applicable to every man women or child that got into a vehicle.

    That was not a private bedroom issue. Of course businesses have advocated policy. K street is not a K-street minus that reality. But GM did not demand having relations in parked cars be legalized or else.

    You are taking my apples and and calling them seatbelts - false comparison on multiple levels, all to get me to acknowledge that businesses have influence. It what they have chosen to have influence on -

    That is another matter.

    cecelia , says: September 9, 2016 at 1:34 am
    I do not think the issue of class is relevant here – whether it be new classes or old classes. There are essentially two classes – those who win given whatever the current economic arrangements are or those who lose given those same arrangements. People who think they are losing support Trump versus people who think they are winning support Clinton. The polls demonstrates this – Trump supporters feel a great deal more anxiety about the future and are more inclined to think everything is falling apart whereas Clinton supporters tend to see things as being okay and are optimistic about the future. The Vox work also shows this pervasive sense that life will not be good for their children and grandchildren as a characteristic of Trump supporters.

    The real shift I think is in the actual coalitions that are political parties. Both the GOP and the Dems have been coalitions – political parties usually are. Primary areas of agreement with secondary areas of disagreement. Those coalitions no longer work. The Dems can be seen as a coalition of the liberal knowledge types – who are winners in this economy and the worker types who are often losers now in this economy. The GOP also is a coalition of globalist corporatist business types (winners) with workers (losers) who they attracted in part because of culture wars and the Dixiecrats becoming GOPers. The needs of these two groups in both parties no longer overlap. The crisis is more apparent in the GOP because well – Trump. If Sanders had won the nomination for the Dems (and he got close) then their same crisis would be more apparent. The Dems can hold their creaky coalition together because Trump went into the fevered swamps of the alt. right.

    I think this is even more obvious in the UK where you have a Labor Party that allegedly represents the interests of working people but includes the cosmopolitan knowledge types. The cosmopolitans are big on the usual identity politics, unlimited immigration and staying in the EU. They benefit from the current economic arrangement. But the workers in the Labor party have been hammered by the current economic arrangements and voted in droves to get out of the EU and limit immigration. It seems pretty obvious that there is no longer a coalition to sustain the Labor Party. Same with Tories – some in the party love the EU,immigration, globalization while others voted out of the EU, want immigration restricted and support localism. The crisis is about the inability of either party to sustain its coalitions. Those in the Tory party who are leavers should be in a political party with the old Labor working class while the Tory cosmopolitans should be in a party with the Labor cosmopolitans. The current coalitions not being in synch is the political problem – not new classes etc.

    Here in the US the southern Dixiecrats who went to the GOP and are losers in this economy might find a better coalition with the black, Latino and white workers who are still in the Dem party. But as in the UK ideological culture wars have become more prominent and hence the coalitions are no longer economically based. If people recognized that politics can only address the economic issues and they aligned themselves accordingly – the membership of the parties would radically change.

    So forget about class and think coalitions.

    Clint , says: September 9, 2016 at 5:47 pm
    The Clinton Class mocks The Country Class: Bill Clinton, "We all know how her opponent's done real well down in West Virginia and eastern Kentucky. Because the coal people don't like any of us anymore." "They blame the president when the sun doesn't come up in the morning now,"
    someguy , says: September 10, 2016 at 9:25 pm
    Collin, this is straight ridiculous.

    "Trump's voters were most strongly characterized by their "racial isolation": they live in places with little ethnic diversity. "

    During the primaries whites in more diverse areas voted Trump. The only real exception was West Virginia. Utah, Wyoming, Iowa? All voted for Cruz and "muh values".

    In white enclaves like Paul Ryans district, which is 91%, whites are able to signal against white identity without having to face the consequences.

    Rick , says: September 12, 2016 at 3:05 pm
    Collin said:

    "All three major African, Hispanic, & Asian-American overwhelming support HRC in the election."

    That doesn't mean they actually support Hillary's policies and position. What do they really know about either? These demographics simply vote overwhelmingly Democrat no matter who is on the ticket. If Alfred E. Newman were the candidate, this particular data point would look just the same.

    Craig , says: September 13, 2016 at 10:11 am
    "On the contrary, the New Class favors new kinds of crony finance capitalism, even as it opposes the protectionism that would benefit hard industry and managerial interests."

    This doesn't ring true. Hard industry, and the managers that run it had no problem with moving jobs and factories overseas in pursuit of cheaper labor. Plus, it solved their Union issues. I feel like the divide is between large corporations, with dilute ownership and professional managers who nominally serve the interests of stock fund managers, while greatly enriching themselves versus a multitude of smaller, locally owned businesses whose owners were also concerned with the health of the local communities in which they lived.

    The financial elites are a consequence of consolidation in the banking and finance industry, where we now have 4 or 5 large institutions versus a multitude of local and regional banks that were locally focused.

    [Dec 05, 2016] Capitalism Requires World War by Cathal Haughian via TheSaker.ie,

    www.zerohedge.com

    It has been our undertaking, since 2010, to chronicle our understanding of capitalism via our book The Philosophy of Capitalism . We were curious as to the underlying nature of the system which endows us, the owners of capital, with so many favours. The Saker has asked me to explain our somewhat crude statement 'Capitalism Requires World War'.

    The present showdown between West, Russia and China is the culmination of a long running saga that began with World War One. Prior to which, Capitalism was governed by the gold standard system which was international, very solid, with clear rules and had brought great prosperity: for banking Capital was scarce and so allocated carefully. World War One required debt-capitalism of the FIAT kind, a bankrupt Britain began to pass the Imperial baton to the US, which had profited by financing the war and selling munitions.

    The Weimar Republic, suffering a continuation of hostilities via economic means, tried to inflate away its debts in 1919-1923 with disastrous results-hyperinflation. Then, the reintroduction of the gold standard into a world poisoned by war, reparation and debt was fated to fail and ended with a deflationary bust in the early 1930's and WW2.

    The US government gained a lot of credibility after WW2 by outlawing offensive war and funding many construction projects that helped transfer private debt to the public book. The US government's debt exploded during the war, but it also shifted the power game away from creditors to a big debtor that had a lot of political capital. The US used her power to define the new rules of the monetary system at Bretton Woods in 1944 and to keep physical hold of gold owned by other nations.

    The US jacked up tax rates on the wealthy and had a period of elevated inflation in the late 40s and into the 1950s – all of which wiped out creditors, but also ushered in a unique middle class era in the West. The US also reformed extraction centric institutions in Europe and Japan to make sure an extractive-creditor class did not hobble growth, which was easy to do because the war had wiped them out (same as in Korea).

    Capital destruction in WW2 reversed the Marxist rule that the rate of profit always falls. Take any given market – say jeans. At first, all the companies make these jeans using a great deal of human labour so all the jeans are priced around the average of total social labour time required for production (some companies will charge more, some companies less).

    One company then introduces a machine (costed at $n) that makes jeans using a lot less labour time. Each of these robot assisted workers is paid the same hourly rate but the production process is now far more productive. This company, ignoring the capital outlay in the machinery, will now have a much higher profit rate than the others. This will attract capital, as capital is always on the lookout for higher rates of profit. The result will be a generalisation of this new mode of production. The robot or machine will be adopted by all the other companies, as it is a more efficient way of producing jeans.

    As a consequence the price of the jeans will fall, as there is an increased margin within which each market actor can undercut his fellows. One company will lower prices so as to increase market share. This new price-point will become generalised as competing companies cut their prices to defend their market share. A further n$ was invested but per unit profit margin is put under constant downward pressure, so the rate of return in productive assets tends to fall over time in a competitive market place.

    Interest rates have been falling for decades in the West because interest rates must always be below the rate of return on productive investments. If interest rates are higher than the risk adjusted rate of return then the capitalist might as well keep his money in a savings account. If there is real deflation his purchasing power increases for free and if there is inflation he will park his money (plus debt) in an unproductive asset that's price inflating, E.G. Housing. Sound familiar? Sure, there has been plenty of profit generated since 2008 but it has not been recovered from productive investments in a competitive free market place. All that profit came from bubbles in asset classes and financial schemes abetted by money printing and zero interest rates.

    Thus, we know that the underlying rate of return is near zero in the West. The rate of return falls naturally, due to capital accumulation and market competition. The system is called capitalism because capital accumulates: high income economies are those with the greatest accumulation of capital per worker. The robot assisted worker enjoys a higher income as he is highly productive, partly because the robotics made some of the workers redundant and there are fewer workers to share the profit. All the high income economies have had near zero interest rates for seven years. Interest rates in Europe are even negative. How has the system remained stable for so long?

    All economic growth depends on energy gain. It takes energy (drilling the oil well) to gain energy. Unlike our everyday experience whereby energy acquisition and energy expenditure can be balanced, capitalism requires an absolute net energy gain. That gain, by way of energy exchange, takes the form of tools and machines that permit an increase in productivity per work hour. Thus GDP increases, living standards improve and the debts can be repaid. Thus, oil is a strategic capitalistic resource.

    US net energy gain production peaked in 1974, to be replaced by production from Saudi Arabia, which made the USA a net importer of oil for the first time. US dependence on foreign oil rose from 26% to 47% between 1985 and 1989 to hit a peak of 60% in 2006. And, tellingly, real wages peaked in 1974, levelled-off and then began to fall for most US workers. Wages have never recovered. (The decline is more severe if you don't believe government reported inflation figures that don't count the costof housing.)

    What was the economic and political result of this decline? During the 20 years 1965-85, there were 4 recessions, 2 energy crises and wage and price controls. These were unprecedented in peacetime and The Gulf of Tonkin event led to the Vietnam War which finally required Nixon to move away from the Gold-Exchange Standard in 1971, opening the next degenerate chapter of FIAT finance up until 2008. Cutting this link to gold was cutting the external anchor impeding war and deficit spending. The promise of gold for dollars was revoked.

    GDP in the US increased after 1974 but a portion of end use buying power was transferred to Saudi Arabia. They were supplying the net energy gain that was powering the US GDP increase. The working class in the US began to experience a slow real decline in living standards, as 'their share' of the economic pie was squeezed by the ever increasing transfer of buying power to Saudi Arabia.

    The US banking and government elite responded by creating and cutting back legal and behavioral rules of a fiat based monetary system. The Chinese appreciated the long term opportunity that this presented and agreed to play ball. The USA over-produced credit money and China over-produced manufactured goods which cushioned the real decline in the buying power of America's working class. Power relations between China and the US began to change: The Communist Party transferred value to the American consumer whilst Wall Street transferred most of the US industrial base to China. They didn't ship the military industrial complex.

    Large scale leverage meant that US consumers and businesses had the means to purchase increasingly with debt so the class war was deferred. This is how over production occurs: more is produced that is paid for not with money that represents actual realized labour time, but from future wealth, to be realised from future labour time. The Chinese labour force was producing more than it consumed.

    The system has never differed from the limits laid down by the Laws of Thermodynamics. The Real economy system can never over-produce per se. The limit of production is absolute net energy gain. What is produced can be consumed. How did the Chinese produce such a super massive excess and for so long? Economic slavery can achieve radical improvements in living standards for those that benefit from ownership. Slaves don't depreciate as they are rented and are not repaired for they replicate for free. Hundreds of millions of Chinese peasants limited their way of life and controlled their consumption in order to benefit their children. And their exploited life raised the rate of profit!

    They began their long march to modern prosperity making toys, shoes, and textiles cheaper than poor women could in South Carolina or Honduras. Such factories are cheap to build and deferential, obedient and industrious peasant staff were a perfect match for work that was not dissimilar to tossing fruit into a bucket. Their legacy is the initial capital formation of modern China and one of the greatest accomplishments in human history. The Chinese didn't use net energy gain from oil to power their super massive and sustained increase in production. They used economic slavery powered by caloric energy, exchanged from solar energy. The Chinese labour force picked the World's low hanging fruit that didn't need many tools or machines. Slaves don't need tools for they are the tool.

    Without a gold standard and capital ratios our form of over-production has grown enormously. The dotcom bubble was reflated through a housing bubble, which has been pumped up again by sovereign debt, printing press (QE) and central bank insolvency. The US working and middle classes have over-consumed relative to their share of the global economic pie for decades. The correction to prices (the destruction of credit money & accumulated capital) is still yet to happen. This is what has been happening since 1971 because of the growth of financialisation or monetisation.

    The application of all these economic methods was justified by the political ideology of neo-Liberalism. Neo-Liberalism entails no or few capital controls, the destruction of trade unions, plundering state and public assets, importing peasants as domesticated help, and entrusting society's value added production to The Communist Party of The People's Republic of China.

    The Chinese have many motives but their first motivation is power. Power is more important than money. If you're rich and weak you get robbed. Russia provides illustrating stories of such: Gorbachev had received a promise from George HW Bush that the US would pay Russia approximately $400 billion over10 years as a "peace dividend" and as a tool to be utilized in the conversion of their state run to a market based economic system. The Russians believe the head of the CIA at the time, George Tenet, essentially killed the deal based on the idea that "letting the country fall apart will destroy Russia as a future military threat". The country fell apart in 1992. Its natural assets were plundered which raised the rate of profit in the 90's until President Putin put a stop to the robbery.

    In the last analysis, the current framework of Capitalism results in labour redundancy, a falling rate of profit and ingrained trading imbalances caused by excess capacity. Under our current monopoly state capitalism a number of temporary preventive measures have evolved, including the expansion of university, military, and prison systems to warehouse new generations of labour.

    Our problem is how to retain the "expected return rate" for us, the dominant class. Ultimately, there are only two large-scale solutions, which are intertwined .

    One is expansion of state debt to keep "the markets" moving and transfer wealth from future generations of labour to the present dominant class.

    The other is war, the consumer of last resort. Wars can burn up excess capacity, shift global markets, generate monopoly rents, and return future labour to a state of helplessness and reduced expectations. The Spanish flu killed 50-100 million people in 1918. As if this was not enough, it also took two World Wars across the 20th century and some 96 million dead to reduce unemployment and stabilize the "labour problem."

    Capitalism requires World War because Capitalism requires profit and cannot afford the unemployed . The point is capitalism could afford social democracy after the rate of profit was restored thanks to the depression of the 1930's and the physical destruction of capital during WW2. Capitalism only produces for profit and social democracy was funded by taxing profits after WW2.

    Post WW2 growth in labour productivity, due to automation, itself due to oil & gas replacing coal, meant workers could be better off. As the economic pie was growing, workers could receive the same %, and still receive a bigger slice. Wages as a % of US GDP actually increased in the period, 1945-1970. There was an increase in government spending which was being redirected in the form of redistributed incomes. Inequality will only worsen, because to make profits now we have to continually cut the cost of inputs, i.e. wages & benefits. Have we not already reached the point where large numbers of the working class can neither feed themselves nor afford a roof over their heads?13% of the UK working age population is out of work and receiving out of work benefits. A huge fraction is receiving in work benefits because low skill work now pays so little.

    The underlying nature of Capitalism is cyclical. Here is how the political aspect of the cycle ends:

    • 1920s/2000s – High inequality, high banker pay, low regulation, low taxes for the wealthy, robber barons (CEOs), reckless bankers, globalisation phase
    • 1929/2008 – Wall Street crash
    • 1930s/2010s – Global recession, currency wars, trade wars, rising unemployment, nationalism and extremism
    • What comes next? – World War.

    If Capitalism could speak, she would ask her older brother, Imperialism, this: "Can you solve the problem?" We are not reliving the 1930's, the economy is now an integrated whole that encompasses the entire World. Capital has been accumulating since 1945, so under- and unemployment is a plague everywhere. How big is the problem? Official data tells us nothing, but the 47 million Americans on food aid are suggestive. That's 1 in 7 Americans and total World population is 7 billion.

    The scale of the solution is dangerous. Our probing for weakness in the South China Sea, Ukraine and Syria has awakened them to their danger.The Chinese and Russian leadershave reacted by integrating their payment systems and real economies, trading energy for manufactured goods for advanced weapon systems. As they are central players in the Shanghai Group we can assume their aim is the monetary system which is the bedrock of our Imperial power. What's worse, they can avoid overt enemy action and simply choose to undermine "confidence" in the FIAT.

    Though given the calibre of their nuclear arsenal, how can they be fought let alone defeated? Appetite preceded Reason, so Lust is hard to Reason with. But beware brother. Your Lust for Power began this saga, perhaps it's time to Reason.

    Uncle Sugar

    Seriously - Having a Central Bank with a debt based monetary system requires permanent wars. True market based capitalism does not.

    Father Thyme

    Your logical fallacy is no true scotsman
    http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/no-true-scotsman

    Wed, 03/02/2016 - 23:21 | 7264475 Seek_Truth

    Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

    If wealth were measured by creating strawmen- you would be a Rothschild.

    gwiss

    That's because they don't understand the word "capitalism."

    Capitalism simply means economic freedom. And economic freedom, just like freedom to breed, must be exposed to the pruning action of cause and effect, otherwise it outgrows its container and becomes unstable and explodes. As long as it is continually exposed to the grinding wheel of causality, it continues to hold a fine edge, as the dross is scraped away and the fine steel stays. Reality is full of dualities, and those dualities cannot be separated without creating broken symmetry and therefore terminal instability. Freedom and responsibility, for example. One without the other is unstable. Voting and taxation in direct proportion to each other is another example.

    Fiat currency is an attempt to create an artificial reality, one without the necessary symmetry and balance of a real system. However, reality can not be gamed, because it will produce its own symmetry if you try to deny it. Thus the symmetry of fiat currency is boom and bust, a sine wave that still manages to produce equilibrium, however at a huge bubbling splattering boil rather than a fine simmer.

    The folks that wrote this do not have a large enough world view. Capitalism does not require world wars because freedom does not require world wars. Freedom tends to bleed imbalances out when they are small. On the other hand, empire does require world war, which is why we are going to have one.

    Wed, 03/02/2016 - 23:27 | 7264485 GRDguy

    Capitalism becomes imperialism when financial sociopaths steal profits from both sides of the trade. What you're seeing is an Imperialism of Capital, as explained very nicely in the 1889 book "The Great Red Dragon."

    AchtungAffen

    Really? I thought that was the re-prints of Mises Canada, Kunstler or Brandon Smith. In comparison, this article is sublime.

    Caviar Emptor

    Wrong. Capitalism needs prolonged directionless wars without clear winners and contained destruction that utilize massive amounts of raw materials and endless orders for weapons and logistical support. That's what makes some guys rich.

    Wed, 03/02/2016 - 22:56 | 7264423 Jack's Raging B...

    That's was a very long-winded and deliberately obtuse way of explaining how DEBT AS MONEY and The State's usurpation of sound money destroyed efficient markets. The author then goes to call this system Capitalism.

    So yeah, the deliberate destruction of capital, in all its forms, is somehow capitalism. Brilliant observation. Fuck you. There are better terms for things like this. Perhaps....central banking? The State? Fiat debt creation? Evil? Naw, let's just contort and abuse language instead. That's the ticket.

    My Days Are Get...

    From Russia News Feed:

    Cathal Haughian Bio :

    I've spent my adult life in 51 countries. This was financed by correctly anticipating the Great Financial Crisis in 2008. I was studying Marx at that time. I'm presently an employee of the Chinese State. I educate the children of China's best families. I am the author, alongside a large international team of capitalists, of Before The Collapse : The Philosophy of Capitalism.

    I also have my own business; I live with my girlfriend and was born and grew up in Ireland.

    ===============

    Why would anyone waste time to read this drivel, buttressed by the author's credentials.

    The unstated thesis is that wars involve millions of actors, who produce an end-result of many hundreds of millions killed.

    Absent coercion ("the Draft"), how is any government going to man hundreds of divisions of foot soldiers. That concept is passé.

    Distribute some aerosol poisons via drones and kill as many people as deemed necessary. How in the hell will that action stimulate the world economy.

    Weapons of mass-destruction are smaller, cheaper and easier to deploy. War as a progenitor of growth - forget it.

    The good news is that this guy is educating the children of elite in China. Possibly the Pentagon could clone him 10,000 times and send those cyborgs to China - cripple China for another generation or two.

    slimycorporated...

    Capitalism requires banks that made shitty loans to fail

    Ms No

    The term cyclical doesn't quite cover what we have being experiencing. It's more like a ragdoll being shaken by a white shark. The euphoria of bubble is more like complete unhinged unicorn mania anymore and the lows are complete grapes of wrath. It's probably always been that way to some extent because corruption has remained unchallenged for a great deal of time. The boom phases are scarier than the downturns anymore, especially the last oil boom and housing boom. Complete Alfred Hitchcock stuff.

    I don't think it's capitalism and that term comes across as an explanation that legitimizes this completely contrived pattern that benefits a few and screws everybody else. Markets should not be behaving in such a violent fashion. Money should probably be made steady and slow. And downturns shouldn't turn a country into Zimbabwe. I could be wrong but there is really no way to know with the corruption we have.

    Good times.

    o r c k

    And War requires that an enemy be created. According to American General Breedlove-head of NATO's European Command-speaking to the US Armed Services Committee 2 days ago, "Russia and Assad are deliberately weaponizing migration to break European resolve". "The only reason to use non-precision weapons like barrel bombs is to keep refugees on the move". "These refugees bring criminality, foreign fighters and terrorism", and "are being used to overwhelm European structures". "Russia has chosen to be an adversary and is a real threat." "Russia is irresponsible with nuclear weapons-always threatening to use them." And strangely, "In the past week alone, Russia has made 450 attacks along the front lines in E. Ukraine".

    Even with insanity overflowing the West, I found these comments to be the most bizarrely threatening propaganda yet. After reading them for the first time, I had to prove to myself that I wasn't hallucinating it.

    [Dec 05, 2016] Spanish civil war nostalgics join fight alongside Ukrainian rebels by Kazbek Basayev

    Notable quotes:
    "... That star and a ribbon around Munez's wrist hint at the Spaniards' motivation for joining a war thousands of miles from home. The ribbon's red, yellow and purple are the colors of the Republicans in the Spanish Civil War, a conflict in the 1930s where thousands of foreigners joined the leftists against right-wing foes who eventually prevailed. ..."
    "... More than 1,100 people have been killed in the fighting in Ukraine since mid-April, according to the United Nations, in a civil conflict that has dragged ties between Russia and the West to their lowest since the Cold War. ..."
    "... Davilla-Rivas blamed the West - which has imposed sanctions on Moscow, accusing it of backing the rebels - for stoking the war. "The United States is trying to provoke a third (world war) against Russia here with your people," he said. "Ordinary people are suffering because they are caught in between three imperial powers - the Russian Federation, the European Union and, certainly, the United States, which is putting money into all this." ..."
    "... Civil war in Ukraine is going more then 4 months. 30 000 Ukrainians was killed, and 1 million expelled from their homes. ..."
    "... Volunteers, revolutionaries, zealots, idealist, mercenaries are all drawn to conflicts all over the globe. ..."
    Aug 08, 2014 | Yahoo/Reuters

    Angel Davilla-Rivas, a Spaniard who came to east Ukraine to fight alongside pro-Russian rebels, proudly shows off two big monochrome portraits of Soviet leaders Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin, tattooed on the right and left side of his torso.

    Davilla-Rivas and his comrade Rafa Munez, both in their mid-twenties, traveled by train from Madrid to eastern Ukraine where they joined the Vostok battalion, the most prominent and heavily armed unit fighting Ukrainian troops.

    "I am the only son, and it hurts my mother and father and my family a lot that I am putting myself at risk. But ... I can't sleep in my bed knowing what's going on here," said Davilla-Rivas, sporting a cap with the Soviet red star pinned to it.

    That star and a ribbon around Munez's wrist hint at the Spaniards' motivation for joining a war thousands of miles from home. The ribbon's red, yellow and purple are the colors of the Republicans in the Spanish Civil War, a conflict in the 1930s where thousands of foreigners joined the leftists against right-wing foes who eventually prevailed.

    Angel said he wanted to return the favor after the Soviet Union, under Stalin, supported the Republican side in Spain.

    More than 1,100 people have been killed in the fighting in Ukraine since mid-April, according to the United Nations, in a civil conflict that has dragged ties between Russia and the West to their lowest since the Cold War.

    The Spaniards are not the first foreigners to enter the fight.

    Men from Russia, its former rebel republic of Chechnya and the Caucasus region of North Ossetia have fought on the rebel side along with volunteers from a Russian-backed separatist enclave of Georgia and natives of Serbia.

    Russians have also taken top positions among the rebels, though a local took over at the helm of the self-proclaimed "Donetsk Peoples' Republic" on Thursday, in a move aimed at blunting Western accusations the rebellion is run by Moscow.

    Moscow said last month there were reports that citizens from Sweden, Finland, France and the former Soviet Baltic states had joined pro-Kiev volunteer battalions in the east as "mercenaries".

    Davilla-Rivas blamed the West - which has imposed sanctions on Moscow, accusing it of backing the rebels - for stoking the war. "The United States is trying to provoke a third (world war) against Russia here with your people," he said. "Ordinary people are suffering because they are caught in between three imperial powers - the Russian Federation, the European Union and, certainly, the United States, which is putting money into all this."

    A Vostok fighter said he was happy to have the Spaniards. "We need support now, we need fighters. An additional automatic gun will do no harm, to support, to cover one's back," said the young, brown-haired man who did not give his name. The Spanish embassy in Moscow was not immediately available for comment.

    (Writing by Gabriela Baczynska; Editing by Robin Pomeroy)

    blazo 6 months ago

    Civil war in Ukraine is going more then 4 months. 30 000 Ukrainians was killed, and 1 million expelled from their homes. Not too bad for only 4 months. But it could be better.

    Commander in chief of glorious Kiev army, Mr Porkoshenko, and his sponsor in killings and expulsions, Mr Obama are not satisfied. For money spent, much higher pace of killing should be #$%$ured. What is their reference? In Babin Yar during WW 2, 1200 Ukrainian #$%$, with help of 300 Germans, managed to kill 60 000 Ukrainians for only two days. So Mr Porkoshenko ask from Chef of all Ukrainian security forces, Mr Paruby to explain discrepancy in efficiency in Babin Yar, and in Donbas killings. Mr Paruby said: In Babin Yar Ukrainians to be killed were civilized and unarmed. They even smiled for photographs during killing. But in Donbas they are barbaric armed people, they don t allow us to kill them in peace. They turned arms on us, and killed 10 000 of our brave soldiers. They burned our tanks, APCs, and shot down our jet bombers. And as a extreme barbarism, they captured from us multiple rocket launchers, and fired on us, killing our 25th, 72nd, 79th motorized brigades. Mr Porkoshenko said: You are fired, and kicked him with foot to his #$%$.

    The great strategist and visionary, Mr Porkoshenko said on 25th of May: It is not a question of days, weeks, or months, when rebellion in East Ukraine will be defeated. It is the question of hours.... .

    Ricardo 6 months ago

    Volunteers, revolutionaries, zealots, idealist, mercenaries are all drawn to conflicts all over the globe. Muslims are headed to Syria and Iraq from Europe and North Africa to fight either Assad or along side ISIS, now those that believe the days of the old USSR are returning are headed to eastern Ukraine to fight. If you look at some of the countries mentioned in this article it will not surprise anyone that they are all from Soviet/Russian supported countries that even after the collapse of the USSR still follow the Russians, no matter the consequences to their country.

    [Dec 05, 2016] Backlash Against Trade Deals: The End of US Led Economic Globalisation?

    Notable quotes:
    "... By Jayati Ghosh, Professor of Economics and Chairperson at the Centre for Economic Studies and Planning, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. Originally published at The Frontline ..."
    "... President Obama has been a fervent supporter of both these deals, with the explicit aim of enhancing and securing US power. "We have to make sure America writes the rules of the global economy. We should do it today while our economy is in the position of global strength. We've got to harness it on our terms. If we don't write the rules for trade around the world – guess what? China will!", he famously said in a speech to workers in a Nike factory in Oregon, USA in May 2015. But even though he has made the case for the TPP plainly enough, his only chance of pushing even the TPP through is in the "lame duck" session of Congress just before the November Presidential election in the US. ..."
    "... The official US version, expressed on the website of the US Trade Representative, is that the TPP "writes the rules for global trade-rules that will help increase Made-in-America exports, grow the American economy, support well-paying American jobs, and strengthen the American middle class." This is mainly supposed to occur because of the tariff cuts over 18,000 items that have been written into the agreement, which in turn are supposed to lead to significant expansion of trade volumes and values. ..."
    "... But this is accepted by fewer and fewer people in the US. Across the country, workers view such trade deals with great suspicion as causing shifts in employment to lower paid workers, mostly in the Global South. ..."
    "... But in fact the TPP and the TTIP are not really about trade liberalisation so much as other regulatory changes, so in any case it is hardly surprising that the positive effects on trade are likely to be so limited. What is more surprising is how the entire discussion around these agreements is still framed around the issues relating to trade liberalisation, when these are in fact the less important parts of these agreements, and it is the other elements that are likely to have more negative and even devastating effects on people living in the countries that sign up to them. ..."
    "... Three aspects of these agreements are particularly worrying: the intellectual property provisions, the restrictions on regulatory practices and the investor-state dispute settlement provisions ..."
    "... All of these would result in significant strengthening of the bargaining power of corporations vis-à-vis workers and citizens, would reduce the power of governments to bring in policies and regulations that affect the profits or curb the power of such corporations ..."
    "... So if such features of US-led globalisation are indeed under threat, that is probably a good thing for the people of the US and for people in their trading partners who had signed up for such deals. ..."
    "... The question arises: is Trump evil? Or merely awful? If Trump is merely awful, then we are not faced with voting for the Lesser Evil or otherwise voting Third Party in protest. If we are faced with a choice between Evil and Awful, perhaps a vote for Awful is a vote against Evil just by itself. ..."
    "... Trump has backpedaled and frontpedaled on virtually everything, but on trade, he's got Sanders-level consistency. He's been preaching the same sanity since the 90s. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZpMJeynBeg ..."
    "... While I do not disagree with your comments, they must be placed in proper context: there is no substantive difference between Mike Pence and Tim Kaine, and the people who staff the campaigns of Trump and Clinton are essentially the same. (Fundamentally a replay of the 2000 election: Cheney/Bush vs. Lieberman/Gore.) ..."
    "... Great Comment. Important to knock down the meme that "this is the most significant or important election of our time" - this is a carbon copy of what we have seen half a dozen times since WW2 alone and that's exactly how our elite handlers want it. Limit the choices, stoke fear, win by dividing the plebes. ..."
    "... Let's face it, trade without the iron fist of capitalism will benefit us schlobs greatly and not the 1%. I'm all for being against it (TPP etc) and will vote that way. ..."
    "... We'd also have put in enough puppet dictators in resource rich countries that we'd be able to get raw materials cheaply. The low labor/raw material cost will provide a significant advantage for exports but alas, our 99% won't be able to afford our own products. ..."
    "... the TPP will completely outlaw any possibility of a "Buy America" clause in the future! ..."
    "... The cynic in me wonders if under say NAFTA it would be possible for a multinational to sue for lost profits via isds if TPP fails to pass. That the failure to enact trade "liberalizing" legislation could be construed as an active step against trade. the way these things are so ambiguously worded, I wonder. ..."
    "... Here's Obama's actual speech at the Nike headquarters (not factory). http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/barackobama/barackobamatradenike.htm ..."
    "... It should be noted that the Oregon Democrats who were free traitors and supported fast track authority were called out that day: Bonamici, Blumenauer, Schrader and Wyden. The only Oregon Ds that opposed: Sen. Merkley and Congressman DeFazio. ..."
    "... The Market Realist is far more realistic about Oregon's free traitors' votes. http://marketrealist.com/2015/05/trans-pacific-partnership-affects-footwear-firms/ "US tariffs on footwear imported from Vietnam can range from 5% to 40%, according to OTEXA (Office of Textiles and Apparel). Ratification of the TPP will likely result in lower tariffs and higher profitability for Nike." ..."
    "... So what's the incentive for Oregon's free traitors to support the TPP now? ..."
    "... Perhaps they still need to show loyalty to their corporate owners and to the principle of "free trade". ..."
    "... Obama: "We have to make sure America writes the rules of the global economy." ..."
    "... Thank you, Mr. President, for resolving any doubts that the American project is an imperialist project! ..."
    "... Yes, and I would add a jingoistic one as well. Manifest destiny, the Monroe doctrine, etc. are not just history lessons but are alive and well in the neoliberal mindset. The empire must keep expanding into every nook and cranny of the world, turning them into good consumerist slaves. ..."
    "... Funny how little things change over the centuries. ..."
    "... The West Is The Best, Subhuman Are All The Rest. The perpetual mantra of the Uebermensch since Columbus first made landfall. Hitler merely sought to apply the same to some Europeans. ..."
    "... "How the West Came to Rule: The Geopolitical Origins of Capitalism", 2015, Alexander Anievas and Kerem Nisancioglu. ..."
    "... The Dem candidate's husband made it appallingly clear what the purpose of the TPP is: "It's to make sure the future of the Asia-Pacific region is not dominated by China". ..."
    "... Bill Clinton doesn't even care about "the rise of China". That's just a red herring he sets up to accuse opponents of TPP of soft-on-China treasonism. It's just fabricating a stick to beat the TPP-opponents with. Clinton's support for MFN for China shows what he really thinks about the "rise of China". ..."
    "... Clinton's real motivation is the same as the TPP's real reason, to reduce America to colonial possession status of the anti-national corporations and the Global OverClass natural persons who shelter behind and within them. ..."
    "... Obama. Liar or stupid? When Elizabeth Warren spoke out about the secrecy of the TPP, Obama, uncharacteristically, ran to the cameras to state that the TPP was not secret and that the charge being leveled by Warren was false. Obama's statement was that Warren had access to a copy so how dare she say it was secret. ..."
    "... Obama (and Holder) effectively immunized every financial criminal involved in the great fraud and recession without bothering to run for a camera, and to this day has refused and avoided any elaboration on the subject, but he wasted no time trying to bury Warren publicly. The TPP is a continuation of Obama's give-away to corporations, or more specifically, the very important men who run them who Obama works for. And he is going to pull out all stops to deliver to the men he respects. ..."
    "... It's a virtual "black market" of "money laundering" (sterilization). In foreign trade, IMPORTS decrease (-) the money stock of the importing country (and are a subtraction to domestic gDp figures), while EXPORTS increase (+) the money stock and domestic gDp (earnings repatriated to the U.S), and the potential money supply, of the exporting country. ..."
    "... I don't WANT the US writing the rules of trade any longer. We know what US-written rules do: plunge worker wages into slave labor territory, guts all advanced country's manufacturing capability, sends all high tech manufacturing to 3rd world nations ..."
    "... Time to toss the rules and re-write them for the greatest benefit of the greatest number of NON-wealthy and for the benefit of the planet/ecosystems, NOT for benefit of Wall St. ..."
    Sep 22, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    By Jayati Ghosh, Professor of Economics and Chairperson at the Centre for Economic Studies and Planning, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. Originally published at The Frontline

    There is much angst in the Northern financial media about how the era of globalisation led actively by the United States may well be coming to an end. This is said to be exemplified in the changed political attitudes to mega regional trade deals like the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) that was signed (but has not yet been ratified) by the US and 11 other countries in Latin America, Asia and Oceania; and the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership Agreement (TTIP) still being negotiated by the US and the European Union.

    President Obama has been a fervent supporter of both these deals, with the explicit aim of enhancing and securing US power. "We have to make sure America writes the rules of the global economy. We should do it today while our economy is in the position of global strength. We've got to harness it on our terms. If we don't write the rules for trade around the world – guess what? China will!", he famously said in a speech to workers in a Nike factory in Oregon, USA in May 2015. But even though he has made the case for the TPP plainly enough, his only chance of pushing even the TPP through is in the "lame duck" session of Congress just before the November Presidential election in the US.

    However, the changing political currents in the US are making that ever more unlikely. Hardly anyone who is a candidate in the coming elections, whether for the Presidency, the Senate or the House of Representatives, is willing to stick their necks out to back the deal.

    Both Presidential candidates in the US (Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton) have openly come out against the TPP. In Clinton's case this is a complete reversal of her earlier position when she had referred to the TPP as "the gold standard of trade deals" – and it has clearly been forced upon her by the insurgent movement in the Democratic Party led by Bernie Sanders. She is already being pushed by her rival candidate for not coming out more clearly in terms of a complete rejection of this deal. Given the significant trust deficit that she still has to deal with across a large swathe of US voters, it will be hard if not impossible for her to backtrack on this once again (as her husband did earlier with NAFTA) even if she does achieve the Presidency.

    The official US version, expressed on the website of the US Trade Representative, is that the TPP "writes the rules for global trade-rules that will help increase Made-in-America exports, grow the American economy, support well-paying American jobs, and strengthen the American middle class." This is mainly supposed to occur because of the tariff cuts over 18,000 items that have been written into the agreement, which in turn are supposed to lead to significant expansion of trade volumes and values.

    But this is accepted by fewer and fewer people in the US. Across the country, workers view such trade deals with great suspicion as causing shifts in employment to lower paid workers, mostly in the Global South. Even the only US government study of the TPP's likely impacts, by the International Trade Commission, could project at best only 1 per cent increase in exports due to the agreement up to 2032. A study by Jeronim Capaldo and Alex Izurieta with Jomo Kwame Sundaram ("Trading down: Unemployment, inequality and other risks of the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement", Working Paper 16-01, Global Development and Environment Institute, January 2016) was even less optimistic, even for the US. It found that the benefits to exports and economic growth were likely to be relatively small for all member countries, and would be negative in the US and Japan because of losses to employment and increases in inequality. Wage shares of national income would decline in all the member countries.

    But in fact the TPP and the TTIP are not really about trade liberalisation so much as other regulatory changes, so in any case it is hardly surprising that the positive effects on trade are likely to be so limited. What is more surprising is how the entire discussion around these agreements is still framed around the issues relating to trade liberalisation, when these are in fact the less important parts of these agreements, and it is the other elements that are likely to have more negative and even devastating effects on people living in the countries that sign up to them.

    Three aspects of these agreements are particularly worrying:

    1. the intellectual property provisions,
    2. the restrictions on regulatory practices
    3. the investor-state dispute settlement provisions.
    Three aspects of these agreements are particularly worrying: the intellectual property provisions, the restrictions on regulatory practices and the investor-state dispute settlement provisions.

    All of these would result in significant strengthening of the bargaining power of corporations vis-à-vis workers and citizens, would reduce the power of governments to bring in policies and regulations that affect the profits or curb the power of such corporations

    For example, the TPP (and the TTIP) require more stringent enforcement requirements of intellectual property rights: reducing exemptions (e.g. allowing compulsory licensing only for emergencies); preventing parallel imports; extending IPRs to areas like life forms, counterfeiting and piracy; extending exclusive rights to test data (e.g. in pharmaceuticals); making IPR provisions more detailed and prescriptive. The scope of drug patents is extended to include minor changes to existing medications (a practice commonly employed by drug companies, known as "evergreening"). Patent linkages would make it more difficult for many generic drugs to enter markets.

    This would strengthen, lengthen and broaden pharmaceutical monopolies on cancer, heart disease and HIV/AIDS drugs, and in general make even life-saving drugs more expensive and inaccessible in all the member countries. It would require further transformation of countries' laws on patents and medical test data. It would reduce the scope of exemption in use of medical formulations through public procurement for public purposes. All this is likely to lead to reductions in access to drugs and medical procedures because of rising prices, and also impede innovation rather than encouraging it, across member countries.

    There are also very restrictive copyright protection rules, that would also affect internet usage as Internet Service Providers are to be forced to adhere to them. There are further restrictions on branding that would reinforce the market power of established players.

    The TPP and TTIP also contain restrictions on regulatory practices that greatly increase the power of corporations relative to states and can even prevent states from engaging in countercyclical measures designed to boost domestic demand. It has been pointed out by consumer groups in the USA that the powers of the Food and Drug Administration to regulate products that affect health of citizens could be constrained and curtailed by this agreement. Similarly, macroeconomic stimulus packages that focus on boosting domestic demand for local production would be explicitly prohibited by such agreements.

    All these are matters for concern because these agreements enable corporations to litigate against governments that are perceived to be flouting these provisions because of their own policy goals or to protect the rights of their citizens. The Investor-State Dispute Settlement mechanism enabled by these agreements is seen to be one of their most deadly features. Such litigation is then subject to supranational tribunals to which sovereign national courts are expected to defer, but which have no human rights safeguards and which do not see the rights of citizen as in any way superior to the "rights" of corporations to their profits. These courts can conduct closed and secret hearings with secret evidence. They do not just interpret the rules but contribute to them through case law because of the relatively vague wording of the text, which can then be subject to different interpretations, and therefore are settled by case law. The experience thus far with such tribunals has been problematic. Since they are legally based on "equal" treatment of legal persons with no primacy for human rights, they have become known for their pro-investor bias, partly due to the incentive structure for arbitrators, and partly because the system is designed to provide supplementary guarantees to investors, rather than making them respect host countries laws and regulations.

    If all these features of the TPP and the TTIP were more widely known, it is likely that there would be even greater public resistance to them in the US and in other countries. Even as it is, there is growing antagonism to the trade liberalisation that is seen to bring benefits to corporations rather than to workers, at a period in history when secure employment is seen to be the biggest prize of all.

    So if such features of US-led globalisation are indeed under threat, that is probably a good thing for the people of the US and for people in their trading partners who had signed up for such deals.

    human , September 22, 2016 at 10:14 am

    his only chance of pushing even the TPP through is in the "lame duck" session of Congress just before the November Presidential election in the US.

    "just _after_ the November Presidential election"

    Uahsenaa , September 22, 2016 at 10:42 am

    I was watching a speech Premier Li gave at the Economic Club of NY last night, and it was interesting to see how all his (vetted, pre-selected) questions revolved around anxieties having to do with resistance to global trade deals. Li made a few pandering comments about how much the Chinese love American beef (stop it! you're killing me! har har) meant to diffuse those anxieties, but it became clear that the fear among TPTB of people's dissatisfaction with the current economic is palpable. Let's keep it up!

    allan , September 22, 2016 at 11:30 am

    On a related note:

    U.S. Court Throws Out Price-Fixing Judgment Against Chinese Vitamin C Makers [WSJ]

    A federal appeals court on Tuesday threw out a $147 million civil price fixing judgment against Chinese manufacturers of vitamin C, ruling the companies weren't liable in U.S. courts because they were acting under the direction of Chinese authorities.

    The case raised thorny questions of how courts should treat foreign companies accused of violating U.S. antitrust law when they are following mandates of a foreign government.

    "I was only following orders" might not have worked in Nuremberg, but it's a-ok in international trade.

    different clue , September 22, 2016 at 3:14 pm

    The question arises: is Trump evil? Or merely awful? If Trump is merely awful, then we are not faced with voting for the Lesser Evil or otherwise voting Third Party in protest. If we are faced with a choice between Evil and Awful, perhaps a vote for Awful is a vote against Evil just by itself.

    Wellstone's Ghost , September 22, 2016 at 11:22 am

    Trump has already back peddaled on his TPP stance. He now says he wants to renegotiate the TTP and other trade deals. Whatever that means. Besides, Trump is a distraction, its Mike Pence you should be keeping your eye on. He's American Taliban pure and simple.

    RPDC , September 22, 2016 at 2:27 pm

    This is simply false. Trump has backpedaled and frontpedaled on virtually everything, but on trade, he's got Sanders-level consistency. He's been preaching the same sanity since the 90s. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZpMJeynBeg

    Hillary wants to start a war with Russia and pass the trade trifecta of TPP/TTIP/TiSA.

    sgt_doom , September 22, 2016 at 5:31 pm

    While I do not disagree with your comments, they must be placed in proper context: there is no substantive difference between Mike Pence and Tim Kaine, and the people who staff the campaigns of Trump and Clinton are essentially the same. (Fundamentally a replay of the 2000 election: Cheney/Bush vs. Lieberman/Gore.)

    Trump was run to make Hillary look good, but that has turned out to be Mission Real Impossible!

    We are seeing the absolute specious political theater at its worst, attempting to differentiate between Hillary Rodham Clinton and the Trumpster – – – the only major difference is that Clinton has far more real blood on her and Bill's hands.

    Nope, there is no lesser of evils this time around . . .

    Quanka , September 23, 2016 at 8:25 am

    Great Comment. Important to knock down the meme that "this is the most significant or important election of our time" - this is a carbon copy of what we have seen half a dozen times since WW2 alone and that's exactly how our elite handlers want it. Limit the choices, stoke fear, win by dividing the plebes.

    different clue , September 24, 2016 at 1:00 am

    Really? Well . . . might as well vote for Clinton then.

    First Woman President!
    Feminism!
    Liberation!

    TedWa , September 22, 2016 at 12:13 pm

    Let's face it, trade without the iron fist of capitalism will benefit us schlobs greatly and not the 1%. I'm all for being against it (TPP etc) and will vote that way.

    a different chris , September 22, 2016 at 12:17 pm

    >only 1 per cent increase in exports due to the agreement up to 2032.

    At that point American's wages will have dropped near enough to Chinese levels that we can compete in selling to First World countries . assuming there are any left.

    oh , September 22, 2016 at 4:19 pm

    We'd also have put in enough puppet dictators in resource rich countries that we'd be able to get raw materials cheaply. The low labor/raw material cost will provide a significant advantage for exports but alas, our 99% won't be able to afford our own products.

    sgt_doom , September 22, 2016 at 5:38 pm

    Naaah, never been about competition, since nobody is actually vetted when they offshore those jobs or replace American workers with foreign visa workers.

    But to sum it up as succinctly as possible: the TPP is about the destruction of workers' rights; the destruction of local and small businesses; and the loss of sovereignty. Few Americans are cognizant of just how many businesses are foreign owned today in America; their local energy utility or state energy utility, their traffic enforcement company which was privatized, their insurance company (GEICO, etc.).

    I remember when a political action group back in the '00s thought they had stumbled on a big deal when someone had hacked into the system of the Bretton Woods Committee (the lobbyist group for the international super-rich which ONLY communicates with the Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority Leader, and who shares the same lobbyist and D.C. office space as the Group of Thirty, the lobbyist group for the central bankers [Larry Summers, Timothy Geithner, Mario Draghi, Ernesto Zedillo, Bill Dudley, etc., etc.]) and placed online their demand of the senate and the congress to kill the "Buy America" clause in the federal stimulus program of a few years back (it was watered down greatly, and many exemptions were signed by then Commerce Secretary Gary Locke), but such information went completely unnoticed or ignored, and of course, the TPP will completely outlaw any possibility of a "Buy America" clause in the future!

    http://www.brettonwoods.org
    http://www.group30.org

    Arthur J , September 22, 2016 at 12:32 pm

    The cynic in me wonders if under say NAFTA it would be possible for a multinational to sue for lost profits via isds if TPP fails to pass. That the failure to enact trade "liberalizing" legislation could be construed as an active step against trade. the way these things are so ambiguously worded, I wonder.

    Carla , September 22, 2016 at 4:50 pm

    In June 2016, "[TransCanada] filed an arbitration claim under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) over President Obama's rejection of the pipeline, making good on its January threat to take legal action against the US decision.

    According to the official request for arbitration, the $15 billion tab is supposed to help the company recover costs and damages that it suffered "as a result of the US administration's breach of its NAFTA obligations." NAFTA is a comprehensive trade agreement between the United States, Canada, and Mexico that went into effect in January 1, 1994. Under the agreement, businesses can challenge governments over investment disputes.

    In addition, the company filed a suit in US Federal Court in Houston, Texas in January asserting that the Obama Administration exceeded the power granted by the US Constitution in denying the project."

    http://www.earthisland.org/journal/index.php/elist/eListRead/transcanada_complains_nafta_sues_us_15_bn_keystone_xl_rejection/

    Six states have since joined that federal law suit.

    Kris Alman , September 22, 2016 at 1:46 pm

    Here's Obama's actual speech at the Nike headquarters (not factory). http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/barackobama/barackobamatradenike.htm

    It should be noted that the Oregon Democrats who were free traitors and supported fast track authority were called out that day: Bonamici, Blumenauer, Schrader and Wyden. The only Oregon Ds that opposed: Sen. Merkley and Congressman DeFazio.

    Obama's rhetoric May 5, 2015 at the Nike campus was all about how small businesses would prosper. Congresswoman Bonamici clings to this rationale in her refusal to tell angry constituents at town halls whether she supports the TPP.

    The Market Realist is far more realistic about Oregon's free traitors' votes. http://marketrealist.com/2015/05/trans-pacific-partnership-affects-footwear-firms/
    "US tariffs on footwear imported from Vietnam can range from 5% to 40%, according to OTEXA (Office of Textiles and Apparel). Ratification of the TPP will likely result in lower tariffs and higher profitability for Nike."

    That appeals to the other big athletic corporations that cluster in the Portland metro: Columbia Sportswear and Under Armour.

    A plot twist!

    Vietnam will not include ratification of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) on the agenda for its next parliament session. http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/asia/1087705/vietnam-delays-tpp-vote So what's the incentive for Oregon's free traitors to support the TPP now?

    Vatch , September 22, 2016 at 2:01 pm

    So what's the incentive for Oregon's free traitors to support the TPP now?

    Perhaps they still need to show loyalty to their corporate owners and to the principle of "free trade".

    hemeantwell , September 22, 2016 at 2:04 pm

    Obama: "We have to make sure America writes the rules of the global economy."

    Thank you, Mr. President, for resolving any doubts that the American project is an imperialist project!

    ChrisFromGeorgia , September 22, 2016 at 2:21 pm

    Yes, and I would add a jingoistic one as well. Manifest destiny, the Monroe doctrine, etc. are not just history lessons but are alive and well in the neoliberal mindset. The empire must keep expanding into every nook and cranny of the world, turning them into good consumerist slaves.

    Funny how little things change over the centuries.

    Brad , September 22, 2016 at 9:39 pm

    The West Is The Best, Subhuman Are All The Rest. The perpetual mantra of the Uebermensch since Columbus first made landfall. Hitler merely sought to apply the same to some Europeans.

    "How the West Came to Rule: The Geopolitical Origins of Capitalism", 2015, Alexander Anievas and Kerem Nisancioglu.

    Minnie Mouse , September 22, 2016 at 3:58 pm

    When America writes the rules of the global economy the global economy destroys America.

    OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL , September 22, 2016 at 7:44 pm

    The Dem candidate's husband made it appallingly clear what the purpose of the TPP is: "It's to make sure the future of the Asia-Pacific region is not dominated by China".

    Would be nice if they had even a passing thought for those people in a certain North American region located in between Canada and Mexico.

    different clue , September 23, 2016 at 1:40 am

    Bill Clinton doesn't even care about "the rise of China". That's just a red herring he sets up to accuse opponents of TPP of soft-on-China treasonism. It's just fabricating a stick to beat the TPP-opponents with. Clinton's support for MFN for China shows what he really thinks about the "rise of China".

    Clinton's real motivation is the same as the TPP's real reason, to reduce America to colonial possession status of the anti-national corporations and the Global OverClass natural persons who shelter behind and within them.

    different clue , September 22, 2016 at 3:21 pm

    If calling the International Free Trade Conspiracy "American" is enough to get it killed and destroyed, then I don't mind having a bunch of foreigners calling the Free Trade Conspiracy "American". Just as long as they are really against it, and can really get Free Trade killed and destroyed.

    Chauncey Gardiner , September 22, 2016 at 3:23 pm

    Excellent post. Thank you. Should these so called "trade agreements" be approved, perhaps Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS arbitration) futures can be created by Wall Street and made the next speculative "Play-of-the-day" so that everyone has a chance to participate in the looting. Btw, can you loot your own house?

    KYrocky , September 22, 2016 at 4:49 pm

    Obama. Liar or stupid? When Elizabeth Warren spoke out about the secrecy of the TPP, Obama, uncharacteristically, ran to the cameras to state that the TPP was not secret and that the charge being leveled by Warren was false. Obama's statement was that Warren had access to a copy so how dare she say it was secret.

    At the time he made that statement Warren could go to an offsite location to read the TPP in the presence of a member of the Trade Commission, could not have staff with her, could not take notes, and could not discuss anything she read with anyone else after she left. Or face criminal charges.

    Yeah. Nothing secret about that.

    Obama (and Holder) effectively immunized every financial criminal involved in the great fraud and recession without bothering to run for a camera, and to this day has refused and avoided any elaboration on the subject, but he wasted no time trying to bury Warren publicly. The TPP is a continuation of Obama's give-away to corporations, or more specifically, the very important men who run them who Obama works for. And he is going to pull out all stops to deliver to the men he respects.

    sgt_doom , September 22, 2016 at 5:43 pm

    And add to that everything from David Dayen's book (" Chain of Title ") on Covington & Burling and Eric Holder and President Obama, and Thomas Frank's book ("Listen, Liberals") and people will have the full picture!

    Spencer , September 22, 2016 at 9:50 pm

    It's a virtual "black market" of "money laundering" (sterilization). In foreign trade, IMPORTS decrease (-) the money stock of the importing country (and are a subtraction to domestic gDp figures), while EXPORTS increase (+) the money stock and domestic gDp (earnings repatriated to the U.S), and the potential money supply, of the exporting country.

    So, there's a financial incentive (to maximize profits), not to repatriate foreign income (pushes up our exchange rate, currency conversion costs, if domestic re-investment alternatives are considered more circumscribed, plus taxes, etc.).

    In spite of the surfeit of $s, and E-$ credits, and unlike the days in which world-trade required a Marshall Plan jump start, trade surpluses increasingly depend on the Asian Tiger's convertibility issues.

    Praedor , September 23, 2016 at 10:30 am

    I don't WANT the US writing the rules of trade any longer. We know what US-written rules do: plunge worker wages into slave labor territory, guts all advanced country's manufacturing capability, sends all high tech manufacturing to 3rd world nations or even (potential) unfriendlies like China (who can easily put trojan spyware hard code or other vulnerabilities into critical microchips the way WE were told the US could/would when it was leading on this tech when I was serving in the 90s). We already know that US-written rules is simply a way for mega corporations to extend patents into the ever-more-distant future, a set of rules that hands more control of arts over to the MPAA, rules that gut environmental laws, etc. Who needs the US-written agreements when this is the result?

    Time to toss the rules and re-write them for the greatest benefit of the greatest number of NON-wealthy and for the benefit of the planet/ecosystems, NOT for benefit of Wall St.

    [Dec 05, 2016] New Class War

    This is a very weak article from a prominent paleoconservative, but it is instructive what a mess he has in his head as for the nature of Trump phenomenon. We should probably consider the tern "New Class" that neocons invented as synonym for "neoliberals". If so, why the author is afraid to use the term? Does he really so poorly educated not to understand the nature of this neoliberal revolution and its implications? Looks like he never read "Quite coup"
    That probably reflects the crisis of pealeoconservatism itself.
    Notable quotes:
    "... What do these insurgents have in common? All have called into question the interventionist consensus in foreign policy. All have opposed large-scale free-trade agreements. ..."
    "... the establishment in both parties almost uniformly favors one approach to war, trade, and immigration, while outsider candidates as dissimilar as Buchanan, Nader, Paul, and Trump, and to a lesser extent Sanders, depart from the consensus. ..."
    "... The insurgents clearly do not represent a single class: they appeal to eclectic interests and groups. The foe they have all faced down, however-the bipartisan establishment-does resemble a class in its striking unity of outlook and interest. So what is this class, effectively the ruling class of the country? ..."
    "... The archetypal model of class conflict, the one associated with Karl Marx, pits capitalists against workers-or, at an earlier stage, capitalists against the landed nobility. The capitalists' victory over the nobility was inevitable, and so too, Marx believed, was the coming triumph of the workers over the capitalists. ..."
    "... The Soviet Union had never been a workers' state at all, they argued, but was run by a class of apparatchiks such as Marx had never imagined. ..."
    "... Burnham recognized affinities between the Soviet mode of organization-in which much real power lay in the hands of the commissars who controlled industry and the bureaucratic organs of the state-and the corporatism that characterized fascist states. Even the U.S., under the New Deal and with ongoing changes to the balance between ownership and management in the private sector, seemed to be moving in the same direction. ..."
    "... concept popularized by neoconservatives in the following decade: the "New Class." ..."
    "... It consists of a goodly proportion of those college-educated people whose skills and vocations proliferate in a 'post-industrial society' (to use Daniel Bell's convenient term). We are talking about scientists, teachers, and educational administrators, journalists and others in the communication industries, psychologists, social workers, those lawyers and doctors who make their careers in the expanding public sector, city planners, the staffs of the larger foundations, the upper levels of the government bureaucracy, and so on. ..."
    "... I have felt that this 'new class' is, so far, rather thin gruel. Intellectuals, verbalists, media types, etc. are conspicuous actors these days, certainly; they make a lot of noise, get a lot of attention, and some of them make a lot of money. But, after all, they are a harum-scarum crowd, and deflate even more quickly than they puff up. On TV they can out-talk any of the managers of ITT, GM, or IBM, or the administration-managers of the great government bureaus and agencies, but, honestly, you're not going to take that as a power test. Who hires and fires whom? ..."
    "... Burnham had observed that the New Class did not have the means-either money or manpower-to wield power the way the managers or the capitalists of old did. It had to borrow power from other classes. Discovering where the New Class gets it is as easy as following the money, which leads straight to the finance sector-practically to the doorstep of Goldman Sachs. Jerry Rubin's journey from Yippie to yuppie was the paradigm of a generation. ..."
    "... Yet the New Class as a whole is less like Carl Oglesby or Karl Hess than like Hillary Clinton, who arguably embodies it as perfectly as McNamara did the managerial class. ..."
    "... Even the New Class's support for deregulation-to the advantage of its allies on Wall Street-was no sign of consistent commitment to free-market principles ..."
    "... The individual-mandate feature of Obamacare and Romneycare is a prime example of New Class cronyism: government compels individuals to buy a supposedly private product or service. ..."
    "... America's class war, like many others, is not in the end a contest between up and down. It's a fight between rival elites: in this case, between the declining managerial elite and the triumphant (for now) New Class and financial elites. ..."
    "... Donald Trump is not of the managerial class himself. But by embracing managerial interests-industrial protection and, yes, "big government"-and combining them with nationalistic identity politics, he has built a force that has potential to threaten the bipartisan establishment, even if he goes down to defeat in November. ..."
    "... The New Class, after all, lacks a popular base as well as money of its own, and just as it relies on Wall Street to underwrite its power, it depends on its competing brands of identity politics to co-opt popular support. ..."
    "... Marx taught that you identify classes by their structural role in the system of production. I'm at a loss to see how either of the 'classes' you mention here relate to the system of production. ..."
    "... [New] Class better describes the Never Trumpers. Mostly I have found them to be those involved in knowledge occupations (conservative think tanks, hedge fund managers, etc.) who have a pecuniary interest in maintaining the Global Economy as opposed to the Virtuous Intergenerational Economy that preceded. Many are dependent on funding sources for their livelihoods that are connected to the Globalized Economy and financial markets. ..."
    "... "mobilize working-class voters against the establishment in both parties. " = workers of the world unite. ..."
    "... Where the class conflict between the Working and Knowledge Classes begins is where the Knowledge Class almost unilaterally decided to shift to a global economy, at the expense of the Working Class, and to the self-benefit of the Knowledge Class. Those who designed the Global Economy like Larry Summers of Harvard did not invite private or public labor to help design the new Globalist Economy. The Working Class lost out big time in job losses and getting stuck with subprime home loans that busted their marriages and created bankruptcies and foreclosures. The Knowledge Class was mostly unscathed by this class-based economic divide. ..."
    "... Trump's distinguishing ideology, which separates him from the current elite, is something he has summed up many times – nationalism vs. Globalism. ..."
    "... The financial industry, the new tech giants, the health insurance industry are now almost indistinguishable from the government ruling elite. The old left–represented by Sanders–rails against this as big money coopting government, even while conservatives are exasperated by the unholy cabal of big business and big government in cohoots in the "progressive" remake of America. Both are right in a sense. ..."
    "... The hyperconcentration of power in Washington and a few tributary locations like Wall Street and Silicon Valley, elite academia and the media–call that the New Class if you like–means that most of America–Main Street, the flyover country has been left behind. Trump instinctively – brilliantly in some ways – tapped into the resentment that this hyperconcentration of wealth and government power has led to. That is why it cuts across right and left. The elites want to characterize this resentment as backwards and "racist," but there is also something very American from Jefferson to Jackson to Teddy Roosevelt that revolts against being lectured to and controlled by their would-be "betters." ..."
    "... The alienation of those left out is real and based on real erosion of the middle class and American dream under both parties' elites. The potentially revolutionary capabilities of a political movement that could unite right and left in restoring some equilibrium and opportunities to those left out is tremendous, but yet to be realized by either major party. The party that can harness these folks – who are after all the majority of Americans – will have a ruling coalition for decades. If neither party can productively harness this budding movement, we are headed for disarray, civil unrest, and potentially the dissolution of the USA. ..."
    "... . And blacks who cleave to the democrats despite being sold down the tubes on issues, well, for whatever reason, they just have thinner skin and the mistaken idea that the democrats deliver – thanks to Pres. Johnson. But what Pres. Johnson delivered democrats made a mockery of immediately as they stripped it of its intent and used for their own liberal ends. ..."
    "... Let's see if I can help Dreher clear up some confusion in his article. James Burnham's "Managerial Class" and the "New Class" are overlapping and not exclusive. By the Managerial Class Burnham meant both the executive and managers in the private sector and the Bureaucrats and functionaries in the public sector. ..."
    "... The rise of managers was a "revolution" because of the rise of modernization which meant the increasing mechanization, industrialization, formalization and rationalization (efficiency) of society. Burnham's concern about the rise of the managerial revolution was misplaced; what he should have focused on was modernization. ..."
    "... The old left–represented by Sanders–rails against this as big money coopting government, even while conservatives are exasperated by the unholy cabal of big business and big government in cohoots in the "progressive" remake of America ..."
    "... . Some 3 – 5% of the population facing no real opposition has decided that that their private lives needed public endorsement and have proceeded to upend the entire social order - the game has shifted in ways I am not sure most of the public fully grasps or desires ..."
    "... There has always been and will always be class conflict, even if it falls short of a war. Simply examining recent past circumstances, the wealthy class has been whooping up on all other classes. This is not to suggest any sort of remedy, but simply to observe that income disparity over the past 30 years has substantially benefitted on sector of class and political power remains in their hands today. To think that there will never be class conflict is to side with a Marxian fantasy of egalitarianism, which will never come to pass. Winners and losers may change positions, but the underlying conflict will always remain. ..."
    "... State governments have been kowtowing to big business interests for a good long while. Nothing new under the sun there. Back in the 80s when GM was deciding where to site their factory for the new Saturn car line, they issued an edict stating they would only consider states that had mandatory seat belt use laws, and the states in the running fell all over each to enact those. ..."
    "... People don't really care for the actions of the elite but they care for the consequences of these actions. During the 1960's, per capita GDP growth was around 3.5%. Today it stands at 0,49%. If you take into account inflation, it's negative. Add to this the skewed repartition of said growth and it's intuitive that many people feel the pain; whom doesn't move forward, goes backwards. ..."
    "... People couldn't care for mass immigration, nation building or the emergence of China if their personal situation was not impacted. But now, they begin to feel the results of these actions. ..."
    "... I have a simple philosophy regarding American politics that shows who is made of what, and we don't have to go through all the philosophizing in this article: Anyone who believes in same sex marriage has been brainwashed and is un-American and unreliable. Anyone who puts Israeli interests above America's is un-American. ..."
    "... Re: Anyone who believes in same sex marriage has been brainwashed and is un-American and unreliable. Anyone who puts Israeli interests above America's is un-American. ..."
    "... The first has nothing whatsoever to do with American citizenship. It's just a political issue– on which, yes, reasonable people can differ. However no American citizen should put the interests of any other country ahead of our own, except in a situation where the US was itself up to no good and deserved its comeuppance. And then the interest is not that of any particular nation, but of justice being done period. ..."
    "... A lot of this "New Class" stuff is just confusing mis-mash of this and that theory. Basically, America changed when the US dollar replace gold as the medium of exchange in the world economy. Remember when we called it the PETRO-DOLLAR. As long as the Saudis only accepted the US dollar as the medium of exchange for oil, then the American government could export it's inflation and deficit spending. Budget deficits and trade deficits are intrinsically related. It allowed America to become a nation of consumers instead of a nation of producers. ..."
    "... It's really a form of classic IMPERIALISM. To maintain this system, we've got the US military and we prop up the corrupt dictatorships in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Libya ..."
    "... Yeah, you can talk about the "new class", the corruption of the banking system by the idiotic "libertarian" or "free market utopianism" of the Gingrich Congress, the transformation of American corporations to international corporations, and on and on. But it's the US dollar as reserve currency that has allowed it all to happen. God help us, if it ends, we'll be crippled. ..."
    "... The Clinton Class mocks The Country Class: Bill Clinton, "We all know how her opponent's done real well down in West Virginia and eastern Kentucky. Because the coal people don't like any of us anymore." "They blame the president when the sun doesn't come up in the morning now," ..."
    "... That doesn't mean they actually support Hillary's policies and position. What do they really know about either? These demographics simply vote overwhelmingly Democrat no matter who is on the ticket. If Alfred E. Newman were the candidate, this particular data point would look just the same. ..."
    "... "On the contrary, the New Class favors new kinds of crony finance capitalism, even as it opposes the protectionism that would benefit hard industry and managerial interests." This doesn't ring true. Hard industry, and the managers that run it had no problem with moving jobs and factories overseas in pursuit of cheaper labor. Plus, it solved their Union issues. I feel like the divide is between large corporations, with dilute ownership and professional managers who nominally serve the interests of stock fund managers, while greatly enriching themselves versus a multitude of smaller, locally owned businesses whose owners were also concerned with the health of the local communities in which they lived. ..."
    "... The financial elites are a consequence of consolidation in the banking and finance industry, where we now have 4 or 5 large institutions versus a multitude of local and regional banks that were locally focused. ..."
    Sep 07, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com

    Since the Cold War ended, U.S. politics has seen a series of insurgent candidacies. Pat Buchanan prefigured Trump in the Republican contests of 1992 and 1996. Ralph Nader challenged the Clinton wing of the Democratic Party from the outside in 2000. Ron Paul vexed establishment Republicans John McCain and Mitt Romney in 2008 and 2012. And this year, Trump was not the only candidate to confound his party's elite: Bernie Sanders harried Hillary Clinton right up to the Democratic convention.

    What do these insurgents have in common? All have called into question the interventionist consensus in foreign policy. All have opposed large-scale free-trade agreements. (The libertarian Paul favors unilateral free trade: by his lights, treaties like NAFTA and the Trans-Pacific Partnership are not free trade at all but international regulatory pacts.) And while no one would mistake Ralph Nader's or Ron Paul's views on immigration for Pat Buchanan's or Donald Trump's, Nader and Paul have registered their own dissents from the approach to immigration that prevails in Washington.

    Sanders has been more in line with his party's orthodoxy on that issue. But that didn't save him from being attacked by Clinton backers for having an insufficiently nonwhite base of support. Once again, what might have appeared to be a class conflict-in this case between a democratic socialist and an elite liberal with ties to high finance-could be explained away as really about race.

    Race, like religion, is a real factor in how people vote. Its relevance to elite politics, however, is less clear. Something else has to account for why the establishment in both parties almost uniformly favors one approach to war, trade, and immigration, while outsider candidates as dissimilar as Buchanan, Nader, Paul, and Trump, and to a lesser extent Sanders, depart from the consensus.

    The insurgents clearly do not represent a single class: they appeal to eclectic interests and groups. The foe they have all faced down, however-the bipartisan establishment-does resemble a class in its striking unity of outlook and interest. So what is this class, effectively the ruling class of the country?

    Some critics on the right have identified it with the "managerial" class described by James Burnham in his 1941 book The Managerial Revolution . But it bears a stronger resemblance to what what others have called "the New Class." In fact, the interests of this New Class of college-educated "verbalists" are antithetical to those of the industrial managers that Burnham described. Understanding the relationship between these two often conflated concepts provides insight into politics today, which can be seen as a clash between managerial and New Class elites.

    ♦♦♦

    The archetypal model of class conflict, the one associated with Karl Marx, pits capitalists against workers-or, at an earlier stage, capitalists against the landed nobility. The capitalists' victory over the nobility was inevitable, and so too, Marx believed, was the coming triumph of the workers over the capitalists.

    Over the next century, however, history did not follow the script. By 1992, the Soviet Union was gone, Communist China had embarked on market reforms, and Western Europe was turning away from democratic socialism. There was no need to predict the future; mankind had achieved its destiny, a universal order of [neo]liberal democracy. Marx had it backwards: capitalism was the end of history.

    But was the truth as simple as that? Long before the collapse of the USSR, many former communists -- some of whom remained socialists, while others joined the right-thought not. The Soviet Union had never been a workers' state at all, they argued, but was run by a class of apparatchiks such as Marx had never imagined.

    Among the first to advance this argument was James Burnham, a professor of philosophy at New York University who became a leading Trotskyist thinker. As he broke with Trotsky and began moving toward the right, Burnham recognized affinities between the Soviet mode of organization-in which much real power lay in the hands of the commissars who controlled industry and the bureaucratic organs of the state-and the corporatism that characterized fascist states. Even the U.S., under the New Deal and with ongoing changes to the balance between ownership and management in the private sector, seemed to be moving in the same direction.

    Burnham called this the "managerial revolution." The managers of industry and technically trained government officials did not own the means of production, like the capitalists of old. But they did control the means of production, thanks to their expertise and administrative prowess.

    The rise of this managerial class would have far-reaching consequences, he predicted. Burnham wrote in his 1943 book, The Machiavellians : "that the managers may function, the economic and political structure must be modified, as it is now being modified, so as to rest no longer on private ownership and small-scale nationalist sovereignty, but primarily upon state control of the economy, and continental or vast regional world political organization." Burnham pointed to Nazi Germany, imperial Japan-which became a "continental" power by annexing Korea and Manchuria-and the Soviet Union as examples.

    The defeat of the Axis powers did not halt the progress of the managerial revolution. Far from it: not only did the Soviets retain their form of managerialism, but the West increasingly adopted a managerial corporatism of its own, marked by cooperation between big business and big government: high-tech industrial crony capitalism, of the sort that characterizes the military-industrial complex to this day. (Not for nothing was Burnham a great advocate of America's developing a supersonic transport of its own to compete with the French-British Concorde.)

    America's managerial class was personified by Robert S. McNamara, the former Ford Motor Company executive who was secretary of defense under John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson. In a 1966 story for National Review , "Why Do They Hate Robert Strange McNamara?" Burnham answered the question in class terms: "McNamara is attacked by the Left because the Left has a blanket hatred of the system of business enterprise; he is criticized by the Right because the Right harks back, in nostalgia if not in practice, to outmoded forms of business enterprise."

    McNamara the managerial technocrat was too business-oriented for a left that still dreamed of bringing the workers to power. But the modern form of industrial organization he represented was not traditionally capitalist enough for conservatives who were at heart 19th-century classical liberals.

    National Review readers responded to Burnham's paean to McNamara with a mixture of incomprehension and indignation. It was a sign that even readers familiar with Burnham-he appeared in every issue of the magazine-did not always follow what he was saying. The popular right wanted concepts that were helpful in labeling enemies, and Burnham was confusing matters by talking about changes in the organization of government and industry that did not line up with anyone's value judgements.

    More polemically useful was a different concept popularized by neoconservatives in the following decade: the "New Class." "This 'new class' is not easily defined but may be vaguely described," Irving Kristol wrote in a 1975 essay for the Wall Street Journal :

    It consists of a goodly proportion of those college-educated people whose skills and vocations proliferate in a 'post-industrial society' (to use Daniel Bell's convenient term). We are talking about scientists, teachers, and educational administrators, journalists and others in the communication industries, psychologists, social workers, those lawyers and doctors who make their careers in the expanding public sector, city planners, the staffs of the larger foundations, the upper levels of the government bureaucracy, and so on.

    "Members of the new class do not 'control' the media," he continued, "they are the media-just as they are our educational system, our public health and welfare system, and much else."

    Burnham, writing in National Review in 1978, drew a sharp contrast between this concept and his own ideas:

    I have felt that this 'new class' is, so far, rather thin gruel. Intellectuals, verbalists, media types, etc. are conspicuous actors these days, certainly; they make a lot of noise, get a lot of attention, and some of them make a lot of money. But, after all, they are a harum-scarum crowd, and deflate even more quickly than they puff up. On TV they can out-talk any of the managers of ITT, GM, or IBM, or the administration-managers of the great government bureaus and agencies, but, honestly, you're not going to take that as a power test. Who hires and fires whom?

    Burnham suffered a stroke later that year. Although he lived until 1987, his career as a writer was over. His last years coincided with another great transformation of business and government. It began in the Carter administration, with moves to deregulate transportation and telecommunications. This partial unwinding of the managerial revolution accelerated under Ronald Reagan. Regulatory and welfare-state reforms, even privatization of formerly nationalized industries, also took off in the UK and Western Europe. All this did not, however, amount to a restoration of the old capitalism or anything resembling laissez-faire.

    The "[neo]liberal democracy" that triumphed at "the end of history"-to use Francis Fukuyama's words-was not the managerial capitalism of the mid-20th century, either. It was instead the New Class's form of capitalism, one that could be embraced by Bill Clinton and Tony Blair as readily as by any Republican or Thatcherite.

    Irving Kristol had already noted in the 1970s that "this new class is not merely liberal but truly 'libertarian' in its approach to all areas of life-except economics. It celebrates individual liberty of speech and expression and action to an unprecedented degree, so that at times it seems almost anarchistic in its conception of the good life."

    He was right about the New Class's "anything goes" mentality, but he was only partly correct about its attitude toward economics. The young elite tended to scorn the bourgeois character of the old capitalism, and to them managerial figures like McNamara were evil incarnate. But they had to get by-and they aspired to rule.

    Burnham had observed that the New Class did not have the means-either money or manpower-to wield power the way the managers or the capitalists of old did. It had to borrow power from other classes. Discovering where the New Class gets it is as easy as following the money, which leads straight to the finance sector-practically to the doorstep of Goldman Sachs. Jerry Rubin's journey from Yippie to yuppie was the paradigm of a generation.

    Part of the tale can be told in a favorable light. New Left activists like Carl Oglesby fought the spiritual aridity and murderous militarism of what they called "corporate liberalism"-Burnham's managerialism-while sincere young libertarians attacked the regulatory state and seeded technological entrepreneurship. Yet the New Class as a whole is less like Carl Oglesby or Karl Hess than like Hillary Clinton, who arguably embodies it as perfectly as McNamara did the managerial class.

    Even the New Class's support for deregulation-to the advantage of its allies on Wall Street-was no sign of consistent commitment to free-market principles. On the contrary, the New Class favors new kinds of crony finance capitalism, even as it opposes the protectionism that would benefit hard industry and managerial interests. The individual-mandate feature of Obamacare and Romneycare is a prime example of New Class cronyism: government compels individuals to buy a supposedly private product or service.

    The alliance between finance and the New Class accounts for the disposition of power in America today. The New Class has also enlisted another invaluable ally: the managerial classes of East Asia. Trade with China-the modern managerial state par excellence-helps keep American industry weak relative to finance and the service economy's verbalist-dominated sectors. America's class war, like many others, is not in the end a contest between up and down. It's a fight between rival elites: in this case, between the declining managerial elite and the triumphant (for now) New Class and financial elites.

    The New Class plays a priestly role in its alliance with finance, absolving Wall Street for the sin of making money in exchange for plenty of that money to keep the New Class in power. In command of foreign policy, the New Class gets to pursue humanitarian ideological projects-to experiment on the world. It gets to evangelize by the sword. And with trade policy, it gets to suppress its class rival, the managerial elite, at home. Through trade pacts and mass immigration the financial elite, meanwhile, gets to maximize its returns without regard for borders or citizenship. The erosion of other nations' sovereignty that accompanies American hegemony helps toward that end too-though our wars are more ideological than interest-driven.

    ♦♦♦

    So we come to an historic moment. Instead of an election pitting another Bush against another Clinton, we have a race that poses stark alternatives: a choice not only between candidates but between classes-not only between administrations but between regimes.

    Donald Trump is not of the managerial class himself. But by embracing managerial interests-industrial protection and, yes, "big government"-and combining them with nationalistic identity politics, he has built a force that has potential to threaten the bipartisan establishment, even if he goes down to defeat in November.

    The New Class, after all, lacks a popular base as well as money of its own, and just as it relies on Wall Street to underwrite its power, it depends on its competing brands of identity politics to co-opt popular support. For the center-left establishment, minority voters supply the electoral muscle. Religion and the culture war have served the same purpose for the establishment's center-right faction. Trump showed that at least one of these sides could be beaten on its own turf-and it seems conceivable that if Bernie Sanders had been black, he might have similarly beaten Clinton, without having to make concessions to New Class tastes.

    The New Class establishment of both parties may be seriously misjudging what is happening here. Far from being the last gasp of the demographically doomed-old, racially isolated white people, as Gallup's analysis says-Trump's insurgency may be the prototype of an aggressive new politics, of either left or right, that could restore the managerial elite to power.

    This is not something that conservatives-or libertarians who admire the old capitalism rather than New Class's simulacrum-might welcome. But the only way that some entrenched policies may change is with a change of the class in power.

    Daniel McCarthy is the editor of The American Conservative .

    Johann , says: September 7, 2016 at 10:02 am
    The New Class is parasitic and will drive the country to its final third world resting place, or worse.
    Dan Phillips , says: September 7, 2016 at 11:32 am
    Excellent analysis. What is important about the Trump phenomenon is not every individual issue, it's the potentially revolutionary nature of the phenomenon. The opposition gets this. That's why they are hysterical about Trump. The conservative box checkers do not.
    g , says: September 7, 2016 at 11:51 am
    "Donald Trump is not of the managerial class himself. But by embracing managerial interests-industrial protection and, yes, "big government"-and combining them with nationalistic identity politics, he has built a force that has potential to threaten the bipartisan establishment, even if he goes down to defeat in November."

    My question is, if Trump is not himself of the managerial class, in fact, could be considered one of the original new class members, how would he govern? What explains his conversion from the new class to the managerial class; is he merely taking advantage of an opportunity or is there some other explanation?

    Richard Terrace , says: September 7, 2016 at 12:09 pm
    I'm genuinely confused by the role you ascribe to the 'managerial class' here. Going back to Berle and Means ('The Modern Corporation and Private Property') the managerial class emerged when management was split from ownership in mid C20th capitalism. Managers focused on growth, not profits for shareholders. The Shareholder revolution of the 1980s destroyed the managerial class, and destroyed their unwieldy corporations.
    You seem to be identifying the managerial class with a kind of cultural opposition to the values of [neo]liberal capitalism. And instead of identifying the 'new class' with the new owner-managers of shareholder-driven firms, you identify them by their superficial cultural effects.

    This raises a deeper problem in how you talk about class in this piece. Marx taught that you identify classes by their structural role in the system of production. I'm at a loss to see how either of the 'classes' you mention here relate to the system of production. Does the 'new class' of journalists, academics, etc. actually own anything? If not, what is the point of ascribing to them immense economic power?
    I would agree that there is a new class of capitalists in America. But they are well known people like Sheldon Adelson, the Kochs, Linda McMahon, the Waltons, Rick Scott the pharmaceutical entrepreneur, Mitt Romney, Mark Zuckerberg, and many many hedge fund gazillionaires. These people represent the resurgence of a family-based, dynastic capitalism that is utterly different from the managerial variety that prevailed in mid-century.

    If there is a current competitor to international corporate capitalism, it is old-fashioned dynastic family capitalism. Not Managerialism.

    JonF , says: September 7, 2016 at 1:13 pm
    There is no "new class". That's simply a derogatory trope of the Right. The [neo]liberal elite– educated, cosmopolitan and possessed of sufficient wealth to be influential in political affairs and claims to power grounded in moral stances– have a long pedigree in both Western and non-Western lands. They were the Scribal Class in the ancient world, the Mandarins of China, and the Clergy in the Middle Ages. This class for a time was eclipsed in the early modern period as first royal authority became dominant, followed by the power of the Capitalist class (the latter has never really faded of course). But their reemergence in the late 20th century is not a new or unique phenomenon.
    Kurt Gayle , says: September 7, 2016 at 2:03 pm
    In a year in which "trash Trump" and "trash Trump's supporters" are tricks-to-be-turned for more than 90% of mainstream journalists and other media hacks, it's good to see Daniel McCarthy buck the "trash trend" and write a serious, honest analysis of the class forces that are colliding during this election cycle.

    Two thumbs way up for McCarthy, although his fine effort cannot save the reputation of those establishment whores who call themselves journalists. Nothing can save them. They have earned the universality with which Americans hold them in contempt.

    In 1976 when Gallup began asking about "the honesty and ethical standards" of various professions only 33% of Americans rated journalists "very high or high."

    By last December that "high or very high" rating for journalists had fallen to just 27%.

    It is certain that by Election Day 2016 the American public's opinion of journalists will have fallen even further.

    lee , says: September 7, 2016 at 2:37 pm
    An article on the ruling elite that neglects to mention this ? . . . https://www.amazon.com/Revolt-Elites-Betrayal-Democracy/dp/0393313719
    david helveticka , says: September 7, 2016 at 3:24 pm
    Most of your argument is confusing. The change I see is from a production economy to a finance economy. Wall Street rules, really. Basically the stock market used to be a place where working folk invested their money for retirement, mostly through pensions from unions and corporations. Now it's become a gambling casino, with the "house"-or the big banks-putting it's finger on the roulette wheel. They changed the compensation package of CEO's, so they can rake in huge executive compensation–mostly through stock options-to basically close down everything from manufacturing to customer service, and ship it off to contract manufacturers and outside services in oligarchical countries like mainland China and India.

    I don't know what exactly you mean about the "new class", basically its the finance industry against everyone else.

    One thing you right-wingers always get wrong, is on Karl Marx he was really attacking the money-changers, the finance speculators, the banks. Back in the day, so-called "capitalists" like Henry Ford or George Eastman or Thomas Edison always complained about the access to financing through the big money finance capitalists.

    Sheree , says: September 7, 2016 at 6:16 pm
    Don't overlook the economic value of intellectual property rights (patents, in particular) in the economic equation.

    A big chunk of the 21st century economy is generated due to the intellectual property developed and owned by the New Class and its business enterprises.

    The economic value of ideas and intellectual property rights is somewhat implied in McCarthy's explanation of the New Class, but I didn't see an explicit mention (perhaps I overlooked it).

    I think the consideration of intellectual property rights and the value generated by IP might help to clarify the economic power of the New Class for those who feel the analysis isn't quite complete or on target.

    I'm not saying that IP only provides value to the New Class. We can find examples of IP throughout the economy, at all levels. It's just that the tech and financial sectors seem to focus more on (and benefit from) IP ownership, licensing, and the information captured through use of digital technology.

    Commenter Man , says: September 7, 2016 at 10:19 pm
    "What do these insurgents have in common? All have called into question the interventionist consensus in foreign policy."

    But today we have this: Trump pledges big US military expansion . Trump doesn't appear to have any coherent policy, he just says whatever seems to be useful at that particular moment.

    Wayne Lusvardi , says: September 7, 2016 at 10:37 pm
    [New] Class better describes the Never Trumpers. Mostly I have found them to be those involved in knowledge occupations (conservative think tanks, hedge fund managers, etc.) who have a pecuniary interest in maintaining the Global Economy as opposed to the Virtuous Intergenerational Economy that preceded. Many are dependent on funding sources for their livelihoods that are connected to the Globalized Economy and financial markets.
    jack , says: September 7, 2016 at 11:13 pm
    "mobilize working-class voters against the establishment in both parties. " = workers of the world unite.

    maybe Trump could use that

    Wayne Lusvardi , says: September 7, 2016 at 11:33 pm
    Being white is not the defining characteristic of Trumpers because it if was then how come there are many white working class voters for Hillary? The divide in the working class comes from being a member of a union or a member of the private non-unionized working class.

    Where the real class divide shows up is in those who are members of the Knowledge Class that made their living based on the old Virtuous Economy where the elderly saved money in banks and the banks, in turn, lent that money out to young families to buy houses, cars, and start businesses. The Virtuous Economy has been replaced by the Global Economy based on diverting money to the stock market to fund global enterprises and prop up government pension funds.

    The local bankers, realtors, private contractors, small savers and small business persons and others that depended on the Virtuous Economy lost out to the global bankers, stock investors, pension fund managers, union contractors and intellectuals that propounded rationales for the global economy as superior to the Virtuous Economy.

    Where the class conflict between the Working and Knowledge Classes begins is where the Knowledge Class almost unilaterally decided to shift to a global economy, at the expense of the Working Class, and to the self-benefit of the Knowledge Class. Those who designed the Global Economy like Larry Summers of Harvard did not invite private or public labor to help design the new Globalist Economy. The Working Class lost out big time in job losses and getting stuck with subprime home loans that busted their marriages and created bankruptcies and foreclosures. The Knowledge Class was mostly unscathed by this class-based economic divide.

    Mitzy Moon , says: September 8, 2016 at 12:32 am
    Beginning in the 50's and 60's, baby boomers were warned in school and cultural media that "a college diploma would become what a high school diploma is today." An extraordinary cohort of Americans took this advice seriously, creating the smartest and most successful generation in history. But millions did not heed that advice, cynically buoyed by Republicans who – knowing that college educated people vote largely Democrat – launched a financial and cultural war on college education. The result is what you see now: millions of people unprepared for modern employment; meanwhile we have to import millions of college-educated Asians and Indians to do the work there aren't enough Americans to do.
    Joe , says: September 8, 2016 at 1:25 am
    Have to say, this seems like an attempt to put things into boxes that don't quite fit.

    Trump's distinguishing ideology, which separates him from the current elite, is something he has summed up many times – nationalism vs. Globalism.

    The core of it is that the government no longer serves the people. In the United States, that is kind of a bad thing, you know? Like the EU in the UK, the people, who fought very hard for self-government, are seeing it undermined by the erosion of the nation state in favor of international beaurocracy run by elites and the well connected.

    Emil Mottola , says: September 8, 2016 at 2:15 am
    Both this article and many comments on it show considerable confusion, and ideological opinion all over the map. What is happening I think is that the world is changing –due to globalism, technology, and the sheer huge numbers of people on the planet. As a result some of the rigid trenches of thought as well as class alignments are breaking down.

    In America we no longer have capitalism, of either the 19th century industrial or 20th century managerial varieties. Money and big money is still important of course, but it is increasingly both aligned with and in turn controlled by the government. The financial industry, the new tech giants, the health insurance industry are now almost indistinguishable from the government ruling elite. The old left–represented by Sanders–rails against this as big money coopting government, even while conservatives are exasperated by the unholy cabal of big business and big government in cohoots in the "progressive" remake of America. Both are right in a sense.

    The hyperconcentration of power in Washington and a few tributary locations like Wall Street and Silicon Valley, elite academia and the media–call that the New Class if you like–means that most of America–Main Street, the flyover country has been left behind. Trump instinctively – brilliantly in some ways – tapped into the resentment that this hyperconcentration of wealth and government power has led to. That is why it cuts across right and left. The elites want to characterize this resentment as backwards and "racist," but there is also something very American from Jefferson to Jackson to Teddy Roosevelt that revolts against being lectured to and controlled by their would-be "betters."

    The alienation of those left out is real and based on real erosion of the middle class and American dream under both parties' elites. The potentially revolutionary capabilities of a political movement that could unite right and left in restoring some equilibrium and opportunities to those left out is tremendous, but yet to be realized by either major party. The party that can harness these folks – who are after all the majority of Americans – will have a ruling coalition for decades. If neither party can productively harness this budding movement, we are headed for disarray, civil unrest, and potentially the dissolution of the USA.

    EliteCommInc. , says: September 8, 2016 at 3:29 am
    I have one condition about which, Mr. Trump would lose my support - if he flinches on immigration, I will have to bow out.

    I just don't buy the contentions about color here. He has made definitive moves to ensure that he intends to fight for US citizens regardless of color. This nonsense about white racism, more bigotry in reality, doesn't pan out. The Republican party has been comprised of mostly whites since forever and nearly all white sine the late 1960's. Anyone attempting to make hay out of what has been the reality for than 40 years is really making the reverse pander. Of course most of those who have issues with blacks and tend to be more expressive about it, are in the Republican party. But so what. Black Republicans would look at you askance, should you attempt this FYI.

    It's a so what. The reason you joining a party is not because the people in it like you, that is really beside the point. Both Sec Rice and General Powell, are keenly aware of who's what it and that is the supposed educated elite. They are not members of the party because it is composed of some pure untainted membership. But because they and many blacks align themselves with the ideas of the party, or what the party used to believe, anyway.

    It's the issues not their skin color that matters. And blacks who cleave to the democrats despite being sold down the tubes on issues, well, for whatever reason, they just have thinner skin and the mistaken idea that the democrats deliver – thanks to Pres. Johnson. But what Pres. Johnson delivered democrats made a mockery of immediately as they stripped it of its intent and used for their own liberal ends.

    I remain convinced that if blacks wanted progress all they need do is swamp the Republican party as constituents and confront whatever they thought was nonsense as constituents as they move on policy issues. Goodness democrats have embraced the lighter tones despite having most black support. That is why the democrats are importing so many from other state run countries. They could ignore blacks altogether. Sen Barbara Jordan and her deep voiced rebuke would do them all some good.

    Let's face it - we are not going to remove the deeply rooted impact of skin color, once part of the legal frame of the country for a quarter of the nations populous. What Republicans should stop doing is pretending, that everything concerning skin color is the figment of black imagination. I am not budging an inch on the Daughters of the American Revolution, a perfect example of the kind of peculiar treatment of the majority, even to those who fought for Independence and their descendants.
    ________________

    I think that there are thousands and thousands of educated (degreed)people who now realize what a mess the educational and social services system has become because of our immigration policy. The impact on social services here in Ca is no joke. In the face of mounting deficits, the laxity of Ca has now come back to haunt them. The pressure to increase taxes weighed against the loss of manual or hard labor to immigrants legal and otherwise is unmistakable here. There's debate about rsstroom etiquette in the midst of serious financial issues - that's a joke. So this idea of dismissing people with degrees as being opposed to Mr. Trump is deeply overplayed and misunderstood. If there is a class war, it's not because of Mr. Trump, those decks were stacked in his favor long before the election cycle.
    --------

    "But millions did not heed that advice, cynically buoyed by Republicans who–knowing that college educated people vote largely Democrat–launched a financial and cultural war on college education. The result is what . . . employment; meanwhile we have to import millions of college-educated Asians and Indians to do the work there aren't enough Americans to do."

    Hmmmm,

    Nope. Republicans are notorious for pushing education on everything and everybody. It's a signature of hard work, self reliance, self motivation and responsibility. The shift that has been tragic is that conservatives and Republicans either by a shove or by choice abandoned the fields by which we turn out most future generations - elementary, HS and college education. Especially in HS, millions of students are fed a daily diet of liberal though unchecked by any opposing ideas. And that is become the staple for college education - as it cannot be stated just how tragic this has become for the nation. There are lots of issues to moan about concerning the Us, but there is far more to embrace or at the very least keep the moaning in its proper context. No, conservatives and Republicans did engage in discouraging an education.

    And there will always be a need for more people without degrees than with them. even people with degrees are now getting hit even in the elite walls of WS finance. I think I posted an article by John Maulden about the growing tensions resulting fro the shift in the way trading is conducting. I can build a computer from scratch, that's a technical skill, but the days of building computers by hand went as fast it came. The accusation that the population should all be trained accountants, book keepers, managers, data processors, programmers etc. Is nice, but hardly very realistic (despite my taking liberties with your exact phrasing). A degree is not going to stop a company from selling and moving its production to China, Mexico or Vietnam - would that were true. In fact, even high end degree positions are being outsourced, medicine, law, data processing, programming . . .

    How about the changes in economy that have forced businesses to completely disappear. We will never know how many businesses were lost in the 2007/2008 financial mess. Recovery doesn't exist until the country's growth is robust enough to put people back to work full time in a manner that enables them to sustain themselves and family.

    That income gap is real and its telling.
    ___________________

    even if I bought the Karl Marx assessment. His solutions were anything but a limited assault on financial sector oligarchs and wizards. And in practice it has been an unmitigated disaster with virtually not a single long term national benefit. It's very nature has been destructive, not only to infrastructure, but literally the lifeblood of the people it was intended to rescue.

    Wayne Lusvardi , says: September 8, 2016 at 5:36 am
    Let's see if I can help Dreher clear up some confusion in his article. James Burnham's "Managerial Class" and the "New Class" are overlapping and not exclusive. By the Managerial Class Burnham meant both the executive and managers in the private sector and the Bureaucrats and functionaries in the public sector.

    There are two middle classes in the US: the old Business Class and the New Knowledge Class. A manager would be in the Business Class and a Bureaucrat in the New Class.

    The rise of managers was a "revolution" because of the rise of modernization which meant the increasing mechanization, industrialization, formalization and rationalization (efficiency) of society. Burnham's concern about the rise of the managerial revolution was misplaced; what he should have focused on was modernization.

    The New Class were those in the mostly government and nonprofit sectors that depended on knowledge for their livelihood without it being coupled to any physical labor: teachers, intellectuals, social workers and psychiatrists, lawyers, media types, hedge fund managers, real estate appraisers, financial advisors, architects, engineers, etc. The New Knowledge Class has only risen since the New Deal created a permanent white collar, non-business class.

    The Working Class are those who are employed for wages in manual work in an industry producing something tangible (houses, cars, computers, etc.). The Working Class can also have managers, sometimes called supervisors. And the Working Class is comprised mainly of two groups: unionized workers and private sector non-unionized workers. When we talk about the Working Class we typically are referring to the latter.

    The Trumpsters should not be distinguished as being a racial group or class (white) because there are many white people who support Clinton. About 95% of Blacks vote Democratic in the US. Nowhere near that ratio of Whites are supporting Trump. So Trumps' support should not be stereotyped as White.

    The number one concern to Trumpsters is that they reflect the previous intergenerational economy where the elderly lent money to the young to buy homes, cars and start small businesses. The Global bankers have shifted money into the stock market because 0.25% per year interest rates in a bank isn't making any money at all when money inflation runs at 1% to 2% (theft). This has been replaced by a Global Economy that depends on financial bubbles and arbitraging of funds.

    William Burns , says: September 8, 2016 at 5:45 am
    How are the elites supporting Trump different from the elites supporting financier par excellence Mitt Romney?
    EliteCommInc. , says: September 8, 2016 at 6:23 am
    "The old left–represented by Sanders–rails against this as big money coopting government, even while conservatives are exasperated by the unholy cabal of big business and big government in cohoots in the "progressive" remake of America. Both are right in a sense."

    Why other couching this. Ten years ago if some Hollywood exec had said, no same sex marriage, no production company in your town, the town would have shrugged. Today before shrugging, the city clerk is checking the account balance. When the governors of Michigan, and Arizona bent down in me culpa's on related issue, because business interests piped in, it was an indication that the game had seriously changed. Some 3 – 5% of the population facing no real opposition has decided that that their private lives needed public endorsement and have proceeded to upend the entire social order - the game has shifted in ways I am not sure most of the public fully grasps or desires.

    Same sex weddings in US military chapels - the concept still turns my stomach. Advocates control the megaphones, I don't think they control the minds of the public, despite having convinced a good many people that those who have chosen this expression are under some manner of assault – that demands a legal change - intelligent well educated, supposedly astute minded people actually believe it. Even the Republican nominee believes it.

    I love Barbara Streisand, but if the election means she moves to Canada, well, so be it. Take your "drag queens" impersonators wit you. I enjoy Mr. and Mrs Pitt, I think have a social moral core but really? with millions of kids future at stake, endorsing a terminal dynamic as if it will save society's ills - Hollywood doesn't even pretend to behave royally much less embody the sensitivities of the same.

    There is a lot to challenge about supporting Mr. Trump. He did support killing children in the womb and that is tragic. Unless he has stood before his maker and made this right, he will have to answer for that. But no more than a trove of Republicans who supported killing children in the womb and then came to their senses. I guess of there is one thing he and I agree on, it's not drinking.

    As for big budget military, it seems a waste, but if we are going to waste money, better it be for our own citizens. His Achilles heel here is his intentions as to ISIS/ISIL. I think it's the big drain getting ready to suck him into the abyss of intervention creep.

    Missile defense just doesn't work. The tests are rigged and as Israel discovered, it's a hit and miss game with low probability of success, but it makes for great propaganda.

    I am supposed to be outraged by a football player stance on abusive government. While the democratic nominee is turning over every deck chair she find, leaving hundreds of thousands of children homeless - let me guess, on the bright side, George Clooney cheers the prospect of more democratic voters.

    If Mr. Trumps only achievements are building a wall, over hauling immigration policy and expanding the size of the military. He will be well on his way to getting ranked one of the US most successful presidents.

    Joe F , says: September 8, 2016 at 11:11 am
    I never understood why an analysis needs to lard in every conceivable historical reference and simply assume its relevance, when there are so many non constant facts and circumstances. There has always been and will always be class conflict, even if it falls short of a war. Simply examining recent past circumstances, the wealthy class has been whooping up on all other classes. This is not to suggest any sort of remedy, but simply to observe that income disparity over the past 30 years has substantially benefitted on sector of class and political power remains in their hands today. To think that there will never be class conflict is to side with a Marxian fantasy of egalitarianism, which will never come to pass. Winners and losers may change positions, but the underlying conflict will always remain.
    JonF , says: September 8, 2016 at 1:32 pm
    EliteCommInc,

    State governments have been kowtowing to big business interests for a good long while. Nothing new under the sun there. Back in the 80s when GM was deciding where to site their factory for the new Saturn car line, they issued an edict stating they would only consider states that had mandatory seat belt use laws, and the states in the running fell all over each to enact those.

    The split on Trump is first by race (obviously), then be gender (also somewhat obviously), and then by education. Even among self-declared conservatives it's the college educated who tend to oppose him. This is a lot broader than simply losing some "new" Knowledge Class, unless all college educated people are put in that grouping. In fact he is on track to lose among college educated whites, something no GOP candidate has suffered since the days of FDR and WWII.

    Fabian , says: September 8, 2016 at 3:35 pm
    People don't really care for the actions of the elite but they care for the consequences of these actions. During the 1960's, per capita GDP growth was around 3.5%. Today it stands at 0,49%. If you take into account inflation, it's negative. Add to this the skewed repartition of said growth and it's intuitive that many people feel the pain; whom doesn't move forward, goes backwards.

    People couldn't care for mass immigration, nation building or the emergence of China if their personal situation was not impacted. But now, they begin to feel the results of these actions.

    Gilly.El , says: September 8, 2016 at 3:36 pm
    I have a simple philosophy regarding American politics that shows who is made of what, and we don't have to go through all the philosophizing in this article: Anyone who believes in same sex marriage has been brainwashed and is un-American and unreliable. Anyone who puts Israeli interests above America's is un-American.
    Richard Wagner , says: September 8, 2016 at 5:04 pm
    EliteComic beat me to the punch. I was disappointed that Ross Perot, who won over 20% of the popular vote twice, and was briefly in the lead in early 1992, wasn't mentioned in this article.
    JonF , says: September 8, 2016 at 5:07 pm
    Re: Anyone who believes in same sex marriage has been brainwashed and is un-American and unreliable. Anyone who puts Israeli interests above America's is un-American.

    The first has nothing whatsoever to do with American citizenship. It's just a political issue– on which, yes, reasonable people can differ. However no American citizen should put the interests of any other country ahead of our own, except in a situation where the US was itself up to no good and deserved its comeuppance. And then the interest is not that of any particular nation, but of justice being done period.

    David Helveticka , says: September 8, 2016 at 6:12 pm
    A lot of this "New Class" stuff is just confusing mis-mash of this and that theory. Basically, America changed when the US dollar replace gold as the medium of exchange in the world economy. Remember when we called it the PETRO-DOLLAR. As long as the Saudis only accepted the US dollar as the medium of exchange for oil, then the American government could export it's inflation and deficit spending. Budget deficits and trade deficits are intrinsically related. It allowed America to become a nation of consumers instead of a nation of producers.

    Who really cares about the federal debt. REally? We can print dollars, exchange these worthless dollars with China for hard goods, and then China lends the dollars back to us, to pay for our government. Get it?

    It's really a form of classic IMPERIALISM. To maintain this system, we've got the US military and we prop up the corrupt dictatorships in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Libya

    Yeah, you can talk about the "new class", the corruption of the banking system by the idiotic "libertarian" or "free market utopianism" of the Gingrich Congress, the transformation of American corporations to international corporations, and on and on. But it's the US dollar as reserve currency that has allowed it all to happen. God help us, if it ends, we'll be crippled.

    And damn the utopianism of you "libertarians" you're worse then Marxists when it comes to ideology over reality.

    Jim Houghton , says: September 8, 2016 at 6:56 pm
    Ronald Reagan confounded the GOP party elite, too. They - rightly - considered him an intellectual lightweight.
    EliteCommInc. , says: September 8, 2016 at 9:20 pm
    "State governments have been kowtowing to big business interests for a good long while. Nothing new under the sun there. Back in the 80s when GM was deciding where to site their factory for the new Saturn car line, they issued an edict stating they would only consider states that had mandatory seat belt use laws, and the states in the running fell all over each to enact those."

    Ah, not it's policy on some measure able effect. The seatbelt law was debate across the country. The data indicated that it did in fact save lives. And it's impact was universal applicable to every man women or child that got into a vehicle.

    That was not a private bedroom issue. Of course businesses have advocated policy. K street is not a K-street minus that reality. But GM did not demand having relations in parked cars be legalized or else.

    You are taking my apples and and calling them seatbelts - false comparison on multiple levels, all to get me to acknowledge that businesses have influence. It what they have chosen to have influence on -

    That is another matter.

    cecelia , says: September 9, 2016 at 1:34 am
    I do not think the issue of class is relevant here – whether it be new classes or old classes. There are essentially two classes – those who win given whatever the current economic arrangements are or those who lose given those same arrangements. People who think they are losing support Trump versus people who think they are winning support Clinton. The polls demonstrates this – Trump supporters feel a great deal more anxiety about the future and are more inclined to think everything is falling apart whereas Clinton supporters tend to see things as being okay and are optimistic about the future. The Vox work also shows this pervasive sense that life will not be good for their children and grandchildren as a characteristic of Trump supporters.

    The real shift I think is in the actual coalitions that are political parties. Both the GOP and the Dems have been coalitions – political parties usually are. Primary areas of agreement with secondary areas of disagreement. Those coalitions no longer work. The Dems can be seen as a coalition of the liberal knowledge types – who are winners in this economy and the worker types who are often losers now in this economy. The GOP also is a coalition of globalist corporatist business types (winners) with workers (losers) who they attracted in part because of culture wars and the Dixiecrats becoming GOPers. The needs of these two groups in both parties no longer overlap. The crisis is more apparent in the GOP because well – Trump. If Sanders had won the nomination for the Dems (and he got close) then their same crisis would be more apparent. The Dems can hold their creaky coalition together because Trump went into the fevered swamps of the alt. right.

    I think this is even more obvious in the UK where you have a Labor Party that allegedly represents the interests of working people but includes the cosmopolitan knowledge types. The cosmopolitans are big on the usual identity politics, unlimited immigration and staying in the EU. They benefit from the current economic arrangement. But the workers in the Labor party have been hammered by the current economic arrangements and voted in droves to get out of the EU and limit immigration. It seems pretty obvious that there is no longer a coalition to sustain the Labor Party. Same with Tories – some in the party love the EU,immigration, globalization while others voted out of the EU, want immigration restricted and support localism. The crisis is about the inability of either party to sustain its coalitions. Those in the Tory party who are leavers should be in a political party with the old Labor working class while the Tory cosmopolitans should be in a party with the Labor cosmopolitans. The current coalitions not being in synch is the political problem – not new classes etc.

    Here in the US the southern Dixiecrats who went to the GOP and are losers in this economy might find a better coalition with the black, Latino and white workers who are still in the Dem party. But as in the UK ideological culture wars have become more prominent and hence the coalitions are no longer economically based. If people recognized that politics can only address the economic issues and they aligned themselves accordingly – the membership of the parties would radically change.

    So forget about class and think coalitions.

    Clint , says: September 9, 2016 at 5:47 pm
    The Clinton Class mocks The Country Class: Bill Clinton, "We all know how her opponent's done real well down in West Virginia and eastern Kentucky. Because the coal people don't like any of us anymore." "They blame the president when the sun doesn't come up in the morning now,"
    someguy , says: September 10, 2016 at 9:25 pm
    Collin, this is straight ridiculous.

    "Trump's voters were most strongly characterized by their "racial isolation": they live in places with little ethnic diversity. "

    During the primaries whites in more diverse areas voted Trump. The only real exception was West Virginia. Utah, Wyoming, Iowa? All voted for Cruz and "muh values".

    In white enclaves like Paul Ryans district, which is 91%, whites are able to signal against white identity without having to face the consequences.

    Rick , says: September 12, 2016 at 3:05 pm
    Collin said:

    "All three major African, Hispanic, & Asian-American overwhelming support HRC in the election."

    That doesn't mean they actually support Hillary's policies and position. What do they really know about either? These demographics simply vote overwhelmingly Democrat no matter who is on the ticket. If Alfred E. Newman were the candidate, this particular data point would look just the same.

    Craig , says: September 13, 2016 at 10:11 am
    "On the contrary, the New Class favors new kinds of crony finance capitalism, even as it opposes the protectionism that would benefit hard industry and managerial interests."

    This doesn't ring true. Hard industry, and the managers that run it had no problem with moving jobs and factories overseas in pursuit of cheaper labor. Plus, it solved their Union issues. I feel like the divide is between large corporations, with dilute ownership and professional managers who nominally serve the interests of stock fund managers, while greatly enriching themselves versus a multitude of smaller, locally owned businesses whose owners were also concerned with the health of the local communities in which they lived.

    The financial elites are a consequence of consolidation in the banking and finance industry, where we now have 4 or 5 large institutions versus a multitude of local and regional banks that were locally focused.

    [Dec 05, 2016] We Demand That The Washington Post Retract Its Propaganda Story Defaming Naked Capitalism and Other Sites and Issue an Apology

    Notable quotes:
    "... The motive is there (discredit competition), the evidence is there per the above, the legal standing is explicit, the only thing that is technically unquantifiable is the damage done. ..."
    "... Both Firefox and Chrome have added the option to open in a "private" or "incognito" window or tab, which also gets you around the monthly limit. ..."
    "... What NYT/WaPo lose in people not paying to read, they apparently can make up from people willing to pay to have things published. ..."
    "... 'The man' who shot one round into the floor* at Comet Pizza may be an actor, Edgar Maddison Welch, who has done various jobs in media, including playing a "raver/victim". ..."
    "... Yves, I would very much question your description of The Washington Post being " taken for a ride." over this story. ..."
    "... It's worth pointing out that the newspapers owner Jeff Bezos was hired by the Secretary of Defense to a rather sinister sounding organisation called the " Defense Innovation Advisory Board " in July. The Boards mission statement is to .."focus on new technologies and organizational behavior and culture." Also, in addition "identify innovative private-sector practices, and technological solutions that the DoD could employ in the future." ..."
    "... In short, Bezos, and his companies are now part of the MIC. I believe Googles CEO is also on the same board. ..."
    "... Am I supposed to accept then that the Washington Post really thinks that the work of PropOrNot is honestly and objectively carried out? I can't. ..."
    "... Dan Rather was put in an impossible position by supporters of GW Bush, despite the accuracy of the accusation. In this case, instead, the Post intentionally credits accusations for which it can offer no support (or at least declines to do so). I'll conclude that the Post acted maliciously and spitefully, as in slander, until it gives me reason to think otherwise. No person or media outlet can disseminate such shocking and potentially damaging accusations without our demanding accountability. ..."
    "... If you read section 501 of this year's intelligence authorization bill, it directs the President to set up an interagency committee to 'counter active measures by Russia to exert covert influence over peoples and governments.' So that shows you that senators from both parties are clearly concerned about Russian covert influence efforts. ..."
    "... "Never assume malice when incompetence will explain the behavior." unless a lengthy history of errors having the same bias suggests otherwise. ..."
    "... I've been a lifelong journalist, 10 years on a daily newspaper, 20 years freelancing for magazines. The Wapo story so blatantly violated fundamental journalistic standards I cannot believe any experienced editor would not have realized that. My only possible conclusion is that irresistible pressure was placed on editors to publish the story. ..."
    "... You fake a document that contains the truth. When you discredit the document, you discredit the truth. Maneuvers like that show why Karl Rove really was (in his own special way) a genius. ..."
    "... I followed the Bush Texas Air National Guard story in detail at the time, and the Rather story in particular, and posted on it a good deal. So far as I know, nobody ever claimed the $10,000 reward that Gary Trudeau offered for anybody who would come forward as an eye witness to Bush performing his TANG duties. ..."
    "... Your comment is heavy on speculation including the notion that Bezos is directly controlling what goes into the Post. I'd say the tight little club that is mainstream journalism doesn't require government subversion in order to represent a MIC point of view. As Gore Vidal said re the deep state: they don't need to conspire since they all think alike anyway. ..."
    "... With all due respect it isn't speculation that Bezos has been hired by the secretary of defence to the Defence innovation advisory board. I think you have to be very naive if you think he has little input into the editorial running of the paper. Why else buy a newspaper these days? They hardly make much money. ..."
    "... The British Guardian for example has been running articles and pushing a campaign of "The Internet we want." Which seems to consist of all critiscms of what it believes being censored. ..."
    "... As to Yves point about the amateur nature of this list, and the attack on sites like NC in the article, Yves shouldn't assume that all these people are geniuses. It won't be the first or the last time that powerful people who run businesses make complete fools of themselves. ..."
    "... And Bezos is too busy to have much/any input into editorial decisions. Newscycles are far too rapid. Bezos might make clear what the general priorities and tone are, but he's not going to be involved in individual stories save on a very exceptional basis, and news of that would get out to reporters and make the journalism rumor mill in a bad way. Marty Peretz, who unlike Bezos was the publisher and editor in chief of the magazine he bought (the vastly smaller The New Republic) had pet priorities (Israel) and preferences (falling in love with smart young male senior editors and then becoming disenchanted with them in a couple of years and driving them out) that were widely known. ..."
    "... These guys are so ludicrous that folks like Bellingcat are denouncing them. ..."
    "... Carl Bernstein has done some pretty deep reporting on decades of links bw CIA and media: http://www.carlbernstein.com/magazine_cia_and_media.php ..."
    "... Even he says there are not really any links bw CIA and WaPo as propaganda channel. As much as it'd be fun to fantasize about Bezos being an evil operator for the MIC, I am inclined toward Yves' narrative of incompetence, and an (unhealthy) dose of confirmation bias-seeking. ..."
    "... Much as I would believe anything about Bezos/WP, the article is so amateurish its very hard to believe it is part of an active top-down conspiracy. I'd be more inclined to think that it 'became known' among WP staff that certain Very Important People believe in the Russian propaganda conspiracy and that any articles highlighting this are more likely to be published than others. ..."
    "... Off the top of my head, some of the worst examples of journalistic libel recently have primarily been driven not by malice or conspiracies, but because of active confirmation bias. The journalist and editor strongly believes X to be true, therefore when a source comes up to provide a potentially juicy story confirming the reality and evil of X, then they leap on the source without any professional scepticism. The Rolling Stone college rape hoax comes to mind, as does a notorious case in Ireland which nearly destroyed investigative journalism in the main TV company. ..."
    "... In this exclusive report, distinguished research psychologist Robert Epstein explains the new study and reviews evidence that Google's search suggestions are biased in favor of Hillary Clinton. He estimates that biased search suggestions might be able to shift as many as 3 million votes in the upcoming presidential election in the US. ..."
    "... Zerohedge was listed as a "fake news" site but, as I'm sure many here know, they do great, hard hitting economic analysis and have had their projections and theories confirmed many times with a far better track record than the mainstream sites covering the same subject. ..."
    "... I'm not sure the guys behind all this mind losing the discussion in the end. As often, even if the smeared news sites, including NC, win the debate, they'll still lose the communication war. ..."
    "... The background to all this, the attempt by the Clintonites to draw on Cold War stink reserves (a National Ideological Reserve, sorta like the National Petroleum Reserve) and, if not its complete failure, than its failure to be decisively effective, makes me think we are witnessing signs of a decisive weakening in elite communication control. PropOrNot advances the process. ..."
    "... We fully endorse Yves Smith's efforts. ..."
    "... Additionally, we note that the only reason we haven't followed up with a similar action is because i) the allegations were beyond laughable – we have rejected all of them on the record, and ii) there are simply too much other events taking place in what should otherwise be a quiet end to the year taking place to focus on what may be a lenghty, if gratifying, legal process. ..."
    Dec 05, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    PWC, Raleigh December 5, 2016 at 4:59 pm

    +1 as well.

    The thing with raising money is you have to ask, ask, ask a lot, lot, lot.

    So when you need more money to continue this fight, just publish an updated case-statement with an ask, and the lot of us will turn over our digits to support the fight. Many hands make light work, as my mother always says.

    It's refreshing to have something to support that is worthwhile in both principle and actuality. Plus, the Post is a nasty piece of work. Same for the Times . Disgraceful and distasteful. They are only fun to peruse for the self-parody.

    Just Wondering December 5, 2016 at 1:26 pm

    Class action lawsuit? Would perhaps smoke out any truly fake news alt media sites.

    Tim December 5, 2016 at 2:14 pm

    Class Action libel suit against WaPo and the propornot website seems reasonable. The motive is there (discredit competition), the evidence is there per the above, the legal standing is explicit, the only thing that is technically unquantifiable is the damage done.

    If the damages can be determined by some reasonable methodology then perhaps there is enough to make it worth bringing a suit.

    lyman alpha blob December 5, 2016 at 12:48 pm

    Regarding paying for the news in general, I'm assuming there aren't too many readers who who actually want to pay WaPo or the NYT for anything at this point.

    Those sites and others in recent years have imposed a monthly free article limit and I find that sometimes after clicking on stories linked to from here I run up against the limit.

    I'm sure most people here are already aware of this, but just so you are never tempted to subscribe to their crappy organizations, all you need to do to get around the limit is use a different browser to open the link.

    Peter VE December 5, 2016 at 1:41 pm

    Both Firefox and Chrome have added the option to open in a "private" or "incognito" window or tab, which also gets you around the monthly limit.

    Skip Intro December 5, 2016 at 2:28 pm

    What NYT/WaPo lose in people not paying to read, they apparently can make up from people willing to pay to have things published.

    choung December 5, 2016 at 3:13 am

    My name is Choung, I'm Korean(south Korea).
    Korean have experienced this kind of things many many times under the military dictatorship,
    and now we were suffering from new blacklist.
    Our president is daughter of the past infamous dictator.

    I have visited your site and linked many good pieces. Sometimes translated them.

    Korean mainstream media don't handle this story,
    So, l wrote some pieces about it in public site.

    I strongly express solidarity with you on behalf of many progressive Koreans.

    ambrit December 5, 2016 at 4:12 am

    Of tangential interest is the "news" report, if Yahoo can be so described, of the man charged with various and sundry for threatening the pizzaria "implicated" in the pedophilia allegations swirling around in the overheated miasma that passes for "common wisdom" today.

    Of importance is the framing of the "story." The man is alleged to have gone off on his "adventure" as the result of "fake news site" reporting. The assault on journalism is now switching from a pure smear to a flanking maneuver. Whether real or manufactured, this act will probably be spun to support further crackdowns on dissenting points of view. Guilt by (manufactured) association can hurt just as badly as real guilt. All this plays out in the court of public opinion, a notoriously rickety edifice in the best of times. \

    See: https://www.yahoo.com/news/gunman-charged-threatening-dc-restaurant-hit-fake-news-030914425.html

    Congratulations for adopting the "best defense is a strong offense" strategy.

    Just Wondering December 5, 2016 at 1:41 pm

    'The man' who shot one round into the floor* at Comet Pizza may be an actor, Edgar Maddison Welch, who has done various jobs in media, including playing a "raver/victim". Look him up on IMDB. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2625901/bio

    * http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/04/politics/gun-incident-fake-news/

    ambrit December 5, 2016 at 3:07 pm

    Ah ha! Putting on my "tinfoil hat" I'm tempted to say "False Flag Action."

    Sally December 5, 2016 at 4:27 am

    Yves, I would very much question your description of The Washington Post being " taken for a ride." over this story.

    It's worth pointing out that the newspapers owner Jeff Bezos was hired by the Secretary of Defense to a rather sinister sounding organisation called the " Defense Innovation Advisory Board " in July. The Boards mission statement is to .."focus on new technologies and organizational behavior and culture." Also, in addition "identify innovative private-sector practices, and technological solutions that the DoD could employ in the future."

    In short, Bezos, and his companies are now part of the MIC. I believe Googles CEO is also on the same board. These so called private corporations are now part of the US govt that works in the field of black ops. Remember also that Amazon has major contracts with the govt to provide cloud computing storage. This is fascism in all but name. It remains to be seen how long the new President Mr Trump will want to trust these people as they did so much to try to defeat him.

    Yves Smith Post author December 5, 2016 at 6:19 am

    I beg to differ. No one would want to damage their credibility above all in undermining a narrative (in Beltway-speak) that they are tying to promote.

    Remember the Dan Rather scandal? Unlike this case, the underlying fact set about George Bush was accurate, but Dan Rather falling for bogus evidence not only forced Rather to resign, but

    1. diverted attention from what should have been a scandal if properly reported and
    2. confused any attempts to discuss it (as in the Rather evidence being bad made casual observers think the dirt on Bush was untrue).
    Quentin December 5, 2016 at 6:57 am

    I was also struck by the statement that the Post was 'taken for a ride'. Am I supposed to accept then that the Washington Post really thinks that the work of PropOrNot is honestly and objectively carried out? I can't.

    Dan Rather was put in an impossible position by supporters of GW Bush, despite the accuracy of the accusation. In this case, instead, the Post intentionally credits accusations for which it can offer no support (or at least declines to do so). I'll conclude that the Post acted maliciously and spitefully, as in slander, until it gives me reason to think otherwise. No person or media outlet can disseminate such shocking and potentially damaging accusations without our demanding accountability.

    Yves Smith Post author December 5, 2016 at 7:57 am

    Fact checking at the Washington Post is a joke:

    http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2016/12/httpswwwwashingtonpostcomopinionsglobal-opinionsthe-pros-and-cons-of-a-generals-general20161203f8d6e72c-b8b7-11e6.html

    And if you look at the what the Post said to Consortium News (hat tip UserFriendly), it apparently considers just chatting with a source for a bit an adequate basis for validating a smear against 200 publications. They effectively admit they did no independent verification:

    The reply came from the newspaper's vice president for public relations, Kristine Coratti Kelly, who thanked me "for reaching out to us" before presenting the Post's response, quoted here in full:

    "The Post reported on the work of four separate sets of researchers, as well as independent experts, who have examined Russian attempts to influence American democracy. PropOrNot was one. The Post did not name any of the sites on PropOrNot's list of organizations that it said had - wittingly or unwittingly - published or echoed Russian propaganda. The Post reviewed PropOrNot's findings and our questions about them were answered satisfactorily during the course of multiple interviews."

    Sally December 5, 2016 at 8:50 am

    Yves, just to be clear ..I am in complete support for you, and your site and other sites from these outrageous and slanderous attacks.

    I was just surprised at your generous description of them being "taken for a ride." I think that is way to charitable.

    Yves Smith Post author December 5, 2016 at 9:24 am

    Never assume malice, when incompetence will explain the behavior.

    Gary Headlock December 5, 2016 at 9:56 am

    Speaking of, do you think your inclusion on the initial "PropOrNot" list is an example of malice or incompetence? Could it be some half-assed algorithm scanned the web for sites linking to RT (which I can remember at least one instance popping up in Water Cooler/Links), and called it a day? That seems the most plausible to me, but it also seems plausible that there are many organizations which would want to discredit NC.

    Samuel Conner December 5, 2016 at 1:07 pm

    I haven't seen "The List", but am confident that sites like Moon of Alabama and The Saker are on it. Saker is explicitly pro-Russia (this is not a criticism per se; I found his pieces on the Ukraine/Donbas crisis in 2014-15 to be more illuminating than most of the very little that one could find in the US MSM, for example) and MoA is typically skeptical of US international military adventures.

    Pieces from both of these sites have been, from time to time, linked at the NC daily news links page. Not sure, but there may be a few links over the past couple of years to items at Russia Insider as well. It may be that 2nd order associations were enough to "merit" NC's inclusion on "The List."

    Katharine December 5, 2016 at 12:17 pm

    But last week Timberg was still touting his "independent experts" in an article on a proposed new committee mandated in the 2017 intelligence authorization bill. He quoted Wyden:

    If you read section 501 of this year's intelligence authorization bill, it directs the President to set up an interagency committee to 'counter active measures by Russia to exert covert influence over peoples and governments.' So that shows you that senators from both parties are clearly concerned about Russian covert influence efforts.

    Linking his earlier story with this information may be self-important stupidity on Timberg's part, but stupidity does not actually preclude malice.

    In any case, if senators are treating Russian influence as fact when we have yet to be shown any proof of its existence that is a sign this article, be it folly or malice, needs further discrediting, so thanks and more power to you!

    davidly December 5, 2016 at 12:21 pm

    That's an awful aphorism. Never discount one just because the other is a potential explanation, especially if the pattern indicates they'll abdicate their core responsibilities for access and relish going after those they resent for calling them out on it.

    Having said that, one can see how you personally wouldn't want to risk libel, but I will make no such assumptions about the likes of the beltway press.

    DarkMatters December 5, 2016 at 1:54 pm

    "Never assume malice when incompetence will explain the behavior." unless a lengthy history of errors having the same bias suggests otherwise.

    Best wishes, and success.

    Keith Warren December 5, 2016 at 2:20 pm

    indeed, incompetence and a deep hunger for confirmation bias fodder. Deadly combination.

    Lyle James December 5, 2016 at 2:25 pm

    I've been a lifelong journalist, 10 years on a daily newspaper, 20 years freelancing for magazines. The Wapo story so blatantly violated fundamental journalistic standards I cannot believe any experienced editor would not have realized that. My only possible conclusion is that irresistible pressure was placed on editors to publish the story.

    David Addams December 5, 2016 at 1:55 pm

    "Dan Rather was put in an impossible position by supporters of GW Bush, despite the accuracy of the accusation."

    Excuse me.

    Rather (and CBS) had to admit that the documents used to make those accusations were fake. How do you have "accurate accusations" when those accusations are based on faked documents?

    Rather was not put in a bad positions by supporters of GW Bush.

    He was put in a bad position by Dan Rather.

    BTW, the Rather incident is a perfect illustration on how fake news gets reported. The underlying accusation so matched Rather's world view that he decided to run with them without doing any sort of fact checking. Or checking the reliability of the one source for the story.

    Doing so would have prevented Rather from reporting that story and having to resign in disgrace.

    This is why fact checking and verifying stories via multiple sources is so important when reporting news.

    It prevents reporting fake news.

    The reason we have so much "fake news" is that too many reporters have abandoned basic journalistic practices.

    On both sides of the aisle.

    Lambert Strether December 5, 2016 at 2:48 pm

    > How do you have "accurate accusations" when those accusations are based on faked documents?

    You fake a document that contains the truth. When you discredit the document, you discredit the truth. Maneuvers like that show why Karl Rove really was (in his own special way) a genius.

    I followed the Bush Texas Air National Guard story in detail at the time, and the Rather story in particular, and posted on it a good deal. So far as I know, nobody ever claimed the $10,000 reward that Gary Trudeau offered for anybody who would come forward as an eye witness to Bush performing his TANG duties.

    PWC, Raleigh December 5, 2016 at 5:08 pm

    Exactly. +1,000

    And bingo, bango: the very strange truth becomes fiction.

    Carolinian December 5, 2016 at 7:45 am

    Your comment is heavy on speculation including the notion that Bezos is directly controlling what goes into the Post. I'd say the tight little club that is mainstream journalism doesn't require government subversion in order to represent a MIC point of view. As Gore Vidal said re the deep state: they don't need to conspire since they all think alike anyway.

    More likely the Post article is an example of journo dinosaurs striking out at websites they now regard as their rivals. Print journalism has been brought low, financially, by the internet and television.

    The people who work at the Post don't dare attack television because they all want to be on it. However the web is likely regarded as an easy target and I've long been under the impression that mainstream journalists know practically nothing about the internet other than Twitter and a few favored sites like Politico.

    While it's potentially the greatest communication medium ever devised, of course people visiting the internet have to bring their own truth filter. Which is why some of us have landed here. NC seems serious about getting to the truth, and if you don't like what's written you get to say so. What the MSM really resents is people thinking for themselves.

    Sally December 5, 2016 at 8:43 am

    With all due respect it isn't speculation that Bezos has been hired by the secretary of defence to the Defence innovation advisory board. I think you have to be very naive if you think he has little input into the editorial running of the paper. Why else buy a newspaper these days? They hardly make much money.

    I suspect that this outfit PropOrNot was set up before the election of Trump. They assumed Clinton was going to win and this was the The begining of an onslaught against the so called alternative media that was going to be waged once Hilary was safely inside the White House. Full regulation of the Internet is their aim. This agenda has been pushed in other so called liberal newspapers. The British Guardian for example has been running articles and pushing a campaign of "The Internet we want." Which seems to consist of all critiscms of what it believes being censored.

    As to Yves point about the amateur nature of this list, and the attack on sites like NC in the article, Yves shouldn't assume that all these people are geniuses. It won't be the first or the last time that powerful people who run businesses make complete fools of themselves.

    I doubt they thought they were going to be called out on it, and if Clinton won the election it didn't really matter because they would have the power to come after the alternative media. Trumps election has put a spanner in the works .for now. It remains to be seen if he will try to censor the Internet under pressure from elites.

    Yves Smith Post author December 5, 2016 at 9:33 am

    No it wasn't. They bought the URL only in late August. The first tweet was November 5. The site appears to have been published at the earliest as of November 9, but from what I can tell, it was November 18.

    And Bezos is too busy to have much/any input into editorial decisions. Newscycles are far too rapid. Bezos might make clear what the general priorities and tone are, but he's not going to be involved in individual stories save on a very exceptional basis, and news of that would get out to reporters and make the journalism rumor mill in a bad way. Marty Peretz, who unlike Bezos was the publisher and editor in chief of the magazine he bought (the vastly smaller The New Republic) had pet priorities (Israel) and preferences (falling in love with smart young male senior editors and then becoming disenchanted with them in a couple of years and driving them out) that were widely known.

    andyb December 5, 2016 at 10:09 am

    Agree that Bezos is an unlikely instigator of this farce. More likely, from what we know about the CIA/Mockingbird history, the person responsible is most likely a CIA plant at the senior editor level.

    Yves Smith Post author December 5, 2016 at 10:15 am

    I have to beg to differ re CIA plant. These guys are so ludicrous that folks like Bellingcat are denouncing them. I won't link even here to the original site since that helps them in Google, but just go look at the FAQ on the baddie's site or their Twitter feed. No one who was a pro in any field would see them as serious. I have no idea what the reporter was smoking. But the article reads as if they never did the most basic verification, like a web search. They didn't recognize that the "report" which was The List, was already up and they either double down on or try to cover for their mistake by "updating" the article saying the "report" went up Saturday November 26, when it had been up since at least November 18.

    Keith Warren December 5, 2016 at 2:25 pm

    Carl Bernstein has done some pretty deep reporting on decades of links bw CIA and media: http://www.carlbernstein.com/magazine_cia_and_media.php

    Even he says there are not really any links bw CIA and WaPo as propaganda channel. As much as it'd be fun to fantasize about Bezos being an evil operator for the MIC, I am inclined toward Yves' narrative of incompetence, and an (unhealthy) dose of confirmation bias-seeking.

    PlutoniumKun December 5, 2016 at 12:39 pm

    Much as I would believe anything about Bezos/WP, the article is so amateurish its very hard to believe it is part of an active top-down conspiracy. I'd be more inclined to think that it 'became known' among WP staff that certain Very Important People believe in the Russian propaganda conspiracy and that any articles highlighting this are more likely to be published than others.

    Off the top of my head, some of the worst examples of journalistic libel recently have primarily been driven not by malice or conspiracies, but because of active confirmation bias. The journalist and editor strongly believes X to be true, therefore when a source comes up to provide a potentially juicy story confirming the reality and evil of X, then they leap on the source without any professional scepticism. The Rolling Stone college rape hoax comes to mind, as does a notorious case in Ireland which nearly destroyed investigative journalism in the main TV company.

    Having said that, I think it is strongly likely that certain elements in the establishment (probably the Clinton part of it) was actively pushing the Putin is Goebbels line for several months – but I doubt there is any structured conspiracy – these things tend to just become part of received wisdom, and there are plenty of bottom feeding journalists ready to join the parade.

    Ralph Johansen December 5, 2016 at 1:24 pm

    Well, there's negligence, and then there's wanton, feckless, scurrilous, criminal negligence. Recompense accordingly.

    They certainly know or ought to know that, with the entire left field virtually empty, the Bill of Rights in the round hole, and because they've foreclosed global working class solidarity with walls, laws and red tape, (if that's too much of a stretch you don't belong), all they have to do is squirm at us and we crash.

    Ralph Johansen December 5, 2016 at 1:24 pm

    Well, there's negligence, and then there's wanton, feckless, scurrilous, criminal negligence. Recompense accordingly.

    They certainly know or ought to know that, with the entire left field virtually empty, the Bill of Rights in the round hole, and because they've foreclosed global working class solidarity with walls, laws and red tape, (if that's too much of a stretch you don't belong), all they have to do is squirm at us and we crash.

    Winston December 5, 2016 at 10:54 am

    "What the MSM really resents is people thinking for themselves."

    Here are other examples of undoubtedly top-down suppression of anything other than the "kingmaker" and corrupt status quo maintainer narratives owned by the six mega-corporations that control 90% of what we see and hear.

    The stealthy, Eric Schmidt-backed startup that's working to put Hillary Clinton in the White House – October 09, 2015

    http://qz.com/520652/groundwork-eric-schmidt-startup-working-for-hillary-clinton-campaign/

    An under-the-radar startup funded by billionaire Eric Schmidt has become a major technology vendor for Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, underscoring the bonds between Silicon Valley and Democratic politics.

    The Groundwork, according to Democratic campaign operatives and technologists, is part of efforts by Schmidt -- the executive chairman of Google parent-company Alphabet -- to ensure that Clinton has the engineering talent needed to win the election. And it is one of a series of quiet investments by Schmidt that recognize how modern political campaigns are run, with data analytics and digital outreach as vital ingredients that allow candidates to find, court, and turn out critical voter blocs.

    Research Proves Google Manipulates Autocomplete Suggestions to Favor Clinton – 12 Sep 2016

    In this exclusive report, distinguished research psychologist Robert Epstein explains the new study and reviews evidence that Google's search suggestions are biased in favor of Hillary Clinton. He estimates that biased search suggestions might be able to shift as many as 3 million votes in the upcoming presidential election in the US.

    https://sputniknews.com/us/20160912/1045214398/google-clinton-manipulation-election.html

    Ironically, Sputnick News IS, I believe, a Russian supported site, but just on a hunch and noticing search autocompletion suggestion disparities myself, I had INDEPENDENTLY confirmed what Epstein proved a month before the topic hit the on-line news.

    I even emailed a few web sites about it, but they didn't run with it AS THEY SHOULD HAVE as they would have scooped Sputnick News. It was easy to prove, BTW. Google Trends data which is what is normally used to create autocomplete suggestions on Google did not match the suggestions made, but the search autocomplete suggestions on every other search engine DID.

    YouTube and Facebook censorship against political conservative video bloggers (Google owns YouTube)

    https://youtu.be/B6PtMcMsqVg?t=50m32s

    Wikileaks Reveals Google's "Strategic Plan" To Help Democrats Win The Election, Track Voters

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-01/wikileaks-reveals-googles-strategic-plan-help-democrats-win-election

    Zerohedge was listed as a "fake news" site but, as I'm sure many here know, they do great, hard hitting economic analysis and have had their projections and theories confirmed many times with a far better track record than the mainstream sites covering the same subject.

    James Miller December 5, 2016 at 5:21 am

    My heartfelt support (and contribution) will be with you as you take on one of the most egregiously insulting to its' readers and rot-riddled collection of hacks and mouthpieces. Now a propaganda outlet but once at least a flaky effort at journalism, today,s Washington Post has earned an encounter of the costly kind with a good lawyer or two, many times over.

    .Illegitemi non carborundum! (Don't let the bastards wear you down!).

    Jim Haygood December 5, 2016 at 8:45 am

    We should start calling it the Whoppo for its absurd fake news. Truth be told, I only ever go there for the "graphic news":

    http://comics.washingtonpost.com/featurepages/11_comics_andy-capp.html

    polecat December 5, 2016 at 12:57 pm

    I prefer the Traitor's Post

    Kokuanani December 5, 2016 at 6:54 am

    As I noted here this weekend, I have cancelled my subscription to the WaPo and will be sending a check to NC in the amount of what I would have paid for it.

    I am embarrassed that it took me so long to do so, but having been a subscriber since 1979 [except for when I lived elsewhere], the Post was rather a habit.

    I specifically mentioned the Timberg story as the reason for my cancellation, and hope this information will work its way up the Post food chain.

    Also, Amazon is as dead to me as Walmart. I refuse to buy from either of them.

    Arizona Slim December 5, 2016 at 8:50 am

    Keep the money in your economy. Shop at local businesses.

    Tom Stone December 5, 2016 at 7:29 am

    The "Fake News" story was vetted by editors at the WaPo before it was published. That they published an article that no reputable High School paper would have touched with a 10 foot pole speaks volumes. Hubris?.

    Did they think that because it was published by the WaPo that no one would question it?

    It was certainly a bold thing to do ( And stupid) unless the person or persons who decided to publish this trash thought they had the kind of powerful backing that would protect them from the consequences.

    I expect the WaPo to try to weasel their way out of this embarassment and urge you not to back down or compromise on your demands, if they don't get their noses rubbed in it they will crap on you again.

    When the National Enquirer has become more respectable than the WaPo ( And it is!) we are living in strange times indeed.

    Reify99 December 5, 2016 at 8:40 am

    Yep. The Wapo story is right up there with the grocery aisle headline,
    "Metal Eating Cockroaches Destroy Car"!

    Reify99 December 5, 2016 at 8:58 am

    If this effort begins to build a stronger alliance between truth telling internet sites -- thus promoting change from the ground up -- perhaps it will lead to quicker consequences for Wapo and others who pull this kind of stunt. If it becomes obvious that, not only will your bogus story increase the traffic to these sites at the very time they are pointing out what an idiot you are, but you also reliably get sued, maybe it won't be as much fun anymore.

    Inode_buddha December 5, 2016 at 10:05 am

    I only read the National Enquirer for the articles. {/rimshot}

    OldLion December 5, 2016 at 7:29 am

    I'm not sure the guys behind all this mind losing the discussion in the end. As often, even if the smeared news sites, including NC, win the debate, they'll still lose the communication war.

    The original revelation is buzzing around, and everybody loves it. If there is a rebuttal, it will be a boring article nobody will comment. What people will remember is : "the russians helped Trump win, and some fake news site like NC were their mouthpieces. I distinctly remember the articles, even if the MSM now tries to hide the truth"

    Not sure how to fight that, except with an even better message like : "There is a conspiracy by the WP to smear independent reporting."

    Sadly, I'm not sure it is possible to do that in all honestly. My opinion is that stupidity and ignorance are at work here (and everywhere), not some well organised effort. And the thoughtful voice is just boring.

    hemeantwell December 5, 2016 at 9:56 am

    I'm not so sure. This scandal might be something of a test of your argument, which predicts that, similar to the horrible fate of Gary Webb, the named sites will forever have a residue of doubt to deal with. Webb's story went the way it did because it was semiforgotten, drifting off into the collective preconscious, vaguely malodorous. Surely that can be avoided here. Opportunities for reminding readers of the farce and the revealed intentions of its promoters are abundant. One thing to consider might be to put the WaPo under steady critical scrutiny. For example, as above, the WaPo Whopper of the week.

    The background to all this, the attempt by the Clintonites to draw on Cold War stink reserves (a National Ideological Reserve, sorta like the National Petroleum Reserve) and, if not its complete failure, than its failure to be decisively effective, makes me think we are witnessing signs of a decisive weakening in elite communication control. PropOrNot advances the process.

    Katharine December 5, 2016 at 11:39 am

    Keep needling outlets that picked up the Post story and demanding a prominent apology for irresponsible reporting. Send them the FAIR link, send them this one. Ask why they haven't reaffirmed their commitment (sic) to basic journalistic principles . Be a damn nuisance. (I've often thought what a pity it is that "public nuisance" has a prior signification.)

    AnonymousCounsel December 5, 2016 at 9:07 am

    I'm relieved to know that James Moody will be representing Naked Capitalism in its authentic quest to right an egregious (and either reckless or intentional, in my opinion) wrong committed by a major newspaper of record that purports to represent the Fourth Estate.

    Mr. Moody is technically competent, deeply experienced and highly ethical.

    It's critical that the establishment-driven & coordinated assault on many credible alternative media outlets be halted if free speech and free criticism (which mainstream media sources have not only failed in protecting, but have willingly attempted to suppress views contrary to establishment-approved concepts) is to survive in the United States and elsewhere.

    There is a coordinated attempt by long-standing establishment media sources and government to discredit and de-legitimize very authentic, well-intentioned and thought-provoking non-mainstream media sources, which, if successful, would amount to nothing less than basic censorship and a wholesale de-democratization of news reporting and editorializing.

    That the Washington Post allowed for and even assisted a highly questionable and anonymous source to cast a wide net of aspersions over so many clearly legitimate alternative media sources (such as Naked Capitalism) is nothing short of shameful McCarthy-era attempts to stifle free political expression of substance, and must be challengers if there's any hope in preserving the very system of a free exchange of ideas and speech.

    Romancing The Loan December 5, 2016 at 1:14 pm

    They've come a long way from Watergate. Would really like to see discovery on how Propornot came to the WaPo's attention.

    craazyboy December 5, 2016 at 9:21 am

    I can't believe the unfairness of this allegation made by this propaganda watchdog website. I mean, if I were a Hillary supporter, I would be in tears over this. But as a Bernie supporter, I have learned to get over my butthurt.

    "You identified and thus denigrated Naked Capitalism, one of the sites targeted in the "study" as one of the "right-wing sites across the Internet as they portrayed Clinton as a criminal hiding potentially fatal health problems and preparing to hand control of the nation to a shadowy cabal of global financiers. The effort also sought to heighten the appearance of international tensions and promote fear of looming hostilities with nuclear-armed Russia."

    "shadowy cabal of global financiers" ???? We always use the stock symbols GS and JPM here. WTF is shadowy about that?????????????? You can look the symbols up in Bloomberg!

    Well, I guess maybe some fake news got posted here in the comments section, but I distinctly recall discussing real news, like when Hillary compared Putin to Hitler, or the Cookie Monster thing in Kiev. Or NATO scattering nukes around Eastern Europe. Or Soros and the CIA funding a long term propaganda war in Eastern Europe. Even Fox News would call that fair and balanced fake news. But at any rate, Russia shouldn't view any of this as hostile. That would just be childish.

    Jim Haygood December 5, 2016 at 9:23 am

    Confirming the impression that the Z site monitors NC closely for useful content, Tyler Durden now has a post up titled "Fake News" Site Threatens Washington Post With Defamation Suit, Demands Retraction .

    The post includes the Scribd document of Moody's letter.

    Since the Z site reportedly generates a six-figure annual profit, you'd think this deep-pocketed site would join the suit (should litigation regrettably become necessary). Whaddya say, Tyler(s)?

    frosty zoom December 5, 2016 at 9:45 am

    "moodyjim"*

    yeah!

    *@aol.com?!? ms. yves, may i suggest carrier pigeons?

    Yves Smith Post author December 5, 2016 at 10:25 am

    He's actually quite technically expert (as in he can take apart and analyze software) which is why I don't get the aol.com either. Although he may have been an early aol.com user, and I am told it is a nuisance to extract your contacts from aol.com, and he may have decided it was not worth the fuss.

    Jim Haygood December 5, 2016 at 10:30 am

    Now the post is "gray boxed" (pinned) on the Z site, making it one of two lead articles that apparently are expected to generate a high level of interest and comments.

    Which will send traffic this way. Welcome ZHers.

    MDBill December 5, 2016 at 2:15 pm

    It's not monetary support, however, the story now ends thus,

    We fully endorse Yves Smith's efforts.

    Additionally, we note that the only reason we haven't followed up with a similar action is because i) the allegations were beyond laughable – we have rejected all of them on the record, and ii) there are simply too much other events taking place in what should otherwise be a quiet end to the year taking place to focus on what may be a lenghty, if gratifying, legal process.

    Sluggeaux December 5, 2016 at 9:28 am

    Pass the popcorn! Mr. Moody is a terrific lawyer. I just hope that if Aurora Advisors winds up owning ScAmazon, the workers and suppliers start getting treated decently!

    craazyboy December 5, 2016 at 9:37 am

    It would really be cool if Mr. Moody was doing this "pro bono" – as in give 'em a royal hosing just for the fun of it.

    Jim December 5, 2016 at 10:00 am

    Good for you Yves. Just the dying gasps of an outdated system (MSM news). Anyone with half a brain knows alt news is the place to go these days.

    tiger December 5, 2016 at 10:33 am

    You're too nice to WaPo Yves, maybe this was incompetence but Bezos and WaPo are terrible and they did too many hit pieces on Trump which included false information, so this is not a coincidence. They are the fake news, and that's terrifying. Good luck and may you destroy them.

    RUKidding December 5, 2016 at 11:10 am

    Good luck. I agree with your demands and hope that they are satisfied.

    I gave up a long time ago on either the tv or mainstream print media as a source of credible or factual news. There are some print publications out there that do a rather decent job at reporting the news more accurately, but the ones I know of are mostly smaller local newspapers with very limited budgets.

    All the Bigs are propaganda pure and simple. I gave up reading the NYT and the WaPoo a long long time ago. It would embarress a parrot to have either on the bottom of their cage to catch their sh*t.

    dcblogger December 5, 2016 at 12:12 pm

    RJ Eskow video The Rise of MSNBC McCarthyism

    John Medcalf December 5, 2016 at 12:19 pm

    Where's Bezos? I'm still speculating this is Bezos' answer to Trump's birthing. Annoy the press like hell. Let them whine and sue. Then save the country.

    susan the other December 5, 2016 at 12:26 pm

    Addressing the Whappo's "incompetence" is genius bec. it cannot shake the label. It will stick with them now, whereas if you had gone for the throat with an accusation of malice the Whappo could have escaped all that disgust and resentment because to prove malice you have to prove intent. Like fraud. It's hard to do.

    Be Prepared December 5, 2016 at 12:51 pm

    It has been a difficult to watch these past 8 years under the continued conversion of whatever was left of MSM being turned to merely a propaganda arm for the Executive branch. It is absolutely hilarious that they had the audacity to write the article in the first place since MSM is the only "real" fake news outlet. I do believe it will be a difficult road to achieve a full retraction or even an acknowledgement because they will hide behind the concepts of editorial content. Nothing they write is vetted or researched because they merely conjure articles to fit their preconceptions. If nothing else, pushing back is still the right thing to do . just remember to not let it consume you to the detriment of your continued good work on this site.

    Isolato December 5, 2016 at 12:52 pm

    Just threw some money in the tip jar. Rip their lungs out.

    Kurt Sperry December 5, 2016 at 1:06 pm

    Does the threat of civil litigation even matter to an organization with Bezos' endless resources to draw on? They would probably love the idea of a war of monetary attrition–they can't lose that game. It seems to me the weak link might be the creators of the website itself. Unlike a hardened target like the WaPo, they are unlikely to have such bottomless resources. The first step may be to use investigation or litigation to strip away the anonymity of the publishers of the site, probably by going after the hosting company, then to attack them directly. And if it turns out that filing website whois papers via a proxy privacy service is 100% surefire, ironclad protection from any legal accountability, then there really is no longer anything like accountability for web publishing. If that is the case then there is nothing stopping you from retaliating in kind, creating an anonymous website accusing Bezos of being a child pornographer or whatever and imploring that he and his lawyers negotiate with you to have the accusations retracted at your pleasure. Either filing whois papers for a domain using a privacy proxy is an unbreakable defense against litigation, or it isn't.

    Jess December 5, 2016 at 1:31 pm

    Immediately linked to this post on my FB page. Hope it helps.

    Jess December 5, 2016 at 4:58 pm

    A friend then shared my link on the FB section for former FDL commenters.

    Doly Garcia December 5, 2016 at 1:49 pm

    My experience with journalists (as an organiser of non-profit activities) has convinced me that nowadays they do little to no fact-checking. In one particular case I know of, mainstream UK media including the Independent and the BBC publicized a man that, if they had simply bothered doing a Google search on his name, they'd immediately realize he had zero credibility on the field he was claiming expertise on.

    This should hardly be a surprise to anyone who has followed the story of climate change, with dozens of so-called "climate change" experts being allowed to write opinion pieces on mainstream media, in spite of having no credentials, and sometimes having long credentials of having lobbied for every dubious cause known to mankind, from the health safety of tobacco to the lack of issues with pesticides.

    The real issue is that it's getting damned near impossible for anyone to find out the truth about any controversial issue without spending a long time researching the subject. And most people don't have the time for this, and don't even know that they should regard the news on any controversial issue, from any source, with great suspicion.

    Brad December 5, 2016 at 1:58 pm

    If one is serious about pursuit of a retraction and apology from Wapo, support for NC's cautious approach is in order. It will not help the case being advanced to overstate with inferences about WaPo's motives. Sticking to the already known objective facts will be enough to produce the desired result, public discredit of WaPo by its own hand.

    That's said with full sympathy for the feelings on WaPo, a publication that now ranks with W. R. Hearst's in sheer depths of vileness. And that in general is rightfully laid at the door of its libertardian owner Jeff Bezos, a man whose enterprises mark all that is most evil about US capitalism today. But none of this belongs in the retraction / apology effort. As I see it, the effort is designed to produce a specific effect from specific cause. That effort is best supported by not second-guessing it at this point and over-loading it with meanings that can't be demonstrated within the context of the effort. Let's give it a chance to run and review / critique the result afterward.

    Finally and for the record, this is said as someone with no sympathy for the Putin regime, one that no leftist should have any truck with, "conscious or unconscious", especially from an "anti-imperialist" POV. The Putin regime is right wing, capitalist, neo-nationalist, revanchist, and neo-imperialist (and not at all "wannabe"). It supports with armed force a regime in Damascus that has destroyed "its own country" to save itself. It IS a regime ideologically congruent with Donald Trump's tendencies. IOW Putin's Russia is a lot like the United States in political coloration right now.

    Nevertheless, residents of the USA must first and foremost act against repression conducted by their own government and its political agents such as WaPo. We can agree to disagree on Putin while showing solidarity against domestic repression, especially of this poisonous neo-McCarthyite type. That is only common sense. Our main opponent is always at home.

    stockbrokher December 5, 2016 at 2:21 pm

    This, 100%.

    Claudia December 5, 2016 at 2:16 pm

    After more than a few decades of educational decline and loss of expertise, we have arrived at the Age of Incompetence. That the WaPo would hire such nitwits is all the proof one needs.

    Fiery Hunt December 5, 2016 at 5:08 pm

    Crapification is the Way!

    Thanks, WaPoo!

    DarkMatters December 5, 2016 at 2:27 pm

    The most reasonable hypothesis I can see is that the PropOrNot effort is a response by the MSM to reassert information control, having lost it so spectacularly during the election. The alternative media's counterstory has proven to be more faithful to reality than the picture presented by elite journalists. Elite journalists themselves have been compromised by the Wikileaks revelations. The MSM's reputation is in tatters and SOMETHING MUST BE DONE, at least until enough time has gone by for the public to forget how truly dismally deceptive was their coverage.

    A consistently suspicious pattern of MSM behavior is their incuriousness, and in the present situation, one of the many of the herd of interrogatory elephants in the room is, why isn't the MSM investigating the people who make up PropOrNot? (Or asking any of the questions NS has posed). Would that not be newsworthy?

    Keith Warren December 5, 2016 at 2:43 pm

    I agree with this assessment wholeheartedly. I am afraid that the strategy of the dem establishment and their elite media allies over the next 4 years will be to regain narrative control via censorship, rather than make any attempts at governing like small-d democrats.

    Kim Kaufman December 5, 2016 at 2:37 pm

    The red baiting is popping out from all sides. Last week Amy Goodman interviewed Bernie – the first (she basically ignored him through the primary). She started off with "you were considered a fringe candidate " and he politely reminded her he has been in congress for 25 years. Then she said that he had been red-baited during the primary by Clinton over Castro and the Sandinistas and "could he speak some about Castro and Latin America?" And at every opportunity she reminded the audience he was an independent, not a Democrat, "a socialist."

    I have been told that Sarah Palin blew her chance to be Sec. of Interior, or VA, or whatever it was because she criticized Trump for "crony capitalism" over the Carrier deal.

    I'm totally confused about who our friends are these days.

    Greg Taylor December 5, 2016 at 2:37 pm

    How has "Beall's List" of so-called "predatory" open-access academic research publishers escaped a similar lawsuit? Some of these publishers were shut down as a direct result of being named so the list has undeniably done damage since being published in 2013. There seem to be strong parallels between "Fake News" and "Fake Science" censorship efforts.

    Kim Kaufman December 5, 2016 at 2:39 pm

    I might have called the spoof site: "PoopOrNot." :)

    Daniel December 5, 2016 at 3:12 pm

    I am surprised your attorney has not gone after PropOrNot. I most surely would have

    craazyman December 5, 2016 at 3:14 pm

    It's not unreasonable the Washington Post would confuse Naked Capitalism with a Porn site. But not a Russian porn site, that's just not credible since Naked Capitalism is English.

    They should just admit it they made up fake news. They probably never read anything on the site - or even looked at the pictures of naked animals. Naked pussys. Lots of those. With garish flash photography. It's enough to embarrass anybody with refined aesthetic sensibilities.

    But it isn't Porn and it's not Russian. I've never seen a Russian pussy here. Usually they're American or maybe from England. Sometimes they're even guys. That's kind of confusing, but a cat is a cat to most people. I'm not a veterinarian anyway.

    Fake news is the scourge of the internet. Fake news has been around a long time, as long as there were newspapers in fact. It started in the 1700s and it kept going. Before that it was fake but it was only passed by word of mouth.

    Now there's fake pictures. Fake news with fake pictures can sometimes be art - but only if you see it in the movies, where some drug addled lunatic pretends they're somebody else, then they go into rehab after the movie is made and sometimes before. News should be real, in theory, but in reality it isn't. Somebody makes it up but you don't always know who. That's why jourmalism is so important, because you want the person making it up to be accurate! You don't want them making up Porn and publishing that. Why pay for that? People make that up themselves evidently and don't even need a newspaper.

    So if they fell for the fake Porn angle here - thinking that Naked meant Porn, and from Russia of all places! - that must mean they're either making it up or they don't know what real news is from anywhere. Since it could be from other places besides Russia. If they went to a museum they'd see naked things but not Porn. There's a museum of things but it's not news or porn, it's just whatever. I'm just being honest. It doesn't have to be confusing, even for somebody who writes and takes pictures.

    templar555510 December 5, 2016 at 3:47 pm

    The tendency towards consensus has been apparent in the mainstream media for forty plus years , long before the internet came along and upset things. What has caused mass hysteria in those circles is the sound of these other uncontrolled and uncontrollable voices . Years ago the only comment section of a national newspaper was ' Letters to the Editor ' which the editor had the veto over, never mind editorial responsibility for, and he / she took their job seriously ( in my first hand experience ) . Those days are long gone . Imagine you are a young, or even a seasoned journalist on one of these papers and you think you have the ear of the editor , the temptation to bring forth a story ( ' scoop ' in old – fashioned newspaper speak ) that gives umpteen internet sites a good kicking must be hard to resist. Trouble is the story was trashed before it hit the ground . And so another nail goes in the coffin of the mainstream press .

    SpongeBobSaget December 5, 2016 at 3:50 pm

    The Daily Caller story about this has a survey asking readers if Naked Capitalism is a fake news site or not.

    On my browser it's not possible to check "No: I Never Found A Fake News Story On That Site" Only Yes it's fake can be selected.

    Vichy Chicago December 5, 2016 at 5:09 pm

    Here's a great example of the BBC conducting an unvetted interview.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aw4utg42yCI

    /sarc

    [Dec 05, 2016] Stiglitz Blasts Outrageous TPP as Obama Campaigns for Corporate-Friendly Deal Common Dreams Breaking News Views for the

    Notable quotes:
    "... Expressing his overall objections to the TPP, Stiglitz said "corporate interests... were at the table" when it was being crafted. He also condemned "the provisions on intellectual property that will drive up drug prices" and "the 'investment provisions' which will make it more difficult to regulate and actually harm trade." ..."
    "... The Democratic candidate, for her part, supported the deal before coming out against it , but for TPP foes, uncertainty about her position remains, especially since she recently named former Colorado Senator and Interior Secretary-and " vehement advocate for the TPP "-Ken Salazar to be chair of her presidential transition team. ..."
    "... Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.) said , "We have to make sure that bill never sees the light of day after this election," while Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) said at the American Postal Workers Union convention in Walt Disney World, "If this goes through, it's curtains for the middle class in this country." ..."
    Aug 25, 2016 | www.commondreams.org
    Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz has reiterated his opposition to the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), saying on Tuesday that President Barack Obama's push to get the trade deal passed during the upcoming lame-duck session of Congress is "outrageous" and "absolutely wrong."

    Stiglitz, an economics professor at Columbia University and chief economist of the Roosevelt Institute, made the comments on CNN's "Quest Means Business."

    His criticism comes as Obama aggressively campaigns to get lawmakers to pass the TPP in the Nov. 9 to Jan. 3 window-even as resistance mounts against the 12-nation deal.

    Echoing an argument made by Center for Economic and Policy Research co-director Mark Weisbrot, Stiglitz said, "At the lame-duck session you have congressmen voting who know that they're not accountable anymore."

    Lawmakers "who are not politically accountable because they're leaving may, in response to promises of jobs or just subtle understandings, do things that are not in the national interest," he said.

    Expressing his overall objections to the TPP, Stiglitz said "corporate interests... were at the table" when it was being crafted. He also condemned "the provisions on intellectual property that will drive up drug prices" and "the 'investment provisions' which will make it more difficult to regulate and actually harm trade."

    "The advocates of trade said it was going to benefit everyone," he added. "The evidence is it's benefited a few and left a lot behind."

    Stiglitz has previously spoken out against the TPP before, arguing that it "may turn out to be the worst trade agreement in decades;" that it would mean "if you pass a regulation that restricts ability to pollute or does something about climate change, you could be sued and could pay billions of dollars;" and previously said that the president's TPP push "is one of Obama's biggest mistakes."

    Stiglitz has also been advising the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign. The Democratic candidate, for her part, supported the deal before coming out against it, but for TPP foes, uncertainty about her position remains, especially since she recently named former Colorado Senator and Interior Secretary-and "vehement advocate for the TPP"-Ken Salazar to be chair of her presidential transition team.

    Opposition to the TPP also appeared Tuesday in Michigan and Florida, where union members and lawmakers criticized what they foresee as the deal's impacts on working families.

    Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.) said, "We have to make sure that bill never sees the light of day after this election," while Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) said at the American Postal Workers Union convention in Walt Disney World, "If this goes through, it's curtains for the middle class in this country."

    [Dec 05, 2016] Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Tulsi Gabbard - Fighting for the people.

    Aug 01, 2016 | www.votetulsi.com

    We cannot allow this agreement to forsake the American middle class, while foreign governments are allowed to devalue their currency and artificially prop-up their industries.

    The Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal is a bad deal for the American people. This historically massive trade deal -- accounting for 40 percent of global trade -- would reduce restrictions on foreign corporations operating within the U.S., limit our ability to protect our environment, and create more incentives for U.S. businesses to outsource investments and jobs overseas to countries with lower labor costs and standards.

    Over and over we hear from TPP proponents how the TPP will boost our economy, help American workers, and set the standards for global trade. The International Trade Commission report released last May (https://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/pub4607.pdf) confirms that the opposite is true. In exchange for just 0.15 percent boost in GDP by 2032, the TPP would decimate American manufacturing capacity, increase our trade deficit, ship American jobs overseas, and result in losses to 16 of the 25 U.S. economic sectors. These estimates don't even account for the damaging effects of currency manipulation, environmental impacts, and the agreement's deeply flawed Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) process.

    There's no reason to believe the provisions of this deal relating to labor standards, preserving American jobs, or protecting our environment, will be enforceable. Every trade agreement negotiated in the past claimed to have strong enforceable provisions to protect American jobs -- yet no such enforcement has occurred, and agreements like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) have resulted in the loss of hundreds of thousands of American jobs. Former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich has called TPP "NAFTA on steroids." The loss of U.S. jobs under the TPP would likely be unprecedented.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fC0qppnK_U

    Watch: Tulsi restates the need for transparency in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) on the House floor.

    [Dec 05, 2016] BuzzFeed Exposes Corporate Super Courts That Can Overrule Government

    Corporations are "one-dollar-one-vote" top-down systems. They consider "one-person-one-vote" democracy illegitimate
    Notable quotes:
    "... Existing "trade" agreements like NAFTA allow corporations to sue governments for passing laws and regulations that limit their profits. They set up special " corporate courts " in which corporate attorneys decide the cases. These corporate "super courts" sit above governments and their own court systems, and countries and their citizens cannot even appeal the rulings. ..."
    "... Now, corporations are pushing two new "trade" agreements - one covering Pacific-are countries and one covering Atlantic-area countries - that expand these corporate rights and move governments out of their way. The Pacific agreement is called the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Atlantic one is called the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). ..."
    "... International corporations that want to intimidate countries have access to a private legal system designed just for them. And to unlock its power, sometimes all it takes is a threat. ..."
    "... ISDS is so tilted and unpredictable, and the fines the arbitrators can impose are so catastrophically large, that bowing to a company's demands, however extreme they may be, can look like the prudent choice. ..."
    Sep 03, 2016 | Back to (our) Future

    BuzzFeed is running a very important investigative series called "Secrets of a Global Super Court." It describes what they call "a parallel legal universe, open only to corporations and largely invisible to everyone else."

    Existing "trade" agreements like NAFTA allow corporations to sue governments for passing laws and regulations that limit their profits. They set up special "corporate courts" in which corporate attorneys decide the cases. These corporate "super courts" sit above governments and their own court systems, and countries and their citizens cannot even appeal the rulings.

    The 2014 post "Corporate Courts - A Big Red Flag On "Trade" Agreements" explained the origin and rationale for these corporate courts:

    Picture a poor "banana republic" country ruled by a dictator and his cronies. A company might want to invest in a factory or railroad - things that would help the people of that country as well as deliver a return to the company. But the company worries that the dictator might decide to just seize the factory and give it to his brother-in-law. Agreements to protect investors, and allowing a tribunal not based in such countries (courts where the judges are cronies of the dictator), make sense in such situations.

    Here's the thing: Corporate investors see themselves as legitimate "makers" and see citizens and voters and their governments - always demanding taxes and fair pay and public safety - to be illegitimate "takers." Corporations are all about "one-dollar-one-vote" top-down systems of governance. They consider "one-person-one-vote" democracy to be an illegitimate, non-functional system that meddles with their more-important profit interests. They consider any governmental legal or regulatory system to be "burdensome." They consider taxes as "theft" of the money they have "earned."

    To them, any government anywhere is just another "banana republic" from which they need special protection.

    "Trade" Deals Bypass Borders

    Investors and their corporations have set up a way to get around the borders of these meddling governments, called "trade" deals. The trade deals elevate global corporate interests above any national interest. When a country signs a "trade" deal, that country is agreeing not to do things that protect the country's own national interest - like impose tariffs to protect key industries or national strategies, or pass laws and regulations - when those things interfere with the larger, more important global corporate "trade" interests.

    Now, corporations are pushing two new "trade" agreements - one covering Pacific-are countries and one covering Atlantic-area countries - that expand these corporate rights and move governments out of their way. The Pacific agreement is called the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Atlantic one is called the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP).

    Secrets of a Global Super Court

    BuzzFeed's series on these corporate courts, "Secrets of a Global Super Court," explains the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) provisions in the "trade" deals that have come to dominate the world economy. These provisions set up "corporate courts" that place corporate profits above the interests of governments and set up a court system that sits above the court systems of the countries in the "trade" deals.

    Part One, "Inside The Global "Club" That Helps Executives Escape Their Crimes," describes, "A parallel legal universe, open only to corporations and largely invisible to everyone else, helps executives convicted of crimes escape punishment."

    In a little-noticed 2014 dissent, US Chief Justice John Roberts warned that ISDS arbitration panels hold the alarming power to review a nation's laws and "effectively annul the authoritative acts of its legislature, executive, and judiciary." ISDS arbitrators, he continued, "can meet literally anywhere in the world" and "sit in judgment" on a nation's "sovereign acts."

    [. . .]

    Reviewing publicly available information for about 300 claims filed during the past five years, BuzzFeed News found more than 35 cases in which the company or executive seeking protection in ISDS was accused of criminal activity, including money laundering, embezzlement, stock manipulation, bribery, war profiteering, and fraud.

    Among them: a bank in Cyprus that the US government accused of financing terrorism and organized crime, an oil company executive accused of embezzling millions from the impoverished African nation of Burundi, and the Russian oligarch known as "the Kremlin's banker."

    One lawyer who regularly represents governments said he's seen evidence of corporate criminality that he "couldn't believe." Speaking on the condition that he not be named because he's currently handling ISDS cases, he said, "You have a lot of scuzzy sort-of thieves for whom this is a way to hit the jackpot."

    Part Two, "The Billion-Dollar Ultimatum," looks at how "International corporations that want to intimidate countries have access to a private legal system designed just for them. And to unlock its power, sometimes all it takes is a threat."

    Of all the ways in which ISDS is used, the most deeply hidden are the threats, uttered in private meetings or ominous letters, that invoke those courts. The threats are so powerful they often eliminate the need to actually bring a lawsuit. Just the knowledge that it could happen is enough.

    [. . .] ISDS is so tilted and unpredictable, and the fines the arbitrators can impose are so catastrophically large, that bowing to a company's demands, however extreme they may be, can look like the prudent choice. Especially for nations struggling to emerge from corrupt dictatorships or to lift their people from decades of poverty, the mere threat of an ISDS claim triggers alarm. A single decision by a panel of three unaccountable, private lawyers, meeting in a conference room on some other continent, could gut national budgets and shake economies to the core.

    Part Three, "To Bankers, It's Not Just A Court System, It's A Gold Mine," exposes how "Financial companies have figured out how to turn a controversial global legal system to their own very profitable advantage."

    Indeed, financiers and ISDS lawyers have created a whole new business: prowling for ways to sue nations in ISDS and make their taxpayers fork over huge sums, sometimes in retribution for enforcing basic laws or regulations.

    The financial industry is pushing novel ISDS claims that countries never could have anticipated - claims that, in some instances, would be barred in US courts and those of other developed nations, or that strike at emergency decisions nations make to cope with crises.

    ISDS gives particular leverage to traders and speculators who chase outsize profits in the developing world. They can buy into local disputes that they have no connection to, then turn the disputes into costly international showdowns. Standard Chartered, for example, bought the debt of a Tanzanian company that was in dire financial straits and racked by scandal; now, the bank has filed an ISDS claim demanding that the nation's taxpayers hand over the full amount that the private company owed - more than $100 million. Asked to comment, Standard Chartered said its claim is "valid."

    David Dayen explains this last point, in "The Big Problem With The Trans-Pacific Partnership's Super Court That We're Not Talking About": "Financiers will use it to bet on lawsuits, while taxpayers foot the bill."

    But instead of helping companies resolve legitimate disputes over seized assets, ISDS has increasingly become a way for rich investors to make money by speculating on lawsuits, winning huge awards and forcing taxpayers to foot the bill.

    Here's how it works: Wealthy financiers with idle cash have purchased companies that are well placed to bring an ISDS claim, seemingly for the sole purpose of using that claim to make a buck. Sometimes, they set up shell corporations to create the plaintiffs to bring ISDS cases. And some hedge funds and private equity firms bankroll ISDS cases as third parties - just like billionaire Peter Thiel bankrolled Hulk Hogan in his lawsuit against Gawker Media.

    Part Four of the great BuzzFeed series, "Secrets of a Global Super Court," is expected to be published later this week.

    PCCC Statement

    The Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC) released this statement on the ISDS provisions in TPP:

    "Under the Trans-Pacific Partnership, Wall Street would be allowed to sue the government in extrajudicial, corporate-run tribunals over any regulation and American taxpayers would be on the hook for damages. This is an outrage. We need more accountability and fairness in our economy – not less. And we need to preserve our ability to make our own rules.

    "It's time for Obama to take notice of the widespread, bipartisan opposition to the TPP and take this agreement off the table before he causes lasting political harm to Democrats with voters."

    [Dec 05, 2016] No TPP - a certainty in case Donald Trump is elected in November - means the end of US economic hegemony over Asia.

    Notable quotes:
    "... "No TPP - a certainty in case Donald Trump is elected in November - means the end of US economic hegemony over Asia. Hillary Clinton knows it; and it's no accident President Obama is desperate to have TPP approved during a short window of opportunity, the lame-duck session of Congress from November 9 to January 3." ..."
    "... To me, the key to our economic hegemony lies in our reserve currency hegemony. They will have to continue to supply us to get the currency. Unless we have injected too much already (no scholars have come forth to say how much trade deficits are necessary for the reserve currency to function as the reserve currency, and so, we have just kept buying – and I am wondering if we have bought too much and there is a need to starting running trade surpluses to soak up the excess money – just asking, I don't know the answer). ..."
    Sep 01, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Joe Hunter , August 31, 2016 at 2:52 pm

    " http://www.defenddemocracy.press/whole-game-containing-russisa-china/

    A response to Hillary Clinton's America Exceptionalist Speech:

    1. America Exceptionalist vs. the World..
    2. Brezinski is extremely dejected.
    3. Russia-China on the march.
    4. "There will be blood. Hillary Clinton smells it already ."

    clarky90 , August 31, 2016 at 4:01 pm

    "No TPP - a certainty in case Donald Trump is elected in November - means the end of US economic hegemony over Asia. Hillary Clinton knows it; and it's no accident President Obama is desperate to have TPP approved during a short window of opportunity, the lame-duck session of Congress from November 9 to January 3."

    http://sputniknews.com/columnists/20160829/1044733257/russia-china-game-brics.html

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef , August 31, 2016 at 4:18 pm

    To me, the key to our economic hegemony lies in our reserve currency hegemony. They will have to continue to supply us to get the currency. Unless we have injected too much already (no scholars have come forth to say how much trade deficits are necessary for the reserve currency to function as the reserve currency, and so, we have just kept buying – and I am wondering if we have bought too much and there is a need to starting running trade surpluses to soak up the excess money – just asking, I don't know the answer).

    [Dec 05, 2016] In the face of public opposition to the TPP and TISA proponents have trotted out a new argument: we have come too far , our national credibility would be damaged if we stop now.

    Aug 27, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    L , August 26, 2016 at 2:44 pm

    Regarding the push to pass the TPP and TISA I've been needing to get this off my chest and this seems to be as good a time as any:

    In the face of public opposition to the TPP and TISA proponents have trotted out a new argument: "we have come too far", "our national credibility would be damaged if we stop now." The premise of which is that negotiations have been going on so long, and have involved such effort that if the U.S. were to back away now we would look bad and would lose significant political capital.

    On one level this argument is true. The negotiations have been long, and many promises were made by the negotiators to secure to to this point. Stepping back now would expose those promises as false and would make that decade of effort a loss. It would also expose the politicians who pushed for it in the face of public oppoosition to further loss of status and to further opposition.

    However, all of that is voided by one simple fact. The negotiations were secret. All of that effort, all of the horse trading and the promise making was done by a self-selected body of elites, for that same body, and was hidden behind a wall of secrecy stronger than that afforded to new weapons. The deals were hidden not just from the general public, not from trade unions or environmental groups, but from the U.S. Congress itself.

    Therefore it has no public legitimacy. The promises made are not "our" promises but Michael Froman's promises. They are not backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government but only by the words of a small body of appointees and the multinational corporations that they serve. The corporations were invited to the table, Congress was not.

    What "elites" really mean when they say "America's credibility is on the line" is that their credibility is on the line. If these deals fail what will be lost is not America's stature but the premise that a handful of appointees can cut deals in private and that the rest of us will make good.

    When that minor loss is laid against the far greater fact that the terms of these deals are bad, that prior deals of this type have harmed our real economies, and that the rules will further erode our national sovreignity, there is no contest.

    Michael Froman's reputation has no value. Our sovreignity, our economy, our nation, does.

    flora , August 26, 2016 at 2:51 pm

    +1

    grizziz , August 26, 2016 at 2:52 pm

    Thank you for your comment. +1

    Lambert Strether Post author , August 26, 2016 at 2:57 pm

    "We've gone too far."

    Whaddaya mean, "we"?

    ambrit , August 26, 2016 at 6:45 pm

    The imperial "We."
    I just had a soul corroding vision of H Clinton done up as Victoria Regina. Ouch!!! Go get the butter!

    Jim Haygood , August 26, 2016 at 6:53 pm

    In modern parlance, she's Victoria Rejayjay. :-0

    JohnnyGL , August 26, 2016 at 3:01 pm

    Good comment .

    "What "elites" really mean when they say "America's credibility is on the line" is that their credibility is on the line. If these deals fail what will be lost is not America's stature but the premise that a handful of appointees can cut deals in private and that the rest of us will make good."

    Yes! And the victory will taste so sweet when we bury this filthy, rotten, piece of garbage. Obama's years of effort down the drain, his legacy tarnished and unfinished.

    I want TPP's defeat to send a clear message that the elites can't count on their politicians to deliver for them. Let's make this thing their Stalingrad! Leave deep scars so that they give up on TISA and stop trying to concoct these absurd schemes like ISDS.

    abynormal , August 26, 2016 at 3:10 pm

    sorry but i don't see it that way at all. 'they' got a propaganda machine to beat all 'they' make n break reps all the time. i do see a desperation on a monetary/profit scale. widening the 'playing field' offers more profits with less risk. for instance, our Pharams won't have to slash their prices at the risk of sunshine laws, wish-washy politicians, competition, nor a pissed off public. jmo tho')

    OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL , August 26, 2016 at 4:13 pm

    LOL "America's credibility" LOL, these people need to get out more. In the 60's you could hike high up into the Andes and the sheep herder had two pics on the wall of his hut: Jesus and JFK. America retains its cachet as a place to make money and be entertained, but as some kind of beacon of morality and fair play in the world? Dead, buried, and long gone, the hype-fest of slogans and taglines can only cover up so many massive, atrocious and hypocritical actions and serial offenses.

    Synoia , August 26, 2016 at 4:57 pm

    his legacy tarnished and unfinished.

    And his post-presidential money small .

    NotTimothyGeithner , August 26, 2016 at 6:11 pm

    Clinton Inc was mostly Bill helping Epstein get laid until after Kerry lost. If this was the reelection of John Edwards, Kerry's running mate, and a referendum on 12 years of Kerronomics, Bill and Hill would be opening night speakers at the DNC and answers to trivia questions.

    My guess is Obama is dropped swiftly and unceremoniously especially since he doesn't have much of a presence in Washington.

    John Wright , August 26, 2016 at 6:15 pm

    The must preserve American credibility argument on the line again.

    Here is a quote from NYT's Nicholas Kristoff from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/29/opinion/kristof-reinforce-a-norm-in-syria.html

    "It looks as if we'll be firing Tomahawk cruise missiles at Syria in the coming days, and critics are raising legitimate concerns:"

    "Yet there is value in bolstering international norms against egregious behavior like genocide or the use of chemical weapons. Since President Obama established a "red line" about chemical weapons use, his credibility has been at stake: he can't just whimper and back down."

    Obama did back down.

    NIcholas Kristof, vigilant protector of American credibility through bombing Syria.

    polecat , August 26, 2016 at 7:14 pm

    he's just another syncophantic punk .in a long line of syncophantic punks

    ..oh..that includes Kristof too

    RabidGandhi , August 26, 2016 at 3:48 pm

    Ah yes the credibility of our élites. With their sterling record on Nafta's benefits, Iraq's liberation, Greece's rebound, the IMF's rehabilitation of countries

    We must pass TPP or Tom Friedman will lose credibility, what?

    polecat , August 26, 2016 at 7:17 pm

    yeah but will he have to shave off his 'stache' ??

    Propertius , August 26, 2016 at 3:53 pm

    Well said!

    HopeLB , August 26, 2016 at 8:36 pm

    Wonderful (and credible) assessment.

    [Dec 05, 2016] Framing Votes for TPP as the Surrender of National Sovereignty (i.e., Treason) naked capitalism

    Notable quotes:
    "... pro-TPPers "consciously seek to weaken the national defense," that's exactly what's going on. Neoliberalism, through offshoring, weakens the national defense, because it puts our weaponry at the mercy of fragile and corruptible supply chains. ..."
    "... Now, when we think about how corrupt the political class has become, it's not hard to see why Obama is confident that he will win. ..."
    "... I think raising the ante rhetorically by framing a pro-TPP vote as treason could help sway a close vote; and if readers try that frame out, I'd like to hear the results ..."
    Aug 29, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Why the Proponents of TPP Are Traitors

    There are two reasons: First, they consciously seek to weaken the national defense. And second, the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) system is a surrender of national sovereignty .

    National Defense

    This might be labeled the "Ghost Fleet" argument, since we're informed that Paul Singer and Augustus Cole's techno-thriller has really caught the attention of the national security class below the political appointee level, and that this is a death blow for neoliberalism. Why? "The multi-billion dollar, next generation F-35 aircraft, for instance, is rendered powerless after it is revealed that Chinese microprocessor manufacturers had implanted malicious code into products intended for the jet" ( Foreign Policy ). Clearly, we need, well, industrial policy, and we need to bring a lot of manufacturing home. From Brigadier General (Retired) John Adams :

    In 2013, the Pentagon's Defense Science Board put forward a remarkable report describing one of the most significant but little-recognized threats to US security: deindustrialization. The report argued that the loss of domestic U.S. manufacturing facilities has not only reduced U.S. living standards but also compromised U.S. technology leadership "by enabling new players to learn a technology and then gain the capability to improve on it." The report explained that the offshoring of U.S. manufacturing presents a particularly dangerous threat to U.S. military readiness through the "compromise of the supply chain for key weapons systems components."

    Our military is now shockingly vulnerable to major disruptions in the supply chain, including from substandard manufacturing practices, natural disasters, and price gouging by foreign nations. Poor manufacturing practices in offshore factories lead to problem-plagued products, and foreign producers-acting on the basis of their own military or economic interests-can sharply raise prices or reduce or stop sales to the United States.

    The link between TPP and this kind of offshoring has been well-established.

    And, one might say, the link between neo-liberal economic policy "and this kind of offshoring has been well-established" as well.

    So, when I framed the issue as one where pro-TPPers "consciously seek to weaken the national defense," that's exactly what's going on. Neoliberalism, through offshoring, weakens the national defense, because it puts our weaponry at the mercy of fragile and corruptible supply chains. Note that re-industrializing America has positive appeal, too: For the right, on national security grounds; and for the left, on labor's behalf (and maybe helping out the Rust Belt that neoliberal policies of the last forty years did so much to destroy. Of course, this framing would make Clinton a traitor, but you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs. (Probably best to to let the right, in its refreshingly direct fashion, use the actual "traitor" word, and the left, shocked, call for the restoration of civility, using verbiage like "No, I wouldn't say she's a traitor. She's certainly 'extremely careless' with our nation's security.")

    ISDS

    The Investor-State Dispute Settlement system is a hot mess (unless you represent a corporation, or are one of tiny fraternity of international corporate lawyers who can plead and/or judge ISDS cases). Yves wrote :

    What may have torched the latest Administration salvo is a well-timed joint publication by Wikileaks and the New York Times of a recent version of the so-called investment chapter. That section sets forth one of the worst features of the agreement, the investor-state dispute settlement process (ISDS). As we've described at length in earlier posts, the ISDS mechanism strengthens the existing ISDS process. It allows for secret arbitration panels to effectively overrule national regulations by allowing foreign investors to sue governments over lost potential future profits in secret arbitration panels. Those panels have been proved to be conflict-ridden and arbitrary. And the grounds for appeal are limited and technical.

    (More from NC on the ISDS panels , the TPP clauses on ISDS , the "code of conduct" for lawyers before the ISDS, pending ISDS settlements , and the potential constitutional challenges to the ISDS system.)

    Here again we have a frame that appeals to both right and left. The very thought of surrendering national sovereignty to an international organization makes any good conservative's back teeth itch. And the left sees the "lost profits" doctrine as a club to prevent future government programs they would like to put in place (single payer, for example). And in both cases, the neoliberal doctrine of putting markets before anything else makes pro-TPP-ers traitors. To the right, because nationalism trumps internationalism; to the left, because TPP prevents the State from looiking after the welfare of its people.

    The Political State of Play

    All I know is what I read in the papers, so what follows can only be speculation. That said, there are two ways TPP could be passed: In the lame duck session, by Obama, or after a new President is inaugurated, by Clinton (or possibly by Trump[1]).

    Passing TPP in the Lame Duck Session

    Obama is committed to passing TPP (and we might remember that the adminstration failed to pass the draft in Maui , then succeeded in Atlanta . And the House killed Fast Track once , before voting for it (after which the Senate easily passed it, and Obama signed it). So the TPP may be a "heavy lift," but that doesn't mean Obama can't accomplish it. Obama says :

    [OBAMA:] And hopefully, after the election is over and the dust settles, there will be more attention to the actual facts behind the deal and it won't just be a political symbol or a political football. And I will actually sit down with people on both sides, on the right and on the left. I'll sit down publicly with them and we'll go through the whole provisions. I would enjoy that, because there's a lot of misinformation.

    I'm really confident I can make the case this is good for American workers and the American people. And people said we weren't going to be able to get the trade authority to even present this before Congress, and somehow we muddled through and got it done. And I intend to do the same with respect to the actual agreement.

    So how would Obama "muddle through"? One way is to appeal to legislators who won't have to face voters again :

    So it is looking like a very close vote. (For procedural and political reasons, Obama will not bring it to a vote unless he is sure he has the necessary votes). Now let's look at one special group of Representatives who can swing this vote: the actual lame-ducks, i.e., those who will be in office only until Jan. 3. It depends partly on how many lose their election on Nov. 8, but the average number of representatives who left after the last three elections was about 80.

    Most of these people will be looking for a job, preferably one that can pay them more than $1 million a year. From the data provided by OpenSecrets.org, we can estimate that about a quarter of these people will become lobbyists. (An additional number will work for firms that are clients of lobbyists).

    So there you have it: It is all about corruption, and this is about as unadulterated as corruption gets in our hallowed democracy, other than literal cash under a literal table. These are the people whom Obama needs to pass this agreement, and the window between Nov. 9 and Jan. 3 is the only time that they are available to sell their votes to future employers without any personal political consequences whatsoever. The only time that the electorate can be rendered so completely irrelevant, if Obama can pull this off.

    (The article doesn't talk about the Senate, but Fast Track passed the Senate with a filibuster-proof super-majority, so the battle is in the House anyhow. And although the text of TPP cannot be amended - that's what fast track means! - there are still ways to affect the interpretation and enforcement of the text, so Obama and his corporate allies have bargaining chips beyond Beltway sinecures.[2])

    Now, when we think about how corrupt the political class has become, it's not hard to see why Obama is confident that he will win. ( Remember , "[T]he preferences of economic elites have far more independent impact upon policy change than the preferences of average citizens do.") However, if the anti-TPP-ers raise the rhetorical stakes from policy disagreement to treason, maybe a few of those 80 representatives will do the right thing (or, if you prefer, decide that the reputational damage to their future career makes a pro-TPP vote not worth it. Who wants to play golf with a traitor?)

    Passing TPP after the Inaugural

    After the coronation inaugural, Clinton will have to use more complicated tactics than dangling goodies before the snouts of representatives leaving for K Street. (We've seen that Clinton's putative opposition to TPP is based on lawyerly parsing; and her base supports it. So I assume a Clinton administration would go full speed ahead with it.) My own thought has been that she'd set up a "conversation" on trade, and then buy off the national unions with "jobs for the boys," so that they sell their locals down the river. Conservative Jennifer Rubin has a better proposal , which meets Clinton's supposed criterion of not hurting workers even better:

    Depending on the election results and how many pro-free-trade Republicans lose, it still might not be sufficient. Here's a further suggestion: Couple it with a substantial infrastructure project that Clinton wants, but with substantial safeguards to make sure that the money is wisely spent. Clinton gets a big jobs bill - popular with both sides - and a revised TPP gets through.

    Finally, an even more radical proposal, again from a conservative source :

    What Clinton needs is a significant revision to TPP that she can tout as a real reform to trade agreements, one that satisfies some of the TPP's critics on the left. A minor tweak is unlikely to assuage anyone; this change needs to be a major one. Fortunately, there is a TPP provision that fits the bill perfectly: investor state dispute settlement (ISDS), the procedure that allows foreign investors to sue governments in an international tribunal. Removing ISDS could triangulate the TPP debate, allowing for enough support to get it through Congress.

    Obama can't have a conversation on trade, or propose a jobs program, let alone jettison ISDS; all he's got going for him is corruption.[3] So, interestingly, although Clinton can't take the simple road of bribing the 80 represenatives, she does have more to bargain with on policy. Rubin's jobs bill could at least be framed as a riposte to the "Ghost Fleet" argument, since both are about "jawbs," even if infrastructure programs and reindustrialization aren't identical in intent. And while I don't think Clinton would allow ISDS to be removed ( her corporate donors love it ), at least somebody's thinking about how to pander to the left. Nevertheless, what does a jobs program matter if the new jobs leave the country anyhow? And suppose ISDS is removed, but the removal of the precautionary principle remains? We'd still get corporate-friendly decisions, bilaterally. And people would end up balancing the inevitable Clinton complexity and mush against the simplicity of the message that a vote for TPP is a vote against the United States.

    Conclusion

    I hope I've persuaded you that TPP is still very much alive, and that both Obama in the lame duck, and Clinton (or even Trump) when inaugurated have reasonable hopes of passing it. However, I think raising the ante rhetorically by framing a pro-TPP vote as treason could help sway a close vote; and if readers try that frame out, I'd like to hear the results (especially when the result comes from a letter to your Congress critter). Interestingly, Buzzfeed just published tonight the first in a four-part series, devoted to the idea that ISDS is what we have said it is all along: A surrender of national sovereignty. Here's a great slab of it :

    Imagine a private, global super court that empowers corporations to bend countries to their will.

    Say a nation tries to prosecute a corrupt CEO or ban dangerous pollution. Imagine that a company could turn to this super court and sue the whole country for daring to interfere with its profits, demanding hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars as retribution.

    Imagine that this court is so powerful that nations often must heed its rulings as if they came from their own supreme courts, with no meaningful way to appeal. That it operates unconstrained by precedent or any significant public oversight, often keeping its proceedings and sometimes even its decisions secret. That the people who decide its cases are largely elite Western corporate attorneys who have a vested interest in expanding the court's authority because they profit from it directly, arguing cases one day and then sitting in judgment another. That some of them half-jokingly refer to themselves as "The Club" or "The Mafia."

    And imagine that the penalties this court has imposed have been so crushing - and its decisions so unpredictable - that some nations dare not risk a trial, responding to the mere threat of a lawsuit by offering vast concessions, such as rolling back their own laws or even wiping away the punishments of convicted criminals.

    This system is already in place, operating behind closed doors in office buildings and conference rooms in cities around the world. Known as investor-state dispute settlement, or ISDS, it is written into a vast network of treaties that govern international trade and investment, including NAFTA and the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which Congress must soon decide whether to ratify.

    That's the stuff to give the troops!

    NOTE

    [1] Trump: "I pledge to never sign any trade agreement that hurts our workers." Lotta wiggle room there, and the lawyerly parsing is just like Clinton's. I don't think it's useful to discuss what Trump might do on TPP, because until there are other parties to the deal, there's no deal to be had. Right now, we're just looking at Trump doing A-B testing - not that there's anything wrong with that - which the press confuses with policy proposals. So I'm not considering Trump because I don't think we have any data to go on.

    [2] In-Depth News explains the mechanisms:

    To pacify [those to whom he will corrupt appeal], Obama will have to convince them that what they want will anyway be achieved, even if these are not legally part of the TPP because the TPP text cannot be amended.

    He can try to achieve this through bilateral side agreements on specific issues. Or he can insist that some countries take on extra obligations beyond what is required by the TPP as a condition for obtaining a U.S. certification that they have fulfilled their TPP obligations.

    This certification is required for the U.S. to provide the TPP's benefits to its partners, and the U.S. has previously made use of this process to get countries to take on additional obligations, which can then be shown to Congress members that their objectives have been met.

    In other words, side deals.

    [3] This should not be taken to imply that Clinton does not have corruption going for her, too. She can also make all the side deals Obama can.

    [Dec 05, 2016] US Faces Major Setback As Europeans Revolt Against TTIP

    Notable quotes:
    "... One of the main concerns with TTIP is that it could allow multinational corporations to effectively "sue" governments for taking actions that might damage their businesses. Critics claim American companies might be able to avoid having to meet various EU health, safety and environment regulations by challenging them in a quasi-court set up to resolve disputes between investors and states. ..."
    "... These developments take place against the background of another major free trade agreement - the Trans Pacific Partnership ( TPP ) - hitting snags on the way to being pushed through Congress. ..."
    "... "US Faces Major Setback" Well, actually, US corporations face a major setback. Average US citizens face a reprieve. ..."
    Zero Hedge
    TTIP negotiations have been ongoing since 2013 in an effort to establish a massive free trade zone that would eliminate many tariffs. After 14 rounds of talks that have lasted three years not a single common item out of the 27 chapters being discussed has been agreed on. The United States has refused to agree on an equal playing field between European and American companies in the sphere of public procurement sticking to the principle of "buy American".

    The opponents of the deal believe that in its current guise the TTIP is too friendly to US businesses. One of the main concerns with TTIP is that it could allow multinational corporations to effectively "sue" governments for taking actions that might damage their businesses. Critics claim American companies might be able to avoid having to meet various EU health, safety and environment regulations by challenging them in a quasi-court set up to resolve disputes between investors and states.

    In Europe thousands of people supported by society groups, trade unions and activists take to the streets expressing protest against the deal. Three million people have signed a petition calling for it to be scrapped. For instance, various trade unions and other groups have called for protests against the TTIP across Germany to take place on September 17. A trade agreement with Canada has also come under attack.

    US presidential candidate Donald Trump has promoted protectionist trade policies, while rival Hillary Clinton has also cast doubt on the TTIP deal. Congressional opposition has become steep. The lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have railed against free trade agreements as unfair to US companies and workers.

    These developments take place against the background of another major free trade agreement - the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) - hitting snags on the way to being pushed through Congress. The chances are really slim.

    silverer •Sep 5, 2016 9:51 AM

    "US Faces Major Setback" Well, actually, US corporations face a major setback. Average US citizens face a reprieve.

    [Dec 05, 2016] Trump campaign is a similar to Brexit crusade by grassroots activists against big banks and global political insiders . by those who feel disaffected and disenfranchised

    Notable quotes:
    "... Speaking to a local radio station before the joint rally, Farage urged Americans to "go out and fight" against Hillary Clinton. ..."
    "... "I am going to say to people in this country that the circumstances, the similarities, the parallels between the people who voted Brexit and the people who could beat Clinton in a few weeks time here in America are uncanny," Farage told Super Talk Mississippi. "If they want things to change they have get up out of their chairs and go out and fight for it. It can happen. We've just proved it." ..."
    "... It's not for me as a foreign politician to say who you should vote for ... All I will say is that if you vote for Hillary Clinton, then nothing will change. She represents the very politics that we've just broken through the Brexit vote in the United Kingdom. ..."
    Aug 24, 2016 | www.theguardian.com

    ...the British politician, who was invited by Mississippi governor Phil Bryant, will draw parallels between what he sees as the inspirational story of Brexit and Trump's campaign. Farage will describe the Republican's campaign as a similar crusade by grassroots activists against "big banks and global political insiders" and how those who feel disaffected and disenfranchised can become involved in populist, rightwing politics. With Trump lagging in the polls, just as Brexit did prior to the vote on the referendum, Farage will also hearten supporters by insisting that they can prove pundits and oddsmakers wrong as well.

    This message resonates with the Trump campaign's efforts to reach out to blue collar voters who have become disillusioned with American politics, while also adding a unique flair to Trump's never staid campaign rallies.

    The event will mark the first meeting between Farage and Trump.

    Arron Banks, the businessman who backed Leave.EU, the Brexit campaign group associated with the UK Independence party (Ukip), tweeted that he would be meeting Trump over dinner and was looking forward to Farage's speech.

    The appointment last week of Stephen Bannon, former chairman of the Breitbart website, as "CEO" of Trump's campaign has seen the example of the Brexit vote, which Breitbart enthusiastically advocated, rise to the fore in Trump's campaign narrative.

    Speaking to a local radio station before the joint rally, Farage urged Americans to "go out and fight" against Hillary Clinton.

    "I am going to say to people in this country that the circumstances, the similarities, the parallels between the people who voted Brexit and the people who could beat Clinton in a few weeks time here in America are uncanny," Farage told Super Talk Mississippi. "If they want things to change they have get up out of their chairs and go out and fight for it. It can happen. We've just proved it."

    "I am being careful," he added when asked if he supported the controversial Republican nominee. "It's not for me as a foreign politician to say who you should vote for ... All I will say is that if you vote for Hillary Clinton, then nothing will change. She represents the very politics that we've just broken through the Brexit vote in the United Kingdom."

    [Dec 04, 2016] Nuclear war our likely future as Russia China would not accept US hegemony, Reagan official warns

    Notable quotes:
    "... "confronted with the Pivot to Asia and the construction of new US naval and air bases to ensure Washington's control of the South China Sea, now defined as an area of American National Interests." ..."
    "... "for the crisis that Washington has created in Ukraine and for its use as anti-Russian propaganda." ..."
    "... "How America Was Lost" ..."
    "... "aggression and blatant propaganda have convinced Russia and China that Washington intends war, and this realization has drawn the two countries into a strategic alliance." ..."
    "... "vassalage status accepted by the UK, Germany, France and the rest of Europe, Canada, Japan and Australia." ..."
    "... "price of world peace is the world's acceptance of Washington's hegemony." ..."
    "... "On the foreign policy front, the hubris and arrogance of America's self-image as the 'exceptional, indispensable' country with hegemonic rights over other countries means that the world is primed for war," ..."
    "... "unless the dollar and with it US power collapses or Europe finds the courage to break with Washington and to pursue an independent foreign policy, saying good-bye to NATO, nuclear war is our likely future." ..."
    "... "historical turning point," ..."
    "... "the Chinese were there in their place," ..."
    "... "Russian casualties compared to the combined casualties of the US, UK, and France make it completely clear that it was Russia that defeated Hitler," ..."
    "... "in the Orwellian West, the latest rewriting of history leaves out of the story the Red Army's destruction of the Wehrmacht." ..."
    "... "expressed gratitude to 'the peoples of Great Britain, France and the United States of America for their contribution to the victory.'" ..."
    "... "do not hear when Russia says 'don't push us this hard, we are not your enemy. We want to be your partners.'" ..."
    "... "finally realized that their choice is vassalage or war," ..."
    "... "made the mistake that could be fateful for humanity," ..."
    May 13, 2015 | RT News
    The White House is determined to block the rise of the key nuclear-armed nations, Russia and China, neither of whom will join the "world's acceptance of Washington's hegemony," says head of the Institute for Political Economy, Paul Craig Roberts.

    The former US assistant secretary of the Treasury for economic policy, Dr Paul Craig Roberts, has written on his blog that Beijing is currently "confronted with the Pivot to Asia and the construction of new US naval and air bases to ensure Washington's control of the South China Sea, now defined as an area of American National Interests."

    Roberts writes that Washington's commitment to contain Russia is the reason "for the crisis that Washington has created in Ukraine and for its use as anti-Russian propaganda."

    The author of several books, "How America Was Lost" among the latest titles, says that US "aggression and blatant propaganda have convinced Russia and China that Washington intends war, and this realization has drawn the two countries into a strategic alliance."

    Dr Roberts believes that neither Russia, nor China will meanwhile accept the so-called "vassalage status accepted by the UK, Germany, France and the rest of Europe, Canada, Japan and Australia." According to the political analyst, the "price of world peace is the world's acceptance of Washington's hegemony."

    "On the foreign policy front, the hubris and arrogance of America's self-image as the 'exceptional, indispensable' country with hegemonic rights over other countries means that the world is primed for war," Roberts writes.

    He gives a gloomy political forecast in his column saying that "unless the dollar and with it US power collapses or Europe finds the courage to break with Washington and to pursue an independent foreign policy, saying good-bye to NATO, nuclear war is our likely future."

    Russia's far-reaching May 9 Victory Day celebration was meanwhile a "historical turning point," according to Roberts who says that while Western politicians chose to boycott the 70th anniversary of the defeat of Nazi Germany, "the Chinese were there in their place," China's president sitting next to President Putin during the military parade on Red Square in Moscow.

    A recent poll targeting over 3,000 people in France, Germany and the UK has recently revealed that as little as 13 percent of Europeans think the Soviet Army played the leading role in liberating Europe from Nazism during WW2. The majority of respondents – 43 percent – said the US Army played the main role in liberating Europe.

    "Russian casualties compared to the combined casualties of the US, UK, and France make it completely clear that it was Russia that defeated Hitler," Roberts points out, adding that "in the Orwellian West, the latest rewriting of history leaves out of the story the Red Army's destruction of the Wehrmacht."

    The head of the presidential administration, Sergey Ivanov, told RT earlier this month that attempts to diminish the role played by Russia in defeating Nazi Germany through rewriting history by some Western countries are part of the ongoing campaign to isolate and alienate Russia.

    Dr Roberts has also stated in his column that while the US president only mentioned US forces in his remarks on the 70th anniversary of the victory, President Putin in contrast "expressed gratitude to 'the peoples of Great Britain, France and the United States of America for their contribution to the victory.'"

    The political analyst notes that America along with its allies "do not hear when Russia says 'don't push us this hard, we are not your enemy. We want to be your partners.'"

    While Moscow and Beijing have "finally realized that their choice is vassalage or war," Washington "made the mistake that could be fateful for humanity," according to Dr Roberts.

    Read more Perverted history: Europeans think US army liberated continent during WW2

    Read more US mulls sending military ships, aircraft near South China Sea disputed islands – report

    [Dec 04, 2016] Nuclear war our likely future as Russia China would not accept US hegemony, Reagan official warns

    Notable quotes:
    "... "confronted with the Pivot to Asia and the construction of new US naval and air bases to ensure Washington's control of the South China Sea, now defined as an area of American National Interests." ..."
    "... "for the crisis that Washington has created in Ukraine and for its use as anti-Russian propaganda." ..."
    "... "How America Was Lost" ..."
    "... "aggression and blatant propaganda have convinced Russia and China that Washington intends war, and this realization has drawn the two countries into a strategic alliance." ..."
    "... "vassalage status accepted by the UK, Germany, France and the rest of Europe, Canada, Japan and Australia." ..."
    "... "price of world peace is the world's acceptance of Washington's hegemony." ..."
    "... "On the foreign policy front, the hubris and arrogance of America's self-image as the 'exceptional, indispensable' country with hegemonic rights over other countries means that the world is primed for war," ..."
    "... "unless the dollar and with it US power collapses or Europe finds the courage to break with Washington and to pursue an independent foreign policy, saying good-bye to NATO, nuclear war is our likely future." ..."
    "... "historical turning point," ..."
    "... "the Chinese were there in their place," ..."
    "... "Russian casualties compared to the combined casualties of the US, UK, and France make it completely clear that it was Russia that defeated Hitler," ..."
    "... "in the Orwellian West, the latest rewriting of history leaves out of the story the Red Army's destruction of the Wehrmacht." ..."
    "... "expressed gratitude to 'the peoples of Great Britain, France and the United States of America for their contribution to the victory.'" ..."
    "... "do not hear when Russia says 'don't push us this hard, we are not your enemy. We want to be your partners.'" ..."
    "... "finally realized that their choice is vassalage or war," ..."
    "... "made the mistake that could be fateful for humanity," ..."
    May 13, 2015 | RT News
    The White House is determined to block the rise of the key nuclear-armed nations, Russia and China, neither of whom will join the "world's acceptance of Washington's hegemony," says head of the Institute for Political Economy, Paul Craig Roberts.

    The former US assistant secretary of the Treasury for economic policy, Dr Paul Craig Roberts, has written on his blog that Beijing is currently "confronted with the Pivot to Asia and the construction of new US naval and air bases to ensure Washington's control of the South China Sea, now defined as an area of American National Interests."

    Roberts writes that Washington's commitment to contain Russia is the reason "for the crisis that Washington has created in Ukraine and for its use as anti-Russian propaganda."

    The author of several books, "How America Was Lost" among the latest titles, says that US "aggression and blatant propaganda have convinced Russia and China that Washington intends war, and this realization has drawn the two countries into a strategic alliance."

    Dr Roberts believes that neither Russia, nor China will meanwhile accept the so-called "vassalage status accepted by the UK, Germany, France and the rest of Europe, Canada, Japan and Australia." According to the political analyst, the "price of world peace is the world's acceptance of Washington's hegemony."

    "On the foreign policy front, the hubris and arrogance of America's self-image as the 'exceptional, indispensable' country with hegemonic rights over other countries means that the world is primed for war," Roberts writes.

    He gives a gloomy political forecast in his column saying that "unless the dollar and with it US power collapses or Europe finds the courage to break with Washington and to pursue an independent foreign policy, saying good-bye to NATO, nuclear war is our likely future."

    Russia's far-reaching May 9 Victory Day celebration was meanwhile a "historical turning point," according to Roberts who says that while Western politicians chose to boycott the 70th anniversary of the defeat of Nazi Germany, "the Chinese were there in their place," China's president sitting next to President Putin during the military parade on Red Square in Moscow.

    A recent poll targeting over 3,000 people in France, Germany and the UK has recently revealed that as little as 13 percent of Europeans think the Soviet Army played the leading role in liberating Europe from Nazism during WW2. The majority of respondents – 43 percent – said the US Army played the main role in liberating Europe.

    "Russian casualties compared to the combined casualties of the US, UK, and France make it completely clear that it was Russia that defeated Hitler," Roberts points out, adding that "in the Orwellian West, the latest rewriting of history leaves out of the story the Red Army's destruction of the Wehrmacht."

    The head of the presidential administration, Sergey Ivanov, told RT earlier this month that attempts to diminish the role played by Russia in defeating Nazi Germany through rewriting history by some Western countries are part of the ongoing campaign to isolate and alienate Russia.

    Dr Roberts has also stated in his column that while the US president only mentioned US forces in his remarks on the 70th anniversary of the victory, President Putin in contrast "expressed gratitude to 'the peoples of Great Britain, France and the United States of America for their contribution to the victory.'"

    The political analyst notes that America along with its allies "do not hear when Russia says 'don't push us this hard, we are not your enemy. We want to be your partners.'"

    While Moscow and Beijing have "finally realized that their choice is vassalage or war," Washington "made the mistake that could be fateful for humanity," according to Dr Roberts.

    Read more Perverted history: Europeans think US army liberated continent during WW2

    Read more US mulls sending military ships, aircraft near South China Sea disputed islands – report

    [Dec 04, 2016] Chilcot: Intelligence reports confirm Iraq war created ISIS

    Notable quotes:
    "... " It is clear a significant number of former Baathist officers have formed the professional core of Daesh [IS] in Syria and Iraq and have given that organization the military capability it has shown in conducting its operations. " ..."
    "... A March 2007 JIC report warned Al-Qaeda in Iraq, which it terms AQ-I, had " no shortage of suicide bombers. AQ-I is seeking high-profile attacks. We judge AQ-I will try to expand its sectarian campaign wherever it can: suicide bombings in Kirkuk have risen sharply since October when AQ-I declared the establishment of the notional 'Islamic State of Iraq' (including Kirkuk). " ..."
    "... " They claimed that the label 'jihadist' is becoming increasingly difficult to define: in many cases distinctions between nationalists and jihadists are blurred. They increasingly share common cause being drawn together in the face of Shia sectarian violence. " ..."
    Oct 01, 2016 | www.rt.com
    Intelligence reports examined and now released by the Chilcot inquiry appear to confirm Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) was created by the Iraq war, a view now apparently backed by Britain's Tory Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond. The reports from the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC), which were previously classified, tell the story of the security services' increasing concern that the war and occupation was fuelling ever more extremism in Iraq.

    The evidence also appears to debunk repeated claims by former PM Tony Blair that IS began in the Syrian civil war and not Iraq, positioning the brutal group's rise clearly within Iraq's borders.

    The Chilcot findings were backed up Thursday by serving Foreign Secretary Phillip Hammond. He told The Foreign Affairs Committee " many of the problems we see in Iraq today stem from that disastrous decision to dismantle the Iraqi army and embark on a program of de-Baathification ."

    " That was the big mistake of post-conflict planning. If we had gone a different way afterwards we might have been able to see a different outcome, " he said.

    Hammond conceded that many members of Saddam's armed forces today filled top roles in IS.

    " It is clear a significant number of former Baathist officers have formed the professional core of Daesh [IS] in Syria and Iraq and have given that organization the military capability it has shown in conducting its operations. "

    The documents show that by 2006 – three years into the occupation – UK intelligence chiefs were increasingly concerned about the rise of Sunni jihadist resistance to the Western-backed regime of Shia President Nouri Al-Maliki.

    A March 2007 JIC report warned Al-Qaeda in Iraq, which it terms AQ-I, had " no shortage of suicide bombers. AQ-I is seeking high-profile attacks. We judge AQ-I will try to expand its sectarian campaign wherever it can: suicide bombings in Kirkuk have risen sharply since October when AQ-I declared the establishment of the notional 'Islamic State of Iraq' (including Kirkuk). "

    Many leading Al-Qaeda figures had been pro-regime Baathists and members of the former Iraqi Army disbanded by the occupation. They are broadly accepted to have later formed the basis for IS.

    The report describes AQ-I as being " in the vanguard. "

    " Its strategic main effort is the prosecution of a sectarian campaign designed to drag Iraq into civil war " at the head of a number of other Sunni militia groups.

    " We judge its campaign has been the most effective of any insurgent group, having significant impact in the past year, and poses the greatest immediate threat to stability in Iraq. The tempo of mass-casualty attacks on predominantly Shia targets has been relentless, " the spies argue.

    Chillingly, an earlier report from 2006 appears to echo some of the realizations made late in the Vietnam War that there were also strong elements of nationalism driving the insurgency.

    " They claimed that the label 'jihadist' is becoming increasingly difficult to define: in many cases distinctions between nationalists and jihadists are blurred. They increasingly share common cause being drawn together in the face of Shia sectarian violence. "

    The reports appear to suggest that the conditions also somewhat echo the Afghanistan war, which by that time was already underway, in that the anti-coalition forces displayed a mix of ideological and economic drivers to resist the occupation.

    " Their motivation is mixed: some are Islamist extremists inspired by the AQ agenda, others are simply hired hands attracted by the money, " the spies warn.

    The religious sectarianism involved, however, was distinctly Iraqi and reflected the power battle between the deposed Sunni forces and the US-installed Shia regime which replaced it.

    They also appeared to believe that AQ-I was composed of local and not, as was claimed at the time, foreign fighters.

    " We judge Al-Qaida in Iraq is the largest single insurgent network and although its leadership retains a strong foreign element, a large majority of its fighters are Iraqi.

    " Some are drawn in by the opportunity to take on Shia militias: the jihadists' media effort stresses their role as defenders of the Sunni ," the report concludes.

    Prophetically, even before IS began to germinate in Iraq, one now-declassified Foreign Office memo from January 2003 warned "all the evidence from the region suggests that coalition forces will not be seen as liberators for long, if at all. Our motives are regarded with huge suspicion. "

    AHHA -> Blue Car 7 Jul

    No there was a documentary on the rise of IS months ago on Dutch television coming to the same conclusion. Kicking all Baath party members (all Sunni people) out of the army, leaving only Shiite in created IS. Baath militairy specialists did it out of revenge. One former high Baath militairy officer even went up to the room of the American leadership on Irak to tell him that if they would kick Baath people out he would have no other option than to start fighting America. Because what would all those people have to live of. And they did not just kick them out of the army but out of all government posts. But the Americans and making one group less equal to another by treating them different, does that ring any bells. ?
    AHHA -> Blue Car 8 Jul
    It was not Fox, I loath them. It was a well built Dutch documentary not praising the Americans for a change but being real True, together with Bush and the rest of their accomplices, of the most horrific mass killings based on lies (more than a million innocent people have perished because of their deceitful actions)! We should all demand Justice for the sake of humanity, and also because it is the only way to deter feature self-righteous leaders like them from leading our world to more blood sheds and catastrophic destructions! No one should be above the law!
    Blue Scissors -> Red Snow 7 Jul
    No, Bush and Cheney are the biggest terrorist. Blair just followed behind them, like a sheep.
    Linx 7 Jul
    Its clear that the U.S. government was the instigator of the war in Iraq based on 911and WMD. Blair in his ambition to reached the top lied to his parliament because there is noway they did not have the intelligence there not WMDs. In a stunning but little-known speech from 2007, Gen. Wesley Clark claims America underwent a "policy coup" at the time of the 9/11 attacks. In this video, he reveals that, right after 9/11, he was privy to information contained in a classified memo: US plans to attack and remove governments in seven countries over five years: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran. He was told: "We learned that we can use our military without being challenged . We've got about five years to clean up the Soviet client regimes before another superpower comes along and challenges us." "This was a policy coup these people took control of policy in the United States. The interview is still available in the internet.
    Orange Tag 7 Jul
    What I want to be informed about is the ICC court date set for Bush, Blair, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the generals ordering the killings of innocent people in Iraq. It's time for the west to wake up and provide all and every help that Syrian legitimate government needs, and for west to stop the support of Saudis, Qatari and others alike regimes whom are the providers and are state sponsors of terrorism as Isis and others a like called " "moderates terrorist". Look you fly the Emirates you pay for the costs of their terrorism in Middle East.
    keghamminas 7 Jul Edited
    Very true about the blind destructive policy of the US-Nato that should have attacked Saudi Arabia instead of Iraq .The same faults are committed now against Syria and it's legal government ; the total destruction of this country will lead to more anarchy and new terrorist movements as what's happenning in Iraq. All the puppets ,like the UK are guilty by their criminal participation.
    Malcolm stark 7 Jul
    Yet another problem caused by Washington and Co and yet their are still people even here who say Russia, Russia, Russia. And will make excuses for the problems caused without blaming their own government.
    CyanDog 7 Jul
    Sexton: What a surprise. An investigation designed to whitewash the criminal activities of our beloved Western leaders turned out to be eminently successful. A playful slap on the wrist for Mr Blair, but basically the Western criminals made to look like good guys although a few unintentional mistakes were made. From now on the West can continue business as usual. I wonder which countries the West has currently set its future sights on? I would suggest that Iran, Russia and China should keep their powder dry. The Westerners are playing for keeps, and they do not care who gets hurt on either side.

    [Dec 04, 2016] Trump: Obama and Hillary Created ISIS

    Notable quotes:
    "... ISIS is al-Qaeda re-branded and is supported by Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States and the Western military alliance. Obama didn't technically 'create' them. Nor did he do anything to stop them. When ISIS first emerged, the US State Department said they were caught completely "flat -footed". ISIS emerged like a mirage in the Iraq desert, fully equipped, fully armed and driving a convoy of matching Toyota trucks! ..."
    "... I would like to say that Obama and Hillary Clinton were too weak or complacent to stop the Neoconservatives/Zionists/Establishment from creating ISIS. It was their way of toppling the regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria, and helping Israel to tighten the grip over stolen land. ..."
    "... I would like to say watch the "Yuri Bezmenov" interviews, and realize there is no difference between the democrats and establishment GOP, they are the same thing. ..."
    "... I was able to see through GW Bush, other establishment RINOs, and was honest enough to see the fraud. ..."
    www.infowars.com

    Allen Highsmith 7 months ago

    We have been saying that for years that Isis was created and funded by the US ( Obama) he should have been impeached years ago and to this day he needs to impeached and locked up for life for all the lives he has killed and for all the crooked deals he has done behind our backs! He is not even a citizen of the US! Please God help us all!

    ISIS is al-Qaeda re-branded and is supported by Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States and the Western military alliance. Obama didn't technically 'create' them. Nor did he do anything to stop them. When ISIS first emerged, the US State Department said they were caught completely "flat -footed". ISIS emerged like a mirage in the Iraq desert, fully equipped, fully armed and driving a convoy of matching Toyota trucks!

    At least Trump is telling part of the truth.

    Two of a Kind Turds 7 months ago
    We all know why Hillary and Obama get away with literally murder and treason. The reason is that it is leverage over them by their puppet masters to ensure they stay on course with the New World Order agenda. When it is feared that they are getting a bit off script leaks occur of their heinous crimes and they get back on script. Both of these pathetic scum bags know what awaits them if they turn away from their puppet master's wishes. At the least prison for life and the worse is death in so many possible ways that it would be a replay of Kennedy with different patsies. This is why Hillary has a Cheshire cat grin and Obama plays more golf than any other president. They know they have a get out of jail free pass.
    Mahboob Khan 7 months ago
    I would like to say that Obama and Hillary Clinton were too weak or complacent to stop the Neoconservatives/Zionists/Establishment from creating ISIS. It was their way of toppling the regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria, and helping Israel to tighten the grip over stolen land.
    Elapoides Mahboob Khan 7 months ago
    I would like to say watch the "Yuri Bezmenov" interviews, and realize there is no difference between the democrats and establishment GOP, they are the same thing. The cancer of the democrat party bled into the GOP, hence the establishment, and organ of the democrat party. I was able to see through GW Bush, other establishment RINOs, and was honest enough to see the fraud.

    I used my intellect, my brains, to see what was going on, and left the republican party many years ago. YOU are still defending the democrat party, Obama, and Hillary. Pathetic.

    [Dec 04, 2016] Oil is facing 3 different scenarios RBC

    Blast from the past...
    Notable quotes:
    "... RBC Capital Markets' Global Head of Commodity Strategy Helima Croft outlined three potential scenarios for WTI crude on CNBC's "Fast Money" for the new year. The most bullish situation would be seeing more than a million barrels of oil pulled off the market and prices averaging in the $60 dollar range. ..."
    "... "If you are thinking about sort of about a mid-$30s average for WTI, low-$40s, I think that's a bearish scenario," said Croft, who's also a CNBC contributor. ..."
    "... "Our base case is this sort of middle range... $52 is our WTI call for next year," she said, implying that U.S. crude would be nearly one-third higher than its current trading levels. The fourth quarter "is really where you want to be looking for WTI to sort of take-off," she added. ..."
    Dec 30, 2015 | www.cnbc.com

    RBC Capital Markets' Global Head of Commodity Strategy Helima Croft outlined three potential scenarios for WTI crude on CNBC's "Fast Money" for the new year. The most bullish situation would be seeing more than a million barrels of oil pulled off the market and prices averaging in the $60 dollar range.

    The worst case scenario involves a tsunami of new production from OPEC, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Libya hitting the market -- all but certain to drive prices even lower. On Thursday, the final day of trading before the Christmas holiday, Brent and U.S. crude closed up by more than a percent, but still well under $40 per barrel.

    "If you are thinking about sort of about a mid-$30s average for WTI, low-$40s, I think that's a bearish scenario," said Croft, who's also a CNBC contributor.

    ... ... ....

    "Our base case is this sort of middle range... $52 is our WTI call for next year," she said, implying that U.S. crude would be nearly one-third higher than its current trading levels. The fourth quarter "is really where you want to be looking for WTI to sort of take-off," she added.

    [Dec 04, 2016] Bernie Sanders launches presidential campaign

    Unfortunatly, under neoliberalism it's not people who vote. It's only large corporations which use two party system to put forward two canditates that will follow thier agenda. quote "Unfortunately the US propaganda system is now so entrenched and so heavily financed by the financial elites that such campaigns as that by Sanders, admirable as it is, have no chance of changing the US system. The only thing that will is violent revolution and that is highly unlikely given the monopoly of legitimate force commanded by those elites."
    Notable quotes:
    "... Bernie Sanders is the first candidate since Carter to actually project a sense of positive values and integrity. ..."
    "... Sheepdogs are herders, and the sheepdog candidate is charged with herding activists and voters back into the Democratic fold who might otherwise drift leftward and outside of the Democratic party, either staying home or trying to build something outside the two party box. ..."
    "... The function of the sheepdog candidate is to give left activists and voters a reason, however illusory, to believe there's a place of influence for them inside the Democratic party,... ..."
    May 26, 2015 | http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/may/26/bernie-sanders-launches-presidential-campaign
    Nad Gough
    This is a good man. He is Independent, running as a Democrat as 3rd party candidates are doomed from the start. He is elderly, so choosing his running mate will be extremely important in terms of his electibility. Elizabeth Warren? If she won't run for President, maybe this is the ticket?

    So far this is the ONLY candidate whose desire for "change" matches what folks want. The other potential candidates are known sleight of hand change artists. And I use the word "artist" in the way one might describe someone who draws stick figures. Badly.

    lutesongs
    Bernie Sanders is the first candidate since Carter to actually project a sense of positive values and integrity. He is the frontrunner for most Americans who care about fairness and a sustainable future. Don't allow the corporate media to marginalize him by innuendo or non-coverage. Don't allow the Democratic Party to turn a blind eye to the issues. Don't allow the Repubs to steal another election through blatant electronic voter fraud, hacking the voting machines and gaming the results. Start a campaign for voters to photograph their results and compile independent vote counts. An honest election would likely favor a populist with integrity. Bernie Sanders is the one.
    BabyLyon
    The country is ruled by greedy corporation, all governmental authorities are corrupted to the limit, unstoppable wars and overall torpidity and all these candidates are able to offer is doubtful solutions for two-or three "serious" problems. Either they're blind or just fool American people.
    PhilippeOrlando

    This population is too stupid to elect a guy like Sanders. With a median household income of 50K/year it will vote, one more time, for people who don't represent it. The only two running candidates who represents 99% of the population are Sanders and Stein, the Green candidate. All others will cater first to the wealthy. Clinton will be chosen over Sanders because for some weird reason 'mericans vote for the guy they think will fight for who they think they'll be one day, not for whom they are now. I think it's about time to stop feeling sorry for most Americans, half of them won't bother to go vote anyway, and a huge majority will keep voting for the wrong guys.
    Justin Weaver -> PhilippeOrlando
    I totally get you, but I think that a lot of Americans truly believe that they ARE prosperous even if they have minimal savings, no job security, and are only one medical disaster away from bankruptcy. Many American's have really bought the American dream narrative even if they have little chance of achieving it.
    patimac54
    Bernie's brother Larry, long time UK resident, stood for the Green Party in my constituency in the recent elections. He has spent his adult life working for others, particularly carers, and is a man of great integrity and intelligence. Of course he didn't win but was by far the most impressive candidate at the local hustings, and thereby exposed the audience to a viewpoint most will not have experienced previously.
    If Bernie is half the man his brother is, US voters have a fine candidate, and similarly he may open up the electorate's eyes to the idea that it is possible to believe in something better.
    amorezu
    A man that openly calls himself a 'democratic socialist' will never win in the USA. People here have an allergy to the word 'socialism'. Unfortunately that allergy is causing them to be OK with living in a de-facto oligarchy.
    Observer453
    Something I love about Bernie Sanders is that he is straight forward, honest in his views and cannot be bought. I imagine he's something of a mystery to the many 'politicians', as Barack Obama recently described himself.

    Someone that actually thinks about what is best for the people, not for himself. Bernie calls himself a Socialist, if that is what Socialism means - and caring for the environment - sign me up.

    jdanforth
    Part of an analysis of the Sanders campaign, written three weeks ago by Bruce A. Dixon:

    Bernie Sanders is this election's Democratic sheepdog. The sheepdog is a card the Democratic party plays every presidential primary season when there's no White House Democrat running for re-election. The sheepdog is a presidential candidate running ostensibly to the left of the establishment Democrat to whom the billionaires will award the nomination. Sheepdogs are herders, and the sheepdog candidate is charged with herding activists and voters back into the Democratic fold who might otherwise drift leftward and outside of the Democratic party, either staying home or trying to build something outside the two party box.

    1984 and 88 the sheepdog candidate was Jesse Jackson. In 92 it was California governor Jerry Brown. In 2000 and 2004 the designated sheepdog was Al Sharpton, and in 2008 it was Dennis Kucinich. This year it's Vermont senator Bernie Sanders. The function of the sheepdog candidate is to give left activists and voters a reason, however illusory, to believe there's a place of influence for them inside the Democratic party,...

    Doro Wynant jdanforth

    Except:

    1. Not one of the candidates cited had the legislative background that Sanders has -- not the duration in office, not the proven appeal to a diverse constituency, not the proven ability to work respectfully with unlike-minded peers.

    2. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson clearly never had a chance; they're not at all in the same category.

    3. Poverty is at a 50-year high in the US, and many once-middle-class, educated, professional persons (myself included) are -- thanks to the recession -- part of the nouveau poor. Even the formerly-non-activist-types are angry, and they're paying attention to his talk of income inequality -- and Sanders has more credibility as a potential reformer than does wealthy insider HRC.

    4. What Dixon condescendingly refers to as "left activists and voters [who have no influence in the party]" are in fact people with mainstream ideas about building and maintaining a stable society. The right, having skewed the debate over the past 25 years, luvvvvvs to pretend that these centrist, humane ideas are wacky and way-out when in fact they're, well, mainstream ideas. Who among us doesn't want a safe, clean world in which to live, love, work, raise our families?

    Not only is that not a wacky idea, it's a very -- GASP -- Christian idea/ideal!

    Jon Phillips

    If you vote for Hillary you are accepting that America is now an oligarchy. How else can you explain the amount of time the Bush & Clinton families have occupied the White House?

    300 million Americans and 2 families have occupied the White House for 20 of the last 28 years........

    RickyRat

    This business comes down to just two choices: You can vote for Pennywise the Clown in either his Republican or her Democratic persona, along with the creature's Robber Baron backers, or you can vote for Sanders. You could cast a protest vote somewhere else, but doing that will just further the cause of the Robber Barons. Let's take back the wheel of the American political process!

    Bertmax RickyRat

    That is a fallacy called "false equivalency". It is wrong to say that both parties are to blame. Sure, both have their share of corruption, but at least the Democrats are pushing legislation that actually benefits the 90%. I am a member of neither party, since I don't believe in supporting only a narrow set of ideals one way or the other, but the GOP are the true scourge of my country. People like Sanders and Warren actually care about this country.

    Doro Wynant Needsmorecow

    This site links you to legislation he sponsored or co-sponsored, to his bio, and to his website:
    https://www.congress.gov/member/bernard-/bernie_sanders.S000033

    Chris Plante
    A recent poll had Bernie "lagged behind the favorite by a margin of 63% to 13%" Is that among the fake people "Hillary Who" has supporting her?

    He's probably doing much better among real people.

    RickyRat Chris Plante
    There is a machine out there, running full blast. Sanders is the wrench the machine's owners fear.
    Jeannie Parker
    I take offense at the suggestion he's from far left field. It's absurd to say in the least. He's been drafted by us. He's running for us. All of us. I admin on few Bernie Sanders' pages on FB and I can tell you with all certainty that the folks getting behind this man and his campaign are coming from across the political spectrum.

    The beauty of it is, he has a thirty some odd years long record that cannot be altered.
    This man has and always will work for the interests of everyone.

    No one can listen to him and his policy positions and not get behind him.

    Bernie Sanders is coming and a revolution is coming with him.

    No amount of money can sway us or turn us from our goal of seeing this fine gentleman ascend to the highest office of our Land. Cheers.

    [Dec 04, 2016] Much-disputed Iranian nuclear bomb

    An interesting warning about possible return of neocons in Hillary administration. Looks like not much changed in Washington from 2005 and Obama more and more looks like Bush III. Both Hillary and Trump are jingoistic toward Iran. Paradoxically Trump is even more jingoistic then Hillary.
    Notable quotes:
    "... That no one yet claims actually exists, has begun. Once again we seem to be heading down a highway marked "counterproliferation war." What makes this bizarre is that the Middle East today, for all its catastrophic problems, is actually a nuclear-free zone except for one country, Israel, which has a staggeringly outsized, semi-secret nuclear arsenal. ..."
    "... And not much has changed since. I recommend as well a piece written even earlier by Ira Chernus on a graphic about the Israeli nuclear arsenal tucked away at the MSNBC website (and still viewable ). ..."
    "... Ray McGovern, former CIA analyst and one of the founders of the group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, considers the Iranian and Israeli bombs, and Bush administration policy in relation to both below in a piece that, he writes, emerged from "an informal colloquium which has sprung up in the Washington, DC area involving people with experience at senior policy levels of government, others who examine foreign policy and defense issues primarily out of a faith perspective, and still others with a foot in each camp. We are trying to deal directly with the moral -- as well as the practical -- implications of various policy alternatives. One of our group recently was invited to talk with senior staffers in the House of Representatives about Iran, its nuclear plans, its support for terrorists, and U.S. military options. Toward the end of that conversation, a House staffer was emboldened to ask, 'What would be a moral solution?' This question gave new energy to our colloquium, generating a number of informal papers, including this one. I am grateful to my colloquium colleagues for their insights and suggestions." ..."
    "... What about post-attack "Day Two?" Not to worry. Well-briefed pundits are telling us about a wellspring of Western-oriented I find myself thinking: Right; just like all those Iraqis who welcomed invading American and British troops with open arms and cut flowers. ..."
    "... In 2001, the new President Bush brought the neocons back and put them in top policymaking positions. Even former Assistant Secretary of State Elliot Abrams, convicted in October 1991 of lying to Congress and then pardoned by George H. W. Bush, was called back and put in charge of Middle East policy in the White House. In January, he was promoted to the influential post (once occupied by Robert Gates) of deputy assistant to the president for national security affairs. From that senior position Abrams will once again be dealing closely with John Negroponte, an old colleague from rogue-elephant Contra War days, who has now been picked to be the first director of national intelligence. ..."
    "... Those of us who -- like Colin Powell -- had front-row seats during the 1980s are far too concerned to dismiss the re-emergence of the neocons as a simple case of déjà vu . They are much more dangerous now. Unlike in the eighties, they are the ones crafting the adventurous policies our sons and daughters are being called on to implement. ..."
    "... So why would Iran think it has to acquire nuclear weapons? Sen. Richard Lugar, chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, was asked this on a Sunday talk show a few months ago. Apparently having a senior moment, he failed to give the normal answer. Instead, he replied, "Well, you know, Israel has..." At that point, he caught himself and abruptly stopped. ..."
    Sep 22, 2005 | www.washingtonpost.com
    That no one yet claims actually exists, has begun. Once again we seem to be heading down a highway marked "counterproliferation war." What makes this bizarre is that the Middle East today, for all its catastrophic problems, is actually a nuclear-free zone except for one country, Israel, which has a staggeringly outsized, semi-secret nuclear arsenal.

    As Los Angeles Times reporter Douglas Frantz wrote at one point, "Though Israel is a democracy, debating the nuclear program is taboo A military censor guards Israel's nuclear secrets." And this "taboo" has largely extended to American reporting on the subject. Imagine, to offer a very partial analogy, if we all had had to consider the Cold War nuclear issue with the Soviet, but almost never the American nuclear arsenal, in the news. Of course, that would have been absurd and yet it's the case in the Middle East today, making most strategic discussions of the region exercises in absurdity.

    I wrote about this subject under the title, Nuclear Israel , back in October 2003, because of a brief break, thanks to Frantz, in the media blackout on the subject. I began then, "Nuclear North Korea, nuclear Iraq, nuclear Iran - of these our media has been full for the last year or more, though they either don't exist or hardly yet exist. North Korea now probably has a couple of crude nuclear weapons, which it may still be incapable of delivering. But nuclear Israel, little endangered Israel? It's hard even to get your head around the concept, though that country has either the fifth or sixth largest nuclear arsenal in the world." And not much has changed since. I recommend as well a piece written even earlier by Ira Chernus on a graphic about the Israeli nuclear arsenal tucked away at the MSNBC website (and still viewable ).

    Ray McGovern, former CIA analyst and one of the founders of the group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, considers the Iranian and Israeli bombs, and Bush administration policy in relation to both below in a piece that, he writes, emerged from "an informal colloquium which has sprung up in the Washington, DC area involving people with experience at senior policy levels of government, others who examine foreign policy and defense issues primarily out of a faith perspective, and still others with a foot in each camp. We are trying to deal directly with the moral -- as well as the practical -- implications of various policy alternatives. One of our group recently was invited to talk with senior staffers in the House of Representatives about Iran, its nuclear plans, its support for terrorists, and U.S. military options. Toward the end of that conversation, a House staffer was emboldened to ask, 'What would be a moral solution?' This question gave new energy to our colloquium, generating a number of informal papers, including this one. I am grateful to my colloquium colleagues for their insights and suggestions." Now, read on. ~ Tom

    Attacking Iran: I Know It Sounds Crazy, But...

    By Ray McGovern

    "'This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous.'

    "(Short pause)

    "'And having said that, all options are on the table.'

    "Even the White House stenographers felt obliged to note the result: '(Laughter).'"

    ( The Washington Post's Dan Froomkin on George Bush's February 22 press conference)

    For a host of good reasons -- the huge and draining commitment of U.S. forces to Iraq and Iran's ability to stir the Iraqi pot to boiling, for starters -- the notion that the Bush administration would mount a "preemptive" air attack on Iran seems insane. And still more insane if the objective includes overthrowing Iran's government again, as in 1953 -- this time under the rubric of "regime change."

    But Bush administration policy toward the Middle East is being run by men -- yes, only men -- who were routinely referred to in high circles in Washington during the 1980s as "the crazies." I can attest to that personally, but one need not take my word for it.

    According to James Naughtie, author of The Accidental American: Tony Blair and the Presidency , former Secretary of State Colin Powell added an old soldier's adjective to the "crazies" sobriquet in referring to the same officials. Powell, who was military aide to Defense Secretary Casper Weinberger in the early eighties, was overheard calling them "the f---ing crazies" during a phone call with British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw before the war in Iraq. At the time, Powell was reportedly deeply concerned over their determination to attack -- with or without UN approval. Small wonder that they got rid of Powell after the election, as soon as they had no more use for him.

    If further proof of insanity were needed, one could simply look at the unnecessary carnage in Iraq since the invasion in March 2003. That unprovoked attack was, in my view, the most fateful foreign policy blunder in our nation's history...so far.

    It Can Get Worse

    "The crazies" are not finished. And we do well not to let their ultimate folly obscure their current ambition, and the further trouble that ambition is bound to bring in the four years ahead. In an immediate sense, with U.S. military power unrivaled, they can be seen as "crazy like a fox," with a value system in which "might makes right." Operating out of that value system, and now sporting the more respectable misnomer/moniker "neoconservative," they are convinced that they know exactly what they are doing. They have a clear ideology and a geopolitical strategy, which leap from papers they put out at the Project for the New American Century over recent years.

    The very same men who, acting out of that paradigm, brought us the war in Iraq are now focusing on Iran, which they view as the only remaining obstacle to American domination of the entire oil-rich Middle East. They calculate that, with a docile, corporate-owned press, a co-opted mainstream church, and a still-trusting populace, the United States and/or the Israelis can launch a successful air offensive to disrupt any Iranian nuclear weapons programs -- with the added bonus of possibly causing the regime in power in Iran to crumble.

    But why now? After all, the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency has just told Congress that Iran is not likely to have a nuclear weapon until "early in the next decade?" The answer, according to some defense experts, is that several of the Iranian facilities are still under construction and there is only a narrow "window of opportunity" to destroy them without causing huge environmental problems. That window, they say, will begin to close this year.

    Other analysts attribute the sense of urgency to worry in Washington that the Iranians may have secretly gained access to technology that would facilitate a leap forward into the nuclear club much sooner than now anticipated. And it is, of course, neoconservative doctrine that it is best to nip -- the word in current fashion is "preempt" -- any conceivable threats in the bud. One reason the Israelis are pressing hard for early action may simply be out of a desire to ensure that George W. Bush will have a few more years as president after an attack on Iran, so that they will have him to stand with Israel when bedlam breaks out in the Middle East.

    What about post-attack "Day Two?" Not to worry. Well-briefed pundits are telling us about a wellspring of Western-oriented I find myself thinking: Right; just like all those Iraqis who welcomed invading American and British troops with open arms and cut flowers. For me, this evokes a painful flashback to the early eighties when "intelligence," pointing to "moderates" within the Iranian leadership, was conjured up to help justify the imaginative but illegal arms-for-hostages-and-proceeds-to-Nicaraguan-Contras caper. The fact that the conjurer-in-chief of that spurious "evidence" on Iranian "moderates," former chief CIA analyst, later director Robert Gates, was recently offered the newly created position of director of national intelligence makes the flashback more eerie -- and alarming.

    George H. W. Bush Saw Through "The Crazies"

    During his term in office, George H. W. Bush, with the practical advice of his national security adviser Gen. Brent Scowcroft and Secretary of State James Baker, was able to keep "the crazies" at arms length, preventing them from getting the country into serious trouble. They were kept well below the level of "principal" -- that is, below the level of secretary of state or defense.

    Even so, heady in the afterglow of victory in the Gulf War of 1990, "the crazies" stirred up considerable controversy when they articulated their radical views. Their vision, for instance, became the centerpiece of the draft "Defense Planning Guidance" that Paul Wolfowitz, de facto dean of the neoconservatives, prepared in 1992 for then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney. It dismissed deterrence as an outdated relic of the Cold War and argued that the United States must maintain military strength beyond conceivable challenge -- and use it in preemptive ways in dealing with those who might acquire "weapons of mass destruction." Sound familiar?

    Aghast at this radical imperial strategy for the post-Cold War world, someone with access to the draft leaked it to the New York Times , forcing President George H. W. Bush either to endorse or disavow it. Disavow it he did -- and quickly, on the cooler-head recommendations of Scowcroft and Baker, who proved themselves a bulwark against the hubris and megalomania of "the crazies." Unfortunately, their vision did not die. No less unfortunately, there is method to their madness -- even if it threatens to spell eventual disaster for our country. Empires always overreach and fall.

    The Return of the Neocons

    In 2001, the new President Bush brought the neocons back and put them in top policymaking positions. Even former Assistant Secretary of State Elliot Abrams, convicted in October 1991 of lying to Congress and then pardoned by George H. W. Bush, was called back and put in charge of Middle East policy in the White House. In January, he was promoted to the influential post (once occupied by Robert Gates) of deputy assistant to the president for national security affairs. From that senior position Abrams will once again be dealing closely with John Negroponte, an old colleague from rogue-elephant Contra War days, who has now been picked to be the first director of national intelligence.

    Those of us who -- like Colin Powell -- had front-row seats during the 1980s are far too concerned to dismiss the re-emergence of the neocons as a simple case of déjà vu . They are much more dangerous now. Unlike in the eighties, they are the ones crafting the adventurous policies our sons and daughters are being called on to implement.

    Why dwell on this? Because it is second in importance only to the portentous reality that the earth is running out of readily accessible oil – something of which they are all too aware. Not surprisingly then, disguised beneath the weapons-of-mass-destruction smokescreen they laid down as they prepared to invade Iraq lay an unspoken but bedrock reason for the war -- oil. In any case, the neocons seem to believe that, in the wake of the November election, they now have a carte-blanche "mandate." And with the president's new "capital to spend," they appear determined to spend it, sooner rather than later.

    Next Stop, Iran

    When a Special Forces platoon leader just back from Iraq matter-of-factly tells a close friend of mine, as happened last week, that he and his unit are now training their sights (literally) on Iran, we need to take that seriously. It provides us with a glimpse of reality as seen at ground level. For me, it brought to mind an unsolicited email I received from the father of a young soldier training at Fort Benning in the spring of 2002, soon after I wrote an op-ed discussing the timing of George W. Bush's decision to make war on Iraq. The father informed me that, during the spring of 2002, his son kept writing home saying his unit was training to go into Iraq. No, said the father; you mean Afghanistan... that's where the war is, not Iraq. In his next email, the son said, "No, Dad, they keep saying Iraq. I asked them and that's what they mean."

    Now, apparently, they keep saying Iran ; and that appears to be what they mean.

    Anecdotal evidence like this is hardly conclusive. Put it together with administration rhetoric and a preponderance of other "dots," though, and everything points in the direction of an air attack on Iran, possibly also involving some ground forces. Indeed, from the New Yorker reports of Seymour Hersh to Washington Post articles , accounts of small-scale American intrusions on the ground as well as into Iranian airspace are appearing with increasing frequency. In a speech given on February 18, former UN arms inspector and Marine officer Scott Ritter (who was totally on target before the Iraq War on that country's lack of weapons of mass destruction) claimed that the president has already "signed off" on plans to bomb Iran in June in order to destroy its alleged nuclear weapons program and eventually bring about "regime change." This does not necessarily mean an automatic green light for a large attack in June, but it may signal the president's seriousness about this option.

    So, again, against the background of what we have witnessed over the past four years, and the troubling fact that the circle of second-term presidential advisers has become even tighter, we do well to inject a strong note of urgency into any discussion of the "Iranian option."

    Why Would Iran Want Nukes?

    So why would Iran think it has to acquire nuclear weapons? Sen. Richard Lugar, chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, was asked this on a Sunday talk show a few months ago. Apparently having a senior moment, he failed to give the normal answer. Instead, he replied, "Well, you know, Israel has..." At that point, he caught himself and abruptly stopped.

    Recovering quickly and realizing that he could not just leave the word "Israel" hanging there, Lugar began again: "Well, Israel is alleged to have a nuclear capability."

    Is alleged to have ? Lugar is chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and yet he doesn't know that Israel has, by most estimates, a major nuclear arsenal, consisting of several hundred nuclear weapons? (Mainstream newspapers are allergic to dwelling on this topic, but it is mentioned every now and then, usually buried in obscurity on an inside page.)

    Just imagine how the Iranians and Syrians would react to Lugar's disingenuousness. Small wonder our highest officials and lawmakers -- and Lugar, remember, is one of the most decent among them -- are widely seen abroad as hypocritical. Our media, of course, ignore the hypocrisy. This is standard operating procedure when the word "Israel" is spoken in this or other unflattering contexts. And the objections of those appealing for a more balanced approach are quashed.

    If the truth be told, Iran fears Israel at least as much as Israel fears the internal security threat posed by the thugs supported by Tehran. Iran's apprehension is partly fear that Israel (with at least tacit support from the Bush administration) will send its aircraft to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities, just as American-built Israeli bombers destroyed the Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak in 1981. As part of the current war of nerves, recent statements by the president and vice president can be read as giving a green light to Israel to do just that; while Israeli Air Force commander Major General Eliezer Shakedi told reporters on February 21 that Israel must be prepared for an air strike on Iran "in light of its nuclear activity."

    US-Israel Nexus

    The Iranians also remember how Israel was able to acquire and keep its nuclear technology. Much of it was stolen from the United States by spies for Israel. As early as the late-1950s, Washington knew Israel was building the bomb and could have aborted the project. Instead, American officials decided to turn a blind eye and let the Israelis go ahead. Now Israel's nuclear capability is truly formidable. Still, it is a fact of strategic life that a formidable nuclear arsenal can be deterred by a far more modest one, if an adversary has the means to deliver it. (Look at North Korea's success with, at best, a few nuclear weapons and questionable means of delivery in deterring the "sole remaining superpower in the world.") And Iran already has missiles with the range to hit Israel.

    Israeli Prime Minister Sharon has for some time appeared eager to enlist Washington's support for an early "pre-emptive" strike on Iran. Indeed, American defense officials have told reporters that visiting Israeli officials have been pressing the issue for the past year and a half. And the Israelis are now claiming publicly that Iran could have a nuclear weapon within six months -- years earlier than the Defense Intelligence Agency estimate mentioned above.

    In the past, President Bush has chosen to dismiss unwelcome intelligence estimates as "guesses" -- especially when they threatened to complicate decisions to implement the neoconservative agenda. It is worth noting that several of the leading neocons – Richard Perle, chair of the Defense Policy Board (2001-03); Douglas Feith, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy; and David Wurmser, Middle East adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney -- actually wrote policy papers for the Israeli government during the 1990s. They have consistently had great difficulty distinguishing between the strategic interests of Israel and those of the US -- at least as they imagine them.

    As for President Bush, over the past four years he has amply demonstrated his preference for the counsel of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon who, as Gen. Scowcroft said publicly , has the president "wrapped around his little finger." (As Chairman of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board until he was unceremoniously removed at the turn of the year, Scowcroft was in a position to know.) If Scowcroft is correct in also saying that the president has been "mesmerized" by Sharon, it seems possible that the Israelis already have successfully argued for an attack on Iran.

    When "Regime Change" Meant Overthrow For Oil

    To remember why the United States is no favorite in Tehran, one needs to go back at least to 1953 when the U.S. and Great Britain overthrew Iran's democratically elected Premier Mohammad Mossadeq as part of a plan to insure access to Iranian oil. They then emplaced the young Shah in power who, with his notorious secret police, proved second to none in cruelty. The Shah ruled from 1953 to 1979. Much resentment can build up over a whole generation. His regime fell like a house of cards, when supporters of Ayatollah Khomeini rose up to do some regime change of their own.

    Iranians also remember Washington's strong support for Saddam Hussein's Iraq after it decided to make war on Iran in 1980. U.S. support for Iraq (which included crucial intelligence support for the war and an implicit condoning of Saddam's use of chemical weapons) was perhaps the crucial factor in staving off an Iranian victory. Imagine then, the threat Iranians see, should the Bush administration succeed in establishing up to 14 permanent military bases in neighboring Iraq. Any Iranian can look at a map of the Middle East (including occupied Iraq) and conclude that this administration might indeed be willing to pay the necessary price in blood and treasure to influence what happens to the black gold under Iranian as well as Iraqi sands. And with four more years to play with, a lot can be done along those lines. The obvious question is: How to deter it? Well, once again, Iran can hardly be blind to the fact that a small nation like North Korea has so far deterred U.S. action by producing, or at least claiming to have produced, nuclear weapons.

    Nuclear Is the Nub

    The nuclear issue is indeed paramount, and we would do well to imagine and craft fresh approaches to the nub of the problem. As a start, I'll bet if you made a survey, only 20% of Americans would answer "yes" to the question, "Does Israel have nuclear weapons?" That is key, it seems to me, because at their core Americans are still fair-minded people.

    On the other hand, I'll bet that 95% of the Iranian population would answer, "Of course Israel has nuclear weapons; that's why we Iranians need them" -- which was, of course, the unmentionable calculation that Senator Lugar almost conceded. "And we also need them," many Iranians would probably say, "in order to deter 'the crazies' in Washington. It seems to be working for the North Koreans, who, after all, are the other remaining point on President Bush's 'axis of evil.'"

    The ideal approach would, of course, be to destroy all nuclear weapons in the world and ban them for the future, with a very intrusive global inspection regime to verify compliance. A total ban is worth holding up as an ideal, and I think we must. But this approach seems unlikely to bear fruit over the next four years. So what then?

    A Nuclear-Free Middle East

    How about a nuclear-free Middle East? Could the US make that happen? We could if we had moral clarity -- the underpinning necessary to bring it about. Each time this proposal is raised, the Syrians, for example, clap their hands in feigned joyful anticipation, saying, "Of course such a pact would include Israel, right?" The issue is then dropped from all discussion by U.S. policymakers. Required: not only moral clarity but also what Thomas Aquinas labeled the precondition for all virtue, courage. In this context, courage would include a refusal to be intimidated by inevitable charges of anti-Semitism.

    The reality is that, except for Israel, the Middle East is nuclear free. But the discussion cannot stop there. It is not difficult to understand why the first leaders of Israel, with the Holocaust experience written indelibly on their hearts and minds, and feeling surrounded by perceived threats to the fledgling state's existence, wanted the bomb. And so, before the Syrians or Iranians, for example, get carried away with self-serving applause for the nuclear-free Middle East proposal, they will have to understand that for any such negotiation to succeed it must have as a concomitant aim the guarantee of an Israel able to live in peace and protect itself behind secure borders. That guarantee has got to be part of the deal.

    That the obstacles to any such agreement are formidable is no excuse not trying. But the approach would have to be new and everything would have to be on the table. Persisting in a state of denial about Israel's nuclear weapons is dangerously shortsighted; it does nothing but aggravate fears among the Arabs and create further incentive for them to acquire nuclear weapons of their own.

    A sensible approach would also have to include a willingness to engage the Iranians directly, attempt to understand their perspective, and discern what the United States and Israel could do to alleviate their concerns.

    Preaching to Iran and others about not acquiring nuclear weapons is, indeed, like the village drunk preaching sobriety -- the more so as our government keeps developing new genres of nuclear weapons and keeps looking the other way as Israel enhances its own nuclear arsenal. Not a pretty moral picture, that. Indeed, it reminds me of the Scripture passage about taking the plank out of your own eye before insisting that the speck be removed from another's.

    Lessons from the Past...Like Mutual Deterrence

    Has everyone forgotten that deterrence worked for some 40 years, while for most of those years the U.S. and the USSR had not by any means lost their lust for ever-enhanced nuclear weapons? The point is simply that, while engaging the Iranians bilaterally and searching for more imaginative nuclear-free proposals, the U.S. might adopt a more patient interim attitude regarding the striving of other nation states to acquire nuclear weapons -- bearing in mind that the Bush administration's policies of "preemption" and "regime change" themselves create powerful incentives for exactly such striving. As was the case with Iraq two years ago, there is no imminent Iranian strategic threat to Americans -- or, in reality, to anyone. Even if Iran acquired a nuclear capability, there is no reason to believe that it would risk a suicidal first strike on Israel. That, after all, is what mutual deterrence is all about; it works both ways.

    It is nonetheless clear that the Israelis' sense of insecurity -- however exaggerated it may seem to those of us thousands of miles away -- is not synthetic but real. The Sharon government appears to regard its nuclear monopoly in the region as the only effective "deterrence insurance" it can buy. It is determined to prevent its neighbors from acquiring the kind of capability that could infringe on the freedom it now enjoys to carry out military and other actions in the area. Government officials have said that Israel will not let Iran acquire a nuclear weapon; it would be folly to dismiss this as bravado. The Israelis have laid down a marker and mean to follow through -- unless the Bush administration assumes the attitude that "preemption" is an acceptable course for the United States but not for Israel. It seems unlikely that the neoconservatives would take that line. Rather

    "Israel Is Our Ally."

    Or so said our president before the cameras on February 17, 2005. But I didn't think we had a treaty of alliance with Israel; I don't remember the Senate approving one. Did I miss something?

    Clearly, the longstanding U.S.-Israeli friendship and the ideals we share dictate continuing support for Israel's defense and security. It is quite another thing, though, to suggest the existence of formal treaty obligations that our country does not have. To all intents and purposes, our policymakers -- from the president on down -- seem to speak and behave on the assumption that we do have such obligations toward Israel. A former colleague CIA analyst, Michael Scheuer, author of Imperial Hubris , has put it this way: "The Israelis have succeeded in lacing tight the ropes binding the American Gulliver to Israel and its policies."

    An earlier American warned:

    "A passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation facilitates the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, infuses into one the enmities of the other, and betrays the former into participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification.... It also gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens, who devote themselves to the favorite nation, facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country." ( George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796 )

    In my view, our first president's words apply only too aptly to this administration's lash-up with the Sharon government. As responsible citizens we need to overcome our timidity about addressing this issue, lest our fellow Americans continue to be denied important information neglected or distorted in our domesticated media.

    Ray McGovern served as a CIA analyst for 27 years -- from the administration of John F. Kennedy to that of George H. W. Bush. During the early 1980s, he was one of the writers/editors of the President's Daily Brief and briefed it one-on-one to the president's most senior advisers. He also chaired National Intelligence Estimates. In January 2003, he and four former colleagues founded Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity.

    Copyright 2005 Ray McGovern

    [Dec 04, 2016] Chilcot: Intelligence reports confirm Iraq war created ISIS

    Notable quotes:
    "... " It is clear a significant number of former Baathist officers have formed the professional core of Daesh [IS] in Syria and Iraq and have given that organization the military capability it has shown in conducting its operations. " ..."
    "... A March 2007 JIC report warned Al-Qaeda in Iraq, which it terms AQ-I, had " no shortage of suicide bombers. AQ-I is seeking high-profile attacks. We judge AQ-I will try to expand its sectarian campaign wherever it can: suicide bombings in Kirkuk have risen sharply since October when AQ-I declared the establishment of the notional 'Islamic State of Iraq' (including Kirkuk). " ..."
    "... " They claimed that the label 'jihadist' is becoming increasingly difficult to define: in many cases distinctions between nationalists and jihadists are blurred. They increasingly share common cause being drawn together in the face of Shia sectarian violence. " ..."
    Oct 01, 2016 | www.rt.com
    Intelligence reports examined and now released by the Chilcot inquiry appear to confirm Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) was created by the Iraq war, a view now apparently backed by Britain's Tory Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond. The reports from the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC), which were previously classified, tell the story of the security services' increasing concern that the war and occupation was fuelling ever more extremism in Iraq.

    The evidence also appears to debunk repeated claims by former PM Tony Blair that IS began in the Syrian civil war and not Iraq, positioning the brutal group's rise clearly within Iraq's borders.

    The Chilcot findings were backed up Thursday by serving Foreign Secretary Phillip Hammond. He told The Foreign Affairs Committee " many of the problems we see in Iraq today stem from that disastrous decision to dismantle the Iraqi army and embark on a program of de-Baathification ."

    " That was the big mistake of post-conflict planning. If we had gone a different way afterwards we might have been able to see a different outcome, " he said.

    Hammond conceded that many members of Saddam's armed forces today filled top roles in IS.

    " It is clear a significant number of former Baathist officers have formed the professional core of Daesh [IS] in Syria and Iraq and have given that organization the military capability it has shown in conducting its operations. "

    The documents show that by 2006 – three years into the occupation – UK intelligence chiefs were increasingly concerned about the rise of Sunni jihadist resistance to the Western-backed regime of Shia President Nouri Al-Maliki.

    A March 2007 JIC report warned Al-Qaeda in Iraq, which it terms AQ-I, had " no shortage of suicide bombers. AQ-I is seeking high-profile attacks. We judge AQ-I will try to expand its sectarian campaign wherever it can: suicide bombings in Kirkuk have risen sharply since October when AQ-I declared the establishment of the notional 'Islamic State of Iraq' (including Kirkuk). "

    Many leading Al-Qaeda figures had been pro-regime Baathists and members of the former Iraqi Army disbanded by the occupation. They are broadly accepted to have later formed the basis for IS.

    The report describes AQ-I as being " in the vanguard. "

    " Its strategic main effort is the prosecution of a sectarian campaign designed to drag Iraq into civil war " at the head of a number of other Sunni militia groups.

    " We judge its campaign has been the most effective of any insurgent group, having significant impact in the past year, and poses the greatest immediate threat to stability in Iraq. The tempo of mass-casualty attacks on predominantly Shia targets has been relentless, " the spies argue.

    Chillingly, an earlier report from 2006 appears to echo some of the realizations made late in the Vietnam War that there were also strong elements of nationalism driving the insurgency.

    " They claimed that the label 'jihadist' is becoming increasingly difficult to define: in many cases distinctions between nationalists and jihadists are blurred. They increasingly share common cause being drawn together in the face of Shia sectarian violence. "

    The reports appear to suggest that the conditions also somewhat echo the Afghanistan war, which by that time was already underway, in that the anti-coalition forces displayed a mix of ideological and economic drivers to resist the occupation.

    " Their motivation is mixed: some are Islamist extremists inspired by the AQ agenda, others are simply hired hands attracted by the money, " the spies warn.

    The religious sectarianism involved, however, was distinctly Iraqi and reflected the power battle between the deposed Sunni forces and the US-installed Shia regime which replaced it.

    They also appeared to believe that AQ-I was composed of local and not, as was claimed at the time, foreign fighters.

    " We judge Al-Qaida in Iraq is the largest single insurgent network and although its leadership retains a strong foreign element, a large majority of its fighters are Iraqi.

    " Some are drawn in by the opportunity to take on Shia militias: the jihadists' media effort stresses their role as defenders of the Sunni ," the report concludes.

    Prophetically, even before IS began to germinate in Iraq, one now-declassified Foreign Office memo from January 2003 warned "all the evidence from the region suggests that coalition forces will not be seen as liberators for long, if at all. Our motives are regarded with huge suspicion. "

    AHHA -> Blue Car 7 Jul

    No there was a documentary on the rise of IS months ago on Dutch television coming to the same conclusion. Kicking all Baath party members (all Sunni people) out of the army, leaving only Shiite in created IS. Baath militairy specialists did it out of revenge. One former high Baath militairy officer even went up to the room of the American leadership on Irak to tell him that if they would kick Baath people out he would have no other option than to start fighting America. Because what would all those people have to live of. And they did not just kick them out of the army but out of all government posts. But the Americans and making one group less equal to another by treating them different, does that ring any bells. ?
    AHHA -> Blue Car 8 Jul
    It was not Fox, I loath them. It was a well built Dutch documentary not praising the Americans for a change but being real True, together with Bush and the rest of their accomplices, of the most horrific mass killings based on lies (more than a million innocent people have perished because of their deceitful actions)! We should all demand Justice for the sake of humanity, and also because it is the only way to deter feature self-righteous leaders like them from leading our world to more blood sheds and catastrophic destructions! No one should be above the law!
    Blue Scissors -> Red Snow 7 Jul
    No, Bush and Cheney are the biggest terrorist. Blair just followed behind them, like a sheep.
    Linx 7 Jul
    Its clear that the U.S. government was the instigator of the war in Iraq based on 911and WMD. Blair in his ambition to reached the top lied to his parliament because there is noway they did not have the intelligence there not WMDs. In a stunning but little-known speech from 2007, Gen. Wesley Clark claims America underwent a "policy coup" at the time of the 9/11 attacks. In this video, he reveals that, right after 9/11, he was privy to information contained in a classified memo: US plans to attack and remove governments in seven countries over five years: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran. He was told: "We learned that we can use our military without being challenged . We've got about five years to clean up the Soviet client regimes before another superpower comes along and challenges us." "This was a policy coup these people took control of policy in the United States. The interview is still available in the internet.
    Orange Tag 7 Jul
    What I want to be informed about is the ICC court date set for Bush, Blair, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the generals ordering the killings of innocent people in Iraq. It's time for the west to wake up and provide all and every help that Syrian legitimate government needs, and for west to stop the support of Saudis, Qatari and others alike regimes whom are the providers and are state sponsors of terrorism as Isis and others a like called " "moderates terrorist". Look you fly the Emirates you pay for the costs of their terrorism in Middle East.
    keghamminas 7 Jul Edited
    Very true about the blind destructive policy of the US-Nato that should have attacked Saudi Arabia instead of Iraq .The same faults are committed now against Syria and it's legal government ; the total destruction of this country will lead to more anarchy and new terrorist movements as what's happenning in Iraq. All the puppets ,like the UK are guilty by their criminal participation.
    Malcolm stark 7 Jul
    Yet another problem caused by Washington and Co and yet their are still people even here who say Russia, Russia, Russia. And will make excuses for the problems caused without blaming their own government.
    CyanDog 7 Jul
    Sexton: What a surprise. An investigation designed to whitewash the criminal activities of our beloved Western leaders turned out to be eminently successful. A playful slap on the wrist for Mr Blair, but basically the Western criminals made to look like good guys although a few unintentional mistakes were made. From now on the West can continue business as usual. I wonder which countries the West has currently set its future sights on? I would suggest that Iran, Russia and China should keep their powder dry. The Westerners are playing for keeps, and they do not care who gets hurt on either side.

    [Dec 04, 2016] Trump: Obama and Hillary Created ISIS

    Notable quotes:
    "... ISIS is al-Qaeda re-branded and is supported by Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States and the Western military alliance. Obama didn't technically 'create' them. Nor did he do anything to stop them. When ISIS first emerged, the US State Department said they were caught completely "flat -footed". ISIS emerged like a mirage in the Iraq desert, fully equipped, fully armed and driving a convoy of matching Toyota trucks! ..."
    "... I would like to say that Obama and Hillary Clinton were too weak or complacent to stop the Neoconservatives/Zionists/Establishment from creating ISIS. It was their way of toppling the regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria, and helping Israel to tighten the grip over stolen land. ..."
    "... I would like to say watch the "Yuri Bezmenov" interviews, and realize there is no difference between the democrats and establishment GOP, they are the same thing. ..."
    "... I was able to see through GW Bush, other establishment RINOs, and was honest enough to see the fraud. ..."
    www.infowars.com

    Allen Highsmith 7 months ago

    We have been saying that for years that Isis was created and funded by the US ( Obama) he should have been impeached years ago and to this day he needs to impeached and locked up for life for all the lives he has killed and for all the crooked deals he has done behind our backs! He is not even a citizen of the US! Please God help us all!

    ISIS is al-Qaeda re-branded and is supported by Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States and the Western military alliance. Obama didn't technically 'create' them. Nor did he do anything to stop them. When ISIS first emerged, the US State Department said they were caught completely "flat -footed". ISIS emerged like a mirage in the Iraq desert, fully equipped, fully armed and driving a convoy of matching Toyota trucks!

    At least Trump is telling part of the truth.

    Two of a Kind Turds 7 months ago
    We all know why Hillary and Obama get away with literally murder and treason. The reason is that it is leverage over them by their puppet masters to ensure they stay on course with the New World Order agenda. When it is feared that they are getting a bit off script leaks occur of their heinous crimes and they get back on script. Both of these pathetic scum bags know what awaits them if they turn away from their puppet master's wishes. At the least prison for life and the worse is death in so many possible ways that it would be a replay of Kennedy with different patsies. This is why Hillary has a Cheshire cat grin and Obama plays more golf than any other president. They know they have a get out of jail free pass.
    Mahboob Khan 7 months ago
    I would like to say that Obama and Hillary Clinton were too weak or complacent to stop the Neoconservatives/Zionists/Establishment from creating ISIS. It was their way of toppling the regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria, and helping Israel to tighten the grip over stolen land.
    Elapoides Mahboob Khan 7 months ago
    I would like to say watch the "Yuri Bezmenov" interviews, and realize there is no difference between the democrats and establishment GOP, they are the same thing. The cancer of the democrat party bled into the GOP, hence the establishment, and organ of the democrat party. I was able to see through GW Bush, other establishment RINOs, and was honest enough to see the fraud.

    I used my intellect, my brains, to see what was going on, and left the republican party many years ago. YOU are still defending the democrat party, Obama, and Hillary. Pathetic.

    [Dec 04, 2016] Obama has normalized the idea that Us presidents get to have secret large-scale killing programs at their disposal

    Dec 02, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org

    jfl | Nov 30, 2016 6:07:04 PM | 141

    @126 quentin, 'He is trying to divert us from---well, from Donald Trump.'

    Bingo. There is no 'there' there. Just an endless stream of incendiary statements to keep the man in the 'news'.

    More on "not a dime's worth of difference" ... not from the TNC msm.

    Obama extends global reach of US Special Operations death squads


    "Obama has normalized the idea that presidents get to have secret large-scale killing programs at their disposal."

    Obama was at pains, in his first post-election statement, to dismiss the bitter vituperation of the election campaign, declaring that the electoral struggle between the Democrats and Republicans was merely "an intramural scrimmage." This is profoundly true: both parties represent the same class, the American financial aristocracy, and its global interests, defended in the final analysis by death and destruction inflicted by the American military machine.

    ... what you get for your dime is that, for instance, Trump huffs and he puffs before he blows your door in, while with Obama and the TNC media, people can claim that they didn't know what hit them.

    I wonder how wsws.org missed the Pro-Porno-t(eam)'s 'initial set of sites that 'reliably echo Russian propaganda'? Probably didn't want to draw attention to it.

    [Dec 02, 2016] The ceaseless expressions of disdain for Russia by Paul Krugman strike me as a dangerously prejudice fostering madness

    Notable quotes:
    "... The ceaseless expressions of disdain for Russia, because the easily elected and decidedly popular president of Russia is only a reflection of Russia, strike me as a dangerously prejudice fostering madness. ..."
    "... Putin is a dilemma in that he is the enemy of conservative Republican enemies, Obama and Clinton, so he must be a friend. Except he is allied with Assad who was a good dictator until he had to ally with Iran thanks to the House of Saud holding onto power by exporting radical Whabbist terrorism. ..."
    "... Speaking of invasions real and otherwise, Krugman's pursuing his omnidirectional self-embarrassment campaign with real gusto. ..."
    "... The US has never funneled vast sums of money to the man at the top to buy loyalty? Krugman is disingenuous. It happens all the time...he only needs to read John Perkins 'Confessions of an Economic Hit Man.' ..."
    "... I guess Krugman's not aware that the European states are rather well-armed themselves, and that the Poles in particular are pretty ferocious. Maybe possibly "security guarantees" for Vilnius aren't really a sane American concern? ..."
    "... Speaking of invasions real and otherwise, Krugman's pursuing his omnidirectional self-embarrassment campaign with real gusto. ..."
    "... US funneled 58000 kids' lives to keep the crooks at the top in Saigon. ..."
    "... Independence of Baltics turned into a tragedy for Russians living in those countries who instantly became "green card holders" instead of citizens and were discriminated pretty openly. But a lot of those Russians who have marketable skills and, especially, higher education, already left for Germany and other Western countries (Baltic countries are really small: Estonia 1.3 million, Latvia 2.2 Lithuania 3.3 in total less then population of New York) ..."
    Dec 02, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    anne : November 28, 2016 at 10:55 AM

    On the other hand, someplace like Vladimir Putin's Russia can easily funnel vast sums to the man at the top in return for, say, the withdrawal of security guarantees for the Baltic States....

    -- Paul Krugman

    [ The ceaseless expressions of disdain for Russia, because the easily elected and decidedly popular president of Russia is only a reflection of Russia, strike me as a dangerously prejudice fostering madness.

    I do not even care a fig what Baltics may be, I am not interested in a cold or a hot war over any Baltics. I am content not having Baltics for the holidays. ]

    DrDick -> anne... , November 28, 2016 at 11:18 AM
    "I am content not having Baltics for the holidays."

    That is because you are not Vladimir Putin, who very much does. The Baltics are Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia, which all became independent and increasingly tied to Western Europe with the collapse of the Soviet Union and which the Russians have assiduously tried to bring back under their control ever since.

    sglover said in reply to DrDick... , November 28, 2016 at 02:44 PM
    The Baltic blitz is this year's fear-mongering idiocy. So yeah, sure, in a purely military sense Russia could roll over the Baltics. And yeah, sure, in some sense Russia (AKA Putin) "wants" the Baltics.

    What the hysterics never bother to answer -- does it even occur to them to ask? -- is precisely **why** Moscow should do so. Unless Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia are sitting on top of slabs of platinum, they're really not worth all that much. Against that "benefit", occupying them would bring nothing but severe costs, not least a likely European war and a certain protracted partisan war.

    Yeah yeah yeah, I know: Crimea! Donbas! Sounds convincing. Too bad the analogies are so deeply uninformed. (Not that that ever got in the way of so many self-proclaimed "authorities" on Russia.) Unlike Crimea, Baltic residents don't broadly favor merging with Russia -- not even all the Russophones. Moscow knows this.

    The situation in Donbas contradicts the sloppy assumption that Russia is relentlessly expansionist. Other than as an occasional thorn in Kiev's side, Moscow doesn't really seem to know what to do with the "prize" of Donbas. Many of the residents, likely a solid majority, of the "People's Republics" favor Russian annexation. Moscow's said and done nothing toward that end.

    Unless you believe that the world is run by deeply stupid cartoon villains -- and that really does seem to be the level of a lot of the "liberals" around here -- the scenario simply doesn't add up.

    ilsm -> DrDick... , November 28, 2016 at 04:01 PM
    "That is because you are not Vladimir Putin...."

    I do not see the Poles mobilizing.

    Let the EU/EZ do it this time!

    Seems to me the Germans see it the same way I do.

    Poles should care, they can mobilize....... occupy Vilnius and tell Putin "try it again...!"

    I do not care that Putin goes in and runs all over the balts and the Ukraine.

    anne -> anne... , November 28, 2016 at 11:45 AM
    Vladimir Putin's Russia can easily funnel vast sums to the man at the top in return for, say, the withdrawal of security guarantees for the Baltic States....

    -- Paul Krugman

    [ So that I am clear, Russia can funnel vast sums to Francois Hollande for exclusive visiting rights to the Eiffel Tower and I would be disappointed because I too like to visit now and then but there are other places in France to visit and I am as little interested in talk about securing visiting rights to the Eiffel Tower as I am about war crazed talk about securing Baltics when I have no idea and do not care what a Baltic may be.

    Life for me has been and is content being Baltic-less. ]

    mulp -> anne... , November 28, 2016 at 02:26 PM
    If you had been born in the Baltics, would you favor Russian invasion to restore the glory of Russian Empire? What we have is conservative moral relativism at work.

    Fidel is evil because he was a dictator who overthrew the dictator democratic US capitalists imposed on Cubans who were not sufficiently white, and only US backed dictators get permission to to kill people. The Shah. The House of Saud. Sadam when at war with Iran, not when he invaded and deposed the US backed dictator of Kuwait.

    Putin is a dilemma in that he is the enemy of conservative Republican enemies, Obama and Clinton, so he must be a friend. Except he is allied with Assad who was a good dictator until he had to ally with Iran thanks to the House of Saud holding onto power by exporting radical Whabbist terrorism.

    But it all comes back to whether you would be happy to be born in US backed Saudi Arabia instead of its evil enemy Iran, in China instead of Japan, or even China instead of Putin's Russia?

    If you won the born in USA lottery, was that proof that you are a harder worker and thus more deserving than those born in the Baltics under threat from Putin's political needs.

    kthomas said in reply to anne... , November 28, 2016 at 11:57 AM
    Precious hypocrite.
    anne -> kthomas... , November 28, 2016 at 12:31 PM
    Vladimir Putin's Russia can easily funnel vast sums to the man at the top in return for, say, the withdrawal of security guarantees for the Baltic States....

    -- Paul Krugman

    [ So that I am clear, Russia can funnel vast sums to Francois Hollande for exclusive visiting rights to the Eiffel Tower and I would be disappointed because I too like to visit now and then but there are other places in France to visit and I am as little interested in talk about securing visiting rights to the Eiffel Tower as I am about war crazed talk about securing Baltics when I have no idea and do not care what a Baltic may be.

    Life for me has been and is content being Baltic-less.

    Precious enough? ]

    kthomas said in reply to anne... , November 28, 2016 at 01:14 PM
    Baltic-less? You sound just like a Deplorable now. Click those heals baby!
    sglover said in reply to anne... , November 28, 2016 at 02:50 PM
    I guess Krugman's not aware that the European states are rather well-armed themselves, and that the Poles in particular are pretty ferocious. Maybe possibly "security guarantees" for Vilnius aren't really a sane American concern?

    Speaking of invasions real and otherwise, Krugman's pursuing his omnidirectional self-embarrassment campaign with real gusto.

    JohnH -> anne... , 2016 at 02:50 PM
    The US has never funneled vast sums of money to the man at the top to buy loyalty? Krugman is disingenuous. It happens all the time...he only needs to read John Perkins 'Confessions of an Economic Hit Man.'

    sglover -> anne... November 28, 2016 at 02:50 PM

    I guess Krugman's not aware that the European states are rather well-armed themselves, and that the Poles in particular are pretty ferocious. Maybe possibly "security guarantees" for Vilnius aren't really a sane American concern?

    Speaking of invasions real and otherwise, Krugman's pursuing his omnidirectional self-embarrassment campaign with real gusto.

    ilsm -> sglover... , November 28, 2016 at 04:02 PM
    once past the shark..... seems pk has no limits.
    ilsm -> JohnH... , November 28, 2016 at 04:03 PM
    US funneled 58000 kids' lives to keep the crooks at the top in Saigon.
    ilsm -> anne... , November 28, 2016 at 03:57 PM
    poor pk
    likbez -> ilsm... , -1
    "poor pk"

    He is far from being poor. He is remunerated very nicely for the McCarthyism nonsense he utter.

    Independence of Baltics turned into a tragedy for Russians living in those countries who instantly became "green card holders" instead of citizens and were discriminated pretty openly. But a lot of those Russians who have marketable skills and, especially, higher education, already left for Germany and other Western countries (Baltic countries are really small: Estonia 1.3 million, Latvia 2.2 Lithuania 3.3 in total less then population of New York)

    De-industrialization followed. Now two out those three countries in economic sense are basket cases. And that will not change.

    Who would want to put a lot of money to restore what is lost? For the sake of what?
    If I were Putin, I would propose Duma to adopt some kind of anti-apartheid law that would make Russian energy and Russian market inaccessible to them and see how they behave. It would be not such a big hit for Russia, but pretty noticeable for those three tiny countries.

    It is easy to organize marches of former Waffen SS ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcl0NN8DgxA ) and desecrate Russian army monuments erected after WWII understanding that that they have full USA and EU government support, and that Russia will not break diplomatic and economic relations with them.

    During WWII concentration camps in terrotiry of those countries were the most vicious. Real death factories especially https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salaspils_concentration_camp

    And in Latvia in Salaspils concentration camp they conducted experiments on children including using them as blood donors. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MswHJHR1Ky8

    Typhoid fever, measles and other diseases killed about 12,000 children at the camp.[4] In one of the burial places by the camp, 632 corpses of children of ages 5 to 9 were revealed.[5]

    [Dec 02, 2016] Lots of panic for the Washington regime

    Notable quotes:
    "... Russia complies with the rule of law: they refrain from use or threat of force and rely on pacific dispute resolution, using proportional and necessary force in compliance with UN Charter Chapter VII. ..."
    "... The US shits on rule of law, interpreting human rights instruments in bad faith and flouting jus cogens to maintain impunity for the gravest crimes. In the precise terms of Responsibility to Protect, the US government does not even meet the minimal test for state sovereignty: compliance with the International Bill of Human Rights, the Rome Statute, and the UN Charter. ..."
    "... Naturally the US is bleeding legitimacy and international standing, and Russia is going from strength to strength. If Russia invaded, we would strew flowers and sweets. ..."
    Dec 02, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Moose and Squirrel must DIE November 26, 2016 at 11:28 am

    Lots of panic for the Washington regime. The clownish asshole loser that they carefully groomed proved less repulsive than their chosen Fuehrer Clinton. Now they are distraught to see that their enemy Russia sucks much less than the USA.

    Russians get a much better deal than the US subject population. The Russian head of state has approval ratings that US politicians scarcely dream of. Russia complies with the Paris Principles, the gold standard for institutionalized human rights protection under international review. The USA does not. Russia's incorruptible President keeps kleptocrats in check, while the US banana republic installs them in high office.

    Russia complies with the rule of law: they refrain from use or threat of force and rely on pacific dispute resolution, using proportional and necessary force in compliance with UN Charter Chapter VII.

    The US shits on rule of law, interpreting human rights instruments in bad faith and flouting jus cogens to maintain impunity for the gravest crimes. In the precise terms of Responsibility to Protect, the US government does not even meet the minimal test for state sovereignty: compliance with the International Bill of Human Rights, the Rome Statute, and the UN Charter.

    Naturally the US is bleeding legitimacy and international standing, and Russia is going from strength to strength. If Russia invaded, we would strew flowers and sweets.

    The collapse of the USSR did Russia a world of good. Now it's time for the USA to collapse and free America.

    [Dec 02, 2016] Still More Myths About Clinton's Defeat in Election 2016 Debunked

    Notable quotes:
    "... By Lambert Strether of Corrente . ..."
    "... we have no way of knowing whether Clinton's claim is true ..."
    "... Clinton's claim rests on the word of a proven liar ..."
    "... with respect to voting integrity, 17 is really 0 ..."
    "... Clinton's claim that foreign "influence" (or "interference)" is unprecedented is false ..."
    "... the concept of "influence" (or "interference") is extremely hazy ..."
    "... nobody with actual responsibility for governing is acting like Russian interference is significant ..."
    "... with respect to Wikipedia, telling the truth seems an odd form of influence to have problems with ..."
    "... if business dealings with Russia make Trump a puppet, then there are Democrat puppets, too ..."
    "... makes Trump a puppet, then heaven help us all ..."
    "... nobody with actual responsibility for governing is acting like Trump is a Russian puppet. ..."
    "... It just hasn't met their best excuse head on. ..."
    "... bought people IDs and driven them to the polls ..."
    "... throughout the campaign ..."
    "... Pattern Recognition ..."
    "... re foreign influence in American elections ..."
    "... Is anyone going to seriously deny that Israel has a huge influence not just on our elections, but our foreign policy as well? ..."
    Dec 02, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Posted on November 28, 2016 by Lambert Strether By Lambert Strether of Corrente .

    Here is a sixth post debunking two common talking points by die-in-the-last-ditch Clinton loyalists and Democrat Establishment operatives. For both talking points, I'll give a quotation that illlustrates the myth, followed by rebuttals. ( Three previous talking points are debunked here , two more here , two more here , and one more here .) As usual, I hope you'll find the rebuttals useful if these topics come up

    I'll cover talking points related to - drumroll, please - Russia, and therefore a bad-faith effort could be made to frame this post as - gasp - Russian propaganda. Let me assure readers at once that even though I'm writing this from my spandy new Russian dacha , that doesn't have the slightest influence on my views! That said - [Yes, Dmitri? Was there more? Ras kol nikov!] - That said, Yves said to go ahead with this topic. However, Yves doesn't review what I write before posting, so any errors or omissions are solely my own.

    The topic of Russian influence on the election, and Russian influence over (or, in strong form, control of) President-Elect Trump has already generated a vast literature, if I may so call it, in the echo chamber created by the political class. Frankly, I don't have the days it would take to sort all the talking points out. So I'm going to limit my scope to the talking points used by candidate Clinton in the third Presidential debate; Clinton's performance was, after all, Ground Zero for these talking points, and gave all her supporters in the political class and the electorate license to expand on them.

    Let's remember that anything Clinton said in the debate was carefully engineered by the Clinton campaign team. Here's a description of Clinton's debate preparation from Politico:

    [Karen] Dunn and her partner Ron Klain – the two most experienced debate prep specialists in Democratic politics – are overseeing an orderly and intensely secretive process.

    Clinton's advisers, in conversations over the last month, have repeatedly emphasized that the mock debate session, while important, is less vital than the informal law school sessions where Clinton hashes out her reactions and attacks. "It's a moot court set-up," said a Clinton insider. "She's doing less of the usual mock debate sessions, with 100 people standing around, this time."

    [L]ongtime Clinton aide Phillippe Reines [and the] buttoned-down, courtly Klain has also stood in parrying questions with Clinton, according to people close to the situation – but both men have been less concerned with imitating Trump than preparing Clinton for the substance of the attacks, two keen attorneys framing Clinton's reactions in the precise, disciplined language their lawyerly candidate thrives on.

    Clinton's experience and confidence can make her an intimidating person to prep - when you count her own three dozen on-stage debates there is arguably no one in American politics with more prime-time experience. Her coaches, however, are also longtime debate aficionados - campaign consultants Joel Benenson, Jim Margolis and Mandy Grunwald all sit in on prep, as does Palmieri, longtime attorney Bob Barnett, senior policy adviser Jake Sullivan, Podesta, occasionally Bill Clinton, younger policy aides who have helped compile the thick green binders of prep materials, and others.

    Klain and Dunn, who report directly to Sullivan, not only offer an overarching strategy, but act as speechwriters - line-writers, really - paring down language and crafting practiced lines.

    In other words, Clinton's talking points are most likely to be "practiced lines" "crafted" by very smart Democrats; each will be the best shot the Clinton Team could take.

    Talking Point: 17 Intelligence Agencies Confirmed that Russia Is Trying to Influence the Election

    Here is Clinton deploying the talking point in the third debate :

    [CLINTON:] And what's really important about WikiLeaks is that the Russian government has engaged in espionage against Americans. They have hacked American websites, American accounts of private people, of institutions. Then they have given that information to WikiLeaks for the purpose of putting it on the Internet.

    This has come from the highest levels of the Russian government, clearly, from Putin himself, in an effort, as 17 of our intelligence agencies have confirmed, to influence our election.

    And Clinton broadens the scope of her attack, merging Wikileaks with espionage with cyberattacks (I assume "hacking") generally, and broadening "influence" to "interference":

    [CLINTON:] We've never had a foreign government trying to interfere in our election. We have 17 - 17 intelligence agencies, civilian and military, who have all concluded that these espionage attacks, these cyberattacks, come from the highest levels of the Kremlin and they are designed to influence our election. I find that deeply disturbing.

    So, let's look at some problems with Clinton's talking point.

    First, we have no way of knowing whether Clinton's claim is true [1]. Her claim comes from this joint statement from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence , James Clapper. Politifact :

    The U.S. Intelligence Community is made up of 17 agencies, forming the basis of Clinton's claim.

    The 17 agencies are: Air Force Intelligence, Army Intelligence, Central Intelligence Agency, Coast Guard Intelligence, Defense Intelligence Agency, Energy Department, Homeland Security Department, State Department, Treasury Department, Drug Enforcement Administration, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Marine Corps Intelligence, National Geospatial Intelligence Agency, National Reconnaissance Office, National Security Agency, Navy Intelligence and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

    The 17 separate agencies did not independently declare Russia the perpetrator behind the hacks . However, as the head of the 17-agency intelligence community, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, headed by James Clapper, speaks on behalf of the group.

    We don't know how many separate investigations into the attacks they were. But the Director of National Intelligence, which speaks for the country's 17 federal intelligence agencies, released a joint statement saying the intelligence community at large is confident that Russia is behind recent hacks into political organizations' emails. The statement sourced the attacks to the highest levels of the Russian government and said they are designed to interfere with the current election.

    We rate Clinton's statement True.

    Carefully parsing Politfact's story against what Clinton actually said, I rate Clinton's carefully engineered statement as not proven, and certainly not true. "17 of our intelligence agencies have confirmed" is not the same as "James Clapper says that 17 of our intelligence agencies have confirmed." First, we simply don't know, as Politfact admits, that any of the individual agencies confirmed anything. I mean, was Coast Guard Intelligence really a serious player? Second, we don't know the quality of the confirmations. What was the interagency process? Were any of the confirmations tested or cross-checked against each other? Or were the confirmations mere formalities? Third, is there a reason other than authoritarian followership to trust James Clapper? Bringing me to my next point–

    Second, Clinton's claim rests on the word of a proven liar . Here's the blogosphere's doyenne of national security and civil liberties, Marcy Wheeler on James Clapper :

    Obviously Bogus Clapper Exoneration Attempt 4.0

    Wyden: Does the NSA collect any type of data, at all, on millions, or hundreds of millions of Americans?

    Clapper: No sir.

    Wyden: It does not?

    Clapper: There are cases where they could inadvertently, perhaps, uh, collect, but not wittingly. [After 6:38]

    The first Edward Snowden leaks proved James Clapper lied.

    Wheeler then goes through a hilarious exegesis of Clapper's various attempts to wriggle out of the trap his own words placed him in. Remember, 17 agencies did not confirm. James Clapper wrote a memo saying they did. That's not the same!

    Third, with respect to voting integrity, 17 is really 0 . From the DNI statement :

    Some states have also recently seen scanning and probing of their election-related systems, which in most cases originated from servers operated by a Russian company. However, we are not now in a position to attribute this activity to the Russian Government. The USIC and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) assess that it would be extremely difficult for someone, including a nation-state actor, to alter actual ballot counts or election results by cyber attack or intrusion. This assessment is based on the decentralized nature of our election system in this country and the number of protections state and local election officials have in place. States ensure that voting machines are not connected to the Internet, and there are numerous checks and balances as well as extensive oversight at multiple levels built into our election process.

    Fourth, Clinton's claim that foreign "influence" (or "interference)" is unprecedented is false . Politico :

    Foreign Governments Have Been Tampering With U.S. Elections for Decades

    Examples given: Nixon in 1968 created an October surprise telling South Vietnam's President Thieu, through Anna Chan Chennault, that he'd get a better deal from him than from Democrat candidate Humphrey. On November 4, Thieu said he wouldn't participate in peace talks. Iran refused to release the hostages it held to Carter until moments after Reagan was inaugurated. Of course, I'm not saying any of these examples are good , but they do show Clinton's claim is false.

    Fifth, the concept of "influence" (or "interference") is extremely hazy . By "influence" (or "interference"), do we mean overthrowing a democratically elected government, as in Honduras ? Or by "interference" do we mean funding political parties and factions, as in Ukraine ? Or do we mean calling for a particular outcome in a foreign country's referendum ? Clearly, there's a spectrum of possibilities, and it's not clear where Russia's putative "influence" (or "interference") falls on that spectrum, or how significant it really is.

    Sixth, nobody with actual responsibility for governing is acting like Russian interference is significant . Has the United States determined that Russian "influence" (or "interference") is a casus belli ? No. Has the United States tightened sanctions against Russia? No. Has the United States withdrawn its ambassador from Russia? No. Has Secretary of State Kerrey issued a diplomatic protest? Not that I can find . How about a "démarche" to the United Nations Secretary General? Ditto. So, even if the United States "formally accused the Russian government," the accusation doesn't amount to much, does it? Oh my goodness! "Formally"! In the lead, yet.

    Seventh, with respect to Wikipedia, telling the truth seems an odd form of influence to have problems with . Returning to Clinton's original point of departure, not one of the Podesta emails has even been shown to be false. See Glenn Greenwald (who disposes of Kurt Eichenwald, so please don't bring that up):

    Top Democrats have repeatedly waved off substantial questions arising from their hacked emails by falsely implying that some of them are forgeries created by Russian hackers.

    The problem with that is that no one has found a single case of anything forged among the information released from hacks of either Clinton campaign or Democratic Party officials.

    The strategy dates all the way back to a conference call with Democratic lawmakers in August. Politico reported that a number of Democratic strategists suggested that Russian hackers - who have been blamed by U.S. intelligence agencies for supplying the emails to Wikileaks and other web sites - could sprinkle false data among the real information.

    Since then, despite the complete lack of evidence to support such a claim, it's become a common dodge among leading Democrats and the Clinton campaign when asked questions about the substance of the emails.

    Frankly, I've been gobsmacked by the refusal of Democratic loyalists to process or even accept the Podesta emails; the press, though adding caveats that legal clearly insisted on, accepts them as true as shown by the stories they write; but Democrats go into full "LA LA LA I can't hear you!!!" mode. Since I came up as a Democrat, the idea that Democrats are as susceptible to epistemic closure as Republicans was alien to me. No more. If espionage and the truth are one and the same, how do we function as a democracy? I could understand the furor if the emails were about the Manhattan Project, but they're only about a corrupt and vicious in-group of sycophants and grifters buffing their candidate's talking points and pimping them to the press. So who cares?

    In conclusion, I want to remind you that this talking point was carefully engineered; the Clinton team took its best shot. As we have seen, the "17 agencies" best shot claim is not proven as stated, is an argument from authority where the authority is a proven liar, doesn't apply to voting integrity (the other "Russkis" narrative currently in play), depends on a hazy notion of "influence" (or "interference") and isn't taken seriously by the United States government, as shown by its actions. Oh, and the Podesta emails are legit. Doesn't that count? Once again the staggering incompetence of the Clinton campaign team stands revealed.

    Talking Point: Trump is a Russian Puppet

    Here again Clinton deploys the talking point in the third debate:

    CLINTON: Well, that's because he'd [Putin] rather have a puppet as president of the United States.

    First, if business dealings with Russia make Trump a puppet, then there are Democrat puppets, too . Politico :

    A prominent D.C. lobbying firm has hired outside counsel over revelations that it may have been improperly involved in lobbying on behalf of pro-Russian Ukrainian politicians who also employed former Donald Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort.

    Although the Podesta Group was founded by Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta, he has not been involved with the lobbying firm that bears his name for years. His brother, Tony Podesta, is currently chairman of the firm.

    According to an Associated Press report, the controversy centers around Rick Gates, the Trump campaign's liaison to the Republican National Committee and a Manafort ally who also did work for the pro-Russian political party in Ukraine. As part of his work for the Ukrainian political party, Gates connected the Podesta Group with the European Centre for a Modern Ukraine, a non-profit whose board originally contained Ukrainian members of parliament from the pro-Russian party./p>

    Controversy surrounding Manafort's ties to the pro-Russian Ukrainian politicians prompted his resignation on Friday, part of a larger campaign shakeup that included the hiring of a new campaign manager and campaign CEO. A New York Times story published last Sunday detailed how secret ledgers discovered in Kiev earmarked a total of $12.7 million in cash payments to be delivered to Manafort. The former Trump campaign chairman said he never received any such money.

    Working on behalf of the European Centre for a Modern Ukraine, the Podesta Group lobbied in Washington for positions favored by the pro-Russian political party, of which deposed former President Viktor Yanukovych was a member. The lobbying work ended in 2014 after Yanukovych fled Ukraine for Russia, where he remains in exile.

    Gee, it's like they all know each other, isn't it? Oh, and isn't "work" for a "Ukrainian political party" influencing (or interfering with) elections?

    Second, if realpolitik makes Trump a puppet, then heaven help us all . Here's how Trump responded in the debate:

    [TRUMP:] Now we can talk about Putin. I don't know Putin. He said nice things about me. If we got along well, that would be good. If Russia and the United States got along well and went after ISIS, that would be good.

    Assuming the validity of America's imperial role for the sake of the argument, imagine that the world is tri-polar, with Russia, China, and the United States. Why then does it make sense to, as it were, fight a two-front war? Why not de-escalate with one, and focus on the other, possibly together? Of course, I'm not a foreign policy expert, unlike the national security class that got us into two losing wars and set a few trillion dollars on fire, but Trump's logic is, at least, not insane. And it certainly doesn't make him a Russian "puppet."

    Third, nobody with actual responsibility for governing is acting like Trump is a Russian puppet. . See the sixth point above, and then ask yourself how a "Russian puppet" was also receiving intelligence briefings as a Presidential candidate if anybody with actual responsibility took this point seriously. Here's Obama on this point, post-election :

    [OBAMA:] I think it is important for us to let him make his decisions. The American people will judge over the course of the next couple of years whether they like what they see. This office has a way of waking you up. Those aspects of his positions or his predispositions that don't match up with reality, he will find shaken up pretty quick because reality has a way of asserting itself."

    One can hope.

    So, if Trump's business dealings make him a Russian puppet, there are other Russian puppets in the Beltway, including the brother of Clinton's campaign manager. Further, Trump's policy toward Russia can't be shown to make him a puppet; it's realpolitik. Finally, nobody who would have to take action, were Trump a puppet, is taking Clinton's campaign seriously.

    Conclusion

    Clinton loyalists should step away from the blame cannons and look in the mirror. Little chance of that happening soon!

    NOTES

    [1] I'm not going to concern myself with what private national security consultants write; I assume they're talking their book.

    0 0 0 0 0 0 This entry was posted in Politics , Russia on November 28, 2016 by Lambert Strether . About Lambert Strether

    Lambert Strether has been blogging, managing online communities, and doing system administration 24/7 since 2003, in Drupal and WordPress. Besides political economy and the political scene, he blogs about rhetoric, software engineering, permaculture, history, literature, local politics, international travel, food, and fixing stuff around the house. The nom de plume "Lambert Strether" comes from Henry James's The Ambassadors: "Live all you can. It's a mistake not to." You can follow him on Twitter at @lambertstrether. http://www.correntewire.com

    View all posts by Lambert Strether →
    Trade now with TradeStation – Highest rated for frequent traders
    Subscribe to Post Comments 186 comments Donald November 28, 2016 at 1:50 pm

    Typo alert–

    " Iraq refused to release the hostages it held to Carter until moments after Reagan was inaugurated"

    Iran, not Iraq.

    Lambert Strether Post author November 28, 2016 at 2:52 pm

    Thank you!

    Villainesse November 28, 2016 at 7:02 pm

    And another typo-

    "Seventh, with respect to Wikipedia, telling the truth "

    Wikileaks, not wikipedia, is meant here.

    Different wikis are very different indeed. The wonderful open wiki nature of wikipedia does offer many more chances for both the intentional and accidental insertion of propaganda/removal of truth and other unsubstantiated lies and hearsay. On the other hand, wikileaks has taken far more care than other media to substantiate the accuracy of their obviously opinionated and biased leaked documents while at the same time completely protecting their leaker/whistleblowers from their own end. (Few will make Chelsea's tragic mistake in the future!)

    Our world needs them both, but we need completely different mindframes to successfully parse the biases inherent in each. And also, we need that constant reminder that all our media is created within our smoldering stew of biases.

    Lambert Strether Post author November 29, 2016 at 1:46 am

    If I had a nickel for every time I've typed WikiPedia instead of WikiLeaks

    Portia November 28, 2016 at 1:51 pm

    whose "reality", I wonder? TPTB's reality? Yeah, so you think you're POTUS, do you? LOL

    [Obama] This office has a way of waking you up. Those aspects of his positions or his predispositions that don't match up with reality, he will find shaken up pretty quick because reality has a way of asserting itself."

    Ivy November 28, 2016 at 2:17 pm

    Would love to have been a flyski on the wall when Obama was shaken up and confronted with reality, although what is the life span of said flyski ? Was he shown 8×10 glossies of some embarrassing event during community organizing, perhaps off shore, and by whom? The mind reels from the possibilities.

    Dean November 28, 2016 at 9:34 pm

    Your comment is intriguing. Makes one wonder how the intel agencies use their daily briefing to turn the president into their Manchurian candidate.

    Kurt Sperry November 28, 2016 at 10:00 pm

    I read somewhere that Nixon, when he first got into the White House, made a point of returning his written intelligence reports unopened, and obviously unread. Smart guy.

    Lambert Strether Post author November 29, 2016 at 2:00 am

    You're quite right. Kansas City Star :

    Priess, author of "The President's Book of Secrets," said Nixon refused to sit down with CIA briefers during the transition. To try to get the document to Nixon, intelligence officials resorted to dropping sealed copies of the PDB each morning with Nixon's secretary.

    After Nixon's inauguration, his aides returned the briefing books still in their unopened envelopes, Priess said.

    BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA! What a great true fact. Thank you!

    Sarah November 28, 2016 at 1:56 pm

    Again, you're never going to put and end to the excuses from establishment Democrats to rest until right-wing voter suppression is devalued as a reason Clinton lost. It is one of the easy goto comebacks of establishment types on the internet. I wish I had the time spend in attacking it, but I don't.

    nippersdad November 28, 2016 at 2:32 pm

    The excuse that Republican voter suppression as a rationale for Clinton's loss would work better had the Obama Administration's Justice Department spent any time, whatsoever, going after it the past eight years. That and the fact that Clinton could so casually defund state Party election efforts using the Hillary Victory Fund scam shows that the Democratic Party never thought it much of a problem prior to the election.

    Had it been a real problem for them, why didn't they do anything about it when it would have made a difference?

    Sarah November 28, 2016 at 3:58 pm

    That doesn't rebut the claim that it caused Clinton to lose in the rust best states, though.

    nippersdad November 28, 2016 at 5:15 pm

    She lost in the rust belt states because, in her private opinion, their jobs were better offshored and anyone who doesn't like it can drink Flint water. She was a simply appalling candidate, and if they cannot get over that they need only look at all of the other candidates like her who have lost their elections over the past eight years. They got what they asked for.

    Sarah November 28, 2016 at 5:36 pm

    I'm sure you realize that still doesn't rebut the voter suppression excuse. They claim if it weren't for voter suppression, they would have won in the rust belt states. There needs to be a rebuttal.

    grayslady November 28, 2016 at 5:51 pm

    It's actually easier to rebut than you are making out. Try this:

    "Although two federal district courts had ruled that the photo ID law discriminated against African-Americans, who disproportionately lack the approved IDs, the law was applied on Election Day after an appeals court stayed one of the decisions. Gov. Scott Walker, a Republican who backed the laws, has said they have no impact on voter participation, and Mr. Albrecht allowed that their effect on Milwaukee's turnout would not have erased Mr. Trump's victory in the state.

    Perhaps the biggest drags on voter turnout in Milwaukee, as in the rest of the country, were the candidates themselves. To some, it was like having to choose between broccoli and liver."

    From an article in the NY Times .

    Few governors have done as much to suppress minority voting as Scott Walker in Wisconsin. So far, the voters have managed to get around the obstacles. Those who didn't vote chose not to vote. They weren't prevented from voting.

    Sarah November 28, 2016 at 6:46 pm

    Of course, Walker is going to assert his voter suppression has no impact on participation. So what? That's not something to throw in the face of the establishment Democrats and have any effect on their excuse.

    grayslady November 28, 2016 at 8:52 pm

    You might get off your hobby horse long enough to read the article. The citizens who were interviewed mostly chose to stay home, or write in someone else, rather than vote for Hillary. These were former Obama voters. Similar activity occurred in Ohio and Pennsylvania, to name two other states, although, unlike the voters in Milwaukee, many chose to vote Trump, having been disappointed by Obama's empty rhetoric. These stories have been all over the internet. Search is your friend.

    Sarah November 28, 2016 at 9:17 pm

    My "hobby horse?"

    Maybe come up with a quality response to their excuse that corners them logically would be a first step. Then if I dismiss it, you might be justified in your little diminutive characterization. But until you do, maybe you should note I haven't disagreed with anything here about what went on. It just hasn't met their best excuse head on. That excuse needs to be buried with a forceful argument, then jammed in the establishment D's face.

    I would hate to have to conclude that what goes on even here is just another instance of what goes on when I find myself confronted with either a right-winger of any persuasion or an establishment D: the inevitable retreat into the comfortable cocoon of one's safe place worldview and subsequent accusation of anyone asking hard questions of being on the attack instead of that someone trying to deal with the inherent difficulties of making solid cases. To not deal with this is to let them slip away comfortably in their self-denial and self-pity. I want them to be miserable in their unmitigated failure and the understand just how massive that failure is. I want them writing in agony at just what a disaster they've drove the country and world into.

    Reading comprehension is your friend.

    run75441 November 29, 2016 at 12:12 am

    Thank you.

    run75441 November 29, 2016 at 12:13 am

    thank you

    integer November 29, 2016 at 1:07 am

    It just hasn't met their best excuse head on.

    Trying to reason logically with someone who is arguing from an emotional standpoint (though they will not admit this) is useless. A possible strategy is to dampen the initial collision as best you can, move the conversation perpendicularly by talking about something else that is loosely related yet emotionally comfortable for them, and then surprise them with logic when their emotional guard is down. Easier said than done but people rarely listen to, let alone properly process, information from someone who directly contradicts their views. Be kind and good luck!

    integer November 29, 2016 at 1:20 am

    Btw Clinton would have been an environmental nightmare also. At this stage the only real option is a total change in paradigm (ie. the wellbeing of the environment being considered as more important than corporate profits, especially by those at the highest levels of government), and the probability Clinton would have ushered that in is 0.

    Barry Fay November 29, 2016 at 8:36 am

    Sarah – your response should be in the header of the comments section! As I read the exchanges I was thinking the exact same thing (it is very rare for me to find "like minds" on other blogs – another reason why I love NC!)

    olga November 29, 2016 at 8:52 am

    It's all circular, though If Democrats had not abandoned the blue collar voters long ago (i.e., Bill C), they might not have lost so many states' legislatures and there would be fewer voter suppression efforts to begin with

    Lambert Strether Post author November 29, 2016 at 2:02 am

    The counties that flipped to Trump from Obama surely refute that.

    Bluto November 29, 2016 at 4:14 pm

    If Hillary Clinton cannot defeat a clown like Trump in a landslide what exactly CAN she do??
    Even with Republican voter suppression a decent candidate running a political campaign of "I am going to end neoliberalism and bring back jobs to the Rust Belt states" could have prevailed over the orange garbage can from New York.

    Clinton could not run on that theme because she is neoliberalism personified.

    It is illusory to expect that the Democratic Party can be reformed so that it can become the advocate of working people. Eight years of Obama proved that.

    neo-realist November 28, 2016 at 6:30 pm

    I'd also say that a combination of Bush moles in the Justice Department that Obama couldn't get rid of combined w/ the usual Obama's reticence to not dirty his hands w/ tough controversial issues, particularly ones that involve injustice to black folks which might cause him to look like a "Black President" as opposed to a President of One America if he took the black side, would account for non-action on the voter suppression issue.

    But I do recall an NYT op-ed from the President in support of the voting rights act, so that's something ain't it?

    andyb November 29, 2016 at 1:24 pm

    If Bush had moles in the DOJ, they would have backed Clinton, a fellow criminal and globalist. Those who still believe that we have a 2 party system should reflect upon the fact that there are no significant policy changes going from Dem to Repub Admins or vice versa. I'm sure you remember Poppy Bush and Bill C together pleading for Haitian relief. Since Haitians received less than 10% of the reported billions, I would imagine the missing money was split between the families of the 2 ex presidents.

    Lambert Strether Post author November 28, 2016 at 2:55 pm

    If the Democrat establishment viewed expanding the franchise and voter registration as core party functions none of this would be happening. This has been an obvious problem since the Florida felon's list in 2000. Sixteen years, and they haven't done squat.

    What did Clinton spend on TV? A billion? Some amazing number. They could have just bought people IDs and driven them to the polls for that kind of money.

    Sarah November 28, 2016 at 4:15 pm

    I understand, but it still doesn't rebut their lazy and easy claim. You're not going to shut them up anymore than you're going to shut up a wingnut that knows his side is lying if you can't deliver more than admonitions about what they should have been doing to prevent the suppression efforts. As we're all well aware, the establishment D's are still acting as if their economic policies were built upon the genius of their unassailable recognition of the inevitability of the wisdom of markets, globalization, and there was Nothing-That-Could-Be-Done but to cow to the scientific inevitability of it all. They and their apologists like to pretend the same sort of inevitability of political processes as if we're all caught in some sort of vicious Hegelian dialectic; "There was just nothing we could do!" they say. "The moron masses will vote against their own economic interests no matter what we say." This is, of course, an excuse to allow themselves to cater to the donor constituency instead of doing what is necessary politically.

    If the voter suppression excuse isn't met head on and exposed as just another act of establishment D political cowardice, then debunking their myths as to how and why they lost will fail, and they will keep right on pretending there was nothing that could be done. (Sure, they're going to do that anyway, but failing a rebuttal there will be nothing to expose their determined sophistry.) Of course, implicit in these arguments is that nobody in America could have beaten Donald Trump in the electoral college and there aren't words to describe how idiotic that implicit argument is.

    Lambert Strether Post author November 29, 2016 at 2:12 am

    Well, it sounds like I have another topic for this series, then. Got any useful links? A clear statement of the thesis would be a start.

    uncle tungsten November 29, 2016 at 4:28 am

    YES Sarah, +100 maintain the rage. The Dems did FA for years to get people to the polls. Once they smashed the Sanders assault, they changed no policies that the Bernie believers were gasping for. From that time on their fate was sealed. Had they been constantly advocating voting reform and voter access and fairer economy they would have neutralized the Trumpsters well ahead of time.

    I have said this before on NC but the Dem misleadership can't even count. Bernie Sanders potentially delivered millions of voters for the Dems to harvest and that Podesta/Mook/Clinton trio spat on them and chased off looking for a few thousand alienated rich Repugnants like lemmings off a cliff.

    Now their Democrat Chair apparent (supported by Sanders !!!) has voted for a no fly zone in Syria. They are stupid, totally insincere and there is no humanity in them! UK had the same ignorant mindset and is desperately trying to destroy the alternative, Australia is bogged down by the same neoliberal madness in its 'left' party, Germany is about to hemorrhage due to its absurd neoliberal economics rigidity, France has never found its way after the betrayal of Mitterand and his champaign neoliberal 'left'. Greece lies in ruins AGAIN! These neoliberal economic hucksters are voodoo economists.

    Tequila! now.

    Lambert Strether Post author November 29, 2016 at 2:11 am

    I don't think there's a clear enough thesis to refute. Can you give a link?

    For example, both these things can be true:

    1) The Republican CrossCheck operation operation suppressed a lot of votes nationwide

    2) Trump won because counties that voted for Obama in 2012 voted for Trump in 2016.

    It depends on what counties and precincts the votes were suppressed in, and I don't think we know that.

    I wouldn't bother too much with the excuses Democrats make about losing. If they stop firing the Blame Cannons at voter suppression, they'll just point them at another target, like Putin, or Comey, or whatever.

    They had one job: Win. A competent campaign would have done that. The Democrats had, what, $2 billion in TV money? (Can that possibly be true?) They had plenty of press on their side. But as we know from the Ada debacle - which appeared in the news flow for about two days, and then vanished - they systematicallly misallocated their billions throughout the campaign . That's why, for example, Clinton never visited Wisconsin, which she lost, and never gave the mayor of Madison a call.

    It may be that the Democrats simply believe themselves to be the natural ruling party, and hence any obstacles in the way of their (royal) "progress" are deemed to be illegitimate in some way. But a campaign isn't a parade. It's a campaign , a war. And in war there are obstacles!

    divadab November 28, 2016 at 2:13 pm

    When she rolled out "the Russians ate my homework" in debate I knew it was over for her. How downright pathetic. What a filthy liar. Good riddance.

    Sarah November 28, 2016 at 7:07 pm

    Well, it would have been nice to have had the Democrats run an anti-neo-liberal instead of Clinton. But even with Clinton, the planet would have still stood a chance to provide a home to future generations as even establishment Democrats recognize AGW is real. As it stands now, America has told the world it doesn't give a shhit whether or not the planet is made inhospitable for future human civilization. With Clinton as president, we would have bought time for both the planet and for the Democrats to get fixed. Now, pretty much all is lost. I do hope you understand that.

    Code Name D November 28, 2016 at 8:41 pm

    I'm not convinced that is true. Oh sure, HRC states publicly that global warming is real and is man made. But then defends and expands fracking and ever met an oil pipeline she didn't love. Those wars overseas are mosty about pipeline routs. NC calls it "soft deniyal", I call it lieing through your teeth.

    Sarah November 28, 2016 at 8:57 pm

    There is all that. But I don't call it "lying through your teeth." I call it political cowardice in standing up to market and corporate brow-beating and which is essentially the entirety of the Democratic party's problem and what lead them to embrace neo-liberalism as a response to Reagan and Powell (not to discount the post-Vietnam/Watergate Democrat's denial of FDR/New Deal in favor of fluffing Wall Street to their own enrichment). That being said, the Democratic party is much more sensitive to being taken to task by environmental groups. And given how late in the game we are on AGW and that the public is amenable to the truth on AGW, a Clinton presidency would have had been loath to continue business as usual even out of a sense of corporate obeisance much less one of moral decency. I think we can all agree there is not a scintilla of hope a Trump administration will give one moment's thought to the consequences of their actions with regard to even 10 years from now much less 100 or 200.

    nippersdad November 28, 2016 at 9:25 pm

    " a Clinton Presidency would have been loath to continue business as usual even out of a sense of corporate obeisance much less one of moral decency."

    As can be seen from both Clinton and Obama's presence at the DAPL protests. Your arguments are increasingly appearing to be for the sake of argument.

    Sarah November 28, 2016 at 9:58 pm

    Well, if you think Democrats, even establishment D's, really aren't bothered by AGW, then I have to admit I've run into someone that is vastly more cynical than I am. It's like I said, I think, in general, they're brow-beaten political cowards that, at least congenitally, are concerned about facets of individual and social life that rise above vulgar economic existential factors, but, also congenitally psychologically, are spineless in the face of aggression and alpha maleness.

    And yes, I think they would be loath to continue business as usual. I'm pretty sure we both know what's going to happen with a libertarian climate denier as Trump's EPA chief, right? So choose; who would you have rather had in regards to choosing for that position? in dealing with legislation that's going to be coming from the GOP House and GOP Senate?

    tegnost November 28, 2016 at 10:39 pm

    The hurdle you seem to be unable to get over is that hillary ran as a republican, courted republicans, espoused republican philosophy, kicked the left, and most importantly in your case, suppressed voters in the primaries thinking she could win without them. She favored protectionist trade deals, the murders of unionists in columbia were a result of CAFTA, never met a fracker she didn't like and basically told goldman sachs she was 100% behind them but couldn't say so publicly. That is why she lost. Global warming will now, ironically, get more of a voice as purple dems need to find a purpose, and maybe dems won't engage in so much voter suppression next time around. Read the emails of your brow beaten cowards and you may find they were doing the brow beating themselves, and fully expected to flummox all of us morans .dint work thanks to a smattering of rust belt voters combined with an underwhelming turnout of supporters who did not vote because dems didn't want them to, and didn't think they needed them, which is a form of suppression in itself. They, and you, were wrong. AGW's been a thing for quite a while and your precious defenseless alpha dems had their dog food left in the bowl and now it's really gross and mouldering.

    Sarah November 28, 2016 at 11:31 pm

    "The hurdle you seem to be unable to get over is that hillary ran as a republican, "

    Good grief. No, she ran as a tempered neo-liberal New Democrat (that are starting to understand the error of their ways, but haven't gotten there.) Somebody's got a hurdle to get over, but it isn't me.

    "Global warming will now, ironically, get more of a voice as purple dems need to find a purpose, ,,,"

    And I thought wingnuts and establishment D's were delusional. Republicans are going to unleash such an withering shhitstorm of destruction just on short-term and immediate issues, Democrats won't even get heard on those, much less have the time, energy, or political courage to take on issues of far-off voter concern that they haven't worked up the moxie to take on to date.

    "Read the emails of your brow beaten cowards and you may find they were doing the brow beating themselves, and fully expected to flummox all of us morans ."

    Democrats are brow-beaten cowards of the right; they are the American right's doormats. But that's what gives them the false courage of neglecting and debasing anybody, anything, or any organization to the left of the DNC. They're actually sucking up to their mind masters on the right and Conventional Wisdom Washington Consensus when they piss on the out-of-favor wacko left like FDR New Dealers. (I do really hope you get the sarcasm, but just in case you don't, well, whatever.)

    "dint work thanks to a smattering of rust belt voters combined with an underwhelming turnout of supporters who did not vote because dems didn't want them to, and didn't think they needed them, which is a form of suppression in itself."

    Well, you really showed them Democrats you have their number. It reads like you're happy Clinton lost to Trump. If that is so, I have no idea what it is you hold dear but if it was anything that Democrats from Sanders/Warren/Brown/etc. to Joe Manchin even pretend to hold important, you lost it. Congratulations on your contemptuous victory in cutting off your nose to spite your face.

    "They, and you, were wrong."

    What was I wrong about, pray tell?

    "AGW's been a thing for quite a while and your precious defenseless alpha dems had their dog food left in the bowl and now it's really gross and mouldering."

    Yet another of you with reading comprehension problems. My "defenseless alpha dems?" When did I ever claim the existence of "alpha dems?" When did I ever claim establishment D's are defenseless? (I called them political cowards. That means they *choose* weakness and impotence.) When did I call establishment D's mine? Where have I intimated support for establishment D's other than to imply it would have been better for Clinton to be president than Trump? I mean seriously, is it the consensus here that Trump was preferable? Hoo, boy. Do you realize a Trump presidency means, at least if you take climate scientists seriously, the world just missed the last off-ramp to avoid going over 2 degrees Celsius warming? I trust you know the significance of that. Am I right?

    Lambert Strether Post author November 29, 2016 at 12:33 am

    I think it's more important to seek advantage from the current situation, whatever it may be, than worry about alternate histories that never came to pass. (Perhaps one day there will be Campaign 2016 Re-enactors). My preference was for a Democrat Senate and a Republican House, as readers know, because I feel that gridlock is my friend. The voters threw the bums out everywhere, so we're not going to get gridlock (modulo Senate filibusters). Instead, we're going to get a fluid and dynamic situation (volatility).

    Adding, the Democrat establishment had one job: Win Clinton the Presidency. They blew it. They should all be purged, those who have not already died of shame.

    Jen November 29, 2016 at 5:22 am

    WRT to the Senate: running tools like Evan Bayh and Patrick Murphy didn't help.

    And yes, as I repeatedly point out to the wailing Clintonistas in my circle: when you are running for public office, be it for dog catcher or President it is your job to get people to vote for you. Do that, you win; don't, you lose. It's that simple.

    different clue November 29, 2016 at 12:42 am

    If Trump can cause a major trade war with China leading to a deep depression in America and in China both, carbon emissions in both countries will decline far faster and deeper than they ever would have under a petroleo-phillic Clinton Administration.

    But what if Trump can't trigger a major trade war between China and America leading to a carbon-curbing great depression in both countries? He could still open the door to a steady abolition of Free Trade and a steady return to Protectionism. One Free Trade Container Supership emits as much carbon as a hundred million cars. Shrinking Free Trade enough to retire 20 Free Trade Container Superships from service has the same carbon impact as taking Two! Billion! cars off the road. That is some major carbon reduction impact.

    So, no. All is not necessarily lost.

    Free Trade is the New Slavery. Protectionism is the New Abolition.

    Think about it.

    cnchal November 29, 2016 at 1:13 am

    . . . One Free Trade Container Supership emits as much carbon as a hundred million cars . . .

    I am a wee bit skeptical. Do you mind running the numbers?

    Sarah November 29, 2016 at 1:53 am

    "If Trump can cause a major trade war with China leading to a deep depression in America and in China both, carbon emissions in both countries will decline far faster and deeper than they ever would have under a petroleo-phillic Clinton Administration."

    I do not believe what I'm reading. As satire, I used to claim that if you were concerned about AGW, you would vote Republican because Democrats will make a mixed market economy grow faster and produce more consumption through conventional counter-cyclic demand-side policies thereby increasing emissions. Of course, Democrats would also be pursuing green energy alternatives, at the same time, but that would have gotten in the way of the satire. Never mind, here in the flesh is the Onion losing its war on irony.

    And anybody believing Trump is going to do anything about the inequality-increasing aspects of our intentionally rent-seeking, reverse Robin Hood "free" trade deals are as big a suckers as the people who think he's going to bring back all the coal jobs back to Appalachia (which he would do if he could, of course, because he doesn't give a whit about the consequences of coal as an energy source (and those jobs are just strip mine jobs in the West).) To understand he's not going to do that, just look at his proposals for infrastructure "stimulus," which are nothing but a scheme to have the public underwrite private investment in profit making ideas and not to actually invest in needed infrastructure that doesn't come with an immediate return to private interests.

    There is *no* positive side to Trump other than he's better than an establishment Republican. With Trump, there's the off-chance he might blunder into some policy that isn't harmful. That is not a possibility with an establishment Republican or theocrat like Pence. And of course, both of them will allow the rest of the world to become the sources of green and renewable energy sources whilst they turn America into a country that makes nothing but financial instruments and continue the giveaways to the extraction industries and sell-offs of public lands and resources.

    Besides, if Trump was to create a big ol' depression, Democrats would probably be able to muster up the energy to win in 2020 and you certainly wouldn't want that, would you? All that pent-up demand from the depression would

    Lord.

    Lambert Strether Post author November 29, 2016 at 3:48 am

    > There is *no* positive side to Trump other than he's better than an establishment Republican.

    Marginal. But not insignificant!

    different clue November 29, 2016 at 2:37 am

    You have every right to be sceptical. It comes from an article I saw posted once on the Reddit. Reddit is such an unsearchable grab bag of trash and treasure mixed that I was never able to re-find it.

    Anyway, the article claimed that one Container Supership releases as much carbon as Seven Hundred Million cars. The article didn't say what KIND of cars, or how much they were driven, or anything like that. So I reduced it in my own mind from Seven down to One hundred million cars.

    If that still sounds too good to be true, I am ready to be corrected by any good article on Super Container Ship emmissions compared to car emmissions that anyone can bring here.

    uncle tungsten November 29, 2016 at 4:51 am

    There will be a major global f*kup soon enough to quell carbon emissions. There are decades of recovery ahead to compensate for the obscene leverage in the global economic casino.

    If we are extremely lucky, an economic crash will 'save' us. I don't ever count on luck that comes in a package of that shape and weight.

    jrs November 29, 2016 at 1:06 am

    blah blah blah we would have missed it anyway you know. Hillary ran on a pro fracking platform.

    Sarah November 29, 2016 at 2:02 am

    Yeah, and you're so self-certain of that that it was of no consequence to just go ahead and turn the U.S. government over to the most frothing right-wing asswholes we've ever run into. I mean, just because the Democrats' racists/misogynist/xenophobic/ excuses are not the reason they lost, that doesn't mean Trump hasn't unleashed the demons from Pandora's box.

    Even if AGW was of no concern, that doesn't excuse handing the country over to increasingly alarming elements of authoritarianism and fascism. I think some of have lost a sense of what has happened. Neo-liberalism is leading us into authoritarianism and fascism. That doesn't mean we should fear the fascism less than the neo-liberalism. We should be working to get rid of the neo-liberalism without allowing the authoritarianism and fascism to appear.

    We're losing. And badly.

    Michael November 29, 2016 at 1:28 am

    HRC had one job.

    nippersdad November 29, 2016 at 2:15 am

    The problem with your rationale is that there is no proof of it existing in the real world. Obama sold the most coal leases of any President in history even as the market for gas rendered its' business model obsolete. The reason that gas is so cheap is because of the fracking from sea to shining sea that has now given the US the nickname of Saudi America. No one had heard of tar sands before the proliferation of oil pipelines Obama's interior department has pushed throughout his Presidency. The Obama Administration has spent its' two terms either scuttling or signing on to severely flawed global warming treaties like the Paris Accords and his foreign policy is rife with examples of war for oil related interests. Nothing I have seen would indicate that Clinton would have been any better, and there is a lot of evidence that she would have been worse.

    None of that is calculated to give the impression that they give a damn about anything but near term bottom lines. This is just a talking point for them to corral the lefties, and it shows. Better to have an actual enemy that one can organize against than someone who talks a good game and, thereby, delays any effort at change.

    One of the most disgusting things that I routinely hear is that Trump is going to derail all of Obama's environmental advances; what advances would those be? He has STILL not taken responsibility for his debacle with the Macondo well in the Gulf, and extended his bad record even unto the Chukchi sea. I'm just not seeing it.

    Better the evil you know than the one that sticks a knife in your back with a smile on their face.

    Sarah November 29, 2016 at 9:41 am

    We know EXACTLY what Republicans are going to do. Exactly.

    Trust me, my friend – you have nothing on me when it comes to my disgust with and sense of betrayal from establishment D's. But Clinton wouldn't have put a libertarian climate denier with a puny degree in economics as head of the EPA.

    You, and I'm supposing many around here, have let their sense of betrayal motivate them to argue and act in a way that makes them more complicit, more culpable with the hurricane of right-wing evil that is coming than the cowardice and self-serving neo-liberal establishment Democrats that you feel betrayed by.

    "Better the evil you know than the one that sticks a knife in your back with a smile on their face."

    No. Not when 1) your estimation of the betrayal is too strong and 2) not when the planet's suitability for future human civilization's is at stake.

    Selfish are we? You think the *possibility* of *you* being betrayed yet again by pretenders to the things you hold dear is justification to, instead of taking the risk our priorities will be yet again abused by establishment D's and our support taken for granted, go ahead and hand power over to people you *know* will destroy what you hold dear and what is necessary for future generations? Well, aren't you precious and important. At least now, the betrayers can't betray you this time. Never mind the consequences; at least the establishment D's can't upset you, sweetie.

    Now, watch it burn. Enjoy.

    Sarah November 29, 2016 at 9:58 am

    Test.

    Edit: Never mind. Apparently, I'm having problems on my end.

    Sarah November 29, 2016 at 10:30 am

    Not never mind. Where's the reply that comes before the 9:58 am one?

    Lambert Strether Post author November 29, 2016 at 2:17 am

    > With Clinton as president, we would have bought time for both the planet and for the Democrats to get fixed.

    I don't agree. We don't know who Clinton sold herself to with the influence peddling she did with the Clinton Foundation; for every policy statement she mades, she has made commitments to silent partners we know nothing about. I think this claim rests on the idea that Clinton personally and the Democrats are operating in good faith, in general and on climate. Assumes facts not in evidence.

    I also think that the only way to fix the Democrats is to punish them by removing them from power. The prospect of being hanged did not, apparently, concentrate their minds, so perhaps actually having hung them will do the trick.

    different clue November 29, 2016 at 2:40 am

    Actually, it won't. The only thing that will do the trick is treating the Democratic Party very aggressively with a multi-year course of treatment with the most powerful political chemotherapy possible to kill all the metastatic malignant clintonoma cells scattered throughout the party . . . and at the same time with a multi-year course of treatment with the most powerful political antibiotics possible to kill every Yersiniobama pestis bacterium within the party. If that doesn't work, the DemParty will have to be put to death so that any non-compromised organs it may contain ( if any) can be transplanted into other parties which still have a chance of survival.

    olga November 29, 2016 at 9:02 am

    Hard to do, though Today's Dem party seems to be composed mainly of a multitude of well-paid (as in fat and happy) consultants and a similar sort of hangers-on. As long as there are donors willing to cover their chunky salaries, they've no reason to change or depart.

    Stephen Verchinski November 29, 2016 at 12:59 pm

    Thanks for this series. It should serve many to quit the dems for good. Now go and help the Greens. At least with the Greens have a platform based on principles and values we need as a species to survive. The dems platform got shredded even before the Democratic National Convention got underway and went Republican lite.

    The Greens just need organizational help, voters to reregister as Greens, and candidates for the mission to challenge open positions at higher levels of government. In New Mexico some 70% of all elected positions were, at the general election, run unopposed.

    Just to remind all too despite a media blackout the Greens still doubled their votes nationally from the last cycle. Thats a true progressive promise for the future.

    Oh and watch out for the new SOS dem implants. The next act at dem voter suppression is to bring back party straight ticket voting so that hacks can still run unexamined.

    Sarah November 29, 2016 at 10:49 am

    @Lambert:
    "We don't know who Clinton sold herself to with the influence peddling she did with the Clinton Foundation "

    That's right. We DON'T know and we DON'T know if any *possible* influence peddling would have influenced a decision to deal with the problem. So acting as if you might as well have assumed the results of known influence peddling and bad faith acting was and is an act of extreme self-important irresponsibility roughly equivalent to any climate denier manufacturing false rationales to ignore the reality.

    No. That is not a reason enough to guarantee missing the last off-ramp to avoid 2 degrees Celsius warming.

    Now, we've missed it. It's gone. It can't be fixed. And it will not be fixed. If you or anyone around here were arguing Trump was a better choice than Clinton, you now share in the shame that is America's, the Koch's, Jim Inhofe's, Mitch McConnell's, for all time. I hope that isn't the case, but if so, but if it is the case, it was a position of sanctimonious irresponsibility that in and of itself was an act of bad faith toward the well-being of future generations.

    Punishing Democrats should have waited till Clinton did indeed stiff the world in America's obligation to deal with the problem. We would have known soon enough if that would have been the case and would have had the chance to marshal a pushback against it. Now, we don't. I sure hope your conscience is clear. I wouldn't be able to live with myself.

    Fco November 29, 2016 at 12:24 pm

    I must be looking at a different crystal ball because my conscience is crystal clear. Even the snowflakes in them don't look too bad.

    Seems like you are still on the blaming phase of grief. Though I don't share it, I do feel your pain.

    4 years. Give it 4 years. In the mean time Taco Tuesday.

    Stephen Verchinski November 29, 2016 at 1:10 pm

    The rest of the world is tired of us and is moving past our stupidity on AGW. They will be better off without us.

    Sarah November 29, 2016 at 1:17 pm

    They can't succeed without us. But don't let that bother you as you smugly stroke your chin.

    marym November 29, 2016 at 1:14 pm

    Based on the past 8 years, it seems more likely that what's left of Democratic partisans would be more likely to push back on Trump policies than Clinton policies.

    I don't think a significant portion of Trump voters were people on the left voting for spite, but that's just an opinion.

    Sarah November 29, 2016 at 1:20 pm

    Based on the last 30+ years, anybody paying attention understands the right doesn't just ignore anybody pushing back against their vileness, they run over them. And anybody equating what Clinton would do to what Trump is going to do is engaging in not only their own despicable MSM-like false equivalence, but attempting to inoculate themselves from their own complicity and culpability in the unfolding disaster.

    mary November 29, 2016 at 2:00 pm

    It wasn't the few disgruntled lefties who may have voted for Trump that cost Clinton the election, or so many other national, state, and local elections. If the argument is now "lesser of 2 complicities/culpabilities" in bad politics and bad policies, that cause people not to trust or vote for them, Team Blue doesn't have much to say for itself anymore. We'll see if they support the next Occupy, BLM, NoDAPL, Sanders, etc. movement or not.

    Sarah November 29, 2016 at 2:49 pm

    "It wasn't the few disgruntled lefties who may have voted for Trump that cost Clinton the election, or so many other national, state, and local elections."

    Nobody said it was. Clinton earned her electoral college defeat and the excuses coming from establishment D's are to be slammed hard. But the discussion here has turned to people defending the idea that Trump was preferable or equivalent to Clinton as president. And I'm telling you that was damaging, self-defeating, selfish petulance and willing delusion born of a sense of betrayal.

    And if you think Occupy or BLM or .. were models for organizing the nonexistent "left" in taking on the right, then , jeez, I'm speechless. Inchoate and easily dissipated anger is worthless. The right will laugh and fart in whatever direction they think that determined impotence is coming from. Then issue another decree to spray the unwashed masses from the streets. The comfortable won't even hear about it.

    marym November 29, 2016 at 3:03 pm

    It was Democratic mayors coordinating with a Democratic administration that sprayed the Occupiers off the streets, with silence from Democratic loyalists. You don't see supporting such resistance attempts in the streets as viable. Thus you probably predict that Clinton supporters won't join any such initiatives in the future. The only electoral approach you see as viable is voting for Clinton. Yet you think there would have been "pushback" to bad Clinton policies?

    Sarah November 29, 2016 at 3:46 pm

    marym: "The only electoral approach you see as viable is voting for Clinton. Yet you think there would have been "pushback" to bad Clinton policies?"

    That's incorrect. Clinton was vastly preferable to Trump. Period. Trump represents the end of the country and world as we know it and as we wished it could be. That's not hyperbole. That's the truth. This can't be fixed, save Mitch McConnell not doing away with the filibuster and Democrats mount total defiance (and who believes that will happen).

    A bunch of people parked in streets refusing to make demands or prioritize political objectives can not and will not offer any resistance to either the rabid right or center-right neo-liberalism.

    It's not that Clinton wasn't bad. It just that she was the only thing that stood between the abyss and reasonable hope to turn it all around without permanent irreversible damage. We/you were trapped and there was no escape and no other choice from the Lesser Evilism the Democrats triangulated us/you with. No amount of resentment about that could change that very fact. So apparently plenty of folks here preferred to act on prideful defiance and bristle against those they felt most betrayed against. Congratulations. Now you've got Greater Evil and much less reason to hope it can be reversed. And you've also built in permanent, irreversible damage for you, yours, and all future generations. You're going to love Trump's Supreme Court picks.

    Happy?

    Fco November 29, 2016 at 2:33 pm

    Sarah, it's not the unfolding disaster that you passionately predict that worries me, it is your lack of understanding or your stubborn refusal to understand that people who do not share your sentiments are not as " vile" as you describe them to be.

    I am now wondering how you have escaped being run over these past 30 years.

    Words like "despicable" are not helpful, they didn't work the last time, and they won't work going forward. What they will do though is alienate those you want to win over.

    But I have to say, morbid as it may seem, I do enjoy reading your rants.

    Sarah November 29, 2016 at 2:37 pm

    Fco: "Sarah, it's not the unfolding disaster that you passionately predict that worries me, it is your lack of understanding or your stubborn refusal to understand that people who do not share your sentiments are not as " vile" as you describe them to be. "

    Then you can show me where I'm wrong.

    Fco November 29, 2016 at 7:04 pm

    I would really love to. But I'm thinking at this juncture in time, you may paint a glorious sunset into a hematoma of a sky.

    It's not that you're wrong. I'm sure your definition of "vile" may be more encompassing than mine.

    So How is that working for you?

    Taco Tuesday.

    Sarah November 29, 2016 at 8:33 pm

    Translation: You can't show where I'm wrong or have any lack of understanding. So you hide behind vague, amorphous insinuations without meaning. But I knew that.

    So How is that being wrong working for you?

    sierra7 November 30, 2016 at 12:34 pm

    Reply to "Fco" 2:33 PM

    I was wondering how far into these comments "yours" would appear ..Bravo!

    Fco November 30, 2016 at 8:21 pm

    Sarah,
    You are right, there is absolutely no way I can show you that not all people who do not share your sentiments are vile.

    I do not mind being wrong at all. In fact, I have been wrong numerous times in my life.

    What's strange though is that you even bother to respond to someone like me who hides behind vague stuff. I know you must have better stuff to do with your time. After all, the weight of the world sits on your shoulders.

    By the way, last time I read, Trump's still the presumptive POTUS. (I thought maybe if you read that name more often, you'ld get used to the pain. But forgive me if it is actually doing the opposite.)

    Naked Capitalism has educated me more than you'll ever know. Even your rage and rants and minor belittling ( borderline bullying) have enlightened me.

    For some odd reason, I picture you with a cat. I don't know why. Maybe because I'm allergic to them?

    Last but not the least, I will always hide from you.

    Happy now?

    Fco November 30, 2016 at 8:24 pm

    Sierra7

    I'm new to this thing. Why the "bravo" comment? Are we only allowed a number of comments per post?

    Code Name D November 29, 2016 at 1:27 pm

    Seems to me your approch had already been tried with Obama. And as you already noted, we went saling past the last exit ramp for AGW, on Obama's Watch, no Trump required.

    It's like spouce abuse. He keeps beating you over and over again. But you always return because you know, deep down in his heart, he really loves you and is trying to change. But he wont because you never give him a reason to change.

    As bad as you imagin Trump might be, the EVEDENCE shows that Clintion would have been just as bad, or not worse. And your argument that "Clition might change" is simply not compeling.

    The reality was that AGW was alsways going to get worse, no mater who one. Your faith dosn't really change that.

    Pat November 29, 2016 at 1:47 pm

    So when do Democrats get to reject "New Democrats" aka Republicans marketing themselves as Democrats? Obama has already stiffed the world. But hey give Clinton a chance despite her lackluster record as Senator and her God awful record at State. And then it will be her successor we must give a chance despite a record that giving lip service to global warming is as deep as they are willing to go.

    The climate was a loser no matter who got elected. Could be that having someone in office who isn't pretending to be concerned might end up accomplishing more, just by providing a clear target.

    Sarah November 29, 2016 at 2:35 pm

    Whoosh, right over all of your heads.

    Nobody was exposing Democrats until Sanders/Warren. (And no, blabbering on internet, writing books, , doesn't expose them. Only a political voice that is widely available ends up exposing them.) And Democrats show signs of feeling the heat. Even Bill Clinton acknowledges it. So sure, go ahead and build certain destruction in with complete GOP control instead of allow the dawning realization Democrats are going through a chance to work. Brilliant. Make sure you write something on your tombstones of your thinking on 11/8/16. Yours who come after you will admire you for your petulant selfishness.

    Code Name D: "As bad as you imagin Trump might be, the EVEDENCE shows that Clintion would have been just as bad, or not worse. And your argument that "Clition might change" is simply not compeling. "

    Stupid beyond belief. You are getting a libertarian climate denier as head of the EPA. Do you *really* understand the significance of that? Really?

    Pat: "But hey give Clinton a chance despite her lackluster record as Senator and her God awful record at State. And then it will be her successor we must give a chance despite a record that giving lip service to global warming is as deep as they are willing to go."

    How stupid it would have been, right? I mean, it's like Trump asking black people to vote for him with the reasoning "What have you got to lose?" Well, I think they're finding out and I think people who care even a whit about the planet are finding out the certainty of what we're going to lose.

    It's clear a lot of you folks are in the process of attempting to wipe your guilt away. You're going to fail. If these are the arguments you were making before the election you're just as guilty as any aging frothing wingnut denier, and more guilty than the establishment D's you apparently hate more than the nauseating right.

    Enjoy your misery. Try not to let it weigh too much on your consciences.

    J Robertson November 29, 2016 at 5:55 pm

    Why are you lashing out at everyone here? It's not going to change anything. The election is over. Trump is going to be president. He is going to appoint whoever he wants to and congress will confirm them. It doesn't matter what Clinton would or would not have done. She lost, end of story. If the Dems don't come up with a better answer than the crap they've been pushing they will continue to lose and it will be all Republican policies all the time. We missed the deadline on AGW and we will all suffer the consequences of that. That's a fact. All that can be done is for each of us to try our best to pick up the pieces and move forward into whatever the future brings. I plan on resisting the coming administration as best I can, but I don't imagine it will make all that much difference. What are you going to do?

    Fco November 29, 2016 at 7:13 pm

    Shhh let her vent. Safer here than out on the streets.

    pretzelattack November 29, 2016 at 7:24 pm

    oh you mean like john edwards. he sure exposed them with his "two nation's" rhetoric, right. after that, the democrats reformed which is why we have president elect bernie sanders today. oh wait, we aren't. instead, given the choice between a proven warmonger and a potential warmonger, many democrats either stayed home, voted 3d party, or voted for trump. clinton was a truly awful candidate, focus on that and stop making excuses about all the changes she was going to go through, and pivot away from the truly awful neocons that supported her.

    Sarah November 29, 2016 at 9:07 pm

    What the hell are you talking about? I don't need to understand why she lost the electoral college. I know why.

    But if you made the estimation and argument that it didn't matter whether Trump or Clinton became president, and acted on it, then good luck with your conscience. If you have one.

    – Look in the mirror when Trump makes his Supreme Court picks.
    – Look in the mirror when Trump signs the ACA out of existence and health care is taken away from 20,000,000+ people.
    – Look in the mirror when Medicare is privatized and insufficient vouchers are given to people who can't afford the extra premiums.
    – Look in the mirror when Social Security is privatized.
    – Look in the mirror when climate scientists tell you what's in store now that America has

    It'll all be worth it because, you know, you were edgy and cool and on the cutting edge of social-economic insight, understanding and hating the cancer of neo-liberalism and all. I mean, you have the answer of guaranteed jobs and Stacey Kelton and MMT and . all that, so what about the misery created by what amounts to insouciant political nihilism from some sort of fake, hip conscienceless left. Never mind that the only political thing lamer than establishment D's are pissant movements like Occupy that never even get around to making and organizing political objectives. Never mind that the GOP will move with such speed to destroy existing structures that provide even the slight mechanism to challenge their complete grip on power. Never mind that the GOP is getting ready to run what amounts to a Gish Gallop of destruction on 20th century political progress that what's left of any political opposition won't even be able to defend one item before the next bulldozer on the 20th century is right upon them. Never you mind all that. Because you're cool, man, and that dislocated shoulder you got from patting yourself on the back for noticing just how evil establishment D's are is covered by health care that others now can't afford.

    Clinton got her comeuppance that her neo-liberal economics, neo-conservative warmonging, frackin-lovin' environment-destroying smug dismissal of class in favor of identity earned her. That's all that matters. You won! Your trenchant insight was vindicated! Celebrate!

    Never mind the politically illegitimate garbage that will now be making the rules.

    David Green November 29, 2016 at 10:26 pm

    That's Stephanie Kelton, who's no Malibu Stacey.

    aab November 29, 2016 at 8:32 pm

    Sarah, I'm going to hypothesize that you're commenting in good faith, even though much of what you're saying is not merely factually inaccurate and dishonest, but regurgitates Clintonian establishment talking points. I realize that it's difficult to resist swallowing said poisonous talking points, because so much of public discourse is contaminated with them, and people are seeking a way to perceive themselves and the status quo that benefits them as morally good, and a vehicle for positive progress, because to accept the contrary position feels uncomfortable.

    But if you really do care about the environment, the climate crisis, the abuse of marginalized people, etc., you need to read more and better information sources, rather than hectoring people here. That is a necessary but not sufficient condition if you really want to be an agent of positive change. For example, you seem to be trying to claim that enabling the installation of Hillary Clinton as President would be better for dealing with the climate crisis than Trump being elected, because Clinton says words indicating that she recognizes the role of human activity in the crisis.

    But when others point out that Clinton saying she recognizes this factual reality is irrelevant, because she has displayed NO willingness to take effective action to alleviate the crisis, you wave your hands around and hurl invective. This is a waste of your time. Nobody here will fall for that, and you will change no minds elsewhere. To the degree that false propaganda will be effective in public discussion, it does not need you, here, regurgitating it. Do something else. Almost anything else.

    Right now, under President Obama, we are seeing fascism in action, at Standing Rock. Mercenaries in the service of banks and oil companies have launched extra-legal military assaults on the soil of a treaty-allied sovereign nation against its people and American citizen allies standing with them, to facilitate the construction of an oil pipeline that has the potential to poison that nation's water and our nation's water, while primarily privately enriching global corporations and banks. These violent corporate-backed actions are illegal in numerous ways, yet the local, state and federal government are either actively facilitating this corporate thuggery, or passively allowing it to happen. Our Democratic President is allowing it to happen. Hillary Clinton has not lifted her pinkie finger to stop it, or even speak words condemning it. They won't stop it, because they are tools of these banks and corporations. Regardless of what they may or may not actually believe, they are refusing to limit their own enrichment one iota in the service of such beliefs. So their beliefs are functionally irrelevant.

    Their polite words mean nothing, if, while in power, they will take no actions that give meaningful force to those words. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are both, demonstrably, evil people. Hillary Clinton deserved to lose the election. She lost not because of people like me who read and comment on Naked Capitalism, but because many of the New Democrats' victims said, "We've seen enough, thanks," and either voted elsewhere or just stayed home.

    I know that is uncomfortable to face, but until you do face these uncomfortable truths, you are an obstacle to positive change, and therefore, a servant of evil. You are a servant of evil, because you are acting as a servant of the Democratic status quo, which is evil.

    In addition to better educating yourself about Standing Rock, and the complicity of Democratic Party leadership in the atrocities happening there, please read the pieces that the corporate media is reluctantly delivering about all the suffering people - many of them black - who rightly condemn Obama and the Clintons for their suffering, and refused to vote for Hillary Clinton. They're not fools. They're not expecting much from Trump. If you're going to come here and excoriate me on their behalf, you should at least familiarize yourself with their current conditions, life experience, and perspective - that is, if you really do care about suffering people and respect them as your equals.

    Clinton violated serious laws against the state. She was planning a hot war against Russia, the disembowelment of Social Security, and the utter abrogation of our national sovereignty under TPP/TISA, et al. She would have had a completely clear path to do those things, and set a horrifying precedent about what a person can do and still be awarded the presidency. I am not at all sorry she has (hopefully) been prevented from taking power. The voices of those who have been destroyed by NAFTA and the other corporate control treaties have ONLY been heard in the corridors of power because she lost. That is the ONLY reason the New York Times and New York Magazine deigned to send reporters to talk to them. Before her loss, it was, "Employment is down! The economy is great!"

    The first step to achieving ANY forward progress was going to have to be stopping Clinton. Clinton is the one who elevated Trump, so his election is totally on her, not on me or anyone at Naked Capitalism. And since he's the father of her daughter's best friend, and he's the golfing buddy of her husband, I'm just gonna guess that he's not all that much different from the Clintons, and not actually a world-ending Bond villain. If he is, well, again, his election is the Clintons' fault. You can accept it or not, but these shrieking rants are ineffective.

    Ernesto Lyon November 28, 2016 at 2:13 pm

    Trump is a devil, but he is not the devil the Hill bots have made him out to be. He's a different sort of devil, that we don't fully understand yet.

    The interesting thing about Trump is that he's his own man. He's the 1% of the 1%. There are few in the world who can pull rank on him. He has no need to climb, unlike Hillary who seems have devoted her life to it, and still had a ways to go.

    There are problems with Trump, starting with the crony Republican cabinet, but there are also possibilities with him that are usually not open.

    different clue November 29, 2016 at 12:46 am

    And not only that, he was never invited to any of the fancy schmansy meetings of the INsider esTABlishment OPOOP ( One Per Cent Of One Per Cent) like Davos, Bohemian Grove, Bilderberg, etc.
    They regard him as a vulgar plumber . . . Not Their Kind, Dear. They feel about him as if it were their septic tank pumping technician who made a few billion dollars . . . somehow. Oh the Humanity!

    And he knows what they think of him. Perhaps he will seek some wounded pride vengeance against the Greatest and the Goodest.

    Michael November 29, 2016 at 1:28 am

    He's a kleptocrat; we're in for some stuff we haven't seen for a while. This'll be fun.

    Lambert Strether Post author November 29, 2016 at 2:21 am

    This is the thing that drives me nuts. There's so damn much liberal noise-making it's tough to figure out the real players and where the power lies.

    It's as if the Democrat establishment lost a big battle, and instead of hunkering down and trying to fix the position of the enemy and work out their next move, they're running around blowing trumpets and sending up flares and firing their guns into the air and screaming and yammering. And they're not firing the generals who lost the battle.

    It's a volatile situation, a war of movement. Take advantage!

    Tempestteacup November 29, 2016 at 5:38 am

    Yeah but as we now know – because the Washington Post told us – you are in fact as well as mere conjecture an organ of Russian propaganda. The euphemism de nos jours for any and all critics of Democratic establishment wisdom, foresight and moral rectitude has finally reached you and you should be very proud!

    https://theintercept.com/2016/11/26/washington-post-disgracefully-promotes-a-mccarthyite-blacklist-from-a-new-hidden-and-very-shady-group/

    Code Name D November 29, 2016 at 7:49 pm

    So is your next myth going to debunk Trumps connections to the dark lord? (Could use a little lightening up.)

    Sam Adams November 28, 2016 at 2:19 pm

    Quibble – Iran held the Carter/St Ronnie of the Cons hostages, not Iraq

    Lambert Strether Post author November 28, 2016 at 2:56 pm

    Dimitry must have jogged my elbow.

    Villainesse November 28, 2016 at 7:39 pm

    The all-powerful "Dmitry" is why I most happily visited, first time today! DLC neo-'red'-baiting is clearly good for somethin!

    L November 28, 2016 at 2:40 pm

    Thank you for this excellent series.

    Along these lines, The Baffler has a nice piece making many similar points to yours: #RIPMyShillaries
    An end to the era of professionally explained candidates"
    . While I do not share his optimism that the end is nigh for folks like Ezra Klein, when one consideres his godawful profile piece in which he argued that the meaning of the Democratic primary is that Clinton was the better, more feminine, listener. And that is what people want despite the fact that they showed up en-masse to Sanders rallies you one can't help but enjoy passages like this:

    Funny, somehow Sen. Elizabeth Warren doesn't have the same trouble speaking as vociferously as Sanders on the issues that matter to them and to a large swathe of Democratic voters.

    Sadly I fear that connected folks like Klein, Dean, and Reid won't get the message that the policies do matter. At present they are still sending me requests for donations for the DCCC as if they hadn't already lost.

    L November 28, 2016 at 2:44 pm

    Apropos of your comment about the carefully-crafted talking points, it is also worth noting that the Baffler piece notes that the phrase "Stronger Together" was the best of 85 alternative slogans which they paid good money to get. Slogans which included "Your future, your terms."

    Given their ongoing obsession with the idea that "Russia Did It" you have to wonder if they test marketed that along with a dozen other bad countries as well. Perhaps "Canada Did it" just didn't have the same zest.

    flora November 28, 2016 at 3:00 pm

    "Canada Did It." ? That's just loonie. ;)

    Lambert Strether Post author November 29, 2016 at 2:24 am

    "Canadian Single Payer Fanatics Cost Hillary the Election!"

    There should really be a twitterbot that fires off the blame cannons every few hours. Anybody game?

    Ian November 29, 2016 at 5:43 am

    I'm certain there is a drinking game somewhere in there.

    UserFriendly November 28, 2016 at 5:20 pm

    Just imagine the HillBots trying to get their heads around Mexico did it Right after they send their Rapists.

    nippersdad November 28, 2016 at 5:26 pm

    That no one caught on to the idea that the "stronger together" concept derives from the Latin fasces (bundle of sticks), from which in turn the word fascist comes from kind of surprised me. Seems like, were I in that particular poll, that would have stuck out. But then being "with her" and " Homeland Security" would have failed with me as well.

    They must have some mighty interesting people in their poll groups.

    Lambert Strether Post author November 29, 2016 at 2:27 am

    Oh, man. I missed that one. You're right, of course.

    "Together," that is, except for the #BerniBros, the women with a "special place in hell," and who could forget the irredeemables?

    "Love trumps hate" is about as Orwellian as it could be

    nippersdad November 29, 2016 at 2:48 am

    The DLC/Third Way/New Dems have spent, literally, decades slapping down every element of the former Democratic coalition save for their funders. That they are now a regional Party should come as no surprise to them after having run possibly the most sociopathic example of their creed. And they still don't get it! Pelosi and Schumer must think we are all fools.

    I thought this was really interesting: http://blackagendareport.com/keith-ellison-dnc *

    One hates to say it, but it is beginning to look like Sanders really was a sheepdog for the Democratic Party, if not HIllary herself. At least he changed the conversation.

    *BTW, Lambert, if you have not looked at BAR in the past week or so, they have some really good stuff up.

    Lambert Strether Post author November 29, 2016 at 3:52 am

    Thanks for the reminder. The volume (both senses) is so great it's hard to keep track and look at everything I should.

    If you want to play the inside/outside game, then you need a politician on the inside. Sanders is the best choice for that. If that makes people stamp their feet and cry "sheepdog," I don't really give two sh*ts at this point (as I would not, having just been called a sheep. Eh?)

    Marco November 29, 2016 at 5:11 am

    Ouch!! Dixon on Ellison: "An empty black face in a very high place"

    HotFlash November 29, 2016 at 4:35 am

    Hey, you left out us deplorables!

    uncle tungsten November 29, 2016 at 5:01 am

    Turkmenistan did it. If not then Finland.

    flora November 28, 2016 at 6:50 pm

    Yes. Klein, Dean and Reid think all they need is better messaging and better PR.

    "Democrats don't see a need to change policy – just the way they sell it "

    http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/congress/article117525968.html#storylink=mainstage

    It will take more than one election to change this mindset.

    nippersdad November 28, 2016 at 9:29 pm

    After the past several elections, and now as a regional Party, they don't have many more to lose before the mindset becomes irrelevant.

    Michael November 29, 2016 at 1:29 am

    Dems do, in fact, need better messaging, but on a very deep level. cf: 50-state strategy.

    Lambert Strether Post author November 29, 2016 at 2:31 am

    From the McClatchy story :

    And they still face a daunting challenge crafting, let alone communicating, an economic message. It's widely agreed that the party was unable to find a vigorous, meaningful way of telling working class voters it understood their concerns.

    Pleasing to see a reporter use the phrase "working class" without prefixing with "white."

    fresno dan November 28, 2016 at 2:42 pm

    Naked Capitalist Pigs Comrades: you are most fortunate to have actual Soviet communist spy infiltrator, who has been inseminated into your society from conception, to reveal himself to you and our nefarious plots to restore world wide communism through our subversive and inconceivable plots. Here, in my basement lair, in my pajamas and fuzzy red hammer and sickle bunny slippers, I receive my orders from Putin himself, via walky talky while he rides his horse bare chested .and so is Putin.

    Now, with all the electronic monitoring of the communications, many dismiss that the Soviets can communicate with all the infiltrators without detection.
    After all, your own Secretary of State uh .stated:
    [CLINTON:] And what's really important about WikiLeaks is that the Russian government has engaged in espionage against Americans. They have hacked American websites, American accounts of private people, of institutions {[AND OF COURSE, THE SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE UNITED STATES]}. Then they have given that information to WikiLeaks for the purpose of putting it on the Internet.

    This has come from the highest levels of the Russian government, clearly, from Putin himself, in an effort, as 17 of our intelligence agencies have confirmed, to influence our election. {[DESPITE OUR BEST EFFORTS, WE FAILED TO ELECT CLINTON AS WE BELIEVED SHE WOULD CAUSE THE INTERNAL COLLAPSE OF THIS COUNTRY MUCH QUICKER THAN ANYONE ELSE .CURSES!!! FOILED AGAIN}]
    ============================================
    That is why I always in my bunny slippers – yes, we do not use internet because is soooooo insecure – real spies receive their instructions for world domination by radio waves, which is why .I wear bunny slippers ..because I need the rabbit ears as antenna
    Yes, every person wearing bunny slippers is a Soviet mole.

    rowlf November 28, 2016 at 8:25 pm

    Comrade,
    Be careful with your bunny slippers. They may not be adequate:

    This is Armenian Radio; our listeners asked us: "Why Lenin wore regular shoes, but Stalin wore boots?"

    We're answering: "At Lenin's time, Russia was still only ankle-high in shit."

    Commie Martyr High Class of 1977

    integer November 28, 2016 at 10:30 pm

    Interesting. I used to get my Russian operational briefings from Unfavorable Semicircle on YouTube, but we have been forced to switch to Twitter since YouTube disabled our communications channel.

    Lambert Strether Post author November 29, 2016 at 2:33 am

    Those YouTubes looks like an hommage to Gibson's Pattern Recognition .

    integer November 29, 2016 at 3:03 am

    Just read the Wikipedia plot synopsis and would have to agree. Nice connection of the dots!

    different clue November 29, 2016 at 12:52 am

    Fresno Dan.

    Is being most amazing thing! Is true you are being Putommunist Agent! How can I telling this? You mispelling of "walky talky". Americans spelling are "walkIE talkIE" . . . not "walky talky" as you have mispelling it here.

    But Why Agent Fresno? WHY? Why have you revealing yourself at this most sensitive juncture with most obviousful plain mis-spellingly "tell" as like this?

    desmana moschata November 29, 2016 at 5:21 am

    There must be more of us. I had always been programmed to believe I was the original russian mole and that we were nearly extinct. Good that we have friends.
    The Russian desman often lives in small (usually not related) groups of two to five animals, and appears to have a complex (but largely unstudied) communication and social systems and that is why it took so long for Clinton to find us.

    flora November 28, 2016 at 2:44 pm

    Thanks for this post. Interesting that Hillary ran as a sort of Eisenhower Republican, since the GOP used to stand for Civil Rights for blacks, and equal rights for women. They did not stand for the little guy or rising wages, however. See Margaret Chase Smith, Nelson Rockefeller, Edward Brooke.
    GOP Sen Joe McCarthy was a cold war demagogue during Eisenhower's admin. (Sen. M.C. Smith stood to denounce McCarthy.)
    Today's neolib Dems blend the best and the WORST of the Eisenhower Republicans. 3rd Way?
    It is deeply ironic that the DNC neolib Hillary campaign absorbs the Eisenhower GOP's stance on civil rights, ignores the traditional Dem stance on the economic needs of the little guy, AND turns to McCarthyist smear tactics against political and press opponents. She's not even as principled as Sen. Margaret Chase Smith was. (Sen. from Maine!)

    aside to Lambert, aka Raskolnikov! : one of the most insidious and pernicious effects of McCarthyism was self-censorship, fear, distrust and look-over-the-shoulder.

    Watt4Bob November 28, 2016 at 2:45 pm

    It seems to me that we're having a hard time getting our collective minds wrapped around the fact that our ' leaders ' not only feel entitled to lie to us, but that it is their duty to lie to us.

    The Clinton 'folks' evidently think that we're so susceptible to repuglican lies, that the only solution is a dose of democrapic lies.

    They haven't for one minute considered the possibility that we're so tired of being lied to, that we've decided to forego what has become utterly unbearable, that is, being forced to listen to even one more lie from the mouth of a 'third-way' democrat.

    It would appear that the repuglicans are in no way more self-aware than the democraps as far as that goes, so we're in for a deluge of dis-honesty surrounding Trumps broken promises and empty campaign rhetoric.

    As far as both sides of the faux-political-spectrum are concerned here's only one game in town, and that's called Give the Rich What They Pay For.

    Our political class, has explained to us in perfectly clear english, (Thanks HRC) that their actions are governed by opinions they consider 'private', and that these opinions are often the exact opposite of the opinions they offer in public.

    Some of us are enjoying the small comfort that comes from the realization that at least the lies will come from someone not named Clinton or Bush.

    Since it was our political class that taught us to settle for incrementalism, they should understand why many of us consider this progress.

    Harold November 28, 2016 at 10:55 pm

    Not only is lying a slippery slope but people really resent being lied to.

    run75441 November 29, 2016 at 12:15 am

    Do not fall into the same trap; "repuglican lies, that the only solution is a dose of democrapic lies."

    Paid Minion November 28, 2016 at 2:57 pm

    So let me get this straight .

    The Russians are "interfering" with US elections, by showing the American people the truth, vs. the propaganda doled out by the Democratic Party.

    To this I say: Thanks Russia. Keep it coming. Don't even bother attempting to plant "false info" in any of this stuff, the truth is damaging enough. While you are at it, lets see some stuff out of the Republican camp, and the Wall Street banks.

    This illustrates the US Governments dilemma. They have put out so much false BS that the wretched refuse believes nothing they say anymore, even if it's the truth. Integrity and credibility are tough to get back, once they have been lost/tossed aside.

    And the "interfering in US elections" is a real hoot to begin with. Like Israel, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, etc (not to mention various above-the-nation-state entities like MNCs and the Banksters) haven't been interfering/influencing US elections for decades.

    How has the Clinton Foundation been doing with "donations", now that they have zero influence in US government policy?

    Mildred Montana November 28, 2016 at 5:25 pm

    "This illustrates the US Governments dilemma. They have put out so much false BS that the wretched refuse believes nothing they say anymore, even if it's the truth. Integrity and credibility are tough to get back, once they have been lost/tossed aside."

    The man whose falsehoods no longer deceive has forfeited the right to tell the truth.
    -Ambrose Bierce

    Code Name D November 28, 2016 at 8:46 pm

    Maybe I am sending my FOIA requests to the wrong place. I should be sending them to Moscow

    different clue November 29, 2016 at 12:58 am

    The Clintonites are grooming Chelsea Clinton to run for Congress, so that the Clinton Foundation will still have influence in the US government so as to keep those donations coming.

    That is why it is so very important that Chelsea not be allowed to get into Congress.

    HotFlash November 29, 2016 at 4:44 am

    There are not enough groomers in the entire world to get her in.

    Anne November 28, 2016 at 3:22 pm

    I think one of the things that just frosts my cupcakes is this drummed-up outrage over so-called Russian incursions into Americans' data, knowing that our own government has been harvesting and mining and tiptoeing through our information like a love-sick Ferdinand the Bull cavorting through the daisies, because, you know, terrorism! We don't know what they're doing with it, whether they are storing it, or building dossiers with it – but it's landing some people on watch lists, so it can't be as random as they want us to believe, can it? They keep assuring us that it isn't like they're actually reading our e-mails and taking snapshots of our web activity but we're supposed to be suffused with indignation and huffing with outrage because Putin and Russia? Really?

    steelhead23 November 28, 2016 at 5:11 pm

    +1000

    phred November 28, 2016 at 5:17 pm

    I'm with you Anne. How absurd is it to get one's knickers in a twist over Russia when Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, Apple, the 17 US "intelligence" agencies, etc., etc., etc., not to mention our bestest pals the Brits with their shiny new spying laws, have been asserting their God-given right to all of our digital information? Russia might just as well get in line.

    Spring Texan November 28, 2016 at 6:06 pm

    You put that very well!!!

    uncle tungsten November 29, 2016 at 5:28 am

    Because human terrain mapping! and trained people need to perfect dossiers and now they have supercomputers.

    uncle tungsten November 29, 2016 at 5:34 am

    Plus I meant to include: the Russian stuff is a red herring as some people are desperate to avoid us looking at the DIA as the agent who leaked it. There is sh!t going down big time over this leak and it does point to a state actor but much closer to home. I read Trump is elevating the likely lad to a senior role in his administration. Pure speculation yes, but much more likely. Besides we have forgotten about Comey, phew! that was close.

    ChrisPacific November 28, 2016 at 3:36 pm

    Thank you for deconstructing the 17 intelligence agencies talking point. I read it when it was linked and was struck by the same points.

    In particular I think this part is suspect:

    "We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized these activities."

    Authorized these activities? What the heck does that mean? Are we supposed to accept that the Russian hacking community is some kind of centrally controlled organization that must seek government approval before they attempt anything too drastic? If so it's like no hacking community that I've ever heard of. What if there was a WikiLeaks-like attack on a Russian government server that was traced to an American source, and the Russians tried to use the same argument to pin it on the US government?

    Also on the cyberwarfare front, does anybody really believe that this isn't going on all the time? Or that at least some of the actors on each side are state funded and/or have ties to intelligence agencies? We know from the Snowden material that the US does it even to its allies (they were tapping Merkel's phone, FFS!) So even if every word of it is true, there is an additional burden of proof to demonstrate that the activity is somehow exceptional and not just a continuation of the current security status quo. So far I have seen no attempt to do this, or even acknowledge that it's necessary.

    I do find it amusing that the Clinton camp was simultaneously maintaining that (a) national security was under constant threat from the big bad Russians and (b) Clinton systematically ignoring security regulations for electronic communications wasn't a big deal at all.

    Skip Intro November 29, 2016 at 2:41 am

    Who but a state actor would be able to crack Podesta's email password of "p@ssword"?

    Lambert Strether Post author November 29, 2016 at 3:15 am

    Here's a nice takedown from Jacobin :

    But what we do know, thanks to digital forensics of the hacked emails, is that Podesta clicked twice on a not-so-sophisticated fishing email asking for his password. We also know from the same emails that John Podesta lost his cellphone in a taxi on January 19, 2015; and that his password was "p@ssword."

    With leadership like that, the rest makes sense.

    A point for the Left in all this: the DNC's ideas are not only bad because they don't advocate the social-democratic redistribution we would like to see - they are also bad because they don't work at a purely technical level.

    Their arrogance and contempt for the working class produced a flawed political theory, which in turn produced a bad strategy, which in turn produced a tactically inept ground game.

    Too busy congratulating themselves and concurring with each other, the Clintonites couldn't even get the rudiments of the campaign correct.

    Not even a zero for the "o" in password? Remarkable

    johnnygl November 28, 2016 at 4:28 pm

    Lambert, i didn't see you mention Clapper's resignation letter where he admitted that that they don't know who hacked the dnc/podesta.

    grayslady November 28, 2016 at 5:13 pm

    Was that the one time Clapper was telling the truth? Who knows? Personally, I wouldn't use Clapper in any of my arguments. Trying to determine whether or not Clapper is telling the truth is about as difficult as trying to determine what Trump is going to say next.

    xformbykr November 28, 2016 at 10:08 pm

    ditto

    Lambert Strether Post author November 29, 2016 at 3:28 am

    Well, that's because I didn't do that. I see it was November 17; if a meteor crashed into the earth the week after the election, I might have missed that too.

    However, I can't find a copy of the letter. Can you supply a link? (As far as the admission, Clapper says nothing about it in this (hagiographical) interview by Wired .)

    JohnnyGL November 29, 2016 at 12:40 pm

    Lambert,

    My apologies, upon further review, this isn't air-tight sourcing. It seems like it came out of the last committee meeting where Clapper submitted his resignation letter. So, there might be something.

    https://twitter.com/Harlan/status/799405593475825664

    clarky90 November 28, 2016 at 4:37 pm

    Trust in any relationship is sacrosanct. Suspecting your husband or wife or partner, of hidden infidelity is like having "a conspiracy theory". You have a bad feeling, a sense of unease- but that is all. It can go on for years.

    However, walking in, unexpectedly, on a (denied) liaison (romance) is all together different. You have been lied to. You know it. You grok it. You absorb the information into your very essence. The relationship (union) must and does change.

    I watched many Trump speeches in full on youtube, and then, afterwords, read the reports in the MSM of what he had just said. They were lying to me! I could see it, hear it. They lied to me.

    They must have been lying to me for the last sixty years of my life! I feel like such a sucker! I believed these lying bastards. I listened to them. I modified my actions, my thoughts, my diet, my beliefs. I subscribed to their "true information", their "helpful advice", their "concerned warnings".

    I have been addicted to "the news" since my childhood. (I fondly remember the Sunday NYT spread out in our living room floor in the late 50s, early 60s). This has been a clarifying year for me. (tip of the hat to Boris Strether and Natasha Smith)

    Tammy Wynette – D-I-V-O-R-C-E (Live)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRis1kfzD-I

    Susan C November 28, 2016 at 11:37 pm

    I had the same experience you did. A couple months ago ran into a Trump speech and listened to what he said and then the next day the MSM all said he said something that was completely different than what he actually said. I think it was something to do about Iraq – Trump made a harmless comment about it but the media said he said something else all together and they all repeated the horrible thing they say he said. I was pretty shocked by this – I heard exactly what he said and he never said anything like that. That next night he was aired on CNN again speaking to the crowds and saying that he said xyz about Iraq and the MSM said he said something completely different (which I heard them say) and he said see folks – this is what I mean about the media. And I realized he was right – the media was lying and they were all in on it. Another thing crossed my mind during that time – why was he attracting such large crowds – maybe people wanted to hear what he was actually saying for themselves and not filtered by the media.

    cnchal November 29, 2016 at 12:31 am

    . . . They must have been lying to me for the last sixty years of my life!

    Welcome to reality. Beware though that Trump doesn't suck you into his lies. Although the people have been watching narcissistic politicians since the dawn of time, you can take nothing they say at face value.

    The main goal of a narcissist is to get an emotional response from the people around him (or her – although narcissism is less prevalent in women) and it doesn't matter if the response is to be loved or hated, as long as there is an emotional response to feed off. The people nearby are objects, to be used as the narcissist sees fit for his own satisfaction, to be used and abused and when of no further use, discarded.

    What they hate, more than anything else, is to be ignored and shown no emotion when interacting with them. Becoming emotionally flat is a sure fire way to get a narcissist to lose interest and move onto someone vulnerable to their "charisma".

    After the final debate, there was a few moments when the camera panned to Trump, alone at the podium clutching his notes looking angry and ready to eat the notes before stuffing them in his jacket. He wasn't angry that he thought he might have lost the debate. He was angry that for a few moments there was no attention on him, and he didn't calm down until his family entourage joined him on stage and they walked out together. That's only my opinion, but the body language says a lot.

    Now the Presidency and the whole world is an object and plaything, as if they weren't before, but he isn't beholden to anybody, which frees him from constraints that previous presidents had. That's new.

    Lambert Strether Post author November 29, 2016 at 3:36 am

    As I wrote on August 1st :

    Readers, I'm eliminating "The Trail" coverage from Water Cooler's 2016 election coverage, for a few reasons. First, the political class, across the board, is working actively for one candidate, as if they were extensions of that candidate's campaign. Hence, at least insofar as material generated in the Acela corridor goes, there's no news to aggregate. Second, and as a result of the first, the volume and toxicity of the talking points in this election is so great that it's starting to affect my health; when I find myself drinking most of a bottle of wine, instead of the glass I had planned, it's time to re-assess. The surreality is worse than I've ever seen in my thirteen years of daily blogging on politics, and that includes the run-up to the Iraq War, when the political class also lost its mind; the opportunity cost of investing in such surreality is simply too great, particularly when I could be improving other coverage. So, for the remainder of the campaign, I'm going to focus on topics that are not bright shiny objects or clickbait: on policy, money, understanding the voters (in ways that go beyond the material that appears under Class Warfare), and institutional issues within the parties. Where I focus on the "horse race," it will only be in swing states. Finally, I don't expect volatility to cease on November 8; I believe the political class suffers from a legitimacy crisis, which the election will not solve. Readers may wonder if I have a dog in this fight, and the answer is yes: I want divided government and gridlock. It's always possible to make thing worse!

    Looks like I made the right call on that (well before the Podesta emails, too). Especially on " I don't expect volatility to cease" .

    Arizona Slim November 28, 2016 at 4:57 pm

    I'm sitting across the room from a Russian. And he's a friend. Does that make me part of the conspiracy?

    Onlyindreams November 28, 2016 at 6:54 pm

    This time of the year, I do enjoy baking melt in your mouth Russian tea cakes lest I make the short list of feeding the enemy, it may be a good time to switch to Mexican Wedding Cookies.

    Nephews this past weekend were taunting this ole lady ( me) for reading NC alledgely a hotbed for "fake news". All of a sudden I found new respect for being cavalier.

    Lambert Strether Post author November 29, 2016 at 3:37 am

    Wow. That story made it that far. How poisonous. The Post has a lot to answer for.

    lin1 November 29, 2016 at 6:10 pm

    "Carefully parsing Politfact's story against what Clinton actually said, I rate Clinton's carefully engineered statement as not proven, and certainly not true. "17 of our intelligence agencies have confirmed" is not the same as "James Clapper says that 17 of our intelligence agencies have confirmed."

    Considering that Clapper is a known serial liar who perjured himself in senate hearings, his "confirmations" don't mean much. Your question, though made as a joke, is a good one..Its been clear from the beginning what they mean by "propaganda" – its anything that contradicts their own, or exposes any of their massive hypocrisy and flat out lying. Its now becoming clear to me what they are talking about when they say "Russian operative" ..they are talking about Lambert, or any one of the commenters here..David Swanson (a "Russian agent") explains. The enemies list is back. The blacklist is back http://davidswanson.org/node/5363?link_id=0&can_id=247cc645ac7384b6c932e854b3cbbd13&source=email-how-i-produce-fake-news-for-russia-3&email_referrer=how-i-produce-fake-news-for-russia-3&email_subject=how-i-produce-fake-news-for-russia

    steelhead23 November 28, 2016 at 5:10 pm

    Clapper should have been fired. Let me say first – I am not a spook. But I know a bit about intelligence and for the chief of U.S. intelligence to announce that Russia had hacked into the DNC's server was either a lie – or beyond stupid. One does not let one's enemies know what you know. It doesn't help you – it would help them. Think about it. Let us assume that said hacker was in the Kremlin, hacking away. That server has an IP address. Now, Clapper has just announced not only that the U.S. has the technology to find hackers, it also knows the IP address of a Kremlin server. How exactly would revealing that information to the world help the U.S.? Ans. – it wouldn't. I haven't a clue why Clapper did this, but he should have been immediately fired.

    UserFriendly November 28, 2016 at 5:10 pm

    How many pro Russian comments do I have to make before I get my own Russian dacha? ;-)

    flora November 28, 2016 at 5:22 pm

    Your reference to the Honduras military coup is interesting.
    https://www.democracynow.org/2016/4/13/shes_baldly_lying_dana_frank_responds

    Not that trying to influence US electors after the election or discredit the electoral college to her own advantage is relevant.

    flora November 28, 2016 at 5:31 pm

    adding: on the one hand liberals decry NSA spying as an evil over throwing of Constitutional protections. On the other hand liberals encourage eliminating or electioneering the vote in the electoral college (a Constitutionally mandated part of the election of presidents) to guarantee Hillary's win. (If the recounts aren't done by EC vote day, do those EC votes go uncounted?) No double-standard there. Nope. Consistency and principal, if it's personally advantageous.

    MaroonBulldog November 29, 2016 at 3:06 am

    "If the recounts aren't done by EC vote day, do those EC votes go uncounted?" They shouldn't. I believe federal statutes establish a procedure for dealing with this.

    The election of the president is complete when the votes of the electors are opened and counted in the newly-elected House of Representatives on its first day in session in the new year. (The election of the vice president is completed when the voltes of the electors are opened and counted in the Senate). The way to deal with a situation like this might be: The Republican slate of electors, pledged to vote for Trump and Pence, files returns, claiming that when the recount is completed it will show that they were elected ("they" referring to the slate of electors, not Trump and Pence–votes for presidential and vice presidential candidates actually elect the electors who will cast the electoral votes). The Democratic slate of electors, pledged to vote for Clinton and Kaine, likewise files a return claiming that they (again, the electors) were so elected. The House of Representatives then votes to decide which return to accept, and which to reject., regarding the president,, and the Senate so votes concerning the returns of the vice -resident. (I haven't researched the law on this since the time of Bush v. Gore,but that's the conclusion I think I remember coming to after reading the United States Code provisions on presidential elections. I'm pretty sure that statutes haven't changed).

    Jerry Denim November 28, 2016 at 5:32 pm

    " the idea that Democrats are as susceptible to epistemic closure as Republicans was alien to me. No more."

    The Republicans built their own closed-loop media ecosphere first with Fox news and Right Wing Talk radio. During the W Bush administration, there was no way team Dem could be anything but critics making team Dem seem more like critical thinkers and adversarial to entrenched power than they actually were. As soon as the Democrats had their own charismatic, infallible, 'Great Leader' to rally around (Obama) and their own little closed loop media eco-sphere that grew up around the cult of Obama, with supposedly left-leaning brand image (MSNBC, Orange Satan, Huffington Post) the Democrats quickly zipped themselves up in a tight, impenetrable sack of epistemic closure to match the Republicans. The Democrat's impenetrable sack was Neo-Liberal just like the Republicans, but the Democrat's sack (pardon the analogy/pun) smelled of sweet meritocratic credentialism and minority identity politics.

    If this past election cycle has taught me anything it's that "Team Dem" blue juice drinkers are probably worse (more blinded) than the right-wing crowd. A Bush voter that voted Republican in every election since 2000 can most likely admit Bush's faults and admit the Republican party has quite a bit of work to do. Your typical two-time Obama voter that voted Hillary this last election is incapable of recognizing Obama's many flaws and if you try to talk to them about the Podesta emails you get fingers-in-the-ears "La-La-La" just as Lambert stated. According to the Team Blue cult members Hillary Clinton didn't suck as a candidate- she was robbed, and anyone who criticizes Clinton from the left OR the right is a damn Russian double agent.

    The state of political discourse in the country is so bad I don't know where to begin. 99 out of every 100 Americans are completely insane at the moment.

    Onlyindreams November 28, 2016 at 7:10 pm

    Being part of that reluctant 1% ( Jill voters), I now feel the icky slime as if I had voted for HC. I was once sane, but now doubting it much. Feeling voters remorse big time. Should've left it blank the first time.

    jrs November 28, 2016 at 9:51 pm

    Yea really smarter people than me voted Peace and Freedom party. I should have listened to them.

    Lambert Strether Post author November 29, 2016 at 3:39 am

    > tight, impenetrable sack of epistemic closure

    "Epistemic closure" wasn't my expectation for what that sack would be full of #JustSaying

    olga November 29, 2016 at 9:16 am

    Perhaps not insane just brainwashed (and without adequate education, historical knowledge, and good memory, unable to make sense of any of what is happening). Maybe that is why so much of what passes for "news" is targeted mainly at people's emotions.

    I Have Strange Dreams November 28, 2016 at 6:02 pm

    Why did none of the 17 intelligence agencies warn US gov employees (including SoS) that Russia had the capability to hack private servers and why was using private servers for gov business not made illegal?

    redleg November 28, 2016 at 9:19 pm

    Hillary Clinton as SOS sent a memo ordering State Department personnel to cease using private email accounts due to hacking risk.
    Oh the irony.

    Code Name D November 28, 2016 at 10:22 pm

    Especially servers that were completely unencrypted for nine-months. If only we had an intelligence apparitions to help secure government e-mail conversation on secure servers. Oh wait

    I Have Strange Dreams November 29, 2016 at 3:31 am

    Sounds like Clinton deliberately sabotaged herself. Is Clinton a Russian agent?

    Lambert Strether Post author November 29, 2016 at 4:23 am

    I couldn't work this in, but this "objectively pro-Putin" crap is - showing my age, hear - like arguing that John McNamara was a Yankee mole because he left Bill Buckner in at first base in Game Six of the 1986 World Series. I mean, come on.

    andyb November 29, 2016 at 2:05 pm

    I was at that game. Had religiously followed the Sox from the time my grandfather first took me to see Teddy Ballgame play. Used to fill out box scores when listening to a game on the radio The Buckner miscue devastated me and will be forever etched in my memory.

    Lambert Strether Post author November 29, 2016 at 2:31 pm

    I saw it on an enormous old black and white TV while I was working as a janitor. Vacuumed the rugs, then sat down and watched the game. Horrible moment, just horrible.

    tgs November 28, 2016 at 6:52 pm

    re foreign influence in American elections

    Is anyone going to seriously deny that Israel has a huge influence not just on our elections, but our foreign policy as well? As usual, it is the elephant in the room.

    integer November 29, 2016 at 3:29 am

    Is anyone going to seriously deny that Israel has a huge influence not just on our elections, but our foreign policy as well?

    Yes, however those that do so are wrong/dishonest.

    Lambert Strether Post author November 29, 2016 at 3:41 am

    I should have added AIPAC. Heck, I should have added BiBi on the House floor explaining to us what our foreign policy should be.

    Anonymouse November 28, 2016 at 8:00 pm

    Seventh, with respect to Wikipedia , telling the truth seems an odd form of influence to have problems with.

    – Lambert I believe that you meant Wikileaks instead of Wikipedia in context.

    annie moose November 28, 2016 at 8:21 pm

    Submitted for your approval. An awful lot of electrons spilt for what feelz like buyers remorse. Clinton lost because at that point in time when it was most important Hillz was hated more than the Donald pick your reason pizzagate, hacked emails, past history, comfy fbi bs, the list goes on.
    Now you have the Donald enjoy his divine light. Revel in the caucasian version of the bath party. I know I will.

    Lambert Strether Post author November 29, 2016 at 3:42 am

    > the bath party

    What's a bath party? (Not the Ba'ath Party, I assume.)

    RabidGandhi November 29, 2016 at 9:53 am

    Not sure, but I would dread being interrogated by their Comfy FBI .

    Ping November 28, 2016 at 8:38 pm

    File under: Democrats Haven't Learned Anything

    Tim Ryan, challenger to Nancy Pelosi demoratic leadership, was all over the talk shows proclaiming 'we need a new message' . His entire challenge is based on presenting 'a new message'. New PR slogans .

    The morons still don't get that it's not about crafting a "message" but about action that reflects that they have managed to venture into the real world.

    TK421 November 28, 2016 at 9:10 pm

    "Imagine having a presidential candidate in the pocket of a foreign nation!" scolded Hillary Clinton, as she went to pledge four hundred billion dollars to Israel for its plan to use Palestinians as ballast.

    scorpio November 28, 2016 at 10:22 pm

    with time we will probly come to learn that the wikileak of Podesta et al emails –like so many such situations– was an inside job, not hackers much less Russki intel. my guess is the H campaign made a few job offers to Bernie Bro techies in hopes of reaching his audience. and one of them decided to download on these Clinton grifters in hopes a better future Dem Party might rise from the neoCon neoLiberal smashup. or maybe it's just my fondest wish. as a fellow Bernie Bro

    fco November 29, 2016 at 12:29 am

    I think the Butler did it.

    Lambert Strether Post author November 29, 2016 at 3:49 am

    With the email. In the server room.

    Lambert Strether Post author November 29, 2016 at 1:12 am

    > inside job

    My private speculation, too. Bernie supporters would not be my guess, but rather somebody embedded in the Democrat nomenklatura for a long time, and somebody smart enough to use a cutout when phishing Podesta. "Embedded" long enough to get the hatred really curdled

    Marco November 29, 2016 at 5:44 am

    An optimistic sign that the snark-fog-of-war is lifting over at Atrios? "They-Had-One-Job". I prefer "She-Had-One-Job" but that may be too personal. I'm sure the commenters will smack him back into line.

    Marco November 29, 2016 at 5:53 am

    I was referring to an Atrios post at 5:30am that appears to have disappeared. Please disregard.

    Lynne November 29, 2016 at 9:11 am

    What gets me about the whole "ebil Russians" argument is that it was yet more evidence that Clinton should never be elected IF what she claimed was true. Her big selling point was that she was tested, highly competent, and experienced. Yeah, so competent that she couldn't pick campaign staff with the sense to avoid a simple phishing exercise AFTER being warned of the risk? I am constantly bombarded with horror stories of what the Feds would do to me if I had a data breach and hackers got PII (finance business). Yet here's a woman who essentially brags that they were hacked and we're supposed to agree that makes her eminently qualified?

    I told one of her supporters that her pushing the Russian hacker excuse was yet another reason not to vote for her. Their reply was to claim I probably blamed rape victims for wearing short skirts! Yeah, because the "campaign" was obviously supposed to be a coronation rather than a job interview, and obvious incompetence is to be rewarded, right?

    olga November 29, 2016 at 9:21 am

    Right the Russian-hacker claim is soooo obviously a cynical ploy (exploitation) of a campaign that had very little of meaningful substance to offer voters that I cannot even believe folks would seriously discuss it. But here we are

    hjhg November 29, 2016 at 1:00 pm

    Does Russia run covert operations to subvert whichever government they perceive as threat or are you saying that Trump is a very principled patriot and a diligent man, and would not allow himself to be used to subvert the US? This are the two most important questions and the first one is true and the second is not.

    Charles Peterson November 30, 2016 at 12:39 am

    A large number of real things could possibly have made the outcome different. By and large reasonable reasons for losing a close selection cannot be entirely debunked, though they could be ranked, and likely every ranking will be different.

    However "17 agencies" was not a respectable argument at all. It was simply a lie that Lambert has debunked.

    The people Trump has been selecting do NOT look like the ones who might turn our relationship with Russia from cold-war-with-no-name into Peace (which makes the larger claim of Russian involvement seem remote to the point of being a bad joke). Sadly, quite the reverse, with even small advances like the Iran deal likely being reversed. But making peace with Russia and her client states would actually be the most excellent thing to do right now (if not 70 years ago), and strangely I believe Russia is reasonable enough to want that, and not simply to take our place on top of the global-chaos-we-made, which they wouldn't be doing anyway.

    [Nov 30, 2016] Iraq's prime minister says his country will agree to cut its own oil production as part of a plan by OPEC to push crude prices higher.

    Nov 30, 2016 | finance.yahoo.com

    Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi told The Associated Press that current prices are not sustainable for oil-producing countries.

    Al-Abadi's comments could be critical because Iraq - along with Iran - has been reluctant to go along with cuts, creating an obstacle for an OPEC deal, according to published reports.

    Al-Abadi said he understands that OPEC members will agree to reduce production by between 900,000 and 1.2 million barrels per day - that would be a cut of between 2.7 percent and 3.6 percent from October levels. He said it would be enough to push prices up.

    "Yes, we will take our share and we agreed to this," he told the AP.

    Kenneth Medlock, director of an energy-studies center at Rice University, said if Iraq pledges to cut its own production it could influence other reluctant countries and help push OPEC to an agreement. The size of the cuts suggested by al-Abadi would be big enough to push up prices, he said.

    A successful production-cut might re-establish the cartel as oil's swing producer - able to balance global supply with demand and influence prices - "because they will then have the most flexible capability of dealing with near-term price instability, Medlock said, particularly if global inventories tighten quickly."

    Benchmark international oil rose $1, or 2 percent, on Monday to close at $48.24 a barrel. Al-Abadi said for every dollar oil prices rise, Iraq gains about $1 billion.

    In late 2014, as crude prices tumbled from more than $100 a barrel, OPEC countries decided not to intervene - they expected falling prices to drive high-cost producers in the U.S. out of business.

    But a worldwide glut of oil has persisted and OPEC has been pumping at record levels. Now the cartel is trying to regain some of its historical ability to affect prices.

    [Nov 30, 2016] Neither Steve Keen nor any other guest on RT show appears because he lambasts the American political establishment

    Nov 30, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Edward Harrison

    Hi Naked Capitalism. I haven't been on this site for some time. But I felt it necessary to comment due to an ad hominem attack from a commenter "James" regarding the show I produce at RT called Boom Bust.

    From my vantage point as producer at RT, I have been able to see the whole anti-Russia campaign unfold in all its fury. I have a lot of thoughts on this but I want to restrict my comments to the specific argument James makes. here:

    "it's also obvious that RT invites him on the network because he lambasts the American political establishment and weakens the public's confidence in its leaders. This is clearly a goal of Moscow, and they use people like Steve Keen to do it. I'm sure Steven Keen doesn't think of his role that way, but RT and Russian intelligence certainly do."

    Since I produce the show that Steve Keen appears on, I am well-placed to give you a view on this. James' comment is flat out false. What James writes is something he has fabricated in his imagination – connecting dots he believes should be connected based on no first hand evidence whatsoever.

    What actually happens on Boom Bust is this:

    Since no one I work with at RT has a sophisticated background in economics, finance or financial reporting, they give us a wide berth in putting together content for our show with nearly no top down dictates at all. That means we as American journalists have a pretty much free hand to report economic news intelligently and without bias. We invite libertarian, mainstream, non-mainstream, leftist, Democratic commentators, Republican commentators – you name it. As for guests, they are not anti-American in any way shape or form. They are disproportionately non-mainstream.

    We have no pro-Russian agenda. And that is in part because Russia is a bit player on the economic stage, frankly. Except for sanctions, it has mostly been irrelevant on our show since inception.

    Let me share a strange anecdote on that. We had a guest on our show about three years ago, early in my tenure. We invited him on because he had smart things to say about the UK economy. But he had also written some very negative things about Putin and Russia. Rather than whitewash this we addressed it specifically in the interview and asked him an open-ended question about Russia, so he could say his piece. I was ASTONISHED when he soft-pedaled his response and made no forceful case as he had done literally days ago in print. This guy clearly self-censored – for what reason I don't know. But it is something that has stayed with me ever since.

    The most important goal from a managerial perspective has been that our reporting is different i.e. covers missing and important angles of the same storyline that are missing in the mainstream media or that it covers storylines that are missing altogether.

    Neither Steve Keen nor any other guest on our show appears "because he lambasts the American political establishment". This is false. He appears on our show because he is a credible economist who provides a differentiated view on economics and insight that we believe will help our viewers understand the global economy. If Paul Krugman had something to say of that nature and would appear on our show, we would welcome him. In fact, I and other producers have reached out to him many times to no avail, especially after we had Gerald Friedman give his take on the dust-up surrounding Bernie Sanders' economic plan. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yna275KzuDQ

    Look, I understand the scepticism about RT and its motives. It IS a state-funded news outlet with news story angles that sometimes contrast sharply with western media. And it has not been critical of the Russian government as far as I can tell. But you can't ascribe nefarious motives to individual economists or reporters based on inaccurate or false third hand accounts. You are just making things up, creating a false narrative based on circumstantial evidence. This is just adding to the building peer pressure associated with what almost seems like an orchestrated campaign to discredit non-mainstream sources of news.

    ambrit November 26, 2016 at 4:18 pm

    You are in good company with that suspicion of a campaign to "sanitize" the public's sources of information. If one were to consider the Corporate sector as the equivalent of a state, then almost all news sources are liable to extra strong scrutiny. Going back to Bernays, the "shepherding" of the news sources used by the majority of the population is crucial to maintaining control of public perceptions. In that sense, the present struggle for control of the news narrative is understandable.
    Keep up the good work.

    susan the other November 26, 2016 at 12:15 pm

    This means we need more outlets besides Google and Facebook; outlets impervious to witch hunts – maybe offshore enterprises, after all that's the trend. The more the merrier for manufacturing dissent – in a good sense. What Russia does cannot harm us but it is always good to hear their take; and China is interesting as well. We get such gobbledegook from MSM we would never understand a single issue without alternative news. It's a little late for them to be all hysterical about losing their grip – they've been annoying us and boring us to death for 5 decades; and selling us down the river. I'm amazed they have a following at all.

    [Nov 28, 2016] The Fake News Witch-Hunters At The Washington Post

    Notable quotes:
    "... Washington Post ..."
    "... "The flood of 'fake news' this election season got support from a sophisticated Russian propaganda campaign that created and spread misleading articles online with the goal of punishing Democrat Hillary Clinton, helping Republican Donald Trump and undermining faith in American democracy, say independent researchers who tracked the operation." ..."
    "... "Russia's increasingly sophisticated propaganda machinery – including thousands of botnets, teams of paid human 'trolls,' and networks of websites and social-media accounts – echoed and amplified right-wing sites across the Internet as they portrayed Clinton as a criminal hiding potentially fatal health problems and preparing to hand control of the nation to a shadowy cabal of global financiers. The effort also sought to heighten the appearance of international tensions and promote fear of looming hostilities with nuclear-armed Russia." ..."
    "... "You've seen reports. Russia's hacked into a lot of things. China's hacked into a lot of things. Russia even hacked into the Democratic National Committee, maybe even some state election systems. So, we've got to step up our game. Make sure we are well defended and able to take the fight to those who go after us. ..."
    "... "As President, I will make it clear, that the United States will treat cyber attacks just like any other attack. We will be ready with serious political, economic and military responses." ..."
    "... Washington Post ..."
    "... Washington Post ..."
    "... Washington Post ..."
    "... fighting ..."
    Nov 28, 2016 | www.mintpressnews.com
    By Justin Raimondo

    No one outside of a few obsessed cranks would've noticed it if the Washington Post hadn't given it front page prominence last week: a formerly obscure web site, propornot.com, which purports to identify a "Russian active measures" campaign with some very specific goals in mind As Post "reporter" Craig Timberg put it :

    "The flood of 'fake news' this election season got support from a sophisticated Russian propaganda campaign that created and spread misleading articles online with the goal of punishing Democrat Hillary Clinton, helping Republican Donald Trump and undermining faith in American democracy, say independent researchers who tracked the operation."

    While the Post piece doesn't link directly to the propornot site – because doing so would've exposed its laughably amateurish "methodology" for all to see – Timberg does mention their list of online Boris Badenovs , including not only Antiwar.com but also the Drudge Report, WikiLeaks, David Stockman's Contra Corner, the Ron Paul Institute, LewRockwell.com, Counterpunch, Zero Hedge, Naked Capitalism, Truthdig, Truth-out, and a host of others. These sites, according to the Post , not only promoted a barrage of "fake news" with the aim of defeating Mrs. Clinton, but they did so at the behest of a "centrally-directed" (per propornot) intelligence operation undertaken by the Russians. So what did this "fake news" consist of? Timberg "reports":

    "Russia's increasingly sophisticated propaganda machinery – including thousands of botnets, teams of paid human 'trolls,' and networks of websites and social-media accounts – echoed and amplified right-wing sites across the Internet as they portrayed Clinton as a criminal hiding potentially fatal health problems and preparing to hand control of the nation to a shadowy cabal of global financiers. The effort also sought to heighten the appearance of international tensions and promote fear of looming hostilities with nuclear-armed Russia."

    Never mind that it was Hillary Clinton herself who heightened international tensions by threatening military retaliation against the Russians for supposedly unleashing via WikiLeaks a flood of embarrassing emails. In a speech touted as outlining her foreign policy platform, she railed:

    "You've seen reports. Russia's hacked into a lot of things. China's hacked into a lot of things. Russia even hacked into the Democratic National Committee, maybe even some state election systems. So, we've got to step up our game. Make sure we are well defended and able to take the fight to those who go after us.

    "As President, I will make it clear, that the United States will treat cyber attacks just like any other attack. We will be ready with serious political, economic and military responses."

    According to the "experts" at propornot – granted anonymity by Timberg due to alleged fear of "Russian hackers" – to so much as note this clear threat is to brand oneself as a "Russian agent of influence."

    And what about Mrs. Clinton's health problems – was reporting on this driven by Russian spies embedded in the alternative media? Or was it occasioned by this video , which saw her falling to the ground after leaving the 9/11 ceremony early? Are the folks at propornot and their fans at the Washington Post saying the amateur videographer who took that footage is a Russian secret agent? Were the television networks and other outlets that showed the footage "useful idiots," to employ a favorite cold war smear revived by propornot? Given their criteria for labeling people agents of the Kremlin, the answer to these questions has to be yes – and now we are falling down the rabbit hole, in a free-fall descent into lunacy.

    Propornot's " criteria " for inclusion on their blacklist is actually an ideological litmus test: if you hold certain views, you're in the pay of the Kremlin, or else an " unwitting agent " – as former CIA head Mike Morell said of Trump. If you say anything at all positive about Russia or Putin – or a long list of entities, like China or "radical political parties in the US or Europe" (does this include the GOP?) – it's a dead giveaway. We're told to "investigate this by searching for mentions of, for example, 'russia', on their site by Googling for 'site:whateversite.com Russia', and seeing what comes up."

    If only Sherlock Holmes had had Google at his disposal, those detective stories would've been a lot shorter!

    The propornot site is filled with complex graphs, and the text is riddled with "scientific"-sounding phrases, but when you get right down to it their "methodology" boils down to this: if you don't fit within a very narrow range of allowable opinion, either falling off the left edge or the right edge, you're either a paid Russian troll or else you're being "manipulated" by forces you don't understand and don't want to understand.

    Did you cheer on Brexit? You're Putin's pawn!

    Are you worried about "World War III, nuclear devastation, etc." instead of being content in the knowledge that their preferred policy – unmitigated hostility toward Russia - would "just result in a Cold War 2 and Russia's eventual peaceful defeat, like the last time"? Well, then, clearly you're either on Putin's payroll, or else you'd like to be.

    Other proscribed opinions include: "gold standard nuttery and attacks on the US dollar," believing "the mainstream media can't be trusted," and "anti-'globalism.'" And to underscore their complete lack of self-awareness, we're told that additional warning signs of Putinism are "hyperbolic alarmism" and "generally ridiculous over-the-top assertions."

    In their world, it isn't hyperbolic alarmism to point to ramshackle Russia, with a GDP equal to Spain's and a declining military budget that pales before our own, as an existential threat to the West. And if you're a reporter for the Washington Post , which has destroyed what reputation it had by effectively becoming the house organ of the Democratic National Committee, generally ridiculous overt-the-top assertions, such as those proffered by propornot, are "news."

    The Post piece also cites an article published on the "War On The Rocks" web site (which is exactly what it sounds like). The authors, a triumvirate of neocons, avers that they've been "tracking" "Russian propaganda" efforts since 2014, and they've concluded that the Grand Goal of the Russkies is to "Erode trust between citizens and elected officials and democratic institutions" – as if this process isn't occurring naturally due to the depredations of a corrupt and arrogant political class.

    Another insidious theme of Russian "active measures" as identified by these geniuses is "Stoking fears over the national debt, attacking institutions such as the Federal Reserve , and attempts to discredit Western financial experts and business leaders." So we mustn't talk about the national debt – because to do so brands one as a cog in Putin's propaganda machine. Gee, based on these criteria, we can only conclude that every vaguely conservative politician running for office in the last decade or so is part of the Vast Russian Conspiracy, not to mention numerous economists.

    And that's not all – not by a long shot. Here's a list of more Forbidden Topics we're not supposed to discuss, except maybe in whispers in the privacy of our own homes: " Police brutality , racial tensions, protests, anti-government standoffs , online privacy concerns , and alleged government misconduct are all emphasized [by the Vast Russian Conspiracists – ed.] to magnify their scale and leveraged to undermine the fabric of society." After all, Russia Today is "emphasizing" these issues – so mum's the word!

    Yes, these people are serious – but why should anyone take them seriously? Why is the Washington Post "reporting" this nonsense – and putting it on the front page, no less? In short, what's the purpose of this virulent propaganda campaign? After all, Hillary Clinton has been defeated, along with her campaign theme of "A vote for Trump is a vote for Putin." What does a continuation of this losing mantra hope to accomplish?

    The folks at propornot are explicit about their goal: they want the government to step in. They want to close down these "agents of influence." In their own words, they want the FBI and the Department of Justice to launch "formal investigations" of the sites on their blacklist on the grounds that "the kind of folks who make propaganda for brutal oligarchies are often involved in a wide range of bad business." They accuse the proprietors of the listed web sites – including us, by the way – of having "violated the Espionage Act, the Foreign Agents Registration Act, and other related laws."

    Oh, but they say they want to "avoid McCarthyism"! They just want to shut us down and shut us up.

    These people are authoritarians, plain and simple: under the guise of fighting authoritarianism, they seek to ban dissenting views, jail the dissenters, and impose a narrow range of permissible debate on the public discourse. They are dangerous, and they need to be outed and publicly shamed.

    To be included on their list of "subversives" is really a badge of honor, and one we here at Antiwar.com wear proudly.

    [Nov 28, 2016] Governments Are Running Out Of Excuses Paul Craig Roberts Exposes The Western War On Truth by Paul Craig Roberts

    Notable quotes:
    "... Western democracies have found it essential to align themselves firmly with lies in order to pursue their agendas. Now these Western governments are attempting to discredit the truthtellers who challenge their lies. ..."
    "... Russian news services are under attack from the EU and Western presstitutes as purveyors of "fake news. " Abiding by its Washington master's orders, the EU actually passed a resolution against Russian media for not following Washington's line. ..."
    "... As George Orwell predicted, telling the truth is now regarded by Western "democratic" governments as a hostile act. ..."
    "... Does propornot.com's funding come from the CIA, the National Endowment for Democracy, George Soros? ..."
    "... In the West those who disagree with the murderous and reckless policies of public officials are demonized as "Russian agents." The president-elect of the United States himself has been designated a "Russian agent." ..."
    "... Clearly, Western governments and Western media have no respect for truth, so how can the West possibly be democratic? ..."
    "... The presstitute Washington Post played its assigned role in the claim promoted by Washington that the alternative media consists of Russian agents. Craig Timberg, who appears devoid of integrity or intelligence, and perhaps both, is the WaPo stooge who reported the fake news that "two teams of independent researchers" - none of whom are identified - found that the Russians exploited my gullibility, that of CounterPunch, Professor Michel Chossudosky of Global Researh, Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell, Justin Raimondo and that of 194 other websites to help "an insurgent candidate" (Trump) "claim the White House." ..."
    "... Western governments are running out of excuses. Since the Clinton regime, the accumulation of war crimes committed by Western governments exceed those of Nazi Germany. Millions of Muslims have been slaughtered, dislocated, and dispossessed in seven countries. Not a single Western war criminal has been held accountable. ..."
    Nov 28, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    Authored by Paul Craig Roberts,

    The "war on terror" has simultaneously been a war on truth. For fifteen years-from 9/11 to Saddam Hussein's "weapons of mass destruction" and "al Qaeda connections," "Iranian nukes," "Assad's use of chemical weapons," endless lies about Gadaffi, "Russian invasion of Ukraine"-the governments of the so-called Western democracies have found it essential to align themselves firmly with lies in order to pursue their agendas. Now these Western governments are attempting to discredit the truthtellers who challenge their lies.

    Russian news services are under attack from the EU and Western presstitutes as purveyors of "fake news. " Abiding by its Washington master's orders, the EU actually passed a resolution against Russian media for not following Washington's line. Russian President Putin said that the resolution is a "visible sign of degradation of Western society's idea of democracy."

    As George Orwell predicted, telling the truth is now regarded by Western "democratic" governments as a hostile act. A brand new website, propornot.com, has just made its appearance condemning a list of 200 Internet websites that provide news and views at variance with the presstitute media that serves the governments' agendas. Does propornot.com's funding come from the CIA, the National Endowment for Democracy, George Soros?

    I am proud to say that paulcraigroberts.org is on the list.

    In the West those who disagree with the murderous and reckless policies of public officials are demonized as "Russian agents." The president-elect of the United States himself has been designated a "Russian agent."

    This scheme to redefine truthtellers as propagandists has backfired. The effort to discredit truthtellers has instead produced a catalogue of websites where reliable information can be found, and readers are flocking to the sites on the list. Moreover, the effort to discredit truthtellers shows that Western governments and their presstitutes are intolerant of truth and diverse opinion and are committed to forcing people to accept self-serving government lies as truth.

    Clearly, Western governments and Western media have no respect for truth, so how can the West possibly be democratic?

    The presstitute Washington Post played its assigned role in the claim promoted by Washington that the alternative media consists of Russian agents. Craig Timberg, who appears devoid of integrity or intelligence, and perhaps both, is the WaPo stooge who reported the fake news that "two teams of independent researchers" - none of whom are identified - found that the Russians exploited my gullibility, that of CounterPunch, Professor Michel Chossudosky of Global Researh, Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell, Justin Raimondo and that of 194 other websites to help "an insurgent candidate" (Trump) "claim the White House."

    Note the term applied to Trump - "insurgent candidate." That tells you all you need to know. You can read here what passes as "reliable reporting" in the presstitute Washington Post , and here .

    Glenn Greenwald of The Intercept, which somehow escaped inclusion in The 200, unloads on Timberg and the Washington Post here .

    Western governments are running out of excuses. Since the Clinton regime, the accumulation of war crimes committed by Western governments exceed those of Nazi Germany. Millions of Muslims have been slaughtered, dislocated, and dispossessed in seven countries. Not a single Western war criminal has been held accountable.

    The despicable Washington Post is a prime apologist for these war criminals. The entire Western print and TV media is so heavily implicated in the worst war crimes in human history that, if justice ever happens, the presstitutes will stand in the dock with the Clintons, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, Obama and their neocon operatives or handlers as the case may be.

    Radical Marijuana Nov 27, 2016 11:30 PM ,

    The only thing that is "new" is the technological means, which depended on series of intellectual scientific revolutions and profound paradigm shifts in mathematical physics. Otherwise, it is the same as it has always been .

    The oldest and best developed forms of social science and engineering where warfare.

    Everything civilization has developed to become is due to the long, long history of warfare.

    Intense paradoxes arise as sets of consistent contradictions from those basic social facts.

    The oldest book on The Art of War begins by stating that "success in war depends on deceits," and ends with "spies are the most important soldiers."

    Sun Tzu's Art of War

    Ebook whose link only works when copied & pasted:

    http://www.artofwarsuntzu.com/Art of War PDF.pdf

    Page 4, point 18.

    All warfare is based on deception.

    Page 17, point 15.

    In war, practice dissimulation, and you will succeed.

    Page 35. Chapter XIII.

    THE USE OF SPIES

    The essential political problems regarding "the truth" were recognized long ago:

    In the fifth century BC,

    Greek dramatist Aeschylus said:

    "In war, truth is the first casualty."

    While I agreed with everything that Paul Craig Roberts wrote, and especially that, so far, 9/11 was the most spectacular symbol of the "War on Truth," there is nothing "new" in Roberts' presentations, because he does not attempt to make political science become more consistent with physical science, since he does not attempt to transform political science in ways which go through series of intellectual scientific revolutions and profound paradigm shifts, in the ways that mathematical physics already has.

    There is nothing "new" in civilization being based upon being able to back up lies with violence. "Western Civilization" simply became able to do that on a greater scale than ever before! The only things which are "new" are due to enforced frauds being able to be done with exponentially advancing technologies, due to the prodigious progress in mathematical physics, which has driven exponentially increasing fraudulence, becoming more and more blatant, such that more and more people are noticing the apparent anomalies that governments were always the biggest forms of organized crime, dominated by the best organized gangs of criminals.

    We should look for inspiration to mathematical physics regarding how to transform political science! The main theme of progress in physical science has been to develop UNITARY MECHANISMS in order to encompass previous presumptions of DUALITIES.

    IF "Western Civilization" is going to renew itself, then it should apply the progress it made in scientific methods to better understand political science. However, that can not be done without going through series of intellectual scientific revolutions and profound paradigm shifts. In my opinion, authors like Roberts, as well as most of the rest of the content published on Zero Hedge , still only engages in superficially correct analysis of the increasingly apparent anomalies that Globalized Neolithic Civilization, as dominated by Western Civilization, has driven sociopolitical systems based upon enforcing frauds to become exponentially more fraudulent, since what was "new" that has been added were the technologies which enabled that to happen.

    It is because the progress in mathematical physics enabled technologies to become trillions of times more powerful and capable than ever before in human history that we should be looking at how and why that was possible in order to perhaps transform political science enough to cope with the consequences of having done that. I.e., stop thinking about "truth versus lies" as DUALITIES, but rather, attempt to develop UNITARY MECHANISMS which encompass both!

    VWAndy -> Radical Marijuana Nov 27, 2016 11:33 PM ,
    The stuff in that book has saved my but so many times.
    TNTARG Radical Marijuana Nov 27, 2016 11:46 PM ,
    Very interesting approach. This global stage of decline could well be the opportunity for a little step towards evolution. Or extinction.

    Since there is not much left to corrupt...

    Dave Whiteman Radical Marijuana Nov 27, 2016 11:59 PM ,
    that'z whut mcnamara said
    ecrtr Nov 27, 2016 11:27 PM ,
    In other words, if people continue to tell the truth, the deep state will be bankrupted when they try to put all of is in internment camps?
    Rebel yell Nov 27, 2016 11:31 PM ,
    The establishment lost the information war because they keep lying. Everyone who takes an interest in the world around them is onto them. They are panicking because they wanted to go to war against Assad and got caught up in a campaign of terror and deception. People all over the world are rising up against the vampire globalists need for more blood, war, and money. Leaders all over the world are terrified because they know how truly appalling their actions were and they never thought that those actions would see the light of day. First with Brexit, then the Trump victory, in France the National Front Party, in Germany The AfD, in Austria the Freedom Party, the world is rejecting the establishment and their bloody wars!
    big-data Nov 27, 2016 11:33 PM ,
    ZeroHedgers, Want to know how propaganda works and how it was used during the election cycle? How about how propaganda is used with surveillance? All here. This will blow your mind! Media As a Shaping Agent of Society: The Technology of Influence https://medium.com/deepconnections/media-as-a-shaping-agent-of-society-wherefore-art-thou-treacherous-62b4c3f843d6#.waoukm742

    [Nov 27, 2016] Washington Post Promotes Shadowy Website That Accuses 200 Publications of Being Russian Propaganda Plants

    This idea of McCarthy style attack turned in promotion with some sites having large flow of donations from outrages readers.
    Notable quotes:
    "... By Max Blumenthal, a senior editor of the Grayzone Project at AlterNet, and the award-winning author of Goliath and Republican Gomorrah. His most recent book is The 51 Day War: Ruin and Resistance in Gaza. Follow him on Twitter at @MaxBlumenthal. Originally published at Alternet ..."
    "... it was created about three months ago when the Red baiting was already in full swing in the media. ..."
    "... it now has a wikipedia page as of 15 Nov. ..."
    "... Congratulations! That site is like a who's who of influential critical reporting. I suspect, as with so many of the bubble-dwellers attempts, that this slapdash but probably overpriced effort will drive traffic to those sites while reducing the credibility of its promoters. An instant classic own-goal. I look forward to the inevitable and embarassing revelations about their founders and funding. ..."
    "... Under general tenets of defamation law (statutory and in common law), it is not just the original entity or person defaming (including defamation "per se") another that is liable for such torts, but others who carelessly or recklessly repeat the original defamatory statements/claims (in this case, both The Washington Post & New York Times bear similar potential liability as PropOrNot). ..."
    "... Requires actual malice since it's the media you're suing – but that can be proven by reckless indifference to the truth which this might actually meet the standard of, especially since the site isn't making this claim based on anything other than the content of the views espoused by the sites. ..."
    "... i vaguely thought the actual malice requirement was tied to the target being a public figure; maybe running a blog qualifies. ..."
    "... Propornot is directly accusing NC and the rest of a crime (espionage), which constitutes defamation per se, so I think the only issue before the court would be whether it was done with reckless indifference. ..."
    "... The MSM did such a fine job reporting the news during the campaign. (16 anti-Sanders stories in 16 hours from the WaPo. A new record.) Are small news/opinion sites cutting into their online advertising revenue. ;) ..."
    "... Second, had you bothered to read the actual PropOrNot site, it accuses all of the sites listed as being "propaganda outlets" under the influence of "coordinators abroad" (#11 in its FAQ). ..."
    "... And under #7, PropOrNot asserts that "some" of the sites are guilty of violating the Espionage Act and the Foreign Agent Registration Act, as in accusing them of being spies and calling for investigation (by implication of all, since how do you know which is or isn't) by the FBI and DoJ. ..."
    "... Their MSM propaganda isn't working and they see it. They already heavily censor comments on their MSM sites. Other MSM sights such as Bloomberg closed down comments altogether. Expect more of that. ..."
    "... what weakens people's confidence in their leaders is their not addressing people's issues and lying about their inability to do so. Despite protestations from the likes of much of our 'intelligentsia', mainstream media, and most of our political class, the majority of people are not stupid. There is a reason why terms like 'lame stream media' resonate with a large number of people. ..."
    "... For instance when Obama is out there talking about a recovery and people know that there is no such thing in their lives, their communities then HE has lost their confidence – not someone giving an interview on RT. ..."
    "... Or to put it another way the problem isn't someone going on RT and saying the emperor isn't wearing clothes, the problem is that the emperor isn't wearing clothes. ..."
    "... Steve Keen is great, and I love his work, but it's also obvious that RT invites him on the network because he lambasts the American political establishment and weakens the public's confidence in its leaders. This is clearly a goal of Moscow, and they use people like Steve Keen to do it. I'm sure Steven Keen doesn't think of his role that way, but RT and Russian intelligence certainly do. ..."
    "... How do you know any of this? how would you know would Russian intelligence's goals are, or how they think of Steve Keen? this is all just McCarthyism 2016, accusing the left of being dupes or willing agents of Russia. McCarthy had his 200 communists in the state department, this website and the Washington Post have their 200 Russian propaganda websites. Why are you catapulting this bullshit? ..."
    "... James do you happen to remember when those intelligence agencies reported Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction.? How about when North Korea hacked Sony? Both of which were inaccurate and dare I say it propaganda intended to mislead the American public. ..."
    "... Why does Naval Intelligence have anything to do with this investigation? ..."
    "... Why were 17 agencies watching the DNC? ..."
    "... The immediate claims that Russia hacked the DNC were never credible to any one with even a bit of knowledge about high level hacking. The 17 agency thing was outright laughable once you asked the simple question of what most of them had to do with this investigation. And USA Today was and is the print equivalent of the Yahoo front page. ..."
    "... oh so now you're an intelligence expert, but somehow you still don't have any evidence, because the "17 intelligence agencies" don't have any evidence either. they didn't have evidence of wmd's but i bet you fell for that, too. i think the most dishonest line in your post is this: You should wander out of the alt-left echo chamber once in a while and stop thinking that any criticism of Russia is 'red-baiting' and propaganda ..."
    "... If Russia is actively trying to influence American politics, then they have been far more effective than the US and get a much bigger bang for their buck. For one thing, they didn't have to drop a single bomb to effect a regime change. So assuming you are correct, the noise is just a hysterical regime change envy. ..."
    "... So are RT and Sputnik propaganda outlets? Sometimes they are, but sometimes they report the truth that our MSM, having given up the last shreds of their journalistic integtity in return for access, won't report. ..."
    "... Given the widespread funding of media (including government-owned media) by Western governments, I would say that US and Euro hysteria about Russian propaganda, real and imagined, is yet another off-putting display of noxious American exceptionalism. ..."
    "... I grew up listening to broadcasts of RFE and VOA behind the Iron Curtain, and mixed in with honest reporting was a heavy dose of propaganda aimed at weakening Eastern European governments. Now, it is the America For Bulgaria Foundation that funds several media outlets in the country. What they all have in common is rabid Russophobia-driven editorial stances, and one can easily conclude that it is driven by the almighty dollar rather than by honest, deeply held convictions. So, America can do it but whines like a toddler when it is allegedly done to it?! What a crock. ..."
    "... The worst thing is that regardless of whatever propaganda wars are going on, this list constitutes a full frontal attack on free speech in the alleged "Land of the Free." Besides NC, there are number of sites distinguished by thorough, quality reporting of the kind that WaPo and NYT no longer engage in. Having grown up behind the Iron Curtain, this is chilling to me. Dissident voices speaking against the endless wars for profit and neoliberalism are in effect being intimidated and smeared by anonymous thugs. This, while the militarized local police and federal agencies, closely coordinated by "fusion centers", have ruthlessly put down a number of citizen protests, have engaged in spying on all of us, and have gone after whistleblowers for exposing the reach and scope of the surveillance state. These are the hallmarks of dictatorships, not of the alleged "world's greatest democracy and beacon of freedom." What the eff happened to America, and why are you equating challenging the oppressive and exploitative status quo with being "unwitting Russian dupes?" Seems to me that the useful idi0t here is you, with all due respect. ..."
    "... American intelligence uses exactly the same tactics, and has since at least WW1. Selling the American public on the Iraq war is a classic example. Remember that all news is biased, some much more so than others (we report, you decide.) ..."
    "... The advent of the internet and the subsequent broadening of readily available news of all slants has made it much harder for any intelligence agency of any specific country to control the news( but it has made it extremely easy for them to monitor what we are reading). ..."
    "... . The normal tell for this is being state sponsored, or having a big sugar daddy providing the funding, and Yves doesn't have any of that. ..."
    "... Some of us happen to believe that 'lambast[ing] the American political establishment and weaken[ing] the public's confidence in its leaders' is in the best interests of everyone on the planet, including the American public. If that constitutes propaganda, I'm not about to look that gift horse in the mouth. RT isn't perfect – I personally find their relentless cheerleading for economic growth rather wearying – but it knocks spots off the competition and consistently sends me scurrying to the internet to chase up on new faces and leads. I'm grateful for that. ..."
    "... Steve Keen is great, and I love his work, but it's also obvious ..."
    "... It is obvious that Russia has been trying to influence American politics. The very existence of RT makes that obvious. What is not obvious is why modestly left-of-center Americans' political concerns should be subject to McCarthyite attacks in our most influential news outlets. We've been subject to internally generated far-right propaganda for decades now and have seen minimal, feeble 'mainstream' efforts to counter it. The far right has done tremendous damage to our nation and is poised to do much more now that its doyens control all branches of the federal government. ..."
    "... What I interpret this as is a strike by 'think tank' grifters against those who are most likely to damage their incomes, their prestige and their exceedingly comfortable berths on the Acela corridor. It's a slightly panicky, febrile effort by a bunch of heels who are looking at losing their mid-6-figure incomes . and becoming like so many of the rest of us: over-credentialed, under-paid and unable to afford life in the charming white parts of our coastal metropolises. ..."
    "... You've just libeled me. You have no evidence whatsoever to substantiate your claim. Nor do you have any evidence that Russia has been "aggressively" trying to influence US politics. This is one of many hysterical lines offered by Team Dem over the course of this election, up there with depicting all Trump voters as racist yahoos. ..."
    "... "Russia is aggressively trying to influence American politics" Apparently with the help of Hillz. Was her decision to use a private email server made with the help of Putin? ..."
    "... If you'd like, take a trip in the Wayback Machine to 1959. Then you'll find many criticisms of US society by the Civil Rights movement sharing the same sinister tone as criticisms made by Soviet new outlets. Then you'll also find a gaggle of US pols and their minions claiming on that basis that the Civil Rights movement is communist inspired, funded, and run. Then you'll also find many people who don't bother to distinguish source from story and end up enjoying the official Kool Aid. ..."
    "... It reminds me of a story from Northern Ireland in the 1960's when the leader of a civil rights march was asked by a BBC reporter 'is it true that your organisation has been infiltrated by radicals and communists?' His reply was to sigh and say 'I f**king wish it was true'. ..."
    "... @hemeantwell – This same claim of communist inspiration and connection was also thrown at the anti-war movement. I remember arguing with a friend of my parents in the summer of 1969, after my freshman year at college where I was active in the anti-war and anti-draft movements. After countering all of the arguments made by this gentleman, he was left with nothing to say but "Well, that's the Commie's line " as a final dismissal. ..."
    "... Right up to his death on 4 Apr 1968, Martin Luther King was accused by J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI of "knowingly, willingly and regularly cooperating with and taking guidance from communists." Now there's a US national holiday in King's honor. ..."
    "... It's all propaganda of one sort or another. I exhort you to read Plato and understand that the Sophists for which Socrates held so much ire are much the same as anon and administration sources for so much of what drives journalism. ..."
    "... NC separates the wheat from the chaff. ..."
    "... Verdict on PropOrNot: Looks like Prop to me. Getting really sloppy, Oligarchy ..."
    "... This has all the earmarks of an effort by the Nuland Neocons that joined Camp Hillary, and now in defeat constitute a portion Hillary's professional dead enders. ..."
    "... Camp Hillary, as you call it, has decamped and is on the march. It has powerful allies in the intelligence community, the media and actors on the world stage who deem Trump to be an existential threat to America and world. The story of Russian inspired fake news is paving the way for regime change, an HRC specialty. The recount is the tip of the spear. If they can pull this coup off, sites like this will move from the useful idiot category to the enemy of the state category overnight. ..."
    "... Manfred Keeting November 26, 2016 at 4:01 am If you weren't on the Nixon's enemies list, there was something wrong with you ..."
    "... First as tragedy, then as farce. People literally killed themselves because of McCarthyism. No one is going to kill themselves over this farce. ..."
    "... Aha, I have solved the mystery. It is elementary my dear Watson! The PropOrNot site is itself a Russian propaganda ploy on the part of the KGB! What? errr, ok, the FSB then. ..."
    "... But Max himself is an interesting character. I've been scratching my head wondering how a guy one step removed (Sidney Blumenthal) from the Clintons' inner circles is ambitious about exposing the ludicrous claims made by those same people regarding Palestine and Syria. ..."
    "... I like the idea some commenter had (too lazy to find it right now) that all these strategems were long-prepared, and in place for a Clinton victory. Now the Clinton faction in the political class is deploying them anyhow. They'd better hurry, because influence peddling at the Clinton Foundation isn't as lucrative as it once was . ..."
    "... For long time readers this russian(chinese) propaganda should be obvious. And it is ok, get used to it. Great opportunity to learn "how to read between the lines", and when you understand, solidifying into a basic skill. ..."
    "... Be careful NC. MSM are in panic. They see that their propaganda is less and less effective and start targeting those who offer an alternative against their obsolete narratives. Be prepared: when they will realize that these don't work at all, their fake democracy will become an open dictatorship. ..."
    "... The US MSM is all propaganda all the time-every bit as bad as Pravda ever was. RT now is the "anti-propaganda." They were even carrying Jesse Ventura and other Americans who are blacklisted by the MSM. ..."
    "... This is a "hail mary pass." ..."
    "... A hail mary pass that was intercepted by the opposing team and run back for a touchdown. ..."
    "... What exactly is the origin of the Russia bashing that's been going on as of late? I feel like I missed some important public dis somewhere that would explain it all. Condoleeza Rice's general dated anti-Soviet attitude I could understand, but that doesn't explain the escalating bigotry pouring out of Obama and Clinton (and their various surrogates). Is it a case of a bomb in search of a war? ..."
    "... Looks to me like it came out of the HRC campaign. ..."
    "... What exactly is the origin of the Russia bashing that's been going on as of late? I think it can be traced back to this . ..."
    "... I don't think there is an easy answer to your question, but I think it goes around to the failed Ukrainian coup (well, partially failed) and the realisation within a certain element of the neocon establishment that Putin had been inadvertently strengthened by their policy failures in the Ukraine and Syria. I think there was a concerted element within the Blob to refocus on 'the Russian threat' to cover up their failures in the Middle East and the refusal of the Chinese to take the bait in the Pacific. ..."
    "... This rolled naturally into concerns about cyberwar and it was a short step from there to using Russian cyberespionage to cover up the establishments embarrassment over wikileaks and multiple other failures exposed by outsiders. As always, when a narrative suits (for different reasons) the two halves of the establishment, the mainstream media is always happy to run it unquestioningly. ..."
    "... So in short, I think its a mixture of genuine conspiracy, mixed in with political opportunism. ..."
    "... Listen to Gore Vidal (in 1994!) and find out why: https://www.c-span.org/video/?61333-1/state-united-states ..."
    "... That is very good question and it does not have a simple answer. I have been pondering this for 8 years now. The latest bout of Russia-hatred began as Putin began to re-assert their sovereignty after the disastrous Yeltsin years. This intensified after Georgia, Ukraine and Syria. In adddition the US was preprogrammed to hate Russia for historical reasons. Mostly because of the Soviet era but also when the US inherited the global empire from the Brits we also got some of their dislike of the Russian empire dating back to the 19th century. ..."
    "... It all started when Putin arrested the Russian oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky, when Putin put a stop to the shock therapy looting of Russia by the Harvard mafia and Jeffrey Sachs. Didn't he know that oligarch's are above the law? They are in the US. Didn't he know that money can buy you immunity from prosecution like it does in Europe and the US? Can't have that, hence the Ukraine, deprive him of his warm water naval base. Then there was the Crimean referendum. Out smarted again! Can't have that! ..."
    "... And so the Democratic Party ends, not with a bang, but with a McCarthyite lynch mob. ..."
    "... Didn't we used to call "fake news" rumors? And when did newspapers stop printing rumors? ..."
    "... Based on the evidence of above mentioned link, this "PropOrNot" can be part of a project of U.S. government to manipulate media to create an anti-Russia climate or more likely another method of attack on what they consider "Left" so status quo in economic policies of U.S. can be maintained. ..."
    "... it scares the pants off me ..."
    "... I'm with you Tom Stone. There is nothing funny about this. The MSM at this point is the greatest purveyor of fake news on the planet, I am talking about not just CNN and Fox, but the BBC, France24 and so on. ..."
    "... Pretty much everything they have said and every video they has shown on east Aleppo is either a lie or a fake. As someone noted the other day (I can't remember who) if the stories about east Aleppo were actually true, then the Russians and Syrians have destroyed approximately 900 hospitals – including the 'last pediatric hospital in east Aleppo' which has been completely demolished on at least three separate occasions in the last few months. The main stream outlets don't even try to be consistent. ..."
    "... It's 90 hospitals not 900, but 90 is just as ridiculous given the whole country of Syria only has 88 hospitals/clinics. ..."
    "... Weapons of Mass Distraction. Another nail in the coffin of credibility of the NYT and WaPo. Recall after the Stupid War and how there were zero weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq that the NYT and Wapo declined to mention or explore their own culpability in beating the drums of war. This will be more of the same. ..."
    "... I suspect that PropOrNot's outburst was developed during the campaign by well heeled and connected Hilary supporters to be unveiled after the election to muzzle increasingly influential web sites including NC. As it stands PropOrNot shot a blank. If Hilary had won the campaign against "fake news" would probably have taken on a more ominous tone. ..."
    "... PropOrNot is asserting that the sites on the 'List", both right and left, were responsible for the Clinton loss by spreading false Russian propaganda. This would make more sense, as a political project, if Clinton had won. Asking the Trump DOJ and Trump's/Comey's FBI to investigate the asserted causes of Trump's win is bizarre. ..."
    "... Excellent observation, preparation for a post Killery election purge of the alternate media. ..."
    "... Lots of panic for the Washington regime. The clownish asshole loser that they carefully groomed proved less repulsive than their chosen Fuehrer Clinton. Now they are distraught to see that their enemy Russia sucks much less than the USA. ..."
    "... Washington Post ..."
    "... Jill Stein has embarrassed herself with this effort. I gave money to her until she made her final vp choice – Baraka called Bernie a white supremacist! I did vote for her and now feel it really was a wasted vote. 1% in the national totals. Ok. Being a useful idiot for the Clintons – no way. ..."
    "... When the rot is complete and the edifice tumbles? Or when TINA wins, and the voices go silent? My bet is on the later. Collectively, the money got all 4 aces (and a few more hidden up their sleaves and a few more hidden in their boots, etc – no end of aces.) ..."
    "... Charles Hugh-Smith's response to the "list": "The Washington Post: Useful-Idiot Shills for a Failed, Frantic Status Quo That Has Lost Control of the Narrative" ..."
    Nov 26, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Yves here. As indicated in Links, we'll have more to say about this in due course. Note, however, that as Blumenthal points out, some of the sites that are listed as PropOrNot allies receive US government funding. As Mark Ames pointed out via e-mail, "The law is still clear that US State Dept money and probably BBG money cannot be used to propagandize American audiences." So if these sites really are "allies" in terms of providing hard dollars or other forms of support (shared staff, research), this site and its allies may be in violation of US statutes.

    By Max Blumenthal, a senior editor of the Grayzone Project at AlterNet, and the award-winning author of Goliath and Republican Gomorrah. His most recent book is The 51 Day War: Ruin and Resistance in Gaza. Follow him on Twitter at @MaxBlumenthal. Originally published at Alternet

    A shady website that claims "Russia is Manipulating US Opinion Through Online Propaganda" has compiled a blacklist of websites its anonymous authors accuse of pushing fake news and Russian propaganda. The blacklist includes over 200 outlets, from the right-wing Drudge Report and Russian government-funded Russia Today, to Wikileaks and an array of marginal conspiracy and far-right sites. The blacklist also includes some of the flagship publications of the progressive left, including Truthdig, Counterpunch, Truthout, Naked Capitalism, and the Black Agenda Report, a leftist African-American opinion hub that is critical of the liberal black political establishment.

    Called PropOrNot, the blacklisting organization was described by the Washington Post's Craig Timberg as "a nonpartisan collection of researchers with foreign policy, military and technology backgrounds." The Washington Post agreed to preserve the anonymity of the group's director on the grounds that exposure could result in their being targeted by "Russia's legions of skilled hackers." The Post failed to explain what methods PropOrNot relied on to conclude that "stories planted or promoted by the Russian disinformation campaign were viewed more than 213 million times." (Timberg also cited a report co-authored by Aaron Weisburg, founder of the one-man anti-Palestinian "Internet Haganah" operation, who has been accused of interfering in federal investigations, stealing the personal information of anarchists, online harassment, and fabricating information to smear his targets.)

    Despite the Washington Post's charitable description of PropOrNot as a group of independent-minded researchers dedicated to protecting the integrity of American democracy, the shadowy group bears many of the qualities of the red enemies it claims to be battling. In addition to its blacklist of Russian dupes, it lists a collection of outlets funded by the U.S. State Department, NATO and assorted tech and weapons companies as "allies." PropOrNot's methodology is so shabby it is able to peg widely read outlets like Naked Capitalism, a leading left-wing financial news blog, as Russian propaganda operations.

    Though the supposed experts behind PropOrNot remain unknown, the site has been granted a veneer of credibility thanks to the Washington Post, and journalists from the New York Times, including deputy Washington editor Jonathan Weissman to former Obama senior advisor Dan Pfeiffer , are hailing Timberg's story as Pulitzer-level journalism. "Russia appears to have successfully hacked American democracy," declared Sahil Kapur, the senior political reporter for Bloomberg. The dead-enders of Hillary Clinton's campaign for president have also seized on PropOrNot's claims as proof that the election was rigged, with Clinton confidant and Center For American Progress president Neera Tanden declaring , "Wake up people," as she blasted out the Washington Post article on Russian black ops.

    PropOrNot's malicious agenda is clearly spelled out on its website. While denying McCarthyite intentions, the group is openly attempting to compel "formal investigations by the U.S. government, because the kind of folks who make propaganda for brutal authoritarian oligarchies are often involved in a wide range of bad business." The group also seeks to brand major progressive politics sites (and a number of prominent right-wing opinion outlets) as "'gray' fake-media propaganda outlets" influenced or directly operated by Russia's Federal Security Service (FSB). It can then compel Facebook and Google to ban them , denying them the ad revenue they rely on to survive.

    Though PropOrNot's hidden authors claim, "we do not reach our conclusions lightly," the group's methodology leaves more than enough room to smear an outlet on political grounds. Among the criteria PropOrNot identifies as clear signs of Russian propaganda are, "Support for policies like Brexit, and the breakup of the EU and Eurozone" and, "Opposition to Ukrainian resistance to Russia and Syrian resistance to Assad."

    By these standards, any outlet that raises the alarm about the considerable presence of extreme right-wing elements among the post-Maidan Ukrainian government or that questions the Western- and Saudi-funded campaign for regime change in Syria can be designated a Russia dupe or a paid agent of the FSB. Indeed, while admitting that they have no idea whether any of the outlets they blacklisted are being paid by Russian intelligence or are even aware they are spreading Russian propaganda, PropOrNot's authors concluded that any outlets that have met their highly politicized criteria "have effectively become tools of the Russian intelligence services, and are worthy of further investigation."

    Among the most ironic characteristics of PropOrNot is its claim to be defending journalistic integrity, a rigorous adherence to the facts, and most of all, a sense of political levity. In fact, the group's own literature reflects a deeply paranoid view of Russia and the outside world. According to PropOrNot's website , Russia is staging a hostile takeover of America's alternative online media environment "in order to Make Russia Great Again (as a new 'Eurasian' empire stretching from Dublin to Vladisvostok), on the other. That means preserving Russian allies like Bashar al-Assad in Syria, breaking up the 'globalist' EU, NATO, and US-aligned trade and defense organizations, and getting countries to join 'Eurasianist' Russian equivalents Or else."

    The message is clear: Stamp out the websites blacklisted by PropOrNot,or submit to the malevolent influence of Putin's "new global empire."

    Among the websites listed by PropOrNot as "allies" are a number of groups funded by the U.S. government or NATO. They include InterpreterMag, an anti-Russian media monitoring blog funded through Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, an arm of the U.S. government, which is edited by the hardline neoconservative Michael Weiss. Polygraph Fact Check, another project of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty aimed at Russian misinformation, is listed as an "ally." So is Bellingcat, the crowdsourced military analysis blog run by Elliot Higgins through the Atlantic Council, which receives funding from the U.S. State Department, various Gulf monarchies and the weapons industry. (Bellingcat is directly funded by Google, according to Higgins.)

    Unfortunately for PropOrNot's mysterious authors, an alliance requires the consent of all parties involved. Alerted to his designation on the website, Bellingcat's Higgins immediately disavowed it: "Just want to note I hadn't heard of Propornot before the WP piece and never gave permission to them to call Bellingcat 'allies,'" he wrote .

    As scrutiny of PropOrNot increases, its credibility is rapidly unraveling. But that has not stopped Beltway media wiseguys and Democratic political operatives from hyping its claims. Fake news and Russian propaganda have become the great post-election moral panic, a creeping Sharia-style conspiracy theory for shell-shocked liberals. Hoping to punish the dark foreign forces they blame for rigging the election, many of these insiders have latched onto a McCarthyite campaign that calls for government investigations of a wide array of alternative media outlets. In this case, the medicine might be worse than the disease.

    Daryl November 26, 2016 at 1:38 am

    The PropOrNot domain was registered on August 21st. It's hosted on Blogger.

    Seems pretty legit to me.

    Daryl November 27, 2016 at 1:30 am

    What I meant by my sarcastic remark is that there seems to be absolutely no reason to trust anything it says, from its content, to the fact that it was created about three months ago when the Red baiting was already in full swing in the media.

    begob November 27, 2016 at 9:00 am

    And it now has a wikipedia page as of 15 Nov. Plus discussion on non-deletion:

    Skip Intro November 26, 2016 at 1:53 am

    Congratulations! That site is like a who's who of influential critical reporting. I suspect, as with so many of the bubble-dwellers attempts, that this slapdash but probably overpriced effort will drive traffic to those sites while reducing the credibility of its promoters. An instant classic own-goal. I look forward to the inevitable and embarassing revelations about their founders and funding.

    JEHR November 26, 2016 at 1:24 pm

    Yes, now I know where to go to read good critical analyses (the list).

    jrs November 26, 2016 at 2:37 pm

    The full list was a mix of really good sites and the unknown personal blogs of some whack-a -doodles producing "content" of little value. I see the list linked to is smaller.

    "Collectively, this propaganda is undermining our public discourse by providing a warped view of the world, where Russia can do no wrong, and America is a corrupt dystopia that is tearing itself apart."

    Meanwhile publicans even they would deem credible like the L.A. times report there are 63,000 homeless youths in los angeles. Corrupt dystopia? No it can not be.

    "It is vital that this effort be exposed for what it is: A coordinated attempt to deceive U.S. citizens into acting in Russia's interests."

    look idiots, the truth as I understand it is neither Russian interest NOR US government interests are necessarily in my interest

    kimsarah November 26, 2016 at 2:09 am

    Meanwhile, the Clintonoids still trying to twist the arms of electoral college voters. What stage of grief is this?
    http://www.goupstate.com/news/20161125/sc-electors-besieged-by-requests-not-to-cast-votes-for-trump

    Daryl November 26, 2016 at 3:14 am

    I believe it's "bargaining." But don't look out for "acceptance" any time soon or ever.

    wheresOurTeddy November 26, 2016 at 4:05 am

    So much kvetching pre-nov 8 about Trump not accepting results of election.

    Because what kind of person would do that?

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef November 26, 2016 at 11:41 am

    No defeat, no soul-searching.

    So far, she is still undefeated, and the dying working class votes have not repudiated her yet.

    "Let's not be premature."

    AnonymousCounsel November 26, 2016 at 2:22 am

    I am an attorney. I am not soliciting or advising any entity or person, but those identified by PropOrNot, including Naked Capitalism, should consult competent legal counsel, having appropriate and specific experience regarding defamation law (maybe even in a "pooled," co-ordinated effort with others' among the over 200 entities named by PropOrNot) to seek a legal opinion as to whether there exists a viable defamation claim against The Washington Post, and also, via Weisburg, The New York Times, as both publications repeated potentially defamatory claims made by PropOrNot.

    Under general tenets of defamation law (statutory and in common law), it is not just the original entity or person defaming (including defamation "per se") another that is liable for such torts, but others who carelessly or recklessly repeat the original defamatory statements/claims (in this case, both The Washington Post & New York Times bear similar potential liability as PropOrNot).

    hunkerdown November 26, 2016 at 6:14 am

    Understanding the distinction between an attorney, and *my* attorney, and as a matter of general interest, I am curious: What about individual posters in their capacities as employees, contractors, or just rabble?

    Romancing The Loan November 26, 2016 at 9:29 am

    Requires actual malice since it's the media you're suing – but that can be proven by reckless indifference to the truth which this might actually meet the standard of, especially since the site isn't making this claim based on anything other than the content of the views espoused by the sites. /also an attorney but the wrong specialty. I'd be pleased to help if I can though – all of the sites I read regularly are on the list and whoever's propaganda op the site is the whole concept of what it represents scares the pants off me.

    pretzelattack November 26, 2016 at 11:48 am

    i vaguely thought the actual malice requirement was tied to the target being a public figure; maybe running a blog qualifies.

    Romancing The Loan November 26, 2016 at 2:48 pm

    All private individual gets you is compensatory damages – and everyone's readership and donations have increased.

    "We hold that, so long as they do not impose liability without fault, the States may define for themselves the appropriate standard of liability for a publisher or broadcaster of defamatory falsehood injurious to a private individual. But this countervailing state interest extends no further than compensation for actual injury. For the reasons stated below, we hold that the States may not permit recovery of presumed or punitive damages, at least when liability is not based on a showing of knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth."

    Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 347-349 (1974).

    Propornot is directly accusing NC and the rest of a crime (espionage), which constitutes defamation per se, so I think the only issue before the court would be whether it was done with reckless indifference.

    Seriously, Yves, please feel free to contact me offlist – I would be delighted to pro bono the heck out of this including at the direction of whoever you hire.

    pretzelattack November 26, 2016 at 10:44 pm

    thanks for enlightening me. it's such an obvious smear, and the post as far as i can see didn't vet the organization or its claims at all.

    skippy November 26, 2016 at 2:54 am

    Kudos

    flora November 26, 2016 at 3:31 am

    The MSM did such a fine job reporting the news during the campaign. (16 anti-Sanders stories in 16 hours from the WaPo. A new record.) Are small news/opinion sites cutting into their online advertising revenue. ;)

    James November 26, 2016 at 3:32 am

    I like you and your blog, but I'm almost positive your site has been guilty of accidently publishing Russian propaganda at some point. You've probably linked to stories that sound legit but can be traced all the way back to some Russian operation like RT, even though the third party source you got the story from seemed ok.

    The creator of the app never said all the sites on the list knowingly did it.

    Yves Smith Post author November 26, 2016 at 4:37 am

    First the fact that a story appeared on RT does not make it propaganda. We featured videos from Ed Harrison on the RT program Boom/Bust, which is about the US economy and has featured respected US and foreign academics, like Steve Keen.

    What Steve Keen has to say is not suddenly propaganda by virtue of appearing on RT.

    If you read Eddy Bernay's book Propaganda, he defines it as an entity or cause promoting its case. Thus when a news organization that is government-affiliated, like Voice of America or RT, presents a news story that is straight up reporting, that does not qualify as propaganda either (like "Marine Le Pen Gains in French Polls"). In fact, for a government site to be seen as credible when it does present propaganda, it has to do a fair bit of reasonably unbiased reporting.

    Second, had you bothered to read the actual PropOrNot site, it accuses all of the sites listed as being "propaganda outlets" under the influence of "coordinators abroad" (#11 in its FAQ).

    Several individuals on Twitter called this out as libel with respect to NC. And under #7, PropOrNot asserts that "some" of the sites are guilty of violating the Espionage Act and the Foreign Agent Registration Act, as in accusing them of being spies and calling for investigation (by implication of all, since how do you know which is or isn't) by the FBI and DoJ.

    And you defend this witch hunt? Seriously? Do you have any idea of what propaganda consists of? Hint: it is not reporting accurately and skeptically.

    John November 26, 2016 at 9:07 am

    Their MSM propaganda isn't working and they see it. They already heavily censor comments on their MSM sites. Other MSM sights such as Bloomberg closed down comments altogether. Expect more of that.

    And they will take every measure to close down any other independent sites people have turned to get some truth which millions of us know we aren't getting from the MSM.

    Those of us who have a grasp on what is going on in this country will find #7 is very disturbing.
    As it tells us what they have in mind to discredit and close down independent sites.

    James November 26, 2016 at 10:51 am

    As you know, propaganda doesn't have to [be] false. It can be more about selectively reporting certain facts or emphasizing certain facts over others to smear your target and mislead people. Steve Keen is great, and I love his work, but it's also obvious that RT invites him on the network because he lambasts the American political establishment and weakens the public's confidence in its leaders. This is clearly a goal of Moscow, and they use people like Steve Keen to do it. I'm sure Steven Keen doesn't think of his role that way, but RT and Russian intelligence certainly do.

    And the site clearly states that some sites are knowingly coordinating with Russian agents (like RT) and some are likely unaware that they are being influenced. They likely think NC falls into the unaware category.

    I think they should be more specific as to what sites they believe fall into the 'knowingly' and 'unknowingly' categories, but I also don't believe the app is an entirely crazy idea. Russia is aggressively trying to influence American politics as we saw in the most recent US election and coming up with a response is a good idea even if this particular one should be improved.

    Pat November 26, 2016 at 11:07 am

    Um, James what weakens people's confidence in their leaders is their not addressing people's issues and lying about their inability to do so. Despite protestations from the likes of much of our 'intelligentsia', mainstream media, and most of our political class, the majority of people are not stupid. There is a reason why terms like 'lame stream media' resonate with a large number of people.

    For instance when Obama is out there talking about a recovery and people know that there is no such thing in their lives, their communities then HE has lost their confidence – not someone giving an interview on RT.

    Or to put it another way the problem isn't someone going on RT and saying the emperor isn't wearing clothes, the problem is that the emperor isn't wearing clothes.

    Pretending not to notice doesn't mean that no one has noticed. Considering the Washington/NY/California bubble, most people probably have and have been screaming at their television that he needs to get dressed.

    pretzelattack November 26, 2016 at 11:12 am

    what did we see in "the most recent election"? what is your evidence that Russia is "aggressively trying to influence American politics?"

    Steve Keen is great, and I love his work, but it's also obvious that RT invites him on the network because he lambasts the American political establishment and weakens the public's confidence in its leaders. This is clearly a goal of Moscow, and they use people like Steve Keen to do it. I'm sure Steven Keen doesn't think of his role that way, but RT and Russian intelligence certainly do.

    How do you know any of this? how would you know would Russian intelligence's goals are, or how they think of Steve Keen? this is all just McCarthyism 2016, accusing the left of being dupes or willing agents of Russia. McCarthy had his 200 communists in the state department, this website and the Washington Post have their 200 Russian propaganda websites. Why are you catapulting this bullshit?

    http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/mccarthy-says-communists-are-in-state-department

    pebird November 26, 2016 at 1:24 pm

    But it's obvious, clearly. If you think otherwise, you are an unobvious.

    ChrisPacific November 26, 2016 at 6:31 pm

    Well put. I could equally well argue that it's in Russia's interests that American leadership not be questioned, if it's following policies that are clearly stupid and likely to weaken America's position in the world. So the PropOrNot site might actually be a double blind backed by Russia, using fear of Russian influence to manipulate people into uncritical acceptance of their leaders and prevent questioning of poor decisions, thereby weakening America. (ALERT: If it's not obvious to readers, this is sarcasm).

    If your methodology is gazing into the tea leaves to figure out what Russia's position is, then smearing anybody that advocates a similar position, then that's such a ridiculously flimsy veneer of logic that it can be used to reach pretty much any conclusion you like (as my example above demonstrates). Tell me again who is guilty of propaganda in this scenario?

    James November 26, 2016 at 8:46 pm

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/10/21/17-intelligence-agencies-russia-behind-hacking/92514592/

    I suppose all 17 intelligence agencies could be wrong.

    And RT has a pattern of inviting dissidents that have extremely negative views of American leadership. You can say this negative view justified but that doesn't negate the fact that Russia wants to amplify that discontent as much as possible.

    pretzelattack November 26, 2016 at 10:35 pm

    i suppose they still haven't provided any evidence whatsoever. just like you. What 17 agencies? what evidence are they relying on? Why does Obama say the election was not fixed by Russia, that there was no ramping up of cyber attacks?

    You could be working for David Brock at correct the record. the way you blindly accept the talking points of the Clinton campaign indicates that. you just keep repeating them, and don't respond to the criticisms of propornot as a source, or the reporter who uncritically accepted their little mccarthyite hit list. linking to a usa today article that blindly repeats the same talking points, again sans evidence, does not support your argument.

    James November 27, 2016 at 3:44 am

    I was not claiming Russia fixed the election results. I was referring to the email hacking directed at the Clinton camp during the election campaign.

    And my claim that Russia was likely involved in the email hacking is backed up by 17 intelligence agencies and reporting from various independent news outlets. If you had bothered to read the article, which you apparently didn't, you would know that the 17 agencies are the 'Office of the Director of National Intelligence' plus the 16 agencies listed in the link available in the article I provided.

    Here is the link in question: https://www.dni.gov/index.php/intelligence-community/members-of-the-ic

    If USA Today reporting is not credible to you but Russia Today's reporting is, then I'm afraid your trust of Kremlin created propaganda outlets over independent news outlets only underscores my point that Russian information warfare has been very successful at influencing and shaping parts of American public opinion.

    I also don't think US intelligence agencies would make this accusation publicly if they were not confident. They could have just as easily made this accusation against China but have not because it doesn't fit China's MO. Russia has engaged in similar types of email hacking operations in former Eastern European countries it has been seeking to control and influence.

    And comparing an app to McCarthyism is absurd. McCarthysim was the state targeting individuals and organizations. This is private citizens compiling a list by their own accord, which they are free to do. When a left wing blog makes a list of the top ten most right-wing and GOP influenced websites, are they also engaging in 'McCarthism'? Is the left engaging in 'McCarthyism' when it accuses Fox News of being GOP influenced propaganda? C'mon.

    Regardless, I am done with this conversation for now. You can think what you want.

    Pat November 27, 2016 at 4:24 am

    James do you happen to remember when those intelligence agencies reported Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction.? How about when North Korea hacked Sony? Both of which were inaccurate and dare I say it propaganda intended to mislead the American public.

    Short of watching the hacking in real time there is no way those agencies would have been able to trace any competent hacker.So here are some very serious questions for you. Do you think the Russians hire script kiddies? Why does Naval Intelligence have anything to do with this investigation? Same with at least half of those agencies?

    Why were 17 agencies watching the DNC? Don't they have anything better to do, like figuring out who hacked the State Department, the IRS and Social Security?

    The immediate claims that Russia hacked the DNC were never credible to any one with even a bit of knowledge about high level hacking. The 17 agency thing was outright laughable once you asked the simple question of what most of them had to do with this investigation. And USA Today was and is the print equivalent of the Yahoo front page.

    You say you are done, but I sincerely hope so e of what was said here percolates in your thoughts. Most of us here understand propaganda, misinformation, and yes confirmation bias. You seem to need to learn to look critically at your usual sources as well as those you have warned about.

    James November 27, 2016 at 6:04 am

    Being wrong about something in the past doesn't mean you are always wrong. In fact, the CIA and FBI have been on the money about countless things in the past, but I'm sure you know this and are just trying to deflect. And it's not true that NK being involved in the Sony hack has been debunked. Opinion is mixed among independent security analysts. Look it up.

    And I think you should take your own advice as far as confirmation bias and understanding propaganda are concerned. Nobody who relies on FSB cut outs like RT for information and analysis has room to talk about their intelligence and critical thinking. NC and other alternative 'anti-establishment' news sources you consume are full of their own bias. You should wander out of the alt-left echo chamber once in a while and stop thinking that any criticism of Russia is 'red-baiting' and propaganda. Mr. Putin isn't a damsel in distress that needs your defending.

    integer November 27, 2016 at 6:52 am

    You can think what you want.

    Lambert Strether November 27, 2016 at 6:58 am

    There are so many straw men in this I don't know where to begin. So I'm not going to. Not feeding trolls is one of my policies.

    pretzelattack November 27, 2016 at 9:14 am

    oh so now you're an intelligence expert, but somehow you still don't have any evidence, because the "17 intelligence agencies" don't have any evidence either. they didn't have evidence of wmd's but i bet you fell for that, too. i think the most dishonest line in your post is this: You should wander out of the alt-left echo chamber once in a while and stop thinking that any criticism of Russia is 'red-baiting' and propaganda

    while you're searching for evidence to back up the rancid propaganda exposed by glenn greenwald's article in the intercept, you can look for one single post expressing this conviction. just one.

    after all the lies by our intelligence agencies, using the same methods as this smear, to uncritically accept anonymous quotes betrays either a great naïveté or intellectual dishonesty.

    David Lamy November 26, 2016 at 11:31 am

    Gee, if only there were some North American country that would try to influence foreign elections, for example say Russian or Ukrainian ones.
    But let me extend James's thought above by advocating for our leaders to obtain public encryption keys so that we may send our grievances privately without enabling any foreign interference. Won't that just invigorate our democracy?

    OIFVet November 26, 2016 at 12:13 pm

    If Russia is actively trying to influence American politics, then they have been far more effective than the US and get a much bigger bang for their buck. For one thing, they didn't have to drop a single bomb to effect a regime change. So assuming you are correct, the noise is just a hysterical regime change envy.

    So are RT and Sputnik propaganda outlets? Sometimes they are, but sometimes they report the truth that our MSM, having given up the last shreds of their journalistic integtity in return for access, won't report.

    Given the widespread funding of media (including government-owned media) by Western governments, I would say that US and Euro hysteria about Russian propaganda, real and imagined, is yet another off-putting display of noxious American exceptionalism.

    I grew up listening to broadcasts of RFE and VOA behind the Iron Curtain, and mixed in with honest reporting was a heavy dose of propaganda aimed at weakening Eastern European governments. Now, it is the America For Bulgaria Foundation that funds several media outlets in the country. What they all have in common is rabid Russophobia-driven editorial stances, and one can easily conclude that it is driven by the almighty dollar rather than by honest, deeply held convictions. So, America can do it but whines like a toddler when it is allegedly done to it?! What a crock.

    The worst thing is that regardless of whatever propaganda wars are going on, this list constitutes a full frontal attack on free speech in the alleged "Land of the Free." Besides NC, there are number of sites distinguished by thorough, quality reporting of the kind that WaPo and NYT no longer engage in. Having grown up behind the Iron Curtain, this is chilling to me. Dissident voices speaking against the endless wars for profit and neoliberalism are in effect being intimidated and smeared by anonymous thugs. This, while the militarized local police and federal agencies, closely coordinated by "fusion centers", have ruthlessly put down a number of citizen protests, have engaged in spying on all of us, and have gone after whistleblowers for exposing the reach and scope of the surveillance state. These are the hallmarks of dictatorships, not of the alleged "world's greatest democracy and beacon of freedom." What the eff happened to America, and why are you equating challenging the oppressive and exploitative status quo with being "unwitting Russian dupes?" Seems to me that the useful idi0t here is you, with all due respect.

    Glen November 26, 2016 at 12:21 pm

    American intelligence uses exactly the same tactics, and has since at least WW1. Selling the American public on the Iraq war is a classic example. Remember that all news is biased, some much more so than others (we report, you decide.)

    The advent of the internet and the subsequent broadening of readily available news of all slants has made it much harder for any intelligence agency of any specific country to control the news( but it has made it extremely easy for them to monitor what we are reading).

    Naked capitalism uses a wide variety of sources, and obviously has no coordination with any intelligence agency. The normal tell for this is being state sponsored, or having a big sugar daddy providing the funding, and Yves doesn't have any of that.

    As always, it's up to the reader to use their critical thinking skills and form their own opinions.

    Atalanta69 November 26, 2016 at 4:55 pm

    Some of us happen to believe that 'lambast[ing] the American political establishment and weaken[ing] the public's confidence in its leaders' is in the best interests of everyone on the planet, including the American public. If that constitutes propaganda, I'm not about to look that gift horse in the mouth. RT isn't perfect – I personally find their relentless cheerleading for economic growth rather wearying – but it knocks spots off the competition and consistently sends me scurrying to the internet to chase up on new faces and leads. I'm grateful for that.

    FluffytheObeseCat November 26, 2016 at 5:55 pm

    " Steve Keen is great, and I love his work, but it's also obvious "

    Damning with faint praise. A dainty smear tactic noted as such since the days of .. Shakespeare.

    It is obvious that Russia has been trying to influence American politics. The very existence of RT makes that obvious. What is not obvious is why modestly left-of-center Americans' political concerns should be subject to McCarthyite attacks in our most influential news outlets. We've been subject to internally generated far-right propaganda for decades now and have seen minimal, feeble 'mainstream' efforts to counter it. The far right has done tremendous damage to our nation and is poised to do much more now that its doyens control all branches of the federal government.

    And yet this libelous attack is more focused on left-leaning opinion sites than on the ultra-right. The latter were thrown into this list almost as window dressing. Conceivably because the far right is very adept at self-defense. But more because the prestige and financial well-being of the center-"left" is endangered by the rise of an adversarial, econo-centric left. The insiders from this branch of our duopoly never have been harmed by their historic "opposition" (Tea Party kooks + corrupt Beltway Republicans).

    What I interpret this as is a strike by 'think tank' grifters against those who are most likely to damage their incomes, their prestige and their exceedingly comfortable berths on the Acela corridor. It's a slightly panicky, febrile effort by a bunch of heels who are looking at losing their mid-6-figure incomes . and becoming like so many of the rest of us: over-credentialed, under-paid and unable to afford life in the charming white parts of our coastal metropolises.

    Brad November 26, 2016 at 6:34 pm

    Correct. The Democratic party liberals perform only one objective function: Attack the Left. That is what they are "there" for.

    nippersdad November 26, 2016 at 7:28 pm

    I was wondering what Brock has been up to since the dissolution of "Correct the Record."

    Has it been dissolved or has it morphed into something else? This looks like too seamless a transition from the Clinton campaign strategy we have all grown to love to the revenge strategy we have come to expect from such people. I look forward to the discovery portions of the libel suits to come. Hopefully Yves and Lambert will be taking up a collection for so worthy an enterprise soon.

    flora November 26, 2016 at 7:35 pm

    since you ask: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/david-brock-donald-trump-donor-network-231588 I think the term is "doubling down."

    Yves Smith Post author November 26, 2016 at 6:12 pm

    You've just libeled me. You have no evidence whatsoever to substantiate your claim. Nor do you have any evidence that Russia has been "aggressively" trying to influence US politics. This is one of many hysterical lines offered by Team Dem over the course of this election, up there with depicting all Trump voters as racist yahoos.

    Ed Harrison, who is the producer of the show and replied later in this thread, is the one who booked Keen and interviewed and other economists and firmly disputes your assertion that his show has anything to do with promoting an anti-US line. And as a former diplomat, Harrison would be far more sensitive than most to that sort of issue. I'm repeating his comment below:

    Hi Naked Capitalism. I haven't been on this site for some time. But I felt it necessary to comment due to an ad hominem attack from a commenter "James" regarding the show I produce at RT called Boom Bust.

    From my vantage point as producer at RT, I have been able to see the whole anti-Russia campaign unfold in all its fury. I have a lot of thoughts on this but I want to restrict my comments to the specific argument James makes. here:

    "it's also obvious that RT invites him on the network because he lambasts the American political establishment and weakens the public's confidence in its leaders. This is clearly a goal of Moscow, and they use people like Steve Keen to do it. I'm sure Steven Keen doesn't think of his role that way, but RT and Russian intelligence certainly do."

    Since I produce the show that Steve Keen appears on, I am well-placed to give you a view on this. James' comment is flat out false. What James writes is something he has fabricated in his imagination – connecting dots he believes should be connected based on no first hand evidence whatsoever.

    What actually happens on Boom Bust is this:

    Since no one I work with at RT has a sophisticated background in economics, finance or financial reporting, they give us a wide berth in putting together content for our show with nearly no top down dictates at all. That means we as American journalists have a pretty much free hand to report economic news intelligently and without bias. We invite libertarian, mainstream, non-mainstream, leftist, Democratic commentators, Republican commentators – you name it. As for guests, they are not anti-American in any way shape or form. They are disproportionately non-mainstream.

    We have no pro-Russian agenda. And that is in part because Russia is a bit player on the economic stage, frankly. Except for sanctions, it has mostly been irrelevant on our show since inception.

    Let me share a strange anecdote on that. We had a guest on our show about three years ago, early in my tenure. We invited him on because he had smart things to say about the UK economy. But he had also written some very negative things about Putin and Russia. Rather than whitewash this we addressed it specifically in the interview and asked him an open-ended question about Russia, so he could say his piece. I was ASTONISHED when he soft-pedaled his response and made no forceful case as he had done literally days ago in print. This guy clearly self-censored – for what reason I don't know. But it is something that has stayed with me ever since.

    The most important goal from a managerial perspective has been that our reporting is different i.e. covers missing and important angles of the same storyline that are missing in the mainstream media or that it covers storylines that are missing altogether.

    Neither Steve Keen nor any other guest on our show appears "because he lambasts the American political establishment". This is false. He appears on our show because he is a credible economist who provides a differentiated view on economics and insight that we believe will help our viewers understand the global economy. If Paul Krugman had something to say of that nature and would appear on our show, we would welcome him. In fact, I and other producers have reached out to him many times to no avail, especially after we had Gerald Friedman give his take on the dust-up surrounding Bernie Sanders' economic plan. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yna275KzuDQ

    Look, I understand the scepticism about RT and its motives. It IS a state-funded news outlet with news story angles that sometimes contrast sharply with western media. And it has not been critical of the Russian government as far as I can tell. But you can't ascribe nefarious motives to individual economists or reporters based on inaccurate or false third hand accounts. You are just making things up, creating a false narrative based on circumstantial evidence. This is just adding to the building peer pressure associated with what almost seems like an orchestrated campaign to discredit non-mainstream sources of news.

    bob November 26, 2016 at 6:14 pm

    "Russia is aggressively trying to influence American politics" Apparently with the help of Hillz. Was her decision to use a private email server made with the help of Putin?

    Brad November 26, 2016 at 6:24 pm

    James, we get it. We US citizens are not to be permitted to criticize our own government or corporations as that might "weaken public confidence" in our Dear Leaders.

    We cannot be trusted to think for ourselves in discerning what is and is not propaganda, for after all we would be able to discern the same coming from the US side.

    The overt stifling of dissent that was such an outrageous feature of the Clinton campaign "is clearly a goal" of your side.

    Who needs Putin when we have mindless ClintonBots to do all the dirty work here?

    Lambert Strether November 27, 2016 at 7:22 am

    > weakens the public's confidence in its leaders*

    Assumes facts not in evidence. See Pew Research :

    This is a secular trend, a great wave. If Steve Keen were going on Tass 24 hours a day, seven days a week, Live!!! With ***Nude*** WOMBATS!!!!, undermining confidence in neoliberal economists - let me pause to gasp in horror - it would be the merest bit of froth on that wave. Taking Jame's view as a proxy for the views of the intelligence community, if they really believe this - and it's not just a ploy for budget time - then the country truly is doomed.

    NOTE * Note the authoritarian followership of "leaders." So my response with institutions is not precisely on point.

    Pat November 27, 2016 at 8:04 am

    The idea that banks were trusted more than organized labor was troublesome to me till I remembered the labor leaders like Trumka and the continued betrayals of membership by the likes of the AFL CIO. At that point I got it really was a toss up.

    Synoia November 26, 2016 at 9:38 pm

    This is a Bezos hostile takeover – aka:

    My revenue is suffering because my rag is bullshit, but all these alternatives are unfair competition - please Mr Government shut them done, because I, the one and only Great Bezos (or Great Bozo), is loosing money.

    Boo Hoo, boo hoo boo hoo .

    davidly November 26, 2016 at 5:41 am

    almost positive = have a vague notion based on nothing but conditioning
    In other words, you are a small-time useful ijit

    hemeantwell November 26, 2016 at 8:51 am

    If you'd like, take a trip in the Wayback Machine to 1959. Then you'll find many criticisms of US society by the Civil Rights movement sharing the same sinister tone as criticisms made by Soviet new outlets. Then you'll also find a gaggle of US pols and their minions claiming on that basis that the Civil Rights movement is communist inspired, funded, and run. Then you'll also find many people who don't bother to distinguish source from story and end up enjoying the official Kool Aid.

    PlutoniumKun November 26, 2016 at 9:23 am

    It reminds me of a story from Northern Ireland in the 1960's when the leader of a civil rights march was asked by a BBC reporter 'is it true that your organisation has been infiltrated by radicals and communists?' His reply was to sigh and say 'I f**king wish it was true'.

    John Zelnicker November 26, 2016 at 9:47 am

    @hemeantwell – This same claim of communist inspiration and connection was also thrown at the anti-war movement. I remember arguing with a friend of my parents in the summer of 1969, after my freshman year at college where I was active in the anti-war and anti-draft movements. After countering all of the arguments made by this gentleman, he was left with nothing to say but "Well, that's the Commie's line " as a final dismissal.

    Jim Haygood November 26, 2016 at 10:52 am

    'US pols and their minions claiming that the Civil Rights movement is communist inspired, funded, and run.'

    Right up to his death on 4 Apr 1968, Martin Luther King was accused by J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI of "knowingly, willingly and regularly cooperating with and taking guidance from communists." Now there's a US national holiday in King's honor.

    That same year, my dad visited Moscow and Czechoslovakia during the Prague Spring. After he returned, we started receiving crudely mimeographed newsletters from Moscow - actual Soviet propaganda , delivered right to our mailbox in Texas.

    So laden were they with hoary old Marxist rhetoric that we started satirizing it in our underground student newspaper, mocking the public school administration as "capitalist running dogs" and "colonialist oppressors." (This did not go over well.)

    To his regret, my dad sent one of the Soviet flyers to the FBI, but never got a reply. He suspected that they put him on a watch list, rather than investigating how the Soviets were distributing their crude invective through the US mail.

    fresno dan November 26, 2016 at 11:16 am

    So laden were they with hoary old Marxist rhetoric that we started satirizing it in our underground student newspaper, mocking the public school administration as "capitalist running dogs" and "colonialist oppressors." (This did not go over well.)

    No capitalistic pigs?????
    – OINK!

    EGrise November 26, 2016 at 4:22 pm

    Are you sure the newsletter wasn't printed by the FBI?

    Titus Pullo November 26, 2016 at 9:52 am

    They link American propaganda all the time. If you take off your blinders, you'll find that most news is just propaganda, because the basis for most news stories is what person X says. What's sad is that people like you believe there is some kind of "objective" news source in the "free world" that is telling it like it is. There isn't and there never has been.

    It's all propaganda of one sort or another. I exhort you to read Plato and understand that the Sophists for which Socrates held so much ire are much the same as anon and administration sources for so much of what drives journalism.

    NC separates the wheat from the chaff.

    Stick November 26, 2016 at 10:08 am

    Yep Sputnik News is a regular feature in Links.

    Yves Smith Post author November 27, 2016 at 12:08 am

    No, it isn't and I'm the one who puts links together. Shame on you.

    Lambert Strether November 27, 2016 at 7:25 am

    Surely this is irony?

    flora November 26, 2016 at 1:01 pm

    You assume, without evidence, that the claims are true. I think in econ that's called "assume a can opener."

    anonymous in Southfield, MI November 26, 2016 at 2:13 pm

    I have identified a motif that pretty much always gives away a Hillary bot- it was used about several dozen thousand times as part of 'Correct the Record' during the runup to November 8. And here we have it again. It goes like this: I was always in favor of – – – – – – – (fill in the blank with the supposed offenders name) until I found out this 'truth'.

    Also, why not just admit you are a Clinton Supporter who finds it convenient that a lot of the sites could be trashed for being critical of HRC

    Spring Texan November 26, 2016 at 8:07 pm

    Yes, that motif was EVERYWHERE . . . you couldn't escape it!!

    Brad November 26, 2016 at 6:14 pm

    NC is likely "far more guilty" in accidentally republishing your American propaganda, since the Russian variety is so obvious.

    Lambert Strether November 27, 2016 at 7:05 am

    Let me just make a list of the weasel words (setting aside the famous "I like you, but ____" trope, which I have never yet seen used in good faith in all my many years of blogging, partly because of the assumption that whether a random commenter "likes" the blog is important.

    1. almost positive
    2. guilty of accidentally
    3. at some point
    4. probably linked (but with no evidence)
    5. can be traced (but not by James!)
    6. some . operation like

    The ginormous pile of steaming innuendo and faux reasonableness aside, James seems to think that the NC readership has no critical thinking skills at all. Apparently, NC readers are little children who need expert guidance from James and his ilk - bless their hearts! - to distinguish crap from not crap.

    Adding "

    KnotRP November 26, 2016 at 3:47 am

    If there is any take away from this foul
    Bernays-inspired campaign season, it is
    that fear can and will overrule reason completely.
    Half of the voters (whichever lost) were set up
    for a cognitive dissonance cork blowing episode.
    No one should expect reason to be an effective defense against cognitive attempts to rectify that dissonance .neither side can be unplugged
    from their self-selected news matrix, without
    blowing their cork. It will not matter that this list
    is comical, because it is a dog whistle to the
    audience preloaded with fear (and the other side would've done a variation of the thene if they had lost).

    (pretty funny of them to list your site though..I guess
    the Russians must've also been quite upset by all
    the American mortage fraud in housing bubble #1
    and felt a need to •head explodes•)

    I suppose this comment will add me to some list maintained by some very frightened but misguided people? What's the line "lighten up, Francis"?

    wheresOurTeddy November 26, 2016 at 4:01 am

    Verdict on PropOrNot: Looks like Prop to me. Getting really sloppy, Oligarchy

    Benedict@Large November 26, 2016 at 12:00 pm

    This has all the earmarks of an effort by the Nuland Neocons that joined Camp Hillary, and now in defeat constitute a portion Hillary's professional dead enders.

    RenoDino November 26, 2016 at 5:56 pm

    Camp Hillary, as you call it, has decamped and is on the march. It has powerful allies in the intelligence community, the media and actors on the world stage who deem Trump to be an existential threat to America and world. The story of Russian inspired fake news is paving the way for regime change, an HRC specialty. The recount is the tip of the spear. If they can pull this coup off, sites like this will move from the useful idiot category to the enemy of the state category overnight.

    The brilliance of this move will eliminate all possibly of civil unrest since America democracy will be saved from a Russia threat that requires a declaration of war and severe restrictions on media freedom.

    I can guarantee you Trump is looking over his shoulder and sees it coming and is working furiously to build a case for his own legitimacy. He is doing his best to sound normal.

    Obama has relegated himself to the sidelines. He hates conflict, but will back Hillary if she can pull it off.

    We will know in two weeks one way or the other.

    bob November 26, 2016 at 6:18 pm

    "Camp Hillary, as you call it, has decamped and is on the march." True that. Even a lost election can't stop them. Heard over the holiday- Andrew Cuomo for prez. So the same people who didn't show up to vote for Hillz can now not show up to vote for her waterboy/bagman.

    Manfred Keeting November 26, 2016 at 4:01 am

    Yet Mike Shedlock was not listed. If I were he, I'd be pissed. I'd write to the site demanding to know why!

    Yves Smith Post author November 26, 2016 at 4:17 am

    His post yesterday says pretty much that.

    fresno dan November 26, 2016 at 11:18 am

    Manfred Keeting November 26, 2016 at 4:01 am If you weren't on the Nixon's enemies list, there was something wrong with you

    Synoia November 26, 2016 at 9:41 pm

    Or not important enough. I seem to remember those years, and my focus was on:

    1. The next Beer
    2. The next female
    3. The next Party
    4. Going to work
    5. I need to pee (see 1)

    All of which changed priority at a whim of what I had to do next.

    begob November 27, 2016 at 7:52 am

    I think sicsempertyrannis was omitted too. Some comments on there are informative on Syria.

    Propertius November 26, 2016 at 4:27 am

    Down in the 8th Circle of hell, I assume Joe McCarthy is getting a chuckle out of this.

    a different chris November 26, 2016 at 10:29 am

    For sure. The "history doesn't repeat but it rhymes" is suddenly sickeningly applicable here.

    I hope they've bitten off more than they can chew in this case. There is that argument that we are "siloing" in our little corners of the web, however – everybody read the newspapers and listed to the radio back then. Which means a very, very small subset of the population set the agenda. Nowadays, the "far-left" and "far-right" are only a click away from each other (and they always did seem to have more in common with each other than the center which has gone from mushy to absolutely rotten). A unified pushback on this is not impossible and who knows where it might lead?

    Gabriel November 26, 2016 at 4:54 pm

    "First as tragedy, then as farce"

    Plenue November 26, 2016 at 5:22 pm

    First as tragedy, then as farce. People literally killed themselves because of McCarthyism. No one is going to kill themselves over this farce.

    The Rev Kev November 26, 2016 at 4:28 am

    Aha, I have solved the mystery. It is elementary my dear Watson! The PropOrNot site is itself a Russian propaganda ploy on the part of the KGB! What? errr, ok, the FSB then. By adding sites such as the Naked Capitalism site to the list, it will be discredited in its entirety thus letting the nefarious Russian propaganda websites be given a free pass. Mystery solved! And sorry Max but "Naked Capitalism" a leading left-wing financial news blog"? I'd rather label it a practical and empirical financial news blog myself.

    Seriously, I am wondering if something else is going on here ("tin-foil hat" mode on) with this piece of trash. No doubt people here have heard all the cries of "fake news" since the election. This was on top of months of claims of Russian hacking of the election which is still ongoing (cough cough, Jill Stein). Now Merkel is screaming blue murder of probable Russian hacking of the German elections next year and just this week the EU Parliament has passed a resolution which in part states that Russian media exists to "undermine the very notion of objective information or ethical journalism," and one of its methods is to cast all other information "as biased or as an instrument of political power."

    I am given to understand that the military use the term "preparing the battlefield" and that is what I think that we are seeing here. There have already been calls for FaceBook and Google to implement censorship of "fake news" which will amount to censorship of social and news feeds – the same media Trump used to bf the entire news establishment in this years election. Could we be seeing the beginnings of calls to censor the internet? All to fight terrorism and black propaganda of course. The Left would have absolutely no problem with this and if was used to get rid of sites that contrasted the mainstream media's narrative, more people would be forced to use the mainstream media for their news which would make them happy. Something to think about.

    rusti November 26, 2016 at 5:01 am

    And sorry Max but "Naked Capitalism" a leading left-wing financial news blog"? I'd rather label it a practical and empirical financial news blog myself.

    While the level of discussion here is generally at a much deeper level than most sites and commenters don't fit into neat little ideological boxes, I don't think it's a particularly egregious generalization to call a site with readers that overwhelmingly support things like financial regulation, single-payer health care and post-office banking "left-wing".

    But Max himself is an interesting character. I've been scratching my head wondering how a guy one step removed (Sidney Blumenthal) from the Clintons' inner circles is ambitious about exposing the ludicrous claims made by those same people regarding Palestine and Syria.

    flora November 26, 2016 at 5:22 am

    The list of news sites on the said fact-free, unsourced, anonymous webpage are all, so far as I can tell, news sites that have disagreed with neocon foreign policy preferences on several occasions.

    JEHR November 26, 2016 at 1:58 pm

    I am so tired of the use of "left" and " right" and "progressive" and "libertarian" that when I see these words I go off into a daze. These words are bandied about in so many different ways for so many different reasons, that they have almost become meaningless. I would rather that people or organizations be described in detail who supposedly have these "left" "right" etc. characteristics, then I would know what was being claimed.

    clincial wasteman November 26, 2016 at 11:47 pm

    yes, and one good way to that sort of detailed description is to read here regularly for a while: there's hardly any political self-tagging or confessional drama going on, but any one person's comments over a few months do add up to a picture of how her/his life experience, unlabelled political principles, intellectual ( not the same as academic!) background and style of spontaneous reaction (yes Mr Mencken, 'humor!) all fit together. And this gradually reveals a lot more than Left-Right status updates or biographical oversharing ever could: not so much about the person - who has a right to all the unknownness s/he wants - but about the experiences and reasoning that might connect a statement that delights you and another that leaves you aghast when both come from the same person and within about a dozen lines. And all this with no fuzzy-fake "consensus" in sight: mutual respect across abyssal differences is hard-won and correspondingly cared for.

    "The internet" still gets blamed for "ruining face-to-face interaction" by people who probably flatter themselves about the richness of their past social lives. But I can't imagine when I'll ever have a spare few years and some mysterious money (not to mention some "social skills" and a valid passport ) with which to visit Maine, Oregon, Arizona, Buenos Aires (etc etc etc) for extended casual conversations there. In the absence of that option, whatever you all have the patience to write here counts as THE escape route out of political parochialism and geographical niche.

    Lambert Strether November 27, 2016 at 7:37 am

    > preparing the battlefield

    I like the idea some commenter had (too lazy to find it right now) that all these strategems were long-prepared, and in place for a Clinton victory. Now the Clinton faction in the political class is deploying them anyhow. They'd better hurry, because influence peddling at the Clinton Foundation isn't as lucrative as it once was .

    KK November 26, 2016 at 4:29 am

    Surely any site that accepts donations could be funded by a foreign power without knowing?
    ps A couple of my students make 50p a post for challenging negative posts on travel websites by making up how great was their experience.

    a different chris November 26, 2016 at 10:34 am

    And, um, so what? They can waste money anywhere they want. How much has the US spent over my lifetime propagandizing the Middle East and how did that work out?

    rusti November 26, 2016 at 4:50 am

    The Neera Tandeen tweet is revealing in that it shows how hypocritical all the pearl-clutching was over Trump's complete lack of discretion in pushing bogus and fabricated stories. A cursory glance through the rest of her feed shows a bunch of equally thoroughly scrutinized claims that the Putin/Comey/Deplorables triumvirate conspired to steal the election from the forces of Good.

    z November 26, 2016 at 5:21 am

    For long time readers this russian(chinese) propaganda should be obvious. And it is ok, get used to it. Great opportunity to learn "how to read between the lines", and when you understand, solidifying into a basic skill.

    "The only way to get smarter is by playing a smarter opponent." and now you have a good ones, not a cheap wapo columnist but organised, educated, trained information warfare hacks.

    we are on the early days, more to come, much worse to come.

    nmb November 26, 2016 at 5:25 am

    Be careful NC. MSM are in panic. They see that their propaganda is less and less effective and start targeting those who offer an alternative against their obsolete narratives. Be prepared: when they will realize that these don't work at all, their fake democracy will become an open dictatorship.

    Steve H. November 26, 2016 at 10:26 am

    President-elect Trump calling them liars may have unsettled them.

    It's good to know we have a strong leader protecting our backs!

    /s? Time will tell.

    David N November 26, 2016 at 5:31 am

    I loved naked capitalism's election coverage, but here is an anecdote of how it angered conventional liberals.

    I read a particle physics blog by Columbia mathematician Peter Woit, who wrote an election post-mortem (he occasionally writes about politics). Not Even Wrong is one of the most popular blogs in theoretical physics, I've several excellent physicists post in the comments to previous entries. I was very surprised to see Woit blame naked capitalism (and others) for the electoral defeat of Hillary Clinton, he's a very conventional thinker normally so I would have expected him to not even know about naked capitalism. I'm still surprised he knew about it.

    My guess? There is a lot of communication in the country between people who do read some of these 200 news media organizations, with the vast majority who stick to conventional sources such as the NYT, the WSJ, and who think that Vox and The Atlantic are intellectual sources. When people get exposed to alternative media for the first time, even educated people, their most likely response is some combination of anger, laughter, and asking if the writer also believes that 9/11 is an inside job.

    Anyway, this is what it looked like: http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=8906

    PlutoniumKun November 26, 2016 at 7:35 am

    I hate to get tin foily, but that blog is typical of a few I've seen – expressing real anger at the amorphous 'left' for not getting on board the Hilary train. There is an element of vengefulness in some of the writing and combined with the evidence of the article above, it seems there is an element within the establishment (the losing half) who are in full on McCarthy mode – and of course the first stage of a purge is to accuse the targets of being traitors and in the pay of foreign interests. Trump and the people around him are dangerous of course, but I think a defeated neolib/neocon establishment is equally dangerous. We are in worrying times, and its not just the far right we have to be worried about.

    john bougearel November 26, 2016 at 11:17 am

    Even normally level-headed Bill Black posted some rather biased opinionated op-eds here about P-Elect Trump. Which surprised me.

    Synoia November 26, 2016 at 9:44 pm

    he's a very conventional thinker

    And he is in the field of Physics research? Does that make it a Oxy-Moron or the dear Prof a complete Moron?

    Lambert Strether November 27, 2016 at 7:34 am

    > some rather biased opinionated op-eds

    Let's parse this

    1) Throw away the weasel words

    some rather biased opinionated op-eds -> biased opinionated op-eds

    2) Throw away the evidence-free

    biased opinionated op-eds -> opinionated op-eds

    3) Expand the abbreviations

    opinionated op-ed -> opinionated opinion editorial

    4) Eliminate redundancy

    opinionated opinion editorial -> opinion editorial

    So Bill Black wrote an "opinion editorial." Is there a problem with that?

    Marco November 26, 2016 at 8:37 am

    Woit also includes the NYT in his list of culprits so I don't know what planet he resides. Also interesting to note his jetting off to Paris as tonic. Oh the humanity!!

    craazyman November 26, 2016 at 8:40 am

    It's incredible how many otherwise smart people can't think for themselves.

    • Once a newspaper touches a story the facts are lost forever, even to the protagonist. -Norman Mailer
    • I am unable to understand how a man of honor can take a newspaper in his hand without a shudder of disgust. -Charles Baudelaire
    • The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers. -Thomas Jeffereson
    • Advertisements contain the only truths to be relied on in a newspaper. -Thomas Jefferson
    • If you're not careful, the newspaper will have you hating people being oppressed and loving the people doing the oppressing -Malcolm X
    • Journalism is organized gossip. -Edward Egglestone
    • If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed, if you do read it, you are misinformed. -Mark Twain (allegedly, but it could be misinformation)

    It's hard to know what to believe! You can believe your own eyes, but even your mind connects the dots without you knowing it.

    This is not the Washington Post's finest hour - although they probably haven't had one of those for years at this point. I'm down to the Redskins coverage in the WaPo, which is still quite good actually.

    I used to be a Washington Post paper boy, so I'l put one last quote from Charles Osgood

    It was while making newspaper deliveries, trying to miss the bushes and hit the porch, that I first learned about accuracy in journalism
    -Charles Osgood

    (All quotes from quotegarden.com)

    shinola November 27, 2016 at 12:05 am

    More people should read the historical "rantings" of Mark Twain, Mike Royko & Molly Ivins

    Joseph P. November 26, 2016 at 9:15 am

    I notice that Woit has disabled comments on this particular post (all other posts have comments enabled). Probably he justifies it by telling himself that he is running a physics related blog and isn't interested in promoting discussion on non-physics related matters like politics (but he still wants to promote his own political opinions on his physics blog!). It's typical of the fingers-in-the-ears reaction that ivory tower liberals to Trump's win.

    lyman alpha blob November 26, 2016 at 6:13 pm

    I am protesting his column by believing in string theory – that should teach him.

    David N November 26, 2016 at 7:05 pm

    One doesn't need string theory to explain the lyman-alpha forest though, just lambda-CDM cosmology :-)

    ggm November 26, 2016 at 10:42 pm

    Calling Susan out by name, misrepresenting her viewpoints, and then turning of comments is completely indefensible.

    I always felt he has needlessly politicized string theory research l by making his case against it primarily in popular science books and on his blog rather than in peer-reviewed journals and academic papers. Since when is it a good idea to let public perception influence our scientific whims? Whether or not his arguments are valid is beside the point, it wasn't the right way to go about attempting to influence the field.

    Sammy November 26, 2016 at 5:35 am

    I am re-posting the following from an insightful comment on the Liberty Blitzkrieg report on this scam site:

    "The anonymous "executive director" of the Propornot website, quoted by the Washington Post, was mostly a likely a "senior military intelligence" impostor cum serial teen pornographer named Joel Harding. He is facing a lawsuit over the copyright infringement of Internet-distributed (teen) pornography (Case No. 1:16-cv-00384-AJT-TCB) in the US District Court for the eastern district of Virginia, Alexandria division. This is in the public domain.

    BTW, Harding's fellow trolls have been known to ascribe the rank of Brig Gen to their pathetic troll leader in private messages to the unsuspecting.

    No wonder Joel Harding wished to remain the anonymous "executive director" whose laughably scientific work was quoted by Washington Post. But why didn't Washington Post's Craig Timberg check this up? Basic journalistic checks thrown out of the mixed gender bathroom window? Details of Harding's trolling activities are available on the very Internet that is trolled by Joel Harding through his 3,000-odd troll sites.

    And to think that I used to be an avid reader of Washington Post's science and Technology reports now galls me.

    There is a growing assumption that the patriotic paranoid activities of Joel Harding and associates are a cover for their Ukrainian teen pornography distribution business."

    EndOfTheWorld November 26, 2016 at 5:41 am

    Sigmund Freud called this "projection".

    The US MSM is all propaganda all the time-every bit as bad as Pravda ever was. RT now is the "anti-propaganda." They were even carrying Jesse Ventura and other Americans who are blacklisted by the MSM.

    This is a "hail mary pass."

    Pavel November 26, 2016 at 8:02 am

    A hail mary pass that was intercepted by the opposing team and run back for a touchdown.

    Methinks the WaPo, "PropOrNot", and the rest of the MSM involved with this stunt are going to have a lesson in The Streisand Effect. Michael Krieger of Liberty Blitzkrieg (whom I greatly admire BTW) has said he already has many new followers and donors.

    EndOfTheWord November 26, 2016 at 8:39 am

    The hail mary pass was intercepted and run back for a touchdown. Ha, ha, ha. That's a good one, Mr. Pavel.

    hunkerdown November 26, 2016 at 6:18 am

    There's a Chrome addon in beta! Wow. I must say I'm impressed. It's like a porn blocker for liberals in crisis.

    This demands popcorn and much Nietzschean weaponized laughter.

    sd November 26, 2016 at 6:34 am

    Serious question here.

    What exactly is the origin of the Russia bashing that's been going on as of late? I feel like I missed some important public dis somewhere that would explain it all. Condoleeza Rice's general dated anti-Soviet attitude I could understand, but that doesn't explain the escalating bigotry pouring out of Obama and Clinton (and their various surrogates). Is it a case of a bomb in search of a war?

    EndOfTheWorld November 26, 2016 at 6:58 am

    Looks to me like it came out of the HRC campaign. LOL James Carville was talking about the KGB tampering with the vote tally .not knowing they've been out of business since 1991. The whole thing makes absolutely no sense, and it won't fly with the American public, many of whom watch RT, or may be married to or dating Russians. Even Randy Newman likes Putin enough to write a song about him.

    John November 26, 2016 at 9:17 am

    The funny thing is it's been an open secret that the Democratic party has known about electronic voting fraud (always swinging to the Right) for years but refuses to go near the subject publicly supposedly because they didn't want people to lose faith in election results and stop voting.

    John November 26, 2016 at 9:47 am

    Even today they are defending the results
    U.S. Officials Defend Integrity of Vote, Despite Hacking Fears
    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/25/us/politics/hacking-russia-election-fears-barack-obama-donald-trump.html?_r=0

    tgs November 26, 2016 at 10:26 am

    The Obama administration said on Friday that despite Russian attempts to undermine the presidential election , it has concluded that the results "accurately reflect the will of the American people."

    From the NYT article you mention. It is now axiomatic that the Putin government was actively attempting to subvert our election. This despite the fact that absolutely no compelling evidence has ever been given.

    integer November 26, 2016 at 7:37 am

    What exactly is the origin of the Russia bashing that's been going on as of late? I think it can be traced back to this .

    z November 26, 2016 at 2:45 pm

    After the nineties opening foreign influence was accepted and russia started integrating into the western world. Some years later the resurged nationalist kicked out western companies, broke cultural-social contacts.

    West is made on free trade-free business-free ideas flow. if russia not trading on common terms, west gonna take it by force. and russia holds one-fourth of fresh water, one-fifth of world forests, one sixth of arable but never before used land, and never before properly explored mineral wealth. All these can help to secure a prosperous 21.century for the west.

    Same like before the american conquest, only difference now local indigenous people wield nuclear weapons and have unlimited chinese support, so no rush let them make mistakes. (and they do, ukraine-syria-azerbaijan just the latest)

    WJ November 27, 2016 at 2:45 am

    I bet your funders can't wait to "properly explore" that Russian mineral wealth.

    PlutoniumKun November 26, 2016 at 7:41 am

    I don't think there is an easy answer to your question, but I think it goes around to the failed Ukrainian coup (well, partially failed) and the realisation within a certain element of the neocon establishment that Putin had been inadvertently strengthened by their policy failures in the Ukraine and Syria. I think there was a concerted element within the Blob to refocus on 'the Russian threat' to cover up their failures in the Middle East and the refusal of the Chinese to take the bait in the Pacific.

    This rolled naturally into concerns about cyberwar and it was a short step from there to using Russian cyberespionage to cover up the establishments embarrassment over wikileaks and multiple other failures exposed by outsiders. As always, when a narrative suits (for different reasons) the two halves of the establishment, the mainstream media is always happy to run it unquestioningly.

    So in short, I think its a mixture of genuine conspiracy, mixed in with political opportunism.

    Dirk77 November 26, 2016 at 8:44 am

    +1

    cocomaan November 26, 2016 at 8:53 am

    Don't forget Snowden and Assange. The intelligence community is, I'm sure, furious about those two. With Snowden still in Russia, it's basically a weeping sore on the intelligence community's face. Those people do not like exposure at all.

    I remember that, shortly after Snowden's revelations, the war drums really started to beat for Syria.

    a different chris November 26, 2016 at 10:43 am

    In all success* is the seeds of failure. Once upon a time, the "beating of war drums" was a great distraction from whatever ill's were currently affecting a nation. But the US now has such an overwhelming military that not only is there absolutely no threat to the US land mass, but for a given person there are at least two degrees of freedom between them and anybody actually involved in these wars themselves. We lost a soldier – ONE soldier – on Thanksgiving day and sure it was all over the news but how many USians actually know even a member of his family, let alone him? About zero to a first approximation.

    So it just isn't working as a distraction. TPTB I don't think really get that yet.

    *the word success here is used in a morally neutral sense

    Allegorio November 26, 2016 at 7:31 pm

    Likewise don't forget Chelsea/Bradley Manning! He was the one who put WikiLeaks on the map and is now paying a horrible price for his courage and love of humanity. His name is constantly dropped from the list of whistle blower heroes. Why? Because of his gender ambiguity? Whatever his gender Manning is an American hero worth remembering.

    fresno dan November 26, 2016 at 11:29 am

    PlutoniumKun
    November 26, 2016 at 7:41 am

    I think that's about right PlutoniumKun but I would add your moniker – the US is gonna spend a FORTUNE (I TRILLION dollars using Austin Powers voice) updating our nuclear arsenal. Can't really justify using ISIS, so the Soviet boogyman has to be resurrected .

    Lurker November 26, 2016 at 5:37 pm

    YES! You need a big bad enemy to justify expenditures on big bad weapons. ISIS ain't gonna cut it.

    integer November 26, 2016 at 8:02 pm

    Plutonium kun : "I'm hardly absorbed by your stomach or intestines and I'm expelled by your body, so in fact I can't kill people at all"

    (Curiosity finally got the better of me)

    grayslady November 26, 2016 at 8:30 am

    A friend of mine is convinced that Obama and the Beltway crowd have never gotten over Russia giving asylum to Edward Snowden. If you look at the timing between Snowden's revelations and the U.S. ginning up its anti-Russia talk and activities, there is some correlation.

    cocomaan November 26, 2016 at 8:54 am

    haha, I literally just posted this two inches above! +1

    I think the intelligence community, all those northern virginia folks, hate the fact that every day there's a traitor who has an outlet on twitter.

    witters November 26, 2016 at 6:09 pm

    Listen to Gore Vidal (in 1994!) and find out why: https://www.c-span.org/video/?61333-1/state-united-states

    ToivoS November 26, 2016 at 6:10 pm

    What exactly is the origin of the Russia bashing that's been going on as of late?

    That is very good question and it does not have a simple answer. I have been pondering this for 8 years now. The latest bout of Russia-hatred began as Putin began to re-assert their sovereignty after the disastrous Yeltsin years. This intensified after Georgia, Ukraine and Syria. In adddition the US was preprogrammed to hate Russia for historical reasons. Mostly because of the Soviet era but also when the US inherited the global empire from the Brits we also got some of their dislike of the Russian empire dating back to the 19th century.

    Allegorio November 26, 2016 at 7:49 pm

    It all started when Putin arrested the Russian oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky, when Putin put a stop to the shock therapy looting of Russia by the Harvard mafia and Jeffrey Sachs. Didn't he know that oligarch's are above the law? They are in the US. Didn't he know that money can buy you immunity from prosecution like it does in Europe and the US? Can't have that, hence the Ukraine, deprive him of his warm water naval base. Then there was the Crimean referendum. Out smarted again! Can't have that!

    WJ November 27, 2016 at 2:53 am

    Yes. There was a Michael Hudson piece posted here in 2014 that lays it all out. Apparently those wanting to bring "democratic institutions" to Russia haven't given up yet.

    This Propornot outfit has all the makings of a National Endowment for Democracy scam, including its sudden appearance in the Post, which has been publishing crazy regime-change-esque editorials on Russia for more than two years now.

    It's all so depressing.

    Mark Alexander November 26, 2016 at 6:37 am

    It's all my fault. I studied Russian in high school (4 years) and college (1 year), and even subscribed to Pravda briefly in college (as did all of my classmates) to improve reading skills. I also spent a month in Russia in 1971. This is how I became a dirty commie. By commenting on NC a half dozen times in the past, I have forever tainted it. Sorry!

    BTW, what is the W3C approved sarcasm tag? /sarc or /s?

    Disturbed Voter November 26, 2016 at 8:28 am

    I also took 4 years of Russian in HS. When in the Cold War, it is best to understand your opponents (not enemies), rather than be ignorant. That is how one can play chess and win and yes, it is as much a matter of intimidation and annoyance, as it is cold calculation. Bobby Fischer vs Boris Spassky. States have no enemies. Former allies become opponents and vice versa pragmatism rules.

    pebird November 26, 2016 at 1:32 pm

    Sometimes it isn't necessary.

    allan November 26, 2016 at 6:54 am

    " the kind of folks who make propaganda for brutal authoritarian oligarchies are often involved in a wide range of bad business."

    Sounds like half of the D.C. economy. And so the Democratic Party ends, not with a bang, but with a McCarthyite lynch mob.

    The Vole November 26, 2016 at 7:03 am

    Wow this is straight out of John LeCarre.

    divadab November 26, 2016 at 7:03 am

    Well Joe McCarthy was a Republican so this is yet another example of Democrats taking on that mantle of paranoid fear and war-mongering. Flipping Clintons, the best Republican President and candidate the Dems could come up with.

    Kathleen Smith November 26, 2016 at 7:45 am

    The MSM can no longer fool the people that there has been an economic recovery, that is why nobody believes the media anymore and that is why Donald Trump won the election. Watching news today is like watching a bad puppet show. The masses are finally waking up to the fact that their government has sold them down the river to big corporations and predatory bankers. Took the sheeple long enough.

    Kokuanani November 26, 2016 at 7:52 am

    I was dismayed to see a reference to this rotten WaPo article on Bill Moyers' Facebook. Usually he's much better than that.

    And based on the comments, folks are believing this junk.

    Escher November 26, 2016 at 8:21 am

    It's an idiotic new red scare, and I can tell you the well credentialed, supposedly smart liberals in my circles will eat it right up. Their critical thinking is completely out the window at this point, and they'll accept apparently anything to avoid coming to terms with Clinton having lost to Trump. It's terrifying.

    knowbuddhau November 26, 2016 at 12:47 pm

    Bummer. I'll always have a fondness for him from the Power of Myth interviews.

    Was surprised to find PoN recommended in an article on In These Times.

    http://inthesetimes.com/article/19658/20-lessons-from-the-20th-century-on-how-to-survive-in-trumps-america

    9. Investigate. Figure things out for yourself. Spend more time with long articles. Subsidize investigative journalism by subscribing to print media. Realize that some of what is on your screen is there to harm you. Bookmark PropOrNot and other sites that investigate foreign propaganda pushes.

    It was so jarring I kept reading that last sentence, thinking I'd missed the snark. Fully expected it to end with "as an example," not to lend it cred.

    Harold November 26, 2016 at 5:39 pm

    The article you mention in In These Times is by Timothy Snyder :), who despite being a well-known historian is no mean propagandist himself, having suggested that the Ukrainians not the Soviets liberated Auschwitz. http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2014/03/07/crimea-putin-vs-reality/

    OIFVet November 26, 2016 at 5:46 pm

    Timothy Snyder is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. That he would recommend PoN is at least a small indication of who stands behind it. Snyder is has given bad odor to the term "historian" over the past three years. He is to objective history what Bernays was to objective journalism.

    Harold November 26, 2016 at 8:26 pm

    Snyder: "The army group that liberated Auschwitz was called the First Ukrainian Front." The NYR of Books has suppressed the comment section on its blog, probably to spare Snyder the embarrassment of having his howlers pointed out by readers.

    knowbuddhau November 26, 2016 at 7:03 pm

    Ah so, thanks to you both. Two tells made me suspicious: lots of apparently good advice, then the little drop of poison just nonchalantly dropped in the mix; and Yale historian ;) .

    My comment there hasn't made it out of moderation yet. But someone else tore into him for the same reason I did, recommending PoN:

    Because you have no idea who the hell they are, anymore than anyone else does, they've just released a list of non-MSM news sites that they disagree with. They smear long running and well trusted sites as "propaganda" outlets without offering any evidence or stating any sort of methodology. You have litereally abandoned the professional ethic which ought to go along with being a published.historian and University professor purely because it makes you FEEL BETTER.

    I just asked him, as a Yale historian, to please tell us how the list was compiled, or at least give some reason for his unqualified recommendation. I went on to say that I read several of the sites listed, esp. Counterpunch and of course, NC. Even helpfully provided a link to this article, saying the idea that NC pushes foreign propaganda is ludicrous, and the WaPo article was being thoroughly debunked here.

    Ended with "I call upon the author to explain! (h/t Nick Cave)"

    inode_buddha November 26, 2016 at 8:22 am

    WaPo Has been sounding increasingly shrill for the last year. Makes you wonder what they're hiding or what truth they're running from.

    polecat November 26, 2016 at 5:11 pm

    Hit em where it hurts .. PROFITS --

    **BOYCOTT AMAZON & The WASHINGTON POST !!

    ** Any and all who spew this crap

    ambrit November 26, 2016 at 9:38 am

    More likely, what "truth" 'they' are trying to manufacture. (When did the new 'owners' take up the reins at WaPo? There might be a correlation, and a causation involved)

    Inode_buddha November 26, 2016 at 10:29 am

    This is why I'm looking forward to any legal cases that may arise out of this - I plan to follow such *very* closely. Would love to see discovery documents upon the editorial and ownership staff . the legal equivalent of a public enema, "you shall have no more secrets "

    After all, didn't Fox News win a case essentially stating that it was OK to flat out lie and fabricate from whole cloth? Then why can't Democrat media organs do likewise?

    ambrit November 26, 2016 at 10:46 am

    Why didn't I think of that earlier? "Political Infotainment." If my reading serves me right, I was under the impression that newspapers of a hundred years ago and earlier displayed their political allegiances openly. A reader could easily work out the underlying story from separating "story" from "interpretation." Now, news outlets are supposedly impartial and pure of heart. Yet another cherished myth bites the dust. Perhaps it is better this way.

    John November 26, 2016 at 10:52 am

    Yes Fox Lies did win such a case. And if any fake "news" outlet should be on the list it is them.

    pebird November 26, 2016 at 1:35 pm

    Didn't we used to call "fake news" rumors? And when did newspapers stop printing rumors?

    Disturbed Voter November 26, 2016 at 8:24 am

    Per FDR .. sometimes we are better known by our enemies, than by our friends.

    Vedant Desai November 26, 2016 at 8:30 am

    Just check this out :

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

    Based on the evidence of above mentioned link, this "PropOrNot" can be part of a project of U.S. government to manipulate media to create an anti-Russia climate or more likely another method of attack on what they consider "Left" so status quo in economic policies of U.S. can be maintained.

    Susan C November 26, 2016 at 8:32 am

    What is going on with the press/MSM lately? It is like one big game of mind control. Is that what journalism is for – to persuade people to do what the system wants them to do and I hope I am not stretching here but a la Bernays? I mean when I think about this it is really sort of terrifying as the MSM has done little else but constantly broadcast to people that life in America is just fine and everyone is happy when in fact the opposite is true – there is a lot of hardship out there since the financial crisis, a lot of people never recovered, millions or tens of millions. So how can people not be drawn to alternative news sites which thankfully are quite abundant now and want political change? It just seems like the WaPo, NYT are living in this one little sliver of opulence and prosperity while the rest of us just shake our heads and wonder what has happened to this country, especially as we see their darling was not voted in as President. So now they are striking out and attempting to smear the reputations of good sites, And what is this fake news thing – I am not on social media and have no idea what the fake news is – is it about the pizza places? And why are the social media sites being censored – I had read on zh that when the Comey story hit before the election that that news was not trending at all which was very strange according to those who would know better.

    I don't know where all this fear is coming from in the MSM but I imagine they have lost their grasp of the American mind. I worry every time I tune in that I am being lied to and misled for a reason. A political reason. I grew up in the 50's and remember real journalism and I want it back. I want to know what is really going on. Everywhere.

    Allegorio November 26, 2016 at 7:11 pm

    It has worked for a hundred years, since WWI and the Creel Commission, the destruction of a vibrant American Left. Imagine the panic in the boardroom suites, the millennials no longer think that socialism is a bad word, and supported an aging leftist for president. OMFG! It's all Russia's fault providing an alternate plausible narrative. Can't have that. Outsourcing jobs to Asia, burdening college students with immense debts, incredible corruption personified by the Queen of Wall Street couldn't have anything to do with it. All power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. It's finally happened, they have over reached and are about to fall off the edge. Relish the panic.

    Escher November 26, 2016 at 8:41 am

    So this WaPo story is an example of the "fake news" we're supposed to be on the lookout for, right?

    cocomaan November 26, 2016 at 8:46 am

    When everything hits the fan, I'll be glad to have you other filthy propagandists in the FEMA camp alongside me, breaking rocks, eating gruel, and discussing the path to insanity.

    I really wish that reporters like those at the Post and the Times had done us all a favor and walked into the ocean after their abysmal election coverage. Why anyone listens to these outlets anymore is a question that I ponder at night, staring at the ceiling, wondering what the hell happened to my country.

    Butch In Waukegan November 26, 2016 at 9:04 am

    On PropOrNot's list is usslibertyveterans.org, which might be an indication its neocon origins.

    The site has few articles, no comments and its visit counter shows under 3,800 hits. It looks like it was created 4 months ago. It is propaganda because?

    Their stats page shows that ProOrNot's strategy might backfire. Yesterday was a record day for hits.

    Or maybe usslibertyveterans.org is a fishing lure.

    Jagger November 26, 2016 at 10:24 am

    Who could possibly have a problem with a site on the USS Liberty? Certainly narrows down the list of suspects considerably, assuming it wasn't a deliberate false track. For those not familiar with the USS Liberty, it was the USN ship attacked, nearly sunk with heavy casualties, by Israel in 1967. A lot of military still have bitterness towards Israel and the American leadership due to the lack of justice and cover-up over that incident.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident

    integer November 26, 2016 at 9:10 pm

    The surrounding of "Russian propaganda" with the letter 'y' reminds me a bit of this :

    (((Echo))) is a symbol used by anti-Semitic members of the alt-right to identify certain individuals as Jewish by surrounding their names with three parentheses on each side. The symbol became a subject of online discussions and media scrutiny in June 2016 after Google removed a browser extension that automatically highlights Jewish surnames in the style.

    Note that Israel has a lot to lose if Trump pulls the US out of the Middle East. Here's some Russian propaganda on the issue:

    Jagger November 26, 2016 at 10:32 pm

    Recent tweet by PropOrNot per Greenwald.

    https://theintercept.com/2016/11/26/washington-post-disgracefully-promotes-a-mccarthyite-blacklist-from-a-new-hidden-and-very-shady-group/

    Tila Tequila's Descent Into Nazism Is A Long Time Coming

    The self-proclaimed "alt-reich queen" has a long history of anti-Semitism, and an even longer one of internet trolling.

    Again unless this is a false lead, these guys are looking more and more Israeli or Israeli sympathizers. Other tweets per Greenwald at same link also suggest a pretty low maturity level. Possibly kids or college level??

    Old Hickory November 26, 2016 at 9:20 am

    The WaPo story is in today's Greensboro (N.C.) News & Record. Front page, above the fold. Sheesh.

    Tom Stone November 26, 2016 at 9:26 am

    This is a lot worse than "Yellow Cake" and it scares the pants off me. This is the "Official line", signed off on by the editors of WaPo. Think about that for a minute. And then think about the campaign to get the EC to enthrone HRC.

    Trump dissed the MSM and they are pissed off, so are their masters who wanted Obama to slide through TPP in the period between Hillary's win and the inauguration. They blew more than $1Billion on a loser and they may have decided that losing is not acceptable and that it will be HRC on the throne, whatever it takes. The recklessness displayed by the MSM here is breathtaking at a moment when the USA is more divided than it has been since the election of 1860.

    ambrit November 26, 2016 at 9:48 am

    Add this to the "YouTube Heros" project,
    see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wh_1966vaIA
    and the nascent "fake news site" purge program,
    see: http://www.businessinsider.com/google-facebook-crack-down-adverts-appearing-fake-news-sites-us-election-trump-2016-11
    and one sees a coordinated meta project to "sanitize" the public's sources of information.
    I'm leaning towards your take on this. Joe McCarthy had nothing on these present "operators."

    Patricia November 26, 2016 at 4:43 pm

    Hero youtube vid ("mass flag videos!") has 918K dislikes to 29k likes. Encouraging

    tgs November 26, 2016 at 10:36 am

    it scares the pants off me

    I'm with you Tom Stone. There is nothing funny about this. The MSM at this point is the greatest purveyor of fake news on the planet, I am talking about not just CNN and Fox, but the BBC, France24 and so on.

    Pretty much everything they have said and every video they has shown on east Aleppo is either a lie or a fake. As someone noted the other day (I can't remember who) if the stories about east Aleppo were actually true, then the Russians and Syrians have destroyed approximately 900 hospitals – including the 'last pediatric hospital in east Aleppo' which has been completely demolished on at least three separate occasions in the last few months. The main stream outlets don't even try to be consistent.

    The people who run things here and in Europe are apparently desperate – and this latest move is an indication of how desperate they actually are. It is indeed scary.

    HBE November 26, 2016 at 11:11 am

    It's 90 hospitals not 900, but 90 is just as ridiculous given the whole country of Syria only has 88 hospitals/clinics.

    fresno dan November 26, 2016 at 11:36 am

    tgs
    November 26, 2016 at 10:36 am

    I am publicly apologizing to Sarah Palin who I used to think was a dingbat for all of her criticism of the MSM aka Lame stream media. She was far, far more correct than I ever thought possible.

    But look at the silver lining – how many people like me who thought that the large media got the essential facts correct can now see how much we're being fed pure propaganda .how much of what you see depends on what your looking for .

    MRLost November 26, 2016 at 9:54 am

    Weapons of Mass Distraction. Another nail in the coffin of credibility of the NYT and WaPo. Recall after the Stupid War and how there were zero weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq that the NYT and Wapo declined to mention or explore their own culpability in beating the drums of war. This will be more of the same.

    John Wright November 26, 2016 at 11:11 am

    The Times had a retrospective on their actions on May 26,2004. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/world/from-the-editors-the-times-and-iraq.html

    "Some critics of our coverage during that time have focused blame on individual reporters. Our examination, however, indicates that the problem was more complicated. Editors at several levels who should have been challenging reporters and pressing for more skepticism were perhaps too intent on rushing scoops into the paper. Accounts of Iraqi defectors were not always weighed against their strong desire to have Saddam Hussein ousted. Articles based on dire claims about Iraq tended to get prominent display, while follow-up articles that called the original ones into question were sometimes buried. In some cases, there was no follow-up at all."

    So the Times DID admit some culpability, but it wasn't as if the Times volunteered to donate a portion of their profits(deepen their losses?) to help Iraqi victims or US soldiers and their families.

    And given the Times Syria coverage, where even the sanctimonious Nick Kristof (August 28, 2013) called on for Obama to bomb Syria for credibility reasons, nothing has changed at the Times.

    "Yet there is value in bolstering international norms against egregious behavior like genocide or the use
    of chemical weapons. Since President Obama established a "red line" about chemical weapons use, his
    credibility has been at stake: he can't just whimper and back down."

    The Times playbook is to parrot what TPTB wants to do and then if the readers subsequently revolt in disgust, apologize later.

    After I quit my digital subscription to the Times, it seems I'm limited to 10 articles/month. This might be more than the safely recommended monthly dose of the NYTimes.

    clarky90 November 26, 2016 at 3:25 pm

    The dissimulation, the feigned ignorance (the irony). During the 1930s, the New York Times actually acted as propaganda agents for Stalin. They collaborated with the Soviet Security Services to prevent the rescue of millions of Ukrainian peasants (deplorables).

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Duranty

    "In 1932 Duranty received a Pulitzer Prize for a series of reports about the Soviet Union, 11 of them published in June 1931. He was criticized then and later for his denial of widespread famine (1932–33) in the USSR, most particularly the mass starvation in Ukraine. Years later, there were calls to revoke his Pulitzer; The New York Times, which submitted his work for the prize in 1932, wrote that his articles constituted "some of the worst reporting to appear in this newspaper."

    Elizabeth Burton November 26, 2016 at 4:03 pm

    Editors were perhaps too intent on rushing scoops into the paper.

    And there you have it, boys and girls, the one driving force behind journalism as practiced in the corporate media. If I had been paid for every time I was told to fudge a story lest the local broadcast stations break it first, I would have been able to pay my mortgage.

    The Trumpening November 26, 2016 at 10:06 am

    This whole Russian propaganda campaign is nothing more then elites attempting to slam shut the Overton Window that the Trump campaign has pried open a bit this year. This article explains why they will most likely fail:

    http://thefutureprimaeval.net/the-overton-bubble/

    simjam November 26, 2016 at 10:11 am

    I suspect that PropOrNot's outburst was developed during the campaign by well heeled and connected Hilary supporters to be unveiled after the election to muzzle increasingly influential web sites including NC. As it stands PropOrNot shot a blank. If Hilary had won the campaign against "fake news" would probably have taken on a more ominous tone.

    Mel November 26, 2016 at 11:39 am

    Wolf mentioned that the list will function as a dog-whistle for money - that is, advertisers - telling them about the dangerous places. Maybe not shooting a blank in the short run. In the long run, of course, advertisers will follow the eyeballs anywhere.

    flora November 26, 2016 at 12:39 pm

    maybe David Brock is still correcting the record? ;) http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/david-brock-donald-trump-donor-network-231588

    Oil Dusk November 26, 2016 at 10:14 am

    The MSM became so biased during the Presidential election, it drove many Americans toward social media where you could at least view campaign speaches unfiltered. The same process is now being applied in the support of manmade climate change alarmism with hopefully the same result

    witters November 26, 2016 at 6:17 pm

    Go away. Stop smearing NC with climate denialism. You, sir, are a troll.

    pretzelattack November 26, 2016 at 10:22 pm

    i think you meant the same process is applied in the support of oil company propaganda. the msm slavishly supported the pro fracking clinton, slavishly acted for years as if there were an actual scientific debate, instead of fossil fuel shills vs scientists.

    Uahsenaa November 26, 2016 at 10:15 am

    I really hope this doesn't get buried in the comments, because it's important to note that Ames is actually incorrect. He would have been right as recently as 3 years ago but no longer is.

    The provisions of the Smith-Mundt act that prevented materials produced by the BGG from being used for domestic purposes were repealed by the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012 (actually passed in 2013, when incorporated into the NDAA), which states:

    The Secretary and the Broadcasting Board of Governors are authorized to use funds appropriated or otherwise made available for public diplomacy information programs to provide for the preparation, dissemination, and use of information intended for foreign audiences abroad about the United States, its people, and its policies, through press, publications, radio, motion pictures, the Internet, and other information media, including social media, and through information centers, instructors, and other direct or indirect means of communication.

    It also contains a provision that supposedly prevents the BBG from influencing domestic public opinion, yet also says the following.

    Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit the Department of State or the Broadcasting Board of Governors from engaging in any medium or form of communication, either directly or indirectly, because a United States domestic audience is or may be thereby exposed to program material, or based on a presumption of such exposure.

    Worth noting: passed under Obama and discounted at the time but venues such as Mother Jones, who did the heavy lifting of telling progressives they were paranoid.

    Uahsenaa November 26, 2016 at 10:18 am

    Mother Jones link .

    Katharine November 26, 2016 at 11:36 am

    Thanks for this information!

    I am guessing the proviso you quote may have been intended to cover the possibility of people in places like Florida hearing broadcasts aimed at Cuba or other targets, but it certainly raises questions.

    What I find most despicable in all this is the cowardice of these people making up their accusations and refusing to say who they are. Beneath contempt.

    Uahsenaa November 26, 2016 at 2:47 pm

    As a loophole it's not perfect (the intent of the primary provision it qualifies seems rather clear on its face), but we're talking about people who wrote elaborate memos justifying torture and extra judicial murder, and who went before Congress (i.e. Holder) to claim that "due process" does not necessarily mean "judicial process." A loophole like that is more than enough to judge such activities legal enough. I certainly can't imagine anyone in the current administration prosecuting it.

    Yves Smith Post author November 27, 2016 at 12:13 am

    Ames tells me Pando has a legal opinion to the contrary.

    lyman alpha blob November 26, 2016 at 10:19 am

    In regards to all this 'fake news' and 'Russian propaganda' hysteria, one potential problem I keep seeing mentioned is that certain sites could be banned from FleeceBook thereby destroying these sites' page hits and ad revenue.

    I don't use the FleeceBook so I guess I don't understand how this works. I can come to this or any other website any time I want so why would I care that it's been banned by FleeceBook? I don't remember exactly how I first heard of NC but I'm guessing I followed a link from one of the other left-leaning sites I read regularly (which coincidentally also are authored by Boris Badinov according to the WaPo). Is FB sort of like AOL back in the day where AOL users thought they were surfing the intertubes but in reality were in some sort of AOL-approved pen? And if that's the case I have to wonder how long it will be before FB becomes just like AOL is today, ie mainly used by the less internet savvy. I already hear rumors that the youngsters consider FB something only old people use.

    I am genuinely interested if anyone can explain this – would it really hurt websites that much to be banned by FB? Wouldn't there be a backlash against FB for doing so?

    PS: The thing that made me start using NC as my go-to source for news besides the excellent original financial reporting was the fact that you guys started including regular links to sites like BAR, Counetrpunch, etc that I was already reading anyway. I feel like I can read here without missing out on what was going on elsewhere – there's only so much one can read in a day. Keep up the great work!

    Yves Smith Post author November 26, 2016 at 1:33 pm

    I would assume that's how they intend to hurt these sites, but we get virtually no traffic from Facebook. However, being banned from FB would seriously dent out policy influence.

    Jess November 26, 2016 at 3:48 pm

    The thing is, it would prevent people like me from linking to NC stories in our personal posts, or in replies to posts from our FB friends.

    polecat November 26, 2016 at 5:17 pm

    Well now they gotcha were they want ya

    don't .. use Faceborg -- .. see that was easy .

    same with GooGOO, TWITTED etc. .

    Jess November 26, 2016 at 8:09 pm

    Unfortunately, Faceborg is the best way for me to stay in touch with certain people. For example, it has a closed group called FDL-LLN which is limited to former commenters on FireDogLake. (LLN stands for Late Late Night, which was a subforum for people to post music and discuss musical artists; the LLN heading was used for the FB group out of, I believe, both nostalgia and the friendships that many formed as FDL "pups".)

    In addition, if you post an NC link on FB, it gets seen by many people who might not otherwise become aware of the site.

    polecat November 27, 2016 at 2:20 am

    well .. by all means go ahead and continue to be used as product, because THAT"S the only thing of import by the likes of zuckerberg.

    homeroid November 27, 2016 at 2:39 am

    Ah Jess I miss LLN and Suz an Tut and all the rest. But not enough to go Faceborg. Somethings are lost some remain. I still have a phone which i use every so often.
    Bob.

    skippy November 27, 2016 at 3:44 am

    After a few years of FB econ sites, hashing things out with the usual suspects, things began to increasingly change as the primaries got to the wire. Once solid commenters replete with knowlage and experience began to mimic the very people and camps they once railed against.

    It was on then when I took on these people for such actions that I started to get the FB treatment, ending in privacy washing.

    Disheveled Marsupial . especially when noting Hillary's history and bad side, sad to think it might have been one of the old gang that put in a complaint to FB.

    WhatsNotToLike November 26, 2016 at 10:20 am

    There is something bizarre about this whole scenario.

    PropOrNot is asserting that the sites on the 'List", both right and left, were responsible for the Clinton loss by spreading false Russian propaganda. This would make more sense, as a political project, if Clinton had won. Asking the Trump DOJ and Trump's/Comey's FBI to investigate the asserted causes of Trump's win is bizarre.

    It only makes sense, IMHO, if this project was already in the works pre-election anticipating a Clinton win, where it would have had the benefit of targeting both the right and the left and continuing the drum beat for war. If that is the case, the losers appear to be too shell-shocked or committed, financially or ideologically, to think through the implications of letting this go forward.

    I do like the idea of NC, and other left-wing sites, forming a coalition with right-wing sites to take legal action. Ralph Nader's "Unstoppable: The Emerging Left-Right Alliance to Dismantle the Corporate State" comes to mind.

    Skip Intro November 26, 2016 at 3:29 pm

    The site was apparently registered on Aug. 21 2016, when the establishment still felt confident that the ascension of the empress was a done deal.

    WJ November 27, 2016 at 3:09 am

    Wasn't the reality of Russia intervention in Syria well underway by that time as well? Wasn't the whole US Syrian ploy dependent on everybody selling the people a clear distinction between evil Assad, evil ISIS, and good moderates (ahem al-quaeda)?

    That narrative was clearly no longer believed even by the journalists writing it. Why? Sites like this one and others. Why does it matter? Because aim was to get rid of Assad to cut Russia out of Mideast, having failed to achieve that goal two years earlier in Ukraine. Cui bono?

    Allegorio November 26, 2016 at 6:41 pm

    Excellent observation, preparation for a post Killery election purge of the alternate media.

    pretzelattack November 26, 2016 at 7:19 pm

    ah, that makes sense. and why waste a good purge even if plan a doesn't quite work out?

    nippersdad November 26, 2016 at 8:13 pm

    Good points. Also, IIRC, internet governance is due to be turned over to a non-governmental organization in the not too distant future. Might this not be a way of achieving the elimination of net neutrality during a Democratic Administration that would not want to be seen as sticking the knife in themselves?

    In that scenario, it would look a lot like the present Administration is secretly working the refs in the same way that they tried to push the TPP and its' associated ISDS provisions before the whistle was blown on them.

    Light a Candle November 26, 2016 at 10:37 am

    Wow, this is surreal. Edward Bernays on steroids.

    This whole bizarre "fake news" meme along with the and the Russians are coming is getting widespread media traction including Vanity Fair. It's getting repeated in Canadian media too.

    Now PropOrNot not is not credited as the source but the more plausible sounding Foreign Policy Research Institute and lots of references to the Washington Post's "reporting".

    I think this is a deliberate campaign to discredit progressive and independent news sources. God forbid that citizens should read a variety of sources and make up their own minds.

    jo6pac November 26, 2016 at 11:28 am

    Yes eddy b. meets Eric Hoffers True Believers.

    NC Please keep up the wonderful work done here.

    Stephanie November 26, 2016 at 10:40 am

    I have wondered for about a year now if someone is handing out anti-Russian story quotas – or maybe anti-Russian story cash, with a bonus for anything that goes viral. I'm not sure how else you explain stuff like this from a Gawker site that was mainly focused on minimum wage law and whether the Tilted Kilt could legally fire you for being too fat.

    This current listicle feels very much the same, except with less professionalism and more credulity. Either someone is getting paid enough not to care how asinine this looks, or the inmates really are running the media asylum.

    S Haust November 26, 2016 at 10:58 am

    Thanks a lot for noticing this.
    Provides me a one-click route to a long list of my favorite sources.
    Don't need to bother with bookmarks anymore.

    OIFVet November 26, 2016 at 11:02 am

    Naked Capitalism is in great company: BAR, Counterpunch, Antiwar, Consortium News. I didn't need to read these sites to come to my views though, all they did is to confirm what I had come to believe all on my own: that Hillary is a corrupt warmonger, that the American government has been captured by the moneyed elites, that the Democrat Party is a rat nest of neoliberal infestation. And while I was naturally predisposed toward Russia by virtue of where I was born and by Bulgarian history, my college career was marked by my support for all of the bad policies that brought us the new Cold War with Russia: NATO expansion, the bombing of Serbia, the economic ruin of Russia, the unipolar world order. I was young, stupid, and ambitious. Later on I simply settled into profound indifference toward Russia and a general anti-war attitude brought about by my own service. It wasn't until the hysterical MSM crapstorm of breathless smears about Sochi that I began to notice the US policies against Russia. So for me, the most effective pro-Russia propaganda outlets proved to be US MSM, WaPo and NYT being the most effective of all. Just one of life's little ironies. So WaPo wants to sling mud and go on a witch hunt? I suggest that they indict themselves first and foremost, for being a mindless disseminators of US government propaganda.

    Dave November 26, 2016 at 11:10 am

    Naked Capitalism is my home page and the first thing I read. If it's Russian Propaganda, I would like to offer a big Thank You to Russia. -sarc.

    Consider the Bezor's attack a positive, he will introduce thousands of new readers to this site.

    S Haust November 26, 2016 at 11:12 am

    "a new 'Eurasian' empire stretching from Dublin to Vladisvostok"

    Why Dublin? With a flick of the finger, they could have had the flyover terrain between there and Shannon.

    And why Vladivostock? You can go a lot farther East than that and still be in Russia.

    For Pete's sake, why have they not included Sapporo and the rest of Japan. Aren't they vulnerable too?

    And the Aleutians; for that matter, why not the rest of Alaska too? After all, we only bought it from them at a knock-down price. Anyone knows they got
    a raw deal. Shouldn't they want that back too?

    Katharine November 26, 2016 at 11:40 am

    You forget their target audience is ignorant of geography, inter alia. They had to stick to names people might be able to place at least vaguely.

    PlutoniumKun November 26, 2016 at 1:38 pm

    Shannon Airport would have been appropriate as during the Cold War it was Aeroflots main base for flying on to Cuba. Its now only a short drive from Trumps Irish golf course.

    Ted November 26, 2016 at 11:21 am

    Conflicted. On the one hand, as a long time reader of a diversity of listed websites (on the lefty side mostly), this comes across as ham fisted and, frankly, bizarre. Not only the laughable story itself, but that it has been picked up and reposted by a host of other rather mainstream and 'liberal' surrogates.

    It is *bizarre* because Russia today is nothing of what the boogeyman USSR was in times past: an alternative political-economic arrangement to then industrial capitalism. Russia Today (wink, wink) is as capitalist and as democratic as any of the other players on this particular stage (plenty of the former, not so much of the latter). An economic competitor, sure, but no USSR. So the anti-Russia/Putin propaganda just consistently reads hollow to anyone who spends any time just reading run of the mill reporting of goings on in the world (reporting aside from propaganda stories). In other words, if you are a relatively informed reader of diverse sources and traveler, the anti-Russia stuff just comes across as contrived from the get go.

    But then again, I got a chance to visit with some 1000s of academic colleagues at a national convention recently. This is where the 'conflicted' point comes from. As Good Liberals, academics dine daily on a strict NYT, WAPO, NPR diet, with the more 'edgy' types hanging at VOX and HuffPo. And they BELIEVE everything their beloved media tells them through these sources, without reservation (and with the requisite snark and smirk). The academy is nearly completely captured and now so deeply immersed in its echo chamber that any information that might challenge its perception of the world is immediately dismissed as nefarious propaganda (either paid for by the Koch bros, or Putin). Of course, since the elite academy is overwhelmingly Ivy educated, their worldview loops back to their Ivy educated friends at said media outlets. Creating a bubble that is increasingly impenetrable to reason and critical analysis.

    Moose and Squirrel must DIE November 26, 2016 at 11:28 am

    Lots of panic for the Washington regime. The clownish asshole loser that they carefully groomed proved less repulsive than their chosen Fuehrer Clinton. Now they are distraught to see that their enemy Russia sucks much less than the USA.

    Russians get a much better deal than the US subject population. The Russian head of state has approval ratings that US politicians scarcely dream of. Russia complies with the Paris Principles, the gold standard for institutionalized human rights protection under international review. The USA does not. Russia's incorruptible President keeps kleptocrats in check, while the US banana republic installs them in high office. Russia complies with the rule of law: they refrain from use or threat of force and rely on pacific dispute resolution, using proportional and necessary force in compliance with UN Charter Chapter VII. The US shits on rule of law, interpreting human rights instruments in bad faith and flouting jus cogens to maintain impunity for the gravest crimes. In the precise terms of Responsibility to Protect, the US government does not even meet the minimal test for state sovereignty: compliance with the International Bill of Human Rights, the Rome Statute, and the UN Charter. Naturally the US is bleeding legitimacy and international standing, and Russia is going from strength to strength. If Russia invaded, we would strew flowers and sweets.

    The collapse of the USSR did Russia a world of good. Now it's time for the USA to collapse and free America.

    nothing but the truth November 26, 2016 at 11:29 am

    it boils down to Soros vs Putin. Anyone who is not with Soros is with Putin, according to Soros. Soros cannot digest the death threat he was given by Putin, to stay away from Russia or else. Since Soros was born in old communist europe, he seems to believe he has the right to regime change there. And he has been very successful – primarily because he is in bed with the CIA and the Russians are just now waking up again.

    Ignacio November 26, 2016 at 12:01 pm

    So sorry! I am a foreign "propagandist" reader, commenter and contributer from Spain, and I am just shoked to see this! How sad is this, it pretty much looks like McCarthysm again!!!!

    Edward Harrison November 26, 2016 at 12:06 pm

    Hi Naked Capitalism. I haven't been on this site for some time. But I felt it necessary to comment due to an ad hominem attack from a commenter "James" regarding the show I produce at RT called Boom Bust.

    From my vantage point as producer at RT, I have been able to see the whole anti-Russia campaign unfold in all its fury. I have a lot of thoughts on this but I want to restrict my comments to the specific argument James makes. here:

    "it's also obvious that RT invites him on the network because he lambasts the American political establishment and weakens the public's confidence in its leaders. This is clearly a goal of Moscow, and they use people like Steve Keen to do it. I'm sure Steven Keen doesn't think of his role that way, but RT and Russian intelligence certainly do."

    Since I produce the show that Steve Keen appears on, I am well-placed to give you a view on this. James' comment is flat out false. What James writes is something he has fabricated in his imagination – connecting dots he believes should be connected based on no first hand evidence whatsoever.

    What actually happens on Boom Bust is this:

    Since no one I work with at RT has a sophisticated background in economics, finance or financial reporting, they give us a wide berth in putting together content for our show with nearly no top down dictates at all. That means we as American journalists have a pretty much free hand to report economic news intelligently and without bias. We invite libertarian, mainstream, non-mainstream, leftist, Democratic commentators, Republican commentators – you name it. As for guests, they are not anti-American in any way shape or form. They are disproportionately non-mainstream.

    We have no pro-Russian agenda. And that is in part because Russia is a bit player on the economic stage, frankly. Except for sanctions, it has mostly been irrelevant on our show since inception.

    Let me share a strange anecdote on that. We had a guest on our show about three years ago, early in my tenure. We invited him on because he had smart things to say about the UK economy. But he had also written some very negative things about Putin and Russia. Rather than whitewash this we addressed it specifically in the interview and asked him an open-ended question about Russia, so he could say his piece. I was ASTONISHED when he soft-pedaled his response and made no forceful case as he had done literally days ago in print. This guy clearly self-censored – for what reason I don't know. But it is something that has stayed with me ever since.

    The most important goal from a managerial perspective has been that our reporting is different i.e. covers missing and important angles of the same storyline that are missing in the mainstream media or that it covers storylines that are missing altogether.

    Neither Steve Keen nor any other guest on our show appears "because he lambasts the American political establishment". This is false. He appears on our show because he is a credible economist who provides a differentiated view on economics and insight that we believe will help our viewers understand the global economy. If Paul Krugman had something to say of that nature and would appear on our show, we would welcome him. In fact, I and other producers have reached out to him many times to no avail, especially after we had Gerald Friedman give his take on the dust-up surrounding Bernie Sanders' economic plan. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yna275KzuDQ

    Look, I understand the scepticism about RT and its motives. It IS a state-funded news outlet with news story angles that sometimes contrast sharply with western media. And it has not been critical of the Russian government as far as I can tell. But you can't ascribe nefarious motives to individual economists or reporters based on inaccurate or false third hand accounts. You are just making things up, creating a false narrative based on circumstantial evidence. This is just adding to the building peer pressure associated with what almost seems like an orchestrated campaign to discredit non-mainstream sources of news.

    ambrit November 26, 2016 at 4:18 pm

    You are in good company with that suspicion of a campaign to "sanitize" the public's sources of information. If one were to consider the Corporate sector as the equivalent of a state, then almost all news sources are liable to extra strong scrutiny. Going back to Bernays, the "shepherding" of the news sources used by the majority of the population is crucial to maintaining control of public perceptions. In that sense, the present struggle for control of the news narrative is understandable.
    Keep up the good work.

    shinola November 26, 2016 at 12:13 pm

    NC " a leading left-wing financial news blog"?

    Isn't that a compliment? I mean it does say "leading" (and I have to agree).

    As for "left-wing", well NC does frequently feature articles by Bill Black & others associated with the University of Mo. Kansas City; and UMKC has long been known for its lefty, socialist/commie leanings – I know because my 81 y.o. mother told me so (and I had a prof. there teaching "History of Economic Thought" who came right out & claimed to be a Socialist – horrors!)

    DJG November 26, 2016 at 12:14 pm

    Lambert foresaw that there would be a witch hunt after the election. He indicated that it would come from the Democratic Party and the conserva-Dem establishment. And, ecco!, a witch hunt. So what could possibly be the source?

    I am noticing on my Facebook feeds that the ooshy liberals are in a feeding frenzy: They believe that they are victims of some breakdown in information. The shocker was that the news being passed around in DemPartyLandia was that the Democrats were on the verge of retaking both houses of Congress and the presidency. Meanwhile, Water Cooler showed that the neither house of Congress was truly in play and the presidential race was a dead heat. After the election, various lists began to circulate. The one cited by Yves isn't the first. I saw one list that included The Onion, The Daily Currant, and Duffel Blog. You mean Duffel Blog's story on U.S. soldiers trying en masse to join the Canadian army isn't true?

    Further, much of liberaldom is now deep into trying to flip the Electoral College or amend the Constitution immediately, as well as the Trump as Fascist meme.

    Yes, America, land of self-proclaimed bad-asses, turns out to be the realm of panic. And many policies and stances are going to have to be suddenly revised: Ooshy liberals, who supported charter schools for years, are suddenly shocked that DeVos of Amway is a charter-school addict. The disastrous foreign-policy adventures of the last few years have to be offloaded very soon on Trump, so that Obama can be thanked for being scandal-free.

    And, evidently, the conspiracy is now so big that it can't be blamed solely on Al-Jazeera.

    flora November 26, 2016 at 12:28 pm

    yes. a lot of people have stopped thinking straight, or stopped thinking:
    http://www.gocomics.com/michaelramirez/2016/11/19

    Ignacio November 26, 2016 at 3:42 pm

    Isn't this a good run to autodestruction?
    -I mean, Dem party autodestruction?

    susan the other November 26, 2016 at 12:15 pm

    This means we need more outlets besides Google and Facebook; outlets impervious to witch hunts – maybe offshore enterprises, after all that's the trend. The more the merrier for manufacturing dissent – in a good sense. What Russia does cannot harm us but it is always good to hear their take; and China is interesting as well. We get such gobbledegook from MSM we would never understand a single issue without alternative news. It's a little late for them to be all hysterical about losing their grip – they've been annoying us and boring us to death for 5 decades; and selling us down the river. I'm amazed they have a following at all.

    Isolato November 26, 2016 at 12:21 pm

    I was horrified to hear this regurgitated on NPR last night w/o the slightest question. Proof? We don' need no steenkin' proof!

    Lambert Strether November 27, 2016 at 7:43 am

    If you have an NPR tote bag, demand a refund!

    TedWa November 26, 2016 at 2:05 pm

    The military industrial complex and all the elites are behind all this massive propaganda stuff and fake news. They want war and nothing is going to stand in their way – not the democrats, not the republicans, no one. HRC knew this – hence her "paranoia" about Russia. It's crazy. I hope Trump has the balls to stand up against them. Thanks NC for being here --

    Rostale November 26, 2016 at 2:06 pm

    With the Washington Post at least, there is a pretty handy avenue of response. Namely that its CEO Jeff Bezos, who clearly approves of the editorial policy, is also owner of Amazon.com If you don't approve of Mr. Bezos using his media platform to revive McCarthyism and Yellow Journalism, keep that in mind when doing your holiday shopping, and when you see that item you were thinking of buying on amazon, take a moment to see about buying it elsewhere, even if it costs a bit more to do so. If Mr. Bezos want to use the Washington Post to promote censorship of media control, make him pay for it in a drop in Amazon's stock price.

    Calvin madamombe November 26, 2016 at 2:18 pm

    "Information globalism is a free flow of information across the world irrespective of race, source geography. Its up to a competent reader being selective- choosing what sort of information they want consuming. Its the bases of choice, a basic human right."

    Don Lowell November 26, 2016 at 2:57 pm

    Surely there is a lot of stuff going on and its good to flush it out. Wisconsin recount is a good place to start

    I think its local hacking as well as the rooskies..

    flora November 26, 2016 at 9:18 pm

    The Clinton campaign announced today they'll be joining the recount effort. Greens start a recount effort, Friday WaPo prints vile rumors, Saturday Clinton campaign announces it is joining the Wisc recount effort. This is banana republic stuff.

    winstonsmith November 26, 2016 at 3:42 pm

    Here is Glenn Greenwald's take: Washington Post Disgracefully Promotes a McCarthyite Blacklist From a New, Hidden, and Very Shady Group . I heartily agree with:

    One of the most egregious examples is the group's inclusion of Naked Capitalism, the widely respected left-wing site run by Wall Street critic Yves Smith. That site was named by Time Magazine as one of the best 25 Best Financial Blogs in 2011 and by Wired Magazine as a crucial site to follow for finance, and Smith has been featured as a guest on programs such as PBS' Bill Moyers Show. Yet this cowardly group of anonymous smear artists, promoted by the Washington Post, has now placed them on a blacklist of Russian disinformation.

    From the propornot website (deliberately not linking it) the YYY thing is really creepy.

    The YYYcampaignYYY is an effort to crowdsource identifying Russian propaganda outlets and sympathizers. To participate, when you see a social-media account, commenter, or outlet echoing Russian propaganda themes, highlight it with YYYs accordingly!

    Romancing The Loan November 26, 2016 at 4:42 pm

    Reminds me of the (((name of jewish person))) thing that popped up very briefly in the right wing fever swamp only to be instantly proudly self-added by a ton of jewish liberals.

    Elizabeth Burton November 26, 2016 at 4:20 pm

    I have come to the conclusion, based on personal observation, that anyone who includes the words "our leaders" in their narrative is not to be trusted. Granted, it's a personal thing, as I have been advocating whenever possible that we should under no circumstances apply that label to our elected officials but should instead always use their proper designation: "public servants."

    Anyone want to wager a thorough check of the MSM for the last fifty years or more would eventually uncover the first one of their ilk to refer to elected officials as "our leaders"? To then be followed by all of the others?

    Because how better to persuade the voting public that they should just fill in the bubble or push the button without asking a lot of silly questions about issues than by subtly brainwashing them with the implication the people they're voting for are better equipped to deal with the important stuff? Because "our leaders" are clearly better qualified to make the decisions than we are.

    George Phillies November 26, 2016 at 7:27 pm

    Also look for folks who refer to America as the Homeland. Heimatland sounds snazzier in the original German.

    shinola November 27, 2016 at 12:24 am

    "Homeland Security" had a creepy feel to it the 1st time I heard/read it

    Skip Intro November 27, 2016 at 2:28 am

    Good one. And referring to the president as our 'Commander in Chief' is also a pretty revolting tell.

    hunkerdown November 27, 2016 at 12:00 am

    Interesting. Google's n-gram viewer shows that "our leaders" is much more prevalent in books during and after wartime, peaking in 1942-44, with a somewhat steady rise between just before WW1 and the end of WW2 (upon which each war is superimposed), and an odd reversal upward around 1996 whose incline isn't much deflected by 9/11, and which levels off around 2005. It's almost like looking at the Third Way made flesh.

    Elizabeth November 26, 2016 at 4:37 pm

    My ex husband told me that back in the 70s when he was applying for a government job, he had to undergo an extensive FBI check. The fibbies found out he had a subscription to "Soviet Life" (a magazine about cultural, economic stuff in the USSR). As a result, his neighbors, family, past co-workers were all interviewed to see if he was a "subversive." The Russophobia has a long history.

    I agree with many commenters that Pravda's ProPorNet's listing is heading somewhere scary. The MSM got the message that they have no credibility anymore, and they're in a panic, as are the neocons/neolibs. I think after the US backed Ukrainian coup failed to nudge Russia into a war, this "Russian aggression" meme started in earnest. Now that the election is over and the "favored one" lost, it is quite telling to me that the panicked establishment isn't going to go quietly. They were planning on having WWIII, and are furious now.

    I'm too young to remember McCarthyism, but this stuff is frightening.

    sunny129 November 26, 2016 at 4:54 pm

    fyi

    [..]Also included are popular libertarian hubs such as Zero Hedge, Antiwar.com and the Ron Paul Institute, along with the hugely influential right-wing website the Drudge Report and the publishing site WikiLeaks.

    [..]One of the most egregious examples is the group's inclusion of Naked Capitalism, the widely respected left-wing site run by Wall Street critic Yves Smith. That site was named by Time Magazine as one of the best 25 Best Financial Blogs in 2011 and by Wired Magazine as a crucial site to follow for finance, and Smith has been featured as a guest on programs such as PBS' Bill Moyers Show. Yet this cowardly group of anonymous smear artists, promoted by the Washington Post, has now placed them on a blacklist of Russian disinformation.[..]

    https://theintercept.com/2016/11/26/washington-post-disgracefully-promotes-a-mccarthyite-blacklist-from-a-new-hidden-and-very-shady-group/

    european November 26, 2016 at 5:10 pm

    Key line from Greenwald IMO: "The Post story served the agendas of many factions: those who want to believe Putin stole the election from Hillary Clinton; those who want to believe that the internet and social media are a grave menace that needs to be controlled, in contrast to the objective truth which reliable old media outlets once issued; those who want a resurrection of the Cold War."

    me: The only way the mainstream media can get its power back is by killing or at least crippling the internet.

    polecat November 26, 2016 at 5:21 pm

    Boycott ANYTHING Bezos related !!!

    sunny129 November 26, 2016 at 5:01 pm

    the biggest peddler of FAKE News!

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-25/who%E2%80%99s-biggest-peddler-fake-news

    George Phillies November 26, 2016 at 5:05 pm

    What is happening for which this is a distraction?

    watermelonpunch November 27, 2016 at 12:04 am

    A bunch of people in the U.S. got fed up, and now it means that a lot of people who were used to only having contact with other people like themselves and hanging out at fancy parties are being told they need to start interacting with the general public or get a different job, and they're not happy about it.

    Karl Kolchack November 26, 2016 at 5:08 pm

    Just last week I made my first ever reader contribution to NC–now I wish I had waited a few days so my donation could be interpreted as an "FU" to ProporNot. :)

    Optimader November 26, 2016 at 5:30 pm

    My comment waz very bad and had a time, then marched out behind the barn an waz shotz

    Sluggeaux November 26, 2016 at 5:35 pm

    This Washington Post piece is so insidious as to make my blood run cold. We've seen in "education reform" how the Gates Foundation and Walton Foundation would place un-sourced propaganda in articles by friendly reporters in the WaPost and the NYTimes and then reference the news outlets as proving their propaganda to be "fact."

    As some know, I am a professional conspiracy theorist, having served as a local-level criminal prosecutor for over 32 years. I see a grave threat to the First Amendment when an anonymous source suspected to have ties to the military-industrial complex calls for the government to investigate news sources for espionage.

    I also find it interesting that The Intercept didn't make the list, despite the presence of Glenn Greenwald. Given Pierre Omidyar's closeness to the current administration (was FirstLook created to take Greenwald and Taibbi out of circulation during the 2012 election?), is there some sort of "tell" here about where this attack on Free Speech is coming from?

    Those on this blacklist should pool resources to pursue retraction, repudiation, and an admission by the Post editorial board that Timberg's outrageously un-sourced "reporting" is libelous and was published with an at best reckless and at worst intentional disregard for the truth.

    Yves Smith Post author November 27, 2016 at 12:24 am

    They've listed only sites that they think lack the $ to sue them. That is clearly one of the criteria.

    WJ November 27, 2016 at 3:21 am

    Probably true, though also worth noting that (as has been observed frequently here), the Intercept's regular reporting on Ukraine and Syria was often little better than mainstream outlets.

    LifelongLib November 27, 2016 at 3:22 am

    David Stockman's site is on the list. Wonder if he still has any pull

    Allegorio November 26, 2016 at 5:55 pm

    What is even more alarming, this seems to be coordinated with Jane Harmon's recent advocacy of a FISA drone court which also targets "enemy" web sites. Is this a prelude to shutting down dissenting web sites based on their status as foreign agents of our arch enemy "Russia" which the European Parliament has equated with Daesh. There is a sense of impending revolution world wide, is this the first step to preempt such? Is martial law the next step? There seemed to be a lot of projection involved when the neo-libs accused Trump of fascism and not accepting election results. Who is now not accepting election results and who are the real fascists calling for the shutting down of news outlets?

    Kevin November 26, 2016 at 6:23 pm

    Instead of "most of all, a sense of political levity", maybe Max meant to say something like political heft, political gravitas?

    Paul Jurczak November 26, 2016 at 8:06 pm

    Yet another reason why political establishment got what it deserved this election cycle. They still think that a bit of propaganda denied them a victory and there is nothing wrong with their policies

    flora November 26, 2016 at 9:06 pm

    WaPo is now too vile to read.
    McClatchy is still a fairly good news source. And, oh, look at this: Clinton campaign will join recount effort in Wisconsin. Not surprising.

    http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/article117235428.html#storylink=latest_side

    flora November 26, 2016 at 9:10 pm

    adding: I think Stein and the Greens have been played.

    tgs November 26, 2016 at 10:52 pm

    Jill Stein has embarrassed herself with this effort. I gave money to her until she made her final vp choice – Baraka called Bernie a white supremacist! I did vote for her and now feel it really was a wasted vote. 1% in the national totals. Ok. Being a useful idiot for the Clintons – no way.

    Allegorio November 26, 2016 at 11:50 pm

    Ah yes, one more chance to steal the election. Syria must fall and be partitioned. Russia must be driven from the Ukraine, the internet must be cleansed of dissent. Patent and Copyright monopolies must be imposed on the world. This election took TPTB by surprise, they are surprised no longer. Trump does not want to be President, he's scared to death. The consensus is that the results will not change. Don't be so sure. There may yet be a coronation and then the shit will hit the proverbial fan. Apparently it was not enough for TPTB to control both parties, they also control the minor parties. Et tu Jill Stein!

    flora November 27, 2016 at 1:31 am

    recounts + planted stories on Russkie interference + pressure on electors to change their votes. that looks like the plan. in my foil bonnet opinion.

    Kim Kaufman November 26, 2016 at 9:46 pm

    Here's James Corbett's response to being on the list: What I Learned From the "PropOrNot" Propaganda List https://www.corbettreport.com

    integer November 26, 2016 at 11:11 pm

    Did you see this comment? It certainly seems plausible to me that cybersponse are involved. https://cybersponse.com/solutions/government

    integer November 26, 2016 at 11:42 pm

    FWIW I also checked that the registration address was correct. https://whois.icann.org/en/lookup?name=propornot.com

    Contact details: General Inquiries | Support – 480.646.3006 | [email protected]

    Reify99 November 26, 2016 at 10:37 pm

    Hillary and her handlers had the choice to lose to Bernie or to Trump. They chose Trump.
    (OK, maybe not consciously.)

    Now, they are are NOT happy with the result but please notice that Bernie is looking better, has more news coverage, even appearing on The View, for crying out loud! Yes veal pen, "outreach", whatever. Doesn't matter what they Think They are crafting.

    If they keep up the Rooskie angle they will be amazed how good Bernie starts to look.
    A little FB censorship. Ditto! Shut down some international protests. (In North Dakota) Bingo!
    Drive people into the street! Whoooee!

    They, DNC, Bezos et al, will pine for him before this is all over. Because he is the symbol for what could have happened if they had followed the law and had gone peacefully.

    They can't see it yet.

    BTW, RT has a 30 minute segment with Chris Hedges at Standing Rock circulating now.
    Seems legit to me. Decide for yourself.

    RBHoughton November 26, 2016 at 10:52 pm

    Yves stand up and take a bow. You have been noticed by the filth. One of the many reassuring signs to come from the corridors of power lately. Is it possible change really is coming?

    RBHoughton November 27, 2016 at 12:11 am

    I have just learned of a group in the European Parliament led by a Polish MEP and member of the Alliance of Conservatives and Reformers in Europe that is likewise attempting to create a fear of "fake news" from those sites that don't follow the MSM Editors' example of restraint in publication.

    It has this week received a huge injection of public money to extend its work. It seems that North America and Europe are in lockstep on the need to keep the people ignorant.

    John Day November 26, 2016 at 11:21 pm

    I have emailed whoever is at Propornot and politely requested to be added to their list. Johnday's Blog http://www.johndayblog.com/ , though modest and unnoticed, links mostly to sites on their list. http://www.propornot.com/p/the-list.html

    If this site is seriously trying to help snowflakes create information-safe-places, then it needs to protect them from my blog, too. Fair is fair. I deserve recognition.

    I also think Ilargi @ The Automatic Earth is being snubbed through their non-inclusion of that site. Everybody should email them and demand that all worthy blogs get included in their precious list.

    Roquentin November 26, 2016 at 11:58 pm

    When's this shit going to end? Every time I think these big media outlets have hit rock bottom, they find a way to sink even lower.

    makedoanmend November 27, 2016 at 1:22 am

    "When's this shit going to end?"

    When the rot is complete and the edifice tumbles? Or when TINA wins, and the voices go silent? My bet is on the later. Collectively, the money got all 4 aces (and a few more hidden up their sleaves and a few more hidden in their boots, etc – no end of aces.)

    Then the silence reigns and TINA is happy. Despair is walled offed into its own echo chamber and silence is taken for acquiescence and indifference.

    Until it doesn't.

    Human history just keeps playing the same music. Mind you, big nature might be adding a new wrinkle to march-of-death tune. Interesting times, very interesting.

    Dugh November 27, 2016 at 3:58 am

    Charles Hugh-Smith's response to the "list": "The Washington Post: Useful-Idiot Shills for a Failed, Frantic Status Quo That Has Lost Control of the Narrative"

    http://www.oftwominds.com/blognov16/useful-idiots11-16.html?fullweb=1

    [Nov 27, 2016] What I Learned From the "PropOrNot" Propaganda List The Corbett Report

    Notable quotes:
    "... I look into the latest pathetic attempt by a flailing establishment to bolster their discredited mouthpiece media organs and counter the ascendant alternative media. ..."
    "... I appreciate the attempted sleuthing here, but I'm afraid what you uncovered is the business address that Domains By Proxy uses for their registrations. ..."
    Nov 27, 2016 | www.corbettreport.com

    Yes, corbettreport.com has made this new, mysterious, anonymously-authored "propaganda list" of websites to watch out for in the era of #FakeNews and Russians under every rock. And yes, the list is as ridiculous as that sounds. Join me today as I look into the latest pathetic attempt by a flailing establishment to bolster their discredited mouthpiece media organs and counter the ascendant alternative media. (Spoiler: they're going to lose this battle as well.)

      blunder says: 11/27/2016 at 2:31 am

      Have a look at whois: https://whois.icann.org/en/lookup?name=propornot.com

      Registrant: Private anonymously, but we have Admin-Street: 14747 N Northsight Blvd Suite 111

      On google maps we find an UPS store and CyberSponse, Inc..

      So who is Cybersponse? https://cybersponse.com/
      Board & Advisors: https://cybersponse.com/board-advisors
      Solutions for government: https://cybersponse.com/solutions/government

      Questions? No. Nothing to see here. Better go to UPS!

      Log in to Reply mkey says: 11/27/2016 at 6:33 am

      I kind of expected this to be a spoof site, but obviously not. These people mean business. LOL

      Log in to Reply paul4 says: 11/27/2016 at 8:14 am

      Wow! Well done, blunder.

      So who are this cast of characters behind Cybersponse? Some that just leap out are:

      Lt. Gen. Rhett A. Hernandez (ret.) Former Commander US Army Cyber Command

      Joel Brenner, Esq. Counterintelligence & Cyber Expert Former NSA Inspector General

      Robert D. Rodriguez Chairman and Founder Security Innovation Network (SINET)
      What is SINET and why is it supported by the Dept. of Homeland Security???
      https://www.security-innovation.org/
      https://www.security-innovation.org/about-sinet/

      Our Mission:
      We believe that effective Cybersecurity is required to facilitate economic growth, protect critical infrastructure and maintain political stability. To accomplish this objective, SINET is dedicated to building a cohesive, worldwide Cybersecurity community with the goal of accelerating innovation through collaboration. SINET is a catalyst that connects senior level private and government security professionals with solution providers, buyers, researchers and investors. SINET sponsors highly interactive networking sessions designed to:
      * Introduce leading innovators in the Cybersecurity industry
      * Encourage collaboration by breaking down communication barriers
      * Facilitate high level sharing of ideas and best practices vital to the strengthening and accelerating Cybersecurity innovations.

      SINET Programs in NY, WDC, Silicon Valley and London are Supported by DHS, Science & Technology Directorate.

      Check out his bio: http://la.cybertechconference.com/content/robert-d-rodriguez
      Formerly US Secret Service, works with DHS, UK Government, Australian Government, US Air Force, etc. "He has been called upon numerous times by Federal Government Agencies to help advise and build private sector outreach initiatives with corporations, the entrepreneurial and venture capital communities" Just the guy to call to "maintain political stability" when the Main Stream misinformation networks have discredited themselves.

      And the Cybersponse Chairman, Founder, and CEO – Joseph Loomis
      (Mr. Corporate Brand Protection)

      https://www.crunchbase.com/person/joseph-loomis#/entity
      "Mr. Loomis was previously the founder & CEO of Net Enforcers, a private online security company focused on counterfeit and corporate brand protection technology services A formally licensed Private Investigator, Mr. Loomis is also a cooperative member with the FBI and DEA's divisions on Cybercrime."

      http://www.josephloomis.com/
      https://www.linkedin.com/in/joeloomis

      Originally a US Navy Officer Candidate with a focus on crypto, electronics, computer networking and advanced communications.

      This link connecting him as a member of SINET seems to have been removed:
      https://www.security-innovation.org/bios/Joseph_Loomis.htm

      CyberSponse seems to be a fairly new (2012) startup company located in Phoenix AZ that seems to have recently and suddenly attracted heavy hitter talent and investment:
      https://gust.com/companies/cybersponse_inc_1
      https://lockerdome.com/startup-cities/10-names-heating-up-the-startup-scene-in-phoenix
      http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/blog/techflash/2014/04/cybersponse-using-new-funding-to-help-small.html
      http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/news/2013/06/04/cybersponse-hires-former-fbi-spy.html

      All I can say is there is enough spooks at Cybersponse they could make extra money renting themselves out as a Halloween Haunted House.

      Log in to Reply Corbett says: 11/27/2016 at 6:15 pm

      I appreciate the attempted sleuthing here, but I'm afraid what you uncovered is the business address that Domains By Proxy uses for their registrations. For those who don't know, Domains By Proxy is a business that allows people to register a website without putting their personal address and contact details up there for the entire internet to see , so all of the info in a DBP registration are DBP corporate details, and will appear on every site registered with them, including (duh duh duhhhh)

      https://whois.icann.org/en/lookup?name=corbettreport.com

      Now the idea that DBP is tied into a shady NSA and gov-connected corp like cybersponse is not surprising to me, but it doesn't tell us anything about PropOrNot.

      Log in to Reply nosoapradio says: 11/27/2016 at 7:07 pm

      Okaaaayyyy! I was looking at the "important dates" part and hadn't even noticed that the rest of the info was exactly the same

      But that's what's so great about this site! As the tired old saying goes: several heads are better than one: everyone encouraging, checking, brainstorming, analysing, researching and rechecking, lighting the way and moving forward together through this opaque cloud that is the information age!

      Log in to Reply blunder says: 11/27/2016 at 11:08 pm

      Sorry. I apologize for the mistake and will hold my eyes open. At least we now know cypersponse, cybering all day long.

      Keep up your great work and feel honoured standing on the list.

      Log in to Reply

    [Nov 27, 2016] The Washington Post: Useful-Idiot Shills for a Failed, Frantic Status Quo That Has Lost Control of the Narrative

    Notable quotes:
    "... Labeling everyone who dissents or questions the ruling elite's narrative as tools of an enemy power is classic McCarthy-era witch-hunting, i.e. a broad-brush way of marginalizing and silencing critics with an accusation that is easy to fabricate but difficult to prove. ..."
    "... The real useful-idiot shills are the editors and hacks paid by the Washington Post, who are busy penning articles such as "Why the electoral college should choose Hillary Clinton". Isn't this fundamentally a call to over-ride the Constitutional framework of the republic's democracy? ..."
    "... Substitution is a useful technique to reveal propaganda: if Trump had lost by a thin margin, would the The Washington Post publish an article "Why the electoral college should choose Donald Trump"? ..."
    "... The fundamental source of the Post's hysterical accusations is the ruling elite has lost control of the narrative. This is the source of the mainstream media's angst-tinged hysteria and frantic efforts to marginalize and discredit any dissenting narratives that undermine or question the power of a corrupted, self-serving ruling elite that has failed the nation and its citizens. ..."
    "... This is why Donald Trump was routinely labeled a Russian shill by the mainstream media during the campaign. ..."
    "... Yes and no. The print media is dying. Less than 10% of people now buy a newspaper and their circulation is dropping by about 10% every year. They are also getting thinner as advertising revenue falls and many have ceased publication. This also applies to magazines with many titles now defunct and others just about there (Newsweek). ..."
    "... The idea of the ruling elite as a conspiracy in common meaning of the word it is not, since they have no specific plan of action or even specific ultimate objective to be achieved, short of holding onto the power and expand the limits of control by whatever means available. What they use are the methods and techniques of manipulating of the population stratified into the casts or classes via propaganda of the abstract concepts of economic development, political process, social policies, law, religion, science, vertical mobility, sports, nationalism, racism etc., and in the cases when it fails they use raw brutality as the ultimate expression of "innate" morality of their power. ..."
    "... Personally I think we would do well to go back to the good old days (pre-Church Commission 1978) when the CIA was allowed to use domestic journalists as assets. In a relative sense their work was much more honest and truthful than what today's Media Barons inflict on the public. ..."
    "... Who manipulates the news and tries to sway public opinion? Answer: The 'progressive' wealthy elite. ..."
    "... Who monitors every single movement of the average citizen, from his or her shopping and viewing habits to by-the-second GPS location---and then constructs a detailed profile of said citizen? Answer: the Amazons/Facebooks/Apples/Googles of this world. ..."
    Nov 27, 2016 | www.oftwominds.com
    This is another sign of the crisis of legitimacy

    ...My "crime" is a simple one: challenging the ruling elite's narrative. Labeling all dissent "enemy propaganda" is of course the classic first phase of state-sponsored propaganda and the favorite tool of well-paid illiberal apologists for an illiberal regime.

    Labeling everyone who dissents or questions the ruling elite's narrative as tools of an enemy power is classic McCarthy-era witch-hunting, i.e. a broad-brush way of marginalizing and silencing critics with an accusation that is easy to fabricate but difficult to prove.

    Such unsupported slander is a classic propaganda technique. It has more in common with Nazi propaganda than with real journalism.

    The real useful-idiot shills are the editors and hacks paid by the Washington Post, who are busy penning articles such as "Why the electoral college should choose Hillary Clinton". Isn't this fundamentally a call to over-ride the Constitutional framework of the republic's democracy?

    In other words, the ruling elite's candidate lost, so let's subvert democracy to "right this terrible wrong" that was wrought by fed-up debt-serfs.

    Substitution is a useful technique to reveal propaganda: if Trump had lost by a thin margin, would the The Washington Post publish an article "Why the electoral college should choose Donald Trump"?

    Any site suggesting such an outlandish subversion of American democracy would of course by labeled Russian-controlled propaganda by The Washington Post. In other words, it's OK for the organs of Imperial Propaganda to call for the subversion of the Constitution, but if someone else dares to do so, you know the drill: they're labeled a tool of Russian propaganda.

    Just as a reminder, this is the status quo / ruling elite's handiwork The Washington Post shills/propagandists support: a status quo of institutionalized privilege, corruption and systemically soaring wealth and income inequality:

    • The institutionalized impoverishment of non-elite students:
    • The institutionalized impoverishment of the bottom 99.9%:
    • The institutionalized impoverishment of everyone below the protected technocrat-insider class of shills, apparatchiks and professionals

    This is what The Washington Post is pushing: a parasitic, predatory, exploitive, ruinously corrupt and venal ruling class and its army of apologists/lackeys/factotums.

    The fundamental source of the Post's hysterical accusations is the ruling elite has lost control of the narrative. This is the source of the mainstream media's angst-tinged hysteria and frantic efforts to marginalize and discredit any dissenting narratives that undermine or question the power of a corrupted, self-serving ruling elite that has failed the nation and its citizens.

    This is why Donald Trump was routinely labeled a Russian shill by the mainstream media during the campaign. Regardless of what you think of Trump or Clinton, what can we say about a supposedly responsible media that so cavalierly spews fact-free accusations of foreign control? This is the height of irresponsible propaganda being passed off as "journalism."

    The delicious irony of The Washington Post's hysterical campaign to smear dissenters as tools of Russian propaganda is that it only serves to discredit the Post itself.

    Comments from Zero Hedge

    fleur de lis -> philipat •Nov 27, 2016 9:55 AM

    The NYT has been promoting murder and mayhem around the world for years on the pretext of democracy.

    Have they ever done an expose on the American tax money that got laundered through the Federal Reserve to fund the filthy Bolsheviks?

    Have they ever done an expose on the narcotics business that fattens the bankbooks of DC screwballs?

    Have they ever done an expose on the USS Liberty?

    Have they ever done a real expose on anything other than easy targets?

    The NYT would never touch a story that would upset their DC feeders.

    The NYT is like some kind of gossip paper and a soap opera all rolled up into birdcage liners.

    East Indian -> TeamDepends •Nov 27, 2016 12:06 AM

    Russians are no longer commies,

    And commies are no longer Russians.

    Russians are now crony capitalists, and American elite control the American society more than Stalin ever could control the Russian society.


    land_of_the_few -> East Indian •Nov 27, 2016 5:51 AM

    The Russians are capitalists now but they are not the Oligarch-robbed dolts the MSM would like you to believe. It *was* like that in the 90s - a lot of the robber barons were thrown out and now sit moaning in the West that it's "so unfair", and pretend to be hard-done-by "political" exiles. These are people who can't comply with enforced post-Yeltsin features such as "actually filling out compulsory tax returns" for companies and individuals, and "filing company accounts". There is a capital amnesty scheme where oligarchs can come back with the money they took (normally ftom fraudulent privatisation and asset-stripping) and do business as long as they actually follow the tax and accounts rules.

    AViewFromDublin -> TeamDepends •Nov 27, 2016 2:03 AM

    All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
    Arthur SchopenhauerGerman philosopher (1788 - 1860)

    rrrr -> balz •Nov 26, 2016 11:54 PM

    It is not a question of whether the Washington Post and the New York Times are right or wrong, or desperate, or smart, or anything like that. Rather, it is only a question of how many people see it their way, and whether there are enough such people to wield the power the WP and NYT are trying to bring about. All the posts on this page completely underestimate the potential influence these powerful entities seek to incite and control. The men behind entities such as these have been doing such things for a very long time. They have very consistently succeeded. To prevail they do not have to defeat us permanently all at once. All they have to do is grind us down over centuries. This they are doing.

    effendi -> sun tzu •Nov 27, 2016 4:34 AM

    Yes and no. The print media is dying. Less than 10% of people now buy a newspaper and their circulation is dropping by about 10% every year. They are also getting thinner as advertising revenue falls and many have ceased publication. This also applies to magazines with many titles now defunct and others just about there (Newsweek).

    20 years ago nearly every commuter had a newspaper, now I rarely see a single paper and most are playing Scary Bird or watching videos on their phones or pads.

    WaPo has fallen from 431,000 in March 2013 to 330,000 in Sept 2015. NYT from 731,000 to 528,000. Wall St Journal from 1,481,000 to 1,064,000 etc etc. I'll bet that their circulation will continue to fall and as circulation falls the distribution costs rise per each copy (if a delivery truck delivers a bundle of newspapers then the cost to deliver is higher than when they delivered 10 bundles). They also have to trim staff and expenses so they also cut back on what investigative research they can do.

    Many no longer even watch TV.

    swmnguy •Nov 26, 2016 10:20 PM

    That Washington Post story was the single worst story I've seen in a US publication since Judith Miller's stories pimping the Bush Administration's tales of Iraq's "Weapons of Mass Destruction."

    The technique is almost identical. Shady anonymous sources making unsupported allegations. Named sources not-quite-fully endorsing the allegations, with weasel-words and "seems like," "resembles," "may be connected," etc. The language reads to the unaware reader like a careful endorsement of the allegations, but if you've seen this sort of thing before, you recognize legal advice as to just how close one can come without exactly lying. One wonders if Cheryl Mills was the source of such advice. If not her, someone like her.

    ... ... ...

    Oldwood -> Meyer Bauer •Nov 26, 2016 11:24 PM

    They know their credibility is gone, so what do they have to lose? And their lies are evermore extreme and obvious, but is not desperation as much as calculation. All of this is being layered on top of each other to give context to their public rationalization that will be used to mount increasingly violent protests. A recount adds credence to these hostilities but an economic quake in the markets will create more public demand to prevent Trump from taking office than a Hillary win in the recount. This is about using crisis to justify unconstitutional acts while blaming Trump for all of it....something could have never done with a simple Hillary win.

    big-data Nov 26, 2016 10:37 PM
    ZeroHedgers, Want to know how propaganda works and how it was used during the election cycle? How about how propaganda is used with surveillance? All here. This will blow your mind! Media As a Shaping Agent of Society: The Technology of Influence https://medium.com/deepconnections/media-as-a-shaping-agent-of-society-wherefore-art-thou-treacherous-62b4c3f843d6#.waoukm742
    scatha Nov 27, 2016 12:58 AM

    The WAPO shills are prostitutes for the global ruling elite and political establishment that have been horrible embarrassed of losing last shred of credibility, revealing themselves of buffoons, morons, big fucking mouth mofos who do not know a shit, not because they lie but cause they are impotent in shaping public opinion and manipulate outcome of election thru propaganda lies they are paid for to proliferate and are now in panic that their bosses will whip their asses hard and fuck them up literally and metaphorically out of their cushy repugnant and dirty jobs as poor excuses for journalists, actually abhorrent influence peddlers.But their disdain for ordinary people and those who picket up fight for them is echoing the inhumane attitude of their ruling elite bosses.

    Here is who are those ruling elite WAPO sold out to and foe whose silver coin the spew the McCarthyism venom:

    An excerpt from:

    https://contrarianopinion.wordpress.com/2015/07/17/matrix-of-control-a-s...

    Structure of Society vs. Moral Attitudes [of Elites].

    Every society consist of a continuously emerging elite, a group of often interbred families or clans that persuaded themselves that it is their prerogative to control the rest of society, seen as animalistic masses, immoral abominations of humanity. They see themselves, whether they admit it or not, as reluctant saviors of the humanity, against all odds. Their self-proclaimed objective and perceived necessity is to become the absolute moral arbiters, life and death decision makers. They believe that they are Hegelian type "ubermensch", supermen, meant as the only true humans, the building blocks and foundations of perfect social order and the power structure able to support it. Hence, to hold the power is their solemn duty, a burden they must carry for the higher good of the society at large.

    They consider themselves not as much better humans as they just consider the rest of the humanity as a certain earthly creatures, items of natural world, a resource to be harvested or exploited in any way they deem necessary.

    Such a attitude permeates all the decision-making processes within the ruling elite, all understood not as means of survival and dominance but as a self-sacrifice for the higher end, for higher purposes than their individual well-being, one of the paranoid delusions deviously nurtured among themselves.

    In their obviously psychopathic or even psychotic state of mind it is all about the binary moral order, the good and the evil, absolute truths and absolute values, incomprehensible concepts to those who don't belong, those unable to achieve the higher state of consciousness beyond any notion of forethought or petty human concerns. Seen as a matter of the objective reality, their law is their will and their morality is their immediate need or benefit, all the other considerations rescinded. They regard themselves beyond any earthly moral insecurities or doubts as an expression of the ultimate justice and absolute truth.

    What is astounding that all those assertions are not developed and accepted by the ruling elite as much as dogmas of their rule but rather as a rational conclusion based on the results of numerous experiments and detailed observations of the society at large and its behavior. The ruling elite rationally concludes that their rule is the only thing that works for all the society.

    The idea of the ruling elite as a conspiracy in common meaning of the word it is not, since they have no specific plan of action or even specific ultimate objective to be achieved, short of holding onto the power and expand the limits of control by whatever means available. What they use are the methods and techniques of manipulating of the population stratified into the casts or classes via propaganda of the abstract concepts of economic development, political process, social policies, law, religion, science, vertical mobility, sports, nationalism, racism etc., and in the cases when it fails they use raw brutality as the ultimate expression of "innate" morality of their power.

    chindit13 •Nov 27, 2016 9:42 AM

    Personally I think we would do well to go back to the good old days (pre-Church Commission 1978) when the CIA was allowed to use domestic journalists as assets. In a relative sense their work was much more honest and truthful than what today's Media Barons inflict on the public.

    The world really is upside down. Intel agencies are truly the dinosaurs of the modern world, with little to no relative power.

    Who manipulates the news and tries to sway public opinion? Answer: The 'progressive' wealthy elite.

    Who monitors every single movement of the average citizen, from his or her shopping and viewing habits to by-the-second GPS location---and then constructs a detailed profile of said citizen? Answer: the Amazons/Facebooks/Apples/Googles of this world.

    Everyone looks over his or her shoulder fearing the approach of those who inhabit the world of shadows, yet freely opens the doors and windows to the real and genuine threat to privacy and personal freedom. It's like kids who have nightmares of Tyrannosaurus Rex, but think Mark Zuckerberg is one cool dude.

    How I miss the days of trench coats, black fedoras, the quiet back streets of post-war Vienna on a cloudy late-Autumn afternoon, and the cold comfort of a Walther PPK, all the while trading shots---vodka and 9mm Kunz/9x18 Makarov---with young Vlad Putin!

    [Nov 27, 2016] Washington Post Peddles Tarring of Ron Paul Institute as Russian Propaganda - Ron Paul Liberty Report

    Nov 27, 2016 | www.ronpaullibertyreport.com

    The Washington Post has a history of misrepresenting Ron Paul's views. Last year the supposed newspaper of record ran a feature article by David A. Fahrenthold in which Fahrenthold grossly mischaracterized Paul as an advocate for calamity, oppression, and poverty - the opposite of the goals Paul routinely expresses and, indeed, expressed clearly in a speech at the event upon which Fahrenthold's article purported to report. Such fraudulent attacks on the prominent advocate for liberty and a noninterventionist foreign policy fall in line with the newspaper's agenda. As Future of Freedom Foundation President Jacob G. Hornberger put it in a February editorial, the Post's agenda is guided by "the interventionist mindset that undergirds the mainstream media."

    On Thursday, the Post published a new article by Craig Timberg complaining of a "flood" of so-called fake news supported by "a sophisticated Russian propaganda campaign that created and spread misleading articles online with the goal of punishing Democrat Hillary Clinton, helping Republican Donald Trump and undermining faith in American democracy," To advance this conclusion, Timberg points to PropOrNot, an organization of anonymous individuals formed this year, as having identified "more than 200 websites as routine peddlers of Russian propaganda during the election season." Look on the PropOrNot list. There is the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity's (RPI) website RonPaulInstitute.org listed among websites termed "Russian propaganda outlets."

    What you will not find on the PropOrNot website is any particularized analysis of why the RPI website, or any website for that matter, is included on the list. Instead, you will see only sweeping generalizations from an anonymous organization. The very popular website drudgereport.com even makes the list. While listed websites span the gamut of political ideas, they tend to share in common an independence from the mainstream media.

    Timberg's article can be seen as yet another big media attempt to shift the blame for Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton's loss of the presidential election away from Clinton, her campaign, and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) that undermined Sen Bernie Sanders' (I-VT) challenge to Clinton in the Democratic primary.

    The article may also be seen as another step in the effort to deter people from looking to alternative sources of information by labeling those information sources as traitorous or near-traitorous.

    At the same time, the article may be seen as playing a role in the ongoing push to increase tensions between the United States and Russia - a result that benefits people, including those involved in the military-industrial complex, who profit from the growth of US "national security" activity in America and overseas.

    This is not the first time Ron Paul and his institute has been attacked for sounding pro-Russian or anti-American. Such attacks have been advanced even by self-proclaimed libertarians .

    Expect that such attacks will continue. They are an effort to tar Paul and his institute so people will close themselves off from information Paul and RPI provide each day in furtherance of the institute's mission to continue and expand Paul's "lifetime of public advocacy for a peaceful foreign policy and the protection of civil liberties at home." While peace and liberty will benefit most people, powerful interests seek to prevent the realization of these objectives. Indeed, expect attacks against RPI to escalate as the institute continues to reach growing numbers of people with its educational effort. This article was originally published at The Ron Paul Institute .

    [Nov 27, 2016] Russian propaganda effort helped spread fake news during election, experts say by Craig Timberg

    The only reason pro-Russian site were sympathetic to Trump is that Hillary was a despicable neocon warmonger, that could unleash WWIII.
    As for eroding faith in US government, "They want to essentially erode faith in the U.S. government or U.S. government interests," the US government can do this job perfectly well without any assistance from Russians. Disappearing jobs and stagnant paychecks does not increase faith in the government. And DemoRats and especially Obama "bait and switch" maneuver (open betray of working people interests after the election, despite promises during the election campaign) essentially put him among the most despicable figures in the US political spectrum. Even die in wool republicans look somewhat more honest. They at least do not hide their despise for common folk and openly propose to milk them as hard as possible.
    Notable quotes:
    "... They want to essentially erode faith in the U.S. government or U.S. government interests," said Clint Watts, a fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute who along with two other researchers has tracked Russian propaganda since 2014. "This was their standard mode during the Cold War. The problem is that this was hard to do before social media ..."
    "... Another group, called PropOrNot, a nonpartisan collection of researchers with foreign policy, military and technology backgrounds, planned to release its own findings Friday showing the startling reach and effectiveness of Russian propaganda campaigns. ..."
    "... PropOrNot's monitoring report, which was provided to The Washington Post in advance of its public release, identifies more than 200 websites as routine peddlers of Russian propaganda during the election season, with combined audiences of at least 15 million Americans. On Facebook, PropOrNot estimates that stories planted or promoted by the disinformation campaign were viewed more than 213 million times. ..."
    www.washingtonpost.com

    " They want to essentially erode faith in the U.S. government or U.S. government interests," said Clint Watts, a fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute who along with two other researchers has tracked Russian propaganda since 2014. "This was their standard mode during the Cold War. The problem is that this was hard to do before social media ."

    Watts's report on this work, with colleagues Andrew Weisburd and J.M. Berger, appeared on the national security online magazine War on the Rocks this month under the headline " Trolling for Trump: How Russia Is Trying to Destroy Our Democracy. " Another group, called PropOrNot, a nonpartisan collection of researchers with foreign policy, military and technology backgrounds, planned to release its own findings Friday showing the startling reach and effectiveness of Russian propaganda campaigns.

    The researchers used Internet analytics tools to trace the origins of particular tweets and mapped the connections among social-media accounts that consistently delivered synchronized messages. Identifying website codes sometimes revealed common ownership. In other cases, exact phrases or sentences were echoed by sites and social-media accounts in rapid succession, signaling membership in connected networks controlled by a single entity.

    PropOrNot's monitoring report, which was provided to The Washington Post in advance of its public release, identifies more than 200 websites as routine peddlers of Russian propaganda during the election season, with combined audiences of at least 15 million Americans. On Facebook, PropOrNot estimates that stories planted or promoted by the disinformation campaign were viewed more than 213 million times.

    [Could better Internet security have prevented Trump's win?]

    Some players in this online echo chamber were knowingly part of the propaganda campaign, the researchers concluded, while others were "useful idiots" - a term born of the Cold War to describe people or institutions that unknowingly assisted Soviet Union propaganda efforts.

    [Nov 27, 2016] Trump, and Great Business Ideas for America by Robert J. Shiller

    Notable quotes:
    "... A business-oriented president could be helpful in this intellectual world, too, by taking actions like doubling the budget for the National Science Foundation, which was created in 1950 when Harry S. Truman was president, and infusing the National Institutes of Health, the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities with more cash. ..."
    Nov 27, 2016 | www.nytimes.com
    Shiller is wrong -- sky high salaries are result of neoliberalism and are part of wealth redistribution toward top 1%. Trumo with his "bastard neoliberalism" (neoliberalism without globalization) will not change that. He is also somewhat hostile to government agences.

    A businessman with a lifetime of experience in management has been elected president of the United States. Donald J. Trump's administration may be viewed as an experiment - an opportunity to discover whether one particular businessman's perspective and skills will be assets in governing a nation.

    Mr. Trump's background evidently appealed to voters, but he should be careful not to be overconfident. His election may be a culmination of a trend in society of lionizing business stars and expecting too much of them.

    We've seen this phenomenon in the outlandish salaries paid to top chief executives and in the public enthusiasm for them. Rakesh Khurana, dean of Harvard College, described the trend eloquently in his book "Searching for a Corporate Savior: The Irrational Quest for Charismatic C.E.O.s" (Princeton, 2002). He discerned a long trend in American business toward choosing chief executives from outside a company and paying them handsomely for some presumed business flair despite their ignorance of the long-term internal issues facing a company.

    Professor Khurana warned that expecting these people to perform acts of genius was asking for trouble. The charismatic outsider tends to become authoritarian, alienating others in the company. The executive's desperate efforts to live up to their promise may sometimes result in wild gambles. There are grounds for concern that President Trump could be this kind of outsider chief executive.

    Mr. Trump has a number of business books to his name, all written with co-authors. Often these books are amusing, if simplistic and boastful. "How to Get Rich" (Random House, 2004, written with Meredith McIver) has advice like "Business Rule #1: If you don't tell people about your success, they probably won't know about it," "Business Rule #2: Keep it short, fast and direct" and "Business Rule #3: Begin working at a young age. I did." Maybe these nostrums are important for Mr. Trump but they seem to have little to do with making a country rich.

    But there is still possibly another, more interesting strand in his advice: Mr. Trump's admonition to be ambitious.

    "How to Get Rich" also includes a "final rule," "Think big and live large." The book says: "In some ways, it's easier to buy a skyscraper than a small house in a bad section of Brooklyn." I've actually been giving a version of this advice for years to my students: Go for big ideas and avoid the trivia. My version of big and Mr. Trump's are different, of course: He is known for his large, splashy buildings, while I try to encourage out-of-the-box economic ideas. Big ideas can lead to great things when they are encouraged, perhaps especially by a president.

    Ambitious thinking led to big infrastructure projects like the Hoover Dam, the Golden Gate Bridge and La Guardia Airport, the kinds of projects we could use today. It also led to intellectual and humane triumphs, like the Dorothea Lange photo record of poverty in America, financed by the New Deal program the Farm Security Administration. Those stunning images gave dignity to the people of that difficult time.

    A business-oriented president could be helpful in this intellectual world, too, by taking actions like doubling the budget for the National Science Foundation, which was created in 1950 when Harry S. Truman was president, and infusing the National Institutes of Health, the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities with more cash. But of course a president must resist the temptation to meddle in their grant-making process. These are democratic institutions and must stay that way.

    [Nov 27, 2016] The entire American media is extraordinarily hostile to Russia, certainly much more so than it ever was toward the Communist Soviet Union during the 1970s and 1980

    Notable quotes:
    "... For various reasons these days, the entire American media is extraordinarily hostile to Russia, certainly much more so than it ever was toward the Communist Soviet Union during the 1970s and 1980s. ..."
    "... Indeed, we are constantly bombarded with stories of alleged Russian conspiracies that appear to be "false positives," dire allegations seemingly having little factual basis or actually being totally ridiculous. Meanwhile, even the crudest sort of anti-Russian conspiracy might easily occur without receiving any serious mainstream media notice or investigation. ..."
    Nov 27, 2016 | www.unz.com

    In fact, I would extend this notion to a general principle. Substantial control of the media is almost always an absolute prerequisite for any successful conspiracy, the greater the degree of control the better. So when weighing the plausibility of any conspiracy, the first matter to investigate is who controls the local media and to what extent.

    Let us consider a simple thought-experiment. For various reasons these days, the entire American media is extraordinarily hostile to Russia, certainly much more so than it ever was toward the Communist Soviet Union during the 1970s and 1980s. Hence I would argue that the likelihood of any large-scale Russian conspiracy taking place within the operative zone of those media organs is virtually nil. Indeed, we are constantly bombarded with stories of alleged Russian conspiracies that appear to be "false positives," dire allegations seemingly having little factual basis or actually being totally ridiculous. Meanwhile, even the crudest sort of anti-Russian conspiracy might easily occur without receiving any serious mainstream media notice or investigation.

    This argument may be more than purely hypothetical. A crucial turning point in America's renewed Cold War against Russia was the passage of the 2012 Magnitsky Act by Congress, punitively targeting various supposedly corrupt Russian officials for their alleged involvement in the illegal persecution and death of an employee of Bill Browder, an American hedge-fund manager with large Russian holdings. However, there's actually quite a bit of evidence that it was Browder himself who was actually the mastermind and beneficiary of the gigantic corruption scheme, while his employee was planning to testify against him and was therefore fearful of his life for that reason. Naturally, the American media has provided scarcely a single mention of these remarkable revelations regarding what might amount to a gigantic Magnitsky Hoax of geopolitical significance.

    [Nov 26, 2016] EU Approves Resolution to Counter Russian Media, Aligns RT with ISIS

    Notable quotes:
    "... British MEP James Carver noted the report is "worryingly reminiscent of the Cold War." ..."
    "... Moscow has never prevented anyone from making reports from Russia based on their contents and ideology, the diplomat said, adding that it now might be forced to act accordingly and respond to the EU's moves if Russian journalists are oppressed in the West. "It's not our choice, and we don't want to fuel tensions," she said. ..."
    "... Moscow earlier said it would be forced to take reciprocal steps to the EU lawmakers' "unfriendly actions." ..."
    Nov 26, 2016 | thefreethoughtproject.com

    In the Wednesday vote, 304 MEPs supported the resolution based on the report 'EU strategic communication to counteract propaganda against it by third parties', with 179 voting against it and 208 abstaining.

    ... ... ...

    Before the Wednesday vote, the document had been criticized by some MEPs, who called it both "insane" and "ridiculous." The EU "desperately needs an enemy, be it Russia or any other," that it can blame for any of its own failures, French MEP Jean-Luc Schaffhaueser told RT. Spanish MEP Javier Couso Permuy said "it fosters hysteria against Russia," while British MEP James Carver noted the report is "worryingly reminiscent of the Cold War."

    The Russian authorities have always treated foreign media working in Russia with respect, and have "never discriminated" against journalists from other countries, Russia's Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said in an interview with Rossiya 1 TV channel.

    Moscow has never prevented anyone from making reports from Russia based on their contents and ideology, the diplomat said, adding that it now might be forced to act accordingly and respond to the EU's moves if Russian journalists are oppressed in the West. "It's not our choice, and we don't want to fuel tensions," she said.

    Moscow earlier said it would be forced to take reciprocal steps to the EU lawmakers' "unfriendly actions." Having called the MEPs' move "cynical," the Russian Federation Council member on international affairs, Igor Morozov, said that European lawmakers "should be aware that their unfriendly actions" would cause a "very tough response" from Moscow.

    [Nov 26, 2016] Obama changes his mind on Russia

    Notable quotes:
    "... BHO was hired to read speeches as they all have been, since Reagan, at least. The System filters out anyone with a genuinely positive agenda, a mind of his/her own and a corruption-free (secret) history. We should be focused on the Unelected (ie Actual) Rulers instead. ..."
    "... For Obama – read Kissinger/Brzezinski change his mind for him – it seems to me – to lay the diplomatic groundwork for Trump to pivot away from a 'unipolar' world (where the American hegemon is in direct conflict with Russia and China – the classic Cold War scenario) – to the 'multipartner' world – where America foments chaos, then under a banner of shared responsibility draws in Russia and China and lets them fight it out like two moles in a bag over the Middle East. America then picks off the last one standing. ..."
    "... Obama, Cameron, Johnson, H. Clinton, Nuland, McCain, Holland, Poroshenko, Merkel, the WMSM – the list of the damned goes on and on ..."
    "... "constant since I first came into office" Indeed you have Mr President, a constant disappointment, a constant liar, a constant weakling who failed to stand up to the US Jewish lobby, a constant war criminal, in fact a complete and total constant failure. Bravo! ..."
    Nov 26, 2016 | off-guardian.org
    It's been quite a progression, hasn't it?

    Part One: Weak, Regional, Failing

    Netherlands, 25 March 2014

    " Russia is a regional power that is threatening some of its immediate neighbors - not out of strength but out of weakness.

    Economist interview, 2 August 2014

    " But I do think it's important to keep perspective. Russia doesn't make anything. Immigrants aren't rushing to Moscow in search of opportunity. The life expectancy of the Russian male is around 60 years old. The population is shrinking. And so we have to respond with resolve in what are effectively regional challenges that Russia presents. We have to make sure that they don't escalate where suddenly nuclear weapons are back in the discussion of foreign policy. And as long as we do that, then I think history is on our side.

    State of the Union Address, 20 January 2015

    " Last year, as we were doing the hard work of imposing sanctions along with our allies, as we were reinforcing our presence with frontline states, Mr. Putin's aggression it was suggested was a masterful display of strategy and strength. That's what I heard from some folks. Well, today, it is America that stands strong and united with our allies, while Russia is isolated with its economy in tatters. That's how America leads - not with bluster, but with persistent, steady resolve. (Applause.)

    Part Two: Maybe not

    Washington, 18 October 2016

    " The bottom line is, is that we think that Russia is a large important country with a military that is second only to ours, and has to be a part of the solution on the world stage, rather than part of the problem.

    Part Three: Powerful, Worldwide

    Berlin, 17 November 2016

    " With respect to Russia, my principal approach to Russia has been constant since I first came into office. Russia is an important country. It is a military superpower. It has influence in the region and it has influence around the world. And in order for us to solve many big problems around the world, it is in our interest to work with Russia and obtain their cooperation.


    "constant since I first came into office"

    StAug says November 25, 2016

    BHO was hired to read speeches as they all have been, since Reagan, at least. The System filters out anyone with a genuinely positive agenda, a mind of his/her own and a corruption-free (secret) history. We should be focused on the Unelected (ie Actual) Rulers instead.
    BigB says November 25, 2016
    Excellent comment!

    For Obama – read Kissinger/Brzezinski change his mind for him – it seems to me – to lay the diplomatic groundwork for Trump to pivot away from a 'unipolar' world (where the American hegemon is in direct conflict with Russia and China – the classic Cold War scenario) – to the 'multipartner' world – where America foments chaos, then under a banner of shared responsibility draws in Russia and China and lets them fight it out like two moles in a bag over the Middle East. America then picks off the last one standing.

    Not much of a plan – especially as Russia and China are both 'eyes wide open' – but it is the best the two senile old twats – who are both overdue in the mortuary – can come up with. Obama of course has no mind of his own. Trumps pick for Secretary of State may indicate his.

    Kissinger once said that "the elderly are useless eaters" – maybe it is time for him to take his own counsel and move on. Perhaps he could take Soros and Brzezinski with him?

    StAug says November 25, 2016
    Indeed! If only we could pop some corn and watch from a safe space on another planet
    tutisicecream says November 25, 2016
    Should be titled "Putin's Progress".

    During this tale many of the would be pretenders have fallen or are falling by the wayside.

    Obama, Cameron, Johnson, H. Clinton, Nuland, McCain, Holland, Poroshenko, Merkel, the WMSM – the list of the damned goes on and on

    Their Faustian Bargain seems to have failed them and given rise to Mephistopheles incarnate Trump.

    Øystein Blix says November 25, 2016
    Putin, at least, seems to have a spine

    DavidKNZ says November 24, 2016

    What a lesson this man has been.
    Came in with soaring rhetoric, a promise of a new beginning, and a Nobel peace prize.
    Failed to deliver on any of these, but did deliver:
    Death by drone, without trial
    Death by military misadventure in the middle east
    Death of a civil economy via unaccountable military spending

    And now trying to 'burnish' his 'legacy' of lies. With more lies.

    At least Russia's Putin, ruthless as he is, does seem to have a moral compass

    Amer Hudson says November 24, 2016
    He's been worked like a ventriloquist's dummy. And badly at that.
    Alec says November 24, 2016
    "constant since I first came into office" Indeed you have Mr President, a constant disappointment, a constant liar, a constant weakling who failed to stand up to the US Jewish lobby, a constant war criminal, in fact a complete and total constant failure. Bravo!

    [Nov 25, 2016] EU Declares War On Fake News, Votes To Counter Propaganda Critical Of Its Policies

    Notable quotes:
    "... What are your thoughts? Please comment below and share this news! ..."
    Nov 25, 2016 | www.activistpost.com

    It seems long gone are the days when the corporate media could label anti-establishment information as a "conspiracy theory" if they wanted their viewers to ignore it. However, with more than half of the US population believing in these so-called " conspiracy theories ," the new moniker of the establishment for information they don't want you to see has become "fake news."

    Since the election's "surprise" outcome, the corporate media has railed against their alternative competitors labeling them as "fake" while their own frequently flawed, misleading, and false stories are touted as "real" news. World leaders have now begun calling out "fake news" in a desperate attempt to lend legitimacy to the corporate media, which continues to receive dismal approval ratings from the American public. Out-going US president Barack Obama was the first to speak out against the danger of "misinformation," though he failed to mention the several instances where he himself lied and spread misinformation to the American public.

    Now, the European Union has also effectively declared war on anti-establishment information as a wave of populism threatens the super-state's survival. German Chancellor Angela Merkel has now joined Obama in speaking out against "fake news," saying that such "misinformation" was manipulating public opinion on the internet. She also said that the growth of movements critical of her policies had been caused by these "fake" sites, saying "we must confront this phenomenon and if necessary, regulate it." Merkel also cited "concerns about the stability of our familiar order" for her criticisms of "fake news." Merkel, whose opposing party is set to make major gains in the next German election, stands to gain much from the censorship of alternative view points.

    As Merkel launched Europe's war against "fake news," the EU parliament just passed a resolution that calls for the EU to "respond to information warfare," particularly Russian "propaganda" from alternative news websites like Russia Today (RT) which receive Russian-government funding. RT and Sputnik news agencies were named directly as the most dangerous "tools of Russian propaganda." The resolution blames Moscow for the rise of populism in Europe, saying that by providing viewpoints that diverge from the corporate media's narrative it has sought to "incite fear and divide Europe." Apparently the mishandling of the refugee crisis , the EU's decision to eliminate the self-determination of certain issues by member nations, or the EU's move to create an EU super army were no match for "Russian propaganda" in creating widespread disillusionment with the European Union's current policies.

    The resolution also mentioned Russian media organizations alongside terrorist groups such as the Islamic State , which led several MEPs to call the resolution "ridiculous" and as fostering anti-Russian hysteria . As a result of the resolution's passage, EU member states are expected to "boost financing" for "counter-propaganda projects." It seems clear that the EU and the rest of the Western establishment has learned nothing from the decline of the corporate media as state-sanctioned propaganda is not having the same effect it used to. It's about time.

    What are your thoughts? Please comment below and share this news!

    This article ( EU Declares War On "Fake News," Votes To Counter "Propaganda" Critical Of Its Policies ) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to the author and TrueActivist.com

    [Nov 25, 2016] Anti Russian warriors created valuable set of sites that fight neocon/neoliberal propaganda

    For them neocon/neoliberal propaganda 24/7 is OK, but anti-neoliberalism, anti-neoconservatism information, which sometimes is pro-Russian propaganda is not. Viva to McCarthyism! The hint is that you do not have a choice -- Big Brother is watching you like in the USSR. Anti-Russian propaganda money in action. It is interesting that Paul Craig Roberts who served in Reagan administration is listed as "left-wing"... Tell me who is your ally ( Bellingcat) and I will tell who you are...
    As Moon of Alabama noted "I wholeheartedly recommend to use the list that new anonymous censorship entity provides as your new or additional "Favorite Bookmarks" list. It includes illustrious financial anti-fraud sites like Yves Smith's Naked Capitalism , Wikileaks , well informed libertarian sites like Ron Paul and AntiWar.com and leftish old timers like Counterpunch . Of general (non-mainstream) news sites Consortiumnews , run by Robert Parry who revealed the Iran-contra crimes, is included as well as Truthdig and Truth-out.org ."
    Extended list is here It a real horror to see how deep pro Russian propaganda penetrated the US society ;-) This newly minted site lists as allies, and with such allies you can reliably tell who finance it
    www.propornot.com
    Name Domain Primary Target Audience Interests Review Article Absurd Pro-Russia Content Source? Repeater?
    Infowars / Alex Jones infowars.com Conspiracy Example Example Major Major
    Zerohedge zerohedge.com Finance Example Example Major Major
    True Activist trueactivist.com Left-wing Example Example Minor Major
    Natural News naturalnews.com Health Example Example Major Major
    Ending The Fed endingthefed.com Right-wing Example Example Minor Major
    Corbett Report corbettreport.com Geopolitics Example Example Major Minor
    Washington's Blog washingtonsblog.com General Example Example Major Major
    Before It's News beforeitsnews.com General Example Example No Major
    Counterpunch counterpunch.org Left-wing Example Example Major Minor
    Ron Paul Institute ronpaulinstitute.org Right-Wing Example Example Major Major
    Hang the Bankers hangthebankers.com Finance Example Example Minor Major
    The Activist Post activistpost.com Left-wing Example Example Major Minor
    The Anti-Media theantimedia.org Anti-Media Example Example Major Minor
    Veterans Today veteranstoday.com Veterans Example Example Major Major
    Southfront southfront.org Military Example Example Major Major
    Your Newswire yournewswire.com General Example Example Major Major
    America's Freedom Fighters americasfreedomfighters.com Right-wing Example Example Minor Minor
    Global Research globalresearch.ca General Example Example Major Major
    Paul Craig Roberts paulcraigroberts.org Left-wing Example Example Major Minor

    List of allies:

    [Nov 25, 2016] Recommended links that fight neocon/neoliberal propaganda

    Look like some guys from Soviet Politburo propaganda department make it to the USA :-) The site definitely smells with McCarthyism -- the practice of making accusations of subversion or treason without proper regard for evidence. Which was the standard way of suppressing dissidents in the USSR. So this is really "Back in the USSR" type of sites.
    But the list definitely has value: the sites listed are mostly anti-establishment, anti status-quo, anti-neocon/neolib sites not so much pro-Russian. After all Russia is just another neoliberal state, although they deviate from Washington consensus and do not want to be a puppet of the USA, which is the key requirement for the full acceptable into the club of "Good neoliberal states". Somehow this list can be called the list of anti US Imperialism sites or anti--war sites. And this represents the value of the list as people may not know about their existence.
    The new derogatory label for the establishment for information they don't want you to see has become "fake news." Conspiracy theories do nto work well anymore. That aqures some patina of respectability with age :-). "Since the election's "surprise" outcome, the corporate media has railed against their alternative competitors labeling them as "fake" while their own frequently flawed, misleading, and false stories are touted as "real" news. World leaders have now begun calling out "fake news" in a desperate attempt to lend legitimacy to the corporate media, which continues to receive dismal approval ratings from the American public. Out-going US president Barack Obama was the first to speak out against the danger of "misinformation," though he failed to mention the several instances where he himself lied and spread misinformation to the American public."
    The most crazy inclusion is probably Baltimore Gazette. Here how editors define its mission: "Baltimore Gazette is Baltimore's oldest US news source and one of the longest running daily newspapers published in the United States. With a focus on local content, the Gazette thrives to maintain a non-partisan newsroom making their our content the most reliable source available in print and across the web."
    Nov 25, 2016 | www.propornot.com
    PropOrNot is an independent team of concerned American citizens (an independent from whom? Concerned about what ? Looks like they are very dependent and so so much concerned, Playing pro-establishment card is always safe game -- NNB) with a wide range of backgrounds and expertise, including professional experience in computer science, statistics, public policy, and national security affairs. We are currently volunteering time and skills to identify propaganda - particularly Russian propaganda - targeting a U.S. audience. We collect public-record information connecting propaganda outlets to each other and their coordinators abroad, analyze what we find, act as a central repository and point of reference for related information, and organize efforts to oppose it. 2 We formed PropOrNot as an effort to prevent propaganda from distorting U.S. political and policy discussions (they want it to be distorted in their own specific pro-neoliberal way --NNB).

    We hope to strengthen our cultural immune systems against hostile influence (there is another name for that -- it is usually called brainwashing --NNB) and improve public discourse generally. However, our immediate aim at this point is to empower the American voter and decrease the ability of Russia to influence the ensuing American election.

    [Nov 24, 2016] Trumps National Security Adviser Facilitated the Murder of Civilians in Afghanistan

    Nov 24, 2016 | www.truth-out.org
    But as an investigation published by Truthout in 2011 revealed , the target list that JSOC used for its "night raids" and other operations to kill supposed Taliban was based on a fundamentally flawed methodology that was inherently incapable of distinguishing between Taliban insurgents and civilians who had only tangential contacts with the Taliban organization. And it was Flynn who devised that methodology.

    The "night raids" on Afghan homes based on Flynn's methodology caused so much Afghan anger toward Americans that Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the US commander in Afghanistan, acknowledged the problem of Afghan antagonism toward the entire program publicly in a March 2010 directive.

    The system that led to that Afghan outrage began to take shape in Iraq in 2006, when Flynn, then-intelligence chief for JSOC, developed a new methodology for identifying and locating al-Qaeda and Shia Mahdi Army members in Iraq. Flynn revealed the technologies used in Iraq in an unclassified article published in 2008.

    At the center of the system was what Flynn called the "Unblinking Eye," referring to 24-hour drone surveillance of specific locations associated with "known and suspected terrorist sites and individuals." The drone surveillance was then used to establish a "pattern of life analysis," which was the main tool used to determine whether to strike the target. We now know from reports of drone strikes in Pakistan that killed entire groups of innocent people that "pattern of life analysis" is frequently a matter of guesswork that is completely wrong.

    Flynn's unclassified article also revealed that "SIGINT" (signals intelligence), i.e., the monitoring of cell phone metadata, and "geo-location" of phones were the other two major tools used in Flynn's system of targeting military strikes. JSOC was using links among cell phones to identify suspected insurgents.

    Flynn's article suggested that the main emphasis in intelligence for targeting in Iraq was on providing analysis of the aerial surveillance visual intelligence on a target to help decide in real time whether to carry out a strike on it.

    But when McChrystal took command of US forces in Afghanistan in mid-2009 and took Flynn with him as his intelligence chief, Flynn's targeting methodology changed dramatically. JSOC had already begun to carry out "night raids" in Afghanistan -- usually attacks on private homes in the middle of the night -- and McChrystal wanted to increase the tempo of those raids. The number of night raids increased from 20 per month in May 2009 to 90 per month six months later. It reached an average of more than 100 a month in the second half of 2009 and the first half of 2010.

    At this point, the targets were no longer Taliban commanders and higher-ups in the organization. They included people allegedly doing basic functions such as logistics, bomb-making and propaganda.

    In order to rapidly build up the highly secret "kill/capture" list (called the "Joint Prioritized Effects List," or JPEL) to meet McChrystal's demands for more targets, Flynn used a technique called "link analysis." This technique involved the use of software that allowed intelligence analysts to see the raw data from drone surveillance and cell phone data transformed instantly into a "map" of the insurgent "network." That "map" of each network associated with surveillance of a location became the basis for adding new names to the JPEL.

    Flynn could increase the number of individual "nodes" on that map by constantly adding more cell phone metadata for the computer-generated "map" of the insurgency. Every time JSOC commandos killed or captured someone, they took their cell phones to add their metadata to the database. And US intelligence also gathered cell phone data from the population of roughly 3,300 suspected insurgents being held in the Afghan prison system, who were allowed to use mobile phones freely in their cells.

    What the expansion of cell phone data surveillance meant was that an ever-greater proportion of the targets on Flynn's "kill/capture list" were not identified at all, except as mobile phone numbers. As Matthew Hoh, who served as the senior US civilian official in Zabul Province until he quit in protest in September 2009, explained to me, "When you are relying on cell phones for intelligence, you don't get the names of those targeted."

    There was no requirement for any effort to establish the actual identity of the targets listed as cell phone numbers in order to guard against mistakes.

    What made Flynn's methodology for expanding the kill/capture list even riskier was that there was no requirement for any effort to establish the actual identity of the targets listed as cell phone numbers in order to guard against mistakes.

    Using such a methodology in the Afghan socio-political context guaranteed that a high proportion of those on the kill/capture list were innocent civilians. As former deputy to the European Union special representative to Afghanistan Michael Semple (one of the few genuine experts in the world on the Taliban movement) explained to me, most Afghans in the Pashtun south and east of Afghanistan "have a few Taliban commander numbers saved to their mobile phone contacts" as a "survival mechanism."

    Nader Nadery, a commissioner of the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission in 2010, estimated that the total civilian deaths for all 73 night raids about which the commission had complaints that year was 420. But the commission acknowledged that it didn't have access to most of the districts dominated by the Taliban. So the actual civilian toll may well have been many times that number -- meaning that civilians may have accounted for more than half of the 2,000 alleged "Taliban" killed in JSOC's operations in 2010.

    The percentage of innocent people among those who were captured and incarcerated was even higher. In December 2010, the US command in Afghanistan leaked to a friendly blogger that 4,100 "Taliban" had been captured in the previous six months. But an unclassified February 5, 2011, internal document of the Combined Joint Inter-Agency Task Force responsible for detention policy in Afghanistan, which I obtained later in 2011, showed that only 690 Afghans were admitted to the US detention facility at Parwan during that six-month period. Twenty percent of those were later released upon review of their files. So alleged evidence of participation in the Taliban insurgency could not have existed for more than 552 people at most, or 14 percent of the total number said to have been captured. But many of those 552 were undoubtedly innocent as well. basarov 9 hours ago

    Porter is either a paid CIA/dimocrat party shill or perhaps extraordinarily stupid.
    It was OBAMA who implemented the vaunted 'surge" and flooded Afghanistan with an extra 30,000 US mercenaries. And I believe that obama was the US leader in 2009. To whine about a 3 star general, under orders to carry out an obama policy and then blame Trump by association reminds one of a 3 year old trying to make sense of Kabuki....surreal or simply delusional?

    We see that america needs a police state oligarchy; americans cannot distinguish between bovine excreta and caviar.

    Karl Rowley 19 hours ago
    Obama facilitated the murder of civilians in Afghanistan too. Are you outraged about that?
    DofG Karl Rowley 13 hours ago
    And so did the American people by sitting in the passive bubble of patriotism while we continue to scorch the Earth with imperialism abroad while having a surveillance state at home. We are ALL guilty!
    Ando Arike 20 hours ago
    Ultimately, isn't it Obama, as commander-in-chief, who's responsible for the dirty work of his team of assassins in JSOC? As far as I know, Obama is not out of office yet...
    Michael Valentine a day ago
    Gee I thought we were doing a swell job of killing folks in Afghanistan, that's what we are there for right?
    DofG Michael Valentine a day ago
    We are there to keep the poppy crops going which the Taliban had destroyed! You know that heroin/opiates thing.
    max's pad Michael Valentine a day ago
    I don't know why we are there or in Iraq. It was the Saudi families and Saudi funding that created the terrorism of 9-11. It was the Bush Admin NeoCons and the Neoliberal philosopy that created the longest war in our history. It is entirely coincidental that this war like Vietnam inflicts its greatest toll on a bunch of impoverished villagers.
    Francis max's pad 6 hours ago
    Max - the Saudi's may have helped finance 911 but they certainly were not the ones that pulled it off.blockquote>Jethro_T

    max's pad a day ago

    Thanks for mentioning Viet Nam. Flynn appears to have been cut from the same cloth as Gen. Wm. Westmoreland, who first brought us "victory" by body count.

    [Nov 23, 2016] War with Russia US politicians close to approving no-fly zone in Syria

    Notable quotes:
    "... Suspension of the rules is a procedure generally used to quickly pass non-controversial bills in the United States House of Representatives .such as naming Post Offices " ..."
    "... "We cannot delay action on Syria any further . if we don't get this legislation across the finish line in the next few weeks, we are back to square one." ..."
    "... "the brave Syrian defector known to the world as Caesar, who testified to us the shocking scale of torture being carried out within the prisons of Syria." ..."
    "... "The administration has decided not to decide. And that itself, unfortunately, has set a course where here we sit and watch and the violence only worsens. Mr. Speaker, America has been sitting back and watching these atrocities for far too long. Vital U.S. national security interests are at stake." ..."
    "... "Four years ago I thought we should have aided the Free Syrian Army. They came to us in Washington and begged us for help they were simply looking for weaponry. I really believe if we had given it to them, the situation in Syria would have been different today." ..."
    "... "We're going into the New Year 2017, Assad still clings to power, at the expense of killing millions of his citizens." ..."
    "... "The world has witnessed this terrible tragedy unfold before our eyes. Nearly half a million Syrians killed. Not soldiers – men, women, children killed." ..."
    "... "It is the sense of Congress that– ..."
    "... (1) Bashar al-Assad's murderous actions against the people of Syria have caused the deaths of more than 400,000 ..."
    "... civilians " ..."
    "... "committing crimes against humanity and war crimes against civilians including murder, torture and rape. No one has been spared from this targeting, even children." ..."
    "... "We (previously) heard the testimony of Raed Saleh of the Syrian White Helmets. These are the doctors, nurses and volunteers who actually, when the bombs come, run towards the areas that have been hit in order to try to get the injured civilians medical treatment They have lost over 600 doctors and nurses." ..."
    "... "It is Russia, it is Hezbollah, that are the primary movers of death and destruction it is the IRGC fighters from Iran ..."
    "... "Yes, we want to go after Assad's partners in violence along with Iranian and Hezbollah forces ..."
    "... "the Syrian regime . often plays a useful role for US and Israeli interests." ..."
    "... "We always wanted [President] Bashar Assad to go, we always preferred the bad guys who weren't backed by Iran to the bad guys who were backed by Iran the greatest danger to Israel is by the strategic arc that extends from Tehran, to Damascus to Beirut. And we saw the Assad regime as the keystone in that arc." ..."
    Nov 23, 2016 | theduran.com
    According to wikipedia:

    " Suspension of the rules is a procedure generally used to quickly pass non-controversial bills in the United States House of Representatives .such as naming Post Offices "

    In this case, the resolution calls for evaluating and developing plans for a"No Fly Zone" which is an act of war. This is obviously controversial and it seems clear the resolution should have been debated and discussed under normal rules with a normal amount of Congressional presence and debate.

    The motivation for bypassing normal rules and rushing the bill through without debate was articulated by the bill's author and ranking Democrat Eliot Engel, who said:

    "We cannot delay action on Syria any further . if we don't get this legislation across the finish line in the next few weeks, we are back to square one."

    The current urgency may be related to the election results, since Trump has spoken out against "regime change" foreign policy. As much as they are critical of Obama for not doing more, Congressional neoconservatives are concerned about the prospect of a President who might move toward peace and away from war.

    The Caesar Fraud

    HR5732 is titled the "Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act". Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Ed Royce (R-Ca) explained that the resolution is named after "the brave Syrian defector known to the world as Caesar, who testified to us the shocking scale of torture being carried out within the prisons of Syria."

    In reality, the Caesar story was a grand deception involving the CIA with funding from Qatar to sabotage the 2014 Geneva negotiations. The 55,000 photos which were said to show 11,000 torture victims have never been publicly revealed. Only a tiny number of photos have been publicized.

    However, in 2015 Human Rights Watch was granted access to view the entire set. They revealed that almost one half the photos show the opposite of what was claimed: instead of victims tortured by the Syrian government, they actually show dead Syrian soldiers and civilian victims of car bombs and other terror attacks!

    The "Caesar" story, replete with masked 'defector', was one of the early propaganda hoaxes regarding Syria.

    False Claims that the US has been doing nothing

    One of the big lies regarding Syria is that the US has been inactive. Royce says:

    "The administration has decided not to decide. And that itself, unfortunately, has set a course where here we sit and watch and the violence only worsens. Mr. Speaker, America has been sitting back and watching these atrocities for far too long. Vital U.S. national security interests are at stake."

    The ranking Democrat Eliot Engel said:

    "Four years ago I thought we should have aided the Free Syrian Army. They came to us in Washington and begged us for help they were simply looking for weaponry. I really believe if we had given it to them, the situation in Syria would have been different today."

    This is nonsense. The US was actively coordinating, training and supplying armed opposition groups beginning in late 2011. When the Qadaffi government was toppled in Fall 2011, the CIA oversaw the theft of the Libyan armories and shipment of weapons to Syrian armed opposition as documented in the Defense Intelligence Agency report of October 2012.

    These weapons transfers were secret. For the public record it was acknowledged that the US was supplying communications equipment to the armed opposition while Saudi Arabia and Qatar were supplying weaponry. This is one reason that Saudi purchases of weapons skyrocketed during this time period; they were buying weapons to replace those being shipped to the armed opposition in Syria. It was very profitable for US arms manufacturers.

    Huge weapons transfers to the armed opposition in Syria have continued to the present. This past Spring, Janes Defense reported the details of a U.S. delivery of 2.2 million pounds of ammunition, rocket launchers and other weaponry to the armed opposition.

    Claims that the US has been inactive are baseless. In reality the US has done everything short of a direct attack on Syria. And the US military is starting to cross that barrier. On September 17 the US air coalition did a direct attack on the Syrian Army in Deir Ezzor, killing 80 Syrian soldiers and enabling ISIS to launch an attack on the position.

    Claims that it was a "mistake" are highly dubious.

    The claims by Congressional hawks that the US has been 'inactive' in the Syrian conflict are part of the false narrative suggesting the US must "do something" which leads to a No Fly Zone and full scale war. Ironically, these calls for war are masked as "humanitarian". And never do the proponents bring up the case of Libya where the US and NATO "did something": destroyed the government and left chaos.

    Congress as a Fact-Free House of Propaganda

    With only a handful of representatives present and no debate, the six Congress members engaged in unrestrained propaganda and misinformation. The leading Democrat, Eliot Engel, said "We're going into the New Year 2017, Assad still clings to power, at the expense of killing millions of his citizens."

    That number is way off anyone's charts.

    Rep Kildee said "The world has witnessed this terrible tragedy unfold before our eyes. Nearly half a million Syrians killed. Not soldiers – men, women, children killed."

    The official text of the resolution says:

    "It is the sense of Congress that–
    (1) Bashar al-Assad's murderous actions against the people of Syria have caused the deaths of more than 400,000
    civilians "

    The above accusations – from "millions of citizens" to "half a million" to "400,000 civilians" – are all preposterous lies.

    Credible estimates of casualties in the Syrian conflict range from 300,000 to 420,000. The opposition supporting Syrian Observatory for Human Rights estimates the documented 2011-2016 death toll as follows:

    killed pro Syrian forces – 108,000
    killed anti government forces – 105,000
    killed civilians – 89,000

    In contrast with Congressional and media claims, civilians comprise a minority of the total death count and the largest casualty group is those fighting in defense of the the Syrian state. These facts are ignored and never mentioned because they point to the reality versus the propaganda narrative which allows the USA and allies to continue funding terrorism and a war of aggression against Syria.

    The Congressional speakers were in full self-righteous mode as they accused the Syrian government of "committing crimes against humanity and war crimes against civilians including murder, torture and rape. No one has been spared from this targeting, even children."

    A naive listener would never know that the Syrian government is primarily fighting the Syrian branch of Al-Qaeda, including thousands of foreigners supplied and paid by foreign governments.

    The Congressional speakers go on to accuse the Syrian military of "targeting" hospitals, schools and markets. A critical listener might ask why they would do that instead of targeting the Al-Qaeda terrorists and their allies who launch dozens and sometimes hundreds of hell cannon missiles into government held Aleppo every day.

    The Congressional propaganda fest would not be complete without mention of the " White Helmets ". House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce said:

    "We (previously) heard the testimony of Raed Saleh of the Syrian White Helmets. These are the doctors, nurses and volunteers who actually, when the bombs come, run towards the areas that have been hit in order to try to get the injured civilians medical treatment They have lost over 600 doctors and nurses."

    This is more Congressional nonsense.

    There are no nurses or doctors associated with the White Helmets. The organization was created by the USA and UK and heavily promoted by a " shady PR firm ". The White Helmets operate solely in areas controlled by Nusra and associated terrorist groups. They do some rescue work in the conflict zone but their main role is in the information war manipulating public opinion.

    The White Helmets actively promote US/NATO intervention through a No Fly Zone. Recently the White Helmets has become a major source of claims of innocent civilian victims in east Aleppo. Given the clear history of the White Helmets, these claims should be treated with skepticism. What exactly is the evidence?

    The same skepticism needs to be applied to video and other reports from the Aleppo Media Center. AMC is a creation of the Syrian Expatriates Organization whose address on K Street, Washington DC indicates it is a US marketing operation.

    What is really going on?

    The campaign to overthrow the Syrian government is failing and there is possibility of a victory for the Syrian government and allies. The previous flood of international jihadi recruits has dried up. The Syrian Army and allies are gaining ground militarily and negotiating settlements or re-locations with "rebels" who previously terrorized Homs, Darraya (outer Damascus) and elsewhere.

    In Aleppo, the Syrian army and allies are tightening the noose around the armed opposition in east Aleppo. This has caused alarm among neoconservative lawmakers devoted to Israel, Saudi Arabia and U.S. empire. They are desperate to prevent the Syrian government from finally eliminating the terrorist groups which the West and allies have promoted for the past 5+ years.

    "Pro Israel" groups have been major campaigners for the passage of HR5732. The name of Simon Wiesenthal is even invoked in the resolution. With crocodile tears fully flowing, Rabbi Lee Bycel wrote " Where is the Conscience of the World? " as he questioned why the "humanitarian" HR5732 was not passed earlier.

    Israeli interests are one of the primary forces sustaining and promoting the conflict. Syria is officially at war with Israel which continues to occupy the Syrian Golan Heights; Syria has been a key ally of the Lebanese resistance; and Syria has maintained its alliance with Iran.

    In 2010 Secretary of State Clinton urged Syria to break relations with Hezbollah, reduce relations with Iran and come to settlement with Israel. The Syrian refusal to comply with these Washington demands was instrumental in solidifying Washington's hostility .

    Congressional proponents of HR5732 make clear the international dimension of the conflict. Royce explains:

    "It is Russia, it is Hezbollah, that are the primary movers of death and destruction it is the IRGC fighters from Iran ."

    Engel echoes the same message:

    "Yes, we want to go after Assad's partners in violence along with Iranian and Hezbollah forces ."

    These statements are in contrast with the analysis of some writers who believe Israel is not deeply opposed to the Damascus government. For example Phyllis Bennis recently wrote that belief in an "arc of resistance" has been "long debunked" and that "the Syrian regime . often plays a useful role for US and Israeli interests."

    It's remarkable that this faulty analysis continues to be propounded. In words and deeds Israel has made its position on Syria crystal clear. Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren explained in an interview:

    "We always wanted [President] Bashar Assad to go, we always preferred the bad guys who weren't backed by Iran to the bad guys who were backed by Iran the greatest danger to Israel is by the strategic arc that extends from Tehran, to Damascus to Beirut. And we saw the Assad regime as the keystone in that arc."

    These statements have been fully backed up by Israeli actions bombing Syrian positions in southern Syria and providing medical treatment for Nusra/Al-Qaeda and other armed opposition fighters.

    What Will Happen Now?

    If the Syrian government and allies continue to advance in Aleppo, Deir Ezzor, outer Damascus and the south, the situation will come to a head. The enemies of Syria – predominately the USA, Gulf Countries, NATO and Israel – will come to a decision point. Do they intervene directly or do they allow their regime project to collapse?

    HR5732 is an effort to prepare for direct intervention and aggression.

    One thing is clear from the experience of Libya: Neoconservatives do not care if they leave a country in chaos. The main objective is to destabilize and overthrow a government which is too independent. If the USA and allies cannot dominate the country, then at least they can destroy the contrary authority and leave chaos.

    What is at stake in Syria is whether the USA and allies – Israel, Saudi Arabia, etc. are able to destroy the last secular and independent Arab country in the region and whether the US goal of being the sole superpower in the world prevails.

    The rushed passing of HR5732 without debate is indicative that:

    – "regime change" proponents have not given up their war on Syria;
    – they seek to escalate US aggression;
    – the US Congress is a venue where blatant lies are said with impunity and where violent actions are advanced behind a cynical and amoral veneer of "humanitarianism" and crocodile tears.

    [Nov 23, 2016] Guillotine Watch, Nov 23, 2016

    Notable quotes:
    "... Nicholas Kristof's Burden: First class travel and $30,000 speakers fee makes reporting on poverty easier to endure ..."
    "... Kristof's wife worked at Goldman Sachs ..."
    Nov 23, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    " Nicholas Kristof's Burden: First class travel and $30,000 speakers fee makes reporting on poverty easier to endure " [ Washington Babylon ].

    I had no idea Kristof's wife worked at Goldman Sachs . How nice for both of them.

    [Nov 23, 2016] War hungry Samantha Power out as UN Ambassador. Trump appoints Nikki Haley to top spot at United Nations

    Notable quotes:
    "... "humanitarian wars" ..."
    Nov 23, 2016 | theduran.com

    Luckily a neocon is not going to be heading to the United Nations, and Power, who championed US "humanitarian wars" is being shown the exit door and it could not come soon enough.

    ... ... ...

    In what has been dubbed a "remarkable" shift in the president-elect's mindset, Trump's selection of Haley caps a dramatic year for their political relationship. They started 2016 with a fight and are ending it as allies in a nascent Trump administration, suggesting that far from bearing grudges Trump is willing to reconcile in the name of national interests.

    [Nov 23, 2016] Expect the Unexpected

    Nov 23, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com
    This unadmitted ignorance was previously displayed for those with eyes to see it in the Libya debacle, perhaps not coincidentally Clinton's pet war. Cast by the Obama White House as a surgical display of "smart power" that would defend human rights and foster democracy in the Muslim world, the 2011 Libyan intervention did precisely the opposite. There is credible evidence that the U.S.-led NATO campaign prolonged and exacerbated the humanitarian crisis, and far from creating a flourishing democracy, the ouster of strongman Muammar Qaddafi led to a power vacuum into which ISIS and other rival unsavories surged.

    The 2011 intervention and the follow-up escalation in which we are presently entangled were both fundamentally informed by "the underlying belief that military force will produce stability and that the U.S. can reasonably predict the result of such a campaign," as Christopher Preble has argued in a must-read Libya analysis at Politico . Both have proven resoundingly wrong.

    Before Libya, Washington espoused the same false certainty in advance of intervention and nation-building Iraq and Afghanistan. The rhetoric around the former was particularly telling: we would find nuclear weapons and "be greeted as liberators," said Vice President Dick Cheney. The whole thing would take five months or less, said Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. It would be a "cakewalk." As months dragged into years of nation-building stagnation, the ignored truth became increasingly evident: the United States cannot reshape entire countries without obscene risk and investment, and even when those costly commitments are made, success cannot be predicted with certainty.

    Nearly 14 years later, with Iraq demonstrably more violent and less stable than it was before U.S. intervention, wisdom demands we reject Washington's recycled snake oil.

    Recent polls (let alone the anti-elite backlash Trump's win represents ) suggest Americans are ready to do precisely that. But a lack of public enthusiasm has never stopped Washington from hawking its fraudulent wares-this time in the form of yet-again unfounded certainty that escalating American intervention in Syria is a sure-fire solution to that beleaguered nation's woes.

    We must not let ourselves be fooled. Rather, we "should understand that we don't need to overthrow distant governments and roll the dice on what comes after in order to keep America safe," as Preble, reflecting on Libya, contends . "On the contrary, our track record over the last quarter-century shows that such interventions often have the opposite effect."

    And as for the political establishment, let Trump's triumph be a constant reminder of the necessity of expecting the unexpected and proceeding with due (indeed, much overdue) prudence and restraint abroad. If Washington so grossly misunderstood the direction of its own heartland-without the muddling, as in foreign policy, of massive geographic and cultural differences-how naïve it is to believe that our government can successfully play armed puppet-master over an entire region of the world?

    Bonnie Kristian is a fellow at Defense Priorities. She is a weekend editor at The Week and a columnist at Rare , and her writing has also appeared at Time , Politico , Relevant , The Hill , and other outlets.

    [Nov 21, 2016] Chuck Baldwin -- Trump Supporters Must Not Go To Sleep

    Notable quotes:
    "... Reince Priebus is an establishment insider. He did NOTHING to help Trump get elected until toward the very end of the campaign. ..."
    "... On the other hand, Stephen Bannon is probably a very good pick. He headed Breitbart.com, which is one of the premier "alt-right" media outlets that has consistently led the charge against the globalist, anti-freedom agenda of the political establishment in Washington, D.C. Albeit, Bannon is probably blind to the dangers of Zionism and is, therefore, probably naïve about the New World Order. I don't believe anyone can truly understand the New World Order without being aware of the role that Zionism plays in it. ..."
    "... To be honest, the possible appointments of Rudy Giuliani, Chris Christie, John Bolton and especially Newt Gingrich are MORE than troubling. Rudy Giuliani is "Mr. Police State," and if he is selected as the new attorney general, the burgeoning Police State in this country will go into hyperdrive. NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden is already warning us about this. Chris Christie is a typical New England liberal Republican. His appointment to any position bodes NOTHING good. And John Bolton is a Bush pro-war neocon. But Newt Gingrich is the quintessential insider, globalist, and establishment hack. ..."
    "... Newt Gingrich is a HIGH LEVEL globalist and longtime CFR member. He is the consummate neocon. And he has a brilliant mind (NO morals, but a brilliant mind--a deadly combination, for sure). ..."
    "... You cannot drain the swamp by putting the very people who filled the swamp back in charge. And that's exactly what Trump would be doing if he appoints Gingrich to any high-level position in his administration. ..."
    "... Trump is already softening his position on illegal immigration, on dismantling the EPA, on repealing Obamacare, on investigating and prosecuting Hillary Clinton, etc. ..."
    "... What we need to know right now is that WE CANNOT GO TO SLEEP. We cannot sit back in lethargy and complacency and just assume that Donald Trump is going to do what he said he would do. If we do that, we might as well have elected Hillary Clinton, because at least then we would be forever on guard against her forthcoming assaults against our liberties. ..."
    "... The difference in this election is that Donald Trump didn't run against the Democrats; he ran against the entire Washington establishment, including the Republican establishment. Hopefully that means that the people who supported and voted for Trump will NOT be inclined to go into political hibernation now that Trump is elected. ..."
    Nov 17, 2016 | www.newswithviews.com

    After my post-election column last week, a lady wrote to me and said, "I have confidence he [Trump] plans to do what is best for the country." With all due respect, I don't! I agree wholeheartedly with Thomas Jefferson. He said, "In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."

    If Donald Trump is going to be anything more than just another say-anything-to-get-elected phony, he is going to have to put raw elbow grease to his rhetoric. His talk got him elected, but it is going to be his walk that is going to prove his worth.

    And, as I wrote last week, the biggest indicator as to whether or not he is truly going to follow through with his rhetoric is who he selects for his cabinet and top-level government positions. So far, he has picked Reince Priebus as White House chief of staff and Stephen Bannon as White House chief strategist.

    Reince Priebus is an establishment insider. He did NOTHING to help Trump get elected until toward the very end of the campaign. He is the current chairman of the Republican National Committee. If that doesn't tell you what he is, nothing will. Trump probably picked him because he is in so tight with House Speaker Paul Ryan (a globalist neocon of the highest order) and the GOP establishment, thinking Priebus will help him get his agenda through the GOP Congress. But ideologically, Priebus does NOT share Trump's anti-establishment agenda. So, this appointment is a risk at best and a sell-out at worst.

    On the other hand, Stephen Bannon is probably a very good pick. He headed Breitbart.com, which is one of the premier "alt-right" media outlets that has consistently led the charge against the globalist, anti-freedom agenda of the political establishment in Washington, D.C. Albeit, Bannon is probably blind to the dangers of Zionism and is, therefore, probably naïve about the New World Order. I don't believe anyone can truly understand the New World Order without being aware of the role that Zionism plays in it.

    To be honest, the possible appointments of Rudy Giuliani, Chris Christie, John Bolton and especially Newt Gingrich are MORE than troubling. Rudy Giuliani is "Mr. Police State," and if he is selected as the new attorney general, the burgeoning Police State in this country will go into hyperdrive. NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden is already warning us about this. Chris Christie is a typical New England liberal Republican. His appointment to any position bodes NOTHING good. And John Bolton is a Bush pro-war neocon. But Newt Gingrich is the quintessential insider, globalist, and establishment hack.

    There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the globalist elite gave Newt Gingrich the assignment of cozying up to (and "supporting") Trump during his campaign with the sole intention of being in a position for Trump to think he owes Gingrich something so as to appoint him to a key cabinet post in the event that he won. Gingrich could then weave his evil magic during a Donald Trump presidential administration.

    Newt Gingrich is a HIGH LEVEL globalist and longtime CFR member. He is the consummate neocon. And he has a brilliant mind (NO morals, but a brilliant mind--a deadly combination, for sure). If Donald Trump does not see through this man, and if he appoints him as a cabinet head in his administration, I will be forced to believe that Donald Trump is clueless about "draining the swamp." You cannot drain the swamp by putting the very people who filled the swamp back in charge. And that's exactly what Trump would be doing if he appoints Gingrich to any high-level position in his administration.

    Trump is already softening his position on illegal immigration, on dismantling the EPA, on repealing Obamacare, on investigating and prosecuting Hillary Clinton, etc. Granted, he hasn't even been sworn in yet, and it's still way too early to make a true judgment of his presidency. But for a fact, his cabinet appointments and his first one hundred days in office will tell us most of what we need to know.

    What we need to know right now is that WE CANNOT GO TO SLEEP. We cannot sit back in lethargy and complacency and just assume that Donald Trump is going to do what he said he would do. If we do that, we might as well have elected Hillary Clinton, because at least then we would be forever on guard against her forthcoming assaults against our liberties.

    There is a reason we have lost more liberties under Republican administrations than Democratic ones over the past few decades. And that reason is the conservative, constitutionalist, Christian, pro-freedom people who should be resisting government's assaults against our liberties are sound asleep because they trust a Republican President and Congress to do the right thing -- and they give the GOP a pass as our liberties are expunged piece by piece. A pass they would NEVER give to a Democrat.

    The difference in this election is that Donald Trump didn't run against the Democrats; he ran against the entire Washington establishment, including the Republican establishment. Hopefully that means that the people who supported and voted for Trump will NOT be inclined to go into political hibernation now that Trump is elected.

    I tell you again: this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to change the course of a nation. Frankly, if this opportunity is squandered, there likely will not be another one in most of our lifetimes.

    [Nov 21, 2016] Obama helped to create ISIS by turning a bling eye on US intelligence reports

    Notable quotes:
    "... Flynn: "I don't know if they turned a blind eye. I think it was a decision, a willful decision." ..."
    "... Hasan (Interviewer): "A willful decision to support an insurgency that had Salafists, Al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood?" ..."
    "... Flynn: "A willful decision to do what they're doing, You have to really ask the President what is it that he actually is doing with the policy that is in place, because it is very, very confusing." ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org

    THIS IS "CHANGE"

    The successor of Susan Rice:

    Hasan (Interviewer) (From 11.15 onwards into the interview): "In 2012, your agency was saying, quote: "The Salafists, the Muslim Brotherhood and Al-Qaeda in Iraq [(which ISIS arose out of)], are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria." In 2012, the US was helping coordinate arms transfers to those same groups. Why did you not stop that if you're worried about the rise of Islamic extremism?"

    Flynn: "Well I hate to say it's not my job, but my job was to ensure that the accuracy of our intelligence that was being presented was as good as it could be, and I will tell you, it goes before 2012. When we were in Iraq, and we still had decisions to be made before there was a decision to pull out of Iraq in 2011, it was very clear what we were going to face."

    Hasan (Interviewer): You are basically saying that even in government at the time, you knew those groups were around, you saw this analysis, and you were arguing against it, but who wasn't listening?"

    Flynn: "I think the administration."

    Hasan (Interviewer): "So the administration turned a blind eye to your analysis?"

    Flynn: "I don't know if they turned a blind eye. I think it was a decision, a willful decision."

    Hasan (Interviewer): "A willful decision to support an insurgency that had Salafists, Al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood?"

    Flynn: "A willful decision to do what they're doing, You have to really ask the President what is it that he actually is doing with the policy that is in place, because it is very, very confusing."

    Former US Intelligence Chief Admits Obama Took "Willful Decision" to Support ISIS Rise

    http://journal-neo.org/2015/08/13/former-us-intelligence-chief-admits-obama-took-willful-decision-to-support-isis-rise/

    [Nov 21, 2016] Chuck Baldwin -- Trump Supporters Must Not Go To Sleep

    Notable quotes:
    "... Reince Priebus is an establishment insider. He did NOTHING to help Trump get elected until toward the very end of the campaign. ..."
    "... On the other hand, Stephen Bannon is probably a very good pick. He headed Breitbart.com, which is one of the premier "alt-right" media outlets that has consistently led the charge against the globalist, anti-freedom agenda of the political establishment in Washington, D.C. Albeit, Bannon is probably blind to the dangers of Zionism and is, therefore, probably naïve about the New World Order. I don't believe anyone can truly understand the New World Order without being aware of the role that Zionism plays in it. ..."
    "... To be honest, the possible appointments of Rudy Giuliani, Chris Christie, John Bolton and especially Newt Gingrich are MORE than troubling. Rudy Giuliani is "Mr. Police State," and if he is selected as the new attorney general, the burgeoning Police State in this country will go into hyperdrive. NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden is already warning us about this. Chris Christie is a typical New England liberal Republican. His appointment to any position bodes NOTHING good. And John Bolton is a Bush pro-war neocon. But Newt Gingrich is the quintessential insider, globalist, and establishment hack. ..."
    "... Newt Gingrich is a HIGH LEVEL globalist and longtime CFR member. He is the consummate neocon. And he has a brilliant mind (NO morals, but a brilliant mind--a deadly combination, for sure). ..."
    "... You cannot drain the swamp by putting the very people who filled the swamp back in charge. And that's exactly what Trump would be doing if he appoints Gingrich to any high-level position in his administration. ..."
    "... Trump is already softening his position on illegal immigration, on dismantling the EPA, on repealing Obamacare, on investigating and prosecuting Hillary Clinton, etc. ..."
    "... What we need to know right now is that WE CANNOT GO TO SLEEP. We cannot sit back in lethargy and complacency and just assume that Donald Trump is going to do what he said he would do. If we do that, we might as well have elected Hillary Clinton, because at least then we would be forever on guard against her forthcoming assaults against our liberties. ..."
    "... The difference in this election is that Donald Trump didn't run against the Democrats; he ran against the entire Washington establishment, including the Republican establishment. Hopefully that means that the people who supported and voted for Trump will NOT be inclined to go into political hibernation now that Trump is elected. ..."
    Nov 17, 2016 | www.newswithviews.com

    After my post-election column last week, a lady wrote to me and said, "I have confidence he [Trump] plans to do what is best for the country." With all due respect, I don't! I agree wholeheartedly with Thomas Jefferson. He said, "In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."

    If Donald Trump is going to be anything more than just another say-anything-to-get-elected phony, he is going to have to put raw elbow grease to his rhetoric. His talk got him elected, but it is going to be his walk that is going to prove his worth.

    And, as I wrote last week, the biggest indicator as to whether or not he is truly going to follow through with his rhetoric is who he selects for his cabinet and top-level government positions. So far, he has picked Reince Priebus as White House chief of staff and Stephen Bannon as White House chief strategist.

    Reince Priebus is an establishment insider. He did NOTHING to help Trump get elected until toward the very end of the campaign. He is the current chairman of the Republican National Committee. If that doesn't tell you what he is, nothing will. Trump probably picked him because he is in so tight with House Speaker Paul Ryan (a globalist neocon of the highest order) and the GOP establishment, thinking Priebus will help him get his agenda through the GOP Congress. But ideologically, Priebus does NOT share Trump's anti-establishment agenda. So, this appointment is a risk at best and a sell-out at worst.

    On the other hand, Stephen Bannon is probably a very good pick. He headed Breitbart.com, which is one of the premier "alt-right" media outlets that has consistently led the charge against the globalist, anti-freedom agenda of the political establishment in Washington, D.C. Albeit, Bannon is probably blind to the dangers of Zionism and is, therefore, probably naïve about the New World Order. I don't believe anyone can truly understand the New World Order without being aware of the role that Zionism plays in it.

    To be honest, the possible appointments of Rudy Giuliani, Chris Christie, John Bolton and especially Newt Gingrich are MORE than troubling. Rudy Giuliani is "Mr. Police State," and if he is selected as the new attorney general, the burgeoning Police State in this country will go into hyperdrive. NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden is already warning us about this. Chris Christie is a typical New England liberal Republican. His appointment to any position bodes NOTHING good. And John Bolton is a Bush pro-war neocon. But Newt Gingrich is the quintessential insider, globalist, and establishment hack.

    There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the globalist elite gave Newt Gingrich the assignment of cozying up to (and "supporting") Trump during his campaign with the sole intention of being in a position for Trump to think he owes Gingrich something so as to appoint him to a key cabinet post in the event that he won. Gingrich could then weave his evil magic during a Donald Trump presidential administration.

    Newt Gingrich is a HIGH LEVEL globalist and longtime CFR member. He is the consummate neocon. And he has a brilliant mind (NO morals, but a brilliant mind--a deadly combination, for sure). If Donald Trump does not see through this man, and if he appoints him as a cabinet head in his administration, I will be forced to believe that Donald Trump is clueless about "draining the swamp." You cannot drain the swamp by putting the very people who filled the swamp back in charge. And that's exactly what Trump would be doing if he appoints Gingrich to any high-level position in his administration.

    Trump is already softening his position on illegal immigration, on dismantling the EPA, on repealing Obamacare, on investigating and prosecuting Hillary Clinton, etc. Granted, he hasn't even been sworn in yet, and it's still way too early to make a true judgment of his presidency. But for a fact, his cabinet appointments and his first one hundred days in office will tell us most of what we need to know.

    What we need to know right now is that WE CANNOT GO TO SLEEP. We cannot sit back in lethargy and complacency and just assume that Donald Trump is going to do what he said he would do. If we do that, we might as well have elected Hillary Clinton, because at least then we would be forever on guard against her forthcoming assaults against our liberties.

    There is a reason we have lost more liberties under Republican administrations than Democratic ones over the past few decades. And that reason is the conservative, constitutionalist, Christian, pro-freedom people who should be resisting government's assaults against our liberties are sound asleep because they trust a Republican President and Congress to do the right thing -- and they give the GOP a pass as our liberties are expunged piece by piece. A pass they would NEVER give to a Democrat.

    The difference in this election is that Donald Trump didn't run against the Democrats; he ran against the entire Washington establishment, including the Republican establishment. Hopefully that means that the people who supported and voted for Trump will NOT be inclined to go into political hibernation now that Trump is elected.

    I tell you again: this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to change the course of a nation. Frankly, if this opportunity is squandered, there likely will not be another one in most of our lifetimes.

    [Nov 21, 2016] Obama crosses the line in hypocrisy when he start talking about the values of democracy, and free speech, and international norms, and rule of law, respecting the ability of other countries to determine their own destiny and preserve their sovereignty and territorial integrity. What about Libya, Syria and Yemen we would like ask this hypocrite

    www.moonofalabama.org

    Ghostship | Nov 17, 2016 10:09:56 PM | 47

    At least with Trump I expect him to talk crap but Obama talks crap as well when he should know better:

    The values that we talked about -- the values of democracy, and free speech, and international norms, and rule of law, respecting the ability of other countries to determine their own destiny and preserve their sovereignty and territorial integrity -- those things are not something that we can set aside.

    The unbridled hypocrisy makes me want to puke.

    [Nov 21, 2016] The Deciders The American Conservative by John Hay

    Notable quotes:
    "... The various accounts present an array of neoconservative thinkers-notably Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, and Walter Slocombe-who implemented their own policies rather than those of the president they served. Moreover, one of the major influences on these policies was the Iraqi exile Ahmad Chalabi, who had thought he would be put in charge of postwar Iraq, having "been led to believe that by Perle and Feith," as General Garner related to the journalist Thomas Ricks. And while the responsibility for what happened ultimately lies with George W. Bush-who, to his credit, avers as much in his own memoir-this episode demonstrates how knowledgeable mid-level advisors can hijack the American presidency to suit their own goals. ..."
    "... Regarding the de-Baathification order, both Bremer and Feith have written their own accounts of the week leading up to it, and the slight discrepancy between their recollections is revealing in what it tells us about Bremer-and consequently about Wolfowitz and Libby for having selected him. At first blush, Bremer and Feith's justifications for the policy appear to dovetail, each comparing postwar Iraq to postwar Nazi Germany. ..."
    "... Simply put, Bremer was tempted by headline-grabbing policies. He was unlikely to question any action that offered opportunities to make bold gestures, which made him easy to influence. Indeed, another quality of Bremer's professional persona that conspicuously emerges from accounts of the period is his unwillingness to think for himself. His memoir shows that he was eager to put Jay Garner in his place from the moment he arrived in Iraq, yet he was unable to defend himself on his own when challenged by Garner, who-according to Bob Woodward in his book State of Denial: Bush at War, Part III -was "stunned" by the disbanding order. Woodward claims that when Garner confronted Bremer about it, "Bremer, looking surprised, asked Garner to go see Walter B. Slocombe." ..."
    "... To help untangle these problems, I was fortunate to have Walt Slocombe as Senior Adviser for defense and security affairs. A brilliant former Rhodes Scholar from Princeton and a Harvard-educated attorney, Walt had worked for Democratic administrations for decades on high-level strategic and arms control issues. ..."
    "... Although a Democrat, he has maintained good relations with Wolfowitz and is described by some as a 'Democratic hawk,'" a remark that once again places Wolfowitz in close proximity to Bremer and the disbanding order. ..."
    "... This further illustrates the disconnect between what was decided by the NSC in Washington in March and by the CPA in Iraq in May. In his memoir, Feith notes that although he supported the disbanding policy, "the decision became associated with a number of unnecessary problems, including the apparent lack of interagency review." ..."
    "... I should have insisted on more debate on Jerry's orders, especially on what message disbanding the army would send and how many Sunnis the de-Baathification would affect. Overseen by longtime exile Ahmed Chalabi, the de-Baathification program turned out to cut much deeper than we expected, including mid-level party members like teachers. ..."
    "... Perle echoed this view two years later when he told Vanity Fair , "Huge mistakes were made they were not made by neoconservatives, who had almost no voice in what happened, and certainly almost no voice in what happened after the downfall of the regime in Baghdad." ..."
    "... illustration by Michael Hogue ..."
    Oct 27, 2015 | www.theamericanconservative.com

    In May 2003, in the wake of the Iraq War and the ousting of Saddam Hussein, events took place that set the stage for the current chaos in the Middle East. Yet even most well-informed Americans are unaware of how policies implemented by mid-level bureaucrats during the Bush administration unwittingly unleashed forces that would ultimately lead to the juggernaut of the Islamic State.

    The lesson is that it appears all too easy for outsiders working with relatively low-level appointees to hijack the policy process. The Bay of Pigs invasion and Iran-Contra affair are familiar instances, but the Iraq experience offers an even better illustration-not least because its consequences have been even more disastrous.

    The cast of characters includes President George W. Bush; L. Paul "Jerry" Bremer, the first civilian administrator of postwar Iraq; Douglas Feith, Bush's undersecretary of defense for policy; Paul Wolfowitz, Bush's deputy secretary of defense; I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, chief of staff to Vice President Richard B. Cheney (and Cheney's proxy in these events); Walter Slocombe, who had been President Clinton's undersecretary of defense for policy, and as such was Feith's predecessor; Richard Perle, who was chairman of Bush's defense policy board; and General Jay Garner, whom Bremer replaced as the leader of postwar Iraq.

    On May 9, 2003, President Bush appointed Bremer to the top civilian post in Iraq. A career diplomat who was recruited for this job by Wolfowitz and Libby, despite the fact that he had minimal experience of the region and didn't speak Arabic, Bremer arrived in Baghdad on May 12 to take charge of the Coalition Provisional Authority, or CPA. In his first two weeks at his post, Bremer issued two orders that would turn out to be momentous. Enacted on May 16, CPA Order Number 1 "de-Baathified" the Iraqi government; on May 23, CPA Order Number 2 disbanded the Iraqi army. In short, Baath party members were barred from participation in Iraq's new government and Saddam Hussein's soldiers lost their jobs, taking their weapons with them.

    The results of these policies become clear as we learn about the leadership of ISIS. The Washington Post , for example, reported in April that "almost all of the leaders of the Islamic State are former Iraqi officers." In June, the New York Times identified a man "believed to be the head of the Islamic State's military council," Fadel al-Hayali, as "a former lieutenant colonel in the Iraqi military intelligence agency of President Saddam Hussein." Criticism of de-Baathification and the disbanding of Iraq's army has been fierce, and the contribution these policies made to fueling extremism was recognized even before the advent of the Islamic State. The New York Times reported in 2007:

    The dismantling of the Iraqi Army in the aftermath of the American invasion is now widely regarded as a mistake that stoked rebellion among hundreds of thousands of former Iraqi soldiers and made it more difficult to reduce sectarian bloodshed and attacks by insurgents.

    This year the Washington Post summed up reactions to both orders when it cited a former Iraqi general who asked bluntly, "When they dismantled the army, what did they expect those men to do?" He explained that "they didn't de-Baathify people's minds, they just took away their jobs." Writing about the disbanding policy in his memoir, Decision Points , George W. Bush acknowledges the harmful results: "Thousands of armed men had just been told they were not wanted. Instead of signing up for the new military, many joined the insurgency."

    Yet in spite of the wide-ranging consequences of these de-Baathification and disbanding policies, they-and the decision-making processes that led to them-remain obscure to most Americans. What is more, it is unclear whether Bush himself knew about these policies before they were enacted. In November 2003, the Washington Post claimed, "Before the war, President Bush approved a plan that would have put several hundred thousand Iraqi soldiers on the U.S. payroll and kept them available to provide security." There had apparently been two National Security Council meetings, one on March 10 and another on March 12, during which the president approved a moderate de-Baathification policy and a plan, as reported by the New York Times ' Michael R. Gordon, to "use the Iraqi military to help protect the country." (The invasion of Iraq began on March 19.) President Bush later told biographer Robert Draper that "the policy was to keep the army intact" but it "didn't happen."

    So the question remains: if CPA Orders 1 and 2 weren't Bush's policies, whose were they? In 2007, Doug Feith told the Los Angeles Times that "until everybody writes memoirs and all the researchers look at the documents, some of these things are hard to sort out. You could be in the thick of it and not necessarily know all the details." Now that the memoirs have been written, it is time to establish just who the policymakers were in May 2003.

    The various accounts present an array of neoconservative thinkers-notably Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, and Walter Slocombe-who implemented their own policies rather than those of the president they served. Moreover, one of the major influences on these policies was the Iraqi exile Ahmad Chalabi, who had thought he would be put in charge of postwar Iraq, having "been led to believe that by Perle and Feith," as General Garner related to the journalist Thomas Ricks. And while the responsibility for what happened ultimately lies with George W. Bush-who, to his credit, avers as much in his own memoir-this episode demonstrates how knowledgeable mid-level advisors can hijack the American presidency to suit their own goals.

    ♦♦♦

    At the start of May 2003, the chief administrative entity in Iraq was the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance (OHRA), which was replaced shortly thereafter by the CPA under Bremer. The head of OHRA was General Garner, who worked "under the eyes of senior Defense Department aides with direct channels to Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz and Under Secretary for Policy Douglas J. Feith," according to the Washington Post . For his part, Garner strongly favored a policy of maintaining the Iraqi army, and preparations towards this end began almost a year earlier. For instance, Colonel John Agoglia told the New York Times that "Starting in June 2002 we conducted targeted psychological operations using pamphlet drops, broadcasts and all sorts of means to get the message to the regular army troops that they should surrender or desert and that if they did we would bring them back." The Times reported earlier that under Garner's leadership, "Top commanders were meeting secretly with former Iraqi officers to discuss the best way to rebuild the force and recall Iraqi soldiers back to duty when Mr. Bremer arrived in Baghdad with his plan."

    In the same story, the Times claimed that "The Bush administration did not just discuss keeping the old army. General Garner's team found contractors to retrain it." Bremer, however, showed up with policy ideas that diverged sharply from Garner's.

    In his memoir, Bremer names the officials who approached him for his CPA job. He recounts telling his wife that:

    I had been contacted by Scooter Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, and by Paul Wolfowitz, deputy secretary of defense. The Pentagon's original civil administration in 'post-hostility' Iraq-the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance, ORHA-lacked expertise in high-level diplomatic negotiations and politics. I had the requisite skills and experience for that position.

    Regarding the de-Baathification order, both Bremer and Feith have written their own accounts of the week leading up to it, and the slight discrepancy between their recollections is revealing in what it tells us about Bremer-and consequently about Wolfowitz and Libby for having selected him. At first blush, Bremer and Feith's justifications for the policy appear to dovetail, each comparing postwar Iraq to postwar Nazi Germany.

    Bremer explains in a retrospective Washington Post op-ed, "What We Got Right in Iraq," that "Hussein modeled his regime after Adolf Hitler's, which controlled the German people with two main instruments: the Nazi Party and the Reich's security services. We had no choice but to rid Iraq of the country's equivalent organizations." For his part, Feith goes a step further, reasoning in his memoir War and Decision that the case for de-Baathification was even stronger because "The Nazis, after all, had run Germany for a dozen years; the Baathists had tyrannized Iraq for more than thirty."

    Regarding the order itself, Bremer writes,

    The day before I left for Iraq in May, Undersecretary of Defense Douglas J. Feith presented me with a draft law that would purge top Baathists from the Iraqi government and told me that he planned to issue it immediately. Recognizing how important this step was, I asked Feith to hold off, among other reasons, so I could discuss it with Iraqi leaders and CPA advisers. A week later, after careful consideration, I issued this 'de-Baathification' decree, as drafted by the Pentagon.

    In contrast, Feith recalls that Bremer asked him to wait because "Bremer had thoughts of his own on the subject, he said, and wanted to consider the de-Baathification policy carefully. As the new CPA head, he thought he should announce and implement the policy himself."

    The notion that he "carefully" considered the policy in his first week on the job, during which he also travelled halfway around the globe, is highly questionable. Incidentally, Bremer's oxymoronic statement-"a week later, after careful consideration"-mirrors a similar formulation of Wolfowitz's about the disbanding order. Speaking to the Washington Post in November 2003, he said that forming a new Iraqi army is "what we're trying to do at warp speed-but with careful vetting of the people we're bringing on."

    Simply put, Bremer was tempted by headline-grabbing policies. He was unlikely to question any action that offered opportunities to make bold gestures, which made him easy to influence. Indeed, another quality of Bremer's professional persona that conspicuously emerges from accounts of the period is his unwillingness to think for himself. His memoir shows that he was eager to put Jay Garner in his place from the moment he arrived in Iraq, yet he was unable to defend himself on his own when challenged by Garner, who-according to Bob Woodward in his book State of Denial: Bush at War, Part III -was "stunned" by the disbanding order. Woodward claims that when Garner confronted Bremer about it, "Bremer, looking surprised, asked Garner to go see Walter B. Slocombe."

    What's even more surprising is how Bremer doesn't hide his intellectual dependence on Slocombe. He writes in his memoir:

    To help untangle these problems, I was fortunate to have Walt Slocombe as Senior Adviser for defense and security affairs. A brilliant former Rhodes Scholar from Princeton and a Harvard-educated attorney, Walt had worked for Democratic administrations for decades on high-level strategic and arms control issues.

    In May 2003, the Washington Post noted of Slocombe that "Although a Democrat, he has maintained good relations with Wolfowitz and is described by some as a 'Democratic hawk,'" a remark that once again places Wolfowitz in close proximity to Bremer and the disbanding order. Sure enough, in November 2003 the Washington Post reported:

    The demobilization decision appears to have originated largely with Walter B. Slocombe, a former undersecretary of defense appointed to oversee Iraqi security forces. He believed strongly in the need to disband the army and felt that vanquished soldiers should not expect to be paid a continuing salary. He said he developed the policy in discussions with Bremer, Feith and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz. 'This is not something that was dreamed up by somebody at the last minute and done at the insistence of the people in Baghdad. It was discussed,' Slocombe said. 'The critical point was that nobody argued that we shouldn't do this.'

    Given that the president agreed to preserve the Iraqi army in the NSC meeting on March 12, Slocombe's statement is evidence of a major policy inconsistency. In that meeting, Feith, at the request of Donald Rumsfeld, gave a PowerPoint presentation prepared by Garner about keeping the Iraqi army; in his own memoir, Feith writes, "No one at that National Security Council meeting in early March spoke against the recommendation, and the President approved Garner's plan." But this is not what happened. What happened instead was the reversal of Garner's plan, which Feith attributes to Slocombe and Bremer:

    Bremer and Slocombe argued that it would better serve U.S. interests to create an entirely new Iraqi army: Sometimes it is easier to build something new than to refurbish a complex and badly designed structure. In any event, Bremer and Slocombe reasoned, calling the old army back might not succeed-but the attempt could cause grave political problems.

    Over time, both Bremer and Slocombe have gone so far as to deny that the policies had any tangible effects. Bremer claimed in the Washington Post that "Virtually all the old Baathist ministers had fled before the decree was issued" and that "When the draftees saw which way the war was going, they deserted and, like their officers, went back home." Likewise Slocombe stated in a PBS interview, "We didn't disband the army. The army disbanded itself. What we did do was to formally dissolve all of the institutions of Saddam's security system. The intelligence, his military, his party structure, his information and propaganda structure were formally disbanded and the property turned over to the Coalition Provisional Authority."

    Thus, according to Bremer and Slocombe's accounts, neither de-Baathification nor disbanding the army achieved anything that hadn't already happened. When coupled with Bremer's assertion of "careful consideration in one week" and Wolfowitz's claim of "careful vetting at warp speed," Bremer and Slocombe's notion of "doing something that had already been done" creates a strong impression that they are hiding something or trying to finesse history with wordplay. Perhaps Washington Post journalist Rajiv Chandrasekaran provides the best possible explanation for this confusion in his book Imperial Life in the Emerald City , when he writes, "Despite the leaflets instructing them to go home, Slocombe had expected Iraqi soldiers to stay in their garrisons. Now he figured that calling them back would cause even more problems." Chandrasekaran adds, "As far as Slocombe and Feith were concerned, the Iraqi army had dissolved itself; formalizing the dissolution wouldn't contradict Bush's directive." This suggests that Slocombe and Feith were communicating and that Slocombe was fully aware of the policy the president had agreed to in the NSC meeting on March 12, yet he chose to disregard it.

    ♦♦♦

    Following the disastrous decisions of May 2003, the blame game has been rife among neoconservative policymakers. One of those who have expended the most energy dodging culpability is, predictably, Bremer. In early 2007, he testified before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, and the Washington Post reported: "Bremer proved unexpectedly agile at shifting blame: to administration planners ('The planning before the war was inadequate'), his superiors in the Bush administration ('We never had sufficient support'), and the Iraqi people ('The country was in chaos-socially, politically and economically')."

    Bremer also wrote in May 2007 in the Washington Post , "I've grown weary of being a punching bag over these decisions-particularly from critics who've never spent time in Iraq, don't understand its complexities and can't explain what we should have done differently." (This declaration is ironic, given Bremer's noted inability to justify the disbanding policy to General Garner.) On September 4, 2007, the New York Times reported that Bremer had given the paper exculpatory letters supposedly proving that George W. Bush confirmed the disbanding order. But the Times concluded, "the letters do not show that [Bush] approved the order or even knew much about it. Mr. Bremer referred only fleetingly to his plan midway through his three-page letter and offered no details." Moreover, the paper characterized Bremer's correspondence with Bush as "striking in its almost nonchalant reference to a major decision that a number of American military officials in Iraq strongly opposed." Defending himself on this point, Bremer claimed, "the policy was carefully considered by top civilian and military members of the American government." And six months later Bremer told the paper, "It was not my responsibility to do inter-agency coordination."

    Feith and Slocombe have been similarly evasive when discussing President Bush's awareness of the policies. The Los Angeles Times noted that "Feith was deeply involved in the decision-making process at the time, working closely with Bush and Bremer," yet "Feith said he could not comment about how involved the president was in the decision to change policy and dissolve the army. 'I don't know all the details of who talked to who about that,' he said." For his part, Slocombe told PBS's "Frontline,"

    What happens in Washington in terms of how the [decisions are made]-'Go ahead and do this, do that; don't do that, do this, even though you don't want to do it'-that's an internal Washington coordination problem about which I know little. One of the interesting things about the job from my point of view-all my other government experience basically had been in the Washington end, with the interagencies process and setting the priorities-at the other end we got output. And how the process worked in Washington I actually know very little about, because the channel was from the president to Rumsfeld to Bremer.

    It's a challenge to parse Slocombe's various statements. Here, in the space of two sentences, he claims both that his government experience has mostly been in Washington and that he doesn't know how Washington works. As mentioned earlier, he had previously told the Washington Post that the disbanding order was not "done at the insistence of the people in Baghdad"-in other words, the decision was made in Washington. The inconsistency of his accounts from year to year, and even in the same interview, adds to an aura of concealment.

    This further illustrates the disconnect between what was decided by the NSC in Washington in March and by the CPA in Iraq in May. In his memoir, Feith notes that although he supported the disbanding policy, "the decision became associated with a number of unnecessary problems, including the apparent lack of interagency review."

    The blame game is nowhere more evident than in a 2007 Vanity Fair article entitled "Neo Culpa," which was previewed online just before the 2006 midterm elections. Writer David Rose spoke with numerous neoconservatives, who roundly censured George W. Bush, Condoleezza Rice, Rumsfeld, and Bremer for the chaos in Iraq. Speaking broadly about the Bush administration, Adelman said, "They turned out to be among the most incompetent teams in the postwar era." And Perle complained, "The decisions did not get made that should have been. They didn't get made in a timely fashion, and the differences were argued out endlessly. At the end of the day, you have to hold the president responsible."

    Yet Perle's reflection on the timeliness of decisions conflicts with President Bush's account rather strikingly. In his memoir, Bush writes:

    I should have insisted on more debate on Jerry's orders, especially on what message disbanding the army would send and how many Sunnis the de-Baathification would affect. Overseen by longtime exile Ahmed Chalabi, the de-Baathification program turned out to cut much deeper than we expected, including mid-level party members like teachers.

    In June 2004, Bill Kristol was already censuring the president for his "poor performance," musing that his school of thought has been collateral damage in a mismanaged foreign policy: neoconservatism, he wrote, "has probably been weakened by the Bush administration's poor performance in implementing what could be characterized as its recommended foreign policy." Kristol argued that "This failure in execution has been a big one. It has put the neoconservative 'project' at risk. Much more important, it has put American foreign policy at risk." Perle echoed this view two years later when he told Vanity Fair , "Huge mistakes were made they were not made by neoconservatives, who had almost no voice in what happened, and certainly almost no voice in what happened after the downfall of the regime in Baghdad."

    This downplaying of neoconservative influence in "what happened after the downfall of the regime in Baghdad" is curious, and Perle is not the only person to have tried it. Max Boot, writing in the same 2004 collection as Kristol, does the same thing when, after naming Wolfowitz, Feith, Libby, Elliott Abrams, and Perle as neoconservatives who served Bush, he argues:

    Each of these policy-makers has been an outspoken advocate for aggressive and, if necessary, unilateral action by the United States to promote democracy, human rights, and free markets, and to maintain U.S. primacy around the world. While this list seems impressive, it also reveals that the neocons have no representatives in the administration's top tier.

    But apparently it didn't matter that there were no neoconservatives in top positions-not when one considers the knowledge and prior government experience of Vice President Cheney, the neoconservatives' sponsor. In A World Transformed , George H.W. Bush writes of Cheney that he "knew how policy was made." Barton Gellman observes in Angler , his book about Cheney: "Most of the government's work, Cheney knew, never reached the altitude of Senate-confirmed appointees. Reliable people in mid-level posts would have the last word on numberless decisions about where to spend or not spend money, whom to regulate, how to enforce." In the end avoiding the highest positions in the administration makes it all the more easy to dodge blame.

    ♦♦♦

    Americans are painfully familiar with stories like this one, in which a coterie of advisors takes policy in a dangerous direction with little or no knowledge on the part of the president. But the case of the Iraq War and the decisions that followed the toppling of Saddam Hussein has a unique importance-because we are still living with the consequences, and others are dying for them.

    Democrats may be tempted to dismiss all that happened in the Bush years as simply the other party's fault. Republicans have a comforting myth of their own in the belief that President Bush's 2007 "surge" of U.S. forces into Iraq ended the country's instability, which only returned after President Obama fully withdrew troops from Iraq in 2011. But as the role of Walter Slocombe-the Democratic counterpart to Doug Feith in more ways than one-illustrates, Clintons no less than Bushes are susceptible to this personnel problem.

    Republicans, meanwhile, should consider retired Lt. Col. Gian Gentile's verdict that "the reduction in violence" in Iraq in 2007 "had more to do with the Iraqis than the Americans," specifically with the Sunni tribesmen's newfound willingness to fight (for a price) alongside Americans against al-Qaeda and with Moqtada al-Sadr's de-escalation of Shi'ite activity. But regardless of what the surge did or did not contribute to quelling the bloodshed in Iraq, the intensity of the civil war that raged there in the first place was in considerable part a product of misguided de-Baathification and disbanding policies-and the Islamic State today depends on the military and intelligence forces that Bremer, Feith, and Slocombe casually dismissed.

    When you have the wrong diagnosis, you risk coming to the wrong solution, no matter how clever you think you are. As the GOP candidates for the 2016 presidential election have made their campaigns official, they have been pummeled with hindsight questions about the Iraq War and ISIS, and no one has a harder time facing this than Jeb Bush. In order to correctly address what to do about the Islamic State, it is important to acknowledge what specifically went wrong with decision-making in the Iraq War.

    This episode highlights a weakness in the executive branch that is ripe for exploitation under any administration. When the neoconservative Frank Gaffney, speaking about George W. Bush, told Vanity Fair , "This president has tolerated, and the people around him have tolerated, active, ongoing, palpable insubordination and skullduggery that translates into subversion of his policies," it seems incredible to think that he failed to see the irony of his assertion. But for those who have a deep understanding of how the government works, it is quite possible to undermine a president, then step back and pretend to have had minimal involvement, and finally stand in judgment. But now that the story is known, the American people can be the judges.

    John Hay is a former executive branch official under Republican administrations.

    MORE IN POLITICS

    Hide 58 comments

    58 Responses to The Deciders

    ← Older Comments
  • EliteCommInc. , says: October 28, 2015 at 10:57 pm
    "In a sense – it was analogous with 9/11 nobody in the State Department wanted the consulate to be at risk of being overrun by terrorists anymore than nobody in the intelligence community or DOD wanted the Twin Towers and the Pentagon to suffer hits. Of course, Benghazi was 0.01% as significant a tactical failure as 9/11 was but the failure was due to people who had been properly assigned responsibilities not doing their job."

    1. I am not sure what your point is here. Whether anyone wanted the events to occur is not really the question. The issue is simly the behavior of the staff at the embassy in relation to their superiors. The Sec. of State failed to respond to a request for more security. That is her fault – directly. She took no steps based on the record. She ignored the real time assessments. That is not the executive's fault. That is hers. Period. That isn't a tactical failure, that is a supply failure. That is a leadership failre. It is not as if she was not inflrmed.

    2. The Pres. of the US cannot be held directly accountable for 9/11 because neither the previous admin. not the releveant organizations informed of very specicif data sets that have changed the history of that day.

    The failure rests:

    a. the previous admin
    b. the agencies responsible for immigration management
    the FBI
    c. CIA
    d the airlines

    Well as previously noted. Back to your tactical failure. Well, Libya was foolish on its face. We shuld have informed the UK that under the circumstances further destabilizing the region would be distaterous at best. The tactical problem, weponizing fighters over who we had no command and control. Here again, the utter failure of the State Dept. and the CIA to comprehend who the players were and their capabilities. There's plenty more, but let's leave it at that - again, a major player was the Sec of State. The same could said of Egypt, Syria all areas in which the supposed expertise would come from the CIA and the State Deprtment - That's on Sec. Hillary Clinton – directly. That even playing the tactical and strategic game you intend to muddy the waters of responsibility with were explicated - the fault lies on her desk.

    mojrim , says: October 29, 2015 at 10:35 am
    Pure Bush/Cheney apologia.

    "If only the brilliant neocon plan to invade and reform the middle east had been carried out by competent neocons! Peace and democracy would be flowing the Tigris by now!"

    No. Just no.

    Jim Houghton , says: October 29, 2015 at 4:19 pm
    " it appears all too easy for outsiders working with relatively low-level appointees to hijack the policy process "

    Especially when you have a president who's more interested in taking time off and clearing brush, purposely allowing others to do his job. An administration with real leadership at the top is not nearly so vulnerable to this kind of hijacking.

    Harold MacCaughey , says: October 29, 2015 at 7:44 pm
    Irresponsible people in responsible positions, such as the neocons so note, the bankers who bet the farm with our money, and pols on the take for reelection largesse need to do time.
    EliteCommInc. , says: October 30, 2015 at 5:08 am
    "If only the brilliant neocon plan to invade and reform the middle east had been carried out by competent neocons! Peace and democracy would be flowing the Tigris by now!"

    I am not sure you are reading the same article I read. I guess one could make the case you are advancing if they addressed some specifics, but that is not the case.

    But there are credible reasons to beleive that the occupation would have been vastly different, despite the civil conflict that had broken as the Us military rolled toward Bagdad.

    cityeyes , says: November 1, 2015 at 11:17 am
    If one was brilliant, one would not be a neocon.
    Mike Schilling , says: November 1, 2015 at 7:11 pm
    James Fallows has written about this at length, his point being that the Bush administration (at all levels) refused to believe that any planning for the post-war was necessary, which is why they were improvising. See, for example, http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2004/01/blind-into-baghdad/302860/ .
    SteveJ , says: November 6, 2015 at 4:25 pm
    Hay insinuates that there were things that could have been done AFTER the invasion that would have prevented problems.

    This is problematic.

    The real army under Saddam Hussein, the Republican Guard, was Sunni. Shiites were used as the fodder.

    A Sunni army was not going to follow orders from a Shiite ruler - a Shiite ruler being the inevitable result of elections. And a Shiite ruler was not going to tolerate a Sunni army or police forces.

    Bremer must have recognized this eventually, and went for a strategy of kicking the can down the road.

    I refer you to an article by General Odom some years back, and point out with regard to this article Myth Number 2.

    http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=background.view&backgroundid=146

  • The Deciders

    The disastrous Iraq policies that led to ISIS were not President Bush's.

    By John Hay October 27, 2015

    illustration by Michael Hogue

    In May 2003, in the wake of the Iraq War and the ousting of Saddam Hussein, events took place that set the stage for the current chaos in the Middle East. Yet even most well-informed Americans are unaware of how policies implemented by mid-level bureaucrats during the Bush administration unwittingly unleashed forces that would ultimately lead to the juggernaut of the Islamic State.

    The lesson is that it appears all too easy for outsiders working with relatively low-level appointees to hijack the policy process. The Bay of Pigs invasion and Iran-Contra affair are familiar instances, but the Iraq experience offers an even better illustration-not least because its consequences have been even more disastrous.

    The cast of characters includes President George W. Bush; L. Paul "Jerry" Bremer, the first civilian administrator of postwar Iraq; Douglas Feith, Bush's undersecretary of defense for policy; Paul Wolfowitz, Bush's deputy secretary of defense; I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, chief of staff to Vice President Richard B. Cheney (and Cheney's proxy in these events); Walter Slocombe, who had been President Clinton's undersecretary of defense for policy, and as such was Feith's predecessor; Richard Perle, who was chairman of Bush's defense policy board; and General Jay Garner, whom Bremer replaced as the leader of postwar Iraq.

    On May 9, 2003, President Bush appointed Bremer to the top civilian post in Iraq. A career diplomat who was recruited for this job by Wolfowitz and Libby, despite the fact that he had minimal experience of the region and didn't speak Arabic, Bremer arrived in Baghdad on May 12 to take charge of the Coalition Provisional Authority, or CPA. In his first two weeks at his post, Bremer issued two orders that would turn out to be momentous. Enacted on May 16, CPA Order Number 1 "de-Baathified" the Iraqi government; on May 23, CPA Order Number 2 disbanded the Iraqi army. In short, Baath party members were barred from participation in Iraq's new government and Saddam Hussein's soldiers lost their jobs, taking their weapons with them.

    The results of these policies become clear as we learn about the leadership of ISIS. The Washington Post , for example, reported in April that "almost all of the leaders of the Islamic State are former Iraqi officers." In June, the New York Times identified a man "believed to be the head of the Islamic State's military council," Fadel al-Hayali, as "a former lieutenant colonel in the Iraqi military intelligence agency of President Saddam Hussein." Criticism of de-Baathification and the disbanding of Iraq's army has been fierce, and the contribution these policies made to fueling extremism was recognized even before the advent of the Islamic State. The New York Times reported in 2007:

    The dismantling of the Iraqi Army in the aftermath of the American invasion is now widely regarded as a mistake that stoked rebellion among hundreds of thousands of former Iraqi soldiers and made it more difficult to reduce sectarian bloodshed and attacks by insurgents.

    This year the Washington Post summed up reactions to both orders when it cited a former Iraqi general who asked bluntly, "When they dismantled the army, what did they expect those men to do?" He explained that "they didn't de-Baathify people's minds, they just took away their jobs." Writing about the disbanding policy in his memoir, Decision Points , George W. Bush acknowledges the harmful results: "Thousands of armed men had just been told they were not wanted. Instead of signing up for the new military, many joined the insurgency."

    Yet in spite of the wide-ranging consequences of these de-Baathification and disbanding policies, they-and the decision-making processes that led to them-remain obscure to most Americans. What is more, it is unclear whether Bush himself knew about these policies before they were enacted. In November 2003, the Washington Post claimed, "Before the war, President Bush approved a plan that would have put several hundred thousand Iraqi soldiers on the U.S. payroll and kept them available to provide security." There had apparently been two National Security Council meetings, one on March 10 and another on March 12, during which the president approved a moderate de-Baathification policy and a plan, as reported by the New York Times ' Michael R. Gordon, to "use the Iraqi military to help protect the country." (The invasion of Iraq began on March 19.) President Bush later told biographer Robert Draper that "the policy was to keep the army intact" but it "didn't happen."

    So the question remains: if CPA Orders 1 and 2 weren't Bush's policies, whose were they? In 2007, Doug Feith told the Los Angeles Times that "until everybody writes memoirs and all the researchers look at the documents, some of these things are hard to sort out. You could be in the thick of it and not necessarily know all the details." Now that the memoirs have been written, it is time to establish just who the policymakers were in May 2003.

    The various accounts present an array of neoconservative thinkers-notably Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, and Walter Slocombe-who implemented their own policies rather than those of the president they served. Moreover, one of the major influences on these policies was the Iraqi exile Ahmad Chalabi, who had thought he would be put in charge of postwar Iraq, having "been led to believe that by Perle and Feith," as General Garner related to the journalist Thomas Ricks. And while the responsibility for what happened ultimately lies with George W. Bush-who, to his credit, avers as much in his own memoir-this episode demonstrates how knowledgeable mid-level advisors can hijack the American presidency to suit their own goals.

    ♦♦♦

    At the start of May 2003, the chief administrative entity in Iraq was the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance (OHRA), which was replaced shortly thereafter by the CPA under Bremer. The head of OHRA was General Garner, who worked "under the eyes of senior Defense Department aides with direct channels to Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz and Under Secretary for Policy Douglas J. Feith," according to the Washington Post . For his part, Garner strongly favored a policy of maintaining the Iraqi army, and preparations towards this end began almost a year earlier. For instance, Colonel John Agoglia told the New York Times that "Starting in June 2002 we conducted targeted psychological operations using pamphlet drops, broadcasts and all sorts of means to get the message to the regular army troops that they should surrender or desert and that if they did we would bring them back." The Times reported earlier that under Garner's leadership, "Top commanders were meeting secretly with former Iraqi officers to discuss the best way to rebuild the force and recall Iraqi soldiers back to duty when Mr. Bremer arrived in Baghdad with his plan."

    In the same story, the Times claimed that "The Bush administration did not just discuss keeping the old army. General Garner's team found contractors to retrain it." Bremer, however, showed up with policy ideas that diverged sharply from Garner's.

    In his memoir, Bremer names the officials who approached him for his CPA job. He recounts telling his wife that:

    I had been contacted by Scooter Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, and by Paul Wolfowitz, deputy secretary of defense. The Pentagon's original civil administration in 'post-hostility' Iraq-the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance, ORHA-lacked expertise in high-level diplomatic negotiations and politics. I had the requisite skills and experience for that position.

    Regarding the de-Baathification order, both Bremer and Feith have written their own accounts of the week leading up to it, and the slight discrepancy between their recollections is revealing in what it tells us about Bremer-and consequently about Wolfowitz and Libby for having selected him. At first blush, Bremer and Feith's justifications for the policy appear to dovetail, each comparing postwar Iraq to postwar Nazi Germany. Bremer explains in a retrospective Washington Post op-ed, "What We Got Right in Iraq," that "Hussein modeled his regime after Adolf Hitler's, which controlled the German people with two main instruments: the Nazi Party and the Reich's security services. We had no choice but to rid Iraq of the country's equivalent organizations." For his part, Feith goes a step further, reasoning in his memoir War and Decision that the case for de-Baathification was even stronger because "The Nazis, after all, had run Germany for a dozen years; the Baathists had tyrannized Iraq for more than thirty."

    Regarding the order itself, Bremer writes,

    The day before I left for Iraq in May, Undersecretary of Defense Douglas J. Feith presented me with a draft law that would purge top Baathists from the Iraqi government and told me that he planned to issue it immediately. Recognizing how important this step was, I asked Feith to hold off, among other reasons, so I could discuss it with Iraqi leaders and CPA advisers. A week later, after careful consideration, I issued this 'de-Baathification' decree, as drafted by the Pentagon.

    In contrast, Feith recalls that Bremer asked him to wait because "Bremer had thoughts of his own on the subject, he said, and wanted to consider the de-Baathification policy carefully. As the new CPA head, he thought he should announce and implement the policy himself."

    The notion that he "carefully" considered the policy in his first week on the job, during which he also travelled halfway around the globe, is highly questionable. Incidentally, Bremer's oxymoronic statement-"a week later, after careful consideration"-mirrors a similar formulation of Wolfowitz's about the disbanding order. Speaking to the Washington Post in November 2003, he said that forming a new Iraqi army is "what we're trying to do at warp speed-but with careful vetting of the people we're bringing on."

    Simply put, Bremer was tempted by headline-grabbing policies. He was unlikely to question any action that offered opportunities to make bold gestures, which made him easy to influence. Indeed, another quality of Bremer's professional persona that conspicuously emerges from accounts of the period is his unwillingness to think for himself. His memoir shows that he was eager to put Jay Garner in his place from the moment he arrived in Iraq, yet he was unable to defend himself on his own when challenged by Garner, who-according to Bob Woodward in his book State of Denial: Bush at War, Part III -was "stunned" by the disbanding order. Woodward claims that when Garner confronted Bremer about it, "Bremer, looking surprised, asked Garner to go see Walter B. Slocombe."

    What's even more surprising is how Bremer doesn't hide his intellectual dependence on Slocombe. He writes in his memoir:

    To help untangle these problems, I was fortunate to have Walt Slocombe as Senior Adviser for defense and security affairs. A brilliant former Rhodes Scholar from Princeton and a Harvard-educated attorney, Walt had worked for Democratic administrations for decades on high-level strategic and arms control issues.

    In May 2003, the Washington Post noted of Slocombe that "Although a Democrat, he has maintained good relations with Wolfowitz and is described by some as a 'Democratic hawk,'" a remark that once again places Wolfowitz in close proximity to Bremer and the disbanding order. Sure enough, in November 2003 the Washington Post reported:

    The demobilization decision appears to have originated largely with Walter B. Slocombe, a former undersecretary of defense appointed to oversee Iraqi security forces. He believed strongly in the need to disband the army and felt that vanquished soldiers should not expect to be paid a continuing salary. He said he developed the policy in discussions with Bremer, Feith and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz. 'This is not something that was dreamed up by somebody at the last minute and done at the insistence of the people in Baghdad. It was discussed,' Slocombe said. 'The critical point was that nobody argued that we shouldn't do this.'

    Given that the president agreed to preserve the Iraqi army in the NSC meeting on March 12, Slocombe's statement is evidence of a major policy inconsistency. In that meeting, Feith, at the request of Donald Rumsfeld, gave a PowerPoint presentation prepared by Garner about keeping the Iraqi army; in his own memoir, Feith writes, "No one at that National Security Council meeting in early March spoke against the recommendation, and the President approved Garner's plan." But this is not what happened. What happened instead was the reversal of Garner's plan, which Feith attributes to Slocombe and Bremer:

    Bremer and Slocombe argued that it would better serve U.S. interests to create an entirely new Iraqi army: Sometimes it is easier to build something new than to refurbish a complex and badly designed structure. In any event, Bremer and Slocombe reasoned, calling the old army back might not succeed-but the attempt could cause grave political problems.

    Over time, both Bremer and Slocombe have gone so far as to deny that the policies had any tangible effects. Bremer claimed in the Washington Post that "Virtually all the old Baathist ministers had fled before the decree was issued" and that "When the draftees saw which way the war was going, they deserted and, like their officers, went back home." Likewise Slocombe stated in a PBS interview, "We didn't disband the army. The army disbanded itself. What we did do was to formally dissolve all of the institutions of Saddam's security system. The intelligence, his military, his party structure, his information and propaganda structure were formally disbanded and the property turned over to the Coalition Provisional Authority."

    Thus, according to Bremer and Slocombe's accounts, neither de-Baathification nor disbanding the army achieved anything that hadn't already happened. When coupled with Bremer's assertion of "careful consideration in one week" and Wolfowitz's claim of "careful vetting at warp speed," Bremer and Slocombe's notion of "doing something that had already been done" creates a strong impression that they are hiding something or trying to finesse history with wordplay. Perhaps Washington Post journalist Rajiv Chandrasekaran provides the best possible explanation for this confusion in his book Imperial Life in the Emerald City , when he writes, "Despite the leaflets instructing them to go home, Slocombe had expected Iraqi soldiers to stay in their garrisons. Now he figured that calling them back would cause even more problems." Chandrasekaran adds, "As far as Slocombe and Feith were concerned, the Iraqi army had dissolved itself; formalizing the dissolution wouldn't contradict Bush's directive." This suggests that Slocombe and Feith were communicating and that Slocombe was fully aware of the policy the president had agreed to in the NSC meeting on March 12, yet he chose to disregard it.

    ♦♦♦

    Following the disastrous decisions of May 2003, the blame game has been rife among neoconservative policymakers. One of those who have expended the most energy dodging culpability is, predictably, Bremer. In early 2007, he testified before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, and the Washington Post reported: "Bremer proved unexpectedly agile at shifting blame: to administration planners ('The planning before the war was inadequate'), his superiors in the Bush administration ('We never had sufficient support'), and the Iraqi people ('The country was in chaos-socially, politically and economically')."

    Bremer also wrote in May 2007 in the Washington Post , "I've grown weary of being a punching bag over these decisions-particularly from critics who've never spent time in Iraq, don't understand its complexities and can't explain what we should have done differently." (This declaration is ironic, given Bremer's noted inability to justify the disbanding policy to General Garner.) On September 4, 2007, the New York Times reported that Bremer had given the paper exculpatory letters supposedly proving that George W. Bush confirmed the disbanding order. But the Times concluded, "the letters do not show that [Bush] approved the order or even knew much about it. Mr. Bremer referred only fleetingly to his plan midway through his three-page letter and offered no details." Moreover, the paper characterized Bremer's correspondence with Bush as "striking in its almost nonchalant reference to a major decision that a number of American military officials in Iraq strongly opposed." Defending himself on this point, Bremer claimed, "the policy was carefully considered by top civilian and military members of the American government." And six months later Bremer told the paper, "It was not my responsibility to do inter-agency coordination."

    Feith and Slocombe have been similarly evasive when discussing President Bush's awareness of the policies. The Los Angeles Times noted that "Feith was deeply involved in the decision-making process at the time, working closely with Bush and Bremer," yet "Feith said he could not comment about how involved the president was in the decision to change policy and dissolve the army. 'I don't know all the details of who talked to who about that,' he said." For his part, Slocombe told PBS's "Frontline,"

    What happens in Washington in terms of how the [decisions are made]-'Go ahead and do this, do that; don't do that, do this, even though you don't want to do it'-that's an internal Washington coordination problem about which I know little. One of the interesting things about the job from my point of view-all my other government experience basically had been in the Washington end, with the interagencies process and setting the priorities-at the other end we got output. And how the process worked in Washington I actually know very little about, because the channel was from the president to Rumsfeld to Bremer.

    It's a challenge to parse Slocombe's various statements. Here, in the space of two sentences, he claims both that his government experience has mostly been in Washington and that he doesn't know how Washington works. As mentioned earlier, he had previously told the Washington Post that the disbanding order was not "done at the insistence of the people in Baghdad"-in other words, the decision was made in Washington. The inconsistency of his accounts from year to year, and even in the same interview, adds to an aura of concealment.

    This further illustrates the disconnect between what was decided by the NSC in Washington in March and by the CPA in Iraq in May. In his memoir, Feith notes that although he supported the disbanding policy, "the decision became associated with a number of unnecessary problems, including the apparent lack of interagency review."

    The blame game is nowhere more evident than in a 2007 Vanity Fair article entitled "Neo Culpa," which was previewed online just before the 2006 midterm elections. Writer David Rose spoke with numerous neoconservatives, who roundly censured George W. Bush, Condoleezza Rice, Rumsfeld, and Bremer for the chaos in Iraq. Speaking broadly about the Bush administration, Adelman said, "They turned out to be among the most incompetent teams in the postwar era." And Perle complained, "The decisions did not get made that should have been. They didn't get made in a timely fashion, and the differences were argued out endlessly. At the end of the day, you have to hold the president responsible."

    Yet Perle's reflection on the timeliness of decisions conflicts with President Bush's account rather strikingly. In his memoir, Bush writes:

    I should have insisted on more debate on Jerry's orders, especially on what message disbanding the army would send and how many Sunnis the de-Baathification would affect. Overseen by longtime exile Ahmed Chalabi, the de-Baathification program turned out to cut much deeper than we expected, including mid-level party members like teachers.

    In June 2004, Bill Kristol was already censuring the president for his "poor performance," musing that his school of thought has been collateral damage in a mismanaged foreign policy: neoconservatism, he wrote, "has probably been weakened by the Bush administration's poor performance in implementing what could be characterized as its recommended foreign policy." Kristol argued that "This failure in execution has been a big one. It has put the neoconservative 'project' at risk. Much more important, it has put American foreign policy at risk." Perle echoed this view two years later when he told Vanity Fair , "Huge mistakes were made they were not made by neoconservatives, who had almost no voice in what happened, and certainly almost no voice in what happened after the downfall of the regime in Baghdad."

    This downplaying of neoconservative influence in "what happened after the downfall of the regime in Baghdad" is curious, and Perle is not the only person to have tried it. Max Boot, writing in the same 2004 collection as Kristol, does the same thing when, after naming Wolfowitz, Feith, Libby, Elliott Abrams, and Perle as neoconservatives who served Bush, he argues:

    Each of these policy-makers has been an outspoken advocate for aggressive and, if necessary, unilateral action by the United States to promote democracy, human rights, and free markets, and to maintain U.S. primacy around the world. While this list seems impressive, it also reveals that the neocons have no representatives in the administration's top tier.

    But apparently it didn't matter that there were no neoconservatives in top positions-not when one considers the knowledge and prior government experience of Vice President Cheney, the neoconservatives' sponsor. In A World Transformed , George H.W. Bush writes of Cheney that he "knew how policy was made." Barton Gellman observes in Angler , his book about Cheney: "Most of the government's work, Cheney knew, never reached the altitude of Senate-confirmed appointees. Reliable people in mid-level posts would have the last word on numberless decisions about where to spend or not spend money, whom to regulate, how to enforce." In the end avoiding the highest positions in the administration makes it all the more easy to dodge blame.

    ♦♦♦

    Americans are painfully familiar with stories like this one, in which a coterie of advisors takes policy in a dangerous direction with little or no knowledge on the part of the president. But the case of the Iraq War and the decisions that followed the toppling of Saddam Hussein has a unique importance-because we are still living with the consequences, and others are dying for them.

    Democrats may be tempted to dismiss all that happened in the Bush years as simply the other party's fault. Republicans have a comforting myth of their own in the belief that President Bush's 2007 "surge" of U.S. forces into Iraq ended the country's instability, which only returned after President Obama fully withdrew troops from Iraq in 2011. But as the role of Walter Slocombe-the Democratic counterpart to Doug Feith in more ways than one-illustrates, Clintons no less than Bushes are susceptible to this personnel problem.

    Republicans, meanwhile, should consider retired Lt. Col. Gian Gentile's verdict that "the reduction in violence" in Iraq in 2007 "had more to do with the Iraqis than the Americans," specifically with the Sunni tribesmen's newfound willingness to fight (for a price) alongside Americans against al-Qaeda and with Moqtada al-Sadr's de-escalation of Shi'ite activity. But regardless of what the surge did or did not contribute to quelling the bloodshed in Iraq, the intensity of the civil war that raged there in the first place was in considerable part a product of misguided de-Baathification and disbanding policies-and the Islamic State today depends on the military and intelligence forces that Bremer, Feith, and Slocombe casually dismissed.

    When you have the wrong diagnosis, you risk coming to the wrong solution, no matter how clever you think you are. As the GOP candidates for the 2016 presidential election have made their campaigns official, they have been pummeled with hindsight questions about the Iraq War and ISIS, and no one has a harder time facing this than Jeb Bush. In order to correctly address what to do about the Islamic State, it is important to acknowledge what specifically went wrong with decision-making in the Iraq War.

    This episode highlights a weakness in the executive branch that is ripe for exploitation under any administration. When the neoconservative Frank Gaffney, speaking about George W. Bush, told Vanity Fair , "This president has tolerated, and the people around him have tolerated, active, ongoing, palpable insubordination and skullduggery that translates into subversion of his policies," it seems incredible to think that he failed to see the irony of his assertion. But for those who have a deep understanding of how the government works, it is quite possible to undermine a president, then step back and pretend to have had minimal involvement, and finally stand in judgment. But now that the story is known, the American people can be the judges.

    John Hay is a former executive branch official under Republican administrations.

    EliteCommInc. , says: October 28, 2015 at 10:57 pm
    "In a sense – it was analogous with 9/11 nobody in the State Department wanted the consulate to be at risk of being overrun by terrorists anymore than nobody in the intelligence community or DOD wanted the Twin Towers and the Pentagon to suffer hits. Of course, Benghazi was 0.01% as significant a tactical failure as 9/11 was but the failure was due to people who had been properly assigned responsibilities not doing their job."

    1. I am not sure what your point is here. Whether anyone wanted the events to occur is not really the question. The issue is simly the behavior of the staff at the embassy in relation to their superiors. The Sec. of State failed to respond to a request for more security. That is her fault – directly. She took no steps based on the record. She ignored the real time assessments. That is not the executive's fault. That is hers. Period. That isn't a tactical failure, that is a supply failure. That is a leadership failre. It is not as if she was not inflrmed.

    2. The Pres. of the US cannot be held directly accountable for 9/11 because neither the previous admin. not the releveant organizations informed of very specicif data sets that have changed the history of that day.

    The failure rests:

    a. the previous admin
    b. the agencies responsible for immigration management
    the FBI
    c. CIA
    d the airlines

    Well as previously noted. Back to your tactical failure. Well, Libya was foolish on its face. We shuld have informed the UK that under the circumstances further destabilizing the region would be distaterous at best. The tactical problem, weponizing fighters over who we had no command and control. Here again, the utter failure of the State Dept. and the CIA to comprehend who the players were and their capabilities. There's plenty more, but let's leave it at that - again, a major player was the Sec of State. The same could said of Egypt, Syria all areas in which the supposed expertise would come from the CIA and the State Deprtment - That's on Sec. Hillary Clinton – directly. That even playing the tactical and strategic game you intend to muddy the waters of responsibility with were explicated - the fault lies on her desk.

    mojrim , says: October 29, 2015 at 10:35 am
    Pure Bush/Cheney apologia.

    "If only the brilliant neocon plan to invade and reform the middle east had been carried out by competent neocons! Peace and democracy would be flowing the Tigris by now!"

    No. Just no.

    Jim Houghton , says: October 29, 2015 at 4:19 pm
    " it appears all too easy for outsiders working with relatively low-level appointees to hijack the policy process "

    Especially when you have a president who's more interested in taking time off and clearing brush, purposely allowing others to do his job. An administration with real leadership at the top is not nearly so vulnerable to this kind of hijacking.

    Harold MacCaughey , says: October 29, 2015 at 7:44 pm
    Irresponsible people in responsible positions, such as the neocons so note, the bankers who bet the farm with our money, and pols on the take for reelection largesse need to do time.
    EliteCommInc. , says: October 30, 2015 at 5:08 am
    "If only the brilliant neocon plan to invade and reform the middle east had been carried out by competent neocons! Peace and democracy would be flowing the Tigris by now!"

    I am not sure you are reading the same article I read. I guess one could make the case you are advancing if they addressed some specifics, but that is not the case.

    But there are credible reasons to beleive that the occupation would have been vastly different, despite the civil conflict that had broken as the Us military rolled toward Bagdad.

    cityeyes , says: November 1, 2015 at 11:17 am
    If one was brilliant, one would not be a neocon.
    Mike Schilling , says: November 1, 2015 at 7:11 pm
    James Fallows has written about this at length, his point being that the Bush administration (at all levels) refused to believe that any planning for the post-war was necessary, which is why they were improvising. See, for example, http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2004/01/blind-into-baghdad/302860/ .
    SteveJ , says: November 6, 2015 at 4:25 pm
    Hay insinuates that there were things that could have been done AFTER the invasion that would have prevented problems.

    This is problematic.

    The real army under Saddam Hussein, the Republican Guard, was Sunni. Shiites were used as the fodder.

    A Sunni army was not going to follow orders from a Shiite ruler - a Shiite ruler being the inevitable result of elections. And a Shiite ruler was not going to tolerate a Sunni army or police forces.

    Bremer must have recognized this eventually, and went for a strategy of kicking the can down the road.

    I refer you to an article by General Odom some years back, and point out with regard to this article Myth Number 2.

    http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=background.view&backgroundid=146

    Fran Macadam , says: October 27, 2015 at 1:16 am
    Neo con men.
    Mike Alexander , says: October 27, 2015 at 6:47 am
    Bush was 100% at fault. He chose to appoint Rumsfeld and Cheney as top members of his administration. These were strong-willed men who had both served his father well. The problem was Bush Jr. was not his father. The old man was older and more experienced than either of his underlings AND he was the President. As a result these strong personalities were truly subordinate to Bush Sr. Both men were older and vastly more experienced than the son, and he was no match for them.

    Hence the Iraq policy was not a coherent policy set by the office of the POTUS but many strategies, often conflicting, because POTUS was absent. Some (Garner) were working to replace Saddam with someone better, leaving the government in place, to facilitate a quick exit. Others (Bremer) thought they were working to establish a capitalist democracy in the Middle East. And some I suppose some (Kay) thought the war had been about WMDs.

    jefemt , says: October 27, 2015 at 7:58 am
    Wah wah, Bush was a victim. Yeepers. My takeaway: the minions, advisors, apparatchik melt away, and Bush- as those before him, and inevitably those to follow – somehow are also given a free pass through plausible deniability. No man is an island, and one only need look at an aerial photo of DC to realize that there are a LOT of moving parts, many folks with impact, and a ton money floating around to lubricate the whole deal. Little Versailles on the Potomac , with lethal global consequences.
    Response , says: October 27, 2015 at 9:10 am
    It is crucially important that we identify, fire, and shame those whose bad faith, corruption, and/or incompetence did so much to wreck the Middle East and damage America.

    Articles like this are a step in that direction. Please publish more of them.

    JR , says: October 27, 2015 at 9:38 am
    I knew the moment that Bush chose Cheney as his vp back in 00 that we were going to go to war and Bush's humble foreign policy was going to be flushed down the toilet.
    Kurt Gayle , says: October 27, 2015 at 9:41 am
    The heading of "The Deciders" claims that "The disastrous Iraq policies that led to ISIS were not President Bush's."

    You're joking?

    How were these pivotal, publicly-announced policies not Bush's?

    Bush was President!

    The May 16, 2003 CPA Order Number 1 "de-Baathified" the Iraqi government and the May 23, CPA Order Number 2 disbanded the Iraqi army. "In short, Baath party members were barred from participation in Iraq's new government and Saddam Hussein's soldiers lost their jobs, taking their weapons with them."

    John Hay says that considering the discussions of these two areas of Iraq occupation policy at two National Security Council meetings, (March 10 and March 12) "it is unclear whether Bush himself knew about these policies before they were enacted."

    But when two such vitally important polices were announced on May 16th and May 23rd, if the President had seen that the announced policies were contrary to the policies he favored – and that Order Number 1 and Order Number 2 represented in effect a mid-level mutiny within his administration's chain of command – it was certainly Bush's duty as President to immediately rescind those policies and to fire all of those responsible.

    But President Bush didn't rescind the policies.

    He didn't fire those who had issued policies allegedly contrary to his own.

    Instead, he said nothing contrary to either CPA Order Number 1 or CPA Order Number 2 and allowed the orders to stand.

    I have no idea why the heading of this John Hay article claims that "the disastrous Iraq policies that led to ISIS were not President Bush's" when in fact those policies WERE President Bush's.

    Again, Bush was President!

    Johann , says: October 27, 2015 at 9:52 am
    I said at the time, it was obvious these clueless people were re-living WWII, and that it was completely inappropriate, as are most historical comparisons. Rumsfeld even looked and talked like someone out of the 1940s. It was comical in a sad sort of way. Virtually everyone in Saddam's government was required to be a Baathist, down to the lowest levels. And there simply was not the depth of education in the general population to be able to throw out an entire government, including all of the working bureaucrats and to be able to quickly recruit new qualified people and ramp up a new government effectively. It was not a developed country like Germany or Japan. And just think about it. People who had spent their working lives in the Iraq government were dumped out on the streets. And we thought they would consider us liberators?
    SDS , says: October 27, 2015 at 9:56 am
    When the story of America is written it will say that the fall came, not due to external aggression, but to our own banal incompetence, prideful ignorance and hubris ..

    Another way of saying we get the government we deserve and we're gonna' get it; good and hard.

    Ken T , says: October 27, 2015 at 10:11 am
    So your point is that George "I am the Decider" Bush should not be blamed because all of the people that he hand-picked and then trusted implicitly with no oversight are the ones who really screwed up, is that it?

    Don't get me wrong – I'm all in favor of naming the names of all the advisors down the line, and holding them appropriately responsible (seeing as how they all continue to be employed as advisors to the current candidates); but that in no way lets W off the hook for his own incompetence as a leader.

    Clint , says: October 27, 2015 at 10:32 am
    "Political progress has come to a near standstill, and most of the established benchmarks for progress – including provincial elections, the passage of de-Baathification laws, and a plan for oil revenue-sharing – are far from reach." – Democrat House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, January 10, 2008.

    Two days before the Iraqi parliament unanimously passed the "Accountability and Justice" de-Baathification law.

    balconesfault , says: October 27, 2015 at 11:26 am
    I'd say this puts culpability for the Iraq debacle squarely in the laps of every voter who cast a ballot for GW Bush in 2000.

    After all – not only Bush's lack of foreign policy experience, but his inability to really speak in depth on foreign policy during the campaign, constituted huge red flags. Yet voters lined up to vote for this man who not only was inexperienced but seemed disinterested in foreign policy – a complete lightweight – because as I heard over and over they were confident that he would surround himself with "smart people" who would guide him.

    So basically – everyone who voted for Bush deliberately voted for those self-same "smart people", instead of the highly experienced and clearly well informed Gore, had served in Vietnam, had served on the House Intelligence Committee (and introduced and arms control plan), had sat on the Senate Homeland Security and Armed Services Committees, and had a record of trying to pull US support for Saddam back in the 80's, when the Reagan Administration was still sending arms and money (Reagan threatened a veto of his bill).

    The GOP voters chose Bush knowing full well that guys like Bremer, Feith, Wolfowitz, Libby, Pearle, and of course Cheney were going to be the ones doing all the heavy lifting on our foreign policy.

    JamesDDean , says: October 27, 2015 at 11:31 am
    Whether he knew it or not Bush '43 inherited a mess left by his father and Clinton. All of those PNAC members believed they could subjugate Iraq and the rest would fall in line were mistaken. The men and women who died in the Middle East from 1990 thru today were wasted.
    Chris G , says: October 27, 2015 at 11:35 am
    I think the headline and tagline actually do a disservice to this otherwise excellent article. They bring the reader in with the assumption that the author is trying exculpate Bush by distancing him from these terrible policies, but that assumed intent is not borne out by the actual text ("while the responsibility for what happened ultimately lies with George W. Bush "). I think this is a very informative chronicle of how government can be co-opted by mid-level bureaucrats, and perhaps a title change might better reflect this focus.
    William Dalton , says: October 27, 2015 at 11:59 am
    There is great irony in the claim that Bush's de-Baathification policies in Iraq were inspired by the de-Nazification policies in postwar Germany. For one of the lessons of that era was that the policy of removing all Nazi Party members from positions of authority was foolish and made governing Germany unmanageable. In due course, the policy of de-Nazification was loosened and many functionaries of the Hitler regime, who had been NSDAP members but not ideologues and were happy to serve the new order as they had been the old, were put in positions of authority and the transition out of Allied Military Government and the restoration of a functioning German state, a member of the anti-Soviet alliance, in the West was successfully accelerated. It was only late in the Twentieth Century, with the rise of the neo-cons in American politics, that this history was revised and the wisdom of even bringing ex-Nazi scientists to the U.S., who enabled us to develop a new generation of weapons and win the "space race" with the Soviet Union, began to be questioned. Magnanimity to the defeated in battle has always been the mark of a wise ruler. Incessant reproaches for past sins is a prescription for unending division and strife in any society which tolerates it.

    I agree with those above who note that Bush was no more ignorant of the policies being implemented by his government in Iraq than were the American people who heard it reported. He has no excuse for not countermanding orders which were not his. He is responsible for all of them.

    JR , says: October 27, 2015 at 1:18 pm
    This was without a doubt Bush's fault and his decision. He was just not intellectually strong enough to challenge or question the expertise of others. So he just let things flow as they did without giving them the resistance and or rejections.

    By pure coincidence I have been reading Woodward's book State of Denial mentioned in this article for the last several weeks and the key players don't share the view that Bush was left out of these decisions. It's a very compelling read.

    MJRay , says: October 27, 2015 at 1:54 pm
    If you've read Greg Palast's 2006 book "Armed Madhouse", where he talked about the State Department's and National Security Council's pre-9/11 Plan A (which would have kept the Baathist power structure pretty much intact) and the neocons' post-9/11 Plan B (which purged the Baathists from the military and government), then you already know about all of this.
    Kelly Smith , says: October 27, 2015 at 2:11 pm
    I vividly remember being laughed at, as far back as 2002, when I asserted that this entire bit of inevitable, impending foolishness was due to half of Bush's Cabinet being drawn from the ranks of PNAC.

    The media (CNN, FOX, MSNBC, et al) only report the "news" that is "print to fit." They have no knowledge of the truth (or no desire to report it).

    Project for the New American Century . . . it isn't difficult; simply spend some time reading the contents of their website. Why NOT learn all you can about the members of the President's Cabinet?

    The mainstream media isn't going to do it. It's up to us.

    Sam , says: October 27, 2015 at 2:19 pm
    Pat Buchanan got it right in these very pages with "Whose War Anyway?".
    Ken Hoop , says: October 27, 2015 at 3:23 pm
    Saddam had left a Mao-styled revolution of guerilla nature in place before the invasion even started. The work of Ali Ballout a journalist confirmed this in 2003.
    http://www.antiwar.com/orig/ballout1.html

    There was no manner of invasion and occupation which would not have resulted in some type of multi-pronged insurgencies and medium if not long term chaos.
    Yes, the neocons assumed none of this, but they don't care much as long as they are not charged with war crimes, their specific reputations are not harmed, and Israel is not threatened.

    Chris Chuba , says: October 27, 2015 at 3:25 pm
    I absolutely hate the entire premise of the Iraq war but to play devil's advocate, are Conservative non-interventionists saying that it would have been a success had we kept Saddam's army intact? Certainly disbanding it was a disaster but I kind of shudder at the thought that this war can somehow be justified on the basis that the occupation was simply botched.
    Kurt Gayle , says: October 27, 2015 at 3:25 pm
    On November 4, 1960 a group of us from my high school went to hear Dr. Wernher von Braun, who was a featured speaker at the 76th Annual Convention of the Virginia Education Association in Richmond. At the time von Braun was serving as director of the newly formed Marshall Space Flight Center where he was the chief architect of the Saturn V launch vehicle, the superbooster that would eventually propel the Apollo spacecraft to the Moon.

    Dr. von Braun gave a very inspiration address and those in our group – most of whom were already interested in a career in math, the sciences, and engineering-were thrilled.

    The next week in school some of the teaching staff discussed with some of us who had attended the speech the fact that Dr. von Braun had worked in Germany's rocket development program, where he helped design and develop the V-2 at Peenemünde; during that time he had been a member of the Nazi Party and the SS and had at times been involved in the selection and supervision of some of the forced labor that was used in the V-2 program at Peenemünde. We all knew that, obviously, Dr. von Braun and other German rocket scientists brought to the US after the war were exceptions to the general US/Allied policy of de-Nazification. We, both students and teachers, had such an interesting series of discussions with speakers on both sides of the issue.

    William Dalton writes that "in due course, the policy of de-Nazification was loosened and many functionaries of the Hitler regime, who had been NSDAP members but not ideologues and were happy to serve the new order as they had been the old, were put in positions of authority and the transition out of Allied Military Government and the restoration of a functioning German state."

    I agree with two important points that William Dalton makes:

    (1) "Magnanimity to the defeated in battle has always been the mark of a wise ruler. Incessant reproaches for past sins is a prescription for unending division and strife in any society which tolerates it."

    (2) "There is great irony in the claim that Bush's de-Baathification policies in Iraq were inspired by the de-Nazification policies in postwar Germany."

    Rock Sash , says: October 27, 2015 at 4:09 pm
    Without the de-Baathification, we may have ended up with a stable Iraqi government. That means one that would now be headed by someone similar to Saddam Hussein. Until the people of Iraq can resolve their differences – and they don't show any evidence of approaching this point – only a despotic ruler can keep any order. The problem is that we don't want order. We want to chase idealistic dreams. If we had any rational assessment of the situation in the Middle East, we wouldn't have gone there in the first place. So the de-Baathification was logically consistent with the misguided nature of our overall mission.
    balconesfault , says: October 27, 2015 at 4:31 pm
    It is useful to remember the real goal behind deBaathification. And it wasn't because it was strategic from a military/security standpoint. It was strategic from a purely ideological standpoint.

    After WWII, the US government forced both Japan and Germany to accept labor unions, which had been anathema in both nations prior to the war. Strong welfare provisions were incorporated into both countries laws by the occupation authorities. And what do you know – both countries flourished economically in the coming decades.

    The Bush Administration was filled with Heritage vetted appointees who wanted Iraq to be a new model – of what would happen if you took all the Heritage wet dreams and stick them into a country and the moribund economy after the last decade of sanctions took off? It was to be a perfect laboratory to demonstrate that right wing economic policies were the way to go. A flat tax, sale of government assets to private companies, opening Iraq up to international corporations with little or no regulation, dismantling Saddam's socialist economic infrastructure – these were seemingly prioritized more by the people the Bush Administration sent to Iraq that security concerns. Dedication to Heritage/free market principles was valued for Reconstruction authorities over knowledge and experience in Middle Eastern geopolitics.

    And you had to deBaathify Iraq, totally cleanse the government of Baathist officials and laws, to make the Heritage Foundation's dream come true. In their mind, the deck was stacked – oil revenues would guarantee success for their experiment, and provide a counter-narrative to the post-war economic successes of Germany and Japan.

    Alas – supply side economics can never fail – it can only be failed. See Kansas today.

    The Other Sands , says: October 27, 2015 at 4:39 pm
    "Nobody elected your family
    And we didn't elect your friends
    No one voted for your advisors
    And nobody wants amends

    You're the one we voted for
    So you must take the blame
    For handing out authority
    To men who were insane"

    Arlo Guthrie, Presidential Rag

    Lenny , says: October 27, 2015 at 6:05 pm
    So Bush is not to blame for this, but Clinton is responsible for Benghazi?
    balconesfault , says: October 27, 2015 at 6:12 pm
    @The Other Sands:

    "You're the one we voted for
    So you must take the blame
    For handing out authority
    To men who were insane"

    And again – those who voted for Bush in 2000 absolutely knew he was going to be handing out that authority. They knowingly turned our foreign policy over to those "bureaucrats".

    http://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/16/world/2000-campaign-advisor-bush-s-foreign-policy-tutor-academic-public-eye.html?pagewanted=all

    "Mr. Bush has unabashedly shown his dependence on Ms. Rice Ms. Rice's role is all the more critical because Mr. Bush doesn't like to read briefing books on the nuts-and-bolts of national security, and his lack of experience in foreign affairs has raised questions about his preparedness for the White House. "

    http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/06/24/president.2000/foreign.policy/

    "While the junior Bush may lack his father's resume - CIA director, ambassador to China, architect of the Gulf War victory - George W. has inherited some of his father's top aides, and with little experience of his own, Bush says he will rely on their advice. "

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/dec/13/uselections2000.usa9

    "Mr Bush has shown little interest in getting to know the world beyond Texas, where he is governor, having travelled abroad only three times in his adult life, excluding visits to neighbouring Mexico. He has not even visited Canada. This means that Mr Bush, if he takes the White House, will inevitably rely on more seasoned advisers in formulating America's future defence and foreign policy."

    EliteCommInc. , says: October 27, 2015 at 7:01 pm
    "I'd say this puts culpability for the Iraq debacle squarely in the laps of every voter who cast a ballot for GW Bush in 2000."

    I voted for G.W Bush for the Executive Office. And I have no issues taking responsibility for my vote. I will also take responsibility for my failure in convincing him not to support:

    1. the long term application of the PA

    2. Invading Afghanistan as opposed to treating the matter as a course of law, thereby putting the processes of the FBI, in conjunction with the State Department and if need be, the CIA, Special Ops. – using an incision instead of a cudgel.

    3. Not invading Iraq at all

    I completely and utterly failed. That failure resides quite deep in my being. However, being a conservative is not really responsible for the decisions made. In fact, if anything conservative thought would have steered a far different course.
    _____________________

    I do not think for a minute that the author is denying where the ultimate responsibility lies. To say that the "buck" stops at the executive office goes without saying.

    The article dissects the failure to its managers. It's like Benghazi. Sure the executive must ultimately bare responsibility. However, understanding how the director of the State Department mismanaged matters is important in understanding government. Especially in terms of accountability. And at its core is one of the reasons that big government (scale and efficiency) is problematic to any organization. The ability of senior and midlevel managers to avoid responsibility for their choices by blaming the upper echelons.

    The lines of ownership get blurred through weak "delegated" accountability. It's similar to the arguments made about 9/11. Nothing in the Admin. was available for them to act in CONUS on the actors involved because that information was not passed on by the agencies that had it. The general "hair on fire" threat analysis did not include known terrorists that had made it to the US. It did not include data that the same were learning to fly airliners minus landing and take offs(?). Any of the knowledgeable agencies could have acted minus direct involvement of the WH, but they did not. Those agencies: CIA, FBI, State Department and the airlines application of "no fly lists".

    Sure September 11 occurred while Pres. Bush was in office, but there is a reason why one delegates authority.

    As to Iraq, absolutely, heads should have rolled. All of which is a matter of management style within an organizations culture and environment. And on a scale this large - anyone who doesn't comprehend that vital errors are only covered by chance more often than not, doesn't get this article in my view.

    I will skip the sad tales of the Iraqi government being Nazi's, by way of Chalabi and company. But an examination of large scale conflicts, such as WWII, for example will reveal managerial disasters that cost lost lives needlessly.

    The Iraq example has one over riding reality. We never should invaded in the first place. Here I think the Pres. ignored his instincts. My opinion despite the "cowboy" image, Pres. Bush is not a decisive gunslinger and given the 9/11 scenarios. He needn't have been. I think no small number of choices were undermined by others.

    Still those choices were his to make.

    EliteCommInc. , says: October 27, 2015 at 7:08 pm
    While I certainly appreciate sanctimonious retorts. The emotional anger and dismay experienced by most of the country played no small roll in the decisions, including that of no small number of democrats and liberals.

    Forget the WH and Congress, trying explaining in sane language why actions taken should not have been to members of the public was tantamount to treason.

    So taking a cue from the vote for Pres. Bush to blame. How about anyone who supported the use of the military in both campaigns.

    Complicity in the act -

    Paul Windels , says: October 28, 2015 at 8:17 am
    The article makes telling points against Bremer, Feith, et al., but that does not and should not absolve GWB. He was President, and the buck stopped with him.

    I would add two points. First that wars are always messy affairs. Anyone who talks of surgical wars is either a fool or a fraud (if not both). Second, this whole chain of events started with GHW Bush's decision to go to war in 1990.

    BTW is John Hay a nom de plume?

    Chris Chuba , says: October 28, 2015 at 8:54 am
    Rock Sash, I don't know if you were responding to my post but just in case you were thank you, it provides a good explanation. In short, the more rational management of Iraq leads us closer to the pre-invasion Iraq version of Iraq which of course means that we should not have invaded.
    No one is suggesting that Saddam was a good guy and in fact, now that they have been birthed, I wish the current govt of Iraq well. As someone who respects the sovereignty of nations I am appalled at those who want to meddle further in Iraq by partitioning their country into three separate countries to fix a problem that we created because we don't like that the Shiites are the majority and are predictably aligned with Iran. No, let's leave them alone and let them re-take the Sunni portion of Iraq and try to re-integrate it back into their country. If we meddle and try to create 'Sunnistan' then the geniuses in our country are going to discover that it will be harder than they think to keep it from becoming ISI(S-) 2.
    Connecticut Farmer , says: October 28, 2015 at 9:31 am
    If this is true, then clearly the inmates were running the asylum. And still are i.e. Benghazi. And it was probably always thus, no matter whose administration was in charge. This suggests the presence of some deep-seated structural problems not only within the Executive Department but with the very way in which we presume to govern ourselves as a country.
    balconesfault , says: October 28, 2015 at 10:35 am
    @Connecticut Farmer
    If this is true, then clearly the inmates were running the asylum.

    It seems to me that inmates running the asylum has been a feature of GOP foreign policy for awhile (eg – Iran/Contra and Ollie North April Glaspie's assurances to Saddam that his border dispute with Kuwait was not a concern to the US )

    OTOH – Benghazi? I don't get the connection, except in that these days conservatives seem to want to link Benghazi to everything.

    Steve J , says: October 28, 2015 at 11:05 am
    It's an interesting piece. I'm not sure what anyone was supposed to do after the invasion that would have prevented fragmentation.

    I am inclined to agree with a piece by General Odom some time back - in particular myth number 2.

    http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=background.view&backgroundid=146

    Ken Hoop , says: October 28, 2015 at 11:08 am
    Chris Chuba

    "Conservative non-interventionists" worthy of the name would not attempt to justify the war, period.

    As far as voters owning a share of the guilt, I believe anyone who votes for candidates of either of the corrupt duopoly rather than helping build alternative parties run the likely risk of sharing
    in any unjustified intervention ultimately carried out.
    Granted this belief rests on the assumption both the GOP and Dems are either irredeemable or a viable multiparty system is necessary to nudge them into redemption.

    Kurt Gayle , says: October 28, 2015 at 11:34 am
    @ balconesfault who wrote: "After WWII, the US government forced both Japan and Germany to accept labor unions, which had been anathema in both nations prior to the war. Strong welfare provisions were incorporated into both countries laws by the occupation authorities."

    You're right, balconesfault, that the "socialists" of the National Socialist German Workers Party - like the "socialists" of the Union of Soviet "Socialist" Republics - banned membership in all unions that were not under government control and they outlawed all strikes.

    But you're wrong, balconesfault, with respect to Nazi welfare provisions. One of the means by which the Nazis maintained strong popular support was through a generous welfare state that particularly benefitted German lower classes. Hitler implemented price and rent controls, higher corporate taxes, much higher taxes on capital gains, and subsidies to German farmers to protect them from weather and price fluctuations. The Nazi government increased pension benefits substantially and put in place a state-run health care system.

    MIke Glatt , says: October 28, 2015 at 11:38 am
    Imagine if Obama had presided over this cluster$#@% and
    then tried to blame his policymakers.
    Johann , says: October 28, 2015 at 12:14 pm
    baconesfault – "After WWII, the US government forced both Japan and Germany to accept labor unions, which had been anathema in both nations prior to the war. Strong welfare provisions were incorporated into both countries laws by the occupation authorities. And what do you know – both countries flourished economically in the coming decades."

    Why must you always look at the world through donkey colored glasses?

    Actually, the rejection of the US imposed economic straight jacket, which included price controls is credited by economists in Germany for the economic success in Germany. The fathers of Ordo-liberalism, Franz Bohm, Walter Euken, Ludwig Erhard, and others pushed these reforms. Erhard in particular, as Economics minister defied the occupation authority and abolished the price controls and other economic controls that were in place, and at the same time introduced the deutsche mark, replacing the reichsmark. A hard money policy is a tenet of Ordoliberalism. They reject the concept of economic stimulus.

    Ordo-liberalism is a system that is a "third way" system between classical liberalism and the socialist system. Its based on free market economics, but the adherents believe government is required to ensure free markets remain free from monopolies and other manipulations that may occur that would destroy a free market.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordoliberalism

    PermReader , says: October 28, 2015 at 12:53 pm
    Russian chief tale of a good tsar and bad boyars.
    balconesfault , says: October 28, 2015 at 1:06 pm
    @Johann Actually, the rejection of the US imposed economic straight jacket, which included price controls is credited by economists in Germany for the economic success in Germany. The fathers of Ordo-liberalism, Franz Bohm, Walter Euken, Ludwig Erhard, and others pushed these reforms.

    OK – that's nice. You still did nothing to address the thesis.

    Useful reading:

    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6930.htm

    The honey theory of Iraqi reconstruction stems from the most cherished belief of the war's ideological architects: that greed is good. Not good just for them and their friends but good for humanity, and certainly good for Iraqis. Greed creates profit, which creates growth, which creates jobs and products and services and everything else anyone could possibly need or want. The role of good government, then, is to create the optimal conditions for corporations to pursue their bottomless greed, so that they in turn can meet the needs of the society. The problem is that governments, even neoconservative governments, rarely get the chance to prove their sacred theory right: despite their enormous ideological advances, even George Bush's Republicans are, in their own minds, perennially sabotaged by meddling Democrats, intractable unions, and alarmist environmentalists.

    Iraq was going to change all that. In one place on Earth, the theory would finally be put into practice in its most perfect and uncompromised form. A country of 25 million would not be rebuilt as it was before the war; it would be erased, disappeared. In its place would spring forth a gleaming showroom for laissez-faire economics, a utopia such as the world had never seen. Every policy that liberates multinational corporations to pursue their quest for profit would be put into place: a shrunken state, a flexible workforce, open borders, minimal taxes, no tariffs, no ownership restrictions.

    Emilio , says: October 28, 2015 at 1:37 pm
    Great comments. I'll reiterate what I said previously about the general topic:

    I don't think there are enough sane "mid-level" Republicans in DC to properly staff any incoming administration, even a Paul one. I know that sounds harsh, but I know it in my gut, is that fair? By all available lights, Cheney/Rumsfeld types and their lackeys still dominate the GOP on foreign policy, hell, if even the Democrats are compromised, it is beyond me how anyone can believe that a newly moderate and sensible GOP foreign policy staff has magically materialized in the last eight years but is somehow still keeping largely silent. Where are they? Where's the proof that the risks have been mitigated?

    balconesfault , says: October 28, 2015 at 1:58 pm
    @Kurt Gayle But you're wrong, balconesfault, with respect to Nazi welfare provisions.

    I did not say that the Nazi's did not have a welfare state (although they did limit beneficiaries to those of Aryan blood). I merely noted that the reconstruction authorities incorporated strong welfare provisions into the post-war laws of Germany and Japan, and that those countries economies (and quality of life) flourished in subsequent years.

    Johann , says: October 28, 2015 at 2:27 pm
    baconesfault – I don't think we are in much disagreement regarding the disaster that was Iraq's occupation. I do not take issue with the fact that the Iraq economic disaster was set up by the Bush administration. I don't think it was a failure of capitalism though. It was a long term Christmas present for major corporations. And according to a friend of mine who was there as a civilian working for the US Army Corps of Engineers, it was worse than crony capitalism. Outright theft by contractors was rampant and purposely overlooked. I would not call that a failure of capitalism. It was a predictable result of crony capitalism corruption and the lack of the rule of law.
    EliteCommInc. , says: October 28, 2015 at 3:05 pm
    "Benghazi? I don't get the connection, except in that these days conservatives seem to want to link Benghazi to everything."

    I am unclear if you understand the concept here. It is not generally referred to as surgical warfare, though I get why you use the term. It's surgical "strike".

    Those uses of force with very specific objectives and generally limitted goals. Ten tears too late and anti-climatic at best, the capture of Bin Laden would be considred such an operation.

    The Benghazi matter is simple. The executive in the WH delegatese State Deapt operations to the Sec of State. While he is ultimately responsible because he sits at the head. The immediate responsibility rests with those to whom he delegates authority. The Embassy personnnel send tepetaed dispatches that the security environment in Libya id deteriorating and doing so quickly. They dispatch the need for help. The State department misjudges, mischaracterizes or ignors the on the scene damage reports and the call for help. Instead choosing to focus on the political response to Libyan violence. Embassy is attacked and personnel are killed.

    The Sec of State is immediately responsible. We now no so much more based on the details of events. That anyone in the State Department should be ashamed for blaiming the matter on internet videos or anything else other than our support for a rebellion, that backfired.

    On the larger question, to accountability - Executives can mullify the impact by taking corrective action and or holding his delegates responsible. I think the perception here is that no one has been held accountable in either admin.

    Perhaps, Sec. Clinton lost her position at the state department as consequence. But the accountability for failed leadership in several disasterous foreign policy advances seems to be a bid for the WH. Which begs the question - what does accountability mean.

    In either admin. it seems to hold no value. I think the article demonstrates the issues very well.

    Myron Hudson , says: October 28, 2015 at 3:42 pm
    Very interesting article. I understand that it is not an apology or an excuse for W. Rather, it is a deconstruction of the antics of what The Economist once referred to as "this most inept of administrations".

    It makes sense. So much attention is paid to the Executive that not enough is paid to the coterie that comes with him. In W's case the was Cheney, Rove and those whom Bush Sr. referred to as "the crazies in the basement".

    Considering the role that Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith et al played in ginning up the war, it is not surprising that they and their cohort proceeded to screw it up once they got it.

    It was ill conceived and poorly executed and rightly stands as our most disastrous foreign policy bungle ever. The fact that the authors still refuse to believe that it was ill conceived, only poorly executed, shows what their judgement is worth. Nothing.

    Lenny , says: October 28, 2015 at 4:34 pm
    Is this serious?
    If so, why would any sane person ever vote for a Republican candidate?
    balconesfault , says: October 28, 2015 at 5:44 pm
    @EliteCommInc – I think the confusion I have here is over accountability for strategy, versus accountability for tactics.

    The de-Baathification of Iraq was a strategy. It was an enormous, ground changing plan, and one would expect accountability for this to run directly to the Chief Executive, not only for the giving responsibility for designing the strategy, but for approving the strategy itself.

    Similarly, for the examples I brought up – Iran/Contra was a strategy. Selling weapons to Iran and using money to fund insurgents in Nicaragua wasn't simply a matter of tactics. Again, it was the responsibility of the POTUS to know this was going on, and Reagan failed on this count. Whether or not the US had an interest in preserving the integrity of Kuwait's borders with Iraq was a strategy, and not simply a tactic, and the President should have been involved in approving any communications with Saddam on that point.

    Benghazi was a tactical failure. In a sense – it was analogous with 9/11 nobody in the State Department wanted the consulate to be at risk of being overrun by terrorists anymore than nobody in the intelligence community or DOD wanted the Twin Towers and the Pentagon to suffer hits. Of course, Benghazi was 0.01% as significant a tactical failure as 9/11 was but the failure was due to people who had been properly assigned responsibilities not doing their job.

    To the extent that someone dropped the ball with Benghazi, this wasn't due to mid-level bureaucrats making their own policies independent of the POTUS. Our involvement in Libya itself was a strategy, and Mr. Larison has repeatedly pointed out how it's a shame that the Benghazi committee has microfocused on the tactics of protecting the consulate and the responsibility for failure to do so, rather than on the strategy that put our diplomatic personnel in the middle of that tinderbox in the first place.

    That said, President Obama has clearly taken responsibility for the strategy. Our air cover for Libyan rebels, and our subsequent diplomatic efforts, are on his plate.

    Carol , says: October 28, 2015 at 7:35 pm
    Excuse me, but I knew before! the invasion that toppling Hussein and installing a Shiite regime would unsettle that country and lead to civil war. I erred in thinking the civil war part would happen sooner than it has. I am simply an informed housewife and librarian. George Bush should have known, too, without any advisers telling him. Don't give me the both sides do it malarkey.
    Hosea McAdoo , says: October 28, 2015 at 8:00 pm
    He was President and Commander-in-Chief therefore totally responsible.
    EliteCommInc. , says: October 28, 2015 at 9:16 pm
    In the above cases within the strategy or tactic, it's remains the case of indivual failure.

    ________________
    "The fact that the authors still refuse to believe that it was ill conceived, only poorly executed, shows what their judgement is worth. Nothing."

    In one of my rare defenses, I think you are dancing with an unknown. Whether the Iraq invasion was wise or not is not really part of the question here. While one can acknowledge it's overall veracity, ther is value in examining the details of what transpired afterwards that made matters worse.

    And i think disbanding the military was a huge contributor to subsequent events. And obviously so. For the message was that members of the military were essentially now enemies of the state they once fought to protect and as such they were on their own aort from state function. Excuse me but departing weapons in hand to fight back against any reprisals or making the efforts of the US and their newly established system makes perfect sense.

    AHd they not disbanded the military which includes the admin. bureacracy, despite the head having been dismantled would have vital foundational systems in place upon which basic services would have remained functional, including and not the least of which was running water, electricty and basic policing.

    Whether one agrees or disagrees with the invasion. Making assessments about subsequent decisions and implementation are valuable in understanding what happened during the occupation. No doubt that Iraqis patrolling the streets, who the people, the language, customs and had some legtmate established authority would have been less problematic than US servicemen and, especially women playingthat role.

    [Nov 20, 2016] The Field of Fight How We Can Win the Global War Against Radical Islam and Its Allies by Michael T. Flynn, Michael Ledeen

    Trump essentially betrayed Flynn, who tried to did the billing of Kushner and persuade Russia to abstain from anti-Israel vote.
    Notable quotes:
    "... The big takeaways from this book is the (1) systemic manipulation of intelligence analysts' conclusions to fit political narratives (I have personally seen my work modified to "soften" the message/conclusions for x, y, or z reasons) and (2) Radical Islam is not a new phenomenon that spawned as a response to "American imperialism" as often preached from the lecterns of western universities. ..."
    "... There is no love lost between Lt Gen Flynn and President Obama, and Flynn's frustration with Obama's lack of leadership is clear throughout this work. ..."
    "... General Flynn is a career Army combat intelligence officer with extensive hard experience mostly in the Middle East, a lifetime Democrat, who seems to understand and is able to clearly and concisely define the threat of Radical Islam (NOT all Islam) far better than both the Bush ("W") and Obama administrations politicos in Washington were willing to hear or accept. ..."
    "... in contrast to what his detractors might opine, General Flynn is speaking of Radical Islam as a "tribal cult," and not taking aim at the religion itself. ..."
    "... The general's comments on human intelligence and interrogation operations being virtually nonexistent makes one wonder if all the Lessons Learned that are written after every conflict and stored away are then never looked at again - I suspect it's true. ..."
    "... My unit, the 571st MI Detachment of the 525th MI Group, ran agents (HUMINT) throughout I Corps/FRAC in Vietnam. The Easter Offensive of 1972 was actually known and reported by our unit before and during the NVA's invasion of the South. We were virtually the only intelligence source available for the first couple of weeks because of weather. Search the internet for The Easter Offensive of 1972: A Failure to Use Intelligence. ..."
    "... I totally concur with Lt. General, Michael T. Flynn, US Army, (ret), that any solution to "Radical Islamic Terrorism" today has to also resolve the ideology issue, along side the other recommendations that he discusses in his book. ..."
    "... Provocative, bellicose, rhetorical, and patriotic, the author leaves the reader wondering if his understanding of the enemy is hubris or sagacity. Much of that confusion can be attributed to conditioning as a an American and seeing prosecution of American wars as apolitical and astrategic. General Flynn's contribution to the way forward, "Field of Fight" is certainly political and at a minimum operational strategy. His practical experience is normative evidence to take him at his word for what he concludes is the next step to deal with radicals and reactionaries of political Islam. ..."
    "... One paradox that he never solved was his deliberate attempt to frame terrorist as nothing more that organized crime, but at the same respect condemn governments that are "Islamic Republics," whom attempt to enforce the laws as an ineffective solution, and attempting to associate the with the other 1.6 billion Muslims by painting them as "Radical Islam." ..."
    Nov 20, 2016 | www.amazon.com

    SomeRandomGuy July 17, 2016

    We're at war, but few people know it... or are willing to accept it.

    When I had heard in the news that Lt Gen Flynn might be chosen by Donald Trump as his Vice Presidential nominee, I was quick to do some research on Flynn and came across this work. Having worked in the intelligence community myself in the past several years, I was intrigued to hear what the previous director of the DIA had to say. I have read many books on the topic of Islam and I am glad I picked this up.

    The big takeaways from this book is the (1) systemic manipulation of intelligence analysts' conclusions to fit political narratives (I have personally seen my work modified to "soften" the message/conclusions for x, y, or z reasons) and (2) Radical Islam is not a new phenomenon that spawned as a response to "American imperialism" as often preached from the lecterns of western universities.

    If you have formed your opinion of Islam and the nature of the West's fight in the Middle East on solely what you hear in the main steam media (all sides), you would do well to read this book as a starting point into self-education on an incredibly complex topic.

    There is no love lost between Lt Gen Flynn and President Obama, and Flynn's frustration with Obama's lack of leadership is clear throughout this work. Usually this political opining in a work such as this is distracting, but it does add much-needed context to decisions and events. That said, Lt Gen Flynn did a great job addressing a complex topic in plain language. While this is not a seminal work on

    Amazon Customer on November 11, 2016

    A critically important work for western civilization.

    General Flynn is a career Army combat intelligence officer with extensive hard experience mostly in the Middle East, a lifetime Democrat, who seems to understand and is able to clearly and concisely define the threat of Radical Islam (NOT all Islam) far better than both the Bush ("W") and Obama administrations politicos in Washington were willing to hear or accept.

    He supports what he can tell us with citations. Radical Islam has declared war on Western democracies, most of all on the US. Its allies include Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, and others. Their war against us is a long-term effort, and our politicians (except Trump?) don't want to hear it. We need to demand that our politicos prepare for this assault and start taking wise, strong steps to defeat it.

    Western Europe may already have been fatally infiltrated by "refugees" who will seek to Islamize it, and current birth rates suggest that those nations will have Muslim majorities in 20 years. General Flynn details what we must do to survive the assault. I bought the Kindle version and began reading it, but then paid more for the audible version so that I could get through it faster. Please buy and read this book!

    David Firester on September 2, 2016

    Looking Inward First, is What Generates the Strategy-Shifting Process. Flynn Gets This. Few Others Do.

    To begin with, I will say that the book is not exactly what one might expect from a recently retired General. For starters, there were numerous spelling errors, an assortment of colloquialisms and some instances in which the prose took on a decidedly partisan tone. The means of documenting sources was something akin to a blog-posting, in that he simply copied and pasted links to pages, right into the body of the work. I would have liked to have seen a more thoroughly researched and properly cited work. All of this was likely due to the fact that General Flynn released his book in the days leading up to Donald J. Trump's announcement of his Vice Presidential pick. As Flynn is apparently a close national security advisor to Trump, I can understand why his work appears to be somewhat harried. Nonetheless, I think that the book's timeliness is useful, as the information it contains might be helpful in guiding Americans' election choices. I also think that despite the absence of academic rigor, it makes his work more accessible. No doubt, this is probably one of Mr. Trump's qualities and one that has catapulted him to national fame and serious consideration for the office he seeks. General Flynn makes a number of important points, which, despite my foregoing adverse commentary, gives me the opportunity to endorse it as an essential read.

    In the introductory chapter, General Flynn lays out his credentials, defines the problem, and proceeds to inform the reader of the politically guided element that clouds policy prescriptions. Indeed, he is correct to call attention to the fact that the Obama administration has deliberately exercised its commanding authority in forbidding the attachment of the term "Islam" when speaking of the threat posed by extremists who advocate and carry out violence in the religion's name. As one who suffered at the hands of the administration for speaking truth to power, he knows all too well what others in the Intelligence Community (IC) must suffer in order to hold onto their careers.

    In chapter one, he discusses where he came from and how he learned valuable lessons at home and in service to his country. He also gives the reader a sense of the geopolitical context in which Radical Islamists have been able to form alliances with our worst enemies. This chapter also introduces the reader to some of his personal military heroes, as he delineates how their mentorship shaped his thinking on military and intelligence matters. A key lesson to pay attention to in this chapter is what some, including General Flynn, call 'politicization of intelligence.' Although he maintains that both the present and previous administration have been guilty of this, he credits the Bush administration with its strategic reconsideration of the material facts and a search for better answers. (He mentions this again in the next chapter on p.42, signifying this capability as a "leadership characteristic" and later recalls the president's "insight and courage" on p. 154.)

    Chapter two of The Field of Fight features an excellent summary of what transpires in a civil war and the manner in which Iraqis began to defect from al-Qa'ida and cooperate with U.S. forces. In this task, he explains for the layperson what many scholars do, but in far fewer pages. Again, this makes his work more accessible. He also works through the process of intelligence failures that are, in his opinion, produced by a superordinate policy failure housed in the upper echelons of the military structure. In essence, it was a misperception (willful or not) that guided thinking about the cause of the insurgency, that forbade an ability to properly address it with a population-centric Counterinsurgency (COIN) strategy. He pays homage to the adaptability and ingenuity of General Stanley McChrystal's Task Force 714, but again mentions the primary barrier to its success was bureaucratic in nature.

    The main thrust of chapter 3, aptly named "The Enemy Alliance," is geared toward tying together the earlier assertion in chapter regarding the synergy between state actors like Iran, North Korea, Syria, and the like. It has been documented elsewhere, but the Iranian (non-Arab Shi'a) connection to the al-Qa'ida (Arab Sunni) terrorist organization can't be denied. Flynn correctly points out how the relationship between strange bedfellows is not new in the Middle East. He briefly discusses how this has been the case since the 1970s, with specific reference to the PLO, Iran, Syria, Hamas, Hezbollah, Bosnia and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's. He also references President Obama's "curious sympathy" (p. 92) for enemies in places such as Venezuela and Cuba.

    General Flynn then reminds readers of some facts that have either been forgotten, or virtually unknown, by most Americans. Namely, the role that Saddam Hussein actually played with regard to the recruitment of foreign terrorists, the internal policies of appeasement for Islamists in his army and the support he lent to Islamists in other countries (e.g., Egypt, Sudan and Afghanistan). He also reminds the readers of the totalitarian mindset that consumes Islamist groups, such as al-Qa'ida and the Islamic State. All the while, and in contrast to what his detractors might opine, General Flynn is speaking of Radical Islam as a "tribal cult," and not taking aim at the religion itself. This chapter is perhaps the most robust in the book and it is the sort of reading that every American should do before they engage in conversations about the nature of political Islam.

    Chapter four is a blueprint for winning what used to be called the 'global war on terror.' Although such a phraseology is generally laughed at in many policy circles, it is clear, as General Flynn demonstrates, that some groups and countries are locked in combat with us and our partners in the West. Yet, as he correctly points out, the Obama administration isn't willing to use global American leadership in order to defeat those who see us, and treat us, as their collective enemy. General Flynn's prescription includes four strategic objectives, which I won't recite here, as I'm not looking to violate any copyright laws. The essence of his suggestions, however, starts with an admission of who the enemy is, a commitment to their destruction, the abandonment of any unholy alliances we have made over the years, and a counter-ideological program for combating what is largely an ideologically-based enemy strong suit. He points to some of the facts that describe the dismal state of affairs in the Arab world, the most damning of which appear on pages 127-128, and then says what many are afraid to say on page 133: "Radical Islam is a totalitarian political ideology wrapped in the Islamic religion." Nonetheless, Flynn discusses some of the more mundane and pecuniary sources of their strength and the means that might be tried in an effort to undermine them.

    The concluding chapter of General Flynn's work draws the reader's attention to some of the works of others that have been overlooked. He then speaks candidly of the misguided assumptions that, coupled with political and bureaucratic reasons, slows adaptation to the changing threat environment. Indeed, one of the reasons that I found this book so refreshing is because that sort of bold introspection is perhaps the requisite starting point for re-thinking bad strategies. In fact, that is the essence of both the academic and practical work that I have been doing for years. I highly recommend this book, especially chapter 3, for any student of the IC and the military sciences.

    Bob Baker on August 4, 2016
    It's ironic that the general wrote about Pattern Analysis, ...

    It's ironic that the general wrote about Pattern Analysis, when DIA in late-1971 warned that the Ho Chi Minh Trail was unusually active using this technique.

    The general's comments on human intelligence and interrogation operations being virtually nonexistent makes one wonder if all the Lessons Learned that are written after every conflict and stored away are then never looked at again - I suspect it's true.

    My unit, the 571st MI Detachment of the 525th MI Group, ran agents (HUMINT) throughout I Corps/FRAC in Vietnam. The Easter Offensive of 1972 was actually known and reported by our unit before and during the NVA's invasion of the South. We were virtually the only intelligence source available for the first couple of weeks because of weather. Search the internet for The Easter Offensive of 1972: A Failure to Use Intelligence.

    Amazon Customer on August 1, 2016
    A GREAT BOOK FOR UNDERSTANDING THE WAR ON TERROR

    At a time when so much is hanging in the balance, General Flynn's book plainly lays out a strategy for not only fighting ISIS/ISIL but also for preventing totalitarianism from spreading with Russia, North Korea and Cuba now asserting themselves - again.

    Sadly, because there is some mild rebuke towards President Obama, my fear is people who should read this book to gain a better understanding of the mind of the jihadist won't because they don't like their president being called out for inadequate leadership. But the fact remains we are at war with not just one, but several ideologies that have a common enemy - US! But this book is not about placing blame, it is about winning and what it will take to defeat the enemies of freedom.

    We take freedom for granted in the West, to the point where, unlike our enemies, we are no longer willing to fight hard to preserve those freedoms. General Flynn makes the complicated theatre of fighting Radical Islam easier to understand. His experience in explaining how we can and have won on the battlefield gives me great comfort, but also inspires me to want to help fight for the good cause of freedom.

    My sincerest hope is that both Trump and Clinton will read this book and then appoint General Flynn as our next Defense Secretary!

    Amazon Customer DCC on July 30, 2016
    recommend you read " Heretic

    I totally concur with Lt. General, Michael T. Flynn, US Army, (ret), that any solution to "Radical Islamic Terrorism" today has to also resolve the ideology issue, along side the other recommendations that he discusses in his book. All of the radical fighting that has taken place in the world, ever since the beginning evolution of the Islamic religion over 1400 years ago, has revolved around radical interpretations of the Qur'an.

    Until there is an Islamic religious reformation, there will never be a lasting resolution to the current "Radical Islamic Terrorist" problem. It is a religious ideology interpretation issue. Until that interpretation is resolved within the Islamic world, there will always be continuing radical interpretation outbreaks, from within the entire Islamic world, against all other forms of non-Islamic religions and their evolving cultures.

    If you require further insight, recommend you read " Heretic, Why Islam Needs a Reformation Now" , by Ayaan Hirisi Ali. DCC

    Aaron Rudroff on July 26, 2016
    To be continued...

    Provocative, bellicose, rhetorical, and patriotic, the author leaves the reader wondering if his understanding of the enemy is hubris or sagacity. Much of that confusion can be attributed to conditioning as a an American and seeing prosecution of American wars as apolitical and astrategic. General Flynn's contribution to the way forward, "Field of Fight" is certainly political and at a minimum operational strategy. His practical experience is normative evidence to take him at his word for what he concludes is the next step to deal with radicals and reactionaries of political Islam.

    One paradox that he never solved was his deliberate attempt to frame terrorist as nothing more that organized crime, but at the same respect condemn governments that are "Islamic Republics," whom attempt to enforce the laws as an ineffective solution, and attempting to associate the with the other 1.6 billion Muslims by painting them as "Radical Islam."

    As if there is any relationship to relationship to Islam other than it is the predominant religion in a majority of the area where they commit their criminal activity. As if the political war with terrorist is a function of a label that is of itself a oversimplification of the issues. Indeed, suggesting it is a nothing more than 'political correctness" and ignoring the possibility that it might be a function of setting the conditions in an otherwise polygon of political justice. This argument alone is evidence of the his willingness to develop domestic political will for war with a simple argument. Nevertheless, as a national strategy, it lacks the a foundational argument to motivate friendly regional actors who's authority is founded on political Islam.

    In 2008 a national election was held and the pyrrhic nature of the war in Iraq adjudicated via the process of democratic choice that ended support for continued large scale conventional occupation. That there is some new will to continue large scale conventional occupation seems unlikely, and as a democratic country, leaders must find other means to reach the desired end state, prosecuting contiguous operations to suppress, neutralize, and destroy "ALL" who use terrorism to expand and enforce their political will with a deliberate limited wars that have methodological end states. Lastly, sounding more like a General MacArther, the General Flynn's diffuse strategy seems to ignore the most principles of war deduced by Von Clausewitz and Napoleon: Concentration of force on the objective to be attacked. Instead, fighting an ideology "Radical Islam" seems more abstract then any splatter painting of modern are in principle form it suggests a commitment to simplicity to motivate our nation to prepare for and endure the national commitment to a long war.

    Since we can all agree there is no magical solution, then normative pragmatism of the likes that General. Flynn's assessment provides, must be taken into account in an operation and tactical MDMP. Ignoring and silencing Subject Matter Experts (SME's) will net nothing more than failure, a failure that could be measured in innocent civilian lives as a statistical body count. I could see General Flynn's suggestions and in expertise bolstering a movement to establish a CORP level active duty unit to prepare, plan, and implemented in phases 0, IV, & V (JP 5-0) . Bear in mind, Counter Insurgency (COIN) was never considered a National strategy but instead at tactical strategy and at most an operational strategy.

    William Struse TOP 500 REVIEWER on July 17, 2016
    The Crossroads of Our Republic

    Several times in its nearly 250 years of existence our Nation has been at a crossroads. Looking back on our War for Independence, the Civil War, and WWII we know the decisions made in those tumultuous times forever altered the destiny of our Republic.

    We are once again at one of those crossroads where the battle lines have been drawn, only this time in an asymmetrical war between western democracy and the radical Islamists and nation states who nurture them. In his timely book Field of Fight, Lt. General Michael T. Flynn provides a unique perspective on this war and what he believes are some of the steps necessary to meet this foe.

    Field of Fight begins as an autobiography in which the author gives you a sense of who he is as a man and a soldier. This background information then provides the reader with a better perspective through which to evaluate his analysis of the challenges we face as well as the course of action he believes we need to take to meet those challenges.

    The following are a few of the guidelines General Flynn proposes for developing a winning strategy in our war with radical Islam and other potential foes:

    1. Properly assess your environment and clearly define your enemy;
    2. Face reality – for politicians, this is never an easy thing to do;
    3. Understand the social context and fabric of the operational environment;
    4. Recognize who's in charge of the enemy's forces.

    In Field of Fight General Flynn makes the case that we are losing this war with radical Islam because our nation's leadership has failed to develop a winning strategy. Further he opines that our current leaders lack the clarity of vision and moral certitude that understands American democracy is a "better way", that not all forms of human government are equal, and that there are principled reasons worth fighting for - the very basic of those being, "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

    I'll admit I'm concerned about the future of our country. As a husband and a father of five I wonder about the world we leaving for our children to inherit. I fear we have lost our moral compass thus creating a vacuum in which human depravity as exemplified by today's radical Islamists thrives.

    Equally concerning to me is what happens when the pendulum swings the other way. Will we have the moral and principled leaders to check our indignation before it goes too far? When that heart rending atrocity which is sure to come finally pushes the American people to white hot wrath who will hold our own passions in check? In a nation where Judeo-Christian moral absolutes are an outdated notion what will keep us from becoming that which we most hate?

    As I stated at the start of this review, today we are at a crossroads. Once again our nation needs principled men and women in positions of leadership who understand the Field of Fight as described by General Flynn and have the wisdom and courage to navigate this battlefield.

    * * *

    In summary, although I don't agree with everything written in this book I found it to be an educational read which will provided me with much food for thought over the coming months. As a representative republic choosing good leadership requires that we as citizens understand the problems and challenges we face as a nation. Today radical Islam is one of those challenges and General Flynn's book Field of Fight: How We Can Win the Global War Against Radical Islam and Its Allies gives a much needed perspective on the subject.

    Terry M Petty on July 16, 2016
    Flynn does great with military intelligence, needs more cultural intelligence

    Gen Flynn has been in the news a lot lately. He apparently did not get on well in DC with his views on fighting terrorism. That is very relevant now as we are seeking better ways to fight ISIS and terror in general. I read his book today to learn what is on his mind. Flynn had a lot of experience starting in the 82nd Airborne and was almost always in intelligence work. Army intelligence is narrowly focused - where is the enemy, how many of them are there, how are they armed and what is the best way to destroy them. Undoubtedly he was good at this. However, that is not the kind of intelligence we need to defeat ISIS. Flynn's book shows no sign of cultural awareness, which is the context by which we must build intelligence about our opponent. In Iraq, he did learn the difference between who was Sunni and who was Shia but that was it. He shows no sign of any historical knowledge about these groups and how they think and live. In looking at Afghanistan, he seems unaware of the various clans and languages amongst different people. The 2 primary languages of Afghanistan are Pashto and Dari. Dari is essentially the same as Farsi, so the Persian influence has been strong in the country for a long time. Flynn seems totally unaware. Intelligence in his world is obtained from interrogation and captured documents. They are processed fast and tell him who their next target should be. This kind of work is not broad enough to give him a strategic background. He sees USA's challenges in the world as a big swath of enemies that are all connected and monolithic. North Korea, China, Iran, Russia, Syria, ISIS, and so forth. All need to be dealt with in a forceful manner. He never seems to think about matching resources with objective.

    This monlithic view of our opponents is obviously wrong. Pres George W Bush tried it that way with the Axis of Evil. The 1950's Cold War was all built in fear of the monolithic Soviet Union and China. All these viewpoints were failures.
    Flynn does not see it though. In the book, Flynn says invading Iraq in 2003 might have been the wrong choice. He would have invaded Iran. The full Neocon plan was for 7 countries in 5 years, right after knocking down Iraq, then we would do the same to Iran. I hope we have lost a lot of that hubris by now. But with poor vision by leaders like Flynn, we might get caught up again in this craziness.

    To beat ISIS and Al Qaeda type groups we need patience and allies. We have to dry up the source of the terrorists that want to die. That will be done with a combination of cultural outreaches as well as armed force.
    I am sure the Presidential candidates will both see that Flynn does not have that recipe. Where is a General that does? We have often made this mistake. Sixty Six years ago, we felt good that Gen Douglas MacArthur "knew the Oriental mind" and he would guid us to victory in Korea. That ended up as a disaster at the end of 1950. I think we are better off at working with leaders that understand the people that are trying to terrorize us. Generals don't develop those kinds of empathic abilities.

    [Nov 20, 2016] Most individuals Trump is considering for his administration, including those already picked have a deep-seated obsession with Iran. This is very troubling.

    www.moonofalabama.org
    Posted by: Circe | Nov 19, 2016 8:37:46 PM | 23

    95% or more of the individuals Trump is considering for his administration, including those already picked have a deep-seated obsession with Iran. This is very troubling. It's going to lead to war and not a regular war where 300,000 people die. This is a catastrophic error in judgment I don't give a sh...t who makes such an error, Trump or the representative from Kalamazoo! This is so bad that it disqualifies whatever else appears positive at this time.

    And one more deeply disturbing thing; Pompeo, chosen to head the CIA has threatened Ed Snowden with the death penalty, if Snowden is caught, and now as CIA Director he can send operatives to chase him down wherever he is and render him somewhere, torture him to find out who he shared intelligence with and kill him on the spot and pretend it was a foreign agent who did the job. He already stated before he was assigned this powerful post that Snowden should be brought back from Russia and get the death penalty for treason.

    Pompeo also sided with the Obama Administration on using U. S. military force in Syria against Assad and wrote this in the Washington Post: "Russia continues to side with rogue states and terrorist organizations, following Vladimir Putin's pattern of gratuitous and unpunished affronts to U.S. interests,".

    That's not all, Pompeo wants to enhance the surveillance state, and he too wants to tear up the Iran deal.

    Many of you here are extremely naïve regarding Trump.

    b's speculation has the ring of truth. I've often wondered if Trump was encouraged to run by a deep-state faction that found the neocons to be abhorrent and dangerous.

    Aside: I find those who talk about "factions" in foreign policy making to be un-credible. Among these were those that spoke of 'Obama's legacy'. A bullshit concept for a puppet.The neocons control FP. And they could only be unseated if a neocon-unfriendly President was elected.

    Jackrabbit | Nov 19, 2016 10:20:57 PM | 26

    Trump is turning animosity away from Russia and toward Iran. But I doubt that it will result in a shooting war with Iran. The 'deep-state' (arms industry and security agencies) just wants a foreign enemy as a means of ensuring that US govt continues to fund security agencies and buy arms.

    And really, Obama's "peace deal" with Iran was bogus anyway. It was really just a placeholder until Assad could be toppled. Only a small amount of funds were released to Iran, and US-Iranian relations have been just as bad as they were before the "peace deal". So all the hand-wringing about Trump vs. Iran is silly.

    What is important is that with Iran as the nominal enemy du jour plus Trump's campaign pledge to have the "strongest" military (note: every candidate was for a strong military), the neocons have no case to make that Trump is weak on defense.

    And so it is interesting that those that want to undermine Trump have resorted to the claim that he is close to Jews/Zionists/Israel or even Jewish himself. Funny that Trump wasn't attacked like that before the election, huh?

    The profound changes and profound butt-hurt lead to the following poignant questions:

    >> Have we just witnessed a counter-coup?

    >> Isn't it sad that, in 2016(!), the only check on elites are other elite factions? An enormous cultural failure that has produced a brittle social fabric.

    >> If control of NSA snooping power is so crucial, why would ANY ruling block ever allow the another to gain power?

    Indeed, the answer to this question informs one's view on whether the anti-Trump protests are just Democratic Party ass-covering/distraction or a real attempt at a 'color revolution'.

    [Nov 20, 2016] Trumps Appointment of Pompeo as CIA Chief is Major Fail

    Notable quotes:
    "... Thank you for this very good link. The swamp cant be drained with an election, the society has been infested and corrupt beyond redemption. There can't be a revolution either, because no charismatic figure could lead it, and the majority of the people prefer to bury their head in the sand. ..."
    "... It'd be nice to think that the coming devolution won't be an exact repeat, e.g. a neo-Dark Age for hundreds of years, but who can say? Maybe science and philosophy won't be entirely lost this time around. But of course all speculation is rendered nul and void IF we have WW3 ..."
    "... If Trump appoints any vetted neocons to high positions in his administration, he runs the risk of synchronized resignations if he decides to move closer to Russia. ..."
    "... Fake Libertarians need to understand that Radical islam is a problem not because of America's wars in the Middle East or NATO. Radical islam is inherently violent. India has been a victim of this virus since the 8th century! India never invaded any country. ..."
    Nov 20, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com

    CorneliuCodreanu Nov 20, 2016 1:30 AM ,

    Trump's Appointment of Pompeo as CIA Chief is Major Fail

    http://www.newnationalist.net/2016/11/20/trumps-appointment-of-pompeo-as...

    jfb CorneliuCodreanu Nov 20, 2016 8:42 AM ,
    Thank you for this very good link. The swamp cant be drained with an election, the society has been infested and corrupt beyond redemption. There can't be a revolution either, because no charismatic figure could lead it, and the majority of the people prefer to bury their head in the sand.

    What will eventually happen is an economic implosion and chaos. The "elite" won't be able to finance a repressive force since their "electronic money" will not be trusted, and everything will fall apart.

    And years after, small communities will gradually re-emerge since there will be a need to protect the people with a local police force. But the notion of a super-state or even more of a NWO will not survive, after an initial depopulation we'll have something similar than what you had at the begining of the middle age, a life organized around small independant comunities of 3,000 or 5,000 people.

    Setarcos jfb Nov 20, 2016 9:54 AM ,
    Very close to my thinking ... and a precedent is the demize of the Roman Empire, when Europe devolved into numerous small feudal regions, such as in England for over a thousand years, i.e after numerous internal wars, such as the Wars of the Roses and the reign of Henry VIII, it wasn't until the 1600s and the so-called "Enlightenment" that England was unified ... and it wasn't until the 1700s that Scotland was conquered and "Great Britain" existed, also having incorporated Wales and Ireland, with at least Eire having gained independence during the 1920s, Wales never being really integrated, nor Scotland now moving away from the centre of the whole shebang ... London always.

    It'd be nice to think that the coming devolution won't be an exact repeat, e.g. a neo-Dark Age for hundreds of years, but who can say? Maybe science and philosophy won't be entirely lost this time around. But of course all speculation is rendered nul and void IF we have WW3 despite, or because(?) of Trump and similar phenonema in the West.

    francis scott f... Nov 20, 2016 2:09 AM ,

    BE CAREFUL, MR TRUMP

    If Trump appoints any vetted neocons to high positions in his administration, he runs the risk of synchronized resignations if he decides to move closer to Russia.

    And when that is picked up by the arch deceivers at the WaPo, NYT, WSJ etc, it will be embarrassing for Mr Trump and for the foreign policy he campaigned on.

    Lynn Trainor francis scott falseflag Nov 20, 2016 5:53 AM ,
    Mr. Trump, please move closer to Russia - Putin has longed for sane dialogue with the US for the last 8 or more years and has gotten the cold shoulder.
    GraveDancer Nov 20, 2016 3:24 AM ,
    Fake Libertarians need to understand that Radical islam is a problem not because of America's wars in the Middle East or NATO. Radical islam is inherently violent. India has been a victim of this virus since the 8th century! India never invaded any country.

    Islam fundamentally is incompatible with a modern society.

    [Nov 20, 2016] Aleppo is watch by drones, satellites, radars and electronic sensors of every type by both US and Russia. Yet, the DOS (Department of Shit?) exclusively relies on the Observer dude in London and other miscreants for their claims of sinister Russian air strikes

    Notable quotes:
    "... Why doesn't the White House just shut the fuck up ..."
    "... And as one of its sources, dear old Aunty BBC quotes "a volunteer with the White Helmets Civil Defence force" who told the AFP news agency that he had "never heard such intense artillery bombardments". ..."
    "... Recycling the same bullshit as used to justify the first Iraq war. Every time there is a war, babies are trotted out to justify escalation and slaughter. By the million. This baby ploy works on the suckers every time... ..."
    Nov 20, 2016 | marknesop.wordpress.com

    Moscow Exile , November 19, 2016 at 11:17 am

    Premature babies in Aleppo removed from incubators after air strikes hit city's only hospital
    Attacks prompt White House to condemn Syrian regime and Russia for "heinous actions"

    Premature babies in Aleppo have been removed from their incubators after air strikes destroyed hospitals across the city, prompting condemnation of the Syrian government and Russia by the US and the UN.

    Harrowing video footage shows tiny babies being removed from their incubators in a smoke-filled ward, with nurses reduced to tears as they detach the tubing providing support and wrap the babies in blankets.

    Now where have I heard a similar story before? .

    Why doesn't the White House just shut the fuck up or, failing that, send a drone flying off to Moscow so as to zap the Evil One and any bystanders in his vicinity?

    Moscow Exile , November 19, 2016 at 11:30 am
    "The Syrian regime and its allies, Russia in particular, bear responsibility for the immediate and long-term consequences these actions have caused in Syria and beyond" - said Susan Rice, of course.

    And as one of its sources, dear old Aunty BBC quotes "a volunteer with the White Helmets Civil Defence force" who told the AFP news agency that he had "never heard such intense artillery bombardments".

    See: Syria conflict: Aleppo hospitals 'knocked out by bombardment'

    Patient Observer , November 19, 2016 at 11:52 am
    Aleppo must be one of the most intensely scrutinized area on earth – drones, satellites, radars and electronic sensors of every type by both US and Russia. Yet, the DOS (Department of Shit?) exclusively relies on the "Observer" dude in London and other miscreants for their claims of sinister Russian air strikes. The DOS needs a 'tard wrangler for these various groups.

    The other possibility is that Russia has perfected stealth on every wavelength including visible light and have zero-noise jet engines.

    kirill , November 19, 2016 at 3:46 pm
    Recycling the same bullshit as used to justify the first Iraq war. Every time there is a war, babies are trotted out to justify escalation and slaughter. By the million. This baby ploy works on the suckers every time...

    [Nov 19, 2016] The global revolt against elites is not just driven by revulsion and loss of jobs. The era of neoliberalism is over. The era of neonationalism has just begun.

    It is the end of neoliberalism and the start of the era of authoritarian nationalism, and we all need to come together to stamp out the authoritarian part.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Neoliberalism has been disastrous for the Rust Belt, and I think we need to envision a new future for what was once the country's industrial heartland, now little more than its wasteland ..."
    "... The question of what the many millions of often-unionized factory workers, SMEs which supplied them, family farmers (now fully industrialized and owned by corporations), and all those in secondary production and services who once supported them are to actually do in future to earn a decent living is what I believe should really be the subject of debate. ..."
    "... two factors (or three, I guess) have contributed to this state of despair: offshoring and outsourcing, and technology. ..."
    "... Medicaid, the CHIP program, the SNAP program and others (including NGOs and private charitable giving) may alleviate some of the suffering, but there is currently no substitute for jobs that would enable men and women to live lives of dignity – a decent place to live, good educations for their children, and a reasonable, secure pension in old age. Near-, at-, and below-minimum wage jobs devoid of any benefits don't allow any of these – at most, they make possible a subsistence life, one which requires continued reliance on public assistance throughout one's lifetime. ..."
    "... In the U.S. (a neoliberal pioneer), poverty is closely linked with inequality and thus, a high GINI coefficient (near that of Turkey); where there is both poverty and a very unequal distribution of resources, this inevitably affects women (and children) and racial (and ethnic) minorities disproportionately. The economic system, racism, sexism, and xenophobia are not separate, stand-alone issues; they are profoundly intertwined. ..."
    "... But really, if you think about it, slavery was defined as ownership, ownership of human capital (which was convertible into cash), and women in many societies throughout history were acquired as part of a financial transaction (either through purchase or through sale), and control of their capital (land, property [farmland, herds], valuables and later, money) often entrusted to a spouse or male guardian. All of these practices were economically-driven, even if the driver wasn't 21st-century capitalism. ..."
    "... Let it be said at once: Trump's victory is primarily due to the explosion in economic and geographic inequality in the United States over several decades and the inability of successive governments to deal with this. ..."
    "... Both the Clinton and the Obama administrations frequently went along with the market liberalization launched under Reagan and both Bush presidencies. At times they even outdid them: the financial and commercial deregulation carried out under Clinton is an example. What sealed the deal, though, was the suspicion that the Democrats were too close to Wall Street – and the inability of the Democratic media elite to learn the lessons from the Sanders vote. ..."
    "... Regional inequality and globalization are the principal drivers in Japanese politics, too, along with a number of social drivers. ..."
    "... The tsunami/nuclear meltdown combined with the Japanese government's uneven response is an apt metaphor for the impact of neo-liberalism/globalization on Japan; and on the US. I then explained that the income inequality in the US was far more severe than that of Japan and that many Americans did not support the export of jobs to China/Mexico. ..."
    "... I contend that in some hypothetical universe the DNC and corrupt Clinton machine could have been torn out, root and branch, within months. As I noted, however, the decision to run HRC effectively unopposed was made several years, at least, before the stark evidence of the consequences of such a decision appeared in sharp relief with Brexit. ..."
    "... Just as the decline of Virginia coal is due to global forces and corporate stupidity, so the decline of the rust belt is due to long (30 year plus) global forces and corporate decisions that predate the emergence of identity politics. ..."
    "... It's interesting that the clear headed thinkers of the Marxist left, who pride themselves on not being distracted by identity, don't want to talk about these factors when discussing the plight of their cherished white working class. ..."
    "... The construction 'white working class' is a useful governing tool that splits poor people and possible coalitions against the violence of capital. Now, discussion focuses on how some of the least powerful, most vulnerable people in the United States are the perpetrators of a great injustice against racialised and minoritised groups. Such commentary colludes in the pathologisation of the working class, of poor people. Victims are inculpated as the vectors of noxious, atavistic vices while the perpetrators get off with impunity, showing off their multihued, cosmopolitan C-suites and even proposing that their free trade agreements are a form of anti-racist solidarity. Most crucially, such analysis ignores the continuities between a Trumpian dystopia and our satisfactory present. ..."
    "... Race-thinking forecloses the possibility of the coalitions that you imagine, and reproduces ideas of difference in ways that always, always privilege 'whiteness'. ..."
    "... Historical examples of ethnic groups becoming 'white', how it was legal and political decision-making that defined the present racial taxonomy, suggest that groups can also lose or have their 'whiteness' threatened. CB has written here about how, in the UK at least, Eastern and Southern Europeans are racialised, and so refused 'whiteness'. JQ has written about southern white minoritisation. Many commentators have pointed that the 'white working class' vote this year looked a lot like a minority vote. ..."
    "... Given the subordination of groups presently defined as 'white working class', I wonder if we could think beyond ethnic and epidermal definition to consider that the impossibility of the American Dream refuses these groups whiteness; i.e the hoped for privileges of racial superiority, much in the same way that African Americans, Latin Americans and other racialised minorities are denied whiteness. Can a poor West Virginian living in a toxified drugged out impoverished landscape really be defined as a carrier of 'white privilege'? ..."
    "... I was first pointed at this by the juxtapositions of racialised working class and immigrants in Imogen Tyler's Revolting Subjects – Social Abjection and Resistance in Neoliberal Britain but this below is a useful short article that takes a historical perspective. ..."
    "... In a 1990 essay, the late Yale political scientist Juan Linz observed that "aside from the United States, only Chile has managed a century and a half of relatively undisturbed constitutional continuity under presidential government - but Chilean democracy broke down in the 1970s." ..."
    "... Linz offered several reasons why presidential systems are so prone to crisis. One particularly important one is the nature of the checks and balances system. Since both the president and the Congress are directly elected by the people, they can both claim to speak for the people. When they have a serious disagreement, according to Linz, "there is no democratic principle on the basis of which it can be resolved." The constitution offers no help in these cases, he wrote: "the mechanisms the constitution might provide are likely to prove too complicated and aridly legalistic to be of much force in the eyes of the electorate." ..."
    "... In a parliamentary system, deadlocks get resolved. A prime minister who lacks the backing of a parliamentary majority is replaced by a new one who has it. If no such majority can be found, a new election is held and the new parliament picks a leader. It can get a little messy for a period of weeks, but there's simply no possibility of a years-long spell in which the legislative and executive branches glare at each other unproductively.' ..."
    "... In any case, as I pointed out before, given that the US is increasingly an urbanised country, and the Electoral College was created to protect rural (slave) states, the grotesque electoral result we have just seen is likely to recur, which means more and more Presidents with dubious democratic legitimacy. Thanks to Bush (and Obama) these Presidents will have, at the same time, more and more power. ..."
    "... To return to my original question and answer it myself: I'm forced to conclude that the Democrats did not specifically address the revitalization – rebirth of the Rust Belt in their 2016 platform. Its failure to do so carried a heavy cost that (nearly) all of us will be forced to pay. ..."
    "... This sub seems to have largely fallen into the psychologically comfortable trap of declaring that everyone who voted against their preferred candidate is racist. It's a view pushed by the neoliberals, who want to maintain he stranglehold of identity politics over the DNC, and it makes upper-class 'intellectuals' feel better about themselves and their betrayal of the filthy, subhuman white underclass (or so they see it). ..."
    "... You can scream 'those jobs are never coming back!' all you want, but people are never going to accept it. So either you come up with a genuine solution (instead of simply complaining that your opponents solutions won't work; you're partisan and biased, most voters won't believe you), you may as well resign yourself to fascism. Because whining that you don't know what to do won't stop people from lining up behind someone who says that they do have one, whether it'll work or not. Nobody trusts the elite enough to believe them when they say that jobs are never coming back. Nobody trusts the elite at all. ..."
    "... You sound just like the Wiemar elite. No will to solve the problem, but filled with terror at the inevitable result of failing to solve the problem. ..."
    "... One brutal fact tells us everything we need to know about the Democratic party in 2016: the American Nazi party is running on a platform of free health care to working class people. This means that the American Nazi Party is now running to the left of the Democratic party. ..."
    "... Back in the 1930s, when the economy collapsed, fascists appeared and took power. Racists also came out of the woodwork, ditto misogynists. Fast forward 80 years, and the same thing has happened all over again. The global economy melted down in 2008 and fascists appeared promising to fix the problems that the pols in power wouldn't because they were too closely tied to the existing (failed) system. Along with the fascists, racists gained power because they were able to scapegoat minorities as the alleged cause of everyone's misery. ..."
    "... None of this is surprising. We have seen it before. Whenever you get a depression in a modern industrial economy, you get scapegoating, racism, and fascists. We know what to do. The problem is that the current Democratic party isn't doing it. ..."
    "... . It is the end of neoliberalism and the start of the era of authoritarian nationalism, and we all need to come together to stamp out the authoritarian part. ..."
    "... This hammered people on the bottom, disproportionately African Americans and especially single AA mothers in America. It crushed the blue collar workers. It is wiping out the savings and careers of college-educated white collar workers now, at least, the ones who didn't go to the Ivy League, which is 90% of them. ..."
    "... Calling Hillary an "imperfect candidate" is like calling what happened to the Titanic a "boating accident." Trump was an imperfect candidate. Why did he win? ..."
    "... "The neoliberal era in the United States ended with a neofascist bang. The political triumph of Donald Trump shattered the establishments in the Democratic and Republican parties – both wedded to the rule of Big Money and to the reign of meretricious politicians." ..."
    "... "It is not an exaggeration to say that the Democratic Party is in shambles as a political force. Not only did it just lose the White House to a wildly unpopular farce of a candidate despite a virtually unified establishment behind it, and not only is it the minority party in both the Senate and the House, but it is getting crushed at historical record rates on the state and local levels as well. Surveying this wreckage last week, party stalwart Matthew Yglesias of Vox minced no words: `the Obama years have created a Democratic Party that's essentially a smoking pile of rubble.' ..."
    "... "One would assume that the operatives and loyalists of such a weak, defeated and wrecked political party would be eager to engage in some introspection and self-critique, and to produce a frank accounting of what they did wrong so as to alter their plight. In the case of 2016 Democrats, one would be quite mistaken." ..."
    "... Foreign Affairs ..."
    "... "At the end of World War II, the United States and its allies decided that sustained mass unemployment was an existential threat to capitalism and had to be avoided at all costs. In response, governments everywhere targeted full employment as the master policy variable-trying to get to, and sustain, an unemployment rate of roughly four percent. The problem with doing so, over time, is that targeting any variable long enough undermines the value of the variable itself-a phenomenon known as Goodhart's law. (..) ..."
    "... " what we see [today] is a reversal of power between creditors and debtors as the anti-inflationary regime of the past 30 years undermines itself-what we might call "Goodhart's revenge." In this world, yields compress and creditors fret about their earnings, demanding repayment of debt at all costs. Macro-economically, this makes the situation worse: the debtors can't pay-but politically, and this is crucial-it empowers debtors since they can't pay, won't pay, and still have the right to vote. ..."
    "... "The traditional parties of the center-left and center-right, the builders of this anti-inflationary order, get clobbered in such a world, since they are correctly identified by these debtors as the political backers of those demanding repayment in an already unequal system, and all from those with the least assets. This produces anti-creditor, pro-debtor coalitions-in-waiting that are ripe for the picking by insurgents of the left and the right, which is exactly what has happened. ..."
    "... "The global revolt against elites is not just driven by revulsion and loss and racism. It's also driven by the global economy itself. This is a global phenomenon that marks one thing above all. The era of neoliberalism is over. The era of neonationalism has just begun." ..."
    "... They want what their families have had which is secure, paid, benefits rich, blue collar work. ..."
    "... trump's campaign empathized with that feeling just by focusing on the factory jobs as jobs and not as anachronisms that are slowly fading away for whatever reason. Clinton might have been "correct", but these voters didn't want to hear "the truth". And as much as you can complain about how stupid they are for wanting to be lied to, that is the unfortunate reality you, and the Democratic party, have to accept. ..."
    "... trump was offering a "bailout" writ large. Clinton had no (good) counteroffer. It was like the tables were turned. Romney was the one talking about "change" and "restructuring" while Obama was defending keeping what was already there. ..."
    "... "Without that bailout, Detroit will need to drastically restructure itself. With it, the automakers will stay the course - the suicidal course of declining market shares, insurmountable labor and retiree burdens, technology atrophy, product inferiority and never-ending job losses. Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check." http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html ..."
    "... Clinton toward the end offered tariffs. But the trump campaign hit back with what turned out to be a pretty strong counter attack – ""How's she going to get tough on China?" said Trump economic advisor Peter Navarro on CNN's Quest Means Business. He notes that some of Clinton's economic advisors have supported TPP or even worked on it. "" ..."
    Nov 19, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    dbk 11.18.16 at 6:41 pm 130

    Bruce Wilder @102

    The question is no longer her neoliberalism, but yours. Keep it or throw it away?

    I wish this issue was being seriously discussed. Neoliberalism has been disastrous for the Rust Belt, and I think we need to envision a new future for what was once the country's industrial heartland, now little more than its wasteland (cf. "flyover zone" – a pejorative term which inhabitants of the zone are not too stupid to understand perfectly, btw).

    The question of what the many millions of often-unionized factory workers, SMEs which supplied them, family farmers (now fully industrialized and owned by corporations), and all those in secondary production and services who once supported them are to actually do in future to earn a decent living is what I believe should really be the subject of debate.

    As noted upthread, two factors (or three, I guess) have contributed to this state of despair: offshoring and outsourcing, and technology. The jobs that have been lost will not return, and indeed will be lost in ever greater numbers – just consider what will happen to the trucking sector when self-driving trucks hit the roads sometime in the next 10-20 years (3.5 million truckers; 8.7 in allied jobs).

    Medicaid, the CHIP program, the SNAP program and others (including NGOs and private charitable giving) may alleviate some of the suffering, but there is currently no substitute for jobs that would enable men and women to live lives of dignity – a decent place to live, good educations for their children, and a reasonable, secure pension in old age. Near-, at-, and below-minimum wage jobs devoid of any benefits don't allow any of these – at most, they make possible a subsistence life, one which requires continued reliance on public assistance throughout one's lifetime.

    In the U.S. (a neoliberal pioneer), poverty is closely linked with inequality and thus, a high GINI coefficient (near that of Turkey); where there is both poverty and a very unequal distribution of resources, this inevitably affects women (and children) and racial (and ethnic) minorities disproportionately. The economic system, racism, sexism, and xenophobia are not separate, stand-alone issues; they are profoundly intertwined.

    I appreciate and espouse the goals of identity politics in all their multiplicity, and also understand that the institutions of slavery and sexism predated modern capitalist economies. But really, if you think about it, slavery was defined as ownership, ownership of human capital (which was convertible into cash), and women in many societies throughout history were acquired as part of a financial transaction (either through purchase or through sale), and control of their capital (land, property [farmland, herds], valuables and later, money) often entrusted to a spouse or male guardian. All of these practices were economically-driven, even if the driver wasn't 21st-century capitalism.

    Also: Faustusnotes@100
    For example Indiana took the ACA Medicaid expansion but did so with additional conditions that make it worse than in neighboring states run by democratic governors.

    And what states would those be? IL, IA, MI, OH, WI, KY, and TN have Republican governors. Were you thinking pre-2014? pre-2012?

    To conclude and return to my original point: what's to become of the Rust Belt in future? Did the Democratic platform include a New New Deal for PA, OH, MI, WI, and IA (to name only the five Rust Belt states Trump flipped)?

    kidneystones 11.18.16 at 11:32 pm ( 135 )

    Thomas Pickety

    " Let it be said at once: Trump's victory is primarily due to the explosion in economic and geographic inequality in the United States over several decades and the inability of successive governments to deal with this.

    Both the Clinton and the Obama administrations frequently went along with the market liberalization launched under Reagan and both Bush presidencies. At times they even outdid them: the financial and commercial deregulation carried out under Clinton is an example. What sealed the deal, though, was the suspicion that the Democrats were too close to Wall Street – and the inability of the Democratic media elite to learn the lessons from the Sanders vote. "

    The Guardian

    kidneystones 11.18.16 at 11:56 pm 137 ( 137 )

    What should have been one comment came out as 4, so apologies on that front.

    I spent the last week explaining the US election to my students in Japan in pretty much the terms outlined by Lilla and PIketty, so I was delighted to discover these two articles.

    Regional inequality and globalization are the principal drivers in Japanese politics, too, along with a number of social drivers. It was therefore very easy to call for a show of hands to identify students studying here in Tokyo who are trying to decide whether or not to return to areas such as Tohoku to build their lives; or remain in Kanto/Tokyo – the NY/Washington/LA of Japan put crudely.

    I asked students from regions close to Tohoku how they might feel if the Japanese prime minister decided not to visit the region following Fukushima after the disaster, or preceding an election. The tsunami/nuclear meltdown combined with the Japanese government's uneven response is an apt metaphor for the impact of neo-liberalism/globalization on Japan; and on the US. I then explained that the income inequality in the US was far more severe than that of Japan and that many Americans did not support the export of jobs to China/Mexico.

    I then asked the students, particularly those from outlying regions whether they believe Japan needed a leader who would 'bring back Japanese jobs' from Viet Nam and China, etc. Many/most agreed wholeheartedly. I then asked whether they believed Tokyo people treated those outside Kanto as 'inferiors.' Many do.

    Piketty may be right regarding Trump's long-term effects on income inequality. He is wrong, I suggest, to argue that Democrats failed to respond to Sanders' support. I contend that in some hypothetical universe the DNC and corrupt Clinton machine could have been torn out, root and branch, within months. As I noted, however, the decision to run HRC effectively unopposed was made several years, at least, before the stark evidence of the consequences of such a decision appeared in sharp relief with Brexit.

    Faustusnotes 11.19.16 at 12:14 am 138

    Also worth noting is that the rust belts problems are as old as Reagan – even the term dates from the 80s, the issue is so uncool that there is a dire straits song about it. Some portion of the decline of manufacturing there is due to manufacturers shifting to the south, where the anti Union states have an advantage. Also there has been new investment – there were no Japanese car companies in the us in the 1980s, so they are new job creators, yet insufficient to make up the losses. Just as the decline of Virginia coal is due to global forces and corporate stupidity, so the decline of the rust belt is due to long (30 year plus) global forces and corporate decisions that predate the emergence of identity politics.

    It's interesting that the clear headed thinkers of the Marxist left, who pride themselves on not being distracted by identity, don't want to talk about these factors when discussing the plight of their cherished white working class. Suddenly it's not the forces of capital and the objective facts of history, but a bunch of whiny black trannies demanding safe spaces and protesting police violence, that drove those towns to ruin.

    And what solutions do they think the dems should have proposed? It can't be welfare, since we got the ACA (watered down by representatives of the rust belt states). Is it, seriously, tariffs? Short of going to an election promising w revolution, what should the dems have done? Give us a clear answer so we can see what the alternative to identity politics is.

    basil 11.19.16 at 5:11 am

    Did this go through?
    Thinking with WLGR @15, Yan @81, engels variously above,

    The construction 'white working class' is a useful governing tool that splits poor people and possible coalitions against the violence of capital. Now, discussion focuses on how some of the least powerful, most vulnerable people in the United States are the perpetrators of a great injustice against racialised and minoritised groups. Such commentary colludes in the pathologisation of the working class, of poor people. Victims are inculpated as the vectors of noxious, atavistic vices while the perpetrators get off with impunity, showing off their multihued, cosmopolitan C-suites and even proposing that their free trade agreements are a form of anti-racist solidarity. Most crucially, such analysis ignores the continuities between a Trumpian dystopia and our satisfactory present.

    I get that the tropes around race are easy, and super-available. Privilege confessing is very in vogue as a prophylactic against charges of racism. But does it threaten the structures that produce this abjection – either as embittered, immiserated 'white working class' or as threatened minority group? It is always *those* 'white' people, the South, the Working Class, and never the accusers some of whom are themselves happy to vote for a party that drowns out anti-war protesters with chants of USA! USA!

    Race-thinking forecloses the possibility of the coalitions that you imagine, and reproduces ideas of difference in ways that always, always privilege 'whiteness'.

    --

    Historical examples of ethnic groups becoming 'white', how it was legal and political decision-making that defined the present racial taxonomy, suggest that groups can also lose or have their 'whiteness' threatened. CB has written here about how, in the UK at least, Eastern and Southern Europeans are racialised, and so refused 'whiteness'. JQ has written about southern white minoritisation. Many commentators have pointed that the 'white working class' vote this year looked a lot like a minority vote.

    Given the subordination of groups presently defined as 'white working class', I wonder if we could think beyond ethnic and epidermal definition to consider that the impossibility of the American Dream refuses these groups whiteness; i.e the hoped for privileges of racial superiority, much in the same way that African Americans, Latin Americans and other racialised minorities are denied whiteness. Can a poor West Virginian living in a toxified drugged out impoverished landscape really be defined as a carrier of 'white privilege'?

    I was first pointed at this by the juxtapositions of racialised working class and immigrants in Imogen Tyler's Revolting Subjects – Social Abjection and Resistance in Neoliberal Britain but this below is a useful short article that takes a historical perspective.

    Why the Working Class was Never 'White'

    The 'racialisation' of class in Britain has been a consequence of the weakening of 'class' as a political idea since the 1970s – it is a new construction, not an historic one.

    .

    This is not to deny the existence of working-class racism, or to suggest that racism is somehow acceptable if rooted in perceived socio-economic grievances. But it is to suggest that the concept of a 'white working class' needs problematizing, as does the claim that the British working-class was strongly committed to a post-war vision of 'White Britain' analogous to the politics which sustained the idea of a 'White Australia' until the 1960s.

    Yes, old, settled neighbourhoods could be profoundly distrustful of outsiders – all outsiders, including the researchers seeking to study them – but, when it came to race, they were internally divided. We certainly hear working-class racist voices – often echoing stock racist complaints about over-crowding, welfare dependency or exploitative landlords and small businessmen, but we don't hear the deep pathological racial fears laid bare in the letters sent to Enoch Powell after his so-called 'Rivers of Blood' speech in 1968 (Whipple, 2009).

    But more importantly, we also hear strong anti-racist voices loudly and clearly. At Wallsend on Tyneside, where the researchers were gathering their data just as Powell shot to notoriety, we find workers expressing casual racism, but we also find eloquent expressions of an internationalist, solidaristic perspective in which, crucially, black and white are seen as sharing the same working-class interests.

    Racism is denounced as a deliberate capitalist strategy to divide workers against themselves, weakening their ability to challenge those with power over their lives (shipbuilding had long been a very fractious industry and its workers had plenty of experience of the dangers of internal sectarian battles).

    To be able to mobilize across across racialised divisions, to have race wither away entirely would, for me, be the beginning of a politics that allowed humanity to deal with the inescapable violence of climate change and corporate power.

    *To add to the bibliography – David R. Roediger, Elizabeth D. Esch – The Production of Difference – Race and the Management of Labour, and Denise Ferreira da Silva – Toward a Global Idea of Race. And I have just been pointed at Ian Haney-López, White By Law – The Legal Construction of Race.

    Hidari 11.19.16 at 8:16 am 152

    FWIW 'merica's constitutional democracy is going to collapse.

    Some day - not tomorrow, not next year, but probably sometime before runaway climate change forces us to seek a new life in outer-space colonies - there is going to be a collapse of the legal and political order and its replacement by something else. If we're lucky, it won't be violent. If we're very lucky, it will lead us to tackle the underlying problems and result in a better, more robust, political system. If we're less lucky, well, then, something worse will happen .

    In a 1990 essay, the late Yale political scientist Juan Linz observed that "aside from the United States, only Chile has managed a century and a half of relatively undisturbed constitutional continuity under presidential government - but Chilean democracy broke down in the 1970s."

    Linz offered several reasons why presidential systems are so prone to crisis. One particularly important one is the nature of the checks and balances system. Since both the president and the Congress are directly elected by the people, they can both claim to speak for the people. When they have a serious disagreement, according to Linz, "there is no democratic principle on the basis of which it can be resolved." The constitution offers no help in these cases, he wrote: "the mechanisms the constitution might provide are likely to prove too complicated and aridly legalistic to be of much force in the eyes of the electorate."

    In a parliamentary system, deadlocks get resolved. A prime minister who lacks the backing of a parliamentary majority is replaced by a new one who has it. If no such majority can be found, a new election is held and the new parliament picks a leader. It can get a little messy for a period of weeks, but there's simply no possibility of a years-long spell in which the legislative and executive branches glare at each other unproductively.'

    http://www.vox.com/2015/3/2/8120063/american-democracy-doomed

    Given that the basic point is polarisation (i.e. that both the President and Congress have equally strong arguments to be the the 'voice of the people') and that under the US appalling constitutional set up, there is no way to decide between them, one can easily imagine the so to speak 'hyperpolarisation' of a Trump Presidency as being the straw (or anvil) that breaks the camel's back.

    In any case, as I pointed out before, given that the US is increasingly an urbanised country, and the Electoral College was created to protect rural (slave) states, the grotesque electoral result we have just seen is likely to recur, which means more and more Presidents with dubious democratic legitimacy. Thanks to Bush (and Obama) these Presidents will have, at the same time, more and more power.

    Eventually something is going to break.

    dbk 11.19.16 at 10:39 am ( 153 )

    nastywoman @ 150
    Just study the program of the 'Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschland' or the Program of 'Die Grünen' in Germany (take it through google translate) and you get all the answers you are looking for.

    No need to run it through google translate, it's available in English on their site. [Or one could refer to the Green Party of the U.S. site/platform, which is very similar in scope and overall philosophy. (www.gp.org).]

    I looked at several of their topic areas (Agricultural, Global, Health, Rural) and yes, these are general theses I would support. But they're hardly policy/project proposals for specific regions or communities – the Greens espouse "think global, act local", so programs and projects must be tailored to individual communities and regions.

    To return to my original question and answer it myself: I'm forced to conclude that the Democrats did not specifically address the revitalization – rebirth of the Rust Belt in their 2016 platform. Its failure to do so carried a heavy cost that (nearly) all of us will be forced to pay.

    Soullite 11.19.16 at 12:46 pm 156

    This sub seems to have largely fallen into the psychologically comfortable trap of declaring that everyone who voted against their preferred candidate is racist. It's a view pushed by the neoliberals, who want to maintain he stranglehold of identity politics over the DNC, and it makes upper-class 'intellectuals' feel better about themselves and their betrayal of the filthy, subhuman white underclass (or so they see it).

    I expect at this point that Trump will be reelected comfortably. If not only the party itself, but also most of its activists, refuse to actually change, it's more or less inevitable.

    You can scream 'those jobs are never coming back!' all you want, but people are never going to accept it. So either you come up with a genuine solution (instead of simply complaining that your opponents solutions won't work; you're partisan and biased, most voters won't believe you), you may as well resign yourself to fascism. Because whining that you don't know what to do won't stop people from lining up behind someone who says that they do have one, whether it'll work or not. Nobody trusts the elite enough to believe them when they say that jobs are never coming back. Nobody trusts the elite at all.

    You sound just like the Wiemar elite. No will to solve the problem, but filled with terror at the inevitable result of failing to solve the problem.

    mclaren 11.19.16 at 2:37 pm 160

    One brutal fact tells us everything we need to know about the Democratic party in 2016: the American Nazi party is running on a platform of free health care to working class people. This means that the American Nazi Party is now running to the left of the Democratic party.

    Folks, we have seen this before. Let's not descend in backbiting and recriminations, okay? We've got some commenters charging that other commenters are "mansplaining," meanwhile we've got other commenters claiming that it's economics and not racism/misogyny. It's all of the above.

    Back in the 1930s, when the economy collapsed, fascists appeared and took power. Racists also came out of the woodwork, ditto misogynists. Fast forward 80 years, and the same thing has happened all over again. The global economy melted down in 2008 and fascists appeared promising to fix the problems that the pols in power wouldn't because they were too closely tied to the existing (failed) system. Along with the fascists, racists gained power because they were able to scapegoat minorities as the alleged cause of everyone's misery.

    None of this is surprising. We have seen it before. Whenever you get a depression in a modern industrial economy, you get scapegoating, racism, and fascists. We know what to do. The problem is that the current Democratic party isn't doing it.

    Instead, what we're seeing is a whirlwind of finger-pointing from the Democratic leadership that lost this election and probably let the entire New Deal get rolled back and wiped out. Putin is to blame! Julian Assange is to blame! The biased media are to blame! Voter suppression is to blame! Bernie Sanders is to blame! Jill Stein is to blame! Everyone and anyone except the current out-of-touch influence-peddling elites who currently have run the Democratic party into the ground.

    We need the feminists and the black lives matter groups and we also need the green party people and the Bernie Sanders activists. But everyone has to understand that this is not an isolated event. Trump did not just happen by accident. First there was Greece, then there was Brexit, then there was Trump, next it'll be Renzi losing the referendum in Italy and a constitutional crisis there, and after that, Marine Le Pen in France is going to win the first round of elections. (Probably not the presidency, since all the other French parties will band together to stop her, but the National Front is currently polling at 40% of all registered French voters.) And Marine LePen is the real deal, a genuine full-on out-and-out fascist. Not a closet fascist like Steve Bannon, LePen is the full monty with everything but a Hugo Boss suit and the death's heads on the cap.

    Does anyone notice a pattern here?

    This is an international movement. It is sweeping the world . It is the end of neoliberalism and the start of the era of authoritarian nationalism, and we all need to come together to stamp out the authoritarian part.

    Feminists, BLM, black bloc anarchiest anti-globalists, Sandernistas, and, yes, the former Hillary supporters. Because it not just a coincidence that all these things are happening in all these countries at the same time. The bottom 90% of the population in the developed world has been ripped off by a managerial and financial and political class for the last 30 years and they have all noticed that while the world GDP was skyrocketing and international trade agreements were getting signed with zero input from the average citizen, a few people were getting very very rich but nobody else was getting anything.

    This hammered people on the bottom, disproportionately African Americans and especially single AA mothers in America. It crushed the blue collar workers. It is wiping out the savings and careers of college-educated white collar workers now, at least, the ones who didn't go to the Ivy League, which is 90% of them.

    And the Democratic party is so helpless and so hopeless that it is letting the American Nazi Party run to the left of them on health care, fer cripes sake! We are now in a situation where the American Nazi Party is advocating single-payer nationalized health care, while the former Democratic presidential nominee who just got defeated assured everyone that single-payer "will never, ever happen."

    C'mon! Is anyone surprised that Hillary lost? Let's cut the crap with the "Hillary was a flawed candidate" arguments. The plain fact of the matter is that Hillary was running mainly on getting rid of the problems she and her husband created 25 years ago. Hillary promised criminal justice reform and Black Lives Matter-friendly policing policies - and guess who started the mass incarceration trend and gave speeches calling black kids "superpredators" 20 years ago? Hillary promised to fix the problems with the wretched mandate law forcing everyone to buy unaffordable for-profit private insurance with no cost controls - and guess who originally ran for president in 2008 on a policy of health care mandates with no cost controls? Yes, Hillary (ironically, Obama's big surge in popularity as a candidate came when he ran against Hillary from the left, ridiculing helath care mandates). Hillary promises to reform an out-of-control deregulated financial system run amok - and guess who signed all those laws revoking Glass-Steagal and setting up the Securities Trading Modernization Act? Yes, Bill Clinton, and Hillary was right there with him cheering the whole process on.

    So pardon me and lots of other folks for being less than impressed by Hillary's trustworthiness and honesty. Run for president by promising to undo the damage you did to the country 25 years ago is (let say) a suboptimal campaign strategy, and a distinctly suboptimal choice of presidential candidate for a party in the same sense that the Hiroshima air defense was suboptimal in 1945.

    Calling Hillary an "imperfect candidate" is like calling what happened to the Titanic a "boating accident." Trump was an imperfect candidate. Why did he win?

    Because we're back in the 1930s again, the economy has crashed hard and still hasn't recovered (maybe because we still haven't convened a Pecora Commission and jailed a bunch of the thieves, and we also haven't set up any alphabet government job programs like the CCC) so fascists and racists and all kinds of other bottom-feeders are crawling out of the political woodwork to promise to fix the problems that the Democratic party establishment won't.
    Rule of thumb: any social or political or economic writer virulently hated by the current Democratic party establishment is someone we should listen to closely right now.

    Cornel West is at the top of the current Democratic establishment's hate list, and he has got a great article in The Guardian that I think is spot-on:

    "The neoliberal era in the United States ended with a neofascist bang. The political triumph of Donald Trump shattered the establishments in the Democratic and Republican parties – both wedded to the rule of Big Money and to the reign of meretricious politicians."

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/17/american-neoliberalism-cornel-west-2016-election

    Glenn Greenwald is another writer who has been showered with more hate by the Democratic establishment recently than even Trump or Steve Bannon, so you know Greenwald is saying something important. He has a great piece in The Intercept on the head-in-the-ground attitude of Democratic elites toward their recent loss:

    "It is not an exaggeration to say that the Democratic Party is in shambles as a political force. Not only did it just lose the White House to a wildly unpopular farce of a candidate despite a virtually unified establishment behind it, and not only is it the minority party in both the Senate and the House, but it is getting crushed at historical record rates on the state and local levels as well. Surveying this wreckage last week, party stalwart Matthew Yglesias of Vox minced no words: `the Obama years have created a Democratic Party that's essentially a smoking pile of rubble.'

    "One would assume that the operatives and loyalists of such a weak, defeated and wrecked political party would be eager to engage in some introspection and self-critique, and to produce a frank accounting of what they did wrong so as to alter their plight. In the case of 2016 Democrats, one would be quite mistaken."

    https://theintercept.com/2016/11/18/the-stark-contrast-between-the-gops-self-criticism-in-2012-and-the-democrats-blame-everyone-else-posture-now/

    Last but far from least, Scottish economist Mark Blyth has what looks to me like the single best analysis of the entire global Trump_vs_deep_state tidal wave in Foreign Affairs magazine:

    "At the end of World War II, the United States and its allies decided that sustained mass unemployment was an existential threat to capitalism and had to be avoided at all costs. In response, governments everywhere targeted full employment as the master policy variable-trying to get to, and sustain, an unemployment rate of roughly four percent. The problem with doing so, over time, is that targeting any variable long enough undermines the value of the variable itself-a phenomenon known as Goodhart's law. (..)

    " what we see [today] is a reversal of power between creditors and debtors as the anti-inflationary regime of the past 30 years undermines itself-what we might call "Goodhart's revenge." In this world, yields compress and creditors fret about their earnings, demanding repayment of debt at all costs. Macro-economically, this makes the situation worse: the debtors can't pay-but politically, and this is crucial-it empowers debtors since they can't pay, won't pay, and still have the right to vote.

    "The traditional parties of the center-left and center-right, the builders of this anti-inflationary order, get clobbered in such a world, since they are correctly identified by these debtors as the political backers of those demanding repayment in an already unequal system, and all from those with the least assets. This produces anti-creditor, pro-debtor coalitions-in-waiting that are ripe for the picking by insurgents of the left and the right, which is exactly what has happened.

    "In short, to understand the election of Donald Trump we need to listen to the trumpets blowing everywhere in the highly indebted developed countries and the people who vote for them.

    "The global revolt against elites is not just driven by revulsion and loss and racism. It's also driven by the global economy itself. This is a global phenomenon that marks one thing above all. The era of neoliberalism is over. The era of neonationalism has just begun."

    https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2016-11-15/global-Trump_vs_deep_state

    efcdons 11.19.16 at 3:07 pm 161 ( 161 )

    Faustusnotes @147

    You don't live here, do you? I'm really asking a genuine question because the way you are framing the question ("SPECIFICS!!!!!!) suggests you don't. (Just to show my background, born and raised in Australia (In the electoral division of Kooyong, home of Menzies) but I've lived in the US since 2000 in the midwest (MO, OH) and currently in the south (GA))

    If this election has taught us anything it's no one cared about "specifics". It was a mood, a feeling which brought trump over the top (and I'm not talking about the "average" trump voter because that is meaningless. The average trunp voter was a republican voter in the south who the Dems will never get so examining their motivations is immaterial to future strategy. I'm talking about the voters in the Upper Midwest from places which voted for Obama twice then switched to trump this year to give him his margin of victory).

    trump voters have been pretty clear they don't actually care about the way trump does (or even doesn't) do what he said he would do during the campaign. It was important to them he showed he was "with" people like them. They way he did that was partially racialized (law and order, islamophobia) but also a particular emphasis on blue collar work that focused on the work. Unfortunately these voters, however much you tell them they should suck it up and accept their generations of familial experience as relatively highly paid industrial workers (even if it is something only their fathers and grandfathers experienced because the factories were closing when the voters came of age in the 80s and 90s) is never coming back and they should be happy to retrain as something else, don't want it. They want what their families have had which is secure, paid, benefits rich, blue collar work.

    trump's campaign empathized with that feeling just by focusing on the factory jobs as jobs and not as anachronisms that are slowly fading away for whatever reason. Clinton might have been "correct", but these voters didn't want to hear "the truth". And as much as you can complain about how stupid they are for wanting to be lied to, that is the unfortunate reality you, and the Democratic party, have to accept.

    The idea they don't want "government help" is ridiculous. They love the government. They just want the government to do things for them and not for other people (which unfortunately includes blah people but also "the coasts", "sillicon valley", etc.). Obama won in 2008 and 2012 in part due to the auto bailout.

    trump was offering a "bailout" writ large. Clinton had no (good) counteroffer. It was like the tables were turned. Romney was the one talking about "change" and "restructuring" while Obama was defending keeping what was already there.

    "Without that bailout, Detroit will need to drastically restructure itself. With it, the automakers will stay the course - the suicidal course of declining market shares, insurmountable labor and retiree burdens, technology atrophy, product inferiority and never-ending job losses. Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check."
    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html

    So yes. Clinton needed vague promises. She needed something more than retraining and "jobs of the future" and "restructuring". She needed to show she was committed to their way of life, however those voters saw it, and would do something, anything, to keep it alive. trump did that even though his plan won't work. And maybe he'll be punished for it. In 4 years. But in the interim the gop will destroy so many things we need and rely on as well as entrench their power for generations through the Supreme Court.

    But really, it was hard for Clinton to be trusted to act like she cared about these peoples' way of life because she (through her husband fairly or unfairly) was associated with some of the larger actions and choices which helped usher in the decline.

    Clinton toward the end offered tariffs. But the trump campaign hit back with what turned out to be a pretty strong counter attack – ""How's she going to get tough on China?" said Trump economic advisor Peter Navarro on CNN's Quest Means Business. He notes that some of Clinton's economic advisors have supported TPP or even worked on it. ""

    http://money.cnn.com/2016/08/11/news/economy/hillary-clinton-trade/

    [Nov 19, 2016] The American Conservative Movement Has Ended. The American Right Goes On by Peter Brimelow

    Both Republican Party and Democratic party degenerated into the racket. Neoliberal racket. It really goes back to what Eric Hoffer said: "Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket ." It's a racket.
    Notable quotes:
    "... That's because I assumed that everybody realized that America standing up to the Soviet Union was, in some sense, a nationalist resistance. Americans just didn't want to be conquered by Russians. ..."
    "... In contrast to all that, Donald Trump said: ..."
    "... I view the word conservative as a derivative of the word conserve. We want to converse our money. We want to conserve our wealth We want to conserve our country. We want to save our country. ..."
    "... it turned out that American Conservatism was just a transitional phase. And now it's over. ..."
    "... terrified of the neoconservatives who didn't like the emphasis on immigration because of their own ethnic agenda, and he was very inclined to listen to the Congressional Republicans, who didn't want to talk about immigration because they are terrified too-because they are cowards, basically-and also because they have big corporate donors . And, I think that is part of the explanation. ..."
    "... I think that goes to what happened to the American Conservative Movement. It wasn't tortured; it was bought . It was simply bought . I think the dominance of the Donorist class and the Donorist Party is one of the things that has emerged analytically within the past 10 years. ..."
    "... So I think that is the reason for the end of the American Conservative Movement. It really goes back to what Eric Hoffer said: "Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket ." It's a racket. ..."
    "... But the good news is, as John Derbyshire said a few minutes ago, that ultimately Conservatism -- or Rightism -- is a personality type. It underlies politics and it will crop up again-just as, to our astonishment, Donald Trump has cropped up. ..."
    Nov 19, 2016 | www.unz.com
    The core of conservatism, it seems to me, is this recognition and acceptance of the elemental emotions. Conservatism understands that it is futile to debate the feelings of the mother for her child-or such human instincts as the bonds of tribe , nation , even race . Of course, all are painfully vulnerable to deconstruction by rationalistic intellectuals-but not, ultimately, to destruction. These commitments are Jungian rather than Freudian, not irrational but a-rational-beyond the reach of reason.

    This is one of the problems, by the way, with the American Conservative Movement. I was completely astonished when it fell apart at the end of the Cold War -- I never thought it would. That's because I assumed that everybody realized that America standing up to the Soviet Union was, in some sense, a nationalist resistance. Americans just didn't want to be conquered by Russians.

    But, it turned out that there were people who had joined the anti-Communist coalition who harbored messianic fantasies about "global democracy" and and America as the first "universal nation" (i.e. polity. Nation-states must have a specific ethnic core.) They also had uses for the American military which hadn't occurred to me. But they didn't care about America-about America as a nation-state, the political expression of a particular people, the Historic American Nation. In fact, in some cases, it made them feel uneasy.

    I thought about this this spring when Trump was debating in New Hampshire. ABC's John Muir asked three candidates: "What does it mean to be Conservative?"

    I'm going to quote from John Kasich: blah, blah, blah, blah. Balanced budgets-tax cuts-jobs-"but once we have economic growth I believe we have to reach out to people who live in the shadows." By this he meant, not illegal aliens, although he did favor Amnesty , but "the mentally ill, the drug addicted, the working poor [and] our friends in the minority community."

    That's because the Republican Party has lots of friends in the minority community.

    Marco Rubio said:

    it's about three things. The first is conservatism is about limited government, especially at the federal level It's about free enterprise And it's about a strong national defense. It's about believing, unlike Barack Obama, that the world is a safer and a better place when America is the strongest military and the strongest nation on this planet. That's conservatism.

    Kasich and Rubio's answers, of course, are not remotely "conservative" but utilitarian, economistic, classical liberal. Note that Rubio even felt obliged to justify "strong national defense" in universalistic, Wilsonian terms: it will make the world "a safer and a better place."

    In contrast to all that, Donald Trump said:

    I view the word conservative as a derivative of the word conserve. We want to converse our money. We want to conserve our wealth We want to conserve our country. We want to save our country.

    Now, this caused a considerable amount of harrumphing among Conservative Inc. intellectuals and various Republican politicians. Somebody called John Hart , who writes a thing called Opportunity Lives -has anybody heard of it? It's a very well-funded Libertarianism Inc. website in Washington. Nobody has heard of it? Good. Hart said:

    Trump's answer may have been how conservatives described themselves once: in 1957. But today's modern conservative movement isn't a hoarding or protectionist philosophy. Conservatism isn't about conserving; it's about growth.

    [ Conservatism is Still A Second Language to Donald Trump Opportunity Lives, January 7, 2016]

    "Growth"? Well, I don't think so. And not just because I remember 1957 . As I said, I think it turned out that American Conservatism was just a transitional phase. And now it's over.

    Why did it end? After Buckley purged John O'Sullivan and all of us immigration patriots from National Review in 1997, we spent a lot of time thinking about why he had done this. And there were a lot of complicated psychological explanations: Bill was getting old, he was jealous of his successor, the new Editor, John O'Sullivan, he was terrified of the neoconservatives who didn't like the emphasis on immigration because of their own ethnic agenda, and he was very inclined to listen to the Congressional Republicans, who didn't want to talk about immigration because they are terrified too-because they are cowards, basically-and also because they have big corporate donors . And, I think that is part of the explanation.

    darknessatnoonBut there was a similar discussion in the 1950s and 1960s, which I'm old enough to remember, about why the Old Bolsheviks all testified against themselves in the treason trials during Stalin's Great Purge . They all admitted to the most fantastic things-that they had been spies for the Americans and the British and the capitalist imperialists all along, that they'd plotted to assassinate Comrade Stalin. And there were all kinds of discussions as to why this was, and in fact a wonderful novel, Darkness At Noon [ PDF ] by Arthur Koestler , one of the most remarkable novels in the last century, describing the exquisite psychological process by which an old Bolshevik in prison came to the conclusion that he was going to have to say all these things in the long-term interest of the Revolution.

    Do you agree about Darkness At Noon , Paul? [ Paul Gottfried indicates assent ]

    Good.

    Well, when Nikita Khrushchev got up and denounced Stalin in at the party conference in 1956, he was asked about this. Why did all these Old Bolsheviks turn turtle like this? And his answer was: "Beat, beat, beat."

    In other words, there is no complex psychological explanation : they were just tortured. I think that goes to what happened to the American Conservative Movement. It wasn't tortured; it was bought . It was simply bought . I think the dominance of the Donorist class and the Donorist Party is one of the things that has emerged analytically within the past 10 years.

    When I was first writing about American politics and got involved in American politics–and I started by working for John Ashbrook (not Ashcroft , Ash brook ) against Nixon in 1972 –nobody thought about donors. We have only gradually become conscious of them. And their absolute dominant role, and their ability to prohibit policy discussions, has really only become clear in the last five to ten years.

    I think, in retrospect, with Buckley , who subsidized his lifestyle out of the National Review to a scandalous extent, that there was some financial transaction. I think that now.

    It's an open secret that Rich Lowry did not want to come out and with this anti-Trump issue that they published earlier this year, but he was compelled to do it. That's not the type of thing that Lowry would normally do. He wouldn't take that kind of risk, he's a courtier, he would never take the risk of not being invited to ride in Trump's limousine in the case that Trump won. But, apparently, someone forced him to do it. And I think that someone was a donor and I think I know who it was.

    So I think that is the reason for the end of the American Conservative Movement. It really goes back to what Eric Hoffer said: "Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket ." It's a racket.

    But the good news is, as John Derbyshire said a few minutes ago, that ultimately Conservatism -- or Rightism -- is a personality type. It underlies politics and it will crop up again-just as, to our astonishment, Donald Trump has cropped up.

    So, I guess my bottom line here is: " Don't despair ."

    Peter Brimelow [ Email him ] is the editor of VDARE.com. His best-selling book, Alien Nation: Common Sense About America's Immigration Disaster , is now available in Kindle format.

    [Nov 19, 2016] Provocation of KGB/FSB on the front page of neoliberal yellow rag Economist ;-)

    Nov 19, 2016 | marknesop.wordpress.com

    Lyttenburgh ,

    November 18, 2016 at 12:19 am
    Provocation of KGB/FSB!

    First of all – turns out Ed Lucas' personal pleasure object (aka "The Economist") has no idea, who are the Chinese. Second – the depiction of MLP is uncanonical! I protest! We, human masses, demand more canonical depiction of Marine Le Pen! Reply

    [Nov 19, 2016] Former Turkish general: Trump could broker peace in Syria and end the civil war

    Notable quotes:
    "... "I'm thinking that Donald Trump seems a realistic and a pragmatist man," retired Gen. Ilker Basburg, a former chief of staff of the Turkish military, told reporters Wednesday. "I think he will open a direct link with the central Syrian government." ..."
    "... However, Trump has said the main U.S. goal in Syria is the defeat of the Islamic State group and not the future of the Syrian government. He said the ouster of Arab strongmen in Egypt, Yemen and Libya have served to destabilize the Middle East and led to the rise of Islamic extremists. ..."
    "... On Wednesday, Erdogan announced Turkish-backed forces were close to retaking al-Bab, a city about 20 miles east of Aleppo, from the Islamic State group. Turkey believes the capture of al-Bab as strategically important because it keeps Kurdish forces from taking it and consolidating their territory in northern Syria along the Turkish border. ..."
    www.stripes.com

    A former top Turkish general said Donald Trump's election could hasten the end of the Syrian civil war by opening the door to negotiations with the Syrian government of President Bashar Assad.

    "I'm thinking that Donald Trump seems a realistic and a pragmatist man," retired Gen. Ilker Basburg, a former chief of staff of the Turkish military, told reporters Wednesday. "I think he will open a direct link with the central Syrian government."

    The United States and Turkey have demanded that Assad step down as part of any agreement to end the five-year Syrian war.

    However, Trump has said the main U.S. goal in Syria is the defeat of the Islamic State group and not the future of the Syrian government. He said the ouster of Arab strongmen in Egypt, Yemen and Libya have served to destabilize the Middle East and led to the rise of Islamic extremists.

    Basburg's views do not reflect those of the Turkish government of Recep Tayyip Erdogan. In fact, Basburg was imprisoned for life in 2013 for conspiring against the Turkish government but the courts overturned the conviction in 2014.

    Nevertheless, Basburg said Turkey's interests in Syria have evolved since the war began in 2011, in large part because of the role of Kurdish militants, whom the Turks consider an enemy. But the Kurds are supported by the United States, Turkey's longtime ally. Turkey was alarmed when a Kurdish-dominated rebel alliance seized the border city of Manbij from the Islamic State group.

    On Wednesday, Erdogan announced Turkish-backed forces were close to retaking al-Bab, a city about 20 miles east of Aleppo, from the Islamic State group. Turkey believes the capture of al-Bab as strategically important because it keeps Kurdish forces from taking it and consolidating their territory in northern Syria along the Turkish border.

    Basburg said Turkey's top concern is having a secure border with Syria. With the United States and Turkey re-evaluating their interests in Syria, he was optimistic a new administration "will make some different policy."

    "We have to work with [the current Syrian] government. Today, [it's] Assad. Tomorrow, somebody else might be head of the government," he said.

    Basburg also said Russia and Iran would also need to be involved in the negotiations.

    "Turkey and the United States have been old friends," Basburg said, but U.S. ties to the Kurdish forces have led to questions about that relationship.

    [Nov 19, 2016] M of A - Open Thread (NOT U.S. Election) 2016-39

    Notable quotes:
    "... This "regime change" U$A foreign policy, has been implemented around the globe for many many years now, all in the interests of big corporate profits, and global hegemony. The sad truth seems to be, there are no signs its about to change. ..."
    "... No, you will not be seeing "Maidan". Middle America white (and not only) working class men are extremely well armed and are really angry still. So, if this rioting will come to Washington, who says that good ole' Ford Truck can not run over mountain bike of Tesla? Once the shooting starts (hopefully not) it will be a totally different game than Kiev "Maidan". There is also a trend, call it a hunch--most of US combat veterans from US endless wars tend to lean towards people like Trump. ..."
    "... The coming conflict is between globalism and nationalism. The basic problem is numbers. Rule by monopolistic global corporations, at best, supports 20% of the population in the short term. It enriches the ruling elite and their servants and improvises everyone else. In the long term, climate change or a nuclear war, brought on by the blind needs of greed, will end the world as we know it. Brexit and the Trump Presidency proved that globalism and democracy are incompatible. For globalism to proceed in the middle term, it will require a surveillance police state, total propaganda, reeducation camps and the shutdown of this bar. ..."
    "... Americans don't care who is devastated and destroyed by 'globalization' ... other than themselves. ..."
    Nov 19, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org
    nmb | Nov 18, 2016 1:59:59 PM | 1
    The Podesta emails - After Hillary, John Podesta had been seriously warned about the Syrian chaos

    Stevens | Nov 18, 2016 2:16:40 PM | 2
    Although it is hilarious to see the Hillary supporters throwing a massive tantrum about 'fake news,' it does make it clear just how powerful having direct access to information is in negating money, mainstream media capture and control, and government propaganda.

    I don't know how much the new Trump presidency will change the US intelligence agency culture. But one has to assume they are apoplectic over their failure in Syria. Billions of dollars and years wasted all because people have direct access to information unfiltered out of Syria.

    It should have a completely unremarkable US regime change operation:

    1. Send in the NGOs to agitate locals
    2. Make promises of support for attacks on the government by the sole world superpower
    3. Get selectively edited footage of your collaborators on the ground being attacked by the government(after they attacked the government)
    4. Pump out mass amounts of propaganda based off that footage: "Simple farmers rising up to overthrow a brutal regime!"
    5. Wield the tremendous economic power of the US to ensure the vast majority of smaller countries are on board with military action sanctioned by the UN
    6. Flood the country with arms for anyone no matter how crazy to attack the government
    7. Fake chemical attacks, US intelligence agency compromised UN reports and inspectors, etc.

    All of that derailed by nothing more than people having direct access to information uncensored out of Syria.

    I think it is safe to assume the US intelligence agencies are actively working on ways to make it illegal or impossible for anyone to publish, share, or consume 'unauthorized' information from countries that are targets of regime change.

    The easiest way would be to designate any source of information not actively working with or approved by the US intelligence agencies will be increasingly labeled as 'terror propaganda' and US social media and Internet providers will be required to censor or shutdown any such sources.

    ben | Nov 18, 2016 2:34:13 PM | 3
    Stevens @ 2: Great post, thanks.

    This "regime change" U$A foreign policy, has been implemented around the globe for many many years now, all in the interests of big corporate profits, and global hegemony. The sad truth seems to be, there are no signs its about to change.

    ALberto | Nov 18, 2016 3:00:02 PM | 4
    I was watching a travelogue program on PBS. The trip was to Cuba. The narrator traveled by train across the country. A train line that was originally built in the 1870s by Spain to divide the country for defensive and control purposes. The locomotives pulling the passenger cars were 1950s USA manufactured vintage and date to a time when our Federal Government had good economic relations with the Batista Regiem.

    When I think of the cruel and unusual economic punishment dished out to Cuba by our Federal Government all I can see is a bunch of financially poor peasants who bear the brunt of U.S. economic warfare. Just as in the Middle East and now Europe economic sanction wars hurt the farmer, the small business operator, the basic family unit, etc., while rich people get richer. Isn't it about time to back off on the economic war against Cuba and the rest of the Planet? Our collective cruelty seems to know no bounds?

    Just my opinion

    Jen | Nov 18, 2016 3:01:27 PM | 5
    Bernhard, I should think most of us reading and commenting here have pretty much accepted the result of the US presidential elections and are glad that Killer Klinton's ambitions have crashed and her future seems to be in a white house with steel bar columns and uniformed prison guards.

    The focus is now on President-elect Donald Trump's likely cabinet appointments, who are the most likely choices for critical positions like Defense Secretary and State Secretary, what the process is and how that is being carried out (or not carried out), and what that says about Trump's leadership and decision-making style, how he plans on being President and whether his choices are the right choices for his agenda (if it is genuine) of reforming the political culture on Capitol Hill, or "draining the swamp".

    If indeed Trump is intent on bringing changes to Capitol Hill, then there's a strong likelihood that the Soros-funded "Color Revolution" rioting around the US East and West Coasts will come to Washington and we'll be seeing a re-enactment of the Kiev Maidan events there.

    /div>
    james | Nov 18, 2016 3:36:30 PM | 7
    @2 stevens..thanks for your comments. lets hope open access to information continues.. the signs of this happening don't look great, but they remain open still.. thankfully, moa is one of many sites where sharing info is of great benefit and continues..

    M K Bhadrakumar's latest..

    meanwhile obama, merkel, hollandaze and their italian counterpart have all agreed to continue for another year, the sanctions on russia over ukraine.. the bozo head for nato jens stalenbread or however his name is spelled, continues on with the disingenuous musings of an old king about to reenact a version of humpty dumpty..

    meanwhile the witch hunt on acedemics, or anyone associated with gulen continues in turkey.. erdogan was visiting pakistan the past few days and i happened to read this on the usa state dept daily transcript from yesterday in the form of a question.

    Question :"Turkish President Erdogan is in Pakistan today, and he publicly suggested to Pakistan that the West was behind ISIS in order to hurt Muslims, quote, "It is certain that Western countries are standing by Daesh. Now Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and many others are suffering from terrorism and separatist terrorism."What's your comment on that? Do you think it's a reasonable statement?

    MR KIRBY: No, I do not."

    it is pretty funny how these daily press briefings highlight usa propaganda in such a distinct and colourful manner.. fortunately the odd journalist asks questions that lift the veil that is constantly being thrown out by these same masters of propaganda..

    SmoothieX12 | Nov 18, 2016 3:49:18 PM | 8
    @5
    If indeed Trump is intent on bringing changes to Capitol Hill, then there's a strong likelihood that the Soros-funded "Color Revolution" rioting around the US East and West Coasts will come to Washington and we'll be seeing a re-enactment of the Kiev Maidan events there.

    No, you will not be seeing "Maidan". Middle America white (and not only) working class men are extremely well armed and are really angry still. So, if this rioting will come to Washington, who says that good ole' Ford Truck can not run over mountain bike of Tesla? Once the shooting starts (hopefully not) it will be a totally different game than Kiev "Maidan". There is also a trend, call it a hunch--most of US combat veterans from US endless wars tend to lean towards people like Trump.

    /div>
    VietnamVet | Nov 18, 2016 4:56:50 PM | 17
    The coming conflict is between globalism and nationalism. The basic problem is numbers. Rule by monopolistic global corporations, at best, supports 20% of the population in the short term. It enriches the ruling elite and their servants and improvises everyone else. In the long term, climate change or a nuclear war, brought on by the blind needs of greed, will end the world as we know it. Brexit and the Trump Presidency proved that globalism and democracy are incompatible. For globalism to proceed in the middle term, it will require a surveillance police state, total propaganda, reeducation camps and the shutdown of this bar.

    lysias | Nov 18, 2016 4:58:30 PM | 18
    Who decides which news is fake? Sounds like an easy way to limit freedom of speech and of the press.

    Why can't people be allowed to decide for themselves which news is fake?

    lysias | Nov 18, 2016 5:01:17 PM | 19
    As a retired officer of the U.S. Navy, I would be very disappointed if a majority of the officer corps supported Hillary. It would be very disappointing if they put their increased chances of promotion in new wars over the good of the country. Disappointing, but not exactly surprising.

    /div>
    peter | Nov 18, 2016 5:16:47 PM | 21
    It's great that there's some dialog between Trump and Putin. I think at least Western Syria will be cleansed of jihadis as a result.

    But Trump might be a little more hard nosed in the future. After the tensions are dialed down and having the score at basically Russia 1, US 0, he's not going to be so pliable. He sure as fuck isn't going to throw Israel under a bus. He's not going to roll over on all American commitments in the region.

    Trump's been getting a complete rundown on the big picture. It's no secret that until recently he couldn't have found Damascus on a map. Now he knows about the Shiite Crescent and how the arms can flow from Iran to Syria to Hezbollah in Lebanon in volumes like never before and how upsetting that is for Israel.

    Now there's action towards taking Raqqa by the Kurds and who knows who else. The US and its posse will provide the air cover and logistics plus lots of special ops once it kicks in. I'm surprised the Kurds bit again after taking it up the arse from the US a couple of months ago They're not going all in right now as things are ongoing in Mosul and will be for a while. But you don't hear Assad and the Russians squawking much about it. It's like they both know that parts of Eastern Syria are bye-bye.

    Trump's good will towards Russia certainly doesn't extend to Iran. And no American will ever call Hezbollah anything bur a terrorist organization after the Marine barracks truck bombing in Beirut all those years ago. If Putin and Trump are going to come to a general understanding in the ME there's going to have to be some give and take.

    Putin's done quite a turnaround in taking Russia from a pariah state a couple of years ago to the player on the world sage that it is now. It's looking good for him to keep his man in power in Syria and to establish a permanent presence in the ME with Khmeimim and Tartus. Once Trump is fully up to speed on the totality of American interests in the region he is bound by his office not to walk away from them. There will have to be some serious deal-making.

    SmoothieX12 | Nov 18, 2016 5:28:28 PM | 22
    Putin's done quite a turnaround in taking Russia from a pariah state a couple of years ago to the player on the world sage that it is now.

    Your timeline is a bit off. The coming of Putin was a direct result of NATO's 1999 aggression against Yugoslavia, while War of 08-08-08 was the start of Russia's return into big league. So, it is not a "couple of years". Results of War of 080808 actually stunned DC's neocon interventionist cabal.

    jdmckay | Nov 18, 2016 5:47:15 PM | 23
    Who decides which news is fake?

    Buzzfeed did some analysis on Social media generated fake news during the election. An awful lot of it was simply false. You can look at some of those headlines and judge for yourself.

    Ironically, Paul Horner (guy behind "fake news empire" I linked in prior post) said:

    He said he didn't do it for ideological reasons. "I hate Trump," he told The Post. "I thought I was messing with the campaign, maybe I wasn't messing them up as much as I wanted - but I never thought he'd actually get elected."

    Just happens 70% + of fake news this election cycle (according to Buzzfeed) was anti-Clinton.

    chipnik | Nov 18, 2016 5:52:07 PM | 24
    ....and how the arms can flow from Libya and Zio-Ukraine to ISIS in Syria and Hezbollah in Lebanon in volumes like never before and how 'upsetting'(sic) that is for Israel.

    Yeah, 'upsetting' to the Israel Likud former-Soviet mafia which fully supports ISIS and maintains 'Hezbullah' straw dog, to keep UN forces out of Greater Israel and torpedo the Two-State Solution and the Right-of-Return agreements which Netanyahu freely boasted he lied about supporting.

    http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/02/07/when-reagan-cut-and-run/

    MoA isn't another Likud psyop disinformation campaign for the new Trump-Israel First Regime. Remember it was your team's counterfeit Yellow Cake Big Lie that assassinated the Baathists, and paved the way for Shi'ia's defensive action against the Bush-Cheney IL Wahhabi's usurpers and crusaders. You theory will do much better on Breitbart.

    /div>
    karlof1 | Nov 18, 2016 7:20:53 PM | 29
    Ted Rall makes the important distinction that Trump's fascism will continue and build upon Obama's fascism, http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/11/18/trumps-fascism-picks-up-where-obamas-left-off/

    Liberal Fascism is the hallmark of the Outlaw US Empire since its inception.

    /div>
    Brad | Nov 18, 2016 7:39:57 PM | 31
    http://www.rferl.org/a/us-house-votes-renew-iran-sanctions-sanction-syrian-backers-iran-russia/28119954.html

    Trump getting forced by Obama and deep state

    jfl | Nov 18, 2016 7:45:28 PM | 32
    @2 Stevens, 'All of that derailed by nothing more than people having direct access to information uncensored out of Syria.'

    The US/GCC/NATO were on track and heading in for the kill before Russia stepped in. Americans don't care who is devastated and destroyed by 'globalization' ... other than themselves. Bernie's candidacy was proof of that: not a word on foreign policy. All the information in the world won't change that. Americans don't put people living outside the US in the same category as themselves. God put them all those others 'out there' to be killed by Americans ... when they 'need' killin'.

    Julian | Nov 18, 2016 9:18:56 PM | 40
    Italian Referendum next up - Renzi on the way out?

    In a sense it's a bit of a pity because to me Renzi seems the least objectionable of the leaders of the EU Big 6 - Merkel, Hollande, May, Rajoy, Rutte & Renzi.

    He actually looks good when compared to the rest of them!

    dh | Nov 18, 2016 9:23:16 PM | 41
    The House Foreign Affairs Committee pushing for war. This is what Trump has to deal with....

    "The bill also sets the stage for the implementation of so-called safe zones and a no-fly zone over Syria. It requires the administration to "submit to the appropriate congressional committee" a report that "assesses the potential effectiveness, risks and operational requirements of the establishment and maintenance of a no-fly zone over part of all of Syria." Further, the bill calls for the administration to detail the "operational and legal requirements for US and coalition air power to establish a no-fly zone in Syria."

    https://www.thenation.com/article/the-dangerous-and-shortsighted-push-to-contain-iran/

    [Nov 18, 2016] I gather our President lectured our President Elect on the necessity to stand up to Russia.

    Notable quotes:
    "... I gather our President lectured our President Elect on the necessity to stand up to Russia. (My first thought is that like that stupid charitable campaign to Stand Up to Cancer!, another place where the phrase was either meaningless or foolhardy.) ..."
    "... IF Russia ever started actually interfering in our relations with our neighbors or attempted to get us thrown out of our legal bases in foreign nations, I would say that Barack Obama might have a point. Since we are the party guilty of such actions, he would do better to clean up his own administration's relations with Russia, apologize to Russia, and then STFU. ..."
    "... 'Obama Urges Trump to Maintain Pointless, Hyper-Aggresive Encirclement of Russia Strategy, Acknowledge Nuclear Apocalypse "Inevitable"' ..."
    "... In the best of circumstances, Obama in his post-presidency will be akin to Jimmy Carter and stay out of politics, less or less. (I think he has exhausted all trust and value.) If he goes the Jimmy Carter route; he is bound to do worse and will fade away. I don't think he'll go the Clinton route unless Michelle tries to run for office. ..."
    "... The good people of the US are awaiting DHS' final report on Russia's attempts to hack our elections. We deserve as much. ..."
    "... If there's any basis to the allegations it's about time someone provided it. Up till now it's been unfounded assertions. Highly suspect at that. ..."
    "... My guess is the whole Russian boogeyman was a ploy to attract those "moderate Republicans" who liked Romney. ..."
    "... "My hope is that the president-elect coming in takes a similarly constructive approach, finding areas where we can cooperate with Russia where our values and interests align, but that the president-elect also is willing to stand up to Russia when they are deviating from our values and international norms," Obama said. "But I don't expect that the president-elect will follow exactly our approach." ..."
    "... Yes, because "U.S. values" as defined by the actions of the last 16 years have been so enlightened and successful and because the U.S. is a sterling example of adhering to international norms ..."
    "... Just how deluded, ignorant or sociopathic does a person need to be that they can say things like that without vomiting? ..."
    Nov 18, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Pat November 17, 2016 at 2:38 pm

    I gather our President lectured our President Elect on the necessity to stand up to Russia. (My first thought is that like that stupid charitable campaign to Stand Up to Cancer!, another place where the phrase was either meaningless or foolhardy.)

    IF Russia ever started actually interfering in our relations with our neighbors or attempted to get us thrown out of our legal bases in foreign nations, I would say that Barack Obama might have a point. Since we are the party guilty of such actions, he would do better to clean up his own administration's relations with Russia, apologize to Russia, and then STFU.

    Which I am sure he will do once everyone recognizes that that is the appropriate thing to do. But as we well know everyone else will have to do the heavy lifting of figuring that out before he will even acknowledge the possibility.

    Katharine November 17, 2016 at 3:26 pm

    The Guardian headline struck me as hilarious:

    Obama urges Trump against realpolitik in relations with Russia
    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/17/obama-urges-trump-against-realpolitik-in-relations-with-russia

    I mean, we can't have people actually taking our real interests into consideration in foreign relations, can we? That would be so–unexceptional.

    JSM November 17, 2016 at 10:15 pm

    Why not make it affirmative?

    'Obama Urges Trump to Maintain Pointless, Hyper-Aggresive Encirclement of Russia Strategy, Acknowledge Nuclear Apocalypse "Inevitable"'

    Knot Galt November 17, 2016 at 3:46 pm

    In the best of circumstances, Obama in his post-presidency will be akin to Jimmy Carter and stay out of politics, less or less. (I think he has exhausted all trust and value.) If he goes the Jimmy Carter route; he is bound to do worse and will fade away. I don't think he'll go the Clinton route unless Michelle tries to run for office.

    In this case, Obama is probably too vain and Michelle being the saner of the two might rein him in? Best of any world would, as you say, STFU. (As the Ex Prez. Obamamometer, that is probably not in the cards.)

    OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL November 18, 2016 at 12:28 am

    Maybe he will end up like Geo Bush, sitting in the bathtub drooling while he paints childish self-portraits
    Or maybe he will end up like OJ, where he tries to go hang out with all his cool friends and they tell him to get lost

    Adamski November 18, 2016 at 5:18 am

    Ppl still mention him as a master orator, etc. Lots of post presidency speaking engagements I suppose. I'd prefer him not to but then again if he makes enough annually from it to beat the Clintons we might get the satisfaction of annoying them

    JTMcPhee November 17, 2016 at 3:53 pm

    "legal bases in foreign nations " Another reason why "we" are Fokked, thinking like that.

    JSM November 17, 2016 at 4:48 pm

    The good people of the US are awaiting DHS' final report on Russia's attempts to hack our elections. We deserve as much.

    Steve C November 17, 2016 at 5:08 pm

    If there's any basis to the allegations it's about time someone provided it. Up till now it's been unfounded assertions. Highly suspect at that.

    NotTimothyGeithner November 17, 2016 at 6:11 pm

    My guess is the whole Russian boogeyman was a ploy to attract those "moderate Republicans" who liked Romney.

    timbers November 17, 2016 at 5:43 pm

    "My hope is that the president-elect coming in takes a similarly constructive approach, finding areas where we can cooperate with Russia where our values and interests align, but that the president-elect also is willing to stand up to Russia when they are deviating from our values and international norms," Obama said. "But I don't expect that the president-elect will follow exactly our approach." What Obama is saying is he wants Russia to join America in bombing hospitals, schools, children, doctors, public facilities like water treatment plants, bridges, weddings, homes, and civilians to list just few – while arming and supporting terrorists for regime change. And if anyone points this out, Russia like the US is supposed to say "I know you are but what am I?"

    RMO November 17, 2016 at 6:28 pm

    Yes, because "U.S. values" as defined by the actions of the last 16 years have been so enlightened and successful and because the U.S. is a sterling example of adhering to international norms

    Just how deluded, ignorant or sociopathic does a person need to be that they can say things like that without vomiting?

    Lemmy November 17, 2016 at 2:42 pm

    Is this the same Russia that just hacked our election and subverted our fine democracy? Why, President Obama, I believe it behooves you to stand up to Russia yourself. Show President-Elect Trump how it is done sir!

    [Nov 18, 2016] Former US Intelligence Chief Admits Obama Took "Willful Decision" to Support ISIS Rise

    Notable quotes:
    "... "US votes against UN resolution condemning Nazism": http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2016/11/18/494118/US-UN-Russia-Nazi ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org

    From The Hague | Nov 18, 2016 7:06:06 AM | 64

    THIS IS "CHANGE"

    The successor of Susan Rice:

    Hasan (Interviewer) (From 11.15 onwards into the interview): "In 2012, your agency was saying, quote: "The Salafists, the Muslim Brotherhood and Al-Qaeda in Iraq [(which ISIS arose out of)], are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria." In 2012, the US was helping coordinate arms transfers to those same groups. Why did you not stop that if you're worried about the rise of Islamic extremism?"

    Flynn: "Well I hate to say it's not my job, but my job was to ensure that the accuracy of our intelligence that was being presented was as good as it could be, and I will tell you, it goes before 2012. When we were in Iraq, and we still had decisions to be made before there was a decision to pull out of Iraq in 2011, it was very clear what we were going to face."

    Hasan (Interviewer): You are basically saying that even in government at the time, you knew those groups were around, you saw this analysis, and you were arguing against it, but who wasn't listening?"

    Flynn: "I think the administration."

    Hasan (Interviewer): "So the administration turned a blind eye to your analysis?"

    Flynn: "I don't know if they turned a blind eye. I think it was a decision, a willful decision."

    Hasan (Interviewer): "A willful decision to support an insurgency that had Salafists, Al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood?"

    Flynn: "A willful decision to do what they're doing You have to really ask the President what is it that he actually is doing with the policy that is in place, because it is very, very confusing."

    Former US Intelligence Chief Admits Obama Took "Willful Decision" to Support ISIS Rise

    http://journal-neo.org/2015/08/13/former-us-intelligence-chief-admits-obama-took-willful-decision-to-support-isis-rise/

    POL | Nov 18, 2016 7:25:33 AM | 65

    Obama support nazis at the UN:

    "US votes against UN resolution condemning Nazism": http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2016/11/18/494118/US-UN-Russia-Nazi

    [Nov 18, 2016] The American Conservative magazine on repairing the USA relationship with Russia

    Notable quotes:
    "... Even when I was there, which was prior to their entry into the EU and NATO, but after the ascension of Putin, the Estonians put their museum about the deportations directly across from the Russian Embassy and hung a banner across the street with a hammer and sickle with "No people, no problem" written in Estonian. That's not the action of a people who are afraid. ..."
    Nov 19, 2016 | marknesop.wordpress.com
    et Al , November 18, 2016 at 3:05 am
    The Conservative American via Antiwar.com: Repairing the U.S.-Russia Relationship
    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/repairing-the-u-s-russia-relationship/

    By Daniel Larison

    I was part of the second panel at TAC's foreign policy conference yesterday on U.S.-Russian relations. Here are the remarks I gave:

    U.S.-Russian relations are worse than they have been at any point since the end of the Cold War, and both governments have defined their interests in Syria and Ukraine in such a way that it is difficult to see how they will improve in the near future unless one of them changes its positions. We can't control how Moscow interprets its interests in these places, but we can reassess and modify how we think about ours.

    Great powers always have some competing and conflicting interests, and so the task of wise political leaders is to distinguish between disputes over what are ultimately tangential interests and those that genuinely touch on matters of vital importance and then to find ways to manage disputes over the latter without stumbling into armed conflict.
    ####

    More at the link. There was also on interesting comment to the article:

    VikingLS , November 17, 2016 at 8:25 pm

    "Not exactly sure that the Baltic States would be terribly reassured by a more relaxed US attitude toward Russia."

    I lived in the Baltics for a while, I like it there, but to be blunt, so what?

    Even when I was there, which was prior to their entry into the EU and NATO, but after the ascension of Putin, the Estonians put their museum about the deportations directly across from the Russian Embassy and hung a banner across the street with a hammer and sickle with "No people, no problem" written in Estonian. That's not the action of a people who are afraid.

    Honestly, given that the Baltic states also benefit from being a jumping off point for people who want to do business in Russia, but not be in Russia, they'd be better off if the situation deescalated.

    Pavlo Svolochenko , November 18, 2016 at 3:36 am
    They're better off dying out, and they're too thick to do anything else.
    yalensis , November 18, 2016 at 4:31 am
    From a Comparative Linguist POV, it will be a shame really to see those 2 ancient Indo-Aryan languages (Lith and Latv) die out. But without Communist curation, those languages are doomed, unfortunately.

    Oh well, at least they have been properly written down, again mostly thanks to the Communists, before all people stop speaking and writing them.

    [Nov 18, 2016] Course Correction

    Dimitri Simes is highly questionable historian, mostly producing neocon-charged junk... But some observation about reckless application of the US dominant position in the world after dissolution of the USSR to crush small countries and control their resources (especially oil) by neocon worth reading.
    Notable quotes:
    "... George H. W. Bush administration did not want to deprive the mujahideen of total victory by granting a role to the Soviet Union's Afghan clients. ..."
    "... As late as 1999, during a period of strained U.S.-Russia relations following NATO airstrikes in Serbia, Vladimir Putin proposed U.S.-Russia cooperation against the Taliban and Al Qaeda. It took until after 9/11, well after Islamist extremism had metastasized throughout the Greater Middle East, for the George W. Bush administration to agree to work in concert with Moscow in Afghanistan. ..."
    "... the Obama administration called for the ouster of Bashar al-Assad's secular authoritarian regime in Damascus ..."
    "... in Libya, where the administration decapitated a repressive regime that had made peace with the United States without planning-or even intending-to assist in establishing order and security on the ground. ..."
    "... Few policies have alarmed Moscow as much as NATO's expansion. Just as George F. Kennan predicted in a letter to the National Interest ..."
    "... After the Cold War, each state chose to disenfranchise the vast majority of its Russian-speaking population as well as other minority groups. Because post-independence Estonia and Latvia were continuations of states that existed between the First and Second World Wars, they asserted, only the descendants of those citizens could become citizens of the new states. Even many third-generation residents-meaning both they and their parents were born in Estonia or Latvia-were given second-class status, denied many jobs and deprived of participation in national politics. ..."
    Nov 18, 2016 | nationalinterest.org

    ...U.S. interventions have contributed to the menace of radicalism. Indeed, Al Qaeda's origins in Afghanistan are inseparable from U.S. support for radical Islamist fighters resisting the Soviet invasion and U.S. decisions about post-Soviet Afghanistan. Toward the end of the war, Mikhail Gorbachev's Soviet government proposed negotiations to establish a coalition government in Kabul. Sensing Moscow's weak position, the usually pragmatic George H. W. Bush administration did not want to deprive the mujahideen of total victory by granting a role to the Soviet Union's Afghan clients. Once Boris Yeltsin's post-Soviet Russia ceased military support for the Kabul regime, Washington got its wish. Yet the incoming Clinton administration did little to fill the vacuum and allowed the Taliban to assume power and harbor Al Qaeda.

    As late as 1999, during a period of strained U.S.-Russia relations following NATO airstrikes in Serbia, Vladimir Putin proposed U.S.-Russia cooperation against the Taliban and Al Qaeda. It took until after 9/11, well after Islamist extremism had metastasized throughout the Greater Middle East, for the George W. Bush administration to agree to work in concert with Moscow in Afghanistan.

    Likewise, U.S. policy in Iraq has contributed to new and unnecessary threats. Saddam Hussein was a genocidal dictator, but had no ties to anti-American terrorist groups that could justify the invasion and occupation of Iraq, particularly in the absence of weapons of mass destruction. Nevertheless, if it was a mistake to go into Iraq in the first place, it was no less a mistake to abandon a weak government with limited control of its own territory and a recent history of violent internal conflict.

    Outside Iraq, as instability spread from Tunisia to Egypt, Syria and Libya, the Obama administration called for the ouster of Bashar al-Assad's secular authoritarian regime in Damascus. U.S. officials were trying to promote stability on one side of the Iraq-Syria border and regime change on the other-without investing much in either. That ISIS or a group like it would emerge from this was entirely predictable.

    The same can be said of other U.S. choices in the Middle East, as in Libya, where the administration decapitated a repressive regime that had made peace with the United States without planning-or even intending-to assist in establishing order and security on the ground. Why were U.S. and NATO officials surprised that Libya became simultaneously safe for terrorists and unsafe for many of its citizens, who then fled to Europe?

    ... ... ...

    Few policies have alarmed Moscow as much as NATO's expansion. Just as George F. Kennan predicted in a letter to the National Interest in 1998, NATO's relentless expansion along Russia's borders fed a nationalist and militaristic mood across the country's political spectrum. A bold move as this almost literally moved NATO to the suburbs of St. Petersburg, incorporating Estonia and Latvia into NATO was especially difficult for Moscow to stomach. Although today more than 25 percent of Estonia and Latvia's populations are ethnically Russian, this figure was significantly higher at the time of the Soviet collapse. After the Cold War, each state chose to disenfranchise the vast majority of its Russian-speaking population as well as other minority groups. Because post-independence Estonia and Latvia were continuations of states that existed between the First and Second World Wars, they asserted, only the descendants of those citizens could become citizens of the new states. Even many third-generation residents-meaning both they and their parents were born in Estonia or Latvia-were given second-class status, denied many jobs and deprived of participation in national politics.

    Demographics produced political reality in the form of nationalist and anti-Russian governments. Granting those governments NATO membership confirmed Moscow's suspicions that NATO remained what it was during the Cold War: an anti-Russian alliance. Worse for the United States, Washington and its allies extended their security umbrella to these states without assessing how to defend them short of war with a major nuclear power. Even if U.S. policy was guided by a genuine desire to ensure independence for these long-suffering nations, it was unreasonable to think that Washington could expand NATO-not to mention, promise Georgia and Ukraine eventual membership-without provoking Moscow's countermove.

    Few recall that Vladimir Putin originally sought to make Russia a major part of a united Europe. Instead, NATO expansion predictably fueled an us-versus-them mentality in Moscow, encouraging worst-case thinking about U.S. intentions. Russian leaders now see rearmament and the search for new allies as appropriate responses to a U.S. policy that is clearer in its denunciations of Russia than in its contributions to American national security.

    Indeed, how can the United States benefit from new dividing lines in Europe reminiscent of the Cold War? For that matter, how can Latvia or Estonia become more secure as frontline states in a confrontation with an adversarial Russia?

    The recent collapse of U.S.-Russia diplomacy in Syria has only worsened this problem. Moscow had essentially accepted U.S. and Western sanctions as a fact of life following its annexation of Crimea and, for two years, sought to demonstrate that Russia remained open for business on key international issues. However, this posture-an essential ingredient in Russia's support for the Iran nuclear deal-appears to be evaporating and its principal advocate, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, now says that so long as the sanctions remain in effect, Russia will no longer work with the United States where it is to America's advantage.

    AMERICA-RUSSIA tensions are particularly troubling given how maladroitly Washington has approached its other major rival. In contrast to Russia, China is a full-scale superpower with a robust economy and an impressive culture of innovation. Given its underlying strengths, U.S. policy could not realistically have prevented China's emergence as a leading power in the Asia-Pacific region. Still, this does not excuse Washington's ongoing failure to develop a thoughtful long-term approach to the Chinese challenge.

    ... ... ...

    For all their differences, however, Chinese and Russian leaders share the perception that U.S. policy-including Washington's support for their neighbors-amounts to a containment regime designed to keep them down. This perception is not insignificant. Beijing and Moscow can profoundly complicate the conduct of U.S. security and foreign policy without a formal alliance or overt hostility to America. Consider today's realities, including China-Russia diplomatic coordination in the UN Security Council, a more permissive Russian attitude toward the transfer of advanced weapons systems to China, and increasingly large and complex joint military maneuvers. And this may only be the beginning.

    ... ... ...

    If the next president pursues a new strategy, he or she should expect resistance from America's entrenched foreign-policy establishment. Recent fiascos from Iraq to Libya have been bipartisan affairs, and many will seek to defend their records. Similarly, foreign-policy elites in both parties have internalized the notion that "American exceptionalism" is a license to intervene in other countries and that "universal aspirations" guarantee American success.

    Despite the presence of many individuals of common sense and integrity in government, U.S. leaders have too often forgotten that jumping off a cliff is easier than climbing back to safety. Notwithstanding the election of some well-informed and thoughtful individuals to the Senate and House of Representatives, the Congress has largely abdicated its responsibility to foster serious debate on foreign policy and has failed to fulfill its constitutional role as a check on executive power. The mainstream media has become an echo chamber for a misbegotten and misguided consensus.

    Dimitri K. Simes, publisher and CEO of the National Interest, is president of the Center for the National Interest. Pratik Chougule is managing editor of the National Interest. Paul J. Saunders is executive director of the Center for the National Interest.

    [Nov 18, 2016] A very conservative butcher bill of US neocons that does not include the wounded, the homeless, the refugees, or the cost of the wars to you, who continue to believe that before Trump the world was a nice and comfortable place -- for you Dear Americans

    Notable quotes:
    "... Now you are worried about yourselves, but there are only the dead and their survivors left for whom you didn't speak up for. Give me one reason why anybody should worry about you, who seem to believe that only you count because you are Americans. My very best wishes for your precious safety and comfort and may you continue to look in the mirror and see no one there. Trust me, a mirror does not lie. ..."
    "... https://youtu.be/G0R09YzyuCI Collapse of Complex Societies by Dr. Joseph Tainter ..."
    "... Eliminate the social cancer of private finance and unfettered inheritance or continue to repeat history to assured extinction. ..."
    Nov 18, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org

    Killary PAC | Nov 17, 2016 5:18:20 PM | 33

    Dear Americans,

    I understand some of you are very worried about the election of Donald Trump. But I want you think about this:

    1. First they went for Yugoslavia, and you didn't worry: a country died
    2. Then they went for Afghanistan and you didn't worry: 220,000 Afghans have died.
    3. Then, they went for Iraq, and you didn't worry: 1 million Iraqis died.
    4. Then they went for Libya, and you didn't worry: 30,000 to 50,000 people died. Did you worry when Qaddafi was murdered with a bayonet up his rectum? No. And someone even laughed.
    5. Then they went for Ukraine, and you didn't worry: 10,000 people died and are dying.
    6. Then they went for Syria, and you didn't worry: 250,000 people died
    7. Then they went for Yemen: over 6,000 Yemenis have been killed and another 27,000 wounded. According to the UN, most of them are civilians. Ten million Yemenis don't have enough to eat, and 13 million have no access to clean water. Yemen is highly dependent on imported food, but a U.S.-Saudi blockade has choked off most imports. The war is ongoing.
    8. Then there is Somalia , and you don't worry

    Then there are the countries that reaped the fallout from the collapse of Libya. Weapons looted after the fall of Gaddafi fuel the wars in Mali, Niger, and the Central African Republic.

    Now you are worried about yourselves, but there are only the dead and their survivors left for whom you didn't speak up for. Give me one reason why anybody should worry about you, who seem to believe that only you count because you are Americans. My very best wishes for your precious safety and comfort and may you continue to look in the mirror and see no one there. Trust me, a mirror does not lie.

    Sincerely,

    One who does not worry about you.

    PS By the way the butcher bill I am here presenting is very conservative on the body count and does not include the wounded, the homeless, the refugees, or the cost of the wars to you, who continue to believe that before Trump the world was a nice and comfortable place--for you.

    okie farmer | Nov 17, 2016 5:35:10 PM | 34
    https://youtu.be/G0R09YzyuCI Collapse of Complex Societies by Dr. Joseph Tainter
    Lochearn | Nov 17, 2016 5:35:11 PM | 35
    @ 33 Great comment, but remember the tribe. French revolution, Marxism, Russian revolution, Israel, neoliberalism. I am from the hard "Grapes of Wrath" left. Marxism was a brilliant Jewish ploy to split the left, then identity politics. Oh, they are so clever and we are so dumb...
    psychohistorian | Nov 17, 2016 7:07:27 PM | 36
    @ Lochearn

    Nice continuation of the Killary Pac comment. I want to take it further.

    Since the Marxism ploy to split the left the folks that own private finance have developed/implemented another ploy to redirect criticism of themselves/their tools by adding goyim to the fringes of private finance to make it look like a respectable cornerstone of our "civilization".

    Oh, they are so clever and we are so dumb...

    Eliminate the social cancer of private finance and unfettered inheritance or continue to repeat history to assured extinction.

    stumpy | Nov 17, 2016 9:37:19 PM | 45
    @32

    Nicely done. The other image that I find humorous is the dancing W at the Dallas police killings memorial.

    Ghostship | Nov 17, 2016 10:01:11 PM | 46
    >>>>virgile | Nov 17, 2016 3:24:07 PM | 14
    The finance sector and the medias that they support are having problems digesting the 105 millions wasted on Hillary.
    No they're not - that is chicken feed to them. A few hundred dollars each out of their bonuses will cover that, perhaps the cost of a meal out.

    [Nov 18, 2016] Flinn has been criticized by US neocon circles for refusing to take an anti-Russian stance

    www.moonofalabama.org
    x | Nov 18, 2016 7:30:36 AM | 66

    "President-elect Donald Trump has named retired Lieutenant General Michael Flynn as his new national security adviser, according to a close source. The former DIA chief has been criticized in US circles for refusing to take an anti-Russian stance."

    https://www.rt.com/usa/367375-trump-flynn-national-adviser/

    POL | Nov 18, 2016 7:50:32 AM | 67
    Obama going full speed with anti-russian tour in the EU, he seems to do everything to block Russia/US peace.
    https://www.rt.com/news/367381-obama-eu-sanctions-russia/

    [Nov 18, 2016] Obama, EU leaders agree to keep anti-Russian sanctions over Ukraine

    Final anti-Russian tour by neocon Obama
    Notable quotes:
    "... We [Russia] have never initiated sanctions. These [sanctions] don't prevent us from building dialogue and continuing the dialogue on matters that are of interest to us, to Russia ..."
    "... Russian President Vladimir Putin and outgoing US President Obama are likely to talk informally on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific summit in the Peruvian capital of Lima, Peskov said on Friday. ..."
    "... The two administrations have not agreed on any separate meetings, but we can assume that President Putin and President Obama will cross paths on the sidelines of the forum and will talk ..."
    "... "Russia, breaking international law. Turmoil in North Africa and the Middle East. The refugee and migration crisis. International terrorism. Hybrid warfare. And cyber-attacks," ..."
    www.rt.com

    US President Barack Obama and EU leaders have agreed to keep anti-Russian sanctions in place for a further year over the situation in Ukraine.

    President Obama, who is on his final official visit to Europe, met with the leaders of Germany, France, Italy, Spain and the UK on Friday.

    Among the main topics on the agenda were extending sanctions against Russia, cooperation within the framework of NATO, the rise of Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) in Iraq and Syria, and possible new anti-Russian sanctions over Moscow's actions in Syria.

    "The leaders also affirmed the importance of continued cooperation through multilateral institutions, including NATO," the White House added.

    Sanctions won't stop Russia from improving its dialogue and ties with other countries, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said.

    "We [Russia] have never initiated sanctions. These [sanctions] don't prevent us from building dialogue and continuing the dialogue on matters that are of interest to us, to Russia," Peskov said.

    Russian President Vladimir Putin and outgoing US President Obama are likely to talk informally on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific summit in the Peruvian capital of Lima, Peskov said on Friday.

    "The two administrations have not agreed on any separate meetings, but we can assume that President Putin and President Obama will cross paths on the sidelines of the forum and will talk," Peskov said.

    Also on Friday, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg gave a speech at an event hosted by the German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMF), where he said that Europe and the United States "are close economic and trade partners" and mentioned potential threats for the alliance. "Russia, breaking international law. Turmoil in North Africa and the Middle East. The refugee and migration crisis. International terrorism. Hybrid warfare. And cyber-attacks," said Stoltenberg, listing the perceived dangers.

    [Nov 16, 2016] The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity McCain to Trump Dont You Dare Make Peace with Russia!

    Notable quotes:
    "... a normal person might look at the slight thaw in Cold War 2.0 as an early positive indicator of the end of the Obama Era. ..."
    "... Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) begs to differ. In a blistering statement he released today responding to the Trump/Putin telephone call, Sen. McCain condemned any efforts by President-elect Trump to find common ground with Putin. ..."
    "... Interesting that Republican McCain has taken to using the Hillary Clinton campaign line (the one that lost her the election) that somehow the Russians were manipulating the US electoral process. The claim was never backed up by facts and Hillary's claim that some 17 US intelligence agencies agreed with her was shown to be a dangerous and foolish lie. ..."
    "... What McCain doesn't say is that unlike US troops in Syria, the Russians are invited by the Syrian government and operate according to international law. Oh yes, and they are also fighting al-Qaeda and ISIS, which has sought to overthrow Assad for the past five years. ..."
    "... Maybe McCain is just really sensitive after meeting with al-Qaeda and ISIS in Syria? ..."
    "... As rumors swirl from Washington about neocons sniffing out top jobs in the incoming administration, it would serve president-elect Trump well to reflect on he true nature of the neocon beast... ..."
    Nov 16, 2016 | ronpaulinstitute.org
    Sit down. This is going to shock you. (Not). We reported yesterday on the telephone call between US president-elect Trump and Russian president Putin, where the current and future presidents discussed the need to set aside differences and look to more constructive future relations.

    With serious observers of this past year's increasing tensions between US and Russia openly worrying about a nuclear war breaking out, with some 300,000 NATO troops placed on Russia's border, with sanctions hurting average businesspersons on both sides, a normal person might look at the slight thaw in Cold War 2.0 as an early positive indicator of the end of the Obama Era.

    Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) begs to differ. In a blistering statement he released today responding to the Trump/Putin telephone call, Sen. McCain condemned any efforts by President-elect Trump to find common ground with Putin.

    Any claim by Putin that he wants to improve relations with the US must be vigorously opposed, writes McCain. He explains:

    We should place as much faith in such statements as any other made by a former KGB agent who has plunged his country into tyranny, murdered his political opponents, invaded his neighbors, threatened America's allies, and attempted to undermine America's elections.
    Interesting that Republican McCain has taken to using the Hillary Clinton campaign line (the one that lost her the election) that somehow the Russians were manipulating the US electoral process. The claim was never backed up by facts and Hillary's claim that some 17 US intelligence agencies agreed with her was shown to be a dangerous and foolish lie.

    Why is Putin not to be trusted, according to McCain?

    Vladimir Putin has rejoined Bashar Assad in his barbaric war against the Syrian people with the resumption of large-scale Russian air and missile strikes in Idlib and Homs. Another brutal assault on the city of Aleppo could soon follow.
    What McCain doesn't say is that unlike US troops in Syria, the Russians are invited by the Syrian government and operate according to international law. Oh yes, and they are also fighting al-Qaeda and ISIS, which has sought to overthrow Assad for the past five years.

    Maybe McCain is just really sensitive after meeting with al-Qaeda and ISIS in Syria?

    As rumors swirl from Washington about neocons sniffing out top jobs in the incoming administration, it would serve president-elect Trump well to reflect on he true nature of the neocon beast...


    Copyright © 2016 by RonPaul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.
    Please donate to the Ron Paul Institute

    [Nov 16, 2016] The New Red Scare: Reviving the art of threat inflation

    Notable quotes:
    "... Reviving the art of threat inflation ..."
    "... "Welcome to the world of strategic analysis," Ivan Selin used to tell his team during the Sixties, "where we program weapons that don't work to meet threats that don't exist." Selin, who would spend the following decades as a powerful behind-the-scenes player in the Washington mandarinate, was then the director of the Strategic Forces Division in the Pentagon's Office of Systems Analysis. "I was a twenty-eight-year-old wiseass when I started saying that," he told me, reminiscing about those days. "I thought the issues we were dealing with were so serious, they could use a little levity." ..."
    Nov 16, 2016 | marknesop.wordpress.com
    et Al , November 16, 2016 at 2:51 am
    Harpers Magazine via Antiwar.com: The New Red Scare
    http://harpers.org/archive/2016/12/the-new-red-scare/?single=1

    Reviving the art of threat inflation

    By Andrew Cockburn

    "Welcome to the world of strategic analysis," Ivan Selin used to tell his team during the Sixties, "where we program weapons that don't work to meet threats that don't exist." Selin, who would spend the following decades as a powerful behind-the-scenes player in the Washington mandarinate, was then the director of the Strategic Forces Division in the Pentagon's Office of Systems Analysis. "I was a twenty-eight-year-old wiseass when I started saying that," he told me, reminiscing about those days. "I thought the issues we were dealing with were so serious, they could use a little levity."

    ####

    While I do have some quibbles with the piece (RuAF pilots are getting much more than 90 hours a year flight time & equipment is overrated and unaffordable in any decent numbers), it is pretty solid.

    [Nov 16, 2016] President Obama Deserves an Oscar by Robert Weissberg

    Pretty biting assessment ...
    Notable quotes:
    "... I can recall tales of insecure Eastern European Jewish immigrants pretending to be WASPS. ..."
    "... To be blunt, Barack Obama was less "a president" than a talented actor playing at being presidential. ..."
    "... Those of us who have encountered this deception are usually aware of its tell-tale signs, though, to be fair, it may have been diligently practiced for so long that it has become a "real" element of the perpetrator's core personality. For those unfamiliar with this deception, let me now offer a brief catalogue of these tactics. ..."
    "... Central is the careful management of outward physical appearances. In theatrical terms, these are props and depending on circumstances, this might be a finely tailored suit, wingtip shoes, a crisp white shirt, a smart silk tie and all the rest that announce business-like competence. ..."
    "... Mastering "white" language is equally critical and in the academy this includes everything from tossing around trendy terms, for example, "paradigmatic," to displaying what appears to be a mastering of disciplinary jargon. Recall how the Black Panthers seduced gullible whites with just a sprinkling of Marxist terminology. ..."
    "... I recall one (white) colleague who gave a little speech praising a deeply flawed dissertation written by a black assistant professor up for tenure. He told the assembled committee that her dissertation reminded him of Newton's Principia Mathematica (can't make that stuff up). ..."
    "... Obama as President repeatedly exhibits these characteristics. It is thus hardly accidental that he relies extensively on canned Teleprompter speeches. According to one compilation published in January 2013, Obama has used Teleprompters in 699 speeches during his first term in office. There is also his aversion to informal off-the-cuff discussions with the press and open mike who-knows-what-will-happen "Town Hall" meetings. Obama is also the first president I've ever seen who often favors a casual blue jacket monogrammed "President of the United States." ..."
    "... I suspect that deep down Obama recognizes that almost everything is an act not unlike Eddy Murphy playing Professor Sherman Klump in The Nutty Professor . It is no wonder, then, that his academic records (particularly his SAT scores) are sealed and, perhaps even more important, many of his fellow college students and colleagues at the University of Chicago where he briefly taught constitutional law cannot recall him. It is hard to imagine Obama relishing the prospect of going head-to-head with his sharp-witted Chicago colleagues. ..."
    "... As a mulatto raised by white grandparents in Hawaii, Obama is not a black American, with no cultural ties to black Americans and slavery, yet he later learned to throw out a black accent to fool the fools. As Stephen Colbert once observed, white Americans love Obama because he was raised the right way, by white people. That was intended as humor, but ..."
    "... Obama has leased an ultra-expensive house in an exclusive neighborhood in DC just like the corrupt Bill Clinton prior to his multi-million dollar speaking and influence peddling efforts. Obama will not return to Chicago to help poor blacks, like Jimmy Carter did elsewhere after he left office. Obama doesn't need an Oscar, he got a Nobel Peace Prize for the same act. ..."
    "... Congratulations on noticing what it takes to be a successful politician in ANY "Western" democracy. It doesn't matter if you are black, white, aquamarine or candy-striped, or whether you are a college professor, an "economist", or a "businessman". It's all bluff and acting. ..."
    "... The single most critical element of a successful con is not the hucksters appearance, or mannerisms, or even the spiel, it is simply making the con something that the sucker wants to believe. ..."
    "... I recognized Obama's type not from academia, but from corporate America. He was the token black higher up. He's smart enough not to obviously do something requiring termination (get drunk and harass a colleague at an office party, shred important document, etc.), and his mistakes can be blamed on team failures, so he gets "black guy's tenure"-a middle or upper management position after only a few years. ..."
    "... This critique applies to almost every Presidential candidate, regardless of ethnicity. ..."
    "... The most successful recent President was a former professional actor and thus well suited for the position. The latest President-elect is also a savvy media figure, and yet mocked for his obvious lack of intellectual heft. But in his case, he's not acting, it's reality TV. ..."
    "... PS. Maybe some Jews around Trump are beginning to feel that China is the real danger to US power in the long run. So, what US should really do is patch things up with Russia for the time being, drive a wedge between China and Russia, and use Russia against China and then go after Russia. ..."
    "... Really! Go after Russia? And how would you do that and why? What would "going after Russia" look like? What about the "horrific Rape of Russia" you spoke of? China and Russia have business to conduct, they're quite through with us, our dollar and our Fed. We'll be lucky if they allow us a piece of the action. Instead of Russia>China>Russia machinations, we might want to figure out strategies for doing some other business than patronizing our arms manufacturers. Hey, cap Jewish influence in the courts and business if you wish, but keeping the U.S. in an endless state of war, economic and otherwise is zero sum and worse for the little people. ..."
    "... I've called him that for years. And Dubya was possibly our first "legacy" president: chosen entirely based on whom he's related to not on any individual qualities that would suit him for such a high office. Had Dubya been raised by regular people, he would have probably ended up as a hardware store manager. ..."
    "... Amen to all. The whole deal is a fraud. All successful politicians are imposters, people who've mastered the art of deception. I'd go even further and say that the majority of "authority figures" are probably parasites and frauds to one degree or another. ..."
    "... Overall, the current president has been a deception, a trivial self-absorbed person whose main concern has been himself turned outward onto issues of race and sexual orientation ..."
    "... American politics at this level is fake. Everything is orchestrated, attire is handpicked, speeches are written by professionals and read off the teleprompter, questions from the public are actually from plants and rehearsed prior, armies of PR people are at work everywhere, journalists are just flunky propagandists, ..."
    "... He will be the subject of future dissertations about the failure of the American political process and the influence of media and third parties like Soros. ..."
    Nov 16, 2016 | www.unz.com
    As the troubled Obama presidency winds down, the inevitable question is why so many people, including a few smart ones were so easily fooled. How did a man with such a fine pedigree-Columbia, Harvard-who sounded so brilliant pursue such political capital wasting and foolish policies as forcing schools to discipline students by racial quotas? Or obsessing over allowing the transgendered to choose any bathroom? And, of the utmost importance, how can we prevent another Obama?

    I'll begin simply: Obama is an imposter, a man who has mastered the art of deception as a skilled actor deceives an audience though in the case of Obama, most of the audience refused to accept that this was all play-acting. Even after almost eight years of ineptitude, millions still want to believe that he's the genuine article-an authentically super-bright guy able to fix a flawed America. Far more is involved than awarding blacks the intellectual equivalent of diplomatic immunity.

    When Obama first appeared on the political scene I immediately recognized him as an example of the "successful" black academic who rapidly advances up the university ladder despite minimal accomplishment. Tellingly, when I noted the paucity of accomplishment of these black academic over-achievers to trusted professorial colleagues, they agreed with my analysis adding that they themselves had seen several instances of this phenomenon, but admittedly failed to connect the dots.

    Here's the academic version of an Obama. You encounter this black student who appears a liberal's affirmative action dream come true -- exceptionally articulate with no trace of a ghetto accent, well-dressed, personable (no angry "tude"), and at least superficially sufficient brain power to succeed even in demanding subjects. Matters begin splendidly, but not for long. Almost invariably, his or her performance on the first test or paper falls far below expectations. A research paper, for example was only "C" work (though you generously awarded it a "B") and to make matters worse, it exhibited a convoluted writing style, a disregard for logic, ineptly constructed references and similar defects. Nevertheless, you accepted the usual litany of student excuses -- his claim of over-commitment, the material was unfamiliar, and this was his first research paper and so on. A reprieve was granted.

    But the unease grows stronger with the second exam or paper, often despite your helpful advice on how to do better. Reality grows depressing -- what you see is not what you get and lacks any reasonable feel-good explanation. The outwardly accomplished black student is not an Asian struggling with English or a clear-cut affirmation action admittee in over his head. That this student may have actually studied diligently and followed your advice only exacerbates the discomfort.

    To repeat, the way to make sense out this troubling situation is to think of this disappointing black student as a talented actor who has mastered the role of "smart college student." He has the gift of mimicry, conceivably a talent rooted in evolutionary development among a people who often had to survive by their wits (adaptive behavior captured by the phrase "acting white" or "passing"). This gift is hardly limited to blacks. I can recall tales of insecure Eastern European Jewish immigrants pretending to be WASPS.

    But what if the observer was unaware of it being only a theatrical performance and took the competence at face value? Disaster. Russell Crowe as the Nobel Prize winning John Nash in A Beautiful Mind might give a stunning performance as a brilliant economist, but he would not last a minute if he tried to pass himself off as the real thing at a Princeton economic department seminar. To be blunt, Barack Obama was less "a president" than a talented actor playing at being presidential.

    Those of us who have encountered this deception are usually aware of its tell-tale signs, though, to be fair, it may have been diligently practiced for so long that it has become a "real" element of the perpetrator's core personality. For those unfamiliar with this deception, let me now offer a brief catalogue of these tactics.

    Central is the careful management of outward physical appearances. In theatrical terms, these are props and depending on circumstances, this might be a finely tailored suit, wingtip shoes, a crisp white shirt, a smart silk tie and all the rest that announce business-like competence. Future college or foundation president here we come (Obama has clearly mastered this sartorial ploy). But for those seeking an appointment as a professor, this camouflage must be more casual but, whatever the choice, there cannot be any hint of "ghetto" style, i.e., no flashy jewelry, gold chains, purple "pimpish" suits, or anything else that even slightly hints of what blacks might consider authentic black attire.

    Mastering "white" language is equally critical and in the academy this includes everything from tossing around trendy terms, for example, "paradigmatic," to displaying what appears to be a mastering of disciplinary jargon. Recall how the Black Panthers seduced gullible whites with just a sprinkling of Marxist terminology. Precisely citing a few obscure court cases or administrative directives can also do the trick. Further add certain verbal styles common among professors or peppering a presentation with correctly pronounced non-English words. I recall a talk by one black professor from the University of Chicago who wowed my colleagues by just using-and correctly so-a few Yiddish expressions.

    Ironically, self-defined conservatives are especially vulnerable to these well-crafted performances. No doubt, like all good thinking liberals, they desperately want to believe that blacks are just as talented as whites so an Obama-like figure is merely the first installment of coming racial equality. The arrival of this long-awaited black also provides a great opportunity to demonstrate that being "conservative" does not certify one as a racist. Alas, this can be embarrassing and comical if over-done. I recall one (white) colleague who gave a little speech praising a deeply flawed dissertation written by a black assistant professor up for tenure. He told the assembled committee that her dissertation reminded him of Newton's Principia Mathematica (can't make that stuff up).

    Alas, the deception usually unravels when the imposter confronts a complicated unstructured situation lacking a well-defined script, hardly surprising given the IQ test data indicate that blacks usually perform better on items reflecting social norms, less well on abstract, highly "g" loaded items. In academic job presentations, for example, a job candidate's intellectual limits often become apparent during the Q and A when pressed to wrestle with technical or logical abstractions that go beyond the initial well-rehearsed talk. Picture a job candidate who just finished reading a paper being asked whether the argument is falsifiable or how causality might be established? These can be killer questions that require ample quick footed intellectual dexterity and often bring an awkward silence as the candidate struggles to think on his feet (these responses may rightly be judged far more important than what is read from a paper). I recall one genuinely bewildered black job candidate who explained a complicated measurement choice with "my Ph.D. advisor, a past president of the American Political Science Association told me to do it this way."

    Obama as President repeatedly exhibits these characteristics. It is thus hardly accidental that he relies extensively on canned Teleprompter speeches. According to one compilation published in January 2013, Obama has used Teleprompters in 699 speeches during his first term in office. There is also his aversion to informal off-the-cuff discussions with the press and open mike who-knows-what-will-happen "Town Hall" meetings. Obama is also the first president I've ever seen who often favors a casual blue jacket monogrammed "President of the United States."

    Perhaps the best illustration of these confused, often rambling moments occurs when he offers impromptu commentary on highly charged, fast-breaking race-related incidents such as the Louis Henry Gates dustup in Cambridge , Mass ("the police acted stupidly") and the Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown shootings. You could see his pained look as he struggles with being a "good race man" while simultaneously struggling to sort out murky legal issues. This is not the usual instances of politicians speaking evasively to avoid controversy; he was genuinely befuddled.

    Similar signs of confused thinking can also be seen in other spontaneous remarks, the most famous example might be his comment about those Americans clinging to their guns and Bibles. What was he thinking? Did he forget that both gun and Bible ownership are constitutionally protected and the word "cling" in this context suggests mental illness? Woes to some impertinent reporter who challenged the President to clarify his oft-repeated "the wrong side of history" quip or explain the precise meaning of, "That's not who were are"? "Mr. President, can you enlighten us on how you know you are on the Right Side of History"?

    I suspect that deep down Obama recognizes that almost everything is an act not unlike Eddy Murphy playing Professor Sherman Klump in The Nutty Professor . It is no wonder, then, that his academic records (particularly his SAT scores) are sealed and, perhaps even more important, many of his fellow college students and colleagues at the University of Chicago where he briefly taught constitutional law cannot recall him. It is hard to imagine Obama relishing the prospect of going head-to-head with his sharp-witted Chicago colleagues.

    Further add his lack of a publication in the Harvard Law Review, a perk as the President of the Law Review (not Editor) and the credible evidence that his two autobiographies where ghost written after their initial rejection as unsuitable for publication. All and all, a picture emerges of an individual who knows he must fake it to convince others of his intellectual talents, and like a skilled actor he has spent years studying the role of "President." President Obama deserves an Academy award (which, of course would also be a step toward diversity, to boot) for his efforts.


    Carlton Meyer says: • Website

    November 16, 2016 at 5:31 am GMT • 300 Words

    This is why I often referred to Obama as a "Pentagon spokesman." Did you know his proposed military budgets each year were on average higher than Bush or Reagan? People forget that is first objective as President was to close our torture camp in Cuba. He could have issued an Executive Order and have it closed in one day. DOJ aircraft could fly all the inmates away within two hours before any court could challenge that, if they dared. It remains open.

    Yet when Congress refused to act to open borders wider, he issued an Executive Order to grant residency to five million illegals. And under Soros direction, he sent DoJ attack dogs after any state or city that questioned the right of men who want to use a ladies room.

    As a mulatto raised by white grandparents in Hawaii, Obama is not a black American, with no cultural ties to black Americans and slavery, yet he later learned to throw out a black accent to fool the fools. As Stephen Colbert once observed, white Americans love Obama because he was raised the right way, by white people. That was intended as humor, but

    Obama has leased an ultra-expensive house in an exclusive neighborhood in DC just like the corrupt Bill Clinton prior to his multi-million dollar speaking and influence peddling efforts. Obama will not return to Chicago to help poor blacks, like Jimmy Carter did elsewhere after he left office. Obama doesn't need an Oscar, he got a Nobel Peace Prize for the same act.


    3.anon says:

    November 16, 2016 at 5:34 am GMT • 100 Words

    What to make of the Michael Eric Dysons and the Cornell Wests of the world ??
    How do they rise up the ranks of academia , become darlings of talk shows and news panels , all the while dressed and speaking ghetto with zero talent or interest in appearing white . And zero academic competency ??


    6.CCZ, November 16, 2016 at 6:08 am GMT

    Our first affirmative action President? I have yet to hear that exact description, even in a nation with 60 million deplorable "racist" voters.

    8.Tom Welsh, November 16, 2016 at 7:00 am GMT • 100 Words

    Congratulations on noticing what it takes to be a successful politician in ANY "Western" democracy. It doesn't matter if you are black, white, aquamarine or candy-striped, or whether you are a college professor, an "economist", or a "businessman". It's all bluff and acting.

    Why does anyone still find this surprising?

    11.Alfa158, November 16, 2016 at 7:56 am GMT • 100 Words

    The single most critical element of a successful con is not the hucksters appearance, or mannerisms, or even the spiel, it is simply making the con something that the sucker wants to believe. White people were desperate for a Magic Negro and they got one. Black people ended up suffering from deteriorating economics and exploding intramural murder rates.

    12.whorefinder, November 16, 2016 at 8:02 am GMT • 300 Words

    Strikes a chord with me, and with Clint Eastwood (recall the 2012 RNC, where Eastwood mocked Obama as an "empty chair").

    I recognized Obama's type not from academia, but from corporate America. He was the token black higher up. He's smart enough not to obviously do something requiring termination (get drunk and harass a colleague at an office party, shred important document, etc.), and his mistakes can be blamed on team failures, so he gets "black guy's tenure"-a middle or upper management position after only a few years.

    He then makes sure he shows up every weekday at 9am, but he's out the door at 5pm-and no weekends for him. He's there for "diversity" drives and is prominently featured on the company brochures, and might even be given an award or honorary title every few years to cover him, but he never brings in clients or moves business positively in anyway. But he's quick to take the boss up on the golfing trips. In short, he's realized he's there to be the black corporate shield, and that's all he does. He's a lazy token and fine with being lazy.

    It's why Obama had little problem letting Pelosi/Reid/Bill Clinton do all the heavy lifting on Obamacare–not only was Obama out of his depth, he was just plain ol' fine with being out of his depth, because someone else would do it for him. So he went golfing instead.

    This is also why that White House press conference where Bill Clinton took over for him halfway speaks volumes. Obama literally had no problem simply walking away from his presidential duties to go party-because someone else would do it for him, as they always had.

    It's also why he seems so annoyed when asked about the race rioting going on as a result of his administration's actions. Hey, why do you think I gotta do anything? I just show up and people tell me I did a great job!

    13.Ramona, November 16, 2016 at 8:04 am GMT

    It's been said for years that Obama amounts to no more than a dignified talk show host. The observation has merit. Oscar-wise, though, only for ironic value.


    15.Realist, November 16, 2016 at 9:50 am GMT • 100 Words

    @Anon

    "I think Obama is pretty smart if not genius. His mother was no dummy, and his father seems to have been pretty bright too, and there are smart blacks."

    Ann Dunham had a PhD in anthropology from a run of the mill university where she literally studied women textile weaving in third world countries. Pure genius .right.


    16.Fran Macadam, November 16, 2016 at 9:54 am GMT • 100 Words

    This critique applies to almost every Presidential candidate, regardless of ethnicity. So few of them have been other than those playing a role assigned by their donors. The most successful recent President was a former professional actor and thus well suited for the position. The latest President-elect is also a savvy media figure, and yet mocked for his obvious lack of intellectual heft. But in his case, he's not acting, it's reality TV.


    17.Jim Christian says:

    November 16, 2016 at 9:59 am GMT • 200 Words
    @Anon

    PS. Maybe some Jews around Trump are beginning to feel that China is the real danger to US power in the long run. So, what US should really do is patch things up with Russia for the time being, drive a wedge between China and Russia, and use Russia against China and then go after Russia.

    Really! Go after Russia? And how would you do that and why? What would "going after Russia" look like? What about the "horrific Rape of Russia" you spoke of? China and Russia have business to conduct, they're quite through with us, our dollar and our Fed. We'll be lucky if they allow us a piece of the action. Instead of Russia>China>Russia machinations, we might want to figure out strategies for doing some other business than patronizing our arms manufacturers. Hey, cap Jewish influence in the courts and business if you wish, but keeping the U.S. in an endless state of war, economic and otherwise is zero sum and worse for the little people.


    20.timalex, November 16, 2016 at 11:58 am GMT

    Americans voted for and elected Obama because it made them feel virtuous in their mind and in the eyes of the world. Obama has always been a psychopath. Psychopaths are good at lying and hiding things,even when Presidents.

    21.The Alarmist , November 16, 2016 at 12:03 pm GMT

    So, you're saying he was an affirmative action hire.


    22.Anon, November 16, 2016 at 12:28 pm GMT

    Yeah and every white person in a position of power and privilege is "authentically intelligent". America is a society run by and for phonies.

    23.War for Blair Mountain, November 16, 2016 at 12:32 pm GMT • 100 Words

    Barack Obama is a creation of the Cold War. His father was imported into the US through an anti-commie Cold War foreign student program for young Africans. Barack Obama's nonwhite Democratic Party Voting Bloc would not exist if the 1965 Immigration Reform Act had not been passed. The 1965 Immigration Reform Act was another creation of the anti-commie Cold War Crusade.

    The anti-commie Cold War Crusade has been a Death sentence for The Historic Native Born White American Majority.

    It is now time to rethink the Cold War .very long overdue..

    24.AndrewR, November 16, 2016 at 12:55 pm GMT • 100 Words

    @CCZ

    I've called him that for years. And Dubya was possibly our first "legacy" president: chosen entirely based on whom he's related to not on any individual qualities that would suit him for such a high office. Had Dubya been raised by regular people, he would have probably ended up as a hardware store manager.

    25.Rehmat, November 16, 2016 at 1:36 pm GMT • 100 Words

    I think after wining Nobel Peace Award without achieving peace anywhere in the world – Obama deserve Oscar more than Nobel Prize for equating Holocaust as a religion with Christianity and Islam in his speech at the UNGA in September 2012.

    Oscar has a long tradition to award top slot for every Holocaust movie produced so far.

    "There's no business like Shoah business," says YIVO Institute for Jewish Research, established by Max Weinreich in Lithuania in 1925.

    More than 70 movies and documentary on Jewish Holocaust have been produced so far to keep Whiteman's guild alive. Holocaust Industry's main purpose is to suck trillions of dollars and moral support for the Zionist entity. Since 1959 movie, The Diary of Anne Frank, 22 Holocaust movies have won at least one Oscar ..

    https://rehmat1.com/2012/10/26/barack-obama-holocaust-is-a-religion/

    27.jacques sheete says: November 16, 2016 at 2:20 pm GMT • 200 Words

    @Tom Welsh

    Amen to all. The whole deal is a fraud. All successful politicians are imposters, people who've mastered the art of deception. I'd go even further and say that the majority of "authority figures" are probably parasites and frauds to one degree or another.

    I enjoy democracy immensely. It is incomparably idiotic, and hence incomparably amusing. Does it exalt dunderheads, cowards, trimmers, frauds, cads? Then the pain of seeing them go up is balanced and obliterated by the joy of seeing them come down. Is it inordinately wasteful, extravagant, dishonest? Then so is every other form of government: all alike are enemies to laborious and virtuous men. Is rascality at the very heart of it? Well, we have borne that rascality since 1776, and continue to survive. In the long run, it may turn out that rascality is necessary to human government, and even to civilization itself – that civilization, at bottom, is nothing but a colossal swindle.

    - H. L. Mencken, Last Words (1926)

    28.anonymous, November 16, 2016 at 2:34 pm GMT • 200 Words

    The bar was set ridiculously low by his predecessor the village idiot Bush who could barely put together a coherent sentence. After eight years of disaster people were hoping for something different. Having a deranged person like McCain as his opposition certainly helped. What choice did the American people have?

    He received a Nobel Peace prize for absolutely nothing although I admit his reluctance to barge into Syria was quite welcome. How many wars would we be in had the war-crazed McCain gotten into office?

    Overall, the current president has been a deception, a trivial self-absorbed person whose main concern has been himself turned outward onto issues of race and sexual orientation.

    American politics at this level is fake. Everything is orchestrated, attire is handpicked, speeches are written by professionals and read off the teleprompter, questions from the public are actually from plants and rehearsed prior, armies of PR people are at work everywhere, journalists are just flunky propagandists, expressions of emotion are calculated, the mass media is the property of the billionaire and corporate class and reflects their interests, and so on down the line. The masses of Americans are just there to be managed and milked. Look back at the history of the US: When haven't they been lying to us?

    29.nsa, November 16, 2016 at 2:44 pm GMT • 100 Words

    President is a very easy job. Almost anyone could fake it even actors, peanut farmers, mulatto community organizers, illegitimate offspring of trailer park whores, haberdashers, developers, soldiers, irish playboys, bicycle riding dry drunks, low rent CA shysters, daft professors.

    Play lots of golf. Hot willing young pussy available for the asking. Anyone call you a name, have them audited. Invite pals onto the gravy train. Everyone kissing your ass and begging for favors. Media nitwits hanging on every word. Afterwards, get filthy rich making speeches and appearances. Tough job .

    30.Anonymous, November 16, 2016 at 3:03 pm GMT • 100 Words

    Manchurian Candidate, or Kenyan Candidate? Whatever he may be called, our current White House resident is a colossal joke perpetrated on the world. Whoever covered all his tracks did a masterful task. He will be the subject of future dissertations about the failure of the American political process and the influence of media and third parties like Soros.

    32.Lorax, November 16, 2016 at 3:17 pm GMT

    Obama's grandfather, Stanley Armour Dunham, was a "furniture salesman," for which role he deserved an Oscar as well. It takes real acting ability to pull off a lifetime career in Intelligence Service: http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/08/07/obama's-cia-pedigree/

    34.JoeFour, November 16, 2016 at 3:56 pm GMT

    @AndrewR

    "Had Dubya been raised by regular people, he would have probably ended up as a hardware store manager."

    AndrewR, I know you didn't mean it, but you have just insulted all of the thousands of hardware store managers in this country.

    [Nov 16, 2016] The Rotation of Imperial Power by Manlio Dinucci

    Notable quotes:
    "... Clinton's defeat is more than anything else a rejection of Obama. Obama descended into the fray to bolster her campaign and witnessed the rejection of his own presidency. Conquered, in the 2008 electoral campaign, with a pledge of support not only for Wall Street but also "Main Street", that is, the ordinary citizen. Since then, the middle class has witnessed its conditions deteriorate, the rate of poverty has increased while the rich have become even richer. Now, marketing himself as the champion of the middle class, the billionaire outsider, Donald Trump, has won the presidency. ..."
    "... As her e-mails make clear, when she was Secretary of State, she convinced President Obama to engage in war to demolish Libya and to roll out the same operation against Syria. She was the one to promote the internal destabilization of Venezuela and Brazil and the US "Pivot to Asia" – an anti-Chinese manoeuvre. And yet again, she also used the Clinton Foundation as a vehicle to prepare the terrain in Ukraine for the Maidan Square putsch which paved the way for Usa/Nato escalation against Russia. ..."
    "... Given that all this has not prevented the relative decline of US power, it is up to the Trump Administration to correct its shot, while keeping its gaze fixed on the same target. There is no air of reality to the hypothesis that Trump intends to abandon the system of alliances centered around US-led Nato. ..."
    "... Trump could seek an agreement with Russia, an additional objective of which would be to pull it away from China. China: against which Trump announces economic measures, accompanied by an additional strengthening of US military presence in the Asia-Pacific region. ..."
    "... Here you have the colossal financial groups that dominate the economy (the share value alone of the companies listed on Wall Street is higher than the entire US national income). ..."
    "... Then you have the multinationals whose economic dimensions exceed those of entire states and which delocalize production to countries offering cheap labour. The knock-on effect? Domestically, factories will close and unemployment will increase, which will in turn lead to the conditions of the US middle class becoming even worse. ..."
    "... It is 21st century capitalism, which the USA expresses in its most extreme form, that increasingly polarizes the rich and poor. 1% of the global population has more than the other 99%. The President[-elect], Trump, belongs to the class of the superrich. ..."
    www.voltairenet.org

    Clinton's defeat is more than anything else a rejection of Obama. Obama descended into the fray to bolster her campaign and witnessed the rejection of his own presidency. Conquered, in the 2008 electoral campaign, with a pledge of support not only for Wall Street but also "Main Street", that is, the ordinary citizen. Since then, the middle class has witnessed its conditions deteriorate, the rate of poverty has increased while the rich have become even richer. Now, marketing himself as the champion of the middle class, the billionaire outsider, Donald Trump, has won the presidency.

    How will this change of guard at the White House change US foreign policy? Certainly, the core objective of remaining the dominant global power will remain untouched. [Yet] this position is increasing fragile. The USA is losing ground both within the economic and the political domains, [ceding] it to China, Russia and other "emerging countries". This is why it is throwing the sword onto the scale. This is followed by a series of wars where Hillary Clinton played the [lead] protagonist.

    As her authorized biography reveals, she was the one as First Lady, to convince the President, her consort, to engage in war to destroy Yugoslavia, initiating a series of "humanitarian interventions" against "dictators" charged with "genocide".

    As her e-mails make clear, when she was Secretary of State, she convinced President Obama to engage in war to demolish Libya and to roll out the same operation against Syria. She was the one to promote the internal destabilization of Venezuela and Brazil and the US "Pivot to Asia" – an anti-Chinese manoeuvre. And yet again, she also used the Clinton Foundation as a vehicle to prepare the terrain in Ukraine for the Maidan Square putsch which paved the way for Usa/Nato escalation against Russia.

    Given that all this has not prevented the relative decline of US power, it is up to the Trump Administration to correct its shot, while keeping its gaze fixed on the same target. There is no air of reality to the hypothesis that Trump intends to abandon the system of alliances centered around US-led Nato. But he will of course thump his fists on the table to secure a deeper commitment, particularly on military expenditure from the allies.

    Trump could seek an agreement with Russia, an additional objective of which would be to pull it away from China. China: against which Trump announces economic measures, accompanied by an additional strengthening of US military presence in the Asia-Pacific region.

    Such decisions, that will surely open the door for further wars, do not depend on Trump's warrior-like temperament, but on centres of power wherein lies the matrix of command on which the White House itself depends.

    Here you have the colossal financial groups that dominate the economy (the share value alone of the companies listed on Wall Street is higher than the entire US national income).

    Then you have the multinationals whose economic dimensions exceed those of entire states and which delocalize production to countries offering cheap labour. The knock-on effect? Domestically, factories will close and unemployment will increase, which will in turn lead to the conditions of the US middle class becoming even worse.

    Then you have the giants of the war industry that extract profit from war.

    It is 21st century capitalism, which the USA expresses in its most extreme form, that increasingly polarizes the rich and poor. 1% of the global population has more than the other 99%. The President[-elect], Trump, belongs to the class of the superrich.

    [Nov 16, 2016] The main targets of Russian strikes are warehouses with ammunition, terrorist gatherings and terrorist terrorist training centers, as well as plants for the production of various kinds of weapons of mass destruction

    Notable quotes:
    "... We are talking factories, not mere workshops, more specifically the plants for the production of all sorts of rather serious means of mass destruction. Clearly, this is a well-established industrial production, these are the targets for today's strikes. And they will continue. ..."
    Nov 15, 2016 | marknesop.wordpress.com
    Patient Observer, November 15, 2016 at 5:22 am
    Russia air and missile strikes are back!

    https://sputniknews.com/military/201611151047453340-admiral-kuznetsov-syria/

    Russian Admiral Kuznetsov aircraft-carrying cruiser has begun combat operations in Syria, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu said Tuesday.

    "Today, we started a major operation to launch massive strikes on Daesh and al-Nusra Front targets in the Idlib and Homs provinces [in Syria]," Shoigu said at Russian President Vladimir Putin's meeting with the ministry's leadership and defense enterprises.

    And

    https://sputniknews.com/military/201611151047453617-frigate-syria-missiles/

    Russian Admiral Grigorovich frigate targeted terrorists in Syria with Kalibr cruise missile strikes, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu said Tuesday.

    The NGO faux whining about Aleppo will increase but in a few months they may lose their chief audience and facilitator.

    Patient Observer, November 15, 2016 at 7:30 am
    Additional details on the Russian air and cruise missile strikes:

    http://theduran.com/breaking-russia-launches-major-anti-terrorist-offensive-syria/

    At a meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and the top leadership of the Russian Armed Forces, Shoigu said the following:

    Today at 10:30 and 11:00 we launched a large-scale operation against the positions of Islamic State and Al-Nusra [terrorist groups] in the provinces of Idlib and Homs.

    The main targets of the strikes are warehouses with ammunition, [terrorist] gatherings and terrorist training centers, as well as plants for the production of various kinds of weapons of mass destruction.

    We are talking factories, not mere workshops, more specifically the plants for the production of all sorts of rather serious means of mass destruction. Clearly, this is a well-established industrial production, these are the targets for today's strikes. And they will continue.

    [Nov 16, 2016] BBC hypocrisy knows no bounds!

    Notable quotes:
    "... Alexei Ulyukayev is a well-known economic liberal, with a career dating back to the turbulent market reforms of the 1990s ..."
    "... "The arrest was big news on Russia's state-run TV channels." ..."
    "... Yesterday RBK economic channel (pro-liberast independent one) could not shut up – they were talking only about this. Ekho Moscvy was hysterical, as if it was not the crook arrested, but Lucavichev rabbi robbed and killed in his synagogue. ..."
    "... "News of the minister's arrest sparked a mixture of shock and bewilderment." ..."
    "... "Alexei Ulyukayev is a well-known economic liberal, with a career dating back to the turbulent market reforms of the 1990s." ..."
    "... So… to become a "liberal victim of the Regime" instead of "Regime's lackey" you must steal lots of money and get caught? A-okey! ..."
    "... It's also charming when the article uses the tired cliché "some think" or "some people consider this" as a way of legitimizing their own speculations. ..."
    Nov 15, 2016 | marknesop.wordpress.com

    Moscow Exile , November 15, 2016 at 10:52 pm

    BBC hypocrisy knows no bounds!

    Russian Economy Minister Ulyukayev charged with $2m bribe

    The arrest was big news on Russia's state-run TV channels.

    However, sources told the Novaya Gazeta website that Mr Ulyukayev himself did not take any money, contradicting earlier reports, and there was no video footage of his arrest. [Novaya Gazeta said that? Well what a surprise! - ME]

    The economy ministry described the arrest as "strange and surprising".

    Show of state strength or payback? By Sarah Rainsford, BBC News, Moscow

    News of the minister's arrest sparked a mixture of shock and bewilderment.

    A stream of commentators on state TV have been telling viewers that this means that no-one is untouchable, or above the law. Even ministers.

    So on one level, the FSB operation is a clear show of state strength. A message to senior officials and far beyond.

    But elsewhere there are doubts, and questions about the possible politics behind this.

    Alexei Ulyukayev is a well-known economic liberal, with a career dating back to the turbulent market reforms of the 1990s.

    He's against increasing state-control of the economy and opposed the Bashneft privatisation deal which was led by a close and powerful ally of President Putin.

    So some suggest this could be a dramatic form of payback. More effective, than simply sacking him.

    Others see a symbolic blow to the liberal camp in government.

    [my stress]

    State TV! State TV! State TV!

    D'ya hear me? - State TV!!!!!!!

    Unlike the British Broadcasting Corporation, of course.

    Lyttenburgh , November 15, 2016 at 11:33 pm
    "The arrest was big news on Russia's state-run TV channels."

    Yesterday RBK economic channel (pro-liberast independent one) could not shut up – they were talking only about this. Ekho Moscvy was hysterical, as if it was not the crook arrested, but Lucavichev rabbi robbed and killed in his synagogue.

    "News of the minister's arrest sparked a mixture of shock and bewilderment."

    Mainly a good cheer and hope that other liberal ministers will soon follow in his steps.

    "Alexei Ulyukayev is a well-known economic liberal, with a career dating back to the turbulent market reforms of the 1990s."

    So… to become a "liberal victim of the Regime" instead of "Regime's lackey" you must steal lots of money and get caught? A-okey!

    It's also charming when the article uses the tired cliché "some think" or "some people consider this" as a way of legitimizing their own speculations.

    [Nov 16, 2016] Rand Paul: Will Donald Trump betray voters by hiring John Bolton?

    Notable quotes:
    "... Trump has blamed George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton for helping to create ISIS - but should add John Bolton to that list, who essentially agreed with all three on our regime change debacles. ..."
    "... In 2011, Bolton bashed Obama "for his refusal to directly target Gaddafi" and declared, "there is a strategic interest in toppling Gaddafi… But Obama missed it." In fact, Obama actually took Bolton's advice and bombed the Libyan dictator into the next world. Secretary of State Clinton bragged , "We came, we saw, he died." ..."
    "... All nuance is lost on the man. The fact that Russia has had a base in Syria for 50 years doesn't deter Bolton from calling for all out, no holds barred war in Syria. Bolton criticized the current administration for offering only a tepid war. For Bolton, only a hot-blooded war to create democracy across the globe is demanded. ..."
    "... Bolton would not understand this because, like many of his generation, he used every privilege to avoid serving himself. Bolton said, with the threat of the Vietnam draft over his head, that "he had no desire to die in a Southeast Asian rice paddy." ..."
    "... But he's seems to be okay with your son or daughter dying wherever his neoconservative impulse leads us ..."
    Nov 16, 2016 | rare.us
    Bolton was one of the loudest advocates of overthrowing Saddam Hussein and still stupefyingly insists it was the right call 13 years later. "I still think the decision to overthrow Saddam was correct," Bolton said just last year.

    Trump, rightly, believes that decision was a colossal mistake that destabilized the region. "Iraq used to be no terrorists," Trump said in 2015. "(N)ow it's the Harvard of terrorism."

    "If you look at Iraq from years ago, I'm not saying he was a nice guy, he was a horrible guy," Trump said of Saddam Hussein, "but it was a lot better than it is right now."

    Trump has said U.S. intervention in Iraq in 2003 "helped to throw the region into chaos and gave ISIS the space it needs to grow and prosper." In contrast, Bolton has said explicitly that he wants to repeat Iraq-style regime change in Syrian and Iran.

    You can't learn from mistakes if you don't see mistakes.

    Trump has blamed George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton for helping to create ISIS - but should add John Bolton to that list, who essentially agreed with all three on our regime change debacles.

    In 2011, Bolton bashed Obama "for his refusal to directly target Gaddafi" and declared, "there is a strategic interest in toppling Gaddafi… But Obama missed it." In fact, Obama actually took Bolton's advice and bombed the Libyan dictator into the next world. Secretary of State Clinton bragged , "We came, we saw, he died."

    When Trump was asked last year if Libya and the region would be more stable today with Gaddafi in power, he replied "100 percent." Mr. Trump is 100 percent right .

    No man is more out of touch with the situation in the Middle East or more dangerous to our national security than Bolton.

    All nuance is lost on the man. The fact that Russia has had a base in Syria for 50 years doesn't deter Bolton from calling for all out, no holds barred war in Syria. Bolton criticized the current administration for offering only a tepid war. For Bolton, only a hot-blooded war to create democracy across the globe is demanded.

    Woodrow Wilson would be proud, but the parents of our soldiers should be mortified. War should be the last resort, never the first. War should be understood to be a hell no one wishes for. Dwight Eisenhower understood this when he wrote, "I hate war like only a soldier can, the stupidity, the banality, the futility."

    Bolton would not understand this because, like many of his generation, he used every privilege to avoid serving himself. Bolton said, with the threat of the Vietnam draft over his head, that "he had no desire to die in a Southeast Asian rice paddy."

    But he's seems to be okay with your son or daughter dying wherever his neoconservative impulse leads us: "Even before the Iraq War, John Bolton was a leading brain behind the neoconservatives' war-and-conquest agenda," notes The American Conservative's Jon Utley.

    At a time when Americans thirst for change and new thinking, Bolton is an old hand at failed foreign policy.

    The man is a menace.

    Rand Paul is the junior senator from Kentucky.

    [Nov 15, 2016] Over half of Ukraines population lives below poverty level

    Nov 15, 2016 | eadaily.com
    Nearly 60% (58.3%) of the population in Ukraine lives below the poverty line, according to data of the M.V. Ptukha Institute of Demography and Social Surveys, the National Academy of Science of Ukraine.

    In 2015, this indicator was half as much – 28.6%. "The poverty index has increased twofold along with the actual cost of living," says Svetlana Polyakova , the leading research fellow at the Living Standard Department at the Demography Institute. "In addition, within the past year, we saw a growth of the poverty level defined by the UN criteria for estimation of internationally comparable poverty line in Central and Eastern Europe."

    The highest poverty line was registered among the families having at least one child – 38.6% and pensioners – 23%. The situation may deteriorate this year. According to the State Service of Statistics, savings of Ukrainians in April-June fell by 5.297billion hryvnias (more than $200 million at the current exchange rate).

    The cost of living in Ukraine in 2016 makes up 1,544 hryvnias (about $60).

    Earlier, Prime Minister of Ukraine Volodymyr Groysman said the previous policy of populism and "money printing and distribution to people" made the country weaker and the people poorer.

    [Nov 15, 2016] The Trump Doctrine The American Conservative

    Notable quotes:
    "... On Sunday's "60 Minutes," Trump said: "You know, we've been fighting this war for 15 years. … We've spent $6 trillion in the Middle East, $6 trillion - we could have rebuilt our country twice. And you look at our roads and our bridges and our tunnels … and our airports are … obsolete." ..."
    "... They want to confront Vladimir Putin, somewhere, anywhere. They want to send U.S. troops to the eastern Baltic. They want to send weapons to Kiev to fight Russia in Donetsk, Luhansk and Crimea. ..."
    "... At the end of the Cold War, however, with the Soviet Empire history and the Soviet Union having disintegrated, George H.W. Bush launched his New World Order. His son, George W., invaded Iraq and preached a global crusade for democracy "to end tyranny in our world." ..."
    "... Result: the Mideast disaster Trump described to Lesley Stahl, and constant confrontations with Russia caused by pushing our NATO alliance right up to and inside what had been Putin's country. ..."
    "... The opportunity is at hand for Trump to reconfigure U.S. foreign policy to the world we now inhabit, and to the vital interests of the United States. ..."
    Nov 15, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com
    However Donald Trump came upon the foreign policy views he espoused, they were as crucial to his election as his views on trade and the border. Yet those views are hemlock to the GOP foreign policy elite and the liberal Democratic interventionists of the Acela Corridor. Trump promised an "America First" foreign policy rooted in the national interest, not in nostalgia. The neocons insist that every Cold War and post-Cold War commitment be maintained, in perpetuity.

    On Sunday's "60 Minutes," Trump said: "You know, we've been fighting this war for 15 years. … We've spent $6 trillion in the Middle East, $6 trillion - we could have rebuilt our country twice. And you look at our roads and our bridges and our tunnels … and our airports are … obsolete."

    Yet the War Party has not had enough of war, not nearly.

    They want to confront Vladimir Putin, somewhere, anywhere. They want to send U.S. troops to the eastern Baltic. They want to send weapons to Kiev to fight Russia in Donetsk, Luhansk and Crimea.

    They want to establish a no-fly zone and shoot down Syrian and Russian planes that violate it, acts of war Congress never authorized.

    They want to trash the Iran nuclear deal, though all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies told us, with high confidence, in 2007 and 2011, Iran did not even have a nuclear weapons program.

    Other hardliners want to face down Beijing over its claims to the reefs and rocks of the South China Sea, though our Manila ally is talking of tightening ties to China and kicking us out of Subic Bay.

    In none of these places is there a U.S. vital interest so imperiled as to justify the kind of war the War Party would risk.

    Trump has the opportunity to be the president who, like Harry Truman, redirected U.S. foreign policy for a generation.

    After World War II, we awoke to find our wartime ally, Stalin, had emerged as a greater enemy than Germany or Japan. Stalin's empire stretched from the Elbe to the Pacific.

    In 1949, suddenly, he had the atom bomb, and China, the most populous nation on earth, had fallen to the armies of Mao Zedong.

    As our situation was new, Truman acted anew. He adopted a George Kennan policy of containment of the world Communist empire, the Truman Doctrine, and sent an army to prevent South Korea from being overrun.

    At the end of the Cold War, however, with the Soviet Empire history and the Soviet Union having disintegrated, George H.W. Bush launched his New World Order. His son, George W., invaded Iraq and preached a global crusade for democracy "to end tyranny in our world."

    A policy born of hubris.

    Result: the Mideast disaster Trump described to Lesley Stahl, and constant confrontations with Russia caused by pushing our NATO alliance right up to and inside what had been Putin's country.

    How did we expect Russian patriots to react?

    The opportunity is at hand for Trump to reconfigure U.S. foreign policy to the world we now inhabit, and to the vital interests of the United States.

    What should Trump say?

    • As our Cold War presidents from Truman to Reagan avoided World War III, I intend to avert Cold War II. We do not regard Russia or the Russian people as enemies of the United States, and we will work with President Putin to ease the tensions that have arisen between us.
    • For our part, NATO expansion is over, and U.S. forces will not be deployed in any former republic of the Soviet Union.
    • While Article 5 of NATO imposes an obligation to regard an attack upon any one of 28 nations as an attack on us all, in our Constitution, Congress, not some treaty dating back to before most Americans were even born, decides whether we go to war.
    • The compulsive interventionism of recent decades is history. How nations govern themselves is their own business. While, as JFK said, we prefer democracies and republics to autocrats and dictators, we will base our attitude toward other nations upon their attitude toward us.
    • No other nation's internal affairs are a vital interest of ours.
    • Europeans have to be awakened to reality. We are not going to be forever committed to fighting their wars. They are going to have to defend themselves, and that transition begins now.
    • In Syria and Iraq, our enemies are al-Qaida and ISIS. We have no intention of bringing down the Assad regime, as that would open the door to Islamic terrorists. We have learned from Iraq and Libya.

    Then Trump should move expeditiously to lay out and fix the broad outlines of his foreign policy, which entails rebuilding our military while beginning the cancellation of war guarantees that have no connection to U.S. vital interests. We cannot continue to bankrupt ourselves to fight other countries' wars or pay other countries' bills.

    The ideal time for such a declaration, a Trump Doctrine, is when the president-elect presents his secretaries of state and defense.

    Patrick J. Buchanan is a founding editor of The American Conservative and the author of the book The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority .

    [Nov 13, 2016] OPEC Pumping Oil at Record Levels to Collapse Russia

    Nov 11, 2016 | youtube.com

    SUBSCRIBE for Latest ECONOMIC CRISIS ECONOMIC NEWS MONETARY INFORMATION OIL MARKET PETROL MARKET DOLLAR VALUE ECONOMIC FLUCTUATIONS ECONOMIC GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT GLOBAL MARKET COLLAPSE GOLD SILVER FINANCIAL INVESMENT GLOBAL RESET BITCOIN AGENDA 21 GLOBAL RESET DAVOS 2016 GLOBAL RESET NEW WORLD ORDER

    [Nov 13, 2016] Putin spokesman calls on Trump to press NATO to withdraw from border

    Nov 13, 2016 | thehill.com

    "A spokesman for Russian President Vladimir Putin is suggesting President-elect Donald Trump begin rebuilding the U.S.-Kremlin relationship by urging NATO to withdraw forces from the Russian border.

    Dmitry Peskov told the Associated Press that such a move "would lead to a kind of detente in Europe."...

    ...Peskov said in the interview that the NATO presence does not make Russia feel "safe."

    "Of course, we have to take measures to counter," he said.

    In a separate interview with the Associated Press on Thursday, Peskov insisted that Crimea, the region of Ukraine annexed by the Kremlin in 2014, is part of Russia.

    "No one in Russia - never - will be ready to start any kind of discussion about Crimea," he said, refusing to call it "annexation."..."

    [Nov 12, 2016] The Podesta emails - After Hillary, John Podesta had been seriously warned about the Syrian chaos

    Nov 12, 2016 | failedevolution.blogspot.gr

    WikiLeaks series on deals involving Hillary Clinton campaign Chairman John Podesta. Mr Podesta is a long-term associate of the Clintons and was President Bill Clinton's Chief of Staff from 1998 until 2001. Mr Podesta also owns the Podesta Group with his brother Tony, a major lobbying firm and is the Chair of the Center for American Progress (CAP), a Washington DC-based think tank.
    globinfo freexchange
    A letter under the title "Stay out of Syria" from Jon Soltz , an Iraq War Veteran and founder of VoteVets.org, to John Podesta in May, 2013, confirms the multiple, serious warnings that the Clinton/Podesta complex had received about the implications of the US involvement on Syrian mess.
    Soltz's warnings couldn't be more clear. He points that " arming and training the Syrian rebels is a misguided and dangerous idea " and that he helped to train the Iraqi Army, and " their concern is that many of the anti-Assad forces are the same terrorists they've fought before and who continue to target them ". He also writes that " there is no winning scenario when we get involved in other nations' civil wars and proxy wars ".
    Most important parts of the short letter:
    Earlier this week, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted 15-3 in favor of arming and training the Syrian rebels. This is a misguided and dangerous idea. I helped to train the Iraqi Army during my second tour, and their concern is that many of the anti-Assad forces are the same terrorists they've fought before and who continue to target them . Plus, as Senator Tom Udall noted, once we introduce weapons, we have zero control over them . The United States "could turn over the weapons we're talking about and next day they end up in the hands of al-Qaida." Three Senators voted against the bill in committee, but we need you to send a strong message to the other 97 that you oppose intervention in Syria's civil war.
    Moreover, there is no winning scenario when we get involved in other nations' civil wars and proxy wars . On this point, Senator Chris Murphy said it best: "We have failed over and over again in our attempts to pull the strings of Middle Eastern politics." Let's not make the same mistake again.
    Full letter:
    https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/59165
    Recall that, another letter from Clinton email series, released also by WikiLeaks, proves that Hillary had been seriously warned about the oncoming Syrian chaos , already since 2011.
    Apparently, the Clinton/Podesta complex completely ignored those serious warnings. Hillary and her team are totally responsible for doing nothing to prevent, or at least restrict, the Middle East chaos.

    [Nov 12, 2016] Trump elected as President – risks and opportunities

    Notable quotes:
    "... Ideally, the next step would be for Trump and Putin to meet, with all their key ministers, in a long, Camp David like week of negotiations in which everything, every outstanding dispute, should be put on the table and a compromise sought in each case. Paradoxically, this could be rather easy: the crisis in Europe is entirely artificial, the war in Syria has an absolutely obvious solution, and the international order can easily accommodate a United States which would " deal fairly with everyone, with everyone - all people and all other nations " and " seek common ground, not hostility; partnership, not conflict ". ..."
    "... The truth is that the USA and Russia have no objective reasons for conflict – only ideological issues resulting directly from the insane ideology of messianic imperialism of those who believe, or pretend to believe, that the USA is an "indispensable nation". What the world wants – needs – is the USA as a *normal* nation. ..."
    "... The worst case? Trump could turn out to be a total fraud. I personally very much doubt it, but I admit that this is possible. More likely is that he just won't have the foresight and courage to crush the Neocons and that he will try to placate them. If he does so, they will instead crush him. It is a fact that while administrations have changed every 4 or 8 years, the regime in power has not, and that US internal and foreign policies have been amazingly consistent since the end of WWII. Will Trump finally bring not just a new administration but real "regime change"? I don't know. ..."
    "... Alexander Solzhenitsyn used to say that regimes can be measured on a spectrum which ranges from regimes whose authority is their power and regimes whose power in in their authority. In the case of the USA we now clearly can see that the regime has no other authority than its power and that makes it both illegitimate and unsustainable. ..."
    "... Finally, whether the US elites can accept this or not, the US Empire is coming to an end. ..."
    "... With Hillary, we would have had a Titanic-like denial up to the last moment which might well have come in the shape of a thermonuclear mushroom over Washington DC. Trump, however, might use the remaining power of the USA to negotiate the US global draw-down thereby getting the best possible conditions for his country. ..."
    Nov 12, 2016 | www.unz.com

    So it has happened: Hillary did not win! I say that instead of saying that "Trump won" because I consider the former even more important than the latter. Why? Because I have no idea whatsoever what Trump will do next. I do, however, have an excellent idea of what Hillary would have done: war with Russia. Trump most likely won't do that. In fact, he specifically said in his acceptance speech:

    I want to tell the world community that while we will always put America's interests first, we will deal fairly with everyone, with everyone - all people and all other nations. We will seek common ground, not hostility; partnership, not conflict .

    And Putin's reply was immediate:

    We heard the statements he made as candidate for president expressing a desire to restore relations between our countries. We realise and understand that this will not be an easy road given the level to which our relations have degraded today, regrettably. But, as I have said before, it is not Russia's fault that our relations with the United States have reached this point.

    Russia is ready to and seeks a return to full-format relations with the United States. Let me say again, we know that this will not be easy, but are ready to take this road, take steps on our side and do all we can to set Russian-US relations back on a stable development track.

    This would benefit both the Russian and American peoples and would have a positive impact on the general climate in international affairs, given the particular responsibility that Russia and the US share for maintaining global stability and security.

    This exchange, right there, is enough of a reason for the entire planet to rejoice at the defeat of Hillary and the victory of Trump.

    Will Trump now have the courage, willpower and intelligence to purge the US Executive from the Neocon cabal which has been infiltrating it for decades now? Will he have the strength to confront an extremely hostile Congress and media? Or will he try to meet them halfway and naively hope that they will not use their power, money and influence to sabotage his presidency?

    I don't know. Nobody does.

    One of the first signs to look for will be the names and backgrounds of the folks he will appoint in his new administration. Especially his Chief of Staff and Secretary of State.

    I have always said that the choice for the lesser evil is morally wrong and pragmatically misguided. I still believe that. In this case, however, the greater evil was thermonuclear war with Russia and the lesser evil just might turn out to be one which will gradually give up the Empire to save the USA rather than sacrifice the USA for the needs of the Empire. In the case of Hillary vs Trump the choice was simple: war or peace.

    Trump can already be credited with am immense achievement: his campaign has forced the US corporate media to show its true face – the face of an evil, lying, morally corrupt propaganda machine. The American people by their vote have rewarded their media with a gigantic "f*ck you!" – a vote of no-confidence and total rejection which will forever demolish the credibility of the Empire's propaganda machine.

    I am not so naive as to not realize that billionaire Donald Trump is also one of the 1%ers, a pure product of the US oligarchy. But neither am I so ignorant of history to forget that elites do turn on each other , especially when their regime is threatened. Do I need to remind anybody that Putin also came from the Soviet elites?!

    Ideally, the next step would be for Trump and Putin to meet, with all their key ministers, in a long, Camp David like week of negotiations in which everything, every outstanding dispute, should be put on the table and a compromise sought in each case. Paradoxically, this could be rather easy: the crisis in Europe is entirely artificial, the war in Syria has an absolutely obvious solution, and the international order can easily accommodate a United States which would " deal fairly with everyone, with everyone - all people and all other nations " and " seek common ground, not hostility; partnership, not conflict ".

    The truth is that the USA and Russia have no objective reasons for conflict – only ideological issues resulting directly from the insane ideology of messianic imperialism of those who believe, or pretend to believe, that the USA is an "indispensable nation". What the world wants – needs – is the USA as a *normal* nation.

    The worst case? Trump could turn out to be a total fraud. I personally very much doubt it, but I admit that this is possible. More likely is that he just won't have the foresight and courage to crush the Neocons and that he will try to placate them. If he does so, they will instead crush him. It is a fact that while administrations have changed every 4 or 8 years, the regime in power has not, and that US internal and foreign policies have been amazingly consistent since the end of WWII. Will Trump finally bring not just a new administration but real "regime change"? I don't know.

    Make no mistake – even if Trump does end up disappointing those who believed in him what happened today has dealt a death blow to the Empire. The "Occupy Wall Street" did not succeed in achieving anything tangible, but the notion of "rule of the 1%" did emerge from that movement and it stayed. This is a direct blow to the credibility and legitimacy of the entire socio-political order of the USA: far from being a democracy, it is a plutocracy/oligarchy – everybody pretty much accepts that today. Likewise, the election of Trump has already proved that the US media is a prostitute and that the majority of the American people hate their ruling class. Again, this is a direct blow to the credibility and legitimacy of the entire socio-political order. One by one the founding myths of the US Empire are crashing down and what remains is a system which can only rule by force.

    Alexander Solzhenitsyn used to say that regimes can be measured on a spectrum which ranges from regimes whose authority is their power and regimes whose power in in their authority. In the case of the USA we now clearly can see that the regime has no other authority than its power and that makes it both illegitimate and unsustainable.

    Finally, whether the US elites can accept this or not, the US Empire is coming to an end.

    With Hillary, we would have had a Titanic-like denial up to the last moment which might well have come in the shape of a thermonuclear mushroom over Washington DC. Trump, however, might use the remaining power of the USA to negotiate the US global draw-down thereby getting the best possible conditions for his country. Frankly, I am pretty sure that all the key world leaders realize that it is in their interest to make as many (reasonable) concessions to Trump as possible and work with him, rather than to deal with the people whom he just removed from power.

    If Trump can stick to his campaign promises he will find solid and reliable partners in Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping. Neither Russia nor China have anything at all to gain from a confrontation or, even less so, a conflict with the USA. Will Trump have the wisdom to realize this and use it for the benefit of the USA? Or will he continue with his anti-Chinese and anti-Iranian rhetoric?

    Only time will tell.

    [Nov 12, 2016] Neocon bottomfeeders now are having the second thoughts

    Notable quotes:
    "... Some of those applications are coming from the #NeverTrump crowd, the source said, and include former national security officials who signed one or more of the letters opposing Trump. ..."
    "... Fifty GOP national security experts signed an August letter saying Trump "would put at risk our country's national security and well-being" because he "lacks the character, values and experience" to occupy the Oval Office, making him "the most reckless president in American history." ..."
    "... Another bipartisan letter cited concern about potential foreign conflicts of interest Trump might encounter as president, and called on him to disclose them by releasing his tax returns. Trump has refused to do so, saying he is under audit and will make the returns public only once that is done. ..."
    www.cnn.com

    The extraordinary repudiation -- partly based on Trump's rejection of basic US foreign policy tenets, including support for close allies -- helped spark the hashtag #NeverTrump. Now, a source familiar with transition planning says that hard wall of resistance is crumbling fast.

    There are "boxes" of applications, the source said. "There are many more than people realize."

    Some of those applications are coming from the #NeverTrump crowd, the source said, and include former national security officials who signed one or more of the letters opposing Trump. "Mea culpas" are being considered -- and in some cases being granted, the source said -- for people who did not go a step further in attacking Trump personally.

    ... ... ...

    Fifty GOP national security experts signed an August letter saying Trump "would put at risk our country's national security and well-being" because he "lacks the character, values and experience" to occupy the Oval Office, making him "the most reckless president in American history."

    Another bipartisan letter cited concern about potential foreign conflicts of interest Trump might encounter as president, and called on him to disclose them by releasing his tax returns. Trump has refused to do so, saying he is under audit and will make the returns public only once that is done.

    It remains to be seen what kind of team Trump will pull together, how many "NeverTrumpers" will apply for positions and to what degree the President-elect will be willing to accept them.

    There's a fight underway within the Trump transition team about whether to consider "never Trumpers" for jobs, one official tells CNN. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, who is leading the transition team, has been working to persuade Trump and other top officials to consider Republicans who openly opposed his campaign. That has caused some friction with those who see no place for people who didn't support their candidate.

    [Nov 12, 2016] The Clintons And Soros Launch Americas Purple Revolution

    Notable quotes:
    "... America's globalists and interventionists are already pushing the meme that because so many establishment and entrenched national security and military "experts" opposed Trump's candidacy, Trump is "required" to call on them to join his administration because there are not enough such "experts" among Trump's inner circle of advisers. ..."
    "... Discredited neo-conservatives from George W. Bush's White House, such as Iraq war co-conspirator Stephen Hadley, are being mentioned as someone Trump should have join his National Security Council and other senior positions. George H. W. Bush's Secretary of State James Baker, a die-hard Bush loyalist, is also being proffered as a member of Trump's White House team. ..."
    "... There is absolutely no reason for Trump to seek the advice from old Republican fossils like Baker, Hadley, former Secretaries of State Rice and Powell, the lunatic former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton, and others. There are plenty of Trump supporters who have a wealth of experience in foreign and national security matters, including those of African, Haitian, Hispanic, and Arab descent and who are not neocons, who can fill Trump's senior- and middle-level positions. ..."
    "... Trump must distance himself from sudden well-wishing neocons, adventurists, militarists, and interventionists and not permit them to infest his administration. ..."
    "... PNAC: Project for New American Century. The main neocon lobby, it focused first on invading Iraq. Founded 1997, by William Kristol & Robert Kagan. First action: open letter to Clinton advocating Iraq war. Members in the Iraq-War clique: Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith, BOLTON, Libby, Abrams, Wurmser, Perle. ..."
    "... HE PROMISED he would appoint a special prosecutor, PROMISED... ..."
    "... Trump should reverse the McCain Feingold bill. That would take some wind out of Soros' sails, at least temporarily because that was Soros' bill. He wanted campaign finance reform which actually meant that he wanted to control campaign finance through 501C3 groups, or foundations such as Open Society, Moveon.org, Ella Baker society, Center for American progress, etc. He has a massive web of these organizations and they fund smaller ones and all kinds of evil. ..."
    "... Tyler, please rerun this! How George Sorros destroys countries, profits from currency trading, convinces the countries to privatize its assets, buys them and then sells them for yet another profit: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-08/how-george-soros-singlehandedly... ..."
    "... We know so little about Trump ... he's neoCon friendly to start with (remember he hired neoCon Grandee James Woolsey as an advisor)... and remember too Trump is promising his own war against Iran ... ..."
    "... JFK was gunned down in front of the whole world. ..."
    "... If Trump really is a nationalist patriot he'll need to innoculate the Population about the Deep State... they in turn will unleash financial disintegration and chaos, a Purple Revolution and then assassinate Trump (or have his own party impeach him) ..."
    "... Organizing a means to receive the protestors' complaints may co-opt any organized effort to disrupt good political interaction and it will also separate out the bad elements cited by Madsen. ..."
    Nov 12, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    Submitted by Wayne Madsen via Strategic-Culture.org,

    Defeated Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton is not about to "go quietly into that good night". On the morning after her surprising and unanticipated defeat at the hands of Republican Party upstart Donald Trump, Mrs. Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, entered the ball room of the art-deco New Yorker hotel in midtown Manhattan and were both adorned in purple attire. The press immediately noticed the color and asked what it represented. Clinton spokespeople claimed it was to represent the coming together of Democratic "Blue America" and Republican "Red America" into a united purple blend. This statement was a complete ruse as is known by citizens of countries targeted in the past by the vile political operations of international hedge fund tycoon George Soros.

    The Clintons, who both have received millions of dollars in campaign contributions and Clinton Foundation donations from Soros, were, in fact, helping to launch Soros's "Purple Revolution" in America. The Purple Revolution will resist all efforts by the Trump administration to push back against the globalist policies of the Clintons and soon-to-be ex-President Barack Obama. The Purple Revolution will also seek to make the Trump administration a short one through Soros-style street protests and political disruption.

    It is doubtful that President Trump's aides will advise the new president to carry out a diversionary criminal investigation of Mrs. Clinton's private email servers and other issues related to the activities of the Clinton Foundation, especially when the nation faces so many other pressing issues, including jobs, immigration, and health care. However, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz said he will continue hearings in the Republican-controlled Congress on Hillary Clinton, the Clinton Foundation, and Mrs. Clinton's aide Huma Abedin . President Trump should not allow himself to be distracted by these efforts. Chaffetz was not one of Trump's most loyal supporters.

    America's globalists and interventionists are already pushing the meme that because so many establishment and entrenched national security and military "experts" opposed Trump's candidacy, Trump is "required" to call on them to join his administration because there are not enough such "experts" among Trump's inner circle of advisers.

    Discredited neo-conservatives from George W. Bush's White House, such as Iraq war co-conspirator Stephen Hadley, are being mentioned as someone Trump should have join his National Security Council and other senior positions. George H. W. Bush's Secretary of State James Baker, a die-hard Bush loyalist, is also being proffered as a member of Trump's White House team.

    There is absolutely no reason for Trump to seek the advice from old Republican fossils like Baker, Hadley, former Secretaries of State Rice and Powell, the lunatic former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton, and others. There are plenty of Trump supporters who have a wealth of experience in foreign and national security matters, including those of African, Haitian, Hispanic, and Arab descent and who are not neocons, who can fill Trump's senior- and middle-level positions.

    Trump must distance himself from sudden well-wishing neocons, adventurists, militarists, and interventionists and not permit them to infest his administration. If Mrs. Clinton had won the presidency, an article on the incoming administration would have read as follows:

    "Based on the militarism and foreign adventurism of her term as Secretary of State and her husband Bill Clinton's two terms as president, the world is in store for major American military aggression on multiple fronts around the world. President-elect Hillary Clinton has made no secret of her desire to confront Russia militarily, diplomatically, and economically in the Middle East, on Russia's very doorstep in eastern Europe, and even within the borders of the Russian Federation. Mrs. Clinton has dusted off the long-discredited 'containment' policy ushered into effect by Professor George F. Kennan in the aftermath of World War. Mrs. Clinton's administration will likely promote the most strident neo-Cold Warriors of the Barack Obama administration, including Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland, a personal favorite of Clinton".

    President-elect Trump cannot afford to permit those who are in the same web as Nuland, Hadley, Bolton, and others to join his administration where they would metastasize like an aggressive form of cancer. These individuals would not carry out Trump's policies but seek to continue to damage America's relations with Russia, China, Iran, Cuba, and other nations.

    Not only must Trump have to deal with Republican neocons trying to worm their way into his administration, but he must deal with the attempt by Soros to disrupt his presidency and the United States with a Purple Revolution

    No sooner had Trump been declared the 45th president of the United States, Soros-funded political operations launched their activities to disrupt Trump during Obama's lame-duck period and thereafter. The swiftness of the Purple Revolution is reminiscent of the speed at which protesters hit the streets of Kiev, the Ukrainian capital, in two Orange Revolutions sponsored by Soros, one in 2004 and the other, ten years later, in 2014.

    As the Clintons were embracing purple in New York, street demonstrations, some violent, all coordinated by the Soros-funded Moveon.org and "Black Lives Matter", broke out in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Oakland, Nashville, Cleveland, Washington, Austin, Seattle, Philadelphia, Richmond, St. Paul, Kansas City, Omaha, San Francisco, and some 200 other cities across the United States.

    The Soros-financed Russian singing group "Pussy Riot" released on YouTube an anti-Trump music video titled "Make America Great Again". The video went "viral" on the Internet. The video, which is profane and filled with violent acts, portrays a dystopian Trump presidency. Following the George Soros/Gene Sharp script to a tee, Pussy Riot member Nadya Tolokonnikova called for anti-Trump Americans to turn their anger into art, particularly music and visual art. The use of political graffiti is a popular Sharp tactic. The street protests and anti-Trump music and art were the first phase of Soros's Purple Revolution in America.

    President-elect Trump is facing a two-pronged attack by his opponents. One, led by entrenched neo-con bureaucrats, including former Central Intelligence Agency and National Security Agency director Michael Hayden, former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, and Bush family loyalists are seeking to call the shots on who Trump appoints to senior national security, intelligence, foreign policy, and defense positions in his administration. These neo-Cold Warriors are trying to convince Trump that he must maintain the Obama aggressiveness and militancy toward Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, and other countries. The second front arrayed against Trump is from Soros-funded political groups and media. This second line of attack is a propaganda war, utilizing hundreds of anti-Trump newspapers, web sites, and broadcasters, that will seek to undermine public confidence in the Trump administration from its outset.

    One of Trump's political advertisements, released just prior to Election Day, stated that George Soros, Federal Reserve chair Janet Yellen, and Goldman Sachs chief executive officer Lloyd Blankfein, are all part of "a global power structure that is responsible for the economic decisions that have robbed our working class, stripped our country of its wealth and put that money into the pockets of a handful of large corporations and political entities". Soros and his minions immediately and ridiculously attacked the ad as "anti-Semitic". President Trump should be on guard against those who his campaign called out in the ad and their colleagues. Soros's son, Alexander Soros, called on Trump's daughter, Ivanka, and her husband Jared Kushner, to publicly disavow Trump. Soros's tactics not only seek to split apart nations but also families. Trump must be on guard against the current and future machinations of George Soros, including his Purple Revolution.

    Pinto Currency nmb Nov 11, 2016 8:37 PM ,

    Purple must be the color of pedophiles.

    Soros, Clintons, Podestas, amd apparently Obama are all into it as we are learning from Comet Ping Pong scandal:

    https://i.sli.mg/ayI6QF.jpg

    https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5b1qtf/comet_ping_pong_pizz...

    https://dcpizzagate.wordpress.com/

    https://i.redd.it/3l20mhvrxtvx.png

    http://investmentwatchblog.com/breaking-from-the-anon-who-brought-you-th...

    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a1c_1478546206

    https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/04/the-strange-case-of-gord...

    http://www.newsdailystudio.com/2016/11/05/bill-clinton-wasnt-the-only-on...

    Keep your eye on Jared Kushner, who is Trump's son-in-law. He refused to have his newspaper the NY Observer endorse Trump. That is not a good sign.

    MalteseFalcon Pinto Currency Nov 11, 2016 8:39 PM ,
    "It is doubtful that President Trump's aides will advise the new president to carry out a diversionary criminal investigation of Mrs. Clinton's private email servers and other issues related to the activities of the Clinton Foundation, especially when the nation faces so many other pressing issues, including jobs, immigration, and health care."

    None of those "pressing issues" involve the DOJ or the FBI.

    Investigate, prosecute and jail Hillary Clinton and her crew.

    Trump is going to need a hostage or two to deal with these fucks.

    If he doesn't, they will deal with him.

    letsit Occident Mortal Nov 11, 2016 8:45 PM ,
    Netanyahu, the greatest neocon of all, endorsed Trump. All TRUE neocons love Trump.

    https://biblicisminstitute.wordpress.com/views-of-news/#trumpmeans

    Husk-Erzulie nmewn Nov 12, 2016 9:48 AM ,
    Big series of protests being planned. Recruiting ads in Craigslist nationwide. Purple ties and dresses all over MSM this morning.

    This is when the Purple Hats, Flags, Balloons start coming out.

    Kill it before it grows.

    https://twitter.com/AustinChas/status/797445221122506752

    any_mouse californiagirl Nov 12, 2016 2:54 AM ,
    Purple and royalty? Purple in Rome?

    News for the Clintons, The R's and D's already united to vote against Hillary.

    I do not understand why they think street protests will bring down a POTUS? And that would be acceptable in a major nation.

    Why isn't the government cracking down the separatists in Oregon, California, and elsewhere? They are not accepting the legal outcome of an election. They are calling for illegal secession. (Funny in 1861 this was a cause for the federal government to attack the joint and seveal states of the union.) If a group of whites had protested Obama's election in 2008?

    The people living in Kalispell are reviled and ridiculed for their separatist views. Randy Weaver and family for not accepting politically correct views. And so on.

    This is getting out of hand. There will be no walking this back.

    Erek any_mouse Nov 12, 2016 7:47 AM ,
    Purple is the color of royalty! Are these fuckers proclaiming themselves as King and Queen of America? If so, get the executioner and give them a "French Haircut"!
    X_in_Sweden Grimaldus Nov 12, 2016 10:58 AM ,
    Grimaldus ,

    "Yes. And who are the neocons really? Progressives. Neocon is a label successfully used by criminal progressives to shield their brand."

    Well let's go a little bit deeper in examing the 'who' thing:

    "The neoconservative movement, which is generally perceived as a radical (rather than "conservative") Republican right, is, in reality, an intellectual movement born in the late 1960s in the pages of the monthly magazine Commentary , a media arm of the American Jewish Committee , which had replaced the Contemporary Jewish Record in 1945. The Forward , the oldest American Jewish weekly, wrote in a January 6th, 2006 article signed Gal Beckerman: " If there is an intellectual movement in America to whose invention Jews can lay sole claim, neoconservatism is it.... "

    From the article By Laurent Guyénot , Who Are The Neoconservatives?* http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article35106.htm

    Are you connecting the dots.......folks......?

    . . . _ _ _ . . . Bendromeda Strain Nov 11, 2016 11:04 PM ,

    Great avatar!

    GROWTH IS THE ULTIMATE PONZI SCHEME

    Lavada Chupacabra-322 Nov 12, 2016 10:41 AM ,
    The idea of arresting the Clinton Crime, Fraud and Crime Family would be welcomed. BUT, who is going to arrest them? Loretta Lynch, James Comey, WHO? The problem here is that our so called "authorities" are all in the same bed. The tentacles of the Eastern Elite Establishment are everywhere in high office, academia, the media, Big Business, etc. The swamp is thoroughly infested with this elite scum of those in the Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission, Bilderberg Group, Chatham House, Club of Rome, Committee of 300, Jason Society and numerous other private clubs of the rich, powerful and influential. The Illuminati has been exposed, however they aren't going down lightly. They still have massive amounts of money, they own the media and the banking houses. Some have described it as MIMAC, the Military Industrial Media Academic Complex. A few months ago here at Zero Hedge, there was an article which showed a massive flow chart of the elites and their organization

    They could IF and WHEN Trump gets to Washington after 20 Jan 2017, simply implode the economy and blame t it on Trump. Sort of what happened to Herbert Hoover in the late 1920's. Unfortunately the situation in the US will continue to deteriorate. George Soros, a major financial backer of Hillary will see to that. Soros is a Globalist and advocate of one world government. People comment that Soros should be arrested. I agree, BUT who is going to do that?

    Grimaldus ShortCommonSense Nov 12, 2016 9:12 AM ,
    Agree. I think Trump will yank all the "aid" to Israel as well as "aid" to the Islamic murderers of the Palitrashian human garbage infesting the area. This "aid" money is simply a bribe to keep both from killing each other. F**k all of them. None of our business what they do.

    We got progressives ( lots and lots of Jews in that group) who are the enemy of mankind and then we got Islam who are also the enemy of mankind. Why help either of them? Makes no sense.

    Wile-E-Coyote Bastiat Nov 12, 2016 5:35 AM ,
    How come Soros never got picked up by Mossad for war crimes against his own people?

    And if he is such a subversive shit why hasn't a government given him a Polonium 210 enema.

    Martian Moon Wile-E-Coyote Nov 12, 2016 8:13 AM ,
    Always wondered about that

    Soros is hated in Israel and has never set foot there but his foundations have done such harm that a bill was recently passed to ban foreign funding of non profit political organizations

    Chupacabra-322 RopeADope Nov 11, 2016 9:03 PM ,
    The fact that we all have to worry about the CIA killing a President Elect simply because the man puts America first, really says it all.

    The Agency is Cancer. Why are we even waiting for them to kill another one of our people to act? There should be no question about the CIA's future in the US.

    Dissolved & dishonored. Its members locked away or punished for Treason. Their reputation is so bad and has been for so long, that the fact that you joined them should be enough to justify arrest and Execution for Treason, Crimes Against Humanity & Crimes Against The American People.

    King Tut Chupacabra-322 Nov 11, 2016 9:11 PM ,
    JFK made the mistake of publicly stating his intention of smashing the CIA instead of just doing it quickly and quietly
    Chupacabra-322 King Tut Nov 11, 2016 9:30 PM ,
    There are entirely way too many Intelligence Agencies. Plus the Contractors, some of who shouldn't have high level clearance to begin with which the US sub contracts the Intel / work out to.

    For Fucks sake, Government is so incompetent it can't even handle it own Intel.

    Something along the lines of Eurpoe's Five Eyes would be highly effective.

    Fuck those Pure Evil Psychopaths at the CIA They're nothing more than a bunch of Scum Fuck murdering, drug running, money laundering Global Crime Syndicate.

    HowdyDoody Chupacabra-322 Nov 11, 2016 10:59 PM ,
    Five Eyes isn't European, it is US, UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Israel. If you note carefully, the NSA etc think we can't count.
    chubbar Pinto Currency Nov 11, 2016 8:46 PM ,
    The FBI is still investigating the Clinton Foundation, Trump needs to encourage that through backdoor channels. Soro's needs to be investigated, he has been tied to a conspiracy to incite violence, this needs to be documented and dealt with. Trump can not ignore this guy. If any of these investigations come back with a recommendation to indict then that process needs to be started. Take the fight to them, they are vulnerable!
    Chupacabra-322 chubbar Nov 11, 2016 9:12 PM ,
    Make a National APB Warrent for the apprehension & arrest of George Sooros for inciting violence, endsrgerimg the public & calling for the murder of our Nations Police through funding of the BLM Group.

    Have every Law Informent Agency in the Nation on alert. Also, issue a Bounty in the Sum of $5,000,000 for his immediate apprehension.

    kwc chubbar Nov 12, 2016 4:50 AM ,
    Trump needs to replace FBI chickenshits & sellouts with loyal people then get the FBI counter-terrorism to investigate and shut down Soros & the various agencies instigating the riots. It's really simple when you quit over-thinking a problem. It's domestic terrorism. It's the FBI's job to stop it.
    Laddie nmb Nov 11, 2016 8:43 PM ,
    I read what Paul said this morning and thought, despite Paul's hostility to Trump during the primaries most likely due to his son, Rand's loss, that Paul gave good advice to Trump.
    Let's face it Donald Trump is a STOP GAP measure. And demographic change over the next 4 years makes his re-election very, very UNLIKELY. If he keeps his campaign promises he will be a GREAT president. However as ZH reported earlier he appears to be balking from repealing Obamacare, I stress the word APPEARS.

    Let us give him a chance. This is all speculation. His enemies are DEADLY as they were once they got total control in Russia, they killed according to Solzhenitsyn SIXTY-SIX MILLION Russian Christians. The descendants of those Bolsheviks are VERY powerful in the USSA. They control the Fed, Hollyweird, Wall Street, the universities...

    Professor Kevin MacDonald's 'The Culture of Critique' Reviewed

    Like the South Africans the Tribe TALKED us out of our nation.

    Mechanisms for Cuckservatives and Other Misguided White People by Dr. Kevin MacDonald September 22, 2016

    Much of the media and advertising exist by pushing buttons that trigger appropriate financially lucrative reflexes in their audiences, from pornography to romantic movies to team sports. Media profits are driven by competition over how best to push those buttons. But the effort to produce politically and racially cuckolded Whites adds a layer of complexity: What buttons do you push to make Whites complicit in their own racial and cultural demise?

    Actually, there are a whole lot of them, which shouldn't be surprising. This is a very sophisticated onslaught, enabled by control over all the moral, intellectual, and political high ground by the left. With all that high ground, there are a lot of buttons you can push.

    Our enemies see this as a pathetic last gasp of a moribund civilization and it is quite true for our civilization is dying. Identity Christians describe this phase as Jacob's Troubles and what the secular Guillaume Faye would, I think, describe as the catastrophe required to get people motivated. The future has yet to be written, however I cannot help but think that God's people, the White people, are stirring from their slumber.

    King Tut Laddie Nov 11, 2016 8:49 PM ,
    See: The Wrath of the Awakened Saxon- Rudyard Kipling
    Paul Kersey -> Paul Kersey Nov 11, 2016 8:20 PM ,
    "PNAC: Project for New American Century. The main neocon lobby, it focused first on invading Iraq. Founded 1997, by William Kristol & Robert Kagan. First action: open letter to Clinton advocating Iraq war. Members in the Iraq-War clique: Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith, BOLTON, Libby, Abrams, Wurmser, Perle.

    JINSA, The Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs. "explaining the link between U.S. national security and Israel's security" Served on JINSA's Advisory Board: Cheney, Wolfowitz, Feith, BOLTON, Perle."

    Mini-Me Nov 11, 2016 8:18 PM ,
    If Trump has probable cause on the Soros crimes, have his DoJ request a warrant for all of Soros's communications via the NSA, empanel a grand jury, indict the bastard, and throw his raggedy ass in prison. It would be hard for him to run his retarded purple revolution when he's getting ass-raped by his cell mate.
    Hurricane Baby -> Mini-Me Nov 11, 2016 8:41 PM ,
    I agree. Thing is, I think as president he can simply order the NSA to cough up whatever they have, just like Obama could have done at any point. The NSA is part of the Defense Department, right? What am I missing here?
    Dilluminati Nov 11, 2016 8:26 PM ,
    Funny: Clinton swears Comey did her in and the DNC blames arrogant Hillary.

    http://www.usnews.com/news/the-run-2016/articles/2016-11-11/dnc-staff-ar...

    But in respect to Soro's money and the Dalas shooting or other incited events, there should be a grand jury empanelled and then charges brought against him. I think nothing short of him hiding in an embassy with all his money blocked by Swift is justice for the violence that he funded.

    ... ... ...

    Skiprrrdog Nov 11, 2016 8:57 PM ,
    It is doubtful that President Trump's aides will advise the new president to carry out a diversionary criminal investigation of Mrs. Clinton's private email servers and other issues related to the activities of the Clinton Foundation, especially when the nation faces so many other pressing issues, including jobs, immigration, and health care. However, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz said he will continue hearings in the Republican-controlled Congress on Hillary Clinton, the Clinton Foundation, and Mrs. Clinton's aide Huma Abedin. President Trump should not allow himself to be distracted by these efforts. Chaffetz was not one of Trump's most loyal supporters.

    And so it begins; I really hope that this is just some misinformation/disinformation, because HE PROMISED he would appoint a special prosecutor, PROMISED...

    johnwburns Nov 11, 2016 9:10 PM ,
    The likes of Bill Kristol, Ben Shapiro and Jonah Goldberg get to catch up on their Torah for the forseeable future but the likes of Lloyd Blankfein will probably get to entertain the court since they have probably crossed paths doing business in NYC. The "real conservative" deeply introspective, examine-my-conscience crowd screwed themselves to the wall, god love them.
    Ms No Nov 11, 2016 9:05 PM ,
    Trump should reverse the McCain Feingold bill. That would take some wind out of Soros' sails, at least temporarily because that was Soros' bill. He wanted campaign finance reform which actually meant that he wanted to control campaign finance through 501C3 groups, or foundations such as Open Society, Moveon.org, Ella Baker society, Center for American progress, etc. He has a massive web of these organizations and they fund smaller ones and all kinds of evil.
    Rebel yell Nov 11, 2016 9:36 PM ,
    Tyler, please rerun this! How George Sorros destroys countries, profits from currency trading, convinces the countries to privatize its assets, buys them and then sells them for yet another profit: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-08/how-george-soros-singlehandedly...
    Posa Nov 12, 2016 10:25 AM ,
    We know so little about Trump ... he's neoCon friendly to start with (remember he hired neoCon Grandee James Woolsey as an advisor)... and remember too Trump is promising his own war against Iran ... (just in case you confused him with Mother Theresa).. But then again JFK took office with a set of initiatives that were far more bellicose and provocative (like putting huge Jupiter missile launchers on the USSR border in Turkey)... once he saw he light and fired the pro Nazi Dulles Gang , JFK was gunned down in front of the whole world.

    If Trump really is a nationalist patriot he'll need to innoculate the Population about the Deep State... they in turn will unleash financial disintegration and chaos, a Purple Revolution and then assassinate Trump (or have his own party impeach him)

    I'm guessing though that deep down Trump is quite comfortable with a neoCon cabinet... hell he already offered Jamie Diamon the office of Treasry Secretary... no doubt a calculated gesture to signal compliance with the Deep State.

    rocknrollinhone... Nov 11, 2016 9:59 PM ,
    Soros is heavily invested in the globalist agenda. Wouldn't be surprised if they don't take a shot at assassinating Trump.
    bsdetector Nov 11, 2016 11:10 PM ,
    The Clintons do not do things by accident. Coordination of colors at the concession speech was meant for something. Perhaps the purple revolution or maybe they want to be seen as royals. It doesn't really matter why they did it; the fact is they are up to something. They will not agree to go away and even if they offered to just disappear with their wealth we know they are dishonest. They will come back... that is what they do.

    They must be stripped of power and wealth. This act must be performed publicly.

    In order to succeed Mr. Trump I suggest you task a group to accomplish this result. Your efforts to make America great again may disintegrate just like Obamacare if you allow the Clintons and Co. to languish in the background.

    bsdetector Nov 12, 2016 12:06 AM ,
    The protestors are groups of individuals who may seek association for any number of reasons. One major reason might be the loss of hope for a meaningful and prosperous life. We should seek out and listen to the individuals within these groups. If they are truly desirous of being heard they will communicate what they want without use of violence. Perhaps individuals join these protest groups because they do not have a voice.

    Organizing a means to receive the protestors' complaints may co-opt any organized effort to disrupt good political interaction and it will also separate out the bad elements cited by Madsen.

    The articles reporting that Mr. Trump has changed his response to the protestors is a good effort to discover the protestors' complaints and channel their energy into beneficial political activity. Something must be done quickly though, before the protests get out of hand, for if that happens the protestors will be criminals and no one will want to work with them.

    In order to make America great again we need input from all of America. Mr. Trump you can harness the energy of these protestors and let them know they are a part of your movement.

    Batman11 -> Batman11 Nov 12, 2016 3:09 AM ,
    Classical economists are experts on today's capitalism, it is 18th and 19th Century capitalism, it's how it all started.

    Adam Smith would think we are on the road to ruin.

    "But the rate of profit does not, like rent and wages, rise with the prosperity and fall with the declension of the society. On the contrary, it is naturally low in rich and high in poor countries, and it is always highest in the countries which are going fastest to ruin."

    Exactly the opposite of today's thinking, what does he mean?

    When rates of profit are high, capitalism is cannibalizing itself by:

    1) Not engaging in long term investment for the future

    2) Paying insufficient wages to maintain demand for its products and services.

    Got that wrong as well.

    Adam Smith wouldn't like today's lobbyists.

    "The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it."

    OH NO, It's ALL WRONG

    dogismycopilot Nov 12, 2016 5:39 AM ,
    First five minutes of Alex Jones' video today is clips of people saying "Donald Trump will never be president".

    Full Show - Soros-Funded Goons Deployed to Overthrow America - 11/11/2016

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPH26ohO_DY

    CoCosAB Nov 12, 2016 7:04 AM ,
    AMERICAN SPRING: She practiced overseas in Tunisia, Algeria, Oman, Jordan, Libya, Egypt... Now it's time to apply the knowledge in her own country!

    lakecity55 -> CoCosAB •Nov 12, 2016 7:53 AM

    Really good chance these subversive operations will continue. Soros has plenty of money. Trump will have to do some rough stuff, but he needs to, it's what we hired him for.

    [Nov 11, 2016] Clinton And The Neocons Huffington Post

    Notable quotes:
    "... Prioritizing foreign over domestic policy, Jackson's former aides Richard Perle , Douglas Feith , and Elliott Abrams - along with some fellow travelers like Paul Wolfowitz - eventually shifted their allegiance to the right-wing Republican Ronald Reagan. They formed an important pro-Israel, "peace through strength" nucleus within the new president's foreign policy team. ..."
    Nov 08, 2016 | www.huffingtonpost.com
    John Feffer Director, Foreign Policy In Focus and Editor, LobeLog Much has been made of the swing in political allegiances of neoconservatives in favor of Hillary Clinton.

    As a group, Washington's neocons are generally terrified of Trump's unpredictability and his flirtation with the alt-right. They also support Clinton's more assertive foreign policy (not to mention her closer relationship to Israel). Perhaps, too, after eight long years in the wilderness, they're daydreaming of an appointment or two in a Clinton administration.

    This group of previously staunch Republicans, who believe in using American military power to promote democracy, build nations, and secure U.S. interests abroad, have defected in surprising numbers. Washington Post columnist Robert Kagan , the Wall Street Journal 's Bret Stephens , and the Foreign Policy Initiative 's James Kirchick have all endorsed Clinton. Other prominent neocons like The National Review 's William Kristol , the Wall Street Journal 's Max Boot , and SAIS's Eliot Cohen have rejected Trump but not quite taken the leap to supporting Clinton.

    A not particularly large or well-defined group, neoconservatives have attracted a disproportionate amount of attention in this election. For the Trump camp, these Republican defectors merely prove that the elite is out to get their candidate, thus reinforcing his outsider credentials (never mind that Trump initially wooed neocons like Kristol). For the left , the neocons are flocking to support a bird of their feather, at least when it comes to foreign policy, which reflects badly on Clinton. The mainstream media, meanwhile, is attracted to the man-bites-dog aspect of the story (news flash: members of the vast right-wing conspiracy support Clinton!).

    As we come to the end of the election campaign, which has been more a clash of personalities than of ideologies, the neocon defections offer a much more interesting storyline. As the Republican Party potentially coalesces around a more populist center, the neocons are the canary in the coal mine. Their squawking suggests that the American political scene is about to suffer a cataclysm. What will that mean for U.S. foreign policy?

    A History of Defection

    The neoconservative movement began within the Democratic Party. Henry "Scoop" Jackson, a Democrat from Washington State, carved out a new position in the party with his liberal domestic policies and hardline Cold War stance. He was a strong booster of civil rights and environmental legislation. At the same time, he favored military build-up and a stronger relationship with Israel. He was also dismayed with the Nixon administration's détente with the Soviet Union.

    Prioritizing foreign over domestic policy, Jackson's former aides Richard Perle , Douglas Feith , and Elliott Abrams - along with some fellow travelers like Paul Wolfowitz - eventually shifted their allegiance to the right-wing Republican Ronald Reagan. They formed an important pro-Israel, "peace through strength" nucleus within the new president's foreign policy team.

    At the end of the Reagan era, their commitment to such policies as regime change in the Middle East, confrontation with Russia, and opposition to multilateral institutions like the United Nations brought them into conflict with realists in the George H.W. Bush administration. So many of them defected once again to support Bill Clinton. Writes Jim Lobe:

    A small but not insignificant number of them, repelled by George H.W. Bush's realpolitik, and more specifically his Middle East policy and pressure on then-Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir to join the Madrid peace conference after the first Gulf War, deserted the party in 1992 and publicly endorsed Bill Clinton. Richard Schifter, Morris Amitay of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, Angier Biddle Duke, Rita Freedman of the Social Democrats USA, neocon union leaders John Joyce and Al Shanker, Penn Kemble of the Institute for Religion and Democracy, James Woolsey, Marty Peretz of The New Republic, and Joshua Muravchik of the American Enterprise Institute all signed a much-noted ad in The New York Times in August 1992 endorsing Clinton's candidacy. Their hopes of thus being rewarded with top positions in a Clinton administration were crushed.

    The flirtation with Clinton's Democratic Party was short-lived. Woolsey, Schifter, and Kemble received appointments in the Clinton administration, but the neocons in general were unhappy with their limited influence, Clinton's (albeit inconsistent) multilateralism, and the administration's reluctance to intervene militarily in Rwanda, Somalia, and Bosnia. Disenchantment turned to anger and then to organizing. In 1997, many of the same people who worked for Scoop Jackson and embraced Ronald Reagan put together the Project for the New American Century in an effort to preserve and expand America's post-Cold War unilateral power.

    A handful of votes in Florida in 2000 and the attacks on September 11 the following year combined to give the neocons a second chance at transforming U.S. foreign policy. Dick Cheney became perhaps the most powerful vice president in modern American history, with Scooter Libby as his national security adviser. Donald Rumsfeld became secretary of defense, with Paul Wolfowitz as his deputy and Feith as head of the policy office. Elliott Abrams joined the National Security Council, and so on. Under their guidance, George W. Bush abandoned all pretense of charting a more modest foreign policy and went on a militarist bender.

    The foreign policy disasters of the Bush era should have killed the careers of everyone involved. Unfortunately, there are plenty of think tanks and universities that value access over intelligence (or ethics) - and even the most incompetent and craven administration officials after leaving office retain their contacts (and their arrogance).

    Those who worry that the neocons will be rewarded for their third major defection - to Reagan, to Bill Clinton, and now to Hillary Clinton - should probably focus elsewhere. After all, the Democratic nominee this year doesn't have to go all the way over to the far right for advice on how to construct a more muscular foreign policy. Plenty of mainstream think tanks - from the Center for a New American Security on the center-right to the leftish Center for American Progress - are offering their advice on how to "restore balance" in how the United States relates to the world. Many of these positions - how to push back against Russia, take a harder line against Iran, and ratchet up pressure on Assad in Syria - are not very different from neocon talking points.

    But the defections do herald a possible sea change in party alignment. And that will influence the trajectory of U.S. foreign policy.

    The Walking Dead

    The Republican Party has been hemorrhaging for nearly a decade. The Tea Party dispatched many party centrists - Jim Leach, Richard Lugar - who once could achieve a measure of bipartisanship in Congress. The overwhelming whiteness of the party, even before the ascendance of Trump, made it very difficult to recruit African Americans and Latinos in large numbers. And now Trump has driven away many of the professionals who have served in past Republican administrations, including the small clique of neoconservatives.

    What remains is enough to win state and local elections in certain areas of the country. But it's not enough to win nationally. Going forward, with the further demographic shift away from white voters, this Republican base will get older and smaller. Moreover, on foreign policy, the Trumpistas are leading the party in a nationalist, apocalyptic direction that challenges the party leadership (in emphasis if not in content).

    It's enough to throw dedicated Republicans into despair. Avik Roy, who was an advisor to the presidential campaigns of Marco Rubio, Mitt Romney, and Rick Perry, told This American Life :

    I think the Republican Party is a lost cause. I don't think the Republican Party is capable of fixing itself, because the people who are most passionate about voting Republican today are the Trump voters. And what politician is going to want to throw those voters away to attract some unknown coalition of the future?

    One of his Republican compatriots, Rob Long, had this to say on the podcast about how anti-Trump survivors who stick with the party will navigate the post-election landscape:

    It'll be like The Walking Dead, right? We're going to try to come up with bands of people and walk across the country. And let's not get ourselves killed or eaten and hook up with people we think are not insane or horrible or in some way murderous.

    Coming out of this week's elections, here's my guess of what will happen. The Republican Party will continue to be torn apart by three factions: a dwindling number of moderates like Susan Collins (R-ME), right-wing fiscal conservatives like Paul Ryan (R-WI), and burn-the-house-down Trumpsters like Jeff Sessions (R-AL). Foreign policy won't be much of an issue for the party because it will be shut out of the White House for 12 years running and will focus instead on primarily domestic questions. Perhaps the latter two categories will find a way to repair their breach; perhaps the party will split in two; perhaps Trump supporters will engineer a hostile takeover.

    The Democratic Party, meanwhile, may suffer as a result of its success. After all, how can a single party play host to both Bernie Sanders and Robert Kagan ? How can the party promote both guns and butter? How can Hillary Clinton preserve Obama's diplomatic successes - the Iran deal, the Cuba détente, the efforts to contain climate change - and be more assertive militarily? Whatever unity the party managed during the elections will quickly fall apart when it comes to governing.

    In one sense, Clinton may well resurrect the neocon legacy by embracing a more or less progressive domestic policy (which would satisfy the Sanderistas) and a more hawkish foreign policy (which would satisfy all the foreign policy mandarins from both parties who supported her candidacy).

    At the same time, a new political axis is emerging: internationalists vs. insularists, with the former gathering together in the Democratic Party and the latter seeking shelter in a leaky Republican Party. But this categorization conceals the tensions within each project. Internationalists include both fans of the UN and proponents of unilateral U.S. military engagement overseas. Insularists, who have not turned their back on the world quite as thoroughly as isolationists, include both xenophobic nationalists and those who want to spend war dollars at home.

    The trick of it for progressives is to somehow steal back the Democratic Party from the aggressive globalists and recapture those Trump voters who are tired of supporting war and wealthy transnational corporations. Or, perhaps in the wake of the Republican Party's collapse, progressives could create a new party that challenges Clinton and the neocons.

    One thing is for certain, however. With a highly unpopular president about to take office and one of the major political parties on life support, the current political moment is highly unstable. Something truly remarkable could emerge. Or voters in 2020 might face something even more monstrous than what has haunted this election cycle.

    Crossposted with Foreign Policy In Focus .

    [Nov 11, 2016] I ve been reading the Grauniad , as it used to be affectionately known because of its frequent misprints, for nearly fifty years, and I don't think I've ever found it as unreadable (not to mention smug and self-righteous) as it is today. Its earnest and hectoring tone was always easy to parody

    Nov 11, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    David November 10, 2016 at 4:49 pm

    I've been reading the Grauniad , as it used to be affectionately known because of its frequent misprints, for nearly fifty years, and I don't think I've ever found it as unreadable (not to mention smug and self-righteous) as it is today. Its earnest and hectoring tone was always easy to parody ("Guardian Woman" had become a standing joke by the 1980s) but over the last few years of reading it on the internet from abroad I am no longer sure what I actually read and what my subconscious invented in the form of parody (was there really a headline like "Why is the Football Association Failing Transexual Goalkeepers?" or did I just dream it?") If you want a classic example of a once distinguished publication ruined by identity politics, that would be my nomination. (To be fair, the Independent 's coverage has been an order of magnitude worse.)

    The real French equivalent of the Guardian by the way is Libération which has followed a similar, but even worse trajectory, and specialises these days in front-page vilification of anyone who transgresses correct identity group thinking – most recently the philosopher Michel Onfray who dared to make a few critical remarks about radical islam. Le Monde is a neoliberal and neoconservative rag these days, but less unreadable than Libé.
    Oh tempora, oh mores!

    Synoia November 10, 2016 at 5:12 pm

    I now feel the same about The Economist, I used to read it for education, starting at Uni in 1967. It appears to me now to be a Neo Liberal mouthpiece.

    craazyboy November 10, 2016 at 6:27 pm

    Surprise! Under "new" management.

    The Economist Group is owned by the Cadbury, Rothschild, Schroder, Agnelli and other family interests as well as a number of staff and former staff shareholders.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economist_Group

    makedoanmend November 10, 2016 at 5:25 pm

    I'll take your word about the French newspapers. I fled from the Lib after about 2 minutes perusal recently – it had been years (many, many) since I read it.

    And I just don't see that much difference between the guardian's neoliberalism and Le Monde's but, then again, I only dip into Le Monde about once a week. Science articles are the only thing I read in any depth.

    best

    [Nov 11, 2016] Clinton And The Neocons Huffington Post

    Notable quotes:
    "... Prioritizing foreign over domestic policy, Jackson's former aides Richard Perle , Douglas Feith , and Elliott Abrams - along with some fellow travelers like Paul Wolfowitz - eventually shifted their allegiance to the right-wing Republican Ronald Reagan. They formed an important pro-Israel, "peace through strength" nucleus within the new president's foreign policy team. ..."
    Nov 08, 2016 | www.huffingtonpost.com
    John Feffer Director, Foreign Policy In Focus and Editor, LobeLog Much has been made of the swing in political allegiances of neoconservatives in favor of Hillary Clinton.

    As a group, Washington's neocons are generally terrified of Trump's unpredictability and his flirtation with the alt-right. They also support Clinton's more assertive foreign policy (not to mention her closer relationship to Israel). Perhaps, too, after eight long years in the wilderness, they're daydreaming of an appointment or two in a Clinton administration.

    This group of previously staunch Republicans, who believe in using American military power to promote democracy, build nations, and secure U.S. interests abroad, have defected in surprising numbers. Washington Post columnist Robert Kagan , the Wall Street Journal 's Bret Stephens , and the Foreign Policy Initiative 's James Kirchick have all endorsed Clinton. Other prominent neocons like The National Review 's William Kristol , the Wall Street Journal 's Max Boot , and SAIS's Eliot Cohen have rejected Trump but not quite taken the leap to supporting Clinton.

    A not particularly large or well-defined group, neoconservatives have attracted a disproportionate amount of attention in this election. For the Trump camp, these Republican defectors merely prove that the elite is out to get their candidate, thus reinforcing his outsider credentials (never mind that Trump initially wooed neocons like Kristol). For the left , the neocons are flocking to support a bird of their feather, at least when it comes to foreign policy, which reflects badly on Clinton. The mainstream media, meanwhile, is attracted to the man-bites-dog aspect of the story (news flash: members of the vast right-wing conspiracy support Clinton!).

    As we come to the end of the election campaign, which has been more a clash of personalities than of ideologies, the neocon defections offer a much more interesting storyline. As the Republican Party potentially coalesces around a more populist center, the neocons are the canary in the coal mine. Their squawking suggests that the American political scene is about to suffer a cataclysm. What will that mean for U.S. foreign policy?

    A History of Defection

    The neoconservative movement began within the Democratic Party. Henry "Scoop" Jackson, a Democrat from Washington State, carved out a new position in the party with his liberal domestic policies and hardline Cold War stance. He was a strong booster of civil rights and environmental legislation. At the same time, he favored military build-up and a stronger relationship with Israel. He was also dismayed with the Nixon administration's détente with the Soviet Union.

    Prioritizing foreign over domestic policy, Jackson's former aides Richard Perle , Douglas Feith , and Elliott Abrams - along with some fellow travelers like Paul Wolfowitz - eventually shifted their allegiance to the right-wing Republican Ronald Reagan. They formed an important pro-Israel, "peace through strength" nucleus within the new president's foreign policy team.

    At the end of the Reagan era, their commitment to such policies as regime change in the Middle East, confrontation with Russia, and opposition to multilateral institutions like the United Nations brought them into conflict with realists in the George H.W. Bush administration. So many of them defected once again to support Bill Clinton. Writes Jim Lobe:

    A small but not insignificant number of them, repelled by George H.W. Bush's realpolitik, and more specifically his Middle East policy and pressure on then-Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir to join the Madrid peace conference after the first Gulf War, deserted the party in 1992 and publicly endorsed Bill Clinton. Richard Schifter, Morris Amitay of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, Angier Biddle Duke, Rita Freedman of the Social Democrats USA, neocon union leaders John Joyce and Al Shanker, Penn Kemble of the Institute for Religion and Democracy, James Woolsey, Marty Peretz of The New Republic, and Joshua Muravchik of the American Enterprise Institute all signed a much-noted ad in The New York Times in August 1992 endorsing Clinton's candidacy. Their hopes of thus being rewarded with top positions in a Clinton administration were crushed.

    The flirtation with Clinton's Democratic Party was short-lived. Woolsey, Schifter, and Kemble received appointments in the Clinton administration, but the neocons in general were unhappy with their limited influence, Clinton's (albeit inconsistent) multilateralism, and the administration's reluctance to intervene militarily in Rwanda, Somalia, and Bosnia. Disenchantment turned to anger and then to organizing. In 1997, many of the same people who worked for Scoop Jackson and embraced Ronald Reagan put together the Project for the New American Century in an effort to preserve and expand America's post-Cold War unilateral power.

    A handful of votes in Florida in 2000 and the attacks on September 11 the following year combined to give the neocons a second chance at transforming U.S. foreign policy. Dick Cheney became perhaps the most powerful vice president in modern American history, with Scooter Libby as his national security adviser. Donald Rumsfeld became secretary of defense, with Paul Wolfowitz as his deputy and Feith as head of the policy office. Elliott Abrams joined the National Security Council, and so on. Under their guidance, George W. Bush abandoned all pretense of charting a more modest foreign policy and went on a militarist bender.

    The foreign policy disasters of the Bush era should have killed the careers of everyone involved. Unfortunately, there are plenty of think tanks and universities that value access over intelligence (or ethics) - and even the most incompetent and craven administration officials after leaving office retain their contacts (and their arrogance).

    Those who worry that the neocons will be rewarded for their third major defection - to Reagan, to Bill Clinton, and now to Hillary Clinton - should probably focus elsewhere. After all, the Democratic nominee this year doesn't have to go all the way over to the far right for advice on how to construct a more muscular foreign policy. Plenty of mainstream think tanks - from the Center for a New American Security on the center-right to the leftish Center for American Progress - are offering their advice on how to "restore balance" in how the United States relates to the world. Many of these positions - how to push back against Russia, take a harder line against Iran, and ratchet up pressure on Assad in Syria - are not very different from neocon talking points.

    But the defections do herald a possible sea change in party alignment. And that will influence the trajectory of U.S. foreign policy.

    The Walking Dead

    The Republican Party has been hemorrhaging for nearly a decade. The Tea Party dispatched many party centrists - Jim Leach, Richard Lugar - who once could achieve a measure of bipartisanship in Congress. The overwhelming whiteness of the party, even before the ascendance of Trump, made it very difficult to recruit African Americans and Latinos in large numbers. And now Trump has driven away many of the professionals who have served in past Republican administrations, including the small clique of neoconservatives.

    What remains is enough to win state and local elections in certain areas of the country. But it's not enough to win nationally. Going forward, with the further demographic shift away from white voters, this Republican base will get older and smaller. Moreover, on foreign policy, the Trumpistas are leading the party in a nationalist, apocalyptic direction that challenges the party leadership (in emphasis if not in content).

    It's enough to throw dedicated Republicans into despair. Avik Roy, who was an advisor to the presidential campaigns of Marco Rubio, Mitt Romney, and Rick Perry, told This American Life :

    I think the Republican Party is a lost cause. I don't think the Republican Party is capable of fixing itself, because the people who are most passionate about voting Republican today are the Trump voters. And what politician is going to want to throw those voters away to attract some unknown coalition of the future?

    One of his Republican compatriots, Rob Long, had this to say on the podcast about how anti-Trump survivors who stick with the party will navigate the post-election landscape:

    It'll be like The Walking Dead, right? We're going to try to come up with bands of people and walk across the country. And let's not get ourselves killed or eaten and hook up with people we think are not insane or horrible or in some way murderous.

    Coming out of this week's elections, here's my guess of what will happen. The Republican Party will continue to be torn apart by three factions: a dwindling number of moderates like Susan Collins (R-ME), right-wing fiscal conservatives like Paul Ryan (R-WI), and burn-the-house-down Trumpsters like Jeff Sessions (R-AL). Foreign policy won't be much of an issue for the party because it will be shut out of the White House for 12 years running and will focus instead on primarily domestic questions. Perhaps the latter two categories will find a way to repair their breach; perhaps the party will split in two; perhaps Trump supporters will engineer a hostile takeover.

    The Democratic Party, meanwhile, may suffer as a result of its success. After all, how can a single party play host to both Bernie Sanders and Robert Kagan ? How can the party promote both guns and butter? How can Hillary Clinton preserve Obama's diplomatic successes - the Iran deal, the Cuba détente, the efforts to contain climate change - and be more assertive militarily? Whatever unity the party managed during the elections will quickly fall apart when it comes to governing.

    In one sense, Clinton may well resurrect the neocon legacy by embracing a more or less progressive domestic policy (which would satisfy the Sanderistas) and a more hawkish foreign policy (which would satisfy all the foreign policy mandarins from both parties who supported her candidacy).

    At the same time, a new political axis is emerging: internationalists vs. insularists, with the former gathering together in the Democratic Party and the latter seeking shelter in a leaky Republican Party. But this categorization conceals the tensions within each project. Internationalists include both fans of the UN and proponents of unilateral U.S. military engagement overseas. Insularists, who have not turned their back on the world quite as thoroughly as isolationists, include both xenophobic nationalists and those who want to spend war dollars at home.

    The trick of it for progressives is to somehow steal back the Democratic Party from the aggressive globalists and recapture those Trump voters who are tired of supporting war and wealthy transnational corporations. Or, perhaps in the wake of the Republican Party's collapse, progressives could create a new party that challenges Clinton and the neocons.

    One thing is for certain, however. With a highly unpopular president about to take office and one of the major political parties on life support, the current political moment is highly unstable. Something truly remarkable could emerge. Or voters in 2020 might face something even more monstrous than what has haunted this election cycle.

    Crossposted with Foreign Policy In Focus .

    [Nov 11, 2016] CONFIRMED Trump victory proves Russophobia loses votes

    Nov 11, 2016 | theduran.com

    Donald Trump's victory in the US Presidential election confirms what was already apparent from the Brexit referendum and the Canadian parliamentary elections of 2015: Russophobia loses elections.

    As Donald Trump savours his victory Western elites everywhere should take note of one overriding fact: Russophobia loses elections.

    There have now been two elections in the West in which Russia bashing and Putin bashing have taken centre stage. These were the Brexit Referendum in Britain and the US Presidential election.

    In both elections the Western media and Western governments united in claiming – and did so relentlessly – that Putin and Russia were trying to influence the result in their favour.

    They did not say that because they believed it. There was never the slightest evidence it was the case. On both occasions the claim was in fact false.

    They said it because they are themselves viscerally Russophobic, and they assume Western electorates are too.

    In the case of the US Presidential election this was taken to absurd, indeed ridiculous lengths.

    Not only was Donald Trump – one of the most archetypical Americans in existence – called ludicrously "the Siberian candidate", but US Intelligence even published a disgracefully dishonest statement – which the FBI refused to sign – which actually alleged that the Russians were meddling in the election in order to influence its outcome by providing hacked information to Wikileaks.

    As for Donald Trump's policies towards Russia – which amount to nothing more than the sensible suggestion that it is better to have a civilised dialogue with another country which is a nuclear superpower rather than engage in pointless confrontations with it – they have been distorted and misrepresented to a ludicrous degree.

    Even today, after Donald Trump has won, Jonathan Freedland in the Guardian was at it again, making this fantastic comment in an article

    "Think of the anxiety this morning in Riga, Vilnius or Tallinn. In the summer, Trump told the New York Times he did not believe in Nato's core principle: that an attack on one member should be met by a response from all. He seemed to see Nato as a mafia protection racket: unless the little guys paid up, they should be left undefended. Vladimir Putin – Trump's hero, admired as the very model of a leader by the president-elect of the United States – will not need more of a hint than that. The Russian dictator will surely see his opportunity to invade one or more Baltic states and expand his empire. President Trump would only admire the macho swagger of such a move ."

    (bold italics added)

    So what happens when this "invasion" doesn't take place (which it won't)? Will Jonathan Freedland apologise to Donald Trump (the man who in the article he calls an "unstable bigot, sexual predator and compulsive liar") and Vladimir Putin ('the Russian dictator")? Will he admit he was wrong about them all along? I am not holding my breath…..

    Indeed the Putin bashing and Russia bashing during this election have been so relentless that at times it has felt as if Hillary Clinton was actually running against Vladimir Putin rather than Donald Trump.

    I always thought this was a bad strategy. Here is what I wrote about it on 30th July 2016

    "…….the British Remain campaign's attempt to use Putin as a scarecrow to frighten British voters into voting Remain was a total failure. There is no evidence it persuaded a single British voter to change their vote.

    I predict the same will be true in the US election. Though Britain and the US are very different societies, I think the liberal elite in both countries is making the same mistake: they think non-elite people (ie. the great mass of voters) are as obsessed by Putin as they are.

    I doubt this is the case. I think most British and US voters broadly accept the elite's claims about Putin: that he is corrupt, ruthless and authoritarian. However my impression is that this goes hand in hand with a grudging though cynical respect for him as a strong leader who is not to be messed with.

    More to the point I don't think they think much about him or consider him or Russia dangerous. On the contrary they see jihadi terrorism – which unlike Russia has actually carried out terrorist attacks on US and EU soil – as the enemy, and are open to the idea floated by Putin and Trump of the US and Russia joining forces to fight this common enemy. Issues like Ukraine and the Baltic States by contrast are remote and far away and barely interest them.

    As for the idea that such an extremely American figure as Donald Trump – whom US voters have come to know and form a view about over several decades – could possibly be a Russian agent, that is just too farfetched for most voters.

    Unless Hillary Clinton is careful she could find that by banging on about Putin she is losing the voters' attention. This whilst Donald Trump talks about issues voters genuinely care about such as immigration, law and order and jobs ."

    (bold italics added)

    So it has proved. Indeed rarely has a prediction I have made about an election been so entirely and comprehensively vindicated.

    It is probably asking too much to expect of the West's liberal elite that they will now drop their visceral Russophobia. It is probably too hardwired in them for that.

    However the politicians amongst them should at least wake up to the fact that after more than two years of the most stupendous and intense anti-Russia media campaign I can remember (and my memory extends back to the Cold War) electoral campaigns based on it have all failed.

    Even before the Brexit referendum the warning signs were already there with the unexpected defeat in the October 2015 parliamentary elections in Canada of Stephen Harper, possibly the most outspokenly Russophobic leader of the pre-1991 West. The results of the Brexit referendum and of the US Presidential election settle the issue.

    To be clear the fact that Russophobia loses elections does not reflect the success of Russia's mythical "information war" or the supposedly sinister power of RT (whose coverage of the US Presidential election has by the way been both faultless and fair). What it reflects is the good sense and tough minded practicality of Western electorates.

    Quite simply, for a Western politician who wants to win an election, Russophobia is a passport to nowhere. The sooner they realise this, the better for them and for the world in general.

    [Nov 11, 2016] M of A - Nusra On The Run - Trump Induces First Major Policy Change On Syria

    Nov 11, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org

    The people loyal to the Syrian government are happy with Donald Trump winning the U.S. election:
    At the passport counter, a Syrian officer's face lit up when he saw an American traveler.

    "Congratulations on your new president!" he exclaimed, giving an energetic thumbs up. Mr. Trump, he said, would be "good for Syria."

    The first significant step of the new administration comes while Trump is not even in offices. Obama, selfishly concerned with his historic legacy, suddenly makes a 180 degree turn and starts to implement Trump polices. Lets consider the initial position :

    Asked about Aleppo in an October debate with Clinton, Trump said it was a humanitarian disaster but the city had "basically" fallen. Clinton, he said, was talking in favor of rebels without knowing who they were.

    The rebels fighting Assad in western Syria include nationalists fighting under the Free Syrian Army banner, some of them trained in a CIA-backed program, and jihadists such as the group formerly known as the al Qaeda-linked Nusra Front.

    The Obama administration, through the CIA led by Saudi asset John Brennan, fed weapons, training and billions of dollars to "moderate rebels". These then turned around (vid) and either gave the CIA gifts to al-Qaeda in Syria (aka Jabhat al Nusra) or joined it themselves. The scheme was no secret at all and Russia as well as Syria pointed this out several times. The Russian foreign Minister Lavrov negotiated with the U.S. secretary of State Kerry who promised to separate the "moderate rebels" from al-Qaeda. But Kerry never delivered. Instead he falsely accuse Russia of committing atrocities that never happened. The CIA kept the upper hand within the Obama administration and continued its nefarious plans.

    That changed the day the president-elect Trump set foot into the White House. While Obama met Trump in the oval office, new policies, prepared beforehand, were launched. The policies were held back until after the election and would likely not have been revealed or implemented if Clinton had won.

    The U.S. declared that from now on it will fight against al-Qaeda in Syria:

    President Obama has ordered the Pentagon to find and kill the leaders of an al-Qaeda-linked group in Syria that the administration had largely ignored until now and that has been at the vanguard of the fight against the Syrian government, U.S. officials said.

    That shift is likely to accelerate once President-elect Donald Trump takes office. ... possibly in direct cooperation with Moscow .
    ...
    U.S. officials who opposed the decision to go after al-Nusra's wider leadership warned that the United States would effectively be doing the Assad government's bidding by weakening a group on the front line of the counter-Assad fight.
    ...
    Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter and other Pentagon leaders initially resisted the idea of devoting more Pentagon surveillance aircraft and armed drones against al-Nusra.

    Ash Carter is, together with John Brennan, the major anti-Russian force in the Obama administration. He is a U.S. weapon industry promoter and the anti-Russia campaign, which helps to sell U.S. weapons to NATO allies in Europe, is largely of his doing. He saw al-Qaeda in Syria as a welcome proxy force against Russia.

    But Obama has now shut down that policy. We are not yet sure that this is for good but the above Washington Post account is not the only signal : rg the lg | Nov 11, 2016 11:02:07 AM | 5

    Obama shifting policy is probably to protect his legacy from the reality that the US promotes chaos as a national goal. It is also a cynical attempt to pre-empt any Trump induced success in Syria?

    The good news is that there is rioting in the DuhMurriKKKan streets as a consequence of Trump being elected rather than Clinton ... and all this time we were supposed to be afraid of Trump-ites hitting the streets if their guy lost. I don't recall anyone suggesting there would be Clintonistas on the streets if Trump won.

    Mina | Nov 11, 2016 11:07:45 AM | 7
    While Carter is appeasing the Turks, Erdogan is now turning against the Egyptian governement as "Gulen supporters"!!
    http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/1/64/248787/Egypt/Politics-/Egypt-slams-Erdogans-double-standards.aspx
    as for the EU....business as usual "Pressure growing in EU to halt Turkish membership talks but no decision yet", i.e. now that we've given large shares of our electricity, cars manufacturers etc to the Gulf, whom should we beg!?
    http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/2/8/248818/World/Region/Pressure-growing-in-EU-to-halt-Turkish-membership-.aspx

    Denis | Nov 11, 2016 11:18:04 AM | 9
    It is telling that the WaPo article emphasizes that "limited" US airstrikes are being conducted and only after notifying Ru. IOW Putin has established a de facto no-fly zone. He is now controlling where and when USG flies in Syria.

    DTDuck now starts his balancing act; we'll soon know if he's got what it takes to be a leader. He can't kiss Putin's ass without helping Assad. He can't help Assad and kiss Bibi's ass. And yet he's already kissing Bibi's ass. Syria is about Yisrael. Always has been. If DTDuck can come down on both sides of that fence, he's a genius.

    And maybe he is. DTDuck has just proven that he doesn't need the MSM or AIPAC's shekels to get elected. That means the iJews won't be able control him unless they threaten him and his family physically. He's one dangerous dude as far as Ertz Yisrael goes. But so was JFK.

    Hoarsewhisperer | Nov 11, 2016 11:34:57 AM | 11
    I'm quite certain that Obama is playing his "Trump" card as a last-ditch effort to encourage the Russians to delay their impending (full spectrum) offensive and keep them off-balance for a few more days/ weeks and thus give his 'Russian quagmire' dream another 40 winks. According to Al Jazeera, the Yanks are saying that they'll be restricting the scope of their attacks on 'Terrorist Leaders' in Syria to drone surveillance and strikes. Al Jaz's reporter was speaking to their Washington correspondent and one of them (not sure which) mentioned that the US won't be sending in boots or manned aircraft without the permission of the Syrian Govt. So, if nothing else, this probably spells the end of any present or future (illegal) military involvement by AmeriKKKa's Christian allies in Syria.

    So imo, overall, it's a crock and a trick - small bikkies with a high risk of Yankee treachery. If the Yankees were sincere (cough, cough) they'd cooperate directly with Syria/Russia and agree on who's in charge of the joint mission. And if the Russians are sincere they'll ask the Yankees to respect Syria's sovereignty and stay out of Syria.

    s | Nov 11, 2016 11:36:44 AM | 12
    Inasmuch as the CIA has a very good idea where the leaders of al-Nusrah front are, this is ostensibly a directive to bomb the CIA Will the US campaign against al-Nusrah inexplicably fail?

    Jack Smith: Clinton won the election. The electoral college overturns the popular vote of course...unless the electors keep faith with democracy, and vote for the winner?

    james | Nov 11, 2016 11:47:05 AM | 13
    @11 hoarsewhisperer.. i have to agree with you on all that, but it is fun to be optimistic, if only for a second!

    Erlindur | Nov 11, 2016 11:57:56 AM | 14
    A clean up operation maybe? Who knows what kind of dirt those moder...oops terrorist leaders may have and who they could probably implicate. With Hillary in the white house, any info that may come from them, could easily go under the carpet as propaganda. Who knows what Trump could do?

    BraveNewWorld | Nov 11, 2016 12:03:27 PM | 15
    This should make it untenable for the other colonial powers in NATO to keep supporting AQ as well. So hopefully we have seen the end of any more white helmets and other propaganda and we won't hear any more from that idiot sitting in his basement in the UK that all the MSM take as the new messiah of truth. Maybe Ken Roth will lose his job lose his job to.

    @12 The democrats were perfectly fine with the electoral college when it was going to work for them so they can STFU.

    paul | Nov 11, 2016 12:11:50 PM | 16
    And yet there is this:

    "According to the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Joseph Dunford, after meeting with his Turkish counterpart, that "The coalition and Turkey will work together on the long-term plan for seizing, holding and governing Raqqa."

    http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/11/u-s-turkey-plan-seizing-holding-occupying-syrian-territory-raqqa.html

    This indicates that the US is simply consolidating its strategy to take and hold the northwest of Syria.

    h | Nov 11, 2016 12:13:42 PM | 18
    b - please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but are you suggesting those millions of Saudi/Qatari/Israeli dollars that personally enriched the Clinton's, funded their private family foundation and bankrolled the DNC machine to anoint ONLY Queen Clinton BOUGHT the necessary United States influence (CIA, Military, State, WH, DNC) to ensure U.S. foreign policy 'stay the course no matter the damned consequences' in Syria? Russia? Ukraine? until November 8 when she was to be crowned?

    And now that she and her diabolical neocon pals have lost the opportunity to rip apart the Middle East the U.S. client states - the Saudi's, Qatari's and Israeli's - are taking there marbles back and going home b/c the new guy refuses to play their way?

    Might this provocative suggestion also account for the record breaking U.S. arms sales to the Saudi's and Israeli's this year in preparation for that 'all hell would break loose WWIII' she, her neocon pals and the Saudi's, Israeli's and Qatari's were all lusting after.

    Might this suggestion also account for Adelson's buying Trump's silence, loyalty to Israel? We'll see how far Trump goes, but here's a link to his Israeli policy position pre 11/8 - http://bit.ly/2fIqhir (the joint statement is posted at Medium. I posted a bit.ly link b/c I feared the Medium link would have blown out the thread)

    Finally, Giuliani's advice that the FBI investigation into the Clinton Foundation stay the course when asked about Obama pardoning the almost crowned Queen, make's a great deal more sense, that is, if I'm reading your underlying suggestion correctly, b.

    P.S. - I can't help but to remain curious why we didn't see more leaked emails from the Podesta stash between Hillary, John and maybe Obama, but at least Hillary and John. After all, he kept nearly 60k emails on his gmail account and few that were released dealt with foreign policy/donors/deals. Maybe a get out of the Ecuadorian Embassy card is being played? Absolutely delicious if my reading into b's post today is correct.

    PavewayIV | Nov 11, 2016 12:18:07 PM | 21
    Everything potentially happening in Syria now revolves around Turkey and Russia. Either Erdogan will invade with Turkish troops/armor to carve off his Kurdish buffer zone/concentration camp in northern Syria, or he won't. Russia will either let them or it won't.

    The Turkmen/Al Zenki FSA head-choppers are over-extended and can't take al Bab (or ar Raqqa) by themselves anymore. They will either be abandoned (which I don't think will happen) to die at the hands of the Kurds and SAA, or they'll be reinforced by the invading Turkish Army to 'finish' the creation of Turkmeneli (or as much as they can grab). The U.S. will sit on the sidelines and watch, with the occasional coalition air strikes to make it look like we still matter - at least as much as Russia.

    Worst case: the Turks abandon the FSA/Al Zenki head-choppers because they don't want to start WWIII with Russia. The U.S. will turn into Al Zenki's air force and 'support' their land-grabbing. CJTF-OIR commander Townsend will send the 101st to ar Raqqa and maybe Deir Ez Zor to clean up our mess, but then pull out and abandon Syria (the WW III thing) to roving gangs of well-armed head-choppers. It will be a hell-hole of violence, but since no ISIS-held territory will be left on the map, we'll declare victory and 'Mission: Accomplished!" just like we did in Afghanistan and Iraq.

    Putin: "Do you now realize what you have done?"
    Americans: "Huh? Do you mean us? Hey - look over there! SQUIRREL!"

    Hoarsewhisperer | Nov 11, 2016 12:21:44 PM | 23
    What I DO like about this story is that it's a Golden Opportunity for Vlad to test Trump's sincerity BEFORE he becomes POTUS. I'd like Russia to start slaughtering Obama's Ter'rists in Syria, en masse, tomorrow morning. It's a reliable way to find out how much 'daylight' there is between the Trump Doctrine and the Obama Doctrine - keeping in mind that this slice of Hopie Changie-ness has nothing whatsoever to do with President-elect Trump.

    Grieved | Nov 11, 2016 12:33:02 PM | 27
    @11 Hoarsewhisperer - I think it's unrealistic to expect the US simply to leave Syria. The loss of face would be appalling, and it's unnecessary. If in fact the US is coordinating with Russia and Syria, there's no loss of face, and Russia has always accommodated the US presence in all its public pronouncements, conditional on that coordination.

    I think b's take makes sense - there were two sets of plans on Obama's desk, and these moves are the Trump set.

    There remains that school of thought long speculating that part of the US "deep state" for lack of a better term, supported Trump as the man to reverse some of these disastrous policies that simply can no longer win, and which must be walked back from with as much tough face-saving as possible.

    Personally, I'm curious to see what Trump's support turns out to be in the serving military. Since I'm no expert, I'd like to see analysis one day that shows a war between the Pentagon and the CIA, with the soldiers winning, and choosing Trump.

    sejomoje | Nov 11, 2016 12:34:59 PM | 28
    Absolutely a mop-up op. That it will pre-empt Trump's own "success" is just gravy.

    [Nov 08, 2016] Hillary's World How Clinton's Foreign Policy Has Destabilized Nearly Every Corner of the Globe - Breitbart

    Nov 08, 2016 | www.breitbart.com

    Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton – as senator, secretary of state, and active partner in the Clinton Foundation – has had the privilege of influencing major players in governments across the globe.

    The result of her efforts has largely been the unfettered consolidation of autocratic power, instability (when not total collapse) in vulnerable states, and a global jihadist movement with its own Caliphate infiltrating some of the world's most strategic locations.

    SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

    The above map shows the nations of the world Clinton's policies have destabilized and, below, an explanation of why each is labeled the way it is. This is meant to be a comprehensive list, though by no means complete: there are few nations in which an American secretary of state has no influence whatsoever.

    Emboldened Autocrats

    China

    As secretary of state, Clinton presided over a policy known as the " pivot to Asia ," meant to increase American visibility in the continent and, in particular, bring China and the United States closer together. Clinton publicly supported the " one-China policy " – China's way of imposing itself on the Republic of China (Taiwan), Tibet, Hong Kong, and the western Xinjiang region – and encouraged China to buy up U.S. debt .

    Following her tenure as secretary of state, Clinton expressed support for incoming president Xi Jinping in private. In a 2013 private speech now public, thanks to the organization WikiLeaks, Clinton said it was "good news" that Xi was "doing much more to try to assert his authority" than his predecessor, Hu Jintao.

    Since then, Xi has declared himself the " core " leader, comparable to Mao Zedong ; colonized the maritime territory of six nations in the South China Sea; used state violence to crack down on the nation's skyrocketing Christian population; and engaged in multiple Communist Party purges, citing unspecified " corruption ."

    Cuba

    Hillary Clinton has loudly supported President Obama's policy to "normalize" relations with Cuba, and her associates maintain close ties to the Washington, D.C., community that benefits from relations with the Castro regime. President Obama's "normalization" has triggered a boom in violent arbitrary arrests of political dissidents and a new wave of refugees seeking to leave the communist dictatorship before the United States changes its mind about treating them as political refugees.

    Iran

    Hillary Clinton's work to embolden the Iranian Islamic dictatorship began early in her term as secretary of state. During Clinton's tenure, the Obama administration all but ignored the Iranian Green Revolution, a series of protests against then-President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei. Clinton's State Department rejected requests for funding from groups doing the work on the grounds of documenting Khamenei's rampant human rights abuses against unarmed protesters.

    The Obama administration's crowning achievement in securing the Shiite Caliphate's rule came years later, of course, in the form of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or the Iran nuclear deal. While the parties signed the deal long after her departure from State, Clinton was responsible for "naming the negotiators for the nuclear talks and approving two major U.S. concessions to Iran in 2011 – guaranteeing Iran the right to enrich uranium and agreeing to close the IAEA's investigation of Iran's past nuclear weapons work," according to Fred Fleitz of the Center for Security Policy .

    Malaysia

    Under Prime Minister Najib Razak, Malaysia has become a hotbed of corruption and, increasingly, radical Islamic sentiment . The Obama administration has, nonetheless, cozied up to Kuala Lumpur, including improving its human rights ratings to make it an eligible partner in the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Among the allies Clinton world feared would challenge Clinton, the presidential candidate, on Malaysia were labor leader Richard Trumka and George Soros.

    As Secretary of State, Clinton was the first in her office in more than a decade to visit Malaysia as part of President Obama's "Asia pivot" strategy.

    North Korea

    Secretary of State Clinton approached North Korea with a policy known as " strategic patience ," which one expert described as "sitting back and watching while North Korea continued to build up its nuclear weapons program." North Korea has detonated two nuclear weapons since Clinton has been out of office, in part emboldened by "strategic patience" and in part, many argued after the fourth of five tests, emboldened by the Iranian nuclear deal .

    Russia

    Clinton has attempted to convince the American people that her arch-rival in the presidential election is Russian President Vladimir Putin, but long before it was politically expedient for her to do so, Clinton was the face of President Obama's "Russian reset" – the one that preceded the collapse of Ukraine – and bragged privately to big-money donors of her close ties to Putin. The strongman trusted her so much, she once boasted, that he invited her to his " inner sanctum ."

    Turkey

    In her memoir, Hard Choices , Clinton reserved praise from President (then-Prime Minister) Recep Tayyip Erdogan that sounded not unlike her optimistic profiling of Xi Jinping. Erdogan, she said , was "an ambitious, forceful, devout and effective politician." Of his government, she said Erdogan was correct to seek "zero problems with neighbors." WikiLeaks-released emails have since revealed that Erdogan sought to buy influence through campaign donations to the Clintons.

    During his tenure as president, Erdogan has advanced the cause of Islamism in Turkey to unprecedented levels since the rule of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, going so far as to allow Islamic prayers in the Hagia Sophia, an iconic Christian landmark. He has also conducted mass arrests of political enemies and shut down numerous media outlets who dare challenge his government . Last Friday, Erdogan's government arrested the leaders of the People's Democratic Party (HDP) – a pro-Kurdish, pro-Christian center-left party – in a midnight raid on dubious "terrorism" charges.

    Venezuela

    Clinton served as secretary of state during the tail end of the tenure of socialist dictator Hugo Chávez, who died shortly after she departed. Chávez presided over a bleak time in Venezuelan history: nationalizing private industries, cozying up to enabling autocrats in Cuba, Iran, and China, and using violence to suppress anti-socialist opposition.

    In 2009, Clinton defended negotiating with Chávez and fostering diplomacy with him, telling a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing that the U.S. should dismiss Chávez's ties to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and communist China because "we've isolated him, so he's gone elsewhere. I mean, he's a very sociable guy."

    Venezuela's economy is now in free fall as dozens of prisoners of conscience languish in prison under Chávez's hand-picked successor, Nicolás Maduro. Maduro's management of his own government has been so abysmal that, with Clinton gone, President Obama has declared Venezuela a national security threat .

    Emboldened Corruption

    Algeria

    The government of Algeria is involved in one of the most egregious corruption schemes of the Clinton Foundation: offering the Clintons a $500,000 check. "The donation reportedly coincided with an intense effort by Algeria to lobby Mrs Clinton's State Department over US criticism of its human rights record," The Telegraph notes .

    Brazil

    Earlier this year, Brazil impeached and ousted its socialist President Dilma Rousseff for a variety of fiscal improprieties, including the misrepresentation of government funds to lure investors. Triggering protests that numbered in the millions, however, was Rousseff's deep involvement in something known as "Operation Car Wash," a sprawling corruption scheme in which dozens of government officials took millions in kickbacks from projects commissioned by the state-run oil company Petrobras.

    As secretary of state, Clinton had longtime ties to Rousseff and praised "her commitment to openness, transparency," stating that "her fight against corruption is setting a global standard" in 2012.

    Haiti

    The Clinton Foundation's exploitation of Haiti's poverty and the damage caused by a 2010 earthquake has left many of those nation's leaders disgusted enough to speak up about the corruption. An operation to aid earthquake victims run by the Clintons was also found to have " played a role " in an unprecedented cholera outbreak in that country.

    Kazakhstan

    Among the more alarming deals Clinton cut at the State Department was the nuclear deal that handed one-fifth of America's uranium production capacity to Russia. While Russia usurped control of the Uranium One corporation, the Clinton Foundations coffers filled with Russian money.

    In addition to Uranium One control, the New York Times reports that Russia gained control of "mines in Kazakhstan that are among the most lucrative in the world."

    Morocco

    A more recent WikiLeaks reveal shows that the Clinton Foundation received a $12 million donation from the King of Morocco in exchange for Hillary Clinton's presence at a Foundation summit. At the last minute, she did not attend .

    Saudi Arabia

    Saudi Arabia has enjoyed longstanding ties to the Clinton family and donated at least $50 million to the Clinton Foundation. These ties persisted even as Clinton privately admitted she had evidence that Saudi Arabia provided "clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in the region."

    United States

    While the Clinton Foundation often served as a laundry service for foreign donations , Clinton fostered questionable ties with plenty of domestic entities, as well. Clinton has raked in millions in donations from big business in America, donors to which she privately promised " open borders ." Clinton's ties to Department of Justice officials in the wake of an investigation into her use of an illicit private server for state business has also raised many questions regarding cronyism and corruption within our own country.

    Jihadist Boom

    Afghanistan

    President Obama famously declared that the war in Afghanistan was over for American soldiers in 2014. The policies that led to that point only exacerbated the damage a vacuum of American power in the nation wrought following the announcement.

    Under Clinton, the State Department largely ignored a sprawling corruption problem that left Afghanistan with few resources to combat the Taliban or al-Qaeda. Clinton policies elsewhere in the world also led to the development of an Islamic State presence in the nation.

    Currently, U.S. officials warn that the Taliban is stronger than it has been since September 11, 2001.

    Indonesia

    One of Clinton's first stops as secretary of state was Indonesia, where she proclaimed, "If you want to know whether Islam, democracy, modernity and women's rights can co-exist, go to Indonesia." At the time (2009), her visit was met with chants of "Allahu akbar" and an inauspicious shoe-throwing protest against her.

    Since then, Clinton's foreign policy greatly contributed to the creation of the Islamic State, a jihadist group actively courting Indonesian recruits . "Between 300 and 700 Indonesians are believed to have joined the group in Syria and Iraq over the past two years," the BBC reported in July, adding that 30 Indonesian groups had pledged allegiance to Islamic State "Caliph" Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

    Iraq

    Unlike Syria, the collapse of which followed violent acts of oppression by a ruthless tyrant, Iraq's collapse is more closely tied to American foreign policy due to the nation's longtime occupation there. An American presence on the ground in Iraq did more to subdue jihadist elements there than any action to routinely fleeing Iraqi military and its corrupt leadership took.

    While Clinton was in office, President Obama withdrew most of America's troops from Iraq, leaving a power vacuum rapidly filled by the Islamic State, al-Qaeda, and Iran-backed Shiite militias. Military experts have agreed that a prolonged American presence in the country would have contributed to stability and withdrawing left the nation vulnerable to Islamist colonization.

    Nigeria, Niger, Chad, Cameroon

    The nations surrounding Lake Chad continue to struggle with the rise of Boko Haram, a jihadist group founded in 2002 but active throughout the 2010s in northeast Borno state, Nigeria. Boko Haram is currently the deadliest wing of the Islamic State and responsible for killing an estimated 15,000 and displacing millions. The group rose to international prominence following the abduction of more than 200 schoolgirls from a secondary school in the Borno region in 2014. Most of these girls remain in captivity, "married" off to Boko Haram jihadists for use as sex slaves.

    As secretary of state, Clinton refused to designate Boko Haram, at the time affiliated with al-Qaeda, a Foreign Terrorist Organization. The move severely hindered the Nigerian government's ability to target and neutralize the group, as they could not seek U.S. aid for the mission.

    Somalia, Kenya

    Clinton traveled to Somalia personally in 2009 t0 offer support against al-Shabaab, an al-Qaeda affiliated terrorist group. Following that visit, al-Shabaab made its ties to al-Qaeda public and went on two high-profile rampages against civilians in Kenya: the Westgate Mall massacre in 2013 and the Garissa University attack of 2015. It has since then become a popular enough jihadist group to have found itself the object of courtship of both its al-Qaeda overlords and the Islamic State.

    Al-Shabaab has also expanded into Libya now that Libya is a failed state.

    The United States did little in those in-between years to subdue al-Shabaab, including a " Yemen-like " drone policy to target leadership and an embarrassing failed raid on an al-Shabaab camp in 2013. Clinton herself merely implored the terrorists to allow humanitarian aid.

    Collapse of State

    Libya

    Clinton's role in the death of Americans, including a U.S. Ambassador, in the September 11, 2012, siege of Benghazi is now well-known. She had a major role in pushing for the decision to support Libya's uprising against dictator Muammar Gadhafi, as well, however – a move President Obama followed up with little strategy to ensure that a stable, secular government would replace Gadhafi. The collapse of the Gadhafi dictatorship has left Libya a failed state, at first governed by two rival parties , but now partially governed by the Islamic State , al-Qaeda , and a variety of Islamist tribal militias.

    Clinton has called the collapse of Libya " smart power at its best " and claimed there were " very few civilian casualties " in the fall of Gadhafi.

    Syria

    The Syrian Civil War began in 2011, during Clinton's stewardship of the State Department. The Secretary reportedly pushed President Obama to arm Sunni Arab Syrian rebels, armed militias that included a high number of jihadist elements, many of whom would move on to fight for the Islamic State. The President reportedly did not heed Clinton's advice , though he failed to do much of anything else, either.

    In 2011, however, Clinton referred to dictator Bashar al-Assad as " a reformer " by reputation, whose nascent rule was cause for optimism, casting some doubt on how adamantly she pushed President Obama to arm the Syrian rebels.

    Today, Syria remains a land mass governed piecemeal by the Islamic State, Kurdish militias, al-Qaeda linked armed Sunni groups, and the Iranian-Russian-Assad alliance. Assad claimed in an interview earlier this month that Syria is now "much better off" than before the civil war.

    Sudan/South Sudan

    The creation of South Sudan, the world's youngest nation, was a direct product of Clinton's foreign policy. Years of civil war in Sudan between the northern Muslim population and the Christian south gave way to secession and a war between two nations, not one. By the time Clinton visited in 2012, the Washington Post referred to the refugee crisis there as one of the worst in the world (soon to be eclipsed by the Syrian crisis).

    The State Department persisted in aiding the South Sudanese government, even continuing to provide funding after evidence surfaced that the government employed child soldiers . Subsequent reports unveiled that Clinton-related firms received money from the South Sudanese government, as well.

    Clinton's State Department support appears to have done little to stabilize South Sudan. Report of mass rape at UN camps are common, and the country is now facing a famine .

    Ukraine/Georgia

    The Obama administration's tepid responses to Russian colonization of former Soviet states have left Ukraine without its Crimea region and its eastern provinces in collapse. In Georgia, the breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia , invaded in 2008, remain under pseudo-Russian control.

    Hillary Clinton presided over a "Russian reset" policy meant to dissuade Vladimir Putin from pillaging his neighbors. Clinton even gave her Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov a literal "reset button" as a gift, leaving him baffled . The reset succeeded in keeping Russia from obstructing the negotiation of the Iran nuclear deal and the invasion of Libya , but did little to convince Putin to change his foreign policy.

    Subsequent revelations showed the Clintons taking money from both sides of the Ukraine conflict and being careful of making too tough a stand against Putin's aggression.

    Yemen

    As secretary of state, Clinton made the first visit as America's top diplomat to Yemen since 1990. There, she told Ali Abdullah Saleh that she would support a program to return al-Qaeda terrorists imprisoned at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, to Yemen, while also acknowledging that Yemen was a hotbed of al-Qaeda activity. Saleh is now an ally of the Iran-backed Houthi rebels, which have launched a civil war against current President Abd Rabbo Mansur Hadi. Al-Qaeda is possibly the most stable entity in a nation where 80 percent of civilians live off of humanitarian aid, quadrupling its presence in the nation in a year . Yemen is a failed state torn apart by an emboldened Iran and Saudi Arabia, both major beneficiaries of the Clinton State Department's policies.

    The Migrant Crisis

    Austria, Belgium, the Balkan nations, Cyprus, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Jordan, Lebanon, the Netherlands, Turkey, Sweden, the UK

    The Obama administration's Syria and Libya policies (See above.), executed while Clinton was secretary of state, have triggered a flood of nearly five million displaced Syrians and more than one million Libyans seeking refuge in Europe and the Middle East. Refugees from Afghanistan, Pakistan, sub-Saharan Africa, and other volatile regions have added to the masses seeking a new home, rejected in countries like Russia, China, and Saudi Arabia who have criticized the West for being unwelcoming.

    [Nov 08, 2016] Obama and Clinton Are Complicit in Creating ISIS

    See also Hillary Clinton and Obama created ISIS
    Notable quotes:
    "... The origins of Daesh, known commonly as the Islamic State or ISIS, tie back directly to Obama and Clinton policy delusions and half measures of the Iraq and Syria conflicts. ..."
    "... The FSA exerted zero control over the dozens of rival militias fighting each other and the Assad regime in Damascus. The Syrian Rebel groups were like dozens of hungry baby vultures in a nest all competing for resources, and the worst and meanest destroyed their counterparts using the aid given them by their misguided American benefactors. ..."
    "... The Sunni Arab Gulf states piled on behind the U.S. government to help their Sunni brethren with more arms and cash. The result was a true race to the bottom of Syrian Rebel groups. ..."
    "... The chaos sewn globally by ISIS today grew directly from the bad seeds planted by the Clinton/Obama failures in the basics of statecraft. ..."
    "... Obama/Clinton continued to approach the Middle East with the same naivety that led the Bush Administration into Iraq in the first place. For all of the criticism that Obama levied on Bush, he continued to apply a deeply delusional Washington perspective to Middle Eastern politics and culture - ignoring all we should have learned in 13 years of Iraq conflict and warfare. ..."
    Jun 16, 2016 | breitbart.com

    The origins of Daesh, known commonly as the Islamic State or ISIS, tie back directly to Obama and Clinton policy delusions and half measures of the Iraq and Syria conflicts.

    With the recent release of an August 2012 classified intelligence memo to then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton detailing the presence of the organization that became ISIS among the Syrian oppositional forces supported by the West, it's important to remember the history of exactly how the Islamic State arose from the ashes of a failed Obama/Clinton foreign policy.

    The Syrian "Arab Spring" agitations that began in March 2011, where majority Sunnis rebelled against an Assad run Alawite Shia Ba'th Party, quickly dissolved into a multi sided proxy war. Clinton State Department policy grew into helping these Sunni rebels under the banner of the "Free Syrian Army (FSA)" with weapons, money and diplomatic support.

    However, the reality is that the FSA existed only in the minds of the State Department leadership. The FSA exerted zero control over the dozens of rival militias fighting each other and the Assad regime in Damascus. The Syrian Rebel groups were like dozens of hungry baby vultures in a nest all competing for resources, and the worst and meanest destroyed their counterparts using the aid given them by their misguided American benefactors.

    The Sunni Arab Gulf states piled on behind the U.S. government to help their Sunni brethren with more arms and cash. The result was a true race to the bottom of Syrian Rebel groups. All the while the Assad regime's traditional allies of Russia and Iran provided weapons, training, and even thousands of fighters themselves to combat the U.S. supported Sunni rebels. The Obama/Clinton team couldn't even do a proxy war correctly.

    The chaos sewn globally by ISIS today grew directly from the bad seeds planted by the Clinton/Obama failures in the basics of statecraft.

    ... ... ...

    Obama/Clinton continued to approach the Middle East with the same naivety that led the Bush Administration into Iraq in the first place. For all of the criticism that Obama levied on Bush, he continued to apply a deeply delusional Washington perspective to Middle Eastern politics and culture - ignoring all we should have learned in 13 years of Iraq conflict and warfare.

    Erik Prince is a former Navy SEAL, founder of Blackwater, and currently a frontier market investor and concerned parent.

    [Nov 08, 2016] Obama and Clinton Are Complicit in Creating ISIS

    See also Hillary Clinton and Obama created ISIS
    Notable quotes:
    "... The origins of Daesh, known commonly as the Islamic State or ISIS, tie back directly to Obama and Clinton policy delusions and half measures of the Iraq and Syria conflicts. ..."
    "... The FSA exerted zero control over the dozens of rival militias fighting each other and the Assad regime in Damascus. The Syrian Rebel groups were like dozens of hungry baby vultures in a nest all competing for resources, and the worst and meanest destroyed their counterparts using the aid given them by their misguided American benefactors. ..."
    "... The Sunni Arab Gulf states piled on behind the U.S. government to help their Sunni brethren with more arms and cash. The result was a true race to the bottom of Syrian Rebel groups. ..."
    "... The chaos sewn globally by ISIS today grew directly from the bad seeds planted by the Clinton/Obama failures in the basics of statecraft. ..."
    "... Obama/Clinton continued to approach the Middle East with the same naivety that led the Bush Administration into Iraq in the first place. For all of the criticism that Obama levied on Bush, he continued to apply a deeply delusional Washington perspective to Middle Eastern politics and culture - ignoring all we should have learned in 13 years of Iraq conflict and warfare. ..."
    Jun 16, 2016 | breitbart.com

    The origins of Daesh, known commonly as the Islamic State or ISIS, tie back directly to Obama and Clinton policy delusions and half measures of the Iraq and Syria conflicts.

    With the recent release of an August 2012 classified intelligence memo to then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton detailing the presence of the organization that became ISIS among the Syrian oppositional forces supported by the West, it's important to remember the history of exactly how the Islamic State arose from the ashes of a failed Obama/Clinton foreign policy.

    The Syrian "Arab Spring" agitations that began in March 2011, where majority Sunnis rebelled against an Assad run Alawite Shia Ba'th Party, quickly dissolved into a multi sided proxy war. Clinton State Department policy grew into helping these Sunni rebels under the banner of the "Free Syrian Army (FSA)" with weapons, money and diplomatic support.

    However, the reality is that the FSA existed only in the minds of the State Department leadership. The FSA exerted zero control over the dozens of rival militias fighting each other and the Assad regime in Damascus. The Syrian Rebel groups were like dozens of hungry baby vultures in a nest all competing for resources, and the worst and meanest destroyed their counterparts using the aid given them by their misguided American benefactors.

    The Sunni Arab Gulf states piled on behind the U.S. government to help their Sunni brethren with more arms and cash. The result was a true race to the bottom of Syrian Rebel groups. All the while the Assad regime's traditional allies of Russia and Iran provided weapons, training, and even thousands of fighters themselves to combat the U.S. supported Sunni rebels. The Obama/Clinton team couldn't even do a proxy war correctly.

    The chaos sewn globally by ISIS today grew directly from the bad seeds planted by the Clinton/Obama failures in the basics of statecraft.

    ... ... ...

    Obama/Clinton continued to approach the Middle East with the same naivety that led the Bush Administration into Iraq in the first place. For all of the criticism that Obama levied on Bush, he continued to apply a deeply delusional Washington perspective to Middle Eastern politics and culture - ignoring all we should have learned in 13 years of Iraq conflict and warfare.

    Erik Prince is a former Navy SEAL, founder of Blackwater, and currently a frontier market investor and concerned parent.

    [Nov 08, 2016] Paul Krugman -- Hillary sycophant with anti-russian bent

    Notable quotes:
    "... If one "fact" is known to be false then one is inclined to think those "facts" one is unfamiliar with are also false. I'll always think of Clinton's behavior on hearing of Gadaffi's death. That's the thing you want running the most powerful corporation on earth. ..."
    "... I don't remember Krugman saying that Bush Sr. spent his days at the CIA so he trained as a professional assassin. ..."
    Nov 08, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    Murray Hobbs : November 07, 2016 at 09:50 AM

    If one "fact" is known to be false then one is inclined to think those "facts" one is unfamiliar with are also false. I'll always think of Clinton's behavior on hearing of Gadaffi's death. That's the thing you want running the most powerful corporation on earth.
    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> Murray Hobbs... , November 07, 2016 at 09:58 AM
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Muammar_Gaddafi

    ...International reactions...

    ... Hillary Clinton, laughed and expressed delight with Gaddafi's death, stating "We came. We saw. He died..."

    Richard A. -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , November 07, 2016 at 11:57 AM
    We came, we saw, he died https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgcd1ghag5Y
    ilsm -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , November 07, 2016 at 03:51 PM
    Before he died Qaddafi was sodomized.........
    anne -> anne... , November 07, 2016 at 12:01 PM
    The election was rigged by Russian intelligence, which was almost surely behind the hacking of Democratic emails, which WikiLeaks then released with great fanfare. Nothing truly scandalous emerged, but the Russians judged, correctly, that the news media would hype the revelation that major party figures are human beings, and that politicians engage in politics, as somehow damning....

    -- Paul Krugman

    [ A wildly speculative, purposely inflaming even dangerous passage. And in keeping with previously expressed, inflaming Krugman stereotypes.

    I know, I know, the Russians are going to eat our children for breakfast but I am in no mood for another era of Cold War McCarthyism. Children for what? OMG. ]

    anne -> Jim Harrison ... , November 07, 2016 at 02:49 PM
    OMG, the Russians not being satisfied with eating the children of Cleveland are also going to eat the Baltics and we all know that Baltics are already endangered (climate change and all). Who knew?

    "Save the Baltics from hungry Russians," must be the cry through the land. Save the Baltics, I am ready.

    "Get me my net," Henry.

    anne -> Jim Harrison ... , November 07, 2016 at 02:51 PM
    I'm hearing is simply a recognition that Putin is a problem and that his agents are trying to influence the election, which they sure appear to be doing and have done in many other cases in many countries. It's SOP for this guy....

    [ https://twitter.com/vastleft/status/795234806422503424

    vastleft ‏@vastleft

    Can we be sure Putin isn't behind this changing-the-clocks thing?

    4:02 AM - 6 Nov 2016 ]

    anne -> anne... , November 07, 2016 at 03:01 PM
    "Save the Baltics."

    Right, I'm there.

    [ I know, I have no idea how to portray this as absurd as it actually is. Remember though, I am always ready to go to the Baltics when called to battle. ]

    anne -> anne... , November 07, 2016 at 12:03 PM
    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/22/opinion/donald-trump-the-siberian-candidate.html

    July 21, 2016

    Donald Trump, the Siberian Candidate
    By Paul Krugman

    The Republicans' presidential nominee doesn't just admire Vladimir Putin.


    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/22/opinion/paul-krugman-putin-neocons-and-the-great-illusion.html

    December 21, 2014

    Conquest Is for Losers: Putin, Neocons and the Great Illusion
    By Paul Krugman

    Remember, he's an ex-K.G.B. man - which is to say, he spent his formative years as a professional thug....

    Dan Kervick -> anne... , November 07, 2016 at 03:13 PM
    "Remember, he's an ex-K.G.B. man - which is to say, he spent his formative years as a professional thug...."

    That is a highly simplistic statement about the KGB. Putin worked in counter-intelligence. He wasn't a leg breaker.

    anne -> Dan Kervick... , November 07, 2016 at 04:36 PM
    What is important and saddening is the wild Cold War prejudice, a prejudice that extends to China and would readily descend to name-naming. I get this, fortunately I get the prejudice.

    No matter, when called as I have made clear I will be naming-names from A to Z, but I get this.

    Julio -> Dan Kervick... , November 08, 2016 at 06:37 AM
    Yes, exactly. I don't remember Krugman saying that Bush Sr. spent his days at the CIA so he trained as a professional assassin.
    anne -> Julio ... , November 08, 2016 at 06:44 AM
    I don't remember Krugman saying that Bush Sr. spent his days at the CIA so he trained as a professional assassin.

    [ Perfect:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/22/opinion/paul-krugman-putin-neocons-and-the-great-illusion.html

    December 21, 2014

    Conquest Is for Losers: Putin, Neocons and the Great Illusion
    By Paul Krugman

    Remember, he's an ex-K.G.B. man - which is to say, he spent his formative years as a professional thug.... ]

    [Nov 08, 2016] American And Saudi Weapons Recoverd From ISIS Positions In Mosul

    Nov 08, 2016 | www.mintpressnews.com

    " An anonymous Iraqi official recently stated that front line troops "always see US helicopters flying over the ISIL-controlled areas and dropping weapons and urgent aids for them.", Iraq, ISIS, Mosul, Operation Inherent Resolve, Saudi Arabia, United States, Weapons,"

    .,. ... ...

    Iraqi militia commander Uday al-Khaddran reported the weapons after capturing former Islamic State positions. According to GeoPolitics Alert , the weapons are of Saudi origin, and are by no means an isolated incident. Iraqi forces have reported Saudi and even American supplied ISIS weaponry and food shipments since the war began. Militiamen believe the weapons are, in part, being transported by the Turkish government.

    US manufactured missiles were also allegedly retrieved from the cleared IS area's. In this case, according to Reports Afrique , Iraqi commanders believe the weapons were dropped to ISIS by coalition planes . Such claims, once again, have circulated throughout the war.

    An anonymous Iraqi official recently stated that front line troops " always see US helicopters flying over the ISIL-controlled areas and dropping weapons and urgent aids for them." The commander went onto claim ISIS fighters are even transported by US aircraft to medical facilities in Syria and countries friendly to the group.

    In 2015, Iraqi commanders reported they'd begun shooting down coalition craft seen aiding the group. Iraq's parliament disclosed that year that two British planes seen aiding the enemy were shot down, with wreckage photographed . The government of Iraq called on western leaders to claim the crash, but no response ever came.

    Commander Al-Khaddran also accuses the Turks of sending advisors to aid in IS artillery, and other operations. Since these kinds of reports first surfaced nearly two years ago, they've been largely disregarded. It's only recently, with Hillary Clinton's email leaks allegedly confirming Saudi Arabia funds ISIS, that the mainstream can re-examine these reports.

    Turkish special forces operatives have been stationed outside Mosul for months now without Iraq's approval. Turkey's prime minister was brazen in telling Iraqi's leadership to "know your place" when asked to pull troops out. American officials, who also train Syrian rebels in Turkey–the majority of which are linked to jihadist groups–approve of the forces in northern Iraq. All of these operations, from rebel training to Turkish troop deployments, have coincided with a brutal government crackdown on Turkish media .

    Clinton was emailing her campaign chairman in 2014, advocated for pressure on Saudi Arabia because they "are providing clandestine financial and logistical support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in the region." Saudi government officials, Daily Caller reports , has donated over $25 million to the Clinton Foundation.

    [Nov 08, 2016] Clintons Foreign Policy Will Obviously Be More Aggressive, So Why Pretend Otherwise

    Nov 08, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com
    By Daniel Larison James Traub gamely tries to convince us (and himself) that Clinton's foreign policy won't be as aggressive and meddlesome as she says it will be, but he undermines his argument when he says this:

    As a senator and later secretary of state, she rarely departed from the counsel of senior military officials. She was far more persuaded of the merits of Gen. David Petraeus and Stanley McChrystal's counterinsurgency plan for Afghanistan, which would have sent an additional 40,000 troops there, than Obama was and maybe even more than then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates was. She rarely departed from Gates on any significant issue. Of course, the one time she did so was on Libya, where she advocated intervention and he did not [bold mine-DL]. On Syria, Clinton may have to choose between her own expressed commitments and a Pentagon that is far more cautious and more inclined to see mishap than are civilian interventionists. I wonder how Kagan-esque she will be in the White House. Less so, perhaps, than she was as secretary of state.

    In other words, when military officers recommended a larger escalation, she agreed with them, and when Gates didn't support intervention she didn't agree. Clinton was fine with advice from the military when it meant supporting deeper involvement, but she broke with Gates when he didn't want to take sides in a foreign war. That isn't a picture of someone who consistently heeds military advice, but rather someone who always opts for the more aggressive option available at the time. It doesn't make much sense that Clinton as president would be less "Kagan-esque" than she was as a member of Obama's Cabinet. As president, she will have considerable leeway to do as she sees fit, Congress will be pathetically quiescent as usual, and most of the foreign policy establishment will be encouraging her to do more in Syria and elsewhere. Clinton will be predisposed to agree with what they urge her to do, and in the last twenty years she has never seen a military intervention that she thought was unnecessary or too risky. Why is that suddenly going to change when she has the power of the presidency? In virtually every modern case, a new president ends up behaving more hawkishly than expected based on campaign rhetoric. All of the pressures and incentives in Washington push a president towards do-somethingism, and Clinton has typically been among the least resistant to the demand to "do something" in response to crises and conflicts, so why would we think she would become more cautious once she is in office? I can understand why many of her supporters wish that to be the case, but it flies in the face of all the available evidence, including most of what we know about how Washington works.

    Traub makes a number of predictions at the end of his article:

    She will not make dumb mistakes. She will reassure every ally who needs reassurance. She will try to mute China's adventurism in the South China Sea without provoking a storm of nationalism. She'll probably disappoint the neocons. She won't go out on any limbs. She won't shake the policymaking consensus.

    I don't know where this confidence in Clinton's good judgment comes from, but it seems misplaced. I suppose it depends on what you think smart foreign policy looks like, but there is a fair amount of evidence from Clinton's own record that she is quite capable of making dumb mistakes.

    That doesn't just apply to her vote to authorize the invasion of Iraq and her backing for intervention in Libya, but could also refer to her support for sending weapons to Ukraine, her endorsement of "no-fly" and safe zones in Syria, her preference for more sanctions on Iran while negotiations were still taking place, and her belief that the U.S. has to bomb another country to retain its "credibility." All of these are mistakes, and some are quite dumb.

    It isn't at all reassuring to know that Clinton will "reassure every ally who needs reassurance," because in practice that means indulging bad behavior from reckless clients and rewarding them with more aid and weapons. Earlier in the article, Traub seems to understand that enabling the Saudis is a bad idea:

    This last policy, which for Clinton will come under the heading of "alliance management," would only deepen the violence and sectarian strife rending the region. She would be better advised to tell the Saudis that the United States will reduce its support of their war effort unless they make serious efforts toward a lasting cease-fire.

    That would certainly be wiser than offering uncritical backing of their intervention, but what is the evidence that Clinton thinks U.S. support for the war on Yemen needs to be curtailed? Yemen has been devastated in no small part because of Obama's willingness to "reassure" the Saudis and their allies. What other countries will be made to suffer so Clinton can keep them happy? Clinton may disappoint neocons, but then they are disappointed by anything short of preventive war. Even if Clinton's foreign policy isn't aggressive enough to satisfy them, it is likely to be far more aggressive than necessary.

    [Nov 08, 2016] Oh, What a Lovely War! Delusional foreign policy could bring disaster

    Notable quotes:
    "... The American people don't know very much about war even if Washington has been fighting on multiple fronts since 9/11. The continental United States has not experienced the presence a hostile military force for more than 100 years and war for the current generation of Americans consists largely of the insights provided by video games and movies. The Pentagon's invention of embedded journalists, which limits any independent media insight into what is going on overseas, has contributed to the rendering of war as some kind of abstraction. Gone forever is anything like the press coverage of Vietnam, with nightly news and other media presentations showing prisoners being executed and young girls screaming while racing down the street in flames. ..."
    "... Given all of that, it is perhaps no surprise that both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, neither of whom has served in uniform, should regard violence inflicted on people overseas with a considerable level of detachment. ..."
    "... They both share to an extent the dominant New York-Washington policy consensus view that dealing with foreigners can sometimes get a bit bloody, but that is a price that someone in power has to be prepared to pay. One of Hillary's top advisers, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, famously declared that the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children due to U.S. led sanctions were "worth it." ..."
    "... Hillary Clinton and her advisors, who believe strongly in Washington's leadership role globally and embrace their own definition of American exceptionalism, have been explicit in terms of what they would do to employ our military power. ..."
    "... She would be an extremely proactive president in foreign policy, with a particular animus directed against Russia. ..."
    "... Hillary has received support from foreign policy hawks, including a large number of formerly Republican neocons, to include Robert Kagan, Michael Chertoff, Michael Hayden, Eliot Cohen and Eric Edelman. James Stavridis, a retired admiral who was once vetted by Clinton as a possible vice president, recently warned of "the need to use deadly force against the Iranians. ..."
    "... Hillary believes that Syria's president Bashar al-Assad is the root cause of the turmoil in that country and must be removed as the first priority. . It is a foolish policy as al-Assad in no way threatens the United States while his enemy ISIS does and regime change would create a power vacuum that will benefit the latter. ..."
    "... Hillary has not recommended doing anything about Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey, all of which have at one time or another for various reasons supported ISIS, but she is clearly no friend of Iran, which has been fighting ISIS. ..."
    "... One of Hillary's advisors, former CIA acting Director Michael Morell, has called for new sanctions on Tehran and has also recently recommended that the U.S. begin intercepting Iranian ships presumed to be carrying arms to the Houthis in Yemen. ..."
    "... Hillary's dislike for Russia's Vladimir Putin is notorious. Syria aside, she has advocated arming Ukraine with game changing offensive weapons and also bringing Ukraine and Georgia into NATO, which would force a sharp Russian reaction. One suspects that she might be sympathetic to the views expressed recently by Carl Gershman in a Washington Post op-ed that received curiously little additional coverage in the media. Gershman is the head of the taxpayer funded National Endowment for Democracy (NED), which means that he is a powerful figure in Washington's foreign-policy establishment. NED has plausibly been described as doing the sorts of things that the CIA used to do. ..."
    "... She would increase U.S. military presence in the South China Sea to deter any further attempts by Beijing to develop disputed islands and would also "ring China with defensive missiles," ostensibly as "protection" against Pyongyang but also to convince China to pressure North Korea over its nuclear and ballistic missile programs. One wonders what Beijing might think about being surrounded by made-in-America missiles. ..."
    Nov 08, 2016 | www.unz.com

    The American people don't know very much about war even if Washington has been fighting on multiple fronts since 9/11. The continental United States has not experienced the presence a hostile military force for more than 100 years and war for the current generation of Americans consists largely of the insights provided by video games and movies. The Pentagon's invention of embedded journalists, which limits any independent media insight into what is going on overseas, has contributed to the rendering of war as some kind of abstraction. Gone forever is anything like the press coverage of Vietnam, with nightly news and other media presentations showing prisoners being executed and young girls screaming while racing down the street in flames.

    Given all of that, it is perhaps no surprise that both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, neither of whom has served in uniform, should regard violence inflicted on people overseas with a considerable level of detachment. Hillary is notorious for her assessment of the brutal killing of Libya's Moammar Gaddafi, saying "We came, we saw, he died." They both share to an extent the dominant New York-Washington policy consensus view that dealing with foreigners can sometimes get a bit bloody, but that is a price that someone in power has to be prepared to pay. One of Hillary's top advisers, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, famously declared that the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children due to U.S. led sanctions were "worth it."

    In the election campaign there has, in fact, been little discussion of the issue of war and peace or even of America's place in the world, though Trump did at one point note correctly that implementation of Hillary's suggested foreign policy could escalate into World War III. It has been my contention that the issue of war should be more front and center in the minds of Americans when they cast their ballots as the prospect of an armed conflict in which little is actually at stake escalating and going nuclear could conceivably end life on this planet as we know it.

    With that in mind, it is useful to consider what the two candidates have been promising. First, Hillary, who might reasonably be designated the Establishment's war candidate though she carefully wraps it in humanitarian "liberal interventionism." As Senator and Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton has always viewed a foreign crisis as an opportunity to use aggressive measures to seek a resolution. She can always be relied upon to "do something," a reflection of the neocon driven Washington foreign policy consensus.

    Hillary Clinton and her advisors, who believe strongly in Washington's leadership role globally and embrace their own definition of American exceptionalism, have been explicit in terms of what they would do to employ our military power.

    She would be an extremely proactive president in foreign policy, with a particular animus directed against Russia. And, unfortunately, there would be little or no pushback against the exercise of her admittedly poor instincts regarding what to do, as was demonstrated regarding Libya and also with Benghazi. She would find little opposition in Congress and the media for an extremely risky foreign policy, and would benefit from the Washington groupthink that prevails over the alleged threats emanating from Russia, Iran, and China.

    Hillary has received support from foreign policy hawks, including a large number of formerly Republican neocons, to include Robert Kagan, Michael Chertoff, Michael Hayden, Eliot Cohen and Eric Edelman. James Stavridis, a retired admiral who was once vetted by Clinton as a possible vice president, recently warned of "the need to use deadly force against the Iranians. I think it's coming. It's going to be maritime confrontation and if it doesn't happen immediately, I'll bet you a dollar it's going to be happening after the presidential election, whoever is elected."

    Hillary believes that Syria's president Bashar al-Assad is the root cause of the turmoil in that country and must be removed as the first priority. . It is a foolish policy as al-Assad in no way threatens the United States while his enemy ISIS does and regime change would create a power vacuum that will benefit the latter. She has also called for a no-fly zone in Syria to protect the local population as well as the insurgent groups that the U.S. supports, some of which had been labeled as terrorists before they were renamed by current Secretary of State John Kerry. Such a zone would dramatically raise the prospect of armed conflict with Russia and it puts Washington in an odd position vis-à-vis what is occurring in Syria. The U.S. is not at war with the Syrian government, which, like it or not, is under international law sovereign within its own recognized borders. Damascus has invited the Russians in to help against the rebels and objects to any other foreign presence on Syrian territory. In spite of all that, Washington is asserting some kind of authority to intervene and to confront the Russians as both a humanitarian mission and as an "inherent right of self-defense."

    Hillary has not recommended doing anything about Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey, all of which have at one time or another for various reasons supported ISIS, but she is clearly no friend of Iran, which has been fighting ISIS. As a Senator, she threatened to "totally obliterate" Iran but she has more recently reluctantly supported the recent nuclear agreement with that country negotiated by President Barack Obama. But she has nevertheless warned that she will monitor the situation closely for possible violations and will otherwise pushback against activity by the Islamic Republic. As one of her key financial supporters is Israeli Haim Saban, who has said he is a one issue guy and that issue is Israel, she is likely to pursue aggressive policies in the Persian Gulf. She has also promised to move America's relationship with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to a "new level" and has repeatedly declared that her support for Israel is unconditional.

    One of Hillary's advisors, former CIA acting Director Michael Morell, has called for new sanctions on Tehran and has also recently recommended that the U.S. begin intercepting Iranian ships presumed to be carrying arms to the Houthis in Yemen. Washington is not at war with either Iran or Yemen and the Houthis are not on the State Department terrorist list but our good friends the Saudis have been assiduously bombing them for reasons that seem obscure. Stopping ships in international waters without any legal pretext would be considered by many an act of piracy. Morell has also called for covertly assassinating Iranians and Russians to express our displeasure with the foreign policies of their respective governments.

    Hillary's dislike for Russia's Vladimir Putin is notorious. Syria aside, she has advocated arming Ukraine with game changing offensive weapons and also bringing Ukraine and Georgia into NATO, which would force a sharp Russian reaction. One suspects that she might be sympathetic to the views expressed recently by Carl Gershman in a Washington Post op-ed that received curiously little additional coverage in the media. Gershman is the head of the taxpayer funded National Endowment for Democracy (NED), which means that he is a powerful figure in Washington's foreign-policy establishment. NED has plausibly been described as doing the sorts of things that the CIA used to do.

    After making a number of bumper-sticker claims about Russia and Putin that are either partially true, unproven or even ridiculous, Gershman concluded that "the United States has the power to contain and defeat this danger. The issue is whether we can summon the will to do so." It is basically a call for the next administration to remove Putin from power-as foolish a suggestion as has ever been seen in a leading newspaper, as it implies that the risk of nuclear war is completely acceptable to bring about regime change in a country whose very popular, democratically elected leadership we disapprove of. But it is nevertheless symptomatic of the kind of thinking that goes on inside the beltway and is quite possibly a position that Hillary Clinton will embrace. She also benefits from having the perfect implementer of such a policy in Robert Kagan's wife Victoria Nuland, her extremely dangerous protégé who is currently Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs and who might wind up as Secretary of State in a Clinton Administration.

    Shifting to East Asia, Hillary sees the admittedly genuine threat from North Korea but her response is focused more on China. She would increase U.S. military presence in the South China Sea to deter any further attempts by Beijing to develop disputed islands and would also "ring China with defensive missiles," ostensibly as "protection" against Pyongyang but also to convince China to pressure North Korea over its nuclear and ballistic missile programs. One wonders what Beijing might think about being surrounded by made-in-America missiles.

    Trump's foreign policy is admittedly quite sketchy and he has not always been consistent. He has been appropriately enough slammed for being simple minded in saying that he would "bomb the crap out of ISIS," but he has also taken on the Republican establishment by specifically condemning the George W. Bush invasion of Iraq and has more than once indicated that he is not interested in either being the world's policeman or in new wars in the Middle East. He has repeatedly stated that he supports NATO but it should not be construed as hostile to Russia. He would work with Putin to address concerns over Syria and Eastern Europe. He would demand that NATO countries spend more for their own defense and also help pay for the maintenance of U.S. bases.

    Trump's controversial call to stop all Muslim immigration has been rightly condemned but it contains a kernel of truth in that the current process for vetting new arrivals in this country is far from transparent and apparently not very effective. The Obama Administration has not been very forthcoming on what might be done to fix the entire immigration process but Trump is promising to shake things up, which is overdue, though what exactly a Trump Administration would try to accomplish is far from clear.

    Continuing on the negative side, Trump, who is largely ignorant of the world and its leaders, has relied on a mixed bag of advisors. Former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency General Michael Flynn appears to be the most prominent. Flynn is associated with arch neocon Michael Ledeen and both are rabid about Iran, with Flynn suggesting that nearly all the unrest in the Middle East should be laid at Tehran's door. Ledeen is, of course, a prominent Israel-firster who has long had Iran in his sights. The advice of Ledeen and Flynn may have been instrumental in Trump's vehement denunciation of the Iran nuclear agreement, which he has called a "disgrace," which he has said he would "tear up." It is vintage dumb-think. The agreement cannot be canceled because there are five other signatories to it and the denial of a nuclear weapons program to Tehran benefits everyone in the region, including Israel. It is far better to have the agreement than to scrap it, if that were even possible.

    Trump has said that he would be an even-handed negotiator between Israel and the Palestinians but he has also declared that he is strongly pro-Israel and would move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, which is a bad idea, not in America's interest, even if Netanyahu would like it. It would produce serious blowback from the Arab world and would inspire a new wave of terrorism directed against the U.S.

    Regarding the rest of the Middle East, Trump would prefer strong leaders, i.e. autocrats, who are friendly rather than chaotic reformers. He rejects arming rebels as in Syria because we know little about whom we are dealing with and find that we cannot control what develops. He is against foreign aid in principle, particularly to countries like Pakistan where the U.S. is strongly disliked.

    In East Asia, Trump would encourage Japan and South Korea to develop their own nuclear arsenals to deter North Korea. It is a very bad idea, a proliferation nightmare. Like Hillary, he would prefer that China intervene in North Korea and make Kim Jong Un "step down." He would put pressure on China to devalue its currency because it is "bilking us of billions of dollars" and would also increase U.S. military presence in the region to limit Beijing's expansion in the South China Sea.

    So there you have it as you enter the voting booth. President Obama is going around warning that "the fate of the world is teetering" over the electoral verdict, which he intends to be a ringing endorsement of Hillary even though the choice is not nearly that clear cut. Part of the problem with Trump is that he has some very bad ideas mixed in with a few good ones and no one knows what he would actually do if he were president. Unfortunately, it is all too clear what Hillary would do.

    [Nov 08, 2016] Last Stand for ISIS by Eric Margolis

    Notable quotes:
    "... Islamic State(IS), the defender of Mosul, is a paper tiger, blown out of all proportion by western media. IS is, as this writer has been saying for years, an armed mob made up of 20-something malcontents, religious fanatics, and modern-day anarchists. At its top is a cadre of former Iraqi Army officers with military experience. ..."
    "... These former officers of Saddam Hussain are bent on revenge for the US destruction of their nation and the lynching of its late leader. But IS rank and file has no military training, little discipline, degraded communications, and ragged logistics. ..."
    "... In fact, today's Islamic State is what the Ottoman Empire used to term, 'bashi-bazouks," a collection of irregular cut-throats and scum of the gutter sent to punish and terrorize enemies by means of torture, rapine, looting and arson. ..."
    "... Western and Kudish auxiliary forces have been sitting 1.5 hours drive from Mosul and the IS town of Raqqa for over a year. Instead, western – mainly US – warplanes have been gingerly bombing around these targets in what may be an effort to convince breakaway ISIS to rejoin US-led forces fight the Damascus regime. ..."
    "... Note that ISIS does not appear to have ever attacked Israel though it is playing an important role in the destruction of Syria. Some reports say Israel is providing logistic and medical support for IS. ..."
    "... The siege of Mosul is being played up by western media as a heroic second Stalingrad. Don't be fooled. IS has only 3-5,000 lightly armed fighters in Mosul and Raqqa, maybe even less. The leaders of IS are likely long gone. IS has few heavy weapons, no air cover at all, and poor communications. Its rag-tag fighters will run out of ammunitions and explosives very quickly. ..."
    "... Encircling Mosul are at least 50,000 western-led soldiers, backed by heavy artillery, rocket batteries, tanks, armored vehicles and awesome air power ..."
    "... The western imperial forces are composed of tough Kurdish pasha merga fighters, Iraqi army and special forces, some Syrian Kurds, Iranian 'volunteers' irregular forces and at least 5,000 US combat troops called "advisors", plus small numbers of French, Canadian and British special forces. Hovering in the background are some thousands of Turkish troops, supported by armor and artillery ready to 'liberate' Iraq – which was once part of the Ottoman Empire. ..."
    www.unz.com
    Reprinted from EricMargolis.com

    As a former soldier and war correspondent who has covered 14 conflicts, I look at all the media hoopla over tightening siege of Mosul, Iraq and shake my head. This western-organized "liberation" of Mosul is one of the bigger pieces of political-military theater that I've seen.

    Islamic State(IS), the defender of Mosul, is a paper tiger, blown out of all proportion by western media. IS is, as this writer has been saying for years, an armed mob made up of 20-something malcontents, religious fanatics, and modern-day anarchists. At its top is a cadre of former Iraqi Army officers with military experience.

    These former officers of Saddam Hussain are bent on revenge for the US destruction of their nation and the lynching of its late leader. But IS rank and file has no military training, little discipline, degraded communications, and ragged logistics.

    In fact, today's Islamic State is what the Ottoman Empire used to term, 'bashi-bazouks," a collection of irregular cut-throats and scum of the gutter sent to punish and terrorize enemies by means of torture, rapine, looting and arson.

    What has amazed me about the faux western war against ISIS is its leisurely nature, lack of élan, and hesitancy. In my view, ISIS was mostly created by the US and its allies as a weapon to be used against Syria's government – just as the Afghan mujahadin were used by the US and the Saudis to overthrow the Soviet-backed Afghan government. Israel tried the same tactics by helping create Hamas in Palestine and Hezbullah in Lebanon. Both were cultivated to split the PLO.

    ISIS is an ad hoc movement that wants to punish the West and the Saudis for the gross carnage they have inflicted on the Arab world.

    Western and Kudish auxiliary forces have been sitting 1.5 hours drive from Mosul and the IS town of Raqqa for over a year. Instead, western – mainly US – warplanes have been gingerly bombing around these targets in what may be an effort to convince breakaway ISIS to rejoin US-led forces fight the Damascus regime.

    Note that ISIS does not appear to have ever attacked Israel though it is playing an important role in the destruction of Syria. Some reports say Israel is providing logistic and medical support for IS.

    The siege of Mosul is being played up by western media as a heroic second Stalingrad. Don't be fooled. IS has only 3-5,000 lightly armed fighters in Mosul and Raqqa, maybe even less. The leaders of IS are likely long gone. IS has few heavy weapons, no air cover at all, and poor communications. Its rag-tag fighters will run out of ammunitions and explosives very quickly.

    Encircling Mosul are at least 50,000 western-led soldiers, backed by heavy artillery, rocket batteries, tanks, armored vehicles and awesome air power

    The western imperial forces are composed of tough Kurdish pasha merga fighters, Iraqi army and special forces, some Syrian Kurds, Iranian 'volunteers' irregular forces and at least 5,000 US combat troops called "advisors", plus small numbers of French, Canadian and British special forces. Hovering in the background are some thousands of Turkish troops, supported by armor and artillery ready to 'liberate' Iraq – which was once part of the Ottoman Empire.

    For the US, current military operations in Syria and Iraq are the realization of an imperialist's fondest dream: native troops led by white officers, the model of the old British Indian Raj. Washington arms, trained, equips and financed all its native auxiliaries.

    The IS is caught in a dangerous dilemma. To be a political movement, it was delighted to control Iraq's second largest city. But as a guerilla force, it should not have holed up in an urban area where it was highly vulnerable to concentrated air attack and being surrounded. This is what's happening right now.

    In the mostly flat Fertile Crescent with too few trees, ground forces are totally vulnerable to air power, as the recent 1967, 1973 Israel-Arab wars and 2003 Iraq wars have shown. Dispersion and guerilla tactics are the only hope for those that lack air cover.

    IS forces would best advised to disperse across the region and continue their hit-and-run attacks. Otherwise, they risk being destroyed. But being mostly bloody-minded young fanatics, IS may not heed military logic and precedent in favor of making a last stand in the ruins of Mosul and Raqqa

    When this happens, western leaders will compete to claim authorship of the faux crusade against the paper tiger of ISIS.

    [Nov 08, 2016] Looking in The Mirror: How the US Only Sees Itself in Its Putin Propaganda

    Nov 08, 2016 | comehomeamerica.wordpress.com
    Posted on May 9, 2016 by comehomeamerica by Dr. Bill Wedin Who benefits?

    Who benefits?

    Yes. In the famous words of Pogo :

    "We have met the enemy. And he is us."

    That's how paranoia works. We project onto a feared "other" our own unacceptable desires. In Putin's case, it's our unacceptable wish to incinerate him and all Russians with him that we may rule the world.

    Not out of avarice, mind you. Or so the noble lie goes. But out of our selfless compassion. Our Christian compassion, if that floats your boat. Yes, indeed. We selfless, exceptional Americans are willing to bear the heavy burden of world hegemony–not for all the power and wealth it brings us. Perish the thought! But for the peace and prosperity our rule will bestow on all the colored peoples of the earth–drop by drop–beneath us.

    That's what our leaders tell us. And that's what the mainstream media echo back to us–again and again and again. That we're the best. The greatest. The goodest. The purest. We act always only for others. Our motives can never be questioned. For Americans alone can judge what is good and what is evil. We're like God in that way. That's why Americans ate so much from the Tree of Knowledge in the first place! Continue reading →

    [Nov 07, 2016] Under the Din of the Presidential Race Lies a Once and Future Threat Cyberwarfare

    This neocon propagandists (or more correctly neocon provocateur) got all major facts wrong. And who unleashed Flame and Stuxnet I would like to ask him. Was it Russians? And who invented the concept of "color revolution" in which influencing of election was the major part of strategy ? And which nation instituted the program of covert access to email boxes of all major webmail providers? He should study the history of malware and the USA covert operations before writing this propagandist/provocateur opus to look a little bit more credible...
    Notable quotes:
    "... Email, a main conduit of communication for two decades, now appears so vulnerable that the nation seems to be wondering whether its bursting inboxes can ever be safe. ..."
    www.nytimes.com

    The 2016 presidential race will be remembered for many ugly moments, but the most lasting historical marker may be one that neither voters nor American intelligence agencies saw coming: It is the first time that a foreign power has unleashed cyberweapons to disrupt, or perhaps influence, a United States election.

    And there is a foreboding sense that, in elections to come, there is no turning back.

    The steady drumbeat of allegations of Russian troublemaking - leaks from stolen emails and probes of election-system defenses - has continued through the campaign's last days. These intrusions, current and former administration officials agree, will embolden other American adversaries, which have been given a vivid demonstration that, when used with some subtlety, their growing digital arsenals can be particularly damaging in the frenzy of a democratic election.

    "Most of the biggest stories of this election cycle have had a cybercomponent to them - or the use of information warfare techniques that the Russians, in particular, honed over decades," said David Rothkopf, the chief executive and editor of Foreign Policy, who has written two histories of the National Security Council. "From stolen emails, to WikiLeaks, to the hacking of the N.S.A.'s tools, and even the debate about how much of this the Russians are responsible for, it's dominated in a way that we haven't seen in any prior election."

    The magnitude of this shift has gone largely unrecognized in the cacophony of a campaign dominated by charges of groping and pay-for-play access. Yet the lessons have ranged from the intensely personal to the geostrategic.

    Email, a main conduit of communication for two decades, now appears so vulnerable that the nation seems to be wondering whether its bursting inboxes can ever be safe. Election systems, the underpinning of democracy, seem to be at such risk that it is unimaginable that the United States will go into another national election without treating them as "critical infrastructure."

    But President Obama has been oddly quiet on these issues. He delivered a private warning to President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia during their final face-to-face encounter two months ago, aides say. Still, Mr. Obama has barely spoken publicly about the implications of foreign meddling in the election. His instincts, those who have worked with him on cyberissues say, are to deal with the problem by developing new norms of international behavior or authorizing covert action rather than direct confrontation.

    After a series of debates in the Situation Room, Mr. Obama and his aides concluded that any public retaliation should be postponed until after the election - to avoid the appearance that politics influenced his decision and to avoid provoking Russian counterstrikes while voting is underway. It remains unclear whether Mr. Obama will act after Tuesday, as his aides hint, or leave the decision about a "proportional response" to his successor.

    Cybersleuths, historians and strategists will debate for years whether Russia's actions reflected a grand campaign of interference or mere opportunism on the part of Mr. Putin. While the administration has warned for years about the possibility of catastrophic attacks, what has happened in the past six months has been far more subtle.

    Russia has used the techniques - what they call "hybrid war," mixing new technologies with old-fashioned propaganda, misinformation and disruption - for years in former Soviet states and elsewhere in Europe. The only surprise was that Mr. Putin, as he intensified confrontations with Washington as part of a nationalist campaign to solidify his own power amid a deteriorating economy, was willing to take them to American shores.

    The most common theory is that while the Russian leader would prefer the election of Donald J. Trump - in part because Mr. Trump has suggested that NATO is irrelevant and that the United States should pull its troops back to American shores - his primary motive is to undercut what he views as a smug American sense of superiority about its democratic processes.

    Madeleine K. Albright, a former secretary of state who is vigorously supporting Hillary Clinton, wrote recently that Mr. Putin's goal was "to create doubt about the validity of the U.S. election results, and to make us seem hypocritical when we question the conduct of elections in other countries."

    If so, this is a very different use of power than what the Obama administration has long prepared the nation for.

    Four years ago, Leon E. Panetta, the defense secretary at the time, warned of an impending "cyber Pearl Harbor" in which enemies could "contaminate the water supply in major cities or shut down the power grid across large parts of the country," perhaps in conjunction with a conventional attack.

    [Nov 07, 2016] Election 2016 Playing a Game of Chicken With Nuclear Strategy

    The author is a neocon... Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty was deeply unfair as it did not eliminated see based missiles, only ground based one. It is essentially a trap Gorbachov went into.
    Notable quotes:
    "... On the American side, the weapon of immediate concern is a new version of the AGM-86B air-launched cruise missile, usually carried by B-52 bombers. Also known as the Long-Range Standoff Weapon (LRSO) ..."
    "... No wonder former Secretary of Defense William J. Perry called on President Obama to cancel the ALCM program in a recent Washington Post op-ed piece. "Because they… come in both nuclear and conventional variants," he wrote, "cruise missiles are a uniquely destabilizing type of weapon." And this issue is going to fall directly into the lap of the next president. ..."
    Nov 07, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    By Michael T. Klare, a professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College and the author, most recently, of The Race for What's Left . A documentary movie version of his book Blood and Oil is available from the Media Education Foundation . Follow him on Twitter at @mklare1. Originally published at TomDispatch

    ... ... ..

    With passions running high on both sides in this year's election and rising fears about Donald Trump's impulsive nature and Hillary Clinton's hawkish one, it's hardly surprising that the "nuclear button" question has surfaced repeatedly throughout the campaign. In one of the more pointed exchanges of the first presidential debate, Hillary Clinton declared that Donald Trump lacked the mental composure for the job. "A man who can be provoked by a tweet," she commented , "should not have his fingers anywhere near the nuclear codes." Donald Trump has reciprocated by charging that Clinton is too prone to intervene abroad. "You're going to end up in World War III over Syria," he told reporters in Florida last month.

    For most election observers, however, the matter of personal character and temperament has dominated discussions of the nuclear issue, with partisans on each side insisting that the other candidate is temperamentally unfit to exercise control over the nuclear codes. There is, however, a more important reason to worry about whose finger will be on that button this time around: at this very moment, for a variety of reasons, the "nuclear threshold" - the point at which some party to a "conventional" (non-nuclear) conflict chooses to employ atomic weapons - seems to be moving dangerously lower.

    Not so long ago, it was implausible that a major nuclear power - the United States, Russia, or China - would consider using atomic weapons in any imaginable conflict scenario. No longer. Worse yet, this is likely to be our reality for years to come, which means that the next president will face a world in which a nuclear decision-making point might arrive far sooner than anyone would have thought possible just a year or two ago - with potentially catastrophic consequences for us all.

    No less worrisome, the major nuclear powers (and some smaller ones) are all in the process of acquiring new nuclear arms, which could, in theory, push that threshold lower still. These include a variety of cruise missiles and other delivery systems capable of being used in "limited" nuclear wars - atomic conflicts that, in theory at least, could be confined to just a single country or one area of the world (say, Eastern Europe) and so might be even easier for decision-makers to initiate. The next president will have to decide whether the U.S. should actually produce weapons of this type and also what measures should be taken in response to similar decisions by Washington's likely adversaries.

    Lowering the Nuclear Threshold

    During the dark days of the Cold War, nuclear strategists in the United States and the Soviet Union conjured up elaborate conflict scenarios in which military actions by the two superpowers and their allies might lead from, say, minor skirmishing along the Iron Curtain to full-scale tank combat to, in the end, the use of "battlefield" nuclear weapons, and then city-busting versions of the same to avert defeat. In some of these scenarios, strategists hypothesized about wielding "tactical" or battlefield weaponry - nukes powerful enough to wipe out a major tank formation, but not Paris or Moscow - and claimed that it would be possible to contain atomic warfare at such a devastating but still sub-apocalyptic level. (Henry Kissinger, for instance, made his reputation by preaching this lunatic doctrine in his first book, Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy .) Eventually, leaders on both sides concluded that the only feasible role for their atomic arsenals was to act as deterrents to the use of such weaponry by the other side. This was, of course, the concept of " mutually assured destruction ," or - in one of the most classically apt acronyms of all times: MAD. It would, in the end, form the basis for all subsequent arms control agreements between the two superpowers.

    Anxiety over the escalatory potential of tactical nuclear weapons peaked in the 1970s when the Soviet Union began deploying the SS-20 intermediate-range ballistic missile (capable of striking cities in Europe, but not the U.S.) and Washington responded with plans to deploy nuclear-armed, ground-launched cruise missiles and the Pershing-II ballistic missile in Europe. The announcement of such plans provoked massive antinuclear demonstrations across Europe and the United States. On December 8, 1987, at a time when worries had been growing about how a nuclear conflagration in Europe might trigger an all-out nuclear exchange between the superpowers, President Ronald Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev signed the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty.

    That historic agreement - the first to eliminate an entire class of nuclear delivery systems - banned the deployment of ground-based cruise or ballistic missiles with a range of 500 and 5,500 kilometers and required the destruction of all those then in existence. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Russian Federation inherited the USSR's treaty obligations and pledged to uphold the INF along with other U.S.-Soviet arms control agreements. In the view of most observers, the prospect of a nuclear war between the two countries practically vanished as both sides made deep cuts in their atomic stockpiles in accordance with already existing accords and then signed others, including the New START , the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty of 2010.

    ... ... ...

    To put this in perspective, Russian leaders ardently believe that they are the victims of a U.S.-led drive by NATO to encircle their country and diminish its international influence. They point, in particular, to the build-up of NATO forces in the Baltic countries, involving the semi-permanent deployment of combat battalions in what was once the territory of the Soviet Union, and in apparent violation of promises made to Gorbachev in 1990 that NATO would not do so. As a result, Russia has been bolstering its defenses in areas bordering Ukraine and the Baltic states, and training its troops for a possible clash with the NATO forces stationed there.

    ... ... ...

    On the American side, the weapon of immediate concern is a new version of the AGM-86B air-launched cruise missile, usually carried by B-52 bombers. Also known as the Long-Range Standoff Weapon (LRSO), it is, like the Iskander-M, expected to be deployed in both nuclear and conventional versions, leaving those on the potential receiving end unsure what might be heading their way.

    In other words, as with the Iskander-M, the intended target might assume the worst in a crisis, leading to the early use of nuclear weapons. Put another way, such missiles make for twitchy trigger fingers and are likely to lead to a heightened risk of nuclear war, which, once started, might in turn take Washington and Moscow right up the escalatory ladder to a planetary holocaust.

    No wonder former Secretary of Defense William J. Perry called on President Obama to cancel the ALCM program in a recent Washington Post op-ed piece. "Because they… come in both nuclear and conventional variants," he wrote, "cruise missiles are a uniquely destabilizing type of weapon." And this issue is going to fall directly into the lap of the next president.

    pretzelattack November 7, 2016 at 1:46 am

    scanning it, it keeps referring to the obama administration's beliefs about russia, and claims by american officials. given the hysteria about putin allegedly hacking the us election, and the propaganda surrounding the war on terror, i'm reluctant to rely on this kind of evidence.

    Lambert Strether November 7, 2016 at 2:29 am

    This:

    But even Hillary Clinton, for all her experience as secretary of state, is likely to have a hard time grappling with the pressures and dangers that are likely to arise in the years ahead, especially given that her inclination is to toughen U.S. policy toward Russia.

    "Even" is a little rich, given that the Clinton campaign has systematically - I hate to use the word, but - demonized* Putin. One can regard the political class as cynically able to turn on a dime when the election is done, but Clinton has also induced her base of "NPR tote baggers" to buy in, and the more massive base is harder to turn. And then of course the neo-cons have gone over to her, and they certainly know which side their bread has blood on.

    So, if Clinton wins, the dominant faction of the Democrat Party is - from the leadership through the nomenklatura to the base - committed to a "muscular" foreign policy, including a "No Fly Zone" in Syria, where shooting down a Russian plane would be an act of war, so far as Russia is concerned. (In the last debate, Clinton pointedly didn't answer what she would do in that eventuality.)

    It is what it is. We are where we are.

    NOTE * I mean, come on. Trump and Comey as Putin's agents of influence? Beyond bizarre.

    UPDATE One of the salient features of the bureaucratic infighters who brought about World War I is their utter mediocrity; see this review of The Sleepwalkers , a diplomatic history of how World War I came out. If you want to see real mediocrity in today's terms, read the Podesta emails.

    integer November 7, 2016 at 2:50 am

    And contrast that quote with:

    Whoever is elected on November 8th, we are evidently all headed into a world in which Trumpian-style itchy trigger fingers could be the norm.

    So even Hillary Clinton might not be able to handle a world full of Trumpian-style itchy trigger fingers. That's a bit hard to swallow imo.

    timotheus November 7, 2016 at 5:35 am

    "Muscular" policy towards Russia: [echo "muscular policy! muscular policy!" slow fade]. And we think Putin is a clownish macho.

    Joins "innovation", economic "liftoff" and "headwinds", "fight for", etc.

    hemeantwell November 7, 2016 at 8:44 am

    Agreed. Klare's order of presentation creates a questionable sense of causality by talking first about Russian tech and strategy and then about what appear to be US responses. For example, my understanding of recent developments of low yield nuclear weapons - I'm thinking of the "dial a bomb" - has the US once again opening up a new strategic front the Russians feel compelled to duplicate. His discussion of the Iskander M similarly elides the question of how the Russians think about the B52-based cruise missiles the US has had for years.

    He also seems to lose track of a point he introduces by referring to Kissinger's advocacy of the use of low yield nukes. Kissinger's book came out in 1957, and afair only the US had battlefield nuclear missile delivery systems back in early 60s. After Kissinger gained power in the Nixon administration, they both thought that it was useful to look rationally irrational, to set out a logic for dangerous policies in order to make opponents fearful of a catastrophic reaction. The Russians are likely doing the same thing. I'm sure, too, that talking of a low first use threshold is a way to split Europe from the US.

    Massinissa November 7, 2016 at 2:38 am

    I like the article, but it seems like its putting too much of the fault on Russia.

    Roland November 7, 2016 at 3:10 am

    This article on nuclear strategy makes no mention of the single most destabilizing thing that happened in nuclear affairs in this century: the USA's unilateral abrogation of the ABM Treaty.

    How could the author make such an omission?

    The biggest nuclear problem we face is that there are "serious" military and political leaders in the USA who think that their new ABM systems will allow them to burst the shackles of assured-destruction, and thus to actively employ escalation dominance as a foreign policy tool..

    integer November 7, 2016 at 5:20 am

    political leaders in the USA who think that their new ABM systems will allow them to burst the shackles of assured-destruction

    "Technology is dominated by two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand."

    ― Archibald Putt

    charles 2 November 7, 2016 at 5:06 am

    The author puts too much emphasis on anti-cities warfare at a pre-strategic level. A strike will be more likely to be an EMP anti-infrastructure strike. In modern societies, one doesn't need to kill people to break their resolve. Disrupting the provision of electricity, mobile, cable and internet connection is amply enough to eliminate the appetite for overseas military adventures.

    fajensen November 7, 2016 at 6:13 am

    The nukes run on a dead-man switch. If one EMP's "everything", the periodic "please do not launch today, sir"-signal will not reach the silos/submarines and missiles will launch automatically.

    We can be pretty sure that the last missiles launched will be salted with some "well, fuck you too!"-concoction to create massive fallout and maybe even some bio-weapons on top for all those weakened immune systems (from the gamma radiation). The USSR did a lot of very high quality research on biological weapons, obviously, everyone else has whatever they had in the 1980's. People who ingest radioactive dust are goners sooner or later. Sooner with bio-weapons on top of the radiation poisoning.

    People, especially people "on top" who should be informed and know better, yet still think ABM systems work effectively for any other purpose than moving billions of USD to into the pockets of defense industry cronies, are simply deluded. Even with cooked tests, where the speed and trajectory of the opposition missile is known to the missile defence in advance, the odds of an intercept are low.

    Disturbed Voter November 7, 2016 at 6:31 am

    The only way to win is not play – War-games

    Why would the elites not want to win, compared to the first 70 years of the nuclear age?

    fajensen November 7, 2016 at 8:04 am

    Why would the elites not want to win, compared to the first 70 years of the nuclear age?

    They are like 70-80 years old, geriatrics already, soon diaper-cases. All thes powerful people are in a desparate race with time to "set things right", before they lose all of their faculties (or start smelling of poo so no-one invites them anymore).

    Jim A November 7, 2016 at 9:01 am

    Even more troubling, Russia has adopted a military doctrine that favors the early use of nuclear weapons if it faces defeat in a conventional war, and NATO is considering comparable measures in response. The nuclear threshold, in other words, is dropping rapidly.

    Of course this is the exact mirror image of the US policy during the Cold War. We relied on the threat of "theater nuclear war" to deter the huge Soviet conventional forces that NATO had little chance of stopping with conventional forces. Of course the Germans joked that the definition of a "theater" nuclear weapon was one that went off in Germany.

    [Nov 07, 2016] In June 2014, Mosul was handed over to the jihadists without a fight. The special forces of the United States left to the terrorists heavy military equipment, armor, ammunition, some very badly guarded bases for supply, and half a billion dollars in cash in several banks

    Nov 07, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org

    This is a excellent interview covering many topics discussed here regarding ME, USA, geopolitics, Turkeys mission, etc. Its from the Bulgarian perspective.

    https://southfront.org/why-cant-the-us-and-russia-reach-an-agreement-in-syria/

    "Interview conducted by Antoinette Kiselincheva with Boyan Chukov, former adviser on Foreign Policy and National Security in two governments of the Republic of Bulgaria, former diplomat in Paris and Madrid, foreign intelligence officer."

    "...Q: Does the US seriously they want to deal with DAESH or is it just a show? Because it is funny to observe how a country which claims to have the most powerful army in the world, lost so much time in a hopeless effort to chase away a handful of jihadis.

    BC: The attack on Mosul can be seen through the prism of globalization. There is another hypothesis. Do not forget that in June 2014, the city was handed over to the jihadists without a fight. The special forces of the United States left to the terrorists heavy military equipment, armor, ammunition, some very badly guarded bases for supply, and half a billion dollars in cash in several banks in Mosul. So DAESH procured modern weapons and considerable financial resources. Now they are looking for a decorative victory in Mosul to maintain globalism and Pan-Americanism in the face of Hillary Clinton. This is the reason to believe information that about 1.2 billion dollars is offered to bribe the leaders of the jihadists to leave Mosul.

    Analysts believe that the goal is not primarily to transfer jihadists from Mosul to Aleppo and Rakka, but for DAESH fighters to be transferred to northern Afghanistan, where weapons are stored in seven (again) poorly protected US bases. There are serious suspicions that the US special forces will once more try to play in Afghanistan, the elegant scheme of June 2014 in Mosul, with the transfer of weapons in a theatrical way. The placement of DAESH in Afghanistan will allow the jihadists to deploy an offensive line on Herat-Mara with the task to reaching the port of Turkmenbashi (Krasnovodsk) in Turkmenistan and to continue their offensive along the Caspian Sea toward Kazakhstan and the Russian Volga region."

    Posted by: Dean | Nov 4, 2016 6:01:38 PM | 16

    jfl | Nov 5, 2016 8:18:27 PM | 80
    from @16 Dean's link ...

    Why cant the US and Russia Reach an Agreement in Syria?


    US national interest automatically receive a soteriological status (Soteriology – the notion of salvation through Christ), US universality and value system becomes a sacred and religious complex,"spiritual obviousness" and a "moral imperative."

    I see this 'Christian' emphasis in most all Russian propaganda. Katehon is only the most obvious of them all. Soteriology is the notion of the salvation of society through religion, and it was perfected in India, if not invented there, and was adapted to Thailand, as Christine Gray detailed in Thailand: The Soteriological State in the 1970s , in order to enable the exploitation of the people by the apparatchiks in Bangkok and AC/DC for their distinct purposes.

    Why cant the US and Russia Reach an Agreement in Syria?


    The collapse of the Syrian state is required by the US to finally trigger chaos in the Middle East, which the Caliphate will then bring across Eurasia and Europe. This will allow Washington to eliminate alternative military, political and economic centers, primarily Russia and China. Consequently by wreaking havoc in Asia and Africa, and as a result of structures organized by Soros, Europe fell into a very difficult migrant situation (because of the betrayal of European elites). Further terrorist acts by jihadists in major European countries, worsened the economic attractiveness of the European economy. The dollar system in the world, is in critical condition and can not withstand the debt overload. A war in Syria is a handy tool to destabilize the American competitors in the economic race. This is why Beijing out of the role of a neutral observer in the Syrian crisis. In Syria there are 1000 fighters of the Chinese special forces, pursuing and destroying jihadists of Uighur origin. An agreement was signed between Damascus and Beijing. Chinese presence on Syrian territory like that of the Russians and Iranians is in line with international law.

    Stark as it is ... if it looks like a duck ... the peoples of the individual European nations need to get hold of themselves and exit, or destroy an re-create the EU. It has been suborned by the USA and they are in the USA'a sights as clearly as are Russia and China.

    No matter which of the 'effective' candidates is elected on Tuesday ... the only thing that will be communicated by his/her election is the impotence of the US populace when it comes to reigning in the neo-con putsch there that has brought all this death, devastation, destruction, and deceit about.

    And certainly it is no reach to envision the US destroying Erdogan at this point, and adding Turkey to it's list of states destroyed in the name of 'democracy and freedom'.

    jfl | Nov 5, 2016 8:23:35 PM | 81
    @77, psycho, 'Will the US do a false flag on its own infrastructure to escalate the war?'

    They already did ... well the NSA tested out the apparatus and oiled up the machinery ... about a week ago , remember?

    /div>

    [Nov 07, 2016] http://www.moonofalabama.org/2016/11/open-thread-2016-37.html#c6a00d8341c640e53ef01b7c8acbc7e970b

    Nov 07, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org

    Dean | Nov 6, 2016 11:06:56 AM | 89
    jfl @85

    He is one of the 5th column "Atlanticists" that want Russia in the western orbit and that can only happen with it on its knees groveling.

    Here is an article that explains the internal politics better:

    http://www.unz.com/tsaker/putins-biggest-failure/

    "...when Putin came to power in 1999-2000 he inherited a system completely designed and controlled by the USA. During the Eltsin years, Russian ministers had much less power than western 'advisers' who turned Russia into a US colony. In fact, during the 1990s, Russia was at least as controlled by the USA as Europe and the Ukraine are today. And the results were truly catastrophic: Russia was plundered from her natural wealth, billions of dollars were stolen and hidden in western offshore accounts, the Russian industry was destroyed, a unprecedented wave of violence, corruption and poverty drowned the entire country in misery and the Russian Federation almost broke up into many small statelets. It was, by any measure, an absolute nightmare, a horror comparable to a major war. Russia was about to explode and something had to be done.

    Two remaining centers of power, the oligarchs and the ex-KGB, were forced to seek a solution to this crisis and they came up with the idea of sharing power: the former would be represented by Anatolii Medvedev and the latter by Vladimir Putin. Both sides believed that they would keep the other side in check and that this combination of big money and big muscle would yield a sufficient degree of stability.

    I call the group behind Medvedev the "Atlantic Integrationists" and the people behind Putin the "Eurasian Sovereignists". The former wants Russia to be accepted by the West as an equal partner and fully integrate Russia into the AngloZionist Empire, while the latter want to fully "sovereignize" Russia and then create a multi-polar international system with the help of China and the other BRICS countries.

    What the Atlantic Integrationists did not expect is that Putin would slowly but surely begin to squeeze them out of power: first he cracked down on the most notorious oligarchs such as Berezovskii and Khodorkovskii, then he began cracking down on the local oligarchs, gubernatorial mafias, ethnic mobsters, corrupt industry officials, etc. Putin restored the "vertical [axis]of power" and crushed the Wahabi insurgents in Chechnia. Putin even carefully set up the circumstances needed to get rid of some of the worst ministers such as Serdiukov and Kudrin. But what Putin has so far failed to do is to

    Reform the Russian political system
    Replace the 5th columnists in and around the Kremlin
    Reform the Russian economy"

    jfl | Nov 6, 2016 3:37:54 PM | 96
    @85 dean

    Yes. I'm a little shy of the Saker, though. He has his own enthusiasms. I agree that the Russian Central Bank is a knot that needs to be untied ... but what central bank isn't?

    Somebody - the poster by that 'original' name - posted a link to How Harvard Lost Russia , detailing the corruption of the Harvard team sent to Russia to 'help' after the collapse. I view Medvedev and 'Atlanticist' cronies as of the same ilk.

    There was an amazing 'report' by Medvedev, printed at the Kremlin site, of the corruption entailed in the last Russian election, all against his party, of course. I wonder if that isn't how Medvedev himself didn't get his seat?

    jfl | Nov 6, 2016 5:56:12 PM | 100
    The Anti-Empire Report #146

    "The Plan is for the United States to rule the world. The overt theme is unilateralism, but it is ultimately a story of domination. It calls for the United States to maintain its overwhelming superiority and prevent new rivals from rising up to challenge it on the world stage. It calls for dominion over friends and enemies alike. It says not that the United States must be more powerful, or most powerful, but that it must be absolutely powerful." Vice-President Dick Cheney – West Point lecture, June 2002

    Still on course ...

    @99 b4

    I think that Putin is not so much a neo-liberal - you cannot be serious ... 'if you are to believe Western press' - as buried under the snow-job of Western 'economics'. They give Nobel Prizes for Western economic snow, and he's not the only one intimidated by it, the only one who still believes 'There Is No Alternative'. The Chinese are on the same page ... they seem to be enjoying it, though.

    Raqqa is in dispute. Mike Whitney agrees with you . I wait to see ...

    Piotr Berman | Nov 6, 2016 7:45:20 PM | 102
    Harvard team sent to Russia to 'help' after the collapse...

    History repeats itself. First as a tragedy, and then as a farce. Western (and Polish) expert help reforming the economy of Ukraine. Polish detractors wonder if even the Volhynia massacres justify this kind of retribution.

    james | Nov 6, 2016 8:35:58 PM | 105
    @103 dh.. wait! annie applepants and her dork husband to the rescue... or, dang - that didn't work... have to find some other stooges for the empire..

    james | Nov 6, 2016 8:38:28 PM | 106
    for anyone who missed all that, here is john helmers last article on the crazy couple who tried to conquer poland with neo con stupid-ness..
    http://johnhelmer.net/?p=13866

    [Nov 06, 2016] Putin Tells Everyone Exactly Who Created ISIS - YouTube

    Nov 06, 2016 | www.youtube.com
    Published on Oct 1, 2015

    Here's something you probably never saw or heard about in the west. This is Putin answering questions regarding ISIS from a US journalist at the Valdai International Discussion Club in late 2014.

    dornye easton 2 hours ago

    The White house and and the CIA ARE THE ONES causing this !!

    Gilbert Sanchez 2 weeks ago

    from the U.S.. much love for you Putin. you really opened the eyes of many, even in our country. this man is the definition of president and the u.s hasnt had one for over 40 years... smh.

    IronClad292 2 weeks ago

    As an American I can say that all of this is very confusing. However, one thing I believe is true, Obama and Hillary are the worst thing to ever happen to my country !!!! Average Americans don't want war with Russia. Why would we ?? The common people of both countries don't deserve this !!!!

    lown baby 9 hours ago

    We need Trump to restore our ties with the rest of the world or we are screwed!

    david wood 3 months ago

    He pretty much [said] that the President is a complete fucking idiot. I can't argue with him.

    simon6071 6 days ago (edited)

    +Emanuil Penev Obama is a human puppet who chose to be controlled, He is therefore culpable for his action of supporting Islamic terrorists. Right now Islamic invasion of western countries is the real problem. The USA is now under the control of Obama the Muslim Trojan horse who wants the world to be under the rule of an Islamic empire. USA's military action in the Middle East is the result of USA being under occupation by a Muslim Trojan horse that wants to create tidal waves of Muslim refugees harboring Muslim radicals and terrorists for invading Europe and the USA. Watch video (copy and paste for search) *From Europe to America The Caliphate Muslim Trojan Horse The USA is a victim, not a culprit, in the Muslim invasion of western counties. Obama and his cohorts are the culprits.

    StarWarLean 38 minutes ago

    America has become the evil empire

    Nicholas Villegas 2 days ago

    I hope we get better president and will have better ties and relations with Russia

    machinist1337 1 month ago

    basically Russia wants to be friends with America again and America ain't having it. they have the capabilities to set up shop all around the world. it's like putting guard towers in everyone's lawn just in case somebody wants commit crime. but you never see inside the towers or know who is in them but they have giant guns mounted on them ready to kill. that's how Putin feels. I mean I get it but every other country has nukes. get rid of the nukes and the missile defense will go away. if the situation were reversed it would be out president voicing this frustration. but Putin said it, America is a good example of success that's what Russia needs to do is be more like America. they have been doing it in the last year or so. I think America will come around and we will have good relations with Russia again. so wait... did we support isis as being generally isis or support all Qaeda / Saddam's regime which lead to isis??

    Brendon Charles 2 months ago

    The US supported multiple Rebel Groups that fought against Syria, they armed them, gave them money, and members of those groups split up and formed more Rebel groups or joined different ones. ISIS (at the time, not as large) was supported by the rebel groups the US armed and they got weapons and equipment from said Rebel Groups, even manpower as well.. That is how ISIS came to be the threat it is today.

    benD'anon fawkes 3 months ago

    putin doesnt view the us as a threat to russia..?? he has said countless times that he considers the us as a threat.. and that russian actions are a result of us aggression

    indycoon 3 months ago (edited)

    US people are a threat for all the world because they are not interested in politics, they don't want to know truth, they believe to their one-sided media and allow their government and other warmongers in the US military industry to do whatever they wish all over the world. US politics are dangerous and lead to a new big war where US territory won't stay away this time. It''s time for Americans to understand it. If you allow your son to become a criminal, don't be surprised that your house will be burned some day.

    Wardup04 1 day ago

    Obama and Clinton are progressive evil cunts funded by Soros. Their decision making is calculated and they want these horrendous results because it weakens the US and benefits globalism. Putin kicked the globalists the fuck out, and when Trump wins he will do the same! They are scared shitless. TRUMP/PENCE 2016

    ThePoopMaster01 1 week ago

    It's pretty sad when RT is more trustworthy than all other mainstream news networks

    Michael Espeland 3 days ago

    Someone owns mainstream media, so. Yeah. The rest is kinda self-explanatory

    Daniel Gyllenbreider 1 month ago

    With a stupid and warmongering opponent such as the USA, Russia do not need to construct a narrative or think out some elaborate propaganda. Russia simply needs to speak the truth. And this is why the US and its puppets hates Russia and Putin so much.

    [Nov 06, 2016] Putin Tells Everyone Exactly Who Created ISIS - YouTube

    Nov 06, 2016 | www.youtube.com
    Published on Oct 1, 2015

    Here's something you probably never saw or heard about in the west. This is Putin answering questions regarding ISIS from a US journalist at the Valdai International Discussion Club in late 2014.

    dornye easton 2 hours ago

    The White house and and the CIA ARE THE ONES causing this !!

    Gilbert Sanchez 2 weeks ago

    from the U.S.. much love for you Putin. you really opened the eyes of many, even in our country. this man is the definition of president and the u.s hasnt had one for over 40 years... smh.

    IronClad292 2 weeks ago

    As an American I can say that all of this is very confusing. However, one thing I believe is true, Obama and Hillary are the worst thing to ever happen to my country !!!! Average Americans don't want war with Russia. Why would we ?? The common people of both countries don't deserve this !!!!

    lown baby 9 hours ago

    We need Trump to restore our ties with the rest of the world or we are screwed!

    david wood 3 months ago

    He pretty much [said] that the President is a complete fucking idiot. I can't argue with him.

    simon6071 6 days ago (edited)

    +Emanuil Penev Obama is a human puppet who chose to be controlled, He is therefore culpable for his action of supporting Islamic terrorists. Right now Islamic invasion of western countries is the real problem. The USA is now under the control of Obama the Muslim Trojan horse who wants the world to be under the rule of an Islamic empire. USA's military action in the Middle East is the result of USA being under occupation by a Muslim Trojan horse that wants to create tidal waves of Muslim refugees harboring Muslim radicals and terrorists for invading Europe and the USA. Watch video (copy and paste for search) *From Europe to America The Caliphate Muslim Trojan Horse The USA is a victim, not a culprit, in the Muslim invasion of western counties. Obama and his cohorts are the culprits.

    StarWarLean 38 minutes ago

    America has become the evil empire

    Nicholas Villegas 2 days ago

    I hope we get better president and will have better ties and relations with Russia

    machinist1337 1 month ago

    basically Russia wants to be friends with America again and America ain't having it. they have the capabilities to set up shop all around the world. it's like putting guard towers in everyone's lawn just in case somebody wants commit crime. but you never see inside the towers or know who is in them but they have giant guns mounted on them ready to kill. that's how Putin feels. I mean I get it but every other country has nukes. get rid of the nukes and the missile defense will go away. if the situation were reversed it would be out president voicing this frustration. but Putin said it, America is a good example of success that's what Russia needs to do is be more like America. they have been doing it in the last year or so. I think America will come around and we will have good relations with Russia again. so wait... did we support isis as being generally isis or support all Qaeda / Saddam's regime which lead to isis??

    Brendon Charles 2 months ago

    The US supported multiple Rebel Groups that fought against Syria, they armed them, gave them money, and members of those groups split up and formed more Rebel groups or joined different ones. ISIS (at the time, not as large) was supported by the rebel groups the US armed and they got weapons and equipment from said Rebel Groups, even manpower as well.. That is how ISIS came to be the threat it is today.

    benD'anon fawkes 3 months ago

    putin doesnt view the us as a threat to russia..?? he has said countless times that he considers the us as a threat.. and that russian actions are a result of us aggression

    indycoon 3 months ago (edited)

    US people are a threat for all the world because they are not interested in politics, they don't want to know truth, they believe to their one-sided media and allow their government and other warmongers in the US military industry to do whatever they wish all over the world. US politics are dangerous and lead to a new big war where US territory won't stay away this time. It''s time for Americans to understand it. If you allow your son to become a criminal, don't be surprised that your house will be burned some day.

    Wardup04 1 day ago

    Obama and Clinton are progressive evil cunts funded by Soros. Their decision making is calculated and they want these horrendous results because it weakens the US and benefits globalism. Putin kicked the globalists the fuck out, and when Trump wins he will do the same! They are scared shitless. TRUMP/PENCE 2016

    ThePoopMaster01 1 week ago

    It's pretty sad when RT is more trustworthy than all other mainstream news networks

    Michael Espeland 3 days ago

    Someone owns mainstream media, so. Yeah. The rest is kinda self-explanatory

    Daniel Gyllenbreider 1 month ago

    With a stupid and warmongering opponent such as the USA, Russia do not need to construct a narrative or think out some elaborate propaganda. Russia simply needs to speak the truth. And this is why the US and its puppets hates Russia and Putin so much.

    [Nov 06, 2016] Bernie Sanders Supporter Bashes Hillary Clinton from Her Own Stage 'Trapped in World of Elite,' 'Lost Grip of Average Person'

    Notable quotes:
    "... He opened his remarks by bashing Donald Trump on student loan debt, but then surprisingly turned to bashing Hillary Clinton from her own stage. "Unfortunately, Hillary doesn't really care about this issue either," Vanfosson said. "The only thing she cares about is pleasing her donors, the billionaires who fund her campaign. The only people that really trust Hillary are Goldman Sachs, CitiGroup can trust Hillary, the military industrial complex can trust Hillary. Her good friend Henry Kissinger can trust Hillary." ..."
    "... "She is so trapped in the world of the elite that she has completely lost grip on what it's like to be an average person," Vanfosson continued. "She doesn't care. Voting for another lesser of two evils, there's no point." ..."
    www.breitbart.com

    Just a few days before the general election, Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton and her running mate Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) still can't unite her party. Supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, her Democratic primary rival, are disrupting her campaign's efforts to take on GOP nominee Donald J. Trump, and in Iowa on Saturday one prominent Sanders backer was actually escorted out of a Clinton campaign event for urging those present not to vote for Clinton-for which he was cheered by the crowd.

    Kaleb Vanfosson, the president of Iowa State University's Students for Bernie chapter, bashed Hillary Clinton and told rally-goers at her own campaign event not to vote for her. He was cheered.

    He opened his remarks by bashing Donald Trump on student loan debt, but then surprisingly turned to bashing Hillary Clinton from her own stage. "Unfortunately, Hillary doesn't really care about this issue either," Vanfosson said. "The only thing she cares about is pleasing her donors, the billionaires who fund her campaign. The only people that really trust Hillary are Goldman Sachs, CitiGroup can trust Hillary, the military industrial complex can trust Hillary. Her good friend Henry Kissinger can trust Hillary."

    The crowd at the Clinton-Kaine event erupted in applause.

    "She is so trapped in the world of the elite that she has completely lost grip on what it's like to be an average person," Vanfosson continued. "She doesn't care. Voting for another lesser of two evils, there's no point."

    At that point, a Clinton staffer rushed on stage and grabbed the young man by the arm to escort him off the stage and out of the event.

    [Nov 04, 2016] During Hillary Clinton tenure as the Secretary of State, the total arms exports from the US doubled in dollar value

    Notable quotes:
    "... The Saudis, the Qataris, the Moroccans, the Bahrainis, particularly the first two, are giving all this money to the Clinton Foundation, while Hillary Clinton is secretary of state, and the State Department is approving massive arms sales, particularly Saudi Arabia. ..."
    "... this notorious jihadist group, called ISIL or ISIS, is created largely with money from people who are giving money to the Clinton Foundation? ..."
    www.zerohedge.com

    John Pilger: The Saudis, the Qataris, the Moroccans, the Bahrainis, particularly the first two, are giving all this money to the Clinton Foundation, while Hillary Clinton is secretary of state, and the State Department is approving massive arms sales, particularly Saudi Arabia.

    Julian Assange: Under Hillary Clinton – and the Clinton emails reveal a significant discussion of it – the biggest-ever arms deal in the world was made with Saudi Arabia: more than $80 billion. During her tenure, the total arms exports from the US doubled in dollar value.

    JP: Of course, the consequence of that is that this notorious jihadist group, called ISIL or ISIS, is created largely with money from people who are giving money to the Clinton Foundation?

    [Nov 03, 2016] Vladimir Putin - Straight From the Horses Mouth

    Nov 02, 2016 | www.wakingtimes.com

    Vladimir Putin in particular, and Russia in general, have been the focus of an intensive high-drama propaganda campaign of late. Are you buying it? For the time being, Russophobia has replaced Islamophobia as the driving force behind the lies. Various US officials have been frantically warning Americans that the Russians are behind everything: hacking the DNC, controlling Trump, influencing the election and breaking the Syrian ceasefire agreement. They might as well add making your girlfriend break up with you, making your toast get burnt and making your car run out of fuel for all the evidence they have presented. Many of these totally unfounded allegations stem from (naturally) the Clinton campaign, home to career criminals Bill and Hillary Clinton , who are desperately seeking to find something to gain some sort of shred of popularity or advantage over Trump, who fills up arenas with 1000s of people more easily than Clinton can fill a high school gym with 50. Many US officials and war hawks are trying to get in on the action; CIA man Mike Morell indicated it would be a good idea to covertly kill Russians to make them "pay a price" ; Hillary Clinton called Vladimir Putin the "grand godfather of extreme nationalism" and blamed him for the rising popularity of right-wing leaders; and even standing VP Joe Biden came out and said that, "We're sending a message to Putin it will be at the time of our choosing and under the circumstances that have the greatest impact" . It seems there is no depth to which some US leaders won't stoop in order to gain some political advantage, even it means lying, demonizing and destroying geopolitical partnerships in order to garner a few brownie points.

    Vladimir Putin: It's All About Distraction During Election Season

    You would think Russian President Vladimir President would be agitated by all of this mud-slinging. At times he has been, for instance when he issued a warning a few months ago about an impending WW3 due to NATO's constant aggression and advancement towards Russian borders. However, judging by his own words and mostly calm demeanor, he has seen through the agenda and understands what is going on. Putin spells out how it's all inflamed rhetoric before an election season, an old trick used by politicians to distract when they have no meaningful solutions for internal and domestic problems.

    Here is Vladimir Putin in his own words :

    "You can expect anything from our American friends the only novelty is that for the first time, on the highest level, the United States has admitted involvement in these activities, and to some extent threatened [us] – which of course does not meet the standards of international communication. As if we didn't know that US Government bodies snoop on and wiretap anyone? Everyone knows this

    Apparently, they are nervous. The question is why. I think there is a reason. You know, in an election campaign, the current government carefully crafts a pre-election strategy, and any government, especially when seeking re-election, always has unresolved issues. They need to show, to explain to the voters why they remain unresolved. In the US, there are many such problems for example, the massive public debt is a time bomb for the US economy and global financial system more examples can be cited in foreign policy in these conditions, many choose to resort to the usual tactics of distracting voters from their problems try to create an enemy and rally the nation against that enemy

    Iran and the Iranian threat did not work well for that. Russia is a more interesting story."

    And that's exactly what this whole thing is: a giant story. However, as Voltaire once said, if you can make someone believe absurdities, you can make them commit atrocities. Let's see what else Vladimir Putin has to say on other topics of interest.

    Russian Hacking: A Laughable Claim so the Clintons and DNC Can Try to Avoid Culpability

    Let's face it: the whole Russophobia affair is about avoiding blame, dodging responsibility and evading liability. Thanks to WikiLeaks, Project Veritas and many other sources, we know the entire Hillary Clinton campaign has been rigged beyond belief. Fake primaries, fake speeches, fake images, fake videos, fake crowds, fake supporters and fake debates. There is seemingly no depth of criminality to which that woman won't sink. She's selling out the presidency before she even gets there, such as the stunt of trying to promise future presidential executive orders to mega donors. There is not a shred of evidence that Russia is affiliated with WikiLeaks or behind any of the DNC hacks. As this Zero Hedge article NSA Whistleblower: US Intelligence Worker Likely Behind DNC Leaks, Not Russia states:

    "On "Judge Napolitano Chambers," the Judge said that while the DNC, government officials, and the Clinton campaign all accuse the Russians of hacking into the DNC servers, "the Russians had nothing to do with it." Napolitano then mentioned Binney, arguing the NSA veteran and whistleblower who "developed the software that the NSA now uses, which allows it to capture not just metadata but content of every telephone call, text message, email in the United States of every person in [the country]" knew the NSA had hacked the DNC - not the Russians.

    If Judge Napolitano and Binney are right and the NSA did hack the DNC, what was the motive?

    According to the Judge, "members of the intelligence community simply do not want [Clinton] to be president of the United States."

    "She doesn't know how to handle state secrets," Napolitano continued. And since "some of the state secrets that she revealed used the proper true names of American intelligence agents operating undercover in the Middle East," some of these agents were allegedly captured and killed, prompting NSA agents to feel compelled to act. Whether NSA agents hacked the DNC or not, one thing is clear: there's no real evidence linking the DNC and Arizona and Illinois voting system hacks to the Russian government."

    The Mythical "Russian Threat"

    Vladimir Putin directly addressed another mythical story, that of the so-called Russian threat and Russian aggression , at the recent Valdai forum in Sochi from October 24-27, 2016:

    "There is another mechanism to ensure the transatlantic security, European security, the OC security and their attempt at turning this organization (NATO) into an instrument of someone's political interests. So what the OC is doing is simply void. Mythical threats are devised like the so-called Russian military threat. Certainly this can be (used to) gain some advantage, get new budgets, make your allies comply with your demands, make NATO deploy the equipment and troops closer to our border Russia is not trying to attack anyone. That would be ridiculous The population of Europe is 300 million and the population of the US is 300 million, while the population of Russia is 140 million, yet such menaces are served as a pretext. Hysteria has been fueled in the US with regard to Russia's alleged influence with the current presidential election.

    Is there anyone who seriously thinks that Russia can influence the choice of the American people? Is the US a banana republic? The US is a great power. If I'm wrong please correct me."

    Here's what he had to say about who the real aggressor is when it comes to the US (around and Russia:

    "Is it known to you that Russia, in the 90s, completely halted (as did the USSR) any strategic aviation in the further afield regions of patrol, i.e. not in the closer abroad. We halted such activity completely. US geostrategic aviation however, with nuclear weapons on board. They continued to encircle us! What for? Who are you concerned about? Or why are you threatening us? We continued with the non-patrol year after year. It is only since about 3 years ago that we restarted aviation patrol further abroad.

    Which party is the provocateur here? Is it us?

    We have only 2 military bases abroad. They are known areas of terrorism dangers US bases on the other hand are all over the world. And you are telling me that I am the aggressor? Have you any common sense?

    What are US forces doing in Europe, including nuclear weaponry? What business have they got there? Listen to me. Our military budget, while increased slightly from last year, in the dollar equivalent, is about US$50 billion. The military budget of the Pentagon is almost 10 times that amount. $575 billion, I think Congress singed off on. And you're telling me I'm the aggressor here? Have you no common sense at all? Is it us putting our forces on the border of the US? Or other states? Is it NATo, or who, that is moving their bases closer to us? Military infrastructure! It's not us. Does anyone even listen to us? Or try to have some kind of dialogue with us? The repeated answer we get is 'mind your own business' and 'each country can choose its own security measures'. Very well, so will we

    And finally, on the antiballistic missile defense system, who was it that exited from the treaty which was vital to the entire system of international security? Was it us? No. It was the States. In a one-sided way, they simply withdrew from the treaty. Now they are threatening us, turning their missiles towards us, not only from Alaska, but also from Europe too

    We want to develop normal relations in the sphere of security, in the fight against terrorism, in the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. We want to work together with you so long as you want that too."

    US Repeatedly Broke Its Promises to Russia and Destroyed Trust

    The Western MSM is so one-sided in its coverage of geopolitical events like Ukraine and Syria. Anyone not toeing the line with US-UK-NATO interests is painted in a bad light. In point of fact, it has actually been the US who has been breaking agreements with Russia since the end of the Cold War. US leaders lied to Russian leaders at the time, by promising that NATO would not extend any further eastward, and possibly even hinting that Russia could join NATO. As Eric Zuesse explains in his article America Trashes NATO Founding Act; Rushes Weapons to Russia's Borders :

    "The NATO Founding Act was agreed to between the US and Russia in 1997 in order to provide to Russia's leader Boris Yeltsin some modicum of assurance that America wouldn't invade his country. When his predecessor Mikhail Gorbachev had ended the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact military alliance in 1991, the representatives of US President GHW Bush told him that NATO wouldn't move "one inch to the east" (toward Russia), but as soon as Gorbachev committed himself to end the Cold War, Bush told his agents, regarding what they had all promised to Gorbachev (Bush's promise which had been conveyed through them), "To hell with that! We prevailed, they didn't". In other words: Bush's prior instructions to them were merely his lies to Gorbachev, his lies to say that the US wouldn't try to conquer Russia (move its forces eastward to Russia's borders); but, now, since Gorbachev was committed and had already agreed that East Germany was to be reunited with and an extension of West Germany (and the process for doing that had begun), Bush pulled that rug of lies out from under the end of the Cold War "

    Bill Clinton carried on the great American legacy of exceptionalism (that is, excepting themselves from obeying international law) spearheaded by Daddy Bush of surrounding and dominating Russia by allowing NATO into the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland. Russia got shafted by trusting the US numerous times after the fall of the Soviet Union. Here's Vladimir Putin once again on America's broken promises (in April 2016):

    "In the early 2000s, we agreed with the Americans to destroy weapons-grade plutonium, on both sides. We were talking about the excessive amounts that were manufactured by both the US and Russia. This is the enriched uranium from which nuclear weapons are made. 34000 tonnes, from both sides. We signed an agreement, and decided that this material would be destroyed in a specific manner. It would be destroyed in an industrial way – for which special plants needed to be built. We fulfilled our obligations – we built the necessary plant. Our American partners did not. Moreover, recently they announced that rather than destroy the enriched material in the manner that we agreed, and signed an international agreement on, that they would dilute it and store it in a holding capacity. This means they retain the potential to bring it back

    Surely our American partners must understand that, jokes are one thing, such as creating smear campaigns against Russia, but questions of nuclear security are another thing entirely they must learn to fulfill their promises.

    They once said they would close down Guantanamo. And? Is it closed? No."

    Incidentally, this is the exact same plutonium agreement which made the news last month, when as reported on October 3rd, 216, Russia suspended their deal with the US on disposal of plutonium from decommissioned nuclear warheads. A decree signed by Vladimir Putin lists " the radical change in the environment, a threat to strategic stability posed by the hostile actions of the US against Russia, and the inability of the US to deliver on the obligation to dispose of excessive weapons plutonium under international treaties, as well as the need to take swift action to defend Russian security" as the reasons for why Russia chose to suspend the deal.

    Conclusion: Wake up and Smell the Russophobia

    Expect Vladimir Putin and Russia to keep being demonized by the Clintons – and more importantly the NWO manipulators who so desperately want them in power. Although the Clintons are a powerful modern American mafia family, replete with a long body count behind them, it's important to remember they are lackeys for far greater and more pervasive powers (check out some of Hillary's lovey-dovey letters to Lynn Forester de Rothschild here ). There's a lot at stake here. Right now, Vladimir Putin and Russia are being used with the sole purpose of getting Clinton elected. Although Putin is not perfect and has his own dark side, he deserves respect for standing his ground and refusing to become another US puppet. If we are to believe his own words, he has no qualm with Americans or even America itself, but rather the selfish, imperialistic and murderous agenda of the NWO agents running the USA:

    "We have a great deal of respect and love for the United States, and especially for the American people [however] the expansion of jurisdiction by one nation beyond the territory of its borders, to the rest of the world, is unacceptable and destructive for international relations."

    It's up to the American public to switch off CNN (Clinton News Network) and all the other duplicitous MSM channels and get truly informed. Vladimir Putin is reaching out his hand to America, in the hope that enough Americans can reclaim their country and work together with other nations in peace. On the issue of Vladimir Putin and Russia, the MSM is not just one-sided, it's outright lying.

    [Nov 03, 2016] MSM beat drums to reward Clintons hawkishness insinuating that Trump foreign policy is uncertain

    Notable quotes:
    "... Hillary led us to disaster in Iraq, in Syria, in Libya. ... Hillary and our failed Washington establishment have spent $6 trillion on wars in the Middle East, and now it's worse than it's ever been before. ..."
    "... Okay, folks. She – I'll tell you what. She will get us into World War III. She will get us into World War III. I will tell you that. She's incompetent. She will get us into World War III. ..."
    "... The arrogant political class never learns. They keep repeating the same mistakes over and over again. They keep telling the same lies. They keep producing the same failed results. ..."
    "... Clinton on the other hand has a proven record of being a proactive hawk. She is willing to go to war and to kill people because the U.S. can. ..."
    "... She is a political animal totally dependent on her sponsors. Economically she is pro-banks, pro-big-business and for further deregulation. A neoliberal. ..."
    "... She is willing to go to war and to kill people because the U.S. can. ..."
    "... That works only on the third world hellholes. The problem with Hillary (and her circle) is that they don't really know the difference between those hellholes and a thing called in US military lingo "near-peer" or "peer". They say that they know but they don't, neither does most of "academe". ..."
    "... IMO, this vote is the only way to hold her to account. Once she is in, the Clinton machine will be using "We the People" as door mats. ..."
    "... On domestic policy and economic policy, both candidates are abominable. Hillary is, even there I would argue, more dangerous because she actually understands the implications and effects of her policy positions and still holds them. ..."
    "... On foreign policy, I have to agree that Hillary is far more dangerous. Even if Trump ditches his rational foreign policy positions for the standard inside-the-beltway neoconservatism, he has the advantage of being inept. ..."
    "... clinton has spent her entire adult life avoiding accountability. a cursory glance at the behavior of her cultish followers shows that anyone trying to hold her to any standard gets screeched out of the room (never mind getting on any mainstream news channel). every time she screws up it's "someone else's fault". it's putin or the FBI or some variety of "bro". ..."
    "... george carlin's "who owns you" should be required viewing for every US voter. ..."
    "... The O'Bomber evidently said he doesn't understand Trump's popularity ... It isn't that Trump is popular it is that, due in part to the O'Bomber himself, the Killary is viewed as anathema. ..."
    "... If elected Hillary would have as much contempt for the electorate as she had for her staff. ..."
    "... In an e-mail sent from Comcast after Clinton was interviewed by NBC's Matt Lauer, Lauer came under fire after questioning Hillary on the e-mails, according to the technical crew after the show Hillary proceeded to pick up a full glass of water and throw it at the face of her assistant and then the screaming started, she was in full meltdown, she came apart literally unglued, she is the most foul mouthed woman I've ever heard, and that voice at screech level…"If that f-ing bastard wins we all hang from nooses! Lauer's finished and if I lose its all on your heads for screwing this up". She screamed "she'd get that f-ing Lauer fired for this". ..."
    "... Donna Brazile was singled out by Clinton.."I'm so sick of your face, you stare at the wall like a brain dead buffalo while letting that fucking Lauer get away with this. What are you good for really? Get the f–k to work janitoring this mess.. do I make myself clear". ..."
    "... Hope the Americans don't vote that psychopath Clinton in, if they do keep her away from that football. ..."
    "... Oh well my twenty cents worth is that Trump doesn't have enough legislative support to do anything too drastic externally. ..."
    "... The real issue of both candidates is their vice asshole nominee, cos I reckon which ever creep wins impeachment will be just around the corner. Of course Hillary is more likely to be impeached the open fbi investigation combined with an almost certain rethug majority in senate and a certain one in Congress means her odds of lasting the distance are not great. ..."
    "... Trump has a lot of work to do to prevent the rethug 'leadership' taking a big bung from the sponsors to impeach him for some misdeed or another. ..."
    "... There is absolutely no point in listening to what any modern pol says, the reality they peddle is mutable, changing according to their needs. Such types can only be measured by what they have done in the past & in the case of Mrs Clinton that is a farrago of broken promises & sell outs to her sponsors. ..."
    "... I voted for Trump, despite being thoroughly on the left. Trump's vilification by the globalist elite means that he has to be doing something right. ..."
    "... When a normal person tries to be a politician, they sound like Trump because normal people give themselves away when they stretch the truth. It's the dangerous psychos who sound good-natured and reasonable, because they can lie and don't feel a thing when they do it. ..."
    "... Hmmmm. Do all the Hillbottoms like pizza parties? With beans and eggs. And lots of cheese. Remember, remember the 5th of November. The pedo-queen won't EVER forget the date. Tick-tock. ..."
    Nov 03, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org

    For me, as a non U.S. person, the major issues of the U.S. presidential elections is always foreign policy. There Trump is not hawkish at all. He has somewhat confused, unlearned blustering positions on foreign policy but is basically a cautious, risk averse businessman. He consistently criticizes the war mongering in Washington DC. Hillary Clinton is a run-of-the-mill warmongering neoconservative compatible with the imperial "mainstream" of the power centers in Washington and elsewhere.

    Trump has called up this contrast again and again (as do I). In a speech (vid at 53:20 min) in Grand Rapids Michigan on October 31 he again highlights these points. Some excerpts (taken from this partial transcript part 9, 10):

    Hillary led us to disaster in Iraq, in Syria, in Libya. ... Hillary and our failed Washington establishment have spent $6 trillion on wars in the Middle East, and now it's worse than it's ever been before.

    Had Obama and others gone to the beach, Obama could have gone to the golf course, we would have been in much better shape.

    We shouldn't have gone into the war, and she thinks I'm a hawk. Oh, Donald Trump.
    ...
    Imagine if some of the money had been spent, $6 trillion in the Middle East, on building new schools and roads and bridges right here in Michigan.

    Now Hillary, trapped in her Washington bubble, that's blind to the lessons, wants to start a shooting war in Syria in conflict with a nuclear armed Russia that could drag us into a World War III.

    Okay, folks. She – I'll tell you what. She will get us into World War III. She will get us into World War III. I will tell you that. She's incompetent. She will get us into World War III.

    The arrogant political class never learns. They keep repeating the same mistakes over and over again. They keep telling the same lies. They keep producing the same failed results.

    Trump may well be lying when he says he does not seek a conflict with Russia or anyone else. Trump surely lies on other issues. But those are mostly rather obvious lies and some are even a bit comical. He is playing Reagan on economic issues, promising tax cuts that can not be financed (and which Reagan had to take back in the end when he introduced the biggest tax hike ever). On many issues we do not know what Trump is really planning to do (or if he plans at all). But he has never given the impression that he is hawkish or willing to incite a war.

    Clinton on the other hand has a proven record of being a proactive hawk. She is willing to go to war and to kill people because the U.S. can.

    She is a political animal totally dependent on her sponsors. Economically she is pro-banks, pro-big-business and for further deregulation. A neoliberal. The only "liberal" standpoints she has are on some hyped identity issues relevant only for a very tiny group of people like transgenders. She told her real voters, the people who pay her, that her public standpoint on many issues is different from the one she will pursue. She did not mean that what she will pursue will be less hawkish than her public stand, or that she will be more progressive on economic issues than she openly claims.

    Clinton assures us that Trump is Putin's puppet who will start a nuclear World War III with Russia. She doesn't say how that computes. Will Putin order Trump to give him asylum in Washington while Moscow and Washington get nuked?

    With Trump the U.S. would get a president who is a pretty unknown factor but, in my judgment, a less dangerous one to the U.S. and the world than Clinton. With her the next useless and deadly wars are practically guaranteed.

    ... ... ..

    The citizens of the United States now have an opportunity to hold Secretary of State Clinton to account for her " We came, we saw, he died " war on Libya and for escalating the war on Syria. The militaristic (and failed) pivot to Asia, the "regime changes" putsches in Honduras and Ukraine and the deterioration of relations with Russia are also to a large part her work. Should the voters reward her for all the death, misery and new dangers she created as Secretary of State by making her President?

    ... ... ...

    Posted by b on November 3, 2016 at 03:22 PM | Permalink

    SmoothieX12 | Nov 3, 2016 3:37:10 PM | 2
    She is willing to go to war and to kill people because the U.S. can.

    That works only on the third world hellholes. The problem with Hillary (and her circle) is that they don't really know the difference between those hellholes and a thing called in US military lingo "near-peer" or "peer". They say that they know but they don't, neither does most of "academe".

    Dean | Nov 3, 2016 3:47:36 PM | 3
    IMO, this vote is the only way to hold her to account. Once she is in, the Clinton machine will be using "We the People" as door mats.
    ALberto | Nov 3, 2016 3:58:44 PM | 4
    Trump's Treasury Secretary?

    In addition to Goldman, Mnuchin also worked at Soros Fund Management, whose founder, George Soros, has funded many left-leaning causes. Where it gets even more bizarre is that Mnuchin has donated frequently to Democrats, including to Clinton and Barack Obama.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-03/trump-wants-former-goldman-partner-and-soros-employee-serve-treasury-secretary

    Charles | Nov 3, 2016 4:16:20 PM | 8
    On domestic policy and economic policy, both candidates are abominable. Hillary is, even there I would argue, more dangerous because she actually understands the implications and effects of her policy positions and still holds them. Trump doesn't seem to have anything more than a thin grasp over any policy matter. He might get into office and forget about his giant tax cut.

    On foreign policy, I have to agree that Hillary is far more dangerous. Even if Trump ditches his rational foreign policy positions for the standard inside-the-beltway neoconservatism, he has the advantage of being inept.

    ben | Nov 3, 2016 4:24:36 PM | 9
    November 2, 2016
    Prof. Michael Hudson on Hillary Clinton and the US Elections

    http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=17573

    worth a listen...

    the pair | Nov 3, 2016 4:24:51 PM | 10
    no idea why you value this guy's opinion...typical FP neoliberal yuppie nonsense. the fact that he thinks anyone can or will "hold her accountable" after she gets voted in makes me wonder if he can even tie his own shoelaces. as for "immoral", that just tells me he places "locker room talk" at a lower moral realm than participation in genocide and plutocratic plunder.

    how did that "hold me accountable" thing work out from 2008-2012? and when the voters had a chance to hold obama accountable for his first term what did they do? voted him in again and then went back to four years of paying zero attention to the world around them unless the MSM gave them an occasional Two Minute Hate or some "tragedy" they were instructed to feel sad about.

    clinton has spent her entire adult life avoiding accountability. a cursory glance at the behavior of her cultish followers shows that anyone trying to hold her to any standard gets screeched out of the room (never mind getting on any mainstream news channel). every time she screws up it's "someone else's fault". it's putin or the FBI or some variety of "bro".

    george carlin's "who owns you" should be required viewing for every US voter. not only will she say anything to get elected but once she's in will laugh at the notion of anyone telling her what to do. she has nothing but contempt for all voters and i wouldn't be surprised if she held her own supporters even lower. how can you respect a group that has so little respect for themselves or the truth?

    Mina | Nov 3, 2016 4:38:16 PM | 12
    What the hell is that?
    https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/43536
    they really get trolled by email?
    SmoothieX12 | Nov 3, 2016 4:47:04 PM | 15
    @8, Charles
    On foreign policy, I have to agree that Hillary is far more dangerous. Even if Trump ditches his rational foreign policy positions for the standard inside-the-beltway neoconservatism, he has the advantage of being inept.

    Are you suggesting that Obama and what he has in his admin currently are not-inept? I believe last generation of American competent foreign policy professionals "died out" with Bill Clinton's Admin arrival. For the last 20+ year US foreign policy "establishment", including its "academe" and "analytical" branches, which work in concert with intelligence services is an embodiment of incompetence and is a definition of unmitigated disaster.

    Mina | Nov 3, 2016 4:49:35 PM | 16
    https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/43648
    "> Also, any idea whose fighters attacked Islamist positions in Tripoli, Libya?
    >
    > Worth analyzing for future purposes."
    Mina | Nov 3, 2016 4:58:17 PM | 18
    I am surprised that when searching for leaks released today this one shows up, which we've seen before, isn't it?
    https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/43648
    rg the lg | Nov 3, 2016 5:00:49 PM | 19
    The O'Bomber evidently said he doesn't understand Trump's popularity ... It isn't that Trump is popular it is that, due in part to the O'Bomber himself, the Killary is viewed as anathema.

    My hope is that IF Killary wins a revolution is sparked by simple disgust at how venal she is ... or that IF Trump wins the dems (dims) provoke a disturbance that grows into a bloody damned mess.

    Maybe, just maybe, the blood in the streets will be deep enough to make shoes squish with each step.

    In the meantime, we've had light (really slight) showers here on the Llano Estacado.

    james | Nov 3, 2016 5:03:44 PM | 20
    thanks b..

    if the choice is between which of the two is the better liar - i go with hillary... as a consequence, if i was in the usa, i would be voting trump or green depending on the location..

    and, as you note - ..."as a non U.S. person, the major issues of the U.S. presidential elections is always foreign policy." and which one of the candidates is always talking russia 24/7 while claiming to serve the interests of the indoctrinated usa public? one would have to be brain dead to vote for hillary, in spite of what the lying msm says... a friend here in canada - an american living in canada - informed me this morning that he saw a poll saying that 9 out of 10 canucks would like to cut off relations with the usa if trump is elected.. kid you not.. i told him i was the other 10% and that i would like to cut off relations with the usa if hillary is elected!

    harrylaw | Nov 3, 2016 5:09:39 PM | 22
    If elected Hillary would have as much contempt for the electorate as she had for her staff.

    In an e-mail sent from Comcast after Clinton was interviewed by NBC's Matt Lauer, Lauer came under fire after questioning Hillary on the e-mails, according to the technical crew after the show Hillary proceeded to pick up a full glass of water and throw it at the face of her assistant and then the screaming started, she was in full meltdown, she came apart literally unglued, she is the most foul mouthed woman I've ever heard, and that voice at screech level…"If that f-ing bastard wins we all hang from nooses! Lauer's finished and if I lose its all on your heads for screwing this up". She screamed "she'd get that f-ing Lauer fired for this".

    Donna Brazile was singled out by Clinton.."I'm so sick of your face, you stare at the wall like a brain dead buffalo while letting that fucking Lauer get away with this. What are you good for really? Get the f–k to work janitoring this mess.. do I make myself clear". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NfFAaPZqs8

    harrylaw | Nov 3, 2016 5:50:41 PM | 29
    Hope the Americans don't vote that psychopath Clinton in, if they do keep her away from that football. The nuclear football (also known as the atomic football, the president's emergency satchel, the button, the black box, or just the football) is a briefcase, the contents of which are to be used by the President of the United States to authorize a nuclear attack
    Jack Smith | Nov 3, 2016 6:09:25 PM | 33
    "...With Trump the U.S. would get a president who is a pretty unknown factor but, in my judgment, a less dangerous one to the U.S. and the world than Clinton. With her the next useless and deadly wars are practically guaranteed..

    b,

    Excellent piece, I hold the same opinion of Trump, I'm undecided whether to throw my lot in with Trump or Jill Stein. Vote for Stein won't help her in California, Hillary too far ahead. But vote for Stein may help the Green Party, the 5% need to be in future public debates.

    Even if I'm wrong and vote for Trump, Dem will obstructs Trump in every twists and turns, just they did to GW Bush. Whom should I vote?

    Debsisdead | Nov 3, 2016 7:03:01 PM | 38
    Oh well my twenty cents worth is that Trump doesn't have enough legislative support to do anything too drastic externally. yeah yeah I undertsand that as 'C in C' he can find an excuse to blow the world away but since there's not a dollar in that and most of his energy is gonna be directed at copping a good earner, he's not gonna waste time, energy or electoral capital shooting the shit outta unwhites - unlike his predecessor or his opponent.
    Of course there will be a rush of greedy rethug assholes trying to line up for jobs in a trump administration but trump being who he is will rely heavily on yes men as he always has - he doesn't trust anyone sufficiently to delegate and lacks the ability to build a clinton style organisation full of rats ratting each other out to give him the checks & balances he would need to delegate effectively.

    Some ambitious rethugs will definitely take it upon themselves to operate for 'sponsors' in spite of the donald but he must be used to that coming as he does from that grey area between gangsterism and allegedly 'legitimate' business. He won't appreciate types who cop an earn without paying him an 80% cut, so hopefully DC's exponents of 'wet work' will be kept busy purging the trump administration and won't have time to be sticking their noses into other nations and purging them.

    The real issue of both candidates is their vice asshole nominee, cos I reckon which ever creep wins impeachment will be just around the corner. Of course Hillary is more likely to be impeached the open fbi investigation combined with an almost certain rethug majority in senate and a certain one in Congress means her odds of lasting the distance are not great.

    Trump has a lot of work to do to prevent the rethug 'leadership' taking a big bung from the sponsors to impeach him for some misdeed or another. Remember this is the mob that got the other Clinton for copping a bj - hardly presidential (in the weird hypocritical amerikan view) but not illegal unless the whole rape culture thing is used and that I suspect even now to be a step too far for rednecked rethugs.

    Trump is more likely to meet with an accident or suffer heart failure but the means don't really matter the reality is that in either case the veeps are highly likely to come into play.

    In that case Kain & Pence - from what I can discern they are standard American hawks complete with the required ignorance of the big wide world, assured sense of American exceptionalism and love of watching what they cannot comprehend explode in a pink miasma of human body parts.

    And they know how to keep sponsors happy which is why they were picked in the first place - so however bad things are gonna get under ClintonInc or theDonald the only certainty is that they will eventually get even worse.

    Good one assholes

    schlub | Nov 3, 2016 8:23:25 PM | 43
    Today's humor:

    US President Barack Obama has lashed out at Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump's supporters, saying his popularity among working-class Americans is "frustrating."

    http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2016/11/03/492016/US-Obama-Trump-support-Clinton-Florida

    Debsisdead | Nov 3, 2016 9:06:37 PM | 47
    @h #40 "They are about governance. They are about policy positions"

    Yeah right that must be why yer hero has done so much to avoid talking policy over the last 12 months. ClintonInc attacked the bernie idjit personally just as they have with trump. That wouldn't be so important if anyone could trust ClintonInc to abide by stated dem policy but this is a low life scumsucking mob of no-hopers who put themselves on offer to the highest bidder - whatever the titular head of ClintonInc has said in the past or will say and do in the future is irrelevant to the eternal now - how much are you offering continuum - where she lives.

    There is absolutely no point in listening to what any modern pol says, the reality they peddle is mutable, changing according to their needs. Such types can only be measured by what they have done in the past & in the case of Mrs Clinton that is a farrago of broken promises & sell outs to her sponsors.

    metamars | Nov 3, 2016 9:09:48 PM | 48
    @ EnglishOutsider, 34

    "Since they are significant differences then any voting action becomes significant."

    Exactly (provided you mean "more significant in the short term".)

    I have corresponded with Bueno de Mesquita, a gifted political game theorist, on lesser evilism. See "THE JESUS CHRIST OF POLITICAL GAME THEORY ON THE STUPIDITY OF LESSER EVILIST VOTING" @ https://shadowproof.com/2011/06/18/the-jesus-christ-of-political-game-theory-on-the-stupidity-of-lesser-evilist-voting/

    Although we didn't discuss it, and so I can't guarantee that de Mesquita would agree, lesser evilism as a voting strategy is stupid PROVIDED that the evils are of roughly the same level.

    When it comes to foreign policy, I don't think that's true at all of Hillary vs. Trump. Hillary is MUCH more evil than Trump. Furthermore, Hillary's "evil" in this regard involves a greater chance of war with amply nuclear armed Russia. We're therefore dealing with an existential threat. Yeah, she finally dialed that back, somewhat, at her last debate with Trump. (Now she says she'll negotiate a no-fly zone with Russia.) That's good news, if it's really true that she was essentially bluffing about the no-fly zone in Syria. But if there's a 5% chance she wasn't bluffing/lying, then that 5% chance of an existentially threatening war scenario still relegates her to the "You must be kidding" category, in my eyes.

    I'm voting for Trump, and make no apologies for doing so.

    It's too bad that Trump is SO inept as a politician. While he's improved, he hasn't impressed, overall, with his snail's pace of improvement. He even botched the de facto coddling of ISIS oil caravans, spouting wild allegations of Obama and Hillary "founding" ISIS. IMO, if he had used his ample TV exposure to expose the Obama Admin's cozy, benign tolerance of ISIS, in it's early stages, Obama would be so toxic that a) he could not help Hillary, much at all and b) Obama's toxicity would rub off on Hillary. Trump could have used this horror story to virtually guarantee him a win. Instead he turned lemonade into a lemon, and still hasn't figured out what an opportunity he blew, nor how to recover.


    Pretty damn dumb, if you ask me.

    Unmolested ISIS oil caravan data was presented by the Russians; I listed references in my reddit post at r/the_Donald, "Trump Better Wake Up - New Report Indicates Why Trump's Failure To Correctly Attribute Blame for ISIS' Early Success Could Cost Him, Dearly" @ https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5a5qns/trump_better_wake_up_new_report_indicates_why/

    jfl | Nov 3, 2016 9:37:08 PM | 55
    @46 h, ' If you're an American and you hold the position that the U.S. founding documents were built to support 'Oligarchy' I must ask, b/c you opened the door as to where you ever learned such nonsense.'

    An Economic Interpretation of The Constitution of The United States by Charles A. Beard

    'If your outburst is representative of America's younger generation, then my God man, we're sorely screwed.'

    Copyright 1913 and 1935 by the Macmillan Company,
    Copyright renewed 1941 by Charles A. Beard.
    This Digital edition created 25th July, 2006

    jason | Nov 3, 2016 9:42:44 PM | 57
    I've been so pissed off at Mrs M.A.D. that i've avoided listening to the Der Drumpenfuerher. I listened to a bit of his lunchtime speeches on Fuchs news today. The man is ape shit nuts. Immigration policy is both foreign & domestic policy. US biz needs cheap "illegals" & Trump knows this. His "round up the illegals," along w/his doubling down on the drug war, is all about the further militarization of US society. He will double down on dismantling public education, use the loathsome ACA to further assaults on Medicare/S.S. He will "cut corporate taxes to rebuild the inner cities," etc., etc. There is so little difference on these issues you might as well flip a coin.

    on FP, he said, "I will stop China from building 'fortresses' (sic) in the S China Sea." oh yeah, he's really going to be some radical departure from Obomba and the "pivot to Asia". The MSM so studiously lies about what the current admin is really up to that some things Trump says sound judicious. Like comments on the M.E. & defeating ISIS. and what do those comments mean? they mean doing the exact same shit we are doing right now. so much for saving "trillions." "we will rebuild our military." you know what that means. Does he ever talk specifically about US/NATO vs Russia, Ukraine, the Russian border, etc.? of course not. his "be nice to Putin" act is a bunch of BS in response to Mrs. MAD's goading & insulting Putin in order to save her political ass.

    good luck Average American. It does not matter in the slightest who wins: you & the world lose.

    wilk | Nov 3, 2016 9:53:53 PM | 59
    Might not have been the right decision, but I voted for Trump, despite being thoroughly on the left. Trump's vilification by the globalist elite means that he has to be doing something right.

    I'll also give this to him: he sounds like a sleaze most of the time, and this is a good thing because it means he's a normal human being. When a normal person tries to be a politician, they sound like Trump because normal people give themselves away when they stretch the truth. It's the dangerous psychos who sound good-natured and reasonable, because they can lie and don't feel a thing when they do it.

    Take Me | Nov 3, 2016 10:00:56 PM | 61
    Hmmmm. Do all the Hillbottoms like pizza parties? With beans and eggs. And lots of cheese. Remember, remember the 5th of November. The pedo-queen won't EVER forget the date. Tick-tock.

    [Nov 03, 2016] Obama channels inner Pinocchio: "I trust her," Obama said. "I know her. And I wouldn't be supporting her if I didn't have absolute confidence in her integrity."

    He completely forgot what he said about her in 2008. At that time he was much closer to truth.
    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Fiver

    Further to throwing Comey under the bus yesterday, Obama had this to say:

    "I trust her," Obama said. "I know her. And I wouldn't be supporting her if I didn't have absolute confidence in her integrity."

    No amount of Bleach-bit can remove that yellow streak running down his back and straight through the entirety of his 'legacy'. Not once did he come down on the side opposite entrenched power – in fact, we can now add major 'obstruction of justice' to his prior litany of failures to prosecute white collar criminals as the basis for its own section, splitting criminal activity into two parts, one domestic, the other for a raft of war crimes.

    [Nov 03, 2016] She will honor her "feminist" supporters by appointing the most violent and virulent warmongering women into positions of power so they too can like the men can decide which

    Nov 03, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org
    black and brown women and children to bomb.

    Erelis | Nov 3, 2016 7:02:05 PM | 37

    And yes, about the only thing "liberal" about Clinton involves identity politics. But if she is elected, all of her supporters who used identity politics based attacks to smear Bernie Sanders and his supporters (along with a good dose of that against Trump also) are going to be in for a very rude awakening. How easily in particular the gay and black communities forget the administration of Bill Clinton and what he and Hillary did.

    Just as a start, Clinton ignored the identity crowd by picking somebody for VP that the identity crowd spent the previous year smearing the Sanders campaign over: Kaine is your prototypical straight privileged white male who has failed upwards. And not a peep from the identity crowd especially black leaders who more than any other group put Clinton over the top (forgetting the cheating for a moment). One of the early Wikileak revelations was a memo to Congressional candidates how to marginalize BLM if they were ever confronted.

    If BLM acts up and damages her politically, a President Hillary will smash the leaders and movement in the same Obama violently smashed OWS .

    She will honor her "feminist" supporters by appointing the most violent and virulent warmongering women into positions of power so they too can like the men can decide which black and brown women and children to bomb. She will stab in the back such early supporters as SEIU by refusing to support min. wage increases. And women are disproportionately the base of min. wage workers. She supports Simpson-Bowles as revealed by Wikileaks and the Cat Food Commission recommended cutting social security. Guess which groups that will really hurt? Maybe the next groveling task for John Lewis will be to attack people who are against Hillary cutting social security.

    [Nov 03, 2016] Racism is explicitly a political and economic phenomenon to use a particular ingroup/outgroup differentiation as a way to systematically disenfranchise and subjugate the outgroup

    Notable quotes:
    "... it seems to me that the effort to differentiate race-based from culturally based ultranationalism is still tangled in the weeds of a colloquial understanding of "race" and "racism". ..."
    "... Populations can be racialized according to literally any conceivable physical, social, or cultural characteristic ..."
    "... unlike with Quiggin's definition of tribalism @ 32, racism is explicitly a political and economic phenomenon to use a particular ingroup/outgroup differentiation as a way to systematically disenfranchise and subjugate the outgroup ..."
    Nov 02, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    likbez @ 16,

    it seems to me that the effort to differentiate race-based from culturally based ultranationalism is still tangled in the weeds of a colloquial understanding of "race" and "racism".

    Populations can be racialized according to literally any conceivable physical, social, or cultural characteristic - the idea that it can only depend on specific differentiating factors like one's melanin count or descent from Charlemagne or whatever is itself a racist idea, an attempt to reify particular forms of racism as rooted in some immutable aspect of "the way things are".

    Although from my understanding Ukrainian citizenship like that in most of Europe is primarily determined by jus sanguinis, and like most of Europe it's still deep in the muck of racial discrimination toward e.g. the Roma, so unless I'm misreading things it seems like a stretch to put too much distance between Ukraine (or Europe in general) and even a very colloquial sense of "ethnonationalism".

    It can be articulated more explicitly by outright fascists or more obliquely by mainstream centrist parties, but it's still there.

    And as long as we're talking about academic definitions of racism (I'm partial to the definition proffered by Ruth Wilson Gilmore, "the state-sanctioned or extralegal production and exploitation of group-differentiated vulnerability to premature death", although Emmett Rensin's obnoxiously thorough definition is also good) funnily enough they tend to point at something pretty much identical to what Quiggin appears to mean by "tribalism".

    Except unlike with Quiggin's definition of tribalism @ 32, racism is explicitly a political and economic phenomenon to use a particular ingroup/outgroup differentiation as a way to systematically disenfranchise and subjugate the outgroup

    Which seems like the only reason we'd bother talking about it as a specific mass political movement at all.

    And again, as annoying as it is to have pigheaded reactionaries accuse us of twisting language and "playing the race card" and so on, putting up with this noise is preferable to sacrificing useful concepts like racism and fascism from one's everyday understanding of the world, and it's certainly preferable to swapping out the terms in question for a racially charged term like "tribalism".

    [Nov 03, 2016] Clintons explosive e-mails, by Manlio Dinucci

    Notable quotes:
    "... When Hillary was Secretary of State, she convinced Obama to authorize a covert operation in Libya (which included sending in special forces and arming terrorist groups) in preparation for a US/Nato aeronaval attack. ..."
    "... Clinton's emails that subsequently came to light, prove what the real motive for war might be: blocking Gaddafi's plan to harness Libya's sovereign funds to establish independent financial organizations, located within the African Union and an African currency that could serve as an alternative to the dollar and the CFA franc. ..."
    "... Immediately after razing the State of Libya, the US and Nato brought in the Gulf Monarchies and set about a covert operation to destroy the State of Syria by infiltrating it with special forces and terrorist groups that gave birth to Isis. ..."
    "... "the best way to help Israel is to help the rebellion in Syria that has now lasted for more than a year" (i.e. from 2011). How? By mounting the case that the use of force is a sina qua non to make Basshar Assad fold, so as to endanger his life and that of his family". ..."
    "... "wrecking Assad would not only be a huge advantage for the security of the State of Israel, but would also go a long way to reducing Israel's justifiable fear that it will lose its nuclear monopoly". ..."
    Nov 03, 2016 | www.voltairenet.org

    From time to time, it is in the interests of the Western media and political establishment to do a bit of "political cleansing".

    Thus the West pulls out some skeleton from the closet. A British Parliamentary Committee has criticized David Cameron for authorizing the use of force in Libya when he was Prime Minister in 2011. However the basis for criticism was not the war of aggression per se (even though it erased from the map a sovereign state) but rather the fact that war was entered into without an adequate "intelligence" foundation and also because there was no plan for "reconstruction" [ 1 ].

    The same mistake was made by President Obama: thus he declared last April that Libya was his "biggest regret", not because he used US-led Nato forces to reduce it to smithereens but because he had failed to plan for "the day after". At the same time, Obama has confirmed his support for Hillary Clinton who is now running for president. When Hillary was Secretary of State, she convinced Obama to authorize a covert operation in Libya (which included sending in special forces and arming terrorist groups) in preparation for a US/Nato aeronaval attack.

    Clinton's emails that subsequently came to light, prove what the real motive for war might be: blocking Gaddafi's plan to harness Libya's sovereign funds to establish independent financial organizations, located within the African Union and an African currency that could serve as an alternative to the dollar and the CFA franc.

    Immediately after razing the State of Libya, the US and Nato brought in the Gulf Monarchies and set about a covert operation to destroy the State of Syria by infiltrating it with special forces and terrorist groups that gave birth to Isis.

    An e mail from Clinton, one of the many the Department of State was compelled to de-classify following the uproar triggered by the disclosures on Wikileaks, proves what one of the key objectives of the operation still underway. In an e mail dated 31 December 2012, declassified as "case no: F – 2014 – 20439, Doc No. CO5794998", Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, wrote [ 2 ]:
    "It is Iran's strategic relationship with the Bashar Assad regime that allows Iran to threaten Israel's security – not through a direct attack but through its allies in Lebanon such as the Hezbollah."
    She then emphasizes that:

    "the best way to help Israel is to help the rebellion in Syria that has now lasted for more than a year" (i.e. from 2011). How? By mounting the case that the use of force is a sina qua non to make Basshar Assad fold, so as to endanger his life and that of his family".

    And Clinton concludes:

    "wrecking Assad would not only be a huge advantage for the security of the State of Israel, but would also go a long way to reducing Israel's justifiable fear that it will lose its nuclear monopoly".

    So, the former Secretary of State admits what officially is not said. That Israel is the only country in the Middle East to possess nuclear weapons [ 3 ].

    The support given by the Obama Administration to Israel over and above some disagreements (more formal than substantive) is confirmed by the agreement signed on 14 September at Washington under which the United States agrees to supply Israel over a ten year period with weapons of the latest design for a value of 38 billion dollars through an annual financing of 3.3 billion dollars plus half a million for "missile defense".

    In the meantime, after the Russian intervention scuppered the plan to engage in war to demolish Syria from within, the US obtains a "truce" (which it immediately violated), launching at the same time a fresh attack in Libya, in the sheepskin of humanitarian operations that Italy participates in with its "para-medics".

    Meanwhile Israel, lurking in the background, strengthens its nuclear monopoly so precious to Clinton.

    [Nov 03, 2016] The stench of desperation and corruption is surrounding the Dems like the piles of rotting corpses Obama and Clinton have stacked up in Libya and Syria

    Notable quotes:
    "... Let's hope that Mr. Assange is saving the best for last, and delivers the coup de grace to the warmongering sociopathic harpy and she melts down like the wicked witch of the west. ..."
    "... Either way, methinks that a great mass of unwashed deplorables may just rise up and sweep the authoritarian orange barbarian into power. ..."
    Nov 03, 2016 | www.theguardian.com
    libertate 5h ago

    My my, the times they are interesting.

    The stench of desperation and corruption is surrounding the Dems like the piles of rotting corpses Obama and Clinton have stacked up in Libya and Syria.

    Let's hope that Mr. Assange is saving the best for last, and delivers the coup de grace to the warmongering sociopathic harpy and she melts down like the wicked witch of the west.

    Either way, methinks that a great mass of unwashed deplorables may just rise up and sweep the authoritarian orange barbarian into power.

    Which is why I'm stocking up on ribeyes, scotch, and ammo for next week. Should Trump prevail, I give better than even odds that the leftist chimps will, literally, go berserk .

    [Nov 02, 2016] The the Guardian a well-known crypto-Tory propaganda organ

    Nov 02, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    Stephen 11.01.16 at 9:49 pm 79

    SusanC @60:

    "it's also a kind of conspiracy theory that Tony Blair lied to the people about the case for going to war in Iraq".

    The words "a kind of" are being used in an extremely vague and attenuated state. Rather a large number of people would interpret your meaning as "not in the slightest". Or are you trying to insinuate, I would not say argue, that Tony Blair told the truth the people about the case for going to war in Iraq?
    I ask as one who supported Labour before the Iraq war, which I see as criminally dishonest to a degree I would not have previously thought possible.

    Stephen 11.01.16 at 9:55 pm

    Nastywoman@68: I would recommend a long article from that well-known crypto-Tory propaganda organ , the Guardian, which sets out your case far more eloquently than I could. The title is not the author's responsibility, and is somewhat misleading.
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/nov/01/the-ruthlessly-effective-rebranding-of-europes-new-far-right ?

    [Nov 02, 2016] Progressivism and humanitarianism in war profiteering and war mongering Civilian protective operations panders a neocon excuse for organized state run murder.

    Notable quotes:
    "... progressivism & humanitarianism in war profiteering aka mongering...... "Civilian protective operations" panders a neocon excuse for organized state run murder. Bill went after the Tsar as soon as his closet neocon found out they could have the Germans send a mechanized brigade of Warsaw Pact armaments to the Croats and Yeltsin did nothing. ..."
    "... The Russian version of Chamberlain and Munich was Croatian independence. ..."
    "... Most career military pilots I knew were terrified by the thought of no more perpetual bombing. ..."
    "... They would think Clinton and the neocons can keep a low boil going in the PNAC for another 100 years without tripping into a real war, or bankrupting the USA. ..."
    "... It is a signifier of the moral bankruptcy that the exceptional carry as a badge. ..."
    Oct 27, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    anne : , October 26, 2016 at 09:59 AM
    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/27/opinion/playing-with-fear-russias-war-card.html

    October 26, 2016

    Russia's War Card
    By MICHAEL KHODARKOVSKY

    War hysteria in a country with imperial nostalgia, one-man rule and a weak economy cannot be taken lightly.

    Michael Khodarkovsky is a professor of history at Loyola University.

    [ The fostering of fear of and disdain for Russia is continual now and however false the characterizations of Russia are, and they are indeed false, the fear and disdain will influence and be self-defeating for American foreign policy from here till a dramatic change comes from another administration. I unfortunately find no such change in the offing. ]

    anne -> anne... , October 26, 2016 at 10:34 AM
    https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/791252853943836672

    Glenn Greenwald ‏@ggreenwald

    Any new war she gets the US involved in will be prosecuted with progressivism & humanitarianism in her heart, so what's the worry?

    Trevor Timm @trevortimm

    Retired senior military pilots "increasingly alarmed" Clinton's Syria No Fly Zone plan could lead to war with Russia https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/25/hillary-clinton-syria-no-fly-zones-russia-us-war

    5:19 AM - 26 Oct 2016

    ilsm -> anne... , October 26, 2016 at 03:22 PM
    progressivism & humanitarianism in war profiteering aka mongering......

    "Civilian protective operations" panders a neocon excuse for organized state run murder.

    Bill went after the Tsar as soon as his closet neocon found out they could have the Germans send a mechanized brigade of Warsaw Pact armaments to the Croats and Yeltsin did nothing.

    The Russian version of Chamberlain and Munich was Croatian independence.

    ilsm -> anne... , -1
    Most career military pilots I knew were terrified by the thought of no more perpetual bombing.

    They would think Clinton and the neocons can keep a low boil going in the PNAC for another 100 years without tripping into a real war, or bankrupting the USA.

    It is a signifier of the moral bankruptcy that the exceptional carry as a badge.

    With the "defenses available" to Syria they could enforce no fly zones on GCC and their blood thirsty allies as as might US over Raqqa.

    The hegemon!

    [Nov 02, 2016] Open question: does the neoliberal-lite party have any incentive to cater to the left?

    Notable quotes:
    "... The problem with racism underground has been clear for sometime: the racists tell themselves that they're clear-thinkers resisting the group think of the politically-correct mob. ..."
    Nov 02, 2016 | obsidianrook.com
    10.30.16 at 6:41 am ( Joseph Brenner )
    Cynically: is there a need to do anything? As long as the right is the (now out of the closet) home of racism, they've marginalized themselves. Open question: does the neoliberal-lite party have any incentive to cater to the left?

    The problem with racism underground has been clear for sometime: the racists tell themselves that they're clear-thinkers resisting the group think of the politically-correct mob.

    I've thought for some time that there would be some value in an anti-racism FAQ: no one bothers to argue against racists (beyond shouting "racist!") so everyone is rusty on what the data actually shows.

    The point of this is not necessarily to convince racists that they're wrong (good luck with that), but to shake their conviction that the anti-racists are the ones out of touch with reality.

    I would start with the excellent "Intelligence, Genes & Success" (subtitled: "Scientists Respond to _The Bell Curve_").

    [Nov 02, 2016] Joseph Brenner

    Nov 02, 2016 | obsidianrook.com
    10.30.16 at 6:41 am ( Joseph Brenner )
    Cynically: is there a need to do anything? As long as the right is the (now out of the closet) home of racism, they've marginalized themselves. Open question: does the neoliberal-lite party have any incentive to cater to the left?

    The problem with racism underground has been clear for sometime: the racists tell themselves that they're clear-thinkers resisting the group think of the politically-correct mob.

    I've thought for some time that there would be some value in an anti-racism FAQ: no one bothers to argue against racists (beyond shouting "racist!") so everyone is rusty on what the data actually shows.

    The point of this is not necessarily to convince racists that they're wrong (good luck with that), but to shake their conviction that the anti-racists are the ones out of touch with reality.

    I would start with the excellent "Intelligence, Genes & Success" (subtitled: "Scientists Respond to _The Bell Curve_").

    [Nov 02, 2016] Veterans, Feeling Abandoned, Stand by Donald Trump by NICHOLAS CONFESSORE

    Notable quotes:
    "... The roster of retired military officers endorsing Hillary Clinton in September glittered with decoration and rank. One former general led the American surge in Anbar, one of the most violent provinces in Iraq. Another commanded American-led allied forces battling the Taliban in Afghanistan . Yet another trained the first Iraqis to combat Islamic insurgents in their own country. ..."
    "... After 15 years at war, many who served in Iraq or Afghanistan are proud of their service but exhausted by its burdens. They distrust the political class that reshaped their lives and are frustrated by how little their fellow citizens seem to understand about their experience. ..."
    "... "When we jump into wars without having a real plan, things like Vietnam and things like Iraq and Afghanistan happen," said William Hansen, a former Marine who served two National Guard tours in Iraq. "This is 16 years. This is longer than Vietnam." ..."
    Nov 02, 2016 | www.nytimes.com

    The roster of retired military officers endorsing Hillary Clinton in September glittered with decoration and rank. One former general led the American surge in Anbar, one of the most violent provinces in Iraq. Another commanded American-led allied forces battling the Taliban in Afghanistan . Yet another trained the first Iraqis to combat Islamic insurgents in their own country.

    But as Election Day approaches, many veterans are instead turning to Donald J. Trump , a businessman who avoided the Vietnam draft and has boasted of gathering foreign policy wisdom by watching television shows.

    Even as other voters abandon Mr. Trump, veterans remain among his most loyal supporters, an unlikely connection forged by the widening gulf they feel from other Americans.

    After 15 years at war, many who served in Iraq or Afghanistan are proud of their service but exhausted by its burdens. They distrust the political class that reshaped their lives and are frustrated by how little their fellow citizens seem to understand about their experience.

    Perhaps most strikingly, they welcome Mr. Trump's blunt attacks on America's entanglements overseas.

    "When we jump into wars without having a real plan, things like Vietnam and things like Iraq and Afghanistan happen," said William Hansen, a former Marine who served two National Guard tours in Iraq. "This is 16 years. This is longer than Vietnam."

    In small military towns in California and North Carolina, veterans of all eras cheer Mr. Trump's promises to fire officials at the Department of Veterans Affairs . His attacks on political correctness evoke their frustrations with tortured rules of engagement crafted to serve political, not military, ends. In Mr. Trump's forceful assertion of strength, they find a balm for wounds that left them broken and torn.

    "He calls it out," said Joshua Macias, a former Navy petty officer and fifth-generation veteran who lives in the Tidewater region of Virginia, where he organized a "Veterans for Trump" group last year. "We have intense emotion connected to these wars. The way it was politicized, the way they changed the way we fight in a war setting - it's horrible how they did that."

    [Nov 02, 2016] Avoid War Crimes

    Nov 02, 2016 | query.nytimes.com

    anne said in reply to anne... http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9906E2DF1E39F932A25752C1A9659C8B63

    Avoid War Crimes

    To the Editor:

    In ''A Burden Too Heavy to Put Down,'' * David Brooks writes, ''Inevitably, there will be atrocities'' committed by our forces in Iraq. Did he forget to add that they must be prosecuted?

    War crimes are indeed more likely if influential commentators foreshadow impunity for perpetrators of the ''brutal measures our own troops will have to adopt.''

    The choice is not between committing war crimes and retreating ''into the paradise of our own innocence.'' A third option is for the United States to strive to avoid complicity.

    It is untrue that ''we have to take morally hazardous action.'' Those who choose it, or urge others to, cannot evade or distribute responsibility by asserting that ''we live in a fallen world.''

    * http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/04/opinion/04BROO.html

    BEN KIERNAN
    New Haven, Nov. 4, 2003
    The writer is director of the Genocide Studies Program at Yale University.

    [Nov 01, 2016] If HRC wins, we have war with Russia, including possibly WW3. That makes environmental issues moot

    Nov 01, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Anonymous November 1, 2016 at 7:39 pm

    If HRC wins, we have war with Russia, including possibly WW3. That makes environmental issues moot.

    Separately, HRC will not even agree to a carbon tax, she lobbied for two giant polluting coal plants in South Africa, and she promotes fracking worldwide.

    http://www.villagevoice.com/news/clintons-carbon-corruption-why-hillary-wont-say-yes-to-a-carbon-tax-8528717

    http://www.desmogblog.com/2016/03/07/hillary-clinton-showed-support-associates-profited-building-world-s-largest-coal-plants-south-africa

    [Nov 01, 2016] Soft neoliberals in control of the coalition that includes the inchoate left also exploit racist and tribalist political support while pursuing the interests of wealth and capital, at the expense of the (disproportionately non-white) poor

    Notable quotes:
    "... Do we acknowledge that the soft neoliberals in control of the coalition that includes the inchoate left also "exploit racist and tribalist political support while pursuing the interests of wealth and capital, at the expense of the (disproportionately non-white) poor."? They do it with a different style and maybe with some concession to economic melioration, as well as supporting anti-racist and feminist policy to keep the inchoate left on board, but . . . ..."
    "... I seriously doubt a human social phenomenon as broad and universal as "identifying with an in-group against an out-group", if this is how y'all intend to define "tribalism", can be made narrow enough to usefully describe a specific tendency in modern capitalist politics. ..."
    "... According to a study of Alan Krueger that examined prime-age men (ages 25–54) who are not working or looking for work – there are alone about 7 million (lost) workers -- (and their wives and relatives) – many of them supposedly dropped out of the labor force altogether and reporting 'pain' that keeps them from taking jobs. ..."
    "... "The soft neoliberals, it seems to me, are using anti-racism to discredit economic populism and its motivations, using the new politics of the right as a foil." ..."
    "... I think the notion that racism is somehow regional in the US ..."
    "... Populations can be "racialized" according to literally any conceivable physical, social, or cultural characteristic - the idea that it can only depend on specific differentiating factors like one's melanin count or descent from Charlemagne or whatever is itself a racist idea, an attempt to reify particular forms of racism as rooted in some immutable aspect of "the way things are". ..."
    "... As in voting behavior the dividing lines are NOT so much anymore between left and right, but more between a liberal, cosmopolitan bourgeoisie in the center and on both edges populists who are propagating partitioning and protectionism. ..."
    Nov 01, 2016 | crookedtimber.org
    xxx
    John, I agree that tribalism is a huge force in politics, but the way you have defined it describes a huge portion of how people on all sides vote. All sorts of research shows that a majority of people seem to use the rubric "what do people of my affiliation believe" to reach conclusions and then defend them rather than following any particular chain of logic about the actual question. So I'm not sure what kind of differentiation work the term is doing.

    On the other hand I think you're definitely on to something about the change of formerly stable political orders, and I'm not sure I can identify what it is either. I sort of see what you are trying to do with the in-group/out-group thing. Those impulses always existed, so I wonder what has changed? Is it assimilation norms that have weakened? Economic loss or the fear of it in the 'in group'? Fear of going from an 'in group' to an 'out group'? Combination of those?

    bruce wilder 10.30.16 at 9:34 pm

    The success of [civil rights and anti-apartheid] movements did not end racism, but drove it underground, allowing neoliberals to exploit racist and tribalist political support while pursuing the interests of wealth and capital, at the expense of the (disproportionately non-white) poor.

    That coalition has now been replaced by one in which the tribalists and racists are dominant. For the moment at least, [hard] neoliberals continue to support the parties they formerly controlled, with the result that the balance of political forces between the right and the opposing coalition of soft neoliberals and the left has not changed significantly.

    There's an ambiguity in this narrative and in the three-party analysis.

    Do we acknowledge that the soft neoliberals in control of the coalition that includes the inchoate left also "exploit racist and tribalist political support while pursuing the interests of wealth and capital, at the expense of the (disproportionately non-white) poor."? They do it with a different style and maybe with some concession to economic melioration, as well as supporting anti-racist and feminist policy to keep the inchoate left on board, but . . .

    The new politics of the right has lost faith in the hard neoliberalism that formerly furnished its policy agenda of tax cuts for the rich, war in the Middle East and so on, leaving the impure resentment ungoverned and unfocused, as you say.

    The soft neoliberals, it seems to me, are using anti-racism to discredit economic populism and its motivations, using the new politics of the right as a foil.

    The problem of how to oppose racism and tribalism effectively is now entangled with soft neoliberal control of the remaining party coalition, which is to say with the credibility of the left party as a vehicle for economic populism and the credibility of economic populism as an antidote for racism or sexism. (cf js. @ 1,2)

    The form of tribalism used to mobilize the left entails denying that an agenda of economic populism is relevant to the problems of sexism and racism, because the deplorables must be deplored to get out the vote. And, because the (soft) neoliberals in charge must keep economic populism under control to deliver the goods to their donor base.

    RichardM 10.30.16 at 9:41 pm ( 39 )

    "That doesn't mean that we should maintain the long-standing taboo on using the word "racist" to describe such people."

    Whether you 'should' or 'shouldn't' largely depends on which country you are in; the US has sufficient minorities able to vote that a 'wide' definition of racism is almost certainly a net vote-winner.

    The UK, Australia, etc. don't. So they have to rely on opposition to racism on moral grounds, which in turn depends on using a narrow definition.

    Alternatively, you could be talking in an academic context, independent of any particular country's politics, in which case I would imagine that using different words for different things would be minimally confusing.

    LFC 10.30.16 at 10:50 pm Alesis @19

    Race is the foundational organizing principle of American life

    There is no such thing as "the foundational organizing principle of American life." There are conflicting ideologies, a conflicting set of histories, and a conflicting set of regional traditions, plus founding documents that are subject to conflicting interpretations. There are certain experiences that might be presumed to shape some sort of common collective memory, but nowadays even that is debatable.

    Kurt Schuler 10.30.16 at 11:00 pm ( 41 )

    As one who has lived for more than fifty years in the United States, rather than just a few years here and there as John Quiggin has, I assure him that racism has not been driven underground here. It has died as a mass sentiment capable of serving as a power base for such figures as Lyndon Johnson, George Wallace, or Jimmy Carter.

    All had to change their tune to retain or increase their power, and that was about half a century ago. No aspiring politician could get started today making the kind of racial appeals they did at the beginning of their political careers, and in the cases of Johnson and Wallace for a long time thereafter.

    There is no mass sentiment for re-establishing separate drinking fountains, toilets, dining areas, schools, etc. by race or for repealing the Civil War-era amendments to the Constitution. I even hear rumors that Americans may be receptive to the idea of electing a black President.

    Alan Luchetti 10.30.16 at 11:11 pm

    I just put up this link for consideration:
    http://www.the-american-interest.com/2016/07/10/when-and-why-nationalism-beats-globalism/

    My suggestion is to tackle the pandering by the rich party for the poor's votes by appealing to racism, rather than the racism itself. "You're being played" may work better than "you're wrong".

    I also think that the severity continuum of racism needs to be emphasized. We pretty much all exhibit minor solecisms as we overcome features of our culture and upbringing. When a gentle correction triggers complaints about monstrous PC allegations, I recommend a response like "Hey, it's no biggie. You're not Hitler. Why are you taking a dive?"

    porpoise 10.30.16 at 11:29 pm ( 43 )

    "Tribalism" in the sense it's being used here has nothing to do with "primitive" tribes; it's a reference to the ancient Roman tribes (the origin of the word) and the similar Greek phylai, which were essentially arbitrary groupings of citizens which struggled amongst each other because of group identification despite all being of the same ethnic group and nation. If there's a better word for this, it isn't ethnonationalism or fascism.

    Omega Centauri 10.31.16 at 1:19 am

    I think poor to outright horrific epistemology in public discussion creates the basis for a lot of bad politics. Many have described our current time as a post-truth era. There have been some efforts towards fact-checking, but these seem to be simple refutations of facts, like Trump saying
    that he didn't say X, when we can play a two-day old tape of him in fact saying X. Part of the manifestation of "tribalism", is the holding of in-group shibboleths, and the failure to critically examine them -- for fear that that might weaken their role as weaponized-memes. That and our
    politics has severely degenerated into character assassination, much of it unfounded. So we can't even have a semi-rational discussion about issues, as political actors have to expend all their efforts fending off attempts to assassinate their reputation, and to level even more damaging attacks against their enemies.

    So we have to start reclaiming decent epistemological practices in our public discussion. I don't think this is going to be an easy or a quick process. But without it, we are highly vulnerable to emotion based movements and their demagogues. Graham's conspiracy theory observations, as well as those of bob@4 and loki@12, are symptoms of this degeneration of epiestemology.

    John Quiggin 10.31.16 at 1:44 am

    nastywoman @21 The idea that "the working class" has gone over to Trump is oversold. In US political discussion, "working class" is used to mean "no college degree" which isn't at all the same thing: it includes lots of small business owners, for example, and is also correlated with age.

    The terminology appears to be driven by data. Education level is objective and easily elicited, whereas social class is not.

    Mike Furlan 10.31.16 at 1:50 am

    Racism (and sexism), something described by Tom Magliozzi's "Non Impediti Ratione Cogitationis-Unencumbered by the Thought Process" is impervious to argumentation. I've lost a lot of friends driven mad first by the Kenyan, and now by that "nasty woman."

    Imagine a future scenario of yet another financial crisis the pushes unemployment above 30% and mere words will certainly fail you.

    My hope is to build communities of loving people, so that we are not picked off one at a time as we compose blog posts.

    Bob Zannelli 10.31.16 at 2:19 am ( 47 )

    The great problem progressives face is that many , if not most of the working class really don't want social justice , they want to be the fat cats. And when they don't join the ranks of the fat cats they are easily convinced that this is because the liberals are stealing from them to give to the "welfare" people. Trump has expanded to include hordes of invading Mexicans and Muslims.

    Bob Zannelli 10.31.16 at 2:20 am

    "There is no such thing as "the foundational organizing principle of American life." There are conflicting ideologies, a conflicting set of histories, and a conflicting set of regional traditions, plus founding documents that are subject to conflicting interpretations. There are certain experiences that might be presumed to shape some sort of common collective memory, but nowadays even that is debatable."

    I agree with this.

    js. 10.31.16 at 2:39 am ( 49 )

    Re bruce wilder

    the credibility of the left party as a vehicle for economic populism and the credibility of economic populism as an antidote for racism or sexism. (cf js. @ 1,2)

    1. I have no fucking idea what you got out of my comments, but just to be very clear, I would almost certainly support, and strongly, almost all _policies_ that you're likely to classify as "economically populist". (I prefer a term like "socially equitable"-in a material sense, not talking about symbolic stuff or the politics of recognition here. But e.g. I think repeal of the Hyde Amendment should go under exactly the same heading as minimum wage increases, trade deals with strong labor protections, etc.-which kind of thing gets lost when people talk about "economic populism".)

    On the _politics_ you and I each think the other one is dead wrong, and both of us already know this, and neither of us is about to give half an inch, so I don't think there's much point in pursuing the argument. But…

    2. …Entirely leaving aside racism for a minute, when has it ever seemed plausible that "economic populism" would be an effective counter to entrenched sexism? This makes no sense to me whatsoever.

    --

    Re WLGR

    In contrast to a true petite bourgeoisie, which has no historical memory of the full trauma of capitalist expropriation, a labor aristocracy on some level is aware that its economically secure position relative to the still-fully-dispossessed global working class depends on accepting and defending the racist/nationalist logic of imperial expropriation

    I'll have to think about more. My first instinct is to say - there's something to this, but the contrast is significantly less sharp than that (in both directions), but I need to think it out more.

    WLGR 10.31.16 at 4:18 am

    I seriously doubt a human social phenomenon as broad and universal as "identifying with an in-group against an out-group", if this is how y'all intend to define "tribalism", can be made narrow enough to usefully describe a specific tendency in modern capitalist politics.

    It would be absurd to claim that nobody who isn't a fascist/racist/ethnonationalist/etc. determines their political priorities on some level according to ingroup/outgroup morality - speaking from experience in a US context, cosmopolitan liberals' disdain for "rubes"/"hicks"/"rednecks" from "flyover country" (probably the very people "tribalist" is intended to denote) could itself be described as "tribalist" in the sense you mean it, as for that matter could many socialists' disdain for liberals, or economists' disdain for sociologists, or old-money politicos' disdain for nouveau-riche boors like Donald Trump, or whatever.

    People seem to be shying away from the idea that what defines so-called "tribalists" as a political force in developed capitalist nation-states is "tribalism" regarding a particular aspect of their worldview, namely race and nationality. I get that this is a contortion to avoid the politically charged act of calling people "racists" or "fascists" (although it's perplexing that so many people here have surrendered to reactionaries' bizarre contention that using these terms even when they're suitably descriptive is somehow foul play) but insinuating a categorical deficiency of basic human social consciousness compared to the categorically more enlightened social consciousness of the accuser is hardly any less insulting, even before you get into the racial implications of the term itself.

    The best comparison I can think of is the way so-called "New Atheists" tend to group their ideological taxonomy according to the distinction between "rational" and "irrational": both of these are such thoroughly universal aspects of human thought and behavior that it can only be monumental hubris to characterize "rationality" as the very cornerstone of one's worldview and "irrationality" as the very cornerstone of an opponent's. A weaker and more defensible claim of rationality about a very particular aspect of one's worldview, such as the existence of deities, leaves open the possibility of irrationality in other aspects of their worldview, such as the alleged existential threat of Islam (about which many "rationalist" "New Atheists" are famously paranoid and reactionary). Now imagine the term "irrational" has been used for centuries as a sloppily interchangeable pejorative for various targets of systematic marginalization, oppression, enslavement, and genocide.

    Graham 10.31.16 at 4:52 am ( 51 )

    do those qualify as conspiracy?
    Perhaps they do

    I would say that after talking to people the republican base is the coalition of
    1. Plutocrats
    2. Single issue abortion voters
    3. Conspiracy theorists and religious conspiracy theorists (end times prophecy mixed with conspiracy)
    4. True believers – that is free market types who believe that top end tax cuts and cutting minimum wage actually help the poor
    5. Basket of deplorables you racist/mysoginest you name it

    Type 1, 4 and some of 2 have been pealed off the R coalition during the trump campaign due to how shocking a candidate Trump is. However, type 3 and 5 are more energized than ever. If there was an effective way to counter type 3 republican voters their coalition would reduce by maybe half. I know that sounds like a lot but I've lived in the south and have a lot of friends there. Conspiracy is more powerful than people realize

    nastywoman 10.31.16 at 4:57 am

    'The idea that "the working class" has gone over to Trump is oversold.'

    Not if we count all 'the workers' – who follow and will vote for Trump because he promised them to bring their jobs back -(with fascistic solutions)

    According to a study of Alan Krueger that examined prime-age men (ages 25–54) who are not working or looking for work – there are alone about 7 million (lost) workers -- (and their wives and relatives) – many of them supposedly dropped out of the labor force altogether and reporting 'pain' that keeps them from taking jobs.

    These workers – a lot of them who had lost their jobs by US companies outsourcing or terminating their jobs altogether after the economical collapse of 2008 – are a 'traditional constituency' of the left – and they should have been supported much better and NOT 'picked up' by Trump.

    kidneystones 10.31.16 at 5:48 am ( 53 )

    @ 31 Hi Joseph.

    The link actually takes you to page 2 of the Grenville article. He cites Hochschild on page 1: 'Arlie Hochschild's "Strangers in Their Own Land: Anger and Mourning on the American Right" captures the intractability of the discontent: "'You are patiently standing in a long line' for something you call the American dream. You are white, Christian, of modest means, and getting along in years. You are male. There are people of color behind you, and 'in principle you wish them well.' But you've waited long, worked hard, 'and the line is barely moving.'

    Then 'Look! You see people cutting in line ahead of you!' Who are these interlopers? 'Some are black,' others 'immigrants, refugees.'
    They get affirmative action, sympathy and welfare - 'checks for the listless and idle.' The government wants you to feel sorry for them."

    @50 WLGR "….rational" and "irrational": both of these are such thoroughly universal aspects of human thought and behavior that it can only be monumental hubris to characterize "rationality" as the very cornerstone of one's worldview and "irrationality" as the very cornerstone of an opponent's." Agreed. Happens here all the time, or used to.

    Val 10.31.16 at 6:22 am

    I tend to agree with what WLGR is saying about 'tribalists'. What porpoise @43 said is interesting historically, but I don't think it removes the overlay from later colonial and imperial associations of 'tribes' with 'primitives'/inferiors. So I don't think tribalism is a good word here, but not sure what would be a better one.

    'Cultural nationalism' seems to come closest, at least in the Australian and British contexts I'm familiar with, because the so-called 'tribalists' seem to be people who have a strong idea about who are the 'right kind' of Australians (or Britons), and it is a mixture of cultural and racial/ethnic characteristics.

    Here in Australia, it is certainly possible for people from non-Anglo backgrounds to be at least conditionally accepted by the 'tribalists' if they appear to embrace the tribalists' idea of Aussie culture (although it's conditional because the 'tribalists' who are 'accepting' the non-Anglo immigrants unconsciously see their ability to pass judgement as related to their own Anglo/white background, I think). Complicated, I am getting tied in knots, but I agree tribalist isn't the best word.

    Neville Morley 10.31.16 at 7:24 am ( 55 )

    Porpoise @43: I'm slightly puzzled by your version of classical history.

    Yes, the Romans had tribes, dating from the very beginning of their history; these *were* seen as relating to what you refer to as "primitive tribes", and according to at least one ancient source reflected the original composition of the Roman people from Latins, Sabines and Etruscans.

    Yes, by the late Republic these were largely (not entirely) arbitrary divisions of more or less homogeneous citizens – but by that date there's no evidence that I'm aware of that they served any purpose other than organising voting in the comitia tributa; certainly no struggles because of group identification.

    ZM 10.31.16 at 7:45 am bruce wilder,

    "The soft neoliberals, it seems to me, are using anti-racism to discredit economic populism and its motivations, using the new politics of the right as a foil."

    I think economic populism is problematic really, depending on what policy settings you mean by "economic populism" I guess.

    I remember thinking Australia could have more protectionist policies and that would be a solution to some of our economic issues, but then I did an economics group project with a woman from Singapore, and I realised a country like Singapore would be much worse off if other countries resorted to protectionism as a response to the financial crisis, and I was being unfair thinking more protectionist policy was the answer.

    I don't think that the economic populism of the post-war era is really something we want to return to - in Australia at least it was connected to the racist White Australia Policy which was dismantled over time by 1973 and also to sexist policies that benefited male wage earners with the "living wage" but prevented women from taking up certain jobs or from working after marriage and that sort of thing.

    Also in the post-war era Australia benefitted from trade networks with the UK as part of the Commonwealth, but I presume that some other countries didn't benefit from that set of international trade agreements (although I have never looked into what the international trade settings were to know which countries overall benefited and which countries disbenefited).

    I don't think returning to economic populism is a solution. There were a lot of problems, both within countries with racism and sexism, and also between countries with unfair international trade agreements.

    Any solution to current problems has to be equitable within the nation, and fair between nations. If economic populism is the answer it has to be a transformed economic populism that is capable of that, and also of managing our global and local environmental problems.

    ZM 10.31.16 at 8:05 am ( 57 )

    Also at the moment the Australian federal government is doing the "Racism. It Stops With Me" campaign around Australia trying to encourage everyday Australians to speak out against racism when they encounter it in their daily lives. I hope the US government does something similar if Trump loses the election, I really think anti-racism is better off being bi-partisan, and its a bad long term strategy by either main party in America to use race to divide voters.

    https://itstopswithme.humanrights.gov.au

    Alesis 10.31.16 at 10:20 am

    I think the notion that racism is somehow regional in the US or that their are "conflicting histories" is pitch perfect example of the difficulty of keeping race in American life in focus I mentioned in my comment.

    There is no region of the US in which race did not play a foundation role. No history of the US which does not rest in the disenfranchisement of "lower races". From Oregon to Florida. From New York to California.

    From 1700 to 2016 this is an American constant and we will continue to the "Shocked! Shocked!" That more Trump's arise until we recognize that.

    RichardM 10.31.16 at 10:53 am ( 59 )

    > The terminology appears to be driven by data. Education level is objective and easily elicited, whereas social class is not.

    Race too, of course.

    It doesn't seem like it would be beyond the power of a single guy who wanted to write a book to bring a torch and see if there is anything interesting hidden where the lampposts don't shine.

    The raw data seems to be available[1], it just needs correlating with polls. That's a 2-3 man year project, probably doable within a 5 digit budget.

    [1] https://dqydj.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/2013scf_income_v_wealth_united_states.png

    SusanC 10.31.16 at 1:41 pm

    I think I agree that "conspiracy theory" is a strong element in current politics. It has been for a while, of course. See for example Richard Hofstadter's The Paranoid Style in American Politics .

    In a democratic system, any party hoping to win has to somehow persuade the voters to vote for them and not the other party. Hence impugning the judgment or moral character of the opposing party is one of the obvious strategies. Accusing the other party of actually being crooks (as opposed to merely making poor decisions, or decisions that benefit some group other than the voters one wishes to court) takes this a step further. Once a party had taken the "they're a bunch of crooks" move, it would be surprising if they didn't leap at the chance when they can make a credible and specific allegation of lawbreaking by their opponent, instead of just relying on non-specific "would you buy a used car from this man?" rhetoric. ("man" -> "woman" if we're talking about Hilary Clinton rather than Richard Nixon, but the same principle holds)

    The current round of populism seems to go further still, in attributing crookedness not just to their political opponents but to just about everyone involved in the entire system, e.g. by alleging that the election might be fraudulent.

    The term "conspiracy theory" often has rather dismissive or perjorative connotations, but I think this basic political pattern could exist even if the opposing party were actually in fact crooks.

    [And over here in the UK, it's also a kind of conspiracy theory that Tony Blair lied to the people about the case for going to war in Iraq. It's less obvious what Blair could actually be charged with criminally (as opposed to Hilary Clinton), but that hasn't stopped people calling for his head … possibly in a literal, rather than metaphorical, sense]

    JimV 10.31.16 at 1:59 pm ( 61 )

    Omega Centauri 10.31.16 at 1:19 am (#44): great comment, puts the finger on the problem, and deserves engagement. Unfortunately, all I have to offer are solutions from science-fiction: reliable lie-detectors and benign A.I. government. But how to avoid the obvious misuses and bad side-tracks on the way to utopian deployment of such technologies is beyond me. The Internet already gives us the ability to do our own fact-checking and analysis of issues, but it seems more effective at spreading lies.

    MPAVictoria 10.31.16 at 2:29 pm

    Unions, unions, and more unions are the answer to the question of what the left should be doing going forward. Union members are more likely to:
    – Vote
    – Volunteer in support of progressive campaigns and causes
    – Support progressive economic AND social policies

    The left's strategy going forward MUST include efforts to increase union density.

    WLGR 10.31.16 at 3:46 pm ( 63 )

    js, I guess the most important caveat re: the US (along with other settler societies) is that many Euro-Americans never actually went through proletarianization themselves, but probably would have been pushed into the working class they'd stayed in Europe through the heyday of capitalist industrialization, so they left Europe and joined the metaphorical shock troops of settler-colonialism in order to avoid it. The important point is that the combined spoils of settler-colonial expropriation, racial/national hierarchy, and continuing imperialist exploitation in the Third World have largely spared the much-ballyhooed "white working class" (i.e. labor aristocracy) from the abject poverty capitalism invariably wreaks on the working class proper - and on some level these people realize that as long as capitalism exists, this economic safety net is only really justifiable if there's some fundamental hierarchy of humanity dictating that they as a group deserve to be offered better lives than the people trying to "steal their jobs" and so on. The extent to which different people in different situations are compelled to articulate this ideology in fully conscious ways is another matter, but when they are, terms like "racist", "ethnonationalist", and "fascist" are entirely descriptive and not the least bit inappropriate.

    For anybody who hasn't heard of it, the book Settlers: The Mythology of the White Proletariat is an accessible exposition of this kind of viewpoint (and for anybody who takes a glance and can't get past smarming at the crude typesetting and nonstandard semantic choices e.g. "Amerika", just grow up).

    WLGR 10.31.16 at 3:52 pm

    likbez @ 16,

    it seems to me that the effort to differentiate race-based from culturally based ultranationalism is still tangled in the weeds of a colloquial understanding of "race" and "racism".

    Populations can be "racialized" according to literally any conceivable physical, social, or cultural characteristic - the idea that it can only depend on specific differentiating factors like one's melanin count or descent from Charlemagne or whatever is itself a racist idea, an attempt to reify particular forms of racism as rooted in some immutable aspect of "the way things are".

    Although from my understanding Ukrainian citizenship like that in most of Europe is primarily determined by jus sanguinis, and like most of Europe it's still deep in the muck of racial discrimination toward e.g. the Roma, so unless I'm misreading things it seems like a stretch to put too much distance between Ukraine (or Europe in general) and even a very colloquial sense of "ethnonationalism". It can be articulated more explicitly by outright fascists or more obliquely by mainstream centrist parties, but it's still there.

    And as long as we're talking about academic definitions of racism (I'm partial to the definition proffered by Ruth Wilson Gilmore, "the state-sanctioned or extralegal production and exploitation of group-differentiated vulnerability to premature death", although Emmett Rensin's obnoxiously thorough definition is also good) funnily enough they tend to point at something pretty much identical to what Quiggin appears to mean by "tribalism". Except unlike with Quiggin's definition of tribalism @ 32, racism is explicitly a political and economic phenomenon to use a particular ingroup/outgroup differentiation as a way to systematically disenfranchise and subjugate the outgroup , which seems like the only reason we'd bother talking about it as a specific mass political movement at all. And again, as annoying as it is to have pigheaded reactionaries accuse us of twisting language and "playing the race card" and so on, putting up with this noise is preferable to sacrificing useful concepts like racism and fascism from one's everyday understanding of the world, and it's certainly preferable to swapping out the terms in question for a racially charged term like "tribalism".

    Anarcissie 10.31.16 at 4:13 pm ( 65 )

    Mike Furlan 10.31.16 at 1:50 am @ 46:
    '… My hope is to build communities of loving people, so that we are not picked off one at a time as we compose blog posts.'

    Or at least tolerant people who are positive about relationships with the Others even though they may err. Surely this would be a requirement for achieving equality, because otherwise you have the good people and the bad people, and the good people would have to defeat, rule over, or maybe even exterminate the bad people. P. J. O'Rourke once wrote that the reason Evangelicals adhere to the Republican Party (and Black people to the Democrats) is that that is the party which, while it doesn't do much for them, doesn't hate them. We have seen that expressed in the recent past not only with Trump's success but with the 'basket of deplorables'. Even a petrochemical plant poisoning your back yard may be preferable to submitting to the power of those who openly despise you and your kind.

    But a lot of people want to fight.

    John Quiggin 10.31.16 at 8:33 pm

    Kurt Schuler @41 This seems an odd choice of post on which to claim special authority as a US resident, given that it's about developments common throughout the developed world, and refers to Australia and the UK, as well as the US.

    js. 10.31.16 at 8:47 pm ( 67 )

    On topic:

    The idea that "the working class" has gone over to Trump is oversold. In US political discussion, "working class" is used to mean "no college degree" which isn't at all the same thing: it includes lots of small business owners, for example, and is also correlated with age.

    Right. This is why I think petty bourgeois (petit bourgeois if you want to be all fancy and French about it) is a better term.

    nastywoman 10.31.16 at 9:43 pm

    In conclusion this analysis is still based on a traditional understanding of left and right which doesn't exist anymore in most European countries – as concerning the most important issues like globalization and protectionism the radical left and the radical right seem to agree.

    And so the the traditional understanding of left and right is often used for justification of the own political position, while it is less and less helpful to explain voting behavior.

    As in voting behavior the dividing lines are NOT so much anymore between left and right, but more between a liberal, cosmopolitan bourgeoisie in the center and on both edges populists who are propagating partitioning and protectionism.

    This is true not only for Europe but also for the United States of Trump – aka the once 'United States of America' -(if this currently very popular joke in Europe is allowed?)

    [Nov 01, 2016] The terms racist and tribalist are deployed so cynically and freely as to render them practically meaningless.

    Notable quotes:
    "... Few dispute that a significant subset of any given population is going to regard in-group/out-group distinctions along the highly imprecise lines of 'race' and ethnicity, or religion. The question, for some, is what percentage? ..."
    "... Grenville regards understanding the opposition to globalization by the Trump constituency as essential. If we are discussing America, we do not need to look to illegal immigration, or undocumented workers to find hostility to out-group immigrants along religious and ethnic lines. ..."
    "... These tendencies are thrown into sharper relief when this hostility is directed towards successfully assimilated immigrants of a different color who threaten the current occupants of a space – witness the open racism and hostility displayed towards Japanese immigrants on the west coast 1900-1924, or so. A similar level of hostility is sometimes/often displayed towards Koreans. The out-grouping in Japan is tiered and extends to ethnicity and language of groups within the larger Japanese community, as it does in the UK, although not as commonly along religious lines as it does elsewhere. ..."
    crookedtimber.org

    kidneystones 10.30.16 at 9:15 am 14

    I read an interesting piece in the Nikkei, hardly an left-leaning publication citing Arlie Hochschild's "Strangers in Their Own Land: Anger and Mourning on the American Right."

    Doubtless some here would like to see more misery heaped upon those who do not look to the Democratic party as saviors, but Hochschild is rarely regarded as a defender of the American right.

    Few dispute that a significant subset of any given population is going to regard in-group/out-group distinctions along the highly imprecise lines of 'race' and ethnicity, or religion. The question, for some, is what percentage?

    The Nikkei article by Stephen Grenville concludes: Over the longer term, the constituency for globalization has to be rebuilt, the methodology for multilateral trade agreements has to be revived…"

    Grenville regards understanding the opposition to globalization by the Trump constituency as essential. If we are discussing America, we do not need to look to illegal immigration, or undocumented workers to find hostility to out-group immigrants along religious and ethnic lines.

    These tendencies are thrown into sharper relief when this hostility is directed towards successfully assimilated immigrants of a different color who threaten the current occupants of a space – witness the open racism and hostility displayed towards Japanese immigrants on the west coast 1900-1924, or so. A similar level of hostility is sometimes/often displayed towards Koreans. The out-grouping in Japan is tiered and extends to ethnicity and language of groups within the larger Japanese community, as it does in the UK, although not as commonly along religious lines as it does elsewhere.

    Generally, I think John is right. The term 'racist' no longer carries any of the stigma it once held in part because the term is deployed so cynically and freely as to render it practically meaningless. HRC and Bill and their supporters (including me, at one time) are racists for as long as its convenient and politically expedient to call them racists. Once that moment has passed, the term 'racist' is withdrawn and replaced with something like Secretary of State, or some other such title.

    I've no clear 'solution' other than to support a more exact and thoughtful discussion of the causes of fear and anxiety that compels people to bind together into in-groups and out-groups, and to encourage the fearful to take a few risks now and again.

    Here's the link: http://asia.nikkei.com/magazine/20161020-An-era-ends-in-Thailand/Viewpoints/Stephen-Grenville-The-US-election-is-putting-the-TPP-trade-agreement-in-doubt?page=2

    [Nov 01, 2016] Inside the Invisible Government - The Unz Review

    Nov 01, 2016 | www.unz.com

    The attack on Iraq, the attack on Libya, the attack on Syria happened because the leader in each of these countries was not a puppet of the West. The human rights record of a Saddam or a Gaddafi was irrelevant. They did not obey orders and surrender control of their country.

    The same fate awaited Slobodan Milosevic once he had refused to sign an "agreement" that demanded the occupation of Serbia and its conversion to a market economy. His people were bombed, and he was prosecuted in The Hague. Independence of this kind is intolerable.

    As WikLeaks has revealed, it was only when the Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad in 2009 rejected an oil pipeline, running through his country from Qatar to Europe, that he was attacked.

    From that moment, the CIA planned to destroy the government of Syria with jihadist fanatics – the same fanatics currently holding the people of Mosul and eastern Aleppo hostage.

    Why is this not news? The former British Foreign Office official Carne Ross, who was responsible for operating sanctions against Iraq, told me: "We would feed journalists factoids of sanitised intelligence, or we would freeze them out. That is how it worked."

    The West's medieval client, Saudi Arabia – to which the US and Britain sell billions of dollars' worth of arms – is at present destroying Yemen, a country so poor that in the best of times, half the children are malnourished.

    [Nov 01, 2016] Chris Hedges Its Our Bombs, Not Trumps Comments, that Fuel Hatred Towards the United States

    Notable quotes:
    "... HEDGES: Well what feeds the hatred toward the west has nothing to do with Donald Trump. It has to do with the one-thousand-pound iron fragmentation bombs and cruise missiles and 155 artillery shells that are being dropped all over areas that ISIS controls. ..."
    "... That is a far more potent engine of rage than anything Trump says and I think sometimes we forget what we' re doing and the state terror that is delivered day in and day out on Muslims in areas that have been opened up by these failed states because of our military adventurism in countries like Libya and Iraq. ..."
    "... : Chris the recently released WikiLeaks indicate that Hillary Clinton is involved in conspiring in maintaining Israels nuclear dominance in the region and containing Irans nuclear development program. ..."
    "... Yea, I mean shes quite upfront. I have to give her credit on that in terms of her militantly pro-Israel stance. She of course has courted quite successfully wealthy pro-Israeli donors attacking the Boycott Divestment Sanctions Movement. ..."
    "... So one of the dangers of Clinton and shes called for a no fly zone over Syria. Well, people forget that when you institute a no fly zone, that is patrolled and that requires very heavy presence of US forces. ..."
    therealnews.com
    ... ... .. ...

    HEDGES: Well what feeds the hatred toward the west has nothing to do with Donald Trump. It has to do with the one-thousand-pound iron fragmentation bombs and cruise missiles and 155 artillery shells that are being dropped all over areas that ISIS controls.

    That is a far more potent engine of rage than anything Trump says and I think sometimes we forget what we' re doing and the state terror that is delivered day in and day out on Muslims in areas that have been opened up by these failed states because of our military adventurism in countries like Libya and Iraq.

    PERIES: So connect those two for us. Give us some examples of how the war on terror in the Middle East, Syria in particular, is causing this kind of islamophobia here and our hesitancy about doing humanitarian work by accepting refugees that are fleeing these wars and how it manifests itself in the form of islamophobia here.

    HEDGES: Well, islamophobia here is a doctrine that plays quite conveniently into the goals of the corporate state in the same way that anti-communism once played into the goals of our capitalist democracy. So the caricature of threats from the Muslim world independent of the actual possibility of those threats has especially since 9/11, one of the corner stones of the argument that has been used by the security and surveillance state to strip us of basic civil liberties, including for instance, under the Obama administration, misinterpreting the 2001 authorization to use military force act as giving the executive branch to right to assassinate American citizens. Of course I'm talking about Anwar al-Awlaki and his 16-year-old son.

    So the rise of islamophobia has been largely independent of anything Muslims have done other than perhaps initially the attacks of 9/11. The continued over 15 years of indiscriminate violence, industrial violence, delivered on whole swaps of the Muslim world has stirred up the kind of hornet' s nest that we' re seeing enraged not only among Muslims in the Muslim world but Muslims in Europe and many other parts of the globe who despite Clinton' s rhetoric see this as a war against Muslims. I think that although she speaks in kind of a softer and more tolerate tone, Clinton has been one of the main architects of the attacks for instance in Libya that have given or empowered or given rise to groups like ISIS. While Clinton' s rhetoric is certainly more palatable, she has been an enthusiastic supporter that we are going to bomb our way into peace in the Muslim world.

    PERIES: Chris give us a sense of the climate created by what both candidates eluded to that Muslims in this country has to help us in terms of identifying potential terrorists and any kind of activities in the community that might feed terrorists attacks here. What does this do to a society?

    HEDGES: Well it turns us into a society of informers. I think we have to acknowledge how pervasive the harassment is of Muslim Americans when they go through the airport, intrusive invasions of their privacy by Homeland Security, the FBI, and others. We have to acknowledge that almost all of the homegrown terrorist attacks that the FBI have broken have been orchestrated by the FBI usually with people of marginal means and sometimes marginal intelligence being prodded and often provided supposed equipment to carry out terrorist attacks. The racial profiling that has gone on coupled with the rhetoric and this is very dangerous because if you take already an alienated youth and subject it to this kind of unrelenting harassment, then you provide a recipe for homegrown radicalism.

    So yes it' s once again an effort in this case on part of the Trump rhetoric to blame the Muslims for not only their own victimhood but for terrorist attacks that are being driven by jihadist whom the vast majority, 99 plus percent of the Muslim world has no contact with and probably very little empathy for, I mean there' s 4 to 5 million Muslims, I think I have that right, in the United States. Most of them have integrated quite successfully into American. Unlike in Britain because Muslim immigrants in the United States whereas in Europe, France, they came over as laborers, we largely absorbed Muslim professional classes, doctors, engineers, and others and the Muslim community in the United States is pretty solidly middle class and professional.

    ... ... ...

    PERIES: Chris the recently released WikiLeaks indicate that Hillary Clinton is involved in conspiring in maintaining Israels nuclear dominance in the region and containing Irans nuclear development program. Your comments on those WikiLeaks.

    HEDGES: Yea, I mean shes quite upfront. I have to give her credit on that in terms of her militantly pro-Israel stance. She of course has courted quite successfully wealthy pro-Israeli donors attacking the Boycott Divestment Sanctions Movement. And she has and will continue what are considered Israeli interests in the region which are not our interest. Israel pushed very heavily for an invasion of Iraq as a way to destroy a powerful state within the region. That did not serve our interests at all. In fact, it elevated to the dominant position within the region, Iran and out of these vacuums gave birth to these jihadist groups and got us embroiled in wars that we can never win.

    So one of the dangers of Clinton and shes called for a no fly zone over Syria. Well, people forget that when you institute a no fly zone, that is patrolled and that requires very heavy presence of US forces. Not just air forces but ground stations, radar stations, anti-aircraft missile batteries. Shes quite openly calling for a further escalation for American involvement in the Syrian quagmire which of course again we did so much to create by along with our allies, the Saudis and Qataris and others pumping so many arms in them. I think we gave a billion dollars worth of arms to Syrian rebels as if you can control where those arms go, just in the last year.

    [Oct 31, 2016] The Perilous Middle Ground That Clinton Represents

    Oct 31, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com
    notices the dubious "middle ground" rhetoric that is being used to justify Clinton's foreign policy in advance:

    All of this loses sight of how much the framing effects have skewed this entire discussion. Bush's signature use of military force and the defining initiative of his presidency-the invasion of Iraq-was an unusually extreme act as measured either by past U.S. foreign policy or standards of international conduct that the United States expects of others.

    One of the many flaws in the idea that the U.S. should seek a "middle ground" between Bush and Obama is that it treats their respective records as offering equally damaging and extreme alternatives. Of course, the cost to the U.S. from the two presidencies is drastically different. Bush's legacy was to launch wars that have cost trillions of dollars and thousands of American lives, while Obama's has been his failure to extricate the U.S. from them at a significant but much reduced cost. Obama has certainly made some very serious and even indefensible mistakes (supporting the war on Yemen being among the worst), but in terms of the damage done to U.S. interests the costs have been much lower.

    To believe that the U.S. needs to "moderate" between Bush's disasters and Obama's failures is to believe that the U.S. needs a foreign policy that will be even more costly in American lives and money than the one we have right now.

    That is not only not a "moderate" position to take, but it is also a highly ideological one that insists on the necessity of U.S. "leadership" no matter how much it costs us.

    The 'middle ground" that Clinton offers is no middle ground at all, but rather represents moving the U.S. in the direction of one of the worst foreign policy records in our history. Obama's great foreign policy failure was that he could not or would not move the U.S. away from the disastrous policies of the Bush era, and under Clinton there won't even be the pretense that the U.S. should try to do this.

    [Oct 31, 2016] IMO the whole flight crew of the U.S. aircraft along with their three back-end commanders need to be permanently removed from flying status.

    Oct 31, 2016 | turcopolier.typepad.com

    https://www.rt.com/news/364666-us-apologizes-syria-flyby/

    IMO the whole flight crew of the U.S. aircraft along with their three back-end commanders need to be permanently removed from flying status. And the aircraft's mission liaison at CENTCOM needs to be reamed as well.


    "By less than 500 meters"......cringe 30 October 2016 at 10:15 AM

    [Oct 31, 2016] Rummy was running around after towers were hit saying how can we tie this to Iraq .

    Oct 31, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org

    jdmckay | Oct 30, 2016 9:43:00 PM | 99

    Tobin Paz @ 90
    The Clinton administration was bombing Iraq three times a week during 1999 and 2000 at a cost of over $2 billion a year. Regardless of who the next president was going to be, I think you could make a strong case that they were going to war in Iraq.

    Yes ($2b p/yr bombing), and as the Counterpunch article states plenty of Gore quotes to "make strong case".

    My view: GWB admin "sold" Iraq to us not just because of WMD, but as response to declarations Sadaam was behind 9/11. Whole admin, Rice/Rummy/Cheney said this all the time, every where they could. Limbaugh, FOX... 24/7 saturation promoting this. I remember many "anonymous" quotes in Pentagon saying Rummy was running around after towers were hit saying "how can we tie this to Iraq".

    Wolfowitz was "architect" of Iraq "liberation"... he'd been promoting this back to early PNAC days. Wolfy was too "nuts" even for Bush Sr., got canned early on in his admin. Throw in Feith, Elliot Abrams and the rest, GWB was surrounded with ultra neo-con, hard line Likud'niks who really didn't give a rip about the US. Iraq was about Israel's "security", and those guys had been writing about it for years.

    None of them would have been in a Gore administration. And Gore's statements in CounterPunch, they do speak for themsleves. But I'm not sure he wasn't trying to just be a good soldier, let Junior have his way.

    Another thing: Blix had full access in Iraq. Outside of US, he was highly regarded. Here, the 24/7 neo-con media machine I mentioned above never let up on Blix. He was a "low life" "old Europe" bureaucrat... it was brutal. Really, really 'animal farm' brutal.

    Bush's UN "in your face" (either with us or against us) speech clearly designed to bully Security Counsel, Powell's "clear and convincing evidence" which was all bull shit & concocted by Cheney's office... none of this would have existed in Gore Whitehouse, and I'd put down a good bet Gore would have been very content to trust and allow Blix to finish his work. Gore just didn't have all these ulterior motives.

    One of the most memorable things in my mind of single minded purpose driving Wolfowitz/Feith etc. and the sickness behind it... I don't recall the timeline precisely, but I think not long after Junior announced "mission accomplished", among other things Bremmer had a big press brew-haa-haa introducing their "occupying authority" new flag for their "liberated" Iraq: it was almost a replica of Israel's flag. I don't have links, but maybe others recall this. It was a big, nuclear power backed fuck-you to Iraq and the middle east saying "hey, what do you think of that m****er f***ers!!!!".

    I can't imagine any of that from Gore. Bush was an entirely malleable, unaccomplished adolescent completely manipulated by the Likud neo-cons. Gore had clear ideas what he wanted to do (whatever one thinks about that) and didn't demonstrate any of Bush's reckless stupidity.

    So anyway, really academic exercise now, but Gore never demonstrated the kind of utter non-sensical, insanely radical (I'd say christian based psychopathic behavior & words) that came out of GWB's mouth and his entire admin. I can't imagine these crazies would have had any presence whatsoever in his administration. And Gore's dedication and "sweat equity" towards Climate change and renewables... whatever people think of that, sure as hell wasn't borne from being bought-and-paid-for by the fossil fuel industry. GWB's admin was, top to bottom. Plenty of evidence to suggest getting Iraq's oil fields was big part of their calculus to "liberate".

    So just academic at this point, but that's my own view FWIW.

    [Oct 30, 2016] After the attacks Americas new cold war

    Notable quotes:
    "... Now the threat is real; and for the foreseeable future we will have to live with and seek to reduce two closely interlinked dangers: the direct and potentially apocalyptic threat posed by terrorists, mainly (though by no means exclusively) based in the Muslim world, and the potential strengthening of those terrorists' resolve by misguided US actions. ..."
    "... The most unilateralist Administration in modern American history has been forced to recognise, in principle at least, the country's pressing need for allies ..."
    "... Apart from the fact that most European armies are useless when it comes to serious warfare, they are already showing great unwillingness to give the US a blank cheque for whatever military action the Bush Administration chooses to take. ..."
    "... A strong sense of righteousness has always been present in the American tradition; but until 11 September, an acute sense of victimhood and persecution by the outside world was usually the preserve of the paranoid Right. ..."
    Sep 28, 2001 | guardian.co.uk

    "Who says we share common values with the Europeans? They don't even go to church!" Will the atrocities of September 11 push America further to the right or open a new debate on foreign policy and the need for alliances? In this exclusive online essay from the London Review of Books, Anatol Lieven considers how the cold war legacy may affect the war on terrorism

    Not long after the Bush Administration took power in January, I was invited to lunch at a glamorous restaurant in New York by a group of editors and writers from an influential American right-wing broadsheet. The food and wine were extremely expensive, the decor luxurious but discreet, the clientele beautifully dressed, and much of the conversation more than mildly insane. With regard to the greater part of the world outside America, my hosts' attitude was a combination of loathing, contempt, distrust and fear: not only towards Arabs, Russians, Chinese, French and others, but towards 'European socialist governments', whatever that was supposed to mean. This went with a strong desire - in theory at least - to take military action against a broad range of countries across the world.

    Two things were particularly striking here: a tendency to divide the world into friends and enemies, and a difficulty verging on autism when it came to international opinions that didn't coincide with their own - a combination more appropriate to the inhabitants of an ethnic slum in the Balkans than to people who were, at that point, on top of the world.

    Today Americans of all classes and opinions have reason to worry, and someone real to fear and hate, while prolonged US military action overseas is thought to be inevitable. The building where we had lunch is now rubble. Several of our fellow diners probably died last week, along with more than six thousand other New Yorkers from every walk of life. Not only has the terrorist attack claimed far more victims than any previous such attack anywhere in the world, but it has delivered a far more damaging economic blow. Equally important, it has destroyed Americans' belief in their country's invulnerability, on which so many other American attitudes and policies finally rested.

    This shattering blow was delivered by a handful of anonymous agents hidden in the wider population, working as part of a tightly-knit secret international conspiracy inspired by a fanatical and (to the West) deeply 'alien' and 'exotic' religious ideology. Its members are ruthless; they have remarkable organisational skills, a tremendous capacity for self-sacrifice and self-discipline, and a deep hatred of the United States and the Western way of life. As Richard Hofstader and others have argued, for more than two hundred years this kind of combination has always acted as a prompt for paranoid and reactionary conspiracy theories, most of them groundless.

    Now the threat is real; and for the foreseeable future we will have to live with and seek to reduce two closely interlinked dangers: the direct and potentially apocalyptic threat posed by terrorists, mainly (though by no means exclusively) based in the Muslim world, and the potential strengthening of those terrorists' resolve by misguided US actions.

    The latter danger has been greatly increased by the attacks. The terrorists have raised to white heat certain smouldering tendencies among the American Right, while simultaneously - as is usually the case at the start of wars - pushing American politics and most of its population in a sharply rightward direction; all of which has taken place under an unexpectedly right-wing Administration. If this leads to a crude military response, then the terrorists will have achieved part of their purpose, which was to provoke the other side to indiscriminate retaliation, and thereby increase their own support.

    It is too early to say for sure how US strategies and attitudes will develop. At the time of writing Afghanistan is the focus, but whatever happens there, it isn't clear whether the US Administration will go on to launch a more general campaign of military pressure against other states which have supported terrorist groups, and if so, what states and what kind of military pressure? US policy is already pulled in two predictable but contradictory directions, amply illustrated in the op-ed pages of US newspapers and in debates within the Government.

    The most unilateralist Administration in modern American history has been forced to recognise, in principle at least, the country's pressing need for allies. There are the beginnings, too, of a real public debate on how US policy needs to be changed and shaped to fight the new 'war'. All this is reminiscent of US attitudes and behaviour at the start of the Cold War, when Communism was identified as the central menace to the US and to Western capitalism and democracy in general.

    On the other hand, the public desire for revenge has strengthened certain attitudes - especially in the Republican Party and media, as well as parts of the Administration - which, if they prevail, will not only be dangerous in themselves, but will make the search for real allies difficult. And real allies are essential, above all in the Arab and Muslim worlds. In the longer run, only the full co-operation of Arab regimes - along with reform and economic development - can prevent the recruitment, funding and operations of Arab-based terrorist groups.

    As for Europe, British military support may be unconditional, but most European countries - Russia among them - are likely to restrict their help to intelligence and policing. Apart from the fact that most European armies are useless when it comes to serious warfare, they are already showing great unwillingness to give the US a blank cheque for whatever military action the Bush Administration chooses to take.

    Yet a blank cheque is precisely what the Administration, and the greater part of US public opinion, are asking for. This is Jim Hoagland, veteran establishment foreign correspondent and commentator, in the generally liberal Washington Post:

    "Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and many of the other Arab states Powell hopes to recruit for the bin Laden posse have long been part of the problem, not part of the solution to international terrorism. These states cannot be given free passes for going through the motions of helping the United States. And European allies cannot be allowed to order an appetiser of bin Laden and not share in the costs of the rest of a meal cooked in hell."

    If this is the Post, then the sentiments in the right-wing press and the tabloids can well be imagined. Here is Tod Lindberg, the editor of Policy Review, writing in the Washington Times:

    "The United States is now energetically in the business of making governments pick a side: either with us and against the terrorists, or against us and with them... Against the category of enemy stands the category of 'friend'. Friends stand with us. Friends do whatever they can to help. Friends don't, for example, engage in commerce with enemies, otherwise they aren't friends."

    A strong sense of righteousness has always been present in the American tradition; but until 11 September, an acute sense of victimhood and persecution by the outside world was usually the preserve of the paranoid Right. Now it has spread and, for the moment at least, some rather important ideas have almost vanished from the public debate: among them, that other states have their own national interests, and that in the end nothing compels them to help the US; that they, too, have been the victims of terrorism - in the case of Britain, largely funded from groups in the United States - but have not insisted on a right of unilateral military retaliation (this point was made by Niall Ferguson in the New York Times, but not as yet in any op-ed by an American that I have seen); and that in some cases these states may actually know more about their own part of the world than US intelligence does.

    Beyond the immediate and unforeseeable events in Afghanistan - and their sombre implications for Pakistan - lies the bigger question of US policy in the Arab world. Here, too, Administration policy may well be a good deal more cautious than the opinions of the right-wing media would suggest - which again is fortunate, because much opinion on this subject is more than rabid. Here is AM Rosenthal in the Washington Times arguing that an amazing range of states should be given ultimatums to surrender not only alleged terrorists but also their own senior officials accused by the US of complicity:

    "The ultimatum should go to the governments of Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria, Sudan and any other devoted to the elimination of the United States or the constant incitement of hatred against it... In the three days the terrorists consider the American ultimatum, the residents of the countries would be urged 24 hours a day by the United States to flee the capital and major cities, because they would be bombed to the ground beginning the fourth."

    Rosenthal isn't a figure from the lunatic fringe ranting on a backwoods radio show, but the former executive editor of the New York Times, writing in a paper with great influence in the Republican Party, especially under the present Administration.

    No Administration is going to do anything remotely like this. But if the Secretary of State, Colin Powell, has emerged as the voice of moderation, with a proper commitment to multilateralism, other voices are audible, too. Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defence, has spoken of "ending states which support terrorism", and in the case of Iraq, there are those who would now like to complete the work of the Gulf War and finish off Saddam Hussein.

    Here, too, the mood of contempt for allies contributes to the ambition. Thus Kim Holmes, vice-president of the right-wing Heritage Foundation, argued that only deference to America's Arab allies prevented the US from destroying the Iraqi regime in 1991 (the profound unwillingness of Bush Senior to occupy Iraq and take responsibility for the place also played its part in the decision): "To show that this war is not with Islam per se, the US could be tempted to restrain itself militarily and accommodate the complex and contradictory political agendas of Islamic states. This in turn could make the campaign ineffectual, prolonging the problem of terrorism."

    Getting rid of Saddam Hussein is not in itself a bad idea. His is a pernicious regime, a menace to his own people and his neighbours, as well as to the West. And if the Iraqi threat to the Gulf States could be eliminated, US troops might be withdrawn from Saudi Arabia: it was their permanent stationing on the holy soil of Islam that turned Osama bin Laden from an anti-Soviet mujahid into an anti-American terrorist.

    But only if it were to take place in the context of an entirely new policy towards Palestine would the US be able to mount such a campaign without provoking massive unrest across the Arab world; and given what became of promises made during the Gulf War, there would first of all have to be firm evidence of a US change of heart. The only borders between Israel and Palestine which would have any chance of satisfying a majority of Palestinians and Arabs - and conforming to UN resolutions, for what they are worth - would be those of 1967, possibly qualified by an internationalisation of Jerusalem under UN control. This would entail the removal of the existing Jewish settlements in the Occupied Territories, and would be absolutely unacceptable to any imaginable Israeli Government. To win Israeli agreement would require not just US pressure, but the threat of a complete breach of relations and the ending of aid.

    There may be those in the Administration who would favour adopting such an approach at a later stage. Bush Sr's was the most anti-Israeli Administration of the past two generations, and was disliked accordingly by the Jewish and other ethnic lobbies. His son's is less beholden to those lobbies than Clinton's was. And it may be that even pro-Israeli US politicians will at some point realise that Israel's survival as such is not an issue: that it is absurd to increase the risk to Washington and New York for the sake of 267 extremist settlers in Hebron and their comrades elsewhere.

    Still, in the short term, a radical shift is unlikely, and an offensive against Iraq would therefore be dangerous. The attacks on New York and the Pentagon and the celebrations in parts of the Arab world have increased popular hostility to the Arabs in general and the Palestinians in particular, a hostility assiduously stoked by Israeli propaganda. But when it comes to denouncing hate crimes against Muslims - or those taken to be Muslims - within the US, the Administration has behaved decently, perhaps because they have a rather sobering precedent in mind, one which has led to genuine shame: the treatment of Japanese Americans during world war two.

    This shame is the result of an applied historical intelligence that does not extend to the Arab world. Americans tend - and perhaps need - to confuse the symptoms and the causes of Arab anger. Since a key pro-Israel position in the US has been that fundamental Palestinian and Arab grievances must not be allowed legitimacy or even discussed, the only explanation of Arab hostility to the US and its ally must be sought in innate features of Arab society, whether a contemporary culture of anti-semitism (and anti-Americanism) sanctioned by Arab leaderships, or ancient 'Muslim' traditions of hostility to the West.

    All of which may contain some truth: but the central issue, the role of Israeli policies in providing a focus for such hatred, is overwhelmingly ignored. As a result, it is extremely difficult, and mostly impossible, to hold any frank discussion of the most important issue affecting the position of the US in the Middle East or the open sympathy for terrorism in the region. A passionately held nationalism usually has the effect of corrupting or silencing those liberal intellectuals who espouse it. This is the case of Israeli nationalism in the US. It is especially distressing that it should afflict the Jewish liberal intelligentsia, that old bedrock of sanity and tolerance.

    An Administration which wanted a radical change of policy towards Israel would have to generate a new public debate almost from scratch - which would not be possible until some kind of tectonic shift had taken place in American society. Too many outside observers who blame US Administrations forget that on a wide range of issues, it is essentially Congress and not the White House or State Department which determines foreign policy; this is above all true of US aid. An inability or unwillingness to try to work on Congress, as opposed to going through normal diplomatic channels, has been a minor contributory factor to Britain's inability to get any purchase on US policy in recent years.

    The role of Congress brings out what might be called the Wilhelmine aspects of US foreign and security policy. By that I do not mean extreme militarism or a love of silly hats, or even a shared tendency to autism when it comes to understanding the perceptions of other countries, but rather certain structural features in both the Wilhemine and the US system tending to produce over-ambition, and above all a chronic incapacity to choose between diametrically opposite goals. Like Wilhelmine Germany, the US has a legislature with very limited constitutional powers in the field of foreign policy, even though it wields considerable de facto power and is not linked either institutionally or by party discipline to the executive. The resulting lack of any responsibility for actual consequences is a standing invitation to rhetorical grandstanding, and the pursuit of sectional interests at the expense of overall policy.

    Meanwhile, the executive, while in theory supremely powerful in this field, has in fact continually to woo the legislature without ever being able to command its support. This, too, encourages dependence on interest groups, as well as a tendency to overcome differences and gain support by making appeals in terms of overheated patriotism rather than policy. Finally, in both systems, though for completely different reasons, supreme executive power had or has a tendency to fall into the hands of people totally unsuited for any but the ceremonial aspects of the job, and endlessly open to manipulation by advisers, ministers and cliques.

    In the US, this did not matter so much during the Cold War, when a range of Communist threats - real, imagined or fabricated - held the system together in the pursuit of more or less common aims. With the disappearance of the unifying threat, however, there has been a tendency, again very Wilhelmine, to produce ambitious and aggressive policies in several directions simultaneously, often with little reference at all to real US interests or any kind of principle.

    The new 'war against terrorism' in Administration and Congressional rhetoric has been cast as just such a principle, unifying the country and the political establishment behind a common goal and affecting or determining a great range of other policies. The language has been reminiscent of the global struggle against Communism, and confronting Islamist radicalism in the Muslim world does, it's true, pose some of the same challenges, on a less global scale, though possibly with even greater dangers for the world.

    The likelihood that US strategy in the 'war against terrorism' will resemble that of the Cold War is greatly increased by the way Cold War structures and attitudes have continued to dominate the US foreign policy and security elites. Charles Tilly and others have written of the difficulty states have in 'ratcheting down' wartime institutions and especially wartime spending. In the 1990s, this failure on the part of the US to escape its Cold War legacy was a curse, ensuring unnecessarily high military spending in the wrong fields, thoroughly negative attitudes to Russia, 'zero-sum' perceptions of international security issues in general, and perceptions of danger which wholly failed, as we now see, to meet the real threats to security and lives.

    The idea of a National Missile Defense is predicated on a limited revival of the Cold War, with China cast in the role of the Soviet Union and the Chinese nuclear deterrent as the force to be nullified. Bush's foreign and security team is almost entirely a product of Cold War structures and circumscribed by Cold War attitudes (which is not true of the President himself, who was never interested enough in foreign policy; if he can get his mind round the rest of the world, he could well be more of a free-thinker than many of his staff).

    The collapse of the Communist alternative to Western-dominated modernisation and the integration (however imperfect) of Russia and China into the world capitalist order have been a morally and socially ambiguous process, to put it mildly; but in the early 1990s they seemed to promise the suspension of hostility between the world's larger powers. The failure of the US to make use of this opportunity, thanks to an utter confusion between an ideological victory and crudely-defined US geopolitical interests, was a great misfortune which the 'war against terrorism' could in part rectify. Since 11 September, the rhetoric in America has proposed a gulf between the 'civilised' states of the present world system, and movements of 'barbaric', violent protest from outside and below - without much deference to the ambiguities of 'civilisation', or the justifications of resistance to it, remarked on since Tacitus at least.

    How is the Cold War legacy likely to determine the 'war against terrorism'? Despite the general conviction in the Republican Party that it was simply Reagan's military spending and the superiority of the US system which destroyed Soviet Communism, more serious Cold War analysts were always aware that it involved not just military force, or the threat of it, but ideological and political struggle, socio-economic measures, and state-building. The latter in particular is an idea for which the Bush team on their arrival in office had a deep dislike (if only to distance themselves from Clinton's policies), but which they may now rediscover. Foreign aid - so shamefully reduced in the 1990s - was also a key part of the Cold War, and if much of it was poured into kleptocratic regimes like Mobutu's, or wasted on misguided projects, some at least helped produce flourishing economies in Europe and East Asia.

    The Republican Party is not only the party of Goldwater and Reagan, but of Eisenhower, Nixon and Kissinger. Eisenhower is now almost forgotten by the party. 'Eisenhower Republicans', as they refer to themselves, are usually far closer to Tony Blair (or perhaps more accurately, Helmut Schmidt) than anyone the Republican Party has seen in recent years, and I'd wager that the majority of educated Americans have forgotten that the original warning about the influence of the 'military industrial complex' came from Eisenhower.

    Kissinger is still very much alive, however, and his history is a reminder that one aspect of the American capacity for extreme ruthlessness was also a capacity for radical changes of policy, for reconciliation with states hitherto regarded as bitter enemies, and for cold-blooded abandonment of close allies and clients whose usefulness was at an end. It would not altogether surprise me if we were now to see a radical shift towards real co-operation with Russia, and even Iran.

    In general, however, the Cold War legacies and parallels are discouraging and dangerous. To judge by the language used in the days since 11 September, ignorance, demonisation and the drowning out of nuanced debate indicate that much of the US establishment can no more tell the difference between Iran and Afghanistan than they could between China and the Soviet Union in the early 1960s - the inexcusable error which led to the American war in Vietnam. The preference for militarised solutions continues (the 'War on Drugs', which will now have to be scaled back, is an example). Most worryingly, the direct attack on American soil and American civilians - far worse than anything done to the US in the Cold War - means that there is a real danger of a return to Cold War ruthlessness: not just in terms of military tactics and covert operations, but in terms of the repulsive and endangered regimes co-opted as local American clients.

    The stakes are, if anything, a good deal higher than they were during the Cold War. Given what we now know of Soviet policymaking, it is by no means clear that the Kremlin ever seriously contemplated a nuclear strike against America. By contrast, it seems likely that bin Laden et al would in the end use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons if they could deliver them.

    There is also the question of the impact of US strategies (or, in the case of Israel, lack of them) on the unity of the West - assuming that this is of some importance for the wellbeing of humanity. However great the exasperation of many European states with US policy throughout the Cold War, the Europeans were bound into the transatlantic alliance by an obvious Soviet threat - more immediate to them than it was to the US. For the critical first decade of the Cold War, the economies of Europe were hopelessly inferior to that of the US. Today, if European Governments feel that the US is dragging them into unnecessary danger thanks to policies of which they disapprove, they will protest bitterly - as many did during the Cold War - and then begin to distance themselves, which they could not afford to do fifty years ago.

    This is all the more likely if, as seems overwhelmingly probable, the US withdraws from the Balkans - as it has already done in Macedonia - leaving Europeans with no good reason to require a US military presence on their continent. At the same time, the cultural gap between Europeans and Republican America (which does not mean a majority of Americans, but the dominant strain of policy) will continue to widen. 'Who says we share common values with the Europeans?' a senior US politician remarked recently. 'They don't even go to church!' Among other harmful effects, the destruction of this relationship could signal the collapse of whatever hope still exists for a common Western approach to global environmental issues - which would, in the end, pose a greater danger to humanity than that of terrorism.

    · Anatol Lieven is a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington DC.

    [Oct 30, 2016] Anatol Lieven reviews 'The New American Militarism' by Andrew Bacevich

    Amazingly insightful review !!!
    Notable quotes:
    "... A key justification of the Bush administration's purported strategy of 'democratising' the Middle East is the argument that democracies are pacific, and that Muslim democracies will therefore eventually settle down peacefully under the benign hegemony of the US. ..."
    "... The president's title of 'commander-in-chief' is used by administration propagandists to suggest, in a way reminiscent of German militarists before 1914 attempting to defend their half-witted Kaiser, that any criticism of his record in external affairs comes close to a betrayal of the military and the country. ..."
    "... The new American militarism is the handiwork of several disparate groups that shared little in common apart from being intent on undoing the purportedly nefarious effects of the 1960s. Military officers intent on rehabilitating their profession; intellectuals fearing that the loss of confidence at home was paving the way for the triumph of totalitarianism abroad; religious leaders dismayed by the collapse of traditional moral standards; strategists wrestling with the implications of a humiliating defeat that had undermined their credibility; politicians on the make; purveyors of pop culture looking to make a buck: as early as 1980, each saw military power as the apparent answer to any number of problems. ..."
    "... Two other factors have also been critical: the dependence on imported oil is seen as requiring American hegemony over the Middle East; and the Israel lobby has worked assiduously and with extraordinary success to make sure that Israel's enemies are seen by Americans as also being those of the US. ..."
    "... And let's not forget the role played by the entrenched interests of the military itself and what Dwight Eisenhower once denounced as the 'military-industrial-academic complex'. ..."
    "... The security elites are obviously interested in the maintenance and expansion of US global military power, if only because their own jobs and profits depend on it. ..."
    "... To achieve wider support in the media and among the public, it is also necessary to keep up the illusion that certain foreign nations constitute a threat to the US, and to maintain a permanent level of international tension. ..."
    "... They would include the element of messianism embodied in American civic nationalism, with its quasi-religious belief in the universal and timeless validity of its own democratic system, and in its right and duty to spread that system to the rest of the world. ..."
    "... Wall Street Journal ..."
    "... Important sections of contemporary US popular culture are suffused with the language of militarism. ..."
    "... Red Storm Rising ..."
    "... Indeed, a portrait of US militarism today could be built around a set of such apparently glaring contradictions: the contradiction, for example, between the military coercion of other nations and the belief in the spreading of 'freedom' and 'democracy'. Among most non-Americans, and among many American realists and progressives, the collocation seems inherently ludicrous. But, as Bacevich brings out, it has deep roots in American history. Indeed, the combination is historically coterminous with Western imperialism. Historians of the future will perhaps see preaching 'freedom' at the point of an American rifle as no less morally and intellectually absurd than 'voluntary' conversion to Christianity at the point of a Spanish arquebus. ..."
    "... Today, having dissolved any connection between claims to citizenship and obligation to serve, Americans entrust their security to a class of military professionals who see themselves in many respects as culturally and politically set apart from the rest of society. ..."
    "... British power was far from unlimited. The British Empire could use its technological superiority, small numbers of professional troops and local auxiliaries to conquer backward and impoverished countries in Asia and Africa, but it would not have dreamed of intervening unilaterally in Europe or North America. ..."
    "... As Iraq – and to a lesser extent Afghanistan – has demonstrated, the US can knock over states, but it cannot suppress the resulting insurgencies, even one based in such a comparatively small population as the Sunni Arabs of Iraq. ..."
    "... Recognizing this, the army is beginning to imitate ancient Rome in offering citizenship to foreign mercenaries in return for military service – something that the amazing Boot approves, on the grounds that while it helped destroy the Roman Empire, it took four hundred years to do so. ..."
    "... The fact that the Democrats completely failed to do this says a great deal about their lack of political will, leadership and capacity to employ a focused strategy. ..."
    Oct 20, 2005 | LRB

    The New American Militarism: How Americans Are Seduced by War by Andrew Bacevich
    Oxford, 270 pp, £16.99, August 2005, ISBN 0 19 517338 4

    A key justification of the Bush administration's purported strategy of 'democratising' the Middle East is the argument that democracies are pacific, and that Muslim democracies will therefore eventually settle down peacefully under the benign hegemony of the US. Yet, as Andrew Bacevich points out in one of the most acute analyses of America to have appeared in recent years, the United States itself is in many ways a militaristic country, and becoming more so:

    at the end of the Cold War, Americans said yes to military power. The skepticism about arms and armies that informed the original Wilsonian vision, indeed, that pervaded the American experiment from its founding, vanished. Political leaders, liberals and conservatives alike, became enamoured with military might.

    The ensuing affair had, and continues to have, a heedless, Gatsby-like aspect, a passion pursued in utter disregard of any consequences that might ensue.

    The president's title of 'commander-in-chief' is used by administration propagandists to suggest, in a way reminiscent of German militarists before 1914 attempting to defend their half-witted Kaiser, that any criticism of his record in external affairs comes close to a betrayal of the military and the country. Compared to German and other past militarisms, however, the contemporary American variant is extremely complex, and the forces that have generated it have very diverse origins and widely differing motives:

    The new American militarism is the handiwork of several disparate groups that shared little in common apart from being intent on undoing the purportedly nefarious effects of the 1960s. Military officers intent on rehabilitating their profession; intellectuals fearing that the loss of confidence at home was paving the way for the triumph of totalitarianism abroad; religious leaders dismayed by the collapse of traditional moral standards; strategists wrestling with the implications of a humiliating defeat that had undermined their credibility; politicians on the make; purveyors of pop culture looking to make a buck: as early as 1980, each saw military power as the apparent answer to any number of problems.

    Two other factors have also been critical: the dependence on imported oil is seen as requiring American hegemony over the Middle East; and the Israel lobby has worked assiduously and with extraordinary success to make sure that Israel's enemies are seen by Americans as also being those of the US.

    And let's not forget the role played by the entrenched interests of the military itself and what Dwight Eisenhower once denounced as the 'military-industrial-academic complex'.

    The security elites are obviously interested in the maintenance and expansion of US global military power, if only because their own jobs and profits depend on it. Jobs and patronage also ensure the support of much of the Congress, which often authorizes defense spending on weapons systems the Pentagon doesn't want and hasn't asked for, in order to help some group of senators and congressmen in whose home states these systems are manufactured. To achieve wider support in the media and among the public, it is also necessary to keep up the illusion that certain foreign nations constitute a threat to the US, and to maintain a permanent level of international tension.

    That's not the same, however, as having an actual desire for war, least of all for a major conflict which might ruin the international economy. US ground forces have bitter memories of Vietnam, and no wish to wage an aggressive war: Rumsfeld and his political appointees had to override the objections of the senior generals, in particular those of the army chief of staff, General Eric Shinseki, before the attack on Iraq. The navy and air force do not have to fight insurgents in hell-holes like Fallujah, and so naturally have a more relaxed attitude.

    To understand how the Bush administration was able to manipulate the public into supporting the Iraq war one has to look for deeper explanations. They would include the element of messianism embodied in American civic nationalism, with its quasi-religious belief in the universal and timeless validity of its own democratic system, and in its right and duty to spread that system to the rest of the world. This leads to a genuine belief that American soldiers can do no real wrong because they are spreading 'freedom'. Also of great importance – at least until the Iraqi insurgency rubbed American noses in the horrors of war – has been the development of an aesthetic that sees war as waged by the US as technological, clean and antiseptic; and thanks to its supremacy in weaponry, painlessly victorious. Victory over the Iraqi army in 2003 led to a new flowering of megalomania in militarist quarters. The amazing Max Boot of the Wall Street Journal – an armchair commentator, not a frontline journalist – declared that the US victory had made 'fabled generals such as Erwin Rommel and Heinz Guderian seem positively incompetent by comparison'. Nor was this kind of talk restricted to Republicans. More than two years into the Iraq quagmire, strategic thinkers from the Democratic establishment were still declaring that 'American military power in today's world is practically unlimited.'

    Important sections of contemporary US popular culture are suffused with the language of militarism. Take Bacevich on the popular novelist Tom Clancy:

    In any Clancy novel, the international order is a dangerous and threatening place, awash with heavily armed and implacably determined enemies who threaten the United States. That Americans have managed to avoid Armageddon is attributable to a single fact: the men and women of America's uniformed military and its intelligence services have thus far managed to avert those threats. The typical Clancy novel is an unabashed tribute to the skill, honor, extraordinary technological aptitude and sheer decency of the nation's defenders. To read Red Storm Rising is to enter a world of 'virtuous men and perfect weapons', as one reviewer noted. 'All the Americans are paragons of courage, endurance and devotion to service and country. Their officers are uniformly competent and occasionally inspired. Men of all ranks are faithful husbands and devoted fathers.' Indeed, in the contract that he signed for the filming of Red October, Clancy stipulated that nothing in the film show the navy in a bad light.

    Such attitudes go beyond simply glorying in violence, military might and technological prowess. They reflect a belief – genuine or assumed – in what the Germans used to call Soldatentum: the pre-eminent value of the military virtues of courage, discipline and sacrifice, and explicitly or implicitly the superiority of these virtues to those of a hedonistic, contemptible and untrustworthy civilian society and political class. In the words of Thomas Friedman, the ostensibly liberal foreign affairs commentator of the ostensibly liberal New York Times, 'we do not deserve these people. They are so much better than the country they are fighting for.' Such sentiments have a sinister pedigree in modern history.

    In the run-up to the last election, even a general as undistinguished as Wesley Clark could see his past generalship alone as qualifying him for the presidency – and gain the support of leading liberal intellectuals. Not that this was new: the first president was a general and throughout the 19th and 20th centuries both generals and more junior officers ran for the presidency on the strength of their military records. And yet, as Bacevich points out, this does not mean that the uniformed military have real power over policy-making, even in matters of war. General Tommy Franks may have regarded Douglas Feith, the undersecretary of defense, as 'the stupidest fucking guy on the planet', but he took Feith's orders, and those of the civilians standing behind him: Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the president himself. Their combination of militarism and contempt for military advice recalls Clemenceau and Churchill – or Hitler and Stalin.

    Indeed, a portrait of US militarism today could be built around a set of such apparently glaring contradictions: the contradiction, for example, between the military coercion of other nations and the belief in the spreading of 'freedom' and 'democracy'. Among most non-Americans, and among many American realists and progressives, the collocation seems inherently ludicrous. But, as Bacevich brings out, it has deep roots in American history. Indeed, the combination is historically coterminous with Western imperialism. Historians of the future will perhaps see preaching 'freedom' at the point of an American rifle as no less morally and intellectually absurd than 'voluntary' conversion to Christianity at the point of a Spanish arquebus.

    Its symbols may be often childish and its methods brutish, but American belief in 'freedom' is a real and living force. This cuts two ways. On the one hand, the adherence of many leading intellectuals in the Democratic Party to a belief in muscular democratization has had a disastrous effect on the party's ability to put up a strong resistance to the policies of the administration. Bush's messianic language of 'freedom' – supported by the specifically Israeli agenda of Natan Sharansky and his allies in the US – has been all too successful in winning over much of the opposition. On the other hand, the fact that a belief in freedom and democracy lies at the heart of civic nationalism places certain limits on American imperialism – weak no doubt, but nonetheless real. It is not possible for the US, unlike previous empires, to pursue a strategy of absolutely unconstrained Machtpolitik. This has been demonstrated recently in the breach between the Bush administration and the Karimov tyranny in Uzbekistan.

    The most important contradiction, however, is between the near worship of the military in much of American culture and the equally widespread unwillingness of most Americans – elites and masses alike – to serve in the armed forces. If people like Friedman accompanied their stated admiration for the military with a real desire to abandon their contemptible civilian lives and join the armed services, then American power in the world really might be practically unlimited. But as Bacevich notes,

    having thus made plain his personal disdain for crass vulgarity and support for moral rectitude, Friedman in the course of a single paragraph drops the military and moves on to other pursuits. His many readers, meanwhile, having availed themselves of the opportunity to indulge, ever so briefly, in self-loathing, put down their newspapers and themselves move on to other things. Nothing has changed, but columnist and readers alike feel better for the cathartic effect of this oblique, reassuring encounter with an alien world.

    Today, having dissolved any connection between claims to citizenship and obligation to serve, Americans entrust their security to a class of military professionals who see themselves in many respects as culturally and politically set apart from the rest of society.

    This combination of a theoretical adulation with a profound desire not to serve is not of course new. It characterized most of British society in the 19th century, when, just as with the US today, the overwhelming rejection of conscription – until 1916 – meant that, appearances to the contrary, British power was far from unlimited. The British Empire could use its technological superiority, small numbers of professional troops and local auxiliaries to conquer backward and impoverished countries in Asia and Africa, but it would not have dreamed of intervening unilaterally in Europe or North America.

    Despite spending more on the military than the rest of the world combined, and despite enjoying overwhelming technological superiority, American military power is actually quite limited. As Iraq – and to a lesser extent Afghanistan – has demonstrated, the US can knock over states, but it cannot suppress the resulting insurgencies, even one based in such a comparatively small population as the Sunni Arabs of Iraq. As for invading and occupying a country the size of Iran, this is coming to seem as unlikely as an invasion of mainland China.

    In other words, when it comes to actually applying military power the US is pretty much where it has been for several decades. Another war of occupation like Iraq would necessitate the restoration of conscription: an idea which, with Vietnam in mind, the military detests, and which politicians are well aware would probably make them unelectable. It is just possible that another terrorist attack on the scale of 9/11 might lead to a new draft, but that would bring the end of the US military empire several steps closer. Recognizing this, the army is beginning to imitate ancient Rome in offering citizenship to foreign mercenaries in return for military service – something that the amazing Boot approves, on the grounds that while it helped destroy the Roman Empire, it took four hundred years to do so.

    Facing these dangers squarely, Bacevich proposes refocusing American strategy away from empire and towards genuine national security. It is a measure of the degree to which imperial thinking now dominates US politics that these moderate and commonsensical proposals would seem nothing short of revolutionary to the average member of the Washington establishment.

    They include a renunciation of messianic dreams of improving the world through military force, except where a solid international consensus exists in support of US action; a recovery by Congress of its power over peace and war, as laid down in the constitution but shamefully surrendered in recent years; the adoption of a strategic doctrine explicitly making war a matter of last resort; and a decision that the military should focus on the defense of the nation, not the projection of US power. As a means of keeping military expenditure in some relationship to actual needs, Bacevich suggests pegging it to the combined annual expenditure of the next ten countries, just as in the 19th century the size of the British navy was pegged to that of the next two largest fleets – it is an index of the budgetary elephantiasis of recent years that this would lead to very considerable spending reductions.

    This book is important not only for the acuteness of its perceptions, but also for the identity of its author. Colonel Bacevich's views on the military, on US strategy and on world affairs were profoundly shaped by his service in Vietnam. His year there 'fell in the conflict's bleak latter stages long after an odor of failure had begun to envelop the entire enterprise'. The book is dedicated to his brother-in-law, 'a casualty of a misbegotten war'.

    Just as Vietnam shaped his view of how the US and the US military should not intervene in the outside world, so the Cold War in Europe helped define his beliefs about the proper role of the military. For Bacevich and his fellow officers in Europe in the 1970s and 1980s, defending the West from possible Soviet aggression, 'not conquest, regime change, preventive war or imperial policing', was 'the American soldier's true and honorable calling'.

    In terms of cultural and political background, this former soldier remains a self-described Catholic conservative, and intensely patriotic. During the 1990s Bacevich wrote for right-wing journals, and still situates himself culturally on the right:

    As long as we shared in the common cause of denouncing the foolishness and hypocrisies of the Clinton years, my relationship with modern American conservatism remained a mutually agreeable one But my disenchantment with what passes for mainstream conservatism, embodied in the Bush administration and its groupies, is just about absolute. Fiscal irresponsibility, a buccaneering foreign policy, a disregard for the constitution, the barest lip service as a response to profound moral controversies: these do not qualify as authentically conservative values.

    On this score my views have come to coincide with the critique long offered by the radical left: it is the mainstream itself, the professional liberals as well as the professional conservatives, who define the problem The Republican and Democratic Parties may not be identical, but they produce nearly identical results.

    Bacevich, in other words, is skeptical of the naive belief that replacing the present administration with a Democrat one would lead to serious changes in the US approach to the world. Formal party allegiances are becoming increasingly irrelevant as far as thinking about foreign and security policy is concerned.

    Bacevich also makes plain the private anger of much of the US uniformed military at the way in which it has been sacrificed, and its institutions damaged, by chickenhawk civilian chauvinists who have taken good care never to see action themselves; and the deep private concern of senior officers that they might be ordered into further wars that would wreck the army altogether. Now, as never before, American progressives have the chance to overcome the knee-jerk hostility to the uniformed military that has characterized the left since Vietnam, and to reach out not only to the soldiers in uniform but also to the social, cultural and regional worlds from which they are drawn. For if the American left is once again to become an effective political force, it must return to some of its own military traditions, founded on the distinguished service of men like George McGovern, on the old idea of the citizen soldier, and on a real identification with that soldier's interests and values. With this in mind, Bacevich calls for moves to bind the military more closely into American society, including compulsory education for all officers at a civilian university, not only at the start of their careers but at intervals throughout them.

    Or to put it another way, the left must fight imperialism in the name of patriotism. Barring a revolutionary and highly unlikely transformation of American mass culture, any political party that wishes to win majority support will have to demonstrate its commitment to the defense of the country. The Bush administration has used the accusation of weakness in security policy to undermine its opponents, and then used this advantage to pursue reckless strategies that have themselves drastically weakened the US. The left needs to heed Bacevich and draw up a tough, realistic and convincing alternative. It will also have to demonstrate its identification with the respectable aspects of military culture. The Bush administration and the US establishment in general may have grossly mismanaged the threats facing us, but the threats are real, and some at least may well need at some stage to be addressed by military force. And any effective military force also requires the backing of a distinctive military ethic embracing loyalty, discipline and a capacity for both sacrifice and ruthlessness.

    In the terrible story of the Bush administration and the Iraq war, one of the most morally disgusting moments took place at a Senate Committee hearing on 29 April 2004, when Paul Wolfowitz – another warmonger who has never served himself – mistook, by a margin of hundreds, how many US soldiers had died in a war for which he was largely responsible. If an official in a Democratic administration had made a public mistake like that, the Republican opposition would have exploited it ruthlessly, unceasingly, to win the next election. The fact that the Democrats completely failed to do this says a great deal about their lack of political will, leadership and capacity to employ a focused strategy.

    Because they are the ones who pay the price for reckless warmongering and geopolitical megalomania, soldiers and veterans of the army and marine corps could become valuable allies in the struggle to curb American imperialism, and return America's relationship with its military to the old limited, rational form. For this to happen, however, the soldiers have to believe that campaigns against the Iraq war, and against current US strategy, are anti-militarist, but not anti-military. We have needed the military desperately on occasions in the past; we will definitely need them again.


    Vol. 27 No. 20 · 20 October 2005 " Anatol Lieven " We do not deserve these people
    pages 11-12 | 3337 words

    [Oct 30, 2016] The form of nationalism that prevails now can be called cultural nationalism not ethnonationalism . In a sense cultural nationalism is more inclusive, but it can be as radical as national socialism in the past. American exceptionalism is a good example of this type of nationalism.

    Notable quotes:
    "... Even if experience has shown it's futile, I still feel compelled to repeat the point that "tribalism" is a racist and imperialist pejorative ..."
    "... "tribalism" is used to describe the very same racist ideological currents that give the term its rhetorical power in the first place. ..."
    "... In essence, anything that relies on identification with an in-group against those outside the group. In that sense, nearly all of Trump's support base is tribalist, while only some could be described as racist/white nationalist. ..."
    "... The term "Tribalism" implicitly stresses the ethnic/racial component in the complex phenomena that modern nationalism represents. That's a major weakness. ..."
    "... Even in modern Ukrainian nationalism cultural elements are stronger then ethnic. ..."
    "... 'Cultural nationalism' seems to come closest, at least in the Australian and British contexts I'm familiar with, because the so-called 'tribalists' seem to be people who have a strong idea about who are the 'right kind' of Australians (or Britons), and it is a mixture of cultural and racial/ethnic characteristics. ..."
    "... Populations can be racialized according to literally any conceivable physical, social, or cultural characteristic - the idea that it can only depend on specific differentiating factors like one's melanin count or descent from Charlemagne or whatever is itself a racist idea, an attempt to reify particular forms of racism as rooted in some immutable aspect of "the way things are". ..."
    "... "the state-sanctioned or extralegal production and exploitation of group-differentiated vulnerability to premature death" ..."
    "... Except unlike with Quiggin's definition of tribalism @ 32, racism is explicitly a political and economic phenomenon to use a particular ingroup/outgroup differentiation as a way to systematically disenfranchise and subjugate the outgroup , which seems like the only reason we'd bother talking about it as a specific mass political movement at all. ..."
    Oct 30, 2016 | crookedtimber.org
    WLGR 10.30.16 at 10:30 am 16

    Even if experience has shown it's futile, I still feel compelled to repeat the point that "tribalism" is a racist and imperialist pejorative (basically this imagery condensed into a single signifier) that shouldn't play such a pivotal role in any remotely serious understanding, let alone one in which "tribalism" is used to describe the very same racist ideological currents that give the term its rhetorical power in the first place.

    As described in an earlier thread about all of this, my preference would be not to beat around the bush and go with "fascism" plain and simple, and even if one isn't comfortable making that assertion directly, "ethnonationalism" seems like it could play an equivalent role to "tribalism" in this analysis with little or no extra clarification needed. Call me crazy but this seems like a pretty minor lexical sacrifice to make for combating racist imagery in one's own language.

    Call me crazy but this seems like a pretty minor lexical sacrifice to make for combating racist imagery in one's own language.

    likbez 10.30.16 at 12:05 pm

    @16

    "ethnonationalism" seems like it could play an equivalent role to "tribalism" in this analysis with little or no extra clarification needed.

    While I agree that "tribalism" a bad term that clouds the issue, I think the form of nationalism that prevails now can be called "cultural nationalism" not "ethnonationalism". In a sense "cultural nationalism" is more inclusive, but it can be as radical as national socialism in the past. American exceptionalism is a good example of this type of nationalism.

    John Quiggin 10.30.16 at 7:33 pm

    @WLGR I'm happy to reconsider terminology. But I've been using "tribalism" for a kind of politics that's not necessary as extreme as ethno-nationalism, let alone fascism.

    In essence, anything that relies on identification with an in-group against those outside the group. In that sense, nearly all of Trump's support base is tribalist, while only some could be described as racist/white nationalist.

    likbez 10.30.16 at 7:39 pm

    @20

    The term "Tribalism" implicitly stresses the ethnic/racial component in the complex phenomena that modern nationalism represents. That's a major weakness.

    Even in modern Ukrainian nationalism cultural elements are stronger then ethnic.

    Val 10.31.16 at 6:22 am

    I tend to agree with what WLGR is saying about 'tribalists'. What porpoise @43 said is interesting historically, but I don't think it removes the overlay from later colonial and imperial associations of 'tribes' with 'primitives'/inferiors. So I don't think tribalism is a good word here, but not sure what would be a better one.

    'Cultural nationalism' seems to come closest, at least in the Australian and British contexts I'm familiar with, because the so-called 'tribalists' seem to be people who have a strong idea about who are the 'right kind' of Australians (or Britons), and it is a mixture of cultural and racial/ethnic characteristics.

    Here in Australia, it is certainly possible for people from non-Anglo backgrounds to be at least conditionally accepted by the 'tribalists' if they appear to embrace the tribalists' idea of Aussie culture (although it's conditional because the 'tribalists' who are 'accepting' the non-Anglo immigrants unconsciously see their ability to pass judgement as related to their own Anglo/white background, I think). Complicated, I am getting tied in knots, but I agree tribalist isn't the best word.

    WLGR 10.31.16 at 3:52 pm

    likbez @ 16,

    It seems to me that the effort to differentiate race-based from culturally based ultranationalism is still tangled in the weeds of a colloquial understanding of "race" and "racism".

    Populations can be racialized according to literally any conceivable physical, social, or cultural characteristic - the idea that it can only depend on specific differentiating factors like one's melanin count or descent from Charlemagne or whatever is itself a racist idea, an attempt to reify particular forms of racism as rooted in some immutable aspect of "the way things are".

    Although from my understanding Ukrainian citizenship like that in most of Europe is primarily determined by jus sanguinis, and like most of Europe it's still deep in the muck of racial discrimination toward e.g. the Roma, so unless I'm misreading things it seems like a stretch to put too much distance between Ukraine (or Europe in general) and even a very colloquial sense of "ethnonationalism". It can be articulated more explicitly by outright fascists or more obliquely by mainstream centrist parties, but it's still there.

    And as long as we're talking about academic definitions of racism (I'm partial to the definition proffered by Ruth Wilson Gilmore, "the state-sanctioned or extralegal production and exploitation of group-differentiated vulnerability to premature death", although Emmett Rensin's obnoxiously thorough definition is also good) funnily enough they tend to point at something pretty much identical to what Quiggin appears to mean by "tribalism".

    Except unlike with Quiggin's definition of tribalism @ 32, racism is explicitly a political and economic phenomenon to use a particular ingroup/outgroup differentiation as a way to systematically disenfranchise and subjugate the outgroup , which seems like the only reason we'd bother talking about it as a specific mass political movement at all.

    And again, as annoying as it is to have pigheaded reactionaries accuse us of twisting language and "playing the race card" and so on, putting up with this noise is preferable to sacrificing useful concepts like racism and fascism from one's everyday understanding of the world,

    [Oct 30, 2016] If only NATO would bomb Syria there would be more secularism as in the Islamist state of new Libya?

    Oct 30, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    anne -> anne... October 30, 2016 at 04:51 PM http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2012/07/how-us-ensured-that-its-weapons-and.html

    July 22, 2012

    How the US ensures that its weapons and equipment don't fall into Al-Qa`idah hands

    "American and other Western intelligence officials have expressed concern that some of the more than 100 rebel formations fighting inside Syria may have ties to Al Qaeda that they could exploit as security worsens in the country or after the collapse of the government.... A small number of CIA officers have been operating secretly in southern Turkey for several weeks, helping allies decide which Syrian opposition fighters across the border will receive weapons to fight the government." * I am assured that the US has a fool-proof system at hand.

    The CIA operatives ask the person in question: are you with Al-Qa`idah? If the person says no, he is told: take the weapons and money and run. If he says yes, he is told: not good. Take the money and weapons and run but don't use them against us one day, OK?

    * http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/22/world/middleeast/us-to-focus-on-forcibly-toppling-syrian-government.html

    --- As'ad AbuKhalil Reply Sunday, October 30, 2016 at 04:51 PM anne -> anne... , October 30, 2016 at 05:00 PM

    http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2012/12/non-lethal-us-aid.html

    December 15, 2012

    Non-lethal US aid

    Weeks before the Obama administration and other Western nations recognized a new Syrian opposition coalition as "the legitimate representative" of the Syrian people, Syrian rebels were receiving training in the use of light and heavy weapons with the backing of the Jordanian, British and U.S. governments, participants in the training have told McClatchy....

    By November, another rebel said, the training had expanded to anti-tank weapons and Stinger anti-aircraft missiles.... *

    * http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/12/14/177474/syrian-rebels-say-americans-britons.html

    -- As'ad AbuKhalil

    anne -> anne... , October 30, 2016 at 05:07 PM
    http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2013/05/in-raqqah-syria.html

    May 3, 2013

    In Raqqah, Syria

    This is from Raqqah in Syria. * The main square there has been renamed Prophet Muhammad Square, and a giant flag of Al-Qa`idah is posted. And do you still need a fortune teller to tell you how things are going in Syria?

    * http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-04-09/world/38405266_1_al-nusra-raqqah-oil-fields

    -- As'ad AbuKhalil

    anne -> anne... , October 30, 2016 at 05:10 PM
    http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2013/03/lies-about-syria-in-western-media.html

    March 25, 2013

    Lies about Syria in the Western media

    What this article really reveals is that Western media were deliberately or ignorantly spreading the notion that Syrian rebels were desperate for arms and ammunition and that they were getting no external support whatsoever when tons (literally, tons) of shipments were arriving to them from as early as 2012. *

    * http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/25/world/middleeast/arms-airlift-to-syrian-rebels-expands-with-cia-aid.html

    -- As'ad AbuKhalil

    anne -> anne... , October 30, 2016 at 05:11 PM
    http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2012/07/the-prophets-flag-or-al-qaidahs.html

    July 30, 2012

    The Prophet's Flag? or Al-Qa`idah's?

    "The groups demanded to raise the prophet's banner - solid black with 'There is no god but God.' " * Somebody needs to tell the New York Times that what it calls the "prophet's banner" is none other than the flag of Al-Qa`idah. What an informed paper.

    * http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/world/middleeast/as-syrian-war-drags-on-jihad-gains-foothold.html

    -- As'ad AbuKhalil

    anne -> anne... , October 30, 2016 at 05:31 PM
    http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2012/11/i-am-dying-to-know-this-who-are-secular.html

    November 29, 2012

    I am dying to know this: Who are the "secular opposition groups supported by the West" who are fighting in Syria? Give me one name, or one unit? Who?

    "The weapons, including automatic rifles, rocket-propelled grenades and ammunition are funneled mostly across the Turkish border by way of a shadowy network of intermediaries overseen mainly by Saudi Arabia and Qatar, American officials said. Even that limited effort is being revamped in the wake of evidence that most arms sent to Syrian opposition fighters are going to hard-line Islamic jihadists, not to the more secular opposition groups supported by the West." *

    * http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/29/world/us-is-weighing-stronger-action-in-syrian-conflict.html

    -- As'ad AbuKhalil

    anne -> anne... , October 30, 2016 at 05:32 PM
    http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2012/07/nato-secularism.html

    July 30, 2012

    NATO secularism

    "Some Syrians who seek a more secular revolution blame the lack of Western support for driving the rebellion into the arms of the extremists". * So if only NATO would bomb Syria there would be more secularism as in the Islamist state of new Libya? Where do you get those people?

    * http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/world/middleeast/as-syrian-war-drags-on-jihad-gains-foothold.html

    -- As'ad AbuKhalil

    anne -> anne... , -1
    http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2012/07/al-qaidah-in-syria.html

    July 25, 2012

    Al-Qa`idah in Syria

    Until recently, if someone suggested that Al-Qa`idah is present in Syria, he/she would be accused of being a shabbiha * for the Assad regime. But when the New York Times says it, ** it becomes true.

    * Or goon

    ** http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/25/world/middleeast/al-qaeda-insinuating-its-way-into-syrias-conflict.html

    -- As'ad AbuKhalil

    [Oct 30, 2016] The De Facto US/Al Qaeda Alliance by Robert Parry

    Notable quotes:
    "... Though Al Qaeda got the ball rolling on America's revenge wars in the Middle East 15 years ago by killing several thousand Americans and others in the 9/11 attacks, the terrorist group has faded into the background of U.S. attention, most likely because it messes up the preferred "good guy/bad guy" narrative regarding the Syrian war. ..."
    "... For instance, the conflict in Aleppo between Syrian government forces and rebels operating primarily under Al Qaeda's command is treated in the Western media as simply a case of the barbaric Assad and his evil Russian ally Vladimir Putin mercilessly bombing what is portrayed as the east Aleppo equivalent of Disney World, a place where innocent children and their families peacefully congregate until they are targeted for death by the Assad-Putin war-crime family. ..."
    "... The photos sent out to the world by skillful rebel propagandists are almost always of wounded children being cared for by the "White Helmet" rebel civil defense corps, which has come under growing criticism for serving as a public-relations arm of Al Qaeda and other insurgents. (There also are allegations that some of the most notable images have been staged, like a fake war scene from the 1997 dark comedy, "Wag the Dog.") ..."
    "... The new offensive was a strong sign that rebel groups vetted by the United States were continuing their tactical alliances with groups linked to Al Qaeda, rather than distancing themselves as Russia has demanded and the Americans have urged. ..."
    "... What the article also makes clear in a hazy kind of way is that Al Qaeda's affiliate, the recently renamed Nusra Front, and its jihadist allies, such as Ahrar al-Sham, are waging the brunt of the fighting while the CIA-vetted "moderates" are serving in mostly support roles. ..."
    "... "the vast majority of the American-vetted rebel factions in Aleppo were fighting inside the city itself and conducting significant bombardments against Syrian government troops in support of the Qaeda-affiliated fighters carrying out the brunt of front-line fighting." ..."
    "... "offensive have been vetted by the CIA and have received arms from the agency, including anti-tank missiles. … ..."
    "... "In addition to arms provided by the United States, much of the rebels' weaponry comes from regional states, like Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia, Mr. Lister said, including truck-borne multiple-rocket launcher systems and Czech-made Grad rockets with extended ranges." ..."
    "... In other words, the U.S. government and its allies have smuggled sophisticated weapons into Syria to arm rebels who are operating in support of Al Qaeda's new military offensive against Syrian government forces in Aleppo. By any logical analysis, that makes the United States an ally of Al Qaeda.... ..."
    Oct 29, 2016 | https://consortiumnews.com

    Buried deep inside Saturday's New York Times was a grudging acknowledgement that the U.S.-armed "moderate" rebels in Syria are using their U.S. firepower to back an Al Qaeda offensive.

    A curious aspect of the Syrian conflict – a rebellion sponsored largely by the United States and its Gulf state allies – is the disappearance in much of the American mainstream news media of references to the prominent role played by Al Qaeda in seeking to overthrow the secular Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad.

    There's much said in the U.S. press about ISIS, the former "Al Qaeda in Iraq" which splintered off several years ago, but Al Qaeda's central role in commanding Syria's "moderate" rebels in Aleppo and elsewhere is the almost unspoken reality of the Syrian war. Even in the U.S. presidential debates, the arguing between Republican Donald Trump and Democrat Hillary Clinton has been almost exclusively about ISIS, not Al Qaeda.

    Though Al Qaeda got the ball rolling on America's revenge wars in the Middle East 15 years ago by killing several thousand Americans and others in the 9/11 attacks, the terrorist group has faded into the background of U.S. attention, most likely because it messes up the preferred "good guy/bad guy" narrative regarding the Syrian war.

    For instance, the conflict in Aleppo between Syrian government forces and rebels operating primarily under Al Qaeda's command is treated in the Western media as simply a case of the barbaric Assad and his evil Russian ally Vladimir Putin mercilessly bombing what is portrayed as the east Aleppo equivalent of Disney World, a place where innocent children and their families peacefully congregate until they are targeted for death by the Assad-Putin war-crime family.

    The photos sent out to the world by skillful rebel propagandists are almost always of wounded children being cared for by the "White Helmet" rebel civil defense corps, which has come under growing criticism for serving as a public-relations arm of Al Qaeda and other insurgents. (There also are allegations that some of the most notable images have been staged, like a fake war scene from the 1997 dark comedy, "Wag the Dog.")

    Rare Glimpse of Truth

    Yet, occasionally, the reality of Al Qaeda's importance in the rebellion breaks through, even in the mainstream U.S. media, although usually downplayed and deep inside the news pages, such as the article * in Saturday's New York Times by Hwaida Saad and Anne Barnard describing a rebel offensive in Aleppo. It acknowledges:

    "The new offensive was a strong sign that rebel groups vetted by the United States were continuing their tactical alliances with groups linked to Al Qaeda, rather than distancing themselves as Russia has demanded and the Americans have urged.

    The rebels argue that they cannot afford to shun any potential allies while they are under fire, including well-armed and motivated jihadists, without more robust aid from their international backers."

    (You might note how the article subtly blames the rebel dependence on Al Qaeda on the lack of "robust aid" from the Obama administration and other outside countries – even though such arms shipments violate international law.)

    What the article also makes clear in a hazy kind of way is that Al Qaeda's affiliate, the recently renamed Nusra Front, and its jihadist allies, such as Ahrar al-Sham, are waging the brunt of the fighting while the CIA-vetted "moderates" are serving in mostly support roles. The Times reported:

    "The insurgents have a diverse range of objectives and backers, but they issued statements of unity on Friday. Those taking part in the offensive include the Levant Conquest Front, a militant group formerly known as the Nusra Front that grew out of Al Qaeda; another hard-line Islamist faction, Ahrar al-Sham; and other rebel factions fighting Mr. Assad that have been vetted by the United States and its allies."

    The article cites Charles Lister, a senior fellow and Syria specialist at the Middle East Institute in Washington, and other analysts noting that "the vast majority of the American-vetted rebel factions in Aleppo were fighting inside the city itself and conducting significant bombardments against Syrian government troops in support of the Qaeda-affiliated fighters carrying out the brunt of front-line fighting."

    Lister noted that 11 of the 20 or so rebel groups conducting the Aleppo "offensive have been vetted by the CIA and have received arms from the agency, including anti-tank missiles. …

    "In addition to arms provided by the United States, much of the rebels' weaponry comes from regional states, like Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia, Mr. Lister said, including truck-borne multiple-rocket launcher systems and Czech-made Grad rockets with extended ranges."

    The U.S./Al Qaeda Alliance

    In other words, the U.S. government and its allies have smuggled sophisticated weapons into Syria to arm rebels who are operating in support of Al Qaeda's new military offensive against Syrian government forces in Aleppo. By any logical analysis, that makes the United States an ally of Al Qaeda....

    * http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/29/world/middleeast/aleppo-syria.html

    [Oct 30, 2016] Anatol Lieven · The Push for War The Threat from America

    [Oct 30, 2016] After the attacks Americas new cold war

    Notable quotes:
    "... Now the threat is real; and for the foreseeable future we will have to live with and seek to reduce two closely interlinked dangers: the direct and potentially apocalyptic threat posed by terrorists, mainly (though by no means exclusively) based in the Muslim world, and the potential strengthening of those terrorists' resolve by misguided US actions. ..."
    "... The most unilateralist Administration in modern American history has been forced to recognise, in principle at least, the country's pressing need for allies ..."
    "... Apart from the fact that most European armies are useless when it comes to serious warfare, they are already showing great unwillingness to give the US a blank cheque for whatever military action the Bush Administration chooses to take. ..."
    "... A strong sense of righteousness has always been present in the American tradition; but until 11 September, an acute sense of victimhood and persecution by the outside world was usually the preserve of the paranoid Right. ..."
    Sep 28, 2001 | guardian.co.uk

    "Who says we share common values with the Europeans? They don't even go to church!" Will the atrocities of September 11 push America further to the right or open a new debate on foreign policy and the need for alliances? In this exclusive online essay from the London Review of Books, Anatol Lieven considers how the cold war legacy may affect the war on terrorism

    Not long after the Bush Administration took power in January, I was invited to lunch at a glamorous restaurant in New York by a group of editors and writers from an influential American right-wing broadsheet. The food and wine were extremely expensive, the decor luxurious but discreet, the clientele beautifully dressed, and much of the conversation more than mildly insane. With regard to the greater part of the world outside America, my hosts' attitude was a combination of loathing, contempt, distrust and fear: not only towards Arabs, Russians, Chinese, French and others, but towards 'European socialist governments', whatever that was supposed to mean. This went with a strong desire - in theory at least - to take military action against a broad range of countries across the world.

    Two things were particularly striking here: a tendency to divide the world into friends and enemies, and a difficulty verging on autism when it came to international opinions that didn't coincide with their own - a combination more appropriate to the inhabitants of an ethnic slum in the Balkans than to people who were, at that point, on top of the world.

    Today Americans of all classes and opinions have reason to worry, and someone real to fear and hate, while prolonged US military action overseas is thought to be inevitable. The building where we had lunch is now rubble. Several of our fellow diners probably died last week, along with more than six thousand other New Yorkers from every walk of life. Not only has the terrorist attack claimed far more victims than any previous such attack anywhere in the world, but it has delivered a far more damaging economic blow. Equally important, it has destroyed Americans' belief in their country's invulnerability, on which so many other American attitudes and policies finally rested.

    This shattering blow was delivered by a handful of anonymous agents hidden in the wider population, working as part of a tightly-knit secret international conspiracy inspired by a fanatical and (to the West) deeply 'alien' and 'exotic' religious ideology. Its members are ruthless; they have remarkable organisational skills, a tremendous capacity for self-sacrifice and self-discipline, and a deep hatred of the United States and the Western way of life. As Richard Hofstader and others have argued, for more than two hundred years this kind of combination has always acted as a prompt for paranoid and reactionary conspiracy theories, most of them groundless.

    Now the threat is real; and for the foreseeable future we will have to live with and seek to reduce two closely interlinked dangers: the direct and potentially apocalyptic threat posed by terrorists, mainly (though by no means exclusively) based in the Muslim world, and the potential strengthening of those terrorists' resolve by misguided US actions.

    The latter danger has been greatly increased by the attacks. The terrorists have raised to white heat certain smouldering tendencies among the American Right, while simultaneously - as is usually the case at the start of wars - pushing American politics and most of its population in a sharply rightward direction; all of which has taken place under an unexpectedly right-wing Administration. If this leads to a crude military response, then the terrorists will have achieved part of their purpose, which was to provoke the other side to indiscriminate retaliation, and thereby increase their own support.

    It is too early to say for sure how US strategies and attitudes will develop. At the time of writing Afghanistan is the focus, but whatever happens there, it isn't clear whether the US Administration will go on to launch a more general campaign of military pressure against other states which have supported terrorist groups, and if so, what states and what kind of military pressure? US policy is already pulled in two predictable but contradictory directions, amply illustrated in the op-ed pages of US newspapers and in debates within the Government.

    The most unilateralist Administration in modern American history has been forced to recognise, in principle at least, the country's pressing need for allies. There are the beginnings, too, of a real public debate on how US policy needs to be changed and shaped to fight the new 'war'. All this is reminiscent of US attitudes and behaviour at the start of the Cold War, when Communism was identified as the central menace to the US and to Western capitalism and democracy in general.

    On the other hand, the public desire for revenge has strengthened certain attitudes - especially in the Republican Party and media, as well as parts of the Administration - which, if they prevail, will not only be dangerous in themselves, but will make the search for real allies difficult. And real allies are essential, above all in the Arab and Muslim worlds. In the longer run, only the full co-operation of Arab regimes - along with reform and economic development - can prevent the recruitment, funding and operations of Arab-based terrorist groups.

    As for Europe, British military support may be unconditional, but most European countries - Russia among them - are likely to restrict their help to intelligence and policing. Apart from the fact that most European armies are useless when it comes to serious warfare, they are already showing great unwillingness to give the US a blank cheque for whatever military action the Bush Administration chooses to take.

    Yet a blank cheque is precisely what the Administration, and the greater part of US public opinion, are asking for. This is Jim Hoagland, veteran establishment foreign correspondent and commentator, in the generally liberal Washington Post:

    "Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and many of the other Arab states Powell hopes to recruit for the bin Laden posse have long been part of the problem, not part of the solution to international terrorism. These states cannot be given free passes for going through the motions of helping the United States. And European allies cannot be allowed to order an appetiser of bin Laden and not share in the costs of the rest of a meal cooked in hell."

    If this is the Post, then the sentiments in the right-wing press and the tabloids can well be imagined. Here is Tod Lindberg, the editor of Policy Review, writing in the Washington Times:

    "The United States is now energetically in the business of making governments pick a side: either with us and against the terrorists, or against us and with them... Against the category of enemy stands the category of 'friend'. Friends stand with us. Friends do whatever they can to help. Friends don't, for example, engage in commerce with enemies, otherwise they aren't friends."

    A strong sense of righteousness has always been present in the American tradition; but until 11 September, an acute sense of victimhood and persecution by the outside world was usually the preserve of the paranoid Right. Now it has spread and, for the moment at least, some rather important ideas have almost vanished from the public debate: among them, that other states have their own national interests, and that in the end nothing compels them to help the US; that they, too, have been the victims of terrorism - in the case of Britain, largely funded from groups in the United States - but have not insisted on a right of unilateral military retaliation (this point was made by Niall Ferguson in the New York Times, but not as yet in any op-ed by an American that I have seen); and that in some cases these states may actually know more about their own part of the world than US intelligence does.

    Beyond the immediate and unforeseeable events in Afghanistan - and their sombre implications for Pakistan - lies the bigger question of US policy in the Arab world. Here, too, Administration policy may well be a good deal more cautious than the opinions of the right-wing media would suggest - which again is fortunate, because much opinion on this subject is more than rabid. Here is AM Rosenthal in the Washington Times arguing that an amazing range of states should be given ultimatums to surrender not only alleged terrorists but also their own senior officials accused by the US of complicity:

    "The ultimatum should go to the governments of Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria, Sudan and any other devoted to the elimination of the United States or the constant incitement of hatred against it... In the three days the terrorists consider the American ultimatum, the residents of the countries would be urged 24 hours a day by the United States to flee the capital and major cities, because they would be bombed to the ground beginning the fourth."

    Rosenthal isn't a figure from the lunatic fringe ranting on a backwoods radio show, but the former executive editor of the New York Times, writing in a paper with great influence in the Republican Party, especially under the present Administration.

    No Administration is going to do anything remotely like this. But if the Secretary of State, Colin Powell, has emerged as the voice of moderation, with a proper commitment to multilateralism, other voices are audible, too. Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defence, has spoken of "ending states which support terrorism", and in the case of Iraq, there are those who would now like to complete the work of the Gulf War and finish off Saddam Hussein.

    Here, too, the mood of contempt for allies contributes to the ambition. Thus Kim Holmes, vice-president of the right-wing Heritage Foundation, argued that only deference to America's Arab allies prevented the US from destroying the Iraqi regime in 1991 (the profound unwillingness of Bush Senior to occupy Iraq and take responsibility for the place also played its part in the decision): "To show that this war is not with Islam per se, the US could be tempted to restrain itself militarily and accommodate the complex and contradictory political agendas of Islamic states. This in turn could make the campaign ineffectual, prolonging the problem of terrorism."

    Getting rid of Saddam Hussein is not in itself a bad idea. His is a pernicious regime, a menace to his own people and his neighbours, as well as to the West. And if the Iraqi threat to the Gulf States could be eliminated, US troops might be withdrawn from Saudi Arabia: it was their permanent stationing on the holy soil of Islam that turned Osama bin Laden from an anti-Soviet mujahid into an anti-American terrorist.

    But only if it were to take place in the context of an entirely new policy towards Palestine would the US be able to mount such a campaign without provoking massive unrest across the Arab world; and given what became of promises made during the Gulf War, there would first of all have to be firm evidence of a US change of heart. The only borders between Israel and Palestine which would have any chance of satisfying a majority of Palestinians and Arabs - and conforming to UN resolutions, for what they are worth - would be those of 1967, possibly qualified by an internationalisation of Jerusalem under UN control. This would entail the removal of the existing Jewish settlements in the Occupied Territories, and would be absolutely unacceptable to any imaginable Israeli Government. To win Israeli agreement would require not just US pressure, but the threat of a complete breach of relations and the ending of aid.

    There may be those in the Administration who would favour adopting such an approach at a later stage. Bush Sr's was the most anti-Israeli Administration of the past two generations, and was disliked accordingly by the Jewish and other ethnic lobbies. His son's is less beholden to those lobbies than Clinton's was. And it may be that even pro-Israeli US politicians will at some point realise that Israel's survival as such is not an issue: that it is absurd to increase the risk to Washington and New York for the sake of 267 extremist settlers in Hebron and their comrades elsewhere.

    Still, in the short term, a radical shift is unlikely, and an offensive against Iraq would therefore be dangerous. The attacks on New York and the Pentagon and the celebrations in parts of the Arab world have increased popular hostility to the Arabs in general and the Palestinians in particular, a hostility assiduously stoked by Israeli propaganda. But when it comes to denouncing hate crimes against Muslims - or those taken to be Muslims - within the US, the Administration has behaved decently, perhaps because they have a rather sobering precedent in mind, one which has led to genuine shame: the treatment of Japanese Americans during world war two.

    This shame is the result of an applied historical intelligence that does not extend to the Arab world. Americans tend - and perhaps need - to confuse the symptoms and the causes of Arab anger. Since a key pro-Israel position in the US has been that fundamental Palestinian and Arab grievances must not be allowed legitimacy or even discussed, the only explanation of Arab hostility to the US and its ally must be sought in innate features of Arab society, whether a contemporary culture of anti-semitism (and anti-Americanism) sanctioned by Arab leaderships, or ancient 'Muslim' traditions of hostility to the West.

    All of which may contain some truth: but the central issue, the role of Israeli policies in providing a focus for such hatred, is overwhelmingly ignored. As a result, it is extremely difficult, and mostly impossible, to hold any frank discussion of the most important issue affecting the position of the US in the Middle East or the open sympathy for terrorism in the region. A passionately held nationalism usually has the effect of corrupting or silencing those liberal intellectuals who espouse it. This is the case of Israeli nationalism in the US. It is especially distressing that it should afflict the Jewish liberal intelligentsia, that old bedrock of sanity and tolerance.

    An Administration which wanted a radical change of policy towards Israel would have to generate a new public debate almost from scratch - which would not be possible until some kind of tectonic shift had taken place in American society. Too many outside observers who blame US Administrations forget that on a wide range of issues, it is essentially Congress and not the White House or State Department which determines foreign policy; this is above all true of US aid. An inability or unwillingness to try to work on Congress, as opposed to going through normal diplomatic channels, has been a minor contributory factor to Britain's inability to get any purchase on US policy in recent years.

    The role of Congress brings out what might be called the Wilhelmine aspects of US foreign and security policy. By that I do not mean extreme militarism or a love of silly hats, or even a shared tendency to autism when it comes to understanding the perceptions of other countries, but rather certain structural features in both the Wilhemine and the US system tending to produce over-ambition, and above all a chronic incapacity to choose between diametrically opposite goals. Like Wilhelmine Germany, the US has a legislature with very limited constitutional powers in the field of foreign policy, even though it wields considerable de facto power and is not linked either institutionally or by party discipline to the executive. The resulting lack of any responsibility for actual consequences is a standing invitation to rhetorical grandstanding, and the pursuit of sectional interests at the expense of overall policy.

    Meanwhile, the executive, while in theory supremely powerful in this field, has in fact continually to woo the legislature without ever being able to command its support. This, too, encourages dependence on interest groups, as well as a tendency to overcome differences and gain support by making appeals in terms of overheated patriotism rather than policy. Finally, in both systems, though for completely different reasons, supreme executive power had or has a tendency to fall into the hands of people totally unsuited for any but the ceremonial aspects of the job, and endlessly open to manipulation by advisers, ministers and cliques.

    In the US, this did not matter so much during the Cold War, when a range of Communist threats - real, imagined or fabricated - held the system together in the pursuit of more or less common aims. With the disappearance of the unifying threat, however, there has been a tendency, again very Wilhelmine, to produce ambitious and aggressive policies in several directions simultaneously, often with little reference at all to real US interests or any kind of principle.

    The new 'war against terrorism' in Administration and Congressional rhetoric has been cast as just such a principle, unifying the country and the political establishment behind a common goal and affecting or determining a great range of other policies. The language has been reminiscent of the global struggle against Communism, and confronting Islamist radicalism in the Muslim world does, it's true, pose some of the same challenges, on a less global scale, though possibly with even greater dangers for the world.

    The likelihood that US strategy in the 'war against terrorism' will resemble that of the Cold War is greatly increased by the way Cold War structures and attitudes have continued to dominate the US foreign policy and security elites. Charles Tilly and others have written of the difficulty states have in 'ratcheting down' wartime institutions and especially wartime spending. In the 1990s, this failure on the part of the US to escape its Cold War legacy was a curse, ensuring unnecessarily high military spending in the wrong fields, thoroughly negative attitudes to Russia, 'zero-sum' perceptions of international security issues in general, and perceptions of danger which wholly failed, as we now see, to meet the real threats to security and lives.

    The idea of a National Missile Defense is predicated on a limited revival of the Cold War, with China cast in the role of the Soviet Union and the Chinese nuclear deterrent as the force to be nullified. Bush's foreign and security team is almost entirely a product of Cold War structures and circumscribed by Cold War attitudes (which is not true of the President himself, who was never interested enough in foreign policy; if he can get his mind round the rest of the world, he could well be more of a free-thinker than many of his staff).

    The collapse of the Communist alternative to Western-dominated modernisation and the integration (however imperfect) of Russia and China into the world capitalist order have been a morally and socially ambiguous process, to put it mildly; but in the early 1990s they seemed to promise the suspension of hostility between the world's larger powers. The failure of the US to make use of this opportunity, thanks to an utter confusion between an ideological victory and crudely-defined US geopolitical interests, was a great misfortune which the 'war against terrorism' could in part rectify. Since 11 September, the rhetoric in America has proposed a gulf between the 'civilised' states of the present world system, and movements of 'barbaric', violent protest from outside and below - without much deference to the ambiguities of 'civilisation', or the justifications of resistance to it, remarked on since Tacitus at least.

    How is the Cold War legacy likely to determine the 'war against terrorism'? Despite the general conviction in the Republican Party that it was simply Reagan's military spending and the superiority of the US system which destroyed Soviet Communism, more serious Cold War analysts were always aware that it involved not just military force, or the threat of it, but ideological and political struggle, socio-economic measures, and state-building. The latter in particular is an idea for which the Bush team on their arrival in office had a deep dislike (if only to distance themselves from Clinton's policies), but which they may now rediscover. Foreign aid - so shamefully reduced in the 1990s - was also a key part of the Cold War, and if much of it was poured into kleptocratic regimes like Mobutu's, or wasted on misguided projects, some at least helped produce flourishing economies in Europe and East Asia.

    The Republican Party is not only the party of Goldwater and Reagan, but of Eisenhower, Nixon and Kissinger. Eisenhower is now almost forgotten by the party. 'Eisenhower Republicans', as they refer to themselves, are usually far closer to Tony Blair (or perhaps more accurately, Helmut Schmidt) than anyone the Republican Party has seen in recent years, and I'd wager that the majority of educated Americans have forgotten that the original warning about the influence of the 'military industrial complex' came from Eisenhower.

    Kissinger is still very much alive, however, and his history is a reminder that one aspect of the American capacity for extreme ruthlessness was also a capacity for radical changes of policy, for reconciliation with states hitherto regarded as bitter enemies, and for cold-blooded abandonment of close allies and clients whose usefulness was at an end. It would not altogether surprise me if we were now to see a radical shift towards real co-operation with Russia, and even Iran.

    In general, however, the Cold War legacies and parallels are discouraging and dangerous. To judge by the language used in the days since 11 September, ignorance, demonisation and the drowning out of nuanced debate indicate that much of the US establishment can no more tell the difference between Iran and Afghanistan than they could between China and the Soviet Union in the early 1960s - the inexcusable error which led to the American war in Vietnam. The preference for militarised solutions continues (the 'War on Drugs', which will now have to be scaled back, is an example). Most worryingly, the direct attack on American soil and American civilians - far worse than anything done to the US in the Cold War - means that there is a real danger of a return to Cold War ruthlessness: not just in terms of military tactics and covert operations, but in terms of the repulsive and endangered regimes co-opted as local American clients.

    The stakes are, if anything, a good deal higher than they were during the Cold War. Given what we now know of Soviet policymaking, it is by no means clear that the Kremlin ever seriously contemplated a nuclear strike against America. By contrast, it seems likely that bin Laden et al would in the end use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons if they could deliver them.

    There is also the question of the impact of US strategies (or, in the case of Israel, lack of them) on the unity of the West - assuming that this is of some importance for the wellbeing of humanity. However great the exasperation of many European states with US policy throughout the Cold War, the Europeans were bound into the transatlantic alliance by an obvious Soviet threat - more immediate to them than it was to the US. For the critical first decade of the Cold War, the economies of Europe were hopelessly inferior to that of the US. Today, if European Governments feel that the US is dragging them into unnecessary danger thanks to policies of which they disapprove, they will protest bitterly - as many did during the Cold War - and then begin to distance themselves, which they could not afford to do fifty years ago.

    This is all the more likely if, as seems overwhelmingly probable, the US withdraws from the Balkans - as it has already done in Macedonia - leaving Europeans with no good reason to require a US military presence on their continent. At the same time, the cultural gap between Europeans and Republican America (which does not mean a majority of Americans, but the dominant strain of policy) will continue to widen. 'Who says we share common values with the Europeans?' a senior US politician remarked recently. 'They don't even go to church!' Among other harmful effects, the destruction of this relationship could signal the collapse of whatever hope still exists for a common Western approach to global environmental issues - which would, in the end, pose a greater danger to humanity than that of terrorism.

    · Anatol Lieven is a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington DC.

    [Oct 30, 2016] Anatol Lieven · A Trap of Their Own Making The consequences of the new imperialism · LRB 8 May 2003

    [Oct 29, 2016] Im With Her - Against Hillarys Malevolent Matriarchy

    Notable quotes:
    "... In recent interviews, Donald Trump's wife, Melania Trump, observed wryly that almost every malicious, lie-filled article about herself or he husband was written by a … female. ..."
    "... On the Soviet-style witch-hunt launched against her husband with media mediation, she said this: "All sexual assault allegations should be handled in a court of law. To accuse someone, man or woman, without evidence is damaging and unfair." ..."
    "... The very embodiment of the malevolent liberal matriarchy rising is the sainted Michelle Obama. The First Lady was lauded for an unhinged anti-Trump address to the nation's women. ..."
    Oct 26, 2016 | www.unz.com

    In recent interviews, Donald Trump's wife, Melania Trump, observed wryly that almost every malicious, lie-filled article about herself or he husband was written by a … female.

    ... ... ...

    When a liberal woman declares she's a strong woman (usually uttered in a tart-like, staccato inflection), she's using a cliché. Look at her actions. You'll see that "strong" to liberal distaff means kicking and screaming until she brings others into compliance with her worldview and ways.

    ... ... ...

    More material than her mien were Melania Trump's words of reason. On the Soviet-style witch-hunt launched against her husband with media mediation, she said this: "All sexual assault allegations should be handled in a court of law. To accuse someone, man or woman, without evidence is damaging and unfair."

    This was the exact verdict of famed defense attorney Tom Mesereau, about the Bill Cosby pile-on. Quit the feeding frenzy. Give the man his due process. Investigate the women, counseled Mesereau, Esq., at the time.

    ... ... ...

    The very embodiment of the malevolent liberal matriarchy rising is the sainted Michelle Obama. The First Lady was lauded for an unhinged anti-Trump address to the nation's women. In a world where Americans have been beheaded on camera, women raped en masse on Europe's streets, and Christians exterminated in the Middle East-the First Lady bewailed being "shaken" to her shallow core by raunchy words. "I can't stop thinking about it," groaned Michelle about Mr. Trump's Access Hollywood indiscretion. It "has shaken me to my core in a way I could not have predicted."

    [Oct 29, 2016] European Union on Friday lifted limits on Gazproms use of a link from its offshore Nord Stream pipeline to Germany

    Notable quotes:
    "... Hello …According to Reuters , the European Union on Friday lifted limits on Gazprom's use of a link from its offshore Nord Stream pipeline to Germany, allowing Russia to pump more gas to Europe and bypass its usual routes via Ukraine. ..."
    Oct 29, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    abynormal October 28, 2016 at 7:48 pm

    Hello …According to Reuters , the European Union on Friday lifted limits on Gazprom's use of a link from its offshore Nord Stream pipeline to Germany, allowing Russia to pump more gas to Europe and bypass its usual routes via Ukraine.

    …soooooo they're going to begin rebuilding Syria

    [Oct 29, 2016] The level of militarism in the current US society and MSM is really staggering. anti-war forces are completely destroyed (with the abandonment of draft) and are limited for

    Oct 29, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    libertarians (such as Ron Paul) and paleoconservatives.

    likbez -> Fred C. Dobbs... October 28, 2016 at 04:37 PM , 2016 at 04:37 PM

    >"Plus, she's very nasty towards Vlad Putin."

    What I do not get is how one can call himself/herself a democrat and be jingoistic monster. That's the problem with Democratic Party and its supporters. Such people for me are DINO ("Democrats only in name"). Closet neocons, if you wish. The level of militarism in the current US society and MSM is really staggering. anti-war forces are completely destroyed (with the abandonment of draft) and are limited for libertarians (such as Ron Paul) and paleoconservatives. There is almost completely empty space on the left. Dennis Kucinich is one of the few exceptions
    (see http://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2016/10/27/must-read-of-the-day-dennis-kucinich-issues-extraordinary-warning-on-d-c-s-think-tank-warmongers/ )

    I think that people like Robert Kagan, Victoria Nuland and Dick Cheney can now proudly join Democratic Party and feel themselves quite at home.

    BTW Hillary is actually very pleasant with people of the same level. It's only subordinates, close relatives and Security Service agents, who are on the receiving end of her wrath. A typical "kiss up, kick down personality".

    The right word probably would not "nasty", but "duplicitous".

    Or "treacherous" as this involves breaking of previous agreements (with a smile) as the USA diplomacy essentially involves positioning the country above the international law. As in "I am the law".

    Obama is not that different. I think he even more sleazy then Hillary and as such is more difficult to deal with. He also is at his prime, while she is definitely past hers:

    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-putin-usa-idUSKCN12R25E

    == quote ==
    Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Thursday it was hard for him to work with the current U.S. administration because it did not stick to any agreements, including on Syria.

    Putin said he was ready to engage with a new president however, whoever the American people chose, and to discuss any problem.
    == end of quote ==

    Syria is an "Obama-approved" adventure, is not it ? The same is true for Libya. So formally he is no less jingoistic then Hillary, Nobel Peace price notwithstanding.

    Other things equal, it might be easier for Putin to deal with Hillary then Obama, as she has so many skeletons in the closet and might soon be impeached by House.

    [Oct 29, 2016] Stein war with Russia is not an option

    Notable quotes:
    "... She [Hillary Clinton] has concurrently this Clinton Foundation business, where she is granting special favors, special partnerships, special government contracts, weapons deals, etc., to Clinton Foundation donors. So, there's just a lot here that represents how the economic and political elite are very much represented, I think, by both of these candidates, and underscores why it's really important for us to exercise our power in a democracy . ..."
    "... To present a no-fly zone here as a solution is extremely dangerous. A no-fly zone means we are going to war with Russia, because it means we will be shooting down planes in the sky in order to create this no-fly zone, which is where Russia has a commitment to defending the Assad government. So, remember, there was a ceasefire, which was very hard-won, and that ceasefire was destroyed by the action of the Americans bombing, apparently by mistake, although some people say not by mistake, but it was our bombing of the Syrian troops that destroyed that ceasefire . ..."
    "... That was our part, the U.S., in allowing the nuclear arms race to re-engage . Mikhail Gorbachev, the former premier of the Soviet Union, said last week that we are now at a more dangerous period regarding nuclear war than we have ever been. So, it's really important for the warmongers in the Democratic and Republican parties to be cooling their jets now and for us to be moving forward towards a weapons embargo and a freeze on the funding of those countries that are continuing to fund terrorist enterprises . ..."
    Oct 29, 2016 | failedevolution.blogspot.gr
    'There was a ceasefire, which was very hard-won, and that ceasefire was destroyed by the action of the Americans bombing, apparently by mistake, although some people say not by mistake, but it was our bombing of the Syrian troops that destroyed that ceasefire'

    via globinfo freexchange

    After our call to independent media for a 'counter-debate' with the US third parties , the independent news network Democracy Now! made a first revolutionary step to break the US bipartisan debate monopoly.

    Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! explains again the process, in this second presidential debate: " We spend the rest of today's show airing excerpts of the Donald Trump-Hillary Clinton debate and give Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein a chance to respond to the same questions posed to the major-party candidates. Again, Dr. Stein and Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson were excluded from the debate under stringent rules set by the Commission on Presidential Debates, which is controlled by the Democratic and Republican parties. We invited both Stein and Johnson to join us on the program; only Stein took us up on the offer. "

    In this last part of the second debate, Jill Stein, again, was the only presidential candidate that told the whole truth to the American people without hesitation.

    Concerning the Syrian mess and the Russian intervention, Hillary Clinton showed again why she is the most dangerous to be the next US president. She avoided again to admit the huge responsibility of the US intervention and their allies in Libya and the Middle East which created absolute chaos. She blamed again the Russians, although - as Jill Stein stated very correctly - it was the US that destroyed the hard-won ceasefire in Syria. Hillary showed again her absolute devotion to the neocon/neoliberal agenda, therefore, start a war with Russia. She showed again how dangerous she is.

    On the contrary, Jill Stein stated very clearly that war with Russia is out of question.

    Key points:

    She [Hillary Clinton] has concurrently this Clinton Foundation business, where she is granting special favors, special partnerships, special government contracts, weapons deals, etc., to Clinton Foundation donors. So, there's just a lot here that represents how the economic and political elite are very much represented, I think, by both of these candidates, and underscores why it's really important for us to exercise our power in a democracy . We have a right to know who we can vote for, as well as a right to vote.

    Syria is a disaster, and it's a very complicated disaster. It is a civil war. It is a proxy war among many nations. It is a pipeline war also between Russia and the Gulf states, who are competing to run their pipelines with fracked gas into Europe across Syria. So, this is a very complicated situation, and there is a hornets' nest, a real circular firing squad of alliances here that's, you know, extremely, extremely complicated.

    To present a no-fly zone here as a solution is extremely dangerous. A no-fly zone means we are going to war with Russia, because it means we will be shooting down planes in the sky in order to create this no-fly zone, which is where Russia has a commitment to defending the Assad government. So, remember, there was a ceasefire, which was very hard-won, and that ceasefire was destroyed by the action of the Americans bombing, apparently by mistake, although some people say not by mistake, but it was our bombing of the Syrian troops that destroyed that ceasefire .

    We need to redouble our efforts here. And we need to acknowledge that war with Russia is not an option. There are 2,000 nuclear weapons on hair-trigger alert. And who was it that dropped out of the nuclear arms control? That was George Bush. That was our part, the U.S., in allowing the nuclear arms race to re-engage . Mikhail Gorbachev, the former premier of the Soviet Union, said last week that we are now at a more dangerous period regarding nuclear war than we have ever been. So, it's really important for the warmongers in the Democratic and Republican parties to be cooling their jets now and for us to be moving forward towards a weapons embargo and a freeze on the funding of those countries that are continuing to fund terrorist enterprises .

    [Oct 29, 2016] More journalists to add to the presstitutes list. They were all obvious Clinton hacks though.

    Oct 29, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    More journalists to add to the shit list. They were all obvious Clinton hacks though.
    https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/792026046191300608

    Lambert Strether Post author October 29, 2016 at 1:45 am

    Why, it's Neera Tanden to John Podesta :

    when bloomberg was having problems w the times he called Arthur schulzburger and asked for coffee. He made the case that they were treating him like a billionaire dilettante instead of Third term mayor. It changed the coverage moderately but also aired the issues in the newsroom so people were more conscious of it. But Arthur is a pretty big wuss so he's not going to do a lot more than that.

    Hillary would have to be the one to call.

    He also thinks the brown and women pundits can shame the times and others on social media. So cultivating Joan Walsh, Yglesias, Allen, perry bacon, Greg Sargent , to defend her is helpful. They can be emboldened. Fwiw - I pushed pir to do this a yr ago.

    "brown and women pundits". Neera so woke.

    aab October 29, 2016 at 3:08 am

    I'm guessing Harvard graduate Matt Yglesias is thrilled to find out that Clintonland views his usefulness primary through the prism of his skin color, particularly given that his family background not actually all that "brown."

    [Oct 29, 2016] 54 graduates of the program training Syrian opposition fighters: it is the first set of trained recruits in a $500,000,000 training program started in May 2015 .

    Notable quotes:
    "... It takes a village of idiots to raise a few more idiots. And that village gets paid. And that cost sink generates more resource and administrative cost sinks. So the nominal costs declared are the tip of a larger boondoggle iceberg. ..."
    "... I know this may be too simplistic a question for someone with the brilliance of Hillary Clinton and our current Military leaders, but would someone explain to me why we need to essentially recruit and train people for a civil war? ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    cocomaan October 26, 2016 at 2:25 pm

    Just a reminder on that 54 graduates of the program training Syrian opposition fighters: it is the first set of trained recruits in a $500,000,000 training program started in May 2015 .

    So if HRC triples that, we will graduate roughly 150 soldiers at the price of 10 million each, if I'm doing my figures correctly. Maybe they should hire contingent faculty and graduate students to handle the 101 courses, they might get the same results for cheaper.

    If you want to know more about Division 30, as this training program's fighting unit is called, read the wiki page , which has some great gems like:

    In September 2015, a second group of Division 30 rebels with 12 Toyota pick-up trucks, medium machine guns and ammunition crossed the Syrian-Turkish border and ended up giving up much of their weaponry and ammunition to the Al-Nusra Front in order to secure passage farther into Syria.[13][14]

    By the end of September 2015, General Lloyd Austin, head of US Central Command, said the remaining members of Division 30 were limited in number, "We're talking four or five". Division 30's current whereabouts are unknown after they allegedly stopped receiving funding and supplies from the U.S.[3]

    I can't even keep track of my coworkers, I have no idea how they can possibly say, "Oh yeah, there's four or five of them left".

    Tom October 26, 2016 at 2:50 pm

    Maybe they should hire contingent faculty and graduate students to handle the 101 courses, they might get the same results for cheaper.

    I'd like to suggest web-based training instead. I mean, we have no problem with remote-controlled drone assasinations, surely a cost-effective distance learning program isn't too much to ask.

    Tom October 26, 2016 at 4:44 pm

    Maybe they should hire contingent faculty and graduate students to handle the 101 courses, they might get the same results for cheaper

    I'd like to suggest web-based training instead. I mean, we have no problem with remote-controlled drone assassinations. Surely a distance-learning, interactive training curriculum for our designated freedom fighters isn't too much to ask. Add in a posttest and certification levels and you've got a Common Core for Democracy.

    JohnnyGL October 26, 2016 at 6:15 pm

    As I recall from reading Seymour Hersh on this….the program was set up as a replacement for the CIA's program to supply rebels, but the Pentagon lost the fight, partially on this. Both programs are still running.

    OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL October 26, 2016 at 6:29 pm

    You missed the bit where one of our lovely "moderate" groups released video of beheading sick children in hospital beds, and that as a result we were planning to "review" our support of them. I'm sure that "review" is going well, in fact I think they should put McCain in charge of it, after all he knows these "moderates" personally and was filmed sharing lots of yuks and high-fives with them.

    sgt_doom October 26, 2016 at 6:27 pm

    So effectively one-half billion dollars was spent on a total of four or five "soldiers"???

    Massinissa October 26, 2016 at 7:31 pm

    Yeah, which would be crazy until you realize somebody got rich on those five soldiers. And it wasnt the five soldiers either.

    Pirmann October 26, 2016 at 9:56 pm

    Sounds similar to The Clinton Foundation's scope of assistance per dollars spent.

    Lambert Strether October 27, 2016 at 2:17 am

    That's not a bug. It's a feature.

    dk October 27, 2016 at 11:37 am

    It takes a village of idiots to raise a few more idiots. And that village gets paid. And that cost sink generates more resource and administrative cost sinks. So the nominal costs declared are the tip of a larger boondoggle iceberg.

    Pat October 26, 2016 at 2:49 pm

    I know this may be too simplistic a question for someone with the brilliance of Hillary Clinton and our current Military leaders, but would someone explain to me why we need to essentially recruit and train people for a civil war?

    If this war is one that the people have been driven to engage in, wouldn't the real problem be picking the best of the multitudes of volunteers who are dedicated to freeing their country? I seem to remember there being a pretty good number of people behind the US Civil War, the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, etc. Sure there was coercion as well, but that was internal not external. Perhaps their problems is not the execution of the 'training', but the fact that they are trying to instigate an unwanted civil war.

    Just a thought, but I do think the Press might want to explore that possible aspect. Because as a betting woman, I'd say the odds are that a whole lot of Americans who have thought about this have come to the same conclusion I have. This isn't about what SYRIANS want.

    DJG October 26, 2016 at 4:08 pm

    +++

    polecat October 26, 2016 at 4:22 pm

    We create our own overseas civil war reality don'tcha know …. !!

    [Oct 29, 2016] Must Watch!! Hillary Clinton tried to ban this video

    www.youtube.com

    Hillary Clinton's Strange Behavior: WHAT IS GOING ON?

    I created this video with the YouTube Video Editor (http://www.youtube.com/editor)

    [Oct 28, 2016] Tom Haydens Haunting by Jim Kavanagh

    Oct 28, 2016 | www.counterpunch.org
    As an old SDS-er, I found it hard to see Tom Hayden go. However meandering his path, he was at the heart of radical history in the 60s, an erstwhile companion, if not always a comrade, on the route of every boomer lefty.

    One of his finer moments for me, which I've never seen mentioned (including among this week's encomia) since he wrote it, was his 2006 article , published on CounterPunch with an introduction by Alexander Cockburn, in which he apologized for a "descent into moral ambiguity and realpolitick that still haunts me today." It would be respectful of Hayden's admirers and critics, on the occasion of his passing, to remember which of his actions "haunted" him the most.

    The title of the article says it clearly: "I Was Israel's Dupe." In the essay, Hayden apologizes for his support of the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982, which was for him that "descent into moral ambiguity" More importantly, he explains why he did it, in a detailed narrative that everyone should read.

    Hayden sold out, as he tells it, because, in order to run as a Democratic candidate for the California State Assembly, he had get the approval of the influential Democratic congressman Howard Berman. Berman is a guy who, when he became Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, was proud to tell the Forward that he took the job because of his "interest in the Jewish state" and that: "Even before I was a Democrat, I was a Zionist."

    Hayden had to meet with Howard's brother Michael, who, acting as "the gatekeeper protecting Los Angeles' Westside for Israel's political interests," told Hayden: "I represent the Israeli Defense Forces"-a sentence that could serve as the motto of most American congress critters today. The "Berman-Waxman machine," Hayden was told, would deign to "rent" him the Assembly seat on the "one condition: that I always be a 'good friend of Israel.'"

    But American congressmen were not the only "gatekeepers" through whose hands Hayden had to pass before being allowed to run for Congress. Other "certifiers" included "the elites, beginning with rabbis and heads of the multiple mainstream Jewish organizations, the American-Israel Political Action Committee (AIPAC), [and].. Israeli ambassadors, counsels general and other officials."

    In fact, Hayden had to, in his words, be "declared 'kosher' by the ultimate source, the region's representative of the state of Israel," Benjamin Navon, Israel's Counsul-general in Los Angeles.

    In other words, in this article Hayden was describing, in an unusually concrete way, how the state of Israel, through its state officials and their compliant American partners, was effectively managing-exercising veto power over Democratic Party candidates, at the very least-American elections down to the level of State Assembly . In any constituency "attuned to the question of Israel, even in local and state elections," Hayden knew he "had to be certified 'kosher,' not once but over and over again."

    This experience prompted Hayden to express a "fear that the 'Israeli lobby' is working overtime to influence American public opinion on behalf of Israel's military effort to 'roll back the clock' and 'change the map' of the region." Hayden warned of the "trepidation and confusion among rank-and-file voters and activists, and the paralysis of politicians, especially Democrats," over support of Israel. He vowed to "not make the same mistake again," and said: "Most important, Americans must not be timid in speaking up, as I was 25 years ago."

    Whatever else he did-and he was never particularly radical about Palestine-this article was a genuinely honest and unusual intervention, and it deserves a lot more notice-as a moment in Tom Hayden's history and that of the American left-than it has got. Looking back and regretfully acknowledging that one had been duped and morally compromised by what seemed the least troublesome path 25 years earlier, saying "I woulda, shoulda, coulda done the right thing," is a haunting moment for anyone. Doing it in a way that exposes in detail how a foreign country constantly manipulates American elections over decades is worthy of everyone's notice.

    I doubt Hillary and her Democratic supporters will have anything to say about this "interference "in American elections, even local and state. But I do hope many of those who are touched by the loss of Tom Hayden heed these words from him, and don't wait another 25 years to overcome their "fear and confusion" about saying and doing the right thing regarding the crimes of Israel, troublesome as that might be.

    [Oct 28, 2016] German media is worst, because Germans need the most convincing to go to war with Russia

    Oct 28, 2016 | russia-insider.com
    Guest, 2 months ago
    I just want to point out that German media is worst, because Germans need the most convincing to go to war with Russia. The western media now has to combat the anti-war tendencies they propagated onto Germans ever since the end of WW2. If you read the comments on all these anti-Putin propaganda articles, you can tell that Germans hate their own media for doing so.
    Lisa Guest 2 months ago
    Hey, I`m from Germany (Stuttgart), and i can definitely say, that we Germans hate our media and get the informations we need from the Internet. Angela Merkel do what Obama says to her and we can do nothing. if we go to the street and make a Demonstration they say we are nazi or the media say nothing. many People (the old People) in Germany hate Putin and belive the lies from the media, but we, the young people dont belive the lies. We love Putin and wish Angela Merkel will be a little bit like Putin.
    EVcine Lisa 2 months ago
    At least ARD made an apology and have hosted an interview with Putin the UK media does not dare.
    dixi3150 Lisa a month ago
    I'm also German (Lahr, Schwartzwald) and totally agree. NEVER watch German TV. It is like for imbeciles. Cooking, singing, festivals everything to keep us from thinking for ourselves. I also get all my info from sites like this one and many others. Love Putin and think Ouma Merkel sold out to the US.
    Jon Geissinger 2 months ago
    Most of the psyop against Putin and Rus in general is due to the fact that the Central Banks, IMF, Federal Reserve, etc cannot worm their way into Rus for their own purposes. Those banks have destroyed every country that they have managed to get their dirty fingers into; the US included.

    Putin is not a bad man; my ONLY 'problem' with him is his divorce, beyond that, he appears to be above board in every way. NOBODY knows what happened within his family, so it is all tabloid speculation.

    The SECOND major reason that everyone wants to malign Rus (and Putin by proxy) is they have re-appeared on the world stage as a power to be dealt with. They seem to have recovered from the collapse of the Soviet Union, and are working their way into proper capitalism, BUT, again, the fingers of the bankers (hence the West) cannot get their groping claws into the country, so they are pissed! They want Rus to be a colony of the west; to bend on their whim. That did not occur.

    Third is the inability of the US 'security' agencies inability to penetrate and turn Rus into one of their nightmares. CIA, DIA, NSA, etc ALL want to conduct coup's, fiddle with the banking, mess with people's minds, randomly change the power structure at will, but they cannot, so they are pissed off as well.

    NOW that the West appears to be imploding, and the BRICS seem to be getting ready to break loose from the almighty US Dollar, they (the West) are woobeling back and forth with much veracity (typical of an Empire about to topple over on it's own weight). Think of a child's top that is loosing it's spin and is preparing to fall over.

    SO, the only way the powers-that-be can distract the 'public' from the truth is to make up pure BS.

    Johnpd Jon Geissinger 2 months ago
    Excellent. Another point to grasp is that the Banksters do not want a true capitalism, where inefficiency fails, & competition trims profits.
    They want what we now have in the West : a crony corporatist state, where ever fewer giant globalist multinationals dominate both commerce & countries, pay no taxes, to the benefit of their CEOs , shareholders & their banksters.
    In short, effectively, a Fascism.
    Book : Pawns in the Game, by William Guy Carr. See where those "Atlantic Integrationists" came from.
    David Chu Jon Geissinger 2 months ago
    Putin is not a bad man?!?

    President Putin is probably the Greatest World Leader for a long long time!

    What religious cult do you belong to? Divorce is evil!

    Igor R Jon Geissinger 2 months ago
    Russia today is the only power standing up to the world oligarchy. If Russia falls then we will all be living as slaves behind a barb wired fence, with chips under our skin, etc. etc.
    Webbily Jon Geissinger 2 months ago
    Yes, and Russia has actually been making efforts to keep the dollar afloat, because they know the US hegemons will get even nastier of their precious dollar becomes worthless. Their goal isn't to integrate Ukraine into the EU. They want to create a failed state on Russia's border, and also hopefully engage them militarily in Syria and in places like Chechnya.
    dixi3150 Jon Geissinger a month ago
    The say a rat that is cornered can be very viscous, that's the US.
    Antonio Calabria dixi3150 a day ago
    I don't think viscous is the word you want....
    spin to win Jon Geissinger a month ago
    I've heard tell...Russia's central banking institution does not belong to the state. Does this sound familiar? I do not believe that the international banking system give two turds about the affairs of Russia, unless...Russia moves to control it's own central bank, then there would be real war.
    Bankers have no allegiance except to money!
    patty donovan 2 months ago
    I am an American and hate what my government has done -- Mr Putin is the greatest world leader of our time -- My President is a total mess and a danger to world peace -- He's jealous of Mr Putin --
    cherrie greenbaum123 patty donovan 2 months ago
    Your president (and mine, unfortunately) is a puppet for the Zionists.
    morte al Nuovo ordine cherrie greenbaum123 2 months ago
    It is interesting to speculate what will happen when the dollar falls . The zionist entity will not get the billion of dollars they need to continue with the Apartheid state . The zionists are the major reason the USA is being destroyed from the inside. When there will be nothing to loot in the USA , I bet they will go back to Germany for another round of looting as they did before the advent of Hitler . So those Khazars in about 80 years have destroyed two European nations , Germany and the USA . Given a chance they would do the same with Russia .
    EVcine morte al Nuovo ordine 2 months ago
    Hello -- So now you give a rationale for Nazism. Putin is against the Nazis.
    Antonio Calabria cherrie greenbaum123 2 months ago
    Look, all US Presidents have been and are such puppets. It'd take an awful lot to change that.
    Jon Geissinger patty donovan 2 months ago
    OUR president really is NOT a president, he was installed, not elected. He is a mouthpiece puppet.
    Antonio Calabria Jon Geissinger 2 months ago
    Well, look, we had two national elections, and he won them, fair and square. So a majority of the people in the US chose him. That he's influenced by groups of one sort or another is a separate issue.
    His major problem has been and remains his revanchist mentor, the notorious Polish Brzezinski, who has been pushing him to oppose Russia. Obama is a lawyer, and he has very little knowledge of history, which could have helped him enormously. How? By showing him that bids for mastery of Europe, to think only of that area, which has seen tremendous contention with Russia over Ukraine, are bound to lead to wars if they're not replaced by a healthy respect for spheres of influence of the most important states, i.e., the US and Russia.
    Obama should never have allowed the Fascist coup that brought the Nazi Svoboda and Pravyi Sektor to power after Maidan in Kiev. That fascist government won't survive without US/EU help and funding. That was mistake number one. Mistake number two is even worse, and it's being made now. It is the extremely ill-considered attempt to destroy the pro-Russian Eastern Ukrainians, that is, to reassert Kiev's power over Eastern Ukraine (though it'd take US arms and aid).
    I frankly don't see that any responsible Russian statesman, Tsarist, Communist or post-Communist, could allow as vital and historically linked to Russia an area as Ukraine, let alone Eastern Ukraine, to be removed from Russia's rightful sphere of influence in Europe. If Obama wants peace, he should chuck Brzezinski and leave at the very least Eastern Ukraine, at this point, to the Russophile forces there.
    Samantha patty donovan 2 months ago
    Agree, Patty.
    The same for the un-elected Mandarins in Brussels. They are a real swamp. Lazy, clueless, overpaid and greedy still. They are powerhungry despite their tremendous lack of any political clout. Vasalls through blackmail by 3 letter agencies?
    The same for german Mrs. Merkel. Being a german citizen, I am ashamed of thus woman and her orwellian ,politics'.
    Today, the former CEO of Thyssen-Krupp, Prof. Dr. Dieter Spethmann, a lawyer, called for her urgent removal from the job by publishing an Open Letter in mmnews (a blog).
    dixi3150 patty donovan a month ago
    Whow Patty, an American that is not afraid to say it how it is. Watch out though, the badies are awatchin
    Patty Donovan John H 2 months ago
    I could care less the FBI or CIA comes knocking ..for what ? Voicing an opinion ? Good I will when I tell them to , Screw Off! My opinion sticks! Mr Putin is the greatest world leader of our time and don't expect another one like him for a good long time -- He takes no shit, bribes or bullshit -- Its what we need here in America! God bless him in his struggles with corrupt NATO and my twisted, warmongering Government!
    Jonathan Jarvis 2 months ago
    look at all the blogs/comments in Uk nationalistic papers eg Daily mail-readers comments are full of vile nonsense and insane idiocy-there is no hope of peaceful resolution Rus and west while ordinary people are so ill informed, do not even wish to understand, completely prejudiced, have such entrenched attitudes perpetuated by mass media, playstation/xbox games and zombie films exported from USA that have morally corrupted peoples and nations. NGO's being funded by USA to subvert other states, look out for cyberwarfare too. Please support The Saker too, very high intelligence from this analyst.
    dangood 2 months ago
    The Russia bashing is indeed perplexing. But it is not universal. One explanation is that Americans are afraid of the rivalry. Also Americans have been brought up with a negative imagine of "KGB" and it is impossible to shake this. Russia would love to be part of Europe and increase ties and business. Europe is game; but not USA. It represents a challenge to its own supremacy. I think this is the underlying problem. Putin came out of nowhere, as many of the "Putin Videos" show. His first priority was to rebuild the morale of the Russian army and to do this he picked on Chechnia. Perhaps today he would do things differently. He also turned on many oligarchs who had helped him. But he did this because he did not ask nor want their "help" which he considered self-serving; they wanted to control him, not the other way round. He may regret having been too hard on some (Boris Bereshovski for instance) but it had to be done. All these things played into the hands of the anti-Russians in US. One thing is sure. Neither Russia nor Putin had anything to do with the riots in Maidan which are the root cause of all the disasters occurring in that country. If Putin "took advantage" of the break-down in Kiev to retake Crimea so much to his credit. It was certainly not "planned". The State Dept got faked out. Now they are licking their wounds by Putin bashing day in day out. Rather pathetic really. The best would be to welcome Russia into the world economy. It can make a great contribution.
    Samantha dangood 2 months ago

    Well, Washington D.C. IS afraid of rivalry.
    Remeber the 1992 ,Wolfowitz Doctrine'? Even one of the mouthpieces, the NYT, was slightly disgusted.
    The essence of that vile doctrine: do not allow any rival to rise and challenge US power, hegemony.

    Patty Donovan dangood 2 months ago
    I was brought up to hate Russia, to fear Russia but not anymore! It was all lies and manipulation! Do not include all Americans because its just not true but yes, Russophobia is from decades and decades of brainshing in America.. Believe me, since literally the age of 5 I was taught to fear Russia. From school drills in preparation of " Russia coming to get us" to Putin being a communist dictator to now, Russia is more dangerous than terrorists organization is ALL lies by our government and media! People need to wake the hell up -- It is our government bombing and invading countries, our government funding millions to Isreal to slaughter Palestines, funding Nazi Ukraine president to kill Russian speaking E Ukrainians! Our government funded and trained ISIS! The world is not n chaos because of your government!
    Jon Geissinger dangood 2 months ago
    Americans are NOT afraid of Russia. The powers that be are afraid of Russia because they cannot control Russia (and probably never will, but history has proven man wrong at every turn).
    MOST Americans are asleep at the wheel of a paper vehicle traveling 1000 mile per hour towards a hole in the ground filled with burning oil and are happy for it! American society has become the antithesis of the founding fathers.
    Patty Donovan Jon Geissinger 2 months ago
    I am not at all afraid of Russia. In fact they're much like us , who want peace and wished our countries were friends and allies like we should be -- But NO -- We have twisted butthead warmongers who want to cause trouble and keep Russia down because heaven forbid they might be bigger and better than us! I say good for them -- We are NOT excepectionals , we should be equals --
    plamenpetkov Jon Geissinger 2 months ago
    Guess what, the Russians are not afraid of USA either.
    But we all ARE afraid of a wounded animal, they are the most dangerous. And USA is a wounded dying animal. I will be very surprised if humanity managed to avoid a nuclear war within the next 10 years. The fake "capitalism" is collapsing and the only way out is a major war.
    Rocky Racoon 2 months ago
    Just consider the speech's given by Western Leader's at the opening session of the UN recently-Cameron posits critical thinking as being aligned with ISIS-Obama casting Russia as a threat equal to ISIS and Ebola, ...these statements are allowed to pass uncritically into the mainstream without a second thought. This depraved leadership sends shivers down my spine as it indicates just serious our problems are and how far down the rabbit hole we have fallen. Capitalism in crisis produces fascism at home and primitive accumulation in the form of Imperialism abroad. America is broke and going from Broke having invested trillions in PNAC they are doubling down on full spectrum dominance-a fallacy that will never be reached leaving poverty stricken societies in their wake. Societies akin to the Hunger Games-quasi-feudal fiefdoms only serfs had more rights than today's wage slaves-tenure on the land,access to the mode of production ability the keep and trade the fruits of their labour at least to an extent. The fall of the Soviet Union was a catastrophe for the workers of the world-Not only did we not get a peace dividend from the end of the cold war but a century of social gains won by labour have been rolled back to practically nothing the finishing touches being put into place with the free trade deals about to be unleashed upon the Western Worker-notice austerity was and is not an option for Putin's Russia-he has put his neck on the line for his people and his country and they will do the same for him and the Motherland.
    America has to hire mercenaries to fight their battles which is why they can't win. And these false flags are getting a little tiresome. And Mr. Lavrov as FM he is the consummate diplomat, he does not brow beat or chest pound,nor does he humiliate his adversaries even though circumstances have offered him ample opportunities-people like MCCAIN OBAMA and KERRY embarrass themselves and their nation often enough without Russia having to add insult to injury-Russia is above that but truth telling is another matter and must be pursued no matter how embarrassing for certain parties the exercise maybe Russia does need to increase it's public relations budget every thing from student exchanges on up to film festivals Sochi would make an excellent venue for the glitterati......and serves as a reminder of just how immature the West truly is when one harken's back to the coverage of the Olympics. This Ukraine situation needs to be resolved in opposition to the fascists putsch ruling now before it blows up in all of our faces. Cohen nailed it-we are 5 min. to midnight and closing. Our real enemy is not in the Kremlin or the Middle East-but right here on Wall Street and Pennsylvania Avenue-time for Occupy 2.0 with Agenda.
    Webbily Rocky Racoon 2 months ago
    Yes, and Ebola isn't a real threat. The only reason it's in the US is because people have been idiots and have not taken the proper precautions. Russia has a vaccine ready to go. ISIS was created by the US, and they're not a real threat. I am not afraid of Russia or the KGB or Putin or Boris and Natasha. All of it is fear, fear, fear, fear, fear.
    elizabeth Eva Young Rocky Racoon 2 months ago
    Oh Yes, and not forgetting the hybrid not so Holy Hollywood, the entertainment industry who of course are run by the Banksters. The missing link in humanity the genetic modification from apes to human form, the Banksters. Do you remember the "Man from Atlantis" and the "Planet of the Apes" and the oil magnets "Dallas"
    idiotland • 2 months ago
    What this shows more than anything is how desperate the western elites are. They know Russia, China and others are rising powers and that the US empire's days are numbered. The dollar's reign as world reserve currency is coming to an end and they know that the US a busted, bankrupt economic house of cards that could completely collapse at any time taking down US power with it. Hence, the risk taking and recklessness. We're in a very dangerous time.
    elizabeth wesley 2 months ago
    It just takes a few to manipulate the minds of public opinion and perception. That is mind control and you have to ignore mainstream media and go online to find unadulterated truth. Putin has other means to deal with the US; he doesn't have to stoop so low to call obama what he really is: an illegitimate child who became an illegitimate president, a man who came from nowhere and has nothing to offer but war with third world nations who have no nuclear defense. America is as confused as Africa and his zionist handlers like it that way.
    maryh3 2 months ago
    The basic problem is, and always will be, that people believe what they want to believe irregardless of facts, evidence, proof or common sense. The believe that which they think will benefit themselves, soothe their ego, fill their pockets, bring tem pleasure etc and deliberatly ignore, condemn, and close their eyes to learning something that may not fit that goal. They rationalize away their deliberate ignorance and refuse to look for truth under some morally relative "label" or "cause" so that they don't have to face truth about themselves and their true intentions.
    David Chu 2 months ago
    The "US Deep State" is actually called the "US National Security State" which is comprised of the Black House, Satanic Pentagon, Cancerous CIA, Police State FBI, and a few other agencies. Their job is to make the world safe and prosperous for the 1% Owners of the United States.

    All this demonizing of President Putin is for a purpose: To paint the Narrative of who the Bad Guy is during our upcoming WW3! Remember when those ICBMs are flying, that is the END of WW3, not the beginning!

    David Chu 2 months ago
    Be very careful, mate. The western press might be defaming Putin, but he is far from being a saint. Putin is a powerful man and is there by virtue of a desire for power. Powerful men do whatever they can to remain powerful and it just so happens that this now goes against the interests of the banksters and the biatches that they control in power. If Putin believed for a minute that his best interest lay in doing what those scummers wanted, he would do so in a heartbeat.

    [Oct 28, 2016] Obama to Stick With First Strike Nuclear War Doctrine, Claiming Deterrence Value THE DISTRICT SENTINEL news co-op

    Oct 28, 2016 | www.districtsentinel.com
    The New York Times reported Tuesday that Obama won't attempt to revise the so-called "First Strike" doctrine before leaving office in January 2017.

    The paper noted he had faced criticism, including some from "former senior aides," over unfulfilled campaign and first-term promises, to work towards "a world without nuclear weapons."

    "For months, arms control advocates have argued for a series of steps to advance the pledge he made," the Times said. "An unequivocal no-first-use pledge would have been the boldest of those measures."

    The source of complaints about the President's about-face are from roughly six years ago. In 2010, when Obama renewed the START treaty with Russia, he also agreed to modernize the US nuclear arsenal, per Congressional Republicans' demands.

    The Times said that a shift away from First Strike would be mostly cosmetic, with US presidents dating back to Harry Truman, having pledged to only use nuclear weapons as a "last resort."

    History, however, casts a pall over these pledges.

    Truman ordered the dropping of two atomic bombs on an already-battered Imperial Japan in 1945, despite the fact that some American military officials –at the time and, in the years after–expressed doubt that the nuclear bombings were needed to force a Japanese surrender. Those critics included Dwight Eisenhower, Pacific fleet commander Adm. Chester Nimitz, and Truman's Chief of Staff, Adm. William Leahy. The United States is still the only nation in history to use nuclear weapons against an adversary.

    According to The New York Times' Tuesday report, President Obama had considered a move away from First Strike this summer, not long after he became the first US President to visit Hiroshima-the first of the two Japanese cities targeted by nuclear weapons, under orders from Truman.

    Obama was, however, persuaded to move away from altering the policy by his cabinet. The Secretaries of Defense, State and Energy-Ash Carter, John Kerry, and Ernest Moniz-were all opposed to the move.

    Kerry and Carter were particularly concerned about upsetting allies in East Asia, South Korea and Japan, in the context of perceived US "weakness," in the face of possible North Korean military strikes.

    The Times also noted Kerry objecting to "weaken[ing] the nuclear deterrent while Russia is running practice bombing runs over Europe and China is expanding its reach in the South China Sea."

    President Obama also ran the risk of adopting a policy that would be quickly reversed by the next administration, the paper noted.

    "[Donald] Trump bristled at the idea [of abandoning first strike], saying he would never want to weaken America's leverage," The Times said. "[Hillary] Clinton has not spoken on the issue during her campaign."

    [Oct 28, 2016] Howard Stern: Trump Has Always Been Sexist

    Oct 28, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    im1dc :

    Howard Stern: Trump Has Always Been Sexist

    "I, certainly, in a million years, I didn't expect Trump to seriously run for president,"

    Tonight's LOL funnee

    http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/26/media/howard-stern-on-trump-interviews/index.html

    "Howard Stern: Trump Has Always Been 'Sexist'"

    "Because he interviewed Donald Trump so many times over the years, Howard Stern has become an unlikely central figure in this year's presidential election, most notably by getting Trump to go on the record in favor of the Iraq War in 2002. But the SiriusXM host rarely discusses politics, which makes his latest comments this week about the Republican nominee and his own role in the race significant. "None of this was hidden," Stern said on his show Tuesday about Trump's most outrageous statements. "This is who Trump is. He was always bombastic. He always rated women. He always talked in a misogynistic, sexist kind of way, but he did it sort of proudly and out in the open; and he still won the Republican primary. In one sense, the fact that we do an interview and people's personalities come out, I'm very proud of that."

    "I, certainly, in a million years, I didn't expect Trump to seriously run for president," Stern added..."

    [Oct 28, 2016] Putin says U.S. hysteria over Russia is election ploy Reuters

    Oct 28, 2016 | www.reuters.com
    President Vladimir Putin on Thursday accused American politicians of whipping up hysteria about a mythical Russian threat as a ploy to distract voters from their own failings in the run-up to the U.S. presidential election.

    Putin, addressing an audience of foreign policy experts gathered in southern Russia, repeatedly lashed out at the Obama administration, saying it did not keep its word on Syria, did not honour deals, and had falsely accused Moscow of all manner of sins.

    The U.S. government has formally accused Russia of a campaign of cyber attacks against Democratic Party organisations, while Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton has accused Republican rival Donald Trump of being a Putin "puppet".

    Putin said he found it hard to believe that anyone seriously thought Moscow was capable of influencing the Nov. 8 election.

    "Hysteria has been whipped up," said Putin.

    He said that was a ruse to cover up for the fact that the U.S. political elite had nothing to say about serious issues such as the country's national debt or gun control.

    [Oct 28, 2016] Retired senior military pilots increasingly alarmed Clintons Syria No Fly Zone plan could lead to war with Russia

    Oct 28, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    anne : , October 26, 2016 at 09:59 AM
    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/27/opinion/playing-with-fear-russias-war-card.html

    October 26, 2016

    Russia's War Card
    By MICHAEL KHODARKOVSKY

    War hysteria in a country with imperial nostalgia, one-man rule and a weak economy cannot be taken lightly.


    Michael Khodarkovsky is a professor of history at Loyola University.

    [ The fostering of fear of and disdain for Russia is continual now and however false the characterizations of Russia are, and they are indeed false, the fear and disdain will influence and be self-defeating for American foreign policy from here till a dramatic change comes from another administration. I unfortunately find no such change in the offing. ]

    anne -> anne... , October 26, 2016 at 10:34 AM
    https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/791252853943836672

    Glenn Greenwald ‏@ggreenwald

    Any new war she gets the US involved in will be prosecuted with progressivism & humanitarianism in her heart, so what's the worry?

    Trevor Timm @trevortimm

    Retired senior military pilots "increasingly alarmed" Clinton's Syria No Fly Zone plan could lead to war with Russia https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/25/hillary-clinton-syria-no-fly-zones-russia-us-war

    5:19 AM - 26 Oct 2016

    ilsm -> anne... , October 26, 2016 at 03:22 PM
    progressivism & humanitarianism in war profiteering aka mongering......

    "Civilian protective operations" panders a neocon excuse for organized state run murder.

    Bill went after the Tsar as soon as his closet neocon found out they could have the Germans send a mechanized brigade of Warsaw Pact armaments to the Croats and Yeltsin did nothing.

    The Russian version of Chamberlain and Munich was Croatian independence.

    ilsm -> anne... , -1
    Most career military pilots I knew were terrified by the thought of no more perpetual bombing.

    They would think Clinton and the neocons can keep a low boil going in the PNAC for another 100 years without tripping into a real war, or bankrupting the USA.

    It is a signifier of the moral bankruptcy that the exceptional carry as a badge.

    With the "defenses available" to Syria they could enforce no fly zones on GCC and their blood thirsty allies as as might US over Raqqa.

    The hegemon!

    [Oct 28, 2016] If 15 years of endless wars, trillions of dollars of wasted money, hundreds of thousands of casualties on all sides and metastasizing terrorist threat with no end in sight doesn't give [Oct 28, 2016

    Notable quotes:
    "... America has entered one of its periods of historical madness, but this the worst I can remember: worse than McCarthyism, worse that the Bay of Pigs and in the long term potentially more disastrous than the Vietnam War. ~John le Carre ..."
    "... If 15 years of endless wars, trillions of dollars of wasted money, hundreds of thousands of casualties on all sides and metastasizing terrorist threat with no end in sight doesn't give one a little pause before advocating more of the same, then we might have a problem. ..."
    "... Hillary said twice during the debates that "America is great because America is good." Translation: We can do whatever we damn well please because we can. Lord, help us all. I'm so sick of hearing this and our endless criminal wars. ..."
    "... Yes but they are usually in full agreement with the Koch brothers, who have been financing WGBH Educational Foundation since 2008 (owners of PBS, Frontline and most of the "content" shows on NPR). ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com
    abynormal October 26, 2016 at 6:26 pm

    America has entered one of its periods of historical madness, but this the worst I can remember: worse than McCarthyism, worse that the Bay of Pigs and in the long term potentially more disastrous than the Vietnam War. ~John le Carre

    KILLING MACHINES AND THE MADNESS OF MILITARISM
    http://www.artsandopinion.com/2014_v13_n5/giroux-6.htm
    by Henry Giroux

    Tom October 26, 2016 at 6:48 pm

    historical madness/hysterical madness … take your pick.

    It is terrifying to watch Clinton rave about adopting a more "muscular, aggressive" approach to foreign affairs - with little or no push back from the national media, either party or even many citizens. Hell, they are applause lines at her rallies.

    If 15 years of endless wars, trillions of dollars of wasted money, hundreds of thousands of casualties on all sides and metastasizing terrorist threat with no end in sight doesn't give one a little pause before advocating more of the same, then we might have a problem.

    abynormal October 26, 2016 at 7:12 pm

    she's a scorned woman beginning with her father. she's passive-aggressive with women…projects her never ending insecurities. SO she has something to prove…vengeance is mine.

    First, she'll drone Mercy Street(s)…

    Elizabeth October 26, 2016 at 7:58 pm

    Hillary said twice during the debates that "America is great because America is good." Translation: We can do whatever we damn well please because we can. Lord, help us all. I'm so sick of hearing this and our endless criminal wars.

    Kim Kaufman October 26, 2016 at 3:28 pm

    "Battlegrounds: The Fight for Mosul and Election Day Disruptions" (podcast) [Foreign Policy Editor's Roundtable].

    "…historians will look back on it as "a forty year's war," without ever once giving a reason for us to be there. Soothing NPR voices, no anger, a lot of laughter. Smart people."

    This is what the "smart people" are so able to do: always find the humor in war and poverty and keep it ever so polite. It's really revolting. Could have gone under Guillotine Watch. Guess I'm happy to be stupid and angry.

    Jim Haygood October 26, 2016 at 3:36 pm

    Soothing voices, no anger, a lot of laughter … right up till the pitchfork tines pierce their windpipe.

    polecat October 26, 2016 at 4:25 pm

    there is absolutely nothing 'soothing' about N..P..R !!

    'Irritating' or 'grating' yes ….

    ….In fact, whenever I come across NPR banter on my local radio station … I immediately switch to the local BC 'French' station.

    sgt_doom October 26, 2016 at 6:33 pm

    Yes but they are usually in full agreement with the Koch brothers, who have been financing WGBH Educational Foundation since 2008 (owners of PBS, Frontline and most of the "content" shows on NPR).

    polecat October 26, 2016 at 7:19 pm

    well … yeah … as per the federal gov. 30-years war on the commons …. courtesy of feckess f#cksticks in the Uniparty !!

    [Oct 28, 2016] Russias Putin says Obama administration does not stick to any deals Reuters

    Oct 28, 2016 | www.reuters.com
    Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Thursday it was hard for him to work with the current U.S. administration because it did not stick to any agreements, including on Syria.

    Putin said he was ready to engage with a new president however, whoever the American people chose, and to discuss any problem.

    [Oct 28, 2016] Fact Check Trump Is Right that Clinton Might Trigger World War III

    Oct 28, 2016 | www.globalresearch.ca
    Trump claims that Clinton's policy on Syria would lead to World War 3.

    Let's fact check …

    The Washington Post points out that a vote for Clinton is a vote for escalating military confrontation in Syria and elsewhere:

    In the rarefied world of the Washington foreign policy establishment, President Obama's departure from the White House - and the possible return of a more conventional and hawkish Hillary Clinton - is being met with quiet relief.

    The Republicans and Democrats who make up the foreign policy elite are laying the groundwork for a more assertive American foreign policy, via a flurry of reports shaped by officials who are likely to play senior roles in a potential Clinton White House .

    ***

    The studies, which reflect Clinton's stated views, break most forcefully with Obama on Syria …. call[ing] for stepped-up military action to deter President Bashar al-Assad's regime and Russian forces in ­Syria.

    ***

    Most of the studies propose limited American airstrikes with cruise missiles to punish Assad ….

    ***

    Last year, Obama dismissed calls for a no-fly zone in northwestern Syria - a position advocated by Clinton - as " half-baked ."

    ***

    Even pinprick cruise-missile strikes designed to hobble the ­Syrian air force or punish Assad would risk a direct confrontation with Russian forces, which are scattered throughout the key ­Syrian military bases that would be targeted.

    "You can't pretend you can go to war against Assad and not go to war against the Russians," said a senior administration official who is involved in Middle East policy and was granted anonymity to discuss internal White House deliberations.

    The most liberal presidential candidate still running – Green Party candidate Jill Stein – says:

    She explains :

    Hillary Clinton wants to start an air war with Russia. Let's be clear: That's what a no-fly zone means. It is tantamount to a declaration of war against Russia.

    ***

    Clearly the Democrats are incredibly embarrassed about the nature of these revelations, and they've created a smokescreen here to try and distract from that. But that smokescreen is pushing us to the brink of warfare with Russia now, where you have the U.S. head of defense, Ashton Carter, talking about nuclear war. We just did a dry run dropping fake nuclear bombs over Nevada. This is really dangerous stuff; this is not pretend. So we need to take a deep breath here, we need to step back and stop beating the war drums. In this context, Hillary Clinton is talking about starting an air war with Russia. Which could slide-you know, we're on the verge of nuclear war right now.

    ***

    The most likely nuclear threat right now is with Russia. There's no doubt about that. When you have Mikhail Gorbachev, who was the prime minister of the Soviet Union during the Cold War, saying that the threat of nuclear war is hotter now than it has ever been in all of history, you've got to take that pretty seriously. And when you have Hillary Clinton then beating the war drums against Russia, and essentially saying that if she's elected that we will declare war on Russia-because that's what a no-fly zone over Syria amounts to. Shooting down Russian warplanes.

    ***

    Hillary Clinton is a disastrous nuclear threat right now in a context where we're already off-the-charts in the risk of nuclear war. She has stated in this context that she's essentially opening up a battlefront with Russia. So to my mind, this emerges as the clearest and most present danger.

    Prominent liberal economist Jeffrey Sachs writes in the Huffington Post, in an essay bannered " Hillary Is the Candidate of the War Machine ":

    It is often believed that the Republicans are the neocons and the Democrats act as restraints on the warmongering. This is not correct. Both parties are divided between neocon hawks and cautious realists who don't want the US in unending war. Hillary is a staunch neocon whose record of favoring American war adventures explains much of our current security danger.

    Just as the last Clinton presidency set the stage for financial collapse, it also set the stage for unending war. On October 31, 1998 President Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act that made it official US policy to support "regime change" in Iraq.

    It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.

    Thus were laid the foundations for the Iraq War in 2003.

    Of course, by 2003, Hillary was a Senator and a staunch supporter of the Iraq War, which has cost the US trillions of dollars, thousands of lives, and done more to create ISIS and Middle East instability than any other single decision of modern foreign policy. In defending her vote, Hillary parroted the phony propaganda of the CIA:

    "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members… "

    After the Iraq Liberation Act came the 1999 Kosovo War, in which Bill Clinton called in NATO to bomb Belgrade, in the heart of Europe, and unleashing another decade of unrest in the Balkans. Hillary, traveling in Africa, called Bill: "I urged him to bomb," she told reporter Lucinda Frank.

    Hillary's record as Secretary of State is among the most militaristic, and disastrous, of modern US history . Some experience. Hilary was a staunch defender of the military-industrial-intelligence complex at every turn, helping to spread the Iraq mayhem over a swath of violence that now stretches from Mali to Afghanistan. Two disasters loom largest: Libya and Syria.

    Hillary has been much attacked for the deaths of US diplomats in Benghazi, but her tireless promotion of the overthrow Muammar Qaddafi by NATO bombing is the far graver disaster. Hillary strongly promoted NATO-led regime change in Libya, not only in violation of international law but counter to the most basic good judgment. After the NATO bombing, Libya descended into civil war while the paramilitaries and unsecured arms stashes in Libya quickly spread west across the African Sahel and east to Syria. The Libyan disaster has spawned war in Mali, fed weapons to Boko Haram in Nigeria, and fueled ISIS in Syria and Iraq. In the meantime, Hillary found it hilarious to declare of Qaddafi: "We came, we saw, he died."

    Perhaps the crowning disaster of this long list of disasters has been Hillary's relentless promotion of CIA-led regime change in Syria . Once again Hillary bought into the CIA propaganda that regime change to remove Bashir al-Assad would be quick, costless, and surely successful. In August 2011, Hillary led the US into disaster with her declaration Assad must "get out of the way," backed by secret CIA operations.

    Five years later, no place on the planet is more ravaged by unending war, and no place poses a great threat to US security. More than 10 million Syrians are displaced, and the refugees are drowning in the Mediterranean or undermining the political stability of Greece, Turkey, and the European Union. Into the chaos created by the secret CIA-Saudi operations to overthrow Assad, ISIS has filled the vacuum, and has used Syria as the base for worldwide terrorist attacks.

    The list of her incompetence and warmongering goes on. Hillary's support at every turn for NATO expansion, including even into Ukraine and Georgia against all common sense, was a trip wire that violated the post-Cold War settlement in Europe in 1991 and that led to Russia's violent counter-reactions in both Georgia and Ukraine. As Senator in 2008, Hilary co-sponsored 2008-SR439 , to include Ukraine and Georgia in NATO. As Secretary of State, she then presided over the restart of the Cold War with Russia.

    It is hard to know the roots of this record of disaster. Is it chronically bad judgment? Is it her preternatural faith in the lying machine of the CIA? Is it a repeated attempt to show that as a Democrat she would be more hawkish than the Republicans? Is it to satisfy her hardline campaign financiers? Who knows? Maybe it's all of the above. But whatever the reasons, hers is a record of disaster. Perhaps more than any other person, Hillary can lay claim to having stoked the violence that stretches from West Africa to Central Asia and that threatens US security .

    Jakob Augstein notes in Der Spiegel:

    Trump would probably be the better choice in the question of war and peace than Clinton.

    Clinton has expressly expressed the wish to establish a flight ban on Syria, or parts of it. *** In truth, it would be an act of war. The risks are unpredictable. Above all, the risk of a military conflict with Russia.

    ***

    The highest soldier of the United States of America, General Joseph Dunford, President of the United States General Staff of the United States Forces, is certain. To control the entire airspace over Syria would mean war with Syria and Russia. Dunford's predecessor in office estimated a few years ago that an effective flight bomb over Syria would involve the use of 70,000 soldiers and a monthly cost of $ 1 billion.

    But the bottom line is Clinton's proven historical track record … she's at least partly responsible for war after catastrophic war and coup after disastrous coup in Libya, Syria, Kosovo, Haiti, Honduras and other countries around the world.

    And it's interesting, indeed, that the Neocons who got us into the Iraq war have endorsed Clinton instead of Trump .

    Trump might speak in a crude, knee-jerk manner … but Clinton is probably more likely to actually get us into war .

    [Oct 28, 2016] Team Clinton Headspace Emails Published by WikiLeaks Are About Her Mood

    Notable quotes:
    "... Hillary has suggested on several occasions publicly that Trump cannot be trusted with the 'Nuclear Codes' because he is erratic and unstable. Now that most people agree that no matter where they came from the Wikileaks is telling the truth we can see how Hillary's own people are scared of her 'mood swings' and her health problems.... ..."
    "... She is the one who should not have access to the Nuclear Codes much less be running for President ..."
    "... Hillary's own campaign team is waging a war on women. ..."
    "... The American media, nothing but despicable State Sycophant Propaganda Ministry runt traitors! ..."
    "... Whether Russia is behind it or not is irrelevant. Its not like the USA is an innocent player in hacking other countries. What's of importance is the contents of the emails. Whoever hacked them - if any at all (they were most likely provided by disgruntled DNC insiders) did not alter them (as proven by security checks). HRC, the DNC and her campaign team are deeply corrupt, hence she is unqualified to lead the USA. ..."
    "... So here's the REAL story.​ ​Amb. Stevens was sent to Benghazi post haste in order to retrieve US made Stinger missiles supplied to Ansar al Sharia without Congressional oversight or permission. Hillary brokered the deal through Stevens and a private arms dealer named Marc Turi. Then some of the shoulder fired missiles ended up in Afghanistan used against our own military. It was July 25th, 2012 when a Chinook helicopter was taken down by one of our own Stingers, but the idiot Taliban didn't arm the missile and the Chinook didn't explode, but had to land anyway. An ordnance team recovered the serial number off the missile which led back to a cache of Stingers being kept in Qatar by the CIA Obama and Hillary were now in full panic mode and Stevens was sent in to retrieve the rest of the Stingers. This was a "do-or-die" mission, which explains the stand down orders given to multiple commando teams. ..."
    "... It was the State Dept, not the CIA that supplied them to our sworn enemies, because Petraeus wouldn't supply these deadly weapons due to their potential use on commercial aircraft. Then, Obama threw Gen. Petraeus under the bus after he refused to testify that he OK'd the BS talking points about a spontaneous uprising due to a Youtube video. ..."
    "... Obama and Hillary committed treason...and THIS is what the investigation is all about, why she had a private server, (in order to delete the digital evidence), and why Obama, two weeks after the attack, told the UN that the attack was because of a Youtube video, even though everyone knew it was not. Further...the Taliban knew that this administration aided and abetted the enemy without Congressional approval when Boehner created the Select Cmte, and the Taliban began pushing the Obama Administration for the release of 5 Taliban Generals. Bowe Bergdahl was just a pawn...everyone KNEW he was a traitor. ..."
    Oct 28, 2016 | www.breitbart.com
    Hillary has suggested on several occasions publicly that Trump cannot be trusted with the 'Nuclear Codes' because he is erratic and unstable. Now that most people agree that no matter where they came from the Wikileaks is telling the truth we can see how Hillary's own people are scared of her 'mood swings' and her health problems....

    She is the one who should not have access to the Nuclear Codes much less be running for President because she also is a Criminal and belongs in Federal Prison.

    RobL_v2 2 hours ago Her mood??

    This is coded speech microaggression. They are discriminating against her because she is a woman, implying she is 'moody' you know 'hysterical'... hysterectomy... its sexist, its misogynist its harassment, its abuse, its hate speech.

    Come on Liberal media, where are you ... call it out... this is your bread and butter... Hillary's own campaign team is waging a war on women.

    They did it to Sarah Palin and Barbara Bachman... You know they'd do it if Trump said Hillary was 'moody'.

    The American media, nothing but despicable State Sycophant Propaganda Ministry runt traitors!

    Lion 3 WhiteSplainItToYou 42 minutes ago

    Whether Russia is behind it or not is irrelevant. Its not like the USA is an innocent player in hacking other countries. What's of importance is the contents of the emails. Whoever hacked them - if any at all (they were most likely provided by disgruntled DNC insiders) did not alter them (as proven by security checks). HRC, the DNC and her campaign team are deeply corrupt, hence she is unqualified to lead the USA.

    DoruSlinger✓ᵀᴿᵁᴹᴾ an hour ago

    Wikileaks needs to get this out (I have not verified the info sent to me last night):

    So here's the REAL story.​ ​Amb. Stevens was sent to Benghazi post haste in order to retrieve US made Stinger missiles supplied to Ansar al Sharia without Congressional oversight or permission. Hillary brokered the deal through Stevens and a private arms dealer named Marc Turi. Then some of the shoulder fired missiles ended up in Afghanistan used against our own military. It was July 25th, 2012 when a Chinook helicopter was taken down by one of our own Stingers, but the idiot Taliban didn't arm the missile and the Chinook didn't explode, but had to land anyway. An ordnance team recovered the serial number off the missile which led back to a cache of Stingers being kept in Qatar by the CIA Obama and Hillary were now in full panic mode and Stevens was sent in to retrieve the rest of the Stingers. This was a "do-or-die" mission, which explains the stand down orders given to multiple commando teams.

    It was the State Dept, not the CIA that supplied them to our sworn enemies, because Petraeus wouldn't supply these deadly weapons due to their potential use on commercial aircraft. Then, Obama threw Gen. Petraeus under the bus after he refused to testify that he OK'd the BS talking points about a spontaneous uprising due to a Youtube video.

    Obama and Hillary committed treason...and THIS is what the investigation is all about, why she had a private server, (in order to delete the digital evidence), and why Obama, two weeks after the attack, told the UN that the attack was because of a Youtube video, even though everyone knew it was not. Further...the Taliban knew that this administration aided and abetted the enemy without Congressional approval when Boehner created the Select Cmte, and the Taliban began pushing the Obama Administration for the release of 5 Taliban Generals. Bowe Bergdahl was just a pawn...everyone KNEW he was a traitor.

    So we have a traitor as POTUS that is not only corrupt, but compromised...and a woman that is a serial liar, perjured herself multiple times at the Hearing whom is running for POTUS. Only the Dems, with their hands out, palms up, will support her. Perhaps this is why no military aircraft was called in…because the administration knew our enemies had Stingers.

    Suelark DoruSlinger✓ᵀᴿᵁᴹᴾ 42 minutes ago

    Please repost this here and elsewhere. If true it would make sense of much of what has happened.

    Regular Guy an hour ago
    Tim Kaine: "I don't think we can dignify documents dumped by WikiLeaks and just assume that they're all accurate and true,"

    They were confirmed true when John Podesta's Twitter password was distributed in one of the WikiLeaks email releases and his Twitter account was hijacked the same day by a troll saying, "Trump 2016! Hi pol". Checkmate b!tch. see more DNC Russian Hacker Pepe Regular Guy 12 minutes ago The way they parse words, the Kaine statement still doesn't state the documents are not accurate. He makes an editorial statement to mislead the listener into thinking there is some reason to question the facts.

    DeplorableCarlo an hour ago
    Sounds pretty much like poor temperament to me when you have mood problems. Can we please put national security on hold for now, we have to check her mood ring. It is imperative for the best outcome that we check her head space. WOW! That's a real dumb explanation. Maybe if we use the word mood instead of temperament that will be better than telling people she has health problems in her head.

    [Oct 28, 2016] An ordnance team recovered the serial number off the missile which led back to a cache of Stingers being kept in Qatar by the CIA Obama and Hillary were now in full panic mode and Stevens was sent in to retrieve the rest of the Stingers. This was a do-or-die mission, which explains the stand down orders given to multiple commando teams.

    Notable quotes:
    "... So here's the REAL story.​ ​Amb. Stevens was sent to Benghazi post haste in order to retrieve US made Stinger missiles supplied to Ansar al Sharia without Congressional oversight or permission. Hillary brokered the deal through Stevens and a private arms dealer named Marc Turi. Then some of the shoulder fired missiles ended up in Afghanistan used against our own military. It was July 25th, 2012 when a Chinook helicopter was taken down by one of our own Stingers, but the idiot Taliban didn't arm the missile and the Chinook didn't explode, but had to land anyway. An ordnance team recovered the serial number off the missile which led back to a cache of Stingers being kept in Qatar by the CIA Obama and Hillary were now in full panic mode and Stevens was sent in to retrieve the rest of the Stingers. This was a "do-or-die" mission, which explains the stand down orders given to multiple commando teams. ..."
    "... It was the State Dept, not the CIA that supplied them to our sworn enemies, because Petraeus wouldn't supply these deadly weapons due to their potential use on commercial aircraft. Then, Obama threw Gen. Petraeus under the bus after he refused to testify that he OK'd the BS talking points about a spontaneous uprising due to a Youtube video. ..."
    "... Obama and Hillary committed treason...and THIS is what the investigation is all about, why she had a private server, (in order to delete the digital evidence), and why Obama, two weeks after the attack, told the UN that the attack was because of a Youtube video, even though everyone knew it was not. Further...the Taliban knew that this administration aided and abetted the enemy without Congressional approval when Boehner created the Select Cmte, and the Taliban began pushing the Obama Administration for the release of 5 Taliban Generals. Bowe Bergdahl was just a pawn...everyone KNEW he was a traitor. ..."
    Oct 28, 2016 | www.breitbart.com

    DoruSlinger✓ᵀᴿᵁᴹᴾ an hour ago

    Wikileaks needs to get this out (I have not verified the info sent to me last night):

    So here's the REAL story.​ ​Amb. Stevens was sent to Benghazi post haste in order to retrieve US made Stinger missiles supplied to Ansar al Sharia without Congressional oversight or permission. Hillary brokered the deal through Stevens and a private arms dealer named Marc Turi. Then some of the shoulder fired missiles ended up in Afghanistan used against our own military. It was July 25th, 2012 when a Chinook helicopter was taken down by one of our own Stingers, but the idiot Taliban didn't arm the missile and the Chinook didn't explode, but had to land anyway. An ordnance team recovered the serial number off the missile which led back to a cache of Stingers being kept in Qatar by the CIA Obama and Hillary were now in full panic mode and Stevens was sent in to retrieve the rest of the Stingers. This was a "do-or-die" mission, which explains the stand down orders given to multiple commando teams.

    It was the State Dept, not the CIA that supplied them to our sworn enemies, because Petraeus wouldn't supply these deadly weapons due to their potential use on commercial aircraft. Then, Obama threw Gen. Petraeus under the bus after he refused to testify that he OK'd the BS talking points about a spontaneous uprising due to a Youtube video.

    Obama and Hillary committed treason...and THIS is what the investigation is all about, why she had a private server, (in order to delete the digital evidence), and why Obama, two weeks after the attack, told the UN that the attack was because of a Youtube video, even though everyone knew it was not. Further...the Taliban knew that this administration aided and abetted the enemy without Congressional approval when Boehner created the Select Cmte, and the Taliban began pushing the Obama Administration for the release of 5 Taliban Generals. Bowe Bergdahl was just a pawn...everyone KNEW he was a traitor.

    So we have a traitor as POTUS that is not only corrupt, but compromised...and a woman that is a serial liar, perjured herself multiple times at the Hearing whom is running for POTUS. Only the Dems, with their hands out, palms up, will support her. Perhaps this is why no military aircraft was called in…because the administration knew our enemies had Stingers.

    [Oct 28, 2016] Tom Haydens Haunting by Jim Kavanagh

    Oct 28, 2016 | www.counterpunch.org
    As an old SDS-er, I found it hard to see Tom Hayden go. However meandering his path, he was at the heart of radical history in the 60s, an erstwhile companion, if not always a comrade, on the route of every boomer lefty.

    One of his finer moments for me, which I've never seen mentioned (including among this week's encomia) since he wrote it, was his 2006 article , published on CounterPunch with an introduction by Alexander Cockburn, in which he apologized for a "descent into moral ambiguity and realpolitick that still haunts me today." It would be respectful of Hayden's admirers and critics, on the occasion of his passing, to remember which of his actions "haunted" him the most.

    The title of the article says it clearly: "I Was Israel's Dupe." In the essay, Hayden apologizes for his support of the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982, which was for him that "descent into moral ambiguity" More importantly, he explains why he did it, in a detailed narrative that everyone should read.

    Hayden sold out, as he tells it, because, in order to run as a Democratic candidate for the California State Assembly, he had get the approval of the influential Democratic congressman Howard Berman. Berman is a guy who, when he became Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, was proud to tell the Forward that he took the job because of his "interest in the Jewish state" and that: "Even before I was a Democrat, I was a Zionist."

    Hayden had to meet with Howard's brother Michael, who, acting as "the gatekeeper protecting Los Angeles' Westside for Israel's political interests," told Hayden: "I represent the Israeli Defense Forces"-a sentence that could serve as the motto of most American congress critters today. The "Berman-Waxman machine," Hayden was told, would deign to "rent" him the Assembly seat on the "one condition: that I always be a 'good friend of Israel.'"

    But American congressmen were not the only "gatekeepers" through whose hands Hayden had to pass before being allowed to run for Congress. Other "certifiers" included "the elites, beginning with rabbis and heads of the multiple mainstream Jewish organizations, the American-Israel Political Action Committee (AIPAC), [and].. Israeli ambassadors, counsels general and other officials."

    In fact, Hayden had to, in his words, be "declared 'kosher' by the ultimate source, the region's representative of the state of Israel," Benjamin Navon, Israel's Counsul-general in Los Angeles.

    In other words, in this article Hayden was describing, in an unusually concrete way, how the state of Israel, through its state officials and their compliant American partners, was effectively managing-exercising veto power over Democratic Party candidates, at the very least-American elections down to the level of State Assembly . In any constituency "attuned to the question of Israel, even in local and state elections," Hayden knew he "had to be certified 'kosher,' not once but over and over again."

    This experience prompted Hayden to express a "fear that the 'Israeli lobby' is working overtime to influence American public opinion on behalf of Israel's military effort to 'roll back the clock' and 'change the map' of the region." Hayden warned of the "trepidation and confusion among rank-and-file voters and activists, and the paralysis of politicians, especially Democrats," over support of Israel. He vowed to "not make the same mistake again," and said: "Most important, Americans must not be timid in speaking up, as I was 25 years ago."

    Whatever else he did-and he was never particularly radical about Palestine-this article was a genuinely honest and unusual intervention, and it deserves a lot more notice-as a moment in Tom Hayden's history and that of the American left-than it has got. Looking back and regretfully acknowledging that one had been duped and morally compromised by what seemed the least troublesome path 25 years earlier, saying "I woulda, shoulda, coulda done the right thing," is a haunting moment for anyone. Doing it in a way that exposes in detail how a foreign country constantly manipulates American elections over decades is worthy of everyone's notice.

    I doubt Hillary and her Democratic supporters will have anything to say about this "interference "in American elections, even local and state. But I do hope many of those who are touched by the loss of Tom Hayden heed these words from him, and don't wait another 25 years to overcome their "fear and confusion" about saying and doing the right thing regarding the crimes of Israel, troublesome as that might be.

    [Oct 27, 2016] Hillary camp recruted Howard Stern to attack Trump

    Oct 27, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    im1dc : , 2016 at 05:39 PM

    "I, certainly, in a million years, I didn't expect Trump to seriously run for president,"

    Tonight's LOL funnee

    http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/26/media/howard-stern-on-trump-interviews/index.html

    "Howard Stern: Trump Has Always Been 'Sexist'"

    "Because he interviewed Donald Trump so many times over the years, Howard Stern has become an unlikely central figure in this year's presidential election, most notably by getting Trump to go on the record in favor of the Iraq War in 2002.

    But the SiriusXM host rarely discusses politics, which makes his latest comments this week about the Republican nominee and his own role in the race significant. "None of this was hidden,"

    Stern said on his show Tuesday about Trump's most outrageous statements. "This is who Trump is. He was always bombastic. He always rated women. He always talked in a misogynistic, sexist kind of way, but he did it sort of proudly and out in the open; and he still won the Republican primary. In one sense, the fact that we do an interview and people's personalities come out, I'm very proud of that."

    "I, certainly, in a million years, I didn't expect Trump to seriously run for president," Stern added..."

    [Oct 27, 2016] When mentioning undemocratic nature of Putin regime please mention current U.S. military cooperation with that boisterous hotbed of democratic activity, Saudi Arabia, in Yemen

    Notable quotes:
    "... If you say so. For now I'll leave any decisions or actions taken on these outcomes to Russian citizens. I would, however, kindly tell Victoria Nuland and her ilk to fuck off with their senile Cold War fantasies, morally bankrupt, third-rate Great Game machinations, and total spectrum dominance sociopathy. ..."
    "... "Personally, I don't believe that Ukraine is governed by fascists, or that Ukraine shot down that jetliner, but I'm sure a lot of Russians do." ..."
    "... There's definitely some of 'em hanging about, but yeah it mostly seems to be a motley assortment of oligarchs, gangsters, and grifters tied into international neoliberal capital and money flows. No doubt Russian believe a lot things. I find Americans tend to believe a lot things as well. ..."
    crookedtimber.org

    phenomenal cat 10.26.16 at 6:55 pm

    "So democratic structures have to be robust and transparent before we care about them?"

    No. My point was it's very misleading. Misleading to set the parameters of discussion on U.S. posture toward Russia in such a way as to assume that Putin's actions against a purported Russian "democracy" have anything at all to do with USian antagonism of Russia. I'm sure you'll note current U.S. military cooperation with that boisterous hotbed of democratic activity, Saudi Arabia, in Yemen. Our allies in the house of Saud require help in defending their democratic way of life against the totalitarianism of Yemeni tribes, you see. The U.S. opposes anti-democratic forces whenever and where ever it can, especially in the Middle East. I guess that explains USian antipathy to Russia.

    "I'd give a pretty high value to an independent press and contested elections."

    Yeah, it'd be interesting to see what the U.S. looked like with those dynamics in place.

    "Those have been slowly crushed in Russia. The results for transparency have not been great."

    If you say so. For now I'll leave any decisions or actions taken on these outcomes to Russian citizens. I would, however, kindly tell Victoria Nuland and her ilk to fuck off with their senile Cold War fantasies, morally bankrupt, third-rate Great Game machinations, and total spectrum dominance sociopathy.

    "Personally, I don't believe that Ukraine is governed by fascists, or that Ukraine shot down that jetliner, but I'm sure a lot of Russians do."

    There's definitely some of 'em hanging about, but yeah it mostly seems to be a motley assortment of oligarchs, gangsters, and grifters tied into international neoliberal capital and money flows. No doubt Russian believe a lot things. I find Americans tend to believe a lot things as well.

    [Oct 27, 2016] Washington Post Press Telling Trump Supporters Your Candidate Is Virtually Certain to Lose - Breitbart

    Notable quotes:
    "... These are accurate, statistically sound statements. But they are something else, too. Declarations that Trump is highly unlikely to win also serve as counters to the Republican nominee's warning that the "rigged" election could be " stolen from us ." ..."
    Oct 27, 2016 | www.breitbart.com
    Callum Borchers, author at the Washington Post blog The Fix, admits that the press is declaring victory for Hillary Clinton - to discredit claims that the election is rigged.

    From the Washington Post :

    Since the final presidential debate last week, many news outlets have been delivering an unvarnished message to Donald Trump supporters: Your candidate is virtually certain to lose the election Nov. 8.

    " Clinton probably finished off Trump last night ," FiveThirtyEight founder Nate Silver wrote the day after the debate. " Hillary Clinton is almost certain to be president ," Guardian columnist and former New York Times executive editor Jill Abramson added.

    A day later, the Times's Upshot blog increased Clinton's chances of winning to 93 percent , an all-time high. On Monday, Politico's Ben Schreckinger wrote that " Donald Trump's path to an election night win is almost entirely closed ." Here at The Fix, Chris Cillizza and Aaron Blake wrote that " Donald Trump's chances of winning are approaching zero ."

    These are accurate, statistically sound statements. But they are something else, too. Declarations that Trump is highly unlikely to win also serve as counters to the Republican nominee's warning that the "rigged" election could be " stolen from us ."

    Read the rest of the article here .

    Read More Stories About:

    2016 Presidential Race , Big Journalism , Hillary Clinton , Callum Borchers , Donald Trump , Washington Post

    [Oct 27, 2016] Dennis Kucinichs Extraordinary Warning On Washingtons Think Tank Warmongers

    Notable quotes:
    "... Former Congressman Dennis Kucinich has just penned an extremely powerful warning about the warmongers in Washington D.C. Who funds them, what their motives are, and why it is imperative for the American people to stop them. ..."
    "... Washington, DC, may be the only place in the world where people openly flaunt their pseudo-intellectuality by banding together, declaring themselves "think tanks," and raising money from external interests, including foreign governments, to compile reports that advance policies inimical to the real-life concerns of the American people. ..."
    "... As a former member of the House of Representatives, I remember 16 years of congressional hearings where pedigreed experts came to advocate wars in testimony based on circular, rococo thinking devoid of depth, reality, and truth. I remember other hearings where the Pentagon was unable to reconcile over $1 trillion in accounts, lost track of $12 billion in cash sent to Iraq, and rigged a missile-defense test so that an interceptor could easily home in on a target. War is first and foremost a profitable racket. ..."
    "... According to the front page of this past Friday's Washington Post, the bipartisan foreign-policy elite recommends the next president show less restraint than President Obama. Acting at the urging of "liberal" hawks brandishing humanitarian intervention, read war, the Obama administration attacked Libya along with allied powers working through NATO. ..."
    Oct 27, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    Submitted by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

    WAR is a racket. It always has been.

    It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.

    A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.

    – From Major General Smedley Butler's War is a Racket

    Former Congressman Dennis Kucinich has just penned an extremely powerful warning about the warmongers in Washington D.C. Who funds them, what their motives are, and why it is imperative for the American people to stop them.

    The piece was published at The Nation and is titled: Why Is the Foreign Policy Establishment Spoiling for More War? Look at Their Donors .

    Read it and share it with everyone you know.

    Washington, DC, may be the only place in the world where people openly flaunt their pseudo-intellectuality by banding together, declaring themselves "think tanks," and raising money from external interests, including foreign governments, to compile reports that advance policies inimical to the real-life concerns of the American people.

    As a former member of the House of Representatives, I remember 16 years of congressional hearings where pedigreed experts came to advocate wars in testimony based on circular, rococo thinking devoid of depth, reality, and truth. I remember other hearings where the Pentagon was unable to reconcile over $1 trillion in accounts, lost track of $12 billion in cash sent to Iraq, and rigged a missile-defense test so that an interceptor could easily home in on a target. War is first and foremost a profitable racket.

    How else to explain that in the past 15 years this city's so called bipartisan foreign policy elite has promoted wars in Iraq and Libya, and interventions in Syria and Yemen, which have opened Pandora's box to a trusting world, to the tune of trillions of dollars, a windfall for military contractors. DC's think "tanks" should rightly be included in the taxonomy of armored war vehicles and not as gathering places for refugees from academia.

    According to the front page of this past Friday's Washington Post, the bipartisan foreign-policy elite recommends the next president show less restraint than President Obama. Acting at the urging of "liberal" hawks brandishing humanitarian intervention, read war, the Obama administration attacked Libya along with allied powers working through NATO.

    Indeed, I warned about this in last week's piece: U.S. Foreign Policy 'Elite' Eagerly Await an Expansion of Overseas Wars Under Hillary Clinton .

    The think tankers fell in line with the Iraq invasion. Not being in the tank, I did my own analysis of the call for war in October of 2002, based on readily accessible information, and easily concluded that there was no justification for war. I distributed it widely in Congress and led 125 Democrats in voting against the Iraq war resolution. There was no money to be made from a conclusion that war was uncalled for, so, against millions protesting in the United States and worldwide, our government launched into an abyss, with a lot of armchair generals waving combat pennants. The marching band and chowder society of DC think tanks learned nothing from the Iraq and Libya experience.

    The only winners were arms dealers, oil companies, and jihadists. Immediately after the fall of Libya, the black flag of Al Qaeda was raised over a municipal building in Benghazi, Gadhafi's murder was soon to follow, with Secretary Clinton quipping with a laugh, "We came, we saw, he died." President Obama apparently learned from this misadventure, but not the Washington policy establishment, which is spoiling for more war.

    The self-identified liberal Center for American Progress (CAP) is now calling for Syria to be bombed, and estimates America's current military adventures will be tidied up by 2025, a tardy twist on "mission accomplished." CAP, according to a report in The Nation, has received funding from war contractors Lockheed Martin and Boeing, who make the bombers that CAP wants to rain hellfire on Syria.

    The Brookings Institute has taken tens of millions from foreign governments , notably Qatar, a key player in the military campaign to oust Assad. Retired four-star Marine general John Allen is now a Brookings senior fellow . Charles Lister is a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute , which has received funding from Saudi Arabia , the major financial force providing billions in arms to upend Assad and install a Sunni caliphate stretching across Iraq and Syria. Foreign-government money is driving our foreign policy.

    As the drumbeat for an expanded war gets louder, Allen and Lister jointly signed an op-ed in the Sunday Washington Post, calling for an attack on Syria. The Brookings Institute, in a report to Congress , admitted it received $250,000 from the US Central Command, Centcom, where General Allen shared leadership duties with General David Petraeus. Pentagon money to think tanks that endorse war? This is academic integrity, DC-style.

    And why is Central Command, as well as the Food and Drug Administration, the US Department of transportation, and the US Department of Health and Human Services giving money to Brookings?

    Former secretary of state Madeleine Albright, who famously told Colin Powell , "What's the point of having this superb military you're always talking about if we can't use it," predictably says of this current moment , "We do think there needs to be more American action." A former Bush administration top adviser is also calling for the United States to launch a cruise missile attack on Syria.

    The American people are fed up with war, but a concerted effort is being made through fearmongering, propaganda, and lies to prepare our country for a dangerous confrontation, with Russia in Syria.

    The demonization of Russia is a calculated plan to resurrect a raison d'être for stone-cold warriors trying to escape from the dustbin of history by evoking the specter of Russian world domination.

    It's infectious. Earlier this year the BBC broadcast a fictional show that contemplated WWIII, beginning with a Russian invasion of Latvia (where 26 percent of the population is ethnic Russian and 34 percent of Latvians speak Russian at home).

    The imaginary WWIII scenario conjures Russia's targeting London for a nuclear strike. No wonder that by the summer of 2016 a poll showed two-thirds of UK citizens approved the new British PM's launching a nuclear strike in retaliation. So much for learning the lessons detailed in the Chilcot report.

    As this year's presidential election comes to a conclusion, the Washington ideologues are regurgitating the same bipartisan consensus that has kept America at war since 9/11 and made the world a decidedly more dangerous place.

    The DC think tanks provide cover for the political establishment, a political safety net, with a fictive analytical framework providing a moral rationale for intervention, capitol casuistry. I'm fed up with the DC policy elite who cash in on war while presenting themselves as experts, at the cost of other people's lives, our national fortune, and the sacred honor of our country.

    Any report advocating war that comes from any alleged think tank ought to be accompanied by a list of the think tank's sponsors and donors and a statement of the lobbying connections of the report's authors.

    It is our patriotic duty to expose why the DC foreign-policy establishment and its sponsors have not learned from their failures and instead are repeating them, with the acquiescence of the political class and sleepwalkers with press passes.

    It is also time for a new peace movement in America, one that includes progressives and libertarians alike, both in and out of Congress, to organize on campuses, in cities, and towns across America, to serve as an effective counterbalance to the Demuplican war party, its think tanks, and its media cheerleaders. The work begins now, not after the Inauguration. We must not accept war as inevitable, and those leaders who would lead us in that direction, whether in Congress or the White House, must face visible opposition.

    Thank you Mr. Kucinich, I couldn't agree more.

    RogerMud Oct 27, 2016 7:33 PM ,

    we should have elected him in 2008. missed opportunity.
    LetThemEatRand -> RogerMud Oct 27, 2016 7:41 PM ,
    Just like Ron Paul (with whom he agrees on matters of foreign policy and the Fed), he was painted by MSM as a kook. I wonder why. While I understand that many here would never vote for him because he believes in things like social programs, so do all of the Republicans in Congress. He would have made a far better president than zero or McCain.
    nmewn Oct 27, 2016 7:37 PM ,
    So I guess the War on Poverty is over...so who won? ;-)
    Ignatius Oct 27, 2016 7:43 PM ,
    Off Topic: Oregon Standoff -- Not Guilty of Conspiracy

    http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/10/judge_welcomes_new_jur...

    The comment section is filled with weeping bolsheviks, apparently.

    [Oct 27, 2016] Krugman on Trump TV and the Future of Right-Wing Media (Video)

    Oct 27, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    Tuesday, October 25, 2016

    Krugman on Trump TV and the Future of Right-Wing Media (Video)

    Posted by Mark Thoma on Tuesday, October 25, 2016 at 04:01 PM in Economics , Video | Permalink Comments (23)
    Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post. JohnH : , October 25, 2016 at 04:19 PM

    I thought I'd never say this, but Glenn Beck gave a very thoughtful interview with Charley Rose last night. He raised a lot of issues that the other Glenn (Glenn Greenwald) has been raising--the moral bankruptcy of each political party and the tendency of each to attack the other for things that they themselves would deny, excuse, and say that it doesn't
    matter when their own party does it.

    Glenn is not supporting Trump. But he gives the example of the many Republicans who viciously attacked Bill Clinton for his sexual behavior but now deny, excuse and say that it doesn't matter when Trump does it.

    The flip side, of course, is found with the many Democrats who viciously attack Trump but denied, excused, and said that it didn't matter when Bill Clinton did it.

    Glenn says that to restore trust with the American people, both parties need to clean their houses and become parties that put laws and principles first, which implies criticizing their own instead of shielding them when
    they misbehave.

    reason -> JohnH... , October 26, 2016 at 12:01 AM
    The big difference with Trump is that he is the guy in the glass house throwing stones.
    Kenneth Almquist -> JohnH... , October 26, 2016 at 12:36 AM
    This sounds like another attempt to claim the two parties are equivalent. Your claim that "many Democrats...viciously attack Trump but denied, excused, and said that it didn't matter when Bill Clinton did it," would be a bit more credible if you actually named a few of the alleged "many Democrats."

    Most of the attacks on Trump are the result of Trump boasting about sexually assaulting women, which Clinton has not done. In any case, to claim that the Democratic party needs to "clean its house" you need evidence that there is a problem today, not merely one two decades ago when Bill Clinton was in office.

    JohnH -> Kenneth Almquist... , October 26, 2016 at 08:34 AM
    Thanks for providing a great example of a Democrat trying to deny, explain away, and say that Bill Clinton's behavior in the 1990s didn't matter!

    Of course, Bill Clinton's radical deregulation of the 1990s (ending Glass-Steagall, commodities deregulation, etc.) and ending welfare as we knew it doesn't matter either...because it was done by a Democrat.

    Nor did his attack on Serbia, which set the precedent for the pointless and futile war in Iraq. It's OK when Democrats wage war, as long as it's papered over with claims of 'humanitarian bombing.'

    And Barack Obama's refusal to prosecute bankers and torturers doesn't matter, though Democrats would have cried 'bloody murder' if a Republican had behaved this way. Nor does his embrace of NSA spying really matter. Nor his proposed cuts to Social Security and social programs in general...because his is a Democrat.

    This is why economic elites love to have Democrats in power...because they can push through horrible reforms...and rest confident that many of the party faithful will deny, excuse, and even claim that it didn't matter...because a Democrat did it.

    Chris Lowery -> JohnH... , October 26, 2016 at 09:57 AM
    John, speaking only for myself, the defense of Bill Clinton in the 1990's had nothing to do with excusing his atrocious behavior -- it had to do with the opposition engaging in a witch hunt to destroy a sitting president. and exploiting the vehicle of a special prosecutor's authority, granted to look into entirely different and unrelated matters, to do so. This was a gross misuse of official power. Clinton's mistake was in refusing to answer questions unrelated to the authorized inquiry.

    As to the other items on your list of objections to Bill Clinton's actions, a few I'd agree with, and others I'd disagree with; but they are all unrelated to the issue of equivalence that you and Beck raise.

    JohnH -> Chris Lowery ... , October 26, 2016 at 01:36 PM
    I'd agree that Democrats never organized a witch hunt against any sitting Republican since Nixon.

    Problem is, they never organized a serious opposition either, and readily bought into the opposition's tax cuts, budget cuts, and pointless and futile wars.

    If Democrats won't organize a serious opposition to the likes of Cheney/Bush43, how can you take them seriously as an opposition party?

    IMO Democrats are just Republicans-lite...

    JohnH -> Kenneth Almquist... , October 26, 2016 at 09:23 AM
    Kenneth Almquist claims that Bill Clinton never assaulted anyone, which provides yet more evidence of a Democratic denial of charges against their guy.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juanita_Broaddrick

    Did Juanita Brodderick's name ever register among the Democratic faithful, staunch defenders of Bill Clinton, right or wrong?

    Brodderick's claim of rape was met with the typical denial and disbelief, which is still commonplace today...particularly when rape might have been done by someone rich or powerful...

    DeDude -> Kenneth Almquist... , October 26, 2016 at 06:49 PM
    Yes the big difference is that Clinton never ran around and said that sexual assault is OK, and he could get away with it. He was accused but never convicted of sexual assaults. You don't condemn a person for being accused of something. The only actual sex was consensual sex with a young woman.
    pgl : , October 25, 2016 at 05:49 PM
    Unlike JohnH - I actually bother to listen to the link our host provided. Krugman makes 3 claims:

    (1) Breitbart does not need the Donald.

    (2) Breitbart appeals to the racist crazies in our nation.

    (3) Faux News will try to survive by becoming less establishment Republican and more like Breitbart - a bunch of Tea Party racists.

    I have no crystal ball but this sounds about right.

    cm -> pgl... , October 25, 2016 at 06:52 PM
    The for-profit media thrive and depend on controversy and generally content that is emotionally engaging. Racism is only a small part of it, it is much more broadly appealing - it is essentially "addressing", channeling, amplifying, and redirecting existing grievances of a large part of the public. If economy and society would be doing great and a large majority of people would be happy/contented, these anger-based media formats wouldn't find an audience.

    The same underlying causes as the success of Trump. The reason why he can maintain considerable success despite of grave shortcomings is because he continues to be a channel for the anger that is not disappearing. (With the support of the media, who are also interested in an ongoing controversy with details as scandalous as possible.)

    EMichael -> cm... , October 26, 2016 at 07:48 AM
    I disagree.

    This "anger that is not disappearing" has been based on racism for decades. None of these Trump supporters are newly minted Rep voters; they have voted Rep their entire lives.

    This is not so new group based on outrage over the problems of our "rigged system", this is the base that has voted consistently against their economic well being for decades.

    EMichael -> EMichael... , October 26, 2016 at 09:01 AM
    AS in,

    "But holy hell, Republicans still refuse to be convinced.

    According to a new NBC News/SurveyMonkey poll, seventy-two percent of registered Republicans "still doubt" the President's place of birth. Forty-one percent outright disagreed with the statement, "Barack Obama was born in the United States," while only twenty-seven percent of Republicans agree.

    As NBC News blatantly states in the poll's findings, "Only slightly more than one in four Republican voters agreed that the president was born in the United States."

    http://www.mediaite.com/online/new-poll-shows-that-41-of-republicans-still-dont-think-obama-was-born-in-the-u-s/

    Let me know when you can come up with a reason that this kind of thought process is not dictated by racism.

    DeDude -> cm... , October 26, 2016 at 06:36 PM
    The main area where Faux needs to make a decision, is how far it will move with the GOP base on closed borders. The interest of the corporates is for open borders, whereas the xenophobe GOP base is strongly against. If Faux decide to remain on the corporates side of that issue, a Trump/Breibart media would have a chance. The GOP will face the same choice, but there is no way they split from the corporates that owns them. So the question is whether Faux will split with GOP on the issues that divide the GOP corporates from the GOP base. Their business office would say yes (hold on to the viewers), but they are not just a business.
    JohnH -> pgl... , October 25, 2016 at 09:31 PM
    I'd love to know exactly how pgl 'read' the video that our host provided...transcript please!

    The left needs media that
    1) Does not need Hillary
    2) Does not engage in cold war fearmongering
    3) Becomes less establishment and more progressive.

    Will Krugman talk about that?

    BTW Here's an address on inequality by Stiglitz, given two weeks ago. When was the last time that Krugman, whose day job at CUNY is allegedly about studying inequality, even talked about the subject?

    pgl -> JohnH... , October 26, 2016 at 01:18 AM
    Read??? Try "listen". Lord - you can't read.
    anne -> JohnH... , October 26, 2016 at 07:06 AM
    "Here's an address on inequality by Stiglitz, given two weeks ago...."

    Which would be the address in question?

    https://www8.gsb.columbia.edu/faculty/jstiglitz/press

    Interviews with and Articles about Professor Stiglitz
    2016

    forgotten ghost of American protectionism : , October 25, 2016 at 06:44 PM
    The trade deficit will continue to explode; the US will lose most of its remaining industrial base over the next few years and the population of new poor and unemployed will grow sharply. Trump will be in a strong position to say "I told you so" and pick up the pieces of our broken society in 2020. You can't destroy the livelihood of 150-300 million people without some kind of political movement emerging to restore the economy to its industrial age prosperity.
    reason -> forgotten ghost of American protectionism... , -1
    Where does 150-300 million people come from? And why aren't you looking at what is happening in finance which is just as important in driving the demise of US industry (an overvalued currency is exactly the same as a cut in tariffs).

    [Oct 26, 2016] There are some countervailing forces in action and the Triumphal march of neoliberalism with the USA as the hegemon of the new neoliberal order is either over, or soon will be over

    Notable quotes:
    "... Any analysis that starts with the assumption reactionaries still has a great deal to its agenda to achieve, such as promoting regressive taxation; privatization of Social Security; limiting Medicare; privatization of education; expansion of the police state; using the military to support the dollar, banking, world markets, etc., rather than Corey Robin's belief that "the Right" has won is in my view an improvement on the OP. ..."
    "... In the end, Putin will be done in by his oligarchs, despite the care he has taken to give them their share if they just refrain from wrecking everything with their excesses. Again, no need for NGOs. ..."
    Oct 26, 2016 | crookedtimber.org
    stevenjohnson

    @58

    This is a very good analyses. But I am less pessimistic: the blowback against neoliberal globalization is real and it is difficult to swipe it under the carpet.

    There are some signs of the "revolutionary situation" in the USA in a sense that the neoliberal elite lost control and their propaganda loss effectiveness, despite dusting off the "Red scare" trick with "Reds in each computer" instead of "Reds under each bed". With Putin as a very convenient bogeyman.

    As somebody here said Trump might be a reaction of secular stagnation, kind of trump card put into play by some part of the elite, because with continued secular stagnation, the social stability in the USA is under real threat.

    But it looks like newly formed shadow "Committee for Saving [neo]Liberal Order" (with participation of three latter agencies, just read the recent "Red scare" memorandum ( https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/215-press-releases-2016/1423-joint-dhs-odni-election-security-statement ) want Hillary to be the POTUS.

    But the problem is that Hillary with her failing health is our of her prime and with a bunch of neocons in key positions in her administration, she really represents a huge threat to world peace. She might not last long as the level of stress inherent in POTUS job make it a killing ground for anybody with advanced stage of Parkinson or similar degenerative neurological disease. But that might make her more impulsive and more aggressive (and she always tried to outdo male politicians in jingoism, real John McCain is the red pantsuit).

    All-in-all it looks like she in not a solution for neoliberal elite problems, she is a part of the problem

    Adventurism of the US neoliberal elite, and especially possible aggressive moves in Syria by Hillary regime ("no fly zone"), makes military alliance of Russia and China very likely (with Pakistan, Iran and India as possible future members). So Hillary might really work like a powerful China lobbyist, because the alliance with Russia will be on China terms.

    Regime change via color revolution in either country requires at dense network of subservient to the Western interests and financed via shadow channels MSM (including TV channels), strong network of NGO and ability to distribute cash to selected members of the fifth column of neoliberal globalization. All those condition were made more difficult in Russia and impossible in mainland China. In Russia the US adventurism in Ukraine and the regime change of February 2014 (creation of neo-fascist regime nicknamed by some "Kaganat of Nuland" (Asia Times http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/CEN-01-100315.html )) essentially killed the neoliberal fifth column in Russia and IMHO it no longer represent a viable political force.

    Also Russians probably learned well lesson of unsuccessful attempt of regime change by interfering into Russian Presidential election process attempted by Hillary and Obama in 2011-2012. I would like to see the US MSM reaction if Russian ambassador invited Sanders and Trump into the embassy and promised full and unconditional support for their effort to remove criminal Obama regime, mired in corruption and subservient to Wall Street interests, the regime that produced misery for so many American workers, lower middle class and older Americans ;-)

    Ambassador McFaul soon left the country, NED was banned and screws were tightened enough to make next attempt exceedingly difficult. Although everything can happen I would discount the possibility of the next "White Revolution" in Russia. So called "Putin regime" survived the period of low oil prices and with oil prices over $60 in 2017 Russian economy might be able to grow several percent a year. At the same time the US "post-Obama" regime might well face the winds of returning higher oil prices and their negative influence of economy growth and unemployment.

    In China recent troubles in Hong Cong were also a perfect training ground for "anti color revolution" measures and the next attempt would much more difficult, unless China experience economic destabilization due to some bubble burst.

    That means that excessive military adventurism inherent in the future Hillary regime might speed up loss by the USA military dominance and re-alignment of some states beyond Philippines. Angela Merkel regime also might not survive the next election and that event might change "pro-Atlantic" balance in Europe.

    Although the list in definitely not complete, we can see that there are distinct setbacks for attempts of further neoliberalization beyond Brexit and TPP troubles.

    So there are some countervailing forces in action and my impression that the Triumphal march of neoliberalism with the USA as the hegemon of the new neoliberal order is either over, or soon will be over. In certain regions of the globe the USA foreign policy is in trouble (Syria, Ukraine) and while you can do anything using bayonets, you can't sit on them.

    So while still there is no viable alternative to neoliberalism as a social system, the ideology itself is discredited and like communism after 1945 lost its hold of hearts and minds of the USA population. I would say that in the USA neoliberalism entered Zombie stage.

    My hope is that reasonable voices in foreign policy prevail, and the disgust of unions members toward DemoRats (Neoliberal Democrats) could play the decisive role in coming elections. As bad as Trump is for domestic policy, it represent some hope as for foreign policy unless co-opted by Republican establishment.

    Val 10.26.16 at 3:54 am 72

    #70
    But the problem is that Hillary with her failing health is our of her prime and with a bunch of neocons in key positions in her administration, she really represents a huge threat to world peace. She might not last long as the level of stress inherent in POTUS job make it a killing ground for anybody with advanced stage of Parkinson or similar degenerative neurological disease. But that might kale her more impulsive and more aggressive (and she always tried to outdo her male politicians in jingoism, real John McCain is the red pantsuit).

    Does the new CT moderation regime have any expectations about the veracity of claims made by commenters? Because I think it would be useful in cases like this.

    Howard Frant 10.26.16 at 6:19 am ( 73 )

    Stephen @58

    Yes, it was late and I was tired, or I wouldn't have said something so foolish. Still, the point is that after centuries of constant war, Europe went 70 years without territorial conquest. That strikes me as a significant achievement, and one whose breach should not be taken lightly.

    phenomenal cat @64

    So democratic structures have to be robust and transparent before we care about them? I'd give a pretty high value to an independent press and contested elections. Those have been slowly crushed in Russia. The results for transparency have not been great. Personally, I don't believe that Ukraine is governed by fascists, or that Ukraine shot down that jetliner, but I'm sure a lot of Russians do.

    Russian leaders have always complained about "encirclement," but we don't have to believe them. Do you really believe Russia's afraid of an attack from Estonia? Clearly what Putin wants is to restore as much of the old Soviet empire as possible. Do you think the independence of the Baltic states would be more secure or less secure if they weren't members of NATO? (Hint: compare to Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova.)

    Layman 10.26.16 at 11:33 am ( 79 )

    ' .makes military alliance of Russia and China very likely '

    Any analysis which arrives at this conclusion is profoundly ignorant.

    Meta-comment: Is it permitted to say that a moderation scheme which objects to engels as a troll, while permitting this tripe from likbez has taken a wrong turn somewhere. Seriously, some explanation called for.

    likbez 10.26.16 at 3:54 pm 80

    @72

    Does the new CT moderation regime have any expectations about the veracity of claims made by commenters? Because I think it would be useful in cases like this.

    I would like to apologize about the number of typos, but I stand by statements made. Your implicit assumption that I am lying was not specific, so let's concentrate on three claims made:

    1. "Hillary has serious neurological disease for at least four years",
    2. "Obama and Hillary tried to stage color revolution in Russia in 2011-2012 interfering in Russian Presidential elections"
    3. "Hillary Clinton is a neocon, a warmonger similar to John McCain"

    1. Hillary Health : Whether she suffers from Parkinson disease or not in unclear, but signs of some serious neurological disease are observable since 2012 (for four years). Parkinson is just the most plausible hypothesis based on symptoms observed. Those symptoms suggests that she is at Stage 2 of the disease due to an excellent treatment she gets:

    http://www.viartis.net/parkinsons.disease/news/100312.htm
    The average time taken to progress from Stage 1 (mild) to Stage 2 (mild but various symptoms) was 1 year 8 months. The average time taken to progress from Stage 2 to Stage 3 (typical) was 7 years and 3 months. From Stage 3 to Stage 4 (severe) took 2 years. From Stage 4 to Stage 5 (incapacitated) took 2 years and 2 months. So the stage with typical symptoms lasts the longest. Those factors associated with faster progression were older age at diagnosis, and longer disease duration. Gender and ethnicity were not associated with the rate of Parkinson's Disease progression.

    These figures are only averages. Progression is not inevitable. Some people with Parkinson's Disease have either : stayed the same for decades, reduced their symptoms, rid their symptoms, or worsened at a rapid rate. For more current news go to Parkinson's Disease News.

    Concern about Hillary health were voiced in many publications and signs of her neurological disease are undisputable:

    2. Hillary and Obama attempt to stage the color revolution in Russia in 2011-2012 are also undisputable, but not widely known:

    3. The opinion that Hillary as a neocon is supported by facts from all her career , but especially during her tenure as the Secretary of State. She voted for Iraq war and was instrumental in unleashing Libya war and Syria war. The amount of evidence can't be ignored:

    If you have more specific concerns please voice them and I will try to support my statements with references and known facts.


    stevenjohnson 10.26.16 at 1:50 pm

    likbez @70 Any analysis that starts with the assumption reactionaries still has a great deal to its agenda to achieve, such as promoting regressive taxation; privatization of Social Security; limiting Medicare; privatization of education; expansion of the police state; using the military to support the dollar, banking, world markets, etc., rather than Corey Robin's belief that "the Right" has won is in my view an improvement on the OP. But whether mine is actually a deep analysis seems doubtful even to me.

    But the OP is really limiting itself solely to domestic politics, and in that context the resistance to "neoliberal globalization," (Why not use the term "imperialism?") is more or less irrelevant. The OP seems to have some essentialist notion of the "Right" as openly aimed at restoring the past, ignoring the content of policies. Reaction would be something blatant like restoring censorship of TV and movies, instead of IP laws that favor giant telecommunications companies, or abolition of divorce, instead of discriminatory enforcement of child protection laws that break up poor families. This cultural/psychological/moralizing/spiritual approach seems to me to be fundamentally a diversion from a useful understanding.

    There may be some sort of confused notions about popular morals and tastes clearly evolving in a more leftish direction. Free love was never a conservative principle for instance, yet many of its tenets are now those of the majority of the population. Personally I can only observe that there's nothing quite like the usefulness of laws and law enforcement, supplemented by the occasional illicit violence, to change social attitudes. The great model of course is the de facto extermination of the Left by "McCarthyism." No doubt the disappearance of the left targeted by "McCarthyism" is perceived to be a purification of the real left. It is customary for the acceptable "left" to agree with the McCarthys that communism lost its appeal to the people, rather than being driven out by mass repression. As to populism, such reactionary goals as the abolition of public education are notoriously sold as service to the people against the hifalutin' snobs, starting of course with lazy ass teachers. It seems to me entirely mistaken to see the populist reactionaries as out of ammunition because the old forms of race-baiting aren't working so well.

    By the way, there already is a Chinese bourgeoisie, in Taiwan, Singapore, the Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, Hong Kong, as well as elements in SEZs in China proper and select circles in various financial capitals. Restoration of capitalism in China has run into the difficulty that capitalism isn't holding up its end. President Xi Jinping is finding it difficult for capitalism to keep the mainland economy growing at a sufficiently rapid rate to keep the working class pacific, much less generate the so-called middle class whose stock market portfolios will bind them to the new ruling class forever. These are the sources for a revolution in China, not NGOs or a color revolution. In the end, Putin will be done in by his oligarchs, despite the care he has taken to give them their share if they just refrain from wrecking everything with their excesses. Again, no need for NGOs.

    Val @72 I remember that there were only rare, vague hints about Reagan, not factual evidence. So unless you are committed to the proposition his Alzheimer's disease only set in January 21, 1992, demanding factual evidence about the mental and physical health of our elective divinities seems unduly restrictive I think.

    Layman @79 The Shanghai Cooperation Organization alone makes an analysis that a military alliance between Russia and China reasonable enough. Even if incorrect in the end, it is not "profoundly ignorant."

    Meta-comment: Engels post was perceived as mocking, which was its offense. As for "trolling," that's an internet thing...

    [Oct 26, 2016] It is striking to me how even on the left the discussion of U.S. militarism and imperialism has been marginalized

    Oct 26, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    PGD 10.24.16 at 6:28 pm 32

    It is striking to me how even on the left the discussion of U.S. militarism and imperialism has been marginalized and does not come up much in casual conversation. We had an active peace movement through the worst days of the Cold War, and then there was a bit of a resurgence of it in response to the Iraq War. But Obama's acceptance of the core assumptions of the 'War on Terror' (even as he waged it more responsibly) seems to have led to the war party co-opting the liberals as well until there is no longer an effective opposition. The rhetoric of 'humanitarian intervention' has been hugely successful in that effort.

    One of the most depressing things about this election campaign to me has been to see the Democrats using their full spectrum media dominance not to fight for a mandate for left policies, but to run a coordinated and effective propaganda campaign for greater U.S. military involvement in the Middle East and Eastern Europe, focusing on demonizing Putin and on humanitarian intervention rhetoric around Aleppo and the like.

    [Oct 26, 2016] China and Russia vs. the United States The Diplomat

    Oct 26, 2016 | thediplomat.com

    U.S. Underestimates Power Of China-Russia Alliance

    Ukraine Crisis Who are Russia's Biggest Allies

    What would a U.S.-Russia war look like

    Putin's Latest Moves The Military Alliance Among Iran, Hezbollah And Russia In Syria Could Spread To Yemen

    Business Insider

    [Oct 25, 2016] Urged by neoliberal elite, Hillary Clinton administration might be ever more destabilizing due to desperate adventures both in domestic and especially foreign policy

    Notable quotes:
    "... There are some signs of the "revolutionary situation" in the USA in a sense that the neoliberal elite lost control and their propaganda loss effectiveness, despite dusting off the "Red scare" trick with "Reds in each computer" instead of "Reds under each bed". With Putin as a very convenient bogeyman. ..."
    "... But it looks like newly formed shadow "Committee for Saving [neo]Liberal Order" (with participation of three latter agencies, just read the recent "Red scare" memorandum ( https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/215-press-releases-2016/1423-joint-dhs-odni-election-security-statement ) want Hillary to be the POTUS. ..."
    Oct 25, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    stevenjohnson 10.25.16 at 1:00 pm

    Six reasons for pessimism?

    1. An ABC news poll says that Clinton has 50% of somebody (the electorate, likely voters?) supporting her rabidly reactionary rhetoric. She demonizes Putin, imputes treason to a major party candidate in a way hitherto seen only in Birch Society attacks on Eisenhower, shrieks that it is utterly impossible to even hint that the current electoral system has no real legitimacy.

    The only real criticisms acceptable in the face of her reactionary screeds are hints that she is a traitor for Clinton Foundation cash and that she is lax on security . (The claim that Clinton is pro-war are regressions to the Obama primary campaign in 2008. Since he promptly proved the irrelevance of an anti-war rhetoric, the observations that Clinton has none are equally irrelevant.)

    2. The high levels of indecision suggest that a Trump defeat may well leave the Republican establishment more or less as it was. Depending on turnout, which even at this late date is highly uncertain, it is entirely possible the Republicans will maintain control of the Senate. At this point it is probable they will keep the House. In any event, Clinton has openly committed to a bipartisan a campaign against the Trump hijacking of the Republican party.

    3. Consider the longevity of reactionary leaderships in the major parties. The Democratic Leadership Council approach has dominated its party for decades. The Republican party projects like ALEC, the Federalist Society, the Mighty Wurlitzer, the designated superstar talk personality (no, shifting from Limbaugh to Beck is not a sea change,) everywhere you look behind the scenes you see the same faces. What new faces appear turn out (like Obama) to be employees of the same old political establishments. Alleged exceptions like Sanders and Warren are notable primarily for their lack of commitment.

    4. There are bold thinkers willing to imagine the conservative future. Think Jason Brennan and his book Against Democracy. Even worse, the real strength of the conservatives lies in the bottom line, not in polemics. Tragically, it's when the bottom line is written in read that it shrieks the loudest, with the most conviction and the most urgent desire for the masters to unite against the rest of us.

    5. California politics has set the pace once again, demonstrating the absolute irrelevance of a "Left" defined as a spiritual posture. The annihilation of an ugly materialist Left by "McCarthyism" has purified the souls of the righetous, leaving socialism/communism unthinkable. California leftism is entirely safe for capitalism, imperialism and a free market of ideas where the refined consumers of ideas can have their gated neighborhoods of ideas.

    6. The majority support for a more tolerant society makes no difference in policy. Being nicer is not politics.

    There is a fundamental reason for despair, the failures of the right to win the Holy Grail of a functional capitalist society. Despite their successes in destroying organized labor (with the help of counter-revolutionary "leftists" to be sure,) in limiting women's rights, in blunting the real world effects of desegregation, the short-run prospects of capital are disquieting. And the long run prospects, insofar as these people can see past the quarterly statement, are even more frightening. Urged by their fears, the system will be ever more destabilized by desperate adventures. The replacement of Social Security of course will be high on the agenda. The absolutely vital need for ever more control over the world, including regime change in Russia and China, has driven foreign policy in direct support of the dollar and banking since at least Bush 41.

    But in the end, it is not the madness of the owners that is the cause for despair, but the absolute indifference of the spiritual leftists who have joined in the rabidly reactionary campaign against Clinton from the right. (You would have thought it rather difficult to criticize Clinton from the right, but never underestimate the exigencies of struggle against totalitarianism.) Win or lose, this campaign has endorsed reaction, top to bottom. On the upside, the likelihood of a Clinton impeachment offers much value for your entertainment dollar.

    likbez 10.26.16 at 1:10 am

    stevenjohnson

    @58

    This is a very good analyses. But I am less pessimistic: the blowback against neoliberal globalization is real and it is difficult to swipe it under the carpet.

    There are some signs of the "revolutionary situation" in the USA in a sense that the neoliberal elite lost control and their propaganda loss effectiveness, despite dusting off the "Red scare" trick with "Reds in each computer" instead of "Reds under each bed". With Putin as a very convenient bogeyman.

    As somebody here said Trump might be a reaction to secular stagnation, kind of trump card put into play by some part of the elite, because with continued secular stagnation, the social stability in the USA is under a real threat.

    But it looks like newly formed shadow "Committee for Saving [neo]Liberal Order" (with participation of three latter agencies, just read the recent "Red scare" memorandum ( https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/215-press-releases-2016/1423-joint-dhs-odni-election-security-statement ) want Hillary to be the POTUS.

    But the problem is that Hillary with her failing health is our of her prime and with a bunch of neocons in key positions in her administration, she really represents a huge threat to world peace. She might not last long as the level of stress inherent in POTUS job make it a killing ground for anybody with advanced stage of Parkinson or similar degenerative neurological disease. But that might kale her more impulsive and more aggressive (and she always tried to outdo her male politicians in jingoism, real John McCain is the red pantsuit).

    All-in-all it looks like she in not a solution of neoliberal elite problems, she is a part of the problem

    Adventurism of the US neoliberal elite, and especially possible aggressive moves in Syria by Hillary regime ("no fly zone"), makes military alliance of Russia and China very likely (with Pakistan, Iran and India as possible future members). So Hillary might really work like a powerful China lobbyist, because the alliance with Russia will be on China terms.

    Regime change via color revolution in either country requires at dense network of subservient to the Western interests and financed via shadow channels MSM (including TV channels), NGO and ability to distribute cash to selection members of fifth column of neoliberalism. All those condition were made more difficult in Russia and impossible in mainland China. In Russia the US adventurism in Ukraine and the regime change of February 2014 (creation of neo-fascist regime nicknamed by some "Kaganat of Nuland" (Asia times http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/CEN-01-100315.html ) essentially killed the neoliberal fifth column in Russia and IMHO it no longer represent a viable political force.

    Also Russians probably learned well lesson of unsuccessful attempt of regime change by interfering into Russian Presidential election process attempted by Hillary and Obama in 2011-2012. I would like to see the US MSM reaction if Russian ambassador invited Sanders and Trump into the embassy and promised full and unconditional support for their effort to remove criminal Obama regime, mired in corruption and subservient to Wall Street interest, the regime that produced misery for so many American workers, lower middle class and older Americans ;-)

    Ambassador McFaul soon left the country, NED was banned and screws were tightened enough to make next attempt exceedingly difficult. Although everything can happen I would discount the possibility of the next "While Revolution" in Russia. So called "Putin regime" survived the period of low oil prices and with oil prices over $60 in 2017 Russian economy might be able to grow several percent a year. At the same time the US "post-Obama" regime might well face the winds of returning higher oil prices and their negative influence of economy growth and unemployment.

    In China recent troubles in Hong Cong were also a perfect training ground for "anti color revolution" measures and the next attempt would much more difficult, unless China experience economic destabilization due to some bubble burst.

    that means that excessive military adventurism inherent in the future Hillary regime might speed up loss by the USA military dominance and re-alignment of some states beyond Philippines. Angela Merkel regime also might not survive the next election and change "pro-Atlantic" balance in Europe.

    Although the list in definitely not complete, we can see that there are distinct setbacks for attempts of further neoliberalization - Brexit and TPP troubles.

    So there are some countervailing forces in action and my impression that the Triumphal march of neoliberalism with the USA as a hegemon of the new neoliberal order is either over or soon will be over. In certain regions of the globe the USA foreign policy is in trouble (Syria, Ukraine) and while you can do anything using bayonets, you can't sit on them.

    So while still there is no viable alternative to neoliberalism as social system, the ideology itself is discredited and like communism after 1945 lost its hold of hearts and minds of the USA population. I would say that in the USA neoliberalism entered Zombie stage.

    My hope is that reasonable voices in foreign policy prevail, and the disgust of unions members toward DemoRats (Neoliberal Democrats) could play the decisive role in coming elections. As bad as Trump is for domestic policy, it represent some hope as for foreign policy unless co-opted by Republican establishment.

    [Oct 25, 2016] My impression is that that key issue is as following: a vote for Hillary is a vote for the War Party and is incompatible with democratic principles

    Oct 25, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    likbez : October 24, 2016 at 12:00 PM My impression is that that key issue is as following: a vote for Hillary is a vote for the War Party and is incompatible with democratic principles.

    She is way too militant, and is not that different in this respect from Senator McCain. That creates a real danger of unleashing the war with Russia.

    Trump with all his warts gives us a chance to get some kind of détente with Russia.

    In other words no real Democrat can vote for Hillary. Reply Monday, October 24, 2016 at 12:00 PM DeDude -> likbez... , October 24, 2016 at 12:17 PM

    You wish, you wish - you wish you were a fish, called Wanda.
    Julio -> likbez... , October 24, 2016 at 01:32 PM
    A vote for Hilary may indeed be a vote for the (a?) war party, but it is not, unfortunately, incompatible with democratic principles.
    ilsm -> Julio ... , October 24, 2016 at 03:19 PM
    at least LBJ kept it under wraps.........
    likbez -> Julio ... , October 24, 2016 at 06:25 PM
    Why do you think "wet kiss with neocons" is compatible with democratic principles ?
    Julio -> likbez... , -1
    Because the neocons have convinced a lot of the people (you know, the "demos" in "democracy") of the need for perpetual war.
    Dan Kervick -> likbez... , October 24, 2016 at 01:36 PM
    Just a hunch: a lot of this hoo-hah will simmer down after the election.

    But yeah, I'm really bummed that we are going to be seeing a return of a lot of the same creeps who gave us the foreign policy of the 90's that went belly up in 2001-03.

    Just a reminder: I called attention several times to this article in 2014 and 2015:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/06/opinion/sunday/are-neocons-getting-ready-to-ally-with-hillary-clinton.html?_r=0

    But most of the liberal bloggers obediently kept their mouths shut about it.

    anne -> Dan Kervick... , October 24, 2016 at 02:56 PM
    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/06/opinion/sunday/are-neocons-getting-ready-to-ally-with-hillary-clinton.html

    July 5, 2014

    The Next Act of the Neocons
    Are Neocons Getting Ready to Ally With Hillary Clinton?
    By JACOB HEILBRUNN

    WASHINGTON - AFTER nearly a decade in the political wilderness, the neoconservative movement is back, using the turmoil in Iraq and Ukraine to claim that it is President Obama, not the movement's interventionist foreign policy that dominated early George W. Bush-era Washington, that bears responsibility for the current round of global crises.

    Even as they castigate Mr. Obama, the neocons may be preparing a more brazen feat: aligning themselves with Hillary Rodham Clinton and her nascent presidential campaign, in a bid to return to the driver's seat of American foreign policy.

    To be sure, the careers and reputations of the older generation of neocons - Paul D. Wolfowitz, L. Paul Bremer III, Douglas J. Feith, Richard N. Perle - are permanently buried in the sands of Iraq. And not all of them are eager to switch parties: In April, William Kristol, the editor of The Weekly Standard, said that as president Mrs. Clinton would "be a dutiful chaperone of further American decline."

    But others appear to envisage a different direction - one that might allow them to restore the neocon brand, at a time when their erstwhile home in the Republican Party is turning away from its traditional interventionist foreign policy.

    It's not as outlandish as it may sound. Consider the historian Robert Kagan, the author of a recent, roundly praised article in The New Republic that amounted to a neo-neocon manifesto. He has not only avoided the vitriolic tone that has afflicted some of his intellectual brethren but also co-founded an influential bipartisan advisory group during Mrs. Clinton's time at the State Department.

    Mr. Kagan has also been careful to avoid landing at standard-issue neocon think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute; instead, he's a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, that citadel of liberalism headed by Strobe Talbott, who was deputy secretary of state under President Bill Clinton and is considered a strong candidate to become secretary of state in a new Democratic administration. (Mr. Talbott called the Kagan article "magisterial," in what amounts to a public baptism into the liberal establishment.)

    Perhaps most significantly, Mr. Kagan and others have insisted on maintaining the link between modern neoconservatism and its roots in muscular Cold War liberalism. Among other things, he has frequently praised Harry S. Truman's secretary of state, Dean Acheson, drawing a line from him straight to the neocons' favorite president: "It was not Eisenhower or Kennedy or Nixon but Reagan whose policies most resembled those of Acheson and Truman."

    Other neocons have followed Mr. Kagan's careful centrism and respect for Mrs. Clinton. Max Boot, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations,noted in The New Republic this year that "it is clear that in administration councils she was a principled voice for a strong stand on controversial issues, whether supporting the Afghan surge or the intervention in Libya."

    And the thing is, these neocons have a point. Mrs. Clinton voted for the Iraq war; supported sending arms to Syrian rebels; likened Russia's president, Vladimir V. Putin, to Adolf Hitler...

    ilsm -> Dan Kervick... , October 24, 2016 at 03:22 PM
    Anne and I have seen this for a while.

    Nothing new Strobe Talbott was closeted, and brought Mrs Kagan aka Victoria Nuland in to State in 1993.

    Bill bearded the bear breaking Kosovo and Bosi=nia out of Serbia...........

    The down payment for Kyiv in 2012 was in 1996.

    likbez -> ilsm... , October 24, 2016 at 05:47 PM
    Nuland occupies a special place among neocons.

    This former associate of Dick Cheney managed to completely destroy pretty nice European county, unleashing the horror of real starvation on the population.

    Ukraine now is essentially Central African country in the middle of the Europe. Retirees often live on less then $1 a day. most adults (and lucky retirees) on less then $3 a day. $6 a day is considered a high salary. At the same time "oligarchs" drive on Maybachs, and personal jets.

    Sex tourism is rampant. Probably the only "profession" that prospered since "Maydan".

    Young people try to get university education and emigrate to any county that would accept them (repeating the story of Baltic countries and Poland).

    Now this a typical IMF debt slave with no chances to get out of the hole.

    Politically this is now a protectorate of the USA with the USA ambassador as the real, de-facto ruler of the country. Much like Kosovo is.

    Standard of living dropped approximately three times since 2014.

    http://nationalinterest.org/feature/ukraines-perpetual-war-perpetual-peace-17614

    "If the country continues on its present course, Odessa's reformist governor Mikheil Saakashvili has noted sarcastically, Ukraine will not reach the level of GDP it had under former president Viktor Yanukovych for another fifteen years"


    "In Kiev, which is by far the wealthiest city in Ukraine, payment arrears for electricity have risen by 32 percent since the beginning of this year."

    [Oct 25, 2016] Are Neocons Getting Ready to Ally With Hillary Clinton? No question about it. She is one of them.

    Oct 25, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    anne -> Dan Kervick... October 24, 2016 at 02:56 PM

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/06/opinion/sunday/are-neocons-getting-ready-to-ally-with-hillary-clinton.html

    July 5, 2014

    The Next Act of the Neocons
    Are Neocons Getting Ready to Ally With Hillary Clinton?
    By JACOB HEILBRUNN

    WASHINGTON - AFTER nearly a decade in the political wilderness, the neoconservative movement is back, using the turmoil in Iraq and Ukraine to claim that it is President Obama, not the movement's interventionist foreign policy that dominated early George W. Bush-era Washington, that bears responsibility for the current round of global crises.

    Even as they castigate Mr. Obama, the neocons may be preparing a more brazen feat: aligning themselves with Hillary Rodham Clinton and her nascent presidential campaign, in a bid to return to the driver's seat of American foreign policy.

    To be sure, the careers and reputations of the older generation of neocons - Paul D. Wolfowitz, L. Paul Bremer III, Douglas J. Feith, Richard N. Perle - are permanently buried in the sands of Iraq. And not all of them are eager to switch parties: In April, William Kristol, the editor of The Weekly Standard, said that as president Mrs. Clinton would "be a dutiful chaperone of further American decline."

    But others appear to envisage a different direction - one that might allow them to restore the neocon brand, at a time when their erstwhile home in the Republican Party is turning away from its traditional interventionist foreign policy.

    It's not as outlandish as it may sound. Consider the historian Robert Kagan, the author of a recent, roundly praised article in The New Republic that amounted to a neo-neocon manifesto. He has not only avoided the vitriolic tone that has afflicted some of his intellectual brethren but also co-founded an influential bipartisan advisory group during Mrs. Clinton's time at the State Department.

    Mr. Kagan has also been careful to avoid landing at standard-issue neocon think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute; instead, he's a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, that citadel of liberalism headed by Strobe Talbott, who was deputy secretary of state under President Bill Clinton and is considered a strong candidate to become secretary of state in a new Democratic administration. (Mr. Talbott called the Kagan article "magisterial," in what amounts to a public baptism into the liberal establishment.)

    Perhaps most significantly, Mr. Kagan and others have insisted on maintaining the link between modern neoconservatism and its roots in muscular Cold War liberalism. Among other things, he has frequently praised Harry S. Truman's secretary of state, Dean Acheson, drawing a line from him straight to the neocons' favorite president: "It was not Eisenhower or Kennedy or Nixon but Reagan whose policies most resembled those of Acheson and Truman."

    Other neocons have followed Mr. Kagan's careful centrism and respect for Mrs. Clinton. Max Boot, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, noted in The New Republic this year that "it is clear that in administration councils she was a principled voice for a strong stand on controversial issues, whether supporting the Afghan surge or the intervention in Libya."

    And the thing is, these neocons have a point. Mrs. Clinton voted for the Iraq war; supported sending arms to Syrian rebels; likened Russia's president, Vladimir V. Putin, to Adolf Hitler...

    ilsm -> Dan Kervick... , October 24, 2016 at 03:22 PM
    Anne and I have seen this for a while. Nothing new Strobe Talbott was closeted [neocon], and brought Mrs Kagan aka Victoria Nuland in to State in 1993.

    Bill bearded the bear breaking Kosovo and Bosinia out of Serbia... The down payment for Kyiv in 2012 was in 1996.

    likbez -> ilsm... , October 24, 2016 at 05:47 PM
    Nuland occupies a special place among neocons.

    This former associate of Dick Cheney managed to completely destroy pretty nice European county, unleashing the horror of real starvation on the population.

    Ukraine now is essentially Central African country in the middle of the Europe. Retirees often live on less then $1 a day. most adults (and lucky retirees) on less then $3 a day. $6 a day is considered a high salary. At the same time "oligarchs" drive on Maybachs, and personal jets.

    Sex tourism is rampant. Probably the only "profession" that prospered since "Maydan".

    Young people try to get university education and emigrate to any county that would accept them (repeating the story of Baltic countries and Poland).

    Now this a typical IMF debt slave with no chances to get our the hole.

    Politically this is now a protectorate of the USA with the USA ambassador as the real, de-facto ruler of the county. Much like Kosovo is.

    Standard of living dropped approximately three times since 2014.

    http://nationalinterest.org/feature/ukraines-perpetual-war-perpetual-peace-17614

    "If the country continues on its present course, Odessa's reformist governor Mikheil Saakashvili has noted sarcastically, Ukraine will not reach the level of GDP it had under former president Viktor Yanukovych for another fifteen years"

    "In Kiev, which is by far the wealthiest city in Ukraine, payment arrears for electricity have risen by 32 percent since the beginning of this year."

    [Oct 25, 2016] Weapons of Mass Destruction! We have irrefutable evidence! Yellowcake!

    Oct 25, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    Sandwichman : , October 24, 2016 at 09:50 AM
    Not to worry. The "Intelligence Community" (USIC) has it all figured out.
    Sandwichman -> Sandwichman ... , October 24, 2016 at 09:55 AM
    Step one: discredit the whistle blowers by sending hacked emails to WikiLeaks and blaming Russia.

    Step two: collect mountains of data without oversight

    Step three: ??

    Sandwichman -> Sandwichman ... , -1
    DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE
    WASHINGTON, DC 20511

    October 07, 2016

    Joint Statement from the Department of Homeland Security
    and Office of the Director of National Intelligence on Election Security

    https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/215-press-releases-2016/1423-joint-dhs-odni-election-security-statement

    The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow-the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europe and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized these activities.

    Sandwichman -> Sandwichman ... , -1
    is confident that... are consistent with...

    Wait just a damn minute.

    Why is the DNI telling THE RUSSIANS what the USIC suspects? Wouldn't that blunt the capability for taking counter measures? Unless... red herring?

    Look! Over there!

    likbez -> Sandwichman ... , -1
    Sandwinchment,

    First of all the fact that intelligence community issue a statement on such a matter is very strange. There is executive branch and three letter agencies should generally keep their mouth shut and allow others to voice the concerns, etc.

    This might be a sigh of complete disorganization of executive branch with intelligence agencies becoming a power players. Kind of "Deep State" morphing into "surface state".

    There are might be also multiple valid reasons for disclosing such a sensitive information:

    1. I want your money stupid Pinocchio.

    2. Smoke screen to hide their own nefarious activities and/or blunders within the USA. Actually existence of Hillary private server is somewhat incompatible with the existence of NSA.

    This is one thing when Podesta using gmail. It's quite another when the Secretary of state uses "bathroom server" with incompetent or semi-competent tech staff and completely clueless entourage.

    3. Pre-emptive strike reflecting some internal struggle within US Intelligence community itself with a neocon faction going "all in" to force the viewpoint, and more aggressive toward Russia stance, which might not be shared by others.

    Please note that CIA and DOD are fighting each other in Iraq and Syria to a certain extent.

    4. Increase Anti-Russian hysteria, which helps Hillary as a candidate of neocon establishment.

    5. Russians might recently uncover some nefarious activities (I heard FSB did discover compromised computers in some ministries) and this is the preparation for the blowback.

    There might be more. You never know.

    anne -> Sandwichman ... , October 24, 2016 at 10:12 AM
    The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts....

    -- Joint Statement from the Department of Homeland Security
    and Office of the Director of National Intelligence on Election Security

    [ "Consistent with the methods and motivations..." is a shocking supposition to be made public, but we have been subject to such suppositions, seemingly with increasing frequency, for these last 15 years. ]

    Sandwichman -> anne... , October 24, 2016 at 10:30 AM
    Weapons of Mass Destruction! We have irrefutable evidence! Yellowcake!

    Keith B. Alexander:"Those who would want to weave the story that we have millions or hundreds of millions of dossiers on people, is absolutely false From my perspective, this is absolute nonsense."

    ...

    Senator Wyden: "Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?"

    DNI Clapper"No, sir."

    Senator Wyden: "It does not?"

    DNI Clapper:"Not wittingly. There are cases where they could inadvertently, perhaps, collect, but not wittingly."

    The [IN]operative word there was "collect" which in NSAspeak does not mean... collect.

    http://econospeak.blogspot.com/2016/10/donald-loves-trikileaks.html

    DeDude -> anne... , -1
    Not shocking at all unless you are ignorant about tracing and analyzing hacks. The traces and approaches are like fingerprints. Nobody in the business have any doubts that the Russians did this - but they will never give you the details of how they got to that conclusion, because this is a public website and the hacking wars are like the missile wars, if the other side knows what you got they can counter it and make your job harder.
    likbez -> DeDude... , -1
    You might be a little bit naïve as for traces.

    The first rule of such activities on state level is to pretend that you are somebody else deliberately leaving false clues (IP space, keyboard layout, etc), everything that you call traces.

    Historically it was the USA that started cyberwar and who developed the most advanced capabilities in this space. Remember the worm which tried to subvert functionality of Iranian centrifuges electronics using specially designed malware and Trojans like Flame?

    So the first suspect should internal(kind of Snowden II), not external. There was also a story with an alternative viewpoint: http://www.amtvmedia.com/why-nsa-may-have-leaked-dnc-emails/

    There were also rumors about FOXACID - The NSA's hacking program getting into DNC hands. http://investmentwatchblog.com/warning-trump-fans-be-careful-possible-leaked-info-on-plans-to-attack-trump-supporters/

    Using botnets essentially gives anybody substantial freedom about what IP space you want to use. You can pretend to be Russian if you want to and use computers from Russian IP space.

    Sandwichman -> Sanjait... , -1
    More "paranoid claptrap" (or should that be Clappertrap?):

    Edward Snowden: "...the breaking point was seeing the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, directly lie under oath to Congress. Seeing that really meant for me there was no going back."

    Sanjait -> DrDick... , October 24, 2016 at 10:43 AM
    That's not untrue, but it seems to me to be getting worse.

    Or at least, we had been making progress, but now we are seeing a massive regression. There have always been racists and misogynists but they used to be hidden under rocks, and the GOP used to take pains to make their dog whistles to them subtle.

    Trump really has brought them out and given the gen a sense of validation and community.

    Though my working theory is that he merely hopped on to an existing trend, driven by the way digital media allows people to create their own comfortable ideological bubbles and find community for whatever spiteful, paranoid or asinine beliefs people have. This includes left and right, though pretty obviously the wingnuts on the right dominate their party and have more numbers and power.

    DrDick -> Sanjait... , October 24, 2016 at 10:51 AM
    Speaking as someone who grew up under segregation in Oklahoma in the 50s and 60s, it has been getting progressively worse since the 1980s (it did did significantly better from 1968- the early 80s). Nixon started this with his "Southern Strategy" and Reagan dialed it up with his "Welfare Queens" and "strapping young bucks." All Trump did was replace the dog whistles with a bullhorn.
    Peter K. -> DrDick... , October 24, 2016 at 11:51 AM
    But for the country as a whole we've had a black President re-elected, gay marriage and legalized pot.

    Could you imagine those things back in the 1950s and 1960s?

    And Bernie Sanders beat the spread and did very well for a self-proclaimed democratic socialist who engaged in "class war" talk.

    Hillary prefers the grow together "everybody wins" narrative we see in the hacked email and speeches.

    Peter K. -> Sanjait... , October 24, 2016 at 11:48 AM
    "That's not untrue, but it seems to me to be getting worse."

    Because of economic stagnation and anxiety among lower class Republicans.

    Trump blames immigration and trade unlike traditional elite Republicans. These are economic issues.

    Trump supporters no longer believe or trust the Republican elite who they see as corrupt which is partly true.

    They've been backing Nixon, Reagan, Bush etc and things are just getting worse. They've been played.

    Granted it's complicated and partly they see their side as losing and so are doubling down on the conservatism, racism, sexism etc.

    But Trump *brags* that he was against the Iraq war. That's not an elite Republican opinion.

    likbez -> DrDick... , -1
    My impression is that Trump_vs_deep_state is more about dissatisfaction of the Republican base with the Republican brass (which fully endorsed neoliberal globalization), the phenomenon somewhat similar to Sanders.

    Working class and lower middle class essentially abandoned DemoRats (Clinton democrats) after so many years of betrayal and "they have nowhere to go" attitude.

    Looks like they have found were to go this election cycle and this loss of the base is probably was the biggest surprise for neoliberal Democrats.

    Now they try to forge the alliance of highly paid professionals who benefitted from globalization("creative class"), financial speculators and minorities. Which does not look like a stable coalition to me.


    Some data suggest that among unions which endorsed Hillary 3 out of 4 members will vote against her. And that are data from union brass. Lower middle class might also demonstrate the same pattern this election cycle.

    In other words both Parties are now split and have two mini-parties inside. I am not sure that Sanders part of Democratic party would support Hillary. The wounds caused by DNC betrayal and double dealing are still too fresh.

    We have something like what Marxists call "revolutionary situation" when the elite loses control of "peons". And existence of Internet made MSM propaganda far less effective that it would be otherwise.

    That's why they resort to war propaganda tricks.

    [Oct 25, 2016] The Next Ukraine

    Notable quotes:
    "... The Russian-Turkish plan to pipe Russian gas through Turkey and then on to Macedonia and thence into southern Europe has long been opposed by the West, which is seeking to block the Russians at every turn. Now the Western powers have found an effective way to stop it: by overthrowing the pro-Russian government of Macedonian Prime Minister Nikola Gruevski . ..."
    "... Speaking of which: the government of President Petro Poroshenko is leading the country into complete financial insolvency and veritable martial law. ..."
    "... which makes it a crime to criticize the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists and the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) that fought on the side of the Germans during World War II. ..."
    May 22, 2015 | Antiwar.com
    The Russian-Turkish plan to pipe Russian gas through Turkey and then on to Macedonia and thence into southern Europe has long been opposed by the West, which is seeking to block the Russians at every turn. Now the Western powers have found an effective way to stop it: by overthrowing the pro-Russian government of Macedonian Prime Minister Nikola Gruevski.

    The original plan was for the pipeline to go through Bulgaria, but Western pressure on the government there nixed that and so the alternative was to pipe the gas through Macedonia and Greece. With the Greeks uninterested in taking dictation from the EU – and relatively impervious, at the moment, to Western-sponsored regime change – the Macedonians were deemed to be the weak link in the pro-Russian chain. That was the cue for the perpetually aggrieved Albanians to play their historic role as the West's willing proxies.

    After a long period of dormancy, suddenly the "National Liberation Army" (NLA) of separatist Albanians rose up, commandeering police stations in Kumanovo and a nearby village earlier this month. A 16-hour gun battle ensued, with 8 Macedonian police and 14 terrorists killed in the fighting. The NLA, which reportedly received vital assistance from Western powers during the 2001 insurgency, claimed responsibility for the attacks.

    Simultaneously, the opposition Social Democratic Union party (SDSM) – formerly the ruling League of Communists under the Stalinist Tito regime – called for mass demonstrations over a series of recent government scandals. SDSM has lost the last three elections, deemed "fair" by the OCSE, with Gruevski's conservative VMRO-DPMNE (Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization – Democratic Party for Macedonian National Unity) enjoying a comfortable majority in parliament. But that doesn't matter to the "pro-democracy" regime-changers: SDSM leader Zoran Zaev declared "This will not be a protest where we gather, express discontent and go home. We will stay until Gruevski quits."

    Sound familiar?

    Macedonia has a long history of manipulation at the hands of the NATO powers, who nurtured the Muslim-Kosovar insurgency to impose their will on the components of the former Yugoslavia. As in Kosovo, the Albanians of Macedonia were willing pawns of the West, carrying out terrorist attacks on civilians in pursuit of their goal of a "Greater Albania."

    During the 2001 Albanian insurgency, an outgrowth of the Kosovo war, the EU/US used the NLA as a battering ram against the Slavic authorities. The NLA was never an authentic indigenous force, but actually an arm of the US-armed-and-trained "Kosovo Liberation Army," which now rules over the gangster state of Kosovo, crime capital of Europe. A "peace accord," the Ohrid Agreement, was brokered by the West, which kept the NLA essentially intact, albeit formally "dissolved," while the Macedonian government was blackmailed into submission. I wrote about it at the time, here and here.

    Follow that last link to read about the George Soros connection. Soros was originally a big booster of Macedonia, handing them a $25 million aid package and holding the country up as a model of multiculturalism. However, the Macedonians soon turned against him when he sided with the Albanians in their demands for government-subsidized Albanian-language universities and ethnic quotas for government jobs. When he told them to change the name of the country to "Slavomakejonija," they told him to take a walk. Soros, a longtime promoter of Albanian separatism – he played sugar daddy to a multitude of front groups that promoted the Kosovo war – is now getting his revenge.

    Prime Minister Gruevski, for his part, charges that the sudden uptick in ethnic violence and political turmoil is the work of Western "NGOs" and intelligence agencies (or do I repeat myself?) with the latter playing a key role in releasing recordings of phone conversations incriminating several top government officials. A not-so-implausible scenario, given what happened in neighboring Ukraine.

    Speaking of which: the government of President Petro Poroshenko is leading the country into complete financial insolvency and veritable martial law. Aid money from the West is going into the prosecution of the ongoing civil war, and the country has already defaulted on its huge debt in all but the formal sense. Opposition politicians and journalists are routinely murdered and their deaths reported as "suicides," while it is now illegal to describe the ongoing conflict with the eastern provinces as anything but a "Russian invasion." Journalists who contradict the official view are imprisoned: Ruslan Kotsaba, whose arrest I reported on in this space, is still being held, his "trial" a farce that no Western journalist has seen fit to report on. Kotsaba's "crime"? Making a video in which he denounced the war and called on his fellow Ukrainians to resist being conscripted into the military. Antiwar activists throughout the country have been rounded up and imprisoned. Any journalist connected to a Russian media outlet has been arrested.

    Yes, these are the "European values" Ukraine is now putting into practice. Adding ignominy to outrage, a law was recently passed – in spite of this Reuters piece urging Poroshenko to veto it – which makes it a crime to criticize the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists and the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) that fought on the side of the Germans during World War II. As Ha'aretz reports, a group of 40 historians from major Western academic institutions issued an open letter protesting this outrage:

    "Not only would it be a crime to question the legitimacy of an organization (UPA) that slaughtered tens of thousands of Poles in one of the most heinous acts of ethnic cleansing in the history of Ukraine, but also it would exempt from criticism the OUN, one of the most extreme political groups in Western Ukraine between the wars, and one which collaborated with Nazi Germany at the outset of the Soviet invasion in 1941. It also took part in anti-Jewish pogroms in Ukraine and, in the case of the Melnyk faction, remained allied with the occupation regime throughout the war."

    Ukraine is showing its true colors, which I identified last year, to the point where even the usually compliant Western media is forced to admit the truth.

    [Oct 25, 2016] The Clinton Foundation contributed to the February coup in Ukraine, having longstanding ties to Ukrainian oligarchs who pushed the country to European integration.

    Notable quotes:
    "... It has recently turned out that Ukrainian oligarch Viktor Pinchuk, a vocal proponent of Ukraine's European integration, made huge contributions to the Clinton Foundation, while Hillary Clinton was the US Secretary of State. Although the foundation swore off donations from foreign governments while Mrs. Clinton was serving as a state official, it continued accepting money from private donors. Many of them had certain ties to their national governments like Viktor Pinchuk, a Ukrainian businessman and ex-parliamentarian. ..."
    "... Viktor Pinchuk has always been one of the most vocal proponents of Ukraine's European integration. In 2004 Pinchuk founded the Yalta European Strategy (YES) platform in Kiev. YES is led by the board including ex-president of Poland Aleksander Kwasniewski and former NATO Secretary General Javier Solana. According to the website of the platform, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Condoleezza Rice, Kofi Annan, Radoslaw Sikorski, Vitaliy Klitschko, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, Petro Poroshenko and other prominent figures have participated in annual meetings of YES since 2004. ..."
    "... Experts note that after the coup, the Ukrainian leadership has actually become Washington's puppet government. Several foreign citizens, including American civilian Natalie Jaresko, Lithuanian investment banker Aivaras Abromavicius and Georgia-born Alexander Kvitashvili have assumed high posts in the Ukrainian government. It should be noted that Natalie Jaresko, Ukraine's Financial Minister, have previously worked in the US State Department and has also been linked to oligarch Viktor Pinchuk. ..."
    May 17, 2015 | sputniknews.com

    A sinister atmosphere surrounds the Clinton Foundation's role in Ukrainian military coup of February 2014, experts point out.

    It has recently turned out that Ukrainian oligarch Viktor Pinchuk, a vocal proponent of Ukraine's European integration, made huge contributions to the Clinton Foundation, while Hillary Clinton was the US Secretary of State. Although the foundation swore off donations from foreign governments while Mrs. Clinton was serving as a state official, it continued accepting money from private donors. Many of them had certain ties to their national governments like Viktor Pinchuk, a Ukrainian businessman and ex-parliamentarian.

    Remarkably, among individual donors contributing to the Clinton Foundation in the period between 1999 and 2014, Ukrainian sponsors took first place in the list, providing the charity with almost $10 million and pushing England and Saudi Arabia to second and third places respectively.

    It is worth mentioning that the Viktor Pinchuk Foundation alone transferred at least $8.6 million to the Clinton charity between 2009 and 2013. Pinchuk, who acquired his fortune from a pipe-making business, served twice as a parliamentarian in Ukraine's Verkhovna Rada and was married to the daughter of ex-president of Ukraine Leonid Kuchma.

    Although the Clinton's charity denies that the donations were somehow connected with political matters, experts doubt that international private sponsors received no political support in return. In 2008 Pinchuk pledged to make a five-year $29 million contribution to the Clinton Global Initiative in order to fund a program aimed at training future Ukrainian leaders and "modernizers." Remarkably, several alumni of these courses are current members of Ukrainian parliament. Because of the global financial crisis, the Pinchuk Foundation sent only $1.8 million.

    Experts note that during Mrs. Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State, Viktor Pinchuk was introduced to some influential American lobbyists. Curiously enough, he tried to use his powerful "friends" to pressure Ukraine's then-President Viktor Yanukovych to free Yulia Tymoshenko, who served a jail term.

    Viktor Pinchuk has always been one of the most vocal proponents of Ukraine's European integration. In 2004 Pinchuk founded the Yalta European Strategy (YES) platform in Kiev. YES is led by the board including ex-president of Poland Aleksander Kwasniewski and former NATO Secretary General Javier Solana. According to the website of the platform, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Condoleezza Rice, Kofi Annan, Radoslaw Sikorski, Vitaliy Klitschko, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, Petro Poroshenko and other prominent figures have participated in annual meetings of YES since 2004.

    No one would argue that proponents of Ukraine's pro-Western course played the main role in organizing the coup of February 2014 in Kiev. Furthermore, the exceptional role of the United States in ousting then-president Viktor Yanukovich has also been recognized by political analysts, participants of Euromaidan and even by Barack Obama, the US President.

    Experts note that after the coup, the Ukrainian leadership has actually become Washington's puppet government. Several foreign citizens, including American civilian Natalie Jaresko, Lithuanian investment banker Aivaras Abromavicius and Georgia-born Alexander Kvitashvili have assumed high posts in the Ukrainian government. It should be noted that Natalie Jaresko, Ukraine's Financial Minister, have previously worked in the US State Department and has also been linked to oligarch Viktor Pinchuk.

    So far, experts note, the recent "game of thrones" in Ukraine has been apparently instigated by a few powerful clans of the US and Ukraine, who are evidently benefitting from the ongoing turmoil. In this light the Clinton Foundation looks like something more than just a charity: in today's world of fraudulent oligopoly we are facing with global cronyism, experts point out, warning against its devastating consequences.

    Read more: http://sputniknews.com/analysis/20150323/1019905665.html#ixzz3YT3FykcI

    See also: US Intelligence Services Behind 2014 Ukraine Coup – EU Parliament Member

    [Oct 25, 2016] The two-party system is a political monopoly of the capitalist class. Both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party are political instruments of big business. The claims of Bernie Sanders and his pseudo-left apologists that it is possible to reform or pressure the Democrats-and even carry out a political revolution through it-have proven to be lies

    Notable quotes:
    "... This outcome has an objective character. The two-party system is a political monopoly of the capitalist class. Both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party are political instruments of big business. The claims of Bernie Sanders and his pseudo-left apologists that it is possible to reform or pressure the Democrats-and even carry out a "political revolution" through it-have proven to be lies ..."
    Sep 14, 2016 | marknesop.wordpress.com
    "The 2016 election campaign was dominated for many months by explosive popular disaffection with the whole political and corporate establishment. But it has concluded in a contest between two candidates who personify that establishment-one a billionaire from the criminal world of real-estate swindling, the other the consensus choice of the military-intelligence apparatus and Wall Street.

    This outcome has an objective character. The two-party system is a political monopoly of the capitalist class. Both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party are political instruments of big business. The claims of Bernie Sanders and his pseudo-left apologists that it is possible to reform or pressure the Democrats-and even carry out a "political revolution" through it-have proven to be lies."

    http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/09/28/pers-s28.html

    And of course….some warmonger gibberish from:

    [Oct 25, 2016] Welcome To The George Orwell Theme Park Of Democracy

    Notable quotes:
    "... Their grievances about a grift-maximized political economy were genuine, and Trump managed to make them look like a claque of sinister clowns. This cartoon of a rich kid with no internal boundaries was unable to articulate their legitimate complaints. His behavior during the so-called debates verged on psychotic. ..."
    "... The "tell" in these late stages of the campaign has been the demonization of Russia - a way more idiotic exercise than the McCarthyite Cold War hysteria of the early 1950s, since there is no longer any ideological conflict between us and all the evidence indicates that the current state of bad relations is America's fault, in particular our sponsorship of the state failure in Ukraine and our avid deployment of NATO forces in war games on Russia's border. Hillary has had the full force of the foreign affairs establishment behind her in this war-drum-banging effort, yet they have not been able to produce any evidence, for instance, in their claim that Russia is behind the Wikileaks hack of Hillary's email. They apparently subscribe to the Joseph Goebbels theory of propaganda: if you're going to lie, make sure it's a whopper, and then repeat it incessantly. ..."
    "... The media has been on-board with all this. The New York Times especially has acted as the hired amplifier for the establishment lies - such a difference from the same newspaper's role in the Vietnam War ruckus of yesteryear. Today (Monday) they ran an astounding editorial "explaining" the tactical necessity of Hillary's dishonesty: "In politics, hypocrisy and doublespeak are tools," The Times editorial board wrote. Oh, well, that's reassuring. Welcome to the George Orwell Theme Park of Democracy. ..."
    "... Of course neither Trump nor Hillary show any signs of understanding the real problems afflicting the USA. They don't recognize the basic energy equation that has made it impossible for industrial economies to keep growing, or the deformities in banking and finance that result from official efforts to overcome these implacable conditions, namely, the piling up of ever-greater debt to "solve" the problem of over-indebtedness. ..."
    "... Hillary would bring a more measured discredit to the system with the chance that our institutions might be rehabilitated - with the cherry-on-top being Hillary's eventual impeachment for lying, a fate that her husband and the late Richard Nixon both wiggled out of one way or another. ..."
    Oct 25, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    Submitted by James Howard Kunstler via kunstler.com

    It's getting hard to give a shit about this election, though you might still care about this country. The damage has been done to the two long-reigning political parties and perhaps that's a good thing. They deserved to be dragged into the gutter and now they can either go through a severe rehab or be replaced by as-yet-unformed coalitions of reality-based interests.

    Trump did a greater disservice all-in-all to the faction he supposedly represented. Their grievances about a grift-maximized political economy were genuine, and Trump managed to make them look like a claque of sinister clowns. This cartoon of a rich kid with no internal boundaries was unable to articulate their legitimate complaints. His behavior during the so-called debates verged on psychotic. If Trump loses, I will essay to guess that his followers' next step will be some kind of violence. For the moment, pathetic as it is, Trump was their last best hope.

    I'm more comfortable about Hillary - though I won't vote for her - because it will be salutary for the ruling establishment to unravel with her in charge of it. That way, the right people will be blamed for the mismanagement of our national affairs. This gang of elites needs to be circulated out of power the hard way, under the burden of their own obvious perfidy, with no one else to point their fingers at. Her election will sharpen awareness of the criminal conduct in our financial practices and the neglect of regulation that marked the eight years of Obama's appointees at the Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission.

    The "tell" in these late stages of the campaign has been the demonization of Russia - a way more idiotic exercise than the McCarthyite Cold War hysteria of the early 1950s, since there is no longer any ideological conflict between us and all the evidence indicates that the current state of bad relations is America's fault, in particular our sponsorship of the state failure in Ukraine and our avid deployment of NATO forces in war games on Russia's border. Hillary has had the full force of the foreign affairs establishment behind her in this war-drum-banging effort, yet they have not been able to produce any evidence, for instance, in their claim that Russia is behind the Wikileaks hack of Hillary's email. They apparently subscribe to the Joseph Goebbels theory of propaganda: if you're going to lie, make sure it's a whopper, and then repeat it incessantly.

    The media has been on-board with all this. The New York Times especially has acted as the hired amplifier for the establishment lies - such a difference from the same newspaper's role in the Vietnam War ruckus of yesteryear. Today (Monday) they ran an astounding editorial "explaining" the tactical necessity of Hillary's dishonesty: "In politics, hypocrisy and doublespeak are tools," The Times editorial board wrote. Oh, well, that's reassuring. Welcome to the George Orwell Theme Park of Democracy.

    Of course neither Trump nor Hillary show any signs of understanding the real problems afflicting the USA. They don't recognize the basic energy equation that has made it impossible for industrial economies to keep growing, or the deformities in banking and finance that result from official efforts to overcome these implacable conditions, namely, the piling up of ever-greater debt to "solve" the problem of over-indebtedness.

    The beginning of the way out of this quandary will be recognition that the federal government is the greatest obstacle for America making the necessary adjustments to a world that has changed. If Trump got elected, I'm convinced that he would be removed from office by a military coup inside of a year, which would be an epic smash-up of our political machinery per se, comparable to the period 44 BCE in Rome, when the republic crashed. Hillary would bring a more measured discredit to the system with the chance that our institutions might be rehabilitated - with the cherry-on-top being Hillary's eventual impeachment for lying, a fate that her husband and the late Richard Nixon both wiggled out of one way or another.

    J S Bach BabaLooey Oct 24, 2016 5:03 PM ,

    This is nothing new.

    Hitler is accused of being the evil practitioner of the "Big Lie" technique, but as usual, he was misquoted. Here's the entire idea in context:

    "In this they [the Jews] proceeded on the sound principle that the magnitude of a lie always contains a certain factor of credibility, since the great masses of the people in the very bottom of their hearts tend to be corrupted rather than consciously and purposely evil, and that, therefore, in view of the primitive simplicity of their minds, they more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a little one, since they themselves lie in little things, but would be ashamed of lies that were too big. Such a falsehood will never enter their heads, and they will not be able to believe in the possibility of such monstrous effrontery and infamous misrepresentation in others.…" (p. 231 of the Manheim translation)

    Hitler is accusing the Jews of the Vienna press of this strategy. It is often taken as evidence that Hitler advocated the "Big Lie." He is, in fact, accusing his enemies of lying.

    One might say, rightly, that Trump and Hitler ARE on the same page here... both accusing the jews of bearing grand false witness. (Trump implicitly)

    BabaLooey Captain Chlamydia Oct 24, 2016 4:46 PM ,
    BOYCOTT Hollywhack!

    www.genvideos.org

    If you must watch movies.

    Antenna TV - DUMP CABLE.

    IGNORE ANYTHING "Main Stream" - ALL THE CHANNELS

    Here's my own message to Hollywhackers

    Dear Hollywood celebrities:

    You exist for my entertainment. Some of you are great eye candy. Some of you can deliver a line with such conviction that you bring tears to my eyes. Some of you can scare the hell out of me. Others make me laugh.

    But you all have one thing in common, you only have a place in my world to entertain me. That's it. You make your living pretending to be someone else . Playing dress up like a 6 year old. You live in a make believe world in front of a camera.

    And often when you are away from one too. Your entire existence depends on my patronage. I'll crank the organ grinder; you dance. I don't really care where you stand on issues.

    Honestly, your stance matters far less to me than that of my neighbor. You see, you aren't real. I turn off my TV or shut down my computer and you cease to exist in my world . Once I am done with you, I can put you back in your little box until I want you to entertain me again.

    Get back into your bubble. I'll let you know when I'm in the mood for something blue and shiny. And I'm also supposed to care that you will leave this great country if Trump becomes president? Ha. Please don't forget to close the door behind you.

    We'd like to reserve your seat for someone who loves this country and really wants to be here. Make me laugh, or cry. Scare me. But realize that the only words of yours that matter are scripted. I might agree with some of you from time to time, but it doesn't matter. In my world, you exist solely as entertainment So, shut your pie hole and dance, monkey!

    beemasters Four chan Oct 24, 2016 5:09 PM ,
    "In politics, hypocrisy and doublespeak are tools," but she has made it a way of life that nobody knows if her campaign promises are essentially a "doublespeak". If only the criteria is being the best liar, she would win the presidency hands down.
    HopefulCynical beemasters Oct 24, 2016 5:15 PM ,
    This gang of elites needs to be circulated out of power the hard way, under the burden of their own obvious perfidy, with no one else to point their fingers at.

    Ahh, but you think they'll be "circulated out of power" under Hillary?! No chance. The bitch will have tanks in the street first. And after the financial collapse, the soldiers will cooperate, because they won't want their families starving like everybody else's will be.

    Mr. Bones HopefulCynical Oct 24, 2016 5:52 PM ,

    "Trump was their last best hope."

    Trump isn't a hope, he's a gesture. Woe unto those who don't recognize it.

    The Alarmist Mr. Bones Oct 24, 2016 7:04 PM

    "I'm more comfortable about Hillary - though I won't vote for her - because it will be salutary for the ruling establishment to unravel with her in charge of it."

    Sorry, but that is a leap of faith I can't make. It's like being at the event horizon of a black hole and deciding to jump into the hole because you look forward to seeing what is on the other side. Chances are you will be spaghettified so that your atoms might arrive elsewhere, but not in particular relation to the you that jumped into the hole, so you will not survive to see any change of scenery.

    There will be a USA after Hillary, but it will not be your father's USA, and getting to this new promised land will be a very painful process. Rome lived on until 1453 in the form of the Byzantine empire, but the Republic died well before the birth of Christ.

    yippee kiyay The Alarmist Oct 24, 2016 11:28 PM ,
    "This gang of elites"

    And who are they? These elusive "elites"? https://goo.gl/bFYusM

    [Oct 25, 2016] Grand Strategy What is America's Most Pressing Foreign Policy Issue

    Notable quotes:
    "... There are a variety of potential threats around the world today: tensions in the South China Seas, a nuclear North Korea, conflict between Russia and Ukraine, and civil wars in the Middle East are just a few. In order to better think about these challenges and how they relate to U.S. national security, the Center for the National Interest partnered with the Charles Koch Institute to host a foreign policy roundtable which addressed the question: What is the most pressing issue for America's foreign policy? ..."
    "... Mearsheimer argues that the second problematic dimension of U.S. foreign policy is that the United States is "heavily into transformation." By "transformation," Mearsheimer means that "We believe that what we should do in the process of running the world is topple governments that are not liberal democracies and transform them into [neo]liberal democracies." ..."
    "... according to Mearsheimer, the United States is pursuing "a hopeless cause; there is a huge literature that makes it clear that promoting democracy around the world is extremely difficult to do, and doing it at the end of a rifle barrel is almost impossible." ..."
    "... "It's remarkably difficult to understand why we still continue to think we can dominate the world and pursue the same foreign policy we've been pursuing at least since 2001, when it has led to abject failure after abject failure." ..."
    "... Andrew Bacevich opines that the United States needs to "come to some understanding of who we are and why we do these things – a critical understanding of the American identity." Notre Dame's Michael Desch agrees: "That cuts to the core of American political culture. I think the root of the hubris is deep in the software that animates how we think about ourselves, and how we think about the world." ..."
    Oct 24, 2016 | The National Interest Blog

    There are a variety of potential threats around the world today: tensions in the South China Seas, a nuclear North Korea, conflict between Russia and Ukraine, and civil wars in the Middle East are just a few. In order to better think about these challenges and how they relate to U.S. national security, the Center for the National Interest partnered with the Charles Koch Institute to host a foreign policy roundtable which addressed the question: What is the most pressing issue for America's foreign policy? Watch the rest of the videos in the "Grand Strategy" series.

    John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago doesn't shy away from a bold answer: The most pressing issue is that the United States has a "fundamentally misguided foreign policy." Mearsheimer argues that there are two dimensions to U.S. foreign policy that get the United States into "big trouble." First, he says, "We believe that we can dominate the globe, that we can control what happens in every nook and cranny of the world." The problem with this is that "the world is simply too big and nationalism is much too powerful of a force to make it possible for us to come close to doing that."

    Mearsheimer argues that the second problematic dimension of U.S. foreign policy is that the United States is "heavily into transformation." By "transformation," Mearsheimer means that "We believe that what we should do in the process of running the world is topple governments that are not liberal democracies and transform them into [neo]liberal democracies."

    The United States has engaged in numerous international military interventions over the past fifteen years, primarily in the Middle East. Proponents of these interventions argue that they are necessary in order to build stable democracies in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. However, according to Mearsheimer, the United States is pursuing "a hopeless cause; there is a huge literature that makes it clear that promoting democracy around the world is extremely difficult to do, and doing it at the end of a rifle barrel is almost impossible."

    So why has the United States continued to pursue policies and strategies that fail to convert U.S. military might into political ends?

    Eugene Gholz of the University of Texas at Austin suggests that the root of the issue could be American hubris. The United States has made the mistake of "thinking we can control things we can't control." Mearsheimer agrees with Gholz, although he finds the situation perplexing: "It's remarkably difficult to understand why we still continue to think we can dominate the world and pursue the same foreign policy we've been pursuing at least since 2001, when it has led to abject failure after abject failure."

    Several other scholars chime in to offer their own thoughts on this thorny issue. Boston University's Andrew Bacevich opines that the United States needs to "come to some understanding of who we are and why we do these things – a critical understanding of the American identity." Notre Dame's Michael Desch agrees: "That cuts to the core of American political culture. I think the root of the hubris is deep in the software that animates how we think about ourselves, and how we think about the world."

    Harvard University's Stephen Walt offers yet another possibility. Walt asks if the U.S. commitment to its current misguided and damaging foreign policy is due to "deep culture" or if it is result of "the national security apparatus we built after World War II." Walt thinks it is the latter: the United States "was not a highly interventionist country until after the Second World War." After World War II, "we built a large national security state, we had bases everywhere, and then we discovered that we can't let go of any of that, even though the original reason for building it is gone."

    Did the other panelists agree with Walt? Did anyone suggest a different problem as a candidate for the most pressing issue? Watch the full video above to see and be sure to check out the other videos of CNI and CKI's panel of nationally acclaimed foreign policy scholars addressing additional questions.

    [Oct 25, 2016] karl1haushofer

    Oct 25, 2016 | gravatar.com
    says:

    September 28, 2016 at 10:46 am Russia made another mistake back in 2014 when it handed the MH-17 wreck to the West. What Russia should have done is to keep all the evidence to itself and conduct its own investigation, denying the West any role in it. Reply
          • marknesop says: September 28, 2016 at 1:35 pm Yes, I'm sure an investigation by Russia – which the west had already designated the prime suspect – of wreckage it controlled in secret and would not let the west see would have had all kinds of credibility. But you don't think that either. You're just trolling. Reply
            • Moscow Exile says: September 28, 2016 at 9:56 pm Skimming through the UK newspapers this morning, as well as the BBC, the Dutch MH-17 report seems not to have caused headline news.

              The Telegraph front page is dominated by a shock-horror football corruption scandal (I mean that big girl's game with a round ball - what they like to call "soccer" outside the UK), the Independent has as its lead story the Congress veto on Obama, the BBC - the same. A far cry from when news of the downing broke and such headlines as "Putin's Killed My Son!" screamed out from the British gutter press.

              And that's not the distressed father's son pictured next to the headline: it's the British monarch's great-grandson, George, whose parents are at present waving to Canadians,the child's mother displaying, as ever, her inane, fixed grin. Reply

    [Oct 24, 2016] Hillary might be a symptom of degenerate neoliberal aristocracy clinging to irresponsible power. Gen. Butler book War Is A Racket is still a classic book on the subject

    Oct 24, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    ilsm -> to pgl ... October 23, 2016 at 04:10 AM

    Ruling elite has a crook for a candidate appealing to fears and prefers her wars for oil to be with Russia.

    DrDick -> ilsm ... October 23, 2016 at 08:54 AM , 2016 at 08:54 AM

    More stupidity. First off, the American elite (like all elites) is far from unitary and most of them back Republicans, though they hedge their bets by also supporting centrist Democrats.
    ilsm -> DrDick... , October 23, 2016 at 11:25 AM
    Greed is a unifier. What they said on SNL opening skit...... Klinton is the republican.
    anne : , October 23, 2016 at 05:23 AM
    https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/790154851682545665

    Glenn Greenwald @ggreenwald

    Exploiting Cold War rhetoric & tactics has helped her win the election. I guess the idea is: deal with the aftermath and fallout later.

    Katrina vandenHeuvel @KatrinaNation

    How does new Cold War-- which ends space for dissent, hurts women & children, may lead to nuclear war--help what Clinton claims she is for?

    4:36 AM - 23 Oct 2016

    EMichael -> anne... , October 23, 2016 at 05:28 AM
    I would submit that there are very few voters that will vote from Clinton because of this "cold war rhetoric" schtick. Greenwald keeps falling and cannot get up.
    ilsm -> EMichael...
    Few "will [move the] vote from Clinton because of this "cold war rhetoric" schtick.

    Those "few" were awake during the 80's and see the nuclear/neocon dystopian horror behind Clinton. While Trump mentioned using nukes, Hillary's nuke policy is 'well' laid out by Robert Kagan and the hegemon interests.

    Recall Mao said "go ahead......' Nukes are just another form of the pointless body count strategy.

    likbez -> ilsm...
    Like before WWI, Hillary might be "a symptom of degenerate [neoliberal] aristocracy clinging to irresponsible power." Gen. Butler, "War Is A Racket." is still a classic book on the subject.

    See an interesting discussion at

    http://crookedtimber.org/2016/10/22/unnecessary-wars/#comments

    Here are a couple of comments
    == quote ===

    greg 10.22.16 at 11:02 pm ( 29 )

    All war is for profit. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were fought for profit. The profit from Iraqi oil and whatever was expected from Afghanistan were irrelevant. Weapons of mass destruction, the Taliban, even Isis, were and are all issues that could have been more efficiently handled, but instead were pretexts to convince the credulous of the necessity of war.

    The real profit was the profit taken by the military-political-industrial complex in the treasure and stolen rights of the American people. That is the bottom line for why we went to war, and why we are still there, and why, if our elites persist, we might go to war with Russia or China.

    The good news is that, because of the unrelenting depredations by American elites on the treasure and rights of the people, the United States is increasingly unable to wage war effectively. The bad news is that our elites are too blind to see this.

    America: Consuming your future today.

    ====

    Peter T 10.23.16 at 8:56 am

    faustusnotes

    fear of "socialism" – meaning, broadly, greater popular participation in politics – was explicitly a major factor in the German and Russian decisions for war. In both cases, they hoped victory would shore up increasingly fragile conservative dominance. It also underlay British and French attitudes. 1870-1914 was a very stressful time for elites.

    1915 was too early for any of the combatants to settle. By mid-late 1916 there were some voices in favour of negotiations, but the Germans would have none of it then or in 1917. By the time the Germans were prepared to talk (mid 1918), they had lost. Fear of socialism was again a major factor in the post-war settlements.

    Liberals of today see World War I as the great disaster that shattered the pre-war liberal order. In the same way, the generation post 1815 saw the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars as the great disaster that shattered the happy old order. The extent of the damage and loss was much the same in each, although World War I took 5 years to do what the French wars did in 25.

    ===

    Omega Centauri 10.23.16 at 1:13 am ( 33 )

    The decision to continue it seems to be a natural consequence of the human proclivity towards doubling down. This operates on many levels, some of which are related to the need for vindication of those involved in the decision to start the conflict.

    There is also the horror that if you end a war without achieving something the masses can identify with as victory, then the families of those killed will see that their loved ones died in vain -- for someone else's mistake (very bad for your political future).

    And of course if you quit, what is to stop the enemy from extracting reparations or worse from you, because in his eyes, you are the criminal party. Much easier to try yet one more offensive, or to lure a formerly neutral party into joining in and opening up another front, which you hope will break the stalemate.

    The thing that appalls me so much about the Great War, is how so many nations were dragged in, by promises of booty . In many ways it resembles the Peloponnisian war, in its inability to allow neutrals to be neutrals.

    [Oct 24, 2016] New generation forget about the horrors of previous wars and internationalist idea does not survive the new war first hours, let alone first weeks

    Notable quotes:
    "... Continuing the war, once the bloodbath is underway and its futility is fully evident (which surely is objectively the case as early as 1915), seems to me to be the point where moral culpability on all sides applies most forcibly. ..."
    "... It was a symptom of degenerate aristocracy clinging to irresponsible power. Continuing to turn the crank on the meat grinder without any realistic strategic hope or aim should have condemned the military establishment as well as the political establishment in several countries where it didn't. Hindenburg was there to appoint Hitler; Petain to surrender France. ..."
    "... And, before the war? Are the arguments against war really connecting? ..."
    "... That internationalist idea doesn't seem to survive the war's first hours, let alone first weeks. ..."
    "... Universal conscription in France and Germany created a common experience. Several generations learned not so much the horror of mass slaughter as war as the instant of national glory in dramatic crises and short-lived conflicts with a decisive result. ..."
    "... Certainly, there had been arguments made before the war and even several disparate political movements that had adopted ideas critical of imperialism by military means. I question, though, how engaged they were with mainstream politics of the day and therefore how fully developed we can say their ideas or arguments were. ..."
    "... Consider the Hague Conferences of 1899 and 1907 as examples of the state of the practical politics of a program for peace. The first Conference was called by the Czar and the second by Theodore Roosevelt - no little irony in either case. ..."
    "... the 1907 Conference as an illustration of the growing war fever gripping western (so-called) civilization, as many of the delegates apparently sat around discussing how they longed for a cleansing war. ..."
    "... I cannot pretend to understand the psychology, but I accept that it was prevalent, as least for a certain class. Morally reprehensible this glorification of war? I certainly think so. Was it engaged by fully developed argument? When? ..."
    "... It was against the background of this Great Game of elite diplomacy and saber-rattling and brief, limited wars that efforts had been made to erect an arguably more idealistic apparatus of liberal international peace thru international law, limitations of armaments and the creation of formal mechanisms for the arbitration of disputes. ..."
    "... If this was the institutional program produced by "the fully developed and strongly argued" case against war, it wasn't that fully developed or strongly argued, as demonstrated by the severe shortcomings of the Hague Conferences. ..."
    "... The consequences were horrific as mass mobilization and industrialized warfare combined with primitive means of command-and-control and reactionary often incompetent leadership to create a blood-bath of immense scale. (See my first comment.) ..."
    crookedtimber.org

    bruce wilder 10.22.16 at 8:46 pm ( 25 )

    The case against war was fully developed and strongly argued in the years before 1914 . . .

    Was it? I wonder about that.

    Continuing the war, once the bloodbath is underway and its futility is fully evident (which surely is objectively the case as early as 1915), seems to me to be the point where moral culpability on all sides applies most forcibly. It is on this point that I think arguments from before the war cannot have the weight the horror of experience must give them. Elite leadership across Europe failed.

    It was a symptom of degenerate aristocracy clinging to irresponsible power. Continuing to turn the crank on the meat grinder without any realistic strategic hope or aim should have condemned the military establishment as well as the political establishment in several countries where it didn't. Hindenburg was there to appoint Hitler; Petain to surrender France.

    It is inexplicable, really, unless you can see that the moral and practical case against war is not fully developed between the wars; if there's a critique that made use of experience in its details in the 1920s and 1930s and made itself heard, I missed it - it seems like opposites of such an appreciation triumph.

    And, before the war? Are the arguments against war really connecting? There's certainly a socialist argument against war, based on the illegitimacy of war's class divisions, which were conveniently exemplified in military rank and reactionary attitudes among the officer class. That internationalist idea doesn't seem to survive the war's first hours, let alone first weeks.

    Universal conscription in France and Germany created a common experience. Several generations learned not so much the horror of mass slaughter as war as the instant of national glory in dramatic crises and short-lived conflicts with a decisive result.


    bruce wilder 10.22.16 at 8:47 pm.26

    Certainly, there had been arguments made before the war and even several disparate political movements that had adopted ideas critical of imperialism by military means. I question, though, how engaged they were with mainstream politics of the day and therefore how fully developed we can say their ideas or arguments were.

    Consider the Hague Conferences of 1899 and 1907 as examples of the state of the practical politics of a program for peace. The first Conference was called by the Czar and the second by Theodore Roosevelt - no little irony in either case.

    Without looking it up I recall Barbara Tuchman using the 1907 Conference as an illustration of the growing war fever gripping western (so-called) civilization, as many of the delegates apparently sat around discussing how they longed for a cleansing war.

    I cannot pretend to understand the psychology, but I accept that it was prevalent, as least for a certain class. Morally reprehensible this glorification of war? I certainly think so. Was it engaged by fully developed argument? When?

    The long effort by reactionary forces to assemble a coalition capable of defeating Napoleon had created in Europe what for a time was called the Concert of Europe. Austria, Prussia and Russia initially cooperated in suppressing liberal and nationalist aspirations and that effort gradually morphed into efforts to harness or channel rising liberalism and nationalism and industrial power.

    It was the evolved apparatus descended from Metternich's Congress of Vienna thru Bismarck's Congress of Berlin that made wars brief and generally decisive in regard to some policy end.

    The long list of successive crises and brief wars that stevenjohnson references above - often cited as evidence of the increasing fragility of the general peace - could just as well be cited as evidence for the continued effectiveness of the antique Concert of Europe in containing and managing the risk of general war. (Fashoda 1898, Venezuela 1902, Russo-Japanese War 1905, Agadir 1911, Balkan Wars 1911-1912 - it can be a very long list).

    It was against the background of this Great Game of elite diplomacy and saber-rattling and brief, limited wars that efforts had been made to erect an arguably more idealistic apparatus of liberal international peace thru international law, limitations of armaments and the creation of formal mechanisms for the arbitration of disputes.

    If this was the institutional program produced by "the fully developed and strongly argued" case against war, it wasn't that fully developed or strongly argued, as demonstrated by the severe shortcomings of the Hague Conferences.

    It was one of the mechanisms for peace by international law - the neutrality of Belgium mutually guaranteed by Britain and Germany in the Treaty of London 1839 - that triggered Britain's entry as an Allied Power and general war. There is, of course, no particular reason Australia should have taken an interest in Belgium's neutrality, but it was that issue that seemed to compel the consensus of opinion in favor of war in Britain's government.

    The consequences were horrific as mass mobilization and industrialized warfare combined with primitive means of command-and-control and reactionary often incompetent leadership to create a blood-bath of immense scale. (See my first comment.)

    What I don't find is the alternative lever or mechanism at the ready, put in place by this fully developed argument against war. The mechanism in place was the neutrality of Belgium guaranteed by international law (arguably reinforced in the stipulations of the Hague Conference of 1907). If Germany doesn't violate Belgian neutrality, the result in the West at least is stalemate as France and Germany are evenly matched across their narrow and mostly impassable frontier; in the East, Russia must concede to Germany even as Austria must concede to Russia; - instead of a general conflagration, the result is another negotiated settlement of some sort, perhaps arbitrated by Britain or the U.S.

    The urgent questions of the day regarding the organization of modern liberal polities in the territories of Ottoman Turkey, Hapsburg Austria and Czarist Russia - what is the strongly argued and fully developed case there? How is the cause of Polish nationalism, or Finnish nationalism or Yugoslav nationalism to be handled or managed without violence and war?

    The antique system of a Concert of Europe had kinda sorta found a way by means of short and decisive engagements followed by multi-power negotiation, a pattern that had continued with the gradual emergence of Serbia, Bulgaria, Romania. But, where was the argument for managing irredentism and nationalist aspiration peacefully?

    [Oct 24, 2016] Possible return of the same neocons who gave us the foreign policy of the late 1990th that went belly up in 2001

    They are the same neocon creeps... They forgot nothing and learn nothing.
    Notable quotes:
    "... My impression is that that key issue is as following: a vote for Hillary is a vote for the War Party and is incompatible with democratic principles. ..."
    "... Trump with all his warts gives us a chance to get some kind of détente with Russia. ..."
    "... In other words no real Democrat can vote for Hillary. ..."
    "... Why do you think "wet kiss with neocons" is compatible with democratic principles ? ..."
    "... I'm really bummed that we are going to be seeing a return of a lot of the same creeps who gave us the foreign policy of the 90's that went belly up in 2001-03. ..."
    "... But most of the liberal bloggers obediently kept their mouths shut about it. ..."
    Oct 24, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    likbez :

    My impression is that that key issue is as following: a vote for Hillary is a vote for the War Party and is incompatible with democratic principles.

    Trump with all his warts gives us a chance to get some kind of détente with Russia.

    In other words no real Democrat can vote for Hillary.

    Julio -> likbez... , October 24, 2016 at 01:32 PM
    A vote for Hilary may indeed be a vote for the (a?) war party, but it is not, unfortunately, incompatible with democratic principles.

    likbez -> Julio...

    Why do you think "wet kiss with neocons" is compatible with democratic principles ?

    ilsm -> Julio ... , October 24, 2016 at 03:19 PM
    at least LBJ kept it under wraps.........
    Dan Kervick -> likbez... , 2016 at 02:56 PM
    Just a hunch: a lot of this hoo-hah will simmer down after the election.

    But yeah, I'm really bummed that we are going to be seeing a return of a lot of the same creeps who gave us the foreign policy of the 90's that went belly up in 2001-03.

    Just a reminder: I called attention several times to this article in 2014 and 2015:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/06/opinion/sunday/are-neocons-getting-ready-to-ally-with-hillary-clinton.html?_r=0

    But most of the liberal bloggers obediently kept their mouths shut about it.

    [Oct 24, 2016] Hillary the Hawk closing in on the White House

    Notable quotes:
    "... The Democratic nominee in the final debate reiterated her bellicose stance towards Syria. Combined with her 2003 vote for war in Iraq, and her central role in getting the U.S. into the 2011 war in Libya, Clinton could become the most hawkish candidate elected president in most Americans' lifetimes. ..."
    "... Enforcing a no-fly zone is "basically an act of war," Michael Knights, a no-fly-zone expert at the Washington Institute told me in the run up to the Libyan war. ..."
    "... "Hillary's War," was the Washington Post's headline for a flattering feature on the Secretary of State's central role in driving the U.S. to intervene in Libya's civil war in 2011. ..."
    "... Clinton staff, published emails have shown, worked hard to get Clinton credit for the war. Clinton's confidante at the State Department Jake Sullivan drafted a memo on her "leadership/ownership/stewardship of this country's Libya policy from start to finish." ..."
    "... Hillary's war was illegal-because the administration never obtained congressional authorization for it-and it was also disastrous. "Libya is in a state of meltdown," John Lee Anderson wrote in the Atlantic last summer. ..."
    "... Yet somehow, through three general election debates, she never got a single question on Libya. Consider that: a former Secretary of State touted a war as a central achievement of hers, is running on her foreign-policy chops, and she is escaping accountability for that disastrous war. ..."
    "... Clinton, of course, also voted for the Iraq War in 2003. She says now she thinks that war was a mistake because it destabilized region. But somehow she doesn't apply that supposed lesson to Libya or to Syria. ..."
    "... The pattern is clear: Hillary Clinton is consistently and maybe blindly pro-war. She is now the clear frontrunner to become our next president. The antiwar movement that flourished under President George W. Bush has disappeared under President Obama . Will it revive under Hillary? Will Republicans have the power or the desire to check her ambitious interventionism. ..."
    Oct 24, 2016 | www.washingtonexaminer.com

    Hillary Clinton can change her views in an instant on trade, guns, gay marriage, and all sorts of issues, but she's consistent in this: she wants war.

    The Democratic nominee in the final debate reiterated her bellicose stance towards Syria. Combined with her 2003 vote for war in Iraq, and her central role in getting the U.S. into the 2011 war in Libya, Clinton could become the most hawkish candidate elected president in most Americans' lifetimes.

    "I am going to continue to push for a no-fly zone and safe havens within Syria," Clinton said Wednesday night. Totally separate from the fight against ISIS, Clinton's "no-fly zones and safe havens" are U.S. military intervention in the bloody and many-sided conflict between Syria's brutal government, terrorist groups, and rebel groups.

    Enforcing a no-fly zone is "basically an act of war," Michael Knights, a no-fly-zone expert at the Washington Institute told me in the run up to the Libyan war. Air Force Gen. Paul Selva, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified before the Senate that a no-fly zone created "the potential of a direct conflict with the Syrian integrated air defense system or Syrian forces or, by corollary, a confrontation with the Russians."

    Defense Secretary Ash Carter testified in the same hearing that "safe zones" would require significant U.S. boots on the ground.

    So while Hillary says she doesn't want war with Russia or Syria, or boots on the ground in Syria, she pushes policies that the Pentagon says risk war and require boots on the ground.

    Hillary showed that same cavalier attitude toward war earlier this decade, laughingly declaring "we came, we saw, he died." This was her version of George W. Bush's "Mission Accomplished" moment, and Libya was her smaller - and less legal - version of Bush's Iraq War.

    "Hillary's War," was the Washington Post's headline for a flattering feature on the Secretary of State's central role in driving the U.S. to intervene in Libya's civil war in 2011.

    Clinton staff, published emails have shown, worked hard to get Clinton credit for the war. Clinton's confidante at the State Department Jake Sullivan drafted a memo on her "leadership/ownership/stewardship of this country's Libya policy from start to finish."

    Sullivan listed, point-by-point, how Clinton helped bring about and shape the war. Before Obama's attack on Moammar Gadhafi, "she [was] a leading voice for strong UNSC action and a NATO civilian B5 protection mission," the memo explained.

    Hillary's war was illegal-because the administration never obtained congressional authorization for it-and it was also disastrous. "Libya is in a state of meltdown," John Lee Anderson wrote in the Atlantic last summer.

    ISIS has spread, no stable government has arisen, and the chaos has led to refugee and terrorism crises.

    Clinton nevertheless calls her war "smart power at its best," declaring during the primary season, "I think President Obama made the right decision at the time."

    Yet somehow, through three general election debates, she never got a single question on Libya. Consider that: a former Secretary of State touted a war as a central achievement of hers, is running on her foreign-policy chops, and she is escaping accountability for that disastrous war.

    Clinton, of course, also voted for the Iraq War in 2003. She says now she thinks that war was a mistake because it destabilized region. But somehow she doesn't apply that supposed lesson to Libya or to Syria.

    The pattern is clear: Hillary Clinton is consistently and maybe blindly pro-war. She is now the clear frontrunner to become our next president. The antiwar movement that flourished under President George W. Bush has disappeared under President Obama . Will it revive under Hillary? Will Republicans have the power or the desire to check her ambitious interventionism.

    If Hillary wins big and sweeps in a Senate majority with her, we could be in for four more years of even more war.

    Timothy P. Carney, the Washington Examiner's senior political columnist, can be contacted at [email protected] . His column appears Tuesday and Thursday nights on washingtonexaminer.com.

    [Oct 24, 2016] New generation forget about the horrors of previous wars and internationalist idea does not survive the new war first hours, let alone first weeks

    Notable quotes:
    "... Continuing the war, once the bloodbath is underway and its futility is fully evident (which surely is objectively the case as early as 1915), seems to me to be the point where moral culpability on all sides applies most forcibly. ..."
    "... It was a symptom of degenerate aristocracy clinging to irresponsible power. Continuing to turn the crank on the meat grinder without any realistic strategic hope or aim should have condemned the military establishment as well as the political establishment in several countries where it didn't. Hindenburg was there to appoint Hitler; Petain to surrender France. ..."
    "... And, before the war? Are the arguments against war really connecting? ..."
    "... That internationalist idea doesn't seem to survive the war's first hours, let alone first weeks. ..."
    "... Universal conscription in France and Germany created a common experience. Several generations learned not so much the horror of mass slaughter as war as the instant of national glory in dramatic crises and short-lived conflicts with a decisive result. ..."
    "... Certainly, there had been arguments made before the war and even several disparate political movements that had adopted ideas critical of imperialism by military means. I question, though, how engaged they were with mainstream politics of the day and therefore how fully developed we can say their ideas or arguments were. ..."
    "... Consider the Hague Conferences of 1899 and 1907 as examples of the state of the practical politics of a program for peace. The first Conference was called by the Czar and the second by Theodore Roosevelt - no little irony in either case. ..."
    "... the 1907 Conference as an illustration of the growing war fever gripping western (so-called) civilization, as many of the delegates apparently sat around discussing how they longed for a cleansing war. ..."
    "... I cannot pretend to understand the psychology, but I accept that it was prevalent, as least for a certain class. Morally reprehensible this glorification of war? I certainly think so. Was it engaged by fully developed argument? When? ..."
    "... It was against the background of this Great Game of elite diplomacy and saber-rattling and brief, limited wars that efforts had been made to erect an arguably more idealistic apparatus of liberal international peace thru international law, limitations of armaments and the creation of formal mechanisms for the arbitration of disputes. ..."
    "... If this was the institutional program produced by "the fully developed and strongly argued" case against war, it wasn't that fully developed or strongly argued, as demonstrated by the severe shortcomings of the Hague Conferences. ..."
    "... The consequences were horrific as mass mobilization and industrialized warfare combined with primitive means of command-and-control and reactionary often incompetent leadership to create a blood-bath of immense scale. (See my first comment.) ..."
    crookedtimber.org

    bruce wilder 10.22.16 at 8:46 pm ( 25 )

    The case against war was fully developed and strongly argued in the years before 1914 . . .

    Was it? I wonder about that.

    Continuing the war, once the bloodbath is underway and its futility is fully evident (which surely is objectively the case as early as 1915), seems to me to be the point where moral culpability on all sides applies most forcibly. It is on this point that I think arguments from before the war cannot have the weight the horror of experience must give them. Elite leadership across Europe failed.

    It was a symptom of degenerate aristocracy clinging to irresponsible power. Continuing to turn the crank on the meat grinder without any realistic strategic hope or aim should have condemned the military establishment as well as the political establishment in several countries where it didn't. Hindenburg was there to appoint Hitler; Petain to surrender France.

    It is inexplicable, really, unless you can see that the moral and practical case against war is not fully developed between the wars; if there's a critique that made use of experience in its details in the 1920s and 1930s and made itself heard, I missed it - it seems like opposites of such an appreciation triumph.

    And, before the war? Are the arguments against war really connecting? There's certainly a socialist argument against war, based on the illegitimacy of war's class divisions, which were conveniently exemplified in military rank and reactionary attitudes among the officer class. That internationalist idea doesn't seem to survive the war's first hours, let alone first weeks.

    Universal conscription in France and Germany created a common experience. Several generations learned not so much the horror of mass slaughter as war as the instant of national glory in dramatic crises and short-lived conflicts with a decisive result.


    bruce wilder 10.22.16 at 8:47 pm.26

    Certainly, there had been arguments made before the war and even several disparate political movements that had adopted ideas critical of imperialism by military means. I question, though, how engaged they were with mainstream politics of the day and therefore how fully developed we can say their ideas or arguments were.

    Consider the Hague Conferences of 1899 and 1907 as examples of the state of the practical politics of a program for peace. The first Conference was called by the Czar and the second by Theodore Roosevelt - no little irony in either case.

    Without looking it up I recall Barbara Tuchman using the 1907 Conference as an illustration of the growing war fever gripping western (so-called) civilization, as many of the delegates apparently sat around discussing how they longed for a cleansing war.

    I cannot pretend to understand the psychology, but I accept that it was prevalent, as least for a certain class. Morally reprehensible this glorification of war? I certainly think so. Was it engaged by fully developed argument? When?

    The long effort by reactionary forces to assemble a coalition capable of defeating Napoleon had created in Europe what for a time was called the Concert of Europe. Austria, Prussia and Russia initially cooperated in suppressing liberal and nationalist aspirations and that effort gradually morphed into efforts to harness or channel rising liberalism and nationalism and industrial power.

    It was the evolved apparatus descended from Metternich's Congress of Vienna thru Bismarck's Congress of Berlin that made wars brief and generally decisive in regard to some policy end.

    The long list of successive crises and brief wars that stevenjohnson references above - often cited as evidence of the increasing fragility of the general peace - could just as well be cited as evidence for the continued effectiveness of the antique Concert of Europe in containing and managing the risk of general war. (Fashoda 1898, Venezuela 1902, Russo-Japanese War 1905, Agadir 1911, Balkan Wars 1911-1912 - it can be a very long list).

    It was against the background of this Great Game of elite diplomacy and saber-rattling and brief, limited wars that efforts had been made to erect an arguably more idealistic apparatus of liberal international peace thru international law, limitations of armaments and the creation of formal mechanisms for the arbitration of disputes.

    If this was the institutional program produced by "the fully developed and strongly argued" case against war, it wasn't that fully developed or strongly argued, as demonstrated by the severe shortcomings of the Hague Conferences.

    It was one of the mechanisms for peace by international law - the neutrality of Belgium mutually guaranteed by Britain and Germany in the Treaty of London 1839 - that triggered Britain's entry as an Allied Power and general war. There is, of course, no particular reason Australia should have taken an interest in Belgium's neutrality, but it was that issue that seemed to compel the consensus of opinion in favor of war in Britain's government.

    The consequences were horrific as mass mobilization and industrialized warfare combined with primitive means of command-and-control and reactionary often incompetent leadership to create a blood-bath of immense scale. (See my first comment.)

    What I don't find is the alternative lever or mechanism at the ready, put in place by this fully developed argument against war. The mechanism in place was the neutrality of Belgium guaranteed by international law (arguably reinforced in the stipulations of the Hague Conference of 1907). If Germany doesn't violate Belgian neutrality, the result in the West at least is stalemate as France and Germany are evenly matched across their narrow and mostly impassable frontier; in the East, Russia must concede to Germany even as Austria must concede to Russia; - instead of a general conflagration, the result is another negotiated settlement of some sort, perhaps arbitrated by Britain or the U.S.

    The urgent questions of the day regarding the organization of modern liberal polities in the territories of Ottoman Turkey, Hapsburg Austria and Czarist Russia - what is the strongly argued and fully developed case there? How is the cause of Polish nationalism, or Finnish nationalism or Yugoslav nationalism to be handled or managed without violence and war?

    The antique system of a Concert of Europe had kinda sorta found a way by means of short and decisive engagements followed by multi-power negotiation, a pattern that had continued with the gradual emergence of Serbia, Bulgaria, Romania. But, where was the argument for managing irredentism and nationalist aspiration peacefully?

    [Oct 24, 2016] Hillary might be a symptom of degenerate neoliberal aristocracy clinging to irresponsible power. Gen. Butler book War Is A Racket is still a classic book on the subject

    Oct 24, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    ilsm -> to pgl ... October 23, 2016 at 04:10 AM

    Ruling elite has a crook for a candidate appealing to fears and prefers her wars for oil to be with Russia.

    DrDick -> ilsm ... October 23, 2016 at 08:54 AM , 2016 at 08:54 AM

    More stupidity. First off, the American elite (like all elites) is far from unitary and most of them back Republicans, though they hedge their bets by also supporting centrist Democrats.
    ilsm -> DrDick... , October 23, 2016 at 11:25 AM
    Greed is a unifier. What they said on SNL opening skit...... Klinton is the republican.
    anne : , October 23, 2016 at 05:23 AM
    https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/790154851682545665

    Glenn Greenwald @ggreenwald

    Exploiting Cold War rhetoric & tactics has helped her win the election. I guess the idea is: deal with the aftermath and fallout later.

    Katrina vandenHeuvel @KatrinaNation

    How does new Cold War-- which ends space for dissent, hurts women & children, may lead to nuclear war--help what Clinton claims she is for?

    4:36 AM - 23 Oct 2016

    EMichael -> anne... , October 23, 2016 at 05:28 AM
    I would submit that there are very few voters that will vote from Clinton because of this "cold war rhetoric" schtick. Greenwald keeps falling and cannot get up.
    ilsm -> EMichael...
    Few "will [move the] vote from Clinton because of this "cold war rhetoric" schtick.

    Those "few" were awake during the 80's and see the nuclear/neocon dystopian horror behind Clinton. While Trump mentioned using nukes, Hillary's nuke policy is 'well' laid out by Robert Kagan and the hegemon interests.

    Recall Mao said "go ahead......' Nukes are just another form of the pointless body count strategy.

    likbez -> ilsm...
    Like before WWI, Hillary might be "a symptom of degenerate [neoliberal] aristocracy clinging to irresponsible power." Gen. Butler, "War Is A Racket." is still a classic book on the subject.

    See an interesting discussion at

    http://crookedtimber.org/2016/10/22/unnecessary-wars/#comments

    Here are a couple of comments
    == quote ===

    greg 10.22.16 at 11:02 pm ( 29 )

    All war is for profit. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were fought for profit. The profit from Iraqi oil and whatever was expected from Afghanistan were irrelevant. Weapons of mass destruction, the Taliban, even Isis, were and are all issues that could have been more efficiently handled, but instead were pretexts to convince the credulous of the necessity of war.

    The real profit was the profit taken by the military-political-industrial complex in the treasure and stolen rights of the American people. That is the bottom line for why we went to war, and why we are still there, and why, if our elites persist, we might go to war with Russia or China.

    The good news is that, because of the unrelenting depredations by American elites on the treasure and rights of the people, the United States is increasingly unable to wage war effectively. The bad news is that our elites are too blind to see this.

    America: Consuming your future today.

    ====

    Peter T 10.23.16 at 8:56 am

    faustusnotes

    fear of "socialism" – meaning, broadly, greater popular participation in politics – was explicitly a major factor in the German and Russian decisions for war. In both cases, they hoped victory would shore up increasingly fragile conservative dominance. It also underlay British and French attitudes. 1870-1914 was a very stressful time for elites.

    1915 was too early for any of the combatants to settle. By mid-late 1916 there were some voices in favour of negotiations, but the Germans would have none of it then or in 1917. By the time the Germans were prepared to talk (mid 1918), they had lost. Fear of socialism was again a major factor in the post-war settlements.

    Liberals of today see World War I as the great disaster that shattered the pre-war liberal order. In the same way, the generation post 1815 saw the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars as the great disaster that shattered the happy old order. The extent of the damage and loss was much the same in each, although World War I took 5 years to do what the French wars did in 25.

    ===

    Omega Centauri 10.23.16 at 1:13 am ( 33 )

    The decision to continue it seems to be a natural consequence of the human proclivity towards doubling down. This operates on many levels, some of which are related to the need for vindication of those involved in the decision to start the conflict.

    There is also the horror that if you end a war without achieving something the masses can identify with as victory, then the families of those killed will see that their loved ones died in vain -- for someone else's mistake (very bad for your political future).

    And of course if you quit, what is to stop the enemy from extracting reparations or worse from you, because in his eyes, you are the criminal party. Much easier to try yet one more offensive, or to lure a formerly neutral party into joining in and opening up another front, which you hope will break the stalemate.

    The thing that appalls me so much about the Great War, is how so many nations were dragged in, by promises of booty . In many ways it resembles the Peloponnisian war, in its inability to allow neutrals to be neutrals.

    [Oct 24, 2016] Ruling elite has a crook for a candidate appealing to fears and prefers her wars for oil to be with Russia.

    Oct 24, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    ilsm -> DrDick...October 23, 2016 at 04:10 AM
    Greed is a unifier.

    What they said on SNL opening skit...... Klinton is the republican.

    [Oct 24, 2016] the Dutch investigators were basing their conclusions on recorded conversations provided by the SBU

    Oct 24, 2016 | marknesop.wordpress.com
    cartman , September 28, 2016 at 7:53 am
    John Helmer has his analysis up. This part is important, since the Dutch "investigators" were basing their conclusions on recorded conversations provided by the SBU (such as the one that appeared on YouTube a day before the crash?)

    "Westerbeke acknowledged that all the telephone intercepts and wiretaps reported as evidence of Russian involvement in the reported missile operation originated from the Ukrainian secret service. Evidence of the missile movement, ground launch, and smoke trail from social media, photographs and videotapes, and purported witnesses presented at today's JIT session have all appeared publicly before; much of it already discredited as fakes."

    http://johnhelmer.net/?p=16440#more-16440

    marknesop , September 28, 2016 at 8:03 am
    The Ukies must be dancing in the corridors of power – the west supported them in spite of the ridicule and disgust that political decision incurred. This must surely be evidence of their national greatness.
    cartman , September 28, 2016 at 9:38 am
    The report is also based off of "social media"

    Too bad they didn't see that map that "journalists" were breathtakingly sharing that showed that pro-Trump tweets originated in a Russian bot factory in St. Petersburg. It turns out that map is a complete fake, probably created by Hillary's troll bots.

    marknesop , September 28, 2016 at 9:45 am
    The west is doubling down, but it will only harden Russian resolve. Things just escalated a few more notches.
    Pavlo Svolochenko , September 28, 2016 at 8:42 pm
    The lazy swamp monkeys should mail it back to two years ago when anyone remembered or cared about MH 17.
    Jeremn , September 28, 2016 at 6:48 am
    Video used in the JiT presentation on MH17. Watch all of it, if you can bear it. But look at the back of the low-loader platform at 03:31 exactly. The red upward ramps sudddenly disappear.

    This is proof of a fake. Good God.

    et Al , September 28, 2016 at 9:24 am
    It's fairly clear that Bell End's Cat is just the medium to feed carefully doctored intel so that the United States doesn't have to show its satellite recording of the launch, the one John Kerry said the US had but no-one has heard of since.

    On CNN this morning, John Kerry said the US actually observed the missile launch with satellite imagery and watched it hit the plane. And yet there were no assets in the area t the time of Benghazi – or at least that is what the Administration tells us. There was no drone in the air.

    marknesop , September 28, 2016 at 9:36 am
    Yes, the US can make exorbitant claims now that the decision has been rendered, cut and dried, and it no longer has to show its evidence. Now Kerry can strut and whoop and beat his chest and say we saw this, we saw that. Nobody will ever know. Reply

    [Oct 24, 2016] the newly-released raw radar data from Russia marknesop ,

    Oct 24, 2016 | marknesop.wordpress.com
    September 26, 2016 at 1:04 pm
    Typical of Eliot 'Tubby' Higgins, his take on the newly-released raw radar data from Russia is that it proves they faked their previous evidence. Keep on trollin', Tubby. What of all Bellingcat's 'evidence' of the surreptitious Buk launcher being smuggled into Ukraine from Russia and back again? It looks like a lot of theories may go up in smoke – not least the one that it was a Ukrainian fighter jet, since the Ust-Donetsk radar would surely have seen that.
    Chinese American , September 27, 2016 at 1:48 pm
    But then that means he thinks the new evidence the Russian defense ministry released must be genuine, since it can be used to prove something?

    Of course, the Russian defense ministry never claimed an Ukrainian fighter jet shot down the airliner. If have always be very careful to only say "this is what we observed; we are putting it out there". For me, it's interesting to consider the timing of Russia's new revelations. Clearly, Russia is playing a careful game in the info war against the powerful Western brainwashing machine.

    [Oct 24, 2016] Something interesting in the air, according to the Interfax feed

    Oct 24, 2016 | marknesop.wordpress.com

    Jeremn , September 26, 2016 at 8:01 am

    Something interesting in the air, according to the Interfax feed:

    16:05
    Kyiv has still not published info on Ukrainian surface-to-air missile systems, conversations between dispatchers on day of Boeing crash – Russian Defense Ministry

    16:02
    Ukrainian air defense means were located near Boeing 777 crash site – Russian Aerospace Forces

    15:52
    Russian Defense Ministry accuses Ukraine of manipulating investigation into Malaysian Boeing crash

    15:48
    Russian Defense Ministry says Ukraine conceals info regarding 2014 Boeing crash

    15:46
    Netherlands will get from Russia irrefutable info on Boeing 777 crash in Donbas – Russian Defense Ministry

    15:39
    Russian radar station didn't register air objects coming towards Boeing in sky over Donbas from Snizhne side

    15:28
    INTL INQUIRY INTO BOEING 777 DISASTER IN UKRAINE IS ON THE WRONG TRACK; MISSILE TYPE, PLACE OF LAUNCH DETERMINED WRONGLY – RUSSIAN DEFENSE MINISTRY

    15:25
    RUSSIA TO GIVE OBJECTIVE AND IRREFUTABLE INFO ON BOEING 777 CRASH TO NETHERLANDS – RUSSIAN DEFENSE MINISTRY

    15:24
    KYIV CONCEALS INFO ON BOEING 777 DISASTER, FLIGHT WAS FOLLOWED BY UKRAINE'S RADARS, AIR DEFENSE FORCES – RUSSIAN DEFENSE MINISTRY

    15:24
    UKRAINE HAS NOT PUBLISHED INFO ON LOCATION OF ITS SURFACE-TO-AIR MISSILES BUK ON THE DAY OF BOEING 777 CRASH, MILITARY DISPATCHERS' CONVERSATIONS – RUSSIAN DEFENSE MINISTRY

    marknesop , September 26, 2016 at 12:04 pm
    Recently unearthed raw radar data from a civilian radar at Ust-Donetsk. The memory chips were replaced in July 2014, and they have recently come to light. Russia claims they are solid proof of the direction from which the attack came, but I'm not over-hopeful. The western point of view will be, the radar doesn't show anything. That doesn't mean there wasn't anything there. Maybe the radar just wasn't working properly. Or maybe the information was there, but has been edited out somehow. Of course, if the raw data shows MH17 right up until it is hit, it might be extremely valuable. We'll see. Can't wait for the Ukrainian reaction.

    Hmmmm….I guess I should have paid closer attention on the first run-through. According to the story, the raw video does indeed show MH-17, as well as two other civilian aircraft in the vicinity, the closest at only about 30 km away at the time it was shot down.

    Kiev will of course scream that the info is faked, and Russia is panicking because the final report is due, and the US State Department will of course back Kiev up for as long as it can. But experts will be able to tell if anything has been altered, and if they cannot find any such evidence they may have no choice but to accept it in the absence of any contradictory evidence – or any evidence at all – from Kiev.

    Ooooooo…the system also detected an Orlan-10 drone; much smaller than an SA-11. A lot slower, though. Reply

    [Oct 24, 2016] Seeing More of the Big Picture in Ukraine by marknesop

    Canadian view on consequences of Maydan. Deviates from views of Canadian Ukrainian Diaspora...
    Sep 14, 2016 | marknesop.wordpress.com
    Posted on September 14, 2016

    ...let's roll the counters back to September 18, 2013 – almost exactly three years ago. Just before, of course, the glorious Maidan which freed Ukrainians from the oppressive yoke of Russia. At that moment in history, western analysts were trembling with eagerness to vilify Yanukovych, but were still hopeful that he would stick his head out of his shell long enough to sign the Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement (DCFTA) with the European Union. Washington maintains a kind of ongoing paternal affection for revolution – which is always less painful and noisy when it's a continent or two away – but is practical enough to accept an easy victory if that's the way it plays out.

    It didn't play out like that, of course, and an American-backed coup ensued in which Yanukovych offered to give the revolutionary political figures everything they had asked for – early elections, a provisional coalition government with the egghead among the revolutionaries as Prime Minister, the works. They were a little taken aback at how easy it was, and then decided it wasn't enough – Yanukovych must be holding back something if he gave in that easily, and therefore he must be tricking them, since the script called for the dictator-president to cower in fear and to be flung into the street in disgrace. So they went ahead with the traditional revolution, gaining nothing at all thereby except the ushering-in of a self-appointed revolutionary junta, and the empowerment of fervent fascist nationalists who had previously had to keep their admiration for the Nazis on the down-low.

    It is worth mentioning here – because whenever it is brought up, the response ranges from amnesia to outright denial it ever happened – that the pre-revolutionary government went into it with its eyes wide open and a good working awareness of the probable consequences. Yanukovych and Azarov, at least, were briefed that cutting off trade with Russia, which Brussels and Washington insisted upon, would likely be disastrous for the Ukrainian economy. Deputy Prime Minister Yuriy Boiko announced that Ukraine was not blowing off the deal entirely; it was just suspending it until the state could be sure that increased trade with Europe would compensate for the loss of the Russian market. Before that, Yanukovych and Azarov tried energetically to broker a triumvirate coalition of Ukraine, Russia and the EU, to sort out the trade issues that Brussels insisted made such an arrangement impossible. Not to put too fine a point on it, Russia and Ukraine proposed a tripartite forum which would see Ukraine as a bridge between the Eurasian Economic Union and the European Union. Brussels emphatically rejected it, confident that it could pry Ukraine away from Russia, because the initiative was always strategic rather than economic .

    The government of the day in Ukraine saw fairly clearly what was likely going to happen – and so did we, didn't we? Yes, we did, as detailed here . We pointed out that nearly half those Ukrainians who answered a survey that they wanted Ukraine to join the EU did so because it would strengthen and grow the Ukrainian economy, but that it was difficult to see how that would come about considering 60% of Ukraine's trade was with the former Soviet market, and highlighted the unlikelihood that Europe was going to pick up 60%-plus of Ukraine's trade, resulting in prosperity. We pointed out that only half as many people who responded to the survey that Ukraine's relations with Russia were characterized as 'friendly' said the same of relations with the EU. So, you could kind of see how (a) a failure to see rapid economic benefits as a result of signing the agreement, coupled with (b) the opposite effect, a precipitate drop in trade, plus (c) severing of relations with a country nearly a quarter of Ukrainians considered a friend, in exchange for a necrophiliac relationship with a trade union few cared much for except for the usual percentage of lapdog dissidents, was very likely to result in widespread dissatisfaction and an explosive situation. Did it? It sure did.

    Anyway, as much fun as tooting our own horn is, that's not exactly what I wanted to talk about. I want to review, in exquisite detail, the panorama of failure that is Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty's (RFE/RL) feelgood graphic presentation for the rubes and dimwits on how association with the EU was going to be better than sex in warm chocolate for Ukraine. And that forecast has turned out to be about as accurate as a prediction that Justin Bieber would be nominated UN Secretary-General by popular acclaim.

    But let's not leave it at that. Because you know that if those who forecast disaster for Ukraine – based on, I think, the ability to read and to add – had somehow been wrong, and Ukraine had sprinted into double-digit economic growth and taken over the role of driving engine of the European economy, we would never have been allowed to forget it. Turnabout, then, being fair play…

    1. The cream-skimming oligarchy, accustomed to riding to wealth on the backs of its panting workforce, will be out – swept away by a new era of small-business confidence. Did that happen? Hardly. The President Ukraine eventually elected was fingered for starting up a new offshore shell corporation even as his troops were being driven into a disastrous encirclement at Ilovaisk. The same old oligarchs continue to control more than 70% of Ukraine's GDP. The Anti-Corruption Committee appointed by Poroshenko, unsurprisingly, declined to investigate him for corruption . Now more than two years into his presidency, Poroshenko still has not sold his assets as he promised to do if elected, and his businesses continue to fatten his personal bottom line in direct contravention of Ukrainian law and the Constitution. Never a peep of protest about that, though, from Poroshenko's International Advisory Council , which includes former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, former Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott, former Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski, former Swedish Prime Minister Carl Bildt, former Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili and make-believe-economist wooden-head Anders Aslund. This council continues to advise the President of what remains the most corrupt country in Europe .

    2. The boss at the company where you work will have to learn different ways to lead, because screaming and ranting are not acceptable in Europe. In many European countries, the boss is just a senior worker who you can call by his first name. This sort of rolls into the first point, but it seems sort of self-evident that if Ukrainian companies do not do more business with Europe and replace their lost Russian markets, and the same oligarchs still own the same companies, little will change about employee-employer dynamics. According to Eurostat , Ukraine's trade with the EU was down sharply in 2015 in both imports and exports. A decrease in imports is not particularly surprising – Ukraine is living on handouts from the international community while it continues to pour funding into its armed forces so that it can pursue the game of civil war, and hasn't any money. Not to mention thousands of Ukrainian working stiffs are employed by Roshen, owned by the President, so I wouldn't be trying out, "Morning, Petro – how's it hanging?" on my tongue any time soon if I were you. The new Prime Minister, Vladimir Groysman, is unlikely to be 'Vova' to very many workers, either. He's quite wealthy in his own right, at least part of that wealth shunted from EU development funds to his father's cement and asphalt company. However, as an unnamed Ukrainian politician is said to have quipped to a Ukrainskaya Pravda reporter when Groysman received his new appointment, "Do you know what the difference is between Groysman and Yatsenyuk? When Volodymir [Groysman] will start stealing, he will steal off the profit. Yatsenyuk was doing it off the loss." It's good to see Ukrainians haven't lost their sense of humour.

    3. As the standard of living improves in Ukraine, people will begin to trust each other. In Yanukovych's Ukraine, people tended to trust only their own small circle, but in the New Ukraine, the doormat will be changed from "Beat It, Shyster!" to "Come On In, Friend!" I'll let Thomas C. Theiner take over on the subject of trust in Ukraine, post-Maidan. A committed Atlanticist neoconservative and former cheerleader for Ukraine, Theiner lived in Kiev for 5 years, and has the advantage of personal knowledge. In his assessment, if you are the type who likes to throw away money, go to Vegas instead of Kiev – that way, at least there's a chance you'll see a return. Thomas?

    "Even today, it's impossible for a foreign businessman to start a company in Ukraine without being harassed for bribes. If you pay, they just demand more; if you don't pay, you won't succeed at all. The only way out is to hire a local to help you navigate the bureaucracy and grease the correct wheels. But whomever you hire will charge a 400-500 percent premium. Hiring a foreign law company with offices in Kyiv, which charges Western prices, is the only alternative."

    Expectations of a dramatic change were not realized, and the changing of the guard only brought in different crooks. No significant progress has been made on corruption. If your company is successful without the correct palms being greased, an expedient will be found for getting you out of town for a few days. When you come back, the company will be under new ownership, and like George Thorogood in "Move it on Over" , your key won't fit no more. Move over, little dog, a big ol' dog's movin' in. All puffickly legal, as well, by Ukrainian courts.

    4. Without gross, horrible, corrupt Yanukovych in charge, trust in the police will rise and pretty soon they will be rescuing kitties from trees instead of taking bribes and roughing people up. Just last month, at least three police officers in western Ukraine beat Oleksandr Tsukerman and shot him dead in front of his relatives, including his mother. Around 200 local residents gathered in front of the police station, and uniformed officers had to keep them back when the detained police officers who are accused of the crime were brought out. In case you were thinking the dead man was a violent criminal who somehow invited his own death, the Ukrainian Police Chief ordered the entire station disbanded. A group of people in the same region were beating up passers-by right in front of the police , and officers involved in a wrongful death and four officers who raped a woman and fractured her skull were not dismissed from their jobs. Call me a pessimist, but that doesn't sound encouraging to me.

    5. The difference in social status between the very wealthy and the middle class will gradually disappear, and rich people will no longer be VIP's. It's pretty easy to show this one up for the epic piece of optimistic stupidity it was. The President of Ukraine is also an active businessman and multimillionaire, while per-capita GDP adjusted for purchasing power, for the ordinary folk, has collapsed and the unemployment rate is leaping upward in great jagged peaks. Yet according to the State Statistics of Ukraine, wage growth has been steady and touched a record high in July 2016. A month later, a Ukrainian miner on live TV set himself afire at a press conference to protest wage arrears. This desperate protest is alleged to have taken place after industrial action and hunger strikes failed to move the government. How can these two realities co-exist? I guess it's easy for wages to be at a record high if you don't…you know…pay them.

    6. Women's rights; in the European Parliament, a third of the members are women. In the Verkhovna Rada under jerky Yanukovych, only 10% were women. Well, folks, the glorious Maidan was not for nothing. The current Rada is 12.02% women – only 87.98% are men. The gain is mostly illusory, as only 416 seats of the Rada's statutory 450 are occupied due to the banning of certain political parties . But a third of 416 would be 138 women rather than the current 50, so women's rights groups should not relax just yet, as some work obviously remains to be done.

    7. In Yanukovych's Russia-friendly Ukraine, intolerance was the rule and blacks and homosexuals mostly stayed hidden. Most Ukrainians would not vote for a Jewish presidential candidate, and even fewer for a black one. How things have changed! Now Nazi symbology in public is commonplace in Ukraine , whilst the government ostentatiously banned Communist symbology and recognized Nazi-era collaborators as Freedom Fighters. As best I recall, the Nazis were not known for their tolerance. How many Ukrainians in the new Europe-ready Ukraine would vote for a black or a gay presidential candidate? A Gay Pride march in Kiev scheduled for 2014 was canceled when authorities refused to police the event and said they could not guarantee the participants' safety from homophobic violence. At another attempt in 2015 , international supporters from Canada had to cross three lines of police to get to the meeting point, and were given a list of things to not do: Don't wear bright colours. Don't kiss or hold hands. Don't speak to the police unless spoken to. The bus company which was approached by Kiev Pride to take the marchers to and from the march allegedly refused, saying, "We'll take the diplomats, we'll take the journalists, but we're not taking any faggots." Clearly, tolerance not only has not improved, but is in full retreat and is not a priority for the new government.

    8. Life expectancy. In 2010 , the year Yanukovych was elected president, it was 70.2 years. In 2016 , it's 69.6. I'm having a hard time seeing that as an improvement.

    9. Health. Sports clubs encourage a healthier lifestyle. Most of Ukraine's sports clubs and facilities were inherited from the Soviet Union. A search for "Poroshenko opens new sports club" yielded nothing much except the news – I guess I shouldn't be surprised – that he owns one : (search for "Poroshenko's allies show up on website listing tax-haven firms") Fifth Element, at 29A Electrykiv St. in Kiev. That's also the registered address of Intraco Management, owned by deputy head of Roshen Sergey Zaitsev. Intraco Management showed up in Mossack-Fonseca's records, which came to be better known as the Panama Papers. Meanwhile, health care in Ukraine remains deplorable and there has been no noticeable improvement.

    In fact, although you can find the occasional bright spot if your business is finding bright spots and spinning them into a tapestry of success, Ukraine is a nation in free-fall. The currency is trading at 26.33 UAH to the US greenback , slowly edging up to that truly scary record spike of 33.5 to the dollar in February of last year. Pre-Maidan, the rate was about 7 hryvnia to the dollar. When Poroshenko assumed his present office, it was 12 to the dollar. The president's approval rating has corkscrewed down to around 10% . Believe it or not – and I frankly find it incomprehensible there can be an electorate anywhere, whose fingers must be nothing but scar tissue now from being burnt so many times, that so adamantly will not change its ways – the current leader in the polls is… Yulia Tymoshenko. Yes, indeed; if anything can save the floundering country, it's another stinking-rich oligarch. Yulia Tymoshenko, multi-millionaire. Ukrainian family living wage , 9,950 UAH per month, about $383.00 USD. Per month. And the reduced price for gas for households was canceled in May , as an anti-corruption measure.

    By the benchmarks set in the happy-time graphic, Ukraine is failing catastrophically in every metric, gasping for breath like a fish on the kitchen floor with someone standing on it. There is zero chance of any kind of peace deal this year, since Poroshenko arbitrarily decided to reverse the agreed-upon terms and announce no moves toward autonomy for the east could take place until Russia returned control of the border to Ukraine – causing Russia to withdraw from the Normandy format, since negotiations with such a fucking blockhead are a complete waste of everyone's time.

    To be completely fair to RFE/RL, they did not originate the graphic; that came from the highly-imaginative Institute of World Politics in Ukraine. But it fits perfectly with RFE/RL's style; it's hard for a one-time CIA-funded leopard to change its spots, and many of it columnists seem to rely far more on imagination themselves when they are writing their material. So they can own it.

    [Oct 24, 2016] I wonder if the various powers that be assembled some kind of Committee to Defend the Liberal Order when Trump began to make noises about re-assessing Nato.

    Notable quotes:
    "... I wonder if the various powers that be assembled some kind of "Committee to Defend the Liberal Order" when Trump began to make noises about re-assessing Nato ..."
    "... A very interesting and pretty plausible hypothesis... That actually is the most deep insight I got from this interesting discussion. In such case intelligence agencies are definitely a part of "Committee to Defend the Liberal Order" which is yet another explanation of their strange behavior. ..."
    "... it's a bunch of scams, lies and public manipulation schemes. ..."
    Oct 24, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    Dan Kervick -> Sandwichman ...

    I wonder if the various powers that be assembled some kind of "Committee to Defend the Liberal Order" when Trump began to make noises about re-assessing Nato. Reply Monday, October 24, 2016 at 02:11 PM

    likbez -> Dan Kervick..., October 24, 2016 at 06:34 PM

    Dan,

    > ...some kind of "Committee to Defend the Liberal Order" when Trump began to make noises about re-assessing Nato.

    A very interesting and pretty plausible hypothesis... That actually is the most deep insight I got from this interesting discussion. In such case intelligence agencies are definitely a part of "Committee to Defend the Liberal Order" which is yet another explanation of their strange behavior.

    Thank you --

    Dan Kervick -> likbez... October 24, 2016 at 01:14 PM , 2016 at 01:14 PM
    I can't claim that a mere mortal like me actually has the slightest clue what is really going on. All I will hazard is that, whatever it is, it's a bunch of scams, lies and public manipulation schemes.

    Where this kind of high level foreign policy is involved, the US government and intelligence services blew their cred with me long ago. I disbelieve them now on as a strong and resilient prior.

    [Oct 24, 2016] Six reasons for optimism (and one big one for pessimism) - Crooked Timber

    Notable quotes:
    "... the discontent that motivates the Trump voters seems less likely to just vanish. We seem to be in the midst of a realignment of both UK and US politics, of which Trump and Farrage are just symptoms ..."
    "... Trump should be defeated according to most here. Some may actually believe Trump really is the anti-Christ Hitler we've been constantly told he is, instead of a widely watched and often admired vulgarian capitalist welcomed into living rooms across America for more than a decade. Whatever Trump is, he's not Cruz. His supporters are not Cruz supporters. Yet. ..."
    "... Which is why, in this instance, I think the polls are wrong. Who in their right mind is going to ever admit that Trump's language and behavior is not offensive? Nobody. Who in their right mind looks out at America and sees Donald Trump, not Bill Cosby etc, etc, etc as a threat to their own daughters, sisters, sons, etc? Which is why, in the end, enough voters are going to say no thanks to Hillary and roll the dice with Donald. ..."
    "... The stink coming out of the Clinton campaign is so rank it's actually penetrating the media wall of silence. Given that social media provides numerous ways for candidates to bypass the gate-keepers, I suspect enough voters are learning what's in the emails whether CNN, or the Wapo, report the discoveries, or not. ..."
    "... On most wedge issues, Trump is running as a bog-standard Republican conservative, and he's losing on those issues. ..."
    "... Indeed I see the synthesis of neo-conservatism and neo-liberalism as the final consolidation of conservatism and the end of what we have understood as history – the final triumph of capitalism as it dies. ..."
    "... The right has also succeeded in the same way to reduce consumer rights. Arbitration agreements are attached to almost everything you buy that needs an agreement (software, mobile phones, etc.) before use. The agreements not only mandate secret arbitration they also prevent consumers from banding together in order to form a class thus making each individual consumer litigate alone. Obviously this reduces the power of individual consumers and also decreases the incentive for any one consumer to do something about what, on the individual level, may be a small injury. Basically it allows business to steal a small amount from a lot of people. ..."
    "... On the "economy", "taxes", and, "foreign affairs" the respondents "trust" the GOP more than the Dems. Though on one key measure "caring about people like you" the Dems are trusted over the GOP by a slight margin. ..."
    "... The reduction of marginal income tax rates on the highest "wage" incomes combined with new doctrines of corporate business leadership that emphasized the maximization of shareholder value created a new class of C-suite business executives occupying positions of great political power as allies and servants of the rentier class of Capital owners. The elaborate structures of financial repression and mutual finance were systematically demolished, removing many of the protections from financial predation afforded the working and middle classes. ..."
    "... she's the least popular Democratic candidate perhaps ever! That's the only reason it would be close. A party built around the principles of white male supremacy and dedicated to expanding the wealth and income gap is at a massive disadvantage in any non-gerrymandered election. ..."
    "... It is striking to me how even on the left the discussion of U.S. militarism and imperialism has been marginalized and does not come up much in casual conversation. We had an active peace movement through the worst days of the Cold War, and then there was a bit of a resurgence of it in response to the Iraq War. But Obama's acceptance of the core assumptions of the 'War on Terror' (even as he waged it more responsibly) seems to have led to the war party co-opting the liberals as well until there is no longer an effective opposition. The rhetoric of 'humanitarian intervention' has been hugely successful in that effort. ..."
    Oct 24, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    SusanC 10.24.16 at 11:00 am

    Trump himself will go away, I think. But the discontent that motivates the Trump voters seems less likely to just vanish. We seem to be in the midst of a realignment of both UK and US politics, of which Trump and Farrage are just symptoms. Farrage has already made an attempt at retiring from politics, and I could easily see Trump going back to reality television after the election. The real question is: what will their supporters do next?

    I am also surprised that Corey thinks feminism and the civil rights movement has been defeated. These seem to me to be areas in which some progress has been made (along with other forms of identity politics, e.g. gay marriage). It's been the class-based labour/union movement that's been the real loser.

    Possibly it depends on which time scale you're talking about, and that some of us now count as old people, in that our implicit timescale is over our lifetimes. Maybe young college students think that all the progress made by feminism happened before they were even born, and things have slowed down of late. (With a slight hat-tip to Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions , I could easily see some further progress on feminist issues being made simply by the older guys in management positions dying off, and being replaced by younger people who grew up in a different culture),

    kidneystones 10.24.16 at 11:15 am ( 13 )

    Make that 4 and 2

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-23/new-podesta-email-exposes-dem-playbook-rigging-polls-through-oversamples

    I disagree with the basic premise of the post in that the right has been beaten because it has won.

    That's certainly not how the right sees the landscape. The tea party of 2010 was co-opted by Richard Armey and the Kochs on the one hand and buried under a mountain of forms by Lois Lerner on the other. The Armey group rallies to Ted Cruz, who is sure to have something to say about America and the future of the Republican party should Trump be undone because of his lewd behavior and actions.

    The media is certain to be savaged no matter what the outcome. The number of artists and musicians who both profit from and promote misogyny and violence invited to the WH over the last 8 years to serve as role models for America's youth should raise nary an eyebrow. The prudery of the moment is going to be the template for 'social reform' under the Republicans. If Hillary and her media allies succeed in derailing the Trump insurgency via his mouth, his hands, and his zipper they're going to face an extremely hostile electorate. Cruz is certain to try to step into Trump's shoes as leader, preaching that Trump was a flawed messenger undone by an unforgiving god. This will make sense for too many Americans to completely ignore. The unhappy white males who have yet to self-identify as angry white males, rather than simply as Americans, may well decide to do so.

    Whatever few victories the Democrats enjoy lower down the ticket are unlikely to survive skyrocketing Affordable Care Act premiums, some form of amnesty, and an extension of America's wars in the ME. The Democrats are betting the farm that Republicans will never unlock the padlock Democrats maintain over socially-conservative minorities. Cruz's ground game and networking with the evangelical community didn't get the job done in 2016, but we can be sure that he and his team are already mapping 2020.

    Trump should be defeated according to most here. Some may actually believe Trump really is the anti-Christ Hitler we've been constantly told he is, instead of a widely watched and often admired vulgarian capitalist welcomed into living rooms across America for more than a decade. Whatever Trump is, he's not Cruz. His supporters are not Cruz supporters. Yet.

    I've no idea whether those supporting the Democratic candidate expect her to wake up on November 9, should she win, and suddenly decide to abandon the practices that got her this far. I certainly don't. If you're nauseated at the prospect of 4-8 more years of secrecy, war, lies, and corruption you're going to need to keep more than barf bags at hand, however. The polarization that has divided America over the last 8 years is, imho, far more likely to become much more corrosive and damaging with Democrats in charge.

    Ted Cruz will literally be burning crosses and probably books, pornography, and anyone/thing else that strikes his fancy. The donor class is praying that Hillary/Bush can stamp out the fires. With rising unemployment, stagnating wages, and more and more Americans feeling that the system isn't interested in them, or their children, there may very well be a little hell to pay, or a lot.

    kidneystones 10.24.16 at 12:37 pm @ 14

    It won't surprise you to learn I think you're wrong about Trump. The battle against Trump is for many a rejection of what they see in the mirror transposed onto Trump, as far as males go. Many women, including some who support him, see in Trump a dangerous predator who offers the promise of protection and wealth, but at a cost. Good thing no woman would ever sell herself, or her principles, to such a man – and if Bill Clinton pops into your head, please don't blame me.

    Which is why, in this instance, I think the polls are wrong. Who in their right mind is going to ever admit that Trump's language and behavior is not offensive? Nobody. Who in their right mind looks out at America and sees Donald Trump, not Bill Cosby etc, etc, etc as a threat to their own daughters, sisters, sons, etc? Which is why, in the end, enough voters are going to say no thanks to Hillary and roll the dice with Donald.

    I like your question re: Cruz. I find him such a phenomenally transparent phony that I can't quite believe anyone trusts him. With Trump, and Bill Clinton, what you see is what you get – Slick Willie.

    At the moment Americans are being told they don't like what they see in Trump, but if that were the case, why was he so popular back when he was actually on the Howard Stern show and otherwise acting out? I frankly don't think most Americans give a toss what Trump did or said this week, much less ten years ago.

    The stink coming out of the Clinton campaign is so rank it's actually penetrating the media wall of silence. Given that social media provides numerous ways for candidates to bypass the gate-keepers, I suspect enough voters are learning what's in the emails whether CNN, or the Wapo, report the discoveries, or not.

    Like I said. I think it will be close and right now I still say Trump edges it.

    Layman 10.24.16 at 12:55 pm

    "Clinton will win easily, but it could easily be argued that the victory will be over Trump the man than over any ideology. If Clinton were running against Cruz – who on any reasonable measure is well to the right of Trump – would she be 20 points ahead with women?"

    Hard to find more recent polling than this; but based on this, women would solidly still prefer Clinton over Cruz.

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/190403/seven-women-unfavorable-opinion-trump.aspx

    I also doubt that notion that it is Trump's vulgarity, on its own, rather than Republican conservative ideology which is driving the likely result. Trump does himself no favors, but Clinton's negatives hold her back, too. On most wedge issues, Trump is running as a bog-standard Republican conservative, and he's losing on those issues.

    infovore 10.24.16 at 1:30 pm

    @13 "Oversampling" is jargon with a specific technical meaning. Pew describes what it is in its discussion of http://www.pewresearch.org/methodology/u-s-survey-research/sampling/

    Jerry Vinokurov 10.24.16 at 1:30 pm ( 21 )

    Which is why, in the end, enough voters are going to say no thanks to Hillary and roll the dice with Donald.

    What odds would you accept on this outcome?

    SusanC 10.24.16 at 2:26 pm @20.

    Indeed. There's a difference between a biased sample and the oversampling technique. The difference being that with oversampling you statistically correct for the fact that you've intentionally sampled some subpopulation more frequently than you would have done if you just chose members of the whole population uniformly at random (while a biased sample just ignores or is ignorant of the problem…)

    (I hope this isn't too much of a derail. There is a grand CT tradition of yawn-not-that-again OPs with derails where you might learn something).

    Waiting for Godot 10.24.16 at 3:38 pm ( 23 )

    I am not sanguine about the apparent collapse of this version (Trump) of American fascism. If conservatism can be said to be that which argues for the preservation of traditional social institutions and traditional political values then conservatism is far from dying. Indeed I see the synthesis of neo-conservatism and neo-liberalism as the final consolidation of conservatism and the end of what we have understood as history – the final triumph of capitalism as it dies.

    Bernard Yomtov 10.24.16 at 3:59 pm

    the reason I think the right has not much of a future is that it has won. If you consider its great animating energies since the New Deal-anti-labor, anti-civil rights, and anti-feminism-the right has achieved a considerable amount of success.

    I agree with dd that this is just wrong. Are labor, the civil rights movement, women's rights, worse than they were at the end of the New Deal? I don't see how.

    efcdons 10.24.16 at 4:16 pm ( 25 )

    The right has won or is winning in an some ways on labor and civil rights issues by changing the procedure by which one can assert the rights that may exist.

    The number of strikes are down as someone else mentioned. But the Right has also largely succeeded in reducing the ability of individual employees to engage in private actions to vindicate their rights. E.g. the huge increase in enforceable arbitration agreements in what are essentially contracts of adhesion. The Right has solidified the ability of business to prevent employees from using the independent, publicly funded judiciary, and instead forces them to use private, secretive, arbitrators who essentially work for the companies (because the business is a repeat player and the arbitrators rely on being chosen to arbitrate in order to make their money).

    The right has also succeeded in the same way to reduce consumer rights. Arbitration agreements are attached to almost everything you buy that needs an agreement (software, mobile phones, etc.) before use. The agreements not only mandate secret arbitration they also prevent consumers from banding together in order to form a class thus making each individual consumer litigate alone. Obviously this reduces the power of individual consumers and also decreases the incentive for any one consumer to do something about what, on the individual level, may be a small injury. Basically it allows business to steal a small amount from a lot of people.

    In regards to Clinton and her chances against any other Republican, here is some polling which suggests the country at least trust the GOP over the Dems on a number of important issues. It is from April, 2016 so not the freshest data. But it might indicate Trump's bog standard GOP policies are not what is driving votes to Clinton/away from Trump.

    http://www.pollingreport.com/dvsr.htm

    On the "economy", "taxes", and, "foreign affairs" the respondents "trust" the GOP more than the Dems. Though on one key measure "caring about people like you" the Dems are trusted over the GOP by a slight margin.

    bruce wilder 10.24.16 at 5:04 pm

    Among the most successful projects of the Right was financialization of the economy.

    The reduction of marginal income tax rates on the highest "wage" incomes combined with new doctrines of corporate business leadership that emphasized the maximization of shareholder value created a new class of C-suite business executives occupying positions of great political power as allies and servants of the rentier class of Capital owners. The elaborate structures of financial repression and mutual finance were systematically demolished, removing many of the protections from financial predation afforded the working and middle classes.

    In the current election, the Democratic Party has split on financial reform issues, with the dominant faction represented by the Party's candidate prioritizing issues of race and gender equality.

    Layman 10.24.16 at 5:06 pm ( 29 )

    "In regards to Clinton and her chances against any other Republican, here is some polling which suggests the country at least trust the GOP over the Dems on a number of important issues."

    I imagine any poll pitting 'generic Republican' against Hillary Clinton in April of this year would have shown 'generic Republican' winning. The problem is, you can't run 'generic Republican'.

    I'm hard pressed to point at any prominent Republican who I think would be handily beating Clinton now. Once you name them, they have to say what they're for and against, and she takes her shot at them, and they're fighting an uphill battle. And she's the least popular Democratic candidate perhaps ever! That's the only reason it would be close. A party built around the principles of white male supremacy and dedicated to expanding the wealth and income gap is at a massive disadvantage in any non-gerrymandered election.

    PGD 10.24.16 at 6:28 pm

    It is striking to me how even on the left the discussion of U.S. militarism and imperialism has been marginalized and does not come up much in casual conversation. We had an active peace movement through the worst days of the Cold War, and then there was a bit of a resurgence of it in response to the Iraq War. But Obama's acceptance of the core assumptions of the 'War on Terror' (even as he waged it more responsibly) seems to have led to the war party co-opting the liberals as well until there is no longer an effective opposition. The rhetoric of 'humanitarian intervention' has been hugely successful in that effort.

    One of the most depressing things about this election campaign to me has been to see the Democrats using their full spectrum media dominance not to fight for a mandate for left policies, but to run a coordinated and effective propaganda campaign for greater U.S. military involvement in the Middle East and Eastern Europe, focusing on demonizing Putin and on humanitarian intervention rhetoric around Aleppo and the like.

    [Oct 24, 2016] Dont Repeat That To Anybody - Hillary Clinton And Donna Brazile Personally Implicated In Latest Project Veritas Video

    Oct 24, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    Last week, Jame O'keefe and Project Veritas Action potentially altered the course of the U.S. election, or at a minimum raised serious doubts about the practices of the Clinton campaign and the DNC, after releasing two undercover videos that revealed efforts of democrat operatives to incite violence at republican rallies and commit "mass voter fraud." While democrats have vehemently denied the authenticity of the videos, two democratic operatives, Robert Creamer and Scott Foval, have both been forced to resign over the allegations.

    Many democrats made the rounds on various mainstream media outlets over the weekend in an attempt to debunk the Project Veritas videos. Unfortunately for them, O'Keefe fired back with warnings that part 3 of his multi-part series was forthcoming and would implicate Hillary Clinton directly.

    Anything happens to me, there's a deadman's switch on Part III, which will be released Monday. @HillaryClinton and @donnabrazile implicated.

    - James O'Keefe (@JamesOKeefeIII) October 21, 2016

    Now, we have the 3rd installment of O'Keefe's videos which does seemingly reveal direct coordination between Hillary Clinton, Donna Brazile, Robert Creamer and Scott Foval to organize a smear campaign over Trump's failure to release his tax returns. Per Project Veritas :

    Part III of the undercover Project Veritas Action investigation dives further into the back room dealings of Democratic politics. It exposes prohibited communications between Hillary Clinton's campaign, the DNC and the non-profit organization Americans United for Change. And, it's all disguised as a duck. In this video, several Project Veritas Action undercover journalists catch Democracy Partners founder directly implicating Hillary Clinton in FEC violations. " In the end, it was the candidate, Hillary Clinton, the future president of the United States, who wanted ducks on the ground," says Creamer in one of several exchanges. "So, by God, we would get ducks on the ground." It is made clear that high-level DNC operative Creamer realized that this direct coordination between Democracy Partners and the campaign would be damning when he said: "Don't repeat that to anybody."

    Within the video both Clinton and Brazile are directly implicated by Creamer during the following exchange:

    "The duck has to be an Americans United for Change entity. This had to do only with some problem between Donna Brazile and ABC, which is owned by Disney, because they were worried about a trademark issue. That's why. It's really silly.

    We originally launched this duck because Hillary Clinton wants the duck .

    In any case, so she really wanted this duck figure out there doing this stuff, so that was fine. So, we put all these ducks out there and got a lot of coverage. And Trump taxes. And then ABC/Disney went crazy because they thought our original slogan was 'Donald ducks his taxes, releasing his tax returns."

    They said it was a trademark issue. It's not, but anyway, Donna Brazile had a connection with them and she didn't want to get sued. So we switched the ownership of the duck to Americans United for Change and now our signs say 'Trump ducks releasing his tax returns.' And we haven't had anymore trouble."

    As Project Veritas points out, this direct coordination between Clinton, Brazile and Americans United For Change is a violation of federal election laws:

    "The ducks on the ground are likely 'public communications' for purposes of the law. It's political activity opposing Trump, paid for by Americans United For Change funds but controlled by Clinton/her campaign."

    Here is the full video just released:

    As a reminder, below are parts 1 & 2 of the Project Veritas series in case you missed them.

    Video 1 revealed DNC efforts to incite violence at Trump rallies:

    Video 2 provided the democrat playbook on how to committ "mass voter fraud":

    RawPawg Oct 24, 2016 1:10 PM ,
    i'm waiting for SHTF

    And all I get is Ducks

    nope-1004 RawPawg Oct 24, 2016 1:15 PM ,
    Throw the scumbag Hillary in Jail!!!!

    It's time people acknolwedge the deep corruption and headed down to the Capital on foot.

    remain calm nope-1004 Oct 24, 2016 1:15 PM ,
    Comey will get right on it.
    Duane Norman remain calm Oct 24, 2016 1:16 PM ,
    And this is why the people want Trump, because he isn't above Comey!

    http://fmshooter.com/real-reasons-people-will-vote-for-trump/

    Occident Mortal nyse Oct 24, 2016 1:45 PM ,
    What's the bets Comey ends up at Goldman Sachs?

    e.g. VP without portfolio?

    NoDebt Occident Mortal Oct 24, 2016 2:01 PM ,
    "As Project Veritas points out, this direct coordination between Clinton, Brazile and Americans United For Change is a violation of federal election laws "

    Yeah, you pretty much got the head shot there. Unfortunately, no gun to shoot it from. The enforcement authorities all work FOR the Democrat party.

    Full spectrum dominance. It's a bitch. Even if you catch them red-haned there's no "authorities" to report it to that will listen to you.

    Remember what happened to Planned Parenthood when they were caught red-handed selling human tissue for profit (which is also illegal)? That's right. Nothing. Same thing here.

    Son of Loki NoDebt Oct 24, 2016 2:02 PM ,
    Clinton attack featuring Miss Universe was months in the making, email shows

    http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/clinton-attack-featuring-miss-uni...

    The Saint froze25 Oct 24, 2016 5:22 PM ,
    The problem is that the MSM isn't reporting on any of this stuff about Hillary. And, the Republicans in office aren't on the news at all to talk about any of this. So, the only place it is reported is on the Trump campaign trail where just a few thousand hear about.

    If the media won't report it and the Republicans won't talk about it, Hillary gets a pass. The audience for sites like ZH and Drudge are just preaching to the chior and not reaching the people who could change their minds or haven't made up their minds.

    froze25 -> ImGumbydmmt •Oct 24, 2016 3:40 PM
    What this video is, is evidence of collusion between a campaign and a SuperPac. That is illegal in a criminal court. This is enough to open an investigation, problem is nothing will be done by Nov 8th. All we can do is share it non-stop.
    Bastiat d Haus-Targaryen •Oct 24, 2016 2:11 PM
    Don't discount the Enquirer: remember who took down Gary Hart and John Edwards:

    Hillary Clinton's shady Mr. Fix It will tell all on TV tonight, just days after his explosive confession in The National ENQUIRER hit the stands.

    The man who's rocked Washington, D.C., will join Sean Hannity on tonight's episode of "Hannity" - airing on the FOX News Channel at 10 p.m. EST - to reveal his true identity at last.

    http://www.nationalenquirer.com/politics/hillary-clinton-lesbian-trysts-...

    [Oct 24, 2016] Hillary the Hawk closing in on the White House

    Notable quotes:
    "... The Democratic nominee in the final debate reiterated her bellicose stance towards Syria. Combined with her 2003 vote for war in Iraq, and her central role in getting the U.S. into the 2011 war in Libya, Clinton could become the most hawkish candidate elected president in most Americans' lifetimes. ..."
    "... Enforcing a no-fly zone is "basically an act of war," Michael Knights, a no-fly-zone expert at the Washington Institute told me in the run up to the Libyan war. ..."
    "... "Hillary's War," was the Washington Post's headline for a flattering feature on the Secretary of State's central role in driving the U.S. to intervene in Libya's civil war in 2011. ..."
    "... Clinton staff, published emails have shown, worked hard to get Clinton credit for the war. Clinton's confidante at the State Department Jake Sullivan drafted a memo on her "leadership/ownership/stewardship of this country's Libya policy from start to finish." ..."
    "... Hillary's war was illegal-because the administration never obtained congressional authorization for it-and it was also disastrous. "Libya is in a state of meltdown," John Lee Anderson wrote in the Atlantic last summer. ..."
    "... Yet somehow, through three general election debates, she never got a single question on Libya. Consider that: a former Secretary of State touted a war as a central achievement of hers, is running on her foreign-policy chops, and she is escaping accountability for that disastrous war. ..."
    "... Clinton, of course, also voted for the Iraq War in 2003. She says now she thinks that war was a mistake because it destabilized region. But somehow she doesn't apply that supposed lesson to Libya or to Syria. ..."
    "... The pattern is clear: Hillary Clinton is consistently and maybe blindly pro-war. She is now the clear frontrunner to become our next president. The antiwar movement that flourished under President George W. Bush has disappeared under President Obama . Will it revive under Hillary? Will Republicans have the power or the desire to check her ambitious interventionism. ..."
    Oct 24, 2016 | www.washingtonexaminer.com

    Hillary Clinton can change her views in an instant on trade, guns, gay marriage, and all sorts of issues, but she's consistent in this: she wants war.

    The Democratic nominee in the final debate reiterated her bellicose stance towards Syria. Combined with her 2003 vote for war in Iraq, and her central role in getting the U.S. into the 2011 war in Libya, Clinton could become the most hawkish candidate elected president in most Americans' lifetimes.

    "I am going to continue to push for a no-fly zone and safe havens within Syria," Clinton said Wednesday night. Totally separate from the fight against ISIS, Clinton's "no-fly zones and safe havens" are U.S. military intervention in the bloody and many-sided conflict between Syria's brutal government, terrorist groups, and rebel groups.

    Enforcing a no-fly zone is "basically an act of war," Michael Knights, a no-fly-zone expert at the Washington Institute told me in the run up to the Libyan war. Air Force Gen. Paul Selva, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified before the Senate that a no-fly zone created "the potential of a direct conflict with the Syrian integrated air defense system or Syrian forces or, by corollary, a confrontation with the Russians."

    Defense Secretary Ash Carter testified in the same hearing that "safe zones" would require significant U.S. boots on the ground.

    So while Hillary says she doesn't want war with Russia or Syria, or boots on the ground in Syria, she pushes policies that the Pentagon says risk war and require boots on the ground.

    Hillary showed that same cavalier attitude toward war earlier this decade, laughingly declaring "we came, we saw, he died." This was her version of George W. Bush's "Mission Accomplished" moment, and Libya was her smaller - and less legal - version of Bush's Iraq War.

    "Hillary's War," was the Washington Post's headline for a flattering feature on the Secretary of State's central role in driving the U.S. to intervene in Libya's civil war in 2011.

    Clinton staff, published emails have shown, worked hard to get Clinton credit for the war. Clinton's confidante at the State Department Jake Sullivan drafted a memo on her "leadership/ownership/stewardship of this country's Libya policy from start to finish."

    Sullivan listed, point-by-point, how Clinton helped bring about and shape the war. Before Obama's attack on Moammar Gadhafi, "she [was] a leading voice for strong UNSC action and a NATO civilian B5 protection mission," the memo explained.

    Hillary's war was illegal-because the administration never obtained congressional authorization for it-and it was also disastrous. "Libya is in a state of meltdown," John Lee Anderson wrote in the Atlantic last summer.

    ISIS has spread, no stable government has arisen, and the chaos has led to refugee and terrorism crises.

    Clinton nevertheless calls her war "smart power at its best," declaring during the primary season, "I think President Obama made the right decision at the time."

    Yet somehow, through three general election debates, she never got a single question on Libya. Consider that: a former Secretary of State touted a war as a central achievement of hers, is running on her foreign-policy chops, and she is escaping accountability for that disastrous war.

    Clinton, of course, also voted for the Iraq War in 2003. She says now she thinks that war was a mistake because it destabilized region. But somehow she doesn't apply that supposed lesson to Libya or to Syria.

    The pattern is clear: Hillary Clinton is consistently and maybe blindly pro-war. She is now the clear frontrunner to become our next president. The antiwar movement that flourished under President George W. Bush has disappeared under President Obama . Will it revive under Hillary? Will Republicans have the power or the desire to check her ambitious interventionism.

    If Hillary wins big and sweeps in a Senate majority with her, we could be in for four more years of even more war.

    Timothy P. Carney, the Washington Examiner's senior political columnist, can be contacted at [email protected] . His column appears Tuesday and Thursday nights on washingtonexaminer.com.

    [Oct 24, 2016] Strobe Talbott ia a closet neocon and it was he who brought Mrs Kagan aka Victoria Nuland in to State Department in 1993.

    Oct 24, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    ilsm -> Dan Kervick... , October 24, 2016 at 03:22 PM

    Anne and I have seen this for a while.

    Nothing new Strobe Talbott was closeted, and brought Mrs Kagan aka Victoria Nuland in to State in 1993.

    Bill bearded the bear breaking Kosovo and Bosinia out of Serbia...........

    The down payment for Kyiv in 2012 was in 1996.

    likbez -> ilsm... , -1
    Nuland occupies a special place among neocons.

    This former associate of Dick Cheney managed to completely destroy pretty nice European county, unleashing the horror of real starvation on the population.

    Ukraine now is essentially Central African country in the middle of the Europe. Retirees often live on less then $1 a day. most adults (and lucky retirees) on less then $3 a day. $6 a day is considered a high salary. At the same time "oligarchs" drive on Maybachs, and personal jets.

    Sex tourism is rampant. Probably the only "profession" that prospered since "Maydan".

    Young people try to get university education and emigrate to any county that would accept them (repeating the story of Baltic countries and Poland).

    Now this a typical IMF debt slave with no chances to get out of the hole.

    Politically this is now a protectorate of the USA with the USA ambassador as the real, de-facto ruler of the country. Much like Kosovo is.

    Standard of living dropped approximately three times since 2014.

    http://nationalinterest.org/feature/ukraines-perpetual-war-perpetual-peace-17614

    "If the country continues on its present course, Odessa's reformist governor Mikheil Saakashvili has noted sarcastically, Ukraine will not reach the level of GDP it had under former president Viktor Yanukovych for another fifteen years"

    "In Kiev, which is by far the wealthiest city in Ukraine, payment arrears for electricity have risen by 32 percent since the beginning of this year."

    [Oct 24, 2016] Peace Through Trump The American Conservative

    Notable quotes:
    "... US-Russia-China cooperation will eliminate for the US the threat of war with the only two powers whose nuclear capabilities could pose existential threats to the US. ..."
    "... Simultaneously, Trump will put an end to "the prevailing view that the U.S. is, and always must be, the benign hegemon, altruistically policing the world, while allowing its allies, satellites-and even rivals-to manufacture everything and thereby generate the jobs, profits, and knowhow…a view that elevated the ambitions and pretensions of the American elite over the well-being of the larger U.S. population…Instead of sacrificing American economic interests on the altar of U.S. 'leadership,' [Trump] will view the strengthening of the American economy as central to American greatness." ..."
    "... President Trump will rebuild the decimated US manufacturing sector and return to Americans those tens of millions of jobs that America's globalist elites were allowed to ship overseas. Rebuilding the US economy – and jobs! – will be the centerpiece of a Donald Trump presidency. ..."
    "... The problem is that everyone wants to call themselves a Realist, even the Neocons. The Neocons proclaim that promoting Democracy, nation building, and being the world's policeman is 'realism' because if you withdraw from the world the problems follow you home. Tom Rogan bellowed that we needed to destroy Syria in the name of realism. They are totally wrong but the point is that everyone wants to claim this mantle which is why I tend to avoid this term. ..."
    "... I think we should embrace the Putin Doctrine but that name is toxic. Basically, he eschews destroying standing govts because it is highly destabilizing. This is common sense. ..."
    "... Oh, when I hear 'Bush kept us safe' it tears my heart out when I see guys in their 20/30's walking around with those titanium prosthetics. Do the 4,000+ men who died in Iraq and 10,000+ severely wounded count? And this does not even start to count the chaos and death in the M.E. ..."
    "... Mainstream media are besides themselves at the prospect of their masters having to relinquish their special entitlements; namely, designer wars, selection of the few to govern the many (Supreme Court and the Fed), and putting foreign dictates over American interests at an incredible cost to the U.S. in human and non-human resources. ..."
    Oct 24, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com

    Donald Trump played a wily capitalistic trick on his Republican opponents in the primary fights this year-he served an underserved market.

    By now it's a cliché that Trump, while on his way to the GOP nomination, tapped into an unnoticed reservoir of right-of-center opinion on domestic and economic concerns-namely, the populist-nationalists who felt left out of the reigning market-libertarianism of the last few decades.

    Indeed, of the 17 Republicans who ran this year, Trump had mostly to himself the populist issues: that is, opposition to open borders, to free trade, and to earned-entitlement cutting. When the other candidates were zigging toward the familiar-and unpopular-Chamber of Commerce-approved orthodoxy, Trump was zagging toward the voters.

    Moreover, the same sort of populist-nationalist reservoir-tapping was evident in the realm of foreign affairs. To put it in bluntly Trumpian terms, the New Yorker hit 'em where they weren't.

    The fact that Trump was doing something dramatically different became clear in the make-or-break Republican debate in Greenville, S.C., on February 13. Back in those early days of the campaign, Trump had lost one contest (Iowa) and won one (New Hampshire), and it was still anybody's guess who would emerge victorious.

    During that debate, Trump took what seemed to be an extraordinary gamble: he ripped into George W. Bush's national-security record-in a state where the 43rd president was still popular. Speaking of the Iraq War, Trump said, "George Bush made a mistake. We can make mistakes. But that one was a beauty. We should have never been in Iraq. We have destabilized the Middle East."

    And then Trump went further, aiming indirectly at the former president, while slugging his brother Jeb directly: "The World Trade Center came down during your brother's reign, remember that."

    In response, Jeb intoned the usual Republican line, "He kept us safe." And others on the stage in Greenville that night rushed to associate themselves with Bush 43.

    In the aftermath of this verbal melee, many thought that Trump had doomed himself. As one unnamed Republican "strategist" chortled to Politico , "Trump's attack on President George W. Bush was galactic-level stupid in South Carolina."

    Well, not quite: Trump triumphed in the Palmetto State primary a week later, winning by a 10-point margin.

    Thus, as we can see in retrospect, something had changed within the GOP. After 9/11, in the early years of this century, South Carolinians had been eager to fight. Yet by the middle of the second decade, they-or at least a plurality of them-had grown weary of endless foreign war.

    Trump's victory in the Palmetto State was decisive, yet it was nevertheless only a plurality, 32.5 percent. Meanwhile, Sen. Marco Rubio, running as an unabashed neocon hawk, finished second.

    So we can see that the Republican foreign-policy "market" is now segmented. And while Trump proved effective at targeting crucial segments, they weren't the only segments-because, in actuality, there are four easily identifiable blocs on the foreign-policy right. And as we delineate these four segments, we can see that while some are highly organized and tightly articulate, others are loose and inchoate:

    First, the libertarians. That is, the Cato Institute and other free-market think tanks, Reason magazine, and so on. Libertarians are not so numerous around the country, but they are strong among the intelligentsia.

    Second, the old-right "isolationists." These folks, also known as "paleocons," often find common ground with libertarians, yet their origins are different, and so is their outlook. Whereas the libertarians typically have issued a blanket anathema to all foreign entanglements, the isolationists have been more selective. During World War I, for example, their intellectual forbears were hostile to U.S. involvement on the side of the Allies, but that was often because of specifically anti-English or pro-German sentiments, not because they felt guided by an overall principle of non-intervention. Indeed, the same isolationists were often eager to intervene in Latin America and in the Far East. More recently, the temperamentally isolationist bloc has joined with the libertarians in opposition to deeper U.S. involvement in the Middle East.

    Third, the traditional hawks. On the proverbial Main Street, USA, plenty of people-not limited to the active-duty military, veterans, and law-enforcers-believe that America's national honor is worth fighting for.

    Fourth, the neoconservatives. This group, which takes hawkishness to an avant-garde extreme, is so praised, and so criticized, that there's little that needs be added here. Yet we can say this: as with the libertarians, they are concentrated in Washington, DC; by contrast, out beyond the Beltway, they are relatively scarce. Because of their connections to big donors to both parties, however, they have been powerful, even preeminent, in foreign-policy circles over the last quarter-century. Yet today, it's the neocons who feel most threatened by, and most hostile to, the Trump phenomenon.

    We can pause to offer a contextual point: floating somewhere among the first three categories-libertarians, isolationists, hawks-are the foreign-policy realists. These, of course, are the people, following in the tradition of the great scholar Hans Morgenthau, who pride themselves on seeing the world as it is, regarding foreign policy as just another application of Bismarckian wisdom-"the art of the possible."

    The realists, disproportionately academics and think-tankers, are a savvy and well-credentialed group-or, according to critics, cynical and world-weary. Yet either way, they have made many alliances with the aforementioned trio of groups, even as they have usually maintained their ideological flexibility. To borrow the celebrated wisdom of the 19th-century realpolitiker Lord Palmerston, realists don't have permanent attachments; they have permanent interests. And so it seems likely that if Trump wins-or anyone like Trump in the future-many realists will be willing to emerge from their wood-paneled precincts to engage in the hurly-burly of public service.

    Returning to our basic quartet of blocs, we can quickly see that two of them, the libertarians and the neocons, have been loudly successful in the "battle of ideas." That is, almost everyone knows where the libertarians and the neocons stand on the controversies of the moment. Meanwhile, the other two groups-the isolationists and the traditional hawks-have failed to make themselves heard. That is, until Trump.

    For the most part, the isolationists and hawks have not been organized; they've just been clusters of veterans, cops, gun owners, and like-minded souls gathering here and there, feeling strongly about the issues but never finding a national megaphone. Indeed, even organized groups, such as the American Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars, sizable as they might be, have had little impact, of late, on foreign affairs.

    This paradoxical reality-that even big groups can be voiceless, allowing smaller groups to carry the day-is well understood. Back in 1839, the historian Thomas Carlyle observed of his Britain, "The speaking classes speak and debate," while the "deep-buried [working] class lies like an Enceladus"-a mythological giant imprisoned under a volcano. Yet, Carlyle continued, the giant under the volcano will not stay silent forever; one day it will erupt, and the inevitable eruption "has to produce earthquakes!"

    In our time, Trump has provoked the Enceladus-like earthquake. Over the past year, while the mainstream media has continued to lavish attention on the fine points of libertarianism and neoconservatism, the Peoples of the Volcano have blown up American politics.

    Trump has spoken loudly to both of his groups. To the isolationists, he has highlighted his past opposition to the Iraq and Libya misadventures, as well as his suspicions about NATO and other alliances. (Here the libertarians, too, are on board.) At the same time, he has also talked the language of the hawks, as when he has said, "Take the oil" and "Bomb the [bleep] out of them." Trump has also attacked the Iran nuclear agreement, deriding it as "one of the worst deals ever made."

    Thus earlier this year Trump mobilized the isolationists and the hawks, leaving the libertarians to Rand Paul and the neocons to Rubio.

    Now as we move to the general election, it appears that Trump has kept the loyalty of his core groups. Many libertarians, meanwhile, are voting for Gary Johnson-the former Republican governor at the top of the Libertarian Party's ticket-and they are being joined, most likely as a one-off, by disaffected Republicans and Democrats. Meanwhile, the neocons, most of them, have become the objective allies, if not the overt supporters, of Hillary Clinton.

    Even if Trump loses, his energized supporters, having found their voice, will be a new and important force within the GOP-a force that could make it significantly harder for a future president to, say, "liberate" and "democratize" Syria.

    ♦♦♦

    Yet now we must skip past the unknown unknowns of the election and ask: what might we expect if Trump becomes president?

    One immediate point to be borne in mind is that it will be a challenge to fill the cabinet and the sub-cabinet-to say nothing of the thousands of "Schedule C" positions across the administration-with true Trump loyalists. Yes, of course, if Trump wins that means he will have garnered 50 million or more votes, but still, the number of people who have the right credentials and can pass all the background checks-including, for most of the top jobs, Senate confirmation-is minuscule.

    So here we might single out the foreign-policy realists as likely having a bright future in a Trump administration: after all, they are often well-credentialed and, by their nature, have prudently tended to keep their anti-Trump commentary to a minimum. (There's a piece of inside-the-Beltway realist wisdom that seems relevant here: "You're for what happens.")

    Yet the path to realist dominion in a Trump administration is not smooth. As a group, they have been in eclipse since the Bush 41 era, so an entire generation of their cadres is missing. The realists do not have long lists of age-appropriate alumni ready for another spin through the revolving door.

    By contrast, the libertarians have lots of young staffers on some think-tank payroll or another. And of course, the neocons have lots of experience and contacts-yes, they screwed up the last time they were in power, but at least they know the jargon.

    Thus, unless president-elect Trump makes a genuinely heroic effort to infuse his administration with new blood, he will end up hiring a lot of folks who might not really agree with him-and who perhaps even have strongly, if quietly, opposed him. That means that the path of a Trump presidency could be channeled in an unexpected direction, as the adherents of other foreign-policy schools-including, conceivably, schools from the left-clamber aboard. As they say in DC, "personnel is policy."

    Still, Trump has a strong personality, and it's entirely possible that, as president, he will succeed in imprinting his unique will on his appointees. (On the other hand, the career government, starting with the State Department's foreign service officers, might well prove to be a different story.)

    Looking further ahead, as a hypothetical President Trump surveys the situation from the Sit Room, here are nine things that will be in view:

    1.

    Trump will recall, always, that the Bush 43 presidency drove itself into a ditch on Iraq. So he will surely see the supreme value of not sending U.S. ground troops-beyond a few advisors-into Middle Eastern war zones.

    2.

    Trump will also realize that Barack Obama, for all his talk about hope and change, ended up preserving the bulk of Bush 43's policies. The only difference is that Obama did it on the cheap, reducing defense spending as he went along.

    Obama similar to Bush-really? Yes. To be sure, Obama dropped all of Bush's democratic messianism, but even with his cool detachment he kept all of Bush's alliances and commitments, including those in Afghanistan and Iraq. And then he added a new international commitment: "climate change."

    In other words, America now has a policy of "quintuple containment": Russia, China, Iran, ISIS/al-Qaeda, and, of course, the carbon-dioxide molecule. Many would argue that today we aren't managing any of these containments well; others insist that the Obama administration, perversely, seems most dedicated to the containment of climate change: everything else can fall apart, but if the Obamans can maintain the illusion of their international CO2 deals, as far as they are concerned all will be well.

    In addition, Uncle Sam has another hundred or so minor commitments-including bilateral defense treaties with countries most Americans have never heard of, along with special commitments to champion the rights of children, women, dissidents, endangered species, etc. On a one-by-one basis, it's possible to admire many of these efforts; on a cumulative basis, it's impossible to imagine how we can sustain all of them.

    3.
    A populist president like Trump will further realize that if the U.S. has just 4 percent of the world's population and barely more than a fifth of world GDP, it's not possible that we can continue to police the planet. Yes, we have many allies-on paper. Yet Trump's critique of many of them as feckless, even faithless, resonated for one big reason: it was true.

    So Trump will likely begin the process of rethinking U.S. commitments around the world. Do we really want to risk nuclear war over the Spratly Islands? Or the eastern marches of Ukraine? Here, Trump might well default to the wisdom of the realists: big powers are just that-big powers-and so one must deal with them in all their authoritarian essentiality. And as for all the other countries of the world-some we like and some we don't-we're not going to change them, either. (Although in some cases, notably Iraq and Syria, partition, supervised by the great powers, may be the only solution.)

    4.

    Trump will surely see world diplomacy as an extension of what he has done best all his life-making deals. This instinct will serve him well in two ways: first, he will be sharply separating himself from his predecessors, Bush the hot-blooded unilateralist war-of-choicer and Obama the cool and detached multilateralist leader-from-behind. Second, his deal-making desire will inspire him do what needs to be done: build rapport with world leaders as a prelude to making things happen.

    To cite one immediate example: there's no way that we will ever achieve anything resembling "peace with honor" in Afghanistan without the full cooperation of the Taliban's masters in Pakistan. Ergo, the needed deal must be struck in Islamabad, not Kabul.

    Almost certainly, a President Trump will treat China and Russia as legitimate powers, not as rogue states that must be single-handedly tamed by America.

    Moreover, Trump's deal-making trope also suggests that instead of sacrificing American economic interests on the altar of U.S. "leadership," he will view the strengthening of the American economy as central to American greatness.

    5.

    Trump will further realize that his friends the realists have had a blind spot of late when it comes to eco nomic matters. Once upon a time-that is, in the 19th century-economic nationalism was at the forefront of American foreign-policy making. In the old days, as America's Manifest Destiny stretched beyond the continental U.S., expansionism and Hamiltonianism went together: as they used to say, trade follows the flag. Theodore Roosevelt's digging of the Panama Canal surely ranks as one of the most successful fusions of foreign and economic policy in American history.

    Yet in the past few decades, the economic nationalists and the foreign-policy realists have drifted apart. For example, a Reagan official, Clyde Prestowitz of the Economic Strategy Institute, has been mostly ignored by the realists, who have instead embraced the conventional elite view of free trade and globalization.

    So a President Trump will have the opportunity to reunite realism and economic nationalism; he can once again put manufacturing exports, for example, at the top of the U.S. agenda. Indeed, Trump might consider other economic-nationalist gambits: for example, if we are currently defending such wealthy countries as Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Norway, why aren't they investing some of the trillions of dollars in their sovereign-wealth funds into, say, American infrastructure?

    6.

    Trump will also come into power realizing that he has few friends in the foreign-policy establishment; after all, most establishmentarians opposed him vehemently. Yet that could turn out to be a real plus for the 45th president because it could enable him to discard the stodgy and outworn thinking of the "experts." In particular, he could refute the prevailing view that the U.S. is, and always must be, the benign hegemon, altruistically policing the world, while allowing its allies, satellites-and even rivals-to manufacture everything and thereby generate the jobs, profits, and knowhow. That was always, of course, a view that elevated the ambitions and pretensions of the American elite over the well-being of the larger U.S. population-and maybe Trump can come up with a better and fairer vision.

    7.

    As an instinctive deal-maker, Trump will have the capacity to clear away the underbrush of accumulated obsolete doctrines and dogmas. To cite just one small but tragic example, there's the dopey chain of thinking that has guided U.S. policy toward South Sudan. Today, we officially condemn both sides in that country's ongoing civil war. Yet we might ask, how can that work out well for American interests? After all, one side or the other is going to win, and we presumably want a friend in Juba, not a Chinese-affiliated foe.

    On the larger canvas, Trump will observe that if the U.S., China, and Russia are the three countries capable of destroying the world, then it's smart to figure out a modus vivendi among this threesome. Such practical deal-making, of course, would undermine the moralistic narrative that Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin are the potentates of new evil empires.

    8.

    Whether or not he's currently familiar with the terminology, Trump seems likely to recapitulate the "multipolar" system envisioned by Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger in the 1970s. Back then, the multipolar vision included the U.S., the USSR, Western Europe, China, and Japan.

    Yet multipolarity was lost in the '80s, as the American economy was Reaganized, the Cold War grew colder, and the Soviet Union staggered to its self-implosion. Then in the '90s we had the "unipolar moment," when the U.S. enjoyed "hyper-power" primacy.

    Yet as with all moments, unipolarity soon passed, undone by the Iraq quagmire, America's economic stagnation, and the rise of other powers. So today, multipolarity seems destined to re-emerge with a slightly upgraded cast of players: the U.S., China, Russia, the European Union, and perhaps India.

    9.

    And, of course, Trump will have to build that wall along the U.S.-Mexican border.

    ♦♦♦

    Some might object that I am reading too much into Trump. Indeed, the conventional wisdom, even today, maintains that Trump is visceral, not intellectual, that he is buffoonish, not Kissingerian.

    To such critics, this Trump supporter feels compelled to respond: when has the conventional wisdom about the New Yorker been proven correct?

    It's not easy to become president. In all of U.S. history, just 42 individuals have been elected to the presidency-or to the vice presidency and succeeded a fallen president. That is, indeed, an exclusive club. Or as Trump himself might say, it's not a club for dummies.

    If Trump does, in fact, become the 45th president, then by definition, he will have proven himself to be pretty darn strategic. And that's a portent that bodes well for his foreign policy.

    James P. Pinkerton is a contributor to the Fox News Channel.

    Kurt Gayle , October 24, 2016 at 12:03 am
    Among James Pinkerton's most compelling reasons to hope for a Trump presidency are these two:

    [1] "Almost certainly, a President Trump will treat China and Russia as legitimate powers, not as rogue states that must be single-handedly tamed by America…Trump will observe that if the U.S., China, and Russia are the three countries capable of destroying the world, then it's smart to figure out amodus vivendi among this threesome…"

    US-Russia-China cooperation will eliminate for the US the threat of war with the only two powers whose nuclear capabilities could pose existential threats to the US.

    [2] Simultaneously, Trump will put an end to "the prevailing view that the U.S. is, and always must be, the benign hegemon, altruistically policing the world, while allowing its allies, satellites-and even rivals-to manufacture everything and thereby generate the jobs, profits, and knowhow…a view that elevated the ambitions and pretensions of the American elite over the well-being of the larger U.S. population…Instead of sacrificing American economic interests on the altar of U.S. 'leadership,' [Trump] will view the strengthening of the American economy as central to American greatness."

    President Trump will rebuild the decimated US manufacturing sector and return to Americans those tens of millions of jobs that America's globalist elites were allowed to ship overseas. Rebuilding the US economy – and jobs! – will be the centerpiece of a Donald Trump presidency.<

    Chris Chuba , October 24, 2016 at 8:28 am
    The problem is that everyone wants to call themselves a Realist, even the Neocons. The Neocons proclaim that promoting Democracy, nation building, and being the world's policeman is 'realism' because if you withdraw from the world the problems follow you home. Tom Rogan bellowed that we needed to destroy Syria in the name of realism. They are totally wrong but the point is that everyone wants to claim this mantle which is why I tend to avoid this term.

    I think we should embrace the Putin Doctrine but that name is toxic. Basically, he eschews destroying standing govts because it is highly destabilizing. This is common sense.

    Oh, when I hear 'Bush kept us safe' it tears my heart out when I see guys in their 20/30's walking around with those titanium prosthetics. Do the 4,000+ men who died in Iraq and 10,000+ severely wounded count? And this does not even start to count the chaos and death in the M.E.

    PAXNOW , October 24, 2016 at 10:13 am
    Trump just came across as different while maintaining conservative, albeit middle-American values. Mainstream media are besides themselves at the prospect of their masters having to relinquish their special entitlements; namely, designer wars, selection of the few to govern the many (Supreme Court and the Fed), and putting foreign dictates over American interests at an incredible cost to the U.S. in human and non-human resources.

    The song goes on. Trump hit a real nerve. Even if he loses, the American people have had a small but important victory. We are frustrated with the ruling cabal. A sleeping giant has been awoken. This election could be the political Perl Harbor….

    Ed Johnson , October 24, 2016 at 10:41 am
    Pinkerton has spent thousands of words writing about someone who is not the Donald Trump anyone has ever seen.

    In this, he joins every other member of the Right, who wait in hopeful anticipation to see a Champion for their cause in Donald Trump, and are willing to turn a blind eye to his ignorance, outright stupidity, lack of self-discipline, and lack of serious intent.

    Pinkerton, he will only follow your lead here if he sees what's in it for HIM, not for the Right and certainly not for the benefit of the American people.

    w vervin , October 24, 2016 at 1:00 pm
    Flawed premise. This opine works its way through the rabbit hole pretzel of current methodologies in D.C. The ones that don't work. The city of NY had a similar outcome building a certain ice skating facility within the confines of a system designed to fail.

    What Trump does is implode those failed systems, implements a methodology that has proven to succeed, and then does it. Under budget and before the deadline. Finding the *right* bodies to make it all work isn't as difficult as is surmised. What that shows is how difficult that task would be for the author. Whenever I hear some pundit claim that Trump can't possibly do all that means is the pundit couldn't possibly do it.

    The current system is full of youcan'tdoits, what have you got to lose, more of the same?

    [Oct 24, 2016] Exploiting Cold War rhetoric tactics might helped Hillary win the election. I guess the idea is to deal with the aftermath and fallout later

    Notable quotes:
    "... Exploiting Cold War rhetoric & tactics has helped her win the election. I guess the idea is: deal with the aftermath and fallout later. ..."
    Oct 24, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    anne : https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/790154851682545665

    Glenn Greenwald @ggreenwald

    Exploiting Cold War rhetoric & tactics has helped her win the election. I guess the idea is: deal with the aftermath and fallout later.

    Katrina vandenHeuvel @KatrinaNation

    How does new Cold War-- which ends space for dissent, hurts women & children, may lead to nuclear war--help what Clinton claims she is for?

    EMichael -> anne... , October 23, 2016 at 05:28 AM

    I would submit that there are very few voters that will vote from Clinton because of this "cold war rhetoric" schtick.

    Greenwald keeps falling and cannot get up.

    ilsm -> EMichael... , October 23, 2016 at 06:18 AM
    Few "will [move the] vote from Clinton because of this "cold war rhetoric" schtick.

    Those "few" were awake during the 80's and see the nuclear/neocon dystopian horror behind Clinton.

    While Trump mentioned using nukes, Hillary's nuke policy is 'well' laid out by Robert Kagan and the hegemon interests.

    Recall Mao said "go ahead......'

    Nukes are just another form of the pointless body count strategy.

    JohnH -> EMichael... , October 23, 2016 at 08:03 AM
    LOL! "Very few voters that will vote from Clinton because of this "cold war rhetoric" schtick."

    Putin/Russia were by far the most mentioned topics at the debates...yet EMichael has the naivety to assert that cold war tactics don't matter. What a rube!

    EMichael -> JohnH... , October 23, 2016 at 08:12 AM
    Really? How many minutes were spent on Putin(not Russia, Putin)?

    How many minutes were spent on Trump's misogyny?

    No way to measure it, but when I find a person who votes for Clinton because of her attacks on Putin(not Russia, Putin), I'll let you know.

    Don't hold your breath.

    pgl -> EMichael... , October 23, 2016 at 09:19 AM
    Trump does seem to admire Putin. Maybe he wants to date Russian babes.
    ilsm -> pgl... , October 23, 2016 at 11:28 AM
    Can't imagine Trump needs to go that far from home!

    Trump is not smart enough to listen to the Kagans....

    Like a smart neoliberal.

    If the Russians are releasing knowledge that embarrasses Klinton they are doing a service.

    pgl -> ilsm... , October 23, 2016 at 11:40 AM
    Yes ilsm. He goes down to Brighton Beach regularly. Shh - don't tell Melanie.
    JohnH -> JohnH... , October 23, 2016 at 11:14 AM
    As usual, EMichael is as uninformed as ever. For his information, Russia/Putin were mentioned 178 times in the 3 debates, topping the list of topics covered.

    By comparison, climate change got four mentions, poverty 10, and US economic performance--hold onto your hats!--didn't make the list. NSA snooping didn't get mentioned either.

    So, EMichael, if Russia/Putin don't matter to voters, why did candidates talk so much about it? Oh, I know, to distract attention from more serious issues that their paymasters didn't want them to talk about!

    JohnH -> JohnH... , October 23, 2016 at 11:14 AM
    Link: http://fair.org/home/medias-debate-agenda-push-russia-isis-taxes-downplay-climate-poverty-campaign-finance/

    [read it and weep.]

    ilsm -> JohnH... , October 23, 2016 at 11:29 AM
    Emike and pgl are adept at fallacies of argument.

    I hope they are more adept at reasoning in the real world.

    EMichael -> JohnH... , October 23, 2016 at 11:56 AM
    Also, the question is about what people are voting for, not how many times Putin was mentioned.
    Dan Kervick -> EMichael... , October 23, 2016 at 11:45 AM
    Clinton had attracted a lot of centrist Republicans to her campaign, and I think the hawkish and old school foreign policy stance has something to do with it.
    pgl -> Dan Kervick... , October 23, 2016 at 12:19 PM
    Centrists are supporting her simply because Trump is batshit insane.
    anne -> anne... , -1
    https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/790154851682545665

    Glenn Greenwald @ggreenwald

    Exploiting Cold War rhetoric & tactics has helped her win the election. I guess the idea is: deal with the aftermath and fallout later.

    Katrina vandenHeuvel @KatrinaNation

    How does new Cold War-- which ends space for dissent, hurts women & children, may lead to nuclear war--help what Clinton claims she is for?

    4:36 AM - 23 Oct 2016

    [ Absolutely perfect. ]

    [Oct 24, 2016] Some very interesting new aspects on the crash of flight MH17. Looks like the investigators forgot a possibility of a missle armed drone from nearby NATO maneuvers or from SBU

    That would be a pretty devious plot indeed...
    Notable quotes:
    "... a Python-5 (or Derby) missile can also be carried by an Israeli combat drone such as the Heron-TP (Eitan) , which easily reaches an altitude of 10 to 15km. (More on Israeli combat drones, see here , here and here ). ..."
    "... Because they wrongly assumed MH17 could only have been downed by the local war parties, i.e. the Ukrainian military or the Eastern Ukrainian rebels. Therefore, they wrongly restricted the "air-to-air scenario" to a Ukranian fighter jet, which was then excluded. The official investigation did not consider the possibility that a third party with more advanced technological capabilities may have been involved in the downing of MH17. ..."
    "... There is a video of a skype conversation with one of his officers (who suspected Kolomoyskyi had a hand in the downing of MH17) in which Kolomoyskyi called the crash of MH17 "a trifle". ..."
    "... According to another report , the exercise also included "the use of electronic warfare and electronic intelligence aircraft such as the Boeing EA-18G Growler and the Boeing E3 Sentry Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS)" . Moreover, "BREEZE included the AEGIS-class guided missile cruiser USS Vela Gulf. AEGIS cruisers' AN/SPY 1 radar has the ability to track all aircraft over a large region. (…) From the Black Sea, the Vela Gulf was able to track Malaysian Airlines 17 over the Black Sea and any missiles fired at the plane. U.S. AWACS electronic intelligence (ELINT) aircraft were also flying over the Black Sea region at the time of the MH-17 flyover of Ukraine. Growler aircraft have the capability to jam radar systems in all surface-to-air threats." ..."
    Oct 23, 2016 | mh17scenario5.wordpress.com

    In August 2015, a Russian study suggested that MH17 was shot down by an Israeli Python-5 air-to-air missile (which usually targets the cockpit of a plane due to an advanced electro-optical guidance system). Yet the authors still assumed the missile must have been fired by a fighter jet. Because Ukraine has no fighter jets that can carry a Python-5, the authors speculated that a special version of a Georgian fighter jet may have been used. This seems unlikely.

    However, a Python-5 (or Derby) missile can also be carried by an Israeli combat drone such as the Heron-TP (Eitan) , which easily reaches an altitude of 10 to 15km. (More on Israeli combat drones, see here , here and here ).

    Why did the official investigation not even consider the scenario of a combat drone?

    Because they wrongly assumed MH17 could only have been downed by the local war parties, i.e. the Ukrainian military or the Eastern Ukrainian rebels. Therefore, they wrongly restricted the "air-to-air scenario" to a Ukranian fighter jet, which was then excluded. The official investigation did not consider the possibility that a third party with more advanced technological capabilities may have been involved in the downing of MH17.

    Excerpt from the JIT presentation (after they have excluded an accident and a bomb):

    Why did the official investigation conclude it must have been a BUK missile ?

    The only reason why the official investigation concluded MH17 was shot down by a BUK missile is that two pieces of butterfly-shaped warhead fragments were "found" in the debris of the plane:

    fragments-found-mh17
    Two pieces of butterfly-shaped fragments found in the debris of MH17 (top-left and top-right).

    These butterfly-shaped warhead fragments are found in only one specific warhead: a BUK warhead of type 9N314M1 :

    bukshrapnel-11
    Different types of BUK missiles and warheads.

    There is only one problem with this story: Almaz-Antey, the manufacturer of the BUK sytem, attested that a 9N314M1 warhead can only be used on an advanced BUK missile of type 9M38M1 (see image above). However, even the official investigation acknowledges that the Eastern Ukrainian rebels could not have possessed this advanced type of BUK missile, but only a standard missile of type 9M38 . Yet according to the manufacturer, a standard 9M38 BUK missile can carry only a standard warhead of type 9N314 , which does not contain the butterfly-shaped warhead fragments (see image above).

    There is however a much more plausible explanation for the two butterfly-shaped fragments found in the debris: they may simply have been planted prior to the examination in order to incriminate the rebels (and Russia), while overlooking the fact that the only warhead containing these fragments is perhaps not even compatible with a standard BUK missile.

    This explanation is in line with several other facts:

    1. No butterfly-shaped holes were found on the cockpit or fuselage of MH17
    2. The corpses of the cockpit crew, in which one of the butterfly-shaped fragments was "found", got a "special treatment" at a Ukranian mortuary prior to their delivery to the Netherlands
    3. The tests carried out by the manufacturer of the BUK system showed that if indeed a 9N314M1 warhead had been used, not only would there be many butterfly-shaped holes in the fuselage, but many more than just two such fragments would have been found in the wreckage. These results were again ignored by the official investigation.
    4. There is already strong indication that a third butterfly-shaped fragment was indeed planted in the wreckage after the crash.
    More faulty logic

    The next excerpt from the DSB report shows again the faulty logic applied by the official investigation:

    1. They first assume that "air-to-air" can only mean a local (Ukranian) fighter jet. Wrong!
    2. Because of this, they consider only locally available (Soviet/Russian) air-to-air missiles. Wrong!
    3. They identify three (Soviet) missiles with a fragmentation-explosion warhead (R-33, R-37 and R-40). However, because none of these contain "bow-tie" (butterfly) shaped fragments, they exclude the use of any air-to-air missile. Wrong!
    4. Because of this, they think they can exclude the air-to-air scenario altogether. Wrong!
    5. Finally, they add that in the case of an air-to-air attack, "another aircraft" (near MH17) would have to have been recorded "at least by primary radar data". Wrong again! Besides, the investigation didn't even have access to primary radar data (see point 5 above).

    ... ... ...

    If the downing of MH17 was indeed a carefully planned operation, the preparation of such false photos and videos putting the blame to the rebels (and Russia) would have been an integral an rather easy part of it.

    Who controlled the airspace in which MH17 was downed?

    It is perhaps noteworthy that MH17 was downed in the airspace of Ukrainian Oblast (region) Dnipropetrovsk . In July 2014, this Oblast was controlled by Ukrainian-Israeli oligarch Igor Kolomoyskyi , who had been governor of Dnipropetrovsk since March of that year. Now:

    Perhaps all of this is not important. Or perhaps it is. At any rate, the official investigation never looked into it.

    Why did nobody – not even Russia – ever mention the drone scenario?

    If MH17 was indeed shot down by an armed drone, it is not guaranteed that Russia can prove this in any way. Without a clear proof, what should they say? Moreover, in the case of a combat drone, they cannot simply accuse the government in Kiev, but they would have to accuse far more powerful actors. Perhaps it is easier to just trade some meaningless allegations between the Ukrainian military and the Eastern Ukrainian rebels.

    Recall that after the attack on a UN aid convoy in Syria in September 2016, the U.S. also immediately blamed Russia (without any proof, of course). Russia denied, but again it didn't – and probably couldn't – present any proof for another scenario.

    Final note

    Even if there were arguments speaking against an armed drone, the fact remains that the official investigation (both DSB and JIT) did not even consider this option. Thus no matter what, the official investigation used a faulty approach and prematurely ruled out the air-to-air scenario.

    1. A reader remarks that on the very day MH17 crashed (July 17, 2014), a ten day long NATO military exercise in the Black Sea ended (BREEZE 2014) . In other words, the military of the United States and nine more NATO members were present and active in the Black Sea region right up to the day of the MH17 disaster. According to a press release , these war games even involved "commercial traffic monitoring".

      According to another report , the exercise also included "the use of electronic warfare and electronic intelligence aircraft such as the Boeing EA-18G Growler and the Boeing E3 Sentry Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS)" . Moreover, "BREEZE included the AEGIS-class guided missile cruiser USS Vela Gulf. AEGIS cruisers' AN/SPY 1 radar has the ability to track all aircraft over a large region. (…) From the Black Sea, the Vela Gulf was able to track Malaysian Airlines 17 over the Black Sea and any missiles fired at the plane. U.S. AWACS electronic intelligence (ELINT) aircraft were also flying over the Black Sea region at the time of the MH-17 flyover of Ukraine. Growler aircraft have the capability to jam radar systems in all surface-to-air threats."

      The same report notes that "200 U.S. Army personnel normally assigned to bases in Germany were in Ukraine during the time of the MH-17 fly-over. They were participating in NATO exercise RAPID TRIDENT II . Ukraine's Ministry of Defense led the exercise."

    2. A reader notes that another option might be a so-called "suicide drone" , i.e. a loitering strike drone that includes a warhead in its fuselage and self-destructs into its target. These are basically missiles that fly like a plane. Due to their small size, they are invisible to radar detection systems. Examples include e.g. the Israeli IAI Harop and Hero-30 . Usually, such drones attack ground targets and therefore operate at a low altitude (and rather low speed, about 200 km/h). If a high-altitude suicide drone exists at all, it would also require a fragmentation-explosion warhead to cause the damage observed on the wreckage of MH17. Moreover, due to its low speed, timing would be more difficult compared to a drone-fired air-to-air missile.
    3. If a radar-guided medium-range air-to-air missile was used, there are two options to provide the radar signal: active radar homing with an integrated radar transceiver, or semi-active radar homing with an external, ground- or air-based radar signal. Thus the drone itself doesn't have to be equipped with a radar unit. In fact, this is another clear advantage over the BUK scenario: since the rebels didn't have their own radar unit (even the "videos" only show a launching unit), they would have fired the missile "blindly". This is unlikely to begin with, but it is even more unlikely that they would actually have hit a plane at 10 km altitude without radar guidance.
    4. A reader asks: can a BUK be fired from a drone, like other missiles that can be fired both surface-to-air and air-to-air (AMRAAM, Derby)? Officially no airborne version of the BUK exists. (There is a navy version, though.) So this would have to be experimental. However, air-to-air missiles such as the R-33, R-37 or R-40 have a fragmentation-explosion warhead of comparable size to the BUK.

    [Oct 24, 2016] Eli Lake a dork who used to be the National Security Correspondent for the Daily Beast exercises in Russophobia on Bloomberg

    Notable quotes:
    "... So… Russia is already isolated, its economy is in shreds… or not? Because you can't have isolation (as you, pressitudes, claimed since 2014) of Russia and demand it at the same time! At the same time, no – ignoring Russia completely and talking only about "plox, don't use nukes, m'cay?" is not a "diplomacy". ..."
    "... Absolutely schizophrenic Clinton-McFoul (yes, I know that his surname is spelled differently), which is still dominants in the alls of power of the West boils down to the following: ..."
    "... 1) Talk harsh (really harsh!) with Russia on things we don't like ..."
    "... 2) Cooperate with Russia when it possible as if never happened. ..."
    "... And when Russia says that there are direct links between 1) and 2), that you can't expect to get 2) after doing 1) – there is no use to fake a hurt innocence of Ukrainians from this old anecdote with the "А на за що?!" punchline, ..."
    "... You want war? You will have one! Want peace? Then behave yourself accodringly. ..."
    "... Eli Lake is a dork who used to be the 'National Security Correspondent' for the Daily Beast. You know what a rag that is. Also, he was educated at Trinity College, a private liberal-arts school. ..."
    "... I know how we can reach a compromise – me and the Russian government. Every year on the day that article was published, they could have "Eli Lake Day". On that day, an American company could be chosen at random to be kicked out of the country and have all its assets confiscated. The documents could lead off with, "Congratulations! You have been selected to receive the Eli Lake Award for Bankruptcy. You can thank Eli Lake and his big fucking mouth". ..."
    Oct 22, 2016 | marknesop.wordpress.com

    Lyttenburgh , October 14, 2016 at 6:24 am

    Unsurprisingly – this article is from the Blub-blub-bloomberg. What is surprising – it's not by Lyonya Bershidski. It's by another titan of handshakability – Eli Lake.

    Treat Russia Like the International Poison It Is

    Why, surely with the name like that the article must be honest, objective and answer to all standards of the journalism (in the West)?

    I was again surprised when the now standard litany of Kremlin sins suddenly became an accusation of "Murder, Kidnapping and Jaywalking":

    "Russia also poisons the international system in small ways… It continues to support Kirsan Ilyumzhinov as head of the International Chess Federation, despite his chummy visits to rogue states like North Korea and Iran. His recent plan to hold the international chess championship in Iran has drawn protest from the U.S. women's chess champion, Nazi Paikidze-Barnes, because Iran requires women to cover their heads with a hijab."

    Wow. Yet another bottom is crushed successfully and the standards of journalism in the Free West get new way to fall! Or was it a secret way to endorse a "legitimate" head of the Chess Federation – fearless Gary Kimovich Kasparov?

    With new way to fall achieved by crashing yet another bottom the article takes a plunge:

    "Browder last month proposed a plan for Interpol to create a two-tiered system. Speaking before a human-rights commission in Congress, he said that transparent countries like the U.S. would have their red notice requests processed immediately, whereas countries like Russia, known to abuse the system, would have their requests reviewed by a panel of objective and independent experts before being sent out to member states."

    How handshakable! Surely, such approach will demonstrate the equality of countries in the international relations and the true value of the Rule of Law!

    The article ends in – now traditional for all Westie journos – couple of self-contradicting paragraphs:

    "None of this should preclude diplomacy with Russia. The U.S. and Russia should still have channels to discuss nuclear stockpiles and other matters. But as Secretary of State John Kerry has learned in his fruitless engagements, Russian promises are worthless. Everyone in U.S. politics, with the exception of Donald Trump and a few other extremists on the left and right, understands this. Russia is a pariah.

    Pariahs are not asked to cooperate on challenges to the global commons. They shouldn't get to host events like the World Cup, as Russia is scheduled to do in 2018. They should not be diplomatic partners in U.S. policy to disarm other pariahs like Iran. No, pariahs should be quarantined. With Russia, it's the very least the U.S. and its allies can do to save the international system from a country that seeks to destroy it."

    So… Russia is already isolated, its economy is in shreds… or not? Because you can't have isolation (as you, pressitudes, claimed since 2014) of Russia and demand it at the same time! At the same time, no – ignoring Russia completely and talking only about "plox, don't use nukes, m'cay?" is not a "diplomacy".

    Absolutely schizophrenic Clinton-McFoul (yes, I know that his surname is spelled differently), which is still dominants in the alls of power of the West boils down to the following:

    1) Talk harsh (really harsh!) with Russia on things we don't like

    2) Cooperate with Russia when it possible as if never happened.

    Now imagine that your neighbour decided to harm you in some nasty, really mean way. Imagine him throwing seeds on you car, parked outside, and then filming how birds land (and shit) o your car on his phone – with lots, and lots of really "smart" comments. Then your neighbor uploads this video on YouTube, his Facebook page, Twitter, Instagram etc, etc. Here he engages with other commenters in the vein of "Yeah, I know – he's a total douche! He got what he deserved! But wait, guys – I have more plans for my neighbour!!!:)".

    Next week he asks you to borrow him a landmover – as if nothing has ever happened before. And when Russia says that there are direct links between 1) and 2), that you can't expect to get 2) after doing 1) – there is no use to fake a hurt innocence of Ukrainians from this old anecdote with the "А на за що?!" punchline,

    You want war? You will have one! Want peace? Then behave yourself accodringly.

    marknesop , October 14, 2016 at 9:06 pm

    Eli Lake is a dork who used to be the 'National Security Correspondent' for the Daily Beast. You know what a rag that is. Also, he was educated at Trinity College, a private liberal-arts school. But the day will come when it is Russia's choice to punish Americans for the ignorant things people like Eli Lake said. I would do it in a heartbeat; I would chortle with glee as I tore up American proposals for joint ventures, and send balaclava-sporting kids dressed like Voina around to paint giant dicks on their office doors with the message, "This is for Eli", until they fled for the airport gibbering with terror. But that's me. Russia probably won't do it, because they are pragmatic and like business and profit.

    I know how we can reach a compromise – me and the Russian government. Every year on the day that article was published, they could have "Eli Lake Day". On that day, an American company could be chosen at random to be kicked out of the country and have all its assets confiscated. The documents could lead off with, "Congratulations! You have been selected to receive the Eli Lake Award for Bankruptcy. You can thank Eli Lake and his big fucking mouth".

    [Oct 23, 2016] In a remarkable conflict-of-interest, Fox News analyst and former Clinton operative Douglas E. Schoen has failed to disclosed to readers that hes been paid millions of dollars from Ukrainian agents to incite a war between the United States and Russia

    Notable quotes:
    "... Just a re-post from the last thread to the new . "In a remarkable conflict-of-interest, Fox News analyst and former Clinton operative Douglas E. Schoen has failed to disclosed to readers that he's been paid millions of dollars from Ukrainian agents to incite a war between the United States and Russia. ..."
    Oct 23, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org
    Terry | Oct 22, 2016 11:28:30 AM | 1
    Just a re-post from the last thread to the new . "In a remarkable conflict-of-interest, Fox News analyst and former Clinton operative Douglas E. Schoen has failed to disclosed to readers that he's been paid millions of dollars from Ukrainian agents to incite a war between the United States and Russia.

    Before inciting war with Russia, Schoen worked for Bill Clinton and brokered meeting (for $40,000 a month) between then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and billionaire oligarchs." http://www.dangerandplay.com/2016/09/09/fox-news-analyst-and-clinton-operative-douglas-e-schoen-accepted-millions-of-dollars-to-agitate-for-war-with-russia/

    rg the lg | Oct 22, 2016 11:29:52 AM | 2
    Personally I don't know if I 'trust' RT any more than I 'trust' American media ... but I do pay attention to both.

    Here's an article to get the ball rolling: what is propaganda? Who is guilty of propagandizing news?

    https://www.rt.com/op-edge/363737-rt-uk-msm-hysteria-russia/

    Of course, I truly think that Telesur is about as balanced as we can get.

    [Oct 23, 2016] We need to tell everyone that for the sake of the word. do not vote for this dangerous woman!

    Oct 23, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org

    "As president, I will make it clear that the United States will treat cyberattacks just like any other attack," the Democratic presidential nominee said. "We will be ready with serious political, economic and military responses. "

    We need to tell everyone that for the sake of the word. do not vote for this dangerous woman!

    Posted by: Tom Murphy | Oct 22, 2016 7:33:32 PM | 28

    [Oct 23, 2016] When security agencies are crying about Russians, that means they want more cash and might stage attacks themselves to justify the claims

    Notable quotes:
    "... Yes if next week motherland security and other 3 letter govt. are crying they need more cash to fight this then just maybe they did to themselves. ..."
    "... Internet hacks - it's this election cycle's white power in an envelope! ..."
    "... I would laugh so hard if a selection of sites [that] were shut down. ..."
    "... We so need to officially declare this whole bloody mess a parody: ..."
    Oct 23, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    jo6pac October 21, 2016 at 5:56 pm

    Funny they were warned that this could happen months ago

    https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20161021/09440935851/nice-internet-youve-got-there-you-wouldnt-want-something-to-happen-to-it.shtml

    Yes if next week motherland security and other 3 letter govt. are crying they need more cash to fight this then just maybe they did to themselves.

    RT is reporting the 3rd attack is underway.

    Tom October 21, 2016 at 6:18 pm

    Internet hacks - it's this election cycle's white power in an envelope!

    hunkerdown October 21, 2016 at 6:30 pm

    I trust the D involvement is meant to be implied by its conspicuous absence.

    Kokuanani October 22, 2016 at 1:55 am

    Do you mean white POWDER???

    Waldenpond October 21, 2016 at 3:45 pm

    I would laugh so hard if a selection of sites [that] were shut down. Waaah! Assange won't shut up! So Twitter, WL.org, Reddit, where else would make good spots to shut down discussion in these last days before the election. WL thought they had a good marketing gimmick going with the drip, drip and who knows maybe a special event for C's birthday? or creating a November surprise (I really liked that idea as it reflects how quickly info moves)

    The petty back and forth between C and WL on top is a sight.

    Steve H. October 21, 2016 at 5:51 pm

    We so need to officially declare this whole bloody mess a parody:

    https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/250

    [Oct 23, 2016] Did The White House Just Declare War On Russia

    Notable quotes:
    "... Submitted by Darius Shahtamasebi via TheAntiMedia.org, ..."
    "... Consider the source. Biden is a blowhard and an embarassment. He said it for domestic consumption. Obama knows the Russians are not responsible and he will do nothing. ..."
    "... > ... "... Joe Biden's statement that the White House was preparing to send Vladimir Putin a "message" ..." ..."
    "... Absolutely. If the US and Russia got together - talk about a SUPERPOWER. The NeoCons are way too stupid to realize what a win-win this could be ..."
    "... "Americans marvel at the level and effectiveness of brainwashing in North Korea, and express shock that North Koreans revere Kim Jung-un as god, but the truth is that Americans are every bit as brainwashed and just as effectively. The god most Americans worship today is materialism." ..."
    "... the patriot VA state Senator who knows the truth as well https://www.sott.net/article/318592-Virginia-State-Senator-Richard-Black... ..."
    Oct 23, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com

    Zero Hedge

    Submitted by Darius Shahtamasebi via TheAntiMedia.org,

    This past week, America's oldest continuously published weekly magazine, the Nation, asked the question : has the White House declared war on Russia?

    As the two nuclear powers sabre-rattle over conflicts within Syria, and to some extent, over the Ukrainian crisis, asking these questions to determine who will pull the trigger first has become more paramount than it was at the peak of the Cold War.

    The Nation's contributing editor, Stephen F. Cohen, reported Vice President Joe Biden's statement that the White House was preparing to send Vladimir Putin a "message" - most likely in the form of a cyber attack - amounted to a virtual "American declaration of war on Russia" in Russia's eyes. Biden's threat is reportedly in response to allegations that Russia hacked Democratic Party offices in order to disrupt the presidential election.

    Chuck Todd, host of the "Meet the Press" on NBC, asked Joe Biden: "Why haven't we sent a message yet to Putin?"

    Biden responded, "We are sending a message [to Putin] We have a capacity to do it, and "

    "He'll know it?" Todd interrupted.

    "He'll know it. It will be at the time of our choosing, and under the circumstances that will have the greatest impact," the U.S. vice president replied.

    What are the effects of this kind of rhetoric when dealing with international relations? Western media decided to pay little attention to Biden's statements, yet his words have stunned Moscow. As reported by the Nation:

    " Biden's statement, which clearly had been planned by the White House, could scarcely have been more dangerous or reckless - especially considering that there is no actual evidence or logic for the two allegations against Russia that seem to have prompted it."

    The statements will not come without any measured response from Russia. According to presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov, Russia's response is well underway:

    "The fact is, US unpredictability and aggression keep growing, and such threats against Moscow and our country's leadership are unprecedented, because the threat is being announced at the level of the US Vice President. Of course, given such an aggressive, unpredictable line, we have to take measures to protect our interests, somehow hedge the risks."

    The fact that our media refuses to pay attention to the dangers of our own establishment in sending warnings to adverse nuclear powers based on unasserted allegations shows our media is playing a very dangerous game with us - the people. This attempt to pull the wool over our eyes and prepare us for a direct confrontation with Russia can be seen clearly in the battle for Aleppo, Syria.

    As the Nation astutely noted:

    "Only a few weeks ago, President Obama had agreed with Putin on a joint US-Russian military campaign against 'terrorists' in Aleppo. That agreement collapsed primarily because of an attack by US warplanes on Syrian forces. Russia and its Syrian allies continued their air assault on east Aleppo now, according to Washington and the mainstream media, against anti-Assad 'rebels.' Where, asks Cohen, have the jihad terrorists gone? They had been deleted from the US narrative, which now accused Russia of 'war crimes' in Aleppo for the same military campaign in which Washington was to have been a full partner."

    So where is this conflict headed? A top U.S. general, Marine General Joseph Dunford, told the Senate Armed Services Committee in September of this year that the enforcement of a "no-fly zone" in Syria would mean a U.S. war with both Syria and Russia. Hillary Clinton is well aware of the repercussions of this war, as she acknowledged in a secret speech to Goldman Sachs (recently released by Wikileaks):

    "To have a no-fly zone you have to take out all of the air defense, many of which are located in populated areas. So our missiles, even if they are standoff missiles so we're not putting our pilots at risk - you're going to kill a lot of Syrians So all of a sudden this intervention that people talk about so glibly becomes an American and NATO involvement where you take a lot of civilians."

    This is the same establishment that has been calling out Russia for allegedly committing war crimes in Aleppo even though Clinton's proposal would result in far more civilian deaths and likely lead to a direct war with Russia.

    As the war against Syria transitions into a much wider global conflict that could include nuclear powers Russia and China, our own media is deceiving us by dishonestly reporting on the events leading up to the activation of the doomsday clock.

    History doesn't occur in a vacuum; when the U.S. and Russia confront each other directly, it won't be because of a mere incident occurring in Syrian airspace.

    It will be because the two nuclear powers have been confronting each other with little resistance from the corporate media, which keeps us well entertained and preoccupied with political charades , celebrity gossip , and outright propaganda .


    manofthenorth -> TeamDepends •Oct 23, 2016 8:17 PM

    So this Jester has no connection to CIA/NSA ?

    This hack after the threat from short bus Joe is a pure coincidence right ?

    http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/jester-hacks-russian-ministry/

    847328_3527 -> manofthenorth •Oct 23, 2016 8:24 PM

    Zacktly. It's the NSA who is leaking the crooked DNC emails. Not Vlad.

    MalteseFalcon d 847328_3527 •Oct 23, 2016 8:50 PM

    "What are the effects of this kind of rhetoric when dealing with international relations? "

    Consider the source. Biden is a blowhard and an embarassment. He said it for domestic consumption. Obama knows the Russians are not responsible and he will do nothing.

    PrayingMantis -> TeamDepends Oct 23, 2016 8:37 PM

    > ... "... Joe Biden's statement that the White House was preparing to send Vladimir Putin a "message" ..."

    ... it might've been the other way around ... Mother Russia had already sent them a "message" in Sept but they failed to respond ...

    >>> "... 30 Israeli, Foreign Intelligence Officers Killed in Russia's Caliber Missile Attack in Aleppo ..." >>> http://en.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13950631000607

    ... "... Several US, Turkish, Saudi, Qatari and British officers were also killed along with the Israeli officers. The foreign officers who were killed in the Aleppo operations room were directing the terrorists' attacks in Aleppo and Idlib. ..."

    Jim in MN -> jmack Oct 23, 2016 8:05 PM

    This is why Israhell is furious with this Prez. And why they are seen in the Podesta emails making sure that none of 'those two-state solution' people get into key foreign/defense posts under Her Fury.

    It's going to be all war, all the time, boys, according to Israeli timetables and objectives.

    Unless We The People say NO on Nov. 8 and make it stick.

    General Titus -> Jim in MN Oct 23, 2016 8:16 PM

    Interesting that you bring up the "two-state solution" speculation along those lines goes like this. Clinton & Rabin were working on a two-state solution Rabin was assinated and Clinton was trolled by a modern day "Esther" to ensnare Clinton and destroy the two-state solution. You heard it here first on ZH my friend

    jmack -> Jim in MN Oct 23, 2016 8:24 PM

    Fuck all you anti-semetic trolls, probably all false flag fags anyway. Your ramblings don't make sense.

    Jim in MN -> jmack Oct 23, 2016 8:27 PM

    https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/2649

    Suck it. We have proof.

    Jethro -> jmack •Oct 23, 2016 8:14 PM

    Anti-colonial agenda. Plus, Barry was bottom bitch to his Paki lover back in the day.

    Mandel Bot -> jmack •Oct 23, 2016 8:33 PM

    Absolutely. If the US and Russia got together - talk about a SUPERPOWER. The NeoCons are way too stupid to realize what a win-win this could be.

    ebworthen •Oct 23, 2016 7:59 PM

    Hitlary and the M.I.C. (and Wall Street/D.C. Imperial City) have no idea how much at risk they put themselves and the rest of us.

    Russia has been here and where America never has been, and they have defeated many, many, a foe. Abject stupidity to poke the Russian bear and disrespect our agreements post WWII and Cold War.

    Shameful, absolutely shameful! Rot in HELL you D.C. Vichy!

    RawPawg •Oct 23, 2016 7:59 PM

    Meanwhile...in 'Merica. Sunday afternoon Football stands are Full. very surreal given the times we live in,eh?

    Lost in translation -> RawPawg •Oct 23, 2016 8:23 PM

    After I explained that Americans don't care about the Podesta emails as long as the NFL is on, and have no idea what WikiLeaks is but can tell you everything about the NLCS, Mrs. Lost said...

    "Americans marvel at the level and effectiveness of brainwashing in North Korea, and express shock that North Koreans revere Kim Jung-un as god, but the truth is that Americans are every bit as brainwashed and just as effectively. The god most Americans worship today is materialism."

    General Titus Oct 23, 2016 8:02 PM

    The native Orthodox Christian Russian people took back their nation when they collapsed the Soviet Union and drove the mass murdering Bolsheviks out, many of whom came to the US & EU nations

    ""You must understand, the leading Bolsheviks who took over Russia were not Russians. They hated Russians. They hated Christians. Driven by ethnic hatred, they tortured and slaughtered millions of Russians without a shred of human remorse. It cannot be overstated, Bolshevism committed the greatest slaughter of all time. The fact that most of the world is ignorant and uncaring about this enormous crime is proof that the global media is in the hands of the perpetrators"""

    Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

    General Titus -> i poop pink ice cream Oct 23, 2016 8:59 PM
    Just spreading awareness my friend. TYVM for the gratz. Here's a great one for the truth about the war to destroy secular Syria.

    http://www.moonofalabama.org/

    and the patriot VA state Senator who knows the truth as well https://www.sott.net/article/318592-Virginia-State-Senator-Richard-Black...

    lakecity55 •Oct 23, 2016 8:07 PM

    Hey, Russians, We The People are not mad or at war with you. If you want to whack the Assholes in Vichy, however, go ahead!! You will have our thanks!

    evildimensions -> lakecity55 •Oct 23, 2016 8:19 PM

    Agreed. Just because we have a mad president, please don't think that we Americans are mad (in the British sense of the word). We wish the Russian people no harm. In fact, many of us, myself included, cheer your efforts in Syria to wipe out the rabid dogs of ISIS.

    Please keep bombing the living shit out of them. And this is important, so please listen carefully...

    Not degrade...Not diminish...Not contain...

    Wipe out. AS IN WIPE THEM THE FUCK OUT.

    [Oct 23, 2016] Putin on Hillary or Trump

    Oct 23, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org

    https://twitter.com/rodriQuez/status/789555582663479296

    Posted by: From The Hague | Oct 22, 2016 12:51:37 PM | 9

    [Oct 23, 2016] The USA now is in the political position that in chess is called Zugzwang

    Notable quotes:
    "... I would agree that Trump is horrible candidate. The candidate who (like Hillary) suggests complete degeneration of the US neoliberal elite. ..."
    "... But the problem is that Hillary is even worse. Much worse and more dangerous because in addition to being a closet Republican she is also a warmonger. In foreign policy area she is John McCain in pantsuit. And if you believe that after one hour in White House she does not abandon all her election promises and start behaving like a far-right republican in foreign policy and a moderate republican in domestic policy, it's you who drunk too much Cool Aid. ..."
    "... In other words, the USA [workers and middle class] now is in the political position that in chess is called Zugzwang: we face a choice between the compulsive liar, unrepentant, extremely dangerous and unstable warmonger with failing health vs. a bombastic, completely unprepared to governance of such a huge country crook. ..."
    Oct 23, 2016 | angrybearblog.com
    likbez October 22, 2016 11:20 pm

    The key problems with Democratic Party and Hillary is that they lost working class and middle class voters, becoming another party of highly paid professionals and Wall Street speculators (let's say top 10%, not just 1%), the party of neoliberal elite.

    It will be interesting to see if yet another attempt to "bait and switch" working class and lower middle class works this time. I think it will not. Even upper middle class is very resentful of Democrats and Hillary. So many votes will be not "for" but "against". This is the scenario Democratic strategists fear the most, but they can do nothing about it.

    She overplayed "identity politics" card. Her "identity politics" and her fake feminism are completely insincere. She is completely numb to human suffering and interests of females and minorities. Looks like she has a total lack of empathy for other people.

    Here is one interesting quote ( http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/10/how-trump-and-clinton-gave-bad-answers-on-us-nuclear-policy-and-why-you-should-be-worried.html#comment-2680036 ):

    "What scares me is my knowledge of her career-long investment in trying to convince the generals and the admirals that she is a 'tough bitch', ala Margaret Thatcher, who will not hesitate to pull the trigger. An illuminating article in the NY Times ( http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/24/magazine/how-hillary-clinton-became-a-hawk.html ) revealed that she always advocates the most muscular and reckless dispositions of U.S. military forces whenever her opinion is solicited. "

    Usually people are resentful about Party which betrayed them so many times. It would be interesting to see how this will play this time.

    Beverly Mann October 23, 2016 12:00 pm

    It will be interesting to see if yet another attempt to "bait and switch" working class and lower middle class works this time?

    Yup. The Republicans definitely have the interests of the working class and lower middle class at heart when they give, and propose, ever deeper tax cuts for the wealthy, the repeal of the estate tax that by now applies only to estates of more than $5 million, complete deregulation of the finance industry, industry capture of every federal regulatory agency and cabinet department and commission or board, from the SEC, to the EPA, to the Interior Dept. (in order to hand over to the oil, gas and timber industries vast parts of federal lands), the FDA, the FTC, the FCC, the NLRB, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and the Justice Dept. (including the Antitrust Division)-to name only some.

    And OF COURSE it's to serve the interests of the working class and lower middle class that they concertedly appoint Supreme Court justices and lower federal court judges that are unabashed proxies of big business.

    And then there's the incessant push to privatize Social Security and Medicare. It ain't the Dems that are pushing that.

    You're drinking wayyy too much Kool Aid, likbez. Or maybe just reading too much Ayn Rand, at Paul Ryan's recommendation.

    beene October 23, 2016 10:31 am

    I would suggest despite most of the elite in both parties supporting Hillary, and saying she has the election in the bag is premature. In my opinion the fact that Trump rallies still has large attendance; where Hillary's rallies would have trouble filling up a large room is a better indication that Trump will win.

    Even democrats are not voting democratic this time to be ignored till election again.

    likbez October 23, 2016 12:56 pm

    Beverly,

    === quote ===
    Yup. The Republicans definitely have the interests of the working class and lower middle class at heart when they give, and propose, ever deeper tax cuts for the wealthy, the repeal of the estate tax that by now applies only to estates of more than $5 million, complete deregulation of the finance industry, industry capture of every federal regulatory agency and cabinet department and commission or board, from the SEC, to the EPA, to the Interior Dept. (in order to hand over to the oil, gas and timber industries vast parts of federal lands), the FDA, the FTC, the FCC, the NLRB, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and the Justice Dept. (including the Antitrust Division) -- to name only some.

    And OF COURSE it's to serve the interests of the working class and lower middle class that they concertedly appoint Supreme Court justices and lower federal court judges that are unabashed proxies of big business.
    === end of quote ===

    This is all true. But Trump essentially running not as a Republican but as an independent on (mostly) populist platform (with elements of nativism). That's why a large part of Republican brass explicitly abandoned him. That does not exclude that he easily will be co-opted after the election, if he wins.

    And I would not be surprised one bit if Dick Cheney, Victoria Nuland, Paul Wolfowitz and Perle vote for Hillary. Robert Kagan and papa Bush already declared such an intention. She is a neocon. A wolf in sheep clothing, if we are talking about real anti-war democrats, not the USA brand of DemoRats. She is crazy warmonger, no question about it, trying to compensate a complete lack of diplomatic skills with jingoism and saber rattling.

    The problem here might be that you implicitly idealize Hillary and demonize Trump.

    I would agree that Trump is horrible candidate. The candidate who (like Hillary) suggests complete degeneration of the US neoliberal elite.

    But the problem is that Hillary is even worse. Much worse and more dangerous because in addition to being a closet Republican she is also a warmonger. In foreign policy area she is John McCain in pantsuit. And if you believe that after one hour in White House she does not abandon all her election promises and start behaving like a far-right republican in foreign policy and a moderate republican in domestic policy, it's you who drunk too much Cool Aid.

    That's what classic neoliberal DemoRats "bait and switch" maneuver (previously executed by Obama two times) means. And that's why working class now abandoned Democratic Party. Even unions members of unions which endorses Clinton are expected to vote 3:1 against her. Serial betrayal of interests of working class (and lower middle class) after 25 years gets on nerve. Not that their choice is wise, but they made a choice. This is "What's the matter with Kansas" all over again.

    It reminds me the situation when Stalin was asked whether right revisionism of Marxism (social democrats) or left (Trotskyites with their dream of World revolution) is better. He answered "both are worse" :-).

    In other words, the USA [workers and middle class] now is in the political position that in chess is called Zugzwang: we face a choice between the compulsive liar, unrepentant, extremely dangerous and unstable warmonger with failing health vs. a bombastic, completely unprepared to governance of such a huge country crook.

    Of course, we need also remember about existence of "deep state" which make each of them mostly a figurehead, but still the power of "deep state" is not absolute and this is a very sad situation.

    Beverly Mann, October 23, 2016 1:57 pm

    Good grace.

    Two points: First, you apparently are unaware of Trump's proposed tax plan, written by Heritage Foundation economists and political-think-tank types. It's literally more regressively extreme evn than Paul Ryan's. It gives tax cuts to the wealthy that are exponentially more generous percentage-wise than G.W. Bush's two tax cuts together were, it eliminates the estate tax, and it gives massive tax cuts to corporations, including yuge ones.

    Two billionaire Hamptons-based hedge funders, Robert Mercer and his daughter Rebekah, have been funding a super PAC for Trump and since late spring have met with Trump and handed him policy proposals and suggestions for administrative agency heads and judicial appointments. Other yuge funders are members of the Ricketts family, including Thomas Ricketts, CEO of TD Ameritrade and a son of its founder.

    Two other billionaires funding Trump: Forrest Lucas, founder of Lucas Oil and reportedly Trump's choice for Interior Secretary if you and the working class and lower middle class folks whose interests Trump has at heart get their way.

    And then there's Texas oil billionaire Harold Hamm, Trump's very first billionaire mega-donor.

    One of my recurring pet peeves about Clinton and her campaign is her failure to tell the public that these billionaires are contributing mega-bucks to help fund Trump's campaign, and to tell the public who exactly they are. As well as her failure to make a concerted effort to educate the public about the the specifics of Trump's fiscal and deregulatory agenda as he has published it.

    As for your belief that I idealize Clinton, you obviously are very new to Angry Bear. I was a virulent Sanders supporter throughout the primaries, to the very end. In 2008 I originally supported John Edwards during the primaries and then, when it became clear that it was a two-candidate race, supported Obama. My reason? I really, really, REALLY did not want to see another triangulation Democratic administration. That's largely what we got during Obama's first term, though, and I was not happy about it.

    Bottom line: I'm not the gullible one here. You are.

    likbez, October 23, 2016 2:37 pm

    You demonstrate complete inability to weight the gravity of two dismal, but unequal in their gravity options.

    All your arguments about Supreme Court justices, taxes, inheritance and other similar things make sense if and only if the country continues to exist.

    Which is not given due to the craziness and the level of degeneration of neoliberal elite and specifically Hillary ("no fly zone in Syria" is one example of her craziness). Playing chickens with a nuclear power for the sake of proving imperial dominance in Middle East is a crazy policy.

    Neocons rule the roost in both parties, which essentially became a single War Party with two wings. Trump looks like the only chance somewhat to limit their influence and reach some détente with Russia.

    Looks like you organically unable to understand that your choice in this particular case is between the decimation of the last remnants of the New Deal and a real chance of WWIII.

    This is not "pick your poison" situation. Those are two events of completely difference magnitude: one is reversible (and please note that Trump is bound by very controversial obligations to his electorate and faces hostile Congress), the other is not.

    We all should do our best to prevent the unleashing WWIII even if that means temporary decimation of the remnants of New Deal.

    Neoliberalism after 2008 entered zombie state, so while it is still strong, aggressive and bloodthirsty it might not last for long. And in such case the defeat of democratic forces on domestic front is temporary.

    That means vote against Hillary.

    [Oct 23, 2016] We need to tell everyone that for the sake of the world future do not vote for this dangerous woman!

    Oct 23, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org

    "As president, I will make it clear that the United States will treat cyberattacks just like any other attack," the Democratic presidential nominee said. "We will be ready with serious political, economic and military responses. "

    We need to tell everyone that for the sake of the word. do not vote for this dangerous woman!

    Posted by: Tom Murphy | Oct 22, 2016 7:33:32 PM | 28

    [Oct 23, 2016] The 30 Seconds After The Last Debate That CNN Would Rather You Did not See

    Notable quotes:
    "... And continued and constant propaganda-peddling that the race is over because Trump's sexual assault allegations are "sucking all the air out of the room" compared to Hillary's stream of WikiLeaks facts. ..."
    "... CNN made the mistake of asking its focus group of real Americans who won the final debate... and instantly regretted it... ..."
    "... The media is just going to claim a winner on election night no matter what happens. You can't know otherwise. ..."
    "... I know that in my day to day dealings, as a businessman and as a private individual, I am taking every opportunity to fuck over the main stream media and anyone that works in it, hard and without mercy. ..."
    "... As Trump said CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC, Wash Post, NYT working hard to elect Hillary Rodent. ..."
    "... Rep Sheila Jackson (D) continues to embarrass herself by denouncing Wikipedia for engaging in espionage. ..."
    Oct 23, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    And continued and constant propaganda-peddling that the race is over because Trump's sexual assault allegations are "sucking all the air out of the room" compared to Hillary's stream of WikiLeaks facts.

    CNN made the mistake of asking its focus group of real Americans who won the final debate... and instantly regretted it...

    Catullus Oct 22, 2016 5:30 PM ,

    The media is just going to claim a winner on election night no matter what happens. You can't know otherwise.
    hedgeless_horseman Catullus Oct 22, 2016 5:39 PM ,

    I know that in my day to day dealings, as a businessman and as a private individual, I am taking every opportunity to fuck over the main stream media and anyone that works in it, hard and without mercy.

    These opportunities are many and significant. I am enjoying it. Consequences, bitchezzz!!!

    Chris Dakota Crisismode Oct 22, 2016 8:43 PM ,
    As Trump said CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC, Wash Post, NYT working hard to elect Hillary Rodent.

    Rep Sheila Jackson (D) continues to embarrass herself by denouncing Wikipedia for engaging in espionage.

    She is the congresswoman from Mars

    Claimed we sent a man to Mars

    We won the Vietnam war

    Hurricanes need more diverse names

    Wore a gold Hillary Clinton campaign pin Wednesday to a House Judiciary Committee hearing on the FBI investigation into Clinton's private email server.

    http://tammybruce.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/sheila-jackson-lee-1.png

    [Oct 23, 2016] The Dangers of Hillary Clinton

    Oct 23, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    Fred C. Dobbs : October 23, 2016 at 02:46 PM

    The Dangers of Hillary Clinton
    http://nyti.ms/2exQNfF
    NYT - Ross Douthat - Oct 23

    A vote for Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump, the Clinton campaign has suggested in broad ways and subtle ones, isn't just a vote for a Democrat over a Republican: It's a vote for safety over risk, steady competence over boastful recklessness, psychological stability in the White House over ungovernable passions.

    This theme has been a winning one for Hillary, in her debates and in the wider campaign, and for good reason. The perils of a Trump presidency are as distinctive as the candidate himself, and a vote for Trump makes a long list of worst cases - the Western alliance system's unraveling, a cycle of domestic radicalization, an accidental economic meltdown, a civilian-military crisis - more likely than with any normal administration.

    Indeed, Trump and his supporters almost admit as much. "We've tried sane, now let's try crazy," is basically his campaign's working motto. The promise to be a bull in a china shop is part of his demagogue's appeal. Some of his more eloquent supporters have analogized a vote for Trump to storming the cockpit of a hijacked plane, with the likelihood of a plane crash entirely factored in.

    But passing on the plane-crash candidate doesn't mean ignoring the dangers of his rival.

    The dangers of a Hillary Clinton presidency are more familiar than Trump's authoritarian unknowns, because we live with them in our politics already. They're the dangers of elite groupthink, of Beltway power worship, of a cult of presidential action in the service of dubious ideals. They're the dangers of a recklessness and radicalism that doesn't recognize itself as either, because it's convinced that if an idea is mainstream and commonplace among the great and good then it cannot possibly be folly.

    Almost every crisis that has come upon the West in the last 15 years has its roots in this establishmentarian type of folly. The Iraq War, which liberals prefer to remember as a conflict conjured by a neoconservative cabal, was actually the work of a bipartisan interventionist consensus, pushed hard by George W. Bush but embraced as well by a large slice of center-left opinion that included Tony Blair and more than half of Senate Democrats.

    Likewise the financial crisis: Whether you blame financial-services deregulation or happy-go-lucky housing policy (or both), the policies that helped inflate and pop the bubble were embraced by both wings of the political establishment. ...

    (Crises happen. How are these two linked? The first came about because we were in the throes of 9/11. The 2nd arguably because we were in the delayed throes of a dot.com bubble collapse. And with a president who was out of his depth.)

    likbez -> Fred C. Dobbs...

    == quote ===
    The dangers of a Hillary Clinton presidency are more familiar than Trump's authoritarian unknowns, because we live with them in our politics already. They're the dangers of elite groupthink, of Beltway power worship, of a cult of presidential action in the service of dubious ideals. They're the dangers of a recklessness and radicalism that doesn't recognize itself as either, because it's convinced that if an idea is mainstream and commonplace among the great and good then it cannot possibly be folly.
    === end of quote ===
    That looks like indirect attack on neocons which is atypical for NYT.

    IMHO the main danger of Hillary presidency is the danger of WWIII due to her own jingoism and recklessness as well as outsize neocons influence in her administration (she is the person who promoted Cheney's associate Victoria Nuland, who got us into Ukrainian mess).

    As such outweighs all possible dangers of Trump presidency by a wide margin.

    Voting for Hillary is like voting for John McCain in a pantsuit in order to prevent decimation of the remnants of the New Deal inherent in Trump administration.

    Trump at least gives us some chance of détente with Russia.

    Just look how mainstream Republicans are bashing Trump http://www.usnews.com/opinion/op-ed/articles/2016-10-20/third-debate-highlights-why-hillary-clinton-must-win-donald-trump-must-not

    Also he faces hostile Congress and "deep state", while Hillary is a creature of "deep state", a marionette, if you wish, which will continue the current disastrous interventionist foreign policy.

    Of course Trump can be co-opted by "deep state" too. That's also a danger.

    There is a nice cartoon, probably from Times, that I found at

    US Presidential Elections of 2016 as a referendum on neoliberal globalization

    [Oct 23, 2016] analysis of nationalism, religion, and ethnicity by Zerocalcare

    Oct 23, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    DJG October 21, 2016 at 5:11 pm

    Monitoring tweets to see who can get into our walled garden.

    Recently, Zerocalcare, one of Italy's best young graphic novelists, whose politics can be described as anarchist but jokey, Roman but semi-serious, was denied a visa to attend Comicon in New York. The grounds are that his passport showed recent travel in Syria and Iraq. Our minders didn't have to read tweets. They only had to read his most recent book, Kobane Calling, in which he illustrates a trip by a group of anarchistic Italians to Iraqi Kurdistan and Rojava in Syria. His analysis of nationalism, religion, and ethnicity is quite subtle. Plenty of highly amusing uses of Roman dialect, which is known for "lewdness." Also, many bathroom jokes–but that's an Italian national characteristic (don't call anyone a stronzo, ne).

    Meanwhile, Zerocalcare was also nominated for a Strega Prize last year in narrative for his graphic novel, Dimentica il Mio Nome, about his mother and grandmother and their mysterious family. He is the first Italian graphic novelist to be nominated for one of the major prizes.

    Obvious an undesirable alien. Peter Thiel is so much more acceptable, as is Henry Kissinger.

    RWood October 21, 2016 at 7:29 pm

    https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/5403378.Zerocalcare

    [Oct 23, 2016] Trump wins. Problem: he will be completely alone. The Neocons have total, repeat total, control of the Congress, the media, banking and finance, and the courts.

    Notable quotes:
    "... From Clinton to Clinton they have deeply infiltrated the Pentagon, Foggy Bottom, and the three letter agencies. The Fed is their stronghold. How in the world will Trump deal with these rabid "crazies in the basement"? ..."
    "... When Putin came to power he inherited a Kremlin every bit as corrupt and traitor-infested as the White House nowadays. As for Russia, she was in pretty much the same sorry shape as the Independent Nazi-run Ukraine. Russia was also run by bankers and AngloZionist puppets and most Russians led miserable lives. ..."
    Oct 23, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org

    From The Hague | Oct 22, 2016 12:48:39 PM | 8

    Option two: Trump wins. Problem: he will be completely alone. The Neocons have total, repeat total, control of the Congress, the media, banking and finance, and the courts. From Clinton to Clinton they have deeply infiltrated the Pentagon, Foggy Bottom, and the three letter agencies. The Fed is their stronghold. How in the world will Trump deal with these rabid "crazies in the basement"?

    When Putin came to power he inherited a Kremlin every bit as corrupt and traitor-infested as the White House nowadays. As for Russia, she was in pretty much the same sorry shape as the Independent Nazi-run Ukraine. Russia was also run by bankers and AngloZionist puppets and most Russians led miserable lives.

    http://www.unz.com/tsaker/the-us-is-about-to-face-the-worst-crisis-of-its-history-and-how-putins-example-might-inspire-trump/

    [Oct 22, 2016] Congress does not declare war, which is its constitutional responsibility. Instead, a few buttons are pressed and, with only a brief and quickly forgotten spurt of news stories that obscure more than they reveal, we are at war

    Oct 22, 2016 | marknesop.wordpress.com

    Northern Star ,

    October 20, 2016 at 11:44 am
    Succinct exposure of continuing American psycho militaristic aggression in ME:
    "The United States no longer enters wars as we did in earlier eras. Our president does not announce that we have taken up a new cause in a distant land. Congress does not declare war, which is its constitutional responsibility. Instead, a few buttons are pressed and, with only a brief and quickly forgotten spurt of news stories that obscure more than they reveal, we are at war."
    http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016/10/19/plunges-into-war-with-yemen/STkGyrSwoHiCvIeP2gm6CM/story.html
    yalensis , October 20, 2016 at 5:55 pm
    But we have always been at war with Eastasia.
    Or was that Oceania?
    I forget marknesop , October 20, 2016 at 10:17 pm
    That's a good piece; reasonable, and well-substantiated. I think a lot of Americans today do not realize what a deliberate and considered process becoming involved in war is supposed to be. He's absolutely correct that the doctrine has evolved from 'advise and consent' to 'it's easier to obtain forgiveness than permission'.

    [Oct 22, 2016] Andrew Mitchell was not alone in rattling the rusty sabre by suggesting we shoot down Russian jets over Syria. We also had Boris Johnson, our Foreign Secretary, demanding - in the manner of a clownish ayatollah - that people should protest outside the Russian embassy

    Notable quotes:
    "... Boris said this in response to the Russian and Syrian government air attacks upon Aleppo, which were certainly brutal. Then, about a week later, the West began, with clinical precision, to identify people in the last Iraqi Isis stronghold of Mosul with really radical beards and bomb them to smithereens, mercifully and humanitarianly sparing the local, decent, democratically minded citizens, who of course escaped the bombardment without so much as a graze. ..."
    "... In Ukraine, Russia was the designated fall-guy for having NATO snuggled right up against its cheek, an overtly hostile military alliance which has advertised itself as Russia's enemy. ..."
    "... In Crimea, similarly, Russia was looking at the probability of a NATO naval base right next door. The reasons for Russia's intervention in Syria are more complicated and were both geostrategic and economic, but had nothing whatever to do with belligerence. The USA was never invited into Syria, yet had been bombing in Syria – ostensibly against ISIS, but making no secret of Washington's desire that Assad be overthrown – for nearly two years before Russia stepped in, and few suggested the USA was being belligerent. ..."
    "... The problem, then, is not that they are spreading misinformation, but that Russia Today is spreading truthful information which the UK government finds extremely unhelpful. Is it non-biased and non-partisan, does it always give balance and right of reply? No, no and thrice no. Does the BBC? ..."
    Oct 22, 2016 | marknesop.wordpress.com

    Jeremn , October 20, 2016 at 8:16 am

    Oh, this is good. And the comments.

    "Andrew Mitchell was not alone in rattling the rusty sabre by suggesting we shoot down Russian jets over Syria. We also had Boris Johnson, our Foreign Secretary, demanding - in the manner of a clownish ayatollah - that people should protest outside the Russian embassy.

    Boris said this in response to the Russian and Syrian government air attacks upon Aleppo, which were certainly brutal. Then, about a week later, the West began, with clinical precision, to identify people in the last Iraqi Isis stronghold of Mosul with really radical beards and bomb them to smithereens, mercifully and humanitarianly sparing the local, decent, democratically minded citizens, who of course escaped the bombardment without so much as a graze."

    http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/10/stop-this-stupid-sabre-rattling-against-russia/

    marknesop , October 20, 2016 at 8:03 pm
    Still full of shite, of course – Britain cannot seem to write anything which is not, and it's only a matter of degree. Putin is neither overtly homophobic (I have no idea what his personal beliefs are, which is as it should be, you should not be able to tell) nor belligerent. In Ukraine, Russia was the designated fall-guy for having NATO snuggled right up against its cheek, an overtly hostile military alliance which has advertised itself as Russia's enemy.

    This was meant to be brought about by means of a political coup, because NATO did not want to risk putting it to a vote, although it deliberately exaggerated the broadness of Ukrainian enthusiasm for a European future.

    In Crimea, similarly, Russia was looking at the probability of a NATO naval base right next door. The reasons for Russia's intervention in Syria are more complicated and were both geostrategic and economic, but had nothing whatever to do with belligerence. The USA was never invited into Syria, yet had been bombing in Syria – ostensibly against ISIS, but making no secret of Washington's desire that Assad be overthrown – for nearly two years before Russia stepped in, and few suggested the USA was being belligerent.

    yalensis , October 20, 2016 at 5:42 pm

    The problem, then, is not that they are spreading misinformation, but that Russia Today is spreading truthful information which the UK government finds extremely unhelpful. Is it non-biased and non-partisan, does it always give balance and right of reply? No, no and thrice no. Does the BBC?

    Ha ha – This is a good writing!

    [Oct 22, 2016] Israel doesn't have to worry about a stand up fight with the Syrian Army. No, they have to worry about small unit and irregular warfare, inside Israel. That's the kind of spillover a hotted up Syrian "Civil War" would produce

    Oct 22, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    ambrit October 21, 2016 at 4:02 pm

    Notice that Netanyahu is suddenly "mending fences" with Russia. Could someone have whispered in his ear; "Low yield nuke over Tel Aviv?" It needn't be Russia directly. Say Hizbullah is 'gifted' a Pakistani warhead through some devious back channels. America is running a proxy war in Syria. Nothing says that Russia, or China cannot do something similar.
    I see no discussion of spillover effects to Libya's neighbors. Think of the spillover effects attendant to major chaos in Syria!

    cocomaan October 21, 2016 at 4:08 pm

    It is definitely interesting to me how quiet Israel has been for awhile now.

    Spillover from Syria has definitely already begun, right? Just today, the protests in Paris are, I believe, a result of the influx of immigrants.

    What the heck is it going to look like when HRC starts bombing and Syria falls into even further disrepair?

    ambrit October 21, 2016 at 4:46 pm

    Israel doesn't have to worry about a stand up fight with the Syrian Army. No, they have to worry about small unit and irregular warfare, inside Israel. That's the kind of spillover a hotted up Syrian "Civil War" would produce. Say, the Syrians and Russians establish their own "No Fly Zone" over southern Syria, and enforce it against all comers, including the Israeli Air Force. Then supply convoys to Hizbullah in Lebanon would really ramp up. Voila! The Lebanon Israel border heats up by orders of magnitude.
    I am convinced that H Clinton does not understand the forces she wants to juggle with.
    Where in America would you resettle the millions of refuges from the destruction of Israel?

    craazyboy October 21, 2016 at 5:00 pm

    Miami. Jewish Heaven. We even overbuilt the condos for this very eventuality.

    [Oct 22, 2016] The No Fly Zone was the strategy used to destroy Gaddafi. It's HRC's telegraph for invasion.

    Oct 22, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    cocomaan October 21, 2016 at 3:00 pm

    I respect Juan Cole as a scholar, but his political commentary got so muddled in apologizing for the Libyan disaster. I wrote him several times about problems in the Sahel, particularly among Tuareg, resulting from the Libyan invasion, but he wriggled out of it, going to Libya and talking about how great it was there and otherwise excusing the massacre.

    Why suggest a no fly zone in Syria that can't be implemented. It is baffling.

    Is it really that baffling? Read her emails. The No Fly Zone was the strategy used to destroy Gaddafi. It's HRC's telegraph for invasion.

    Cole misses that when Wallace asked her if she'd shoot down a Russian plan that violated the no-fly zone, she dodged.

    Not surprising, as it's the Libya playbook.

    [Oct 22, 2016] Clinton re Russia: Is it hubris, stupidity, or conspiracy, or some combination of the three?

    Oct 22, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    WJ October 21, 2016 at 4:03 pm

    So what are people's sense of Clinton re Russia? Is it hubris, stupidity, or conspiracy, or some combination of the three? I ask because her Wall Street speeches and foreshadowed Grand Bargain are clearly conspiratorial; while her nonchalant violation of every security protocol seems pure hubris; I guess I don't see how war with Russia could really benefit her that much, unless she thinks it's the one thing that can keep her from being impeached; is that it, or is it something else that's driving this, or just stupidity?

    Harry October 21, 2016 at 5:44 pm

    All the very serious people know the Russians are gonna cave. Who would fight a nuclear war for Syria/ukraine? They can't match the US conventionally so we can just bleed them till they let go.

    What could go wrong?

    LifelongLib October 22, 2016 at 3:27 am

    "They can't match the U.S. conventionally "

    It's been pointed out here that wargame scenarios of Russia vs NATO usually come out with Russia winning. Why wouldn't that apply to other areas as well?

    OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL October 21, 2016 at 5:50 pm

    It's much simpler: it's money.

    The War on Terra is getting tiresome and as pointed out above doesn't justify the really big hardware, aircraft carriers, tanks etc.

    They need a bigger enemy to keep the $$$ flowing from the chump taxpayer's pockets to billionaire Raytheon shareholders' accounts in Panama. She serves Money and Death, and does a really good job of it. You'd even say she's an expert.

    And one point: GE owns NBC, and GE makes billions from war machines. Can't have a president who might slow down the revenue stream, better yet to get a woman to put a friendly face on WW III and why we need it so badly. Kinda like getting a young African American to sell health care extraction and bank crimes and how they're really good, if just more young people would sign up and if people would just stop "peddling fiction" about how awesome the economy is.

    Sandy October 21, 2016 at 6:57 pm

    GE has not owned NBC for almost six years now.

    OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL October 21, 2016 at 7:28 pm

    Oops! Good news then, I guess we really do have a diverse and unbiased press with no interest is furthering the prospects of one candidate over another.

    aab October 21, 2016 at 7:37 pm

    Comcast owns NBC Universal now.

    Its CEO golfs with Obama on the regular.

    Roland October 21, 2016 at 4:20 pm

    WJ wrote about Clinton on Russia: " Is it hubris, stupidity, or conspiracy, or some combination of the three?"

    Or is it that she thinks that the USA can fight a war against Russia, and win?

    I suspect that a lot of the US foreign policy establishment are feeling bullish about their BMD systems. They feel sure that they have finally escaped the toils of MAD. In other words, they feel convinced, if it comes down to it, the USA can affordably prevail over Russia in a war at any level of escalation, even though that would demand that the USA launch first strike.

    If you want to see arrogance, just wait to see how that US elite behaves after they win a major war, and come to enjoy truly unchecked power.

    Pat October 21, 2016 at 4:37 pm

    I'm sure. Luckily odds are most of us will be dead before that happens. Because it will either be a long long time from now OR most of the country will be destroyed before victory can be declared long enough to gloat.

    If it weren't for the fact that it is a such a godawful idea for everyone BUT the elites, I'd almost like to see the latter possibility which includes the loss of a whole lot of very expensive "toys". But there are still humans attached to those toys, it will take a lot for them to get they aren't winning, and even then they won't take responsibility for the massive amounts of damage their hubris and sociopathy have caused – see Clinton in re either Honduras or Libya or both.

    craazyboy October 21, 2016 at 4:55 pm

    I'm pretty sure the Pentagon does NOT believe that our BMD systems can protect against a full scale Russian ICBM attack on the US mainland. I would hope if any foreign policy types believed so, they would be quickly garroted from behind with piano wire.

    Then again, maybe they did go ahead and convert a bunch of West Virginia coal mines to luxury condos, like Dr. Strangelove suggested.

    Harry October 21, 2016 at 5:15 pm

    And that's why a first strike is so important!

    Let's hope the Russians havnt worked this out.

    OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL October 21, 2016 at 8:16 pm

    Russia has re-stated their policy not to strike first. By contrast, in 2012 Obama reversed America's long-standing commitment not to do so.
    That we are even discussing this shows just how far the War Party and their money pig-men have descended into true clinical mental illness territory, Dr. Strangelove has nothing on the levels of reality-bending criminal insanity of our Dear Leaders.

    Wj October 21, 2016 at 5:48 pm

    No idea if this is accurate or not, but Wikipedia states that BMD systems are not effective against ICBMs, which can now travel at hypersonic (Mach 5-6) speeds delivering up to eight separate warheads (!) with pinpoint accuracy. So that's something to look forward to.

    jo6pac October 21, 2016 at 6:01 pm

    True and amazing enough Russia can take ours out before reenter.

    ewmayer October 21, 2016 at 8:14 pm

    That depends on whether one's definition of "effective" refers to actual antimissile defense or, say, raking in buttloads of $ in DoD contracts.

    uncle tungsten October 21, 2016 at 11:17 pm

    I do like the piano wire remedy :-{). There are a bunch of people in the State Department that signed a memo recently that clearly fit the requisite description for its use.

    [Oct 22, 2016] People see the elite lying over the Iraq war - which Trump brags he opposed - and then they see the elite Hillary and DNC using Russia interference as a way to distract for the content of the leaked emails

    Oct 22, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    Peter K. -> EMichael... October 22, 2016 at 09:44 AM

    "In the run up to the Iraq War when false intelligence abounded and dominated the discussion,"

    The problem is that you see everything through a Donkey vs Elephant prism in stark Manichean terms.

    People see the elite lying over the Iraq war - which Trump brags he opposed - and then they see the elite Hillary and DNC using Russia interference as a way to distract for the content of the leaked emails.

    They don't see Hillary as their champion, just another lying elite.

    Obama's NSA chief blatantly lied to the American people and said they weren't spying on us en masse.

    Why should we trust them about anything?

    If (when) Hillary is elected I'm sure she'll make Russia pay if it's behind these hacks. Otherwise Russia is an excuse not to discuss the hacked email.

    Maybe Putin is that stupid and he feels threatened over the way Hillary championed the democratic opposition in a recent election, but it seems to me to be colossally stupid for Russia to pick a fight with the U.S.

    You don't think Hillary is going to push back if (when) she's elected? Given that she's a hawk and was courting the support of hawks like Paul Wolfowitz during the election she was probably going to push Russia anyway no matter the hacking.

    Dan Kervick -> Peter K.... , October 22, 2016 at 09:54 AM
    I think many Americans are deeply skeptical by now of the competence, aims and basic good will of much of the US foreign policy establishment. Faced with a choice between the Putin approach to global security and stability, and that represented by the zealot, neocon-tilting HRC wing of the US establishment, it's a tough call.

    Clinton has had abundant opportunity to attempt to distance herself from the many Iraq-era neocons who are embracing her campaign. She hasn't. That is telling and worrisome.

    Dan Kervick -> Dan Kervick... , October 22, 2016 at 09:56 AM
    And yeah, just to redouble Peter's point, few citizens instinctively trust the US government when they say, "We have intelligence that ..."
    ilsm -> EMichael... , October 22, 2016 at 10:21 AM
    WW III is major part of Hillary job creation plan.
    anne -> Julio ... , October 22, 2016 at 10:31 AM
    The crazily prejudiced disdain * that folks at the Economist have for Russia by the way extends to China. The Economist reflects perfectly the British regret that China is no longer part of what was a sun-never-sets empire. As for Russia, the prejudiced disdain that has been fostered by the foreign policy establishment is blinding.

    What was the position of the economist on invading Iraq? Right.

    * Precisely so.

    [Oct 22, 2016] HRC and her cronies think it is a good idea to stir up trouble with Russia! Talk about opportunity cost at the very least.

    Oct 22, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Pat October 21, 2016 at 2:28 pm

    Someone who a few months ago told me "no one is stupid enough to want war with Russia", just this week changed that to "no one wants a hot war" and "we don't have the troops for a hot war" because well it turns out that Clinton knows the no fly zone will mean war with Russia.
    Sadly this is one of the many who think that Clinton is the sane one.

    Everything tells me that whatever the real goal (and no it is not obvious what that is) Hillary Rodham Clinton is stupid enough to not care about war with Russia, doesn't understand that we don't have the troops for a hot war, and frankly is perfectly willing to play chicken with a nuclear power killing this country in the process. So far, Putin has been far saner than Hillary Clinton has ever been, but I'm pretty damn sure his patience is wearing out. I can only hope that Europe begins to wake up and realize that America following the wishes of SA and Israel are causing their refugee problems NOT Russia. And sanely decide that following America further down the rat hole is a loser for them and the world, because that might be the only thing that wakes them up from their fevered dream.

    Pavel October 21, 2016 at 2:59 pm

    Luckily (for the planet) I suspect Putin is content to play the long game - increase the alliance (especially economic) with China, build up relationships with e.g. Iran and Turkey (and now cf Philippines), and most of all court the EU states who are most terrified of increased sabre-rattling by the US.

    It is so bizarre that in such an unstable world with such critical issues - global warming, horrific global debt and faltering bubble-based economies, Mideast chaos - HRC and her cronies think it is a good idea to stir up trouble with Russia! Talk about "opportunity cost" at the very least.

    Mark P. October 21, 2016 at 3:24 pm

    The War on Terror has never really been profitable enough for the military-industrial complex, and anyway may be approaching its sell-by date. The MIC wanted a return to big-platform - aircraft carriers, big ships, enormously expensive new planes, and missile systems, big artillery - programs and spending.

    For big-platform spending you need a big-platform enemy to justify it. Hence, the Russkies. Patrick Cockburn is good on this.

    Not incidentally, the arms industry of the early 20th century was a big reason for WWI; probably including in July 1914 being behind the assassination of Jean Jaurès, a top French socialist, who was blocking it.

    OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL October 21, 2016 at 5:38 pm

    The fun one to watch today is the US Army versus the CIA (Milo Minderbinder would be thrilled).
    In Iraq the US Army is supporting the government against al-Qaeda in Mosul. In Syria of course the CIA is backing al-Qaeda in Aleppo against the government.

    So the breathless press coverage of the son et lumiere of the Mosul push is turning into a dud. Why? Because al-Qaeda is slinking away out of Mosul. But where are they going? Oh, look, the US is helpfully providing buses to take 6000 of them to the fight in Syria, once they cross that imaginary line known as "the border" they magically turn into good guys again.

    Cue John McCain high-fiving! And cue Lurch our Secretary of State, telling the UN and the world that Russia is the one that is guilty of war crimes. LOLOLOLOL

    [Oct 22, 2016] Hillarys Puppet Screed

    Oct 22, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com

    What a nasty, corrupt and dishonest woman is running for PORUS...

    The American Conservative

    For months she had only intimated it, or delegated the real dirty work to her surrogates and campaign staff, but at the final televised debate this week Hillary Clinton finally let loose: Donald Trump is "a puppet" of the Kremlin, she declared.

    It's worth pausing to consider just how extreme and incendiary that allegation is. For Trump to be a "puppet" of a hostile foreign power-especially Russia, arguably America's oldest continuous adversary-would be an event of earth-shaking magnitude, unrivaled in all U.S. history. It would mean that by some nefarious combination of subterfuge and collusion, the sinister Russian leader Vladimir Putin had managed to infiltrate our political system at its very core, executing a Manchurian Candidate -style scheme that would've been dismissed as outlandish in even the most hyperbolic 1960s-era espionage movie script.

    Trump is often accused of violating the "norms" that typically govern the tenor of U.S. presidential campaigns. And these accusations very often have validity: at the same debate, he declined to preemptively endorse the legitimacy of the election outcome, which appears to be without precedent. As everyone is now keenly aware, he's unleashed a constant torrent of brash histrionics that defy discursive standards and violate "norms" of many kinds-You're rigged! I'm rigged! We're all rigged!

    But Hillary too violated a longstanding norm this week with her "puppet" screed, which was the culmination of her campaign's months-long effort to tarnish Trump as a secret Russian lackey using the kind of retrograde nomenclature ("Puppet"? Really?) that would've made even the most hardened old-time Cold Warrior blush. Because of Hillary's barb, there will henceforth be a precedent for accusing a rival major-party nominee of being a stealth agent of a fearsome foreign power, based on only the flimsiest of circumstantial evidence.

    Extrapolating from Trump's stated belief that cooperation, rather than antagonism, with nuclear-armed Russia is desirable, Hillary's boosters have long surmised that he must therefore be under the spell of a devious foreign spymaster: it can't be that he genuinely prefers to be friendly with Russia and forge an alliance with their military. The only tenable explanation by their lights is this harebrained mind-control conspiracy theory.

    One central irony to all this is that Trump basically has the same position vis-à-vis Russia as Barack Obama. As Trump pointed out in the Wednesday night debate, Obama attempted to broker a military alliance with Putin's Russia only a few weeks ago; it fell through after American forces in Syria bombed soldiers loyal to Assad in direct contravention of the terms of the agreement. But it was an instance of deal-making nevertheless, so if Trump is guilty of accommodating the dastardly Russian menace, Obama must be similarly guilty.

    Hillary's increasingly hostile rhetoric on the homefront also likely contributed to "nuking" the accord with Russia, as she's repeatedly accused Putin of subverting the American electoral process by way of hacks, as well as lambasting him as the "grand godfather'' of global extremist movements-including the U.S. "alt-right."

    It would be one thing if these fantastic claims were ever substantiated with ample evidence, but they're just not. At the debate, Hillary attributed her theory regarding the Russian orchestration of recent hacks on her campaign and the Democratic National Committee to unnamed "intelligence professionals." These unspecified individuals have also failed to produce tangible evidence linking Russia to Trump, or Russia to the hacks. They are also the same sorts of people whose proclamations about Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq were uncritically parroted by media allies.

    She launched into the "puppet" rant after moderator Chris Wallace quoted an excerpt from one of her speeches delivered to a foreign bank, which had been published by WikiLeaks. It should be reiterated that Hillary had actively concealed these speech transcripts over the course of the entire presidential campaign, and the only reason the American public can now view them is thanks to WikiLeaks. But in an effort to change the subject from her newly revealed (and damning) comments before admiring cadres of financial elites, Hillary accused the rogue publishing organization of being party to a Russian plot. "This has come from the highest levels of the Russian government, clearly, from Putin himself," Hillary proclaimed.

    What evidence has been furnished that demonstrates "Putin himself" directed such efforts? Absolutely none that we are yet aware of. One could feasibly posit that such a blithe willingness to launch baseless attacks against foreign leaders is indicative of a poor temperament on Hillary's part; it's exactly the kind of bluster that could escalate into hot conflict, and will likely sour the U.S.-Russia bilateral relationship for years to come under a prospective Clinton Administration.

    In addition to accusing Putin of hacking the U.S. election, Hillary again announced her staunch support for a "no-fly zone" in Syria, which would necessitate the deployment of thousands more U.S. ground troops to the war-torn country and provoke direct, hostile confrontation with Russia, which is sustaining its client Assad. When asked by Wallace if she would authorize the shoot-down of Russian warplanes, Hillary evaded the question. (A simple "no" would've been nice.)

    It's long been known that Hillary is a hawk; she is supported by many of the same neoconservatives who once gravitated to George W. Bush. But her bellicosity toward Russia, which climaxed with the "puppet" diatribe, demonstrates that her hawkish tendencies are far from conventional; they are extreme. Hillary seems to be at her most animated (and one might say, perhaps even crazed) when she is aiming ire at supposed foreign adversaries, which of late has almost entirely been Russia, Russia, Russia. (Russia was the number-one topic broached at all this year's debates, according to a tally by Adam Johnson of the media-watchdog organization FAIR.)

    The tenor of the international situation has gotten exceptionally dire. Last Friday it was reported that the CIA is preparing to launch an "unprecedented" cyberattack on Russia; relations between the two states are at a dangerous nadir not seen in decades, to the point that former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev has warned that a nuclear exchange is perilously likely.

    Trump, for all his faults, has long advocated a sort of détente .

    So why aren't these developments front-and-center in media coverage of the campaign? Instead, it's still a relentless focus on Trump's many foibles, notwithstanding what appears to be Hillary's steady sleepwalk into a potentially catastrophic war.

    Michael Tracey is a journalist based in New York City.

    [Oct 22, 2016] The Dangers of Centrist Internationalism

    Responsibility to protect in reality degenerated in another means to launch the wars of neoliberal empire expansion.
    Oct 22, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com

    The American Conservative

    There was another part of the Post article I cited in my last post that I wanted to address:

    "The dynamic is totally different from what I saw a decade ago" when Democratic and Republican elites were feuding over the invasion of Iraq, said Brian Katulis, a senior Middle East analyst at the Center for American Progress. Today, the focus among the foreign policy elite is on rebuilding a more muscular and more "centrist internationalism," he said [bold mine-DL].

    Every term used in that last sentence is either misleading or flat-out wrong. A more aggressive policy in Syria or anywhere else shouldn't be described as "muscular" for a few reasons. For one thing, committing the U.S. to short-sighted and ill-conceived military interventions does nothing to enhance the strength or security of the country. Such a policy doesn't build strength–it wastes it. Calling an aggressive policy "muscular" betrays a bias that aggressive measures are the ones that demonstrate strength, when they usually just demonstrate policymakers' crude and clumsy approach to foreign problems. One might just as easily describe these policies as meat-headed instead.

    "Centrist" is one of the most overused and abused words in our politics. The term is often used to refer to positions that are supposedly moderate, pragmatic, and relatively free of ideological bias, but here we can see that it refers to something very different. Many people that are considered to be "centrists" on the normal left-right political spectrum are frequently in favor of a much more aggressive foreign policy than the one we have now, but that doesn't make their foreign policy a moderate or pragmatic one. In fact, this "centrism" is not really a position in between the two partisan extremes, both of which would be satisfied with a less activist and interventionist foreign policy than we have today, but represents an extreme all its own.

    Besides, there's nothing moderate or pragmatic about being determined to entangle the U.S. deeper in foreign wars, and that is what this so-called "centrist" foreign policy aims to do.

    Likewise, it is fairly misleading to call what is being proposed here internationalist. It shows no respect for international law. Hawkish proposals to attack Syria or carve out "safe zones" by force simply ignore that the U.S. has no right or authority to do either of these things. There appears to be scant interest in pursuing international cooperation, except insofar as it is aimed at escalating existing conflicts. One would also look in vain for working through international institutions. The only thing that is international about this "centrist internationalism" seems to be that it seeks to inflict death and destruction on people in other countries.

    [Oct 22, 2016] The alternative to trump is not a progressive candidate. It is a corrupt neocon warmonger with health problems

    Oct 22, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    ilsm : , -1
    The alternative to trump is not progressive.

    A theme among trump supporters is "lack of trust". Who knows what Hillary* stands for and how the dnc spins.

    The distrust flows with the progressive alliance with librul morals.

    * aside from more bombing than bushco.

    marcus nunes : , October 22, 2016 at 03:55 AM
    Kocherlakota:"Another possibility, highlighted in Yellen's speech, is that the recovery engineered by the Fed was so slow that it did (possibly reversible) damage to the supply side -- for example, as long-term unemployment eroded the skills and motivation of workers"
    Unfortunately they won´t give up their favorite Phillips Curve Model:
    https://thefaintofheart.wordpress.com/2016/03/18/the-fomc-its-forecasts/
    anne -> marcus nunes ... , October 22, 2016 at 05:35 AM
    Really nice argument with which I agree, however I have also been wondering just how damage to the supply side has been done by these years of war:

    http://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/files/cow/imce/papers/2016/Costs%20of%20War%20through%202016%20FINAL%20final%20v2.pdf

    September, 2016

    US Budgetary Costs of Wars through 2016: $4.79 Trillion and Counting
    Summary of Costs of the US Wars in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and Pakistan and Homeland Security
    By Neta C. Crawford

    ilsm -> anne... , October 22, 2016 at 06:00 AM
    The sovereign could blow things up to assure a fiction called 'security' or it could build things that are real.

    Bastiat wrote about this 160 years ago, when Frances was building fortresses that failed 3 times from 1870.

    marcus nunes -> anne... , October 22, 2016 at 06:35 AM
    Anne, wars are certainly "destructive", but why should this one damage the supply side so much more than all the other wars?
    anne -> marcus nunes ... , -1
    Anne, wars are certainly "destructive", but why should this one damage the supply side so much more than all the other wars?

    [ I would argue that the unprecedented amount of time taken by the wars, the important actual spending and what was not spent as a result of the constraint of spending on the wars. Also, while there was spending on the wars which bolstered the economy, I would argue this spending did relatively little to build a productive base for the economy.

    We could properly argue that digging ditches and filling them in provides needed work and support for the economy in a recession, but we were lots better off productively because of New Deal ditch digging and filling designed for the Tennessee Valley Authority. ]

    anne -> Global Famine Cannibalism... , October 22, 2016 at 08:14 AM
    But just think what all of our pre-emptive invasions did to the global environment....

    [ A refrain that I have often read, but have no reference just now, is that American militarism has been the price of economic advance or well-being. Likely because I am bothered by militarism and such a generality, I have never set down a reference. But, I have not thought about the environmental effects of war since 2001. ]

    JohnH -> anne... , October 22, 2016 at 08:44 AM
    The other problem with foreign wars is that, to the extent that money is spent abroad and stays there, they represent leakage to the US economy...IOW they are a contractionary force. Of course, there is no reporting on how much of the DOD budget gets spent abroad and stays there. However, leasing alone of 800 plus military bases can't be cheap...

    OTOH digging ditches and filling them in keeps money in the economy and probably even has a positive multiplier.

    anne -> JohnH... , -1
    The money spent abroad argument is faulty as such, since dollars spent in abroad on development programs will in turn be spent in the United States. China has begun a "one belt, one road" program in which large, large sums will be spent on infrastructure from Russia and Mongolia to Laos and Cambodia to Pakistan and Bangladesh... to build an Asian trading network.

    Money spent abroad on fighting however is another matter.

    anne -> marcus nunes ... , -1
    http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1105628

    November, 2003

    The Most Technologically Progressive Decade of the Century
    By Alexander J. Field

    Abstract

    There is now an emerging consensus that over the course of U.S. economic history, multifactor productivity grew fastest over a broad plateau between 1905 and 1966, and within that period, in the two decades following 1929. This paper argues that the bulk of the achieved productivity levels in 1948 had already been attained before full scale war mobilization in 1942. It was not principally the war that laid the foundation for postwar prosperity. It was technological progress across a broad frontier of the American economy during the 1930s.

    Ghost of Christmas Future : , -1
    $800 billion trade deficit still not a major topic in economics. This is incredible. The US has only 5% of the world's population yet we are absorbing more than a third of the global trade surplus of surplus economies.

    Is it easier for 5% of the world to absorb $800 billion a year in annual trade deficits or would it be easier for 95% of the world able to do that? A trade surplus for the US of $800 billion is much more reasonable. A swing of $1.6 trillion in aggregate demand would have enormous consequences for US development, stability and unemployment levels. A commitment to industry, combined with low interest loans, government contracts and high tariffs would lead to a boom in industrial investment rather than its virtual absence. The working class could actually find jobs working again rather than being forced into the drug trade and prison - even people in the destroyed cities of Camden, Chicago and Buffalo could find hope again. We could get 10-14% annual GDP growth as 25-50 factories were built a day. (We lost 15 a day from 2000-2010 with our economists not noticing or caring) Why does the US settle for economic destruction when Vietnam, Singapore, China, Israel etc. etc. show that growth and development are easy? Why must we accept poverty and deindustrialization? Why do Americans need to be forced to return to stone age subsistence agriculture, street commerce, prostitution, begging, the drug trade?

    The pointless destruction of the US as an economy, center of wealth and technology continues apace without attracting any attention from our serious economists. Trump should continue to focus on his message - Clinton won't fix anything, and things may very well collapse between now and November 2020. At which point Trump will be ideally positioned to champion the 40-70% of the population that is "new poor". Our last hope is that Trump wins in November 2016 or Nov. 2020 and as soon as he takes office both disbands all economics departments and raises tariffs to the necessary 300-400% range. Anything else is continued insane economic suicide.

    ilsm -> Fred C. Dobbs... , -1
    Hegemon needs all the tools it can scrape up to perpetrate its evil.

    Obama was going to end Iraghistan, now US has done Libya, is doing Syria and still losing lives and wasting treasure in Iraghistan.

    Obama advocated a nuclear free world until someone offered a reason to add $30B a year to the pentagon trough.

    Safety and reliability is a sham in the pentagon trough.

    The only use of nuclear weapons is extending the terror bpmbing which Le May and Bomber Harris perfected.

    Smaller nuclear yields add the the useless but very expensive read profitable strategy of bombing them "into the stone age".

    If the only strategy is count body bags then small nukes fit.

    Bottom line hegemon war is immoral.

    Adding $30B a year is adding opportunity cost to the immoral!

    Love of "security" (cash for the trough) is the root of all evil.

    ilsm -> anne... , -1
    $30B a year for nuclear arms modifications on top of the spending keeping the existing A-bombs ready to blow away the world for the hege0mon!!!!!

    Russia and China spending less than half the pentagon core budgets which do not include the munificent war supplements.

    Between Russia's $78B a year and China's $140B per year they have a long way to go with the US putting $500B a year in the core pentagon trough and adding plus ups for bombing Assad.

    However, if China is as efficient in war as in manufactures the $500B riddled with waste and welfare is concerning.

    [Oct 22, 2016] Russia has very obvious strategic interests in Syria. Among other things, it is trying to prevent the takeover of another country on its doorstep by Islamic jihadists, to halt the further

    Oct 22, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    destabilization of the Middle East, and to prop up a key ally in Russia's front against US expansionism.
    Carolinian October 21, 2016 at 7:29 pm

    Adam Curtis and his limitations–here's a taste from a review of new Beeb documentary

    Conversely, Curtis concludes with an assertion of such stunning political puerility that it undermines almost everything that has gone before. He argues of Putin's involvement in Syria: "The Russians are still there – and no one really knows what they want." Curtis does not know what "the Russians want" only because his perceptions have been carefully managed by the western media. Russia has very obvious strategic interests in being there. Among other things, it is trying to prevent the takeover of another country on its doorstep by Islamic jihadists, to halt the further destabilization of the Middle East, and to prop up a key ally in Russia's front against US expansionism.

    Perhaps Curtis' limitation is that he's on the BBC. Apparently you aren't allowed to say anything nice about Russia on Auntie. The review says Curtis also grants too many good intentions to our western imperial overlords.

    http://original.antiwar.com/cook/2016/10/20/adam-curtis-another-manager-perceptions/

    JCC October 21, 2016 at 8:30 pm

    Well worth listening to, particularly starting at approximately the 49 minute mark.

    Thanks for the link, it's all very good.

    Lambert Strether Post author October 22, 2016 at 2:32 am

    Yikes! Adam Curtis kidnapped and replaced by a pod person?

    Steve H. October 22, 2016 at 8:29 am

    "and no one really knows"

    'Hypernormalization' also contained false absolutes. However, Curtis is an artist, in that he has implicit messages contained within juxtapositions that aren't necessarily consciously constructed. It's valid but inadequate to criticize parts out of context of the whole piece.

    Probably best to watch it and judge for yourself.

    [Oct 22, 2016] Our American b.s. pretense of righteous conduct is seriously interfering with the political ability to arrive at a deliberately chosen policy likely to achieve strategically chosen objectives, to cooperate efficiently within the policy-making hierarchy, to cooperate with allies and rivals (like Russia, which probably does not see the U.S. as particularly trustworthy or even entirely rational in negotiation), and to generate public support and general legitimacy

    Oct 22, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    Layman 10.19.16 at 12:06 pm 391

    @LFC

    FFS, it was almost their first response! And the fact that they changed the story in less than 24 hrs, to blame the Afghan security forces instead, tells you the likely source of this story: their ass.

    'The US-led military coalition in Afghanistan issued a statement on Sunday that said US forces conducted an airstrike at 2:15am local time on Saturday "against insurgents who were directly firing upon US service members advising and assisting Afghan Security Forces in the city of Kunduz."'

    https://news.vice.com/article/msf-denies-taliban-fired-from-hospital-before-suspected-us-bombing

    Rich Puchalsky 10.19.16 at 12:37 pm

    Even as we write this, forces are advancing on Mosul to recapture the city from ISIL: the reason they can do this is because of U.S. airstrikes and troops. Refugee organizations expect something like 200,000-700,000 refugees from the city. The city was captured a couple of years ago when 1,000 Daesh fighters routed something like 60,000 defenders, mostly because the defenders weren't strongly motivated to defend: people in the city now have a counter-assassination resistance against ISIL executions.

    That is our intervention. Our bombs will not kill civilians in the city: the disparate groups of fighters that we support certainly won't commit the usual atrocities of war: the refugee crisis will no doubt be handled responsibly and will be fully resourced: when the city is recaptured, the ISIL fighters will be defeated once and for all and we'll never hear from them again.

    The people who support this are crazy. They are insane and I can only talk to them in the jocular way that you'd talk to people who are suffering from such severe mental illness that there is no way to rationally convince them that their delusions are not real. But these people have not been institutionalized: they are running our institutions.

    bruce wilder 10.19.16 at 1:41 pm 393

    LFC: Deliberately targeting noncombatants is a clear violation of law and norms, and it cannot be justified by saying: "well, we have to eliminate the violent rebels in this city, and we've offered a pause to allow the rebels to leave, but the rebels have declined the offer, and therefore the lives of the civilians [whether they be 30,000 or 200,000] in the city are of no particular concern to us, . . .

    The laws of war are a very particular and even peculiar species of bullshit. I am not a lawyer, let alone a military lawyer or specialist in such things, but from casual reading of news reporting, I think you are actually wrong in the above assertion. Giving a warning and an opportunity for combatants or civilians to vacate an area actually does open up a broad exception. "Exception" is probably the wrong term, technically, but in operation, . . . The offering of a warning, a pause and opportunities to vacate are all the laws of war require, in order to excuse the collateral damage that follows from combat operations against targets that are believed to shelter enemies among civilians.

    Layman 10.19.16 at 1:46 pm 394

    One need only ask two questions: How many non-combatants have been killed accidentally as 'collateral damage'? And how many military commanders have been punished for violating the 'laws of war' for killing non-combatants? The laws of war usually only apply to the losers. The winners seldom if ever apply them to themselves.
    bruce wilder 10.19.16 at 2:31 pm 395

    If you don't see any point in distinguishing between combatants and non-combatants (yes, the lines are sometimes blurry, but they are often very clear), and if you don't think that intentions are of any relevance - that is, if you think there's no difference whatsoever, for instance, between (1) deliberately blowing up a hospital and (2) accidentally bombing a hospital in a culpably negligent act of misidentification in the middle of a nighttime battle (as happened in a highly publicized case in Afghanistan a while back), then we can't have a conversation b.c we are operating in different universes of discourse.

    Do I think intentions are relevant? Maybe. Do I think statements of intention are relevant? Harder. I do not have any reliable way of sorting or confirming actual intentions, as distinguished from propaganda.

    I am afraid we are stuck with this universe of discourse. No one can offer LFC a corridor of safe flight to a more morally certain world.

    In my mind, I keep coming back to that NYT Mag profile of Ben Rhodes, the White House speechwriter (Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications) trying to manage U.S. foreign policy with rapid fire narratives. This is the world we live in. And, yes, it is one where it is not possible to distinguish between deliberately blowing up a hospital and accidentally in a culpable act of negligence blowing up a hospital. Not because there are not relevant moral distinctions, but because any story is built around those putative distinctions without much regard for facts. As Layman points out, the "information" given out by officials is dictated by a desire to manipulate public perceptions and deflect criticism and follows a predictable pattern unrelated to facts of a case.

    This discourse has become delusive, as Rich P says above. Sarcasm or mockery may be rude, but appropriate.

    Layman 10.19.16 at 3:10 pm 396

    "Do I think intentions are relevant? Maybe. "

    I don't think you can grant even this. Belligerents know full well that they will kill non-combatants with their preferred tactics, but they use those tactics anyway because 1) they deem it a fair trade off for achieving their objective while reducing the risk to their own combatants, and 2) they know there is little likelihood they will be called to account, and if they are they know they can rely on the 'intentions' defense.

    This is evident in their responses. Have they bombed a hospital, a school, a bomb shelter, a refugee center? Well, yes, but it was OK because someone was shooting at them from that place. Have they killed several hundred members of a wedding party? Well, it seems so, but they were just trying to kill a few people, and those few were hiding in a wedding party, the dastardly cowards! What else could they have done?

    OK be

    LFC 10.19.16 at 4:35 pm 404

    Bruce W.
    No one can offer LFC a corridor of safe flight to a more morally certain world.

    Actually Bruce you are the one who has hopped on the plane to a morally certain world, a world in which it is never possible to distinguish 'intentions' from 'propaganda' and thus a world in which one can rest secure in the certainty that judgments, however tentative, should never be attempted.

    bruce wilder 10.19.16 at 6:18 pm 405

    My phrase, "morally certain world" was poor. It doesn't denote what I meant.

    I think an objective observer, weighing the balance of likelihood, would conclude that the U.S. military targeted the MSF hospital and most probably did so, because the MSF hospital was only facility in the area where Taliban fighters could seek sophisticated medical treatment. That the choice of target originated in the U.S. chain of command was confirmed, so there is no dispute really that this choice was made, though the motivation and objective have been obscured and can only be surmised. No one was disciplined specifically for initiating the attack - we know this because no one was named let alone court martialled and sent to Leavenworth as would be nominally appropriate for such an unauthorized(?) act of murder and mayhem. The only discipline handed out was essentially administrative and only for the negligence and general snafus that allowed the rest of the chain of command to execute the attack without objection. Again, a reasonable and objective observer would wonder whether the initiator of the attack might not have had a hand in arranging things so that the attack went ahead and wasn't short-circuited by the ordinary and routine controls put in place to prevent such "mistakes".

    Presumably, this balance of likelihood is why the MSF wanted an investigation independent of the U.S. military's own self-examination.

    "Blaming the victim" should not be the primary issue, here, though, of course, in the prolonged sequence of contradictory explanations in an incident that attracted international attention at the highest levels, the U.S. did at various times officially claim that the Taliban were firing from the compound and that the MSF complex was not properly marked. There is no particular reason to think that the sequence of explanations arrived at anything resembling the truth; only a defensible redoubt of apologia.

    Whether the attack on the MSF hospital in Kunduz constituted a "war crime" isn't the issue I want to raise either. I think it was a war crime, but the U.S. has a general policy of committing war crimes while denying that policy, so unless you think denial is itself a singular virtue is, I do not understand the argument. If the problem is whether Russia is the bad guy and the U.S. is the good guy, I don't think the U.S. has much the better argument, at least on the face of it. Pretty much every "bad guy" atrocity in the record books has a corresponding atrocity with an American signature. Shoot down a passenger airliner? Check. Unprovoked aggressive war? Check. And so on.

    The thing that troubles me - the thing I want to draw attention to - is the delusive effect of letting moral narrative dominate all policy discussion.

    In the case of the Kunduz MSF hospital incident, the effect of moral-narrative-domination is that we do not know who in the U.S. chain-of-command decided MSF should clear out and the MSF hospital should close down (and people should be killed and maimed to achieve that objective). The civilian leadership presumably is not willing to own this policy choice, and they are willing to let the military bear the costs of demoralization, by disciplining, however mildly proportionate to the consequences for the dead and maimed victims, those in the chain of command responsible for the "negligence" which was ultimately trotted out as an excuse for "poor performance" (after several other explanations failed to stymie high-level criticism).

    Our American b.s. pretense of righteous conduct is seriously interfering with the political ability to arrive at a deliberately chosen policy likely to achieve strategically chosen objectives, to cooperate efficiently within the policy-making hierarchy, to cooperate with allies and rivals (like Russia, which probably does not see the U.S. as particularly trustworthy or even entirely rational in negotiation), and to generate public support and general legitimacy.

    I would submit that the ordinary purpose of international law is not to mandate just conduct per se, but to establish conventions that allow for political coordination, even between rivals, as well as facilitate hierarchical control of the state's forces for the centralized control of policy. And, domination-by-moral-narrative has become a serious handicap, a source of American foreign policy palsy cum dementia.

    I'm not taking the position that morality and ethical conduct do not matter. (I think long-time readers will realize I am something of an impractical idealist.) What I am trying to draw attention to is the effect of bull shit justifications: the narratives are drawn up in disregard for their factual truth value. (Disregard for truth value is kind of the definition of bull shit).

    In short, I think judgments should be attempted, even in the face of the obscuring propaganda, but I think we have to confront the propaganda as propaganda and the doubts and uncertainties it engenders, as well as the semi-deranged social climate of opinion it engenders, as Rich P points out.

    [Oct 22, 2016] I keep trying to imagine what special interest is so invested in the no-fly zone that they can force Hillary to keep proposing it, even though it is obviously no longer feasible

    Oct 22, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Procopius October 22, 2016 at 10:06 am

    I keep trying to imagine what special interest is so invested in the no-fly zone that they can force Hillary to keep proposing it, even though it is obviously no longer feasible. Is it just inertia? She is so used to pushing the idea that she brings it up without thinking, and then has to dodge out of the way? But the whole situation has passed out of the realm of rational thought. It reminds me of Vietnam.

    The idea the South and North Vietnam were separate countries was never true, but John Foster Dulles insisted on repeating the lie at every opportunity and after a while the Village all started to believe it.

    None of the stated goals in Syria make any sense any longer (if the ever did), but we keep pursuing them. Scary.

    [Oct 22, 2016] Nationalists and Populists Poised to Dominate European Balloting

    Oct 21, 2016 | www.bloomberg.com

    As Europeans assess the fallout from the U.K.'s Brexit referendum , they face a series of elections that could equally shake the political establishment. In the coming 12 months, four of Europe's five largest economies have votes that will almost certainly mean serious gains for right-wing populists and nationalists. Once seen as fringe groups, France's National Front, Italy's Five Star Movement, and the Freedom Party in the Netherlands have attracted legions of followers by tapping discontent over immigration, terrorism, and feeble economic performance. "The Netherlands should again become a country of and for the Dutch people," says Evert Davelaar, a Freedom Party backer who says immigrants don't share "Western and Christian values."

    ... ... ....

    The populists are deeply skeptical of European integration, and those in France and the Netherlands want to follow Britain's lead and quit the European Union. "Political risk in Europe is now far more significant than in the United States," says Ajay Rajadhyaksha, head of macro research at Barclays.

    ... ... ...

    ...the biggest risk of the nationalist groundswell: increasingly fragmented parliaments that will be unable or unwilling to tackle the problems hobbling their economies. True, populist leaders might not have enough clout to enact controversial measures such as the Dutch Freedom Party's call to close mosques and deport Muslims. And while the Brexit vote in June helped energize Eurosceptics, it's unlikely that any major European country will soon quit the EU, Morgan Stanley economists wrote in a recent report. But they added that "the protest parties promise to turn back the clock" on free-market reforms while leaving "sclerotic" labour and market regulations in place. France's National Front, for example, wants to temporarily renationalise banks and increase tariffs while embracing cumbersome labour rules widely blamed for chronic double-digit unemployment. Such policies could damp already weak euro zone growth, forecast by the International Monetary Fund to drop from 2 percent in 2015 to 1.5 percent in 2017. "Politics introduces a downside skew to growth," the economists said.

    [Oct 21, 2016] Those who vote for Hillary for the sake of stability need to be reminded that according to the Minsky Theory stability sometimes can be very destabilizing

    Oct 21, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    likbez -> Fred C. Dobbs... October 21, 2016 at 02:12 PM

    Please note that Hillary's path to the top was marked by proved beyond reasonable doubt DNC fraud. With information contained in recent email leaks some DNC honchos probably might go to jail for violation of elections laws. So for them this is a death match and people usually fight well when they are against the wall. The same in true about Obama and his entourage.

    And while this Nobel Peace Price winner managed to bomb just eight countries, Hillary might improve this peace effort, which was definitely insufficient from the point of view of many diplomats in State Department. Also the number of humanitarian bombs could be much greater. Here Hillary election can really help.

    From the other point of view this might well be a sign of the crisis of legitimacy of the US ruling neoliberal elite (aka financial oligarchy).

    After approximately 50 years in power the level of degeneration of the US neoliberal elite reached the level when the quality of candidates reminds me the quality of candidates from the USSR Politburo after Brezhnev death. Health-wise Hillary really bear some resemblance to Andropov and Chernenko. And inability of the elite to replace either of them with a more viable candidate speaks volumes.

    The other factor that will not go away is that Obama effectively pardoned Hillary for emailgate (after gentle encouragement from Bill via Loretta Lynch). Otherwise instead of candidate to POTUS, she would be a viable candidate for orange suit too. Sure, the rule of law is not applicable to neoliberal elite, so why Hilary should be an exception? But some naive schmucks might think that this is highly improper. And be way too much upset with the fruits of neoliberal globalization. Not that Brexit is easily repeatable in the USA, but vote against neoliberal globalization (protest vote) might play a role.

    Another interesting thing to observe is when (and if) the impeachment process starts, if she is elected. With some FBI materials in hands of the Congress Republicans she in on the hook. A simple majority of those present and voting is required for each article of impeachment, or the resolution as a whole, to pass.

    All-in-all her win might well be a Pyrrhic victory. And the unknown neurological disease that she has (Parkinson?) makes her even more vulnerable after the election, then before. The role of POTUS involves a lot of stress and requires substantial physical stamina as POTUS is the center of intersection of all important government conflicts, conversations and communications. That's a killing environment for anyone with Parkinson. And remember she was not able to survive the pressure of the role of the Secretary of State when she was in much better health and has an earlier stage of the disease.

    POTUS essentially does not belong to himself/herself for the term of the office (although Obama managed to slack in this role; was he on drugs the night of Benghazi killings ? http://www.redflagnews.com/headlines/plausible-theory-was-president-obama-high-on-coke-while-benghazi-burned-video)

    Another interesting question, if the leaks continue after the election. That also can contribute to the level of stress. Just anticipation is highly stressful. I do not buy the theory about "evil Russians." This hypothesis does not survive Occam razor test. I think that there some anti-Hillary forces within the USA ruling elite, possibly within the NSA or some other three letter agency that has access to email boxes of major Web mail providers via NSA.

    If this is a plausible hypothesis, that makes it more probable that the leaks continue. To say nothing about possible damaging revelations about Bill (especially related to Clinton Foundation), who really enjoyed his retirement way too much.

    Those who vote for Hillary for the sake of stability need to be reminded that according to the Minsky Theory stability sometimes can be very destabilizing

    Jay : October 21, 2016 at 01:36 PM , 2016 at 01:36 PM
    When Krugman is appointed to a top government post by Hillary Clinton we will be able to FOIA his pay and attach a value to all the columns "electioneering" Krugman has written.
    likbez -> anne...
    Anne,

    "An intolerably destructive essay that should never have been posted, and I assume no such essay will be posted again on this blog. Shameful, shameful essay."

    You mean that voting for the female warmonger with some psychopathic tendencies ("We came, we saw, he died") is not shameful ?

    An interesting approach I would say.

    I am not fun of Trump, but he, at least, does not have the blood of innocent women and children on his hands. And less likely to start WWIII unlike this completely out of control warmonger.

    With the number of victims of wars of neoliberal empire expansion in Iraq, Libya and Syria, you should be ashamed of yourself as a women.

    Please think about your current position Anne. You really should be ashamed.

    [Oct 21, 2016] I wonder if Victoria Nuland and Dick Cheney vote for Hillary

    Notable quotes:
    "... which may be the story one wishes for. But if there were a spread to compare her win against, it was Bernie who massively beat the spread. I'll leave it as an exercise to others to determine if her unfair advantages were as large as the winning margin. ..."
    "... He makes a good point and you dismiss it. You bashed Bernie Sanders and "Bernie Bros" during the primary. Then you lie about it. That's why you're the worst. Dishonest as hell. ..."
    "... Remember one thing anne, America is not a country. It is an idea. You cannot arrest it, murder it, or pretend it isn't there. We as a people are not perfect. But Mr Putin is stabbing directly at our democracy, not Hillary Clinton and not Paul Krugman. Time to be a little more objective, of which you are even more capable of than me. ..."
    "... It is not exactly McCarthyism as stated (although kthomas with his previous Putin comments looks like a modern day McCarthyist). I think this is a pretty clear formulation of the credo of American Exceptionalism -- a flavor of nationalism adapted to the realities of the new continent. ..."
    "... And Robert Kagan explained it earlier much better ... I wonder if Victoria Nuland and Dick Cheney vote for Hillary too. ..."
    Oct 21, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    point said...

    Krugman says:

    "...Mrs. Clinton won the Democratic nomination fairly easily..."

    which may be the story one wishes for. But if there were a spread to compare her win against, it was Bernie who massively beat the spread. I'll leave it as an exercise to others to determine if her unfair advantages were as large as the winning margin.

    Peter K. -> kthomas... , October 21, 2016 at 11:46 AM

    "Why do people like you pretend to love Sen Sanders so much!?"

    Why do you say he is pretending? What did he write to make you think that?

    Are you just a dishonest troll centrist totebagger like PGL.

    Peter K. -> to pgl...

    What does that have to do with anything?

    He makes a good point and you dismiss it. You bashed Bernie Sanders and "Bernie Bros" during the primary. Then you lie about it. That's why you're the worst. Dishonest as hell. Are most New Yorkers as dishonest as you, Trump, Guiliani, Christie, etc?

    kthomas -> anne... , October 21, 2016 at 10:59 AM
    No. I am a fan of Sen Sanders, and not even he would believe your nonsense. History will not remember it that way. What it will remember is how Putin Comrade meddled. And there is a price for that.

    Sen Sanders wanted one, stated thing: to push the narrative to the left. He marginally accomplished this. What he did succeed in was providing an opportunity for false-lefties like you and Mr Putin who seem to think that America is the root of all evil.

    Remember one thing anne, America is not a country. It is an idea. You cannot arrest it, murder it, or pretend it isn't there. We as a people are not perfect. But Mr Putin is stabbing directly at our democracy, not Hillary Clinton and not Paul Krugman. Time to be a little more objective, of which you are even more capable of than me.

    Peter K. -> kthomas... , October 21, 2016 at 11:48 AM
    I agree with Anne and completely disagree with those like you have drunk the Kool Aid. You're not objective at all.
    anne -> kthomas... , October 21, 2016 at 12:25 PM
    Sen Sanders wanted one stated thing: to push the narrative to the left. He marginally accomplished this. What he did succeed in was providing an opportunity for false-lefties like --- and -- ----- who seem to think that America is the root of all evil....

    [ Better to assume such an awful comment was never written, but the McCarthy-like tone to a particular campaign has been disturbing and could prove lasting. ]

    Julio -> kthomas... , -1
    "America is not a country. It is an idea. You cannot ...murder it..."

    [You're trying, with your McCarthyist comments.]

    likbez -> Julio ... , October 21, 2016 at 05:24 PM
    Julio,

    It is not exactly McCarthyism as stated (although kthomas with his previous Putin comments looks like a modern day McCarthyist). I think this is a pretty clear formulation of the credo of American Exceptionalism -- a flavor of nationalism adapted to the realities of the new continent.

    cal -> anne... , October 21, 2016 at 11:28 AM
    BS, a remarkable.
    No, I am sure he will be remembered more than that.

    Bernard Sanders, last romantic politician to run his campaign on an average of $37 from 3,284,421 donations (or whatever Obama said at The Dinner). Remarkable but ineffectual. A good orator in empty houses means he was practicing, not performing.

    Why does Obama succeed and Sanders fail? Axelrod and co.

    Peter K. -> cal... , -1
    He was written off by the like of Krugman, PGL, you, KThomas etc.

    He won what 13 million votes. Young people overwhelmingly voted for Sanders. He won New Hampshire, Colorado, Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, Washington, Oregon, etc. etc. etc. And now the "unromantic" complacent people have to lie about the campaign.

    pgl : , October 21, 2016 at 10:05 AM
    Josh Barro explains why he used to be a Republican but is now a Democrat:

    http://www.businessinsider.com/why-i-left-republican-party-register-democrat-2016-10

    He seems to have had it with Paul Ryan and Rubio.

    pgl -> pgl... , October 21, 2016 at 10:12 AM
    I was enjoying this until:

    "I have voted Republican, for example, in each of the past three New York City mayoral races."

    Joe Llota was racist Rudy Guiliani's minnie me. How on earth did Josh think he should be mayor of my city.

    likbez -> pgl...
    And Robert Kagan explained it earlier much better ... I wonder if Victoria Nuland and Dick Cheney vote for Hillary too.

    [Oct 21, 2016] The capitalist crisis and the radicalization of the working class in 2012 - World Socialist Web Site by David North

    Its from World Socialist Web Site by thier analysys does contain some valid points. Especially about betrayal of nomenklatura, and, especially, KGB nomenklatura,which was wholesale bought by the USA for cash.
    Note that the author is unable or unwilling to use the tterm "neoliberalism". Looks like orthodox Marxism has problem with this notion as it contradict Marxism dogma that capitalism as an economic doctrine is final stage before arrival of socialism. Looks like it is not the final ;-)
    Notable quotes:
    "... Russia Since 1980 ..."
    "... History reveals that the grandsons of the Bolshevik coup d'état didn't destroy the Soviet Union in a valiant effort to advance the cause of communist prosperity or even to return to their common European home; instead, it transformed Soviet managers and ministers into roving bandits (asset-grabbing privateers) with a tacit presidential charter to privatize the people's assets and revenues to themselves under the new Muscovite rule of men ..."
    "... The scale of this plunder was astounding. It not only bankrupted the Soviet Union, forcing Russian President Boris Yeltsin to appeal to the G-7 for $6 billion of assistance on December 6, 1991, but triggered a free fall in aggregate production commencing in 1990, aptly known as catastroika. ..."
    "... In retrospect, the Soviet economy didn't collapse because the liberalized command economy devised after 1953 was marked for death. The system was inefficient, corrupt and reprehensible in a myriad of ways, but sustainable, as the CIA and most Sovietologists maintained. It was destroyed by Gorbachev's tolerance and complicity in allowing privateers to misappropriate state revenues, pilfer materials, spontaneously privatize, and hotwire their ill-gotten gains abroad, all of which disorganized production. ..."
    "... The rapid growth and increasing complexity of the Soviet economy required access to the resources of the world economy. ..."
    "... For the Soviet bureaucracy, a parasitic social caste committed to the defense of its privileges and terrified of the working class, the revolutionary solution to the contradictions of the Soviet economy was absolutely unthinkable. The only course that it could contemplate was the second-capitulation to imperialism. ..."
    "... In other words, the integration of the USSR into the structure of the world capitalist economy on a capitalist basis means not the slow development of a backward national economy, but the rapid destruction of one which has sustained living conditions which are, at least for the working class, far closer to those that exist in the advanced countries than in the third world. ..."
    "... The Fourth International ..."
    "... The End of the USSR, ..."
    "... The report related the destruction of the USSR by the ruling bureaucracy to a broader international phenomenon. The smashing up of the USSR was mirrored in the United States by the destruction of the trade unions as even partial instruments of working-class defense. ..."
    "... Millions of people are going to see imperialism for what it really is. The democratic mask is going to be torn off. The idea that imperialism is compatible with peace is going to be exposed. The very elements which drove masses into revolutionary struggle in the past are once again present. The workers of Russia and the Ukraine are going to be reminded why they made a revolution in the first place. The American workers are going to be reminded why they themselves in an earlier period engaged in the most massive struggles against the corporations. The workers of Europe are going to be reminded why their continent was the birthplace of socialism and Karl Marx. [p. 25] ..."
    Jan 30, 2012 | www.wsws.org

    ... ... ...

    This analysis has been vindicated by scholarly investigations into the causes of the Soviet economic collapse that facilitated the bureaucracy's dissolution of the USSR. In Russia Since 1980, published in 2008 by Cambridge University Press, Professors Steven Rosefielde and Stefan Hedlund present evidence that Gorbachev introduced measures that appear, in retrospect, to have been aimed at sabotaging the Soviet economy. "Gorbachev and his entourage," they write, "seem to have had a venal hidden agenda that caused things to get out of hand quickly." [p. 38] In a devastating appraisal of Gorbachev's policies, Rosefielde and Hedlund state:

    History reveals that the grandsons of the Bolshevik coup d'état didn't destroy the Soviet Union in a valiant effort to advance the cause of communist prosperity or even to return to their common European home; instead, it transformed Soviet managers and ministers into roving bandits (asset-grabbing privateers) with a tacit presidential charter to privatize the people's assets and revenues to themselves under the new Muscovite rule of men. [p. 40]

    Instead of displaying due diligence over personal use of state revenues, materials and property, inculcated in every Bolshevik since 1917, Gorbachev winked at a counterrevolution from below opening Pandora's Box. He allowed enterprises and others not only to profit maximize for the state in various ways, which was beneficial, but also to misappropriate state assets, and export the proceeds abroad. In the process, red directors disregarded state contracts and obligations, disorganizing inter-industrial intermediate input flows, and triggering a depression from which the Soviet Union never recovered and Russia has barely emerged. [p. 47]

    Given all the heated debates that would later ensue about how Yeltsin and his shock therapy engendered mass plunder, it should be noted that the looting began under Gorbachev's watch. It was his malign neglect that transformed the rhetoric of Market Communism into the pillage of the nation's assets.

    The scale of this plunder was astounding. It not only bankrupted the Soviet Union, forcing Russian President Boris Yeltsin to appeal to the G-7 for $6 billion of assistance on December 6, 1991, but triggered a free fall in aggregate production commencing in 1990, aptly known as catastroika.

    In retrospect, the Soviet economy didn't collapse because the liberalized command economy devised after 1953 was marked for death. The system was inefficient, corrupt and reprehensible in a myriad of ways, but sustainable, as the CIA and most Sovietologists maintained. It was destroyed by Gorbachev's tolerance and complicity in allowing privateers to misappropriate state revenues, pilfer materials, spontaneously privatize, and hotwire their ill-gotten gains abroad, all of which disorganized production. [p. 49]

    The analysis of Rosefielde and Hedlund, while accurate in its assessment of Gorbachev's actions, is simplistic. Gorbachev's policies can be understood only within the framework of more fundamental political and socioeconomic factors. First, and most important, the real objective crisis of the Soviet economy (which existed and preceded by many decades the accession of Gorbachev to power) developed out of the contradictions of the autarkic nationalist policies pursued by the Soviet regime since Stalin and Bukharin introduced the program of "socialism in one country" in 1924. The rapid growth and increasing complexity of the Soviet economy required access to the resources of the world economy. This access could be achieved only in one of two ways: either through the spread of socialist revolution into the advanced capitalist countries, or through the counterrevolutionary integration of the USSR into the economic structures of world capitalism.

    For the Soviet bureaucracy, a parasitic social caste committed to the defense of its privileges and terrified of the working class, the revolutionary solution to the contradictions of the Soviet economy was absolutely unthinkable. The only course that it could contemplate was the second-capitulation to imperialism. This second course, moreover, opened for the leading sections of the bureaucracy the possibility of permanently securing their privileges and vastly expanding their wealth. The privileged caste would become a ruling class. The corruption of Gorbachev, Yeltsin and their associates was merely the necessary means employed by the bureaucracy to achieve this utterly reactionary and immensely destructive outcome.

    On October 3, 1991, less than three months before the dissolution of the USSR, I delivered a lecture in Kiev in which I challenged the argument-which was widely propagated by the Stalinist regime-that the restoration of capitalism would bring immense benefits to the people. I stated:

    In this country, capitalist restoration can only take place on the basis of the widespread destruction of the already existing productive forces and the social- cultural institutions that depended upon them. In other words, the integration of the USSR into the structure of the world capitalist economy on a capitalist basis means not the slow development of a backward national economy, but the rapid destruction of one which has sustained living conditions which are, at least for the working class, far closer to those that exist in the advanced countries than in the third world. When one examines the various schemes hatched by proponents of capitalist restoration, one cannot but conclude that they are no less ignorant than Stalin of the real workings of the world capitalist economy. And they are preparing the ground for a social tragedy that will eclipse that produced by the pragmatic and nationalistic policies of Stalin. ["Soviet Union at the Crossroads," published in The Fourth International (Fall- Winter 1992, Volume 19, No. 1, p. 109), Emphasis in the original.]

    Almost exactly 20 years ago, on January 4, 1992, the Workers League held a party membership meeting in Detroit to consider the historical, political and social implications of the dissolution of the USSR. Rereading this report so many years later, I believe that it has stood the test of time. It stated that the dissolution of the USSR "represents the juridical liquidation of the workers' state and its replacement with regimes that are openly and unequivocally devoted to the destruction of the remnants of the national economy and the planning system that issued from the October Revolution. To define the CIS [Confederation of Independent States] or its independent republics as workers states would be to completely separate the definition from the concrete content which it expressed during the previous period." [David North, The End of the USSR, Labor Publications, 1992, p. 6]

    The report continued:

    "A revolutionary party must face reality and state what is. The Soviet working class has suffered a serious defeat. The bureaucracy has devoured the workers state before the working class was able to clean out the bureaucracy. This fact, however unpleasant, does not refute the perspective of the Fourth International. Since it was founded in 1938, our movement has repeatedly said that if the working class was not able to destroy this bureaucracy, then the Soviet Union would suffer a shipwreck. Trotsky did not call for political revolution as some sort of exaggerated response to this or that act of bureaucratic malfeasance. He said that a political revolution was necessary because only in that way could the Soviet Union, as a workers state, be defended against imperialism." [p. 6]

    I sought to explain why the Soviet working class had failed to rise up in opposition to the bureaucracy's liquidation of the Soviet Union. How was it possible that the destruction of the Soviet Union-having survived the horrors of the Nazi invasion-could be carried out "by a miserable group of petty gangsters, acting in the interests of the scum of Soviet society?" I offered the following answer:

    We must reply to these questions by stressing the implications of the massive destruction of revolutionary cadre carried out within the Soviet Union by the Stalinist regime. Virtually all the human representatives of the revolutionary tradition who consciously prepared and led that revolution were wiped out. And along with the political leaders of the revolution, the most creative representatives of the intelligentsia who had flourished in the early years of the Soviet state were also annihilated or terrorized into silence.

    Furthermore, we must point to the deep-going alienation of the working class itself from state property. Property belonged to the state, but the state "belonged" to the bureaucracy, as Trotsky noted. The fundamental distinction between state property and bourgeois property-however important from a theoretical standpoint-became less and less relevant from a practical standpoint. It is true that capitalist exploitation did not exist in the scientific sense of the term, but that did not alter the fact that the day-to-day conditions of life in factories and mines and other workplaces were as miserable as are to be found in any of the advanced capitalist countries, and, in many cases, far worse.

    Finally, we must consider the consequences of the protracted decay of the international socialist movement...

    Especially during the past decade, the collapse of effective working class resistance in any part of the world to the bourgeois offensive had a demoralizing effect on Soviet workers. Capitalism assumed an aura of "invincibility," although this aura was merely the illusory reflection of the spinelessness of the labor bureaucracies all over the world, which have on every occasion betrayed the workers and capitulated to the bourgeoisie. What the Soviet workers saw was not the bitter resistance of sections of workers to the international offensive of capital, but defeats and their consequences. [p. 13-14]

    The report related the destruction of the USSR by the ruling bureaucracy to a broader international phenomenon. The smashing up of the USSR was mirrored in the United States by the destruction of the trade unions as even partial instruments of working-class defense.

    In every part of the world, including the advanced countries, the workers are discovering that their own parties and their own trade union organizations are engaged in the related task of systematically lowering and impoverishing the working class. [p. 22]

    Finally, the report dismissed any notion that the dissolution of the USSR signified a new era of progressive capitalist development.

    Millions of people are going to see imperialism for what it really is. The democratic mask is going to be torn off. The idea that imperialism is compatible with peace is going to be exposed. The very elements which drove masses into revolutionary struggle in the past are once again present. The workers of Russia and the Ukraine are going to be reminded why they made a revolution in the first place. The American workers are going to be reminded why they themselves in an earlier period engaged in the most massive struggles against the corporations. The workers of Europe are going to be reminded why their continent was the birthplace of socialism and Karl Marx. [p. 25]

    The aftermath of the dissolution of the USSR: 20 years of economic crisis, social decay, and political reaction

    According to liberal theory, the dissolution of the Soviet Union ought to have produced a new flowering of democracy. Of course, nothing of the sort occurred-not in the former USSR or, for that matter, in the United States. Moreover, the breakup of the Soviet Union-the so-called defeat of communism-was not followed by a triumphant resurgence of its irreconcilable enemies in the international workers' movement, the social democratic and reformist trade unions and political parties. The opposite occurred. All these organizations experienced, in the aftermath of the breakup of the USSR, a devastating and even terminal crisis. In the United States, the trade union movement-whose principal preoccupation during the entire Cold War had been the defeat of Communism-has all but collapsed. During the two decades that followed the collapse of the Soviet Union, the AFL-CIO lost a substantial portion of its membership, was reduced to a state of utter impotence, and ceased to exist as a workers' organization in any socially significant sense of the term. At the same time, everywhere in the world, the social position of the working class-from the standpoint of its influence on the direction of state policy and its ability to increase its share of the surplus value produced by its own labor-deteriorated dramatically.

    Certain important conclusions flow from this fact. First, the breakup of the Soviet Union did not flow from the supposed failure of Marxism and socialism. If that had been the case, the anti-Marxist and antisocialist labor organizations should have thrived in the post-Soviet era. The fact that these organizations experienced ignominious failure compels one to uncover the common feature in the program and orientation of all the so-called labor organizations, "communist" and anticommunist alike. What was the common element in the political DNA of all these organization? The answer is that regardless of their names, conflicting political alignments and superficial ideological differences, the large labor organizations of the post-World War II period pursued essentially nationalist policies. They tied the fate of the working class to one or another nation-state. This left them incapable of responding to the increasing integration of the world economy. The emergence of transnational corporations and the associated phenomena of capitalist globalization shattered all labor organizations that based themselves on a nationalist program.

    The second conclusion is that the improvement of conditions of the international working class was linked, to one degree or another, to the existence of the Soviet Union. Despite the treachery and crimes of the Stalinist bureaucracy, the existence of the USSR, a state that arose on the basis of a socialist revolution, imposed upon American and European imperialism certain political and social restraints that would otherwise have been unacceptable. The political environment of the past two decades-characterized by unrestrained imperialist militarism, the violations of international law, and the repudiation of essential principles of bourgeois democracy-is the direct outcome of the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

    The breakup of the USSR was, for the great masses of its former citizens, an unmitigated disaster. Twenty years after the October Revolution, despite all the political crimes of the Stalinist regime, the new property relations established in the aftermath of the October Revolution made possible an extraordinary social transformation of backward Russia. And even after suffering horrifying losses during the four years of war with Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union experienced in the 20 years that followed the war a stupendous growth of its economy, which was accompanied by advances in science and culture that astonished the entire world.

    But what is the verdict on the post-Soviet experience of the Russian people? First and foremost, the dissolution of the USSR set into motion a demographic catastrophe. Ten years after the breakup of the Soviet Union, the Russian population was shrinking at an annual rate of 750,000. Between 1983 and 2001, the number of annual births dropped by one half. 75 percent of pregnant women in Russia suffered some form of illness that endangered their unborn child. Only one quarter of infants were born healthy.

    The overall health of the Russian people deteriorated dramatically after the restoration of capitalism. There was a staggering rise in alcoholism, heart disease, cancer and sexually transmitted diseases. All this occurred against the backdrop of a catastrophic breakdown of the economy of the former USSR and a dramatic rise in mass poverty.

    As for democracy, the post-Soviet system was consolidated on the basis of mass murder. For more than 70 years, the Bolshevik regime's dissolution of the Constituent Assembly in January 1918-an event that did not entail the loss of a single life-was trumpeted as an unforgettable and unforgivable violation of democratic principles. But in October 1993, having lost a majority in the popularly elected parliament, the Yeltsin regime ordered the bombardment of the White House-the seat of the Russian parliament-located in the middle of Moscow. Estimates of the number of people who were killed in the military assault run as high as 2,000. On the basis of this carnage, the Yeltsin regime was effectively transformed into a dictatorship, based on the military and security forces. The regime of Putin-Medvedev continues along the same dictatorial lines. The assault on the White House was supported by the Clinton administration. Unlike the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly, the bombardment of the Russian parliament is an event that has been all but forgotten.

    What is there to be said of post-Soviet Russian culture? As always, there are talented people who do their best to produce serious work. But the general picture is one of desolation. The words that have emerged from the breakup of the USSR and that define modern Russian culture, or what is left of it, are "mafia," "biznessman" and "oligarch."

    What has occurred in Russia is only an extreme expression of a social and cultural breakdown that is to be observed in all capitalist countries. Can it even be said with certainty that the economic system devised in Russia is more corrupt that that which exists in Britain or the United States? The Russian oligarchs are probably cruder and more vulgar in the methods they employ. However, the argument could be plausibly made that their methods of plunder are less efficient than those employed by their counterparts in the summits of American finance. After all, the American financial oligarchs, whose speculative operations brought about the near-collapse of the US and global economy in the autumn of 2008, were able to orchestrate, within a matter of days, the transfer of the full burden of their losses to the public.

    It is undoubtedly true that the dissolution of the USSR at the end of 1991 opened up endless opportunities for the use of American power-in the Balkans, the Middle East and Central Asia. But the eruption of American militarism was, in the final analysis, the expression of a more profound and historically significant tendency-the long-term decline of the economic position of American capitalism. This tendency was not reversed by the breakup of the USSR. The history of American capitalism during the past two decades has been one of decay. The brief episodes of economic growth have been based on reckless and unsustainable speculation. The Clinton boom of the 1990s was fueled by the "irrational exuberance" of Wall Street speculation, the so-called dot.com bubble. The great corporate icons of the decade-of which Enron was the shining symbol-were assigned staggering valuations on the basis of thoroughly criminal operations. It all collapsed in 2000-2001. The subsequent revival was fueled by frenzied speculation in housing. And, finally, the collapse in 2008, from which there has been no recovery.

    When historians begin to recover from their intellectual stupor, they will see the collapse of the USSR and the protracted decline of American capitalism as interrelated episodes of a global crisis, arising from the inability to develop the massive productive forces developed by mankind on the basis of private ownership of the means of production and within the framework of the nation-state system.

    [Oct 21, 2016] Syria War 2016 - GoPro POV Footage Of Turkish Backed Turkmen Fighters In Heavy Clashes With The Syrian Army In Latakia

    Oct 21, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org

    schlub | Oct 20, 2016 2:07:30 PM | 40

    debate is over!
    Back to the real world.
    Anyone here care to give a more detailed view of this mess, who is allied with who where, etc?
    OCT 20
    Syria War 2016 - GoPro POV Footage Of Turkish Backed Turkmen Fighters In Heavy Clashes With The Syrian Army In Latakia

    First Person point of view GoPro footage of Turkish backed Turkmen fighter groups in heavy clashes with the Syrian Arab Army in the border region between Turkey and Syria.

    The fighters you see here are part of the so called Syrian Turkmen Brigades an informal armed opposition structure composed of Syrian Turkmen primarily fighting against the Syrian Army, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) and the Syrian Democratic Forces (YPG+FSA).

    They are aligned with the Syrian opposition and are heavily supported by Turkey, who provides funding and military training along with artillery and aerial support.

    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=15f_1476976485

    [Oct 21, 2016] Hillary is running against locker room talk and the Russians

    Notable quotes:
    "... criminal record had to be suppressed by the Obama regime in order to move the oligarchs' candidate in the direction of the White House. So here we are on the verge of nuclear war with Russia and China, and the important issue before the American people is Trump's lewd comments with Billy Bush about sexually attractive women. ..."
    "... why is lewd talk about women more important than military conflict with Russia, which could mean nuclear war and the end of life on earth? ..."
    "... For Killary-Hillary the Russian issue is the unsupported and false allegation that the Russian government, in league with Donald Trump, hacked her emails and released them to WikiLeaks. The purpose of this absurd claim is to focus voters' attention away from the damning content of the emails. ..."
    "... The real issue is that the idiots in Washington have convinced the Russian government that Russia is going to be the target of a pre-emptive nuclear strike. Once a nation is convinced of this, it is unlikely that they will just sit there waiting, especially a powerful nuclear power like Russia, which appears to have a strategic alliance with another major nuclear power-China. ..."
    Oct 20, 2016 | Information Clearing House

    Russia's very able Foreign Ministry spokeswoman, Maria Zakharova, said that the US presidential campaign is "simply some sort of a global shame" unworthy of the American people. She certainly hit the nail on the head.

    Hitlery's criminal record had to be suppressed by the Obama regime in order to move the oligarchs' candidate in the direction of the White House. So here we are on the verge of nuclear war with Russia and China, and the important issue before the American people is Trump's lewd comments with Billy Bush about sexually attractive women.

    I mean really. Men's talk about women is like their fish and hunting stories. It has to be taken with a grain of salt. But this aside, why is lewd talk about women more important than military conflict with Russia, which could mean nuclear war and the end of life on earth?

    Trump has declared that he sees no point in conflict with Russia and that he sees no point in NATO a quarter century after the demise of the Soviet Union.

    Is Trump's lewd talk about women worse than Hitlery's provocative talk about Russian President Vladimir Putin, whom Hitlery calls "the new Hitler"? What kind of utter fool would throw gratuitous insults at the President of a country that can wipe the US and all of Western Europe off of the face of the earth in a few minutes?

    Would you rather face a situation in which a few women were groped, or be vaporized in nuclear war? If you don't know the correct answer, you are too stupid to be alive.

    Are the American women really going to elect Hillary as a rebuff to Trump's lewd talk? If so, they will confirm that it was a mistake to give women the vote, although there will be no one left alive to record the mistake in the history books.

    Hitlery, with the aid of the presstitutes-the whores who lie for a living and who constitute the American print and TV media-have succeeded in focusing America's election of a president on issues irrelevant to the dangerous situation with which Hitlery and her neoconservative colleagues confront the world.

    For Killary-Hillary the Russian issue is the unsupported and false allegation that the Russian government, in league with Donald Trump, hacked her emails and released them to WikiLeaks. The purpose of this absurd claim is to focus voters' attention away from the damning content of the emails.

    The real issue is that the idiots in Washington have convinced the Russian government that Russia is going to be the target of a pre-emptive nuclear strike. Once a nation is convinced of this, it is unlikely that they will just sit there waiting, especially a powerful nuclear power like Russia, which appears to have a strategic alliance with another major nuclear power-China.

    A vote for the crazed killer bitch Hitlery is a vote for the end of life on earth.

    Dr. Paul Craig Roberts editor of was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. Roberts' latest books are Dissolution of The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic the West, How America Was Lost, and The Neoconservative Threat to World Order.

    [Oct 21, 2016] The Bellingcat research collective War propaganda masquerading as "citizen journalism"

    Notable quotes:
    "... The Atlantic Council is a leading US geopolitical strategy think tank, which last month published a document outlining advanced preparations underway for the United States to fight "major and deadly" wars between "great powers," which will entail "heavy casualties" and "high levels of death and destruction." The document, titled "The Future of the Army," roots the likelihood of such a war in what it calls "Russia's resurgence." ..."
    "... Higgins is one of five authors of an Atlantic Council report released earlier this year, "Distract, Deceive, Destroy," on Russia's role in Syria. The report concludes by calling for US missile strikes in Syria. ..."
    "... Despite having no background in weapons analysis beyond that supposedly derived from computer gaming and, in Higgins' own words, "what I'd learned from Arnold Schwarzenegger and Rambo [films]," he was quickly identified by the international media as a ready source of quotes that could be palmed off as "independent," while hewing to the anti-Russian line of the US and its NATO allies. ..."
    "... By 2014, Higgins was able to raise the finance to create Bellingcat, a more professionally produced web site backed by up to 15 staff and volunteers. Bellingcat was launched days before MH17 was shot down and quickly expanded its area of study to include Ukraine. ..."
    "... How closely allied to the operations of the US state and intelligence network Higgins was by this time can be gauged from an article he wrote in July of this year, "New generation of digital detectives fight to keep Russia honest." ..."
    "... In the article on MH17 published on the Atlantic Council web site, Higgins wrote that following the downing of the plane, "With renewed interest in the conflict in Ukraine, Bellingcat began to look at other aspects of the conflict, where claims of Russian involvement were met with blanket denials." He continued, " Together with our colleagues at the Atlantic Council ..."
    "... Proving that MH17 was shot down by Russian forces was a major focus of Bellingcat's efforts. As early as July 28, 2014, Higgins wrote, "The Buk That Could--An Open Source Odyssey," which was based on poor quality videos, stills and quotes from Ukrainian counterterrorism chief Vitaly Nayda. Citing communications intercepts he would not release, Nayda claimed that the "launcher rolled into Ukraine across the Russian border aboard a flatbed truck." ..."
    "... By 2015, Higgins' propaganda operation had become so discredited that the German news magazine Der ..."
    "... In other words, Higgins/Bellingcat is useful for pumping out propaganda masquerading as "citizen journalism." The so-called "research collective" is an Internet and social media adjunct of the US government and NATO. The conclusions of its "research" are determined by Higgins' politics, which serve the interests of the imperialist powers as they gear up for war against Russia. ..."
    "... I notice that on the cable behemoth HBO they are the showing the above mentioned "news program" Vice News, which is slick and slimy.Great example of very stealthy imperialist propaganda . ..."
    www.wsws.org
    In its report, released last month, on the 2014 downing of Malaysian Airlines flight MH17, the Dutch-led Joint Investigation Team (JIT) blamed Russia. The JIT, in which the authorities of the Netherlands, Australia, Belgium, Malaysia and Ukraine are collaborating, stated that the missile that downed the plane "was brought from the territory of the Russian Federation and, after launch, subsequently returned to the Russian Federation territory."

    The JIT noted, "[M]any journalists carried out their own investigations, as did research collectives like Bellingcat. This resulted in different scenarios and theories being raised, both in the media and on the Internet."

    The JIT report is cursory and based largely on Ukrainian sources. It does not provide definitive evidence to back up its conclusions, leaving unresolved the question of who shot down MH17.

    This reference to Bellingcat, however, is significant. The speculative scenario sketched out by the JIT, utilizing animation, images, un-sourced mobile phone recordings and references to unavailable satellite and radar data, is almost identical to that advanced by Bellingcat.

    The Bellingcat "research collective" is a web site established in July 2014 by Eliot Higgins. Originally from Leicester in the UK, Higgins is, as of February, a senior fellow in the Atlantic Council's Digital Forensic Research Lab and Future Europe Initiative.

    The Atlantic Council is a leading US geopolitical strategy think tank, which last month published a document outlining advanced preparations underway for the United States to fight "major and deadly" wars between "great powers," which will entail "heavy casualties" and "high levels of death and destruction." The document, titled "The Future of the Army," roots the likelihood of such a war in what it calls "Russia's resurgence."

    Higgins is one of five authors of an Atlantic Council report released earlier this year, "Distract, Deceive, Destroy," on Russia's role in Syria. The report concludes by calling for US missile strikes in Syria.

    From 2012, Higgins maintained a blog, "Brown Moses," which became notorious for its pro-imperialist coverage of the Syria conflict. Higgins trawled social media posts--primarily Facebook, Twitter and YouTube--for images and clips that purported to reveal the many types of both homemade and industrially manufactured weaponry in use in the bloodbath provoked by US imperialism.

    Despite having no background in weapons analysis beyond that supposedly derived from computer gaming and, in Higgins' own words, "what I'd learned from Arnold Schwarzenegger and Rambo [films]," he was quickly identified by the international media as a ready source of quotes that could be palmed off as "independent," while hewing to the anti-Russian line of the US and its NATO allies.

    In 2013, Brown Moses became embroiled in allegations by the main imperialist powers that the Syrian government used chemical weapons against civilians in the Ghouta suburb of Damascus. By "studying" social media posts of damaged rockets embedded in the ground, the angle of shadows cast and satellite images of the area, Higgins claimed to be able to show that rockets, alleged to contain sarin, had been fired by the Syrian army.

    Higgins' efforts were recycled by the world media. At the time, the US government and NATO were on the brink of a major military escalation in Syria, with the alleged chemical attacks meant to provide the pretext.

    Later that year, veteran US investigative journalist Seymour Hersh debunked the chemical attack allegations, pointing out that numerous forces in the Syrian conflict, including US-backed "rebel" groups fighting the Syrian government, such as the Al Qaeda-linked al-Nusra Front, had "mastered the mechanics of creating sarin and [were] capable of manufacturing it in quantity."

    Higgins' work was rubbished by a group of Massachusetts Institute of Technology scientists, led by Professor Theodore Postol, a professor of science, technology, and international security. Postol told Mint Press, "It's clear and unambiguous this munition could not have come from Syrian government-controlled areas as the White House claimed." Higgins, he added, "has done a very nice job collecting information on a website. As far as his analysis, it's so lacking any analytical foundation, it's clear he has no idea what he's talking about."

    By 2014, Higgins was able to raise the finance to create Bellingcat, a more professionally produced web site backed by up to 15 staff and volunteers. Bellingcat was launched days before MH17 was shot down and quickly expanded its area of study to include Ukraine.

    How closely allied to the operations of the US state and intelligence network Higgins was by this time can be gauged from an article he wrote in July of this year, "New generation of digital detectives fight to keep Russia honest."

    In the article on MH17 published on the Atlantic Council web site, Higgins wrote that following the downing of the plane, "With renewed interest in the conflict in Ukraine, Bellingcat began to look at other aspects of the conflict, where claims of Russian involvement were met with blanket denials." He continued, " Together with our colleagues at the Atlantic Council, we explored Russia's involvement in the conflict in Ukraine in the report 'Hiding in Plain Sight: Putin's War in Ukraine,' which led VICE News to track down one of the Russian soldiers fighting in Ukraine who had been identified in the report." [Emphasis added]

    The 2014 civil war in Ukraine, which included the Russian annexation of Crimea, was triggered by the far-right US- and EU-backed coup in Kiev earlier that year. It brought Russia and the US closer to a military conflict than at any time since the end of the Cold War, and served to transform Ukraine into a platform from which provocations and operations could be launched against Russia.

    MH17 was shot down over territory controlled by Russian-backed separatists but contested by the Ukrainian government and far-right Ukrainian militias. From the first moment, prior to any investigation, the crash was seized upon by the US and its allies to denounce Russia as the world's main aggressor and isolate the regime of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

    Proving that MH17 was shot down by Russian forces was a major focus of Bellingcat's efforts. As early as July 28, 2014, Higgins wrote, "The Buk That Could--An Open Source Odyssey," which was based on poor quality videos, stills and quotes from Ukrainian counterterrorism chief Vitaly Nayda. Citing communications intercepts he would not release, Nayda claimed that the "launcher rolled into Ukraine across the Russian border aboard a flatbed truck."

    In contrast with Bellingcat's hack work, a 2015 report by the Dutch Safety Board into the MH17 crash is a sober piece of work. The Dutch investigators concluded that the most likely missile was a Buk of the 9M38 series with a 9N314M warhead. The investigators identified the potential launch site, based on a 320 square kilometre area, but made no attempt to further define the location or draw conclusions as to who controlled it.

    By 2015, Higgins' propaganda operation had become so discredited that the German news magazine Der Spiegel was forced to apologise for its uncritical recycling of Bellingcat allegations that the Russian Defense Ministry manipulated satellite image data to support its position on MH17. According to Jens Kreise, an expert in digital image forensics, Bellingcat's technique of "error correction analysis" was "subjective and not based entirely on science." He added, "This is why there is not a single scientific paper that addresses it." Kreise went on to describe Bellingcat's work as "nothing more than reading tea leaves."

    Immediately after the JIT's MH17 report was released, Higgins took part in an online Atlantic Council panel discussion. Commenting on Higgins' work, VICE journalist Simon Ostrovsky noted that Bellingcat gave "a view into the evidence that we wouldn't have understood otherwise... imagine if there hadn't been that narrative and the lies that were being produced by the Russian MoD [Ministry of Defence] had a fertile soil in which to grow, in which there wasn't this very public counterweight."

    In other words, Higgins/Bellingcat is useful for pumping out propaganda masquerading as "citizen journalism." The so-called "research collective" is an Internet and social media adjunct of the US government and NATO. The conclusions of its "research" are determined by Higgins' politics, which serve the interests of the imperialist powers as they gear up for war against Russia.

    Red_Mariner
    I notice that on the cable behemoth HBO they are the showing the above mentioned "news program" Vice News, which is slick and slimy.Great example of very stealthy imperialist propaganda .
    thucydide
    Thanks for this much needed review of Higgins' work and evolution. It is not surprising that he's been picked up by a big pro-war thinktank, and now works hard every day engineering new conflict and untold suffering.

    A quick correction. While Seymour Hersh did publish a piece describing al-Nusra's chemical weapons and sarin production capability, this fact cannot properly be attributed to Hersh. In his piece, Hersh attributes this information to a joint U.S. intelligence assessment, provided to him by a senior US intelligence official. The fact must be attributed to US intelligence, not Hersh himself.

    Bob Beal
    Thank you for helping detail the mechanics of propaganda. Perhaps editors will open their eyes and question more their reporters' sources, be they think tanks or PR operations.

    [Oct 21, 2016] Trump booed as he rips into Clinton at Catholic charity dinner

    Looks like Yahoo commentariat is definitely anti-Hillary and did not buy the Yahoo story. the first pro-hillary comment was in the second dozen of comments by ratings from Yahoo readers.
    www.yahoo.com
    • Brad 11 hours ago I watched the presidential candidates at the Al Smith dinner tonight and thought how wonderful that they raised $6 million for the nations children..The thing that is sad is that Hillary spent over $150 million on negative adds against Donald Trump in one month...Goes to show exactly how much Hillary truly cares about the children when they stand in her way ...Win at all cost...no matter how the money could be better spent...THIS COUNTRY NEEDS DONALD TRUMP FOR PRESIDENT 2016
    • LisaAllenC LisaAllenC 11 hours ago Trump was not booed by anyone but the far left stunked up media, everyone else that i could see was raising their fist and laughing as they were nodding that they agreed with TRUMP, you little people of the left media have really lost yourself s, lost your professionalism in your field, i mean you took an oath when you started that career as a journalist to report as fairly and as honest as you could and you took that platform as something that you would treat as a place the American people and the rest of the world could come to for an honest and balanced look at issues, not a place to be used to push your own interests on people in such ways that even small children that listen well can tell is words filled full of lies and dishonesty, words that are filled with hate and such lopsided views that our kids are saying, turn that trash daddy, it makes me sick to my stomach to watch such lies, my kids and our neighbors kids actually said that, they are watching very closely and you people of the far left trash machine should be so ashamed of what you have been force feeding not only these kids but some of the very easily confused people, i mean thats the only ones you are hurting because we the American people know better but still you should have to stand up and answer to what you have done to the ones you have terribly hurt during this mess. You want to ever say that you are someone this country could ever trust and believe, you wonder why Trump knows not to trust anything you may have your hands or words mixed in with, you have dishonored yourself's and no one will ever believe you again, we have your names etched in our brains as dishonest nobody's and know to stop reading or listening to anything you say or do, what a shame but your true colors came out and the honest people of this country see you as who you are. We are so glad and HONORED TO VOTE FOR TRUMP, we know there is no one that is perfect but Christ himself but we also know the heart of a person as well and TRUMPS HEART IS IN THE RIGHT PLACE, he wants real honest change for us Americans and he wants real honest help to be given to ALL THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, and without you left twisting word machine, TRUMP WANTS REAL HELP FOR OUR AFRICAN AMERICANS AND OUR MEXICAN AMERICANS, he does want the law to be honored but he doesn't want to harm anybody, you people have twisted his words in such dramatic fashion that we rarely get to hear his real plan to bring safety and lawful ways at our borders. I have heard the plans and i am no genius but the plans make very good since and they will be fair and help people that want to be here legally, now if you are trying to break our laws, thats another story but at least he does have a great plan that will work so much better and give our men and women officers at the border the help they so desperately have been needing, TRUMP IS BY FAR THE BEST CHOICE FOR AMERICA, the twisted person that you people have tried to make him out to be, will of course that person is not who we need but thats not TRUMP, WE NEED TRUMP FOR CHANGE WE NEED TRUMP FOR OUR COUNTRY AND OUR FAMILY, VOTE TRUMP FOR CHANGE.
    • Louis 10 hours ago I watch the whole thing, the article is wrong. Hillary was booed just as much, and her insulting joke about Guiliani was followed by an awkward silence. The author here is very biased, Trump was right, the media is in collusion with HRC.
    • Melissa 11 hours ago When I was a little girl I felt such pride in America. I recall hearing how awful Russia was because their poor citizens didn't know the truth because they were filled with propaganda. I am so disgusted with our country on so many levels. Freedom of the press was not meant to mean what you people are doing. Didn't you take some sort of pledge to honestly report unbiased news when you graduated from journalism school? As Donald said to Hillary, you should be ashamed.
    • carle 11 hours ago Every time Trump is booed by the media that equals another vote from an undecided.
    • LOYAL LOYAL 11 hours ago I am not going to lie to you, Hillary is stupid, confused, and has been exposed. Her guilt of running a stupid campaign and a stupid office called the Secretary of State is no longer in question. During the debate Hillary got confused on proposed gun laws. On abortion, Hillary thinks it's ok to kill babies ready to be delivered. This is like saying I love children that have been delivered alive but not so much those not yet delivered. Sound like, I like a hero that does not get captured? Hillary is all talk and no action. Black people should understand this by now. So should everyone else.

    [Oct 21, 2016] Jill Stein Slams Hillary Clintons Foreign Policy As Scarier Than Trumps Zero Hedge

    Notable quotes:
    "... The presidential candidate also tweeted the words of her running mate, Ajamu Baraka, who said, "It should [be] clear to everyone that a vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote for war." ..."
    "... Regrettably for Americans, Stein is right about the Democratic nominee. Those concerned about the future of America with someone as erratic as Donald Trump in the Oval Office are justified in their worry, but to believe Hillary is somehow a "better option" is not only a naive assumption - but a reckless one. A vote for Hillary is undoubtedly a conscious vote to go war with a nuclear-armed superpower. ..."
    "... US empire is bigger than any President. No president can change it. ..."
    Oct 21, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    Dr. Stein, who has strongly advocated for a more peaceful approach to U.S. relations in the Middle East - as well as throughout the world - recently took to her Twitter account to boldly state what may come as a shock to many Americans:

    "Hillary Clinton's foreign policy is much scarier than Donald Trump's."

    The presidential candidate also tweeted the words of her running mate, Ajamu Baraka, who said, "It should [be] clear to everyone that a vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote for war."

    Hillary Clinton's foreign policy is much scarier than Donald Trump's, who does not want to go to war with Russia. #PeaceOffensive

    - Dr. Jill Stein (@DrJillStein) October 14, 2016

    "It should clear to everyone that a vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote for war." - @ajamubaraka Watch live: https://t.co/0B6NJLNY5j

    - Dr. Jill Stein (@DrJillStein) October 13, 2016

    Dr. Stein elaborated on her social media statements when asked by a reporter in Texas this week what she felt a Hillary Clinton presidency would look like.

    "Well, we know what kind of Secretary of State she was," Stein said in her response. "[Hillary] is in incredible service to Wall Street and to the war profiteers. She led the way in Libya and she's trying to start an air war with Russia over Syria, which means, if Hillary gets elected, we're kinda going to war with Russia, folks…a nuclear-armed power."

    While many Americans act as if one's disdain for Hillary Clinton and her policies automatically make them a supporter of Donald Trump for president - or vice versa - Stein went on to vocalize her fear of both major party candidates.

    "Who will sleep well with Trump in the White House? But you shouldn't sleep well with Hillary in the White House either. Fortunately, we live in a democracy and we have more than two deadly choices," Stein said, referring to herself and Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson.

    Regrettably for Americans, Stein is right about the Democratic nominee. Those concerned about the future of America with someone as erratic as Donald Trump in the Oval Office are justified in their worry, but to believe Hillary is somehow a "better option" is not only a naive assumption - but a reckless one. A vote for Hillary is undoubtedly a conscious vote to go war with a nuclear-armed superpower.

    Still not a believer? Watch the video below and see for yourself:

    Escrava Isaura Handful of Dust Oct 20, 2016 11:19 PM ,

    There are so many holes on Dr. Stein observations that I don't even know where to start.

    First: US empire is bigger than any President. No president can change it.

    Second: Only the naive can think that a neocon (Hillary) can be more dangerous than a bully (Trump).

    Third: Dr. Stein, could you please tell us what will happen when the empire has not enough energy, food, and resources to give to its people? Tell us your "un-reckless" solution, because I can't wait to hear.

    Ohh. I just remember. You can't, because it doesn't exist.

    Bill of Rights Oct 20, 2016 9:22 PM ,
    Epic Trey Gowdy tells Obama "F**K Off with Your Executive Order

    http://www.libertywritersnews.com/2016/10/boom-trey-gowdy-just-joined-tr...

    BabaLooey Bill of Rights Oct 20, 2016 10:05 PM ,
    I admire Gowdy, and respect his tenacity.

    I watched the video.

    IMO - he wasn't hard ENOUGH on that passel of cunt-media fuckers.

    Every single one of the fuckwads in attendance should have been filmed - the camera turned on THEM.

    The fucks

    big-data Oct 20, 2016 9:49 PM ,
    This well-articulated executive summary (10 minutes of your time) integrates the consequences of the world's biggest financial bubble with the risk of military escalation with Russia in Syria, the Balkans, or Ukraine. Hilllary's foreign policy goes head-to-head with Russia's foreign policy: they are different with respect to use of nuclear weapons, particularly tactical nuclear weapons.

    https://medium.com/deepconnections/a-synthesis-of-the-worlds-most-dangerous-systemic-risks-for-the-week-ending-october-14-2016-192b329f5b2b#.em9fji61b

    BabaLooey Oct 20, 2016 9:53 PM ,
    Stein is ignored by the MSM

    Show me ANY stories from her on ANY of the Million Dicks in a Bag "credible" media.....

    <tapping foot>...............

    ................yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeah

    But Cankly-pooper has that jag off Air Force cucked dickwad on TeeVee ads every ten fucking minutes saying Trump is unfit to have his finger on the button.

    Just like the moron I talked to a couple of weeks ago, when he said he was voting for Catheter because "Trump was going to take us to war".....(finding out he gets his "news" from social media, Google News and the NYT)

    MORONS...that's who Clinton has .....fucking morons....

    Kina Oct 20, 2016 10:12 PM ,
    Jill Stein - Green Party candidate, and Gary Johnson - Libtarian candidate .......

    [In battleground states] BOTH need to come out and tell their voting supporters to NOT vote for them but to vote Trump...and only vote for them if they can't vote Trump. Because there is no point in a Greens platform if the planet is at war or in destruction, likewise their is no chance of a Libertarian platform for a country in increased wars, or world at war.

    The Libertarian and Greens platform assume a peaceful country and world - with Cliinton and her backers the USA will ge the exact opposite.

  • This is why the Greens and Libitarians most not only endorse Trump but tell their voters they must vote for Trump for there to be any hope for the USA's future.
  • In fact if I were Trump I would be making this pitch to them.

    [Oct 21, 2016] A Desperate Obama Administration Resorts To Lying And Maybe More by Moon of Alabama

    Oct 08, 2016 | ronpaulinstitute.org
    On September 28 the French mission to the UN claimed that two hospitals in east-Aleppo had been bombed. It documented this in a tweet with a picture of destroyed buildings in Gaza. The French later deleted that tweet.

    It is not the first time such false claims and willful obfuscations were made by "western" officials. But usually they shy away from outright lies.

    Not so the US Secretary of State John Kerry. In a press event yesterday, before talks with the French Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault about a new UN resolution, he said (vid @1:00) about Syria:

    Last night, the regime attacked yet another hospital, and 20 people were killed and 100 people were wounded. And Russia and the regime owe the world more than an explanation about why they keep hitting hospitals and medical facilities and children and women.These are acts that beg for an appropriate investigation of war crimes. And those who commit these would and should be held accountable for these actions.
    No opposition group has claimed that such an extremely grave event happened. None. No press agency has a record of it. The MI-6 disinformation outlet SOHR in Britain, which quite reliably notes every claimed casualty and is frequently cited in "western" media", has not said anything about such an event anywhere in Syria.

    The grave incident Kerry claimed did not happen. Kerry made it up. (Was it supposed to happen, got canceled and Kerry missed the memo?) Kerry used the lie to call for war crime investigations and punishment. This in front of cameras, at an official event with a foreign guest in the context of a United Nations Security Council resolution.

    This is grave. This is nearly as grave as Colin Powell's false claims of WMD in Iraq in front of the UN Security Council.

    Early reports, like this one at CBSNEWS, repeat the Kerry claim:

    Kerry said Syrian forces hit a hospital overnight, killing 20 people and wounding 100, describing what would be the latest strike by Moscow or its ally in Damascus on a civilian target.
    But the New York Times write up of the event, which includes Kerry's demand for war crime investigations, does not mention the hospital bombing claim. Not at all. For the self-acclaimed "paper of record", Kerry's lie did not happen. Likewise the Washington Post which in its own write up makes no mention of the false Kerry claim.

    The latest AP write up by Matthew Lee also omits the lie. This is curious as Matt Lee is obviously aware of it. The State Departments daily press briefing yesterday had a whole section on it. Video (@3:30) shows that it is Matt who asks these questions:

    QUESTION: Okay. On to Syria and the Secretary's comments earlier this morning, one is: Do you know what strike he was talking about in his comments overnight on a hospital in Aleppo?

    MR KIRBY: I think the Secretary's referring actually to a strike that we saw happen yesterday on a field hospital in the Rif Dimashq Governorate. I'm not exactly positive that that's what he was referring to, but I think he was referring to actually one that was --

    QUESTION: Not one in Aleppo?

    MR KIRBY: I believe it was – I think it was – I think he – my guess is – I'm guessing here that he was a bit mistaken on location and referring to one --
    ...
    QUESTION: But you don't have certainty, though?

    MR KIRBY: I don't. Best I got, best information I got, is that he was most likely referring to one yesterday in this governorate, but it could just be an honest mistake.

    QUESTION: If we could – if we can nail that down with certainty what he was talking about --

    MR KIRBY: I'll do the best I can, Matt.
    ...

    This goes on for a while. But there was no hospital attack in Rif Dimashq nor in Aleppo. Later on DoS spokesman Kirby basically admits that Kerry lied: "I can't corroborate that."

    It also turns out that Kerry has no evidence for any war crimes and no plausible way to initiate any official international procedure about such. And for what? To bully Russia? Fat chance, that would be a hopeless endeavor and Kerry should know that.

    Kerry is desperate. He completely lost the plot on Syria. Russia is in the lead and will do whatever needs to be done. The Obama administration has, apart from starting a World War, no longer any way to significantly influence that.

    Kerry is only one tool of the Obama administration. Later that day the US Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, made other accusations against Russia:

    The US Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directedthe recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow-the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europe and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized these activities.
    Translation: "WE DO NOT KNOW at all ("we are confident", "we believe", "directed") who did these hacks and WE DO NOT HAVE the slightest evidence ("consistent with","based on the scope and sensitivity") that Russia is involved, so let me throw some chaff and try to bamboozle you all."

    The former British ambassador Craig Murray calls it a blatant neocon lie. It was obviously the DNC that manipulated the US election by, contrary to its mandate, promoting Clinton over Sanders. The hackers only proved that. It is also easy to see why these accusations are made now. Murray:

    That the Obama administration has made a formal accusation of Russia based on no evidence is, on one level, astonishing. But it is motivated by desperation. WikiLeaks have already announced that they have a huge cache of other material relating to Hillary's shenanigans. The White House is simply seeking to discredit it in advance by a completely false association with Russian intelligence.
    The Obama administration is losing it. On Syria as well as on the election it can no longer assert its will. Trump, despite all dirty boy's club talk he may do, has a significant chance to catch the presidency. He (-44%) and Clinton (-41%) are more disliked by the U.S electorate, than Putin (-38%). Any solution in Syria will be more in Russia's than the Washington's favor.

    Such desperation can be dangerous. Kerry is gasping at straws when he lies about Russia. The president and his colleagues at the Pentagon and the CIA have more kinetic means to express themselves. Could they order up something really stupid?

    [Oct 20, 2016] Quotes from the Wikileaks stash of Hillary Clinton speeches and emails from her campaign chair John Podesta.

    Notable quotes:
    "... Clinton also says that the no-fly zone bombing in Syria she is arguing for "would kill a lot of Syrians" - all for humanitarian reasons of course. ..."
    "... While this military/para-military operation is moving forward, we need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia , which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in the region. ..."
    "... Not new - the 2012 DIA analysis provided as much , and more, - but these email's prove that Clinton was and is well aware that U.S. allies are financing the radical Islamists in Syria and Iraq. ..."
    Oct 12, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org

    ... ... ...

    Quotes from the Wikileaks stash of Hillary Clinton speeches and emails from her campaign chair John Podesta.

    Clinton in a 2013 speech to the Jewish United Fund Advance & Major Gifts Dinner (via The Intercept ):

    [Arming moderates has] been complicated by the fact that the Saudis and others are shipping large amounts of weapons-and pretty indiscriminately-not at all targeted toward the people that we think would be the more moderate, least likely, to cause problems in the future, ...

    Clinton also says that the no-fly zone bombing in Syria she is arguing for "would kill a lot of Syrians" - all for humanitarian reasons of course.

    The following was written by Podesta, a well connected former White House Chief of Staff, in an 2014 email to Clinton. As introduction Podesta notes: "Sources include Western intelligence, US intelligence and sources in the region.":

    While this military/para-military operation is moving forward, we need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia , which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in the region.

    Not new - the 2012 DIA analysis provided as much , and more, - but these email's prove that Clinton was and is well aware that U.S. allies are financing the radical Islamists in Syria and Iraq.

    [Oct 20, 2016] US Allies are Funding ISIS (and Hillary Knew All Along)

    Notable quotes:
    "... It is fortunate for Saudi Arabia and Qatar that the furor over the sexual antics of Donald Trump is preventing much attention being given to the latest batch of leaked emails to and from Hillary Clinton . Most fascinating of these is what reads like a US State Department memo , dated 17 August 2014, on the appropriate US response to the rapid advance of Isis forces, which were then sweeping through northern Iraq and eastern Syria. ..."
    "... The memo says: "We need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to Isis and other radical groups in the region." ..."
    "... An earlier WikiLeaks release of a State Department cable sent under her name in December 2009 states that "Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for al-Qaeda, the Taliban, LeT [Lashkar-e-Taiba in Pakistan]." But Saudi complicity with these movements never became a central political issue in the US. Why not? ..."
    "... The answer is that the US did not think it was in its interests to cut its traditional Sunni allies loose and put a great deal of resources into making sure that this did not happen. They brought on side compliant journalists, academics and politicians willing to give overt or covert support to Saudi positions. ..."
    "... Iraqi and Kurdish leaders said that they did not believe a word of it, claiming privately that Isis was blackmailing the Gulf states by threatening violence on their territory unless they paid up. ..."
    "... Going by the latest leaked email, the State Department and US intelligence clearly had no doubt that Saudi Arabia and Qatar were funding Isis. ..."
    "... Hillary Clinton should be very vulnerable over the failings of US foreign policy during the years she was Secretary of State. But, such is the crudity of Trump's demagoguery, she has never had to answer for it. ..."
    "... A Hillary Clinton presidency might mean closer amity with Saudi Arabia, but American attitudes towards the Saudi regime are becoming soured, as was shown recently when Congress overwhelmingly overturned a presidential veto of a bill allowing the relatives of 9/11 victims to sue the Saudi government. ..."
    www.counterpunch.org
    It is fortunate for Saudi Arabia and Qatar that the furor over the sexual antics of Donald Trump is preventing much attention being given to the latest batch of leaked emails to and from Hillary Clinton. Most fascinating of these is what reads like a US State Department memo, dated 17 August 2014, on the appropriate US response to the rapid advance of Isis forces, which were then sweeping through northern Iraq and eastern Syria.

    At the time, the US government was not admitting that Saudi Arabia and its Sunni allies were supporting Isis and al-Qaeda-type movements. But in the leaked memo, which says that it draws on "western intelligence, US intelligence and sources in the region" there is no ambivalence about who is backing Isis, which at the time of writing was butchering and raping Yazidi villagers and slaughtering captured Iraqi and Syrian soldiers.

    The memo says: "We need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to Isis and other radical groups in the region." This was evidently received wisdom in the upper ranks of the US government, but never openly admitted because to it was held that to antagonise Saudi Arabia, the Gulf monarchies, Turkey and Pakistan would fatally undermine US power in the Middle East and South Asia.

    For an extraordinarily long period after 9/11, the US refused to confront these traditional Sunni allies and thereby ensured that the "War on Terror" would fail decisively; 15 years later, al-Qaeda in its different guises is much stronger than it used to be because shadowy state sponsors, without whom it could not have survived, were given a free pass.

    It is not as if Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State and the US foreign policy establishment in general did not know what was happening. An earlier WikiLeaks release of a State Department cable sent under her name in December 2009 states that "Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for al-Qaeda, the Taliban, LeT [Lashkar-e-Taiba in Pakistan]." But Saudi complicity with these movements never became a central political issue in the US. Why not?

    The answer is that the US did not think it was in its interests to cut its traditional Sunni allies loose and put a great deal of resources into making sure that this did not happen. They brought on side compliant journalists, academics and politicians willing to give overt or covert support to Saudi positions.

    The real views of senior officials in the White House and the State Department were only periodically visible and, even when their frankness made news, what they said was swiftly forgotten. Earlier this year, for instance, Jeffrey Goldberg in The Atlantic wrote a piece based on numerous interviews with Barack Obama in which Obama "questioned, often harshly, the role that America's Sunni Arab allies play in fomenting anti-American terrorism. He is clearly irritated that foreign policy orthodoxy compels him to treat Saudi Arabia as an ally".

    It is worth recalling White House cynicism about how that foreign policy orthodoxy in Washington was produced and how easily its influence could be bought. Goldberg reported that "a widely held sentiment inside the White House is that many of the most prominent foreign-policy think tanks in Washington are doing the bidding of their Arab and pro-Israel funders. I've heard one administration official refer to Massachusetts Avenue, the home of many of these think tanks, as 'Arab-occupied territory'."

    Despite this, television and newspaper interview self-declared academic experts from these same think tanks on Isis, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf are wilfully ignoring or happily disregarding their partisan sympathies.

    The Hillary Clinton email of August 2014 takes for granted that Saudi Arabia and Qatar are funding Isis – but this was not the journalistic or academic conventional wisdom of the day. Instead, there was much assertion that the newly declared caliphate was self-supporting through the sale of oil, taxes and antiquities; it therefore followed that Isis did not need money from Saudi Arabia and the Gulf. The same argument could not be made to explain the funding of Jabhat al-Nusra, which controlled no oilfields, but even in the case of Isis the belief in its self-sufficiency was always shaky.

    Iraqi and Kurdish leaders said that they did not believe a word of it, claiming privately that Isis was blackmailing the Gulf states by threatening violence on their territory unless they paid up. The Iraqi and Kurdish officials never produced proof of this, but it seemed unlikely that men as tough and ruthless as the Isis leaders would have satisfied themselves with taxing truck traffic and shopkeepers in the extensive but poor lands they ruled and not extracted far larger sums from fabulously wealthy private and state donors in the oil producers of the Gulf.

    Going by the latest leaked email, the State Department and US intelligence clearly had no doubt that Saudi Arabia and Qatar were funding Isis. But there has always been bizarre discontinuity between what the Obama administration knew about Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states and what they would say in public. Occasionally the truth would spill out, as when Vice-President Joe Biden told students at Harvard in October 2014 that Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates "were so determined to take down Assad and essentially have a proxy Sunni-Shia war. What did they do? They poured hundreds of millions of dollars and thousands of tons of weapons into anyone who would fight against Assad. Except that the people who were being supplied were al-Nusra and al-Qaeda and the extremist elements of jihadis coming from other parts of the world". Biden poured scorn on the idea that there were Syrian "moderates" capable of fighting Isis and Assad at the same time.

    Hillary Clinton should be very vulnerable over the failings of US foreign policy during the years she was Secretary of State. But, such is the crudity of Trump's demagoguery, she has never had to answer for it. Republican challenges have focussed on issues – the death of the US ambassador in Benghazi in 2012 and the final US military withdrawal from Iraq in 2011 – for which she was not responsible.

    A Hillary Clinton presidency might mean closer amity with Saudi Arabia, but American attitudes towards the Saudi regime are becoming soured, as was shown recently when Congress overwhelmingly overturned a presidential veto of a bill allowing the relatives of 9/11 victims to sue the Saudi government.

    Another development is weakening Saudi Arabia and its Sunni allies. The leaked memo speaks of the rival ambitions of Saudi Arabia and Qatar "to dominate the Sunni world". But this has not turned out well, with east Aleppo and Mosul, two great Sunni cities, coming under attack and likely to fall. Whatever Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey and the others thought they were doing it has not happened and the Sunni of Syria and Iraq are paying a heavy price. It is this failure which will shape the future relations of the Sunni states with the new US administration.

    [Oct 20, 2016] US Allies are Funding ISIS (and Hillary Knew All Along)

    Notable quotes:
    "... It is fortunate for Saudi Arabia and Qatar that the furor over the sexual antics of Donald Trump is preventing much attention being given to the latest batch of leaked emails to and from Hillary Clinton . Most fascinating of these is what reads like a US State Department memo , dated 17 August 2014, on the appropriate US response to the rapid advance of Isis forces, which were then sweeping through northern Iraq and eastern Syria. ..."
    "... The memo says: "We need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to Isis and other radical groups in the region." ..."
    "... An earlier WikiLeaks release of a State Department cable sent under her name in December 2009 states that "Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for al-Qaeda, the Taliban, LeT [Lashkar-e-Taiba in Pakistan]." But Saudi complicity with these movements never became a central political issue in the US. Why not? ..."
    "... The answer is that the US did not think it was in its interests to cut its traditional Sunni allies loose and put a great deal of resources into making sure that this did not happen. They brought on side compliant journalists, academics and politicians willing to give overt or covert support to Saudi positions. ..."
    "... Iraqi and Kurdish leaders said that they did not believe a word of it, claiming privately that Isis was blackmailing the Gulf states by threatening violence on their territory unless they paid up. ..."
    "... Going by the latest leaked email, the State Department and US intelligence clearly had no doubt that Saudi Arabia and Qatar were funding Isis. ..."
    "... Hillary Clinton should be very vulnerable over the failings of US foreign policy during the years she was Secretary of State. But, such is the crudity of Trump's demagoguery, she has never had to answer for it. ..."
    "... A Hillary Clinton presidency might mean closer amity with Saudi Arabia, but American attitudes towards the Saudi regime are becoming soured, as was shown recently when Congress overwhelmingly overturned a presidential veto of a bill allowing the relatives of 9/11 victims to sue the Saudi government. ..."
    www.counterpunch.org
    It is fortunate for Saudi Arabia and Qatar that the furor over the sexual antics of Donald Trump is preventing much attention being given to the latest batch of leaked emails to and from Hillary Clinton. Most fascinating of these is what reads like a US State Department memo, dated 17 August 2014, on the appropriate US response to the rapid advance of Isis forces, which were then sweeping through northern Iraq and eastern Syria.

    At the time, the US government was not admitting that Saudi Arabia and its Sunni allies were supporting Isis and al-Qaeda-type movements. But in the leaked memo, which says that it draws on "western intelligence, US intelligence and sources in the region" there is no ambivalence about who is backing Isis, which at the time of writing was butchering and raping Yazidi villagers and slaughtering captured Iraqi and Syrian soldiers.

    The memo says: "We need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to Isis and other radical groups in the region." This was evidently received wisdom in the upper ranks of the US government, but never openly admitted because to it was held that to antagonise Saudi Arabia, the Gulf monarchies, Turkey and Pakistan would fatally undermine US power in the Middle East and South Asia.

    For an extraordinarily long period after 9/11, the US refused to confront these traditional Sunni allies and thereby ensured that the "War on Terror" would fail decisively; 15 years later, al-Qaeda in its different guises is much stronger than it used to be because shadowy state sponsors, without whom it could not have survived, were given a free pass.

    It is not as if Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State and the US foreign policy establishment in general did not know what was happening. An earlier WikiLeaks release of a State Department cable sent under her name in December 2009 states that "Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for al-Qaeda, the Taliban, LeT [Lashkar-e-Taiba in Pakistan]." But Saudi complicity with these movements never became a central political issue in the US. Why not?

    The answer is that the US did not think it was in its interests to cut its traditional Sunni allies loose and put a great deal of resources into making sure that this did not happen. They brought on side compliant journalists, academics and politicians willing to give overt or covert support to Saudi positions.

    The real views of senior officials in the White House and the State Department were only periodically visible and, even when their frankness made news, what they said was swiftly forgotten. Earlier this year, for instance, Jeffrey Goldberg in The Atlantic wrote a piece based on numerous interviews with Barack Obama in which Obama "questioned, often harshly, the role that America's Sunni Arab allies play in fomenting anti-American terrorism. He is clearly irritated that foreign policy orthodoxy compels him to treat Saudi Arabia as an ally".

    It is worth recalling White House cynicism about how that foreign policy orthodoxy in Washington was produced and how easily its influence could be bought. Goldberg reported that "a widely held sentiment inside the White House is that many of the most prominent foreign-policy think tanks in Washington are doing the bidding of their Arab and pro-Israel funders. I've heard one administration official refer to Massachusetts Avenue, the home of many of these think tanks, as 'Arab-occupied territory'."

    Despite this, television and newspaper interview self-declared academic experts from these same think tanks on Isis, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf are wilfully ignoring or happily disregarding their partisan sympathies.

    The Hillary Clinton email of August 2014 takes for granted that Saudi Arabia and Qatar are funding Isis – but this was not the journalistic or academic conventional wisdom of the day. Instead, there was much assertion that the newly declared caliphate was self-supporting through the sale of oil, taxes and antiquities; it therefore followed that Isis did not need money from Saudi Arabia and the Gulf. The same argument could not be made to explain the funding of Jabhat al-Nusra, which controlled no oilfields, but even in the case of Isis the belief in its self-sufficiency was always shaky.

    Iraqi and Kurdish leaders said that they did not believe a word of it, claiming privately that Isis was blackmailing the Gulf states by threatening violence on their territory unless they paid up. The Iraqi and Kurdish officials never produced proof of this, but it seemed unlikely that men as tough and ruthless as the Isis leaders would have satisfied themselves with taxing truck traffic and shopkeepers in the extensive but poor lands they ruled and not extracted far larger sums from fabulously wealthy private and state donors in the oil producers of the Gulf.

    Going by the latest leaked email, the State Department and US intelligence clearly had no doubt that Saudi Arabia and Qatar were funding Isis. But there has always been bizarre discontinuity between what the Obama administration knew about Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states and what they would say in public. Occasionally the truth would spill out, as when Vice-President Joe Biden told students at Harvard in October 2014 that Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates "were so determined to take down Assad and essentially have a proxy Sunni-Shia war. What did they do? They poured hundreds of millions of dollars and thousands of tons of weapons into anyone who would fight against Assad. Except that the people who were being supplied were al-Nusra and al-Qaeda and the extremist elements of jihadis coming from other parts of the world". Biden poured scorn on the idea that there were Syrian "moderates" capable of fighting Isis and Assad at the same time.

    Hillary Clinton should be very vulnerable over the failings of US foreign policy during the years she was Secretary of State. But, such is the crudity of Trump's demagoguery, she has never had to answer for it. Republican challenges have focussed on issues – the death of the US ambassador in Benghazi in 2012 and the final US military withdrawal from Iraq in 2011 – for which she was not responsible.

    A Hillary Clinton presidency might mean closer amity with Saudi Arabia, but American attitudes towards the Saudi regime are becoming soured, as was shown recently when Congress overwhelmingly overturned a presidential veto of a bill allowing the relatives of 9/11 victims to sue the Saudi government.

    Another development is weakening Saudi Arabia and its Sunni allies. The leaked memo speaks of the rival ambitions of Saudi Arabia and Qatar "to dominate the Sunni world". But this has not turned out well, with east Aleppo and Mosul, two great Sunni cities, coming under attack and likely to fall. Whatever Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey and the others thought they were doing it has not happened and the Sunni of Syria and Iraq are paying a heavy price. It is this failure which will shape the future relations of the Sunni states with the new US administration.

    [Oct 20, 2016] The end of US-Russia detente

    Notable quotes:
    "... President Obama acknowledged that danger at the end of the Nuclear Security Summit meeting in Washington early this month. He warned of the potential for "ramping up new and more deadly and more effective systems that end up leading to a whole new escalation of the arms race." ... ..."
    "... United States' first 'smart' nuclear bomb signals new arms race with China and Russia: analysts South China Morning Post - August 18 ..."
    "... Washington's green light for a new generation of steerable and smart tactical nuclear weapons may signal the start of a new US nuclear arms race with China and Russia, military analysts say. ..."
    "... Russia and China are believed to have been developing similar weapons for decades, but Chinese experts are apparently keen to learn the lessons of the former Soviet Union's failed attempt to keep up with the United States in the cold war. ..."
    "... Tactical nuclear weapons, known as non-strategic nuclear weapons, are designed to support naval, land and air forces in areas close to friendly forces and perhaps even on contested friendly territory. ..."
    "... The new US weapon, the B61-12, is America's first guided, or "smart" nuclear bomb. It weighs 350kg and can penetrate fortified structures several metres underground. ..."
    "... These nuclear happenings are why I think Hillary Clinton's labeling of Donald Trump as 'Putin's Puppet' is the more important takeaway for last night's debate, much more so than Trump's refusal to go on record as accepting the results of the election. ..."
    "... The American Voting Public has 19 days to discover the loss of detente, the three way nuclear weapon build up ..."
    Oct 20, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    im1dc : October 20, 2016 at 09:13 AM

    The end of US-Russia detente

    http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-says-russia-broke-nuclear-missile-treaty-2016-10-19

    " U.S. says Russia broke nuclear missile treaty"

    By Paul Sonne & Julian E. Barnes & Gordon Lubold...Oct 19, 2016...5:47 p.m. ET

    "The U.S. has summoned Russia to a mandatory meeting before a special treaty commission to answer accusations that Moscow has violated a Cold War-era pact that bans the production, maintenance or testing of medium-range missiles, according to U.S. and Western officials.

    The U.S. for years has alleged that Russia is breaching the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, or INF Treaty, an agreement Washington and Moscow signed in 1987 to eliminate land-based nuclear and conventional missiles with ranges from 500 to 5,500 kilometers, as well as their launchers.

    Russia, in turn, has accused the U.S. of violating the pact.

    Now the U.S. is convening the treaty's so-called Special Verification Commission to press its case against Russia, triggering the compliance body's first meeting in 16 years, according to the U.S. and Western officials. They said the SVC meeting would take place in the coming weeks."

    Reply Thursday, October 20, 2016 at 09:13 AM pgl -> im1dc... , October 20, 2016 at 09:24 AM
    And yet Trump trusts Putin.
    likbez -> pgl... , -1
    Putin is one of the few sane politicians left in Europe. I would not object importing him and putting him as a POTUS here instead of one psychically debilitated neocon warmonger (who is definitely in the pocket of Wall Street, if not Russians, due to the amount of "compromat" on her and Bill floating around) and another bombastic know-nothing billionaire who is unable to neither clearly articulate, no capitalize on his winning anti-globalization position against such a compromised, widely hated opponent.

    Especially after the dirty details of her sinking Sanders became known. Why on the Earth he can't just de-legitimize her by stressing that she obtained her position as the candidate from Democratic Party by proven fraud by DNC is beyond me.

    Looks like you might not understand that and the fact that neocons have had driven the US into another useless war in Syria to protect not so much our own but Israeli and Saudi interests (the key idea is partitioning of Syria and establishing a Sunni state as the counterweight the loss of Iraq to Shiites, which means Iran) .

    Fred C. Dobbs -> im1dc... , October 20, 2016 at 09:27 AM
    Looks like a new Arms Race is *on*.
    Fred C. Dobbs -> im1dc... , October 20, 2016 at 09:37 AM
    Race for Latest Class of Nuclear Arms Threatens
    to Revive Cold War http://nyti.ms/268HJT6
    NYT - WILLIAM J. BROAD and DAVID E. SANGER - APRIL 16, 2016

    The United States, Russia and China are now aggressively pursuing a new generation of smaller, less destructive nuclear weapons. The buildups threaten to revive a Cold War-era arms race and unsettle the balance of destructive force among nations that has kept the nuclear peace for more than a half-century.

    It is, in large measure, an old dynamic playing out in new form as an economically declining Russia, a rising China and an uncertain United States resume their one-upmanship.

    American officials largely blame the Russian president, Vladimir V. Putin, saying his intransigence has stymied efforts to build on a 2010 arms control treaty and further shrink the arsenals of the two largest nuclear powers. Some blame the Chinese, who are looking for a technological edge to keep the United States at bay. And some blame the United States itself for speeding ahead with a nuclear "modernization" that, in the name of improving safety and reliability, risks throwing fuel on the fire.

    President Obama acknowledged that danger at the end of the Nuclear Security Summit meeting in Washington early this month. He warned of the potential for "ramping up new and more deadly and more effective systems that end up leading to a whole new escalation of the arms race." ...

    ---

    United States' first 'smart' nuclear bomb signals new arms race with China and Russia: analysts South China Morning Post - August 18

    http://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/2005491/united-states-first-smart-nuclear-bomb-signals-new-arms

    Washington's green light for a new generation of steerable and smart tactical nuclear weapons may signal the start of a new US nuclear arms race with China and Russia, military analysts say.

    Russia and China are believed to have been developing similar weapons for decades, but Chinese experts are apparently keen to learn the lessons of the former Soviet Union's failed attempt to keep up with the United States in the cold war.

    Tactical nuclear weapons, known as non-strategic nuclear weapons, are designed to support naval, land and air forces in areas close to friendly forces and perhaps even on contested friendly territory.

    The new US weapon, the B61-12, is America's first guided, or "smart" nuclear bomb. It weighs 350kg and can penetrate fortified structures several metres underground.

    Unlike banned weapons of mass destruction, the B61-12 is designed to be carried by high-speed stealth fighter jets to hit targets precisely with limited damage to structures and lives nearby. ...

    im1dc -> im1dc... , -1
    These nuclear happenings are why I think Hillary Clinton's labeling of Donald Trump as 'Putin's Puppet' is the more important takeaway for last night's debate, much more so than Trump's refusal to go on record as accepting the results of the election.

    The American Voting Public has 19 days to discover the loss of detente, the three way nuclear weapon build up , and connect Trump to Putin as Putin's Puppet.

    This is far more important going forward than Trump being seen as a whiner and sore loser.

    [Oct 20, 2016] Russian comments on US elections

    www.defenddemocracy.press

    Defend Democracy Press

    Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said she believes the US presidential campaign is not worthy of the nation's people, calling it a "catastrophe" and "simply some sort of a global shame" during a meeting with students on Tuesday.

    Commenting on the heated 2016 presidential race in the US, Zakharova lamented that by accusing Moscow of mounting cyber-attacks with an alleged aim of meddling in American politics, Washington has turned Russia into a "real, serious factor of pre-election rhetoric."

    They are constantly saying that Russia is carrying out cyber-attacks on certain US facilities," she said. Zakharova stressed that the US side provided no proof or any other data on the alleged hackers' links to Moscow, which she says makes the allegations appear to be a "smokescreen" to cover up serious domestic issues.

    According to the spokeswoman, this "public bickering on Russia"as well as "locker-room jokes" are "unworthy of a great power, [and] great people" of America.

    "I simply believe that this campaign is not worthy of their people. As a person who was engaged in information technologies when studying at the university, I believe that this is a catastrophic campaign. May the colleagues of all kinds and countries forgive me, but I believe that this is simply some sort of a global shame," Zakharova said at a meeting with students at the Moscow Aviation Institute, Life.ru reported.

    Earlier in October, the US government claimed it was "confident" that Russia was behind the hacking attacks on US officials and organizations, alleging that revelations by WikiLeaks, DCLeaks and Guccifer 2.0. were directly authorized by the Russian government with the intention to "interfere with the US election process."

    "We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized these activities," read the report, published by the Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. The accusations were based on the fact that attacks "in most cases originated from servers operated by a Russian company."

    Moscow, for its part, completely dismissed the allegations, denying any involvement in the attacks. Commenting on the report, Russian presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov labeled the accusations "yet another fit of nonsense,"adding that while many cyber-attacks Russia faces on a daily basis can be traced back to US services, Russia refrains from calling US government responsible for cybercrimes.

    [Oct 20, 2016] Hillary Clinton Putin, WikiLeaks, Trump Plot to Hack the Election

    This crazy warmonger Hillary Insists Putin Wants a 'Puppet' as US President. The truth is that with the amount of "compromat" against her she is a puppet.
    Oct 19, 2016 | news.antiwar.com

    It didn't take long for the final presidential debate in the US to be shifted to the Clinton campaign's favorite topic: accusing the Trump campaign of being involved in a Russian plot to hack the US election to his benefit. Indeed, it didn't even wait until the brief foreign policy segment.

    During questions about immigration, the moderator asked a question of Hillary Clinton regarding her comments at a closed-door speech to a Brazilian bank about open borders. Clinton quickly and dramatically changed focus, noting that the quote came from WikiLeaks and declaring "what's really important about WikiLeaks is that the Russian government has engaged in espionage against Americans."

    She went on to declare that it was "clearly" Russian President Vladimir Putin behind the WikiLeaks releases, and insisted that the entire intelligence community had confirmed Putin was doing so "to influence our election." She then demanded Republican nominee Donald Trump "admit" to it.

    When Trump noted that Clinton has "no idea" who was behind the hacks, and that he'd never even met Putin, Clinton declared that Putin wanted Trump elected to be his puppet as US president. Trump insisted it was Clinton, by contrast, who was the puppet.

    Trump went on to say he'd condemn any foreign interference in the US election, no matter who it was, but did say that he thought if the US and Russia got along it "wouldn't be so bad." Clinton accused him of spouting "the Putin line."

    The Clinton campaign has been accusing Russia of trying to hack the election since their summer convention, blaming them for materially every leak that proved embarrassing to her campaign. Since then, the allegations have gone hand-in-hand with claims that Trump is in on the matter. Russia denies any involvement in the hacking, and has noted there is no public evidence to support the claims.

    Beyond continuing to advance these allegations, the debate touched on foreign policy in a limited fashion, with Clinton reiterating promises to impose a no fly zone in Syria to "gain some leverage on the Russians." When asked about the possibility of that starting a war with Russia, she shifted focus again to her confidence the no-fly zone would "save lives."

    [Oct 20, 2016] Washington Post says bipartisan foreign policy elite glad Obama leaving because hes not assertive enough as he bombed just eight countries

    Notable quotes:
    "... Washington Post says "bipartisan foreign policy elite" glad Obama leaving because he's not "assertive" enough (he bombed 8 countries) ..."
    Oct 20, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    anne said ... October 20, 2016 at 11:59 AM

    https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/789168107956731905

    Glenn Greenwald ‏@ggreenwald

    Washington Post says "bipartisan foreign policy elite" glad Obama leaving because he's not "assertive" enough (he bombed 8 countries)

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/washington-foreign-policy-elites-not-sorry-to-see-obama-go/2016/10/20/bd2334a2-9228-11e6-9c52-0b10449e33c4_story.html

    Washington's foreign policy elite breaks with Obama over Syrian bloodshed

    [Oct 20, 2016] One of the systemic dangers of psychopathic females in high political positions is that remaining as reckless as they are, they try to outdo men in hawkishness

    Notable quotes:
    "... a simple fact (that escapes many participants of this forum, connected to TBTF) the that Hillary is an unrepentant neocon, a warmonger that might well bring another war, possibly even WWIII. ..."
    "... One of the systemic dangers of psychopathic females in high political positions is that remaining as reckless as they are, they try to outdo men in hawkishness. ..."
    "... Enthusiasm of people in this forum for Hillary is mainly enthusiasm for the ability of TBTF to rip people another four years. ..."
    "... The level of passive social protest against neoliberal elite (aka "populism" in neoliberal media terms) scared the hell of Washington establishment. Look at neoliberal shills like Summers, who is now ready to abandon a large part of his Washington consensus dogma in order for neoliberalism to survive. ..."
    "... And while open revolt in national security state has no chances, Trump with all his warts is a very dangerous development for "status quo" supporters, that might not go away after the elections. ..."
    Oct 20, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Adamski -> Peter K.... , October 20, 2016 at 07:35 AM
    Trump is winning with people in their 50s and they have a higher chance of voting than millennials do. That plus voter suppression may hand this to Trump yet. There was an LA Times poll this month that showed a small Trump lead. An outlier, sure, but the same poll was right about Obama in 2012 when other polls were wrong. Just saying
    likbez -> Adamski... , -1
    > "Trump is winning with people in their 50s and they have a higher chance of voting than millennials do."

    Yes. Thank you for making this point.

    Also people over 50 have more chances to understand and reject all the neoliberal bullshit MSM are pouring on Americans.

    As well as a simple fact (that escapes many participants of this forum, connected to TBTF) the that Hillary is an unrepentant neocon, a warmonger that might well bring another war, possibly even WWIII.

    One of the systemic dangers of psychopathic females in high political positions is that remaining as reckless as they are, they try to outdo men in hawkishness.

    Enthusiasm of people in this forum for Hillary is mainly enthusiasm for the ability of TBTF to rip people another four years.

    Not that Trump is better, but on warmongering side he is the lesser evil, for sure.

    The level of passive social protest against neoliberal elite (aka "populism" in neoliberal media terms) scared the hell of Washington establishment. Look at neoliberal shills like Summers, who is now ready to abandon a large part of his Washington consensus dogma in order for neoliberalism to survive.

    And while open revolt in national security state has no chances, Trump with all his warts is a very dangerous development for "status quo" supporters, that might not go away after the elections.

    That's why they supposedly pump Hillary with drugs each debate :-).

    [Oct 20, 2016] Guest-post-essential-rules-tyranny

    Notable quotes:
    "... At bottom, the success of despotic governments and Big Brother societies hinges upon a certain number of political, financial, and cultural developments. The first of which is an unwillingness in the general populace to secure and defend their own freedoms, making them completely reliant on corrupt establishment leadership. For totalitarianism to take hold, the masses must not only neglect the plight of their country, and the plight of others, but also be completely uninformed of the inherent indirect threats to their personal safety. ..."
    "... The prevalence of apathy and ignorance sets the stage for the slow and highly deliberate process of centralization. ..."
    "... People who are easily frightened are easily dominated. This is not just a law of political will, but a law of nature. Many wrongly assume that a tyrant's power comes purely from the application of force. In fact, despotic regimes that rely solely on extreme violence are often very unsuccessful, and easily overthrown. ..."
    "... They instill apprehension in the public; a fear of the unknown, or a fear of the possible consequences for standing against the state. They let our imaginations run wild until we see death around every corner, whether it's actually there or not. When the masses are so blinded by the fear of reprisal that they forget their fear of slavery, and take no action whatsoever to undo it, then they have been sufficiently culled. ..."
    "... The bread and circus lifestyle of the average westerner alone is enough to distract us from connecting with each other in any meaningful fashion, but people still sometimes find ways to seek out organized forms of activism. ..."
    "... In more advanced forms of despotism, even fake organizations are disbanded. Curfews are enforced. Normal communications are diminished or monitored. Compulsory paperwork is required. Checkpoints are instituted. Free speech is punished. Existing groups are influenced to distrust each other or to disintegrate entirely out of dread of being discovered. All of these measures are taken by tyrants primarily to prevent ANY citizens from gathering and finding mutual support. People who work together and organize of their own volition are unpredictable, and therefore, a potential risk to the state. ..."
    "... Destitution leads not just to hunger, but also to crime (private and government). Crime leads to anger, hatred, and fear. Fear leads to desperation. Desperation leads to the acceptance of anything resembling a solution, even despotism. ..."
    "... Autocracies pretend to cut through the dilemmas of economic dysfunction (usually while demanding liberties be relinquished), however, behind the scenes they actually seek to maintain a proscribed level of indigence and deprivation. The constant peril of homelessness and starvation keeps the masses thoroughly distracted from such things as protest or dissent, while simultaneously chaining them to the idea that their only chance is to cling to the very government out to end them. ..."
    "... When law enforcement officials are no longer servants of the people, but agents of a government concerned only with its own supremacy, serious crises emerge. Checks and balances are removed. The guidelines that once reigned in police disappear, and suddenly, a philosophy of superiority emerges; an arrogant exclusivity that breeds separation between law enforcement and the rest of the public. Finally, police no longer see themselves as protectors of citizens, but prison guards out to keep us subdued and docile. ..."
    "... Tyrants are generally men who have squelched their own consciences. They have no reservations in using any means at their disposal to wipe out opposition. But, in the early stages of their ascent to power, they must give the populace a reason for their ruthlessness, or risk being exposed, and instigating even more dissent. The propaganda machine thus goes into overdrive, and any person or group that dares to question the authority or the validity of the state is demonized in the minds of the masses. ..."
    "... Tyrannical power structures cannot function without scapegoats. There must always be an elusive boogie man under the bed of every citizen, otherwise, those citizens may turn their attention, and their anger, towards the real culprit behind their troubles. By scapegoating stewards of the truth, such governments are able to kill two birds with one stone. ..."
    "... Citizen spying is almost always branded as a civic duty; an act of heroism and bravery. Citizen spies are offered accolades and awards, and showered with praise from the upper echelons of their communities. ..."
    "... Tyrannies are less concerned with dominating how we live, so much as dominating how we think ..."
    "... Lies become "necessary" in protecting the safety of the state. War becomes a tool for "peace". Torture becomes an ugly but "useful" method for gleaning important information. Police brutality is sold as a "natural reaction" to increased crime. Rendition becomes normal, but only for those labeled as "terrorists". Assassination is justified as a means for "saving lives". Genocide is done discretely, but most everyone knows it is taking place. They simply don't discuss it. ..."
    www.zerohedge.com
    Submitted by Brandon Smith of Alt Market

    The Essential Rules Of Tyranny

    As we look back on the horrors of the dictatorships and autocracies of the past, one particular question consistently arises; how was it possible for the common men of these eras to NOT notice what was happening around them? How could they have stood as statues unaware or uncaring as their cultures were overrun by fascism, communism, collectivism, and elitism? Of course, we have the advantage of hindsight, and are able to research and examine the misdeeds of the past at our leisure. Unfortunately, such hindsight does not necessarily shield us from the long cast shadow of tyranny in our own day. For that, the increasingly uncommon gift of foresight is required…

    At bottom, the success of despotic governments and Big Brother societies hinges upon a certain number of political, financial, and cultural developments. The first of which is an unwillingness in the general populace to secure and defend their own freedoms, making them completely reliant on corrupt establishment leadership. For totalitarianism to take hold, the masses must not only neglect the plight of their country, and the plight of others, but also be completely uninformed of the inherent indirect threats to their personal safety. They must abandon all responsibility for their destinies, and lose all respect for their own humanity. They must, indeed, become domesticated and mindless herd animals without regard for anything except their fleeting momentary desires for entertainment and short term survival. For a lumbering bloodthirsty behemoth to actually sneak up on you, you have to be pretty damnably oblivious.

    The prevalence of apathy and ignorance sets the stage for the slow and highly deliberate process of centralization. Once dishonest governments accomplish an atmosphere of inaction and condition a sense of frailty within the citizenry, the sky is truly the limit. However, a murderous power-monger's day is never quite done. In my recent article 'The Essential Rules of Liberty' we explored the fundamentally unassailable actions and mental preparations required to ensure the continuance of a free society. In this article, let's examine the frequently wielded tools of tyrants in their invariably insane quests for total control…

    Rule #1: Keep Them Afraid

    People who are easily frightened are easily dominated. This is not just a law of political will, but a law of nature. Many wrongly assume that a tyrant's power comes purely from the application of force. In fact, despotic regimes that rely solely on extreme violence are often very unsuccessful, and easily overthrown. Brute strength is calculable. It can be analyzed, and thus, eventually confronted and defeated.

    Thriving tyrants instead utilize not just harm, but the imminent THREAT of harm. They instill apprehension in the public; a fear of the unknown, or a fear of the possible consequences for standing against the state. They let our imaginations run wild until we see death around every corner, whether it's actually there or not. When the masses are so blinded by the fear of reprisal that they forget their fear of slavery, and take no action whatsoever to undo it, then they have been sufficiently culled.

    In other cases, our fear is evoked and directed towards engineered enemies. Another race, another religion, another political ideology, a "hidden" and ominous villain created out of thin air. Autocrats assert that we "need them" in order to remain safe and secure from these illusory monsters bent on our destruction. As always, this development is followed by the claim that all steps taken, even those that dissolve our freedoms, are "for the greater good". Frightened people tend to shirk their sense of independence and run towards the comfort of the collective, even if that collective is built on immoral and unconscionable foundations. Once a society takes on a hive-mind mentality almost any evil can be rationalized, and any injustice against the individual is simply overlooked for the sake of the group.

    Rule #2: Keep Them Isolated

    In the past, elitist governments would often legislate and enforce severe penalties for public gatherings, because defusing the ability of the citizenry to organize or to communicate was paramount to control. In our technological era, such isolation is still used, but in far more advanced forms. The bread and circus lifestyle of the average westerner alone is enough to distract us from connecting with each other in any meaningful fashion, but people still sometimes find ways to seek out organized forms of activism.

    Through co-option, modern day tyrant's can direct and manipulate opposition movements. By creating and administrating groups which oppose each other, elites can then micromanage all aspects of a nation on the verge of revolution. These "false paradigms" give us the illusion of proactive organization, and the false hope of changing the system, while at the same time preventing us from seeking understanding in one another. All our energies are then muted and dispersed into meaningless battles over "left and right", or "Democrat versus Republican", for example. Only movements that cast aside such empty labels and concern themselves with the ultimate truth of their country, regardless of what that truth might reveal, are able to enact real solutions to the disasters wrought by tyranny.

    In more advanced forms of despotism, even fake organizations are disbanded. Curfews are enforced. Normal communications are diminished or monitored. Compulsory paperwork is required. Checkpoints are instituted. Free speech is punished. Existing groups are influenced to distrust each other or to disintegrate entirely out of dread of being discovered. All of these measures are taken by tyrants primarily to prevent ANY citizens from gathering and finding mutual support. People who work together and organize of their own volition are unpredictable, and therefore, a potential risk to the state.

    Rule #3: Keep Them Desperate

    You'll find in nearly every instance of cultural descent into autocracy, the offending government gained favor after the onset of economic collapse. Make the necessities of root survival an uncertainty, and people without knowledge of self sustainability and without solid core principles will gladly hand over their freedom, even for mere scraps from the tables of the same men who unleashed famine upon them. Financial calamities are not dangerous because of the poverty they leave in their wake; they are dangerous because of the doors to malevolence that they leave open.

    Destitution leads not just to hunger, but also to crime (private and government). Crime leads to anger, hatred, and fear. Fear leads to desperation. Desperation leads to the acceptance of anything resembling a solution, even despotism.

    Autocracies pretend to cut through the dilemmas of economic dysfunction (usually while demanding liberties be relinquished), however, behind the scenes they actually seek to maintain a proscribed level of indigence and deprivation. The constant peril of homelessness and starvation keeps the masses thoroughly distracted from such things as protest or dissent, while simultaneously chaining them to the idea that their only chance is to cling to the very government out to end them.

    Rule #4: Send Out The Jackboots

    This is the main symptom often associated with totalitarianism. So much so that our preconceived notions of what a fascist government looks like prevent us from seeing other forms of tyranny right under our noses. Some Americans believe that if the jackbooted thugs are not knocking on every door, then we MUST still live in a free country. Obviously, this is a rather naïve position. Admittedly, though, goon squads and secret police do eventually become prominent in every failed nation, usually while the public is mesmerized by visions of war, depression, hyperinflation, terrorism, etc.

    When law enforcement officials are no longer servants of the people, but agents of a government concerned only with its own supremacy, serious crises emerge. Checks and balances are removed. The guidelines that once reigned in police disappear, and suddenly, a philosophy of superiority emerges; an arrogant exclusivity that breeds separation between law enforcement and the rest of the public. Finally, police no longer see themselves as protectors of citizens, but prison guards out to keep us subdued and docile.

    As tyranny grows, this behavior is encouraged. Good men are filtered out of the system, and small (minded and hearted) men are promoted.

    At its pinnacle, a police state will hide the identities of most of its agents and officers, behind masks or behind red tape, because their crimes in the name of the state become so numerous and so sadistic that personal vengeance on the part of their victims will become a daily concern.

    Rule #5: Blame Everything On The Truth Seekers

    Tyrants are generally men who have squelched their own consciences. They have no reservations in using any means at their disposal to wipe out opposition. But, in the early stages of their ascent to power, they must give the populace a reason for their ruthlessness, or risk being exposed, and instigating even more dissent. The propaganda machine thus goes into overdrive, and any person or group that dares to question the authority or the validity of the state is demonized in the minds of the masses.

    All disasters, all violent crimes, all the ills of the world, are hoisted upon the shoulders of activist groups and political rivals. They are falsely associated with fringe elements already disliked by society (racists, terrorists, etc). A bogus consensus is created through puppet media in an attempt to make the public believe that "everyone else" must have the same exact views, and those who express contrary positions must be "crazy", or "extremist". Events are even engineered by the corrupt system and pinned on those demanding transparency and liberty. The goal is to drive anti-totalitarian organizations into self censorship. That is to say, instead of silencing them directly, the state causes activists to silence themselves.

    Tyrannical power structures cannot function without scapegoats. There must always be an elusive boogie man under the bed of every citizen, otherwise, those citizens may turn their attention, and their anger, towards the real culprit behind their troubles. By scapegoating stewards of the truth, such governments are able to kill two birds with one stone.

    Rule #6: Encourage Citizen Spies

    Ultimately, the life of a totalitarian government is not prolonged by the government itself, but by the very people it subjugates. Citizen spies are the glue of any police state, and our propensity for sticking our noses into other peoples business is highly valued by Big Brother bureaucracies around the globe.

    There are a number of reasons why people participate in this repulsive activity. Some are addicted to the feeling of being a part of the collective, and "service" to this collective, sadly, is the only way they are able to give their pathetic lives meaning. Some are vindictive, cold, and soulless, and actually get enjoyment from ruining others. And still, like elites, some long for power, even petty power, and are willing to do anything to fulfill their vile need to dictate the destinies of perfect strangers.

    Citizen spying is almost always branded as a civic duty; an act of heroism and bravery. Citizen spies are offered accolades and awards, and showered with praise from the upper echelons of their communities. People who lean towards citizen spying are often outwardly and inwardly unimpressive; physically and mentally inept. For the average moral and emotional weakling with persistent feelings of inadequacy, the allure of finally being given fifteen minutes of fame and a hero's status (even if that status is based on a lie) is simply too much to resist. They begin to see "extremists" and "terrorists" everywhere. Soon, people afraid of open ears everywhere start to watch what they say at the supermarket, in their own backyards, or even to family members. Free speech is effectively neutralized.

    Rule #7: Make Them Accept The Unacceptable

    In the end, it is not enough for a government fueled by the putrid sludge of iniquity to lord over us. At some point, it must also influence us to forsake our most valued principles. Tyrannies are less concerned with dominating how we live, so much as dominating how we think. If they can mold our very morality, they can exist unopposed indefinitely. Of course, the elements of conscience are inborn, and not subject to environmental duress as long as a man is self aware. However, conscience can be manipulated if a person has no sense of identity, and has never put in the effort to explore his own strengths and failings. There are many people like this in America today.

    Lies become "necessary" in protecting the safety of the state. War becomes a tool for "peace". Torture becomes an ugly but "useful" method for gleaning important information. Police brutality is sold as a "natural reaction" to increased crime. Rendition becomes normal, but only for those labeled as "terrorists". Assassination is justified as a means for "saving lives". Genocide is done discretely, but most everyone knows it is taking place. They simply don't discuss it.

    All tyrannical systems depend on the apathy and moral relativism of the inhabitants within their borders. Without the cooperation of the public, these systems cannot function. The real question is, how many of the above steps will be taken before we finally refuse to conform? At what point will each man and woman decide to break free from the dark path blazed before us and take measures to ensure their independence? Who will have the courage to develop their own communities, their own alternative economies, their own organizations for mutual defense outside of establishment constructs, and who will break under the pressure to bow like cowards? How many will hold the line, and how many will flee?

    For every American, for every human being across the planet who chooses to stand immovable in the face of the very worst in mankind, we come that much closer to breathing life once again into the very best in us all.

    [Oct 20, 2016] I thought we were pretty sure that the US had attacked Yemen, were just not sure that Yemen had attacked the US ship.

    Oct 20, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    hemeantwell October 20, 2016 at 2:16 pm

    Twice in recent days, cruise missiles fired from an American destroyer have rained down on Yemen.

    Whoaaa. There may still be doubts about this. After all, what do the Houthis gain, especially right after the Saudis have outdone themselves in atrocities.

    http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/15/politics/uss-mason-fired-on-again/

    Officials Saturday night were uncertain about what exactly happened, if there were multiple incoming missiles or if there was a malfunction with the radar detection system on the destroyer.

    frosty zoom October 20, 2016 at 2:20 pm

    that's quite a bold statement.

    Harry October 20, 2016 at 4:00 pm

    I thought we were pretty sure that the US had attacked Yemen, we're just not sure that Yemen had attacked the US ship.

    Plenue October 20, 2016 at 6:33 pm

    Even if the Yemenis did, I fail to see why this is considered shocking and unacceptable. I get that decades of kowtowing to Israel has conditioned the United States to not understand that a blockade is inherently an act of war, but quite aside from starving the people of Yemen we've been directly supporting the Saudi bombing. We've been belligerents in this conflict from the start.

    NotTimothyGeithner October 20, 2016 at 9:41 pm

    The Russian FM, Lavrov put it best when he described the U.S. as only desiring vassals.

    [Oct 20, 2016] Van Jones Can Empathize With Trump Voters

    Yet another attempt to explain Trump success... and Democratic Party disintegration because Dems lost working class voters and substantial part of middle class voters.
    Notable quotes:
    "... I have a great deal of empathy for the Donald Trump voters. ..."
    "... The elites have failed the people so thoroughly that tens of millions of people, on any side of any issue, can legitimately say they don't think the system is working for them anymore, if it ever did. ..."
    "... There are elements of racism, xenophobia and misogyny in the Trump movement, and there's also all kinds of legitimate of anxieties. ..."
    "... The rise of Trump is a judgment on the progressive movement that has adopted a style that doesn't leave much room for a 55-year-old heterosexual white Republican living in a red state to feel that he has any place of honor or dignity in the world progressives are trying to create. We see the disrespect coming from them, but there's a subtle disrespect coming from us, the NPR crowd, that is intolerant of intolerance. Nobody wants to feel as though they don't count. ..."
    www.nytimes.com
    I also believe that people are fundamentally good, but this election cycle has tried that hypothesis for me.

    I have a great deal of empathy for the Donald Trump voters. When you listen to them talk about feeling hurt, scared and left behind, they sound like the Black Lives Matter activists.

    How so? The elites have failed the people so thoroughly that tens of millions of people, on any side of any issue, can legitimately say they don't think the system is working for them anymore, if it ever did. ...

    ... ... ...

    A lot of people are mocking the idea that you can explain the bigotry at a Trump rally by writing it off as simply a response to economic anxiety.

    There are elements of racism, xenophobia and misogyny in the Trump movement, and there's also all kinds of legitimate of anxieties.

    The rise of Trump is a judgment on the progressive movement that has adopted a style that doesn't leave much room for a 55-year-old heterosexual white Republican living in a red state to feel that he has any place of honor or dignity in the world progressives are trying to create. We see the disrespect coming from them, but there's a subtle disrespect coming from us, the NPR crowd, that is intolerant of intolerance. Nobody wants to feel as though they don't count.

    [Oct 20, 2016] What Hillary Clinton Privately Told Goldman Sachs

    Notable quotes:
    "... Much of the content of these speeches to U.S. bankers dealt with foreign policy, and virtually all of that with warfare, potential warfare, and opportunities for military-led domination of various regions of the globe. This stuff is more interesting and less insultingly presented than the idiocies spewed out at the public presidential debates. But it also fits an image of U.S. policy that Clinton might have preferred to keep private. Just as nobody advertised that, as emails now show, Wall Street bankers helped pick President Obama's cabinet, we're generally discouraged from thinking that wars and foreign bases are intended as services to financial overlords. "I'm representing all of you," Clinton says to the bankers in reference to her efforts at a meeting in Asia. Sub-Saharan Africa has great potential for U.S. "businesses and entrepreneurs," she says in reference to U.S. militarism there. ..."
    "... "We're going to ring China with missile 'defense,'" Clinton tells Goldman Sachs. "We're going to put more of our fleet in the area." ..."
    "... In public debates, Clinton demands a "no fly zone" or "no bombing zone" or "safe zone" in Syria, from which to organize a war to overthrow the government. In a speech to Goldman Sachs, however, she blurts out that creating such a zone would require bombing a lot more populated areas than was required in Libya. ..."
    "... Clinton also makes clear that Syrian "jihadists" are being funded by Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Qatar. In October 2013, as the U.S. public had rejected bombing Syria, Blankfein asked if the public was now opposed to "interventions" - that clearly being understood as a hurdle to be overcome. Clinton said not to fear. "We're in a time in Syria," she said, "where they're not finished killing each other . . . and maybe you just have to wait and watch it." ..."
    "... Regarding China again, Clinton claims to have told the Chinese that the United States could claim ownership of the entire Pacific as a result of having "liberated it." She goes on to claim to have told them that "We discovered Japan for heaven's sake." And: "We have proof of having bought [Hawaii]." Really? From whom? ..."
    "... it's fascinating that even the bankers in whom Clinton confides her militarist mania ask her identical questions to those I get asked by peace activists at speaking events: "Is the U.S. political system completely broken?" "Should we scrap this and go with a parliamentary system?" ..."
    www.counterpunch.org
    In the speech transcripts from June 4, 2013, October 29, 2013, and October 19, 2015, Clinton was apparently paid sufficiently to do something she denies most audiences. That is, she took questions that it appears likely she was not secretly briefed on or engaged in negotiations over ahead of time. In part this appears to be the case because some of the questions were lengthy speeches, and in part because her answers were not all the sort of meaningless platitudes that she produces if given time to prepare.

    Much of the content of these speeches to U.S. bankers dealt with foreign policy, and virtually all of that with warfare, potential warfare, and opportunities for military-led domination of various regions of the globe. This stuff is more interesting and less insultingly presented than the idiocies spewed out at the public presidential debates. But it also fits an image of U.S. policy that Clinton might have preferred to keep private. Just as nobody advertised that, as emails now show, Wall Street bankers helped pick President Obama's cabinet, we're generally discouraged from thinking that wars and foreign bases are intended as services to financial overlords. "I'm representing all of you," Clinton says to the bankers in reference to her efforts at a meeting in Asia. Sub-Saharan Africa has great potential for U.S. "businesses and entrepreneurs," she says in reference to U.S. militarism there.

    Yet, in these speeches, Clinton projects exactly that approach, accurately or not, on other nations and accuses China of just the sort of thing that her "far left" critics accuse her of all the time, albeit outside the censorship of U.S. corporate media. China, Clinton says, may use hatred of Japan as a means of distracting Chinese people from unpopular and harmful economic policies. China, Clinton says, struggles to maintain civilian control over its military. Hmm. Where else have we seen these problems?

    "We're going to ring China with missile 'defense,'" Clinton tells Goldman Sachs. "We're going to put more of our fleet in the area."

    On Syria, Clinton says it's hard to figure out whom to arm - completely oblivious to any options other than arming somebody. It's hard, she says, to predict at all what will happen. So, her advice, which she blurts out to a room of bankers, is to wage war in Syria very "covertly."

    In public debates, Clinton demands a "no fly zone" or "no bombing zone" or "safe zone" in Syria, from which to organize a war to overthrow the government. In a speech to Goldman Sachs, however, she blurts out that creating such a zone would require bombing a lot more populated areas than was required in Libya. "You're going to kill a lot of Syrians," she admits. She even tries to distance herself from the proposal by referring to "this intervention that people talk about so glibly" - although she, before and at the time of that speech and ever since has been the leading such person.

    Clinton also makes clear that Syrian "jihadists" are being funded by Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Qatar. In October 2013, as the U.S. public had rejected bombing Syria, Blankfein asked if the public was now opposed to "interventions" - that clearly being understood as a hurdle to be overcome. Clinton said not to fear. "We're in a time in Syria," she said, "where they're not finished killing each other . . . and maybe you just have to wait and watch it."

    That's the view of many ill-meaning and many well-meaning people who have been persuaded that the only two choices in foreign policy are bombing people and doing nothing. That clearly is the understanding of the former Secretary of State, whose positions were more hawkish than those of her counterpart at the Pentagon. It's also reminiscent of Harry Truman's comment that if the Germans were winning you should help the Russians and vice versa, so that more people would die. That's not exactly what Clinton said here, but it's pretty close, and it's something she would not say in a scripted joint-media-appearance masquerading as a debate. The possibility of disarmament, nonviolent peacework, actual aid on a massive scale, and respectful diplomacy that leaves U.S. influence out of the resulting states is just not on Clinton's radar no matter who is in her audience.

    On Iran, Clinton repeatedly hypes false claims about nuclear weapons and terrorism, even while admitting far more openly than we're used to that Iran's religious leader denounces and opposes nuclear weapons. She also admits that Saudi Arabia is already pursuing nuclear weapons and that UAE and Egypt are likely to do so, at least if Iran does. She also admits that the Saudi government is far from stable.

    Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein asks Clinton at one point how a good war against Iran might go - he suggesting that an occupation (yes, they use that forbidden word) might not be the best move. Clinton replies that Iran can just be bombed. Blankfein, rather shockingly, appeals to reality - something Clinton goes on at obnoxious length about elsewhere in these speeches. Has bombing a population into submission ever worked, Blankfein asks. Clinton admits that it has not but suggests that it just might work on Iranians because they are not democratic.

    Regarding Egypt, Clinton makes clear her opposition to popular change.

    Regarding China again, Clinton claims to have told the Chinese that the United States could claim ownership of the entire Pacific as a result of having "liberated it." She goes on to claim to have told them that "We discovered Japan for heaven's sake." And: "We have proof of having bought [Hawaii]." Really? From whom?

    This is ugly stuff, at least as damaging to human lives as the filth coming from Donald Trump. Yet it's fascinating that even the bankers in whom Clinton confides her militarist mania ask her identical questions to those I get asked by peace activists at speaking events: "Is the U.S. political system completely broken?" "Should we scrap this and go with a parliamentary system?"

    Et cetera. In part their concern is the supposed gridlock created by differences between the two big parties, whereas my biggest concern is the militarized destruction of people and the environment that never seems to encounter even a slight traffic slowdown in Congress. But if you imagine that the people Bernie Sanders always denounces as taking home all the profits are happy with the status quo, think again. They benefit in certain ways, but they don't control their monster and it doesn't make them feel fulfilled.

    David Swanson wants you to declare peace at http://WorldBeyondWar.org His new book is War No More: The Case for Abolition.

    [Oct 18, 2016] In the Democratic Echo Chamber, Inconvenient Truths Are Recast as Putin Plots

    Notable quotes:
    "... zero suggestion in the article, let alone evidence, that any WikiLeaks email was doctored ..."
    "... wants to believe that this is true: ..."
    theintercept.com
    But come January, Democrats will continue to be the dominant political faction in the U.S. - more so than ever - and the tactics they are now embracing will endure past the election, making them worthy of scrutiny. Those tactics now most prominently include dismissing away any facts or documents that reflect negatively on their leaders as fake, and strongly insinuating that anyone who questions or opposes those leaders is a stooge or agent of the Kremlin, tasked with a subversive and dangerously un-American mission on behalf of hostile actors in Moscow.

    To see how extreme and damaging this behavior has become, let's just quickly examine two utterly false claims that Democrats over the past four days - led by party-loyal journalists - have disseminated and induced thousands of people, if not more, to believe. On Friday, WikiLeaks published its first installment of emails obtained from the account of Clinton campaign chair John Podesta. Despite WikiLeaks' perfect, long-standing record of only publishing authentic documents, MSNBC's favorite ex-intelligence official, Malcolm Nance, within hours of the archive's release, posted a tweet claiming - with zero evidence and without citation to a single document in the WikiLeaks archive - that it was compromised with fakes:

    As you can see, more than 4,000 people have re-tweeted this "Official Warning." That includes not only random Clinton fans but also high-profile Clinton-supporting journalists, who by spreading it around gave this claim their stamp of approval, intentionally leading huge numbers of people to assume the WikiLeaks archive must be full of fakes, and its contents should therefore simply be ignored. Clinton's campaign officials spent the day fueling these insinuations, strongly implying that the documents were unreliable and should thus be ignored. Poof: Just like that, unpleasant facts about Hillary Clinton disappeared, like a fairy protecting frightened children by waving her magic wand and sprinkling her dust over a demon, causing it to scatter away.

    Except the only fraud here was Nance's claim, not any of the documents published by WikiLeaks. Those were all real. Indeed, at Sunday night's debate, when asked directly about the excerpts of her Wall Street speeches found in the release, Clinton herself confirmed their authenticity. And news outlets such as the New York Times and AP reported - and continue to report - on their contents without any caveat that they may be frauds. No real print journalists or actual newsrooms (as opposed to campaign operatives masquerading as journalists) fell for this scam, so this tactic did not prevent reporting from being done.

    But it did signal to Clinton's most devoted followers to simply ignore the contents of the release. Anyone writing articles about what these documents revealed was instantly barraged with claims from Democrats that they were fakes, by people often pointing to "articles" like this one.

    That article was shared almost 22,000 times on Facebook alone. In Nance's defense, it is true that some unknown, random person posted a doctored email on the internet and claimed it was real, but that did not come from the WikiLeaks archive and has nothing to do with assessing the reliability of the archive (any more than fake NYT stories on the internet impugn the reliability of articles in that paper). Not one person has identified even a single email or document released by WikiLeaks of questionable authenticity - that includes all of the Clinton officials whose names are listed as their authors and recipients - yet these journalists and "experts" deliberately convinced who knows how many people to believe a fairy tale: that WikiLeaks' archive is pervaded with forgeries.

    More insidious and subtle, but even worse, was what Newsweek and its Clinton-adoring writer Kurt Eichenwald did last night. What happened - in reality, in the world of facts - was extremely trivial. One of the emails in the second installment of the WikiLeaks/Podesta archive - posted yesterday - was from Sidney Blumenthal to Podesta. The sole purpose of Blumenthal's email was to show Podesta one of Eichenwald's endless series of Clinton-exonerating articles, this one about Benghazi. So in the body of the email to Podesta, Blumenthal simply pasted the link and the full contents of the article. Although the purpose of Eichenwald's article (like everything he says and does) was to defend Clinton, one paragraph in the middle acknowledged that one minor criticism of Clinton on Benghazi was possibly rational.

    Once WikiLeaks announced that this second email batch was online, many news organizations (including The Intercept, along with the NYT and AP) began combing through them to find relevant information and then published articles about them. One such story was published by Sputnik, the Russian government's international outlet similar to RT, which highlighted that Blumenthal email. But the Sputnik story inaccurately attributed the text of the Newsweek article to Blumenthal, thus suggesting that one of Clinton's closest advisers had expressed criticism of her on Benghazi. Sputnik quickly removed the article once Eichenwald pointed out that the words were his, not Blumenthal's. Then, in his campaign speech last night, Trump made reference to the Sputnik article (hours after it was published and spread on social media), claiming (obviously inaccurately) that even Blumenthal had criticized Clinton on Benghazi.

    That's all that happened. There is zero suggestion in the article, let alone evidence, that any WikiLeaks email was doctored: It wasn't. It was just Sputnik misreporting the email. Once Sputnik realized that its article misattributed the text to Blumenthal, it took it down. It's not hard to imagine how a rushed, careless Sputnik staffer could glance at that email and fail to realize that Blumenthal was forwarding Eichenwald's article rather than writing it himself. And while nobody knows how this erroneous Sputnik story made its way to Trump for him to reference in his speech, it's very easy to imagine how a Trump staffer on a shoddy, inept campaign - which has previously cited InfoWars and white supremacist sites, among others - would have stumbled into a widely shared Sputnik story that had been published hours earlier on the internet and then passed it along to Trump for him to highlight, without realizing the reasons to be skeptical.

    In any event, based on the available evidence, this is a small embarrassment for Trump: He cited an erroneous story from a non-credible Russian outlet, so it's worth noting. But that's not what happened. Eichenwald, with increasing levels of hysteria, manically posted no fewer than three dozen tweets last night about his story, each time escalating his claims of what it proved. By the time he was done, he had misled large numbers of people into believing that he found proof that: 1) the documents in the WikiLeaks archive were altered; 2) Russia put forgeries into the WikiLeaks archive; 3) Sputnik knew about the WikiLeaks archive ahead of time, before it was posted online; 4) WikiLeaks coordinated the release of the documents with the Russian government; and 5) the Russian government and the Trump campaign coordinated to falsely attribute Eichenwald's words to Blumenthal.

    In fact, Eichenwald literally has zero evidence for any of that. The point is not that his evidence for these propositions is inconclusive or unpersuasive; the point is that there is zero evidence for any of it. It's all just conspiracy theorizing and speculation that he invented. Worse, the article, while hinting at these claims and encouraging readers to believe them, does not even expressly claim any of those things. Instead, Eichenwald's increasingly unhinged tweets repeatedly inflated his insignificant story from what it was - a misattribution of an email by Sputnik that Trump repeated - into a five-alarm warning that an insidious Russian plot to subvert U.S. elections had been proven, with Trump and fake WikiLeaks documents at the center.

    By itself, this is not so notable: All journalists are tempted to hype their stories. But Eichenwald went way, way beyond that, including - as demonstrated below - demonstrable lies. But what makes it so significant is how many reasoned, perfectly smart journalists - just as they did with Nance's "Official Warning" - started falling prey to the dual hysteria of Twitter group dynamics and election blinders, to the point where CNN featured Eichenwald this morning to highlight his major scoop linking Putin, Trump, and WikiLeaks in the plot to feed Americans heaps of Russian disinformation.

    Just watch how this warped narrative played out in a very short period of time, with nobody wanting to get in the way of the speeding train for fear of being castigated as a Trump supporter or Putin stooge (accusations that are - yet again - inevitably on their way as a result of this article):

    To call all this overwrought deceit is to understate the case. In particular, the repeated claim that his story has anything to do with, let alone demonstrates, that "wikileaks is working w/Putin" or "wikileaks is compromised" is an outright fraud. The assertion in the second tweet - that "only those two [Trump and Russia] knew" about the article - is an outright lie, since by the time Trump cited it, it had been published hours earlier on the internet and shared widely on social media. Moreover, none of the documents released by WikiLeaks have yet to be identified as anything but completely authentic.

    But look at his tweets: Each has been re-tweeted by close to 1,000 people, and in the case of the most sensationalistic ones, many more. And they were quickly hyped by people who should know better because anyone supporting Hillary Clinton wants to believe that this is true:

    Literally none of that happened. Or at least there is zero evidence that it did. These are smart, rational people falling for a scam. Why? It's in part because Twitter fosters this group-think and lack of critical thought - you just click a button and, with little effort, you've spread whatever you want people to believe - but it's also because they're so convinced of the righteousness of their cause (electing Clinton/defeating Trump) that they have cast all limits and constraints to the side, believing that any narrative or accusation or smear, no matter how false or conspiratorial, is justified in pursuit of it.

    But while Donald Trump's candidacy poses grave dangers, so does group-think righteousness, particularly when it engulfs those with the greatest influence. The problem is that none of this is going to vanish after the election. This election-year machine that has been constructed based on elite unity in support of Clinton - casually dismissing inconvenient facts as fraudulent to make them disappear, branding critics and adversaries as tools or agents of an Enemy Power bent on destroying America - is a powerful one. As is seen here, it is capable of implanting any narrative, no matter how false; demonizing any critic, no matter how baseless; and riling up people to believe they're under attack.

    For a long time, liberals heralded themselves as part of the "reality-based community" and derided conservatives as faith-based victims of "epistemic closure." The dynamics seen here are anything but byproducts of reason.

    [Oct 18, 2016] Obama -- neoliberal and neocon shill

    Notable quotes:
    "... Please name some of these "centrist" economic policies of Obama's. ..."
    "... Fact is, he made most of Bush Jr.'s tax cuts permanent. He slashed spending. He gave fraudulent bankers sweetheart deals buying up toxic assets with taxpayer money and QE purchases while giving Americans conned by them nothing. His healthcare reforms appear to have been written by the insurance companies (yet another looting scheme.) ..."
    "... Obama promised hope and change and delivered neither. He is as centrist Keynesian as Ronald Reagan. (Hillary, of course, is unapologetically neocon; she's been targeting the neocon vote since wrapping up the nomination.) ..."
    "... "Obama signed a law extending all of the Bush tax cuts for two years in 2010 and almost all of them indefinitely in 2013. The big features of Bush's plans -- the 10 percent tax bracket, across-the-board rate cuts, more generous estate-tax exemptions and equal standard deductions for married couples and two individuals -- are now locked into U.S. law." ..."
    "... "At its height in 2010, 'discretionary spending' under Obama reached 9.1% of GDP. That was largely due to the stimulus law intended to dig the country out of a deep recession. But even at that high level, it wasn't that much higher than the 40-year average of 8.4% and was still below the 40-year peak of 10% reached in 1983. Today, levels [of 6.8%] are well below the long-term average. And the Congressional Budget Office projects that by 2023 discretionary spending will fall to 5.3% of GDP, the lowest since 1962." ..."
    "... As for Obamacare, insurance companies are jacking up premiums and deductibles. If Obama had wanted to provide insurance for the 50 million uninsured (which he only reduced by 20 million) he could've extended Medicare with a public option and covered them all without giving healthcare insurance companies an excuse to fleece Americans even more. ..."
    "... ACA is why progressive must reject Hillary's soft right-centrist pap. The issue with ACA exchanges is escape........ The compromises pushed by the GOP were all for insurance companies. Single payer was needed to keep the thugs honest. ..."
    "... I really wish more liberals would learn about these things..." You mean you wish liberals were more gullible. Obama ran on a public option during the primaries, promised his health care reforms would include it. In the end it was all empty talk. The reason Obama and Hillary have the PRIVATE position that a public option is never going to happen under their watch is ..."
    "... The public option is a Trojan Horse. It will eat into the healthcare insurance industry's market share, which is why they pay Obama and Hillary the big bucks to protect it. ..."
    "... The 1983 and 2010 discretionary included too much of GDP on war. Proving Bastiat that "security spending" is less useful than almost any other use of the money. ..."
    "... Total is one feature, opportunity lost [on war profiteers blowing up evil doers] while spending Yuuuge is a few onion peels deeper. ..."
    "... The left/right economic spectrum is objective and immutable. In the center is the Keynesian mixed-market system that was abandoned when Reagan came to power for right-wing free-market reforms that were continued on by both Republican and Democratic presidents that followed. The country is further to the right now than when Reagan left power. ..."
    "... The economic spectrum is defined: 100% left is communism or full government control over the economy; 100% right is libertarianism or no government involvement in the economy. In the center is the Keynesian demand-side economic system that created modern living standards during the Progressive New Deal Era that began with FDR and was ended by Reagan. ..."
    "... To consider Obama's rule center-left is to be completely ignorant of the left/right economic spectrum. Norway is a left-leaning centrist Keynesian country. If you think America and Norway are the same I suggest (for starters) you watch Michael Moore's documentary: "Where to Invade Next." ..."
    "... By milquetoast I imagine you mean instead of delivering big promised changes from the Bush Jr. era, he did absolutely nothing. He continued both the neocon war-profiteering and neoliberal economic reforms. He will attempt to ram the TPP through after the election during the lame duck session. ..."
    "... If Americans hate anyone it is establishment lapdog Republicans and Democrats. Krugman's ridiculous rhetoric shows they are growing increasingly desperate. They should be: their neoliberal era is coming to a close; their gravy train is about to go off the rails. (Krugman got in on it too late.) ..."
    "... Starting wars is not "milquetoast, moderately successful center-left rule." It is a neocon scam run by the DNC establishment. Was Obama always a shill for the war machine, and his Iraq vote a Manchurian candidate? ..."
    Oct 18, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    Ron Waller -> DrDick... October 17, 2016 at 02:13 PM

    Please name some of these "centrist" economic policies of Obama's.

    Fact is, he made most of Bush Jr.'s tax cuts permanent. He slashed spending. He gave fraudulent bankers sweetheart deals buying up toxic assets with taxpayer money and QE purchases while giving Americans conned by them nothing. His healthcare reforms appear to have been written by the insurance companies (yet another looting scheme.)

    Obama promised hope and change and delivered neither. He is as centrist Keynesian as Ronald Reagan. (Hillary, of course, is unapologetically neocon; she's been targeting the neocon vote since wrapping up the nomination.)

    Political Compass: The US Presidential Election 2012
    https://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2012 Reply Monday, October 17, 2016 at 02:13 PM

    sanjait -> Ron Waller ... , October 17, 2016 at 02:43 PM

    "Fact is ..."

    Oh, do go on.

    "... he made most of Bush Jr.'s tax cuts permanent." Yeah, except the ones on higher incomes.

    "He slashed spending." Not really. The sequester hostage deal cuts were more than offset by other Obama-led spending, like ARRA short term and ACA long term.

    "He gave fraudulent bankers sweetheart deals buying up toxic assets with taxpayer money and QE purchases while giving Americans conned by them nothing. "

    Not even close. The Treasury and Fed buy assets at market prices, which is the complete opposite of "sweetheart deals." Notably, the Treasury and Fed have both profited from these purchases.

    "His healthcare reforms appear to have been written by the insurance companies (yet another looting scheme.)"

    The insurance companies lobbied against ACA and are clearly not profiting on exchange plan issuance.

    But sure, tell us more of about "facts."

    Ron Waller -> sanjait... , October 17, 2016 at 03:17 PM
    From Bloomberg:

    "Obama signed a law extending all of the Bush tax cuts for two years in 2010 and almost all of them indefinitely in 2013. The big features of Bush's plans -- the 10 percent tax bracket, across-the-board rate cuts, more generous estate-tax exemptions and equal standard deductions for married couples and two individuals -- are now locked into U.S. law."

    From CNN Money:

    "At its height in 2010, 'discretionary spending' under Obama reached 9.1% of GDP. That was largely due to the stimulus law intended to dig the country out of a deep recession. But even at that high level, it wasn't that much higher than the 40-year average of 8.4% and was still below the 40-year peak of 10% reached in 1983. Today, levels [of 6.8%] are well below the long-term average. And the Congressional Budget Office projects that by 2023 discretionary spending will fall to 5.3% of GDP, the lowest since 1962."

    Re: "sweetheart deals" I got that line from Stigtilz's "Freefall." Clearly a book you didn't read.

    As for Obamacare, insurance companies are jacking up premiums and deductibles. If Obama had wanted to provide insurance for the 50 million uninsured (which he only reduced by 20 million) he could've extended Medicare with a public option and covered them all without giving healthcare insurance companies an excuse to fleece Americans even more.

    (Developed countries pay 12% GDP for extensive healthcare benefits; the US pays 18% GDP for its patchwork system that leaves 31 million without. The inflated costs - 6% GDP or about $1T a year - are largely from insurance corporation looting.)

    sanjait -> Ron Waller ... , October 17, 2016 at 08:59 PM
    "Obama signed a law extending all of the Bush tax cuts for two years in 2010 and almost all of them indefinitely in 2013. "

    Yeah, and hidden in that "almost all" qualifier is exactly what I said previously: that the BTCs for higher incomes were NOT extended.

    And I didn't even mention before how ACA raised taxes further on the rich, with an additional surtaxes on both incomes and capital gains for $200k plus earners.

    The result has been that the top 1% now pay the highest effective tax rates they've paid since the mid 90s, while everyone else pays relatively lower.

    Reducing taxes on the not rich and raising taxes on the rich counts as center-left, at least, in any sensible accounting.

    "From CNN Money: "At its height in 2010, 'discretionary spending' under Obama reached 9.1% of GDP.
    ...
    And the Congressional Budget Office projects that by 2023 discretionary spending will fall to 5.3% of GDP, the lowest since 1962."

    Your use of this passage to try to make your point has so many layers of fudge it might as well be tiramisu.

    First, 2010 was a peak not just because of the ARRA spending, which is another thing I already mentioned, but also because of high *cyclical* spending on things like unemployment benefits.

    Spending always goes up during downturns. That's not a policy or ideological shift, that's just the nature of automatic stabilizers.

    You conflate all those things by pointing to the decline in spending off the cyclical peak as being somehow less than "centrist."

    Second, you have for no good reason chosen to point only too discretionary spending. So lets talk about what that category includes and doesn't.

    The biggest component of discretionary spending is defense spending. Is it "center-left" to promote higher defense spending? No way. And in fact, the sequester hostage deal cuts are half defense cuts.

    Another thing to note about discretionary spending is that its been declining for decades, as "non-discretionary" spending has come to increasingly dominate the budget. And that non-discretionary spending continues to go up.

    Also, like I already said (see a trend here?), the major policy changes affecting non-defense discretionary spending were the sequester and ACA, and guess what? They offset.

    So how is this not centrist? You want to paint Obama as some major spending cutter, but on balance he hasn't. He's cut deficits a little bit by raising taxes on the rich by a bit more than he's lowered them on everyone else.

    Not centrist? Pfft.

    "Re: "sweetheart deals" I got that line from Stigtilz's "Freefall." Clearly a book you didn't read."

    Clearly you can't even defend your own assertion, so you retreat to a weak argument from authority.

    "As for Obamacare, insurance companies are jacking up premiums and deductibles."

    No, they are jacking up premiums, by an average of 9%, which is far lower than they used to rise in the individual market on average pre-ACA, and follows a few years of way below trend rate increases.

    You were saying?

    " If Obama had wanted to provide insurance for the 50 million uninsured (which he only reduced by 20 million) he could've extended Medicare with a public option and covered them all without giving healthcare insurance companies an excuse to fleece Americans even more."

    Ugh. Just painful.

    Yes, a *single payer* system like Medicare for all would cover everyone, and probably be less expensive (though at present Medicare is the most generous single payer system on the planet, so it actually wouldn't save as much as international comparisons would lead you to believe).

    But the "public option" has nothing to do with Medicare or universal single payer coverage. It would simply be the government setting up an insurance company to offer policies on the exchanges for premiums. That's not at all the same as Medicare, and not universal. It could serve as a valuable competitor to private plans on the exchanges, which is why center-left Dems like Obama and Hillary Clinton support it, but you don't appear to be aware of that support or even what "public option" means.

    Please, just stop.

    sanjait -> sanjait... , October 17, 2016 at 09:02 PM
    Let me sum it up again:

    Obama raised taxes on the rich while cutting taxes on everyone else. In the sequester hostage deal he acquiesced to, they cut defense spending and non-defense discretionary equally, but Obama also expanded non-defense discretionary, by actually a greater amount, with the passage of ACA, not to mention the temporary but significant spending that was passed under ARRA. Based on this history he's supposedly not "centrist"? WTF?

    Ron Waller -> sanjait... , October 18, 2016 at 07:32 AM
    "Yeah, and hidden in that "almost all" qualifier is exactly what I said previously: that the BTCs for higher incomes were NOT extended."

    So you have a beef with Bloomberg? Puke your apologist rhetoric at them. "The result has been that the top 1% now pay the highest effective tax rates they've paid since the mid 90s, while everyone else pays relatively lower. So how is this not centrist?"

    The top tax bracket during the centrist Keynesian post-war era varied from 90% to 70%. Obama raised the rate from 35% to 40%. Still deep in right-wing "low tax, small government" neoclassical territory.

    "No, they are jacking up premiums, by an average of 9%, which is far lower than they used to rise"

    From Bill Clinton on the ACA: "So you've got this crazy system where all of a sudden, 25 million more people have healthcare and then the people that are out there busting it-sometimes 60 hours a week-wind up with their premiums doubled and their coverage cut in half. It's the craziest thing in the world."

    "Yes, a *single payer* system like Medicare for all would cover everyone … But the 'public option' has nothing to do with … universal single payer coverage"

    You missed my point completely. A primary goal of the ACA was to provide "affordable" healthcare insurance to the 50 million people without. A goal it clearly failed at given 31-million still have no healthcare insurance.

    I said that with the public option alone, all 50-million could've gotten public healthcare insurance or benefits without affecting anyone else's premiums and deductions. I.e., it would've been a more effective patchwork reform.

    Obviously a pubic option that covers 50-million is completely different from a single-payer system that would cover all 325-million Americans. Of course, this is completely irrelevant to my original point.

    "But the 'public option' has nothing to do with Medicare"

    From Wikipedia: "The Public Option Act, in contrast, would have allowed all citizens and permanent residents to buy into a public option by participating in the public Medicare program."

    "Please, just stop."

    You should heed your own advice. You are only fooling yourself with your weasel rhetoric and pathetic attempts at browbeating.

    ilsm -> sanjait... , October 17, 2016 at 03:37 PM
    ACA is why progressive must reject Hillary's soft right-centrist pap. The issue with ACA exchanges is escape........ The compromises pushed by the GOP were all for insurance companies. Single payer was needed to keep the thugs honest.

    Shifting to banking...... Who would have bought that $2T in MBS's (now sitting in a FR virtual vault) at what market*? When do those MBS's go back into the 'market'? *Clearing price ['market'] assumes a 'rational' buyer. The FR is a rationalizing buyer, with intent not usual to "markets".

    sanjait -> DrDick... , October 17, 2016 at 09:19 PM
    "Clinton will go left of ACA. "

    "I see no evidence of that" Believe it. Hillary Clinton has consistently supported the public option. That is an important "leftward" expansion of ACA. She has also proposed to *double* funding for Federally Qualified Health Centers (think County Health clinics) that serve as the front line of providing primary healthcare to the nations poor and working poor.

    Both of those initiatives would be enormously impactful on their own. And those are in addition to the litany of other proposals she has put forth, recently and over her entire working life, to improve access, affordability and quality of care for everyone.

    https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2016/07/09/hillary-clintons-commitment-universal-quality-affordable-health-care-for-everyone-in-america/
    https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/09/23/clinton-plan-to-lower-out-of-pocket-health-care-costs/

    I really wish more liberals would learn about these things...

    Ron Waller -> sanjait... , October 18, 2016 at 08:06 AM
    " I really wish more liberals would learn about these things..." You mean you wish liberals were more gullible. Obama ran on a public option during the primaries, promised his health care reforms would include it. In the end it was all empty talk. The reason Obama and Hillary have the PRIVATE position that a public option is never going to happen under their watch is :

    "Progressives supported [the public option] as a voluntary transition toward single-payer insurance, while conservatives opposed it as a government 'takeover' of health care." -- Health Affairs "The Origins And Demise Of The Public Option"

    The public option is a Trojan Horse. It will eat into the healthcare insurance industry's market share, which is why they pay Obama and Hillary the big bucks to protect it.

    sanjait -> ilsm... , October 17, 2016 at 09:13 PM

    "ACA is why progressive must reject Hillary's soft right-centrist pap. The issue with ACA exchanges is escape........ The compromises pushed by the GOP were all for insurance companies. Single payer was needed to keep the thugs honest."

    Yeah ... what?

    The GOP didn't compromise at all on ACA. They contributed zero votes. It was the best bill that the Dems could get all 60 Dem senators to agree on. If you want to talk about compromises for insurance companies, like the preclusion of the public option or the reduction in the Medicare age limit, it wasn't the GOP who pushed for those, it was Joe Lieberman and other waffly Dems.

    "Shifting to banking......

    Who would have bought that $2T in MBS's (now sitting in a FR virtual vault) at what market*?

    When do those MBS's go back into the 'market'?"

    Why don't you do a little googling and educate yourself instead of JAQing off to me?

    During the crisis, the Fed bought MBS at an enormous discount, precisely because the crisis crashed market liquidity and sellers were desperate. Although the Fed has also profited from purchases since, as insolvency rates on mortgages have continued to steadily decline.

    MBS don't need to be sold on market to generate income and profit. They are debt instruments that spit out cash over time. They actually liquidate themselves because homeowners almost never carry mortgage loans to term. AFAIK the Fed continues to buy them to maintain its balance sheet, which generates a small amount of interest income (only a few tens of billions...), but it's a pretty good income considering the Fed's cost of capital is near zero when it is printing money to deliberately expand monetary supply.

    ilsm -> Ron Waller ... , October 17, 2016 at 03:29 PM
    The 1983 and 2010 discretionary included too much of GDP on war. Proving Bastiat that "security spending" is less useful than almost any other use of the money.

    Total is one feature, opportunity lost [on war profiteers blowing up evil doers] while spending Yuuuge is a few onion peels deeper.

    Ron Waller -> sanjait... , October 17, 2016 at 03:28 PM
    The left/right economic spectrum is objective and immutable. In the center is the Keynesian mixed-market system that was abandoned when Reagan came to power for right-wing free-market reforms that were continued on by both Republican and Democratic presidents that followed. The country is further to the right now than when Reagan left power.

    The economic spectrum is defined: 100% left is communism or full government control over the economy; 100% right is libertarianism or no government involvement in the economy. In the center is the Keynesian demand-side economic system that created modern living standards during the Progressive New Deal Era that began with FDR and was ended by Reagan.

    sanjait -> Ron Waller ... , October 17, 2016 at 09:15 PM
    "The left/right economic spectrum is objective and immutable."

    Complete premise fail in the first sentence.

    Ron Waller -> sanjait... , October 18, 2016 at 07:40 AM
    You're incapable of comprehending the concepts of objectivity and immutability? Either you flunked out of high school, or you're an economist.
    Ron Waller -> sanjait... , October 17, 2016 at 02:49 PM
    To consider Obama's rule center-left is to be completely ignorant of the left/right economic spectrum. Norway is a left-leaning centrist Keynesian country. If you think America and Norway are the same I suggest (for starters) you watch Michael Moore's documentary: "Where to Invade Next."

    By milquetoast I imagine you mean instead of delivering big promised changes from the Bush Jr. era, he did absolutely nothing. He continued both the neocon war-profiteering and neoliberal economic reforms. He will attempt to ram the TPP through after the election during the lame duck session.

    If Americans hate anyone it is establishment lapdog Republicans and Democrats. Krugman's ridiculous rhetoric shows they are growing increasingly desperate. They should be: their neoliberal era is coming to a close; their gravy train is about to go off the rails. (Krugman got in on it too late.)

    ilsm -> sanjait... , October 17, 2016 at 03:13 PM
    Starting wars is not "milquetoast, moderately successful center-left rule." It is a neocon scam run by the DNC establishment. Was Obama always a shill for the war machine, and his Iraq vote a Manchurian candidate?

    [Oct 18, 2016] The Clinton Goldman Speeches No Smoking Guns, but a Munitions Dump Instead

    Notable quotes:
    "... First, Clinton's neoliberalism is so bone deep that she refers to Medicare as a "single market" rather than "single payer"; ..."
    "... Clinton frames solutions exclusively ..."
    "... Policy Sciences ..."
    "... Stalin spent his early days in a seminary. Masters of broken promises. I'm more interested in Clinton's Chinese connections. Probably tied through JP Morgan. The Chinese are very straightforward in their, dare I say, inscrutible way. The ministers are the ministers, and the palace is the palace. ..."
    "... SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I don't feel particularly courageous. I mean, if we're going to be an effective, efficient economy, we need to have all part of that engine running well, and that includes Wall Street and Main Street. ..."
    "... Because she wont pay for quality speechwriters or coaching. Because she is a shyster, cheapskate and a fraud. They hired the most inept IT company to 'mange' their office server who then (in a further fit of cheapskate stupidity) hired an inept IT client manager who then (in a further fit of cheapskate stupidity) asked Reddit for a solution. ..."
    "... One can say a lot of justifiable bad things about Ronald Reagan, but, he had competent advisors and he used them! With Hillary, Even if she knows she has accessed the best advice on the planet her instinct it to not trust it because "she knows better" and she absolutely will not tolerate dissent. Left to her own devices, she simply copies other people's thinking/ homework instead of building her own ideas with it. ..."
    "... What surprises me is that Goldmans paid her for these speeches, you know? Hillary C typically pays "the audience" to listen to, and come to her speeches. You know? You know! ..."
    "... I heard Hillary speak in summer '92, when Bill was running for Prez. She. was. amazing. No joke. Great speech, great ideas, great points. I thought then she should be the candidate. But there was in her speech just a tiny undercurrent of "the ends justify the means." i.e. 'we need to get lots of money so we can do good things.' Fast forward 20+ years. Seems to me that for the Clintons the "means" (getting lots of money) has become the end in itself. Reassuring Wall St. is one method for getting money – large, large amounts of money. ..."
    "... A fine illustration of the maxim that "crime makes you stupid." ..."
    "... in that context ..."
    "... So I guess the moral of the story is (a) more deterioration, this time from 2008 to 2016, and (b) Clinton can actually make a good decision, but only when forced to by a catastrophe that will impact her personally. Whether she'll be able to rise to the occasion if elected is an open question, but this post argues not. ..."
    "... Bingo! Think about it: She was speaking to a group of people whose time is "valued" at 100's if not 1,000's of dollars per hour. She took up their "valuable" time but provided nothing except politics-as-usual blather tailored to that particular audience. Yet she was paid $225k for a single speech… ..."
    "... Hillary is a remarkably inarticulate person, which calls into question her intellectual fitness for the job (amidst many other questions, of course). I entirely agree with your depiction of her speeches as mindless drivel. ..."
    "... Not to otherwise compare them, but Bush I's inarticulateness made him seem a buffoon, and that was not the case, either. ..."
    "... Matt Tiabbi, Elizabeth Warren, Benie Sanders, Noam Chompsky–all those used to seem like bastions of integrity have, thanks to Hillary, been revealed as slimy little Weasels who should henceforth be completely disregarded. I'd have to thank Hillary for pulling back the nlindets on that; if not for this election I might have been still foolishly listening to these people. ..."
    "... What scares me most about Clinton is her belligerence towards Russia and clamoring for a no-fly zone in Syria. The no-fly zone will mean war with Russia. If only Clinton were saying this, we might be safe, but the entire Washington deep state seems to be of one mind in favor of a war. During the cold war this would have been inconceivable; everyone understood a nuclear war must not be allowed. This is no longer true and it is terrifying. Every war game the pentagon used to simulate a war with the U.S.S.R. escalated into an all out nuclear war. What is the "plan B" Obama is pursuing in Syria? ..."
    "... The current fear/fever over nuclear war with Russia requires madness in the Kremlin - of which there is no evidence. Our Rulers are depending on Putin and his cohorts being the sane ones as rhetoric from the US and the West ratchets ever upwards. ..."
    "... But then, the Kremlin is looking for any hint of sanity on US and NATO side and is finding little… ..."
    "... Curtis LeMay tried to provoke a nuclear war with the Soviets in the 1950's. By and large, however, the American state understood a nuclear war was unwinnable and avoided such a possibility. A no-fly zone in Syria would start a war with Russia. William Polk, who participated in the Cuban missle crisis and U.S. nuclear war games, argues in this article ..."
    "... both of which present a clinical assessment that Hillary suffers from Parkinson's. Seems like an elephant in the room. ..."
    "... The absolute vacuousness of Clinton's remarks, coupled with her ease at neoliberal conventional wisdom, make it clear that Goldman's payments were nothing more (or less) than a $675,000 anticipatory "so no quid pro quo ..."
    "... The leaked emails confirm - even though she herself never writes them, which is really odd, when you consider that Podesta is her Campaign Chair and close ally going back decades - that she is compulsively secretive, controlling, and resistant to admitting she's wrong. The chain of people talking about how to get her to admit she was wrong about Nancy Reagan and AIDS was particularly fascinating that way; she was flat out factually inaccurate, and it had the potential to do tremendous harm to her campaign with a key donor group, and it was apparently still a major task to persuade her to say "I made a mistake." ..."
    "... basically, every real world policy problem is related to every other real world policy problem ..."
    "... Most noticeable thing is her subservience to them like a fresh college grad afraid of his boss at his first job ..."
    Oct 18, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    As readers know, WikiLeaks has released transcripts of the three speeches to Goldman Sachs that Clinton gave in 2013, and for which she was paid the eyewatering sum of $675,000. (The link is to an email dated January 23, 2016, from Cllinton staffer Tony Carrk , Clinton's research director, which pulls out "noteworthy quotes" from the speeches. The speeches themselves are attachments to that email.)

    Readers, I read them. All three of them. What surprises - and when I tell you I had to take a little nap about halfway through, I'm not making it up! - is the utter mediocrity of Clinton's thought and mode of expression[1]. Perhaps that explains Clinton's otherwise inexplicable refusal to release them. And perhaps my sang froid is preternatural, but I don't see a "smoking gun," unless forking over $675,000 for interminable volumes of shopworn conventional wisdom be, in itself, such a gun. What can Goldman Sachs possibly have thought they were paying for?

    WikiLeaks has, however, done voters a favor - in these speeches, and in the DNC and Podesta email releases generally - by giving us a foretaste of what a Clinton administration will be like, once in power, not merely on policy (the "first 100 days"), but on how they will make decisions. I call the speeches a "munitions dump," because the views she expresses in these speeches are bombs that can be expected to explode as the Clinton administration progresses.

    With that, let's contextualize and comment upon some quotes from the speeches

    The Democrats Are the Party of Wall Street

    Of course, you knew that, but it's nice to have the matter confirmed. This material was flagged by Carrk (as none of the following material will have been). It's enormously prolix, but I decided to cut only a few paragraphs. From Clinton's second Goldman speech at the AIMS Alternative Investments Symposium:

    MR. O'NEILL: Let's come back to the US. Since 2008, there's been an awful lot of seismic activity around Wall Street and the big banks and regulators and politicians.

    Now, without going over how we got to where we are right now , what would be your advice to the Wall Street community and the big banks as to the way forward with those two important decisions?

    SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I represented all of you for eight years. I had great relations and worked so close together after 9/11 to rebuild downtown, and a lot of respect for the work you do and the people who do it, but I do - I think that when we talk about the regulators and the politicians, the economic consequences of bad decisions back in '08, you know, were devastating, and they had repercussions throughout the world.

    That was one of the reasons that I started traveling in February of '09, so people could, you know, literally yell at me for the United States and our banking system causing this everywhere. Now, that's an oversimplification we know, but it was the conventional wisdom [really?!].

    And I think that there's a lot that could have been avoided in terms of both misunderstanding and really politicizing [!] what happened with greater transparency, with greater openness on all sides, you know, what happened, how did it happen, how do we prevent it from happening? You guys help us figure it out and let's make sure that we do it right this time .

    And I think that everybody was desperately trying to fend off the worst effects institutionally, governmentally, and there just wasn't that opportunity to try to sort this out, and that came later .

    I mean, it's still happening, as you know. People are looking back and trying to, you know, get compensation for bad mortgages and all the rest of it in some of the agreements that are being reached.

    There's nothing magic about regulations, too much is bad, too little is bad. How do you get to the golden key, how do we figure out what works? And the people that know the industry better than anybody are the people who work in the industry .

    And we need banking. I mean, right now, there are so many places in our country where the banks are not doing what they need to do because they're scared of regulations , they're scared of the other shoe dropping, they're just plain scared, so credit is not flowing the way it needs to to restart economic growth.

    So people are, you know, a little - they're still uncertain, and they're uncertain both because they don't know what might come next in terms of regulations, but they're also uncertain because of changes in a global economy that we're only beginning to take hold of.

    So first and foremost, more transparency, more openness, you know, trying to figure out, we're all in this together , how we keep this incredible economic engine in this country going. And this [finance] is, you know, the nerves, the spinal column.

    And with political people, again, I would say the same thing, you know, there was a lot of complaining about Dodd-Frank, but there was also a need to do something because for political reasons , if you were an elected member of Congress and people in your constituency were losing jobs and shutting businesses and everybody in the press is saying it's all the fault of Wall Street, you can't sit idly by and do nothing, but what you do is really important.

    And I think the jury is still out on that because it was very difficult to sort of sort through it all.

    And, of course, I don't, you know, I know that banks and others were worried about continued liability [oh, really?] and other problems down the road, so it would be better if we could have had a more open exchange about what we needed to do to fix what had broken and then try to make sure it didn't happen again, but we will keep working on it.

    MR. O'NEILL: By the way, we really did appreciate when you were the senator from New York and your continued involvement in the issues (inaudible) to be courageous in some respects to associated with Wall Street and this environment. Thank you very much.

    SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I don't feel particularly courageous. I mean, if we're going to be an effective, efficient economy, we need to have all part of that engine running well, and that includes Wall Street and Main Street.

    And there's a big disconnect and a lot of confusion right now. So I'm not interested in, you know, turning the clock back or pointing fingers , but I am interested in trying to figure out how we come together to chart a better way forward and one that will restore confidence in, you know, small and medium-size businesses and consumers and begin to chip away at the unemployment rate [five years into the recession!].

    So it's something that I, you know, if you're a realist, you know that people have different roles to play in politics, economics, and this is an important role, but I do think that there has to be an understanding of how what happens here on Wall Street has such broad consequences not just for the domestic but the global economy, so more thought has to be given to the process and transactions and regulations so that we don't kill or maim what works, but we concentrate on the most effective way of moving forward with the brainpower and the financial power that exists here.

    "Moving forward." And not looking back. (It would be nice to know what "continued liability" the banks were worried about; accounting control fraud ? Maybe somebody could ask Clinton.) Again, I call your attention to the weird combination of certainty and mediocrity of it; readers, I am sure, can demolish the detail. What this extended quotation does show is that Clinton and Obama are as one with respect to the role of the finance sector. Politico describes Obama's famous meeting with the bankster CEOs:

    Arrayed around a long mahogany table in the White House state dining room last week, the CEOs of the most powerful financial institutions in the world offered several explanations for paying high salaries to their employees - and, by extension, to themselves.

    "These are complicated companies," one CEO said. Offered another: "We're competing for talent on an international market.".

    But President Barack Obama wasn't in a mood to hear them out. He stopped the conversation and offered a blunt reminder of the public's reaction to such explanations. "Be careful how you make those statements, gentlemen. The public isn't buying that.".

    "My administration," the president added, "is the only thing between you and the pitchforks."

    And he did! He did! Clinton, however, by calling the finance sector the "the nerves, the spinal column" of the country, goes farther than Obama ever did.

    So, from the governance perspective, we can expect the FIRE sector to dominate a Clinton administration, and the Clinton administration to service it. The Democrats are the Party of Wall Street. The bomb that could explode there is corrupt dealings with cronies (for which the Wikileaks material provides plenty of leads).

    Clinton Advocates a "Night Watchman" State

    The next quotes are shorter, I swear! Here's a quote from Clinton's third Goldman speech (not flagged by Carrk, no doubt because hearing drivel like this is perfectly normal in HillaryLand):

    SECRETARY CLINTON: And I tell you, I see any society like a three-legged stool. You have to have an active free market that gives people the chance to live out their dreams by their own hard work and skills. You have to have a functioning, effective government that provides the right balance of oversight and protection of freedom and privacy and liberty and all the rest of it that goes with it . And you have to have an active civil society. Because there's so much about America that is volunteerism and religious faith and family and community activities. So you take one of those legs away, it's pretty hard to balance it. So you've got to get back to getting the right balance.

    Apparently, the provision of public services is not within government's remit -- What are Social Security and Medicare? "All the rest of it"? Not only that, who said the free market was the only way to "live out their dreams"? Madison, Franklin, even Hamilton would have something to say about that! Finally, which one of those legs is out of balance? Civil society? Some would advocate less religion in politics rather than more, including many Democrats. The markets? Not at Goldman? Government? Too much militarization, way too little concrete material benefits, so far as I'm concerned, but Clinton doesn't say, making the "stool" metaphor vacuous.

    From a governance perspective, we can expect Clinton's blind spot on government's role in provisioning servies to continue. Watch for continued privatization efforts (perhaps aided by Silicon Valley). On any infrastructure projects, watch for "public-private partnerships." The bomb that could explode there is corrupt dealings with a different set of cronies (even if the FIRE sector does have a finger in every pie).

    Clinton's Views on Health Care Reflect Market Fundamentalism

    From Clinton's second Goldman Speech :

    MR. O'NEILL: [O]bviously the Affordable Care Act has been upheld by the supreme court. It's clearly having limitation problems [I don't know what that means]. It's unsettling, people still - the Republicans want to repeal it or defund it. So how do you get to the middle on that clash of absolutes?

    SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, this is not the first time that we rolled out a big program with the limitation problems [Clinton apparently does].

    I was in the Senate when President Bush asked and signed legislation expanding Medicare benefits, the Medicare Part D drug benefits. And people forget now that it was a very difficult implementation.

    As a senator, my staff spent weeks working with people who were trying to sign up, because it was in some sense even harder to manage because the population over 65, not the most computer-literate group, and it was difficult. But, you know, people stuck with it, worked through it.

    Now, this is on - it's on a different scale and it is more complex because it's trying to create a market. In Medicare, you have a single market , you have, you know, the government is increasing funding through government programs [sic] to provide people over 65 the drugs they needed.

    And there were a few variations that you could play out on it, but it was a much simpler market than what the Affordable Care Act is aiming to set up.

    Now, the way I look at this, Tim, is it's either going to work or it's not going to work.

    First, Clinton's neoliberalism is so bone deep that she refers to Medicare as a "single market" rather than "single payer"; but then Clinton erases single payer whenever possible . Second, Clinton frames solutions exclusively in terms of markets (and not the direct provision of services by government); Obama does the same on health care in JAMA , simply erasing the possibility of single payer. Third, rather than advocate a simple, rugged, and proven system like Canadian Medicare (single payer), Clinton prefers to run an experiment ("it's either going to work or it's not going to work") on the health of millions of people (and, I would urge, without their informed consent).

    From a governance perspective, assume that if the Democrats propose a "public option," it will be miserably inadequate. The bomb that could explode here is the ObamaCare death spiral.

    The Problems Are "Wicked," but Clinton Will Be Unable to Cope With Them

    Finally, this little passage from the first Clinton Goldman speech caught my eye:

    MR. BLANKFEIN: The next area which I think is actually literally closer to home but where American lives have been at risk is the Middle East, I think is one topic. What seems to be the ambivalence or the lack of a clear set of goals - maybe that ambivalence comes from not knowing what outcome we want or who is our friend or what a better world is for the United States and of Syria, and then ultimately on the Iranian side if you think of the Korean bomb as far away and just the Tehran death spot, the Iranians are more calculated in a hotter area with - where does that go? And I tell you, I couldn't - I couldn't myself tell - you know how we would like things to work out, but it's not discernable to me what the policy of the United States is towards an outcome either in Syria or where we get to in Iran.

    MS. CLINTON: Well, part of it is it's a wicked problem , and it's a wicked problem that is very hard to unpack in part because as you just said, Lloyd, it's not clear what the outcome is going to be and how we could influence either that outcome or a different outcome.

    (I say "cope with" rather than "solve" for reasons that will become apparent.) Yes, Syria's bad, as vividly shown by Blankfein's fumbling question, but I want to focus on the term "wicked problem," which comes from the the field of strategic planning, though it's also infiltrated information technology and management theory . The concept originated in a famous paper by Horst W. J. Rittel and Melvin M. Webber entitled: "Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning" (PDF), Policy Sciences 4 (1973), 155-169. I couldn't summarize the literature even if I had the time, but here is Rittel and Webber's introduction:

    There are at least ten distinguishing properties of planning-type problems, i.e. wicked ones, that planners had better be alert to and which we shall comment upon in turn. As you will see, we are calling them "wicked" not because these properties are themselves ethically deplorable. We use the term "wicked" in a meaning akin to that of "malignant" (in contrast to "benign") or "vicious" (like a circle) or "tricky" (like a leprechaun) or "aggressive" (like a lion, in contrast to the docility of a lamb). We do not mean to personify these properties of social systems by implying malicious intent. But then, you may agree that it becomes morally objectionable for the planner to treat a wicked problem as though it were a tame one, or to tame a wicked problem prematurely, or to refuse to recognize the inherent wickedness of social problems.

    And here is a list of Rittel and Webber's ten properties of a "wicked problem" ( and a critique ):

    There is no definite formulation of a wicked problem Wicked problems have no stopping rule Solutions to wicked problems are not true-or-false, but good-or-bad. There is no immediate and no ultimate test of a solution to a wicked problem. Every solution to a wicked problem is a "one-shot operation"; because there is no opportunity to learn by trial-and-error, every attempt counts significantly. Wicked problems do not have an enumerable (or an exhaustively describable) set of potential solutions, nor is there a well-described set of permissible operations that may be incorporated into the plan. Every wicked problem is essentially unique. Every wicked problem can be considered to be a symptom of another [wicked] problem. The causes of a wicked problem can be explained in numerous ways. The choice of explanation determines the nature of the problem's resolution. [With wicked problems,] the planner has no right to be wrong.

    Of course, there's plenty of controversy about all of this, but if you throw these properties against the Syrian clusterf*ck, I think you'll see a good fit, and can probably come up with other examples. My particular concern, however, is with property #3:

    Solutions to wicked problems are not true-or-false, but good-or-bad

    There are conventionalized criteria for objectively deciding whether the offered solution to an equation or whether the proposed structural formula of a chemical compound is correct or false. They can be independently checked by other qualified persons who are familiar with the established criteria; and the answer will be normally unambiguous.

    For wicked planning problems, there are no true or false answers. Normally, many parties are equally equipped, interested, and/or entitled to judge the solutions, although none has the power to set formal decision rules to determine correctness. Their judgments are likely to differ widely to accord with their group or personal interests, their special value-sets, and their ideological predilections. Their assessments of proposed solutions are expressed as "good" or "bad" or, more likely, as "better or worse" or "satisfying" or "good enough."

    (Today, we would call these "many parties" "stakeholders.") My concern is that a Clinton administration, far from compromising - to be fair, Clinton does genuflect toward "compromise" elsewhere - will try to make wicked planning problems more tractable by reducing the number of parties to policy decisions. That is, exactly, what "irredeemables" implies[2], which is unfortunate, especially when the cast out amount to well over a third of the population. The same tendencies were also visible in the Clinton campaigns approach to Sanders and Sanders supporters, and the general strategy of bringing the Blame Cannons to bear on those who demonstrate insufficient fealty.

    From a governance perspective, watch for many more executive orders acceptable to neither right nor left, and plenty of decisions taken in secret. The bomb that could explode here is the legitimacy of a Clinton administration, depending on the parties removed from the policy discussion, and the nature of the decision taken.

    Conclusion

    I don't think volatility will decrease on November 8, should Clinton be elected and take office; if anything, it will increase. A ruling party in thrall to finance, intent on treating government functions as opportunities for looting by cronies, blinded by neoliberal ideology and hence incapable of providing truly universal health care, and whose approach to problems of conflict in values is to demonize and exclude the opposition is a recipe for continued crisis.

    NOTES

    [1] Matt Taibbi takes the view that "Speaking to bankers and masters of the corporate universe, she came off as relaxed, self-doubting, reflective, honest, philosophical rather than political, and unafraid to admit she lacked all the answers." I don't buy it. It all read like the same old Clinton to me, and I've read a lot of Clinton (see, e.g., here , here , here , here , here , and here ).

    [2] One is irresistibly reminded of Stalin's "No man, no problem," although some consider Stalin's methods to be unsound.

    oho October 17, 2016 at 1:14 pm

    Slow motion coup. Wish I was being histrionic.

    Vatch October 17, 2016 at 1:56 pm

    Your notion is a lot like Simon Johnson's thoughts about the Quiet Coup from 2009:

    http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/05/the-quiet-coup/307364/

    ocop October 17, 2016 at 3:40 pm

    Oh my god.

    I had never read this article before. Near perfect diagnosis and even more relevant today than it was then. For everyone's benefit, the central thesis:

    Typically, these countries are in a desperate economic situation for one simple reason-the powerful elites within them overreached in good times and took too many risks. Emerging-market governments and their private-sector allies commonly form a tight-knit-and, most of the time, genteel-oligarchy, running the country rather like a profit-seeking company in which they are the controlling shareholders.

    Of course, the U.S. is unique. And just as we have the world's most advanced economy, military, and technology, we also have its most advanced oligarchy.

    In a primitive political system, power is transmitted through violence, or the threat of violence: military coups, private militias, and so on. In a less primitive system more typical of emerging markets, power is transmitted via money: bribes, kickbacks, and offshore bank accounts. Although lobbying and campaign contributions certainly play major roles in the American political system, old-fashioned corruption-envelopes stuffed with $100 bills-is probably a sideshow today, Jack Abramoff notwithstanding.

    Instead, the American financial industry gained political power by amassing a kind of cultural capital-a belief system. Once, perhaps, what was good for General Motors was good for the country. Over the past decade, the attitude took hold that what was good for Wall Street was good for the country. The banking-and-securities industry has become one of the top contributors to political campaigns, but at the peak of its influence, it did not have to buy favors the way, for example, the tobacco companies or military contractors might have to. Instead, it benefited from the fact that Washington insiders already believed that large financial institutions and free-flowing capital markets were crucial to America's position in the world.

    A hypothesis (at least for "Main Street") proven true between 2009 and 2016:

    Emerging-market countries have only a precarious hold on wealth, and are weaklings globally. When they get into trouble, they quite literally run out of money -- or at least out of foreign currency, without which they cannot survive. They must make difficult decisions; ultimately, aggressive action is baked into the cake. But the U.S., of course, is the world's most powerful nation, rich beyond measure, and blessed with the exorbitant privilege of paying its foreign debts in its own currency, which it can print. As a result, it could very well stumble along for years-as Japan did during its lost decade-never summoning the courage to do what it needs to do, and never really recovering.

    Lastly, the "bleak" scenario from 2009 that today looks about a decade too early, but could with minor tuning (Southern instead of Eastern Europe, for example) end up hitting in a big way:


    It goes like this: the global economy continues to deteriorate, the banking system in east-central Europe collapses, and-because eastern Europe's banks are mostly owned by western European banks-justifiable fears of government insolvency spread throughout the Continent. Creditors take further hits and confidence falls further. The Asian economies that export manufactured goods are devastated, and the commodity producers in Latin America and Africa are not much better off. A dramatic worsening of the global environment forces the U.S. economy, already staggering, down onto both knees. The baseline growth rates used in the administration's current budget are increasingly seen as unrealistic, and the rosy "stress scenario" that the U.S. Treasury is currently using to evaluate banks' balance sheets becomes a source of great embarrassment.

    The conventional wisdom among the elite is still that the current slump "cannot be as bad as the Great Depression." This view is wrong. What we face now could, in fact, be worse than the Great Depression-because the world is now so much more interconnected and because the banking sector is now so big. We face a synchronized downturn in almost all countries, a weakening of confidence among individuals and firms, and major problems for government finances. If our leadership wakes up to the potential consequences, we may yet see dramatic action on the banking system and a breaking of the old elite. Let us hope it is not then too late.

    Lambert Strether Post author October 18, 2016 at 12:34 am

    That's a good reminder to us at NC that not all our readers have been with us since 2009 and may not be familiar with the great financial crash and subsequent events. I remember reading the Johnson article when it came out. And now, almost eight years later…

    There's a reason that there's a "Banana Republic" category. Every time I read an article about the political economy of a second- or third-world country I look for how it applies to this country, and much of the time, it does, particularly on corruption.

    Synoia October 17, 2016 at 1:16 pm

    She told them what they wanted to hear. "No surprises."

    craazyboy October 17, 2016 at 2:17 pm

    We truly must consider the possibility Goldman wrote the 3 speeches, then paid Hillary to give them.

    Next, leak them to Wiki. Everything in them is pretty close to pure fiction – but it is neolib banker fiction. Just makes it all seem more real when they do things this way.

    Yike's, I'm turning into a crazy conspiracy theorist.

    ambrit October 17, 2016 at 4:56 pm

    Don't fall for the 'status quo's' language Jedi mind trick crazyboy. I like to call myself a "sane conspiracy theorist." You can too!
    As for H Clinton's 'slavish' adherence to the Bankster Ethos; in psychology, there is the "Stockholm Syndrome." Here, H Clinton displays the markers of "Wall Street Syndrome."

    Praedor October 17, 2016 at 1:22 pm

    Ugh. Mindless drivel. Talking points provided by Wall St itself would sound identical.

    Then there's this: She did NOT represent Wall St and the Banks while a Senator. They cannot vote. They are not people. They are not citizens. She represented the PEOPLE. The PEOPLE that can VOTE. You cannot represent a nonexistent entity like a corporation as an ELECTED official. You can ONLY represent those who actually can, or do, vote. End of story.

    Portia October 17, 2016 at 1:39 pm

    You cannot represent a nonexistent entity like a corporation

    you are forgetting, of course, that Corporations are people, too. And a corporation's voting is done with a corporation's wallet.

    Roger Smith October 17, 2016 at 1:59 pm

    I saw a video in high school years back that mentioned a specific congressional ruling that gave Congress the equivalent to individual rights. I swear it was also in the 30s but I cannot recall and have never been able to find what it was I saw. Do you have any insight here?

    Portia October 17, 2016 at 2:47 pm

    could this be related?

    Historical Background and Legal Basis of the Federal Register / CFR Publications System

    Why was the Federal Register System Established ?

    New Deal legislation of the 1930's delegated responsibility from Congress to agencies to regulate complex social and economic issues
    Citizens needed access to new regulations to know their effect in advance
    Agencies and Citizens needed a centralized filing and publication system to keep track of rules
    Courts began to rule on "secret law" as a violation of right to due process under the Constitution

    https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/tutorial/online-html.html

    Antoine October 17, 2016 at 1:22 pm

    Third paragraph : WikiLeaks, not Wikipedia :)

    Lambert Strether Post author October 17, 2016 at 2:58 pm

    Thanks, fixed!

    Roger Smith October 17, 2016 at 1:30 pm

    tl;dr - Clinton has terrible judgement

    But don't forget. She is the most qualified candidate… EVER . Remind me again how this species was able to bring three stranded Apollo 13 astronauts back from the abyss, the vacuum of space with some tape and tubing.

    This is like watching a cheap used car lot advertisement where the owner delivers obviously false platitudes as the store and cars collapse, break, and burst into flames behind them.

    john October 17, 2016 at 3:05 pm

    Stalin spent his early days in a seminary. Masters of broken promises. I'm more interested in Clinton's Chinese connections. Probably tied through JP Morgan. The Chinese are very straightforward in their, dare I say, inscrutible way. The ministers are the ministers, and the palace is the palace.

    The show is disappointing, the debaters play at talking nuclear policy, but have *nothing* to say about Saudi Arabia's new arsenal.

    When politicos talk nuclear, they only mean to allege a threat to Israel, blame Russia, or fear-monger the North Koreans.

    We're in the loop, but only the quietest whispers of the conflict in Pakistan are available. It sounds pretty serious, but there is only interest in attacking inconvenient Arabs.

    On Trump, what an interesting study in communications. The no man you speak of. Even himself caught between his own insincerity towards higher purpose and his own ego as 'the establishment' turns on him.

    The proles of his support are truely a silent majority. The Republicans promised us Reagan for twenty years, and it's finally the quasi-Democrat Trump who delivers.

    Lambert Strether Post author October 18, 2016 at 12:37 am

    > This is like watching a cheap used car lot advertisement where the owner delivers obviously false platitudes as the store and cars collapse, break, and burst into flames behind them.

    +100

    With a wall of American flags waving in the background as the smoke and flames rise.

    optimader October 17, 2016 at 1:35 pm

    SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I don't feel particularly courageous. I mean, if we're going to be an effective, efficient economy, we need to have all part of that engine running well, and that includes Wall Street and Main Street.

    this all reads like a cokehead's flow of consciousness on some ethereal topic with no intellectual content on the matter to express. I would have said extemporaneous, but you know it was all scripted, so that's even worse.

    Her rap kinda reminds me of a banal form of the photojournalist in
    http://hartzog.org/j/apocalypsenowtranscript.html

    PHOTOJOURNALIST
    "Do you know what the man is saying? Do you? This is dialectics.
    It's very simple dialectics. One through nine, no maybes, no
    supposes, no fractions - you can't travel in space, you can't go out
    into space, you know, without, like, you know, with fractions - what
    are you going to land on, one quarter, three-eighths - what are you
    going to do when you go from here to Venus or something - that's
    dialectic physics, OK? Dialectic logic is there's only love and hate, you
    either love somebody or you hate them."

    Andy October 17, 2016 at 11:42 pm

    NICE ref. Always like's me that redux.

    Lambert Strether Post author October 18, 2016 at 12:42 am

    "Da5id's voice is deep and placid, with no trace of stress. The syllables roll off his tongue like drool. As Hiro walks down the hallway he can hear Da5id talking all the way. 'i ge en i ge en nu ge en nu ge en us sa tu ra lu ra ze em men….'" –Neal Stephenson, Snow Crash

    ambrit October 17, 2016 at 1:41 pm

    H Clinton's speaking 'style' reeks. Partial thoughts follow half baked pronouncements, all lacking clarity or coherence, you know?

    grayslady October 17, 2016 at 2:24 pm

    Completely agree. When I first read excerpts from her speeches, I was appalled at the constant use of "you know" peppering most of her sentences. To me, people who constantly bifurcate sentences with "you know" are simply blathering. They usually don't have any in-depth knowledge of the subject matter on which they are opining. Compare Hillary being asked to comment on a subject with someone such as Michael Hudson or Bill Black commenting on a subject and she simply sounds illiterate. I have this feeling that her educational record is based on an ability to memorize and parrot back answers rather than someone who can reach a conclusion by examining multiple concepts.

    Arizona Slim October 17, 2016 at 4:03 pm

    Here's what I don't understand: The lady (and her husband) have LOADS of money. Yet this is the best that she can do?

    Really?

    Heck, if I had half the Clintons' money, I'd be hiring the BEST speechwriters, acting coaches, and fashion consultants on the planet. And I'd be taking their advice and RUNNING with it. Sheesh. Some people have more money than sense.

    uncle tungsten October 18, 2016 at 12:23 am

    Because she wont pay for quality speechwriters or coaching. Because she is a shyster, cheapskate and a fraud. They hired the most inept IT company to 'mange' their office server who then (in a further fit of cheapskate stupidity) hired an inept IT client manager who then (in a further fit of cheapskate stupidity) asked Reddit for a solution.

    Its in the culture: Podesta does it, Blumenthal does it

    And now they blame the Russians!!!! Imagine the lunacy within the white house if this fool is elected.

    fajensen October 18, 2016 at 12:33 am

    I think she is just not that smart. Maybe intelligent but not flexible enough to do much with it.

    Smart people seek the advice of even smarter people and knowing that experts disagree, they make sure that there is dissent on the advisory team. Then they make up their mind.

    One can say a lot of justifiable bad things about Ronald Reagan, but, he had competent advisors and he used them! With Hillary, Even if she knows she has accessed the best advice on the planet her instinct it to not trust it because "she knows better" and she absolutely will not tolerate dissent. Left to her own devices, she simply copies other people's thinking/ homework instead of building her own ideas with it.

    Code Name D October 17, 2016 at 4:24 pm

    I don't think so. The "you know" has a name, it's called a "verbal tick" and is one of the first things that is attacked when one learns how to speak publicly. Verbal ticks come in many forms, the "ums" for example, or repeating the last few words you just said, over and over again.

    The brain is complex. The various parts of the brain needed for speech; cognition, vocabulary, and vocalizations, actually have difficulty synchronizing. The vocalization part tends to be faster than the rest of the brain and can spit out words faster than the person can put them together. As a result, the "buffer" if you will runs empty, and the speech part of the brains simply fills in the gaps with random gibberish.

    You can train yourself out of this habit of course – but it's something that takes practice.

    So I take HRC's "you know" as evidence that these are unscripted speeches and is directly improvising.

    David Carl Grimes October 17, 2016 at 10:07 pm

    How come her responses during the debates are not peppered with these verbal ticks. At least, I don't recall her saying you know so many times. Isn't she improvising then?

    Lambert Strether Post author October 18, 2016 at 12:43 am

    No, she's not improvising in the debates. It's all scripted, all gamed out.

    Code Name D October 18, 2016 at 7:57 am

    As Lambert said, HRC doesn't do unscripted. The email leaks even sends us evidence that her interviews were scripted and town hall events were carful staged. Even sidestepping that however, dealing with verbal ticks is not all that difficult with a bit of practice and self-awareness.

    Vatch October 17, 2016 at 4:27 pm

    You know, you could have a point there! :-)

    Optimader October 17, 2016 at 6:30 pm

    "You know" is an insidious variation on "like" and "andum", the latter two being bias neutral forms of mental vapor lock of tbe speech center pausing for higher level intellectual processes to refill the speech centers tapped out RAM.

    The "you know" variant is an end run on the listener's cognitive functions logic filters. Is essence appropriating a claim to the listener.

    I detest "you knows" immediately with "no i dont know, please explain."
    The same with "they say" i will always ask "who are they?"
    I think this is important to fo do to ppl for no ofher reason thanto nake them think critically even if it is a fleeting annoyance.

    Back on HRC, i have maintai we that many people overrate her intellectual grasp. Personally I think she is a hea ily cosched parrot. "The US has achieved energy independence"…. TILT. Just because you state things smugly doesnt mean its reality.

    Rhondda October 17, 2016 at 11:13 pm

    I think what I call the lacunae words are really revealing in people's speech. When she says "you know" she is emphasizing that she and the listener both know what she is "talking around." Shared context as a form of almost - encryption, you could say. "This" rather than '"finance" Here rather than at Goldman.I don't know what you'd call it exactly- free floating referent? A habit, methinks, of avoiding being quoted or pinned down. It reminds me of the leaked emails…everyone is very careful to talk around things and they can because they all know what they are talking about. Hillary is consistently referred to, in an eerie H. Rider Haggard way, as "her" - like some She Who Must Not Be Named.

    Lambert Strether Post author October 18, 2016 at 12:46 am

    That would be interesting. A list of all the "you knows" in context. Maybe I should do that.

    clarky90 October 17, 2016 at 3:07 pm

    What surprises me is that Goldmans paid her for these speeches, you know? Hillary C typically pays "the audience" to listen to, and come to her speeches. You know? You know!

    sharonsj October 17, 2016 at 1:42 pm

    This election cycle just proves how bad things have become. The two top presidential candidates are an egotistical ignoramus and the quintessential establishment politician and they are neck and neck because the voting public is Planet Stupid. Things will just continue to fall apart in slow motion until some spark (like another financial implosion) sets off the next revolution.

    flora October 17, 2016 at 1:46 pm

    "Now, without going over how we got to where we are right now, what would be your advice to the Wall Street community and the big banks as to the way forward with those two important decisions?

    "SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I represented all of you [Wall St] for eight years."

    I heard Hillary speak in summer '92, when Bill was running for Prez. She. was. amazing. No joke. Great speech, great ideas, great points. I thought then she should be the candidate. But there was in her speech just a tiny undercurrent of "the ends justify the means." i.e. 'we need to get lots of money so we can do good things.' Fast forward 20+ years. Seems to me that for the Clintons the "means" (getting lots of money) has become the end in itself. Reassuring Wall St. is one method for getting money – large, large amounts of money.

    ekstase October 17, 2016 at 3:07 pm

    I heard similar impressions of her at the time, from women who had dealt with her: Book smart. Street smart. Likeable. But what might have been the best compromise you could get in one decade, may have needed re-thinking as you moved along in time. The cast of players changes. Those who once ruled are now gone. Oh, but the money! And so old ideas can calcify. I'm not suggesting that Trump is even in the ballpark in terms of making compromises, speeches, life changes or anything else to have ever been proud of. Still, the capacity to grow and change is important in a leader. So where are we going now?

    Lambert Strether Post author October 18, 2016 at 12:54 am

    A fine illustration of the maxim that "crime makes you stupid."

    I've said this once, but I'll say it again: After the 2008 caucus debacle, Clinton fired the staff and rejiggered the campaign. They went to lots of small venues, like high school gyms - in other words, "deplorables" territory - and Clinton did her detail, "I have a plan" thing, which worked really well in that context because people who need government to deliver concrete material benefits like that, and rightly. They also organized via cheap phones, because that was how to reach their voters, who weren't hanging out at Starbucks. And, history being written by the winners, we forget that using that strategy, Clinton won all the big states and (if all the votes are counted) a majority of the popular vote. So, good decision on her part. And so from that we've moved to the open corruption of the Clinton Foundation and Clinton campaign apparatus that takes 11 people to polish and approve a single tweet.

    So I guess the moral of the story is (a) more deterioration, this time from 2008 to 2016, and (b) Clinton can actually make a good decision, but only when forced to by a catastrophe that will impact her personally. Whether she'll be able to rise to the occasion if elected is an open question, but this post argues not.

    allan October 17, 2016 at 1:52 pm

    "Apparently, the provision of public services is not within government's remit! What are Social Security and Medicare? "

    What is the US Post Office? Rumor has it that the PO is mentioned in the US Constitution, a fact that is conveniently forgotten by Strict Constructionists.

    Vatch October 17, 2016 at 1:59 pm

    There's a book with a great title that I haven't read, but maybe some Naked Capitalism readers have read: How the Post Office Created America: A History , by Winifred Gallagher.

    Anne October 17, 2016 at 1:56 pm

    With respect to regulation, I think it should be less a case of quantity, and more one of quality, but Clinton seems to want to make it about finding the sweet spot of exactly how many regulations will be the right amount.

    In general, when companies are willing to spot you $225,000 to speak for some relatively short period of time, willing to meet your demands regarding transportation, hotel accommodations, etc., why would you take the chance of killing the goose that's laying those golden eggs by saying anything likely to tick them off?

    I'd like to think she's kind of embarrassed to have people see how humdrum/boring her speeches were for how much she was paid to give them, but I think there's got to be more "there" somewhere that she didn't want people to be made aware of – and it doesn't necessarily have to be Americans, it could be something to do with foreign governments, foreign policy, trade, etc.

    After learning how many people it takes to send out a tweet with her name on it, I have no idea how she managed this speech thing, unless one of her requirements was that she had to be presented with all questions in advance, so she could be prepared.

    I am more depressed by the day, as it's really beginning to sink in that she's going to be president, and it all just makes me want to stick needles in my eyes.

    Will there even be a debate on Wednesday?

    Roger Smith October 17, 2016 at 1:56 pm

    Also the "Wicked Problems" definitions are very, very interesting. Thank you for bringing those in! I would add that these wicked problems lead to more wicked problems. It is basically dishonesty, and to protect the lie you double down with more, and more, and more…. Most of Clinton's decisions and career seem to be knots of wicked problems.

    The wicked problem is quickly becoming our entire system of governance. Clinton has been described as the malignant tumor here before, but even she is a place holder for the rot. One head of the Hydra that I feel Establishment players would generally be okay with sacrificing if it came to it (and maybe I am wrong there–but it seems as if a lot of the push fro her comes from her inner circle and others play along).

    Lambert Strether Post author October 18, 2016 at 12:59 am

    Hail Hydra! Immortal Hydra! We shall never be destroyed! Cut off one limb and two more shall take its place! We serve the Supreme Hydra, as the world shall soon serve us!

    JohnnyGL October 17, 2016 at 2:04 pm

    Re: your conclusion,

    I've heard/read in some places Hillary Clinton described as a "safe pair of hands". I don't understand where this characterization comes from. She's dangerous.

    If she wins with as strong of an electoral map as Obama in '08, she'll take it as a strong mandate and she'll have an ambitious agenda and likely attempt to overreach. I've been meaning to call my congressional reps early and say "No military action on Syria, period!"

    She might use a "public option" as an ACA stealth bailout scheme, but I don't think the public has much appetite to see additional resources being thrown at a "failed experiment". I worry that Bernie's being brought on board for this kind of thing. He should avoid it.

    Is she crazy enough to go for a grand bargain right away? That seems nutty and has been a "Waterloo" for many presidents.

    Remember how important Obama's first year was. Bailouts and ACA were all done that first year. How soon can we put President Clinton II in lame duck status?

    philmc October 17, 2016 at 2:06 pm

    Not really surprised by the intellectual and rhetorical poverty demonstrated by these speeches. Given the current trajectory of our politics, the bar hasn't really been set very high. In fact it looks like we're going to reach full Idiocracy long before originally predicted.

    Jim Thomson October 17, 2016 at 2:09 pm

    You ask, " What can Goldman Sachs possibly have thought they were paying for? "

    But I think you know. Corruption has become so institutionalized that it is impossible to point to any specific Quid Pro Quo. The Quo is the entire system in which GS operates and the care and feeding of which the politicians are paid to administer.

    We focus on HRC's speeches and payments here but I wonder how many other paid talks are given to GS each year by others up and down the influence spectrum. As Bill Black says, a dollar given to a politician provides the largest possible Return on Investment of any expenditure. It is Wall Street's long-term health insurance plan.

    Thank you for slogging through all of this.

    Rory October 17, 2016 at 6:20 pm

    It seems to me that the message of these speeches is straightforward: "I'm bought and willing to stay bought for the right price."

    DolleyMadison October 17, 2016 at 2:12 pm

    Yeah we know which part of the "stool" we'll be getting.If the finance sector is "the nerves, the spinal column" of the country, I suggest the country find a shallow pool in which to shove it – head first.

    Foppe October 17, 2016 at 2:14 pm

    I skimmed the /. comments on a story about this yesterday; basically everyone missed the obvious and went with vox-type responses ("she's a creature of the system / in-fighter / Serious Person").

    Gee October 17, 2016 at 2:26 pm

    Care to know what they are buying? This :

    "So I'm not interested in, you know, turning the clock back or pointing fingers, but I am interested in trying to figure out how we come together to chart a better way forward and one that will restore confidence in, you know, small and medium-size businesses and consumers and begin to chip away at the unemployment rate [five years into the recession!]."

    Basically, even better than a get out of jail free card, in that it is rather a promise that we won't go back and ever hold you responsible, and we have done the best we could so far to avoid having you own up to anything or be held accountable in any way beyond some niggling fines, which of course, you are happy to pay, because in the end, that is simply a handout to the legal industry, who are your best drinking buddies.

    The latter part of that quote is just mumbo jumbo non-sequitir blathering. Clinton appears to know next to nothing about finance, only that it generates enormous amounts of cash for the oh so deserving work that God told them to do.

    uncle tungsten October 18, 2016 at 12:35 am

    +1 exactly: There will be no retrospective prosecutions and none in the future either, trust me! Not the she is any better than Eric Holder but she is certain she should be paid more than him.

    PapaBear October 17, 2016 at 2:34 pm

    "What can Goldman Sachs possibly have thought they were paying for?"

    Influence, plain and simple

    shinola October 17, 2016 at 5:05 pm

    Bingo! Think about it: She was speaking to a group of people whose time is "valued" at 100's if not 1,000's of dollars per hour. She took up their "valuable" time but provided nothing except politics-as-usual blather tailored to that particular audience. Yet she was paid $225k for a single speech…

    I've only skimmed through the speech transcripts; did I miss something of substance?

    Lambert Strether Post author October 18, 2016 at 1:00 am

    That was irony…

    phred October 17, 2016 at 2:37 pm

    Hillary is a remarkably inarticulate person, which calls into question her intellectual fitness for the job (amidst many other questions, of course). I entirely agree with your depiction of her speeches as mindless drivel.

    However, you may be overthinking the "wicked problem" language. While it is certainly possible that she is familiar with the literature that you cite, nothing else in her speeches suggests that she commands that level of intellectual detail. This makes me think that somewhere along the line she befriended someone from the greater Boston area who uses "wicked" the way Valley Girls use "like". When I first heard the expression decades ago, I found it charming and incorporated it into my own common usage. And I don't use it anything like you describe. To me it is simply used for emphasis. Nothing more or less than that, but I am amused to see an entire literature devoted to the concept of a "wicked problem".

    I remain depressed by this election. No matter how it turns out, it's going to wicked suck ; )

    Michael Fiorillo October 17, 2016 at 5:38 pm

    I think the inarticulateness/cliche infestation is a ploy and a deflection; this is a very intelligent woman who can effectively marshall language when she feels the need. That need was more likely felt in private meetings with the inner cabal at Goldman.

    Not to otherwise compare them, but Bush I's inarticulateness made him seem a buffoon, and that was not the case, either.

    Finally, as a thought experiment, I'd like to suggest that, granting that Clintonismo will privilege those interests which best fortify their arguments with cash, it's also true that Bill and Hillary are all about Bill and Hillary. In other words, it could be that she has the same hustler's disregard toward the lumpen Assistant Vice Presidents filling that room at GS as she does for the average voter. Thus, the empty, past-their-expiration-date calories.

    Sure, she'll take their money and do their bidding, but why even bother to make any more effort than necessary? On a very primal level with these two, it's all about the hustle and the action, and everyone's a potential rube.

    Big River Bandido October 17, 2016 at 8:27 pm

    As in, when Bill put his presidency on the line, the base were expected to circle the wagons. As in, "I'm With Her". Not "She's With Us", natch. It's *always* about the Clintons.

    pretzelattack October 17, 2016 at 2:47 pm

    "Speaking to bankers and masters of the corporate universe, she came off as relaxed, self-doubting, reflective, honest, philosophical rather than political, and unafraid to admit she lacked all the answers."

    seriously, matt taibbi? next, i would like to hear about the positive, feelgood, warmfuzzy qualities of vampire squids (hugs cthulhu doll).

    jgordon October 17, 2016 at 4:10 pm

    Matt Tiabbi, Elizabeth Warren, Benie Sanders, Noam Chompsky–all those used to seem like bastions of integrity have, thanks to Hillary, been revealed as slimy little Weasels who should henceforth be completely disregarded. I'd have to thank Hillary for pulling back the nlindets on that; if not for this election I might have been still foolishly listening to these people.

    hreik October 17, 2016 at 7:34 pm

    agree w you except about Bernie. he always said he'd support the nominee. the suddenness of his capitulation has led many of us to believe he was threatened. somewhere I read something about "someone" planting kiddieporn on his son's computer if he didn't do…… I dunno. I reserve judgement on Sanders until I learn more,…. if i ever do

    Lambert Strether Post author October 18, 2016 at 1:01 am

    Let's see what happens after November 8, which is not far away.

    Edward October 17, 2016 at 2:51 pm

    Clinton's remarks were typically vague, as one might expect from a politician; she doesn't want to be pinned down. This may be part of the banality of her remarks.

    What scares me most about Clinton is her belligerence towards Russia and clamoring for a no-fly zone in Syria. The no-fly zone will mean war with Russia. If only Clinton were saying this, we might be safe, but the entire Washington deep state seems to be of one mind in favor of a war. During the cold war this would have been inconceivable; everyone understood a nuclear war must not be allowed. This is no longer true and it is terrifying. Every war game the pentagon used to simulate a war with the U.S.S.R. escalated into an all out nuclear war. What is the "plan B" Obama is pursuing in Syria?

    In the Russian press every day for a long time now they have been discussing the prospect of a conflict. Russia has been conducting civil defense drills in its cities and advised its citizens to recall any children living abroad. This is never reported in our press, which only presents us with caricatures of Putin. Russians are not taken seriously.

    Ché Pasa October 17, 2016 at 3:49 pm

    During the cold war this would have been inconceivable; everyone understood a nuclear war must not be allowed.

    No it wasn't. Far from it. By some miracle, the globe escaped instant incineration but only barely. The Soviets, to their credit, were not about to risk nuclear annihilation to get one up on the US of Perfidy. Our own Dauntless Warriors were more than willing, and I believe it's only through dumb luck that a first strike wasn't launched deliberately or by deliberate "accident."

    Review the Cold War concept of Brinkmanship.

    The current fear/fever over nuclear war with Russia requires madness in the Kremlin - of which there is no evidence. Our Rulers are depending on Putin and his cohorts being the sane ones as rhetoric from the US and the West ratchets ever upwards.

    But then, the Kremlin is looking for any hint of sanity on US and NATO side and is finding little…

    Edward October 17, 2016 at 4:29 pm

    Curtis LeMay tried to provoke a nuclear war with the Soviets in the 1950's. By and large, however, the American state understood a nuclear war was unwinnable and avoided such a possibility. A no-fly zone in Syria would start a war with Russia. William Polk, who participated in the Cuban missle crisis and U.S. nuclear war games, argues in this article

    http://www.williampolk.com/assets/the-cuban-missile-crisis-in-reverse.pdf

    that a war with Russia would escalate.

    Starveling October 17, 2016 at 3:02 pm

    If high finance is our nervous system, does the American body politic have a terminal case of Parkinsons?

    oho October 17, 2016 at 3:25 pm

    With some CJD/mad cow disease.

    Oregoncharles October 17, 2016 at 3:23 pm

    " "the nerves, the spinal column" of the country, goes farther than Obama ever did."

    But this description is technically true. That is finance's proper function, co-ordinating the flow of capital and resources, especially from where they're in excess to where they're needed. It's a key decision-making system – for the economy, preferably not for society as a whole. That would be the political system.

    So on this basic level, the problem is that finance, more and more, has put its own institutional and personal interests ahead of its proper function. It's grown far too huge, and stopped performing its intended function – redistributing resources – in favor of just accumulating them, in the rather illusory form of financial instruments, some of them pure vapor ware.

    So yes, this line reflects a very bad attitude on Hillary's part, but by misappropriating a truth – pretty typical propaganda.

    Yves Smith October 17, 2016 at 5:26 pm

    No, finance does NOT "channel resources". Wash your mouth out. This is more neoliberal cant.

    Financiers do not make investments in the real economy. The overwhelming majority of securities trading is in secondary markets, which means it's speculation. And when a public company decides whether or not to invest in a new project, it does not present a prospectus on that new project to investors. It runs the numbers internally. For those projects, the most common source of funding is retained earnings.

    Sluggeaux October 17, 2016 at 6:39 pm

    Clinton shows that she is either a Yale Law grad who does not have the slightest idea that Wall Street does very little in the economy but fleece would-be investors, or that she is an obsequious flatterer of those from whom she openly takes bribes.

    Or both.

    aab October 18, 2016 at 1:25 am

    Both.

    DolleyMadison October 17, 2016 at 8:10 pm

    Wash your mouth out! Hahaaa I love you Yves…

    timotheus October 17, 2016 at 3:34 pm

    Having heard Hillary, Chelsea (yes, she's being groomed) and many, many other politicians over the years, including a stint covering Capitol Hill, Mme C's verbal style does not surprise to me at all but rather strikes me as perfectly serviceable. It is a mellifluous drone designed to lull the listener into thinking that she is on their side, and the weakness of the actual statements only becomes clear when reading them on the page later (which rarely happens). The drowsy listener will catch, among the words strung together like Christmas lights, just the key terms and concepts that demonstrate knowledge of the brief and a soothing layer of vague sympathy. Those who can award her $600K can assume with some confidence that, rhetoric aside, she will be in the tank when needed. The rest of us have to blow away the chaff and peer into the yawning gaps lurking behind the lawyerly parsing. In all fairness, this applies to 90% of seekers of public office.

    xformbykr October 17, 2016 at 3:34 pm

    has the commentariat seen these from paul craig roberts?
    http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2016/10/15/is-hillary-well-enough-for-the-job/

    it doesn't say anything but contains links to these:
    http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/wikileaks-just-dropped-bombshell-hillarys-health-truth-revealed/

    https://newrepublic.com/article/137798/important-wikileaks-revelation-isnt-hillary-clinton

    both of which present a clinical assessment that Hillary suffers from Parkinson's. Seems like an elephant in the room.

    polecat October 17, 2016 at 7:09 pm

    There's so many elephants in the room, i'd be willing to call it a herd …..

    Sluggeaux October 17, 2016 at 3:57 pm

    The absolute vacuousness of Clinton's remarks, coupled with her ease at neoliberal conventional wisdom, make it clear that Goldman's payments were nothing more (or less) than a $675,000 anticipatory "so no quid pro quo here" bribe.

    Who on earth gives up their vote to a politician who is so shameless an corrupt that she openly accepts bribes from groups who equally shamelessly and corruptly are looting the commons? Apparently many, but not me.

    LT October 17, 2016 at 4:00 pm

    "Public-private partnerships"
    That's higher taxes for pleebs to subsidize corporations.
    Mussolini would be proud.

    Ché Pasa October 17, 2016 at 4:01 pm

    Nothing like making lemons out of lemonade, is there?

    There really is a question why she didn't do this doc dump herself when Bernie asked. Yeah, sure, she would have been criticized ("damned if you do, damned if you don't") but because of who she is she'll be criticized no matter what. There is nothing she can do to avoid it.

    Not only is there no smoking gun, it's almost as if she's trying to inject a modicum of social conscience into a culture that has none. And no, she isn't speaking artfully; nor is she an orator.

    Oh. Not that we didn't know already.

    The most galling aspect is her devotion to the neoLibCon status quo. Steady as she goes. Apparently a lot of people find the status quo satisfactory. Feh.

    

    Anon October 17, 2016 at 7:17 pm

    If this document dump came out during the primary campaign, then HRC may have lost. Even Black, Southern ladies can smell the corrupting odor clinging to these "speeches".

    Ché Pasa October 18, 2016 at 6:11 am

    Given the way DNC protected her during the primaries, and what looked like a pretty light touch by Bernie and (who? O'Malley was it?) toward her, I doubt these speeches would have been her undoing.

    Dull and relatively benign, and policy-wise almost identical to Obama's approach to the bankers' role in the economic unpleasantness. "Consensus" stuff with some hint of a social conscience. 

    Not effective and not enough to do more than the least possible ("I told them they ought to behave better. Really!") on behalf of the Rabble.

    But not a campaign killer. Even so, by not releasing transcripts during the primary, she faced - and still faces - mountains of criticism over it. No escape. Not for her.

    Lambert Strether Post author October 18, 2016 at 1:04 am

    > Steady as she goes

    I'm not sure that's an appropriate strategy for dealing with multiple interlocking wicked problems, but I'm not sure why. Suppose we invoke the Precautionary Principle - is incremental change really the way to avoid harm?

    Ché Pasa October 18, 2016 at 6:14 am

    The Consensus (of Opinions That Matter) says it is. On the other hand, blowing up the System leads to Uncertainty, and as we know, we can't have that. Mr. Market wouldn't like it…

    aab October 18, 2016 at 2:32 am

    The leaked emails confirm - even though she herself never writes them, which is really odd, when you consider that Podesta is her Campaign Chair and close ally going back decades - that she is compulsively secretive, controlling, and resistant to admitting she's wrong. The chain of people talking about how to get her to admit she was wrong about Nancy Reagan and AIDS was particularly fascinating that way; she was flat out factually inaccurate, and it had the potential to do tremendous harm to her campaign with a key donor group, and it was apparently still a major task to persuade her to say "I made a mistake."

    So while I think you are wrong that the speeches wouldn't have hurt her in the primary, I also think Huma would have had to knock her out and tie her up (not in a fun way) to get those speeches released.

    I can't imagine a worse temperament to govern, particularly under the conditions she'll be facing. But she'll be fully incompetent before too long, so I don't suppose it matters that much. I'm morbidly curious to see how long they can keep her mostly hidden and propped up for limited appearances, before having to let Kaine officially take over. Will we be able to figure out who's actually in power based on the line-up on some balcony?

    Ché Pasa October 18, 2016 at 6:24 am

    Fair points, though the "temperament" issue may be one that follows from the nature of the job - even "No Drama Obama" is said to have a fierce anger streak, and secrecy, controlling behavior, and refusing to admit error is pretty typical of presidents, VPs, and other high officials. The King/Queen can do no wrong, dontchaknow. (cf: Bush, GW, and his whole administration for recent examples. History is filled with them, though.)

    As for Hillary's obvious errors in judgment, I think they speak for themselves and they don't speak well of her.

    Blurtman October 17, 2016 at 5:19 pm

    Wall Street fraud = "bad decisions"

    Alex morfesis October 17, 2016 at 7:25 pm

    TINA vs WATA (we are the alternative)…the next two years are gonna be interesting…evil is often a cover for total incompetence and exposure…our little tsarina will insist brigades that dont exist move against enemies that are hardly there…when she & her useless minions were last in/on the seat of power(j edger version of sop) the netizens of the world were young and dumb…now not so much…

    Don Midwest USA October 17, 2016 at 10:44 pm

    I got into wicked problems 35 years ago in the outstanding book by Ian Mitroff and R. O. Mason, "Challenging Strategic Planning Assumptions." First page of Chapter One has subsection title COMPLEXITY, followed by "A Little Experiment" Lets try the experiment with current problems.

    One could come up with a list of major problems, but here is the one used by C. West Churchman mentioned along with Horst Riddle. Churchman back in the 80's said that the problems of the world were M*P**3, or M, P cubed, or M * P * P *P with the letters standing for Militarism, Population, Poverty and Pollution.

    Here is how they ran the exercise

    1. Suppose there were a solution to any of these 4 problems, would that solution be related to the other problems. Clearly.

    2. Thus 'whenever a policy maker attempts to solve a complex policy problem, it is related to all the others

    Repeated attempts in other contexts give the same result: basically, every real world policy problem is related to every other real world policy problem

    This is from page 4, the second page of the book.

    I ran this exercise for several years in ATT Bell Labs and ATT.

    1. List major problems
    2. How long have they been around? (most for ever except marketing was new after breakup in '84
    3. If one was solved, would that solution be related in any way to the other ones?
    4. Do you know of any program that is making headway? (occasionally Quality was brought up)

    This could be done in a few minutes, often less than 5 minutes

    5. Conclusion: long term interdependent problems that are not being addressed

    Thus the only grade that matters in this course on Corporate Transformation that now begins is that you have new insights on these problems. This was my quest as an internal consultant in ATT to transform the company. I failed.

    Moby October 18, 2016 at 1:27 am

    Most noticeable thing is her subservience to them like a fresh college grad afraid of his boss at his first job

    Phil October 18, 2016 at 1:35 am

    I was a Sanders supporter. Many here will disagree, but if Clinton wins I don't think she's going to act as she might have acted in 2008, if she had won.

    Clinton is a politician, and *all* politicians dissemble in private, unless they're the mayor of a small town of about 50 people – and even then! Politicians – in doing their work – *must* compromise to some degree, with the best politicians compromising in ways that bring their constituents more benefit, than not.

    That said, Clinton is also a human being who is capable of change. This election cycle has been an eye opener for both parties. If Clinton wins (and, I think she will), the memory of how close it was with Sanders and the desperate anger and alienation she has experienced from Trump supporters (and even Sanders' supporters) *must* have already gotten her thinking about what she is going to have to get done to insure a 2020 win for Democrats, whether or not she is running in 2020.

    In sum, I think Clinton is open to change, and I don't believe that she is some deep state evil incarnate; sge's *far* from perfect, and she's not "pure" in her positioning – thank god!, because in politics, purists rarely accomplish anything.

    If Clinton reverts to prior form (assuming she makes (POTUS), 2020 will make 2016 look like a cakewalk, for both parties – including the appearance of serious 3rd party candidates with moxy, smarts, and a phalanx of backers (unlike the current crop of two – Johnson and Stein).

    [Oct 17, 2016] Get lost Moscow to keep counter sanctions other highlights from Putins BRICS presser

    Notable quotes:
    "... Russia's president was not surprised with US Vice President Joe Biden's recent threats towards Moscow, and said that it's not the first time Russian-American relations have been "sacrificed" for the sake of a US presidential campaign. "One can expect anything from our American friends. What has he revealed that is new? Don't we already know that US officials snoop and eavesdrop on everyone," ..."
    "... Creating an enemy out of Russia is a means by which to distract attention from domestic problems during election campaign season, according to Putin. "There are many problems [in the US], and in these circumstances, many choose to resort to the tried and tested system of diverting voters' attention from their own problems. That's what we are currently witnessing, I think." ..."
    "... "Portraying Iran and the Iranian nuclear threat as an enemy didn't work. [Portraying] Russia [as an enemy] seems more interesting. In my opinion, this particular card is now being actively played," Putin said. ..."
    "... Putin has an uncanny knack for saying it as it is; that's one reason why US leaders hate him - they believe that honesty does not belong in politics. ..."
    "... I cant believe this is actually happening. Putin is obviously speaking about blatant manipulations the US hide behind using media and tricks. People are dodging bullets to save their children in Syria at this very moment! But the BBC hide the bigger truth with isolated incidents of 'a cat up a tree', when there's a car crash down the road. ..."
    "... "We are not against this country, but we oppose that decisions are made on a unilateral basis and are not thought through considering historic, cultural and religious peculiarities of one country or another," even if there is a conflict within the affected nation" This is why a global government will never work. That government will only do what is in their best interests, not in the best interests of each country. ..."
    Oct 16, 2016 | www.rt.com

    Deteriorating Russia-US relations: 'It all started from Yugoslavia'

    Relations between Moscow and Washington did not deteriorate because of or during the Syrian conflict, Putin said in a remark to a journalist, adding: "Just remember what was going on about Yugoslavia, it all started from there." The Russian leader said that it's not about any third side in particular, but relations worsen because "one country" wants to impose its policy and decisions upon the rest of the world.

    "We are not against this country, but we oppose that decisions are made on a unilateral basis and are not thought through considering historic, cultural and religious peculiarities of one country or another," even if there is a conflict within the affected nation, Putin said.

    While meeting the media in Goa, southwest India, the Russian president was asked to comment on hot issues as the US elections, the situation in Ukraine and Syria, and his refusal to visit France, rather than Moscow's relations with its BRICS partners.

    Deteriorating Russia-US relations: 'It all started from Yugoslavia'

    Relations between Moscow and Washington did not deteriorate because of or during the Syrian conflict, Putin said in a remark to a journalist, adding: "Just remember what was going on about Yugoslavia, it all started from there." The Russian leader said that it's not about any third side in particular, but relations worsen because "one country" wants to impose its policy and decisions upon the rest of the world.

    "We are not against this country, but we oppose that decisions are made on a unilateral basis and are not thought through considering historic, cultural and religious peculiarities of one country or another," even if there is a conflict within the affected nation, Putin said.

    'Sanctions aim to suppress Russia's strength'

    The US does not accept compromises, which is necessary to solve issues in world politics. Rather, it chooses a "counterproductive" policy of sanctions, Putin said. "Apparently, they don't want to compromise, they only want to dictate. Such a style has formed over the past 15-20 years in the US, and they still can't deviate from it," Putin said, adding that restrictive measures never achieve the aims that those who impose them hope for.

    "Regarding sanctions against Russia, whatever they are said to be linked to, be it events in Ukraine or Syria, I assure you, the aims of those who formulate such a policy [of restrictions] do not solve any concrete problem," Putin told the media. Saying that "sanctions are aimed not at solving anything, but at suppressing Russia's strengthening" as a robust participant in international affairs, the president said that such intentions against Russia would never be fulfilled.

    Moscow, in turn, does not plan to ease its retaliatory measures, caused by western policies, the Russian leader told the journalists in Goa. "No way, they can get lost," he said.

    'US officials snoop and eavesdrop on everyone'

    Russia's president was not surprised with US Vice President Joe Biden's recent threats towards Moscow, and said that it's not the first time Russian-American relations have been "sacrificed" for the sake of a US presidential campaign. "One can expect anything from our American friends. What has he revealed that is new? Don't we already know that US officials snoop and eavesdrop on everyone," Putin said, adding that Washington "spends billions of dollars" on its secret services "spying not only on its potential opponents, but on its closest allies as well."

    Russia portrayed as US enemy to divert voters' attention from domestic problems

    Meanwhile, Russia is not going to meddle in the American presidential elections in any way, the president told reporters, adding that Moscow has no idea what could happen after a new US leader is elected. So far Hillary Clinton has chosen "an aggressive stance on Russia," and Donald Trump has called for cooperation, "at least in fighting terrorism," but "no one knows what it will be like after the elections," according to Putin, who said that both candidates might change their rhetoric.

    Creating an enemy out of Russia is a means by which to distract attention from domestic problems during election campaign season, according to Putin. "There are many problems [in the US], and in these circumstances, many choose to resort to the tried and tested system of diverting voters' attention from their own problems. That's what we are currently witnessing, I think."

    "Portraying Iran and the Iranian nuclear threat as an enemy didn't work. [Portraying] Russia [as an enemy] seems more interesting. In my opinion, this particular card is now being actively played," Putin said.

    Olive Magnet

    Putin has an uncanny knack for saying it as it is; that's one reason why US leaders hate him - they believe that honesty does not belong in politics.

    WinstonSmithLeader -> Olive Magnet

    Putin hijacked the process of Russian integration into the West and its political-economy - no more "free market" plundering and auctioning of Russia. The greedy US/UK-led terrorists were had. The sore losers can barely hide it.

    Olive Lobster

    He is one of those rare leaders who do not have to read from a teleprompter as he speaks his mind

    Cyan Bullhorn -> Olive Lobster

    I cant believe this is actually happening. Putin is obviously speaking about blatant manipulations the US hide behind using media and tricks. People are dodging bullets to save their children in Syria at this very moment! But the BBC hide the bigger truth with isolated incidents of 'a cat up a tree', when there's a car crash down the road.

    Yuri Ivanovich

    "We are not against this country, but we oppose that decisions are made on a unilateral basis and are not thought through considering historic, cultural and religious peculiarities of one country or another," even if there is a conflict within the affected nation" This is why a global government will never work. That government will only do what is in their best interests, not in the best interests of each country.

    [Oct 17, 2016] CNN is telling viewers it is illegal to read the Podesta Wikileaks.

    Notable quotes:
    "... Everything Wikileaks is putting out on this simply continues to CONFIRM the verifiable existence of this vast network of Clinton MSM Media Mafia that Hill-Billery have constructed over the years. The MSM is absolutely IN THE TANK for the war-whore. ..."
    "... AMAZING how the "Objective", "Fact-Checking" MSM is shown to be totally tainted, but the very stranglehold that the MSM mafia have on the information flow prevents these clear facts form being widely disseminated to the (sometimes willfully) stupid masses. ..."
    "... George H.W. Bush - Potus - CIA, Bill Clinton - Potus - CIA, George W. Bush - Potus - CIA, Barack Obama - Potus - CIA, Hillary Clinton - CIA Is Trump toast or what? ..."
    "... As an aside, the sheeples are easily persuaded by simple catchy headlines and seldom read deeper into the articles to separate fact from fiction. Look at how many facts have been released proving the massive widespread fraud by Hillary and the Clinton Foundation, yet there is not one indictment...yet. ..."
    "... As corporate control of media outlets has tightened, the Democrats have become the party of hot-money Corporate America. As our economy disintegrates, most corporate interests are moving to finance as their main activity. The Clinton Democrats realized this faster than the Republicans did, and pivoted to represent Finance above all other sectors of the economy. So the Clintons have safely positioned themselves in alignment with the interests that control the media, and any opponents have to take on the media to get to the Clintons. ..."
    www.zerohedge.com
    Creative_Destruct MagicHandPuppet Oct 16, 2016 6:20 PM

    Everything Wikileaks is putting out on this simply continues to CONFIRM the verifiable existence of this vast network of Clinton MSM Media Mafia that Hill-Billery have constructed over the years. The MSM is absolutely IN THE TANK for the war-whore.

    AMAZING how the "Objective", "Fact-Checking" MSM is shown to be totally tainted, but the very stranglehold that the MSM mafia have on the information flow prevents these clear facts form being widely disseminated to the (sometimes willfully) stupid masses.

    Loftie Creative_Destruct Oct 16, 2016 8:31 PM

    George H.W. Bush - Potus - CIA, Bill Clinton - Potus - CIA, George W. Bush - Potus - CIA, Barack Obama - Potus - CIA, Hillary Clinton - CIA Is Trump toast or what?

    Son of Loki Robert Trip Oct 16, 2016 3:31 PM

    As an aside, the sheeples are easily persuaded by simple catchy headlines and seldom read deeper into the articles to separate fact from fiction. Look at how many facts have been released proving the massive widespread fraud by Hillary and the Clinton Foundation, yet there is not one indictment...yet. Add to that the corrupt FBI cheif 0Comey) and DOJ AG (Lowrenta) and Americans are royally screwed unless they read deeper and thoughtfully AND vote!

    I will admit I used to be that simply way (pretty stupid) and seldom read analytically ... when I was 6 years old. But a person needs to educate themselves for their own survival and read and listen critically.

    swmnguy y3maxx Oct 16, 2016 1:05 PM

    Simple. Two reasons, actually. As corporate control of media outlets has tightened, the Democrats have become the party of hot-money Corporate America. As our economy disintegrates, most corporate interests are moving to finance as their main activity. The Clinton Democrats realized this faster than the Republicans did, and pivoted to represent Finance above all other sectors of the economy. So the Clintons have safely positioned themselves in alignment with the interests that control the media, and any opponents have to take on the media to get to the Clintons.

    Also, the Clintons have had to face the weakest and least media-attractive opponents available. Trump is a little different, as he's a complete media creation and probably the most media-savvy public figure out there, but what the media create, they can tear down also. When the media have to choose between their paymasters and their creations, their paymasters win every time.

    Global Hunter y3maxx Oct 16, 2016 1:06 PM "In layman's terms...how have the clintons been so successful controlling MSM?"

    Clinton's are the public and political front and in return they have been given license to loot whatever they can. The people the Clinton's represent control the MSM and pretty much all the people who work in the MSM will do or say anything for not only money but esteem of their peers (or to feel superior or better than their peers).

    IMO.

    Bay of Pigs y3maxx Oct 16, 2016 1:14 PM

    There are six big corporations that own 90% of the MSM, including Time Warner, Comcast and Disney. Thus, they tightly control the CONTENT asnd FLOW of the news. They work together controlling the NARRATIVE for the candidate they wish to promote.

    sushi y3maxx Oct 16, 2016 2:53 PM Look at her advertising budget. It is in the hundreds of millions. Look at Trumps advertising budget. It is the cost of his Twitter account.

    The corporate media are bleeding. Advertisers are leaving for new media. The Clinton ad money is manna from heaven. Would you risk being cut off the gravy train by running a negative story? No way. This is why NBC holds a negative tape on Clinton but happily releases a negative tape on Trump.

    This campaign shows the 1% all talking to themselves and assuring each other they are victorius. Outside the 1% who counts? Nobody. They are all deplorable. I think the results on November 8th could be shocker.

    opport.knocks sushi Oct 16, 2016 9:36 PM

    The world's biggest harvester of Ad revenue is Google, and they are in bed with the Democrats.

    https://theintercept.com/2016/04/22/googles-remarkably-close-relationshi...

    There will be none of those pesky anti-trust lawsuits, like the ones in Europe, as long as Google plays along.

    Whoa Dammit 38BWD22 Oct 16, 2016 1:09 PM

    CNN is telling viewers it is illegal to read the Podesta Wikileaks.

    AtATrESICI Whoa Dammit Oct 16, 2016 2:25 PM

    FUCK CNN SHILLS, SEE BELOW TAKEN FROM THE FOLLOWING LINK https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/256/465/case.html

    United States, 232 U. S. 383 ; Johnson v. United States, 228 U. S. 457 ; Perlman v. United States, 247 U. S. 7 ; Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U. S. 385 ; Gouled v. United States, 255 U. S. 298 .

    The Fourth Amendment gives protection against unlawful searches and seizures, and, as shown in the previous cases, its protection applies to governmental action. Its origin and history clearly show that it was intended as a restraint upon the activities of sovereign authority, and was not intended to be a limitation upon other than governmental agencies; as against such authority, it was the purpose of the Fourth Amendment to secure the citizen in the right of unmolested occupation of his dwelling and the possession of his property, subject to the right of seizure by process duly issued.

    In the present case, the record clearly shows that no official of the federal government had anything to do with the wrongful seizure of the petitioner's property or any knowledge thereof until several months after the property had been taken from him and was in the possession of the Cities Service Company. It is manifest that there was no invasion of the security afforded by the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable search and seizure, as whatever wrong was done was the act of individuals in taking the property of another. A portion of the property so taken and held was turned over to the prosecuting officers of the federal government. We assume that petitioner has an unquestionable right of redress against those who illegally and wrongfully took his private property under the circumstances herein disclosed, but with such remedies we are not now concerned.

    The Fifth Amendment, as its terms import, is intended to secure the citizen from compulsory testimony against himself. It protects from extorted confessions, or examinations in court proceedings by compulsory methods.

    The exact question to be decided here is: may the

    Page 256 U. S. 476

    government retain incriminating papers coming to it in the manner described with a view to their use in a subsequent investigation by a grand jury where such papers will be part of the evidence against the accused, and may be used against him upon trial should an indictment be returned?

    We know of no constitutional principle which requires the government to surrender the papers under such circumstances. Had it learned that such incriminatory papers, tending to show a violation of federal law, were in the hands of a person other than the accused, it having had no part in wrongfully obtaining them, we know of no reason why a subpoena might not issue for the production of the papers as evidence. Such production would require no unreasonable search or seizure, nor would it amount to compelling the accused to testify against himself.

    The papers having come into the possession of the government without a violation of petitioner's rights by governmental authority, we see no reason why the fact that individuals, unconnected with the government, may have wrongfully taken them should prevent them from being held for use in prosecuting an offense where the documents are of an incriminatory character.

    It follows that the district court erred in making the order appealed from, and the same is

    Reversed.

    MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS dissenting with whom MR. JUSTICE HOLMES concurs.

    Plaintiff's private papers were stolen. The thief, to further his own ends, delivered them to the law officer of the United States. He, knowing them to have been stolen, retains them for use against the plaintiff. Should the court permit him to do so?

    Page 256 U. S. 477

    That the court would restore the papers to plaintiff if they were still in the thief's possession is not questioned. That it has power to control the disposition of these stolen papers, although they have passed into the possession of the law officer, is also not questioned. But it is said that no provision of the Constitution requires their surrender, and that the papers could have been subpoenaed. This may be true. Still I cannot believe that action of a public official is necessarily lawful because it does not violate constitutional prohibitions and because the same result might have been attained by other and proper means. At the foundation of our civil liberty lies the principle which denies to government officials an exceptional position before the law and which subjects them to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. And, in the development of our liberty, insistence upon procedural regularity has been large factor. Respect for law will not be advanced by resort, in its enforcement, to means which shock the common man's sense of decency and fair play.

    [Oct 17, 2016] All the same media outlets and elites that were screaming for the invasion of Iraq are now howling for evil Syrian blood and the removal of another monster before he destroys all the peace and stability we bring to the region

    Notable quotes:
    "... The trees, the forest and pretty much the entire landscape are screaming 2000 and 2004 didn't matter a damn. ..."
    "... All the same media outlets and elites that were screaming for the invasion of Iraq are now howling for evil Syrian blood and the removal of another 'monster' before he destroys all the peace and stability we bring to the region. ..."
    "... This time, of course, there's no Bush/Cheney in charge. But no matter, the decisions and the rationale are identical. Democracy will flower in the region once America and the UK kill enough of the bad guys and install their own puppets (I mean 'good guys') ..."
    "... Hillary and the democrats are in charge of the killing, so all the death must be both necessary and humanitarian. The possibility that more death and more wars and more invasions and more regime change is pretty much built into the 'solution' is unthinkable. ..."
    "... Watching all the cheering for 'victory in Mosul' and over the 'hold-outs' in Libya has actually driven me to turn off the nets ..."
    "... Violent regime-change is 'unavoidable' regardless of which party is in power. And the current war is always better, safer, and less prone to blow-back than all those other earlier stupid wars ..."
    Oct 17, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    kidneystones 10.15.16 at 2:31 pm 240

    Clinton meets impartial press to discuss repackaging Hillary over cocktails hosted by Diane Sawyer:

    http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/2016/10/your-moral-and-380.html

    bruce wilder 10.15.16 at 3:39 pm 244
    ks @ 240:

    Reading thru the link, my favorite part was the stated purpose of the cocktail party for elite NY reporters: "Give reporters their first thoughts . . ."

    kidneystones 10.17.16 at 1:06 pm 339
    @244 Good eye, Bruce. The trees, the forest and pretty much the entire landscape are screaming 2000 and 2004 didn't matter a damn.

    All the same media outlets and elites that were screaming for the invasion of Iraq are now howling for evil Syrian blood and the removal of another 'monster' before he destroys all the peace and stability we bring to the region.

    This time, of course, there's no Bush/Cheney in charge. But no matter, the decisions and the rationale are identical. Democracy will flower in the region once America and the UK kill enough of the bad guys and install their own puppets (I mean 'good guys') .

    Hillary and the democrats are in charge of the killing, so all the death must be both necessary and humanitarian. The possibility that more death and more wars and more invasions and more regime change is pretty much built into the 'solution' is unthinkable.

    Watching all the cheering for 'victory in Mosul' and over the 'hold-outs' in Libya has actually driven me to turn off the nets .

    Violent regime-change is 'unavoidable' regardless of which party is in power. And the current war is always better, safer, and less prone to blow-back than all those other earlier stupid wars .

    I learned that reading the pro-Hillary 'liberal' press.

    [Oct 16, 2016] In a way Hillary laments about Russia interference are what is typically called The pot calling the kettle black as she is exactly the specialist in this area. BTW there is a documented history of the US interference into Russian elections of 2011-2012

    Notable quotes:
    "... Most establishment news reporting has taken note that no evidence has been offered by the U.S. officials making the attribution. Clearly, someone thinks it matters, because the attribution is being made. I doubt that getting hold of Podesta's email password required the mysterious skillz of Russian super hackers, but sure ymmv. Why does the NSA spend billions and billions again? I mock because it is impossible to make sense of any of it. ..."
    "... Yes, apparently, you think that the U.S. should be in there blowing up hospitals and civilians instead. The Russians just cannot handle the job, while the U.S. has its Afganistan and Iraq training and experience in bringing an end to those horrific civil wars in a few short Friedman units. Proven expertise! ..."
    "... The history of humanitarian intervention is long and glorious. Only just last week, America's great and good ally, the Saudi monarchy, was blowing up a funeral in Yemen with American munitions, killing over 100. But, I indulge in irrelevancies, the better to mock you. ..."
    Oct 16, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    bruce wilder 10.16.16 at 12:43 pm 305

    LFC: We do have Bruce Wilder mocking the notion that the Russians hacked into the DNC email. Cyber specialists think it was the Russians to a 90 percent certainty, but of course Wilder knows better. Anyway, who cares whether the Russians hacked the ******* email?

    Most establishment news reporting has taken note that no evidence has been offered by the U.S. officials making the attribution. Clearly, someone thinks it matters, because the attribution is being made. I doubt that getting hold of Podesta's email password required the mysterious skillz of Russian super hackers, but sure ymmv. Why does the NSA spend billions and billions again? I mock because it is impossible to make sense of any of it.

    LFC: I'm more concerned w the fact that Russian planes are deliberately blowing up hospitals and civilians.

    Yes, apparently, you think that the U.S. should be in there blowing up hospitals and civilians instead. The Russians just cannot handle the job, while the U.S. has its Afganistan and Iraq training and experience in bringing an end to those horrific civil wars in a few short Friedman units. Proven expertise!

    Oh, I'm so sorry I mocked you again, didn't I?

    The history of humanitarian intervention is long and glorious. Only just last week, America's great and good ally, the Saudi monarchy, was blowing up a funeral in Yemen with American munitions, killing over 100. But, I indulge in irrelevancies, the better to mock you.

    Follow events in Syria day by day if you like, but don't pretend you are a humanitarian cheering for the underdog rather than a voyeur entertained by mass tragedy.

    likbez 10.16.16 at 2:43 pm
    @305
    bruce wilder 10.16.16 at 12:43 pm
    LFC: We do have Bruce Wilder mocking the notion that the Russians hacked into the DNC email. Cyber specialists think it was the Russians to a 90 percent certainty, but of course Wilder knows better. Anyway, who cares whether the Russians hacked the ******* email?

    Most establishment news reporting has taken note that no evidence has been offered by the U.S. officials making the attribution.

    It looks like LFC is completely clueless about such notion as Occam's razor.
    Why we need all those insinuations about Russian hackers when we know that all email boxes in major Web mail providers are just a click away from NSA analysts.

    Why Russians and not something like "Snowden II".

    And what exactly Russians will get politically by torpedoing Hillary candidacy. They probably have tons of "compromat" on her, Bill and Clinton Foundation. Trump stance on Iran is no less dangerous and jingoistic then Hillary stance on Syria. Aggressive protectionism might hurt Russian exports. And as for Syria, Trump can turn on a dime and became a second John McCain anytime. Other then his idea of avoiding foreign military presence (or more correctly that allies should pay for it) and anti-globalization stance he does not have a fixed set of policies at all.

    Also you can elect a dog as POTUS and foreign policy will be still be the same as it is now controlled by "deep state" ( http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/the-deep-state/ ):

    Yes, there is another government concealed behind the one that is visible at either end of Pennsylvania Avenue, a hybrid entity of public and private institutions ruling the country according to consistent patterns in season and out, connected to, but only intermittently controlled by, the visible state whose leaders we choose. My analysis of this phenomenon is not an exposé of a secret, conspiratorial cabal; the state within a state is hiding mostly in plain sight, and its operators mainly act in the light of day. Nor can this other government be accurately termed an "establishment." All complex societies have an establishment, a social network committed to its own enrichment and perpetuation. In terms of its scope, financial resources and sheer global reach, the American hybrid state, the Deep State, is in a class by itself. That said, it is neither omniscient nor invincible. The institution is not so much sinister (although it has highly sinister aspects) as it is relentlessly well entrenched. Far from being invincible, its failures, such as those in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, are routine enough that it is only the Deep State's protectiveness towards its higher-ranking personnel that allows them to escape the consequences of their frequent ineptitude.

    In view of all this, LFC anti-Russian stance looks extremely naïve and/or represents displaced anti-Semitism.

    likbez 10.16.16 at 4:18 pm 311
    In a way Hillary laments about Russia interference are what is typically called "The pot calling the kettle black" as she is exactly the specialist in this area. BTW there is a documented history of the US interference into Russian elections of 2011-2012.

    In which Hillary (via ambassador McFaul and the net of NGOs) was trying to stage a "color revolution" (nicknamed "white revolution") in Russia and prevent the re-election of Putin. The main instrument was claiming the fraud in ballot counting.

    Can you imagine the reaction if Russian ambassador invited Trump and Sanders to the embassy and offered full and unconditional support for their noble cause of dislodging the corrupt neoliberal regime that exists in Washington. With cash injections to breitbart.com, similar sites, and especially organizations that conduct polls after that.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/06/world/europe/observers-detail-flaws-in-russian-election.html

    And RT covered staged revelations of "Hillary campaign corruption" 24 x 7. As was done by Western MSM in regard to Alexei Navalny web site and him personally as the savior of Russia from entrenched corruption ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexei_Navalny )

    http://www.rferl.org/a/russia-duma-elections-navalny-pamfilova-resignation/28007404.html

    Actually the USA has several organizations explicitly oriented on interference in foreign elections and promotion of "color revolutions", with functions that partially displaced old functions of CIA (as in Italian elections of 1948). For example, NED.

    Why Russia can't have something similar to help struggling American people to have more honest elections despite all the blatantly undemocratic mechanisms of "first to the post", primaries, state based counting of votes, and the United States Electoral College ?

    It would be really funny if Russians really resorted to color revolution tricks in the current presidential elections :-)

    Here is a quote that can navigate them in right direction (note the irony of her words after DNC throw Sanders under the bus ;-)

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/06/world/europe/russian-parliamentary-elections-criticized-by-west.html?_r=0

    Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton sharply criticized what she called "troubling practices" before and during the vote in Russia. "The Russian people, like people everywhere, deserve the right to have their voices heard and their votes counted," she said in Bonn, Germany.

    With 99.9 percent of ballots processed, election officials said that United Russia had won 238 seats in Parliament, or about 53 percent, from 315 seats or 70 percent now. The Communist Party won 92 seats; Just Russia, a social democratic party, won 64 seats and the national Liberal Democratic Party won 56 seats.

    bruce wilder 10.16.16 at 4:35 pm 312
    RP: I mean, people pretty much have to take its effects seriously.

    Do they? LFC can probably lecture us on our "complete lack of understanding that the world contains moral ambiguities and that not everything is black-and-white and open-and-shut" while hypernormalizing anything with imperative non sequiters.

    @ 307, he apparently thinks my use of the Saudi attack in Yemen in my mockery of him is due to a failure of reading comprehension on my part. He thinks he had criticized U.S. support for the Saudi's war against Yemen, while arguing that American "standing to object . . . when blatant, obvious war crimes are being committed" is unaffected when America itself or American allies commit blatant obvious war crimes. He took the futility express, Rich, and arrived ahead of you, don't you see? Things are complicated and we must not let our committing blatant obvious war crimes prevent us from acting to intervene where we can stop blatant obvious war crimes with blatant obvious war crimes of our own!

    Hopefully, this little addendum to my previous mockery is not even worth a response. What are the chances?

    [Oct 16, 2016] Clinton denounces Russian interference in US elections, calls for escalation in Syria

    Clinton is converting Democratic Party into party of war with Russia...
    Hillary was the Secretary of State when the USA tried to implement color revolution in Russia in 2011-2012.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Washington Post ..."
    "... Clinton told a press conference Monday there were now "credible reports about Russian interference in our elections," adding, "I want everyone-Democrat, Republican, Independent-to understand the real threat that this represents." ..."
    "... Clinton's suggestion of a Trump-Putin axis was followed up Tuesday in a speech in North Carolina by her vice-presidential running mate, Senator Tim Kaine, which was billed as a "major national security address" by the Democratic campaign. ..."
    "... Clinton appeared Monday at several Labor Day rallies, but she chose to focus her attack on Trump on national security issues, where she has consistently attacked the billionaire real estate speculator from the right. ..."
    "... Asked by a reporter if the alleged Russian actions amounted to a cyberwar, Clinton replied, "I'm not comfortable using the word 'war'." This demurral was only to disguise her intentions from the American people. However, in a speech last week to the American Legion convention, Clinton declared that cyberattacks on the United States should be answered by military force. ..."
    "... Clinton claimed that Putin had all but confirmed Russia's role in the hacking of the DNC-a flat-out lie-adding, "The team around him certainly believe that there is some benefit to them to doing this." She then declared that the prospect of additional hacking into the state government systems used to conduct the November 8 elections represented "a threat from an adversarial foreign power." ..."
    "... The Democratic candidate also criticized the role of the Russian government in Syria, in backing the regime of President Bashar al-Assad against Islamist forces armed and financed by the United States and the Gulf monarchies. She denounced "the refusal of the Russians and the Iranians to put the kind of pressure on Assad that is necessary " ..."
    "... The article published Monday by the Washington Post ..."
    "... As in previous reports by the Post ..."
    "... Meanwhile, the claims of Russian hacking are being used to whip up a crisis atmosphere about the administration of the election itself. Earlier this summer the FBI issued a "flash" alert to election officials in all 50 states over the threat of cyber intrusions. Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson suggested that the entire US election system, including 9,000 polling places and 50 separate state election authorities, should be declared "critical infrastructure" subject to the same counterterrorism efforts as nuclear power plants and electrical power grids. ..."
    Sep 01, 2007 | www.wsws.org

    Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton this week publicly accused the Russian government of intervening in the American election on behalf of her Republican opponent Donald Trump.

    She cited an investigation by US intelligence agencies, first reported Monday night by the Washington Post , into alleged Russian government hacking into the computer systems of the state election officials in the United States.

    Clinton told a press conference Monday there were now "credible reports about Russian interference in our elections," adding, "I want everyone-Democrat, Republican, Independent-to understand the real threat that this represents."

    Clinton referred both to the Post report about hacking into state government computers in Arizona and Illinois, and to the alleged Russian hacking of the emails of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), which revealed backroom efforts by top DNC officials to ensure Clinton's victory.

    Clinton's suggestion of a Trump-Putin axis was followed up Tuesday in a speech in North Carolina by her vice-presidential running mate, Senator Tim Kaine, which was billed as a "major national security address" by the Democratic campaign.

    Kaine contrasted Clinton's going "toe-to-toe with Putin" as US secretary of state, to Trump's suggestion that NATO was outmoded and that he could negotiate more successfully with Russia. He then raised the question "why Trump seems to support Russian interests at the expense of American ones," suggesting that the billionaire real estate speculator was keeping his tax returns secret because they might shed light on his financial ties to Russia. He concluded by citing the claim of former acting CIA Director Michael Morell that Trump is an "unwitting agent" of the Russian intelligence services.

    Clinton appeared Monday at several Labor Day rallies, but she chose to focus her attack on Trump on national security issues, where she has consistently attacked the billionaire real estate speculator from the right.

    Asked by a reporter if the alleged Russian actions amounted to a cyberwar, Clinton replied, "I'm not comfortable using the word 'war'." This demurral was only to disguise her intentions from the American people. However, in a speech last week to the American Legion convention, Clinton declared that cyberattacks on the United States should be answered by military force.

    Clinton claimed that Putin had all but confirmed Russia's role in the hacking of the DNC-a flat-out lie-adding, "The team around him certainly believe that there is some benefit to them to doing this." She then declared that the prospect of additional hacking into the state government systems used to conduct the November 8 elections represented "a threat from an adversarial foreign power."

    The Democratic candidate also criticized the role of the Russian government in Syria, in backing the regime of President Bashar al-Assad against Islamist forces armed and financed by the United States and the Gulf monarchies. She denounced "the refusal of the Russians and the Iranians to put the kind of pressure on Assad that is necessary "

    Clinton reiterated her support for imposing a no-fly zone over parts of Syria held by the US-backed "rebels," which would require US air strikes against Syrian anti-aircraft positions and could lead to confrontations between Russian and American warplanes, which both conduct air strikes in the country.

    "I think we need leverage," she said. "I've always believed that if that were on the table and it were clear we were going to pursue it, that would give us the leverage we don't have now." Coming just after the well-publicized failure of talks last weekend between Obama and Putin at the G20 summit in China, Clinton was clearly seeking to stake out a more aggressive position on Syria than that of the Obama administration.

    The Democrat's claim to have discovered a Trump-Putin axis has two purposes: first, to cement Clinton's standing as the consensus choice of the US military-intelligence apparatus; and second, to integrate the election campaign itself into the war preparations by US imperialism, both in the Middle East and against Russia (as well as China).

    If Clinton wins the November 8 election over Trump, she will claim this to be a mandate for the escalation of US military operations in Iraq and Syria, as well as the continued NATO military buildup throughout Eastern Europe, openly aimed at preparing for war with Russia, a country with the world's second-largest nuclear arsenal.

    In her complaints about Russian interference in the US elections, Clinton is joining in the campaign waged by the Pentagon and CIA to prepare US public opinion for such a conflict.

    The article published Monday by the Washington Post is little more than a handout from the intelligence agencies. It reports that the CIA, FBI, National Security Agency and Department of Homeland Security have started an investigation, led by Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, into a "broad covert Russian operation in the United States to sow public distrust in the upcoming presidential election and in US political institutions."

    In addition to discrediting the election among the American people-hardly necessary given that the entire political system is deeply despised and the two main candidates hated-Russian officials allegedly seek to "provide propaganda fodder to attack US democracy-building policies around the world," the Post claimed.

    As in previous reports by the Post and the New York Times about alleged Russian hacking of the DNC, no evidence of any kind is cited in the article, only the unsupported claims of intelligence officials, who even the Post reporters admit lack "definitive proof" of either cyberattacks or even plans for cyberattacks.

    Apparently the public is expected to treat such claims as the gospel, despite the decades of lying by these agencies to cover up assassinations, coup plots and other conspiracies abroad, and the systematic violation of the democratic rights of the American people at home.

    Meanwhile, the claims of Russian hacking are being used to whip up a crisis atmosphere about the administration of the election itself. Earlier this summer the FBI issued a "flash" alert to election officials in all 50 states over the threat of cyber intrusions. Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson suggested that the entire US election system, including 9,000 polling places and 50 separate state election authorities, should be declared "critical infrastructure" subject to the same counterterrorism efforts as nuclear power plants and electrical power grids.

    [Oct 16, 2016] Hillary laments about Russia interference are what is typically called The pot calling the kettle black as she is the specialist in fixing election and was instrumental in organizing color revolution in Russia to prevent reelection of Putin

    Notable quotes:
    "... Can you imagine the reaction if Russian ambassador invited Trump and Sanders to the embassy and offered full and unconditional support for their noble cause of dislodging the corrupt neoliberal regime that exists in Washington. With cash injections to breitbart.com, similar sites, and especially organizations that conduct polls after that. ..."
    "... Why Russia can't have something similar to help struggling American people to have more honest elections despite all the blatantly undemocratic mechanisms of "first to the post", primaries, state based counting of votes, and the United States Electoral College ? ..."
    "... It would be really funny if Russians really resorted to color revolution tricks in the current presidential elections :-) ..."
    "... Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton sharply criticized what she called "troubling practices" before and during the vote in Russia. "The Russian people, like people everywhere, deserve the right to have their voices heard and their votes counted," she said in Bonn, Germany. ..."
    Oct 16, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    likbez 10.16.16 at 4:18 pm 310

    In a way Hillary laments about Russia interference are what is typically called "The pot calling the kettle black" as she is exactly the specialist in this area. BTW there is a documented history of the US interference into Russian elections of 2011-2012.

    In which Hillary (via ambassador McFaul and the net of NGOs) was trying to stage a "color revolution" (nicknamed "white revolution") in Russia and prevent the re-election of Putin. The main instrument was claiming the fraud in ballot counting.

    Can you imagine the reaction if Russian ambassador invited Trump and Sanders to the embassy and offered full and unconditional support for their noble cause of dislodging the corrupt neoliberal regime that exists in Washington. With cash injections to breitbart.com, similar sites, and especially organizations that conduct polls after that.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/06/world/europe/observers-detail-flaws-in-russian-election.html

    And RT covered staged revelations of "Hillary campaign corruption" 24 x 7. As was done by Western MSM in regard to Alexei Navalny web site and him personally as the savior of Russia from entrenched corruption ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexei_Navalny )

    http://www.rferl.org/a/russia-duma-elections-navalny-pamfilova-resignation/28007404.html

    Actually the USA has several organizations explicitly oriented on interference in foreign elections and promotion of "color revolutions", with functions that partially displaced old functions of CIA (as in Italian elections of 1948). For example, NED.

    Why Russia can't have something similar to help struggling American people to have more honest elections despite all the blatantly undemocratic mechanisms of "first to the post", primaries, state based counting of votes, and the United States Electoral College ?

    It would be really funny if Russians really resorted to color revolution tricks in the current presidential elections :-)

    Here is a quote that can navigate them in right direction (note the irony of her words after DNC throw Sanders under the bus ;-)

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/06/world/europe/russian-parliamentary-elections-criticized-by-west.html?_r=0

    Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton sharply criticized what she called "troubling practices" before and during the vote in Russia. "The Russian people, like people everywhere, deserve the right to have their voices heard and their votes counted," she said in Bonn, Germany.

    With 99.9 percent of ballots processed, election officials said that United Russia had won 238 seats in Parliament, or about 53 percent, from 315 seats or 70 percent now. The Communist Party won 92 seats; Just Russia, a social democratic party, won 64 seats and the national Liberal Democratic Party won 56 seats.

    [Oct 16, 2016] There is world of difference between harassing woman and killing women and children.

    Groupinggate was essentially an attempt to distract votes from a more serious issue, especially Hillary warmongering, her role in mass rape of women in Syria and Libya, and latest Podesta emails leaks. This was a defensive strike with material that was specifically reserved for this purpose.
    Notable quotes:
    "... there are many more than two sides in Syria's civil war. First of all the civil war is not limited to Syria. ISIL, Hezbollah, and arguably Kurdish Rojava are belligerents not particularly invested in the borders of long defunct Mandate Syria. ..."
    "... The rebel forces arrayed against or for Assad in any particular area are various in their motivations and political identities and they never divide neatly into two opposed camps. ..."
    "... In short, you either support US violent regime change in the ME, or you do not. ..."
    "... All who are voting for Hillary Clinton are voting for US violent regime change in Syria. That's been the stated policy of the Obama administration for some years, Hillary was played a key role in formulating that policy as Secretary of State. Now, as candidate for President she has explicitly promised more US violent regime change in Iraq. ..."
    "... Violent regime change in Syria is the stated policy of Hillary Clinton, the Democratic candidate most US members of the CT community plan to vote for in November. ..."
    Oct 16, 2016 | crookedtimber.org
    bruce wilder 10.15.16 at 7:35 am
    intervene in a civil war on the side of the rebels

    I apologize if anyone feels I am harping on this too much, but there are many more than two sides in Syria's civil war. First of all the civil war is not limited to Syria. ISIL, Hezbollah, and arguably Kurdish Rojava are belligerents not particularly invested in the borders of long defunct Mandate Syria.

    The rebel forces arrayed against or for Assad in any particular area are various in their motivations and political identities and they never divide neatly into two opposed camps.

    kidneystones 10.15.16 at 8:06 am
    @ 190 There aren't many times you're this wrong, Bruce. There are only two sides. The side that holds a UN seat; votes or abstains on UN resolutions; borrows or does not borrow from the World Bank; has the authority to sign, or abrogate international treaties along, for example, the Golan heights – and the forces not aligned with the government.

    The CT community evidently wants to 'confuse itself' and the issues. You are either in favor of the US using US military power to unilaterally intercede in a civil war against the Assad government, which as you and Peter T note, is inextricably linked to Iraq and other regional disputes, or you oppose the unilateral use of US military power to topple governments in the ME.

    In short, you either support US violent regime change in the ME, or you do not.

    All who are voting for Hillary Clinton are voting for US violent regime change in Syria. That's been the stated policy of the Obama administration for some years, Hillary was played a key role in formulating that policy as Secretary of State. Now, as candidate for President she has explicitly promised more US violent regime change in Iraq.

    Violent regime change in Syria is the stated policy of Hillary Clinton, the Democratic candidate most US members of the CT community plan to vote for in November.

    [Oct 16, 2016] Donald Trumps Fall and Rise

    Notable quotes:
    "... Regarding Clinton, the revelation was the latest batch of WikiLeaks disclosures. It included excerpts of her speeches before Wall Street audiences, which she had refused to make public. Now we know why. They show her making nice-nice with her billionaire benefactors-no surprise there. After all, they paid her a standard fee of $225,000 per speech, for 92 speeches between 2013 and 2015, earning her $21.6 million in less than two years. How many of us could resist being nice-nice to nice people like that? ..."
    "... Stop the presses! Trump is a misogynist! ..."
    "... Friends of mine know that I am no fan, at all, of Ted Cruz. But he is the only person I've seen so far, before the second debate, who has stated the obvious. He tweeted: "NBC had tape 11 yrs. Apprentice producer says they have more & worse. So why not release in 2015? In March? Why wait till October? #MSMBias" ..."
    "... As the saying goes, "Give me a break!" Presidents like Kennedy and Clinton did more than talk about groping women, they practiced it-and worse. But now people who voted for, or defended, these Presidents-and other politicians like the woman-killing Ted Kennedy-can strike poses of shock and horror at Trump's words. Politically correct philanderers and models of progressive sexual attitudes like Arnold Schwarzenegger can refuse to endorse the scoundrel. Politics is indeed a hothouse of fertilizer for hypocrisy. ..."
    "... The difference in this debate, however, is that Trump fought back with passion, limiting her advantage with both zingers and policy contrasts. His policy positions are muddled, but hers are disingenuous at best. And with the possible exception of college and high-school debate contests, debates are rarely won on points. They are won with passion and-especially in the case of presidential debates-how you motivate your backers. And here Trump won the debate hands-down. ..."
    "... Above all, we must remember that the election is mostly bread and circuses to distract us from issues that aren't being discussed-the disposition of over $150 trillion in sovereign state debt, the largest bubble in the history of the world; how our own $20 trillion in debt is exploding at a rate that is unsustainable; the role of the Deep State in making the concept of "democracy" a joke; and how the neocons' (Hillary included) policy of perpetual war is threatening us not only with national bankruptcy but the risk of a nuclear World War III. As Mark Twain or Emma Goldman said (take your pick as to who the real author was), "If voting made a difference, they wouldn't let us do it." ..."
    Oct 16, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com
    Regarding Clinton, the revelation was the latest batch of WikiLeaks disclosures. It included excerpts of her speeches before Wall Street audiences, which she had refused to make public. Now we know why. They show her making nice-nice with her billionaire benefactors-no surprise there. After all, they paid her a standard fee of $225,000 per speech, for 92 speeches between 2013 and 2015, earning her $21.6 million in less than two years. How many of us could resist being nice-nice to nice people like that?

    But the excerpts from her speeches also show her saying she is for "open borders," which will not endear her to the majority of American voters. They show her admitting she often has a private position on issues (one satisfactory to her benefactors) different from her public position on those issues, which does nothing to repair her reputation as a liar (though it could not have come as a surprise to her benefactors, who are used to paying off two-faced politicians).

    These and other revelations were potentially damning to Clinton's chances in a deadlocked race, so the leftist media did what it had to do under the circumstances: it ignored the Clinton revelations and went unhinged on the Trump "revelation." As a result, about the only place in the mainstream media where you will find discussion of the Clinton speeches is Fox News. Thankfully, as many people watch that cable news network as watch its two competitors combined, that is, the Clinton News Network (CNN) and MSDNC.

    Stop the presses! Trump is a misogynist!

    ... ... ...

    Friends of mine know that I am no fan, at all, of Ted Cruz. But he is the only person I've seen so far, before the second debate, who has stated the obvious. He tweeted: "NBC had tape 11 yrs. Apprentice producer says they have more & worse. So why not release in 2015? In March? Why wait till October? #MSMBias"

    ... ... ...

    As the saying goes, "Give me a break!" Presidents like Kennedy and Clinton did more than talk about groping women, they practiced it-and worse. But now people who voted for, or defended, these Presidents-and other politicians like the woman-killing Ted Kennedy-can strike poses of shock and horror at Trump's words. Politically correct philanderers and models of progressive sexual attitudes like Arnold Schwarzenegger can refuse to endorse the scoundrel. Politics is indeed a hothouse of fertilizer for hypocrisy.

    ... ... ...

    Hillary Clinton will always be able to out-point Donald Trump on policy matters. That is the advantage of being a politician for more than 30 years. "Slick Willie" has now been supplanted by slick Hillary. But most Americans expected that.

    The difference in this debate, however, is that Trump fought back with passion, limiting her advantage with both zingers and policy contrasts. His policy positions are muddled, but hers are disingenuous at best. And with the possible exception of college and high-school debate contests, debates are rarely won on points. They are won with passion and-especially in the case of presidential debates-how you motivate your backers. And here Trump won the debate hands-down.

    ... ... ...

    Above all, we must remember that the election is mostly bread and circuses to distract us from issues that aren't being discussed-the disposition of over $150 trillion in sovereign state debt, the largest bubble in the history of the world; how our own $20 trillion in debt is exploding at a rate that is unsustainable; the role of the Deep State in making the concept of "democracy" a joke; and how the neocons' (Hillary included) policy of perpetual war is threatening us not only with national bankruptcy but the risk of a nuclear World War III. As Mark Twain or Emma Goldman said (take your pick as to who the real author was), "If voting made a difference, they wouldn't let us do it."

    David Franke was a founder of the conservative movement in the late 1950s and early 1960s. He is currently writing his magnum opus on the trajectory of conservatism and American politics during his lifetime.

    [Oct 16, 2016] I dont buy the left neoliberal hysteria over Trump as the scariest reactionary dude evah

    Notable quotes:
    "... I don't buy the left neoliberal hysteria over Trump as the scariest reactionary dude evah. I think that's just to prevent the dissatisfaction that Trump has tapped into blending with the dissatisfaction Sanders tapped into. ..."
    "... And, I tend to think that strategy has been successful in keeping the left v right neoliberal monopoly of power intact. The Republicans may take a hit, but it will only result in a slight shuffling among the seats of power. The left neoliberals will keep the right neoliberal seats warm for them. ymmv ..."
    "... This really is another post 9/11 moment for the chattering classes. All their claims of expertise, clear eyed analysis, logic above emotion, has come crashing down around their hysterical, emotion driven response to the current political situation. There is, at this stage, basically zero willingness among these groups to do their Job of explaining the world, all they want to achieve is a combination of political signalling and intense personal satisfaction. ..."
    "... The best analyses I've read were a couple of essays from 2015 comparing Trump to Berlusconi. Those interested will need to insert 2015 into the search string to skip past the more breathless 2016 versions. The 2015 essays are largely free of tbe breathless need to stop Trump cold that mar 2016 comparisons. ..."
    "... middle-class unhappy with the rapine corruption and self-serving nature of the elites. ..."
    "... The problem is that Trump is an entertainer/marketer and his product is him. Van Jones remains the single best pundit on Trump because Jones understands that the elections are about stagecraft, more than politics. ..."
    "... the college-educated white new middle class (professionals and managers), is approximately 30 percent of the population, but are overrepresented, at 40 percent, among Trump supporters. Not surprisingly, the median household income of Trump voters is around $70,000 annually. ..."
    "... More importantly, the category "non-college educated whites" includes both wage workers and the self-employed - the traditional middle class. The Economist found that "better-paid and better-educated voters have always formed as big a part of Mr. Trump's base as those at the lower end of the scale for income and education." ..."
    "... 'I don't know, so I assume' is kind of the defining characteristic of reactions to the Trump Candidacy. Maybe he will, continue with neoliberalism. Or maybe he will go full communism now, or perhaps at least anti-imperialism, as one prolific poster here repeatedly claims. It all depends on which 10% of his statements you believe are not lies, and what you project into the gap left by the rest. ..."
    "... But it could equally plausibly lead to a stable regime that would have European political scientists in lively debate as to whether or not it is most accurately called fascist. ..."
    "... Clearly, Trump's right-wing opposition to neoliberal trade and tax policies resonates with a minority of older, white workers, including a minority of union members." ..."
    "... these sectors have experiencing declining living standards and are fearful about their children's prospects of remaining in the middle class." ..."
    "... The developments of late capitalism have to do with the transition of these decisions from the elite capitalist class as such to a group of managers. These managers can not and do not go against the traditional interests of capital as such. But their decisions characteristically favor their class in ways that a traditional class analysis can not fathom, and their ideology appeals to a group variously called "professionals", "technocrats", "the 10%" etc. who more broadly control the levers of power in society. ..."
    "... The managerial class operates a world system - the system of trade agreements, monetary agreements, etc. This system keeps the world economy going as it is going through the cooperation of American economists, Eurocrat bureaucratic appointees, Chinese Communist Party higher-ups, important people in the financial industry (whether bankers or at central banks), CEOs of multinationals, and even the leaders of important NGOs. These interactions are observable and not a matter of conspiracy theory. ..."
    Oct 16, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    bruce wilder 10.14.16 at 9:15 pm

    soru: "Precisely because it is not left neoliberalism versus right neoliberalism, but left neoliberalism versus something that is:

    a: worse
    b: a predictable consequence of neoliberalism.

    I think there is something to the thesis that Trump ripped the scab off the place where Luttwak's "perfect non-sequitur" had rubbed the skin off the connection between the tax-cut loving Republican establishment leadership and the Republican electoral base of male reactionary ignoramuses.

    But, I don't know what actual policy follows from Trump_vs_deep_state, if not Mike Pence brand right neoliberalism. A little light flavoring of theocracy on the tax cuts in other words.

    I don't buy the left neoliberal hysteria over Trump as the scariest reactionary dude evah. I think that's just to prevent the dissatisfaction that Trump has tapped into blending with the dissatisfaction Sanders tapped into.

    And, I tend to think that strategy has been successful in keeping the left v right neoliberal monopoly of power intact. The Republicans may take a hit, but it will only result in a slight shuffling among the seats of power. The left neoliberals will keep the right neoliberal seats warm for them. ymmv

    kidneystones 10.15.16 at 8:49 am 200
    Some food for thought: Trump tied LA Times poll.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/10/14/why_pay_attention_to_the_la_times_poll.html

    " The national polls (though not so much the state polls) were off in 2012. During the closing month of the campaign, they showed, on average, a 0.3 point Romney lead. The RAND poll [LA Times], by contrast, showed a 3.8 point Obama lead – which was almost exactly correct."

    Sean Trende throws a big bucket of salt on the LA Times poll, before getting to the accuracy of the poll in 2012.

    Ronan(rf) 10.15.16 at 12:11 pm 208
    This really is another post 9/11 moment for the chattering classes. All their claims of expertise, clear eyed analysis, logic above emotion, has come crashing down around their hysterical, emotion driven response to the current political situation. There is, at this stage, basically zero willingness among these groups to do their Job of explaining the world, all they want to achieve is a combination of political signalling and intense personal satisfaction.
    kidneystones 10.15.16 at 12:42 pm 214
    @208 I generally agree. Thanks for the link to the Nation piece. I earlier skimmed this Guardian piece by JJ which features an extended essay from the reviewed text. John has been beating this drum for more than a year trying to wear his two hats: partisan Dem and serious social critic. The first serious undermines the second.

    The best analyses I've read were a couple of essays from 2015 comparing Trump to Berlusconi. Those interested will need to insert 2015 into the search string to skip past the more breathless 2016 versions. The 2015 essays are largely free of tbe breathless need to stop Trump cold that mar 2016 comparisons.

    The Judis essay marries Trump too closely to George Wallace, another populist, but critically also a professional politician, a Democrat, and a New Dealer.

    Judis has a good quote, or two, from Wallace that definitely fit the Tea Party/Silent Majority profile – rule followers, middle-class unhappy with the rapine corruption and self-serving nature of the elites.

    The problem is that Trump is an entertainer/marketer and his product is him. Van Jones remains the single best pundit on Trump because Jones understands that the elections are about stagecraft, more than politics. Both the Nation and the Guardian piece function as much as thinly disguised GOTV arguments as academic assessments of the Trump phenomena.

    What both get right, along with many others, is that removing Trump from the equation removes nothing from the masses of ordinary folks who a/will not apologize for who they are and in fact celebrate themselves and their values b/aren't interested in the approval, or the explications of elites c/are completely determined to burn down this mess irrespective of whether Trump is elected, or not.

    kidneystones 10.15.16 at 12:43 pm
    And the link: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/13/birth-of-populism-donald-trump?CMP=fb_us
    Ronan(rf) 10.15.16 at 12:48 pm 217
    Thanks for the link kidneystones, I'll check.it out. I'm working through Judis' book at the moment and find larger parts, of it convincing.
    Who. Is van Jones? Is it this lad?

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/28/magazine/van-jones-can-empathize-with-trump-voters.html

    kidneystones 10.15.16 at 1:12 pm 220
    Tell me this isn't better: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNk3Jdck7nY Two minutes should do it, but the rest is great, too.
    engels 10.15.16 at 1:13 pm 221
    The people v. the 'global managerial class'

    …while approximately 55 percent of Trump supporters do not have a bachelor's degree, this demographic makes up approximately 70 percent of the US population - they are underrepresented among Trump voters. However, the college-educated white new middle class (professionals and managers), is approximately 30 percent of the population, but are overrepresented, at 40 percent, among Trump supporters. Not surprisingly, the median household income of Trump voters is around $70,000 annually.

    More importantly, the category "non-college educated whites" includes both wage workers and the self-employed - the traditional middle class. The Economist found that "better-paid and better-educated voters have always formed as big a part of Mr. Trump's base as those at the lower end of the scale for income and education."

    A systematic review of Gallup polling data demonstrates, again, that most Trump supporters are part of the traditional middle class (self-employed) and those sectors of the new middle class (supervisors) who do not require college degrees. They tend to live in "white enclaves"…

    https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/10/trump-gop-republicans-tea-party-populism-fascism/

    Ronan(rf) 10.15.16 at 1:33 pm 226
    Kidney stones I'll check out the link above when by a laptop.

    Personally I don't know how j feel about the managerial class argument (I still have to read both Hayes and Frank ) but it's becoming quite clear that large parts of the left and right "establishment" (which is just a shorthand way of saying those with high profile journalistic, political and cultural positions) are going out of their way to not acknowledge what is right in from of their eyes, that there are political and economic (as well as racial and cultural) reasons behind the rise of right wing populism.

    RichardM 10.15.16 at 1:34 pm 227
    > But, I don't know what actual policy follows from Trump_vs_deep_state, if not Mike Pence brand right neoliberalism.

    'I don't know, so I assume' is kind of the defining characteristic of reactions to the Trump Candidacy. Maybe he will, continue with neoliberalism. Or maybe he will go full communism now, or perhaps at least anti-imperialism, as one prolific poster here repeatedly claims. It all depends on which 10% of his statements you believe are not lies, and what you project into the gap left by the rest.

    If he was elected, things would be different from what they are, or at least are understood to be. And things being different, they would continue to be so, taking a different path from the continuation of a status quo. My personal evidence-free assumption is that this would likely take the nature of a decade-long crisis that would end with a return to a weakened version of the pre-Trump regime. A pale echo of the rosy days of Obama, Bush and Clinton.

    But it could equally plausibly lead to a stable regime that would have European political scientists in lively debate as to whether or not it is most accurately called fascist.

    Ronan(rf) 10.15.16 at 1:38 pm 228
    For those not wager to read the link, here are the bits engels cut. From the beginning.

    "Who are Trump's voters? Despite claims that he has won the "white working class," the vast majority of Trump's supporters, like those of the Tea Party, are drawn from the traditional and new middle classes, especially the older, white male and less well-off strata of these classes. Clearly, Trump's right-wing opposition to neoliberal trade and tax policies resonates with a minority of older, white workers, including a minority of union members."

    And after enclave

    "isolated from immigrants and other people of color, have worse health than the average US resident, and are experiencing low rates of intergenerational mobility. While not directly affected either by the decline of industry in the Midwest or by immigration, these sectors have experiencing declining living standards and are fearful about their children's prospects of remaining in the middle class."

    engels 10.15.16 at 1:40 pm 229
    Roman, I already said I broadly agreed with you (is it the case you literally zzzzzzzzzzz)- I'm delighted that via Luttwak you're groping towards a class analysis of fascism that has been standard on the left since at least Trotsky…
    Rich Puchalsky 10.15.16 at 1:45 pm 231
    Ronan(rf): "Personally I don't know how j feel about the managerial class argument"

    There are certain decision makers who make all of the important decisions, or who at least get a tremendously inordinate amount of power over those decisions. If they aren't making a decision in a positive sense, their power often controls decisions in a negative sense by restricting the available choices to those that are all acceptable to them.

    The developments of late capitalism have to do with the transition of these decisions from the elite capitalist class as such to a group of managers. These managers can not and do not go against the traditional interests of capital as such. But their decisions characteristically favor their class in ways that a traditional class analysis can not fathom, and their ideology appeals to a group variously called "professionals", "technocrats", "the 10%" etc. who more broadly control the levers of power in society.

    The managerial class operates a world system - the system of trade agreements, monetary agreements, etc. This system keeps the world economy going as it is going through the cooperation of American economists, Eurocrat bureaucratic appointees, Chinese Communist Party higher-ups, important people in the financial industry (whether bankers or at central banks), CEOs of multinationals, and even the leaders of important NGOs. These interactions are observable and not a matter of conspiracy theory.

    [Oct 15, 2016] Kremlin Russia faces unprecedented cyber-threats from the US - RT News

    Notable quotes:
    "... "The fact is, US unpredictability and aggression keep growing, and such threats against Moscow and our country's leadership are unprecedented, because the threat is being announced at the level of the US Vice President," ..."
    "... "Of course, given such an aggressive, unpredictable line, we have to take measures to protect our interests, somehow hedge the risks," ..."
    "... such unpredictability is dangerous for the whole world." ..."
    "... "Why haven't we sent a message yet to Putin," ..."
    "... "We are sending a message [to Putin] We have a capacity to do it, and " ..."
    "... "He'll known it?" ..."
    "... "He'll know it. It will be at the time of our choosing, and under the circumstances that will have the greatest impact," ..."
    "... current and former officials," ..."
    "... "clandestine" ..."
    "... "wide-ranging operation" ..."
    "... embarrass" ..."
    "... clandestine ..."
    "... "If the US 'clandestine' pending cyberwar on Russia was serious: 1) it would not have been announced 2) it would be the NSA [National Security Agency] and not the CIA," ..."
    "... Podesta emails, ..."
    "... "tens of thousands of hackers" ..."
    Oct 15, 2016 | www.rt.com
    US aggressiveness is growing, and threats to carry out cyberattacks against Russia are unprecedented, presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov has said, adding that Russia will take "precautionary measures." "The fact is, US unpredictability and aggression keep growing, and such threats against Moscow and our country's leadership are unprecedented, because the threat is being announced at the level of the US Vice President," Peskov told RIA Novosti. "Of course, given such an aggressive, unpredictable line, we have to take measures to protect our interests, somehow hedge the risks," he said, adding that " such unpredictability is dangerous for the whole world." Read more CIA working on 'clandestine' cyberattack against Russia – report

    US Vice President Joe Biden said on Friday that Washington is ready to respond to hack attacks allegedly conducted by Russia and designed to interfere with the upcoming US elections.

    "Why haven't we sent a message yet to Putin," Chuck Todd, host of the "Meet the Press" show on NBC, asked Joe Biden.

    "We are sending a message [to Putin] We have a capacity to do it, and "

    "He'll known it?" Todd interfered.

    "He'll know it. It will be at the time of our choosing, and under the circumstances that will have the greatest impact," the US vice president replied.

    His threats coincided with an NBC News report citing " current and former officials," claiming that the CIA is planning a "clandestine" cyberattack on Russia in retaliation for its alleged efforts to influence the US elections against Hillary Clinton. The "wide-ranging operation" is meant to " embarrass" Russia's leadership, NBC News reported.

    The report claimed to have direct knowledge of the situation, saying the CIA had been tasked with providing options to the White House.

    WikiLeaks, however, has expressed doubt over the seriousness of the report about the " clandestine " cyberwar on Russia.
    "If the US 'clandestine' pending cyberwar on Russia was serious: 1) it would not have been announced 2) it would be the NSA [National Security Agency] and not the CIA," WikiLeaks wrote on Twitter.

    Accusations against Russia have become louder in recent days with WikiLeaks releasing thousands of the so called " Podesta emails, " exposing Hillary Clinton's connections to Wall Street and controversial views on Syria, among other things. Some mainstream media outlets were quick to accuse the Kremlin of teaming up with WikiLeaks, allegedly providing it with massive amounts of inside scoops to post. The evidence-free allegations have been denied both by Moscow and by WikiLeaks.

    Responding to accusations last week, the Russian presidential press secretary mentioned that "tens of thousands of hackers" try to break into the sites of Russian officials on a daily basis, but this never prompted Moscow to point a finger at Washington.

    READ MORE: 'Obama cyber saber-rattling against Russia possible ploy to boost Clinton camp' (Op-Ed)

    READ MORE: US gov't officially accuses Russia of political hacks; Moscow calls it 'nonsense'

    [Oct 15, 2016] Obama Tells CIA To Prepare For Cyber War With Russia Zero Hedge

    Notable quotes:
    "... Vice President Joe Biden told "Meet the Press" moderator Chuck Todd on Friday that "we're sending a message" to Putin and that "it will be at the time of our choosing, and under the circumstances that will have the greatest impact." ..."
    "... Former CIA officers interviewed by NBC said that there is a long history of the White House plotting potential cyber attacks against Russia. That said, none of them were ultimately carried out because "none of the options were particularly good, nor did we think that any of them would be particularly effective." ..."
    "... All these senior government twerps are either life-long political suck-ups or ivory-tower dwelling posers. They have lived their whole lives in a virtual world of talking with absolutely no consequences to them or responsibility for their actions. ..."
    "... They are confident that they can talk/lie/cheat or bluff their way out of any situation they get into - or force it off to someone else like the military and then blame them for the fallout. ..."
    "... They are supported by junior suck-ups that are kept in terror over losing their cushy jobs in government or contracting who are paid over twice what anyone else would pay their sorry ass and justify their sellout by complaining how they have to "pay the mortgage". They have never been slapped side the head like they deserve. Absolute foolish arrogance. ..."
    "... They want to distract from Hillary's WikiLeak fiasco. ..."
    Oct 14, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    In what is looking more and more like a season finale of the HBO series "House of Cards" with each passing day, the Obama administration is now literally threatening a cyber war with Russia over allegations it was behind the hacking of Clinton's emails. According to an exclusive NBC report, the Obama administration "is contemplating an unprecedented cyber covert action" (though it's unclear how exactly it's covert if Biden is announcing it to the world via an interview with Chuck Todd) against Russia, in "retaliation for alleged " interference in the American presidential election, and has asked the CIA to draft plans for a "wide-ranging "clandestine" cyber operation designed to harass and "embarrass" the Kremlin leadership."

    So now the Obama administration is overtly leveraging the full power of the United States to intimidate foreign governments, and most likely Julian Assange, in order to maintain control of the Executive Branch of the government. Does anyone within the mainstream media see any problems with this? Certainly Chuck Todd and NBC do not. And notice that even the NBC article refers to " alleged " Russian interference because not a shred of evidence has been presented to prove that senior Russian officials were actually behind the hacking of Hillary's emails...but who needs facts when you have a complicit media eager to advance whatever propaganda is necessary to maintain power?

    The Obama administration is contemplating an unprecedented cyber covert action against Russia in retaliation for alleged Russian interference in the American presidential election, U.S. intelligence officials told NBC News.

    Current and former officials with direct knowledge of the situation say the CIA has been asked to deliver options to the White House for a wide-ranging "clandestine" cyber operation designed to harass and "embarrass" the Kremlin leadership.

    The sources did not elaborate on the exact measures the CIA was considering, but said the agency had already begun opening cyber doors, selecting targets and making other preparations for an operation. Former intelligence officers told NBC News that the agency had gathered reams of documents that could expose unsavory tactics by Russian President Vladimir Putin.

    Vice President Joe Biden told "Meet the Press" moderator Chuck Todd on Friday that "we're sending a message" to Putin and that "it will be at the time of our choosing, and under the circumstances that will have the greatest impact."

    When asked if the American public will know a message was sent, the vice president replied, "Hope not."

    Former CIA officers interviewed by NBC said that there is a long history of the White House plotting potential cyber attacks against Russia. That said, none of them were ultimately carried out because "none of the options were particularly good, nor did we think that any of them would be particularly effective."

    Two former CIA officers who worked on Russia told NBC News that there is a long history of the White House asking the CIA to come up with options for covert action against Russia, including cyber options - only to abandon the idea.

    A second former officer, who helped run intelligence operations against Russia, said he was asked several times in recent years to work on covert action plans, but "none of the options were particularly good, nor did we think that any of them would be particularly effective," he said.

    Others warned that the White House has always caved on plans to follow through with cyber attacks because anything the U.S. can do against Russia, they can also do in response. As one of the former CIA officers said, "if you are looking to mess with their networks, we can do that, but then the issue becomes, they can do worse things to us in other places."

    "We've always hesitated to use a lot of stuff we've had, but that's a political decision," one former officer said. "If someone has decided, `We've had enough of the Russians,' there is a lot we can do. Step one is to remind them that two can play at this game and we have a lot of stuff. Step two, if you are looking to mess with their networks, we can do that, but then the issue becomes, they can do worse things to us in other places."

    Putin is almost beyond embarrassing, he said, and anything the U.S. can do against, for example, Russian bank accounts, the Russian can do in response.

    "Do you want to have Barack Obama bouncing checks?" he asked.

    Former CIA deputy director Michael Morell expressed skepticism that the U.S. would go so far as to attack Russian networks.

    "Physical attacks on networks is not something the U.S. wants to do because we don't want to set a precedent for other countries to do it as well, including against us," he said. "My own view is that our response shouldn't be covert -- it should overt, for everybody to see."

    Here is a brieg clip of Biden discussing the "covert" planning with NBC's Chuck Todd.

    If the Obama administration is willing to go to such great lengths, literally escalating tensions with another superpower, to protect their candidate from whatever it is that she's hiding then we suspect whatever WikiLeaks has yet to release could be really good.

    Fed Supporter philipat Oct 15, 2016 1:33 AM

    I believe like the article suggests Obummer is going to use the full force of the CIA to hack Assange, or shut him down before the real embarrassing shit hits the net. Assange needs to drop it all now.

    OR

    It could be Obummer uses it as a pretext to say the Ruskies hacked the election in case the donald wins and nullify the results.

    Or

    It could be an internal NSA and CIA war. NSA is actually behind email dumps to make sure hillary does not win and expect to drop the juiciest emails from CLinton herself and possibly the 18 obummer emails as well right before the election. Maybe the CIA is working for obummer and NSA has gone rogue. I hope some real americans still work for the NSA and the CIA and rescue this country from 4 more progressive socialist marxist cultural degredation years that are a certainty under hillary the shape shifting candidate that would sell out america for a case of beer and another 250 million dollars.

    Or

    the mofos may actually be crazy as batshit and want to turn us all to ashes and glass.

    hongdo Fed Supporter Oct 15, 2016 10:14 AM

    All these senior government twerps are either life-long political suck-ups or ivory-tower dwelling posers. They have lived their whole lives in a virtual world of talking with absolutely no consequences to them or responsibility for their actions.

    They are confident that they can talk/lie/cheat or bluff their way out of any situation they get into - or force it off to someone else like the military and then blame them for the fallout.

    Their objective is to appear important, further their career, and gain power to look more important. They are supported by junior suck-ups that are kept in terror over losing their cushy jobs in government or contracting who are paid over twice what anyone else would pay their sorry ass and justify their sellout by complaining how they have to "pay the mortgage". They have never been slapped side the head like they deserve. Absolute foolish arrogance.

    munched55 Occident Mortal Oct 15, 2016 10:05 AM

    They want to distract from Hillary's WikiLeak fiasco.

    [Oct 15, 2016] Whats Behind a Rise in Ethnic Nationalism

    Notable quotes:
    "... 'End of Growth' Sparks Wide Discontent By Alastair Crooke (October 14, 2016, consortiumnews): The global elites' false promise that neoliberal economics would cure all ills through the elixir of endless growth helps explain the angry nationalist movements ripping apart the West's politics. ..."
    "... Yes, that would seem transparently obvious to anyone who doesn't have a vested interest in defending the neoliberal programme. ..."
    "... The last thing that powerful elites and their court economists want to talk about is the relationship between an increasingly unequal distribution of income and wealth and the rise of ethnic nationalism...it might force the elites to do something about it. One would think that that would entail redistribution. Unfortunately, increasing militarization of the police seems to be a far cheaper solution...for the short term. ..."
    "... The elites used religious, tribal and ethnic, conflict to keep a lid on the rabble for thousands of years. They are supremely comfortable with this, it's part of the toolbox. ..."
    "... However I think they are overly complacent because it appears to me that in an industrial society such conflicts now involve a lot more than a few hundred peasants going after each other with random farm implements. ..."
    "... The media is shocked -- just shocked -- that a foreign government would tamper with US elections...such behavior is supposed to be off limits to anyone but the CIA and National Endowment for Democracy or their deputies... ..."
    "... I'm not sure that Putin has a preference. It may be enough for him to show that Russia can play the destabilization card as well as NED. Displaying the profound corruption of the US political system also serves to undermine the US abroad, since much of its standing is based on the myth of its taking the moral high ground. International elites will have a harder time garnering support for pro-US policies, if those policies are seen as morally bankrupt. ..."
    "... Establishment economists are making excuses for slow growth and poor policy by pointing at things like demographics and technology. Excuse-making isn't going to stem the rising tide of ethnic nationalism. Thomas Friedman's Flat World is turning into Tribalistic World. ..."
    "... Many of the "Rich" love to push the dialectics of "ethnic nationalism" where none is to be found in reality ..."
    "... the pointless destruction of the manufacturing sector of Western economies because of their decision to have private banking systems and eschew tariffs - no surprises here folks ..."
    "... Of course economy plus consequences of the state of the economy, i.e. many people being treated like shit, without recourse, except turning away from mainstream politics (which isn't much of a recourse usually). ..."
    "... external factors are much more significant in determining success or lack of it than any personal virtues or failings the individual may have. It is not even luck. ..."
    "... People do not blame the actual causes of their lack of success. Instead, they seek and find scapegoats. Most Trumpista have heard all their lives from people they respect that black and latino people unfairly get special treatment. That overrides the reality. ..."
    "... The comment started with: "When things aren't going as you expect or want, people always have to find someone to blame... since the ego works to prevent you blaming yourself." ..."
    Oct 15, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Robert Shiller:
    What's Behind a Rise in Ethnic Nationalism? Maybe the Economy : Global economic weakness and a rise in inequality appear to be causing a disturbing growth in ethnic nationalism. ...

    In the United States, despite his attempts to woo minority voters, Donald J. Trump appears to derive support from such sentiment. In Moscow, Vladimir V. Putin has used Russian nationalist sentiment to inspire many of his countrymen. And we see growing ethnic political parties inspired by national identity in countless other countries.

    It is natural to ask whether something so broad might have a common cause, other than the obvious circumstantial causes like the gradual fading of memories about the horrors of ethnic conflict in World War II or the rise in this century of forms of violent ethnic terrorism.

    Economics is my specialty, and I think economic factors may explain at least part of the trend. ...

    anne : Friday, October 14, 2016 at 10:44 AM

    'End of Growth' Sparks Wide Discontent By Alastair Crooke (October 14, 2016, consortiumnews): The global elites' false promise that neoliberal economics would cure all ills through the elixir of endless growth helps explain the angry nationalist movements ripping apart the West's politics.

    drb48 -> anne... , Friday, October 14, 2016 at 12:06 PM
    Yes, that would seem transparently obvious to anyone who doesn't have a vested interest in defending the neoliberal programme.
    JohnH -> anne... , Friday, October 14, 2016 at 12:37 PM
    The last thing that powerful elites and their court economists want to talk about is the relationship between an increasingly unequal distribution of income and wealth and the rise of ethnic nationalism...it might force the elites to do something about it. One would think that that would entail redistribution. Unfortunately, increasing militarization of the police seems to be a far cheaper solution...for the short term.
    Gibbon1 -> JohnH... , Friday, October 14, 2016 at 11:32 PM
    The elites used religious, tribal and ethnic, conflict to keep a lid on the rabble for thousands of years. They are supremely comfortable with this, it's part of the toolbox.

    However I think they are overly complacent because it appears to me that in an industrial society such conflicts now involve a lot more than a few hundred peasants going after each other with random farm implements.

    pgl : , Friday, October 14, 2016 at 11:45 AM
    Trump is now saying Mexican Carlos Slim wants to control our election. No worries Donald - Putin the Russian is trying really hard for you.
    JohnH -> pgl... , Friday, October 14, 2016 at 02:02 PM
    Putin is just returning the favor...

    The media is shocked -- just shocked -- that a foreign government would tamper with US elections...such behavior is supposed to be off limits to anyone but the CIA and National Endowment for Democracy or their deputies...

    pgl -> JohnH... , Friday, October 14, 2016 at 03:31 PM
    Thank so much for the Pravda insights.
    likbez -> pgl... , Friday, October 14, 2016 at 07:43 PM
    Paradoxically Pravda in old times did have real insights into the US political system and for this reason was widely read by specialists. Especially materials published by the Institute of the USA and Canada -- a powerful Russian think tank somewhat similar to the Council on Foreign Relations.

    As for your remark I think for many people in the USA Russophobia is just displaced Anti-Semitism.

    JohnH remark is actually very apt and you should not "misunderestimate" the level of understanding of the US political system by Russians. They did learn a lot about machinations of the neoliberal foreign policy, especially about so called "color revolutions." Hillary&Obama has had a bloody nose when they tried to stage a "color revolution" in 2011-2012 in Russia (so called "white revolution). A typical US citizen probably never heard about it or heard only about "Pussy riot", Navalny and couple of other minor figures. At the end poor ambassador Michael McFaul was recalled. NED was expelled. Of course Russia is just a pale shadow of the USSR power-wise, so Obama later put her on sanctions using MH17 incident as a pretext with no chances of retaliation. They also successfully implemented regime change in Ukraine -- blooding Putin nose in return.

    But I actually disagree with JohnH. First of all Putin does not need to interfere in a way like the USA did in 2011-2012. It would be a waist of resources as both candidates are probably equally bad for Russia (and it is the "deep state" which actually dictates the US foreign policy, not POTUS.)

    The US political system is already the can of worms and the deterioration of neoliberal society this time created almost revolutionary situation in Marxists terms, when Repug elite was not able to control the nomination. Democratic establishment still did OK and managed to squash the rebellion, but here the level of degeneration demonstrated itself in the selection of the candidate.

    Taking into account the level of dysfunction of the US political system, I am not so sure the Trump is preferable to Hillary for Russians. I would say he is more unpredictable and more dangerous. The main danger of Hillary is Syria war escalation, but the same is true for Trump who can turn into the second John McCain on a dime.

    Also the difference between two should not be exaggerated. Both are puppets of the forces the brought them to the current level and in their POTUS role will need to be subservient to the "deep state". Or at least to take into account its existence and power. And that makes them more of prisoners of the position they want so much.

    Trump probably to lesser extent then Hillary, but he also can't ignore the deep state. Both require the support of Republican Congress for major legislative initiatives. And it will very hostile to Hillary. Which is a major advantage for Russians, as this excludes the possibility of some very stupid moves.

    Again, IMHO in no way any of them will control the US foreign policy. In this area the deep state is in charge since Allen Dulles and those who try to deviate too much might end as badly as JFK. I think Obama understood this very well and did not try to rock the boat. And there are people who will promptly explain this to Trump in a way that he understands.

    In other words, neither of them will escape the limit on their power that "deep state" enforces. And that virtually guarantee the continuity of the foreign policy, with just slight tactical variations.

    So why Russians should prefer one to another? You can elect a dog as POTUS and the foreign policy of the USA will be virtually the same as with Hillary or Trump.

    In internal policy Trump looks more dangerous and more willing to experiment, while Hillary is definitely a "status quo" candidate. The last thing Russians needs is the US stock market crush. So from the point of internal economic policy Hillary is also preferable.

    A lot of pundits stress the danger of war with Russia, and that might be true as women in high political position try to outdo men in hawkishness. But here Hillary jingoism probably will be tightly controlled by the "deep state". Hillary definitely tried to be "More Catholic then the Pope" in this area while being the Secretary of State. That did not end well for her and she might learn the lesson.

    But if you think about the amount of "compromat" (Russian term ;-) on Hillary and Bill that Russians may well already collected, in "normal circumstances" she might be a preferable counterpart for Russians. As in "devil that we know". Both Lavrov and Putin met Hillary. Medvedev was burned by Hillary. Taking into account the level of greed Hillary displayed during her career, I would be worried what Russians have on her, as well as on Bill "transgressions" and RICO-style actions of Clinton Foundation.

    And taking into account the level of disgust amount the government officials with Hillary (and this is not limited to Secret Service) , new leaks are quite possible, which might further complicate her position as POTUS. In worst case, the first year (or two) leaks will continue. Especially if damaging DNC leaks were the work of some disgruntled person within the USA intelligence and not of some foreign hacker group. That might be a plus for Russians as such a constant distraction might limit her possibility to make some stupid move in Syria. Or not.

    As you know personal emails boxes for all major Web mail providers are just one click away for NSA analysts. So "Snowden II" hypothesis might have the right to exist.

    Also it is quite probably that impeachment process for Hillary will start soon after her election. In the House Republicans have enough votes to try it. That also might be a plus for s for both Russia and China. Trump is extremely jingoistic as for Iran, and that might be another area were Hillary is preferable to Russians and Chinese over Trump.

    Also do not discount her health problems. She does have some serious neurological disease, which eventually might kill her. How fast she will deteriorate is not known but in a year or two the current symptoms might become more pronounced. If Bill have STD (and sometime he looks like a person with HIV; http://joeforamerica.com/2016/07/bill-clinton-aids/) that further complicates that picture (this is just a rumor, but he really looks bad).

    I think that all those factors make her an equal, or even preferable candidate for such states as Russia and China.

    JohnH -> likbez... , Friday, October 14, 2016 at 09:46 PM
    I'm not sure that Putin has a preference. It may be enough for him to show that Russia can play the destabilization card as well as NED. Displaying the profound corruption of the US political system also serves to undermine the US abroad, since much of its standing is based on the myth of its taking the moral high ground. International elites will have a harder time garnering support for pro-US policies, if those policies are seen as morally bankrupt.

    Procopius -> likbez... October 16, 2016 at 05:01 AM

    Your analysis does give me some comfort. My greatest fear is that the Deep State seems to currently be in disarray. Their actions in Syria are divided, contradictory, foolish, counterproductive, and without direction.

    Obama has mostly obviously obeyed the Deep State but has seemed to sometimes "nudge" them in a direction that seems to me better for the country. The deal with Iran is an exception. It's significant, but it is both sensible and pragmatic. It's hard to believe anything as important as that was not sanctioned by the Deep State, in defiance of Israel, and yet it is quite uncharacteristic of the Deep State's behavior over the last fifteen years.

    DrDick : , Friday, October 14, 2016 at 12:05 PM
    The existing research literature on ethnonationalism would generally support this, though rising inequality around the world is at least as important.
    likbez -> to anne...
    Anne,

    You probably can start with

    https://www.amazon.com/Ethnonationalism-Walker-Connor/dp/0691025630

    There are useful pages on the Web related to particular flavors, for example Ukrainian nationalism.

    The term "American exceptionalism" is a politically correct term for American nationalism so any literature on that will give you overview too.

    anne -> likbez...

    https://www.amazon.com/Ethnonationalism-Walker-Connor/dp/0691025630

    1993

    Ethnonationalism
    By Walker Connor

    Walker Connor, perhaps the leading student of the origins and dynamics of ethnonationalism, has consistently stressed the importance of its political implications. In these essays, which have appeared over the course of the last three decades, he argues that Western scholars and policymakers have almost invariably underrated the influence of ethnonationalism and misinterpreted its passionate and nonrational qualities....

    [ I do appreciate the reference, which strikes me as fine since I would like to read older essays or essays extending over a few decades for perspective on the matter. I will begin here. ]

    JohnH -> anne... , Friday, October 14, 2016 at 12:43 PM
    I think that the rise of Nazi Germany would be ample proof of the power of ethnic nationalism during an economic crisis. Now we get Trump...
    Peter K. : , Friday, October 14, 2016 at 01:05 PM
    Brexit. Theresa May's recent speeches at the Conservative conference was very nationalistic and Little Englander. See Benjamin Friedman's book The Moral Consequences of Economic Growth.

    Establishment economists are making excuses for slow growth and poor policy by pointing at things like demographics and technology. Excuse-making isn't going to stem the rising tide of ethnic nationalism. Thomas Friedman's Flat World is turning into Tribalistic World.

    kthomas -> Peter K.... , Friday, October 14, 2016 at 01:32 PM
    Your usual theatrics, but I largely agree with you lattermost statement. Things are always best when we share. Tribesman can be especially selfish, even amongst themselves.
    Ben Groves : , Friday, October 14, 2016 at 01:50 PM
    Frankly, I am not seeing it. Many of the "Rich" love to push the dialectics of "ethnic nationalism" where none is to be found in reality or manipulated like half-jew Donald Trump, who is being run by the rothschild flank in Russia due to his disaster when he went with fellow jews during the post-Soviet Oligarch scam. Much like all his businesses, it flopped. He owes the bank of russia(owned by rothschild) 100's of millions of dollars. They own him.

    The point? The "monied elite" tell you what they want you to believe. The dialectical illusion and collision of the duelism is how they stay in power. I feel bad for Trump supporters, most are old and not very smart. But I also feel bad for Trump opposition who refuse to bring this up, mainly because they are financed by the same crowd(aka the Clinton have worked with Rothschild as well, they come from the same cloth).

    Growth adjusted for population was not overly impressive in the 70's or 90's. Yet...............

    likbez : , Friday, October 14, 2016 at 02:47 PM
    Neoliberalism creates an impulse for nationalism in several ways:

    1. It destroys human solidarity. And resorting to nationalism in a compensational mechanism to restore it in human societies. that's why the elite often resorts to foreign wars if it feels that it losing the control over peons.

    2. Neoliberalism impoverishes the majority of population enriching top 1% and provokes the search for scapegoats. Which in the past traditionally were Jews. Now look like MSM are trying to substitute them for Russians

    3. Usually the rise of nationalism is correlated with the crisis in the society. There is a crisis of neoliberalsm that we experience in the USA now: after 2008 neoliberalism entered zombie state, when the ideology is discredited, but forces behind it are way too strong for any social change to be implemented. Much like was the case during "Brezhnev socialism" in the USSR.

    So those who claim that we are experiencing replay of late 1920th on a new level might be partially right. With the important difference that it does not make sense to establish fascist dictatorship in the USA. Combination of "Inverted totalitarism" and "national security state" already achieved the same major objectives with much less blood and violence.

    spirit of forgotten American protectionism : , Friday, October 14, 2016 at 09:46 PM
    the pointless destruction of the manufacturing sector of Western economies because of their decision to have private banking systems and eschew tariffs - no surprises here folks
    cm -> cm... , -1
    Of course economy plus consequences of the state of the economy, i.e. many people being treated like shit, without recourse, except turning away from mainstream politics (which isn't much of a recourse usually).

    cm -> Longtooth... October 15, 2016 at 02:19 PM

    This analysis totally misses the point that often external factors are much more significant in determining success or lack of it than any personal virtues or failings the individual may have. It is not even luck.

    Procopius -> cm... October 16, 2016 at 05:22 AM

    I think you miss Longtooth's point. You are, of course, right that personal virtues or failings usually have no effect on success or lack of it, but if I understand Longtooth correctly, he is saying that's irrelevant. People do not blame the actual causes of their lack of success. Instead, they seek and find scapegoats. Most Trumpista have heard all their lives from people they respect that black and latino people unfairly get special treatment. That overrides the reality.

    cm -> Procopius...

    The comment started with: "When things aren't going as you expect or want, people always have to find someone to blame... since the ego works to prevent you blaming yourself."

    [Oct 15, 2016] The US plays chicken with the Russians in Syria with the proposal of no fly zones using anti-russian hysteria as tool to attack votes to Hillary

    Notable quotes:
    "... Is the solution supposed to be that HRC's foreign policy team will be much better than Obama's? ..."
    "... The US will unilaterally determine to seize sovereignty of Syrian airspace, intervene in a civil war on the side of the rebels, and shoot down Syrian government and Russian planes. ..."
    "... Shooting down Russian planes is the plan. ..."
    "... If anyone has any doubt how little Hillary and company have learned from invading Iraq, violent regime change in Iraq, and removing inconvenient one-time friends at will, we're living through it real time all over again. ..."
    "... This is a community of adults: LFC, Lee, W Berry et al who lecture the rest of us for wankery, emotionalism etc. and who are now fully behind the candidate who is promising a 'do-over' of Iraq with the promise to this time get it right. ..."
    "... Trump, whatever his real deficiencies is openly ready to cede Syrian air-space to Assad. Most informed observers I've read argue that the civil war in Syria has been extended by years thanks to US and UK wankery. ..."
    "... At some point, the US may decide not to proceed with violent regime-change. Not yet, however, or so it seems. ..."
    "... All the responsible US diplomats and generals who brought us Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria are lined-up to support the only candidate who is running on 4-8 years of violent regime change. ..."
    "... With regard to Aleppo, the eastern part of the city has been under the control of the rebels for some years. The majority of the population is in western Aleppo, under government control. Eastern Aleppo is now cut off, and under attack by various pro-government forces supported by the Russian air force. Rebel forces in eastern Aleppo are estimated to be around half al-Qaeda linked Islamists and half local Sunnis. They regularly bombard the western part, as the government does the rebel enclave. ..."
    "... The government has opened seven exit corridors for civilians to leave, and repeatedly offered the rebels evacuation to other areas (several similar offers have been accepted and carried through for rebel enclaves around Damascus). The latest news is that the rebels are reported to have mined the exits to prevent civilians leaving. ..."
    "... A good foreign policy maxim is to choose a side that has a reasonable chance of winning and stick with it. Anything else prolongs the suffering without changing the outcome. US policy in the Middle East, as earlier in South-East Asia, seems unable to grasp this basic. ..."
    "... Obviously you must want to turn a helpless population over to the evil Assad instead of the good(?) Islamists or the nonexistent moderates. Anything that equates to letting Assad win would be the ultimate proof of a love of dictators. ..."
    "... I've often noticed that opponents of humanitarian intervention are cast as the ones peddling a simplistic, unrealistic set of fantasies - nonsense, in short. But whenever an actual case comes up, it appears that the reverse is true. The people calling for war are peddling fantastical nonsense. ..."
    Oct 15, 2016 | crookedtimber.org
    Rich Puchalsky 10.15.16 at 2:29 am 181
    ...I purposefully haven't addressed anything about the recent history of American involvement in war in Syria, because that would lead to the same old accusations that this is about hating America.

    But now we're talking about the present as a guide to the future. Does anything about the known history of recent American involvement in Syria indicate that there are detailed expert analyses available that will do any good once filtered through policy? Is the solution supposed to be that HRC's foreign policy team will be much better than Obama's?

    ... ... ...

    kidneystones 10.15.16 at 3:25 am 183
    What crap-for-brains doesn't seem to appreciate is that there are only two sets of pilots and planes for the US to shoot down: pilots flying under the Syrian flag and those flying under the Russian flag. There will be no 'random' misunderstandings and miscommunications for Hillary to hide behind. And that's before Russia decides to flex in the Crimea, the Ukraine, and the Baltic states.

    The US will unilaterally determine to seize sovereignty of Syrian airspace, intervene in a civil war on the side of the rebels, and shoot down Syrian government and Russian planes.

    Shooting down Russian planes is the plan.

    If anyone has any doubt how little Hillary and company have learned from invading Iraq, violent regime change in Iraq, and removing inconvenient one-time friends at will, we're living through it real time all over again.

    This time we have the CT majority in favor of Bush III and her invasions.

    ... ... ...

    kidneystones 10.15.16 at 3:57 am 184
    @180 I'm extremely grateful, btw, to see you gaming out how the US plays chicken with the Russians who 'back down' as a 'reason to vote for Hillary.'

    This is a community of adults: LFC, Lee, W Berry et al who lecture the rest of us for wankery, emotionalism etc. and who are now fully behind the candidate who is promising a 'do-over' of Iraq with the promise to this time get it right.

    Trump, whatever his real deficiencies is openly ready to cede Syrian air-space to Assad. Most informed observers I've read argue that the civil war in Syria has been extended by years thanks to US and UK wankery.

    At some point, the US may decide not to proceed with violent regime-change. Not yet, however, or so it seems.

    All the responsible US diplomats and generals who brought us Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria are lined-up to support the only candidate who is running on 4-8 years of violent regime change.

    You're voting in favor of invading Iraq all over again. Thanks!!!

    Peter T 10.15.16 at 4:10 am 185
    The Syrian/Iraqi wars are …complicated. But they are both – from the viewpoint of the major combatants – the same war, a contest between the two current major streams of political thought in the Islamic Middle East. Iraqi and Lebanese Shi'a militias are active in support of the regime in Damascus, as are Sunni Palestinian ones and the Druze. Christian and Yezidi groups and Kurdish nationalists have lined up behind both Baghdad and Damascus. One the other side is a loose grouping of Salafi Islamists – ISIS, an-Nusra, the many groups under the FSA umbrella. There are, of course, a few politiques in the middle, too small to count in the fighting, but much courted by the press, and always trotted out as the "moderate opposition". Any intervention that tries to slice across the broad lines of division soon gets hopelessly tangled diplomatically and militarily. As the US has found out.

    With regard to Aleppo, the eastern part of the city has been under the control of the rebels for some years. The majority of the population is in western Aleppo, under government control. Eastern Aleppo is now cut off, and under attack by various pro-government forces supported by the Russian air force. Rebel forces in eastern Aleppo are estimated to be around half al-Qaeda linked Islamists and half local Sunnis. They regularly bombard the western part, as the government does the rebel enclave.

    The government has opened seven exit corridors for civilians to leave, and repeatedly offered the rebels evacuation to other areas (several similar offers have been accepted and carried through for rebel enclaves around Damascus). The latest news is that the rebels are reported to have mined the exits to prevent civilians leaving.

    A good foreign policy maxim is to choose a side that has a reasonable chance of winning and stick with it. Anything else prolongs the suffering without changing the outcome. US policy in the Middle East, as earlier in South-East Asia, seems unable to grasp this basic.

    Rich Puchalsky 10.15.16 at 4:40 am 186
    Peter T: "A good foreign policy maxim is to choose a side that has a reasonable chance of winning and stick with it. Anything else prolongs the suffering without changing the outcome. US policy in the Middle East, as earlier in South-East Asia, seems unable to grasp this basic."

    Obviously you must want to turn a helpless population over to the evil Assad instead of the good(?) Islamists or the nonexistent moderates. Anything that equates to letting Assad win would be the ultimate proof of a love of dictators.

    I've often noticed that opponents of humanitarian intervention are cast as the ones peddling a simplistic, unrealistic set of fantasies - nonsense, in short. But whenever an actual case comes up, it appears that the reverse is true. The people calling for war are peddling fantastical nonsense.

    [Oct 15, 2016] Support for Trump is concentrated in the middle-income categories

    Oct 15, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    Ronan(rf) 10.14.16 at 4:02 pm 148

    This has added some much needed complexity to the VOX narrative

    http://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2016/10/13/13259860/twilight-elites-trump-meritocracy

    this part seems to support those of us who have been saying that those adopting a blinkered class/income based argument to 'disprove' the economic insecurity arguments are not even trying to get at the truth(imo, theyre purposely working backwards from their conclusions towards a conventional answer)

    "Hayes argues that the angriest voters are not going to be the people at the bottom, but the people in the middle, who used to expect that they and their kids could do well through enterprise and don't believe that anymore. Experts have disagreed over whether Trump supporters are richer or poorer than the average. Yet emerging evidence is beginning to portray a more nuanced portrait of Trump's supporters than those earlier takes.

    Jonathan Rothwell, a senior economist at Gallup, has used survey data on nearly 113,000 Americans to ask what really drives Trump support. He finds that support for the mogul turned politician is concentrated in the middle-income categories; in contrast, those who are relatively rich and those who are relatively poor are less likely to support him. Furthermore, economic insecurity is a huge factor – those who worry about their economic future are much more likely to vote for Trump. Rothwell builds on work by Raj Chetty and Nathaniel Hendren at Harvard to find that people in living in areas with weak mobility for kids from middle-class families are more likely to vote for Trump.

    These findings are only the start of what is likely to be a long debate. Nonetheless, they support Hayes's argument. People seem to be more likely to support an anti-system candidate like Donald Trump when they have a middling income, when they feel economically insecure, and when they live in places where middle-class kids have worse prospects for getting ahead."

    Ronan(rf) 10.14.16 at 4:04 pm

    towards a *convenient* answer (ie an answer they want to be true, as it supports their worldview ).

    [Oct 15, 2016] What's Behind a Rise in Ethnic Nationalism? Maybe the Economy by ROBERT J. SHILLER

    Robert Shiller is a talented guy who is pretty sleazy. Note that he never mentions neoliberalism as the real reason we got into the current situation.
    "Substantial fiscal stimulus might be helpful, but it has been blocked." Blocked by whom? Elves and fairies? Klingons?
    Instead he tried deceive along the lines of behavioral economics: " If they realize that they are doing less well than their forebears, they become anxious... Ethnic nationalism creates an ego-preserving excuse for self-perceived personal failure: Other groups are blamed for bad behavior and conspiracies.
    Notable quotes:
    "... The rise in inequality in our time represents a seismic shift in economic power away from the working class. Its cause is many-faceted, including globalization, the decline of labor unions, changes in political alignments and advancing information technology that is replacing jobs. ..."
    "... A 2015 study published in The American Economic Review by Michael Kumhof of the Bank of England, Romain Rancière of the International Monetary Fund and Pablo Winant of the Bank of England found that both the Great Depression of the 1930s and the Great Recession of 2007-9 had their origins, in part, in rising inequality. ..."
    "... Both were accompanied by increases in borrowing by low- to middle-income people, who tried to maintain their standards of living. High-income people, described by the authors as desiring wealth for its own sake, did the lending. The loans attracted investors because high rates of interest compensated them for the risk of default. ..."
    Oct 14, 2016 | www.nytimes.com

    Global economic weakness and a rise in inequality appear to be causing a disturbing growth in ethnic nationalism. Leaders today often do not openly declare themselves to be ethnic nationalists - in which identity is defined by perceived genetic, religious or linguistic heritage rather than democratic ideals or principles. But political appeals to such forms of identity are nevertheless widespread.

    In the United States, despite his attempts to woo minority voters, Donald J. Trump appears to derive support from such sentiment. In Moscow, Vladimir V. Putin has used Russian nationalist sentiment to inspire many of his countrymen. And we see growing ethnic political parties inspired by national identity in other countries.

    It is natural to ask whether something so broad might have a common cause, other than the obvious circumstantial causes like the gradual fading of memories about the horrors of ethnic conflict in World War II or the rise in this century of forms of violent ethnic terrorism. Economics is my specialty, and I think economic factors may explain at least part of the trend.

    Yet economic growth continues, though at a reduced pace, and not just in the United States. According to the International Monetary Fund , real world gross domestic product was 29 percent higher in 2015 than it was just before the recession, in 2007. It has just grown at a lower rate than before, 3.2 percent a year in the eight years after 2007 compared with 4.5 percent a year in the eight years ending in 2007. Perhaps that doesn't sound like a big enough difference to affect political outcomes.

    But the modest slowdown could be a big part of the explanation for the apparent rise of ethnic nationalism, if combined with another factor: rising inequality, along with considerable fear about future inequality.

    The numbers are stark. According to the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, earnings have been basically static. In the bureau's language, "median usual weekly earnings - in constant (1982-84) dollars (employed full time)" has hardly grown in a generation. The total increase since this data series began in 1979 has been only 1.2 percent, or 0.03 percent a year. The increase has been less than 1 percent since 2007. Even such paltry economic growth is going to the very top, not to the median wage earner. That means that roughly half of full-time wage earners are doing less well in real terms than their parents were.

    Benjamin M. Friedman of Harvard University, in his book "The Moral Consequences of Economic Growth" (Knopf, 2005) , said that at a deep level people make judgments about the economic progress that they see in their own lifetimes, and in comparison with the progress made by the previous generation, especially their own parents. Few people study economic growth statistics. But nearly everyone knows what they are being paid. If they realize that they are doing less well than their forebears, they become anxious. And if they can't see themselves and others in their cohort as progressing over a lifetime, their social interactions often become angry, resentful and even conspiratorial.

    Ethnic nationalism creates an ego-preserving excuse for self-perceived personal failure: Other groups are blamed for bad behavior and conspiracies. Often, ethnic, racial or religious conflict follows. Among the horrific examples are the atrocities committed in the name of nationalism during World War II - not coincidentally following the Great Depression . Mr. Friedman provides other such instances from the last two centuries in which ethnic conflict followed slow economic growth.

    He does point out many exceptions to these generalizations: Some poor and unequal societies experience very little violence. But it appears that a sense of falling behind economically among a substantial segment of a population does encourage ethnic nationalism and conflict.

    The rise in inequality in our time represents a seismic shift in economic power away from the working class. Its cause is many-faceted, including globalization, the decline of labor unions, changes in political alignments and advancing information technology that is replacing jobs.

    Even those who have not lost out yet in terms of economic power are fearful that they might. The causes of inequality, particularly advances in information technology, are not going away soon. These perceptions have damaged people's sense of economic security, even beyond what economic data reveal to be objectively true.

    A 2015 study published in The American Economic Review by Michael Kumhof of the Bank of England, Romain Rancière of the International Monetary Fund and Pablo Winant of the Bank of England found that both the Great Depression of the 1930s and the Great Recession of 2007-9 had their origins, in part, in rising inequality.

    Both were accompanied by increases in borrowing by low- to middle-income people, who tried to maintain their standards of living. High-income people, described by the authors as desiring wealth for its own sake, did the lending. The loans attracted investors because high rates of interest compensated them for the risk of default.

    This model described purely rational people, who don't really exist. It could be made more realistic with some reference to psychology: Borrowing produced a sense of personal shame. A desperate optimism arose from wishful thinking bias , distorting judgment. This led to profound social consequences and anger after the bubbles burst.

    Linking these causes to the rise of ethnic nationalism is imprecise; these factors reflect a long-term loss of confidence. Such fears are often vague and ill formed, but their effects are powerful.

    There are some remedies, even if they are not popular or easily executed.

    Hillary Clinton's proposals to raise taxes on those with the very highest incomes to fund programs for lower-income people, for example, may not generate much enthusiasm from those whose incomes have not grown as expected and who may be doing less well than their parents. That is because many people do not like the sound of a proposed handout even if it might help them; they aspire to prove their own worth by earning a good income, and yet that prospect eludes them.

    But something has to be done about the two trends of rising inequality and weak economic growth, for if they continue we may see more unhappiness, discontent and political disruption. Substantial fiscal stimulus might be helpful, but it has been blocked. Making the tax system progressive enough to break the trend toward ever greater income inequality has also been beyond our grasp, yet it may be the best option we have.

    [Oct 14, 2016] American intelligence claims (without providing evidence) that Russian intelligence is behind the Clinton email hacks is nothing less that attempts of American intelligence to manipulate the election

    Notable quotes:
    "... the danger that he presents is shaking the rats from under the carpet. ..."
    "... Yet the NYT keeps reporting that American intelligence asserts (without providing evidence) that Russian intelligence is behind the Clinton email hacks, and this is nothing less that attempts of American intelligence to manipulate the election. ..."
    "... I'm afraid, when it comes to end-of-the-Republic stuff, it's worse when your own intelligence guys are trying to manipulate the election than when their intelligence guys are. ..."
    Oct 14, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    dax 10.14.16 at 7:52 am 141

    I'll begin with the necessary avowal that I think Trump is a clown, and dangerous, and I hope he goes down to a record defeat.

    But still… the danger that he presents is shaking the rats from under the carpet.

    How many times have I read that Russian intelligence is trying to manipulate the American election? And that this is a Very Bad Thing?

    Yet the NYT keeps reporting that American intelligence asserts (without providing evidence) that Russian intelligence is behind the Clinton email hacks, and this is nothing less that attempts of American intelligence to manipulate the election.

    And I'm afraid, when it comes to end-of-the-Republic stuff, it's worse when your own intelligence guys are trying to manipulate the election than when their intelligence guys are.

    [Oct 14, 2016] Just imagine the kind of damage he could have done if he'd been wicked smart

    Oct 14, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    Renfield Dien Bien Poo Oct 14, 2016 10:51 AM << But Trump is a fucking moron .>>

    Yes, yes he is. That's why he's pretty much single-handedly 1) multiplied his large inheritance into a much larger fortune; 2) broken the Bush political machine (Jeb!); 3) repeatedly humiliated the MSM news for its US election coverage; 4) broken the careers of 16 status-quo RNC pretenders and certain ex-pretenders such as Romney; 5) split the establishment Repub party itself and driven out several of its worst offenders (now voting Democrat!); 6) raised probably the biggest army of citizen supporters since Reagan; 7) dominated news stories for free coverage that tends to bring him more support; and 8) spent relatively little money doing it.

    All totally and completely by accident! Beginner's luck!

    Thank God he's such a fucking moron, right? Just imagine the kind of damage he could have done if he'd been wicked smart!

    Renfield WillyGroper Oct 14, 2016 12:58 PM << herd redirection. any press is good press. jerry springer reality show politics. if this was the real deal he'd have been ron paul'd in the press from the beginnning. ZERO time. >>

    Could well be. I have no strong opinion on Trump since he has no record in office yet, so since I'm not an American citizen & cannot vote in those elections anyway I have to sit back and wait, see what the truth turns out to be. I apologise for commenting on your elections, and normally I'd keep out of it, but there's this:

    The reason I have lately become a foreign 'Trump supporter' is that the alternative is Hillary, a known war criminal. Living next door to you guys I stand a much better chance of seeing old age if the Washington string-puller for Canada's subsidiary of the Corporation isn't, you know, already a known war criminal with a hard-on for Russia. Not that thrilled with the prospect of an immediate & 'voter-supported' nuclear WW3. Hence, I'm a Trump supporter now... as a foreign commenter the only current US pollies I've a really strong opinion on are Jeb!, Barky, and Cankles. That's b/c people (or in Jeb's case their immediate families) who've already demonstrated their willingness to commit war crimes become very relevant to those even outside American borders, especially when they call the shots for my own, err, 'leaders'. (I know, that's our own damn fault, too.)

    I am very, very FOR your remaining non-war-criminal candidate since it prevents Hillary as getting in as CEO of the US corporate office, with "nuclear war" as her first order of business.

    So here, just pointing out that DT, while he is and may be a lot of things, is certainly not stupid! That particular MSM myth always makes me giggle and reply flippantly (as above). Whether he's also evil, in my foreigner's eyes, still remains to be seen from his record in office, if he gets one. (Back to lurking, and let you better-informed Americans get on with things!)

    [Oct 14, 2016] leaving Libya a failed state and a terrorist haven

    Oct 14, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    FireBrander pazmaker Oct 14, 2016 9:13 AM Hillary Clinton: 'Smart Power' and a Dictator's Fall

    The consequences (of Hillary's Libya decision as Secretary of State) would be more far-reaching than anyone imagined, leaving Libya a failed state and a terrorist haven, a place where the direst answers to Mrs. Clinton's questions have come to pass.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/us/politics/hillary-clinton-libya.html

    [Oct 14, 2016] The real deplorable are US neoliberal press corps and Hillarys fellow financial, political, economic, and military elites who wrecked the economy, got us mired in endless unwinnable foreign wars

    Notable quotes:
    "... Meanwhile, between journalism's insiders and outsiders-between the ones who are rising and the ones who are sinking-there is no solidarity at all. Here in the capital city, every pundit and every would-be pundit identifies upward, always upward. ..."
    "... We cling to our credentials and our professional-class fantasies, hobnobbing with senators and governors, trading witticisms with friendly Cabinet officials, helping ourselves to the champagne and lobster ..."
    "... "The real "deplorables" generally aren't the people whom Hillary denounced as wholly "irredeemable," or at whom economically secure commentators fulminate on a regular basis. More obviously "deplorable" are Hillary's fellow financial, political, economic, and military elites who wrecked the economy, got us mired in endless unwinnable foreign wars, and erected a virtually impenetrable cultural barrier between everyday Americans trying to live fruitful lives and their pretentious, well-heeled superiors ensconced in select coastal enclaves. It is thanks to the actions of this "basket of deplorables" that we're in the situation we're in" ..."
    Oct 13, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Vatch October 13, 2016 at 2:27 pm

    I skimmed the Harpers article by Thomas Frank on the media's extermination of Bernie Sanders. It's a good article about an unpleasant topic. One point that is not clear from the blurb is that Frank isn't writing about the media's treatment of Sanders, but rather about the Washington Post's treatment of Sanders. Occasionally other media outlets are mentioned (I saw a reference to the Associated Press), but it's almost all about the Bezos Washington Post's unfairness to Sanders. A lot of other newspapers mistreated him as well.

    PlutoniumKun October 13, 2016 at 4:50 pm

    The article is excellent, but if anyone doesn't have the time to read it, I'd suggest going straight to the last page, its a brilliant demolition of modern punditry journalism. The last two paragraphs in particular:

    Meanwhile, between journalism's insiders and outsiders-between the ones who are rising and the ones who are sinking-there is no solidarity at all. Here in the capital city, every pundit and every would-be pundit identifies upward, always upward.

    We cling to our credentials and our professional-class fantasies, hobnobbing with senators and governors, trading witticisms with friendly Cabinet officials, helping ourselves to the champagne and lobster. Everyone wants to know our opinion, we like to believe, or to celebrate our birthday, or to find out where we went for cocktails after work last night.

    Until the day, that is, when you wake up and learn that the tycoon behind your media concern has changed his mind and everyone is laid off and that it was never really about you in the first place. Gone, the private office or award-winning column or cable-news show. The checks start bouncing. The booker at MSNBC stops calling. And suddenly you find that you are a middle-aged maker of paragraphs-of useless things-dumped out into a billionaire's world that has no need for you, and doesn't really give a damn about your degree in comparative literature from Brown. You start to think a little differently about universal health care and tuition-free college and Wall Street bailouts. But of course it is too late now. Too late for all of us.

    Chauncey Gardiner October 13, 2016 at 5:06 pm

    Yes, thanks for the link to Thomas Frank's essay in Harpers about the efforts of corporate media, particularly the Washington Post and New York Times, to kill Senator Bernie Sanders' campaign for the presidency.

    Yesterday NC linked to an article from the American Conservative by Michael Tracey titled "The Real Deplorables". In his article Tracey observed: …

    "The real "deplorables" generally aren't the people whom Hillary denounced as wholly "irredeemable," or at whom economically secure commentators fulminate on a regular basis. More obviously "deplorable" are Hillary's fellow financial, political, economic, and military elites who wrecked the economy, got us mired in endless unwinnable foreign wars, and erected a virtually impenetrable cultural barrier between everyday Americans trying to live fruitful lives and their pretentious, well-heeled superiors ensconced in select coastal enclaves. It is thanks to the actions of this "basket of deplorables" that we're in the situation we're in"

    Clearly Michael Tracey overlooked a group. But what is particularly troubling me was Thomas Frank's observation: …"for the sort of people who write and edit the opinion pages of the Post, there was something deeply threatening about Sanders and his political views. He seems to have represented something horrifying, something that could not be spoken of directly but that clearly needed to be suppressed."

    I find myself wondering why this is so?

    [Oct 13, 2016] Statement of September 11th Advocates Regarding Saudia Arabia Support of ISIS

    Oct 13, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    human October 13, 2016 at 3:42 pm

    Statement of September 11th Advocates Regarding Saudia Arabia Support of ISIS
    October 12, 2016

    "Aren't the Saudis your friends?" Obama smiled. "It's complicated," he said. "My view has never been that we should throw our traditional allies"-the Saudis-"overboard in favor of Iran." President Barack Obama

    http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/04/the-obama-doctrine/471525/

    "We have as solid a relationship, as clear an alliance and as strong a friendship with the kingdom of Saudi Arabia as we have ever had." Secretary of State John Kerry

    http://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2016-01-24/kerry-says-us-saudi-friendship-stronger-than-ever

    "I think it's important to the United States to maintain as good a relationship with Saudi Arabia as possible." Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell

    http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-09-21/saudi-arabia-s-clout-in-washington-isn-t-what-it-used-to-be

    "The strategic partnership between the United States and Saudi Arabia is based on mutual interests and a longstanding commitment to facing our common threats together." Speaker of the House Paul Ryan

    http://www.speaker.gov/general/continuing-dialogue-regional-security-partners-ryan-delegation-travels-riyadh

    "I think Saudi Arabia is a valuable partner in the war on terror. If you want to lose Saudi Arabia as an ally, be careful what you wish for." Senator Lindsey Graham

    "There is a public relations issue that exists. That doesn't mean that it's in our national interest to not have an alliance with them - I mean they're an important part of our efforts in the Middle East." said Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/09/21/saudi-arabia-is-facing-unprecedented-scrutiny-from-congress/

    "Thank God for the Saudis and Prince Bandar, and for our Qatari friends." Senator John McCain

    http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/06/isis-saudi-arabia-iraq-syria-bandar/373181/

    Citing Western Intelligence, U.S. Intelligence, and Intelligence from the Region, that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia-not just its rich donors– was providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups, we would like to know why President Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, Senator Bob Corker, Senator Lindsey Graham, and Senator John McCain, would EVER consider the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia our ally.

    Markedly, this is not complicated, nor is it a friendship, a special relationship, a valuable partnership, a clear alliance, a strategicpartnership, or a public relations issue.

    The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is a sponsor of terrorism.

    According to Western Intelligence, U.S. Intelligence and Intelligence from the region, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia clandestinely funds and logistically supports ISIS.

    How could a nation like Saudi Arabia (or Qatar) that funds or logistically supports ISIS be considered an ally of the United States in the fight against ISIS?

    The Saudis (and the Qataris) are funding and logistically supporting our enemy.

    The United States Government should not condone, enable, or turn a blind eye to that fact.

    As 9/11 family members whose husbands were brutally murdered by 19 radical Sunni terrorists, we strongly request these appointed and elected officials immediately explain their indefensible positions with regard to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and its now clearly evident role in underwriting and logistically supporting radical Sunni terror groups worldwide.

    We also look forward to these appointed and elected officials immediately explaining to the American public why they oppose JASTA or want to re-write JASTA anti-terrorism legislation specifically designed to hold the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia accountable for its funding and logistical support of radical Sunni terror groups that kill Americans.

    Finally, we would like to, once again, wholeheartedly thank all those members of Congress who saw the wisdom in making JASTA law. Clearly, this new evidence further validates your vote and support for JASTA. Furthermore, this evidence proves that JASTA was not a political vote, but rather a vote to keep Americans safer from terrorism.

    Keep Americans Safe From Radical Sunni Terrorists

    Hold The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Accountable

    Keep JASTA The Law of The Land

    http://www.salon.com/2016/10/11/leaked-hillary-clinton-emails-show-u-s-allies-saudi-arabia-and-qatar-supported-isis/

    # # #

    September 11th Advocates

    Kristen Breitweiser
    Monica Gabrielle
    Mindy Kleinberg
    Lorie Van Auken

    (edited to clean up white space and high bit characters. links tested. any errors are mine)

    [Oct 13, 2016] PUSSY has been rediscovered and resurrected by the Democrat Digital Archaeologists

    Oct 13, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    clarky90 October 13, 2016 at 3:44 pm

    Now that the most terrifyingly potent word in the English language, "PUSSY" has been rediscovered and resurrected by the Democrat Digital Archaeologists, it is time for reflection. "Pussy" has been detonated over the Trump campaign. Hillary Clinton will be elected. Nuclear War with Russia and China now seems likely.

    War may break out after Hillary's election but before she takes office (think June 22, 1941)

    I am recommending downloading and securely storing as many recipes and photos of meals as possible! Also war movies and series (Band of Brothers etc). Digital survivalists, the new reality.

    Also, we MUST organize battalions of Social Justice Warriors
    to pull the dead and dying from the smoking rubble, rebuild the electricity grid, maintain social order and establish food supplies.

    Most likely, the "deplorables" and the "irredeemables" will be otherwise occupied in their own communities (that probably were not directly targeted)

    [Oct 13, 2016] New evidence that the hacks were not carried out by an elite team of state-sponsored cyber experts

    Oct 13, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    ggm October 13, 2016 at 2:49 pm

    Podesta's twitter account and i-devices were hacked yesterday using a password found in the emails. See here .

    That is pretty good evidence that the emails are authentic, unless you believe the hackers managed to guess his password by an astronomically lucky coincidence.

    I think this is also evidence that the hacks were not carried out by an elite team of state-sponsored cyber experts. Podesta was emailing his password in plain text, using a simple password, using that password across multiple accounts. Further, he didn't bother to change his password despite his mailbox being hacked and the contents spreading all over the internet!

    This man is a dingbat on computer security matters. Literally anyone could have hacked him using very simple techniques. That password (Hunter4567) could have been brute forced quickly using tools available to everyone.

    Have to go with Occam's razor and say this was probably not a massive Russian plot to influence the election and install Trump, just an incompetent person getting caught with their pants down by someone poking around.

    OIFVet October 13, 2016 at 3:13 pm

    The Putin doctored the email to include Podesta's password. Duh! Debunked in a nanosecond! /Sarc

    [Oct 13, 2016] Debate Wrapup

    Notable quotes:
    "... +A large part of the uproar over the Trump tapes is driven not by the fact that Trump's comments are shocking but because they are so familiar. We've heard similar, perhaps even more rancid, things from our fathers, uncles, brothers, coaches, teachers, pastors, teammates, and friends. Perhaps we've even made similar comments ourselves. Now the public wants to project its own shame onto Trump. His humiliation serves as a kind catharsis for the nation's own systemic sexism. Perhaps NOW will give him a medal one day for his "sacrifice"… ..."
    Oct 13, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Until a second Hunter Thompson comes along, the appropriately jaded Jeffrey St. Clair will have to do [ Counterpunch ].

    +A large part of the uproar over the Trump tapes is driven not by the fact that Trump's comments are shocking but because they are so familiar. We've heard similar, perhaps even more rancid, things from our fathers, uncles, brothers, coaches, teachers, pastors, teammates, and friends. Perhaps we've even made similar comments ourselves. Now the public wants to project its own shame onto Trump. His humiliation serves as a kind catharsis for the nation's own systemic sexism. Perhaps NOW will give him a medal one day for his "sacrifice"…

    Cf. Luke 18:11 .

    [Oct 13, 2016] You can bet that from the intelligence community to querying everyone hes ever been in contact with has been covered. The best they could come up with was an 11 year old video of him preening his feathers

    Oct 13, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com

    williambanzai7 tbd108 Oct 12, 2016 4:14 AM

    I got news for you, Trump has enough enemies that if there was anything that could be pinned on him he would have been in the slammer long ago; competitors , ex-wives, casino regulators, you name it.

    All they can come up with is Miss Universe, locker room banter and net operating loss carryforwards.

    The Jackal williambanzai7 Oct 12, 2016 5:05 AM
    Absolutely spot on assessment. You can bet that from the intelligence community to querying everyone he's ever been in contact with has been covered. The best they could come up with was an 11 year old video of him preening his feathers.

    There's nothing to be found.

    ImGumbydmmt williambanzai7 Oct 12, 2016 12:39 PM
    +1000 Banzai! logged in just to upvote your coment.

    Was thinking the same thing. is this the best dirt they got on him?

    I see Trump's warts, I'm not blind.He's not Ron Paul, ok ok, we get it. and still I will vote for Trump becasue i see how much opposition is being hurled at him everyday.

    PLUS we see what a vile menace, murdering sack of fecal matter wrapped in corruption that "Die Furher Hitlery" is.

    And Because i've got two little kids that i dont want to die in Hitlery's nuclear war.

    Stanley Lord tbd108 Oct 12, 2016 7:39 AM
    I dont think the Neocon pounding is working at all.
    kellys_eye Rodders75 Oct 12, 2016 5:34 AM
    The Trump vs Clinton debacle seems to follow the UK's own pre-Brexit debate where the 'evil' (leavers) were on the wrong end of a constant onslaught by the 'good' (remainers).

    What was disregarded by the media and establishment alike was the undercurrent of disillusionment of the PEOPLE with the system that was widely perceived to be betraying the public for the good of a few - corporates, politicians, banksters et al - and they almost took it for granted that remain would win the day.

    Look how THAT turned out. The establishment line, backed by virtually all the media and the apallingly corrupt BBC, were bitch-slapped the morning after the vote and it was a pleasure to watch!

    Parallels - right up to the 'bitch slapping' - this is what you may yet see.

    Fireman Oct 12, 2016 3:36 AM
    Rape, pillage and plunder; it's as amerikan as apple pie. So whether you be a chump on da stump for oligarch Trump or a psychopathic moron into the Clinton Crime Organization of sexual deviants and murderers, in the end one of these bums is the real face of the USSAN thug state. Like NAZI Germany before it (that other anglozionazi project) USSA will be "cured" from the outside and that process is already well underway.

    Onward to the inevitable mushroom clouds.

    froze25 Fireman Oct 12, 2016 7:28 AM
    Besides having money why is Trump an "Oilgarch"?
    SillySalesmanQu... froze25 Oct 12, 2016 7:50 AM
    Good point. The Don has only "gamed the system," by using the rules and laws available to him. He plays the press like a fiddle, therefore, generating free publicity, he would otherwise have to pay for. The perpetual smirk, sneer, arrogance and disdain he has, is for many others, who have done far worse, for far less, than he has.
    poeg froze25 Oct 12, 2016 9:22 AM
    Because the average citizen sees the term as a "Russian" one and the Russians are "bad men" like Trump. It plays to the morons.
    chindit13 Oct 12, 2016 3:40 AM
    Watching the video, I am reminded of one of George Orwell's famous quotes:

    Before age forty, your face is up to God; after age forty, your face is up to you.

    Fluorideinthewater chindit13 Oct 12, 2016 7:07 AM

    At 50, everyone has the face he deserves. -George Orwell

    [Oct 13, 2016] Anonymous - Message to Hillary Clinton

    Oct 13, 2016 | www.youtube.com

    Apr 9, 2016 | YouTube

    kaxitaksi 2 months ago (edited) Only way to put this right and if DNC and Shillary really wants the best for the people is to step down and hand over the nomination to Bernie or Stein. I don't want to listen to that lying bitch voice for four years.
    Lu A 5 days ago If this is really Anonymous...I really hate to say this but...these guys are the right guys for the job to expose Hillary Clinton. If they wanna stop her they gotta expose her at a huge hackable event.
    Scott Lesley 17 hours ago there is no humanity in that woman
    Unity Anonymous 6 hours ago remember the civilians, kids, ppl who they kill

    [Oct 13, 2016] Sexism and bigotry is probably ALL wrapped up in peoples economic plights

    Oct 13, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    jrs October 12, 2016 at 7:19 pm

    of course sexism and bigotry is probably ALL wrapped up in people's economic plights. Back in the real world women put up with sexual harassment at work etc. because they need the income. Yes it's illegal, but it's not always enforced especially in the blue collar workplace. And yes Trumps comments were mostly about consensual stuff and if so arent' harassment. But sexism as such isn't actually separable from economics.

    ggm October 12, 2016 at 9:02 pm

    I heard it as consensual, too. Women "let me" grab them. Maybe I am more forgiving than others because I worked for a famous musician when I was younger and witnessed women throwing themselves at him constantly. Are we taking away the agency of women by assuming this was unwanted attention? Is it possible there are women who might have enjoyed the contact with him? Assuming he was even telling the truth in his statements.

    Monist Lisa October 13, 2016 at 12:46 am

    jrs and ggm
    +1000

    (didn't see yours before I posted above)

    hunkerdown October 12, 2016 at 7:19 pm

    You want people to be more concerned with sexism and bigotry than they are with their own economic plight.

    In other words, evangelicals starving people in order that they pray correctly for a bearable afterlife. Frankly, I'm getting sick of them too.

    [Oct 13, 2016] Will, Aggression and Plenty of Ignorance is exactly what it takes to put a good scar on the face of the most organized, high-level, well-connected, mob-operation run by the US government since the Shah of Iran

    Notable quotes:
    "... Do you want the willfully, aggressively ignorant on your side? ..."
    "... Would you choose purposely to select the most willfully wrong person to do any task for you for pay? ..."
    Oct 13, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    fajensen October 13, 2016 at 4:10 am

    Do you want the willfully, aggressively ignorant on your side?

    Would you choose purposely to select the most willfully wrong person to do any task for you for pay?

    1)Certainly: Will, Aggression and Plenty of Ignorance is *exactly* what it takes to put a good scar on the face of the most organized, high-level, well-connected, mob-operation run by the US government since the Shah of Iran.

    Trump "going over the top", thus attracting all the "fire", has set in motion a flood of leaks. Soon we will see defections when the rats see that the ship is indeed leaking and the water is getting close to their nest. Then there will be congress hearings, the hyenas sizing up which parts of the carcass they like to have when it dies, impeachment, several years of some progress for the little folks while the new management rebuilds the enterprise and re-tune the neglected Engine of Looting at the core.

    2)The only people doing any task for *me* *for pay* are the carpenter and the guy cleaning the drain. We have a deal: I don't care about their opinions and they don't complain over my coffee.

    You are a bit naive if you think any kind of leadership works for you. In the best situation, your interests are aligned with theirs, it looks like "working together". And since one does not look in the mouth of a gift horse, everyone are happy. Right now, "our interests" and "theirs" are blatantly opposed.

    [Oct 13, 2016] Anyone that says that Trump can not be in the White House better vote for Stein or Johnson otherwise they are giant hypocrites. Bill Clinton is a rapist and Hillary Clinton aided and abetted his history of abuse

    Notable quotes:
    "... I've never heard anyone say "grab them by the pussy" but I have heard young college males talk about porn in a college library loud enough for me to hear them 2 tables over. I've heard detail accounts of what they want to do w/ girls they no. I just stared out them for a few minutes but it was clear that they did not care about my opinion or that they were in the library. ..."
    "... St. Claire is right. Anyone that says that Trump can not be in the White House better vote for Stein or Johnson otherwise they are giant hypocrites. Bill Clinton is a rapist and Hillary Clinton aided and abetted his history of abuse. ..."
    Oct 13, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    AnEducatedFool October 12, 2016 at 3:58 pm

    Who has said that it was right?

    I've never heard anyone say "grab them by the pussy" but I have heard young college males talk about porn in a college library loud enough for me to hear them 2 tables over. I've heard detail accounts of what they want to do w/ girls they no. I just stared out them for a few minutes but it was clear that they did not care about my opinion or that they were in the library.

    I spent much of my childhood around athletes. The higher you go up the food chain the more crass the comments. I was never in a football locker room but baseball and basketball were pretty terrible. I played at the national level in AAU and spent a lot of time around traveling baseball players. They were into drugs and girls. The comments were reprehensible and they have not changed much behind closed doors. I'm 34 now.

    My brother is older and his friends have all said horrible things when no women were around. I was typically the voice of reason which made me a target for gay bashing. I'm straight but since I did not see the need to devalue women I was asked if I was gay.

    St. Claire is right. Anyone that says that Trump can not be in the White House better vote for Stein or Johnson otherwise they are giant hypocrites. Bill Clinton is a rapist and Hillary Clinton aided and abetted his history of abuse.

    [Oct 13, 2016] Were the US intelligence agencis the source of grabbing pussy tape for Clinton compaign as a way to protect funding

    Notable quotes:
    "... 2018 and 2020 will be interesting indeed, assuming HRC hasn't started WW3 by then. ..."
    "... Speaking of which, Ray McGovern warns against the sabre-rattling over Syria and the calls for "no fly zones" in CounterPunch today: ..."
    "... For instance, Russian defense spokesman Maj. Gen. Igor Konashenkov warned on Oct. 6 that Russia is prepared to shoot down unidentified aircraft – including any stealth aircraft – over Syria. It is a warning that I believe should be taken seriously ..."
    "... It's true that experts differ as to whether the advanced air defense systems already in Syria can bring down stealth aircraft, but it would be a mistake to dismiss this warning out of hand. Besides, Konashenkov added, in a telling ex-ante-extenuating-circumstance vein, that Russian air defense "will not have time to identify the origin" of the aircraft. ..."
    "... In other words, U.S. aircraft, which have been operating in Syrian skies without Syrian government approval, could be vulnerable to attack with the Russian government preemptively warning that such an incident won't be Moscow's fault. ..."
    "... Bush & Cheney & Co were horrific enough with their neocon games in the Mideast, but their actions seem mild compared with the latest anti-Russian lunatic talk by Clinton and her neocon pals. Really scary. ..."
    "... Yes the entire situation with out-of-touch imperialist aristocrats blindly blundering their way to Sarajevo Aleppo has a very reminiscent feel to it…an easy chapter to write in the future history books. ..."
    "... This should terrify everyone. I wish we would elect someone who says we should sit down and talk to our biggest rivals, not just provoke them to world war. But oh I forgot he said vulgar things about women 15 years ago. ..."
    "... sexual misconduct in the oval office-while president ..."
    "... while being the leader of our country! ..."
    "... I have a hierarchy of reactions to issues and I just can't seem to put vulgar language above the ultimate vulgarity of world war for profit. ..."
    "... I can't seem to care more about people with hurt feelings than people with their heads blown off because a Saudi billionaire or arms manufacturer just had to have some more ka-ching. There is nothing more vulgar than that. ..."
    Oct 13, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Bush family tranditionaly is very well connnected with CIA and they are not fund of Trump, that's for sure...

    Pavel October 12, 2016 at 2:28 pm

    re WikiLeaks: adding to the endless hypocrisy and double standards over Trump's "grabbing pussy" remarks and HRC & Co's behaviour:

    * Hillary herself wondered about extrajudicially killing Assange by droning. In what world is that considered permissible?

    * It seems that the Clinton campaign's Catholic "outreach" person was involved in a prostitution ring. So that's all good.

    I'm starting to think Trump might yet pull this off. The Clinton camp must be terrified and trying desperately to see what else might come out. If only Bernie had agreed to run with Jill Stein… I honestly think they might have won. In any case the Republican party is going down in flames, and after the Podesta leaks the Dems will have absolutely ZERO credibility and not much of a mandate. 2018 and 2020 will be interesting indeed, assuming HRC hasn't started WW3 by then.

    Speaking of which, Ray McGovern warns against the sabre-rattling over Syria and the calls for "no fly zones" in CounterPunch today:

    We analysts were responsible for picking up warnings from Moscow and other key capitals that the U.S. news media often missed or downplayed, much as the major news outlets today are ignoring the escalation of warnings from Russia over Syria.

    For instance, Russian defense spokesman Maj. Gen. Igor Konashenkov warned on Oct. 6 that Russia is prepared to shoot down unidentified aircraft – including any stealth aircraft – over Syria. It is a warning that I believe should be taken seriously .

    It's true that experts differ as to whether the advanced air defense systems already in Syria can bring down stealth aircraft, but it would be a mistake to dismiss this warning out of hand. Besides, Konashenkov added, in a telling ex-ante-extenuating-circumstance vein, that Russian air defense "will not have time to identify the origin" of the aircraft.

    In other words, U.S. aircraft, which have been operating in Syrian skies without Syrian government approval, could be vulnerable to attack with the Russian government preemptively warning that such an incident won't be Moscow's fault.

    –Russian Throws Down the Gauntlet: Fly at Your Own Risk

    Bush & Cheney & Co were horrific enough with their neocon games in the Mideast, but their actions seem mild compared with the latest anti-Russian lunatic talk by Clinton and her neocon pals. Really scary.

    OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL October 12, 2016 at 3:02 pm

    Yes the entire situation with out-of-touch imperialist aristocrats blindly blundering their way to Sarajevo Aleppo has a very reminiscent feel to it…an easy chapter to write in the future history books.

    This should terrify everyone. I wish we would elect someone who says we should sit down and talk to our biggest rivals, not just provoke them to world war. But oh I forgot he said vulgar things about women 15 years ago.

    Jess October 12, 2016 at 4:25 pm

    "Why do so many men claim that's what men do typically (not universally)?"

    Because it's usually true of most men at one time or another in their lives. For all the talk (and the reality) about women being treated as second rate, they do have enormous power; the power to reject. And reject they do. You can be the nicest guy in the world, but if you're not her type, if there's no chemistry or you're not her "caliber", down in flames you go. It's not necessarily mean on her part, it's just reality. And it's not just looks or money that is a consideration. You can be a nice, successful guy at a time in her life when she's attracted to the rebellious, slightly "dangerous", exciting "bad boy".

    This can be frustrating. And it's magnified when you grow up being taught that you can do anything if you just try hard enough. But that's just it; you can't. Guys want to be rich and successful (like Trump) or rich/successful/famous, because that's the inside track to the most elite women. Except that even then, it's no guarantee. Look at all the women who wouldn't get involved with Trump if they were marooned on an island and he was the only man. All his fame, all his money, and They. Just. Aren't. Interested. And it's the same with virtually every guy whose name isn't Tom Brady. So like I said, it breeds frustration - sometimes soul-crushing frustration - which is displayed in crude anger.

    hunkerdown October 12, 2016 at 8:33 pm

    Jess, and, thanks to political correctness, there are a dwindling number of venues where one might seek to build lateral relationships, especially of the romantic or life partner sort, and a dwindling amount of discretionary time to spend in those venues. Never mind the most elite women - ten-year-olds with bottle-blonde updos and optional silicone-enhanced "chopped chicken parts" are actually kinda gross - the less elite but still very aspirational Modern woman's standards and policies are too high (unrealistic, as the less aspirational might put it) for the life partner market to clear without externalizing something.

    "Because it's usually true of most men at one time or another in their lives."

    And therefore SIN, or whatever the symbol manipulators might prefer to call it, and therefore PENANCE (payable in 3 easy installments), and THEN absolution. We do know how path dependence cramps the American liberal's style and their group narcissism.

    "When we're an empire, we create our own reality."

    crittermom October 12, 2016 at 9:27 pm

    Jess–
    It works both ways. Men also have the power to reject, & they do.

    Your own wording of "that's the inside track to the most elite women" (my emphasis) seems to say that a woman must be beautiful in figure and face to attract a man.
    So what's different about a woman wanting a man who is nice looking with a nice body?
    None.
    It's just two different views, depending on gender.

    Regarding what Trump supposedly said/did many years ago, even as a woman, I still find the fact Hellary's husband was engaged in sexual misconduct in the oval office-while president -even more disgusting.

    I saw/see that as a huge slap in the face and a big FU to the entire nation that he would conduct himself in such a way while being the leader of our country!
    He couldn't even keep it zipped while sitting in the WH? How dare he!

    At least Trump wasn't our freakin' PRESIDENT when he said/did those things.

    Yet Bill's behavior is still a 'hush-hush' subject because he's a Clinton, it seems. (Or because people don't want to be on that 'Clinton' list and disappear?)

    No, I do not support Trump or his actions or manners or ego.
    But since it's being made such a big deal, then I'd like to see all the facts about Bill brought up again in the way he acted while leading this country.

    THEN maybe all these 'distractions' would end and we could get down to policies!
    Until then, which it appears will never happen, this 'election' is a sick joke, at best.

    JTMcPhee October 12, 2016 at 9:54 pm

    Just for fun and some context, "Philandering Presidents": http://www.funtrivia.com/en/World/Philandering-Presidents-13741.html

    human October 12, 2016 at 4:52 pm

    It's a great big, diverse world out there. Saudi women can be beheaded for saying, "no," and western women are castigated for saying, "yes."

    Once again, it's all about the distraction.

    Pavel October 12, 2016 at 5:10 pm

    Yes, but at least Hillary has come out boldly against the Saudi persecution of women, gays, and other races, has denounced the Saudi genocide in Yemen, and fought vigorously as Secretary of State to ensure arms including cluster bombs and white phosphorus were not sold to a regime with such a dreadful human rights record. And the Clinton Foundation displayed their "whiter than white" sense of ethics by returning the millions of dollars of Saudi donations.

    And Trump's words from 11 years ago were much worse than anything the Saudis did, in any case.

    OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL October 12, 2016 at 4:55 pm

    I have a hierarchy of reactions to issues and I just can't seem to put vulgar language above the ultimate vulgarity of world war for profit.

    Try as I might, I can't seem to care more about people with hurt feelings than people with their heads blown off because a Saudi billionaire or arms manufacturer just had to have some more ka-ching. There is nothing more vulgar than that.

    [Oct 12, 2016] The French are major proliferisers of modern weapon systems. They and the Russians have put a lot of weapons out there which are affordable for small States but have the potential even to worry the biggest militaries

    Notable quotes:
    "... into the field of battle ..."
    "... Nirvana in Fire ..."
    "... Game of Thrones ..."
    "... "The drama was a commercial and critical success, surpassing ten million views by its second day,[4] and receiving a total number of daily internet views on iQiyi of over 3.3 billion by the end of the series.[5][6] Nirvana in Fire was considered a social media phenomenon, generating 3.55 billion posts on Sina Weibo that praised its characters and story-line." ..."
    Oct 12, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Science Officer Smirnoff October 12, 2016 at 11:58 am

    As you recall the French Exocet , a souped-up V1 in respects, has been "out there" a long time.

    . . . In the years after the Falklands War, it was revealed that the British government and the Secret Intelligence Service had been extremely concerned at the time by the perceived inadequacy of the Royal Navy's anti-missile defenses against the Exocet and its potential to tip the naval war decisively in favor of the Argentine forces. A scenario was envisioned in which one or both of the force's two aircraft carriers (Invincible and Hermes) were destroyed or incapacitated by Exocet attacks, which would make recapturing the Falklands much more difficult.

    Actions were taken to contain the Exocet threat. A major intelligence operation was also initiated to prevent the Argentine Navy from acquiring more of the weapons on the international market.[16]

    The operation included British intelligence agents claiming to be arms dealers able to supply large numbers of Exocets to Argentina, who diverted Argentina from pursuing sources which could genuinely supply a few missiles. France denied deliveries of Exocet AM39s purchased by Peru to avoid the possibility of Peru giving them to Argentina, because they knew that payment would be made with a credit card from the Central Bank of Peru. British intelligence had detected the guarantee was a deposit of two hundred million dollars from the Andean Lima Bank, an owned subsidiary of the Banco Ambrosiano.[17][18] wiki

    PlutoniumKun October 12, 2016 at 1:09 pm

    Yes, and it was an Exocet that put a big hole in the side of the USS Stark in 1987 .

    The French are major proliferisers of modern weapon systems. They and the Russians have put a lot of weapons out there which are affordable for small States but have the potential even to worry the biggest militaries.

    Much of world history depends on the relative availability of defensive/offensive weaponry. Back when the castle was the apex of military might any local thug with the money to build one could become a lord and rule his little kingdom. Then when cannons became powerful enough to reduce them to rubble empires came back into vogue. When battleships ruled the waves, this allowed the great seagoing nations to dominate, but the invention of the torpedo along with submarines and long range bombers levelled things up for smaller nations such as Japan. Then the aircraft carrier swung things back to empires in the post war years. But now I think high speed sea skimming and ballistic missiles along with long distance torpedoes have swung things back to 'weaker' nations. Even the Houthi's in Yemen seem to have obtained missiles capable of knocking out an ex-US combat vessel.

    Mark P. October 12, 2016 at 2:03 pm

    The democratization of missile technology is the big military story of the last three decades. Look at, for instance, at how Hezbollah's Sheik Nasrullah kicked off the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict by striking an Israeli warship during a TV presentation. Very slick.

    In fac, talking of the USS Stark, all those ships with their big aluminum superstructures will burn down to their waterline when hit. The Emirates even recently banned aluminum in tower buildings recently.

    Aluminum's vulnerability didn't matter during the decades of the Cold War when if the Big One started the surface navy wouldn't really do any fighting because it would all be up anyway, and meanwhile smaller groups and nations - especially those with brown skins - didn't have access to serious missile technology.

    The big transition point came with the Falklands War when the UK's admirals smartly stood their aircraft carriers beyond range till Margaret Thatcher phoned to Mitterand and intimated that the British might use their Polaris submarine to nuke Buenos Aires unless Mitterand gave up the Exocet codes. Think I'm kidding? Thatcher got the codes; they didn't call her Mad Maggie for nothing.

    As for why they're still building surface warships with aluminum superstructures, it's military Keynesianism and everybody would have to be submariners otherwise, which wouldn't be fun..

    JohnnyGL October 12, 2016 at 3:39 pm

    +1 to this

    I think the Pentagon did an analysis under GW Bush about attacking Iran and buried the idea.

    I believe this is why Iran made a big dash for surface-to-surface missiles to defend themselves, and DID NOT have to go for nukes. If you've got anti-ship missiles, you can push those carriers far enough out to sea which limits the ability to launch airstrikes.

    Plus, with anti-ship missiles, you can put the Persian Gulf on total lockdown and watch the Saudis suffocate. Iran has already been dealing with sanctions for years, so it's no sweat to them!

    If the USA ever has an aircraft carrier sunk, the unipolar moment is indisputably over.

    Felix_47 October 12, 2016 at 4:59 am

    I suspect that for the money put out the Chinese get a lot more defense. In fact, if they are spending 200 billion and we are spending 600 billion we can be sure that they are close to parity. Of course, we are spending a lot more than 600 billion when you add in VA, disability and retirement costs as well as current war outlays. The entire defense industry in both China and the US is obsolete given modern communications and immigration trends anyway. How are you going to bomb Yemen when the excess population in Yemen ends up driving taxis in Washington D.C. or why bomb Syria when all it does is encourage the Syrians to move to the west? What is the difference between a Syrian or Afghan in Idaho or Berlin and one in Damascus or Kabul? The national state is becoming obsolete and military action is powerless against demography.

    PlutoniumKun October 12, 2016 at 6:40 am

    The key paradox for the US military is that wars are won not by who has the greatest number of tanks, ships or aircraft, but by the country that can put the greatest number of tanks, ships and aircraft into the field of battle . The US has by far the biggest military in the world, but it has also put itself in the position of needing a military a multiple of everyone elses because of the sheer geographical spread of commitments. China's military is tiny and primitive compared to the US, but in reality any war is likely to be geographically limited – to (for example) the South China Sea. China has every chance of being able to match the US in this kind of war.

    As for China's blue sea commitments, I actually doubt they have any intention of really pursuing a long range war capacity. The Chinese know their history and know that a military on this scale can be economically ruinous. But there is a naval military concept known as fleet in being , which essentially means that even a theoretical threat can force an enemy to pour resources into trying to neutralise it. China I think is using this concept – continually setting off rumours of new strike missiles, long range attack aircraft, new aircraft carriers, etc., to force the US (aided and abetted by the defence industry) to spent countless billions on phantom threats. Some of these rumours may be true – many I suspect are simply deliberate mischief making by the Chinese, with the serious aim of dissipating America's military strength.

    Colonel Smithers October 12, 2016 at 8:09 am

    A new theatre for that mischief and dissipation is Africa. My parish has a Nigerian priest. When he's away, we usually get another Nigerian. At supper for the Bishop last Saturday, our priest, an Ibo, and another, a Hausa from Kano, said that many, if not, most Nigerians think Boko Haram is assisted by the US and, to a lesser extent, France as it gives the pair an excuse to maintain troops in the region and keep their client state governments in line.

    PlutoniumKun October 12, 2016 at 11:25 am

    Whether or not its true, the fact that intelligent people think that way shows everything you need to know about how US and Western soft power has been frittered away the past few years through stupidity and cynicism.

    JohnnyGL October 12, 2016 at 3:31 pm

    I recall a NYT or WaPo article saying those Iraqis were convinced the US was in bed with ISIS, too.

    Is there a pattern here?

    readerOfTeaLeaves October 12, 2016 at 11:25 am

    +10

    Yes, and I still take taxis, so I hear a fair amount of Amharic and other African dialects.

    Unsure what the Uber drivers speak.

    lyman alpha blob October 12, 2016 at 2:16 pm

    Why bomb? Because then Uncle Sugar gets to take their stuff after they all leave their war torn countries. If some of the refugees are pissed off and blow up some people in their new homelands, why that's just a little collateral damage and when has the establishment ever cared about that? It just gives them an excuse to surveil everyone.

    Ka-ching! – that's why the bombs.

    Mark P. October 12, 2016 at 5:43 pm

    What can the world, or any nation in it, hope for if no turning is found on this dread road?

    The worst to be feared and the best to be expected can be simply stated.

    The worst is atomic war.

    The best would be this: a life of perpetual fear and tension; a burden of arms draining the wealth and the labor of all peoples; a wasting of strength that defies the American system or the Soviet system or any system to achieve true abundance and happiness for the peoples of this earth.

    Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.

    This world in arms in not spending money alone.

    It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.

    The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities.

    It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population.

    It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals.

    It is some 50 miles of concrete highway.

    We pay for a single fighter with a half million bushels of wheat.

    We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people.

    This, I repeat, is the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking.

    This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.

    - that crazy commie madman, Dwight Eisenhower, in 1953 on military Keynesianism.

    Christopher Fay October 12, 2016 at 5:17 am

    ClubOrlov argues that the difference in military spending between the U. S. and Russia is lessened as our spending is bloated and misspent due to corruption.

    The Russians are treating spending as a scarce natural resource. In the U. S. we spend as McCain says like drunken sailors.

    http://cluborlov.blogspot.tw/2016/08/a-thousand-balls-of-flame.html#more

    PlutoniumKun October 12, 2016 at 7:24 am

    I'd be very sceptical that the Russian military somehow avoids the rampant corruption in other parts of the Russian economy.

    By necessity, the Russian military has always been parsimonious and has had to get more firepower for its rouble than other wealthier countries. Much of their weaponry is very simple, effective and robust, and Russian tactics are as good if not better than any other major military. However, they've had their white elephants too – their new Yasen Class attack submarines are far too expensive as an example, and poor quality control in manufacturing has meant that many of their more advanced weapons have dubious real world utility. Their large ships are generally a disaster, a complete waste of money (this is why they were buying assault ships from France).

    Cry Shop October 12, 2016 at 5:49 am

    USA military power is just as great as it has ever been, if not greater. What's changed is the traction it had in forcing alignment from partners who held very little cultural/common ground with the USA.

    Biggest factor in that loss of traction is that Russia (and to a lesser extent China) is not exporting revolution anymore. Both China and Russia engage in real politic with limited military power that makes them a far less threatening partner than the USA for any state that is willing to transfer some of the wealth to them that the USA formerly extracted (and usually these new players pay much better price with less interference). Even Vietnam, which has real historical reasons to be Sinophobic, probably fears China less than it does a US Government which attempts to subvert Vietnam's economy through currency dependency. How so Russia, which is no threat to any of Vietnam's interests.

    What constrains Russia's power isn't the military, but it's relatively minuscule consumer market. Similarly, China's trade protectionism for semi-finished and finished goods has constrained it's ability to project power to those nations, like Australia, Argentina & Russia, which subsist primarily on raw material exports. China is in a better situation than Russia to change this situation and expand it's power into Europe, though I doubt Xi is the man for it.

    fajensen October 12, 2016 at 6:45 am

    What's changed is the traction it had in forcing alignment from partners who held very little cultural/common ground with the USA.

    I'd claim that the alignment came not so much from US military might but rather from the US offering better terms – at least to "white countries"; plenty of brutal regime change and CIA skulduggery was applied on brown folks, still is, in fact.

    Now, it seems to the world that the US have become so bloated with it's own military and perceived cultural/economic superiority that the US offers pretty much nothing in return to anyone, regardless of the favors asked. Everyone are treated as colonies and vassals, except perhaps a few leaders and decision makers (Or maybe it was always like that but now we got the Internet and we know).

    This state of affairs pisses people off.

    In addition, people are beginning to understand that what is applied to brown people abroad today can happen to them also tomorrow. That in the US world order, everyone who is not an American have no value compared to an American* and can be killed, tortured, disappeared with no consequences what so ever. Because fuck Nürenberg.

    Therefore, everyone else being in some way enemies of the US merely by belonging to another tribe than America, has realized that there is no good thing coming from aligning with America, sooner or later the "military option" or "the regime change" will come out and we will be knifed in the back. Those who can actively resist, those who have the option aligns with other powers, those who cannot do this, will drag their feet and try to avoid direct confrontation, maybe something will show up?

    Stupid, weak, nations like Denmark and Sweden go all in with 110% effort on the fantasy that they will be seen as good people with an American core, struggling to claw it's way out, from inside their unworthy un-American bodies and therefore they will be protected – at least for a while*.

    *)
    Americans themselves are beginning to realize that anyone who isn't rich & covered in lawyers can be fined, jailed or even killed right in the street by the police for basically nothing at all. This is beginning to grate on their understanding of their place in the pecking order. But, everyone still blame Whites, Latinos, Blacks, Feminists identity politics works, keeps the contraption from falling off the road.

    This also shows why the silly idea of escape by being super-American will not work: Americans are treated like shit too.

    Colonel Smithers October 12, 2016 at 10:04 am

    Thank you. I like your point about "stupid, weak nations". French is my second language. English is my third. I watch French TV news most days and visit the place regularly, business and pleasure, and studied there. I am surprised, but may be should not be, at how American France has become / is becoming. Hollande and Sarko, who has American connections by way of his stepmother and half brothers, have made the country a poodle in a way that de Gaulle and Chirac would not. Most French people I know seem ok or indifferent to that. Part of that Americanisation seems to be the English / Americanised English forenames given to French children. I have observed that trend in (western) Germany and even francophone communities well away from the French mainland.

    Synoia October 12, 2016 at 12:02 pm

    I am reminded of a friend of mine in South Africa, who was somewhat older than s 20 years Olds.

    Adolf, my friend, was born before WW II, and the name was quite popular then. It became less popular of after WW II.

    OIFVet October 12, 2016 at 11:26 am

    Bravo! Sorry but I can't resists linking to an old comment of mine to reinforce the point about stupid and weak nations. http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/10/links-101215.html#comment-2501325 .

    And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the best example of what being a loyal US "ally" entails: corrupt local elites working against their country's own best interests lest they become a target for a color revolution. Meanwhile their much-suffering subjects don't know which way to turn to hide their collective embarrassment.

    BRUCE E. WOYCH October 12, 2016 at 12:24 pm

    More current samples for your file sir:
    (1)
    Hungary: MP Questioned Over Fraud Allegations
    https://www.occrp.org/en/daily/5715-hungary-mp-questioned-over-fraud-allegations
    Published: Wednesday, 12 October 2016 12:31
    (2)
    Ukrainian Top Officials Involved in Secret Offshore Deals
    Published: Tuesday, 04 October 2016 09:00
    by Graham Stack
    https://www.occrp.org/en/investigations/5691-ukrainian-top-officials-involved-in-secret-offshore-deals
    ======================
    OCCRP: (MORE ARTICLES) https://www.occrp.org/index.php
    ORGANIZED CRIME and CORRUPTION REPORTING PROJECT

    OIFVet October 12, 2016 at 12:47 pm

    My files are bulging to the bursting point. The latest fiasco in Colonia Bulgaria was the election of the new GenSec of the UN. Bulgaria had a leading candidate, until Merkel decided that she wanted Germany to play an outsized role in the UN, and bring EU politics into the UN. Disaster ensued:

    So the initial Bulgarian candidate Bokova looked like the ideal choice. Here was a chance for little old Bulgaria to shine on the world stage for the first time in over a millenium, possibly since the Bulgars burst out of Central Asia on horseback. Add this to the background context: it is unprecedented for a country to nominate a candidate officially, a front-runner no less, and then do a public switcheroo before the world's eyes. But that's exactly what Bulgaria did just a week ago. Bokova was dumped and Georgieva spooned up. Disaster ensued, as I predicted it would in previous columns .

    Bulgaria lost its once-in-a-millenium chance at shaping the world. As the record shows, Gutteres won.

    If Bulgaria were a normal healthy country, the Prime Minister would now resign and the government would fall. Because, it was the Prime Minister's decision to switch candidates. He did so despite knowing that two-thirds of Bulgarian citizens preferred his first candidate. Boyko Borissov is his name, a deeply underachieving dull-witted schemer-survivor in the wooden tradition of the region. A short-fingered Bulgarian if ever there was one. He first came to the fore as the bodyguard of the last Bulgarian Communist leader. That should give you a clue to the man's qualities. So why did Boyko 'switch horses'? Why did he do it?

    Brutal, just brutal kick in the butt from the ally's MSM. And that's only one of many reactions. Because even the bosses don't like grovelling toadies. They want to control them, but they will never invite them for an afternoon tea. Particularly a marionette whose mafia ties the Congressional Quarterly wrote about. Not that these organized crime ties are a disqualifier, if anything the US likes that because it makes Borissov easy to control.

    At least Merkel's scheming and Bulgaria's humiliation had an unexpected positive effect: Power and Churkin managed to put on a BFF act in front of the cameras and allied to get Gutteres elected as SecGen, while delivering a massive kick in Merkel's ample backside. Takes some doing to get the US and Russia to not only see eye to eye on anything, but to also work in concert. Bravo!

    PS This also proves a historical truth: doing Germany's bidding never ends well for Bulgaria. Or for any other nation.

    BRUCE E. WOYCH October 12, 2016 at 2:24 pm

    OIFVet (compliments) You may need a new file
    Somewhere over / under the rainbow
    (orchestrated social media unrest)
    (1)
    http://bigstory.ap.org/article/us-secretly-created-cuban-twitter-stir-unrest
    By ALBERTO ARCE and DESMOND BUTLER and JACK GILLUM Apr. 4, 2014 4:25 AM EDT
    WASHINGTON (AP) - In July 2010

    (2)
    White House denies 'Cuban Twitter' ZunZuneo programme was covert
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/03/white-house-cuban-twitter-zunzuneo-covert
    Paul Lewis and Dan Roberts in Washington
    Thursday 3 April 2014 14.26 EDT
    --------------–

    hemeantwell October 12, 2016 at 8:36 am

    global scenario that the down-to-earth presidents of China and Russia seem to have in mind resembles the sort of balance of power that existed in Europe.

    The article floats away here. China and Russia might want to have something that "resembles" that time, but the analogy overlooks the fact that the relatively calm state of affairs - Franco-Prussian war? - on the European continent after Napoleon coexisted with savage colonial expansion. The forms of superexploitation thereby obtained did much to help stabilize Europe, even as competition for colonial lands became more and more destabilizing and were part of what led to WW1.

    Now we're in a situation in which superexploitation options are largely gone. Routine profit generation has become difficult due to global productive overcapacity, leading to behavioral sinkish behavior like the US cannibalizing its public sector to feed capital. Since the late 19th century US foreign policy has been organized around the open markets mantra. It may be possible for the Chinese, with their greater options for economy manipulation, to avoid the crashes the US feared from lack of market access. But the current situation on its face does not have anything like the colonial escape valve available in the 19th century.

    BRUCE E. WOYCH October 12, 2016 at 12:53 pm

    Of course,duplicitous political COPORATISM means systems over a systemic characterized by marked or even intentional deception that is now sustained and even spearheaded by state systems. Many contemporary liberal idealists living in urban strongholds of market mediated comfort zones will not agree to assigning such strong description to an Obama administration. It is too distant and remote to assign accountability to global international finance and currency wars that have hegemonic hedge funds pumping and dumping crisis driven anarchy over global exploit (ruled by market capital fright / fight and flight). To the extent that colonialism or neocolonialism does not actually hold fixed boundary ground is irrelevant, since assets are more differential and flexible needing only corporate law to sustain strict boundaries on possession or instruments that convert to the same power over assets. No one, of course, wants to assess stocks and bonds as instruments of global oppression or exploitation that far exceeds 19th century's crude colonial rule. Recall, however, how "joint stock" corporations first opened chartered exploit at global levels under East and West Trading power aggregates that were profit driven enter-prize. So in reality the current cross border market system of neoliberal globalization is, in fact, a stealth colonialism on steroids. TPP is part of that process in all its stealthy dimensions.

    BRUCE E. WOYCH October 12, 2016 at 1:56 pm

    (TPP In a Nutshell http://labornotes.org/2016/09/october-all-hands-deck-stop-tpp )

    "The TPP is a corporate power grab, a 5,544-page document that was negotiated in secret by big corporations while Congress, the public, and unions were locked out.
    Multinationals like Google, Exxon, Monsanto, Goldman Sachs, UPS, FedEx, Apple, and Walmart are lobbying hard for it. Virtually every union in the U.S. opposes it. So do major environmental, senior, health, and consumer organizations.
    The TPP will mean fewer jobs and lower wages, higher prices for prescription drugs, the loss of regulations that protect our drinking water and food supply, and the loss of Internet freedom. It encourages privatization, undermines democracy, and will forbid many of the policies we need to combat climate change."

    http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/09/30/ttp-ttip-map-shows-
    how-trade-deals-would-enable-polluter-power-grab
    TTP & TTIP: Map Shows How Trade Deals Would Enable 'Polluter Power-Grab'
    by Andrea Germanos
    The new, interactive tool 'gives people a chance to see if toxic trade is in their own backyard'

    John Rose October 12, 2016 at 3:04 pm

    From a long range view, 19th Century compitition using black and brown property and lives was an improvement over battling face to face with neighbors. It was an expansion of tribal boundaries, somewhat.
    Now, few argue openly (except in presidential debates) against those boundaries encompassing brown and black members of the human race. We engage our ruthlessness less openly in covert operations, corporate predations and financial hegemony.
    Even awful behavior can be seen as an advance.

    Dead Squashed Kissinger October 12, 2016 at 8:54 am

    This is very handy, thanks. However the conclusion stops short of what the SCO is saying and doing. They have no interest in an old-time balance of power. They want rule of law, a very different thing. Look at Putin's Syria strategy: he actually complies with the UN Charter's requirement to pursue pacific dispute resolution. That's revolutionary. When CIA moles in Turkey shot that Russian jet down, the outcome was not battles and state-sponsored terror, as CIA expected. The outcome was support for Turkey's sovereignty and rapprochement. Now when CIA starts fires you go to Russia to put them out.

    While China maintains its purist line on the legal principle of non-interference, it is increasingly vocal in urging the US to fulfill its human rights obligations. That will sound paradoxical because of intense US vilification of Chinese authoritarianism, but when you push for your economic and social rights here at home, China is in your corner. Here Russia is leading by example. They comply with the Paris Principles for institutionalized human rights protection under independent international oversight. The USA does not.

    When the USA goes the way of the USSR, we'll be in good hands. The world will show us how developed countries work.

    BRUCE E. WOYCH October 12, 2016 at 1:26 pm

    "RULE OF LAW" up front and personal (again?)
    Now why would the USA be worried about global rule of law?
    An Interesting ideal. No country above the law.

    " US President Barack Obama has vetoed a bill that would have allowed the families of the victims of the September 11, 2001, attacks to sue the government of Saudi Arabia.

    In a statement accompanying his veto message, Obama said on Friday he had
    "deep sympathy" for the 9/11 victims' families and their desire to seek justice for
    their relatives.

    The president said, however, that the bill would be "detrimental to US national interests" and could lead to lawsuits against the US or American officials for actions taken by groups armed, trained or supported by the US.

    "If any of these litigants were to win judgements – based on foreign domestic laws as applied by foreign courts – they would begin to look to the assets of the US government held abroad to satisfy those judgments, with potentially serious financial consequences for the United States," Obama said."
    -----------------------
    To the tune of "Moma said " by The Shirelles –
    .Oh don't you know Obama said they be days like this,
    ..they would be days like this Obama said

    BRUCE E. WOYCH October 12, 2016 at 1:48 pm

    One interesting irony is that in Obama's TPP "The worst part is an Investor-State Dispute Settlement provision, which allows a multinational corporation to sue to override any U.S. law, policy, or practice that it claims could limit its future profits."
    (source: http://labornotes.org/2016/09/october-all-hands-deck-stop-tpp )
    "Though the Obama administration touts the pact's labor and environmental protections, the official Labor Advisory Committee on the TPP strongly opposes
    it, arguing that these protections are largely unenforceable window dressing."

    Braden Smith October 12, 2016 at 10:07 am

    I think you're overstating the Russian military advantage in Syria and Ukraine, while ignoring the real dysfunction in US foreign policy. Key policy thinkers at State and Defense still believe that it's worth the time and effort for the US to project military influence in Syria. This is a policy position entirely driven by Israel's existential concern over Iran. There are no substantial US interests in Syria right now. We aren't actually fighting ISIS, because if we were, we would be targeting the foreign funding coming from Saudi Arabia and Qatar. As a consequence, if we simply withdrew from Syria, Russia would be left propping up a regime that would be fighting an ongoing insurgency against foreign jihadists.

    In other words, it would be wasting its time and resources on a pointless fight to build a state in the Middle East (sounds familiar). Russia is the one with a military base in Syria that they need to protect. Let them waste the time and energy defending their military assets.

    Instead, the US should be reducing its Middle East footprint and selectively engaging in key diplomatic efforts. The Saudis and the Gulf States are committed to fighting it out with Iran for Middle East influence. There's no reason for us to pick sides in this fight. Let them engage in proxy wars without US military assistance and then, when the time is right, we can offer our role as a neutral broker and negotiate terms that actually benefit our strategic interests.

    The reason we can't play this role in the region is because we are so myopically focused on policies that are pro-Israeli. Eliminate Israel's interests from the calculations, and our policies would change dramatically.

    NotSoSure October 12, 2016 at 10:37 am

    It's a good thing. The US has become that quote in The Dark Knight: "you die a hero or live long enough to become the villain."

    Adams October 12, 2016 at 11:43 am

    Great article and comments. Surprised there has been no speculation here about what HRC will do with the geopolitical hash created by neo-lib economics and neo-con foreign and military policies. We know what Obama did (not) do with what was really a political mandate. Certainly he has been constrained politically and, perhaps, personally ( shame what happened to those nice Kennedy boys, they had so much "promise.") However, as has been ably pointed out in comments above, his actions where he was not constrained are the flag in the wind. You don't have to be a weatherman .

    Hillary, of course, has already shown her colors. There will be no Nobel based on promises and high expectations. She will relentlessly pursue the PNAC programme and the "exceptional, essential nation" fantasy, contra the analysis above. You can take the girl out of the Goldwater, but you can't take the Goldman out of the girl.All that glitters ..

    readerOfTeaLeaves October 12, 2016 at 12:05 pm

    Fascinating thread, thanks.
    I stream a lot of Korean dramas, and lately Chinese dramas have also been showing up in my video feeds; it is clear that Taiwan and China are trying to access eyeballs globally, as a means to gain soft power – and revenue.

    The earlier Chinese dramas seeking a global audience seemed shrill, melodramatic, and approximately the production quality of the old static BBC costume dramas of the 1970s. I found them unwatchable.

    However, China has recently put out something that is quite possibly a masterpiece of storytelling. " Nirvana in Fire " [NiF] is an epic story of betrayal, treachery, loyalty, and trust, with some incredible martial arts into the mix. NiF is described as the Chinese Game of Thrones . (I am unable to make a good comparison, as I have not watched GoT). However, I'd argue that NiF is every bit as good as the BBC's brilliant " The Tudors " (2007, with Jonathon Rhys Meyers).

    I take NiF as a sign that despite what sounds like a hideous housing bubble, China's cultural endeavors are developing at a level that is as outstanding as anything that any nation can produce. And in a world where the Internet seems to be morphing into a vast, global video distribution service (woohoo!!), that is no small thing. Judging from social media stats, it appears to be quite formidable.

    This new Silk Road is often spoken of as physical, and I do not take it lightly; nevertheless, the silkier threads are probably the telecom infrastructure carrying subtitled dramas to mobiles, desktops, and smart TVs around the world.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_In_Fire
    From the wiki page: "The drama was a commercial and critical success, surpassing ten million views by its second day,[4] and receiving a total number of daily internet views on iQiyi of over 3.3 billion by the end of the series.[5][6] Nirvana in Fire was considered a social media phenomenon, generating 3.55 billion posts on Sina Weibo that praised its characters and story-line."
    I searched for 'Facebook posts on GoT' but could not get any results that I trusted enough to include here. It's a fair guess, however, they did not amount to 3,550,000,000 comments. Whoever gets to stream their dramas across Africa and S. America will develop a formidable 'soft power' resource.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tudors

    PlutoniumKun October 12, 2016 at 12:22 pm

    That series sounds very interesting, I must look for it.

    I think the Chinese are quite serious about using film and TV as soft power, but they face a paradox in that it is hard to promote quality drama while also indulging in heavy censorship. The Chinese are very good at using carrots and sticks to 'tame' artists – just look at how a formerly great film maker like Zhang Yimou has gone from making beautiful and subtle allegories about Chinese society to now just making big empty commercial epics which are little more than propaganda pieces. I doubt Chinese film makers will ever have the freedom to make the sort of challenging work that Korean film makers do all the time (Japanese film makers once did this too, but seem to have given up). But they probably have enough talent to make plenty of entertaining fantasy TV and film, but whether it will travel so well I'm not sure.

    NotSoSure October 12, 2016 at 2:57 pm

    LOL, I watched that drama too, and I'd agree. Most Chinese dramas are unwatchable, but as NiF showed, it's not because there are no capable series makers, etc, because there are plenty of those in China. The problem is rather the producers for whatever reason think that local audiences are only interested in melodramas and idols dressed in ridiculous costumes.

    And please, NiF is better than GoT. I am a big fan of the books, and the TV series to me is laughable.

    sgt_doom October 12, 2016 at 2:17 pm

    I just find this difficult to believe that America's diplomatic power is in decline.

    After all, is the great-grandson of what was once the top dope dealer on the planet, Francis Blackwell Forbes, now the SecState (that would be John "Forbes, Winthrop, Dudley" Kerry)?

    Color me confused . . .

    [Oct 12, 2016] Quotes from the Wikileaks stash of Hillary Clinton speeches and emails from her campaign chair John Podesta.

    Oct 12, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org

    (Busy with nurturing some illness, please bear with me.)

    Quotes from the Wikileaks stash of Hillary Clinton speeches and emails from her campaign chair John Podesta.

    Clinton in a 2013 speech to the Jewish United Fund Advance & Major Gifts Dinner (via The Intercept ):

    [Arming moderates has] been complicated by the fact that the Saudis and others are shipping large amounts of weapons-and pretty indiscriminately-not at all targeted toward the people that we think would be the more moderate, least likely, to cause problems in the future, ...

    Clinton also says that the no-fly zone bombing in Syria she is arguing for "would kill a lot of Syrians" - all for humanitarian reasons of course.

    The following was written by Podesta, a well connected former White House Chief of Staff, in an 2014 email to Clinton. As introduction Podesta notes:"Sources include Western intelligence, US intelligence and sources in the region.":

    While this military/para-military operation is moving forward, we need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia , which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in the region.

    Not new - the 2012 DIA analysis provided as much , and more, - but these email's prove that Clinton was and is well aware that U.S. allies are financing the radical Islamists in Syria and Iraq.

    [Oct 12, 2016] There are so many pussies around your presidential campaigns on both sides that I prefer not to comment.

    Notable quotes:
    "... Lavrov: Well, I don't know whether this would ... English is not my mother's tongue and I don't know whether - I don't know - whether I would sound - I mean - decent. There are so many pussies around your presidential campaigns on both sides that I prefer not to comment. ..."
    "... Reflecting different national usages, cunt is described as "an unpleasant or stupid person" in the Compact Oxford English Dictionary, whereas Merriam-Webster indicates that it is a "usually disparaging and obscene" term for a woman[1] or an "offensive way to refer to a woman" in the United States. ..."
    "... So Lavrov's not only a diplomat, he knows a little comedy too. :) He's one of the most interesting people in government today. ..."
    Oct 12, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org

    ... ... ...

    The Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov in a recent interview with CNN's Amanpour:

    Amanpour: Russia had its own Pussy Riot moment. What do you think of Donald Trump's pussy riot moment?

    Lavrov: Well, I don't know whether this would ... English is not my mother's tongue and I don't know whether - I don't know - whether I would sound - I mean - decent. There are so many pussies around your presidential campaigns on both sides that I prefer not to comment.

    Ghostship | Oct 12, 2016 1:22:10 PM | 11

    CitizenKane123 | Oct 12, 2016 12:02:27 PM | 4
    Pussies are soft, warms and comfortable. I think what Lavrov really meant was:
    There are so many cunts around your presidential campaigns on both sides that I prefer not to comment.
    It should be noted that British English and American English have different definitions for the C word, and I suspect Lavrov understands that. From Wikipedia:
    Reflecting different national usages, cunt is described as "an unpleasant or stupid person" in the Compact Oxford English Dictionary, whereas Merriam-Webster indicates that it is a "usually disparaging and obscene" term for a woman[1] or an "offensive way to refer to a woman" in the United States.
    Although I would suggest that the OED does understate the strength of the word somewhat.
    Qoppa | Oct 12, 2016 1:23:23 PM | 12
    PS I really start liking Lavrov. He has class!
    JethroZeppelin | Oct 12, 2016 2:18:52 PM | 19
    "There are so many pussies around your presidential campaigns on both sides that I prefer not to comment."

    So Lavrov's not only a diplomat, he knows a little comedy too. :) He's one of the most interesting people in government today.

    bbbb | Oct 12, 2016 2:35:12 PM | 22
    Podesta - what a clown! Is there some rulebook about Presidents having to be protestant, while all the shady puppetmasters are zionist catholics or zionist zionists?

    http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/wikileaks-podesta-left-wing-activist-plot-catholic-spring/

    [Oct 12, 2016] The perfect Trojan Horse Obama was the betrayer in both domestic and foreign policy.

    Notable quotes:
    "... There seems plenty of evidence in the Pacific in particular that many countries, from Myanmar and Philippines to Australia are trying to follow a strategy of neutrality, playing the big powers off each other, rather than attaching themselves to the US or China. I suspect we'll see more of this in the Middle East and Europe and even South America. ..."
    "... In Obama's case, he seems to bang on about American Exceptionalism more than anyone I can remember. Is Obama worried in case Joe Sixpack questions his background? ..."
    "... Nobody forced Obama to continue drone strikes over much of the muslim world. Nobody forced him to put known ideological neocons into key positions of influence and power in State and the Pentagon. Nobody forced him to give Israel a free hand in Gaza and the occupied strip. Nobody forced him to help the French and British destroy the wealthiest country in Africa (Libya) and turn it into an Isis stronghold. ..."
    "... Nobody forced him to encourage Ukrainian Nazi's to attack ethnic Russians without consequence. ..."
    "... Nobody forced him to pursue a 'tilt to the Pacific' aimed at isolating China with the inevitable blow-back that we are now seeing. Nobody forced him to interfere in Syria with the aim of getting rid of Assad. Nobody forced him to continue a policy of isolating and undermining progressive democratic governments in South and Central America. ..."
    "... He's proven very good at giving the notion that all these things 'just happened' as he sat back looking on sadly. I don't buy it. ..."
    "... I suspect his judgment is not that he had to be a neoliberal to get to the top (Change! Hope!), but he needed to be a neoliberal to ensure he stayed at the top without either an assassins bullet, or a stray recording/email, knocking him off the summit. ..."
    "... I believe he made it to President because he was a Neolib who could make the population believe there would be change. ..."
    "... The fact that Trump is actually a thing shows how screwed up the US is. I can't imagine a president making decisions without dissonance, conflicts or contradictions. ..."
    "... Many view Obama as a type of Manchurian candidate , sleeper agent or otherwise not who he has been crafted to be. ..."
    "... As plausible deniability goes, Obama merges statecraft with tradecraft seamlessly between overt and covert political propaganda. Charming and disarming to democrats and ideals, his passive stances are often a buffer to the more dangerous background signal being sent as a lurking threat. ..."
    "... Moneta is correct. The TBTB knew what was coming. So much as Bernanke with his academic expertise on QE and the Great Depression was preemptively put in place in 2006 at the Fed, Obama was heavily backed by Wall Street under conditions that would have been made clear to him in the 2006-2008 period. ..."
    "... The most important element of TPTB 's program in backing Obama was the installation of Eric Holder as Attorney General, after Holder had been a primary architect of MERS and mortgage securitization at Covington Burling. Again, a preemptive move to protect Wall Street and forestall any prosecution of those at the top there (and Holder furthermore was conveniently a POC to continue the apparent Change!Hope! pitch). ..."
    "... I think of it as the Eric Holder administration in retrospect, actually. ..."
    "... What made him rise to the "top" were a multitude of promises made to his party and independents, which he later failed to fulfill. And his failure is almost 100%. He gained the nomination and beat Clinton, who was and is a neo-con, by promising to be different. Instead, he outdid Bush in his war mongering. The promises he made were in part why he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, in advance of him actually having done anything, the award of which is sorely regretted now by those who made it. PlutoniumKun listed some of the things Obama could have avoided but did anyway. One item he failed to mention was the US support of Saudi Arabia in its war on Yemen which has now resulted in the US possibly being liable for the war crimes committed there. ..."
    "... the perfect Trojan Horse. and could not be criticized for the longest time because he is a minority. now we have a woman who will "make history". never mind what they get up to while in office. ..."
    "... Not only did Obama have a free hand in Congress, he had the biggest popular mandate for reform of any president since 1932. And he fucked up. ..."
    "... In March of 2009, I recall an FT editorial by Martin Wolf of the Financial Times asking if Obama was already a failure. I had a nagging feeling he was right, and he was. ..."
    "... On Foreign Policy, Obama's got the thawing of relations with Cuba and the Iran deal. We'll see if those are consolidated as a legacy or rolled-back by his successor. ..."
    "... With regard to pretty much everything else Obama tried to do, he's failed pretty badly. But supplying weapons to Al Nusra in Syria takes the cake for me. What happened to "don't do stupid stuff?" ..."
    "... Obama can and has accomplished a great deal in his presidency. The problem is he was accomplishing what he promised to his other supporters - not us. ..."
    "... Obama has always been in thrall to his paymasters as demonstrated by his actions during his administrations. ..."
    "... What is larger, 200,000 or 6,000. The first nnumber is the number of people who attended candidate 0bama's rally in Berlin in 2008. Heady, hopey changey times they were. The latter number is the number of people who attended president 0bama's rally in Berlin in 2013. ..."
    "... It is amusing to portray 0bama as a limp-wristed impotent figurehead. He isn't, he believes in American exceptionalism with "every fiber" of his body. ..."
    "... 0bama surpassed Bush in creating a number of calamities, and has been heavy handed with our supposed allies, thus destroying the myth of about the supposed "partnership." ..."
    Oct 12, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Not only did Obama have a free hand in Congress, he had the biggest popular mandate for reform of any president since 1932. And he fucked up.

    PlutoniumKun October 12, 2016 at 4:46 am

    Not mentioned, of course, is that TPP etc., are central to the US's strategy to counter Russia and China, and it seems these Pacts are on the verge of failing miserably.

    There seems plenty of evidence in the Pacific in particular that many countries, from Myanmar and Philippines to Australia are trying to follow a strategy of neutrality, playing the big powers off each other, rather than attaching themselves to the US or China. I suspect we'll see more of this in the Middle East and Europe and even South America.

    Also, militarily its worth pointing out that Russia and China etc., do not have to match the US's fleets to gain equality on the oceans. They just have to have the technology for areal denial – i.e. sufficient long range missiles to make the US reluctant to send aircraft carriers within striking distance. This is similar to the early 20th Century situation where relatively cheap submarines allowed weaker countries to prevent the traditional great Naval Powers from having things their own way. Although in its own way, this proved very destabilising.

    The other factor not mentioned is that the the neocons have squandered the US's greatest single strength – its 'soft' power. The US is simply not respected and liked around the world the way it was even in the Cold War. I think the hysteria around Obama's election was at least partly based around the worlds longing for a US they could like. Among other things, Obama squandered that and left everyone with a choice between two detestable individuals, both of which are sure to make things worse.

    Colonel Smithers October 12, 2016 at 5:39 am

    Thank you. Well said. Area denial is also cheaper and, probably, less corrupt.

    That is such a good point about the soft power squandered by Obama. I wonder if that will come to be seen as a failure on the scale that Kennan thought about Slick Willie's reversal of policy towards Russia.

    A question for readers based in the US. I am the child of immigrants who came to the UK from a colony mentioned by Hiro in the mid-1960s, although we have ancestors who left these islands for that francophone colony in the early 19th century. Most, but not all immigrants in the UK and their children take tales of British superiority (vide why the UK will make Brexit a success) with a bucket of salt.

    Do our US peers do that? Obama seems like these British ministers of immigrant stock who need to prove that they belong and so adopt these positions that others / natives rarely bother with or express. In Obama's case, he seems to bang on about American Exceptionalism more than anyone I can remember. Is Obama worried in case Joe Sixpack questions his background?

    On another note, thank you (to PK) for the anecdote about RC churchgoers. I was away on Monday evening and unable to say so.

    PlutoniumKun October 12, 2016 at 8:11 am

    I'm sorry, but I don't see how you can argue this with regard to foreign policy where (unlike domestic policy) the president has a much freer hand.

    Nobody forced Obama to continue drone strikes over much of the muslim world. Nobody forced him to put known ideological neocons into key positions of influence and power in State and the Pentagon. Nobody forced him to give Israel a free hand in Gaza and the occupied strip. Nobody forced him to help the French and British destroy the wealthiest country in Africa (Libya) and turn it into an Isis stronghold.

    Nobody forced him to encourage Ukrainian Nazi's to attack ethnic Russians without consequence.

    Nobody forced him to pursue a 'tilt to the Pacific' aimed at isolating China with the inevitable blow-back that we are now seeing. Nobody forced him to interfere in Syria with the aim of getting rid of Assad. Nobody forced him to continue a policy of isolating and undermining progressive democratic governments in South and Central America.

    He's proven very good at giving the notion that all these things 'just happened' as he sat back looking on sadly. I don't buy it.

    Synoia October 12, 2016 at 11:55 am

    The list from PuKIm IS his list of accomplisments.

    Apologies to PuKim, I suspect your list is incomplete :-), one significant omission is the Expansion of Warrantless Surveillance of all Peoples.

    This by a constitutional scholar apparently more interested in exploiting perceived holes in the constitution than upholding its grand principles.

    Oops, that's a second great Obama accomplishment that was accidentally omitted form you list above.

    Moneta October 12, 2016 at 8:36 am

    I don't believe Obama could have done otherwise. Without a neolib ideology he would not have made it to President.

    So you are asking him to drop what made him rise to the top.

    PlutoniumKun October 12, 2016 at 8:51 am

    I agree that he has demonstrated a neoliberal-lite ideology, although its a little complicated by the fact that he has several times seemed to have shown that he 'gets' that current policy is wrong headed, but he has consistently shown little or no indication to stand up to the hard liners within the administration. I don't believe he has any foreign policy ideology other than his famous 'don't do stupid' policy, and as such will always go with establishment groupthink.

    I suspect his judgment is not that he had to be a neoliberal to get to the top (Change! Hope!), but he needed to be a neoliberal to ensure he stayed at the top without either an assassins bullet, or a stray recording/email, knocking him off the summit.

    moneta October 12, 2016 at 9:34 am

    I believe he made it to President because he was a Neolib who could make the population believe there would be change. 10 years ago most of the population probably did not even know the word neolib existed. And most of the population thought helocs were God's gift to the USA.

    The fact that Trump is actually a thing shows how screwed up the US is. I can't imagine a president making decisions without dissonance, conflicts or contradictions.

    The us was based on a frontier mentality yet liberals think one Neolib president who spoke of change could change course.

    It's going to take a few presidents because society determines individuals' roles. When someone is very different, society might accept one eccentric touch but not multiple all at once.

    For example, maybe the us needs to go single payer but the golf from private to nationalized is so vast that you can only get there by iteration unless there is a huge shock that permits the leaders to do it in one scoop.

    Ivy October 12, 2016 at 10:51 am

    Many view Obama as a type of Manchurian candidate , sleeper agent or otherwise not who he has been crafted to be. Combine that with a deep distrust by much of the populace, to the extent that they pay attention , of the media, as the latter as a group have largely demonstrated a profound disregard for truth and objectivity.

    Politicians at least swear an oath upon taking office, even if many immediately ignore it, while so-called journalists no longer attempt to self-police or maintain integrity. The media seem to want to act as unelected officials with a seat at the top table.

    BRUCE E. WOYCH October 12, 2016 at 11:45 am

    As plausible deniability goes, Obama merges statecraft with tradecraft seamlessly between overt and covert political propaganda. Charming and disarming to democrats and ideals, his passive stances are often a buffer to the more dangerous background signal being sent as a lurking threat.

    good guy / bad guy writ large. It can be argued that he has used the same role play domestically where most of his constitutional prejudices have been corporate and most of his financial policies equally republican.

    See:

    Obama Resists Hawks As U.S., Russia Step Up War Threats Over Syria

    Posted: 10 Oct 2016 04:25 AM PDT

    http://www.justice-integrity.org/faq/1122-obama-resists-hawks-as-u-s-russia-step-up-war-threats-over-syria
    -----------------
    http://www.justice-integrity.org/

    "Nobody forced Obama…" is a formidable listing while apologists are generally sympathetic to his charm and graceful very likeable personality.
    In fact, (after all is said and done) Obama (as world leaders go) may well go down in history as even a great president and world shaker where amoral realism is counted after all the smoke and mirrors clear.

    History is written by the victor as Napoleon stated succinctly. I suggest to you that his "legacy" that is currently being groomed so carefully, includes some items that researchers and historians will also have to explain more comprehensively than any cult of personality will cover.:
    see:
    https://www.stpete4peace.org/obama-fact-sheet
    http://stpeteforpeace.org/obama.html

    Mark P. October 12, 2016 at 1:32 pm

    PK wrote: 'he had to be a neoliberal to get to the top (Change! Hope!), but he needed to be a neoliberal to ensure he stayed at the top without either an assassins bullet, or a stray recording/email, knocking him off the summit.'

    Moneta is correct. The TBTB knew what was coming. So much as Bernanke with his academic expertise on QE and the Great Depression was preemptively put in place in 2006 at the Fed, Obama was heavily backed by Wall Street under conditions that would have been made clear to him in the 2006-2008 period.

    The most important element of TPTB 's program in backing Obama was the installation of Eric Holder as Attorney General, after Holder had been a primary architect of MERS and mortgage securitization at Covington Burling. Again, a preemptive move to protect Wall Street and forestall any prosecution of those at the top there (and Holder furthermore was conveniently a POC to continue the apparent Change!Hope! pitch).

    I think of it as the Eric Holder administration in retrospect, actually.

    Jack October 12, 2016 at 10:10 am

    What made him rise to the "top" were a multitude of promises made to his party and independents, which he later failed to fulfill. And his failure is almost 100%. He gained the nomination and beat Clinton, who was and is a neo-con, by promising to be different. Instead, he outdid Bush in his war mongering. The promises he made were in part why he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, in advance of him actually having done anything, the award of which is sorely regretted now by those who made it. PlutoniumKun listed some of the things Obama could have avoided but did anyway. One item he failed to mention was the US support of Saudi Arabia in its war on Yemen which has now resulted in the US possibly being liable for the war crimes committed there.

    Portia October 12, 2016 at 12:56 pm

    the perfect Trojan Horse. and could not be criticized for the longest time because he is a minority. now we have a woman who will "make history". never mind what they get up to while in office.

    sinbad66 October 12, 2016 at 8:48 am

    Nobody forced him to continue a policy of isolating and undermining progressive democratic governments in South and Central America.

    A point rarely mentioned. Well said!

    pretzelattack October 12, 2016 at 8:54 am

    maybe cause he talked a lot about change? you know, closing guantanamo, appointing liberals to the bench, prosecuting war criminals and financial criminals, stuff like that. not starting any more wars in the middle east. more will come to me if i think about it. oh yeah, marching with striking union workers. trying to get the public option. taking a hard look at the fisa court. sorry, running out of time here.

    Jack October 12, 2016 at 10:18 am

    Of course it was doable. You are apparently overlooking the fact that for the first 2 years of the Obama presidency he pretty much had a free hand. Both houses of Congress were in the hands of democrats. Only later did the excuse of Republican vitriol have any weight. And lest you forget, the voters weighed Obama in the 2010 mid-terms and found him lacking. Most analysts point to the Democrat losses in that election as a result of Obama's failure to carry out his promised agenda.

    Moneta October 12, 2016 at 10:37 am

    In an alternate universe. Maybe it's because I'm in Canada, but I did not think he would accomplish much. Hard to stop a slow moving train.

    sid_finster October 12, 2016 at 12:27 pm

    Not only did Obama have a free hand in Congress, he had the biggest popular mandate for reform of any president since 1932. And he fucked up.

    JohnnyGL October 12, 2016 at 3:17 pm

    In March of 2009, I recall an FT editorial by Martin Wolf of the Financial Times asking if Obama was already a failure. I had a nagging feeling he was right, and he was.

    On Foreign Policy, Obama's got the thawing of relations with Cuba and the Iran deal. We'll see if those are consolidated as a legacy or rolled-back by his successor.

    With regard to pretty much everything else Obama tried to do, he's failed pretty badly. But supplying weapons to Al Nusra in Syria takes the cake for me. What happened to "don't do stupid stuff?"

    Jeremy Grimm October 12, 2016 at 1:34 pm

    It's really about acting like Hillary's idea of Lincoln. Obama had the nation behind him and Congress, the Bully Pulpit mentioned below, the power to appoint and request the resignations of the leaders of the Executive Branch arms of power, he could have lobbied for changing Rule 22 in the Senate his first year and changed the Senate rules for filibuster, and if Congress sends him a bill he doesn't like he can NOT sign it, and if there is a bill he does like he can actually get behind that bill and twist a few Congressional arms to get what he wants.

    Obama can and has accomplished a great deal in his presidency. The problem is he was accomplishing what he promised to his other supporters - not us.

    human October 12, 2016 at 9:25 am

    This is the very purpose of the bully pulpit presented to Obama in '08. Obama has always been in thrall to his paymasters as demonstrated by his actions during his administrations.

    OIFVet October 12, 2016 at 11:13 am

    What is larger, 200,000 or 6,000. The first nnumber is the number of people who attended candidate 0bama's rally in Berlin in 2008. Heady, hopey changey times they were. The latter number is the number of people who attended president 0bama's rally in Berlin in 2013.

    It is amusing to portray 0bama as a limp-wristed impotent figurehead. He isn't, he believes in American exceptionalism with "every fiber" of his body.

    The results are clear, most regular everyday Euros are quite cynical about the US. 0bama surpassed Bush in creating a number of calamities, and has been heavy handed with our supposed allies, thus destroying the myth of about the supposed "partnership."

    [Oct 12, 2016] If only Frank Sinatra had had the foresight to record the conversations we could now enjoy the lasting record of Senator John F.Kennedys attitudes toward poontang . Meanwhile, nary a word about we came, we saw, he died , as it apparently is just peachy to destroy a country if you want to tick killing an autocrat who is not in the USs pocket off your bucket-list.

    Notable quotes:
    "... If only Frank Sinatra had had the foresight to get a hidden tape spool running, we could now enjoy the lasting record of Senator John F.Kennedy's attitudes toward "poontang". ..."
    "... Anyway, if HRC actually broke the law… shouldn't she face prosecution? I know some people (at amconmag, as it happens) have called for members of the Bush administration to be put on trial. Over here, the demand for Blair to be tried at the Hague for war crimes is now a tired old Left cliche. Obviously, it would be new to demand punishment for the loser just for losing, but that isn't the context here. ..."
    "... Looking at the FB timelines of my 'professional class' milquetoast 'progressive' acquaintances in the US (who all gravitas/te towards Vox), who have since this weekend become unglued, this is very much a case of people deliberately goading themselves into frenzies, tumbling over one another in their attempts to win an apparent virtue-signalling-contest. ..."
    Oct 11, 2016 | crookedtimber.org
    casmilus 10.11.16 at 8:59 am 17
    "For months, I've been beating the drum of the non-novelty of Donald Trump, but try as I might, even I can't remember a presidential candidate caught on tape bragging about assaulting women and grabbing pussy."

    If only Frank Sinatra had had the foresight to get a hidden tape spool running, we could now enjoy the lasting record of Senator John F.Kennedy's attitudes toward "poontang".

    Anyway, if HRC actually broke the law… shouldn't she face prosecution? I know some people (at amconmag, as it happens) have called for members of the Bush administration to be put on trial. Over here, the demand for Blair to be tried at the Hague for war crimes is now a tired old Left cliche. Obviously, it would be new to demand punishment for the loser just for losing, but that isn't the context here.

    Foppe 10.11.16 at 9:39 am 19
    Looking at the FB timelines of my 'professional class' milquetoast 'progressive' acquaintances in the US (who all gravitas/te towards Vox), who have since this weekend become unglued, this is very much a case of people deliberately goading themselves into frenzies, tumbling over one another in their attempts to win an apparent virtue-signalling-contest.

    Meanwhile, nary a word about "we came, we saw, he died", as it apparently is just peachy to destroy a country if you want to tick 'killing an autocrat who is not in the US's pocket' off your bucket-list.

    Foppe 10.11.16 at 10:14 am 20
    To put it bluntly, looking away and excusing evils one "understands" and thinks one can "contain" (except insofar as it affects non-nationals and the bottom 30-40% , anyway, but who cares about them) because the "other side" is perceived to be "more" evil/disruptive/threatening to the status quo is a pattern of behavior that disturbs me far more than the behavior of the other side, however nasty that may be.

    [Oct 12, 2016] Yes, Trump Has Destroyed The GOP

    Rod Dreher hysterics became pretty annoying. He dooes not want to understand that Hillary Clinton is a stuach neocon warmonger, has poor helath, can be impeached even after winning due to emailgate and her platform is actually more of a moderate republican, then a democrat. She is completly in the pcket of major Walll street bank and enjoys this status.
    Oct 10, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com
    Back in May, Michael Lind penned what I still think is the most insightful essay describing what's happening, and what is going to happen, in US politics after this year. With the Left having won the culture war, the parties of the future will be a nationalist GOP vs. a multiculturalist, globalist Democratic Party. Excerpt:

    The outlines of the two-party system of the 2020s and 2030s are dimly visible. The Republicans will be a party of mostly working-class whites, based in the South and West and suburbs and exurbs everywhere. They will favor universal, contributory social insurance systems that benefit them and their families and reward work effort-programs like Social Security and Medicare. But they will tend to oppose means-tested programs for the poor whose benefits they and their families cannot enjoy.

    They will oppose increases in both legal and illegal immigration, in some cases because of ethnic prejudice; in other cases, for fear of economic competition. The instinctive economic nationalism of tomorrow's Republicans could be invoked to justify strategic trade as well as crude protectionism. They are likely to share Trump's view of unproductive finance: "The hedge-fund guys didn't build this country. These are guys that shift paper around and they get lucky."

    The Democrats of the next generation will be even more of an alliance of upscale, progressive whites with blacks and Latinos, based in large and diverse cities. They will think of the U.S. as a version of their multicultural coalition of distinct racial and ethnic identity groups writ large. Many younger progressives will take it for granted that moral people are citizens of the world, equating nationalism and patriotism with racism and fascism.

    The withering-away of industrial unions, thanks to automation as well as offshoring, will liberate the Democrats to embrace free trade along with mass immigration wholeheartedly. The emerging progressive ideology of post-national cosmopolitanism will fit nicely with urban economies which depend on finance, tech and other industries of global scope, and which benefit from a constant stream of immigrants, both skilled and unskilled.

    [Oct 12, 2016] If only Frank Sinatra had had the foresight to get a hidden tape spool running, we could now enjoy the lasting record of Senator John F.Kennedy's attitudes toward "poontang". Meanwhile, nary a word about "we came, we saw, he died", as it apparently is just peachy to destroy a country if you want to tick 'killing an autocrat who is not in the US's pocket' off your bucket-list.

    Oct 12, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    casmilus 10.11.16 at 8:59 am 17

    "For months, I've been beating the drum of the non-novelty of Donald Trump, but try as I might, even I can't remember a presidential candidate caught on tape bragging about assaulting women and grabbing pussy."

    If only Frank Sinatra had had the foresight to get a hidden tape spool running, we could now enjoy the lasting record of Senator John F.Kennedy's attitudes toward "poontang".

    Anyway, if HRC actually broke the law… shouldn't she face prosecution? I know some people (at amconmag, as it happens) have called for members of the Bush administration to be put on trial. Over here, the demand for Blair to be tried at the Hague for war crimes is now a tired old Left cliche. Obviously, it would be new to demand punishment for the loser just for losing, but that isn't the context here.

    Foppe 10.11.16 at 9:39 am 19

    Looking at the FB timelines of my 'professional class' milquetoast 'progressive' acquaintances in the US (who all gravitas/te towards Vox), who have since this weekend become unglued, this is very much a case of people deliberately goading themselves into frenzies, tumbling over one another in their attempts to win an apparent virtue-signalling-contest.

    Meanwhile, nary a word about "we came, we saw, he died", as it apparently is just peachy to destroy a country if you want to tick 'killing an autocrat who is not in the US's pocket' off your bucket-list.

    Foppe 10.11.16 at 10:14 am 20

    To put it bluntly, looking away and excusing evils one "understands" and thinks one can "contain" (except insofar as it affects non-nationals and the bottom 30-40% , anyway, but who cares about them) because the "other side" is perceived to be "more" evil/disruptive/threatening to the status quo is a pattern of behavior that disturbs me far more than the behavior of the other side, however nasty that may be.

    [Oct 12, 2016] The Case for a Two-Faced Hillary Clinton

    Notable quotes:
    "... I better like the reasoning in Basic Instinct when Sharon Stone just after passing a lie detector test said to Nick in reference to his killing civilians while on cocaine: "You see Nick … we're both innocent." ..."
    "... Even the liberal Harvard Law School … ..."
    Oct 12, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    The New Republic

    "In an election in which one of the nominees is promising he'll make great deals-that he'll deliver everything under the sun, without remotely explaining how any of it would be politically possible-there's something bold, even radical, in espousing such a practical philosophy for political deal-making.

    Maybe it's not a popular message in this populist moment, but it would have the virtue of being honest."

    timbers October 11, 2016 at 2:27 pm

    The Trail

    "The Case for a 'Two-Faced' Hillary Clinton" [The New Republic]. "In an election in which one of the nominees is promising he'll make great deals-that he'll deliver everything under the sun, without remotely explaining how any of it would be politically possible-there's something bold, even radical, in espousing such a practical philosophy for political deal-making. Maybe it's not a popular message in this populist moment, but it would have the virtue of being honest."

    I better like the reasoning in Basic Instinct when Sharon Stone just after passing a lie detector test said to Nick in reference to his killing civilians while on cocaine: "You see Nick … we're both innocent."

    Yikes:

    "We therefore hold that the CFPB is unconstitutionally structured,' the court said" … PHH said the law creating the CFPB gave an unaccountable director too much authority."

    Can we get this same judge to rule on the constitutionality of the AUMF, Patriot Act, or any case brought regarding NSA spyiny?

    allan October 11, 2016 at 2:38 pm

    "Can we get this same judge to rule on the constitutionality of the AUMF, Patriot Act, or any case brought regarding NSA spyiny?"

    Unfortunately, this very same judge has a long history on those issues,
    including time in the Bush Cheney White House before getting a lifetime appointment on the bench,
    and for the most part it's not pretty. Emptywheel has an entire archive devoted to him.

    Vatch October 11, 2016 at 2:59 pm

    This segues into an argument in favor of voting for Hillary Clinton that I can't rebut: Republicans appoint bad people to both the Executive branch and to the Judiciary, but Democrats only appoint bad people to the Executive branch. Therefore, one should vote for Hillary Clinton, Democrat. I've oversimplified the argument, but in general, that's what some people have told me, and I don't have a good counter argument.

    That doesn't mean I'm going to vote for Clinton. She's a crook. I'll either leave the Presidential part of the ballot blank, or vote for Stein, despite my great annoyance over some of the things that Ajamu Baraka has said.

    nippersmom October 11, 2016 at 3:28 pm

    Merrick Garland, Obama's latest nominee, is pro-Ciizen's United, so not sure how "good" he is. Conventional wisdom about Democratic vs. Republican appointees to the bench would seem suspect to me in a day when the Overton window has shifted so far to the right that the Democratic candidate for President is more conservative, more pro-business, more hawkish, and less environmentally responsible than Richard Nixon,

    Vatch October 11, 2016 at 4:56 pm

    I challenge you to find any Democratic judicial appointments of the past 3 decades that are as bad as Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, or Samuel Alito.

    As for Garland, he's not good, but he's certainly not as bad as any Republican nominee would be. And he hasn't even been confirmed.

    nippersmom October 11, 2016 at 5:01 pm

    Hillary is surrounding herself with exactly the same cast of characters as those who appointed the judges you name. Why do you think her taste in justices will be any different than her taste in policy advisors or potential cabinet members?

    After Clinton signs the TPP, the Supreme Court will be moot anyway.

    Vatch October 11, 2016 at 5:10 pm

    Obama's Executive branch appointments have been dismal, but his judicial appointments seem to be better - Sotomayor and Kagan. Bill Clinton appointed Breyer and Ginsburg. None of these 4 judges is remotely like Scalia.

    I strongly suspect that Hillary Clinton would nominate similar judges.

    We definitely don't want the TPP to pass. We need to keep the pressure on Congress, so we don't have to worry about what a President might do.

    I reiterate: there are many things wrong with Clinton, and I will not vote for her.

    I appreciate the feedback.

    allan October 11, 2016 at 5:17 pm

    Sotomayor has been great, but Kagan has been a mixed bag. She voted (in a losing dissent, along with Scalia, Kennedy and Silent Clarence) , to allow Sarbanes-Oxley to be used against a fisherman for throwing his catch overboard. She was to the right of Roberts on this one.
    Even the liberal Harvard Law School …

    marym October 11, 2016 at 3:44 pm

    Clinton's first "appointment," first in the line of succession, Tim Kaine, is pro-TPP, pro-Hyde Amendment, anti-labor (pro-right-to-work-for-nothing), and pro-intervention in Syria.

    Vatch October 11, 2016 at 4:51 pm

    Tim Kaine would be in the Executive branch, not the Judiciary.

    timbers October 11, 2016 at 3:52 pm

    Know what you mean but try asking people who bring up judges as the reason to vote blue, why should we believe that when Dems can't even deliver on judges when their nominee is a REPUBLICAN for goodness sakes? Then take exaggerated offense at being expected to settle for so LITTLE .

    Just a suggestion.

    Vatch October 11, 2016 at 5:18 pm

    I appreciate the feedback. However, I don't think it's clear that Garland is a Republican. Prior to nominating him, there were trial balloons from the White House suggesting that Republican Brian Sandoval of Nevada would be chosen.

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef October 11, 2016 at 5:37 pm

    A good counter argument is this: Hillary is a Republican.

    WJ October 11, 2016 at 3:34 pm

    The New Republic piece is a festering pile of shit, and I intend that phrase as purely descriptive account of the object.

    This is a woman who with her husband earned over $139 MILLION DOLLARS in paid speeches to the .1%–the OLIGARCHY–between 2007-2014 ALONE!

    And yet the cretin of a human being calling himself the author of this "piece" [of shit] chooses to insult my intelligence–yea, even perpetrate fraud upon the species!–by pretending as if this UNQUESTIONABLE FACT is simply IRRELEVANT to Clinton's "nuanced"–[insert sounds of my heaving vomit]–distinction between her public and private position. A DISTINCTION THAT WOULD ITSELF HAVE BEEN WITHHELD FROM THE PUBLIC RECORD IF IT HAD NOT BEEN LEAKED BY WIKILEAKS, THE FOUNDER OF WHOM SHE HAS PROPOSED BE MURDERED BY DRONE STRIKE!!

    No, MY PROBLEM, YOUR PROBLEM, ANYBODY'S PROBLEM with this avaricious sociopathic warmongering ulcerous wretch is–MUST BE–that she is a WOMAN?!

    "As substantively defensible-even virtuous-as dealmaking can be, taking this tack runs the risk of confirming the public's worst fears about Clinton: that she's dishonest and lacking in core conviction. That notion, which has a gendered element to it…." [but might also perhaps not be unrelated to her long history of manipulation, lying, stealing, backstabbing, fraud, embezzlement, fraud, more lying, murder, more murder, more fraud]…

    Fuck it. The oligarchy doesn't even have to be good at "public relations" anymore. Might as well get ahead of the curve and move to Brazil.

    Jim Haygood October 11, 2016 at 4:06 pm

    The "gendered element" canard hyperlinks to a WaPo article containing this statement from one of the interviewees:

    "Research on gender stereotypes has shown that women are often perceived as more honest than their male counterparts."

    Meaning that even with a head start thanks to favorable bias, Hillary is still perceived as deceitful.

    Heckuva job, Hillary.

    Prufrock October 11, 2016 at 4:48 pm

    PHH is horrible. They purchased my mortgage last year, and started forclosure proceedings within the 60 day grace period while my autopayment was still going to the previous servicer (as allowed by law). Their customer support in Asia lied repeatedly, and when I starting informing them that I would record the calls, they would hang up or refuse to talk to me.

    They finally acknowledged their error after 3-4 calls (particularly once I found out I had to keep asking for a supervisor until I was connected to the US), but it was a huge waste of my time.

    john k October 11, 2016 at 5:02 pm

    It was actually a great investment of your time.

    Jim Haygood October 11, 2016 at 2:41 pm

    Four legs good, two legs bad - photo of a fetching young centaur from Comic Con in NYC:

    http://tinyurl.com/zyujq3q

    Not to be confused with COMECON, the trade pact among the eastern bloc during Soviet days.

    allan October 11, 2016 at 2:53 pm

    Nor to be confused with ECOMCON .

    ambrit October 11, 2016 at 4:55 pm

    Nor the 'Necrotelecomnicon.' The handy guide to contacting H Clinton's core advisor circle. As for which precise 'circle' (of H-,) H Clintons advisors come from; opinions are divided.

    [Oct 11, 2016] The US Surrendered Its Right To Accuse Russia Of War Crimes A Long Time Ago

    Looks like Obama in working overclock to ensure the election of Trump ... anti-Russian hysteria might have results different that he expects. Whether we are to have a world of sovereign nation-states or one in which a single imperial superpower contends with increasingly fragmentary post-national and sub-national threats around the globe will depend on the decisions that are made in the near future: in the next few years.
    Oct 11, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    Submitted by Darius Shahtahmasebi via TheAntiMedia.org,

    Renowned journalist Glenn Greenwald recently tweeted the three rules of American exceptionalism :

    3 rules of US Exceptionalism: 1) Our killing is better than theirs; 2) Nothing we do can be "terrorism"; 3) Only enemies are "war criminals"

    - Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) October 6, 2016

    Greenwald's astute observations were presumably made in response to Secretary of State John Kerry's recent remarks that both Russia and Syria should face war crimes investigations for their recent attacks on Syrian civilians.

    "Russia and the regime owe the world more than an explanation about why they keep hitting hospitals, and medical facilities, and women and children," Mr. Kerry said in Washington, where he spoke alongside French Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault, as reported by the Independent .

    Unsurprisingly, Russia responded by urging caution regarding allegations of war crimes considering the United States has been waging wars in a number of countries since the end of World War II. It has picked up a number of allegations of war crimes in the process.

    Kerry's continuous accusations that Russia bombed hospital infrastructure are particularly hypocritical in light of the fact the United States has bombed hospitals in Iraq and Afghanistan on more than one occasion over past decade.

    Further, former congressman Ron Paul's Institute for Peace and Prosperity hit back at Kerry, accusing him of completely fabricating the most recent alleged hospital attack. As the Institute noted :

    " In a press event yesterday, before talks with the French Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault about a new UN resolution, he said ( vid @1:00) about Syria:

    "'Last night, the regime attacked yet another hospital, and 20 people were killed and 100 people were wounded. And Russia and the regime owe the world more than an explanation about why they keep hitting hospitals and medical facilities and children and women. These are acts that beg for an appropriate investigation of war crimes. And those who commit these would and should be held accountable for these actions.'

    " No opposition group has claimed that such an extremely grave event happened. None. No press agency has a record of it. The MI-6 disinformation outlet SOHR in Britain, which quite reliably notes every claimed casualty and is frequently cited in 'western media,' has not said anything about such an event anywhere in Syria. "

    However, the most disturbing aspect of Kerry's allegation is that the accusations against Russia run in tandem with Saudi Arabia's brutal assault on Yemen. Saudi Arabia, with the aid of a few regional players - and with ongoing American and British assistance (not to mention billion dollar arms sales ) - has been bombing Yemen back into the Stone Age without any legal basis whatsoever. Often, the Saudi-led coalition has completely decimated civilian infrastructure, which has led a number of groups to accuse the coalition of committing war crimes in the process.

    Civilians and civilian infrastructure have been struck so routinely that the world has become increasingly concerned the actual targets of the coalition strikes are civilians (what could be a greater recruitment tool for al-Qaeda and ISIS in Yemen?) As noted by Foreign Policy :

    "The Houthis and their allies - armed groups loyal to Saleh - are the declared targets of the coalition's 1-year-old air campaign. In reality, however, it is the civilians, such as Basrallah and Rubaid, and their children, who are predominantly the victims of this protracted war. Hundreds of civilians have been killed in airstrikes while asleep in their homes, when going about their daily activities, or in the very places where they had sought refuge from the conflict. The United States, Britain, and others, meanwhile, have continued to supply a steady stream of weaponry and logistical support to Saudi Arabia and its coalition."

    Yemen is the poorest , most impoverished nation in the Arab world . The Saudi-led coalition has been striking refugee camps , schools , wedding parties and well over 100 hospitals to date . The coalition has been strongly suspected of using banned munitions such as cluster bombs. The country now has more than half a million children at serious risk of malnutrition . More than 21 million out of the total population of 25 million are in serious need of basic humanitarian assistance .

    Just take one example of the cruel and disproportionate use of force that Saudi Arabia has used in Yemen (using American-made and supplied aircraft and weapons) - against Judge Yahya Rubaid and his family. As Foreign Policy reported in March of this year:

    "According to family members, Rubaid was a judge on a case against Yemeni President Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi, for treason in absentia. It is unclear whether his house was attacked for this reason. What is clear, however, is that there was no legally valid basis for bombing his home, as he and his family were civilians and under international law should not have been deliberately targeted."

    At the time this article's publication, over 140 Yemenis had been killed and another 500 injured in a Saudi-coalition aerial attack on a funeral over the weekend. The civilian death toll continues to rise in Yemen, completely unchallenged by any major players at the U.N. When the U.N. does attempt to quell Saudi actions , the Saudis threaten severe economic retaliation.

    How Kerry can accuse Russia of committing war crimes in Syria with a straight face is unclear, as reports of atrocious crimes committed in Yemen continue to surface.

    This is not to say Russia and Syria should not be investigated for war crimes – but maybe, just maybe, we could live in a world where everyone responsible for committing these gross acts could be held accountable, instead of just those who pose an economic threat to the West . Mango327 38BWD22 Oct 11, 2016 3:47 PM

    If Russia Acted Like The USA...
    http://youtu.be/uhqZFWDeaB4
    SidSays 38BWD22 Oct 11, 2016 3:50 PM
    All wars are, well...

    All wars are banker's wars .

    Katos 38BWD22 Oct 11, 2016 4:35 PM
    Madeline Albright, "Yes, I think the death of 500,000 Iraqi children under the age of 5 years old by US sanctions, was a good price that had to be paid so we could get to Sadam Hussein "??? This bitch along with Kissinger, Soros, Rice, Clinton, Obama, Kerry, and all the news organizations who have been cheerleaders for the slaughter of innocents should all be charged with Crimes against humanity and SHOT!
    PrayingMantis Oct 11, 2016 3:39 PM

    ... US: "Who you gonna believe, us or your own eyes" ~ Groucho Marx

    Ignatius PrayingMantis Oct 11, 2016 3:58 PM

    "Who wants to be the last man to die for a mistake?" -- John Kerry, 197x

    That was the supposed anti-war Kerry speaking of the Vietnam War, who rode such comments into a congressional seat. We didn't know then that he was Skull and Bones or what it might mean. Now we know it in spades.

    Now it's clear he's just a lying sack of war mongering, deep state shit.

    crazybob369 Oct 11, 2016 3:45 PM
    To quote Goebbels:

    "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie."

    Chupacabra-322 crazybob369 Oct 11, 2016 4:44 PM
    Goebbels used "Gas Lighting" as a form of Psychological manipulation on a population on a mass scale. Operation Mocking Bird. It continues on today. 365 days a year, 24hrs a day, 7 days a week. The Psyche Warefare / PsyOp War does not clos
    Felix da Kat Oct 11, 2016 4:03 PM
    There is an assumption that Russia would never go to war with the US over the Syrian dispute. But yet, Russia is preparing for war. It has both first-strike and counter-strike capability in the event the west (US State Dept.) continues with its bullying tactics and further escalates its hostility. Russia is a sovereign nation; it has both the right and the power to do what is in the best interests of its citizenry and its allies (Assad).

    The US used to be that way until it was over-run in a silent, but effective liberal-coup that has taken full control and stupidly re-newed the cold war with Russia.

    And now America has been left more vulnerable that it ever has been. A simple shut-down of the electric grid for several months, will, by itself, cut the population in half.

    Ultra-liberalism is ultra self-destructive... we're about to see just how destructive that really is.

    Kyddyl Oct 11, 2016 4:07 PM
    Well this is a refreshing start, but only a start. Russia certainly had nothing to do with the gunships that bombed the hospitals in Afghanistan into powder, killing patients including children, doctors, nurses and other personell.

    I for one would like to know who it was who flew those planes and have them explain to all of us why they did not refuse orders? What sort of morals have Americans got to behave ths way? The hospitals bombed in Syria, ditto. The Saudis are the beasts they are and somebody needs to bomb them into oblivion. (Perhaps take out some other smug financial centers too!) But Yemen is a very poor sandy country to begin with and Saudi must think there's oil or something there. If some of the weapons used there weren't tactical nukes they sure looked like them. Gee. Wonder where they got them?

    . . . _ _ _ . . . Oct 11, 2016 4:16 PM
    Chomsky's been saying it for decades, "If they do it, they're terrorists; if we do it, we're freedom fighters."

    My take is that if you are the head of a government, you are a psychopath and any categorization beyond this is moot.

    Clinton / Trump, Obama / Putin, Assad / Erdogan, UN / Nationalism, whoever it may be, they're all playing the same game, and we're not even allowed to watch, much less comment.

    The only thing trickling-down (through a historical perspective) should be blood.

    taketheredpill Oct 11, 2016 4:26 PM

    A cynical person might suggest that the volume of US War Drums is inversely proportional to the strength of the US economy.

    It's as if the boys at the top

    1) know the economy is already in the toilet

    2) know that the next financial meltdown is going to be a real hum-dinger

    3) know that the unwashed masses will need a really big distraction when the next meltdown hits

    [Oct 10, 2016] Why is the electorate seemingly more concerned with someone who is antagonistic towards certain women than someone whose policies are antagonistic to whole nations and regions

    Notable quotes:
    "... If nothing else, the I'm-with-her whole hog approach of the media to this election should put the lie to the notion that we have anything resembling a functioning press. ..."
    "... Additionally, the blind adherence by the press to Hillary's spin that Trump would put her in jail amounts to a dictatorship ignores the fact that previous to that statement Trump had said he would push for a special prosecutor. IOW, a completely legalized, judicially approved criminal investigation. ..."
    "... I agree about the press becoming so bought over by Hillary. Watched some speech Trump was giving a month or so ago and he talked about Iraq as I recall and the press totally spun it into some different meaning altogether. Funny thing was the next day Trump was giving another speech which I also happened to see and made mention of what he said the day before and what the press turned his comment into – from that point on I became very leery of believing anything they tell me. I too was amazed that almost immediately last night the press began reporting that Trump was talking to a dictatorship by saying he wanted her in jail when in fact that was completely taken out of context as well (as you mentioned above). ..."
    "... I think the press has become very scary with all the power it has to twist the truth or what has been said as easily and quickly as they do. They must be very frightened by Trump. ..."
    Oct 10, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    David Carl Grimes October 10, 2016 at 6:38 pm

    Why is the electorate seemingly more concerned with someone who is antagonistic towards certain women than someone whose policies are antagonistic to whole nations and regions. Why aren't the Wikileaks email revelations getting more traction or generating more outrage?

    OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL October 10, 2016 at 6:57 pm

    Um do you think the fact that Pravda CNN is extolling the virtues of the One Party Candidate nonstop has anything to do with it?

    pretzelattack October 10, 2016 at 7:04 pm

    oh i thought the post was pravda and the nyt izvestia. but then there's the guardian and cnn and the rest of the sad industry.

    OIFVet October 10, 2016 at 7:28 pm

    That's capitalism for ya :)

    ProNewerDeal October 10, 2016 at 7:31 pm

    True. BigMedia is barely covering the Wikileaks story. My summary is that HClinton has a fake "public position" & a genuine private position, that is pro-Grand Ripoff SS & MC cuts, & pro-TPP. It should be a huge story, in that it calls as questionable any of HClinton's stated policies, & given that Sanders repeatedly made the Wall $treet transcripts a major issue in the Primaries.

    It takes a USian with intellectual curiosity, some free time, & enough critical thinking to go to one of the few internet sources like nakedcapitalism or SecularTalk that actually will cover the Wikileaks story honestly. IMHO sadly this is a small minority of the US eligible voter population.

    BTW for Sanders to maintain my respect, he needs to "make news" in BigMedia by saying something like "my support of HClinton is contingent on her 'public position' the approves the 2016 D party platform, which is anti-TPP & anti-SS & MC cuts. If HClinton is elected & signs the TPP or SS/MC cuts, she will be strongly primary challenged in 2020, & I will not support her if the Rs ever impeach her"

    sleepy October 10, 2016 at 7:02 pm

    If nothing else, the I'm-with-her whole hog approach of the media to this election should put the lie to the notion that we have anything resembling a functioning press.

    Just one example–I listened to some Clinton operative on msnbc radio today who was giving his weaselly spin on Hillary's private position v. public position statement and who said that it was only a few sentences out of an entire speech and needed to be viewed in context. Chuck Todd, I think it was, never made note of the fact that there is no context to those statements since the speeches have not and will not be released. There is no available context and Chuck just muttered uh huh and let it pass.

    Additionally, the blind adherence by the press to Hillary's spin that Trump would put her in jail amounts to a dictatorship ignores the fact that previous to that statement Trump had said he would push for a special prosecutor. IOW, a completely legalized, judicially approved criminal investigation.

    Susan C October 10, 2016 at 8:12 pm

    I agree about the press becoming so bought over by Hillary. Watched some speech Trump was giving a month or so ago and he talked about Iraq as I recall and the press totally spun it into some different meaning altogether. Funny thing was the next day Trump was giving another speech which I also happened to see and made mention of what he said the day before and what the press turned his comment into – from that point on I became very leery of believing anything they tell me. I too was amazed that almost immediately last night the press began reporting that Trump was talking to a dictatorship by saying he wanted her in jail when in fact that was completely taken out of context as well (as you mentioned above).

    I think the press has become very scary with all the power it has to twist the truth or what has been said as easily and quickly as they do. They must be very frightened by Trump.

    [Oct 10, 2016] Where were the questions to Hillary?

    Notable quotes:
    "... Chekov said something like: "If you show a gun in Act One, make sure it goes off in Act Three." So, Act One was bringing in Bill Clinton's accusers. But then nothing. Odd. ..."
    "... * Interesting comment from the analyst after, something like: "I was talking to Trump voters in Ohio. They say they know exactly who he is" (and from the analyst's tone, that wasn't positive with respect to his character. I think a lot of voters, across the spectrum, are appalled by the choices, which is what the trust/likeability numbers are telling us) ..."
    "... In retrospect, all the media questioning whether or not Trump would be effective in this kind of venue seems silly. Of course Trump can work a room. ..."
    "... When Trump says he will put Hillary in jail, what do you think his kids and wife see regarding a Clinton presidency? Will she go after her enemies? ..."
    "... Media going blatantly in the tank prob boosts turnout for trump. Cnn concedes trump did pretty well. Fox seems contented with him. Glad to see him break with pence on russia. Glad to see him say get isis, not assad. Aleo enjoyed him zinging clinton. ..."
    "... With all the Russian efforts to undermine our democracy I can only hope we return to paper ballots hand counted in front of skeptical witnesses to the process. ..."
    "... No mention of any laws broken by any previous presidents. No concerns about droning us citizens, no sweating any wars of opportunity. ..."
    "... Trump absolutely dominated this debate. Hillary was on the ropes all night. The moderation was pretty good too. ..."
    "... CNN directs us dweebs that this was a "contentious, nasty debate". It was contentious but aren't most debates like that? Nasty? Not that much. Sometimes but not as much as I thought it could be. ..."
    "... HuffPo headline: "Don in Flames" I think, all things considered, he did fine. Neither one is offering any serious or meaningful solutions to anything we need. ..."
    "... On the other had, HRC kept treating the debate like the white-shoe lawyer she is. "Refer to my website" = "I filed a brief on this." No one reads either. Too much relying on subtle distinctions. Worst of all, most of the time she speaks with no passion or genuineness. This is death to a lawyer speaking to a jury. ..."
    "... She wants the debate to be like a federal class action case with multiple motions and lengthy affidavits and briefs that the Judge's top-of-their-law-school-class clerks will dissect and recommend a decision upon. ..."
    "... The genius of this is that Trump is the device through which all of the real arguments against Clinton, the ones relating to criminal conduct and atrocious policy, are symbolically cleansed, ritually bled out. Trump as the public's cry for contrition and oh, how she has suffered for her vanity! Yet she is redeemed through him. She has crossed the pit of burning hard drives and she is sorry for her sins, but after all, America is nothing if not a forgiving nation. ..."
    "... Once again we see America will get the president it deserves. The world? Not so much. ..."
    Oct 10, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    John October 9, 2016 at 10:40 pm

    Where were the questions about the 30 million illegals?
    About the H-1B sand Greencard foreigners taking our jobs?
    About health care we can't afford?
    About corporations paying no taxes?
    About people killing themselves with heroin because they have no hope,
    no way out of poverty?

    Kurt Sperry October 9, 2016 at 10:42 pm

    Trump did better than the first debate, where I thought he was destroyed. I'm not sure who won, both were pretty repulsive. I really, really dislike the both of them, whether on policies or on personality.

    RUKidding October 9, 2016 at 10:44 pm

    Agree. Both are liars. Trump handled himself better than expected.

    justanotherprogressive October 9, 2016 at 10:45 pm

    It doesn't matter who won. The pundits will spend several days telling you who won and that your eyes and ears are lying again….
    Frankly, from the comments above, it is pretty obvious America was embarrased again……glad I didn't watch it……

    Lambert Strether Post author October 9, 2016 at 10:48 pm

    No contrition from Trump, either, even though that's what the establishment wants (not that any amount of contrition would work).

    Which makes sense: 1) His base doesn't care 2) Backing down would be worse than gutting it out, because backing down would make him look weak, destroying his brand.*

    Chekov said something like: "If you show a gun in Act One, make sure it goes off in Act Three." So, Act One was bringing in Bill Clinton's accusers. But then nothing. Odd.

    * Interesting comment from the analyst after, something like: "I was talking to Trump voters in Ohio. They say they know exactly who he is" (and from the analyst's tone, that wasn't positive with respect to his character. I think a lot of voters, across the spectrum, are appalled by the choices, which is what the trust/likeability numbers are telling us).

    John October 9, 2016 at 10:50 pm

    It was to rattle Hillary. And she did look uncomfortable, uneasy, all night. Didn't help her.

    relstprof October 9, 2016 at 10:58 pm

    Once the crowd reacted positively to his "33K emails" attacks, he calmed down. I got the sense he decided he didn't have to go low, since there were some in the room still on his side.

    In retrospect, all the media questioning whether or not Trump would be effective in this kind of venue seems silly. Of course Trump can work a room.

    I'd score it a tie, though.

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef October 9, 2016 at 11:45 pm

    When Trump says he will put Hillary in jail, what do you think his kids and wife see regarding a Clinton presidency? Will she go after her enemies?

    Is that kabuki or profile in courage?

    Kim Kaufman October 9, 2016 at 10:50 pm

    NPR doing "fact check." They hate Trump.

    johnnygl October 9, 2016 at 10:51 pm

    Media going blatantly in the tank prob boosts turnout for trump. Cnn concedes trump did pretty well. Fox seems contented with him. Glad to see him break with pence on russia. Glad to see him say get isis, not assad. Aleo enjoyed him zinging clinton.

    He's still an idiot and has terrible policy ideas.

    Jeremy Grimm October 9, 2016 at 11:30 pm

    With all the Russian efforts to undermine our democracy I can only hope we return to paper ballots hand counted in front of skeptical witnesses to the process.

    crittermom October 10, 2016 at 12:34 am

    With all the talk about 'the Russians did it", I'm tempted to write in Putin just to p*ss off the Dems! (but I won't) Both candidates suck worse than a tornado.

    johnnygl October 9, 2016 at 11:10 pm

    Cnn people very much on edge. Dana bash breathless at trump saying he'd put her in jail. Said that's what makes us different than African dictators, stalin and hitler. I'm not kidding.

    No mention of any laws broken by any previous presidents. No concerns about droning us citizens, no sweating any wars of opportunity.

    RUKidding October 9, 2016 at 11:17 pm

    You expected truth from CNN? Good effen luck w that.

    Roger Smith October 9, 2016 at 11:10 pm

    Trump absolutely dominated this debate. Hillary was on the ropes all night. The moderation was pretty good too.

    RUKidding October 9, 2016 at 11:20 pm

    CNN directs us dweebs that this was a "contentious, nasty debate". It was contentious but aren't most debates like that? Nasty? Not that much. Sometimes but not as much as I thought it could be.

    megamike48 October 9, 2016 at 11:24 pm

    The clearest indication of character is what people find laughable. J.W. von Goethe

    Kim Kaufman October 9, 2016 at 11:36 pm

    HuffPo headline: "Don in Flames" I think, all things considered, he did fine. Neither one is offering any serious or meaningful solutions to anything we need. It was, unfortunately, just some lame entertainment and both remain equally unlikable and untrustworthy and unhelpful.

    Sammy Maudlin October 10, 2016 at 12:02 am

    Watching this I kept thinking that Trump has been working with trial lawyers to prepare.

    He used a lot of tricks trial lawyers use to influence juries. One, don't let the facts get in the way of a good story (i.e. Why didn't you as one of 100 senators change the tax code? Answer: "if she was an effective senator she could have"). Another is make the jury think the judge is biased against you. The main one is put the black hat on your opponent and keep it there. Jury trials are pretty simple affairs that way, the big thing is to make the other side the bad guy.

    On the other had, HRC kept treating the debate like the white-shoe lawyer she is. "Refer to my website" = "I filed a brief on this." No one reads either. Too much relying on subtle distinctions. Worst of all, most of the time she speaks with no passion or genuineness. This is death to a lawyer speaking to a jury.

    She wants the debate to be like a federal class action case with multiple motions and lengthy affidavits and briefs that the Judge's top-of-their-law-school-class clerks will dissect and recommend a decision upon.

    But it's not. It's an afternoon trial in front of a bunch of bored people sitting in a jury box in a hot county courthouse. "Smart" lawyers get creamed by savvy ones in that situation all the time. That's what I saw tonight.

    Fiver October 10, 2016 at 12:26 am

    Some low-watt bulb writing tomorrow is going to say 'This is how America does politics, does democracy. We let it all hang out. A big old barn burner. A national catharsis, a venting of pent-up emotion and frustration at some things in America and the world that just haven't worked out for everybody, no matter how hard we try. This is good for America, even necessary, in fact it's what makes us Americans. We deal with things and move on. Let all that poison out. And we move on. I'm inclined to think the third debate will be a much more civil affair.'

    The genius of this is that Trump is the device through which all of the real arguments against Clinton, the ones relating to criminal conduct and atrocious policy, are symbolically cleansed, ritually bled out. Trump as the public's cry for contrition and oh, how she has suffered for her vanity! Yet she is redeemed through him. She has crossed the pit of burning hard drives and she is sorry for her sins, but after all, America is nothing if not a forgiving nation.

    Raise your right hand, Mrs. Clinton, and repeat after me….no, your right hand, please…

    Tertium Squid October 10, 2016 at 1:17 am

    Once again we see America will get the president it deserves. The world? Not so much.

    [Oct 10, 2016] There's a lawsuit out there accusing Trump of raping somebody with known pederast Jeff Epstein

    Oct 10, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    NY Union Guy October 10, 2016 at 2:27 pm

    Not sure if this has made the rounds on NC yet, but there's a lawsuit out there accusing Trump of raping somebody with known pederast Jeff Epstein.

    http://www.courthousenews.com/2016/09/30/rape-allegations-refiled-against-trump.htm

    Will there be a November surprise in addition to the customary October surprise?

    Pat October 10, 2016 at 2:41 pm

    Possibly, it will be interesting to see if the Clinton camp is going to use this, and if so how Bill will be protected. Could be a case of Mutually Assured Destruction.

    Kim Kaufman October 10, 2016 at 4:13 pm

    Don't think Clinton can use this:

    The One Percent

    The Billionaire Pedophile Who Could Bring Down Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton

    "Trump's supporters have long wondered whether he'd use billionaire sicko Jeffrey Epstein as ammo against the Clintons-until a lurid new lawsuit accused The Donald of raping one of Epstein's girls himself."

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/06/30/the-billionaire-pedophile-who-could-bring-down-donald-trump-and-hillary-clinton.html

    There's plenty other stuff if you google "Jeff Epstein" and "Bill Clinton"

    It's all pretty vile but not at all surprising for what these overage, entitled "stars" do behind the scenes.

    I never got a chance to respond to Yves' comment to my comment about Schwarzenegger a few days ago. Three women came forward to accuse him of groping (or whatever – I, mercifully, forget the details now). Arnold, with Maria standing dutifully by his side, publicly apologized and it all went away.

    My contention is that: 1) there were many, many more women who didn't come forward (the threat of never working again in Hollywood is very real – Arnold was represented by one of the most powerful and nastiest law firms) and 2) it all disappeared quickly from the media because Arnold was able to buy off and intimidate the media.

    But the stories I read in alternate media at the time were pretty awful. I can only imagine the lewd bragging Arnold did behind the scenes. Don't forget that Arnold was screwing the nanny and sired a child with her while the nanny was living under the same roof as him and Maria. "The rich are different than you and I."

    [Oct 10, 2016] Trump Defies Critics, Signals Attack On Bill Clinton Ahead Of Crucial Debate Zero Hedge

    Oct 10, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com

    While the Trump Tape scandal may end up far less damaging to the Trump campaign than many pundits predicted, confirmed by several polls this morning which showed rank-and-file Trump supporters barely changed their opinion of the candidate in the aftermath of the hot mic recording leaked on Friday afternoon, he will have to pull off a strong debate performance while ignoring loud calls from both the press and top elected republicans to step aside, in order to offset a decline in polls has suffered since the first debate.

    That may be easier said than done, especially since over the past 24 hours Trump has seen a barrage of attacks not only from the left but also from his own party, with dozens of GOP lawmakers calling for him to stand down. As Fox wrote earlier , Trump was already struggling through a tough couple of weeks, after the first debate with Clinton, in which she argued Trump was verbally abusive to a 1996 Miss Universe winner. Still, trying to appear unfazed, Trump struck a defiant tone on Sunday in the face of calls for him to abandon the U.S. presidential race, attacking prominent Republicans and saying he has "tremendous support."

    As he so often has done in times of campaign stress, Trump took to social media to try to squelch any speculation that he could leave the race. "Tremendous support (except for some Republican leadership"). Thank you," Trump wrote on Twitter.

    "So many self-righteous hypocrites. Watch their poll numbers - and elections - go down!" Trump tweeted, apparently referring to Republican lawmakers seeking re-election who have withdrawn their support for him over a 2005 video that emerged on Friday.

    The negative speculation over the fate of Trump's campaign was the bulk of Saturday's news cycle, and continued on Sunday.

    As Reuters writes, Clinton communications director Jennifer Palmieri told reporters on Clinton's campaign plane: "We understand that this is uncharted territory ... to face an opponent that is in the grips of a downward spiral in terms of his own party belatedly walking away from him." A source close to the campaign of Trump's vice presidential running mate, Mike Pence, dismissed talk among some political analysts the Indiana governor might bolt the ticket in the uproar over Trump's comments. "Absolutely not," the source told Reuters.

    Meanwhile, as noted above, with Republican Party leaders in crisis mode and doubts emerging over Trump's ability to draw support from crucial undecided voters, it appeared that many of Trump's core supporters would remain loyal despite the hot mic incident. A public opinion poll by POLITICO/Morning Consult, taken just after news broke of the video, found 39 percent of voters thought Trump should withdraw, and 45 percent said he should stay. Of those who said Trump should leave, only 12 percent identified themselves as Republicans.

    Suggesting blowback may be in store for some Republicans who attacked Trump, House Speaker Paul Ryan was heckled by Trump supporters at a rally in his congressional district in Wisconsin on Saturday, after having disinvited Trump following the release of the recording of Trump making lewd remarks. "You better back Trump!" they yelled. "You turned your back on him!" "Shame on you!"

    But while there has been much verbal speculation about the future of the Trump campaign, now one month ahead of the election, in practice it would be virtually impossible to replace Trump. As we reported previously, in what have been largely symbolic moves, at least two Republican governors, 10 senators and 11 House of Representatives members withdrew their support of Trump, with some advising him to drop out of the race, including John Thune of South Dakota, a member of the Senate Republican leadership. But, as Reuters notes, any attempt to replace Trump on the ballot would face huge legal and logistical hurdles. The Trump campaign fought back, circulating "talking points" to a core of high-profile Republicans who promote Trump in the news media. The points sought to undermine establishment Republicans who have abandoned Trump.

    "They are more concerned with their political future than they are about the future of the country," said a copy of the talking points, described to Reuters by two sources close to the campaign.

    It might work: as we noted previously, Trump has made his battle against the establishment a central campaign theme: what better way of underscoring that than by showcasing that not only do Democrats hate his brand, as of this moment a vast majority of Republicans do too.

    "Phones have been blowing up for the past 24 hours," said a prominent Republican political operative in Washington, referring to a heavy volume of calls among party officials and Republican members of Congress.

    There could be financial complications for Trump however. As we reported last night , Trump's troubles could steer campaign donations away from him and to Republican candidates for Congress and other down-ballot offices.

    But money may be the least of Trump's worries if he is unable to keep his head in tonight's debate.

    What should one expect?

    According to one Reuters source, Trump could help himself if he himself quickly addressed the video and the Oct. 1 New York Times report that he took so substantial a tax deduction on a declared $916 million loss in 1995 that he could legally have avoided paying any federal income taxes for up to 18 years.

    Altternatively, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, a Trump adviser, told Sunday talk shows that at the debate Trump might choose to go on the offensive against Clinton by bringing up past infidelities of her husband, former President Bill Clinton. Interviewed on NBC's "Meet the Press," Giuliani said both presidential contenders were flawed but that Trump feels he owes it to his supporters to stay in the race. Republicans have attacked Clinton, 68, over what they say is her role in trying to discredit women who accused her husband of sexual misconduct decades ago, and have wondered why Trump ignored to approach the topic during the first debate.

    According to the WSJ, which writes that " Trump Signals Attack on Bill Clinton in Coming Days " a taste of what may be to come was unveiled on Saturday when Bill Clinton was midway through a remark about climate change Saturday when a heckler gave a taste of what he and his wife's presidential campaign might get from Republican Donald Trump in coming days. "Nobody can dispute the fact..." Mr. Clinton started to say at a rally in a union hall, "... that you're a rapist!" the protester shouted, finishing the sentence for the 42nd president.

    Bill Clinton responds after heckler calls him a "rapist" during rally in Wisconsin pic.twitter.com/eTJxMeKqOK

    - NBC News (@NBCNews) October 9, 2016

    Previewing a hard-line attack on Clintons' sexual past, Trump on Sunday morning tweeted an interview given by Juanita Broaddrick, who claimed Mr. Clinton sexually assaulted her in the late 1970s.... Ms. Broaddrick tearfully recounts the episode in the videotaped interview and said "I'm afraid of him."

    As the WSJ adds, "Trump, facing fierce blowback for his lewd comments about women, is signaling that he will target Mr. Clinton's behavior as he tries to stabilize a campaign coping with its biggest crisis to date."

    In weekend apologies for his remarks, the Republican nominee invoked Mr. Clinton repeatedly, saying he had "abused women" and talked about them in ways that were more offensive than his own in a 2005 video in which he boasted of sexual aggression.

    He also claimed Mrs. Clinton attacked the women who accused her husband of sexual misconduct.

    "I've said some foolish things, but there's a big difference between the words and actions of other people," Mr. Trump said in a Saturday morning video. "Bill Clinton has actually abused women and Hillary has bullied, attacked, shamed and intimidated his victims. We will discuss this more in the coming days."

    That line of attack threatens to yank Mr. Clinton directly into the campaign scrum, a space the former two-term president has largely avoided since his wife launched her campaign a year and half ago.

    The WSJ notes that according to strategists in both parties, a tactic where Trump goes for Clinton's past infidelities may backfire.

    Rudolph Giuliani, a Trump campaign surrogate, said Sunday on NBC that he didn't expect his candidate to raise Mr. Clinton's past during an evening presidential town hall meeting in St. Louis, Missouri.

    Additionally, the WSJ notes that Bill Clinton remains a popular figure, outshining his wife and her Republican opponent.

    A recent Wall Street Journal/ NBC News poll found that 45% of voters said they have very positive or somewhat positive feelings about the former president, compared with 38% who have very negative or somewhat negative feelings.

    The same survey found that 37% of voters have positive feelings about Mrs. Clinton, while 52% have negative feelings. Meanwhile, just 28% of voters have very positive or somewhat positive feelings about Mr. Trump; 61% have very negative or somewhat negative feelings about him.

    Neil Newhouse, a Republican pollster, said Mr. Trump would be playing to his base of hard-core supporters by attacking Mr. Clinton, but he isn't winning over any new voters. "If he were running a Republican primary race, this could be an effective strategy," Mr. Newhouse said. Now, "it's a failed strategy to try to bring Bill Clinton to this." Lashing out at the former president and saying that he has done something worse is "like an argument that a third-grader might make," Mr. Newhouse said. " When you use an apology to turn around and attack your opponent, you lose ground," he said.

    A democratic strategist, Joe Trippi, believes that "there's no way out for him other than to be humble and apologize", which on the other hand some say would show weakness and give Hillary the offensive. He also pointed out that Trump now needs to somehow win over women and college-educated white voters and that "taking aim at Mr. Clinton is only going to "repulse them further."

    * * *

    While nobody has any idea what Trump's best angle of attack may be, or what the republican presidential contender will say in under three hours when the townhall-styled debate begins, it is certain that following a brief courteous open, the mudslinging on both sides will promptly escalate, resulting in one of the most memorable, "deplorable" yet entertaining slow-motion trainwrecks observed in primetime history. The biggest unknown, however, is how America will respond to it: and for Trump that particular gamble could mean the difference between victory and defeat.

    [Oct 10, 2016] Power makes Dick Cheney look like Mahatma Ghandi

    Oct 10, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    TheCatSaid October 9, 2016 at 9:12 pm

    The extent to which Samantha Power is being groomed for high office is more and more pronounced. Currently she's getting lots of coverage in Korea with military. It's as if Clinton and Trump are both such damaged goods that a more suitable woman is being brought into the wings. It reminds me of when I heard Obama speak at the Dem convention while a senator, and of a speech I heard Theresa May give several years ago.

    Key people are being moved into position and it has nothing to do with elections.

    Duncan Hare October 9, 2016 at 9:15 pm

    Power was born in Ireland, I believe.

    Jerri-Lynn Scofield October 9, 2016 at 9:20 pm

    That's correct.

    Matthew G. Saroff October 9, 2016 at 10:25 pm

    And Power makes Dick Cheney look like Mahatma Ghandi. (She also hangs out with Kissinger)

    [Oct 10, 2016] Key Neocon Calls on US to Oust Putin –

    Notable quotes:
    "... America's Stolen Narrative, ..."
    Oct 10, 2016 | consortiumnews.com
    October 7, 2016 | Consortiumnews

    Exclusive: A prominent neocon paymaster, whose outfit dispenses $100 million in U.S. taxpayers' money each year, has called on America to "summon the will" to remove Russian President Putin from office, reports Robert Parry.

    By Robert Parry

    The neoconservative president of the U.S.-taxpayer-funded National Endowment for Democracy [NED] has called for the U.S. government to "summon the will" to engineer the overthrow of Russian President Vladimir Putin, saying that the 10-year-old murder case of a Russian journalist should be the inspiration.

    Carl Gershman, who has headed NED since its founding in 1983, doesn't cite any evidence that Putin was responsible for the death of Anna Politkovskaya but uses a full column in The Washington Post on Friday to create that impression, calling her death "a window to Vladimir Putin, the Kremlin autocrat whom Americans are looking at for the first time."

    Russian President Vladimir Putin, following his address to the UN General Assembly on Sept. 28, 2015. (UN Photo)

    Russian President Vladimir Putin, following his address to the UN General Assembly on Sept. 28, 2015. (UN Photo)

    Gershman wraps up his article by writing: "Politkovskaya saw the danger [of Putin], but she and other liberals in Russia were not strong enough to stop it. The United States has the power to contain and defeat this danger. The issue is whether we can summon the will to do so. Remembering Politkovskaya can help us rise to this challenge."

    That Gershman would so directly call for the ouster of Russia's clearly popular president represents further proof that NED is a neocon-driven vehicle that seeks to create the political circumstances for "regime change" even when that means removing leaders who are elected by a country's citizenry.

    And there is a reason for NED to see its job in that way. In 1983, NED essentially took over the CIA's role of influencing electoral outcomes and destabilizing governments that got in the way of U.S. interests, except that NED carried out those functions in a quasi-overt fashion while the CIA did them covertly.

    NED also serves as a sort of slush fund for neocons and other favored U.S. foreign policy operatives because a substantial portion of NED's money circulates through U.S.-based non-governmental organizations or NGOs.

    That makes Gershman an influential neocon paymaster whose organization dispenses some $100 million a year in U.S. taxpayers' money to activists, journalists and NGOs both in Washington and around the world. The money helps them undermine governments in Washington's disfavor – or as Gershman would prefer to say, "build democratic institutions," even when that requires overthrowing democratically elected leaders.

    NED was a lead actor in the Feb. 22, 2014 coup ousting Ukraine's elected President Viktor Yanukovych in a U.S.-backed putsch that touched off the civil war inside Ukraine between Ukrainian nationalists from the west and ethnic Russians from the east. The Ukraine crisis has become a flashpoint for the dangerous New Cold War between the U.S. and Russia.

    Before the anti-Yanukovych coup, NED was funding scores of projects inside Ukraine, which Gershman had identified as "the biggest prize" in a Sept. 26, 2013 column also published in The Washington Post.

    In that column, Gershman wrote that after the West claimed Ukraine, "Russians, too, face a choice, and Putin may find himself on the losing end not just in the near abroad but within Russia itself." In other words, Gershman already saw Ukraine as an important step toward an even bigger prize, a "regime change" in Moscow.

    Less than five months after Gershman's column, pro-Western political activists and neo-Nazi street fighters – with strong support from U.S. neocons and the State Department – staged a coup in Kiev driving Yanukovych from office and installing a rabidly anti-Russian regime, which the West promptly dubbed "legitimate."

    Nazi symbols on helmets worn by members of Ukraine's Azov battalion. (As filmed by a Norwegian film crew and shown on German TV)

    Nazi symbols on helmets worn by members of Ukraine's Azov battalion. (As filmed by a Norwegian film crew and shown on German TV)

    In reaction to the coup and the ensuing violence against ethnic Russians, the voters of Crimea approved a referendum with 96 percent of the vote to leave Ukraine and rejoin Russia, a move that the West's governments and media decried as a Russian "invasion" and "annexation."

    The new regime in Kiev then mounted what it called an "Anti-Terrorism Operation" or ATO against ethnic Russians in the east who had supported Yanukovych and refused to accept the anti-constitutional coup in Kiev as legitimate.

    The ATO, spearheaded by neo-Nazis from the Azov battalion and other extremists, killed thousands of ethnic Russians, prompting Moscow to covertly provide some assistance to the rebels, a move denounced by the West as "aggression."

    Blaming Putin

    In his latest column, Gershman not only urges the United States to muster the courage to oust Putin but he shows off the kind of clever sophistry that America's neocons are known for. Though lacking any evidence, he intimates that Putin ordered the murder of Politkovskaya and pretty much every other "liberal" who has died in Russia.

    Carl Gershman, president of the National Endowment for Democracy.

    Carl Gershman, president of the National Endowment for Democracy.

    It is a technique that I've seen used in other circumstances, such as the lists of "mysterious deaths" that American right-wingers publish citing people who crossed the paths of Bill and Hillary Clinton and ended up dead. This type of smear spreads suspicion of guilt not based on proof but on the number of acquaintances and adversaries who have met untimely deaths.

    In the 1990s, one conservative friend of mine pointed to the Clintons' "mysterious deaths" list and marveled that even if only a few were the victims of a Clinton death squad that would be quite a story, to which I replied that if even one were murdered by the Clintons that would be quite a story – but that there was no proof of any such thing.

    "Mysterious deaths" lists represent a type of creepy conspiracy theory that shifts the evidentiary burden onto the targets of the smears who must somehow prove their innocence, when there is no evidence of their guilt (only vague suspicions). It is contemptible when applied to American leaders and it is contemptible when applied to Russian leaders, but it is not beneath Carl Gershman.

    Beyond that, Gershman's public musing about the U.S. somehow summoning "the will" to remove Putin might - in a normal world - disqualify NED and its founding president from the privilege of dispensing U.S. taxpayers' money to operatives in Washington and globally. It is extraordinarily provocative and dangerous, an example of classic neocon hubris.

    While the neocons do love their tough talk, they are not known for thinking through their "regime change" schemes. The idea of destabilizing nuclear-armed Russia with the goal of ousting Putin, with his 82 percent approval ratings, must rank as the nuttiest and most reckless neocon scheme of all.

    Gershman and his neocon pals may fantasize about making Russia's economy scream while financing pro-Western "liberals" who would stage disruptive protests in Red Square, but he and his friends haven't weighed the consequences even if they could succeed.

    Given the devastating experience that most Russians had when NED's beloved Russian "liberals" helped impose American "shock therapy" in the 1990s - an experiment that reduced average life expectancy by a full decade - it's hard to believe that the Russian people would simply take another dose of that bitter medicine sitting down.

    Even if the calculating Putin were somehow removed amid economic desperation, he is far more likely to be followed by a much harder-line Russian nationalist who might well see Moscow's arsenal of nuclear weapons as the only way to protect Mother Russia's honor. In other words, the neocons' latest brash "regime change" scheme might be their last – and the last for all humanity.

    A Neocon Slush Fund

    Gershman's arrogance also raises questions about why the American taxpayer should tolerate what amounts to a $100 million neocon slush fund which is used to create dangerous mischief around the world. Despite having "democracy" in its name, NED appears only to favor democratic outcomes when they fit with Official Washington's desires.

    CIA Director William Casey.

    CIA Director William Casey.

    If a disliked candidate wins an election, NED acts as if that is prima facie evidence that the system is undemocratic and must be replaced with a process that ensures the selection of candidates who will do what the U.S. government tells them to do. Put differently, NED's name is itself a fraud.

    But that shouldn't come as a surprise since NED was created in 1983 at the urging of Ronald Reagan's CIA Director William J. Casey, who wanted to off-load some of the CIA's traditional work ensuring that foreign elections turned out in ways acceptable to Washington, and when they didn't – as in Iran under Mossadegh, in Guatemala under Arbenz or in Chile under Allende – the CIA's job was to undermine and remove the offending electoral winner.

    In 1983, Casey and the CIA's top propagandist, Walter Raymond Jr., who had been moved to Reagan's National Security Council staff, wanted to create a funding mechanism to support outside groups, such as Freedom House and other NGOs, so they could engage in propaganda and political action that the CIA had historically organized and paid for covertly. The idea emerged for a congressionally funded entity that would serve as a conduit for this money.

    In one undated letter to then-White House counselor Edwin Meese III, Casey urged creation of a "National Endowment," but he recognized the need to hide the strings being pulled by the CIA "Obviously we here [at CIA] should not get out front in the development of such an organization, nor should we appear to be a sponsor or advocate," Casey wrote.

    The National Endowment for Democracy took shape in late 1983 as Congress decided to also set aside pots of money - within NED - for the Republican and Democratic parties and for organized labor, creating enough bipartisan largesse that passage was assured.

    But some in Congress thought it was important to wall the NED off from any association with the CIA, so a provision was included to bar the participation of any current or former CIA official, according to one congressional aide who helped write the legislation.

    This aide told me that one night late in the 1983 session, as the bill was about to go to the House floor, the CIA's congressional liaison came pounding at the door to the office of Rep. Dante Fascell, a senior Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee and a chief sponsor of the bill.

    The frantic CIA official conveyed a single message from CIA Director Casey: the language barring the participation of CIA personnel must be struck from the bill, the aide recalled, noting that Fascell consented to the demand, not fully recognizing its significance – that it would permit the continued behind-the-scenes involvement of Raymond and Casey.

    The aide said Fascell also consented to the Reagan administration's choice of Carl Gershman to head NED, again not recognizing how this decision would affect the future of the new entity and American foreign policy.

    Gershman, who had followed the classic neoconservative path from youthful socialism to fierce anticommunism, became NED's first (and, to this day, only) president. Though NED is technically independent of U.S. foreign policy, Gershman in the early years coordinated decisions on grants with Raymond at the NSC.

    For instance, on Jan. 2, 1985, Raymond wrote to two NSC Asian experts that "Carl Gershman has called concerning a possible grant to the Chinese Alliance for Democracy (CAD). I am concerned about the political dimension to this request. We should not find ourselves in a position where we have to respond to pressure, but this request poses a real problem to Carl.

    "Senator [Orrin] Hatch, as you know, is a member of the board. Secondly, NED has already given a major grant for a related Chinese program."

    Neocon Tag Teams

    From the start, NED became a major benefactor for Freedom House, beginning with a $200,000 grant in 1984 to build "a network of democratic opinion-makers." In NED's first four years, from 1984 and 1988, it lavished $2.6 million on Freedom House, accounting for more than one-third of its total income, according to a study by the liberal Council on Hemispheric Affairs that was entitled "Freedom House: Portrait of a Pass-Through."

    The Washington Post building. (Photo credit: Daniel X. O'Neil)

    The Washington Post building. (Photo credit: Daniel X. O'Neil)

    Over the ensuing three decades, Freedom House has become almost an NED subsidiary, often joining NED in holding policy conferences and issuing position papers, both organizations pushing primarily a neoconservative agenda, challenging countries deemed insufficiently "free," including Syria, Ukraine (in 2014) and Russia.

    Indeed, NED and Freedom House often work as a kind of tag-team with NED financing "non-governmental organizations" inside targeted countries and Freedom House berating those governments if they crack down on U.S.-funded NGOs.

    For instance, on Nov. 16, 2012, NED and Freedom House joined together to denounce legislation passed by the Russian parliament that required recipients of foreign political money to register with the government.

    Or, as NED and Freedom House framed the issue: the Russian Duma sought to "restrict human rights and the activities of civil society organizations and their ability to receive support from abroad. Changes to Russia's NGO legislation will soon require civil society organizations receiving foreign funds to choose between registering as 'foreign agents' or facing significant financial penalties and potential criminal charges."

    Of course, the United States has a nearly identical Foreign Agent Registration Act that likewise requires entities that receive foreign funding and seek to influence U.S. government policy to register with the Justice Department or face possible fines or imprisonment.

    But the Russian law would impede NED's efforts to destabilize the Russian government through funding of political activists, journalists and civic organizations, so it was denounced as an infringement of human rights and helped justify Freedom House's rating of Russia as "not free."

    Another bash-Putin tag team has been The Washington Post's editors and NED's Gershman. On July 28, 2015, a Post editorial and a companion column by Gershman led readers to believe that Putin was paranoid and "power mad" in worrying that outside money funneled into NGOs threatened Russian sovereignty.

    The Post and Gershman were especially outraged that the Russians had enacted the law requiring NGOs financed from abroad and seeking to influence Russian policies to register as "foreign agents" and that one of the first funding operations to fall prey to these tightened rules was Gershman's NED.

    The Post's editors wrote that Putin's "latest move … is to declare the NED an 'undesirable' organization under the terms of a law that Mr. Putin signed in May [2015]. The law bans groups from abroad who are deemed a 'threat to the foundations of the constitutional system of the Russian Federation, its defense capabilities and its national security.'

    "The charge against the NED is patently ridiculous. The NED's grantees in Russia last year ran the gamut of civil society. They advocated transparency in public affairs, fought corruption and promoted human rights, freedom of information and freedom of association, among other things. All these activities make for a healthy democracy but are seen as threatening from the Kremlin's ramparts.

    "The new law on 'undesirables' comes in addition to one signed in 2012 that gave authorities the power to declare organizations ' foreign agents ' if they engaged in any kind of politics and receive money from abroad. The designation, from the Stalin era, implies espionage."

    However, among the relevant points that the Post's editors wouldn't tell their readers was the fact that Russia's Foreign Agent Registration Act was modeled after the American Foreign Agent Registration Act and that NED President Gershman had already publicly made clear - in his Sept. 26, 2013 column - that his goal was to oust Russia's elected president.

    In his July 28, 2015 column, Gershman further deemed Putin's government illegitimate. "Russia's newest anti-NGO law, under which the National Endowment for Democracy … was declared an "undesirable organization" prohibited from operating in Russia, is the latest evidence that the regime of President Vladimir Putin faces a worsening crisis of political legitimacy," Gershman wrote, adding:

    "This is the context in which Russia has passed the law prohibiting Russian democrats from getting any international assistance to promote freedom of expression, the rule of law and a democratic political system. Significantly, democrats have not backed down. They have not been deterred by the criminal penalties contained in the 'foreign agents' law and other repressive laws. They know that these laws contradict international law, which allows for such aid, and that the laws are meant to block a better future for Russia."

    The reference to how a "foreign agents" registration law conflicts with international law might have been a good place for Gershman to explain why what is good for the goose in the United States isn't good for the gander in Russia. But hypocrisy is a hard thing to rationalize and would have undermined the propagandistic impact of the column.

    Also undercutting the column's impact would be an acknowledgement of where NED's money comes from. So Gershman left that out, too. After all, how many governments would allow a hostile foreign power to sponsor politicians and civic organizations whose mission is to undermine and overthrow the existing government and put in someone who would be compliant to that foreign power?

    And, if you had any doubts about what Gershman's intent was regarding Russia, he dispelled them in his Friday column in which he calls on the United States to "summon the will" to "contain and defeat this danger," which he makes clear is the continued rule of Vladimir Putin.

    [For more on this topic, see Consortiumnews.com's " The Victory of Perception Management. "]

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

    [Oct 10, 2016] Don't listen to Obama. Just watch what he does and you'll know.

    Oct 10, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    3.14e-9 October 9, 2016 at 10:08 pm

    I watched Obama's recent town hall with veterans and was shocked when, in response to a question similar to the one just asked, he said that the U.S. can't be everywhere, that we need to focus on conflicts that are a direct threat to the United States. Syria isn't a direct threat, he said. As bad as the humanitarian crisis there is, he suggested that we don't have a dog in that fight and need to let others take care of it.

    Heaven forbid that Trump agree with Obama, but it would have been a good response.

    oh October 9, 2016 at 10:20 pm

    Don't listen to Obama. Just watch what he does and you'll know.

    3.14e-9 October 9, 2016 at 10:49 pm

    Agreed, and I should have included that caveat. I also listened to his entire speech in Hiroshima, which I thought was one of his best ever, or should I say "best written." Given that he had been pushing a $1 trillion nuclear upgrade program, it was nuclear-grade hypocrisy.

    Nonetheless, it was remarkable that he went on the record with that position on Syria when his appointed heir to the throne is calling for a no-fly zone and confrontation with Russia.

    [Oct 09, 2016] Ukraine Is Going to Be a Big Problem for the Next U.S. President by Mark Pfeifle

    That was all about debt slavery and a successful attempt to encircle Russia with a belt of hostile state. Standard of living dropped more then twice since Maydan. Nationalist proved to be reliable neoliberal tools who can fooled again and again based on their hate of Russia and help to enslave their own people ("fool me once"...) Classic divide and conquer. Nothing new. Yatsenyuk was despicable corrupt neoliberal with fake flair of nationalism from the very beginning. he helped to sell country assets for pennies on the a dollar and completely destroyed economic relations with Russia (why you need to love the county to trade with it is beyond any sane person comprehension; capitalism is actually about the ability to trade with people we hate and that's one of its strong points). Emigrant community in Canada and USA (due to typical for emigrants heightened level of nationalism) also played a role in destruction of economics of Ukraine. this is a very sad story of creating an African country in Europe where many people live of less then a dollar a day and pensioners starve.
    foreignpolicy.com

    Ukraine has faded from the American national consciousness as other, even more recent and far more spectacular foreign policy fiascos - Syria, Libya and the Islamic State - overwhelm our capacity to catalog them.

    ... ... ...

    Obama's delicate carrot-and-stick approach hasn't worked, and the long-simmering Ukrainian kettle threatens to boil into the worst crisis in relations between Moscow and Washington since the Cold War.

    ... ... ...

    The optimism created by the 2013-2014 "EuroMaidan" street demonstrations was short-lived. Prime Minister Arseniy Petrovych Yatsenyuk was forced to resign in April against a backdrop of permanent political crisis and high-profile charges of corruption.

    ... ... ...

    Perhaps most dispiriting of all, even those Ukrainian activists, politicians, and journalists who are portrayed as true reformers appear likewise unable to resist the temptation to engage in the systemic looting of the Ukrainian economy.

    In early September, the New Yorker magazine dedicated several thousand words to three citizen-journalists who now serve in the Ukrainian Parliament. Like other western media outlets, the New Yorker portrayed Sergei Leshchenko, Svitlana Zalishchuk, and Mustafa Nayem as dedicated journalists - new faces who sought election to parliament as part of President Poroshenko's bloc in the wake of the Maidan street protests, which Nayem helped organize.

    Now, however, Leshchenko's post-election acquisition of high-end housing has attracted the attention of the Anti-Corruption Agency of Ukraine, an investigatory body that was established at the urging of the United States. Last week, the Anti-Corruption Agency forwarded the Leshchenko file to the special prosecutor's office tasked with corruption fighting. Leshchenko could not explain the source of the income that allowed him to buy the residence, loan documents are missing, and the purchase price was allegedly below market

    The owner of the building, according to Ukrainian media accounts, is Ivan Fursin, the partner of mega-oligarch Dmytro Firtash.

    Recent reports have revealed that Leshchenko's expenses for attending international forums were paid for by the oligarch Viktor Pinchuk who also contributed $8,6 million to the Clinton Foundation While Leshchenko remains the toast of the western media and Washington think tanks, back at home, his fellow reformers in the Parliament are calling on him to resign until his name is cleared.

    Meanwhile, the next president is sure to find Ukraine besieged on all sides: With Russian troops and pro-Russian rebels at its throat and corruption destroying it from within -and as the Leshchenko scandal suggests, not all in Ukraine is what it appears to be.

    The new president must learn to discern Ukraine's true reformers from those who made anti-corruption crusades into a lucrative business, and be able to distinguish real action from empty words.

    If not, the two and a half decades-long Ukrainian experiment with independence may boil over completely.

    [Oct 09, 2016] The way DNC handling the public v. private comments by Hillary Clinton is to declare all the leaked material suspect because it is postmarked Russia

    Notable quotes:
    "... the DNC is handling the public v. private comments of one Hillary Clinton is to declare all the leaked material suspect because it's "postmarked Russia," according to Donna Brazile, whom I just watched on This Week – so she says she hasn't read them, and is advising that no one read them. If you don't read them, that ends the discussion, which obviously was her goal. ..."
    "... And it worked, as near as I can tell. Brazile hammered the public remarks only, so there you have it: just like the DNC hack that showed the games being played with the Sanders candidacy, the Wikileaks release on the paid speeches is delegitimized with one word: Russia. ..."
    Oct 09, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Anne October 9, 2016 at 10:33 am

    Well, and just so you know, the way the DNC is handling the public v. private comments of one Hillary Clinton is to declare all the leaked material suspect because it's "postmarked Russia," according to Donna Brazile, whom I just watched on This Week – so she says she hasn't read them, and is advising that no one read them. If you don't read them, that ends the discussion, which obviously was her goal.

    And it worked, as near as I can tell. Brazile hammered the public remarks only, so there you have it: just like the DNC hack that showed the games being played with the Sanders candidacy, the Wikileaks release on the paid speeches is delegitimized with one word: Russia.

    Not that Stephanopolous seemed all that reluctant to let her off the hook – he can say he brought it up, but we all know today isn't about Clinton, it's once again about Trump.

    I will say this: the town hall debate could be pretty interesting.

    [Oct 09, 2016] Russia Responds To Formal Cyberattack Accusations, Calls Them Unprecedented Anti-Russian Hysteria

    Oct 09, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    Following the first official accusation lobbed at Russia on Friday by the Department of Homeland Security and Director of National Intelligence on Election Security, in which US intelligence services formally stated they were "confident" that the Russian government "directed the recent compromises of emails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations", today Russia responded to this latest diplomatic escalation by saying that U.S. accusations that Russia was responsible for cyber attacks against Democratic Party organizations lack any proof and are an attempt by Washington to fan "unprecedented anti-Russian hysteria", the Foreign Ministry in Moscow said.

    After late on Friday the Kremlin called the U.S. allegations "nonsense", on Saturday Russia's Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov, cited by Reuters , said on the ministry's website that "this whipping up of emotions regarding 'Russian hackers' is used in the U.S. election campaign, and the current U.S. administration, taking part in this fight, is not averse to using dirty tricks."

    "There is no proof whatsoever for such grave accusations," Ryabkov said. "(They are) ...fabricated by those who are now serving an obvious political order in Washington, continuing to whip up unprecedented anti-Russian hysteria."

    Ryabkov reiterated an offer to Washington, first made last year, to hold consultations on fighting cyber crime together, but he also criticized John Kerry after the U.S. Secretary of State said late on Friday that Russian and Syrian actions in the Syrian civil war, including bombings of hospitals, "beg for" a war crimes investigation.

    Such remarks are unacceptable and Moscow is disappointed to hear "new typically U.S. claims for being a global judge", Ryabkov said in comments to Interfax news agency published on Saturday.

    As Reuters adds, referring to a resolution on Syria proposed by France for debate at the United Security Council later on Saturday, he said: "Unfortunately, we see less and less common sense in the actions of Washington and Paris". The draft resolution demands an end to air strikes and military flights over Aleppo. Moscow has already said this draft is unacceptable.

    So with hopes of any joint Syrian action in tatters, and the US formally accusing Russia of being a state sponsor of cyber attacks against the US, with the chairman of the US senate cyber hacking subcommittee going so far as introducing a bill imposing sanctions on Russia after the political hacking allegations, which Russia has duly denied, the ball is now again in Obama's court, where the next step is most likely to be even more diplomatic tensions, and military escalations.

    pods: Oct 8, 2016 11:00 AM

    US policy: "When did you stop beating your wife?"

    jcaz -> RagaMuffin: Oct 8, 2016 11:14 AM

    Don't sweat it, Vlad- real America knows what this is about, and who did what.....

    [Oct 09, 2016] Banner of Russias Putin hung from New York City bridge

    Notable quotes:
    "... paging the late Sen. Joe McCarthy, we have a fifth-column crisis! I blame the Donald for mollycoddling evil commies like the Putin. ..."
    Oct 09, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    ewmayer October 7, 2016 at 5:31 pm

    Banner of Russia's Putin hung from New York City bridge | Reuters

    Ha, the article actually uses 'the Putin', as in ' featuring the Putin dressed in a suit in front of the Russian flag with the word "Peacemaker" in capital letters' paging the late Sen. Joe McCarthy, we have a fifth-column crisis! I blame the Donald for mollycoddling evil commies like the Putin.

    polecat October 7, 2016 at 6:37 pm

    VOTE PUTIN . 'Cause he'll DO IT !'

    ewmayer October 7, 2016 at 6:33 pm

    Update on the "banner day for the Putin" – Russian friend notes similar banner was hung in Dresden, and the occasion is the Putin's birthday, 64th years young today.

    Jay M October 7, 2016 at 8:24 pm

    Hillary: Huma dear, pour me another double Stoli & tonic, stat!
    Huma: What if the schlubs hear you drink Stoli, maybe we should switch to Skyy?
    Hillary: It's what Blankfein serves, only the best.
    Huma: Maybe we should reconsider first strike, considering the caviar situation. Some VIP donors will be sucking their thumbs.
    Hillary: Memo to Blumenthal, we need a strategic caviar stockpile to last until the rubble is sorted out.

    [Oct 09, 2016] tomorrow, their subscription office will be flooded with cancellations

    Oct 09, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    John Zelnicker October 9, 2016 at 10:13 am

    BREAKING: The Alabama Media Group, publisher of the Mobile Press-Register, The Birmingham News, The Huntsville Times and other publications, as well as one of the most right wing publishers in the South, has endorsed Hillary Clinton for President.

    For those who are familiar with Alabama politics (Yves?) this is yuuge.

    http://www.al.com/opinion/index.ssf/2016/10/endorsement_hillary_clinton.html#incart_2box

    NotTimothyGeithner October 9, 2016 at 10:50 am

    And tomorrow, their subscription office will be flooded with cancellations. The GOP hive mind simply doesn't work this way.

    When people buy newspapers for the op-eds, they want to read what they already think. The newspapers themselves are largely purchased as local papers of record or status symbols. The Union Leader endorsed Hillary, and New Hampshire isn't breaking for Hillary. The Union Leader is a huge deal.

    I know Team Blue is excited, but Palin, McCain (Team Blue seems to love his deranged positions), Shrub, Jeb, Reagan, Nixon, Rick Scott, Graham, Thurmond, Helms, Mittens…do you see where I am going?…haven't destroyed the GOP. Partisan politics matters, believe it or not. By the end of the week, every Republican outside of the ones close to retirement will have apologized and declare war on "micro aggressions."

    fresno dan October 9, 2016 at 10:56 am

    John Zelnicker
    October 9, 2016 at 10:13 am

    Once you get past the BRANDING (repub versus dem) isn't it just obvious that Hillary would have been to the comfortable with most of the repub candidates, on most issues, except for a very, very few social issues, and even there not significantly outside repub suburban norms???

    The parties in my view are the biggest impediment to critical thinking there is – their downfall can't happen soon enough.

    But I agree – this is YUUGE! Its kinda like the death of Sears.

    lyman alpha blob October 9, 2016 at 11:39 am

    I get where you coming from but is it really that surprising that an ultra right wing paper endorses an ultra right winger?

    Also breaking: water wet

    Do we still need more proof that Nader was right?

    And isn't it ironic that it took a master of kayfabe reality TV star like Trump to get so many of these supposedly partisan hacks to play it straight?

    [Oct 09, 2016] Donald Trump lewd tape is just words, while Hillary defense of 40 year old rapist of 12 girl girl is a fact

    Notable quotes:
    "... Citizens United ..."
    Oct 09, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Donald Trump Says Campaign Not in Crisis, and There Is 'Zero Chance I'll Quit' WSJ. Trump: "Go behind closed doors of the holier-than-thou politicians and pundits and see what they're saying. I look like a baby."

    Sex, Dice, and the Trump Tapes Corey Robin

    Can You Believe Donald Trump Did That Thing? McSweeney's

    Many men talk like Donald Trump in private. And only other men can stop them. WaPo. The difference between these many men (at least the elite ones) and Trump is that Trump aspired to political power. The implicit Democrat narrative that Trump is a uniquely pernicious outlier is ludicrous on its face, as indeed this article urges.

    Lewd Donald Trump Tape Is a Breaking Point for Many in the G.O.P. NYT. Except… This is the Republican establishment that (a) fielded 17 candidates none of whom could be bothered to do oppo even to the extent of listening to Trump's public tapes on Howard Stern, that (b) failed to fund or unify behind a candidate to stop Trump when they had the chance, and that (c) is hated by the most powerful factions in its own base. I think they're going to have to carry Trump to term.

    GOP repudiation of Trump before 11/8? If so, then what? PrawfsBlog

    Analysis: Republicans dropping Trump must answer: Why now? AP

    RNC lawyers look at options for replacing Trump Politico and RNC halts Victory project work for Trump Politico

    Paul Ryan heckled at Wisconsin festival over criticism of Trump Yahoo News.

    Donald Trump, Ohio & the GOP meltdown Cincinatti Enquirier

    Donald Trump's pastor problem: 40 percent of Protestant ministers are still undecided WaPo

    How the Golden State Became the Intellectual Capital of Trump's GOP The American Interest (Re Silc).

    Clinton-Trump battle too close to call in four swing states McClatchy. This is before Trump's hot mike eruption; in terms of peeling off Trump voters, I would like to whether non-college-educated white women have shifted.

    TV Ad Spending Reveals the States Where Trump and Clinton Are Fighting Hardest Bloomberg

    Bernie Sanders Packs Schedule With Campaign Stops for Hillary Clinton Wall Street Journal

    Hillary Clinton Is in Her Own Form of Climate Denial In These Times
    The Disastrous Failure of Lesser Evilism Counterpunch

    Howard Dean: How to Move Beyond the Two-Party System NYT. Oh, Hoho

    AP Exclusive: Job hunt substantial part of Bayh's last year AP. "Evan Bayh spent substantial time during his last year in the Senate searching for a private sector job even as he voted on issues of interest to his future corporate bosses, according to the former Indiana lawmaker's 2010 schedule." So what? Both party establishments accept the central doctrine of Citizens United , that absent a showing of quid pro quo , there's no corruption. Move along, people, move along. There's no story here.

    The Last 100 Days: Obama's Nobel Peace Prize edition Yahoo News

    temporal October 9, 2016 at 8:31 am

    I'm shocked that Trump would say rude things in private. Men (and women, don't fool yourself) being rude. Huh. Never would have seen that coming. An entire entertainment industry called comedy, especially standup, based on levels of rudeness. Can't be.

    World leaders like LBJ watching movies of animals copulating in the White House or bragging about having a Senator doing his bidding indicated by having the man's p*cker in his pocket.

    Shocked.

    Tom Denman October 9, 2016 at 9:12 am

    Yesterday John McCain again showed that he is a national treasure when he assailed Donald Trump's "demeaning comments about women." This voice of decency and reason in 1998 told a meeting of Republicans: "Do you know why Chelsea Clinton is so ugly? Because Janet Reno is her father." [1]

    McCain was joined in withdrawing support from Trump by his fellow neocon Condoleezza Rice. Rice demonstrated her superior judgement during the summer of 2001 when she systematically devalued intel that explicitly warned of an impending major terrorist attack on U.S. soil.

    The Republican hawks repudiating Trump are motivated not by his attitude towards women but by his refusal to kowtow to a War Machine that has bought and paid for Hillary Clinton.

    And given that it was already universally known that Trump is a despicable lout, these defections look a lot more like part of a larger orchestrated outrage than a spontaneous reaction to the Trump tape.

    [1] https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2008/sep/02/women.johnmccain

    mad as hell. October 9, 2016 at 9:21 am

    That is a good find! If only it would go viral!

    hreik October 9, 2016 at 9:30 am

    And then there's this:

    Three reporters from Arizona, on the condition of anonymity, also let me in on another incident involving McCain's intemperateness. In his 1992 Senate bid, McCain was joined on the campaign trail by his wife, Cindy, as well as campaign aide Doug Cole and consultant Wes Gullett. At one point, Cindy playfully twirled McCain's hair and said, "You're getting a little thin up there." McCain's face reddened, and he responded, "At least I don't plaster on the makeup like a trollop, you cunt." McCain's excuse was that it had been a long day. If elected president of the United States, McCain would have many long days.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/07/report-mccains-profane-ti_n_95429.html

    Jim Haygood October 9, 2016 at 10:23 am

    So where's Ann Kirkpatrick, McCain's opponent? She hasn't even tweeted for a couple of days:

    https://twitter.com/RepKirkpatrick?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Enews%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

    Nothing there but policy wonkery. *yawn*

    McShame is not even mentioned.

    clinical wasteman October 9, 2016 at 12:04 pm

    Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St Clair ran a great demolition series on MCain during his presidential campaign, with a lot about his disgusting behaviour towards his wife and general gilded misogyny. No link here because the theme recurred through too many articles, a lot of them the late Cockburn's wonderful Friday 'Diary' column (if you missed those at the time, look them up and start reading anywhere; also St Clair has lately revived the tradition, and his diary is almost as good), but they should be easily searchable in the Counterpunch archive. Or you could find them in AC's final book, 'A Colossal Wreck'.

    fresno dan October 9, 2016 at 10:22 am

    Tom Denman
    October 9, 2016 at 9:12 am

    I could go all Plato and shadows on the cave walls, but everything we see is filtered. Or emphasized.
    Very, very rich people, with very, very specific agendas, do the filtering and decide what you see, but more IMPORTANTLY, what you don't.

    jrs October 9, 2016 at 12:48 pm

    maybe they are just repudiating for a reason Trump if anyone on earth would understand. They don't want to be seen with a loser (when Trump loses the election).

    Robert Hahl October 9, 2016 at 8:33 am

    Re: Badgers. From Hunter S. Thompson's Rolling Stone obituary for Richard Nixon"

    "It was Richard Nixon who got me into politics, and now that he's gone, I feel lonely. He was a giant in his way. As long as Nixon was politically alive - and he was, all the way to the end - we could always be sure of finding the enemy on the Low Road. There was no need to look anywhere else for the evil bastard. He had the fighting instincts of a badger trapped by hounds. The badger will roll over on its back and emit a smell of death, which confuses the dogs and lures them in for the traditional ripping and tearing action. But it is usually the badger who does the ripping and tearing. It is a beast that fights best on its back: rolling under the throat of the enemy and seizing it by the head with all four claws.

    "That was Nixon's style - and if you forgot, he would kill you as a lesson to the others. Badgers don't fight fair, bubba. That's why God made dachshunds.

    mad as hell. October 9, 2016 at 8:53 am

    I haven't watched him in a while but I gotta feel concerned for CNN's Wolf Blitzer. Having to acknowledge the Russian punk band Pussy Riot on the air a couple of years ago. Now he has to acknowledge " grab them by the pussy" has to be causing him some anguish. Because I'm sure he has never heard that before. Then again a seven figure salary will undoubtedly sooth some of that faux disgust.

    fresno dan October 9, 2016 at 9:56 am

    mad as hell.
    October 9, 2016 at 8:53 am

    You know, on PBS Gwen Ifil's Washington Week in Review, a woman correspondent ACTUALLY quoted the audio tape that has Trump saying he grabs a women's "P" – except she SAID, apparently to "clean it up" a woman's "kitty cat."
    I spit up my Cabernet!!!

    Language – funny how the common name we use to name that small mammalian predator, star of countless Youtube videos, that we keep as pets also refers to womens's sexual organs – except apparently the other name we use for the small mammalian predator can also be used (at least in hip hop videos), but isn't as DIRTY…yet

    (hmmm, I thought you could only say kitty cat if you were actually referring to a…."cat" but you can't say "kitty cat" if your referring to a "P" – odd…)

    I imagine I could saaaaay any word in such a way to make it sound dirty…

    Angry Panda October 9, 2016 at 8:57 am

    Quick hits on the Trump thing.

    a) Trump's comments are, of course, deplorable. But I do not see how they are at all unexpected or out of character for Trump, especially given all the preceding stories about how he behaved on the set of The Apprentice, etc. I mean, what's next, Breaking News – Sun Rises in East as Previously Thought?

    b) If you look at the electoral map (e.g. at RealClearPolitics) and make some reasonable poll-based assumptions (e.g. Virginia and Indiana break for Kaine and Pence, respectively), you end up with exactly three contested areas of the country.

    The Southwest – Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona and Nevada. Let's say those are split 50/50, although so long as Trump keeps flogging the "illegal brown rapists" horse, who knows.

    The Rust Belt-ish – the Pennsylvania-to-Wisconsin arc around the Great Lakes (Penn, Ohio, Michigan, WI, MN, minus Indiana).

    Florida.

    So basically you're looking at something like six states that are likely going to decide the whole contest, because everything else breaks 200-180 or 210-170 or some combination thereof.

    Are Trump's comments going to have any influence whatsoever on his Rust Belt vote? Or are those people voting for him because of anti-trade, anti-establishment, anti-Clinton, whatever other factors? More bluntly, are the pro-Trump women in those states going to shriek in horror at his latest crudeness, or say something like "boys will be boys, but Clinton is still worse"? I don't know. I doubt anyone in the media knows either. Maybe we'll have an inkling in 1-2 weeks with fresh sets of polls.

    Are Trump's comments going to really change the Florida-white-senior-citizen vote, or whatever bloc over there is (reportedly, per Politico) breaking 2:1 for him? I don't know. I doubt anyone in the world knows. Maybe we'll have a better view in 1-2 weeks (again).

    c) Given (a) and (b), as well as the similarly-timed Wikileaks release, as well as the similarly-timed "evil Russians are evil" release by the White House, as well as the upcoming debate…nah, I'm just going to call the whole thing a big set of coincidences and say the media is rightly focusing on the most important story of the hour and not at all willfully ignoring anything else of substance.

    NotTimothyGeithner October 9, 2016 at 10:38 am

    Lambert noted Trump is already an ugly billionaire who has made horrid statements and noted it's likely this is priced in.

    Three issues stand put:
    -it's a claim from a very bizarre person with a history of ugly statements not an accusation
    -Bill is a serial predator. Lewinsky was an intern under his power. Hillary has been part of smear campaigns and is a purveyor of violence to boot. I recall Gaddafi was widely seen being raped before his death which produced laughter. Also how many people laughed at Shrub's correspondents video where he looks for WMDs. First hand accounts of the occupations and wars have been spread for a long time now.
    -the glee from the uni-party and msm can only backfire when they are widely distrusted.

    Virginia is breaking for military contracts. Northern Virginia is largely "military Keynesianism" run amok. The vote there will break for whoever is least likely to move federal spending to other locations. They have to lay the mortgage on government salaries. Northern Virginia outside of a few small enclaves is such a dump. Without the spending, no industry will relocate there.

    Pavel October 9, 2016 at 11:31 am

    British blogger John Ward (self-exiled to France, I believe) made similar and useful points today:

    * The recording is eleven years old.

    * It takes place in a locker room, where 97% of those mouthing off this morning have never been in their lives. It was the sort of male fantasy-boasting I listened to every Saturday before getting changed into my footie kit.

    * Nobody died. The US Ambassador wasn't anally raped and dragged through the streets to a grisly demise. No whistleblower was taken out with a drone.

    * It didn't take place in the offices of Goldman Sachs, it didn't take place in the Oval Office, and there were no cigars involved.

    * If American men are shocked by this kind of talk, they're either deaf or just never played sports.

    * From the day he first opened his mouth in this campaign, anyone with an iota of sensitivity could discern what kind of bloke he is: crude, narcissistic and misogynist. This tape is, therefore, not news.

    * The behaviour of his running mate evokes suspicion, I think. Mike Pence voted for Cruz in his home State, and is renowned for his nose being able to sniff a populist soundbite. Both he and Ryan (another Trump-hater in private) were quick to condemn Trump's remarks unequivocally. Senior GOP movers, however, are reputed to have told the Vice-Presidential nominee that if he dumped Trump, they would make him the Republican candidate "by acclamation".

    * The source of the story – the Washington Post – is the biggest non-surprise of all of all: the journalist involved there, David Fahrenthold, has written several stories about Trump's charitable foundation (but ignored the infinitely more septic Clinton Foundation) while casting aspersions on his mental capacity to be President (while ignoring Clinton's consistent inability to stand upright unaided.

    * Fellow Washpost blogger Richard Cohen wrote two months ago (with remarkable prescience) 'The way to hurt Trump is to ridicule him. He is a man of immense pride, a pompous bloviator and a locker-room towel-snapper. Either ignore him or ridicule him.'

    * According to the Post, Farenthold knows the identity of the person who leaked the video to him, but will not disclose it. It seems the person works for NBC, who had a team working full-time to find lewd tapes of Trump during production of their programming featuring him. I understand, however, that NBC were going to leave airing the featured extract until Monday – after the Second TV Debate – and so an activist Democrat supporter downloaded the tape and gave it to Farenthold.

    –FARENTHOLD 451: Trump's bonfire of vanities, or smoke blown in our eyes?

    I just cannot believe the level of outrage over this comments compared to the real outrages and crimes going on in the world today. Ironically, if Trump implodes, HRC will go on to win but more voters - assuming she has it safely in the bag - may vote 3rd party. In any case the victory will be a poisoned chalice. The most corrupt, dishonest, and disliked candidate as POTUS?

    Jim Haygood October 9, 2016 at 12:13 pm

    Probably the best political analogy is "Bill's" Monica moment. The institutional D party reaction was, "It's just about sex."

    As for "Bill," so for Trump. If it's "just about sex," Trump's supporters (including women) will rationalize it away, just as their Democratic sisters did for "Bill."

    Those for whom it's a deal killer were opponents anyway. So nothing has really changed, except that the Clintons could end up getting hoisted on their own petard if the counterattack includes some really damning fresh dirt.

    Baby Gerald October 9, 2016 at 9:01 am

    Incredible set of links, as always and nice work by our own Richard Smith. SLPs being used to front illegal operations– who would've thought? Excellent investigative work.

    The revelations being sussed-out from the Goldman Sachs speeches could be the last straw for Hillary's campaign, tipping undecideds and ex-Sanders supporters further away from her. Public and private position, indeed. It's also an apt term to describe people who answer polls and tell their friends and colleagues they're voting for candidate A, while in fact voting for B,C, or D.

    The Trump hot-take comes as another deflection, but it seems that his base supporters could care less.

    On a lighter note, the Onion hits the nail on the head once again:

    Poll Finds 30% Of Americans Still Undecided Whether To Vote Out Of Fear Or Spite

    Tom October 9, 2016 at 9:43 am

    The selective outrage regarding Trump's boorish behavior and Hillary Clinton's bloodthirtsy and dangerous policy stances is profound.
    In 2013, Clinton says,

    "To have a no-fly zone you have to take out all of the air defenses, many of which are located in populated areas. So our missiles, even if they are standoff missiles so we're not putting our pilots at risk- you're going to kill a lot of Syrians," Clinton admitted. She then expressed concern that would make that "intervention that people talk about so glibly" a full-fledged "American and NATO involvement where you take a lot of civilians."

    3 days ago, a Rueters report says:

    "In a departure from the Obama administration, [Clinton] supports the establishment of a no-fly zone over Syria and has called for an intensified air campaign by the U.S.-led coalition."

    See, it's okay when Clinton 'glibly' advocates for military escalation that is guaranteed - by her own admission - to kill innocent civilians. Like a Hindu goddess of death, she is in her rights to decide when it is acceptable to "take" civilians.

    But god forbid Trump mentions wanting to f*ck someone who he thinks is attractive. There is no place for that kind of talk in Hillary's civilized world!

    voteforno6 October 9, 2016 at 9:59 am

    Hillary Clinton said something rather vile about Gaddafi's death:

    "We Came, We Saw, He Died"

    katiebird October 9, 2016 at 10:03 am

    And this is why I will vote out of spite against her and the DNC for nominating her

    ProNewerDeal October 9, 2016 at 10:04 am

    Trump admitted to past sexual assualts, "hitting on married women by kissing them & grabbing their p***y".

    Far worse than expressing sexual desire towards another person. Agreed that HClinton is worse. Trump sexually assaulting 10s of women, is lower on the scale of moral atrocities than killing 1000s of innocent civilians.

    Speaking of killing innocent civilians, your friendly reminder that the entire Real Basket of Deplorables cohort of US politicians, including 0bama, P Ryan, HClinton, Trump; kill 45K USians/yr per Harvard Public Health Profs, by their continual blockage of Canada-style MedicareForAll, e.g. another ANNUAL killing of 1000 of innocent (USian) civilians.

    Pavel October 9, 2016 at 11:35 am

    I believe part of the context is that Trump is boasting how his fame gets him a lot of beautiful women and sex. This is undoubtedly true - just look at Rupert Murdoch's recent marital history. The boasting (and vulgarity) are such a part of his personality. It's odious and I wouldn't want any of my female friends to associate with him, but compared to killing 500,000 kids with Iraqi sanctions, I'd say it's relatively unimportant in the scheme of things.

    JTMcPhee October 9, 2016 at 12:53 pm

    Henry Kissinger: "power is the ultimate aphrodisiac." He got to screw Jill St. John, and a whole lot of Vietnamese, Cambodians, Laotians, and me and my fellow troops, among others.

    We're all screwed, us ordinary people. Don't even have the option of "laying back and enjoying it." Too bad we don't have an organizing principle we can coalesce around, to defeat the parasites and mass murderers and enable a world of decency and comity and viable stability…

    Pavel October 9, 2016 at 9:47 am

    So I just went to the NY Times "Politics" page at 9:30AM (Eastern Time). Here is a list of the articles, in order. For your reading pleasure or convenience, I have bolded the articles not about Donald Trump. Note their position in the list.

    Lewd Donald Trump Tape Is a Breaking Point for Many in the G.O.P.
    By JONATHAN MARTIN, MAGGIE HABERMAN and ALEXANDER BURNS

    Inside Trump Tower in Manhattan. Donald J. Trump is facing increasing pressure in his own party to end his candidacy.
    Pressure built on the candidate to withdraw from the presidential campaign as party leaders urged the G.O.P. to shift its focus to down-ballot contests.

    Donald J. Trump waves to supporters outside Trump Tower in New York on Saturday.
    NEWS ANALYSIS

    Donald Trump's Conduct Was Excused Again and Again. But Not This Time.
    By MICHAEL BARBARO and PATRICK HEALY
    It turns out that even the most self-interested members of the political class, the true weather vanes swinging in the wind, have their limits.

    Why Republicans Are Probably Stuck With Donald Trump
    By ALAN RAPPEPORT
    Unless he becomes incapacitated or quits, getting rid of him is, legally and logistically, "the equivalent of a triple bank shot."

    Donald Trump the Showman, Now Caught in the Klieg Lights
    By JIM RUTENBERG 5:00 AM ET
    Donald J. Trump deftly used the blending of news and entertainment to build a brand, and then a campaign. But all that drama has turned into a big, messy show.

    Graphic: More Than 150 Republican Leaders Don't Support Donald Trump. Here's When They Reached Their Breaking Point.
    By KAREN YOURISH, LARRY BUCHANAN and ALICIA PARLAPIANO
    Which statements caused Republicans to bail on Donald Trump.

    Presidential Debate: What to Watch For
    By NICHOLAS CONFESSORE 5:00 AM ET
    To achieve anything resembling a victory, Donald J. Trump needs to focus on the most compelling parts of his message: trade, the threat of terrorism, and the creation of jobs.

    Women React With Fury to Donald Trump's Remarks, but Some Offer Support
    By ABBY GOODNOUGH and WINNIE HU
    What to tell a 10-year-old daughter? Why hasn't Mr. Trump outgrown the locker-room talk? These are among the questions being asked across the country.

    Men Say Trump's Remarks on Sex and Women Are Beyond the Pale
    By RICHARD PÉREZ-PEÑA
    Men of many backgrounds and parts of the country had varied opinions on how men talk, but they agreed that Mr. Trump's version was unacceptable.

    Donald Trump's Long Record of Degrading Women
    By THE NEW YORK TIMES
    The candidate has a history of insulting or unwelcome conduct that goes back several decades, The New York Times has found.

    John McCain Withdraws Support for Donald Trump After Disclosure of Recording
    By ALAN RAPPEPORT
    Mr. McCain became the latest party leader to distance himself from the nominee after a recording showed Mr. Trump speaking about women in lewd and degrading terms.

    Paul Ryan, Reluctant Supporter, Weighs Response to Donald Trump's Remarks
    By JENNIFER STEINHAUER
    Mr. Ryan uninvited Mr. Trump from a rally on Saturday, and said he was "sickened" by Mr. Trump's remarks about women. But he did not withdraw his support.

    Graphic: Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell Reject Donald Trump's Words, Over and Over, but Not His Candidacy
    By LARRY BUCHANAN, ALICIA PARLAPIANO and KAREN YOURISH
    How the two top Republicans in Congress have responded to Mr. Trump's comments.

    Donald Trump Apology Caps Day of Outrage Over Lewd Tape
    By ALEXANDER BURNS, MAGGIE HABERMAN and JONATHAN MARTIN
    A vulgar discussion recorded in 2005 on a soap opera set added to evidence that Mr. Trump has a record of sexist behavior.

    Donald Trump's Apology That Wasn't
    By MAGGIE HABERMAN
    In a video expressing regret over his lewd comments, Mr. Trump remained defiant, calling the disclosure a "distraction" and used it to renew political and personal attacks on Hillary Clinton.

    Donald Trump: King of the Old Boys' Club, and Perhaps Its Destroyer
    By SUSAN DOMINUS
    A taped conversation involving the Republican nominee shows a world women rarely see, and may not forget before Election Day.

    Can't Find a Plan on HealthCare.gov? One May Be Picked for You.
    By ROBERT PEAR
    Under a new policy to make sure people maintain insurance coverage in 2017, the government may automatically enroll them.

    What Options Does the U.S. Have After Accusing Russia of Hacks?
    By DAVID E. SANGER and NICOLE PERLROTH
    Pentagon and intelligence officials have been debating how to deter future attacks while controlling the potential escalation of a cyberconflict.

    To Redefine Homestretch, Hillary Clinton Cues the Children
    By NICK CORASANITI
    "Measure," a new ad that begins with girls checking their heights against wall rulers, aims to stand out near the end of a negative campaign season.

    Leaked Speech Excerpts Show a Hillary Clinton at Ease With Wall Street
    By AMY CHOZICK, NICHOLAS CONFESSORE and MICHAEL BARBARO
    According to documents posted online by WikiLeaks, Mrs. Clinton displayed an easy comfort with business and embraced unfettered trade in paid speeches to financial firms.

    Newly Released Hillary Clinton Emails Offer Glimpse at Husband's Advice
    By STEVEN LEE MYERS and ERIC LICHTBLAU
    The State Department began releasing emails the F.B.I. collected during its investigation into her use of a private email server.

    Billy Bush, a cousin of former President George W. Bush, in August.
    Billy Bush Says He's Ashamed by Lewd Talk With Donald Trump
    By MICHAEL M. GRYNBAUM and JOHN KOBLIN
    Mr. Bush, a cousin of President George W. Bush, said he was "less mature, and acted foolishly" in a 2005 conversation with Mr. Trump about women.

    http://www.nytimes.com/pages/politics/

    Imagine if the sexual harassment and rape claims against Bill Clinton were given the same amount of exposure? We know Trump is a lewd, sexist, buffoon, but it was Bill who lied for six months about getting blowjobs from a 20 year old intern in the Oval Office.

    The Guardian this morning has a huge front page spread about Trump but not a mention of the Wikileaks release of the Podesta emails.

    The MSM just don't give a shit about their credibility.

    fresno dan October 9, 2016 at 10:10 am

    Pavel
    October 9, 2016 at 9:47 am

    I just have to note this. I remember how well argued and coordinated the defense of Bill Clinton was. I believed it at first. Do you remember that he couldn't have possibly had sex in the oval office because it is sooooo busy??? (I still think the most outrageous lie is trying to convince people that the president works hard). I could imagine the president having a tryst…but in the Oval office!?!!?? don't be ridiculous.

    That people come in and out (dirty side long glance) of the oval office all day unexpectedly????
    And of course, the despicable character assassination of Monica …by "pro women" people.

    HBE October 9, 2016 at 10:44 am

    Guess what every single one of those trump articles have in common. Comments are turned off.

    Wouldn't want the plebs muddying the narrative or bringing up bill clinton would we now NYT.

    Pavel October 9, 2016 at 11:37 am

    I noticed that as well. Same at the Guardian - their main anti-Trump pieces today have comments turned off. Mustn't have the "plebs" mention Bill Clinton's past or bring up the Wikileaks Podesta emails!

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef October 9, 2016 at 11:46 am

    Like a school lecture.

    You listen until the class is over.

    Only when you're lucky do you get a chance to ask some questions.

    [Oct 09, 2016] And why is it that all the r2p humanitarians are calling for a no-fly zone? To protect Syrians. Obviously the most humane way to do that is to 'kill a lot of Syrians'

    Notable quotes:
    "... To have a no fly zone you have to take out all of the air defense, many of which are located in populated areas. So our missiles, even if they are standoff missiles so we're not putting our pilots at risk-you're going to kill a lot of Syrians. ..."
    Oct 09, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    tgs October 9, 2016 at 9:44 am

    Hillary: To have a no fly zone you have to take out all of the air defense, many of which are located in populated areas. So our missiles, even if they are standoff missiles so we're not putting our pilots at risk-you're going to kill a lot of Syrians.

    And why is it that all the r2p humanitarians are calling for a no-fly zone? To protect Syrians. Obviously the most humane way to do that is to 'kill a lot of Syrians'.

    fresno dan October 9, 2016 at 10:12 am

    we had to destroy the village in order to save the village…

    Tom October 9, 2016 at 11:19 am

    Or to put it in Hillary-ese: It takes a village to destroy a village.

    tgs October 9, 2016 at 12:50 pm

    At least she won't use the dreaded barrel bombs. We will ensure that they die humanely via high-tech weapons.

    [Oct 09, 2016] Only barrel bombs can commit atrocities – Western, "liberal" modern advanced expensive high tech weapons have special self righteous code imprinted in them that prevents the slaughter of the TRULY innocent…

    Oct 09, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Reply

    allan October 9, 2016 at 10:38 am

    It looks like the Saudi attack on the funeral in Yemen that killed 82+ people and wounded hundreds
    was carried out using US-made MK-82 bombs.

    Surely John Kerry will call for a war crimes investigation … oh, wait:

    GenDyn gets $39 million contract modification for foreign military bombs [UPI]

    WASHINGTON, Aug. 31 (UPI) - General Dynamics – Ordnance and Tactical Systems has been awarded a $39 million modification to a foreign military sales contract for various bomb bodies.

    The contract falls under the U.S. Army and involves sales to Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, France and Iraq.

    The modification calls for 162 MK82-1 bomb bodies, 7,245 MK82-6 bomb bodies and 9,664 MK84-10 bomb bodies. …

    fresno dan October 9, 2016 at 10:45 am

    allan
    October 9, 2016 at 10:38 am

    Only barrel bombs can commit atrocities – Western, "liberal" modern advanced expensive high tech weapons have special self righteous code imprinted in them that prevents the slaughter of the TRULY innocent…

    "Ordnance and Tactical Systems has been awarded a $39 million modification to a foreign military sales contract for various bomb bodies"
    Oh, and it helps the economy…i.e., the richest, and isn't that who the economy is for?

    allan October 9, 2016 at 12:58 pm

    Hearts and minds:

    Thousands of armed Yemeni protesters call for investigation into wake bombing [Reuters]

    Thousands of Yemenis, many of them armed, gathered at the United Nations headquarters in Yemen's capital Sanaa on Sunday calling for an international investigation into an air strike on a wake this weekend that was widely blamed on Saudi-led forces.

    The attack – that killed at least 140 people on Saturday – hit a hall where rows of the city's notables had gathered for the wake of the interior minister's father.

    The Saudi-led coalition has denied any role in the incident, believed to be one of the deadliest strikes in the 18-month-old war in which at least 10,000 people have been killed. …

    And when the Saudis deny any role in a mass-casualty attack, you can take it to the bank.
    Or at least Tony Podesta's bank account.

    [Oct 09, 2016] Disgusting as Trump is, I am sure not looking forward to the howls of misogyny that will be coming from the Clinton camp

    Oct 09, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Kokuanani October 7, 2016 at 6:26 pm

    I'm surprised not to see anything here about the "political bombshell" of Trump's latest sexist remarks.

    As I listen to the talking heads bloviate about what a "death blow" this is to the Trump campaign, it occurs to me that if the Repubs could engineer Trump's withdrawal from the top of the ticket, they could probably beat Hillary with Pence. They would have to arrange it so that Trump goes agreeably - should not be too hard to do, since many doubt if he WANTS to be president - and Pence could pledge that he would carry forward all of Trump's wonderful Screw the Establishment policies. Trump without the messy Trump_vs_deep_states.

    Disgusting as Trump is, I'm sure not looking forward to the howls of misogyny that will be coming from the Clinton camp. And, just another distraction from talking about policy.

    Waldenpond October 7, 2016 at 6:41 pm

    1. Clinton is corrupt (again), liar (still), dishonest (again), warmonger (still) etc. Trump is racist(still), bigot (again), misogynist (still), Hitler (Putin, Ahmedinejad)…. gets tedious after the 20th time.

    2. I think Trump does it on purpose as a response to a Clinton dump. It looks like her GS speeches are out today so the networks can cover Trump's latest bigoted statement and ignore Clinton insulting the voters and sucking up to the oligarchs.

    [Oct 09, 2016] Once lauded as a peacemaker, Obamas tenure fraught with war

    Obama is that same war criminal as Bush. just better tanned... I wonder if Clinton will get a Nobel Peace Prize, too?
    Oct 09, 2016 | apnews.com
    WASHINGTON (AP) - Seven years ago this week, when a young American president learned he'd been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize barely nine months into his first term - arguably before he'd made any peace - a somewhat embarrassed Barack Obama asked his aides to write an acceptance speech that addressed the awkwardness of the award.

    But by the time his speechwriters delivered a draft, Obama's focus had shifted to another source of tension in his upcoming moment in Oslo: He would deliver this speech about peace just days after he planned to order 30,000 more American troops into battle in Afghanistan.

    ... ... ...

    He has ordered drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, Libya, Somalia and Syria that have killed civilians and sparked tension in those countries and across the international community. What began as a secret program has become more transparent as Obama has aimed to leave legal limits for his predecessor on the use of unmanned warplanes.

    [Oct 09, 2016] Some of Clintons pledges sound great. Until you remember whos president

    Notable quotes:
    "... Hillary Clinton and husband Bill will turn the White House and the U.S. Government into their personal bank. ..."
    "... If the American electorate selects Hillary as their commander and chief she will immediately demand a No-Fly Zone over Syria. She will impose more economic sanctions on Russia, including an increase in NATO strength on Russia's western borders, just to show she is the Queen bitch. She will give israHell carte blanche to increase and expand further abuse in the Gaza strip. She is a woman scorned. And a very dangerous one. ..."
    "... [neo]Liberalism is in terminal decline, and not a moment too soon. ..."
    "... Hillary does not have any creative spark at all. She, like Obama is a dud, but one thing is for sure, she is not Donald. ..."
    "... These same americans should go back, for once, to his 2008 campaign to defeat first Hillary in the primaries and then the republican McCain. ..."
    "... The climate was dominated by the financial meltdown, which really started in the summer of 2007 and was evident by early spring of 2008. Hillary was the candidate of Wall Street, according to Obama, the republicans were one and the same with Wall Street and all the big corporate world, he was Hope and Change. ..."
    "... Hope? What hope? And even more: change, what change? There has been little change, if almost half of the nation is now ready to accept Trump as a promise of change. Obama's main financial support came in 2008 from Wall Street, hedge funds in particular, and they were right because nobody like the first Afro-American president, himself inevitably the incarnation of progressivism, could save their ass after all the criminal finance they indulged in. ..."
    "... So, Obama's inheritance is a problem, and Hillary is running on Obama's inheritance. ..."
    "... Robert Kagan, ringleader of the cabal of neo-cons has endorsed Hillary, who is Roberts wife? why bless me if it isn't Victoria 'fuck the EU' Nuland, ..."
    "... Samantha Powers is a neo-con acolyte, Ashton Carter is too, the State Dept. and the council of foreign relations is riddled with their people, all the horror figures of Dubya's days are lurking there and pulling strings, ..."
    "... Kerry isn't really a neo-con, but the Pentagon and CIA sabotage anything half decent he tries to do, ..."
    "... Basically Hillary is as genuine, left leaning and honest as Tony Blair.... ..."
    "... Also remember the lack of believability of Hillary. She is a politician that has been caught in lies so often that people just don't believe her. She pushed the soda tax in Philly until Coca-Cola complained that they gave too much money to the Foundation to be treated that way. Hillary backed off. She made millions from speaking to Big Banks. So we really believe she will go after Wells Fargo? She is beholden to them (unless Goldman Sachs gets to choose). She says raise taxes to pay fair share, but her biggest supporters are Apple, Google, and their executives that keep billions of income overseas to avoid the highest corporate income tax in the world. Do we really think she will hurt the contributors to the Foundation? And the more the email saga plays out, the longer the untrustworthy issue remains in everyone's mind. MonotonousLanguor , 2016-10-07 20:58:06 Does anyone really believe Hillary Clinton will hold anyone on Wall Street accountable??? She is bought and paid for by Wall Street, starting with all the green backs Hillary and Bill stuffed in their pockets from the those speaking fees. Obama's Justice Department motto was, Too Big to Fail, Too Big to Jail. The Democrats are not going to bite their masters on Wall Street, and of course neither will the Republicans. IanB52 -> NoctilucentGinswig , 2016-10-07 20:41:06 Prosecuting bankers, prosecuting torturers, stopping white collar crime, wars, assassinations, warrantless spying and even scheduling of Marijuana are all under the control of the Executive Branch. Find even one of these where the President did the right thing. Uncle Putin , 2016-10-07 20:26:49 This is exactly what I was thinking during the first presidential debate. Hillary is an old pro at saying all the right things, pushing all the right buttons to get the votes she needs, but can you believe much of what she says? ..."
    "... This is why, despite a poor debate performance overall, I thought Trump was spot on when he simply said she was a typical politician--all talk, no action, sounds great, none of it will ever happen. He's correct. ..."
    "... What Frank seldom writes of but remains extremely important to many people on the left in the US is that Obama has governed as the effective prisoner of the Pentagon and security establishment. His wars (including on whistleblowers), nuclear build-up, and confrontation with Russia have given added momentum to growing neoconservative bipartisan consensus that will likely see a new President Clinton start a war with Russia in Syria and/or Ukraine. ..."
    "... The Democrats are now both so neoliberal and so neoconservative that the only thing that differentiates them from Republicans is social progressivism. Given a choice between the latter and greatly increased likelihood of nuclear war, I have to confess to preferring that Trump win. Trump has been consistent in wanting to lessen tensions with Russia. ..."
    "... Not even social progressivism, so much as a set of captive client constituencies whom they name-drop and weaponize. ..."
    Oct 09, 2016 | www.theguardian.com
    Thomas Frank

    The Guardian

    The puzzle that is currently frustrating the pundit minds of America is this: why is Hillary Clinton not simply clobbering Donald Trump? How is this ranting, seething buffoon still competitive with her? Trump has now stumbled through a series of the kind of blunders that break ordinary political campaigns – the sort of deadly hypocrisies that always kill the demagogue in old movies – and yet this particular demagogue keeps on trucking. Why?

    Let us answer that burning pundit question of today by jumping to what will undoubtedly be the next great object of pundit ardor: the legacy of President Barack Obama. Two months from now, when all the TV wise men are playing historian and giving their estimation on where Obama ranks in the pantheon of the greats, they will probably neglect to mention that his legacy helped to determine Hillary's fortunes in this election cycle.

    "As a beloved figure among Democrats, for example, Obama was instrumental in securing the nomination for her. As a president who has accomplished little since 2011, however, Obama has pretty much undermined Clinton's ability to sell us on another centrist Democratic presidency. His legacy has diluted her promise

    …. Or take this headline from just a few days ago: "Clinton promises to hold Wells Fargo accountable". Go get 'em, Hillary! To see a president get tough with elite bankers and with CEOs in general – that's something we can all cheer for. But then that nagging voice piped up again: if Democrats think it is so critical to get tough with crooked banksters, why oh why didn't Barack Obama take the many, many opportunities he had to do so back in the days when it would have really mattered?"

    Senator Elizabeth Warren pronounced on the current state of middle America as follows:

    Look around. Americans bust their tails, some working two or three jobs, but wages stay flat. Meanwhile, the basic costs of making it from month to month keep going up. Housing, healthcare, child care – costs are out of sight. Young people are getting crushed by student loans. Working people are in debt. Seniors can't stretch a social security check to cover the basics.

    It was a powerful indictment of what Warren called a "rigged" system – except for one thing: that system is presided over by Barack Obama, a man that same Democratic convention was determined to apotheosize as one of the greatest politicians of all times.

    The larger problem facing them is the terminal irrelevance of their great, overarching campaign theme. Remember the "man from Hope"? "Hope is on the way"? "Keep hope alive"? Well, this year "hope" is most assuredly dead. Thanks to Obama's flagrant hope-dealing in the dark days of 2008 – followed up by his failure to reverse the disintegration of the middle class – this favorite Democratic cliché has finally become just that: an empty phrase.

    dalepues , 2016-10-08 03:43:57
    Hillary Clinton and husband Bill will turn the White House and the U.S. Government into their personal bank.
    ID8737013 , 2016-10-08 03:12:16
    If the American electorate selects Hillary as their commander and chief she will immediately demand a No-Fly Zone over Syria. She will impose more economic sanctions on Russia, including an increase in NATO strength on Russia's western borders, just to show she is the Queen bitch. She will give israHell carte blanche to increase and expand further abuse in the Gaza strip. She is a woman scorned. And a very dangerous one.
    marxmarv , 2016-10-08 01:14:18
    [neo]Liberalism is in terminal decline, and not a moment too soon. It's far past time we redeveloped a politics of interests rather than this Christianised values sham.
    bobkolker , 2016-10-08 00:16:15
    Hillary will win because she is not Trump. If she wins it is another 4 Obama like years and it is Bill's Third Term in Office. Hillary does not have any creative spark at all. She, like Obama is a dud, but one thing is for sure, she is not Donald.
    cilina2011 , 2016-10-07 22:16:45
    I find Thomas Frank's piece very good.

    Too many americans are mesmerized by the fact that Obama is young and articulate, plays well the presidential role, is generally speaking what is called a nice person or at least behaves formally as if he were one, has but only of late (thanks to Hillary and Trump perhaps, by contrast) a fairly high popularity score.

    These same americans should go back, for once, to his 2008 campaign to defeat first Hillary in the primaries and then the republican McCain.

    The climate was dominated by the financial meltdown, which really started in the summer of 2007 and was evident by early spring of 2008. Hillary was the candidate of Wall Street, according to Obama, the republicans were one and the same with Wall Street and all the big corporate world, he was Hope and Change.

    Hope? What hope? And even more: change, what change? There has been little change, if almost half of the nation is now ready to accept Trump as a promise of change. Obama's main financial support came in 2008 from Wall Street, hedge funds in particular, and they were right because nobody like the first Afro-American president, himself inevitably the incarnation of progressivism, could save their ass after all the criminal finance they indulged in.

    And Obama did save their skin, as everybody knows. Obama took on board plenty of Clinton (and Wall Street) people, starting in June 2008, when Hillary was finished. You cannot change that much after the financial crisis if you take Lawrence Summers as economic top advisor and you install young Geithner at the Treasury. Paul Volcker, who inspired so many good and useful judgements for candidate Obama, was put in the closet.

    Obama is a lawyer by education and he knows who is the best customer. That's not the man or the woman of Main Street. To them, some of them, he gave Obamacare, which is not all bad and something of it will remain, I think, but it's not at all that major reform he has been boasting about. By november 8 everybody will know that Obamacare has serious problems.

    So, Obama's inheritance is a problem, and Hillary is running on Obama's inheritance.

    And Thomas Frank is right.

    MattThePleb , 2016-10-07 22:05:27
    nice to see the Guardian have a moment of clarity!

    I do feel sympathy for Obama, he, and his family, have effectively spent 8 years held hostage in the White House by those perfidious neo-conservatives,

    they existed in Ronnie Raygun's day but he laughed at them, G H Bush referred to them as 'the crazies in the basement' and kept close tabs on them,

    they were happily meddling away during Bill Clintons era helping destroy Yugoslavia and furiously planning their 'Project for a New American Century' PNAC basically a blueprint and justification for every shitty thing done since,

    G W Bush let loose the neo-cons of war and we know what they've done,

    Barack Obama's greatest folly was to not round them up on the first day of his presidency, put them in a sack with a brick and throw them in the river,

    they have infested his government and followed their own agenda whilst laughing at him, so the story goes, at a private dinner party Barack was asked why he wasn't doing anything to thwart these shits and his reply was 'you saw what they did to MLK'

    now at the transition to Clinton these neo-cons are actively endorsing her, they consider her 'their girl' Clinton may well turn out to be George 'Dubya' with tits,

    Robert Kagan, ringleader of the cabal of neo-cons has endorsed Hillary, who is Roberts wife? why bless me if it isn't Victoria 'fuck the EU' Nuland,

    Samantha Powers is a neo-con acolyte, Ashton Carter is too, the State Dept. and the council of foreign relations is riddled with their people, all the horror figures of Dubya's days are lurking there and pulling strings,

    Kerry isn't really a neo-con, but the Pentagon and CIA sabotage anything half decent he tries to do,

    Elizabeth Warren as VP would have given Hillary great credibility but she is explicitly not a neo-conservative,

    Basically Hillary is as genuine, left leaning and honest as Tony Blair....

    and people wonder why they pin their last tatter of hope Donald 'Mr Bombastic' Trump?

    much as I find Trump and his hardcore supporters loathsome I have to point out that he has:

    expressed interest in talking with and working with Putin as opposed to starting WW3

    accepted the concept of climate change (massive move for a Republican) but pointed out nuclear war is an even greater and more immediate threat,

    pointed out the expenditure of 5-6 Trillion dollars on pointless wars whilst the country crumbles to ruins, basically a third of the US national debt run up in 15 years,

    the fact he wants to make America great again is because he acknowledges that it isn't great atm,

    he's pointed out that Hillary makes all these pledges but has been in a position of power for decades and has done sod all about it,

    and the establishment , especially the neo-cons absolutely hate him...

    if you're going to hold your nose and vote for the lesser evil maybe chauvinism and casual racism are those lesser evils,

    LGBT rights will not defend you from nuclear bombs, the heat flash that vaporises you is fairly indifferent to skin colour or religion,

    lvtaxman , 2016-10-07 22:01:35
    Also remember the lack of believability of Hillary. She is a politician that has been caught in lies so often that people just don't believe her. She pushed the soda tax in Philly until Coca-Cola complained that they gave too much money to the Foundation to be treated that way. Hillary backed off.

    She made millions from speaking to Big Banks. So we really believe she will go after Wells Fargo? She is beholden to them (unless Goldman Sachs gets to choose).

    She says raise taxes to pay fair share, but her biggest supporters are Apple, Google, and their executives that keep billions of income overseas to avoid the highest corporate income tax in the world. Do we really think she will hurt the contributors to the Foundation?

    And the more the email saga plays out, the longer the untrustworthy issue remains in everyone's mind.

    MonotonousLanguor , 2016-10-07 20:58:06
    Does anyone really believe Hillary Clinton will hold anyone on Wall Street accountable??? She is bought and paid for by Wall Street, starting with all the green backs Hillary and Bill stuffed in their pockets from the those speaking fees.

    Obama's Justice Department motto was, Too Big to Fail, Too Big to Jail. The Democrats are not going to bite their masters on Wall Street, and of course neither will the Republicans.

    IanB52 -> NoctilucentGinswig , 2016-10-07 20:41:06
    Prosecuting bankers, prosecuting torturers, stopping white collar crime, wars, assassinations, warrantless spying and even scheduling of Marijuana are all under the control of the Executive Branch. Find even one of these where the President did the right thing.
    Uncle Putin , 2016-10-07 20:26:49
    This is exactly what I was thinking during the first presidential debate. Hillary is an old pro at saying all the right things, pushing all the right buttons to get the votes she needs, but can you believe much of what she says?

    This is why, despite a poor debate performance overall, I thought Trump was spot on when he simply said she was a typical politician--all talk, no action, sounds great, none of it will ever happen. He's correct.

    Hillary is promising all sorts of things that she knows will never come to fruition. I voted for Obama twice, but I'm chomping at the bit to vote for Trump, for no other reason then the fact that he is the true outsider here. It's a gamble for sure, but with the right advisors he could potentially institute some major changes that will never happen under a cautious Hillary who will be obsessed with re-election the minute she starts her first term.

    Wayne Waxman , 2016-10-07 20:02:39
    What Frank seldom writes of but remains extremely important to many people on the left in the US is that Obama has governed as the effective prisoner of the Pentagon and security establishment. His wars (including on whistleblowers), nuclear build-up, and confrontation with Russia have given added momentum to growing neoconservative bipartisan consensus that will likely see a new President Clinton start a war with Russia in Syria and/or Ukraine.

    The Democrats are now both so neoliberal and so neoconservative that the only thing that differentiates them from Republicans is social progressivism. Given a choice between the latter and greatly increased likelihood of nuclear war, I have to confess to preferring that Trump win. Trump has been consistent in wanting to lessen tensions with Russia.

    As a voter, of course, I could vote for neither, and so am voting for Jill Stein.

    marxmarv Wayne Waxman , 2016-10-08 01:26:45
    Not even social progressivism, so much as a set of captive client constituencies whom they name-drop and weaponize.

    [Oct 09, 2016] Why I Am Having Nightmares About the Coming Election

    Oct 09, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com

    The American Conservative

    Thus my nightmares about the coming election. Consider:

    Trump: He promises to "make America great again." ("Deutschland uber alles," anyone?) He rants against immigrants and Muslims and conniving foreign nations like Mexico and China. (Jews and gypsies get a pass this time.) He is a bully. He promises hope to those who have been left behind economically and socially. He attracts huge and very devoted crowds at his rallies. He has no coherent program, at least yet-you have to believe in him as a great leader.

    Whom does he remind you of, at least vaguely?

    Clinton: She is secretive to a fault, perhaps paranoid in her pursuit of power. There are hints of hidden illnesses, so reminiscent of Uncle Joe. An unhidden lust for money at any cost. Considering "two for the price of one" (Bill and Hill), there are the key operatives who conveniently die when in disfavor. They do not hesitate to use the Justice Department, and especially the IRS, to persecute opponents. She runs a tight operation, as secretive as she is personally, and has an ideological platform for totally transforming America.

    Whom does she remind you of, at least vaguely?

    Again, let me be clear. I do not think Trump has a holocaust in mind; he is just an opportunist using "the other" both domestically and abroad to gain power. And I do not think Clinton has the stamina for sustained great purges and great gulags. Yes, she has a lust for power, but she has even more lust for getting rich through politics. She can be bought, and has been, constantly.

    It is these characteristics, however, that are so disturbing. They build on what has come before, but suggest a revolutionary escalation. Every president during my lifetime has added to the power of the American empire and the deep state, but now we seem to be at an unprecedented and transformative junction.

    [Oct 09, 2016] Stop the presses: Donald has no problem with acting like a classless pig!

    Oct 09, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    cwaltz October 7, 2016 at 8:33 pm

    http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-recorded-having-extremely-lewd-conversation-about-women-in-2005/ar-BBx95Fw?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=iehp

    Just in case anyone was disabused of the idea that Donald has no problem with acting like a classless pig!

    NY Union Guy October 7, 2016 at 8:44 pm

    This may actually help the Donald mobilize his base of pissed-off white guys. I mean, how do you think they talk about women in their locker rooms, truck stops, and on the unemployment line?

    polecat October 7, 2016 at 9:02 pm

    ..And of course women NEVER engage in harsh or lewd conversations ….. when referencing the male of the species .. am I right ?

    cwaltz October 7, 2016 at 9:21 pm

    I don't recall those women actually being on the ballot for president.

    Good to know you wouldn't be offended to hear a bunch of women treat you like a piece of meat and brag about how they attempted to "nail you" even ignoring the fact that you were married? Nothing offensive there right? You'd love it if women spent their time looking at your pants straining to figure out the size of the bulge so they can discuss it in detail instead of I don't know, actually listening to you? It's classy and professional behavior(and yes Donald was there for work).

    Hey, I do have to respect that you've adopted his strategy also of excusing his behavior by making this all about everyone else too- incredibly adult. The "mommy they did it first" defense utilized by Donald Trump, his defenders and 3 to 7 year olds throughout the US.

    *shakes head at the immaturity*

    cwaltz October 7, 2016 at 9:24 pm

    Women are half the electorate. He already had the male vote. He needs the female vote.

    I'd like to congratulate him for showing the female half of the species how absolutely disrespectful and creepy he is.

    Otis B Driftwood October 7, 2016 at 9:45 pm

    Right. Stop the presses. Trump is lascivious. That's news to who, exactly?

    And what's next? We learn that Trump sometimes farts in public? Or worse, lets go the occasional SBD? "Revealed" to deflect the latest revelation of Clinton greed and corruption, I'm sure.

    Sheesh … what a low, debased and sad spectacle all around.

    [Oct 09, 2016] But for all Trump's many faults and flaws, he saw things that were true and important-and that few other leaders in his party have acknowledged in the past two decades

    Oct 09, 2016 | www.theatlantic.com

    "But for all Trump's many faults and flaws, he saw things that were true and important-and that few other leaders in his party have acknowledged in the past two decades" [David Frum, The Atlantic ].

    Trump saw that Republican voters are much less religious in behavior than they profess to pollsters. He saw that the social-insurance state has arrived to stay. He saw that Americans regard healthcare as a right, not a privilege. He saw that Republican voters had lost their optimism about their personal futures-and the future of their country. He saw that millions of ordinary people who do not deserve to be dismissed as bigots were sick of the happy talk and reality-denial that goes by the too generous label of "political correctness." He saw that the immigration polices that might have worked for the mass-production economy of the 1910s don't make sense in the 2010s. He saw that rank-and-file Republicans had become nearly as disgusted with the power of money in politics as rank-and-file Democrats long have been. He saw that Republican presidents are elected, when they are elected, by employees as well as entrepreneurs. He saw these things, and he was right to see them.

    [Oct 09, 2016] Hillary is not clobbering Donald because we have a moribund democracy

    Oct 09, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    hreik October 7, 2016 at 2:27 pm

    Lol. Hillary isn't clobbering Donald b/c we have a moribund democracy.
    http://ahtribune.com/us/2016-election/1232-hillary-clinton-democracy.html?tmpl=component&print=1&layout=default

    shinola October 7, 2016 at 3:57 pm

    Thanks for the link. Interesting and depressing. A snippet:

    " Oligarchy is rule by the few. Plutocracy is rule by the wealthy. Corporatocracy is a society governed or controlled by corporations. We have all three."

    [Oct 09, 2016] Grant F. Smith of IRMEP (Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy) sues to stop aid to Israel, on the basis of the Symington Amendment:

    Oct 09, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    RudyM October 7, 2016 at 9:01 pm

    Grant F. Smith of IRMEP (Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy) sues to stop aid to Israel, on the basis of the Symington Amendment:

    http://www.wrmea.org/2016-october/lawsuit-aims-to-block-u.s.-aid-to-israel.html

    [Oct 08, 2016] Ignorance and Dishonesty Trump, Hillary, and Nuclear Genocide

    Notable quotes:
    "... It's shameful that this country hasn't rejected the first use of nuclear weapons. It's also shameful that instead of working to eliminate nuclear weapons, the U.S. is actually planning to spend nearly a trillion dollars over the next 30 years to upgrade that arsenal. For what possible strategic purpose, one must ask? America's current nuclear deterrent is the most powerful and survivable in the world. No other country comes close. There's no rational reason to invest more money in nuclear weapons, unless you count the jobs and money related to building new nuclear submarines, weaponry, bombs, and all the other infrastructure related to America's nuclear triad of Trident submarines, land-based bombers, and fixed missile silos. ..."
    "... Next time, Mr. Trump and Secretary Clinton, let's have some rigor, some honesty, and some wisdom on the issue of nuclear weapons. Not only America deserves it – the world does. ..."
    Antiwar.com

    ... ... ...

    It's shameful that this country hasn't rejected the first use of nuclear weapons. It's also shameful that instead of working to eliminate nuclear weapons, the U.S. is actually planning to spend nearly a trillion dollars over the next 30 years to upgrade that arsenal. For what possible strategic purpose, one must ask? America's current nuclear deterrent is the most powerful and survivable in the world. No other country comes close. There's no rational reason to invest more money in nuclear weapons, unless you count the jobs and money related to building new nuclear submarines, weaponry, bombs, and all the other infrastructure related to America's nuclear triad of Trident submarines, land-based bombers, and fixed missile silos.

    Neither Trump nor Hillary addressed this issue. Trump was simply ignorant. Hillary was simply disingenuous. Which candidate was worse? When you're talking about nuclear genocidal death, it surely does matter. Ignorance is not bliss, nor is a lack of forthrightness and honesty.

    Next time, Mr. Trump and Secretary Clinton, let's have some rigor, some honesty, and some wisdom on the issue of nuclear weapons. Not only America deserves it – the world does.

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

    [Oct 08, 2016] The United States as Destroyer of Nations by Daniel Kovalik

    www.counterpunch.org
    In the aftermath of the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 – an invasion which many Iraqis believe left their country in the worst condition it has been since the Mongol invasion of 1258 -- there was much discussion in the media about the Bush Administration's goal for "nation-building" in that country. Of course, if there ever were such a goal, it was quickly abandoned, and one hardly ever hears the term "nation-building" discussed as a U.S. foreign policy objective anymore.

    The stark truth is that the U.S. really has no intentions of helping to build strong states in the Middle East or elsewhere. Rather, as we see time and again – e.g., in Yugoslavia, Sudan, Libya, Yemen, Syria, Somalia, Ukraine – the goal of U.S. foreign policy, whether stated or not, is increasingly and more aggressively the destruction and balkanization of independent states. However, it is important to recognize that this goal is not new.

    More

    Daniel Kovalik teaches International Human Rights at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law.

    [Oct 08, 2016] The United States as Destroyer of Nations by Daniel Kovalik

    www.counterpunch.org
    In the aftermath of the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 – an invasion which many Iraqis believe left their country in the worst condition it has been since the Mongol invasion of 1258 -- there was much discussion in the media about the Bush Administration's goal for "nation-building" in that country. Of course, if there ever were such a goal, it was quickly abandoned, and one hardly ever hears the term "nation-building" discussed as a U.S. foreign policy objective anymore.

    The stark truth is that the U.S. really has no intentions of helping to build strong states in the Middle East or elsewhere. Rather, as we see time and again – e.g., in Yugoslavia, Sudan, Libya, Yemen, Syria, Somalia, Ukraine – the goal of U.S. foreign policy, whether stated or not, is increasingly and more aggressively the destruction and balkanization of independent states. However, it is important to recognize that this goal is not new.

    More

    Daniel Kovalik teaches International Human Rights at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law.

    [Oct 08, 2016] If Trump is all talk, why are all the establishment neocons as hysterical over him

    Notable quotes:
    "... It's because they couldn't get assurances from him that his anti-globalization talk was just talk, unlike Hillary whom they have gotten assurances that the outsourcing bloodbath will continue unabated. ..."
    "... If Trump tears up NAFTA and the TPP then Americans will, at least, have gotten SOMETHING out of "their" government over the past 35 years. Some little morsel of democratic representation. Something that can be marked as a turning point from 35 years of escalating political and economic corruption that has put civilization on the verge of implosion into fascist revolutions and world war repeating, verbatim, the history of the 1920s and 30s. ..."
    "... For a $10-million donation to the Clinton Foundation, Hillary gave the thumbs up for the use of child soldiers in South Sudan as SoS. A shady businessman had an eye on African mining rights and regime change. (Hillary data-shredded "business" related emails on an illegal private server; smashed her smartphones with a hammer; to destroy evidence.) ..."
    "... Really? Stiffing his employees. Stiffing his creditors. Stiffing the tax man. All "perfectly legal". ..."
    "... Is not this is what neoliberalism is about? Especially for the employees part ..."
    Oct 07, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Ron Waller -> Ben Groves... October 07, 2016 at 12:58 PM , October 07, 2016 at 12:58 PM
    If Trump is all talk, why are all the establishment neocons as hysterical over him as the PC pearl clutchers?

    It's because they couldn't get assurances from him that his anti-globalization talk was just talk, unlike Hillary whom they have gotten assurances that the outsourcing bloodbath will continue unabated.

    If Trump tears up NAFTA and the TPP then Americans will, at least, have gotten SOMETHING out of "their" government over the past 35 years. Some little morsel of democratic representation. Something that can be marked as a turning point from 35 years of escalating political and economic corruption that has put civilization on the verge of implosion into fascist revolutions and world war repeating, verbatim, the history of the 1920s and 30s.

    Ron Waller -> pgl... , -1
    Trump is a weasel of a businessman and a weasel of a politician (par for the course on the latter.) But he made all his money legally.

    The concept of pure corruption, however, might suit the Clintons, given they have pocketed over $100-million in bribe-related wealth.

    They deregulated the banks for kickbacks from Wall Street. Set the stage for the 2000s Bust Out - a complex web of fraud among all manner of banker including cheerleading central banker - that culminated in global economic collapse.

    For money from the burgeoning private prison industry, they labeled African American youth "super predators" with "no conscience; no empathy" (a most vicious of racist dog whistle that blows anything Trump has said out of the water.) Hillary called for a police crackdown ("we can talk about how they ended up that way, but they first must be brought to heel") that kicked off the era of mass incarceration; produced a militant police force filled with racist thugs and cowards; and created the Black Lives Matter movement.

    For a $10-million donation to the Clinton Foundation, Hillary gave the thumbs up for the use of child soldiers in South Sudan as SoS. A shady businessman had an eye on African mining rights and regime change. (Hillary data-shredded "business" related emails on an illegal private server; smashed her smartphones with a hammer; to destroy evidence.)

    All this (and MOAR) might not be pure corruption. But something around 99.99% pure. Like Ivory soap, except evil.

    pgl -> Ron Waller ... , Friday, October 07, 2016 at 02:37 PM
    "But he made all his money legally."

    Really? Stiffing his employees. Stiffing his creditors. Stiffing the tax man. All "perfectly legal".

    Ron Waller -> pgl... , Friday, October 07, 2016 at 05:38 PM
    Trump is small potatoes compared to what the real Wolves of Wall Street did to the global economy. But if he did break the law he should be thrown in jail, right along with the Clintons and all the other bribe-taking criminals.
    nikbez -> pgl... , -1
    Is not this is what neoliberalism is about? Especially for the employees part

    [Oct 08, 2016] Strategic timing of release of Trump sex tapes

    Oct 08, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Tom aka Rusty : Saturday, October 08, 2016 at 07:01 AM
    HRS'c speech transcripts should be front page news today.

    However.....

    The Donald certainly took care of that!

    [Oct 08, 2016] The United States as Destroyer of Nations by Daniel Kovalik

    www.counterpunch.org
    In the aftermath of the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 – an invasion which many Iraqis believe left their country in the worst condition it has been since the Mongol invasion of 1258 -- there was much discussion in the media about the Bush Administration's goal for "nation-building" in that country. Of course, if there ever were such a goal, it was quickly abandoned, and one hardly ever hears the term "nation-building" discussed as a U.S. foreign policy objective anymore.

    The stark truth is that the U.S. really has no intentions of helping to build strong states in the Middle East or elsewhere. Rather, as we see time and again – e.g., in Yugoslavia, Sudan, Libya, Yemen, Syria, Somalia, Ukraine – the goal of U.S. foreign policy, whether stated or not, is increasingly and more aggressively the destruction and balkanization of independent states. However, it is important to recognize that this goal is not new.

    More

    Daniel Kovalik teaches International Human Rights at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law.

    [Oct 08, 2016] this interview with Nasrallah from Hezbollah from links this morning, but it's a real eye-opener

    Oct 08, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    JohnnyGL October 7, 2016 at 5:39 pm

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7w20p8r6bE

    I think I got this interview with Nasrallah from Hezbollah from links this morning, but it's a real eye-opener. Very interesting to hear the other side's point of view. Worth your 10 min if you got time.

    [Oct 07, 2016] The media are misleading the public on Syria by Stephen Kinzer

    Notable quotes:
    "... For three years, violent militants have run Aleppo. Their rule began with a wave of repression. They posted notices warning residents: "Don't send your children to school. If you do, we will get the backpack and you will get the coffin." Then they destroyed factories, hoping that unemployed workers would have no recourse other than to become fighters. They trucked looted machinery to Turkey and sold it. ..."
    "... Militants, true to form, are wreaking havoc as they are pushed out of the city by Russian and Syrian Army forces. "Turkish-Saudi backed 'moderate rebels' showered the residential neighborhoods of Aleppo with unguided rockets and gas jars," one Aleppo resident wrote on social media. The Beirut-based analyst Marwa Osma asked, "The Syrian Arab Army, which is led by President Bashar Assad, is the only force on the ground, along with their allies, who are fighting ISIS - so you want to weaken the only system that is fighting ISIS?" ..."
    "... This does not fit with Washington's narrative. As a result, much of the American press is reporting the opposite of what is actually happening. Many news reports suggest that Aleppo has been a "liberated zone" for three years but is now being pulled back into misery. ..."
    "... Americans are being told that the virtuous course in Syria is to fight the Assad regime and its Russian and Iranian partners. We are supposed to hope that a righteous coalition of Americans, Turks, Saudis, Kurds, and the "moderate opposition" will win. This is convoluted nonsense, but Americans cannot be blamed for believing it. We have almost no real information about the combatants, their goals, or their tactics. Much blame for this lies with our media. ..."
    "... Astonishingly brave correspondents in the war zone, including Americans, seek to counteract Washington-based reporting. At great risk to their own safety, these reporters are pushing to find the truth about the Syrian war. Their reporting often illuminates the darkness of groupthink. Yet for many consumers of news, their voices are lost in the cacophony. Reporting from the ground is often overwhelmed by the Washington consensus. ..."
    "... Inevitably, this kind of disinformation has bled into the American presidential campaign. At the recent debate in Milwaukee, Hillary Clinton claimed that United Nations peace efforts in Syria were based on "an agreement I negotiated in June of 2012 in Geneva." The precise opposite is true. In 2012 Secretary of State Clinton joined Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Israel in a successful effort to kill Kofi Annan's UN peace plan because it would have accommodated Iran and kept Assad in power, at least temporarily. No one on the Milwaukee stage knew enough to challenge her. ..."
    "... The truth is that Kinzer is right. We have no idea what is going on in Syria. For the elites in Washington and their press lackeys to report that one side is moderate and the other is not is ludicrous. ..."
    Feb 18, 2016 | The Boston Globe

    Coverage of the Syrian war will be remembered as one of the most shameful episodes in the history of the American press. Reporting about carnage in the ancient city of Aleppo is the latest reason why.

    For three years, violent militants have run Aleppo. Their rule began with a wave of repression. They posted notices warning residents: "Don't send your children to school. If you do, we will get the backpack and you will get the coffin." Then they destroyed factories, hoping that unemployed workers would have no recourse other than to become fighters. They trucked looted machinery to Turkey and sold it.

    This month, people in Aleppo have finally seen glimmers of hope. The Syrian army and its allies have been pushing militants out of the city. Last week they reclaimed the main power plant. Regular electricity may soon be restored. The militants' hold on the city could be ending.

    Militants, true to form, are wreaking havoc as they are pushed out of the city by Russian and Syrian Army forces. "Turkish-Saudi backed 'moderate rebels' showered the residential neighborhoods of Aleppo with unguided rockets and gas jars," one Aleppo resident wrote on social media. The Beirut-based analyst Marwa Osma asked, "The Syrian Arab Army, which is led by President Bashar Assad, is the only force on the ground, along with their allies, who are fighting ISIS - so you want to weaken the only system that is fighting ISIS?"

    This does not fit with Washington's narrative. As a result, much of the American press is reporting the opposite of what is actually happening. Many news reports suggest that Aleppo has been a "liberated zone" for three years but is now being pulled back into misery.

    Americans are being told that the virtuous course in Syria is to fight the Assad regime and its Russian and Iranian partners. We are supposed to hope that a righteous coalition of Americans, Turks, Saudis, Kurds, and the "moderate opposition" will win. This is convoluted nonsense, but Americans cannot be blamed for believing it. We have almost no real information about the combatants, their goals, or their tactics. Much blame for this lies with our media.

    Under intense financial pressure, most American newspapers, magazines, and broadcast networks have drastically reduced their corps of foreign correspondents. Much important news about the world now comes from reporters based in Washington. In that environment, access and credibility depend on acceptance of official paradigms. Reporters who cover Syria check with the Pentagon, the State Department, the White House, and think tank "experts." After a spin on that soiled carousel, they feel they have covered all sides of the story. This form of stenography produces the pabulum that passes for news about Syria.

    Astonishingly brave correspondents in the war zone, including Americans, seek to counteract Washington-based reporting. At great risk to their own safety, these reporters are pushing to find the truth about the Syrian war. Their reporting often illuminates the darkness of groupthink. Yet for many consumers of news, their voices are lost in the cacophony. Reporting from the ground is often overwhelmed by the Washington consensus.

    Washington-based reporters tell us that one potent force in Syria, al-Nusra, is made up of "rebels" or "moderates," not that it is the local al-Qaeda franchise. Saudi Arabia is portrayed as aiding freedom fighters when in fact it is a prime sponsor of ISIS. Turkey has for years been running a "rat line" for foreign fighters wanting to join terror groups in Syria, but because the United States wants to stay on Turkey's good side, we hear little about it. Nor are we often reminded that although we want to support the secular and battle-hardened Kurds, Turkey wants to kill them. Everything Russia and Iran do in Syria is described as negative and destabilizing, simply because it is they who are doing it - and because that is the official line in Washington.

    Inevitably, this kind of disinformation has bled into the American presidential campaign. At the recent debate in Milwaukee, Hillary Clinton claimed that United Nations peace efforts in Syria were based on "an agreement I negotiated in June of 2012 in Geneva." The precise opposite is true. In 2012 Secretary of State Clinton joined Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Israel in a successful effort to kill Kofi Annan's UN peace plan because it would have accommodated Iran and kept Assad in power, at least temporarily. No one on the Milwaukee stage knew enough to challenge her.

    Politicians may be forgiven for distorting their past actions. Governments may also be excused for promoting whatever narrative they believe best suits them. Journalism, however, is supposed to remain apart from the power elite and its inbred mendacity. In this crisis it has failed miserably.

    Americans are said to be ignorant of the world. We are, but so are people in other countries. If people in Bhutan or Bolivia misunderstand Syria, however, that has no real effect. Our ignorance is more dangerous, because we act on it. The United States has the power to decree the death of nations. It can do so with popular support because many Americans - and many journalists - are content with the official story. In Syria, it is: "Fight Assad, Russia, and Iran! Join with our Turkish, Saudi, and Kurdish friends to support peace!" This is appallingly distant from reality. It is also likely to prolong the war and condemn more Syrians to suffering and death.

    Stephen Kinzer is a senior fellow at the Watson Institute for International Studies at Brown University. Follow him on Twitter @stephenkinzer.


    kaisy 02/18/16 03:38 PM

    The truth is that Kinzer is right. We have no idea what is going on in Syria. For the elites in Washington and their press lackeys to report that one side is moderate and the other is not is ludicrous.

    When the uprising against Assad began three years ago, initially we were on the side of the angels, that is until we found out that they were mostly Al Queda. Fast forward and now we have ISIS, the sworn enemy of the US and anybody else that disagrees with them. So now, remarkably, some are looking at Assad as the voice of moderation. This is so akin to Afghanistan and, decades ago, Vietnam. When you don't understand the players and their ulterior motives, best to not get involved. Me, I'd leave this to the Saudis and Iran to fight over. Cruz talks about carpet bombing Syria until the sand glows (btw, real Christianlike there). I say defer to those over there. Eventually they'll run out of people to do the fighting (happening already with ISIS), then, and only then, we can go in and pick up the pieces.


    jkupie02/19/16 07:16 AM

    "Washington-based reporters tell us that one potent force in Syria, al-Nusra, is made up of "rebels" or "moderates," not that it is the local al-Qaeda franchise."

    I don't know enough about the area to confirm or disprove most of Mr. Kinzer's points but I DO KNOW that this claim is false.

    tyfox"n" 02/19/16 07:40 PM

    jkupiue I absolutley agree. I have never read or heard al-Nusra described as anything but an al-Qaeda group, and it is stated every time al-Nusra is mentioned.

    pegnva 02/19/16 07:58 AM

    Hard to know the truth...but it is interesting Kinzer was able to QUOTE former Sec'ty of State, now presidential candidate Hillary Clinton at the recent Milwaukee debate for falsely taking credit, some might say lying to the Am public.

    kaisy 02/19/16 11:24 AM

    Hillary is on the wrong side of this. She wants a no fly zone in Syria, just the Repubs. She doesn't speak to the consequences of the policy. Unfortunately Bernie has not challenged her on this. He really needs to.

    NH-Repub 02/19/16 09:22 AM

    Leftout is right and Hillary is the Queen of Doublespeak. Obama and his minions would like nothing better than to mislead the masses and keep them in the dark about everything. That way they control the media and by proxy - us!

    [Oct 07, 2016] Alliance with Al-Queda to remove Assad is now official Washington groupthink that is even more dangerous than the one that led to the Iraq War by Robert Parry

    Notable quotes:
    "... Not since the eve of the U.S. invasion of Iraq has Official Washington's political/punditry class clamored more single-mindedly – and openly – for the U.S. government to commit a gross violation of international law, now urging a major military assault on the government of Syria while also escalating tensions with nuclear-armed Russia. ..."
    "... And, like the frenzied war fever of 2002-2003, today's lawless consensus is operating on a mix of selective, dubious and false information – while excluding from the public debate voices that might dare challenge the prevailing "group think." It's as if nothing was learned from the previous disaster in Iraq. ..."
    "... U.S. regional "allies" have been funding and arming radical jihadist groups, including Al Qaeda terrorists ..."
    "... the claim about "moderate" Syrian rebels is a fraud; the "moderates" have served essentially as a P.R. cut-out for the U.S. and its "allies" to supply Al Qaeda and its allies with sophisticated weapons while pretending not to. ..."
    Oct 05, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    RGC : October 06, 2016 at 08:34 AM New 'Group Think' for War with Syria/Russia
    October 5, 2016

    Official Washington has a new "group think" that is even more dangerous than the one that led to the Iraq War. This one calls for U.S. escalation of conflicts against Syria and nuclear-armed Russia.

    Not since the eve of the U.S. invasion of Iraq has Official Washington's political/punditry class clamored more single-mindedly – and openly – for the U.S. government to commit a gross violation of international law, now urging a major military assault on the government of Syria while also escalating tensions with nuclear-armed Russia.

    And, like the frenzied war fever of 2002-2003, today's lawless consensus is operating on a mix of selective, dubious and false information – while excluding from the public debate voices that might dare challenge the prevailing "group think." It's as if nothing was learned from the previous disaster in Iraq.

    Most notably, there are two key facts about Syria that Americans are not being told: one, U.S. regional "allies" have been funding and arming radical jihadist groups, including Al Qaeda terrorists , there almost since the conflict began in 2011 and, two, the claim about "moderate" Syrian rebels is a fraud; the "moderates" have served essentially as a P.R. cut-out for the U.S. and its "allies" to supply Al Qaeda and its allies with sophisticated weapons while pretending not to.
    .................................
    https://consortiumnews.com/2016/10/05/new-group-think-for-war-with-syriarussia/

    [Oct 06, 2016] Former Miss Universe Alicia Machado says shes done talking about Trump Daily Mail Online

    Oct 06, 2016 | dailymail.co.uk

    A former Miss Universe who says Donald Trump 'fat-shamed' her and called her 'Miss Piggy' says she's done battling the billionaire.

    Alicia Machado will not give any more interviews on the way Trump treated her, representatives for the Venezuelan-born beauty queen told DailyMail.com.

    'We will not be discussing the Trump subject any further,' an email from her reps at Anderson Public Relations Group said.

    A statement from Machado that accompanied to the message blasted Trump and his campaign for 'launching insults and are attempting to revive slanders and false accusations about my life, in order to humiliate, intimidate, and unbalance me.

    'These attacks are cheap lies with bad intentions,' she said.

    A former Miss Universe who says Donald Trump 'fat-shamed' her and called her 'Miss Piggy' says she's done battling the billionaire. Alicia Machado says she will not give any more interviews on the way Trump treated her

    Machado blasted Trump in a statement for 'launching insults and are attempting to revive slanders and false accusations about my life, in order to humiliate, intimidate, and unbalance me.' She's pictured fighting off the press on Oct. 1 at a Fashion Week event in California

    After Hillary Clinton put a spotlight on Machado's strife with Trump in the first general election debate, the 39-year-old's dirty laundry spilled out into the public.

    Video from a Spanish reality TV show Machado participated in showed her having sex with another contestant while she was engaged to baseball star Bobby Abreu.

    It was further revealed that she was listed as an accomplice in an attempted murder in 1998, two years after she carried the Miss Universe crown.

    Machado allegedly drove the getaway car and threatened to kill the judge overseeing the case. Her then-boyfriend was indicted in the criminal case.

    Clinton's campaign has been unwilling to admit to knowing, or not knowing, about Machado's past.

    'I don't think that in any way excuses what Trump has said about her,' Clinton's national press secretary, Brian Fallon, told DailyMail.com.

    Alicia Machado appears topless on reality show The Farm Loaded:

    ROLE (IN THE HAY) MODEL: Machado had sex in front of the cameras – and moaned about Spanish TV host Fernando Acaso's 'p***a' – during a 2005 episode of 'La Granja'

    Trump last week accused Machado of making a 'sex tape' as he lashed out at Clinton in a 3 AM Twitter rant for propping her up.

    That was a reference to a 2005 reality TV show modeled after 'Big Brother,' in which Machado was filmed having intercourse on camera with a fellow contestant.

    In the 2005 episode of 'La Granja,' she had sex in front of the cameras with Spanish TV host Fernando Acaso.

    Machado was engaged to Philadelphia Phillies right fielder Abreu at the time. The Venezuelan major-leaguer called off the wedding after clips of the show appeared online.

    The broadcast showed Acaso on top of her, with Machado whispering in Spanish about his manhood.

    'Oh your d***, my love, what a tasty d***! Your d*** is divine,' she moans while they go at it.

    Later during the broadcast replay, the show's host read aloud what Machado had written about the man.

    CRINGE: Machado's sex scene in the reality-show fun house was relived frame by frame complete with mortified squirming, and her fiancé Bobby Abreu later called off their engagement

    Interviewed about sex scene: Machado was interviewed about what she did in bed with Fernando Acaso, appearing to be embarrassed as an interviewer revealed she had said: 'He f***s me like a b****.'

    'Really, that guy is cute, he loves me, he understands me, he accepts me, he protects me, he supports me, he respects me,' read her testimonial.

    'He treats me like a goddess, he f***s me like a b****!'

    Machado told Univision when she returned to Miami that 'I felt fine as a person, as a human being.'

    'It was a very strong experience, very difficult in all senses, and I feel very happy with the events in Spain. I had people's support once more and I gained respect for what I am as a person and that was the purpose.'

    Trump has also suggested that Clinton's campaign obtained U.S. citizenship for Machado. The Democrat's aides say that's not true. Machado became a citizen on her own.

    The scrutiny appears to have taken a toll on the actress and mother.

    RELATED ARTICLES Share this article

    Share 1.3k shares

    Hillary Clinton made Machado's strife with Trump over her weight the focal point of her charge in last week's general election debate that the Republican is a sexist

    In response to DailyMail.com's request for an interview, Machado's representatives said: 'Thank you for reaching out regarding Alicia. At this point in time Alicia has said her comments about the trump situation (please see her statement below) and we are no longer discussing the subject.

    'If you are interested in talking about Alicia's career, her businesses and her philanthropy we are open to discussing, however we will not be discussing the Trump subject any further.'

    A long statement from Machado said Trump is 'attempting to distract from his campaign's real problems and his inability to be the leader of this great country' by 'discrediting her.'

    'When I was young, the now candidate, humiliated me, insulted me, disrespected me both publicly and privately in the cruelest way. The same way this happened to me, it's clear that throughout the years, he's continued his actions and behavior with other women.

    'Therefore, I will continue to stand on my feet, sharing my story and my absolute support for Secretary Clinton, on behalf of all women.'

    Machado's commitment to spreading the word about the public humiliation she says the Republican presidential nominee caused her does not, apparently, extend to interviews on the topic, however.

    As of Wednesday evening, Hillary Clinton was still using Machado as an example of her opponent's 'lack of respect for women.'

    'The list is long. He insulted Alicia Machado, the former Miss Universe. He said that pregnancy is an inconvenience for a woman's employer,' Clinton said at a Women's Leadership Forum in Washington, D.C..

    She said, 'Recently, more than 20 people who worked on his TV show have come forward to say he was frequently inappropriate with the cast and crew members – another reason why he is temperamentally unfit to be president.'

    Clinton was referring to an Associated Press report from Monday in which contestants and crew members from The Apprentice claimed the married Trump rated participants by the size of their breasts and talked about having sex with them.

    Trump's campaign spokeswoman, Hope Hicks, said in response, 'These outlandish, unsubstantiated, and totally false claims fabricated by publicity hungry, opportunistic, disgruntled former employees, have no merit whatsoever.'

    Defending his comments about women's looks Wednesday in a TV interview with Las Vegas channel KSNV Trump said 'a lot of that was done for the purpose of entertainment.'

    'I can tell you this: There is nobody – nobody,' he said, that has more respect for women than I do.'

    A spokesman for Clinton's campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Machado's decision to stop doing interviews on Trump and how that might affect the Democratic candidate's own speeches.

    Clinton has no public events on her schedule between now and Sunday's presidential debate. Her next rally is on Monday in Michigan.

    FULL ALICIA MACHADO STATEMENT ON DONALD TRUMP

    'The Republican candidate and his campaign are, once again launching attacks, insults and are attempting to revive slanders and false accusations about my life, in order to humiliate, intimidate, and unbalance me. These attacks are cheap lies with bad intentions. This, of course, is not the first time the candidate insists on discrediting someone or insists on demoralizing women, minorities, and people of certain religions through his hateful campaign. This is definitely one of his most frightful characteristics. Through his attacks, he's attempting to distract from his campaign's real problems and his inability to be the leader of this great country.

    When I was young, the now candidate, humiliated me, insulted me, disrespected me both publicly and privately in the cruelest way. The same way this happened to me, it's clear that throughout the years, he's continued his actions and behavior with other women. Therefore, I will continue to stand on my feet, sharing my story and my absolute support for Secretary Clinton, on behalf of all women -- my sisters, aunts, grandmothers, cousins, women within the community. I want to thank all of my Latinas and those who have supported me and given me love and respect for my career, and as a human being. I became a United States citizen because my daughter was born here and because I wanted to exercise my rights, among them, I wanted to vote.

    I will continue standing firm in my lived experience as Miss Universe and even stronger with your support. I've been so pleased and honored by so many kind and heartfelt words. I'm focusing on my career and my work as a mother, and I will continue taking positive steps for the Latino community. I will continue being an activist for women's rights and fighting for the respect we deserve. I appreciate all your love and thank you again for your support.'

    [Oct 06, 2016] Neoliberal MSM bottomfeeders try to damage Trump calaiming he insulted voters while in reality Democrat did is in cold blood

    Notable quotes:
    "... It's a pattern not just for the Clinton campaign, but liberals generally: the "irredeemable" "basket of deplorables"; the basement dwelling millenials. ..."
    "... Worse, the Democrat approach is calculated: As Bernard Shaw says: "A blow in cold blood neither can nor should be forgiven." ..."
    "... It's difficult to convince someone whose life is objectively worse that their life is better. And it's disengenuous to try. ..."
    "... Neoliberal capitalism is not sustainable for these people. ..."
    "... Neither party seems to be aligned with the interests of my union brothers and sisters. I'm sick and tired of hearing the kayfabe crap every election season about how I should vote dem to keep the evil GOPers from busting unions, when in reality both parties seem more or less committed to the corporate agenda of employment crapification. ..."
    "... I believe in union's, but part of the decline can be directly laid at the feet of leadership that either knowingly or stupidly help elect people who aren't with their union members in any meaningful fashion. ..."
    "... Some of the unions are straight out sell outs (I'm looking at you AFL/CIO – but the AFL kind of always has been, that's it's history, but now it's pretty appalling the positions being taken). Not sure about Teamsters and smaller unions are hit and miss I guess only a few are radical. The unions were defanged long ago in order to have un-threatening corporate unions and of course labor was the loser. But that still doesn't excuse their horrible political choices. ..."
    "... Why in the hell are the Democrats parading around like they are the default? Oh my! The Republicans could get the White House snatched from the Dems! Why should an independent give a damn if the Democrats lose? If they are so freaking important, change your policies to win their votes legitimately you HACKs! ..."
    Oct 06, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Debate Wrapup

    Next presidential debate: Sunday, October 9.

    "Fact-checking the vice-presidential debate between Kaine and Pence" [ WaPo ]. On the "insult-driven campaign" back-and-forth, where WaPo proffers a lovingly compiled list of Trump's insults: If smearing an entire cohort of disfavored voters as racist and sexist #BernieBros isn't an insult, I don't know what is. And that approach isn't isolated: It's a pattern not just for the Clinton campaign, but liberals generally: the "irredeemable" "basket of deplorables"; the basement dwelling millenials.

    Worse, the Democrat approach is calculated: As Bernard Shaw says: "A blow in cold blood neither can nor should be forgiven." So miss me with the insult discussion.

    ... ... ...

    "I Listened to a Trump Supporter" [ Extra News Feed ]. The foreclosure crisis destroyed her landscraping business. Then she lost her own house. "She told me that every week, it seemed there was another default letter, another foreclosure, another bank demanding more blood from her dry veins. To her, that pile of default notices and demands for payment looked suspiciously similar to Hillary Clinton's top donor list." And she's not wrong.

    "The Trump candidacy succeeded because of a massive revolt among rank-and-file Republicans against their leaders. Should the Trump candidacy fail, as now seems likely, those leaders stand ready to deny that the revolt ever happened. Instead, they'll have a story of a more or less normal Republican undone only because (as Pence said last night) 'he's not a polished politician.' The solution for 2020? Bring back the professionals-and return to business as usual" [David Frum, The Atlantic ]. "It's unlikely to work. But you can understand why it's an attractive message to a party elite that discovered to its horror that it had lost its base and lost its way."

    "Trump faces new battleground threat from steelworkers: The United Steelworkers union is pledging to make sure every one of its workers in make-or-break states like Pennsylvania, Michigan and Ohio are well aware that the Republican presidential candidate may have circumvented U.S. laws to import Chinese steel" [ Politico ].

    Roger Smith October 5, 2016 at 2:11 pm

    "I Listened to a Trump Supporter" [Extra News Feed].

    Thank the heavens the Banks made it out okay though. All those nice people might have had to go through the same thing.

    "It's difficult to convince someone whose life is objectively worse that their life is better. And it's disengenuous to try. You can break down the specifics, sure.

    What is the author talking about? Their lives ARE NOT better.

    "Neoliberal capitalism is not sustainable for these people."

    It is not sustainable period! What do you think will happen when all these people disappear?

    dcblogger October 5, 2016 at 2:34 pm

    Since The Beltway Democratic Establishment Refuses To Back Progressives Candidates, Why Should Grassroots Dems Unite Behind Their Crap Candidates?

    NY Union Guy October 5, 2016 at 3:05 pm

    EXACTLY!!!

    My primary political concern is labor so why should I get behind a dem or a GOPer?

    Neither party seems to be aligned with the interests of my union brothers and sisters. I'm sick and tired of hearing the kayfabe crap every election season about how I should vote dem to keep the evil GOPers from busting unions, when in reality both parties seem more or less committed to the corporate agenda of employment crapification.

    Pat October 5, 2016 at 4:31 pm

    My union's bulletin arrived yesterday with a full color cover of Hillary touting how they are with her.

    I believe in union's, but part of the decline can be directly laid at the feet of leadership that either knowingly or stupidly help elect people who aren't with their union members in any meaningful fashion.

    jrs October 5, 2016 at 6:13 pm

    Some of the unions are straight out sell outs (I'm looking at you AFL/CIO – but the AFL kind of always has been, that's it's history, but now it's pretty appalling the positions being taken). Not sure about Teamsters and smaller unions are hit and miss I guess only a few are radical. The unions were defanged long ago in order to have un-threatening corporate unions and of course labor was the loser. But that still doesn't excuse their horrible political choices.

    Higgs Boson October 5, 2016 at 8:35 pm

    Leaked Audio of Hillary Speaking to "the Grown Ups"

    Maybe HRC should ask Seattle CM Kshama Sawant what the problem is.

    Roger Smith October 5, 2016 at 2:41 pm

    Al Gore: "The former vice president, a climate activist, will speak about not just Clinton's plan to address global warming, but also the idea that voting for an independent presidential candidate could deliver the White House to Republicans in the same way that Ralph Nader's candidacy helped undermine his presidential bid in 2000."

    Why in the hell are the Democrats parading around like they are the default? Oh my! The Republicans could get the White House snatched from the Dems! Why should an independent give a damn if the Democrats lose? If they are so freaking important, change your policies to win their votes legitimately you HACKs!

    Nah, just parade around an old loser… that will get those kids and independents invigorated for sure! He made a movie! - ARGHH!!!! (this infuriates me).

    [Oct 06, 2016] Some atypical pro Trump comments from Guardian

    Notable quotes:
    "... The Military Industrial Complex with the Saudi/Qatari/Gulf Mafia in cahoots with The Religious Cult We're No Longer Allowed To Mention, have it in the bag. ..."
    "... Expect another war in the Middle East shortly after she's crowned. ..."
    "... Oh please. Yeah I'd sooner eat a cyanide sandwich than vote for that corrupt witch. ..."
    "... It's amusing to see the Guardian claim that it has "no bias", like when Marxists argue that their doctrine is a 'science' instead of a set of political beliefs. ..."
    "... Do the 1%ers and biased media believe that even if Clinton wins that the Trump supporters will just shrug their shoulders? Not a chance. ..."
    "... 2020 is going to be the most epic fought POTUS election in the history of America, that's if CLinton can stay upright and read the teleprompter for 4 years. ..."
    "... The only winner here will be globalist bankers and mega multinationals, the losers will, as usual, be all of the common people. ..."
    "... The Guardian will be 3 times a loser, despite it's supersonic propaganda campaign. 1) Brexit vote 2) Corbyn re-elected 3) Trump will win ..."
    "... In terms of comparing how much they are working Trump is simply working harder. He was campaigning yesterday and is today as well. It shows how dedicated he is for this whilst Hillary is in hiding and no doubt will be until Sunday !!! ..."
    "... At a townhall two days ago in Pennsylvania the Hillary Clinton campaign used a child actor, a daughter of a democrat state senator from Pennsylvania, to further her narrative. ..."
    "... The American people are like a sleeping elephant, sedated by a tame and corrupt media, yet when awoken with the truth they will trample everything in their path. Clinton is running out of tranquilisers. ..."
    Oct 06, 2016 | www.theguardian.com
    ID4352889 1h ago
    The Warmonger Candidate will win.

    The Military Industrial Complex with the Saudi/Qatari/Gulf Mafia in cahoots with The Religious Cult We're No Longer Allowed To Mention, have it in the bag.

    AgentC ID4352889 1h ago

    The Warmonger Candidate will win.
    ...

    Expect another war in the Middle East shortly after she's crowned.
    Bitty31985 1h ago
    Oh please. Yeah I'd sooner eat a cyanide sandwich than vote for that corrupt witch. Go Jill Stein!! Defeat The She Devil!!
    cato8203 2h ago

    The Guardian is an independent voice in this year's election. That means no bias

    It's amusing to see the Guardian claim that it has "no bias", like when Marxists argue that their doctrine is a 'science' instead of a set of political beliefs.

    Thebrexiteer1234 2h ago
    Do the 1%ers and biased media believe that even if Clinton wins that the Trump supporters will just shrug their shoulders? Not a chance.

    2020 is going to be the most epic fought POTUS election in the history of America, that's if CLinton can stay upright and read the teleprompter for 4 years.

    Trump and Sanders supporters are just getting started.

    imperviouspizza 3h ago
    The only winner here will be globalist bankers and mega multinationals, the losers will, as usual, be all of the common people.
    MikeHuntByrnes 3h ago
    A link to Donald Trump's new plan to make America Great Again: Read and weep, all you Hillary-lovers! Trump 4 President!

    http://tinyurl.com/2fcpre6

    Alex J Campbell 4h ago
    The Guardian will be 3 times a loser, despite it's supersonic propaganda campaign. 1) Brexit vote 2) Corbyn re-elected 3) Trump will win
    rosey011 4h ago
    In terms of comparing how much they are working Trump is simply working harder. He was campaigning yesterday and is today as well. It shows how dedicated he is for this whilst Hillary is in hiding and no doubt will be until Sunday !!!
    fedback 4h ago
    At a townhall two days ago in Pennsylvania the Hillary Clinton campaign used a child actor, a daughter of a democrat state senator from Pennsylvania, to further her narrative.

    Unfortunately all about Hillary is fake and as the media don't even pretend to practice journalism concerning Hillary Clinton, citizen researchers have to do the media's job. Here is a video explaining what took place.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEqU71k0zAc

    ThomasFareye 4h ago
    The American people are like a sleeping elephant, sedated by a tame and corrupt media, yet when awoken with the truth they will trample everything in their path. Clinton is running out of tranquilisers.

    [Oct 06, 2016] Kasparov never has a chance to become president of RU, especially after he became an obvious puppet of the West

    Notable quotes:
    "... Even with the outside help, even if all US Department Of State budget will be spent on Kasparov's campaign, even with the help of 101st and 82nd Airborne Divisions, chances of Kasparov becoming PM or President of Russia are approaching zero. ..."
    "... Unless ofc US manages coup in Russia like in Ukraine and elsewhere, which is nearly impossible at this point. ..."
    "... He never had those chances in the first place and it has very little to do with his support from the West. Western "liberalism" in the form it is preached by Kasparov or his ilk simply has no chances in Russia, period. And it is all for the better. Basically what is known as Russian "westernizing" liberalism is dead. Good riddance. ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org

    SmoothieX12 | Oct 3, 2016 11:49:13 AM | 57

    @Carl D, 55
    What do you think of Kasparov? Can he ever be PM or President of the Russian Federation without outside Help?

    Even with the outside help, even if all US Department Of State budget will be spent on Kasparov's campaign, even with the help of 101st and 82nd Airborne Divisions, chances of Kasparov becoming PM or President of Russia are approaching zero.

    Harry | Oct 3, 2016 12:02:39 PM | 58
    Kasparov ruined his chances to become president of RU by being an obvious puppet of the West, much like nobody in Syria would vote for whatever "opposition president" for the day is. Unless ofc US manages coup in Russia like in Ukraine and elsewhere, which is nearly impossible at this point.

    SmoothieX12 | Oct 3, 2016 12:37:02 PM | 59
    @58, Harry
    Kasparov ruined his chances to become president of RU by being an obvious puppet of the West

    He never had those chances in the first place and it has very little to do with his support from the West. Western "liberalism" in the form it is preached by Kasparov or his ilk simply has no chances in Russia, period. And it is all for the better. Basically what is known as Russian "westernizing" liberalism is dead. Good riddance.

    CarlD | Oct 3, 2016 1:41:30 PM | 63
    Re Kasparov

    I believe the Duma should strip him of Russian citizenship. In the debate of reference, he is siding with enemies of Russia and shows no patriotism at all. Ambition blinds him.

    SmoothieX12 | Oct 3, 2016 3:05:09 PM | 66
    @63, CarlD.
    I believe the Duma should strip him of Russian citizenship.

    No, it shouldn't. He has to be regularly shown on TV and has his views propagated. Not that he wasn't a freak before, let him completely discredit himself (I wonder if it is even possible) and meanwhile complete a cycle of immunization of Russians against "values" he preaches.

    [Oct 05, 2016] The VP Debate and Syria The American Conservative

    Oct 05, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com
    The vice presidential debate was an irritating and boring event. One notable part was when Mike Pence outlined his views of what the U.S. should do in Syria:

    Asked how a Trump-Pence administration would stop the civil war carnage in Aleppo, Pence said that he, at least, "truly believe(s) that what America ought to do right now is immediately establish safe zones, so that families and children can work out of those areas," and "work with our partners [to] make that happen. Provocations by Russia need to be met with American strength." If Russia "continues to be involved" in airstrikes along with the Syrian government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, he said, "the United States of America should be prepared to use military force to strike the military forces of the Assad regime" and "prevent this crisis in Aleppo."

    Trump has said very little about Syria's civil war–and advocated none of the measures Pence outlined.

    That last part is not really true. Trump has endorsed creating safe zones in Syria on more than one occasion . While I don't believe Trump has a clear idea of what establishing a safe zone requires, he has had no problem voicing support for the idea several times. The fact that Pence felt comfortable outlining a very aggressive Syria policy in tonight's debate suggests that Trump doesn't really have a problem with what his running mate proposed. As I said when I was watching the debate, Pence's answer on Syria was deranged. He more or less threatened to initiate hostilities with Russia, and he seemed oblivious to the serious negative consequences this would have. He kept invoking "American leadership" and "American strength," as if uttering these phrases was all that mattered. Pence's advocacy for much more U.S. involvement in Syria could have been an easy target for Kaine, but of course he and Clinton have no disagreements with the Republican ticket on this issue. For all the quarreling between the two campaigns, both tickets apparently support U.S. escalation in Syria. As bad as the moderator for the debate was, she did at least manage to get both candidates to take positions on an issue that was completely ignored in the first presidential debate.

    Overall, Kaine's performance was shaky and didn't seem all that impressive to anyone that didn't know much about him. Despite arguably having better foreign policy experience than Pence, he did a worse job of demonstrating his readiness to be president if needed. His constant interruptions of Pence were jarring and off-putting, and created the impression of being an overly loyal terrier trying to defend his master. Pence's repeated failure to come to Trump's defense in response to Kaine's many jabs presumably hurt Trump, but it also made Pence seem much less agitated and rattled. Neither VP nominee significantly harmed his running mate, but Pence did a better job of making the case for his party's ticket.

    Who Stole The Strawberries?, says: October 4, 2016 at 11:48 pm
    " it also made Pence seem much less agitated and rattled"

    I agree. Kaine's nervousness, grimacing, and non-stop interruptions were annoying and a bit flaky. Pence seemed more composed and stable, even if some of what he said was a lot of nonsense straight out of the Interventionist Handbook.

    Temperamentally, Pence is the guy you'd want a heartbeat away from taking that 3:00AM call Kaine looked like he'd still be awake, jabbering into a dictaphone while vacuuming the Oval Office for the fifth time.

    Dakarian , says: October 5, 2016 at 12:13 am
    As far as Syria, and the middle east in general, this is sort of why I glossed over the statements that Hillary is a hawk: because I don't see any doves (that don't have far too many other problems to support). Trump started out sounding like he was but as time went on it sounded more and more like the regular republican "more money to the military. World Police! WIN!" talk.

    So at this point it sounds like both are going to keep us in the middle east. Though it seems Trump may mess with the Iran deal (though it might be less attacking it as it is just poking at the administration any chance you get).

    As far as the debate, Pence wanted a debate about policy while Kaine wanted a debate about Trump. if this was a presidential debate Pence probably would've been in a better standing.

    But I think Kaine wasn't even fighting him. He wasn't after policy. Beyond stating his points and a token defense his primary purpose was one thing, to say "remember, you aren't voting for Pence, but for Trump." He's picturing the public saying "Oh, Pence seems pretty coo..oh yeah, but he's with Trump..ewww."

    It pretty much sums up the entire deal with the republican side of the campaign. Take Trump out of it and you have a strong platform and an actual attempt at trying to extend somewhat past the old GOP mindset while evoking that Need For Change that pushed democrats back in '08. It's an actual strong case.

    The issue is that it's all on the hopes of Trump. And THAT is the hard sell. I don't even see many supporters defending him. It's like Pence: they bypass him and either focus on the dream or the enemy.

    Which leads to something interesting: If the roles were reversed: same platform, same general message, but Pence as President and Trump as VP, would it be hard for folks not two-feet in the Democratic ticket to vote R? Would there be a questioin as to who would win?

    I have a feeling that many would say : " I don't know. But I would have liked that campaign I would have liked that campaign very much.

    Old Dominionite , says: October 5, 2016 at 2:51 am
    If you'd told me that one of the two gentlemen debating last night was a Virginian and asked me who it was, I would have said Pence, solely because of his demeanor.

    Pence's thoughts on Syria were dumb (and dangerous), but I find it hard to hold that against run-of-the-mill politicians these days because they're getting such rotten information and advice from establishment "experts" and mainstream pundits. The country needs a changing of the guard when it comes to "experts".

    Kaine struck me as a third stringer trying to compensate for his own weaknesses by poking a stick in the other fellow's spokes. And no better on Syria, that's certain.

    furbo , says: October 5, 2016 at 7:29 am
    The way the question was phrased, evoking endangered children and the classic what should America 'do' .doesn't really allow a candidate to say 'nothing – we have no vital interests in Syria'.
    VikingLS , says: October 5, 2016 at 8:40 am
    If Pence is pushing that same "get tough with Russia and Assad" idea he's taking the opposite tack than Trump. Either they aren't communicating, the campaign figured that they could get away with completely altering their position from one debate to the next, or Pence doesn't really care what Trump thinks and is an unreformed GOP hawk.

    Either way this is very disappointing and stupid.

    collin , says: October 5, 2016 at 8:52 am
    Isn't the joke here Pence had a great debate running for President? In reality, it is very likely Pence does all the real work and all Donald really wants is the national audience to take the credit. So it was a goo debate for Pence that has minimal effect on the polls because the headliners personality are dominant this cycle.

    Tim Kaine was overly-aggressive and appeared to be not ready for Prime time.

    Nestor , says: October 5, 2016 at 8:54 am
    Take Trump out of it and you have a strong platform

    Idiotic.

    Take Trump out of it, and you have more of the same GOP neoconservatism as ever:

    -more pretend-resistance-but-actual-enabling of illegal immigration
    -more wars-on-behalf-of-Israel neocon interventionism
    -more manufacturing-base-killing free trade

    Trump is the ONLY reason these three toxic policies are even being challenged.

    EliteCommInc. , says: October 5, 2016 at 9:04 am
    "The fact that Pence felt comfortable outlining a very aggressive Syria policy in tonight's debate suggests that Trump doesn't really have a problem with what his running mate proposed. As I said when I was watching the debate, Pence's answer on Syria was deranged. He more or less threatened to initiate hostilities with Russia, and he seemed oblivious to the serious negative consequences this would have. He kept invoking"

    I didn't watch the debate. This morning, when I was asked about it - I didn't think it would be a contest. Gov. Pence, should have no issues.

    But if I had watched and heard the above comments. I might have had conniptions. I am not going to say more at the moment. I would sound like I am abandoning my candidate. I like Gov. Pence, but that response is rife with campaign and policy self inflicting damages - good grief.

    Steve in Ohio , says: October 5, 2016 at 10:22 am
    Pence is a fine Christian man and I'm glad he did well last night. However, his hawkishness was disturbing. Somebody who is pro life should be wary of policies that lead to wars and thousands dying.

    As somebody who wants our borders secured, I don't feel I have a choice on Nov. 8. I will be praying, though, that Trump doesn't delegate the FP heavy lifting to his vice president as Bush 43 did to his.

    Uncle Billy , says: October 5, 2016 at 10:35 am
    "Safe Zones" sound all well and good, but the only way to guarantee a safe zone is to have US troops on the ground in Syria. You cannot enforce a safe zone from the air.

    So, it sounds like both parties are willing to commit US ground troops to Syria and risk a possible confrontation with Russian troops who are already there.

    This is more Neocon nonsense being foisted on the American people by politicians who do not really understand the ramifications of their actions.

    LHM , says: October 5, 2016 at 10:50 am
    Jesus. Very disappointed in Pence's answer on Syria. War against russia would cost thousands of american lives. We need to stay out of Syria plain and simple. Pence's statememt also goes completely against "we need to beat ISIS" rant that trump goes on every two sentences. To beat ISIS we would have to be on the same side as Syria/Russia. This whole election is cluster .How the heck did we end up with these two choices?
    RadicalCenter2 , says: October 5, 2016 at 11:21 am
    LHM: exactly. I'd just add that war with Russia conventionally would probably costs hundreds of thousands of us soldier lives and could cripple our military for subsequent actual DEFENSE against the country that actually will have the means to threaten the very existence or freedom of the USA:

    China, with an economy vastly bigger and more diversified than Russia's, a population eight times as numerous as Russia's, and for that matter a far, far larger diaspora to influence politics, culture, and economics in the formerly white western countries (USA, Canada (especially "British" Columbia), and Australia, in particular).

    Also, as pointed out in columns on Unz and elsewhere, conventional war could escalate to nuclear exchange more easily than many people think. God help us.

    Anonne , says: October 5, 2016 at 11:34 am
    Pence did a better job selling his party because Pence thoroughly invented a different running mate.
    Chris Chuba , says: October 5, 2016 at 12:06 pm
    How many safe zones do we need in Syria, we already have 3.
    1. Govt held areas (unless we bomb them).
    2. Kurdish territory (unless Turkey bombs them).
    3. The Turkish zone in N. Syria.

    In fact weren't we begging Turkey to establish a zone just for this purpose?

    Of course, what we really want is an Assad free zone that covers all of Syria and filled with Al Qaeda groups that we pretend are moderates.

    EdK , says: October 5, 2016 at 12:56 pm
    Trump needs to state clearly that he is not in agreement with Pence position on Russia & Syria. To beat ISIS we need to be on the same side as Russia. If Pence is a fine Christian, how can he be so carless to be on side of ISIS in Syria like Obama is, and have hand in destroying Syria the cradle of Christianity.
    Dakarian , says: October 5, 2016 at 1:18 pm
    @LHM

    "Jesus. Very disappointed in Pence's answer on Syria. War against russia would cost thousands of american lives. We need to stay out of Syria plain and simple. Pence's statememt also goes completely against "we need to beat ISIS" rant that trump goes on every two sentences. To beat ISIS we would have to be on the same side as Syria/Russia."

    it's the problem with being involved with the entire middle east without a firm desire of exactly what we want from there. We started out fighting Sunni threats, then took out the big Sunni country that we earlier set up to hold back the big Shi'a country we felt was a threat. So when said Shi'a country gained power we stood against them. And..well, that sort of ended up with us fighting both sides at the same time depending on the location.

    It's much more complicated than that, which is why jumping in there without really understanding the region was a bad idea.

    " This whole election is cluster .How the heck did we end up with these two choices?"

    My belief.

    Democratic voters are used to 'playing it safe' instead of going for more Left choices since "liberal" triggers a BIG backlash in this country. Thus why you get candidates like Clinton instead of candidates like Sanders and why you keep getting things like Obamacare's quasi-private insurance instead of single-payer.

    Republican voters are sick of the GOP and wanted someone, anyone, who wasn't a democrat but wasn't holding the GOP platform. Remember how, other than Trump, the other Republican candidates were all trying to "Out Right" each other? Trump was the only one that did more than outright ignore them.

    So in a way, the GOP caused it all by putting so much hate against the Left that the Left always plays it safe and caring so little about their base that they eloped to the first man that told them they were pretty and deserved better.

    Clinton was the 'safe pick'. Trump smiled. And here we are.

    It actuslly sounds less stupid when you see it that way. It's less that we're all idiots and more just a set of unfortunate events caused by a political scene that looked a lot like a youtube comment section.

    DES , says: October 5, 2016 at 1:24 pm
    I tend to discount Pence's comments on Syria in the debate. If Trump manages to win, he rather than Pence will be calling the shots on foreign policy. And to the extent that Trump has any coherent ideas on foreign policy, how could he come down hard on the mistake of invading Iraq and support getting deeply involved in Syria?

    In fact, Trump may have welcomed Pence's statement on Syria, since it may have attracted the votes of some establishment and neocon types without binding him to any particular policy if he becomes president.

    the danger of reinfestation , says: October 5, 2016 at 1:37 pm
    "In fact, Trump may have welcomed Pence's statement on Syria, since it may have attracted the votes of some establishment and neocon types without binding him to any particular policy if he becomes president."

    Altogether too close to the Bush-Cheney parallel for comfort. The last thing we want is for the neocons to come creeping back in through the Blair House back door.

    Paul Asay , says: October 5, 2016 at 3:35 pm
    Thought Pence was the superior of the two. Considering the options in Syria while running for President/VP you have to show a position of strength. My thought is that Trump wants to play nice with Putin for a while and eventually will pull out of Syria. You just can't say that during an election or you look weak.
    Steve in Ohio , says: October 5, 2016 at 4:30 pm
    @EdK

    Pence is a fine Christian -- I admire his courage in bringing up abortion in such an important debate. Unfortunately, most conservatives have a blind spot toward Christians in the Mideast. Part of it might be bias–Orthodox Christians aren't "true" Christians. Also many Evangelicals have been brain washed into believing that support of Israel is the only thing that counts.

    rayray , says: October 5, 2016 at 5:29 pm
    @Paul Asay

    "My thought is that Trump wants to play nice with Putin for a while and eventually will pull out of Syria."

    One thing Trump has successfully done is to launch a campaign so free of any real policy that anything you want to believe can be projected onto him. Play nice with Putin and then pull out? Sure! He's never said that, and in fact he's said the exact opposite but why not?

    [Oct 05, 2016] Time for Real Answers on War

    Small countries are just pawns in a bigger Washington geopolitical game, the game conducted with the level of determination and cruelty that would bestow on them an approving nod from Mussolini. And actually they do not shun allies in far right forces. As long as they promote pro-American pro-neoliberalism policies. As in saying "He may be a son of a bitch, but he's our son of a bitch " (attributed to FDR about Somoza). Since the dissolution of the USSR the US has been the world hegemon, sponsoring a world order on neoliberal principles and making the world safe for an often rapacious multinationals. Political disinterest in foreign military adventures at home due to absence of draft allowed hijacking the US military for racketeering abroad. The privatizing of the military-industrial complex has converted it into formidable political force: arms sales follow a Says Law that motivates perpetual war as a marketing tool. American foreign policy has long been the special province of transnational corporations, which were allowed to use US naval and military power for penetration into markets of the countries without paying for it.
    Notable quotes:
    "... With regard to the issue of "first use," every president since Harry Truman has subscribed to the same posture: the United States retains the prerogative of employing nuclear weapons to defend itself and its allies against even nonnuclear threats. ..."
    "... Yet whatever reassurance was to be found in Trump's vow never to order a first strike-not the question Lester Holt was asking-was immediately squandered. The Republican nominee promptly revoked his "no first strike" pledge by insisting, in a cliché much favored in Washington , that "I can't take anything off the table." ..."
    "... Hillary Clinton chose a different course: she changed the subject. She would moderate her own debate. Perhaps Trump thought Holt was in charge of the proceedings; Clinton knew better. ..."
    "... What followed was vintage Clinton: vapid sentiments, smoothly delivered in the knowing tone of a seasoned Washington operative. During her two minutes, she never came within a country mile of discussing the question Holt had asked or the thoughts she evidently actually has about nuclear issues. ..."
    "... It was as if Clinton were already speaking from the Oval Office. Trump had addressed his remarks to Lester Holt. Clinton directed hers to the nation at large, to people the world over, indeed to history itself. Warming to her task, she was soon rolling out the sort of profundities that play well at the Brookings Institution, the Carnegie Endowment, or the Council on Foreign Relations, causing audiences to nod-or nod off. ..."
    "... With that, she reverted to platitudes. "So we need to be more precise in how we talk about these issues. People around the word follow our presidential campaigns so closely, trying to get hints about what we will do. Can they rely on us? Are we going to lead the world with strength and in accordance with our values? That's what I intend to do. I intend to be a leader of our country that people can count on, both here at home and around the world, to make decisions that will further peace and prosperity, but also stand up to bullies, whether they're abroad or at home." ..."
    "... In contrast to Trump, however, Clinton did speak in complete sentences, which followed one another in an orderly fashion. She thereby came across as at least nominally qualified to govern the country, much like, say, Warren G. Harding nearly a century ago. And what worked for Harding in 1920 may well work for Clinton in 2016. ..."
    "... Of Harding's speechifying, H.L. Mencken wrote at the time, "It reminds me of a string of wet sponges." Mencken characterized Harding's rhetoric as "so bad that a sort of grandeur creeps into it. It drags itself out of the dark abysm of pish, and crawls insanely up the topmost pinnacle of posh. It is rumble and bumble. It is flap and doodle. It is balder and dash." So, too, with Hillary Clinton. She is our Warren G. Harding. In her oratory, flapdoodle and balderdash live on. ..."
    "... Trump was incredibly naïve or stupid for even answering that question. He should have asked Holt to state what he understood "the nation's longstanding policy" to be and define the term "first use." Rule one in debating: If you don't fully understand the question, demand a definition of any premises essential to the question. ..."
    "... I note, however, that Trump is a builder and Clinton is a destroyer. ..."
    "... Bill Clinton authorized bombing a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan in 1998 to divert attention away from his sex scandals in a 'wag-the-dog' operation for gratuitous purposes. Hillary supported the Muslim Brotherhood to take over Egypt in a rigged election in 2012 after the Brotherhood murdered countless police, prosecutors, judges and Coptic Priests and children and has enriched herself from advance bribes through her Foundation. The Clintons indisputably use "evil" for gratuitous purposes and have sold out the interests of the nation. ..."
    "... Trump advocates waterboarding and stop and frisk as necessary policies to protect lives. But this is what a leader is elected to do – to use power and coercion to protect the people. He does not advocate torture or aggressive policing for political or egotistical purposes or to intimidate the public into totalitarian submission. He opposes political correct and totalitarian control of speech. ..."
    "... So Bacevich can say Trump is unqualified but based purely on empirical grounds, the Clintons have disqualified themselves from the presidency by their gratuitous use of power and influence peddling; while Trump prefers to do deals (treaties) but would use aggressive tactics to protect the public but only when absolutely necessary as a last resort. ..."
    "... So it is Bacevich who is unqualified to render an opinion that helps us judge which candidate is qualified for the presidency because he believes he has greater knowledge on issues such as nuclear proliferation. Bacevich is another know-it-all elite who knows better based on his superior knowledge. But no one has such God like knowledge. What would Bacevich do if he could drop an A-bomb and save countless lives on both sides of a war? He doesn't tell us and instead prefers to bash the candidates as to not telling the truth to the American public. The records of the candidates, summarized above, give us a glimpse of how they would use "evil". ..."
    "... The irony is Bacevich lost a son in a war Trump opposed but Hillary voted for. He is to be respected for his loss but not for his unqualified opinion as to which candidate would use evil-for-good or evil-for-ill. ..."
    Oct 05, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com
    You may have missed it. Perhaps you dozed off. Or wandered into the kitchen to grab a snack. Or by that point in the proceedings were checking out Seinfeld reruns. During the latter part of the much hyped but excruciating-to-watch first presidential debate, NBC Nightly News anchor Lester Holt posed a seemingly straightforward but cunningly devised question. His purpose was to test whether the candidates understood the essentials of nuclear strategy.

    A moderator given to plain speaking might have said this: "Explain why the United States keeps such a large arsenal of nuclear weapons and when you might consider using those weapons."

    What Holt actually said was: "On nuclear weapons, President Obama reportedly considered changing the nation's longstanding policy on first use. Do you support the current policy?"

    The framing of the question posited no small amount of knowledge on the part of the two candidates. Specifically, it assumed that Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton each possess some familiarity with the longstanding policy to which Holt referred and with the modifications that Obama had contemplated making to it.

    If you will permit the equivalent of a commercial break as this piece begins, let me explain why I'm about to parse in detail each candidate's actual answer to Holt's question. Amid deep dives into, and expansive punditry regarding, issues like how "fat" a former Miss Universe may have been and how high an imagined future wall on our southern border might prove to be, national security issues likely to test the judgment of a commander-in-chief have received remarkably little attention. So indulge me. This largely ignored moment in last week's presidential debate is worth examining.

    With regard to the issue of "first use," every president since Harry Truman has subscribed to the same posture: the United States retains the prerogative of employing nuclear weapons to defend itself and its allies against even nonnuclear threats.

    In other words, as a matter of policy, the United States rejects the concept of "no first use," which would prohibit any employment of nuclear weapons except in retaliation for a nuclear attack. According to press reports, President Obama had toyed with but then rejected the idea of committing the United States to a "no first use" posture. Holt wanted to know where the two candidates aspiring to succeed Obama stood on the matter.

    Cruelly, the moderator invited Trump to respond first. The look in the Republican nominee's eyes made it instantly clear that Holt could have been speaking Farsi for all he understood. A lesser candidate might then have begun with the nuclear equivalent of " What is Aleppo? "

    Yet Trump being Trump, he gamely-or naively-charged headlong into the ambush that Holt had carefully laid, using his allotted two minutes to offer his insights into how as president he would address the nuclear conundrum that previous presidents had done so much to create. The result owed less to early Cold War thinkers-of-the-unthinkable like Herman Kahn or Albert Wohlstetter, who created the field of nuclear strategy, than to Dr. Strangelove. Make that Dr. Strangelove on meth.

    Trump turned first to Russia, expressing concern that it might be gaining an edge in doomsday weaponry. "They have a much newer capability than we do," he said. "We have not been updating from the new standpoint." The American bomber fleet in particular, he added, needs modernization. Presumably referring to the recent employment of Vietnam-era bombers in the wars in Afghanistan , Iraq , and Syria, he continued somewhat opaquely, "I looked the other night. I was seeing B-52s, they're old enough that your father, your grandfather, could be flying them. We are not - we are not keeping up with other countries."

    Trump then professed an appreciation for the awfulness of nuclear weaponry. "I would like everybody to end it, just get rid of it. But I would certainly not do first strike. I think that once the nuclear alternative happens, it's over."

    Give Trump this much: even in a field that tends to favor abstraction and obfuscating euphemisms like "fallout" or "dirty bomb," classifying Armageddon as the "nuclear alternative" represents something of a contribution.

    Still, it's worth noting that, in the arcane theology of nuclear strategy, "first strike" and "first use" are anything but synonymous. "First strike" implies a one-sided, preventive war of annihilation. The logic of a first strike, such as it is, is based on the calculation that a surprise nuclear attack could inflict the "nuclear alternative" on your adversary, while sparing your own side from suffering a comparable fate. A successful first strike would be a one-punch knockout, delivered while your opponent still sits in his corner of the ring.

    Yet whatever reassurance was to be found in Trump's vow never to order a first strike-not the question Lester Holt was asking-was immediately squandered. The Republican nominee promptly revoked his "no first strike" pledge by insisting, in a cliché much favored in Washington , that "I can't take anything off the table."

    Piling non sequitur upon non sequitur, he next turned to the threat posed by a nuclear-armed North Korea, where "we're doing nothing." Yet, worrisome as this threat might be, keeping Pyongyang in check, he added, ought to be Beijing's job. "China should solve that problem for us," he insisted. "China should go into North Korea. China is totally powerful as it relates to North Korea."

    If China wouldn't help with North Korea, however, what could be more obvious than that Iran, many thousands of miles away, should do so-and might have, if only President Obama had incorporated the necessary proviso into the Iran nuclear deal. "Iran is one of their biggest trading partners. Iran has power over North Korea." When the Obama administration "made that horrible deal with Iran, they should have included the fact that they do something with respect to North Korea." But why stop with North Korea? Iran "should have done something with respect to Yemen and all these other places," he continued, wandering into the nonnuclear world. U.S. negotiators suitably skilled in the Trumpian art of the deal, he implied, could easily have maneuvered Iran into solving such problems on Washington's behalf.

    Veering further off course, Trump then took a passing swipe at Secretary of State John Kerry: "Why didn't you add other things into the deal?" Why, in "one of the great giveaways of all time," did the Obama administration fork over $400 million in cash? At which point, he promptly threw in another figure without the slightest explanation-"It was actually $1.7 billion in cash"-in "one of the worst deals ever made by any country in history."

    Trump then wrapped up his meandering tour d'horizon by decrying the one action of the Obama administration that arguably has reduced the prospect of nuclear war, at least in the near future. "The deal with Iran will lead to nuclear problems," he stated with conviction. "All they have to do is sit back 10 years, and they don't have to do much. And they're going to end up getting nuclear." For proof, he concluded, talk to the Israelis. "I met with Bibi Netanyahu the other day," he added for no reason in particular. "Believe me, he's not a happy camper."

    On this indecipherable note, his allotted time exhausted, Trump's recitation ended. In its way, it had been a Joycean performance.

    Bridge Over Troubled Waters?

    It was now Clinton's turn to show her stuff. If Trump had responded to Holt like a voluble golf caddy being asked to discuss the finer points of ice hockey, Hillary Clinton chose a different course: she changed the subject. She would moderate her own debate. Perhaps Trump thought Holt was in charge of the proceedings; Clinton knew better.

    What followed was vintage Clinton: vapid sentiments, smoothly delivered in the knowing tone of a seasoned Washington operative. During her two minutes, she never came within a country mile of discussing the question Holt had asked or the thoughts she evidently actually has about nuclear issues.

    "[L]et me start by saying, words matter," she began. "Words matter when you run for president. And they really matter when you are president. And I want to reassure our allies in Japan and South Korea and elsewhere that we have mutual defense treaties and we will honor them."

    It was as if Clinton were already speaking from the Oval Office. Trump had addressed his remarks to Lester Holt. Clinton directed hers to the nation at large, to people the world over, indeed to history itself. Warming to her task, she was soon rolling out the sort of profundities that play well at the Brookings Institution, the Carnegie Endowment, or the Council on Foreign Relations, causing audiences to nod-or nod off.

    "It is essential that America's word be good," Clinton continued. "And so I know that this campaign has caused some questioning and worries on the part of many leaders across the globe. I've talked with a number of them. But I want to - on behalf of myself, and I think on behalf of a majority of the American people, say that, you know, our word is good."

    Then, after inserting a tepid, better-than-nothing endorsement of the Iran nuclear deal, she hammered Trump for not offering an alternative. "Would he have started a war? Would he have bombed Iran?" If you're going to criticize, she pointed out, you need to offer something better. Trump never does, she charged. "It's like his plan to defeat ISIS. He says it's a secret plan, but the only secret is that he has no plan."

    With that, she reverted to platitudes. "So we need to be more precise in how we talk about these issues. People around the word follow our presidential campaigns so closely, trying to get hints about what we will do. Can they rely on us? Are we going to lead the world with strength and in accordance with our values? That's what I intend to do. I intend to be a leader of our country that people can count on, both here at home and around the world, to make decisions that will further peace and prosperity, but also stand up to bullies, whether they're abroad or at home."

    Like Trump, she offered no specifics. Which bullies? Where? How? In what order? Would she start with Russia's Putin? North Korea's Kim Jong-Un? Perhaps Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines? How about Turkey's Recep Tayyip Erdogan? Or Bibi?

    In contrast to Trump, however, Clinton did speak in complete sentences, which followed one another in an orderly fashion. She thereby came across as at least nominally qualified to govern the country, much like, say, Warren G. Harding nearly a century ago. And what worked for Harding in 1920 may well work for Clinton in 2016.

    Of Harding's speechifying, H.L. Mencken wrote at the time, "It reminds me of a string of wet sponges." Mencken characterized Harding's rhetoric as "so bad that a sort of grandeur creeps into it. It drags itself out of the dark abysm of pish, and crawls insanely up the topmost pinnacle of posh. It is rumble and bumble. It is flap and doodle. It is balder and dash." So, too, with Hillary Clinton. She is our Warren G. Harding. In her oratory, flapdoodle and balderdash live on.

    The National Security Void

    If I've taxed your patience by recounting this non-debate and non-discussion of nuclear first use, it's to make a larger point. The absence of relevant information elicited by Lester Holt's excellent question speaks directly to what has become a central flaw in this entire presidential campaign: the dearth of attention given to matters basic to U.S. national security policy.

    In the nuclear arena, the issue of first use is only one of several on which anyone aspiring to become the next commander-in-chief should be able to offer an informed judgment. Others include questions such as these:

    • What is the present-day justification for maintaining the U.S. nuclear "triad," a strike force consisting of manned bombers and land-based ballistic missiles and submarine-launched ballistic missiles?
    • Why is the Pentagon embarking upon a decades-long, trillion-dollar program to modernize that triad, fielding a new generation of bombers, missiles, and submarines along with an arsenal of new warheads ? Is that program necessary?
    • How do advances in non-nuclear weaponry-for example, in the realm of cyberwarfare-affect theories of nuclear deterrence devised by the likes of Kahn and Wohlstetter during the 1950s and 1960s? Does the logic of those theories still pertain?

    Beyond the realm of nuclear strategy, there are any number of other security-related questions about which the American people deserve to hear directly from both Trump and Clinton, testing their knowledge of the subject matter and the quality of their judgments. Among such matters, one in particular screams out for attention. Consider it the question that Washington has declared off-limits: What lessons should be drawn from America's costly and disappointing post-9/11 wars and how should those lessons apply to future policy?

    With Election Day now merely a month away, there is no more reason to believe that such questions will receive serious consideration than to expect Trump to come clean on his personal finances or Clinton to release the transcripts of her handsomely compensated Goldman Sachs speeches.

    When outcomes don't accord with his wishes, Trump reflexively blames a "rigged" system. But a system that makes someone like Trump a finalist for the presidency isn't rigged. It is manifestly absurd, a fact that has left most of the national media grasping wildly for explanations (albeit none that tag them with having facilitated the transformation of politics into theater).

    I'll take a backseat to no one in finding Trump unfit to serve as president. Yet beyond the outsized presence of one particular personality, the real travesty of our predicament lies elsewhere-in the utter shallowness of our political discourse, no more vividly on display than in the realm of national security.

    What do our presidential candidates talk about when they don't want to talk about nuclear war? The one, in a vain effort to conceal his own ignorance, offers rambling nonsense. The other, accustomed to making her own rules, simply changes the subject.

    The American people thereby remain in darkness. On that score, Trump, Clinton, and the parties they represent are not adversaries. They are collaborators.

    Andrew Bacevich, a TomDispatch regular , is the author, most recently, of America's War for the Greater Middle East: A Military History , which has been longlisted for the National Book Award.

    Copyright 2016 Andrew J. Bacevich

    ek ErilaR, says: October 4, 2016 at 1:20 pm
    Trump was incredibly naïve or stupid for even answering that question. He should have asked Holt to state what he understood "the nation's longstanding policy" to be and define the term "first use." Rule one in debating: If you don't fully understand the question, demand a definition of any premises essential to the question.

    For God's sake, most Americans generally believe that the nation's police on nukes is that we won't use them first. Introducing this kind of mixture of jargon and terms of art is good and sufficient reason for rejecting the format of these awful "debates."

    LarryS , says: October 4, 2016 at 1:23 pm
    Dr. Bacevich is always insightful and worth reading. I wish we had a better choice of candidates. I note, however, that Trump is a builder and Clinton is a destroyer.
    Steve in Ohio , says: October 4, 2016 at 2:18 pm
    Sounds like the Colonel will be voting for the Democrat for the third time in a row (maybe fourth, he probably voted for Kerry, too). Although the Democrats have been marginally better on foreign policy, they totally devoted to open borders.

    Mass immigration will lead to more attacks at home which will lead to more wars overseas. Invite the world/invade the world go hand in hand.

    edr , says: October 4, 2016 at 6:36 pm
    "Of Harding's speechifying, H.L. Mencken wrote at the time, "It reminds me of a string of wet sponges." Mencken characterized Harding's rhetoric as "so bad that a sort of grandeur creeps into it. It drags itself out of the dark abysm of pish, and crawls insanely up the topmost pinnacle of posh. It is rumble and bumble. It is flap and doodle. It is balder and dash." So, too, with Hillary Clinton. "

    Very funny! Thank you

    Anonymous , says: October 4, 2016 at 10:17 pm
    Clinton's approach makes sense. She knows that the general public knows little and cares less about nuclear minutiae, so she laid out her platitudes-which the public does understand-and raised legitimate doubts about whether Trump would adopt a foreign policy as Joycean as his reply.
    Wayne Lusvardi , says: October 5, 2016 at 12:31 am
    What did Bacevich tell us other than he is an expert in nuclear proliferation policy but the two presidential candidates aren't. So what? We don't elect presidents to be nuclear war policy experts.

    We elect them on how they use the monopoly that government grants them for the legitimate use of power, coercion, deception and violence (we might call this "evil") . Do they use "evil" gratuitously or for partisan purposes or self gain; or do they only use "evil" only as a last resort when there is no other choice such as when Truman authorized dropping A-bombs on Japan? The self righteous and arrogant Bacevich doesn't tell us which candidate would use evil-for-good or evil-for-bad or gratuitous outcomes.

    Bill Clinton authorized bombing a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan in 1998 to divert attention away from his sex scandals in a 'wag-the-dog' operation for gratuitous purposes. Hillary supported the Muslim Brotherhood to take over Egypt in a rigged election in 2012 after the Brotherhood murdered countless police, prosecutors, judges and Coptic Priests and children and has enriched herself from advance bribes through her Foundation. The Clintons indisputably use "evil" for gratuitous purposes and have sold out the interests of the nation.

    Trump advocates eminent domain but offered a widow four times the market value of her property and lifetime occupancy in one of his luxury condos. The property was a rooming house the widow never lived in on commercial zoned land. The property was foreclose on 20 years later for half of what Trump offered her and the property was never acquired. Trump shows he does not use evil gratuitously and is a generous person who nevertheless advocates the legal use of eminent domain where necessary as a last resort.

    Trump advocates waterboarding and stop and frisk as necessary policies to protect lives. But this is what a leader is elected to do – to use power and coercion to protect the people. He does not advocate torture or aggressive policing for political or egotistical purposes or to intimidate the public into totalitarian submission. He opposes political correct and totalitarian control of speech.

    In sum, the Clintons put no limits on their use of "evil" for self gain or selling out to other nations interests; while Trump wants to use soft power and voluntary market deals where possible (eminent domain) or would use aggressive tactics to protect the public but in a limited and lawful way.

    So Bacevich can say Trump is unqualified but based purely on empirical grounds, the Clintons have disqualified themselves from the presidency by their gratuitous use of power and influence peddling; while Trump prefers to do deals (treaties) but would use aggressive tactics to protect the public but only when absolutely necessary as a last resort.

    So it is Bacevich who is unqualified to render an opinion that helps us judge which candidate is qualified for the presidency because he believes he has greater knowledge on issues such as nuclear proliferation. Bacevich is another know-it-all elite who knows better based on his superior knowledge. But no one has such God like knowledge. What would Bacevich do if he could drop an A-bomb and save countless lives on both sides of a war? He doesn't tell us and instead prefers to bash the candidates as to not telling the truth to the American public. The records of the candidates, summarized above, give us a glimpse of how they would use "evil".

    The irony is Bacevich lost a son in a war Trump opposed but Hillary voted for. He is to be respected for his loss but not for his unqualified opinion as to which candidate would use evil-for-good or evil-for-ill.

    [Oct 05, 2016] HRC is the more dangerous of the two because she feels compelled to "out-macho" the macho guys.

    Oct 05, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    shinola October 5, 2016 at 4:04 pm

    When it comes to war & nukes, I believe that HRC is the more dangerous of the two.

    Before I explain, I would like to invite Yves or any female NC reader to consider & give their POV on what I'm about say.

    HRC is more dangerous because she is the 1st woman to become a serious contender for a position that has traditionally been considered a "man's job". Therefore she believes she must not, in any way, be perceived as "soft" or lacking "toughness" or aggressiveness. She feels compelled to "out-macho" the macho guys.
    Obviously this could have serious implications in any situation involving escalating tensions. Negotiation or compromise would be off the table if she thought it could be perceived as soft or weak (and she contemplates being a 2 term pres.)

    What say you NC readers? Is this a justified concern or am I letting male bias color my view?

    BecauseTradition October 5, 2016 at 4:24 pm

    My own misgivings too, but I'm a male also.

    [Oct 05, 2016] Her greatest political fear-that she might one day be accused by Republicans of being weak on Americas enemies drives her to the most extreme of war hawk positions

    Notable quotes:
    "... So what's a voter to do? ..."
    "... Well, I would hope that informed voters who have a healthy fear of the military-industrial-political complex will vote to keep the scariest of the two re: nuclear war out of office. This particular concern is the reason why I will in all likelihood be voting for the man I've been ridiculing for most of the past year, simply because I am terrified of the prospect of Hillary Clinton as Commander-in-Chief. ..."
    "... Trump is a bad choice for a long list of reasons, but the most outrageous things he has proposed require legislation and I think it will be possible to defeat his essential sociopathy on that level, since he will face not only the opposition of the Dem Party, but also MSM and a significant number of people from his own party. ..."
    "... But when it comes to the President's ability to put American 'boots on the ground' vs. some theoretical enemy, no such approval from Congress is necessary. Hillary Clinton will be in a position to get us into a costly war without having to overcome any domestic opposition to pull it off. ..."
    "... What scares me is my knowledge of her career-long investment in trying to convince the generals and the admirals that she is a 'tough bitch', ala Margaret Thatcher, who will not hesitate to pull the trigger. An illuminating article in the NY Times revealed that she always advocates the most muscular and reckless dispositions of U.S. military forces whenever her opinion is solicited. ..."
    "... All of her experience re: foreign policy that she's been touting is actually the scariest thing about her, when you look at what her historical dispositions have been. The "No Fly Zone" she's been pushing since last year is just the latest example of her instinct to act recklessly, as it directly invites a military confrontation with Russia. ..."
    "... Her greatest political fear-that she might one day be accused by Republicans of being "weak on America's enemies"-is what we have to fear. That fear is what drives her to the most extreme of war hawk positions, since her foundational strategy is to get out in front of the criticism she anticipates. ..."
    "... How reckless is Trump likely to be? Well, like Clinton-and all other civilian Commanders-in-Chief, Trump be utterly dependent upon the advice of military professionals in deciding what kind of responses to order. But in the position of The Decider, there is one significant difference between Trump and Clinton. Trump is at least willing and able to 1) view Putin as someone who is not a threat to the United States and 2) is able/willing to question the rationality of America's continued participation in NATO. ..."
    Oct 05, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    James Kroeger October 5, 2016 at 8:02 am

    So what's a voter to do?

    Well, I would hope that informed voters who have a healthy fear of the military-industrial-political complex will vote to keep the scariest of the two re: nuclear war out of office. This particular concern is the reason why I will in all likelihood be voting for the man I've been ridiculing for most of the past year, simply because I am terrified of the prospect of Hillary Clinton as Commander-in-Chief.

    Trump is a bad choice for a long list of reasons, but the most outrageous things he has proposed require legislation and I think it will be possible to defeat his essential sociopathy on that level, since he will face not only the opposition of the Dem Party, but also MSM and a significant number of people from his own party.

    But when it comes to the President's ability to put American 'boots on the ground' vs. some theoretical enemy, no such approval from Congress is necessary. Hillary Clinton will be in a position to get us into a costly war without having to overcome any domestic opposition to pull it off.

    What scares me is my knowledge of her career-long investment in trying to convince the generals and the admirals that she is a 'tough bitch', ala Margaret Thatcher, who will not hesitate to pull the trigger. An illuminating article in the NY Times revealed that she always advocates the most muscular and reckless dispositions of U.S. military forces whenever her opinion is solicited.

    All of her experience re: foreign policy that she's been touting is actually the scariest thing about her, when you look at what her historical dispositions have been. The "No Fly Zone" she's been pushing since last year is just the latest example of her instinct to act recklessly, as it directly invites a military confrontation with Russia.

    Her willingness to roll the dice, to gamble with other people's lives, is ingrained within her political personality, of which she is so proud.

    Her greatest political fear-that she might one day be accused by Republicans of being "weak on America's enemies"-is what we have to fear. That fear is what drives her to the most extreme of war hawk positions, since her foundational strategy is to get out in front of the criticism she anticipates.

    It is what we can count on. She will most assuredly get America into a war within the first 6-9 months of her Presidency, since she will be looking forward to the muscular response she will order when she is 'tested', as she expects.

    How reckless is Trump likely to be? Well, like Clinton-and all other civilian Commanders-in-Chief, Trump be utterly dependent upon the advice of military professionals in deciding what kind of responses to order. But in the position of The Decider, there is one significant difference between Trump and Clinton. Trump is at least willing and able to 1) view Putin as someone who is not a threat to the United States and 2) is able/willing to question the rationality of America's continued participation in NATO.

    These differences alone are enough to move me to actually vote for someone I find politically detestable, simply because I fear that the alternative is a high probability of war, and a greatly enhanced risk of nuclear annihilation-through miscalculation-under a Hillary Clinton Presidency.

    Quite simply, she scares the hell out of me.

    likbez October 5, 2016 at 9:17 pm
    James,

    Excellent, really excellent summary. Thank you. Especially this observation:

    "Her greatest political fear-that she might one day be accused by Republicans of being "weak on America's enemies"-is what we have to fear. That fear is what drives her to the most extreme of war hawk positions, since her foundational strategy is to get out in front of the criticism she anticipates."

    I would like to add a few minor points:

    1. Clinton might not have the intellectual capacity to discern critically important distinctions ( http://angrybearblog.com/2015/06/what-worries-me-most-about-clinton-that-she-may-not-have-the-intellectual-capacity-to-discern-even-critically-important-distinctions-even-glaring-ones.html ). From comments: "Hillary is phony as a 3-dollar bill. And I just watched FDR doing his thing on NPR's " The Roosevelts " , reminding me that in universes other than the one I occupy , it's possible to have an outstanding progressive , an outstanding candidate , and an outstanding human being , all in one."

    2. She (like most sociopaths, although it is unclear whether she is one or not) is not able to apologize for mistakes. New York Times:

    In the end, she settled on language that was similar to Senator John Kerry's when he was the Democratic nominee in 2004: that if she had known in 2002 what she knows now about Iraqi weaponry, she would never have voted for the Senate resolution authorizing force.

    Yet antiwar anger has festered, and yesterday morning Mrs. Clinton rolled out a new response to those demanding contrition: She said she was willing to lose support from voters rather than make an apology she did not believe in.

    "If the most important thing to any of you is choosing someone who did not cast that vote or has said his vote was a mistake, then there are others to choose from," Mrs. Clinton told an audience in Dover, N.H., in a veiled reference to two rivals for the nomination, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois and former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina.

    Her decision not to apologize is regarded so seriously within her campaign that some advisers believe it will be remembered as a turning point in the race: either ultimately galvanizing voters against her (if she loses the nomination), or highlighting her resolve and her willingness to buck Democratic conventional wisdom (if she wins).

    At the same time, the level of Democratic anger has surprised some of her allies and advisers, and her campaign is worried about how long it will last and how much damage it might cause her.

    3. Due to her greed she and her close entourage represent a huge security risk. Emailgate had shown that as for computer security she is an absolute zero. Absolutely, horribly incompetent and absolutely, horribly greedy (the key idea of private server was to hide her "pay for play" deals related to Clinton foundation). The same level of computer security incompetence is prevalent in her close circle (Huma Abedin, Cheryl Mills, etc) .

    4. She strongly believe in the neoconservative foreign-policy agenda by re-casting the neoconservatives' goals in liberal-interventionist terms. In reality the difference between "liberal interventionism" and Neoconservatism are pretty superficial (Kagan already calls himself liberal interventionalist) and Hillary's willingness to infest a foreign-policy establishment with neocons is beyond any doubt and comparable with Bush II.

    As the recent Republican primary contest had shown neoconservatives have virtually no support among the US voters. Their base is exclusively military-industrial complex. So the reason she is reaching out to those shady figures is a deceptively simple: she shares common views, respects their supposed expertise, and wants them in her governing coalition. That means that "… today's Democrats have become the Party of War: a home for arms merchants, mercenaries, academic war planners, lobbyists for every foreign intervention, promoters of color revolutions, failed generals, exploiters of the natural resources of corrupt governments. …" ( http://crookedtimber.org/2016/09/27/donald-trump-the-michael-dukakis-of-the-republican-party/#comment-693421 )

    5. She is completely numb to human suffering. She has a total lack of empathy for other people.

    [Oct 05, 2016] You know the rats are in real trouble when the MSM starts talking about humanitarian intervention.

    Notable quotes:
    "... In other news, the "save Aleppo" propaganda's gone into overdrive. BBC and their assorted media houses have all got their marching orders to spew the usual nonsense. Good thing is, nobody gives a sh*t about them anymore. Years of one-sided BS about "moderate rebels" blah blah blah is finally wearing thin. ..."
    "... You know the rats are in real trouble when the msm starts talking about "humanitarian" intervention.. All I hear on the news are Russia this, Russia that, Assad this Assad that, backeries, last hospital here/there, white helmets etc etc. ..."
    "... Quite interesting listening to the leaks. It shows a divided government with different factions working for the highest bidder. Also shows the US does not have much control over their Saudi/Turkish "allies".. ..."
    "... There is one country on the Arabian peninsula that is somewhat hostile to Saudia Arabia and has reasonably good relations with Iran, so I suspect they're quite happy to see Saudi Arabia bogged down in a Yemeni quagmire as no doubt are the Russians. ..."
    Oct 01, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org
    Zico | Oct 1, 2016 4:44:47 PM | 13
    In other news, the "save Aleppo" propaganda's gone into overdrive. BBC and their assorted media houses have all got their marching orders to spew the usual nonsense. Good thing is, nobody gives a sh*t about them anymore. Years of one-sided BS about "moderate rebels" blah blah blah is finally wearing thin.

    You know the rats are in real trouble when the msm starts talking about "humanitarian" intervention.. All I hear on the news are Russia this, Russia that, Assad this Assad that, backeries, last hospital here/there, white helmets etc etc.

    Bottom line: taking back Aleppo will be the end of the fake revolution and the architects of this dirty war know it!!!

    Laguerre | Oct 1, 2016 4:51:13 PM | 14
    re 10, and indeed 11
    These Oil Sheikhs are way too retarded to know wtf they're doing in Yemen and the amount of sh*t they've gotten themselves into.
    You guys evidently haven't understood. This is a war of Sunnis, of Wahhabi style, against the Shi'a, represented by the Houthis. In which the UAE participates, although not directly threatened.

    There've been remarks by Saudi princes about how how they want Shi'a to disappear from the world, a direct threat of genocide. That is why the war in Yemen.

    Why this powerful sentiment? It's quite simple. The population of the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia is Shi'a mainly (not quite sure on the figures). It is also the only area of Saudi with oil. If the Shi'a rebel, it's all over for the revenues of Saudi princes.

    A second case is Bahrain. Majority Shi'a population suppressed by Sunni dynasty. Bahraini oil in danger.

    The GCC operates together, though no Shi'a in UAE. That's why Emiratis in Yemen.

    wendy davis | Oct 1, 2016 4:56:31 PM | 15
    'Leaked Kerry comments prove US involvement in Syrian crisis from onset' RT,
    1 Oct, 2016 14:59

    https://www.rt.com/op-edge/361313-syria-kerry-leaked-tapes/

    Who leaked them, and do they mean what Jamal Wakeem concludes?

    Jen | Oct 1, 2016 5:18:33 PM | 16
    Zico @ 1:

    ' "Someone" gave the Houthis anti-ship missiles ...'

    I've been seeing Internet news and rumours that hundreds of Saudi soldiers have been defecting to the Yemeni side. At the very least they've been going AWOL but one assumes they must be going somewhere to escape Saudi authorities. Defecting to the Yemenis seems the simplest explanation and could also explain how the Houthis have been able to acquire sophisticated weapons.

    https://syrianfreepress.wordpress.com/2015/04/26/cem-45188/

    http://en.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13940405000535

    Zico | Oct 1, 2016 5:31:38 PM | 19
    wendy davis @ 15

    Quite interesting listening to the leaks. It shows a divided government with different factions working for the highest bidder. Also shows the US does not have much control over their Saudi/Turkish "allies"..

    The Syrian 5-star opposition had hoped the Americans will invade Syria and get rid of Assad for them and parachute them into Damascus like the CIA did Hamid Karzai...It'll make for a lovely comedy script if it wasn't so tragic!!!

    Ghostship | Oct 1, 2016 7:40:06 PM | 25
    Jen | Oct 1, 2016 5:18:33 PM | 16
    There is one country on the Arabian peninsula that is somewhat hostile to Saudia Arabia and has reasonably good relations with Iran, so I suspect they're quite happy to see Saudi Arabia bogged down in a Yemeni quagmire as no doubt are the Russians.

    It's one of two countries that have a land border with Yemen so, I'm guessing it wouldn't be hard to smuggle weapons across their shared border, i.e., as about as difficult as it is for al Nusrah or ISIS to smuggle weapons across Syria's border with Turkey.

    A friend of a friend works as a nursing practitioner in a military hospital in that country and all her patients have battlefield wounds even though that country is not at war internally or externally.

    Ghostship | Oct 1, 2016 7:58:00 PM | 27
    Laguerre | Oct 1, 2016 6:57:21 PM | 24

    My guess is that it was an Iranian knockoff of the C-802 that flies at 3-5 metres off the sea during the attack phase at mach 0.9 (~690 mph), so you might not see it given its speed and altitude.

    When the missile is launched, the solid rocket propellant booster accelerates the speed of the missile to Mach 0.9 in a few seconds. After the booster burns out, it detaches from the missile body and the missile's turbojet engine starts.
    This missile is semi-armoured piercing while the boat has an aluminium (alloy) hull and superstructure so the missile would punch through the skin like a hot knife through butter and explode inside the ship.
    The missile uses a 165 kg semi-armor-piercing anti-personnel blast warhead which relies on the missile's kinetic energy to pierce the deck of a ship, penetrate into and explode in the ship's interior. The YJ-82 might have a higher single hit probability than the YJ-8/YJ-81..

    [Oct 05, 2016] They took one Saddam, but got us many more

    Notable quotes:
    "... "I am not satisfied [with the Chilcot report]," ..."
    "... . "It won't bring me back my family; it won't bring me back my arms or it won't bring me back my country. My country Iraq is destroyed because of this invasion." ..."
    "... "when the missile hit my home." ..."
    "... "I was still young, living with my family. At 12:00 o'clock in the night I suddenly heard a very big blast hitting my home, the house collapsed on us. There was a lot of fire and I heard my family screaming and shouting," ..."
    "... "We were farmers. We had sheep and cows outside. There wasn't a military base near to my home," ..."
    "... "There are lots of people like me who lost some members of their family. So we have no answer for this: why they have done it – we don't know." ..."
    "... "Yes, Saddam [Hussein] was a terrible person and a dictator, but what's happening now is much worse than it was under Saddam. They took one Saddam and they got us many more Saddams," ..."
    "... "inadequate" ..."
    "... "deeply sorry for the loss of life" ..."
    "... "good faith". ..."
    "... "This makes me angry. He just said 'sorry' and he also said he would do the same thing again. They have caused so many deaths and so much suffering […]," ..."
    "... "to say 'sorry' and just walk away with it – it's not justice." ..."
    "... "I want to ask him if he wants to come back with me to Iraq and tell the Iraqi people that he will do the same thing again…" ..."
    "... "presented with a certainty that was not justified." ..."
    "... "chaos" ..."
    "... "Before the war started we knew that there were no weapons of mass destruction. We knew that they're only coming for economic reasons and to have power in this part of the world. And you can see what's happening today in the Middle East. Iraq, Syria – it's all linked to the 2003 invasions of Iraq," ..."
    "... "There's was violence but now there's hundreds of more violence than before…If you want to rebuild Iraq again you need probably another hundred years to do this…I go back to Iraq and I see the country is destroyed," ..."
    Jul 08, 2016 | www.rt.com

    RT UK

    Published time: 02:03 Edited time: 8 Jul, 2016 02:55 Get short URL

    Blair's apology for the Iraq invasion is not going to bring the "destroyed" country and dead people back, a disabled Iraqi man, who lost his whole family, told RT. He demands justice for those whose actions only created "many more Saddams". "I am not satisfied [with the Chilcot report]," 25-year-old Ali Abbas said . "It won't bring me back my family; it won't bring me back my arms or it won't bring me back my country. My country Iraq is destroyed because of this invasion."

    Thirteen years ago, Abbas lost his mother, father, and a little brother as well as 13 other members of their family in the UK-US allied 2003 invasion.

    Now residing in London, he recounts terrors of the war, saying he can vividly remember the day and time "when the missile hit my home."

    "I was still young, living with my family. At 12:00 o'clock in the night I suddenly heard a very big blast hitting my home, the house collapsed on us. There was a lot of fire and I heard my family screaming and shouting," Abbas said.

    That attack left the young man disabled – having suffered burns to 60 percent of his body, he lost his arms amputated due to severe burns.

    The one thing that Abbas does not understand is why the militants had to target his home and family of peaceful farmers.

    "We were farmers. We had sheep and cows outside. There wasn't a military base near to my home," he said. "There are lots of people like me who lost some members of their family. So we have no answer for this: why they have done it – we don't know."

    Abbas says that the Iraq's 2003 invasion and the following regime change brought the country leaders much worse than Saddam Hussein.

    "Yes, Saddam [Hussein] was a terrible person and a dictator, but what's happening now is much worse than it was under Saddam. They took one Saddam and they got us many more Saddams," he said.

    The so-called Chilcot inquiry released by Sir John Chilcot criticized former UK government led by Tony Blair for "inadequate" planning and underestimation of the Iraq invasion's consequences. It also found that Britain's choice to support the Iraq war unjustified.

    Speaking in light of the Chilcot inquiry release, Tony Blair said he was "deeply sorry for the loss of life" , but stressed that he acted in "good faith".

    "This makes me angry. He just said 'sorry' and he also said he would do the same thing again. They have caused so many deaths and so much suffering […]," Abbas said, adding that "to say 'sorry' and just walk away with it – it's not justice."

    "I want to ask him if he wants to come back with me to Iraq and tell the Iraqi people that he will do the same thing again…" he says.

    The Chilcot report also showed that Britain's decision to bomb Iraq was not clearly evaluated as one of the major arguments for the campaign – Iraq's weapons of mass destruction – was "presented with a certainty that was not justified."

    Abbas agrees that the WMD was just a pretext for the UK and US to initiate war which resulted in total "chaos" in the Middle East and proliferation of terrorism.

    "Before the war started we knew that there were no weapons of mass destruction. We knew that they're only coming for economic reasons and to have power in this part of the world. And you can see what's happening today in the Middle East. Iraq, Syria – it's all linked to the 2003 invasions of Iraq," Abbas said.

    He says that the 2003 invasion unleashed terrorists that Iraq did not know of before.

    "There's was violence but now there's hundreds of more violence than before…If you want to rebuild Iraq again you need probably another hundred years to do this…I go back to Iraq and I see the country is destroyed," he added.

    Read more:

    Following the Chilcot Report, time for a proper reckoning 7/7 London bombings, 11yrs on: Iraq War raised terror threat, Chilcot suggests British military equipment 'wholly inadequate' in Iraq, says Chilcot

    [Oct 04, 2016] Should the busts of Hillary, Bush, Blair, and Cheney form a museum of savage stupidity and war crimes ?

    Notable quotes:
    "... The potential threats both candidates pose are real. Those advocating Hillary as the better, safer choice cannot offer any reliable assurances that she will be able, or willing, to pursue policies that increase the well-being and security of any but the already affluent and secure. ..."
    "... Hillary's long and unhappy history of war-mongering has not, imho, received anything like the media scrutiny it deserves, and won't until she's correctly identified in the minds of most as an advocate of 'liberal interventionism'/violent regime change and on an equal footing of imbecility and irresponsibility in the minds of the public as Bush, Cheney, and Blair. ..."
    "... When the busts of Hillary, Bush, Blair, and Cheney form a Mt. Rushmore of savage stupidity for all to see and all school children studying the early 21st-century American-UK wars recognize the monument as such, that task of 'highlighting' her role in this enormously costly and damaging humanitarian and political disaster will be at least part way done. ..."
    "... Obama, as Stevenjohnson notes, has not entirely surrendered his dream of forcing 'democracy' on Syria. There is abundant evidence, however, the US and a number of other nations have been arming Syrian rebels (ISIL and Al Quaida) since 2011, at least. ..."
    "... The result of Obama and Hillary's love of violent regime change has been an increase in the suffering of millions in North Africa and the Middle East, the collapse of basic services such as fresh water and hospitals, and a new flood of refugees seeking to escape the beneficence of Hillary Clinton and her boss. ..."
    "... If you are supporting Hillary you are supporting violent regime change in the Middle East and the love of violence of Bush and Cheney, not too mention drone strikes, the surveillance state. That's who you are. ..."
    "... Dealing first with Libya and Syria, Hillary Clinton served as the US Secretary of State from 2009 to 2013, which makes her at least one of the prime architects of US foreign policy, and certainly the most important administration official after Obama responsible for foreign policy. Facts which place the burden of proof regarding her involvement in US foreign policy formation and execution squarely on you. ..."
    "... HRC's involvement in Iraq is less well-understood, and that's likely no accident either, given the mileage democrats have generated out of pinning the entire bi-partisan debacle on Bush and Cheney. From the linked dialogue above featuring Robert Wright and Max Abrahms (Northeastern) http://bloggingheads.tv/videos/43967?in=01:10&out=12:21 ..."
    "... The chaotic civil war in Syria and Iraq seems like another example where the U.S. is having a hard time "thinking" things thru realistically. ..."
    "... One interpretation is she's stupid and vicious as a badge of class honor, blissfully consistent with the bloodthirsty record of Madeleine Albright and Henry Kissinger. Unfortunately, that might be true, though I think if it is true, it is more likely a product of being caught up in the amoral bubble of political and media process that has enveloped the whole foreign policy establishment than any personal psychopathy. ..."
    Oct 04, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    kidneystones 10.01.16 at 10:48 pm 284

    @ 278 There's nothing quite so amusing as advocates of free speech 'commanding' the comments section of somebody else's blog and then issuing permissions to comment, or instructions to how and what to post. (fn, rich, colin, TM in one form, or another)

    Merian is quite right that in the artificially and arbitrarily limited universe of a one-time choice between just two options, everything written can be seen as pro/con against one or the other if everything that is written has only one meaning and will be read and understood by all as having the same meaning.

    The fact is that a great many people inside the US and outside the US may well lack any/much understanding of the decision-making processes that led up to Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria, not to mention America's long history with Iran, and America's support of Evil Axis bad guy number 1 Saddam Hussein. The dynamics are complex even for those familiar with the basic topography.

    The rhetorical parallels leading up to the Iraq invasions and the presidential elections are striking and easy to identify. Facts don't matter, the urgency and severity of the threat demands uniform action, and the enemy is a once in an eon threat of epic proportion to the physical and moral existence of the known universe.

    The potential threats both candidates pose are real. Those advocating Hillary as the better, safer choice cannot offer any reliable assurances that she will be able, or willing, to pursue policies that increase the well-being and security of any but the already affluent and secure.

    Hillary's long and unhappy history of war-mongering has not, imho, received anything like the media scrutiny it deserves, and won't until she's correctly identified in the minds of most as an advocate of 'liberal interventionism'/violent regime change and on an equal footing of imbecility and irresponsibility in the minds of the public as Bush, Cheney, and Blair.

    When the busts of Hillary, Bush, Blair, and Cheney form a Mt. Rushmore of savage stupidity for all to see and all school children studying the early 21st-century American-UK wars recognize the monument as such, that task of 'highlighting' her role in this enormously costly and damaging humanitarian and political disaster will be at least part way done.

    kidneystones 10.01.16 at 10:54 pm 286
    For Merian and others: a timely post from Matt Welch at Reason on Gary Johnson via the o'l perfessor who sees the coverage of Hillary and Trump as you.

    https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/245272/

    kidneystones 10.02.16 at 3:22 am
    @ 300 "Assad Must Go" http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34385354
    • 28 September 2015 "Obama tells the UN Assad must go."
    • 18 August 2011 "Assad Must Go Obama Says" (Wapo) (no links to follow to avoid moderation)
    • 1 August 2012 "Obama Authorizes Secret US Support for Syrian Rebels" (Reuters)

    Obama, as Stevenjohnson notes, has not entirely surrendered his dream of forcing 'democracy' on Syria. There is abundant evidence, however, the US and a number of other nations have been arming Syrian rebels (ISIL and Al Quaida) since 2011, at least.

    The result of Obama and Hillary's love of violent regime change has been an increase in the suffering of millions in North Africa and the Middle East, the collapse of basic services such as fresh water and hospitals, and a new flood of refugees seeking to escape the beneficence of Hillary Clinton and her boss.

    All this after the 'lessons' of Iraq and Afghanistan.

    If you are supporting Hillary you are supporting violent regime change in the Middle East and the love of violence of Bush and Cheney, not too mention drone strikes, the surveillance state. That's who you are.

    kidneystones 10.02.16 at 3:58 am
    ZM@ 303. The linked dialogue above explores the role Hillary and Obama, in particular, played in providing the arms and support to a rebellion that Assad, like Gaddafi, could have ended years ago.

    Like Gaddafi, Assad is not being attacked by moderate democrats keen to legalize gay marriage, but rather Sunni militias deeply sympathetic to ISIL and Al Quaida, or those forces operating in Syria and western Iraq.

    You're right to point out that the only result of US support of ISIL related Sunnis has been the prolonging of the civil war and the promulgation of the delusion that violent-regime change brings peace and security. Yes, five years of US arms, threats, and intimidation has destroyed Syria, in much the same was as the Hillary promoted war in Libya destroyed that regime.

    The pro-Hillary-Obama media is extremely reluctant in the run-up to the election to point out explicitly what a spectacular FP failure the US has created for itself right now, with Russian jets flying over Aleppo and Assad about to finally humiliate the insurgents and all those like Hillary and Obama who encouraged the bloodshed.

    The Obama-Hillary policy has been a five-year bloodbath and there's no sign Hillary wants to do anything but press for a no-fly zone over Syria in order for the US to continue to funnel more death and destruction into the already devastated moonscape.

    It ain't like anyone she knows is dying over there. Syrians can't vote in November.

    The attitude of her supporters seems be: fuck it – Syria is on the other side of the world, so what's the big deal?

    Mitt Romney tied the family dog to the roof of his car. What about that ?

    kidneystones 10.02.16 at 4:05 am
    @ 305 Hi Merian.

    Go tell your students that you're supporting the candidate who voted for the Iraq invasion (biggest mistake in modern US history), persuaded plenty of other Democrats and ordinary Americans to suspend their judgment and do the same. And who also played an instrumental role in destroying Libya, promotes violent regime-change in Syria and enjoys the support of all the same neocon warmongers who've made the US into a pariah state. Play the 'We came, we saw, he died – ha-ha-ha" Hillary CBS video for them.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-01-07/we-came-we-saw-he-died-%E2%80%93-revisiting-incredible-disaster-libya

    Then explain to them that Hillary is the better candidate.

    See what happens.

    Omega Centauri 10.02.16 at 4:40 am 314
    I don't see HRC as a prime mover in either Iraq or Libya. In the first case Iraq was a neocon/Bush project, and they were threatening to extract a terrible price from anyone who used their position to block their ambitions. Libya was primarily a Arab-league cum French-British project. Not supporting it could have potentially damaged our relationship with key allies France and Britain. Of course Libya was a slippery slope, once started it soon became obvious there was no solution where Qaddafi survived and the Libyan people wouldn't end up paying dearly. Not that her acquiescence in either case demonstrated either good long term judgement or courage, but it also doesn't demonstrate that she was a principle architect of either project.
    kidneystones 10.02.16 at 5:15 am 316
    314@ "I don't see HRC as a prime mover in either Iraq, or Libya."

    That's probably a great comfort to the grifters keen to see her elected. The facts, however, suggest otherwise. Dealing first with Libya and Syria, Hillary Clinton served as the US Secretary of State from 2009 to 2013, which makes her at least one of the prime architects of US foreign policy, and certainly the most important administration official after Obama responsible for foreign policy. Facts which place the burden of proof regarding her involvement in US foreign policy formation and execution squarely on you.

    HRC's involvement in Iraq is less well-understood, and that's likely no accident either, given the mileage democrats have generated out of pinning the entire bi-partisan debacle on Bush and Cheney. From the linked dialogue above featuring Robert Wright and Max Abrahms (Northeastern) http://bloggingheads.tv/videos/43967?in=01:10&out=12:21

    bruce wilder 10.02.16 at 7:49 pm
    Anarcissie @ 239: We basically have a whole class of people, at the top of the social order, who seem devoid of a moral sense - a problem which the upcoming election isn't going to touch, much less solve. I don't blame Clinton for this . . .

    JimV @ 317: I am sorry if I mischaracterized BW as implying that HRC is evil, . . .

    Peter T @ 320: Whatever the merits of their individual stances, there is no reason to suppose that either Obama or Hillary can exert more than loose control over this mess [the multi-sided regional civil war engulfing Syria and northern Iraq]

    stevenjohnson @ 324: The recent leak that Clinton is against nuclear armed cruise missiles and isn't committed to Obama's trillion dollar nuclear weapons upgrade appears to suggest she's not quite on board with plans for general war.

    LFC @ 330: I disagree w the notion that the pt of nuclear 'modernization' is to make plausible the threat of "imminent general nuclear war." If U.S. military planners took hallucinogenic drugs and went nuts, they could "plausibly" threaten "imminent general nuclear war" right now with the US nuclear arsenal as currently configured. They don't need to upgrade the weapons to do that. The program is prob more the result of rigid, unimaginative thinking at top levels of Pentagon and influence of outside companies (e.g. Boeing etc) that work on the upgrades.

    I don't know if that seems like a somewhat random collection of precursors to assemble as preface to a comment. I was thinking of picking out a few upthread references to climate change and the response to it (or inadequacy thereof) as well.

    I am a little disturbed by the idea of leaving the impression that I think Hillary Clinton is "evil". What I think is that American politics in general is not generating realistic, adaptive governance.

    I am using that bloodless phrase, "realistic, adaptive governance", deliberately, to emphasize wanting to step outside the passions of the Presidential election. I think the Manichean narrative where Trump is The Most Horrible Candidate Evah and Everyone Must Line Up Behind Clinton as an Ethical Imperative of a High Order is part of the process of propaganda and manipulation that distorts popular discussion and understanding and helps to create a politics that cannot govern realistically and adaptively. This is not about me thinking Trump is anything but a horrible mess of a candidate who ought to be kept far from power.

    I see Clinton as someone who is trapped inside the dynamics of this seriously deranged politics qua political process. I don't see her as entirely blameless. Politicians like Obama and either Clinton, at the top of the political order, are masters (keeping in mind that there are many masters working to some extent in opposition to one another as rivals, allies, enemies and so on) of the process and create the process by the exercise of their mastery, as much as they are mastered by it. I see them as trapped by the process they have helped (more than a little opportunistically) to create, but trapped as Dr Frankenstein is by his Creature.

    Clinton must struggle with the ethical contradictions of governance at the highest levels of leadership: she must, in the exercise of power in office and out, practice the political art of the possible in relation to crafting policy that will be "good" in the sense of passably effective and efficient - this may involve a high degree of foresightful wonkery or a lethally ruthless statesmanship, depending upon circumstances. Beside this business of making the great machinery of the state lumber forward, she must strive to appear "good", like Machiavelli's Prince, even while playing an amoral game of real politick, gathering and shepherding a complex coalition of allies, supporters, donors and cooperative enemies.

    Machiavelli, when he was considering the Princely business of appearing "good", was contending with the hypocrisies and impossible idealism of authoritarian Catholic morality. He barely connected with anything that we would recognize as democratic Public Opinion and could scarcely conceive of what Ivy Lee or Edward Bernays, let alone Fox News, Vox and the world wide web might do to politics.

    We are trapped, just as Clinton is trapped, in the vast communication nightmare of surrealistic news and opinion washing in upon us in a tide that never ebbs. We are trapped by the politics of media "gotchas" and Kinsley Gaffes (A Kinsley gaffe occurs when a political gaffe reveals some truth that a politician did not intend to admit.)

    I don't think Clinton lacks a moral sense. What I think is that Clinton's moral sense is exhausted calculating what to say or do within the parameters of media-synthesized conventional wisdom policed by people who are themselves exhausted trying to manage it. Matt Lauer's interview with Clinton was notorious for the relentless and clueless questioning about the email server, although I, personally, was shocked when he asked her a question that seemed premised on the idea that veterans should be offended by admitting the Iraq War was a mistake.

    I would think it is easy to see that the media circus is out of control, especially when a clown like Trump graduates from The Apprentice to the Republican nomination. YMMV, but I think this is a serious problem that goes beyond vividly imagined sepia-toned parodies of Trump's candidacy as the second coming of Mussolini.

    While we're getting ourselves agitated over Trump's racism or threats to bar Muslims from entry, apparently the Military-Industrial Complex, left on autopilot, is re-designing the nation's nuclear arsenal to make the outbreak of nuclear war far more likely. And, the closest Clinton gets to a comment, campaign commitment or public discussion, let alone an exercise of power, is a PR "leak"!!!

    The chaotic civil war in Syria and Iraq seems like another example where the U.S. is having a hard time "thinking" things thru realistically. Clinton offered up a sound-bite last year, saying that she favored imposing a "no-fly" zone, which was exposed as kind of crazy idea, given that the Russians as well as Assad's government are the ones flying, not to mention the recent experience with a no-fly zone in Libya. One interpretation is she's stupid and vicious as a badge of class honor, blissfully consistent with the bloodthirsty record of Madeleine Albright and Henry Kissinger. Unfortunately, that might be true, though I think if it is true, it is more likely a product of being caught up in the amoral bubble of political and media process that has enveloped the whole foreign policy establishment than any personal psychopathy. What's most alarming to me is that we cannot count on personal character to put the brakes on that process, which is now the process of governance. I am writing now of the process of governance by public relations that was has been exposed a bit in profiles of the Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications, Ben Rhodes.

    In Syria, it has become almost comical, if you can overlook the bodies piling up, as the U.S. has sought a the mythical unicorn of Syrian Moderate Democrats whom the Pentagon or the CIA can advise, train and arm. This is foreign policy by PR narrative and it is insanely unrealistic. But, our politics is trapped in it, and, worse, policy is trapped in it. Layer after layer of b.s. have piled up obscuring U.S. interests and practical options. Recently, U.S. forces supporting the Turks have come dangerously close to blowing up U.S. forces supporting the Kurds. When you find yourself on opposing sides of a civil war like Charles I you may be in the process of losing your head. Some of the worst elements opposing Assad have been engaged in a transparent re-branding exercise aimed at garnering U.S. aid. And, U.S. diplomats and media face the high challenge of explaining why the U.S. supports Saudi Arabia in Yemen.

    But, hey, Clinton will get Robert Kagan's vote and a better tomorrow is only a Friedman unit away, so it is all good.

    kidneystones 10.02.16 at 9:24 pm
    @328 stevenjohnson and Peter T cover the details. As an outsider supportive of negotiated settlements in all cases, rather than unilateral military action and violent regime change, I'm interested principally in ensuring that partisan political preferences do not obscure the historical record. Bluntly put, dictators routinely abuse bomb their own civilians as the 'need' arises. Nor is the US the only state actor keen to profit in the broadest sense of the term from political division.

    The UN was formed, in large part, to provide a forum/mechanism for peaceful conflict resolution. Each time state actors such as Russia, China, the US, France, and the UK either bypass the UN, or use the UN to sanction attacks by larger states on smaller states, the entire edifice becomes a little weaker.

    Hillary is not the only individual with Libyan and Syrian blood on her hands. She's simply the only individual directly involved in Iraq, Libya, and Syria running to the 45th president of the US.

    bruce wilder 10.02.16 at 9:54 pm
    Rich Puchalsky @ 334

    People are in information overload most of the time, and where politics are concerned, they really just want to know who to root for. They ask, "who is the good guy? who is the bad guy?" "Whose right?" "What should be done?" And, people like the opinions they have, whatever those opinions may be; they use their political opinions to feed their sense of self-esteem and social belonging, for better and for worse.

    I have some friends, who are really into a particular sport as fans, not participants. One guy knows everything about baseball. It is fun to watch a game with him, because he knows when someone is about to try to steal a base and stuff like that and he can explain the manager's strategy and has gossip about the players careers and personal lives. And, apparently, he has an encyclopedic knowledge of baseball history - appears to, anyway: what dramatic thing happened in game 3 of the 1967 World Series and so on and exactly why everyone hated Ty Cobb.

    No one like that shows up at CT to talk politics. Maybe it is just as well. Sports guys can wield that knowledge and remain affable, but political guys tend to be arrogant and off-putting. But, I do think we could use more of that spirit sometimes.

    I was thinking about what a brilliant innovation the Clinton Foundation is, how well it is designed to solve the problems of Machiavelli's Prince. But, we would struggle to discuss it in those terms; the partisan contest means that the CF is either horribly corrupt or prosaically innocent. The pressure to evaluate it is so high, that seeing the functional details is hard. I've seen some articles that attempt to understand the CF as a means to the political ambitions of the Clintons, but they seldom grasp the awesome accomplishment it is in ways that also fully understand why enemies of the Clintons are keen to attack it and why it so reliably produces the neoliberal pablum that Thomas Franks despises. If we could imagine a Marx tackling the CF as a vehicle of class interest, that would be pretty interesting.

    [Oct 04, 2016] How strange it is that somehow Americans are the decider of military intervention everywhere and how American exceptionalism is part of our imperial setup

    Notable quotes:
    "... "Hillary is not the only individual with Libyan and Syrian blood on her hands. She's simply the only individual directly involved in Iraq, Libya, and Syria running to the 45th president of the US." ..."
    "... The danger of Hillary is the danger of yet another neocon administration in power for the next four years. We probably need to think in term of Cheney and Rumsfeld, because this is the policies that Hillary will bring to the table. ..."
    "... I think that experience with US neocons in Ukraine also makes Russia position on Syria quite different and less accommodating for the US neoliberal empire expansion projects. ..."
    "... One of the things that Lupita likes to point out is how strange it is that somehow Americans are the decider of military intervention everywhere (LFC again) and how American exceptionalism is part of our imperial setup. ..."
    "... Americans may like empire, but for the people who actually have to fight, very few of them really like being foot soldiers for empire. ..."
    "... Left agitation in the early part of the 20th century and in the 60s was in large part anti-war agitation, and it was one of the main reasons why the government actually crushed left organizations. One of the main reasons why you can tell that HRC supporters are not really on the left in any important sense is the easy way that they switched from opposing Bush's war to approving of Democratic "humanitarian" wars. ..."
    "... So why should we have to care about any of this foreign policy nonsense? What critical interest does any American have in Asia, Ukraine, etc.? The vast and lofty left sentiments that we are citizens of the world and that an injury to one is an injury to everyone - do these have any meaning outside of an imperial context? ..."
    "... Russian foreign policy IMHO is mostly reactive and defensive. It is directed mainly on preservation of (currently rapidly shrinking) Russia's economic and political and cultural influence in xUSSR space. ..."
    "... Obama administration was very aggressive toward Russia and attempted to implement "regime change" in 2011-2012 to prevent Putin re-election (so called "White revolution" with McFaul as the key player and the network on NGO as the coordination / training / recruiting / propaganda centers). This attempt to stage a "color revolution" in Russia backfired making Russian political establishment more hostile to the USA. It also led to expulsion of several NGO from Russia. Later events in Ukraine led to deterioration of political standing of Russian neoliberals as a political force. They lost all the legitimacy among the population and now viewed by-and-large as US stooges. ..."
    "... Hillary as the Secretary of State was even more jingoistic neocon then Obama and has during her term in the office an outsize influence on the US foreign policy including the attempt to stage a "white revolution" in Russia in which State Department played an outsize role, essentially taking many functions formerly performed by CIA ..."
    "... It also tried to oppose the "encirclement" - the creation of the belt of hostile states around Russia with US or NATO forces/bases - Ukraine is just the most recent example of this policy. Missile defense bases in Rumania and Poland belong to the same script. Actually the US Department of Defense on those issues has its own outsize influence on the US foreign policy and works in close coordination with the State Department (alliance started under Bush II and forged under Hillary Clinton). ..."
    "... ZM: "But I wish there was some sort of international protocol about it." There was supposed to be one - the whole apparatus of U.N. intervention. We've seen how that played out. ..."
    "... The sentiments have certainly been a useful pretext for imperial interventions, going well beyond 'interest' to intimations of existential crisis, etc. I remember when, if we did not 'help' the Vietnamese by bombing them back into the Stone Age, bad people from there were going to invade California. So it was both to 'our' interest and theirs to kill millions of them. You see the same thinking in Syria, Libya, Iraq, Serbia, Panama, and the rest of the list. ..."
    "... Well with technology there is the possibility of that, Australia is part of the Five Eyes alliance with the USA, which is where the English speaking countries all share intelligence, then there is a larger group that gets a bit less intelligence, and maybe others like an onion or something. ..."
    "... To me this is the wierdest and most hypocritical aspect of the whole "Putin stooge!" narrative, since part of the core ethos of US-aligned liberal discourse in settings like this is precisely a willingness and eagerness to voluntarily assume the role of stooge for whatever ruling-class figure one has decided to back. Look at the core message liberals here seem to be trumpeting: we may not like the faction of the ruling class embodied in someone like Hillary Clinton, but since we've decided to back this faction over another faction we consider worse, we'll suspend our earnest search for truth and understanding so we can add our voices into the fight. ("We know Hillary is bad, but save it for after Trump!") ..."
    "... But the kicker re: Putin is that somehow, these same liberals can't fathom the idea that ordinary Russians might be gripped by precisely the same kind of dynamic ("we know Putin is bad but save it for after Syria!") especially when it comes to nationalist fervor stirred up by global military/economic power struggles. ..."
    "... And to the extent that they see such people not as the Russian ideological equivalents of themselves but as literal agents of the Kremlin, precisely the way one might imagine all the Hillary defenders on this thread as COINTELPRO plants and/or paid Clinton campaign PR operatives, they're able to see this obsequious defense of ruling-class power for the creepy authoritarian servility it is. One could call the double standards closed-minded or even xenophobic, but I'll settle for just calling it bizarre. ..."
    "... American foreign policy has long been the special province of deeply interested portions of the elite, which were allowed to use U.S. naval and military power without paying for it. ..."
    "... Since the First World War, the U.S. has been the hegemon, sponsoring a world order on liberal principles in theory and making the world safe for an often rapacious commercial order in practice. Popular disinterest at home has preserved the tradition of hijacking the U.S. military for racketeering abroad, but the privatizing of the military-industrial complex has converted it from sideline into a reason for being: arms sales follow a Says Law that motivates perpetual war as a marketing tool. ..."
    "... ZM is ridiculously wrong about one thing: "No one wants one country to rule the world" I think there is actually quite a demand for exactly that. That the U.S. capacity to satisfy that demand is diminishing rapidly is creating a gathering world crisis. ..."
    "... Americans seem to have some difficulty understanding just how competent Putin has been. Putin is a consummately gifted gambler, who has played a weak hand aggressively at home and abroad. He is popular in Russia, because he has been successful by being phenomenally good at his job - so good that any Russian who isn't dead stupid is worried about what comes after. ..."
    "... Obama, the most gifted politician I've seen in my lifetime, has played his hand very conservatively. I rail against him, because I think he should have taken much bigger chances on a radical reform agenda, using the crisis he was gifted to take apart the oligarchies choking the American political economy. ..."
    "... Both Americans and Russians, I think, are inclined to see their roles in the world as more benign than they are. The Americans, though, have better PR and a lot of people abroad still want to believe. ..."
    "... Ch. 1: The Advent of Semiwar. ..."
    "... Ch. 2: Illusions of Flexibility and Control ..."
    "... Ch. 3: The Credo Restored. ..."
    "... "In fact, Clinton has shown a number of indications that she is not competent at all, that she is, unlike Obama, going to unleash the U.S. foreign policy establishment and military-industrial complex in all its decadent schizophrenia without any governor or restraint at all." ..."
    "... The raving chorus of criticism of Clinton's foreign policy on ostensibly leftist grounds that falsifies the current state of affairs is viciously reactionary, especially when indissolubly mixed with openly reactionary criticisms. The falsification of what exactly is different about Trump's candidacy is also part and parcel. It's all very like the fake leftists who said defeating the Scottish referendum wasn't an endorsement of English imperialism, then pretended to act surprised when the rightward surge they helped to build led to a racist campaign for Brexit. ..."
    "... Putin is weak. He sacrificed a struggle against fascism in Ukraine for a naval base, rather than call on popular support. Then he doubled down on another naval base in Syria, despite having no idea how to reach a solution. He can't cope with the economic warfare the US is waging, he only tries to use simple repression of the population at large and an elaborate combination of select repression and appeasement of the oligarchs he ultimately serves. ..."
    "... Putin is popular I think largely because he appears to be the human face of capitalism. He's falsely sold himself as the corrective to Yeltsin, when in truth he is just the normalization of Yeltsinism. Yetltsin did the dirty work of attacking the people of Russia in the name of capitalist restoration. Now, Putin is just business as usual. ..."
    "... It's the insidious ideology of the Uncle Sam poster, where a slightly-less-evil form of ruling-class power needs you not just to passively submit to its dictates but to actively defend its position against its slightly-more-evil ideological enemies, even at the expense of your own independent moral compass and political thought. ..."
    "... If you need an eloquent summary of how the dysfunction of the American political system has become manifest in a foreign policy of perpetual and costly failure . ..."
    Oct 04, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    likbez 10.03.16 at 3:13 am 343

    kidneystones,

    Thank you for your insightful comments.

    @336

    "Hillary is not the only individual with Libyan and Syrian blood on her hands. She's simply the only individual directly involved in Iraq, Libya, and Syria running to the 45th president of the US."

    Very true. The danger of Hillary is the danger of yet another neocon administration in power for the next four years. We probably need to think in term of Cheney and Rumsfeld, because this is the policies that Hillary will bring to the table.

    But I think it is a mistake to view Syria regime change actions of US neocons in isolation from the same actions in Ukraine. Those are closely interconnected events.

    And Nuland action in Ukraine for the installation of far right nationalist regime (and virtual occupation of the rest of Ukraine by Western Ukrainian nationalists) virtually guarantee economic and military alliance of China and Russia. Russia will not forget and will not forgive Nuland's valiant efforts of installing far right nationalists in Kiev instead of corrupt Yanukovich regime, despite the fact that they were not very sympathetic to Yanukovich (and refused to play the card of "legitimate president in exile", which they easily can making US position in Kiev untenable).

    I think that experience with US neocons in Ukraine also makes Russia position on Syria quite different and less accommodating for the US neoliberal empire expansion projects.

    IMHO with the level of dysfunction of Obama administration there is some level of threat of direct military confrontation in case one of three competing arms of US government overstep the boundaries. Quite possible in case of CIA and supported by them al Qaeda affiliated groups (which are mercilessly wiped out by Syrians army), probably less possible for Pentagon with their Kurds militia.

    And I think that any direct confrontation in Syria will automatically lead to confrontation in Ukraine, were large part of Eastern regions might greet Russians as liberators.

    If you add to China-Russia alliance cemented by events in Ukraine Pakistan, where anti-American feelings are also quite strong you can see the net result of Barack foreign policy efforts.

    Actually I think that one on key ideas of Trump foreign policy agenda is to reverse this alliance and split Russia from China by treating it differently then Obama administration (bad cop, good cop approach).

    LFC 10.03.16 at 3:34 am 344
    I'm starting to believe that there may be a Putin troll operation and that with the commenter Ze K gone, the operation has sent commenter likbez to the Crooked Timber plate as pinch-hitter. (Sorry for the baseball metaphor. Turning off computer now.)
    ZM 10.03.16 at 7:17 am 346
    likbez,

    "IMHO with the level of dysfunction of Obama administration there is some level of threat of direct military confrontation in case one of three competing arms of US government overstep the boundaries. Quite possible in case of CIA and supported by them al Qaeda affiliated groups (which are mercilessly wiped out by Syrians army), probably less possible for Pentagon with their Kurds militia.

    And I think that any direct confrontation in Syria will automatically lead to confrontation in Ukraine, were large part of Eastern regions might greet Russians as liberators."

    I don't really understand Russian foreign policy at the moment. I think the Obama foreign policy has been an improvement on the Bush government's foreign policy, and Obama inherited a very bad situation if you look at him coming to the Presidency in 2008.

    What does Russian foreign policy want now that the Cold War is over? America power is on the decline with the rise of other countries, and Russian power is on the decline too. Both countries had a lot of power due to the Cold War after WWII ended and the lack of development in many countries, and Europe needing to rebuild so much after the war.

    But why does Syria need to be a proxy war between America and Russia when the Cold War is over? Someone from Afghanistan was telling me recently that in Afghanistan they consider they have had war ongoing for 50 years now, since they had the wars with Russia years ago, and then they have had the wars with America now, plus the country is riven by splits now after wars for so long.

    The Middle East is going to need a lot of help to rebuild after these wars, they don't need Russia and America fighting over power in the region.

    ZM 10.03.16 at 7:25 am 347
    "Actually I think that one on key ideas of Trump foreign policy agenda is to reverse this alliance and split Russia from China by treating it differently then Obama administration (bad cop, good cop approach)."

    Also, I live in Australia so we have more coverage of Asian politics, and Obama has been pretty good with China overall I think. China got cross about the pivot to Asia, and gave The Philippines a very sharp warning in the official newspaper, and gave Australia a caution in the newspaper, since then its all gone reasonably well I think.

    Rich Puchalsky 10.03.16 at 12:51 pm 348
    Ah, foreign policy. I think that LFC should consider that while some commenter may well be a Putin troll operation, the style is pretty much indistinguishable from strongly held local ethnic commitments, and LFC's own writing sounds similarly weird and overcommitted to someone who doesn't share LFC's assumptions.

    I'll write some more about populism. One of the things that Lupita likes to point out is how strange it is that somehow Americans are the decider of military intervention everywhere (LFC again) and how American exceptionalism is part of our imperial setup.

    One of the things that people forget about populism is that it's generally a revolt against that - Americans may like empire, but for the people who actually have to fight, very few of them really like being foot soldiers for empire.

    Left agitation in the early part of the 20th century and in the 60s was in large part anti-war agitation, and it was one of the main reasons why the government actually crushed left organizations. One of the main reasons why you can tell that HRC supporters are not really on the left in any important sense is the easy way that they switched from opposing Bush's war to approving of Democratic "humanitarian" wars.

    So why should we have to care about any of this foreign policy nonsense? What critical interest does any American have in Asia, Ukraine, etc.? The vast and lofty left sentiments that we are citizens of the world and that an injury to one is an injury to everyone - do these have any meaning outside of an imperial context?

    likbez 10.03.16 at 1:32 pm 350
    ZM,

    "I don't really understand Russian foreign policy at the moment. "

    Russian foreign policy IMHO is mostly reactive and defensive. It is directed mainly on preservation of (currently rapidly shrinking) Russia's economic and political and cultural influence in xUSSR space.

    Obama administration was very aggressive toward Russia and attempted to implement "regime change" in 2011-2012 to prevent Putin re-election (so called "White revolution" with McFaul as the key player and the network on NGO as the coordination / training / recruiting / propaganda centers). This attempt to stage a "color revolution" in Russia backfired making Russian political establishment more hostile to the USA. It also led to expulsion of several NGO from Russia. Later events in Ukraine led to deterioration of political standing of Russian neoliberals as a political force. They lost all the legitimacy among the population and now viewed by-and-large as US stooges.

    The USA also try to play Islamic insurgence card via proxies and hurt economics of Russia via sanctions and low oil prices (which simultaneously decimated US own shale/LTO oil industry). Obama actually bragged about the latter.

    My impression is that this is just a part of the more general plan of expansion of global neoliberal empire led by the USA, enforcing neoliberal globalization and crushing all opposing regimes (including "resource nationalists" like Russia ) that Obama administration is hell bent on (neocon vision of "Pax Americana"). Obama (or, more correctly, forces behind him) proved to be a staunch neoliberal (and neocon) on par with Bush II and Bill Clinton and he essentially continued Bush II "muscular" foreign policy.

    Hillary as the Secretary of State was even more jingoistic neocon then Obama and has during her term in the office an outsize influence on the US foreign policy including the attempt to stage a "white revolution" in Russia in which State Department played an outsize role, essentially taking many functions formerly performed by CIA

    I think that Russia foreign policy can be understood as not always successful attempts to counter the attempts of the USA to subdue it and survive in the situation when then the major power using affiliated with it states tries to deny its sovereignty and wants to convert into vassal state (and Russia were the US vassal under Yeltsin regime), or, if possible, to dismember it into smaller and weaker states using the rising wave of nationalism in the regions.

    It also tried to oppose the "encirclement" - the creation of the belt of hostile states around Russia with US or NATO forces/bases - Ukraine is just the most recent example of this policy. Missile defense bases in Rumania and Poland belong to the same script. Actually the US Department of Defense on those issues has its own outsize influence on the US foreign policy and works in close coordination with the State Department (alliance started under Bush II and forged under Hillary Clinton).

    As Russophobia replaced anti-Semitism for the US elite, I see nothing good for Russia in this respect in the future.

    So the rearmament attempts and the attempts to develop alternatives to Western strategic products and services (which at any time can be included under sanctions) as well as more deep political and military alliance with China might well be their only options.

    But China has its own geopolitical aspirations in xUSSR region and wants to play a leading role in this alliance using Russia's difficult situation for its own advantage.

    So Russian situation is not enviable and might soon became worse, in Hilary is elected.

    Moreover, Putin in not eternal, and at some point needs to leave his position and that, taking into account the amount of power he concentrated in his hands, might create the leadership vacuum that will be very dangerous taking into consideration the level of hostility of the USA. Coming to power of more nationalistically oriented politicians on the wave of anti-American sentiments produced by sanctions also can't be excluded.

    I am not a specialist in Russian affairs, so please take those considerations with a grain of salt.

    Rich Puchalsky 10.03.16 at 1:39 pm 351
    ZM: "But I wish there was some sort of international protocol about it." There was supposed to be one - the whole apparatus of U.N. intervention. We've seen how that played out.
    Anarcissie 10.03.16 at 1:59 pm 352
    Rich Puchalsky 10.03.16 at 12:51 pm @ 348:

    'So why should we have to care about any of this foreign policy nonsense? What critical interest does any American have in Asia, Ukraine, etc.? The vast and lofty left sentiments that we are citizens of the world and that an injury to one is an injury to everyone - do these have any meaning outside of an imperial context?'

    The sentiments have certainly been a useful pretext for imperial interventions, going well beyond 'interest' to intimations of existential crisis, etc. I remember when, if we did not 'help' the Vietnamese by bombing them back into the Stone Age, bad people from there were going to invade California. So it was both to 'our' interest and theirs to kill millions of them. You see the same thinking in Syria, Libya, Iraq, Serbia, Panama, and the rest of the list.

    But on the other side, at the business end of the stick:

    Cet animal est très méchant;
    Quand on l'attaque, il se défend.

    Rich Puchalsky 10.03.16 at 2:14 pm 354
    "No one wants one country to rule the world as if its Lord Of The Rings"

    Oh, come on. I'd completely vote for Sauron. That all-seeing eye would spy out all foreign armies and spies, except for hobbits of course. Regretfully, in our own defense, we'd have to bomb all hobbit terrorist villages.

    ZM 10.03.16 at 2:28 pm 355
    Well with technology there is the possibility of that, Australia is part of the Five Eyes alliance with the USA, which is where the English speaking countries all share intelligence, then there is a larger group that gets a bit less intelligence, and maybe others like an onion or something.

    But its not really what anyone hardly wants as far as I can tell.

    I had no idea there even was that much information collected by the government on people until the Snowdon whistleblower revelations about the NSA.

    Will G-R 10.03.16 at 2:34 pm 356
    Rich @ 348: "I think that LFC should consider that while some commenter may well be a Putin troll operation, the style is pretty much indistinguishable from strongly held local ethnic commitments, and LFC's own writing sounds similarly weird and overcommitted to someone who doesn't share LFC's assumptions."

    To me this is the wierdest and most hypocritical aspect of the whole "Putin stooge!" narrative, since part of the core ethos of US-aligned liberal discourse in settings like this is precisely a willingness and eagerness to voluntarily assume the role of stooge for whatever ruling-class figure one has decided to back. Look at the core message liberals here seem to be trumpeting: we may not like the faction of the ruling class embodied in someone like Hillary Clinton, but since we've decided to back this faction over another faction we consider worse, we'll suspend our earnest search for truth and understanding so we can add our voices into the fight. ("We know Hillary is bad, but save it for after Trump!")

    There's probably a lot more that can be said about this, but at least as far as the non-ruling-class public is concerned, what Americans call "partisanship" in this Inside-Baseball sense can be read as a political analogue of the apocryphal Steinbeck line about temporarily embarrassed millionaires, absurdly overinflating the importance of their own little Machiavellian calculations to maintain a pathetically optimistic political self-image, not as the depoliticized and socially atomized ideological consumers they actually are, but as temporarily embarrassed technocratic insiders.

    But the kicker re: Putin is that somehow, these same liberals can't fathom the idea that ordinary Russians might be gripped by precisely the same kind of dynamic ("we know Putin is bad but save it for after Syria!") especially when it comes to nationalist fervor stirred up by global military/economic power struggles.

    And to the extent that they see such people not as the Russian ideological equivalents of themselves but as literal agents of the Kremlin, precisely the way one might imagine all the Hillary defenders on this thread as COINTELPRO plants and/or paid Clinton campaign PR operatives, they're able to see this obsequious defense of ruling-class power for the creepy authoritarian servility it is. One could call the double standards closed-minded or even xenophobic, but I'll settle for just calling it bizarre.

    bruce wilder , 10.03.16 at 2:51 pm
    American foreign policy has long been the special province of deeply interested portions of the elite, which were allowed to use U.S. naval and military power without paying for it.

    Early in the 19th century, it was Yankee traders in China and South America paddling their boats in the British Empire's wake. The Americans were there, junior partners and useful instruments of British foreign policy: Monroe Doctrine, founding Hong Kong, opening Japan and Korea, disciplining unruly or bankrupt Latin American states. The U.S. nearly matched the British in the race to build Dreadnoughts before the First World War, proclaimed the Open Door in China, neutralized the German Navy in Morocco and in the Venezuela Crisis, and finally settled the First World War.

    Since the First World War, the U.S. has been the hegemon, sponsoring a world order on liberal principles in theory and making the world safe for an often rapacious commercial order in practice. Popular disinterest at home has preserved the tradition of hijacking the U.S. military for racketeering abroad, but the privatizing of the military-industrial complex has converted it from sideline into a reason for being: arms sales follow a Says Law that motivates perpetual war as a marketing tool.

    ZM is ridiculously wrong about one thing: "No one wants one country to rule the world" I think there is actually quite a demand for exactly that. That the U.S. capacity to satisfy that demand is diminishing rapidly is creating a gathering world crisis.

    bruce wilder, 10.03.16 at 3:25 pm 358
    Will G-R: liberals can't fathom the idea that ordinary Russians might be gripped by precisely the same kind of dynamic ("we know Putin is bad but save it for after Syria!")

    I'm not sure that's the relevant analogue.

    Americans seem to have some difficulty understanding just how competent Putin has been. Putin is a consummately gifted gambler, who has played a weak hand aggressively at home and abroad. He is popular in Russia, because he has been successful by being phenomenally good at his job - so good that any Russian who isn't dead stupid is worried about what comes after.

    Obama, the most gifted politician I've seen in my lifetime, has played his hand very conservatively. I rail against him, because I think he should have taken much bigger chances on a radical reform agenda, using the crisis he was gifted to take apart the oligarchies choking the American political economy. But, he chose not to play the game at that level of risk, and I think history will judge him to be weak because of the consequences, though he has not been politically weak and he has been remarkably successful in terms of his chosen agenda.

    Both Americans and Russians, I think, are inclined to see their roles in the world as more benign than they are. The Americans, though, have better PR and a lot of people abroad still want to believe. No one believes the Russians are a benign force, especially in Russia's Near Abroad.

    The scary thing is that Americans have been propagandized into thinking Clinton is competent, that she will be the adult in the room, the experienced leader who will take the call at 3 am (and not tweet out some link to a porn tape).

    In fact, Clinton has shown a number of indications that she is not competent at all, that she is, unlike Obama, going to unleash the U.S. foreign policy establishment and military-industrial complex in all its decadent schizophrenia without any governor or restraint at all.

    That Clinton is so cavalier about making Putin the scapegoat for her email problems is an early indication that she doesn't know what she is doing.

    Rich Puchalsky 10.03.16 at 3:26 pm 359
    I know that it's a digression, but I really should write some more about hobbits. The one thing that would shake my convictions as an anarchist would be a political leader who promises to wipe out their barbaric "mathom culture".

    First of all, they never can get ahead economically because of this premodern habit of putting their economic surplus into items that they pass around aimlessly. And the way they waste food - has anyone seen the depravity of their so-called wedding parties? I know that drones are a harsh remedy, but really.

    And of course the feminist case for bombing hobbits is as strong as it ever was. Has anyone even heard of a female hobbit? Of course you haven't, because they keep them in those primitive holes, and they only appear in brief cameos when the hobbits have to conceal their unadmitted homosocial orientation. Strong hobbit women will be much better off if we kill the men keeping them down as well as some of their children.

    And lastly, genocide. Are their even any members of other racial groups living in the Shire? Where did they all go? Hobbit society is deeply racist, and those holes are dumping groups for bodies as well as potential storehouses for chemical weapons. I know that some people say that we shouldn't bomb them, but that's only because those people can't even imagine what it's like not to have the privilege that they do.

    likbez 10.03.16 at 3:48 pm
    Bruce,

    @ 358

    "ZM is ridiculously wrong about one thing: "No one wants one country to rule the world" I think there is actually quite a demand for exactly that. That the U.S. capacity to satisfy that demand is diminishing rapidly is creating a gathering world crisis."

    This line of thinking is very close to Professor Bacevich concept of "New American Militarism". See, for example, his book "Washington Rules" (2010). A good synopsis by Mark K. Jensen can be found at https://www.scribd.com/document/38192715/Bacevich-Washington-Rules-2010-Synopsis

    === quote ===

    Ch. 1: The Advent of Semiwar.

    As president, Barack Obama's efforts to change the U.S.'s exercise of power "have seldom risen above the cosmetic"(20). He made clear he subscribes to the "catechism of American statecraft," viz. that 1) the world must be organized, 2)only the U.S. can do it, 3) this includes dictating principles, and 4) not to accept this is to be a rogue or a recalcitrant (20-21).

    It follows that the U.S. need not conform to the norms it sets for others and that it should maintain a worldwide network of bases (22-23).

    Imagine if China acted in a comparable manner (23-25). The extraordinary American military posture in the world (25-27). To call this into question puts one beyond the pale(27). James Forrestal called this a permanent condition of semiwar, requiring high levels of military spending(27-28).

    American citizens are not supposed to concern themselves with it (29-30). As to how this came about, the "standard story line" presents as the result of the decisions of a "succession of presidential administrations," though this conceals as much as it reveals (30-32).

    Eisenhower's 1961 Farewell Address on the "military-industrial complex" was a rare exception (32-34). More important than presidents were Allen Dulles [1893-1969] and Curtis Lemay [1906-1990] (34-36).

    Bacevich attributes the vision for an American-dominated post-World War II world with the CIA playing an active role to the patrician Dulles (36-43). The development of the U.S. military into a force capable of dominating the world, especially in the area of strategic weapons, he attributes to the hard-bitten Curtis LeMay, organizer of the StrategicAir Command (SAC) (43-52). Dulles and LeMay shared devotion to country, ruthlessness, a certain recklessness (52-55). They exploited American anxieties and insecurities in yin (Dulles's CIA) yang(LeMay's SAC) fashion, leaving the mainstay of American military power, the U.S. Army, in a relatively weak position(55-58).

    Ch. 2: Illusions of Flexibility and Control

    Kennedy kept Dulles and LeMay to signal continuity, but there was a behind-the-scenes struggle led by Gen. Maxwell Taylor to reassert the role of the U.S. Army by expanding and modernizing conventional forces that was "simultaneously masked by, and captured in, the phrase flexible response " (60; 59-63).
    This agenda purported to aim at "resisting aggression" but really created new options for limited aggressive warfare by the U.S. (63-66).
    McNamara engaged in a struggle with LeMay to control U.S. policy on nuclear weapons, but he embraced the need for redundancy based on a land-sea-air attack "triad" and LeMay et al. "got most of what they wanted" (66-72).
    In the aftermath of the Bay of Pigs, Kennedy instituted the morally and legally "indefensible" Operation Mongoose," in effect, a program of state-sponsored terrorism" against Cuba (80; 72-82 [but Bacevich is silent on its wilder elements, like Operation Northwoods]).

    U.S. recklessness caused the Cuban Missile Crisis, and to his credit Kennedy acknowledged this (albeit privately) and "suspended the tradition" in defusing the crisis (82-87).

    Bacevich rejects as a romantic delusion the view that in the aftermath of this crisis Kennedy turned against the military-industrial complex and the incipient Vietnam war and shows no interest in Kennedy's assassination itself (87-92).

    He sees a parallel between escalation in Vietnam and post-9/11 aggression as "fought to sustain the Washington consensus" (107; 92-107).

    Ch. 3: The Credo Restored.

    William Fulbright's The Arrogance of Power (1966) urged a rethinking of the Washington rules (109-15). A radicalized David Shoup, a Medal of Honor winner and former commandant of the MarineCorps, argued in "The New American Militarism" (Atlantic, April 1969) that the U.S. had become "a militaristic and aggressive nation" (120; 115-21). The 1960s Zeitgeist shift made LeMay "an embarrassment, mocked and vilified rather than venerated," which showed that the Washington rules had incurred serious damage in Vietnam; the Army was in dire shape (122; 121-27).

    Yet astonishingly, in the subsequent decade the "sacred trinity" (cf. 11-15) was "fully restored" (127). As in post-1918 Germany, élites looked for scapegoats and worked to reverse "the war's apparent verdict" (128). The Council on Foreign Relations 1976 volume entitled The Vietnam Legacy: The War, American Society, and the Future of American Foreign Policy is an expression of élite consensus that the Vietnam war was insignificant, an anomaly (129-34).

    By 1980, Democrats and Republicans were again on the same page (134-36).Reagan's election "sealed the triumph of Vietnam revisionism" (136; 136-38). And the end of the Cold War posed no challenge to the Washington rules, as Madeleine Albright's pretentious arrogance exemplifies (138-45).

    stevenjohnson 10.03.16 at 3:55 pm

    "In fact, Clinton has shown a number of indications that she is not competent at all, that she is, unlike Obama, going to unleash the U.S. foreign policy establishment and military-industrial complex in all its decadent schizophrenia without any governor or restraint at all."

    Backing away from openly bombing the Syrian government when the English PM couldn't get the vote from Parliament is not restraint. Signing a booby trapped pact with the Iranian government which will not end sanctions is not restraint. Endorsing the Indian attack on Pakistan is not restraint. Endorsing the Saudi invasion of Yemen is not restraint. A trillion dollar upgrade of nuclear weapons is not restraint. Supporting IS all the time and bombing it some time is not restraint.

    The raving chorus of criticism of Clinton's foreign policy on ostensibly leftist grounds that falsifies the current state of affairs is viciously reactionary, especially when indissolubly mixed with openly reactionary criticisms. The falsification of what exactly is different about Trump's candidacy is also part and parcel. It's all very like the fake leftists who said defeating the Scottish referendum wasn't an endorsement of English imperialism, then pretended to act surprised when the rightward surge they helped to build led to a racist campaign for Brexit.

    Putin is weak. He sacrificed a struggle against fascism in Ukraine for a naval base, rather than call on popular support. Then he doubled down on another naval base in Syria, despite having no idea how to reach a solution. He can't cope with the economic warfare the US is waging, he only tries to use simple repression of the population at large and an elaborate combination of select repression and appeasement of the oligarchs he ultimately serves.

    Putin is popular I think largely because he appears to be the human face of capitalism. He's falsely sold himself as the corrective to Yeltsin, when in truth he is just the normalization of Yeltsinism. Yetltsin did the dirty work of attacking the people of Russia in the name of capitalist restoration. Now, Putin is just business as usual.

    Will G-R 10.03.16 at 4:06 pm 364
    Bruce, I meant "bad" in a good/evil sense, not a competent/incompetent sense. Clinton partisans may be fairly unanimous in waxing rhapsodic about her competence, but plenty of them are willing to cop to her position as a defender of an ultimately evil form of ruling-class power, they simply think it shouldn't be talked about (see Collin Street @ 184 for an exemplary specimen).

    It's the insidious ideology of the Uncle Sam poster, where a slightly-less-evil form of ruling-class power needs you not just to passively submit to its dictates but to actively defend its position against its slightly-more-evil ideological enemies, even at the expense of your own independent moral compass and political thought. The point of this facade isn't what the lemming-like hordes of Clinton defenders (or Putin defenders, if they're Russian) are actually accomplishing, which is essentially nothing; the point is what they're not accomplishing, which is any meaningfully subversive reflection about how ruling-class power works in general and how the governed classes might effectively counter it.

    bruce wilder 10.03.16 at 5:33 pm 365
    Will G-R @ 364

    I am with you completely on that much.

    bruce wilder 10.03.16 at 5:58 pm 366
    stevenjohnson @ 363: Putin is weak.

    Russia is weak; Putin calculates.

    bruce wilder 10.03.16 at 6:00 pm 367
    likbez @ 362

    Thanks. I like Bacevich's take.

    bruce wilder 10.03.16 at 6:01 pm 368
    I don't think there's any question that the U.S. has to take action on the Hobbit threat.
    bruce wilder 10.03.16 at 6:12 pm 369
    If you need an eloquent summary of how the dysfunction of the American political system has become manifest in a foreign policy of perpetual and costly failure .

    [Oct 04, 2016] Americas War for the Greater Middle East A Military History by Andrew J. Bacevich

    Notable quotes:
    "... The strongest part of "America's War for the Greater Middle East" is the thirteenth chapter, where Bacevich dissects Bush 43's decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power. While I have previously argued that American war aims in the Iraq war were unidentifiable Bacevich's formulation of said aims (namely, that our overarching aim was to force everyone in the region to bend to our will) is plausible. The weakest part of the book is the very limited discussion (limited basically to chapter 16) of the US special relationship with Israel, a pariah state based on an obsolete ideology, which in my opinion is the real driver of the war. If this relationship could be ended or redefined, we would in one stroke go most of the way towards a rational policy in the Middle East. ..."
    "... He cites many examples of Americans deceiving themselves about what constitutes terrorism and who is a terrorist and why they do it. ..."
    "... He also makes a convincing case for the war having begun with Carter and never stopping, even in periods between more known wars; much of the action was American use of air power in Iraq, but also tensions with Iran in the Persian Gulf, what was once very strong US support of jihadis fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan (1979-89). ..."
    Oct 04, 2016 | www.amazon.com
    Jason Galbraith

    Blocking Consensus: A Critical View of "America's War for the Greater Middle East: A Military History" , April 15, 2016

    "America's War for the Greater Middle East" is the third book I have read by Andrew Bacevich, who has unique authority to speak on the subject as the war claimed his son's life. Unfortunately, this book lacks the power of the first two books, "The Limits of Power" and "Breach of Trust." The overall indictment of American society that it delivers was more convincing in "Breach of Trust," or perhaps I am simply blinded by the very ideology that Bacevich decries in this book. I have bought into the status quo in this respect: I believe some, if not most, of the goods recognized by Americans are indeed universal. I am unwilling to concede that the millions of Afghan girls and women who got an education in the years after the Taliban's control of that country were first challenged would be better off if we had never gone in. I also believe that the number of casualties we are now sustaining in CENTCOM and AFRICOM is low enough that what we are doing is sustainable indefinitely, unless the Muslim world gets so angry at us that it unites into a new superpower to challenge us globally. This will disappoint a lot of people and isn't necessarily consistent with what I have argued at other times but the absence of even one critical review on Amazon was something I couldn't stomach anymore.

    Per Bacevich, the first American lives lost in America's War for the Greater Middle East were the fatalities of the aircraft collision as special operators were queuing up to leave Desert One after the mission was called off. I think it does a disservice to President Carter to imply that sending troops for a rescue mission committed the United States to perpetual war for unachievable aims, or even to call it the Poland of this war. Bacevich's position that the Carter Doctrine calling for the free transit of Saudi and other Gulf Arab oil through the Straits of Hormuz made Desert One and other interventions inevitable is somewhat more supportable.

    The strongest part of "America's War for the Greater Middle East" is the thirteenth chapter, where Bacevich dissects Bush 43's decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power. While I have previously argued that American war aims in the Iraq war were unidentifiable Bacevich's formulation of said aims (namely, that our overarching aim was to force everyone in the region to bend to our will) is plausible. The weakest part of the book is the very limited discussion (limited basically to chapter 16) of the US special relationship with Israel, a pariah state based on an obsolete ideology, which in my opinion is the real driver of the war. If this relationship could be ended or redefined, we would in one stroke go most of the way towards a rational policy in the Middle East.

    lyndonbrecht

    Incoherence combined with self-deception means the war may last decades longer. Extraordinarily good. Deeply disturbing. on September 24, 2016

    This book is headed for some Books of the Year lists and maybe some awards. It's well researched, unusually well-written and deeply disturbing. It is not an easy read; there are hundreds of names, locations and events over four decades. It deals with how we got into the mess, how we kept at it and how we're not going to get out. That's the disturbing point, the number of factors that indicate that we are going to continue with what the book calls the War for the Greater Middle East. I wish he was wrong, but his case is overwhelming and logically developed. Rather than describe this book as other reviews have done, I'll consider some details that struck me and add a couple of quotes to give the flavor. Note: the author has strong opinions, and has ample criticism for all presidents from Carter to Obama, and strong criticism of many generals, but Republican readers will not like some of his comments, one cited below. His overall view is rather similar to the famed quote from World War 1, about lions led by donkeys.

    "...combined incoherence with self-deception, both to become abiding hallmarks of America's evolving War for the Greater Middle East." (44).

    "Like the present-day GOP, the Northern Alliance was a loose coalition of unsavory opportunists, interested chiefly in acquiring power." (227)

    "Instead of intimidating, US military efforts have annoyed, incited and generally communicated a lack of both competence and determination." (367).

    He cites many examples of Americans deceiving themselves about what constitutes terrorism and who is a terrorist and why they do it. The book covers in considerable detail the Carter actions in Iran, Reagan's Marines in Lebanon, the Bush's wars in Iraq, Clinton's actions in Somalia--in considerable detail, these actions involved 38,000 US troops at one point, and resulted quite simply in defeat. He notes that US actions in Bosnia and Kosovo rescued Muslims, who now are enlisting in considerable numbers as jihadis in the Middle East. In Kosovo he notes that US protection resulted in a Kosovar state that promptly engaged in an ethnic cleansing of Serbs. He notes that US troops defeated Iraq's military but the numbers were too small to effectively deal with Baghdad (a city of 5 million at the time), leading to the collapse of law and order. He thinks the point of defeat is the incident of Abu Ghraib.

    He also makes a convincing case for the war having begun with Carter and never stopping, even in periods between more known wars; much of the action was American use of air power in Iraq, but also tensions with Iran in the Persian Gulf, what was once very strong US support of jihadis fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan (1979-89). Putting situations that tend to be forgotten about in succession with larger events makes it obvious that the war began under Carter and has simmered ever since, with periodic intensifications.

    And near the book's end he discusses several reasons why the war is going to continue. One, there is no anti-war or effective anti-interventionist party. Two, electoral expediency means major party candidates will continue to support military actions. Three, some individuals and organizations (and companies) benefit from continued war (jobs, military contracts). Four, Americans largely seem oblivious to the war. There's more, but these are main reasons.

    [Oct 04, 2016] Tolkien was a consummate reactionary and LotR is an allegorical defense of racism and imperialism on many levels

    Oct 04, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    Rich Puchalsky 10.03.16 at 3:26 pm 359

    I know that it's a digression, but I really should write some more about hobbits. The one thing that would shake my convictions as an anarchist would be a political leader who promises to wipe out their barbaric "mathom culture".

    First of all, they never can get ahead economically because of this premodern habit of putting their economic surplus into items that they pass around aimlessly. And the way they waste food - has anyone seen the depravity of their so-called wedding parties? I know that drones are a harsh remedy, but really.

    And of course the feminist case for bombing hobbits is as strong as it ever was. Has anyone even heard of a female hobbit? Of course you haven't, because they keep them in those primitive holes, and they only appear in brief cameos when the hobbits have to conceal their unadmitted homosocial orientation. Strong hobbit women will be much better off if we kill the men keeping them down as well as some of their children.

    And lastly, genocide. Are their even any members of other racial groups living in the Shire? Where did they all go? Hobbit society is deeply racist, and those holes are dumping groups for bodies as well as potential storehouses for chemical weapons. I know that some people say that we shouldn't bomb them, but that's only because those people can't even imagine what it's like not to have the privilege that they do.

    Will G-R 10.04.16 at 1:41 pm 389

    In all seriousness, Tolkien was a consummate reactionary and LotR is an allegorical defense of racism and imperialism on many levels - everything from the noble white monarch rallying "men of the West" to stand against the dark hordes of the East and South, to the depiction of preindustrial peasant life as an idyllic paradise disturbed not by Western nobles themselves but by the malign influence of Eastern/Southern foreigners, to details as small as the relationship between Frodo and Sam modeled on an ideal Victorian-era relationship between a lower-aristocratic British army officer and his commoner manservant. (Juxtapose the imagery this video at the timestamp side by side with this one.) As people of the left, we shouldn't bring that particular story into our discourse as an allegory without this point being made explicitly at least once.

    That said, when considering our doctrines on liberty, it's clear that we may leave out of consideration those backward states of hobbit society in which the race itself may be considered as in its nonage. The early difficulties in the way of spontaneous progress are so great, that there is seldom any choice of means for overcoming them; and a ruler full of the spirit of improvement is warranted in the use of any expedients that will attain an end, perhaps otherwise unattainable. Despotism is a legitimate mode of government in dealing with hobbits, provided the end be their improvement, and the means justified by actually effecting that end. Liberty, as a principle, has no application to any state of things anterior to the time when hobbitkind have become capable of being improved by free and equal discussion. Until then, there is nothing for them but implicit obedience to a Sharkey or a Wormtongue, if they are so fortunate as to find one.

    Ogden Wernstrom 10.04.16 at 5:11 pm 400
    @389, Will G-R 10.04.16 at 1:41 pm:

    In all seriousness, Tolkien was a consummate reactionary and LotR is an allegorical defense of racism and imperialism on many levels…

    Once the US establishes American-Style Democracy in The Shire, a new timeline begins. First, the ethnic cleansing and establishment of enclaves for the survivors. After about a hundred years they'll have to end slavery. About fifty years after that, they'll have to let women vote.

    Apologies to Vonnegut.

    Guy Harris 10.04.16 at 5:28 pm
    The Lord of the Rings is history written by the winners .

    [Oct 04, 2016] By 60th the isea of self-determination and national independence became too powerful to resist by old colonial powers and a new mode of colonization via debt slavery was invented

    Notable quotes:
    "... Self-determination and national independence were powerful ideas, and many Western politicians, at least in certain countries, recognized that the "winds of change," in Macmillan's words, were blowing, and that they had best try to adjust and accommodate them. ..."
    Oct 04, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    LFC 10.04.16 at 4:51 pm 399

    @Anarcissie
    The [U.S.] leadership wisely declined to support any attempt to restore the British, French, Dutch, Belgian etc. empires because they had a new model in mind. Thus these empires had to be wound down and dissolved, and so they were.

    British and French decolonization(s) were different in that France fought two protracted wars (Indochina and Algeria) in an effort to hang on to its colonies, and in the former war (Indochina) France did so with US financial support (so much for your argument about the US dictating all outcomes). Britain, by contrast, left most (though not all - e.g. Kenya ) of its colonies relatively peacefully.

    Self-determination and national independence were powerful ideas, and many Western politicians, at least in certain countries, recognized that the "winds of change," in Macmillan's words, were blowing, and that they had best try to adjust and accommodate them.

    A quote from R.H. Jackson, "The Weight of Ideas in Decolonization"[*]:

    Something besides declining military power or economic disinterest on the part of the imperial powers was involved in decolonization - certainly British decolonization. The cabinet and colonial papers on which this judgment is based make reference not to any fundamental alteration in Britain's military posture or economic interests but rather to "the large body of opinion in this country, in Africa, and internationally," which by the late 1940s was already demanding "more rapid political, economic and social development" and by 1960 would accept nothing less than complete decolonization…. [There was] a fundamental shift of normative ideas and a corresponding change of mind on the part of most sovereign governments and the public opinion influencing them concerning the right to sovereign statehood.

    [*] In Judith Goldstein and R.O. Keohane, eds., Ideas and Foreign Policy (1993), pp. 128-29.

    Anarcissie 10.04.16 at 4:15 pm
    Will G-R 10.04.16 at 3:24 pm @ 394 -
    The analogy between wives (in purdah, though) and prostitutes in business on the street it apt. The latter would have a certain freedom of life and action, like slaves or serfs being tuned loose to become the proles of a social order. They would still be subordinated to masters, but it would be harder for them to identify and act against their masters.

    But as to racism and sexism, these mostly inhibit production and consumption, so, given its fetishization of production, capitalism should war against them.

    As Uncle Karl notes in the Manifesto, 'Constant revolutionizing of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air….'

    In short, capitalism destroys all culture and relations that it encounters and replaces them with its own culture and set of relations. The irrationalities of racial and sexual peculiarity and segregation are replaced by an atomized, degendered, deracinated, atomized population who relate to each other through money, markets, employment, consumption patterns. Or they did. Now that employment and production are in decline, something else may be happening.

    [Oct 04, 2016] Neoliberal intelligencia as neoliberal compradors

    Notable quotes:
    "... First of all, for all extents and purposes they *are* the governing class, and they aren't simply failing to be subversive, they are defending their class interest. I know that this will cue any number of remarks about how someone is a college professor and isn't governing anything - as if someone in corporate upper management somewhere is really governing anything either - but what holds the neoliberal order in place is that it serves the interests of the managerial class, which includes professionals and other symbolic-manipulation people as its lower tier. ..."
    "... I'm not sure about the merits of the whole Manufacturing Consent line of critique, but defending elite opinion as the only respectable opinion sort of is accomplishing something ..."
    "... A side note: there was some conversation above about the interests of an aristocracy, which of course prompted the idea that the aristocracy is long gone. But meritocracy is a kind of aristocracy. ..."
    "... Look at how much effort people put into ensuring that their children are high-status, degreed, good job holders just like themselves, and how successful that generally is. ..."
    "... ...Rich: to the extent that the people parroting this line are professional-class hangers -- on of the global financial elite and neoliberalism serves their class interests ( at least until academic/media sinecures are next in line for outsourcing ), their aversion to subversive radical politics makes perfect sense as a simple matter of vested interest. ..."
    Oct 04, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    Rich Puchalsky 10.03.16 at 7:31 pm 370

    Will G-R: "The point of this facade isn't what the lemming-like hordes of Clinton defenders (or Putin defenders, if they're Russian) are actually accomplishing, which is essentially nothing; the point is what they're not accomplishing, which is any meaningfully subversive reflection about how ruling-class power works in general and how the governed classes might effectively counter it."

    Not quite right, I think. First of all, for all extents and purposes they *are* the governing class, and they aren't simply failing to be subversive, they are defending their class interest. I know that this will cue any number of remarks about how someone is a college professor and isn't governing anything - as if someone in corporate upper management somewhere is really governing anything either - but what holds the neoliberal order in place is that it serves the interests of the managerial class, which includes professionals and other symbolic-manipulation people as its lower tier.

    Second, I'm not sure about the merits of the whole Manufacturing Consent line of critique, but defending elite opinion as the only respectable opinion sort of is accomplishing something .

    Sure, individual votes are meaningless, and any one person's contribution negligible. But there is a recurring trope of people wondering whether someone is a paid troll because people are actually paid - whether by David Brooks or by Putin - to do exactly this kind of thing. And they are paid to do it because it works, or at any rate people think that it works. Even better if people do it on a volunteer basis.

    Rich Puchalsky 10.03.16 at 7:52 pm 371
    A side note: there was some conversation above about the interests of an aristocracy, which of course prompted the idea that the aristocracy is long gone. But meritocracy is a kind of aristocracy.

    Look at how much effort people put into ensuring that their children are high-status, degreed, good job holders just like themselves, and how successful that generally is.

    I'll quote wiki:

    "One study […] found that of nine developed countries, the United States and United Kingdom had the lowest intergenerational vertical social mobility with about half of the advantages of having a parent with a high income passed on to the next generation."

    That's not perfect, but it's getting better.

    Will G-R 10.03.16 at 9:33 pm 373
    ...Rich: to the extent that the people parroting this line are professional-class hangers -- on of the global financial elite and neoliberalism serves their class interests ( at least until academic/media sinecures are next in line for outsourcing ), their aversion to subversive radical politics makes perfect sense as a simple matter of vested interest.

    [Oct 04, 2016] Debate microphone problem was probably intentional

    See also Girl Talk at Trump Tower MoDo, NYT. "After working with psychologists to figure out how to goad Trump into an outburst in the first debate, the commanding Hillary saved the Machado provocation until the end."
    Oct 04, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Swb Roger Smith October 2, 2016 at 9:25 am

    Re: Trump Was Apparently Right About the Debate Microphone The Atlantic

    This was such garbage from the get go. Anyone with minor audio production experience would have known that was a mic problem. It isn't the kind of thing I would wonder if someone did intentionally. They certainly could have tried to correct the problem at the soundboard as the debate went on.

    Jim Haygood October 2, 2016 at 10:12 am

    At the soundboard, Bryan Pagliano and Paul Combetta were frantically posting for advice on Reddit.

    But all the Reddit readers were watching the debate. :-(

    [Oct 04, 2016] Whatever the merits of their individual stances, there is no reason to suppose that either Obama or Hillary can exert more than loose control over this mess.

    Notable quotes:
    "... As a side note, it's obvious that there are at least three separate US policies active in Syria. The Defense Dept supports the largely Kurdish YPG against ISIS, the CIA works with Gulf backers to support the Free Syrian Army – an amalgam of mostly ineffective "moderate" rebels and effective, but murderous, Islamists affiliated to al-Qaeda, and State hovers around making noises about Assad, variously placating and irritating the Turks and dickering with the Russians. Whatever the merits of their individual stances, there is no reason to suppose that either Obama or Hillary can exert more than loose control over this mess. stevenjohnson , 10.02.16 at 12:59 pm LFC @300 It is unclear to me how a change from an independent secular national state in Syria to a patchwork of sectarian statelets wholly dependent upon foreign support is anything but a regime change. Unless of course, the phrase "regime change" merely means the murder of a designated leader and his replacement by someone acceptable to the regime changers. ..."
    "... CIA of course, as more or less the President's Praetorian Guard over humanity at large, is no more under the Secretary of State than the Pentagon. ..."
    "... It seems to have been forgotten that the democratic rebels were lynching black Africans within days of their glorious uprising. Barack Obama is too tan for the Klan, thus it was advisable for a loyal servant to provide an excuse for a half-Kenyan man to support the mass murder of darker skinned people. ..."
    "... She repeated the performance in the Benghazi affair, where she loyally excused the murder of Stevens as a religious mob, instead of a falling out with his jihadi employees ..."
    "... Lee A. Arnold is sort of correct there was once a genuine democratic Syrian opposition, largely inspired by the economic liberalization (neoliberalization according to many CTers,) in the face of the stresses of the world economic downturn and the prolonged Syrian droughts. Nonetheless there was from almost the very beginning an organized Islamist element that relied on violence, and refused to negotiate any reforms whatsoever, despite the Assad government's attempt to do so. Whether he was sincere is moot. ..."
    "... Arnold's other point that Trump's professed plans are not for peace but victory is correct. Whether he has any real ideas how to achieve this other than firing generals until he gets a winner is anybody's guess. Like Nixon, Trump has a secret plan. ..."
    "... The recent leak that Clinton is against nuclear armed cruise missiles and isn't committed to Obama's trillion dollar nuclear weapons upgrade appears to suggest she's not quite on board with plans for general war. (Yes, the purpose of this program is to prepare for general nuclear war, or at minimum, plausible threat of imminent general nuclear war.) It is unclear whether this was leaked to make her look good to the public, or to discredit her with the military's higher ups. (It is likely dissident military played a role in the leak, either way.) ..."
    "... I firmly believe!…most ordinary people don't vote interests, they vote the national good. It's the rich and their favored employees who vote their interests. ..."
    Oct 04, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    Peter T 10.02.16 at 10:49 am 320

    As a side note, it's obvious that there are at least three separate US policies active in Syria. The Defense Dept supports the largely Kurdish YPG against ISIS, the CIA works with Gulf backers to support the Free Syrian Army – an amalgam of mostly ineffective "moderate" rebels and effective, but murderous, Islamists affiliated to al-Qaeda, and State hovers around making noises about Assad, variously placating and irritating the Turks and dickering with the Russians.

    Whatever the merits of their individual stances, there is no reason to suppose that either Obama or Hillary can exert more than loose control over this mess.

    stevenjohnson, 10.02.16 at 12:59 pm
    LFC @300 It is unclear to me how a change from an independent secular national state in Syria to a patchwork of sectarian statelets wholly dependent upon foreign support is anything but a regime change. Unless of course, the phrase "regime change" merely means the murder of a designated leader and his replacement by someone acceptable to the regime changers.

    @306 "And (Clinton) also played an instrumental role in destroying Libya…"
    @316 "Hillary Clinton served as the US Secretary of State from 2009 to 2013, which makes her at least one of the prime architects of US foreign policy…"

    It was NATO which attacked Libya. The prime "architects" were well known, namely, Cameron and Sarkozy. The US role in this matter was conducted largely through NATO, the CIA and international diplomacy. In the US, relations with Cameron and Sarkozy would be conducted largely by either Obama personally, with other diplomatic duties taken up by the UN ambassador Samantha Power, a figure that has always been in an ambiguous relationship with the Secretary of State. CIA of course, as more or less the President's Praetorian Guard over humanity at large, is no more under the Secretary of State than the Pentagon.

    It seems to have been forgotten that the democratic rebels were lynching black Africans within days of their glorious uprising. Barack Obama is too tan for the Klan, thus it was advisable for a loyal servant to provide an excuse for a half-Kenyan man to support the mass murder of darker skinned people. Enter that dutiful public servant, able to suffer undeserved ignominy in service to her country. (She repeated the performance in the Benghazi affair, where she loyally excused the murder of Stevens as a religious mob, instead of a falling out with his jihadi employees.)

    Lee A. Arnold is sort of correct there was once a genuine democratic Syrian opposition, largely inspired by the economic liberalization (neoliberalization according to many CTers,) in the face of the stresses of the world economic downturn and the prolonged Syrian droughts. Nonetheless there was from almost the very beginning an organized Islamist element that relied on violence, and refused to negotiate any reforms whatsoever, despite the Assad government's attempt to do so. Whether he was sincere is moot.

    Arnold's other point that Trump's professed plans are not for peace but victory is correct. Whether he has any real ideas how to achieve this other than firing generals until he gets a winner is anybody's guess. Like Nixon, Trump has a secret plan.

    Peter T @320 "As a side note, it's obvious that there are at least three separate US policies active in Syria…Whatever the merits of their individual stances, there is no reason to suppose that either Obama or Hillary can exert more than loose control over this mess." Skipping over the question of how obvious it is to CT and its regular commentariat that the military has a semi-independent policy, the idea of Presidential leadership does sort of include a vague notion that the President sets the policy, not the generals. The facts being otherwise show how the US is a deeply militaristic polity. I would add the CIA is very much the President's army. State is more or less, Other, on the multiple choice exam. Trump's hint he would fire generals til he finds a winner suggests he more or less agrees that the military is an independent enterprise in the political market (which is what US governance seems to be modeled on.)

    The recent leak that Clinton is against nuclear armed cruise missiles and isn't committed to Obama's trillion dollar nuclear weapons upgrade appears to suggest she's not quite on board with plans for general war. (Yes, the purpose of this program is to prepare for general nuclear war, or at minimum, plausible threat of imminent general nuclear war.) It is unclear whether this was leaked to make her look good to the public, or to discredit her with the military's higher ups. (It is likely dissident military played a role in the leak, either way.)

    The fact that these kinds of issues are ignored in favor of twaddle about Clinton Foundation, emails and the actions of the Secretary State, an office whose relevance has been dubious for decades, says much about the level of democratic discourse.

    Rich Puchalsky, the primary reason so many white workers vote Republican is because they are voting values, which are religious, not policies. Even more to the point, the notion that voting is like a market transaction (a very liberal idea) founders on the fact…

    I firmly believe!…most ordinary people don't vote interests, they vote the national good. It's the rich and their favored employees who vote their interests.

    As to the religious bigotry, well, once it was necessary to say or write "racial bigotry," because everyone knew bigotry to be an expression of religious belief. Today, the very notion of religious bigotry is more or less forbidden as some sort of expression of anti-religious fanaticism.

    [Oct 04, 2016] Obama restraint in foreign policy is as fake as change we can beleave in

    Notable quotes:
    "... Backing away from openly bombing the Syrian government when the English PM couldn't get the vote from Parliament is not restraint. Signing a booby trapped pact with the Iranian government which will not end sanctions is not restraint. Endorsing the Indian attack on Pakistan is not restraint. Endorsing the Saudi invasion of Yemen is not restraint. A trillion dollar upgrade of nuclear weapons is not restraint. Supporting IS all the time and bombing it some time is not restraint. ..."
    Oct 04, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    "Who, really, could have imagined that US 'benevolent' bombings would place Russian and US troops in close proximity once again"

    stevenjohnson 10.03.16 at 3:55 pm 363

    "In fact, Clinton has shown a number of indications that she is not competent at all, that she is, unlike Obama, going to unleash the U.S. foreign policy establishment and military-industrial complex in all its decadent schizophrenia without any governor or restraint at all."

    Backing away from openly bombing the Syrian government when the English PM couldn't get the vote from Parliament is not restraint. Signing a booby trapped pact with the Iranian government which will not end sanctions is not restraint. Endorsing the Indian attack on Pakistan is not restraint. Endorsing the Saudi invasion of Yemen is not restraint. A trillion dollar upgrade of nuclear weapons is not restraint. Supporting IS all the time and bombing it some time is not restraint.

    The raving chorus of criticism of Clinton's foreign policy on ostensibly leftist grounds that falsifies the current state of affairs is viciously reactionary, especially when indissolubly mixed with openly reactionary criticisms. The falsification of what exactly is different about Trump's candidacy is also part and parcel. It's all very like the fake leftists who said defeating the Scottish referendum wasn't an endorsement of English imperialism, then pretended to act surprised when the rightward surge they helped to build led to a racist campaign for Brexit.

    Putin is weak. He sacrificed a struggle against fascism in Ukraine for a naval base, rather than call on popular support. Then he doubled down on another naval base in Syria, despite having no idea how to reach a solution. He can't cope with the economic warfare the US is waging, he only tries to use simple repression of the population at large and an elaborate combination of select repression and appeasement of the oligarchs he ultimately serves. Putin is popular I think largely because he appears to be the human face of capitalism. He's falsely sold himself as the corrective to Yeltsin, when in truth he is just the normalization of Yeltsinism. Yetltsin did the dirty work of attacking the people of Russia in the name of capitalist restoration. Now, Putin is just business as usual.

    [Oct 04, 2016] MH17 How investigators were able to prove rebels shot down plane with missile from Russia

    I would understand that launcher can be transported from Russia. But how it can be transported back after the tragedy so that nobody saw, despite huge interest in its detection of USA, its allies and honchos from Provisional government (which probably has a network of spies in the Donetsk territory) it is much more difficult undertaking, which fails Occam razor. Ukrainian Buks were at the place -- and Russian need to be transported back and forth.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Maria Zakharova, a spokesperson for the foreign ministry in Moscow, claimed Russian officials had been prevented from playing a full role in the Dutch-led Joint Investigation Team's (JIT) work. "To arbitrarily designate a guilty party and dream up the desired results has become the norm for our Western colleagues," she said. "The investigation to this day continues to ignore incontestable evidence from the Russian side despite the fact that Russia is practically the only one sending reliable information to them." ..."
    "... Ms Zakharova also suggested that the Ukrainian government had been able to influence the inquiry using fabricated evidence. ..."
    Sep 28, 2016 | independent.co.uk
    Investigators have released footage showing the missile system used to down Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 being transported from Russia by rebels.

    International prosecutors found separatists were responsible for shooting down the Boeing 777 and killing all 298 people on board on 17 July 2014, during the conflict in eastern Ukraine .

    A report by the Dutch-led Joint Investigation Team (JIT) said there was "no doubt" the missile that downed the plane was brought in from Russia and fired from rebel-controlled territory as militants sought to fend off attacks by the Ukrainian air force.

    Investigators pinpointed the launch site atop a hill in farmland west of Pervomaiskyi, having traced the convoy carrying the Buk from the Russian border through Donetsk, Torez, Snizhne and on to the launch site in the hours before MH17 was downed.

    6-Ukraine.jpg Image of Buk-M1 launcher in the vicinity of the MH17 crash

    The JIT has reconstructed the weapon's journey using data from rebels' mobile phones, as well as photos and videos showing it being escorted by pro-Russian rebels wearing unspecified uniforms.

    In several tapped phone calls, men's voices are heard discussing the transport of the Buk missile system from and back to Russia, while audio previously released by Ukrainian officials appears to show a panicked militant saying MH17 was shot down in the mistaken belief it was a military plane.

    He tells a superior: "It was 100 per cent a passenger aircraft…there are civilian items, medicinal stuff, towels, toilet paper."

    Journalists arriving at the scene of the missile launch the following day found a scorched patch of earth measuring 30m by 30m, which could also be seen on satellite images showing caterpillar tracks nearby.

    Hours after MH17 was downed, the Buk was seen being driven back towards the Russian border - missing one of its four missiles - before the convoy left Ukraine overnight. Shortly after MH17's disappearance, a post attributed to separatist leader Igor Girkin, a Russian army veteran known as Strelkov, claimed rebels had shot down a Ukrainian military transport plane.

    The swiftly-deleted post on Russian social network VKontakte was accompanied by a video of rising smoke and said: "We warned them - don't fly in our sky."

    Much of the footage cited by the JIT had already been analysed for a report released in February by investigative citizen journalists in the Bellingcat group.

    Its analysis concluded the Buk missile system used to down MH17 was transported into Ukraine by Russian soldiers with "high-level" authorisation, although it was unclear whether Russian or separatist fighters operated the weapon after it crossed the border.

    An extended and uncensored version of the report was sent to JIT investigators in December, including the full names and photographs of soldiers said to be involved.

    "Although it is likely that the head officials of Russia's Ministry of Defence did not explicitly decide to send a Buk missile launcher to Ukraine, the decision to send military equipment (with or without crew) from the Air Defence Forces to Ukraine was likely made at a very high level and, therefore, the Russian Ministry of Defence bears the main responsibility for the downing of MH17," Bellingcat's report concluded.

    "This responsibility is shared with separatist leaders of the Donetsk People's Republic and (to a lesser extent) the Luhansk People's Republic…ultimately, responsibility for the downing of MH17 from a weapon provided and possibly operated by the Russian military lies with its two head commanders: Minister of Defence Sergey Shoigu and President Vladimir Putin ."

    Separatist groups have denied any involvement in the disaster, while Russian officials have continually dismissed allegations of soldiers or equipment being deployed in Ukraine.

    The Russian government refuted the JIT's findings and accused the report of being "biased and politically motivated".

    Maria Zakharova, a spokesperson for the foreign ministry in Moscow, claimed Russian officials had been prevented from playing a full role in the Dutch-led Joint Investigation Team's (JIT) work.

    "To arbitrarily designate a guilty party and dream up the desired results has become the norm for our Western colleagues," she said. "The investigation to this day continues to ignore incontestable evidence from the Russian side despite the fact that Russia is practically the only one sending reliable information to them."

    Ms Zakharova also suggested that the Ukrainian government had been able to influence the inquiry using fabricated evidence.

    In its own investigation, Russian Buk manufacturer Almaz Antey claimed the deadly missile was fired from Zaroschenskoye and that Ukrainian forces were stationed there.

    "We investigated this and have been able to establish that this was not the launch location, and moreover that it was controlled by pro-Russian rebels at the time," said Wilbert Paulissen, head of the Dutch Central Crime Investigation Department.

    The JIT said it had only received partial responses to its requests for information from Russian authorities and had not yet been sent primary radar data cited by officials at the Kremlin.

    Comprising prosecutors from the countries with the most passengers on board the flight – the Netherlands, Australia, Malaysia and Belgium – and Ukraine, the JIT previously said it would "ensure the independence of the investigation".

    The body has primary responsibility for establishing the case for prosecutions after the UN Security Council failed to adopt a resolution that would have established an international tribunal for prosecuting those responsible for downing MH17 at a meeting in July 2015.

    When questioned by journalists, members of the JIT would not specifically name the militia or faction responsible for firing the missile but said they were investigating around 100 people linked to the downing of MH17 or the transport of the Buk missile.

    A spokesperson said officials are also looking at the chain of command that led to the disaster, adding: "Who gave the order to bring the BUK-TELAR into Ukraine and who gave the order to shoot down flight MH17? Did the crew decide for themselves or did they execute a command from their superiors?"

    Read more

    [Oct 02, 2016] Donald Trump is an American Ahmadinejad

    Guardian is firmly in Hillary camp. Neoliberal media defends neoliberal candidate. What can you expect?
    Notable quotes:
    "... "Some people insist on disguising this Great Satan as the savior angel." -- Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamanei, referring to the United States, 2015. ..."
    "... The US has already been doing that for a long time. Your country is currently allied with al Qaeda in Syria and other so called moderates whose intention is to create a sharia law fundamentalist society as aopposed to Assad who is euro centric and secular. ..."
    "... From the article: We know from Wikileaks that she believed privately in the past that Saudi Arabia was the largest source for terrorist funding worldwide, and that the Saudi government was not doing enough to stop that funding. ..."
    "... and yet the Clinton Foundation benefits massively from KSA donations ..."
    "... I heard that Donald Trump speaks out against the USA funding extremists to overthrow leaders like Assad, while they couldn't care about human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia. Tourists are being shot in Tunisia from extremists in Libya since we became involved in killing Gaddafi. ..."
    "... The USA armed and trained extremists in Afghanistan to get one over on Russia, and despite more British troops and civilians being killed by USA friendly fire than the 'enemy' our media never make the same fuss about the USA. ..."
    "... The USA didn't care for years when the government they helped implement in Afghanistan made women walk around in blue tents and banned them from education. ..."
    "... Different political systems; two people who come from very different backgrounds with different views and experiences. Ahmadinejad was a social conservative with a populist economic agenda. Trump is all over the map, but in terms of his staff and advisers and his economic plans he's much more of a conventional Republican. David Duke's admiration is the main thing the two have in common. ..."
    "... Clinton is tripe. She, and her kin, have a ponderous history of talk, and either inaction, or actions that generate disastrous results. Zero accomplishments across the board. Those who'd vote for Hillary must have a "horse" in this race. ..."
    "... Yawn... The Guardian has Trump and Putin bashing on the brain. ..."
    "... John Bolton as possible Secretary of State? http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/john-bolton-no-regrets-about-toppling-saddam/article/2564463 Unless you're not talking about the guy who looks like a dead ringer for Mr Pastry that is a really terrifying proposition. ..."
    "... USA and Britain are very directly responsible for Iran being ruled by the Islamic mafia which has been in power in Iran since 1979. Iran had a democratic government which for the benefit of its people and against the stealing of its oil by Britain, nationalised the oil. Britain then, desperate to carry on stealing the Iranian oil persuaded USA to collaborate with it to covertly organise a coup by MI5 and CIA to topple the legitimate democratic government and install a puppet dictatorship. ..."
    "... All that happened in 1953, and Britain and USA totally admitted to all that 30 years later when the official secrets were declassified. ..."
    "... ..., forgot to mention, Jimmy C1arter recently admitted that while he was the president, they contributed to the funding of the Khomeini gang against their own installed ally, the Shah in 1979 to topple him ..."
    "... Trump makes George W Bush seem like an intellectual heavyweight and Hillary Clinton makes Bush seem as honest and truthful as a Girl Scout! ..."
    "... What a shitty choice Americans have to make this time round. A compulsive liar warmonger or an ignorant buffoonish bigot.... ..."
    "... US hatred for Iran is hard to fathom. Other adversaries have been forgiven: Germany, Italy, Japan, Vietnam, China. Iran is an outlier. ..."
    "... I think it's mainly to keep US allies happy. Both Saudi Arabia and Israel regard Iran as their greatest enemy and the Syrian Civil War is largely a proxy conflict between the Saudis and the Iranians over their respective oil supplies, regional clout and religious affinity. ..."
    "... Vote Clinton and absolutely nothing changes or improves. Hillary might as well take golf lessons from Barack, and saxophone lessons from bonking Bill, every day of her presidency. ..."
    "... I wouldn't be at all surprised if the CIA and/or the US Armed Forces do that sort of thing too actually! The CIA, after all, toppled the then democratically elected PM of Iran in 1953, forcibly installing the Shah in his place, the CIA helped bring the Taliban and Saddam to power in Afghanistan and Iraq respectively in the first place, unleashing decades of death and destruction on the peoples of those two countries ..."
    "... When the Iraqi people rose up against Saddam's brutal dictatorship back in 1991, the US actually helped him crush the rebellion, thus ensuring he stayed in power. ..."
    "... One of Trump's top advisors John Bolton wrote an article for the New York Times titled "To Stop Iran's Bomb, Bomb Iran" calling for a joint US-Israel strike on Iran, including regime change. He could well end up being Sec. Of State if Trump wins. ..."
    "... Meanwhile Clinton is on record as saying that Iran are the world's main sponsor of terrorism and that if she became president she would obliterate Iran if they attacked Israel. Given that Hezbollah are always involved in tit for tat encounters with Israel, and Clinton feels Hezbollah is effectively the state of Iran, it wouldn't take much. ..."
    "... Bolton is a vile neocon of the lowest order, what a charade if he gets a senior post and they call Hillary a warmonger? Just wait for Bolton, you mugs ..."
    "... Let's hope the Saudis defeat the Houthi uprising and support the internationally recognised government of Yemen. Oh, sorry this is the Guardian: let's hope the Russians defeat the Sunni uprising and support the internationally recognised government of Syria... ..."
    "... Yes. Trump is going to steal ISIS's oil. Only slight hole in that theory is that ISIS doesn't own any phucking oil. They aren't a nation state, just thieves. Stealing a thief's stolen goods is still stealing. ..."
    "... I've never understood why we're allied to Saudi. They were complicit in 9/11, they hate the west and despise us. ..."
    "... >I've never understood why we're allied to Saudi. Oil. Oil. And more Oil. ..."
    "... There's nothing bizarre about working with Russia on Middle Eastern issues unless you're married to the idea of a new Cold War. Why Washington is so hell-bent on making Russians the enemies again is beyond me. ..."
    "... Russia - does it really need all that land? Wouldn't it be better if Vladivostok was Obamagrad and Ekaterinburg was Katemiddletown? ..."
    "... What exactly is the US now? a supplier of sophisticated weaponary to "rebels" or rather terrorists that the legitimate governnent ( with Russian help thankfully) is trying to defeat... ..."
    "... There is no moral equivalence here. Once you look at what western intel has been upto all these decades, nowhere could Russia be close to the evil that the US and UK are. ..."
    Sep 28, 2016 | www.theguardian.com
    Gman13 2016-09-29

    Donny is the best chance for the lasting world peace and stability because he is more likely to work with Russians on key geopolitical issues.

    Hillary is the best chance for ww3 and nuclear anihilation of the mainland American cities because she is russophobic, demonizer of Russia, hell bent on messing with them and unexplicably encouraged to do so by supposedly "normal" people in mainstream media.

    vaclavers , 2016-09-29 01:12:44
    "Some people insist on disguising this Great Satan as the savior angel." -- Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamanei, referring to the United States, 2015.
    TruthOrBust , 2016-09-29 00:58:27
    Trump secretly encourages Muslim extremists. Trump is banking, and likely funding, ISIS, to propel him to WH out of fear.
    fragglerokk -> TruthOrBust , 2016-09-29 01:23:38
    The US has already been doing that for a long time. Your country is currently allied with al Qaeda in Syria and other so called moderates whose intention is to create a sharia law fundamentalist society as aopposed to Assad who is euro centric and secular.

    http://theduran.com/how-the-us-israel-al-qaeda-and-isis-work-together-in-the-war-against-syria/

    DogsLivesMatter , 2016-09-29 00:41:44
    From the article: We know from Wikileaks that she believed privately in the past that Saudi Arabia was the largest source for terrorist funding worldwide, and that the Saudi government was not doing enough to stop that funding.

    You know who else believes that about the KSA? Joe Biden.

    fragglerokk -> DogsLivesMatter , 2016-09-29 01:24:30
    and yet the Clinton Foundation benefits massively from KSA donations
    Charlie Lee , 2016-09-29 00:38:18
    I heard that Donald Trump speaks out against the USA funding extremists to overthrow leaders like Assad, while they couldn't care about human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia. Tourists are being shot in Tunisia from extremists in Libya since we became involved in killing Gaddafi.

    The USA armed and trained extremists in Afghanistan to get one over on Russia, and despite more British troops and civilians being killed by USA friendly fire than the 'enemy' our media never make the same fuss about the USA. It wasn't long ago that many doctors were killed in a hospital by a USA bomb, but I only found out about it on the Doctors Without Borders facebook page.

    The USA didn't care for years when the government they helped implement in Afghanistan made women walk around in blue tents and banned them from education.

    JVRTRL , 2016-09-29 00:31:47
    The Ahmadinejad - Trump comparison is a weak comparison.

    Different political systems; two people who come from very different backgrounds with different views and experiences. Ahmadinejad was a social conservative with a populist economic agenda. Trump is all over the map, but in terms of his staff and advisers and his economic plans he's much more of a conventional Republican. David Duke's admiration is the main thing the two have in common.

    nicacio , 2016-09-29 00:10:06
    Clinton is tripe. She, and her kin, have a ponderous history of talk, and either inaction, or actions that generate disastrous results. Zero accomplishments across the board. Those who'd vote for Hillary must have a "horse" in this race.

    I won't be specific, but that horse, or horses, are generally the disenfranchised ones. What to say: I get their plight. But Hillary? Elected, she only make sure they stay that way so she'll be elected again. Time to wake up. There ain't no "pie in the sky", but with perserverance, all's possible, and likely. Trump's the guy.

    sokkynick , 2016-09-28 23:50:23
    Yawn... The Guardian has Trump and Putin bashing on the brain.
    ComradeSueII , 2016-09-28 23:41:21
    John Bolton as possible Secretary of State? http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/john-bolton-no-regrets-about-toppling-saddam/article/2564463 Unless you're not talking about the guy who looks like a dead ringer for Mr Pastry that is a really terrifying proposition.
    oldsunshine , 2016-09-28 23:25:02
    USA and Britain are very directly responsible for Iran being ruled by the Islamic mafia which has been in power in Iran since 1979. Iran had a democratic government which for the benefit of its people and against the stealing of its oil by Britain, nationalised the oil. Britain then, desperate to carry on stealing the Iranian oil persuaded USA to collaborate with it to covertly organise a coup by MI5 and CIA to topple the legitimate democratic government and install a puppet dictatorship.

    All that happened in 1953, and Britain and USA totally admitted to all that 30 years later when the official secrets were declassified. One of the consequences of that criminal act was that it lead to the Islamic revolution which brought the Islam clergy to power which turned this most strategically, economically, and culturally important country of the region into an enemy of the west, supporter of terrorism, human rights abuser, arch enemy of Israel, total economic ruin, and eternal nuclear threat to the region- not to mention the Shia-Sunni sectarian division that it has perpetrated which to the large extent has contributed to the mighty mess that the Middle East is in now and potentially spreading to the outside of the region.

    oldsunshine -> oldsunshine , 2016-09-28 23:31:45
    ..., forgot to mention, Jimmy C1arter recently admitted that while he was the president, they contributed to the funding of the Khomeini gang against their own installed ally, the Shah in 1979 to topple him
    Carlb1501 -> oldsunshine , 2016-09-28 23:45:34
    Where do I find this reference?
    oldsunshine -> Carlb1501 , 2016-09-28 23:50:49
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat
    Apollo2134 , 2016-09-28 23:22:17
    Trump makes George W Bush seem like an intellectual heavyweight and Hillary Clinton makes Bush seem as honest and truthful as a Girl Scout!

    What a shitty choice Americans have to make this time round. A compulsive liar warmonger or an ignorant buffoonish bigot....

    Fraxby , 2016-09-28 22:56:52

    Trump has said directly that the 2015 nuclear deal was "disastrous" and he would repudiate it, doubling and tripling sanctions

    He probably thinks he can point at it and tell it that it's fired.

    caravanserai , 2016-09-28 22:45:10
    US hatred for Iran is hard to fathom. Other adversaries have been forgiven: Germany, Italy, Japan, Vietnam, China. Iran is an outlier.
    ComradeSueII -> caravanserai , 2016-09-29 01:41:50
    I think it's mainly to keep US allies happy. Both Saudi Arabia and Israel regard Iran as their greatest enemy and the Syrian Civil War is largely a proxy conflict between the Saudis and the Iranians over their respective oil supplies, regional clout and religious affinity.

    Though the continuance of PNAC's schema shouldn't be discounted either. US policy hawks close to both Clinton and Trump still aim for dominance in Central Eurasia. I expect if they could press a button and magically summon up a new Shah for Iran they'd jump at the chance.

    Cuba spent over half a century living beneath the shadow of American wrath too for different reasons. Though perhaps burning revenge at the loss of a compliant puppet also played a role.

    finalcurtain , 2016-09-28 22:44:50
    Vote Clinton and absolutely nothing changes or improves. Hillary might as well take golf lessons from Barack, and saxophone lessons from bonking Bill, every day of her presidency.

    Vote Trump and things are going to change in America. No more pussyfooting around.

    HNS1684 -> UCManhattanP1945 , 2016-09-28 23:49:33
    I wouldn't be at all surprised if the CIA and/or the US Armed Forces do that sort of thing too actually! The CIA, after all, toppled the then democratically elected PM of Iran in 1953, forcibly installing the Shah in his place, the CIA helped bring the Taliban and Saddam to power in Afghanistan and Iraq respectively in the first place, unleashing decades of death and destruction on the peoples of those two countries.

    When the Iraqi people rose up against Saddam's brutal dictatorship back in 1991, the US actually helped him crush the rebellion, thus ensuring he stayed in power. So the US is arguably at least partly responsible for the crimes Saddam and the Taliban committed (in the case of Iraq, as well as murdering at least hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, the US is probably also partly responsible for Saddam's DRAINING OF THE MARSHLANDS OF SOUTHER IRAQ).

    WalterCronkiteBot , 2016-09-28 21:49:48
    One of Trump's top advisors John Bolton wrote an article for the New York Times titled "To Stop Iran's Bomb, Bomb Iran" calling for a joint US-Israel strike on Iran, including regime change. He could well end up being Sec. Of State if Trump wins.

    Meanwhile Clinton is on record as saying that Iran are the world's main sponsor of terrorism and that if she became president she would obliterate Iran if they attacked Israel. Given that Hezbollah are always involved in tit for tat encounters with Israel, and Clinton feels Hezbollah is effectively the state of Iran, it wouldn't take much.

    Whoever wins Iran loses.

    jimcee33 -> WalterCronkiteBot , 2016-09-28 22:11:21
    Bolton is a vile neocon of the lowest order, what a charade if he gets a senior post and they call Hillary a warmonger? Just wait for Bolton, you mugs
    okthen , 2016-09-28 21:43:04
    Let's hope the Saudis defeat the Houthi uprising and support the internationally recognised government of Yemen. Oh, sorry this is the Guardian: let's hope the Russians defeat the Sunni uprising and support the internationally recognised government of Syria...
    StrangerInParadise -> okthen , 2016-09-28 21:46:13
    Have you ever actually read The Guardian? Look at Shaun Walker's Twitter if you think it is pro-Russian.
    nmccf -> okthen , 2016-09-28 22:21:51
    Yes. Trump is going to steal ISIS's oil. Only slight hole in that theory is that ISIS doesn't own any phucking oil. They aren't a nation state, just thieves. Stealing a thief's stolen goods is still stealing.
    wyngwili , 2016-09-28 21:31:27
    I've never understood why we're allied to Saudi. They were complicit in 9/11, they hate the west and despise us.
    ID8701745 wyngwili , 2016-09-28 21:43:53
    >I've never understood why we're allied to Saudi. Oil. Oil. And more Oil.
    PrinceVlad , 2016-09-28 21:23:25
    There's nothing bizarre about working with Russia on Middle Eastern issues unless you're married to the idea of a new Cold War. Why Washington is so hell-bent on making Russians the enemies again is beyond me.
    StrangerInParadise -> PrinceVlad , 2016-09-28 21:43:47
    Russia - does it really need all that land? Wouldn't it be better if Vladivostok was Obamagrad and Ekaterinburg was Katemiddletown?
    wallwoodgreen , 2016-09-28 21:22:07
    What exactly is the US now? a supplier of sophisticated weaponary to "rebels" or rather terrorists that the legitimate governnent ( with Russian help thankfully) is trying to defeat...
    Carlb1501 -> wallwoodgreen , 2016-09-28 22:39:01
    Both America and Russia have been supplying arms to terrorists or to destabilise elected Govts. Since the end of WW2. Neither country has a right to take the moral high ground especially not Russia at this time with the revelations coming out about shooting down passenger aircraft. You're both as bad as each other.
    GovernmentSin Carlb1501 , 2016-09-28 23:12:40
    There is no moral equivalence here. Once you look at what western intel has been upto all these decades, nowhere could Russia be close to the evil that the US and UK are.

    [Oct 02, 2016] Paul Craig Roberts Urges Bring Back The Cold War Zero Hedge

    Oct 01, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com

    Authored by Paul Craig Roberts,

    Pundits have declared a "New Cold War." If only! The Cold War was a time when leaders focused on reducing tensions between nuclear powers. What we have today is much more dangerous: Washington's reckless and irresponsible aggression toward the other major nuclear powers, Russia and China.

    During my lifetime American presidents worked to defuse tensions with Russia. President John F. Kennedy worked with Khrushchev to defuse the Cuban Missile Crisis. President Richard Nixon negotiated SALT I and the anti-ballistic missile treaty, and Nixon opened to Communist China. President Carter negotiated SALT II. Reagan worked with Soviet leader Gorbachev and ended the Cold War. The Berlin Wall came down. Gorbachev was promised that in exchange for the Soviet Union's agreement to the reunification of Germany, NATO would not move one inch to the East.

    Peace was at hand. And then the neoconservatives, rehabilitated by the Israeli influence in the American press, went to work to destroy the peace that Reagan and Gorbachev had achieved. It was a short-lasting peace. Peace is costly to the profits of the military/security complex. Washington's gigantic military and security interests are far more powerful than the peace lobby.

    Since the advent of the criminal Clinton regime, every American president has worked overtime to raise tensions with Russia and China.

    China is confronted with the crazed and criminal Obama regime's declaration of the "pivot to Asia" and the prospect of the US Navy controlling the sea lanes that provision China.

    Russia is even more dangerously threatened with US nuclear missile bases on her border and with US and NATO military bases stretching from the Baltics to the Black Sea.

    Russia is also threatened with endless provocations and with demonization that is clearly intended to prepare Western peoples for war against "the Russian threat." Extreme and hostile words stream from the mouth of the Democratic presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, who has called the president of Russia "the new Hitler" and threatened Russia with military force. Insouciant Americans are capable of electing this warmonger who would bring Armageddon upon the earth.

    Yesterday, Israel's voice in the US, the New York Times, added to Hillary's demonization of the most responsible leader in the world with this editorial: "Vladimir Putin's Outlaw State." This irresponsible and propagandistic editorial, no doubt written by the neoconservatives, blames all the troubles in Ukraine and Syria on Putin. The NYT presstitutes know that they have no case, so they drag in the US-orchestrated false report on MH-17 recently released by Washington's Netherlands vassal.

    This report is so absurd as to cast doubt on whether intelligence exists anywhere in the Western world. Russia and the now independent Russian provinces that have separated from Ukraine have no interest whatsoever in shooting down a Malaysian airliner. But despite this fact, Russia, according to the orchestrated report, sent a surface-to-air missile, useful only at high altitude, an altitude far higher than the Ukrainian planes fly that are attacking Russians in the separated republics, to the "rebels" so that the "rebels" could shoot down a Malaysian airliner. Then the missile system was sent back to Russia.

    How insouciant does a person have to be to believe this propaganda from the New York Times?

    Does the New York Times write this nonsense because it is bankrupt and lives on CIA subsidies?

    It is obvious that the Malaysian airliner was destroyed for the purpose of blaming Russia so that Washington could force Europe to cooperate in applying illegal sanctions on Russia in an attempt to destabilize Russia, a country that placed itself in the way of Washington's determination to destabilize Syria and Iran.

    In a recent speech, the mindless cipher, who in his role as US Secretary of Defense serves as a front man for the armaments industry, declared the one trillion dollars (1,000 billion dollars or 1,000,000 million dollars, that is, one million dollars one million times) that Washington is going to spend of Americans' money for nuclear force renewal is so we can "get up in the morning to go to school, to go to work, to live our lives, to dream our dreams and to give our children a better future."

    But Russia's response to this buildup in Washington's strategic nuclear weapons is, according to Defense Secretary Aston B. Carter, "saber rattling" that "raises serious questions about Russia's leaders commitment to strategic stability."

    Do you get the picture? Or are you an insouciant American? Washington's buildup is only so that we can get up in the morning and go to school and work, but Russia's buildup in response to Washington's buildup upsets "strategic stability."

    What the Pentagon chief means is that Russia is supposed to sit there and let Washington gain the upper hand so Washington can maintain "strategic stability" by dictating to Russia. By not letting Washington prevail, Russia is upsetting "strategic stability."

    US Secretary of State John Kerry, who has been broken and tamed by the neoconservatives, recently displayed the same point of view with his "ultimatum" to Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. In effect, Kerry told Lavrov that Russia must stop helping Syria resist the jihadist forces and allow the US-supported ISIS to regain the initiative and reduce Syria to the chaos in which Washington left Libya and Iraq. Otherwise, Kerry said that the agreement to cooperate is off.

    There can be no cooperation between the US and Russia over Syria, because the two government's goals are entirely different. Russia wants to defeat ISIS, and the US wants to use ISIS to overthrow Assad. This should be clear to the Russians. Yet they still enter into "agreements" that Washington has no intention of keeping. Washington breaks the agreements and blames Russia, thus creating more opportunities to paint Russia as untrustworthy. Without Russia's cooperation in setting themselves up for blame, Russia's portrait would not be so black.

    On September 28, 2016, the New York Times gave us a good example of how Washington's propaganda system works .

    The headline set the stage: "Russia's Brutal Bombing of Aleppo May Be Calculated, and It May Be Working." According to the NYT report, Russia was not bombing ISIS. Russia was "destroying hospitals and schools, choking off basic supplies, and killing aid workers and hundreds of civilians."

    The NYT asks: "What could possibly motivate such brutality?"

    The NYT answers: Russia is "massacring Aleppo's civilians as part of a calculated strategy . . . designed to pressure [moderates] to ally themselves with extremists," thereby discrediting the forces that Washington has sent to overthrow Syria and to reduce the country to chaos.

    When America's Newspaper of Record is nothing but a propaganda ministry, what is America?

    Pundits keep explaining that Washington's 15 year old wars in the Middle East are about controlling the routing of energy pipelines. Little doubt this is a factor as it brings on board powerful American energy and financial interests. But this is not the motive for the wars. Washington, or the neoconservatives who control the US government, intend to destabilize the Russian Federation, the former Soviet Central Asian countries, and China's Muslim province by adding Syria and then Iran to the chaos that Washington has created in Iraq and Libya. If Washington succeeds in destroying Syria as it succeeded in destroying Libya and Iraq, Iran becomes the last buffer for Russia. If Washington then knocks off Iran, Russia is set up for destabilization by jihadists operating in Muslim regions of the Russian Federation.

    This is clear as day. Putin understands this. But Russia, which existed under Washington's domination during the Yeltsin years, has been left threatened by Washington's Fifth Columns in Russia. There are a large number of foreign-financed NGOs in Russia that Putin finally realized were Washington's agents. These Washington operatives have been made to register as foreign-financed, but they are still functioning.

    Russia is also betrayed by a section of its elite who are allied economically, politically, and emotionally with Washington. I have termed these Russians "America Worshipers." Their over-riding cause is to have Russia integrated with the West, which means to be a vassal of Washington.

    Washington's money even seems to have found its way into Russian "think tanks" and academic institutions. According to this report, two think tanks, one Russian one American, possibly funded by Washington's money, have concluded that "US,Russia 'Have far more common interests than differences' in Asia-Pacific."

    This "academic report" is a direct assault on the Russian/Chinese alliance. It makes one wonder whether the report was funded by the CIA The Russian media fall for the "common interest" propaganda, because they desire to be included in the West. Like Russian academics, the Russian media know English, not Chinese. Russia's history since Peter the Great is with the West. So that is where they want to be. However, these America Worshipping Russians cannot understand that to be part of the West means being Washington's vassal, or if they do understand the price, they are content with a vassal's status like Germany, Great Britain, France, and the rest of the European puppet states.

    To be a vassal is not an unusual choice in history. For example, many peoples chose to be Rome's vassals, so those elements in Russia who desire to be Washington's vassal have precedents for their decision.

    To reduce Russia's status to Washington's vassal, we have Russian-US cooperation between the Moscow-based Institute of World Economy and International Relations and the US-based International Institute for Strategic Studies. These two co-conspirators against Russian sovereignty are working to destroy Russia's strategic alliance with China and to create a US-Russian Pacific Alliance in its place. One of the benefits, the joint report declares, is "maintaining freedom of navigation and maritime security."

    "Freedom of navigation" is Washington's term for controlling the sea lanes that supply China. So now we have a Russian institute supporting Washington's plans to cut off resource flow into China. This idiocy on the part of the Moscow-based Institute of World Economy and International Relations is unlikely to reassure China about its alliance with Russia. If the alliance is broken, Washington can more easily deal with the two constraints on its unilateralism.

    Additionally, the joint report says that Moscow could cooperate with Washington in confidence-building measures to resolve territorial disputes in the Asia-Pacific region. What this means is that Russia should help Washington pressure China to give up its territorial claims.

    One cannot but wonder if the Moscow-based Institute of World Economy and International Relations is a CIA front. If it is not, the CIA is getting a free ride.

    The foreign policy of the United States rests entirely on propagandistic lies. The presstitute media, a Ministry of Propaganda, establishes an orchestrated reality by treating lies as fact. News organizations around the world, accustomed as they are to following Washington's lead, echo the lies as if they are facts.

    Thus Washington's lies–such as Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, Iranian nukes, Assad's use of chemical weapons, Russian invasions–become the reality.

    Russia's very capable spokeswoman, Maria Zakharova, understands that Washington uses the Western media to control explanations by shaping public opinion. She terms it a "reality show." However, Zakharova thinks the problem is that Washington misuses "international relations and international platforms for addressing internal issues." By this she means that Obama's foreign policy failures have made him hysterical and impudent as he strives to leave a legacy, and that American/Russian relations are poisoned by the US presidential campaign that is painting Trump as a "Putin stooge" for not seeing the point of conflict with Russia.

    The US presstitutes are disreputable. This morning NPR presented us with a report on Chinese censorship of the media as if this was something that never happens in the US. Yet NPR not only censors the news, but uses disinformation as a weapon in behalf of Washington and Israel's agendas. Anyone who depends on NPR is presented a very controlled picture of the world. And do not forget German newspaper editor Udo Ulfkotte, who admits he planted stories for the CIA in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitnung and says that there is no significant European journalist who doesn't do the same thing .

    The situation is far more serious than Zakharova realizes. Russians seem unable to get their minds around the fact that the neoconservatives are serious about imposing Washington's hegemony on the rest of the world. The neoconservative doctrine declares that it is the principal goal of US foreign policy to prevent the rise of any country that would have sufficient power to serve as a check on American unilateralism. This neoconservative doctrine puts Russia and China in Washington's crosshairs. If the Russian and Chinese governments do not yet understand this, they are not long for this world.

    The neoconservative doctrine fits perfectly with the material interests of the US military/security complex. The US armaments and spy industries have had 70 years to entrench themselves with a huge claim on the US budget. This politically powerful interest group has no intention of letting go of its hold on US resources.

    As long ago as 1961, President Dwight D. Eisenhower in his last public address to the American people warned that the Cold War confronted Americans with a new internal danger as large as the external Soviet threat:

    "Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

    "Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

    "This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence - economic, political, even spiritual - is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

    "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

    "We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."

    President Eisenhower's warning that our liberties were equally at stake from the military/security complex as from the Soviet Threat did not last 24 hours. The military/security complex buried Eisenhower's warning with extraordinary hype of the Soviet Threat.

    In truth, there was no Soviet threat. Stalin had buffered Russia from the West with his control of Eastern Europe, just as Washington controlled Western Europe. Stalin had eliminated Trotsky and his supporters who stood for world revolution. Stalin declared "socialism in one country."

    Stalin terminated international communism. But the American military/security complex had much money to gain from the Amerian taxpayers in order to "protect America from International Communism." So the fact that there was no effort on the part of the Soviet Union to subvert the world was ignored. Instead, every national liberation movement was declared by the US military/industrial complex to be a "falling domino" of the Communist takeover of the world.

    Ho Chi Minh begged Washington for help against the French colonialists in Vietnam. Washington told him to go to hell. It was Washington that sent Ho Cho Minh to seek communist support.

    The long Vietnam war went on for years. It enriched the military/security complex and officers' pensions. But it was otherwise entirely pointless. There were no dominoes to fall. Vietnam won the war but is open to American influence and commerce.

    Because of the military/security complex more than 50,000 Americans died in the war and many thousands more suffered physical and psychological wounds. Millions of Vietnamese suffered death, maiming, birth defects and illnesses associated with Washington's use of Agent Orange.

    The entire war was totally pointless. It achieved nothing but destruction of innocents.

    This is Washington's preferred way. The corrupt capitalism that rules in America has no interest in life, only in profit. Profit is all that counts. If entire countries are destroyed and left in ruins, all the better for American armaments industries.

    Yes, please, a new Cold War. We need one desperately, a conflict responsibly managed in place of the reckless, insane drive for world hegemony emanating from the crazed, evil criminals in Washington who are driving the world to Armageddon.

    [Oct 02, 2016] 'Leaked Kerry comments prove US involvement in Syrian crisis from onset'

    Notable quotes:
    "... I believe that the Russians are aware of the fact that the war in Syria is a war by proxy directed against them and against their ally China. It is part of a bigger plan by the US to block Eurasia from having access to the maritime trade roots. In addition, I believe there was a mentioning of the presence of the representatives of the NGOs operating in insurgent territories. And this proves also that the US was using these NGOs as a tool of soft power in order to topple the Syrian regime. ..."
    www.rt.com

    RT Op-Edge

    Jamal Wakeem: I believe that this proves that the US was involved in the Syrian crisis since its onset and that it was collaborating with the so-called insurgents in order to topple the Syrian regime. In addition, it proves also that the Syrian crisis had its regional and international dimension since the beginning and it wasn't a revolution against an illegitimate regime, as the West claimed at one point.

    In addition, I believe that it also proves that the Obama administration didn't give priority to peaceful and political solution for the Syrian crisis. But it used this as an alternative to its inability to use force when it was confronted by a steadfast position by Russia who refused to be dragged into another trick by the US similar to what happened in Libya and topple the Syrian regime.

    I believe that the Russians are aware of the fact that the war in Syria is a war by proxy directed against them and against their ally China. It is part of a bigger plan by the US to block Eurasia from having access to the maritime trade roots. In addition, I believe there was a mentioning of the presence of the representatives of the NGOs operating in insurgent territories. And this proves also that the US was using these NGOs as a tool of soft power in order to topple the Syrian regime.

    [Oct 01, 2016] Peres stopped Netanyahu from attacking Iran 2 years ago

    Oct 01, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    im1dc : September 30, 2016 at 09:01 AM

    Peres stopped Netanyahu from attacking Iran 2 years ago

    http://www.businessinsider.com/shimon-peres-netanyahu-iran-2016-9

    "Shimon Peres 2 years ago: I stopped Netanyahu from attacking Iran, and you can talk about it when I'm dead"

    by Natasha Bertrand...9-30-2016...36m

    " Former Israeli president Shimon Peres, who died on Wednesday at the age of 93, told the Jerusalem Post two years ago that current Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu "was ready to launch an attack" on Iran, and "I stopped him."

    Peres, speaking to the Post's Steve Linde and David Brinn in a meeting at the Peres Center for Peace in Jaffa on August 24, 2014, apparently said he didn't want to go into details about the conversation he had had with Netanyahu..."

    [Oct 01, 2016] Peres stopped Netanyahu from attacking Iran 2 years ago

    Oct 01, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    im1dc : September 30, 2016 at 09:01 AM

    Peres stopped Netanyahu from attacking Iran 2 years ago

    http://www.businessinsider.com/shimon-peres-netanyahu-iran-2016-9

    "Shimon Peres 2 years ago: I stopped Netanyahu from attacking Iran, and you can talk about it when I'm dead"

    by Natasha Bertrand...9-30-2016...36m

    " Former Israeli president Shimon Peres, who died on Wednesday at the age of 93, told the Jerusalem Post two years ago that current Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu "was ready to launch an attack" on Iran, and "I stopped him."

    Peres, speaking to the Post's Steve Linde and David Brinn in a meeting at the Peres Center for Peace in Jaffa on August 24, 2014, apparently said he didn't want to go into details about the conversation he had had with Netanyahu..."

    [Oct 01, 2016] The new Cold Warriors went crazier and crazier threatening to go to war against Russia

    Notable quotes:
    "... This is entirely wrong. Syria was governed secularly and what began as a secular protests against the government early on was taken control of by violent sectarians, increasingly violent sectarian insurgents. ..."
    "... Syria has been beset by a wildly violent sectarian insurgency which has been supported by surrounding countries and even under the guise of helping moderates by the United States. ..."
    Oct 01, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    Fred C. Dobbs : September 30, 2016 at 01:54 PM , September 30, 2016 at 01:54 PM

    What Is Russia Up To, and Is It Time
    to Draw the Line? http://nyti.ms/2d05nut
    NYT - DAVID E. SANGER - SEPT. 29, 2016

    WASHINGTON - Escalating airstrikes in Syria. Sophisticated cyberattacks, apparently intended to influence the American election. New evidence of complicity in shooting down a civilian airliner.

    The behavior of Russia in the last few weeks has echoes of some of the uglier moments of the Cold War, an era of proxy battles that ended in 1991 with the collapse of the Soviet Union. President Obama, fresh from a meeting with President Vladimir V. Putin this month, wondered aloud whether the Russian leader was content living with a "constant, low-grade conflict." His reference was to Ukraine, but he could have been addressing any of the arenas where Mr. Putin has reveled in his new role as the great disrupter of American plans around the globe.

    "It seems to me we have Mr. Putin's answer," said Richard Haass, the president of the Council on Foreign Relations and the author of a coming book, "A World in Disarray." "He's answered in the affirmative. Low-grade conflict is his thing. And the question is how directly or indirectly we introduce costs."

    None of these conflicts have, in fact, cost Mr. Putin very much. Cyberpower in particular is tailor-made for a country in Russia's circumstances - a declining economy with the gross domestic product of Italy. It is dirt cheap, hard to trace to a specific aggressor and perfect for sowing confusion, which may be the limits of Mr. Putin's goals.

    The bigger question confronting American intelligence officials, though, is whether the Russian president has a grander scheme at work. So far, their conclusion is probably not. Mr. Putin's moves, they argue in background conversations, are largely tactical, intended to bolster his international image at a moment he has plenty of troubles back home. ...

    anne -> Fred C. Dobbs... , Friday, September 30, 2016 at 01:58 PM
    What Is Russia Up To, and Is It Time to Draw the Line?

    [ Crazier and crazier and crazier, the new Cold Warriors that is. We could after all threaten to go to war against Russia, which would surely be line drawing. ]

    anne -> anne... , Friday, September 30, 2016 at 06:30 PM
    We could after all threaten to go to war against Russia, which would surely be line drawing.

    [ When I wrote this line, I had no idea the Secretary of State Kerry was essentially urging going to war or "backing diplomacy with force."

    http://www.nytimes.com/

    September 30, 2016

    What Kerry Told Syrians Behind Closed Doors
    By ANNE BARNARD

    In audio clips from a private meeting, the secretary of state is heard expressing frustration with Russia and the United States' failure to back diplomacy with force. ]

    anne -> Fred C. Dobbs... , Friday, September 30, 2016 at 01:59 PM
    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/29/opinion/vladimir-putins-outlaw-state.html

    September 28, 2016

    Vladimir Putin's Outlaw State

    Mr. Putin's behavior in Ukraine and Syria violates not only rules designed to promote peace but common human decency.


    http://www.nytimes.com/

    September 30, 2016

    What Is Russia Up To, and Is It Time to Draw the Line?

    Fred C. Dobbs -> Fred C. Dobbs... , Friday, September 30, 2016 at 02:00 PM
    Russia 'has an economy the size of Italy' http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/jul/27/lindsey-graham/graham-russia-has-economy-size-italy/ via @PolitiFact

    ... Russia and Italy are very close to each other in terms of nominal gross domestic product, which is the standard unit used to measure the size of a country's economy. Nominal GDP is the total cost of all goods and services produced or sold in a country in within a certain time frame.

    Russia's 2013 nominal GDP was $2.1 trillion, and Italy's was $2.07 trillion, according to the World Bank.

    That's not the only way to measure a country's economy, of course, and this is where the two countries differ. Purchasing power parity takes nominal GDP a step further and shows the value of this level of economic activity if it took place in America. (The Economist explains it by showing how much a McDonald's Big Mac costs around the world.)

    Russia's GDP calculated for purchasing power parity was $3.5 trillion, while Italy's was $2.1 trillion. So in 2013, Russia had a higher level of economic activity than Italy, but because goods and services are more expensive in Italy, the overall value (nominal GDP) ended up the same.

    Also, Italy has more wealth relative to the size of its population than Russia does. Italy's 2013 GDP per capita (per person) was $34,619, and Russia's was $14,612. ...

    Russia "has an economy the size of Italy."
    - Lindsey Graham on Sunday, July 27th, 2014 in comments on CNN's "State of the Union"

    anne -> Fred C. Dobbs... , Friday, September 30, 2016 at 02:01 PM
    http://www.nytimes.com/

    September 30, 2016

    What Kerry Told Syrians Behind Closed Doors
    By ANNE BARNARD

    In audio clips from a private meeting, the secretary of state is heard expressing frustration with Russia and the United States' failure to back diplomacy with force.

    Fred C. Dobbs -> anne... , Friday, September 30, 2016 at 02:22 PM
    (Maybe we'll get back into this post-Election.)

    Meanwhile, study the following carefully.

    List of armed groups in the Syrian Civil War
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_armed_groups_in_the_Syrian_Civil_War

    (There appear to be several hundred.)

    (To oversimplify, Syria has a Sunni majority,
    but their President Assad is an Alawi, which
    is a branch of Shia Islam.)

    See also: The Sunni-Shia Divide - InfoGuide
    http://on.cfr.org/1yizXEl via @CFR_org

    anne -> Fred C. Dobbs... , Friday, September 30, 2016 at 03:57 PM
    This is entirely wrong. Syria was governed secularly and what began as a secular protests against the government early on was taken control of by violent sectarians, increasingly violent sectarian insurgents.

    Syria has been beset by a wildly violent sectarian insurgency which has been supported by surrounding countries and even under the guise of helping moderates by the United States.

    Fred C. Dobbs -> anne... , Friday, September 30, 2016 at 05:07 PM
    Hmmm. Iraq was unstable because a
    Shia majority was ruled by a Sunni
    tyrant (Saddam Hussein). Syria is
    unstable because a Sunni majority
    is ruled by a Alawi/Shia tyrant,
    if ophthalmologists can be tyrants.

    (Iraq was not *that* unstable,
    til we came along, after they
    invaded Kuwait. One Sunni country
    invading another, over oil. Go figure.)

    anne -> Fred C. Dobbs... , Friday, September 30, 2016 at 05:45 PM
    Good grief, the violence in Syria was a sectarian insurgency supported by surrounding governments to destroy the government and take control of the country. Sectarianism in Syria was not an issue before the violent insurgency. The Syrian government was not sectarian.

    The reason the Syrian government survived for so long was that there was significant support for the government against the insurgency.

    [ Presidential name-calling, by the way, only detracts from trying to understand what has been happening in Syria. ]

    anne -> Fred C. Dobbs... , Friday, September 30, 2016 at 06:02 PM
    http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2016/10/13/saudi-arabia-can-it-really-change/

    October 13, 2016

    In Saudi Arabia: Can It Really Change?
    By Nicolas Pelham

    The Other Saudis: Shiism, Dissent and Sectarianism
    by Toby Matthiesen

    Joyriding in Riyadh: Oil, Urbanism, and Road Revolt
    by Pascal Menoret

    Saudi Arabia: A Kingdom in Peril
    by Paul Aarts and Carolien Roelants

    Force and Fanaticism: Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia and Beyond
    by Simon Ross Valentine

    Until the Wahhabi conquest of the Arabian peninsula at the turn of the last century, the mixture of sects there was as diverse as it was anywhere in the old pluralist Middle East. In its towns there lived, among others, Sufi mystics from the Sunni branch of Islam, members of the Zaidi sect, which is linked with the Shia branch of Islam, Twelver Shia traders, and seasonal Jewish farmhands from Yemen.

    From the eighteenth century onward, successive waves of warriors from the Wahhabi revivalist movement, formed from Sunni tribesmen in the hinterland, have struggled to enforce a puritanical uniformity on the cosmopolitan coast. Toby Matthiesen recounts in The Other Saudis that, a few years after taking the eastern shores of the peninsula from the reeling Ottomans in 1913, Wahhabi clerics issued a fatwa obliging local Shias to convert to "true Islam." In Hijaz, the western region that includes Mecca, Medina, and Jeddah, militant Wahhabi clerics and their followers ransacked the treasuries of the holy places in Mecca, lopped the dome off the House of the Prophet in Medina, and razed myriad shrines.

    But their success was only partial. In 1930, when the Wahhabi Brethren began raiding Iraq and Jordan and upsetting the region's British overlords, Abdulaziz al-Saud, the modern state's founder, reined them in, slaughtering the zealots by the hundred.

    Afterward, the peninsula regained much of its old tempo. Shia clerics applied their versions of Islamic law in the east. Jeddah's newspapers continued to publish listings of Western as well as Islamic New Year's Eve celebrations, cinema screenings, and concerts. Then, in 1979, apparently inspired by the Iranian overthrow of the Shah and the establishment of an Islamic republic earlier that year, Islamic militants stormed Mecca's Grand Mosque, the holiest place in Islam, and declared a new order under a leader who proclaimed himself the Mahdi-the redeemer-and sought to replace the Saudi monarchy. Wahhabi forces loyal to the monarchy counterattacked, saved the al-Sauds, and retook the mosque. But a crucial deal was made: loyalist clerics approved the removal of the militants by force; but in return demanded that Saudi royals cede them power to strictly control personal behavior. The last cinemas and concert halls shut down. Women were obliged to shroud themselves in black.

    Thirty-five years later, foreign descriptions of Saudi Arabia remain for the most part remarkably bleak....

    Fred C. Dobbs -> anne... , Friday, September 30, 2016 at 05:42 PM
    For long periods in history,
    Shia & Sunni have co-existed
    with much grace, but not always.
    It may be the influence of Sunni
    Wahhabism that has led to violence.
    anne -> Fred C. Dobbs... , Friday, September 30, 2016 at 05:51 PM
    It may be the influence of [Saudi]
    Wahhabism that has led to violence.

    [ I am led to believe in reading scholars of the history of the region that this is significantly so. ]

    anne -> Fred C. Dobbs... , Friday, September 30, 2016 at 03:58 PM
    Notice the date:

    http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2012/07/how-us-ensured-that-its-weapons-and.html

    July 22, 2012

    How the US ensures that its weapons and equipment don't fall into Al-Qa`idah hands

    "American and other Western intelligence officials have expressed concern that some of the more than 100 rebel formations fighting inside Syria may have ties to Al Qaeda that they could exploit as security worsens in the country or after the collapse of the government.... A small number of CIA officers have been operating secretly in southern Turkey for several weeks, helping allies decide which Syrian opposition fighters across the border will receive weapons to fight the government." * I am assured that the US has a fool-proof system at hand. The CIA operatives ask the person in question: are you with Al-Qa`idah? If the person says no, he is told: take the weapons and money and run. If he says yes, he is told: not good. Take the money and weapons and run but don't use them against us one day, OK?

    * http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/22/world/middleeast/us-to-focus-on-forcibly-toppling-syrian-government.html

    --- As'ad AbuKhalil

    anne -> Fred C. Dobbs... , Friday, September 30, 2016 at 04:01 PM
    Notice the date:

    http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2012/07/the-prophets-flag-or-al-qaidahs.html

    July 30, 2012

    The Prophet's Flag? or Al-Qa`idah's?

    "The groups demanded to raise the prophet's banner - solid black with 'There is no god but God.' " * Somebody needs to tell the New York Times that what it calls the "prophet's banner" is none other than the flag of Al-Qa`idah. What an informed paper.

    * http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/world/middleeast/as-syrian-war-drags-on-jihad-gains-foothold.html

    -- As'ad AbuKhalil

    anne -> Fred C. Dobbs... , Friday, September 30, 2016 at 04:02 PM
    Notice the date:

    http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2013/05/in-raqqah-syria.html

    May 3, 2013

    In Raqqah, Syria

    This is from Raqqah in Syria. * The main square there has been renamed Prophet Muhammad Square, and a giant flag of Al-Qa`idah is posted. And do you still need a fortune teller to tell you how things are going in Syria?

    * http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-04-09/world/38405266_1_al-nusra-raqqah-oil-fields

    -- As'ad AbuKhalil

    anne -> anne... , Friday, September 30, 2016 at 06:23 PM
    The way in which Russia is being portrayed in the United States is shockingly crude and offensive and self-defeating and dangerous.
    anne -> anne... , Friday, September 30, 2016 at 06:25 PM
    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/29/opinion/vladimir-putins-outlaw-state.html

    September 28, 2016

    Vladimir Putin's Outlaw State

    Mr. Putin's behavior in Ukraine and Syria violates not only rules designed to promote peace but common human decency.


    http://www.nytimes.com/

    September 30, 2016

    What Is Russia Up To, and Is It Time to Draw the Line?


    http://www.nytimes.com/

    September 30, 2016

    What Kerry Told Syrians Behind Closed Doors
    By ANNE BARNARD

    In audio clips from a private meeting, the secretary of state is heard expressing frustration with Russia and the United States' failure to back diplomacy with force.

    RGC -> Fred C. Dobbs... , -1
    The NY Times has now gone full neocon on us. It routinely prints lies and misinformation.

    [Oct 01, 2016] The Soviets are coming! Hammer Sickle strike again, courtesy of Clinton camp

    Notable quotes:
    "... "Progress for USA Political Action Committee" ..."
    "... "time bomb" ..."
    "... "We lost to the losing party, a unique case in history," ..."
    "... "tyrant." ..."
    "... The arguments presented are as light-weight as the production is heavy-handed. The Clinton side claims that Trump made millions selling Russian rights for Miss Universe. That may be true, but Trump owned the organization for 19 years and sold entitlements in dozens of other countries, holding the actual event in Russia only once during that time. ..."
    "... "Russian language promotional video (which) attracted people to buy Condos in Florida." ..."
    "... Then Mike Morrell appears and declares that someone who doesn't want to pursue an aggressive military policy toward Russia is an "unwitting agent of the Russian Federation." ..."
    "... Did Joseph McCarthy even go this far? ..."
    Oct 01, 2016 | www.rt.com
    Sometimes it is downright stunning to witness American election campaigners creating, and promoting, websites like " PutinTrump.org ." Paid for by the pro-Clinton "Progress for USA Political Action Committee" it collates media stories which connect the Republican candidate and the Russian president. That could be dismissed as merely slightly odd behavior, until you see the logo, which is drumroll a hammer and sickle!

    Yes, that eternally recognizable communist symbol. Reds in the Bed

    In case Team Clinton is reading this: it looks like it might be time for a bit of a world history refresher. Any person even moderately informed about Russian affairs can tell you that Putin's government is far from communist. Hell, most decently educated school children can tell you the same. The Russian government has promoted a pro-business agenda for well over a decade and has long maintained a flat income tax rate of 13 percent.

    Indeed, only this year, the Russian president has denounced socialist hero Vladimir Lenin and his Bolshevik government for their brutal repression and accused him of having placed a "time bomb" under the state. He also admonished the Bolsheviks for making Russia suffer defeat at the hands of Germany in the First World War. "We lost to the losing party, a unique case in history," the President said. Furthermore, Putin is no big fan of Stalin either. While recognizing his contribution to defeating the Nazis, he also described him as a "tyrant."

    It's just as doubtful that Trump – a man who just boasted about not paying any federal taxes! – is a fan of Karl Marx's theories. The idea of distributing wealth to labor, from financiers, is surely alien to a man who has essentially admitted to not paying people he has hired because he wasn't happy with their work.

    Put plainly, these commie associations are absurd. But of course, Team Clinton knows this. That's the big reveal. The idea is to conflate the fading memory of the 'Red Menace' of Soviet communism with modern Russia. The purpose of this is pretty obvious too: to instill fear of the 'Big Bad' Putin in vulnerable American hearts and minds.

    The Green Logo Menace

    You need to go no further for proof than Clinton campaign's official messaging. Take a look at this video, where Hillary's team flings Russia slanders like they going out of fashion.

    Cue the foreboding music - you could ask why they didn't just license the tunes from 'Jaws' and have done with it – multiple RT logos and, no joke, Russian mafia references. You know the clichés that Bond films have dropped for being too crude.

    The arguments presented are as light-weight as the production is heavy-handed. The Clinton side claims that Trump made millions selling Russian rights for Miss Universe. That may be true, but Trump owned the organization for 19 years and sold entitlements in dozens of other countries, holding the actual event in Russia only once during that time.

    The video also implies that Trump is bad because he produced a "Russian language promotional video (which) attracted people to buy Condos in Florida." Hold on here, what is so unusual about that? During the oil boom of the mid-to late 00's, Russians were well known for buying property all over the world. Indeed, if you walk around hot spots like London, Nice or Dubai, you will still see Russian language signs outside many high-end estate offices. Probably all homes for the sleeper agents, huh.

    Then Mike Morrell appears and declares that someone who doesn't want to pursue an aggressive military policy toward Russia is an "unwitting agent of the Russian Federation." And at this point, we probably reach peak preposterous. Essentially the message is that if you don't want to saber rattle with Moscow, you are working for it.

    Did Joseph McCarthy even go this far?

    Read more:

    [Oct 01, 2016] HillaryBots are misconstruing Trumps positions and framing his behaviour as the corrupt neoliberal media wishes to frame it.

    Notable quotes:
    "... I have noticed a pattern with you where you are misconstruing Trump's positions and framing his behaviour as the corrupt media wishes you to frame it. Trump is not great, but he's also not nearly as awful as you're thinking he is. Don't be so influenced by the propaganda coming from Hillary and her devoted lackeys in the MSM. ..."
    "... As a female voter I don't give a crap how bad he is, I'd still rather watch Congress go nuts impeaching him than I would Hillary taking us to war with Russia. ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    cwaltz October 1, 2016 at 3:21 pm

    Uh that only happens if someone manages to duct tape Trump's mouth shut.

    Trump's got his own brand of offensive and apparently his goal this week was to alienate female voters even more with his antics.

    I hear that at the next debate his big idea is to blame Hillary for Bill's wandering penis. That should go over like a lead balloon (because believe it or not women don't like to be blamed for the times men act like dogs.)

    jgordon October 1, 2016 at 3:57 pm

    I have noticed a pattern with you where you are misconstruing Trump's positions and framing his behaviour as the corrupt media wishes you to frame it. Trump is not great, but he's also not nearly as awful as you're thinking he is. Don't be so influenced by the propaganda coming from Hillary and her devoted lackeys in the MSM.

    cwaltz October 1, 2016 at 5:27 pm

    Spare me, I'm misconstruing nothing.

    You want to run on the fact the guy has no public record per se (Look! He didn't bomb anybody! Yeah, that's probably because he didn't have the means to do so either.). That's great.

    However, he does have a very real past and I refuse to wallpaper over that past. It's completely unacceptable and unprofessional to call your employees Miss Piggy. Acknowledge it. Move on.

    Romancing The Loan October 1, 2016 at 4:30 pm

    Oh like anyone is left who wasn't already aware that Trump's a misogynist gasbag. As a female voter I don't give a crap how bad he is, I'd still rather watch Congress go nuts impeaching him than I would Hillary taking us to war with Russia.

    [Oct 01, 2016] Trump would actually make all those issues you mention far worse

    Notable quotes:
    "... The race baiting has to stop. Krugman should travel to Camden, Rochester, East St. Louis or any of the thousands of towns and cities that were stripped of their wealth thanks to free trade policies he championed. ..."
    "... It is close because Trump offers hope. People remember that times were much, much better when their cities had factories before the so-called globalization hurricane just "naturally" swept everything away. ..."
    "... Twenty years of protectionism and an undervalued currency will turn the US into a star trek land like Singapore. 10 more years on our current free trade trajectory and we'll be Haiti, another free trade paradise. ..."
    Oct 01, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Joseph Chamberlain's ghost : September 30, 2016 at 03:07 PM

    The race baiting has to stop. Krugman should travel to Camden, Rochester, East St. Louis or any of the thousands of towns and cities that were stripped of their wealth thanks to free trade policies he championed.

    It is close because Trump offers hope. People remember that times were much, much better when their cities had factories before the so-called globalization hurricane just "naturally" swept everything away.

    Twenty years of protectionism and an undervalued currency will turn the US into a star trek land like Singapore. 10 more years on our current free trade trajectory and we'll be Haiti, another free trade paradise.

    DrDick -> Joseph Chamberlain's ghost ... September 30, 2016 at 04:21 PM
    "It is close because Trump offers hope."

    Only to relatively prosperous, uneducated, old white men who are terrified by watching their privilege slip away. Trump would actually make all those issues you mention far worse.

    [Oct 01, 2016] I wonder why so little attention is paid to Hillary bellicosity, which is borderline to insanity

    Notable quotes:
    "... But today's Democrats have become the Party of War: a home for arms merchants, mercenaries, academic war planners, lobbyists for every foreign intervention, promoters of color revolutions, failed generals, exploiters of the natural resources of corrupt governments. We have American military bases in 80 countries, and there are now American military personnel on the ground in about 130 countries, a remarkable achievement since there are only 192 recognized countries. ..."
    "... How you can defend such a deeply flawed (as in insane) candidate is beyond me. ..."
    "... Robert Kagan is desperate to save us from fascism, you see. Because anything Athens did wrong in the Peloponnesian War, America can do again, but bigger. And, his wife is a favorite to become Secretary of State. She's deeply experienced, having brought peace to Ukraine. ..."
    "... I went through this with them in a recent discussion. For the most part, liberals (American terminology) simply do not care for or about anti-war and anti-imperialism arguments. Just saving everyone a little time here. ..."
    Sep 28, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    likbez09.29.16 at 12:35 am 118

    I wonder why so little attention is paid to Hillary bellicosity, which is borderline to insanity. As Adam Walinsky put it in Politico (Sep 21, 2016, http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/rfk-trump-2016-democratic-party-speechwriter-214270 )
    John and Robert Kennedy devoted their greatest commitments and energies to the prevention of war and the preservation of peace. To them that was not an abstract formula but the necessary foundation of human life. But today's Democrats have become the Party of War: a home for arms merchants, mercenaries, academic war planners, lobbyists for every foreign intervention, promoters of color revolutions, failed generals, exploiters of the natural resources of corrupt governments. We have American military bases in 80 countries, and there are now American military personnel on the ground in about 130 countries, a remarkable achievement since there are only 192 recognized countries. Generals and admirals announce our national policies. Theater commanders are our principal ambassadors. Our first answer to trouble or opposition of any kind seems always to be a military movement or action.
    How you can defend such a deeply flawed (as in insane) candidate is beyond me.

    bruce wilder 09.29.16 at 1:04 am ( 122 )

    likbez: How you can defend such a deeply flawed (as in insane) candidate is beyond me.

    How? By focusing on the other guy, on Trump.

    Today, Brad Delong points to the daily anti-Trump screed by James Fallows, which features a four month old piece by Robert Kagan: I disagree with Robert Kagan on just about everything. But in the months since he originally published his essay, called "This Is How Fascism Comes to America," I think his arguments have come to seem more rather than less relevant.

    Robert Kagan is desperate to save us from fascism, you see. Because anything Athens did wrong in the Peloponnesian War, America can do again, but bigger. And, his wife is a favorite to become Secretary of State. She's deeply experienced, having brought peace to Ukraine.

    None of that matters because Trump is unprecedented.

    Anarcissie 09.29.16 at 2:47 am
    likbez 09.29.16 at 12:35 am @ 118 -

    I went through this with them in a recent discussion. For the most part, liberals (American terminology) simply do not care for or about anti-war and anti-imperialism arguments. Just saving everyone a little time here.

    Howard Frant 09.29.16 at 4:21 am

    OK, here's what puzzles me. Looking back upthread, what is the source of the really deep antipathy that people on CT have for Hillary Clinton? I haven't heard anyone say that her tax policy is not progressive enough. That's a legitimate argument, but no one seems excited about it. Apparently two things really get people hot under the collar. (1) She is somewhat interventionist militarily. Of course, people aren't content just to say that, they have to say that she is a "war criminal" (sorry, could I have some specifics on this?), or at least a warmonger. But basically, by that they just mean that she is somewhat interventionist militarily. (2) She's more inclined toward trade agreements than most people here.

    OK, fine, these are legitimate areas of disagreement. Here's what puzzles me: those are the traditional positions of paleoliberals in the Democratic Party. You don't have to like them, but there's nothing neo about them. So how is Clinton a neoliberal?

    There's one respect in which Clinton follows the DLC line: this business of favoring means-testing rather than universal programs. I think that as a political strategy this is bad, and I get irritated every time she trots out that line about not wanting to pay for Donald Trump's kids (there just aren't that many rich people, and they're not sending their kids to state schools anyway). But I haven't heard anyone say they could never vote for Clinton because of this. So what's neo about Clinton? What distinguishes her from Mondale?

    ... ... ...

    LFC 09.29.16 at 1:29 pm

    @H Frant

    I'm glad you picked up on the imbalanced quote re JFK etc, b/c I was too lazy to do it. The explanation is that the quoted piece is by Adam Walinsky, who was (I think, w/o Wiki'ing) a speechwriter/adviser for RFK. Walinsky's probably getting on in years, and his idea of a column is to contrast the peace-loving JFK (and RFK) to the bad promoters of American empire and bases-around-the-world who followed him/them. Which is somewhat weird.

    This is a pt about the overall trajectory of US f.p. since c.1947, which has exhibited a good deal (though not, of course, complete) continuity (as well as some variation from admin to admin.). [Whether JFK, had he lived, wd have gotten involved in Vietnam in the major way LBJ did, or wd have stopped short of that kind of escalation, is a separate and disputed question, and there is evidence to support conflicting answers – but it doesn't alter the main pt above. A past CT commenter, who went by 'mattski' iirc, was very big on the JFK-wd-not-have-escalated-had-he-lived thesis, so one can find some cites supporting that view if one searches on mattski's past comments here.]

    Walinsky also lumps JFK and RFK together, which is problematic since, inter alia, RFK lived 5 yrs longer and into a diff. historical period in which he played a major role.

    [Oct 01, 2016] Obama in his speech at shimon peres funeral put him in the same category as mandela. it should be remembered that peres was the father of israels nuke program and was selling nukes to south africa when mandela was in jail

    Notable quotes:
    "... This really cements Obama's status as "Clueless B." If nothing else, this shows clearly the mans contempt for black Africans. ..."
    "... Says a lot about "special relationships", as well, that Mags Thatcher didn't rate a half staff salute from Pres. Obama but Shimon Peres does. Now I hates me some Mags, but one can't help noticing these things! Oh but, Shimon Peres was an esteemed partner for peace ..."
    Oct 01, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    geoffrey gray October 1, 2016 at 7:21 am

    obama in his speech at shimon peres funeral put him in the same category as mandela. it should be remembered that peres was the father of israel's nuke program and was selling nukes to south africa when mandela was in jail. oops, too much reality.

    ambrit October 1, 2016 at 8:07 am

    This really cements Obama's status as "Clueless B." If nothing else, this shows clearly the mans contempt for black Africans.

    Barmitt O'Bamney October 1, 2016 at 1:24 pm

    Says a lot about "special relationships", as well, that Mags Thatcher didn't rate a half staff salute from Pres. Obama but Shimon Peres does. Now I hates me some Mags, but one can't help noticing these things! Oh but, Shimon Peres was an esteemed partner for peace (yeah right, the peace of the grave maybe…)

    [Oct 01, 2016] Mike Pence slams Hillary Clinton as the architect of Barack Obamas foreign policy

    Oct 01, 2016 | www.breitbart.com
    Republican vice presidential nominee Mike Pence slammed Hillary Clinton as the "architect" of the Obama administration's foreign policy on Friday, saying the two made the Middle East unrecognizable in less than a decade.

    Pence said in Fort Wayne, Indiana:

    After seven and a half years, Barack Obama's and Hillary Clinton's policies have weakened America's place in the world and emboldened the enemies of this country. Terrorist attacks at home and abroad, attempted coup among allies - I mean, if you looked at a picture of a map of the wider Middle East the day Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton took over American foreign policy, and you took a picture of a map today, it wouldn't even look like the same part of the world.

    "You know, this teaches us that weakness arouses evil. And I would submit to you, my fellow Hoosiers, that Hillary Clinton, the architect of Barack Obama's foreign policy, that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama's foreign policy have been leading from behind, moving red lines, feigning resets with Russia, and paying ransom to terrorist-sponsoring states," Pence continued. "That is the very image of weakness on the world stage."

    "Let me make you a promise: When Donald Trump becomes President of the United States, we won't be paying ransom to terrorists or terrorist-sponsoring states," he said to applause. "They'll be paying a price. They'll be paying a price if they threaten the American people, or they threaten our allies."

    Pence added he's looking forward to exposing Clinton's record during Tuesday night's vice presidential debate.

    [Oct 01, 2016] Did Trump Support The Iraq War Or Not

    www.zerohedge.com

    Submitted by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

    The way Lester Holt "corrected" Donald Trump at Monday's debate (as he was clearly instructed to do) regarding the Iraq War, you'd think the answer to whether he supported it or not was clear-cut. The truth is, it may not be that simple.

    Joe Concha (who has been doing some great work by the way), just wrote an excellent article at The Hill exploring the topic in detail. Here's what he found:

    Question: Did Donald Trump oppose or support the Iraq War?

    Before answering, a quick note on why providing clarity around a relatively simple question: It's rare that cooler heads can prevail in this media world we live in. Lines in the sand have never been drawn between blue and red media as vividly as they are now. And as a result, simple logic and lucidity is supplied less and less to drawing a verdict on whether a story is true or not.

    Exhibit A today is the aforementioned question: Did Trump - as he insists - oppose the Iraq War?

    At first, given that Trump wasn't a politician in 2002 and therefore had no official vote on the war authorization (as is the case with Hillary Clinton 's support of it), the press simply took him at his word on the matter with no evidence readily available to provide otherwise.

    Except there was evidence, albeit flimsy at best, thanks to the dogged work of Buzzfeed's Andrew Kaczynski and Nathan McDermott in unearthing a 2002 interview Trump did with Howard Stern.

    Here's what Trump said when asked by Stern during a typically long interview (Howard can go more than an hour without taking a break) if he was for going into Iraq.

    "Yeah, I guess so," Trump responded. "I wish the first time it was done correctly."

    So to review, Trump, a businessman at that time, didn't broach the topic. There are no other public statements by him on the matter in 2002.

    "Yeah, I guess so" isn't what one would call someone absolutely advocating the invasion of another country.

    Instead, a reasonable person listening could only conclude that Trump probably hadn't given the matter even a passing thought and answered matter-of-factly. Because if Trump was so pro-Iraq War at the time, as he's being portrayed of being by the media in 2016, one would think he - who seemingly shares every perspective that enters his head - would be mentioning it every chance he got in other interviews, which never happens.

    Trump's next interview occurred with Fox's Neil Cavuto in February 2003, just weeks before the invasion occurred.

    In the video, Cavuto asks Trump how much time President Bush should spend on the economy vs. Iraq.

    "Well, I'm starting to think that people are much more focused now on the economy," Trump said. "They're getting a little bit tired of hearing 'We're going in, we're not going in.' Whatever happened to the days of Douglas MacArthur? Either do it or don't do it."

    Trump continued: "Perhaps he shouldn't be doing it yet. And perhaps we should be waiting for the United Nations."

    But during Monday night's debate, Lester Holt followed the lead of many in the media who had come to a definitive conclusion on Trump's (at first) apathetic-turned-ambiguous stance.

    "The record shows it," Lester Holt pushed back on Trump after the candidate challenged the moderator's assertion that Trump absolutely was for the Iraq War. The record also shows Trump cautioning that the United Nations needs to be on board.

    The Secretary-General of the United Nations at the time, Kofi Annan, said this when speaking on the invasion:

    "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the U.N. Charter. From our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal."

    So if following Trump logic in his interview with Cavuto, if the U.S. and its allies had waited for U.N. approval, the war likely never happens.

    But here's an important nugget few are speaking about: On March 26, 2003, just one week after the invasion began, Trump says at an Academy Awards after-party, "The war's a mess," according to The Washington Post. One day earlier, a Gallup poll showed public support for the war at 72 percent.

    The "war's a mess" quote is even included in Politifact's verdict before coming to the conclusion that Trump is absolutely false in stating he opposed the war.

    In the end, the solution here is simple: Politifact needs to change its "False" rating on Trump's claim. That isn't to say it should be not characterized as "True" or "Mostly True" either.

    Instead, in a suggestion likely to send the usual suspects in our polarized media crazy, the rating of "Half True" needs to be applied here.

    The Hill reached out to Politifact for comment but did not get a response.

    As for media organizations (and this applies to almost every one), who keep insisting that Trump supported the Iraq War so definitively, not every situation lives in absolutes. Not every question has an absolute "yes" or "no" as a final verdict.

    In the case of businessman Donald Trump circa 2002 and 2003, chalk up his perspective on the Iraq War before it started as the following:

    - At first - months before it began to get any real traction in the American mindset - Trump's thought process was one of ambivalence via having not given it almost any thought before being asked about it by Stern, which was nothing more than a quick tangent in an interview focusing on 20 other things.

    - And then in January 2003, Trump's public "stance" was one of caution-before-proceeding by stating a need to wait for the United Nations before rushing in. Note: There weren't declarations around the threat of weapons of mass destruction, spreading democracy or the need to remove a brutal dictator. Trump never cites any of those common arguments for war even once, as Republicans and even some Democrats did.

    In March of 2003, as the war just began, Trump declares "the war's a mess."

    Bottom line: There's was nothing to indicate Trump supported the war, as the so-called record showed.

    He didn't seem 100 percent against it either.

    "On the fence" would be another apt way to describe it.

    Cooler heads need to prevail here.

    But "sanity," "media," and "this year's election" are five words rarely seen in the same sentence anymore.

    Meanwhile, we know for sure which candidate absolutely loves war and leaves a trail of death and destruction in her wake: Hillary Clinton.

    [Oct 01, 2016] Vladimir Putin's Outlaw State by THE EDITORIAL BOARD

    NYT is clearly a neocon outlet. Very clear demonstration of that it is essentially a part of Hillary campaign and Hillary made bet of demonizing Russia as a path to the victory in Presidential elections.
    Sep 29, 2016 | www.nytimes.com

    President Vladimir Putin is fast turning Russia into an outlaw nation. As one of five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, his country shares a special responsibility to uphold international law. Yet, his behavior in Ukraine and Syria violates not only the rules intended to promote peace instead of conflict, but also common human decency.

    This bitter truth was driven home twice on Wednesday. An investigative team led by the Netherlands concluded that the surface-to-air missile system that shot down a Malaysia Airlines plane over Ukraine in July 2014, killing 298 on board, was sent from Russia to Russian-backed separatists and returned to Russia the same night. Meanwhile, in Syria, Russian and Syrian warplanes knocked out two hospitals in the rebel-held sector of Aleppo as part of an assault that threatens the lives of 250,000 more people in a war that has already claimed some 500,000 Syrian lives.

    [Oct 01, 2016] "They had somebody modulating the microphone, so when I was speaking, the mike would go up and down," Mr. Trump said. "I spent 50 percent of my thought process working the mike."

    Oct 01, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    Fred C. Dobbs : September 30, 2016 at 05:36 PM

    (Aha!)

    Actually, a Malfunction Did Affect Donald Trump's
    Voice at the Debate http://nyti.ms/2cGN1m8
    NYT - NICHOLAS CONFESSORE and PATRICK HEALY - SEPT. 30

    The Commission on Presidential Debates said Friday that the first debate on Monday was marred by an unspecified technical malfunction that affected the volume of Mr. Trump's voice in the debate hall.

    Mr. Trump complained after the debate that the event's organizers had given him a "defective mike," contributing to his widely panned performance against Hillary Clinton. Mrs. Clinton lampooned Mr. Trump's claim, telling reporters on her campaign plane, "Anybody who complains about the microphone is not having a good night."

    Mr. Trump was clearly audible to the television audience. And there is no evidence of sabotage. But it turns out he was on to something.

    "Regarding the first debate, there were issues regarding Donald Trump's audio that affected the sound level in the debate hall," the commission said in its statement.

    The commission, a nonprofit organization that sponsors the presidential debates, released no other information about the malfunction, including how it was discovered, which equipment was to blame, or why the problem was admitted to only on Friday, four days after the debate.

    Reached by phone, a member of the commission's media staff said she was not authorized to speak about the matter.

    Some members of the audience, held at Hofstra University in New York, recalled in interviews that the amplification of Mr. Trump's voice was at times significantly lower than that for Mrs. Clinton. And at times Mr. Trump appeared to be hunching down to get his face closer to his microphone.

    Zeke Miller, a reporter for Time Magazine who attended the debate, mentioned the difference on Monday in a report to the traveling press pool for Mr. Trump. From his vantage point, Mr. Miller wrote, Mr. Trump was sometimes "a little quieter" than Mrs. Clinton.

    In an interview, Mr. Trump said he had tested out the audio system two hours before the event and found it "flawless." Only during the debate did he notice the problem, Mr. Trump said, and he tried to compensate by leaning down more closely to the microphone. He complained that the changing volume had distracted him and alleged again that someone had created the problem deliberately.

    "They had somebody modulating the microphone, so when I was speaking, the mike would go up and down," Mr. Trump said. "I spent 50 percent of my thought process working the mike." ...

    [Oct 01, 2016] The Wholesale Failure of American Foreign Policy

    Notable quotes:
    "... The United States does not have a UN or Congressional mandate for intervening in the Syria war. The US military have rebelled against their own government, they are nothing but a stateless armed mercenaries. ..."
    "... We all know that Putin is an intelligence officer and that he never says anything accidentally. Putin had his foreign service affirm that in light of the US military sabotage of the cease fire agreement, Obama has lost control of the US military for the whole world to hear. ..."
    "... Lavrov repeating this direct statement that the US milady forces are not controlled by the US government. "Obama supported the cooperation between our countries. Looks like the US military doesn't listen to their President". Using the UN platform, he openly stated that SOMEONE can attack and kill anybody in the world, under the US flag and the US president can do nothing about this. ..."
    "... Russia's a message was that a group of people has control over the US military and uses them as they please. It means that the US is not even a regional power… It means that the US is like Somali ten years ago. We know who are those people who control the US military; which cannot be said about the "schizophrenic" world community, the incurable gang members. ..."
    "... well, all of the issues that you detail are good for business (the arms and military business). As such, well, money talks and talks over reason. ..."
    "... We actually made the threat worse. Far worse. Even if we completely pull out now – which we should do – we'll be dealing with blowback in the form of long-burning hatred and terror attacks for many years to come. The idiots who recommended this policy ought to be hounded out of government and public life. ..."
    "... Every word Colonel Davis has written is true. But the colonial wars of the Empire matter hardly at all to the citizens of the metropole. ..."
    "... The GWOT (like the war on drugs) provides a lot of people a lot of money and interesting jobs. That's the strategy. That's why neither is ending in the next generation. ..."
    "... The endless wars that the US and it's partners in crime start are Hegelian problem reaction solution theater. The terrorists are state actor sock puppets . Funded, armed and provided political support as proxies for their state actor controllers to advance their regime change and hegemony goals through irregular warfare. The public is lied to by the politicians paying for and directing these needless tragedies. Nowhere has this been made more clear than Syria. Where all of the crime by the NATO/Israel/GCC axis powers has been laid bare for the world to see. It's an embarrassment as an American watching our politicians and diplomats spew their lies, nonsense and stupidity about an unnecessary war that they obviously started and are deliberately perpetuating. ..."
    "... The contemporary mission of the US armed forces is to make military contractors rich. ..."
    "... As an addendum the foreign policy elite use the military to scare the world into political alignment with the US. ..."
    "... At no time has it been more true that "war is a racket" as Gen. Smedley Butler noted long ago. In my view, the National Security State is our largest unit of organized crime. ..."
    "... Davis, poor fellow, talks of the "wholesale failure" of American foriegn policy. Actually it has been a wholesale success for the Neo-Cons, the military industrial complex, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and others, no? Simply one example–if Davis has not figured out that the US and coalition's Iraq War aimed to leave Iraq in chaos and effectively destroyed, he has not taken his military service blinders off. Thank you, sir, for your service to the one percent. ..."
    Oct 01, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com

    The American Conservative

    One has to wonder just how much longer the American people will silently permit the categorical failure of American foreign policy, both in theory and in practice. The evidence confirming the totality of our failure is breathtaking in scope and severity. Changes are needed to preserve U.S. national security and economic prosperity.

    Recent headlines have captured the character of this failure. Fifteen years after the invasion of Afghanistan, the Special Inspector General for Afghan Reconstruction (SIGAR) released finding s that "corruption substantially undermined the U.S. mission in Afghanistan from the very beginning of Operation Enduring Freedom. … We conclude that failure to effectively address the problem means U.S. reconstruction programs, at best, will continue to be subverted by systemic corruption and, at worst, will fail."

    Earlier this month, a British Parliament study found that the result of Western military intervention in Libya "was political and economic collapse, inter-militia and inter-tribal warfare, humanitarian and migrant crises, widespread human rights violations, the spread of Gaddafi regime weapons across the region and the growth of ISIL in North Africa."

    Airstrikes and drone attacks are accidentally killing thousands of civilians, aid workers , wedding parties , and now even the troops of a nation against whom we are not at war. Each of these mistakes, repeated hundreds of times over the past 15 years, creates more antagonism and hatred of the United States than any other single event. Whatever tactical benefit some of the strikes do accomplish, they are consumed in the still-worsening strategic failure the misfires cause.

    Bottom line: The use of military power since 2001 has:

    • Turned a previously whole and regionally impotent Iraq that balanced Iran into a factory of terrorism and a client of Tehran;
    • Turned Afghanistan from a country with a two-sided civil war-contained within its own borders-into a dysfunctional state that serves as a magnet for terrorists.
    • Turned a Libya that suffered internal unrest, but didn't threaten its neighbors or harbor terrorists, into an "unmitigated failure" featuring a raging civil war, serving as an African beachhead for ISIS and a terrorist breeding ground;
    • Contributed to the expansion of al-Qaeda into a "franchise" group, spawned a new strain when ISIS was born out of the vacuum created by our Iraq invasion, and seen major terrorist threats explode worldwide;
    • Joined other nations in battles in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and other areas within Africa whose only result has been the expansion of the threat and the deepening of the suffering of the civil populations.

    These continued and deepening failures kill unknown numbers of innocent civilians each year, intensify and spread the hatred many have of America , and incrementally weaken our national security. But these military failures have another, less obvious but more troubling cost.

    Perpetual fighting dissipates the fighting strength of the armed forces. The non-stop employment of the U.S. Air Force in flying sorties, bombing runs, and strategic airlift has been orders of magnitude higher than what it was in the 15 years prior to 9/11, dramatically cutting short the lifespan of each aircraft, increasing the maintenance requirements, and depleting stocks of bombs and missiles.

    The U.S. Army and Marine Corps have put thousands of miles of grueling use on their tanks and other armored vehicles and worn out countless weapons . The refurbishing and replacement costs for these vehicles has been enormous, and-like the Air Force-the Army has severely shortened the lifespan of its armored fleet. But not only have these permanent military operations degraded the vehicles, the damage has come at the expense of conventional military training.

    This might be the most alarming cost. The Army has recognized this problem and has belatedly begun to reorient some of the training time to high-end conventional battle. But it will take many years of focused training to rebuild the strength the military had prior to Desert Storm or even the opening operations of Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003.

    Entire generations of leaders and troops at every level have grown up training almost exclusively on small-scale counterinsurgency (COIN) warfare.

    As one who has fought in both high-end armored warfare and small-scale COIN, I can tell you that creating effective battle units for conventional war is far, far more difficult and time consuming.

    Likewise, the Air Force has not fought against a modern adversary with fleets of effective fighter jets, bombers, and potent air-defense capabilities. Such operations are orders of magnitude more difficult than attacking insurgents on the ground who pose no threat to aircraft.

    It is critical to understand that no insurgency or terror group represents an existential threat to viability of the United States. Failure in a conventional battle to a major power, however, can cripple the nation.

    It is discouraging to see the administration, Congress, and the Department of Defense fully tethered to the perpetual application of military power against small-scale threats. Terrorism definitely represents a threat to U.S. interests, and we must defend against it. But the obsession with using major military assets on these relatively small-scale threats has not only failed to stem the threat, it has in part been responsible for expanding it. Meanwhile, the unhealthy focus on the small-scale has weakened-and continues to weaken-our ability to respond to the truly existential threats.

    If the incoming administration does not recognize this deterioration of our military power and take steps to reverse it, our weakness may one day be exposed in the form of losing a major military engagement that we should have won easily. The stakes couldn't be higher. A change in foreign policy is critically needed. We will either change by choice or we will change in the smoldering aftermath of catastrophic military failure. I pray it is the former.

    Daniel L. Davis is a foreign-policy fellow and military expert at Defense Priorities. He retired from the U.S. Army as a lieutenant colonel after 21 years of active service. He was deployed into combat zones four times in his career, beginning with Operation Desert Storm in 1991, and also to Iraq in 2009 and Afghanistan twice (2005, 2011).

  • RMThoughts , says: September 29, 2016 at 9:53 am
    Following the last Syrian truce, the US Defense Department effectively rebelled against the president's authority when it said it may or we may not comply with the ceasefire, says former MI6 agent officier Alastair Crooke.

    The United States does not have a UN or Congressional mandate for intervening in the Syria war. The US military have rebelled against their own government, they are nothing but a stateless armed mercenaries.

    Out of idle curiosity, "Who is controlling these forces?" "Who are those fighting illegally on Syrian territory under the US flag?"

    We all know that Putin is an intelligence officer and that he never says anything accidentally. Putin had his foreign service affirm that in light of the US military sabotage of the cease fire agreement, Obama has lost control of the US military for the whole world to hear.

    Lavrov repeating this direct statement that the US milady forces are not controlled by the US government. "Obama supported the cooperation between our countries. Looks like the US military doesn't listen to their President". Using the UN platform, he openly stated that SOMEONE can attack and kill anybody in the world, under the US flag and the US president can do nothing about this.

    Russia's a message was that a group of people has control over the US military and uses them as they please. It means that the US is not even a regional power… It means that the US is like Somali ten years ago. We know who are those people who control the US military; which cannot be said about the "schizophrenic" world community, the incurable gang members.

    J Harlan , says: September 29, 2016 at 12:24 pm
    "creating effective battle units for conventional war is far, far more difficult and time consuming."

    100% correct which reminds me of the nonsense spread by the coindinistas that COIN "was the graduate level of war". For a while it helped the narrative that Petraeus was very clever and would save the day but of course the strategy was wrong which made the tactics irrelevant.

    The Wet One , says: September 29, 2016 at 2:46 pm
    First,

    "It is critical to understand that no insurgency or terror group represents an existential threat to viability of the United States."

    Sadly, too few Americans either understand or believe this to be true. Which is a major handicap in them understanding your article.

    Second, well, all of the issues that you detail are good for business (the arms and military business). As such, well, money talks and talks over reason.

    Good luck with that!

    c matt , says: September 29, 2016 at 3:43 pm
    The US populace will permit it until they feel it up close and personal.
    Neal , says: September 29, 2016 at 5:48 pm
    At this stage, the last thing I care about is the strength of the military and the cost of broken down equipment. Bring on that smoldering military failure. They deserve it.
    quod erat etc. , says: September 29, 2016 at 5:58 pm
    "Earlier this month, a British Parliament study found that the result of Western military intervention in Libya "was political and economic collapse, inter-militia and inter-tribal warfare, humanitarian and migrant crises, widespread human rights violations, the spread of Gaddafi regime weapons across the region and the growth of ISIL in North Africa." "

    That's impossible. Hillary has clearly said that her Libyan intervention was a great example of her "smart power" doctrine. Therefore it must be so. Tell the British Parliament to keep its absurd studies to itself. At least until after the election.

    Rossbach , says: September 29, 2016 at 6:02 pm
    "Terrorism definitely represents a threat to U.S. interests, and we must defend against it."

    The principal terrorist threat to the U.S. is the from the imperial backwash created by these failed and useless conflicts. Stuffing the U.S. full of "refugees" from countries that we have wrecked is a recipe for national suicide.

    KY Headhunter , says: September 29, 2016 at 7:01 pm
    "the obsession with using major military assets on these relatively small-scale threats has not only failed to stem the threat, it has in part been responsible for expanding it"

    Right on the money.

    We actually made the threat worse. Far worse. Even if we completely pull out now – which we should do – we'll be dealing with blowback in the form of long-burning hatred and terror attacks for many years to come. The idiots who recommended this policy ought to be hounded out of government and public life.

    Colorado Jack , says: September 29, 2016 at 7:51 pm
    Every word Colonel Davis has written is true. But the colonial wars of the Empire matter hardly at all to the citizens of the metropole.
    J Harlan , says: September 29, 2016 at 9:05 pm
    ""It is critical to understand that no insurgency or terror group represents an existential threat to viability of the United States."

    True but you don't get paid to shoot machine guns or jump out of airplanes in the fight against the next pandemic or searching for a way to deflect large meteors.

    The GWOT (like the war on drugs) provides a lot of people a lot of money and interesting jobs. That's the strategy. That's why neither is ending in the next generation.

    RichardD , says: September 30, 2016 at 1:43 am
    The endless wars that the US and it's partners in crime start are Hegelian problem reaction solution theater. The terrorists are state actor sock puppets . Funded, armed and provided political support as proxies for their state actor controllers to advance their regime change and hegemony goals through irregular warfare. The public is lied to by the politicians paying for and directing these needless tragedies. Nowhere has this been made more clear than Syria. Where all of the crime by the NATO/Israel/GCC axis powers has been laid bare for the world to see. It's an embarrassment as an American watching our politicians and diplomats spew their lies, nonsense and stupidity about an unnecessary war that they obviously started and are deliberately perpetuating.
    Tabasco Jack , says: September 30, 2016 at 2:48 am
    Isn't it time for someone to jump up on a table in a beer cellar, fire a revolver into the ceiling and yell, "This is a Putsch!"
    Chris Cosmos , says: September 30, 2016 at 8:46 am
    The contemporary mission of the US armed forces is to make military contractors rich.

    As an addendum the foreign policy elite use the military to scare the world into political alignment with the US. How did this happen? The American people flat out don't care and therefore the media just goes along with the corrupt government on this endless gravy train. At no time has it been more true that "war is a racket" as Gen. Smedley Butler noted long ago. In my view, the National Security State is our largest unit of organized crime.

    Susana , says: September 30, 2016 at 11:34 am
    This is a genuine question, not a snarky comment. Do you think we may be called upon to fight a conventional war in the next, say, 20 years, and if so, against whom? Is NATO also focusing on small scale enemies or do their troops train differently? I know very little about this topic and am interested. I am a Burkean conservative and, as such, I hope to keep a realistic view on what nations can and should do.
    E. A. Costa , says: September 30, 2016 at 12:51 pm
    Davis, poor fellow, talks of the "wholesale failure" of American foriegn policy. Actually it has been a wholesale success for the Neo-Cons, the military industrial complex, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and others, no? Simply one example–if Davis has not figured out that the US and coalition's Iraq War aimed to leave Iraq in chaos and effectively destroyed, he has not taken his military service blinders off. Thank you, sir, for your service to the one percent.
  • [Oct 01, 2016] John Helmer Four MH17 Questions – The Answers to Which Prove the Dutch Police, Ukrainian Secret Service, and US Government Are

    Notable quotes:
    "... These are not, repeat not, the principles of the Joint Investigation Team (JIT), a team of police, prosecutors, and spies from The Netherlands, Ukraine, Malaysia, Belgium, and Australia. They have committed themselves to proving that a chain of Russian military command intended to shoot down and was criminally responsible for the destruction of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 on July 17, 2014, and for the deaths of all 298 people on board. ..."
    "... Paulissen may be right. To prove he's right all he has to do is to fill in the gap between the JIT version of what happened and the Russian version of what could not have happened by answering these questions. To convince a court and jury, Paulissen's answers to these questions must be beyond reasonable doubt. ..."
    "... Why that target, and not the other two targets, also civil aircraft flying above 10,000 metres within a few minutes of each other and within firing range? Why target an aircraft flying so high, at a constant, level altitude? ..."
    "... 20 pieces of shrapnel were recovered, including 2 bowties and 2 cubes ..."
    "... The spread or spray of the shrapnel after detonation is not more than 60 degrees. From mapping this spread from the impacts of metal fragments on aircraft panels it is possible to determine the angle of the missile to the aircraft at detonation. This in turn allows the tracking of the missile's approach trajectory and the firing position on the ground. Testing warhead detonation against aircraft panels will also reveal the number and type of shrapnel impacts which ought to be registered if the missile and warhead types have been correctly identified. ..."
    "... According to the latest JIT report this week, the number of bowties and cubes has dwindled from four identified in last October's Dutch Safety Board (DSB) report to two, one of each shape. How and why did the other two pieces of evidence disappear in The Netherlands over the past twelve months? How does the JIT explain there was no shrapnel at all in the bodies of the 295 people, crew and passengers, who were behind the cockpit, in the main cabin of the aircraft? ..."
    "... The discrepancy in shrapnel count is so large, Malishevsky draws two conclusions – that it was impossible for the missile to have approached from the east and struck head-on; and that the only trajectory consistent with the MH17 shrapnel damage pattern was one in which the missile flew parallel to the aircraft before exploding, and approached from the south, not from the east. ..."
    "... The key claim from the Russian side is that for the engine to be as damaged as it was, the warhead must have detonated on the starboard side. And for that to be the outcome, the missile must have approached MH17, and been fired, from the south. ..."
    "... Why does it appear that the MH17's port engine – left-side looking forward, compass north for the plane flying east - not impacted by warhead blast or shrapnel? Why are there shrapnel hits on the starboard engine (right-side looking forward , compass south) and why was it deformed so differently? Why has the JIT omitted to analyse the engine positions and report this evidence? ..."
    "... What is revealing is how discreet the mainstream mass media have been about the "definitive conclusion" that the "separatists did it with the help of Russia". At least in Europe, the topic was not presented prominently in the press and on the radio, and disappeared right afterwards. ..."
    "... It does not matter: the propaganda was intense and relentless right after the incident to blame the usual suspects - and silenced as soon as the gaps in the narrative became so large they could not be dissimulated. ..."
    "... without ever having been properly investigated and cleared up ..."
    "... Or, for that matter, the Kuwaiti babies tossed out of incubators by Saddam (story invented by a DC pr shop) or the Belgian babies speared by German bayonets in WW1 (British propaganda this time). In a mass media age propaganda is viewed as a vital component of war making which is why all claims from places like Syria and Ukraine should be treated with skepticism. For the R2P crowd represented by Hillary and the ridiculous Samantha Power this propaganda aspect is central, and their compliant allies in the MSM are more than willing to go along. ..."
    "... There is a major difference between then and now: the stories about babies tossed on bayonets or out of incubators (or the Serbian extermination camps in Bosnia, or the mass graves of Ceaucescu in Timisoara) were all complete fabrications. ..."
    "... proving or disproving a culpability is intrinsically more involved than showing that some major crime is a complete invention. ..."
    "... "It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries." ..."
    "... Now, I'll repeat the most damning, though admittedly non-scientific evidence of all: The U.S. and its lapdog allies were, for months after the event, shrieking about Russian culpability through compliant MSM outlets. Then, suddenly, radio silence. The topic virtually disappeared from the very same MSM outlets as if it were radioactive. ..."
    "... We are on trajectory for really bad things. Russia is being demonized – in all quarters: sports, politics, commerce – in a way reminiscent of the worst of the cold war. forget the handbags of the '80s, but the 50/60s. ..."
    "... Thank you for this careful analysis. The new Cold War-like hostility to Russia of American media has made objective evaluation especially difficult to come by: ..."
    "... It is blaring 24/7 at the NYTimes. Today's edition had a marvelously double-entendred piece on page one, "Hostile Russia looks familiar to Cold War veterans." Much hinges on whether the familiarity lies in properties of the object or, instead, the subject's perceptual grid, a grid the Times is trying very hard to propagate. ..."
    "... As far as "not seeing/mentioning a missile"? Yeah, so what? Visibility of targets coming at you from the low/front is limited in all commercial jets. And this assumes the crew was even looking, and not heads down playing with the radio or FMS. Pimping this line make the rest of their narrative immediately suspect. ..."
    "... Which is more likely? A giant conspiracy (by people who are demonstratably too stupid to pull it off) by the Ukraine and Nato, to come up with a plan to pin it on the Russians (while demonstrating prior to and subsequently that they really don't need an excuse), or……… ..."
    "... Addressing not the issue at hand but the conundrum of "reasonable doubt" (which Helmer invokes at the start of the essay) please read The origins of reasonable doubt : theological roots of the criminal trial by James Q. Whitman. Whitman is at Yale Law School. ..."
    "... The fundamental problem with the investigation is that the Dutch, as part of NATO, cannot possibly be expected to be impartial. In the American legal system you are entitled to a jury of your peers. Lawyers go to great lengths to strike individuals from the jury pool who might have biases one way or another. ..."
    "... In this case the investigators are acting more like a District Attorneys' office, but even there justice presumes that those in charge of making prosecutorial decisions don't have conflicts of interests. ..."
    "... I'd have a lot more faith in the process here if the whole thing were handed off to a neutral third party, assuming such a country could be found. And therein lies the rub … thanks to the neo-liberal program of turning every country into a vassal state for the US, there aren't many candidates left. ..."
    "... The only BUKs in the area were in Kiev's hands. Russia has them on radar and they were active at the time. The one supposedly seen from Lugansk was false–the photo they are using for "evidence" has a billboard in the background that has been located as in a Kiev-controlled area. The separatists never had one at all. The real problem here is that one of the prime suspects has veto power over the report. It can *never* be impartial with Ukraine on the investigation team. ..."
    "... He's obviously not knowledgeable in the field of aeronautics. A missile closing in on a passenger plane from below, at several thousand kilometers per hour, would be impossible to spot visually until immediately before impact, even if you were looking in the exact field of the visual area that it was occupying (which you wouldn't). ..."
    "... Moreover, MH17's cockpit damage shows that the warhead exploded above, portside. But don't let evidence get in the way of "expertise." ..."
    "... "everybody's gotta eat" ..."
    "... How does the JIT explain the missile trajectory if it was not seen by the pilots? ..."
    "... A BUK leaves a spectacular trail from ground to air. No one saw such a trail. And it *is* very spectacular. ..."
    "... Prior to Operation Desert Storm, it was reported that Sadam Hussein had amassed 250,000 troops and 1500 tanks on the Saudi Arabian border. Commercial satellite images proved otherwise. The Iraqi's where later accused of taking infants out of incubators and leaving them to die. We now know it was a fabrication courtesy of the PR firm Hill & Knowlton. ..."
    "... In 1999 and 2000, the United States would go on to bomb Iraq two to three times a week. The sanctions Bill Clinton imposed on Iraq cost the lives of half a million children under the age of five. When asked during an interview if the price was worth it, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright responded, "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price–we think the price is worth it." ..."
    "... The second Iraq war brought us a new set of lies. The cooperation with al Qaeda, who we are now arming in Syria, the uranium yellow cake, the mobile biological weapons labs, the infamous weapons of mass destruction, etc. It estimated than more than a million Iraqi's have died as a result of this butchery. ..."
    "... As far as I am aware, the Ukraine and US have not released any of their radar data. The JIT also used information from Bellingcat, a discredited propaganda outlet. In light of all this information, you will have to pardon my "healthy skepticism". I also suggest that you use the term "useful idiot" more lightly. ..."
    "... But I would tend to give the benefit of the doubt to the Dutch ..."
    "... And in so doing you are giving the benefit of the doubt to the Ukrainian SBU who the Dutch admit provided them with much of the 'evidence'. Kiev is hardly a disinterested party in this matter. ..."
    "... 3) The Ukrainian army did it during an exercise with poorly trained personnel and goofed up. ..."
    "... The problem that Helmer and others highlight is that the Dutch investigation is biased: all evidence and even hearsay is interpreted against Russia, all evidence that goes against the "Russia did it" scenario is ignored or minimized, major evidence that would conclusively settle matters is kept under wraps (USA surveillance logs, Ukrainian tower control logs, Russian radar logs). ..."
    "... The investigation does not pass the smell test. ..."
    "... JIT concluded a BUK TELAR was brought into Eastern Ukraine from Russia. But it did not blame the Russian Federation formaly of having shot down MH17. Dutch politics including Mark Rutte refuse to punish Russia on its role in downing MH17. Current EU sanctions are because the annexation of Crimea and not respecting Minsk agreement. ..."
    "... BUK systems, although old, are very advanced and require 6 months to a year of training for its crew to become truly proficient with it. ..."
    "... The surmise is that Kiev thought that was Putin's plane, which was in the air at the same time. There's also a report from a mechanic that defected to Russia, that he saw the pilot that did it return saying "it was the wrong plane." AFAIK, that wasn't investigated at all. Kiev has veto power over the report. A genuine investigation is not being conducted at all. ..."
    "... The Almaz-Antey presentation confirms MH17 was shot down by a BUK missile, burying once and for all the SU 25 theory, about which regular readers of Russia Insider will know I have always been skeptical. ..."
    "... A more credible scenario is that recruits of the Ukrainian army were going through an accelerated training of BUK deployment with inventory of USSR-era equipment, and goofed up. ..."
    "... any of the suspects ..."
    "... Still pondering why a civilian aircraft was anywhere near a combat zone with such armament present, especially considering some of the tenancies of the combatants involved. ..."
    "... Blame will be determined sometime in the future if there are any winners in the ongoing mini World War. The effective use of anti-aircraft weapons allowed the rebels who had no serviceable aircraft to control the air over the battlefield destroying the Ukraine armored attacks leading to the current stalemated trench warfare. A Ukraine military transport was shot down at altitude earlier but for political and monetary reasons civil air transportation continue over the battlefields. This is a classic case of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. ..."
    "... BUK missile burns its engine out far sooner than what it takes for the missile to reach its target. Which means that there wouldn't have been Top Gun like smoke trail approaching the aircraft but just the missile gliding like a dart without power. ..."
    "... constant bearing, reducing range ..."
    Oct 01, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Posted on September 30, 2016 by Yves Smith Yves here. Note that Robert Parry also has serious doubts about the latest MH17 report .

    By John Helmer , the longest continuously serving foreign correspondent in Russia, and the only western journalist to direct his own bureau independent of single national or commercial ties. Helmer has also been a professor of political science, and an advisor to government heads in Greece, the United States, and Asia. He is the first and only member of a US presidential administration (Jimmy Carter) to establish himself in Russia. Originally published at Dances with Bears

    You don't need to be an expert in ground-to-air warfare, radar, missile ordnance, or forensic criminology to understand the three fundamental requirements for prosecuting people for crimes. The first is proof of intention to do what happened. The second is proof of what could not have happened amounts to proof that it didn't happen. The third is proof beyond reasonable doubt.

    These are not, repeat not, the principles of the Joint Investigation Team (JIT), a team of police, prosecutors, and spies from The Netherlands, Ukraine, Malaysia, Belgium, and Australia. They have committed themselves to proving that a chain of Russian military command intended to shoot down and was criminally responsible for the destruction of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 on July 17, 2014, and for the deaths of all 298 people on board.

    The JIT case for Russian culpability hinges on five elements occurring in sequence – that a BUK missile was launched to the east of the aircraft, and approached it head-on, before exploding on the port (left) side of the cockpit. Pause, rewind, then reread slowly in order to identify the elements of intention, causation, and culpability:

    1. the BUK missile was aimed with a target acquisition radar by operators inside a BUK vehicle at a target flying in the sky and ordered to fire;
    2. they fired from their vehicle parked on the ground facing east towards the aircraft's approach;
    3. the missile flew west and upwards to a height of 10,060 metres;
    4. the warhead detonated;
    5. the blast and the shrapnel tore the cockpit from the main fuselage; destroyed one of the aircraft engines; and caused the aircraft to catch fire, fall to the ground in pieces, and kill everyone.

    On Wednesday afternoon, in the small Dutch town of Nieuwegein, two Dutchmen, one a prosecutor, one a policeman, claimed they have proof that this is what happened. For details of the proof they provided the world's press, read this . Later the same day, in Moscow, a presentation by two Russians from the Almaz-Antei missile group, one a missile ordnance expert, the other a radar expert, presented their proof of what could not have happened. Click to watch .

    The enemies of Russia accept the Dutch proof and ignore the Russian proof. As Wilbert Paulissen, the Dutch policeman, claimed during the JIT briefing, "the absence of evidence does not prove [the BUK missile] was not there."

    Paulissen may be right. To prove he's right all he has to do is to fill in the gap between the JIT version of what happened and the Russian version of what could not have happened by answering these questions. To convince a court and jury, Paulissen's answers to these questions must be beyond reasonable doubt.

    Question 1. ... Why that target, and not the other two targets, also civil aircraft flying above 10,000 metres within a few minutes of each other and within firing range? Why target an aircraft flying so high, at a constant, level altitude?

    What evidence is there in the JIT presentation that the BUK and about one hundred men the Dutch claim to have been involved knew what they were aiming at and intended the result which occurred? A Russian military source asks: "did the BUK operators know where to direct their radar antenna? A 120-degree angle is not very large for target interception."

    Question 3. When a BUK warhead explodes, it releases about 7,800 metal fragments or shrapnel.

    Source: JIT presentation of NATO test-firing of BUK warhead in Finland -- https://www.om.nl/onderwerpen/mh17-vliegramp/presentaties/presentation-joint/

    Unique to the BUK warhead, according to the Dutch investigations, as well as to the missile manufacturer Almaz-Antei, is a piece of metal shaped like a bowtie or butterfly. About one-third of the BUK warhead's shrapnel – that's about 2,600 pieces of metal – is bowtie or butterfly-shaped. Another third of the shrapnel is cube-shaped. According to the Dutch Safety Board (DSB) papers issued in October 2015, 20 pieces of shrapnel were recovered, including 2 bowties and 2 cubes

    BUK WARHEAD SHRAPNEL – BOWTIES AND CUBES

    DUTCH SAFETY BOARD INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS OF MISSILE SHRAPNEL

    Source: http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/documents/report-mh17-crash-en.pdf -- page 92

    For more details, read this .

    The spread or spray of the shrapnel after detonation is not more than 60 degrees. From mapping this spread from the impacts of metal fragments on aircraft panels it is possible to determine the angle of the missile to the aircraft at detonation. This in turn allows the tracking of the missile's approach trajectory and the firing position on the ground. Testing warhead detonation against aircraft panels will also reveal the number and type of shrapnel impacts which ought to be registered if the missile and warhead types have been correctly identified.

    According to the latest JIT report this week, the number of bowties and cubes has dwindled from four identified in last October's Dutch Safety Board (DSB) report to two, one of each shape. How and why did the other two pieces of evidence disappear in The Netherlands over the past twelve months? How does the JIT explain there was no shrapnel at all in the bodies of the 295 people, crew and passengers, who were behind the cockpit, in the main cabin of the aircraft?

    According to Mikhail Malishevsky, the Almaz-Antei briefer in Moscow yesterday, test-bed detonations of the BUK missile at the port position, 1.5 metres from the cockpit, where the Dutch claim the missile detonated, show many more impact holes and evidence of bowties than the Dutch report they have recovered. Malishevsky records that in the Dutch analysis reported last year the shrapnel impacts had an average concentration of 80 per square metre. He says the Dutch are now reporting an average concentration of 250 per square metre, but with fewer of the BUK warhead's characteristic bowties.

    The discrepancy in shrapnel count is so large, Malishevsky draws two conclusions – that it was impossible for the missile to have approached from the east and struck head-on; and that the only trajectory consistent with the MH17 shrapnel damage pattern was one in which the missile flew parallel to the aircraft before exploding, and approached from the south, not from the east.

    "The hypothesis of a missile hitting the plane head-on was not credible. There is no way to explain the lack of fragments [shrapnel] as per the Dutch 3D model…" Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbIPo8dW9b0 -- minute 20:51.

    Question 4. ... The key claim from the Russian side is that for the engine to be as damaged as it was, the warhead must have detonated on the starboard side. And for that to be the outcome, the missile must have approached MH17, and been fired, from the south.

    So the question for Dutch prosecutor Fred Westerbeke (lead image, left) and Dutch policeman Paulissen, along with the 100 members of the JIT staff, is which engine is which in their evidence? Why does it appear that the MH17's port engine – left-side looking forward, compass north for the plane flying east - not impacted by warhead blast or shrapnel? Why are there shrapnel hits on the starboard engine (right-side looking forward , compass south) and why was it deformed so differently? Why has the JIT omitted to analyse the engine positions and report this evidence?

    A summary of these questions and the answers so far can be plotted on the map of the crash area.

    KEY
    Red line - MH 17.
    Blue line – firing point at Snizhne (in Russian Snezhnoe), according to the JIT version.
    Green line – firing point at Zaroshchenskoe (misspelled in the map), according to Almaz-Antei version.
    Source: http://www.novayagazeta.ru/inquests/68376.html

    Topographically, between Snizhne (Snezhnoe) in the east and Zaroshchenskoe to the southwest, there is a distance of less than 25 kilometres. Politically, between them as suspected missile-firing sites there is all the difference in the world

    visitor September 30, 2016 at 6:50 am

    What is revealing is how discreet the mainstream mass media have been about the "definitive conclusion" that the "separatists did it with the help of Russia". At least in Europe, the topic was not presented prominently in the press and on the radio, and disappeared right afterwards.

    It does not matter: the propaganda was intense and relentless right after the incident to blame the usual suspects - and silenced as soon as the gaps in the narrative became so large they could not be dissimulated.

    The MH17 shooting will join the numerous other cases ascribed to dastardly diplomatic opponents:

    1) the assassination of Rafi Hariri (blamed on Assad, but evidence implicating Israel not followed upon);
    2) the bungled terrorist attacks in Thailand (blamed on Iran, responsibility of Iranian opposition highly likely given the evidence);
    3) the bus bombing in Bulgaria (blamed on Hezbollah, investigation of involvement of Sunni jihadist groups abruptly cancelled);
    4) the chemical attack in Syria (blamed on Assad, convincingly demonstrated by Hersh to be an Al-Nusra false flag action);
    5) cyber-breach at Sony (blamed on North Korea, evidence points out at an insider job within Sony);
    6) cyberattack at OPM (blamed on China without proof);
    7) cyberattacks against the Democratic party (blamed on Russia without proof);

    Notice how those widely discussed, important cases have sunk into a news black-hole - without ever having been properly investigated and cleared up .

    We will probably never know for sure in our lifetime what happened in all those cases.

    Carolinian September 30, 2016 at 8:22 am

    Or, for that matter, the Kuwaiti babies tossed out of incubators by Saddam (story invented by a DC pr shop) or the Belgian babies speared by German bayonets in WW1 (British propaganda this time). In a mass media age propaganda is viewed as a vital component of war making which is why all claims from places like Syria and Ukraine should be treated with skepticism. For the R2P crowd represented by Hillary and the ridiculous Samantha Power this propaganda aspect is central, and their compliant allies in the MSM are more than willing to go along.

    visitor September 30, 2016 at 9:47 am

    There is a major difference between then and now: the stories about babies tossed on bayonets or out of incubators (or the Serbian extermination camps in Bosnia, or the mass graves of Ceaucescu in Timisoara) were all complete fabrications.

    Nobody denies that the MH17 was shot down, or that Hariri in Lebanon or Israeli tourists in Bulgaria were blown up, or that a chemical bomb exploded in Eastern Ghouta. This makes any debunking somewhat more arduous: proving or disproving a culpability is intrinsically more involved than showing that some major crime is a complete invention.

    human September 30, 2016 at 11:41 am

    "We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years."

    He went on to explain:

    "It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries."

    - David Rockefeller, Speaking at the June, 1991 Bilderberger meeting in Baden, Germany (a meeting also attended by then-Governor Bill Clinton and by Dan Quayle

    David Rockefeller born June 12, 1915 … likely the most powerful man in the world.

    sid_finster September 30, 2016 at 3:27 pm

    The alleged poisoning of V. Yuschenko.

    The murder of G. Gongadze.

    The alleged Russian invasion of South Ossetia.

    Tinky September 30, 2016 at 6:57 am

    Excellent work. Thank you.

    Now, I'll repeat the most damning, though admittedly non-scientific evidence of all: The U.S. and its lapdog allies were, for months after the event, shrieking about Russian culpability through compliant MSM outlets. Then, suddenly, radio silence. The topic virtually disappeared from the very same MSM outlets as if it were radioactive.

    That would never have happened had the anti-Russian alliance not discovered information that severely undercut their original, reflexive claims.

    Does anyone believe that this most recent report is other than a feeble attempt to keep the original, and quite obviously false narrative alive?

    Nelson Lowhim October 1, 2016 at 5:46 am

    I'm guessing it's always been like this? Screech hard and loud about imminent threats (to physical self or honor) and do so loud and often, claiming any moment to think is close to treason (or simply cowardice). Note that it will always be harder to refute (finding facts) than to come up with lies, of which there will be many (and if even a single is correct, it makes the next lie even better) and keep at it. until there is an actual punishment for doing this, there is no reason not to. Am I missing something?

    BringOnTheHotWar September 30, 2016 at 7:08 am

    We are on trajectory for really bad things. Russia is being demonized – in all quarters: sports, politics, commerce – in a way reminiscent of the worst of the cold war. forget the handbags of the '80s, but the 50/60s.

    And a complicit and/or childlike media is happy to swallow whatever official story comes their way. We know – as with any major power – that crazy shit is going down in, and with Russia (Putin ain't a saint). But poking, and prodding this nuclear bear – as a way to, among other things, justify $1 trillion in nuclear re-armament – is as foolish as it gets. DJT is a moron of nth degree. but i just don't believe he will drive us to armed conflict (whether by proxy or not) with russia. that, alone, would be enough for a vote against HRC. and with the mess the GOP is in, if HRC get in, she's in for 8 years. #untolddamage.

    ltr September 30, 2016 at 7:49 am

    Thank you for this careful analysis. The new Cold War-like hostility to Russia of American media has made objective evaluation especially difficult to come by:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/29/opinion/vladimir-putins-outlaw-state.html

    September 28, 2016

    Vladimir Putin's Outlaw State

    Mr. Putin's behavior in Ukraine and Syria violates not only rules designed to promote peace but common human decency.

    OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL September 30, 2016 at 7:52 am

    Agree, if they really had the goods this would have been blaring 24/7 from Hilary's War Advancement & Promotion Team, oops I mean CNN. Even simpler though is just to note that when Obama/Hilary are pressed on what exactly Russia has done overall to deserve the "existential threat" label, they mumble and finally blurt out ""Crimea".

    So I guess a fair plebiscite where 96% voted to rejoin Russia and a peaceful transition without a single shot fired now qualifies as a threat to the US. And of course zero mention of the murderous Neo-Nazis we installed in Kiev.

    hemeantwell September 30, 2016 at 8:58 am

    It is blaring 24/7 at the NYTimes. Today's edition had a marvelously double-entendred piece on page one, "Hostile Russia looks familiar to Cold War veterans." Much hinges on whether the familiarity lies in properties of the object or, instead, the subject's perceptual grid, a grid the Times is trying very hard to propagate.

    Paid Minion September 30, 2016 at 8:17 am

    The Russians have a long history of lying their asses off when they (or their minions) eff up. They are much better at it, after watching Fox News for the past 30 years.

    Funny, but their surrogates didn't mind taking the credit for the half dozen or so Ukrainian jets zapped by missiles in the couple of months before this incident.

    As far as "not seeing/mentioning a missile"? Yeah, so what? Visibility of targets coming at you from the low/front is limited in all commercial jets. And this assumes the crew was even looking, and not heads down playing with the radio or FMS. Pimping this line make the rest of their narrative immediately suspect.

    And remember how they were pushing the "Ukrainian SU-25 Theory" before anyone who knows anything about airplanes shot that one full of holes.

    But whatever. Nobody is going to be able to prove anything, since the airplane crashed on Russian controlled territory

    If the conspiracy theorists think the airplane was shot down as a pretext to starting a war with Russia, answer me this……. Why zap a Malaysian airliner, with no US or British passengers? All you need is an Internet connection and Flightaware,to know what airplane you are shooting at.

    Which is more likely? A giant conspiracy (by people who are demonstratably too stupid to pull it off) by the Ukraine and Nato, to come up with a plan to pin it on the Russians (while demonstrating prior to and subsequently that they really don't need an excuse), or………

    A couple of yokels sitting inside a SAM launcher who effed up and zapped the wrong airplane, who subsequently were made to "disappear"?

    vidimi September 30, 2016 at 8:18 am

    more reasons why people shouldn't and no longer do trust 'experts'. it's a meaningless charade intended to make an agenda credible. when one of the main suspects is one of the lead investigators and the whole sham of an investigation is led by nato, it's only aim is to increase tensions with russia. well, it looks like they will finally get the war they have been wishing for when mrs clinton takes over the white house.

    Nikki September 30, 2016 at 8:23 am

    Addressing not the issue at hand but the conundrum of "reasonable doubt" (which Helmer invokes at the start of the essay) please read The origins of reasonable doubt : theological roots of the criminal trial by James Q. Whitman. Whitman is at Yale Law School. He published the chapters separately in various law reviews. Read the last chapter first for an overview and understanding that he is motivated to get rid of the bogus standard with medieval theological roots– after all, how many have been wrongly jailed due to guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?

    Bill Smith September 30, 2016 at 10:37 am

    The simplest explanation is that the rebels made a mistake and shot the wrong plane down.

    hunkerdown September 30, 2016 at 2:48 pm

    Bill Smith, and it's been pretty well debunked as inconsistent with the evidence, but toddlers need something to believe. Try again, this time with your fingers out of your ears.

    sid_finster September 30, 2016 at 3:31 pm

    While I don't pretend to know who shot mh17 down or why, an simpler explanation is that the junta government did so.

    They were known to have Buk anti-aircraft rockets in the area.

    So far, I have seen only conjecture that the rebels did.

    pictboy3 September 30, 2016 at 10:50 am

    This is one thread subject on this otherwise excellent site that I think is absolutely ridiculous. I can understand putting people to their proof on the evidence, but what exactly is the point of this article? To prove that the separatists didn't shoot down the plane? Considering that Strelkov actually bragged about shooting a plane down right after it happened (the post was quickly taken down, but luckily caching is a thing), and there were witness accounts of a missile battery being driven out of Luhansk at the same time, I think it's a bit much to suggest that the Ukrainians did it.

    Our policy towards Russia is stupid and short-sighted, as it has been for most of the past three decades, but our own failings don't make the Russians into saints. They're capable of stupid and evil decisions just as much as we are. Is it really that much of a stretch to think that weapons, whether given to proxies or used by the Russians themselves, can shoot the wrong target? There's a line between being a healthy skeptic and a useful idiot, and there's a lot of people here who need to look at which side of it they're standing on.

    ChrisFromGeorgia September 30, 2016 at 10:59 am

    The fundamental problem with the investigation is that the Dutch, as part of NATO, cannot possibly be expected to be impartial. In the American legal system you are entitled to a jury of your peers. Lawyers go to great lengths to strike individuals from the jury pool who might have biases one way or another.

    In this case the investigators are acting more like a District Attorneys' office, but even there justice presumes that those in charge of making prosecutorial decisions don't have conflicts of interests.

    I'd have a lot more faith in the process here if the whole thing were handed off to a neutral third party, assuming such a country could be found. And therein lies the rub … thanks to the neo-liberal program of turning every country into a vassal state for the US, there aren't many candidates left.

    Iceland, maybe?

    Vatch September 30, 2016 at 11:27 am

    Is it really that much of a stretch to think that weapons, whether given to proxies or used by the Russians themselves, can shoot the wrong target?

    Good comment. I don't think any reasonable person has implied that the separatists intentionally shot down a civilian plane. They thought it was a military plane, and it was a tragic mistake.

    I can't comment on all of Helmer's questions, but I can comment on #1. He says that newer BUK systems don't match what was seen on the ground. Well, it's possible the Russians did not provide the new variety of BUK systems to the separatists. Maybe they let the separatists use the older variety, and the Russians kept the newer systems on their own soil.

    Regarding question #2. Maybe the pilots didn't see the missile because it was below their field of vision until the very last second. Or maybe they weren't looking at that part of the sky, so they didn't see it right away. Or maybe they saw it, and briefly froze, wondering what the heck is that?

    hunkerdown September 30, 2016 at 2:53 pm

    Almaz-Antey alleges that Russia hadn't had any older models in inventory to supply for some two years before the attack, but that the Ukrainian military hadn't upgraded yet.

    zapster September 30, 2016 at 7:55 pm

    The only BUKs in the area were in Kiev's hands. Russia has them on radar and they were active at the time. The one supposedly seen from Lugansk was false–the photo they are using for "evidence" has a billboard in the background that has been located as in a Kiev-controlled area. The separatists never had one at all. The real problem here is that one of the prime suspects has veto power over the report. It can *never* be impartial with Ukraine on the investigation team.

    Johan Telstad September 30, 2016 at 12:14 pm

    Thank you!
    I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would listen to this John Helmer person.

    He's obviously not knowledgeable in the field of aeronautics. A missile closing in on a passenger plane from below, at several thousand kilometers per hour, would be impossible to spot visually until immediately before impact, even if you were looking in the exact field of the visual area that it was occupying (which you wouldn't).

    BTW, if you want a real expert on Russia, try someone like Mark Galeotti ( https://inmoscowsshadows.wordpress.com ).

    OIFVet September 30, 2016 at 12:34 pm

    And you are expert?!?! SAMs generally attack targets from above, and BUKs are specifically designed to do so. As an expert in "aeronautics" and ballistics you will no doubt explain to the audience why that is. Moreover, MH17's cockpit damage shows that the warhead exploded above, portside. But don't let evidence get in the way of "expertise."

    optimader September 30, 2016 at 3:53 pm

    Helmer spills a lot of ink as a kremlin mouthpiece, "everybody's gotta eat" I guess.

    How does the JIT explain the missile trajectory if it was not seen by the pilots?

    how can one assume anyone in the cockpit was looking out the window as it was on autopilot, no less in the relevant piece of sky?

    http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/geopolitics-is-biggest-enemy-to-finding-truth-on-mh17/

    zapster September 30, 2016 at 7:56 pm

    A BUK leaves a spectacular trail from ground to air. No one saw such a trail. And it *is* very spectacular.

    Tobin Paz September 30, 2016 at 4:34 pm

    Prior to Operation Desert Storm, it was reported that Sadam Hussein had amassed 250,000 troops and 1500 tanks on the Saudi Arabian border. Commercial satellite images proved otherwise. The Iraqi's where later accused of taking infants out of incubators and leaving them to die. We now know it was a fabrication courtesy of the PR firm Hill & Knowlton.

    In 1999 and 2000, the United States would go on to bomb Iraq two to three times a week. The sanctions Bill Clinton imposed on Iraq cost the lives of half a million children under the age of five. When asked during an interview if the price was worth it, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright responded, "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price–we think the price is worth it."

    The second Iraq war brought us a new set of lies. The cooperation with al Qaeda, who we are now arming in Syria, the uranium yellow cake, the mobile biological weapons labs, the infamous weapons of mass destruction, etc. It estimated than more than a million Iraqi's have died as a result of this butchery.

    Libya, the wealthiest country with the highest standard of living in Africa, was the next major target of more lies. From Gaddafi bombing his own people to the distribution of Viagra to his troops so that they could go on a raping spree. Little mention is made of the bombing of Libya's Great Man-made River project, the largest aqueduct and network of pipes that supplied water to %70 of the population. The water crisis created continues to this day.

    The illegal war of aggression on the sovereign state of Syria requires it's own discussion. I will only mention the allegation of Assad using sarin nerve gas. Seymour Hersh's reporting would later show that it was a false flag carried out to cross Obama's chemical weapons "red line".

    This brings us to Ukraine, a country in which the United States spent $5 billion on regime change. It was coup d'etat that brought in Svobada and Right Sector, both Neo-Nazi parties. From the fake Russian troop photo's presented by Senator Inhofe, to the invasion of Crimea, a peninsula that hosts Russia's Sevastopol naval base. If there is any doubt about it being an invasion or not, it should be noted that not only did Crimean's vote to secede with a 96% majority in 2014, they overwhelmingly voted for independence both in 1991 and 1994.

    As far as I am aware, the Ukraine and US have not released any of their radar data. The JIT also used information from Bellingcat, a discredited propaganda outlet. In light of all this information, you will have to pardon my "healthy skepticism". I also suggest that you use the term "useful idiot" more lightly.

    Expat September 30, 2016 at 12:56 pm

    The technical aspects of the two reports are not verifiable by me based on either account so I cannot say which is more likely based on this article. However I can say that disputing the shoot-down by a BUK based on the idea that it was unlikely the separatists would choose that plane and fire at it is about as valid as saying the shoot-down theory is impossible because everyone knows commercial airliners are shot down only once every decade. The plane WAS shot down. Perhaps the unsophisticated BUK system was the reason for a commercial airliner being struck.

    So we have the Dutch on one side with a potential bias because they are part of NATO and interested in crucifying the evil Soviets…whoops, Russians at any price. And on the other side we have the suppliers of the missile and sponsors/supporters of those accused of firing it. Which side is more likely to fabricate an explanation? Maybe both are lying. But I would tend to give the benefit of the doubt to the Dutch.

    tgs September 30, 2016 at 2:26 pm

    But I would tend to give the benefit of the doubt to the Dutch

    And in so doing you are giving the benefit of the doubt to the Ukrainian SBU who the Dutch admit provided them with much of the 'evidence'. Kiev is hardly a disinterested party in this matter.

    visitor September 30, 2016 at 2:32 pm

    Perhaps the unsophisticated BUK system was the reason

    BUK systems, although old, are very advanced and require 6 months to a year of training for its crew to become truly proficient with it.

    There are currently three versions of the MH17 case:

    1) A motley crew of separatists did it with equipment provided by Russia.

    2) An Ukrainian oligarch with his own badly trained militia did it with equipment diverted from Ukrainian reserves.

    3) The Ukrainian army did it during an exercise with poorly trained personnel and goofed up.

    There is no incontrovertible evidence for any of those scenarios. Note that (3) would not be the first time that the Ukrainian army shot down a civilian airplane by mistake; it already did it in 2001 (look up Siberia Airlines 1812).

    The problem that Helmer and others highlight is that the Dutch investigation is biased: all evidence and even hearsay is interpreted against Russia, all evidence that goes against the "Russia did it" scenario is ignored or minimized, major evidence that would conclusively settle matters is kept under wraps (USA surveillance logs, Ukrainian tower control logs, Russian radar logs).

    The investigation does not pass the smell test.

    sid_finster September 30, 2016 at 3:33 pm

    Verily.

    optimader September 30, 2016 at 3:58 pm

    http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/geopolitics-is-biggest-enemy-to-finding-truth-on-mh17/
    JIT concluded a BUK TELAR was brought into Eastern Ukraine from Russia. But it did not blame the Russian Federation formaly of having shot down MH17. Dutch politics including Mark Rutte refuse to punish Russia on its role in downing MH17. Current EU sanctions are because the annexation of Crimea and not respecting Minsk agreement.

    optimader September 30, 2016 at 7:21 pm

    BUK systems, although old, are very advanced and require 6 months to a year of training for its crew to become truly proficient with it.

    Requiring 6-12mnths of training is not exactly an endorsement of sophistication. That said, what I read (a couple years ago!) and recall about the buk systems is that there is at least one degraded permissive level that will allow the system to launch a missile, and several targeting radar/telemetry apparatus (remote/local) that allow the system to function in a degraded manner -- like if the systems truck with "the meat" in it gets blasted.

    My opinion remains that it was a BUK system supplied by the Russians to what was less than fully qualified separatists, or was subsequently put in the hands of less than qualified operators who launched on purpose thinking it was the ubiquitous Ukie cargo plane, not realizing it was a commercial airliners.

    Who would do that on purpose? really? This is EXACTLY the kind of idiocy that occurs in war

    zapster September 30, 2016 at 8:01 pm

    The surmise is that Kiev thought that was Putin's plane, which was in the air at the same time. There's also a report from a mechanic that defected to Russia, that he saw the pilot that did it return saying "it was the wrong plane." AFAIK, that wasn't investigated at all. Kiev has veto power over the report. A genuine investigation is not being conducted at all.

    optimader September 30, 2016 at 9:31 pm

    Zapster, even the BUK mfgr conceded it was shot down with a BUK missile over a year ago. Isnt it time to give up the imaginary SU-25 confabulation already?

    The Almaz-Antey presentation confirms MH17 was shot down by a BUK missile, burying once and for all the SU 25 theory, about which regular readers of Russia Insider will know I have always been skeptical.

    visitor October 1, 2016 at 7:06 am

    A more credible scenario is that recruits of the Ukrainian army were going through an accelerated training of BUK deployment with inventory of USSR-era equipment, and goofed up.

    (a) Because so far, all BUK systems in Ukraine, especially at the time of the MH17 downing, have been conclusively identified as Ukrainian ones. There are no conclusive images of the supposed separatist BUK battery before, during or after the MH17 incident. Despite all radars monitoring the battlefield…

    (b) Because being at war and given the dilapidated state of the Ukrainian army (going back to the early 1990s), there was an urgent need for personnel, and only fast training was possible. No careful year-long schooling when the next separatist offensive or much-touted Russian invasion can strike in a matter of weeks.

    (c) Because a training scenario explains the presence of Ukrainian SU25, serving as practice targets - but BUK radars locked onto the much larger signal corresponding to the MH17.

    (d) Because shooting actual missiles when one is not supposed to do, and aiming them at the wrong target is exactly the kind of error that "green" personnel may commit while stressed in time of war - but that experienced operators who had time to go through all possible scenarios recognizing various target types and locking the right ones after months of drill will avoid.

    Personally, I do not believe that any of the suspects ever deliberately fired at MH17.

    Crazy Horse September 30, 2016 at 11:03 pm

    Add two more suspects to the list:

    4- Putin did it. After all, the American mass media told us so almost before the airliner hit the ground.

    5- An American clandestine agency (CIA, NSA, Blackwater, etc. did it by supplying planning and logistical support to their client Ukrainians.

    A crime did take place. Since we are uncertain as to who the perpetrators were, let's apply crime scene logic:

    MOTIVE:
    Hard to conceive of a motive for Putin or the Russian Federation. The only conceivable result of such an attack would be to further the Western propaganda effort to demonize Putin and the separatists and to open the door to increased US military and economic support for Ukraine.

    On the other hand the USA (and the Ukrainian government) clearly had the motive to create a false flag situation to justify expanded intervention, and the US has a long history of doing so. Gulf of Tonkin, World Trade Center, Syrian gas attacks - to name but a few.

    MEANS:
    If the plane was downed by a Russian built BUK missile instead of by fighter jets as it first seemed, then all five suspects could have conceivably have been in possession of the missile and launch and fire control apparatus. Using an analysis of the attack direction to derive the launch site is plausible but far from convincing. Both the Russians and the US had their most sophisticated spy satellites focused on the region and probably knew exactly what happened in real time.

    OPPORTUNITY:
    The real smoking gun in this affair was the fact that the Ukrainians purposely re-routed the airliner far south of its normal route, and then disappeared the air traffic controller in charge. Without this diversion it would not have been possible to target the plane. Was this event planned and coordinated by one of the US spook agencies or mercenaries under contract or was it solely an Ukrainian operation? Did the sophisticated American communications ship stationed nearby assist with logistics?

    Somehow I can't buy the argument that it was all an accident.

    Optimader October 1, 2016 at 12:14 am

    Clouseau: Listen to me, Hercule, and you will learn something.

    Now then, the facts in this case are:

    the body of the chauffeur was found in the bedroom of the second maid. Fact!

    Cause of death:
    Four bullets in the chest. Fact!

    The bullets were fired at close range from a .25 caliber Beretta automatic. Fact!

    Maria Gambrelli was discovered with the murder weapon in her hand. Fact!

    The murder weapon was registered in the name of the deceased, Miguel Ostos, and was kept, mind you, in the glove compartment of the Ballon Rolls-Royce. Fact!

    Now then, members of the household staff have testified that Miguel Ostos beat…
    [snaps his pointing stick]

    Clouseau: You fool! You have broken my pointing stick! I have nothing to point with now!… have testified that Miguel Ostos beat Maria Gambrelli frequently.

    And now, finally comes the sworn statement of Monsieur and Madame Ballon, as well as all the members of the staff, each of them with perfect alibis.

    Now then, Hercule, What is the inescapable conclusion?

    Hercule LaJoy: Maria Gambrelli killed the chauffeur.

    Clouseau: What? You idiot! It's impossible. She's protecting someone.
    Hercule LaJoy: How do you know that?

    Clouseau: Instinct!

    Hercule LaJoy: But that facts…

    Clouseau: You are forgetting the most important fact – motive.

    Veri September 30, 2016 at 5:07 pm

    Why did this story on MH17 come out now?

    Al Nusra senior commander admits US is on Jihadis side.

    Reported in German Press.

    likbez September 30, 2016 at 8:00 pm

    Note: the previous variant of this comment went to moderation.

    You need to understand that after JFK assassination the notion that truth will eventually surface in such cases is open to review. So a plausible hypothesis might be all we can have. Yes, there is a line "between being a healthy skeptic and a useful idiot", but the evidence strongly suggests that in this particular case Western MSM promoted version has huge hole in it.

    The default suspects according to "quo bono" principle should be Ukraine and the USA, unless good counterarguments are provided. There are none so far.

    Of cause we do not know for sure (and might never get the real facts), but there are several chunks of evidence that strengthen this "accident into false flag" or "false flag from the very beginning" hypothesis:

    1. Why there were no reports of a smoke trail from the purported missile launch?

    2. Strange, never explained, story of Spanish aircontroler twits immediately after the tragedy. To whom belong pretty alarming twits in the Spanish blog from an air traffic controller working in Boryspil airport, which completely contradict official Ukrainian and Western MSM story?

    3. Testimony of a defector to Russians from Ukrainian air force (technician on the nearby military airfield I think), who suggested that it was a fighter jet that downed the airliner.

    4. The fact that SBU immediately confiscated all the evidence from air control towers and those records were never presented to international investigation commission.

    5. Why the agreement that was reached between Ukraine, Netherlands, Belgium and Australia to classify the results of investigation ?

    6. Strange resistance and procrastination with getting evidence from the crash site. Shelling of the crash site by the Ukrainian artillery.

    7. Why the normal route over Ukraine for the airliner was changed ?

    8. Attempts to provide proof of rebels involvement which later were discredited as fabrications (unverified phone intercepts that experts proved to be fragments of conversations stitched together to implicate rebels)

    9. Striking speed with which Ukrainian and Western MSM just after a few minutes after the plane disappeared from screens of radars, has started well coordinated and pretty vicious campaign

    10. Fake satellites maps at the time of the tragedy. Fake photo of BUK track which allegingly shoot down MH17.

    11. Attempts to capture the crash area, despite previous agreement for ceasefire in this area.

    Skippy September 30, 2016 at 8:18 pm

    Still pondering why a civilian aircraft was anywhere near a combat zone with such armament present, especially considering some of the tenancies of the combatants involved.

    Dishevled Marsupial…. its not like innocent people are not maimed or killed in gang turf wars day in and day out….

    VietnamVet September 30, 2016 at 9:07 pm

    Blame will be determined sometime in the future if there are any winners in the ongoing mini World War. The effective use of anti-aircraft weapons allowed the rebels who had no serviceable aircraft to control the air over the battlefield destroying the Ukraine armored attacks leading to the current stalemated trench warfare. A Ukraine military transport was shot down at altitude earlier but for political and monetary reasons civil air transportation continue over the battlefields. This is a classic case of being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

    Wargames between nuclear powers inevitably escalate to use of ICBMs. I am so old I remember the Civil Defense program that was made obsolete in 1953 when the Soviet Union exploded the first deployable hydrogen bomb. The USA is losing. Washington DC is befuddled. Western propaganda doesn't make any sense. There is no indication that there is any comprehension of the danger to mankind by the insane decision to start a war with Russia or that a miscalculation or accident could cause a nuclear holocaust not just a 777 shot down.

    Skippy September 30, 2016 at 10:05 pm

    Yeah its a wee bit like taking a Contiki tour through a combatant zone…..

    https://www.contiki.com/au/en?c3apiks=110690064669&contiki%20tours&e&gclid=CKHN-vnBuM8CFQQDvAodwYQAgw&kendelid=p.403.95c0db64-851a-46c8-b140-c9362dc078a4.cr2408100

    Disheveled Marsupial… Like the ad saez…. "One Life. One Shot. Make it Count‎"….

    Anonymous X October 1, 2016 at 5:24 am

    As to the questions…

    (i) Ukrainian aircraft (transport planes) tended to approach from that same direction so it wouldn't exactly be in any manner surprising that the BUK unit would be aligned to wait for them. 120 degree arc is huge when you already have some knowledge of the direction where the radar ought to point. Since TELAR unit can't tell what exactly it is that it is shooting (you would need TAR for that) the identification can't really be even expected to happen.

    (ii) BUK missile burns its engine out far sooner than what it takes for the missile to reach its target. Which means that there wouldn't have been Top Gun like smoke trail approaching the aircraft but just the missile gliding like a dart without power. Given the speed of the objects the missile would have approached the aircraft at around 1000 m per second – with the diameter of missile being around 40 cm it would have been difficult to see it just from 100 meters out – which would have left less time to react than in which human would have been able to react. So lack of reaction from the crew is exactly what there ought to have been.

    (iii) Homing method used in most missiles (including BUK) means that it never flies parallel to the its target. It is always flying on the basis of ' constant bearing, reducing range ' navigation (i.e. proportional navigation) – you may want to read about that. Also given the semi-active radar homing used in BUK if the radar (i.e. the launch vehicle) would have been on the side of the aircraft then it is very unlikely that the missile would have been headed for the nose either. Lack of found shrapnel is not particularly surprising either as site was unsecured for quite a while.

    And it wasn't like JIT would have ignored the Zaroshchenskoe possibility. It was investigated. But nothing to support it was found. Furthermore captured rebel communications made it clear that (i) the locality was either in partial or total rebel control and that (ii) no missile launch was witnessed. Given that the the launch plume (& burned field) has been located via several different images provided by JIT it is quite clear where the launch occurred.

    likbez October 1, 2016 at 11:59 am

    This concentration on Buk missile and exclusions of other possibilities has IMHO one serious problem: complete absence of witness reports of the missile launch. This is a pretty densely populated area and Buk missile launch produces dense smoke trace clearly visible from the ground. The supposed launch happened during daytime in fair weather conditions. Huge, dense smoke trace from Buk missile launch can't be hidden in such a conditions, can it ? It should be visible for at least ten minutes or more before dissipating.

    But there is no witness reports, no photos, nothing. I never head that launch site was located "via several different images provided by JIT" BBC tried soon after the tragedy and have a correspondent on the ground explicitly searching for it for a week or so. They failed.

    Fighter jet hypothesis is somehow swiped under the carpet despite the testimony of military aircraft technician who defected to Russians and Russian radar data that had shown a second (military, no transponder) plane in vicinity at the time of shooting.

    As for "Ukrainian aircraft (transport planes) tended to approach from that same direction so it wouldn't exactly be in any manner surprising that the BUK unit would be aligned to wait for them. " this is questionable explanation. There were multiple planes in this area flying at high altitudes the same day, so the selection of the target and timing looks bizarre. Why not an earlier plane, why not a later plane ?

    Anonymous X October 1, 2016 at 12:23 pm

    Had you familiarized yourself with the JIT report you would have noticed that they had witness reports, as well as photos depicting the smoke plume from several different angles. Also it is quite likely that the sound people believed at the time have heard as 'jet engine' noise was actually noise from the missile's rocket engine. So that kinda leaves your version full of holes. And it kinda depends on the prevailing weather as to how long the smoke trail will persist – link
    You can see (closer to the end) the trail starting to disperse immediately. And oddly enough for your story there were reporters who had no trouble locating the burned of patch of field following the photos and witness reports.

    The fighter jet theory is just nonsense. Belongs to the same category as the 'Spanish air traffic controller' story. There is nothing in Russian radar data that would hint of a presence of another aircraft. Only additional detection occurs after the incident has occurred which means that instead of being an aircraft it was likely just debris from the MH17. That Russians claimed it would have been an Su-25 was a rather dishonest act.

    As to why MH17 was shot down and not any of the others. In all likelyhood no one intended to shoot it down. So that falls to the category of bad luck (in part of the crew and passengers of MH17).

    Yves Smith Post author October 1, 2016 at 2:32 pm

    While your points about witnesses may have merit, the video falls in the category of "web evidence" as it may have been doctored and hence is not reliable.

    likbez October 1, 2016 at 5:25 pm
    Again, my point is that like in case of JFK assassination we might never know that truth. So your supreme confidence is very suspect.

    I see you as a hardened type of information warrior not a person who try to dig out the truth. You are fixed on a single version no matter what evidence is available and discard any conflicting "separatists did it" evidence.

    BTW I do not exclude any possibilities: it can be separatists, it can be Ukrainian Buk, it can be a fighter jet. But need to see all augments on the table, not a selective set supporting a single most convenient to the dominant parties in the investigation. And weight all three hypothesis.

    And Ukrainians and the USA should be considered primary suspects due to obvious benefits they got from the tragedy. Absence of Russian citizens among victims is for me a kind of alarming fact by itself as it allowed to exclude Russians from the investigation and pointing in the direction of "false flag".

    Moreover the whole investigation became essentially an exercise in proving "separatists did it", despite the fact that Ukrainian authorities were clear beneficiary of the event and Provisional government consisted of very dangerous and reckless people (especially Parubiy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andriy_Parubiy ) .

    BTW it was separatists that provided black boxes of the aircraft to investigators and much of the evidence were collected and guarded by them. And it was Ukrainians that shelled the area to prevent investigators from working after the tragedy.

    Also any investigation that uses Bellingcat materials should be automatically labeled as a propaganda exercise (or disinformation war, if you wish). Think about it…

    As for Su25 you are way to too quick to dismiss this possibility: IMHO there was some evidence of presence of the plane from Rostov airport radar telemetry. It was long ago and I do not remember details but there is a collection of materials on the Web with "week-by-week" selections at
    http://www.softpanorama.org/Skeptics/Political_skeptic/Propaganda/Tragedy_of_flight_MH17/Bulletin/mh17_bulletin0719.shtml

    Please compare your version with the selection.

    Also Parry points out that exact location of Ukrainian Buks at the moment of the tragedy were never revealed by investigators. If this is not a clear bias, I do not know what is.

    Where is the map with the location of Ukrainian units and radar on the day of the tragedy, I would like to ask you? Where are transcripts of communication of Ukrainian military and Dnepropetrovsk air traffic controllers for this day?

    https://www.sott.net/article/329653-The-JIT-MH17-report-Troubling-gaps-vague-evidence

    The JIT video report on the MH-17 case, which was released on Wednesday, also didn't address questions about the location of several Ukrainian Buk missile batteries that Dutch (i.e. NATO) intelligence placed in eastern Ukraine on July 17, 2014, the day that MH-17 was shot down. A finding from the Dutch intelligence service, MIVD, released last October, said the only high-powered anti-aircraft missile systems in eastern Ukraine at that time, capable of bringing down MH-17 at 33,000 feet and killing all 298 people onboard, belonged to the Ukrainian military, not the rebels.

    Dismissing 'Spanish air traffic controller' story shows your true colors, as this event happened just after the shooting, twits were in Spanish which would be atypical of Russian and Ukrainian three-letter agencies, and as such has less chances to be a planted disinformation.

    [Sep 30, 2016] Neoliberal media are just stenographers for the White House and the Clinton campaign

    Notable quotes:
    "... This means the "default position" of the Clinton campaign and her friendly media is, "if there's something wrong in the world, criticize George W. Bush." ..."
    "... "Why not? It worked for Obama. Maybe it will work for her as well," Bolton said. "And I think the fact that the media are aiding and abetting this approach shouldn't surprise anybody. I think no matter who the Republican nominee was this year, the media were going to be – as the Wall Street Journal has so aptly called them – stenographers for the White House and the Clinton campaign. And that's exactly what they're doing." ..."
    "... Most people watching 90 minutes of a debate like that don't score it on this debating point, or that debating point. They look at the entire thing. They want to know about the character of the people. And I think the fact that Trump was there for 90 minutes and held his own, or more than, in a format that Hillary Clinton has been familiar with since she was in law school, accomplished what he needed to accomplish. ..."
    Sep 30, 2016 | www.breitbart.com
    "I think it's entirely understandable that what Clinton will try to do is avoid criticizing Obama, because she desperately needs to recreate the Obama coalition on November the 8th," said Bolton. "She has gone out of her way, including in her 600-page-long tedious memoir about her days at the State Department, failing to distance herself from Obama."

    This means the "default position" of the Clinton campaign and her friendly media is, "if there's something wrong in the world, criticize George W. Bush."

    "Why not? It worked for Obama. Maybe it will work for her as well," Bolton said. "And I think the fact that the media are aiding and abetting this approach shouldn't surprise anybody. I think no matter who the Republican nominee was this year, the media were going to be – as the Wall Street Journal has so aptly called them – stenographers for the White House and the Clinton campaign. And that's exactly what they're doing."

    Bolton thought Trump "did what he needed to do" at the first presidential debate:

    Most people watching 90 minutes of a debate like that don't score it on this debating point, or that debating point. They look at the entire thing. They want to know about the character of the people. And I think the fact that Trump was there for 90 minutes and held his own, or more than, in a format that Hillary Clinton has been familiar with since she was in law school, accomplished what he needed to accomplish.

    My critique of his performance would be that he missed opportunities. For example, you mentioned the foreign policy section, when they were asked about cyber warfare, and the dangers to the United States of hacking, and that gave Clinton a chance to give a little college-type lecture on Russia – by the way, omitting China, Iran, North Korea, and others – I thought at that point Trump could have talked about her email homebrew server for his entire time, and just drilled that point home.

    But, you know, people at home aren't sitting there grading on that basis. I think the second debate, and the third debate, will be very different, and those – particularly in the media – who now confidently predict the outcome of the election, based on their take of this debate, are smoking something.

    ...Listen to the full audio of Bolton's interview above.

    [Sep 30, 2016] Neoliberal media are just stenographers for the White House and the Clinton campaign

    Notable quotes:
    "... This means the "default position" of the Clinton campaign and her friendly media is, "if there's something wrong in the world, criticize George W. Bush." ..."
    "... "Why not? It worked for Obama. Maybe it will work for her as well," Bolton said. "And I think the fact that the media are aiding and abetting this approach shouldn't surprise anybody. I think no matter who the Republican nominee was this year, the media were going to be – as the Wall Street Journal has so aptly called them – stenographers for the White House and the Clinton campaign. And that's exactly what they're doing." ..."
    "... Most people watching 90 minutes of a debate like that don't score it on this debating point, or that debating point. They look at the entire thing. They want to know about the character of the people. And I think the fact that Trump was there for 90 minutes and held his own, or more than, in a format that Hillary Clinton has been familiar with since she was in law school, accomplished what he needed to accomplish. ..."
    Sep 30, 2016 | www.breitbart.com
    "I think it's entirely understandable that what Clinton will try to do is avoid criticizing Obama, because she desperately needs to recreate the Obama coalition on November the 8th," said Bolton. "She has gone out of her way, including in her 600-page-long tedious memoir about her days at the State Department, failing to distance herself from Obama."

    This means the "default position" of the Clinton campaign and her friendly media is, "if there's something wrong in the world, criticize George W. Bush."

    "Why not? It worked for Obama. Maybe it will work for her as well," Bolton said. "And I think the fact that the media are aiding and abetting this approach shouldn't surprise anybody. I think no matter who the Republican nominee was this year, the media were going to be – as the Wall Street Journal has so aptly called them – stenographers for the White House and the Clinton campaign. And that's exactly what they're doing."

    Bolton thought Trump "did what he needed to do" at the first presidential debate:

    Most people watching 90 minutes of a debate like that don't score it on this debating point, or that debating point. They look at the entire thing. They want to know about the character of the people. And I think the fact that Trump was there for 90 minutes and held his own, or more than, in a format that Hillary Clinton has been familiar with since she was in law school, accomplished what he needed to accomplish.

    My critique of his performance would be that he missed opportunities. For example, you mentioned the foreign policy section, when they were asked about cyber warfare, and the dangers to the United States of hacking, and that gave Clinton a chance to give a little college-type lecture on Russia – by the way, omitting China, Iran, North Korea, and others – I thought at that point Trump could have talked about her email homebrew server for his entire time, and just drilled that point home.

    But, you know, people at home aren't sitting there grading on that basis. I think the second debate, and the third debate, will be very different, and those – particularly in the media – who now confidently predict the outcome of the election, based on their take of this debate, are smoking something.

    ...Listen to the full audio of Bolton's interview above.

    [Sep 30, 2016] Trump vs. the GOP Elite by Rep. John J. Duncan Jr.

    Sep 26, 2016 | The American Conservative

    ... ... ...

    2) Trade. With only 4 percent of the world's population, we buy almost one-fourth of the world's goods. Every country is champing at the bit to get into our markets. We have tremendous leverage on trade that we have not used. We do not want or need trade wars. But we should, in a friendly way, tell other countries-especially the Chinese-"We want to trade with you, but we can't sustain our huge trade deficit. You are going to have to find some things to buy from us, too."

    3) Immigration. With 58 percent of the world's population-almost 4 billion people-having to get by on $4 or less a day, hundreds of millions would come here over the next few years if we simply opened our borders. Our entire infrastructure-our schools, jails, sewers, hospitals, roads-and our economy as a whole could not handle such a massive, rapid influx of people. The American people are the kindest, most generous people in the world, and we have already allowed many millions more than any other country to immigrate here, legally and illegally. But we must do a much better job enforcing our immigration laws.

    4) Wars. I am now the only Republican left in Congress who voted against going to war in Iraq. For the first three of four years, it was the most unpopular vote I ever cast. I even once was disinvited to speak at a Baptist church. Now, it is probably the most popular vote I ever cast. The American people are tired of permanent, forever wars. While everyone wants a friendly relationship with Israel, I do not believe the American people will continue to support wars that primarily benefit Israel but cause thousands of young Americans to be killed or horribly maimed for life.

    5) Jobs. Almost any member of Congress, if asked what is the greatest need in their district, would probably say more good jobs. Radical environmentalists have caused many thousands of U.S. businesses to go to other countries or close for good. We have ended up with the best-educated waiters and waitresses in the world. When I was in Vietnam a few years ago, I was told if you wanted to start a business there, you just went out and did it. The place was booming. It is now apparently easier to start a small business in some former communist countries than in the supposedly free-enterprise U.S.

    ... ... ...

    Rep. John J. Duncan Jr. represents the 2nd district of Tennessee in the U.S. House of Representatives.represents the 2nd district of Tennessee in the U.S. House of Representatives.

    [Sep 30, 2016] By the standards of the Nuremberg trials, then, the aggressive, unjustified invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003 were unquestionably war crimes

    Notable quotes:
    "... By the standards of the Nuremberg trials, then, the aggressive, unjustified invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003 were unquestionably war crimes. A just government would have put Bush, Cheney, Rice, Powell, and so forth on trial. One might note that the Nuremberg trials, the crime was taken seriously enough to earn condemnation to death by hanging. ..."
    Sep 30, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    Anarcissie 09.29.16 at 10:51 pm 158

    Howard Frant 09.29.16 at 4:21 am @ 130:
    '… She is somewhat interventionist militarily. Of course, people aren't content just to say that, they have to say that she is a "war criminal" (sorry, could I have some specifics on this?)….'

    I was giving this a rest, but since you ask, it is my duty to comply with your request.

    First, we need to determine what a war criminal is. I go by the standards of the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials, in whose charter we read (Article 6):

    The following acts, or any of them, are crimes coming within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for which there shall be individual responsibility:
    (a) CRIMES AGAINST PEACE: namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing….

    I think this is a pretty good definition of a war crime, although if you disagree I will be glad to argue in its favor.

    By the standards of the Nuremberg trials, then, the aggressive, unjustified invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003 were unquestionably war crimes. A just government would have put Bush, Cheney, Rice, Powell, and so forth on trial. One might note that the Nuremberg trials, the crime was taken seriously enough to earn condemnation to death by hanging.

    Clinton's connection to this crime was, of course, at least her vote in 2002 to enable it, which made her an accomplice. Her subsequent excuse was 'bad intelligence', but given her position as a US senator, her connections, her powers, her fame, and her undoubted wits, it is almost impossible to believe that she believed Bush's pack of lies. It seems much more likely that her calculus was as follows: 'If the war goes "badly", it'll be on Bush. If it goes "well", we Democrats will have been in on it. Win-win.' However, one must concede that if she were brought to trial, she might be able to plead monumental ignorance and incompetence. Of course there will be no such trial, so everyone confronted by the question must answer it for her- or himself with whatever means may be at hand. To me the evidence seems pretty conclusive.

    Anarcissie 09.30.16 at 2:04 pm

    Layman 09.30.16 at 1:20 pm @ 197 -
    If the war was a criminal act, then voting for the war, by making the voter an accomplice, was also a criminal act. Believable ignorance, incompetence, or other personal defects might mitigate, but would not exonerate.

    I asked about 'going on with this' because at least one participant seemed to feel that the cataloguing of Clinton's flaws had become superfluous. Some people might regard war criminality as a flaw, so perhaps we are offending as we persist.

    Layman 09.30.16 at 2:54 pm

    Anarcissie: "If the war was a criminal act, then voting for the war, by making the voter an accomplice, was also a criminal act."

    Look, I personally believe it was wrong to vote for the authorization, and that it was a political calculation, but I wonder if you've actually read the resolution? It is consistent with the claim that some people make, that they assumed that Bush would act in concert with the UN, because the resolution says he would act in concert with themUN. The resolution was passed in October, the Bush admin went to the UN in November, but failed to get a clear authorization from the UN for the war.

    You brought up Nuremberg. How many people were prosecuted at Nuremberg for the crime of having voted for the Enabling Law of 1933, which granted dictatorial powers and led directly to everything that followed. None, right? Doesn't that undermine your case?

    Anarcissie 09.30.16 at 1:07 pm

    Layman 09.30.16 at 2:38 am @ 169:
    '"Because a proper trial can't be held, people must make up their minds individually."
    Which is another way of saying that it is not a fact, and that you acknowledge it isn't a fact, and that rather undermines your entire response.'

    I think you are mistaken. If you believe in any sort of objective universe, then there are facts which are hidden - in fact, given our lack of omniscience, most of them. Nevertheless we must proceed in the world in some way, so we - some of us, anyway - try to establish an idea of the facts through the best evidence available, rational procedures, intuition, and so on. Some people believe that the question of whether Clinton is a war criminal is important. There is a reasonable argument in favor of the proposition, which Howard Frant wanted to know, or pretended to want to know. I have given it.

    Do you really want to go on with this? It does not make your favored candidate look good, and in any case, most of the people reading and writing here evidently don't really care that much one way or the other.

    [Sep 29, 2016] Ann Coulter How to Avoid Immigration, Terrorism and Health Care for 90 Minutes - Breitbart

    Notable quotes:
    "... Ha ha! We prevented Trump from talking about issues that matter to the American people! ..."
    www.breitbart.com

    Hillary supporters, or "the media," had reason to be happy: She looked healthy! She probably could have kept reciting her snarky little talking points for another hour.

    In fact, it was the best I've ever seen Hillary. She avoided that honking thing she does, smiled a lot - a little too much, actually (maybe ease up on the pep pills next time) - and, as the entire media has gleefully reported, she managed to "bait" Trump.

    ... ... ...

    Hillary - with assists from the moderator - "baited" Trump on how rich he is, the loan from his father, a lawsuit in 1972, the birther claims, who he said what to about the Iraq War from 2001 to 2003, and so on.

    ... ... ...

    For the media, their gal was winning whenever precious minutes of a 90-minute debate were spent rehashing allegations about Trump. Ha ha! We prevented Trump from talking about issues that matter to the American people! That was scored as a "win."

    [Sep 29, 2016] It is unclear who is

    Notable quotes:
    "... "Rogue Mission: Did the Pentagon Bomb Syrian Army to Kill Ceasefire Deal? Counterpounch". IMO the wrong question keeps getting asked, except by the Russians: "Who's in charge – the White House or the Pentagon?" Is the media too afraid to ask this and is Obama afraid and embarrassed to let it be known? Has POTUS lost control of the military? Will it never by discussed or mentioned by MSM? ..."
    "... I think the Overton Window has been successfully shifted by the media since Obama came to power to ensure that any suggestion that he is not calling the shots in foreign policy can be filed under 'conspiracy theories'. Every success is his doing, every failure is due to Republican obstructionism or those dastardly Russians and Chinese. ..."
    "... Having said all that, its pretty obvious that Obama has minimal control and quite likes it that way. I think he sees himself as a sort of bored patriarch of a big family, letting them do their own thing with occasional speeches about good behaviour and disciplining only when they have done something outrageously stupid. ..."
    "... All those governmental fiefdoms established during the reign of Jr continue unhindered, in part because Obama had no interest in changing anything. So now after 16 years of running the store it probably feels like ownership. If they don't owe you anything then you are just in the way. In partial defense it's hard to see how it could be otherwise without bringing big changes from day one. ..."
    "... Obama may be trusting the TPP is postponed during his lame duck session for the same reason. This way he can be viewed as still a loyal "Battle of TPP" foot soldier for "Team Elite", with his future rewards to follow. If the TPP subsequently passes under a President Hillary, the delayed harmful TPP effects could then be attributed to her, not Obama. ..."
    "... "If the situation unravels there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in Eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor) , and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran)." ..."
    "... When in doubt, hide behind the troops. ..."
    Sep 29, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    timbers September 29, 2016 at 7:30 am

    "Rogue Mission: Did the Pentagon Bomb Syrian Army to Kill Ceasefire Deal? Counterpounch". IMO the wrong question keeps getting asked, except by the Russians: "Who's in charge – the White House or the Pentagon?" Is the media too afraid to ask this and is Obama afraid and embarrassed to let it be known? Has POTUS lost control of the military? Will it never by discussed or mentioned by MSM?

    PlutoniumKun September 29, 2016 at 7:57 am

    I think the Overton Window has been successfully shifted by the media since Obama came to power to ensure that any suggestion that he is not calling the shots in foreign policy can be filed under 'conspiracy theories'. Every success is his doing, every failure is due to Republican obstructionism or those dastardly Russians and Chinese.

    Having said all that, its pretty obvious that Obama has minimal control and quite likes it that way. I think he sees himself as a sort of bored patriarch of a big family, letting them do their own thing with occasional speeches about good behaviour and disciplining only when they have done something outrageously stupid.

    temporal September 29, 2016 at 8:15 am

    All those governmental fiefdoms established during the reign of Jr continue unhindered, in part because Obama had no interest in changing anything. So now after 16 years of running the store it probably feels like ownership. If they don't owe you anything then you are just in the way. In partial defense it's hard to see how it could be otherwise without bringing big changes from day one.

    Obama's lack of control extends far beyond having an independent military and military grade spy network. He couldn't even protect his buds living in the house of Saud from mean ole lawsuits. It was clear the veto wouldn't stand but that Obama Foundation isn't going to build itself. Taking one for "Team Elite".

    John Wright September 29, 2016 at 8:59 am

    Obama may be trusting the TPP is postponed during his lame duck session for the same reason. This way he can be viewed as still a loyal "Battle of TPP" foot soldier for "Team Elite", with his future rewards to follow. If the TPP subsequently passes under a President Hillary, the delayed harmful TPP effects could then be attributed to her, not Obama.

    Perhaps he fight for the TPP in the lame duck session just well enough to avoid having it on his record.

    JSM September 29, 2016 at 8:33 am

    Dunno, you decide:

    Here's the text of the DIA document:

    "If the situation unravels there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in Eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor) , and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran)."

    The latter is the city in question. Here's the Daily Beast not disputing the text (though for far different reasons):

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/08/15/the-putin-trump-mind-meld-a-wondrous-enterprise.html

    Here's the document itself. The text is on page 4. I'd say the situation is 'unravel[ing]' to 'Western powers', though not Assad & Russia.

    NotTimothyGeithner September 29, 2016 at 7:53 am

    When in doubt, hide behind the troops.

    Kaepernick should respond if Obama worried about the troops when he put Shinseki in charge of the VA.

    [Sep 29, 2016] If you're a geopolitical rival of the United States, Trump is a delight.

    Sep 29, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    Fred C. Dobbs -> pgl... September 29, 2016 at 06:49 AM Last Night, Donald Trump Showed Why
    He's Dangerous http://bit.ly/2czfGEM
    Nat'l Review - David French - September 27

    ... in foreign policy, the modern American president has become a virtual monarch. He or she can launch military actions without congressional approval (just ask Presidents Clinton and Obama), reach agreements with foreign nations, and establish or rescind diplomatic relations. The Constitution is supposed to check the power of the president to declare war or to enter treaties, but presidents have been shedding those restraints for generations. The president holds the power of war and peace in his or her hands, and the entire world - including our enemies - pays attention to the president's every word and deed.

    If you're a geopolitical rival of the United States, Trump is a delight. He's America's leading Putin apologist, wasting several agonizing turns in the debate defending Russia from the charge of meddling in U.S. elections and bizarrely wondering if a "400-pound" man "sitting on their bed" hacked Democratic National Committee e-mails. He said he hasn't "given lots of thought to NATO" and then went ahead and proved the truth of that statement by fundamentally misunderstanding the alliance. He treats it as a glorified protection racket whereby NATO countries allegedly pay us to defend Europe and they're not paying what they owe. He even doubled down on his claim - an incredibly bizarre claim given Russia's military resurgence - that NATO "could be obsolete." ... Reply Thursday, September 29, 2016 at 06:49 AM pgl -> Fred C. Dobbs... , Thursday, September 29, 2016 at 07:05 AM

    I agree Gary Johnson is not ready to be commander in chief but he is far more ready than Trump. A low bar.
    likbez -> Fred C. Dobbs... , -1
    Why you are reproducing neocon garbage in this blog ?

    "He's America's leading Putin apologist"

    That's pretty idiotic statement, even taking into account the abhorrent level of Russophobia of the US elite for whom Russophobia by-and-large replaced anti-Semitism. .

    Anybody who blabber such things (and that includes Ms. Goldman Sachs) should not be allowed to approach closer then 10 miles to Washington, DC, to say nothing about holding any elected government position.

    [Sep 28, 2016] I cant think of a single thing that would make Clinton appear more attractive, compared to pretty much anyone. But, I can think of at few things that make Trump more attractive to me in comparison to Clinton. One being his lack of interest in war with Russia, and his ability to understand that regime change has been a loser for American interests, and the other being that he gets that our current trade policy has been a loser

    Notable quotes:
    "... I can give you a list of things that I can't stand about Clinton – a long one – but given the likelihood that my state will be solidly in the tank for Clinton, I won't have to vote for her to save the world from President Trump. But where I am coming to is that, if that's what it came down to, I don't think I could participate in anything that aided his election. ..."
    "... Funny, I can think of at few things that make Trump more attractive to me in comparison to Clinton. One being his lack of interest in war with Russia, and his ability to understand that 'regime change' has been a loser for American interests, and the other being that he gets that our current trade policy has been a 'loser'. ..."
    "... That said, both are disastrous choices, it may be for different reasons, but both are despicable. Neither one of them should be allowed to enter the White House in a tour group, much less live there. And I for one do not want to participate in anything that elects Hillary Rodham Clinton or Donald Trump to dog catcher, much less President. I'm going to vote my conscience and let the chips fall where they may. I would be doing it no matter where I live. See, there is a point where you figure out that you are going to lose out no matter what. There are no softer landings available. ..."
    "... One being his lack of interest in war with Russia ..."
    "... In contrast with the (admittedly horrific) Trump, HRC has surrounded herself with anti-Russia, neocon advisors. ..."
    "... I recognize that voting for him would be a knee jerk reaction. However, I do understand why I have that knee jerk reaction. For years now, average Americans, like myself, have seen the media collude with the DC insiders and watched as we've seen our standard of living decline. We've watched our children struggle with unaffordable college. We've watched our parents struggle with unaffordable health care. We've watched our neighbors struggle to afford housing. We've watched our work weeks increase to 60 hours to pay for basics and heard them tell us that we need to work from cradle to grave(and let's be clear for lower middle class and middle class 70 is until grave) with little to no respite(we don't even have a mandatory vacation or sick policy in this country.) With that in mind, why should I want their standard bearer of status quo to win? I DON'T. I want Hillary Clinton to lose, not because I like Trump, but because I hate what these people have done and will continue to do to this country if allowed to remain in power. That's his case. ..."
    "... I can't think of a single thing that would make Clinton appear more attractive, compared to pretty much anyone. ..."
    "... I find it ironic that the HRC supporters are now desperately pleading with third-party supporters to vote Hillary BECAUSE TRUMP. Let's not forget it was Hillary herself who tweeted to all "Vote your conscience". ..."
    Sep 28, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    curlydan September 28, 2016 at 2:25 pm

    Yes, the media and the DC insiders are all begging us to drag HRC across the finish line in an effort to defeat TRUMP. Normally, a candidate might inspire and give voters reasons to go the polls, but we've been asked to do all the work and heavy lifting this year to prevent TRUMP.

    Reply
    cwaltz September 28, 2016 at 2:51 pm

    The funny thing is because of WHO is asking, it makes Trump appear more attractive and almost makes me want to vote for the guy out of spite.

    After all, what exactly have the media or the DC insiders done for the American people? Ignored issues and blatantly supported policies that have harmed Americans? It's rather audacious of them to even bother asking most of us when most of us don't see the answer to the question of what has been done for us as a net positive. Most from the left and the right might even go so far as to say media and DC insiders have lined their pockets on the backs of average Americans' pain. Beg us to do something for them? They deserve to be kicked in the teeth in the same manner they've been doing it to average Americans for years.

    Reply
    FluffytheObeseCat September 28, 2016 at 3:27 pm

    Yes. As indicated by the telling finish of the quote above:

    " We need to think about information policies - including media literacy programs - that can offer urgently needed counterweights to the echo chambers and conspiracy factories of the internet."

    Gutless, hackneyed drivel topped off with an urgent plea to the policy-making class to up their propaganda game.

    Reply
    Anne September 28, 2016 at 3:57 pm

    I can't think of a single thing that would make Trump appear more attractive, outside of seeing the back of him slowly disappearing from view – forever. Yes, I get that it's totally galling to be inundated with begging pleas from the likes of Hillary Clinton and some of her cronies – I routinely mail back to her every last shred of paper she sends me, in the postage-paid envelope, so I know that teeth-clenching, migraine-inducing rush of ire that she can induce.

    I can give you a list of things that I can't stand about Clinton – a long one – but given the likelihood that my state will be solidly in the tank for Clinton, I won't have to vote for her to save the world from President Trump. But where I am coming to is that, if that's what it came down to, I don't think I could participate in anything that aided his election.

    I came away from that debate wanting to stick needles in my eyes. Trump is a thin-skinned, prevaricating, floridly egotistical, vindictive, bigoted, misogynistic bully whose flaws will only expand and possibly explode if he is elected.

    There is nothing even remotely attractive about Trump – I can't even contemplate just how bad Clinton would need to be to make him look like the better choice.

    Reply
    Pat September 28, 2016 at 4:23 pm

    Funny, I can think of at few things that make Trump more attractive to me in comparison to Clinton. One being his lack of interest in war with Russia, and his ability to understand that 'regime change' has been a loser for American interests, and the other being that he gets that our current trade policy has been a 'loser'.

    That said, both are disastrous choices, it may be for different reasons, but both are despicable. Neither one of them should be allowed to enter the White House in a tour group, much less live there. And I for one do not want to participate in anything that elects Hillary Rodham Clinton or Donald Trump to dog catcher, much less President. I'm going to vote my conscience and let the chips fall where they may. I would be doing it no matter where I live. See, there is a point where you figure out that you are going to lose out no matter what. There are no softer landings available.

    Reply
    Pavel September 28, 2016 at 5:55 pm

    Thank you, Pat. From my POV this is key:

    One being his lack of interest in war with Russia

    In contrast with the (admittedly horrific) Trump, HRC has surrounded herself with anti-Russia, neocon advisors.

    Needless to say, Putin isn't perfect, but how does further upgrading the conflict and risking WW3 and global destruction help matters? The NATO exercises on the Russian border and Syrian escalations are truly scary.

    Reply
    cwaltz September 28, 2016 at 5:08 pm

    Trump isn't attractive to me either. However, defeating the DC insiders and media that have brought us to this point in history where my choices are bad and worse is attractive to me

    I recognize that voting for him would be a knee jerk reaction. However, I do understand why I have that knee jerk reaction. For years now, average Americans, like myself, have seen the media collude with the DC insiders and watched as we've seen our standard of living decline. We've watched our children struggle with unaffordable college. We've watched our parents struggle with unaffordable health care. We've watched our neighbors struggle to afford housing. We've watched our work weeks increase to 60 hours to pay for basics and heard them tell us that we need to work from cradle to grave(and let's be clear for lower middle class and middle class 70 is until grave) with little to no respite(we don't even have a mandatory vacation or sick policy in this country.) With that in mind, why should I want their standard bearer of status quo to win? I DON'T. I want Hillary Clinton to lose, not because I like Trump, but because I hate what these people have done and will continue to do to this country if allowed to remain in power. That's his case.

    I live in a swing state and I'll be voting for Stein. Screw the pundits and their *begging*. They deserve this loss.

    Reply
    Pavel September 28, 2016 at 5:58 pm

    Excellent comment, thank you. I only wish the MSM pundits would grasp what you describe in just a paragraph or two.

    Reply
    nippersmom September 28, 2016 at 5:10 pm

    I can't think of a single thing that would make Clinton appear more attractive, compared to pretty much anyone. I'll be voting Stein, the only remaining candidate who aligns with my views and reflects my interests. If she hadn't made it onto the ballot here in Georgia, I would not be voting in the presidential election for the first time since I became eligible to vote in 1980. Neither of the two ruling-party sociopaths is at all palatable.

    Reply
    Pavel September 28, 2016 at 6:02 pm

    I find it ironic that the HRC supporters are now desperately pleading with third-party supporters to vote Hillary BECAUSE TRUMP. Let's not forget it was Hillary herself who tweeted to all "Vote your conscience".

    Jill Stein is anti-war, anti-greed, pro-environment. Rather the opposite of HRC.

    [Sep 28, 2016] She's been most aggressive about shepherding into her corner are the neoconservative foreign policy hawks whose coups, death squads, invasions, and so on were allegedly supposed to embody the worst and most immoderate excesses of the Bush and Reagan administrations.

    Notable quotes:
    "... neoliberalism's constant drive toward depoliticization of issues that might interfere with short-term corporate profits ..."
    Sep 28, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    Will G-R 09.28.16 at 9:53 pm 112

    Calling the people whose endorsements Clinton has spent her time since the DNC pursuing "moderate Republicans" seems suspect. After all, apart from Wall Street financier types whose rigid party identification tends to dissolve in the bipartisan solvent of the neoliberal financial establishment [I shouldn't say "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie" or liberals will throw a tantrum], the Republican public figures she's been most aggressive about shepherding into her corner are the neoconservative foreign policy hawks whose coups, death squads, invasions, and so on were allegedly supposed to embody the worst and most immoderate excesses of the Bush and Reagan administrations.

    It seems the idea is to impress so-called moderate voters with a show of establishment unanimity across all prior "extremes" as a show of Clinton's seriousness and Trump's unseriousness, but then we have to reckon with the way "moderate voters" is most often a euphemism for "low-information voters with a vague sense of not wanting to be seen as rocking the boat who otherwise don't give much of a damn about electoral politics at all", which has little to do with what "moderate" means when describing actual public figures.

    If we took any real effort to directly hash out "moderate" inclinations of the depoliticized public at large the same way we do those of the institutions through which this public is supposed to funnel its political engagement, we'd probably come up with something very different.

    Also, Rich @ 106, you're more or less echoing what Nathan Robinson writes about "objectively pro-Trump" anti-leftist Hillary supporters here .

    Will G-R 09.28.16 at 9:57 pm

    It also seems the commentariat here is still stuck on utopian fantasies in which the existing political class (including the GOP Congressional majorities Clinton's campaign strategy is all but ensuring will continue for the foreseeable future ) is both willing and able to take the necessary steps to wean global capitalism off of fossil fuels.

    ZM's wartime mobilisation, bob's politics of continual catastrophe, or even bruce's Two-To-Three-Year Plan will not happen, in part because of neoliberalism's constant drive toward depoliticization of issues that might interfere with short-term corporate profits , and also in part because First-World politics is well practiced at not giving a shit about the suffering of the Third World

    Which of course is where the most immediately catastrophic suffering from climate change will be borne at least at first. Lee's "chink in the rightwing cognitive armor" won't happen either, not in response to any empirical facts about the actual climate: this cognitive armor exists because there are vested interests promoting its existence, interests that aren't themselves stupid enough to completely deny the basic parameters of climate science ( e.g. ).

    If anything the least starry-eyed one here is Layman for implying that neoliberalism would tackle climate change by radically reconfiguring market incentives to make prevention and/or mitigation a profitable business, which is close to how people like Charles Koch see the issue too - but in this case I have to agree with everybody else here that this kind of gentle nudging of markets wouldn't be enough, without slamming on the brakes much harder than our current thoroughly marketized mechanisms are capable of doing.

    What's needed is impossible under our present institutions, and what's possible is inadequate.

    Lee A. Arnold 09.28.16 at 10:53 pm

    Will G-R #114: "this cognitive armor exists because there are vested interests promoting its existence"

    I don't think so. I think it emerged when the Great Chain of Being was overturned in the public imagination in the middle of the 18th Century (see Lovejoy) and so, at the same moment, the market economy began to be accepted as a way to escape the status positions of traditional society.

    The change in emotional expectation about the source of social status immediately formed a left/right politics, generally reflecting the interests of the have-nots and the haves. Promotion by vested interests is not a cause of this, rather it is a predicable symptom of it.

    And it won't be overturned by anything less than a reversal in the reign of the status-psychology of money which has characterized the last 250 years.

    Which may be closer than we think, because a part of "status" has always been since ancient times a signal of being able to avoid need - but it is unavoidably becoming ever clearer that our basest owners are in the richest things superfluous.

    Perhaps we will soon be ready to read the social tragedy of our next romantic Shelleyan horror myth: the Trumpenstein monster!

    [Sep 28, 2016] Hillary Clinton's immoral, illegal, stupid enthusiasm for wars to effectuate regime change by Bruce Fein

    Notable quotes:
    "... As secretary of state in 2011, Mrs. Clinton vocally supported the war against Libya to overthrow Muammar Gaddafi on the heels of his abandonment of weapons of mass destruction. She boasted with the dripping arrogance of Julius Caesar after Gaddafi's death: "We came, we saw, he died." She insisted that regime change in Libya was for humanitarian purposes. She agreed with President Barack Obama that to be faithful to "who we are," we must overthrow governments that are oppressing their citizens by force and violence. ..."
    "... Like the French Bourbons who forgot nothing and learned nothing, Mrs. Clinton eagerness to initiate wars for regime change was undiminished by the Iraq and Libya debacles. She urged war against Syria to oust President Bashar al-Assad. She confidently insinuated that we could transform Syria into a flourishing democracy sans James Madisons, George Washingtons or Thomas Jeffersons because of our unique nation-building genius. ..."
    "... Wars for regime change are immoral. We have not been tasked by a Supreme Being to appraise foreign nations like a schoolmarm and to invade those to whom we have superciliously assigned a failing grade. ..."
    "... Wars for regime change also violate international law. Article 2 (4) of the United Nations Charter generally prohibits "the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state…." Article 51 creates a narrow exception for wars in self-defense "if an armed attack occurs…." Regime change wars do not fit that narrow exception. ..."
    "... Mrs. Clinton underscores in her memoir that she would rather be "caught trying" something kinetic than to try masterly inactivity like Fabius Maximus. She would rather be criticized for fighting too many wars for regime change than too few. She is the war hawks' dream candidate. ..."
    Sep 19, 2016 | Washington Times

    Democratic nominee is war hawks' dream candidate

    Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton champions wars to effectuate regime change. Their immorality, illegality and stupidity do not diminish Mrs. Clinton's enthusiasm for treating independent nations as serfs of the United States.

    As first aady, she warmly supported the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, which made it the policy of the Unites States to overthrow Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. As United States Senator, she invoked the 1998 policy in voting for the 2002 Authorization to Use Military Force Against Iraq. Saddam's successors proved a cure worse than the disease. Shiite dominated governments allied with Iran, oppressed Sunnis, Kurds, and Turkmen, and created a power vacuum that gave birth to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). Our national security has been weakened.

    As secretary of state in 2011, Mrs. Clinton vocally supported the war against Libya to overthrow Muammar Gaddafi on the heels of his abandonment of weapons of mass destruction. She boasted with the dripping arrogance of Julius Caesar after Gaddafi's death: "We came, we saw, he died." She insisted that regime change in Libya was for humanitarian purposes. She agreed with President Barack Obama that to be faithful to "who we are," we must overthrow governments that are oppressing their citizens by force and violence.

    Libya predictably descended into dystopia after Gaddafi's murder. (It had no democratic cultural, historical, or philosophical credentials.) Tribal militias proliferated. Competing governments emerged. ISIS entered into the power vacuum in Sirte, which has required the return of United States military forces in Libya. Terrorists murdered our Ambassador and three other Americans in Benghazi. Gaddafi's conventional weapons were looted and spread throughout the Middle East. Hundreds of thousands of refugees have fled and are continuing to flee Libyan shores for Europe. North Korea and Iran hardened their nuclear ambitions to avoid Gaddafi's grisly fate. Our national security has been weakened.

    Like the French Bourbons who forgot nothing and learned nothing, Mrs. Clinton eagerness to initiate wars for regime change was undiminished by the Iraq and Libya debacles. She urged war against Syria to oust President Bashar al-Assad. She confidently insinuated that we could transform Syria into a flourishing democracy sans James Madisons, George Washingtons or Thomas Jeffersons because of our unique nation-building genius.

    She forgot South Sudan. We midwifed its independence in 2011. Despite our hopes and prayers, the new nation descended into a gruesome ongoing civil war including child soldiers between the Dinka led by President Salva Kiir and the Nuer led by former Vice President Riek Machar. More than 50,000 have died, more than 2.2 million have been displaced, and a harrowing number have been murdered, tortured or raped. South Sudan epitomizes our nation-building incompetence.

    Wars for regime change are immoral. We have not been tasked by a Supreme Being to appraise foreign nations like a schoolmarm and to invade those to whom we have superciliously assigned a failing grade. As Jesus sermonized in Matthew 7: 1-3:

    "Judge not, that ye be not judged.

    "For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

    "And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"

    Thus, Thomas Jefferson wrote to President James Monroe in 1823: "The presumption of dictating to an independent nation the form of its government is so arrogant, so atrocious, that indignation as well as moral sentiment enlists all our partialities and prayers in favor of one and our equal execrations against the other."

    Wars for regime change also violate international law. Article 2 (4) of the United Nations Charter generally prohibits "the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state…." Article 51 creates a narrow exception for wars in self-defense "if an armed attack occurs…." Regime change wars do not fit that narrow exception.

    They are also stupid, like playing Russian roulette. We lack the wisdom necessary to insure that successor regimes will strengthen rather than weaken our national security taking into account, among other things, the staggering military and financial costs of propping up corrupt, incompetent, and unpopular governments.

    Mrs. Clinton underscores in her memoir that she would rather be "caught trying" something kinetic than to try masterly inactivity like Fabius Maximus. She would rather be criticized for fighting too many wars for regime change than too few. She is the war hawks' dream candidate.

    [Sep 28, 2016] Hillary Clinton's Platform Lacks a Firm Footing by Russ Wellen

    Sep 28, 2016 | fpif.org
    July 27, 2016 | FPIF

    Domestic-policy successes such as paid family leave count for little if the U.S. is at war with Russia.

    Hillary Clinton has some impressive goals for the United States. And it is conceivable that, to whatever extent, she can even achieve them. These include (courtesy of NPR ):

    Make public college debt-free. Fund universal pre-K. Create a comprehensive background check system and close loopholes. Give the government a role in setting insurance rates. Waive deportation and give undocumented residents a path to legal status. Enact an infrastructure plan that also serves as a stimulus to the economy. Raise capital gains taxes [We will overlook her coziness with Wall Street for the moment.]

    But what does domestic-policy success avail us if the United States is fighting a major war? It is common knowledge that when it comes to foreign policy, Hillary Clinton gives many of us on the left the heebie-jeebies. A blurb on the issues page of her official campaign website suggests traditional Democratic overcompensation on defense, but to the nth degree: "Military and defense[:] We should maintain the best-trained, best-equipped, and strongest military the world has ever known."

    The extent to which Russian President Vladimir Putin considers Ms. Clinton a nemesis (and Donald Trump a potential ally) can be seen in a new article by Simon Shuster at Time . But, obviously, no American election should be decided by which candidate the leader of another superpower prefers. The real issue, without going into detail, is her policy toward Russia, summarized by Jeffrey Sachs at Huffington Post .

    … she championed a remarkably confrontational approach with Russia based on NATO expansion to Ukraine and Georgia and a new nuclear arms race that will cost American taxpayers more than $355 billion over a decade.

    There we have the two weakest links of Hillary Clinton foreign policy bundled into one. She is likely to increase tensions with Russia, thus putting us at risk of war with nuclear weapons, the modernization of which she champions.

    To put it another way, an aggressive stance toward Russia and more nuclear weapons would cancel out domestic initiatives and achievements. After all, what good is paid parental leave if the United States is waging a major war and not only is there no money left over from defense for such programs, but, the number of families left standing to benefit from these programs is, shudder, drastically diminished?

    Bottom line: Without a visionary policy that works toward alleviating tensions with, not confronting or attacking, other countries, domestic policy successes count for little.

    [Sep 28, 2016] I Was RFK's Speechwriter. Now I'm Voting for Trump. Here's Why by Adam Walinsky

    Sep 21, 2016 | POLITICO Magazine
    Here it is. John and Robert Kennedy devoted their greatest commitments and energies to the prevention of war and the preservation of peace. To them that was not an abstract formula but the necessary foundation of human life. But today's Democrats have become the Party of War: a home for arms merchants, mercenaries, academic war planners, lobbyists for every foreign intervention, promoters of color revolutions, failed generals, exploiters of the natural resources of corrupt governments. We have American military bases in 80 countries, and there are now American military personnel on the ground in about 130 countries, a remarkable achievement since there are only 192 recognized countries. Generals and admirals announce our national policies. Theater commanders are our principal ambassadors. Our first answer to trouble or opposition of any kind seems always to be a military movement or action.

    Nor has the Democratic Party candidate for president this year, Hillary Clinton, sought peace. Instead she has pushed America into successive invasions, successive efforts at "regime change." She has sought to prevent Americans from seeking friendship or cooperation with President Vladimir Putin of Russia by characterizing him as "another Hitler." She proclaims herself ready to invade Syria immediately after taking the oath of office. Her shadow War Cabinet brims with the architects of war and disaster for the past decades, the neocons who led us to our present pass, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Yemen, in Ukraine, unrepentant of all past errors, ready to resume it all with fresh trillions and fresh blood. And the Democrats she leads seem intent on worsening relations with Russia, for example by sending American warships into the Black Sea, or by introducing nuclear weapons ever closer to Russia itself.

    In fact, in all the years of the so-called War on Terror, only one potential American president has had the intelligence, the vision, the sheer sanity to see that America cannot fight the entire world at once; who sees that America's natural and necessary allies in this fight must include the advanced and civilized nations that are most exposed and experienced in their own terror wars, and have the requisite military power and willingness to use it. Only one American candidate has pointed out how senseless it is to seek confrontation with Russia and China, at the same time that we are trying to suppress the very jihadist movements that they also are attacking.

    That candidate is Donald Trump. Throughout this campaign, he has said that as president, he would quickly sit down with President Putin and seek relaxation of tensions between our nations, and possible collaboration in the fight against terrorists. On this ground alone, he marks himself as greatly superior to all his competitors, earlier in the primaries and now in the general election.

    [Sep 28, 2016] The root cause of Syria war is Baathists aligned with non Sunnis running a sector of land lusted after by the Saudis and GCC

    Notable quotes:
    "... Of course the root cause is Baathists aligned with non Sunnis running a sector of land lusted after by the Saudis and GCC. ..."
    "... That the US supported the Sunnis (since the Iranians ousted CIA puppets) against the Baathists did not start the civil war, it merely keeps it growing in lust for death and destruction. ..."
    "... While that Sep 2012 skirmish in Benghazi included CIA ground troops otherwise there securing the sea lanes supporting Syrian Al Qaeda with Qaddafi's arms, less stingers. ..."
    "... "Settle for the crooked, Wall St, war monger because real change is too hard and the other guy is insane, supported by racists and don't think Russia should praise American exceptionalism." ..."
    Sep 04, 2016 | angrybearblog.com

    ilsm, August 31, 2016 8:21 am

    Bev,

    "As for Syria, here too I'm not sure why you think this country caused its civil war, but it did not."

    Of course the root cause is Baathists aligned with non Sunnis running a sector of land lusted after by the Saudis and GCC.

    That the US supported the Sunnis (since the Iranians ousted CIA puppets) against the Baathists did not start the civil war, it merely keeps it growing in lust for death and destruction.

    While that Sep 2012 skirmish in Benghazi included CIA ground troops otherwise there securing the sea lanes supporting Syrian Al Qaeda with Qaddafi's arms, less stingers.

    ilsm August 31, 2016 9:44 pm

    "Settle for the crooked, Wall St, war monger because real change is too hard and the other guy is insane, supported by racists and don't think Russia should praise American exceptionalism."

    Obama might as well have voted with Hillary for AUMF forever, he is running it.

    [Sep 28, 2016] Why I Switched My Endorsement from Clinton to...

    Notable quotes:
    "... To my untrained eyes and ears, Hillary Clinton doesn't look sufficiently healthy – mentally or otherwise – to be leading the country. If you disagree, take a look at the now-famous " Why aren't I 50 points ahead " video clip. Likewise, Bill Clinton seems to be in bad shape too, and Hillary wouldn't be much use to the country if she is taking care of a dying husband on the side. ..."
    "... So when Clinton supporters ask me how I could support a "fascist," the answer is that he isn't one. Clinton's team, with the help of Godzilla, have effectively persuaded the public to see Trump as scary. The persuasion works because Trump's "pacing" system is not obvious to the public. They see his "first offers" as evidence of evil. They are not. They are technique. ..."
    "... The battle with ISIS is also a persuasion problem. The entire purpose of military action against ISIS is to persuade them to stop, not to kill every single one of them. We need military-grade persuasion to get at the root of the problem. Trump understands persuasion, so he is likely to put more emphasis in that area. ..."
    "... Most of the job of president is persuasion. Presidents don't need to understand policy minutia. They need to listen to experts and then help sell the best expert solutions to the public. Trump sells better than anyone you have ever seen, even if you haven't personally bought into him yet. You can't deny his persuasion talents that have gotten him this far. ..."
    Sep 25, 2016 | blog.dilbert.com

    As most of you know, I had been endorsing Hillary Clinton for president, for my personal safety, because I live in California. It isn't safe to be a Trump supporter where I live. And it's bad for business too. But recently I switched my endorsement to Trump, and I owe you an explanation. So here it goes.

    1. Things I Don't Know: There are many things I don't know. For example, I don't know the best way to defeat ISIS. Neither do you. I don't know the best way to negotiate trade policies. Neither do you. I don't know the best tax policy to lift all boats. Neither do you. My opinion on abortion is that men should follow the lead of women on that topic because doing so produces the most credible laws. So on most political topics, I don't know enough to make a decision. Neither do you, but you probably think you do.

    Given the uncertainty about each candidate – at least in my own mind – I have been saying I am not smart enough to know who would be the best president. That neutrality changed when Clinton proposed raising estate taxes. I understand that issue and I view it as robbery by government.

    I'll say more about that, plus some other issues I do understand, below.

    ... ... ...

    4. Clinton's Health: To my untrained eyes and ears, Hillary Clinton doesn't look sufficiently healthy – mentally or otherwise – to be leading the country. If you disagree, take a look at the now-famous " Why aren't I 50 points ahead " video clip. Likewise, Bill Clinton seems to be in bad shape too, and Hillary wouldn't be much use to the country if she is taking care of a dying husband on the side.

    5. Pacing and Leading: Trump always takes the extreme position on matters of safety and security for the country, even if those positions are unconstitutional, impractical, evil, or something that the military would refuse to do. Normal people see this as a dangerous situation. Trained persuaders like me see this as something called pacing and leading . Trump "paces" the public – meaning he matches them in their emotional state, and then some. He does that with his extreme responses on immigration, fighting ISIS, stop-and-frisk, etc. Once Trump has established himself as the biggest bad-ass on the topic, he is free to "lead," which we see him do by softening his deportation stand, limiting his stop-and-frisk comment to Chicago, reversing his first answer on penalties for abortion, and so on. If you are not trained in persuasion, Trump look scary. If you understand pacing and leading, you might see him as the safest candidate who has ever gotten this close to the presidency. That's how I see him.

    So when Clinton supporters ask me how I could support a "fascist," the answer is that he isn't one. Clinton's team, with the help of Godzilla, have effectively persuaded the public to see Trump as scary. The persuasion works because Trump's "pacing" system is not obvious to the public. They see his "first offers" as evidence of evil. They are not. They are technique.

    And being chummy with Putin is more likely to keep us safe, whether you find that distasteful or not. Clinton wants to insult Putin into doing what we want. That approach seems dangerous as hell to me.

    6. Persuasion: Economies are driven by psychology. If you expect things to go well tomorrow, you invest today, which causes things to go well tomorrow, as long as others are doing the same. The best kind of president for managing the psychology of citizens – and therefore the economy – is a trained persuader. You can call that persuader a con man, a snake oil salesman, a carnival barker, or full of shit. It's all persuasion. And Trump simply does it better than I have ever seen anyone do it.

    The battle with ISIS is also a persuasion problem. The entire purpose of military action against ISIS is to persuade them to stop, not to kill every single one of them. We need military-grade persuasion to get at the root of the problem. Trump understands persuasion, so he is likely to put more emphasis in that area.

    Most of the job of president is persuasion. Presidents don't need to understand policy minutia. They need to listen to experts and then help sell the best expert solutions to the public. Trump sells better than anyone you have ever seen, even if you haven't personally bought into him yet. You can't deny his persuasion talents that have gotten him this far.

    In summary, I don't understand the policy details and implications of most of either Trump's or Clinton's proposed ideas. Neither do you. But I do understand persuasion. I also understand when the government is planning to confiscate the majority of my assets. And I can also distinguish between a deeply unhealthy person and a healthy person, even though I have no medical training. (So can you.)

    I will be live streaming my viewing of the debate Monday night, with my co-host and neighbor, Kristina Basham . Tune your television to the debate and use your phone or iPad with the Periscope app, and look for me at @ScottAdamsSays.

    [Sep 28, 2016] Flawed as he may be, Trump is telling more of the truth than politicians of our day Most important, he offers a path away from constant war, a path of businesslike accommodation with all reasonable people and nations

    Notable quotes:
    "... Flawed as he may be, Trump is telling more of the truth than politicians of our day. Most important, he offers a path away from constant war, a path of businesslike accommodation with all reasonable people and nations, concentrating our forces and efforts against the true enemies of civilization. Thus, to dwell on his faults and errors is to evade the great questions of war and peace, life and death for our people and our country. You and I will have to compensate for his deficits of civility, in return for peace, we may hope as Lincoln hoped, among ourselves and with all nations. ..."
    "... No doubt, clinton supporters will snicker and deride efforts to treat Trump's positions seriously as this essay does. ..."
    Sep 25, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Katniss Everdeen

    RE: I Was RFK's Speechwriter. Now I'm Voting for Trump. Here's Why. Politico (RR)

    Flawed as he may be, Trump is telling more of the truth than politicians of our day. Most important, he offers a path away from constant war, a path of businesslike accommodation with all reasonable people and nations, concentrating our forces and efforts against the true enemies of civilization. Thus, to dwell on his faults and errors is to evade the great questions of war and peace, life and death for our people and our country. You and I will have to compensate for his deficits of civility, in return for peace, we may hope as Lincoln hoped, among ourselves and with all nations.

    No doubt, clinton supporters will snicker and deride efforts to treat Trump's positions seriously as this essay does.

    But for anyone who is the slightest bit aware of how the maniac imperialists have hijacked the public means of persuasion for a generation to the detriment of countless foreign countries as well as our own, the obsession with turning Trump into a cartoon character with joke "policies" should sound an alarm.

    No "politician" was ever going to buck this system. Bernie Sanders, fiery and committed though he was, proved that. It was always going to take an over-sized personality with an over-sized ego to withstand the shit storm that a demand for profound change would create, and some "incivility" seems a small price to pay to break the vice grip of the status quo.

    I, for one, have no intention of squandering this opportunity to throw sand in the gears. There has never been a third candidate allowed to plead their case in a presidential "debate" since Ross Perot threw a scare into TPTB in 1992. Should clinton manage to pull this one out, the lesson of Trump will be learned, and we may not be "given" the opportunity to choose an "outsider" again for a very long time. It's worth taking a minute to separate the message from the messenger.

    subgenius September 25, 2016 at 11:33 am

    No doubt, clinton supporters will snicker and deride efforts to treat Trump's positions seriously as this essay does.

    [Sep 28, 2016] Managing the Economic Consequences of Nationalism - Mohamed El-Erian

    Sep 28, 2016 | www.project-syndicate.org

    [Sep 27, 2016] No, Really, Clinton Will Be Very Hawkish as President

    Notable quotes:
    "... The first is that Clinton has consistently sided with the conventional wisdom in Washington at the time about what the U.S. should do in response to any conflict or crisis. She has reliably backed more aggressive measures abroad in part because that is what pundits and analysts in Washington are usually demanding on any given issue. She isn't one to resist demands to "do something," because she typically sees no reason to resist them, and often enough she is making the same demands. ..."
    "... Clinton will have few opportunities to advance a domestic agenda in the face of determined resistance in Congress. Even if Clinton has a Senate majority, she won't have one in the House, so it is doubtful that she will be able to get any "domestic reforms" passed. ..."
    "... It is quite possible that governing as an liberal hawk will "derail her presidency," as Walt says, but we have at least one example that tell us that isn't necessarily true. Obama has presided over eight continuous years of war, including at least two interventions that he started and continued illegally without Congressional approval, and yet he is poised to leave office with a reasonably good approval rating ..."
    "... That isn't going to discourage Clinton from her usual interventionism. The Obama years have reminded us of the unfortunate truth that the public will tolerate quite a few foreign wars as long as the direct costs to the U.S. in American lives are low. ..."
    "... Remember, Clinton doesn't think that the Libyan war was a failure or a mistake, but rather considers it "smart power at its best." ..."
    Sep 27, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com

    The American Conservative

    Stephen Walt isn't persuaded that Hillary Clinton will be as hawkish a president as her record suggests:

    If Clinton goes overboard with more globalization, expanded U.S. security guarantees, open-ended nation-building in distant lands, or even expensive acts of international philanthropy, all those skeptical people beguiled by Trump or Sanders will be even angrier. By contrast, if she can win over some of the people during her first term, her popularity will soar and re-election would be easy. The lesson? Clinton should focus on domestic reforms and not on international crusades. And as former State Department officials Jeremy Shapiro and Richard Sokolsky suggest, that's been her basic inclination all along.

    Clinton would be unwise to pursue an even more activist and militarized foreign policy agenda as president, but Walt and I agree about this because we generally view that sort of foreign policy as dangerous and contrary to American interests anyway. It does seem foolish for any president to want to do the things that Clinton thinks the U.S. should do, but that is not a reason to think it won't happen. I have made my objections to Shapiro and Sokolsky's piece before , so I won't repeat all of them here, but there are at least four major reasons why we should assume that Clinton's foreign policy will be even more hawkish and interventionist than Obama's .

    The first is that Clinton has consistently sided with the conventional wisdom in Washington at the time about what the U.S. should do in response to any conflict or crisis. She has reliably backed more aggressive measures abroad in part because that is what pundits and analysts in Washington are usually demanding on any given issue. She isn't one to resist demands to "do something," because she typically sees no reason to resist them, and often enough she is making the same demands.

    The second is that Clinton won't be able to "focus on domestic reforms" alone because foreign events and her public enthusiasm for U.S. "leadership" won't allow her to do that. There will probably be a new civil war or international crisis at some point over the next four years, and she will feel compelled to be seen doing something about it, and given her record that will almost certainly mean deeper U.S. involvement than most Americans would prefer.

    The third is that Clinton will have few opportunities to advance a domestic agenda in the face of determined resistance in Congress. Even if Clinton has a Senate majority, she won't have one in the House, so it is doubtful that she will be able to get any "domestic reforms" passed. The one area where Congress is totally submissive to the executive is foreign policy, and that is what Clinton will spend a disproportionate amount of her time on because she will mostly be stymied at home. Clinton won't be hemmed in by budgetary concerns. The other party has been insisting for years that we must throw more money at the Pentagon, and there is no reason to think that Clinton worries about paying for this through borrowing. Finally, Clinton will be inheriting at least two ongoing wars, one of which she will be under significant pressure to escalate, and she will also inherit the Obama administration's horrible enabling of the Saudi-led war on Yemen. In that sense, it won't be entirely up to Clinton how much time these matters take up in her first term, because she is already committed to continuing these missions for the foreseeable future.

    It is quite possible that governing as an liberal hawk will "derail her presidency," as Walt says, but we have at least one example that tell us that isn't necessarily true. Obama has presided over eight continuous years of war, including at least two interventions that he started and continued illegally without Congressional approval, and yet he is poised to leave office with a reasonably good approval rating and (if this scenario is to be believed) about to be succeeded as president by a member of his own party.

    That isn't going to discourage Clinton from her usual interventionism. The Obama years have reminded us of the unfortunate truth that the public will tolerate quite a few foreign wars as long as the direct costs to the U.S. in American lives are low. So we should expect Clinton to rely heavily on air wars and missile strikes as Obama and her husband did. There presumably won't be a repeat of something on the scale of Iraq, but we should assume that there will be other Libya-like interventions and some of them will be in places that we're not even thinking about at the moment.

    Remember, Clinton doesn't think that the Libyan war was a failure or a mistake, but rather considers it "smart power at its best." I'm fairly sure about all this because Clinton has never given us any reason to think that she doesn't want to govern this way, and almost everything in her foreign policy record says that this is how she will govern.

    [Sep 27, 2016] Bruce Springsteen calls Donald Trump a 'moron'

    Sep 27, 2016 | www.theguardian.com

    Springsteen, who has dramatised the plight of working-class Americans in his music, said he understands how Trump could seem "compelling" to people who are economically insecure.

    "The absurdity is beyond cartoon-like. But he's gotten close enough [to the White House] so it can make you nervous," he told the talk show Skavlan.

    "I don't think he's going to win, but even him running is a great embarrassment if you're an American," he said.

    Trump knows how to tell voters "some of the things they want to hear," he added, including to people "uncomfortable with the 'browning' of America."

    "We have certain problems in the United States – tremendous inequality of wealth distribution. That makes for ripe ground for demagoguery," Springsteen said.

    "He has a very simple answer to all these very, very complex problems."

    Springsteen recorded the interview with the talk show ahead of next week's release of his memoir, Born to Run, which describes his childhood in New Jersey and rise to fame.

    The singer, famous for his onstage stamina, has drawn a diverse field of devoted fans for decades, including New Jersey governor Chris Christie, one of Trump's most public backers.

    Springsteen insisted for years that he would let his music speak for him but has been more openly political since the election in 2004, when he campaigned for John Kerry in his unsuccessful bid to win the White House from George W Bush.


    370530e , 2016-09-26 08:04:36
    I like Springsteen but I don't look to pop stars for political insights.
    Mark Newman , 2016-09-26 07:23:30
    One hit wonder boy who climbed to fame on the back of his jingoistic melody 'Born in the USA.' What he knows about politics could be written on a stamp!
    Brian Wozniak , 2016-09-25 05:01:56
    Finally. Poverty in the US could have been wiped out completely by the amount of money Hilary spent on her campaign. 300 million dollars.

    Her priorities are already overspending, not conservative values.

    jaget80 Brian Wozniak , 2016-09-25 06:03:49
    Poverty in US could have been wiped out any year for 40 years if 1% of the military budget would have gone to creating jobs.
    ID4909056 Brian Wozniak , 2016-09-25 08:12:14
    By giving everyone in USA a $1 candy bar? = $300m.
    Brian Wozniak , 2016-09-25 05:00:10
    I don't know too about Hilary being the ebb and flow of this countrys future. She outspent Trump 3 to 1. She spent a wooping 360 million dollars on this campaign alone. The Libertarian party also spent it up up to 7 million for their parties choice of President.

    Some are saying that Hilary is not so popular with the vulture class. Those who feel that her 300,000 a plate dinners to raise huge wads of cash could be spent on the poor.

    PREP58 , 2016-09-25 02:47:14
    1. Springsteen is eminently qualified to comment on being in a moronic state. (Huh?)
    2. The issue doesn't revolve around the candidates' intelligence , but rather the ability to make sound, timely and balanced judgments on many things with which you may or may not have requisite familiarity. THOSE DECISIONS MUST BE MADE WITH COURAGE and sometimes almost instantly.
    3. Then, there is there are the issues of Trust, Honesty, Openness and the SECURITY OF THE UNITED STATES.
    But, then, I'm a Yank. (I hold 2 MBA's, I'm a Senior, a former executive with a major international corporation, a father and grandfather, and a Veteran.), so what do I know?
    Surrealistic PREP58 , 2016-09-25 04:42:32

    ... so what do I know?

    Very little about Trump by the sound of it. Trust? Honesty? Openness? You have a nerve using those words in the same sentence as Trump.
    hadeze242 , 2016-09-24 23:05:21
    against Sanders (who gave up far too soon) neither Hillary nor Trump would have a chance. But the DNC, in its corrupt establishment wisdom, cf. Mme Wassermann-Schultz... undermined his fair chances of raising real questions of why America is slipping economically, socially, morally.
    aucontraire2 , 2016-09-24 18:26:52
    Who of the two is going to be less destructive for the US and the world ?
    Well , I am not ready to say the lady is.
    A professional politician and a non professional one. By the look of what the present has to offer, I would be inclined to go for the non professional.
    ConBrio SidekickSimon , 2016-09-24 18:59:19
    SidekickSimon ConBrio 6m ago

    Goldman Sachs made Hillary's tie? Does she even wear a tie?
    ===============
    $675,000.00 says Goldman Sachs has her tied around their chubby greedy finger.

    Washingtonian , 2016-09-24 17:37:49
    Springsteen and Trump are alike in that they are both cowards when it came time for them to do their duty in Vietnam. Springsteen told his draft board he was homosexual (funny he hasn't been acting homosexual), whereas Trump got deferments for heel spurs. Dick Cheny is like Springsteen and Trump as well in this regard.
    ironlion Washingtonian , 2016-09-24 17:45:42
    A coward for not wanting to go and kill people eh? You're a goof buddy, stick your war mongering beliefs- moron
    Crot0001 Washingtonian , 2016-09-24 19:15:20
    I thought you Americans had finally decided that the Vietnam campaign was a bad error of political judgement. Nothing cowardly about saying "no" to a draft that included, inter alia, carpet bombing of innocents and applications of agent orange where the fall out is still happening.

    [Sep 26, 2016] War as a Business Opportunity

    Highly recommended!
    Notable quotes:
    "... As General Smedley Butler, twice awarded the Medal of Honor, said: War is a racket . Wars will persist as long as people see them as a "core product," as a business opportunity. In capitalism, the profit motive is often amoral; greed is good, even when it feeds war. Meanwhile, the Pentagon is willing to play along. It always sees "vulnerabilities" and always wants more money. ..."
    "... Wars are always profitable for a few, but they are ruining democracy in America. Sure, it's a business opportunity: one that ends in national (and moral) bankruptcy. ..."
    Sep 24, 2016 | www.antiwar.com
    A good friend passed along an article at Forbes from a month ago with the pregnant title, "U.S. Army Fears Major War Likely Within Five Years - But Lacks The Money To Prepare." Basically, the article argues that war is possible - even likely - within five years with Russia or North Korea or Iran, or maybe all three, but that America's army is short of money to prepare for these wars. This despite the fact that America spends roughly $700 billion each and every year on defense and overseas wars.

    Now, the author's agenda is quite clear, as he states at the end of his article: "Several of the Army's equipment suppliers are contributors to my think tank and/or consulting clients." He's writing an alarmist article about the probability of future wars at the same time as he's profiting from the sales of weaponry to the army.

    As General Smedley Butler, twice awarded the Medal of Honor, said: War is a racket . Wars will persist as long as people see them as a "core product," as a business opportunity. In capitalism, the profit motive is often amoral; greed is good, even when it feeds war. Meanwhile, the Pentagon is willing to play along. It always sees "vulnerabilities" and always wants more money.

    But back to the Forbes article with its concerns about war(s) in five years with Russia or North Korea or Iran (or all three). For what vital national interest should America fight against Russia? North Korea? Iran? A few quick reminders:

    #1: Don't get involved in a land war in Asia or with Russia (Charles XII, Napoleon, and Hitler all learned that lesson the hard way).

    #2: North Korea? It's a puppet regime that can't feed its own people. It might prefer war to distract the people from their parlous existence.

    #3: Iran? A regional power, already contained, with a young population that's sympathetic to America, at least to our culture of relative openness and tolerance. If the US Army thinks tackling Iran would be relatively easy, just consider all those recent "easy" wars and military interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria

    Of course, the business aspect of this is selling the idea the US Army isn't prepared and therefore needs yet another new generation of expensive high-tech weaponry. It's like convincing high-end consumers their three-year-old Audi or Lexus is obsolete so they must buy the latest model else lose face.

    We see this all the time in the US military. It's a version of planned or artificial obsolescence . Consider the Air Force. It could easily defeat its enemies with updated versions of A-10s, F-15s, and F-16s, but instead the Pentagon plans to spend as much as $1.4 trillion on the shiny new and under-performing F-35 . The Army has an enormous surplus of tanks and other armored fighting vehicles, but the call goes forth for a "new generation." No other navy comes close to the US Navy, yet the call goes out for a new generation of ships.

    The Pentagon mantra is always for more and better, which often turns out to be for less and much more expensive, e.g. the F-35 fighter.

    Wars are always profitable for a few, but they are ruining democracy in America. Sure, it's a business opportunity: one that ends in national (and moral) bankruptcy.

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

    [Sep 26, 2016] Red-Light Warning on Now, About Hillary Clinton

    Notable quotes:
    "... Russia even hacked into the Democratic National Committee, maybe even some state election systems. So, we've got to step up our game. Make sure we are well defended and able to take the fight to those who go after us. As President, I will make it clear, that the United States will treat cyber attacks just like any other attack . We will be ready with serious political, economic and military responses. ..."
    "... "We need to respond to evolving threats from states like Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea from networks, criminal and terrorist networks like ISIS. We need a military that is ready and agile so it can meet the full range of threats, and operate on short notice across every domain, not just land, sea, air and space, but also cyberspace". ..."
    "... "serious political, economic and military responses" ..."
    "... notwithstanding ..."
    "... The mainstream The Hill newspaper bannered, "Clinton: Treat cyberattacks 'like any other attack'" , and reported that, "Since many high-profile cyberattacks could be interpreted as traditional intelligence-gathering - something the US itself also engages in - the White House is often in a tricky political position when it comes to its response". That's not critical of her position, but at least it makes note of the crucial fact that if the US were to treat a hacker's attack as being an excuse to invade Russia, it would treat the US itself as being already an invader of Russia - which the US prior to a President Hillary Clinton never actually has been, notwithstanding the routine nature of international cyber espionage (which Clinton has now stated she wants to become a cause of war), which has been, and will continue to be, essential in the present era. ..."
    "... The International Business Times, an online-only site, headlined September 1 st , "Clinton: US should use 'military response' to fight cyberattacks from Russia and China" , and reported that a Pentagon official had testified to Congress on July 13 th , that current US policy on this matter is: "When determining whether a cyber incident constitutes an armed attack, the US government considers a broad range of factors, including the nature and extent of injury or death to persons and the destruction of or damage to property. Cyber incidents are reviewed on a case-by-case basis, and the national security leadership and the president will make a determination if it's an armed attack". ..."
    "... Hillary's statement on this matter was simply ignored by The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, NBC, ABC, CBS, PBS, NPR, Fox, CNN, The Nation, The Atlantic, Harper's, National Review, Common Dreams, Alternet, Truthout, and all the rest of the US standard and 'alternative news' reporting organizations. Perhaps when Americans go to the polls to elect a President on November 8th, almost none of them will have learned about her policy on this incredibly important matter. ..."
    "... Hillary's statement was in line with the current Administration's direction of policy, but is farther along in that direction than the Obama Administration's policy yet is. ..."
    "... On Tuesday, June 14 th , NATO announced that if a NATO member country becomes the victim of a cyber attack by persons in a non-NATO country such as Russia or China, then NATO's Article V "collective defense" provision requires each NATO member country to join that NATO member country if it decides to strike back against the attacking country. ..."
    "... NATO is now alleging that because Russian hackers had copied the emails on Hillary Clinton's home computer , this action of someone in Russia taking advantage of her having privatized her US State Department communications to her unsecured home computer and of such a Russian's then snooping into the US State Department business that was stored on it, might constitute a Russian attack against the United States of America, and would, if the US President declares it to be a Russian invasion of the US, trigger NATO's mutual-defense clause and so require all NATO nations to join with the US government in going to war against Russia, if the US government so decides. ..."
    "... And finally, we did talk about cyber-security generally. I'm not going to comment on specific investigations that are still alive and active, but I will tell you that we've had problems with cyber-intrusions from Russia in the past, from other countries in the past, and, look, we're moving into a new era here, where a number of countries have significant capacities, and frankly we've got more capacity than anybody both offensively and defensively, but our goal is not to suddenly in the cyber-arena duplicate a cycle of escalation that we saw when it comes to other arms-races in the past, but rather to start instituting (9:00) some norms so that everybody's acting responsibly. ..."
    "... "neoconservative" ..."
    "... Hillary is now the neoconservatives' candidate . (And she's also the close friend of many of them, and hired and promoted many of them at her State Department .) If she becomes the next President, then we might end up having the most neoconservative (i.e., military-industrial-complex-run) government ever. This would be terrific for America's weapons-makers, but it very possibly would be horrific for everybody else. That's the worst lobby of all, to run the country . (And, as that link there shows, Clinton has received over five times as much money from it as has her Republican opponent.) ..."
    "... George Herbert Walker Bush knows lots that the 'news' media don't report (even when it has already been leaked in one way or another), and the Clinton plan to destroy Russia is part of that. Will the Russian government accept it? Or will it do whatever is required in order to defeat it? This is already a serious nuclear confrontation . ..."
    Sep 26, 2016 | www.strategic-culture.org
    Hillary Clinton, on September 19th, was endorsed for President, by the most historically important, intelligent, and dangerous, Republican of modern times.

    She was endorsed then by the person who in 1990 cunningly engineered the end of the Soviet Union and of its Warsaw Pact military alliance in such a way as to continue the West's war against Russia so as to conquer Russia gradually for the owners of US international corporations. The person, who kept his plan secret even from his closest advisors, until the night of 24 February 1990, when he told them that what he had previously instructed them to tell Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev as the West's future military intentions about Russia if the USSR were to end, was actually a lie.

    He also told them that they were henceforth to proceed forward on the basis that the residual stump of the former Soviet Union, Russia, will instead be treated as if it still is an enemy-nation, and that the fundamental aim of the Western alliance will then remain: to conquer Russia (notwithstanding the end of the USSR, of its communism, and of its military alliances) - that the Cold War is to end only on the Russian side, not at all, really, on the Western side. (All of that is documented from the historical record, at that linked-to article.)

    This person was the former Director of the US CIA, born US aristocrat, and committed champion of US conquest of the entire world, the President of the United States at the time (1990): George Herbert Walker Bush .

    He informed the daughter of Robert F. Kennedy, Kathleen Hartington Kennedy Townsend - as she posted it, apparently ecstatically, on September 19th, to her facebook page after personally having just met with Mr. Bush - "The President told me he's voting for Hillary!!" She then confirmed this to Politico the same day, which headlined promptly, "George H.W. Bush to Vote for Hillary" .

    G.H.W. Bush is an insider's insider: he would not do this if he felt that Hillary Clinton wouldn't carry forward his plan ( which has been adhered-to by each of the US Presidents after him ), and if he felt that Donald Trump - Bush's own successor now as the Republican US candidate for President - would not carry it forward. (This was his most important and history-shaping decision during his entire Presidency, and therefore it's understandable now that he would be willing even to cross Party-lines on his Presidential ballot in order to have it followed-through to its ultimate conclusion.)

    What indications exist publicly, that she will carry it forward? Hillary Clinton has already publicly stated (though tactfully, so that the US press could ignore it) her intention to push things up to and beyond the nuclear brink, with regard to Russia:

    German Economic News was the first news medium to headline this, "Hillary Clinton Threatens Russia with War" (in German, on September 4th: the original German of the headline was " Hillary Clinton Droht Russland mit Krieg" ), but the source of this shocking headline was actually Clinton's bellicose speech that had been given to the American Legion, on August 31 st , in which she had said:

    Russia even hacked into the Democratic National Committee, maybe even some state election systems. So, we've got to step up our game. Make sure we are well defended and able to take the fight to those who go after us. As President, I will make it clear, that the United States will treat cyber attacks just like any other attack . We will be ready with serious political, economic and military responses.

    Russia denies that it did any such thing, but the US even taps the phone conversations of Angela Merkel and other US allies ; and, of course, the US and Russia routinely hack into each others' email and other communications; so, even if Russia did what Clinton says, then to call it "like any other attack" against the United States and to threaten to answer it with "military responses", would itself be historically unprecedented - which is what Hillary Clinton is promising to do.

    Historically unprecedented, like nuclear war itself would be. And she was saying this in the context of her alleging that Russia had "attacked" the DNC (Democratic National Committee), and she as President might "attack" back, perhaps even with "military responses". This was not an off-the-cuff remark from her - it was her prepared text in a speech. She said it though, for example, on 26 October 2013, Britain's Telegraph had headlined, "US 'operates 80 listening posts worldwide, 19 in Europe, and snooped on Merkel mobile 2002-2013' : US intelligence targeted Angela Merkel's phone from 2002 to 2013, according to new eavesdropping leaks".

    But now, this tapping against Merkel would, according to Hillary Clinton's logic (unless she intends it to apply only by the United States against Russia), constitute reason for Germany (and 34 other nations ) to go to war against the United States.

    Clinton also said there: "We need to respond to evolving threats from states like Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea from networks, criminal and terrorist networks like ISIS. We need a military that is ready and agile so it can meet the full range of threats, and operate on short notice across every domain, not just land, sea, air and space, but also cyberspace".

    She also said that the sequester agreement between the Congress and the President must end, because US military spending should not be limited: "I am all for cutting the fat out of the budget and making sure we stretch our dollars But we cannot impose arbitrary limits on something as important as our military. That makes no sense at all. The sequester makes our country less secure. Let's end it and get a budget deal that supports America's military". She wasn't opposing "arbitrary limits" on non-military spending; she implied that that's not "as important as our military".

    She was clear: this is a wartime US, not a peacetime nation; we're already at war, in her view; and therefore continued unlimited cost-overruns to Lockheed Martin etc. need to be accepted, not limited (by "arbitrary limits" or otherwise). She favors "cutting the fat out of the budget" for healthcare, education, subsidies to the poor, environmental protection, etc., but not for war, not for this war. A more bellicose speech, especially against "threats from states like Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea from networks, criminal and terrorist networks like ISIS", all equating "states" such as Russia and China, with "terrorist networks like ISIS", could hardly be imagined - as if Russia and China are anything like jihadist organizations, and are hostile toward America, as such jihadist groups are.

    However, her threat to respond to an alleged "cyber attack" from Russia by "serious political, economic and military responses" , is unprecedented, even from her. It was big news when she said it, though virtually ignored by America's newsmedia.

    The only US newsmedia to have picked up on Clinton's shocking threat were Republican-Party-oriented ones, because the Democratic-Party and nonpartisan 'news' media in the US don't criticize a Democratic nominee's neoconservatism - they hide it, or else find excuses for it (even after the Republican neoconservative President George W. Bush's catastrophic and lie-based neoconservative invasion of Iraq - then headed by the Moscow-friendly Saddam Hussein - in 2003, which many Democratic office-holders, such as Hillary Clinton backed).

    So, everything in today's USA 'news' media is favorable toward neoconservatism - it's now the "Establishment" foreign policy, established notwithstanding the catastrophic Iraq-invasion, from which America's 'news' media have evidently learned nothing whatsoever (because they're essentially unchanged and committed to the same aristocracy as has long controlled them).

    However, now that the Republican Party's Presidential nominee, Donald Trump, is openly critical of Hillary Clinton's and George W. Bush's neoconservatism, any Republican-oriented 'news' media that support Trump's candidacy allows its 'journalists' to criticize Clinton's neoconservatism; and, so, there were a few such critiques of this shocking statement from Clinton.

    The Republican Party's "Daily Caller" headlined about this more directly than any other US 'news' medium, "Clinton Advocates Response To DNC Hack That Would Likely Bring On WWIII" , and reported, on September 1st, that "Clinton's cavalier attitude toward going to war over cyber attacks seems to contradict her assertion that she is the responsible voice on foreign policy in the current election".

    The Republican Washington Times newspaper headlined "Hillary Clinton: US will treat cyberattacks 'just like any other attack'" , and reported that she would consider using the "military to respond to cyberattacks," but that her Republican opponent had indicated he would instead use only cyber against cyber: "'I am a fan of the future, and cyber is the future,' he said when asked by Time magazine during the Republican National Convention about using cyberweapons". However, Trump was not asked there whether he would escalate from a cyber attack to a physical one. Trump has many times said that having good relations with Russia would be a priority if he becomes President. That would obviously be impossible if he (like Hillary) were to be seeking a pretext for war against Russia.

    The mainstream The Hill newspaper bannered, "Clinton: Treat cyberattacks 'like any other attack'" , and reported that, "Since many high-profile cyberattacks could be interpreted as traditional intelligence-gathering - something the US itself also engages in - the White House is often in a tricky political position when it comes to its response". That's not critical of her position, but at least it makes note of the crucial fact that if the US were to treat a hacker's attack as being an excuse to invade Russia, it would treat the US itself as being already an invader of Russia - which the US prior to a President Hillary Clinton never actually has been, notwithstanding the routine nature of international cyber espionage (which Clinton has now stated she wants to become a cause of war), which has been, and will continue to be, essential in the present era.

    The International Business Times, an online-only site, headlined September 1 st , "Clinton: US should use 'military response' to fight cyberattacks from Russia and China" , and reported that a Pentagon official had testified to Congress on July 13 th , that current US policy on this matter is: "When determining whether a cyber incident constitutes an armed attack, the US government considers a broad range of factors, including the nature and extent of injury or death to persons and the destruction of or damage to property. Cyber incidents are reviewed on a case-by-case basis, and the national security leadership and the president will make a determination if it's an armed attack".

    Hillary's statement on this matter was simply ignored by The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, NBC, ABC, CBS, PBS, NPR, Fox, CNN, The Nation, The Atlantic, Harper's, National Review, Common Dreams, Alternet, Truthout, and all the rest of the US standard and 'alternative news' reporting organizations. Perhaps when Americans go to the polls to elect a President on November 8th, almost none of them will have learned about her policy on this incredibly important matter.

    Hillary's statement was in line with the current Administration's direction of policy, but is farther along in that direction than the Obama Administration's policy yet is.

    As the German Economic News article had noted, but only in passing: "Just a few months ago, US President Barack Obama had laid the legal basis for this procedure and signed a decree that equates hacker attacks with military attacks". However, this slightly overstated the degree to which Obama has advanced "this procedure". On 1 April 2016 - and not as any April Fool's joke - techdirt had headlined "President Obama Signs Executive Order Saying That Now He's Going To Be Really Mad If He Catches Someone Cyberattacking Us" and linked to the document, which techdirt noted was "allowing the White House to issue sanctions on those 'engaging in significant malicious cyber-enabled activities'".

    The writer, Mike Masnick, continued, quite accurately: "To make this work, the President officially declared foreign hacking to be a 'national emergency' (no, really) and basically said that if the government decides that some foreign person is doing a bit too much hacking, the US government can basically do all sorts of bad stuff to them, like seize anything they have in the US and block them from coming to the US". What Hillary Clinton wants to add to this policy is physical, military, invasion, for practices such as (if Russia becomes declared by the US President to have been behind the hacking of the DNC) what is actually routine activity of the CIA, NSA, and, of course, of Russia's (and other countries') intelligence operations.

    It wasn't directly Obama's own action that led most powerfully up to Hillary Clinton's policy on this, but instead NATO's recent action - and NATO has always been an extension of the US President, it's his military club, and it authorizes him to go to war against any nation that it decides to have been invaded by some non-member country (especially Russia or China - the Saudis, Qataris, and other funders behind international jihadist attacks are institutionally prohibited from being considered for invasion by NATO, because the US keeps those regimes in power, and those regimes are generally the biggest purchasers of US weapons). I reported on this at The Saker's site, on 15 June 2016, headlining "NATO Says It Might Now Have Grounds to Attack Russia" . That report opened:

    On Tuesday, June 14 th , NATO announced that if a NATO member country becomes the victim of a cyber attack by persons in a non-NATO country such as Russia or China, then NATO's Article V "collective defense" provision requires each NATO member country to join that NATO member country if it decides to strike back against the attacking country.

    NATO is now alleging that because Russian hackers had copied the emails on Hillary Clinton's home computer , this action of someone in Russia taking advantage of her having privatized her US State Department communications to her unsecured home computer and of such a Russian's then snooping into the US State Department business that was stored on it, might constitute a Russian attack against the United States of America, and would, if the US President declares it to be a Russian invasion of the US, trigger NATO's mutual-defense clause and so require all NATO nations to join with the US government in going to war against Russia, if the US government so decides.

    So, Obama is using NATO to set the groundwork for Hillary Clinton's policy as (he hopes) America's next President. Meanwhile, Obama's public rhetoric on the matter is far more modest, and less scary. It's sane-sounding falsehoods. At the end of the G-20 Summit in Beijing, he held a press conference September 5th (VIDEO at this link) , in which he was asked specifically (3:15) "Q: On the cyber front, do you think Russia is trying to influence the US election?" and he went into a lengthy statement, insulting Putin and saying (until 6:40 on the video) why Obama is superior to Putin on the Syrian war, and then (until 8:07 in the video) blaming Putin for, what is actually, the refusal of the Ukrainian parliament or Rada to approve the federalization of Ukraine that's stated in the Minsk agreement as being a prerequisite to direct talks being held between the Donbass residents and the Obama-installed regime in Kiev that's been trying to exterminate the residents of Donbass . Then (8:07 in the video), Obama got around to the reporter's question:

    And finally, we did talk about cyber-security generally. I'm not going to comment on specific investigations that are still alive and active, but I will tell you that we've had problems with cyber-intrusions from Russia in the past, from other countries in the past, and, look, we're moving into a new era here, where a number of countries have significant capacities, and frankly we've got more capacity than anybody both offensively and defensively, but our goal is not to suddenly in the cyber-arena duplicate a cycle of escalation that we saw when it comes to other arms-races in the past, but rather to start instituting (9:00) some norms so that everybody's acting responsibly.

    He is a far more effective deceiver than is his intended successor, but Hillary's goals and his, have always been the same: achieving what the US aristocracy want. Whereas she operates with a sledgehammer, he operates with a scalpel . And he hopes to hand this operation off to her on 20 January 2017.

    This is what Hillary's statement that "the United States will treat cyber attacks just like any other attack" is reflecting: it's reflecting that the US will, if she becomes President, be actively seeking an excuse to invade Russia. The Obama-mask will then be off.

    If this turns out to be the case, then it will be raw control of the US Government by the military-industrial complex, which includes the arms-makers plus the universities . It's the owners - the aristocrats - plus their servants; and at least 90% of the military-industrial complex support Hillary Clinton's candidacy. Like her, they are all demanding that the sequester be ended and that any future efforts to reduce the US Government's debts must come from cutting expenditures for healthcare, education, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, environmental protection, and expenditures on the poor; no cuts (but only increases) for the military. This is based on the conservative theory, that the last thing to cut in government is the military.

    The Republicans used to champion that view (thus the "conservative" in "neoconservative" ). But after Obama came into office, the Republican Party became divided about that, while the Democratic Party (under Obama) increasingly came to support neoconservatism . Hillary is now the neoconservatives' candidate . (And she's also the close friend of many of them, and hired and promoted many of them at her State Department .) If she becomes the next President, then we might end up having the most neoconservative (i.e., military-industrial-complex-run) government ever. This would be terrific for America's weapons-makers, but it very possibly would be horrific for everybody else. That's the worst lobby of all, to run the country . (And, as that link there shows, Clinton has received over five times as much money from it as has her Republican opponent.)

    George Herbert Walker Bush knows lots that the 'news' media don't report (even when it has already been leaked in one way or another), and the Clinton plan to destroy Russia is part of that. Will the Russian government accept it? Or will it do whatever is required in order to defeat it? This is already a serious nuclear confrontation .

    [Sep 26, 2016] Barack Obama's 'Asian pivot' failed. China is in the ascendancy

    Notable quotes:
    "... Conventionally the US is being outplayed but it is possible that it is playing a different game in which it is complicit in the transition from nation state to corporate oligarchy. Isn't that the Neoliberal end game? ..."
    "... The biggest mistake was to enact a policy shunning Russia, when Russia should be a key, partner of Europe and the US. ..."
    "... And the USA invaded Vietnam, Panama, Nicaragua with the contras, Iraq, Afghanistan, are currently bombing the crap out of another dozen nations, has militarily occupied another 100 nations with their bases and you are worried about Russia with Georgia and The Ukraine? What in Hades is wrong with this picture? ..."
    "... "Barack Obama's 'Asian pivot' failed. China is in the ascendancy" says the heading. So Obama's "Asian pivot" was meant to thwart China's development. ..."
    "... And the big problem with Trump's approach is that good ol' American corporations are the ones who are profiting wildly from business in China. They wanted access to the Chinese labor force, e.g. Walmart and every other manufacturer who now peddles goods made in China in US stores. They are the entities that cost western workers millions of jobs, creating massive trade deficits. ..."
    "... They are wealthy beyond measure and anyone who wants to alter this system whereby American corporations manufacture in China and ship products around the world, inc. to the US, would have to fight them. And if anyone believes that Trump would succeed in this battle, they are delusional. ..."
    "... "These two juggernauts are on a collision course" is far too alarmist. Relying mainly on right-wing US thinktanks for analysis doesn't help. ..."
    "... Now we are waking up to the realisation that we are the big loosers of globalisation. ..."
    "... "The west has been long living under the illusion that the so called globalised world would be beneficial for all. " No, actually they thought it would be beneficial for the Western countries mostly. And it was, but whatever benefits developing countries received allowed them to rise to the level of a potential future threat to the unquestionable Western dominance. And now the US is looking for a way to destroy them preemptively. The US is paranoid. ..."
    "... I think this "ascendancy" and nationalistic fervor is actually a sign of internal turmoil. ..."
    "... The labor supply is assured because there are still multi millions in poverty and signing up as cheap labor is exactly what brings them out of poverty. I assume you've never been to China and therefore have never heard of Chunyun, the largest human migration in the world. This is partly the ruralites returning home from the cities with their years spoils. This year individual journeys totalled almost 3bn. ..."
    "... By the way, China is reducing it's land army by a third over the next few years and has just concluded very constructive summits with all it's neighbours during last weeks ASEAN bunfight. ..."
    "... a collapse of the chinese economy would collapse the American economy as well ..."
    "... Fascinating & well structured article - except for one glaring omission - the LNP selling of the Port of Darwin to a Chinese Government business. Yeh, sure it's a '99 year lease' but for all effective purposes it's a sellout of a strategic port to the Chinese Government. ..."
    "... America is in terminal decline, beset by economic and fiscal crises, sapped by imperial overstretch, a victim of a cosmopolitan ennui and fecklessness, divided politically and culturally, belligerent and militant to the extreme. An empire in decline is at its most dangerous. America today is a far greater threat to world peace than China. Simply witness America's accommodation of the Israeli occupation of Palestine, the odious Saudi theocracy, and how its insane policy in Libya, Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan has led to hundreds of thousands of lives lost and millions displaced ..."
    "... The US has no significantly greater percentage of debt than any of the other Western nations except Germany. If you think the Americas bankrupt then you'd have to think a whole lot of other nations including the UK is as well. ..."
    "... "China has divided and conquered certain countries in SE Asia." These certain SE Asian countries would say that it's because they are not willing to be Uncle Sam's "yes man". ..."
    "... The US is still so very powerful but the problem is they feel powerless from time to time with their hammer in hand against flying mosquitos. Why they always wanted to solve problems using force is beyond stupidity. ..."
    "... It also destabilises the entire region. Something the Americans are masters of. ..."
    "... Were the US to form a cooperative instead of confrontational relationship with China the world would be a better place. The same could be said for the US relationship with Russia. ..."
    "... Of course the military-industrial-banking-congressional complex that governs Washington's behavior would not be happy. WIthout confrontation the arms industries can't sell their weapons of war, banks' profits take a hit and congress critters don't get their kickbacks, err, "donations". ..."
    "... Given the way the US government has screwed the Philippines over steadily since 1898, it's not surprising that Pres. Dutarte has decided to be friendly with his neighbor. Obama of the Kill List lecturing other countries about human rights abuses! What hypocrisy. ..."
    "... Is what China doing in the south china sea different from what the USA does in the gulf of Mexico or in Panama... not to mention that Chi a is litterally surounded by US bases that sit squarely across all its sea trading routes: Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Fillipines ..."
    "... China has been accumulating debt at unprecedented rates to try to maintain faltering growth. In 2007 Chinese debt stood at $7 trillion. By 2014 it had quadrupled to $28 trillion. That's $60 billion of extra debt every week. It's still rising rapidly as the government desperately tries to keep momentum. ..."
    "... TPP is practically written by the lobbyists from the multi-international corporations that exploit every possible tax laws, labor laws, environmental and public health regulations, legal representations and consequences. It is imperialism 2.0 in the 21st century, exclusively serving the interests of top point one percent while greatly depressing the wages of middle class; it is overwhelmingly opposed by the public opinion, law makers of all sides and current president candidates. There is zero chance Obama could make it through legislation before his exit; Clinton will not even consider bringing it back if she wins the election because she already flip-flopped once on the issue during her campaign; and it would seriously damage her chance of re-election if she does. As for Trump, I leave it to anyone's imaginations. ..."
    "... Globalisation is another word for one world government and all that brings, one currency, one police force, taxation, dissolution of borders, an end to sovereignty and all of our hard won freedoms. Freedom is a thing of the past, with MSM owned by the globalist elites, enforcing a moratorium on truth, and a population that has no idea what is going on behind the scenes. ..."
    "... Another brilliant thought from Rand; when in doubt, shoot from the hip .... ..."
    "... They tell their employers what they want to hear. ..."
    "... Do Americans not realize that Chinese and Russians read this too and plan accordingly? This is madness. I am fairly certain preemptive strikes are against international law. Why nobody has the guts to call the US out on this kind of illegal warmongering? ..."
    "... The dilemma is clear: amid rising nationalism in both countries, China is not willing to have its ambitions curbed or contained and the US is not ready to accept the world number two spot. These two juggernauts are on a collision course. ..."
    "... What does the criticism in USA get you? It is just blah blah blah. ONly criticism that matters is from the corporations and wealthy individuals like Koch bros and Sheldon Edelson and their ilk. Rest can watch football. ..."
    "... Simon Tisdall and many Europeans as well as the US GOP party still thinks that US is an empire similar to what the British had in the 18th century. This assumption is completely wrong especially in the 21th century where Western Europe, Japan, Korea if they want can be spend their money and also become global military power. ..."
    "... Being a large country surrounded by many other occasionally threatening powers, the governments' priority is and always has been defending its territorial integrity. China is happy enough to leave the command and conquer stuff, sorry "democratization" to the US. ..."
    "... Why did Obama say that his greatest regret was Libya.? Because Obama's policy is/was to manage the decline of US power. To manage the end of US hegemony. I doubt that Obama believes that any pivot to any where can restore or maintain US dominance on planet earth. ..."
    "... China wishes to expand trade and improve economic conditions for its people and for those with whom it trades. That is not aggression except when it interferes with US global economic hegemony. ..."
    "... The most belligerent nation in the world the nation with its army in over 100 countries, the nation bombing and conducting perpetual war throughout the middle east, the country invading countries for "regime change" and creating only misery and death -- it is not China. ..."
    "... The US and its Neoliberal capitalist system must expand to grow - plus they clearly want total global domination - the US and its Imperial agents have encircled both China and Russia with trillions of dollars of the most destructive weapons in the world including nuclear weapons - do you thin they have done that for "security" if so you simply ignore the aggression and hubris of an Imperial US. ..."
    Sep 26, 2016 | www.theguardian.com
    Vermithrax , 2016-09-26 18:48:09
    Before the pivot could even get underway the Saudis threw their rattle out of the pram and drew US focus back to the Middle East and proxy war two steps removed with Russia. Empires don't get to focus, they react to each event and seek to gain from the outcome so the whole pivot idea was flawed.

    Obama's foreign policy has been clumsy and amoral. It remains to be seen whether it will become more so in an effort to double down. Under Clinton it definitely will, under Trump who knows but random isn't a recommendation.

    Conventionally the US is being outplayed but it is possible that it is playing a different game in which it is complicit in the transition from nation state to corporate oligarchy. Isn't that the Neoliberal end game?

    Boyaca, 2016-09-26 18:41:19
    So the Rand Think Tank would sooner have war now than later. Who wouldda guessed that.

    The Chinese want to improve trade and business with the rest of the world. The US answer? destroy China militarily. so who best to lead the world. I think the article answers that question unintentionally. The rest of the world has had it up to the ears with American military invasions, regeime changes, occupations and bombing of the world. They are ready for China´s approach to international relations. it is about time the adults took over the leadership of the world. Europe and the USA and their offspring have clearly failed.

    AmyInNH, 2016-09-26 17:07:12
    China has been handed everything it needs to fly solo: money, factories, IP, etc. Fast forwarding into the western civic model limits (traffic, pollution, etc.), its best bet is to offload US "interests" and steer clear.

    No clear sign India's learned/recovered from British occupation, as they let tech create more future Kanpurs.

    Shein Ariely , 2016-09-26 17:06:51
    Obama failed worldwide. Next USA president either Democrat or Republican will have a difficult job fixing his colossal mistakes in ME- Euroep-Asia
    yermelai, 2016-09-26 10:12:58
    The biggest mistake was to enact a policy shunning Russia, when Russia should be a key, partner of Europe and the US.

    Was it really worth expanding NATO to Russia's borders instead of offering neutrality to former Soviet States and thus retain Russia's confidence in global matters that far out weigh the interests of the neo-cons?

    Hermanovic -> yermelai , 2016-09-26 10:50:07
    neutrality? Russia invaded non-NATO members Georgie, Ukraine, and Moldavia, and created puppet-states on their soil.

    The Jremlin-rules are simple: the former Sovjet states should be ruled by a pro-Russian dictator (Bella-Russia, Kazachstan, etc. etc...). Democracies face boycots, diplomatic and military support of rebels, and in the end simply a military invasion.

    The only reason why the baltic states are now thriving democracies, is that they are NATO members.

    Boyaca -> Hermanovic, 2016-09-26 18:57:23
    And the USA invaded Vietnam, Panama, Nicaragua with the contras, Iraq, Afghanistan, are currently bombing the crap out of another dozen nations, has militarily occupied another 100 nations with their bases and you are worried about Russia with Georgia and The Ukraine? What in Hades is wrong with this picture?
    macel388, 2016-09-26 10:08:03
    "Barack Obama's 'Asian pivot' failed. China is in the ascendancy" says the heading. So Obama's "Asian pivot" was meant to thwart China's development.
    MicheNorman, 2016-09-26 09:36:41
    When Obama took office his first major speech was in Cairo - where he said

    "I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world," US President Barack Obama said to the sounds of loud applause which rocked not only the hall, but the world. "One based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles-principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings."

    He displayed a dangerous mix of innocence, foolishness, disregard for the truth and misunderstanding of the nature of Islamic regimes - does the West have common values with Lebanon which practices apartheid for Palestinians, Saudi, where women cannot drive a car, Syria, where over 17,000 have died in Assad's torture chambers, we can go on and on.

    And on China - Trump has it right - China has been manipulating its currency exchange rate for years, costing western workers millions of jobs, creating massive trade deficits and something needs to be done about it.

    ReinerNiemand -> MicheNorman, 2016-09-26 10:21:20
    " America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles-principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings. "

    He spoke about the whole of Islam, not specific " Islamic regimes ". And he is correct on it. All religions share a great deal of values with the USAmerican constition and even each other .

    The overwhelming majority of USAmerican muslims have accepted the melting pot with their whole heart, second generation children have JOINED its fighting forces to protect the interest of the USA all over the world. Normally this full an integration is reached with the third generation.

    The west has won against those religious fanatics. How else to explain that exactly the people those claim to speak turn up with us?

    Calvert -> MicheNorman, 2016-09-26 11:21:45
    And the big problem with Trump's approach is that good ol' American corporations are the ones who are profiting wildly from business in China. They wanted access to the Chinese labor force, e.g. Walmart and every other manufacturer who now peddles goods made in China in US stores. They are the entities that cost western workers millions of jobs, creating massive trade deficits.

    They are wealthy beyond measure and anyone who wants to alter this system whereby American corporations manufacture in China and ship products around the world, inc. to the US, would have to fight them. And if anyone believes that Trump would succeed in this battle, they are delusional.

    hartebeest, 2016-09-26 09:35:14
    "These two juggernauts are on a collision course" is far too alarmist. Relying mainly on right-wing US thinktanks for analysis doesn't help.

    Interesting in particular to see RAND is still in its Cold War mindset. There's famous footage of RAND analysts in the 60s (I think) discussing putative nuclear war with the USSR and concluding that the US was certain of 'victory' following a missile exchange because its surviving population (after hundreds of millions of deaths and the destruction of almost all urban centres) would be somewhat larger.

    China's island claims are all about a broader strategic aim- getting unencumbered access to the Pacific for its growing blue water navy. It's not aimed at Taiwan or Japan in any sort of specific sense and, save for the small possibility of escalation following an accident (ships colliding or something), there's very little risk of conflict in at least the medium term.

    It's crucial to remember just how much China and the US depend upon each other economically. The US is by far China's largest single export market, powering its manufacturing economy. In return, China uses the surplus to buy up US debt, which allows the Americans to borrow cheaply and keep the lights on. Crash China and you crash the US- and vice versa.

    For now, China is basically accepting an upgraded number 2 spot (along with the US acknowledging them as part of a 'G2'), but supporting alternative governance structures when it doesn't like the ones controlled by the US/Japan (so the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, the BRICS etc.).

    This doesn't mean that the two don't see each other as long term strategic and economic rivals. But the risks to both of rocking the boat are gigantic and not in the interest of either party in the foreseeable future. Things that could change that:

    a. a succession of Trump-like US presidents (checks and balances are probably sufficient to withstand one, were it to come to that);
    b. a revolution in China (possible if the economy goes South- and what comes next is probably not liberal democracy but anti-Japanese or anti-US authoritarian nationalism);
    c. an unpredictable chain of events arising from N Korean collapse or a regional nuclear race (Japan-China is a more likely source of conflict than US-China).

    MrMeinung, 2016-09-26 09:13:57
    The west has been long living under the illusion that the so called globalised world would be beneficial for all.

    Now we are waking up to the realisation that we are the big loosers of globalisation.

    Time for a change of plan.

    freeandfair -> MrMeinung , 2016-09-26 14:29:49
    "The west has been long living under the illusion that the so called globalised world would be beneficial for all. " No, actually they thought it would be beneficial for the Western countries mostly. And it was, but whatever benefits developing countries received allowed them to rise to the level of a potential future threat to the unquestionable Western dominance. And now the US is looking for a way to destroy them preemptively. The US is paranoid.
    Zami99, 2016-09-26 08:30:36
    The writing is on the wall: the future is with China. All the US can do is make nice or reap the dire consequences. If China can clean up its human rights record, I would be happy to see them supplant or rival the US as a global hegemon. After all, looked at historically, haven't they earned it? - An American, born and bred, but no nationalist
    Calvert -> Zami99, 2016-09-26 11:24:26
    Well, that is naïve. Look at China and how the Chinese people are governed. Look at the US. And please don't tell me you don't see a difference. I'll take a world with the US as the global hegemon any day.
    Leandro Rodriguez -> Zami99, 2016-09-26 16:15:42
    The US never cleaned up their human rights record...
    Sven Ringling, 2016-09-26 08:16:37
    A regional counter balance is needed. Cooperation is hindered by Japan. They should be the center point of a regional alliance strong enough to contain China with US help, but it doesn't work: whilst everybody fears China, everybody hates Japan.

    The reason is they failed miserably to rebuild trust after WWII, rather than going cap in hand, acknowledging respondibility for atrocities and other crimes and injustice, and compensate victims, they kept their pride and isolation. They are now paying the price - possibly together with the rest of us.

    Maybe a full scale change after 7 decades of to-little-to-late diplomacy can still achieve sth.

    The ass the US should kick sits in Tokyo - something they failed to do properly after WWII, when they managed it well in West Germany (ok - they had help from the Brits there, who for all their failings understand foreign nations far better), where it facilitated proper integration into European cooperation.

    ArabinPatson , 2016-09-26 07:28:26
    I think this "ascendancy" and nationalistic fervor is actually a sign of internal turmoil. Countries that do well don't need to crack down on dissidents to the point of kidnappings or spend millions of stupid man made islands that pisses everyone off but have all the military value of a threatening facial tattoo. The South China Sea tactics is partially Chinese "push until something pushes back" diplomacy but also stems from the harsh realisation that their resources can be easily choked of and even the CPC knows it can't hold down a billion plus Chinese people once the hunger sets it.

    China is facing the dilemna that as it brings people out of poverty it reduces the supply of the very cheap labor that makes it rich. You can talk about Lenovo all you want, no one is buying a Chinese car anytime soon. Nor is any airline outside of China going to buy one of their planes. Copyright fraud is one thing the West can retaliate easily upon and will if they feel China has gone too far. Any product found in a western court to be a blatant copy can effectively be banned. The next step is to refuse to recognize Chinese copyright on the few genuine innovations that come out of it.

    Plus the deal Deng Xiaoping made with the urban classes is fraying. It was wealth in exchange for subservience. The people in the cities stay out of direct politics but quality of life issues, safety, petty corruption and pollution are angering them and scaring them hence the vast amount of private Chinese money being sunk into global real estate.

    The military growth and dubious technobabble is just typical Chinese mianzi gaining. If you do have a brand new jet stealth jet fighter, you don't release pictures of it to the world press. They got really rattled when Shinzo Abe decided the JSDF can go and deliver slappings abroad to help their friends if needed. Because an army that spends a lot of time rigging up Michael Bayesque set maneuvers for the telly is not what you want to pit against top notch technology handled by obsessive perfectionists.

    No one plays hardball with China because we all like cheap shit. But once that is over then China is a very vulnerable country with not one neighbour they can call a friend. They know it. Obama hasn't failed.. It's the histrionics that prove it not the other way round.

    250022 -> ArabinPatson , 2016-09-26 11:34:31
    Fundamentally incorrect.

    The labor supply is assured because there are still multi millions in poverty and signing up as cheap labor is exactly what brings them out of poverty. I assume you've never been to China and therefore have never heard of Chunyun, the largest human migration in the world. This is partly the ruralites returning home from the cities with their years spoils. This year individual journeys totalled almost 3bn.

    No-one is buying a Chinese car? Check the sales for Wuling. They produce the small vans that are the lifeblood of the small entrepreneur. BYD are already exporting electric buses to London. The likes of VW, BMW, Land Rover, are all in partnership with Chinese auto-makers and China is the largest car market in the world.

    Corruption has been actively attacked and over a quarter of a million officials have been brought to book in Xi's time in office. The pollution causing steel and coal industries are being rapidly contracted and billions spent on re-training.

    Plus the fact that while the Chinese are mianzi gazing, the last thing they think about is politics. They simply don't want to know.

    By the way, China is reducing it's land army by a third over the next few years and has just concluded very constructive summits with all it's neighbours during last weeks ASEAN bunfight.

    The conclusion is that bi-lateral talks, not US led pissing contests are the way forward.

    http://english.sina.com/china/s/2016-09-26/detail-ifxwevmf2233637.shtml

    alfredwong -> Jonathan Scott , 2016-09-26 05:44:58
    "What has happened is the ICA has ruled against China in the SCS..." Nothing new. The UN Commission on the Limits of Continental Shelf had also ruled against the UK and the International Court of Justice had ruled against the US.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/mar/29/falkland-islands-argentina-waters-rules-un-commission

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/chinas-defiance-of-international-court-has-precedentu-s-defiance-1467919982

    "Also, China still has little force projection"

    A country only needs a lot of force projection if it seeks to dominate the world.

    "and a soon to collapse economy."

    You are entitled to have such dream.

    vidimi -> Jonathan Scott, 2016-09-26 09:41:28
    a collapse of the chinese economy would collapse the American economy as well
    ChristosHellas, 2016-09-26 04:17:59
    Fascinating & well structured article - except for one glaring omission - the LNP selling of the Port of Darwin to a Chinese Government business. Yeh, sure it's a '99 year lease' but for all effective purposes it's a sellout of a strategic port to the Chinese Government.

    Just look at how gobsmacked the US Military & President were over such a stupidly undertaken sale by the LNP. This diplomatically lunatic sell off by the LNP of such a vital national asset has effectively taken-out any influence or impact Australia may have, or exert, over critical issues happening on our northern doorstep.

    If there was ever a case for buying back a strategic national asset, this is definitely the one. Oh, if folks are worried about the $Billions in penalties incurred, simple solution - just stop the $Billions of Diesel Fuel Rebates gifted to Miners for, say, 10 years..... Done!

    JeffAshe, 2016-09-26 04:05:15
    America is in terminal decline, beset by economic and fiscal crises, sapped by imperial overstretch, a victim of a cosmopolitan ennui and fecklessness, divided politically and culturally, belligerent and militant to the extreme. An empire in decline is at its most dangerous. America today is a far greater threat to world peace than China. Simply witness America's accommodation of the Israeli occupation of Palestine, the odious Saudi theocracy, and how its insane policy in Libya, Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan has led to hundreds of thousands of lives lost and millions displaced.

    Europe is under siege by endless tides of refugees that are the direct consequence of America's neo-Conservative and militant foreign policy. Meanwhile, America's neo-liberal economic and trade policies have not only decimated her own manufacturing base and led to gross inequality but also massive dislocations in South America, Middle East, Europe, Africa, and Southeast Asia. Tired, irritated, frustrated, exhausted, cynical, violent, moral-less, deeply corrupt, and rudderless, America is effectively bankrupt and on the verge of becoming another Greece, if not for the saving grace of the petro-Dollar. Europe would be well-advised to keep the Yanks at arm's length so as to escape as much as possible the fallout from her complete collapse. As for Britain, soon to be divorced from the EU, time draws nigh to end the humiliating, one-sided servitude that is the 'Special Relationship' and forge an independent foreign policy. The tectonic plates of history is again shifting, and there nothing America can do to stop it.

    scss99 -> JeffAshe, 2016-09-26 05:14:43
    I don't know America probably occupies the most prime geographical spot on the planet, and buffered by two oceans. It doesn't have to worry about refugees and the other problems and ultimately they can produce enough food and meet all of its energy needs domestically. And it's the third most populous nation on earth and could easily grow its population with immigration.

    The US has no significantly greater percentage of debt than any of the other Western nations except Germany. If you think the Americas bankrupt then you'd have to think a whole lot of other nations including the UK is as well.

    Given the facts it would be daft a write off America. Every European nation have lost their number one spot in history and they seem to be doing just fine. Is there some reason why this can't be America's destiny as well? Does it really have to end in flames?

    macel388 -> itsfridayiminlove, 2016-09-26 14:17:29
    "China has divided and conquered certain countries in SE Asia." These certain SE Asian countries would say that it's because they are not willing to be Uncle Sam's "yes man".
    CalvinLyn, 2016-09-26 03:47:56
    The US is still so very powerful but the problem is they feel powerless from time to time with their hammer in hand against flying mosquitos. Why they always wanted to solve problems using force is beyond stupidity.

    Pivot to Asia is about one thing only, sending more war ships to encircle China. But for what purpose exactly? It does one thing though, it united china by posing as a threat.

    hobot CalvinLyn, 2016-09-26 04:44:28
    It also destabilises the entire region. Something the Americans are masters of.
    Stieve, 2016-09-26 02:09:34
    Those blaming Obama most stridently for not keeping China in its box are those most responsible for China's rise. American and Western companies shafted their own people to make themselves more profit. They didn't care what the consequences might be, as long as the lmighty "Shareholder Value" continued to rise. Now they demand that the taxes from all those people whose jobs they let go be used to contain the new superpower that they created. As usual, Coroporate America messes things up then demands to know what someone else is going to do about it
    MountainMan23, 2016-09-26 01:49:38
    Were the US to form a cooperative instead of confrontational relationship with China the world would be a better place. The same could be said for the US relationship with Russia.

    Of course the military-industrial-banking-congressional complex that governs Washington's behavior would not be happy. WIthout confrontation the arms industries can't sell their weapons of war, banks' profits take a hit and congress critters don't get their kickbacks, err, "donations".

    freeandfair -> MountainMan23, 2016-09-26 02:02:27
    The US doesn't know what the word "cooperation" means. To Americans "cooperation" means giving orders and others following them.
    LivingTruth, 2016-09-26 00:41:25
    America has this absurd notion that it must always be number 1 in world whatever that means world could be better when east is best
    Zhubajie1284, 2016-09-26 00:16:50
    Given the way the US government has screwed the Philippines over steadily since 1898, it's not surprising that Pres. Dutarte has decided to be friendly with his neighbor. Obama of the Kill List lecturing other countries about human rights abuses! What hypocrisy.
    thomasvladimir, 2016-09-26 00:11:36
    fuck his pivot.....this ain't syria.....having destroyed the middle east it was our turn.....this is americas exceptionalism........stay #1 by desabilising/destroying everyone else.....p.s. shove the TPP also..........
    Fabrizio Agnello, 2016-09-25 23:45:41
    The real question is why should not China be more dominant in Asia... i understands the USA tendency especially since the fall of the soviet union at seing themselves as the only world superpower. And i understand why China would like to balance tbat especially in her own neighborhood.

    Is what China doing in the south china sea different from what the USA does in the gulf of Mexico or in Panama... not to mention that Chi a is litterally surounded by US bases that sit squarely across all its sea trading routes: Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Fillipines,... and considering that the chinese have a long memory of werstern gunboat diplomacy and naval for e projection, if i was them i would feel a little uncomfortable at how vulnerable my newfound trade is... especially when some western politician so clearly think that china needs to be contained...

    Bogoas81, 2016-09-25 23:44:41
    China has been accumulating debt at unprecedented rates to try to maintain faltering growth. In 2007 Chinese debt stood at $7 trillion. By 2014 it had quadrupled to $28 trillion. That's $60 billion of extra debt every week. It's still rising rapidly as the government desperately tries to keep momentum.

    Much of this money has been funnelled into 'investments' that will never yield a return. The most almighty crash is coming. Which will be interesting to say the least.

    RodMcLeod -> Bogoas81, 2016-09-26 00:07:24
    Now that is interesting but odd. They are buying phuqing HUGE swathes of land in Africa, investing everywhere they can on rest of the planet. All seemingly on domestic debt then.
    Bogoas81 -> RodMcLeod, 2016-09-26 10:09:36
    Yes. The Japanese went on a spending spree abroad in the 1980s, while accumulating debt at home, and when that popped the economy entered 20 years of stagnation, as bad debts hampered the financial system.

    The Chinese bubble is far larger, and made worse by the fact that much of the debt has been taken on by inefficient state owned enterprises and local government, spending not because the figures make sense but to meet centrally-dictated growth targets. Much of the rest has been funnelled into real estate, which now makes up more than twice the share of the Chinese economy than is the case in the UK. Property prices in some major Chinese cities have reached up to 30 times local incomes, making London look cheap in comparison.

    There is also a huge 'shadow' banking system in China which means no-one really knows who owes money to whom, which will make it impossible to be confident in who remains creditworthy when the crisis occurs. Estimates are that bad debts (non-performing loans) by Chinese banks already total more than $2 trillion and are rising fast: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/09/22/fitch-warns-bad-debts-in-china-are-ten-times-official-claims-sta/

    wumogang, 2016-09-25 22:44:50
    TPP is practically written by the lobbyists from the multi-international corporations that exploit every possible tax laws, labor laws, environmental and public health regulations, legal representations and consequences. It is imperialism 2.0 in the 21st century, exclusively serving the interests of top point one percent while greatly depressing the wages of middle class; it is overwhelmingly opposed by the public opinion, law makers of all sides and current president candidates. There is zero chance Obama could make it through legislation before his exit; Clinton will not even consider bringing it back if she wins the election because she already flip-flopped once on the issue during her campaign; and it would seriously damage her chance of re-election if she does. As for Trump, I leave it to anyone's imaginations.
    Narapoia01 -> wumogang, 2016-09-26 01:53:17
    Don't believe for a second Hillary won't ram through a version of the TPP/IP if she wins. What she's actually said is that she's against it in its current form

    Remember she is part of an owned by the 0.1% that stand to benefit from the agreement, she will do their bidding and be well rewarded. A few cosmetic changes will be applied to the agreement so she can claim that she wasn't lying pre-election and we'll have to live with the consequences.

    sanhedrin, 2016-09-25 22:22:22
    I find the United States of America more frightening each day
    thomasvladimir -> sanhedrin, 2016-09-26 00:53:38
    failing flailing empire.......classic insanity
    Ubermensch1, 2016-09-25 21:43:18
    Well done all you globalists for failing to spot the bleedin obvious...that millions of homes worldwide full of 'Made In China' was ultimately going to pay for the People's Liberation Army. Still think globalisation is wonderful ?
    kbg541 -> Ubermensch1, 2016-09-25 22:31:38
    Quite. How can you believe in a liberal, global free market and then do business with the Socialist Republic of China, that is the antithesis of free markets. The name is above the door, so there's no use acting all surprised when it doesn't pan out the way you planned it.
    moderatejohn -> Ubermensch1, 2016-09-25 22:40:32
    Anything good can be made evil, including globalization. Imagine fair trade completely globalized so very nation relies on every other nation for goods. That type of shared destiny is the only way to maintain peace because humans are tribalist to a fault. We evolved in small groups, our social dynamics are not well suited to large diverse groups. If nation has food but nation B does not, nation B will go to war with nation A, so hopefully both nations trade and alleviate that situation. Nations with high economic isolation are beset by famines and poverty. Germany usually beats China in total exports and Germany is a wonderful place to live. It's not globalization that is the problem, it's exploitation and failure of our leaders to follow and enforce the Golden Rule.
    BelieveItsTrue -> Ubermensch1, 2016-09-25 23:00:58
    Roll out the barrel.....
    Well said and you are so right.
    15 years ago, I had a conversation in an airport with an American. I remarked that, by outsourcing manufacturing to China the US had sold its future to an entity that would prove to be their enemy before too long. I was derided and ridiculed. I wonder where that man is and whether he remembers our conversation.

    Globalisation is another word for one world government and all that brings, one currency, one police force, taxation, dissolution of borders, an end to sovereignty and all of our hard won freedoms. Freedom is a thing of the past, with MSM owned by the globalist elites, enforcing a moratorium on truth, and a population that has no idea what is going on behind the scenes.

    I despair of "normalcy bias" and the insulting term "conspiracy theorist". People have lost the ability to work things out for themselves and the majority knows nothing about Agenda 21 aka Sustainable Development Goals 2030, until the land grabs start and private ownership is outlawed.

    Heaven help us.

    KhusroK, 2016-09-25 21:33:12
    ... the study also suggests that, if war cannot be avoided, the US might be best advised to strike first, before China gets any stronger and the current US military advantage declines further ..

    Another brilliant thought from Rand; when in doubt, shoot from the hip ....

    Zhubajie1284 -> KhusroK, 2016-09-25 23:45:45
    They tell their employers what they want to hear.
    freeandfair -> KhusroK, 2016-09-26 01:04:05
    Do Americans not realize that Chinese and Russians read this too and plan accordingly? This is madness. I am fairly certain preemptive strikes are against international law. Why nobody has the guts to call the US out on this kind of illegal warmongering?
    KhusroK, 2016-09-25 21:24:54
    1. With respect, Mr Tidsall is badly off track in painting China as the one evil facing an innocent world.

    2. The fact is that US' belief in and repeated resort to force has created a huge mess in the Middle East, brought true misery to millions, and truly thrown Europe in turmoil in the bargain.

    3. Besides this Middle East mess, the US neoliberal economic policies have wreaked havoc, culminating in an unprecedented financial and economic crisis that has left millions all over the world without any hope for the future

    4. Hence Mr Tidsall's pronouncement:

    This dilemma – how to work constructively with a powerful, assertive China without compromising or surrendering national interests – grows steadily more acute.


    Ought to read:

    This dilemma – how to work constructively with a powerful, assertive United States without compromising or surrendering national interests – grows steadily more acute.

    5. US would be better advised to focus on its growing social problems, evident in the growing random killings, police picking on blacks, etc, and on its fast decaying infrastructure. We now read that China has the fastest computer, the largest telescope, etc, whilst US just kills and kills all over the world.

    6. Mr Tidsall, may I request that you kindly focus on realities rather than come up with opinion that approaches science fiction

    5566hh -> KhusroK, 2016-09-25 22:50:58
    I agree that Mr Tisdall's treatment of the US is somewhat naive and ignorant. However couldn't it be that both countries are capable of aggression and assertiveness? The US's malign influence is mainly focussed on the Middle East and North Africa region, while China's is on its neighbours. China's attitude to Taiwan is pure imperialism, as is its treatment of dissenting voices on the mainland and in Hong Kong. China's contempt for international law and the binding ruling by the UNCLOS Arbitral Tribunal is also deeply harmful to peace and justice in the region and worldwide.

    We now read that China has the fastest computer, the largest telescope, etc, whilst US just kills and kills all over the world.

    Very superficial indeed - compare, just as one example, the number of Nobel prizes won by American scientists recently with those by Chinese. The US is still, in general, far ahead of China in terms of scientific research (though China is making rapid progress). (That is not intended to excuse US killing of course.)

    BelieveItsTrue -> KhusroK, 2016-09-25 23:07:25
    Oh well said. At least someone understands how the it works.
    freeandfair -> KhusroK, 2016-09-26 01:06:32
    The US follows the USSR path of increasingly ignoring the needs of its own population in order to retain global dominance. It will end the same as the USSR. That which cannot continue will not continue.
    wumogang, 2016-09-25 20:23:25

    Xi is not looking for a fight. His first-choice agent of change is money, not munitions. According to Xi's "One Belt, One Road" plan, his preferred path to 21st-century Chinese hegemony is through expanded trade, business and economic partnerships extending from Asia to the Middle East and Africa. China's massive Silk Road investments in central and west Asian oil and gas pipelines, high-speed rail and ports, backed by new institutions such as the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank, are part of this strategy, which simultaneously encourages political and economic dependencies. Deng Xiaoping once said to get rich is glorious. Xi might add it is also empowering.

    The most realistic assessment on Xi and China.

    The dilemma is clear: amid rising nationalism in both countries, China is not willing to have its ambitions curbed or contained and the US is not ready to accept the world number two spot. These two juggernauts are on a collision course.

    A Grim and over-paranoid predicament: US is not in decline and need not worry about China's "ambition"; China is well aware it remains a poor nation compared to developed world and is decades behind of US in military, GDP per capital and science, that is not including civil liberty, citizen participation, Gov't transparency and so on. China is busy building a nation confident of its culture and history, military hegemony plays no part of its dream.
    BelieveItsTrue -> wumogang, 2016-09-25 23:14:42

    US is not in decline and need not worry about China's "ambition"

    Oh come on, $20 Trillion in debt and with Social Security running out of money, there will be no more to lend the government.

    China has forged an agreement with Russia for all its needs in oil ( Russia has more oil than Saudi Arabia) and payment will not be in US dollars. Russia will not take US$ for trade and the BRICS nations will squeeze the US$ out of its current situation as reserve currency. When the dollars all find their way back to the USA hyperinflation will cause misery.

    Zhubajie1284 -> wumogang, 2016-09-25 23:49:17
    The US sure looks in decline. Bridges falling into rivers, tens of millions homeless. Yet some how our elites can always find money for another war.
    Riverdweller, 2016-09-25 19:33:09
    Before the Chinese or anyone else gets any ideas, they should reflect on the size of the US defence budget, 600 billion dollars in 2015, and consider what that might imply in the event of conflict.
    fragglerokk -> Riverdweller, 2016-09-25 20:14:35
    a third of that budget goes in profit for the private companies they employ to make duds like the F35 - so you can immediately reduce that to 400 billion. The US have been fighting third world countries for 50 years, and losing, their military is bloated, out of date and full of retrograde gear that simply wont cut it against the Russians. Privately you would find that most top line military agree with that statement. They also have around 800 bases scattered world wide, spread way too thin. Its why theyve stalled in Ukraine and can't handle the middle east. The Russians spend less than $50 billion but have small, highly mobile forces, cutting edge missile defence systems (which will have full airspace coverage by 2017). The Chinese policy of A2D/AD or access denial has got the US surface fleet marooned out in the oceans as any attempt to get close enough to be effective would be met with a hail of multiple rocket shedding war heads. The only place where it is probable (but my no means certain) that the US still has the edge is in submarine warfare, although again if the Russians and Chinese have full coverage of their airspace nothing (or little) would get through.
    Two theorys are in current operation about the election and the waring factions in the NSA and the CIA 1) HRC wins but is too much of a warmonger and would push america into more wars they simply cannot win 2) there is a preference for Trump to win amongst the MIC because he would (temporarily) seek 'peace' with the Russians thus giving the military the chance to catch up - say in 3 or 4 years - plus all the billions and billions of dollars that would mean for them.

    Overwhelming fire power no longer wins wars, the US have proved that year in year out since the end of the second world war, theyve lost every war theyve started/caused/joined in. Unless you count that limited skirmish on British soil in Grenada - and I guess we could call Korea a score draw. The yanks are bust and they know it, the neocons are all bluster and idiots like Breedlove, Power and Nuland are impotent because they don't have right on their side or the might to back it up. The US is mired in the middle east, locked out of asia and would grind to halt in Europe against the Russians. (every NATO wargame simulation in the last 4 years has conclusively shown this) Add to that the fact that the overwhelming majority of US citizens dont have the appetite for a conventional war and in the event of a nuclear war the US would suffer at least as much as Europe and youve got a better picture of where we are at.

    goenzoy -> Riverdweller, 2016-09-25 20:48:37
    Well it is just ABOUT money.Also during Vietnam and Iraq war US was biggest spender.
    Nobody in US still thinks that Vietnam war was a good idea and the same applies to Iraq.Iraq war will be even in history books for biggest amount spend to achieve NOTHING.
    Mrpavado -> Riverdweller, 2016-09-25 21:30:20
    Chinese military spending is at least on a par with American. A huge part of American military money goes to personnel salary while China does NOT pay to Chinese soldiers for their service as China holds a compulsory military service system.
    Liang1a, 2016-09-25 19:24:05
    This article assumes China is evil and the US is the righteous protector of all nations in the SE Asian region against the evil China which is obviously out to destroy the hapless SE Asian nations. This assumption is obviously nonsense. The US itself is rife with racial problems. Everybody has seen what it had done to Vietnam. Nobody believes that a racist US that cares nothing for the welfare of its own black, Latino and Asian population will actually care for the welfare of the same peoples outside of the US and especially in SE Asia.

    The truth is China is not the evil destroyer of nations. The truth is the US is the evil destroyer of nations. The US has brought nothing but bloodshed and destruction to the SE Asian regions for the last 200 years. The US had killed millions of Filipinos during it colonial era. The US had killed millions of Vietnamese during the Vietnam War. The US had incited pogroms against the ethnic Chinese unceasingly. The May 13 massacre in Malaysia, the anti-Chinese massacres in the 1960's and the 1990's in Indonesia, and many other discrimination and marginalization of ethnic Chinese throughout the entire SE Asia are all the works of the US. It is the US that is the killer and destroyer.

    Therefore, it is a good thing that the evil intents of the US had failed. With the all but inevitable rise of China, the influence of the Japanese and the americans will inevitably wane. The only danger to China is the excessive xenocentrism of the Dengist faction who is selling out China to these dangerous enemies. If the CPC government sold out China's domestic economy, then China will become a colony of the Japanese and americans without firing a single shot. And the Chinese economy will slide into depression as it had done in the Qing Dynasty and Chinese influence in the SE Asian region will collapse.

    Therefore, the task before the CPC government is to ban all foreign businesses out of China's domestic economy, upgrade and expand China's education and R&D, urbanize the rural residents and expand the Chinese military, etc. With such an independent economic, political and military policies, China will at once make itself the richest and the most powerful nation in the world dwarfing the Japanese and American economies and militaries. China can then bring economic prosperity and stability to the SE Asian region by squeezing the evil Japanese and americans out of the region.

    mark john Mcculloch , 2016-09-25 19:22:11
    Lets be honest what has Obama achieved,he got the Nobel peace prize for simply not being George Bush Jr he has diplayed a woeful lack of leadership with Russia over Syria Libya and the Chinese Simply being the first African American president will not be a legacy
    outfitter, 2016-09-25 18:54:08
    Do you know of one Leninist state that ever built a prosperous modern industrial nation? Therein lies the advantage and the problem with China. China is totally export dependant and therefore its customers can adversely affect its economy - put enough chinese out of work and surely political instability will follow. A threatened dictatorship with a large army, however, is a danger to its neighbors and the world.
    fragglerokk -> outfitter, 2016-09-25 20:26:17
    China are now net consumers. You need to read up on whats happening, not from just the western press. They are well on their way to becoming the most powerful nation on earth, they have access (much like Russia) to over two thirds of the population of the worlds consumers and growing (this is partially why sanctions against Russia have been in large part meaningless) China will never want for buyers of their products (the iphone couldnt be made without the Chinese) with the vast swaithes of unplumbed Russian resources becoming available to them its hard to see how the west can combat the Eurasians. The wealth is passing from west to east, its a natural cycle the 'permanant growth' monkies in the west have been blind to by their own greed and egotism. Above all the Chinese are a trading nation, always seeking win/win trading links. The west would be better employed trading and linking culturally with the Chinese rather than trying to dictate with military threats. The west comprises only 18% of the global population and our growth and wealth is either exhausted or locked away in vaults where it is doing no one any good. Tinme to wise up or get left behind.
    deetrump, 2016-09-25 18:17:06
    Tisdall...absolute war-monger and neo-con "dog of war". Is this serious journalism? The rise of China was as inevitable as the rise of the US in the last century..."no man can put a stop to the march of a nation". It's Asias century and it's not the first time for China to be the No 1 economy in the world. They have been here before and have much more wisdom than the west...for too long the tail has wagged the dog...suck it up Tisdall!
    Dante5, 2016-09-25 17:56:56
    The US grand strategy post-Bush was to reposition itself at the heart of a liberal economic system excluding China through TTIP with the EU and TPP with Asia-Pac ex. China and Russia. The idea was that this would enable the US to sustain its hegemony.

    It has been an absolute failure. Brexit has torpedoed TTIP and TPP has limited value- the largest economy in the partnership, Japan, has been largely integrated in to the US for the past 70 years.

    IMO the biggest failure of the US has been hating Russia too much. The Russians have just as much reason to be afraid of China as the US do and have a pretty capable army. If the US patched things up with the Russians, firstly it could redeploy forces and military effort away from the Middle East towards Asia Pac and secondly it would give the US effective leverage over China- with the majority of the oil producing nations aligned with the US, China would have difficulty in conducted a sustained conflict. It's old Cold War thinking that has seen America lose its hegemony- similar to how the British were so focused on stopping German ascendancy they didn't see the Americans coming with the knife.

    Advaitya, 2016-09-25 17:54:49
    America is reaping the fruits of what they sowed during the time of Reagan. It was never a good idea to outsource your entire manufacturing industry to a country that is a dictatorship and does not embrace western liberal democratic values. Now the Americans are hopelessly dependent on China - a country that does not play by the rules in any sphere - it censors free speech, it blatantly violates intellectual property, it displays hostile intent towards nearly all South East Asian countries, its friends include state sponsors of terror like Pakistan and North Korea, it is carefully cultivating the enemies of America and the west in general.

    In no way, shape or form does China fulfill the criteria for being a trustworthy partner of the west. And yet today, China holds all the cards in its relationship with the west, with the western consumerist economies completely dependent on China. Moral of the story - Trade and economics cannot be conducted in isolation, separate from geopolitical realities. Doing so is a recipe for disaster.

    Kamatron -> Advaitya, 2016-09-25 21:46:36
    The arrogance is breathtaking.

    Embrace western liberal values? Exactly what is that?

    A sense of moral and ethical superiority?

    Freedom to kill unarm black people?

    Right to invade other countries?

    Commit war crimes?

    That kind of Western liberal values?

    freeandfair -> Advaitya, 2016-09-26 01:15:38
    The Us is reaping the results of its arrogance, you got that part right.
    humdum, 2016-09-25 17:24:35
    Mr Tisdall should declare his affiliation, if any, with the military-industrial complex.
    It is surprising coming from a Briton which tried to contain Germany and fought two
    wars destroying itself and the empire. War may be profitable for military-industrial complex
    but disastrous for everyone else. In world war 2, USA benefited enormously by ramping
    up war material production and creating millions of job which led to tremendous
    prosperity turning the country around from a basket case in 1930s to a big prosperous power
    which dominated the world till 2003.
    Nuno Cardoso da Silva , 2016-09-25 17:16:24
    US insistence on being top cat in a changing world will end up by dragging us all into a WW III. Why can't the US leave the rest of the world alone? Americans do not need a military presence to do business with the rest of the world and earn a lot of money with such trade. And they are too ignorant, too unsophisticate and too weak to be able to impose their will on the rest of us. The (very) ugly Americans are back and all we want is for them to go back home and forever remain there... The sooner the better...
    HotPotato22, 2016-09-25 17:12:13
    The world is going to look fantastically different in a hundred years time.

    Points of world power will go back to where they was traditionally; Europe and Asia. America is a falling power, it doesn't get the skilled European immigrants it use to after German revolution and 2 world wars. And it's projected white population will be a minority by 2050. America's future lies with south America.

    Australia with such a massive country but with a tiny population of 20million will look very attractive to China. It's future lies with a much stronger commonwealth, maybe a united military and economic commonwealth between the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

    Even without the EU, Europe is going to have to work together, including Russia to beat the Chinese militarily and economically. America will not be the same power in another 30-50 years and would struggle to beat them now.

    China are expansionists, always have been. War is coming with them and North Korea sometime in the future.

    Alex Wijaya, 2016-09-25 16:23:04
    From the article above, it is clear who is the more dangerous power. While China is aiming to be the hegemon through economic means like the neo silk road projects, the US is aiming to maintain its hegemon status through military power. The US think thank even suggest to preemptive strike against China to achieve that. This is also the problem with US pivot to Asia, it may fail to contain China, but it didn't fail to poison the atmosphere in Asia. Asia has never been this dangerous since the end of cold war, all thanks to the pivot.
    arbmahla -> Alex Wijaya, 2016-09-25 18:17:41
    Obama is trying to maintain the status quo. China and N. Korea are the ones pushing military intimidation. The key to the US plan is to form an alliance between countries in the region that historically distrust each other. The Chinese are helping that by threatening everybody at the same time. Tisdall sees this conflict strictly as between the US and China. Obama's plan is to form a group of countries to counter China. Japan will have a major role in this alliance but the problem is whether the other victims of WW2 Japanese aggression will agree to it.
    TheRealRadj -> arbmahla, 2016-09-25 18:23:24
    With dozens of bases surrounding Russia and China and you call this status quo.
    Fail.
    CygniCygni, 2016-09-25 16:21:39
    The US's disastrous foreign policy since 9/11 which has unleashed so much chaos in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, etc etc... is not exactly a commendation for credibility these days.
    CommieWealth, 2016-09-25 16:08:00
    A useful summary of the state of play in the Pacific and SCS. It is somewhat hawkish in analysis, military fantasists will always be legion, they should be listened to with extra large doses of salt, or discussion of arguments which favour peaceful cooperation and development, such as trade, cultural relations, and natural stalemates. American anxiety at its own perception of decline, is at least as dangerous for the world as the immature expression of rising Chinese confidence. But the biggest problem it seems we face, is finding a way to accommodate and translate the aspirations of rising global powers with the existing order established post-45, in incarnated in the UN and other international bodies, in international maritime law as in our western notions of universal human rights. Finding a way for China to express origination of these ideas compatible with its own history, to be able to proclaim them as a satisfactory settlement for human relations, is an ideal, but apparently unpromising task.
    BigPhil1959, 2016-09-25 15:46:39
    Perhaps Samuel P Huntingdon was broadly correct when he wrote "The Clash of Civilizations" in the late 90's. He was criticized for his work by neo-liberals who believed that after the Cold War the rest of the world would follow the west and US in particular.

    The problem with the neo-liberal view is that only their opinions on issues are correct, and all others therefore should be ridiculed. What has happened in Ukraine is a prime example. Huntingdon called the Ukraine a "cleft" country split between Russia and Europe. The EU and the US decided to stir up trouble in the Ukraine to get even with Putin over Syria. It was never about EU or NATO membership for the Ukraine which is now further away than ever.

    A Trump presidency is regarded with fear. The Obama presidency has been a failure with regard to foreign policy and a major reason was because Clinton was Secretary of State in the 1st four years. In many ways a Clinton presidency is every bit as dangerous as a Trump presidency.

    Certainly relations with Russia will be worse under Clinton than under Trump, and for the rest of the world that is not a good thing. To those that believe liek Clinton that Putin is the new Hitler, then start cleaning out the nuclear bunkers. If he is then WW3 is coming like it or not and Britain better start spending more on defence.

    markwill89, 2016-09-25 15:41:59
    Can people stop calling China a Communist state. It isn't. China is a corporatist dictatorship.
    yelzohy -> markwill89, 2016-09-25 16:19:47
    which serves only the top one tenth of one percent. Sounds familiar.
    markwill89 -> yelzohy, 2016-09-25 16:23:29
    The difference between the United States and China is striking. Try criticising the Chinese leadership in China and see where it gets you.
    humdum -> markwill89, 2016-09-25 17:44:03
    What does the criticism in USA get you? It is just blah blah blah. ONly criticism that matters is from the corporations and wealthy individuals like Koch bros and Sheldon Edelson and their ilk. Rest can watch football.
    R_Ambrose_Raven, 2016-09-25 15:30:27
    Never mind that a general, high-intensity war in Northern Asia would be disastrous for all involved, whatever the outcome. Never mind that much of the discussion about containing China is by warmongers urging such a conflict.

    Never mind that very little depth in fact lies behind the shell of American and Japanese military strength, or that a competently-run Chinese government is well able to grossly outproduce "us" all in war materiel.

    Never mind that those same warmongers and neocons drove and drive a succession of Imperial disasters; they remain much-praised centres of attention, just as the banksters and rentiers that are sucking the life from Americans have never had it so good.

    Never mind that abbott encouraged violence as the automatic reaction to problems, while his Misgovernment was (while Turnbull to a lesser extent still is) working hard to destroy the economic and social strengths we need to have any chance of surmounting those problems.

    Yes, it is a proper precaution to have a military strength that can deny our approaches to China. Unfortunately that rather disregards that "we" have long pursued a policy of globalisation involving the destruction of our both own manufacturing and our own merchant navy. Taken together with non-existent fuel reserves, "our" military preparations are pointless, because we would have to surrender within a fortnight were China to mount even a partial maritime blockade of Australia.

    ID1726608, 2016-09-25 15:28:36
    What I don't quite understand is how all this comes as any surprise to those in the know. China has been on target to be the #1 economic power in the world in this decade for at least 30 years.

    And who made it so? Western capitalists. China is now not only the world's industrial heartbeat, it also owns a large proportion of Western debt - despite the fact that its differences with the West (not least being a one-party Communist state) couldn't be more obvious - and while I doubt it's in its interests to destabilise its benefactorrs at the moment, that may not always be the case.

    It also has another problem: In fifty or sixty years time it is due to be overtaken by India, which gives it very little time to develop ASEAN in its own image; but I suspect that it's current "silk glove" policy is far smarter and more cost-effective than any American "iron fist".

    heyidontknowman, 2016-09-25 15:18:23
    The US is just worried about losing out on markets and further exploitation. They should have no authority over China's interest in the South China Sea. If China do rise to the point were they can affect foreign governments, they will unlikely be as brutal as the United States. [Indonesia 1964, Congo 1960s, Brazil 1964, Chile 1973, Central America 1980s, Egyptian military aid, Saudi support, Iraq 2003, the Structural Adjustments of the IMF]
    Riaz Danish, 2016-09-25 15:14:17
    Simon Tisdall and many Europeans as well as the US GOP party still thinks that US is an empire similar to what the British had in the 18th century. This assumption is completely wrong especially in the 21th century where Western Europe, Japan, Korea if they want can be spend their money and also become global military power.

    While many Europeans and others including our current GOP party thinks we are the global empire and we should stick our nose everywhere, our people doesn't we are an empire or we should stick our nose in every trouble spot in the world spending our blood and treasure to fight others battles and get blame when everything goes wrong. President Obama doesn't think of himself as Julius Ceaser and America is not Rome.

    He will be remembered as one of our greatest president ever setting a course for this country's foreign policy towards trying to solve the world's problems through alliances and cooperation with like minded countries as the opposite of the war mongering brainless, trigger happy GOP presidents. However when lesser powers who preach xenophobia and destabilize their neighborhood through annexation as the Hitler like Putin has, he comes down with a hammer using tools other than military to punish the aggressor.

    All you need to do is watch what is happening to the Russian economy since he imposed sanctions to the Mafiso Putin.

    This article is completely misleading and the author is constricting himself in his statement that Obama's pivot to Asia is a failure. Since China tried to annex the Islands near the Philippines, countries like Vietnam, Indonesia, Philippines, India, etc. has ask the US for more cooperation both military and economically these countries were moving away from US under Bush and others so I think this is a win for Obama not a loss. Unlike the idiotic Russians, China is a clever country and is playing global chess in advancing her foreign policy goals. While the US cannot do anything with China's annexation of these disputed Islands has costs her greatly because the Asian countries effected by China's moves are running towards the US, this is a win for the US. China's popularity around her neighborhood has taken a nose dive similar to Russian's popularity around her neighborhood. These are long term strategic wins for the US, especially if Hillary wins the white house and carry's on Obama's mantel of speaking softly but carry a big stick. Obama will go down as our greatest foreign policy president by building alliances in Europe to try stop Mafioso Putin and alliances in Asia to curtail China's foreign policy ambitions. This author's thesis is pure bogus, because he doesn't indicate what Obama should have done to make him happy? Threaten Chine military confertation?
    All you have to do is go back 8 years ago and compare our last two presidents and you can see where Obama is going.

    NowheretoHideQC -> Riaz Danish, 2016-09-25 15:33:01
    For the allusion to Rome, I think they act like the old empire when they had to send their army to keep the peace....and it is an empire of the 21 first century, not like the old ones (Assange).
    Mormorola, 2016-09-25 15:06:09
    Obama and Hillary foreign country policies have been disasters one after the other:
    • - "Benign" neglect and lack of courage in Palestine on the "No new settlements" request.
    • - Disastrous interventions in Libya and Middle East resulting in hundred of thousand of "collateral damage".
    • - Russian "Reset" which was no more than spin, but continued to look at Russia as the right place to wipe your feet.
    • - Empty promises to Ukraine resulting into a civil war.
    • - Ill conceived "Pivot to Asia" with no meat, much wishful thinking and no understanding of local sensitivities.
    • - Continued support for bloody dictators like the Saudis and the Thai dictators (which Hillary once branded a "vibrant democracy").

    And you wish "that woman" to become your next president?

    ElZilch0, 2016-09-25 14:54:23
    China needs western consumerism to maintain its manufacturing base. If China's growth impacts the ability of the West to maintain its standard of consumerism, then China will need a new source of affluent purchaser. If China's own citizens become affluent, they will expect a standard of living commensurate with that status, accordingly China will not be able to maintain its manufacturing base.

    So the options for China are:

    a) Prop up western economies until developing nations in Africa and South America (themselves heavily dependent on the West) reach a high standard of consumerism.

    b) Divide China into a ruling class, and a worker class, in which the former is a parasite on the latter.

    The current tactic seems to be to follow option b, until option a becomes viable.

    However, the longer option a takes to develop, and therefore the longer option b is in effect, the greater the chances of counter-revolution (which at this stage is probably just revolution).

    The long and the short of it, is that China is boned.

    russian, 2016-09-25 14:35:09
    Being a large country surrounded by many other occasionally threatening powers, the governments' priority is and always has been defending its territorial integrity. China is happy enough to leave the command and conquer stuff, sorry "democratization" to the US.

    It's got it's hands full at home. As long as the West doesn't try to get involved in what China sees as its historical territory (i.e. The big rooster shaped landmass plus Hainan and Hong Kong and various little islands) there's absolutely nothing to worry about.

    Babeouf, 2016-09-25 14:32:26
    Why did Obama say that his greatest regret was Libya.? Because Obama's policy is/was to manage the decline of US power. To manage the end of US hegemony. I doubt that Obama believes that any pivot to any where can restore or maintain US dominance on planet earth. There is absolutely nothing exceptional about a power not admitting publicly what is known to many,see the outpourings of the British elites during the end of its empire.
    Lafcadio1944, 2016-09-25 14:11:59
    As usual the Guardian is on its anti-China horse. Look through this article and every move China has made is "aggressive" or when it tries to expand trade (and produce win win economic conditions) it is "hegemonic" while the US is just trying to protect us all and is dealing with the "Chinese threat" -- a threat to their economic interests and global imperial hegemony is what they mean.

    The US still maintains a "one China" policy and the status quo is exactly that "one China" It would be great for someone in the west to review the historical record instead of arming Taiwan to the teeth. Additionally, before China ever started its island construction the US had already begun the "pivot to Asia" which now is huge with nuclear submarines patrolling all around China, nuclear weapons on the - two aircraft carrier fleets now threatening China - very rare for the US to have two aircraft carrier fleets in the same waters - the B-1 long range nuclear bombers now in Australia, and even more belligerent the US intends to deploy THAAD missals in South Korea - using North Korea as an excuse to further seriously threaten China.

    China wishes to expand trade and improve economic conditions for its people and for those with whom it trades. That is not aggression except when it interferes with US global economic hegemony.

    Just look around the world - where are the conflicts - the middle east and Africa - who is there with military and arms sales and bombing seven countries -- is it China?

    The most belligerent nation in the world the nation with its army in over 100 countries, the nation bombing and conducting perpetual war throughout the middle east, the country invading countries for "regime change" and creating only misery and death -- it is not China.

    The US and its Neoliberal capitalist system must expand to grow - plus they clearly want total global domination - the US and its Imperial agents have encircled both China and Russia with trillions of dollars of the most destructive weapons in the world including nuclear weapons - do you thin they have done that for "security" if so you simply ignore the aggression and hubris of an Imperial US.

    [Sep 26, 2016] Why would Putin want to get to the table when he knows very well the menu consists solely of a sh*t sandwich and the dinner host is calling you Hitler ?

    Notable quotes:
    "... Right there Clinton proves that she has absolutely no idea how basic diplomacy or negotiation (what the democrats like to call "compromise") works. You start from your best possible outcome (without treating your partner as a subhuman piece of trash or calling them by 3rd grade slanderous names) and work your way down to an agreement. You don't start from the worst possible outcome and work your way up like some crazy sadist. No wonder her judgement is so terrible. Her "success" measure is set just above " complete and utter failure, destruction". ..."
    "... "Get Russia to the table"? Why would Putin want to "get to the table" when he knows very well the menu consists solely of a sh*t sandwich and the dinner host is calling you "Hitler"? ..."
    Sep 26, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Roger Smith September 25, 2016 at 12:08 pm

    From the Clinton Foreign Policy article: From Reset to Realpolitik, Clinton's New Hard Line on Moscow

    "I'm trying to figure out what leverage we have to get Russia to the table. You know, diplomacy is not about getting to the perfect solution. It's about how you balance the risks."

    Right there Clinton proves that she has absolutely no idea how basic diplomacy or negotiation (what the democrats like to call "compromise") works. You start from your best possible outcome (without treating your partner as a subhuman piece of trash or calling them by 3rd grade slanderous names) and work your way down to an agreement. You don't start from the worst possible outcome and work your way up like some crazy sadist. No wonder her judgement is so terrible. Her "success" measure is set just above " complete and utter failure, destruction".

    OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL September 25, 2016 at 3:00 pm

    "Get Russia to the table"? Why would Putin want to "get to the table" when he knows very well the menu consists solely of a sh*t sandwich and the dinner host is calling you "Hitler"?

    [Sep 26, 2016] Barack Obama's 'Asian pivot' failed. China is in the ascendancy

    Notable quotes:
    "... Conventionally the US is being outplayed but it is possible that it is playing a different game in which it is complicit in the transition from nation state to corporate oligarchy. Isn't that the Neoliberal end game? ..."
    "... The biggest mistake was to enact a policy shunning Russia, when Russia should be a key, partner of Europe and the US. ..."
    "... And the USA invaded Vietnam, Panama, Nicaragua with the contras, Iraq, Afghanistan, are currently bombing the crap out of another dozen nations, has militarily occupied another 100 nations with their bases and you are worried about Russia with Georgia and The Ukraine? What in Hades is wrong with this picture? ..."
    "... "Barack Obama's 'Asian pivot' failed. China is in the ascendancy" says the heading. So Obama's "Asian pivot" was meant to thwart China's development. ..."
    "... And the big problem with Trump's approach is that good ol' American corporations are the ones who are profiting wildly from business in China. They wanted access to the Chinese labor force, e.g. Walmart and every other manufacturer who now peddles goods made in China in US stores. They are the entities that cost western workers millions of jobs, creating massive trade deficits. ..."
    "... They are wealthy beyond measure and anyone who wants to alter this system whereby American corporations manufacture in China and ship products around the world, inc. to the US, would have to fight them. And if anyone believes that Trump would succeed in this battle, they are delusional. ..."
    "... "These two juggernauts are on a collision course" is far too alarmist. Relying mainly on right-wing US thinktanks for analysis doesn't help. ..."
    "... Now we are waking up to the realisation that we are the big loosers of globalisation. ..."
    "... "The west has been long living under the illusion that the so called globalised world would be beneficial for all. " No, actually they thought it would be beneficial for the Western countries mostly. And it was, but whatever benefits developing countries received allowed them to rise to the level of a potential future threat to the unquestionable Western dominance. And now the US is looking for a way to destroy them preemptively. The US is paranoid. ..."
    "... I think this "ascendancy" and nationalistic fervor is actually a sign of internal turmoil. ..."
    "... The labor supply is assured because there are still multi millions in poverty and signing up as cheap labor is exactly what brings them out of poverty. I assume you've never been to China and therefore have never heard of Chunyun, the largest human migration in the world. This is partly the ruralites returning home from the cities with their years spoils. This year individual journeys totalled almost 3bn. ..."
    "... By the way, China is reducing it's land army by a third over the next few years and has just concluded very constructive summits with all it's neighbours during last weeks ASEAN bunfight. ..."
    "... a collapse of the chinese economy would collapse the American economy as well ..."
    "... Fascinating & well structured article - except for one glaring omission - the LNP selling of the Port of Darwin to a Chinese Government business. Yeh, sure it's a '99 year lease' but for all effective purposes it's a sellout of a strategic port to the Chinese Government. ..."
    "... America is in terminal decline, beset by economic and fiscal crises, sapped by imperial overstretch, a victim of a cosmopolitan ennui and fecklessness, divided politically and culturally, belligerent and militant to the extreme. An empire in decline is at its most dangerous. America today is a far greater threat to world peace than China. Simply witness America's accommodation of the Israeli occupation of Palestine, the odious Saudi theocracy, and how its insane policy in Libya, Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan has led to hundreds of thousands of lives lost and millions displaced ..."
    "... The US has no significantly greater percentage of debt than any of the other Western nations except Germany. If you think the Americas bankrupt then you'd have to think a whole lot of other nations including the UK is as well. ..."
    "... "China has divided and conquered certain countries in SE Asia." These certain SE Asian countries would say that it's because they are not willing to be Uncle Sam's "yes man". ..."
    "... The US is still so very powerful but the problem is they feel powerless from time to time with their hammer in hand against flying mosquitos. Why they always wanted to solve problems using force is beyond stupidity. ..."
    "... It also destabilises the entire region. Something the Americans are masters of. ..."
    "... Were the US to form a cooperative instead of confrontational relationship with China the world would be a better place. The same could be said for the US relationship with Russia. ..."
    "... Of course the military-industrial-banking-congressional complex that governs Washington's behavior would not be happy. WIthout confrontation the arms industries can't sell their weapons of war, banks' profits take a hit and congress critters don't get their kickbacks, err, "donations". ..."
    "... Given the way the US government has screwed the Philippines over steadily since 1898, it's not surprising that Pres. Dutarte has decided to be friendly with his neighbor. Obama of the Kill List lecturing other countries about human rights abuses! What hypocrisy. ..."
    "... Is what China doing in the south china sea different from what the USA does in the gulf of Mexico or in Panama... not to mention that Chi a is litterally surounded by US bases that sit squarely across all its sea trading routes: Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Fillipines ..."
    "... China has been accumulating debt at unprecedented rates to try to maintain faltering growth. In 2007 Chinese debt stood at $7 trillion. By 2014 it had quadrupled to $28 trillion. That's $60 billion of extra debt every week. It's still rising rapidly as the government desperately tries to keep momentum. ..."
    "... TPP is practically written by the lobbyists from the multi-international corporations that exploit every possible tax laws, labor laws, environmental and public health regulations, legal representations and consequences. It is imperialism 2.0 in the 21st century, exclusively serving the interests of top point one percent while greatly depressing the wages of middle class; it is overwhelmingly opposed by the public opinion, law makers of all sides and current president candidates. There is zero chance Obama could make it through legislation before his exit; Clinton will not even consider bringing it back if she wins the election because she already flip-flopped once on the issue during her campaign; and it would seriously damage her chance of re-election if she does. As for Trump, I leave it to anyone's imaginations. ..."
    "... Globalisation is another word for one world government and all that brings, one currency, one police force, taxation, dissolution of borders, an end to sovereignty and all of our hard won freedoms. Freedom is a thing of the past, with MSM owned by the globalist elites, enforcing a moratorium on truth, and a population that has no idea what is going on behind the scenes. ..."
    "... Another brilliant thought from Rand; when in doubt, shoot from the hip .... ..."
    "... They tell their employers what they want to hear. ..."
    "... Do Americans not realize that Chinese and Russians read this too and plan accordingly? This is madness. I am fairly certain preemptive strikes are against international law. Why nobody has the guts to call the US out on this kind of illegal warmongering? ..."
    "... The dilemma is clear: amid rising nationalism in both countries, China is not willing to have its ambitions curbed or contained and the US is not ready to accept the world number two spot. These two juggernauts are on a collision course. ..."
    "... What does the criticism in USA get you? It is just blah blah blah. ONly criticism that matters is from the corporations and wealthy individuals like Koch bros and Sheldon Edelson and their ilk. Rest can watch football. ..."
    "... Simon Tisdall and many Europeans as well as the US GOP party still thinks that US is an empire similar to what the British had in the 18th century. This assumption is completely wrong especially in the 21th century where Western Europe, Japan, Korea if they want can be spend their money and also become global military power. ..."
    "... Being a large country surrounded by many other occasionally threatening powers, the governments' priority is and always has been defending its territorial integrity. China is happy enough to leave the command and conquer stuff, sorry "democratization" to the US. ..."
    "... Why did Obama say that his greatest regret was Libya.? Because Obama's policy is/was to manage the decline of US power. To manage the end of US hegemony. I doubt that Obama believes that any pivot to any where can restore or maintain US dominance on planet earth. ..."
    "... China wishes to expand trade and improve economic conditions for its people and for those with whom it trades. That is not aggression except when it interferes with US global economic hegemony. ..."
    "... The most belligerent nation in the world the nation with its army in over 100 countries, the nation bombing and conducting perpetual war throughout the middle east, the country invading countries for "regime change" and creating only misery and death -- it is not China. ..."
    "... The US and its Neoliberal capitalist system must expand to grow - plus they clearly want total global domination - the US and its Imperial agents have encircled both China and Russia with trillions of dollars of the most destructive weapons in the world including nuclear weapons - do you thin they have done that for "security" if so you simply ignore the aggression and hubris of an Imperial US. ..."
    Sep 26, 2016 | www.theguardian.com
    Vermithrax , 2016-09-26 18:48:09
    Before the pivot could even get underway the Saudis threw their rattle out of the pram and drew US focus back to the Middle East and proxy war two steps removed with Russia. Empires don't get to focus, they react to each event and seek to gain from the outcome so the whole pivot idea was flawed.

    Obama's foreign policy has been clumsy and amoral. It remains to be seen whether it will become more so in an effort to double down. Under Clinton it definitely will, under Trump who knows but random isn't a recommendation.

    Conventionally the US is being outplayed but it is possible that it is playing a different game in which it is complicit in the transition from nation state to corporate oligarchy. Isn't that the Neoliberal end game?

    Boyaca, 2016-09-26 18:41:19
    So the Rand Think Tank would sooner have war now than later. Who wouldda guessed that.

    The Chinese want to improve trade and business with the rest of the world. The US answer? destroy China militarily. so who best to lead the world. I think the article answers that question unintentionally. The rest of the world has had it up to the ears with American military invasions, regeime changes, occupations and bombing of the world. They are ready for China´s approach to international relations. it is about time the adults took over the leadership of the world. Europe and the USA and their offspring have clearly failed.

    AmyInNH, 2016-09-26 17:07:12
    China has been handed everything it needs to fly solo: money, factories, IP, etc. Fast forwarding into the western civic model limits (traffic, pollution, etc.), its best bet is to offload US "interests" and steer clear.

    No clear sign India's learned/recovered from British occupation, as they let tech create more future Kanpurs.

    Shein Ariely , 2016-09-26 17:06:51
    Obama failed worldwide. Next USA president either Democrat or Republican will have a difficult job fixing his colossal mistakes in ME- Euroep-Asia
    yermelai, 2016-09-26 10:12:58
    The biggest mistake was to enact a policy shunning Russia, when Russia should be a key, partner of Europe and the US.

    Was it really worth expanding NATO to Russia's borders instead of offering neutrality to former Soviet States and thus retain Russia's confidence in global matters that far out weigh the interests of the neo-cons?

    Hermanovic -> yermelai , 2016-09-26 10:50:07
    neutrality? Russia invaded non-NATO members Georgie, Ukraine, and Moldavia, and created puppet-states on their soil.

    The Jremlin-rules are simple: the former Sovjet states should be ruled by a pro-Russian dictator (Bella-Russia, Kazachstan, etc. etc...). Democracies face boycots, diplomatic and military support of rebels, and in the end simply a military invasion.

    The only reason why the baltic states are now thriving democracies, is that they are NATO members.

    Boyaca -> Hermanovic, 2016-09-26 18:57:23
    And the USA invaded Vietnam, Panama, Nicaragua with the contras, Iraq, Afghanistan, are currently bombing the crap out of another dozen nations, has militarily occupied another 100 nations with their bases and you are worried about Russia with Georgia and The Ukraine? What in Hades is wrong with this picture?
    macel388, 2016-09-26 10:08:03
    "Barack Obama's 'Asian pivot' failed. China is in the ascendancy" says the heading. So Obama's "Asian pivot" was meant to thwart China's development.
    MicheNorman, 2016-09-26 09:36:41
    When Obama took office his first major speech was in Cairo - where he said

    "I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world," US President Barack Obama said to the sounds of loud applause which rocked not only the hall, but the world. "One based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles-principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings."

    He displayed a dangerous mix of innocence, foolishness, disregard for the truth and misunderstanding of the nature of Islamic regimes - does the West have common values with Lebanon which practices apartheid for Palestinians, Saudi, where women cannot drive a car, Syria, where over 17,000 have died in Assad's torture chambers, we can go on and on.

    And on China - Trump has it right - China has been manipulating its currency exchange rate for years, costing western workers millions of jobs, creating massive trade deficits and something needs to be done about it.

    ReinerNiemand -> MicheNorman, 2016-09-26 10:21:20
    " America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles-principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings. "

    He spoke about the whole of Islam, not specific " Islamic regimes ". And he is correct on it. All religions share a great deal of values with the USAmerican constition and even each other .

    The overwhelming majority of USAmerican muslims have accepted the melting pot with their whole heart, second generation children have JOINED its fighting forces to protect the interest of the USA all over the world. Normally this full an integration is reached with the third generation.

    The west has won against those religious fanatics. How else to explain that exactly the people those claim to speak turn up with us?

    Calvert -> MicheNorman, 2016-09-26 11:21:45
    And the big problem with Trump's approach is that good ol' American corporations are the ones who are profiting wildly from business in China. They wanted access to the Chinese labor force, e.g. Walmart and every other manufacturer who now peddles goods made in China in US stores. They are the entities that cost western workers millions of jobs, creating massive trade deficits.

    They are wealthy beyond measure and anyone who wants to alter this system whereby American corporations manufacture in China and ship products around the world, inc. to the US, would have to fight them. And if anyone believes that Trump would succeed in this battle, they are delusional.

    hartebeest, 2016-09-26 09:35:14
    "These two juggernauts are on a collision course" is far too alarmist. Relying mainly on right-wing US thinktanks for analysis doesn't help.

    Interesting in particular to see RAND is still in its Cold War mindset. There's famous footage of RAND analysts in the 60s (I think) discussing putative nuclear war with the USSR and concluding that the US was certain of 'victory' following a missile exchange because its surviving population (after hundreds of millions of deaths and the destruction of almost all urban centres) would be somewhat larger.

    China's island claims are all about a broader strategic aim- getting unencumbered access to the Pacific for its growing blue water navy. It's not aimed at Taiwan or Japan in any sort of specific sense and, save for the small possibility of escalation following an accident (ships colliding or something), there's very little risk of conflict in at least the medium term.

    It's crucial to remember just how much China and the US depend upon each other economically. The US is by far China's largest single export market, powering its manufacturing economy. In return, China uses the surplus to buy up US debt, which allows the Americans to borrow cheaply and keep the lights on. Crash China and you crash the US- and vice versa.

    For now, China is basically accepting an upgraded number 2 spot (along with the US acknowledging them as part of a 'G2'), but supporting alternative governance structures when it doesn't like the ones controlled by the US/Japan (so the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, the BRICS etc.).

    This doesn't mean that the two don't see each other as long term strategic and economic rivals. But the risks to both of rocking the boat are gigantic and not in the interest of either party in the foreseeable future. Things that could change that:

    a. a succession of Trump-like US presidents (checks and balances are probably sufficient to withstand one, were it to come to that);
    b. a revolution in China (possible if the economy goes South- and what comes next is probably not liberal democracy but anti-Japanese or anti-US authoritarian nationalism);
    c. an unpredictable chain of events arising from N Korean collapse or a regional nuclear race (Japan-China is a more likely source of conflict than US-China).

    MrMeinung, 2016-09-26 09:13:57
    The west has been long living under the illusion that the so called globalised world would be beneficial for all.

    Now we are waking up to the realisation that we are the big loosers of globalisation.

    Time for a change of plan.

    freeandfair -> MrMeinung , 2016-09-26 14:29:49
    "The west has been long living under the illusion that the so called globalised world would be beneficial for all. " No, actually they thought it would be beneficial for the Western countries mostly. And it was, but whatever benefits developing countries received allowed them to rise to the level of a potential future threat to the unquestionable Western dominance. And now the US is looking for a way to destroy them preemptively. The US is paranoid.
    Zami99, 2016-09-26 08:30:36
    The writing is on the wall: the future is with China. All the US can do is make nice or reap the dire consequences. If China can clean up its human rights record, I would be happy to see them supplant or rival the US as a global hegemon. After all, looked at historically, haven't they earned it? - An American, born and bred, but no nationalist
    Calvert -> Zami99, 2016-09-26 11:24:26
    Well, that is naïve. Look at China and how the Chinese people are governed. Look at the US. And please don't tell me you don't see a difference. I'll take a world with the US as the global hegemon any day.
    Leandro Rodriguez -> Zami99, 2016-09-26 16:15:42
    The US never cleaned up their human rights record...
    Sven Ringling, 2016-09-26 08:16:37
    A regional counter balance is needed. Cooperation is hindered by Japan. They should be the center point of a regional alliance strong enough to contain China with US help, but it doesn't work: whilst everybody fears China, everybody hates Japan.

    The reason is they failed miserably to rebuild trust after WWII, rather than going cap in hand, acknowledging respondibility for atrocities and other crimes and injustice, and compensate victims, they kept their pride and isolation. They are now paying the price - possibly together with the rest of us.

    Maybe a full scale change after 7 decades of to-little-to-late diplomacy can still achieve sth.

    The ass the US should kick sits in Tokyo - something they failed to do properly after WWII, when they managed it well in West Germany (ok - they had help from the Brits there, who for all their failings understand foreign nations far better), where it facilitated proper integration into European cooperation.

    ArabinPatson , 2016-09-26 07:28:26
    I think this "ascendancy" and nationalistic fervor is actually a sign of internal turmoil. Countries that do well don't need to crack down on dissidents to the point of kidnappings or spend millions of stupid man made islands that pisses everyone off but have all the military value of a threatening facial tattoo. The South China Sea tactics is partially Chinese "push until something pushes back" diplomacy but also stems from the harsh realisation that their resources can be easily choked of and even the CPC knows it can't hold down a billion plus Chinese people once the hunger sets it.

    China is facing the dilemna that as it brings people out of poverty it reduces the supply of the very cheap labor that makes it rich. You can talk about Lenovo all you want, no one is buying a Chinese car anytime soon. Nor is any airline outside of China going to buy one of their planes. Copyright fraud is one thing the West can retaliate easily upon and will if they feel China has gone too far. Any product found in a western court to be a blatant copy can effectively be banned. The next step is to refuse to recognize Chinese copyright on the few genuine innovations that come out of it.

    Plus the deal Deng Xiaoping made with the urban classes is fraying. It was wealth in exchange for subservience. The people in the cities stay out of direct politics but quality of life issues, safety, petty corruption and pollution are angering them and scaring them hence the vast amount of private Chinese money being sunk into global real estate.

    The military growth and dubious technobabble is just typical Chinese mianzi gaining. If you do have a brand new jet stealth jet fighter, you don't release pictures of it to the world press. They got really rattled when Shinzo Abe decided the JSDF can go and deliver slappings abroad to help their friends if needed. Because an army that spends a lot of time rigging up Michael Bayesque set maneuvers for the telly is not what you want to pit against top notch technology handled by obsessive perfectionists.

    No one plays hardball with China because we all like cheap shit. But once that is over then China is a very vulnerable country with not one neighbour they can call a friend. They know it. Obama hasn't failed.. It's the histrionics that prove it not the other way round.

    250022 -> ArabinPatson , 2016-09-26 11:34:31
    Fundamentally incorrect.

    The labor supply is assured because there are still multi millions in poverty and signing up as cheap labor is exactly what brings them out of poverty. I assume you've never been to China and therefore have never heard of Chunyun, the largest human migration in the world. This is partly the ruralites returning home from the cities with their years spoils. This year individual journeys totalled almost 3bn.

    No-one is buying a Chinese car? Check the sales for Wuling. They produce the small vans that are the lifeblood of the small entrepreneur. BYD are already exporting electric buses to London. The likes of VW, BMW, Land Rover, are all in partnership with Chinese auto-makers and China is the largest car market in the world.

    Corruption has been actively attacked and over a quarter of a million officials have been brought to book in Xi's time in office. The pollution causing steel and coal industries are being rapidly contracted and billions spent on re-training.

    Plus the fact that while the Chinese are mianzi gazing, the last thing they think about is politics. They simply don't want to know.

    By the way, China is reducing it's land army by a third over the next few years and has just concluded very constructive summits with all it's neighbours during last weeks ASEAN bunfight.

    The conclusion is that bi-lateral talks, not US led pissing contests are the way forward.

    http://english.sina.com/china/s/2016-09-26/detail-ifxwevmf2233637.shtml

    alfredwong -> Jonathan Scott , 2016-09-26 05:44:58
    "What has happened is the ICA has ruled against China in the SCS..." Nothing new. The UN Commission on the Limits of Continental Shelf had also ruled against the UK and the International Court of Justice had ruled against the US.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/mar/29/falkland-islands-argentina-waters-rules-un-commission

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/chinas-defiance-of-international-court-has-precedentu-s-defiance-1467919982

    "Also, China still has little force projection"

    A country only needs a lot of force projection if it seeks to dominate the world.

    "and a soon to collapse economy."

    You are entitled to have such dream.

    vidimi -> Jonathan Scott, 2016-09-26 09:41:28
    a collapse of the chinese economy would collapse the American economy as well
    ChristosHellas, 2016-09-26 04:17:59
    Fascinating & well structured article - except for one glaring omission - the LNP selling of the Port of Darwin to a Chinese Government business. Yeh, sure it's a '99 year lease' but for all effective purposes it's a sellout of a strategic port to the Chinese Government.

    Just look at how gobsmacked the US Military & President were over such a stupidly undertaken sale by the LNP. This diplomatically lunatic sell off by the LNP of such a vital national asset has effectively taken-out any influence or impact Australia may have, or exert, over critical issues happening on our northern doorstep.

    If there was ever a case for buying back a strategic national asset, this is definitely the one. Oh, if folks are worried about the $Billions in penalties incurred, simple solution - just stop the $Billions of Diesel Fuel Rebates gifted to Miners for, say, 10 years..... Done!

    JeffAshe, 2016-09-26 04:05:15
    America is in terminal decline, beset by economic and fiscal crises, sapped by imperial overstretch, a victim of a cosmopolitan ennui and fecklessness, divided politically and culturally, belligerent and militant to the extreme. An empire in decline is at its most dangerous. America today is a far greater threat to world peace than China. Simply witness America's accommodation of the Israeli occupation of Palestine, the odious Saudi theocracy, and how its insane policy in Libya, Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan has led to hundreds of thousands of lives lost and millions displaced.

    Europe is under siege by endless tides of refugees that are the direct consequence of America's neo-Conservative and militant foreign policy. Meanwhile, America's neo-liberal economic and trade policies have not only decimated her own manufacturing base and led to gross inequality but also massive dislocations in South America, Middle East, Europe, Africa, and Southeast Asia. Tired, irritated, frustrated, exhausted, cynical, violent, moral-less, deeply corrupt, and rudderless, America is effectively bankrupt and on the verge of becoming another Greece, if not for the saving grace of the petro-Dollar. Europe would be well-advised to keep the Yanks at arm's length so as to escape as much as possible the fallout from her complete collapse. As for Britain, soon to be divorced from the EU, time draws nigh to end the humiliating, one-sided servitude that is the 'Special Relationship' and forge an independent foreign policy. The tectonic plates of history is again shifting, and there nothing America can do to stop it.

    scss99 -> JeffAshe, 2016-09-26 05:14:43
    I don't know America probably occupies the most prime geographical spot on the planet, and buffered by two oceans. It doesn't have to worry about refugees and the other problems and ultimately they can produce enough food and meet all of its energy needs domestically. And it's the third most populous nation on earth and could easily grow its population with immigration.

    The US has no significantly greater percentage of debt than any of the other Western nations except Germany. If you think the Americas bankrupt then you'd have to think a whole lot of other nations including the UK is as well.

    Given the facts it would be daft a write off America. Every European nation have lost their number one spot in history and they seem to be doing just fine. Is there some reason why this can't be America's destiny as well? Does it really have to end in flames?

    macel388 -> itsfridayiminlove, 2016-09-26 14:17:29
    "China has divided and conquered certain countries in SE Asia." These certain SE Asian countries would say that it's because they are not willing to be Uncle Sam's "yes man".
    CalvinLyn, 2016-09-26 03:47:56
    The US is still so very powerful but the problem is they feel powerless from time to time with their hammer in hand against flying mosquitos. Why they always wanted to solve problems using force is beyond stupidity.

    Pivot to Asia is about one thing only, sending more war ships to encircle China. But for what purpose exactly? It does one thing though, it united china by posing as a threat.

    hobot CalvinLyn, 2016-09-26 04:44:28
    It also destabilises the entire region. Something the Americans are masters of.
    Stieve, 2016-09-26 02:09:34
    Those blaming Obama most stridently for not keeping China in its box are those most responsible for China's rise. American and Western companies shafted their own people to make themselves more profit. They didn't care what the consequences might be, as long as the lmighty "Shareholder Value" continued to rise. Now they demand that the taxes from all those people whose jobs they let go be used to contain the new superpower that they created. As usual, Coroporate America messes things up then demands to know what someone else is going to do about it
    MountainMan23, 2016-09-26 01:49:38
    Were the US to form a cooperative instead of confrontational relationship with China the world would be a better place. The same could be said for the US relationship with Russia.

    Of course the military-industrial-banking-congressional complex that governs Washington's behavior would not be happy. WIthout confrontation the arms industries can't sell their weapons of war, banks' profits take a hit and congress critters don't get their kickbacks, err, "donations".

    freeandfair -> MountainMan23, 2016-09-26 02:02:27
    The US doesn't know what the word "cooperation" means. To Americans "cooperation" means giving orders and others following them.
    LivingTruth, 2016-09-26 00:41:25
    America has this absurd notion that it must always be number 1 in world whatever that means world could be better when east is best
    Zhubajie1284, 2016-09-26 00:16:50
    Given the way the US government has screwed the Philippines over steadily since 1898, it's not surprising that Pres. Dutarte has decided to be friendly with his neighbor. Obama of the Kill List lecturing other countries about human rights abuses! What hypocrisy.
    thomasvladimir, 2016-09-26 00:11:36
    fuck his pivot.....this ain't syria.....having destroyed the middle east it was our turn.....this is americas exceptionalism........stay #1 by desabilising/destroying everyone else.....p.s. shove the TPP also..........
    Fabrizio Agnello, 2016-09-25 23:45:41
    The real question is why should not China be more dominant in Asia... i understands the USA tendency especially since the fall of the soviet union at seing themselves as the only world superpower. And i understand why China would like to balance tbat especially in her own neighborhood.

    Is what China doing in the south china sea different from what the USA does in the gulf of Mexico or in Panama... not to mention that Chi a is litterally surounded by US bases that sit squarely across all its sea trading routes: Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Fillipines,... and considering that the chinese have a long memory of werstern gunboat diplomacy and naval for e projection, if i was them i would feel a little uncomfortable at how vulnerable my newfound trade is... especially when some western politician so clearly think that china needs to be contained...

    Bogoas81, 2016-09-25 23:44:41
    China has been accumulating debt at unprecedented rates to try to maintain faltering growth. In 2007 Chinese debt stood at $7 trillion. By 2014 it had quadrupled to $28 trillion. That's $60 billion of extra debt every week. It's still rising rapidly as the government desperately tries to keep momentum.

    Much of this money has been funnelled into 'investments' that will never yield a return. The most almighty crash is coming. Which will be interesting to say the least.

    RodMcLeod -> Bogoas81, 2016-09-26 00:07:24
    Now that is interesting but odd. They are buying phuqing HUGE swathes of land in Africa, investing everywhere they can on rest of the planet. All seemingly on domestic debt then.
    Bogoas81 -> RodMcLeod, 2016-09-26 10:09:36
    Yes. The Japanese went on a spending spree abroad in the 1980s, while accumulating debt at home, and when that popped the economy entered 20 years of stagnation, as bad debts hampered the financial system.

    The Chinese bubble is far larger, and made worse by the fact that much of the debt has been taken on by inefficient state owned enterprises and local government, spending not because the figures make sense but to meet centrally-dictated growth targets. Much of the rest has been funnelled into real estate, which now makes up more than twice the share of the Chinese economy than is the case in the UK. Property prices in some major Chinese cities have reached up to 30 times local incomes, making London look cheap in comparison.

    There is also a huge 'shadow' banking system in China which means no-one really knows who owes money to whom, which will make it impossible to be confident in who remains creditworthy when the crisis occurs. Estimates are that bad debts (non-performing loans) by Chinese banks already total more than $2 trillion and are rising fast: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/09/22/fitch-warns-bad-debts-in-china-are-ten-times-official-claims-sta/

    wumogang, 2016-09-25 22:44:50
    TPP is practically written by the lobbyists from the multi-international corporations that exploit every possible tax laws, labor laws, environmental and public health regulations, legal representations and consequences. It is imperialism 2.0 in the 21st century, exclusively serving the interests of top point one percent while greatly depressing the wages of middle class; it is overwhelmingly opposed by the public opinion, law makers of all sides and current president candidates. There is zero chance Obama could make it through legislation before his exit; Clinton will not even consider bringing it back if she wins the election because she already flip-flopped once on the issue during her campaign; and it would seriously damage her chance of re-election if she does. As for Trump, I leave it to anyone's imaginations.
    Narapoia01 -> wumogang, 2016-09-26 01:53:17
    Don't believe for a second Hillary won't ram through a version of the TPP/IP if she wins. What she's actually said is that she's against it in its current form

    Remember she is part of an owned by the 0.1% that stand to benefit from the agreement, she will do their bidding and be well rewarded. A few cosmetic changes will be applied to the agreement so she can claim that she wasn't lying pre-election and we'll have to live with the consequences.

    sanhedrin, 2016-09-25 22:22:22
    I find the United States of America more frightening each day
    thomasvladimir -> sanhedrin, 2016-09-26 00:53:38
    failing flailing empire.......classic insanity
    Ubermensch1, 2016-09-25 21:43:18
    Well done all you globalists for failing to spot the bleedin obvious...that millions of homes worldwide full of 'Made In China' was ultimately going to pay for the People's Liberation Army. Still think globalisation is wonderful ?
    kbg541 -> Ubermensch1, 2016-09-25 22:31:38
    Quite. How can you believe in a liberal, global free market and then do business with the Socialist Republic of China, that is the antithesis of free markets. The name is above the door, so there's no use acting all surprised when it doesn't pan out the way you planned it.
    moderatejohn -> Ubermensch1, 2016-09-25 22:40:32
    Anything good can be made evil, including globalization. Imagine fair trade completely globalized so very nation relies on every other nation for goods. That type of shared destiny is the only way to maintain peace because humans are tribalist to a fault. We evolved in small groups, our social dynamics are not well suited to large diverse groups. If nation has food but nation B does not, nation B will go to war with nation A, so hopefully both nations trade and alleviate that situation. Nations with high economic isolation are beset by famines and poverty. Germany usually beats China in total exports and Germany is a wonderful place to live. It's not globalization that is the problem, it's exploitation and failure of our leaders to follow and enforce the Golden Rule.
    BelieveItsTrue -> Ubermensch1, 2016-09-25 23:00:58
    Roll out the barrel.....
    Well said and you are so right.
    15 years ago, I had a conversation in an airport with an American. I remarked that, by outsourcing manufacturing to China the US had sold its future to an entity that would prove to be their enemy before too long. I was derided and ridiculed. I wonder where that man is and whether he remembers our conversation.

    Globalisation is another word for one world government and all that brings, one currency, one police force, taxation, dissolution of borders, an end to sovereignty and all of our hard won freedoms. Freedom is a thing of the past, with MSM owned by the globalist elites, enforcing a moratorium on truth, and a population that has no idea what is going on behind the scenes.

    I despair of "normalcy bias" and the insulting term "conspiracy theorist". People have lost the ability to work things out for themselves and the majority knows nothing about Agenda 21 aka Sustainable Development Goals 2030, until the land grabs start and private ownership is outlawed.

    Heaven help us.

    KhusroK, 2016-09-25 21:33:12
    ... the study also suggests that, if war cannot be avoided, the US might be best advised to strike first, before China gets any stronger and the current US military advantage declines further ..

    Another brilliant thought from Rand; when in doubt, shoot from the hip ....

    Zhubajie1284 -> KhusroK, 2016-09-25 23:45:45
    They tell their employers what they want to hear.
    freeandfair -> KhusroK, 2016-09-26 01:04:05
    Do Americans not realize that Chinese and Russians read this too and plan accordingly? This is madness. I am fairly certain preemptive strikes are against international law. Why nobody has the guts to call the US out on this kind of illegal warmongering?
    KhusroK, 2016-09-25 21:24:54
    1. With respect, Mr Tidsall is badly off track in painting China as the one evil facing an innocent world.

    2. The fact is that US' belief in and repeated resort to force has created a huge mess in the Middle East, brought true misery to millions, and truly thrown Europe in turmoil in the bargain.

    3. Besides this Middle East mess, the US neoliberal economic policies have wreaked havoc, culminating in an unprecedented financial and economic crisis that has left millions all over the world without any hope for the future

    4. Hence Mr Tidsall's pronouncement:

    This dilemma – how to work constructively with a powerful, assertive China without compromising or surrendering national interests – grows steadily more acute.


    Ought to read:

    This dilemma – how to work constructively with a powerful, assertive United States without compromising or surrendering national interests – grows steadily more acute.

    5. US would be better advised to focus on its growing social problems, evident in the growing random killings, police picking on blacks, etc, and on its fast decaying infrastructure. We now read that China has the fastest computer, the largest telescope, etc, whilst US just kills and kills all over the world.

    6. Mr Tidsall, may I request that you kindly focus on realities rather than come up with opinion that approaches science fiction

    5566hh -> KhusroK, 2016-09-25 22:50:58
    I agree that Mr Tisdall's treatment of the US is somewhat naive and ignorant. However couldn't it be that both countries are capable of aggression and assertiveness? The US's malign influence is mainly focussed on the Middle East and North Africa region, while China's is on its neighbours. China's attitude to Taiwan is pure imperialism, as is its treatment of dissenting voices on the mainland and in Hong Kong. China's contempt for international law and the binding ruling by the UNCLOS Arbitral Tribunal is also deeply harmful to peace and justice in the region and worldwide.

    We now read that China has the fastest computer, the largest telescope, etc, whilst US just kills and kills all over the world.

    Very superficial indeed - compare, just as one example, the number of Nobel prizes won by American scientists recently with those by Chinese. The US is still, in general, far ahead of China in terms of scientific research (though China is making rapid progress). (That is not intended to excuse US killing of course.)

    BelieveItsTrue -> KhusroK, 2016-09-25 23:07:25
    Oh well said. At least someone understands how the it works.
    freeandfair -> KhusroK, 2016-09-26 01:06:32
    The US follows the USSR path of increasingly ignoring the needs of its own population in order to retain global dominance. It will end the same as the USSR. That which cannot continue will not continue.
    wumogang, 2016-09-25 20:23:25

    Xi is not looking for a fight. His first-choice agent of change is money, not munitions. According to Xi's "One Belt, One Road" plan, his preferred path to 21st-century Chinese hegemony is through expanded trade, business and economic partnerships extending from Asia to the Middle East and Africa. China's massive Silk Road investments in central and west Asian oil and gas pipelines, high-speed rail and ports, backed by new institutions such as the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank, are part of this strategy, which simultaneously encourages political and economic dependencies. Deng Xiaoping once said to get rich is glorious. Xi might add it is also empowering.

    The most realistic assessment on Xi and China.

    The dilemma is clear: amid rising nationalism in both countries, China is not willing to have its ambitions curbed or contained and the US is not ready to accept the world number two spot. These two juggernauts are on a collision course.

    A Grim and over-paranoid predicament: US is not in decline and need not worry about China's "ambition"; China is well aware it remains a poor nation compared to developed world and is decades behind of US in military, GDP per capital and science, that is not including civil liberty, citizen participation, Gov't transparency and so on. China is busy building a nation confident of its culture and history, military hegemony plays no part of its dream.
    BelieveItsTrue -> wumogang, 2016-09-25 23:14:42

    US is not in decline and need not worry about China's "ambition"

    Oh come on, $20 Trillion in debt and with Social Security running out of money, there will be no more to lend the government.

    China has forged an agreement with Russia for all its needs in oil ( Russia has more oil than Saudi Arabia) and payment will not be in US dollars. Russia will not take US$ for trade and the BRICS nations will squeeze the US$ out of its current situation as reserve currency. When the dollars all find their way back to the USA hyperinflation will cause misery.

    Zhubajie1284 -> wumogang, 2016-09-25 23:49:17
    The US sure looks in decline. Bridges falling into rivers, tens of millions homeless. Yet some how our elites can always find money for another war.
    Riverdweller, 2016-09-25 19:33:09
    Before the Chinese or anyone else gets any ideas, they should reflect on the size of the US defence budget, 600 billion dollars in 2015, and consider what that might imply in the event of conflict.
    fragglerokk -> Riverdweller, 2016-09-25 20:14:35
    a third of that budget goes in profit for the private companies they employ to make duds like the F35 - so you can immediately reduce that to 400 billion. The US have been fighting third world countries for 50 years, and losing, their military is bloated, out of date and full of retrograde gear that simply wont cut it against the Russians. Privately you would find that most top line military agree with that statement. They also have around 800 bases scattered world wide, spread way too thin. Its why theyve stalled in Ukraine and can't handle the middle east. The Russians spend less than $50 billion but have small, highly mobile forces, cutting edge missile defence systems (which will have full airspace coverage by 2017). The Chinese policy of A2D/AD or access denial has got the US surface fleet marooned out in the oceans as any attempt to get close enough to be effective would be met with a hail of multiple rocket shedding war heads. The only place where it is probable (but my no means certain) that the US still has the edge is in submarine warfare, although again if the Russians and Chinese have full coverage of their airspace nothing (or little) would get through.
    Two theorys are in current operation about the election and the waring factions in the NSA and the CIA 1) HRC wins but is too much of a warmonger and would push america into more wars they simply cannot win 2) there is a preference for Trump to win amongst the MIC because he would (temporarily) seek 'peace' with the Russians thus giving the military the chance to catch up - say in 3 or 4 years - plus all the billions and billions of dollars that would mean for them.

    Overwhelming fire power no longer wins wars, the US have proved that year in year out since the end of the second world war, theyve lost every war theyve started/caused/joined in. Unless you count that limited skirmish on British soil in Grenada - and I guess we could call Korea a score draw. The yanks are bust and they know it, the neocons are all bluster and idiots like Breedlove, Power and Nuland are impotent because they don't have right on their side or the might to back it up. The US is mired in the middle east, locked out of asia and would grind to halt in Europe against the Russians. (every NATO wargame simulation in the last 4 years has conclusively shown this) Add to that the fact that the overwhelming majority of US citizens dont have the appetite for a conventional war and in the event of a nuclear war the US would suffer at least as much as Europe and youve got a better picture of where we are at.

    goenzoy -> Riverdweller, 2016-09-25 20:48:37
    Well it is just ABOUT money.Also during Vietnam and Iraq war US was biggest spender.
    Nobody in US still thinks that Vietnam war was a good idea and the same applies to Iraq.Iraq war will be even in history books for biggest amount spend to achieve NOTHING.
    Mrpavado -> Riverdweller, 2016-09-25 21:30:20
    Chinese military spending is at least on a par with American. A huge part of American military money goes to personnel salary while China does NOT pay to Chinese soldiers for their service as China holds a compulsory military service system.
    Liang1a, 2016-09-25 19:24:05
    This article assumes China is evil and the US is the righteous protector of all nations in the SE Asian region against the evil China which is obviously out to destroy the hapless SE Asian nations. This assumption is obviously nonsense. The US itself is rife with racial problems. Everybody has seen what it had done to Vietnam. Nobody believes that a racist US that cares nothing for the welfare of its own black, Latino and Asian population will actually care for the welfare of the same peoples outside of the US and especially in SE Asia.

    The truth is China is not the evil destroyer of nations. The truth is the US is the evil destroyer of nations. The US has brought nothing but bloodshed and destruction to the SE Asian regions for the last 200 years. The US had killed millions of Filipinos during it colonial era. The US had killed millions of Vietnamese during the Vietnam War. The US had incited pogroms against the ethnic Chinese unceasingly. The May 13 massacre in Malaysia, the anti-Chinese massacres in the 1960's and the 1990's in Indonesia, and many other discrimination and marginalization of ethnic Chinese throughout the entire SE Asia are all the works of the US. It is the US that is the killer and destroyer.

    Therefore, it is a good thing that the evil intents of the US had failed. With the all but inevitable rise of China, the influence of the Japanese and the americans will inevitably wane. The only danger to China is the excessive xenocentrism of the Dengist faction who is selling out China to these dangerous enemies. If the CPC government sold out China's domestic economy, then China will become a colony of the Japanese and americans without firing a single shot. And the Chinese economy will slide into depression as it had done in the Qing Dynasty and Chinese influence in the SE Asian region will collapse.

    Therefore, the task before the CPC government is to ban all foreign businesses out of China's domestic economy, upgrade and expand China's education and R&D, urbanize the rural residents and expand the Chinese military, etc. With such an independent economic, political and military policies, China will at once make itself the richest and the most powerful nation in the world dwarfing the Japanese and American economies and militaries. China can then bring economic prosperity and stability to the SE Asian region by squeezing the evil Japanese and americans out of the region.

    mark john Mcculloch , 2016-09-25 19:22:11
    Lets be honest what has Obama achieved,he got the Nobel peace prize for simply not being George Bush Jr he has diplayed a woeful lack of leadership with Russia over Syria Libya and the Chinese Simply being the first African American president will not be a legacy
    outfitter, 2016-09-25 18:54:08
    Do you know of one Leninist state that ever built a prosperous modern industrial nation? Therein lies the advantage and the problem with China. China is totally export dependant and therefore its customers can adversely affect its economy - put enough chinese out of work and surely political instability will follow. A threatened dictatorship with a large army, however, is a danger to its neighbors and the world.
    fragglerokk -> outfitter, 2016-09-25 20:26:17
    China are now net consumers. You need to read up on whats happening, not from just the western press. They are well on their way to becoming the most powerful nation on earth, they have access (much like Russia) to over two thirds of the population of the worlds consumers and growing (this is partially why sanctions against Russia have been in large part meaningless) China will never want for buyers of their products (the iphone couldnt be made without the Chinese) with the vast swaithes of unplumbed Russian resources becoming available to them its hard to see how the west can combat the Eurasians. The wealth is passing from west to east, its a natural cycle the 'permanant growth' monkies in the west have been blind to by their own greed and egotism. Above all the Chinese are a trading nation, always seeking win/win trading links. The west would be better employed trading and linking culturally with the Chinese rather than trying to dictate with military threats. The west comprises only 18% of the global population and our growth and wealth is either exhausted or locked away in vaults where it is doing no one any good. Tinme to wise up or get left behind.
    deetrump, 2016-09-25 18:17:06
    Tisdall...absolute war-monger and neo-con "dog of war". Is this serious journalism? The rise of China was as inevitable as the rise of the US in the last century..."no man can put a stop to the march of a nation". It's Asias century and it's not the first time for China to be the No 1 economy in the world. They have been here before and have much more wisdom than the west...for too long the tail has wagged the dog...suck it up Tisdall!
    Dante5, 2016-09-25 17:56:56
    The US grand strategy post-Bush was to reposition itself at the heart of a liberal economic system excluding China through TTIP with the EU and TPP with Asia-Pac ex. China and Russia. The idea was that this would enable the US to sustain its hegemony.

    It has been an absolute failure. Brexit has torpedoed TTIP and TPP has limited value- the largest economy in the partnership, Japan, has been largely integrated in to the US for the past 70 years.

    IMO the biggest failure of the US has been hating Russia too much. The Russians have just as much reason to be afraid of China as the US do and have a pretty capable army. If the US patched things up with the Russians, firstly it could redeploy forces and military effort away from the Middle East towards Asia Pac and secondly it would give the US effective leverage over China- with the majority of the oil producing nations aligned with the US, China would have difficulty in conducted a sustained conflict. It's old Cold War thinking that has seen America lose its hegemony- similar to how the British were so focused on stopping German ascendancy they didn't see the Americans coming with the knife.

    Advaitya, 2016-09-25 17:54:49
    America is reaping the fruits of what they sowed during the time of Reagan. It was never a good idea to outsource your entire manufacturing industry to a country that is a dictatorship and does not embrace western liberal democratic values. Now the Americans are hopelessly dependent on China - a country that does not play by the rules in any sphere - it censors free speech, it blatantly violates intellectual property, it displays hostile intent towards nearly all South East Asian countries, its friends include state sponsors of terror like Pakistan and North Korea, it is carefully cultivating the enemies of America and the west in general.

    In no way, shape or form does China fulfill the criteria for being a trustworthy partner of the west. And yet today, China holds all the cards in its relationship with the west, with the western consumerist economies completely dependent on China. Moral of the story - Trade and economics cannot be conducted in isolation, separate from geopolitical realities. Doing so is a recipe for disaster.

    Kamatron -> Advaitya, 2016-09-25 21:46:36
    The arrogance is breathtaking.

    Embrace western liberal values? Exactly what is that?

    A sense of moral and ethical superiority?

    Freedom to kill unarm black people?

    Right to invade other countries?

    Commit war crimes?

    That kind of Western liberal values?

    freeandfair -> Advaitya, 2016-09-26 01:15:38
    The Us is reaping the results of its arrogance, you got that part right.
    humdum, 2016-09-25 17:24:35
    Mr Tisdall should declare his affiliation, if any, with the military-industrial complex.
    It is surprising coming from a Briton which tried to contain Germany and fought two
    wars destroying itself and the empire. War may be profitable for military-industrial complex
    but disastrous for everyone else. In world war 2, USA benefited enormously by ramping
    up war material production and creating millions of job which led to tremendous
    prosperity turning the country around from a basket case in 1930s to a big prosperous power
    which dominated the world till 2003.
    Nuno Cardoso da Silva , 2016-09-25 17:16:24
    US insistence on being top cat in a changing world will end up by dragging us all into a WW III. Why can't the US leave the rest of the world alone? Americans do not need a military presence to do business with the rest of the world and earn a lot of money with such trade. And they are too ignorant, too unsophisticate and too weak to be able to impose their will on the rest of us. The (very) ugly Americans are back and all we want is for them to go back home and forever remain there... The sooner the better...
    HotPotato22, 2016-09-25 17:12:13
    The world is going to look fantastically different in a hundred years time.

    Points of world power will go back to where they was traditionally; Europe and Asia. America is a falling power, it doesn't get the skilled European immigrants it use to after German revolution and 2 world wars. And it's projected white population will be a minority by 2050. America's future lies with south America.

    Australia with such a massive country but with a tiny population of 20million will look very attractive to China. It's future lies with a much stronger commonwealth, maybe a united military and economic commonwealth between the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

    Even without the EU, Europe is going to have to work together, including Russia to beat the Chinese militarily and economically. America will not be the same power in another 30-50 years and would struggle to beat them now.

    China are expansionists, always have been. War is coming with them and North Korea sometime in the future.

    Alex Wijaya, 2016-09-25 16:23:04
    From the article above, it is clear who is the more dangerous power. While China is aiming to be the hegemon through economic means like the neo silk road projects, the US is aiming to maintain its hegemon status through military power. The US think thank even suggest to preemptive strike against China to achieve that. This is also the problem with US pivot to Asia, it may fail to contain China, but it didn't fail to poison the atmosphere in Asia. Asia has never been this dangerous since the end of cold war, all thanks to the pivot.
    arbmahla -> Alex Wijaya, 2016-09-25 18:17:41
    Obama is trying to maintain the status quo. China and N. Korea are the ones pushing military intimidation. The key to the US plan is to form an alliance between countries in the region that historically distrust each other. The Chinese are helping that by threatening everybody at the same time. Tisdall sees this conflict strictly as between the US and China. Obama's plan is to form a group of countries to counter China. Japan will have a major role in this alliance but the problem is whether the other victims of WW2 Japanese aggression will agree to it.
    TheRealRadj -> arbmahla, 2016-09-25 18:23:24
    With dozens of bases surrounding Russia and China and you call this status quo.
    Fail.
    CygniCygni, 2016-09-25 16:21:39
    The US's disastrous foreign policy since 9/11 which has unleashed so much chaos in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, etc etc... is not exactly a commendation for credibility these days.
    CommieWealth, 2016-09-25 16:08:00
    A useful summary of the state of play in the Pacific and SCS. It is somewhat hawkish in analysis, military fantasists will always be legion, they should be listened to with extra large doses of salt, or discussion of arguments which favour peaceful cooperation and development, such as trade, cultural relations, and natural stalemates. American anxiety at its own perception of decline, is at least as dangerous for the world as the immature expression of rising Chinese confidence. But the biggest problem it seems we face, is finding a way to accommodate and translate the aspirations of rising global powers with the existing order established post-45, in incarnated in the UN and other international bodies, in international maritime law as in our western notions of universal human rights. Finding a way for China to express origination of these ideas compatible with its own history, to be able to proclaim them as a satisfactory settlement for human relations, is an ideal, but apparently unpromising task.
    BigPhil1959, 2016-09-25 15:46:39
    Perhaps Samuel P Huntingdon was broadly correct when he wrote "The Clash of Civilizations" in the late 90's. He was criticized for his work by neo-liberals who believed that after the Cold War the rest of the world would follow the west and US in particular.

    The problem with the neo-liberal view is that only their opinions on issues are correct, and all others therefore should be ridiculed. What has happened in Ukraine is a prime example. Huntingdon called the Ukraine a "cleft" country split between Russia and Europe. The EU and the US decided to stir up trouble in the Ukraine to get even with Putin over Syria. It was never about EU or NATO membership for the Ukraine which is now further away than ever.

    A Trump presidency is regarded with fear. The Obama presidency has been a failure with regard to foreign policy and a major reason was because Clinton was Secretary of State in the 1st four years. In many ways a Clinton presidency is every bit as dangerous as a Trump presidency.

    Certainly relations with Russia will be worse under Clinton than under Trump, and for the rest of the world that is not a good thing. To those that believe liek Clinton that Putin is the new Hitler, then start cleaning out the nuclear bunkers. If he is then WW3 is coming like it or not and Britain better start spending more on defence.

    markwill89, 2016-09-25 15:41:59
    Can people stop calling China a Communist state. It isn't. China is a corporatist dictatorship.
    yelzohy -> markwill89, 2016-09-25 16:19:47
    which serves only the top one tenth of one percent. Sounds familiar.
    markwill89 -> yelzohy, 2016-09-25 16:23:29
    The difference between the United States and China is striking. Try criticising the Chinese leadership in China and see where it gets you.
    humdum -> markwill89, 2016-09-25 17:44:03
    What does the criticism in USA get you? It is just blah blah blah. ONly criticism that matters is from the corporations and wealthy individuals like Koch bros and Sheldon Edelson and their ilk. Rest can watch football.
    R_Ambrose_Raven, 2016-09-25 15:30:27
    Never mind that a general, high-intensity war in Northern Asia would be disastrous for all involved, whatever the outcome. Never mind that much of the discussion about containing China is by warmongers urging such a conflict.

    Never mind that very little depth in fact lies behind the shell of American and Japanese military strength, or that a competently-run Chinese government is well able to grossly outproduce "us" all in war materiel.

    Never mind that those same warmongers and neocons drove and drive a succession of Imperial disasters; they remain much-praised centres of attention, just as the banksters and rentiers that are sucking the life from Americans have never had it so good.

    Never mind that abbott encouraged violence as the automatic reaction to problems, while his Misgovernment was (while Turnbull to a lesser extent still is) working hard to destroy the economic and social strengths we need to have any chance of surmounting those problems.

    Yes, it is a proper precaution to have a military strength that can deny our approaches to China. Unfortunately that rather disregards that "we" have long pursued a policy of globalisation involving the destruction of our both own manufacturing and our own merchant navy. Taken together with non-existent fuel reserves, "our" military preparations are pointless, because we would have to surrender within a fortnight were China to mount even a partial maritime blockade of Australia.

    ID1726608, 2016-09-25 15:28:36
    What I don't quite understand is how all this comes as any surprise to those in the know. China has been on target to be the #1 economic power in the world in this decade for at least 30 years.

    And who made it so? Western capitalists. China is now not only the world's industrial heartbeat, it also owns a large proportion of Western debt - despite the fact that its differences with the West (not least being a one-party Communist state) couldn't be more obvious - and while I doubt it's in its interests to destabilise its benefactorrs at the moment, that may not always be the case.

    It also has another problem: In fifty or sixty years time it is due to be overtaken by India, which gives it very little time to develop ASEAN in its own image; but I suspect that it's current "silk glove" policy is far smarter and more cost-effective than any American "iron fist".

    heyidontknowman, 2016-09-25 15:18:23
    The US is just worried about losing out on markets and further exploitation. They should have no authority over China's interest in the South China Sea. If China do rise to the point were they can affect foreign governments, they will unlikely be as brutal as the United States. [Indonesia 1964, Congo 1960s, Brazil 1964, Chile 1973, Central America 1980s, Egyptian military aid, Saudi support, Iraq 2003, the Structural Adjustments of the IMF]
    Riaz Danish, 2016-09-25 15:14:17
    Simon Tisdall and many Europeans as well as the US GOP party still thinks that US is an empire similar to what the British had in the 18th century. This assumption is completely wrong especially in the 21th century where Western Europe, Japan, Korea if they want can be spend their money and also become global military power.

    While many Europeans and others including our current GOP party thinks we are the global empire and we should stick our nose everywhere, our people doesn't we are an empire or we should stick our nose in every trouble spot in the world spending our blood and treasure to fight others battles and get blame when everything goes wrong. President Obama doesn't think of himself as Julius Ceaser and America is not Rome.

    He will be remembered as one of our greatest president ever setting a course for this country's foreign policy towards trying to solve the world's problems through alliances and cooperation with like minded countries as the opposite of the war mongering brainless, trigger happy GOP presidents. However when lesser powers who preach xenophobia and destabilize their neighborhood through annexation as the Hitler like Putin has, he comes down with a hammer using tools other than military to punish the aggressor.

    All you need to do is watch what is happening to the Russian economy since he imposed sanctions to the Mafiso Putin.

    This article is completely misleading and the author is constricting himself in his statement that Obama's pivot to Asia is a failure. Since China tried to annex the Islands near the Philippines, countries like Vietnam, Indonesia, Philippines, India, etc. has ask the US for more cooperation both military and economically these countries were moving away from US under Bush and others so I think this is a win for Obama not a loss. Unlike the idiotic Russians, China is a clever country and is playing global chess in advancing her foreign policy goals. While the US cannot do anything with China's annexation of these disputed Islands has costs her greatly because the Asian countries effected by China's moves are running towards the US, this is a win for the US. China's popularity around her neighborhood has taken a nose dive similar to Russian's popularity around her neighborhood. These are long term strategic wins for the US, especially if Hillary wins the white house and carry's on Obama's mantel of speaking softly but carry a big stick. Obama will go down as our greatest foreign policy president by building alliances in Europe to try stop Mafioso Putin and alliances in Asia to curtail China's foreign policy ambitions. This author's thesis is pure bogus, because he doesn't indicate what Obama should have done to make him happy? Threaten Chine military confertation?
    All you have to do is go back 8 years ago and compare our last two presidents and you can see where Obama is going.

    NowheretoHideQC -> Riaz Danish, 2016-09-25 15:33:01
    For the allusion to Rome, I think they act like the old empire when they had to send their army to keep the peace....and it is an empire of the 21 first century, not like the old ones (Assange).
    Mormorola, 2016-09-25 15:06:09
    Obama and Hillary foreign country policies have been disasters one after the other:
    • - "Benign" neglect and lack of courage in Palestine on the "No new settlements" request.
    • - Disastrous interventions in Libya and Middle East resulting in hundred of thousand of "collateral damage".
    • - Russian "Reset" which was no more than spin, but continued to look at Russia as the right place to wipe your feet.
    • - Empty promises to Ukraine resulting into a civil war.
    • - Ill conceived "Pivot to Asia" with no meat, much wishful thinking and no understanding of local sensitivities.
    • - Continued support for bloody dictators like the Saudis and the Thai dictators (which Hillary once branded a "vibrant democracy").

    And you wish "that woman" to become your next president?

    ElZilch0, 2016-09-25 14:54:23
    China needs western consumerism to maintain its manufacturing base. If China's growth impacts the ability of the West to maintain its standard of consumerism, then China will need a new source of affluent purchaser. If China's own citizens become affluent, they will expect a standard of living commensurate with that status, accordingly China will not be able to maintain its manufacturing base.

    So the options for China are:

    a) Prop up western economies until developing nations in Africa and South America (themselves heavily dependent on the West) reach a high standard of consumerism.

    b) Divide China into a ruling class, and a worker class, in which the former is a parasite on the latter.

    The current tactic seems to be to follow option b, until option a becomes viable.

    However, the longer option a takes to develop, and therefore the longer option b is in effect, the greater the chances of counter-revolution (which at this stage is probably just revolution).

    The long and the short of it, is that China is boned.

    russian, 2016-09-25 14:35:09
    Being a large country surrounded by many other occasionally threatening powers, the governments' priority is and always has been defending its territorial integrity. China is happy enough to leave the command and conquer stuff, sorry "democratization" to the US.

    It's got it's hands full at home. As long as the West doesn't try to get involved in what China sees as its historical territory (i.e. The big rooster shaped landmass plus Hainan and Hong Kong and various little islands) there's absolutely nothing to worry about.

    Babeouf, 2016-09-25 14:32:26
    Why did Obama say that his greatest regret was Libya.? Because Obama's policy is/was to manage the decline of US power. To manage the end of US hegemony. I doubt that Obama believes that any pivot to any where can restore or maintain US dominance on planet earth. There is absolutely nothing exceptional about a power not admitting publicly what is known to many,see the outpourings of the British elites during the end of its empire.
    Lafcadio1944, 2016-09-25 14:11:59
    As usual the Guardian is on its anti-China horse. Look through this article and every move China has made is "aggressive" or when it tries to expand trade (and produce win win economic conditions) it is "hegemonic" while the US is just trying to protect us all and is dealing with the "Chinese threat" -- a threat to their economic interests and global imperial hegemony is what they mean.

    The US still maintains a "one China" policy and the status quo is exactly that "one China" It would be great for someone in the west to review the historical record instead of arming Taiwan to the teeth. Additionally, before China ever started its island construction the US had already begun the "pivot to Asia" which now is huge with nuclear submarines patrolling all around China, nuclear weapons on the - two aircraft carrier fleets now threatening China - very rare for the US to have two aircraft carrier fleets in the same waters - the B-1 long range nuclear bombers now in Australia, and even more belligerent the US intends to deploy THAAD missals in South Korea - using North Korea as an excuse to further seriously threaten China.

    China wishes to expand trade and improve economic conditions for its people and for those with whom it trades. That is not aggression except when it interferes with US global economic hegemony.

    Just look around the world - where are the conflicts - the middle east and Africa - who is there with military and arms sales and bombing seven countries -- is it China?

    The most belligerent nation in the world the nation with its army in over 100 countries, the nation bombing and conducting perpetual war throughout the middle east, the country invading countries for "regime change" and creating only misery and death -- it is not China.

    The US and its Neoliberal capitalist system must expand to grow - plus they clearly want total global domination - the US and its Imperial agents have encircled both China and Russia with trillions of dollars of the most destructive weapons in the world including nuclear weapons - do you thin they have done that for "security" if so you simply ignore the aggression and hubris of an Imperial US.

    [Sep 26, 2016] War as a Business Opportunity

    Highly recommended!
    Notable quotes:
    "... As General Smedley Butler, twice awarded the Medal of Honor, said: War is a racket . Wars will persist as long as people see them as a "core product," as a business opportunity. In capitalism, the profit motive is often amoral; greed is good, even when it feeds war. Meanwhile, the Pentagon is willing to play along. It always sees "vulnerabilities" and always wants more money. ..."
    "... Wars are always profitable for a few, but they are ruining democracy in America. Sure, it's a business opportunity: one that ends in national (and moral) bankruptcy. ..."
    Sep 24, 2016 | www.antiwar.com
    A good friend passed along an article at Forbes from a month ago with the pregnant title, "U.S. Army Fears Major War Likely Within Five Years - But Lacks The Money To Prepare." Basically, the article argues that war is possible - even likely - within five years with Russia or North Korea or Iran, or maybe all three, but that America's army is short of money to prepare for these wars. This despite the fact that America spends roughly $700 billion each and every year on defense and overseas wars.

    Now, the author's agenda is quite clear, as he states at the end of his article: "Several of the Army's equipment suppliers are contributors to my think tank and/or consulting clients." He's writing an alarmist article about the probability of future wars at the same time as he's profiting from the sales of weaponry to the army.

    As General Smedley Butler, twice awarded the Medal of Honor, said: War is a racket . Wars will persist as long as people see them as a "core product," as a business opportunity. In capitalism, the profit motive is often amoral; greed is good, even when it feeds war. Meanwhile, the Pentagon is willing to play along. It always sees "vulnerabilities" and always wants more money.

    But back to the Forbes article with its concerns about war(s) in five years with Russia or North Korea or Iran (or all three). For what vital national interest should America fight against Russia? North Korea? Iran? A few quick reminders:

    #1: Don't get involved in a land war in Asia or with Russia (Charles XII, Napoleon, and Hitler all learned that lesson the hard way).

    #2: North Korea? It's a puppet regime that can't feed its own people. It might prefer war to distract the people from their parlous existence.

    #3: Iran? A regional power, already contained, with a young population that's sympathetic to America, at least to our culture of relative openness and tolerance. If the US Army thinks tackling Iran would be relatively easy, just consider all those recent "easy" wars and military interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria

    Of course, the business aspect of this is selling the idea the US Army isn't prepared and therefore needs yet another new generation of expensive high-tech weaponry. It's like convincing high-end consumers their three-year-old Audi or Lexus is obsolete so they must buy the latest model else lose face.

    We see this all the time in the US military. It's a version of planned or artificial obsolescence . Consider the Air Force. It could easily defeat its enemies with updated versions of A-10s, F-15s, and F-16s, but instead the Pentagon plans to spend as much as $1.4 trillion on the shiny new and under-performing F-35 . The Army has an enormous surplus of tanks and other armored fighting vehicles, but the call goes forth for a "new generation." No other navy comes close to the US Navy, yet the call goes out for a new generation of ships.

    The Pentagon mantra is always for more and better, which often turns out to be for less and much more expensive, e.g. the F-35 fighter.

    Wars are always profitable for a few, but they are ruining democracy in America. Sure, it's a business opportunity: one that ends in national (and moral) bankruptcy.

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

    [Sep 26, 2016] Angela Merkel Will Stop Illegal Migration

    Notable quotes:
    "... After a series of shock defeats to the anti-mass migration AfD party, German Chancellor Angela Merkel has promised to "stop illegal immigration" and send failed asylum seekers back to their home nations. ..."
    "... "We want to stop illegal immigration while living up to our humanitarian responsibilities," Mrs. Merkel said after talks in Vienna with counterparts from along the Balkan migrant route. ..."
    "... Hundreds of thousands of Middle Eastern migrants began to flood countries along the Balkan route last year, soon after Mrs. Merkel unexpectedly suspended European Union (EU) border rules and "invited" "no upper limit" of migrants to Germany. ..."
    Sep 26, 2016 | www.breitbart.com
    After a series of shock defeats to the anti-mass migration AfD party, German Chancellor Angela Merkel has promised to "stop illegal immigration" and send failed asylum seekers back to their home nations.

    "We want to stop illegal immigration while living up to our humanitarian responsibilities," Mrs. Merkel said after talks in Vienna with counterparts from along the Balkan migrant route.

    In February, Germany accused Pakistan, as well as North and West African countries, of refusing to take back failed asylum applicants.

    "It is necessary to get agreements with third countries, especially in Africa but also Pakistan and Afghanistan… so that it becomes clear that those with no right to stay in Europe can go back to their home countries," Mrs. Merkel told reporters this weekend, DW reports .

    Hundreds of thousands of Middle Eastern migrants began to flood countries along the Balkan route last year, soon after Mrs. Merkel unexpectedly suspended European Union (EU) border rules and "invited" "no upper limit" of migrants to Germany.

    The anti-mass migration Alternative for Deutschland (AfD) party has recently surged in the polls, even overtaking the Chancellor's Christian Democratic Union (CDU) in the state election in her hometown. The CDU also had their worst election result ever in Berlin just over a week ago.

    [Sep 26, 2016] Berlin Election Outcome Signals Merkels Tenuous Grip on Chancellorship

    Notable quotes:
    "... Notice that this interview fails to mention that the huge influx of refugees into Europe is the direct result of the US creating failed states in the Middle East. ..."
    "... Yes. As many have said, critical thinking in DC went out the door with 9/11. Those in DC who shouldn't be in jail, probably should at most be mopping floors at McDonalds. ..."
    "... Let's note that pre-9/11 the foreign policy wasn't exactly just/moral/sane. ..."
    "... Who cares? Since when did we live in a democracy? How many people wanted the Syrian and Lybian conflicts? ..."
    "... Do we all have to die in poverty because our leaders (in the case of these wars, Zionist) pushed war clandestinely? ..."
    "... Funny how that logic is never applied to others who are attacked (victims of our foreign policy). They should act like saints and we should bomb more (or, rather, commit genocide). Maybe might makes right, but then say it and stop masquerading as some burdened savior. ..."
    "... At this year's celebration a couple of people were badly injured by Ukrainian rightists who reportedly fled back to the Ukraine, escaping justice. And, as I recall, there was a recent report of a French rightist who had received bomb materials from Ukrainians. ..."
    "... I recently read accounts of the rise of neo-nazi and right-wing extremist groups in the former DDR after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Apparently they were substantially infiltrated by US and German intelligence services and, as a result, enjoyed a certain level of impunity and de facto ..."
    "... On the other hand, the link between US 'intelligence' and Ukrainian neo-nazis is reasonably well established and is unlikely to have sprung into existence moments before their Maidan mobilization. That they would now use their safe harbor in Ukraine as a base for operations across Europe should not be particularly shocking. ..."
    "... Okay, I have some serious problems with this. One, Israel is not just Jewish in its composition. Two, not all Jewish people live in Israel. Three, Jewish people lived along side Muslims and Christians for hundreds of years in that region before Britain, the USA and some useful idiot Zionists decided to make a geopolitical springboard in 1948. You may be right that every nation pursues its own agenda, but I'm not concerned about that, I'm concerned about the nation or nations pursuing their agenda(s) that have the most wealth and the biggest bombs. I'm concerned about the ones running the empire, and Israel is a useful servant to that empire. ..."
    "... Israel is a nation state. Identifying as Jewish is another matter altogether. Israel is a colony that was formed at the wrong place and the wrong time. They could have pulled it off in the 18th or 19th century (see USA, Canada, Australia, the entire Western Hemisphere), but doing so immediately after a global war that was largely the end result of nation's colonial ambitions was a big no-no. The window of opportunity for such shenanigans had passed and the British, US, and Zionist progenitors of Israel knew better. ..."
    "... If AfD opponents simplistically think that the AfD are a rabble of angry closet Neo-Nazis…..boy their moral/intellectual smugness is going to be shattered at the ballot box in the upcoming years. The core of AfD are the German equivalent of ol' time bottom 90% FDR Democrats. ..."
    "... FDR was probably the only American president who was not entirely the servant of the capitalist ruling class. His reforms were for the benefit of American workers and he dragged the Democratic party along with him in creating the American social welfare system. He truly favored cooperative competition with the Soviet Union. Believing his vision of liberalism to be superior to Soviet socialism he had none of the knee jerk fear and hatred of them that has always characterized the American ruling class' relationship with Russia – even now 20 years after the collapse of the Soviet Union. He was entirely confident the working class would choose his vision. ..."
    "... "Notice that this interview fails to mention that the huge influx of refugees into Europe is the direct result of the US creating failed states in the Middle East." ..."
    "... I've always assumed the costs of the Syria intervention - geopolitical insecurity, refugees, etc. were seen as a useful collateral dampener on the rise of a Germany-dominated Europe. Perhaps not sought after, but when those costs were put in the calculus and were seen to affect the European states the most, the cost-shifting became a net enabler. ..."
    "... The definitive proof of the Empire of Chaos's real agenda in Syria may be found in a 2012 Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) document declassified in May last year. ..."
    "... "THE WEST, GULF COUNTRIES, AND TURKEY [WHO] SUPPORT THE [SYRIAN] OPPOSITION… THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY OF ESTABLISHING A DECLARED OR UNDECLARED SALAFIST PRINCIPALITY IN EASTERN SYRIA (HASAKA AND DER ZOR), AND THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE SUPPORTING POWERS TO THE OPPOSITION WANT, IN ORDER TO ISOLATE THE SYRIAN REGIME, WHICH IS CONSIDERED THE STRATEGIC DEPTH OF THE SHIA EXPANSION (IRAQ AND IRAN)". ..."
    "... It establishes that over four years ago US intel was already hedging its bets between established al-Qaeda in Syria, aka Jabhat al-Nusra, and the emergence of ISIS/ISIL/Daesh, aka the Islamic State. ..."
    "... It's already in the public domain that by a willful decision, leaked by current Donald Trump adviser Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, Washington allowed the emergence of the Islamic State – remember that gleaming white Toyota convoy crossing the open desert? – as a most convenient US strategic asset, and not as the enemy in the remixed, never-ending GWOT (Global War on Terra). ..."
    Sep 24, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Pavel September 24, 2016 at 7:13 am

    Yves: It's amazing how infrequently this point is made in any political debate or news coverage. (Jeremy Corbyn being one rare example of someone who brings it up.):

    Notice that this interview fails to mention that the huge influx of refugees into Europe is the direct result of the US creating failed states in the Middle East.

    If there were any justice, the refugees would be swamping the UK, US, and France in huge numbers, as those are the countries that cooked up the Libya failed state and also most active in Syria. Crazy or stupid (your choice) Hollande vowed to increase the French warfare in Syria after the recent terror attacks in Paris and elsewhere. As though MORE BOMBS ever managed to decrease terrorism, right?

    Though Merkel made her own bed with her "let them all come to Germany!" invitation, and now she is sleeping in it. Good riddance when and if she goes.

    Dirk77 September 24, 2016 at 1:58 pm

    Yes. As many have said, critical thinking in DC went out the door with 9/11. Those in DC who shouldn't be in jail, probably should at most be mopping floors at McDonalds.

    knowbuddhau September 24, 2016 at 8:31 pm

    Hey now. I mop floors. I know people who mop floors. Those perps, sir, are not fit to mop floors. Unless it's in prison. And even then I'm sure they'd suck. Takes integrity to do a humble job well.

    Nelson Lowhim September 25, 2016 at 5:01 am

    Let's note that pre-9/11 the foreign policy wasn't exactly just/moral/sane.

    Hayek's Heelbiter September 24, 2016 at 6:39 pm

    This quote is the "yang" to the "yin" of Yves' column posted on September 21, 2016: Negative Effects of Immigration on the Economy

    fds September 24, 2016 at 11:46 pm

    Who cares? Since when did we live in a democracy? How many people wanted the Syrian and Lybian conflicts? If I recall, war was averted in parliament and congress.

    Do we all have to die in poverty because our leaders (in the case of these wars, Zionist) pushed war clandestinely?

    Nelson Lowhim September 25, 2016 at 5:00 am

    Funny how that logic is never applied to others who are attacked (victims of our foreign policy). They should act like saints and we should bomb more (or, rather, commit genocide). Maybe might makes right, but then say it and stop masquerading as some burdened savior.

    as James Baldwin said: "aching, nobly, to wade through the blood of savages."

    hemeantwell September 24, 2016 at 8:13 am

    Thanks for posting this Grossman interview. One facet of the development of the far right that Grossman hints at, and maybe can only do so because there isn't much data, is its transnational quality. This summer we visited some lefty friends in Lund, Sweden where each year they hold a large May Day rally.

    At this year's celebration a couple of people were badly injured by Ukrainian rightists who reportedly fled back to the Ukraine, escaping justice. And, as I recall, there was a recent report of a French rightist who had received bomb materials from Ukrainians.

    As I think about, there's an ugly resonance with Yves' noting the refugees are substantially a result of US policies. The development of a rightist terrorist potential in the Ukraine has the same general source.

    Skip Intro September 24, 2016 at 3:03 pm

    I recently read accounts of the rise of neo-nazi and right-wing extremist groups in the former DDR after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Apparently they were substantially infiltrated by US and German intelligence services and, as a result, enjoyed a certain level of impunity and de facto financial support from these governments. They were also linked to members of the 'stay behind' organizations (see Operation Gladio ), and were 'useful' in violently opposing left-wing groups as well as punk rockers. The modern AfD is strongest in the states of the former DDR, and are the ideological if not logistical heirs of these right-wing groups. But to conflate 15% of the electorate with semi-pro neo-nazis and racists is a bit of a stretch. While they are surely motivated by a strong nativist impulse and anti-immigrant fervor, their voters also represent the kind of disaffected and disenfranchised populations that carried the Brexit vote to victory.

    On the other hand, the link between US 'intelligence' and Ukrainian neo-nazis is reasonably well established and is unlikely to have sprung into existence moments before their Maidan mobilization. That they would now use their safe harbor in Ukraine as a base for operations across Europe should not be particularly shocking.

    fds September 24, 2016 at 11:47 pm

    No, the AfD is not linked to the CIA It is a pro-social welfare, anti-TPP group that also wants fair migrant exchanges, that is not just to Europe. It is pestered and censored in Germany. Just expressing support in ways a security agent deems 'offensive' gets you fined and ostracized.

    Norb September 24, 2016 at 10:07 am

    The fight over private property rights continues. Liberal Democracy has failed around the world due to the unholy alliance with corporate power. Unchecked corporate power has been unmasked as the destructive force that it truly is.

    The left needs to evolve into a political force that can shape the consciousness of the masses away from individual greed toward the undeniable benefit of cooperative action. The right will use fear to drive people into some sort of trembling mass and only by combating this fear can movement be made.

    The compromise the left needs to make is to use any means possible, not to seize the means of production form existing owners, but to start building alternative ones. It is all too easy for the right to bring out their tried and true methods to hold power. It is time to starve the beast, and one way is to not participate and build in another direction.

    Corporate power is what needs to be broken. From my limited view, the left has always been a reactionary force. It needs to evolve into a proactive one, literally building something in the real world. Another major mistake by the left is to reject and confuse the power of religion. Neoliberalism is a new religion and gains much power by the use of unquestioning faith. The left has failed to counteract this religious faith because they have not even tried to counter it with their own. Just as finance has evolved into a military weapon, it can be argued that religion, in essence, is a military force.

    The political landscape is being reshuffled into defining what we are willing to fight and die for. Until the left starts offering coherent answers to these questions, the status quo will continue to pick from the low hanging fruit.

    Rosario September 25, 2016 at 1:06 am

    Okay, I have some serious problems with this. One, Israel is not just Jewish in its composition. Two, not all Jewish people live in Israel. Three, Jewish people lived along side Muslims and Christians for hundreds of years in that region before Britain, the USA and some useful idiot Zionists decided to make a geopolitical springboard in 1948. You may be right that every nation pursues its own agenda, but I'm not concerned about that, I'm concerned about the nation or nations pursuing their agenda(s) that have the most wealth and the biggest bombs. I'm concerned about the ones running the empire, and Israel is a useful servant to that empire.

    Israel is a nation state. Identifying as Jewish is another matter altogether. Israel is a colony that was formed at the wrong place and the wrong time. They could have pulled it off in the 18th or 19th century (see USA, Canada, Australia, the entire Western Hemisphere), but doing so immediately after a global war that was largely the end result of nation's colonial ambitions was a big no-no. The window of opportunity for such shenanigans had passed and the British, US, and Zionist progenitors of Israel knew better.

    In addition, it is nonsense that we have normalized the formation of a nation state around a single ethnic or religious identity. Particularly after the Holocaust (the irony of this never ceases to amaze me). Would we have the same sympathies for the the countless indigenous ethnic groups in the Americas who, per capita, had even worse genocides inflicted on them, all documented, all accepted as inevitable or necessary in most histories of the Americas? Israel is a contorted hypocrisy that has to either embrace heterogeneity of disappear. Ideally as an inclusive country that is no longer a colony as it has been for hundreds of years. The fetish that is Israel has been an unfair burden to all people living in the Middle East and Jewish people the world over that are forced to (through the sheer force of political dogma) shackle their identities to a racist, rogue state.

    oho September 24, 2016 at 11:44 am

    " AfD stands for Alternative for Germany. It's a young party, about 2 years old. It's built basically on racism."

    Got more important things to do than rant about the above statement….

    Just will quote basic Sun Tzu via Star Trek-know your opponent, know yourself and victory will be yours.

    If AfD opponents simplistically think that the AfD are a rabble of angry closet Neo-Nazis…..boy their moral/intellectual smugness is going to be shattered at the ballot box in the upcoming years. The core of AfD are the German equivalent of ol' time bottom 90% FDR Democrats.

    Felix_47 September 24, 2016 at 2:18 pm

    And on the other side Sarah Wagenknecht, a leader in the left, hit a lot of flak from many in her party when she said there needs to be an "Obergrenze" or limit on the number of refugees. It would hard to call her racist since she is half Persian. It really is a conflict between those who cannot think realistically….those who are supported or secure enough not to have to take responsibility for anyone, and those who will need to make the world function. As a Socialist she apparently is aware that you cannot have a strong social net and combine that with open immigration from places that have astronomical birthrates that are outgrowing their resources without destroying that net. I recall Hillary and the open border people attacked Bernie on that as well. I thought it was unfair and it is this pandering, among other issues, that will keep me from voting for her. There is a lot of commonality between AfD and the Linke. Don`t forget that the notion of German population replacement had some currency during and after WW2 in order to permanently solve the German problem and we may just be actualizing it now.

    Ben Groves September 24, 2016 at 5:45 pm

    In fairness, US immigration policy has slowly been getting tougher over the last 16 years. Immigration policy in the US goes beyond dialect. I doubt Clinton would be overly "easy".

    fds September 24, 2016 at 11:55 pm

    It's easier. Apart from the new Obama rule to issue visas to H1b holders, effectively tripling the numbers issued but still under the cap, to a myriad of other programs, it's much easier.

    Of the several foreign students I've dated, it gets easier every year. Back in 03, one had to have an accountant degree with CPA certs, and even then, you often were slave labor in Chi-Town until you hooked up with an American company. Now the black market foreign industry is so large, that a mere B.A. is enough. The gov doesn't care. Everyone is approved, save the cap.

    bmeisen September 25, 2016 at 12:50 am

    spooky quatsch comment from oho – hard to tell what oho means with "90% bottom- line fdr dems". The very diverse FDR / Dem majority coalesced during and in response to economic crisis. The AfD has emerged during a German boom. It is successful in East Germany, which in the wake of economic collapse immediately following reunification has been the beneficiary of massive inner-German transfers. And it is successful in West Germany much of which is effectively at full-employment. Its core supporters are the 10% of any populazion that is racist, nationalist, and ignorant. You might try to argue that there is a uniquely irrational fear in Germany, something associated with its position on the left edge of Eurasia maybe, a heterogenous cultural unit without convincing access to the sea, trapped if you will and vulnerable to human flows. Sounds silly but it's hard to account for German fear.
    The AfD is using this irrational fear for political gain. FDR was supported largely by voters with very real fears.

    lin1 September 25, 2016 at 1:34 am

    FDR was probably the only American president who was not entirely the servant of the capitalist ruling class. His reforms were for the benefit of American workers and he dragged the Democratic party along with him in creating the American social welfare system. He truly favored cooperative competition with the Soviet Union. Believing his vision of liberalism to be superior to Soviet socialism he had none of the knee jerk fear and hatred of them that has always characterized the American ruling class' relationship with Russia – even now 20 years after the collapse of the Soviet Union. He was entirely confident the working class would choose his vision.

    His reactionary political enemies, concentrated in finance capital, had no reason to be so confident. Their fear and loathing of the working class was/is legitimately earned.

    Plenue September 24, 2016 at 2:07 pm

    "Notice that this interview fails to mention that the huge influx of refugees into Europe is the direct result of the US creating failed states in the Middle East."

    That's typical of all MSM (not saying TRNN is mainstream) coverage of refugees. There's lots of discussion and hand-wringing about accepting refugees, but exactly zero about why they're refugees in the first place.

    Felix_47 September 24, 2016 at 2:32 pm

    Yes the US has had a lot to do with destabilizing Asia and Africa but a lot of it has simply been a continuation of British policy after WW2. As Britain shrank its foreign involvement the US expanded. But the real cause is the inability of our politicians and leaders to face up to the reality that population growth is hitting the limits of resource availability in Asia and Africa and to institute realistic ways to control population. Absent the population explosion in these regions in the last decades we would not be seeing the poverty and anger and constant confllict because there would be enough for all. As much bad press as China has gotten for its population policy it is one of the few bright spots in world economic development. Interestingly China does not seem very interested in accepting millions of third world refugees.

    Vikas September 24, 2016 at 4:09 pm

    I've always assumed the costs of the Syria intervention - geopolitical insecurity, refugees, etc. were seen as a useful collateral dampener on the rise of a Germany-dominated Europe. Perhaps not sought after, but when those costs were put in the calculus and were seen to affect the European states the most, the cost-shifting became a net enabler.

    Micky9finger September 24, 2016 at 4:24 pm

    In my naïve point of view it hit me last year that it was a brilliant stroke of Angela Merkel to grab as many refugees as she could before any other country.
    They are a tremendous natural resource. One that many modern countries are beginning to see a coming shortage of. Many countries, like Germany, France, etc are looking at population shortages in the working age groups. Merkel's grab of this mass of human resource was maybe an accidentally brilliant idea.

    oho September 24, 2016 at 6:06 pm

    can't tell if the above comment is satire or astroturfing or naivety?

    Merkel's migrants have zero higher-level first-world skills. AfD is strong in ex-East Germany because there is popular resentment as ex-East Germans get austerity shoved down their throats while Merkel unfurls the red carpet for migrants.

    http://www.dw.com/en/germany-expects-migration-to-add-to-unemployment/a-19478546

    in der Frage nach festen Arbeitsplätzen für Flüchtlinge ruhen die Hoffnungen zunehmend auf mittelständischen Unternehmen und Handwerksbetrieben. Denn wie eine Umfrage dieser Zeitung ergab, hat die große Mehrzahl der im deutschen Aktienindex (Dax) notierten Konzerne noch keine Flüchtlinge eingestellt. Einzig die Deutsche Post gab an, bis Anfang Juni 50 Flüchtlinge und damit eine nennenswerte Größe fest angestellt zu haben.

    http://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/unternehmen/mittelstand-als-hoffnungstraeger-fuer-fluechtlinge-14323607.html

    Yves Smith Post author September 24, 2016 at 10:55 pm

    Not true. Syrians are very highly educated. Very good public education and high average attainment.

    But Merkel was an idiot if she actually did recognize that Syrians were high potential workers yet did nothing re how to integrate them, most important, acquisition of German and jobs matching.

    Ben Groves September 24, 2016 at 5:49 pm

    The fact capitalism is a ponzi scheme is a key here. When the Aristocracy bowed to the Sephardic bankers, they created this mess. They were the same idiots that bowed to the Christians 1500+ years before.

    Maybe it is time for a new aristocracy. If you want to build internally, you have to abolish capitalism and its market based scam. That is why "right wingers" won't last without the Sephardic banks via market expansion. They run the scheme and always have. From their immigration into the Iberian trails during the 15th century, to their financing and eventual leadership into the protestant reformation, to the first capitalists scheme at Amsterdam to bribing William the Orange into taking it into old England.

    S M Tenneshaw September 24, 2016 at 11:28 pm

    You mean "Sephardic" as in Wells Fargo? Cracka, please.

    Jeff September 24, 2016 at 7:55 pm

    Let me see if I understand this:

    1. Most of the refugees arriving in Europe are Syrian. The US did not act to topple the Syrian dictator and did not create a new Syrian government. The United States is responsible for these refugees.

    2. A portion of the refugees are Libyan. At the urging of its European allies (not just the UK), the US helped topple the Libyan government, but has not created a new government. The US is responsible for these refugees.

    3. A portion of the refugees are from Iraq or Afghanistan. The US toppled the old governments and installed new ones. The US is responsible for these refugees.

    4. A significant portion of the refugees are from African countries including Nigeria and Eritrea. I assume that these aren't included in the statement above as they are not Middle Eastern.

    So, in other words – the US is responsible whether or not we intervene and whether or not we then attempt to set up a government? I wonder under what circumstances you would not view the US as responsible?

    I would suggest, that given the situation in the Middle East and the fact that the results are similar regardless of US actions something more basic is at work. Most of the nations of the Middle East and Africa were artificial creations of primarily Britain and France; they are nations derived neither from ethnic homogeneity nor the consent or shared history of the governed. Whatever, the United States did or does, they would ultimately have shattered in one way or another and refugees would have headed for Europe.

    knowbuddhau September 24, 2016 at 8:57 pm

    Nope, you don't. The US and its Gulf state "allies" are indeed trying to oust Assad and, if not set up, at least allow the creation of a Salafist regime.

    The US Road Map To Balkanize Syria

    By Pepe Escobar

    September 22, 2016 "Information Clearing House" – "RT" – Forget about those endless meetings between Sergei Lavrov and John Kerry; forget about Russia's drive to prevent chaos from reigning in Syria; forget about the possibility of a real ceasefire being implemented and respected by US jihad proxies.

    Forget about the Pentagon investigating what really happened around its bombing 'mistake' in Deir Ezzor.

    The definitive proof of the Empire of Chaos's real agenda in Syria may be found in a 2012 Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) document declassified in May last year.

    As you scroll down the document, you will find page 291, section C, which reads (in caps, originally):

    "THE WEST, GULF COUNTRIES, AND TURKEY [WHO] SUPPORT THE [SYRIAN] OPPOSITION… THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY OF ESTABLISHING A DECLARED OR UNDECLARED SALAFIST PRINCIPALITY IN EASTERN SYRIA (HASAKA AND DER ZOR), AND THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE SUPPORTING POWERS TO THE OPPOSITION WANT, IN ORDER TO ISOLATE THE SYRIAN REGIME, WHICH IS CONSIDERED THE STRATEGIC DEPTH OF THE SHIA EXPANSION (IRAQ AND IRAN)".

    The DIA report is a formerly classified SECRET/NOFORN document, which made the rounds of virtually the whole alphabet soup of US intel, from CENTCOM to CIA, FBI, DHS, NGA and the State Department.

    It establishes that over four years ago US intel was already hedging its bets between established al-Qaeda in Syria, aka Jabhat al-Nusra, and the emergence of ISIS/ISIL/Daesh, aka the Islamic State.

    It's already in the public domain that by a willful decision, leaked by current Donald Trump adviser Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, Washington allowed the emergence of the Islamic State – remember that gleaming white Toyota convoy crossing the open desert? – as a most convenient US strategic asset, and not as the enemy in the remixed, never-ending GWOT (Global War on Terra).

    It's as clear as it gets; a "Salafist principality" is to be encouraged as a means to Divide and Rule over a fragmented Syria in perpetual chaos. Whether it's established by Jabhat al-Nusra – aka "moderate rebels" in Beltway jargon – or al-Baghdadi's "Califake" is just a pesky detail.

    It gets curioser and curioser as Hasaka and Deir Ezzor are named in the DIA report – and directly targeted by the 'mistaken' Pentagon bombing. No wonder Pentagon chief Ash 'Empire of Whining' Carter took no prisoners to directly sabotage what Kerry had agreed on with Lavrov.

    No one will ever see these connections established by US corporate media – as in, for instance, the neocon cabal ruling the Washington Post's editorial pages. But the best of the blogosphere does not disappoint.

    The rest is just blame-shifting that conveniently let's the US off the hook.

    Nelson Lowhim September 25, 2016 at 5:07 am

    Thanks. Let's not forget the initial peace talks which the US helped to scuttle.

    Yves Smith Post author September 24, 2016 at 10:58 pm

    Have you not read any press in the last 5 years, or do you just make a habit of making shit up? The US has been trying to topple Assad for God only knows how long. What, for instance, do you think the desperate fig leaf of trying to claim that we are supporting non-existant "moderate Syrian rebels" is about?

    Noonan September 24, 2016 at 9:55 pm

    "the danger of this right wing group mostly in the form of parties which is by the way it gets its votes by being anti-immigrant, anti-foreigner, and especially anti-Muslimism. That�'s their big call."

    Sounds like a winning platform to me.

    [Sep 26, 2016] Red-Light Warning on Now, About Hillary Clinton

    Notable quotes:
    "... Russia even hacked into the Democratic National Committee, maybe even some state election systems. So, we've got to step up our game. Make sure we are well defended and able to take the fight to those who go after us. As President, I will make it clear, that the United States will treat cyber attacks just like any other attack . We will be ready with serious political, economic and military responses. ..."
    "... "We need to respond to evolving threats from states like Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea from networks, criminal and terrorist networks like ISIS. We need a military that is ready and agile so it can meet the full range of threats, and operate on short notice across every domain, not just land, sea, air and space, but also cyberspace". ..."
    "... "serious political, economic and military responses" ..."
    "... notwithstanding ..."
    "... The mainstream The Hill newspaper bannered, "Clinton: Treat cyberattacks 'like any other attack'" , and reported that, "Since many high-profile cyberattacks could be interpreted as traditional intelligence-gathering - something the US itself also engages in - the White House is often in a tricky political position when it comes to its response". That's not critical of her position, but at least it makes note of the crucial fact that if the US were to treat a hacker's attack as being an excuse to invade Russia, it would treat the US itself as being already an invader of Russia - which the US prior to a President Hillary Clinton never actually has been, notwithstanding the routine nature of international cyber espionage (which Clinton has now stated she wants to become a cause of war), which has been, and will continue to be, essential in the present era. ..."
    "... The International Business Times, an online-only site, headlined September 1 st , "Clinton: US should use 'military response' to fight cyberattacks from Russia and China" , and reported that a Pentagon official had testified to Congress on July 13 th , that current US policy on this matter is: "When determining whether a cyber incident constitutes an armed attack, the US government considers a broad range of factors, including the nature and extent of injury or death to persons and the destruction of or damage to property. Cyber incidents are reviewed on a case-by-case basis, and the national security leadership and the president will make a determination if it's an armed attack". ..."
    "... Hillary's statement on this matter was simply ignored by The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, NBC, ABC, CBS, PBS, NPR, Fox, CNN, The Nation, The Atlantic, Harper's, National Review, Common Dreams, Alternet, Truthout, and all the rest of the US standard and 'alternative news' reporting organizations. Perhaps when Americans go to the polls to elect a President on November 8th, almost none of them will have learned about her policy on this incredibly important matter. ..."
    "... Hillary's statement was in line with the current Administration's direction of policy, but is farther along in that direction than the Obama Administration's policy yet is. ..."
    "... On Tuesday, June 14 th , NATO announced that if a NATO member country becomes the victim of a cyber attack by persons in a non-NATO country such as Russia or China, then NATO's Article V "collective defense" provision requires each NATO member country to join that NATO member country if it decides to strike back against the attacking country. ..."
    "... NATO is now alleging that because Russian hackers had copied the emails on Hillary Clinton's home computer , this action of someone in Russia taking advantage of her having privatized her US State Department communications to her unsecured home computer and of such a Russian's then snooping into the US State Department business that was stored on it, might constitute a Russian attack against the United States of America, and would, if the US President declares it to be a Russian invasion of the US, trigger NATO's mutual-defense clause and so require all NATO nations to join with the US government in going to war against Russia, if the US government so decides. ..."
    "... And finally, we did talk about cyber-security generally. I'm not going to comment on specific investigations that are still alive and active, but I will tell you that we've had problems with cyber-intrusions from Russia in the past, from other countries in the past, and, look, we're moving into a new era here, where a number of countries have significant capacities, and frankly we've got more capacity than anybody both offensively and defensively, but our goal is not to suddenly in the cyber-arena duplicate a cycle of escalation that we saw when it comes to other arms-races in the past, but rather to start instituting (9:00) some norms so that everybody's acting responsibly. ..."
    "... "neoconservative" ..."
    "... Hillary is now the neoconservatives' candidate . (And she's also the close friend of many of them, and hired and promoted many of them at her State Department .) If she becomes the next President, then we might end up having the most neoconservative (i.e., military-industrial-complex-run) government ever. This would be terrific for America's weapons-makers, but it very possibly would be horrific for everybody else. That's the worst lobby of all, to run the country . (And, as that link there shows, Clinton has received over five times as much money from it as has her Republican opponent.) ..."
    "... George Herbert Walker Bush knows lots that the 'news' media don't report (even when it has already been leaked in one way or another), and the Clinton plan to destroy Russia is part of that. Will the Russian government accept it? Or will it do whatever is required in order to defeat it? This is already a serious nuclear confrontation . ..."
    Sep 26, 2016 | www.strategic-culture.org
    Hillary Clinton, on September 19th, was endorsed for President, by the most historically important, intelligent, and dangerous, Republican of modern times.

    She was endorsed then by the person who in 1990 cunningly engineered the end of the Soviet Union and of its Warsaw Pact military alliance in such a way as to continue the West's war against Russia so as to conquer Russia gradually for the owners of US international corporations. The person, who kept his plan secret even from his closest advisors, until the night of 24 February 1990, when he told them that what he had previously instructed them to tell Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev as the West's future military intentions about Russia if the USSR were to end, was actually a lie.

    He also told them that they were henceforth to proceed forward on the basis that the residual stump of the former Soviet Union, Russia, will instead be treated as if it still is an enemy-nation, and that the fundamental aim of the Western alliance will then remain: to conquer Russia (notwithstanding the end of the USSR, of its communism, and of its military alliances) - that the Cold War is to end only on the Russian side, not at all, really, on the Western side. (All of that is documented from the historical record, at that linked-to article.)

    This person was the former Director of the US CIA, born US aristocrat, and committed champion of US conquest of the entire world, the President of the United States at the time (1990): George Herbert Walker Bush .

    He informed the daughter of Robert F. Kennedy, Kathleen Hartington Kennedy Townsend - as she posted it, apparently ecstatically, on September 19th, to her facebook page after personally having just met with Mr. Bush - "The President told me he's voting for Hillary!!" She then confirmed this to Politico the same day, which headlined promptly, "George H.W. Bush to Vote for Hillary" .

    G.H.W. Bush is an insider's insider: he would not do this if he felt that Hillary Clinton wouldn't carry forward his plan ( which has been adhered-to by each of the US Presidents after him ), and if he felt that Donald Trump - Bush's own successor now as the Republican US candidate for President - would not carry it forward. (This was his most important and history-shaping decision during his entire Presidency, and therefore it's understandable now that he would be willing even to cross Party-lines on his Presidential ballot in order to have it followed-through to its ultimate conclusion.)

    What indications exist publicly, that she will carry it forward? Hillary Clinton has already publicly stated (though tactfully, so that the US press could ignore it) her intention to push things up to and beyond the nuclear brink, with regard to Russia:

    German Economic News was the first news medium to headline this, "Hillary Clinton Threatens Russia with War" (in German, on September 4th: the original German of the headline was " Hillary Clinton Droht Russland mit Krieg" ), but the source of this shocking headline was actually Clinton's bellicose speech that had been given to the American Legion, on August 31 st , in which she had said:

    Russia even hacked into the Democratic National Committee, maybe even some state election systems. So, we've got to step up our game. Make sure we are well defended and able to take the fight to those who go after us. As President, I will make it clear, that the United States will treat cyber attacks just like any other attack . We will be ready with serious political, economic and military responses.

    Russia denies that it did any such thing, but the US even taps the phone conversations of Angela Merkel and other US allies ; and, of course, the US and Russia routinely hack into each others' email and other communications; so, even if Russia did what Clinton says, then to call it "like any other attack" against the United States and to threaten to answer it with "military responses", would itself be historically unprecedented - which is what Hillary Clinton is promising to do.

    Historically unprecedented, like nuclear war itself would be. And she was saying this in the context of her alleging that Russia had "attacked" the DNC (Democratic National Committee), and she as President might "attack" back, perhaps even with "military responses". This was not an off-the-cuff remark from her - it was her prepared text in a speech. She said it though, for example, on 26 October 2013, Britain's Telegraph had headlined, "US 'operates 80 listening posts worldwide, 19 in Europe, and snooped on Merkel mobile 2002-2013' : US intelligence targeted Angela Merkel's phone from 2002 to 2013, according to new eavesdropping leaks".

    But now, this tapping against Merkel would, according to Hillary Clinton's logic (unless she intends it to apply only by the United States against Russia), constitute reason for Germany (and 34 other nations ) to go to war against the United States.

    Clinton also said there: "We need to respond to evolving threats from states like Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea from networks, criminal and terrorist networks like ISIS. We need a military that is ready and agile so it can meet the full range of threats, and operate on short notice across every domain, not just land, sea, air and space, but also cyberspace".

    She also said that the sequester agreement between the Congress and the President must end, because US military spending should not be limited: "I am all for cutting the fat out of the budget and making sure we stretch our dollars But we cannot impose arbitrary limits on something as important as our military. That makes no sense at all. The sequester makes our country less secure. Let's end it and get a budget deal that supports America's military". She wasn't opposing "arbitrary limits" on non-military spending; she implied that that's not "as important as our military".

    She was clear: this is a wartime US, not a peacetime nation; we're already at war, in her view; and therefore continued unlimited cost-overruns to Lockheed Martin etc. need to be accepted, not limited (by "arbitrary limits" or otherwise). She favors "cutting the fat out of the budget" for healthcare, education, subsidies to the poor, environmental protection, etc., but not for war, not for this war. A more bellicose speech, especially against "threats from states like Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea from networks, criminal and terrorist networks like ISIS", all equating "states" such as Russia and China, with "terrorist networks like ISIS", could hardly be imagined - as if Russia and China are anything like jihadist organizations, and are hostile toward America, as such jihadist groups are.

    However, her threat to respond to an alleged "cyber attack" from Russia by "serious political, economic and military responses" , is unprecedented, even from her. It was big news when she said it, though virtually ignored by America's newsmedia.

    The only US newsmedia to have picked up on Clinton's shocking threat were Republican-Party-oriented ones, because the Democratic-Party and nonpartisan 'news' media in the US don't criticize a Democratic nominee's neoconservatism - they hide it, or else find excuses for it (even after the Republican neoconservative President George W. Bush's catastrophic and lie-based neoconservative invasion of Iraq - then headed by the Moscow-friendly Saddam Hussein - in 2003, which many Democratic office-holders, such as Hillary Clinton backed).

    So, everything in today's USA 'news' media is favorable toward neoconservatism - it's now the "Establishment" foreign policy, established notwithstanding the catastrophic Iraq-invasion, from which America's 'news' media have evidently learned nothing whatsoever (because they're essentially unchanged and committed to the same aristocracy as has long controlled them).

    However, now that the Republican Party's Presidential nominee, Donald Trump, is openly critical of Hillary Clinton's and George W. Bush's neoconservatism, any Republican-oriented 'news' media that support Trump's candidacy allows its 'journalists' to criticize Clinton's neoconservatism; and, so, there were a few such critiques of this shocking statement from Clinton.

    The Republican Party's "Daily Caller" headlined about this more directly than any other US 'news' medium, "Clinton Advocates Response To DNC Hack That Would Likely Bring On WWIII" , and reported, on September 1st, that "Clinton's cavalier attitude toward going to war over cyber attacks seems to contradict her assertion that she is the responsible voice on foreign policy in the current election".

    The Republican Washington Times newspaper headlined "Hillary Clinton: US will treat cyberattacks 'just like any other attack'" , and reported that she would consider using the "military to respond to cyberattacks," but that her Republican opponent had indicated he would instead use only cyber against cyber: "'I am a fan of the future, and cyber is the future,' he said when asked by Time magazine during the Republican National Convention about using cyberweapons". However, Trump was not asked there whether he would escalate from a cyber attack to a physical one. Trump has many times said that having good relations with Russia would be a priority if he becomes President. That would obviously be impossible if he (like Hillary) were to be seeking a pretext for war against Russia.

    The mainstream The Hill newspaper bannered, "Clinton: Treat cyberattacks 'like any other attack'" , and reported that, "Since many high-profile cyberattacks could be interpreted as traditional intelligence-gathering - something the US itself also engages in - the White House is often in a tricky political position when it comes to its response". That's not critical of her position, but at least it makes note of the crucial fact that if the US were to treat a hacker's attack as being an excuse to invade Russia, it would treat the US itself as being already an invader of Russia - which the US prior to a President Hillary Clinton never actually has been, notwithstanding the routine nature of international cyber espionage (which Clinton has now stated she wants to become a cause of war), which has been, and will continue to be, essential in the present era.

    The International Business Times, an online-only site, headlined September 1 st , "Clinton: US should use 'military response' to fight cyberattacks from Russia and China" , and reported that a Pentagon official had testified to Congress on July 13 th , that current US policy on this matter is: "When determining whether a cyber incident constitutes an armed attack, the US government considers a broad range of factors, including the nature and extent of injury or death to persons and the destruction of or damage to property. Cyber incidents are reviewed on a case-by-case basis, and the national security leadership and the president will make a determination if it's an armed attack".

    Hillary's statement on this matter was simply ignored by The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, NBC, ABC, CBS, PBS, NPR, Fox, CNN, The Nation, The Atlantic, Harper's, National Review, Common Dreams, Alternet, Truthout, and all the rest of the US standard and 'alternative news' reporting organizations. Perhaps when Americans go to the polls to elect a President on November 8th, almost none of them will have learned about her policy on this incredibly important matter.

    Hillary's statement was in line with the current Administration's direction of policy, but is farther along in that direction than the Obama Administration's policy yet is.

    As the German Economic News article had noted, but only in passing: "Just a few months ago, US President Barack Obama had laid the legal basis for this procedure and signed a decree that equates hacker attacks with military attacks". However, this slightly overstated the degree to which Obama has advanced "this procedure". On 1 April 2016 - and not as any April Fool's joke - techdirt had headlined "President Obama Signs Executive Order Saying That Now He's Going To Be Really Mad If He Catches Someone Cyberattacking Us" and linked to the document, which techdirt noted was "allowing the White House to issue sanctions on those 'engaging in significant malicious cyber-enabled activities'".

    The writer, Mike Masnick, continued, quite accurately: "To make this work, the President officially declared foreign hacking to be a 'national emergency' (no, really) and basically said that if the government decides that some foreign person is doing a bit too much hacking, the US government can basically do all sorts of bad stuff to them, like seize anything they have in the US and block them from coming to the US". What Hillary Clinton wants to add to this policy is physical, military, invasion, for practices such as (if Russia becomes declared by the US President to have been behind the hacking of the DNC) what is actually routine activity of the CIA, NSA, and, of course, of Russia's (and other countries') intelligence operations.

    It wasn't directly Obama's own action that led most powerfully up to Hillary Clinton's policy on this, but instead NATO's recent action - and NATO has always been an extension of the US President, it's his military club, and it authorizes him to go to war against any nation that it decides to have been invaded by some non-member country (especially Russia or China - the Saudis, Qataris, and other funders behind international jihadist attacks are institutionally prohibited from being considered for invasion by NATO, because the US keeps those regimes in power, and those regimes are generally the biggest purchasers of US weapons). I reported on this at The Saker's site, on 15 June 2016, headlining "NATO Says It Might Now Have Grounds to Attack Russia" . That report opened:

    On Tuesday, June 14 th , NATO announced that if a NATO member country becomes the victim of a cyber attack by persons in a non-NATO country such as Russia or China, then NATO's Article V "collective defense" provision requires each NATO member country to join that NATO member country if it decides to strike back against the attacking country.

    NATO is now alleging that because Russian hackers had copied the emails on Hillary Clinton's home computer , this action of someone in Russia taking advantage of her having privatized her US State Department communications to her unsecured home computer and of such a Russian's then snooping into the US State Department business that was stored on it, might constitute a Russian attack against the United States of America, and would, if the US President declares it to be a Russian invasion of the US, trigger NATO's mutual-defense clause and so require all NATO nations to join with the US government in going to war against Russia, if the US government so decides.

    So, Obama is using NATO to set the groundwork for Hillary Clinton's policy as (he hopes) America's next President. Meanwhile, Obama's public rhetoric on the matter is far more modest, and less scary. It's sane-sounding falsehoods. At the end of the G-20 Summit in Beijing, he held a press conference September 5th (VIDEO at this link) , in which he was asked specifically (3:15) "Q: On the cyber front, do you think Russia is trying to influence the US election?" and he went into a lengthy statement, insulting Putin and saying (until 6:40 on the video) why Obama is superior to Putin on the Syrian war, and then (until 8:07 in the video) blaming Putin for, what is actually, the refusal of the Ukrainian parliament or Rada to approve the federalization of Ukraine that's stated in the Minsk agreement as being a prerequisite to direct talks being held between the Donbass residents and the Obama-installed regime in Kiev that's been trying to exterminate the residents of Donbass . Then (8:07 in the video), Obama got around to the reporter's question:

    And finally, we did talk about cyber-security generally. I'm not going to comment on specific investigations that are still alive and active, but I will tell you that we've had problems with cyber-intrusions from Russia in the past, from other countries in the past, and, look, we're moving into a new era here, where a number of countries have significant capacities, and frankly we've got more capacity than anybody both offensively and defensively, but our goal is not to suddenly in the cyber-arena duplicate a cycle of escalation that we saw when it comes to other arms-races in the past, but rather to start instituting (9:00) some norms so that everybody's acting responsibly.

    He is a far more effective deceiver than is his intended successor, but Hillary's goals and his, have always been the same: achieving what the US aristocracy want. Whereas she operates with a sledgehammer, he operates with a scalpel . And he hopes to hand this operation off to her on 20 January 2017.

    This is what Hillary's statement that "the United States will treat cyber attacks just like any other attack" is reflecting: it's reflecting that the US will, if she becomes President, be actively seeking an excuse to invade Russia. The Obama-mask will then be off.

    If this turns out to be the case, then it will be raw control of the US Government by the military-industrial complex, which includes the arms-makers plus the universities . It's the owners - the aristocrats - plus their servants; and at least 90% of the military-industrial complex support Hillary Clinton's candidacy. Like her, they are all demanding that the sequester be ended and that any future efforts to reduce the US Government's debts must come from cutting expenditures for healthcare, education, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, environmental protection, and expenditures on the poor; no cuts (but only increases) for the military. This is based on the conservative theory, that the last thing to cut in government is the military.

    The Republicans used to champion that view (thus the "conservative" in "neoconservative" ). But after Obama came into office, the Republican Party became divided about that, while the Democratic Party (under Obama) increasingly came to support neoconservatism . Hillary is now the neoconservatives' candidate . (And she's also the close friend of many of them, and hired and promoted many of them at her State Department .) If she becomes the next President, then we might end up having the most neoconservative (i.e., military-industrial-complex-run) government ever. This would be terrific for America's weapons-makers, but it very possibly would be horrific for everybody else. That's the worst lobby of all, to run the country . (And, as that link there shows, Clinton has received over five times as much money from it as has her Republican opponent.)

    George Herbert Walker Bush knows lots that the 'news' media don't report (even when it has already been leaked in one way or another), and the Clinton plan to destroy Russia is part of that. Will the Russian government accept it? Or will it do whatever is required in order to defeat it? This is already a serious nuclear confrontation .

    [Sep 26, 2016] It has been particularly infuriating to see the Chanel-suited Berkeley types be the ones to embrace imperial fascist war-making with such glee.

    Sep 26, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    HBE September 25, 2016 at 11:58 am

    Just watched Samantha Powers speak at the emergency UN security counsel meeting on Syria, how she managed to keep a straight face is completely beyond me.

    Basically Russia needs to take responsibility for its actions in Syria and the war would be over if those damn Russians would GTFO and quit disrupting the US and GCC regime change operations.

    It appears everything would be going swimmingly if Russia would just leave the "rebels" alone and let the US turn Syria into Libya, I mean is that so much to ask for? /S

    tgs September 25, 2016 at 12:37 pm

    The people Obama has chosen to represent him are almost all fanatics. Samantha Power and Ash Carter stand out as true psychopaths. Carter actually openly defied Obama on the Syria ceasefire.

    Robert Parry has an excellent piece out today on the rush to judgment about the attack on the humanitarian convoy.

    OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL September 25, 2016 at 2:53 pm

    It has been particularly infuriating to see the Chanel-suited Berkeley types be the ones to embrace imperial fascist war-making with such glee.
    I happened to recognize Susan Rice travelling sans bodyguard with her girlfriend at the airport in Chiang Mai Thailand and had a delicious time giving her a full piece of my mind. Unedited truth to power with nowhere to hide, she reacted with a glaze that said "you are just an idiot peon" but I could see she was shaken.

    [Sep 26, 2016] heres an article that contradicts the notion that US policy in Syria was about the Qatari pipeline as that claim–put forth in a Politico article by Robert Kennedy Jr–was little more than a

    Notable quotes:
    "... Re the Oilprice link ( The Natural Gas War Burning Under Syria OilPrice (resilc)) , here's an article that contradicts the notion that US policy in Syria was about the Qatari pipeline as that claim–put forth in a Politico article by Robert Kennedy Jr–was little more than a poorly sourced rumor. ..."
    "... The US decision to support Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia in their ill-conceived plan to overthrow the Assad regime was primarily a function of the primordial interest of the US permanent war state in its regional alliances. ..."
    "... In other words the MIC strikes again and seems to be directly challenging Obama policies with "accidents" like the recent bombing of the Syrian army. Time for movie fans to dust off old copies of Seven Days in May? ..."
    Sep 26, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    poorly sourced rumor.

    Carolinian September 25, 2016 at 9:09 am

    Re the Oilprice link ( The Natural Gas War Burning Under Syria OilPrice (resilc)) , here's an article that contradicts the notion that US policy in Syria was about the Qatari pipeline as that claim–put forth in a Politico article by Robert Kennedy Jr–was little more than a poorly sourced rumor.

    That claim has no credibility for a very simple reason: there was no Qatari proposal for Syria to reject in 2009. It was not until October 2009 that Qatar and Turkey even agreed to form a working group to develop such a gas pipeline project.

    Gareth Porter says that instead

    The US decision to support Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia in their ill-conceived plan to overthrow the Assad regime was primarily a function of the primordial interest of the US permanent war state in its regional alliances. The three Sunni allies control US access to the key US military bases in the region, and the Pentagon, the CIA, the State Department and the Obama White House were all concerned, above all, with protecting the existing arrangements for the US military posture in the region[….]

    The massive, direct and immediate power interests of the US war state – not the determination to ensure that a pipeline would carry Qatar's natural gas to Europe – drove the US policy of participation in the war against the Syrian regime. Only if activists focus on that reality will they be able to unite effectively to oppose not only the Syrian adventure but the war system itself.

    In other words the MIC strikes again and seems to be directly challenging Obama policies with "accidents" like the recent bombing of the Syrian army. Time for movie fans to dust off old copies of Seven Days in May?

    http://original.antiwar.com/porter/2016/09/23/war-assad-regime-not-pipeline-war/

    tgs September 25, 2016 at 12:20 pm

    Porter may well be right about the pipeline. However, a piece that purports to account for our Syria operations and the obsession with the removal of Assad that does not mention Israel and the Israel Lobby cannot be the complete story. Breaking the 'Shia Crescent' is a major strategic aim of the friends of Israel.

    Carolinian September 25, 2016 at 1:45 pm

    Without a doubt the Lobby keeps the liberals–the "progressives except for Palestine"–supporting the fever dreams of the generals, but arguably it's this internal, and traditionally rather Waspy pressure group that is the real menace. As the following quite accurately points out, we have a WW2 military with nothing to do with itself unless they can invent a suitable enemy.

    http://original.antiwar.com/reed/2016/09/23/bombing-everything-gaining-nothing/

    We live in a military world fundamentally different from that of the last century. All-out wars between major powers, which is to say nuclear powers, are unlikely since they would last about an hour after they became all-out, and everyone knows it. In WWII Germany could convince itself, reasonably and almost correctly, that Russia would fall in a summer, or the Japanese that a Depression-ridden, unarmed America might decide not to fight. Now, no. Threaten something that a nuclear power regards as vital and you risk frying. So nobody does.

    Or, to sum up

    What is the relevance of the Pentagon? How do you bomb a trade agreement?

    The generals and admirals need a Russian foe to justify their absurd budgets and their very existence. It's ironic that our great victory in WW2–triumph of industrial America–may end up doing us more long term harm than those European and Asian nations that were bombed into ashes. You can rebuild cities but dismantling imperial hubris turns out to be harder.

    OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL September 25, 2016 at 2:13 pm

    Occam would probably just say that the Cold War never ended for our geniuses-in-chief, despite dissolving away in 1989 our enemy is and always was and will be Russia uber alles. The simple fact that they back Assad is all it took, yes add in a sprinkle of Tehran and Tel Aviv and goose with a little juice from Riyadh but the overnight disappearance of our existential enemy was something up with which we could not put.

    [Sep 26, 2016] Oh no, our proxies are surrounded and being ground into dust. Human rights! Human rights! Please stop bombing!

    Notable quotes:
    "... "Syria conflict: UN chief 'appalled' by Aleppo escalation" Translation: "Oh no, our proxies are surrounded and being ground into dust. Human rights! Human rights! Please stop bombing!" ..."
    "... You mean there are Kurds in their Way? ..."
    "... Not sure what you're getting at. Kurds have little role in the battle for Aleppo. They have a small bit of territory in the north of the city and helped to secure the Castello road, but that's it. ..."
    Sep 26, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Plenue September 25, 2016 at 4:05 pm

    "Syria conflict: UN chief 'appalled' by Aleppo escalation" Translation: "Oh no, our proxies are surrounded and being ground into dust. Human rights! Human rights! Please stop bombing!"

    Synoia September 25, 2016 at 5:52 pm

    You mean there are Kurds in their Way?

    Plenue September 25, 2016 at 6:10 pm

    Not sure what you're getting at. Kurds have little role in the battle for Aleppo. They have a small bit of territory in the north of the city and helped to secure the Castello road, but that's it.

    Jay M September 25, 2016 at 9:25 pm

    accept this application for illuminati posting: Plenue, excellence in Alleppo commentary

    [Sep 26, 2016] The defeat and dismemberment of the Soviet Union is having all the appearance of the hand of the Goddess Hubris. Be careful what you wish for, you might get it.

    Sep 26, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Synoia September 25, 2016 at 1:21 pm

    Fences and walls along the Balkan route

    "From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic, an iron curtain has descended across the Continent."

    The defeat and dismemberment of the Soviet Union is having all the appearance of the hand of the Goddess Hubris. Be careful what you wish for, you might get it.

    I do wonder in the NeoCon planning of "The Project New Century" if there was any consideration given to the people of the region and their actions in fleeing from the conflicts ignited by the policy. Open discussion of the suggestion would have raised all manner of this an similar issues, embarrassing the authors by at least asking the questions.

    [Sep 26, 2016] http://time.com/4504004/men-without-work/

    Sep 26, 2016 | time.com

    "In 2015, the work rate (or employment-to-population ratio) for American males ages 25 to 54 was slightly lower than it had been in 1940, at the tail end of the Great Depression. If we were back at 1965 levels today, nearly 10 million additional men would have paying jobs. The collapse of male work is due almost entirely to a flight out of the labor force-and that flight has on the whole been voluntary. The fact that only 1 in 7 prime-age men are not in the labor force points to a lack of jobs as the reason they are not working."

    Uh Nick – thanks for telling us what we already knew – labor force participation is down. But do you realize how you just contradicted yourself. Keynesians like myself would agree that is due to a lack of jobs (aka low aggregate demand). So is this a voluntary thing?

    Let's read on:

    "these unworking men are floated by other household members (wives, girlfriends, relatives) and by Uncle Sam. Government disability programs figure prominently in the calculus of support for unworking men-ever more prominently over time."

    Since government provided benefits have not been scaled up by our policy makers – he must think the hard working ladies are cuddling young men for their good lucks or something. Uh Nick – come to NYC and you will see that the ladies here think this is so stupid. His next excuse is all those dudes in prison. Seriously? Does this AEI clown not realize crime is much lower than it was a generation ago? This piece was dumb even by AEI "standards". But at least he did not dwell on the Tyler Cowen porn thing.And at the risk of repeating myself (and Noah Smith) if their thesis that young men had suddenly decided to loaf, then the inward shift of the labor supply curve would mean higher real wages than we are seeing.
    Reply Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 09:37 AM pgl said in reply to pgl... I decided to put these thoughts in the following Econospeak post which goes a little further debunking the misrepresentations from the AEI hack:

    http://econospeak.blogspot.com/2016/09/the-new-men-without-jobs-conservative.html Reply Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 10:43 AM RC AKA Darryl, Ron said... [A reply from Paine:

    "paine said in reply to RC AKA Darryl, Ron...


    Joe playing hill
    courtier

    Who knows what he thinks

    Reply Friday, September 23, 2016 at 01:29 PM"

    Reminded me of this entirely by accident or maybe incident:]

    http://unionsong.com/u017.html


    Joe Hill

    A song by Alfred Hayes, Music by Earl Robinson©1938 by Bob Miller, Inc.

    I dreamed I saw Joe Hill last night
    Alive as you or me
    Says I, But Joe, you're ten years dead
    I never died, says he
    I never died, says he

    In Salt Lake, Joe, says I to him
    Him standing by my bed
    They framed you on a murder charge
    Says Joe, But I ain't dead
    Says Joe, But I ain't dead

    The copper bosses killed you, Joe
    They shot you, Joe, says I
    Takes more than guns to kill a man
    Says Joe, I didn't die
    Says Joe, I didn't die

    And standing there as big as life
    And smiling with his eyes
    Joe says, What they forgot to kill
    Went on to organize
    Went on to organize

    Joe Hill ain't dead, he says to me
    Joe Hill ain't never died
    Where working men are out on strike
    Joe Hill is at their side
    Joe Hill is at their side

    From San Diego up to Maine
    In every mine and mill
    Where workers strike and organize
    Says he, You'll find Joe Hill
    Says he, You'll find Joe Hill

    I dreamed I saw Joe Hill last night
    Alive as you or me
    Says I, But Joe, you're ten years dead
    I never died, says he
    I never died, says he


    [More about Joe Hill and Alfred Hayes at the link.] Reply Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 10:10 AM RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to RC AKA Darryl, Ron... Fortunately I will have very little spare time for idle or addle minded leisure now until well after the election and even well after the subsequent coronation save those days so rainy that outdoor activity is entirely impractical. Reply Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 10:14 AM pgl said... I never liked Ross Douhart. The political right thinks he has written something very important:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/21/opinion/campaign-stops/clintons-samantha-bee-problem.html?_r=0

    "At the same time, outside the liberal tent, the feeling of being suffocated by the left's cultural dominance is turning voting Republican into an act of cultural rebellion - which may be one reason the Obama years, so good for liberalism in the culture, have seen sharp G.O.P. gains at every level of the country's government. This spirit of political-cultural rebellion is obviously crucial to Trump's act."

    Vote for a racist like Trump because liberals are suffocating. Did I say I really do not like Ross Douhart?
    Reply Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 11:55 AM Peter K. said in reply to pgl... Again we agree. (Signs of the apocalypse? I guess Trump is going to win.)

    Douchehat is the worst hypocrite. He wants readers to believe he's an expert in morality and morale rectitude and that's what conservative should be known for when in reality Republicans chose Trump as their candidate, one grand example of immorality and dishonesty.

    And still Douthat turns on the liberals as behaving badly. Suffocating? Howabout the insanity of the Republican convention? That was suffocating.

    He even quotes Internet Troll Steve Sailor!!!

    *rubs eyes*

    "(The alt-right-ish columnist Steve Sailer made the punk rock analogy as well.)"

    It's like Douthat writing about JohnH or BINY. Every one of Sailor's Internet comments would be racist ones about immigration. He's mentally unhinged.

    "But it remains an advantage for the G.O.P., and a liability for the Democratic Party, that the new cultural orthodoxy is sufficiently stifling to leave many Americans looking to the voting booth as a way to register dissent."

    Clueless Douthat. The culture is getting better in certain ways because the TV executives just want to sell advertising and these performers are popular. It's capitalism at work.

    Kudos to John Oliver for winning an Emmy.

    "Among millennials, especially, there's a growing constituency for whom right-wing ideas are so alien or triggering, left-wing orthodoxy so pervasive and unquestioned, that supporting a candidate like Hillary Clinton looks like a needless form of compromise."

    Note the disdain for millennials. "Triggering."

    Conservative like Douthat and Bobo Brooks "trigger" the hate and anger centers of my brain.

    The fact is that Samantha Bee is right and NBC facilitated the rise of Trump with the Apprentice and treating him well on other shows like Jimmy Fallon and SNL.

    Here's the offending video.

    September 25, 2016 at 01:38 PM

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/samantha-bee-slams-jimmy-fallon-nbc-for-softball-donald-trump-interview_us_57e12dbbe4b0071a6e095c1f Reply Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 01:38 PM anne said in reply to Peter K.... --------- is the worst hypocrite....

    [ Do not use sickening language on this blog. Never ever use such language here. ] Reply Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 02:44 PM pgl said... I have provided this link to some of the papers by Michael Bruno – many co-authored by Jeffrey Sachs – for a couple of reasons:

    http://www.nber.org/authors/michael_bruno

    The minor reason is they have a nice paper on the Dutch Disease – something JohnH thinks he understands but he needs to read up on this topic. But the main reason has to do with a stupid comment from Paine on my Econospeak post, which goes to show how very little Paine actually learned in graduate school.

    I was try to paint a picture of some Real Business Cycle claim that Bruno and Sachs emphasized when I was in graduate school. I never truly bought their story as I was (and still am) a die hard Keynesian. But here is how it went as applied to the early 1980's (the period I was talking about). If a nation enjoys a massive real appreciation and if aggregate demand does not matter (the New Classical view which we Keynesians do not buy) then the real wages of its domestic workers rise. These workers supply more labor driving down wages relative to domestic prices. So domestic firms hire more workers.

    That is their story. I do not buy it as I was clearly mocking it. Alas Paine never learned this. And so he mocks someone who did. Just another day at the EV comment section. Aals.
    Reply Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 12:24 PM anne said in reply to pgl... Just another day at the -- ------- section.

    [ I assume there will never again be such a comment. ] Reply Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 02:58 PM

    [Sep 26, 2016] Hug it out: Michelle Obama embraces George W Bush

    Notable quotes:
    "... 'Mission Accomplished' should be the name of the jail cells for Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld convicted as war criminals. ..."
    Sep 26, 2016 | www.theguardian.com
    krissywilson87 PlumRadio , 2016-09-26 08:30:48
    I will never miss George Dubya Bush. It was truly scary to realise that the institutions of the US were so broken that a complete moron like that could become President because his daddy was. Then, just as Obama's election seemed to put things back on an even keel, here in Britain we elected Dave Cameron, an aristocratic ignoramus probably more out of touch with reality than Dubya ever was - and not a whole lot smarter.
    Chuck3 morbid , 2016-09-26 08:52:02
    Pretty straightforward unless you were an Iraqi with god knows how many tons of depleted uranium dropping on your children's heads. Or an innocent Afghan being tortured in one of the CIA's black sites.

    Bush is a war criminal who is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people.

    He represents the worst of humanity and although Trump appears worse - we will have to wait to see what his legacy will be if he wins. As it stands Bush is the one who already has a disastrous and murderous legacy.

    WillKnotTell seedeevee , 2016-09-26 10:54:34
    "Obama has been at war longer than Bush."

    Considering he inherited the war Bubba Bush and Darth Bugsey Cheney started, you are correct. The fact they disbanded the Iraqi military, they provided skilled military leaders and troops to ISIL.

    Kentrel Jaydee23 , 2016-09-26 12:07:52
    That excuse is a bit hard to swallow 8 years later. Even Guantanamo Bay remains in use, as it ever was. As it turns out it was easier for Obama to provide weapons to rebel\terrorist groups in Libya and Syria than it was to give prisoners a fair trial under the American justice system and end torture. He's also cracked down on whistleblowers like Manning and Snowden in a way that Bush never did.
    1iJack , 2016-09-26 05:30:25
    Now get Hillary in there and the picture will be complete and could be titled...

    "the Globalists"

    Haytop , 2016-09-26 05:20:34
    war mongers converge?
    RedKrayola Joe Dert , 2016-09-26 06:44:56
    Bush signed agreement for a deadline to withdraw troops from Iraq. Obama tried to bully Iraq into disregarding that agreement. They refused. He then simply rechristened the troops 'advisors.' Obama never ended the war there, or anywhere. He's extended Bush's wars into several more countries throughout MENA.

    Please stop lying about Obama's record. He has pushed for never-ending, ever-expanding wars, and that's just what he's delivered.

    ponderwell RedKrayola , 2016-09-26 07:45:30
    The nightmare Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld & company left due to their manipulating lies and misinformation to ensure the USA bomb
    Iraq (thus destabilizing the ME) will
    at minimum bring a generation of leaders great misery.

    Each US leader will experiment with the
    possibilities to decrease terrorism, many more mistakes will be endured. No one seems to knows how to stop the hatred which underlies the destruction pledged
    by these sociopathic murderers.

    Gigi Trala La Joe Dert , 2016-09-26 08:25:25
    Obama promoted the same aggressive American policy as Bush, despite the early promise. Perhaps it makes little difference who is in power. To ignore the last 8 years of more bloodshed is a thing many round the world do not have the luxury you do.

    Eisenhower, more right as the years pass.

    seedeevee Joe Dert , 2016-09-26 09:42:04
    We call Obama a war monger because he has brought the American war effort to seven nations just this year. Brought war to Ukraine. Libya. Syria. Yemen. Honduras.

    Obama's Military is in over 150 nations on this planet.

    ETC.

    RedKrayola ponderwell , 2016-09-26 11:04:39
    Obama continue expanded the Bush/Cheney doctrine. He campaigned for office pledging to reverse it. He's now been president for nearly eight years; it's reasonable to hold him accountable for what he's done and stop pretending he bears no responsibility for what's happened under his watch as commander-in-chief.
    ponderwell RedKrayola , 2016-09-26 16:08:08
    Every leader including Obama carries the responsibility for their choices. Bush/Cheney
    violated and abused the trust of leaders and
    the public in many nations by misinforming,
    lying, and manipulative means to bomb
    a nation who had no dealings with the terrorism of 9/11. The USA is now in a war tangle in which every leader hence will be targeted negatively until the ME conflicts
    have no more US armed forces involved in the killings. Terrorism will plague many nations for the next generation at minimum.

    'Mission Accomplished' should be the name of the jail cells for Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld convicted as war criminals.

    montevideo , 2016-09-26 21:27:57
    This picture kind of sums up why a whole load of people are voting Trump. Two apparently opposing politicians who ultimately led the US in the same self destructing direction. The illusion of democracy could never be clearer.
    James Lohe , 2016-09-26 12:54:13
    Bush 43 is arguably the most incompetent President ever. But no one would accuse him of being a bigot. Unlike Drumpf.
    Chuckman James Lohe , 2016-09-26 12:58:45
    Oh boy, do you lack history.

    Bush had a disgraceful record in every sphere.

    It would take too long to detail.

    Read a book, such as the one by the late Molly Ivins.

    backscratch Chuckman , 2016-09-26 13:41:33
    Afraid I would find it impossible to hug the president who with Blair has destabilised the Middle East for years to come...mind you the UK's history ain't so hot. Maybe I should stop going around hugging my fellow countrymen and women.
    OinkImSammy James Lohe , 2016-09-26 14:09:46
    I think they would because he was. The PNAC agenda did and does read like Mein Kampf.
    Chuckman , 2016-09-26 12:35:47
    Well, he's much like her husband, isn't he?

    Far more so than many think with superficial consideration.

    Both men did nothing for their people while spending unbelievable amounts of money on obscene mass killing abroad.

    They also share behaviors in the economic sphere. The 2008 Financial collapse happened under George Bush owing to a lack of adequate oversight of financial institutions and practices, a titanic financial equivalent to Bush's lackadaisical performance in New Orleans' Hurricane Katrina.

    The Obama response during eight years in office has been to avoid making any changes to correct the situation and prevent future occurrences, and he has done nothing but have vast quantities of money printed to keep the economy afloat.

    Chuckman Chuckman , 2016-09-26 12:55:10
    Actually, while Obama is more intelligent than Bush, he too is a weak and ineffective figure. He has marched without pause to the drumbeat of the Pentagon and CIA
    Chuckman djkbrown2001 , 2016-09-26 12:50:21
    Bush was never even a President.

    He understood at least his own lack of ability after a lifetime spent as an asinine frat-boy who never did anything on his own.

    He had Cheney and Rumsfeld along deliberately because he knew they were ready to run things for him.

    His lack of effective intelligence and lack of drive to do anything should have meant that Bush never be president.

    But he had money, tons of it, and heavy-duty political connections, and the real power men like the ruthless Cheney had him lined up from the start as their front man.

    The one thing Bush proved was that America doesn't even need a President. Any pathetic figure can sign the documents placed before him and read the speeches written for him.

    The establishment, with immense resources at its disposal, is quite capable of keeping the public believing that the face on the television is actually in charge.

    Actually, while Obama is more intelligent than Bush, he too is a weak and ineffective figure. He has marched without pause to the drumbeat of the Pentagon and CIA

    Tim Caulfield , 2016-09-26 11:45:44
    "There is only one party in the United States, the Property Party...and it has two right wings: Republican and Democrat. Republicans are a bit stupider, more rigid, more doctrinaire in their laissez-faire capitalism than the Democrats, who are cuter, prettier, a bit more corrupt-until recently... and more willing than the Republicans to make small adjustments when the poor, the black, the anti-imperialists get out of hand. But, essentially, there is no difference between the two parties." (Gore Vidal - "The State of the Union", 1975)
    Aldous0rwell , 2016-09-26 11:41:46
    "W" had one of the BEST track records of placing PoC in truly significant positions. Condoleeza Rice. Colin Powell, Alberto Gonzalez, etc. Bush was in no way, shape or form a racist - so long as you were an Uncle Tom willing to sell out your fellow citizens, bomb the crap out of foreigners, and kiss the asses of the 1%.
    robinhood2013 , 2016-09-26 11:29:37
    I see Obama has vetoed the chance for relatives of the victims of 9/11 to take the Saudi government to court. Despicable man!
    hdmiin robinhood2013 , 2016-09-26 13:21:18
    Maybe he didn't want to set a precedent - the relatives of dead Iraqis have an even better case for taking the US government to court.
    trevorgoodchild2 , 2016-09-26 10:56:31
    She is hugging him because he is voting for Clinton. Just annother of his long list of errors in judgement.
    Isaac_Blunt , 2016-09-26 10:33:25
    I Liked Dubbya. I've missed his amiable gaffs.

    "The trouble with the French is that they don't have a word for entrepreneur..."

    Chris Moody freepedestrian , 2016-09-26 11:12:44
    Like making Bush's tax cuts permanent. Obama has many great qualities, but a strong principled belief in equality is not one of them. He's a neo-liberal corporatist through and through -hence frantically trying to push TTP through before the election, now that Hillary was forced to say she's against it. I'm sure there was a private conversation there - 'That f-ing Bernie is making me say I'm against TTP -can you get it through before the election, we can't trust Trump on it'
    imperfetto , 2016-09-26 10:06:39
    Michelle Obama embrases the criminal whose administration is responsible ( although we know that the foreign policy in the US is not decided by the president but by the NSA, CIA and occult lobbies ) for the death of over 1.500.000 million people in Iraq and Syria. Meanwhile the Guardian embraces the anti Russian propaganda by giving voice to the unpeakable lies about Russia's war crimes. Fortunately most media in the Continent (in France and Italy especially), are not follwing this dictats.
    ALLisVanity , 2016-09-26 09:27:01
    If the UN and the International Criminal Court were not mere tools of the US to punish anyone they don't like how on earth is this criminal not in jail? The only person that did worse than him is Hitler. He purposely lied to go into a war that destroyed thousands of innocent lives.
    Alan Jones , 2016-09-26 08:59:06
    I hope she washed her hands afterwards.
    SALSERO64 Alan Jones , 2016-09-26 09:22:17
    Why? They all are made of the same stuff.
    cvneuves , 2016-09-26 08:55:10
    I see, Bush (death toll 500,000+) and Obama (death toll 300,000+) are now closing ranks to avert Trump. Phew!!! This Trump guy must be really dangerous. I hope, our banks help finance an effective campaign against Trump!
    Ludek29 cvneuves , 2016-09-26 09:00:40
    Your Bush estimate is probably about 6 times lower its actual number.
    seedeevee Ludek29 , 2016-09-26 09:18:24
    and Obama has been at war longer. What a slacker!
    cvneuves Ludek29 , 2016-09-26 10:09:32
    John Tirman: Bush's War Dead: One Million , MIT, February 16, 2009.
    scss99 , 2016-09-26 08:33:42
    I think this is a good thing, Ronald Reagan used to have dinner with Tip O'Neill. As did many Republicans and Democrat presidents and senior members of Congress/Senate, that's stopped under Tom DeLay and Gingrich during the 90s when partisanship really took hold. It's been ugly ever since.

    Socializing with the opposition is good for a working relationship.

    Cessminster SickSwan , 2016-09-26 08:34:04
    Obama wasn't corrupted by office - operation Obama was planned well in advance. I would argue he was corrupted a long time ago. I see war criminal Bush Snr endorsed Clinton just last week - go figure. Not that I am a fan of Trump - far from it.

    Obama appeared out of nowhere and managed to scrape together the mega bucks to fund his campaign? Doesn't work like that - You don't currently get to be POTUS otherwise.

    AlfredHerring , 2016-09-26 08:08:53
    It seems like only 16 years ago that a bunch of Wall Street traders flew to Florida to stage a riot to stop the recount....and here's Obama and Bush looking forward to the election of the first President with her/his own hedge fund.....it brings tears to my eyes...
    domrice , 2016-09-26 08:06:40
    GW Bush refers to Hillary Clinton as his sister-in-law, now receives a hug from Michelle Obama. Further confirmation that the supposed political rivalry between the Reps and Wall St / TPP Dems is just noise.
    Christian Stevens , 2016-09-26 07:58:47
    The Obamas have become part of the firm. Anyone who has read vincent bugliosi book,The prosecution of George W BUsh for murder knows the last thing this guy needs is a hug. How can any of them be truly trusted
    MereMortal , 2016-09-26 07:34:22
    Politics is theater. They're all acting pretty much all the time, as politics is the art of managing perceptions.
    Everyone knows everyone. There is a front of house posturing and invective demanded by the job, and then the back of house, deals and horse-trading.
    Bill Clinton is a massive friend of both George Bushes and Donald Trump used be a good friend of the Clintons. But both the Clintons loathe Barack and Michelle Obama.
    So for me, the very worst picture was the one of Hillary being hugged by Barack during her stolen coronation.
    anonym101 , 2016-09-26 06:46:53
    Looks like the establishment is closing ranks. When was the last time the US had a real two party system and politicians were not controlled by Wall Street?

    [Sep 24, 2016] US started Ukraine civil war

    Jan 30, 2015 | english.pravda.ru
    30.01.2015

    US started Ukraine civil war. War in Donbass continues

    It has been over a year of blood, tears and destruction in Ukraine especially in SE Ukraine. The new country now called Novorossia, has been fighting the puppet government in Kiev, USA who is committing genocide in the Donbass region. America's new addition to its Empire is funded with billions and millions supported by NATO and other mercenaries. Yet, Kiev still cannot complete its mission the US trained it for. Oleg Tsarov warned about the impish activities the US was performing before the protests began in Kiev. America started the war in Ukraine but like Goliath was slain by little David.

    US Started Ukraine Civil War *PROOF* Nov 20, 2013

    Oleg Tsarov, who was then the People's Deputy of Ukraine, talks about US preparations for civil war in Ukraine, November 2013 in Kiev parliament. Major protests began the day after his speech. You can hear the paid protesters chanting "Ukraine" in the background trying to keep him from speaking the truth. Later, April 14, 2014, Oleg was beaten by a mob when he was running for president but fortunately survived. His face was badly beaten as shown here. Remember, his speech was the day before the Maidan Protests. See the Timeline. In his speech he said:

    "...activists of the organization 'Volya' turned to me providing clear evidence that within our territory with support and direct participation of the US EMBASSY (in Kiev) the 'Tech Camp' project is realized under which preparations are being made for a civil war in Ukraine.

    The project is currently overseen and under the responsibility of the US ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey R. Pyatt. After the conversation with the organization 'Volya'. I have learned they succeeded to access the facilities of 'Tech Camp' disguised as a team of IT specialists. To their surprise, briefings on the peculiarities of modern media were held. AMERICAN instructors explained how social networks and Internet technologies can be used for targeted manipulation of public opinion as well as to activate protest potential to provoke violent unrest in the territory of Ukraine; radicalization of the population triggering infighting.

    American instructors presented examples of successful use of social networks used to organize protests in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya. Recent conference took place Nov 14-15, 2013, in the heart of Kiev in the Embassy of the United States of America!

    Is it conceivable that representatives of the US Embassy which organize the 'Tech Camp' conferences misuse their diplomatic mission? UN resolution of December 21, 1965 regulates inadmissibility of interference in the internal affairs of a state to protect its independence and its sovereignty in accordance with paragraphs 1,2 and 5. I ask you to consider this as an official supplication to pursue an investigation of this case."

    Well, no investigation was ever made especially by the "land of the free". Vladimir Putin has asked the UN for help but they drag their feet. The US embassies have caused more damage than the Soviet Union has ever done. In the video, we can see Oleg and others knew about America's interference in Ukraine affairs. He wanted to stop the civil war and courageously ran for president to stop the impending bloodshed. Thousands of deaths could have been avoided if people had listened to him. He could not fight the tide of billions of dollars from Obama and the US Congress. The Nazis in Kiev had their way while Poroshenko sent men to their deaths. What a waste into a whirlpool of misery.

    Obama and Poroshenko told the army they were going to fight terrorists. The "terrorists" were innocent civilians. Kiev POW's were later paraded in front of the bombarded people as they got a dose of REALITY. If only Obama or Poroshenko had told them the truth that they were bombing civilians they thought. The Ukrainian army is full of city boys who are inexperienced, fighting in unknown territory. The Novorossia militia is filled with coal miners and other blue collar workers with many who have had combat experience in Chechnya or older men with experience from the Soviet-Afghanistan war.

    The militia has seen their children, wives, Mothers, Fathers, grandparents and close friends killed but their faith, as this touching video shows, helps them defend their land. The Ukrainian army was drafted and sent by seedy Obama and Poroshenko under the penalty of 5 yrs in jail if they did not fight. If you feel sorry for them as POW's then I hope you see the bodies or graves of the thousands of civilians who were killed by them. It is a tragedy for everyone involved. Even for Soros, Obama, Poroshenko, Kerry, Nuland, members of US Congress who approved this, the Nazis in Kiev, all will suffer far worse on Judgment Day unless they repent.

    The civil war continues in Ukraine but despite Kiev's effort to mask the number of their dead soldiers and POW's, Novorossia continues victory after victory on the battlefield. Ukraine army focuses on shelling civilians while Novorossia kills Kiev's soldiers or captures them. Sometimes they are returned to their Mothers as seen in this film.

    Donetsk Republic Prime Minister Alexander Zakharchenko from Novorossia argues with Kiev army officer in this powerful video. He said that the Kiev army succumbed to the coup:

    "To give away our own country to be looted by Americans and other European countries"

    That video is by Graham Phillips who does the job that the impotent lame stream media won't do in America. Bravo Graham! Many thanks to Kazzura for her translation of most of the videos.

    Notice in the West the so called journalists are nowhere to be found on the battlefield in Ukraine as this man was here. I am certainly not addressing the media like CNN, FOX, CBS and the other court jesters who are paid clowns in the freak show called "US government". They dare tell America lies about the war. I would force them to dig the graves of the dead. How quickly the mainstream media goose steps in unison blaming Russia as Hitler did. Showing them the truth would be like showing a burnt building to a pyromaniac. The US media is in the business of making money not telling the truth. Peace and truth don't make billions of dollars they say. Were they bribed or are they true liars? "The liar's punishment is, not in the least that he is not believed, but that he cannot believe anyone else." - George Bernard Shaw

    Victoria "Fuck the EU" Nuland was back in the news recently. In her efforts to support the US program against "Russia Today". "Noodle Head Nuland" belittled RT by saying "RT's tiny, tiny audience in the United States". Remember her? The Benghazi gal was first talking about Democracy in Ukraine with Chevron. Their version of "democracy and freedom" means war to the rest of the world. She was seen handing out food to protesters and police in Kiev. How nice she is sounding so sweet and so kind. She was later caught on tape saying "Fuck the EU" when discussing the setup of the Ukraine government. Later she was grilled by Republican Dana Rohrabacher where she admitted there were Nazis on Maidan. Yeah, I really trust that evil witch who learned her craft from Hillary.

    It is obvious to the world, but not to the West, that Kiev was overthrown by the US and EU. Although the US propaganda blames Russia for everything the OSCE has already disproven their claims. We wanted to show in our main video that Kiev was actually warned before Pandora's Box was opened. The blame is clearly on the US as instigators. They sowed the devil's seed.

    Nevertheless, those who were deceived by the US or went along with the evil knowingly are also to blame and bear the responsibility of misleading Ukraine. Kiev has now become the newest suffering colony in America's empire. The only real "Hope and Change" for the people of Donbass is fighting against Obama's tyranny and becoming the independent country of Novorossia. "Let Freedom Ring!" America has forgotten its meaning.

    Xavier Lerma. Contact Xavier Lerma at [email protected]

    [Sep 24, 2016] UKRAINE Surrounded Donetsk- Ukraine General Staff applies experience of the Spanish Civil War

    Notable quotes:
    "... an operation to encircle Donetsk is nearly complete! ..."
    www.freerepublic.com

    Free Republic
    Browse · Search News/Activism
    Topics · Post Article

    Skip to comments.
    UKRAINE: Surrounded Donetsk- Ukraine General Staff applies experience of the Spanish Civil War
    http://hvylya.org/analytics/politics/okruzhennyiy-donetsk-genshtab-ukrainyi-primenyaet-opyit-grazhdanskoy-voynyi-v-ispanii.html ^ | 03.08.14, 18:06

    Posted on ‎8‎/‎3‎/‎2014‎ ‎8‎:‎22‎:‎10‎ ‎PM by [email protected]

    Ukrainian Interior Ministry forces ATO Main news of recent days: an operation to encircle Donetsk is nearly complete!

    This radically changes the entire operational environment at the front. Let's already stop hiding behind a fig leaf is an abbreviation of ATU and will be referred to as a war-torn, and advanced-front.

    Many people ask how the war, which, by its type refers to the type of maneuver, formed wheel built? After all, in the civil wars there is no front line. What do the schemes that appear on the Internet, which clearly outline the front line?

    First, the schemes are not reflected front and border control zones. Please note that the scheme is not solid and dotted line .

    Secondly, in the civil wars of the twentieth century in key areas formed a solid front.

    Third, in these days we are recognizing a century of the First World War. This grand massacre marked by the fact that the war for the first time in human history has become a purely positional. On the western front rows of trenches stretched linear continuum from the North Sea to Switzerland. And before the war were maneuverable. However, the basic principles of the strategy work as a maneuver, and as the positional constructions. Therefore the environment in Donetsk - is now a decisive factor that will help determine the subsequent course of events.

    1919 defeat of Denikin. Future Marshal Yegorov spends quite a front operation at significantly discharged constructions than we are now seeing in the Donbas.

    But the most accurate historical analogy of what is happening in the East of the country, is the Spanish Civil War of 1936-1939, a rehearsal for WWII.

    Three months ago, when the ATO was just beginning, with Yuri Romanenko, we discussed what it will be for operation from a military point of view, with what does it compare? Spain! - Even then we came to this conclusion.

    One side holds successive offensives against disparate unsaturated builds on the other hand, in the end it all comes down to a struggle for basic megacities - Barcelona and Madrid in the years 1938-1939 and for the Donetsk and Lugansk in 2014. We see that during the Spanish Civil War also called the control zone - fronts.

    As then, leading the offensive side of the wire successive offensives in various sectors of the front. General Franco did not immediately come to such a strategy. But, he quickly enough proved its effectiveness.

    The Spanish Civil War

    Another connecting factor - and in Spain, and in the Donbass defensive side had and has the ability to constantly replenish their strength. I mean the International Brigades in Spain and Russian mercenaries in the Donbass. Just do not make direct analogies and remember Hemingway. Ideology, morality and culture here is not the point, only comparison is the strategic and military experience.

    Based on the study of the history of strategic decisions during the Spanish Civil War. The General staff of Ukraine has abandoned an ambitious but totally inappropriate, in terms of strategy, the plan of encirclement throughout the territory occupied by the enemy.

    General Staff of Ukraine refused ambitious but completely wrong, in terms of strategy, plan the environment throughout the territory To carry out such an operation is necessary to introduce martial law and full mobilization. The economic crisis - Ukraine needs to live and work. The President of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko demanded to find less radical solutions. The General staff was to develop private operations against individual enemy factions. And immediately came to fruition!

    Today, we are seeing a decline IAF combat capability, as they are forced to operate in disparate groups. The actions of terrorists is completely dictated by the operational environment. Given the fact that the strategic initiative is fully on the side of the APU, the actions of illegal armed groups cropped, are predictable and can be controlled. While the IAF will not solve the problems with communications around Donetsk, they have no opportunity for meaningful operations on other sites.

    Maneuver warfare strategy can be compared to the battle in zero gravity, when one of the opponents, getting zubodrobilny kick gets a chance to continue the fight, that only lasts with some kind of support. In our case, this leg is large metropolitan areas. Having lost the strategic initiative, the IAF will be forced to pull their main forces in the Donetsk and Lugansk, allowing the APU, if necessary, to conduct the operation on the closure of the border with Russia. Everything is good in its season!

    [Sep 24, 2016] US started Ukraine civil war

    Jan 30, 2015 | english.pravda.ru
    30.01.2015

    US started Ukraine civil war. War in Donbass continues

    It has been over a year of blood, tears and destruction in Ukraine especially in SE Ukraine. The new country now called Novorossia, has been fighting the puppet government in Kiev, USA who is committing genocide in the Donbass region. America's new addition to its Empire is funded with billions and millions supported by NATO and other mercenaries. Yet, Kiev still cannot complete its mission the US trained it for. Oleg Tsarov warned about the impish activities the US was performing before the protests began in Kiev. America started the war in Ukraine but like Goliath was slain by little David.

    US Started Ukraine Civil War *PROOF* Nov 20, 2013

    Oleg Tsarov, who was then the People's Deputy of Ukraine, talks about US preparations for civil war in Ukraine, November 2013 in Kiev parliament. Major protests began the day after his speech. You can hear the paid protesters chanting "Ukraine" in the background trying to keep him from speaking the truth. Later, April 14, 2014, Oleg was beaten by a mob when he was running for president but fortunately survived. His face was badly beaten as shown here. Remember, his speech was the day before the Maidan Protests. See the Timeline. In his speech he said:

    "...activists of the organization 'Volya' turned to me providing clear evidence that within our territory with support and direct participation of the US EMBASSY (in Kiev) the 'Tech Camp' project is realized under which preparations are being made for a civil war in Ukraine.

    The project is currently overseen and under the responsibility of the US ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey R. Pyatt. After the conversation with the organization 'Volya'. I have learned they succeeded to access the facilities of 'Tech Camp' disguised as a team of IT specialists. To their surprise, briefings on the peculiarities of modern media were held. AMERICAN instructors explained how social networks and Internet technologies can be used for targeted manipulation of public opinion as well as to activate protest potential to provoke violent unrest in the territory of Ukraine; radicalization of the population triggering infighting.

    American instructors presented examples of successful use of social networks used to organize protests in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya. Recent conference took place Nov 14-15, 2013, in the heart of Kiev in the Embassy of the United States of America!

    Is it conceivable that representatives of the US Embassy which organize the 'Tech Camp' conferences misuse their diplomatic mission? UN resolution of December 21, 1965 regulates inadmissibility of interference in the internal affairs of a state to protect its independence and its sovereignty in accordance with paragraphs 1,2 and 5. I ask you to consider this as an official supplication to pursue an investigation of this case."

    Well, no investigation was ever made especially by the "land of the free". Vladimir Putin has asked the UN for help but they drag their feet. The US embassies have caused more damage than the Soviet Union has ever done. In the video, we can see Oleg and others knew about America's interference in Ukraine affairs. He wanted to stop the civil war and courageously ran for president to stop the impending bloodshed. Thousands of deaths could have been avoided if people had listened to him. He could not fight the tide of billions of dollars from Obama and the US Congress. The Nazis in Kiev had their way while Poroshenko sent men to their deaths. What a waste into a whirlpool of misery.

    Obama and Poroshenko told the army they were going to fight terrorists. The "terrorists" were innocent civilians. Kiev POW's were later paraded in front of the bombarded people as they got a dose of REALITY. If only Obama or Poroshenko had told them the truth that they were bombing civilians they thought. The Ukrainian army is full of city boys who are inexperienced, fighting in unknown territory. The Novorossia militia is filled with coal miners and other blue collar workers with many who have had combat experience in Chechnya or older men with experience from the Soviet-Afghanistan war.

    The militia has seen their children, wives, Mothers, Fathers, grandparents and close friends killed but their faith, as this touching video shows, helps them defend their land. The Ukrainian army was drafted and sent by seedy Obama and Poroshenko under the penalty of 5 yrs in jail if they did not fight. If you feel sorry for them as POW's then I hope you see the bodies or graves of the thousands of civilians who were killed by them. It is a tragedy for everyone involved. Even for Soros, Obama, Poroshenko, Kerry, Nuland, members of US Congress who approved this, the Nazis in Kiev, all will suffer far worse on Judgment Day unless they repent.

    The civil war continues in Ukraine but despite Kiev's effort to mask the number of their dead soldiers and POW's, Novorossia continues victory after victory on the battlefield. Ukraine army focuses on shelling civilians while Novorossia kills Kiev's soldiers or captures them. Sometimes they are returned to their Mothers as seen in this film.

    Donetsk Republic Prime Minister Alexander Zakharchenko from Novorossia argues with Kiev army officer in this powerful video. He said that the Kiev army succumbed to the coup:

    "To give away our own country to be looted by Americans and other European countries"

    That video is by Graham Phillips who does the job that the impotent lame stream media won't do in America. Bravo Graham! Many thanks to Kazzura for her translation of most of the videos.

    Notice in the West the so called journalists are nowhere to be found on the battlefield in Ukraine as this man was here. I am certainly not addressing the media like CNN, FOX, CBS and the other court jesters who are paid clowns in the freak show called "US government". They dare tell America lies about the war. I would force them to dig the graves of the dead. How quickly the mainstream media goose steps in unison blaming Russia as Hitler did. Showing them the truth would be like showing a burnt building to a pyromaniac. The US media is in the business of making money not telling the truth. Peace and truth don't make billions of dollars they say. Were they bribed or are they true liars? "The liar's punishment is, not in the least that he is not believed, but that he cannot believe anyone else." - George Bernard Shaw

    Victoria "Fuck the EU" Nuland was back in the news recently. In her efforts to support the US program against "Russia Today". "Noodle Head Nuland" belittled RT by saying "RT's tiny, tiny audience in the United States". Remember her? The Benghazi gal was first talking about Democracy in Ukraine with Chevron. Their version of "democracy and freedom" means war to the rest of the world. She was seen handing out food to protesters and police in Kiev. How nice she is sounding so sweet and so kind. She was later caught on tape saying "Fuck the EU" when discussing the setup of the Ukraine government. Later she was grilled by Republican Dana Rohrabacher where she admitted there were Nazis on Maidan. Yeah, I really trust that evil witch who learned her craft from Hillary.

    It is obvious to the world, but not to the West, that Kiev was overthrown by the US and EU. Although the US propaganda blames Russia for everything the OSCE has already disproven their claims. We wanted to show in our main video that Kiev was actually warned before Pandora's Box was opened. The blame is clearly on the US as instigators. They sowed the devil's seed.

    Nevertheless, those who were deceived by the US or went along with the evil knowingly are also to blame and bear the responsibility of misleading Ukraine. Kiev has now become the newest suffering colony in America's empire. The only real "Hope and Change" for the people of Donbass is fighting against Obama's tyranny and becoming the independent country of Novorossia. "Let Freedom Ring!" America has forgotten its meaning.

    Xavier Lerma. Contact Xavier Lerma at [email protected]

    [Sep 24, 2016] The Meaning of the Trump Surge

    Notable quotes:
    "... telling pollsters that they now favor the Donald seems to be the only way many people have to tell Hillary and the people around her what they think of them. ..."
    Sep 24, 2016 | www.counterpunch.org

    And Jill Stein is eager to do so now. She could do a far better job than Sanders too, because her progressive vision, unlike his, doesn't end at the country's borders. She, unlike he, would at least try to take American imperialism on.

    But in the actual world, Jill Stein is still "Jill who?," and telling pollsters that they now favor the Donald seems to be the only way many people have to tell Hillary and the people around her what they think of them.

    [Sep 24, 2016] Obama, Our Peace President Turns Out to Be Rather War-Happy

    Notable quotes:
    "... That Makes Me Mad!, ..."
    "... You must be kidding! ..."
    "... You must be kidding! ..."
    "... Washington Post ..."
    "... You must be kidding! ..."
    "... You must be kidding! ..."
    "... You must be kidding! ..."
    "... Thanks for writing this article; it corroborates everything I've been saying about Obama's lust for war and destabilization. You could have mentioned the Pentagon currently has JSOC kill teams in 147 countries, per Noam Chomsky. You also could have mentioned the US is the most feared force on the global stage, feared, that is, by actual citizens, not so much by their leaders. ..."
    "... Years ago Glen Ford of "Black Agenda Report" correctly referred to this shameless sellout as "the more effective evil". The implication was that the perception created by his propagandists that Obama is a committed Democrat who is just trying to do his best against a obstructionist Congress and right-wing media is false. ..."
    "... Barry the Liar is an enthusiastic member of the MIC, Wall Street, and the oligarchs. He has actually expanded the powers of the President and the National Security State that we live in and even claims the right to kill an American citizen without trial! When George Carlin said - "I don't believe anything my government tells me" he could have been talking about this shill for the TPB. ..."
    "... Yes, why isn't anyone in the mass media picking up on this obvious hypocrisy? For the same reasons it never picks up on anything else of importance - it's controlled. ..."
    "... Obama has been one of the most hypocritical presidents ever elected. ..."
    "... Obama got his start in politics with money from the family that owns Grumman, and he's been dancing to their tune ever since. ..."
    "... Obama sold out on the left. In reality, he was paid from day one to do exactly that. He was literally the ultimate snake oil salesman. Campaign on a platform of change and govern like Bush won 2 more terms. ..."
    "... If Obama is the best the Democrats can come up with, then it is high time the left en masse left the Democratic Party. It's one big reason why I cannot support Clinton, who will be even more pro-war. It's a vote for more of the same. ..."
    "... And, Hillary Clump was the biggest war monger in his misadministration. As for the nukes, I recently drove by a minuteman nuclear missile silo in Wyoming, you can see the damn thing right there by the road. ..."
    Sep 23, 2016 | www.alternet.org/TomDispatch

    Recently, sorting through a pile of old children's books, I came across a volume, That Makes Me Mad!, which brought back memories. Written by Steve Kroll, a long-dead friend, it focused on the eternally frustrating everyday adventures of Nina, a little girl whose life regularly meets commonplace roadblocks, at which point she always says... well, you can guess from the title! Vivid parental memories of another age instantly flooded back-of my daughter (now reading such books to her own son) sitting beside me at age five and hitting that repeated line with such mind-blowing, ear-crushing gusto that you knew it spoke to the everyday frustrations of her life, to what made her mad.

    Three decades later, in an almost unimaginably different America, on picking up that book I suddenly realized that, whenever I follow the news online, on TV, or-and forgive me for this but I'm 72 and still trapped in another era-on paper, I have a similarly Nina-esque urge. Only the line I've come up with for it is (with a tip of the hat to Steve Kroll) " You must be kidding! "

    Here are a few recent examples from the world of American-style war and peace. Consider these as random illustrations, given that, in the age of Trump, just about everything that happens is out-of-this-world absurd and would serve perfectly well. If you're in the mood, feel free to shout out that line with me as we go.

    Nuking the Planet: I'm sure you remember Barack Obama, the guy who entered the Oval Office pledging to work toward "a nuclear-free world." You know, the president who traveled to Prague in 2009 to say stirringly : "So today, I state clearly and with conviction America's commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons... To put an end to Cold War thinking, we will reduce the role of nuclear weapons in our national security strategy, and urge others to do the same." That same year, he was awarded the Nobel Prize largely for what he might still do, particularly in the nuclear realm. Of course, that was all so 2009!

    Almost two terms in the Oval Office later, our peace president, the only one who has ever called for nuclear "abolition"-and whose administration has retired fewer weapons in our nuclear arsenal than any other in the post-Cold War era-is now presiding over the early stages of a trillion-dollar modernization of that very arsenal. (And that trillion-dollar price tag comes, of course, before the inevitable cost overruns even begin.) It includes full-scale work on the creation of a "precision-guided" nuclear weapon with a "dial-back" lower yield option. Such a weapon would potentially bring nukes to the battlefield in a first-use way, something the U.S. is proudly pioneering .

    And that brings me to the September 6th front-page story in the New York Times that caught my eye. Think of it as the icing on the Obama era nuclear cake. Its headline : "Obama Unlikely to Vow No First Use of Nuclear Weapons." Admittedly, if made, such a vow could be reversed by any future president. Still, reportedly for fear that a pledge not to initiate a nuclear war would "undermine allies and embolden Russia and China... while Russia is running practice bombing runs over Europe and China is expanding its reach in the South China Sea," the president has backed down on issuing such a vow. In translation: the only country that has ever used such weaponry will remain on the record as ready and willing to do so again without nuclear provocation, an act that, it is now believed in Washington, would create a calmer planet.

    You must be kidding!

    Plain Old Bombing: Recall that in October 2001, when the Bush administration launched its invasion of Afghanistan, the U.S. was bombing no other largely Islamic country. In fact, it was bombing no other country at all. Afghanistan was quickly "liberated," the Taliban crushed, al-Qaeda put to flight, and that was that , or so it then seemed.

    On September 8th, almost 15 years later, the Washington Post reported that, over a single weekend and in a "flurry" of activity, the U.S. had dropped bombs on, or fired missiles at, six largely Islamic countries: Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, and Somalia. (And it might have been seven if the CIA hadn't grown a little rusty when it comes to the drone strikes in Pakistan's tribal borderlands that it's launched repeatedly throughout these years.) In the same spirit, the president who swore he would end the U.S. war in Iraq and, by the time he left office, do the same in Afghanistan, is now overseeing American bombing campaigns in Iraq and Syria which are loosing close to 25,000 weapons a year on those countries. Only recently, in order to facilitate the further prosecution of the longest war in our history, the president who announced that his country had ended its "combat mission" in Afghanistan in 2014, has once again deployed the U.S. military in a combat role and has done the same with the U.S. Air Force . For that, B-52s (of Vietnam infamy) were returned to action there, as well as in Iraq and Syria , after a decade of retirement. In the Pentagon, military figures are now talking about " generational " war in Afghanistan-well into the 2020s.

    Meanwhile, President Obama has personally helped pioneer a new form of warfare that will not long remain a largely American possession. It involves missile-armed drones, high-tech weapons that promise a world of no-casualty-conflict (for the American military and the CIA), and adds up to a permanent global killing machine for taking out terror leaders, "lieutenants," and "militants." Well beyond official American war zones, U.S. drones regularly cross borders, infringing on national sovereignty throughout the Greater Middle East and parts of Africa, to assassinate anyone the president and his colleagues decide needs to die, American citizen or otherwise (plus, of course, anyone who happens to be in the vicinity ). With its White House "kill list" and its "terror Tuesday" meetings, the drone program, promising "surgical" hunting-and-killing action, has blurred the line between war and peace, while being normalized in these years. A president is now not just commander-in-chief but assassin-in-chief , a role that no imaginable future president is likely to reject. Assassination, previously an illegal act, has become the heart and soul of Washington's way of life and of a way of war that only seems to spread conflict further.

    You must be kidding!

    The Well-Oiled Machinery of Privatized War: And speaking of drones, as the New York Times reported on September 5th, the U.S. drone program does have one problem: a lack of pilots. It has ramped up quickly in these years and, in the process, the pressures on its pilots and other personnel have only grown, including post-traumatic stress over killing civilians thousands of miles away via computer screen. As a result, the Air Force has been losing those pilots fast. Fortunately, a solution is on the horizon. That service has begun filling its pilot gap by going the route of the rest of the military in these years-turning to private contractors for help. Such pilots and other personnel are, however, paid higher salaries and cost more money. The contractors, in turn, have been hiring the only available personnel around, the ones trained by... yep, you guessed it, the Air Force. The result may be an even greater drain on Air Force drone pilots eager for increased pay for grim work and... well, I think you can see just how the well-oiled machinery of privatized war is likely to work here and who's going to pay for it.

    You must be kidding!

    Selling Arms As If There Were No Tomorrow: In a recent report for the Center for International Policy, arms expert William Hartung offered a stunning figure on U.S. arms sales to Saudi Arabia. "Since taking office in January 2009," he wrote , "the Obama administration has offered over $115 billion worth of weapons to Saudi Arabia in 42 separate deals, more than any U.S. administration in the history of the U.S.-Saudi relationship. The majority of this equipment is still in the pipeline, and could tie the United States to the Saudi military for years to come." Think about that for a moment: $115 billion for everything from small arms to tanks, combat aircraft, cluster bombs , and air-to-ground missiles (weaponry now being used to slaughter civilians in neighboring Yemen).

    Of course, how else can the U.S. keep its near monopoly on the global arms trade and ensure that two sets of products-Hollywood movies and U.S. weaponry-will dominate the world's business in things that go boom in the night? It's a record to be proud of, especially since putting every advanced weapon imaginable in the hands of the Saudis will obviously help bring peace to a roiled region of the planet. (And if you arm the Saudis, you better do no less for the Israelis, hence the mind-boggling $38 billion in military aid the Obama administration recently signed on to for the next decade, the most Washington has ever offered any country, ensuring that arms will be flying into the Middle East, literally and figuratively, for years to come.)

    Blessed indeed are the peacemakers-and of course you know that by "peacemaker" I mean the classic revolver that "won the West."

    Put another way...

    You must be kidding!

    .... .... ....

    Tom Engelhardt is a co-founder of the American Empire Project and the author of The United States of Fear as well as a history of the Cold War, The End of Victory Culture . He is a fellow of the Nation Institute and runs TomDispatch.com . His latest book is Shadow Government: Surveillance, Secret Wars, and a Global Security State in a Single-Superpower World .
    Selected commnets (117 COMMENTS)
    Papachuck111 2 hours ago
    I've spelled his name "Obomba" after his second year in office. Bush had "Shock and Awe"... Obomba has "Stealth and Wealth"... The American economy has been a WAR ECONOMY for a long time. But hey, we're freeeeeeeeee… freedom isn't free, and all that other bullshit.
    RadioUranus 2 hours ago
    It's been all downhill since "Brer Rabbit" Bush got into it with the Middle East "tar baby."
    Palimpsestuous 2 hours ago
    Aw shucks, Tom, you been reading my posts? Thanks for writing this article; it corroborates everything I've been saying about Obama's lust for war and destabilization. You could have mentioned the Pentagon currently has JSOC kill teams in 147 countries, per Noam Chomsky. You also could have mentioned the US is the most feared force on the global stage, feared, that is, by actual citizens, not so much by their leaders.

    President Obama's 58% approval tells me the American public are largely bloodthirsty savages led by a psychopath in pursuit of global tyranny. Either that, or 58% of Americans would rather play Goldilocks and the Three Bears with their political attention than accept responsibility for their part in destroying human civilization.

    "Thanks. I'll take the tall, smiling psychopath, second from the right. He looks presidential."

    The end of our democracy coincides with the end of our being an informed public. Who could have ever anticipated such a coincidence, but everyone with a passing awareness of history.

    southvalley Palimpsestuous an hour ago
    Nah, the American people have really no idea what's going on as we try to survive this BS. Most still think we actually have a Constitution. Remember, we wanted an "outsider" in '08 too a new face and he turned out to be silly putty in they're hands. Oh, I just heard Jennifer Flowers is coming to the debates to support Trump. Wonder how much they paid that POS liar
    Bill 2 hours ago
    No one who has the common sense to say he'll work for a nuclear weapons-free world changes his mind. He either never meant what he said, or he's been compromised by those who control all things political and otherwise in this country. I'm betting on the latter.
    Palimpsestuous Bill 2 hours ago
    I'll take that bet, even if there's no way to verify who wins. I think Obama's been a duplicitous scumbag from the get go. He's demonstrated a consistently strong dedication to fucking the public while protecting the professional class of mobsters in suits.

    And I voted for this asshole, twice. Options, options. Are there any options?

    AC3 3 hours ago
    These types of articles are why I used to value AlterNet as a source of information. Thank you - it was informative and had a human touch. Your overt trying to manipulate and sway an election with bias overload is tiresome. The HRC/3rd party candidate blackout and 24/7 turbo train of anti-Trump is insulting our intelligence and not effective. You're preaching to the choir, we get it, Trump is psycho, but so is Clinton in her own awful & well established way - just like Obama was, and Bush before that, and Clinton before him, and Bush before... If you want to be 'Alter'native, tell the truth about ALL the candidates and report on the machinations behind the Plutocracy + how we can create an alternative is helpful, enough with the Huffpo-Salon DNC propaganda headquarters.

    kyushuphil AC3 2 hours ago

    America pushes war on the world through its materialism hegemon.

    It's a long-running, vicious war. Tens of millions alone forced from their traditional cultures in Asia, Africa, and Latin America -- simply by a heavily-subsidized U.S. Industrial Ag which underprices commodity crops and kills those local cultures.

    Then the big finance boys with their shopping malls, nukes, franchise fast food, and millions upon millions of cars choking the land, poisoning the skies.
    U.S. corporate academe could provide alternatives to the mindless materialism. Could keep the humanities central enough in all departments to keep some wider consciences among Americans who for years have been blissfully blind and narcissistic about its war on the world.

    The tenured classes will have none of it. They abhor the humanities. They want no perspectives on their specializations.

    And so liberals, ever blind to their corporate academe, pop up occasionally "shocked, shocked" at what the U.S. pushes on the world. But the complicity goes on. The blindness goes on.

    Don't you think there's something funny about this, as Kate asked her boy Cal in "East of Eden" -- funny how our dear, smug, tenured, dehumanized purists live so totally in their "purity"?

    nuanced 3 hours ago
    If only Obama had Trump's magic wand for getting things done.
    brucebennett 3 hours ago
    Years ago Glen Ford of "Black Agenda Report" correctly referred to this shameless sellout as "the more effective evil". The implication was that the perception created by his propagandists that Obama is a committed Democrat who is just trying to do his best against a obstructionist Congress and right-wing media is false.

    We have seen repeatedly that the truth is quite different. Barry the Liar is an enthusiastic member of the MIC, Wall Street, and the oligarchs. He has actually expanded the powers of the President and the National Security State that we live in and even claims the right to kill an American citizen without trial! When George Carlin said - "I don't believe anything my government tells me" he could have been talking about this shill for the TPB.

    When Mr. Nobel Peace Prize creates even more war and also tells you that President Hillary Clinton would be "continuity you can believe in" I am having none of it. For at least 30 years this Republican Lite party have devolved into the sorry state they are now. I will not assist them to go even further and wreck what is left of the American Dream.
    Stein 2016!

    Bill denton310 2 hours ago
    Yes, why isn't anyone in the mass media picking up on this obvious hypocrisy? For the same reasons it never picks up on anything else of importance - it's controlled.

    Now explain why anyone should pay attention to any more articles about what Trump or Clinton just came out with. It just doesn't matter any more.

    For_Alternet 4 hours ago
    Obama has been one of the most hypocritical presidents ever elected.
    tio che 200YearOldJuniper 3 hours ago
    Murder is murder, obomber is as guilty as bush/cheney and their lackeys, rice and killary, of terrorist crimes against humanity!
    H. M. 4 hours ago
    Just think, this is the Nobel Peace Prize winner, Obama; now, just imagine the neoliberal neocon Hillary at the helm of the war machine!

    I'm afraid it will be check-mate for Humanity as we know it!

    MYR 5 hours ago
    The so-called "peace President" should return his Nobel Prize award immediately, so as not to slander the good intentions of Alfred Nobel.
    Promoting wars, supporting war hawks, deploying drones to kill people in sovereign states, selling weapons to tyrannical governments are destructive ideas that Alfred Nobel had sought to counteract.

    Sid Samsara 5 hours ago

    Oh no, this isn't true. Obama has been playing 11th dimensional chess as policy for the last eight years and let me tell you, folks inhabiting the11th dimension are pretty dam happy with their universal health care, peaceful foreign policy and prosperous for all economy.
    DHFabian 6 hours ago
    I've personally drifted between "Seriously?" and knowing that there's really not much left to say. Deep into the longest, most expensive war in US history, we don't exactly see massive anti-war protests, people filling the mall in DC to call for peace, churches organizing prayer rallies in the name of the Prince of Peace. Walter Cronkite is gone, and the horrors of war doesn't come into our living rooms each evening. The war is distant, sterile, tidy.

    Which decisions are made by Congress, which are made by the president, and in the end, does it matter? America does war. We can no longer afford to do much else, and more importantly, there appears to be little will to change course. Americans can look at the federal budget, see that the lion's share goes into maintaining war, then demand that Congress cut food stamps. (Indeed, in 2015, Congress cut food stamps to the elderly poor and the disabled from $115 per month to $10.)

    Budgets stand as a statement about American priorities. There is an endless strream of money for war, but none for the survival of our poor. The progressive discussion of the last eight years can be summed up as an ongoing pep rally for the middle class, with an occasional "BLM!" thrown in for good measure. A revolution to stay the course.

    Redacted 8 hours ago
    Obama got his start in politics with money from the family that owns Grumman, and he's been dancing to their tune ever since.

    Clump, OTOH, takes money from every single MIC source, neocon source, billionaire nutty Israeli warmonger, Saudi warmonger, Central American dictator, even down to lowly death squad commendates, etc etc -and she's extremely well connected to all of them by now I imagine.

    This is a person who wants both direct involvement in killing, has already done so from her phone, and enjoys the power of being a merchant of death, I predict she will be the among the most war like and worst presidents ever selected- if not the worst one ever.

    tio che Redacted 5 hours ago
    Dark days ahead for imperialist amerika; and sadly for the rest of the World; as the empire's death dealing is global!
    Christie 8 hours ago
    If you think Obama was war happy, you do not want to see war hawk Hillary in action as President.

    The debate should be about issues-Hillary would apparently rather talk about sexism that her war hawk record. Trump wants to emphasis tending to America's needs and says we should stop empire building.

    "Lies (in which Clinton was deeply complicit) led to the U.S.-led destruction of Iraq and Libya. Lies underlie U.S. policy on Syria. Some of the biggest liars in past efforts to hoodwink the people into supporting more war (Robert Kagan, Bill Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz) are backing Hillary, whose Washington Post Pinocchio count is "sky-high," for president.

    The US Election: an Exercise in Mendacity (untruthfulness) http://www.counterpunch.org/20...
    *****************
    The Clintons do not want anyone to even mention their corrupt involvement in Haiti:

    "The Clinton exploitation of Haiti will eventually go up in flames, and when the smoke settles an emotional and fiscal disaster of enormous proportions will finally be visible to the world. It will be difficult to sift through the ashes to find truth, but the truth is there. Follow the money, follow the pandering, follow the emails, and follow the favors traded for gold.

    "The story ends in more pain, suffering, and abuse for the Haitian people as women are sexually harassed and verbally abused by Korean managers in the sweatshops of Caracol, while a former Gap Inc. executive is at the helm of USAID garment industry agreements with Haiti. If the Clinton connections to Wall Street leave Americans yawning, the systematic exploitation of Haitian workers with a wink and a nod from the Clinton Foundation should at the very least create outrage. But then again, this is Haiti, and Haitian lives do not seem to matter.

    Recently Leaked Documents Confirm Clinton Haitian Gold Scheme | OpEdNews
    http://www.opednews.com/articl...

    NoldorElf 8 hours ago
    Obama sold out on the left. In reality, he was paid from day one to do exactly that. He was literally the ultimate snake oil salesman. Campaign on a platform of change and govern like Bush won 2 more terms.

    The wars went on, the bankers got bailed out and didn't go jail, inequality rose, along with a total failure to address any of the real problems facing society.

    If Obama is the best the Democrats can come up with, then it is high time the left en masse left the Democratic Party. It's one big reason why I cannot support Clinton, who will be even more pro-war. It's a vote for more of the same.

    DHFabian NoldorElf 5 hours ago
    What left? Seriously. We've only heard from liberals who Stand in Solidarity to preserve the advantages of the middle class. They so strongly believe in the success of our corporate state that they think everyone is able to work, and there are jobs for all. If we had a left, they would have been shining a spotlight on our poverty crisis as the proof that our deregulated capitalism is a dismal failure.

    The "inequality" discussion has been particularly interesting. Pay attention to what is said. Today's liberal media have narrowed the inequality discussion to the gap between workers and the rich, disappearing all those who are far worse off.

    kyushuphil DHFabian 2 hours ago
    True, so onerously true what you say, DH.

    Does it happen by accident, when our tenured classes have stripped away the humanities from all, guaranteeing what you term narrow discussion?

    Redacted 8 hours ago
    And, Hillary Clump was the biggest war monger in his misadministration. As for the nukes, I recently drove by a minuteman nuclear missile silo in Wyoming, you can see the damn thing right there by the road.

    Very sad that instead of reducing these as he promised to, this idiot modernized them and added more.

    Lord Dude Redacted 8 hours ago
    Clinton and Kerry voted to invade Iraq and Obama rewards them with the Sec State jobs.
    DHFabian Lord Dude 5 hours ago
    And the media marketed to liberals began going all out in 2015, before she launched her campaign, to try to sell Clinton as a "bold progressive." This, with her decades-long record of support for the right wing agenda.

    Oh well, don't worry about it. As Big Bill so carefully explained, all that any American needs to keep in mind is, "Get up every morning, work hard, and play by all the rules." Don't look around, don't ask questions, don't think.

    Redacted Lord Dude 8 hours ago
    And now she will be rewarded by the MIC and neocons with the ultimate prize - the white house.
    Lord Dude Redacted 8 hours ago
    She lacked the courage to filibuster the Iraq Resolution and tell the truth to the American people that they were being lied into a needless war that would waste trillions of their money. And now she's being rewarded. SMH.

    Redacted Lord Dude 7 hours ago

    She had no wish to filibuster this anymore than the Trojan horse Bernie Sanders wanted to filibuster her drone attacks later on.
    Lord Dude 8 hours ago
    He will be the first president to have been at war for two complete terms.

    And he went into Syria and Libya without permission of Congress. Not even W did that.

    taosword 8 hours ago
    Many say that Obama's hands are tied in all these matters, and that he cannot get anything past the Congress. I am not sure about that. I would like to see more of a public fighter in him to show us all that he is consistently trying to get us out of the Mideast and not modernize nuclear weapons and not be willing to use them first, and stop this insane, immoral, illegal CIA drone assassination program. Show me strong consistent public statements to this effect for the last 7 years and I may believe it. Otherwise he is like president Johnson who while doing good civil rights things at home was trying to get me killed in Vietnam.
    avelna 9 hours ago
    Or, to put it more succinctly...We're f**cked. The whole world.
    southvalley 9 hours ago
    Classic "We must destroy the world in order to save it"
    nineteen50 9 hours ago
    Vote Hillary for more of the same only "muscled up"
    Hometalk222 10 hours ago
    How did an article about Obama and nuclear weapons , turn into a hit piece on D Trump??? Oh yeah, this is Alternet.
    smkngman3 10 hours ago
    Obama learned from the Clintons on how to get those "Foundation" checks rolling in.
    David Shaw Jr 10 hours ago
    His "peace prize" should be repossessed.

    [Sep 23, 2016] Rise Of The Deplorables

    Notable quotes:
    "... The Deplorables! ..."
    Sep 18, 2016 | strata-sphere.com
    Published by AJStrata under 2016 Elections , All General Discussions Update : Many more Proud Deplorables here – End Update

    Hillary just can't help herself. Her political instincts (and those of her campaign) are just plain stupid. Everything backfires on her, probably because she is living in a fantasy bubble called the Political Industrial Complex (PIC).

    The Political Industrial Complex encompasses all those elites whose livelihoods are predicated on central-control of resources and who determine who is allowed to succeed in society. It is a bipartisan exclusive club. It includes the Politicians and their career staffers. It includes crony donors and lobbyists who reap government windfalls and special treatment that average citizens cannot obtain. It includes the PIC industrial base of pollsters, consultants, etc. And it includes the pliant news media, whose success rest on access to those in power, and in return for access making sure no bad news will disrupt said power.

    This strange and bizarre parallel universe is where all the political elites hang out – isolated from Main Street America (and the commoner world as well). The denizens of the PIC are very wealthy, very cozy with each other and one of they live in the most dense echo chamber on the planet.

    Hillary is just the epitome of Political Correctness dripping from the center of the PIC.

    But now Hillary has created a massive movement in the country, outside the PIC. She has created " The Deplorables! ".

    It is becoming a badge of honor to be feared and attacked by the PIC. It is becoming fun to watch members of the PIC just collapse into lick-spittle rage, as the voters reject their self-anointed brilliance. For example :

    Hillary, you recently labeled me - and millions of Americans like me - "deplorable."

    I am not deplorable. What I am is your worst nightmare: a woman, a mother and a voter who sees right through you.

    In your remarks to an LGBT group, with liberal millionaire mouthpiece Barbra Streisand hosting your appearance, you waved your invisible scepter and banished millions of people from respectable society, just because you felt like it.

    "Racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, you name it," you said last Friday. "There are people like that, and [Trump] has lifted them up."

    Well, I'm concerned about national security, supportive of law enforcement, and a believer in traditional marriage. How does that make me "deplorable?"

    There is even a great riff on how to determine if you too are "A Deplorable!" (similar to Foxworthy's "you might be a redneck, if…")

    You may be a deplorable if you just got your car inspected.

    If you're deployable, you're definitely deplorable.

    If you wake before noon, if you call Islamic terrorists Islamic terrorists, if you don't have an Obamaphone and you don't believe that global warming is "settled science" - can you say deplorable?

    Or if while watching the second Monday night NFL game you were less irritated by the streaker than you were by all the fawning coverage of Colin Kaepernick on the pre-game show.

    You may be a deplorable if you resent training your H1-B replacement.

    Or the fact that the Earned Income Tax Credit is NOT earned.

    Nothing says deplorable like the National Rifle Association.

    Hillary wanted to brand Trump Voters as subhuman (well, at least below the standards of the PIC). But by giving them a name, she gave them a rallying point, a joint cause.

    Honestly, how could she have helped Trump even more? Given her political skills I am sure we will find out soon enough.

    Image from The Conservative Treehouse

    Tags: Clinton , Deplorable , Election 2016 , Trump

    [Sep 22, 2016] Deir ez-Zor bombings: What is US actual goal in Syria

    Sep 22, 2016 | atimes.com

    By Christina Lin on September 20, 2016

    Mother Agnes Mariam , a nominee for the 2014 Nobel Peace Prize from Homs diocese, has some harsh words for the US war against Syria : "Shame on a coalition who pretends fighting ISIS while in reality is helping ISIS killing innocent soldiers whose mission is to protect civilians."

    This is in response to the September 17 US airstrikes in Deir ez-Zor that massacred 62 Syrian soldiers and injured 100 more who have been fighting ISIS. [1] According to a June 2015 Time magazine article, Deir ez-Zor with a population of 228,000 has been under siege by ISIS the past years, relying on the nightly arrival of a large Syrian air-force-operated cargo plane which has a payload of more than 46 tons and transports munitions, food and medical supplies.

    Starving babies in Deir ez-Zor

    This much needed aid is flown out from the military air base southeast of the city, the target of ISIS the past years and now bombed by US jet fighters. During the bombing, ISIS launched a simultaneous attack and threatened to overrun the air base as well as slaughter the over 200,000 civilians. Deir ez-Zor is also home to a large Christian population protected by the Syrian government, similar to most other Christian inhabited cities that are in government-controlled areas along the coast.

    Map of Christian population in Syria

    However, the Syrian army was able to repel the ISIS offensive and recover lost territory after the US "mistaken" attacks, but the incident has again left many wondering whether US goal is really to counter terrorism or to conduct regime change in Syria.

    Meanwhile, the Syrian people continue to face prolonged agony and suffering as regional and great powers use them as pawns for their geopolitical ambitions.

    E dward Dark , an activist in Aleppo , noted back in 2013 that Syrians watched how their peaceful revolution was hijacked by Turkey/Saudi and other Arab Gulf states, pouring in Salafists from over 100 countries that morphed into ISIS, Al Nusra, and others that care nothing for the norms of human rights, democracy, or justice for the Syrian nation. He admitted, "People here don't like the regime, but they hate the rebels even more."

    Now Dark sees Syria's only salvation is through reconciliation and a renunciation of violence, but lamented "that is not a view shared by the warmongers and power brokers who still think that more Syrian blood should be spilled to appease the insatiable appetites of their sordid aspirations."

    A girl helping her dad with his shoe

    Just as King Solomon determined the true mother of the baby is the one who refused to split her son in half, the champion of the Syrian people and human rights is the power that would place the Syrians' welfare above its own selfish ambitions.

    Nonetheless, Dark lamented that "Whatever is left of Syria at the end will be carved out between the wolves and vultures that fought over its bleeding and dying corpse, leaving us, the Syrian people to pick up the shattered pieces of our nation and our futures."

    Indeed, it seems US and its Salafist allies are bent on splitting the Syrian baby and cleansing it of ethnic and religious minorities with a Taliban-like regime and Shaira Law, and Deir ez-Zor is likely condemned to suffer the similar fate of Homs.

    In Homs, the pre-conflict population was more than 1 million people of mostly Sunni Muslims with substantial Christian and Alawite communities. Peter Crowley, senior foreign affairs correspondent at Politico , in August 2015 tweeted an extract from a 2008 Lonely Planet travel guide of Homs.

    "These days, its Christian neighborhood is one of Syria's most welcoming and relaxed, and Homs' citizens are some of the country's friendliest…That, combined with the city's myriad leafy parks and gardens, sprawling al fresco coffee shop, outdoor corn-on-the-cob stands and restored souq where artisans still work, make Homs a wonderful place to kick back for a couple of days."

    In eight years, Homs has changed from a "wonderful place" to a ruinous heap. With the ceasefire likely to break down as Salafist rebels rearm and regroup, US and Saudi/Qatar/Turkey are well on the march towards turning Syria into another Afghanistan in the Mediterranean.

    [1] Nancy A. Youssef, "Did the U.S. Just Slaughter Syrian Troops? The Daily Beast , September 18, 2016.

    Dr. Christina Lin is a Fellow at the Center for Transatlantic Relations at SAIS-Johns Hopkins University where she specializes in China-Middle East/Mediterranean relations, and a research consultant for Jane's Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear Intelligence Centre at IHS Jane's.

    [Sep 22, 2016] A deep schism in the Republican Party: neocon and neolib wings of the Republican Party are adamantly anti-Trump by Michael Tracey

    The author fails to distinguish between two (intermixed) faction so of Repugs -- neocons and neolib.
    Neoconservatives and neoliberals are "enemy within" the Republican Party as they have nothing to do with either republicanism or conservatism. They are Empire builders. Neocons should be purged as they definitely do not belong. They already started moving to Democratic party (Robert Kagan is a typical case) ...
    Neoliberals are more complex and difficult case. They are the essence of the current republican establishment, the face of the party. Here a Stalin-type purge (Trotskyites were very influential before the purge) is necessary to get rid of this faction, in order to return the Party to Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt roots...
    Notable quotes:
    "... Only one outcome in November would forestall a complete, likely irreversible fracturing: the election of Hillary Clinton. Thus, many elite Republican operators-including lobbyists, elected officials, and pundits-are desperately hoping that Trump loses. Some are limited to expressing this desire privately, for fear of alienating the conservative voters on whom their continued electoral (or business) prospects depend. ..."
    "... Republicans who were especially devoted to Marco Rubio during the primary-whose interests align with the perpetuation of the party's status quo-are perhaps the most strident in their wish for a Trump defeat. ..."
    "... Under a President Trump, such establishmentarian actors would lose power. Maybe they'd retain some measure of influence within the administration, as Trump exerted his deal-making prowess to bring them into the fold, but their interests would no longer be paramount. Other forces would have propelled Trump to victory, and he would likely prioritize them in governance. ..."
    "... "True conservatives" of the Cruz variety could feasibly come to include the free marketeers and conventional national-security hawks who cannot countenance Trump. ..."
    "... It should also be noted that while this schism is especially pronounced among elites-such as those with sinecures at prestigious think tanks, or lobbyists with powerful clients to please-the divisions are far less evident at the voter level. Support for Trump among Republicans is around 90 percent , according to recent polling. ..."
    "... those whose livelihood depends on conservative-movement institutions have added incentive to root for a Trump loss. ..."
    "... In sum, Trump poses an existential threat to American movement [neo]conservatives. Hillary is their only hope. ..."
    Sep 22, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com

    From: Why Movement Conservatives Are Rooting for Hillary by Michael Tracey

    Obviously there is . It has been developing for years, and could be seen to some extent in earlier presidential cycles, but was opened fully and dramatically by the improbable candidacy of Donald Trump. Only one outcome in November would forestall a complete, likely irreversible fracturing: the election of Hillary Clinton. Thus, many elite Republican operators-including lobbyists, elected officials, and pundits-are desperately hoping that Trump loses. Some are limited to expressing this desire privately, for fear of alienating the conservative voters on whom their continued electoral (or business) prospects depend.

    Republicans who were especially devoted to Marco Rubio during the primary-whose interests align with the perpetuation of the party's status quo-are perhaps the most strident in their wish for a Trump defeat. (Recall that the few areas where Rubio prevailed earlier this year included Washington, D.C., and its Northern Virginia suburbs-locations that have profited immensely from the post-9/11 military-industrial buildup.)

    Under a President Trump, such establishmentarian actors would lose power. Maybe they'd retain some measure of influence within the administration, as Trump exerted his deal-making prowess to bring them into the fold, but their interests would no longer be paramount. Other forces would have propelled Trump to victory, and he would likely prioritize them in governance.

    After Trump's election, many conservative organs and their congressional allies would position themselves as Trump's enemies, coordinating with Democrats on key initiatives to block his agenda. At the same time, other conservative organs, in tandem with Trump-sympathetic factions of the Republican congressional caucus, would coalesce around the sitting president and support his agenda. Eventually, these factions' coexistence within the same movement would prove untenable, practically and philosophically.

    The result would be less overall leverage for traditional Republican institutions in Washington, the kind whose existence is premised on the maintenance of the decades-old "three-legged stool" formula-social conservatism, free markets, and hawkish foreign policy-for entrenching conservative political power. Trump would saw off one or two of the stool's legs, and there would be no replacing them, at least not in the short term.

    Though a Trump win would necessitate a realignment, it would not happen overnight. Think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation would not undergo a sudden ideological makeover; institutional inertia precludes such rapid transformation. Change would happen slowly, but surely. A president always influences the ideological composition of the body politic-within his own party and the opposition. For instance, Obama's eight-year term has reshaped the Democratic Party coalition, and also engendered commensurate shifts within internal Republican dynamics.

    Under a President Trump, the Republican congressional caucus and affiliated movement-conservative entities would be constantly wracked by internecine warfare of the type that was on vivid display during the GOP primaries. No doubt Ted Cruz would be at the forefront of whatever organized conservative opposition to Trump emerged as he positioned himself for a likely presidential primary challenge in 2020. Cruz would be well situated to pick up the mantle of "true conservatism"-however that ended up getting defined-and he would be able to (convincingly) blame establishment-GOP squishes for fostering the conditions that gave rise to Trump. "True conservatives" of the Cruz variety could feasibly come to include the free marketeers and conventional national-security hawks who cannot countenance Trump.

    Conversely, under a President Hillary, movement conservatives could comfortably unify the party in opposition to their longstanding enemy, papering over the ideological divisions exposed by Trump. Such divisions would still exist, but dealing with them would be subordinated to the overriding task of undermining Hillary. Movement conservatives could easily discount Trump's nomination and failed general-election run as an aberration, and revert more or less back to form. They'd probably proffer some superficial initiatives to address "Trump_vs_deep_state" at the urging of prominent columnists-the somber panel discussions would be manifold-but "Trump_vs_deep_state" as a political program is so ill-defined and malleable that, in practice, any remedial actions wouldn't amount to much.

    It should also be noted that while this schism is especially pronounced among elites-such as those with sinecures at prestigious think tanks, or lobbyists with powerful clients to please-the divisions are far less evident at the voter level. Support for Trump among Republicans is around 90 percent , according to recent polling. In addition to keeping the traditional movement-conservative coalition intact, a Trump loss would narrow the gap between ordinary Republican voters and conservative elites, who could unite in their disdain for Hillary. Thus, those whose livelihood depends on conservative-movement institutions have added incentive to root for a Trump loss.

    In sum, Trump poses an existential threat to American movement [neo]conservatives. Hillary is their only hope.

    Michael Tracey is a journalist based in New York City.

    [Sep 21, 2016] An interesting view on Russian intelligencia by the scientist and writer Zinoviev expressed during perestroika in 1991

    The intelligentsia (Latin: intellegentia, Polish: inteligencja, Russian: интеллигенция; IPA: [ɪntʲɪlʲɪˈɡʲentsɨjə]) is a social class of people engaged in complex mental labor aimed at guiding or critiquing, or otherwise playing a leadership role in shaping a society's culture and politics.[1] This therefore might include everyone from artists to school teachers, as well as academics, writers, journalists, and other hommes de lettres (men of letters) more usually thought of as being the main constituents of the intelligentsia.
    Intelligentsia is the subject of active polemics concerning its own role in the development of modern society not always positive historically, often contributing to higher degree of progress, but also to its backward movement.[2]... In pre-revolutionary Russia the term was first used to describe people possessing cultural and political initiative.[3] It was commonly used by those individuals themselves to create an apparent distance from the masses, and generally retained that narrow self-definition. [citation needed]
    en.wikipedia.org

    If intellectuals replace the current professional politicians as the leaders of society the situation would become much worse. Because they have neither the sense of reality, nor common sense. For them, the words and speeches are more important than the actual social laws and the dominant trends, the dominant social dynamics of the society. The psychological principle of the intellectuals is that we could organize everything much better, but we are not allowed to do it.

    But the actual situation is as following: they could organize the life of society as they wish and plan, in the way they view is the best only if under conditions that are not present now are not feasible in the future. Therefore they are not able to act even at the level of current leaders of the society, which they despise. The actual leaders are influenced by social pressures, by the current social situation, but at least they doing something. Intellectuals are unhappy that the real stream of life they are living in. They consider it wrong. that makes them very dangerous, because they look really smart, while in reality being sophisticated professional idiots.

    [Sep 18, 2016] We Have to Deal With Putin

    Notable quotes:
    "... Moscow did indeed support secessionist pro-Russia rebels in East Ukraine. But did not the U.S. launch a 78-day bombing campaign on tiny Serbia to effect a secession of its cradle province of Kosovo? ..."
    "... Russia is reportedly hacking into our political institutions. If so, it ought to stop. But have not our own CIA, National Endowment for Democracy, and NGOs meddled in Russia's internal affairs for years? ..."
    "... Scores of the world's 190-odd nations are today ruled by autocrats. How does it advance our interests or diplomacy to have congressional leaders yapping "thug" at the ruler of a nation with hundreds of nuclear warheads? ..."
    "... Very good article indeed. Knee-jerk reaction of american politicians and journalists looks extremely strange. As a matter of fact they look like idiots or puppets. ..."
    "... Rubio and Graham are reflexively ready to push US influence everywhere, all the time, with military force always on the agenda, and McCain seems to be in a state of constant agitation ..."
    "... Very sensible article. And as the EU falls further into disarray and possible disintegration, due to migration and other catastrophically mishandled problems, a working partnership with Russia will become even more important. Right now, we treat Russia as an enemy and Saudi Arabia as a friend. That makes no sense at all. ..."
    "... As I've stated many times, Obama the narcissist hates Putin because Putin doesn't play the sycophantic lapdog yapping about how good it is to interact with the "smartest person in the room". ..."
    "... I'm serious. Obama craves sources of narcissistic supply and has visceral contempt for sources of narcissistic injury. I.e., people who may reveal the mediocrity that he actually is. Obama considers Putin a threat in that context. ..."
    "... The downside for the U.S. is that Obama has extended hating Putin to hating Russia. And yes, Washington is flooded with sources of sycophantic narcissistic supply for Obama including the MSM. And they are happy to massage his twisted ego by enthusiastically playing along with the Putin/Russia fear-monger bashing. ..."
    "... P.S. too bad Hillary is saturated with her own psychopathology that portends more Global Cop wreckage. ..."
    "... Anyway, what Buchanan is saying is, "We have to deal with him," not "favor him." The two terms should not be confused. ..."
    "... There are a lot of "allies" of questionable usefulness that the US should stop "favoring," and a lot of competitors (and potential allies in the true sense) out there the US should begin "dealing" with. ..."
    "... Everything the Western elite does is about dollar hegemony and control of energy. ..."
    "... As long as Russia is not a puppet of the globalist banking cartel they will be presented as an "enemy". Standing in the way of energy imperialism was the last straw for the all out hybrid war being launched on Russia now. ..."
    "... If the Western public wasn't so lazy and stupid we would remove the globalists controlling us. Instead people, especially liberals, get in bed with the globalists plans against Russia bc they can't stand Russia is Christian and supports the family. ..."
    "... Every word about Russia allowed in the Western establishment are lies funded and molded by people like Soros and warmongers. This is the reality. Nobody who will speak honestly or positively about Russia is allowed any voice. And scumbag neoliberal globalists like Kasperov are presented as "Russians" while real Russian people are given zero voice. ..."
    "... What the Western elite is doing right now in Ukraine and Syria is reprehensible and its all our fault for letting these people control us. ..."
    Sep 16, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com

    ...Arriving on Capitol Hill to repair ties between Trump and party elites, Gov. Mike Pence was taken straight to the woodshed.

    • John McCain told Pence that Putin was a "thug and a butcher," and Trump's embrace of him intolerable.
    • Said Lindsey Graham: "Vladimir Putin is a thug, a dictator … who has his opposition killed in the streets," and Trump's views bring to mind Munich.
    • Putin is an "authoritarian thug," added "Little Marco" Rubio.

    What causes the Republican Party to lose it whenever the name of Vladimir Putin is raised?

    Putin is no Stalin, whom FDR and Harry Truman called "Good old Joe" and "Uncle Joe." Unlike Nikita Khrushchev, he never drowned a Hungarian Revolution in blood. He did crush the Chechen secession. But what did he do there that General Sherman did not do to Atlanta when Georgia seceded from Mr. Lincoln's Union?

    Putin supported the U.S. in Afghanistan, backed our nuclear deal with Iran, and signed on to John Kerry's plan have us ensure a cease fire in Syria and go hunting together for ISIS and al-Qaida terrorists.

    Still, Putin committed "aggression" in Ukraine, we are told. But was that really aggression, or reflexive strategic reaction? We helped dump over a pro-Putin democratically elected regime in Kiev, and Putin acted to secure his Black Sea naval base by re-annexing Crimea, a peninsula that has belonged to Russia from Catherine the Great to Khrushchev. Great powers do such things.

    When the Castros pulled Cuba out of America's orbit, we decided to keep Guantanamo, and dismiss Havana's protests?

    Moscow did indeed support secessionist pro-Russia rebels in East Ukraine. But did not the U.S. launch a 78-day bombing campaign on tiny Serbia to effect a secession of its cradle province of Kosovo?

    ... ... ...

    Russia is reportedly hacking into our political institutions. If so, it ought to stop. But have not our own CIA, National Endowment for Democracy, and NGOs meddled in Russia's internal affairs for years?

    ... ... ...

    Is Putin's Russia more repressive than Xi Jinping's China? Yet, Republicans rarely use "thug" when speaking about Xi. During the Cold War, we partnered with such autocrats as the Shah of Iran and General Pinochet of Chile, Ferdinand Marcos in Manila, and Park Chung-Hee of South Korea. Cold War necessity required it.

    Scores of the world's 190-odd nations are today ruled by autocrats. How does it advance our interests or diplomacy to have congressional leaders yapping "thug" at the ruler of a nation with hundreds of nuclear warheads?

    ... ... ...

    Patrick J. Buchanan is a founding editor of The American Conservative and the author of book The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority

    Tiktaalik , says: September 16, 2016 at 2:41 am

  • >>During the Cold War, we partnered with such autocrats as the Shah of Iran and General Pinochet of Chile, Ferdinand Marcos in Manila, and Park Chung-Hee of South Korea
  • buttressed could be even more pertinent)
  • Very good article indeed. Knee-jerk reaction of american politicians and journalists looks extremely strange. As a matter of fact they look like idiots or puppets.
  • bacon , says: September 16, 2016 at 5:29 am

    Rubio and Graham are reflexively ready to push US influence everywhere, all the time, with military force always on the agenda, and McCain seems to be in a state of constant agitation whenever US forces are not actively engaged in combat somewhere. They are loud voices, yes, but irrational voices, too.

    Skeptic , says: September 16, 2016 at 9:13 am

    Very sensible article. And as the EU falls further into disarray and possible disintegration, due to migration and other catastrophically mishandled problems, a working partnership with Russia will become even more important. Right now, we treat Russia as an enemy and Saudi Arabia as a friend. That makes no sense at all.

    John Blade Wiederspan , says: September 16, 2016 at 10:18 am

    "Just" states the starvation of the Ukraine is a western lie. The Harvest of Sorrow by Robert Conquest refutes this dangerous falsehood. Perhaps "Just" believes The Great Leap Forward did not lead to starvation of tens of millions in China. After all, this could be another "western lie". So to could be the Armenian genocide in Turkey or slaughter of Communists in Indonesia.

    SteveM , says: September 16, 2016 at 10:23 am

    As I've stated many times, Obama the narcissist hates Putin because Putin doesn't play the sycophantic lapdog yapping about how good it is to interact with the "smartest person in the room".

    I'm serious. Obama craves sources of narcissistic supply and has visceral contempt for sources of narcissistic injury. I.e., people who may reveal the mediocrity that he actually is. Obama considers Putin a threat in that context.

    The downside for the U.S. is that Obama has extended hating Putin to hating Russia. And yes, Washington is flooded with sources of sycophantic narcissistic supply for Obama including the MSM. And they are happy to massage his twisted ego by enthusiastically playing along with the Putin/Russia fear-monger bashing.

    And so the U.S. – Russia relationship is wrecked by the "smartest person in the room".

    P.S. too bad Hillary is saturated with her own psychopathology that portends more Global Cop wreckage.

    blimbax , says: September 16, 2016 at 11:29 am

    John asks, "We also have to deal with our current allies. Whom would Mr. Buchanan like to favor?"

    Well, we could redouble our commitment to our democracy and peace loving friends in Saudi Arabia, we could deepen our ties to those gentle folk in Egypt, and maybe for a change give some meaningful support to Israel. Oh, and our defensive alliances will be becoming so much stronger with Montenegro as a member, we will need to pour more resources into that country.

    Anyway, what Buchanan is saying is, "We have to deal with him," not "favor him." The two terms should not be confused.

    There are a lot of "allies" of questionable usefulness that the US should stop "favoring," and a lot of competitors (and potential allies in the true sense) out there the US should begin "dealing" with.

    Joe the Plutocrat , says: September 16, 2016 at 3:46 pm

    "During the Cold War, we partnered with such autocrats as the Shah of Iran and General Pinochet of Chile, Ferdinand Marcos in Manila, and Park Chung-Hee of South Korea. Cold War necessity required it (funny, you failed to mention Laos, South Vietnam, Nicaragua, Noriega/Panama, and everyone's favorite 9/11 co-conspirator and WMD developer, Saddam Hussein). either way how did these "alliances" work out for the US? really doesn't matter, does it? it is early 21st century, not mid 20th century. there is a school of thought in the worlds of counter-terrorism/intelligence operations, which suggests if you want to be successful, you have to partner with some pretty nasty folks. Trump is being "handled" by an experienced, ruthless (that's a compliment), and focused "operator". unless, of course, Trump is actually the superior operator, in which case, this would be the greatest black op of all time.

    Clint , says: September 16, 2016 at 4:41 pm

    "From Russia With Money - Hillary Clinton, the Russian Reset and Cronyism,"

    "Of the 28 US, European and Russian companies that participated in Skolkovo, 17 of them were Clinton Foundation donors" or sponsored speeches by former President Bill Clinton, Schweizer told The Post.

    http://nypost.com/2016/07/31/report-raises-questions-about-clinton-cash-from-russians-during-reset/

    WakeUp , says: September 16, 2016 at 4:45 pm

    Everything the Western elite does is about dollar hegemony and control of energy. Once you understand that then the (evil)actions of the Western elite make sense. Anyone who stands in the way of those things is an "enemy". This is how they determine an "enemy".

    As long as Russia is not a puppet of the globalist banking cartel they will be presented as an "enemy". Standing in the way of energy imperialism was the last straw for the all out hybrid war being launched on Russia now.

    If the Western public wasn't so lazy and stupid we would remove the globalists controlling us. Instead people, especially liberals, get in bed with the globalists plans against Russia bc they can't stand Russia is Christian and supports the family.

    Every word about Russia allowed in the Western establishment are lies funded and molded by people like Soros and warmongers. This is the reality. Nobody who will speak honestly or positively about Russia is allowed any voice. And scumbag neoliberal globalists like Kasperov are presented as "Russians" while real Russian people are given zero voice.

    What the Western elite is doing right now in Ukraine and Syria is reprehensible and its all our fault for letting these people control us.

    [Sep 18, 2016] Obama the narcissist hates Putin because Putin doesnt play the sycophantic lapdog yapping about how good it is to interact with the smartest person in the room

    Notable quotes:
    "... As I've stated many times, Obama the narcissist hates Putin because Putin doesn't play the sycophantic lapdog yapping about how good it is to interact with the "smartest person in the room". ..."
    "... I'm serious. Obama craves sources of narcissistic supply and has visceral contempt for sources of narcissistic injury. I.e., people who may reveal the mediocrity that he actually is. Obama considers Putin a threat in that context. ..."
    "... The downside for the U.S. is that Obama has extended hating Putin to hating Russia. And yes, Washington is flooded with sources of sycophantic narcissistic supply for Obama including the MSM. And they are happy to massage his twisted ego by enthusiastically playing along with the Putin/Russia fear-monger bashing. ..."
    "... P.S. too bad Hillary is saturated with her own psychopathology that portends more Global Cop wreckage. ..."
    Sep 16, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com
    SteveM , says: September 16, 2016 at 10:23 am

    As I've stated many times, Obama the narcissist hates Putin because Putin doesn't play the sycophantic lapdog yapping about how good it is to interact with the "smartest person in the room".

    I'm serious. Obama craves sources of narcissistic supply and has visceral contempt for sources of narcissistic injury. I.e., people who may reveal the mediocrity that he actually is. Obama considers Putin a threat in that context.

    The downside for the U.S. is that Obama has extended hating Putin to hating Russia. And yes, Washington is flooded with sources of sycophantic narcissistic supply for Obama including the MSM. And they are happy to massage his twisted ego by enthusiastically playing along with the Putin/Russia fear-monger bashing.

    And so the U.S. – Russia relationship is wrecked by the "smartest person in the room".

    P.S. too bad Hillary is saturated with her own psychopathology that portends more Global Cop wreckage.

    [Sep 18, 2016] News Media Is Wearing Titanium Blinders This Election Cycle

    Notable quotes:
    "... Hillary Clinton Is a Flawed But Normal Politician. Why Can't America See That? ..."
    "... Hillary Clinton Is a Flawed But Typical Politician. Why Can't America See That? ..."
    Sep 18, 2016 | strata-sphere.com

    by AJStrata

    Sep 09, 2016

    This is a "populist" election cycle.

    Coming on the heels of Brexit and in tandem with many other anti-globalist-cronyism movements, it is a societal reaction that has been building for years (since Bush 2, and definitely since the Tea Party before it was co-opted by the Political Elite). When the elite bend and break the rules to line their pockets, and the masses end up being severely financially impacted in return, then there is going to be a visceral response to those hoarding the nation's riches and opportunities.

    What is amazing is the depth of ignorance (or compliance) in the news media. Take Jonathan Chait at the New York Times, who has been in near constant apocalyptic fit since the "debate" on national security.

    His conniption hit a new level with a brilliantly self-projecting article entitled:

    Hillary Clinton Is a Flawed But Normal Politician. Why Can't America See That?

    My only quibble with Chait is I would title it:

    Hillary Clinton Is a Flawed But Typical Politician. Why Can't America See That?

    My only response is to inform Chait of the blatantly obvious: Of course we see Clinton as a typical and flawed politician!!

    So were the establisment GOP contenders in the primary. So are all the power brokers in the Political Industrial Complex (PIC). So is the pliant, PIC-suckling news media.

    Why do you think Clinton is sinking in the polls during an election cycle where the vast majority of voters on Main Street USA see the country heading in the wrong direction? Does this translate to "more of the same please?"!!

    Why would a swath of voters who sees their slice of the American Dream being trampled want more of the same policies from the "globalist" Political Elite sitting behind their gated communities in their posh mansions?

    Of course we see her that way. She is simply not what the country wants – nor deserves.

    The PIC should realize that when their best argument is "the worst of us is better than anyone from outside the PIC" – they have hit rock bottom. And it is sooooo obvious!

    [Sep 18, 2016] War criminals exposed Socialist Review

    Notable quotes:
    "... Though while bereaved families are forced to crowd fund to bring Blair to court, any legal defence mounted by the multimillionaire will come from the public purse. They have raised over £160,000 to date so the story is not yet over. ..."
    "... Yet Blair has no shame and remains belligerent. On the day the Chilcot Inquiry report was published he declared he would do the same again. Later that day veteran anti-war campaigner and Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn called a press conference to apologise on behalf of Labour for the war. Such a move is central to why Corbyn has won such an enthusiastic mass following after first standing for and winning the Labour leadership in the summer of 2015. ..."
    "... The seeds of the deep bitterness about mainstream politicians and the establishment were sown in 2003. When Britain joined the US assault on Iraq despite the opposition of the majority of the population it politicised millions. The 2 million strong demonstration organised by the Stop the War Coalition in February 2003 was Britain's biggest ever. But Chilcot proved that Blair had already promised US president George W Bush that Britain would be with him "whatever". ..."
    "... The warmongers' contempt for the electorate, let alone the people of Iraq and region, is staggering. ..."
    socialistreview.org.uk

    The Chilcot report went further than many expected in condemning Tony Blair's role in the invasion of Iraq. As Judith Orr says, it also reinforced the need to be vigilant against all warmongers.

    It took 12 days for the Chilcot report on the Iraq war to be read aloud non-stop at the Edinburgh Festival event last month. The 2.6 million words of the report were not the whitewash some had feared. In fact they were a confirmation of what so many of those who protested against the war at the time said.

    There were no lawyers on the Chilcot panel; this inquiry was never going to call for charges against chief British warmonger Tony Blair. But families of soldiers killed in the war are using the evidence brought forward in the report to pursue a legal case against him. Because, although he didn't take a line on the legality of the war, Chilcot criticised the process Blair drove through to declare that invasion was legal: "We have, however, concluded that the circumstances in which it was decided that there was a legal basis for UK military action were far from satisfactory."

    As human rights lawyer Philippe Sands pointed out, "'Far from satisfactory' is a career-ending phrase in mandarin-speak, a large boot put in with considerable force."

    Though while bereaved families are forced to crowd fund to bring Blair to court, any legal defence mounted by the multimillionaire will come from the public purse. They have raised over £160,000 to date so the story is not yet over.

    Yet Blair has no shame and remains belligerent. On the day the Chilcot Inquiry report was published he declared he would do the same again. Later that day veteran anti-war campaigner and Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn called a press conference to apologise on behalf of Labour for the war. Such a move is central to why Corbyn has won such an enthusiastic mass following after first standing for and winning the Labour leadership in the summer of 2015.

    The seeds of the deep bitterness about mainstream politicians and the establishment were sown in 2003. When Britain joined the US assault on Iraq despite the opposition of the majority of the population it politicised millions. The 2 million strong demonstration organised by the Stop the War Coalition in February 2003 was Britain's biggest ever. But Chilcot proved that Blair had already promised US president George W Bush that Britain would be with him "whatever".

    The warmongers' contempt for the electorate, let alone the people of Iraq and region, is staggering.

    ... ... ...

    [Sep 18, 2016] Last Chance for the 'Deplorables'

    Notable quotes:
    "... "You could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right?" smirked Clinton to cheers and laughter. "The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, you name it." They are "irredeemable," but they are "not America." ..."
    "... "You can take Trump supporters and put them in two baskets." First there are "the deplorables, the racists, and the haters, and the people who … think somehow he's going to restore an America that no longer exists. So, just eliminate them from your thinking." And who might be in the other basket backing Donald Trump? They are people, said Clinton, "who feel that the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them. … These are people we have to understand and empathize with." ..."
    "... Patrick J. Buchanan is a founding editor of ..."
    "... and the author of book ..."
    Sep 18, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com

    The American Conservative

    Speaking to 1,000 of the overprivileged at an LGBT fundraiser, where the chairs ponied up $250,000 each and Barbra Streisand sang, Hillary Clinton gave New York's social liberals what they came to hear.

    "You could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right?" smirked Clinton to cheers and laughter. "The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, you name it." They are "irredeemable," but they are "not America."

    This was no verbal slip. Clinton had invited the press in to cover the LGBT gala at Cipriani Wall Street where the cheap seats went for $1,200. And she had tried out her new lines earlier on Israeli TV:

    "You can take Trump supporters and put them in two baskets." First there are "the deplorables, the racists, and the haters, and the people who … think somehow he's going to restore an America that no longer exists. So, just eliminate them from your thinking." And who might be in the other basket backing Donald Trump? They are people, said Clinton, "who feel that the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them. … These are people we have to understand and empathize with."

    In short, Trump's support consists of one-half xenophobes, bigots, and racists, and one-half losers we should pity.

    And she is running on the slogan "Stronger Together."

    Her remarks echo those of Barack Obama in 2008 to San Francisco fat cats puzzled about those strange Pennsylvanians.

    They are "bitter," said Obama, they "cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustration."

    In short, Pennsylvania is a backwater of alienated Bible-banging gun nuts and bigots suspicious of outsiders and foreigners.

    But who really are these folks our new class detests, sneers at, and pities? As African-Americans are 90 percent behind Clinton, it is not black folks. Nor is it Hispanics, who are solidly in the Clinton camp.

    Nor would Clinton tolerate such slurs directed at Third World immigrants who are making America better by making us more diverse than that old "America that no longer exists."

    No, the folks Obama and Clinton detest, disparage, and pity are the white working- and middle-class folks Richard Nixon celebrated as Middle Americans and the Silent Majority.

    They are the folks who brought America through the Depression, won World War II, and carried us through the Cold War from Truman in 1945 to victory with Ronald Reagan in 1989.

    These are the Trump supporters. They reside mostly in red states like West Virginia, Kentucky, and Middle Pennsylvania, and southern, plains, and mountain states that have provided a disproportionate share of the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines who fought and died to guarantee the freedom of plutocratic LGBT lovers to laugh at and mock them at $2,400-a-plate dinners.

    Yet, there is truth in what Clinton said about eliminating "from your thinking" people who believe Trump can "restore an America that no longer exists."

    For the last chance to restore America, as Trump himself told Christian Broadcasting's "Brody File" on Friday, September 9, is slipping away:

    "I think this will be the last election if I don't win … because you're going to have people flowing across the border, you're going to have illegal immigrants coming in and they're going to be legalized and they're going to be able to vote, and once that all happens, you can forget it."

    Politically and demographically, America is at a tipping point.

    Minorities are now 40 percent of the population and will be 30 percent of the electorate in November. If past trends hold, 4 of 5 will vote for Clinton.

    Meanwhile, white folks, who normally vote 60 percent Republican, will fall to 70 percent of the electorate, the lowest ever, and will decline in every subsequent presidential year.

    The passing of the greatest generation and silent generation, and, soon, the baby-boom generation, is turning former red states like Virginia, North Carolina, Colorado, Arizona, and Nevada purple, and putting crucial states like Florida and Ohio in peril.

    What has happened to America is astonishing. A country 90 percent Christian after World War II has been secularized by a dictatorial Supreme Court with only feeble protest and resistance.

    A nation, 90 percent of whose population traced their roots to Europe, will have been changed by mass immigration and an invasion across its Southern border into a predominantly Third World country by 2042.

    What will then be left of the old America to conserve?

    No wonder Clinton was so giddy at the LGBT bash. They are taking America away from the "haters," as they look down in moral supremacy on the pitiable Middle Americans who are passing away.

    But a question arises for 2017.

    Why should Middle America, given what she thinks of us, render a President Hillary Clinton and her regime any more allegiance or loyalty than Colin Kaepernick renders to the America he so abhors?

    Patrick J. Buchanan is a founding editor of The American Conservative and the author of book The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority .

    28 Responses to Last Chance for the 'Deplorables'

  • Mac61 , says: September 13, 2016 at 12:28 am
    Good piece. I couldn't agree more. The sad thing is that many Mexican Catholics are voting against their own rights to free speech and freedom of religion by mindlessly sticking with the Leftist Democrat party. But it also raises the question–why was there not one single articulate conservative who can make the case for intelligent immigration reform? I teach in New Mexico near the border. We've discussed the election. To a person, my students will not forgive Trump for his "rapist" and "criminal" remarks. I don't blame them at all. Trump drove Hispanics away.
    Clint , says: September 13, 2016 at 12:56 am
    Then again, Hillary Clinton's camp appears to be attempting to divert attention away from her own Deplorable Basket of Emails.
    Kurt Gayle , says: September 13, 2016 at 1:26 am
    Many Democrats, too, are sickened by these insults that Hillary Clinton has hurled at tens of millions of Middle Americans - and among some Democrats there is growing talk of forcing Clinton off the Democratic ticket.

    "Cokie Roberts: Some Democrats "Nervously Beginning To Whisper" About Replacing Hillary"

    "[Yesterday] on NPR's Morning Edition, ABC News contributor and columnist Cokie Roberts said that Democrats are 'nervously beginning to whisper' about what might happen if their nominee for president Hillary Clinton has to step aside for health reasons."

    Cokie Roberts, Monday, September 12th: "…The polls are tightening and Democrats were already saying that Hillary was the only candidate who could not beat Trump, and [her health is] taking her off of the campaign trail, cancelling her trip to California today. It has them very nervously beginning to whisper about her stepping aside and finding another candidate…I think it's unlikely to be a real thing. I'm sure it's an overreaction about an already-skittish party, but you know, they have looked at what happens in that circumstance. The Democratic National Committee convenes the convention, and they vote. Ironically the candidate everyone looks at is Joe Biden, who is even older than Hillary, and then again, so is Donald Trump. But there is enough unhappiness that this kind of sotto voce stuff is going on."

    https://youtu.be/su_2wZaZbAQ

    libertarian jerry , says: September 13, 2016 at 3:22 am
    In the end its all economic. 100 years and more ago the great fear among the middle and upper classes in America was the influx of "foreign elements" such as Southern and Eastern Europeans mainly Italians,Jews and Slavs. Yet these immigrants,within 2 or 3 generations,became ensconced,by and large,in the Middle and Upper economic strata of the nation and thus tended to be more conservative in their economics and politics. The only difference today is not racial or ethnic but,instead,with the tremendous growth in the government and its inherent Welfare State,becoming a magnet for "3rd World" immigration. The Welfare State being something that hardly existed at the beginning of the 20th Century.
    In the end,the Left and especially the Democrat Party have gained political power with the creation of the "dependency class" which consists mainly of people riding the government gravy train either on one form of the Dole or another and or as large scale members of the government employee class. Do away with the Welfare State and you restore the traditional economic ladder of the past. No matter where the immigrants come from.
    mrscracker , says: September 13, 2016 at 10:32 am
    Mac61 ,
    I don't get it either. Immigration shouldn't be used to score political points on either side.
    Trump really missed the boat on that. He could have talked about national security needs rather than demean & permanently alienate a whole group of people.
    EliteCommInc. , says: September 13, 2016 at 11:01 am
    It doesn't really matter who they replace Sec Clinton with, her comments are their sentiments. They have been openly saying this for more than twenty years. Until the mess of 2003 which crumbled conservative credibility it was generally ignored. But since that time liberals have come out of the woodwork openly with their nasty "depersonalizations" of people like me.

    The level of filth that people have been willing to wade in openly - just seems to have no bounds. Her comments are no big deal. They represent what is the democratic prayer.

    People accuse me of not being respectful of the popular, the powerful, and even scripture says, one should fear them because they can make life miserable. Respect is hard to quantify these days. Because the people who are supposed to be the best and the brightest, among the elite, my better in every way - just on't have my faith as or admiration as they once did. If agreement is what is meant by respect, I am on shaky ground. It doesn't take much for people to create faux narratives and then hone in on the some tidbit to confirm it, so as to dismiss them.

    To follow the world is to follow folly in the end. And i just won't do it, this kind of characterizations minus any depth of background to make them plausible have been determining futures since men and women walked out of the garden. I chagrin it when Mr Trump does it as much s anyone else.

    I think of WWI and WWII men signed up to fight for a country right along side the deplorable. Being deplorable as I must be doesn't make my political position on issues wrong.

    I oppose open borders (shuld have been a temporary moratorium after 9/11 – say five years)

    I oppose same sex marriage, despite people I know and like choosing a same sex relational dynamic.

    I oppose wars that are not directly related to the threats against the US or her allies. Even Afghanistan was careless and unnecessary to the task - i care not which Harvard, Yale or Stanford grad calls me unpatriotic, a coward or something worse.

    I oppose bail outs when companies are deliberately careless and for which no benefit is to the bailiffs and no corrective action is place

    I oppose trade agreements that do not benefit the country – that is afterall the purpose of Us government

    I think killing children in the womb is worse than our slavery and its consequence though I suspect slavery helped create a rhetoric that made killing children doing so.

    government is a necessary evil, and should be held on a tight leash including the police, if you are going to whine about gov. unions, and exempt the police union, you're a bent reed

    I oppose inebriating substances

    The list of deplorable beliefs are many . . .

    I intend to keep them, including celibacy and sobriety

    Deplorables I could or should lose - bitterness and my occasional list of expletives

    Deplorable I am and deplorable I shall remain. Until that day I am fully known and fully know.

    jayneb , says: September 13, 2016 at 1:39 pm
    You can argue about the correct percentage all you want - but it is in fact a fact that many Trump supporters are "deplorable." Trump basically says so himself. What does it say when Trump announces he could shoot someone in downtown New York and HIS voters would still love him. I'd say he disrespect for his own followers is much greater than Hillary's.
    JonF , says: September 13, 2016 at 2:09 pm
    Re: A country 90 percent Christian after World War II has been secularized by a dictatorial Supreme Court with only feeble protest and resistance.

    This is a disastrous misdiagnosis of the problem. The Supreme Court has nothing to do with it. Nothing at any level of government does. If people are not going to church it's because they are deciding not to. One may deplore that trend (in fact, I do), but for sure misunderstanding its cause is no help if your goal is to reverse it.

    Re: The polls are tightening

    Polling did tighten a bit as Hillary's large convention bounce wore off. But now the polls have plateaued again about where they were before the conventions. See: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/polls-show-trumps-momentum-has-stalled-for-now/

    david helveticka , says: September 13, 2016 at 2:23 pm
    As an older guy whose politics were formed during the Vietnam War era, I can say the enemy of the counter-cultural left was the Nixon Silent Majority. These were the "new left"..the folks hiding out in the communities growing up around the universities and colleges.

    These folks were afraid to venture out among the working folks where they would be ostracized and attacked. So they hid out in the universities, and made careers as educators, and the politically oriented non-profits foundations. They got control of the big foundations like Ford Foundation, where they could twist these organizations to become major advocates for their counter-cultural ideas. In most cases, they were unable to really do anything productive, to feed or clothe or really help the poor. But they earned lucrative incomes and easy lives by basically attacking the mainstream working folk values they hated so much.

    Now these counter-cultural leftists have gotten the power to "change" America…and they elected Obama!

    Where was the "conservative" movement when this was happening…basically touting silly economic libertarian fantasies about a "free market", whose result has been the destruction of the industrial might of America, exported jobs and imported cheap labor, joining the counter-cultural left in their labor of destroying the economic security of the old "Nixon Silent Majority".

    The establishment Republicans and establishment "conservatives" like to bring up Ronald Reagan, but it was NIXON who created the political coalition on which Reagan appealed to.

    Sad as I go into retirement to know that the New Left controls the government, the economy, and it was all made possible by the establishment Republicans and their ilk that made it all possible.

    david helveticka , says: September 13, 2016 at 2:29 pm
    Basically, I've never disagreed with Pat Buchanan on much of anything, and especially the conclusions he makes in this column.

    But like Trump, poor Mr. Buchanan has been silenced and ostracized by the counter-cultural elite that elected OBAMA, and sadly aided and abetted by the "conservative" establishment which he labored for years to build with Reagan and Nixon.

    That is the real sadness about the end of America, it was made possible by people who claim to be "conservative"…

    Noreastern , says: September 13, 2016 at 2:58 pm
    I have nothing but respect for Pat Buchanan but he overlooks the fact that the US was built on the backs of immigrants. We accept anyone and integrate them into our society. The Irish Catholics who a century ago were outcasts in this society have become part of the backbone that makes the US great. People of Asian decent have become one of the highest productive demographics in this country. The way forward is not to shut off immigration but to incorporate immigrants quickly into our society. That has always been our way.
    jbd , says: September 13, 2016 at 4:05 pm
    This article assumes that (a) minorities are inevitably and monolithically antiRepublican, (b) Mexcans mostly come here to get free stuff rather than to work, and (c) the Republicans could never win or come close to breaking even with Latino voters. All three assumptions are demonstrably false. They only become true when Republicans play Buchanan/Trump-style politics. Mostly, Mexicans come here to work very hard for very little. They dream of owning their own contracting business, having their own little home, and maybe a shiny new truck. That's not to say we should let them all in; we should put our own citizens first. But let's not pretend they threaten our way of life the way Muslim migrants do in Europe. They should be so lucky as to have our immigration problems. And one day, if Republicans get their act together, Mexicans will vote Republican. Do you think they like paying for freeloaders? Transgender pronouns? And while we're at it, what do those Asians now voting D think of affirmative action quotas? I respect Mr Buchanan, but he doesn't see obvious opportunities and thinks like a political loser.
    Myron Hudson , says: September 13, 2016 at 4:52 pm
    Any small amount of time spent online will reveal language, behavior and attitude among Trump supporters that is truly deplorable. No getting around that. The shoe fits.

    Maybe not half, but you can't miss it even if you're not looking for it. But I guess it's not PC to call it out?

    JonF , says: September 13, 2016 at 5:02 pm
    Re: Now these counter-cultural leftists have gotten the power to "change" America…and they elected Obama!

    You are talking about majority of the electorate in both 2008 and 2012. Deal with it.

    Viriato , says: September 13, 2016 at 6:07 pm
    Noreastern wrote: "That has always been our way."

    That is demonstrably false.

    Clint , says: September 13, 2016 at 7:01 pm
    Re: The polls are tightening

    Many of the state battleground polls show that – as with the national polls – the race is narrowing into almost a dead heat.
    The polls were taken before Clinton's medical episode and pneumonia at the September 11 memorial; the first two national polls to come out that include September 11 as part of the period tested show Trump leading by 3 percent in the LA Times USC daily tracking poll and Clinton leading by 4. However, the latter poll, by NBC News/SurveyMonkey contained concerning signs for Clinton as it shows a narrowing in that online poll compared to previously and erosion in support for her among independents.

    kalendjay , says: September 13, 2016 at 7:04 pm
    The country has indeed been built on the backs of immigrants, but we are now dealing with the willfully unassimilateable generation, whose Hispanic roots on US soil go back to Cortez, and the legacy of encomiendas and material wastefulness. California is still heavily Hispanic, dirt poor, and violent. At some point this is no longer a quaint manifestation of colorful geographic particularism. Vast swathes of the Far West are holes of poverty and despair. Puerto Rico is depopulating as the residents take on the ghetto stigmatization of working. Hispanic males are actually setting as poor or poorer an example than whites or blacks against their female counterparts in work, self support, and childraising.

    So we now have perpetual immigrants in their own land, who cannot distinguish a migrant from an actual immigrant, and who take immigration quota busting as "immigration reform". So there are other deplorables than Ozark types who had the bad luck to sustain traditions that predated but also existed simultaneous to the Civil War, the 20's and the Great Society.

    Which is not to say that Hiilary isn't a tribalist, depicting disparate LGBT's as an oppressed, fighting class. Just read her entire speech.

    Intelliwriter , says: September 13, 2016 at 7:34 pm
    There was a time when it was common to see "Irish need not apply." Today it's Hispanics. I fail to see how they are any less worthy of the American Dream. Originally this country belonged to brown people. Maybe they'd like to have their country back.

    Trump's campaign is openly racist. Embracing it is deplorable.

    cdugga , says: September 13, 2016 at 8:34 pm
    Racist, sexist bigots that are homophobic, islamaphobic, ah, we left out misogynistic, are indeed deplorable. Are we defending those groups, or are we denying that a good percentage of trump supporters, maybe even a basket worth, are those types? Myself? I give trump supporters more credit and lean more towards describing them as just plain mad. Some probably have gone mad. If I pity them it is no more than the pity I have for all the other competing victims groups, with the caveat that crying white men should be an oxymoron. Of course, even while asking trump to make them great again as he panders to their victimhood, they will insist they are not to be pitied. And I agree. Oh, and I am a trump supporter. But I am not deplorable or pathetic. I'm just the devils advocate. We have to hit bottom before bouncing back up. Or bouncing somewhere. Back and forth for awhile, probably. With hillary we will be stuck in that same ole rut of gerry mandered temper tantrums of obstruction with concomitant executive over reach. Throw in some endless supreme court confirmations and the news will become as mundane and inane as an eleventh season of watching rotunda try to win being the biggest loser.
    Nate , says: September 13, 2016 at 9:42 pm
    "The Irish Catholics who a century ago were outcasts in this society have become part of the backbone that makes the US great."

    The Irish Catholics are a poor example as the areas of the country they heavily settled have become 'progressive' strongholds that have rejected both Catholic morality and the Protestant values that the nativists sought to protect. Progressivism isn't the backbone of America, it is the cancer killing America.

    John S , says: September 14, 2016 at 7:42 am
    "These are the Trump supporters."
    Mr. Buchanan neglects to mention the FSB via its cut-out Wikileaks.

    Mr. Buchanan once wrote in another context: "If we are now secretly pumping cash into the free elections of friendly countries, to dump leaders President Obama dislikes, Americans have a right to know why we are using Cold War tactics against democracies."

    Mr. Buchanan never asks why Russia is using Cold War tactics against the United States.

    Student , says: September 14, 2016 at 8:06 am
    Trump exposed much of the corruption and sleaze in the Republican leadership. We now know about the Ryans, the Romney's and their ilk. If he is elected, we could expect a massive housecleaning in the Federal agencies. This is one reason why he is he is being resisted so fiercely by Slims' NY Times, Bezos' Washington Post, and the entire establishment and media elite.
    I fear they are simply too strong…we learned about the collapse of empires in grade school. We are watching the process now.
    The Wet One , says: September 14, 2016 at 3:25 pm
    Just for the record, Kellyanne Conway's prior (as in February) views on Trump supporters:

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/9/10/1568719/-Trump-s-campaign-manager-Kellyanne-Conway-called-his-supporters-downright-nasty-skeeze

    Ignore the source, listen to the audio clip of Ms. Conway words.

    Remember, this is straight from one of Trump's own chief insiders. Just listen to her words.

    ThaomasH , says: September 14, 2016 at 5:13 pm
    Mr. Trump's supporters are not deplorable, but about half do hold deplorable views, such that President Obama is a Muslim or that the President was not born in the United States.
    VikingLS , says: September 14, 2016 at 10:25 pm
    Having gone through the immigration process LEGALLY to all of you that can't understand the difference between legal and illegal immigration, try this, spend thousands of dollars and a year or two of your life waiting to see if a person you love can enter the country and NOT KNOW until you actually get said person to the border.

    You want to give me my money and my time back? And you want to do that for all the other people who went through this and followed the rules?

    We don't have open borders. Mexico doesn't have open borders. It's not unreasonable for the Mexicans to respect our borders, it's not racist, any more than it's racist for Mexico to expect it's neighbors to respect their borders.

    Or, if you think it is, you've got a lot of legal immigrants in this country you owe reparations.

    We could use a few bucks. Go for it.

    Edmund Wolsey , says: September 15, 2016 at 10:24 pm
    "A nation, 90 percent of whose population traced their roots to Europe, will have been changed by mass immigration and an invasion across its Southern border into a predominantly Third World country by 2042."

    Are you defining 'third-world' as 'non-white'?

    bacon , says: September 16, 2016 at 12:14 pm
    TAC comments provide a continuing chuckle for this Democrat and Obama voter. Hated because he's black, because he's a Democrat, because of his unruffled approach to his critics, the list could go on. Maddening that he was twice elected president and still has >50% approval ratings, eh?
    Jon R , says: September 16, 2016 at 3:31 pm
    The deplorable comment was generalizing and a political mis-step, but you're kidding yourself if you think there is not truth behind it. From the Washington Post:

    "A number of polls have revealed the depth of racial resentment among Trump's supporters, and more than half of them are in the proverbial basket. While 65 percent of his supporters think President Obama is a Muslim, only 13 percent think that he's a Christian. Fifty-nine percent think Obama was not born in the United States, and only 23 percent think he was. Twenty percent nationwide think it was a bad idea that slaves were emancipated, and 16 percent in South Carolina think that whites are a superior race."

    Those are deplorable views. I find it ironic that Trump has risen to popularity by bringing sentiments like this into the mainstream, and now Clinton might lose because she pointed out that these views are there.

  • [Sep 18, 2016] What is "Globalization" and "Free Trade" really?

    Notable quotes:
    "... What is "Globalization" and "Free Trade" really?… Does it encompass the slave trade, trading in narcotics, deforestation and export of a nation's tropical hardwood forests, environmentally damaging transnational oil pipelines or coal ports, fisheries depletion, laying off millions of workers and replacing them and the products they make with workers and products made in a foreign country, trading with an enemy, investing capital in a foreign country through a subsidiary or supplier that abuses its workers to the point that some commit suicide, no limits on or regulation of financial derivatives and transnational financial intermediaries?… the list is endless. ..."
    "... As always, the questions are "Cui bono?"… "Who benefits"?… How and Why they benefit?… Who selects the short-term "Winners" and "Losers"? And WRT those questions, the final sentence of this post hints at its purpose. ..."
    "... Yeah, how is European colonialism - starting in, what, like the 15th century, or something - not "globalisation"? What about the Roman and Persian and Selucid empires? Wasn't that globalisation? I think we've pretty much always lived in a globalised world, one way or another (if "globalised world" even makes sense). ..."
    "... Bring back the broader, and more meaningful conception of Political Economy and some actual understanding can be gained. The study of economics cannot be separated from the political dimension of society. Politics being defined as who gets what in social interactions. ..."
    "... The neoliberal experiment has run its course. Milton Friedman and his tribe had their alternative plan ready to go and implemented it when they could- to their great success. The best looting system developed-ever. This system only works with the availability of abundant resources and the mental justifications to support that gross exploitation. Both of which are reaching limits. ..."
    "... If only the Milton Friedman tribe had interested itself in sports instead of economics. They could have argued that referees and umpires should be removed from the game for greater efficiency of play, and that sports teams would follow game rules by self-regulation. ..."
    "... Wouldn't the whole thing just work out more efficiently if you leave traffic lights and rules out of it? Just let everyone figure it out at each light, survival of the fittest. ..."
    "... With increasingly free movement of people as tourists whose spending impacts nations GDP, where does it fit in to discussions on globalization and trade? ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Chauncey Gardiner

    What is "Globalization" and "Free Trade" really?… Does it encompass the slave trade, trading in narcotics, deforestation and export of a nation's tropical hardwood forests, environmentally damaging transnational oil pipelines or coal ports, fisheries depletion, laying off millions of workers and replacing them and the products they make with workers and products made in a foreign country, trading with an enemy, investing capital in a foreign country through a subsidiary or supplier that abuses its workers to the point that some commit suicide, no limits on or regulation of financial derivatives and transnational financial intermediaries?… the list is endless.

    As always, the questions are "Cui bono?"… "Who benefits"?… How and Why they benefit?… Who selects the short-term "Winners" and "Losers"? And WRT those questions, the final sentence of this post hints at its purpose.

    diptherio

    Yeah, how is European colonialism - starting in, what, like the 15th century, or something - not "globalisation"? What about the Roman and Persian and Selucid empires? Wasn't that globalisation? I think we've pretty much always lived in a globalised world, one way or another (if "globalised world" even makes sense).

    Norb

    Bring back the broader, and more meaningful conception of Political Economy and some actual understanding can be gained. The study of economics cannot be separated from the political dimension of society. Politics being defined as who gets what in social interactions.

    What folly. All this complexity and strident study of minutia to bring about what end? Human history on this planet has been about how societies form, develop, then recede form prominence. This flow being determined by how well the society provided for its members or could support their worldview. Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees.

    The neoliberal experiment has run its course. Milton Friedman and his tribe had their alternative plan ready to go and implemented it when they could- to their great success. The best looting system developed-ever. This system only works with the availability of abundant resources and the mental justifications to support that gross exploitation. Both of which are reaching limits.

    Only by thinking, and communicating in the broader terms of political economy can we hope to understand our current conditions. Until then, change will be difficult to enact. Hard landings for all indeed.

    flora

    If only the Milton Friedman tribe had interested itself in sports instead of economics. They could have argued that referees and umpires should be removed from the game for greater efficiency of play, and that sports teams would follow game rules by self-regulation.

    LA Mike September 17, 2016 at 8:15 pm

    While in traffic, I was thinking about that today. For some time now, I've viewed the traffic intersection as being a good example of the social contract. We all agree on its benefits. But today, I thought about it in terms of the Friedman Neoliberals.

    Why should they have to stop at red lights. Wouldn't the whole thing just work out more efficiently if you leave traffic lights and rules out of it? Just let everyone figure it out at each light, survival of the fittest.

    sd

    Something I have wondered for some time, how does tourism fit into trade? With increasingly free movement of people as tourists whose spending impacts nations GDP, where does it fit in to discussions on globalization and trade?

    I Have Strange Dreams

    Other things to consider:
    – negative effects of immigration (skilled workers leave developing countries where they are most needed)
    – environmental pollution
    – destruction of cultures/habitats
    – importation of western diet leading to decreased health
    – spread of disease (black death, hiv, ebola, bird flu)
    – resource wars
    – drugs
    – happiness
    How are these "externalities" calculated?

    [Sep 18, 2016] Some animals are more equal than others.

    Sep 18, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    hedgeless_horseman BuddyEffed Sep 17, 2016 10:58 AM

    Kirby declined to answer whether Israel should face the same treatment
    as Iran and North Korea – both of which have been sanctioned for alleged
    or actual violations of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

    Some animals are more equal than others.

    ROZETKA - Результаты поиска телефон mini-SIM Поиск

    [Sep 18, 2016] The dynamic interaction of neoliberalism and cultural nationalism

    Notable quotes:
    "... cultural nationalism is the only ideology capable of being a legitimising ideology under the prevailing global and national political economy. ..."
    "... Neoliberalism cannot perform this role since its simplicities make it harsh not just towards the lower orders, but give it the potential for damaging politically important interests amongst capitalist classes themselves. ..."
    "... In this form, cultural nationalism provides national ruling classes a sense of their identity and purpose, as well as a form of legitimation among thelower orders. ..."
    "... As Gramsci said, these are the main functions of every ruling ideology. Cultural nationalism masks, and to a degree resolves, the intense competition between capitals over access to the state for support domestically and in the international arena – in various bilateral and multilateral fora – where it bargainsfor the most favoured national capitalist interests within the global and imperial hierarchy. ..."
    Sep 18, 2016 | www.scribd.com

    Neoliberal Hegemony

    This is where cultural nationalism comes in. Only it can serve to mask, and bridge, the divides within the 'cartel of anxiety' in a neoliberal context.

    Cultural nationalism is a nationalism shorn of its civic-egalitarian and developmentalist thrust, one reduced to its cultural core. It is structured around the culture of thee conomically dominant classes in every country, with higher or lower positions accorded to other groups within the nation relative to it. These positions correspond, on the whole, to the groups' economic positions, and as such it organises the dominant classes, and concentric circles of their allies, into a collective national force. It also gives coherence to, and legitimises, the activities of the nation-state on behalf of capital, or sections thereof, in the international sphere.

    Indeed, cultural nationalism is the only ideology capable of being a legitimising ideology under the prevailing global and national political economy.

    Neoliberalism cannot perform this role since its simplicities make it harsh not just towards the lower orders, but give it the potential for damaging politically important interests amongst capitalist classes themselves. The activities of the state on behalf of this or that capitalist interest necessarily exceed the Spartan limits that neoliberalism sets. Such activities can only be legitimised as being 'in the national interest.'

    Second, however, the nationalism that articulates these interests is necessarily different from, but can easily (and given its function as a legitimising ideology, it must be said, performatively) be mis-recognised as, nationalism as widely understood: as being in some real sense in the interests of all members of the nation. In this form, cultural nationalism provides national ruling classes a sense of their identity and purpose, as well as a form of legitimation among thelower orders.

    As Gramsci said, these are the main functions of every ruling ideology. Cultural nationalism masks, and to a degree resolves, the intense competition between capitals over access to the state for support domestically and in the international arena – in various bilateral and multilateral fora – where it bargainsfor the most favoured national capitalist interests within the global and imperial hierarchy.

    Except for a commitment to neoliberal policies, the economic policy content of this nationalism cannot be consistent: within the country, and inter-nationally, the capitalist system is volatile and the positions of the various elements of capital in the national and international hierarchies shift constantly as does the economic policy of cultural nationalist governments. It is this volatility that also increases the need for corruption – since that is how competitive access of individual capitals to the state is today organised.

    Whatever its utility to the capitalist classes, however, cultural nationalism can never have a settled or secure hold on those who are marginalised or sub-ordinated by it. In neoliberal regimes the scope for offering genuine economic gains to the people at large, however measured they might be, is small.

    This is a problem for right politics since even the broadest coalition of the propertied can never be an electoral majority, even a viable plurality. This is only in the nature of capitalist private property. While the left remains in retreat or disarray, elec-toral apathy is a useful political resource but even where, as in most countries, political choices are minimal, the electorate as a whole is volatile. Despite, orperhaps because of, being reduced to a competition between parties of capital, electoral politics in the age of the New Right entails very large electoral costs, theextensive and often vain use of the media in elections and in politics generally, and political compromises which may clash with the high and shrilly ambitiou sdemands of the primary social base in the propertied classes. Instability, uncertainty ...

    [Sep 17, 2016] How the Obsession With American Leadership Warps Foreign Policy Analysis The American Conservative

    Notable quotes:
    "... Seems a dangerous practice to rely on one's size to shield them from consequences of ineffectual decisions. I think we are already stretched thin, but our size buffers the stumbles. ..."
    "... Like the runner on pain killers, who keeps running despite a shattered knee caps. Sometimes we press through our pain. Sometimes we need to slow down. Sometimes we need to stop. But unless we experience the pain – we simply don't know. ..."
    "... It all starts with that ridiculous belief in "American Exceptionalism". The belief that we are the one country, the only country, who is going to save the world, again and again. ..."
    "... Once you've adopted this frame of reference, what happens anywhere in the world for any Reason is America's fault and responsibility. And once you put on those exceptionally colored glasses it's not possible to have a rational view of other countries and their actions; because they can never be seen as anything other than an affirmation or rejection of our exceptionalism. Another effect of this is, being exceptional, whatever America does is just and pure and right. ..."
    "... It blinds us to our own stupidity and errors, it gets us sucked into other peoples troubles and it makes it easy for other countries to manipulate us to their ends. ..."
    Sep 17, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com

    Ben Denison criticizes a familiar flaw in foreign policy commentary:

    When a surprising event occurs that threatens U.S. interests, many are quick to blame Washington's lack of leadership and deride the administration for failing to anticipate and prevent the crisis. Recent examples from the continuing conflict in Syria, Russia's intervention in Ukraine, Iran's pursuit of a nuclear weapon, and even the attempted coup in Turkey, all illustrate how this is a regular impulse for the foreign policy punditry class. This impulse, while comforting to some, fails to consider the interests and agency of the other countries involved in the crisis. Instead of turning to detailed analysis and tracing the international context of a crisis, often we are bombarded with an abundance of concerns about a lack of American leadership.

    The inability or unwillingness to acknowledge and take into account the agency and interests of other political actors around the world is one of the more serious flaws in the way many Americans think and talk about these issues. This not only fails to consider how other actors are likely to respond to a proposed U.S. action, but it credits the U.S. with far more control over other parts of the world and much more competence in handling any given issue than any government has ever possessed or ever will. Because the U.S. is the preeminent major power in the world, there is a tendency to treat any undesirable event as something that our government has "allowed" to happen through carelessness, misplaced priorities, or some other mistake. Many foreign policy pundits recoil from the idea that there are events beyond our government's ability to "shape" or that there are actors that cannot be compelled to behave as we wish (provided we simply have enough "resolve"), because it means that there are many problems around the world that the U.S. cannot and shouldn't attempt to fix.

    When a protest movement takes to the streets in another country and is then brutally suppressed, many people, especially hawkish pundits, decry our government's "failure" to "support" the movement, as if it were the lack of U.S. support and not internal political factors that produced the outcome. When the overthrow of a foreign government by a protest movement leads to an intervention by a neighboring major power, the U.S. is again faulted for "failing" to stop the intervention, as if it could have done so short of risking great power conflict. Even more absurdly, the same intervention is sometimes blamed on a U.S. decision not to attack a third country in another part of the world unrelated to the crisis in question. In order to claim all these things, one not only has to fail to take account of the interests and agency of other states, but one also has to believe that the rest of the world revolves around us and every action others take can ultimately be traced back to what our government does (or doesn't do). That's not just shoddy analysis, but a serious delusion about how people all around the world behave. At the same time, there is a remarkable eagerness on the part of many of the same people to overlook the consequences of things that the U.S. has actually done, so that many of our pundits ignore our own government's agency when it suits them.

    EliteCommInc. , says: September 16, 2016 at 1:06 pm

    "At the same time, there is a remarkable eagerness on the part of many of the same people to overlook the consequences of things that the U.S. has actually done, so that many of our pundits ignore our own government's agency when it suits them."

    It is the failure of the after party assessment. Regardless of success or failure (however defined) the tend not to have an after action report by the political class is why there's little movement in this area.

    Seems a dangerous practice to rely on one's size to shield them from consequences of ineffectual decisions. I think we are already stretched thin, but our size buffers the stumbles.

    Like the runner on pain killers, who keeps running despite a shattered knee caps. Sometimes we press through our pain. Sometimes we need to slow down. Sometimes we need to stop. But unless we experience the pain – we simply don't know.

    bt , says: September 16, 2016 at 6:16 pm
    It all starts with that ridiculous belief in "American Exceptionalism". The belief that we are the one country, the only country, who is going to save the world, again and again.

    Once you've adopted this frame of reference, what happens anywhere in the world for any Reason is America's fault and responsibility. And once you put on those exceptionally colored glasses it's not possible to have a rational view of other countries and their actions; because they can never be seen as anything other than an affirmation or rejection of our exceptionalism. Another effect of this is, being exceptional, whatever America does is just and pure and right.

    It blinds us to our own stupidity and errors, it gets us sucked into other peoples troubles and it makes it easy for other countries to manipulate us to their ends.

    let johnny come marching home , says: September 16, 2016 at 7:54 pm
    "one also has to believe that the rest of the world revolves around us and every action others take can ultimately be traced back to what our government does (or doesn't do). That's not just shoddy analysis, but a serious delusion about how people all around the world behave."

    It also overlooks the quality of those we send to do the meddling and intervening.

    We don't have enough intelligent, educated, competent people.

    The imperial Brits had their own problems, Lord knows, But the general level of British competence, intelligence, and education in the Raj and other colonies was far higher than that of our own congeries of corrupt, half-educated hacks and incompetents.

    [Sep 16, 2016] A large number of donors after their hefty donations received cushy ambassadorships?

    Notable quotes:
    "... What about the large number of donors who, immediately after their hefty donations, received cushy ambassadorships? ..."
    "... You gotta remember, [neo]liberals love to justify bad behavior, by pointing to (often unrelated) ... bad behavior. ..."
    "... Remember, when someone like David Duke endorses Donald Trump and Trump says, "Who is David Duke, and why should I care?" this proves Trump is a racist. When Hillary Clinton talks about how Robert Byrd was her "friend and mentor" this also proves that Trump is a racist. See how easy that is? ..."
    "... So it's okay to give money to a private political organization in order to get favors from the government? Why don't we just auction off ambassadorships then? ..."
    "... The last set of documents showed that the DNC broke campaign finance laws and yet absolutely nothing was done about it. Since any damning evidence in documents from democrats will be ignored, why do they even try? It won't make any difference. ..."
    "... Under Obama's administration political considerations trump the law every time. ..."
    "... What are you talking about? Every media outlet except FOX is sucking at Hillary's big toes, and even at times FOX is sucking her toes and licking them. Whether it be in the US or Canada or the bloody UK. Hell NBC deleted a segment from a broadcast last night when Bill Clinton said Hillary "Frequently fainted" sorry I mean "occasionally fainted" that of course saved them all of 1.5 seconds from their 1hr broadcast time limit, which was their excuse. ..."
    "... It is like when the talking heads on one news program (CNN I believe) described New York City on Sunday as "Sweltering", when it was 78 Degrees out, in an attempt to make Hillary's lie about dehydration seem more legitimate. Obviously they are "pro-Trump". ..."
    "... Wouldn't surprise me. Here's the thing on CBC editing the news [thehill.com] earlier too. ..."
    Sep 16, 2016 | news.slashdot.org

    For the past several months, the hacker who calls himself "Guccifer 2.0" has been releasing documents about the Democratic National Committee. Today, he has released a new hoard of documents. Politico reports: The hacker persona Guccifer 2.0 has released a new trove of documents that allegedly reveal more information about the Democratic National Committee's finances and personal information on Democratic donors, as well as details about the DNC's network infrastructure. The cache also includes purported memos on tech initiatives from Democratic vice presidential nominee Tim Kaine's time as governor of Virginia, and some years-old missives on redistricting efforts and DNC donor outreach strategy. Most notable among Tuesday's documents may be the detailed spreadsheets allegedly about DNC fundraising efforts, including lists of DNC donors with names, addresses, emails, phone numbers and other sensitive details. Tuesday's documents regarding the DNC's information technology setup include several reports from 2010 purporting to show that the committee's network passed multiple security scans.

    In total, the latest dump contains more than 600 megabytes of documents. It is the first Guccifer 2.0 release to not come from the hacker's WordPress account. Instead, it was given out via a link to the small group of security experts attending [a London cybersecurity conference].

    meta-monkey ( 321000 ) on Wednesday September 14, 2016 @09:09AM (#52885111) Journal

    Summary missing important piece... (Score:5, Informative)

    What about the large number of donors who, immediately after their hefty donations, received cushy ambassadorships?

    Iconoc ( 2646179 ) on Wednesday September 14, 2016 @09:12AM (#52885127)

    What, this? http://www.zerohedge.com/news/... [zerohedge.com]

    Archangel Michael ( 180766 ) on Wednesday September 14, 2016 @10:40AM (#52885673) Journal

    You gotta remember, [neo]liberals love to justify bad behavior, by pointing to (often unrelated) ... bad behavior.

    It is as if they are four year olds getting in trouble, and saying "but Billy's Mom lets him drink beer/smoke dope". The problem is, nobody calls it "childish" behavior (which it is), because that is insulting to children.

    Zak3056 ( 69287 ) on Wednesday September 14, 2016 @04:28PM (#52888579) Journal

    Re:Summary missing important piece... (Score:5, Insightful)

    Remember, when someone like David Duke endorses Donald Trump and Trump says, "Who is David Duke, and why should I care?" this proves Trump is a racist. When Hillary Clinton talks about how Robert Byrd was her "friend and mentor" this also proves that Trump is a racist. See how easy that is?

    pushing-robot ( 1037830 ) writes: on Wednesday September 14, 2016 @11:11AM ( #52885921 )

    Re:Summary missing important piece... ( Score:4 , Informative)

    Ambassadorships to friendly countries, the UK in particular, have always been given as rewards to political friends. You could count the number of people who became UK ambassador on merit on one hand which had been run through a wood chipper.

    The reason you didn't know about this before is because it never became an issue. Tuttle made a bit of a kerfuffle a decade ago, but it takes a lot to start a diplomatic incident with a close ally and being ambassador to the UK or France or Australia really requires no great skill as a peacemaker. If you were being particularly charitable, you could even say that fundraisers and diplomats have a lot in common.

    Everyone has plenty of dirty laundry, including you and me. 'Innocent until proven guilty' is an excellent attitude in criminal court, but the attitude 'innocent until doxxed' skews our perceptions and gives power to doxxers. Honestly I'm a bit surprised these leaks haven't found more than 'omg, politics at political party!'

    Remember, parties are not obligated to be democratic or unbiased. Legally and constitutionally there's only one vote, the general election in November. Anyone* can be nominated as a candidate for that election, and if both parties decided to nominate whomever they pleased they might be breaking their own rules but not the law. Everything up to and including the conventions is just meant to give supporters a feel of involvement and to remove unpopular candidates without invoking the wrath of their supporters. But the parties want to win, and if one candidate seems more 'electable' you can bet the party will give then a leg up on the rest.

    * you know what I mean [wikipedia.org]

    meta-monkey ( 321000 ) on Wednesday September 14, 2016 @11:28AM (#52886055) Journal

    So it's okay to give money to a private political organization in order to get favors from the government? Why don't we just auction off ambassadorships then?

    meta-monkey ( 321000 ) on Wednesday September 14, 2016 @02:02PM (#52887279) Journal

    There's been plenty of interesting stuff in previous releases of Hillary's particular emails. I would say the most amazing was acknowledgment that the reason we backed the moderate beheaders in Syria against Assad was so the Israelis would feel better about a nuclear Iran without a stable Syria as a base of operations for Hezbollah. The 400,000 war dead, the creation of ISIS, the blowback attacks in Paris, San Bernardino, Brussels, Nice, Orlando, and the refugee crisis that threatens to destabilize all of western Europe...no problem for Hillary and her supporters. It's unreal. But here we are.

    Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 14, 2016 @09:38AM (#52885273)

    The last set showed laws broken by DNC (Score:5, Informative)

    The last set of documents showed that the DNC broke campaign finance laws and yet absolutely nothing was done about it. Since any damning evidence in documents from democrats will be ignored, why do they even try? It won't make any difference.

    Now, if a similar trove of documents from the RNC was dumped, you can bet the DOJ would be all over it. Under Obama's administration political considerations trump the law every time.

    DumbSwede ( 521261 ) <[email protected]> on Wednesday September 14, 2016 @10:31AM (#52885603) Homepage Journal

    I'd say Glass Houses is the real reason (Score:2)

    There is reluctance to take actions base on evidence uncovered by illegally hacked emails. Doing so would invite more entities with political motivations to just hack more...

    Mashiki ( 184564 ) <`moc.liamg' `ta' `ikihsam'> on Wednesday September 14, 2016 @10:25AM (#52885549) Homepage

    Re: Slashdot censoring anti-Trump news (Score:4, Interesting)

    What are you talking about? Every media outlet except FOX is sucking at Hillary's big toes, and even at times FOX is sucking her toes and licking them. Whether it be in the US or Canada or the bloody UK. Hell NBC deleted a segment from a broadcast last night when Bill Clinton said Hillary "Frequently fainted" sorry I mean "occasionally fainted" that of course saved them all of 1.5 seconds from their 1hr broadcast time limit, which was their excuse. Nearly every site is sucking at her toes. Even on reddit from /r/politics to /r/news to /r/worldnews is deleting anti-Hillary stories, even when they use the exact title.

    Archangel Michael ( 180766 ) on Wednesday September 14, 2016 @10:57AM (#52885797) Journal

    Re: Slashdot censoring anti-Trump news (Score:4, Interesting)

    It is like when the talking heads on one news program (CNN I believe) described New York City on Sunday as "Sweltering", when it was 78 Degrees out, in an attempt to make Hillary's lie about dehydration seem more legitimate. Obviously they are "pro-Trump".

    Mashiki ( 184564 ) <`moc.liamg' `ta' `ikihsam'> on Wednesday September 14, 2016 @11:31AM (#52886073) Homepage

    Re: Slashdot censoring anti-Trump news (Score:2)

    Wouldn't surprise me. Here's the thing on CBC editing the news [thehill.com] earlier too.

    [Sep 16, 2016] Behind Saudi Arabias bluster is a country that feels under grave threat

    John Jenkins conveniently forgot export of Islamic extremists from Saudi Arabia during Soviet occupation of Afghanistan and the USA and GB role in creation of political Islam. I can't see any neo-Westphalian pragmatism of the Saudi state in its actions in Syria and support of Turkey slide into islamization. But his point that Iran does not represent a secular state either is well taken. It's just Shias fundamentalism instead of Sunni fundamentalism.
    Notable quotes:
    "... There is no clear link between economic deprivation and radicalization. But the former doesn't help if it leads to idle hands and claims of social injustice. ..."
    "... Sheikh Nimr advocated the destruction of the rulers of Saudi Arabia and Bahrain and the secession of the Eastern Province. His version of a righteous Islamic state is not a thousand miles from that of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi (and a long way from the non-takfiri, non-caliphal, neo-Westphalian pragmatism of the Saudi state). He called for wilayat al-faqih, the heterodox Guardianship of the Jurisprudent espoused by Khomeini. ..."
    "... The vengeful early years of the Islamic Republic, when clerics who previously would not have hurt a fly enthusiastically participated in the judicial murder of thousands in the name of righteousness, show some of the consequences. So does the arrest and humiliating mistreatment in 1982 of the venerable Ayatollah Shariatmadari, who stood up to Khomeini and dared to object to the implementation of any Islamic hudud punishments in the absence of the Hidden Imam. So does the continued rate of executions in Iran (nearly 700 by July last year, according to Amnesty International) and the Islamic Republic's own treatment of dissidents – and, indeed, of the ordinary protesters of 1999, 2009 and 2011. ..."
    "... To Iran it was: Saudi citizens owe loyalty in tribal fashion to their king, not to foreign religious leaders or to some ideal of transnational Islamism, and we shall not tolerate interference. To the rest of the world it was: we shall not bend in the face of the storms raging round the region, if necessary alone. ..."
    Jan 17, 2016 | www.newstatesman.com

    Now the Saudis face a period of sustained low energy prices at a time when the costs of a newly interventionist and expeditionary foreign policy are rising dramatically and when the need to restructure the economy to create perhaps an extra four million new jobs by 2020 has become urgent. At the same time they know that a small but significant section of the Sunni population of the kingdom is vulnerable to the dark seductions of Islamic State, because they regard it as more legitimately Islamic, or as the only organized Sunni group pushing back against Iran, the Shia, or both. There is no clear link between economic deprivation and radicalization. But the former doesn't help if it leads to idle hands and claims of social injustice.

    To cap it all, the Iranian nuclear deal angered the Saudis not because it was a nuclear deal but because it was simply a nuclear deal, failing in their view to address malign and subversive non-nuclear Iranian activities in Bahrain, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen, and rewarding Iran prematurely. They have felt very abandoned by the US and other Western states. And they believe the apparent pragmatism of the Rowhani government is a façade, offering privileged access in return for the suspension of any critical faculty. That makes the issue of the Vienna peace talks on Syria secondary. There will certainly be an impact. Yet it is not as if the Saudis had disguised their deep scepticism. They had been pressured to sit with the Iranians, but they had also insisted on continuing to support opposition forces in the field and have not wavered in their insistence that Assad needs to go.

    You might think this is all special pleading. But before you say that the matter is a straightforward one of a benighted justice system administering medieval punishments to dissidents, reflect on this. Sheikh Nimr advocated the destruction of the rulers of Saudi Arabia and Bahrain and the secession of the Eastern Province. His version of a righteous Islamic state is not a thousand miles from that of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi (and a long way from the non-takfiri, non-caliphal, neo-Westphalian pragmatism of the Saudi state). He called for wilayat al-faqih, the heterodox Guardianship of the Jurisprudent espoused by Khomeini.

    The vengeful early years of the Islamic Republic, when clerics who previously would not have hurt a fly enthusiastically participated in the judicial murder of thousands in the name of righteousness, show some of the consequences. So does the arrest and humiliating mistreatment in 1982 of the venerable Ayatollah Shariatmadari, who stood up to Khomeini and dared to object to the implementation of any Islamic hudud punishments in the absence of the Hidden Imam. So does the continued rate of executions in Iran (nearly 700 by July last year, according to Amnesty International) and the Islamic Republic's own treatment of dissidents – and, indeed, of the ordinary protesters of 1999, 2009 and 2011.

    The signals the Saudi state sought to send by executing 43 Saudi Sunnis convicted of terrorism at the same time as Sheikh Nimr and his three fellow Shias reflected all of this.

    • To their own citizens the message was: we shall enforce the judgment of the courts on all those who seek to undermine the stability of the kingdom and the legitimacy of its government, irrespective of sect, and on your behalf we shall resist Iranian expansionism and Islamic State predation with equal vigour.
    • To Iran it was: Saudi citizens owe loyalty in tribal fashion to their king, not to foreign religious leaders or to some ideal of transnational Islamism, and we shall not tolerate interference. To the rest of the world it was: we shall not bend in the face of the storms raging round the region, if necessary alone.

    John Jenkins is a former British ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Libya, Iraq, Syria and Burma. He is now executive director (Middle East) of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, and is based in Bahrain

    [Sep 15, 2016] On Views Of The War On Syria by Debs is Dead>

    A pretty devious scheme -- creating difficulty for the government neoliberal wanted to depose by pushing neoliberal reforms via IMF and such. They channeling the discontent into uprising against the legitimate government. Similar process happened with Yanukovich in Ukraine.
    Notable quotes:
    "... the Syrian government put staying in power via adopting neoliberal strictures ahead of the welfare of Syrians ..."
    "... it doesn't make President Assad virtuous of himself and neither does it reflect the reality that when push came to shove Assad put his position ahead of the people of Syria and kissed neoliberal butt. ..."
    "... President Assad revealed his stupidity when he didn't pay attention to what happens to a leader who has previously been featured as a 'tyrant' in western media if he lets the neoliberals in: They fawn & scrape all the while developing connections to undermine him/her. If the undermining is ineffective there is no backing off. The next option is war. The instances are legion from President Noriega of Panama to President Hussein of Iraq to Colonel Ghaddaffi of Libya - that one really hurts as the Colonel was a genuinely committed and astute man. Assad is just another hack in comparison. ..."
    "... Syrian leaders are politicians, they suffer the same flaws of politicians across the world. They are power seekers who inevitably come to regard the welfare of their population as a means to an end rather than an end in itself. ..."
    "... No one denies that the opposition have been used and abused by FUKUSi, but that of itself does not invalidate the very real issues that persuaded them to resist an austerity imposed from above by assholes who weren't practicing what they preached. ..."
    "... According to the European model of diplomacy imposed upon the globe, countries have interests not friends. ..."
    "... A solution which reduces numbers of humans killed is worth attempting. ..."
    "... Just because someone chooses an option that you disagree with does not make them evil or headchoppers or Islamofacist. ..."
    "... On balance I would rather see Assad continue as leader of Syria but I'm not so naive as to believe he is capable of finding a long term resolution, or that there are not a good number of self interested murderous sadists in his crew. ..."
    "... This war is about destroying real history, civilization, culture and replacing with fake. The war in Yemen is the same. Who in that region wants to replace real history with fake. Think about it. Most Islamic,Christian, Assyrian history is systematically being destroyed. ..."
    "... you make some good points concerning Assad flirting with neoliberalism however, i don't know how you call an opposition 'moderate' when its toting firearms. ..."
    "... The protests against Assad were moderate, and to his credit Assad was willing to meet them halfway. However, this situation was exploited by (((foreign powers))) ..."
    "... This is not about "good or evil", this is about TOW missiles made in USA against T-55, Saudi money for mercenaries, Israeli regional ambitions and so on. Syria is another country that the US wants to destroy. Six years ago Syria was a peaceful country. ..."
    "... Allegedly president Assad is a bad guy but Erdogan, Netanyhu and bin Saud are noble and good men. Who believes in such nonsense? The US has become similar to Israel and this is the reason why "Assad must go". Sick countries do sick things. ..."
    "... no, because one side is so simplistically evi l(armed to the fucking teeth and resolved to violent insurrection!!!), if Assad didn't have the backing of the vast majority of his people and of his overreached army it would have ended a long time ago and Syria would be a failed state flailing away in the grip of anarchy. perhaps your Syrian 'friends' should meditate on this naked truth. ..."
    "... when that shitty little country called Israel was squeezed onto the map in 1948, Syria welcomed Palestinian refugees with open arms by the hundreds of thousands. no, they didn't grant them citizenship, but prettty much all other rights. ..."
    "... This whole nightmare was dreamed up from within the US Embassy in Damascus in 2006. Bashir al Assad was too popular in the country and the region for America's liking, so they plotted to get rid of him. Near all the organ eating, child killing, head chopping "moderate" opposition are from other countries, those that are Syrian, as was the case in Iraq, mostly live outside the country and are not in touch with main stream opinion, but very in touch with US, Saudi etc $$$s. ..."
    "... I consider Bashar al-Assad the legitimate Syrian President and attempts to remove him by external interests as grounds for charges of crimes against humanity, crimes of war. ..."
    "... As one of the bloggers rightly stated Wesley Clarke spilled the whole beans and revealed their true ilk. 7 countries in 5 years. How coincidental post 9/11. ..."
    "... If you say "Assad was flirting with Neo Liberalism" then this is actually a compliment to Assad. Why? Because he wanted to win time. He wanted to prevent the same happening to Syria that has happened to Iraq. At that time there was no other protective power around. Russia was still busy recovering. ..."
    "... As demeter said Posted by: Demeter @14, the flirrting with neoliberalism bought them time as neocons were slavering for a new target. It also made the inner circle a ridiculous amount of money. Drought made life terrible for many rural syrians. When the conflict started, if you read this website you'd notice people wondering what was going on and as facts unfolded. realizing that Assad was the lesser of two evils, and as the war has gone on, look like an angel in comparison to the opposition. ..."
    "... Salafism is Racism. It de-egitimizes the entire anti Assad revolution. ..."
    "... Wesley Clark's "seven countries in five years" transcript for anyone who has forgotten: http://genius.com/General-wesley-clark-seven-countries-in-five-years-annotated ..."
    "... the armed conflict originated with scheming by foreign governments to use extremists as a weapon. ..."
    "... Furthermore, Debsisdead sets up the same "binary division" that he says he opposes by tarnishing those who oppose using extremists as a weapon of state as Assad loving racists. The plot was described by Sy Hersh in 2007 in "The Redirection" . ..."
    "... The fight IS "binary". You support Assad and his fighters, the true rebels, or you don't. Calling Assad a "hack" is a slander of a veritable hero. Watch his interviews. Assad presides over a multi-cultural, multi-confessional, diverse, secular state, PRECISELY what the Reptilians claim they cherish. ..."
    "... "the Syrian government put staying in power via adopting neoliberal strictures ahead of the welfare of Syrians." - on that we can agree. ..."
    "... It continues to annoy me that the primary trigger for the civil war in Syria has been totally censored from the press. The government deliberately ignited a population explosion, making the sale or possession of condoms or birth control pills illegal and propagandizing that it was every woman's patriotic duty to have six kids. The population doubled every 18 years, from 5 million to 10 million to 20 million and then at 22 the water ran out and things fells apart. Syria is a small country mostly arid plateau, in principle it could be developed to support even more people just not in that amount of time and with the resources that the Syrians actually had. ..."
    "... It doesn't mean he's a saint that Assad is leading the very popular 'secular/multi-confessional Syria' resistance against an extremely well-funded army primarily of non-Syrians who are mainly 'headchoppers' who will stop at nothing to impose Saudi-style religious dictatorship on Syria. ..."
    "... The 'moderate' opposition to Assad has largely disappeared (back into the loyal opposition that does NOT want a Saudi-style state imposed on Syria), but those who remain in armed rebellion surely must know that they are a powerless, very small portion of what is in fact mercenary army completely subservient to the needs and directives of its primary funders/enablers, the US and Saudi Arabia. So whatever their original noble intentions, they've become part of the Saudi/US imperial problem. ..."
    "... All that land, all that resource...and a unifying language. Amazing. If only the Arab world could unite for the collective good of the region we might witness a rogue state in an abrupt and full decline. A sad tactic of colonial powers over the years, setting the native tribes upon each other. We've not evolved here. ..."
    "... t in recent history the foreign policy of powerful nations is aimed at sponsoring social disintegration within the borders of targeted countries. ..."
    "... Ethnic cleansing means destruction of culture, of historical memory, the forced disappearance of communities that were rooted in a place. ..."
    "... Compare President Assad's leadership to that of the western, or Saudi, sponsors of terror; or measure his decisions against those of the hodgepodge of rebels and mercenaries, with their endless internal squabbles and infighting. Assad is so much more of a spokesman for the rights of sovereignty, and his words carry more weight and outshine the banalities that spring from the mouths of those who are paying the bills, and supplying weapons, and giving all kinds of diplomatic comfort to the enemies of the Syrian government. ..."
    "... There is no need for sorting things into absolutes of good and evil. But there is a condition under which fewer, a lot fewer, humans would have died in Syria, Without foreign interference--money, weapons, and training--Assad's government would have won this war quite a while ago. ..."
    "... And as for "Islamic Fundamentalism", it is this abnormal form of Islam that is purely based on racism and not the other way around. Islamic fundamentalists call everybody, and I mean everybody, who is not living according to their rule a non-believer, a Takfiri, who does not deserver to live. ..."
    "... Fundamentalism is never satisfied until it can become a tyranny over the mind. Racism and fundamentalism are as American as apple pie. You have to take a close look at who is pouring oil on this fire! ..."
    "... I disagree with you in that neoliberalism is seriously not difficult to define. It boils down to belief that public programs are bad/'inefficient' and that society would be better served by privatizing many things(or even everything) and opening services up to 'competition'. It's mainly just cover for parasites to come in and get rich off of the masses misery. The 'neoliberalism is just a snarl word' meme is incredibly stupid, since plenty of books and articles have been written explicitly defining it. ..."
    "... American economic hegemony is inherently neoliberal, and has been for decades. The IMF is essentially an international loan shark that gives countries money on the condition that they dismantle their public spending apparatus and let the market run things. ..."
    "... The situation is different now. One Syrian lady, who came to see me in April, who lives in California, told me that her father, who was a big pre-war oppositionist, now just wants to return to Syria to die. There's no question. if you want peace in Syria, Asad is the only choice. The jihadis, who dominate the opposition, don't offer an alternative. ..."
    "... The lesson of Viet Nam was to keep the dead and wounded off the six o'clock news. ..."
    "... The jackals are going in. Another coup. Syria was on the list. Remap the Middle East. Make it like Disney World. Israel as Mad King Ludwig's Neuschwanstein. ..."
    "... I don't think anyone who comments here regularly ever assumed that Bashar al Assad was a knight in white shining armour. Most of us are aware of how he came to be President and that his father did rule the country from 1971 to 2000 with an iron fist. Some if not most also know that initially when Bashar al Assad succeeded to the Presidency, he did have a reformist agenda in mind. How well or not he succeeded in putting that across, what compromises he had to make, who or what opposed him, how he negotiated his way between and among various and opposed power structures in Syrian politics we do not know. ..."
    "... Yes, I have trouble reconciling the fact that Bashar al Assad's government did allow CIA renditioning with his reformist agenda in my own head. That is something he will have to come to terms with in the future. I don't know if Assad was naive, under pressure or willing, even eager in agreeing to cooperate with the CIA, or trying to buy time to prepare for invasion once Iraq was down. Whether Assad also realises that he was duped by the IMF and World Bank in following their advice on economic "reforms" (such as privatising Syria's water) is another thing as well. ..."
    "... I don't see why you call the problem "Islamic fundamentalism" when in fact it is Sunni fundamentalism. ..."
    "... Manifest Destiny is fundamentalism. ..."
    "... "Full Spectrum Dominance" and other US Military doctrines are fundamentalist in nature. ..."
    "... I have no doubt that Assad was little more than a crude Arab strongman/dictator prince back in the 2011 when the uprising started. Since then, he has evolved into a committed, engaged defender of his country against multilateral foreign aggression, willingly leaving his balls in the vice and all. ..."
    "... He could have fled the sinking ship many times so far. Instead, he decided to stay and fight the Takfiri river flowing in through the crack, and risk going down with the ship he inherited. The majority of the Syrians know this very well. ..."
    "... Bashar of 2016 (not so much the one of 5 1/2 years ago) would not only win the next free elections, but destroy any opposition. The aggressors know that as a fact. ..."
    "... if Syria had control over its borders with Turkey, Israel, Jordan and Iraq would the war have ended a long time ago ? Answer honestly. ..."
    "... If yes, then the so-called "opposition" of the union of headchoppers does not represent a significant portion of the Syrian people. Were it otherwise Assad wouldnt be able to survive a single year, let alone 5. With or without foreign help. ..."
    "... OK here is an interesting article from 2011 on Abdallah Dardari, the fellow who persuaded Bashar al Assad to adopt the disastrous neoliberal economic reforms that not only ruined Syria's economy and the country's agriculture in particular but also created an underclass who resented the reforms and who initially joined the "rebels". http://english.al-akhbar.com/node/2097 ..."
    "... And where is Dardari now? He jumped ship in 2011 and went to Beirut to work for the UN's Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (ESCWA). He seems like someone to keep a watchful eye on. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdullah_Dardari ..."
    "... of COURSE assad flirted with the west. between housing cia rendition houses and the less-than-flattering aspects of the wikileaks "syria files", assad and/or his handlers (family and/or military) have tried a little too hard to "assimilate" to western ideals (or the lack thereof). ..."
    "... i seriously doubt they will make that mistake again. they saw what happened to al-qaddafi after he tried to play nice and mistook western politicians for human beings. they've learned their lesson and become more ruthless but they were always machiavellians because they have to be. not an endorsement, just an acceptance of how the region is. ..."
    "... also: israel, the saudis (along with qatar and the other GCC psychopaths in supporting capacity) and the US are the main actors and throwing european "powers" into the circle of actual power does them an undue favor by ignoring their status as pathetic vassal states. "FrUkDeUSZiowhatever" isn't necessary. ..."
    "... Look I know the MSM is utterly controlled - but the extent of that control still shocks at times. It is simply not possible to be "informed" by any normal definition of the word anymore without the alternative media - and for that reason this site serves a valuable purpose and I once again thank the host and contributors. ..."
    "... The irony is, Assad is 10x smarter and bigger person than Debs. Yes, he made some mistakes, but if not "flirting with neoliberalism", war against Syria would have started many years earlier, when Resistance wasnt ready one bit (neither Russia, nor Iran, while on the other hand US was more powerful). ..."
    "... Support for rebel groups was misguided at best at the beginning of the war. One could conceivably not appreciate the capacity of the KSA/USA/Quatar/Israel to influence and control and create these groups. Jesus it's hard for me to think of a single local opposition group that isnt drenched in fanaticism besides the Kurds. ..."
    "... There's no way to a solution for the Syrian people, the population not imported that is, if these groups win. I hate to be so binary but its so naive in my eyes to think anything good will come from the long arm of the gulf countries and the USA taking control. ..."
    "... As I've said repeatedly, the GOAL of the Syria crisis for the Western elites, Israel and the ME dictatorships is to take Syria OUT by any means necessary in order to get to IRAN. Nothing else matters to these people. In the same vein, nothing else matters to ninety percent of the CURRENT insurgents than to establish some Salafist state, exterminate the Shia, etc., etc. ..."
    "... So, yes, right NOW the whole story is about US elites, Zionist "evil", corrupt monarchs, and scumbag fanatics, etc., etc. Until THAT is resolved, nothing about how Syria is being run is going to matter. ..."
    "... Copeland @60: No, I don't think the problem is fundamentalism. It's the warring crusade method of spreading a belief's 'empire' that is the problem. This is a problem uniquely of the Saudi 'do whatever it takes' crusade to convert the entire 'Arab and Muslim world' to their worst, most misogynist form of Islam. ..."
    "... Just want to mention that from the beginning there were people who took up arms against the government. This is why the situation went out of control. People ambushed groups of young soldiers. Snipers of unknown origin fired on police and civilians. ..."
    "... I rather like Assad. I won't lie. But, he is not the reason for the insurrection in Syria ~ well, except for his alliances with Russia and Iran and his pipeline decisions and his support for Palestinian and Iraqi refugees. What happened in Syria is happening all over the globe because the nation with the most resources in the world, the self-declared exceptionalist state thinks this is the way to rule the world. . . . because they want to rule and they don't care how much destruction it takes to do so. And lucky for us there is no one big enough and bad enough to do it to us - except for our own government. ..."
    "... There were a lot of people posting how Bashar al Assad was doing full neoliberalism. And at was true. ..."
    "... So Assad was hit by a Tri-horror: global warming, dwindling cash FF resources, and IMF-type pressure, leaving out the trad. enemies, KSA, pipelines , etc. MSM prefer to cover up serious issues with 'ethnic strife' (sunni, shia, black lives matter, etc.) ..."
    Sep 15, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org

    lifted from a comment

    It is sad to see so many are so locked into their particular views that they see any offering of an alternative as 'neoliberal' or laughable or - if it weren't so serious - Zionist.

    1/ I do not see the Syrian civil war as racist or race based, I do believe however that the rejection of all Islamic fundamentalism as being entirely comprised of 'headchoppers' is racist down to its core. It is that same old same old whitefella bullshit which refuses to consider other points of view on their own terms but considers everything through the lens of 'western' culture which it then declares wanting and discards.

    2/ Noirette comes close to identifying one of the issues that kicked off the conflict, that the Syrian government put staying in power via adopting neoliberal strictures ahead of the welfare of Syrians. I realize many have quite foolishly IMO, adopted President Assad as some sort of model of virtue - mostly because he is seen to be standing up to American imperialism. That is a virtuous position but it doesn't make President Assad virtuous of himself and neither does it reflect the reality that when push came to shove Assad put his position ahead of the people of Syria and kissed neoliberal butt.

    3/ President Assad revealed his stupidity when he didn't pay attention to what happens to a leader who has previously been featured as a 'tyrant' in western media if he lets the neoliberals in: They fawn & scrape all the while developing connections to undermine him/her. If the undermining is ineffective there is no backing off. The next option is war. The instances are legion from President Noriega of Panama to President Hussein of Iraq to Colonel Ghaddaffi of Libya - that one really hurts as the Colonel was a genuinely committed and astute man. Assad is just another hack in comparison.

    4/ These Syrian leaders are politicians, they suffer the same flaws of politicians across the world. They are power seekers who inevitably come to regard the welfare of their population as a means to an end rather than an end in itself.

    5/ My Syrians friends are an interesting bunch drawn from a range of people currently living inside and outside of Syria. Some longer term readers might recall that I'm not American, don't live in America and nowadays don't visit much at all. The first of the 'refugee' Syrians I got to know, although refugee is a misnomer since my friend came here on a migrant's visa because his skills are in demand, is the grandchild of Palestinian refugees - so maybe he is a refugee but not in the usual sense. Without going into too many specifics as this is his story not mine, he was born and lived in a refugee camp which was essentially just another Damascus suburb. As he puts it, although a Palestinian at heart, he was born in Syria and when he thinks of home it is/was Damascus. All sides in the conflict claimed to support Palestinian liberation, yet he and his family were starved out of their homes by both Syrian government militias and the FSA.

    When he left he was initially a stateless person because even though he was born in Syria he wasn't entitled to Syrian citizenship. He bears no particular grudge against the government there but he told me once he does wish they were a lot smarter.

    On the other hand he also understands why the people fighting the government are doing so. I'm not talking about the leadership of course (see above - pols are pols) but the Syrians who just couldn't take the fading future and the petty oppression by assholes any longer.

    6/ No one denies that the opposition have been used and abused by FUKUSi, but that of itself does not invalidate the very real issues that persuaded them to resist an austerity imposed from above by assholes who weren't practicing what they preached.

    I really despair at the mindset which reduces everything to a binary division - if group A are the people I support they must all be wonderful humans and group B those who are fighting Group A are all evil assholes.

    If group A claim to support Palestinian self determination (even though they have done sweet fuck all to actually advance that cause) then everyone in Group B must be pro-Zionist even though I don't know what they say about it (the leadership of the various resistance groups are ME politicians and therefore most claim to also support Palestinian independence). Yes assholes in the opposition have done sleazy deals with Israel over Golan but the Ba'ath administration has done similar opportunist sell outs over the 40 years when the situation demanded it.

    I fucking hate that as much as anyone else who despises the ersatz state of Israel, but the reality is that just about every ME leader has put expedience ahead of principle with regard to Palestine. Colonel Ghadaffi would be the only leader I'm aware of who didn't. Why do they? That is what all pols and diplomats do not just Arab ones. According to the European model of diplomacy imposed upon the globe, countries have interests not friends.

    As yet no alternative to that model has succeeded since any attempt to do so has been rejected with great violence. The use of hostages offered by each party to guarantee a treaty was once an honorable solution, the hostages were well treated and the security they afforded reduced conflict - if Oblamblam had to put up one of his daughters to guarantee a deal does anyone think he would break it as easily as he currently does? Yet the very notion of hostages is considered 'terrorism' in the west. But I digress.

    The only points I wanted to make was the same as those I have already made:

    • A solution which reduces numbers of humans killed is worth attempting.
    • Just because someone chooses an option that you disagree with does not make them evil or headchoppers or Islamofacist.
    • On balance I would rather see Assad continue as leader of Syria but I'm not so naive as to believe he is capable of finding a long term resolution, or that there are not a good number of self interested murderous sadists in his crew. By the same token I don't believe all of those resisting the Ba'athist administration are headchopping jihadists or foreign mercenaries. This war is about 5 years old. If either side were so simplistically good or evil it would have ended a long time ago.
    • Plus one more - it is humorous and saddening to see people throw senseless name-calling into the mix. It is the method preferred by those who are too stupid and ill informed to develop a logical point of view.

    If you want to call me a Zionist lackey of the imperialists or whatever it was go right ahead - it is only yourself who you tarnish, I'm secure in the knowledge of my own work against imperialism, corporate domination and Zionism but perhaps you, who have a need to throw aspersions are not?

    Posted by b on September 12, 2016 at 03:33 AM | Permalink

    papa | Sep 12, 2016 3:51:57 AM | 1
    Plus one more - it is humorous and saddening to see people throw senseless name-calling into the mix. It is the method preferred by those who are too stupid and ill informed to develop a logical point of view.

    why you think your article is different from others senseless name-calling, i see exactly the same.

    This war is about destroying real history, civilization, culture and replacing with fake. The war in Yemen is the same. Who in that region wants to replace real history with fake. Think about it. Most Islamic,Christian, Assyrian history is systematically being destroyed.

    lemur | Sep 12, 2016 4:30:41 AM | 2
    you make some good points concerning Assad flirting with neoliberalism however, i don't know how you call an opposition 'moderate' when its toting firearms.

    The protests against Assad were moderate, and to his credit Assad was willing to meet them halfway. However, this situation was exploited by (((foreign powers)))

    ash123 | Sep 12, 2016 5:43:53 AM | 3
    If either side were so simplistically good or evil it would have ended a long time ago.
    This is not about "good or evil", this is about TOW missiles made in USA against T-55, Saudi money for mercenaries, Israeli regional ambitions and so on. Syria is another country that the US wants to destroy. Six years ago Syria was a peaceful country.

    Allegedly president Assad is a bad guy but Erdogan, Netanyhu and bin Saud are noble and good men. Who believes in such nonsense? The US has become similar to Israel and this is the reason why "Assad must go". Sick countries do sick things.

    john | Sep 12, 2016 5:47:26 AM | 4

    Debsisdead says:

    If either side were so simplistically good or evil it would have ended a long time ago

    no, because one side is so simplistically evi l(armed to the fucking teeth and resolved to violent insurrection!!!), if Assad didn't have the backing of the vast majority of his people and of his overreached army it would have ended a long time ago and Syria would be a failed state flailing away in the grip of anarchy. perhaps your Syrian 'friends' should meditate on this naked truth.

    If group A claim to support Palestinian self determination (even though they have done sweet fuck all to actually advance that cause)...

    when that shitty little country called Israel was squeezed onto the map in 1948, Syria welcomed Palestinian refugees with open arms by the hundreds of thousands. no, they didn't grant them citizenship, but prettty much all other rights.

    so thanks, b, for headlining this obfuscatory drivel. thus, for posterity.

    Felicity | Sep 12, 2016 6:04:27 AM | 5
    This whole nightmare was dreamed up from within the US Embassy in Damascus in 2006. Bashir al Assad was too popular in the country and the region for America's liking, so they plotted to get rid of him. Near all the organ eating, child killing, head chopping "moderate" opposition are from other countries, those that are Syrian, as was the case in Iraq, mostly live outside the country and are not in touch with main stream opinion, but very in touch with US, Saudi etc $$$s.

    Here again is the reality of where this all started, article from 2012 (below.). And never forget Wesley Clark's Pentagon informant after 9/11 of attacking "seven countries in five years." Those in chaos through US attacks or attempted "liberation" were on the list, a few more to go and they are a bit behind schedule. All responsible for this Armageddon should be answering for their actions in shackles and yellow jump suits in The Hague.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/syria-and-conspiracy-theories-it-is-a-conspiracy/29596

    Formerly T-Bear | Sep 12, 2016 6:23:51 AM | 6
    |~b~ Thank you for putting Debsisdead's comment @ 135 prior post into readable form. Failing eyesight made the original in its extended format difficult to read.

    Reference Debsisdead comment:

    Your definition of neoliberal would be nice to have. Usually it is used as ephemerally as a mirage, to appear in uncountable numbers of meaning.

    Having determined your definition of neoliberal, are you sure it WAS neoliberal rather than a hegemonic entity? Neoliberal seems best used as the reactionary faux historic liberalism as applied to economic agendas (neocon is the political twin for neoliberal, libertarian had been previously been co-opted).

    Instead of F•UK•US•i, maybe a F•UK•UZoP would suffice (France•United Kingdom•United Zionist occupied Palestine) given the spheres of influence involved.

    Agree with your observations about the limited mentality of dualism; manichaeism is a crutch for disabled minds unaware and blind to subtle distinctions that comprise spectrums.

    Though not paying close attention to Syrian history, it was Hafez al-Assad who became master of the Syrian Ba'athist coup d'état and politically stabilised Syria under Ba'athist hegemony. In the midst of the 'Arab-spring' zeitgeist, an incident involving a child with security forces led to a genuine public outcry being suppressed by state security forces. This incident, quickly settled became cause célèbre for a subsequent revolt, initially by SAA dissidents but soon thereafter by external interests having the motive of regime overthrow of Syrian Ba'athists and their leadership. Other narratives generally make little sense though may contain some factors involved; the waters have been sufficiently muddied as to obscure many original factors - possibly Bashar al-Assad's awareness of his security forces involvement in US rendition and torture as to compromise his immediately assuming command of his security forces in the original public protest over the child. Those things are now well concealed under the fogs of conflict and are future historians to sort.

    I consider Bashar al-Assad the legitimate Syrian President and attempts to remove him by external interests as grounds for charges of crimes against humanity, crimes of war.

    The opinions expressed are my own.

    falcemartello | Sep 12, 2016 6:41:48 AM | 7
    Classic western sheeple disconnect. As one of the bloggers rightly stated Wesley Clarke spilled the whole beans and revealed their true ilk. 7 countries in 5 years. How coincidental post 9/11. This total disconnect with global realities is a massive problem in the west cause the 86000 elite /oligarchs r pushing for a war with both the bears/ Russian and Chinese along with Iran. These countries have blatantly stated they will not be extorted by fascism. All western countries r all living a Corporate state. Just look all around every facet of our society is financialised. Health ,education , public services.
    Wake up cause if we dont we will be extinct Nuclear winter
    Mikael | Sep 12, 2016 6:41:56 AM | 8
    I am of syrian origin, born in Beirut Lebanon. My family lived a happy life there, but shortly after I was born, Israel invaded Lebanon, and my family fled and emigrated to Europe, I was 1 year old. I call major bullshit on your piece.
    Demeter | Sep 12, 2016 8:00:26 AM | 9
    If you say "Assad was flirting with Neo Liberalism" then this is actually a compliment to Assad. Why? Because he wanted to win time. He wanted to prevent the same happening to Syria that has happened to Iraq. At that time there was no other protective power around. Russia was still busy recovering.

    What do you think would have happened had Assad not pretended he would go along? Syria would have been bombed to pieces right then. Why did Assad change his mind later and refused to cooperate with Qatar, Saudi and US? Because the balance of power was about to change. Iran and Russia were rising powers (mainly in the military field).

    I could say so much more. I stopped reading your post when you mentioned that your Palestinian friend ( I know the neighbourhood in Damascus, it is called Yarmouk and it is indeed a very nice suburb) does not have Syrian citizenship. Do you know why Palaestinians don't get Syrian citizenship? Because they are supposed to return to their homeland Palestine.

    And they can only do that as Palestinians and not as Syrians. That is why.

    And that so many (not all!) Palestinians chose to backstab the country that has hosted them and fed them and gave them a life for so many years, and fought side by side with islamist terrorists and so called Free Syrian Army traitors is a human error, is based on false promises, is lack of character and honour and understanding of the broader context and interests. How will some of these fools and misguided young men feel when they realise that they have played right into the hand of their biggest enemy, the Zionists.

    I would like to remind some of you who might have forgotten that famous incident described by Robert Fisk years ago, when a Syrian Officer told him upon the capture of some of these "freedom fighters' on Syrian soil, one of them said: "I did not know that Palestine was so beautiful", not realising that he was not fighting in Palestine but in Syria.

    And as for "Islamic Fundamentalism", it is this abnormal form of Islam that is purely based on racism and not the other way around. Islamic fundamentalists call everybody, and I mean everybody, who is not living according to their rule a non-believer, a Takfiri, who does not deserver to live.

    Here is racism for you debsisdead.

    AtaBrit | Sep 12, 2016 8:00:59 AM | 10
    Though reluctant to get involved in what seems to be for some a personal spat, I would like to point out one fundemental point that renders the above published and counter arguments difficult to comprehend which is that they lack a time frame.
    The 'Syrian opposition' or what ever you wish to call it is not now what it was 6 years ago. Thus, for me, at least, it is not possible to discuss the make up of the opposition unless there are some time frames applied.

    An example is a Syrian who was an officer in the FSA but fled to Canada last year. He fled the Syrian conflict over 3 years ago to Turkey -which is how I know him - where he did not continue ties with any group. He simply put his head down and worked slavishly living at his place of work most of the time to escape to Canada - he feared remaining in Istanbul. He claimed that he and others had all been taken in by promises and that the conflict had been usurped by extremists. He was not a headchopper, he was not the beheader of 12 year old children. He was and is a devout Muslim. He was a citizen of Aleppo city. I know him and of him through other local Syrians in Istanbul and believe his testimony. I mention him only to highlight that the conflict is not what it was, not what some intended it to be ... Nor is it what some paint it to be. There are many who fight whomever attacks their community be they pro / anti Government. - Arabs especially have extended village communities/ tribes and pragmatically they 'agree' to be occupied as long as they are allowed to continue their lives in peace. If conflict breaks out they fight whomever is necessary.

    DebIsDead makes some very excellent points in his/her comments. They deserve appraisal and respectful response. It is also clear thar he/she is writing defensively in some parts and those detract from what is actually being said.

    Cresty | Sep 12, 2016 8:41:04 AM | 12
    The piece suffers from several errors. As demeter said Posted by: Demeter @14, the flirrting with neoliberalism bought them time as neocons were slavering for a new target. It also made the inner circle a ridiculous amount of money. Drought made life terrible for many rural syrians. When the conflict started, if you read this website you'd notice people wondering what was going on and as facts unfolded. realizing that Assad was the lesser of two evils, and as the war has gone on, look like an angel in comparison to the opposition.

    You can't change the fact that it took less than 2 years for the opposition to be dominated by both foreign and domestic takfiris who wanted to impose saudi style culture on an open relatively prosperous cosmopolitan country. They've succeeded in smashing it to pieces. Snuff your balanced account and your bold anti racism

    Northern Observer | Sep 12, 2016 8:52:18 AM | 14
    Salafism is Racism. It de-egitimizes the entire anti Assad revolution.
    Felicity | Sep 12, 2016 9:22:01 AM | 15
    Wesley Clark's "seven countries in five years" transcript for anyone who has forgotten: http://genius.com/General-wesley-clark-seven-countries-in-five-years-annotated
    Jackrabbit | Sep 12, 2016 10:06:55 AM | 17
    Debsisdead sets up a strawman - racism against Islamic fundamentalists and validity of opposition against Assad - and uses this to sidestep that the armed conflict originated with scheming by foreign governments to use extremists as a weapon.

    Furthermore, Debsisdead sets up the same "binary division" that he says he opposes by tarnishing those who oppose using extremists as a weapon of state as Assad loving racists. The plot was described by Sy Hersh in 2007 in "The Redirection" .

    ruralito | Sep 12, 2016 10:10:18 AM | 18
    "If you want to call me a Zionist lackey of the imperialists or whatever it was go right ahead - it is only yourself who you tarnish, I'm secure in the knowledge of my own work against imperialism, corporate domination and Zionism but perhaps you, who have a need to throw aspersions are not?" Passive-aggressive much?

    The fight IS "binary". You support Assad and his fighters, the true rebels, or you don't. Calling Assad a "hack" is a slander of a veritable hero. Watch his interviews. Assad presides over a multi-cultural, multi-confessional, diverse, secular state, PRECISELY what the Reptilians claim they cherish.

    TG | Sep 12, 2016 10:22:59 AM | 20
    "the Syrian government put staying in power via adopting neoliberal strictures ahead of the welfare of Syrians." - on that we can agree.

    It continues to annoy me that the primary trigger for the civil war in Syria has been totally censored from the press. The government deliberately ignited a population explosion, making the sale or possession of condoms or birth control pills illegal and propagandizing that it was every woman's patriotic duty to have six kids. The population doubled every 18 years, from 5 million to 10 million to 20 million and then at 22 the water ran out and things fells apart. Syria is a small country mostly arid plateau, in principle it could be developed to support even more people just not in that amount of time and with the resources that the Syrians actually had.

    No the issue was not 'climate change'. The aquifers in Syria had been falling for years, even when rainfall was above normal. Don't blame the weather.

    "The more the merrier" - tell me exactly how people having more children than they can support creates wealth? It doesn't and it never has.

    Whenever governments treat their people as if they were cattle, demanding that they breed the 'correct' number of children rather than making the decision based on their own desires and judgement of how many they can support, the result is always bad.

    Assad treated the people of Syria as if they were cattle. Surely this deserves mention?

    Diana | Sep 12, 2016 10:23:43 AM | 21
    Cultural "left" bullshit at its best. Cultural "leftists" don't need to know any hostory or have any understanding of a political issue: it's sufficient to pull out a few details from the NATO press and apply their grad school "oppression" analysis.
    juliania | Sep 12, 2016 10:26:32 AM | 22
    Thanks to b for posting the comment of Debs is Dead. The point I would take issue with is where he states "I realize many have quite foolishly IMO, adopted President Assad as some sort of model of virtue. . ."

    I don't believe this is a correct realization. I think the many to whom he refers know very well that any person in leadership of a country can be found to have flaws, major and minor, and even to have more of such than the average mortal. The crucial counterpoint, however, which used to be raised fairly often, is that it is the acceptance of the majority of the people governed by such leaders that ought to be the international norm for diplomatic relations.

    I respect the knowledge DiD has gained from his Syrian friends and contacts. But I also remember a man called Chilabi and am very leery of destabilization attempts this country has been engaged in lo these many generations, using such displaced persons as surrogates. And rather than properly mourn the 9/11 victims and brave firemen and rescuers of that terrible day, I find myself mourning the larger tragedy of unnecessary wars launched as a consequence of our collective horror at that critical moment in our history.

    Can we please stop doing this?

    Wizzy | Sep 12, 2016 10:35:49 AM | 23
    After making sound point about black-and-white worldview being unrealistic, the guy goes full retard. Position towards Palestinians as the one and only criteria to judge ME developments... C'mon, it's not even funny.

    And while started from a "My Syrian friends" then he goes on reasoning on behalf of one single ex-Palestinian ex-Syrian guy...
    Looks like self-revelation of a kind. Some guy, sitting in Israel, or whatever, waging informational warfare for the Mossad/CIA/NGO who pays his rent.

    ruralito | Sep 12, 2016 10:38:01 AM | 24
    "The government deliberately ignited a population explosion, making the sale or possession of condoms or birth control pills illegal and propagandizing that it was every woman's patriotic duty to have six kids."

    Cite?

    fairleft | Sep 12, 2016 10:58:51 AM | 25
    DiD: "I realize many have quite foolishly IMO, adopted President Assad as some sort of model of virtue. . ." The big reveal is that DiD can't name a single contributor here who has written that Assad is "some sort of model of virtue."

    It doesn't mean he's a saint that Assad is leading the very popular 'secular/multi-confessional Syria' resistance against an extremely well-funded army primarily of non-Syrians who are mainly 'headchoppers' who will stop at nothing to impose Saudi-style religious dictatorship on Syria.

    The 'moderate' opposition to Assad has largely disappeared (back into the loyal opposition that does NOT want a Saudi-style state imposed on Syria), but those who remain in armed rebellion surely must know that they are a powerless, very small portion of what is in fact mercenary army completely subservient to the needs and directives of its primary funders/enablers, the US and Saudi Arabia. So whatever their original noble intentions, they've become part of the Saudi/US imperial problem.

    Krollchem | Sep 12, 2016 11:35:06 AM | 28
    @ rg the lg 33

    Thanks for addressing the problem of angry comments by some posters who just want to throw verbal grenades is unacceptable. I hope this site continues to be a great source for sharing information and ideas.

    paul | Sep 12, 2016 11:40:49 AM | 29
    Why in God's name was this pointless comment by Debs is Dead promoted this way?!!! The only point being made, that I can see, is that the war in Syria does have some legitimate issues at its root. WELL OF COURSE IT DOES. The Hegemon rarely to never makes up civil unrest in countries it wants to overthrow out of whole cloth. They take some dispute that is already there and ramp it up; this process escalates until it turns into some form of a proxy war or coup. In other words, the domestic political process is DISTORTED until it is no longer remotely recognizable as a domestic process.

    So sure, if the US and its allies had not stoked political factionism in Syria into a global proxy war, we could discuss the fine details of the Syrian domestic process very usefully. At this point, though, IT IS IRRELEVANT.

    I do agree on one point: Assad joins the horrendous list of overlords who thought they could make a deal with the Hegemon on their own terms. Assad will pay for that mistake with his life very soon I would guess and I think that Putin will too, though that might take a little longer. If they had chosen to stand on principle as Chavez did, maybe they would be dead as Chavez is (possibly done in, who knows), but they'd be remembered with honor as Chavez is.

    MadMax2 | Sep 12, 2016 12:16:07 PM | 33
    It is a shame no one stood up for Libya, for a surviving Gaddafi would have emerged considerably stronger - as Assad eventually will.

    Whatever genuine opposition there was has long been hijacked by opportunistic takfiris, wahabbists and there various paymasters. And so as ruralito says @25: "The fight IS "binary...". The fight is indeed binary, the enemy is plural. Assad versus the many appearances of both the first and fourth kind.

    Appearances to the mind are of four kinds.
    Things either are what they appear to be;
    or they neither are, nor appear to be;
    or they are, and do not appear to be;
    or they are not, and yet appear to be.
    Rightly to aim in all these cases is the wise man's task.

    ~Epictetus

    Where there is obfuscation lay the enemy, hence Russia's long game of identification.

    FecklessLeft | Sep 12, 2016 12:54:18 PM | 36
    Does anyone remember the essay posted on this site a while back titled "The Feckless Left?" I don't believe B posted it, but if memory serves it's posted front and centre on the navigation bar beside this piece?

    It really hammers those people like Tariq Ali, who while surely having legitimate grievances against the Assad govt, opened the door for legitimation of foreign sponsored war. They thought that funneling millions of dollars worth of training, weapons and mercs would open the door for another secular govt, but this time much 'better.' Surely.

    No one thinks Assad is great. I really have trouble understanding where that notion comes from. It's just that the alternative is surely much worse. Lots of people didn't like Ghaddafi but jesus, I'm sure most Libyans would wish they could turn back the clock (at the risk of putting words in their mouths). It's not binary, no one sees this as good vs evil, its just that its become so painfully obvious at this point that if the opposition wins Syria will be so fucked in every which way. Those with real, tangible grievances are never going to have their voices heard. It will become the next Libya, except the US and it's clients will actually have a say in what's left of the political body in the country if you could even label it that at that point (which is quite frightenening in my eyes. Libya is already a shit show and they don't have much of a foothold there besides airstrikes and that little coastal base for the GNA to have their photo ops).

    I find it ironic that when criticisms are levelled at Assad from the left they usually point out things that had he done more of, and worse of, he probably would be free of this situation and still firmly in power. If he had bowed down to Qatar and the KSA/USA I wonder if the 'armed opposition' would still have their problems with him? That's the ultimate irony to me. If he had accepted the pipelines, the privatization regimes, etc. would they still be hollering his name? It's very sad that even with the balancing act he did his country has been destroyed. Even if the SAA is able to come out on top at this point, the country is wholly destroyed. What's even the point of a having a 'legitimate' or 'illegitimate' opposition when they're essentially fighting over scraps now. I'd be surprised if they could rebuild the country in 120 years. Libya in my eyes will never be what it once was. It'll never have the same standards of living after being hit with a sledgehammer.

    I don't mean to be ironic or pessimistic, its just a sad state of affairs all around and everyday it seems more and more unlikely that any halfway decent solution for the POPULATION OF SYRIA, not Assad, will come out of this.. It's like, I'm no nationalist, but in many countries I kind of would rather that than the alternative. Ghaddafi wasn't great but his people could've been a lot worse of - and ARE a lot worse of now. I'm no Assad fan, but my god look what the alternative is here. If it wasnt 95% foreign sponsored maybe id see your point.

    Read the essay posted on the left there. "Syria, the Feckless Left" IIRC. I thought that summed up my thoughts well enough.

    And guys, even if you agree with me please refrain from the name calling. It makes those of you with a legitimate rebuttal seem silly and wrong. I've always thought MoA was so refreshing because it was (somewhat) free of that. At least B is generating discussion. I kind of appreciate that. It's nice to hear ither views, even if they are a little unrealistic and pro violent and anti democratic.

    FecklessLeft | Sep 12, 2016 1:01:58 PM | 37
    QUICK DOUBLE POST

    An example of an armed opposition with legitimate grievances that is far from perfect but still very sympathetic (in my eyes) is hizbollah. They have real problems to deal with. While they recieve foreign sponsorship they aren't a foreign group the way the Syrian opposition is. And they will be all but destroyed when their supply lines from Syria are cut off. I wonder how that fits in with OPs post.

    Hoarsewhisperer | Sep 12, 2016 1:02:25 PM | 38
    What makes Debs is Dead's turgid comment so irrational is that it endorses Regime Change in Syria as an ongoing, but necessary and inevitable, "good". But in doing so it tip-toes around the fact that it doesn't matter how Evil an elected President is, or is not, it's up to the the people who elected him to decide when they've had enough. It most certainly is NOT Neoconned AmeriKKKa's concern.

    Debs also 'forgot' to justify totally wrecking yet another of many ME countries because of perceived and imaginary character flaws in a single individual.

    It does not compute; but then neither does "Israel's" 70 year (and counting) hate crime, The Perpetual Palestinian Holohoax.

    ruralito | Sep 12, 2016 1:07:59 PM | 39
    @Shh, since you're so conveniently ensconced above the fray, perhaps you can see something we "nattering fuck wits" can't. Do tell.
    Stillnottheonly1 | Sep 12, 2016 1:47:35 PM | 40
    Whatever happened to the age old expression that one has to walk in someone else's shoes to understand their walk in life?

    In an all too obvious fashion, another arm chair expert is blessing the world with his/her drivel.

    To make it as concise as possible:

    What would you have done in Assad's position? The U.S. is trying to annex Syria since 1948 and never gave up on the plan to convert it to what the neo-fascists turned Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Somalia and the Republic of Yugoslavia - whereas Yemen is still in the making, together with Ukraine, Turkey and Africa as a whole.

    In the light of U.S. 'foreign policy', the piece reeks of the stench of obfuscation.

    MadMax2 | Sep 12, 2016 2:02:43 PM | 41
    @47 Hoarsewhisperer

    Debs also 'forgot' to justify totally wrecking yet another of many ME countries because of perceived and imaginary character flaws in a single individual.

    We shouldn't be surprised. Even a basic pragmatic approach to this conflict has been lost by many in the one sided, over the top shower of faeces that is the western MSM.

    It does not compute; but then neither does "Israel's" 70 year (and counting) hate crime, The Perpetual Palestinian Holohoax.

    All that land, all that resource...and a unifying language. Amazing. If only the Arab world could unite for the collective good of the region we might witness a rogue state in an abrupt and full decline. A sad tactic of colonial powers over the years, setting the native tribes upon each other. We've not evolved here.

    Copeland | Sep 12, 2016 3:26:34 PM | 43
    It is impossible for any one of us to possess the whole picture, which is why we pool our experience, and benefit from these discussions. The thing I see at the root of the Syrian war is the process of ethnic cleansing. In many cases that involve murderous prejudice, it erupts as civil war; but in recent history the foreign policy of powerful nations is aimed at sponsoring social disintegration within the borders of targeted countries.

    Ethnic cleansing means destruction of culture, of historical memory, the forced disappearance of communities that were rooted in a place.

    The objectives of the perpetrators have nothing to do with the convictions of the fundamentalists who do the dirty work; and the sectarian and mercenary troops are merely the tools of those who are creating hell on earth.

    I agree with what papa wrote at the top of this thread:

    why you think your article is different from others senseless name-calling,[?] i see exactly the same. This war is about destroying real history, civilization, culture and replacing with fake. The war in Yemen is the same. Who in that region wants to replace real history with fake. Think about it. Most Islamic,Christian, Assyrian history is systematically being destroyed.
    Compare President Assad's leadership to that of the western, or Saudi, sponsors of terror; or measure his decisions against those of the hodgepodge of rebels and mercenaries, with their endless internal squabbles and infighting. Assad is so much more of a spokesman for the rights of sovereignty, and his words carry more weight and outshine the banalities that spring from the mouths of those who are paying the bills, and supplying weapons, and giving all kinds of diplomatic comfort to the enemies of the Syrian government.

    Debsisdead has always brought much food for thought to this watering hole. I have always respected him, and I think he has a fine mind. Nonetheless, despite the valuable contribution of this piece as a beginning place, in which we might reevaluate some of our presumptions, I maintain there are a few errors which stand out, and ought to be discussed.

    I call into question these two points:

    (1) Just because someone chooses an option that you disagree with does not make them evil or headchoppers or Islamofacist.
    Up thread @14, we were reminded of Robert Fisk's report about misdirected, misinformed "freedom fighters" naively wandering around in Syria, while thinking that they were fighting in Palestine. In this ruin of Syria, where the well-intentioned are captured, or co-opted into evil acts against the civilian population, --is it really incumbent upon us, --from where we sit, to agonize over the motives of those who are committing the actual atrocities against the defenseless? What is the point?
    (2) On balance I would rather see Assad continue as leader of Syria but I'm not so naive as to believe he is capable of finding a long term resolution, or that there are not a good number of self interested murderous sadists in his crew. By the same token I don't believe all of those resisting the Ba'athist administration are headchopping jihadists or foreign mercenaries. This war is about 5 years old. If either side were so simplistically good or evil it would have ended a long time ago.

    There is no need for sorting things into absolutes of good and evil. But there is a condition under which fewer, a lot fewer, humans would have died in Syria, Without foreign interference--money, weapons, and training--Assad's government would have won this war quite a while ago.

    Copeland | Sep 12, 2016 4:01:33 PM | 46
    I very much agree with what Demeter wrote @ 14:
    And as for "Islamic Fundamentalism", it is this abnormal form of Islam that is purely based on racism and not the other way around. Islamic fundamentalists call everybody, and I mean everybody, who is not living according to their rule a non-believer, a Takfiri, who does not deserver to live.
    Fundamentalism is never satisfied until it can become a tyranny over the mind. Racism and fundamentalism are as American as apple pie. You have to take a close look at who is pouring oil on this fire!
    Kuma | Sep 12, 2016 4:05:35 PM | 47
    @9
    I disagree with you in that neoliberalism is seriously not difficult to define. It boils down to belief that public programs are bad/'inefficient' and that society would be better served by privatizing many things(or even everything) and opening services up to 'competition'. It's mainly just cover for parasites to come in and get rich off of the masses misery. The 'neoliberalism is just a snarl word' meme is incredibly stupid, since plenty of books and articles have been written explicitly defining it.

    "Having determined your definition of neoliberal, are you sure it WAS neoliberal rather than a hegemonic entity?"

    American economic hegemony is inherently neoliberal, and has been for decades. The IMF is essentially an international loan shark that gives countries money on the condition that they dismantle their public spending apparatus and let the market run things.

    Laguerre | Sep 12, 2016 4:11:58 PM | 48
    I usually enjoy DiD's rants (rant in the nice sense), but in this case he is wrong. His remarks are out of date.

    No doubt he has Syrian friends in NZ, including the Syro-Palestinian he mentions. They will have been living their past vision of Syria for some time. Yes, back in 2011, there was a big vision of a future democratic Syria among the intellectuals. However those who fight for the rebellion are not middle class (who left) but rural Islamist Sunnis, who have a primitive al-Qa'ida style view.

    The Syrian civil war is quite like the Spanish civil war. It started with noble republicans, including foreigners like Orwell, fighting against nasty Franco, but finished with Stalin's communists fighting against Nazi-supported fascists.

    The situation is different now. One Syrian lady, who came to see me in April, who lives in California, told me that her father, who was a big pre-war oppositionist, now just wants to return to Syria to die. There's no question. if you want peace in Syria, Asad is the only choice. The jihadis, who dominate the opposition, don't offer an alternative.

    john | Sep 12, 2016 4:18:12 PM | 50
    james says:

    must be a '''slow''' news day...

    yeah, did you read that the American Imperium bombed 6 Muslim countries last Saturday?

    Laguerre | Sep 12, 2016 4:51:42 PM | 51
    Noirette comes close to identifying one of the issues that kicked off the conflict, that the Syrian government put staying in power via adopting neoliberal strictures ahead of the welfare of Syrians.
    The Ba'thist regime is a mafia of the family, not a dictatorship of Bashshar. Evidently their own interest plays a premier role, but otherwise why not in favour of the Syrian people? There's lot of evidence in favour of Syrian peace.
    fast freddy | Sep 12, 2016 4:53:30 PM | 52
    The lesson of Viet Nam was to keep the dead and wounded off the six o'clock news.

    The jackals are going in. Another coup. Syria was on the list. Remap the Middle East. Make it like Disney World. Israel as Mad King Ludwig's Neuschwanstein.

    Islam and its backward dictates, and Christianity with its backward dictates and Manifest Destiny are problematic.

    Curtis | Sep 12, 2016 7:22:18 PM | 55
    I may be white and I may be a fella but don't believe I'm in the fold as described. Fundamentalists of any sort are free to believe as they will but when they force it on others via gun, govt, societal pressures, violence there's trouble. I've seen comparisons to the extremes from Christianity's past with the excuse of Islam as being in its early years. No excuses. Fundies out. But we don't see that in places like Saudi Arabia or Iran. Facts on the ground rule. Iran had a bit more moderation but only under the tyrant Shah. A majority may have voted for the Islamic Republic and all that entails but what of the minority?
    BTW, where are the stories (links) that show Bashar has embraced neoliberalism? In the end, DiD reduced to pointing to two evils (with multi-facets) and it looks like Assad is the lesser. But who can come up with a solution for a country so divided and so infiltrated by outsiders? And here in the US, look at the choice of future leaders that so many do not want. Where is the one who will lead the US out of its BS? And who will vote for him/her?
    Jen | Sep 12, 2016 7:39:57 PM | 57
    Thanks to B for republishing the comment from Debsisdead. The comment raises some issues about how people generally see the war in Syria, if they know of it, as some sort of real-life video game substitute for bashing one side or another.

    I am not sure though that Debsisdead realises the full import of what s/he has said and that much criticism s/he makes about comments in MoA comments forums could apply equally to what s/he says and has said in the past.

    I don't think anyone who comments here regularly ever assumed that Bashar al Assad was a knight in white shining armour. Most of us are aware of how he came to be President and that his father did rule the country from 1971 to 2000 with an iron fist. Some if not most also know that initially when Bashar al Assad succeeded to the Presidency, he did have a reformist agenda in mind. How well or not he succeeded in putting that across, what compromises he had to make, who or what opposed him, how he negotiated his way between and among various and opposed power structures in Syrian politics we do not know.

    Yes, I have trouble reconciling the fact that Bashar al Assad's government did allow CIA renditioning with his reformist agenda in my own head. That is something he will have to come to terms with in the future. I don't know if Assad was naive, under pressure or willing, even eager in agreeing to cooperate with the CIA, or trying to buy time to prepare for invasion once Iraq was down. Whether Assad also realises that he was duped by the IMF and World Bank in following their advice on economic "reforms" (such as privatising Syria's water) is another thing as well.

    But one thing that Debsisdead has overlooked is the fact that Bashar al Assad is popular among the Syrian public, who returned him as President in multi-candidate direct elections held in June 2014 with at least 88% of the vote (with a turnout of 73%, better than some Western countries) and who confirmed his popularity in parliamentary elections held in April 2016 with his Ba'ath Party-led coalition winning roughly two-thirds of seats.

    The fact that Syrians themselves hold Assad in such high regard must say something about his leadership that has endeared him to them. If as Debsisdead suggests, Assad practises self-interested "realpolitik" like so many other Middle Eastern politicians, even to the extent of offering reconciliation to jihadis who lay down their weapons and surrender, how has he managed to survive and how did Syria manage to hold off the jihadis and US-Turkish intervention and supply before requesting Russian help?

    fairleft | Sep 12, 2016 8:03:18 PM | 59
    Copeland @58: I don't see why you call the problem "Islamic fundamentalism" when in fact it is Sunni fundamentalism. Admittedly it's tough to 'name' the problem. I'm sure I speak for most here that the problem isn't fundamentalism but 'warring imperialist fundamentalist and misogynist Sunni Islam' that is the problem.

    It'd be nice to have a brief and accurate way of saying what this is: 'Saudi Arabia violently exporting its worst form of Islam'.

    Copeland | Sep 12, 2016 8:28:41 PM | 60
    fairleft, @75

    When people refer to Christian fundamentalism they use the broad term as well. Nothing is otherwise wrong with denominational belief, if past a certain point it is not fundamentalist. You say the problem is not fundamentalism, but something else. Indeed, the problem is fundamentalism.

    Manifest Destiny is fundamentalism. There are even atheist fundamentalists. "Full Spectrum Dominance" and other US Military doctrines are fundamentalist in nature. We are awash in fundamentalism, consumerist fundamentalism, capitalist fundamentalism. If we are unlucky and don't succeed in changing the path we are on; then we will understand too late the inscription that appeared in the Temple of Apollo: "Nothing too much".

    Kalen | Sep 12, 2016 8:31:13 PM | 61
    They say that the first casualty of war is truth and from what I read in comments such a mental state prevails among readers, they see Assad, quite reasonably, as the only one who can end this horrible war and the only one who is really interested in doing so while US and even seemingly Russia seems to treat this conflict as a instrument of global geopolitical struggle instigated by US imperial delusions.

    But of course one cannot escape conclusion that although provoked by the CIA operation Bashir Assad failed years befor 2011 exactly because, living in London, did not see neoliberalism as an existential threat ad his father did but a system that has its benefits and can be dealt with, so for a short while Saddam, Gaddafi and Mubarak thought while they were pampered by western elites.

    Now Assad is the only choice I'd Syrians want to keep what would resemble unified Syrian state since nobody else seems to care.

    Another interesting element that was touched upon is attitude to Israel and its US perceived role, but for that one needs deeper background starting from before 1948.
    https://contrarianopinion.wordpress.com/history-revisited/

    Quadriad | Sep 12, 2016 8:42:29 PM | 62
    I have no doubt that Assad was little more than a crude Arab strongman/dictator prince back in the 2011 when the uprising started. Since then, he has evolved into a committed, engaged defender of his country against multilateral foreign aggression, willingly leaving his balls in the vice and all.

    He could have fled the sinking ship many times so far. Instead, he decided to stay and fight the Takfiri river flowing in through the crack, and risk going down with the ship he inherited. The majority of the Syrians know this very well.

    Bashar of 2016 (not so much the one of 5 1/2 years ago) would not only win the next free elections, but destroy any opposition. The aggressors know that as a fact.

    Which is precisely why he "must go" prior to any such elections. He would be invincible.

    redrooster | Sep 12, 2016 9:01:21 PM | 63
    Dear Debs is Dead,

    you wrote:

    "This war is about 5 years old. If either side were so simplistically good or evil it would have ended a long time ago."

    Question to you:

    if Syria had control over its borders with Turkey, Israel, Jordan and Iraq would the war have ended a long time ago ? Answer honestly.

    If yes, then the so-called "opposition" of the union of headchoppers does not represent a significant portion of the Syrian people. Were it otherwise Assad wouldnt be able to survive a single year, let alone 5. With or without foreign help.

    Quadriad | Sep 12, 2016 10:00:23 PM | 65
    #46 FecklessLeft

    And that, my friend, may be the biggest oft ignored cui bono of the entire Syrian war.

    If Assad goes:

    1. Syria falls apart. Western Golan has no more debtor nation to be returned to as far as the UN go. It immediately becomes fee simple property of the occupying entity, for as long as the occupier shall exist (and, with Western Golan included, that might be a bit longer perchance...).
    2. Hizbullah loses both its best supply line and all the strategic depth it might have as well as the only ally anywhere close enough to help. It becomes a military non-entity. Who benefits?

    I think this cui bono (and a double one at that!) is a $100 difficulty level question, although it feels like a $64k one.

    Bill Hicks | Sep 12, 2016 10:31:21 PM | 66
    Best opinion post I've yet read on this site. "Binary division," also very much affects the U.S. election. If you hate Hillary, you must just LOVE Trump, even though many of the best reasons to hate her--her arrogance, her incompetence, her phoniness, her lies, her and Bill's relentless acquisition of great wealth, etc.--are also reasons to hate Trump. Assad is a bastard, Putin is a bastard, Saddam was a bastard--but so are Obama, Netanyahu, Hollande, etc. Is it REALLY that hard to figure out?
    james | Sep 12, 2016 11:09:45 PM | 67
    @ 62 john... we'll have to wait for debs to explain how all that (in your link) adds up, so long as no one calls him any name/s.... i'd like to say 'the anticipation of debs commenting again is killing me', but regardless, killing innocent people in faraway lands thanks usa foreign policy is ongoing..
    Jen | Sep 13, 2016 1:17:04 AM | 71
    OK here is an interesting article from 2011 on Abdallah Dardari, the fellow who persuaded Bashar al Assad to adopt the disastrous neoliberal economic reforms that not only ruined Syria's economy and the country's agriculture in particular but also created an underclass who resented the reforms and who initially joined the "rebels".
    http://english.al-akhbar.com/node/2097

    And where is Dardari now? He jumped ship in 2011 and went to Beirut to work for the UN's Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (ESCWA). He seems like someone to keep a watchful eye on.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdullah_Dardari

    the pair | Sep 13, 2016 2:12:09 AM | 72
    not even sure where to begin...this article is barely worthy of a random facebook post and contains a roughly even mix of straw men and stuff most people already know and don't need dictated to them by random internet folks.

    of COURSE assad flirted with the west. between housing cia rendition houses and the less-than-flattering aspects of the wikileaks "syria files", assad and/or his handlers (family and/or military) have tried a little too hard to "assimilate" to western ideals (or the lack thereof).

    i seriously doubt they will make that mistake again. they saw what happened to al-qaddafi after he tried to play nice and mistook western politicians for human beings. they've learned their lesson and become more ruthless but they were always machiavellians because they have to be. not an endorsement, just an acceptance of how the region is.

    and then there's "just about every ME leader has put expedience ahead of principle with regard to Palestine. Colonel Ghadaffi would be the only leader I'm aware of who didn't". that might be a surprise to nasrallah and a fair share of iran's power base. i'd also say "expedience" is an odd way to describe the simple choice of avoiding israeli/saudi/US aggression in the short term since the alternative would be what we're seeing in syria and libya as we speak. again, not an endorsment of their relative cowardice. just saying i understand the urge to avoid salfist proxy wars.

    [also: israel, the saudis (along with qatar and the other GCC psychopaths in supporting capacity) and the US are the main actors and throwing european "powers" into the circle of actual power does them an undue favor by ignoring their status as pathetic vassal states. "FrUkDeUSZiowhatever" isn't necessary.]

    as for "calling all islamic fundamentalism" "headchopping" being "racist", be sure not to smoke around all those straw men. never mind the inanity of pretending that all islamic "fundamentalism" is the same. never mind conflating religion with ethnicity. outside of typical western sites that lean to the right and are open about it few people would say anything like that. maybe you meant to post this on glenn beck's site?

    whatever. hopefully there won't be more guest posts in the future.

    bigmango | Sep 13, 2016 2:20:54 AM | 73
    I read this site regularly and give thanks to the numerous intelligent posters who share their knowledge of the middle east and Syria in particular. Still, I do try to read alternative views to understand opposition perspectives no matter how biased or damaging these might they appear to the readers of this blog. So in the wake of recent agreements, I try find out what the mainstream media is saying about the Ahrar al-Sham refusal to recognize the US/Russia sponsored peace plan....and type that into google.......and crickets. All that comes up is a single Al-Masdar report.

    Look I know the MSM is utterly controlled - but the extent of that control still shocks at times. It is simply not possible to be "informed" by any normal definition of the word anymore without the alternative media - and for that reason this site serves a valuable purpose and I once again thank the host and contributors.

    Harry | Sep 13, 2016 2:28:44 AM | 74
    The irony is, Assad is 10x smarter and bigger person than Debs. Yes, he made some mistakes, but if not "flirting with neoliberalism", war against Syria would have started many years earlier, when Resistance wasnt ready one bit (neither Russia, nor Iran, while on the other hand US was more powerful).

    The other ironic point, Debs is guilty of many things he blames other for, hence comments about his hypocrisy and lack of self-awareness.

    FecklessLeft | Sep 13, 2016 3:11:57 AM | 77
    The essay I refered to earlier at 45/46 from this site I'll post below. I think it has a lot of bearing on what DiD is implying here. It's DEFINITELY worth a read and is probably the reason why I started appreciating this site in the first place.

    Support for rebel groups was misguided at best at the beginning of the war. One could conceivably not appreciate the capacity of the KSA/USA/Quatar/Israel to influence and control and create these groups. Jesus it's hard for me to think of a single local opposition group that isnt drenched in fanaticism besides the Kurds. But now that we understand the makeup and texture of these groups much more and to continue support, even just in the most minor of ways, is really disheartening.

    There's no way to a solution for the Syrian people, the population not imported that is, if these groups win. I hate to be so binary but its so naive in my eyes to think anything good will come from the long arm of the gulf countries and the USA taking control.

    WORTH A READ. ONE OF THE BEST THINGS EVER POSTED ON MoA.

    http://www.moonofalabama.org/2013/05/syria-the-feckless-left-.html

    Richard Steven Hack | Sep 13, 2016 3:38:32 AM | 79
    The problem with this post is simple: all this might have been true back when the insurgency STARTED. TODAY it is UTTERLY IRRELEVANT.

    As I've said repeatedly, the GOAL of the Syria crisis for the Western elites, Israel and the ME dictatorships is to take Syria OUT by any means necessary in order to get to IRAN. Nothing else matters to these people. In the same vein, nothing else matters to ninety percent of the CURRENT insurgents than to establish some Salafist state, exterminate the Shia, etc., etc.

    So, yes, right NOW the whole story is about US elites, Zionist "evil", corrupt monarchs, and scumbag fanatics, etc., etc. Until THAT is resolved, nothing about how Syria is being run is going to matter.

    I don't know and have never read ANYONE who is a serious commenter on this issue - and by that I mean NOT the trolls that infest every comment thread on every blog - who seriously thinks Assad is a "decent ruler". At this point it does not matter. He personally does not matter. What matters is that Syria is not destroyed, so that Hizballah is not destroyed, so that Iran is not destroyed, so that Israel rules a fragmented Middle East and eventually destroys the Palestinians and that the US gets all the oil for free. This is what Russia is trying to defend, not Assad.

    And if this leaves a certain percentage of Syrian citizens screwed over by Assad, well, they should have figured that out as much as Assad should have figured out that he never should have tried to get along with the US.

    Frankly, this is a pointless post which is WAY out of date.

    somebody | Sep 13, 2016 5:07:06 AM | 80
    Posted by: Richard Steven Hack | Sep 13, 2016 3:38:32 AM | 79

    In the same vein, nothing else matters to ninety percent of the CURRENT insurgents than to establish some Salafist state, exterminate the Shia, etc., etc.

    This obviously is not the case. A recent take of the BBC with some real information on the realities of the war .

    "We had to be fighters," he said, "because we didn't find any other job. If you want to stay inside you need to be a part of the FSA [Free Syrian Army, the group that has closest relations with the West]. Everything is very expensive. They pay us $100 a month but it is not enough.

    "All this war is a lie. We had good lives before the revolution. Anyway this is not a revolution. They lied to us in the name of religion.

    "I don't want to go on fighting but I need to find a job, a house. Everything I have is here in Muadhamiya."

    Hoarsewhisperer | Sep 13, 2016 5:18:29 AM | 81
    ...
    .. who seriously thinks Assad is a "decent ruler". At this point it does not matter. He personally does not matter.
    ...
    Frankly, this is a pointless post which is WAY out of date.
    Posted by: Richard Steven Hack | Sep 13, 2016 3:38:32 AM | 79

    Well, according to RSH, who specialises in being wrong...

    Assad does matter because he is the ELECTED leader chosen by the People of Syria in MORE THAN ONE election.
    Did you forget?
    Did you not know?
    Or doesn't any of that "democracy" stuff matter either?

    AtaBrit | Sep 13, 2016 5:24:44 AM | 82
    @TG | 20

    "It continues to annoy me that the primary trigger ..."
    And yet you fail to mention the Muslim Brotherhood or the Turkish water wars ...

    okie farmer | Sep 13, 2016 6:34:41 AM | 84
    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-israel-syria-idUSKCN11J0EY

    Israel said its aircraft attacked a Syrian army position on Tuesday after a stray mortar bomb struck the Israeli-controlled Golan Heights, and it denied a Syrian statement that a warplane and drone were shot down.

    The air strike was a now-routine Israeli response to the occasional spillover from fighting in a five-year-old civil war, and across Syria a ceasefire was holding at the start of its second day.

    Syria's army command said in a statement that Israeli warplanes had attacked an army position at 1 a.m. on Tuesday (2200 GMT, Monday) in the countryside of Quneitra province.

    The Israeli military said its aircraft attacked targets in Syria hours after the mortar bomb from fighting among factions in Syria struck the Golan Heights. Israel captured the plateau from Syria in a 1967 war.

    The Syrian army said it had shot down an Israeli warplane and a drone after the Israeli attack.

    Denying any of its aircraft had been lost, the Israeli military said in a statement: "Overnight two surface-to-air missiles were launched from Syria after the mission to target Syrian artillery positions. At no point was the safety of (Israeli) aircraft compromised."

    The seven-day truce in Syria, brokered by Russia and the United States, is their second attempt this year by to halt the bloodshed.

    fairleft | Sep 13, 2016 9:33:38 AM | 89
    Copeland @60: No, I don't think the problem is fundamentalism. It's the warring crusade method of spreading a belief's 'empire' that is the problem. This is a problem uniquely of the Saudi 'do whatever it takes' crusade to convert the entire 'Arab and Muslim world' to their worst, most misogynist form of Islam. T

    here are of course many fundamentalists (the Amish and some Mennonites are examples from Christianity) that are not evangelical, or put severe (no violence, no manipulation, no kidnapping, stop pushing if the person says 'no') limits on their evangelism.

    Only the Saudis, or pushers of their version of Islam, seem to put no limits at all on their sect's crusade.

    brian | Sep 13, 2016 9:55:45 AM | 90
    president Assad is a 'decent ruler' and thats the view of most syrians
    papillonweb | Sep 13, 2016 10:01:56 AM | 92
    Just want to mention that from the beginning there were people who took up arms against the government. This is why the situation went out of control. People ambushed groups of young soldiers. Snipers of unknown origin fired on police and civilians.

    There are plenty of people in the United States right now who are just as oppressed - I would wager more so - than anyone in Syria. Immigrants from the south are treated horribly here. There are still black enclaves in large cities where young men are shot by the police on a daily basis for suspicious behavior and minor driving infractions. And then there are the disenfranchised white folks in the Teaparty who belong to the NRA and insist on 'open carry' of their weapons on the street and train in the back woods for a coming war. Tell me what would happen if there were a guarantor these people found believable who promised them that if they took up arms against the government (and anyone else in the country they felt threatened by) they would be guaranteed to win and become the government of a 'New America'. What if that foreign guarantor were to pay them and improve their armaments while providing political cover.

    I rather like Assad. I won't lie. But, he is not the reason for the insurrection in Syria ~ well, except for his alliances with Russia and Iran and his pipeline decisions and his support for Palestinian and Iraqi refugees. What happened in Syria is happening all over the globe because the nation with the most resources in the world, the self-declared exceptionalist state thinks this is the way to rule the world. . . . because they want to rule and they don't care how much destruction it takes to do so. And lucky for us there is no one big enough and bad enough to do it to us - except for our own government.

    TheRealDonald | Sep 13, 2016 10:08:27 AM | 93
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/un-condemns-assad-syria-abuse_us_57d7c49ce4b0fbd4b7bb50d8?section=&

    Now look what you've done, Debs.

    On to Sebastopol for the One Party!

    fairleft | Sep 13, 2016 10:25:10 AM | 94
    OT, but that was an interesting Sunni Islam conference in Grozny , because it excluded and then 'excommunicated' Salafism and Wahabbism. Amazing!

    "All of the petrodollars Saudi Arabia spends to advance this claim of leadership and the monopolistic use of Islam's greatest holy sites to manufacture a claim of entitlement to Muslim leadership were shattered by this collective revolt from leading Sunni Muslim scholars and institutions who refused to allow extremism, takfir, and terror ideology to be legitimized in their name by a fringe they decided that it is even not part of their community. This is the beginning of a new era of Muslim awakening the Wahhabis spared no efforts and no precious resources to ensure it will never arrive."

    okie farmer | Sep 13, 2016 11:04:04 AM | 96
    Josh Landis Syria Comment
    There were a lot of people posting how Bashar al Assad was doing full neoliberalism. And at was true.
    Noirette | Sep 13, 2016 12:25:52 PM | 99
    Assad (=> group in power), whose stated aim was to pass from a 'socialist' to a 'market' economy. Notes.
    • *decreased public sector employment.* -- was about 30%, went far lower (1) - was a staple: one 'smart' graduate in the family guaranteed a good Gvmt job, could support many.
    • *cut subsidies* (energy, water, housing, food, etc.) drought (2005>) plus these moves threw millions into cities with no jobs.. pre-drought about 20% agri empl. cuts to agri subsidies created the most disruption.
    • …imho was spurred by the sharply declining oil revenues (peak oil..) which accounted for ?, 15% GDP in 2002 for ex to a few slim points edging to nil in 2012, consequences:

    > a. unemployment rose 'n rose (to 35-40% youth? xyz overall?), and social stability was affected by family/extended f/ district etc. organisation being smashed. education health care in poor regions suffered (2)

    > b. small biz of various types went under becos loss of subs, competition from outsiders (free market policy), lack of bank loans it is said by some but idk, and loss of clients as these became impoverished. Syria does not have a national (afaik) unemployment scheme. Assad to his credit set up a cash-transfer thingie to poor families, but that is not a subsitute for 'growing employment..'

    *opened up the country's banking system* (can't treat the details..)

    So Assad was hit by a Tri-horror: global warming, dwindling cash FF resources, and IMF-type pressure, leaving out the trad. enemies, KSA, pipelines , etc. MSM prefer to cover up serious issues with 'ethnic strife' (sunni, shia, black lives matter, etc.)

    1. all nos off the top of my head.

    2. Acceptance of a massive refugee pop. (Pals in the past, Kurds, but numerically important now, Iraqis) plus the high birth rate

    2011> 10 year plan syria in arabic (which i can't read) but look at images and 'supporters' etc.

    http://www.planning.gov.sy/index.php?page=show&ex=2&dir=docs&lang=2&ser=2&cat=172&

    [Sep 14, 2016] The story of Chile s popular, and democratic rejection of government by oligarchs is today s must-read, and provides unsettling similarities to current events

    Highly recommended!
    Notable quotes:
    "... This phenomenon has been termed the "resource curse." It consists of multiple elements, all bad. ..."
    "... The curse is mostly the result of having powerful and rapacious neighbors with no compunction but to use whatever means necessary to install a 'friendly' government willing to repress its own people in order to allow the theft of their 'resources'. ..."
    "... As for Chile's governing elite, they wore the comfortable version of the "copper collar', the one made of money as opposed to chains, and so paid-off, lived in wealth and comfort so long as they kept their countrymen from doing anything that Anaconda copper didn't like. ..."
    "... Superb stuff, especially "monopolistic control of commodity markets", supply and demand pressures on wheat and oil and copper have mostly faded to insignificance with hyper-leveraged commodities markets and supine (complicit) regulators. ..."
    "... See: oil going to $140 not so many years ago despite building supply and weak demand. Goldman famously decided commodities were an "asset class" in 2003 and completely f*cked up these critical price signals for the world economy. ..."
    "... Oh, right, our precious middlemen call it "sequestration" and "arbitrage". There's a million pounds of aluminum in the Mexican desert that calls bullshit on your claim. Any more self-absorbed theology you would like to discuss this fine Monday? ..."
    "... The terrible legacy of the Pinochet years were also done by the "Chicago boys" who were hired to run the government. In their hate of the people and the embrace of neoliberal capitalism, they did something much worse: they changed the Constitution of the country so that undoing all their hateful legislation would be near impossible to override. When you hear of Student Protests in Chile – they are still fighting to undo the terrible legacy. ..."
    "... What was Allende's Socialist party's policies, were they Nordic-style Social Democracy? I still am not sure if there is a meaningful ideological difference between Nordic Social Democracy, & Latin American "Socialism of the 21st Century" in Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia. ..."
    "... Perhaps the Nordics have a special secret deal with Murica & the US Imperial MIC: go along with the US Imperial foreign policy, & don't loudly promote your Social Democratic system, to anyone but especially not to nonwhite nations; & in turn we won't falsely slander you as Commie Dictators as we do any other nation attempting Social Democracy. ..."
    Sep 14, 2016 | September 12, 2016 at 8:58 am
    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    The story of Chile's popular, and democratic rejection of government by oligarchs is today's must-read, and provides unsettling similarities to current events, most strikingly in my estimation, recently in Venezuela.

    The Popular Unity government enjoyed promising successes during its first year in power. Domestic production spiked in 1971, leading to a GDP growth rate of almost 9 percent. Unemployment fell from 7 percent to below 3 percent, and wages increased dramatically, particularly for the lowest earners. Allende's land reform program - along with intensified popular attacks on large, unproductive landholdings - led to near record harvests and a new abundance of food for the poor.

    Of course no good deed goes unpunished by oligarchs.

    On the other hand, Chilean elites also pursued a more top-down strategy in their effort to bring the economy to its knees. Objecting to government-mandated price controls and export restrictions, powerful business interests took to hoarding consumer essentials, secretly warehousing enormous quantities of basic goods only to let them spoil as avoidable food shortages rocked the nation.

    And of course there's the USA's never-ending efforts to spread peace and democracy.

    Meanwhile, in Washington, President Nixon was making good on his promise to "make Chile's economy scream." He called for an end to all US assistance to the Allende government, and instructed US officials to use their "predominant position in international financial institutions to dry up the flow" of international credit to Chile.

    And finally a sobering reminder, that in the end, if they can't beat you at the polls, they are not above putting and end to you altogether.

    Deeply committed to maintaining the legality of the revolutionary process, the UP government sought to slow the pace of radical democratic reforms at the grassroots in a misguided effort to avoid a putsch, or the outbreak of open civil war. In the end, this error proved fatal - an armed popular base, exercising direct control over its communities and workplaces, could have been an invaluable line of defense for the Allende administration, as well as for its broader goal of total societal transformation.

    Because, with friends like these ;

    When Henry Kissinger began secretly taping all of his phone conversations in 1969, little did he know that he was giving history the gift that keeps on giving. Now, on the 35th anniversary of the September 11, 1973, CIA-backed military coup in Chile, phone transcripts that Kissinger made of his talks with President Nixon and the CIA chief among other top government officials reveal in the most candid of language the imperial mindset of the Nixon administration as it began plotting to overthrow President Salvador Allende, the world's first democratically elected Socialist. "We will not let Chile go down the drain," Kissinger told CIA director Richard Helms in a phone call following Allende's narrow election on September 4, 1970, according to a recently declassified transcript. "I am with you," Helms responded.

    9/11 means different things to different people.

    RabidGandhi , September 12, 2016 at 9:26 am

    The comparison with Venezuela is hugely important, especially with regard to the suppliers boycot, where the Venezuelan opposition seem to be directly copying the Chilean playbook. Even so, there is another aspect that should be of greater concern. Chile stands out for its reliance on mining, especially copper. By failing in his bid to diversify the Chilean economy, Allende left his country vulnerable to the fluctuations of the global economy and the whims of first world importers.

    If memory serves, in 1973 mining represented around ~25% of the Chilean economy. Venezuela, by contrast, now has 45% of its GDP tied up in oil exports. The only fact that should be surprising, then, is that the Bolivarian governments have lasted as long as they have; perhaps a testament to the sweeping social improvements that have won them a mass-supported bulwark against constant right wing assaults. Even so, with the economy undiversified, that bulwark will only hold out for so long.

    Jim Haygood , September 12, 2016 at 11:50 am

    This phenomenon has been termed the "resource curse." It consists of multiple elements, all bad.

    For one, the ability to produce a commodity at the world's lowest price reduces the incentive to diversify one's economy. In an extreme case like Saudi Arabia, even the workers hired to produce the oil are mostly foreign, leaving domestic workers unskilled and idle.

    Second, contrary to the belief early in the industrial revolution that commodity prices would be driven up by scarcity, in fact technological improvement has more than counterbalanced scarcity to keep commodity prices flat to down in real terms.

    Finally, as every commodity trader knows, the stylized secular chart pattern of any commodity is a sharp spike owing to a shortage, followed by a long (as in decades) bowl produced by excessive capacity brought online in the wake of the shortage.

    Governments, not adept at realizing that commodity price spikes are not sustainable, accumulate fixed costs during the boom years and then get crunched in the subsequent price crash.

    Alejandro , September 12, 2016 at 1:36 pm

    Is this suppose to explain what happened in Chile in 1973? Catallactics, ushered in AND imposed via a brutal military dictatorship, yet fail to recognize the contradiction in the so-called "effects of violent intervention with the market"

    Watt4Bob , September 12, 2016 at 4:21 pm

    This phenomenon has been termed the "resource curse." It consists of multiple elements, all bad.

    The curse is mostly the result of having powerful and rapacious neighbors with no compunction but to use whatever means necessary to install a 'friendly' government willing to repress its own people in order to allow the theft of their 'resources'.

    For one, the ability to produce a commodity at the world's lowest price reduces the incentive to diversify one's economy.

    It was not the people of Chile, who profited by the "ability to produce a commodity at the world's lowest price" and so cannot be blamed for the inability to diversify their economy.

    As for Chile's governing elite, they wore the comfortable version of the "copper collar', the one made of money as opposed to chains, and so paid-off, lived in wealth and comfort so long as they kept their countrymen from doing anything that Anaconda copper didn't like.

    In an extreme case like Saudi Arabia, even the workers hired to produce the oil are mostly foreign, leaving domestic workers unskilled and idle.

    The extreme case of Saudi Arabia is a direct result of the hegemonic tactics just described, install a government 'friendly' to American 'interests' in this case the House of Saud, and make them so fabulously wealthy that there is no questioning their loyalty, until it becomes questionable

    Second, contrary to the belief early in the industrial revolution that commodity prices would be driven up by scarcity, in fact technological improvement has more than counterbalanced scarcity to keep commodity prices flat to down in real terms.

    Finally, as every commodity trader knows, the stylized secular chart pattern of any commodity is a sharp spike owing to a shortage, followed by a long (as in decades) bowl produced by excessive capacity brought online in the wake of the shortage.

    Until finally, after the inevitable effect of monopolistic control of commodity 'markets' and the corrupting influence of corporate power destroy the working man's earning potential, and by extension his purchasing power, and so extinguishes 'demand'.

    Governments, not adept at realizing that commodity price spikes are not sustainable, accumulate fixed costs during the boom years and then get crunched in the subsequent price crash.

    It was not the Chilean government who concerned themselves with sustainability, as they were paid not to, and the corporations who made all the money didn't give a damn either.

    It should be easy to understand the logic, and necessity of voting out the ruling elite who were very good at lining their own pockets, but not so good at planning for their people's well-being.
    The Chilean people grew tired of rule by greedy people bought-off by American corporations, and elected a socialist government in an effort to remedy the situation.

    For their troubles, they were treated to a violent coup with thousands killed, tortured and disappeared.

    And finally, it appears that you think this is all the 'natural' operation of 'markets'?

    OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL , September 12, 2016 at 5:26 pm

    Superb stuff, especially "monopolistic control of commodity markets", supply and demand pressures on wheat and oil and copper have mostly faded to insignificance with hyper-leveraged commodities markets and supine (complicit) regulators.

    See: oil going to $140 not so many years ago despite building supply and weak demand. Goldman famously decided commodities were an "asset class" in 2003 and completely f*cked up these critical price signals for the world economy.

    Katniss Everdeen , September 12, 2016 at 9:27 am

    " . an armed popular base, exercising direct control over its communities and workplaces, could have been an invaluable line of defense for the Allende administration, as well as for its broader goal of total societal transformation."

    "Those who do not learn history" are condemned to being exploited and controlled by those who do.

    Jim Haygood , September 12, 2016 at 11:40 am

    'Objecting to government-mandated price controls and export restrictions, powerful business interests took to hoarding consumer essentials.'

    Businesses don't exist for the purpose of "hoarding." But if mandated prices are set below cost, of course goods will not be sold at a loss. Blaming the victims instead of the price controllers is like blaming a murder victim for "getting in the way of my bullet."

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef , September 12, 2016 at 5:10 pm

    Goods perhaps, but not labor. If mandated prices (for labor) are set below cost, serfs will still sell their labor. For example, any soldier who never came back from Iraq obviously under-priced his labor.

    hunkerdown , September 12, 2016 at 5:36 pm

    Businesses don't exist for the purpose of "hoarding."

    Oh, right, our precious middlemen call it "sequestration" and "arbitrage". There's a million pounds of aluminum in the Mexican desert that calls bullshit on your claim. Any more self-absorbed theology you would like to discuss this fine Monday?

    afisher , September 12, 2016 at 12:30 pm

    The terrible legacy of the Pinochet years were also done by the "Chicago boys" who were hired to run the government. In their hate of the people and the embrace of neoliberal capitalism, they did something much worse: they changed the Constitution of the country so that undoing all their hateful legislation would be near impossible to override. When you hear of Student Protests in Chile – they are still fighting to undo the terrible legacy.

    Sidenote: US has one of the Chicago Boys, entrenched at the Cato Institute.

    pretzelattack , September 12, 2016 at 1:03 pm

    yeah the chicago austerity mongers, and kissinger. guess who takes advice from kissinger, and pushes neoliberal economic policies. the democrats used to be opposed to that sort of thing, at least in public.

    ProNewerDeal , September 12, 2016 at 5:40 pm

    What was Allende's Socialist party's policies, were they Nordic-style Social Democracy? I still am not sure if there is a meaningful ideological difference between Nordic Social Democracy, & Latin American "Socialism of the 21st Century" in Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia.

    Norway & Venezuela both have a state-owned oil company, the profits of which are actually used to help their citizens, specifically in education & health funding. Yet the likes of 0bama/Bush43 praise Norway & slam Venezuela.

    Allende was even a full White Guy TM like the Nordics, albeit not blond-hair blue eyes like some Nordics. I suspected this was perhaps an important reason the likes of 0bama/Bush43 praises the Nordic nations while labeling the part-Native American &/or Black Venezuelan/Ecuador/Bolivian Presidents as being "Commie" "Dictators".

    Perhaps the Nordics have a special secret deal with Murica & the US Imperial MIC: go along with the US Imperial foreign policy, & don't loudly promote your Social Democratic system, to anyone but especially not to nonwhite nations; & in turn we won't falsely slander you as Commie Dictators as we do any other nation attempting Social Democracy.

    [Sep 14, 2016] Hillary Is Not Sorry

    Clinton is neither well-liked nor trusted. She is just a marionette promoted by neocon cabal. Sanders team has a point that Clinton is like the job candidate wit the impressive resume who sounds great on paper, but then when you meet her in person, you realize she's not he right person for the job.
    Notable quotes:
    "... She has never acknowledged, maybe even to herself, that routing diplomatic emails with classified information through a homebrew server was an outrageous, reckless and foolish thing to do, and disloyal to Obama, whose administration put in place rules for record-keeping that she flouted. ..."
    "... And Hillary did not merely fail the ask the right questions. The questions were asked and the answers were given. Joe Biden, Robert Gates and much of the military and intelligence communities advised against the Libya intervention. Hillary just chose to ignore the advice, because she is a radical neoconservative at heart. ..."
    "... She volunteered that that the United States should continue to "look for missions" that NATO will support ..."
    "... She vows to go around looking for new military adventures. ..."
    "... Maureen is right that Hillary has huge character problems. Sure, she can't admit mistakes and compulsively blames others when things go wrong. That's a given. But it's not the biggest problem. The biggest problem is that she will take our country down the wrong path, both in terms of domestic and foreign policy. ..."
    "... She has had 40-some years to develop this kind of judgment, imagination and long term reflection, and she has proudly, aggressively, mean-spiritedly run the opposite direction every time and viciously attacked anyone who called her on it. It's time to stop this game of "wondering" whether she can change, wondering whether all of these terrible moments were "the real Hillary" or not. They were. Voting someone in as President on the hope that they will be a completely different person once in office then they have been in 40 years is the definition of insanity. ..."
    "... it's about her paranoia about secrecy that made her think she could get away with a private email server in one of the nation's most high-profile jobs, or taking huge sums of money for Wall Street speeches she now refuses to release, or doubling-down on her ill-considered, if not ill-informed (as you note), hawkish regime change views by advocating for it again in Libya that has, as a result, turned into an ISIS outpost. ..."
    "... Clinton did herself no favors in the debate, drawing even more attention to her dependence on that money and the impossibility of being completely free to make policy without repaying debts. ..."
    "... They don't, but it is telling that Bill said that. His chosen exaggeration displays who he sees as Hillary's side in this. When he says, "they are coming for us" he means Wall Street. ..."
    "... "Clinton, who talked Obama into it" on Libya and claimed credit, but when it went poorly, she blamed Obama for listening to her, "On Libya, she noted that "the decision was the president's."" That is her claim to experience, and not something we ought to vote to experience again. ..."
    "... Hillary is a self-serving, power hungry politician. She is only ever sorry if she fails to get what she wants, or is forced to explain her actions. She feels she is above "the masses." As for her qualifications, job titles alone don't cut it. What did she actually accomplish as a Senator or SecState? Any major laws? Treaties? No. She failed with Russia, Syria and Libya to name just a few. She is not qualified to be president based on qualifications and personality. ..."
    Apr 16, 2016 | The New York Times

    ... Clinton sowed suspicion again, refusing to cough up her Wall Street speech transcripts.

    ... ... ...

    Hillary alternately tried to blame and hug the men in her life, divvying up credit in a self-serving way.

    After showing some remorse for the 1994 crime bill, saying it had had "unintended" consequences, she stressed that her husband "was the president who actually signed it." On Libya, she noted that "the decision was the president's." And on her desire to train and arm Syrian rebels, she recalled, "The president said no."

    But she wrapped herself in President Obama's record on climate change and, when criticized on her "super PACs," said, well, Obama did it, too.

    Sanders accused her of pandering to Israel after she said that "if Yasir Arafat had agreed with my husband at Camp David," there would have been a Palestinian state for 15 years.

    Bernie is right that Hillary's judgment has often been faulty.

    She has shown an unwillingness to be introspective and learn from her mistakes. From health care to Iraq to the email server, she only apologizes at the point of a gun. And even then, she leaves the impression that she is merely sorry to be facing criticism, not that she miscalculated in the first place.

    ... ... ...

    She has never acknowledged, maybe even to herself, that routing diplomatic emails with classified information through a homebrew server was an outrageous, reckless and foolish thing to do, and disloyal to Obama, whose administration put in place rules for record-keeping that she flouted.

    Advertisement Continue reading the main story Wouldn't it be a relief to people if Hillary just acknowledged some mistakes?

    ... ... ...

    Clinton accused Sanders of not doing his homework on how he would break up the banks. And she is the queen of homework, always impressively well versed in meetings. But that is what makes her failure to read the National Intelligence Estimate that raised doubts about whether Iraq posed a threat to the U.S. so egregious.

    P. Greenberg El Cerrito, CA

    Maureen Dowd fundamentally misunderstands Hillary Clinton's foreign policy failings. When it comes to Libya, Clinton does not merely need to apologize for getting distracted by other global issues and "taking her eye off the ball". The decision to go in was wrong, not the failure to follow through.

    And Hillary did not merely fail the ask the right questions. The questions were asked and the answers were given. Joe Biden, Robert Gates and much of the military and intelligence communities advised against the Libya intervention. Hillary just chose to ignore the advice, because she is a radical neoconservative at heart.

    Clinton continues to adhere to the neoconservative approach to foreign policy. Her choice of words during the Brooklyn debate were significant. She volunteered that that the United States should continue to "look for missions" that NATO will support. That says it all. She vows to go around looking for new military adventures.

    Maureen is right that Hillary has huge character problems. Sure, she can't admit mistakes and compulsively blames others when things go wrong. That's a given. But it's not the biggest problem. The biggest problem is that she will take our country down the wrong path, both in terms of domestic and foreign policy.

    And please Maureen, stop denigrating Bernie Sanders with pejorative adjectives and vague accusations. He has held elective office for 35 years, showing leadership and good judgment and good values.

    Brett Morris California,

    She has had 40-some years to develop this kind of judgment, imagination and long term reflection, and she has proudly, aggressively, mean-spiritedly run the opposite direction every time and viciously attacked anyone who called her on it. It's time to stop this game of "wondering" whether she can change, wondering whether all of these terrible moments were "the real Hillary" or not. They were. Voting someone in as President on the hope that they will be a completely different person once in office then they have been in 40 years is the definition of insanity.

    That said, of course she is better than the republicans. But she is the worst possible candidate for the Democratic Party, especially in this era where we have a serious opportunity to turn away from Reagan's Overton Window. And right now we actually have a candidate available who represents our best ideas. Can't we just ditch her while we have the chance? If she gets elected, more war is absolutely guaranteed. A one-term Presidency is also highly likely, because nobody will be on her side. She loses trust and support the more she exposes herself, every time.

    Paul Long island

    I agree when you say of Hillary Clinton, "She has shown an unwillingness to be introspective and learn from her mistakes." That is only part of her problem because her judgment seems always wrong, despite all the "listening tours," whether it's about her paranoia about secrecy that made her think she could get away with a private email server in one of the nation's most high-profile jobs, or taking huge sums of money for Wall Street speeches she now refuses to release, or doubling-down on her ill-considered, if not ill-informed (as you note), hawkish regime change views by advocating for it again in Libya that has, as a result, turned into an ISIS outpost. To say she's "sorry" would only confirm her consistently bad judgment since she has so much to be sorry about. So, what we have instead is a very "sorry" candidate who, despite her resume and establishment backing, is having immense trouble overcoming "a choleric 74-year-old democratic socialist" and will have an even harder time if she's the Democratic nominee in November.

    Rima Regas is a trusted commenter Mission Viejo, CA

    Hillary isn't sorry. Bill is definitely not sorry. Bernie Sanders isn't a senator with few accomplishments.

    Hillary isn't sorry about anything. She hasn't apologized for the superpredator comment. Saying she wouldn't say it now is hardly an apology and during Thursday's debate, she talked about her husband apologizing for it instead of talking about herself (since that was what she was being asked to do), when Bill has yet to apologize. (Clips here: http://wp.me/p2KJ3H-2bw) If anything, he doubled down on defending her and himself. When it comes to mass-incarceration, they both exhibit a kind of moral absenteeism. http://wp.me/p2KJ3H-2b7

    On money in politics, Clinton did herself no favors in the debate, drawing even more attention to her dependence on that money and the impossibility of being completely free to make policy without repaying debts. Debbie Wasserman Schultz was no help to her this week when in an answer, she included big money in the "Big Tent" that the democratic party is supposed to be. http://wp.me/p2KJ3H-2bO

    During his entire tenure in both houses of Congress, Sanders has distinguished himself as one who can work with the other side, propose legislation gets things done through amendments. There is a yuuuge difference in approach between Clinton and Sanders and the willingness to trust Sanders over Clinton. When the choice in front of Americans becomes Trump versus Clinton or Sanders, Sanders wins by a wider margin. Sanders will take more from Trump.

    Mark Thomason is a trusted commenter Clawson, Mich

    So Bill claimed Bernie supporters think, "Just shoot every third person on Wall Street and everything will be fine."

    They don't, but it is telling that Bill said that. His chosen exaggeration displays who he sees as Hillary's side in this. When he says, "they are coming for us" he means Wall Street.

    "Clinton, who talked Obama into it" on Libya and claimed credit, but when it went poorly, she blamed Obama for listening to her, "On Libya, she noted that "the decision was the president's.""

    That is her claim to experience, and not something we ought to vote to experience again.

    That is important, because she still wants to sink us deeper into it. Her own adviser on this says, Hillary "does not see the Libya intervention as a failure, but as a work in progress."

    "Like other decisions, it was put through a political filter and a paranoid mind-set." That is the essence of what makes Hillary so dangerous in a responsible office. From Iraq in the beginning to Libya now, the homework lady did all her work and then saw the wrong things and got it wrong.

    Joe Pike Gotham City

    Hillary is a self-serving, power hungry politician. She is only ever sorry if she fails to get what she wants, or is forced to explain her actions. She feels she is above "the masses." As for her qualifications, job titles alone don't cut it. What did she actually accomplish as a Senator or SecState? Any major laws? Treaties? No. She failed with Russia, Syria and Libya to name just a few. She is not qualified to be president based on qualifications and personality.

    [Sep 14, 2016] WaPo neocons Russians poison Hillary dezo is a sign of necons desperation

    Notable quotes:
    "... Nevertheless, the ludicrous Washington Post, beloved rag of the neocons who have now flocked to Clinton's campaign, have seen fit to run the story above, which has even less evidential backing than the typical Enquirer or Prison Planet piece. ..."
    "... I don't care about Clinton's swoon and its various medical causes. ..."
    "... What I do care about is that the Washington Post is publishing crackpot paranoid conspiracy theories with potentially dangerous foreign policy consequences. ..."
    Sep 13, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Dan Kervick said...
    Yesterday, I sardonically commented here that I was surprised the Putin-paranoid Clintonites had not tried blaming Putin for Hillary Clinton's pneumonia.

    Little did I know that Putimonia theory was already out there!

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2016/09/12/the-man-who-discovered-cte-thinks-hillary-clinton-may-have-been-poisoned/

    The sad, sad, sad continuing decline of the American mind.

    Dan Kervick said in reply to pgl...

    It was 80 degrees. There have been many far hotter days here in the northeast this summer. Clinton didn't pass out because it was hot and humid. She passed out because she has pneumonia. It happens; people get sick.

    Nevertheless, the ludicrous Washington Post, beloved rag of the neocons who have now flocked to Clinton's campaign, have seen fit to run the story above, which has even less evidential backing than the typical Enquirer or Prison Planet piece.

    America has jumped the shark. You fools will have to launch WW III on the strength of your own votes, since you won't have mine.

    Dan Kervick -> DeDude...

    I don't care about Clinton's swoon and its various medical causes.

    What I do care about is that the Washington Post is publishing crackpot paranoid conspiracy theories with potentially dangerous foreign policy consequences.

    DeDude said in reply to Dan Kervick...

    "potentially dangerous foreign policy consequences"

    Hmmmmm - are we a little overheated this morning? May I suggest sitting down and drinking some gatorade.

    Dan Kervick said in reply to DeDude...

    It is indeed dangerous when one of the most prominent newspapers in America floats a cuckoo conspiracy theory - without even a tiny shred of evidence - to the effect that a prominent foreign leader might have poisoned a presidential candidate.

    Democrats are now plunging en masse down these various rabbit holes because they see a short-term political edge in them, and because their anxiety.

    Partisanship is a terrible mental illness. It makes previously sane people lose their bearings.

    DeDude said in reply to Dan Kervick...

    Omalu was previously sane???? Must have been before my time. Seriously Dan - Gatorade!!!

    Dan Kervick said in reply to DeDude...

    I'm talking about you people. Also, the editors of the Washington Post.

    If you think that Omalu is not sane then don't you agree it is irresponsible to publish his ravings?

    [Sep 14, 2016] Why Russia is Discrediting American Democracy

    Notable quotes:
    "... Washington Post ..."
    Sep 14, 2016 | nationalinterest.org

    According to a front-page story in the Washington Post , U.S. agencies are investigating what they perceive as "a broad covert Russian operation in the United States to sow public distrust in the upcoming presidential election and in U.S. political institutions". The story is vague and short on details.

    ... ... ...

    One of several unfortunate truths regarding the weakening integrity of American democracy involves the destruction of campaign finance laws and making electoral outcomes reflect the wallets of a few at least as much as the minds of many. Another unattractive and undemocratic element is the extensive gerrymandering in which both major parties indulge, thereby subordinating popular will to the crude power of incumbency. Even more of an affront to democracy in the last few years has been the blatant use of legislative power at the state level by members of one party to impede the ability of followers of the other party to exercise their right to vote, with the rationale for this power play being prevention of a form of voter fraud that has been so rare as to be almost nonexistent. American democracy is looking less and less distinct from the rickety versions of democracy in much of the less developed world, in which the bending of rules by incumbents to frustrate challenges to their rule is common.

    Most recently we have the presidential nominee of one major party, Donald Trump, declaring preemptively that if he loses it will be because the process was rigged. This also sounds a lot like many of those unstable political systems that purport to be democracies, and in which non-acceptance of electoral results is common. (See Gabon for a recent example .)

    American democracy is less of a shining, distinctive exemplar of political fairness and popular sovereignty than it once was...

    Meanwhile, Norman Birnbaum has good advice for Hillary Clinton in urging her "to shelve her devotion to extending democracy to the rest of the world to concentrate on rescuing it for ourselves."

    [Sep 14, 2016] Clinton Plans to Destroy Russia

    Notable quotes:
    "... According to experts, by issuing this statement they seek to encourage Saudi, Gulf, and Muslim youths to fight against Russian forces, similar to the recruitment of young fighters during the Afghan-Soviet war ..."
    "... The pretense, by Reuters , that Saudi Arabia is a religious-freedom country, is an insult to their readership, but this falsehood helps to keep their readership thinking that somehow the West can be allied with the Sauds and yet still call itself 'democratic' and allied only with 'democratic' governments, not with some of the world's worst tyrannies. Realism in foreign affairs (such as to acknowledge that some of the world's worst regimes are our government's allies) is fine, but it can't include lying to one's own public, because that necessarily entails misinforming the voters on the basis of which any actual democracy receives its very legitimacy as being a democracy, which seems less and less what countries such as the US and UK are, at least after 9/11. ..."
    "... A "democracy" and a "deceived public" cannot coexist in the same country – and, at least in the United States, a deceived public is what predominantly exists (as a consequence of a deceiving 'news' media). ..."
    "... Here is the operation that has been led by the Bush-Clinton-Obama-Saud-Thani alliance ..."
    "... The leaders of Qatar are its owners, the Thani royal family, who are the main funders of the Muslim Brotherhood, and who have long wanted to overthrow the secular Assad and to replace him with a fundamentalist Sunni leader like themselves. ..."
    "... The main subject of the conversation was to be the drought in the Arabic countries . That drought was especially intense in Syria. ..."
    Aug 31, 2016 | www.strategic-culture.org
    WORLD

    Leaked emails are filling in the picture of a Bill-and-Hillary-Clinton plan to destroy Russia – a plan which had originated with US President George Herbert Walker Bush in 1990, and which has been followed through both by his son George W Bush, and by both of the Clintons, but which has only recently started to become documented by leaked publications of personal communications amongst the key operatives who were the insiders running this operation behind the scenes, and who include Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, George W Bush, Victoria Nuland, Jeffrey Feltman, Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan al-Saud, Saudi Crown Prince Muhammed bin Salman al-Saud, and the Emir of Qatar.

    This operation came out into public view only briefly when the news site Zero Hedge headlined on 6 October 2015 "Saudi Clerics Call For Jihad Against Russia, Iran" and linked to a number of sources, including to a Wall Street Journal report the day before, which simply ignored the Saudi involvement and headlined "US Sees Russian Drive Against CIA-Backed Rebels in Syria", as if this matter were merely a US-vs-Russia issue, not an issue involving the Saud family at all. By contrast, the Zero Hedge article closed with "'This is a real war on Sunnis, their countries and their identities,' said the statement [by the International Union of Muslim Scholars, which is based in Qatar, whose ruling family, the Thanis, work closely with the Saud family]. It urged the rebels to join a 'jihad against the enemy of God and your enemy, and Muslims will back you every way they can.'"

    As a British news-site for jihadists put the matter , "According to experts, by issuing this statement they seek to encourage Saudi, Gulf, and Muslim youths to fight against Russian forces, similar to the recruitment of young fighters during the Afghan-Soviet war". (That joint US-Saudi operation , which was assisted by the Pakistani military and by Pakistan's heavily-Saudi-influenced Islamic clergy, was the brainchild of Saudi Prince Bandar and of the born Polish aristocrat Zbigniew Brzezinski, and its success at breaking up the Soviet Union is an enduring topic of pride for today's jihadists.)

    On 5 October 2015, the British mainstream 'news' site Reuters had called these "Saudi opposition clerics", and alleged that they "are not affiliated with the government", but Reuters' s statement (especially that these were "Saudi opposition clerics" ) was simply false, and even ridiculously false, likely an outright lie, because Saudi laws don't allow any "opposition clerics", especially not Islamic ones, since those would be executed for publicly questioning the legitimacy of the country's rule by the royal Saud family, which is what an "opposition cleric" in Saudi Arabia would, by definition, be doing, if any of them existed there and hadn't been executed yet.

    The pretense, by Reuters , that Saudi Arabia is a religious-freedom country, is an insult to their readership, but this falsehood helps to keep their readership thinking that somehow the West can be allied with the Sauds and yet still call itself 'democratic' and allied only with 'democratic' governments, not with some of the world's worst tyrannies. Realism in foreign affairs (such as to acknowledge that some of the world's worst regimes are our government's allies) is fine, but it can't include lying to one's own public, because that necessarily entails misinforming the voters on the basis of which any actual democracy receives its very legitimacy as being a democracy, which seems less and less what countries such as the US and UK are, at least after 9/11.

    A "democracy" and a "deceived public" cannot coexist in the same country – and, at least in the United States, a deceived public is what predominantly exists (as a consequence of a deceiving 'news' media).

    At http://www.whois.com/whois/clintonemail.com , one learns that "Creation Date: 2009-01-13T05:00:00Z", meaning Hillary Clinton had set up her privatized State Department email operation on January 13 th of 2009, six days prior to becoming the US Secretary of State.

    Here is the operation that has been led by the Bush-Clinton-Obama-Saud-Thani alliance:

    The first two exhibits are:

    https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/28723

    SAUD

    From: Jeffrey Feltman To: Hillary Clinton Date: 2011-02-20 08:36 Subject: SAUD

    UNCLASSIFIED US Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05778064 Date: 09/30/2015 RELEASE IN PART B1,B5,1.4(D) From: Feltman, Jeffrey D Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2011 3:36 PM H; Sullivan, JacobJ; HumaAbedin To: Subject: RE:Saud Yes, I agree – Bill should call. That's a good idea. He can brief on your call with Saud. ■ B5 Original Message From: H [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2011 3:34 PM To: Feltman, Jeffrey 0; Sullivan, Jacob J; Huma Abedin Subject: Saud 1.4(D) B1 Also, Bill knows the CP [Crown Prince, now Saudi King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud] very well and wants to call and offer support. Is that ok? Classified by DAS, A/GIS, DoS on 09/30/2015 – Class: CONFIDENTIAL – Reason: 1.4(D) – Declassify on: 02/19/2036

    https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/28733

    Exhibit #3 :

    Victoria Nuland: I think Yats is the guy who's got the economic experience, the governing experience. He's the – What he needs is Klitsch and Tyahnybok on the outside. He needs to be talking to them four times a week, you know. I just think Klitsch going in, he's going to be at that level working for Yatseniuk, it's just not going to work.

    Geoffrey Pyatt: Yeah, no, I think that's right. OK. Good. Do you want us to set up a call with him as the next step?

    Victoria Nuland: My understanding from that call – but you tell me – was that the big three were going into their own meeting and that Yats was going to offer in that context a three-plus-one conversation or three-plus-two with you. Is that not how you understood it?

    Pyatt: No. I think – I mean that's what he proposed but I think, just knowing the dynamic that's been with them where Klitschko has been the top dog, he's going to take a while to show up for whatever meeting they've got and he's probably talking to his guys at this point, so I think you reaching out directly to him helps with the personality management among the three and it gives you also a chance to move fast on all this stuff and put us behind it before they all sit down and he explains why he doesn't like it.

    Nuland: OK, good. I'm happy. Why don't you reach out to him and see if he wants to talk before or after.

    Pyatt: OK, will do. Thanks.

    Nuland: OK, one more wrinkle for you Geoff. I can't remember if I told you this, or if I only told Washington this, that when I talked to Jeff Feltman [who had, in 2011, been in Hillary's State Department, but was now the U.N.'s Under Secretary-General – immediately under Ban ki-Moon – for Political Affairs] this morning, he had a new name for the U.N. guy Robert Serry did I write you that this morning?...

    In other words, Feltman, who had been central in the operation to overthrow one leader who was friendly toward Russia, Assad (to replace him there by jihadists); was now prominently involved also in the operation to overthrow another leader friendly toward Russia, Yanukovych (to replace him there by Nazis ) (and Russia, of course, cannot tolerate either jihadists or Nazis, so it tries to eliminate both). (And, on 21 November 2014, the US was one of only 3 countries at the U.N. voting against a resolution to condemn resurgent Nazism and holocaust-denial. The new, Nazi, Americanized, Ukraine, was another of the three internationally pro-Nazi regimes.)

    In exhibits 1 and 2, Feltman's counsel has been sought by Hillary regarding whether she should receive Bill's assistance in setting up a discussion with "Saud", who might have been King Saud, or else it was his #2, the Crown Prince, whom Bill personally knew.

    It's important to note that Exhibits 1 and 2 are from 20 February 2011, which was right before the demonstrations started against the Syrian secular regime of Bashar al-Assad.

    Wikipedia's article "Syrian Civil War" says "The protests began on 15 March 2011," and so those two exhibits, both dated 20 February 2011, predated the "protests" in Syria by exactly 23 days.

    Exhibit #4:

    https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/21376

    QATAR

    From: Jeffrey Feltman To: Jake Sullivan Date: 2010-09-08 13:06 Subject: QATAR

    UNCLASSIFIED US Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05772230 Date: 11/30/2015 RELEASE IN PART B5 From: Feltman, Jeffrey D Sent: Thursday, September 9, 2010 8:06 PM To: Sullivan, Jacob J; H Subject: Re: Qatar Topics covered: Jeffrey Feltman Original Message From: Sullivan, Jacob I To: 'H' ; Feltman, Jeffrey D Sent: Thu Sep 09 19:19:41 2010 Subject: RE: Qatar Scheduled it and made it. I'll give you the readout in the morning. Original Message From: H Emailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2010 7:19 PM To: Feltman, Jeffrey D Cc: Sullivan, JacobJ Subject: Qatar

    The leaders of Qatar are its owners, the Thani royal family, who are the main funders of the Muslim Brotherhood, and who have long wanted to overthrow the secular Assad and to replace him with a fundamentalist Sunni leader like themselves.

    Feltman here, on 9 September 2010, was informing Hillary (and her chief counselor, Jake Sullivan), that a meeting had been set up, concerning Qatar, which is a key funder of the tens of thousands of jihadists who have since entered Syria to overthrow and replace Assad. On 3 September 2010, Hillary had sent an email to Jake Sullivan , whose subject-line was "Emir of Qatar" (Qatar's king) and it said only "Let's discuss when I get in". Then, on 14 September 2010, Hillary received an email whose subject line was "SHEIKHA MOSA OF QATAR" (that's the Emir's wife) and it was a note from Cheri Blair (Tony Blair's wife, a friend of both Hillary and her) saying, "She is available to see you on 24 September either morning or afternoon? Alternatively, 28 th or 29 th September Does that work for you?" The main subject of the conversation was to be the drought in the Arabic countries . That drought was especially intense in Syria.

    The background behind those public demonstrations against the Assad regime is important. As Grist reported, regarding the record drought in Syria, on 16 January 2010....

    [Sep 14, 2016] Pro-War Dead-enders and Our Unending Wars

    Notable quotes:
    "... Liberal hawks will complain that the Iraq war was run incompetently (and it was), but they don't give up on the idea of preventive war or the belief that the U.S. is entitled to attack other states more or less at will in the name of "leadership." Neoconservatives will fault Obama for not doing more in Libya after the regime was overthrown, but it would never occur to them that toppling foreign governments by force is wrong or undesirable. There remains a broad consensus that the U.S. "leads" the world and in order to exercise that "leadership" it is free to destabilize and attack other states as it sees fit. The justifications change from country to country, but the assumptions behind them are always the same: we have the right to interfere in the affairs of other nations, our interference is benevolent and beneficial (and any bad results cannot be tied to our interference), and "failure" to interfere constitutes abdication of "leadership." ..."
    "... Everyone is familiar with Iraq war dead-enders, who continue to claim to this day that the war had been "won" by the end of Bush's second term and that it was only by withdrawing that the U.S. frittered away its "victory." The defense of the Libyan war is somewhat different, but at its core it shares the same ideological refusal to own up to failure. In Libya, the mistake was not in taking sides in a civil war in which the U.S. had nothing at stake, but in failing to commit to an open-ended mission to stabilize the country after the regime was overthrown. Libyan war supporters don't accept that their preferred policy backfired and harmed the country it was supposedly trying to help. That would not only require them to acknowledge that they got one of the more important foreign policy questions of the last decade badly wrong, but it would contradict one of their core assumptions about the U.S. role in the world. As far as they're concerned, Libya is still the "model" and "good" intervention that they claimed it was five years ago, and nothing that has happened in Libya can ever prove otherwise. ..."
    "... unfortunately pro-war dead-enders continue to have considerable influence in shaping our foreign policy debates on other issues. They bring the same bankrupt assumptions to debates over what the U.S. should be doing in Syria, Ukraine, Iran, and elsewhere, and they apply the same faulty judgment that led them to think regime change and taking sides in foreign civil wars was smart. They still haven't learned anything from the failures of previous interventions (because they don't accept that they were failures), and so keep making many of the same mistakes of analysis and prescription that they made in the past. ..."
    Apr 07, 2016 | The American Conservative

    Andrew Bacevich has written an excellent article on the need to end our ongoing "war for the Greater Middle East." This part jumped out at me in connection with the debate over the Libyan war:

    A particular campaign that goes awry [bold mine-DL] like Somalia or Iraq or Libya may attract passing attention, but never the context in which that campaign was undertaken [bold mine-DL]. We can be certain that the election of 2016 will be no different.

    It is almost never mentioned now, so it is easy to forget that many Libyan war supporters initially argued for intervention in order to save the "Arab Spring." Their idea was that the U.S. and its allies could discourage other regimes from forcibly putting down protests by siding with the opposition in Libya, and that if the U.S. didn't do this it would "signal" dictators that they could crush protests with impunity. This never made sense at the time. Other regimes would have to believe that the U.S. would consistently side with their opponents, and there was never any chance of that happening. If it sent any message to them, the intervention in Libya sent other regimes a very different message: don't let yourself be internationally isolated like Gaddafi, and you won't suffer his fate. Another argument for the intervention was that it would change the way the U.S. was perceived in the region for the better. That didn't make sense, either, since Western intervention in Libya wasn't popular in most countries there, and even if it had been it wouldn't change the fact that the U.S. was pursuing many other policies hated by people throughout the region. It was on the foundation of shoddy arguments such as these that the case for war in Libya was built.

    Bacevich is right that many critics fault specific interventions for their failings without questioning the larger assumptions about the U.S. role in the region that led to those wars. Liberal hawks will complain that the Iraq war was run incompetently (and it was), but they don't give up on the idea of preventive war or the belief that the U.S. is entitled to attack other states more or less at will in the name of "leadership." Neoconservatives will fault Obama for not doing more in Libya after the regime was overthrown, but it would never occur to them that toppling foreign governments by force is wrong or undesirable. There remains a broad consensus that the U.S. "leads" the world and in order to exercise that "leadership" it is free to destabilize and attack other states as it sees fit. The justifications change from country to country, but the assumptions behind them are always the same: we have the right to interfere in the affairs of other nations, our interference is benevolent and beneficial (and any bad results cannot be tied to our interference), and "failure" to interfere constitutes abdication of "leadership."

    To make matters worse, every intervention always has a die-hard group of dead-enders that will defend the rightness and success of their war no matter what results it produces. They don't think the war they supported every really went "awry" except when it was ended "too soon." Everyone is familiar with Iraq war dead-enders, who continue to claim to this day that the war had been "won" by the end of Bush's second term and that it was only by withdrawing that the U.S. frittered away its "victory." The defense of the Libyan war is somewhat different, but at its core it shares the same ideological refusal to own up to failure. In Libya, the mistake was not in taking sides in a civil war in which the U.S. had nothing at stake, but in failing to commit to an open-ended mission to stabilize the country after the regime was overthrown. Libyan war supporters don't accept that their preferred policy backfired and harmed the country it was supposedly trying to help. That would not only require them to acknowledge that they got one of the more important foreign policy questions of the last decade badly wrong, but it would contradict one of their core assumptions about the U.S. role in the world. As far as they're concerned, Libya is still the "model" and "good" intervention that they claimed it was five years ago, and nothing that has happened in Libya can ever prove otherwise.

    That might not matter too much, but unfortunately pro-war dead-enders continue to have considerable influence in shaping our foreign policy debates on other issues. They bring the same bankrupt assumptions to debates over what the U.S. should be doing in Syria, Ukraine, Iran, and elsewhere, and they apply the same faulty judgment that led them to think regime change and taking sides in foreign civil wars was smart. They still haven't learned anything from the failures of previous interventions (because they don't accept that they were failures), and so keep making many of the same mistakes of analysis and prescription that they made in the past.

    [Sep 14, 2016] The Myth of American Retreat by William Ruger

    Looks like this neocon Robert Lieber is completely detached from the reality. Cheap oil is coming to an end in this decade and with it the crisis hit neoliberal globalization and the US role as the capital of the global neoliberal empire. With far reaching consequences.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Unfortunately, primacy has largely failed to deliver what must be the first, second, and third priorities for any grand strategy: the satisfaction of national interests, foremost among them America's safety. Rather than peace and security, primacy has brought about questionable military interventions and wars of choice in Somalia, Haiti, the Balkans (twice), Iraq (three times, depending on how you count), Libya, and Syria. Our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have led to the deaths of almost 7,000 American troops, the wounding of tens of thousands more, and the filing of disability claims by nearly a million veterans. Rather than protecting the conditions of our prosperity, primacy has cost Americans dearly, with the annual defense budget now set to rise to around $600 billion and the Iraq War alone wasting trillions of dollars. As for our values, the U.S. approach has placed our nation in the uncomfortable position of defending illiberal regimes abroad, stained our reputation for the rule of law with Guantanamo and drone campaigns, and sacrificed the Constitutional authority of Congress. ..."
    "... The United States still enjoys the world's strongest military force, costing taxpayers around $600 billion a year. This sum represents nearly a third of all global spending and is equal to that of at least the next 10 countries combined. Its nearest competitor, China, spends far less, about $150 billion. ..."
    "... And during the Obama years, the United States surged forces in Afghanistan, fought a war against Libya that led to regime change, re-entered Iraq and engaged (even if tepidly) in Syria, supported Saudi Arabia's dubious fight in Yemen, continued to conduct drone strikes abroad, became unprofitably enmeshed diplomatically in Ukraine's troubles, and continued to exert its power and influence in Asia. And just recently the U.S. again bombed targets in Libya. Retreat, you say? ..."
    "... The degree of disarray in Libya and the consequences of it have flowed directly from the U.S.'s decision to go to war against Gaddafi and to pursue regime change. There is little need to note how disastrous the Iraq War was for the region and American interests-and how Iraq continues to be a source of trouble that the U.S. is ill-suited to resolve. ..."
    "... President Obama's grand strategy has remained firmly planted within the confines of the Washington consensus and does not represent a retreat. One could only imagine what Lieber would think of a policy that truly hewed more closely to the advice of our Founders. ..."
    Sep 13, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com

    Retreat and Its Consequences: American Foreign Policy and the Problem of World Order , Robert J. Lieber, Cambridge University Press, 152 pages

    The United States has been pursuing a grand strategy of primacy since at least the end of the Cold War. This hegemonic approach has sought, through active, deep engagement in the world, to preserve and extend the U.S.'s global dominance that followed the Soviet Union's collapse. In other words, it has aimed to turn the unipolar moment into a unipolar era. Maintaining this dominance has meant aggressive diplomacy and the frequent display, threat, and use of military power everywhere from the Balkans to the Baltics, from Libya to Pakistan, and from the Taiwan Straits to the Korean peninsula.

    Unfortunately, primacy has largely failed to deliver what must be the first, second, and third priorities for any grand strategy: the satisfaction of national interests, foremost among them America's safety. Rather than peace and security, primacy has brought about questionable military interventions and wars of choice in Somalia, Haiti, the Balkans (twice), Iraq (three times, depending on how you count), Libya, and Syria. Our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have led to the deaths of almost 7,000 American troops, the wounding of tens of thousands more, and the filing of disability claims by nearly a million veterans. Rather than protecting the conditions of our prosperity, primacy has cost Americans dearly, with the annual defense budget now set to rise to around $600 billion and the Iraq War alone wasting trillions of dollars. As for our values, the U.S. approach has placed our nation in the uncomfortable position of defending illiberal regimes abroad, stained our reputation for the rule of law with Guantanamo and drone campaigns, and sacrificed the Constitutional authority of Congress.

    Is it any wonder that more and more Americans question whether our foreign policy is working? Or that more and more Washington elites, though still a minority, are becoming dissatisfied with the status quo? Such challengers seek to reform the military budget and force structure to make them consistent with our real security needs. They also want to reduce ally free-riding and make sure that the full range of possible costs and consequences of our actions abroad get a more serious hearing so that we, in the immortal words of President Obama, "Don't do stupid shit."

    And yet Robert Lieber, in his slender new book Retreat and Its Consequences , thinks those who seek an alternative approach are dangerously misled. He sees any sign of realism and restraint-real, anticipated, or imagined-as a retreat with far-reaching negative implications. Lieber, a professor of government and international affairs at Georgetown University, instead makes the case for doubling down on primacy and against the U.S. playing a "reduced" role in the world. He does so mainly by attempting to show the negative consequences of the Obama administration's supposed retrenchment while arguing for the importance of aggressive American global leadership.

    Unfortunately for the primacist cause, Retreat and Its Consequences is not a satisfactory rejoinder to its challengers. Lieber is unconvincing in both his indictment of opposing views and his case for deep engagement. The book frequently reads like a rehashing of attacks we've heard high and low since Bush departed office, from scholars like Peter Feaver of Duke University to the Beltway neoconservatives to the fear-mongering talking heads on cable news. More importantly, it trots out a deeply flawed argument that the United States under Obama is actually in retreat and shedding its global leadership.

    ♦♦♦

    Retreat and Its Consequences is the last book of Lieber's informal trilogy on recent U.S. foreign policy. In the first book in the series, The American Era (2005), Lieber argued in favor of the United States continuing in the post-9/11 era to lead the world through a grand strategy of "preponderance" and "active engagement." He claimed that such an approach would dovetail with the realities of that changed world, to the benefit of U.S. security and the international order alike. The next book, Power and Willpower in the American Future (2012), challenged the declinist perspective and made the case for why the U.S. could still exert global leadership despite facing a number of different challenges.

    Lieber begins this third book, Retreat and Its Consequences , by claiming that America's long-standing active engagement in global affairs has been increasingly questioned at home and that the U.S. has recently been retrenching and pulling back from its traditional leadership role. He describes this retrenchment in theory and practice, then briefly (and in more detail later in the book) paints a picture of a world gone bad as a consequence of this alleged retreat. He hangs most of his indictment on President Obama's foreign-policy approach, which Lieber claims reflects "a clear preference for reducing U.S. power and presence abroad" as well as "a deep skepticism about the use of force" and "a de-emphasis on relationships with allies."

    The middle section of the book provides chapter-long discussions of U.S. foreign relations with Europe, the Middle East, and the BRICS countries. In the Europe chapter, Lieber argues that our critical relationship with our European allies is suffering. He claims that the "Atlantic partnership has weakened as the United States has downplayed its European commitments and Europeans themselves have become less capable and more inclined to hedge their bets." The latter is due to Europe's own internal woes, including economic problems, military weakness (as well as growing pacifism), demographic challenges, and problems with the EU. The other half of the problem he lays, as is typical in this book, at the Obama administration's doorstep due to its de-emphasis on Europe and its weak behavior towards Putin's Russia.

    As for the Middle East, Lieber claims that the region and U.S. national interests there are suffering due to Obama's flawed retrenchment and disengagement strategy. Indeed, Lieber argues that Obama's transformative moves, only lightly described, have "contributed to the making of a more dangerous and unstable Middle East." He also discusses U.S. interests and history in the region, the sources of Middle East instability, and the "unexpected consequences" of the Iraq War-the rise of ISIS and Iran.

    Lieber's main point regarding the BRICS is that these countries have not helped and will not be able to help sustain the current global order. Indeed, he thinks these states have their own different priorities and, to the extent they benefit from the current system, will try to free ride as much as possible. Lieber uses these cases as still more reasons why the U.S. cannot disengage from its global leadership role even as economic power continues to diffuse.

    In the penultimate chapter, Lieber returns to his allegation that the U.S. has been retreating from the world and our leadership role-and tries to show that it has had dangerous consequences. In the process, he discusses U.S. policies toward Russia, China, Iraq and Syria, Iran, Afghanistan, Libya, and Cuba. In all these cases, Lieber finds evidence of failure and worsening conditions due to Obama's retrenchment and his aversion to using American power. He also claims that the Obama administration has cut our military while failing to provide a focused articulation of what goals it needs to meet.

    Lieber ends by returning to the theme of Power and Willpower in the American Future , namely that the U.S., despite its challenges, still has the capacity to pursue an active hegemonic grand strategy. He takes issue with the declinists and argues yet again that the U.S. ought to lead the world; otherwise, it "is likely to become a more disorderly and dangerous place, with mounting threats not only to world order and economic prosperity, but to its own national interests and homeland security."

    ♦♦♦

    Lieber's book isn't without its lucid moments. First, he is on sound footing when he notes that the BRICS are not fully committed to the current American-led international order. Furthermore, he is also right about the need for our European allies to increase their own capabilities-though one wishes he had paused to consider how this is an unsurprising result of U.S. security guarantees that incentivize free-riding.

    Second, Lieber also helpfully challenges the declinist view prevalent in some circles. The United States certainly has its challenges, with staggering debt and deficits, not to mention a stifling regulatory regime. But the U.S. continues to enjoy many strengths and advantages, especially relative to the other near-great powers in the system. (And in international politics, it is relative power that matters most.) Yet while Lieber gets the condition of the patient right in this instance, the good doctor does not convincingly argue for the necessity of his preferred prescription. That the U.S. may not be in relative decline or in as much future trouble as some might claim does not imply that the U.S. should continue to follow primacy. Rather, one could argue that it is precisely because of some of our continued advantages that his grand strategy is not required. When discussing the BRICS, Lieber admits that China suffers from some grave problems that may prevent it from becoming a serious challenger to American dominance. This raises the question of why the United States must do-and risk-so much to ensure our security or that of our allies in Asia.

    Despite these positives, Retreat and Its Consequences and the overarching approach that has guided Lieber's policy views for so long suffer from a number of critical flaws. Most importantly, the argument of the book is simply based on a mistaken and endlessly repeated premise that the United States has significantly retreated from the world and that this has been a key source of so many problems in it. Basically, Lieber, as we've heard so often from others, is arguing that the administration has pursued restraint, the world has gone to hell, restraint is responsible for our woes-and thus we must return to primacy. Admittedly, Obama, especially in his second term, has exercised greater discretion in how he has managed our global engagement and leadership. And he may in his heart of hearts have some sympathy with those who have counseled greater realism. But neither make for a policy of retreat.

    Indeed, the United States under Obama has continued to pursue a variant of primacy despite what Lieber and others keep saying in their critiques. The United States is still committed to defending over 60 other countries and commanding the global commons. It still has a forward-deployed military living on a globe-girdling network of hundreds of military bases. In fact, it has recently sent more troops and equipment to Iraq, Eastern Europe, and even Australia. The United States still enjoys the world's strongest military force, costing taxpayers around $600 billion a year. This sum represents nearly a third of all global spending and is equal to that of at least the next 10 countries combined. Its nearest competitor, China, spends far less, about $150 billion.

    And during the Obama years, the United States surged forces in Afghanistan, fought a war against Libya that led to regime change, re-entered Iraq and engaged (even if tepidly) in Syria, supported Saudi Arabia's dubious fight in Yemen, continued to conduct drone strikes abroad, became unprofitably enmeshed diplomatically in Ukraine's troubles, and continued to exert its power and influence in Asia. And just recently the U.S. again bombed targets in Libya. Retreat, you say?

    Finally, Lieber's claim that disengagement and retrenchment is to blame for problems in the greater Middle East is rich given how the primacist approach he favors was to a great extent responsible for the problems in the first place. The degree of disarray in Libya and the consequences of it have flowed directly from the U.S.'s decision to go to war against Gaddafi and to pursue regime change. There is little need to note how disastrous the Iraq War was for the region and American interests-and how Iraq continues to be a source of trouble that the U.S. is ill-suited to resolve. It is especially noteworthy that the relative increase of Iranian influence Lieber bemoans was an entirely predictable result of that short-sighted campaign. And we haven't likely seen all of the poisonous fruit from what is happening in Yemen. In short, Lieber and his fellow primacists have advocated for policies in the Middle East-including the war in Iraq-that are a big part of the problem, not the solution.

    Our country needs challenges and alternatives to the status quo rather than boilerplate justifications of the policies that have failed to make us safer over the past 25 years. Regardless of what Lieber would have us believe, President Obama's grand strategy has remained firmly planted within the confines of the Washington consensus and does not represent a retreat. One could only imagine what Lieber would think of a policy that truly hewed more closely to the advice of our Founders.

    William Ruger is the vice president for research and policy at the Charles Koch Institute.

    [Sep 14, 2016] Hillary Is Not Sorry

    Clinton is neither well-liked nor trusted. She is just a marionette promoted by neocon cabal. Sanders team has a point that Clinton is like the job candidate wit the impressive resume who sounds great on paper, but then when you meet her in person, you realize she's not he right person for the job.
    Notable quotes:
    "... She has never acknowledged, maybe even to herself, that routing diplomatic emails with classified information through a homebrew server was an outrageous, reckless and foolish thing to do, and disloyal to Obama, whose administration put in place rules for record-keeping that she flouted. ..."
    "... And Hillary did not merely fail the ask the right questions. The questions were asked and the answers were given. Joe Biden, Robert Gates and much of the military and intelligence communities advised against the Libya intervention. Hillary just chose to ignore the advice, because she is a radical neoconservative at heart. ..."
    "... She volunteered that that the United States should continue to "look for missions" that NATO will support ..."
    "... She vows to go around looking for new military adventures. ..."
    "... Maureen is right that Hillary has huge character problems. Sure, she can't admit mistakes and compulsively blames others when things go wrong. That's a given. But it's not the biggest problem. The biggest problem is that she will take our country down the wrong path, both in terms of domestic and foreign policy. ..."
    "... She has had 40-some years to develop this kind of judgment, imagination and long term reflection, and she has proudly, aggressively, mean-spiritedly run the opposite direction every time and viciously attacked anyone who called her on it. It's time to stop this game of "wondering" whether she can change, wondering whether all of these terrible moments were "the real Hillary" or not. They were. Voting someone in as President on the hope that they will be a completely different person once in office then they have been in 40 years is the definition of insanity. ..."
    "... it's about her paranoia about secrecy that made her think she could get away with a private email server in one of the nation's most high-profile jobs, or taking huge sums of money for Wall Street speeches she now refuses to release, or doubling-down on her ill-considered, if not ill-informed (as you note), hawkish regime change views by advocating for it again in Libya that has, as a result, turned into an ISIS outpost. ..."
    "... Clinton did herself no favors in the debate, drawing even more attention to her dependence on that money and the impossibility of being completely free to make policy without repaying debts. ..."
    "... They don't, but it is telling that Bill said that. His chosen exaggeration displays who he sees as Hillary's side in this. When he says, "they are coming for us" he means Wall Street. ..."
    "... "Clinton, who talked Obama into it" on Libya and claimed credit, but when it went poorly, she blamed Obama for listening to her, "On Libya, she noted that "the decision was the president's."" That is her claim to experience, and not something we ought to vote to experience again. ..."
    "... Hillary is a self-serving, power hungry politician. She is only ever sorry if she fails to get what she wants, or is forced to explain her actions. She feels she is above "the masses." As for her qualifications, job titles alone don't cut it. What did she actually accomplish as a Senator or SecState? Any major laws? Treaties? No. She failed with Russia, Syria and Libya to name just a few. She is not qualified to be president based on qualifications and personality. ..."
    Apr 16, 2016 | The New York Times

    ... Clinton sowed suspicion again, refusing to cough up her Wall Street speech transcripts.

    ... ... ...

    Hillary alternately tried to blame and hug the men in her life, divvying up credit in a self-serving way.

    After showing some remorse for the 1994 crime bill, saying it had had "unintended" consequences, she stressed that her husband "was the president who actually signed it." On Libya, she noted that "the decision was the president's." And on her desire to train and arm Syrian rebels, she recalled, "The president said no."

    But she wrapped herself in President Obama's record on climate change and, when criticized on her "super PACs," said, well, Obama did it, too.

    Sanders accused her of pandering to Israel after she said that "if Yasir Arafat had agreed with my husband at Camp David," there would have been a Palestinian state for 15 years.

    Bernie is right that Hillary's judgment has often been faulty.

    She has shown an unwillingness to be introspective and learn from her mistakes. From health care to Iraq to the email server, she only apologizes at the point of a gun. And even then, she leaves the impression that she is merely sorry to be facing criticism, not that she miscalculated in the first place.

    ... ... ...

    She has never acknowledged, maybe even to herself, that routing diplomatic emails with classified information through a homebrew server was an outrageous, reckless and foolish thing to do, and disloyal to Obama, whose administration put in place rules for record-keeping that she flouted.

    Advertisement Continue reading the main story Wouldn't it be a relief to people if Hillary just acknowledged some mistakes?

    ... ... ...

    Clinton accused Sanders of not doing his homework on how he would break up the banks. And she is the queen of homework, always impressively well versed in meetings. But that is what makes her failure to read the National Intelligence Estimate that raised doubts about whether Iraq posed a threat to the U.S. so egregious.

    P. Greenberg El Cerrito, CA

    Maureen Dowd fundamentally misunderstands Hillary Clinton's foreign policy failings. When it comes to Libya, Clinton does not merely need to apologize for getting distracted by other global issues and "taking her eye off the ball". The decision to go in was wrong, not the failure to follow through.

    And Hillary did not merely fail the ask the right questions. The questions were asked and the answers were given. Joe Biden, Robert Gates and much of the military and intelligence communities advised against the Libya intervention. Hillary just chose to ignore the advice, because she is a radical neoconservative at heart.

    Clinton continues to adhere to the neoconservative approach to foreign policy. Her choice of words during the Brooklyn debate were significant. She volunteered that that the United States should continue to "look for missions" that NATO will support. That says it all. She vows to go around looking for new military adventures.

    Maureen is right that Hillary has huge character problems. Sure, she can't admit mistakes and compulsively blames others when things go wrong. That's a given. But it's not the biggest problem. The biggest problem is that she will take our country down the wrong path, both in terms of domestic and foreign policy.

    And please Maureen, stop denigrating Bernie Sanders with pejorative adjectives and vague accusations. He has held elective office for 35 years, showing leadership and good judgment and good values.

    Brett Morris California,

    She has had 40-some years to develop this kind of judgment, imagination and long term reflection, and she has proudly, aggressively, mean-spiritedly run the opposite direction every time and viciously attacked anyone who called her on it. It's time to stop this game of "wondering" whether she can change, wondering whether all of these terrible moments were "the real Hillary" or not. They were. Voting someone in as President on the hope that they will be a completely different person once in office then they have been in 40 years is the definition of insanity.

    That said, of course she is better than the republicans. But she is the worst possible candidate for the Democratic Party, especially in this era where we have a serious opportunity to turn away from Reagan's Overton Window. And right now we actually have a candidate available who represents our best ideas. Can't we just ditch her while we have the chance? If she gets elected, more war is absolutely guaranteed. A one-term Presidency is also highly likely, because nobody will be on her side. She loses trust and support the more she exposes herself, every time.

    Paul Long island

    I agree when you say of Hillary Clinton, "She has shown an unwillingness to be introspective and learn from her mistakes." That is only part of her problem because her judgment seems always wrong, despite all the "listening tours," whether it's about her paranoia about secrecy that made her think she could get away with a private email server in one of the nation's most high-profile jobs, or taking huge sums of money for Wall Street speeches she now refuses to release, or doubling-down on her ill-considered, if not ill-informed (as you note), hawkish regime change views by advocating for it again in Libya that has, as a result, turned into an ISIS outpost. To say she's "sorry" would only confirm her consistently bad judgment since she has so much to be sorry about. So, what we have instead is a very "sorry" candidate who, despite her resume and establishment backing, is having immense trouble overcoming "a choleric 74-year-old democratic socialist" and will have an even harder time if she's the Democratic nominee in November.

    Rima Regas is a trusted commenter Mission Viejo, CA

    Hillary isn't sorry. Bill is definitely not sorry. Bernie Sanders isn't a senator with few accomplishments.

    Hillary isn't sorry about anything. She hasn't apologized for the superpredator comment. Saying she wouldn't say it now is hardly an apology and during Thursday's debate, she talked about her husband apologizing for it instead of talking about herself (since that was what she was being asked to do), when Bill has yet to apologize. (Clips here: http://wp.me/p2KJ3H-2bw) If anything, he doubled down on defending her and himself. When it comes to mass-incarceration, they both exhibit a kind of moral absenteeism. http://wp.me/p2KJ3H-2b7

    On money in politics, Clinton did herself no favors in the debate, drawing even more attention to her dependence on that money and the impossibility of being completely free to make policy without repaying debts. Debbie Wasserman Schultz was no help to her this week when in an answer, she included big money in the "Big Tent" that the democratic party is supposed to be. http://wp.me/p2KJ3H-2bO

    During his entire tenure in both houses of Congress, Sanders has distinguished himself as one who can work with the other side, propose legislation gets things done through amendments. There is a yuuuge difference in approach between Clinton and Sanders and the willingness to trust Sanders over Clinton. When the choice in front of Americans becomes Trump versus Clinton or Sanders, Sanders wins by a wider margin. Sanders will take more from Trump.

    Mark Thomason is a trusted commenter Clawson, Mich

    So Bill claimed Bernie supporters think, "Just shoot every third person on Wall Street and everything will be fine."

    They don't, but it is telling that Bill said that. His chosen exaggeration displays who he sees as Hillary's side in this. When he says, "they are coming for us" he means Wall Street.

    "Clinton, who talked Obama into it" on Libya and claimed credit, but when it went poorly, she blamed Obama for listening to her, "On Libya, she noted that "the decision was the president's.""

    That is her claim to experience, and not something we ought to vote to experience again.

    That is important, because she still wants to sink us deeper into it. Her own adviser on this says, Hillary "does not see the Libya intervention as a failure, but as a work in progress."

    "Like other decisions, it was put through a political filter and a paranoid mind-set." That is the essence of what makes Hillary so dangerous in a responsible office. From Iraq in the beginning to Libya now, the homework lady did all her work and then saw the wrong things and got it wrong.

    Joe Pike Gotham City

    Hillary is a self-serving, power hungry politician. She is only ever sorry if she fails to get what she wants, or is forced to explain her actions. She feels she is above "the masses." As for her qualifications, job titles alone don't cut it. What did she actually accomplish as a Senator or SecState? Any major laws? Treaties? No. She failed with Russia, Syria and Libya to name just a few. She is not qualified to be president based on qualifications and personality.

    [Sep 14, 2016] September 13, 2016 at 2:19 pm

    Notable quotes:
    "... MSM has really obliterated their credibility this election cycle. ..."
    Sep 14, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Our Famously Free Press

    "Why Are The Media Objectively Pro-Trump?" [Paul Krugman, The New York Times ]. He's got a point. After all, the press systematically suppressed stories about Sanders, who would have been a stronger opponent for Trump than Clinton.

    rich , September 13, 2016 at 2:19 pm

    Krugman fails…

    The Death of Mainstream Media

    At the end of the day, I have concluded that my focus on Hillary as of late (vs. Trump) has as much to with my disgust for the mainstream media as anything else.
    To see these organs, which have destroyed this country by keeping the people uninformed for decades, now rally around a sickly, corrupt, oligarch coddling politician as the empire enters the collapse stage is simply too much to stomach. Although I'm still voting 3rd party, it's now become obvious that if my sentiments are widely reflected across the country, Donald Trump will win the election handily. As I tweeted earlier today:

    The only positive thing to happen during this election season is the death of mainstream media. With their insufferable propaganda fully exposed, there is no coming back.

    http://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2016/09/13/the-death-of-mainstream-media/#more-37561

    MSM has really obliterated their credibility this election cycle.

    Quentin , September 13, 2016 at 2:33 pm

    Another positive thing is the demise of the Bush dynasty. And if Donald Trump pulls it off, the Clinton dynasty. I can't decide with is worse though I tend to detest the Clinton dynasty more especially now the its present star is mucking the place up.

    Quentin , September 13, 2016 at 2:33 pm

    Another positive thing is the demise of the Bush dynasty. And if Donald Trump pulls it off, the Clinton dynasty. I can't decide with is worse though I tend to detest the Clinton dynasty more especially now the its present star is mucking the place up.

    Pavel , September 13, 2016 at 5:00 pm

    Speaking of losing credibility… here is a real shocker via The Hill:

    CBS News edited a video clip and transcript to remove former President Bill Clinton's comment during an interview that Hillary Clinton, now the Democratic presidential nominee, "frequently" fainted in the past.

    Bill Clinton sat down with CBS's Charlie Rose on Monday to try to clear the air around questions regarding his wife's health after she collapsed while getting into a van at a 9/11 memorial ceremony on Sunday.

    "Well, if it is, then it's a mystery to me and all of her doctors," Bill Clinton said when Rose asked him if Hillary Clinton was simply dehydrated or if the situation was more serious. "Frequently - well, not frequently, rarely, on more than one occasion, over the last many, many years, the same sort of thing's happened to her when she got severely dehydrated, and she's worked like a demon, as you know, as secretary of State, as a senator and in the year since."
    But the "CBS Evening News" version cut Clinton's use of "frequently" out. And a review by The Hill of the official transcript released by the network shows that Clinton saying "Frequently - well, not frequently," is omitted as well.

    The Hill: CBS News edits transcript, video clip of Bill Clinton discussing Hillary's health

    Can it get any more blatant?

    BTW Rich I read the LibertyBlitz post earlier and it is spot on.

    Left in Wisconsin , September 13, 2016 at 5:55 pm

    MSM has really obliterated their credibility this election cycle.

    Is there a reason why that matters? Worse now compared to covering for Reagan's Alzheimer's for how many years?

    Daryl , September 13, 2016 at 10:01 pm

    Their credibility has eroded constantly with the rise of alternative methods of communication…it's just the election cycle that lays it bare, like rain washing away a bunch of soil where roots have already died.

    [Sep 14, 2016] The Veeps on War They are both hawkish

    Notable quotes:
    "... So what of Trump and Clinton's vice-presidential picks? For starters, they are both hawkish. ..."
    Sep 14, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com
    By Kelley Beaucar Vlahos September 14, 2016

    According to evolving campaign lore, Donald Trump's son called failed Republican candidate John Kasich ahead of Trump's VP pick in July and told him he could be "the most powerful vice president" ever-in charge of foreign policy, and domestic too-if he agreed to come on board.

    While Trump's people have denied such a lavish entreaty ever occurred, it has become a powerful political meme: the Republican nominee's lack of experience would force him to default to others, particularly on the international front, which is a never-ending series of flash points dotting Europe, Asia, and the Middle East like a child's Lite Brite.

    On the Democratic side there is no such concern-Hillary Clinton has plenty of experience as a senator and secretary of state, and was a "two-for-one" first lady who not only took part (unsuccessfully) in the domestic health-care debate, but passionately advocated (successfully) for the bombing campaigns in Bosnia and Yugoslavia in the 1990s.

    So what of Trump and Clinton's vice-presidential picks? For starters, they are both hawkish.

    Indiana Gov. Mike Pence was an apt pupil of Bush and Cheney during the neoconservative years, voting for the Iraq War in 2002 and serving as one of David Petraeus's cheerleaders in favor of the 2007 surge. He has since supported every intervention his fellow Republicans did, even giving early praise to Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration for the 2011 intervention in Libya.

    On the other side, Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine is as far from the Bernie Sanders mold as they come: a centrist Democrat who supports a muscular, liberal-interventionist foreign policy, and who has been pushing for greater intervention in Syria, just like Hillary Clinton.

    If veeps do matter-and as we saw with Dick Cheney , in many ways they can, bigtime-the non-interventionists can expect nothing but the status quo when it comes to war policy and the war machine at home for the next four years. Under the right conditions, Pence would help drag Trump to the right on war and defense, and Kaine would do nothing but bolster Clinton's already hawkish views on a host of issues, including those involving Syria, Russia, the Middle East, and China.

    If anything, Pence could end up having more influence in the White House, said Bonnie Kristian, a writer and fellow at Defense Priorities , in an interview with TAC . "With these two campaigns, I would predict that Pence would have more of a chance of playing a bigger role [in the presidency] than Tim Kaine does," she offered. Pence could bring to bear a dozen years of experience as a pro-war congressman, including two years on the foreign-affairs committee. "He's been a pretty typical Republican on foreign policy and has a lot of neoconservative impulses. I don't think we could expect anything different," she added.

    For his part, Trump "has been all over the place" on foreign policy, she said, and while his talk about restraint and Iraq being a failure appeals to her and others who would like to see America's overseas operations scaled back, his bench of close advisors is not encouraging. Walid Phares , Gen. Michael Flynn , Chris Christie , Rudy Giuliani : along with Pence, all could fit like neat little pieces into the Bush-administration puzzle circa 2003, and none has ever expressed the same disregard for the Bush and Obama war policies as Trump has on the campaign trail.

    "On one hand, [Trump] has referred to the war in Iraq and regime change as bad and nation-building as bad, but at the same time he has no ideological grounding," said Jack Hunter, politics editor at Rare . If Trump leaves the policymaking up to others, including Pence, "that doesn't bode well for those who think the last Republican administration was too hawkish and did not exhibit restraint."

    Pence, Kristian reminds us , gave a speech just last year at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in which he called for a massive increase in military spending. "It is imperative that conservatives again embrace America's role as leader of the free world and the arsenal of democracy," Pence said, predicting then that 2016 would be a "foreign-policy election."

    "He embraces wholeheartedly a future in which America polices the world-forever-refusing to reorient our foreign policy away from nation-building and toward restraint, diplomacy and free trade to ensure U.S. security," Kristian wrote in The Hill back when Pence accepted his place on the Trump ticket in July. Since then, he has muted his support for Iraq (Trump has said Pence's 2003 vote doesn't matter, even calling it "a mistake" ). Clearly the two men prefer to meet on the issue of Islamic threats and the promise of "rebuilding the military," areas where they have been equally enthusiastic.

    Meanwhile, former Bernie Sanders supporters should be rather underwhelmed with Kaine on national-security policy. On one hand, writers rush to point out that Kaine split with President Obama and Hillary Clinton just a few years ago, arguing the administration could not continue to use the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) to fight ISIS in Iraq and Syria. He also proposed legislation with Sen. John McCain to update the War Powers Act; the bill would have required the president to consult with Congress when starting a war, and Congress to vote on any war within seven days of military action. That would tighten the constitutional responsibilities of both branches, the senators said in 2013.

    On the War Powers Act, Kaine gets points with constitutionalists like University of Texas law professor Steven Vladeck, who said Kaine's effort "recognizes, as we all should, the broader problems with the War Powers Resolution as currently written-and with the contemporary separation of war powers between Congress and the executive branch." But on the issue of the AUMF, Vladeck and others have not been so keen on Kaine.

    Kaine has made two proposals relating to the AUMF, and both would leave the door open to extended overseas military combat operations-including air strikes, raids, and assassinations-without a specific declaration of war. The first directs the president to modify or repeal the 2001 AUMF "by September 2017"; the second, authored with Republican Sen. Jeff Flake, keeps the 2001 AUMF but updates the 2002 AUMF used to attack Iraq to include ISIS.

    As Rosa Brooks said in 2013 :

    A revised AUMF is likely to do precisely what the Bush administration sought to do in the run-up to the Iraq War: codify a dangerous unilateral theory of preemptive war, and provide a veneer of legality for an open-ended conflict against an endlessly expanding list of targets.

    While he might be applauded for trying to strengthen "the rule of law on foreign policy," said Kristian, it's not clear he wants to do it "to scale back these interventions." As a member of both the armed-services and foreign-relations committees, he has already argued for greater intervention in Syria, calling for "humanitarian zones"-which, like "no-fly zones" and "no-bombing zones," mean the U.S. better be ready to tangle with the Syrian president and Russia as well as ISIS.

    Plus, when Kaine was running for his Senate seat in 2011, and Obama-with Clinton's urging-was in the midst of a coalition bombing campaign in Libya, Kaine was much more noncommittal when it came to the War Powers Act, saying Obama had a "good rationale" for going in. When asked if he believed the War Powers Act legally bound the president to get congressional approval to continue operations there, he said, "I'm not a lawyer on that."

    If anything, Kaine will serve as a reliable backup to a president who is perfectly willing to use military force to promote "democracy" overseas. He neither softens Clinton's edges on military and war, nor is necessary to sharpen them. "Does Tim Kaine change [any dynamic]? I don't think so," said Hunter, adding, "I can't imagine he is as hawkish as her on foreign policy-she is the worst of the worst."

    So when it comes to veep picks, the value is in the eye of the beholder. "If you are a conservative and you don't think Trump is hawkish enough, you will like it that Pence is there," notes Hunter. On the other hand, if you like Trump's attitude on the messes overseas-preferring diplomacy over destruction, as he said in his speech Wednesday -Pence might make you think twice, added Kristian. "I'm not sure Pence is going to further those inclinations, if indeed they do exist."

    To make it more complicated, the American public is unsure how it wants to proceed overseas anyway. While a majority favor airstrikes and sending in special-operations groups to fight ISIS in Syria, only a minority want to insert combat troops or even fund anti-Assad groups, according to an August poll . A slim majority-52 percent-want to establish no-fly zones. Yet only 31 percent want to to see a deal that would keep Bashar Assad in power.

    A tall order for any White House.

    Kelley Beaucar Vlahos is a Washington, D.C.-based freelance reporter.

    [Sep 14, 2016] If you can not beat Trump it is time to enlist help of Russians as a convenient scapegoats

    Notable quotes:
    "... If Donald Trump really is doing Presidential Campaign as performance art, it may turn out that his Doctor's letter about his awesome health is the most brilliant aspect of it. Call me wild and crazy but I'm beginning to think that item with its sheer obvious level of BS was a fairly brilliant parody of what we have seen and probably will see from Clinton. ..."
    "... The Putin-did-it comments on that article are depressing and ..."
    "... Romeo and Juliet ..."
    Sep 14, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    1% , September 12, 2016 at 12:09 pm

    If you can't beat 'em, call 'em anti-semites!

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/12/opinion/anti-semitism-and-the-british-left.html

    Jerri-Lynn Scofield Post author , September 12, 2016 at 12:27 pm

    https://www.ft.com/content/377f08c2-78f0-11e6-a0c6-39e2633162d5?ftcamp=crm/email//nbe/WorldNews/product . Link to FT piece headlined Long line of US presidents who concealed ill health.

    Pat , September 12, 2016 at 1:16 pm

    If Donald Trump really is doing Presidential Campaign as performance art, it may turn out that his Doctor's letter about his awesome health is the most brilliant aspect of it. Call me wild and crazy but I'm beginning to think that item with its sheer obvious level of BS was a fairly brilliant parody of what we have seen and probably will see from Clinton.

    Of course, he isn't and that means it is just taking the BS to the nth degree at least until we see the new Clinton release.

    Jen , September 12, 2016 at 2:32 pm

    Speaking of parody. LOOK! RUSSIANS!
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2016/09/12/the-man-who-discovered-cte-thinks-hillary-clinton-may-have-been-poisoned

    Bezos Daily may as well start calling themselves the weekly world news.

    Pat , September 12, 2016 at 3:19 pm

    It really is all a plot of those evil Russians…

    Buttinsky , September 12, 2016 at 3:32 pm

    The Putin-did-it comments on that article are depressing and laughable. Tomorrow's story: Putin tripped Hillary on her way to the van.

    Of course, Hillary has been poisoned. But not by some Russian apothecary:

    There is thy gold, worse poison to men's souls,
    Doing more murders in this loathsome world,
    Than these poor compounds….

    Romeo, Romeo and Juliet

    Pat , September 12, 2016 at 5:18 pm

    I really want someone to Photoshop Boris and Natasha helping Hillary into the van…

    Buttinsky , September 12, 2016 at 9:04 pm

    The Russians did it!!! (Though I'm it's sure not quite what you pictured.)

    https://s21.postimg.org/9sxzqtwif/boris_natasha_hillary.jpg

    JTMcPhee , September 12, 2016 at 6:26 pm

    RE: poisoning - gee, who is next in line behind Hillary? I mean, on the Dem side? This whole "political season" is looking more like something out of the Borgia era. And there is no history of one part or another of the CIA poisoning people like Fidel Castro or whatever, and how many parts of the CIA and the other bits of runaway Empire would like Clinton gone so maybe they could slide a Biden into the slot…

    polecat , September 12, 2016 at 9:22 pm

    maybe, in the future, the'll be an opera made of this kerfuffle of an election ..!

    GeorgeM , September 12, 2016 at 3:05 pm

    Clinton has been having coughing fits since 2009. A quick trip to youtube ends all speculation that this is pneumonia since Friday.

    Anyone interested in the truth of this need only see the fits… over and over and over again.. with dates.

    It's Parkinsons…. or so says my neighbor – a neurosurgeon… who hates her by the way

    but he is not rabid…. just conservative and unhappy with the Bush/Clinton/Obama crime syndicate

    Plenue , September 12, 2016 at 3:41 pm

    "Questions for the presidential candidates on nuclear terrorism, proliferation, weapons policy, and energy"

    Can we first stop talking about nuclear terrorism like it's actually a thing? If no terrorists managed to get the bomb during the deluge of corruption and broken bureaucracy that was the collapse of the USSR (yes, NATO and Pentagon, the Soviet Union also isn't a thing anymore), then none ever are.

    No nuclear country, be it Pakistan or anyone else, is dumb enough to hand over a nuke. Can you imagine the witch hunt that would ensue if someone turned a city into a mushroom cloud? Assuming WW3 didn't just start right then and there. No amount of money would make the certain risk of getting caught worth it.

    All that leaves is a dirty bomb, which is actually a whole lot of effort for something that is no better than an infinitely easier fertilizer bomb.

    Roger Smith , September 12, 2016 at 4:14 pm

    No. 3 Senate Democrat Schumer discloses pneumonia diagnosis [ AP ]. OMG It is the new Zika!!

    Jim Haygood , September 12, 2016 at 4:55 pm

    Pneumonia is the new gout [afflictions of the posh].

    Jen , September 12, 2016 at 8:30 pm

    OMG – call the Washington Post! Another Democrat poisoned by the Russians!

    polecat , September 12, 2016 at 9:26 pm

    Ha --

    [Sep 14, 2016] Obama's Futile Efforts at 'Reassuring' Bad Clients

    Notable quotes:
    "... Obama has showered both Israel and Saudi Arabia with aid and weapons for years, and in practical terms he has been one of the most reliable supporters of both governments, but no matter how much he does for these clients neither they nor their supporters here in the U.S. are satisfied. However much Obama supports both clients, the recipient governments still believe that he is too hard on them, neglects them, and works against their interests. Since they know that Obama responds to each new complaint with another round of "reassurance," they have every incentive to complain and feign outrage about how they are treated in the knowledge that the more they whine the more they will gain. ..."
    "... Obama can try as much as he likes to demonstrate just how conventionally "pro-Israel" he is (and always has been), but there will never be any pleasing those detractors that are (absurdly) convinced that he is ideologically hostile to Israel. ..."
    Sep 13, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com
    The U.S. is preparing to increase the amount of aid it provides to yet another wealthy client:

    President Barack Obama will unveil on Wednesday a massive new military aid package for Israel, one which - at a reported $38 billion over 10 years - would be the largest such deal in U.S. history.

    But is it enough to buy Obama the love of his fiercest pro-Israel critics?

    Not a chance.

    Obama has showered both Israel and Saudi Arabia with aid and weapons for years, and in practical terms he has been one of the most reliable supporters of both governments, but no matter how much he does for these clients neither they nor their supporters here in the U.S. are satisfied. However much Obama supports both clients, the recipient governments still believe that he is too hard on them, neglects them, and works against their interests. Since they know that Obama responds to each new complaint with another round of "reassurance," they have every incentive to complain and feign outrage about how they are treated in the knowledge that the more they whine the more they will gain.

    It is also a fact that many of Obama's "pro-Israel" critics have never accepted and will never accept that he is actually "pro-Israel" as they are, and so they dismiss anything he does as a trick, a bribe, or an insult. Obama can try as much as he likes to demonstrate just how conventionally "pro-Israel" he is (and always has been), but there will never be any pleasing those detractors that are (absurdly) convinced that he is ideologically hostile to Israel. The same goes for hawks that take it for granted that Obama supposedly neglects and abandons "allies" elsewhere in the region. There is nothing Obama can to make them believe that he doesn't do this, but that doesn't seem to stop him from frittering away more resources to placate governments that do little or nothing for the U.S.

    [Sep 13, 2016] Neocon Kagan: Hillary Clinton Is One Of Us

    Notable quotes:
    "... In fact, HRC may be a better prospect for neocons, because they can distract the Dem base with how cool it is for a "strong woman" to send men into battle. Anyone opposed must be a misogynist/sexist pig. By contrast Jeb would be too obvious. ..."
    "... "There is no prospect of a non-interventionist president." ..."
    "... Exactly. Obama has certainly proved this to be true, for those who might've thought otherwise. And since it is true, if one is going to vote anyway, then the decision won't be made on the basis of not "wanting more wars with terrible outcomes." There will have to be another, different, deciding factor, since that factor would rule out Ms. Clinton AND every other candidate. ..."
    "... Yes, I have to second Lysander's view. People - both in and outside the US - must first disabuse themselves of ANY notion that the US is a democratic state, that "changes" in leadership will actually bring about ANY difference in foreign/domestic policy and that the American war criminal ship can be righted by the people utilizing the "democratic" mechanisms at their disposal. ..."
    "... Furthermore, after the Obama debacle and his utter betrayal etc of his supporters if anyone thinks someone in the American Establishment is looking out for their peon asses why then they probably also believe that the US was "surprised/caught off guard" - yet again - by ISIS et al in Iraq. ..."
    "... I wish Rand Paul had his fathers balls, but he doesnt. Ron was a Libertarian pretending to be a Republican, while Rand is a Republican pretending to be a Libertarian... Rand would be no different than any other Republican or Democratic establishment schmuck. ..."
    "... I never did like Ron Pauls economic policy, being left leaning, and I'm doubtful whether he would have actually accomplished anything useful as President, but his NonInterventionism was admirable and I was happy to put his name in in the Rethug primary in 2012 for that reason alone. ..."
    "... Mr. Kristol said he, too, sensed "more willingness to rethink" neoconservatism, which he called "vindicated to some degree" by the fruits of Mr. Obama's detached approach to Syria and Eastern Europe. Mr. Kagan, he said, gives historical heft to arguments "that are very consistent with the arguments I made, and he made, 20 years ago, 10 years ago." ..."
    "... After all the slaughter these people feel like crowing. They are clearly, as JSorrentine often reminds us, pyschopath butchers. ..."
    "... Incidentally, where is the outrage from Samantha Powers about the ISIS massacre in Tikrit? ..."
    "... Well, I guess the world just can't talk about how the amazingly rapid rise of ISIS/L and fall of Iraq completely continues the plans of the apartheid genocidal state of Israel's - and their traitorous Zionist partners in the American Establishment - as set out in the Yinon Plan and Clean Break strategies because - HOW FORTUITOUS...I mean, terribly sad and unexpected, sorry - some unlucky Israeli teenagers just happened to be "kidnapped" by "Hamas" just as the ISIS show was kicking off or so that's what the apartheid genocidal state of Israel is telling the world. ..."
    "... Shrillary wouldn't be where she is today if she wasn't criminally insane. I want her to become President. She'll redefine the meaning of Eerily Inept (a label coined by Gore Vidal and attached to G Dubya Bush). Her greatest moment was when Lavrov called her out on her RESET button and pointed out, with a chuckle, "You got it wrong. It doesn't say RESET it says SHORT CIRCUIT." ..."
    "... Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who argued in favor of arming Syrian rebels, said last week at an event in New York hosted by the Council on Foreign Relations, "this is not just a Syrian problem anymore. I never thought it was just a Syrian problem. I thought it was a regional problem. ..."
    "... Why, even HILLARY is just SOOOO SURPRISED about people trying to erase boundaries, huh? Funny, she should have read further into yesterday's times where it seems that the Zionist mouthpiece of record was desperately trying to get "out in front" of anyone mentioning that the fracturing of Iraq and the ME was all part of long-time Israeli strategy: ..."
    "... In 2006, it was Ralph Peters, the retired lieutenant colonel turned columnist, who sketched a map that subdivided Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and envisioned Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite republics emerging from a no-longer-united Iraq. Two years later, The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg imagined similar partings-of-the-ways, with new microstates -- an Alawite Republic, an Islamic Emirate of Gaza -- taking shape and Afghanistan splitting up as well. Last year, it was Robin Wright's turn in this newspaper, in a map that (keeping up with events) subdivided Libya as well. ..."
    "... As president she's da bomb! ..."
    "... Hillary is a loathsome war mongering bitch. She almost had a public orgasm when Libyan leader Quadaffi was tortured and murdered by US supported Libyan rebels. The muder of Chris Stevens was a case of what goes around comes around. ..."
    "... A point which nobody else has made as far as I know. To wit there is a big overlap between the banking and Israel lobbies since wealthy Jews account for a hugely disproportionate number of top financial movers and shakers. Anything that helps the financial industry also helps the war mongering Israel and neo con lobbies. The heavily Jewish Fed is another enabler of all that is wrong with America today. ..."
    "... I, also agree, with the possible exception of replacing the word "Zionist", with the word "Corporatist", although both can be rightly used. We'll still get the person the 1%ers want us to have. Ain't Oligarchies grand? ..."
    "... Hillary's election depends on two things still unknown: her health and whether the Republicans can manage to choose someone sufficiently batshit crazy to make her the best of abysmal alternatives. ..."
    "... HRH is a Neo Liberal of Arianne 'Sniff Sniff' Huffington's type, the 'Third Way Up Your Ass' of Globalist NAFTA/TPP Free Trade Neonazi destruction of labor and environmental protections, and in your face with NOOOOO apologies. ..."
    "... And Victoria Nuland indicates that she agrees with her husband Robert Kagan's criticism of Obama's foreign policy. ..."
    "... Would it be safe to say Hillary's White Trash ? ..."
    "... There are some really nice photographs of Hillary being very friendly with bearded famous Libyan Islamists (Gaddafi was still alive then). In combination with Benghazi - I think you probably can connect the people greeting Hillary with what happened there (and today's Iraq) I would not think she has a chance to convince with foreign policy. ..."
    "... 'You have a schism between Sunni and Shia throughout the region that is profound. Some of it is directed or abetted by states who are in contests for power there.'" Now, if only he had mentioned the states included and featured the (United) States and Israel. Obama...usually a day late and a dollar short and leading or retreating from behind. ..."
    "... I would rank Obama as the most cynical one. He is doing the dark colonial art. You can berate Bush for bombing Iraq (Obama did that with Libya, just as bad), but he did sink American manpower and treasure for all this futile nation building stuff, ie he tried to repair it. ..."
    "... Obama tried to double down on the nation building stuff in Afghanistan, even copying the "surge". He is still not out of Afghanistan. ..."
    "... He then tried to continue Bush's policy on the cheap, scrapping the nation building stuff and concentrating on shock and awe in Libya. When Russia put a stop to that in Syria he doubled down on the subversion supporting guerilla groups. He is now back in Iraq with allies supporting a "Sunni" insurrection by proxy. After a "color revolution" in Ukraine. ..."
    "... It is not "US foreign policy" but the policy of the british empire. If he was running a US foreign policy, he would at least sometimes do something positive for Americans, by accident if nothing more. ..."
    "... Economic policy to vote on? Are you joking? Whichever party we elect we get Neoliberalism anyway. ..."
    "... "That smile and her gloating about his death made me feel she was some sort of sociopath." Massinissa, you meant psychopath, didn't you? ..."
    Jun 16, 2014 | moonofalabama.org

    Here is the reason why Hillary Clinton should never ever become President of the United States.

    A (sympathetic) New York Times profile of neocon Robert Kagan has this on Clinton II:

    But Exhibit A for what Robert Kagan describes as his "mainstream" view of American force is his relationship with former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who remains the vessel into which many interventionists are pouring their hopes. Mr. Kagan pointed out that he had recently attended a dinner of foreign-policy experts at which Mrs. Clinton was the guest of honor, and that he had served on her bipartisan group of foreign-policy heavy hitters at the State Department, where his wife worked as her spokeswoman.

    "I feel comfortable with her on foreign policy," Mr. Kagan said, adding that the next step after Mr. Obama's more realist approach "could theoretically be whatever Hillary brings to the table" if elected president. "If she pursues a policy which we think she will pursue," he added, "it's something that might have been called neocon, but clearly her supporters are not going to call it that; they are going to call it something else."

    Want more wars with terrible outcomes and no winner at all? Vote the neocon's vessel, Hillary Clinton.

    Clinton, by the way, is also a coward, unprincipled and greedy. Her achievements as Secretary of State were about zero. Why would anyone vote for her?

    Posted by b on June 16, 2014 at 09:09 AM | Permalink

    Lysander | Jun 16, 2014 9:44:15 AM | 4

    I'm afraid you focus too much on elections that have no meaning. It seems we may be cornered into choosing between HR Clinton and Jeb Bush. The latter, I'm sure, would earn equal praise from the Kagan clan. There is no prospect of a non-interventionist president. There is no prospect of a president that is not a Zionist stooge.

    In fact, HRC may be a better prospect for neocons, because they can distract the Dem base with how cool it is for a "strong woman" to send men into battle. Anyone opposed must be a misogynist/sexist pig. By contrast Jeb would be too obvious.

    dahoit | Jun 16, 2014 9:54:05 AM | 6

    Personally, I don't think she is anyone to worry about gaining the office. Too much hatred of her by most Americans, from her serial lying to her terrible foreign policy, to her standing by bent dick, in her lust for power. She will be backed by feminazis,homonazis and zionazis(Kagan).

    Not enough devil worshippers in America,at least not yet,and I believe Americans,from current events that our traitor MSM will be unable to counter with their usual BS,that we are down the rabbit hole of idiotic intervention,and we will end this nonsense,and return to worrying about America,not foreign malevolent monsters like Israel.
    Well,I can at least hope,it springs eternal.

    Earwig | Jun 16, 2014 9:58:14 AM | 7

    "There is no prospect of a non-interventionist president."

    Exactly. Obama has certainly proved this to be true, for those who might've thought otherwise. And since it is true, if one is going to vote anyway, then the decision won't be made on the basis of not "wanting more wars with terrible outcomes." There will have to be another, different, deciding factor, since that factor would rule out Ms. Clinton AND every other candidate.

    JSorrentine | Jun 16, 2014 10:01:53 AM | 8

    Yes, I have to second Lysander's view. People - both in and outside the US - must first disabuse themselves of ANY notion that the US is a democratic state, that "changes" in leadership will actually bring about ANY difference in foreign/domestic policy and that the American war criminal ship can be righted by the people utilizing the "democratic" mechanisms at their disposal.

    I understand that some speak to how corrupt our institutions are but there always seems to be a "feel-goodiness" - i.e., we can still fix it all, boys and girls, if you all just clap your hands LOUDER!! - implicit in their analyses/prescriptions when there should be nothing but anger, fear and revulsion towards the fascist war criminal state that we live within.

    Furthermore, after the Obama debacle and his utter betrayal etc of his supporters if anyone thinks someone in the American Establishment is looking out for their peon asses why then they probably also believe that the US was "surprised/caught off guard" - yet again - by ISIS et al in Iraq.

    Fucking nonsense.

    Massinissa | Jun 16, 2014 11:40:18 AM | 13

    "There is no chance of a non-interventionist president"

    I wish Rand Paul had his fathers balls, but he doesnt. Ron was a Libertarian pretending to be a Republican, while Rand is a Republican pretending to be a Libertarian... Rand would be no different than any other Republican or Democratic establishment schmuck.

    I never did like Ron Pauls economic policy, being left leaning, and I'm doubtful whether he would have actually accomplished anything useful as President, but his NonInterventionism was admirable and I was happy to put his name in in the Rethug primary in 2012 for that reason alone.

    Mike Maloney | Jun 16, 2014 12:01:20 PM | 15

    Great post, b. I saw the article and felt the same thing. While commentators are right to say that the foreign policy of the U.S. remains largely untouched regardless of which candidate or party wins the White House (which the NYT piece does a fine job illustrating), I do think Hillary is the worst the Democrats have to offer.

    What I found amazing about the story is how neocons are now preening about as if they have been vindicated:

    Mr. Kristol said he, too, sensed "more willingness to rethink" neoconservatism, which he called "vindicated to some degree" by the fruits of Mr. Obama's detached approach to Syria and Eastern Europe. Mr. Kagan, he said, gives historical heft to arguments "that are very consistent with the arguments I made, and he made, 20 years ago, 10 years ago."
    After all the slaughter these people feel like crowing. They are clearly, as JSorrentine often reminds us, pyschopath butchers.

    Incidentally, where is the outrage from Samantha Powers about the ISIS massacre in Tikrit?

    Dubhaltach | Jun 16, 2014 12:07:31 PM | 16

    Want more wars with terrible outcomes and no winner at all? Vote the neocon's vessel, Hillary Clinton.

    That's what they've been voting for generations - why change the habit of a lifetime?

    Clinton, by the way, is also a coward, unprincipled and greedy. Her achievements as Secretary of State were about zero. Why would anyone vote for her?

    Well at the risk of being a smartass her achievements were negative, the American hegemony is in worse condition because of her.

    Dubhaltach

    JSorrentine | Jun 16, 2014 12:10:24 PM | 17

    OT:

    Well, I guess the world just can't talk about how the amazingly rapid rise of ISIS/L and fall of Iraq completely continues the plans of the apartheid genocidal state of Israel's - and their traitorous Zionist partners in the American Establishment - as set out in the Yinon Plan and Clean Break strategies because - HOW FORTUITOUS...I mean, terribly sad and unexpected, sorry - some unlucky Israeli teenagers just happened to be "kidnapped" by "Hamas" just as the ISIS show was kicking off or so that's what the apartheid genocidal state of Israel is telling the world.

    Yeah, I bet the apartheid genocidal state of Israel probably has just NO IDEA about what's going on in Iraq what with their harrowing search - read: collective punishment for the residents of the illegally occupied territories - for the 3 missing boys who haven't been ransomed or claimed to have been taken by anyone.

    Wait a second...what if it was ISIS/L and NOT Hamas that "kidnapped" the boys!!!Holy tie-in, Bat-Man!!!!

    Then there would be NO WAY that what we're witnessing is the furthering of the Yinon Plan because the apartheid genocidal Israelis would never instigate false flag terror to further/distract from their own ends/agenda, would they? Nah.

    Wait a second...they ALREADY DID (supposedly):

    A Qaeda-inspired group calling itself the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria - Palestine, West Bank claimed responsibility for the kidnappings, saying it wanted to avenge Israel's killing of three of its group in the Hebron area late last year and to try to free prisoners from Israeli jails. The credibility of the claim was not immediately clear.

    But clear enough for the Zionist mouthpiece of the NYT to print it, right?

    Hoarsewhisperer | Jun 16, 2014 12:18:00 PM | 18

    Shrillary wouldn't be where she is today if she wasn't criminally insane. I want her to become President. She'll redefine the meaning of Eerily Inept (a label coined by Gore Vidal and attached to G Dubya Bush). Her greatest moment was when Lavrov called her out on her RESET button and pointed out, with a chuckle, "You got it wrong. It doesn't say RESET it says SHORT CIRCUIT."

    Then he laughed. At her, not with her. She's a sick, intellectually lazy, dumb, joke. America deserves her.

    JSorrentine | Jun 16, 2014 12:41:43 PM | 20

    Here's Killary quoted in the NYT yesterday:

    Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who argued in favor of arming Syrian rebels, said last week at an event in New York hosted by the Council on Foreign Relations, "this is not just a Syrian problem anymore. I never thought it was just a Syrian problem. I thought it was a regional problem. I could not have predicted, however, the extent to which ISIS could be effective in seizing cities in Iraq and trying to erase boundaries to create an Islamic state."

    Why, even HILLARY is just SOOOO SURPRISED about people trying to erase boundaries, huh? Funny, she should have read further into yesterday's times where it seems that the Zionist mouthpiece of record was desperately trying to get "out in front" of anyone mentioning that the fracturing of Iraq and the ME was all part of long-time Israeli strategy:

    Here's from another NYT piece yesterday:

    In 2006, it was Ralph Peters, the retired lieutenant colonel turned columnist, who sketched a map that subdivided Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and envisioned Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite republics emerging from a no-longer-united Iraq. Two years later, The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg imagined similar partings-of-the-ways, with new microstates -- an Alawite Republic, an Islamic Emirate of Gaza -- taking shape and Afghanistan splitting up as well. Last year, it was Robin Wright's turn in this newspaper, in a map that (keeping up with events) subdivided Libya as well.

    Peters's map, which ran in Armed Forces Journal, inspired conspiracy theories about how this was America's real plan for remaking the Middle East. But the reality is entirely different: One reason these maps have remained strictly hypothetical, even amid regional turmoil, is that the United States has a powerful interest in preserving the Sykes-Picot status quo.

    This is not because the existing borders are in any way ideal. Indeed, there's a very good chance that a Middle East that was more politically segregated by ethnicity and faith might become a more stable and harmonious region in the long run.

    My favorite part of the above column is that it references a previous column from the Zionist NYT from last year in which a war criminal even drew up the new map of the ME!!

    Oh, but that war criminal thought SYRIA was going to be the trigger that allowed for the culmination of the Yinon Plan. Oops!

    And then ALSO YESTERDAY in the NYT everyone's favorite little war Establishment mouthpiece Nicholas Kristoff had this to say:

    The crucial step, and the one we should apply diplomatic pressure to try to achieve, is for Maliki to step back and share power with Sunnis while accepting decentralization of government.

    If Maliki does all that, it may still be possible to save Iraq. Without that, airstrikes would be a further waste in a land in which we've already squandered far, far too much.

    DECENTRALIZATION, huh? Why, Nicky, that sounds like what Putin has suggested for Ukraine, huh? Shhhhhhhh

    And of course Mr. Fuckhead Tom Friedman weighs in ALSO YESTERDAY in the NYT with this:

    THE disintegration of Iraq and Syria is upending an order that has defined the Middle East for a century. It is a huge event, and we as a country need to think very carefully about how to respond. Having just returned from Iraq two weeks ago, my own thinking is guided by five principles, and the first is that, in Iraq today, my enemy's enemy is my enemy. Other than the Kurds, we have no friends in this fight. Neither Sunni nor Shiite leaders spearheading the war in Iraq today share our values.

    The ME is going to be split up inevitably: check

    The US/Israel are JUST NOWHERE to be found: check

    Thanks, Tom, you fucking war criminal scum!!!

    To review:

    Everyone in the Establishment - fake left, right, center, dove, hawk, blah blah - says that it's just inevitable now that Iraq and the ME will probably be broken up.

    Everyone in the Establishment also agrees that NO ONE could see this whole ISIS etc shitpile coming, right?

    Anyone else get the feeling that this is a coordinated continuation of the Zionist Plan for the Middle East?

    Naahh. Nothing to see here, fuckers!!! Move along!!!!

    Penny | Jun 16, 2014 12:45:13 PM | 21

    I am thirding Lysanders comment

    Hillary is perfect for '(p)resident'

    She ties right in with the whole pink power agenda. She is the woMAN version and can also be useful for the women=victims, but, no way for the women/whore

    women/victim/whore is quintessentially Pussy Riot

    And if you criticize HC you are just a woman hater!
    (you know like antisemitic)
    Same as Obama- criticize him, you are just a racist
    Shuts the complaints right off!

    As president she's da bomb!

    Eureka Springs | Jun 16, 2014 1:48:59 PM | 22

    These people aren't just measuring the drapes... they're counting corpses she's sure to order.

    A most barbaric woman/human being, a terrible person, a terrible Governors wife, First Lady, Senator, SOS.... Obviously will be a perfect President.

    She's a shoe-in. Hopefully it will be a presidency that once and for all sends the Demo party the way of the Whigs.

    Andoheb | Jun 16, 2014 2:38:11 PM | 24

    Hillary is a loathsome war mongering bitch. She almost had a public orgasm when Libyan leader Quadaffi was tortured and murdered by US supported Libyan rebels. The muder of Chris Stevens was a case of what goes around comes around.

    Andoheb | Jun 16, 2014 2:47:02 PM | 25

    A point which nobody else has made as far as I know. To wit there is a big overlap between the banking and Israel lobbies since wealthy Jews account for a hugely disproportionate number of top financial movers and shakers. Anything that helps the financial industry also helps the war mongering Israel and neo con lobbies. The heavily Jewish Fed is another enabler of all that is wrong with America today.

    ben | Jun 16, 2014 2:55:41 PM | 26

    lysander @ 4: "There is no prospect of a president that is not a Zionist stooge."

    I, also agree, with the possible exception of replacing the word "Zionist", with the word "Corporatist", although both can be rightly used. We'll still get the person the 1%ers want us to have. Ain't Oligarchies grand?

    Knut | Jun 16, 2014 3:27:22 PM | 31

    Hillary's election depends on two things still unknown: her health and whether the Republicans can manage to choose someone sufficiently batshit crazy to make her the best of abysmal alternatives. I think her health is the critical variable, as the PTB are going to make sure that the Republican candidate will come out strongly for privatization of social security and reversing the 19th amendment. Vote-rigging and gerrymandering will maintain a sufficiently close election to preserve the simulacrum of a free election.

    @18 You live in a dream world.

    chip nikh | Jun 16, 2014 4:30:18 PM | 34

    HRH is a Neo Liberal of Arianne 'Sniff Sniff' Huffington's type, the 'Third Way Up Your
    Ass' of Globalist NAFTA/TPP Free Trade Neonazi destruction of labor and environmental
    protections, and in your face with NOOOOO apologies.

    That she is a totally-disjointed Royal is clear in her 'dead broke' claim. That she is a famous Hectorian, constantly checking which way public opinion is flowing, then crafting
    her confabulated dialogue as screed to her real intents, is well known. Der Prevaricator.

    What should be equally well known, if news got around, Hillary (and UKs Milliband) grifted
    Hamid Karzai $5 BILLION of Americans' last life savings, stolen from US Humanitarian Aid
    to Afghanistan, then made five trips to Kabul for no apparent purpose, before announcing
    that her $-35 MILLION 'dead broke' presidential campaign had been paid off by 'anonymous
    donors'. This is all public record; in the 2009 International Conference on Afghanistan in
    London, right in the conference speeches, framed as 'Karzai's demand', but in fact, that
    speech of Karzai's was written by US State Department. I read the drafts. 'Bicycling'.

    Hillary soon had to fly back one more time and grift Karzai an emergency $3.5 BILLION
    theft, after he lost Americans' $5 BILLION while speculating in Dubai R/E by looting
    his Bank of Kabul. Her 'injection of capital' saved the bank from being audited, and
    no doubt saved all the Kaganites from an embarrassing and public episiotomy.

    In the end, Hillary retired with a fortune of $50 MILLION, again announced publicly, which
    together with the $-35 MILLION campaign payoff in violation of all US election regulations,
    is exactly 1% of the $8.5 BILLION she grifted to Karzai. She's in the 'One Percent Club'.
    "It's a Great Big Club, ...and you ain't in it!" George 'The Man' Carlin

    But who cares? I'll tell you. The Russian know about this grift, certainly the Israelis
    know about this grift, the Millibandits know, the London Karzais know, and if G-d forbid,
    Hillary became HRHOTUS, Americans will be blackmailed down to their underdrawers.

    That's the Levant Way.

    lysias | Jun 16, 2014 4:36:24 PM | 36

    And Victoria Nuland indicates that she agrees with her husband Robert Kagan's criticism of Obama's foreign policy.

    Cold N. Holefield | Jun 16, 2014 7:40:23 PM | 44

    Would it be safe to say Hillary's White Trash? And to think, she was once a Goldwater Girl. So many faces, so many more to come.

    somebody | Jun 16, 2014 7:51:25 PM | 45

    Posted by: scalawag | Jun 16, 2014 5:54:41 PM | 38

    There are some really nice photographs of Hillary being very friendly with bearded famous Libyan Islamists (Gaddafi was still alive then). In combination with Benghazi - I think you probably can connect the people greeting Hillary with what happened there (and today's Iraq) I would not think she has a chance to convince with foreign policy.

    Female voters are not stupid.

    People do not vote on foreign policy. As US household incomes are decreasing there should be a lot of economic policy to vote on.

    truthbetold | Jun 16, 2014 7:51:40 PM | 46

    "Well at the risk of being a smartass her achievements were negative, the American hegemony is in worse condition because of her."
    Because of her and it.

    Dubhaltach gets it right, and as applied to events inclusive of and after 9-11-2001. The purported masterful seamless garment of conspiracy,
    yet it weakened the US and helped get Israel whacked good by Hezbollah.

    As for the unmentioned Saudi, it is of course impossible that Saudi could outplay longterm both the US and Israel longterm.

    Just as it was impossible Chalabi could outplay the neocons and help win Iran the Iraq War. Who is playing catch up and who is
    playing masterfully cohesive and unbeatable conspiracy?

    Dubhaltach gets it right, the US will be pushed out of the Mideast and Israel is longterm DOOMED.

    truthbetold | Jun 16, 2014 8:45:57 PM | 50

    http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/06/16/resisting-the-stupid-shit/

    Here is Obama in the very recent Remnick interview

    "Obama said:

    'You have a schism between Sunni and Shia throughout the region that is profound. Some of it is directed or abetted by states who are in contests for power there.'" Now, if only he had mentioned the states included and featured the (United) States and Israel. Obama...usually a day late and a dollar short and leading or retreating from behind.

    somebody | Jun 17, 2014 5:06:26 AM | 71

    Posted by: HnH | Jun 17, 2014 4:30:40 AM | 64

    I would rank Obama as the most cynical one. He is doing the dark colonial art. You can berate Bush for bombing Iraq (Obama did that with Libya, just as bad), but he did sink American manpower and treasure for all this futile nation building stuff, ie he tried to repair it.

    The withdrawal from Iraq was negotiated by Bush. It was an election campaign deceit to pretend Obama's foreign policy was any different.

    Obama tried to double down on the nation building stuff in Afghanistan, even copying the "surge". He is still not out of Afghanistan.

    He then tried to continue Bush's policy on the cheap, scrapping the nation building stuff and concentrating on shock and awe in Libya. When Russia put a stop to that in Syria he doubled down on the subversion supporting guerilla groups. He is now back in Iraq with allies supporting a "Sunni" insurrection by proxy. After a "color revolution" in Ukraine.

    He just "sold" US foreign policy in a different target group, Hillary will sell it to her target group, Jeb Bush to his.

    The substance never changes and is cooked by the Council of Foreign Relations.

    T2015 | Jun 17, 2014 5:45:44 AM | 72

    It is not "US foreign policy" but the policy of the british empire. If he was running a US foreign policy, he would at least sometimes do something positive for Americans, by accident if nothing more.

    Massinissa | Jun 17, 2014 11:53:21 AM | 84

    @45

    Economic policy to vote on? Are you joking? Whichever party we elect we get Neoliberalism anyway.

    Crone | Jun 18, 2014 12:23:56 AM | 97

    "That smile and her gloating about his death made me feel she was some sort of sociopath." Massinissa, you meant psychopath, didn't you?

    the following is an excerpt from essay written by James at Winter Patriot:

    "... Psychopaths are people without a conscience; without compassion for others; without a sense of shame or guilt. The majority of people carry within them the concern for others that evolution has instilled in us to allow us to survive as groups. This is the evolutionary basis of the quality of compassion. Compassion is not just a matter of virtue; it is a matter of survival. Psychopaths do not have this concern for others and so are a danger to the survival of the rest of us.

    Psychopaths, as a homogeneous group, would not survive one or two generations by themselves. They are motivated only by self interest and would exploit each other till they ended up killing each other. Which gives one pause for thought! They are parasites and need the rest of us to survive. In doing so they compromise the survival of the whole species.

    Psychopaths represent approximately between 1% and 20% of the population in western countries depending on whose research you go by and also depending on how broad a definition of the condition you adopt. It is generally held, though, that there is a hard core of between 4-6% or so and maybe another 10 -15% of the population that is functionally psychopathic in that they will exploit their fellow human being without hesitation.

    The hard core are untreatable. They see nothing wrong with who or what they are. The other 10-15% group may be persuaded to act differently in a different environment or a different society. The second group act out of a misguided strategy of survival. I'll concentrate on the hard core 5% and the singular fact that must be borne in mind with them is that they are incapable of change for the better. They cannot reform or be reformed. And you can take that to the bank in every case! They must never be trusted.

    Documented liars like those that populate the current Kiev regime can be confidently assumed to be psychopaths from their behaviour and so will never negotiate in good faith and will always renege on any deals they make. The same can be said for the governments of the US and UK who back them. Historically, they have never made a treaty that they did not subsequently break."

    James' essay is extremely informative wrt group psychopathy... some of you may want to give it a read:

    http://winterpatriot.com/node/894

    psst... imho TPTB are psychopaths as are the puppets whose strings they pull.

    Massinissa | Jun 18, 2014 1:29:31 PM | 98@97

    My bad... Im not even sure what the difference between the two is.

    crone | Jun 18, 2014 4:47:48 PM | 99

    sociopath: a person with a personality disorder manifesting itself in extreme antisocial attitudes and behavior and a lack of conscience.

    see also http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/201305/how-spot-sociopath

    psychopath: a person suffering from chronic mental disorder with abnormal or violent social behavior.
    an unstable and aggressive person. "schoolyard psychopaths will gather around a fight to encourage the combatants"

    see also http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/mindmelding/201301/what-is-psychopath-0

    Mina, now that I've looked up these links for you, I am confused myself! Since a sociopath is less of a danger to the rest of us, I prefer to call TPTB and their puppets psychopaths. Not your bad at all, apparently the two are so similar as to there being difficulty telling them apart.

    btw, I always enjoy your posts ~ not only do I get new info, but often new sources... which is great. Thanks!

    [Sep 13, 2016] Hillary Clinton's National Security Advisers Are a "Who's Who" of the Warfare State

    Notable quotes:
    "... Hillary Clinton's National Security Advisers Are a "Who's Who" of the Warfare State ..."
    "... The list of key advisers - which includes the general who executed the troop surge in Iraq and a former Bush homeland security chief turned terror profiteer - is a strong indicator that Clinton's national security policy will not threaten the post-9/11 national-security status quo that includes active use of military power abroad and heightened security measures at home. ..."
    Sep 08, 2016 | theintercept.com

    Hillary Clinton's National Security Advisers Are a "Who's Who" of the Warfare State
    By Zaid Jilani, Alex Emmons, and Naomi LaChance

    HILLARY CLINTON IS meeting with a new national security "working group" that is filled with an elite "who's who" of the military-industrial complex and the security deep state.

    The list of key advisers - which includes the general who executed the troop surge in Iraq and a former Bush homeland security chief turned terror profiteer - is a strong indicator that Clinton's national security policy will not threaten the post-9/11 national-security status quo that includes active use of military power abroad and heightened security measures at home.

    It's a story we've seen before in President Obama's early appointments. In retrospect, analysts have pointed to the continuity in national security and intelligence advisers as an early sign that despite his campaign rhetoric Obama would end up building on - rather than tearing down - the often-extralegal, Bush-Cheney counterterror regime. For instance, while Obama promised in 2008 to reform the NSA, its director was kept on and its reach continued to grow.

    Obama's most fateful decision may have been choosing former National Counterterrorism Center Director John Brennan to be national security adviser, despite Brennan's support of Bush's torture program. Brennan would go on to run the president's drone program, lead the CIA, fight the Senate's torture investigation, and then lie about searching Senate computers.

    That backdrop is what makes Clinton's new list of advisers so significant.

    It includes Gen. David Petraeus, the major architect of the 2007 Iraq War troop surge, which brought 30,000 more troops to Iraq. Picking him indicates at partiality to combative ideology. It also represents a return to good standing for the general after he pled guilty to leaking notebooks full of classified information to his lover, Paula Broadwell, and got off with two years of probation and a fine. Petraeus currently works at the investment firm KKR & Co.

    Another notable member of Clinton's group is Michael Chertoff, a hardliner who served as President George W. Bush's last secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, and who since leaving government in 2009 has helmed a corporate consulting firm called the Chertoff Group that promotes security-industry priorities. For example, in 2010, he gave dozens of media interviews touting full-body scanners at airports while his firm was employed by a company that produced body scanning machines. His firmalso employs a number of other ex-security state officials, such as former CIA and NSA Director Michael Hayden. It does not disclose a complete list of its clients - all of whom now have a line of access to Clinton.

    Many others on the list are open advocates of military escalation overseas. Mike Morell, the former acting director of the CIA, endorsed Clinton last month in a New York Times opinion piece that accused Trump of being an "unwitting agent of the Russian Federation." The Times was criticized for not disclosing his current employment by Beacon Global Strategies, a politically powerful national-security consulting firm with strong links to Clinton. Three days later, Morell told Charlie Rose in a PBS interview that the CIA should actively assassinate Russians and Iranians in Syria.

    During his time at the CIA, Morell was connected to some of the worst scandals and intelligence failures of the Bush administration. In his book, he apologizes for giving flawed intelligence to Colin Powell about Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction, but defends the CIA torture program as legal and ethical.

    Jim Stavridis, a former NATO supreme allied commander Europe on Clinton's advisory group, told Fox News Radio in July, when he was being vetted by Clinton as a possible vice presidential nominee, that "we have got to get more aggressive going into Syria and Iraq and go after [ISIS] because if we don't they're going to come to us. It's a pretty simple equation." He said he would "encourage the president to take a more aggressive stance against Iran, to increase our military forces in Iraq and Syria, and to confront Vladmir Putin" over his moves in Crimea.

    The New York Times reported in 2011 that Michael Vickers, a former Pentagon official on Clinton's new list, led the use of drone strikes. He would grin and tell his colleagues at meetings, "I just want to kill those guys."

    Others on the list played a role in the targeted killing policies of the Obama administration, including Chris Fussell, a top aide to Gen. Stanley McChrystal, and now a partner with him at his lucrative consulting firm, the McChrystal Group....

    [Sep 13, 2016] Croatias election is a warning about the return of nationalism to the Balkans

    Far right nationalism is essentially an externality caused of neoliberal globalization. that means that neoliberalism inevitably produces a splash of virulent far right nationalism in countries were the standard of living dropped considerably and unemployment hit high marks.
    The author failed to mention neoliberalism and the crisis of neoliberal globalization even once. What a sucker. Very few of Guardian commenter realized that this we are now facing with a strong, driven by nationalism, backlash to neoliberal globalization. In this case with neoliberals represented by EU bureaucrats.
    Notable quotes:
    "... There goes Mason again -- spouting his pro-global fascist bile as though he were some Socialist hero. ..."
    "... Sovereign nations are the ONLY bulwark against the banking cartel's now-obvious global tyranny of debt servitude. ..."
    "... I always seems hypocritical to slate nationalism in one breath and celebrate cultural diversity in the next. Given that most cultures in existence are very much defined by national identity...you have only to look at how people define themselves...'progressives' find themselves constantly having to square the circle of protecting cultures whilst trying to eliminate nations. ..."
    "... conservative and middle of the road parties (and for a long time this included Labour) pushed an agenda that favoured the rich, and left the middle class by the wayside. If you want to find the cheerleaders of globalism you don't have to look much further than most of the world's conservative parties. Far right (or far left) parties aren't very successful in democracies in which people come before profit. ..."
    "... Money interests controlling the world demeaning the nation state, undermining ethnic unity, using well meaning liberal fools to make true government impossible and preventing people from achieving their natural greatness. ..."
    "... Funny stuff to read. There is no Croatia as a independent state. It is owned by multinational companies. Everything is foreign except forests and drinking water. The is no Croatian independent army - Croatian army is a part of NATO. ..."
    "... There is no independent government left or right since everything they do is to listen to their masters from Brussels who are slaping then while they are amassing wealth by means of corruption. ..."
    "... Now that the global economy is shaken, the olden demons have crawled out of the woodwork ..."
    "... They also seem a bit lost on Mussolini, a man they compare to Trump on an incessant basis (I cringe a little each time I read it). This a man who, in his Fascist Manifesto, advocated in favour of the minimum wage, pandering to the unions, progressive taxation, lowering the voting age and abolishing the upper-chamber. Does that sound 'far-right' to you? ..."
    "... Adolf Hitler, 1927: "We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." ..."
    "... perhaps it's a case of the EU reaping what it's sowed? let's face the leading members of the eu at the time - in particular Germany - did all they could to hasten the break up of Yugoslavia. The 'state' of Croatia was a construct of the nazis in the first place ..."
    "... in 1992, before the war in Bosnia started, Europe sent Jose Cutilleiro to broker a peace deal. He did it and all three sides (Bosnian Serbs, Bosnian Croats and Bosnian Muslims) signed it and the collective sigh of relief could be heard on the Moon. But then Warren Zimmerman, US diplomat, called the leader of Bosnian Muslims for a talk that lasted five days and after that, Alija Izetbegovic retracted his signature, a Muslim killed a Serb in Sarajevo, the first shots were fired after that and the war started...you were saying something about Americans imposing peace? ..."
    "... The huge elephant in the room is NATO. A highly corrupt, highly undemocratic institution that has long acted like the world police, meddling everywhere and funding tyrants which won't stop until it completes its aim of full globalisation. It actively aims to flood Europe with migrants without giving democratic elected governments a say. You think Juncker is bad, well he is, but read up on Peter Sutherland and other shady characters in NATO. Until NATO is somehow brought under control nationalism will continue to rise. ..."
    Sep 12, 2016 | www.theguardian.com
    kaboobly , 2016-09-13 00:46:42
    There goes Mason again -- spouting his pro-global fascist bile as though he were some Socialist hero.

    Sovereign nations are the ONLY bulwark against the banking cartel's now-obvious global tyranny of debt servitude.

    The more sovereign nations and centres of sovereign power we have, the more insulated we are from the kind of global fascism that Mason, being the snake oil salesman he is, peddles.

    Ubermensch1 , 2016-09-13 00:26:03
    I always seems hypocritical to slate nationalism in one breath and celebrate cultural diversity in the next. Given that most cultures in existence are very much defined by national identity...you have only to look at how people define themselves...'progressives' find themselves constantly having to square the circle of protecting cultures whilst trying to eliminate nations.

    Perhaps the resultant cultural homelessness is just as much a cause of issues as is nationalism in itself.

    AndrewJB -> hugodegauche , 2016-09-13 01:26:36
    For me the reason nationalist parties are doing well is that conservative and middle of the road parties (and for a long time this included Labour) pushed an agenda that favoured the rich, and left the middle class by the wayside. If you want to find the cheerleaders of globalism you don't have to look much further than most of the world's conservative parties. Far right (or far left) parties aren't very successful in democracies in which people come before profit.

    As for Weimar, since you brought it up. Fascism wasn't voted into power. A group of bankers and industrialists (conservatives) persuaded the German president to make Hitler the chancellor. The rest is history. As a darkly humorous coda, one of the high ups in the Reichsbank was interviewed after the war and asked why he helped do this - considering the awful things Hitler had been saying. His answer was along the lines of; 'we didn't think he was serious about that...'

    ArabinPatson , 2016-09-13 01:02:58
    Mason is right of course. I do fear a repeat of history. One thing that strikes me looking at the nationalist conspiracy theorists is how familiar it is. I've been looking a lot recently at the far right since the end of the 19th century up to World War 2. It's basically the same guff that Ukippers spout.

    Money interests controlling the world demeaning the nation state, undermining ethnic unity, using well meaning liberal fools to make true government impossible and preventing people from achieving their natural greatness.

    The only real difference is that at the time the bastards used the Jews to personify a global conspiracy of the wealthy and now they use the more malleable "elite". It's a much more flexible term. Disagree with me and using facts? You are part of a metropolitan bubble or academic ivory tower etc...Also big difference is that at the time they did have to stand on a street corner to spout their bile and risk a scrap. Now it's swamping the comments section of a left wing newspaper. Much safer if a bit more cowardly.

    Marko Tom , 2016-09-13 09:44:17
    Funny stuff to read. There is no Croatia as a independent state. It is owned by multinational companies. Everything is foreign except forests and drinking water. The is no Croatian independent army - Croatian army is a part of NATO.

    There is no independent government left or right since everything they do is to listen to their masters from Brussels who are slaping then while they are amassing wealth by means of corruption.

    Result is 53% of turnout in elections. People don't care or try to chance something that is impossible to change.

    We are a nation of 4 million - a great threat to core values of EU where everything is great. Kick us out and enjoy your multiculturalism - I will rather take my dog for a walk not having to the lock the door in my house...

    Moreni , 2016-09-13 03:32:43
    Now that the global economy is shaken, the olden demons have crawled out of the woodwork and the inherently Fascist nations (the ones who chose militarist authoritarianism or totalitarianism on their own before WWII) are reverting to type. Croatia, Poland, Hungary, Finland, the Baltic states.
    We can only hope Spain, Portugal, Italy, Austria, Germany, Romania, and Bulgaria can find the inner strength to resist this temptation to regress.
    PrivatiseMorality , 2016-09-13 06:20:41
    Just once, I'd love for a Guardian 'journalist' to define what 'far-right' means; it's, by some distance, their most commonly used slur. I know they think it's a pejorative term, but what alludes them is it's the precise definition of anarchism or extreme individualism. They seem to think it's a synonym for 'racist.'

    It probably has something to do with the fact they've been taught history's worst tyrant was 'far-right' because, well, 'he was waycist.' Except, what they've failed to notice is

    1. the name of his party
    2. the fact he was a ruthless statist and advocated supreme state-control
    3. he despised laissez-faire capitalism
    4. he hated liberal individualism.
    5. racism isn't a political policy and the left doesn't oppose racism, it merely opposes racism against non-white people 6. he was a self-avowed socialist!

    They also seem a bit lost on Mussolini, a man they compare to Trump on an incessant basis (I cringe a little each time I read it). This a man who, in his Fascist Manifesto, advocated in favour of the minimum wage, pandering to the unions, progressive taxation, lowering the voting age and abolishing the upper-chamber. Does that sound 'far-right' to you?

    His manifesto reads like the manifesto of a modern progressive party (which is why the progressives of the 20's championed him). It just demonstrates how utterly narrative driven progressive politics is; then again, those who live by narrative die by narrative.

    PrivatiseMorality -> Omniscience , 2016-09-13 06:36:12
    Adolf Hitler, 1927: "We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions."

    He basically sounds like your modern-day progressive.

    Leigh Richards , 2016-09-13 06:36:12
    perhaps it's a case of the EU reaping what it's sowed? let's face the leading members of the eu at the time - in particular Germany - did all they could to hasten the break up of Yugoslavia. The 'state' of Croatia was a construct of the nazis in the first place FFS!
    nishville , 2016-09-13 11:29:15
    It was, ultimately, US diplomacy that imposed the peace of 1995.

    in 1992, before the war in Bosnia started, Europe sent Jose Cutilleiro to broker a peace deal. He did it and all three sides (Bosnian Serbs, Bosnian Croats and Bosnian Muslims) signed it and the collective sigh of relief could be heard on the Moon. But then Warren Zimmerman, US diplomat, called the leader of Bosnian Muslims for a talk that lasted five days and after that, Alija Izetbegovic retracted his signature, a Muslim killed a Serb in Sarajevo, the first shots were fired after that and the war started...you were saying something about Americans imposing peace?

    twiglette , 2016-09-12 22:04:44
    They used to say of the Balkans that it is like tectonic plates building up pressure one against the other. Eventually they will explode again. This seems likely.
    Huddsblue -> ArabinPatson , 2016-09-13 01:10:27
    "Money interests controlling the world demeaning the nation state, undermining ethnic unity"

    That's not a conspiracy theory, that's the truth. The far-right are opportunistic vultures of course but people's concerns are very real, even if most of them don't know the full facts. Who does?

    Huddsblue , 2016-09-13 01:01:53
    The huge elephant in the room is NATO. A highly corrupt, highly undemocratic institution that has long acted like the world police, meddling everywhere and funding tyrants which won't stop until it completes its aim of full globalisation. It actively aims to flood Europe with migrants without giving democratic elected governments a say. You think Juncker is bad, well he is, but read up on Peter Sutherland and other shady characters in NATO. Until NATO is somehow brought under control nationalism will continue to rise. Chilling.
    DanijelS, 2016-09-13 11:20:21
    It is not true that announced referendum in Republika Srpska is about independence. It is actually to check people's opinion about constitutional court that forbidding Serbs to celebrate 09 January as National Day - just one more decision in a row made exclusively to further lower Serb autonomy in region guaranteed by peace agreement.
    nishville, 2016-09-13 11:17:51
    Just across the mountains lies Republika Srpska – the Serb enclave created in the country of Bosnia and Herzegovina by the Dayton Agreement in 1995, after a bitter civil war. Republika Srpska's leaders are threatening to hold a referendum on independence, which would blow up the deal that has brought peace to the region for 20 years.

    In response, Croatia's politicians have upped the rhetoric..

    Three paragraphs, that is how long I had to wait for the first "It's actually Serbs' Fault" bit. Croatia has no interest in Republika Srpska at the moment, and if it does, it is observing its moves to eventually copy them and get out of the very uncomfortable partnership with Bosnian Muslims whom they see as a much greater threat, so mr. Mason completely missed the mark - I would have a word with the researchers if I was him, this is quite embarrassing.

    Croatia is silently desensitizing EU for a very long time: a mass for fascist leader Pavelic here, a monument to an ustasha terrorist there, a nazi minister yesterday, releasing a war criminal today - little by little, Croatia is being nazified under the nose of EU officials.

    It all started in 1990 and never stopped. Imagine the German Jews waking up one morning discovering the German constitution has been altered to exclude them from sharing the equal rights with the rest and that Nazi money, flags and other symbols are reinstated and that even some old Nazi politicians are brought from abroad to take positions in the government - all that happened to Croatian Serbs in 1990, the regime that killed 200 000 of them in 1941 seemed to be resurrected. Worse even, nobody in Europe minded that Croatian defense minister Susak openly uses Nazi salute and the rest of them lionizes the Nazi Independent State of Croatia.

    It is happening again, in Croatia, Hungary and Poland and again EU doesn't react so I start to think that EU actually doesn't mind Nazis at all.

    KaeruJim , 2016-09-13 11:17:18
    I think some countries are just more susceptible to nationalism than others. It's no accident that among the activist demographic, Paul is citing 40% unemployment.

    Nationalism and fascism are growing forces across the world.

    It is a highly complex issue, but the source of hatred towards others and the exultation of the "you and yours" is fear and insecurity. It is an animalistic response, a tribalism within our DNA.

    To my mind, there are some simple pillars of resistance. Education, of course. A significant reduction in inequality, and the reintroduction of hope particularly to young men. A fair crack of the whip for all.

    But the big point for me that people miss is the complete lack of a narrative from the developed world, except dog-eat-dog, individualism, selfishness and false utopia of wealth generation. Nationalism and fascism have a story, have a decisive message. It is seductive to those who are lost.

    Until the developed world can find what it really stands for (and don't tell me it's "democracy and freedom" because neither is fully true), our society will continue to fracture and the next world war will edge ever closer.

    Miljenko Šimić , 2016-09-13 11:08:48
    This article gets it wrong. There is not a single Member of the Croatian Parliament, who could be labeled as "far right", or anybody resembling Farrage, the BNP, Marine Le Pen, or the Italian Right, where memorial services for Mussolini are casually being held. Croatian politics has no right wing, period.
    MisterBreeze -> Miljenko Šimić , 2016-09-13 11:14:45
    Bullshit dude, you're flat out lying. There are Pavelić and Ustaša memorials all over the country, masses held, za dom spremni ustaša in football stands without any action by the police or politics. There are proponents of this policy in the Sabor, luckily less now than before, so if you're trying to preach to the British, you lose. Delete your account.
    Leigh Richards -> MisterBreeze , 2016-09-13 11:24:04
    um with all due respect Zlatko Hasanbegović is certainly someone in the Croat parliament with fascist and ustashe sympathies.
    jibs , 2016-09-13 11:02:57
    Shows exactly how 'European values' repetitively thrown at us as the founding blocks of the EU, are pretty meaningless in reality. The standards to which Turkey must adhere according to EU whims are far different to those of Balkan entities (nicely 'Christian' and unlike Cyprus, unequivocally 'European' in geography).

    OK to low standards from member states, but not OK to higher standards than some members from Turkey. And yet this is all about 'values', such as fundamental rights, justice, education, which have to be anchored in perceived religion and the paranoia of those who don't know who they are unless a national identity is legislated for them.

    Marko Topolnik , 2016-09-13 10:30:18
    This article completely ignores the fact that the right-wing HDZ leader, Karamarko, is now long and gone. The new leader Plenkovic has 180-degree opposite rhetoric, which is typical of HDZ in general, a party without a consistent left-right positioning. It arose as a populist movement to form independent Croatia.
    MisterBreeze -> Marko Topolnik , 2016-09-13 11:16:51
    The new leader of the HDZ was elected with the same majority of the same people as the previous Karamarko. Plenković is a facade behind the same pro-fascist, criminal organization as before. HDZ has from the outset been positioned right, and surprisingly the least right during Tuđman, former Tito general and communist.
    Sevenfold1 scliffe , 2016-09-13 11:04:00
    Utter tosh - Britain voted for Brexit as it is sick & tired of being dictated to be unelected undemocratic Brussels bureaucrats & the ECJ. The United States of Europe project is an corpse that has not the intelligence to realise it is dying & the sooner the better. If the EU reverted in being purely a trading arrangement rather than a supra-national political ideal it may still have a miniscule chance of survival but with cretins like Juncker, Tusk et al in charge - no chance. The sooner we exercise Article 50 & begin the divorce proceedings the better.
    MissSarajevo , 2016-09-13 08:51:36
    So out of touch, Mr. Mason or is it a slow day at the office? Where to start?!? Perhaps go back to the nineties when Franjo Tudjman spoke to the crowds and declared "thank God my wife is neither a Serb or a Jew". Europe praised him and supported his ethnic cleansing of more than 250.000 Serbs from the Krajina. Successive Croat governments have rehabilitated war criminals from WWII and renamed squares and streets after racist butchers. In the meantime Europe has aided and abetted whether by actively participating or by ignoring what is going on. You need to read a lot more about the situation and stop weaving the Russians into this mess. It is the EU and US mess. The solution should e looked for st their door!
    everyusernamiinuse , 2016-09-13 07:53:10
    Xenophobic croatians? They are trying to uphold those millions of demanding invaders so you can peacefully write bull like this in your north london garden. They were happy to recover from the war and now they are cracking again under the financial burden of the illegal immigrant crisis. Rampant corruption in Croatia? Your whole elite is in bed with Saudies and Russian oligarchs. London is the moneylaundering capital of the world a safehaven for crooks.
    Sorry4Soul , 2016-09-13 06:03:53
    Didn't graun know this ? Croatia has long been a 'frontier post' of European 'civilisation'. Fascist tendency is well known trait in Croatian society(just as Nationalism has in Serbia). Anyone with the basic knowledge on Balkans is aware of this.

    Anyway to be honest I am not at all surprised with such 'articles' where the author gets sos surprised after similar things happen. It occurred in -
    1. In post Qaddafi Libya graun was 'surprised' to know that rebels have islamist leaning (leaning my a**, they ARE hardcore islamists)
    2. In post Yanukovich Ukraine when after so many failed attempts to cover things up they had to publish some articles saying battalions like Aidar, Azov 'like' to use fascist symbols(it's expected from fascists, isn't it ? )
    3. They still haven't admitted that 'moderates' in Syria are not exactly moderates. I guess they will admit it only if Assad is overthrown.

    Madranon , 2016-09-13 04:26:51
    Democracy is like asking a question that you don't want to know the answer.
    Martin Ven Moreni , 2016-09-13 03:40:31
    Don't forget the UK.
    Corto Maltese , 2016-09-13 03:31:43
    "Russian money has poured not just into Serbia but into Republika Srpska, too, together with increased diplomatic influence." Yes, but more investments are coming from the West (Fiat, Michelin, Mondelez, Microsoft, etc.) with substantial governments sponsored infrastructure projects coming from UAE and EU. Why is successful nationhood of Balkan states almost explicitly linked with complete alignment with either East or West? Why is not normal to trade freely and be "politically and diplomatically influenced" by both sides? Or, it could be exclusively reserved right for, for example, Britain that now looks to China as a post-Brexit alternative. No matter how media is trying to portrait the Russian influence in the region, the fact is that Balkan countries are well seated in the heart of Europe, with no intention to pack and leave.

    What is cosmetically used as a divisive material by the local political parties in the Balkans for their daily use, is usually propelled by the media as an undeniable proof that "old Balkan ghosts" are back. The ordinary people are tired of political rhetoric, amplified by sensations hungry media. By looking for the change, they might be ending with the same result, election after election, but nations of the region are not interested in yet another geostrategic trap, full of sacrifices for the sake of big players. They want peace and a chance to make a dignified living.

    philipsiron , 2016-09-13 02:15:43
    This is actually we fear from the neolib hype of their attention to the young generation =

    Meanwhile, young people across the region try to live in a cannabis-softened, networked dreamworld – where electronic dance music or Pokémon Go replace the national and political identities formed 20 years ago.

    ZeleznaSparta , 2016-09-13 01:46:46
    I remember during the various Balkan wars the region was frequently described as an 'historical fault-line'. There was then something of a revisionist backlash that disputed that such a thing existed and asserted that the antagonism between various groups went back no further than the rise of romantic nationalism in the 1800s.

    Actually, there is a fault-line, but not the one that many people imagine (i.e Christian/Muslim or Occidental/Oriental). The division is between different Slav groups; one the one hand, those like the Slovenes and Croats who are traditionally Catholic and consider themselves part of the West, and on the other the Serbs, Macedonians and Montenegrins who generally see themselves as part of an Orthodox, 'authentically' Slavic community with Russia at its head. Much the same division is found further North and is fed by both Russian historiography that sees the country as the guardian of Slavdom - the big brother to various smaller nations - and by the instinctive Western view that the 'other' is fundamentally uncivilised (or at least un-modern).

    My own country (the Czech Republic) is a good example of this. Far from seeing ourselves as part of some great Slav family except in the most abstract sense, most Czechs take their cues from Berlin, Paris, London and Washington and see Russians as somewhat backward and uncouth (an impression reinforced by the presence of the Red Army here for nearly 50 years. Believe me, if you'd seen the poor bastards up close, you wouldn't fear them so much as pity them). But go to Minsk or even parts of Eastern Slovakia and you'll find opinions that are the polar opposite of the above. For various historical reasons, the same attitudes are amplified in the Balkans so that you have a situation where peoples who are ethnically almost identical end up hating each other to the point of violence.

    On a different note, it is strange that the legacy of colonialism is used to excuse almost anything in the developing world but Turkish domination of the Balkans and the impact that that had on the cultural development and outlook of the various peoples there - the Serbs in particular - is virtually never factored in as a reason for people killing each other in large numbers. It is almost as if some people think that Europeans should know better...

    MdNvS1 Huddsblue , 2016-09-13 01:56:37
    Globalization is happening with or without NATO. Technology and science progressed, the world is connected, the differences are melting. Isolation never ends well. On topic: Croatia is in NATO and there are no refugees here.
    SpeedyWeasel , 2016-09-13 01:01:28
    The EU is Balkanising Europe with a helping hand from Merkel. Ethnic and geopolitical conflict is our future, simply look at the polls in western European states. "Nationalism" is the modern lefts boogie man. Maybe if the left (and let's be honest, center right) stopped with their ludicrous immigration policies there would be less hardline national sentiment. Multiculturalism is not some sort of human right, it's a political ideology, and it will come apart.
    naiverealist , 2016-09-13 00:10:05
    The EU is doing great things for all the med countries, building strong economies with good prospects for young people and promoting peace and democracy on its borders, why the concern?
    ashinkar naiverealist , 2016-09-13 00:15:49
    "...promoting peace and democracy..." LOL
    naiverealist ashinkar , 2016-09-13 00:20:59
    Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, the Balkans, Ukraine, Turkey, Syria, they are being imbued with the spirit of European free thought and values, the sort of liberal tolerance you will only find in great countries like France, why are you laughing?
    Buckquoy781 , 2016-09-13 00:05:01
    It is disturbing that here as in the UK with Farage and Brexit and lePen in France etc(long list of nasty pieces of work) nationalism is resurgent.It differs little from the Fascism of the 30s in its glorification of the nation state and hatred of foreigners. Europe has to face this down in any way it can or we will repeat the mistakes of last century and get embroiled in a conflict that only the pedlars of hate would welcome.
    pithea Buckquoy781 , 2016-09-13 00:15:50
    How do you work out that an appreciation of your own culture and national identity equates to a hatred of foreigners? Why would it?
    maias , 2016-09-13 00:03:53
    If nationalism is bad then what do the Olympics and the World Cup do every four years except inspire nationalism?
    Riverside61 , 2016-09-13 00:00:10
    On this issue the guardian ,Mason and below the line comment are out of their depth by a mile, far to complicated/sensitive an issue, which demands a great deal of historical knowledge and cultural /political /religious/ethnic awareness .
    RoseSelavyyy , 2016-09-12 23:50:48
    A lot of points here raised, none of them expanded on.

    Croatia is in the title, yet, you mention Bosnia, Republika Srpska, Macedonia... the Balkans, as you like to call this region, is a complex, many layered thing... Puting Republika Srpska together with Macedonia or Croatia is something like comparing Tunisia, Syria and Pakistan (not that these two regions are of the same relevance, just making the point that garbling these countries together and explaining each in a few sentences isn't doing any of them justice).

    Some things pointed out are plain wrong. For instance: "...the likely outcome is a coalition of the same old "centrist" parties – nationalists and social democrats." Not gonna happen. The so-called nationalists have never ever formed a coalition with the so called social democrats, nor will they in the near future.

    And last, but not the least: "If Europe wants to make the Balkans work, it needs to understand the limits of its current approach." What does that even mean? What Europe? You seem to label Croatia as nationalist, and leaning in a fascist direction, and yet you name Europe as the one to control us? Who? Hungary? Poland? Germany with its rise of AFD? I don't think Europe has the moral high ground to meddle here, and I don't see what would even be accomplished by it. Unless there are gross human rights violations all of sudden, of course.

    For the time being, I think everyone should concentrate on sorting out their own countries.

    People in Croatia are fed up with the status quo. Same old politicians for years, with same old policies, and if someone seemingly new pops up it turns out it was the same old garbage all over again. That is the reason behind low turnout. And whenever there is a low turnout in Croatia, the right parties gain ground, because they have a very disciplined electorate. They tell then to vote for God and country and so they do.

    wellmyword , 2016-09-12 23:47:52
    Sadly or more like, quite fortunately, this piece is not about Russia.

    It is a piece aimed at asserting the rational over certain ingrained ethnic rivalries. Good.

    We have seen enough of nationalism and inter racial ethnic division. It bought all those peoples nothing but bad.

    Yes. Membership of the EU should not be taken for granted. There should be certain criteria which the political leaders of applicant states ahould adhere and adhere they must. There should be no compromise. No compromise! ("No Surrender").

    If they want the advantages which membership of the single market can bestow, then they must accept the civil rights which are bestowed on it's newly adopted citizens.

    If the Croats under rheir nationaliatic and chauvanistic government ignore this general perspective, rhen they are indeed, unfit. If they can't respect former adversaries. If they refuse to acknowledge their past, well, don't let them join (Never, never, never!).

    mishkoyu , 2016-09-12 23:32:34
    Macedonia's political elite is indeed corrupt to the bone but the country is certainly not "mired in ethnic conflict" whatever that means Paul. Do some bloody research.

    And your implicit assumption that national chauvinism is somehow a typically Balkan event says a lot about your thought process. Know that the EU will not do anything about Croatia's hard right because it's nice to have someone to do your dirty work on the border zones while you play the honest liberal. It takes a genuine left! wing government to really upset someone in Brussels.

    KikideMontparnasse mishkoyu , 2016-09-12 23:50:54
    Well, some of the nasty rethoric like calling Serbs "misery" actually came from the popular leader on the left this time, who lost. It's too confusing to put it all in one article.
    But, in Macedonia, there were problems, right? Between Macedonians and Albanians, only last year.
    Aheadoftime SimonBrennock , 2016-09-13 00:16:53
    Those who lend the money can smell the global rise in socialism a mile off - no wonder they are driving the wars the wars in Middle East - which drives the desperate and displaced into Europe - which starts the rise in hard right politics... It's so obvious and yet it happens every time.
    loopool KikideMontparnasse , 2016-09-13 00:09:00
    Well if the US (Clinton) hadn't directed the EU to get involved in Ukraine and incite a revolution then Putin wouldn't have had to get involved to protect his naval base and the ethnic Russians in Ukraine. Then the US wouldn't have had a cause to start trade sanctions and piss of Mr Putin. In which case Mr Putin wouldn't probably have had the motivation to start cold war games again.

    Anyway I am sure Mrs Clinton has had a very large cheque from the US defense industry who are the ultimate sponsors of US war games.

    Gort Roxx , 2016-09-12 23:18:07
    What about Ukraine Paul, we've seen open nazism there since the day the Americans coopted the Maiden coup, oh I forgot that nasty Mr Putin made them do it ...
    Michael Pavel Kuchkovsky KikideMontparnasse , 2016-09-13 00:01:50
    Their fascist rhetoric comes straight from them with no need of a Russian proxy. Talented bunch.
    happystory , 2016-09-12 23:16:57
    HOW THE MEDIA REPORTS THE NEWS:

    Austrian far right nationalist win with anti-EU, anti-refugee, anti-immigration campaign = Austrian right-wing party wins.

    German far right nationalist win with anti-EU, anti-refugee, anti-immigration campaign = German right-wing party wins.

    Danish far right nationalist win with anti-EU, anti-refugee, anti-immigration campaign = Danish right-wing party wins.

    Swedish far right nationalist win with anti-EU, anti-refugee, anti-immigration campaign = Swedish right-wing party wins.

    French far right nationalist win with anti-EU, anti-refugee, anti-immigration campaign = French right-wing party wins.

    Croatian right-wing party wins = NATIONALISM ON THE RISE IN THE BALKANS AGAIN.

    CAN ANYBODY SPOT A FLAW HERE???????

    Akkarrin , 2016-09-12 23:13:34
    Guardian cried nationalism at Scots who just wanted rid of the tories and Westminster government

    its difficult for me to trust any article from guar which includes the word nationalism

    it could well be nationalism which is driving this.... but guar has a history of demonstrating that it does not even come close to grasping the basic meaning of the word

    pithea Akkarrin , 2016-09-12 23:31:44
    The Guardian is 'multiculturalist'. Multiculturalism means absolutely nothing at all and is a thoroughly discredited idea/l. IMO it is a vehicle for the alienation of individuals from each other and the destruction of the bond, i.e. culture, that holds them together and, in most cases, has been constructed over thousands of years. Destruction of culture and language has always been the weapon of choice in the imperialists' subjection project. People will fight back.
    bonkthebonk , 2016-09-12 23:04:26
    Nationalism, as the, increasingly centralised, distant, authoritarian, democratically deficient EU becomes more and more politically focused and powerful, will simply grow and grow.

    Political and financial elites across the EU live in mortal fear of referenda for a very good reason.

    DonJuan , 2016-09-12 22:59:57
    Supporting the break up of Yugoslavia was the worse mistake the European powers ever made since 1945. And approving the independence of Kosovo probably the second. On what grounds do they think now they can oppose the independence of Republika Srpska? The continued harassment and gratuitous confrontation of certain EU states against Russia won't help either.
    loopool DonJuan , 2016-09-12 23:30:44
    Europe is tending towards break up as countries start to align back to their historical roots. Look at a map of Europe now compared with 30 years ago. Don't forget all the regional tensions, the Basques, Catalans, and I hear 20 other similar situations across Europe. Meanwhile Project EU thinks it can create a single Europe. It's laughable.
    MasalBugduv DonJuan , 2016-09-13 00:05:03
    The break up of Yugoslavia looks stupider by the day.
    loopool Warpfactor10 , 2016-09-12 23:41:12
    We have no influence or control over the EU. It is run by Germany and their puppets in Brussels. The actual purpose of the euro politicians is to create a single country called Europe. One currency, one legal system, one army, open borders, etc. Sovereign control will be gradually stripped from individual countries and passed to Brussels. But of course it is completely corrupt and mismanaged and it is only a matter of time before it collapses. At least we had the balls to brexit.
    AlexSpy , 2016-09-12 22:21:31
    These things are really serious and they are happening all over the democratic world. We can end up with Trump on one end and myriad far right or crypto far right governments in Europe. It is a complete failure of our political economic and educational system.
    I honestly believe that representational democracy as we know it is on its last breath.
    LiviaDrusilla AlexSpy , 2016-09-12 22:28:34
    "The truth is that men are tired of liberty." - Benito Mussolini.

    And he should know.

    PrivatiseMorality JezzasBaconButtie , 2016-09-12 22:24:07
    Why do you create a distinction between the left and fascism? Fascism, as advocated by The National Socialist German Workers Party and Mussolini, adored statism (state-control).

    The left is about ever-increasing state power, the right is about individualism ('far-right', a term used as a pejorative, actually means anarchy, Hitler was a megalomaniacal control freak). The fascists are on record time and time again expressing their hatred of laissez-faire capitalism and liberal individualism.

    Mussolini's manifesto - which advocates the minimum wage, pandering to the unions, progressive taxation, lowering the voting age and abolishing the upper-chamber - reads like a manifesto for a modern-day progressive party. Why? Because it was self-proclaimed 'progressives', in the 20s, who supported it.

    Steiger , 2016-09-12 22:13:54
    The EU has made small regions feel powerless and provoked more nationalism, just look at the tensions within the UK, Spain, Italy before you even start with the Balkans. The Balkans have been forced to be the frontline in a blockade for a mismanaged German refugee crisis. All these eastern european economies are mostly basket cases that joining the EU won't save. Indeed with EU free movement of labour they'll find all their young talent gone looking for opportunities abroad but maybe that's what they want?
    PrivatiseMorality , 2016-09-12 22:10:28
    Why does the Guardian conflate every expression of nationalism with fascism? It's a bit like conflating an instance of one white police officer shooting one black person with systemic racism - it doesn't fit. It's childlike.

    We are nationalist. It's not whether we should be, we are. We have a border, we unite behind symbols, we have a national anthem, a national Parliament, a national health service and a national language. I don't believe 'Britishness' is quantifiable, however I also, unlike The Guardian, realise it exists; much in the same way 'love' can't quantified, but many accept it (it is our national religion).

    'Britishness' is merely the collective will of the British people. While we can't quantify it per se, it exists. It's the collective moral obligation held by the citizens of this country towards free healthcare at the point of delivery; it's a moral obligation which doesn't exist in the majority of countries the world over. It's a very British moral obligation, and one which is in danger of being eroded by the left's worst policy: open borders.

    I know in Guardian-land criticism of its national religions, ie, diversity, open borders, globalism, feminism, etc., is tantamount to blasphemy, but can we please get a handle on reality? There are nearly 200 nation-states in the world and only a tiny handful of them are in a political union; the nation-state is now, and will continue to be, the primary actor in international relations.

    That in your arrogance you forget this is what has led to your spectacular fall from grace all over the western world. The people don't want globalism; the people are tribal, and they always will be. The people extend trust to outsiders with a great deal of caution; they don't do so because they are bad, they do so because of hundreds of thousands of years of evolution.

    What's more, it's not just 'British people' who adopt these attitudes; it's everyone; it's every group. It's why Bangladeshis congregate together in Tower Hamlets, it's why Pakistanis congregate together in Govanhill; it's why black people congregate together in Chicago.

    You can't just unwind 200,000 years of evolution with 30 years of progressive politics; you certainly can't achieve that when you determine that the in-group is the problem.

    If you want real progress, be liberal. At this stage, I don't believe progressives are even opposed to racism; they merely oppose racism against non-white people. I don't believe progressives favour equality; they merely favour equality for women (or x group). These aren't liberal attitudes, these are bigoted attitudes.

    They are just reinforcing group-based dynamics (ethnocentrism, tribalism, gynocentrism, etc.), the very dynamics you criticise in the context of other groups (ie, white heterosexual males).

    liveandletlve PrivatiseMorality , 2016-09-12 22:19:59
    Excellent comment. Isn't it strange that repressive ideologies are called 'progressive' by the Marxists and Globalists that spread the word, the fear and the idiocy.
    Ponkbutler PrivatiseMorality , 2016-09-12 22:21:59
    It's simple: nationalism is neurotic and built on defining oneself by the virtue of one's difference, to the exclusion of similarities and debasement of the other. It's the reverse of the Good Samaritan.
    tomasin PrivatiseMorality , 2016-09-12 22:25:07
    All that is very nice indeed, problem is when 'in the name of my nation' someone ends up laying dead and beaten to pulp on the streets .... and that, sorry, ain't so nice.

    [Sep 13, 2016] Paul Krugman Thugs and Kisses

    Notable quotes:
    "... It is not wise to demonize foreign leaders or worship them. Foreign policy needs sometimes to work with even some of the worst actors. ..."
    "... We need to support institutions that work to guarantee and protect human rights for all. A personality cult that worships leaders promotes intolerance and the abuse of human rights. ..."
    "... Krooogman is jus a useful moralistic idiot aiding and abetting [hillary compaigh] with humanist [neo]liberal anathemas. A policy of Russia constriction by uncle S and his posse ..."
    "... [It would be better if] Current neocon democrats "display an ounce of statesmanship" and use any before they send out the aircraft carriers, bombers, drones and CIA arms for the next ISIL. ..."
    "... Yes, Kerry talks while the DoD and CIA do the murdering. ..."
    "... You are just a political writer, paid to reflect your bosses views. A proper journalist would at least provide a minimally balanced view. In your case we know your answer before we open the newspaper. ..."
    "... No leftist calls krooogman a leftist. He is a a status quo elitist. An enlightenment humanist [interventionist neo]liberal. A convinced self-deluded neo-classical economist. A major political ignoramus... And a very decent little tabby cat. All rolled up into one pint sized ambitious. Self assured. Nassau county bright boy now aged but undaunted anne : , Monday, September 12, 2016 at 04:38 AM http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/23/opinion/david-brooks-snap-out-of-it.html September 22, 2014 Snap Out of It By David Brooks President Vladimir Putin of Russia, a lone thug sitting atop a failing regime.... http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/22/opinion/thomas-friedman-putin-and-the-pope.html October 21, 2014 Putin and the Pope By Thomas L. Friedman One keeps surprising us with his capacity for empathy, the other by how much he has become a first-class jerk and thug.... http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/21/opinion/sunday/thomas-l-friedman-whos-playing-marbles-now.html December 20, 2014 Who's Playing Marbles Now? By Thomas L. Friedman Let us not mince words: Vladimir Putin is a delusional thug.... http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/22/opinion/paul-krugman-putin-neocons-and-the-great-illusion.html December 21, 2014 Conquest Is for Losers: Putin, Neocons and the Great Illusion By Paul Krugman Remember, he's an ex-K.G.B. man - which is to say, he spent his formative years as a professional thug.... http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/28/opinion/thomas-friedman-czar-putins-next-moves.html January 27, 2015 Czar Putin's Next Moves By Thomas L. Friedman ZURICH - If Putin the Thug gets away with crushing Ukraine's new democratic experiment and unilaterally redrawing the borders of Europe, every pro-Western country around Russia will be in danger.... anne : , Monday, September 12, 2016 at 04:38 AM http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/16/world/middleeast/white-house-split-on-opening-talks-with-putin.html September 15, 2015 Obama Weighing Talks With Putin on Syrian Crisis By PETER BAKER and ANDREW E. KRAMER WASHINGTON - Mr. Obama views Mr. Putin as a thug, according to advisers and analysts.... http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/opinion/mr-putins-mixed-messages-on-syria.html September 20, 2015 Mr. Putin's Mixed Messages on Syria Mr. Obama considers Mr. Putin a thug, his advisers say.... ilsm -> anne... , Monday, September 12, 2016 at 03:18 PM Putin might ask why us army jihadis fought with cia jihadis in Assad's country? a subject one thug can raise with a bigger thug. ..."
    "... Thug. I wonder if these bright liberals consider the word they like to use so much ? u can feel their thrill every time they hurl it at a target. Long live the self righteous [neo]Liberal goon squad ..."
    "... thugs -- A target of colonial masters ..."
    "... if your candidate cannot go to a hospital.... looks like a serious neurolgic issue to me. Let the spin begin is trump's Putin or Clinton neuopathy? ..."
    "... I remember reading John Kenneth Galbraith describe how when he was being threatened by the original McCarthy, the strategy he chose was to name McCarthy using every name he could think of. The strategy worked, and Galbraith was forgotten by McCarthy. I suspect the strategy will work again. ..."
    "... In the name of plain old fashion reasonable ness let's not turn krooogman the self righteous [neo] liberal " crusader" into a new kold war reactionary liberal just yet ..."
    "... innuendo see as much deplorable assassination in moscow as folks dying at Clinton hands. And those 250k killed in 5 years of CIA blundering in Syria are Obama Clinton not Putin. ..."
    "... Ok, so on your planet the civil war in Syria was caused entirely by CIA intervention? That's what you're going with? ..."
    "... No of course not! The CIA is 'playing' 1300 year old schism in Islam. It is Sunni versus Shiite, the rest in funding, equipping, cheerleading by GCC royal, US and Israel. ..."
    "... Official Washington's "group think" on the Ukraine crisis now has a totalitarian feel to it as "everyone who matters" joins in the ritualistic stoning of Russian President Putin and takes joy in Russia's economic pain, with liberal economist Paul Krugman the latest to hoist a rock. ..."
    "... The anti-war left sees the demonization of foreign leaders as clearing the way for war and invasion. ..."
    "... Hillary Clinton's National Security Advisers Are a "Who's Who" of the Warfare State ..."
    "... The list of key advisers - which includes the general who executed the troop surge in Iraq and a former Bush homeland security chief turned terror profiteer - is a strong indicator that Clinton's national security policy will not threaten the post-9/11 national-security status quo that includes active use of military power abroad and heightened security measures at home. ..."
    Sep 13, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    jonny bakho :

    It is not wise to demonize foreign leaders or worship them. Foreign policy needs sometimes to work with even some of the worst actors.

    For example, Russia is in Syria and can either promote more violence or work to end the civil war. Right now, they have agreed with the US to support a cease fire.

    Demonization of Russia led directly to the Vietnam War, the Cambodian horror, the Taliban and a lot of bad outcomes.

    We need to support institutions that work to guarantee and protect human rights for all. A personality cult that worships leaders promotes intolerance and the abuse of human rights. We need a strategy of building and strengthening institutions that are committed to protecting ethnic minorities and offer a change alternative to violent acting out.

    Dan Kervick -> jonny bakho ... ,

    Well said. One can debate the virtues and vices of Vladimir Putin indefinitely, and historians will do so, but throwing the lives and security of young Americans into the mill of short term political opportunism, at the service of the campaign meme of the week, is not responsible.

    Of course, Trump has also behaved like a nincompoop in discussing Putin and Russia in ways that do no display an ounce of statesmanship.

    sanjait -> Dan Kervick... , Monday, September 12, 2016 at 01:15 PM
    I lost track here.

    Who is "throwing the lives and security of young Americans into the mill of short term political opportunism"?

    I'm guessing you are saying Hillary is doing that by criticizing Putin or something, but I can't fathom how you connect those dots.

    Dan Kervick -> sanjait...
    No, Krugman.

    Krugman obediently parrots and amplifies whatever attack theme the campaign decides to promote on any given week, and is clearly coordinating with a number of other hyper-partisan "journalists" and apparatchiks, who sing in harmony from the same hymn books. The man is a certifiable political hack.

    I'm surprised that Team D had not yet floated the charge that Putin gave Clinton pneumonia with some infected umbrella pellet gun.

    Paine -> sanjait...
    No no

    Krooogman is jus a useful moralistic idiot aiding and abetting [hillary compaigh] with humanist [neo]liberal anathemas. A policy of Russia constriction by uncle S and his posse

    Paine -> Paine ...
    Will Hillary take a forward policy stance on mother Russia. Out do Barry- Kerry. I'm still hoping she's capable of evolution to good POTUS. My best friends ardent fury at her bloody pals. Has tempered me some. Nothing ever confirms convictions grounded in personal loathing

    I've learned to love her since Bernie burned out over Pennsylvania or was it Ohio ?

    Paine -> Paine ...
    However nothing about loving her requires me to support her legacy or her entourage
    Or like too many thin skinned compromises here. Attack those who can not find in their heart. Any love for such a compromised saint
    As dear Hill
    ilsm -> Dan Kervick...
    [It would be better if] Current neocon democrats "display an ounce of statesmanship" and use any before they send out the aircraft carriers, bombers, drones and CIA arms for the next ISIL.
    ilsm -> Dan Kervick...
    Yes, Kerry talks while the DoD and CIA do the murdering.
    gh : ,
    Paul Krugman, Nobel Prize winner. How is it possible that you remain so leftist, in spite of all the evidence ? You are just a political writer, paid to reflect your bosses views. A proper journalist would at least provide a minimally balanced view. In your case we know your answer before we open the newspaper.

    What a shame.

    Paine -> djb...
    Tempest in a tea pot. No leftist calls krooogman a leftist. He is a a status quo elitist. An enlightenment humanist [interventionist neo]liberal. A convinced self-deluded neo-classical economist. A major political ignoramus...

    And a very decent little tabby cat. All rolled up into one pint sized ambitious. Self assured. Nassau county bright boy now aged but undaunted

    anne : , Monday, September 12, 2016 at 04:38 AM
    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/23/opinion/david-brooks-snap-out-of-it.html

    September 22, 2014

    Snap Out of It
    By David Brooks

    President Vladimir Putin of Russia, a lone thug sitting atop a failing regime....

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/22/opinion/thomas-friedman-putin-and-the-pope.html

    October 21, 2014

    Putin and the Pope
    By Thomas L. Friedman

    One keeps surprising us with his capacity for empathy, the other by how much he has become a first-class jerk and thug....

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/21/opinion/sunday/thomas-l-friedman-whos-playing-marbles-now.html

    December 20, 2014

    Who's Playing Marbles Now?
    By Thomas L. Friedman

    Let us not mince words: Vladimir Putin is a delusional thug....

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/22/opinion/paul-krugman-putin-neocons-and-the-great-illusion.html

    December 21, 2014

    Conquest Is for Losers: Putin, Neocons and the Great Illusion
    By Paul Krugman

    Remember, he's an ex-K.G.B. man - which is to say, he spent his formative years as a professional thug....

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/28/opinion/thomas-friedman-czar-putins-next-moves.html

    January 27, 2015

    Czar Putin's Next Moves
    By Thomas L. Friedman

    ZURICH - If Putin the Thug gets away with crushing Ukraine's new democratic experiment and unilaterally redrawing the borders of Europe, every pro-Western country around Russia will be in danger....

    anne : , Monday, September 12, 2016 at 04:38 AM
    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/16/world/middleeast/white-house-split-on-opening-talks-with-putin.html

    September 15, 2015

    Obama Weighing Talks With Putin on Syrian Crisis
    By PETER BAKER and ANDREW E. KRAMER

    WASHINGTON - Mr. Obama views Mr. Putin as a thug, according to advisers and analysts....

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/opinion/mr-putins-mixed-messages-on-syria.html

    September 20, 2015

    Mr. Putin's Mixed Messages on Syria

    Mr. Obama considers Mr. Putin a thug, his advisers say....

    ilsm -> anne... , Monday, September 12, 2016 at 03:18 PM
    Putin might ask why us army jihadis fought with cia jihadis in Assad's country? a subject one thug can raise with a bigger thug.
    anne : , Monday, September 12, 2016 at 04:40 AM
    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/12/opinion/thugs-and-kisses.html

    September 11, 2016

    Thugs and Kisses
    By Paul Krugman

    First of all, let's get this straight: The Russian Federation of 2016 is not the Soviet Union of 1986. True, it covers most of the same territory and is run by some of the same thugs....

    Paine -> anne... , Monday, September 12, 2016 at 04:55 AM
    Thug. I wonder if these bright liberals consider the word they like to use so much ? u can feel their thrill every time they hurl it at a target. Long live the self righteous [neo]Liberal goon squad
    Paine -> Paine ... , Monday, September 12, 2016 at 05:09 AM
    " historical -- a member of a religious organization of robbers and assassins in India. Devotees of the goddess Kali, the Thugs waylaid and strangled their victims, usually travelers, in a ritually prescribed manner. They were suppressed by the British in the 1830s."
    Paine -> Paine ... , Monday, September 12, 2016 at 05:10 AM
    thugs -- A target of colonial masters
    ilsm -> Paine ... , Monday, September 12, 2016 at 03:19 PM
    they bayoneted cary grant, too!
    Cal -> Paine ...
    Dat is about as much heavy liftin as the lettered folk can handle: hurling insults. Take dat. "Geeves, send them a message!" Message: Thugs! Mission accomplished and now we must rest.
    ilsm -> Paine ...
    if your candidate cannot go to a hospital.... looks like a serious neurolgic issue to me. Let the spin begin is trump's Putin or Clinton neuopathy?
    anne :
    Paul Krugman terrifies me, simply terrifies me. A pusher of a Cold War, a pusher of McCarthyism, a person who is obviously collecting a list of names and only waiting to name names. I however will be no Krugman martyr and am also collecting names and will name names even before being ordered to and I have already decided who I will be naming first.

    [ I remember reading John Kenneth Galbraith describe how when he was being threatened by the original McCarthy, the strategy he chose was to name McCarthy using every name he could think of. The strategy worked, and Galbraith was forgotten by McCarthy. I suspect the strategy will work again. ]

    anne -> anne...
    I need to find the Galbraith reference, and I also remember that Krugman was attacking Galbraith before, well, "the line forms on the right."
    Paine -> anne...
    Anne,

    In the name of plain old fashion reasonable ness let's not turn krooogman the self righteous [neo] liberal " crusader" into a new kold war reactionary liberal just yet

    The conversion of one section of new dealers into that rumpus of uncle hegomony.'s Dupes
    Was awful enough. Not to contemplate yet another wholesale herd like. Transduction of their "liberal values" In the name of individual liberty and the rights of humanity

    anne -> anne...
    http://www.pkarchive.org/theory/evolute.html

    November, 1996

    What Economists Can Learn From Evolutionary Theorists
    By Paul Krugman - European Association for Evolutionary Political Economy

    I guess it is no secret that even John Kenneth Galbraith, still the public's idea of a great economist, looks to most serious economists like an intellectual dilettante who lacks the patience for hard thinking....

    ilsm -> Pinkybum...
    innuendo see as much deplorable assassination in moscow as folks dying at Clinton hands. And those 250k killed in 5 years of CIA blundering in Syria are Obama Clinton not Putin.
    sanjait -> ilsm... , Monday, September 12, 2016 at 04:08 PM
    Ok, so on your planet the civil war in Syria was caused entirely by CIA intervention? That's what you're going with?

    So, not the tyranny of the Assad regime, supported by Russia. And not the emergence of ISIS. Those, by your accounting, are not primary causes of the conflict, but instead it was the meager support the CIA offered the FSA alliance, according to you. Pfft.

    ilsm -> sanjait...
    No of course not! The CIA is 'playing' 1300 year old schism in Islam. It is Sunni versus Shiite, the rest in funding, equipping, cheerleading by GCC royal, US and Israel.

    A lot more than 5 years!

    anne -> anne...
    https://consortiumnews.com/2014/12/19/krugman-joins-the-anti-putin-pack/

    December 19, 2014

    Krugman Joins the Anti-Putin Pack By Robert Parry

    Official Washington's "group think" on the Ukraine crisis now has a totalitarian feel to it as "everyone who matters" joins in the ritualistic stoning of Russian President Putin and takes joy in Russia's economic pain, with liberal economist Paul Krugman the latest to hoist a rock.

    anne -> anne... , Monday, September 12, 2016 at 09:19 AM
    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/19/opinion/paul-krugman-putins-bubble-bursts.html

    December 18, 2014

    Putin's Bubble Bursts
    By Paul Krugman

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/22/opinion/donald-trump-the-siberian-candidate.html

    July 21, 2016

    Donald Trump, the Siberian Candidate
    By Paul Krugman

    anne -> anne... , Monday, September 12, 2016 at 09:22 AM
    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/22/opinion/paul-krugman-putin-neocons-and-the-great-illusion.html

    December 21, 2014

    Conquest Is for Losers: Putin, Neocons and the Great Illusion
    By Paul Krugman

    Remember, he's an ex-K.G.B. man - which is to say, he spent his formative years as a professional thug....

    anne -> anne...
    Right, I will be no Krugman martyr, I am collecting names and I will relish naming names. Call me, just call me.
    Lord :
    They admire him because of his power. Kiss ups at heart.
    anne -> anne...
    http://www.bradford-delong.com/2016/04/must-read-i-do-not-understand-china-but-it-now-looks-more-likely-than-not-to-me-that-xi-jinpings-rule-will-lose-china.html

    April 5, 2016

    I do not understand China. But it now looks more likely than not to me that Xi Jinping's rule will lose China a decade, if not half a century... *

    * http://www.economist.com/news/china/21695923-his-exercise-power-home-xi-jinping-often-ruthless-there-are-limits-his

    -- Brad DeLong

    [ Notice how the scapegoating of a people, no matter how many people, can be focused in a particular person. ]

    anne -> anne...
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brad-delong/china-market-crash-5-years_b_8045742.html?1440772415

    August 28, 2015

    China's Market Crash Means Chinese Supergrowth Could Have Only 5 More Years to Run
    By Brad DeLong

    Ever since I became an adult in 1980, I have been a stopped clock with respect to the Chinese economy. I have said -- always -- that at most, Chinese supergrowth likely has five more years to run.

    Then there will come a crash -- in asset values and expectations, if not in production and employment. After the crash, China will revert to the standard pattern of an emerging market economy without successful institutions that duplicate or somehow mimic those of the North Atlantic. Its productivity rate will be little more than the 2 percent per year of emerging markets as a whole; catch-up and convergence to the North Atlantic growth-path norm will be slow if at all; and political risks that cause war, revolution or merely economic stagnation rather than unexpected booms will become the most likely surprises.

    I was wrong for 25 years straight -- and the jury is still out on the period since 2005. Thus, I'm very hesitant to count out China and its supergrowth miracle. But now "a" crash -- even if, perhaps, not "the" crash I was predicting -- is at hand....

    [ Twenty-five years of wrongness, why not another 25? Never ever ask why such wrongness, however. ]

    Peter K. -> sanjait...
    "The weird existence of people who somehow loved Bernie Sanders while also being apologists for Putin continues to defy the notion of cognitive dissonance."

    The anti-war left sees the demonization of foreign leaders as clearing the way for war and invasion.

    The center-left Demcocrats' anti-democratic practices during the primary were hypocritical. At leas Debbie Wasserman-Shultz was ousted as chair of the DNC.

    Dan Kervick -> sanjait...
    The context is that a murderers row of 2002/3 vintage neocons has now adopted the Clinton campaign as its preferred vehicle for its further murderous adventures and interventionist follies. Apparently only the (very) elder neocon leader Norman Podhoretz is not in yet.
    ilsm -> sanjait...
    Somehow Putin is weak on plundering his country.

    Bush and Obama are $4,000B in WAR waste on Iraghistan and Yemen.

    anne :
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism

    McCarthyism is the practice of making accusations of subversion or treason without proper regard for evidence. It also means "the practice of making unfair allegations or using unfair investigative techniques, especially in order to restrict dissent or political criticism." The term has its origins in the period in the United States known as the Second Red Scare, lasting roughly from 1950 to 1956 and characterized by heightened political repression against supposed communists, as well as a campaign spreading fear of their influence on American institutions and of espionage by Soviet agents. Originally coined to criticize the anti-communist pursuits of Republican U.S. Senator Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin, "McCarthyism" soon took on a broader meaning, describing the excesses of similar efforts. The term is also now used more generally to describe reckless, unsubstantiated accusations, as well as demagogic attacks on the character or patriotism of political adversaries.

    anne :
    https://theintercept.com/2016/09/08/hillary-clintons-national-security-advisors-are-a-whos-who-of-the-warfare-state/

    September 8, 2016

    Hillary Clinton's National Security Advisers Are a "Who's Who" of the Warfare State
    By Zaid Jilani, Alex Emmons, and Naomi LaChance

    HILLARY CLINTON IS meeting with a new national security "working group" that is filled with an elite "who's who" of the military-industrial complex and the security deep state.

    The list of key advisers - which includes the general who executed the troop surge in Iraq and a former Bush homeland security chief turned terror profiteer - is a strong indicator that Clinton's national security policy will not threaten the post-9/11 national-security status quo that includes active use of military power abroad and heightened security measures at home.

    It's a story we've seen before in President Obama's early appointments. In retrospect, analysts have pointed to the continuity in national security and intelligence advisers as an early sign that despite his campaign rhetoric Obama would end up building on - rather than tearing down - the often-extralegal, Bush-Cheney counterterror regime. For instance, while Obama promised in 2008 to reform the NSA, its director was kept on and its reach continued to grow.

    Obama's most fateful decision may have been choosing former National Counterterrorism Center Director John Brennan to be national security adviser, despite Brennan's support of Bush's torture program. Brennan would go on to run the president's drone program, lead the CIA, fight the Senate's torture investigation, and then lie about searching Senate computers.

    That backdrop is what makes Clinton's new list of advisers so significant.

    It includes Gen. David Petraeus, the major architect of the 2007 Iraq War troop surge, which brought 30,000 more troops to Iraq. Picking him indicates at partiality to combative ideology. It also represents a return to good standing for the general after he pled guilty to leaking notebooks full of classified information to his lover, Paula Broadwell, and got off with two years of probation and a fine. Petraeus currently works at the investment firm KKR & Co.

    Another notable member of Clinton's group is Michael Chertoff, a hardliner who served as President George W. Bush's last secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, and who since leaving government in 2009 has helmed a corporate consulting firm called the Chertoff Group that promotes security-industry priorities. For example, in 2010, he gave dozens of media interviews touting full-body scanners at airports while his firm was employed by a company that produced body scanning machines. His firmalso employs a number of other ex-security state officials, such as former CIA and NSA Director Michael Hayden. It does not disclose a complete list of its clients - all of whom now have a line of access to Clinton.

    Many others on the list are open advocates of military escalation overseas. Mike Morell, the former acting director of the CIA, endorsed Clinton last month in a New York Times opinion piece that accused Trump of being an "unwitting agent of the Russian Federation." The Times was criticized for not disclosing his current employment by Beacon Global Strategies, a politically powerful national-security consulting firm with strong links to Clinton. Three days later, Morell told Charlie Rose in a PBS interview that the CIA should actively assassinate Russians and Iranians in Syria.

    During his time at the CIA, Morell was connected to some of the worst scandals and intelligence failures of the Bush administration. In his book, he apologizes for giving flawed intelligence to Colin Powell about Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction, but defends the CIA torture program as legal and ethical.

    Jim Stavridis, a former NATO supreme allied commander Europe on Clinton's advisory group, told Fox News Radio in July, when he was being vetted by Clinton as a possible vice presidential nominee, that "we have got to get more aggressive going into Syria and Iraq and go after [ISIS] because if we don't they're going to come to us. It's a pretty simple equation." He said he would "encourage the president to take a more aggressive stance against Iran, to increase our military forces in Iraq and Syria, and to confront Vladmir Putin" over his moves in Crimea.

    The New York Times reported in 2011 that Michael Vickers, a former Pentagon official on Clinton's new list, led the use of drone strikes. He would grin and tell his colleagues at meetings, "I just want to kill those guys."

    Others on the list played a role in the targeted killing policies of the Obama administration, including Chris Fussell, a top aide to Gen. Stanley McChrystal, and now a partner with him at his lucrative consulting firm, the McChrystal Group....

    [Sep 13, 2016] Pressitutes from NPR are fully in bed with Hillary campaign managers

    Notable quotes:
    "... I want to throw a chair at the elitist propaganda coming from the radio. ..."
    "... Their political coverage is truly awful - horse race analysis cheerleading for HRC, no substantive talk about issues just a constant human interest sideshow anecdotal. ..."
    "... They also seem to have exactly the same stories as same day's NYT - makes one wonder who's actually disseminating all the talking points. ..."
    "... Yah I know but I also learned from NPR Trump is bad because he likes Putin who keeps invading nations and killing a bunch of folks and gives govt contracts to his friends – unlike good USA. All stated matter of factly by NPR analysts. ..."
    "... It's amazing how everything has to get sloppy around Clinton. People, news papers, news shows, whatever. As soon as they decide to sign on with Camp Clinton, they all have to start making excuses for her. Sloppy excuses. Excuses with a smell of skunk to them. ..."
    "... They should loose those donors, it would be a cleansing act that might result in more creative and honest programming. ..."
    Sep 13, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Cocomaan , September 12, 2016 at 8:09 am

    It's npr, what do you expect? Their morning and evening shows are a joke.

    I completely stopped listening to them after how they handled Bernies campaign.

    johnnygl , September 12, 2016 at 8:17 am

    They were unreal during the primaries. I was yelling at the radio during my commute. Now they're on full-time trump hate-fest.

    Steve C , September 12, 2016 at 9:04 am

    Used to have NPR going from wakey until bedtime. Now, I read about roses and meditate. Much more serenity. Now, my agitation comes from NC. And it's because world affairs are agitating, not because I want to throw a chair at the elitist propaganda coming from the radio.

    Schnormal , September 12, 2016 at 9:32 am

    ^ +100

    Bubba_Gump , September 12, 2016 at 3:09 pm

    Their political coverage is truly awful - horse race analysis cheerleading for HRC, no substantive talk about issues just a constant human interest sideshow anecdotal. The Bernie coverage was a disgrace. I was raised on a steady diet of NPR, and realized the headlines are all the same as when I was a kid: Middle East "violence," Israeli politics, poor person suffering anecdote, refugee porn.

    I tune in from time to time just to make sure it hasn't changed. What change there has been seems to be ever more shrill neoliberal pablum spoon-fed with small words as though to eight-graders. They also seem to have exactly the same stories as same day's NYT - makes one wonder who's actually disseminating all the talking points.

    hemeantwell , September 12, 2016 at 4:38 pm

    I stopped listening to them after they did a long, sympathetic piece on how Israeli soldiers were traumatized by the injuries they inflicted on Palestinian kids during the first Intifada. The idea that they should suffer from implacable guilt was not not discussed.

    Lord Koos , September 12, 2016 at 6:54 pm

    I started to lose interest after hearing them propagandize the Iraq war effort.

    timbers , September 12, 2016 at 8:19 am

    Yah I know but I also learned from NPR Trump is bad because he likes Putin who keeps invading nations and killing a bunch of folks and gives govt contracts to his friends – unlike good USA. All stated matter of factly by NPR analysts.

    EndOfTheWorld , September 12, 2016 at 8:45 am

    Yes, "hold on for the ride." Now even the MSM is split on whether to all of a sudden be skeptical of the stuff Camp Clinton puts out re Hill's health. If she quits due to ill health, can she keep her campaign contributions?
    She's got Parkinson's disease, or at least severe aftershocks from her earlier brain trouble. She's not gonna get better.

    john , September 12, 2016 at 9:14 am

    NPR had two stories on it last hour. The both used the term conspiracy theory. One used it twice!

    RabidGandhi , September 12, 2016 at 10:44 am

    Even Democracy Now used the term "conspiracy theory". I'm usually a huge fan of DN! but their Election coverage has been sloppy since the conventions.

    Benedict@Large , September 12, 2016 at 2:37 pm

    It's amazing how everything has to get sloppy around Clinton. People, news papers, news shows, whatever. As soon as they decide to sign on with Camp Clinton, they all have to start making excuses for her. Sloppy excuses. Excuses with a smell of skunk to them.

    And once they give in, it sticks to them. They can no longer be trusted. Whatever you thought of them before is now forever clouded. They are ruined.

    Donald , September 12, 2016 at 6:32 pm

    I don't know about Democracy Now - haven't listened lately. But Krugman went from a columnist I respected to idiotic Clinton shill starting this year. His attacks on Sanders and his supporters and his excuse making for Clinton's Iraq vote totally destroyed his credibility for me. Maybe he is worth reading if he stays far away from the subject of Clinton, but I no longer care enough to find out.

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef , September 12, 2016 at 4:46 pm

    Even Sanders has gone into the Twilight Zone post conventions.

    Whatever they did to him to get him to endorse and campaign for her, they will do more before replacing Hillary with Bernie.

    Sarah Connor , September 12, 2016 at 11:52 am

    This morning on NPR, Cokie Roberts "went there." She described the "socco voce" discontent behind the scenes of a very skittish DNC.

    NYPaul , September 12, 2016 at 2:59 pm

    And, all this on top of the constant, daily, weekly, and monthly, never ending, stream of rancid revelations being unearthed regarding her shady public/private financial juggling act. Like, simply running for President isn't stressful enough.

    Stress, Baby. It's a killer!!

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef , September 12, 2016 at 4:50 pm

    Maybe this explains the lack of press conferences, even just for one hour.

    To go through a presidential debate – that'd be like enduring eternity.

    diptherio , September 12, 2016 at 9:48 am

    I stopped listening after Bush, Jr. was elected and immediately cut-off aid to foreign family planning orgs that mentioned mentioned abortion as an option to their patients. Ol' Cokie assured NPR listeners it was no big thing, nothing to see here, move along people. I tore the radio out of the dash and threw it out the window…

    Spring Texan , September 12, 2016 at 11:06 am

    I can't stand Cokie Roberts!!!

    aliteralmind , September 12, 2016 at 12:38 pm

    Me too. I won't turn the radio on in my car at all anymore, except to distract my arguing boys.

    neo-realist , September 12, 2016 at 1:53 pm

    I gave up on NPR when I got sick and tired of Cokie Roberts condescending republican talking points. It is very much a megaphone for center right elites.

    I've read that people who work there say that if they did not do the center right slant, they would lose a vast majority of their big donor funding.

    Optimader , September 12, 2016 at 6:32 pm

    They should loose those donors, it would be a cleansing act that might result in more creative and honest programming.

    I only listen to local public radio and tune away if there is NPR news content.

    Chicago Public Radio (WBEZ) is an exception on local public radio. It is awful and I will not listen to it, their programming has devolved to whining elitist **** talk radio. It is insufferable.

    [Sep 13, 2016] Bill Black The Clintons Have Not Changed

    Notable quotes:
    "... She was a horrible secretary of state. Explain to me why the US had to ruin a harmless country like Libya. ..."
    "... "Among the principal concerns in Washington, London and Paris were the increasing Chinese and Russian economic interests in Libya and more generally Africa as a whole. China had developed $6.6 billion in bilateral trade, mainly in oil, while some 30,000 Chinese workers were employed in a wide range of infrastructure projects. Russia, meanwhile, had developed extensive oil deals, billions of dollars in arms sales and a $3 billion project to link Sirte and Benghazi by rail. There were also discussions on providing the Russian navy with a Mediterranean port near Benghazi. ..."
    "... Gaddafi had provoked the ire of the government of Nicolas Sarkozy in France with his hostility to its scheme for creating a Mediterranean Union, aimed at refurbishing French influence in the country's former colonies and beyond. ..."
    "... Moreover, major US and Western European energy conglomerates increasingly chafed at what they saw as tough contract terms demanded by the Gaddafi government, as well as the threat that the Russian oil company Gazprom would be given a big stake in the exploitation of the country's reserves" ..."
    "... History shows that what flows in Hillary's political veins is new Democrat, Rubinite, Peterson, Wall Street dominated blood. ..."
    "... Clinton, then Bush, and now Obama have increasingly shielded their official actions from the public. And what should be obvious to anyone paying attention is that they are doing so to hide their actions from a public that would object, because at a minimum, they are unethical, or because they are illegal. ..."
    "... Nothing, absolutely nothing, in Hillary's past offers any a glimmer of anything different. Democracy requires transparency so that the public is properly informed and has oversight with which to hold people accountable. Obama promised to have the most transparent administration in history. He lied. Nothing she says today suggests Hillary would change this, and her past points to her making it worse. ..."
    "... I do not know how old you are but younger Bernie supporters will not vote for Killary Clinton. I do not know any people under 30 that will vote for Clinton. ..."
    "... Clinton's only path to victory in the General is to carry southern states that the Democrats always lose. She is going to get killed in the Rust Belt. Trump knows how to talk to disgruntled white voters. The only one who will stop him is Bernie since they are going after the same voter. ..."
    Mar 04, 2016 | naked capitalism

    Secretary Hillary Clinton is asking Democratic voters to believe that she has experienced a "Road to Damascus" conversion from her roots as a leader of the "New Democrats" – the Wall Street wing of the Democratic Party.

    ... ... ...

    Hillary and Obama made sure that they did not even have to risk their "lap dog" developing a spine. No IG was their ideal world.

    ...The idea that the State Department IG, appointed by President Obama, is "partisan" in the sense of being "anti-Clinton" is facially bizarre in that Obama is a strong supporter of Hillary.

    EndOfTheWorld , March 4, 2016 at 4:03 am

    HRC is, and always has been, bad news. She shouldn't have even run for prez the first time. She was a horrible secretary of state. Explain to me why the US had to ruin a harmless country like Libya. I hope the indictment comes down very soon, so Bernie can just be presumed the Democratic nominee.

    Chris A , March 4, 2016 at 6:27 am

    From wsws.org:

    "Among the principal concerns in Washington, London and Paris were the increasing Chinese and Russian economic interests in Libya and more generally Africa as a whole. China had developed $6.6 billion in bilateral trade, mainly in oil, while some 30,000 Chinese workers were employed in a wide range of infrastructure projects. Russia, meanwhile, had developed extensive oil deals, billions of dollars in arms sales and a $3 billion project to link Sirte and Benghazi by rail. There were also discussions on providing the Russian navy with a Mediterranean port near Benghazi.

    Gaddafi had provoked the ire of the government of Nicolas Sarkozy in France with his hostility to its scheme for creating a Mediterranean Union, aimed at refurbishing French influence in the country's former colonies and beyond.

    Moreover, major US and Western European energy conglomerates increasingly chafed at what they saw as tough contract terms demanded by the Gaddafi government, as well as the threat that the Russian oil company Gazprom would be given a big stake in the exploitation of the country's reserves"

    From Bill Van Auken/Wsws.org

    RP , March 4, 2016 at 2:56 pm

    Honduras isn't exactly a feather in her cap either

    KYrocky , March 4, 2016 at 9:19 am

    The past is prologue. History shows that what flows in Hillary's political veins is new Democrat, Rubinite, Peterson, Wall Street dominated blood. I agreed with her when she spoke of a vast right wing conspiracy, as it was obvious to anyone paying attention, and I could understand the Clinton's defensive secrecy given the relentlessly personal assaults they were under. But I object to the epidemic of secrecy that has infested what should be the public sphere of our government.

    Clinton, then Bush, and now Obama have increasingly shielded their official actions from the public. And what should be obvious to anyone paying attention is that they are doing so to hide their actions from a public that would object, because at a minimum, they are unethical, or because they are illegal.

    Nothing, absolutely nothing, in Hillary's past offers any a glimmer of anything different. Democracy requires transparency so that the public is properly informed and has oversight with which to hold people accountable. Obama promised to have the most transparent administration in history. He lied. Nothing she says today suggests Hillary would change this, and her past points to her making it worse.

    MIchael C. , March 4, 2016 at 9:32 am

    The "unlikeability" factor of Hillary Clinton, and her husband Bill, grows ever deeper in the American public. She drips with a uncouth and meglomaniacal drive to be president. I am not sure she can win an election, even with many voters pulling the lever for her in fear of the greater evil. I am not sure she is the lesser evil, and I think others may feel the same way election time.

    Deloss Brown , March 4, 2016 at 10:45 am

    Mmmmmf it's hard not to think she's the lesser of two evils when she's running against a candidate who's openly deranged–and I can guarantee she will be running against such a one, even before the Republicans pick one to nominate. All of theirs are deranged. They had a "deep bench," and they were all deranged. If Hillary inspires a large number of voters–and I'm a Sanders fan, but apparently she does–maybe they'll all come out and vote a straight D ticket, which might help us in that Home for the Deranged which is our Congress. And I doubt that Hillary would nominate another Scalia, Alito or Thomas. She probably wouldn't know where to look, for one thing. Did I mention that I'm a Sanders fan?

    John , March 4, 2016 at 12:07 pm

    Trump probably left of Clinton in many ways. Probably less corrupt.

    jrs , March 4, 2016 at 1:38 pm

    care to list all of Trumps left wing positions? single payer – nope he's not for that anymore, read his actual healthcare proposals. a few social issues like abortion? oh maybe but he keeps changing positions there as well (truthfully I don't' see these issues as really being right or left at all, but in the American political system they usually are seen that way) opposition to trade deals? … ok maybe that.

    I'm not sure Kasich is deranged, but he is a warmonger for sure, then so is Hillary. Rubio might not be deranged but he's a neocon and a neophyte.

    AnEducatedFool , March 4, 2016 at 4:44 pm

    I do not know how old you are but younger Bernie supporters will not vote for Killary Clinton. I do not know any people under 30 that will vote for Clinton. I attend a local community college (prepping for grad school) outside of Philadelphia in an area that Killary will easily carry thanks to a lot of older feminists that still use the feminist card to justify their vote.

    Clinton's only path to victory in the General is to carry southern states that the Democrats always lose. She is going to get killed in the Rust Belt. Trump knows how to talk to disgruntled white voters. The only one who will stop him is Bernie since they are going after the same voter.

    I do not know how she can win if she loses Ohio.

    perpetualWAR , March 4, 2016 at 11:03 am

    If the Democrats choose to give us Hillary, I will vote Republican.

    hreik , March 4, 2016 at 12:49 pm

    If the Democrats choose to give us Hillary, I'll write in Sanders.

    EndOfTheWorld , March 4, 2016 at 1:12 pm

    The Libertarians have their convention in July, and they might put up an interesting nominee. Could be Jesse Ventura or McAffee of net security and Belize escape fame. Ventura would be a good prez, in my opinion.

    AnEducatedFool , March 4, 2016 at 4:57 pm

    Excellent article. I hope Sanders will offer Bill Black a job in his administration. I've noticed that Black was often on panels held by Sanders.

    EndOfTheWorld , March 4, 2016 at 7:30 pm

    That's where Bernie can really do some good. He can't snap his fingers and have medicare for all, but he can put in SEC heads, SecTreasury, and economic advisers that make sense, like Bill Black, yes, who put some bankers in jail after the S&L debacle under Reagan. Iceland put 13 bankers in jail recently. Here in the cowardly US they just pay a fine amounting to a small percentage of what they stole. No problem for them at all. Just a cost of doing business.

    [Sep 13, 2016] Neocon Kagan: Hillary Clinton Is One Of Us

    Notable quotes:
    "... In fact, HRC may be a better prospect for neocons, because they can distract the Dem base with how cool it is for a "strong woman" to send men into battle. Anyone opposed must be a misogynist/sexist pig. By contrast Jeb would be too obvious. ..."
    "... "There is no prospect of a non-interventionist president." ..."
    "... Exactly. Obama has certainly proved this to be true, for those who might've thought otherwise. And since it is true, if one is going to vote anyway, then the decision won't be made on the basis of not "wanting more wars with terrible outcomes." There will have to be another, different, deciding factor, since that factor would rule out Ms. Clinton AND every other candidate. ..."
    "... Yes, I have to second Lysander's view. People - both in and outside the US - must first disabuse themselves of ANY notion that the US is a democratic state, that "changes" in leadership will actually bring about ANY difference in foreign/domestic policy and that the American war criminal ship can be righted by the people utilizing the "democratic" mechanisms at their disposal. ..."
    "... Furthermore, after the Obama debacle and his utter betrayal etc of his supporters if anyone thinks someone in the American Establishment is looking out for their peon asses why then they probably also believe that the US was "surprised/caught off guard" - yet again - by ISIS et al in Iraq. ..."
    "... I wish Rand Paul had his fathers balls, but he doesnt. Ron was a Libertarian pretending to be a Republican, while Rand is a Republican pretending to be a Libertarian... Rand would be no different than any other Republican or Democratic establishment schmuck. ..."
    "... I never did like Ron Pauls economic policy, being left leaning, and I'm doubtful whether he would have actually accomplished anything useful as President, but his NonInterventionism was admirable and I was happy to put his name in in the Rethug primary in 2012 for that reason alone. ..."
    "... Mr. Kristol said he, too, sensed "more willingness to rethink" neoconservatism, which he called "vindicated to some degree" by the fruits of Mr. Obama's detached approach to Syria and Eastern Europe. Mr. Kagan, he said, gives historical heft to arguments "that are very consistent with the arguments I made, and he made, 20 years ago, 10 years ago." ..."
    "... After all the slaughter these people feel like crowing. They are clearly, as JSorrentine often reminds us, pyschopath butchers. ..."
    "... Incidentally, where is the outrage from Samantha Powers about the ISIS massacre in Tikrit? ..."
    "... Well, I guess the world just can't talk about how the amazingly rapid rise of ISIS/L and fall of Iraq completely continues the plans of the apartheid genocidal state of Israel's - and their traitorous Zionist partners in the American Establishment - as set out in the Yinon Plan and Clean Break strategies because - HOW FORTUITOUS...I mean, terribly sad and unexpected, sorry - some unlucky Israeli teenagers just happened to be "kidnapped" by "Hamas" just as the ISIS show was kicking off or so that's what the apartheid genocidal state of Israel is telling the world. ..."
    "... Shrillary wouldn't be where she is today if she wasn't criminally insane. I want her to become President. She'll redefine the meaning of Eerily Inept (a label coined by Gore Vidal and attached to G Dubya Bush). Her greatest moment was when Lavrov called her out on her RESET button and pointed out, with a chuckle, "You got it wrong. It doesn't say RESET it says SHORT CIRCUIT." ..."
    "... Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who argued in favor of arming Syrian rebels, said last week at an event in New York hosted by the Council on Foreign Relations, "this is not just a Syrian problem anymore. I never thought it was just a Syrian problem. I thought it was a regional problem. ..."
    "... Why, even HILLARY is just SOOOO SURPRISED about people trying to erase boundaries, huh? Funny, she should have read further into yesterday's times where it seems that the Zionist mouthpiece of record was desperately trying to get "out in front" of anyone mentioning that the fracturing of Iraq and the ME was all part of long-time Israeli strategy: ..."
    "... In 2006, it was Ralph Peters, the retired lieutenant colonel turned columnist, who sketched a map that subdivided Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and envisioned Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite republics emerging from a no-longer-united Iraq. Two years later, The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg imagined similar partings-of-the-ways, with new microstates -- an Alawite Republic, an Islamic Emirate of Gaza -- taking shape and Afghanistan splitting up as well. Last year, it was Robin Wright's turn in this newspaper, in a map that (keeping up with events) subdivided Libya as well. ..."
    "... As president she's da bomb! ..."
    "... Hillary is a loathsome war mongering bitch. She almost had a public orgasm when Libyan leader Quadaffi was tortured and murdered by US supported Libyan rebels. The muder of Chris Stevens was a case of what goes around comes around. ..."
    "... A point which nobody else has made as far as I know. To wit there is a big overlap between the banking and Israel lobbies since wealthy Jews account for a hugely disproportionate number of top financial movers and shakers. Anything that helps the financial industry also helps the war mongering Israel and neo con lobbies. The heavily Jewish Fed is another enabler of all that is wrong with America today. ..."
    "... I, also agree, with the possible exception of replacing the word "Zionist", with the word "Corporatist", although both can be rightly used. We'll still get the person the 1%ers want us to have. Ain't Oligarchies grand? ..."
    "... Hillary's election depends on two things still unknown: her health and whether the Republicans can manage to choose someone sufficiently batshit crazy to make her the best of abysmal alternatives. ..."
    "... HRH is a Neo Liberal of Arianne 'Sniff Sniff' Huffington's type, the 'Third Way Up Your Ass' of Globalist NAFTA/TPP Free Trade Neonazi destruction of labor and environmental protections, and in your face with NOOOOO apologies. ..."
    "... And Victoria Nuland indicates that she agrees with her husband Robert Kagan's criticism of Obama's foreign policy. ..."
    "... Would it be safe to say Hillary's White Trash ? ..."
    "... There are some really nice photographs of Hillary being very friendly with bearded famous Libyan Islamists (Gaddafi was still alive then). In combination with Benghazi - I think you probably can connect the people greeting Hillary with what happened there (and today's Iraq) I would not think she has a chance to convince with foreign policy. ..."
    "... 'You have a schism between Sunni and Shia throughout the region that is profound. Some of it is directed or abetted by states who are in contests for power there.'" Now, if only he had mentioned the states included and featured the (United) States and Israel. Obama...usually a day late and a dollar short and leading or retreating from behind. ..."
    "... I would rank Obama as the most cynical one. He is doing the dark colonial art. You can berate Bush for bombing Iraq (Obama did that with Libya, just as bad), but he did sink American manpower and treasure for all this futile nation building stuff, ie he tried to repair it. ..."
    "... Obama tried to double down on the nation building stuff in Afghanistan, even copying the "surge". He is still not out of Afghanistan. ..."
    "... He then tried to continue Bush's policy on the cheap, scrapping the nation building stuff and concentrating on shock and awe in Libya. When Russia put a stop to that in Syria he doubled down on the subversion supporting guerilla groups. He is now back in Iraq with allies supporting a "Sunni" insurrection by proxy. After a "color revolution" in Ukraine. ..."
    "... It is not "US foreign policy" but the policy of the british empire. If he was running a US foreign policy, he would at least sometimes do something positive for Americans, by accident if nothing more. ..."
    "... Economic policy to vote on? Are you joking? Whichever party we elect we get Neoliberalism anyway. ..."
    "... "That smile and her gloating about his death made me feel she was some sort of sociopath." Massinissa, you meant psychopath, didn't you? ..."
    Jun 16, 2014 | moonofalabama.org

    Here is the reason why Hillary Clinton should never ever become President of the United States.

    A (sympathetic) New York Times profile of neocon Robert Kagan has this on Clinton II:

    But Exhibit A for what Robert Kagan describes as his "mainstream" view of American force is his relationship with former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who remains the vessel into which many interventionists are pouring their hopes. Mr. Kagan pointed out that he had recently attended a dinner of foreign-policy experts at which Mrs. Clinton was the guest of honor, and that he had served on her bipartisan group of foreign-policy heavy hitters at the State Department, where his wife worked as her spokeswoman.

    "I feel comfortable with her on foreign policy," Mr. Kagan said, adding that the next step after Mr. Obama's more realist approach "could theoretically be whatever Hillary brings to the table" if elected president. "If she pursues a policy which we think she will pursue," he added, "it's something that might have been called neocon, but clearly her supporters are not going to call it that; they are going to call it something else."

    Want more wars with terrible outcomes and no winner at all? Vote the neocon's vessel, Hillary Clinton.

    Clinton, by the way, is also a coward, unprincipled and greedy. Her achievements as Secretary of State were about zero. Why would anyone vote for her?

    Posted by b on June 16, 2014 at 09:09 AM | Permalink

    Lysander | Jun 16, 2014 9:44:15 AM | 4

    I'm afraid you focus too much on elections that have no meaning. It seems we may be cornered into choosing between HR Clinton and Jeb Bush. The latter, I'm sure, would earn equal praise from the Kagan clan. There is no prospect of a non-interventionist president. There is no prospect of a president that is not a Zionist stooge.

    In fact, HRC may be a better prospect for neocons, because they can distract the Dem base with how cool it is for a "strong woman" to send men into battle. Anyone opposed must be a misogynist/sexist pig. By contrast Jeb would be too obvious.

    dahoit | Jun 16, 2014 9:54:05 AM | 6

    Personally, I don't think she is anyone to worry about gaining the office. Too much hatred of her by most Americans, from her serial lying to her terrible foreign policy, to her standing by bent dick, in her lust for power. She will be backed by feminazis,homonazis and zionazis(Kagan).

    Not enough devil worshippers in America,at least not yet,and I believe Americans,from current events that our traitor MSM will be unable to counter with their usual BS,that we are down the rabbit hole of idiotic intervention,and we will end this nonsense,and return to worrying about America,not foreign malevolent monsters like Israel.
    Well,I can at least hope,it springs eternal.

    Earwig | Jun 16, 2014 9:58:14 AM | 7

    "There is no prospect of a non-interventionist president."

    Exactly. Obama has certainly proved this to be true, for those who might've thought otherwise. And since it is true, if one is going to vote anyway, then the decision won't be made on the basis of not "wanting more wars with terrible outcomes." There will have to be another, different, deciding factor, since that factor would rule out Ms. Clinton AND every other candidate.

    JSorrentine | Jun 16, 2014 10:01:53 AM | 8

    Yes, I have to second Lysander's view. People - both in and outside the US - must first disabuse themselves of ANY notion that the US is a democratic state, that "changes" in leadership will actually bring about ANY difference in foreign/domestic policy and that the American war criminal ship can be righted by the people utilizing the "democratic" mechanisms at their disposal.

    I understand that some speak to how corrupt our institutions are but there always seems to be a "feel-goodiness" - i.e., we can still fix it all, boys and girls, if you all just clap your hands LOUDER!! - implicit in their analyses/prescriptions when there should be nothing but anger, fear and revulsion towards the fascist war criminal state that we live within.

    Furthermore, after the Obama debacle and his utter betrayal etc of his supporters if anyone thinks someone in the American Establishment is looking out for their peon asses why then they probably also believe that the US was "surprised/caught off guard" - yet again - by ISIS et al in Iraq.

    Fucking nonsense.

    Massinissa | Jun 16, 2014 11:40:18 AM | 13

    "There is no chance of a non-interventionist president"

    I wish Rand Paul had his fathers balls, but he doesnt. Ron was a Libertarian pretending to be a Republican, while Rand is a Republican pretending to be a Libertarian... Rand would be no different than any other Republican or Democratic establishment schmuck.

    I never did like Ron Pauls economic policy, being left leaning, and I'm doubtful whether he would have actually accomplished anything useful as President, but his NonInterventionism was admirable and I was happy to put his name in in the Rethug primary in 2012 for that reason alone.

    Mike Maloney | Jun 16, 2014 12:01:20 PM | 15

    Great post, b. I saw the article and felt the same thing. While commentators are right to say that the foreign policy of the U.S. remains largely untouched regardless of which candidate or party wins the White House (which the NYT piece does a fine job illustrating), I do think Hillary is the worst the Democrats have to offer.

    What I found amazing about the story is how neocons are now preening about as if they have been vindicated:

    Mr. Kristol said he, too, sensed "more willingness to rethink" neoconservatism, which he called "vindicated to some degree" by the fruits of Mr. Obama's detached approach to Syria and Eastern Europe. Mr. Kagan, he said, gives historical heft to arguments "that are very consistent with the arguments I made, and he made, 20 years ago, 10 years ago."
    After all the slaughter these people feel like crowing. They are clearly, as JSorrentine often reminds us, pyschopath butchers.

    Incidentally, where is the outrage from Samantha Powers about the ISIS massacre in Tikrit?

    Dubhaltach | Jun 16, 2014 12:07:31 PM | 16

    Want more wars with terrible outcomes and no winner at all? Vote the neocon's vessel, Hillary Clinton.

    That's what they've been voting for generations - why change the habit of a lifetime?

    Clinton, by the way, is also a coward, unprincipled and greedy. Her achievements as Secretary of State were about zero. Why would anyone vote for her?

    Well at the risk of being a smartass her achievements were negative, the American hegemony is in worse condition because of her.

    Dubhaltach

    JSorrentine | Jun 16, 2014 12:10:24 PM | 17

    OT:

    Well, I guess the world just can't talk about how the amazingly rapid rise of ISIS/L and fall of Iraq completely continues the plans of the apartheid genocidal state of Israel's - and their traitorous Zionist partners in the American Establishment - as set out in the Yinon Plan and Clean Break strategies because - HOW FORTUITOUS...I mean, terribly sad and unexpected, sorry - some unlucky Israeli teenagers just happened to be "kidnapped" by "Hamas" just as the ISIS show was kicking off or so that's what the apartheid genocidal state of Israel is telling the world.

    Yeah, I bet the apartheid genocidal state of Israel probably has just NO IDEA about what's going on in Iraq what with their harrowing search - read: collective punishment for the residents of the illegally occupied territories - for the 3 missing boys who haven't been ransomed or claimed to have been taken by anyone.

    Wait a second...what if it was ISIS/L and NOT Hamas that "kidnapped" the boys!!!Holy tie-in, Bat-Man!!!!

    Then there would be NO WAY that what we're witnessing is the furthering of the Yinon Plan because the apartheid genocidal Israelis would never instigate false flag terror to further/distract from their own ends/agenda, would they? Nah.

    Wait a second...they ALREADY DID (supposedly):

    A Qaeda-inspired group calling itself the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria - Palestine, West Bank claimed responsibility for the kidnappings, saying it wanted to avenge Israel's killing of three of its group in the Hebron area late last year and to try to free prisoners from Israeli jails. The credibility of the claim was not immediately clear.

    But clear enough for the Zionist mouthpiece of the NYT to print it, right?

    Hoarsewhisperer | Jun 16, 2014 12:18:00 PM | 18

    Shrillary wouldn't be where she is today if she wasn't criminally insane. I want her to become President. She'll redefine the meaning of Eerily Inept (a label coined by Gore Vidal and attached to G Dubya Bush). Her greatest moment was when Lavrov called her out on her RESET button and pointed out, with a chuckle, "You got it wrong. It doesn't say RESET it says SHORT CIRCUIT."

    Then he laughed. At her, not with her. She's a sick, intellectually lazy, dumb, joke. America deserves her.

    JSorrentine | Jun 16, 2014 12:41:43 PM | 20

    Here's Killary quoted in the NYT yesterday:

    Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who argued in favor of arming Syrian rebels, said last week at an event in New York hosted by the Council on Foreign Relations, "this is not just a Syrian problem anymore. I never thought it was just a Syrian problem. I thought it was a regional problem. I could not have predicted, however, the extent to which ISIS could be effective in seizing cities in Iraq and trying to erase boundaries to create an Islamic state."

    Why, even HILLARY is just SOOOO SURPRISED about people trying to erase boundaries, huh? Funny, she should have read further into yesterday's times where it seems that the Zionist mouthpiece of record was desperately trying to get "out in front" of anyone mentioning that the fracturing of Iraq and the ME was all part of long-time Israeli strategy:

    Here's from another NYT piece yesterday:

    In 2006, it was Ralph Peters, the retired lieutenant colonel turned columnist, who sketched a map that subdivided Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and envisioned Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite republics emerging from a no-longer-united Iraq. Two years later, The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg imagined similar partings-of-the-ways, with new microstates -- an Alawite Republic, an Islamic Emirate of Gaza -- taking shape and Afghanistan splitting up as well. Last year, it was Robin Wright's turn in this newspaper, in a map that (keeping up with events) subdivided Libya as well.

    Peters's map, which ran in Armed Forces Journal, inspired conspiracy theories about how this was America's real plan for remaking the Middle East. But the reality is entirely different: One reason these maps have remained strictly hypothetical, even amid regional turmoil, is that the United States has a powerful interest in preserving the Sykes-Picot status quo.

    This is not because the existing borders are in any way ideal. Indeed, there's a very good chance that a Middle East that was more politically segregated by ethnicity and faith might become a more stable and harmonious region in the long run.

    My favorite part of the above column is that it references a previous column from the Zionist NYT from last year in which a war criminal even drew up the new map of the ME!!

    Oh, but that war criminal thought SYRIA was going to be the trigger that allowed for the culmination of the Yinon Plan. Oops!

    And then ALSO YESTERDAY in the NYT everyone's favorite little war Establishment mouthpiece Nicholas Kristoff had this to say:

    The crucial step, and the one we should apply diplomatic pressure to try to achieve, is for Maliki to step back and share power with Sunnis while accepting decentralization of government.

    If Maliki does all that, it may still be possible to save Iraq. Without that, airstrikes would be a further waste in a land in which we've already squandered far, far too much.

    DECENTRALIZATION, huh? Why, Nicky, that sounds like what Putin has suggested for Ukraine, huh? Shhhhhhhh

    And of course Mr. Fuckhead Tom Friedman weighs in ALSO YESTERDAY in the NYT with this:

    THE disintegration of Iraq and Syria is upending an order that has defined the Middle East for a century. It is a huge event, and we as a country need to think very carefully about how to respond. Having just returned from Iraq two weeks ago, my own thinking is guided by five principles, and the first is that, in Iraq today, my enemy's enemy is my enemy. Other than the Kurds, we have no friends in this fight. Neither Sunni nor Shiite leaders spearheading the war in Iraq today share our values.

    The ME is going to be split up inevitably: check

    The US/Israel are JUST NOWHERE to be found: check

    Thanks, Tom, you fucking war criminal scum!!!

    To review:

    Everyone in the Establishment - fake left, right, center, dove, hawk, blah blah - says that it's just inevitable now that Iraq and the ME will probably be broken up.

    Everyone in the Establishment also agrees that NO ONE could see this whole ISIS etc shitpile coming, right?

    Anyone else get the feeling that this is a coordinated continuation of the Zionist Plan for the Middle East?

    Naahh. Nothing to see here, fuckers!!! Move along!!!!

    Penny | Jun 16, 2014 12:45:13 PM | 21

    I am thirding Lysanders comment

    Hillary is perfect for '(p)resident'

    She ties right in with the whole pink power agenda. She is the woMAN version and can also be useful for the women=victims, but, no way for the women/whore

    women/victim/whore is quintessentially Pussy Riot

    And if you criticize HC you are just a woman hater!
    (you know like antisemitic)
    Same as Obama- criticize him, you are just a racist
    Shuts the complaints right off!

    As president she's da bomb!

    Eureka Springs | Jun 16, 2014 1:48:59 PM | 22

    These people aren't just measuring the drapes... they're counting corpses she's sure to order.

    A most barbaric woman/human being, a terrible person, a terrible Governors wife, First Lady, Senator, SOS.... Obviously will be a perfect President.

    She's a shoe-in. Hopefully it will be a presidency that once and for all sends the Demo party the way of the Whigs.

    Andoheb | Jun 16, 2014 2:38:11 PM | 24

    Hillary is a loathsome war mongering bitch. She almost had a public orgasm when Libyan leader Quadaffi was tortured and murdered by US supported Libyan rebels. The muder of Chris Stevens was a case of what goes around comes around.

    Andoheb | Jun 16, 2014 2:47:02 PM | 25

    A point which nobody else has made as far as I know. To wit there is a big overlap between the banking and Israel lobbies since wealthy Jews account for a hugely disproportionate number of top financial movers and shakers. Anything that helps the financial industry also helps the war mongering Israel and neo con lobbies. The heavily Jewish Fed is another enabler of all that is wrong with America today.

    ben | Jun 16, 2014 2:55:41 PM | 26

    lysander @ 4: "There is no prospect of a president that is not a Zionist stooge."

    I, also agree, with the possible exception of replacing the word "Zionist", with the word "Corporatist", although both can be rightly used. We'll still get the person the 1%ers want us to have. Ain't Oligarchies grand?

    Knut | Jun 16, 2014 3:27:22 PM | 31

    Hillary's election depends on two things still unknown: her health and whether the Republicans can manage to choose someone sufficiently batshit crazy to make her the best of abysmal alternatives. I think her health is the critical variable, as the PTB are going to make sure that the Republican candidate will come out strongly for privatization of social security and reversing the 19th amendment. Vote-rigging and gerrymandering will maintain a sufficiently close election to preserve the simulacrum of a free election.

    @18 You live in a dream world.

    chip nikh | Jun 16, 2014 4:30:18 PM | 34

    HRH is a Neo Liberal of Arianne 'Sniff Sniff' Huffington's type, the 'Third Way Up Your
    Ass' of Globalist NAFTA/TPP Free Trade Neonazi destruction of labor and environmental
    protections, and in your face with NOOOOO apologies.

    That she is a totally-disjointed Royal is clear in her 'dead broke' claim. That she is a famous Hectorian, constantly checking which way public opinion is flowing, then crafting
    her confabulated dialogue as screed to her real intents, is well known. Der Prevaricator.

    What should be equally well known, if news got around, Hillary (and UKs Milliband) grifted
    Hamid Karzai $5 BILLION of Americans' last life savings, stolen from US Humanitarian Aid
    to Afghanistan, then made five trips to Kabul for no apparent purpose, before announcing
    that her $-35 MILLION 'dead broke' presidential campaign had been paid off by 'anonymous
    donors'. This is all public record; in the 2009 International Conference on Afghanistan in
    London, right in the conference speeches, framed as 'Karzai's demand', but in fact, that
    speech of Karzai's was written by US State Department. I read the drafts. 'Bicycling'.

    Hillary soon had to fly back one more time and grift Karzai an emergency $3.5 BILLION
    theft, after he lost Americans' $5 BILLION while speculating in Dubai R/E by looting
    his Bank of Kabul. Her 'injection of capital' saved the bank from being audited, and
    no doubt saved all the Kaganites from an embarrassing and public episiotomy.

    In the end, Hillary retired with a fortune of $50 MILLION, again announced publicly, which
    together with the $-35 MILLION campaign payoff in violation of all US election regulations,
    is exactly 1% of the $8.5 BILLION she grifted to Karzai. She's in the 'One Percent Club'.
    "It's a Great Big Club, ...and you ain't in it!" George 'The Man' Carlin

    But who cares? I'll tell you. The Russian know about this grift, certainly the Israelis
    know about this grift, the Millibandits know, the London Karzais know, and if G-d forbid,
    Hillary became HRHOTUS, Americans will be blackmailed down to their underdrawers.

    That's the Levant Way.

    lysias | Jun 16, 2014 4:36:24 PM | 36

    And Victoria Nuland indicates that she agrees with her husband Robert Kagan's criticism of Obama's foreign policy.

    Cold N. Holefield | Jun 16, 2014 7:40:23 PM | 44

    Would it be safe to say Hillary's White Trash? And to think, she was once a Goldwater Girl. So many faces, so many more to come.

    somebody | Jun 16, 2014 7:51:25 PM | 45

    Posted by: scalawag | Jun 16, 2014 5:54:41 PM | 38

    There are some really nice photographs of Hillary being very friendly with bearded famous Libyan Islamists (Gaddafi was still alive then). In combination with Benghazi - I think you probably can connect the people greeting Hillary with what happened there (and today's Iraq) I would not think she has a chance to convince with foreign policy.

    Female voters are not stupid.

    People do not vote on foreign policy. As US household incomes are decreasing there should be a lot of economic policy to vote on.

    truthbetold | Jun 16, 2014 7:51:40 PM | 46

    "Well at the risk of being a smartass her achievements were negative, the American hegemony is in worse condition because of her."
    Because of her and it.

    Dubhaltach gets it right, and as applied to events inclusive of and after 9-11-2001. The purported masterful seamless garment of conspiracy,
    yet it weakened the US and helped get Israel whacked good by Hezbollah.

    As for the unmentioned Saudi, it is of course impossible that Saudi could outplay longterm both the US and Israel longterm.

    Just as it was impossible Chalabi could outplay the neocons and help win Iran the Iraq War. Who is playing catch up and who is
    playing masterfully cohesive and unbeatable conspiracy?

    Dubhaltach gets it right, the US will be pushed out of the Mideast and Israel is longterm DOOMED.

    truthbetold | Jun 16, 2014 8:45:57 PM | 50

    http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/06/16/resisting-the-stupid-shit/

    Here is Obama in the very recent Remnick interview

    "Obama said:

    'You have a schism between Sunni and Shia throughout the region that is profound. Some of it is directed or abetted by states who are in contests for power there.'" Now, if only he had mentioned the states included and featured the (United) States and Israel. Obama...usually a day late and a dollar short and leading or retreating from behind.

    somebody | Jun 17, 2014 5:06:26 AM | 71

    Posted by: HnH | Jun 17, 2014 4:30:40 AM | 64

    I would rank Obama as the most cynical one. He is doing the dark colonial art. You can berate Bush for bombing Iraq (Obama did that with Libya, just as bad), but he did sink American manpower and treasure for all this futile nation building stuff, ie he tried to repair it.

    The withdrawal from Iraq was negotiated by Bush. It was an election campaign deceit to pretend Obama's foreign policy was any different.

    Obama tried to double down on the nation building stuff in Afghanistan, even copying the "surge". He is still not out of Afghanistan.

    He then tried to continue Bush's policy on the cheap, scrapping the nation building stuff and concentrating on shock and awe in Libya. When Russia put a stop to that in Syria he doubled down on the subversion supporting guerilla groups. He is now back in Iraq with allies supporting a "Sunni" insurrection by proxy. After a "color revolution" in Ukraine.

    He just "sold" US foreign policy in a different target group, Hillary will sell it to her target group, Jeb Bush to his.

    The substance never changes and is cooked by the Council of Foreign Relations.

    T2015 | Jun 17, 2014 5:45:44 AM | 72

    It is not "US foreign policy" but the policy of the british empire. If he was running a US foreign policy, he would at least sometimes do something positive for Americans, by accident if nothing more.

    Massinissa | Jun 17, 2014 11:53:21 AM | 84

    @45

    Economic policy to vote on? Are you joking? Whichever party we elect we get Neoliberalism anyway.

    Crone | Jun 18, 2014 12:23:56 AM | 97

    "That smile and her gloating about his death made me feel she was some sort of sociopath." Massinissa, you meant psychopath, didn't you?

    the following is an excerpt from essay written by James at Winter Patriot:

    "... Psychopaths are people without a conscience; without compassion for others; without a sense of shame or guilt. The majority of people carry within them the concern for others that evolution has instilled in us to allow us to survive as groups. This is the evolutionary basis of the quality of compassion. Compassion is not just a matter of virtue; it is a matter of survival. Psychopaths do not have this concern for others and so are a danger to the survival of the rest of us.

    Psychopaths, as a homogeneous group, would not survive one or two generations by themselves. They are motivated only by self interest and would exploit each other till they ended up killing each other. Which gives one pause for thought! They are parasites and need the rest of us to survive. In doing so they compromise the survival of the whole species.

    Psychopaths represent approximately between 1% and 20% of the population in western countries depending on whose research you go by and also depending on how broad a definition of the condition you adopt. It is generally held, though, that there is a hard core of between 4-6% or so and maybe another 10 -15% of the population that is functionally psychopathic in that they will exploit their fellow human being without hesitation.

    The hard core are untreatable. They see nothing wrong with who or what they are. The other 10-15% group may be persuaded to act differently in a different environment or a different society. The second group act out of a misguided strategy of survival. I'll concentrate on the hard core 5% and the singular fact that must be borne in mind with them is that they are incapable of change for the better. They cannot reform or be reformed. And you can take that to the bank in every case! They must never be trusted.

    Documented liars like those that populate the current Kiev regime can be confidently assumed to be psychopaths from their behaviour and so will never negotiate in good faith and will always renege on any deals they make. The same can be said for the governments of the US and UK who back them. Historically, they have never made a treaty that they did not subsequently break."

    James' essay is extremely informative wrt group psychopathy... some of you may want to give it a read:

    http://winterpatriot.com/node/894

    psst... imho TPTB are psychopaths as are the puppets whose strings they pull.

    Massinissa | Jun 18, 2014 1:29:31 PM | 98@97

    My bad... Im not even sure what the difference between the two is.

    crone | Jun 18, 2014 4:47:48 PM | 99

    sociopath: a person with a personality disorder manifesting itself in extreme antisocial attitudes and behavior and a lack of conscience.

    see also http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/201305/how-spot-sociopath

    psychopath: a person suffering from chronic mental disorder with abnormal or violent social behavior.
    an unstable and aggressive person. "schoolyard psychopaths will gather around a fight to encourage the combatants"

    see also http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/mindmelding/201301/what-is-psychopath-0

    Mina, now that I've looked up these links for you, I am confused myself! Since a sociopath is less of a danger to the rest of us, I prefer to call TPTB and their puppets psychopaths. Not your bad at all, apparently the two are so similar as to there being difficulty telling them apart.

    btw, I always enjoy your posts ~ not only do I get new info, but often new sources... which is great. Thanks!

    [Sep 12, 2016] Syria decision the latest blow to Obamas Middle East legacy

    Notable quotes:
    "... Yemen is another war the US is involved in thanks to the "peace" Pres. Obama. He has tried to keep this war hidden from the public. His few mentions of this war have been limited to shallow statements about his concern of the civilian casualty. ..."
    "... Moreover, by selling the Saudis cluster bombs and other arms being used on civilians, Obama has enabled the Saudis in the last 8 moths to kill and destruct in Yemen more than WW2, as evidence shows. According to Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, the US is complicit in international war crimes in Yemen. ..."
    "... After Obama's election, he went to Cairo to make a peace speech to the Arab world aiming to diffuse the deep hatred towards the US created during the Bush era. Yet since then, Obama's foolish alliances with despotic Arab rulers infesting ISIS and Al-Qaeda in the region, his drone warfare, and warped war policies in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen, have only expanded and strengthened ISIS and Al-Qaeda, and increased Arab citizens anger and hatred towards the US. This is Obama's legacy! ..."
    "... I always think there are similarities in Clinton and Obama s upbringing that created the anormic sociopathic shape shifting personalities they demonstrate. ..."
    "... amiable even charismatic enough to sell it to a stupid audience. ..."
    "... Why do we maintain the myth that the Obama brand is in anyway his personal contribution. Anymore than Bush or Clinton. The only difference is the republicans are ideologues where's as the puppets offered by the democrats are just psychotic shape shifters. In either way on a clear day you can see the strings hanging from their wrists like ribbons. ..."
    "... The US is Allied with Saudi Arabia and Israel, that makes Saudi Arabia's and Israel's enemies US enemies. ..."
    "... The notion that Obama makes his own decisions is laughable except it aint funny.. ..."
    "... There is no 'Obama legacy' in the ME. It is a US legacy of blown attempts to control unwilling countries and populations by coercion, and by military and economic warfare. ..."
    "... With all due respects to M. Obama, this is another clear indication that the US President is just a figure head. He is a front for the corporations that run the US behind the scene - the so-called US military-industrial complex. ..."
    "... Perhaps you intentionally miss out the fact that it is the west that has Israel and the Saudis as their best allies, considering their actions ( one with the largest/longest time concentration camp in history, the other the exporter of the horror show of ISIL , both an abomination of their respective religions . The west attempt to seek the moral high ground is more than a farce ... all the world can see and know the game being played, but the mass media wishes to assume everyone has half a brain... they are allergic to the truth , like the vampires to the light. ..."
    "... The stick I'm talking about is the total capacity of the US, military and economic, to have things its way or make the opposition very unhappy. ..."
    "... What has it gotten us? Nothing good. What has it gotten the top 1 percent? All the money we don't have. ..."
    "... Obama is being an absolute idiot in sending special forces to fight with rebels who are fighting the legitimate government of Syria. This is stupidity of the highest order. What will he do when any of these special forces operatives are captured by IS or killed by Russian or Syrian airstrikes? ..."
    "... That is a valid point: Syria is a sovereign nation recognized by the U.N., and any foreign troops within without permission would be considered invaders. Of course, the U.S. ignores international law all the time. ..."
    "... Anyway, foreign troops in Syria who are there without an invitation by Syrian government or authorisation by UNSC are there illegally and can be tried for war crimes if captured. Why is Obama putting his soldiers in this situation? ..."
    "... The U.S. strategy in Syria is in tatters as Obama lamely tries to patch it up. The U.S. was determined to overthrow the Assad regime in Syria in service of the Saudis, Turkey, and Israel, while pretending to go after ISIS, who the Saudis and Turks were covertly funding. The U.S. were arming jihadists to oust Assad. That game is up, thanks to the Russians. Putin decided he wasn't going to stand by while the U.S. and its proxies created another Libya jihadist disaster in Syria. The forceful Russian intervention in going after ISIS showed the U.S. to be a faker, and caused a sea-change in U.S. policy. Now the U.S. can't pretend to go after ISIS while really trying to oust Assad. The Emporer has no clothes. ..."
    "... Israel is an ally of KSA who is funding IS, Al Nusra, Al-Qaida and Al-Shabab. They are also partners with KSA in trying to prevent Iran's reintegration into global society following the nuclear deal, and the lifting of sanctions. ..."
    "... I suspect that Israel wants to annex the Syrian Golan Heights permanently, and to extend their illegal settlements into the area. That can only happen if Assad is defeated. ..."
    "... Wow, you make a lot of sense. I always thought the US military heavy foreign policy became insane because of Reagan. Maybe it was the loss of the USSR? ..."
    "... Everyone here grew up being taught that the US is the champion of all that is good (sounds corny today). When the USSR dissolved, everyone imagined huge military cuts with the savings being invested in social benefits. If someone had predicted that, instead, we would grow our military, throw our civil rights away, embrace empire, assasinate US citizens without a trial, create total surveillance, create secret one sided star-chamber FISA courts that control a third of our economy, and choose a Dept. name heard previously only in Nazi movies (Homeland Security) --- we'd have laughed and dismissed the warning as delusion. ..."
    "... You are correct. Obama is breaking UN international law, the US has no right to invade Syria. Russia, though, has been asked by the Syrian government for help, a government fully recognized by the UN. Russia has full UN sanctioned rights to help Syria. US news media will never explain this to the public, sadly. ..."
    "... Obama's presidency lost its credibility a long time ago. He made so many rash promises and statements which one by one he has broken, that no free thinking person believes anything he says anymore. ..."
    "... There's a world of difference between Russia taking steps to protect its immediate geographic and political interests (which were largely the wishes of the resident populations - something critics tend to overlook) and the USA invading Iraq (2003) in a blatant act of war, based on bullshit and then aiding and abetting mercenary terrorists in Syria in defiance of any declaration of war, UN resolution or invitation from the Syrian government to intervene. ..."
    "... You might have also noticed that Syria is a long, long way from the USA. Rhetorically, WTF is the US doing in the Middle East? Propping up Saudi or Israel? Or both? ..."
    "... ISIS == Mercenaries sponsored by the US, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey. Does a strategy against our own mercenaries make sense??? ..."
    "... Think about, when's the last time Saudi Arabia did anything progressive or humane in its foreign policy? Now remember this very same country is on the same side as the Americans. This is the country that invaded Bahrain and Yemen and labelled the civil rights movements in those countries as 'Iranian interference.' The Saudis who have been seeking to turn civil rights movements with rather nationalistic demands into religious and sectarian conflicts by playing different groups against each other are allied with the U.S. and sitting at the table in Vienna talking about peace in Syria. Nonsense upon stilts! ..."
    "... ISIS poses no threat to the Americans and vice versa. The Americans therefore do not have an interest in making sure that ISIS is wiped out. On the contrary they want regional foes to suffer. ..."
    "... The American attempt at negotiating peace in Syria without Syrian representation is nothing short of ridiculous and best illustrates the convoluted state of American foreign policy. America lost any claim to 'leadership' by now. ..."
    "... Unfortunately American policy and that eu have at time added fuel to the fire. ..."
    "... Russian Iranian and hezbollah boots are invited boots by the legitimate government according to the UN Charter they are all acting legally and according to the Geneva Conventions etc. ..."
    "... The US led coalition in bombing Syria were not, and the admitted introduction of troops into Syria is a an ACT OF WAR by the USA, and it is the AGRESSOR here, not doubt about it. It's a War Crime by every standard ..."
    "... See the NATO creep into Eastern Europe against all agreements made with USSR. ..."
    "... But their real agenda is to carve up Syria. In the deep recesses of their, the Corporate corrupt White House's, mind ISIS is not their immediate problem. ISIS is a means to an end - carve up Syria a sovereign country. ..."
    "... Remember, only months ago, Kerry and Tory William Hague, was handing out cash to Syrian rebels who later turned out to be ISIS rebels. We must never forget, Syria, right or wrong, is a sovereign country. ..."
    "... Look at the mess they made in, Ukraine, with their friends a bunch of, Kiev, murdering neo-Nazi's. ..."
    "... Just out of curiosity...how will the US keep the DoD and CIA from duking it out at the opposite fronts on the Syrian soil? ..."
    "... Washington has clearly chosen to break International Law. ..."
    "... Westphalian sovereignty is the principle of international law that each nation state has sovereignty over its territory and domestic affairs, to the exclusion of all external powers, on the principle of non-interference in another country's domestic affairs, and that each state (no matter how large or small) is equal in international law ..."
    "... As the administration in Washington is firmly in the grasp of special interest groups such as Big Pharma, The Banksters, Big Agrobusiness, Big oil, the MIC and Israel there is no chance of getting good policy decisions out of there until there is a regime change. ..."
    "... You might think that having criticized Assad for shooting demonstrators who demonstrated against the corruption and inefficiency of his regime, and having said that as a result his regime had lost its legitimacy, they would apply the same yardstick to President Poroshenko when he shot up two provinces of his country for asking for federation, killing thousands in the process, but on the contrary they sent "advisers" to train his military and his Fascist helpers to use their weapons better, to shoot them up more effectively. ..."
    "... However, one cannot really expect people who are exceptional to behave like ordinary (unexceptional) human beings. ..."
    "... What is the official US line on the legality of these deployments in terms of international law? ..."
    Oct 30, 2015 | The Guardian

    willpodmore 1 Nov 2015 10:30

    NATO and its allies in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Syria .... they make a desert and call it peace.

    ID7582903 1 Nov 2015 06:19

    "Credibility"? Beware and be aware folks. This isn't a monopoly game being played here; it's for real.

    2015 Valdai conference is Societies Between War and Peace: Overcoming the Logic of Conflict in Tomorrow's World. In the period between October 19 and 22, experts from 30 countries have been considering various aspects of the perception of war and peace both in the public consciousness and in international relations, religion and economic interaction between states. Videos w live translations and english transcripts (a keeper imho)
    http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/50548

    30 Oct, 2015 - The day US announces Ground troops into Syria, and the day before the downing/crash of the Russian Airbus 321 in the Sinai, this happened: Russia has conducted a major test of its strategic missile forces, firing numerous ballistic and cruise missiles from various training areas across the country, videos uploaded by the Ministry of Defense have shown.

    A routine exercise, possibly the largest of its kind this year, was intended to test the command system of transmitting orders among departments and involved launches from military ranges on the ground, at sea and in the air, the ministry said Friday.

    https://www.rt.com/news/320194-russia-missiles-launch-training/

    30.10.2015 Since the beginning of its operation in Syria on September 30, Russian Aerospace Forces have carried out 1,391 sorties in Syria, destroying a total of 1,623 terrorist targets, the Russian General Staff said Friday.

    In particular, Russian warplanes destroyed 249 Islamic State command posts, 51 training camps, and 131 depots, Andrey Kartapolov, head of the Russian General Staff Main Operations Directorate said.

    "In Hanshih, a suburb of Damascus, 17 militants of the Al-Ghuraba group were executed in public after they tried to leave the combat area and flee to Jordan," he specified. "The whole scene was filmed in order to disseminate the footage among the other groups operating in the vicinity of Damascus and other areas", the General Staff spokesman said. In the central regions of the country, the Syrian Army managed to liberate 12 cities in the Hama province, Kartapolov said. "The Syrian armed forces continue their advance to the north," the general added.

    http://sputniknews.com/middleeast/20151030/1028992570/russian-airstrikes-syria-friday.html

    fairviewplz 1 Nov 2015 04:47

    Yemen is another war the US is involved in thanks to the "peace" Pres. Obama. He has tried to keep this war hidden from the public. His few mentions of this war have been limited to shallow statements about his concern of the civilian casualty. What an insult to our intelligence! We are well aware that the US provides the logistical and technical support, and refuelling of warplanes to the Saudi coalition illegal war in Yemen. Moreover, by selling the Saudis cluster bombs and other arms being used on civilians, Obama has enabled the Saudis in the last 8 moths to kill and destruct in Yemen more than WW2, as evidence shows. According to Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, the US is complicit in international war crimes in Yemen.

    After Obama's election, he went to Cairo to make a peace speech to the Arab world aiming to diffuse the deep hatred towards the US created during the Bush era. Yet since then, Obama's foolish alliances with despotic Arab rulers infesting ISIS and Al-Qaeda in the region, his drone warfare, and warped war policies in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen, have only expanded and strengthened ISIS and Al-Qaeda, and increased Arab citizens anger and hatred towards the US. This is Obama's legacy!

    Barmaidfromhell -> WSCrips 1 Nov 2015 03:52

    Well said.

    I always think there are similarities in Clinton and Obama s upbringing that created the anormic sociopathic shape shifting personalities they demonstrate. Obviously carefully selected to follow any line given them and amiable even charismatic enough to sell it to a stupid audience.

    Why do we maintain the myth that the Obama brand is in anyway his personal contribution. Anymore than Bush or Clinton. The only difference is the republicans are ideologues where's as the puppets offered by the democrats are just psychotic shape shifters. In either way on a clear day you can see the strings hanging from their wrists like ribbons.

    Michael Imanual Christos -> Pete Piper 1 Nov 2015 00:28

    Pete Piper

    In brief;

    The US is Allied with Saudi Arabia and Israel, that makes Saudi Arabia's and Israel's enemies US enemies.

    ... ... ...

    midnightschild10 31 Oct 2015 21:35

    When Obama denounced Russia's actions in Syria, and blamed them for massive loss of civilian lives, Russia responded by asking them to show their proof. The Administration spokesperson said they got their information from social media. No one in the Administration seems to realize how utterly stupid that sounds. Marie Harf is happily developing the Administration's foreign policy via Twitter. As the CIA and NSA read Facebook for their daily planning, Obama reads the comments section of newspapers to prepare for his speech to the American public in regard to putting boots on the ground in Syria, and adding to the boots in Iraq. If it didn't result in putting soldiers lives in jeopardy, it would be considered silly. Putin makes his move and watches as the Obama Administration makes the only move they know, after minimal success in bombing, Obama does send in the troops. Putin is the one running the game. Obama's response is so predictable. No wonder the Russians are laughing. In his quest to outdo Cheyney, Obama has added to the number of wars the US is currently involved in. His original claim to fame was to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which then resulted in starting Iraq and Afghanistan Wars 2.0. Since helping to depose the existing governments in the Middle East, leading not only to the resurgence of AlQuaeda, and giving birth to ISIS, and leaving chaos and destruction in his wake, he decided to take down the last standing ruler, hoping that if he does the same thing over and over, he will get a different result. Obama's foreign policy legacy had been considered impotent at best, now its considered ridiculous.

    SomersetApples 31 Oct 2015 20:03

    We bombed them, we sent armies of terrorist in to kill them, we destroyed their hospitals and power plants and cities, we put sanctions on them and we did everything in our power to cut off their trading with the outside world, and yet they are still standing.

    The only thing left to do, lets send in some special military operatives.

    This is so out of character, or our perceived character of Obama. It must be that deranged idiot John McCain pulling the strings.

    Rafiqac01 31 Oct 2015 16:58

    The notion that Obama makes his own decisions is laughable except it aint funny....having just watched CNNs Long Road to Hell in Iraq....and the idiots advising Bush and Blair you have to wonder the extent to which these are almighty balls ups or very sophisticated planning followed up by post disaster rationalisation....

    whatever the conclusion it proves that the intervention or non interventions prove their is little the USA has done that has added any good value to the situation...indeed it is an unmitigated disaster strewn around the world! Trump is the next generation frothing at the mouth ready to show what a big John Wayne he is!!

    DavidFCanada 31 Oct 2015 13:56

    There is no 'Obama legacy' in the ME. It is a US legacy of blown attempts to control unwilling countries and populations by coercion, and by military and economic warfare. That US legacy will forever remain, burnt into skins and bodies of the living and dead, together with a virtually unanimous recognition in the ME of the laughable US pretexts of supporting democracy, the rule of law, religious freedom and, best of all, peace. Obama is merely the chief functionary of a nation of lies.

    Informed17 -> WSCrips 31 Oct 2015 13:47

    Are you saying that there was no illegal invasion of Iraq? No vial of laundry detergent was presented at the UN as "proof" that Iraq has WMDs? No hue and cry from "independent" media supported that deception campaign? Were you in a deep coma at the time?

    Informed17 -> somethingbrite 31 Oct 2015 13:36

    No. But the US trampled on the international law for quite a while now, starting with totally illegal interference in Yugoslavia in the 1990s.

    WSCrips 31 Oct 2015 13:18

    Hey Guardian Editors.....and all those who worshipped Obama....In America, there were folks from the older generation that warned us that this Community Organizer was not ready for the Job of President of the United States....it had nothing to do with his color, he just was not ready.....he was a young, inexperienced Senator, who never, ever had a real job, never had a street fight growing up pampered in Hawaii, was given a pass to great universities because his parents had money, and was the dream Affirmative Action poster boy for the liberal left. Obama has not disappointed anyone who tried to warn us......and now we will reap what he has sowed:

    1. 8 Trillion to our debt
    2. Nightmare in the Middleast (how is that Arab Spring)
    3. Polarized America....Dems and Republicans hate each other....hate each other like the Irish and English...10 x over.
    4. War on Cops
    5. War with China
    6. Invasion from Central America

    I see a great depression and World War IV on the horizon....and I am being positive!

    SaveRMiddle 31 Oct 2015 12:47

    Nothing Obama says has any value. We've watched the man lie with a grin and a chuckle.

    Forever Gone is all trust.

    His continued abuse of Red Line threats spoke volumes about the lawyer who Reactively micromanages that which required and deserved an expert Proactive plan.

    Let History reflect the horrific death CIA meddling Regime Change/Divide and Conquer creates.

    HeadInSand2013 31 Oct 2015 12:45

    Liberal activists were in little doubt that Obama has failed to live up to his commitment to avoid getting dragged directly into the war.

    With all due respects to M. Obama, this is another clear indication that the US President is just a figure head. He is a front for the corporations that run the US behind the scene - the so-called US military-industrial complex.

    Liberal activists are stupid enough to think that M. Obama is actually in charge of the US military or the US foreign policy. Just go back and count how many times during the last 6 years M. Obama has made a declaration and then - sometimes the next day - US military has over-ruled him.


    Mediaking 31 Oct 2015 10:00

    Perhaps you intentionally miss out the fact that it is the west that has Israel and the Saudis as their best allies, considering their actions ( one with the largest/longest time concentration camp in history, the other the exporter of the horror show of ISIL , both an abomination of their respective religions . The west attempt to seek the moral high ground is more than a farce ... all the world can see and know the game being played, but the mass media wishes to assume everyone has half a brain... they are allergic to the truth , like the vampires to the light.

    USA forces coming to the aid of their 5 individuals... yes 1,2,3,4,5 ( stated by US command- there are only that amount of FSA fighters left - the rest have gone over to ISIL with their equipment -- ) the local population all speak of ISIL/Daesh being American/Israeli ,they say if this is a civil war how come all the opposition are foreigners -- I think perhaps it's like the Ukraine affair... a bunch of CIA paid Nazi thugs instigating a coup ... or like Venezuela agents on roof tops shooting at both sides in demonstrations to get things going. The usual business of CIA/Mossad stuff in tune with the mass media with their engineered narratives -- Followed by the trolls on cyber space... no doubt we shall see them here too.

    All note that an Intervention in Syria would be "ILLEGAL" by Int. law and sooner than later will be sued in billions for it...on top of the billions spent on having a 5 person strong force of FSA...spent from the American tax payers money . Syria has a government and is considered a state at the UN . Iran and Russia are there at the request and permission of Syria .

    Russia and Iran have been methodically wiping out Washington's mercenaries on the ground while recapturing large swathes of land that had been lost to the terrorists. Now that the terrorists are getting wiped out the west and the Saudis are are screaming blue murder !

    I for one would have Assad stay , as he himself suggests , till his country is completely free of terrorists, then have free elections . I would add , to have the Saudis and the ones in the west/Turkey/Jordan charged for crimes against humanity for supplying and creating Daesh/ISIS . This element cannot be ignored . Also Kurdistan can form their new country in the regions they occupy as of this moment and Mosul to come. Iran,Russia,Iraq, Syria and the new Kurdistan will sign up to this deal . Millions of Syrian refugees can then come back home and rebuild their broken lives with Iranian help and cash damages from the mentioned instigators $400 billion . The cash must be paid into the Syrian central bank before any elections take place ... Solved...

    My consultancy fee - 200ml pounds sterling... I know ... you wish I ruled the world (who knows !) - no scams please or else -- ( the else would be an Apocalypse upon the western equity markets via the Illuminati i.e a 49% crash )... a week to pay , no worries since better to pay for a just solution than to have million descend upon EU as refugees . It is either this or God's revenge with no mercy .

    amacd2 31 Oct 2015 09:52

    Obama, being more honest but also more dangerous than Flip Wilson says, "The Empire made me do it",

    Bernie, having "reservations" about what Obama has done, says nothing against Empire, but continues to pretend, against all evidence, that this is a democracy.

    Hillary, delighting in more war, says "We came, we bombed, they all died, but the Empire won."

    Talk about 'The Issue' to debate for the candidates in 2016?

    "What's your position on the Empire?"

    "Oh, what Empire, you ask?"

    "The friggin Empire that you are auditioning to pose as the president of --- you lying tools of both the neocon 'R' Vichy party and you smoother lying neoliberal-cons of the 'D' Vichy party!"

    lightstroke -> Pete Piper 31 Oct 2015 09:41

    Nukes are not on the table. Mutually Assured Destruction.

    The stick I'm talking about is the total capacity of the US, military and economic, to have things its way or make the opposition very unhappy.

    It's not necessary to win wars to exercise that power. All they have to do is start them and keep them going until the arms industry makes as much dough from them as possible. That's the only win they care about.

    What has it gotten us? Nothing good. What has it gotten the top 1 percent? All the money we don't have.

    Taku2 31 Oct 2015 09:26

    Obama is being an absolute idiot in sending special forces to fight with rebels who are fighting the legitimate government of Syria. This is stupidity of the highest order. What will he do when any of these special forces operatives are captured by IS or killed by Russian or Syrian airstrikes?

    How stupid can a President get?

    Obama does need to pull back on this one, even though it will make his stupid and erroneous policy towards the Syrian tragedy seem completely headless. If this stupid and brainless policy is meant to be symbolic, its potential for future catastrophic consequences is immeasurable.

    phillharmonic -> nishville 31 Oct 2015 08:56

    That is a valid point: Syria is a sovereign nation recognized by the U.N., and any foreign troops within without permission would be considered invaders. Of course, the U.S. ignores international law all the time.

    nishville 31 Oct 2015 08:35

    Syrian rebels fighting the Islamic State

    And who are those then? Do they exist, do we have any reliable source confirming they are really simultaneously fighting IS and Syrian Army or is it yet another US fairy tale?

    Anyway, foreign troops in Syria who are there without an invitation by Syrian government or authorisation by UNSC are there illegally and can be tried for war crimes if captured. Why is Obama putting his soldiers in this situation?

    phillharmonic 31 Oct 2015 08:33

    The U.S. strategy in Syria is in tatters as Obama lamely tries to patch it up. The U.S. was determined to overthrow the Assad regime in Syria in service of the Saudis, Turkey, and Israel, while pretending to go after ISIS, who the Saudis and Turks were covertly funding. The U.S. were arming jihadists to oust Assad. That game is up, thanks to the Russians. Putin decided he wasn't going to stand by while the U.S. and its proxies created another Libya jihadist disaster in Syria. The forceful Russian intervention in going after ISIS showed the U.S. to be a faker, and caused a sea-change in U.S. policy. Now the U.S. can't pretend to go after ISIS while really trying to oust Assad. The Emporer has no clothes.

    amacd2 -> Woody Treasure 31 Oct 2015 08:31

    Woody, did you mean "Obama is a foil (for the Disguised Global Crony-Capitalist Empire--- which he certainly is), or did you mean to say "fool" (which he certainly is not, both because he is a well paid puppet/poodle for this Global Empire merely HQed in, and 'posing' as, America --- as Blair and Camron are for the same singular Global Empire --- and because Obama didn't end his role as Faux/Emperor-president like JFK), eh?

    Nena Cassol -> TonyBlunt 31 Oct 2015 06:48

    Assad's father seized power with a military coup and ruled the country for 30 years, before dying he appointed his son, who immediately established marshal law, prompting discontent even among his father's die-hard loyalists ...this is plain history, is this what you call a legitimate leader?

    Cycles 31 Oct 2015 06:41

    Forced to go in otherwise the Russians and Iranians get full control. Welcome to the divided Syria a la Germany after WW2.

    TonyBlunt -> Nena Cassol 31 Oct 2015 06:36

    "It does not take much research to find out that Assad is not legitimate at all"

    Please share your source with us Nena. But remember Langley Publications don't count.

    TonyBlunt -> oldholbornian 31 Oct 2015 06:29

    The Americans do not recognise international law. They do not sign up to any of it and proclaim the right to break it with their "exceptionalism".

    Katrin3 -> herrmaya 31 Oct 2015 05:27

    The Russians, US, Iran etc are all meeting right now in Vienna. The Russians and the US military do communicate with each other, to avoid attacking each other by mistake.

    The Russians are in the West and N.West of Syria. The US is going into the N. East, near IS headquarters in Raqqa, to support the Kurdish YPG, who are only a few kilometers from the city.

    Katrin3 -> ID6693806 31 Oct 2015 05:15

    Israel is an ally of KSA who is funding IS, Al Nusra, Al-Qaida and Al-Shabab. They are also partners with KSA in trying to prevent Iran's reintegration into global society following the nuclear deal, and the lifting of sanctions.

    I suspect that Israel wants to annex the Syrian Golan Heights permanently, and to extend their illegal settlements into the area. That can only happen if Assad is defeated.

    centerline ChristineH 31 Oct 2015 04:48

    The Kurds are the fabled moderate opposition who are willing to negotiate, and who have also fought with the Syrian government against US backed ISIS and al Nusra so called moderate opposition.

    Pete Piper -> Verbum 31 Oct 2015 04:47

    @Verbum
    Wow, you make a lot of sense. I always thought the US military heavy foreign policy became insane because of Reagan. Maybe it was the loss of the USSR?

    Everyone here grew up being taught that the US is the champion of all that is good (sounds corny today). When the USSR dissolved, everyone imagined huge military cuts with the savings being invested in social benefits. If someone had predicted that, instead, we would grow our military, throw our civil rights away, embrace empire, assasinate US citizens without a trial, create total surveillance, create secret one sided star-chamber FISA courts that control a third of our economy, and choose a Dept. name heard previously only in Nazi movies (Homeland Security) --- we'd have laughed and dismissed the warning as delusion.

    gabriel90 -> confettifoot 31 Oct 2015 04:46

    ISiS is destroying Syria thanks to the US and Saudi Arabia; its an instrument to spread chaos in the Middle East and attack Iran and Russia...

    ChristineH 31 Oct 2015 04:21

    So, on the day peace talks open, the US unilaterally announces advice boots on the ground to support one of the many sides in the Syrian War, who will undoubtedly want self determination, right on Turkey's border, as they always have, and as has always been opposed by the majority of the Syrian population. What part of that isn't completely mad?

    Great sympathy for the situation of the Kurds in Syria under Assad, but their nationalism issue and inability to work together with the Sunni rebels, was a major factor in the non formation of a functioning opposition in Syria, and will be a block to peace, not its cause. It's also part of a larger plan to have parts of Turkey and Iraq under Kurdish control to create a contingent kingdom. Whatever the merits of that, the US deciding to support them at this stage is completely irrational, and with Russia and Iran supporting Assad will lengthen the war, not shorten it.

    MissSarajevo 31 Oct 2015 04:21

    Just a couple of things here. How does the US know who the moderates are?!? Is this another occasion that the US is going to use International law as toilet paper? The US will enter (as if they weren't already there, illegally. They were not invited in by the legitimate leader of Syria.

    gabriel90 31 Oct 2015 04:19

    Warbama is just trying to save his saudi/qatari/turk/emirati dogs of war... they will be wiped out by Russia and the axis of resistance...

    Pete Piper -> Michael Imanual Christos 31 Oct 2015 04:08

    Does anyone see anything rational in US foreign policy? When I hear attempts to explain, they vary around .. "it's about oil". But no one ever shows evidence continuous wars produced more oil for anyone. So, are we deliberately creating chaos and misery? Why? To make new enemies we can use to justify more war? We've now classified the number of countries we are bombing. Why? The countries being bombed surely know.

    Pete Piper -> oldholbornian 31 Oct 2015 03:50

    You are correct. Obama is breaking UN international law, the US has no right to invade Syria. Russia, though, has been asked by the Syrian government for help, a government fully recognized by the UN. Russia has full UN sanctioned rights to help Syria. US news media will never explain this to the public, sadly.

    Only the US routinely violates other nations' sovergnity. Since Korea, the only nation that has ever used military force against a nation not on its border is the US.

    Can anyone find rationality in US foreign policy? We are supposed to be fighting ISIL, but Saudi Arabia and Israel appear to be helping ISIL to force Syrian regime change. And the US is supplying weapons to Saudi Arabia that are routed to ISIL. Supposedly because eliminating President Asad is more important than fighting ISIL? The US public is being misled into thinking we are NOW fighting ISIL. After Asad is killed, then we will genuinely fight ISIL? Russia, Iran, and more(?) will fight to keep Asad in power and then fight ISIL? THIS IS OBVIOUS BS, AND ALSO FUBAR.

    By all means, get everyone together for some diplomacy.

    oldholbornian -> lesmandalasdeniki 31 Oct 2015 03:36

    Well lets look at Germany the centre of christian culture and the EU

    http://www.infowars.com/this-is-our-future-germany-may-soon-have-8-million-muslims/

    CAPLAN -> Lunora 31 Oct 2015 03:33

    reminds me of emporer franz josef in europe about 100 years ago .. meant well but led to ruination ..i dont think that there has been an american president involved in more wars than obama

    obama by his cairo speech kicked of the arab spring ..shows that words can kill

    however.. the experience he now has gained may lead to an avoidance of a greater sunni shia war in syria if the present vienna talks can offer something tangible and preserve honour to the sunnis .. in the mid east honour and macho are key elements in negotiations

    iran however is a shia caliphate based regime and unless it has learnt the lesson from yemen on the limitations of force may push for further success via army and diplomacy and control in syria and iraq

    oldholbornian 31 Oct 2015 02:42

    But Obama's latest broken promise to avoid an "open-ended action" in Syria could lead to a full-blown war with Russia considering that Russian military has been operating in Syria for weeks.

    " For the first time ever, the American strategists have developed an illusion that they may defeat a nuclear power in a non-nuclear war," Russian deputy prime minister Dmitry Rogozin told AP. "It's nonsense, and it will never happen."

    http://www.infowars.com/flashback-obama-says-no-boots-on-the-ground-in-syria-before-sending-troops/

    Any US / terrorist engagement with the Syrian security forces will include engaging with its allies Russia

    Once the firing starts Russia will include the US as terrorists with no rights to be in Syrian and under the UN RULES have the right to defend themselves against the US

    HollyOldDog -> foolisholdman 31 Oct 2015 02:32

    Hmm Foreign snipers on rooftops ( not in the control of the government) how many times is this scenario going to be played out before the 'press' twigs it than something is not making sense.

    HollyOldDog -> foolisholdman 31 Oct 2015 02:29

    Though in one demonstration there was snipers on rooftops shooting both deconstratirs and the police - far more police were killed than demonstrators - what does this reming you of? Was these actions seemingly out of the control of the government a preliminary to what happened in Kiev during the maidan - practices get the technics right I suppose. - outside forces were obviously at work ' stirring the pot.

    Anna Eriksson 31 Oct 2015 02:24

    Let's hope that the US will help out with taking in some refugees as well! In Germany, and Sweden locals are becoming so frustrated and angry that they set refugee shelters on fire. This is a trend in both Sweden and Germany, as shown in the maps in the links. There have almost been 90 arsons in Germany so far this year, almost 30 in Sweden.

    Map of Sweden fire incidents: http://bit.ly/1MiaMX9

    Map of Germany arson incidents: http://bit.ly/1LZzEUh

    betrynol 31 Oct 2015 01:56

    Nobody tells the American people and nobody else really cares, but these 40-something guys being sent to Syria are possibly there as:

    • cannon fodder: to deter the Russians from bombing and Iranians from attacking on the ground the American friendly anti-Assad militant groups;
    • to collect and report more accurate intel from the front line (again about the Russian/Iranian troops deployment/movement).

    The Russian and Iranian troops on the ground will soon engage and sweep anti-Assad forces in key regions in Western Syria. This will be slightly impeded if Americans are among them. But accidents do happen, hence the term "cannon fodder".

    The Russians and Iranians will likely take a step back militarily though for the duration of talks, so the American plan to protect Saudi backed fighters is likely to work.

    I never involved or mentioned ISIS because this is NOT about fighting ISIS. It's about counteracting the Russian/Irania sweep in the area, and ultimately keeping the Americans in the game (sorry, war).

    petervietnam 31 Oct 2015 01:13

    The world's policeman or the world's trouble maker?

    Austin Young -> Will D 31 Oct 2015 00:34

    But he's the "change we can believe in" guy! Oh right... Dem or republican, they spew anything and everything their voters want to hear but when it comes time to walk the walk the only voice in their head is Cash Money.

    lesmandalasdeniki -> Bardhyl Cenolli 30 Oct 2015 23:34

    It frustrates me, anyone who will be the problem-solver will be labeled as dangerous by the Western political and business leaders if the said person or group of people can not be totally controlled for their agenda.

    This will be the first time I will be speaking about the Indonesian forest fires that started from June this year until now. During the period I was not on-line, I watched the local news and all channels were featuring the same problem every day during the last two-weeks.

    US is also silent about it during Obama - Jokowi meeting, even praising Jokowi being on the right track. After Jokowi came back, his PR spin is in the force again, he went directly to Palembang, he held office and trying to put up an image of a President that cared for his people. He couldn't solve the Indonesian forest fires from June - October, is it probably because Jusuf Kalla has investment in it?

    My point is, US and the Feds, World Bank and IMF are appointing their puppets on each country they have put up an investment on terms of sovereign debt and corporate debt/bonds.

    And Obama is their puppet.

    Will D 30 Oct 2015 23:30

    Obama's presidency lost its credibility a long time ago. He made so many rash promises and statements which one by one he has broken, that no free thinking person believes anything he says anymore.

    He has turned out to be a massive disappointment to all those who had such high hopes that he really would make the world a better place. His failure and his abysmal track record will cause him to be remembered as the Nobel Peace prize wining president who did exactly the opposite of what he promised, and failed to further the cause of peace.

    Greg_Samsa -> Greenacres2002 30 Oct 2015 23:07

    Consistency is at the heart of logic, all mathematics, and hard sciences.

    Even the legal systems strive to be free of contradictions.

    I'd rather live in world with consistency of thought and action as represented by the Russian Federation, then be mired in shit created by the US who have shed all the hobgoblins pestering the consistency of their thoughts and actions.

    Never truly understood the value of this stupid quote really...

    Phil Atkinson -> PaulF77 30 Oct 2015 22:28

    There's a world of difference between Russia taking steps to protect its immediate geographic and political interests (which were largely the wishes of the resident populations - something critics tend to overlook) and the USA invading Iraq (2003) in a blatant act of war, based on bullshit and then aiding and abetting mercenary terrorists in Syria in defiance of any declaration of war, UN resolution or invitation from the Syrian government to intervene.

    You might have also noticed that Syria is a long, long way from the USA. Rhetorically, WTF is the US doing in the Middle East? Propping up Saudi or Israel? Or both?

    MainstreamMedia Propaganda 30 Oct 2015 22:03

    ISIS == Mercenaries sponsored by the US, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey. Does a strategy against our own mercenaries make sense???

    2012 DIA Document (R050839Z) - Defense Intelligence Agency
    Public Affairs Office: 202-231-5554 or [email protected]
    http://www.mintpressnews.com/media-blacks-out-pentagon-report-exposing-u-s-role-in-isis-creation/206187/
    http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/pgs-287-293-291-jw-v-dod-and-state-14-812-2/

    DarrenPartridge 30 Oct 2015 22:03

    I think blatant policy changes like this show just how ineffectual the US president actually is. The hand over between Bush and Obama has been seamless. Gitmo still going, patriot act renewed, Libya a smoldering ruin (4 years down the line), no progress on gun control, troops in Afganistan and Iraq... it goes on...

    HowSicklySeemAll 30 Oct 2015 21:58

    "It's really hard to see how this tiny number of troops embedded on the ground is going to turn the tide in any way."

    Or the U.S. could carry out air strikes against Hezbollah which has been fighting ISIS for a while now. They could also supply weapons to ISIS (who are dubbed 'moderates') to counter Russian airstrikes and Iranian man power.

    Think about, when's the last time Saudi Arabia did anything progressive or humane in its foreign policy? Now remember this very same country is on the same side as the Americans. This is the country that invaded Bahrain and Yemen and labelled the civil rights movements in those countries as 'Iranian interference.' The Saudis who have been seeking to turn civil rights movements with rather nationalistic demands into religious and sectarian conflicts by playing different groups against each other are allied with the U.S. and sitting at the table in Vienna talking about peace in Syria. Nonsense upon stilts!

    Phil Atkinson -> Harry Bhai 30 Oct 2015 21:57

    Fuck the al-Sauds and their oil. If the US wants their oil (and there's plenty of other oil sellers in the world) then just take it. Why not be consistent?

    templeforjerusalem 30 Oct 2015 21:51

    IS has shown itself to be deeply hateful of anything that conflicts with their narrow religious interpretations. Destroying Palmyra, murdering indiscriminately, without any clear international agenda other than the formation of a new Sunni Sharia State, makes them essentially enemies of everybody. Although I do agree that belligerent secular Netanyahu's Israel sets a bad example in the area, Israel does not tend to murder over the same primitive values that IS uses, although there's not much difference in reality.

    IS uses extermination tactics, Israel used forced land clearance and concentration camp bombing (Gaza et al), while the US in Iraq used brutal force. None of this is good but nothing justifies the shear barbarism of IS. Is there hope in any of this? No. Is Russian and US involvement a major escalation? Yes.

    Ultimately, this is about religious identities refusing to share and demand peace. Sunni vs Shia, Judeo/Catholic/Protestant West vs Russian Orthodox, secular vs orthodox Israel. No wonder people are saying Armageddon.

    HowSicklySeemAll 30 Oct 2015 21:50

    ISIS poses no threat to the Americans and vice versa. The Americans therefore do not have an interest in making sure that ISIS is wiped out. On the contrary they want regional foes to suffer. The only countries and groups that have been successfully fighting ISIS - Assad's forces, Iranians, Hezbollah, Russians, and Kurds are in fact enemies of either the U.S., Saudis, Israelis, or Turks. Isn't that strange? The countries and peoples that have suffered the most and that have actually fought against ISIS effectively are seen as the enemy. Do the powers that be really want to wipe out ISIS at all costs? No, especially if it involves the Iranians and Russians.

    VengefulRevenant 30 Oct 2015 21:44

    "You just don't in the 21st century behave in 19th-century fashion by invading another country on [a] completely trumped up pretext. It's an incredible act of aggression. It is really a stunning, wilful choice by [President Obama] to invade another country. [The US] is in violation of the sovereignty of [Syria. The US] is in violation of its international obligations."

    Verbum -> pegasusrose2011 30 Oct 2015 21:41

    How are Russian boots on the ground - of which there have been many for some time - ok and American boots bad?

    The difference is that of a poison and the antidotum. The American/NATO meddling in Iraq, Libya and Syria created a truly sick situation which needs to be fixed. That's what the Russians are doing. Obviously, they have their own objectives and motives for that and are protecting their own interests, but nevertheless this is the surest way to re-establish semblance of stability in the Middle East, rebuilt Syria and Iraq, stop the exodus of the refugees, and mend relations in the region.

    The American attempt at negotiating peace in Syria without Syrian representation is nothing short of ridiculous and best illustrates the convoluted state of American foreign policy. America lost any claim to 'leadership' by now.

    I feel sorry for Mr Obama, and indeed America, because he is a decent person, yet most of us are unaware what forces he has to reckon with behind the scenes. It is clear by now that interests of corporations and rich individuals, as well as a couple of seemingly insignificant foreign states, beat the national interest of America all time, anytime. It is astonishing how a powerful, hard working and talented nation can become beholden to such forces, to its own detriment.

    In the end, I do not think the situation is uniquely American. Russia or China given a chance of total hegemony would behave the same. That's why we need a field of powers/superpowers to keep one another in check and negotiate rather than enforce solutions.

    ID9309755 -> pegasusrose2011 30 Oct 2015 21:02

    Unfortunately American policy and that eu have at time added fuel to the fire. Yes, the me has its own problems, including rival versions of Islam and fundamentalism as well as truly megalomaniac leaders. But in instances (Libya for example) they did truly contribute to the country's destruction (and I am not excusing Gaddafi, but for the people there sometimes having these leaders and waiting for generational transformations may be a better solution than instant democracy pills.)


    ID7582903 -> pegasusrose2011 30 Oct 2015 21:00

    Russian Iranian and hezbollah boots are invited boots by the legitimate government according to the UN Charter they are all acting legally and according to the Geneva Conventions etc.

    The US led coalition in bombing Syria were not, and the admitted introduction of troops into Syria is a an ACT OF WAR by the USA, and it is the AGRESSOR here, not doubt about it. It's a War Crime by every standard

    Obama and the "regime" that rules the United Snakes of America have all gone over the edge into insanity writ large.

    ID9309755 -> pegasusrose2011 30 Oct 2015 20:55

    To clarify, I meant that all these groups are funded by these Arabic sheikhdoms and it increasingly appears that th us of a is not as serious in eradicating all of them in the illusion that the so called softer ones will over through Assad and then it will be democracy, the much misused and fetishised term. Meanwhile we can carve up the country, Turkey gets a bite and our naughty bloated allies in Arabia will be happy with their influence. Only if it happened that way...

    There is much more than this short and simplified scenario, and yes Russia played its hand rather well taking the west off guard. And I am not trying to portray Putin as some liberation prophet either. So perhaps you could say that yes, maybe I have looked into it deep...

    BlooperMario -> RedEyedOverlord 30 Oct 2015 20:52

    China and Russia are only responding to NY World Bank and IMF cheats and also standing up to an evil empire that has ruined the middle east.
    Time you had a rethink old chap and stopped worshipping Blair; Bush; Rumsfeld etc as your heros.

    See the NATO creep into Eastern Europe against all agreements made with USSR.

    Silly Sailors provoking Chinese Lighthouse keepers.

    RoyRoger 30 Oct 2015 19:30

    Their Plan B is fucked !!

    But their real agenda is to carve up Syria. In the deep recesses of their, the Corporate corrupt White House's, mind ISIS is not their immediate problem. ISIS is a means to an end - carve up Syria a sovereign country.

    Remember, only months ago, Kerry and Tory William Hague, was handing out cash to Syrian rebels who later turned out to be ISIS rebels. We must never forget, Syria, right or wrong, is a sovereign country.

    The real battle/plan for the Corporate corrupt White House is to try and get a foothold in Syria and establish a military dictator after a coup d'etat'. As we know it's what they, the West, do best.

    Look at the mess they made in, Ukraine, with their friends a bunch of, Kiev, murdering neo-Nazi's.

    In the interest of right is right; Good Luck Mr Putin !! I'm with you all the way.

    weematt 30 Oct 2015 19:25

    War (and poverty too) a consequence, concomitant, of competing for markets, raw materials and trade routes or areas of geo-political dominance, come to be seen as 'natural' outcomes of society, but are merely concomitants of a changeable social system.

    ... ... ...

    Greg_Samsa 30 Oct 2015 19:21

    Just out of curiosity...how will the US keep the DoD and CIA from duking it out at the opposite fronts on the Syrian soil?

    This gives a whole new dimension to the term 'blue-on-blue'.

    Kevin Donegan 30 Oct 2015 18:59

    Washington has clearly chosen to break International Law.

    "Westphalian sovereignty is the principle of international law that each nation state has sovereignty over its territory and domestic affairs, to the exclusion of all external powers, on the principle of non-interference in another country's domestic affairs, and that each state (no matter how large or small) is equal in international law. The doctrine is named after the Peace of Westphalia, signed in 1648, which ended the Thirty Years' War, in which the major continental European states – the Holy Roman Empire, Spain, France, Sweden and the Dutch Republic – agreed to respect one another's territorial integrity. As European influence spread across the globe, the Westphalian principles, especially the concept of sovereign states, became central to international law and to the prevailing world order.[1]"

    foolisholdman 30 Oct 2015 18:41

    As the administration in Washington is firmly in the grasp of special interest groups such as Big Pharma, The Banksters, Big Agrobusiness, Big oil, the MIC and Israel there is no chance of getting good policy decisions out of there until there is a regime change.

    If ever there was a government hat had lost its legitimacy the present US government is it.

    foolisholdman -> Johnny Kent 30 Oct 2015 18:31

    Johnny Kent

    The slight question of legality in placing troops in a sovereign country without permission or UN approval is obviously of no importance to the US...and yet they criticise Russia for 'annexing Crimea...

    Yes, but you see: the two cases are not comparable because the USA is exceptional.

    You might think that having criticized Assad for shooting demonstrators who demonstrated against the corruption and inefficiency of his regime, and having said that as a result his regime had lost its legitimacy, they would apply the same yardstick to President Poroshenko when he shot up two provinces of his country for asking for federation, killing thousands in the process, but on the contrary they sent "advisers" to train his military and his Fascist helpers to use their weapons better, to shoot them up more effectively.

    However, one cannot really expect people who are exceptional to behave like ordinary (unexceptional) human beings.

    WalterCronkiteBot 30 Oct 2015 17:11

    What is the official US line on the legality of these deployments in terms of international law?

    Noone seems to even raise it as an issue, its all about congressional approval. Just like the UK drone strikes.

    [Sep 12, 2016] Syria decision the latest blow to Obamas Middle East legacy

    Notable quotes:
    "... Yemen is another war the US is involved in thanks to the "peace" Pres. Obama. He has tried to keep this war hidden from the public. His few mentions of this war have been limited to shallow statements about his concern of the civilian casualty. ..."
    "... Moreover, by selling the Saudis cluster bombs and other arms being used on civilians, Obama has enabled the Saudis in the last 8 moths to kill and destruct in Yemen more than WW2, as evidence shows. According to Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, the US is complicit in international war crimes in Yemen. ..."
    "... After Obama's election, he went to Cairo to make a peace speech to the Arab world aiming to diffuse the deep hatred towards the US created during the Bush era. Yet since then, Obama's foolish alliances with despotic Arab rulers infesting ISIS and Al-Qaeda in the region, his drone warfare, and warped war policies in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen, have only expanded and strengthened ISIS and Al-Qaeda, and increased Arab citizens anger and hatred towards the US. This is Obama's legacy! ..."
    "... I always think there are similarities in Clinton and Obama s upbringing that created the anormic sociopathic shape shifting personalities they demonstrate. ..."
    "... amiable even charismatic enough to sell it to a stupid audience. ..."
    "... Why do we maintain the myth that the Obama brand is in anyway his personal contribution. Anymore than Bush or Clinton. The only difference is the republicans are ideologues where's as the puppets offered by the democrats are just psychotic shape shifters. In either way on a clear day you can see the strings hanging from their wrists like ribbons. ..."
    "... The US is Allied with Saudi Arabia and Israel, that makes Saudi Arabia's and Israel's enemies US enemies. ..."
    "... The notion that Obama makes his own decisions is laughable except it aint funny.. ..."
    "... There is no 'Obama legacy' in the ME. It is a US legacy of blown attempts to control unwilling countries and populations by coercion, and by military and economic warfare. ..."
    "... With all due respects to M. Obama, this is another clear indication that the US President is just a figure head. He is a front for the corporations that run the US behind the scene - the so-called US military-industrial complex. ..."
    "... Perhaps you intentionally miss out the fact that it is the west that has Israel and the Saudis as their best allies, considering their actions ( one with the largest/longest time concentration camp in history, the other the exporter of the horror show of ISIL , both an abomination of their respective religions . The west attempt to seek the moral high ground is more than a farce ... all the world can see and know the game being played, but the mass media wishes to assume everyone has half a brain... they are allergic to the truth , like the vampires to the light. ..."
    "... The stick I'm talking about is the total capacity of the US, military and economic, to have things its way or make the opposition very unhappy. ..."
    "... What has it gotten us? Nothing good. What has it gotten the top 1 percent? All the money we don't have. ..."
    "... Obama is being an absolute idiot in sending special forces to fight with rebels who are fighting the legitimate government of Syria. This is stupidity of the highest order. What will he do when any of these special forces operatives are captured by IS or killed by Russian or Syrian airstrikes? ..."
    "... That is a valid point: Syria is a sovereign nation recognized by the U.N., and any foreign troops within without permission would be considered invaders. Of course, the U.S. ignores international law all the time. ..."
    "... Anyway, foreign troops in Syria who are there without an invitation by Syrian government or authorisation by UNSC are there illegally and can be tried for war crimes if captured. Why is Obama putting his soldiers in this situation? ..."
    "... The U.S. strategy in Syria is in tatters as Obama lamely tries to patch it up. The U.S. was determined to overthrow the Assad regime in Syria in service of the Saudis, Turkey, and Israel, while pretending to go after ISIS, who the Saudis and Turks were covertly funding. The U.S. were arming jihadists to oust Assad. That game is up, thanks to the Russians. Putin decided he wasn't going to stand by while the U.S. and its proxies created another Libya jihadist disaster in Syria. The forceful Russian intervention in going after ISIS showed the U.S. to be a faker, and caused a sea-change in U.S. policy. Now the U.S. can't pretend to go after ISIS while really trying to oust Assad. The Emporer has no clothes. ..."
    "... Israel is an ally of KSA who is funding IS, Al Nusra, Al-Qaida and Al-Shabab. They are also partners with KSA in trying to prevent Iran's reintegration into global society following the nuclear deal, and the lifting of sanctions. ..."
    "... I suspect that Israel wants to annex the Syrian Golan Heights permanently, and to extend their illegal settlements into the area. That can only happen if Assad is defeated. ..."
    "... Wow, you make a lot of sense. I always thought the US military heavy foreign policy became insane because of Reagan. Maybe it was the loss of the USSR? ..."
    "... Everyone here grew up being taught that the US is the champion of all that is good (sounds corny today). When the USSR dissolved, everyone imagined huge military cuts with the savings being invested in social benefits. If someone had predicted that, instead, we would grow our military, throw our civil rights away, embrace empire, assasinate US citizens without a trial, create total surveillance, create secret one sided star-chamber FISA courts that control a third of our economy, and choose a Dept. name heard previously only in Nazi movies (Homeland Security) --- we'd have laughed and dismissed the warning as delusion. ..."
    "... You are correct. Obama is breaking UN international law, the US has no right to invade Syria. Russia, though, has been asked by the Syrian government for help, a government fully recognized by the UN. Russia has full UN sanctioned rights to help Syria. US news media will never explain this to the public, sadly. ..."
    "... Obama's presidency lost its credibility a long time ago. He made so many rash promises and statements which one by one he has broken, that no free thinking person believes anything he says anymore. ..."
    "... There's a world of difference between Russia taking steps to protect its immediate geographic and political interests (which were largely the wishes of the resident populations - something critics tend to overlook) and the USA invading Iraq (2003) in a blatant act of war, based on bullshit and then aiding and abetting mercenary terrorists in Syria in defiance of any declaration of war, UN resolution or invitation from the Syrian government to intervene. ..."
    "... You might have also noticed that Syria is a long, long way from the USA. Rhetorically, WTF is the US doing in the Middle East? Propping up Saudi or Israel? Or both? ..."
    "... ISIS == Mercenaries sponsored by the US, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey. Does a strategy against our own mercenaries make sense??? ..."
    "... Think about, when's the last time Saudi Arabia did anything progressive or humane in its foreign policy? Now remember this very same country is on the same side as the Americans. This is the country that invaded Bahrain and Yemen and labelled the civil rights movements in those countries as 'Iranian interference.' The Saudis who have been seeking to turn civil rights movements with rather nationalistic demands into religious and sectarian conflicts by playing different groups against each other are allied with the U.S. and sitting at the table in Vienna talking about peace in Syria. Nonsense upon stilts! ..."
    "... ISIS poses no threat to the Americans and vice versa. The Americans therefore do not have an interest in making sure that ISIS is wiped out. On the contrary they want regional foes to suffer. ..."
    "... The American attempt at negotiating peace in Syria without Syrian representation is nothing short of ridiculous and best illustrates the convoluted state of American foreign policy. America lost any claim to 'leadership' by now. ..."
    "... Unfortunately American policy and that eu have at time added fuel to the fire. ..."
    "... Russian Iranian and hezbollah boots are invited boots by the legitimate government according to the UN Charter they are all acting legally and according to the Geneva Conventions etc. ..."
    "... The US led coalition in bombing Syria were not, and the admitted introduction of troops into Syria is a an ACT OF WAR by the USA, and it is the AGRESSOR here, not doubt about it. It's a War Crime by every standard ..."
    "... See the NATO creep into Eastern Europe against all agreements made with USSR. ..."
    "... But their real agenda is to carve up Syria. In the deep recesses of their, the Corporate corrupt White House's, mind ISIS is not their immediate problem. ISIS is a means to an end - carve up Syria a sovereign country. ..."
    "... Remember, only months ago, Kerry and Tory William Hague, was handing out cash to Syrian rebels who later turned out to be ISIS rebels. We must never forget, Syria, right or wrong, is a sovereign country. ..."
    "... Look at the mess they made in, Ukraine, with their friends a bunch of, Kiev, murdering neo-Nazi's. ..."
    "... Just out of curiosity...how will the US keep the DoD and CIA from duking it out at the opposite fronts on the Syrian soil? ..."
    "... Washington has clearly chosen to break International Law. ..."
    "... Westphalian sovereignty is the principle of international law that each nation state has sovereignty over its territory and domestic affairs, to the exclusion of all external powers, on the principle of non-interference in another country's domestic affairs, and that each state (no matter how large or small) is equal in international law ..."
    "... As the administration in Washington is firmly in the grasp of special interest groups such as Big Pharma, The Banksters, Big Agrobusiness, Big oil, the MIC and Israel there is no chance of getting good policy decisions out of there until there is a regime change. ..."
    "... You might think that having criticized Assad for shooting demonstrators who demonstrated against the corruption and inefficiency of his regime, and having said that as a result his regime had lost its legitimacy, they would apply the same yardstick to President Poroshenko when he shot up two provinces of his country for asking for federation, killing thousands in the process, but on the contrary they sent "advisers" to train his military and his Fascist helpers to use their weapons better, to shoot them up more effectively. ..."
    "... However, one cannot really expect people who are exceptional to behave like ordinary (unexceptional) human beings. ..."
    "... What is the official US line on the legality of these deployments in terms of international law? ..."
    Oct 30, 2015 | The Guardian

    willpodmore 1 Nov 2015 10:30

    NATO and its allies in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Syria .... they make a desert and call it peace.

    ID7582903 1 Nov 2015 06:19

    "Credibility"? Beware and be aware folks. This isn't a monopoly game being played here; it's for real.

    2015 Valdai conference is Societies Between War and Peace: Overcoming the Logic of Conflict in Tomorrow's World. In the period between October 19 and 22, experts from 30 countries have been considering various aspects of the perception of war and peace both in the public consciousness and in international relations, religion and economic interaction between states. Videos w live translations and english transcripts (a keeper imho)
    http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/50548

    30 Oct, 2015 - The day US announces Ground troops into Syria, and the day before the downing/crash of the Russian Airbus 321 in the Sinai, this happened: Russia has conducted a major test of its strategic missile forces, firing numerous ballistic and cruise missiles from various training areas across the country, videos uploaded by the Ministry of Defense have shown.

    A routine exercise, possibly the largest of its kind this year, was intended to test the command system of transmitting orders among departments and involved launches from military ranges on the ground, at sea and in the air, the ministry said Friday.

    https://www.rt.com/news/320194-russia-missiles-launch-training/

    30.10.2015 Since the beginning of its operation in Syria on September 30, Russian Aerospace Forces have carried out 1,391 sorties in Syria, destroying a total of 1,623 terrorist targets, the Russian General Staff said Friday.

    In particular, Russian warplanes destroyed 249 Islamic State command posts, 51 training camps, and 131 depots, Andrey Kartapolov, head of the Russian General Staff Main Operations Directorate said.

    "In Hanshih, a suburb of Damascus, 17 militants of the Al-Ghuraba group were executed in public after they tried to leave the combat area and flee to Jordan," he specified. "The whole scene was filmed in order to disseminate the footage among the other groups operating in the vicinity of Damascus and other areas", the General Staff spokesman said. In the central regions of the country, the Syrian Army managed to liberate 12 cities in the Hama province, Kartapolov said. "The Syrian armed forces continue their advance to the north," the general added.

    http://sputniknews.com/middleeast/20151030/1028992570/russian-airstrikes-syria-friday.html

    fairviewplz 1 Nov 2015 04:47

    Yemen is another war the US is involved in thanks to the "peace" Pres. Obama. He has tried to keep this war hidden from the public. His few mentions of this war have been limited to shallow statements about his concern of the civilian casualty. What an insult to our intelligence! We are well aware that the US provides the logistical and technical support, and refuelling of warplanes to the Saudi coalition illegal war in Yemen. Moreover, by selling the Saudis cluster bombs and other arms being used on civilians, Obama has enabled the Saudis in the last 8 moths to kill and destruct in Yemen more than WW2, as evidence shows. According to Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, the US is complicit in international war crimes in Yemen.

    After Obama's election, he went to Cairo to make a peace speech to the Arab world aiming to diffuse the deep hatred towards the US created during the Bush era. Yet since then, Obama's foolish alliances with despotic Arab rulers infesting ISIS and Al-Qaeda in the region, his drone warfare, and warped war policies in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen, have only expanded and strengthened ISIS and Al-Qaeda, and increased Arab citizens anger and hatred towards the US. This is Obama's legacy!

    Barmaidfromhell -> WSCrips 1 Nov 2015 03:52

    Well said.

    I always think there are similarities in Clinton and Obama s upbringing that created the anormic sociopathic shape shifting personalities they demonstrate. Obviously carefully selected to follow any line given them and amiable even charismatic enough to sell it to a stupid audience.

    Why do we maintain the myth that the Obama brand is in anyway his personal contribution. Anymore than Bush or Clinton. The only difference is the republicans are ideologues where's as the puppets offered by the democrats are just psychotic shape shifters. In either way on a clear day you can see the strings hanging from their wrists like ribbons.

    Michael Imanual Christos -> Pete Piper 1 Nov 2015 00:28

    Pete Piper

    In brief;

    The US is Allied with Saudi Arabia and Israel, that makes Saudi Arabia's and Israel's enemies US enemies.

    ... ... ...

    midnightschild10 31 Oct 2015 21:35

    When Obama denounced Russia's actions in Syria, and blamed them for massive loss of civilian lives, Russia responded by asking them to show their proof. The Administration spokesperson said they got their information from social media. No one in the Administration seems to realize how utterly stupid that sounds. Marie Harf is happily developing the Administration's foreign policy via Twitter. As the CIA and NSA read Facebook for their daily planning, Obama reads the comments section of newspapers to prepare for his speech to the American public in regard to putting boots on the ground in Syria, and adding to the boots in Iraq. If it didn't result in putting soldiers lives in jeopardy, it would be considered silly. Putin makes his move and watches as the Obama Administration makes the only move they know, after minimal success in bombing, Obama does send in the troops. Putin is the one running the game. Obama's response is so predictable. No wonder the Russians are laughing. In his quest to outdo Cheyney, Obama has added to the number of wars the US is currently involved in. His original claim to fame was to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which then resulted in starting Iraq and Afghanistan Wars 2.0. Since helping to depose the existing governments in the Middle East, leading not only to the resurgence of AlQuaeda, and giving birth to ISIS, and leaving chaos and destruction in his wake, he decided to take down the last standing ruler, hoping that if he does the same thing over and over, he will get a different result. Obama's foreign policy legacy had been considered impotent at best, now its considered ridiculous.

    SomersetApples 31 Oct 2015 20:03

    We bombed them, we sent armies of terrorist in to kill them, we destroyed their hospitals and power plants and cities, we put sanctions on them and we did everything in our power to cut off their trading with the outside world, and yet they are still standing.

    The only thing left to do, lets send in some special military operatives.

    This is so out of character, or our perceived character of Obama. It must be that deranged idiot John McCain pulling the strings.

    Rafiqac01 31 Oct 2015 16:58

    The notion that Obama makes his own decisions is laughable except it aint funny....having just watched CNNs Long Road to Hell in Iraq....and the idiots advising Bush and Blair you have to wonder the extent to which these are almighty balls ups or very sophisticated planning followed up by post disaster rationalisation....

    whatever the conclusion it proves that the intervention or non interventions prove their is little the USA has done that has added any good value to the situation...indeed it is an unmitigated disaster strewn around the world! Trump is the next generation frothing at the mouth ready to show what a big John Wayne he is!!

    DavidFCanada 31 Oct 2015 13:56

    There is no 'Obama legacy' in the ME. It is a US legacy of blown attempts to control unwilling countries and populations by coercion, and by military and economic warfare. That US legacy will forever remain, burnt into skins and bodies of the living and dead, together with a virtually unanimous recognition in the ME of the laughable US pretexts of supporting democracy, the rule of law, religious freedom and, best of all, peace. Obama is merely the chief functionary of a nation of lies.

    Informed17 -> WSCrips 31 Oct 2015 13:47

    Are you saying that there was no illegal invasion of Iraq? No vial of laundry detergent was presented at the UN as "proof" that Iraq has WMDs? No hue and cry from "independent" media supported that deception campaign? Were you in a deep coma at the time?

    Informed17 -> somethingbrite 31 Oct 2015 13:36

    No. But the US trampled on the international law for quite a while now, starting with totally illegal interference in Yugoslavia in the 1990s.

    WSCrips 31 Oct 2015 13:18

    Hey Guardian Editors.....and all those who worshipped Obama....In America, there were folks from the older generation that warned us that this Community Organizer was not ready for the Job of President of the United States....it had nothing to do with his color, he just was not ready.....he was a young, inexperienced Senator, who never, ever had a real job, never had a street fight growing up pampered in Hawaii, was given a pass to great universities because his parents had money, and was the dream Affirmative Action poster boy for the liberal left. Obama has not disappointed anyone who tried to warn us......and now we will reap what he has sowed:

    1. 8 Trillion to our debt
    2. Nightmare in the Middleast (how is that Arab Spring)
    3. Polarized America....Dems and Republicans hate each other....hate each other like the Irish and English...10 x over.
    4. War on Cops
    5. War with China
    6. Invasion from Central America

    I see a great depression and World War IV on the horizon....and I am being positive!

    SaveRMiddle 31 Oct 2015 12:47

    Nothing Obama says has any value. We've watched the man lie with a grin and a chuckle.

    Forever Gone is all trust.

    His continued abuse of Red Line threats spoke volumes about the lawyer who Reactively micromanages that which required and deserved an expert Proactive plan.

    Let History reflect the horrific death CIA meddling Regime Change/Divide and Conquer creates.

    HeadInSand2013 31 Oct 2015 12:45

    Liberal activists were in little doubt that Obama has failed to live up to his commitment to avoid getting dragged directly into the war.

    With all due respects to M. Obama, this is another clear indication that the US President is just a figure head. He is a front for the corporations that run the US behind the scene - the so-called US military-industrial complex.

    Liberal activists are stupid enough to think that M. Obama is actually in charge of the US military or the US foreign policy. Just go back and count how many times during the last 6 years M. Obama has made a declaration and then - sometimes the next day - US military has over-ruled him.


    Mediaking 31 Oct 2015 10:00

    Perhaps you intentionally miss out the fact that it is the west that has Israel and the Saudis as their best allies, considering their actions ( one with the largest/longest time concentration camp in history, the other the exporter of the horror show of ISIL , both an abomination of their respective religions . The west attempt to seek the moral high ground is more than a farce ... all the world can see and know the game being played, but the mass media wishes to assume everyone has half a brain... they are allergic to the truth , like the vampires to the light.

    USA forces coming to the aid of their 5 individuals... yes 1,2,3,4,5 ( stated by US command- there are only that amount of FSA fighters left - the rest have gone over to ISIL with their equipment -- ) the local population all speak of ISIL/Daesh being American/Israeli ,they say if this is a civil war how come all the opposition are foreigners -- I think perhaps it's like the Ukraine affair... a bunch of CIA paid Nazi thugs instigating a coup ... or like Venezuela agents on roof tops shooting at both sides in demonstrations to get things going. The usual business of CIA/Mossad stuff in tune with the mass media with their engineered narratives -- Followed by the trolls on cyber space... no doubt we shall see them here too.

    All note that an Intervention in Syria would be "ILLEGAL" by Int. law and sooner than later will be sued in billions for it...on top of the billions spent on having a 5 person strong force of FSA...spent from the American tax payers money . Syria has a government and is considered a state at the UN . Iran and Russia are there at the request and permission of Syria .

    Russia and Iran have been methodically wiping out Washington's mercenaries on the ground while recapturing large swathes of land that had been lost to the terrorists. Now that the terrorists are getting wiped out the west and the Saudis are are screaming blue murder !

    I for one would have Assad stay , as he himself suggests , till his country is completely free of terrorists, then have free elections . I would add , to have the Saudis and the ones in the west/Turkey/Jordan charged for crimes against humanity for supplying and creating Daesh/ISIS . This element cannot be ignored . Also Kurdistan can form their new country in the regions they occupy as of this moment and Mosul to come. Iran,Russia,Iraq, Syria and the new Kurdistan will sign up to this deal . Millions of Syrian refugees can then come back home and rebuild their broken lives with Iranian help and cash damages from the mentioned instigators $400 billion . The cash must be paid into the Syrian central bank before any elections take place ... Solved...

    My consultancy fee - 200ml pounds sterling... I know ... you wish I ruled the world (who knows !) - no scams please or else -- ( the else would be an Apocalypse upon the western equity markets via the Illuminati i.e a 49% crash )... a week to pay , no worries since better to pay for a just solution than to have million descend upon EU as refugees . It is either this or God's revenge with no mercy .

    amacd2 31 Oct 2015 09:52

    Obama, being more honest but also more dangerous than Flip Wilson says, "The Empire made me do it",

    Bernie, having "reservations" about what Obama has done, says nothing against Empire, but continues to pretend, against all evidence, that this is a democracy.

    Hillary, delighting in more war, says "We came, we bombed, they all died, but the Empire won."

    Talk about 'The Issue' to debate for the candidates in 2016?

    "What's your position on the Empire?"

    "Oh, what Empire, you ask?"

    "The friggin Empire that you are auditioning to pose as the president of --- you lying tools of both the neocon 'R' Vichy party and you smoother lying neoliberal-cons of the 'D' Vichy party!"

    lightstroke -> Pete Piper 31 Oct 2015 09:41

    Nukes are not on the table. Mutually Assured Destruction.

    The stick I'm talking about is the total capacity of the US, military and economic, to have things its way or make the opposition very unhappy.

    It's not necessary to win wars to exercise that power. All they have to do is start them and keep them going until the arms industry makes as much dough from them as possible. That's the only win they care about.

    What has it gotten us? Nothing good. What has it gotten the top 1 percent? All the money we don't have.

    Taku2 31 Oct 2015 09:26

    Obama is being an absolute idiot in sending special forces to fight with rebels who are fighting the legitimate government of Syria. This is stupidity of the highest order. What will he do when any of these special forces operatives are captured by IS or killed by Russian or Syrian airstrikes?

    How stupid can a President get?

    Obama does need to pull back on this one, even though it will make his stupid and erroneous policy towards the Syrian tragedy seem completely headless. If this stupid and brainless policy is meant to be symbolic, its potential for future catastrophic consequences is immeasurable.

    phillharmonic -> nishville 31 Oct 2015 08:56

    That is a valid point: Syria is a sovereign nation recognized by the U.N., and any foreign troops within without permission would be considered invaders. Of course, the U.S. ignores international law all the time.

    nishville 31 Oct 2015 08:35

    Syrian rebels fighting the Islamic State

    And who are those then? Do they exist, do we have any reliable source confirming they are really simultaneously fighting IS and Syrian Army or is it yet another US fairy tale?

    Anyway, foreign troops in Syria who are there without an invitation by Syrian government or authorisation by UNSC are there illegally and can be tried for war crimes if captured. Why is Obama putting his soldiers in this situation?

    phillharmonic 31 Oct 2015 08:33

    The U.S. strategy in Syria is in tatters as Obama lamely tries to patch it up. The U.S. was determined to overthrow the Assad regime in Syria in service of the Saudis, Turkey, and Israel, while pretending to go after ISIS, who the Saudis and Turks were covertly funding. The U.S. were arming jihadists to oust Assad. That game is up, thanks to the Russians. Putin decided he wasn't going to stand by while the U.S. and its proxies created another Libya jihadist disaster in Syria. The forceful Russian intervention in going after ISIS showed the U.S. to be a faker, and caused a sea-change in U.S. policy. Now the U.S. can't pretend to go after ISIS while really trying to oust Assad. The Emporer has no clothes.

    amacd2 -> Woody Treasure 31 Oct 2015 08:31

    Woody, did you mean "Obama is a foil (for the Disguised Global Crony-Capitalist Empire--- which he certainly is), or did you mean to say "fool" (which he certainly is not, both because he is a well paid puppet/poodle for this Global Empire merely HQed in, and 'posing' as, America --- as Blair and Camron are for the same singular Global Empire --- and because Obama didn't end his role as Faux/Emperor-president like JFK), eh?

    Nena Cassol -> TonyBlunt 31 Oct 2015 06:48

    Assad's father seized power with a military coup and ruled the country for 30 years, before dying he appointed his son, who immediately established marshal law, prompting discontent even among his father's die-hard loyalists ...this is plain history, is this what you call a legitimate leader?

    Cycles 31 Oct 2015 06:41

    Forced to go in otherwise the Russians and Iranians get full control. Welcome to the divided Syria a la Germany after WW2.

    TonyBlunt -> Nena Cassol 31 Oct 2015 06:36

    "It does not take much research to find out that Assad is not legitimate at all"

    Please share your source with us Nena. But remember Langley Publications don't count.

    TonyBlunt -> oldholbornian 31 Oct 2015 06:29

    The Americans do not recognise international law. They do not sign up to any of it and proclaim the right to break it with their "exceptionalism".

    Katrin3 -> herrmaya 31 Oct 2015 05:27

    The Russians, US, Iran etc are all meeting right now in Vienna. The Russians and the US military do communicate with each other, to avoid attacking each other by mistake.

    The Russians are in the West and N.West of Syria. The US is going into the N. East, near IS headquarters in Raqqa, to support the Kurdish YPG, who are only a few kilometers from the city.

    Katrin3 -> ID6693806 31 Oct 2015 05:15

    Israel is an ally of KSA who is funding IS, Al Nusra, Al-Qaida and Al-Shabab. They are also partners with KSA in trying to prevent Iran's reintegration into global society following the nuclear deal, and the lifting of sanctions.

    I suspect that Israel wants to annex the Syrian Golan Heights permanently, and to extend their illegal settlements into the area. That can only happen if Assad is defeated.

    centerline ChristineH 31 Oct 2015 04:48

    The Kurds are the fabled moderate opposition who are willing to negotiate, and who have also fought with the Syrian government against US backed ISIS and al Nusra so called moderate opposition.

    Pete Piper -> Verbum 31 Oct 2015 04:47

    @Verbum
    Wow, you make a lot of sense. I always thought the US military heavy foreign policy became insane because of Reagan. Maybe it was the loss of the USSR?

    Everyone here grew up being taught that the US is the champion of all that is good (sounds corny today). When the USSR dissolved, everyone imagined huge military cuts with the savings being invested in social benefits. If someone had predicted that, instead, we would grow our military, throw our civil rights away, embrace empire, assasinate US citizens without a trial, create total surveillance, create secret one sided star-chamber FISA courts that control a third of our economy, and choose a Dept. name heard previously only in Nazi movies (Homeland Security) --- we'd have laughed and dismissed the warning as delusion.

    gabriel90 -> confettifoot 31 Oct 2015 04:46

    ISiS is destroying Syria thanks to the US and Saudi Arabia; its an instrument to spread chaos in the Middle East and attack Iran and Russia...

    ChristineH 31 Oct 2015 04:21

    So, on the day peace talks open, the US unilaterally announces advice boots on the ground to support one of the many sides in the Syrian War, who will undoubtedly want self determination, right on Turkey's border, as they always have, and as has always been opposed by the majority of the Syrian population. What part of that isn't completely mad?

    Great sympathy for the situation of the Kurds in Syria under Assad, but their nationalism issue and inability to work together with the Sunni rebels, was a major factor in the non formation of a functioning opposition in Syria, and will be a block to peace, not its cause. It's also part of a larger plan to have parts of Turkey and Iraq under Kurdish control to create a contingent kingdom. Whatever the merits of that, the US deciding to support them at this stage is completely irrational, and with Russia and Iran supporting Assad will lengthen the war, not shorten it.

    MissSarajevo 31 Oct 2015 04:21

    Just a couple of things here. How does the US know who the moderates are?!? Is this another occasion that the US is going to use International law as toilet paper? The US will enter (as if they weren't already there, illegally. They were not invited in by the legitimate leader of Syria.

    gabriel90 31 Oct 2015 04:19

    Warbama is just trying to save his saudi/qatari/turk/emirati dogs of war... they will be wiped out by Russia and the axis of resistance...

    Pete Piper -> Michael Imanual Christos 31 Oct 2015 04:08

    Does anyone see anything rational in US foreign policy? When I hear attempts to explain, they vary around .. "it's about oil". But no one ever shows evidence continuous wars produced more oil for anyone. So, are we deliberately creating chaos and misery? Why? To make new enemies we can use to justify more war? We've now classified the number of countries we are bombing. Why? The countries being bombed surely know.

    Pete Piper -> oldholbornian 31 Oct 2015 03:50

    You are correct. Obama is breaking UN international law, the US has no right to invade Syria. Russia, though, has been asked by the Syrian government for help, a government fully recognized by the UN. Russia has full UN sanctioned rights to help Syria. US news media will never explain this to the public, sadly.

    Only the US routinely violates other nations' sovergnity. Since Korea, the only nation that has ever used military force against a nation not on its border is the US.

    Can anyone find rationality in US foreign policy? We are supposed to be fighting ISIL, but Saudi Arabia and Israel appear to be helping ISIL to force Syrian regime change. And the US is supplying weapons to Saudi Arabia that are routed to ISIL. Supposedly because eliminating President Asad is more important than fighting ISIL? The US public is being misled into thinking we are NOW fighting ISIL. After Asad is killed, then we will genuinely fight ISIL? Russia, Iran, and more(?) will fight to keep Asad in power and then fight ISIL? THIS IS OBVIOUS BS, AND ALSO FUBAR.

    By all means, get everyone together for some diplomacy.

    oldholbornian -> lesmandalasdeniki 31 Oct 2015 03:36

    Well lets look at Germany the centre of christian culture and the EU

    http://www.infowars.com/this-is-our-future-germany-may-soon-have-8-million-muslims/

    CAPLAN -> Lunora 31 Oct 2015 03:33

    reminds me of emporer franz josef in europe about 100 years ago .. meant well but led to ruination ..i dont think that there has been an american president involved in more wars than obama

    obama by his cairo speech kicked of the arab spring ..shows that words can kill

    however.. the experience he now has gained may lead to an avoidance of a greater sunni shia war in syria if the present vienna talks can offer something tangible and preserve honour to the sunnis .. in the mid east honour and macho are key elements in negotiations

    iran however is a shia caliphate based regime and unless it has learnt the lesson from yemen on the limitations of force may push for further success via army and diplomacy and control in syria and iraq

    oldholbornian 31 Oct 2015 02:42

    But Obama's latest broken promise to avoid an "open-ended action" in Syria could lead to a full-blown war with Russia considering that Russian military has been operating in Syria for weeks.

    " For the first time ever, the American strategists have developed an illusion that they may defeat a nuclear power in a non-nuclear war," Russian deputy prime minister Dmitry Rogozin told AP. "It's nonsense, and it will never happen."

    http://www.infowars.com/flashback-obama-says-no-boots-on-the-ground-in-syria-before-sending-troops/

    Any US / terrorist engagement with the Syrian security forces will include engaging with its allies Russia

    Once the firing starts Russia will include the US as terrorists with no rights to be in Syrian and under the UN RULES have the right to defend themselves against the US

    HollyOldDog -> foolisholdman 31 Oct 2015 02:32

    Hmm Foreign snipers on rooftops ( not in the control of the government) how many times is this scenario going to be played out before the 'press' twigs it than something is not making sense.

    HollyOldDog -> foolisholdman 31 Oct 2015 02:29

    Though in one demonstration there was snipers on rooftops shooting both deconstratirs and the police - far more police were killed than demonstrators - what does this reming you of? Was these actions seemingly out of the control of the government a preliminary to what happened in Kiev during the maidan - practices get the technics right I suppose. - outside forces were obviously at work ' stirring the pot.

    Anna Eriksson 31 Oct 2015 02:24

    Let's hope that the US will help out with taking in some refugees as well! In Germany, and Sweden locals are becoming so frustrated and angry that they set refugee shelters on fire. This is a trend in both Sweden and Germany, as shown in the maps in the links. There have almost been 90 arsons in Germany so far this year, almost 30 in Sweden.

    Map of Sweden fire incidents: http://bit.ly/1MiaMX9

    Map of Germany arson incidents: http://bit.ly/1LZzEUh

    betrynol 31 Oct 2015 01:56

    Nobody tells the American people and nobody else really cares, but these 40-something guys being sent to Syria are possibly there as:

    • cannon fodder: to deter the Russians from bombing and Iranians from attacking on the ground the American friendly anti-Assad militant groups;
    • to collect and report more accurate intel from the front line (again about the Russian/Iranian troops deployment/movement).

    The Russian and Iranian troops on the ground will soon engage and sweep anti-Assad forces in key regions in Western Syria. This will be slightly impeded if Americans are among them. But accidents do happen, hence the term "cannon fodder".

    The Russians and Iranians will likely take a step back militarily though for the duration of talks, so the American plan to protect Saudi backed fighters is likely to work.

    I never involved or mentioned ISIS because this is NOT about fighting ISIS. It's about counteracting the Russian/Irania sweep in the area, and ultimately keeping the Americans in the game (sorry, war).

    petervietnam 31 Oct 2015 01:13

    The world's policeman or the world's trouble maker?

    Austin Young -> Will D 31 Oct 2015 00:34

    But he's the "change we can believe in" guy! Oh right... Dem or republican, they spew anything and everything their voters want to hear but when it comes time to walk the walk the only voice in their head is Cash Money.

    lesmandalasdeniki -> Bardhyl Cenolli 30 Oct 2015 23:34

    It frustrates me, anyone who will be the problem-solver will be labeled as dangerous by the Western political and business leaders if the said person or group of people can not be totally controlled for their agenda.

    This will be the first time I will be speaking about the Indonesian forest fires that started from June this year until now. During the period I was not on-line, I watched the local news and all channels were featuring the same problem every day during the last two-weeks.

    US is also silent about it during Obama - Jokowi meeting, even praising Jokowi being on the right track. After Jokowi came back, his PR spin is in the force again, he went directly to Palembang, he held office and trying to put up an image of a President that cared for his people. He couldn't solve the Indonesian forest fires from June - October, is it probably because Jusuf Kalla has investment in it?

    My point is, US and the Feds, World Bank and IMF are appointing their puppets on each country they have put up an investment on terms of sovereign debt and corporate debt/bonds.

    And Obama is their puppet.

    Will D 30 Oct 2015 23:30

    Obama's presidency lost its credibility a long time ago. He made so many rash promises and statements which one by one he has broken, that no free thinking person believes anything he says anymore.

    He has turned out to be a massive disappointment to all those who had such high hopes that he really would make the world a better place. His failure and his abysmal track record will cause him to be remembered as the Nobel Peace prize wining president who did exactly the opposite of what he promised, and failed to further the cause of peace.

    Greg_Samsa -> Greenacres2002 30 Oct 2015 23:07

    Consistency is at the heart of logic, all mathematics, and hard sciences.

    Even the legal systems strive to be free of contradictions.

    I'd rather live in world with consistency of thought and action as represented by the Russian Federation, then be mired in shit created by the US who have shed all the hobgoblins pestering the consistency of their thoughts and actions.

    Never truly understood the value of this stupid quote really...

    Phil Atkinson -> PaulF77 30 Oct 2015 22:28

    There's a world of difference between Russia taking steps to protect its immediate geographic and political interests (which were largely the wishes of the resident populations - something critics tend to overlook) and the USA invading Iraq (2003) in a blatant act of war, based on bullshit and then aiding and abetting mercenary terrorists in Syria in defiance of any declaration of war, UN resolution or invitation from the Syrian government to intervene.

    You might have also noticed that Syria is a long, long way from the USA. Rhetorically, WTF is the US doing in the Middle East? Propping up Saudi or Israel? Or both?

    MainstreamMedia Propaganda 30 Oct 2015 22:03

    ISIS == Mercenaries sponsored by the US, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey. Does a strategy against our own mercenaries make sense???

    2012 DIA Document (R050839Z) - Defense Intelligence Agency
    Public Affairs Office: 202-231-5554 or [email protected]
    http://www.mintpressnews.com/media-blacks-out-pentagon-report-exposing-u-s-role-in-isis-creation/206187/
    http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/pgs-287-293-291-jw-v-dod-and-state-14-812-2/

    DarrenPartridge 30 Oct 2015 22:03

    I think blatant policy changes like this show just how ineffectual the US president actually is. The hand over between Bush and Obama has been seamless. Gitmo still going, patriot act renewed, Libya a smoldering ruin (4 years down the line), no progress on gun control, troops in Afganistan and Iraq... it goes on...

    HowSicklySeemAll 30 Oct 2015 21:58

    "It's really hard to see how this tiny number of troops embedded on the ground is going to turn the tide in any way."

    Or the U.S. could carry out air strikes against Hezbollah which has been fighting ISIS for a while now. They could also supply weapons to ISIS (who are dubbed 'moderates') to counter Russian airstrikes and Iranian man power.

    Think about, when's the last time Saudi Arabia did anything progressive or humane in its foreign policy? Now remember this very same country is on the same side as the Americans. This is the country that invaded Bahrain and Yemen and labelled the civil rights movements in those countries as 'Iranian interference.' The Saudis who have been seeking to turn civil rights movements with rather nationalistic demands into religious and sectarian conflicts by playing different groups against each other are allied with the U.S. and sitting at the table in Vienna talking about peace in Syria. Nonsense upon stilts!

    Phil Atkinson -> Harry Bhai 30 Oct 2015 21:57

    Fuck the al-Sauds and their oil. If the US wants their oil (and there's plenty of other oil sellers in the world) then just take it. Why not be consistent?

    templeforjerusalem 30 Oct 2015 21:51

    IS has shown itself to be deeply hateful of anything that conflicts with their narrow religious interpretations. Destroying Palmyra, murdering indiscriminately, without any clear international agenda other than the formation of a new Sunni Sharia State, makes them essentially enemies of everybody. Although I do agree that belligerent secular Netanyahu's Israel sets a bad example in the area, Israel does not tend to murder over the same primitive values that IS uses, although there's not much difference in reality.

    IS uses extermination tactics, Israel used forced land clearance and concentration camp bombing (Gaza et al), while the US in Iraq used brutal force. None of this is good but nothing justifies the shear barbarism of IS. Is there hope in any of this? No. Is Russian and US involvement a major escalation? Yes.

    Ultimately, this is about religious identities refusing to share and demand peace. Sunni vs Shia, Judeo/Catholic/Protestant West vs Russian Orthodox, secular vs orthodox Israel. No wonder people are saying Armageddon.

    HowSicklySeemAll 30 Oct 2015 21:50

    ISIS poses no threat to the Americans and vice versa. The Americans therefore do not have an interest in making sure that ISIS is wiped out. On the contrary they want regional foes to suffer. The only countries and groups that have been successfully fighting ISIS - Assad's forces, Iranians, Hezbollah, Russians, and Kurds are in fact enemies of either the U.S., Saudis, Israelis, or Turks. Isn't that strange? The countries and peoples that have suffered the most and that have actually fought against ISIS effectively are seen as the enemy. Do the powers that be really want to wipe out ISIS at all costs? No, especially if it involves the Iranians and Russians.

    VengefulRevenant 30 Oct 2015 21:44

    "You just don't in the 21st century behave in 19th-century fashion by invading another country on [a] completely trumped up pretext. It's an incredible act of aggression. It is really a stunning, wilful choice by [President Obama] to invade another country. [The US] is in violation of the sovereignty of [Syria. The US] is in violation of its international obligations."

    Verbum -> pegasusrose2011 30 Oct 2015 21:41

    How are Russian boots on the ground - of which there have been many for some time - ok and American boots bad?

    The difference is that of a poison and the antidotum. The American/NATO meddling in Iraq, Libya and Syria created a truly sick situation which needs to be fixed. That's what the Russians are doing. Obviously, they have their own objectives and motives for that and are protecting their own interests, but nevertheless this is the surest way to re-establish semblance of stability in the Middle East, rebuilt Syria and Iraq, stop the exodus of the refugees, and mend relations in the region.

    The American attempt at negotiating peace in Syria without Syrian representation is nothing short of ridiculous and best illustrates the convoluted state of American foreign policy. America lost any claim to 'leadership' by now.

    I feel sorry for Mr Obama, and indeed America, because he is a decent person, yet most of us are unaware what forces he has to reckon with behind the scenes. It is clear by now that interests of corporations and rich individuals, as well as a couple of seemingly insignificant foreign states, beat the national interest of America all time, anytime. It is astonishing how a powerful, hard working and talented nation can become beholden to such forces, to its own detriment.

    In the end, I do not think the situation is uniquely American. Russia or China given a chance of total hegemony would behave the same. That's why we need a field of powers/superpowers to keep one another in check and negotiate rather than enforce solutions.

    ID9309755 -> pegasusrose2011 30 Oct 2015 21:02

    Unfortunately American policy and that eu have at time added fuel to the fire. Yes, the me has its own problems, including rival versions of Islam and fundamentalism as well as truly megalomaniac leaders. But in instances (Libya for example) they did truly contribute to the country's destruction (and I am not excusing Gaddafi, but for the people there sometimes having these leaders and waiting for generational transformations may be a better solution than instant democracy pills.)


    ID7582903 -> pegasusrose2011 30 Oct 2015 21:00

    Russian Iranian and hezbollah boots are invited boots by the legitimate government according to the UN Charter they are all acting legally and according to the Geneva Conventions etc.

    The US led coalition in bombing Syria were not, and the admitted introduction of troops into Syria is a an ACT OF WAR by the USA, and it is the AGRESSOR here, not doubt about it. It's a War Crime by every standard

    Obama and the "regime" that rules the United Snakes of America have all gone over the edge into insanity writ large.

    ID9309755 -> pegasusrose2011 30 Oct 2015 20:55

    To clarify, I meant that all these groups are funded by these Arabic sheikhdoms and it increasingly appears that th us of a is not as serious in eradicating all of them in the illusion that the so called softer ones will over through Assad and then it will be democracy, the much misused and fetishised term. Meanwhile we can carve up the country, Turkey gets a bite and our naughty bloated allies in Arabia will be happy with their influence. Only if it happened that way...

    There is much more than this short and simplified scenario, and yes Russia played its hand rather well taking the west off guard. And I am not trying to portray Putin as some liberation prophet either. So perhaps you could say that yes, maybe I have looked into it deep...

    BlooperMario -> RedEyedOverlord 30 Oct 2015 20:52

    China and Russia are only responding to NY World Bank and IMF cheats and also standing up to an evil empire that has ruined the middle east.
    Time you had a rethink old chap and stopped worshipping Blair; Bush; Rumsfeld etc as your heros.

    See the NATO creep into Eastern Europe against all agreements made with USSR.

    Silly Sailors provoking Chinese Lighthouse keepers.

    RoyRoger 30 Oct 2015 19:30

    Their Plan B is fucked !!

    But their real agenda is to carve up Syria. In the deep recesses of their, the Corporate corrupt White House's, mind ISIS is not their immediate problem. ISIS is a means to an end - carve up Syria a sovereign country.

    Remember, only months ago, Kerry and Tory William Hague, was handing out cash to Syrian rebels who later turned out to be ISIS rebels. We must never forget, Syria, right or wrong, is a sovereign country.

    The real battle/plan for the Corporate corrupt White House is to try and get a foothold in Syria and establish a military dictator after a coup d'etat'. As we know it's what they, the West, do best.

    Look at the mess they made in, Ukraine, with their friends a bunch of, Kiev, murdering neo-Nazi's.

    In the interest of right is right; Good Luck Mr Putin !! I'm with you all the way.

    weematt 30 Oct 2015 19:25

    War (and poverty too) a consequence, concomitant, of competing for markets, raw materials and trade routes or areas of geo-political dominance, come to be seen as 'natural' outcomes of society, but are merely concomitants of a changeable social system.

    ... ... ...

    Greg_Samsa 30 Oct 2015 19:21

    Just out of curiosity...how will the US keep the DoD and CIA from duking it out at the opposite fronts on the Syrian soil?

    This gives a whole new dimension to the term 'blue-on-blue'.

    Kevin Donegan 30 Oct 2015 18:59

    Washington has clearly chosen to break International Law.

    "Westphalian sovereignty is the principle of international law that each nation state has sovereignty over its territory and domestic affairs, to the exclusion of all external powers, on the principle of non-interference in another country's domestic affairs, and that each state (no matter how large or small) is equal in international law. The doctrine is named after the Peace of Westphalia, signed in 1648, which ended the Thirty Years' War, in which the major continental European states – the Holy Roman Empire, Spain, France, Sweden and the Dutch Republic – agreed to respect one another's territorial integrity. As European influence spread across the globe, the Westphalian principles, especially the concept of sovereign states, became central to international law and to the prevailing world order.[1]"

    foolisholdman 30 Oct 2015 18:41

    As the administration in Washington is firmly in the grasp of special interest groups such as Big Pharma, The Banksters, Big Agrobusiness, Big oil, the MIC and Israel there is no chance of getting good policy decisions out of there until there is a regime change.

    If ever there was a government hat had lost its legitimacy the present US government is it.

    foolisholdman -> Johnny Kent 30 Oct 2015 18:31

    Johnny Kent

    The slight question of legality in placing troops in a sovereign country without permission or UN approval is obviously of no importance to the US...and yet they criticise Russia for 'annexing Crimea...

    Yes, but you see: the two cases are not comparable because the USA is exceptional.

    You might think that having criticized Assad for shooting demonstrators who demonstrated against the corruption and inefficiency of his regime, and having said that as a result his regime had lost its legitimacy, they would apply the same yardstick to President Poroshenko when he shot up two provinces of his country for asking for federation, killing thousands in the process, but on the contrary they sent "advisers" to train his military and his Fascist helpers to use their weapons better, to shoot them up more effectively.

    However, one cannot really expect people who are exceptional to behave like ordinary (unexceptional) human beings.

    WalterCronkiteBot 30 Oct 2015 17:11

    What is the official US line on the legality of these deployments in terms of international law?

    Noone seems to even raise it as an issue, its all about congressional approval. Just like the UK drone strikes.

    [Sep 12, 2016] Rile the masses up against the Commie Threat, as it worked so well in the 50s - 60s

    Red bating worked before and works now...
    Notable quotes:
    "... Rile the masses up against the Commie Threat, as it worked so well in the 50's - 60's. Save us the expense of rewriting the playbook. Sure. Duck and cover. ..."
    "... But the first place I would look is inside the DNC, if I were in charge. Russian intel releasing to wikileaks? Not much profit in that. ..."
    "... By the way, whatever became of dearest FBI frontman Comey? ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org
    stumpy | Aug 11, 2016 6:13:33 PM | 30
    "It might have well been an insider who copied the material and handed them to Wikileaks for publication"

    Why this idea gets no traction, obviously -- without an admission of authenticity from DNC, they have it both ways, the ability to ascribe guilt to Russia, and plausible deniability vis a vis Sanders. Let's not rule out a purposeful leak as a gloating advertisement for DNC sponsors/donors, or just as likely as a forgery using wikileaks as conduit for disinformation by anti-DNC ops. The Guccifer blip is just as believable valid as any of these theories, upo.

    Rile the masses up against the Commie Threat, as it worked so well in the 50's - 60's. Save us the expense of rewriting the playbook. Sure. Duck and cover.

    But the first place I would look is inside the DNC, if I were in charge. Russian intel releasing to wikileaks? Not much profit in that.

    By the way, whatever became of dearest FBI frontman Comey?

    [Sep 12, 2016] Methinks the lady doth protest overmuch

    Seems Putin controls Trump and Clinton! The man is amazing. Only Jedi Knights can stop him. https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/07/23/pers-j23.html
    Notable quotes:
    "... Look over there! Putin is all over the place these days, he is doing Brexit, supporting Trump, and Corbyn I think, he is hacking Hillary, wow. ..."
    discussion.theguardian.com
    europeangrayling , 2016-07-24 17:23:08
    Look over there! Putin is all over the place these days, he is doing Brexit, supporting Trump, and Corbyn I think, he is hacking Hillary, wow. And he still has time to ride horses and play with tigers and invade Europe. I see why he is popular.

    But it's nice to be Russian, I like Russia, it's a beautiful country. Until now the Bernie people were all sexists, racists, privileged homeless idiots who lived in basements, but now we are Russians. Much better. See that's the Hillary outreach to the bros.

    trholland1 , 2016-07-24 16:50:29
    Them pesky Russkys! Now they are exerting mind control over Debbie Wasserman Schultz!
    whyohwhy1 trholland1 , 2016-07-24 16:53:07
    Clinton will protect America's bodily fluids against!
    whyohwhy1 trholland1 , 2016-07-24 16:53:45
    against* Putin and other Soviet leaders.
    morseldoc trholland1 , 2016-07-24 17:39:52
    LOL. The best comment for a good guffaw!

    [Sep 12, 2016] Reducing the election to personalities is kind of infantile at this point. The fact is, we live in a system that Sheldon Wolin calls inverted totalitarianism in which corporatations seized all of the political levers

    This short article contains several very deep observations. Highly recommended...
    Notable quotes:
    "... There is no way to vote against the interests of Goldman Sachs or ExxonMobil or Raytheon. We've lost our privacy. We've seen, under Obama, an assault against civil liberties that has outstripped what George W. Bush carried out. ..."
    "... This has been a bipartisan effort, because they've both been captured by corporate power. We have undergone what John Ralston Saul correctly calls a corporate coup d'état in slow motion, and it's over. ..."
    "... First, it dislocated the working class, deindustrialized the country. Then, in the name of austerity, it destroyed public institutions, education, public broadcasting. And then it poisoned the political system. And we are now watching, in Poland, they created a 30,000 to 40,000 armed militia. You know, they have an army. The Parliament, nothing works. And I think that this political system in the United States has seized up in exactly the same form. ..."
    "... So, is Trump a repugnant personality? Yes. Although I would argue that in terms of megalomania and narcissism, Hillary Clinton is not far behind. But the point is, we've got to break away from-which is exactly the narrative they want us to focus on. ..."
    "... I mean, this whole debate over the WikiLeaks is insane. Did Russia? I've printed classified material that was given to me by the Mossad. But I never exposed that Mossad gave it to me. Is what was published true or untrue? And the fact is, you know, in those long emails -- you should read them. They're appalling, including calling Dr. Cornel West "trash." It is-the whole-it exposes the way the system was rigged, within-I'm talking about the Democratic Party -- the denial of independents, the superdelegates, the stealing of the caucus in Nevada, the huge amounts of corporate money and super PACs that flowed into the Clinton campaign. ..."
    "... Clinton has a track record, and it's one that has abandoned children. I mean, she and her husband destroyed welfare as we know it, and 70 percent of the original recipients were children. ..."
    "... Trump is not the phenomenon. Trump is responding to a phenomenon created by neoliberalism. And we may get rid of Trump, but we will get something even more vile ..."
    Aug 06, 2016 | www.democracynow.org

    CHRIS HEDGES : Well, reducing the election to personalities is kind of infantile at this point. The fact is, we live in a system that Sheldon Wolin calls inverted totalitarianism. It's a system where corporate power has seized all of the levers of control. There is no way to vote against the interests of Goldman Sachs or ExxonMobil or Raytheon. We've lost our privacy. We've seen, under Obama, an assault against civil liberties that has outstripped what George W. Bush carried out. We've seen the executive branch misinterpret the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force Act as giving itself the right to assassinate American citizens, including children. I speak of Anwar al-Awlaki's 16-year-old son. We have bailed out the banks, pushed through programs of austerity. This has been a bipartisan effort, because they've both been captured by corporate power. We have undergone what John Ralston Saul correctly calls a corporate coup d'état in slow motion, and it's over.

    I just came back from Poland, which is a kind of case study of how neoliberal poison destroys a society and creates figures like Trump. Poland has gone, I think we can argue, into a neofascism.

    First, it dislocated the working class, deindustrialized the country. Then, in the name of austerity, it destroyed public institutions, education, public broadcasting. And then it poisoned the political system. And we are now watching, in Poland, they created a 30,000 to 40,000 armed militia. You know, they have an army. The Parliament, nothing works. And I think that this political system in the United States has seized up in exactly the same form.

    So, is Trump a repugnant personality? Yes. Although I would argue that in terms of megalomania and narcissism, Hillary Clinton is not far behind. But the point is, we've got to break away from-which is exactly the narrative they want us to focus on. We've got to break away from political personalities and understand and examine and critique the structures of power. And, in fact, the Democratic Party, especially beginning under Bill Clinton, has carried water for corporate entities as assiduously as the Republican Party. This is something that Ralph Nader understood long before the rest of us, and stepped out very courageously in 2000. And I think we will look back on that period and find Ralph to be an amazingly prophetic figure. Nobody understands corporate power better than Ralph. And I think now people have caught up with Ralph.

    And this is, of course, why I support Dr. Stein and the Green Party. We have to remember that 10 years ago, Syriza, which controls the Greek government, was polling at exactly the same spot that the Green Party is polling now-about 4 percent. We've got to break out of this idea that we can create systematic change within a particular election cycle. We've got to be willing to step out into the political wilderness, perhaps, for a decade. But on the issues of climate change, on the issue of the destruction of civil liberties, including our right to privacy-and I speak as a former investigative journalist, which doesn't exist anymore because of wholesale government surveillance-we have no ability, except for hackers.

    I mean, this whole debate over the WikiLeaks is insane. Did Russia? I've printed classified material that was given to me by the Mossad. But I never exposed that Mossad gave it to me. Is what was published true or untrue? And the fact is, you know, in those long emails -- you should read them. They're appalling, including calling Dr. Cornel West "trash." It is-the whole-it exposes the way the system was rigged, within-I'm talking about the Democratic Party -- the denial of independents, the superdelegates, the stealing of the caucus in Nevada, the huge amounts of corporate money and super PACs that flowed into the Clinton campaign.

    The fact is, Clinton has a track record, and it's one that has abandoned children. I mean, she and her husband destroyed welfare as we know it, and 70 percent of the original recipients were children.

    This debate over -- I don't like Trump, but Trump is not the phenomenon. Trump is responding to a phenomenon created by neoliberalism. And we may get rid of Trump, but we will get something even more vile, maybe Ted Cruz.

    [Sep 12, 2016] Why were there no reports of a smoke trail from the purported missile launch?

    thesaker.is

    T1 on October 14, 2015 · at 9:04 pm UTC

    I get confused easily so perhaps someone can explain to me: why were there no reports of a smoke trail from the purported missile launch?

    Little things like that make me suspicious.

    Peter, on October 14, 2015 · at 11:17 pm UTC

    That there is no witnesses is odd. A couple of factors though.

    I think the rocket engine has a 14 second burn time (depending on model) 14 seconds at Mach 2.7 is approximately 12.8 km though it would be slightly less due to the acceleration stage.

    So if a BUK missile was launched more than 12/13 kilometres from the target there would be no smoke plume as it gets close to the target.

    According to the original investigation report there was heavy cloud to the south of the crash site and showers. I think that weather report was for midday on the 17th.

    But showers and cloud would greatly reduce viability as far as the smoke plume.

    In the original report put out by Almaz-Antey the possible launch site at that time may have been covered by heavy cloud and showers.

    [Sep 10, 2016] Apparently the Russian government has decided to drop Kudrin type monetarist economics

    Notable quotes:
    "... "President Putin has clearly realized that the neo-liberal "experiment" has failed. More likely, is that he was forced to let economic reality unfold under the domination of the liberals to the point it was clear to all internal factions that another road was urgently needed. Russia, like every country, has opposing vested interests and now clearly the neo-liberal vested interests are sufficiently discredited by the poor performance of the Kudrin group that the President is able to move decisively. In either case, the development around the Stolypin Group is very positive for Russia." ..."
    marknesop.wordpress.com
    kirill , August 12, 2016 at 4:10 pm
    Apparently the Russian government has decided to drop Kudrin type monetarist economics http://journal-neo.org/2016/08/02/putin-nyet-to-neo-liberals-da-to-national-development/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_List

    I never knew about his existence. He was dead right about national economics and free trade. The Smithian BS has been the root of much pain and suffering over the last 200 years.

    marknesop , August 12, 2016 at 6:10 pm

    "President Putin has clearly realized that the neo-liberal "experiment" has failed. More likely, is that he was forced to let economic reality unfold under the domination of the liberals to the point it was clear to all internal factions that another road was urgently needed. Russia, like every country, has opposing vested interests and now clearly the neo-liberal vested interests are sufficiently discredited by the poor performance of the Kudrin group that the President is able to move decisively. In either case, the development around the Stolypin Group is very positive for Russia."

    This is indeed big news, and the above paragraph is the money shot. Kudrin is a tool, but Putin wisely did not make a martyr out of him by kicking him to the curb until he had shown everyone that he was a tool. Now nobody will dare intervene, "But what about Kudrin's plan?" And another western voice stilled.

    [Sep 10, 2016] Globalization, Rise of Neo-Nationalism and the Bankruptcy of the Left

    Notable quotes:
    "... On the morning following the Austrian presidential election, when it became certain that the neo-nationalist candidate had not won the Austrian presidency (thanks to a few thousand overseas votes, mostly belonging to the middle class), there was a great sigh of relief from the Transnational Elite, (TE), i.e. the network of economic and political elites running the New World Order of Neoliberal Globalization (NWO), mainly based in the G7 countries. ..."
    "... The elites are not used to "no" votes, and whenever the European peoples did not vote the 'correct' way in their plebiscites they were forced to vote again until they did so, or they were simply smashed – as was the case with the Greek plebiscite a year ago. ..."
    "... In other words, the peoples' need for self-determination, in the NWO, had no other outlet but the nation-state, as, up to a few years ago, the world was dominated by nation–states, within which communities with a common culture, language, customs etc. could express themselves. ..."
    "... The nation-state became again a means of self-determination, as it used to be in the 20th century for peoples under colonial rule struggling for their national liberation. The national culture is of course in clear contradiction with a globalist culture like the one imposed now 'from above' by the Transnational and national elites. ..."
    "... In fact, the Transnational Elite launched several criminal wars in the last thirty years or so to "protect" human rights (Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and indirectly Syria) leading to millions of deaths and dislocations of populations. ..."
    "... Nationalism's emphasis was on the nation-state (or the aspiration for one), whereas neo-nationalism's emphasis is not so much on the nation but rather on sovereignty at the economic but also at the political and cultural levels, which has been phased out in the globalization process; ..."
    "... Unlike old nationalism, neo-nationalism raises also demands that in the past were an essential part of the Left agenda, such as the demand for greater equality (within the nation-state and between nation-states), the demand to minimize the power of the elites, even anti-war demands. ..."
    "... The neo-nationalist movement had already created strong roots all over the EU, from its Western part (France, UK) up to its Eastern part (Hungary, Poland) and now Austria. Even in the USA itself Donald Trump, who has called on Americans to resist "the false song of globalism", expresses to a significant extent neo-nationalist trends and may be tomorrow the next President of the "Free World". ..."
    "... by the strong informal patriotic movement in Russia, which encompasses all those opposing the integration of the country into the NWO ––from neo-nationalists to communists and from orthodox Christians to secularists, while the leadership under Putin is trying to accommodate the very powerful globalist part of the elite (oligarchs, mass media, social media etc.) with this patriotic movement. ..."
    "... it is mainly Le Pen's National Front party, more than any other neo-nationalist party in the West, that realized that globalization and membership in the NWΟ's institutions are incompatible with national sovereignty. ..."
    "... "Globalization is a barbarity, it is the country which should limit its abuses and regulate it [globalization]." Today the world is in the hands of multinational corporations and large international finance" Immigration "weighs down on wages," while the minimum wage is now becoming the maximum wage" ..."
    "... It is therefore obvious that the globalization process has already had devastating economic and social consequences on the majority of the world population. At the same time, the same process has also resulted in tremendous changes at the political and the cultural levels, in the past three decades or so. Last, but not least, it has led to a series of major wars by the Transnational Elite in its attempt to integrate any country resisting integration into the New World Order (NWO) defined by neoliberal globalization (Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria) ..."
    "... The neo-nationalist movement is embraced by most of the victims of globalization all over Europe, particularly the working class that used to support the Left ..."
    "... the only kind of 'fascism' still possible today is the one directly or indirectly supported by the TE (what we may call 'Euro-fascism'), which is therefore a kind of pseudo-fascism––although in terms of the bestial practices it uses, it may be even more genuine than the 'real thing' of the inter-war period. This is, for instance, the case of the Ukrainian Euro-fascists who are the closest thing to historical Nazism available today, not only in terms of their practices but also in terms of their history. ..."
    "... The neo-nationalist parties are embraced by most of the victims of globalization all over Europe, particularly the working class which used to support the Left,[xxvii] whilst the latter has effectively embraced all aspects of globalization (economic, political, ideological and cultural) and has been fully integrated into the NWO––a defining moment in its present intellectual and political bankruptcy. ..."
    Jul 07, 2016 | www.liveleak.com
    On the morning following the Austrian presidential election, when it became certain that the neo-nationalist candidate had not won the Austrian presidency (thanks to a few thousand overseas votes, mostly belonging to the middle class), there was a great sigh of relief from the Transnational Elite, (TE), i.e. the network of economic and political elites running the New World Order of Neoliberal Globalization (NWO), mainly based in the G7 countries.

    The huge expansion of the anti-globalization movement over the past few years was under control, for the time being, and the EU elites would not have to resort to sanctions against a country at the core of the Union – such as those which may soon be imposed against Poland.

    In fact, the only reason they have not as yet been imposed is, presumably, the fear of Brexit, but as soon as the British people finally submit to the huge campaign of intimidation ("Project Fear") launched against them by the entire transnational elite, Poland's – and later Hungary's – turn will come in earnest.

    The elites are not used to "no" votes, and whenever the European peoples did not vote the 'correct' way in their plebiscites they were forced to vote again until they did so, or they were simply smashed – as was the case with the Greek plebiscite a year ago. The interesting thing, however, is that in the Greek case it was the so-called "NewLeft" represented by SYRIZA, which not only accepted the worst package of measures imposed on Greece (and perhaps any other country) ever,[ii] but which is also currently busy conducting a huge propaganda campaign (using the state media, which it absolutely controls, as its main propaganda tool) to deceive the exhausted Greek people that the government has even achieved some sort of victory in the negotiations! At the same time, the working class – the traditional supporters of the Left – are deserting the Left en masse and heading towards the neo-nationalist parties: from Britain and France to Austria. So how can we explain these seemingly inexplicable phenomena?

    Nationalism vs. neo-nationalism

    As I tried to show in the past,[iii] the emergence of the modern nation-state in the 17th-18th centuries played an important role in the development of the system of the market economy and vice versa. However, whereas the 'nationalization' of the market was necessary for the development of the 'market system' out of the markets of the past, once capital was internationalized and therefore the market system itself was internationalized, the nation state became an impediment to further 'progress' of the market system. This is how the NWO emerged, which involved a radical restructuring not only of the economy, with the rise of Transnational Corporations, but also of polity, with the present phasing out of nation-states and national sovereignty.

    Inevitably, the phasing out of the nation-state and national sovereignty led to the flourishing of neo-nationalism, as a movement for self-determination. Yet, this development became inevitable only because the alternative form of social organization, confederalism, which was alive even up to the time of the Paris Commune had in the meantime disappeared.

    In other words, the peoples' need for self-determination, in the NWO, had no other outlet but the nation-state, as, up to a few years ago, the world was dominated by nation–states, within which communities with a common culture, language, customs etc. could express themselves.

    The nation-state became again a means of self-determination, as it used to be in the 20th century for peoples under colonial rule struggling for their national liberation. The national culture is of course in clear contradiction with a globalist culture like the one imposed now 'from above' by the Transnational and national elites.

    This globalist culture is based on the globalization ideology of multiculturalism, protection of human rights etc., which in fact is an extension of the classical liberal ideology to the NWO. In fact, the Transnational Elite launched several criminal wars in the last thirty years or so to "protect" human rights (Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and indirectly Syria) leading to millions of deaths and dislocations of populations. It is not therefore accidental that globalist ideologists characterize the present flourishing of what I called neo-nationalism, as the rise of 'illiberalism'.'[iv] It is therefore clear that we have to distinguish between old (or classical) nationalism and the new phenomenon of neo-nationalism. To my mind, the main differences between them are as follows:

    a) Nationalism developed in the era of nation-states as a movement for uniting communities with a common history, culture and usually language under the common roof of nation-states that were emerging at the time but also even in the 20th century when national liberation movements against colonialist empires were fighting for their own nation states. On the other hand, neo-nationalism developed in the era of globalization with the aim of protecting the national sovereignty of nations which was under extinction because of the integration of their states into the NWO;

    b) Nationalism's emphasis was on the nation-state (or the aspiration for one), whereas neo-nationalism's emphasis is not so much on the nation but rather on sovereignty at the economic but also at the political and cultural levels, which has been phased out in the globalization process;

    c) Unlike old nationalism, neo-nationalism raises also demands that in the past were an essential part of the Left agenda, such as the demand for greater equality (within the nation-state and between nation-states), the demand to minimize the power of the elites, even anti-war demands.

    Naturally, given the origin of many neo-nationalist parties and their supporters, elements of the old nationalist ideology may penetrate them, such as the Islamophobic and anti-immigration trends, which provide the excuse to the elites to dismiss all these movements as 'far right'. However, such demands are by no means the main reasons why such movements expand. Particularly so, as it can easily be shown that the refugee problem is also part and parcel of globalization and the '4 freedoms' (capital, labor, goods and services) its ideology preaches.

    The rise of the neo-nationalist movement

    Therefore, neo-nationalism is basically a movement that arose out of the effects of globalization, particularly as far as the continuous squeezing of employees' real incomes is concerned––as a result of liberalizing labor markets, so that labor could become more competitive. The present 'job miracle', for instance, in Britain, (which is characterized as "the job creation capital of the western economies"), hides the fact that, as an analyst pointed out, "unemployment is low, largely because British workers have been willing to stomach the biggest real-terms pay cut since the Victorian era".[v]

    The neo-nationalist movement had already created strong roots all over the EU, from its Western part (France, UK) up to its Eastern part (Hungary, Poland) and now Austria. Even in the USA itself Donald Trump, who has called on Americans to resist "the false song of globalism", expresses to a significant extent neo-nationalist trends and may be tomorrow the next President of the "Free World". Of course, given the political and economic power that the elites have concentrated against these neo-nationalist movements, it is possible that neither Brexit nor any of these movements may take over, but this will not stop of course social dissent against the phasing out of national sovereignty.

    The same process is repeated almost everywhere in Europe today, inevitably leading many people (and particularly working class people) to turn to the rising neo-nationalist Right. This is not of course because they suddenly became "nationalists" let alone "fascists", as the globalist "NewLeft" (that is the kind of Left which is fully integrated into the NWO and does not question its institutions, e.g. the EU) accuses them in order to ostracize them. It is simply because the present globalist "NewLeft" does not wish to lead the struggle against globalization, while, at the same time, the popular strata have realized that national and economic sovereignty is incompatible with globalization. This is a fact fully realized, for example, by the strong informal patriotic movement in Russia, which encompasses all those opposing the integration of the country into the NWO ––from neo-nationalists to communists and from orthodox Christians to secularists, while the leadership under Putin is trying to accommodate the very powerful globalist part of the elite (oligarchs, mass media, social media etc.) with this patriotic movement.

    But, it is mainly Le Pen's National Front party, more than any other neo-nationalist party in the West, that realized that globalization and membership in the NWΟ's institutions are incompatible with national sovereignty. As Le Pen stressed, (in a way that the "NewLeft" has abandoned long ago!):

    "Globalization is a barbarity, it is the country which should limit its abuses and regulate it [globalization]." Today the world is in the hands of multinational corporations and large international finance" Immigration "weighs down on wages," while the minimum wage is now becoming the maximum wage".[vi]

    In fact, the French National Front is the most important neo-nationalist party in Europe and may well be in power following the next Presidential elections in 2017, unless of course a united front of all globalist parties (including the "NewLeft" and the Greens), supported by the entire TE and particularly the Euro-elites and the mass media controlled by them, prevents it from doing so (exactly as it happens at present in Britain with respect to Brexit). This is how Florian Philippot the FN's vice-president and chief strategist aptly put its case in a FT interview:

    "The people who always voted for the left, who believed in the left and who thought that it represented an improvement in salaries and pensions, social and economic progress, industrial policies  . these people have realized that they were misled."[vii]

    As the same FT report points out, to some observers of French politics, the FN's economic policies, which include exiting the euro and throwing up trade barriers to protect industry, read like something copied from a 1930s political manifesto, while Christian Saint-Étienne, an economist for Le Figaro newspaper, recently described this vision as "Peronist Marxism".[viii] In fact, in a more recent FT interview, Marine Le Pen, the FN president went a step further in the same direction and she called, apart from exiting from the Euro––that she expects to lead to the collapse of the Euro, if not of the EU itself, (which she-rightly–welcomes)––for the nationalization of banks. At the same time she championed public services and presented herself as the protector of workers and farmers in the face of "wild and anarchic globalization which has brought more pain than happiness ".[ix]

    For comparison, it never even occurred to SYRIZA (and Varoufakis who now wears his "radical" hat) to use such slogans before the elections (let alone after them!) Needless to add that her foreign policy is also very different from that of the French establishment, as she wants a radical overhaul of French foreign policy in which relations with the regime of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad would be restored and those with the likes of Qatar and Turkey, which she alleges support terrorism, reviewed. At the same time, Le Pen sees the US as a purveyor of dangerous policies and Russia as a more suitable friend.

    Furthermore, as it was also stressed in the same FT report, "the FN is not the only supposedly rightwing European populist party seeking to draw support from disaffected voters on the left. Nigel Farage, the leader of the UK Independence party has adopted a similar approach and has been discussing plans "to ring-fence the National Health Service budget and lower taxes for low earners, among a host of measures geared to economically vulnerable voters who would typically support Labor".[x]

    Similar trends are noticed in other European countries like Finland, where the anti-NATO and pro-independence from the EU parties had effectively won the last elections,[xi] as well as in Hungary, where neo-nationalist forces are continuously rising,[xii] and Orban's government has done more than any other EU leader in protecting his country's sovereignty, being as a result, in constant conflict with the Euro-elites. Finally, the rise of a neo-nationalist party in Poland enraged Martin Schulz, the loudmouthed gatekeeper of the TE in the European Parliament, who accused the new government as attempting a "dangerous 'Putinization' of European politics."[xiii]

    However, what Eurocrats like Martin Schulz "forget" is that since Poland joined the EU in 2004, at least two million Poles have emigrated, many of them to the UK. The victory of the Law and Justice Party (Prawo i Sprawiedliwosc, PiS) in October 2015 was due not just to a backlash by traditional Polish voters to the bulldozing of their values by the ideology of globalization but also to the fact, as Cédric Gouverneur pointed out, that "the nationalist, pro-religion, protectionist, xenophobic PiS has attracted these disappointed people with an ambitious welfare programme: a family allowance of 500 zloty ($130) a month per child, funded through a tax on banks and big business; a minimum wage; and a return to a retirement age of 60 for women and 65 for men (PO had planned to raise it to 67 for both).[xiv] In fact, PiS used to be a conservative pro-EU party when they were in power between 2005 and 2007, following faithfully the neoliberal program, and since then they have become increasingly populist and Eurosceptic. As a result, in the last elections they won the parliamentary elections in both the lower house (Sejm) and the Senate, with 37.6% of the vote, against 24.1% for the neoliberals and 8.8% for the populist Kukiz while the "progressive" camp failed to clear the threshold (5% for parties, 8% for coalitions) and have no parliamentary representation at all!

    The bankruptcy of the Left

    It is therefore obvious that the globalization process has already had devastating economic and social consequences on the majority of the world population. At the same time, the same process has also resulted in tremendous changes at the political and the cultural levels, in the past three decades or so. Last, but not least, it has led to a series of major wars by the Transnational Elite in its attempt to integrate any country resisting integration into the New World Order (NWO) defined by neoliberal globalization (Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria).

    Furthermore, there is little doubt anymore that it was the intellectual failure of the Left to grasp the real significance of a new systemic phenomenon, (i.e. the rise of the Transnational Corporation that has led to the emergence of the globalization era) and its consequent political bankruptcy, which were the ultimate causes of the rise of a neo-nationalist movement in Europe. This movement is embraced by most of the victims of globalization all over Europe, particularly the working class that used to support the Left, whilst the latter has effectively embraced not just economic globalization but also political, ideological and cultural globalization and has therefore been fully integrated into the New World Order. In fact, today, following the successful emasculation of the antisystemic movement against globalization, thanks mainly to the activities of the globalist Left, it was left to the neo-nationalist movement to fight against globalization in general and against the EU in particular.

    Almost inevitably, in view of the campaigns of the TE against Muslim countries (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria), worrying Islamophobic trends have developed within several of these neo-nationalist movements, some of them turning their old anti-Semitism to Islamophobia, supported on this by Zionists themselves![xv] Even Marine Le Pen did not avoid the temptation to lie about Islamophobia and anti-Semitism, stressing that "there is no Islamophobia in France but there is a rise in anti-Semitism".

    Yet, she is well aware of the fact that Islamophobia was growing in France well before Charlie Hebdo,[xvi] with racial attacks against Islamic immigrants, (most of whom live under squalid conditions in virtual ghettos) being very frequent. At the same time, it is well known that the Jewish community is mostly well off and shares a very disproportionate part of political and economic power in the country to its actual size, as it happens of course also––and to an even larger extent–– in UK and USA. This is one more reason why Popular Fronts for National and Social Liberation have to be built in every country of the world to fight not only Eurofascism and the NWO-which is of course the main enemy––but also any racist trends developing within these new anti-globalization movements, which today take the form of neo-nationalism. This would also prevent the elites from using the historically well-tested 'divide and rule' practice to divide the victims of globalization.

    Similarly, the point implicitly raised by the stand of the British "NewLeft" in general on the issue of Brexit cannot just be discussed in terms of the free trade vs. protectionism debate, as the liberal (or globalist) "NewLeft" does (see for instance Jean Bricmont[xvii] and Larry Elliott[xviii] of the Guardian). Yet, the point is whether it is globalization itself, which has led to the present mass economic violence against the vast majority of the world population and the accompanying it military violence. In other words, what all these "NewLeft" trends hide is that globalization is a class issue. But, this is the essence of the bankruptcy of the "NewLeft" , which is reflected in the fact that, today, it is the neo-nationalist Right which has replaced the Left in its role of representing the victims of the system in its globalized form , while the Left mainly represents those in the middle class or the petty bourgeoisie who benefit from globalization. Needless to add that today's bankrupt "NewLeft" promptly characterized the rising neo-nationalist parties as racist, if not fascist and neo-Nazis, fully siding with the EU's black propaganda campaign against the rising movement for national sovereignty.

    This is obviously another nail in the coffin of this kind of "NewLeft" , as the millions of European voters who turn their back towards this degraded "NewLeft" are far from racists or fascists but simply want to control their way of life rather than letting it to be determined by the free movement of capital, labor and commodities, as the various Soroses of this world demand!

    The neo-nationalist movement is embraced by most of the victims of globalization all over Europe, particularly the working class that used to support the Left,[xix] whilst the latter has effectively embraced not just economic globalization but also political, ideological and cultural globalization and has therefore been fully integrated into the New World Order––a defining moment in its present intellectual and political bankruptcy. In the Austrian elections, it became once more clear that the Left expresses now the middle class, while the neo-nationalists the working class. As the super-globalist BBC presented the results:

    Support for Mr Hofer was exceptionally strong among manual workers – nearly 90%. The vote for Mr Van der Bellen was much stronger among people with a university degree or other higher education qualifications. In nine out of Austria's 10 main cities Mr Van der Bellen came top, whereas Mr Hofer dominated the rural areas, the Austrian broadcaster ORF reported (in German).[xx]

    The process of the NewLeft's bankruptcy has been further enhanced by the fact that, faced with political collapse in the May 2014 Euro-parliamentary elections, it allied itself with the elites in condemning the neo-nationalist parties as fascist and neo-Nazi. However, today, following the successful emasculation of the antisystemic movement against globalization (mainly through the World Social Forum, thanks to the activities of the globalist "NewLeft" ),[xxi] it is up to the neo-nationalist movement to fight globalization in general and the EU in particular. It is therefore clear that the neo-nationalist parties which are, in fact, all under attack by the TE, constitute cases of movements that have simply filled the huge gap created by the globalist "NewLeft" . Thus, this "NewLeft" , Instead of placing itself in the front line among all those peoples fighting globalization and the phasing out of their economic and national sovereignty, it has indirectly promoted globalization, using arguments based on an anachronistic internationalism, supposedly founded on Marxism.

    On the other side, as one might expect, most members of the Globalist "NewLeft" have joined the new 'movement' by Varoufakis to democratize Europe, "forgetting" in the process that 'Democracy' was also the West's propaganda excuse for destroying Iraq, Libya and now Syria. Today, it seems that the Soros circus is aiming to use exactly the same excuse to destroy Europe, in the sense of securing the perpetuation of the EU elites' domination of the European peoples and therefore the continuation of the consequent economic violence involved. The most prominent members of the globalist "NewLeft" who have already joined this new DIEM 'movement' range from Noam Chomsky and Julian Assange to Suzan George and Toni Negri, and from Hillary Wainwright of Red Pepper to CounterPunch and other globalist "NewLeft" newspapers and journals all over the world. In this context, it is particularly interesting to refer to Slavoj Žižek's commentary on the 'Manifesto' that was presented at the inaugural meeting of Varoufakis's new movement in Berlin on February 2016.[xxii]

    Neo-nationalism and immigration

    So, the unifying element of neo-nationalists is their struggle for national sovereignty, which they (rightly), see as disappearing in the era of globalization. Even when their main immediate motive is the fight against immigration, indirectly their fight is against globalization, as they realize that it is the opening of all markets, including the labor markets, particularly within economic unions like the EU, which is the direct cause of their own unemployment or low-wage employment, as well as of the deterioration of the welfare state, given that the elites are not prepared to expand social expenditure to accommodate the influx of immigrants. Yet, this is not a racist movement but a purely economic movement, although the TE and the Zionist elites, with the help of the globalist "NewLeft" , try hard to convert it into an Islamophobic movement––as the Charlie Hebdo case clearly showed[xxiii]–––so that they could use it in any way they see fit in the support of the NWO.

    But, what is the relationship of both neo-nationalists and Euro-fascists to historical fascism and Nazism? As I tried to show elsewhere,[xxiv] fascism, as well as National Socialism, presuppose a nation-state, therefore this kind of phenomenon is impossible to develop in any country fully integrated into the NWO, which, by definition, cannot have any significant degree of national sovereignty. The only kind of sovereignty available in the NWO of neoliberal globalization is transnational sovereignty, which, in fact, is exclusively shared by members of the TE. In other words, fascism and Nazism were historical phenomena of the era of nation-state before the ascent of the NWO of neoliberal globalization, when states still had a significant degree of national and economic sovereignty.

    However, in the globalization era, it is exactly this sovereignty that is being phased out for any country fully integrated into the NWO. Therefore, the only kind of 'fascism' still possible today is the one directly or indirectly supported by the TE (what we may call 'Euro-fascism'), which is therefore a kind of pseudo-fascism––although in terms of the bestial practices it uses, it may be even more genuine than the 'real thing' of the inter-war period. This is, for instance, the case of the Ukrainian Euro-fascists who are the closest thing to historical Nazism available today, not only in terms of their practices but also in terms of their history. However, as there is overwhelming evidence of the full support they have enjoyed by the Transnational Elite and (paradoxically?) even by the Zionist elite,[xxv] they should more accurately be called Euro-fascists.

    It is therefore clear that the neo-nationalist parties, which are all under attack by the TE, constitute cases of movements that simply filled the huge gap left by the globalist Left, which, instead of placing itself in the front line of all those peoples fighting globalization and the phasing out of their economic and national sovereignty,[xxvi] indirectly promoted globalization, using arguments based on an anachronistic internationalism, developed a hundred years ago or so. The neo-nationalist parties are embraced by most of the victims of globalization all over Europe, particularly the working class which used to support the Left,[xxvii] whilst the latter has effectively embraced all aspects of globalization (economic, political, ideological and cultural) and has been fully integrated into the NWO––a defining moment in its present intellectual and political bankruptcy.

    National and Social Liberation Fronts everywhere!

    So, at this crucial historical juncture that will determine whether we shall all become subservient to neoliberal globalization and the transnational elite (as the DIEM25 Manifesto implies through our subordination to the EU) or not, it is imperative that we create a Popular Front in each country which will include all the victims of globalization among the popular strata, regardless of their current political affiliations.

    In Europe, in particular, where the popular strata are facing economic disaster, what is urgently needed is not an "antifascist" Front within the EU, as proposed by the 'parliamentary juntas' in power and the Euro-elites, also supported by the globalist "NewLeft" (such as Diem25, Plan B in Europe, Die Linke, the Socialist Workers' Party in the UK, SYRIZA in Greece and so on), which would, in fact, unite aggressors and victims. An 'antifascist' front would simply disorient the masses and make them incapable of facing the real fascism being imposed on them[xxviii] by the political and economic elites, which constitute the transnational and local elites. Instead, what is needed is a Popular Front for National and Social Liberation, which that could attract the vast majority of the people who would fight for immediate unilateral withdrawal from the EU – which is managed by the European part of the transnational elite – as well as for economic self- reliance, thus breaking with globalization.

    To my mind, it is only the creation of broad Popular Fronts that could effect each country's exit from the EU, NAFTA and similar economic unions, with the aim of achieving economic self-reliance. Re-development based on self-reliance is the only way in which peoples breaking away from globalization and its institutions (like the EU) could rebuild their productive structures, which have been dismantled by globalization. This could also, objectively, lay the ground for future systemic change, decided upon democratically by the peoples themselves. Therefore, the fundamental aim of the social struggle today should be a complete break with the present NWO and the building of a new global democratic community, in which economic and national sovereignty have been restored, so that peoples could then fight for the ideal society, as they see it.

    Takis Fotopoulos is a political philosopher, editor of Society & Nature/ Democracy and Nature/The International Journal of Inclusive Democracy. He has also been a columnist for the Athens Daily Eleftherotypia since 1990. Between 1969 and 1989 he was Senior Lecturer in Economics at the University of North London (formerly Polytechnic of North London). He is the author of over 25 books and over 1,500 articles, many of which have been translated into various languages.

    This article is based on Ch. 4 of the book to be published next month by Progressive Press, The New World Order in Action, vol. 1: The NWO, the Left and Neo-Nationalism. This is a major three-volume project aiming to cover all aspects of the New World Order (NWO) of neoliberal globalization http://www.progressivepress.com/book-listing/new-world-order-action

    Notes:

    Bruno Waterfield, "Juncker vows to use new powers to block the far-right", [i]The Times, 24/5/2016

    The original source of this article is Global Research. Copyright © Takis Fotopoulos , Global Research, 2016

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/globalization-the-massive-rise-of-neo-nationalism-and-the-bankruptcy-of-the-left/5527157

    [Sep 10, 2016] Poroshenko is the richest among the leaders of Europe, while he leads what must be just about Europes poorest country

    Notable quotes:
    "... "Anastasia Krasnosilska of the Anti-Corruption Action Center of Ukraine, said Poroshenko has only tackled abuses because of foreign pressure and then only after lengthy foot-dragging. ..."
    "... "All recent successes in the fight against corruption were made possible because of pressure from the EU, IMF, and civil society," she said to CBC News. "If it weren't for the conditionalities the foreign donors and lenders imposed, and the feeling that the eye of foreign governments is on Ukraine, there would have been no reform." ..."
    "... "According to the Kyiv Post, the IMF is planning to reduce a loan to Ukraine from a planned $1.7 billion to $1 billion over corruption concerns. ..."
    "... Valeria Gontareva, Poroshenko's Porsche-driving political ally and business partner who now heads the National Bank of Ukraine, says she isn't concerned. "It's not a big deal for us," she told the publication, although the shortfall is equal to the total amount Canada has given to Ukraine since the Maidan rebellion ended in February 2014." ..."
    marknesop.wordpress.com
    marknesop , July 24, 2016 at 8:05 pm
    Wow; there's still endemic corruption in Ukraine – who knew? And Poroshenko is the richest among the leaders of Europe, while he leads what must be just about Europe's poorest country. Ordinarily, the press would be all over a dichotomy like that. I guess reporting on Ukraine requires a suspension of curiosity.

    "Anastasia Krasnosilska of the Anti-Corruption Action Center of Ukraine, said Poroshenko has only tackled abuses because of foreign pressure and then only after lengthy foot-dragging.

    "All recent successes in the fight against corruption were made possible because of pressure from the EU, IMF, and civil society," she said to CBC News. "If it weren't for the conditionalities the foreign donors and lenders imposed, and the feeling that the eye of foreign governments is on Ukraine, there would have been no reform."

    And it's starting to have an effect.

    "According to the Kyiv Post, the IMF is planning to reduce a loan to Ukraine from a planned $1.7 billion to $1 billion over corruption concerns.

    Valeria Gontareva, Poroshenko's Porsche-driving political ally and business partner who now heads the National Bank of Ukraine, says she isn't concerned. "It's not a big deal for us," she told the publication, although the shortfall is equal to the total amount Canada has given to Ukraine since the Maidan rebellion ended in February 2014."

    And yet the Ukrainian government still keeps on mouthing it up to the country's most likely saviour – Russia. Although things have probably gone too far for that now, thanks to the west trying to muscle into a position where whatever Russia does to benefit Ukraine benefits the west.

    [Sep 10, 2016] As Resistance Mounts, TPP Becoming 2016 Elections Third Rail

    Notable quotes:
    "... Not only are "[v]ulnerable Senate Republicans are starting to side with Donald Trump (and Democrats) by opposing President Obama's signature trade deal," as the Washington Post ..."
    Aug 29, 2016 | www.commondreams.org

    As the White House prepares for its final " all-out push " to pass the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) during the upcoming lame-duck session of Congress, lawmakers on both sides of the political aisle are being made vulnerable due to growing opposition to the controversial, corporate-friendly trade deal.

    "[I]n 2016," the Guardian reported on Saturday, "America's faltering faith in free trade has become the most sensitive controversy in D.C."

    Yet President Barack Obama "has refused to give up," wrote Guardian journalists Dan Roberts and Ryan Felton, despite the fact that the 12-nation TPP "suddenly faces a wall of political opposition among lawmakers who had, not long ago, nearly set the giant deal in stone."

    ... ... ...

    Not only are "[v]ulnerable Senate Republicans are starting to side with Donald Trump (and Democrats) by opposing President Obama's signature trade deal," as the Washington Post reported Thursday, but once-supportive Dems are also poised to jump ship.

    To that end, in a column this week, Campaign for America's Future blogger Dave Johnson listed for readers "28 House Democrat targets...who-in spite of opposition from most Democrats and hundreds of labor, consumer, LGBT, health, human rights, faith, democracy and other civil organizations-voted for the 'fast-track' trade promotion authority (TPA) bill that 'greased the skids' for the TPP by setting up rigged rules that will help TPP pass."

    Of the list that includes Reps. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (Fla.), Jared Polis (Colo.), and Ron Kind (Wis.), Johnson wrote: "Let's get them on the record before the election about whether they will vote for TPP after the election."

    [Sep 10, 2016] I didnt pay 700 dollars for my iphone 6 to get a neocon propaganda machine

    Buying iPhone is mistake in itself. but as for neocon propaganda machine do you thing that Google or Yahoo are better? they are not.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Anyone else notice that their apple iphone has turned into a raging anti-trump propaganda machine? I'm talking about the news headlines apple pushes to you when you slide your home screen all the way to the right. ..."
    "... I didn't pay $700 for my iphone 6 to get a neocon propaganda machine. ..."
    "... I have never actually read the anti trump stories that apple feeds my iphone because i didn't want to set up a preference for such things. I just see the headlines and they are quite negative. This is not the phone responding to my preference. It is content that is being deliberately pushed by Apple to my phone sans any info suggesting that i want it. ..."
    "... Paying $700 for a $200 phone says unflattering things about i-Phone owners. ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org
    alaric | Aug 6, 2016 2:41:59 PM | 3

    Anyone else notice that their apple iphone has turned into a raging anti-trump propaganda machine? I'm talking about the news headlines apple pushes to you when you slide your home screen all the way to the right.

    I didn't pay $700 for my iphone 6 to get a neocon propaganda machine.

    Piotr Berman | Aug 6, 2016 4:22:11 PM | 6

    Sometimes you get something extra with no additional cost. For 700 bucks you should get hourly updates from the Lord of the Universe, so neocon urgent news are perhaps a step in this direction :-)

    More seriously, this is the fault of the browser and evil business model. Some click is cheerfully interpreted as your request to get bombarded from some source, and sometimes it is clear how to undo it, sometimes not.

    Browsers should not have such features, but this is what makes them profitable.

    Coming in near future: discount versions of cars that are steered by a computer. Every few minutes the car stops and restarts only after you confirmed with clicks that you have seen another ad.

    alaric | Aug 6, 2016 5:13:45 PM | 14

    "More seriously, this is the fault of the browser and evil business model. Some click is cheerfully interpreted as your request to get bombarded from some source"

    I have never actually read the anti trump stories that apple feeds my iphone because i didn't want to set up a preference for such things. I just see the headlines and they are quite negative. This is not the phone responding to my preference. It is content that is being deliberately pushed by Apple to my phone sans any info suggesting that i want it.

    Hoarsewhisperer | Aug 6, 2016 11:26:13 PM | 30

    I didn't pay $700 for my iphone 6 to get a neocon propaganda machine.

    alaric | Aug 6, 2016 2:41:59 PM | 3

    Paying $700 for a $200 phone says unflattering things about i-Phone owners.

    [Sep 10, 2016] Be afraid, Donald Trump. Were about to see the best of Barack Obama

    All this discussion missed the most important point: Obama is neocon and neoliberal and he did what he was supposed to do. "Change we can believe is" was a masterful "bait and switch" operation to full the gullible electorate. he was just a useful puppet for globalist. They used him and they will threw him to the dust bin of history sweetened with $200k speeches.
    Notable quotes:
    "... The article is a waste of time! The real winners are the neoconservative corporate world with a one party corporate state! It is time for a third party in the United States that represents ordinary American people! ..."
    "... So the best of Obama is ground troops in Iraq and Syria ? More drone strikes? ..."
    "... Trump is more of an isolationist, he would do less against foreign countries than the Obama/Clinton government. Syria and Libya would never had happened under a Trump presidency. ..."
    "... Clinton helped the distabilize Syria arming rebels who some joined IS: https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/18328 ..."
    "... 'The best of Barack Obama'? You mean he can commit mass murder by drone in even greater numbers and in more than the seven countries the US is not at war with???? ..."
    "... Murder by Presidential decree - what a guy! ..."
    "... Wow, that should really scare Trump! After 8 years, most of us -- even those who twice voted for him -- know there is no best in Barack. He has fumbled and bumbled all the way; Putin has run circles around him. He has destabilized the entire Mideast. He could not even close Guantanamo. He was elected on the promise of hope and leaves a legacy of despair and a horde of innocent drone victims. He calls it collateral damage; I call it murder. ..."
    "... Obama's presidency: 1. Added 10T to national debt that future generations will be taxed to pay it up. 2. Record # of people living on food stamps. 3. Steady drop of labor participation rate (so he had to rig Job stats to hide it) 4. Stagnant income for average family 5. Driving living cost (such health insurance bills / student loans) up despite stagnant income. 6. Promised public an "affordable" health care plan only to drive insurance cost up. 7. Letting ISIS grow under his watch and calling it just "JV team" until its threat is too big to ignore. ... ... Incompetence and dishonesty are what people will remember Obama as. He is now shaping up to be worse than GWBush, which was unthinkable right after Bush's term was over. ..."
    "... Wake up, we are the United States of America and our business is; has been and will be war and weapons. Eisenhower knew it in the 50's and nothing has changed. ..."
    "... Well, Trump was against the Iraq war, the war in Libya and against intervention with the resulting war in Syria. That honours him. Compared that with Hillarys approach regarding these conflicts. ..."
    "... Pity Obama wasn't so ruthless in preventing the massive theft of taxpayers money to bail out Wall Street. In fact didn't he appoint all those Goldman Sachs, Bank of America and Citigroup executives to run his economic policy? He has always known where his bread was best buttered just like Bill and Hillary? Anyone out there willing to take on a few 30 minute speaking engagements for $100-200,000 a pop? Nice retirement. ..."
    "... "This hyper-competitive president..."??? Surely you jest. This is the guy who tucked tail and ran every time the GOP threatened a filibuster as opposed to making them actually do it...who put zero banksters in prison for crashing the economy with fraudulent scams...who didn't close Gitmo...who gave us a healthcare reform that was a gift to the insurance and pharma industries. ..."
    "... "Obama is a statesman"...then why he is the man who stutters endlessly when taken off a teleprompter? ..."
    "... Attacked seven different countries with drones, killing around 2,600 innocent civilians. ..."
    "... Prosecuted more whistleblowers than all other Presidents combined. ..."
    "... Continued the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. ..."
    "... Expanded our National Security State (Look up his new Patriot Act.) ..."
    "... Appointed more corporate lobbyists to high government positions than Bush ever did. ..."
    "... Destroyed Libya as a functioning state, with dozens of competing terrorist militias (many of whom we armed). ..."
    "... Recognized the new Honduran right-wing government, which made it the most violent country in the world. And now he's decided to deport thousands of children who came here to escape the violence. ..."
    "... Signed two more trade (corporate investment) agreements and pushed the TPP - granting corporations more legal rights than states. ..."
    "... Gave trillions to the Banks and Wall Street. ..."
    "... Carried out economic policies that actually increased inequality here, especially in communities of color, ..."
    "... Replenished Israel's weapons - while they were bombing Gaza - and now plans to add a billion dollars a year in military aid to the right-wingers in control of that state. ..."
    "... Arranged a $32 billion arms sale to Saudi Arabia and sent them cluster bombs for their attack on Yemen ..."
    "... Added a trillion dollars to "upgrade" our nuclear weapons. ..."
    "... Which of these things make you "so proud?" ..."
    "... You left out Obama's caving in on single-payer universal health care (Medicare could easily have provided a point of departure) instead of fighting for it. ..."
    "... To him getting rid of Asad who poses no terrorism threat to US is more important than fighting ISIS, which is basically the same ol' GWBush neocon regime change strategy and absurd. ..."
    "... This commentator nor the paper for which he writes will never in a million years ever even suggest the disdain Obama and the US government has for the rule of law - his lieutenants have been caught out lying to congress - no charges for the key apparatchiks of evil - hope that phrase catches on. ..."
    "... Does Obama go after Mexican drug cartels, every bit as destructive as Isil but with a direct impact on the US? No. Does he go after other militant groups across the globe? No. He feeds the 'terrible Muslim' narrative by continuing to singularly pursue them as if they were the only problem in the world. ..."
    "... Obama's predecessor was arguably the most manipulated, most moronic, completely un-qualified and utterly reckless war mongering shill ever put into the white house. Barack inherited a friggin mess of biblical proportions, created by treasonous ne-cons intent on fomenting war and destruction for no better reason than to forward the agenda of the military-industrial complex. ..."
    "... I'm confident that Hillary Clinton will continue his work, because she recognizes the critical role played by diplomacy :-). She's not the hawk that Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders would have you believe ;-). ..."
    "... TPP is all you need to know. Obama is just a puppet of this oligarchy. ..."
    www.theguardian.com

    slorter

    The article is a waste of time! The real winners are the neoconservative corporate world with a one party corporate state! It is time for a third party in the United States that represents ordinary American people!

    kittehpavolvski

    So, if we're about to see the best of Obama, what have we been seeing hitherto?

    waitforme

    So the best of Obama is ground troops in Iraq and Syria ? More drone strikes?

    ForestTrees

    Trump is more of an isolationist, he would do less against foreign countries than the Obama/Clinton government. Syria and Libya would never had happened under a Trump presidency.

    ForestTrees -> Glenn J. Hill 31m ago

    Clinton helped the distabilize Syria arming rebels who some joined IS: https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/18328

    HelenPatterson

    'The best of Barack Obama'? You mean he can commit mass murder by drone in even greater numbers and in more than the seven countries the US is not at war with????

    What a fatuous article about the world's leading terrorist.

    And of course we shouldn't forget that he had prosecuted more whistleblowers than all other presidents combined.

    Let's not forget that he claims and has exercised his 'right' to murder his own citizens on the basis of secret evidence - one being a 16 year old boy. And when the White House spokesman was asked why the boy was murdered by drone, he said 'He should have had a more responsible father'.

    He sings off on his 'Kill List' of domestic and foreign nationals every Tuesday, dubbed 'Terror Tuesday' by his staff.

    Murder by Presidential decree - what a guy!

    ID7715785

    Wow, that should really scare Trump! After 8 years, most of us -- even those who twice voted for him -- know there is no best in Barack. He has fumbled and bumbled all the way; Putin has run circles around him. He has destabilized the entire Mideast. He could not even close Guantanamo. He was elected on the promise of hope and leaves a legacy of despair and a horde of innocent drone victims. He calls it collateral damage; I call it murder.

    ninjamia

    Oh, I know. He'll repeat the snide and nasty remarks about Trump that he gave at the Press Club dinner. Such style and grace - not.

    J.K. Stevens -> ninjamia

    Sit back and weep: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8TwRmX6zs4

    fflambeau

    Casting Donald Trump as the Big Bad Wolf doesn't bring about real change.

    And sadly, in his almost 8 years in office (2 years with absolute control over the Congress) Barack Obama has brought about little real change. For him it is a slogan.

    Larry Robinson

    Obama's presidency:
    1. Added 10T to national debt that future generations will be taxed to pay it up.
    2. Record # of people living on food stamps.
    3. Steady drop of labor participation rate (so he had to rig Job stats to hide it)
    4. Stagnant income for average family
    5. Driving living cost (such health insurance bills / student loans) up despite stagnant income.
    6. Promised public an "affordable" health care plan only to drive insurance cost up.
    7. Letting ISIS grow under his watch and calling it just "JV team" until its threat is too big to ignore.
    ... ...

    Incompetence and dishonesty are what people will remember Obama as. He is now shaping up to be worse than GWBush, which was unthinkable right after Bush's term was over.

    shinNeMIN -> Larry Robinson

    $500 million worth of arm supply?

    hadeze242 -> Major MajorMajor

    while Obama's messy military interventions become more and more confused, chaotic and tragic his personal appearance gets ever more Hollywood: perfect attire, smile and just the right words. I would prefer the inverse, less tailoring and neat haircuts, but more honesty and transparency. e.g., Obama lied about the NSA for how long in this first term. Answer: all four years long and beyond into the 2nd term.

    BostonCeltics

    Six more months until he goes into the dustbin of history. Small minded people in positions of power who take things personally are the epitome of incompetence.

    Mats Almgren

    Obama became a worse president than Bush. Endless moneyprinting, bombing nine countries, created a operation Condor 2.0 with interventions in Venezuela, Brazil and Argentina, didn't withdraw any troops from Afghanistan, lifted the weapon embargo on Vietnam to sell US weapons and at the same time forcing Vietnam to not do trade deals with China, intimidating the Phillipines from doing trade with China, restarted the cold war which had led to biggest military ramp up in Eastern Europe since 1941, drone bombed weddings and hospitals and what not, supported islam militants in Libya, Syria and Iraq which has led to total devastation in these countries. And there has been an increase in the constant US interventionism regarding European elections and referendums. And has continuously protected the dollar hegemony causing death and destruction thoughout the world.

    With that track record it's easy to say that Obama might be worst US president ever. And there has been hardly any critism and critical thinking in the more and more propagandistic and agenda driven western media.

    It's like living in the twilight zone reading the media in Sweden and Britain.

    Jose Sanchez -> Mats Almgren

    Blame a president for trying to sell what we still manufacture are you?

    Wake up, we are the United States of America and our business is; has been and will be war and weapons. Eisenhower knew it in the 50's and nothing has changed.

    NewWorldWatcher

    The new leader of the Republican party thinks that that it was stupid to go into Iraq and Afghanistan but it would be good to carpet bomb ISIS. He IS a great Republican. No wonder this party is on the fringe of extinction.

    Mats Almgren -> NewWorldWatcher

    Well, Trump was against the Iraq war, the war in Libya and against intervention with the resulting war in Syria. That honours him. Compared that with Hillarys approach regarding these conflicts.

    trundlesome1

    Pity Obama wasn't so ruthless in preventing the massive theft of taxpayers money to bail out Wall Street. In fact didn't he appoint all those Goldman Sachs, Bank of America and Citigroup executives to run his economic policy? He has always known where his bread was best buttered just like Bill and Hillary?

    Anyone out there willing to take on a few 30 minute speaking engagements for $100-200,000 a pop? Nice retirement.

    zootsuitbeatnick

    "This hyper-competitive president..."??? Surely you jest. This is the guy who tucked tail and ran every time the GOP threatened a filibuster as opposed to making them actually do it...who put zero banksters in prison for crashing the economy with fraudulent scams...who didn't close Gitmo...who gave us a healthcare reform that was a gift to the insurance and pharma industries.

    That's as hyper-competitive as Trump is selfless.
    Try to be at least a little reality-based.

    hadeze242

    the best of Pres. Obama? Perhaps only someone living a life in the UK could dream this strange dream? Great, compared to whom, to what? Never since WW2 has the US & world seen such a weak, openly-prejudiced, non-performing Pres. Remember O's plan to save Afghanistan? Lybia? Then, working (bombing) with Putin's Russia to collaterally bomb the beautiful, developed, cultural nation of Syria. To what end I ask? To create refugees? Obama has never been at his best, always only at his worst. Ah, yes, his smooth-lawyered sentences come with commas & periods and all that, but there is no feeling inside the man. This man is a great, oratory actor. His promises are well-written & endless, but delivery is never coming. Yes, we can .. was his electoral phrase. No, we can't ... after 8 long, wasted yrs was his result.

    NewWorldWatcher

    In Las Vegas they are gaming on how many votes will Trump lose by not who will win. A Trump loss will be in excess of 10 Million votes.......5to2 odds. The worse loss in recent history!

    Janet Re Johnson -> NewWorldWatcher

    From your mouth to God's ears. But I'm a big baseball fan, so I know it ain't over till it's over.

    Larry Robinson

    Also it's when Obama talks out of outburst rather than from a teleprompter that you can tell his true capability as a leader or lack thereof.

    Notice that Obama said ... not once has an advisor tells him to use the term "radical Islam" ... . Well Mr Obama, it's your own call to decide what term to use on this issue so why are you bringing your advisors out for credence. Right or wrong that's your own decision so you should stand behind it. When you bring advisors in to defend what should be your own call it shows WEAKNESS.

    Obama basically tells everyone that he needs his advisors to tell him what do b/c he does NOT know how to handle it by himself. So who's the leader here, Obama or his advisors? Is Obama just a puppet that needs his advisors to pull the string constantly? Ouch.

    It's the prompter-free moment like this that the truth about Obama comes out. I wonder why Trump has not picked this clear hole up yet.

    raffine

    The POTUS will crush Mr Trump like a 200 year old peanut.

    Carolyn Walas Libbey -> raffine

    The POTUS is about as useful as an old condom.

    PortalooMassacre

    Exposed to the toxic smugness of Richard Wolffe, I'm beginning to see what people find attractive about Donald Trump's refreshing barbarism.

    guy ventner -> synechdoche

    "Obama is a statesman"...then why he is the man who stutters endlessly when taken off a teleprompter?

    Ron Shuffler

    "Greatest President since Lincoln" "I am proud - so proud! - to say that this man is MY President! Personally, I am ashamed that this man is my President.
    But anyway, here's what Richard Wolffe and y'all are so proud of:

    Here's what your favorite President actually did:

    1. Attacked seven different countries with drones, killing around 2,600 innocent civilians.
    2. Prosecuted more whistleblowers than all other Presidents combined.
    3. Continued the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
    4. Deported at least 2.8 million "illegal" immigrants
    5. Expanded our National Security State (Look up his new Patriot Act.)
    6. Appointed more corporate lobbyists to high government positions than Bush ever did.
    7. Destroyed Libya as a functioning state, with dozens of competing terrorist militias (many of whom we armed).
    8. Recognized the new Honduran right-wing government, which made it the most violent country in the world. And now he's decided to deport thousands of children who came here to escape the violence.
    9. Signed two more trade (corporate investment) agreements and pushed the TPP - granting corporations more legal rights than states.
    10. Gave trillions to the Banks and Wall Street.
    11. Carried out economic policies that actually increased inequality here, especially in communities of color,
    12. Left Guantanamo open (though as Commander-in-Chief he could have closed it down with a phone call).
    13. Replenished Israel's weapons - while they were bombing Gaza - and now plans to add a billion dollars a year in military aid to the right-wingers in control of that state.
    14. Arranged a $32 billion arms sale to Saudi Arabia and sent them cluster bombs for their attack on Yemen
    15. Sent billions of dollars to the new military rulers of Egypt
    16. Added a trillion dollars to "upgrade" our nuclear weapons.

    Which of these things make you "so proud?"

    BG Davis -> Ron Shuffler

    You left out Obama's caving in on single-payer universal health care (Medicare could easily have provided a point of departure) instead of fighting for it.
    At the same time, you overestimate the simplicity of just closing Guantanamo prison with "a phone call." So he makes the phone call; then what happens to the prisoners? They aren't all innocent non-entities who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

    Larry Robinson

    It's only in the mind of die hard liberals that Obama has been strong against terrorists. Just look at how he handles Syria situation. Asad - a Shiite govt - is a sworn enemy to ISIS - a Sunni organization so if you are serious about ISIS you should utilize Asad, right? Well no, Obama is so hell-bent on unseating Asad that he supports those rebels that are also Sunni-based and cozy with ISIS. To him getting rid of Asad who poses no terrorism threat to US is more important than fighting ISIS, which is basically the same ol' GWBush neocon regime change strategy and absurd.

    Lafcadio1944

    What part of Obama's criminal acts in office do think are the best? For me the very best of Obama is how he can project power so suavely while standing before the world as a prima facia criminal. TORTURE IS ILLEGAL!! Under the law those who order and/or carry out torture MUST be prosecuted. THAT IS INTERNATIONAL, TREATY AND DOMESTIC US LAW.

    The oh so great and powerful Obama he of such dignity in office has SHOWN UTTER CONTEMPT FOR THE RULE OF LAW!!!

    But that's OK he will say bad things about Trump.

    This commentator nor the paper for which he writes will never in a million years ever even suggest the disdain Obama and the US government has for the rule of law - his lieutenants have been caught out lying to congress - no charges for the key apparatchiks of evil - hope that phrase catches on.

    I want to vomit when the press acts so hypocritically ready to jump all over Putin or China in a heart beat - but challenge US officials who openly violate the law - not a chance.

    babymamaboy

    Does Obama go after Mexican drug cartels, every bit as destructive as Isil but with a direct impact on the US? No. Does he go after other militant groups across the globe? No. He feeds the 'terrible Muslim' narrative by continuing to singularly pursue them as if they were the only problem in the world.

    It would be really easy for him to call it like it is -- we don't care who you worship, just don't mess with our oil. But he actively feeds the narrative while chiding Trump for being too enthusiastic about it. I guess that's what passes for US leadership these days.

    urgonnatrip

    Obama's predecessor was arguably the most manipulated, most moronic, completely un-qualified and utterly reckless war mongering shill ever put into the white house. Barack inherited a friggin mess of biblical proportions, created by treasonous ne-cons intent on fomenting war and destruction for no better reason than to forward the agenda of the military-industrial complex.

    How has Barack done? He's held them in check and avoided an escalation to WW3. I wish I could say the next president was going to continue the trend but somehow I doubt it.

    KerryB -> urgonnatrip

    You had me right up until the last line. I'm confident that Hillary Clinton will continue his work, because she recognizes the critical role played by diplomacy :-). She's not the hawk that Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders would have you believe ;-).

    zolotoy -> KerryB

    Yeah, just ignore Hillary Clinton's actual record, right?

    AgnosticKen

    TPP is all you need to know. Obama is just a puppet of this oligarchy.

    [Sep 10, 2016] Is Hillary a Sociopath

    This is an article from 2008 campaign. Still relevant.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Dr. Robert Hare, a pioneer in forensic psychology, tells us that many sociopaths are successful, even celebrated. I don't propose to diagnose Hillary Clinton by diary, but more modestly, to examine one characteristic Dr. Hare finds sociopaths have in common. From CEO to small-time swindler, the sociopath lies. Hillary lies, repeatedly and recklessly. ..."
    "... In her run against Obama, Hillary has lied to show she's got the right stuff to be Commander-in-Chief. Before the Bosnian Bruhaha, she lied to pump up her senatorial role and to finesse positions she once held that could lose her the nomination. In turn, her lies substantiate two sides of the beautifully constructed Election 08 Hillary: courageous but caring. No one is as tough. No one cares as much. In Hillary's lies, Clara Barton meets Audie Murphy. ..."
    "... Hillary does have more experience manipulating the interface of MSM and the American public. She knows that both are rapid cyclers. She knows that what's headlines one day is yesterday's onions the next. ..."
    "... Surely, when she cast her vote to authorize Bush to skirt global consensus and wage a unilateral war against Iraq, she knew she'd have some 'splaining to do. But like Scarlett O'hara, she'd think about it tomorrow. I'm talking about her vote on the war in Iraq. ..."
    "... In 2002, Hillary voted for war with her eye on the prize. Within a few days of the 9/11 attack on WTC, she knew if she was ever to have a shot at the U.S. presidency, she'd have to beat the drums for war. As Manhattan lay still burning, Hillary, the former war protester, formed a strategic political stance that would kill two birds with one stone. ..."
    Apr 01, 2008 | dailykos.com

    Dr. Robert Hare, a pioneer in forensic psychology, tells us that many sociopaths are successful, even celebrated. I don't propose to diagnose Hillary Clinton by diary, but more modestly, to examine one characteristic Dr. Hare finds sociopaths have in common. From CEO to small-time swindler, the sociopath lies. Hillary lies, repeatedly and recklessly.

    She lies when she doesn't need to. And she lies as much for self-aggrandizement as for political gain.

    Sociopaths, driven by an unnatural appetite to get what they want NOW–a t.v. set or the presidency– can't suffer the patience it takes to craft a lie carefully. And their narcissism, coupled with a complete lack of morality, enables them to advance the most outrageous lies. Lies that make you shake your head in disbelief. Lies that end up on "Meet the Press."

    What me worry Hillary. By the time she's busted, the lie has done its work. Confronted, she's cool as a sociopath:"So, I made a mistake." Or I'm a victim of someone else who lies. I voted for the Iraq war because Bush bamboozled me.

    In her run against Obama, Hillary has lied to show she's got the right stuff to be Commander-in-Chief. Before the Bosnian Bruhaha, she lied to pump up her senatorial role and to finesse positions she once held that could lose her the nomination. In turn, her lies substantiate two sides of the beautifully constructed Election 08 Hillary: courageous but caring. No one is as tough. No one cares as much. In Hillary's lies, Clara Barton meets Audie Murphy.

    Lies to show she's got CIC and foreign policy credentials claim she

    1. "landed under sniper fire" in Bosnia.
    2. "helped bring peace to Ireland"
    3. "negotiated open borders to let fleeing refugees into Kosovo"

    The historical record, various eye-witnesses, and contemporaneous sources prove all three claims false "beyond a reasonable doubt."

    Further, Hillary has taken the lion's share of credit for SCHIP. Orrin Hatch, with the disclaimer that he likes her, felt honor-bound to answer this claim honestly: "…does she deserve credit for SCHIP? No – Teddy does, but she doesn't."

    It is clear from HRC's First Lady records, recently released by The National Archives and President Clinton's Library, as well as numerous eye-witness and Press reports that whatever her private thoughts, HRC was head cheerleader on Bill's NAFTA team. Ironically, just days before the Ohio and Texas primaries, Hillary exploited a timely but inaccurate AP report to raise doubts about Obama's NAFTA stance. She succeeded in shifting the contest's outcome.

    Days after AP was contradicted by its own sources within the Canadian government and Press, she continued to hector her rival with yesterday's news until the clock ran out. Though no longer news, latest developments point to Clinton as the NAFTA waffler.

    Hillary does have more experience manipulating the interface of MSM and the American public. She knows that both are rapid cyclers. She knows that what's headlines one day is yesterday's onions the next.

    Surely, when she cast her vote to authorize Bush to skirt global consensus and wage a unilateral war against Iraq, she knew she'd have some 'splaining to do. But like Scarlett O'hara, she'd think about it tomorrow. I'm talking about her vote on the war in Iraq.

    Let's not mince words. I'm talking about her vote FOR the war in Iraq.

    In 2002, Hillary voted for war with her eye on the prize. Within a few days of the 9/11 attack on WTC, she knew if she was ever to have a shot at the U.S. presidency, she'd have to beat the drums for war. As Manhattan lay still burning, Hillary, the former war protester, formed a strategic political stance that would kill two birds with one stone.

    More next diary: From the ashes of 9/11, a new Hillary rises

    [Sep 10, 2016] Oil and gas crunch pushes Russia closer to fiscal crisis

    It is pretty interesting and educational to read such articles one year after they are published.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Russia is already in dire straits. The economy has contracted by 4.9pc over the past year and the downturn is certain to drag on as oil prices crumble after a tentative rally. Half of Russia's tax income comes from oil and gas. ..."
    "... Core inflation is running at 16.7pc and real incomes have fallen by 8.4pc over the past year, a far deeper cut to living standards than occurred following the Lehman crisis. ..."
    "... This man "forecasted" Russia's demise last year. He has to show that that forecast is still liable to happen ..."
    "... What Colby said is palpably true. That is why we don't hear real news and instead we are bombarded with news about their "celebs" ..."
    "... He should know. And certainly, Western media coverage of the Ukraine crisis demonstrated to many millions of people in the West that major Western media is almost all controlled by the US neocons. Anyone with half a brain can see that - but clearly not you. ..."
    "... Russia is not interested in invading anyone. The US has tried to force Russia to invade Ukraine in an iraq style trap but it didn't work. So they had to invent an invasion, the first in living memory without a single satellite, video or photo image of any air campaign, heavy armour, uniformed soldiers, testimony from friends & family of servicemen they could pay to get a statement, not even a mobile photo of a Russian sitting on a tank. ..."
    "... As the merkins tell us a devalued dollar is your problem.. the devalued rouble is the EUs problem! ..."
    "... So the political sanctions are bankrupting Russia because they dared to challenge EU expansion. Result millions of poor Russians will start to flow West and the UK will have another flood of Eastern Europeans. But at least we showed them our politicians are tough. ..."
    "... Spelling it out for Russia (or Britain) that would mean giving up Byzantine based ambitions and prospering through alliances with the Muslim Nation or Countries, including Turkey. In the short term such a move would quell internal dissent of the 11m immigrants in Russia, reduce unsustainable security expenditure with its central Asian neighbours, open and expand market for Russian goods in the Middle East, Far East and North Africa, and eventually form and provide a military-commercial -political alliance (like NATO) for the Muslim nations with Russia (with partner strength based upon what is mostly commercial placed on the table (see the gist in the Vienna Agreement between P5+1 and Iran). ..."
    "... The formation of such an alliance would trump Russia's (or Britain's) opponents ambitions and bring prosperity. ..."
    "... Propaganda. Laughable coming from the UK hack when the UK has un-payable debt and Russia has little external debt plus we have no Gold and Russia has probably 20,000 tonnes. NATO surrounds Russia yet they are the aggressors. ..."
    "... In the end, Ambrose is too ideological to be credible on the issue. Sure, Russia has couple lean years ahead, but it will come out of this ordeal stronger, not weaker. There are already reports of mini boomlets gathering steam under the surface. ..."
    Jul 23, 2015 | Telegraph

    Russia is already in dire straits. The economy has contracted by 4.9pc over the past year and the downturn is certain to drag on as oil prices crumble after a tentative rally. Half of Russia's tax income comes from oil and gas.

    Core inflation is running at 16.7pc and real incomes have fallen by 8.4pc over the past year, a far deeper cut to living standards than occurred following the Lehman crisis. This time there is no recovery in sight as Western sanctions remain in place and US shale production limits any rebound in global oil prices.

    "We've seen the full impact of the crisis in the second quarter. It is now hitting light industry and manufacturing," said Dmitri Petrov from Nomura.

    "Russia is going to be in a very difficult fiscal situation by 2017," said Lubomir Mitov from Unicredit. "By the end of next year there won't be any money left in the oil reserve fund and there is a humongous deficit in the pension fund. They are running a budget deficit of 3.7pc of GDP but without developed capital markets Russia can't really afford to run a deficit at all."

    A report by the Higher School of Economics in Moscow warned that a quarter of Russia's 83 regions are effectively in default as they struggle to cope with salary increases and welfare costs dumped on them by President Vladimir Putin before his election in 2012. "The regions in the far east are basically bankrupt," said Mr Mitov.

    Russian companies have to refinance $86bn in foreign currency debt in the second half of this year. They cannot easily roll this over since the country is still cut off from global capital markets, so they must rely on swap funding from the central bank.

    Dave Hanson

    For once, Flimflambrose paints a fairly accurate picture. His formula is to take a few facts and stretch them to their illogical conclusion to create a story that sells subscriptions to the Telegraph. Sort of like the National Enquirer. He does that well. He only mentions the other side of the story in a sentence or two, usually at the end of his column. The scary headline at the top comes true perhaps one in a thousand times, just enough to keep readers from totally dismissing him as a fruitcake. Not yellow journalism. Clever journalism.

    steph borne

    jezzam steph borne •a day ago

    ''Under Putin Russia has progressed from a respectable rank 60 on the transparency international corruption index to an appalling rank 140. It is now one of the most corrupt countries in the world, entirely due to Putin.'' http://www.theguardian.com/wor...
    .
    jezzam is using the Corruption Perceptions Index as fact?
    but it is ''Perceptions''???
    ''The CPI measures perception of corruption due to the difficulty of measuring absolute levels of corruption.[8]'' Wiki
    Just more nonsense from Jezzam

    soton

    my wife is russian, she speak's to her mother on the phone every day, from what she tell's me nothing has changed economically for the "average joe" no doubt some of the abramovich types have seen the value of their properties plunge

    Rosbif2

    So if Russia is financially sinking below the waves, how come AEP in other articles claimed that Russia could buy themselves into Greece and menace Europe?
    It seems like Greece & Russia are two drowning men who would grab onto each other & drown even faster
    AEP seems to lack "joined up thinking" in his articles

    giltedged

    This man "forecasted" Russia's demise last year. He has to show that that forecast is still liable to happen

    What Colby said is palpably true. That is why we don't hear real news and instead we are bombarded with news about their "celebs"

    Real news to show that a new world economy is being built totally outside the control of US Neocons and Globalists, that the world is now multi-polar, that for example this journalist's capital city, London, now has officially a majority of the population not merely non-British in origin, but non-European, that his own country survives because of London property sales

    Richard N

    And isn't AEP rubbing his hands with glee at this supposedly desperate situation of Russia!

    Colby, the ex-boss of the CIA, said in retirement that there is no journalist of consequence or influence in the Western media that the CIA 'does not own'.

    I often find myself remembering that, when I read Ambrose pumping out the US neocon / CIA propaganda standard lines about 'Russian aggression' in Ukraine, and so on - choosing to ignore the fact that Russia's action in Crimea was in direct response and reaction to the US Neocons' coup in Ukraine, which overthrew an elected government in a sovereign state, to replace it with the current US puppet regime in Kiev.

    Of course, this collapse of oil and gas prices are no accident at all - but are part of America's full-scale economic war against Russia, aiming to get Putin overthrown, and replaced by someone controlled by the US Globalists, leaving then
    China as the only major power centre in the world outside the Globalists' control.

    Richard N > jezzam • a day ago

    If you bothered to read what I wrote carefully, you would see that, with reference to journalists, I was simply repeating what ex-head of the CIA Mr. Colby said.

    He should know. And certainly, Western media coverage of the Ukraine crisis demonstrated to many millions of people in the West that major Western media is almost all controlled by the US neocons. Anyone with half a brain can see that - but clearly not you.

    steph borne

    ''Russian bear will roar once more, says World Bank''

    01 Jun 2015

    ''Russia economy forecast to grow by 0.7pc next year, reversing negative growth
    forecast''

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/fin...

    steph borne > TheBoggart

    Do you understand what a trade surplus is?

    Russia recorded a trade surplus of 15309 USD Million in May of 2015 http://www.tradingeconomics.co...

    Halou > steph borne

    Carried on to the absurd extreme at which all the dollars are held outside of America, the US simply prints more money thus devaluing it's currency and favoring exports (which are then cheaper to produce and cheaper buy) people giving their currency to the US in return for goods and services and restoring economic balance.

    I can understand that Russia doesn't have much experience with the 'boom and bust' cycles of market economies. They've had less than 20 years experience at it.

    Did you know that in the 19th century China's trade surplus with Europe was so vast that Europe almost went bankrupt and ran out of precious metals buying Chinese goods, surely by your thinking it was truly a golden age of eastern supremacy, western failure. Ask any Chinese person what the 19th century means to them, you might be surprised.

    steph borne > Halou

    Shame you can't provide a link or two to back up your thoughts on trade surpluses.. altho I know amongst bankrupt countries they tell you that money/assets leaving the country is a good thing....

    Strange that the Germans don't agree --

    ''Germany recorded a trade surplus of 19600 EUR Million in May of 2015. Balance ...reaching an all time high of 23468.80 EUR Million in July of 2014...'' http://www.tradingeconomics.co...

    Obviously another country heading for financial self-destruction

    steph borne

    02 Oct 2014 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new... 02 Oct 2014
    Russias-economy-is-being-hit-hard-by-sanctions.html

    01 Sept 2014 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new... 01 Sept 2014 Cameron-we-will-permanently-damage-Russias-economy.html
    cameron says.??? Aha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
    ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
    ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
    ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

    29 Dec 2014 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/fin... 29 Dec 2014 /Recession-looms-for-Russia-as-economy-shrinks-for-first-time-since-2009.html

    24 Nov 2014 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/fin... 24 Nov 2014 Russia-faces-recession-as-oil-crash-and-sanctions-cost-economy-90bn.html

    22 Dec 2014 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/fin... 22 Dec 2014 Russia-starts-bailing-out-banks-as-economy-faces-full-blown-economic-crisis.html

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/fin... 29 Apr 2015
    Ukraines-conflict-with-Russia-leaves-economy-in-ruins.htm
    .
    Still going!!!

    Graham Milne

    Russia has physical assets (oil, minerals and so on); we don't. It is the UK which is toast, not Russia.

    billsimpson > Graham Milne

    Russia is way too big & resource rich to ever be total toast. And the people are educated, even if they do drink a lot. But they could get a bit hungry in another economic collapse. All the nukes they have is the real problem. Those need to be kept secure, should another revolution occur, or the country break apart after an economic collapse.
    The US & Canada would never sit back and watch the UK melt down. Witness the Five Eyes communal global spying system.
    Electrify all the rail system that you can, so people can still get around on less oil. Some oil is essential for growing and transporting food.

    Sal20111

    Russia can't just blame it on sanctions, or price wars in oil and gas. They have not reinvested the proceeds of their prodigous fossil fuel sales smartly and neither have they diversified quickly enough - the gas sales to China was an afterthought after Ukraine.

    Putin cracked down on some of the oligarchs but not all - national wealth has clearly been sucked out by a few. Nepotism and favouritism seem to be rife. They should have learnt the lesson from their communist history not to concentrate power in state contriolled organisations. Not sure whether there is much of a small to medium business culture.

    With the amount of natural resources it has, and a well educated public, particularly in math and technical skills, Russia should be doing much better.

    rob22

    Russia is not interested in invading anyone. The US has tried to force Russia to invade Ukraine in an iraq style trap but it didn't work. So they had to invent an invasion, the first in living memory without a single satellite, video or photo image of any air campaign, heavy armour, uniformed soldiers, testimony from friends & family of servicemen they could pay to get a statement, not even a mobile photo of a Russian sitting on a tank.

    Russia is too busy building up an independent agriculture and import substitution, not to mention creating economic and trade links with its Eurasian neighbours like China & India via the silk road, BRICS, Eurasian Ecconomic Union and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation.

    A total nightmare for the US which once hoped to divide & dominate the region (see new American century doc)

    Putin enjoys about 85% approval ratings (independent foreign stats) because it knows to surrender to the US means a return to the 90`s where the nations oil revenue went to wall st and everything else

    If things get bad they`ll just devalue the ruble, get paid in dollars and spend in rubles.

    This is why most Russians are willing to dig in and play the long game.

    Londonmaxwell

    Over the top with Ambrose, as usual. Words like "depression", "crisis", "plummet", and "shrivels"; and these only in the first two paragraphs! Moscow looks absolutely normal to me: traffic jams, packed malls and restaurants, crowded airports and train stations. Unemployment is low, inflation is tolerable.

    Ambrose misses some key points.

    • First, if Gazprom's revenues fell from $146bn to $106bn, then this implies (drumroll) a revenue increase from RUB 5.1 trillion to RUB 5.8 trillion. Since Gazprom/Lukoil/Rosneft et al have USD revenues but RUB expenses, they are all doing quite nicely, as is the Russian treasury.
    • Second, while Russian companies do have foreign debt to pay back, I suspect much of this "debt" is owed to (drumroll) Russian-controlled companies in BVI, Cyprus, Luxie, Swissie, and the other usual suspects. Third, if the oil price declines more in 2015, the Kremlin will simply let the ruble slide, and the biggest losers will again be (drumroll) European exporters.

    Russia's present situation is not glorious, but it is not as precarious as Ambrose portrays it to be. Be wary of writing off Russia. The great game is just beginning.

    energman58 > Londonmaxwell

    Except that the slack has to be taken up by inflation and declining living standards - Russia isn't unique; in Zimbabwe dollar terms almost every company there did splendidly but the place is still bust. The problem is that most of the debt is USD denominated and without the investment blocked by sanctions they are looking at a declining production, low oil prices and an increasing debt service burden. Presumably they could revert to the traditional model of starving the peasants that has served them so well in the past but I am not sure if the people with the real stroke will be quite so happy to see their assets wither away...

    Londonmaxwell > energman58

    Comparing Russia with Mugabeland is a stretch, but I see your point. If the sanctions stay and the oil price goes south permanently, then Moscow has problems. But I question both assumptions. Merkel/Hollande/Renzi already face huge pressure from their business leaders to resume normal relations with Russia; i.e., drop the sanctions. As for oil prices, the USA's shale sector is already in trouble. Russia's debt burden (both public and private) is manageable and can scarcely worsen since it is cut off from the credit markets. While the oil price slump certainly hurts Russia's economy, I don't see the wheels falling off anytime soon.

    AEP writes well and is always thought-provoking, but his view that Russia is facing Armageddon because of oil prices and sanctions is way off the mark.

    steph borne

    Here come the Ukrainian Nazis.. You lot must be very happy
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/e... 18 minutes in..
    Maidan number 3 on the way as I predicted a year ago.

    midnightrambler

    Amazing how the narrative for military action is being fostered by articles such as this one.

    So many people eager for something they have no intention of getting involved in themselves

    snotcricket

    It is rather odd the posts on this thread accusing any & all who question the obvious US gov line in such articles.

    Could it be that some have better memories ie the Ukrainian crisis was in fact created by the support of the US & EU for but a few thousand sat in Independence Sq just two years after the country had voted in the target with a majority the likes of Cameron, Obama could only dream of.

    Only an idiot could not have seen the Russki response to a situation that could in but a very short timescale see NATO troops & kit but a literal footstep from Russki soil....while the ports used by the Russki fleets would be lost overnight usurped no doubt by a 'NATO' fleet of US proportions.....plainly the US knew the likely outcome to the deposing of the elected leader & replaced by the EU puppets....the Russki's had little option.....Putin or no Putin this would have been the outcome.

    With regard to the US led attack on the Russki economy with sanctions....well those sanctions hurt the UK too...but of course not the US (they have lobbyist for such matters) our farmers were hurting afore the sanctions....that became a damn sight worse after the imposition.

    The US attempts to turn off the oil/gas taps of Putin has done damage to the Russkis, similarly its done damage to W. Europe thus ourselves as oil prices are now held at a level by the sanctions reducing world supplies (the US have lobbyists for such matters) thus the god of the US, the market is skewed & forecourt prices too sighed Osborne as the overall taxation gathers 67% of what goes through the retailers till.

    This has been rumbling for over 3 years since the BRICS held their meeting to create a currency that would challenge the $ in terms of the general w.w economy but specifically oil. They did mistime the threat & should have kept their powder dry as the US economy like our own lives on borrowed time & money.....but they made the mistake the US was in such decline they couldn't respond....of course the US have the biggest of all responses to any threat....its armed forces & their technology that advances far more rapidly than any economy.

    Incidentally I write this sat at my laptop in the North of England in between running my own business & contacting clients etc..........I suspect my politics would make Putin wince.....however the chronology, actions/outcomes & the general logic of the situation has now't to do with supporting one or t'other.......& do remember the US grudgingly acknowledge without the Russkis the er, er agreement with Iran & non-proliferation would still be a can yet to be kicked down the road.

    Personally I'd be more worried that Putin has made fools of the US/EU leaders so many times thus wonder just what is the intent in assisting the brokering of any deal? With the West & Iran.

    steph borne

    If Russia was worried about the oil price they would not have been so helpful in getting the usa & Iran together on a deal which will put more downward pressure on the oil price! http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new... Barack Obama praises Putin for help clinching Iran deal

    oleteo

    Reading this article I saw only one message to be sent to the Russians:"Russians,surrender!" The rumours about the desease and the ongoing decease of the Russian economy are greatly exaggerated.

    steph borne

    June 17, 2015 at 1:44 pm Boeing said it struck a $7.4 billion deal to sell 20 of its 747-8 freighters to Russia's Volga-Dnepr Group, providing a much-needed boost to the jumbo-jet program amid flagging demand for four-engine aircraft. http://www.seattletimes.com/bu...
    MOSCOW, Russia (May 26, 2015) – Bell Helicopter,
    a Textron Inc. (NYSE: TXT) company, announced today an agreement with
    JSC Ural Works of Civil Aviation (UWCA) for the development of final
    assembly capabilities by UWCA for the Bell 407GXP in order to support
    UWCA in obtaining Russian registry to facilitate their operations. http://www.bellhelicopter.com/...
    .
    Oh business as normal at Bell looks like sanctions only to be paid heed by the useful idiots in the EU

    snotcricket > steph borne

    Yes the sanctions do seem to TTIP more in the US favour than their Western, er, er partners

    Sonduh

    Just like Brown Osborne is reducing borrowing but encouraging consumer debt which is close to 120% GDP. By the end of next year household debt will be 172% of earnings.Once household debt reaches saturation point and they start defaulting on their debt as they did in 2008 -- Game over. I hear the Black Sea is nice this time of year.

    steph borne

    A report by Sberbank warned that Gazprom's revenues are likely to drop by almost a third to $106bn this year from $146bn in 2014, seriously eroding Russia's economic base.''

    Last year $146 billion bought 4672 billion pybs this year $106 billion will buy 6148 Billion pybs
    Gazprom alone generates a tenth of Russian GDP and a fifth of all budget revenues. the Pyb devaluation vs. $ has led to a 31% increase in revenues..

    Something Salmond should take notice of should the SNP want to go for independence again. Inflation at 16% may well be but its the price of imported stuff pushing up the prices.. mainly EU goods for sale .. that won't be bought!

    As the merkins tell us a devalued dollar is your problem.. the devalued rouble is the EUs problem!

    Nikki Santoro

    What is happening is the Anglo-Muricuns are actively provoking the Chinese and Russkies into a war. However once it is all said and done, they are going to need a cover story. People are going to ask why the Russkies attacked. And then the Anglo-Muricuns are going to say that Putin put all his eggs in one basket. Yeah that is what happened but really if Putin does attack, it will be because of the endless Anglo-Muricun provocations. Just as they provoked Hilter to no end and Imperial Japan as well.

    steph borne

    Russian companies have to refinance $86bn....''

    So what are you going to do if they default.. go in and repossess..You and who's army? They are struggling trying to get Greece to comply..

    Russia's trade surplus is still in the Billions of Dollars while the usa's & UKs is mired in deficit.. Russia recorded a trade surplus of 17.142 USD Billion in May of 2015 http://www.tradingeconomics.co....

    Debt public/ external debt ratios

    U. K..................92%........317%
    usa...................74%......... 98%
    And
    Russia...............8%..........40%

    ''And while UK growth could reach 3pc this year, our expansion is far too reliant on rising personal and government debt. ''
    ''The UK, with an external deficit now equal to 6pc of GDP, the second-largest in half a century,''
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/fin...
    As ever the west points to Russia and says Look over there (for God's sake don't look here!)

    Sonduh > steph borne

    And don't forget all their gold reserves. And all their natural resources.

    Skalla

    Prosperous countries are usually benevolent (the US being the exception to the rule). Hungry countries get to be greedy and aggressive. The US with its economic and financial manipulations will turn a sleepy bear into a very awake and ravenous one, and after hibernation, the first thing bears do is FEED --

    vandieman

    A cynic could say that the US is driving the oil prices down to push Russia into a war.

    Anth2305 > vandieman

    Wait until Iranian oil comes fully on stream, which I heard some pundit on TV say could drive the cost down to < $30 a barrel, forcing the Saudis into having to eat massively into their foreign reserves.

    gardiner

    When the old USSR 'collapsed', what we call the 'Oligarchs' ( a collection of the most highly influential State officials who pocketed practically all the old State assets) corruption was at the very highest level, and society was at its weakest.

    The economy became dependant on resource exports.

    Because the country's capital was so concentrated, there was practically no 'middle class' of entrepreneurs who could invest capital in job creating, internationally competitive industry.
    Although a lot further down this road than the UK - the warning is stark!

    beatonthedonis > gardiner

    Abramovich wasn't a state official, he was a rubber-duck salesman. Berezovsky wasn't a state official, he was an academic. Khodorkovsky wasn't a state official, he was a PC importer. Gusinsky wasn't a state official, he was an unlicensed cab driver. Smolensky wasn't a state official, he was a blackmarketeer. Fridman wasn't a state official, he was a ticket tout.

    daddyseanicus

    So the political sanctions are bankrupting Russia because they dared to challenge EU expansion. Result millions of poor Russians will start to flow West and the UK will have another flood of Eastern Europeans.

    But at least we showed them our politicians are tough.

    Busufi > Jonathan

    In the East there is a saying: Why use poison when sugar delivers the same result. Or say as Deng said, It doesn't matter whether the Cat is black or white, so long it catches the mice.

    Spelling it out for Russia (or Britain) that would mean giving up Byzantine based ambitions and prospering through alliances with the Muslim Nation or Countries, including Turkey. In the short term such a move would quell internal dissent of the 11m immigrants in Russia, reduce unsustainable security expenditure with its central Asian neighbours, open and expand market for Russian goods in the Middle East, Far East and North Africa, and eventually form and provide a military-commercial -political alliance (like NATO) for the Muslim nations with Russia (with partner strength based upon what is mostly commercial placed on the table (see the gist in the Vienna Agreement between P5+1 and Iran).

    The formation of such an alliance would trump Russia's (or Britain's) opponents ambitions and bring prosperity.


    Sonduh

    " They are running a budget deficit of 3.7pc of GDP but without developed capital markets Russia can't really afford to run a deficit at all."
    We are able to have a budget deficit of 4.8% and 90% national debt, 115% non financial corporate debt , 200% financial corporate debt and 120% household debt due to voodoo economics ie. countries can print money to buy your debt.

    PS we also have unfunded liabilities like pensions which amounts to many hundred pc of GDP.
    The results showed the extraordinary sums that Britain has committed to pay its future retirees. In total, the UK is committed to paying £7.1 trillion in pensions to people who are currently either already retired or still in the workforce.

    This is equivalent to nearly five times the UK's total economic output. Such a figure may be hard to put into proportion, as a trillion – a thousand billion – is obviously a huge number.

    And we think Russia is in a bad state.

    georgesilver

    Propaganda. Laughable coming from the UK hack when the UK has un-payable debt and Russia has little external debt plus we have no Gold and Russia has probably 20,000 tonnes. NATO surrounds Russia yet they are the aggressors.

    Laughable but idiots still believe the propaganda.

    tarentius > georgesilver

    The entire world combined has 32,000 tonnes of gold reserves. Russia has 1,200 tonnes.

    Russia has government debt of 18% to GDP, a contracting GDP. It is forced to pay interest of 15% on any newly issued bonds, and that's rising. And it has a refinancing crisis on existing debt on the horizon.

    Russia's regions are heavily in debt and about 25% of them are already bankrupt. The number is rising.

    And we haven't even gotten into the problem with Russian business loans.

    Turn out the lights, the party's over for Russia.

    Bendu Be Praised > mrsgkhan

    The issue is the medias portrayal of Putin .. If the UK media was straight up with the people and just said .. "our friends in the US hate the Russians .. The Russians are growing too big and scary therefore we are going to join in destroying the Russian economy before they become uncatchable " the people would back them ..

    Lets be honest .. The Russians don't do anything that we don't .. Apart from stand up to the US that is

    Jim0341

    Yesterday, AEP spread the gloom about China, today it is Russia. As ever, he uses quotes from leading figures in banks and finance houses, which are generally bemoaning low returns on investments, rather than the wellbeing, or otherwise, of the national economy..
    Whose turn is it tomorrow, AEP? My bet is Taiwan.

    Bendu Be Praised > FreddieTCapitalist

    I think you will find that the UK are just pretending the sanctions and wars are not hurting us ..

    Just look at the budget .. 40% cuts to public services .. America tried to destroy the Russian economy by flooding the market with cheap oil but it will come back to bite them ..

    The UK should just back off .. lift sanctions against Russia and let the US squabble with them by themselves ..

    I sick of paying taxes for the US governments "War on the terror and the rest of the world"

    alec bell

    This article makes no sense. First of all, there is no way that Gazprom is responsible for 1/10th of Russia's GDP. That is mathematically impossible. 1/20th is more like it. Second, if push comes to shove, Russians are perfectly capable of developing their own vitally-important technologies. Drilling holes in the ground cannot be more complicated than conquering space.

    Whatever problems Russia has, engineering impotence is not one of them.

    And third, if Russians' reliance on resourses' exports has led to "the atrophy of their industry" as AEP rightly points out, then it must logically follow that disappearance of that revenue will inevitably result in their industrial and agricultural renaissance.

    In the end, Ambrose is too ideological to be credible on the issue. Sure, Russia has couple lean years ahead, but it will come out of this ordeal stronger, not weaker. There are already reports of mini boomlets gathering steam under the surface.

    alec bell > vlad

    vlad, JFYI: According to research conducted by the World Economic Forum (which excludes China and India due to lack of data), Russia leads the way, producing an annual total of 454,000 graduates in engineering, manufacturing and construction. The United States is in second position with 237,826 while Iran rounds off the top three with 233,695. Developing economies including Indonesia and Vietnam have also made it into the top 10, producing 140,000 and 100,000 engineering graduates each year respectively.

    Nikki Santoro

    Don't mess with the Anglo-Muricuns. They will jack you up bad. Unless you are thousands of miles away and posting anonymously. But even still they can lens you out and cleanse you out should you take it too far. However their dominance is not some much because of their brilliance. They don't have any despite their propaganda. But rather the depths they are willing to stoop to in order to secure victory. Like blowing up an airliner and then pinning it on you for instance. Or poisoning their own farmland.

    steve_from_virginia

    Futures' traders got burned earlier this year betting that oil prices would rise right back to where they were a year previously. Now they have 'gotten smart'. They know now the problem isn't Saudi Arabia but billions of bankrupt consumers the world around.

    Customers are bankrupt b/c of QE and other easing which shifts purchasing power claims from customers to drillers -- and to the banks. As the customers go broke so do the banks: instead of gas lines there are ATM lines.

    At the same time, ongoing 'success' at resource stripping is cannibalizing the purchasing power faster than ever before. Soon enough, the claims will be worthless! When the resource capital is inaccessible, so is the purchasing power -- which is the ability to obtain that resource capital.

    Business has caught itself in the net of its own propaganda; that there is such a thing as material progress out of waste ... that a better future will arrive the day after tomorrow.

    Turns out tomorrow arrives and things get worse. Who could have thunk it?

    Brabantian

    If AEP is as right about Russia as he was about the Yank shale gas 'boom' - now collapsing into a pile of toxic bad debt -

    Then our Russian friends have nothing to worry about

    midnightrambler > Guest

    The largest military spend - the US - bigger than the next 20 countries combined
    The most bases - the US with 800, including many in Germany
    Nobody wants war - but the US needs it as their largest industry is defence - apart from manipulative banking.
    We are heading for a point of rupture between those who are peaceful and those whose main aim is control and conflict.
    Take your pick
    A few leaders choose war - most people (who will fight those wars) choose peace.
    And of course all wars are bankers' wars - it is only they who profit

    Timothy D. Naegele

    Both Putin and Russia are in a spiral, from which they will not recover.

    See https://naegeleblog.wordpress.... ("Putin Meets Economic Collapse With Purges, Broken Promises")

    Tony Cocks > Timothy D. Naegele

    "Both Putin and Russia are in a spiral, from which they will not recover."

    This from someone whose former President and gang of criminal henchmen lied to the world on a monumental scale about WMD in Iraq , and waged an illegal war on that country killing hundreds of thousands in the process . Following that it was Libyas turn , then Syrias . Now its Russia the US neo con warmongers are hounding, the difference being that Russia holds the worlds biggest nuclear arsenal.
    The US forces had their kicked out of Vietnam and were thoroughly beaten despite throwing everything they had at the conflict save the nuclear option.
    Imagine what will happen if it eventually comes to armed conflict with Russia.

    midnightrambler > Timothy D. Naegele

    A yank lawyer advocating killing.
    From the land of citizen killers
    What a surprise
    Stay away

    stephenmarchant

    Instead of demonising Putin and banging on about the problems of the Russian economy the MSM should be worried about indebted Western economies including the UK and US. Russian Govt finances are not burdened with nearly £2trn of debt that has funded unsustainable nominal growth. Here in the UK the real GDP growth per capita is declining at over 3% per anum so as a nation the UK is continuing its decline:-

    Govt deficit at 5% per anum
    Govt debt at about 80% GDP
    Private debt and corporate debt each of a similar order
    Record current account deficit of about 5% per anum
    A deteriorating NIIP (Net International Investment Position)
    Uncontrolled immigration

    Our whole debt based fiat system is on the brink but few can see it whilst they party with asset and property bubbles. A few of us foresaw the first crash of 2007/8 but we now face a systemic collapse of our fiat system because of the resulting 'extend and pretend' policy of Govts and central bankers.

    In the final analysis the true prosperity of a nation will depend upon its natural resources, infrastructure, skills of its workforce and social cohesion.

    Graham Milne > JabbaTheCat

    The scale of Russian kleptocracy pales into vanishing insignificance beside the criminality of western banks (and the government who 'regulate' them). Europe and the USA are regimes run by criminals; worse than that, they are run by traitors. At least Putin isn't a traitor to his country.

    Busufi

    The best way for Russia to beat the downturn in it's oil and gas is to invest in down-stream strategic production of petroleum products that would give Russia a competitive advantage on a global scale.

    Selling raw natural resources is the Third World way of exports. Not smart.

    [Sep 10, 2016] Blood Feud The Clintons vs. the Obamas

    Notable quotes:
    "... The two lead families of the Democratic Party hate each other. ..."
    "... Barack Obama comes off as narcissistic, lazy, and shielded from reality by advisor Valerie Jarrett, effectively the shadow president since 2009. ..."
    "... I get the feeling the Clintons shrewdly used this book to get their version of events into play. ..."
    "... The new news is the medical stuff. Hillary's health problems have been more serious than generally noted. And Bill's heart condition is serious; Klein quotes his doctor, by name, telling him the disease is progressive, i.e. it will continue to get steadily worse. Bill's obsession with sealing his own legacy by putting Hillary in the White House has become single-minded. It's suggested this is the primary thing he wants to get done before he dies. ..."
    "... You see Obama good at campaigning and manipulating, but not much else. ..."
    "... There's lots of dirt about both couples. Bill still womanizes intensively; you wonder if he'll die `in the saddle' like Nelson Rockefeller did. A guy with a bad heart condition? ..."
    "... He and Hillary lead separate lives, talking daily on the phone but rarely in each other's presence, and Hillary tells friends he'll have little presence in her White House should she be elected. ..."
    "... some presidential couples become closer in the White House, where they finally have physical proximity after years of separation on the campaign trail, but this didn't happen with the Obamas, who are effectively estranged. ..."
    "... The same day, the Wall Street Journal had a front page story about Hillary distancing herself from the Obama administration. This is exactly what the book says she would do - it's half revenge, and half good politics, as seen by Bill Clinton, with the Obama administration in a tailspin on any number of fronts. ..."
    Amazon.com
    Daniel Berger

    5.0 out of 5 stars Klein documents how the Obama-Clinton feud evolved and deepened. July 8, 2014

    The two lead families of the Democratic Party hate each other. Edward Klein documents why and how in this entertaining and fast moving book. It's a good political beach read.

    It's mostly about three elections: that of 2008, where Barack Obama came from behind to knock off front-runner Hillary Clinton for the nomination, with charges and countercharges of race-card-playing in the South Carolina primary; 2012, where Bill Clinton made a whizbang nominating speech for someone he can't stand and Hillary drank the Kool-Aid in agreeing to lie about Benghazi - `it was a spontaneous riot caused by a video' - to seal Obama's reelection; and the 2016 election, where Obama promised Clinton he'd support Hillary in exchange for their carrying his water, then reneged on it.

    There are tons of details and fly-on-the-wall accounts of conversations. The Clintons come off much better than the Obamas do. We know most of the Clintons' dirt already and, as a nation, don't seem to care too much, but meanwhile they seem to have a clue about how to run the country, while the Obamas don't. Barack Obama comes off as narcissistic, lazy, and shielded from reality by advisor Valerie Jarrett, effectively the shadow president since 2009.

    I get the feeling the Clintons shrewdly used this book to get their version of events into play. Klein found leakers near the Obamas who are unhappy with them, but many Clinton sources appear to be lifelong friends seemingly given the green light to talk for this book - people who wouldn't jeopardize their relationship to do so. And for many of the quotations, there would be no question in the Clintons' minds who had given them - people party to conversations where only one or two others were present. So it stands to reason the anonymous sources don't mind the Clintons knowing.

    The Clintons, heavily covered for over 20 years, may realize there isn't much that can hurt them that hasn't already been printed. We all know about Monica, Clinton's womanizing, the financial scandals dating back to Arkansas days, Hillary's temper and so on. And a lot of the inside poop here is either flattering - Bill Clinton as political mastermind, say - or humanizing. It's remarkable that the Clintons stay together after all they've been through, but they seem politically fascinated with each other. And it's remarkable how many times Hillary initially tells Bill off about something, only to agree later that he's right and go ahead with it. Quite cute, say, is the anecdote about how Bill convinced Hillary to "have some work done" on her face after leaving the State Department, by first doing it himself.

    The new news is the medical stuff. Hillary's health problems have been more serious than generally noted. And Bill's heart condition is serious; Klein quotes his doctor, by name, telling him the disease is progressive, i.e. it will continue to get steadily worse. Bill's obsession with sealing his own legacy by putting Hillary in the White House has become single-minded. It's suggested this is the primary thing he wants to get done before he dies.

    The Obamas seem more on the defensive and more paranoid. You don't get any sense of Klein's sources spinning the narrative back in their direction. Barack comes across as a narcissist stemming from a deepset insecurity about his lack of experience pre-presidency. He's someone who doesn't read much beyond popular novels but thinks he's brilliant. He's visibly bored with the dull business of running the country. He doesn't prepare in advance for big international conferences, who he'll meet and what they'll talk about; he figures he'll just wing it. Detractors (like Hillary) call his administration "rudderless".

    He's threatened by Bill Clinton, who not only isn't intimidated by him but tries to lecture him. (There's a priceless account of a dinner between the two couples - the strained conversations, Obama ignoring Clinton by reading his Blackberry under the table, Obama sneaking out and coming back a while later smelling of cigarettes.) He's shielded from much by Valerie Jarrett, who surrounds him with sycophants and upon whom he relies too much. She has her own room in the presidential quarters and is the only outsider who eats with the family. He thinks he can move the world with his speeches.

    You see Obama good at campaigning and manipulating, but not much else. Michelle more or less invites herself and friends to Oprah Winfrey's Hawaii estate for a joint birthday party, in part to draw her back into the Obamas' camp and keep her out of Hillary's. The weeklong stay goes fine, but Oprah resists any political rapprochement, and even starts promoting Hillary not long afterwards.

    Obama picks Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg (a third Democratic family as powerful as the Obamas or Clintons) as ambassador to Japan, a way-too-late thanks for Kennedy family support in 2008 - and, apparently, just to get her halfway around the world from Hillary's candidacy.

    It amazes me that the Obamas would work this hard to undermine their own party's frontrunner for the 2016 nomination. The Clintons will have raised a billion dollars for the run.

    There's lots of dirt about both couples. Bill still womanizes intensively; you wonder if he'll die `in the saddle' like Nelson Rockefeller did. A guy with a bad heart condition?

    His penthouse over the Clinton Library in Little Rock is his bachelor pad - Hillary avoids Little Rock - and effectively the Playboy Mansion South, the scene of many swinging parties. Klein suggests that the town not only shields its favorite son from scrutiny, but that its women, married and single alike, line up to sleep with him. Klein quotes one person saying Clinton will hit on married women even in front of their own husbands. (You'd think in Arkansas this would get a man shot, but then most other men there don't enjoy lifelong Secret Service protection.) He and Hillary lead separate lives, talking daily on the phone but rarely in each other's presence, and Hillary tells friends he'll have little presence in her White House should she be elected.

    Klein notes some presidential couples become closer in the White House, where they finally have physical proximity after years of separation on the campaign trail, but this didn't happen with the Obamas, who are effectively estranged. Michelle Obama, of whom White House staffers are terrified, will burst in suddenly on her husband if he's in a room with other women; she's suspicious of him, believing he'd like to emulate Clinton's ways. Her post-White House plans, according to this book, don't include him. She and Valerie Jarrett, who plans to follow her, envision a high life of globetrotting funded by wealthy donors where they sit on corporate boards and don't have to do much work.

    Barack Obama wants to retain control of the party, but Bill Clinton already sees him losing his clout and political capital.

    The real question mark goes back to Bill Clinton's health. If he dies - a guy with this bad a heart condition? Waitresses and Little Rock matrons, think about it - some think Hillary, relying upon his advice forever, may not go ahead with a presidential run. It often sounds like more his obsession than hers, other than the first-woman-president thing. The family foundation's reins have been handed to Chelsea, in part to take pressure off Bill, and she is being positioned as his replacement as Mom's closest advisor and confidante. Others think Chelsea would encourage her mother to run if Bill dies because it's what he would have wanted. You get the feeling that Hillary, for all her ambition, doesn't have all that much fire in the belly - that it's Bill who's given her the vision, encouraged her, pushed her, made her see a path through obstacles, and been willing to fight battles large and small where she would have been more inclined to go along, get along and acquiesce.

    Truly surreal is the ending. Bill tells an appalled Hillary, in front of friends, exactly how to stage his funeral if he dies before the election: what to wear (widow's weeds), where to do it (Arlington, he's a former commander in chief.) If properly done, he said, the video footage will be worth a couple of million votes." Not for nothing do they call him the smartest political mind of his time.

    PS The day before I filed this, I saw a story online at Business Insider quoting an unnamed Clinton confidante attacking this book as lies, all lies, nothing but lies. The story didn't specifically rebut anything or cite any specific error in the book; it reprised a finding of an error in one of Klein's previous books. It suggests to me, though, this book is right, if the attack against it is as unspecific as "lies, lies, nothing but lies." Perhaps the Clinton camp is doing some preventive public fulminating so that they can deny the unflattering or unfavorable parts of it. I still think they planted a lot of this.

    The same day, the Wall Street Journal had a front page story about Hillary distancing herself from the Obama administration. This is exactly what the book says she would do - it's half revenge, and half good politics, as seen by Bill Clinton, with the Obama administration in a tailspin on any number of fronts.

    [Sep 10, 2016] Obama has proven to be a weak chief executive who is unable to work well with congressional leaders. Obama is not well respected in the Democratic Party

    Notable quotes:
    "... Valerie Jarrett is the third partner in the Obama marriage. She is the mother figure Obama turns to for solace while she is Michelle';s closet confidant. This tiger lady calls the shots influencing the POTUS and his power spouse. ..."
    "... Both Hillary and Bill Clinton have serious health problems they seek to disguise. Hillary and Bill have both had extensive cosmetic surgery. ..."
    amazon.com

    Bloody Feud presents in grisly details the sanguinary slugfest between the Obamas and Clintons over power in the White House, July 5, 2014

    By C. M Mills

    Verified Purchase(What's this?)

    This review is from: Blood Feud: The Clintons vs. the Obamas (Hardcover)

    Blood Feud is a political hardball slammed into the guts of the two most powerful couples in the Democratic Party. Ed Klein who won fame for his earlier ":The Amateur": book about the Obama dysfunctional White House has returned with another blockbuster rich with gossip and political junkie insider poop.

    Among the revelations of Mr Klein":

    1. The Clintons and Obamas loathe one another.
    2. The Clintons worked hard for Obama to be re-elected in 2008. They anticipated that this support would result in Obama';s support for Hillary in her anticipated 2016 quest for the POTUS. This deal has not seen fruition. The Clintons accuse Obama of lying and a lack of loyalty to the Clintons.
    3. Michelle Obama wears the pants in the family as Barack is an uxorious husband. Michelle has considered a run for the Illinois Senate seat but is wary of this political race due to the hard work it would entail.
    4. Valerie Jarrett is the third partner in the Obama marriage. She is the mother figure Obama turns to for solace while she is Michelle';s closet confidant. This tiger lady calls the shots influencing the POTUS and his power spouse.
    5. Both Hillary and Bill Clinton have serious health problems they seek to disguise. Hillary and Bill have both had extensive cosmetic surgery.
    6. Bill Clinton continues his adulterous ways.
    7. Look for a Hillary run for president in 2016 in a campaign masterminded by Bill. Both Clintons are eager to return to the White House.
    8. Oprah Winfrey feels betrayed by the Obamas and has little to do with them. She will probably support Hillary in 2016 as will Caroline and the Kennedy family.
    9. Hillary and the State Department screwed up the Benghazi terrorist attack and covered up to protect their butts.
    10. Obama has proven to be a weak chief executive who is unable to work well with congressional leaders. Obama is not well respected in the Democratic Party.

    Edward Klein has done yeoman-like work in presenting this short but very revealing look into the lives of the Clintons and Obamas.

    All readers who want to learn more about the kind of people leading our nation should read this book and have their eyes opened.

    Recommended and controversial. Read it and decide what you think!

    [Sep 09, 2016] Deep roots of the chaos in Ukraine

    Notable quotes:
    "... I hope that Jonathan Steele's excellent critique of Richard Sakwa's book Frontline Ukraine ( Review , 21 February) will be widely read. It is the first piece I have discovered in the UK press to provide a realistic synopsis of the background to current events. ..."
    "... the process was deliberately sabotaged by US intelligence agencies, working from the hypothesis that a tie-up between the EU and a democratic Russia would pose a major threat to American long-term economic interests. ..."
    "... (Lieut Cdr, Ret'd; Former Nato intelligence analyst), Deddington, Oxfordshire ..."
    Feb 25, 2015 | The Guardian

    I hope that Jonathan Steele's excellent critique of Richard Sakwa's book Frontline Ukraine (Review, 21 February) will be widely read. It is the first piece I have discovered in the UK press to provide a realistic synopsis of the background to current events.

    The real ending of the cold war was in 1986, when the USSR leadership resolved on a five-year programme to move to parliamentary democracy and a market economy. The intention in Moscow was to use that period to achieve a progressive convergence with the EU.

    There could have been huge benefits to Europe in such convergence, but the process was deliberately sabotaged by US intelligence agencies, working from the hypothesis that a tie-up between the EU and a democratic Russia would pose a major threat to American long-term economic interests.

    The chaos that we now have, and the distrust of America which motivates Russian policy, stems primarily from decisions taken in Washington 30 years ago.

    Martin Packard
    (Lieut Cdr, Ret'd; Former Nato intelligence analyst), Deddington, Oxfordshire

    [Sep 09, 2016] All candidates in 2016 Presidential elections with the possible exception of Trump, are neocons

    All candidates with the possible exception of Trump, are either neocons or neocon stooges: "Most revealing are their policies concerning war and peace. Despite minor differences, all three (and those to come) want more military spending. Each thinks the United States can and should manage stability in the Middle East, on Russia's border, etc. All three demonize Russia and Iran, countries that do not threaten us. Thus they would risk war, which would bolster government power while harming the American people and others."
    Notable quotes:
    "... "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence-it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant, and a fearful master." ..."
    "... "The state - or, to make matters more concrete, the government - consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office. Their principal device to that end is to search out groups who pant and pine for something they can't get, and to promise to give it to them. Nine times out of ten that promise is worth nothing. The tenth time it is made good by looting 'A' to satisfy 'B'. In other words, government is a broker in pillage, and every election is a sort of advanced auction on stolen goods." ..."
    "... Do the four declared candidates really fit this picture? You can judge for yourself. Hillary Clinton, the sole Democrat so far, is long associated with activist government across the range of issues domestic and foreign. Her newfound rhetorical populism can't obscure her association with elitist social engineering. ..."
    "... What about Republicans Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, and Marco Rubio? Are they "men of system"? Despite their talk about reining in government, I think the answer is yes. ..."
    "... Most revealing are their policies concerning war and peace. Despite minor differences, all three (and those to come) want more military spending. Each thinks the United States can and should manage stability in the Middle East, on Russia's border, etc. All three demonize Russia and Iran, countries that do not threaten us. Thus they would risk war, which would bolster government power while harming the American people and others. ..."
    May 01, 2015 | http://www.insidesources.com/laymans-early-guide-presidential-election/

    From Opinion: A Layman's Early Guide to the Presidential Election

    Posted to Politics As you may have heard, the 2016 presidential campaign is underway. Let's not miss the forest for the trees. While the candidates will make promises to help the middle class or this or that subgroup, remember this: each aspirant wants to govern, that is, rule, you – even those whose rhetoric might suggest otherwise.

    George Washington supposedly said:

    "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence-it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant, and a fearful master."

    Although no evidence links the quotation to the first president, its truth is indisputable. Like it or not, government's distinguishing feature, beginning with its power to tax, is its legal authority to use force against even peaceful individuals minding their own business. Ultimately, that's what rule means, even in a democratic republic, where each adult gets a vote in choosing who will rule.

    As that keen observer of the American political scene, H. L. Mencken, put it years ago,

    "The state - or, to make matters more concrete, the government - consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office. Their principal device to that end is to search out groups who pant and pine for something they can't get, and to promise to give it to them. Nine times out of ten that promise is worth nothing. The tenth time it is made good by looting 'A' to satisfy 'B'. In other words, government is a broker in pillage, and every election is a sort of advanced auction on stolen goods."

    If you keep that perspective during the coming campaign, you'll be in a much better position to judge the candidates than if you take their solemn pronouncements at face value.

    Do the four declared candidates really fit this picture? You can judge for yourself. Hillary Clinton, the sole Democrat so far, is long associated with activist government across the range of issues domestic and foreign. Her newfound rhetorical populism can't obscure her association with elitist social engineering.

    In The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759), Adam Smith described such a politician as

    "the man of system [who] seems to imagine that he can arrange the different members of a great society with as much ease as the hand arranges the different pieces upon a chess-board. He does not consider that the pieces upon the chess-board have no other principle of motion besides that which the hand impresses upon them; but that, in the great chess-board of human society, every single piece has a principle of motion of its own, altogether different from that which the legislature might choose to impress upon it."

    Has Clinton ever considered that we're not chess pieces in her grand schemes? We might like to make our own decisions.

    What about Republicans Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, and Marco Rubio? Are they "men of system"? Despite their talk about reining in government, I think the answer is yes. At best they propose only to tinker with the welfare-regulatory-warfare state without challenging the institutional privileges that enrich the well-connected or the institutional barriers that impede the marginalized in improving their lives.

    One can see their obeisance toward government power in their support for the "war on drugs," the presumption that government should monitor what we ingest and punish us for violating its prohibitions. Another sign is the candidates' views on immigration. If people have natural rights, why do they need the government's permission to live and work here? A third indicator is their position on world trade. Can you imagine any of them advocating a laissez-faire trade policy with no role for government?

    Most revealing are their policies concerning war and peace. Despite minor differences, all three (and those to come) want more military spending. Each thinks the United States can and should manage stability in the Middle East, on Russia's border, etc. All three demonize Russia and Iran, countries that do not threaten us. Thus they would risk war, which would bolster government power while harming the American people and others.

    Appearances can deceive: they're persons of system all.

    [Sep 09, 2016] Americas True Role in Syria

    Notable quotes:
    "... In January, the New York Times finally reported on a secret 2013 Presidential order to the CIA to arm Syrian rebels. As the account explained, Saudi Arabia provides substantial financing of the armaments, while the CIA, under Obama's orders, provides organizational support and training. ..."
    "... What kinds of arms are the US, Saudis, Turks, Qataris, and others supplying to the Syrian rebels? Which groups are receiving the arms? What is the role of US troops, air cover, and other personnel in the war? The US government isn't answering these questions, and mainstream media aren't pursuing them, either. ..."
    "... Through occasional leaks, investigative reports, statements by other governments, and rare statements by US officials, we know that America is engaged in an active, ongoing, CIA-coordinated war both to overthrow Assad and to fight ISIS. America's allies in the anti-Assad effort include Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar, and other countries in the region. The US has spent billions of dollars on arms, training, special operations forces, air strikes, and logistical support for the rebel forces, including international mercenaries. American allies have spent billions of dollars more. The precise sums are not reported. ..."
    "... To those at the center of the US military-industrial complex, this secrecy is as it should be. Their position is that a vote by Congress 15 years ago authorizing the use of armed force against those culpable for the 9/11 attack gives the president and military carte blanche to fight secret wars in the Middle East and Africa. Why should the US explain publicly what it is doing? That would only jeopardize the operations and strengthen the enemy. The public does not need to know. ..."
    "... I subscribe to a different view: wars should be a last resort and should be constrained by democratic scrutiny. This view holds that America's secret war in Syria is illegal both under the US Constitution (which gives Congress the sole power to declare war) and under the United Nations Charter, and that America's two-sided war in Syria is a cynical and reckless gamble. The US-led efforts to topple Assad are not aimed at protecting the Syrian people, as Obama and Clinton have suggested from time to time, but are a US proxy war against Iran and Russia, in which Syria happens to be the battleground. ..."
    "... The stakes of this war are much higher and much more dangerous than America's proxy warriors imagine. As the US has prosecuted its war against Assad, Russia has stepped up its military support to his government. In the US mainstream media, Russia's behavior is an affront: how dare the Kremlin block the US from overthrowing the Syrian government? The result is a widening diplomatic clash with Russia, one that could escalate and lead – perhaps inadvertently – to the point of military conflict. ..."
    "... This is the main reason why the US security state refuses to tell the truth. The American people would call for peace rather than perpetual war. Obama has a few months left in office to repair his broken legacy. He should start by leveling with the American people. ..."
    www.defenddemocracy.press

    - Defend Democracy Press

    Syria's civil war is the most dangerous and destructive crisis on the planet. Since early 2011, hundreds of thousands have died; around ten million Syrians have been displaced; Europe has been convulsed with Islamic State (ISIS) terror and the political fallout of refugees; and the United States and its NATO allies have more than once come perilously close to direct confrontation with Russia.

    Unfortunately, President Barack Obama has greatly compounded the dangers by hiding the US role in Syria from the American people and from world opinion. An end to the Syrian war requires an honest accounting by the US of its ongoing, often secretive role in the Syrian conflict since 2011, including who is funding, arming, training, and abetting the various sides. Such exposure would help bring to an end many countries' reckless actions.

    A widespread – and false – perception is that Obama has kept the US out of the Syrian war. Indeed, the US right wing routinely criticizes him for having drawn a line in the sand for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad over chemical weapons, and then backing off when Assad allegedly crossed it (the issue remains murky and disputed, like so much else in Syria). A leading columnist for the Financial Times, repeating the erroneous idea that the US has remained on the sidelines, recently implied that Obama had rejected the advice of then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to arm the Syrian rebels fighting Assad.

    Yet the curtain gets lifted from time to time. In January, the New York Times finally reported on a secret 2013 Presidential order to the CIA to arm Syrian rebels. As the account explained, Saudi Arabia provides substantial financing of the armaments, while the CIA, under Obama's orders, provides organizational support and training.

    Unfortunately, the story came and went without further elaboration by the US government or follow up by the New York Times. The public was left in the dark: How big are the ongoing CIA-Saudi operations? How much is the US spending on Syria per year? What kinds of arms are the US, Saudis, Turks, Qataris, and others supplying to the Syrian rebels? Which groups are receiving the arms? What is the role of US troops, air cover, and other personnel in the war? The US government isn't answering these questions, and mainstream media aren't pursuing them, either.

    On more than a dozen occasions, Obama has told the American people that there would be "no US boots on the ground." Yet every few months, the public is also notified in a brief government statement that US special operations forces are being deployed to Syria. The Pentagon routinely denies that they are in the front lines. But when Russia and the Assad government recently carried out bombing runs and artillery fire against rebel strongholds in northern Syria, the US notified the Kremlin that the attacks were threatening American troops on the ground. The public has been given no explanation about their mission, its costs, or counterparties in Syria.

    Through occasional leaks, investigative reports, statements by other governments, and rare statements by US officials, we know that America is engaged in an active, ongoing, CIA-coordinated war both to overthrow Assad and to fight ISIS. America's allies in the anti-Assad effort include Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar, and other countries in the region. The US has spent billions of dollars on arms, training, special operations forces, air strikes, and logistical support for the rebel forces, including international mercenaries. American allies have spent billions of dollars more. The precise sums are not reported.

    The US public has had no say in these decisions. There has been no authorizing vote or budget approval by the US Congress. The CIA's role has never been explained or justified. The domestic and international legality of US actions has never been defended to the American people or the world.

    To those at the center of the US military-industrial complex, this secrecy is as it should be. Their position is that a vote by Congress 15 years ago authorizing the use of armed force against those culpable for the 9/11 attack gives the president and military carte blanche to fight secret wars in the Middle East and Africa. Why should the US explain publicly what it is doing? That would only jeopardize the operations and strengthen the enemy. The public does not need to know.

    I subscribe to a different view: wars should be a last resort and should be constrained by democratic scrutiny. This view holds that America's secret war in Syria is illegal both under the US Constitution (which gives Congress the sole power to declare war) and under the United Nations Charter, and that America's two-sided war in Syria is a cynical and reckless gamble. The US-led efforts to topple Assad are not aimed at protecting the Syrian people, as Obama and Clinton have suggested from time to time, but are a US proxy war against Iran and Russia, in which Syria happens to be the battleground.

    The stakes of this war are much higher and much more dangerous than America's proxy warriors imagine. As the US has prosecuted its war against Assad, Russia has stepped up its military support to his government. In the US mainstream media, Russia's behavior is an affront: how dare the Kremlin block the US from overthrowing the Syrian government? The result is a widening diplomatic clash with Russia, one that could escalate and lead – perhaps inadvertently – to the point of military conflict.

    These are issues that should be subject to legal scrutiny and democratic control. I am confident that the American people would respond with a resounding "no" to the ongoing US-led war of regime change in Syria. The American people want security – including the defeat of ISIS – but they also recognize the long and disastrous history of US-led regime-change efforts, including in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Central America, Africa, and Southeast Asia.

    This is the main reason why the US security state refuses to tell the truth. The American people would call for peace rather than perpetual war. Obama has a few months left in office to repair his broken legacy. He should start by leveling with the American people.

    [Sep 09, 2016] Why Hillary Clinton Should Not Be The Democratic Presidential Nominee

    Notable quotes:
    "... The Ambassador's urging to her said: "The actions of June 28 can only be considered a coup d'etat. ... It bears mentioning that, whereas the resolution [by the junta] adopted June 28 refers only to Zelaya, its effect was to remove the entire executive branch. ... His forced removal by the military was clearly illegal, and [puppett-leader Roberto] Micheletti's ascendance as 'interim president' was totally illegitimate." ..."
    "... However, instead, she joined with then-Senator Jim DeMint (now head of the Heritage Foundation and the chief sponsor of the political career of Texas U.S. Senator Ted Cruz) in propping up the fascist regime. ..."
    www.huffingtonpost.com

    Hillary's corruption goes beyond that, however.

    When a fascist putsch, a coup d'etat, overthrew at gunpoint the popular progressive democratic President of Honduras on 28 June 2009, and all countries of the world except Israel and the United States promptly declared the junta-installed government illegitimate, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton refused to join all other nations in rejecting the fascist regime. As I previously reported this matter in detail, the U.S. Ambassador to Honduras told her in a cable, that President Manuel Zelaya had been illegally replaced by the junta-appointed stooge Roberto Michelettti, yet she still refused.

    The Ambassador's urging to her said: "The actions of June 28 can only be considered a coup d'etat. ... It bears mentioning that, whereas the resolution [by the junta] adopted June 28 refers only to Zelaya, its effect was to remove the entire executive branch. ... His forced removal by the military was clearly illegal, and [puppett-leader Roberto] Micheletti's ascendance as 'interim president' was totally illegitimate."

    However, instead, she joined with then-Senator Jim DeMint (now head of the Heritage Foundation and the chief sponsor of the political career of Texas U.S. Senator Ted Cruz) in propping up the fascist regime.

    Promptly Honduras descended into hell, suddenly having the world's highest murder-rate, and becoming a haven of narco-trafficking. What was Hillary thinking? She expressed contempt for Zelaya, but what was really happening here was that American international companies liked paying their Honduran contractors sub-human wages to workers at their plants in Honduras. The Honduran aristocrats owned those factories, and the U.S. aristocrats shared with them the profits from this "free-market" slavery. What did Hillary care about the ongoing terror, murders, and soaring narco-trafficking?

    Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They're Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST'S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

    [Sep 09, 2016] Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Enabled the Coup in Honduras

    Notable quotes:
    "... Under longstanding and clear-cut US law, all US aid to Honduras - except democracy assistance - including all military aid, should have been immediately suspended following the coup. ..."
    "... Why wasn't US aid to Honduras suspended following the coup? The justification given by Clinton's State Department on August 25 for not suspending US aid to Honduras was that events in Honduras were murky and it was not clear whether a coup had taken place. Clinton's State Department claimed that State Department lawyers were studying the murky question of whether a coup had taken place. ..."
    "... This justification was a lie, and Clinton's State Department knew it was a lie. By July 24, 2009, the State Department, including Secretary Clinton, knew clearly that the action of the Honduran military to remove President Zelaya on June 28, 2009, constituted a coup. On July 24, US Ambassador to Honduras Hugo Llorens sent a cable to top US officials, including Secretary of State Clinton, with subject: "Open and Shut: The Case of the Honduran Coup," thoroughly documenting the assertion that "there is no doubt" that the events of June 28 "constituted an illegal and unconstitutional coup." ..."
    Feb 23, 2016 | www.truth-out.org

    On June 28, 2009, when Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State, democratically elected Honduran President Manuel Zelaya was overthrown by a military coup. The United Nations, the European Union and the Organization of American States (OAS) condemned the coup, and on July 5, Honduras was suspended from the OAS.

    Under longstanding and clear-cut US law, all US aid to Honduras - except democracy assistance - including all military aid, should have been immediately suspended following the coup.

    On August 7, 15 House Democrats, led by Rep. Raúl Grijalva, sent a letter to the administration which began, "As you know, on June 28th, 2009, a military coup took place in Honduras," and said: "The State Department should fully acknowledge that a military coup has taken place and follow through with the total suspension of non-humanitarian aid, as required by law."

    Why wasn't US aid to Honduras suspended following the coup? The justification given by Clinton's State Department on August 25 for not suspending US aid to Honduras was that events in Honduras were murky and it was not clear whether a coup had taken place. Clinton's State Department claimed that State Department lawyers were studying the murky question of whether a coup had taken place.

    This justification was a lie, and Clinton's State Department knew it was a lie. By July 24, 2009, the State Department, including Secretary Clinton, knew clearly that the action of the Honduran military to remove President Zelaya on June 28, 2009, constituted a coup. On July 24, US Ambassador to Honduras Hugo Llorens sent a cable to top US officials, including Secretary of State Clinton, with subject: "Open and Shut: The Case of the Honduran Coup," thoroughly documenting the assertion that "there is no doubt" that the events of June 28 "constituted an illegal and unconstitutional coup."

    ... ... ...

    [Sep 09, 2016] Hillary the Hawk

    Notable quotes:
    "... The Democrats' Athena only differs from Bush on the details. ..."
    "... Her bellicose interventionism has a history: it was Hillary, you'll recall, who berated her husband for not bombing Belgrade soon enough and hard enough. As Gail Sheehy relates in Hillary's Choice: ..."
    "... Hillary would have occupied Iraq a decade earlier, riding into Baghdad at the head of her troops like Pallas Athena descending on the Trojans, striding boldly into what Gen. William E. Odom has described as "the greatest strategic disaster in our history." ..."
    "... Hillary, however, didn't let any inconvenient facts get in her way. She boasted that it was under a Democratic administration that the U.S. "changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change" and took credit for the bright idea of putting Ahmad Chalabi, convicted embezzler and known liar, on the U.S. payroll. Her speech reads like a Weekly Standard editorial, reiterating each of the War Party's talking points-the bio-weapons fantasy, the links to al-Qaeda gambit, the phantom nuclear arsenal: "This much," she maintaind, "is undisputed." ..."
    "... When it comes to Iran, however, she is just as belligerent as the next neocon: Pelosi co-sponsored legislation imposing draconian economic sanctions on Iran and stops just short of calling another war. ..."
    www.theamericanconservative.com

    The Democrats' Athena only differs from Bush on the details.

    Hillary's newfound centrism isn't completely insincere. Her bellicose interventionism has a history: it was Hillary, you'll recall, who berated her husband for not bombing Belgrade soon enough and hard enough. As Gail Sheehy relates in Hillary's Choice:

    Hillary expressed her views by phone to the President: 'I urged him to bomb.' The Clintons argued the issue over the next few days. [The president expressed] what-ifs: What if bombing promoted more executions? What if it took apart the NATO alliance? Hillary responded, 'You cannot let this go on at the end of a century that has seen the major holocaust of our time. What do we have NATO for if not to defend our way of life?' The next day the President declared that force was necessary.

    Together with Madeleine Albright-who famously complained to Colin Powell, "What good is it having this superb military you're always talking about if we can't use it?"-Hillary constituted the Amazonian wing of the Democratic Party during the years of her husband's presidency. Her effort to outflank the Republicans on the right when it comes to the Iran issue is a logical extension of her natural bellicosity.

    Hillary is nothing if not consistent: in her floor speech to the Senate during the debate over the resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq, she declared, "the facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt"-a statement she has never acknowledged regretting. Particularly endearing to the War Party, she framed her "aye" vote in terms of the classic neoconservative myth of Bush I's betrayal:

    The first President Bush assembled a global coalition, including many Arab states, and threw Saddam out after forty-three days of bombing and a hundred hours of ground operations. The U.S.-led coalition then withdrew, leaving the Kurds and the Shiites, who had risen against Saddam Hussein at our urging, to Saddam's revenge.

    Hillary would have occupied Iraq a decade earlier, riding into Baghdad at the head of her troops like Pallas Athena descending on the Trojans, striding boldly into what Gen. William E. Odom has described as "the greatest strategic disaster in our history."

    Hillary hails the 1998 bombing of Iraq, ordered by her husband, which killed thousands of Iraqi civilians, and recounts the official mythology promulgated by the Bush administration: "[T]he so-called presidential palaces in reality were huge compounds well suited to hold weapons labs, stocks, and records which Saddam Hussein was required by UN resolution to turn over. When Saddam blocked the inspection process, the inspectors left." As we now know, there was nothing even approaching WMD in those palaces, and Iraq had been effectively disarmed at that point. In late February or early March, Scott Ritter, then a UN arms inspector, met with then-U.S. ambassador to the UN Bill Richardson. Ritter was told to provoke an incident so the U.S. could finish bombing by the start of the Islamic New Year holiday.

    Hillary, however, didn't let any inconvenient facts get in her way. She boasted that it was under a Democratic administration that the U.S. "changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change" and took credit for the bright idea of putting Ahmad Chalabi, convicted embezzler and known liar, on the U.S. payroll. Her speech reads like a Weekly Standard editorial, reiterating each of the War Party's talking points-the bio-weapons fantasy, the links to al-Qaeda gambit, the phantom nuclear arsenal: "This much," she maintaind, "is undisputed."

    What is undisputed these days is that the entire rationale for war was based on trumped-up evidence of Iraq's alleged transgressions, but Hillary is unrepentant: "No, I don't regret giving the president authority because at the time it was in the context of weapons of mass destruction, grave threats to the United States, and clearly, Saddam Hussein had been a real problem for the international community for more than a decade."

    But there was no threat to the U.S. and Hillary knows it. What's more, her hardcore constituency knows it, and they are becoming increasingly alienated from-even actively hostile to-their putative presidential frontrunner over this issue. Their anger is stoked by evidence that Hillary has imbibed the same neocon Kool-Aid that has intoxicated the Bush administration and blinded it to the failure of its policies in Iraq.

    On a trip to Iraq during which 55 people-including one American soldier -were killed by suicide bombers, Hillary was merrily chirping that the occupation was "functioning quite well" and that the surge of suicide attacks indicated that the insurgency was failing. Security was so bad that the road to the airport was impassable, and the Senate delegation had to be transported to the Green Zone by military helicopter. They dared not venture out into the streets of Baghdad.

    The disconnect between rhetoric and reality, between the antiwar views of Hillary's left-wing base and the militant interventionism of Wittmann and the DLC crowd, finally forced her to come to grips with the contradiction-or at least to appear to do so. This occurred not in a public speech but in an e-mail sent to her supporters in which the trouble she is in is acknowledged in the first sentence: "The war in Iraq is on the minds of many of you who have written or who have called my office asking questions and expressing frustration." Chances are, these callers were expressing frustration not only with the policies of the Bush administration but with her own complicity with Bush's Middle Eastern agenda of seemingly endless aggression.

    She falls back on the old "there are no quick and easy answers" ploy to give an aura of thoughtfulness to a dishonest and constantly shifting position on the war. While insisting that we should not "allow this to be an open-ended commitment without limits or end," she reassures the War Party by distancing herself from John Murtha and others who want an orderly withdrawal in a relatively short time: "Nor do I believe that we can or should pull out of Iraq immediately." She hails the elections as the signal that we can start the withdrawal process sometime "in the coming year," but not completely: we must leave behind "a smaller contingent in safer areas with greater intelligence and quick strike capabilities"-a tripwire, in short, in the form of permanent bases.

    ... ... ...

    What does Hillary want? A smarter, smoother, better-planned interventionism, one that our allies find more amenable and yet is, in many ways, more militant than the Republican version-one that "levels with the American people" about the costs of empire and yet doesn't dispute the alleged necessity of American hegemony. As she finds her voice as a would-be commander in chief, it isn't one the traditional Left in this country will recognize.

    ... ... ...

    If the Democratic establishment's stance on the war is at odds with the party's antiwar activist base, then their outright warmongering on the Iranian issue puts the two factions on a collision course. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi-who effectively quashed fellow California Democrat Lynn Woolsey's resolution calling for a withdrawal timetable -has followed the Hillary-Emanuel-DLC party line, while managing somehow to assuage her constituents with plenty of pork and partisan rhetoric. When it comes to Iran, however, she is just as belligerent as the next neocon: Pelosi co-sponsored legislation imposing draconian economic sanctions on Iran and stops just short of calling another war.

    [Sep 09, 2016] Benghazi Just a Symptom; Interventionism Is the Disease

    Notable quotes:
    "... the Benghazi attack, for all its shock and tragedy, is but one detail in a panorama of misadventure, an in many ways unsurprising consequence of the hubris of liberal interventionism's false conviction that the American military can casually pop in and out of the whole world's problems without suffering cost or consequence ..."
    "... as Tim Carney rightly argues at The Washington Examiner , and the "useful lesson from Benghazi isn't about a White House lying (shocking!), but about the inherent messiness of regime change and the impossibility of a quick, clean war." ..."
    "... And the foreign policy establishment on the other side of the aisle must not be left without its due share of blame should that possibility come to pass. Though Benghazi committee chairman Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) was right to attempt to widen the report's focus past Clinton specifically, neoconservatives' all-too-convenient attention to the errors of Benghazi make it all easy for them to gloss over the bigger issue at hand: that none of this would have happened had America stuck to a foreign policy of realism and restraint, minding our own business and defending our own interests instead of gallivanting off to play revolutionary in one more country with no vital connection to our own. ..."
    "... Benghazi is a symptom-a serious one, at that-but the disease is interventionism. ..."
    Jun 30, 2016 | Reason.com

    ... ... ...

    And the Benghazi attack, for all its shock and tragedy, is but one detail in a panorama of misadventure, an in many ways unsurprising consequence of the hubris of liberal interventionism's false conviction that the American military can casually pop in and out of the whole world's problems without suffering cost or consequence.

    Indeed, the "2012 attack that killed four Americans was a consequence of the disorder and violence the administration left in the wake of its drive-by war," as Tim Carney rightly argues at The Washington Examiner, and the "useful lesson from Benghazi isn't about a White House lying (shocking!), but about the inherent messiness of regime change and the impossibility of a quick, clean war."

    Unfortunately, that is a lesson too few in Washington are willing to learn. Clinton herself maintains in the face of overwhelming evidence that her handiwork in Libya is an example of "smart power at its best"-a phrase whose blatant inaccuracy should haunt her for the rest of her political career. With arguments in favor of Libya, round two already swirling and Clinton's poll numbers holding strong, it is not difficult to imagine a Clinton White House dragging America back to fiddle with a country it was never particularly interested in fixing by this time next year.

    And the foreign policy establishment on the other side of the aisle must not be left without its due share of blame should that possibility come to pass. Though Benghazi committee chairman Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) was right to attempt to widen the report's focus past Clinton specifically, neoconservatives' all-too-convenient attention to the errors of Benghazi make it all easy for them to gloss over the bigger issue at hand: that none of this would have happened had America stuck to a foreign policy of realism and restraint, minding our own business and defending our own interests instead of gallivanting off to play revolutionary in one more country with no vital connection to our own.

    Benghazi is a symptom-a serious one, at that-but the disease is interventionism. That's the real story here, and it's a bipartisan failure of judgment which shows all the signs of running on repeat.

    [Sep 09, 2016] Deep roots of the chaos in Ukraine

    Notable quotes:
    "... I hope that Jonathan Steele's excellent critique of Richard Sakwa's book Frontline Ukraine ( Review , 21 February) will be widely read. It is the first piece I have discovered in the UK press to provide a realistic synopsis of the background to current events. ..."
    "... the process was deliberately sabotaged by US intelligence agencies, working from the hypothesis that a tie-up between the EU and a democratic Russia would pose a major threat to American long-term economic interests. ..."
    "... (Lieut Cdr, Ret'd; Former Nato intelligence analyst), Deddington, Oxfordshire ..."
    Feb 25, 2015 | The Guardian

    I hope that Jonathan Steele's excellent critique of Richard Sakwa's book Frontline Ukraine (Review, 21 February) will be widely read. It is the first piece I have discovered in the UK press to provide a realistic synopsis of the background to current events.

    The real ending of the cold war was in 1986, when the USSR leadership resolved on a five-year programme to move to parliamentary democracy and a market economy. The intention in Moscow was to use that period to achieve a progressive convergence with the EU.

    There could have been huge benefits to Europe in such convergence, but the process was deliberately sabotaged by US intelligence agencies, working from the hypothesis that a tie-up between the EU and a democratic Russia would pose a major threat to American long-term economic interests.

    The chaos that we now have, and the distrust of America which motivates Russian policy, stems primarily from decisions taken in Washington 30 years ago.

    Martin Packard
    (Lieut Cdr, Ret'd; Former Nato intelligence analyst), Deddington, Oxfordshire

    [Sep 09, 2016] Some thoughts on the DNC email hacking scandal

    Notable quotes:
    "... Cybersecurity company FireEye first discovered APT 29 in 2014 and was quick to point out a clear Kremlin connection. "We suspect the Russian government sponsors the group because of the organizations it targets and the data it steals. because of evidence from FireEye." ..."
    "... FireEye is also interesting as it, along with the US Department of Defense, funds the CEPA (publishers of Ed Lucas's and Pomerantsev's screed on fighting Kremlin influence): ..."
    "... I recall the FireEye story well – they used the exact same logic; the code was written on Cyrillic-keyboard machines and during Moscow working hours. Their conclusion was "It just looks so much like something the Russians would do that it must be them". No allowance for the possibility that someone else did it who wanted the USA to arrive at exactly that conclusion. Someone who has done it before, lots of times, and who makes a science out of picking fights on Uncle Sam's behalf. ..."
    "... Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear? Is there proof that they actually exist? I mean real proof, not WADA proof. ..."
    "... They are just code names given by a particular security outfit. Different outfits will use different names for the same entities, much in the same way that a given virus/trojan/etc will be given different names by different AV corporations. The names reflect observable characteristics such as threat type, coding style, code structure, distribution network, similar earlier threats, etc rather than a specific single person. ..."
    Aug 07, 2016 | marknesop.wordpress.com
    Jeremn , August 5, 2016 at 2:53 am
    Some thoughts on the hacking "scandal". This article

    http://www.defenseone.com/technology/2016/07/how-putin-weaponized-wikileaks-influence-election-american-president/130163/

    blames the Russians thus:

    "On June 14, cybersecurity company CrowdStrike, under contract with the DNC, announced in a blog post that two separate Russian intelligence groups had gained access to the DNC network. One group, FANCY BEAR or APT 28, gained access in April. The other, COZY BEAR, (also called Cozy Duke and APT 29) first breached the network in the summer of 2015. Cybersecurity company FireEye first discovered APT 29 in 2014 and was quick to point out a clear Kremlin connection. "We suspect the Russian government sponsors the group because of the organizations it targets and the data it steals. because of evidence from FireEye."

    Crowdstrike – their Co-Founder, Alperovitch, is an Atlantic Council fellow. The other firm, FireEye, has the CIA as a stakeholder:

    http://venturebeat.com/2009/11/18/cias-in-q-tel-funds-fireeye-anti-botnet-security-firm/

    Should give pause to thought that the intelligence services are interfering in US democracy?

    No?

    FireEye is also interesting as it, along with the US Department of Defense, funds the CEPA (publishers of Ed Lucas's and Pomerantsev's screed on fighting Kremlin influence):

    marknesop , August 5, 2016 at 9:56 am
    I recall the FireEye story well – they used the exact same logic; the code was written on Cyrillic-keyboard machines and during Moscow working hours. Their conclusion was "It just looks so much like something the Russians would do that it must be them". No allowance for the possibility that someone else did it who wanted the USA to arrive at exactly that conclusion. Someone who has done it before, lots of times, and who makes a science out of picking fights on Uncle Sam's behalf.

    In the case of both FireEye and Crowdstrike, they would stop looking as soon as they arrived upon a conclusion which suited them anyway.

    ucgsblog , August 5, 2016 at 12:58 pm
    Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear? Is there proof that they actually exist? I mean real proof, not WADA proof.
    Yonatan , August 5, 2016 at 3:04 pm
    They are just code names given by a particular security outfit. Different outfits will use different names for the same entities, much in the same way that a given virus/trojan/etc will be given different names by different AV corporations. The names reflect observable characteristics such as threat type, coding style, code structure, distribution network, similar earlier threats, etc rather than a specific single person.
    marknesop , August 5, 2016 at 3:23 pm
    Yes, 'APT' stands for something, I forget what it was but they said it. Advanced Persistent Threat, something like that. Reply

    [Sep 09, 2016] Americas True Role in Syria

    Notable quotes:
    "... In January, the New York Times finally reported on a secret 2013 Presidential order to the CIA to arm Syrian rebels. As the account explained, Saudi Arabia provides substantial financing of the armaments, while the CIA, under Obama's orders, provides organizational support and training. ..."
    "... What kinds of arms are the US, Saudis, Turks, Qataris, and others supplying to the Syrian rebels? Which groups are receiving the arms? What is the role of US troops, air cover, and other personnel in the war? The US government isn't answering these questions, and mainstream media aren't pursuing them, either. ..."
    "... Through occasional leaks, investigative reports, statements by other governments, and rare statements by US officials, we know that America is engaged in an active, ongoing, CIA-coordinated war both to overthrow Assad and to fight ISIS. America's allies in the anti-Assad effort include Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar, and other countries in the region. The US has spent billions of dollars on arms, training, special operations forces, air strikes, and logistical support for the rebel forces, including international mercenaries. American allies have spent billions of dollars more. The precise sums are not reported. ..."
    "... To those at the center of the US military-industrial complex, this secrecy is as it should be. Their position is that a vote by Congress 15 years ago authorizing the use of armed force against those culpable for the 9/11 attack gives the president and military carte blanche to fight secret wars in the Middle East and Africa. Why should the US explain publicly what it is doing? That would only jeopardize the operations and strengthen the enemy. The public does not need to know. ..."
    "... I subscribe to a different view: wars should be a last resort and should be constrained by democratic scrutiny. This view holds that America's secret war in Syria is illegal both under the US Constitution (which gives Congress the sole power to declare war) and under the United Nations Charter, and that America's two-sided war in Syria is a cynical and reckless gamble. The US-led efforts to topple Assad are not aimed at protecting the Syrian people, as Obama and Clinton have suggested from time to time, but are a US proxy war against Iran and Russia, in which Syria happens to be the battleground. ..."
    "... The stakes of this war are much higher and much more dangerous than America's proxy warriors imagine. As the US has prosecuted its war against Assad, Russia has stepped up its military support to his government. In the US mainstream media, Russia's behavior is an affront: how dare the Kremlin block the US from overthrowing the Syrian government? The result is a widening diplomatic clash with Russia, one that could escalate and lead – perhaps inadvertently – to the point of military conflict. ..."
    "... This is the main reason why the US security state refuses to tell the truth. The American people would call for peace rather than perpetual war. Obama has a few months left in office to repair his broken legacy. He should start by leveling with the American people. ..."
    www.defenddemocracy.press

    - Defend Democracy Press

    Syria's civil war is the most dangerous and destructive crisis on the planet. Since early 2011, hundreds of thousands have died; around ten million Syrians have been displaced; Europe has been convulsed with Islamic State (ISIS) terror and the political fallout of refugees; and the United States and its NATO allies have more than once come perilously close to direct confrontation with Russia.

    Unfortunately, President Barack Obama has greatly compounded the dangers by hiding the US role in Syria from the American people and from world opinion. An end to the Syrian war requires an honest accounting by the US of its ongoing, often secretive role in the Syrian conflict since 2011, including who is funding, arming, training, and abetting the various sides. Such exposure would help bring to an end many countries' reckless actions.

    A widespread – and false – perception is that Obama has kept the US out of the Syrian war. Indeed, the US right wing routinely criticizes him for having drawn a line in the sand for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad over chemical weapons, and then backing off when Assad allegedly crossed it (the issue remains murky and disputed, like so much else in Syria). A leading columnist for the Financial Times, repeating the erroneous idea that the US has remained on the sidelines, recently implied that Obama had rejected the advice of then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to arm the Syrian rebels fighting Assad.

    Yet the curtain gets lifted from time to time. In January, the New York Times finally reported on a secret 2013 Presidential order to the CIA to arm Syrian rebels. As the account explained, Saudi Arabia provides substantial financing of the armaments, while the CIA, under Obama's orders, provides organizational support and training.

    Unfortunately, the story came and went without further elaboration by the US government or follow up by the New York Times. The public was left in the dark: How big are the ongoing CIA-Saudi operations? How much is the US spending on Syria per year? What kinds of arms are the US, Saudis, Turks, Qataris, and others supplying to the Syrian rebels? Which groups are receiving the arms? What is the role of US troops, air cover, and other personnel in the war? The US government isn't answering these questions, and mainstream media aren't pursuing them, either.

    On more than a dozen occasions, Obama has told the American people that there would be "no US boots on the ground." Yet every few months, the public is also notified in a brief government statement that US special operations forces are being deployed to Syria. The Pentagon routinely denies that they are in the front lines. But when Russia and the Assad government recently carried out bombing runs and artillery fire against rebel strongholds in northern Syria, the US notified the Kremlin that the attacks were threatening American troops on the ground. The public has been given no explanation about their mission, its costs, or counterparties in Syria.

    Through occasional leaks, investigative reports, statements by other governments, and rare statements by US officials, we know that America is engaged in an active, ongoing, CIA-coordinated war both to overthrow Assad and to fight ISIS. America's allies in the anti-Assad effort include Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar, and other countries in the region. The US has spent billions of dollars on arms, training, special operations forces, air strikes, and logistical support for the rebel forces, including international mercenaries. American allies have spent billions of dollars more. The precise sums are not reported.

    The US public has had no say in these decisions. There has been no authorizing vote or budget approval by the US Congress. The CIA's role has never been explained or justified. The domestic and international legality of US actions has never been defended to the American people or the world.

    To those at the center of the US military-industrial complex, this secrecy is as it should be. Their position is that a vote by Congress 15 years ago authorizing the use of armed force against those culpable for the 9/11 attack gives the president and military carte blanche to fight secret wars in the Middle East and Africa. Why should the US explain publicly what it is doing? That would only jeopardize the operations and strengthen the enemy. The public does not need to know.

    I subscribe to a different view: wars should be a last resort and should be constrained by democratic scrutiny. This view holds that America's secret war in Syria is illegal both under the US Constitution (which gives Congress the sole power to declare war) and under the United Nations Charter, and that America's two-sided war in Syria is a cynical and reckless gamble. The US-led efforts to topple Assad are not aimed at protecting the Syrian people, as Obama and Clinton have suggested from time to time, but are a US proxy war against Iran and Russia, in which Syria happens to be the battleground.

    The stakes of this war are much higher and much more dangerous than America's proxy warriors imagine. As the US has prosecuted its war against Assad, Russia has stepped up its military support to his government. In the US mainstream media, Russia's behavior is an affront: how dare the Kremlin block the US from overthrowing the Syrian government? The result is a widening diplomatic clash with Russia, one that could escalate and lead – perhaps inadvertently – to the point of military conflict.

    These are issues that should be subject to legal scrutiny and democratic control. I am confident that the American people would respond with a resounding "no" to the ongoing US-led war of regime change in Syria. The American people want security – including the defeat of ISIS – but they also recognize the long and disastrous history of US-led regime-change efforts, including in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Central America, Africa, and Southeast Asia.

    This is the main reason why the US security state refuses to tell the truth. The American people would call for peace rather than perpetual war. Obama has a few months left in office to repair his broken legacy. He should start by leveling with the American people.

    [Sep 09, 2016] Missing Clinton E-Mail Claims Saudis Financed Benghazi Attacks

    Notable quotes:
    "... Clearly Sidney Blumenthal was someone that Hillary Clinton trusted. Two months earlier, Secretary Clinton found his insights valuable enough to share with the entire State Department. But two weeks after her job as Secretary of State ends, she receives an e-mail from him claiming Saudi Arabia financed the assassination of an American ambassador and apparently did nothing with this information. Even if she didn't have to turn over this e-mail to the commission investigating the Benghazi attacks, wouldn't it be relevant? Shouldn't this be information she volunteers? And why didn't the Republicans who were supposedly so concerned about the Benghazi attacks ask any questions about Saudi involvement? ..."
    "... Did Secretary Clinton not tell anyone what she knew about alleged Saudi involvement in the attacks because she didn't want to endanger the millions of dollars of Saudi donations coming in to the Clinton Foundation? These are exactly the kind of conflicts that ethical standards are designed to prevent. ..."
    "... Do you really expect Obama's DOJ will do anything against Hitlery Clinton? It is one criminal gangster racket. ..."
    "... The NeoCons and NeoLibs - McCain, Graham, Schumer, Feinstein and many others were totally involved with Iraq, the other endless wars and Benghazi. McCain was in Ukraine doing Nudelman/Soros zio bidding too. ..."
    "... The Clintons came to power in to poor state of Arkansas, where Ollie North financed Iran-Contra running drugs through Mena AK while Bill was Gov. , of course with the sophisticated set-up of money laundering schemes and front businesses done by the CIA The CIA drug running through Mena continued after Iran-Contra, with George H.W. Bush's blessing and full knowledge. BCCI bank was one of the money laundering banks for the drug money and helped finance Clinton's first presidential campaign. Bush and Clinton's happy bromance is no surprise, and just the tip of the iceberg. It should be no surprise with the Bush family background that the Clintons have been so dirty and corrupt, yet so immune from serious pursuit of prosecution. ..."
    "... Hillary Rodham Clinton is a lying, sleazy whore and is totally loyal to the Oligarchs and Sunni Moslems who've paid her billions of dollars in bribes. Like the pedophile pervert William Jefferson Clinton she would "rather climb a tree to tell a lie than tell the truth standing on the ground." ..."
    "... Unless Blumenthal's emails contained information obtained from the US government, they would not have been classified when he sent them. So I don't see how he would be in trouble for sending them or Hillary for receiving them. If the government decided afterwards to make the information classified, then wouldn't he and Hillary have been obliged to delete them from their private servers? To me, the information seems more like gossip and I can't see either one of them getting into over these particular emails. ..."
    "... If Hillary Clinton really cares about the future of this country and the Democratic party, she will step down now while there is still time to nominate another candidate. Hillary Clinton is the Democratic Party, and the Democratic Party is Hillary Clinton. She will burn it to the ground before she gives up her dream. ..."
    "... It's difficult to estimate if the Democrat lumpenproletariat will ever blame Hillary for anything, but objectively, if the lumpens realize that Hillary KNEW this was coming down and did NOTHING to prepare the Democrat Party to have a PLAN B (Joe Biden) ready, the lumpens should be mightily pissed. ..."
    "... Look at the complexity of the emails and their concepts and compare that with the banal dumbed down soup which is served upp at each campaign speech. ..."
    www.zerohedge.com

    Submitted by William Reynolds via Medium.com,

    Something that has gone unnoticed in all the talk about the investigation into Hillary Clinton's e-mails is the content of the original leak that started the entire investigation to begin with. In March of 2013, a Romanian hacker calling himself Guccifer hacked into the AOL account of Sidney Blumenthal and leaked to Russia Today four e-mails containing intelligence on Libya that Blumenthal sent to Hillary Clinton.

    For those who haven't been following this story, Sidney Blumenthal is a long time friend and adviser of the Clinton family who in an unofficial capacity sent many "intelligence memos" to Hillary Clinton during her tenure as Secretary of State . Originally displayed on RT.com in Comic Sans font on a pink background with the letter "G" clumsily drawn as a watermark, no one took these leaked e-mails particularly seriously when they came out in 2013. Now, however, we can cross reference this leak with the e-mails the State Department released to the public .

    The first three e-mails in the Russia Today leak from Blumenthal to Clinton all appear word for word in the State Department release. The first e-mail Clinton asks to have printed and she also forwards it to her deputy chief of staff, Jake Sullivan. The second e-mail Clinton describes as "useful insight" and forwards it to Jake Sullivan asking him to circulate it. The third e-mail is also forwarded to Jake Sullivan . The fourth e-mail is missing from the State Department record completely.

    This missing e-mail from February 16, 2013 only exists in the original leak and states that French and Libyan intelligence agencies had evidence that the In Amenas and Benghazi attacks were funded by "Sunni Islamists in Saudi Arabia." This seems like a rather outlandish claim on the surface, and as such was only reported by conspiracy types and fringe media outlets. Now, however, we have proof that the other three e-mails in the leak were real correspondence from Blumenthal to Clinton that she not only read, but thought highly enough of to send around to others in the State Department. Guccifer speaks English as a second language and most of his writing consists of rambling conspiracies, it's unlikely he would be able to craft such a convincing fake intelligence briefing. This means we have an e-mail from a trusted Clinton adviser that claims the Saudis funded the Benghazi attack, and not only was this not followed up on, but there is not any record of this e-mail ever existing except for the Russia Today leak.

    Why is this e-mail missing? At first I assumed it must be due to some sort of cover up, but it's much simpler than that. The e-mail in question was sent after February 1st, 2013, when John Kerry took over as Secretary of State, so it was not part of the time period being investigated. No one is trying to find a copy of this e-mail. Since Clinton wasn't Secretary of State on February 16th, it wasn't her job to follow up on it.

    So let's forget for a minute about the larger legal implications of the e-mail investigation. How can it be that such a revelation about Saudi Arabia was made public in a leak that turned out to be real and no one looked into it? Clearly Sidney Blumenthal was someone that Hillary Clinton trusted. Two months earlier, Secretary Clinton found his insights valuable enough to share with the entire State Department. But two weeks after her job as Secretary of State ends, she receives an e-mail from him claiming Saudi Arabia financed the assassination of an American ambassador and apparently did nothing with this information. Even if she didn't have to turn over this e-mail to the commission investigating the Benghazi attacks, wouldn't it be relevant? Shouldn't this be information she volunteers? And why didn't the Republicans who were supposedly so concerned about the Benghazi attacks ask any questions about Saudi involvement?

    Did Secretary Clinton not tell anyone what she knew about alleged Saudi involvement in the attacks because she didn't want to endanger the millions of dollars of Saudi donations coming in to the Clinton Foundation? These are exactly the kind of conflicts that ethical standards are designed to prevent.

    Another E-Mail Turns Up Missing

    Guccifer uncovered something else in his hack that could not be verified until the last of the e-mails were released by the State Department last week. In addition to the four full e-mails he released, he also leaked a screenshot of Sidney Blumenthal's AOL inbox. If we cross reference this screenshot with the Blumenthal e-mails in the State Department release, we can see that the e-mail with the subject "H: Libya security latest. Sid" is missing from the State Department e-mails.

    This missing e-mail is certainly something that would have been requested as part of the investigation as it was sent before February 1st and clearly relates to Libya. The fact that it is missing suggests one of two possibilities:

    1. The State Department does have a copy of this e-mail but deemed it top secret and too sensitive to release, even in redacted form. This would indicate that Sidney Blumenthal was sending highly classified information from his AOL account to Secretary Clinton's private e-mail server despite the fact that he never even had a security clearance to deal with such sensitive information in the first place. If this scenario explains why the e-mail is missing, classified materials were mishandled.
    2. The State Department does not have a copy, and this e-mail was deleted by both Clinton and Blumenthal before turning over their subpoenaed e-mails to investigators, which would be considered destruction of evidence and lying to federal officials. This also speaks to the reason why the private clintonemail.com server may have been established in the first place. If Blumenthal were to regularly send highly sensitive yet technically "unclassified" information from his AOL account to Clinton's official government e-mail account, it could have been revealed with a FOIA request. It has already been established that Hillary Clinton deleted 15 of Sidney Blumenthal's e-mails to her, this discrepancy was discovered when Blumenthal's e-mails were subpoenaed, although a State Department official claims that none of these 15 e-mails have any information about the Benghazi attack. It would seem from the subject line that this e-mail does. And it is missing from the public record.

    In either of these scenarios, Clinton and her close associates are in violation of federal law. In the most generous interpretation where this e-mail is simply a collection of rumors that Blumenthal heard and forwarded unsolicited to Clinton, it would make no sense for it to be missing. It would not be classified if it was a bunch of hot air, and it certainly wouldn't be deleted by both Blumenthal and Clinton at the risk of committing a felony. In the least generous interpretation of these facts, Sidney Blumenthal and Hillary Clinton conspired to cover up an ally of the United States funding the assassination of one of our diplomats in Libya.

    Why A Grand Jury Is Likely Already Convened

    After the final e-mails were released by the State Department on February 29th, it has been reported in the last week that:

    • Clinton's IT staff member who managed the e-mail server, Bryan Pagliano, has been given immunity by a federal judge which suggests that he will be giving testimony to a grand jury about evidence that relates to this investigation and implicates himself in a crime. Until now, Pagliano has been pleading the fifth and refusing to cooperate with the investigation.
    • The hacker Guccifer (Marcel Lazar Lehel) just had an 18-month temporary extradition order to the United States granted by a Romanian court , despite being indicted by the US back in 2014. Is Guccifer being extradited now in order to testify to the grand jury that the screengrab with the missing e-mail is real?
    • Attorney General Loretta Lynch was interviewed by Bret Baier and she would not answer whether or not a grand jury has been convened in this case. If there was no grand jury she could have said so, but if a grand jury is meeting to discuss evidence she would not legally be allowed to comment on it.

    This scandal has the potential to completely derail the Clinton campaign in the general election . If Hillary Clinton really cares about the future of this country and the Democratic party, she will step down now while there is still time to nominate another candidate. This is not a right wing conspiracy, it is a failure by one of our highest government officials to uphold the laws that preserve government transparency and national security. It's time for us to ask Secretary Clinton to tell us the truth and do the right thing. If the United States government is really preparing a case against Hillary Clinton, we can't wait until it's too late.

    strannick

    F.U., cowardly, corrupt, politically aligned Department Of Justice. Big tough cops afraid of a power craving sociopath in a pantsuit.

    Vint Slugs, |

    Mrs. Clinton, and let's call her by her proper name Hillary Clinton - not the familiar "Hillary" that even the most right-of-the-aisle commentators use - is a compulsive liar.

    Rhetorically: how can anyone give even a shred of credence to anything that she might utter? She lies so much that the only conclusion that an objectively observant informed person can reach is that she has permanently lost touch with reality. Given that fact, she therefore is a psychotic personality. I am amazed that no one in the medical profession, assuming that there are independent minds within that group, has spoken out about this psychological affliction of Mrs. Clinton's.

    Mrs. Clinton is a blight upon the Nation. Seriously, I work and associate with people who whole-heartedly support her candidacy for president. After all that has been revealed since 2014 I can only conclude that continuing political support for Mrs. Clinton can only stem from a profound anti-intellectualist philosophy.

    o r c k , |

    We snuck a planeload of Bin-Ladens back to SA on 9-11. That makes this lower than a traffic ticket.

    Money Boo Boo ,

    Clitilda is betting TPTB will make this all go away so that Drumpf doesn't become President, simple as that!

    wildbad ,

    so let me get this straight....the saudis took down the twin towers on 911 2001 and then paid for the benghazi attacks and ambassador murders on 911 2012 and the Bush and Clinton families knew about this but made up stories to protect their saudi pals?

    ok, got it. whats the problem?

    strannick ,

    "If the lawmakers would just do their job, Hilary Clinton won't be running for President" -D.T., March 8

    3.7.77 ,

    She's pure evil, unbelievable people don't see this.

    Goliath Slayer ,

    BUSH killed 2 million people in Iraq for WMD he never found, but this piece of brilliant journalism focuses on "missing" emails that "somehow" should prove that the Saudis did it and hypothetically crucifies Hillary who was just Secretary of State taking orders from Obama who's not mentioned in this again brilliant piece. I guess the Saudis financed the American Iraq invasion too.

    WOW! I'm sold. NOT.

    Guess what, if that's all you got, Hillary Next POTUS >>> http://bit.ly/1p1jKnr

    caconhma ,

    Do you really expect Obama's DOJ will do anything against Hitlery Clinton? It is one criminal gangster racket.

    Slomotrainwreck,

    If the United States government is really preparing a case against Hillary Clinton, we can't wait until it's too late.

    It's too confusing. Time for O'Bozo to declare himself and his handlers Kings of everything everywhere.

    Freddie ,

    The Bushes and Clintons have been best friends and See Eye Aye drug runners going back to Mena, Arkansas.

    The Romneys are also Bush best buddies. The Romneys and Bushes are best friends with the Mormon hinckley family very well connected to Mormon Church and their John Jr. tried to kill Reagan.

    The NeoCons and NeoLibs - McCain, Graham, Schumer, Feinstein and many others were totally involved with Iraq, the other endless wars and Benghazi. McCain was in Ukraine doing Nudelman/Soros zio bidding too.

    Chumly, |

    We're a Banana Republic pure and simple. Yes, we're the most powerful Banana Republic to ever exist in the history of the world too.

    The Clintons came to power in to poor state of Arkansas, where Ollie North financed Iran-Contra running drugs through Mena AK while Bill was Gov. , of course with the sophisticated set-up of money laundering schemes and front businesses done by the CIA The CIA drug running through Mena continued after Iran-Contra, with George H.W. Bush's blessing and full knowledge. BCCI bank was one of the money laundering banks for the drug money and helped finance Clinton's first presidential campaign. Bush and Clinton's happy bromance is no surprise, and just the tip of the iceberg. It should be no surprise with the Bush family background that the Clintons have been so dirty and corrupt, yet so immune from serious pursuit of prosecution.

    And yes, there is so much more. it's deep, dark and dirty.

    gregga777,

    Hillary Rodham Clinton is a lying, sleazy whore and is totally loyal to the Oligarchs and Sunni Moslems who've paid her billions of dollars in bribes. Like the pedophile pervert William Jefferson Clinton she would "rather climb a tree to tell a lie than tell the truth standing on the ground."

    That said, there is zero probability that the United States Department of Injustice will indict her. Anyone expecting the Feral Bureau of Intimidation and Department of Injustice to enforce equal application of the Law are going to be disappointed. Again. The Rule of Law doesn't apply to the Oligarchs who own the Feral government and their LOYAL political parasites.

    willwork4food ,

    I wouldn't be so sure about that dude. Have you seen Bill lately? He looks beaten to a pulp. The dark side tends to eat their own when it benefits their ultimate goals. Hillary might be that one, of many to (yet) come.

    gregga777,

    Hillary Rodham Clinton was bribed by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabian to cover up their role in the assassination of Ambassador Stevens. All United States Secretary's of State take bribes to cover up attacks by foreign governments on United States diplomatic and Armed Forces personnel. At this point what difference does it make?

    Demdere ,

    Why would the Saudis fund that? Stevens was CIA working on arming the jihadis in Syria against Assad. Some of which the US Army screwed up with obsolete shit weapons, I think.

    So lovely, the largest Israeli-Neocon ally being responsible for the loss of Clinton, their main candidate other than Jeb.

    God does work in mysterious way, explained by the great Discordian religious principle : "Imposing order creates disorder". The greeks grokked it first.

    Pancho Villa,|

    Unless Blumenthal's emails contained information obtained from the US government, they would not have been classified when he sent them. So I don't see how he would be in trouble for sending them or Hillary for receiving them. If the government decided afterwards to make the information classified, then wouldn't he and Hillary have been obliged to delete them from their private servers? To me, the information seems more like gossip and I can't see either one of them getting into over these particular emails.

    As server-gate progresses it will be interesting to see whether Hillary learned anything from Watergate where Nixon got in trouble not because he ordered the Watergate breakins, but because he tried to cover them up.

    The Iconoclast,

    If Hillary Clinton really cares about the future of this country and the Democratic party, she will step down now while there is still time to nominate another candidate. Hillary Clinton is the Democratic Party, and the Democratic Party is Hillary Clinton. She will burn it to the ground before she gives up her dream.

    Demdere,

    No, there are many political interests in the Democratic party, just like the Republican Party. Same interests, in most cases, overlapping sets of funding. That must be what the parties so contend over, more contributions?

    Contending power centers, mafia rules, courtier rules, an ecosystem of parasites specialized in their evolution for extracting carbon and energy from the government. Parasites divert metabolic energy to their own uses, and the host may die as a result.

    thebigunit,

    A very good point:

    If Hillary Clinton really cares about the future of this country and the Democratic party, she will step down now while there is still time to nominate another candidate.

    It's difficult to estimate if the Democrat lumpenproletariat will ever blame Hillary for anything, but objectively, if the lumpens realize that Hillary KNEW this was coming down and did NOTHING to prepare the Democrat Party to have a PLAN B (Joe Biden) ready, the lumpens should be mightily pissed.

    How do you feel these days?

    Don Smith,|

    Anyone notice how the email says "Islamists in Saudi Arabia" but the article hints that "The Saudis" funded it? I'm not an HRC fan, but I think she gets a pass on this one. Like if David Duke gave a bunch of money to Hezbollah and the papers said "The Americans are funding Hezbollah"...

    wildbad,

    BLumenthal and Killary need to be waterboarded until they give up their sources. Look at the complexity of the emails and their concepts and compare that with the banal dumbed down soup which is served upp at each campaign speech.

    They are living in the real world, we are their slaves.

    [Sep 09, 2016] Clintons Libyan War and the Delusions of Interventionists

    Notable quotes:
    "... The New York Times ..."
    "... The fact that interventionists "want to believe" what they're told by opposition figures in other countries reflects their general naivete about the politics of the countries where they want to intervene and their absurd overconfidence in the efficacy of U.S. action in general. ..."
    "... Interventionists usually can't imagine any "far-reaching" consequences that aren't good, and they are predisposed to ignore all the many ways that a country and an entire region can be harmed by destabilizing military action. That failure of imagination repeatedly produces poor decisions that result in ghastly policies that wreck the lives of millions of people. ..."
    "... This captures exactly what's wrong with Clinton on foreign policy, and why she so often ends up on the wrong, hawkish side of foreign policy debates. First, she is biased in favor of action and meddling, and second she often identifies action with military intervention or some other aggressive, militarized measures. Clinton doesn't need to be argued into an interventionist policy, because she already "wants to believe" that is the proper course of action. That guarantees that she frequently backs reckless and unnecessary U.S. actions that cause far more misery and suffering than they remedy. ..."
    "... This is revealing in a few ways. First, it shows how resistant the administration initially was and how important Clinton's support for the war was in getting the U.S. involved. ..."
    "... It was already well-known that Clinton owns the Libyan intervention more than any U.S. official besides the president, and this week we're being reminded once more just how crucial her support for the war was in making it happen. ..."
    The American Conservative
    The New York Times reports on Hillary Clinton's role in the Libyan war. This passage sums up much of what's wrong with how Clinton and her supporters think about how the U.S. should respond to foreign conflicts:

    Mrs. Clinton was won over. Opposition leaders "said all the right things about supporting democracy and inclusivity and building Libyan institutions, providing some hope that we might be able to pull this off," said Philip H. Gordon, one of her assistant secretaries. "They gave us what we wanted to hear. And you do want to believe." [bold mine-DL]

    It's not surprising that rebels seeking outside support against their government tell representatives of that government things they want to hear, but it is deeply disturbing that our officials are frequently so eager to believe that what they are being told was true. Our officials shouldn't "want to believe" the self-serving propaganda of spokesmen for a foreign insurgency, especially when that leads to U.S. military intervention on their behalf. They should be more cautious than normal when they are hearing "all the right things." Not only should our officials know from previous episodes that the people saying "all the right things" are typically conning Washington in the hopes of receiving support, but they should assume that anyone saying "all the right things" either doesn't represent the forces on the ground that the U.S. will be called on to support or is deliberately misrepresenting the conditions on the ground to make U.S. involvement more attractive.

    "Wanting to believe" in dubious or obviously bad causes in other countries is one of the biggest problems with ideologically-driven interventionists from both parties. They aren't just willing to take sides in foreign conflicts, but they are looking for an excuse to join them. As long as they can get representatives of the opposition to repeat the required phrases and pay lip service to the "right things," they will do their best to drag the U.S. into a conflict in which it has nothing at stake. If that means pretending that terrorist groups are democrats and liberals, that is what they'll do. If it means whitewashing the records of fanatics, that is what they'll do. Even if it means inventing a "moderate" opposition out of thin air, they'll do it. This satisfies their desire to meddle in other countries' affairs, it provides intervention with a superficial justification that credulous pundits and talking heads will be only too happy to repeat, and it frees them from having to come up with plans for what comes after the intervention on the grounds that the locals will take care of it for them later on.

    The fact that interventionists "want to believe" what they're told by opposition figures in other countries reflects their general naivete about the politics of the countries where they want to intervene and their absurd overconfidence in the efficacy of U.S. action in general. If one takes for granted that there must be sympathetic liberals-in-waiting in another country that will take over once a regime is toppled, one isn't going to worry about the negative and unintended consequences of regime change. Because interventionists have difficulty imagining how U.S. intervention can go awry or make things worse, they are also unlikely to be suspicious of the motives or goals of the "good guys" they want the U.S. to support. They tend to assume the best about their would-be proxies and allies, and they assume that the country will be in good hands once they are empowered. The fact that this frequently backfires doesn't trouble these interventionists, who will have already moved on to the next country in "need" of their special attentions.

    The article continues:

    The consequences would be more far-reaching than anyone imagined, leaving Libya a failed state and a terrorist haven, a place where the direst answers to Mrs. Clinton's questions have come to pass.

    If the article is referring to anyone in the administration, this might be true, but as a general statement it couldn't be more wrong. Many skeptics and opponents of the intervention in Libya warned about many of the things that the Libyan war and regime change have produced, and they issued these warnings before and during the beginning of U.S. and allied bombing. Interventionists usually can't imagine any "far-reaching" consequences that aren't good, and they are predisposed to ignore all the many ways that a country and an entire region can be harmed by destabilizing military action. That failure of imagination repeatedly produces poor decisions that result in ghastly policies that wreck the lives of millions of people.

    The report goes on to quote Anne-Marie Slaughter referring to Clinton's foreign policy inclinations:

    "But when the choice is between action and inaction, and you've got risks in either direction, which you often do, she'd rather be caught trying."

    This captures exactly what's wrong with Clinton on foreign policy, and why she so often ends up on the wrong, hawkish side of foreign policy debates. First, she is biased in favor of action and meddling, and second she often identifies action with military intervention or some other aggressive, militarized measures. Clinton doesn't need to be argued into an interventionist policy, because she already "wants to believe" that is the proper course of action. That guarantees that she frequently backs reckless and unnecessary U.S. actions that cause far more misery and suffering than they remedy.

    Maybe the most striking section of the report was the description of the administration's initial reluctance to intervene, which Clinton then successfully overcame:

    France and Britain were pushing hard for a Security Council vote on a resolution supporting a no-fly zone in Libya to prevent Colonel Qaddafi from slaughtering his opponents. Ms. Rice was calling to push back, in characteristically salty language.

    "She says, and I quote, 'You are not going to drag us into your shitty war,'" said Mr. Araud, now France's ambassador in Washington. "She said, 'We'll be obliged to follow and support you, and we don't want to.'

    This is revealing in a few ways. First, it shows how resistant the administration initially was and how important Clinton's support for the war was in getting the U.S. involved. It also shows how confused everyone in the administration was about the obligations the U.S. owed to its allies. The U.S. isn't obliged to indulge its allies' wars of choice, and it certainly doesn't have to join them, but the administration was already conceding that the U.S. would "follow and support" France and Britain in what they chose to do. As we know, in the end France and Britain definitely could and did drag the U.S. into their "shitty war," and in that effort they received a huge assist from Clinton.

    It was already well-known that Clinton owns the Libyan intervention more than any U.S. official besides the president, and this week we're being reminded once more just how crucial her support for the war was in making it happen.

    [Sep 09, 2016] Libyas Chaos Theory Undercuts Hillary

    Notable quotes:
    "... ...Ironically, even as U.S. officials confront defiance from the rival Libyan leaders in Tripoli and Tobruk, they have won cooperation from Abdelhakim Belhadj, who was the leader of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, a jihadist militia whose members were once driven out of Libya by Col Muammar Gaddafi and developed close ties to Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. ..."
    "... After Gaddafi fled Tripoli and was captured in his home town of Sirte, U.S.-backed rebels sodomized him with a knife and murdered him. Upon hearing of Gaddafi's demise, Secretary of State Clinton clapped her hands in obvious glee and declared , "we came, we saw, he died." ..."
    "... Now, Belhadj, who has since branched off into various business ventures including an airline, is viewed as a key American ally with his militia helping to protect Sirraj and other GNA officials operating from the Tripoli naval base. (Gee, how could an Al Qaeda-connected jihadist with an airline present a problem?) ..."
    "... America's Stolen Narrative, ..."
    "... Since the Cold War, we've been run by the Neo-Cons - Bill Clinton was a Neo-Con poorly disguised and his wife is an outright Neo-con and a very very dangerous woman. ..."
    "... Bush/bin Laden family relationships, linked them to the Bush/CIA recruitment and launching of the CIA asset "al Qaeda" during the Russo/Afghan campaign, Al Qaeda, operating under CIA/Mossad aegis and control has been correctly identified ever since then as the manpower provider and major executor of most if not all of the "terrorism which has gone down in the past twenty years, thus making bin Laden and al Qaeda the much sought after black hats, the "boogeymen" behind and justifying all of this stuff. ..."
    "... In any case, these people who were living in Libya had a strikingly different story to report re the standard of living that obtained in that country, Gaddafi's rule, etc., from what we were learning from the HRC-run US State Department. Moreover, for their trouble, for their wish to report their experience and tell their fellow Americans the real truth about Libya, they were muzzled and threatened, and from what I remember, soon found out that when you cross the US government and its foreign policy representatives by reporting truths they don't want the world to hear, the price will be very high. Very high indeed. I believe they soon found themselves unable to find gainful employment and had to subsist on hand-outs from interested and sympathetic listeners. ..."
    "... It used to be a point of honor in Old Europe for a politician or a public servant who committed a monumental blunder or dishonorable act to resign from his office. If the act was sufficiently serious then suicide might have been called for. In Japan seppuku was a form of self-inflicted capital punishment for samurai and politicians who had committed serious offenses because they had brought shame to themselves and others with whom they were associated. ..."
    "... Libya, Flight MH17, the corruption in Ukraine, missile sites being installed in Poland and Romania are never or hardly ever mentioned, and that's not because any of those subjects are not news worthy. It's good against evil. ..."
    "... My worry is that Hillary will make a move to bring home the biggest prize of all, and that will be the conquering of Russia. This doesn't have anything to do with gender, it's what is inside ones soul, and of course their agenda. ..."
    "... Authoritarians with a lust for power and/or wealth will seek to become autocrats ruling their fiefs according to their personal desires and ambitions without regard for and total indifference towards their subjects. If there is anyone among the tired, the poor, and huddled masses yearning to breathe free there will always be a need for people with courage to speak truth to power. ..."
    "... The mass media are truly enemies of the people of the United States, and with the economic concentrations that support them, have waged economic and propaganda war upon the United States. They are thereby traitors, engaged in a right-wing revolution, and should be utterly destroyed in their ability to do ..."
    Jun 04, 2016 | Consortiumnews

    The Obama administration is hoping that it can yet salvage Hillary Clinton's signature project as Secretary of State, the "regime change" in Libya, via a strategy of funneling Libya's fractious politicians and militias – referred to by one U.S. official as chaotic water "droplets" – into a U.S.-constructed "channel" built out of rewards and punishments.

    ...In recent days, competing militias, supporting elements of the three governments, have converged on Sirte, where the Islamic State jihadists have established a foothold, but the schisms among the various Libyan factions have prevented anything approaching a coordinated attack. Indeed, resistance to the U.S.-backed Government of National Accord (GNA) appears to be growing amid doubts about the political competence of the hand-picked prime minister, Fayez Sirraj.

    ...Thus far, however, many Libyan political figures have been unwilling to jump into the "channel," which has led the Obama administration to both impose and threaten punishments against these rogue water "droplets," such as financial sanctions and even criminal charges.

    ...Ironically, even as U.S. officials confront defiance from the rival Libyan leaders in Tripoli and Tobruk, they have won cooperation from Abdelhakim Belhadj, who was the leader of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, a jihadist militia whose members were once driven out of Libya by Col Muammar Gaddafi and developed close ties to Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan.

    After the 9/11 attacks and the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, Belhadj was tracked by the CIA and captured in Malaysia in 2004 before being renditioned back to Libya, where he was imprisoned until 2010. In 2011, after Secretary of State Clinton convinced President Obama to join an air war against the Gaddafi regime on "humanitarian" grounds, Belhadj pulled together a jihadist force that helped spearhead the decisive attack on Tripoli.

    After Gaddafi fled Tripoli and was captured in his home town of Sirte, U.S.-backed rebels sodomized him with a knife and murdered him. Upon hearing of Gaddafi's demise, Secretary of State Clinton clapped her hands in obvious glee and declared, "we came, we saw, he died."

    Now, Belhadj, who has since branched off into various business ventures including an airline, is viewed as a key American ally with his militia helping to protect Sirraj and other GNA officials operating from the Tripoli naval base. (Gee, how could an Al Qaeda-connected jihadist with an airline present a problem?)

    ... ... ...

    Summing up the confusing situation, The New York Times reported on June 2, "One Western official who recently visited the country said the political mood in Libya had become increasingly confrontational during recent months as the United Nations, acting under pressure from the United States and its allies, has struggled to win acceptance for the unity government."

    ... ... ...

    Now, the Obama administration is trying to re-impose order in the country via a hand-picked group of new Libyan officials and by building a "channel" to direct the flow of the nation's politics in the direction favored by Washington. But many Libyan water "droplets" are refusing to climb in.

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

    Debbie Menon, June 4, 2016 at 4:07 pm

    American Foreign Policy: Dumbed Down

    Since the Cold War there has been a narrowing of foreign policy debate. Does this explain why Washington blunders from one fiasco to another?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAFGswEYC0Q

    Susan Raikes Sugar, June 4, 2016 at 5:41 pm

    Since the Cold War, we've been run by the Neo-Cons - Bill Clinton was a Neo-Con poorly disguised and his wife is an outright Neo-con and a very very dangerous woman.

    Erik, June 5, 2016 at 7:17 am

    While the narrowing of debate may be attributed to control by economic concentrations of the elections and mass media tools of democracy, it is also due to a poorly structured government. Congress has never been able to debate meaningfully due to politics, and the executive has stolen almost all power of Congress over wars, and runs them continually to get campaign contributions from military industry.

    For example, Congress utterly failed to debate the Civil War issues from 1820 to 1860, producing nothing but tactical compromises, never bringing the sides to common terms and recognition of the rights and interests of each other. It never seriously debated the issues of Vietnam, nor the wars since.

    This is why I advocate a College of policy analysis as a fourth branch of the federal government, to both analyze and debate the issues of each region, preserving the minority viewpoint and the inconvenient solution. It would make available commented summaries of history and fact, analyses of current situations by each discipline and functional area, and debated syntheses of anticipated developments, potential changes due to events human or natural, and the impact of policy alternatives, with comments reflecting the various viewpoints or possibilities. Not many of the uneducated would read the results, but politicians and vocal citizens could more readily be shown to violate what the experts generally agree is workable,

    The College would be conducted largely by internet with experts at the universities, applying expert analysis of every region with a broad range of skills and disciplines, and moderated textual debate with the broadest range of viewpoints.

    Debbie Menon, June 4, 2016 at 5:02 pm

    Robert has done a good job, and made the point again, which needs repeating until it becomes common gospel.

    Bush/bin Laden family relationships, linked them to the Bush/CIA recruitment and launching of the CIA asset "al Qaeda" during the Russo/Afghan campaign, Al Qaeda, operating under CIA/Mossad aegis and control has been correctly identified ever since then as the manpower provider and major executor of most if not all of the "terrorism which has gone down in the past twenty years, thus making bin Laden and al Qaeda the much sought after black hats, the "boogeymen" behind and justifying all of this stuff.

    The fact that the spinmeisters were directed to tell us that Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda are dead only tells us that they have some other means of "justifying" the wars and what is going to happen next, which will lead the sheeple into following them right over the edge of the cliff, and when the time is right, run out the new and bigger version to carry the lie onward to…. what?

    One of the reasons I find it so difficult to write lately, is that I feel I am repeating the same thing again, and again. Which does not inspire the best of efforts.

    Bill Bodden, June 4, 2016 at 5:53 pm

    The theme of Hillary's blunders may be addressed constantly, but for many of us the variations almost always reveal an aspect or element of which we were not aware and another nail that should be driven into HRC's "coffin." This person and her enablers and accomplices are a threat to countless people around the world justifying a constant chorus of criticism until the polls close on November 8th. The great tragedy is that her Republican opponent is probably as perilous as she is.

    Zachary Smith, June 4, 2016 at 9:22 pm

    Publishing variations and new information and/or conclusions is useful to interested current readers as well as those who are new to the site. If an essay title doesn't appeal to me I don't always examine it at all.

    After Gaddafi fled Tripoli and was captured in his home town of Sirte, U.S.-backed rebels sodomized him with a knife and murdered him. Upon hearing of Gaddafi's demise, Secretary of State Clinton clapped her hands in obvious glee and declared, "we came, we saw, he died."

    In any event, this one just can't be republished too often. The murderous ***** Hillary will – if allowed to become POTUS – be a disaster beating out Bush the Dumber.

    Obama had a job when he entered the White House – coddling and greasing the skids for the lawless Bankers. He has done that very, very well. So far as I can tell he merely outsourced the rest of the Presidency to the neocons and neoliberals. How else can you explain Hillary and Victoria Nuland and the TPP?


    SFOMARCO, June 4, 2016 at 4:42 pm

    "So what we're doing with the Government of National Accord is we're trying to create a channel, for national unity and reconciliation, and for building the institutions Libya needs, for building enough stability so the economy can come back, so they can pump oil, which Libya needs for Libyans, distribute the wealth fairly, equitably, in a way that brings people in, and take advantage of Libya's natural resources to rebuild the country. …" Seems like the status quo ante, sans Ghaddafi. Another expectation a la "topple Saddam and the people will throw flowers and sweets at the liberators"? And now a fluid mechanics metaphor to put Libya back to where it was in 2011?

    Bob Van Noy, June 4, 2016 at 7:46 pm

    I totally agree with your thought SFOMARCO. As I read this I was thinking, so now it's a channel. It seems that coming up with a good metaphor is the basis of American Foreign Policy. This is a hang-up of mine. Back in the Vietnam War all we heard was about dominoes falling which makes such an impressive mental "image." Several years ago I was stunned when I watched Errol Morris' "Fog of War." When Morris sat Robert McNamara down with a North Vietnamese contingent, and he was asked what the War was all about, he started to explain The Domino Theory, and the Vietnamese became agitated and basically told him that that was poor theory, and that he hadn't bothered to educate himself on Vietnamese history or he would know better. I was dumbfounded by that insight. 58,000 casualties because McNamara apparently didn't have the time to understand Vietnamese History!

    How many wars do we have going on now? What do we know of the countries we're dealing with? We really need to get out of the Empire business once and for all. I've watched Hillary enough to realize that regardless of her Wellesley education; she's not that bright.

    dahoit, June 5, 2016 at 11:18 am

    Totally agree;She is an idiot,who just follows the current memes of her Zionist masters. Not one damn evidence of critical thinking ever emanating from her crooked mouth. Imagine if the moron hadn't gotten on the crazy train of Iraq, and shown astute thinking, as every other astute thinker realized (Zionists and toads excluded of course)that its destabilization would bring chaos throughout the region.

    Of course,this might have been purposeful, but only her Ziomasters knew that, she is incapable.

    Susan Raikes Sugar, June 4, 2016 at 5:38 pm

    Yes, Debbie, you're probably right about the hands pulling the strings in this devastating - and also demented - picture. The latter because I've listened to people who were in Libya before we pulled our shenanigans there a la Saddam and Iraq. It seems to be very very difficult for anyone in US governing circles to learn lessons from an incident gone horribly wrong. Could it be arrogance?

    In any case, these people who were living in Libya had a strikingly different story to report re the standard of living that obtained in that country, Gaddafi's rule, etc., from what we were learning from the HRC-run US State Department. Moreover, for their trouble, for their wish to report their experience and tell their fellow Americans the real truth about Libya, they were muzzled and threatened, and from what I remember, soon found out that when you cross the US government and its foreign policy representatives by reporting truths they don't want the world to hear, the price will be very high. Very high indeed. I believe they soon found themselves unable to find gainful employment and had to subsist on hand-outs from interested and sympathetic listeners.

    Bill Bodden, June 4, 2016 at 6:21 pm

    It seems to be very very difficult for anyone in US governing circles to learn lessons from an incident gone horribly wrong. Could it be arrogance?

    It used to be a point of honor in Old Europe for a politician or a public servant who committed a monumental blunder or dishonorable act to resign from his office. If the act was sufficiently serious then suicide might have been called for. In Japan seppuku was a form of self-inflicted capital punishment for samurai and politicians who had committed serious offenses because they had brought shame to themselves and others with whom they were associated.

    In the United States and its satrapies, miscreants are much more "pragmatic." They enlist public relations fabricators to hoodwink the people into believing their naked emperor or empress is dressed in the finest of raiments so they can continue to commit more travesties.

    Abe, June 4, 2016 at 5:54 pm
    What started out as an attempt to divide and destroy Iran's arc of influence across the region has galvanized it instead.

    Moving the mercenary forces of IS out of the region is instrumental in ensuring they "live to fight another day." By placing them in Libya, Washington and its allies hope they will be far out of reach of the growing coalition truly fighting them across the Levant. Further more, placing them in Libya allows other leftover "projects" from the "Arab Spring" to be revisited, such as the destabilization and destruction of Algeria, Tunisia and perhaps even another attempt to destabilize and destroy Egypt.

    IS' presence in Libya could also be used as a pretext for open-ended and much broader military intervention throughout all of Africa by US forces and their European and Persian Gulf allies. As the US has done in Syria, where it has conducted operations for now over a year and a half to absolutely no avail, but has managed to prop up proxy forces and continue undermining and threatening targeted nations, it will likewise do so regarding IS in Libya and its inevitable and predictable spread beyond.

    Despite endless pledges by the US and Europe to take on IS in Libya, neither has admitted they themselves and their actions in 2011 predictably precipitated IS' rise there in the first place. Despite the predictable danger destabilizing and destroying Libya posed to Europe, including a deluge of refugees fleeing North Africa to escape the war in Libya, predicted by many prominent analysts at the time even before the first of NATO's bombs fell on the country, the US and Europe continued forward with military intervention anyway.

    One can only surmise from this that the US and Europe sought to intentionally create this chaos, planning to fully exploit it both at home and abroad to continue its campaign to geopolitically reorder MENA.

    Washington's Fake War on ISIS "Moves" to Libya
    By Ulson Gunnar
    https://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2016/04/washingtons-fake-war-on-isis-moves-to.html


    Pablo Diablo, June 4, 2016 at 8:13 pm

    OIL=MONEY.

    Peter GarciaWebb, June 4, 2016 at 10:13 pm

    Of note is that the unity government is not of Libya nor of the Libyan people. It is imposed by the US and is simply yet another example of US Corpocracy (read control of democracy by US corps and banks). That the UN gives it support demonstrates yet again that the UN has become an extension of the 0.01%

    rosemerry, June 5, 2016 at 3:25 pm

    All those years of Gaddaffi being a friend, an enemy, a friend once more, and all the time he worked effectively for Libyans and other Africans, building giant works for water and agriculture in Libya, providing services, listening to the people (!!!! who would do that in the USA?) and working to extend communications to all Africa. Removing him, with all the other destruction, was completely unforgivable and as we see has ruined yet another country. Hillary's sins are many-no need to repeat it.

    Zahid Kramet, June 5, 2016 at 4:06 am

    Regime change, as envisaged by the US, will not survive.And neither will capitalism in its present unregulated form.This is what the Arab Spring was and is all about.The US 'plants' in the Middle East have no future, thus the Clinton doctrine is doomed to fail.Trump, for all his inane ways of expressing it, has the better idea:he wants to compete on the consumer products front with an American label.The option is proxy wars led by the Pentagon and military industrial complexes of the world's three great powers, which will eventually lead to World War 111and the destruction of all mankind.

    Susan Raikes Sugar, June 5, 2016 at 4:17 am
    Here is a YouTube video from a series on Hillary's uncharmed life. Relevant here because it treats the subject of Libya Before, and Libya After. That we purposefully targeted this country in the same way we have targeted Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Ukraine, Honduras, Iran (multiple pointless and unfounded threats), as well as most recently Argentina, planted unrest and then pointed to our dirty deeds as the reason our vaunted Secretary of State was compelled to carry out regime-change - that's the story here. But for what reason? She's an egomaniac whose rationale rests mostly on: Because we can, could, will - and no one will dare stop us.

    Evil? Wicked? It's hard to know how best to characterize someone like this, but the repelling revelations are endless… If she becomes President of the United States, the tragic end may be that there will be no more stories. Someone with an incriminating past like Hillary's may not care about just blowing the entire Earth away one day. I suspect she could be just that selfish. She seems to be endowed with the mindset of a serial killer.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0m8efcUhvDA

    F. G. Sanford, June 5, 2016 at 4:39 am

    Channeling drops and running psy-ops, the machine Clinton helped set in motion,
    Is digging a ditch, the drainage from which, will accumulate sooner or later.
    All will work out, though Republicans pout, and the pundits refute attribution-
    The "A Team" is ready to lend a hand steady, and Clinton will calm this commotion!

    Now that Ukraine has become the refrain for successful destabilized mayhem,
    The mission complete is a model replete with the fruits of a policy triumph.
    The same in Brazil was achieved with good will, and the populace has been preempted,
    Chaos resulting through lack of consulting has adequately served to co-opt them.

    Those financial vultures and big-banking cultures will send in their thieves for a banquet-
    Behind those closed doors, the corporate whores are assembling cohorts adapted:
    They'll get Saakashvili, he's touchy and feely, Jaresko will also be drafted-
    They'll subvert with abandon inserted to stand-in, and as government puppets they'll crank it.

    Now that Brazil's got some corporate shills, and those cronies avoided indictment,
    Michel Temer may serve, because we observe, he's been banned for his acts of corruption.
    He'll now volunteer, and Wall Street will cheer, because Roussef got no help from Clinton,
    Touting motives progressive she's quite the obsessive 'til real women garner excitement!

    If Haftar gets sloppy, some bin Laden copy will step in to the fray and replace him.
    The margin of error for counterfeit terror is large, so there's no need to worry,
    The engineered fraud of a threat from abroad will be stoked by those waves of migration.
    If they run out of boats they'll use rubber tube floats, the Atlantic is such a quick swim!

    The only thing left, and the choice must be deft, is a foreign-born finance advisor.
    They're in ready supply, though Heaven knows why, and their provenance seems quite consistent-
    Like the one in Brazil, who gave banksters a thrill, he'll insure that the Dinar will prosper.
    Austerity measures will save all those treasures Gadaffi retained like a miser!

    Yes, that Neocon panel is digging a channel, that seems more akin to a ditch,
    But the "A Team" will fix it, and Haftar won't nix it, a Jihadi safe-zone will emerge,
    They'll be launching more strikes, we ain't seen the likes, that excrescence will flow unabated.
    The channel will capture to Neocon rapture all that spume and there won't be a hitch.

    But they'll need a Team Leader, a channeling seeder, with clandestine skills leaner and meaner,
    He'll have to have guts, not some amateur klutz, because courage will make him or break him,
    He'll be thrown in that ditch on behalf of the witch whose nefarious schemes spew that stench:
    A shadowy stranger they call "Carlos Danger", they can't trust just any old wiener!

    His fedora pulled low, and that trench-coat bestow a clandestine and camouflaged perch.
    He'll emerge from the mist, a cell phone in his fist, standing by to tweet classified selfies,
    If he opens that coat anywhere near the moat, it won't matter if boxers or briefs,
    The whole White House staff will get a good laugh, but he's got no image to smirch.

    He'll monitor droplets insuring the witch gets real-time situation reports.
    As the channel gets filled with that sewage distilled from another R2P disaster,
    She'll be watching the screen with her friend Abba Dean as intelligence analysts squirm,
    Classified pictures could compromise strictures if emails were found in his shorts.

    As drops coalesce, she'll rely on the press to obscure any overflow drama.
    Suave Carlos Danger will make like a stranger, awaiting his next big assignment.
    If the press were to ask us, that could be Damascus, but secrecy rules must prevail.
    There's no need to flaunt, he'll remain nonchalant, to prevent any legacy trauma.

    The Syrian gambit might be just a scam, but the Russians could really get spooked.
    Then something could drop with an ominous flop, and it won't be a laugh or a cackle.
    Engaged on that spectrum twixt knife and the the rectum may arise an indelible quote:
    "We spoke with a voice, but you gave us no choice. We came, and we saw, and we nuked."

    Joe Tedesky, June 5, 2016 at 1:23 pm

    Muammar Gaddafi's biggest mistake was his believing he could govern a sovereign nation. I use to think that it was all about oil. I believe that the U.S. is largely carrying out Israel's Yinon plan, but there is more. It's not so much a U.S. plan, as it is a U.S./London/Zionist conquest for world hegemony. I realize how most of you who frequent this site, already know this, but the majority of Americans I'm afraid don't have a clue. The western media has promoted the narrative that America is fighting against radical Muslims, and that by winning this war in the Middle East democracy will soon follow. By Robert Parry keeping this Libyian story alive is a good thing. Our MSM is papering over the real reason for all this war, by reporting as much as they can the childish antics of our presidential candidates.

    Libya, Flight MH17, the corruption in Ukraine, missile sites being installed in Poland and Romania are never or hardly ever mentioned, and that's not because any of those subjects are not news worthy. It's good against evil.

    My worry is that Hillary will make a move to bring home the biggest prize of all, and that will be the conquering of Russia. This doesn't have anything to do with gender, it's what is inside ones soul, and of course their agenda.

    Bill Bodden, June 5, 2016 at 2:00 pm

    Beyond death and taxes there are two constants. Authoritarians with a lust for power and/or wealth will seek to become autocrats ruling their fiefs according to their personal desires and ambitions without regard for and total indifference towards their subjects. If there is anyone among the tired, the poor, and huddled masses yearning to breathe free there will always be a need for people with courage to speak truth to power.

    This nation has always been fortunate to have courageous people rise to oppose malicious power – Thomas Paine, Eugene Debs, Emma Goldman, Mother Jones, Muhammad Ali, Bradley/Chelsea Manning, Robert Parry, Daniel Ellsberg, Edward Snowden, etc. – but they have had limited success against the plutocrats and their puppets in the political oligarchies. That failure is due, in part, to an ill-informed and apathetic populace.

    Joe B, June 6, 2016 at 8:00 am

    Very true and well said. The mass media are truly enemies of the people of the United States, and with the economic concentrations that support them, have waged economic and propaganda war upon the United States. They are thereby traitors, engaged in a right-wing revolution, and should be utterly destroyed in their ability to do so.

    [Sep 09, 2016] Hillary Clintons Libya

    The failed Libyan policy was one of the key sources of hundred of thousand refugees in Europe now. As well as Syrian events (where all this hired for overthrowing Gaddafi fighters went next)
    Notable quotes:
    "... a proper tally of the ideological culprits who have never been held to account should make special reference to Hillary Clinton's actions in Libya ..."
    "... Specifically, her misstatements ought to have been corrected along these lines: Gaddafi didn't have "more blood on his hands of Americans than anybody else," unless you discount the Saudi support for Al Qaeda. He did not threaten "genocide," no matter how slack your definition of genocide. He threatened to kill the rebels in Benghazi; the threat was dismissed by US army intelligence as improbable and poorly sourced. But Hillary Clinton overrode US intelligence, outmaneuvered the Pentagon (the secretary of defense, Robert Gates, had opposed the NATO bombing unreservedly), mobilized liberal-humanitarian and conservative pro-war opinion in the media, and talked Obama into committing the US to effect regime change in a third Middle East country. ..."
    "... Gaddafi was not "deposed." He was tortured and murdered, very likely by Islamists allied with NATO forces. The "radical elements" that are causing "a lot of turmoil and trouble" in "this arc of instability" are, in fact, Islamists whom Clinton picked as allies in the region, and she has pressed to supply them with arms in Syria as well as Libya. She really rates mention as an American mover of the "instability" in the region second only to Bush and Cheney. ..."
    "... Hillary says she made a "mistake" on the Bush era Iraq invasion vote. She did not make a mistake she engaged in an deliberate act of political expediency and cowardice. Everyone with a brain knew Bush was cooking up the Iraq invasion based on nothing. She knew but took the political choice not an intelligent one. ..."
    "... She has been a failure at just about every position she has held. She was fired from Watergate. A miserable failure leading healthcare reform (in the 90's- for those of you millienials that missed it). She did nothing as a Senator, having her eyes on the oval office. ..."
    "... Dickerson to Clinton: "Let me ask you. So, Libya is a country in which ISIS has taken hold in part, because of chaos after Muammar Gaddafi. That was an operation you championed. President Obama says this is the lesson he took from that operation. In an interview he said, the lesson was, do we have an answer for the day after? Wasn't that supposed to be one of the lessons that we learned after the Iraq war? And how did you get it wrong with Libya if the key lesson of the Iraq war is to have a plan for after?" ..."
    "... A day after assuming office as secretary of state, Clinton signed a Sensitive Compartmented Information Nondisclosure Agreement that laid out criminal penalties for "any unauthorized disclosure" of classified information. ..."
    "... She is either lying or totally incompetent to perform any job in the United States Government. ..."
    "... This article spotlights the failed Libyan policy which will gain importance as violence is exported beyond Syria and Mali and millions more refugees are created. ..."
    "... Sanders or bust. No neolibs, no Dinos for me. This is not a Ralph Nader situation. I simply will not support any more fake Democrats. Bill neolibbed us. Obama neolibbed us. Hillary did and will neolib us. ..."
    "... The Empire lies through its teeth, we all know that. The Colonel had actually been cleaning up his act to the point he was getting cautious praise from Washington ..."
    Nov 19, 2015 | www.huffingtonpost.com

    Some of the better-informed commentators on the recent terrorist attacks by ISIS have noticed the reassertion of the 2002-2003 understanding of the Middle East: that all-out war is the only sensible policy and Israel is our most faithful ally in the region. It is an opportunist line, and it is being pushed hardest by opportunists on the far right. But a proper tally of the ideological culprits who have never been held to account should make special reference to Hillary Clinton's actions in Libya. In the Democratic debate on November 14, Clinton got away with saying this unchallenged:

    CLINTON: Well, we did have a plan, and I think it's fair to say that of all of the Arab leaders, Gaddafi probably had more blood on his hands of Americans than anybody else. And when he moved on his own people, threatening a massacre, genocide, the Europeans and the Arabs, our allies and partners, did ask for American help and we provided it. And we didn't put a single boot on the ground, and Gaddafi was deposed. The Libyans turned out for one of the most successful, fairest elections that any Arab country has had. They elected moderate leaders. Now, there has been a lot of turmoil and trouble as they have tried to deal with these radical elements which you find in this arc of instability, from north Africa to Afghanistan. And it is imperative that we do more not only to help our friends and partners protect themselves and protect our own homeland, but also to work to try to deal with this arc of instability, which does have a lot of impact on what happens in a country like Libya.

    In response, Martin O'Malley said that Libya was "a mess" and Bernie Sanders said that Iraq had produced half a million PTSD casualties among Americans who served there. Neither showed the slightest indication of having mastered what happened in Libya: the centrality of Clinton's influence in the catastrophic decision to overthrow the government, and the proven consequences -- civil war in Libya itself and the opening of an Islamist pipeline from Libya to Syria and beyond.

    Specifically, her misstatements ought to have been corrected along these lines: Gaddafi didn't have "more blood on his hands of Americans than anybody else," unless you discount the Saudi support for Al Qaeda. He did not threaten "genocide," no matter how slack your definition of genocide. He threatened to kill the rebels in Benghazi; the threat was dismissed by US army intelligence as improbable and poorly sourced. But Hillary Clinton overrode US intelligence, outmaneuvered the Pentagon (the secretary of defense, Robert Gates, had opposed the NATO bombing unreservedly), mobilized liberal-humanitarian and conservative pro-war opinion in the media, and talked Obama into committing the US to effect regime change in a third Middle East country.

    Gaddafi was not "deposed." He was tortured and murdered, very likely by Islamists allied with NATO forces. The "radical elements" that are causing "a lot of turmoil and trouble" in "this arc of instability" are, in fact, Islamists whom Clinton picked as allies in the region, and she has pressed to supply them with arms in Syria as well as Libya. She really rates mention as an American mover of the "instability" in the region second only to Bush and Cheney.

    ... ... ...

    David Bromwich is a Professor of Literature, Yale University

    Mike Rodriguez · Jacksonville, Florida

    Hillary no. Sanders yes. The US political establishment of both parties no.

    Lybia is the least of these "mistakes" . Bush and Obama and Congress never had a clue what they were doing in the Middle East. We are paying a price for a weak and spiritless political system characterized by voter apathy and ignorance.

    Hillary? Why is she running? Why are the Republicans all running? Man alive we have got little or nothing really. But one of these is going to win no matter how small the voter turnout.

    Hillary says she made a "mistake" on the Bush era Iraq invasion vote. She did not make a mistake she engaged in an deliberate act of political expediency and cowardice. Everyone with a brain knew Bush was cooking up the Iraq invasion based on nothing. She knew but took the political choice not an intelligent one.

    Goethe Gunther · Las Cruces, New Mexico

    Thank you for this piece. Hillary Clinton and Richard Perle drink from the same neo-con/neo-liberal global political well. I CAN NOT vote for this person. Gaddafi was murdered as a matter of personal vendetta to avoid exposing allege monies he offered Sarkozy's campaign, amongst other issues that will take too much space to elucidate.

    But Obama and Hillary, because of their actions in Libya, made the world a more dangerous place.
    And herer is Hillary on the brutal murder of Gadaffi: https://youtu.be/mlz3-OzcExI

    Gero Lubovnik · Belarus Polyteknik University

    How does Hillary continually escape the truth and proper vetting? She has been a failure at just about every position she has held. She was fired from Watergate. A miserable failure leading healthcare reform (in the 90's- for those of you millienials that missed it). She did nothing as a Senator, having her eyes on the oval office. Libya and the rest of the middle east, her "Reset Button" with Russia (how's that workin' out?) who blitzkreiged Crimea and screwed Ukraine entirely, working toward parity of trade with China (who is building a military base in the South China Sea). Abject failure. And then one has to wonder how she and Bill amassed a personal fortune, providing no goods or products, nor services of meaningful value? [Answer: Clinton Foundation money laundering machine- where magic happens in past, present and future quid pro quo]?

    AND YOU WANT TO CORONATE HER AS PRESIDENT [EMPRESS], completel with pen and phone??? And then you wonder why America is becoming a second or third world nation.

    Charles Hill · Clifton High School

    This was a HUGE error. Gaddafi used to say "the West would never overthrow him because they did not want a Somalia on the Mediterranean coast". I guess Hillary and Obama did.

    And you can not blame this on Bush. Bush got Gaddafi to give up his WMD and Gaddafi was causing no trouble. He was only fighting the Islamists inside his country that Hillary and Obama decided to support. Now ISIS is running things there.

    Brian Donahue · New York, New York

    The US has a habit of destabilizing these countries (Iraq and Libya). Chaos results. Hillary will be very dangerous as president. She is too quick to use force with no end strategy at all.

    Clarc King · Bronx, New York

    A fair representation of the reality of American foreign policy taken over by the satanic, elitist, neoliberal mob. Libya, once an ally and most progressive state in Africa, was destroyed and is now governed, if you can call it that, by a CIA asset. No wonder people resist American Regime Change. Hillary, a warmonger for Imperialism, cannot possibly be considered for the US presidency. The US citizenry must act quickly and form a new presidential platform.

    Linda LaRoque · Odessa College

    If you're under 50 you really need to read this. If you're over 50, you lived through it, so share it with those under 50.

    Amazing to me how much I had forgotten! When Bill Clinton was president, he allowed Hillary to assume authority over a health care reform. Even after threats and intimidation, she couldn't even get a vote in a democratic controlled congress. This fiasco cost the American taxpayers about $13 million in cost for studies, promotion, and other efforts.

    Then President Clinton gave Hillary authority over selecting a female attorney general. Her first two selections were Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood - both were forced to withdraw their names from consideration.

    Next she chose Janet Reno - husband Bill described her selection as "my worst mistake." Some may not remember that Reno made the decision to gas David Koresh and the Branch Davidian religious sect in Waco , Texas resulting in dozens of deaths of women and children.

    Husband Bill allowed Hillary to make recommendations for the head of the Civil Rights Commission. Lani Guanier was her selection. When a little probing led to the discovery of Ms. Guanier's radical views, her name had to be withdrawn from consideration.

    Apparently a slow learner, husband Bill allowed Hillary to make some more recommendations. She chose former law partners Web Hubbel for the Justice Department, Vince Foster for the White House staff, and William Kennedy for the Treasury Department.

    Her selections went well: Hubbel went to prison, Foster (presumably) committed suicide, and Kennedy was forced to resign.

    Many younger votes will have no knowledge of "Travelgate." Hillary wanted to award unfettered travel contracts to Clinton friend Harry Thompson - and the White House Travel Office refused to comply. She managed to have them reported to the FBI and fired. This ruined their reputations, cost them their jobs, and caused a thirty-six month investigation. Only one employee, Billy Dale was charged with a crime, and that of the enormous crime of mixing personal and White House funds. A jury acquitted him of any crime in less than two hours.

    Still not convinced of her ineptness, Hillary was allowed to recommend a close Clinton friend, Craig Livingstone, for the position of Director of White House security. When Livingstone was investigated for the improper access of about 900 FBI files of Clinton enemies (Filegate) and the widespread use of drugs by White House staff, suddenly Hillary and the president denied even knowing Livingstone, and of course, denied knowledge of drug use in the White House.
    Following this debacle, the FBI closed its White House Liaison Office after more than thirty years of service to seven presidents.

    Next, when women started coming forward with allegations of sexual harassment and rape by Bill Clinton, Hillary was put in charge of the "bimbo eruption" and scandal defense. Some of her more notable decisions in the debacle were:

    • She urged her husband not to settle the Paula Jones lawsuit. After the Starr investigation they settled with Ms. Jones.
    • She refused to release the Whitewater documents, which led to the appointment of Ken Starr as Special Prosecutor. After $80 million dollars of taxpayer money was spent, Starr's investigation led to Monica Lewinsky, which led to Bill lying about and later admitting his affairs. Hillary's devious game plan resulted in Bill losing his license to practice law for 'lying under oath' to a grand jury and then his subsequent impeachment by the House of Representatives. Hillary avoided indictment for perjury and obstruction of justice during the Starr investigation by repeating, "I do not recall," "I have no recollection," and "I don't know" a total of 56 times while under oath.
    • After leaving the White House, Hillary was forced to return an estimated $200,000 in White House furniture, china, and artwork that she had stolen.
      Now we are exposed to the destruction of possibly incriminating emails while Hillary was Secretary of State and the "pay to play" schemes of the Clinton Foundation - we have no idea what shoe will fall next.

    #DonaldTrumpForPresident #StandUpForTrump #donaldjtrump.com

    Martin Gill · Cabrillo College

    That's all well and good, and probably all true and then some, but the candidates running against her, even with all their clearance for viewing information, have NO IDEA what Clinton and her State Depertment were doing then. Only she and MAYBE Obama does. It has become clear that the State Department was running rogue, just like the IRS and the AG's office were.

    Terry Lee · Telgar

    The State Department was running rogue?! Only she and MAYBE Obama knows what was going on? It seems that you know what was going on, too. LOL!

    Elizabeth Fichtl

    The country is waking up.

    Question put to HRC during the debate.

    Dickerson to Clinton: "Let me ask you. So, Libya is a country in which ISIS has taken hold in part, because of chaos after Muammar Gaddafi. That was an operation you championed. President Obama says this is the lesson he took from that operation. In an interview he said, the lesson was, do we have an answer for the day after? Wasn't that supposed to be one of the lessons that we learned after the Iraq war? And how did you get it wrong with Libya if the key lesson of the Iraq war is to have a plan for after?"

    Leslie Ware · Preston High School

    Just a few reasons to take Clinton to trial:

    1.Under 18 USC 793 subsection F, the information does not have to be classified to count as a violation. The intelligence source, who spoke on the condition of anonymity citing the sensitivity of the ongoing probe, said the subsection requires the "lawful possession" of national defense information by a security clearance holder who "through gross negligence," such as the use of an unsecure computer network, permits the material to be removed or abstracted from its proper, secure location.

    Subsection F also requires the clearance holder "to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer. "A failure to do so "shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."

    The source said investigators are also focused on possible obstruction of justice. "If someone knows there is an ongoing investigation and takes action to impede an investigation, for example destruction of documents or threatening of witnesses, that could be a separate charge but still remain under a single case," the source said. Currently, the ongoing investigation is led by the Washington Field Office of the FBI.

    2. A day after assuming office as secretary of state, Clinton signed a Sensitive Compartmented Information Nondisclosure Agreement that laid out criminal penalties for "any unauthorized disclosure" of classified information. … "I have been advised that the unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention, or negligent handling of SCI by me could cause irreparable injury to the United States or be used to advantage by a foreign nation," the agreement states.

    Moreover, the agreement covers information of lesser sensitivity. ("In addition to her SCI agreement, Clinton signed a separate NDA for all other classified information. It contains similar language, including prohibiting 'negligent handling of classified information,' requiring her to ascertain whether information is classified and laying out criminal penalties.") Well, that is awkward, as the FBI continues its investigation into potential negligent handling of classified information.

    3. 18 U.S. Code § 1001
    (a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully-
    (1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
    (2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
    (3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;
    shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, or section 1591, then the term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not more than 8 years.
    (b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party's counsel, for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding.
    (c) With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch, subsection (a) shall apply only to-
    (1) administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a matter related to the procurement of property or services, personnel or employment practices, or support services, or a document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the Congress or any office or officer within the legislative branch; or
    (2) any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or Senate.

    Its time to escalate this investigation and show the Country how unethical and criminal this pretender to the presidency really is.

    Clinton also should be totally disqualified from a Security Clearance, simply because of her previous behavior and nonchalant lack of safeguarding of classified information. All the while saying she did not recognize the information was CLASSIFIED. She is either lying or totally incompetent to perform any job in the United States Government.

    Clinton for Trial 2016.

    Mike Kelly

    OK, we get it. You don't like HRC.

    The rest of this is a crock. There's simply no evidence that HRC Actually did any of the dire things you are claiming in your long and tiresome post. Virtually all of the classified information was classified by the State Department or CIA AFTER it was received and sent by HRC. As a result, your allegations do not hold water. Certainly much different from outing a CIA agent for political purposes, as was done during the previous administration.

    David Auner · Springfield, Missouri

    This article spotlights the failed Libyan policy which will gain importance as violence is exported beyond Syria and Mali and millions more refugees are created. The point about repubs being sharper is just wrong - they have honed absurd talking points with Luntz while wasting tax dollars on Benghazi. O'Malley's mess comment was adequate - debate prep can not prepare for every oddly crafted rewrite of history. Rebutting Clinton's narrative would involve hours of pointing out the failures of State's and Obama's narratives in most of their tenure. Sanders knows more than what this article has put forward but a vigorous debate would touch on classified information about the CIA station in Benghazi and their disastrous activities - which candidates must avoid for now. Debates fail easily - the author of this article fails with adequate time for a deeper analysis.

    Elvin B. Ross · University of Idaho

    Sanders or bust. No neolibs, no Dinos for me. This is not a Ralph Nader situation. I simply will not support any more fake Democrats. Bill neolibbed us. Obama neolibbed us. Hillary did and will neolib us.

    Paul Mountain · Works at Love_Unlimited

    US politicians aren't paid to think, they're paid to follow the leader, and when it comes to Middle Eastern policy that's Israel, the Bible, and the Congressional Military Industrial Complex.

    Michael Rinella · Works at State University of New York Press

    The Empire lies through its teeth, we all know that. The Colonel had actually been cleaning up his act to the point he was getting cautious praise from Washington - and then when globalization destablized his economy (foreign workers in eastern Libya taking jobs from the locals) they fell over themselves to put a knife in his back.

    James Charles O'Donnell III

    Why is the institutional American left so frantic to nominate Sec. Clinton, the candidate who is A) unquestionably THE LEAST PROGRESSIVE choice; and B) by far THE LEAST VIABLE contender in a general election, with a cornucopia of baggage, not all of which is imaginary?

    Hillary Clinton has managed DECADES of poor polling, with consistently high negative favorability ratings, especially among independents -- and a huge "trustability" problem. That "dodging sniper fire" fabrication she repeatedly told ON VIDEO will probably be exploited in the general election to cement the American people's (accurate) perception that Ms. Clinton is dishonest, and that will sink her electoral chances for good -- and the LEFT, too, unfortunately (so much for those SCOTUS seats!).

    With Bernie Sanders, AN ACTUAL PROGRESSIVE, looking for all the world like a national winner, inspiring record-breaking crowds and grass-roots donations, the liberal establishment is bizarrely (corruptly) pushing for the coronation of the ONLY Democrat who could possibly lose in 2016 -- and the one who, on policy, is an open neoconservative war hawk and Wall Street champion, a career enemy of the 99%... UNBELIEVABLE.

    [Sep 09, 2016] Hillarys Huge Libya Disaster

    Jun 15, 2016 | The National Interest

    Before the revolution, Libya was a secure, prospering, secular Islamic country and a critical ally providing intelligence on terrorist activity post–September 11, 2001. Qaddafi was no longer a threat to the United States. Yet Secretary of State Hillary Clinton strongly advocated and succeeded in convincing the administration to support the Libyan rebels with a no-fly zone, intended to prevent a possible humanitarian disaster that turned quickly into all-out war.

    ... ... ...

    Despite valid ceasefire opportunities to prevent "bloodshed in Benghazi" at the onset of hostilities, Secretary Clinton intervened and quickly pushed her foreign policy in support of a revolution led by the Muslim Brotherhood and known terrorists in the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group. One of the Libyan Rebel Brigade commanders, Ahmed Abu Khattala, would later be involved in the terrorist attack in Benghazi on September 11, 2012. Articulating her indifference to the chaos brought by war, Secretary Clinton stated on May 18, 2013, to the House Oversight Committee and the American public, "Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night and decided they'd go kill some Americans? What difference, at this point, does it make?"

    ... ... ...

    U.S. Navy Rear Admiral Charles R. Kubic served worldwide for over 32 years as a Navy Seabee, and retired in 2005. He served as a senior policy analyst in the Reagan White House, and was appointed in March 2016 as a National Security Policy Advisor to Donald Trump.

    [Sep 09, 2016] Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Enabled the Coup in Honduras

    Notable quotes:
    "... Under longstanding and clear-cut US law, all US aid to Honduras - except democracy assistance - including all military aid, should have been immediately suspended following the coup. ..."
    "... Why wasn't US aid to Honduras suspended following the coup? The justification given by Clinton's State Department on August 25 for not suspending US aid to Honduras was that events in Honduras were murky and it was not clear whether a coup had taken place. Clinton's State Department claimed that State Department lawyers were studying the murky question of whether a coup had taken place. ..."
    "... This justification was a lie, and Clinton's State Department knew it was a lie. By July 24, 2009, the State Department, including Secretary Clinton, knew clearly that the action of the Honduran military to remove President Zelaya on June 28, 2009, constituted a coup. On July 24, US Ambassador to Honduras Hugo Llorens sent a cable to top US officials, including Secretary of State Clinton, with subject: "Open and Shut: The Case of the Honduran Coup," thoroughly documenting the assertion that "there is no doubt" that the events of June 28 "constituted an illegal and unconstitutional coup." ..."
    Feb 23, 2016 | www.truth-out.org

    On June 28, 2009, when Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State, democratically elected Honduran President Manuel Zelaya was overthrown by a military coup. The United Nations, the European Union and the Organization of American States (OAS) condemned the coup, and on July 5, Honduras was suspended from the OAS.

    Under longstanding and clear-cut US law, all US aid to Honduras - except democracy assistance - including all military aid, should have been immediately suspended following the coup.

    On August 7, 15 House Democrats, led by Rep. Raúl Grijalva, sent a letter to the administration which began, "As you know, on June 28th, 2009, a military coup took place in Honduras," and said: "The State Department should fully acknowledge that a military coup has taken place and follow through with the total suspension of non-humanitarian aid, as required by law."

    Why wasn't US aid to Honduras suspended following the coup? The justification given by Clinton's State Department on August 25 for not suspending US aid to Honduras was that events in Honduras were murky and it was not clear whether a coup had taken place. Clinton's State Department claimed that State Department lawyers were studying the murky question of whether a coup had taken place.

    This justification was a lie, and Clinton's State Department knew it was a lie. By July 24, 2009, the State Department, including Secretary Clinton, knew clearly that the action of the Honduran military to remove President Zelaya on June 28, 2009, constituted a coup. On July 24, US Ambassador to Honduras Hugo Llorens sent a cable to top US officials, including Secretary of State Clinton, with subject: "Open and Shut: The Case of the Honduran Coup," thoroughly documenting the assertion that "there is no doubt" that the events of June 28 "constituted an illegal and unconstitutional coup."

    ... ... ...

    [Sep 09, 2016] Benghazi Just a Symptom; Interventionism Is the Disease

    Notable quotes:
    "... the Benghazi attack, for all its shock and tragedy, is but one detail in a panorama of misadventure, an in many ways unsurprising consequence of the hubris of liberal interventionism's false conviction that the American military can casually pop in and out of the whole world's problems without suffering cost or consequence ..."
    "... as Tim Carney rightly argues at The Washington Examiner , and the "useful lesson from Benghazi isn't about a White House lying (shocking!), but about the inherent messiness of regime change and the impossibility of a quick, clean war." ..."
    "... And the foreign policy establishment on the other side of the aisle must not be left without its due share of blame should that possibility come to pass. Though Benghazi committee chairman Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) was right to attempt to widen the report's focus past Clinton specifically, neoconservatives' all-too-convenient attention to the errors of Benghazi make it all easy for them to gloss over the bigger issue at hand: that none of this would have happened had America stuck to a foreign policy of realism and restraint, minding our own business and defending our own interests instead of gallivanting off to play revolutionary in one more country with no vital connection to our own. ..."
    "... Benghazi is a symptom-a serious one, at that-but the disease is interventionism. ..."
    Jun 30, 2016 | Reason.com

    ... ... ...

    And the Benghazi attack, for all its shock and tragedy, is but one detail in a panorama of misadventure, an in many ways unsurprising consequence of the hubris of liberal interventionism's false conviction that the American military can casually pop in and out of the whole world's problems without suffering cost or consequence.

    Indeed, the "2012 attack that killed four Americans was a consequence of the disorder and violence the administration left in the wake of its drive-by war," as Tim Carney rightly argues at The Washington Examiner, and the "useful lesson from Benghazi isn't about a White House lying (shocking!), but about the inherent messiness of regime change and the impossibility of a quick, clean war."

    Unfortunately, that is a lesson too few in Washington are willing to learn. Clinton herself maintains in the face of overwhelming evidence that her handiwork in Libya is an example of "smart power at its best"-a phrase whose blatant inaccuracy should haunt her for the rest of her political career. With arguments in favor of Libya, round two already swirling and Clinton's poll numbers holding strong, it is not difficult to imagine a Clinton White House dragging America back to fiddle with a country it was never particularly interested in fixing by this time next year.

    And the foreign policy establishment on the other side of the aisle must not be left without its due share of blame should that possibility come to pass. Though Benghazi committee chairman Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) was right to attempt to widen the report's focus past Clinton specifically, neoconservatives' all-too-convenient attention to the errors of Benghazi make it all easy for them to gloss over the bigger issue at hand: that none of this would have happened had America stuck to a foreign policy of realism and restraint, minding our own business and defending our own interests instead of gallivanting off to play revolutionary in one more country with no vital connection to our own.

    Benghazi is a symptom-a serious one, at that-but the disease is interventionism. That's the real story here, and it's a bipartisan failure of judgment which shows all the signs of running on repeat.

    [Sep 09, 2016] Michael Greenberger: Setting the Stage For the Next Wall Street Crisis

    Financial oligarchy rule is now indisputable and subservience of politicians in congress and administration is close to absolute. Financial oligarchy is the dominant power under neoliberalism. No question about it. As Andrew Mellon (US Treasury Secretary, 1921 to 1932) used to say "Strong men have sound ideas, and the force to make these ideas effective." Making Al Capone famous quote more modern, "You can get more with a kind word and money than you can with a kind word alone."
    Notable quotes:
    "... I think that as Greenberger points out, once we were able to see Obama's early financial appointments, we knew that we had been had, once again. Despite his soaring rhetoric for change, he was a loyal member of the Wall Street wing. ..."
    "... Obama and the Wall Street wing of the Democratic party, founded by the Clintons, is a brand , cobbled together and groomed for office by the moneyed interests, designed to misdirect and diffuse the angry reaction for reform by the people in the aftermath of the financial crisis. And it was a job well done. ..."
    "... I strongly believe that Hillary has been and still remains a product of Wall Street money, and will continue to follow the money once in office no matter what rhetoric she may wear during any political campaign. ..."
    Feb 10, 2015 | Jesse's Café Américain

    Michael Greenberger has long been one of my favorite commenters on regulation, and in particular on futures price manipulation.

    Within the context of the uphill battle against the status quo, Gary Gensler and Bart Chilton may have looked 'good' as regulators, but all in all they looked better only by comparison with some very horrible alternatives. Chilton, as you may recall, did not waste much time going through the revolving door to put on the feedbag from the HFT crowd.

    I think that as Greenberger points out, once we were able to see Obama's early financial appointments, we knew that we had been had, once again. Despite his soaring rhetoric for change, he was a loyal member of the Wall Street wing.

    Obama and the Wall Street wing of the Democratic party, founded by the Clintons, is a brand, cobbled together and groomed for office by the moneyed interests, designed to misdirect and diffuse the angry reaction for reform by the people in the aftermath of the financial crisis. And it was a job well done.

    No matter what she says, no matter what promises she may make, no matter what identity branding they may choose to spin for her, I strongly believe that Hillary has been and still remains a product of Wall Street money, and will continue to follow the money once in office no matter what rhetoric she may wear during any political campaign.

    Further, the only major difference between the parties now is that the Republicans have sold out wholesale to the moneyed interests, whereas the Dems have been doing it one despicable betrayal at a time. They merely wear different masks. Money conquers all with this venal brood of vipers.

    Financial reform comes with political campaign money reform. The two are inseparable.


    Posted by Jesse at 1:24 PM

    [Sep 09, 2016] What if illary appoints Victoria Nuland Secretary of State

    Jul 08, 2016 | theintercept.com

    Erelis -> RootieKazootie, June 8 2016, 3:27 p.m.

    Worse yet, if Hillary appoints Victoria Nuland Secretary of State. The effect will be like turning on Skynet.
    Doug Salzmann -> Erelis, June 8 2016, 4:00 p.m.

    But we might get cookies.

    elwood, June 8 2016, 12:49 p.m.

    Now Clinton can put together her ticket.
    She's tapping Martin Shkreli as her VP, and they're calling it the Super Predator ticket.

    [Sep 09, 2016] Hillary Clintons Likely Defense Secretary Wants More US Troops Fighting ISIS and Assad

    Notable quotes:
    "... Michele Flournoy, formerly the third-ranking civilian in the Pentagon under President Barack Obama, called for "limited military coercion" to help remove Assad from power in Syria, including a "no bombing" zone over parts of Syria held by U.S.-backed rebels. ..."
    Jun 22, 2016 | www.informationclearinghouse.info

    okie farmer | Jun 23, 2016 1:07:53 AM | 58

    "Information Clearing House" - "Defense One" - The woman expected to run the Pentagon under Hillary Clinton said she would direct U.S. troops to push President Bashar al-Assad's forces out of southern Syria and would send more American boots to fight the Islamic State in the region.

    Michele Flournoy, formerly the third-ranking civilian in the Pentagon under President Barack Obama, called for "limited military coercion" to help remove Assad from power in Syria, including a "no bombing" zone over parts of Syria held by U.S.-backed rebels.

    [Sep 09, 2016] Hillary Clinton, Smart Power and a Dictators Fall

    A weak president with jingoistic and incompetent Secretary of State is a pretty explosive mix. A sociopathic female president with neocons inspired jingoistic foreign policy can be a disaster for the country.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Her conviction would be critical in persuading Mr. Obama to join allies in bombing Colonel Qaddafi's forces. In fact, Mr. Obama's defense secretary, Robert M. Gates, would later say that in a "51-49" decision, it was Mrs. Clinton's support that put the ambivalent president over the line. ..."
    "... Anne-Marie Slaughter, her director of policy planning at the State Department, notes that in conversation and in her memoir, Mrs. Clinton repeatedly speaks of wanting to be "caught trying." In other words, she would rather be criticized for what she has done than for having done nothing at all. ..."
    "... Libya's descent into chaos began with a rushed decision to go to war, made in what one top official called a "shadow of uncertainty" as to Colonel Qaddafi's intentions. ..."
    "... She pressed for a secret American program that supplied arms to rebel militias, an effort never before confirmed. ..."
    "... Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, has seized on her role in the larger narrative of the Libyan intervention; during a recent debate, he said he feared that "Secretary Clinton is too much into regime change." ..."
    "... ...aftermath of the 2011 intervention: the Islamic State only "300 miles from Europe," a refugee crisis that "is a human tragedy as well as a political one" and the destabilization of much of West Africa. ..."
    "... "She says, and I quote, 'You are not going to drag us into your shitty war,'" said Mr. Araud, now France's ambassador in Washington. "She said, 'We'll be obliged to follow and support you, and we don't want to.' The conversation got tense. I answered, 'France isn't a U.S. subsidiary.' It was the Obama policy at the time that they didn't want a new Arab war." ..."
    "... "We don't want another war," she told Mr. Lavrov, stressing that the mission was limited to protecting civilians. "I take your point about not seeking another war," she recalled him responding. "But that doesn't mean that you won't get one." ..."
    The New York Times

    The president was wary. The secretary
    of state was persuasive. But the ouster
    of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi left Libya
    a failed state and a terrorist haven.

    Mrs. Clinton was won over. Opposition leaders "said all the right things about supporting democracy and inclusivity and building Libyan institutions, providing some hope that we might be able to pull this off," said Philip H. Gordon, one of her assistant secretaries. "They gave us what we wanted to hear. And you do want to believe."

    Her conviction would be critical in persuading Mr. Obama to join allies in bombing Colonel Qaddafi's forces. In fact, Mr. Obama's defense secretary, Robert M. Gates, would later say that in a "51-49" decision, it was Mrs. Clinton's support that put the ambivalent president over the line.

    The consequences would be more far-reaching than anyone imagined, leaving Libya a failed state and a terrorist haven, a place where the direst answers to Mrs. Clinton's questions have come to pass.

    This is the story of how a woman whose Senate vote for the Iraq war may have doomed her first presidential campaign nonetheless doubled down and pushed for military action in another Muslim country. As she once again seeks the White House, campaigning in part on her experience as the nation's chief diplomat, an examination of the intervention she championed shows her at what was arguably her moment of greatest influence as secretary of state. It is a working portrait rich with evidence of what kind of president she might be, and especially of her expansive approach to the signal foreign-policy conundrum of today: whether, when and how the United States should wield its military power in Syria and elsewhere in the Middle East.

    ... ... ...

    Anne-Marie Slaughter, her director of policy planning at the State Department, notes that in conversation and in her memoir, Mrs. Clinton repeatedly speaks of wanting to be "caught trying." In other words, she would rather be criticized for what she has done than for having done nothing at all.

    ... ... ...

    Libya's descent into chaos began with a rushed decision to go to war, made in what one top official called a "shadow of uncertainty" as to Colonel Qaddafi's intentions. The mission inexorably evolved even as Mrs. Clinton foresaw some of the hazards of toppling another Middle Eastern strongman. She pressed for a secret American program that supplied arms to rebel militias, an effort never before confirmed.

    ... ... ...

    Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, has seized on her role in the larger narrative of the Libyan intervention; during a recent debate, he said he feared that "Secretary Clinton is too much into regime change."

    ... ... ...

    ...aftermath of the 2011 intervention: the Islamic State only "300 miles from Europe," a refugee crisis that "is a human tragedy as well as a political one" and the destabilization of much of West Africa.

    ... ... ...

    France and Britain were pushing hard for a Security Council vote on a resolution supporting a no-fly zone in Libya to prevent Colonel Qaddafi from slaughtering his opponents. Ms. Rice was calling to push back, in characteristically salty language.

    "She says, and I quote, 'You are not going to drag us into your shitty war,'" said Mr. Araud, now France's ambassador in Washington. "She said, 'We'll be obliged to follow and support you, and we don't want to.' The conversation got tense. I answered, 'France isn't a U.S. subsidiary.' It was the Obama policy at the time that they didn't want a new Arab war."

    ... ... ...

    "We don't want another war," she told Mr. Lavrov, stressing that the mission was limited to protecting civilians. "I take your point about not seeking another war," she recalled him responding. "But that doesn't mean that you won't get one."

    [Sep 09, 2016] Hillary the Hawk

    Notable quotes:
    "... The Democrats' Athena only differs from Bush on the details. ..."
    "... Her bellicose interventionism has a history: it was Hillary, you'll recall, who berated her husband for not bombing Belgrade soon enough and hard enough. As Gail Sheehy relates in Hillary's Choice: ..."
    "... Hillary would have occupied Iraq a decade earlier, riding into Baghdad at the head of her troops like Pallas Athena descending on the Trojans, striding boldly into what Gen. William E. Odom has described as "the greatest strategic disaster in our history." ..."
    "... Hillary, however, didn't let any inconvenient facts get in her way. She boasted that it was under a Democratic administration that the U.S. "changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change" and took credit for the bright idea of putting Ahmad Chalabi, convicted embezzler and known liar, on the U.S. payroll. Her speech reads like a Weekly Standard editorial, reiterating each of the War Party's talking points-the bio-weapons fantasy, the links to al-Qaeda gambit, the phantom nuclear arsenal: "This much," she maintaind, "is undisputed." ..."
    "... When it comes to Iran, however, she is just as belligerent as the next neocon: Pelosi co-sponsored legislation imposing draconian economic sanctions on Iran and stops just short of calling another war. ..."
    www.theamericanconservative.com

    The Democrats' Athena only differs from Bush on the details.

    Hillary's newfound centrism isn't completely insincere. Her bellicose interventionism has a history: it was Hillary, you'll recall, who berated her husband for not bombing Belgrade soon enough and hard enough. As Gail Sheehy relates in Hillary's Choice:

    Hillary expressed her views by phone to the President: 'I urged him to bomb.' The Clintons argued the issue over the next few days. [The president expressed] what-ifs: What if bombing promoted more executions? What if it took apart the NATO alliance? Hillary responded, 'You cannot let this go on at the end of a century that has seen the major holocaust of our time. What do we have NATO for if not to defend our way of life?' The next day the President declared that force was necessary.

    Together with Madeleine Albright-who famously complained to Colin Powell, "What good is it having this superb military you're always talking about if we can't use it?"-Hillary constituted the Amazonian wing of the Democratic Party during the years of her husband's presidency. Her effort to outflank the Republicans on the right when it comes to the Iran issue is a logical extension of her natural bellicosity.

    Hillary is nothing if not consistent: in her floor speech to the Senate during the debate over the resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq, she declared, "the facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt"-a statement she has never acknowledged regretting. Particularly endearing to the War Party, she framed her "aye" vote in terms of the classic neoconservative myth of Bush I's betrayal:

    The first President Bush assembled a global coalition, including many Arab states, and threw Saddam out after forty-three days of bombing and a hundred hours of ground operations. The U.S.-led coalition then withdrew, leaving the Kurds and the Shiites, who had risen against Saddam Hussein at our urging, to Saddam's revenge.

    Hillary would have occupied Iraq a decade earlier, riding into Baghdad at the head of her troops like Pallas Athena descending on the Trojans, striding boldly into what Gen. William E. Odom has described as "the greatest strategic disaster in our history."

    Hillary hails the 1998 bombing of Iraq, ordered by her husband, which killed thousands of Iraqi civilians, and recounts the official mythology promulgated by the Bush administration: "[T]he so-called presidential palaces in reality were huge compounds well suited to hold weapons labs, stocks, and records which Saddam Hussein was required by UN resolution to turn over. When Saddam blocked the inspection process, the inspectors left." As we now know, there was nothing even approaching WMD in those palaces, and Iraq had been effectively disarmed at that point. In late February or early March, Scott Ritter, then a UN arms inspector, met with then-U.S. ambassador to the UN Bill Richardson. Ritter was told to provoke an incident so the U.S. could finish bombing by the start of the Islamic New Year holiday.

    Hillary, however, didn't let any inconvenient facts get in her way. She boasted that it was under a Democratic administration that the U.S. "changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change" and took credit for the bright idea of putting Ahmad Chalabi, convicted embezzler and known liar, on the U.S. payroll. Her speech reads like a Weekly Standard editorial, reiterating each of the War Party's talking points-the bio-weapons fantasy, the links to al-Qaeda gambit, the phantom nuclear arsenal: "This much," she maintaind, "is undisputed."

    What is undisputed these days is that the entire rationale for war was based on trumped-up evidence of Iraq's alleged transgressions, but Hillary is unrepentant: "No, I don't regret giving the president authority because at the time it was in the context of weapons of mass destruction, grave threats to the United States, and clearly, Saddam Hussein had been a real problem for the international community for more than a decade."

    But there was no threat to the U.S. and Hillary knows it. What's more, her hardcore constituency knows it, and they are becoming increasingly alienated from-even actively hostile to-their putative presidential frontrunner over this issue. Their anger is stoked by evidence that Hillary has imbibed the same neocon Kool-Aid that has intoxicated the Bush administration and blinded it to the failure of its policies in Iraq.

    On a trip to Iraq during which 55 people-including one American soldier -were killed by suicide bombers, Hillary was merrily chirping that the occupation was "functioning quite well" and that the surge of suicide attacks indicated that the insurgency was failing. Security was so bad that the road to the airport was impassable, and the Senate delegation had to be transported to the Green Zone by military helicopter. They dared not venture out into the streets of Baghdad.

    The disconnect between rhetoric and reality, between the antiwar views of Hillary's left-wing base and the militant interventionism of Wittmann and the DLC crowd, finally forced her to come to grips with the contradiction-or at least to appear to do so. This occurred not in a public speech but in an e-mail sent to her supporters in which the trouble she is in is acknowledged in the first sentence: "The war in Iraq is on the minds of many of you who have written or who have called my office asking questions and expressing frustration." Chances are, these callers were expressing frustration not only with the policies of the Bush administration but with her own complicity with Bush's Middle Eastern agenda of seemingly endless aggression.

    She falls back on the old "there are no quick and easy answers" ploy to give an aura of thoughtfulness to a dishonest and constantly shifting position on the war. While insisting that we should not "allow this to be an open-ended commitment without limits or end," she reassures the War Party by distancing herself from John Murtha and others who want an orderly withdrawal in a relatively short time: "Nor do I believe that we can or should pull out of Iraq immediately." She hails the elections as the signal that we can start the withdrawal process sometime "in the coming year," but not completely: we must leave behind "a smaller contingent in safer areas with greater intelligence and quick strike capabilities"-a tripwire, in short, in the form of permanent bases.

    ... ... ...

    What does Hillary want? A smarter, smoother, better-planned interventionism, one that our allies find more amenable and yet is, in many ways, more militant than the Republican version-one that "levels with the American people" about the costs of empire and yet doesn't dispute the alleged necessity of American hegemony. As she finds her voice as a would-be commander in chief, it isn't one the traditional Left in this country will recognize.

    ... ... ...

    If the Democratic establishment's stance on the war is at odds with the party's antiwar activist base, then their outright warmongering on the Iranian issue puts the two factions on a collision course. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi-who effectively quashed fellow California Democrat Lynn Woolsey's resolution calling for a withdrawal timetable -has followed the Hillary-Emanuel-DLC party line, while managing somehow to assuage her constituents with plenty of pork and partisan rhetoric. When it comes to Iran, however, she is just as belligerent as the next neocon: Pelosi co-sponsored legislation imposing draconian economic sanctions on Iran and stops just short of calling another war.

    [Sep 09, 2016] Brexit and Americas Growing Nationalism Movement

    Looks like now line in 1920th the global pendulum moves toward nationalism. So in a way neoliberalism breeds nationalism and transnational elite paves the way for dictators like Mussolini, Hitler and Stalin in the past. Transnational elites start to recognize the danger, but they can do nothing about it as Trump has shown so vividly in the USA.
    High unemployment logically lead to nationalism and all those neoliberal politicians understood that they are destroying the county but continue to plunder it anyway. Biden already cried uncle about the danger of far right nationalism on CNN. But reality in the USA is not then different from the reality in Britain.
    Notable quotes:
    "... No wonder Donald Trump's campaign has ignited a growing nationalism movement. We're creating jobs and giving them away. We've let globalization get away from us. It's abundantly clear that we don't have the right public policies in place to incentivize corporations to keep Americans gainfully employed. ..."
    "... Grove's bold piece was embraced by some, panned by others and largely ignored. Whether he or Trump have exactly the right solution to the globalization and immigration problems plaguing free-market economies throughout the western world doesn't matter. What matters is that they've identified a problem that needs to be solved before it's too late. So did the British people when they voted to exit the EU. ..."
    "... Economic prosperity and security must trump political correctness and ideology. The Brits got it right. Will we? ..."
    Jul 04, 2016 | Fox Business
    Just five weeks ago, polling indicated that Brits overwhelmingly favored remaining in the European Union by an 18-point margin, 57% to 39%. What changed? Maybe it was a startling report showing that 80% of new jobs over the past year had gone to foreign-born workers taking advantage of the EU's free movement policy.

    It's hard to say if that was the wakeup call that led to a sharp reversal and Thursday's historic vote to leave the EU, but it was nevertheless a stunning realization that Prime Minister David Cameron had failed to stem the tide of immigrant workers flooding the UK's job market, as he had promised to do.

    Meanwhile, a laundry list of commentators from the Washington Post and Esquire to Vox and the New York Times chalked it all up to millions of racist xenophobes who are terrified of immigrants mucking up their pristine white privileged world. If that sounds at all similar to the anti-Trump rhetoric, you can sort of see where this is going.

    The thing is, there's nothing even remotely irrational or bigoted about the alarming transformation of Britain's job market. Since 1997, the number of foreign-born workers has doubled to one in six. And since 2014, three EU migrants have found jobs for every Brit, according to official government figures. And, as we'll see in a minute, there are concerning parallels on this side of the pond, as well.

    I hear from college grads and experienced professionals looking for jobs all the time, but a recent inquiry from a 27-year-old Edinburgh, Scotland woman with a BS in microbiology and excellent grades got my attention. She has applied for more than 400 jobs without managing to secure an interview. Not a single one.

    ... ... ...

    While the situation in America isn't nearly as bad, there are clear parallels. In 1970, foreign-born workers accounted for just 5% of the U.S. civilian labor force, but that number has since more than tripled to one in six – identical to the UK figure.

    More concerning is that the workforce itself has continued to shrink over the same period. Whether that reflects increasing competition, lack of in-demand skillsets or both doesn't really matter. The net result is that foreigners are getting more of our jobs, and that's as true of offshore jobs as it is of onshore jobs.

    Think about it. Apple has created well over a million jobs, but 90% of them are outsourced to China. Google may not make phones and tablets, but the vast majority of Android-enabled mobile devices are manufactured in Asia. Of course, that's true of nearly every industry, old or new.

    We may not face the identical migrant worker problem that the UK has, but the net result is the same: By giving up more and more jobs we create to foreign-born immigrants and offshore contractors, that leaves fewer and fewer jobs and increasing competition for American citizens.

    No wonder Donald Trump's campaign has ignited a growing nationalism movement. We're creating jobs and giving them away. We've let globalization get away from us. It's abundantly clear that we don't have the right public policies in place to incentivize corporations to keep Americans gainfully employed.

    Back in 2010, former Intel chairman Andy Grove penned How America Can Create Jobs. The front-page Bloomberg BusinessWeek feature clearly outlined the perils of losing our manufacturing muscle and declared the need for public policy that puts jobs first, even if it does means constraining free trade with tariffs, trade war be damned.

    Grove's bold piece was embraced by some, panned by others and largely ignored. Whether he or Trump have exactly the right solution to the globalization and immigration problems plaguing free-market economies throughout the western world doesn't matter. What matters is that they've identified a problem that needs to be solved before it's too late. So did the British people when they voted to exit the EU.

    Economic prosperity and security must trump political correctness and ideology. The Brits got it right. Will we?

    [Sep 06, 2016] Obama and Hill Clinton are Saudi tools

    Notable quotes:
    "... A lot of commenters here do not understand the danger of yet another neocon warmonger as POTUS. A person who never has a war she did not like. They never experienced the horrors of wars in their lives. Only highly sanitized coverage from MSM. ..."
    "... Demonizing of Trump went way too far in this forum. And a lot of commenters like most Web hamsters enjoy denigrating him, forgetting the fact that a vote for Hillary is the vote for a war criminal. ..."
    "... Moreover, lesser evilism considerations are not working for war criminals. They are like absolute zero in Kelvin scale. You just can't go lower. ..."
    "... But again those are secondary considerations. "War vs peace" question in the one that matters most. Another reckless warmongers and all bets might be off for the country (with an unexpected solution for global warming problem) ..."
    Sep 06, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    ilsm -> Fred C. Dobbs... , Monday, September 05, 2016 at 04:43 PM
    Obama and Hill Clinton are Saudi tools same as W. Keeping AUMF going the past 8 years lets W off a lot of the Iraq/WMD and Afghanistan hooks!

    Bill's adventures included firing a general for commenting on the craziness of losing people over Serbia.

    Bill's evolutionary adventures in the Balkans are anti Russian neocon trials. Their exceptionalism pushed Russia around and moved NATO eastward reneging on deals Bush Sr. had with the Russians.

    Hillary, extending Bill's neocon meme* over Ukraine and Libya are nearing W level insanity.

    Nuland (married to the neocon Kagan family) came with Strobe Talbot in 1993.

    likbez -> ilsm... , Monday, September 05, 2016 at 08:24 PM
    Bravo ilsm !!!

    We really facing a vote for a person who would probably be convicted by Nuremberg tribunal.

    All those factors that are often discussed like Supreme court nominations, estate tax, etc, are of secondary importance to the cardinal question -- "war vs peace" question.

    A lot of commenters here do not understand the danger of yet another neocon warmonger as POTUS. A person who never has a war she did not like. They never experienced the horrors of wars in their lives. Only highly sanitized coverage from MSM.

    Demonizing of Trump went way too far in this forum. And a lot of commenters like most Web hamsters enjoy denigrating him, forgetting the fact that a vote for Hillary is the vote for a war criminal.

    "Trump this and Trump that" blabbing can't hide this important consideration.

    Moreover, lesser evilism considerations are not working for war criminals. They are like absolute zero in Kelvin scale. You just can't go lower.

    Moreover, after Bush II there is a consensus that are very few people in the USA who are unqualified to the run the country. From this point of view Trump is extremely qualified (and actually managed to master English language unlike Bush II with his famous Bushisms ).

    But again those are secondary considerations. "War vs peace" question in the one that matters most. Another reckless warmongers and all bets might be off for the country (with an unexpected solution for global warming problem)

    [Sep 05, 2016] Gli Usa e la guerra fredda il prezzo della vittoria - rivista italiana di geopolitica

    Bill Clinton was a regular neoliberal bottom feeder (in essence not that different from drunkard Yeltsin) without any strategical vision or political courage, He destroyed the golden possibility of rapprochement of the USA and Russia (which would require something like Marshall plan to help Russia). Instead he decided to plunder the country. It's sad that now Hillary will continue his policies, only in more jingoistic, dangerous fashion. She learn nothing.
    Notable quotes:
    "... However, according to Simes in the years immediately following the dissolution of the USSR, Washington has made perhaps the greatest error of a winner: sold for complacency. ..."
    "... Russia simply ceased to be a U.S. geopolitical variable in the equation, Moscow was irrevocably excluded from the strategic horizon. ..."
    "... The result was that the former Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott called at the time the policy of "eat and shut up": the Russian economy was collapsing, the Red Army reduced the ghost of the past and Yeltsin's entourage welcomed with open arms of the IMF aid. In short, Russia is a power failure and as such was treated by administering liberal economic recipes and submitting its projection to a geopolitical drastic weight loss. Everything apart from the feeling of the Russian leadership. ..."
    "... This approach found its full realization, between 1999 and 2004, the expansion of NATO eastward: they were including Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Bulgaria, Romania, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Together with the U.S. intervention in Serbia during the Kosovo war (1999), this move Russia convinced that the cost of the American loans -- a dramatic and permanent reduction of the area of ​​security and its own geopolitical ambitions - was too high . ..."
    Dec 12, 2011 | temi.repubblica.it

    07/12/2011

    America won the Cold War. But in addition to the USSR, has it defeated Russia? This question, which is still in the nineties sounded absurd to most people, began to appear in the last decade, thanks to the work of historians such as Dimitri Simes, John Lewis Gaddis, or in Italy, Adriano Roccucci.

    In the United States is widely believed that the collapse of the Soviet Union was caused in large part by strategic decisions of the Reagan administration. Surely the military and economic pressure exerted by these contributed to the disintegration of the Warsaw Pact and then the final crisis of the Soviet system. However, according to Simes in the years immediately following the dissolution of the USSR, Washington has made perhaps the greatest error of a winner: sold for complacency.

    This has resulted, in retrospect, in an overestimation of U.S. policy choices in the mid-eighties onwards, and in a parallel underestimation of the role played by the Soviet leadership. Gorbachev came to power in 1985 determined to solve the problems left behind by Brezhnev: overexposure military in Afghanistan and subsequent explosion of spending on defense, imposed on an economy tremendously inefficient. But if Reagan pushed the USSR on the edge of the precipice, Gorbachev was disposable, albeit unwittingly, triggering reforms that escaped the hands of his own theorist.

    That fact has been largely removed from public debate and U.S. historiography which has led America in the second mistake: underestimating the enemy defeated, confusing the defunct Soviet Union with what was left of his heart - Russia.

    In fact, Reagan and Bush Sr. after him fully understand the dangers inherent in the collapse of the superpower enemy, dealing with Gorbachev touch, even without discounts: the Soviet leader was refused the pressing demands for economic aid, incompatible with the military escalation Reagan once to crush the Soviet Union under the weight of war spending.

    Even the first Gulf War (1990-91), who saw the massive American intervention in a country (Iraq) at the time near the borders of the USSR, did not provoke a diplomatic rupture between the two superpowers. This Soviet weakness undoubtedly was the result of an empire in decline, but remember that even in 1990 no one - least of all, the leadership in Moscow - the Soviet Union finally gave up on us yet.

    Despite an election campaign played on the charge to GH Bush to focus too much on foreign policy, ignoring the economics (It's the economy, stupid), newly installed in the White House Bill Clinton was not spared aid to Russia, agreeing to this line of credit to be logged on to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), from June 1992. Clinton's support was directed mainly toward the figure of Yeltsin and his policies, with the exception of waging war against Chechen separatism, in 1994.

    If Clinton with these moves proved to understand, like its two predecessors, the importance of "accompany" the Russian transition, avoiding - or at least contain - the chaos following the collapse of a continental empire, the other part of his administration demonstrated sinful paternalism and, above all, acquired the illusion of omnipotence that he saw in the "unipolar moment" end not only the U.S. opposed the US-USSR, but also of any power ambitions of Russia. Russia simply ceased to be a U.S. geopolitical variable in the equation, Moscow was irrevocably excluded from the strategic horizon.

    The result was that the former Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott called at the time the policy of "eat and shut up": the Russian economy was collapsing, the Red Army reduced the ghost of the past and Yeltsin's entourage welcomed with open arms of the IMF aid. In short, Russia is a power failure and as such was treated by administering liberal economic recipes and submitting its projection to a geopolitical drastic weight loss. Everything apart from the feeling of the Russian leadership.

    This went hand in hand with growing resentment for the permanent position of inferiority which they were relegated by Washington. To the point that even the then Foreign Minister Andrei Kozyrev, known by the nickname "Yes sir" for his acquiescence to the dictates of Americans, showed growing impatience with the brutal Russian downgrading by America.

    Indeed, the United States administration did not lack critics: former President Nixon, a number of businessmen and experts of Russia expressed skepticism or opposition to the Clinton administration attitude that did not seem to pay particular attention to wounded pride and the strategic interests of a nation that continued to think of itself as empire. However, these positions does not affect the dominant view in the administration of the establishment and much of the U.S., where consencus was that Russia in no longer entitled to have an independent foreign policy.

    This approach found its full realization, between 1999 and 2004, the expansion of NATO eastward: they were including Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Bulgaria, Romania, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Together with the U.S. intervention in Serbia during the Kosovo war (1999), this move Russia convinced that the cost of the American loans -- a dramatic and permanent reduction of the area of ​​security and its own geopolitical ambitions - was too high .

    [Sep 04, 2016] Our Warped Debates About War by Daniel Larison

    Notable quotes:
    "... Our leaders are shallow on the subject of war. No, worse than shallow-they're silent. Which is one reason they will likely not be fully trusted should they make rough decisions down the road on Syria, or Iran, or elsewhere. ..."
    "... War is terrible. That should be said over and over, not because it's a box you ought to check on the way to the presidency but because you're human and have a brain. ..."
    "... War is always terrible, and it is made even more so when it is waged when it doesn't have to be. Most wars are avoidable and unnecessary, and yet most of our political leaders are reliably in favor of every U.S. military intervention around the world when it matters. Some may later say they regret their support for a previous war, especially if it was a much costlier one than they expected, but at the time the "safe" and "smart" position for ambitious politicians to take is to be for bombing and/or invading. Almost all of the political incentives at least since Desert Storm have flowed in the direction of supporting military action, and so most of the people that seek the presidency have learned not to be an early opponent of any proposed intervention. ..."
    "... While there is near-constant U.S. warfare somewhere in the world, hardly anyone in politics talks about the need for peace. Just as our candidates don't express their hatred of war, they typically don't profess their desire for peace for fear that they will be pilloried as "weak." ..."
    Sep 04, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com
    August 30, 2016, 11:13 AM

    Peggy Noonan wrote a thoughtful column on the horrors of war last week:

    Our leaders are shallow on the subject of war. No, worse than shallow-they're silent. Which is one reason they will likely not be fully trusted should they make rough decisions down the road on Syria, or Iran, or elsewhere.

    War is terrible. That should be said over and over, not because it's a box you ought to check on the way to the presidency but because you're human and have a brain.

    War is always terrible, and it is made even more so when it is waged when it doesn't have to be. Most wars are avoidable and unnecessary, and yet most of our political leaders are reliably in favor of every U.S. military intervention around the world when it matters. Some may later say they regret their support for a previous war, especially if it was a much costlier one than they expected, but at the time the "safe" and "smart" position for ambitious politicians to take is to be for bombing and/or invading. Almost all of the political incentives at least since Desert Storm have flowed in the direction of supporting military action, and so most of the people that seek the presidency have learned not to be an early opponent of any proposed intervention.

    Noonan recounts a telling exchange with a politician in which she asked him if he hated war. After being reassured that he wasn't walking into a trap, he said yes, but still qualified the answer by saying that war is sometimes necessary. The trouble is that most of our politicians, and almost all of our presidential candidates, have never seen a war that they thought was unnecessary. Reflexive interventionists may sometimes include the caveat that they don't want war, but in the next breath they are keen to tell you why "action" is imperative. Sometimes they dress this up with euphemisms. They don't talk about going to war, but say that that the U.S. shouldn't be standing "on the sidelines" or that the U.S. needs to "lead," but invariably this amounts to a demand that force be used in another country. Sometimes they dress up calls for war with technical terms, such as the much-abused "no-fly zone" phrase, that obscure what they are talking about. At other times, they simply acquiesce in a policy of lending support to a client state's horrific war, and that way they don't have to say anything and can pretend to have nothing to do with it.

    It is in this environment that relatively dovish candidates have to emphasize their readiness to use force while hawkish candidates are under much less pressure to prove that they aren't warmongers. While there is near-constant U.S. warfare somewhere in the world, hardly anyone in politics talks about the need for peace. Just as our candidates don't express their hatred of war, they typically don't profess their desire for peace for fear that they will be pilloried as "weak."

    Despite the fact that U.S. forces have been engaged in hostilities for Obama's entire presidency, the loudest and most frequent criticisms of his foreign policy are that he is supposedly too reluctant to use force and didn't bomb Syria. If one of the most activist, militarized presidencies in modern U.S. history is being portrayed in the media as insufficiently aggressive, we aren't likely to hear our leaders regularly condemning the evils of war.

    [Sep 04, 2016] Under my definiton of sociopath , Hillary Clinton qualifies on just her laugh about death Muammar Gaddafi, who was sodomized with a bayonet

    Notable quotes:
    "... As part of the murder process of Muammar Gaddafi, he was sodomized with a bayonet. Out of respect for any children reading this blog, I'm not going to spell that out any further. What was Hillary's RECORDED reaction? ..."
    "... "We came, we saw, he died," followed by a laugh and gleeful hand clap. ..."
    "... Finally, using Richard Cohen as an source for anything is beyond the pale. This shill for Israel was all-in for the destruction of Iraq. He was a big fan of the destruction of Libya. He's a huge booster for the destruction of Syria. And he most definitely wants somebody in the White House who will finish off Iran. That person is Hillary Clinton. ..."
    Sep 04, 2016 | angrybearblog.com

    Zachary Smith / August 30, 2016 2:24 p.m.

    As part of the murder process of Muammar Gaddafi, he was sodomized with a bayonet. Out of respect for any children reading this blog, I'm not going to spell that out any further. What was Hillary's RECORDED reaction?

    "We came, we saw, he died," followed by a laugh and gleeful hand clap.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgcd1ghag5Y

    Under my definiton of "sociopath", Hillary Clinton qualifies on that one alone. Of course there are others….

    *** My father, too, turned bribes into gifts. ***

    I know some saintly people myself, and have no difficulty accepting this claim at face value. Stretching the analogy to the Clinton Foundation is, in my opinion, a stretch too far. If Hillary was as pure as the driven snow, why did she work so hard to ensure her communications were beyond the reach of the Freedom Of Information Act? Why has the State department refused to release her meeting schedules until after the election?

    Finally, using Richard Cohen as an source for anything is beyond the pale. This shill for Israel was all-in for the destruction of Iraq. He was a big fan of the destruction of Libya. He's a huge booster for the destruction of Syria. And he most definitely wants somebody in the White House who will finish off Iran. That person is Hillary Clinton.

    [Sep 04, 2016] Obama golfs with celebrities, Hillary parties with them and takes their cash

    Notable quotes:
    "... This who Hillary Clinton is. It's all about money and access. You know I'm not a Trump supporter, but I absolutely can see why people would vote for him to throw a rock through these people's collective window. ..."
    Sep 04, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com

    Aug 20, 2016

    From Eating Cake With Hillary Clinton By Rod Dreher

    Check out this 2007 Hillary Clinton for President radio ad , in which she rips into George W. Bush, saying that Katrina victims were "invisible" to him, but aren't invisible to her. How times change.

    Here's why Hillary Clinton cannot be bothered to come to Louisiana: she's got a slew of fundraising events set up with coastal elites . From CNN:

    What do Cher, Leonardo DiCaprio, Magic Johnson and Jimmy Buffett all have in common? They're with her.

    Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine, buoyed by rising poll numbers and a sputtering Donald Trump campaign, are using August to raise tens of millions of dollars in cash before the fall sprint.

    Clinton will embark on a three-day, eight-fundraiser trip to California next week, headlining a mix of star studded events with tech icons, athletes and movie stars.

    On Monday, August 22, Clinton will headline a top dollar fundraiser at the Beverly Hills home of Cheryl and Haim Saban, the billionaire owner of Univision and one of Clinton's wealthiest backers.

    Clinton and her aides will then head down the street to another fundraiser at the Beverly Hills home of Hall of Fame basketball player and businessman Magic Johnson. That event, which according to Clinton donors in California is expected to raise millions of dollars, will also be hosted by Willow Bay and Bob Iger, the CEO of The Walt Disney Company, and Marilyn and Jeffrey Katzenberg, the CEO of DreamWorks Animation.

    The next day, Clinton will headline two events in Laguna Beach, including a $33,400-per-person event hosted by Stephen Cloobeck, the CEO of Diamond Resorts.

    Later in the day, according to invites obtained by CNN, Clinton will headline a fundraiser at the home of Leonardo DiCaprio, the Oscar-winning actor known for his roles in Titanic, The Revenant and The Wolf of Wall Street.

    Scooter Braun, the agent that discovered Justin Beiber, and Tobey Maguire, the actor known for his roles in the Spider-Man series, will also host the star-studded event.

    Sounds like fun for those celebrities and rich people, flooding the Democratic Party nominee's coffers with campaign cash. Meanwhile, here in flood-ravaged Louisiana, preliminary estimates claim that as many as 110,000 people lost their homes (or at least suffered enormous damage to them), suffering nearly $21 billion in losses.

    Obama golfs with celebrities, Hillary parties with them and takes their cash.

    This should not be forgotten. These are the oligarchs who rule us. It's despicable. Do not believe for one second that there's any reason why Hillary Clinton cannot get here. Donald Trump got here, spent a few hours, then left. So could she, if she wanted to. But she would di$appoint her donor$.

    This who Hillary Clinton is. It's all about money and access. You know I'm not a Trump supporter, but I absolutely can see why people would vote for him to throw a rock through these people's collective window.

    Eamus Catuli , says: August 22, 2016 at 12:29 pm
    M_Young:

    You might want to study up. (Actually, that could be said to you on many, many issues.) Perjury is lying on a point that is "material" to the case. The judge in the Paula Jones lawsuit ruled that Bill's relationship with Monica was not material to it, hence, no perjury.

    But yeah, if it had been perjury, of course it's every bit as bad as a president ordering federal agencies to break the law and obstruct a criminal investigation in order to cover up his subordinates' illegal eavesdropping on political opponents. Yep. Sure is.

    JonF , says: August 22, 2016 at 12:46 pm
    Re: Bill Clinton was clearly guilty of both. That, not 'sex with an intern' is why he was impeached.

    In what way was Bill Clinton guilty of "Obstruction of justice"? I am unaware of any criminal investigation he interfered in.
    Also, Clinton was not even guilty of perjury in a the purely legal sense of the term, since the lies he told (yes, they were lies) were not germane to the matter on which he was testifying. A perjury charge requires that to be true.

    Eamus Catuli , says: August 22, 2016 at 12:48 pm
    Sorry, should have acknowledged @Chris 1 on this as well:

    And the denial continues in denying that there's anything anyone can do, so let's do nothing. If you lived your moral life this way you'd be a wreck.

    It's a classic example of the "Futility" argument. Seriously, Albert O. Hirschman's book explains a vast amount of conservative rhetoric. Here's the Amazon link:

    https://www.amazon.com/Rhetoric-Reaction-Perversity-Futility-Jeopardy/dp/067476868X

    Another of his books, Exit, Voice and Loyalty (see further link on that Amazon page), is also important and could helpfully explain, for instance, different responses to the Catholic abuse scandals.

    Siarlys Jenkins , says: August 22, 2016 at 10:54 pm
    I agree that "political pundits, talk radio hosts, blog writers and blog commenters who are complaining about a lack of tweets and visits" are "pathetic, whiny, insecure, self-absorbed and a host of other bad things." I also agree that nobody should be questioning the motives of people who are in the midst of mucking out their homes, no matter what they are saying.

    If President Obama is smart, he will give very little in the way of speeches, or impromptu talks. He will simply ask as many people as possible, what do you need, what is still lacking, what can we do to help you? If he talks to the press, he will begin by saying "There are times when a visit from the President of the United States is not going to make things better, and might even distract from essential work. I came as soon as people on the ground told me it would be acceptable, and would do more good than harm."

    M_Young , says: August 23, 2016 at 5:58 pm
    LGC led me astray with his 'facts'.

    The perjury for which Clinton was had nothing to do with the Paula Jones suit (a civil case in a state court, presided over by a former Clinton student). He was impeached for lying to a federal grand jury. Same goes for the obstruction of justice charge, nothing to do with Paula Jones or civil cases, everything to do with the Federal investigation of Clinton's doings.

    I was out of the country, in Bosnia in fact, at the time, so my ignorance is excusable. My failing to check up the 'facts' presented by a Lefty isn't.

    [Sep 04, 2016] Clintons American Legion Speech

    Notable quotes:
    "... Near the start of the speech, Clinton said, "We are an exceptional nation because we are an indispensable nation. In fact, we are the indispensable nation." That isn't true, but Clinton's acceptance of this claim confirms that she understands "American exceptionalism" in a particularly warped way that justifies interfering all over the globe. That is what Albright's "indispensable nation" rhetoric meant twenty years ago, and it's what Clinton's rhetoric means today. ..."
    "... Cozying up to authoritarian rulers has been and continues to be a significant part of U.S. "leadership," and if you are in favor of the latter you are going to be stuck with the former. This rhetoric is especially absurd coming from someone who has repeatedly stressed the importance of supporting U.S. clients in the Gulf. ..."
    "... Overall, Clinton's speech could have been given by a conventional Republican hawk, and some of the lines could have been lifted from the speeches of some of this year's Republican presidential contenders. ..."
    "... That's exactly what Clinton believes, unfortunately. When she unveiled her "stronger together" slogan, one of the points she made was that we should have "a bipartisan, even non-partisan foreign policy." She is basically a Scoop Jackson Democrat. ..."
    "... Bill Kristol used to call himself a Scoop Jackson Democrat, too. Maybe he will again. Hillary must be the only person left who actually thinks embracing the neocons is a way to win votes. But if that were true, Rubio would be the GOP nominee, rather than the guy who, for all his many faults, didn't pander to them. ..."
    "... Cozying up to dictators is bad, unless they donate large amounts of money to the Clinton Foundation. In that case, you're not "cozying up" to the dictators - you're "reassuring allies" and "protecting America's credibility." ..."
    "... Would the mushroom cloud campaign ad that obliterated the Goldwater candidacy have the same effect today upon a neocon candidate? Is the ad even copyrighted or otherwise available? ..."
    "... Has the American Legion given any Democrat running for president a warm response? Muted sounds about right to me. Clinton was speaking to many more people than the audience in front of her. She won't get very many votes from those in the military. No Democrat ever does. Undecided voters (all 2 or 3% of them), especially Republicans are her real target audience. She looks to sound suitably strong more important, calm and measured. A safe if not perfect choice for President. Old World Order , August 31, 2016 at 4:32 pm She has learned nothing. Nothing at all. Indeed, she just doubled down on permanent war. Not surprising, but deeply depressing all the same. ..."
    "... If our foreign policy wasn't so obviously failed, I wouldn't mind bipartisan consensus but since it is FUBAR, I want something new. I just wish I had the ear of any of my fellow Republicans who consider themselves Religious Conservatives. I just can't get over their blind faith in U.S. hegemony, especially when they screech at the thought of U.S. politicians doing something as benign as running a Transportation Fund. Yet they have no problem inflicting these imbeciles with life and death decisions on the rest of the world. ..."
    "... When I see Ted Cruz or a Rubio gaze into the camera about how vital it is for the U.S. to suppress Russia and China and run the M.E. (they use different words), it astounds me since it contradicts the Protestant tradition so much where one should be suspicious of human nature. ..."
    "... Indispensable to what? Wholesale destabilization of the Middle East? ..."
    "... I don't want Trump to win, but neither do I want Clinton to think she has a mandate for this kind of militarism. Sadly, when it comes foreign policy, it appears not to matter which party has the presidency anymore. ..."
    "... Meanwhile, over at the WaPo, neocon cheerleader Jennifer Rubin loves the same speech: Hillary Clinton is a responsible centrist .. . ..."
    "... If she gets elected I see a high probability of a hot war with Russia. She wouldn't start it intentionally, it would be the pinnacle of our foreign policy establishment living in their own reality. I actually have a scenario in mind, when I read Russian sourced sites it strengthens my convictions. To bad our 'Russian experts' use Ouija boards and entrails instead of actually studying the Russians. ..."
    "... Don't be surprised if Clinton pushes Russia to the edge or the US gets mired in a proxy war with Russia. Everything is a Russian hack/conspiracy these days. They will find a reason to start something. Smells like yellow cake to me. ..."
    "... Hilary should figure out that she is losing votes to Johnson and Stein and perhaps tone back the rhetoric. Granted she was probably trying to look all Commander in Chiefy but she is so tone deaf on this stuff. ..."
    "... The problem is that the cult that passes for Conservatives in this country values strength over all. Clinton cannot afford to come across as weak to these people. She is aiming exactly for the Jennifer Rubins of the world. In America, we do the strong thing, even if it is the wrong thing, because we will go to hell if we appear to be weak. ..."
    Aug 31, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com
    Hillary Clinton's speech to the American Legion in Cincinnati didn't contain anything new or surprising. It was billed as an endorsement of "American exceptionalism" defined as support for activist foreign policy and global "leadership," and that is what Clinton delivered. One thing that struck me while listening to it was the muted response from the audience. Despite Clinton's fairly heavy-handed efforts to present herself as a friend of veterans and champion of the military, the crowd didn't seem very impressed. The delivery of the speech was typically wooden, but then no one expects stirring oratory from Clinton. Either the audience wasn't interested in what they were hearing, or they found Clinton to be a poor messenger, or both.

    The substance was mostly boilerplate cheerleading for the status quo in foreign policy, but a few particularly jarring lines stood out. Near the start of the speech, Clinton said, "We are an exceptional nation because we are an indispensable nation. In fact, we are the indispensable nation." That isn't true, but Clinton's acceptance of this claim confirms that she understands "American exceptionalism" in a particularly warped way that justifies interfering all over the globe. That is what Albright's "indispensable nation" rhetoric meant twenty years ago, and it's what Clinton's rhetoric means today.

    Clinton thought that she was dinging Trump when she said, "We can't cozy up to dictators." That would be all right if it were true, but it is hard to take seriously from a committed supporter of U.S. "leadership." Cozying up to authoritarian rulers has been and continues to be a significant part of U.S. "leadership," and if you are in favor of the latter you are going to be stuck with the former. This rhetoric is especially absurd coming from someone who has repeatedly stressed the importance of supporting U.S. clients in the Gulf. Clinton has made a point of promising that the U.S. will stay quite cozy with our despotic clients when she is president, and it is likely that the U.S. will probably get even cozier still if she has anything to say about it.

    Overall, Clinton's speech could have been given by a conventional Republican hawk, and some of the lines could have been lifted from the speeches of some of this year's Republican presidential contenders. There were brief nods to the nuclear deal with Iran and New START that a Republican wouldn't have made, but they were only mentioned in passing. Clinton insisted that "America must lead" and conjured up a vision of the vacuums that would be created if the U.S. did not do this. This is a standard hawkish line that implies that the U.S. always has to be involved in conflict and crises no matter how little the U.S. has at stake in them.

    At one point, Clinton asserted, "Defending American exceptionalism should always be above politics." That amounts to saying that our foreign policy debates should always be narrowly circumscribed and most of our current policies should always remain beyond challenge or major revision. That's not healthy for the quality of our foreign policy debates or our foreign policy as a whole, and it shows the degree to which Clinton is out of touch with much of the country that she thinks this is a credible thing to say.

    otto, August 31, 2016 at 2:50 pm

    She is opting for the neo-cons. Smart move
    Viriato , August 31, 2016 at 2:53 pm
    "At one point, Clinton asserted, 'Defending American exceptionalism should always be above politics.' That amounts to saying that our foreign policy debates should always be narrowly circumscribed and most of our current policies should always remain beyond challenge or major revision."

    That's exactly what Clinton believes, unfortunately. When she unveiled her "stronger together" slogan, one of the points she made was that we should have "a bipartisan, even non-partisan foreign policy." She is basically a Scoop Jackson Democrat.

    Broad consensus is not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, I'd argue that some degree of consensus is necessary in order for a democratic system to function. But any such consensus should emerge from vigorous debate, which does not exist in Washington or in the mainstream media. It should not be simply imposed on the country by an unchallenged, ossified elite that is either stuck in the Cold War past or has a vested interest in renewing the Cold War.

    Myles , August 31, 2016 at 3:01 pm
    Bill Kristol used to call himself a Scoop Jackson Democrat, too. Maybe he will again. Hillary must be the only person left who actually thinks embracing the neocons is a way to win votes. But if that were true, Rubio would be the GOP nominee, rather than the guy who, for all his many faults, didn't pander to them.
    Captain P , August 31, 2016 at 3:40 pm
    Cozying up to dictators is bad, unless they donate large amounts of money to the Clinton Foundation. In that case, you're not "cozying up" to the dictators - you're "reassuring allies" and "protecting America's credibility."
    Joseph M. , August 31, 2016 at 3:44 pm
    Would the mushroom cloud campaign ad that obliterated the Goldwater candidacy have the same effect today upon a neocon candidate? Is the ad even copyrighted or otherwise available?
    SF, August 31, 2016 at 4:05 pm
    Has the American Legion given any Democrat running for president a warm response? Muted sounds about right to me. Clinton was speaking to many more people than the audience in front of her. She won't get very many votes from those in the military. No Democrat ever does.

    Undecided voters (all 2 or 3% of them), especially Republicans are her real target audience. She looks to sound suitably strong more important, calm and measured. A safe if not perfect choice for President.

    Old World Order , August 31, 2016 at 4:32 pm
    She has learned nothing. Nothing at all. Indeed, she just doubled down on permanent war. Not surprising, but deeply depressing all the same.

    Here's hoping that someone – anyone, really – keeps this loathsome throwback to the worst aspects of US foreign policy of the past 20 years out of the White House.

    Chris Chuba , August 31, 2016 at 5:02 pm
    If our foreign policy wasn't so obviously failed, I wouldn't mind bipartisan consensus but since it is FUBAR, I want something new. I just wish I had the ear of any of my fellow Republicans who consider themselves Religious Conservatives. I just can't get over their blind faith in U.S. hegemony, especially when they screech at the thought of U.S. politicians doing something as benign as running a Transportation Fund. Yet they have no problem inflicting these imbeciles with life and death decisions on the rest of the world.

    When I see Ted Cruz or a Rubio gaze into the camera about how vital it is for the U.S. to suppress Russia and China and run the M.E. (they use different words), it astounds me since it contradicts the Protestant tradition so much where one should be suspicious of human nature.

    Do these people believe that corrupt politicians in the U.S. are suddenly anointed by God and transformed into world leaders in a sudden act of Grace? Sorry for the rant but I would seriously love to ask someone this question. This is not a troll at all. I have pondered this many times. How would Huckabee respond to this? He wrote a lucid essay on Iran about 10yrs ago before he went full Neocon.

    Simon94022 , August 31, 2016 at 5:08 pm
    What a choice we face in November – give full executive authority to either:

    1. The volatile vulgarian who is smart enough to reject the tired nation-building, Democracy Evangelization, Responsibility-to-Protect, and other dangerous establishment policies. But who doesn't think much at all about foreign policy and could even blunder into a big war out of personal pique.

    OR

    2. The champion of mindless and discredited bellicosity. Who is - probably - smart enough to avoid a new large ground war or nuclear despite her dangerous anti-Russian rhetoric, but who will CERTAINLY initiate one or more new unnecessary, unjust and futile military interventions.

    Pick your poison.

    Smart Aleck Power , August 31, 2016 at 5:08 pm
    "We are an exceptional nation because we are an indispensable nation. In fact, we are the indispensable nation."

    Indispensable to what? Wholesale destabilization of the Middle East?

    Neal , August 31, 2016 at 5:26 pm
    I wish she would stop putting out this nonsense. I really don't want to skip my vote for president, but this sort of nonsense leaves me cold. I don't want Trump to win, but neither do I want Clinton to think she has a mandate for this kind of militarism. Sadly, when it comes foreign policy, it appears not to matter which party has the presidency anymore.
    Commenter Man , August 31, 2016 at 5:43 pm
    Meanwhile, over at the WaPo, neocon cheerleader Jennifer Rubin loves the same speech: Hillary Clinton is a responsible centrist .. .
    Chris Chuba , August 31, 2016 at 7:20 pm
    We are an Exceptional nation because we are an Indispensable nation

    This is a tautology. You can swap the words exceptional and indispensable and have the exact same sentence.

    Commenter Man, yet another example of how people will create their own reality. I am certain I will read the same tripe tomorrow when I peruse the links on 'realclearpolitics.com'. It is the only Neocon portal that I bother with.

    If she gets elected I see a high probability of a hot war with Russia. She wouldn't start it intentionally, it would be the pinnacle of our foreign policy establishment living in their own reality. I actually have a scenario in mind, when I read Russian sourced sites it strengthens my convictions. To bad our 'Russian experts' use Ouija boards and entrails instead of actually studying the Russians.

    jk , August 31, 2016 at 9:09 pm
    Don't be surprised if Clinton pushes Russia to the edge or the US gets mired in a proxy war with Russia. Everything is a Russian hack/conspiracy these days. They will find a reason to start something. Smells like yellow cake to me.
    cecelia, August 31, 2016 at 9:28 pm
    Hilary should figure out that she is losing votes to Johnson and Stein and perhaps tone back the rhetoric. Granted she was probably trying to look all Commander in Chiefy but she is so tone deaf on this stuff.
    Anonne , September 2, 2016 at 12:07 am
    The problem is that the cult that passes for Conservatives in this country values strength over all. Clinton cannot afford to come across as weak to these people. She is aiming exactly for the Jennifer Rubins of the world. In America, we do the strong thing, even if it is the wrong thing, because we will go to hell if we appear to be weak.
    Bowman , September 2, 2016 at 6:40 pm
    " She is aiming exactly for the Jennifer Rubins of the world"

    … and one can but hope that her aim is true …

    [Sep 04, 2016] Venezuelans stage mass protest demanding recall to oust president

    Notable quotes:
    "... Let us hope. But let us expose the dirty hand of Uncle Sam working over time for the corporate trans border pirates down there. Barry once again has been a conspicuous useful idiot with his visit to Argentina. ..."
    "... In the making since long before Smedley Butler realized the marines were serving US banks. ..."
    Sep 04, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    Observer : , Friday, September 02, 2016 at 05:18 AM
    Venezuela fundamental transformation proceeds apace ... the crowd images are impressive


    Venezuelans stage mass protest demanding recall to oust president

    "Venezuela's political opposition says Thursday's mass demonstration - dubbed the "taking of Caracas" - against President Nicolas Maduro brought one million people into the streets demanding political change.

    Opposition leaders Jesus Torrealba, of the Democratic Unity Roundtable said it was the "biggest rally in recent decades" with "between 950,000 and 1.1 million people" taking part.

    Dozens of city blocks were choked with people angry about growing food shortages and an inflation rate that is expected to top 700 percent this year.

    Maduro led a comparatively small counter rally of hard-core supporters, many of them state workers. The number of participants was estimated at fewer than 30,000."

    http://www.dw.com/en/venezuelans-stage-mass-protest-demanding-recall-to-oust-president/a-19521847

    Paine -> Observer... , Friday, September 02, 2016 at 05:56 AM
    You are supporting US foreign policy. Undermine states that defy Yankee corporate hegemony. Congratulations --
    Paine -> Paine... , Friday, September 02, 2016 at 06:00 AM
    The crisis in the pan American Latin left is a popular tragedy in the making
    Peter K. -> Paine... , Friday, September 02, 2016 at 06:09 AM
    You have dismissed Doug Henwood for some bizarre reason.

    He had a good interview on his radio show about the left in Latin America which was specifically about the coup in Brazil but talked about a lot more with a historian of the left in Latin America.

    This historian was hopeful despite what has been happening. There are ebbs and flows but think of the spontaneous support for Bernie Sanders or Jeremy Corbyn or Podemos or Syriza.

    There is real and popular or "organic" organizing of the left in Latin America against corporate hegemony, despite the supposed or real corruptions of official leftist parties like in Brazil.

    The left is much more durable than it appears.

    There's more than meets the eye.

    Paine -> Peter K.... , -1
    Let us hope. But let us expose the dirty hand of Uncle Sam working over time for the corporate trans border pirates down there. Barry once again has been a conspicuous useful idiot with his visit to Argentina.
    ilsm -> Paine... , Friday, September 02, 2016 at 08:54 AM
    In the making since long before Smedley Butler realized the marines were serving US banks.
    Paine -> ilsm... , -1
    Yes it's a continuing story with many episodes

    [Sep 03, 2016] The USA neoliberal elite considers Russia to be an obstacle in the creation of the USA led global neoliberal empire. So Carthago delenda est is the official policy. With heavy brainwashing from MSM to justify such a course as well as the demonization of Putin

    Notable quotes:
    "... So "Carthago delenda est" is the official policy. With heavy brainwashing from MSM to justify such a course as well as the demonization of Putin. ..."
    "... The USA actions in Ukraine speak for themselves. Any reasonable researcher after this "color revolution" should print his/her anti-Russian comments, shred them and eat with borsch. Because the fingerprints of the USA neoliberal imperial policy were everywhere and can't be ignored. And Victoria Nuland was Hillary Clinton appointee. Not that Russia in this case was flawless, but just the fact that opposition decided not to wait till the elections was the direct result of the orders from Washington. ..."
    angrybearblog.com

    likbez , September 3, 2016 9:42 pm

    All this anti-Russian warmongering from esteemed commenters here is suspect. And should be taken with a grain of salt.

    The USA neoliberal elite considers Russia to be an obstacle in the creation of the USA led global neoliberal empire (with EU and Japan as major vassals),

    So "Carthago delenda est" is the official policy. With heavy brainwashing from MSM to justify such a course as well as the demonization of Putin.

    The USA actions in Ukraine speak for themselves. Any reasonable researcher after this "color revolution" should print his/her anti-Russian comments, shred them and eat with borsch. Because the fingerprints of the USA neoliberal imperial policy were everywhere and can't be ignored. And Victoria Nuland was Hillary Clinton appointee. Not that Russia in this case was flawless, but just the fact that opposition decided not to wait till the elections was the direct result of the orders from Washington.

    That means that as bad as Trump is, he is a safer bet than Hillary, because the latter is a neocon warmonger, which can get us in the hot war with Russia. And this is the most principal, cardinal issue of the November elections.

    All other issues like climate change record (although nuclear winter will definitely reverse global warming), Supreme Court appointments, etc. are of secondary importance.

    As John Kenneth Galbraith said, "Politics is the art of choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable."

    [Sep 03, 2016] Putin on DNC breach Does it even matter who hacked this data

    It is amazing how partisan and brainwashed commenters are. Reminds me "letter of workers and peasants to Pravda" type of mails.
    Notable quotes:
    "... "There's no need to distract the public's attention from the essence of the problem by raising some minor issues connected with the search for who did it," Putin said in an interview with Bloomberg . ..."
    "... The DNC is desperate to put the focus on who hacked their email rather than on the email's content. The story is in what the Democrats really think and how it's different then their public persona. ..."
    "... I hate to admit it but .... Putin Dropped The Truth Bomb! ..Look at the content ..."
    "... Who cares where the TRUTH comes from? as long as it is the truth! The real SHAME is that our own press has been out to lunch on finding the truth. Putin , Assage, Snowden...I'll take truth from them over HRC lies any day! ..."
    "... It doesn't matter either way. There's no law anyone's willing to prosecute and no law enforcement agency who will investigate. This is all for nothing more than archival purposes. But it won't change anything. Hillary could be caught trading Cartel drugs for sex slaves in order to generate cash to give to Iran to pay the US government secretly to procure an atomic weapon and it would make no difference. ..."
    "... The US politicos always need a bogeyman to blame. Today, it's Russia. ..."
    "... It was Russia yesterday too. ..."
    "... Yea, we are familiar with using Russia. It's an old playbook. ..."
    "... To quote the democratic nominee ... 'what difference, at this point, does it make?" ..."
    Sep 02, 2016 | TheHill

    Russian leader Vladimir Putin denied that his country had any involvement in the email hacks and WikiLeaks releases that led to the resignations of several Democratic Party officials.

    "There's no need to distract the public's attention from the essence of the problem by raising some minor issues connected with the search for who did it," Putin said in an interview with Bloomberg.

    "But I want to tell you again, I don't know anything about it, and on a state level Russia has never done this."

    Addison Jacobs

    The DNC is desperate to put the focus on who hacked their email rather than on the email's content. The story is in what the Democrats really think and how it's different then their public persona.

    Hard Little Machine • a day ago
    Perfect retort to Hillary's Retards.
    only1j > Hard Little Machine • a day ago
    I hate to admit it but .... Putin Dropped The Truth Bomb! ..Look at the content
    lostinnm > Hard Little Machine • a day ago
    Who cares where the TRUTH comes from? as long as it is the truth! The real SHAME is that our own press has been out to lunch on finding the truth. Putin , Assage, Snowden...I'll take truth from them over HRC lies any day!

    Hard Little Machine > lostinnm • a day ago

    It doesn't matter either way. There's no law anyone's willing to prosecute and no law enforcement agency who will investigate. This is all for nothing more than archival purposes. But it won't change anything. Hillary could be caught trading Cartel drugs for sex slaves in order to generate cash to give to Iran to pay the US government secretly to procure an atomic weapon and it would make no difference.

    Depending on how old you are - this is not the country or A country you're familiar with. That one was shot in the head and buried in a shallow grave.

    KhadijahMuhammad • a day ago

    The US politicos always need a bogeyman to blame. Today, it's Russia.

    BecauseReasons > KhadijahMuhammad • a day ago

    It was Russia yesterday too.

    KhadijahMuhammad > BecauseReasons • a day ago

    Yea, we are familiar with using Russia. It's an old playbook.

    Rich Dudley

    To quote the democratic nominee ... 'what difference, at this point, does it make?"

    [Sep 03, 2016] Bloomberg-interview with Putin

    www.youtube.com

    President Vladimir Putin gave an interview to Bloomberg. The interview was recorded on September 1, in Vladivostok.
    SUBSCRIBE https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5kY...

    [Sep 03, 2016] After more then a year non-stop running anti-trump hysteria is losing its grip with the voters

    Sep 03, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    timbers , September 3, 2016 at 12:25 pm

    Something's not working:

    Trump Leads Clinton In Latest Reuters Poll

    http://polling.reuters.com/#poll/TM651Y15_DS_13/filters/LIKELY:1/dates/20160601-20160831/type/day

    One headline suggests Team Clinton might whip another conflict (Ukraine?) to help her poll numbers.

    Clinton polling like this after spending so much $ attacking Trump with the media on her side while Trump spent nearly nothing – WOW.

    Roger Smith , September 3, 2016 at 12:45 pm

    Where does it show him leading? When I went just now he was down 36 to 41.

    timbers , September 3, 2016 at 12:50 pm

    Hmm…not sure why you're getting that…I see 41-40. Dated 8-31 maybe it's too old?

    Steve H. , September 3, 2016 at 1:42 pm

    The numbers on the right change depending on where your cursor is, that's probably what happened.

    allan , September 3, 2016 at 12:58 pm

    Impossible. Let me Krug-splain that to you:

    If you are still on the fence in the Democratic primary, or still persuadable, you should know that Vox interviewed a number of political scientists about the electability of Bernie Sanders, and got responses ranging from warnings about a steep uphill climb to predictions of a McGovern-Nixon style blowout defeat. …

    On electability, by all means consider the evidence and reach your own conclusions. But do consider the evidence - don't decide what you want to believe and then make up justifications. The stakes are too high for that, and history will not forgive you.

    From February.

    timbers , September 3, 2016 at 1:11 pm

    Well ok then obviously Putin is now hacking the Reuters polls now, too.

    From the always apocalyptic ZeroHedge:

    Trump's rise in popularity began when he started reaching out to the black and hispanic communities and Hillary's slide began as more and more disturbing facts were exposed of Hillary's time as Secretary of State.

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef , September 3, 2016 at 2:43 pm

    Clinton is the Fool-Me-Twice candidate here.

    First, Bill. Then, Hillary.

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef , September 3, 2016 at 1:27 pm

    The money raised in August will come in handy.

    I suggest more phone calls from the DNC to more media executives.

    [Sep 03, 2016] Why on the night of August 6, in front of 24 million people, the Fox pressitutes (sorry moderators) peppered Trump with hard-hitting questions

    Notable quotes:
    "... Do it her way, or wish you had. ..."
    Sep 03, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Steve H. , September 3, 2016 at 9:20 am

    – "Murdoch told Ailes he wanted Fox's debate moderators - Kelly, Bret Baier, and Chris Wallace - to hammer Trump on a variety of issues. Ailes, understanding the GOP electorate better than most at that point, likely thought it was a bad idea. "Donald Trump is going to be the Republican nominee," Ailes told a colleague around this time. But he didn't fight Murdoch on the debate directive.

    On the night of August 6, in front of 24 million people, the Fox moderators peppered Trump with harder-hitting questions." [Roger's Angels]

    Fascinating article, including tactics on taking down the powerful. "It took 15 days to end the mighty 20-year reign of Roger Ailes at Fox News, one of the most storied runs in media and political history."

    Robert Hahl , September 3, 2016 at 11:51 am

    "Making things look worse for Ailes, three days after Carlson's suit was filed, New York published the accounts of six other women who claimed to have been harassed by Ailes over the course of three decades. " 6 More Women Allege That Roger Ailes Sexually Harassed Them

    So, who had that story cooking and ready to serve? Call me a conspiracy nut, but one of Hillary's big problems is (or was) her husband's womanizing. Now right wingers are worse!

    Robert Hahl , September 3, 2016 at 12:10 pm

    p.s. I am working on campaign slogans for Hillary how about this one:

    Do it her way, or wish you had.

    Maybe that one should wait until after the election.

    fresno dan , September 3, 2016 at 12:32 pm

    Steve H.
    September 3, 2016 at 9:20 am

    My comment is in moderation limbo – how similar to Catholic limbo, I have no idea…
    Anyway, the point I always make is that Murdoch is not ideologically and/or repub conservative – other than he believes he should be able to make as much money as possible. His interest in Ailes was always primarily the ability of Ailes to bring in great profits for Fox.

    [Sep 03, 2016] Trump and Fox news

    Notable quotes:
    "... The prospect of Trump TV is a source of real anxiety for some inside Fox. The candidate took the wedge issues that Ailes used to build a loyal audience at Fox News - especially race and class - and used them to stoke barely containable outrage among a downtrodden faction of conservatives. ..."
    Sep 03, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    fresno dan , September 3, 2016 at 7:48 am

    Also, Ailes has made the Murdochs a lot of ­money - Fox News generates more than $1 billion annually, which accounts for 20 percent of 21st Century Fox's profits - and Rupert worried that perhaps only Ailes could run the network so successfully. "Rupert is in the clouds; he didn't appreciate how toxic an environment it was that Ailes created," a person close to the Murdochs said. "If the money hadn't been so good, then maybe they would have asked questions."

    What NBC considered fireable offenses, Murdoch saw as competitive advantages. He hired Ailes to help achieve a goal that had eluded Murdoch for a decade: busting CNN's cable news monopoly. Back in the mid-'90s, no one thought it could be done. "I'm looking forward to squishing Rupert like a bug," CNN founder Ted Turner boasted at an industry conference. But Ailes recognized how key wedge issues - race, religion, class - could turn conservative voters into loyal viewers.
    ….
    The prospect of Trump TV is a source of real anxiety for some inside Fox. The candidate took the wedge issues that Ailes used to build a loyal audience at Fox News - especially race and class - and used them to stoke barely containable outrage among a downtrodden faction of conservatives.

    Where that outrage is channeled after the election - assuming, as polls now suggest, Trump doesn't make it to the White House - is a big question for the Republican Party and for Fox News. Trump had a complicated relationship with Fox even when his good friend Ailes was in charge; without Ailes, it's plausible that he will try to monetize the movement he has galvanized in competition with the network rather than in concert with it. Trump's appointment of Steve Bannon, chairman of Breitbart, the digital-media upstart that has by some measures already surpassed Fox News as the locus of conservative energy, to run his campaign suggests a new right-wing news network of some kind is a real possibility. One prominent media executive told me that if Trump loses, Fox will need to try to damage him in the eyes of its viewers by blaming him for the defeat.
    =======================================
    Just to reiterate a point I have made time and again, with Murdoch it is all about the money.
    It will indeed be ironic if Fox news collapses because the ultimate outcome of their brand of "conservatism" failed to become president.
    I can see the new "network" questioning whether that Australian, an internationalist, really wants whats best for America…

    Robert Hahl , September 3, 2016 at 2:37 pm

    It looks like Roger Ailes will be available to run Trump TV, starting Wednesday, November 9, 2016. Does he have a non-compete to worry about?

    [Sep 03, 2016] Hillary and Afgan sex slaves

    Add to this Iraq, Yemen, Syria and Libya sex slaves to get a fuller picture. Looks like she is a worthy descendant of south slave owners.
    Notable quotes:
    "... I would say we have a major election campaign going on right now where one candidate's campaign strategy with a mostly in the bag press seem to be all about 'hot button' secondary issues. Not that their opponent is so hot on the primary issues either, although I'd say they find a nut every couple of weeks. ..."
    "... I'm encouraging everyone to watch the documentary Restrepo ..."
    "... See that woman crying over her dead child, killed by an American bomb, dropped with impunity?…why don't you go tell her how much better off she is, now that she doesn't have to wear a burka….go on, tell her… ..."
    "... Private Eightball, "Full Metal Jacket" ..."
    Sep 03, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    fresno dan , September 3, 2016 at 8:02 am

    Navy analysis found that a Marine's case would draw attention to Afghan 'sex slaves' WaPo

    The Martland case opened a dialogue in which numerous veterans of the war in Afghanistan said they were told to ignore instances of child sex abuse by their Afghan colleagues. The Defense Department's inspector general then opened an investigation into the sexual assault reports and how they were handled by U.S. military officials who knew about them.

    ==========================================
    US values in action – protecting the powerful and screwing the helpless…..

    Jim Haygood , September 3, 2016 at 8:36 am

    "This is a serious turning point for all the people of Afghanistan, but in particular for the hard-fought gains women and girls have been able to enjoy." - Hillary Clinton, Nov 15, 2013

    http://www.politico.com/story/2013/11/hillary-clinton-afghan-women-099920#ixzz4JCC4xBkh

    Lie back and think of Kabul …

    Pat , September 3, 2016 at 9:19 am

    Found myself in a discussion with a recent ex-senator about invading Iraq. I had been attacking the premise that we needed to attack Iraq because terrorism, AND military capabilities and that it was based on lies and misinformation and doing pretty well, when the Senator said but think about Afghanistan – women no longer have to wear the Burka, and girls are going to school. This was after a report in the foreign press about attacks on schools with female students and how women were choosing to wear the burka because the harassment of women wearing western clothing being ignored. The utter ignorance of that statement floored me. I fully admit I was so gobsmacked I was speechless, and he moved on. I ended up sending him the link to a very good series in Newsday about how badly things were going in Afghanistan less than six months later. Already too late. Funny how the women get mentioned at the most interesting times.

    Jim Haygood , September 3, 2016 at 9:32 am

    Your comment illuminates how politics focuses on "hot button" secondary issues to distract attention from dismal primary issues.

    When gross insecurity rules in a war zone, all other aspects of life (including gender equality) take a back seat to survival. Indeed, war is correlated with social conservatism, so the cultural climate is not receptive to change, and may even backslide.

    Here's a glimpse into the lost world of Kabul University in the 1980s (complete with a dandy in the left background who resembles an Afghan Tom Wolfe):

    http://www.internationalist.org/afghanstudentswww.jpg

    Pat , September 3, 2016 at 9:43 am

    I would say we have a major election campaign going on right now where one candidate's campaign strategy with a mostly in the bag press seem to be all about 'hot button' secondary issues. Not that their opponent is so hot on the primary issues either, although I'd say they find a nut every couple of weeks.

    So much of the run up to the AUMF vote and the invasion reminds me of the current climate surrounding the election.

    Paid Minion , September 3, 2016 at 10:20 am

    It's "Talking points/The Script"/"Staying on Message. It keeps being repeated, because the warm and fuzzy story is what most people want to hear.

    diptherio , September 3, 2016 at 11:14 am

    I'm encouraging everyone to watch the documentary Restrepo , which is available on both Netflix and Youtube (at present). The realities of what we're doing in Afghanistan are indefensible.

    See that woman crying over her dead child, killed by an American bomb, dropped with impunity?…why don't you go tell her how much better off she is, now that she doesn't have to wear a burka….go on, tell her…

    Eclair , September 3, 2016 at 10:59 am

    My spouse, bless his heart, works for a company embedded in the military-industrial complex. Three years ago, I accompanied him to the company Christmas bash (one of those compromises in a marriage and besides I am living well on his paycheck) where the new CEO spoke to the 'troops.'

    He ended his talk with a paean to the marvelous gains in freedom for Afghan women and girls that the US's invasion (sorry, liberation) of Afghanistan has produced). The employees cheered and I refrained from vomiting only by incredible force of will . And, I would have ruined my new dress specially purchased at GoodWill for the occasion.

    Paid Minion , September 3, 2016 at 11:45 am

    "They are dead, but thanks to us, they can be buried in a bikini…….."

    The old "we had to destroy the village to save it" plan.

    Somehow, I don't think we'd have gone to war in the Middle East, if "Fighting for Women's Rights" was the justification.

    "Personally, I don't think……..they don't really want to be involved in this war…….they took our freedom away and gave it to the g##kers. But they don't want it. They would rather be alive than free, I guess. Poor dumb bastards."

    Private Eightball, "Full Metal Jacket"

    Jeremy Grimm , September 3, 2016 at 12:24 pm

    RE: Marine's case: Be sure to read two of the comments attached to this link - they're both recent and show on the first page of comments:
    From - Buckley Family: "… Bear in mind when Maj. Brezler wrote his report he had no Classified Networks in his area. He used his personal computer to write that report and other reports many which were Classified by the Higher Command once they received them. They failed to let Maj. Brezler know that they had classified his reports. He was trying to do his job with the resources that he had available to him."

    From - tsn100: " … Afghans hide behind Islam, this is not at all what Islam teaches, this is a cultural thing, Afghan culture allows this, the Taliban movement started when a young boy was raped and the family came to Mullah Omar who was just an unknown preacher and asked him to help, this was at the height of the Afghan civil war, Mullah Omar went and caught the culprit and had him shot, or hanged cant remember, that

    [Sep 03, 2016] Top 7 ways America Has Alienated Vladimir Putin Information Clearing House - ICH

    Notable quotes:
    "... "Vladimir Putin and Russian Statecraft," ..."
    "... "In a bold decision… Putin made Russia the most important U.S. ally in the war against the Taliban," ..."
    "... "Among other things, he accelerated deliveries of weapons to the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan so that when the Alliance marched into Kabul it did so with Russian, not American, weapons and vehicles. He encouraged the governments of Uzbekistan and Tajikistan to allow American military bases on their territory." ..."
    "... "He opened Russian airspace for American overflights to bases in Central Asia so that the US could conduct search and rescue operations for U.S. airmen ..."
    "... "there is no such thing as gratitude in politics" ..."
    "... According to Stephen Cohen, the US repaid Putin for his "extraordinary assistance" by "further expanding NATO to Russia's borders and by unilaterally withdrawing from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty, which Moscow regarded as the linchpin of its nuclear security." ..."
    "... With friends like this who needs enemies? ..."
    "... "red line" ..."
    "... "within one week". ..."
    "... "It absolutely is a diplomatic win by Putin right now," ..."
    "... "If we think about this as judo, which is of course Mr. Putin's favorite sport, this is just one set of moves," ..."
    "... "And right now, he's managed to get Obama off the mat, at least, and get the terms set down that play to his advantage." ..."
    "... "scrap" ..."
    "... "neutralize Russia's nuclear potential" ..."
    "... "The US is attempting to achieve strategic military superiority, with all the consequences that entails," ..."
    Sep 03, 2016 | www.informationclearinghouse.info
    Putin provides 'extraordinary assistance' to 'War on Terror'

    It is no secret that following the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 against the US, Putin was the first global leader to telephone US President George W. Bush. And he didn't call collect. Moreover, the Russian leader offered more than just words of condolence. He pushed through a raft of legislation to assist the US in the fight against terrorism.

    In his 2011 book, "Vladimir Putin and Russian Statecraft," Allen C. Lynch documented Putin's contributions to America's endless 'War on Terror'.

    "In a bold decision… Putin made Russia the most important U.S. ally in the war against the Taliban," Lynch wrote. "Among other things, he accelerated deliveries of weapons to the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan so that when the Alliance marched into Kabul it did so with Russian, not American, weapons and vehicles. He encouraged the governments of Uzbekistan and Tajikistan to allow American military bases on their territory."

    And here is my personal favorite: "He opened Russian airspace for American overflights to bases in Central Asia so that the US could conduct search and rescue operations for U.S. airmen (Please imagine the howl of pain that would echo across Washington if any US president allowed Russian military overflights across US territory into South America!).

    Despite Putin's extreme generosity bestowed upon the US military and intelligence apparatus, Washington proved Graham Greene's adage "there is no such thing as gratitude in politics" by ratcheting up pressure against Russia for no good reason whatsoever.

    According to Stephen Cohen, the US repaid Putin for his "extraordinary assistance" by "further expanding NATO to Russia's borders and by unilaterally withdrawing from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty, which Moscow regarded as the linchpin of its nuclear security."

    With friends like this who needs enemies?

    6. Putin gives Washington a chance to pass on war (for a change)

    After spending prodigious amounts of money, material and manpower fighting fundamentalists in the desert, some might be tempted to think the US would relish any opportunity to avoid another military misadventure. If you believed that, you haven't been paying attention to what's been occurring in the Middle East since 2002 with the US invasion of Afghanistan.

    Future historians (that is, assuming there is a future where historians may ponder the past) may one day mark August 29, 2013 as the day when the American Empire first started showing signs of wear and tear. That was when UK Prime Minister David Cameron failed to secure approval in the House of Commons to join yet another US-led serial killing, this time in Syria, after President Bashar Assad purportedly crossed Obama's whimsical "red line" and used chemical weapons against the Syrian opposition (an assertion that was never proven).

    This placed the Obama administration in a bind, eventually leading to a 'slip of the tongue' by US Secretary of State John Kerry, who remarked that Syria could avoid an American blitzkrieg if it agreed to surrender its chemical weapons "within one week". Infuriatingly for the US neocons, Putin successfully convinced Damascus to remove its chemical weapons with all due haste.

    NATO missile defense goes live in Europe, isolating Russia not the goal – Stoltenberg https://t.co/hzCkN3l7yw #WSEF16

    - RT (@RT_com) July 9, 2016

    Predictably, however, US media and thinktankdom portrayed Putin's eleventh-hour diplomacy, which delayed the obliteration of yet another Middle East state, as some sort of geopolitical ploy.

    "It absolutely is a diplomatic win by Putin right now," Fiona Hill, director of the Center on the United States and Europe at the Brookings Institution, told CNN.

    I was almost expecting Fiona to employ some sort of judo analogy next. Oh wait, she did.

    "If we think about this as judo, which is of course Mr. Putin's favorite sport, this is just one set of moves," she said. "And right now, he's managed to get Obama off the mat, at least, and get the terms set down that play to his advantage."

    Think about that. If that was the best press Putin could get when he helped America to avoid yet another military smash-up, chances are negligible that he would ever get positive reviews under normal circumstances. And therein, dear reader, lies the rub: America has come to the psychotic point in its foreign policy when avoiding military conflict is actually viewed as a setback.

    5. Putin offers cooperation on US missile defense system in Eastern Europe

    In May, the US put the finishing touches on its Aegis Ashore Missile Defense System in Romania , the culmination of a decades-worth of disingenuous negotiations with Moscow.

    Washington's determination to build this system, which Moscow naturally views as a major security threat smoking on its doorstep, has completely upset the strategic balance in the region. Russia is now forced to respond to this system with more powerful and elusive ballistic missiles. In other words, our tiny, fragile planet, thanks to the surrogate mother of global upheaval and chaos, Lady Liberty, is experiencing the birth pains of another arms race between the world's two nuclear superpowers. This did not have to be.

    Early in his presidency, Obama announced he would "scrap" the Bush administration's defense system, slated for Poland and the Czech Republic, after it was determined that Iran was not the existential threat to Eastern Europe that his predecessor had touted it as.

    This seemed to indicate an open window of opportunity for Russia-US cooperation (in fact, the fate of the New START nuclear disarmament treaty, signed into force between Dmitry Medvedev and Barack Obama on April 8, 2010, hinged on bilateral cooperation). Russia even proposed the two countries share the Qabala Radar in Azerbaijan, which Russia leased at the time, but the US rejected the proposal even though it made more tactical sense.

    Eventually, it became maddeningly apparent that the US was bluffing, dangling the carrot of mutual cooperation with Russia at the same time a new missile defense system was moving forward.

    In November, Putin rightly accused the US of attempting to "neutralize Russia's nuclear potential" by camouflaging their real designs behind Iran and North Korea.

    "The US is attempting to achieve strategic military superiority, with all the consequences that entails," he said.

    Obama's failure to cooperate with Putin on this game-changing system has been the real source of bad blood between the two nuclear superpowers.

    [Sep 03, 2016] Samir Amin How to Defeat the Collective Imperialism of the Triad

    Notable quotes:
    "... The Triad is the United States, Western and Central Europe, and Japan. This group of countries has become a single imperialist power, the leader of which is the US. This has led to the deepening of the depth of the crisis. The crisis is in the shape of an "L". The normal crisis is in the shape of a "U", the economy rises up after the decline. But this crisis is different. There is no way out of the crisis; the only way to get out is to move out of capitalism. There is no other possible solution. Capitalism should be considered as a moribund system. In order to survive it is moving to destruction and to wars. ..."
    "... Maybe Russia is moving in this direction, but not as much as China, because it has paid a very big price for the destruction of the shock therapy from Gorbachev and Yeltsin. Those leaders have led Russia to a private oligarchy, closely related to the international financial capitalism of the US, Germany and others. This has reduced Russian capacity of control. But now Russia is moving gradually towards reestablishing control of the state over its own economy. ..."
    "... The world now is in serious danger. The collective imperialism of the US, Western Europe and Japan are run by US leadership. In order to keep their exclusive control over the whole planet, they do not accept independence of other countries. They do not respect the independence if China and Russia. That is why we are about to face continuous wars all over the world. The radical Islamists are the allies of imperialism, because they are supported by the US in order to carry out destabilization. This is permanent war. I do believe that the best response to it is the Eurasian project. Russia should unite with China, Central Asian countries, Iran and Syria. This alliance could be also very attractive for Africa and good parts of Latin America. In such a case, imperialism would be isolated. ..."
    Feb 09, 2016 | www.defenddemocracy.press
    Samir Amin, world-known economist, explains the reason of decadent condition of the modern economy and gives the recipe of the salvation from global imperialism. An exclusive interview for Katehon

    I can sum my point of view on the situation over the modern economy in the following way. We have been in a long systemic crisis of capitalism, which has started in 1975 with the end of the convertibility of the Dollar in gold. It is not a like the famous financial crisis in 2008. No, it is a long systematic crisis of monopoly capitalism which started forty years ago and it continues. The capitalists reacted to the crisis with the sets of measures. The first one was to strengthen centralization of control over the economy by the monopolies. An oligarchy is ruling all capitalist countries – the United States, Germany, France, Great Britain and Russia as well. The second measure was to convert all economic activity productions into subcontractors of monopoly capital. I mean, they have not even a hint of freedom. Competition is just rhetoric, there is no competition. There is an oligarchy which is controlling the whole economic system. Now, we are facing a united front of imperialist powers, which are forming a Collective imperialism of the Triad.

    The Triad is the United States, Western and Central Europe, and Japan. This group of countries has become a single imperialist power, the leader of which is the US. This has led to the deepening of the depth of the crisis. The crisis is in the shape of an "L". The normal crisis is in the shape of a "U", the economy rises up after the decline. But this crisis is different. There is no way out of the crisis; the only way to get out is to move out of capitalism. There is no other possible solution. Capitalism should be considered as a moribund system. In order to survive it is moving to destruction and to wars.

    We have an alternative which is the socialism. I know that it is not very popular to say, but the only solution is socialism. It is a long road which starts from reducing the power of the oligarchy, reinforcing the state control and establish a state-capitalism, which should replace private capitalism. It doesn't mean that private capitalism will not survive, but it should be subordinated to state control. The state control should be used also in order to support a social progressive policy. This should guarantee good full-employment, social services, education, transport, infrastructure, security etc.

    The role of China is very big, because it is, perhaps, the only country in the world today, which has a sovereign project. That means that it is trying to establish a pattern of modern industry, in which of course, private capital has a wide place, but it is under the strict control of the state. Simultaneously it gives a view of the present to the culture. The other pattern of Chinese economy culture is based on family producers. China is walking on two legs: following the traditions and participating globalization. They accept foreign investments, but keep independence of their financial system. The Chinese bank system is exclusively state-controlled. The Yuan is convertible only to a certain extent, but under the control of the bank of China. That is the best model that we have today to respond to the challenge of globalists imperialism.

    Maybe Russia is moving in this direction, but not as much as China, because it has paid a very big price for the destruction of the shock therapy from Gorbachev and Yeltsin. Those leaders have led Russia to a private oligarchy, closely related to the international financial capitalism of the US, Germany and others. This has reduced Russian capacity of control. But now Russia is moving gradually towards reestablishing control of the state over its own economy.

    The world now is in serious danger. The collective imperialism of the US, Western Europe and Japan are run by US leadership. In order to keep their exclusive control over the whole planet, they do not accept independence of other countries. They do not respect the independence if China and Russia. That is why we are about to face continuous wars all over the world. The radical Islamists are the allies of imperialism, because they are supported by the US in order to carry out destabilization. This is permanent war. I do believe that the best response to it is the Eurasian project. Russia should unite with China, Central Asian countries, Iran and Syria. This alliance could be also very attractive for Africa and good parts of Latin America. In such a case, imperialism would be isolated.

    [Sep 03, 2016] Dont Underestimate How Much Steve Bannon Can Damage Hillary Clinton

    Aug 29, 2016 |

    Years ago, Seinfeld royalties freed Steve Bannon, the new CEO of Trump's presidential campaign, from needing to work for a living, allowing him to throw himself into extremist and racist alt-right politics.

    Working in the film business, I briefly met the Donald Trump Republican presidential campaign's new CEO, Steve Bannon, during the 1990s when he was a Hollywood investment banker. As one producer whom Bannon helped raise capital for told me, even back then he was an angry, racist, egregiously aggressive, and inappropriately temperamental character.

    Bannon was also whip smart with a sophisticated understanding of how the media works.

    Inside the liberal bubble, Democrats may be taking Bannon's appointment to help run Trump's campaign as a something of a joke. But, at their peril, they underestimate Bannon's ability to harm Hillary Clinton, the Democratic presidential nominee.

    Bannon was one of the early Harvard MBA-type financial pirates who realized that Wall Street money could be tapped to finance film and television, often with disastrous results for the investors but with great results for the Hollywood studios and the financial engineers like Bannon who brokered the deals.

    In the late '80s-early '90s, Wall Street discovered that intellectual property like movies and television and the companies that owned them could be bought, sold and traded just like hard assets such as real estate and commodities. Bannon engineered some of those transactions, first as a specialist at Goldman Sachs, then at his own boutique investment bank Bannon & Co., and briefly in partnership with a volatile manager Jeff Kwatinetz (whose first claim to fame was discovering the heavy metal band Korn and managing The Backstreet Boys).

    Bannon was tough and merciless. It was Bannon who personally stuck the shiv in the heart of former superagent and Disney President Michael Ovitz, effectively ending the career of the man who had been known as the most powerful person in Hollywood.

    After being fired by Disney, Ovitz set out to create a powerful new entertainment company called the American Management Group, with clients like Leonardo DiCaprio and Cameron Diaz, in which Ovitz invested over $100 million of his own money. (I remember visiting AMG's new offices, the most expensive and lavish in Beverly Hills, with millions of dollars in art by the likes of Mark Rothko and Jasper Johns adorning the walls.) But AMG was an abject failure, bleeding millions of dollars a month, while Ovitz desperately sought a buyer. Finally, the only available buyer was Kwatinetz and Bannon.

    According to Vanity Fair , Bannon went alone to see Ovitz and offered him $5 million, none in cash. After a moment of silence, Ovitz told Bannon, "If I didn't know you personally, I'd throw you out of the room." But out of options, Ovitz ended up selling to Kwatinetz and Bannon's company, effectively ending Ovitz's legendary Hollywood career. (Remember that, Hillary.)

    Bannon's smartest (or luckiest) deal was brokering the sale of Rob Reiner's company, Castle Rock Entertainment, to Ted Turner. In lieu of part of its brokerage fee, Bannon & Co. agreed to take a piece of the future syndication revenues from five TV shows, one of which turned out to be "Seinfeld." The rest is history.

    The Seinfeld royalties freed Bannon (with a reported net worth of $41 million) from needing to work for a living, allowing him to try his hand at producing (including the Sean Penn-directed "Indian Runner" and a number of right-wing documentaries) and then to throw himself into extremist and racist alt-right politics.

    He invested $1 million in a laudatory film about Sarah Palin and became a close confidante. He then attached himself to Andrew Breitbart and took over Breitbart News after Andrew Breitbart's sudden death at 43, moving the already far-right website closer to the openly white nationalist alt-right. There he became a major advocate for Trump before being tapped to help run his campaign.

    But Bannon's real danger doesn't come so much from his work with Breitbart News, which plays mostly to the angry, racist white base. It comes more from the Bannon-funded Government Accountability Institute, a research institute staffed with some very smart and talented investigative journalists, data scientists and lawyers.

    GAI's staff does intensive and deep investigative research digging up hard-to-find, but well-documented dirt on major politicians and then feeding it to the mainstream media to disseminate to the general public.

    Among other things, its staff has developed protocols to access the so-called "deep web," which consists of a lot of old or useless information and information in foreign languages which don't show up in traditional web searches, but often contains otherwise undiscoverable and sometimes scandalous information which Bannon then feeds to the mainstream media.

    For example, Bannon is responsible for uncovering former liberal New York congressman Anthony Weiner (husband of Hillary Clinton's personal aide Huma Abedin) tweeting photos of his crotch to various women. Bannon hired trackers to follow Weiner's Twitter account 24 hours a day until they eventually uncovered the infamous crotch shots. They released them to the mass media, effectively ending Weiner's political career. (Remember that, Hillary.)

    Bannon's mantra for GAI is "Facts get shares, opinions get shrugs." GAI's strategy is to feed damaging, fact-based stories that will get headlines in the mainstream media and change mass perceptions. According to Bloomberg , "GAI has collaborated with such mainstream media outlets as Newsweek, ABC News, and CBS's "60 Minutes" on stories ranging from insider trading in Congress to credit card fraud among presidential campaigns. It's essentially a mining operation for political scoops."

    One of Bannon's key insights is that economic imperatives have caused mainstream media outlets to drastically cut back budgets for investigative reporting. "The modern economics of the newsroom don't support big investigative reporting staffs," says Bannon. "You wouldn't get a Watergate, a Pentagon Papers today, because nobody can afford to let a reporter spend seven months on a story. We can. We're working as a support function."

    So GAI's strategy is to spend weeks and months doing the fact-based research that investigative reporters in the mainstream media no longer have the resources to do, creating a compelling story line, and then feeding the story to investigative reporters who, whatever their personal political views, are anxious in their professional capacity to jump on. As a key GAI staffer says, "We're not going public until we have something so tantalizing that any editor at a serious publication would be an idiot to pass it up and give a competitor a scoop."

    It's likely no accident that in the week since Bannon officially joined the Trump campaign, media attention has shifted from focusing primarily on Trump's gaffes to potential corrupting contributions to the Clinton Foundation in exchange for access to Secretary of State Clinton.

    GAI's biggest, and most effective project has been to uncover the nexus between Bill and Hillary's paid speeches, contributions to the Clinton Foundation by corrupt oligarchs and billionaires, and access to the State Department by donors. The research culminated in the book "Clinton Cash" by Peter Schweitzer, president of GAI, and published by mainstream publisher Harpers.

    The back cover of "Clinton Cash" summarizes its premise:

    "The Clintons typically blur the lines between politics, philanthropy, and business. Consider the following: Bill flies into a Third World country where he spends time in the company of a businessman. A deal is struck. Soon after, enormous contributions are made to the Clinton Foundation, while Bill is commissioned to deliver a series of highly paid speeches. Some of these deals require approval or review by the US government and fall within the purview of a powerful senator and secretary of state. Often the people involved are characters of the kind that an American ex-president (or the spouse of a sitting senator, secretary of state, or presidential candidate) should have nothing to do with."

    Bannon and Schweitzer have so far failed to prove any explicit quid pro quo. But they're highly successful at making the nexus between the Clinton Foundation, Bill and Hillary Clinton's paid speeches, and special access for donors feel dirty and unseemly.

    Before and after its publication, "Clinton Cash" got considerable play in the mainstream media. The New York Times ran a front-page story with the headline, "Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal," drawing on research from "Clinton Cash."

    In an op-ed piece in The Washington Post, Larry Lessig, Harvard Law professor and progressive crusader against money in politics concluded, "On any fair reading, the pattern that Schweitzer has charged is corruption." And it seems that Bannon and Schweitzer have more damaging research on the Clintons that they will drip out through the campaign. Schweitzer has warned that more emails are coming showing Clinton's State Department doing favors for foreign oligarchs.

    Bannon's strategy may not be enough to win the White House for Trump. But it will almost certainly do further damage to Clinton. Voters already think Clinton is less trustworthy than Trump. According to a recent Quinnipiac poll, 53 percent of likely voters say Trump is not honest (with 42 percent saying he is honest). But a huge 66 percent of voters say Clinton is not honest, compared to 29 percent who say she is.

    Bannon's work for Trump could drive Clinton's honesty score even lower. Clinton's core strategy has been to disqualify Trump as a potential president and commander-in-chief among a majority of voters. Bannon's strategy is to do the same for Clinton.

    Faced with a choice between two presidential candidates whom a large swath of voters find untrustworthy and distasteful, Trump's outrageousness may still enable Clinton to grind out a victory from a sullen electorate. But it's going to get even uglier. And even if Clinton wins, popular distrust could harm her ability to govern.

    In that context, it would be a huge mistake for Democrats and the Clinton campaign to underestimate Steve Bannon. This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.

    Miles Mogulescu Miles Mogulescu is an entertainment attorney/business affairs executive, producer, political activist and writer. Professionally, he is a former senior vice president at MGM. He has been a lifelong progressive since the age of 12 when his father helped raise money for Dr. Martin Luther King, who was a guest in his home several times. More recently, he organized a program on single-payer health care at the Take Back America Conference, a two-day conference on Money in Politics at UCLA Law School, and "Made in Cuba," the largest exhibition of contemporary Cuban art ever held in Southern California. He co-produced and co-directed Union Maids , a film about three women union organizers in Chicago in the 1930s and '40s, which was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Feature Documentary.

    [Sep 03, 2016] Russia's False Hopes

    Notable quotes:
    "... The only way Russia can be acceptable to the West is to accept vassal status. ..."
    "... Russia can end the Ukraine crisis by simply accepting the requests of the former Russian territories to reunite with Russia. Once the breakaway republics are again part of Russia, the crisis is over. Ukraine is not going to attack Russia. ..."
    "... Russia doesn't end the crisis, because Russia thinks it would be provocative and upset Europe. Actually, that is what Russia needs to do-upset Europe. Russia needs to make Europe aware that being Washington's tool against Russia is risky and has costs for Europe. ..."
    "... Instead, Russia shields Europe from the costs that Washington imposes on Europe and imposes little cost on Europe for acting against Russia in Washington's interest. Russia still supplies its declared enemies, whose air forces fly provocative flights along Russia's borders, with the energy to put their war planes into the air. ..."
    "... Washington and only Washington determines "international norms." America is the "exceptional, indispensable" country. No other country has this rank ..."
    "... A country with an independent foreign policy is a threat to Washington. The neoconservative Wolfowitz Doctrine makes this completely clear. The Wolfowitz Doctrine, the basis of US foreign and military policy, defines as a threat any country with sufficient power to act as a constraint on Washington's unilateral action. The Wolfowitz Doctrine states unambiguously that any country with sufficient power to block Washington's purposes in the world is a threat and that "our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of" any such country. ..."
    "... If the Russian government thinks that Washington's word means anything, the Russian government is out to lunch. ..."
    "... Iran is well led, and Vladimir Putin has rescued Russia from US and Israeli control, but both governments continue to act as if they are taking some drug that makes them think that Washington can be a partner. ..."
    "... These delusions are dangerous, not only to Russia and Iran, but to the entire world. If Russia and Iran let their guard down, they will be nuked, and so will China. Washington stands for one thing and one thing only: World Hegemony. ..."
    "... Just ask the Neoconservatives or read their documents. The neoconservatives control Washington. No one else in the government has a voice. For the neoconservatives, Armageddon is a tolerable risk to achieve the goal of American World Hegemony ..."
    09, 2015 | Defend Democracy Press

    Russia so desperately desires to be part of the disreputable and collapsing West that Russia is losing its grip on reality.

    Despite hard lesson piled upon hard lesson, Russia cannot give up its hope of being acceptable to the West. The only way Russia can be acceptable to the West is to accept vassal status.

    Russia miscalculated that diplomacy could solve the crisis that Washington created in Ukraine and placed its hopes on the Minsk Agreement, which has no Western support whatsoever, neither in Kiev nor in Washington, London, and NATO.

    Russia can end the Ukraine crisis by simply accepting the requests of the former Russian territories to reunite with Russia. Once the breakaway republics are again part of Russia, the crisis is over. Ukraine is not going to attack Russia.

    Russia doesn't end the crisis, because Russia thinks it would be provocative and upset Europe. Actually, that is what Russia needs to do-upset Europe. Russia needs to make Europe aware that being Washington's tool against Russia is risky and has costs for Europe.

    Instead, Russia shields Europe from the costs that Washington imposes on Europe and imposes little cost on Europe for acting against Russia in Washington's interest. Russia still supplies its declared enemies, whose air forces fly provocative flights along Russia's borders, with the energy to put their war planes into the air.

    This is the failure of diplomacy, not its success. Diplomacy cannot succeed when only one side believes in diplomacy and the other side believes in force.

    Russia needs to understand that diplomacy cannot work with Washington and its NATO vassals who do not believe in diplomacy, but rely instead on force. Russia needs to understand that when Washington declares that Russia is an outlaw state that "does not act in accordance with international norms," Washington means that Russia is not following Washington's orders. By "international norms," Washington means Washington's will. Countries that are not in compliance with Washington's will are not acting in accordance with "international norms."

    Washington and only Washington determines "international norms." America is the "exceptional, indispensable" country. No other country has this rank.

    A country with an independent foreign policy is a threat to Washington. The neoconservative Wolfowitz Doctrine makes this completely clear. The Wolfowitz Doctrine, the basis of US foreign and military policy, defines as a threat any country with sufficient power to act as a constraint on Washington's unilateral action. The Wolfowitz Doctrine states unambiguously that any country with sufficient power to block Washington's purposes in the world is a threat and that "our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of" any such country.

    Russia, China, and Iran are in Washington's crosshairs. Treaties and "cooperation" mean nothing. Cooperation only causes Washington's targets to lose focus and to forget that they are targets. Russia's foreign minister Lavrov seems to believe that now with the failure of Washington's policy of war and destruction in the Middle East, Washington and Russia can work together to contain the ISIS jihadists in Iraq and Syria. This is a pipe dream. Russia and Washington cannot work together in Syria and Iraq, because the two governments have conflicting goals. Russia wants peace, respect for international law, and the containment of radical jihadists elements. Washington wants war, no legal constraints, and is funding radical jihadist elements in the interest of Middle East instability and overthrow of Assad in Syria. Even if Washington desired the same goals as Russia, for Washington to work with Russia would undermine the picture of Russia as a threat and enemy.

    Russia, China, and Iran are the three countries that can constrain Washington's unilateral action. Consequently, the three countries are in danger of a pre-emptive nuclear strike. If these countries are so naive as to believe that they can now work with Washington, given the failure of Washington's 14-year old policy of coercion and violence in the Middle East, by rescuing Washington from the quagmire it created that gave rise to the Islamic State, they are deluded sitting ducks for a pre-emptive nuclear strike.

    Washington created the Islamic State. Washington used these jihadists to overthrow Gaddafi in Libya and then sent them to overthrow Assad in Syria. The American neoconservatives, everyone of whom is allied with Zionist Israel, do not want any cohesive state in the Middle East capable of interfering with a "Greater Israel from the Nile to the Euphrates."

    The ISIS jihadists learned that Washington's policy of murdering and displacing millions of Muslims in seven countries had created an anti-Western constituency for them among the peoples of the Middle East and have begun acting independently of their Washington creators.

    The consequence is more chaos in the Middle East and Washington's loss of control.

    Instead of leaving Washington to suffer at the hands of its own works, Russia and Iran, the two most hated and demonized countries in the West, have rushed to rescue Washington from its Middle East follies. This is the failure of Russian and Iranian strategic thinking. Countries that cannot think strategically do not survive.

    The Iranians need to understand that their treaty with Washington means nothing. Washington has never honored any treaty. Just ask the Plains Indians or the last Soviet President Gorbachev.

    If the Russian government thinks that Washington's word means anything, the Russian government is out to lunch.

    Iran is well led, and Vladimir Putin has rescued Russia from US and Israeli control, but both governments continue to act as if they are taking some drug that makes them think that Washington can be a partner.

    These delusions are dangerous, not only to Russia and Iran, but to the entire world. If Russia and Iran let their guard down, they will be nuked, and so will China. Washington stands for one thing and one thing only: World Hegemony.

    Just ask the Neoconservatives or read their documents. The neoconservatives control Washington. No one else in the government has a voice. For the neoconservatives, Armageddon is a tolerable risk to achieve the goal of American World Hegemony.

    Only Russia and China can save the world from Armageddon, but are they too deluded and worshipful of the West to save Planet Earth?

    [Sep 03, 2016] The Whole Game is About Containing Russia-China by Pepe Escobar

    Notable quotes:
    "... "Containment" of RC will continue to be the name of the exceptionalist game – whatever happens on November 8. As far as the industrial-military-security-surveillance-corporate media complex is concerned, there will be no reset . Proxies will be used – from failed state Ukraine to Japan in the East China Sea, as well as any volunteering Southeast Asian faction in the South China Sea. ..."
    "... The Grand Chessboard ..."
    "... Hillary "Queen of War" Clinton of course does not subscribe to Brzezinski's "could be" school. After all she's the official, Robert Kagan-endorsed, neocon presidential candidate. She's more in tune with this sort of wacky "analysis" . ..."
    "... "Our first objective is to prevent the reemergence of a new rival…This requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power. These regions include Western Europe, East Asia, the territory of the former Soviet Union and southwest Asia." ..."
    "... The question is whether she – and virtually the whole Beltway establishment behind her – will be mad enough to provoke RC and buy a one-way ticket to post-MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction) territory. ..."
    Aug 08, 2016 | www.defenddemocracy.press

    Defend Democracy Press 31/08/2016 The next BRICS summit, in Goa, is less than two months away. Compared to only two years ago, the geopolitical tectonic plates have moved with astonishing speed. Most BRICS nations are mired in deep crisis; Brazil's endless political/economic/institutional debacle may yield the Kafkaesque impeachment of President Dilma Rousseff.

    BRICS is in a coma. What's surviving is RC: the Russia/China strategic partnership. Yet even the partnership seems to be in trouble – with Russia still attacked by myriad metastases of Hybrid War. The – Exceptionalist – Hegemon remains powerful, and the opposition is dazed and confused.

    Or is it?

    Slowly but surely – see for instance the possibility of an ATM (Ankara-Tehran-Moscow) coalition in the making – global power continues to insist on shifting East. That goes beyond Russia's pivoting to Asia; Germany's industrialists are just waiting for the right political conjunction, before the end of the decade, to also pivot to Asia, conforming a BMB (Berlin-Moscow-Beijing) coalition.

    Germany already rules over Europe. The only way for a global trade power to solidify its reach is to go East. NATO member Germany, with a GDP that outstrips the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, is not even allowed to share information with the "Five Eyes" secret cabal.

    President Putin, years ago, was keen on a Lisbon-to-Vladivostok emporium. He may eventually be rewarded – delayed gratification? – by BMB, a trade/economic union that, combined with the Chinese-driven One Belt, One Road (OBOR), will eventually dwarf and effectively replace the dwindling post-WWII Anglo-Saxon crafted/controlled international order.

    This inexorable movement East underscores all the interconnections – and evolving connectivity – related to the New Silk Roads, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), the BRICS's New Development Bank (NDB), the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), the Eurasia Economic Union (EEU). The crux of RC, the Russia-China strategic partnership, is to make the multipolar, post-Atlantic world happen. Or, updating Ezra Pound, to Make It New.

    Containing RC

    Russia's pivot to Asia is of course only part of the story. The core of Russia's industries, infrastructure, population is in the west of the country, closer to Europe. BMB would allow a double pivot – simultaneously to Europe and Asia; or Russia exploiting to the max its Eurasian character. Not accidently this is absolute anathema for Washington. Thus the predictable, ongoing no holds barred exceptionalist strategy of preventing by all means necessary closer Russia-Germany cooperation.

    Read also: Do we need a bigger war?

    In parallel, pivoting to Asia is also essential because that's where the overwhelming majority of Russia's future customers – energy and otherwise – are located. It will be a long, winding process to educate Russian public opinion about the incalculable value for the nation of Siberia and the Russian Far East. Yet that has already started. And it will be in full fruition by the middle of the next decade, when all the interpolated New Silk Roads will be online.

    "Containment" of RC will continue to be the name of the exceptionalist game – whatever happens on November 8. As far as the industrial-military-security-surveillance-corporate media complex is concerned, there will be no reset . Proxies will be used – from failed state Ukraine to Japan in the East China Sea, as well as any volunteering Southeast Asian faction in the South China Sea.

    Still the Hegemon will be in trouble to contain both sides of RC simultaneously. NATO does not help; its trade arm, TPP, may even collapse in the high seas before arriving on shore. No TPP – a certainty in case Donald Trump is elected in November – means the end of US economic hegemony over Asia. Hillary Clinton knows it; and it's no accident President Obama is desperate to have TPP approved during a short window of opportunity, the lame-duck session of Congress from November 9 to January 3.

    Against China, the Hegemon alliance in fact hinges on Australia, India and Japan. Forget about instrumentalizing BRICS member India – which will never fall into the trap of a war against China (not to mention Russia, with which India traditionally enjoys very good relations.)

    Read also: BRICS and the Fiction of "De-Dollarization"

    Japan's imperial instincts were reawakened by Shinzo Abe. Yet hopeless economic stagnation persists. Moreover, Tokyo has been prohibited by the US Treasury Dept. to continue unleashing quantitative easing. Moscow sees as a long-term objective to progressively draw Japan away from the US orbit and into Eurasia integration.

    Dr. Zbig does Desolation Row

    The Pentagon is terrified that RC is now a military partnership as well.

    Compared to Russia's superior high-tech weaponry, NATO is a kindergarten mess; not to mention that soon Russian territory will be inviolable to any Star Wars-derived scheme. China will soon have all the submarines and "carrier-killer" missiles necessary to make life for the US Navy hell in case the Pentagon harbors funny ideas. And then there are the regional details – from Russia's permanent air base in Syria to military cooperation with Iran and, eventually, disgruntled NATO member Turkey.

    No wonder such exceptionalist luminary ideologues as Dr. Zbig "Grand Chessboard" Brzezinski – foreign policy mentor to President Obama – are supremely dejected .

    When Brzezinski looks at progressive Eurasia integration, he simply cannot fail to detect how those "three grand imperatives of imperial geostrategy" he outlined in The Grand Chessboard are simply dissolving; "to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together."

    Those GCC vassals – starting with the House of Saud – are now terrified about their own security; same with the hysteric Baltics. Tributaries are not pliant anymore – and that includes an array of Europeans. The "barbarians" coming together are in fact old civilizations – China, Persia, Russia – fed up with upstart-controlled unipolarity.

    Unsurprisingly, to "contain" RC, defined as "potentially threatening" (the Pentagon considers the threats are existential) Brzezinski suggests – what else – Divide and Rule; as in "containing the least predictable but potentially the most likely to overreach." Still he doesn't know which is which; "Currently, the more likely to overreach is Russia, but in the longer run it could be China."

    Read also: Challenges and crisis for the Balkans and Europe

    Hillary "Queen of War" Clinton of course does not subscribe to Brzezinski's "could be" school. After all she's the official, Robert Kagan-endorsed, neocon presidential candidate. She's more in tune with this sort of wacky "analysis" .

    So one should definitely expect Hillary's "project" to be all-out hegemony expansion all across Eurasia. Syria and Iran will be targets. Even another war on the Korean Peninsula could be on the cards. But against North Korea, a nuclear power? Exceptionalistan only attacks those who can't defend themselves. Besides, RC could easily prevent war by offering some strategic carrots to the Kim family.

    In many aspects, not much has changed from 24 years ago when, only three months after the dissolution of the USSR, the Pentagon's Defense Planning Guidance proclaimed:

    "Our first objective is to prevent the reemergence of a new rival…This requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power. These regions include Western Europe, East Asia, the territory of the former Soviet Union and southwest Asia."

    Talk about a prescient road map of what's happening right now; the "rival", "hostile" power is actually two powers involved in a strategic partnership: RC.

    Compounding this Pentagon nightmare, the endgame keeps drawing near; the next manifestations and reverberations of the never-ending 2008 financial crisis may eventually torpedo the fundamentals of the global "order" – as in the petrodollar racket/tributary scam.

    There will be blood. Hillary Clinton smells it already – from Syria to Iran to the South China Sea. The question is whether she – and virtually the whole Beltway establishment behind her – will be mad enough to provoke RC and buy a one-way ticket to post-MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction) territory.

    [Sep 02, 2016] The bizarre thing is that any elected politician dumb enough to take Kissenger's advice has not prospered

    Sep 02, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    dcblogger , September 2, 2016 at 3:21 pm

    The bizarre thing is that any elected politician dumb enough to take Kissenger's advice has not prospered. Nixon was impeached, Ford defeated, and when Carter was dumb enough to take Kissenger's advice about letting the Shah of Iran into the US, his presidency went into meltdown. Why would anyone listen to him? putting aside the question that he is a war criminal.

    nippersmom , September 2, 2016 at 3:39 pm

    Yes, since we know that for Clinton, his war criminal credentials fall into the "feature not a bug" category, the question is why the smartest, most qualified candidate evuh would not see pattern of failure attendant on those who tie their wagon to his star.

    Pat , September 2, 2016 at 3:44 pm

    Like so many Clinton failures (from both), it wasn't the fault of the advisor, but those taking the advice didn't do it exactly the way Henry K told them to do it. Think Welfare Reform, Libya, etc. All the fault of those putting the plans into operation.

    Smartest people in the room, gravitating toward each other understand how their brilliance can be misunderstood.

    Elizabeth Burton , September 2, 2016 at 3:30 pm

    "Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign raised an eye-popping $143 million in August for her candidacy and the Democratic Party, the best showing of her campaign, her team said Thursday"

    And yet my spam folder yesterday contained 46 (count 'em) pleas for donations from HillaryClinton.com, sent over the last ten days, including the one I read that said "Just send us a dollar."

    And yes, since there was absolutely NO "unsubscribe" link on the emails I initially received from the Clinton Cult, I did consign all further communication to spam, thank you very much.

    Pat , September 2, 2016 at 3:41 pm

    I'm sure they were just trying to make sure that 'eye-popping' amount isn't from the fewest donors in history. By about the fourth one of those I finally determined they really didn't need me to donate money they just needed to be able to count me as a donor

    a different chris , September 2, 2016 at 4:31 pm

    Following right after that link is the withdrawal of $$$ for airtime from Ted Strickland's campaign. Not some House race, not even a unlikely Senate attempt, but they don't have enough money to hammer on somebody who not only is chasing a big prize but actually already won the damn race once already.

    And you can convince me that it is 100% likely Strickland will lose. But if you don't support him, you don't allow an alternative view to be developed and used to hammer the winner during his term. Isn't that how you play politics? You don't just show up around election, play nice, and if polls – yeech, polls – don't go your way you just go home.

    But the Democrats don't even want those kinds of victories. They want
    1) The Executive Branch
    2) No other branch of government so they can blame what they don't (or worse, do) do – haha, if you read that right you get "dodo" – on the other side.

    Ms Clinton has an insane amount of money. And what she spends it on (herself) and what she doesn't (anybody else) is what tells you what you need to know.

    Unorthodoxmarxist , September 2, 2016 at 3:34 pm

    The article on the difficulty of taking over the Democratic Party hits the nail on the head, but it misses the Michels-ian problem: organizations have a tendency (but not this is a tendency, not a rule or fate) towards increasing oligarchy over time, and organizational members are socialized to trust and obey party leadership. Factional dissidents within the Dems have to contend not only with the party oligarchy and its formidable resources, the decentralized and sprawling nature of the organization, but with a membership that barely participates but, when it does, turns out when and how the leadership wants.

    The Militant Labour tendency example isn't perfect – entryism into a Parliamentary party is easier than our party system – but it speaks volumes. To get a hearing from the party membership you can only criticize so much of the organization itself; if you and a faction entered and created a "Destroy the Dems" faction you'd be ignored or hunted out of the party, especially if you pointedly attacked the Dems oligarchy and were openly hostile to their officials, platform and the president – though I would argue you'd need exactly a "Destroy the Dems" faction to succeed in smashing the party oligarchy and changing the culture.

    Keep in mind I do say this as a Green and a person who did his PhD on inner-party democracy (or lack thereof). Lack of democracy is a persistent theme in studies of parties for the last century.

    It would make more sense to really unite the left around electoral reform in the long run and push for proportional representation at the state/local level for legislatures and city councils. While it would probably be preferable for democracy's sake to have one big district elected with an open-list vote, in the US context we'd probably go the German route of mixed-member proportional that combines geographical single-member districts with proportional voting.

    cocomaan , September 2, 2016 at 3:37 pm

    Speculating very freely: Could there be a flow of goods we don't know about? Like containers full of opioids? Or is there a capital flow that shouldn't exist, but does? Money laundering from those same opioids? Money laundering generally? The Bezzle? Readers?

    There's an enormous amount of people in the USA who are working on some kind of black market. You don't have ten million unemployed men who are simply sitting idle all the time.

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-idle-army-americas-unworking-men-1472769641

    Those people will never report that they are making money on the black market.

    For instance, there's going to be an enormous amount of weed leaving Colorado and Washington and transported to other states. Whatever used to be traveling over the border, we can now produce domestically. Which is great, don't get me wrong, but until it's legalized in all fifty states, it doesn't show up on the books. Doing this is as easy as staying in CO for a few weeks, buying your maximum each day, then going a few states over and selling.

    Stephen Tynan , September 2, 2016 at 3:43 pm

    I'd still have $27 x 100 if Tad Devine had agreed to work for free.

    Jim Hannan , September 2, 2016 at 3:46 pm

    Today's Water Cooler stats:
    11 anti Hillary links
    2 anti Trump links

    Yet one candidate represents the center left, one the extreme right. And Naked Capitalism supports what?

    nippersmom , September 2, 2016 at 3:54 pm

    If you are implying that Hillary Clinton supports the center left, you have clearly not been paying attention her entire career, or to the careers of those with whom she has surrounded herself. Even with today's ridiculously shifted Overton window, there is nothing "left" about being an oligarch or a war criminal.

    cocomaan , September 2, 2016 at 3:56 pm

    Can't speak for NC as a whole, but in my opinion, NC writers are criticizing the person likely to win the election. These issues of corruption need to be hashed out and handled well before inauguration.

    Trump's faults are well known.

    And HRC? Center left? On what planet?

    timbers , September 2, 2016 at 3:59 pm

    Center Left = Trump.

    Extreme Right = Clinton

    Water Cooler comments doing OK based on your stats.

    cwaltz , September 2, 2016 at 5:00 pm

    I'm pretty sure Trump doesn't qualify as "left" center or otherwise.

    But hey, let's not pretend that the left really gets more than a token attempt at representation each election cycle anyone.

    The hippies on the left get punched, not elected.

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef , September 2, 2016 at 6:03 pm

    On a non-flat political Earth, your left is my right and my left is your right.

    Yet, some still believe politics is flat, and the power universe revolves around the Exceptional Terra.

    "We are HIS favorites."

    Pavel , September 2, 2016 at 3:59 pm

    Perhaps NC is providing a bit of balance, given the rest of the MSM has about 11 anti-Trump pieces for every 2 anti-HRC ones?

    And having browsed through the FBI interview notes with Clinton, her defence against serious wrongdoing is that she is a mixture of forgetful and incompetent. Is this really the best the Dems can do?

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef , September 2, 2016 at 6:05 pm

    The whole family has had memory problems since the 80s.

    Wonder if it was the polluted drinking water in Arkansas.

    Vatch , September 2, 2016 at 4:05 pm

    I don't think Trump is center left. Maybe he's center right.

    Vatch , September 2, 2016 at 4:07 pm

    Wow. A lot of people replied very quickly. I should refresh my browser more often! :-)

    OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL , September 2, 2016 at 4:16 pm

    Good question, this NC reader is just pretty fed up with the status quo (maybe others want to chime in):
    – Unlimited immunity from prosecution for banking executive criminals
    – More shiny new undeclared "nation-building" and "RTP" wars
    – Globalist trade deals that enshrine unaccountable corporate tribunals over national sovereignty, environmental and worker protection, and self-determination
    – America's national business conducted in secrecy at the behest of corporate donors to tax-exempt foundations
    – Paid-for quid-pro-quo media manipulation of candidate and election coverage
    – Health care system reform designed to benefit entrenched insurance providers over providing access to reasonable-cost basic care.
    Based on the above I'd say the 11:2 ratio looks about right.

    Skippy , September 2, 2016 at 4:18 pm

    When did neoliberalism become center left – ?????

    Jim Haygood , September 2, 2016 at 5:19 pm

    'center left, extreme right'

    *yawn* so fifty years ago.

    In this century, the only pertinent axis is orthogonal: the old in-out, in-out, from A Clockwork Orange .

    Or as Simon & Garfunkel used to croon in the Boomers' youth, Any way you look at it, you're screwed.

    The Crook vs. The Flake - choose wisely between utter hopelessness and total extinction.

    Pat , September 2, 2016 at 6:23 pm

    In reality we have a center leans extreme right Democratic candidate and a left, right and center Republican candidate. One has a clear record of supporting and increasing conservative policies in American and the other has given speeches that have been all over the spectrum.

    But hey, you keep trying to shame people who don't give a fig about useless and false labels but are vastly interested in the normalization of corruption.

    curlydan , September 2, 2016 at 3:52 pm

    HRC: "The Great Graspy"

    nippersmom , September 2, 2016 at 4:11 pm

    +1

    cwaltz , September 2, 2016 at 3:55 pm

    I personally would like to see the reform/ takeover the Democratic party squad concede that third parties don't have a level playing field(which may indeed be why they consistently fail) and then help work to fix the problem.

    A starting point would be opening every single primary to every voting age individual or forcing the private parties to pay for their own darn soiree.

    It's the democratic way to settle the debate on whether or not it will be easier to reform the DNC or use a third party to enact progressive policy.

    Paid Minion , September 2, 2016 at 4:02 pm

    The Randian Boot Lickers over at Zero Hedge are really losing it today, over the new California "tax"

    http://tinyurl.com/jtmu33y

    (Sigh ."Exhibit "A" for "why I'm not a Republican" anymore .)

    A law mandating that AG workers get paid overtime just like about everyone else is not a "tax".

    The excuses they come up with for justifying the status quo are also a treat:

    -No O/T pay because it's "Seasonal Work", and farmers can't spread their harvest labor over the whole year? (But nothing said about the months when the labor is making zero bucks, when the seasonal workers aren't on the payroll)

    – Can't find additional help because of "labor shortages"? Easy enough to fix. PAY MORE MONEY. Why don't "free market" principles ever apply to labor?

    -A "regressive tax on poor people"? Maybe they wouldn't be so poor, if they were paid for their O/T.

    -Encouraging automation because "labor costs too much". Au contraire. It's the other way around. Development of automation (and the skills/jobs needed to design build and support these machines) is slowed, because labor is too cheap.

    And finally, "a $1Billion tax" ..assuming their calculations are correct (a big if, figures don't lie but liars figure):

    .a billion dollar nationwide tax amounts to ( ..one billion divvied by 300 million, carry the one .) .about four bucks a year per person. OMG, I might have to skip that McNuggets Value Meal (that will also be made by robots instead of "overpaid" labor) once a year.

    People like this are so full of s##t, their eyes are brown.

    ewmayer , September 2, 2016 at 6:28 pm

    I'm actually thankful to the folks running ZH some months ago they made a (likely mobile-driven) change to their site layout, with result that it no longer renders readably in my default browser, a legacy FF version, dating from just before the Mozilla weenies decided to remove the 'image display' toggle from the user preferences menu (disabling bandwidth-hogging image rendering is really useful in a shared-WiFi context and when you want to focus on textual content). So now I'm not even tempted to quick-scan the site's inane alarmist headlines for yuks.

    [Sep 02, 2016] Clintons Embrace of Republicans Will Harm Her Own Partys Future

    Sep 01, 2016 | www.commondreams.org

    Whether Clinton's strategy of trying to peel off a small percentage of Republicans to win the presidency will actually work remains to be seen. There seems to be scant evidence in the polls that a significant amount of Republicans will support her; Clinton's advantage mostly stems from the fact that black and Hispanic Americans understandably oppose Trump in historic numbers. But if the strategy hinders Democrats from retaking Congress, the damage is going to be seen for years.

    [Sep 02, 2016] The [Neoliberal] Presss Vendetta Against Trump Is Real and Unscrupulous

    Notable quotes:
    "... Is Donald Trump really as stupid as the press seems to think? And if not, how do we explain the press's version of countless Trumpian controversies lately? ..."
    "... What is not in doubt is that if the election were to revolve around fundamental policy proposals (what an innovation!), it would be Trump's to lose. As Patrick Buchanan has observed, "on the mega-issue, America's desire for change, and on specific issues, Trump holds something close to a full house." ..."
    "... On out-of-control immigration and gratuitously counterproductive foreign military adventures, he has seriously wrong-footed Hillary Clinton. He has moreover made remarkable progress in focusing attention on America's trade disaster. Thanks in large measure to his plain talk, the Clintons have finally been forced into ignominious retreat on their previous commitment to blue-sky globalism. For more on Hillary Clinton's trade woes, click here . ..."
    "... Trump's hawkish stance not only packs wide popular appeal but, as I know from more than two decades covering the global economy from a vantage point in Tokyo, it addresses disastrous American policy-making misconceptions going back generations. ..."
    "... Smith based his intellectual edifice on the rather pedestrian observation that rainy England was good at raising sheep, while sunny Portugal excelled in growing grapes. What could be more reasonable than for England to trade its wool for Portugal's wine? But, while Smith's case is a charming insight into eighteenth century simplicities, the fact is that climate-based agricultural endowments have long since ceased to play a decisive role in First World trade. Today the key factor is advanced manufacturing. By comparison, not only is agriculture a negligible force but, as I documented in a book some years ago, even such advanced service industries as computer software are disappointing exporters. ..."
    "... In theory China should be a great market for, for instance, the U.S. auto industry – and it is, sort of. The Detroit companies have been told that while their American-made products are not welcome, they can still make money in China provided only they manufacture there AND bring their most advanced production know-how. ..."
    "... Corporate America's Chinese subsidiaries moreover are expected almost from the get-go to export. In the early days they sell mainly to Africa and Southern Asia but then, as they approach state-of-the-art quality control, they come under increasing pressure to export even to the United States – with all that that implies for the job security of the very American workers and engineers who developed the advanced production know-how in the first place. ..."
    "... Naturally all this has gone unnoticed in such reflexively anti-Trump media as the Washington Post . (A good account , however, is available at the pro-Trump website, Breitbart.com.) ..."
    "... Washington Post ..."
    "... Washington Post ..."
    "... Washington Post ..."
    "... Chicago Tribune ..."
    Aug 19, 2016 | www.unz.com

    Is Donald Trump really as stupid as the press seems to think? And if not, how do we explain the press's version of countless Trumpian controversies lately?

    Take, for instance, the Kovaleski affair. According to a recent Bloomberg survey, no controversy has proven more costly to Trump.

    The episode began when, in substantiating his erstwhile widely ridiculed allegation that Arabs in New Jersey had publicly celebrated the Twin Towers attacks, Trump unearthed a 2001 newspaper account in which law enforcement authorities were stated to have detained "a number of people who were allegedly seen celebrating the attacks and holding tailgate-style parties on rooftops while they watched the devastation on the other side of the river." This seemed to settle the matter. But the report's author, Serge Kovaleski, demurred. Trump's talk of "thousands" of Arabs, he alleged, was an exaggeration.

    Trump fired back. Flailing his arms wildly in an impersonation of an embarrassed, backtracking reporter, he implied that Kovaleski had bowed to political correctness.

    So far, so normal for this election cycle. But it turned out that Kovaleski is no ordinary Trump-dissing media liberal. He suffers from arthrogryposis, a malady in which the joints are malformed.

    For Trump's critics, this was manna from heaven. Instead of merely accusing the New York real estate magnate of exaggerating a minor, if disturbing, sideshow in U.S.-Arab relations, they could now arraign him on the vastly more damaging charge of mocking a disabled person.

    Trump pleaded that he hadn't known Kovaleski was handicapped. This was undermined, however, when it emerged that in the 1980s the two had not only met but Kovaleski had even interviewed Trump in Trump Tower. Trump was reduced to pleading a fading memory, something that those of us of a certain age can sympathize with, but, of course, it didn't wash with Trump's accusers.

    In responding directly to the charge of mocking a disabled person, Trump commented: "I would never do that. Number one, I have a good heart; number two, I'm a smart person." Setting aside point one (although to the press's chagrin, many of Trump's acquaintances have testified that a streak of considerable private generosity underlies his tough-guy public image), it is hard to see how anyone can question point two. Even if he really is the sort of unspeakable buffoon who might mock someone's disability, he surely has enough political smarts to know that there is no profit in doing so in a public forum.

    There has to be something else here, and, as we will see, there is. Key details have been swept under the rug. We will get to them in a moment but first let's review the wider context. Candidate Trump's weaknesses are well-known. He is unusually thin-skinned and can readily be lured into tilting at windmills. His reality-television persona is sometimes remarkably abrasive. His penchant for speaking off-the-cuff has resulted in a series of exaggerations and outright gaffes.

    All that said, if he ends up losing in November, it will probably be less because of his own shortcomings than the amazing lengths to which the press has gone in misrepresenting him – painting him by turns weird, erratic, and downright sinister.

    What is not in doubt is that if the election were to revolve around fundamental policy proposals (what an innovation!), it would be Trump's to lose. As Patrick Buchanan has observed, "on the mega-issue, America's desire for change, and on specific issues, Trump holds something close to a full house."

    On out-of-control immigration and gratuitously counterproductive foreign military adventures, he has seriously wrong-footed Hillary Clinton. He has moreover made remarkable progress in focusing attention on America's trade disaster. Thanks in large measure to his plain talk, the Clintons have finally been forced into ignominious retreat on their previous commitment to blue-sky globalism. For more on Hillary Clinton's trade woes, click here .

    Trump's hawkish stance not only packs wide popular appeal but, as I know from more than two decades covering the global economy from a vantage point in Tokyo, it addresses disastrous American policy-making misconceptions going back generations.

    The standard Adam Smith/David Ricardo case for free trade, long considered holy writ in Washington, has in the last half century become ludicrously anachronistic.

    Smith based his intellectual edifice on the rather pedestrian observation that rainy England was good at raising sheep, while sunny Portugal excelled in growing grapes. What could be more reasonable than for England to trade its wool for Portugal's wine? But, while Smith's case is a charming insight into eighteenth century simplicities, the fact is that climate-based agricultural endowments have long since ceased to play a decisive role in First World trade. Today the key factor is advanced manufacturing. By comparison, not only is agriculture a negligible force but, as I documented in a book some years ago, even such advanced service industries as computer software are disappointing exporters.

    For nations intent on improving their manufacturing prowess (and, by extension, their standing in the world incomes league table), a key gambit is to manipulate the global trading system. Japan and Germany were the early leaders in intelligent mercantilism but in recent years the most consequential exemplar has been China.

    In theory China should be a great market for, for instance, the U.S. auto industry – and it is, sort of. The Detroit companies have been told that while their American-made products are not welcome, they can still make money in China provided only they manufacture there AND bring their most advanced production know-how.

    While such an arrangement may promise good short-term profits (nicely fattening up those notorious executive stock options), the trade-deficit-plagued American economy is immediately deprived of badly needed exports. Meanwhile the long-term implications are devastating. In industry after industry, leading American corporations have been induced not only to move jobs to China but to transfer their most advanced production technology. In many cases moreover, almost as soon as a U.S. company has transferred its production secrets to a Chinese subsidiary, these "migrate" to rising Chinese competitors. Precisely the sort of competitively crucial technology that in an earlier era ensured that American workers were not only by far the world's most productive but the world's best paid have been served up on a silver salver to America's most formidable power rival.

    Corporate America's Chinese subsidiaries moreover are expected almost from the get-go to export. In the early days they sell mainly to Africa and Southern Asia but then, as they approach state-of-the-art quality control, they come under increasing pressure to export even to the United States – with all that that implies for the job security of the very American workers and engineers who developed the advanced production know-how in the first place.

    Almost alone in corporate America, the Detroit companies have hitherto baulked at shipping their Chinese-made products back to the United States but their resolve is weakening. Already General Motors has announced that later this year it will begin selling Chinese-made Buicks in the American, European, and Canadian markets. It is the thin end of what may prove to be a very large wedge.

    Naturally all this has gone unnoticed in such reflexively anti-Trump media as the Washington Post . (A good account , however, is available at the pro-Trump website, Breitbart.com.)

    For the mainstream press, the big nation-defining issues count as nothing compared to Trump's personal peccadillos, real or, far too often, imagined.

    This brings us back to Kovaleski. Did Trump really mean to mock a handicapped person's disability? On any fair assessment, the answer is clearly No. As the Catholics 4 Trump website has documented, the media have suppressed vital exonerating evidence.

    The truth is that Trump's frenetic performance bore no resemblance to the rigid look of arthrogryposis victims. Pointing out that Kovaleski conducted no on-camera interviews in the immediate wake of the Trump performance, Catholics 4 Trump has commented:

    Shouldn't the media have been chomping at the bit to get Kovaleski in front of their cameras to embarrass Trump and prove to the world Trump was clearly mocking his disability? If the media had a legitimate story, that is exactly what they would have done and we all know it. But the media couldn't put Kovaleski in front of a camera or they'd have no story…..But, if they showed video of Trump labeled "Trump Mocks Disabled Reporter," then put up a still shot of Kovaleski, they knew you, the viewer, would assume Kovaleski's disability must make his arms move without control.

    According to Catholics 4 Trump, in the same speech in which he presented his Kovaleski cameo, Trump acted out similar histrionics to portray a flustered U.S. general. Meanwhile, on another occasion, he used the same wildly flapping hand motions to lampoon Ted Cruz's rationalizations on waterboarding. Thus as neither the flustered general nor Ted Cruz are known to be physically handicapped, we have little reason to assume that Trump's Kovaleski routine represented anything other than an admittedly eccentric portrayal of someone prevaricating under political pressure.

    Perhaps the ultimate smoking gun in all this is the behavior of the Washington Post . On August 10, it published a particularly one-sided account by Callum Borchers. When someone used the reader comments section to reference the alternative Catholics 4 Trump explanation, the links were deleted almost immediately. As Catholics 4 Trump pointed out, the Post 's hidden agenda suddenly stood revealed for all to see:

    This demonstrates that the Washington Post is aware of evidence existing that contradicts their conclusions, and that they are willfully attempting to conceal it from their readers. If Borchers and WaPo were honest and truly wanted to report ALL of the evidence for and against and let the readers decide, they would have to include the video of Kovaleski and the video of Trump impersonating a flustered General and a flustered Cruz. Any objective report would include both evidence for and against a certain interpretation of the Trump video.

    What are we to make of the various other press controversies that have increasingly dogged the Trumpmobile? For the most part, not much.

    One recurring controversy concerns how rich Trump really is. The suggestion is that his net worth is way short of the $10 billion he claims.

    He has come in for particular flak from the author Timothy O'Brien, who a decade ago pronounced him worth "$250 million tops." Although O'Brien continues to pop up regularly in places like the Washington Post and Bloomberg, his methodology has been faulted by Forbes magazine, which, of course, has long been the ultimate authority in such matters.

    What can be said for sure is that even the best informed and most impartial calculation can only be tentative. The fact is that the Trump business is private and thus not subject to daily stock market assessment.

    There is moreover a special complication almost unique to the Trump business - the value of his brand. In Trump's own mind, he seems to think of himself as a latter-day Cesar Ritz – albeit he projects less an image of five-star discretion as high-rolling hedonism. That the brand is a considerable asset, however, is obvious from the fact that he franchises it to, among others, independent real-estate developers. That said, it is an intangible whose value moves up and down in the same elevator as The Donald's personal standing in global esteem.

    All that said, in a major assessment last year, Forbes editor Randall Lane put Trump's net worth at $4.5 billion. Although that is way short of Trump's own estimate, it still bespeaks world class business acumen.

    Another controversy concerns the country of origin of Trump campaign paraphernalia. After he disclosed that his ties were made in China, his criticism of America's huge bilateral trade deficit with China was denounced as hypocrisy.

    Again there is less here than meets the eye. It is surely not unprincipled for someone to argue for laws to be changed even while in the meantime he or she continues to benefit from the status quo.

    Warren Buffett, for instance, has often suggested that tax rates should be raised for plutocrats like himself. In the meantime, however, he continues to pay lower rates than many of his junior staff and nobody calls him a hypocrite. By the same token, many Ivy League-educated journalists privately criticize the legacy system under which their children and the children of other graduates of top universities enjoy preferential treatment in admissions. Few if any such parents, however, would stand in the way of their own children cashing in on the system. Should they?

    Perhaps Trump's most egregious experience of press misrepresentation was sparked when he archly urged Russia to hack into Clinton's personal server to discover her missing emails. "Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing," he said. "I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press!"

    This was sarcasm laid on with a trowel but the press, of course, wasn't buying it. Yet it is not as if sarcasm is new to American politics. No less a figure than Abraham Lincoln had a famously sarcastic tongue and the press laughed along with him. When someone complained of Ulysses Grant's drinking, for instance, Lincoln rushed to the defense of the Union's most successful general. "Can you tell me where he gets his whiskey," Lincoln asked. "Because, if I can only find out, I will send a barrel of this wonderful whiskey to every general in the army."

    Then there was Harry Truman, the man who declared himself in search of a one-handed economist. When he was not making fun of dismal scientists, he found plenty of other opportunities for caustic wit. After he was presented with the Chicago Tribune 's front page saying "Dewey Defeats Truman," for instance, he commented: "I knew I should have campaigned harder!"

    As for Trump, his wit is clearly a major draw with the ordinary voters who flock to his meetings. Yet little of it is ever recycled in the press. In the case of the Russia hacking joke indeed, many commentators were so humorless as to mutter darkly about a threat to national security. At Slate, Osita Nwanevu interviewed a lawyer to see what could be done to arraign Trump on treason charges. (The answer was nothing.) Meanwhile at Politico, Nahal Toosi and Seung Min Kim reported that Trump's crack had "shocked, flabbergasted, and appalled lawmakers and national security experts across the political spectrum." They quoted Philip Reiner, a former national security official in the Obama administration, describing Trump as a "scumbag animal." Reiner went on to comment: "Hacking email is a criminal activity. And he's asked a foreign government – a murderous, repressive regime – to attack not just one of our citizens but the Democratic presidential candidate? Of course it's a national security threat."

    Countless other examples could be cited of how the press has piled on in ways that clearly make a mockery of claims to fairness. All this is not to suggest that Trump hasn't made many unforced errors. His handling of the Khizr Khan affair in particular played right into the press's agenda. As Khan had lost a son in Iraq, his taunts should have been ignored. By challenging Khan, Trump was charging the cape, not the matador. The matador, of course, was Hillary, and she was actually highly exposed. Trump, after all, could have simply confined his riposte to the fact that but for her vote, and the votes of other Senators, the United States would never have entered Iraq, and Khan's unfortunate son would still be alive.

    Where does Trump go from here? Although it is probably too late to get the press to fall into line in observing traditional standards of fairness, Trump can make it harder for the press to deliver cheap shots.

    He needs to stake out the high ground and get a serious policy discussion going. The debates should help but the first one is still more than a month away. In the meantime one strategy would be to compile detailed, authoritative reports on trade, immigration, and other key issues. While such reports would not reach everyone, in these days of the internet they would find a useful readership among an influential, if no doubt relatively small, cadre of thoughtful constituents. They could thus work indirectly but powerfully to change the tone of the campaign. Certainly such an initiative would be hard for the mainstream press simply to ignore – and even harder completely to misrepresent.

    Eamonn Fingleton is the author of In the Jaws of the Dragon: America's Fate in the Coming Era of Chinese Hegemony . He interviewed Trump for Forbes magazine in 1982.

    [Sep 02, 2016] B. H. Liddell Hart

    Notable quotes:
    "... A direct approach to the objective exhausts the attacker and hardens the resistance by compression, where as an indirect approach loosens the defenders hold by upsetting his balance." ..."
    "... advocated fighting the decisive battle after the opponent has been unbalanced. ..."
    Sep 02, 2016 | en.wikipedia.org

    Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    ...Liddell Hart wrote Strategy: An Indirect Approach , in which he stated: "In strategy the longest way around is often the shortest way there. A direct approach to the objective exhausts the attacker and hardens the resistance by compression, where as an indirect approach loosens the defenders hold by upsetting his balance."

    Liddell exhaustively analyzed numerous battles throughout history and advocated fighting the decisive battle after the opponent has been unbalanced.

    ... ... ...

    Shimon Naveh, the founder and former head of the Israel Defense Forces ' Operational Theory Research Institute, stated that after World War II Liddell Hart "created" the idea of Blitzkrieg as a military doctrine: "It was the opposite of a doctrine. Blitzkrieg consisted of an avalanche of actions that were sorted out less by design and more by success." [28] Naveh stated that,

    "by manipulation and contrivance, Liddell Hart distorted the actual circumstances of the Blitzkrieg formation and obscured its origins. Through his indoctrinated idealization of an ostentatious concept he reinforced the myth of Blitzkrieg. By imposing, retrospectively, his own perceptions of mobile warfare upon the shallow concept of Blitzkrieg, he created a theoretical imbroglio that has taken 40 years to unravel". [29]

    [Sep 02, 2016] Trump and the Scapegoat Effect

    There is a simpler explanation: Trump is hated and constantly vilified by neoliberal MSM because he threatens neoliberal establishment and imperial bureaucracy. Especially neocons. That's why they changed party affiliation and will vote for Hillary. They have found a new friend.
    Notable quotes:
    "... he is often mocked for having small hands and goofy orange hair; he eats profane food like McDonald's; ..."
    "... But Trump is a monster! Yes, but given the right circumstance, so are you. His ugliness is simply more apparent than that of other managers of the state's sacred violence. ..."
    "... Think his call to deport illegally undocumented workers is fascist? The Obama administration, garbed as it is with the shimmering rhetoric of victimhood, has already deported over 2,500,000 human beings-23 percent more than Bush. ..."
    "... How about his pledge to torture suspected terrorists? Clinton-Bush-Obama beat him to it. They just don't talk about it like he does. And let's not limit it to foreigners; Obama didn't bat an eye as elderly tax protester Irwin Schiff died of cancer chained to a prison bed far away from his family for breaking the sacred taboo against being too stingy in sharing his resources with the collective. ..."
    "... How about the time Trump promised to target terrorists' families? Obama, the great defender of Islam, already trumped that when he murdered people like U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki's 16-year-old son Abdulrahman, who hadn't seen his father for two years. This teen and his friends were blown apart by the Nobel prize winner while having a campfire dinner, apparently for the sinful dreams of his father. ..."
    "... From Buzzfeed to Vanity Fair , CNN, the New York Times , broadcast networks, Wall Street, Fortune 500 companies, academia, Hollywood, music stars, Silicon valley, and NPR, to both party establishments, everyone's united in this orgy of outrage. It's almost like the scapegoat purgings of yesteryear, but again, because of the cross of Christ scrambling people's tribal unity, there is always a counter-factional push-back. ..."
    "... Still, scapegoating partially unifies. Just why is it that old enemies like Romney, the DNC, and the media unite to expose Trump's shady timeshare-like university gimmick but offer deafening crickets for Hillary's use of the Haiti earthquake to secure an exclusive gold-mining contract for her brother? Trump's shamelessness reveals the banality of the establishment's passe violence. ..."
    "... The thing that drives this outrage mob mad is the mirror Trump's vulgar speech holds up to the state's violence-based unity. ..."
    "... In the popular imagination inspired by the mainstream media, Trump is a wolf whose fangs will bring violent chaos from which the lamb herd must unite to protect us. ..."
    "... But peel off the wool skins and you'll see the [neoliberal] herd is itself a wolf pack that wants to eat you too. Just in a way that gets them crooned about on late-night comedy and earns them Nobel prizes while they quietly blow up kids. ..."
    "... When Trump says the U.S. should have taken the oil in Iraq, he gets universal sneers from the established imperial class the way a drunken wingman is eliminated from the bar for loudly telling his friend to close the deal and "nail" the girl he's chatting up. ..."
    Sep 01, 2016 | The American Conservative

    Reading René Girard helped me understand why so many hate the Donald.

    Donald Trump is the scapegoat supreme of our time.

    Don't kill the messenger. See, to have a scapegoat is to not know you have one. It is to unite in common cause with other actors in your community to purge a common monster to preserve peace and order. Trump, more than any other figure in our present culture, fits that bill. (Yes, Trump and his supporters scapegoat other groups as well.)

    Having dedicated his life to the study of scapegoating as the origin of culture, the late anthropologist René Girard is someone who should join every conservative's pantheon. He argues that human beings unconsciously stumbled upon a circuit breaker that kept violence from virally overwhelming our ancient communities: the common identification and expulsion of a common enemy. The catharsis and solidarity scapegoating provides led early people to mythologize their victims into gods.

    .... ... ...

    Trump even viscerally looks the part of the old scapegoat kings who would be ceremonially paraded before being sacrificed: he is often mocked for having small hands and goofy orange hair; he eats profane food like McDonald's; he loves gaudy decoration in an age of "shabby chic"; he calls himself a winner in a culture where people must offer faux humility to gain status. Trump, who has repeatedly said that were he not her father he would be dating his daughter, is even accused of breaking the age-old taboo against incestual lust.

    ... ... ...

    But Trump is a monster! Yes, but given the right circumstance, so are you. His ugliness is simply more apparent than that of other managers of the state's sacred violence. Let's be frank here: though his speech is scarily vulgar, the violence he promises is already occurring.

    Think his call to deport illegally undocumented workers is fascist? The Obama administration, garbed as it is with the shimmering rhetoric of victimhood, has already deported over 2,500,000 human beings-23 percent more than Bush.

    How about his pledge to torture suspected terrorists? Clinton-Bush-Obama beat him to it. They just don't talk about it like he does. And let's not limit it to foreigners; Obama didn't bat an eye as elderly tax protester Irwin Schiff died of cancer chained to a prison bed far away from his family for breaking the sacred taboo against being too stingy in sharing his resources with the collective.

    How about the time Trump promised to target terrorists' families? Obama, the great defender of Islam, already trumped that when he murdered people like U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki's 16-year-old son Abdulrahman, who hadn't seen his father for two years. This teen and his friends were blown apart by the Nobel prize winner while having a campfire dinner, apparently for the sinful dreams of his father.

    Let's not pretend it is avant-garde to vilify Trump. Everyone's doing it, especially the cool people, the ones, like us, preoccupied with social status but hiding it in speech always patronizingly preening about victims. From Buzzfeed to Vanity Fair, CNN, the New York Times, broadcast networks, Wall Street, Fortune 500 companies, academia, Hollywood, music stars, Silicon valley, and NPR, to both party establishments, everyone's united in this orgy of outrage. It's almost like the scapegoat purgings of yesteryear, but again, because of the cross of Christ scrambling people's tribal unity, there is always a counter-factional push-back.

    Still, scapegoating partially unifies. Just why is it that old enemies like Romney, the DNC, and the media unite to expose Trump's shady timeshare-like university gimmick but offer deafening crickets for Hillary's use of the Haiti earthquake to secure an exclusive gold-mining contract for her brother? Trump's shamelessness reveals the banality of the establishment's passe violence.

    The thing that drives this outrage mob mad is the mirror Trump's vulgar speech holds up to the state's violence-based unity. The one thing the crowd can't stand is a scapegoat's refusal to apologize for its sins. Look at how the old victors of history wrote of their witch hunts, with the victims admitting guilt.

    In the popular imagination inspired by the mainstream media, Trump is a wolf whose fangs will bring violent chaos from which the lamb herd must unite to protect us. He just needs to flinch and admit he's a wolf! But peel off the wool skins and you'll see the [neoliberal] herd is itself a wolf pack that wants to eat you too. Just in a way that gets them crooned about on late-night comedy and earns them Nobel prizes while they quietly blow up kids. Trump refuses to apologize for his rhetoric, and so there is no blood for the wolves to complete their feast.

    I'm not saying he hasn't promised to make grave violence. But look who writes history: the winning crowd. In the pagan world, Oedipus was cast as the scapegoat who accepts all guilt for his community's woes. Yet behind the mythic veil, it takes two to tango in the deadly dance of violent rivalry. Today's myth is being written by people who use victimism to hide the continuance of sacred violence. Watch out for the false catharsis they're trying to create in purging Trump. It will not satisfy.

    When Trump says the U.S. should have taken the oil in Iraq, he gets universal sneers from the established imperial class the way a drunken wingman is eliminated from the bar for loudly telling his friend to close the deal and "nail" the girl he's chatting up.

    ... ... ...

    David Gornoski is your neighbor-as well as an entrepreneur, speaker and writer. He recently launched a project called A Neighbor's Choice, which seeks to introduce Jesus' culture of nonviolence to both Christians and the broader public. A Florida promoter of local agriculture, he also writes for WND.com, FEE.org, AffluentInvestor.com, and AltarandThrone.com.

    [Sep 02, 2016] Clinton's base is cosmopolitan neoliberals who always support trade packs like TPP and if she say that she opposes it, she is lying.

    Sep 02, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    TPP/TTIP/TISA

    TPP: "'It's very challenging to get people to commit the political capital to move forward when the doubts are so significant about what the United States will do," [Eric Altbach, a senior vice president at the Albright Stonebridge Group] said" [ Politico ].

    "Organizations including the Communications Workers of America, CREDO Action, Democracy for America and several others sent a letter to Clinton on Thursday asking her to make a 'clear, public and unequivocal statement' opposing any vote on TPP" [ Politico ]. It will be interesting to parse Clinton's next statement, if any. (Remember that Clinton's 10% base is cosmopolitan, and supports trade. She won't be punished for remaining "equivocal.")

    [Sep 02, 2016] James Carville: "Whatever weaknesses Clinton has, Trump constantly covers them up

    Sep 02, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    The Voters

    James Carville: "Whatever weaknesses Clinton has, Trump constantly covers them up" [ Vanity Fair ]. Hmm. I'd love to see a timeline that combines Clinton corruption eruptions and Trump gaffes, if anybody knows of one. Although creating a timeline like that would be an awful lot of work.

    "Hillary Clinton's late-night panic " [ Chicago Tribune ]. Weapons-grade snark. Spoiler:

    Ready4Hillary : Think of it this way. If you asked someone, "Would you like to climb into an old scow full of garbage?" most people would say "No." But if you say, "Would you like to be saved at any cost from the apocalyptic flood that is rising to destroy your city?" most people would say "Yes." The trick is to focus on the second thing and not be too specific about the first thing. OK?

    Hillary : am I the garbage scow in that analogy?

    Ready4Hillary : the point is, less is more. OK?

    "Clinton's advisers tell her to prep for a landslide" [ Politico ]. "Revealing a level of confidence Clinton's inner circle has been eager to squash for weeks, outside advisers have now identified victories in Pennsylvania and New Hampshire as the path of least resistance, delivering for the Democratic nominee more than the 270 electoral votes needed to take the White House. And they are projecting increased confidence about her chances in Republican-leaning North Carolina, a state that could prove as critical as Ohio or Pennsylvania." I'd add a few grains of salt to this: First, Clinton is notoriously surrounded by sycophants. Second, I think this is messaging, and not reporting: The Clinton campaign wants early voters to go with a winner. Third, a massive electoral win doesn't necessarily translate to a popular vote landslide. Hence, an electoral landslide combined with a much closer popular vote will do nothing to help Clinton in a coming legitimacy crisis (and could even exacerbate it).

    "There's almost no chance our elections can get hacked by the Russians. Here's why" [ WaPo ].

    War Drums

    Putin on 2016: "All this should be more dignified" [ Bloomberg ]. Gotchyer casus belli right here…

    Realignment

    "So you think you can take over the Democrat Party?" [ South Lawn ]. Cogent points. On the other hand, what's sauce for the sheepdog is sauce for a century-long record of third-party #FAIL. Past results are no guarantee of future performance.

    "Downballot Republicans and top GOP leaders are dumping Trump" [ NBC ]. "[Y]esterday came this campaign video from John McCain, who's engaged in a tough re-election fight: "If Hillary Clinton is elected, Arizona will need a senator who will act as a check," he said, all but admitting that Trump is unlikely to win in November. And McCain won't be the last GOPer making this 'check on Hillary' argument.

    "Kissinger, George Schultz mull Clinton endorsement" [ The Hill ]. Can't we just be open about this and set up a war criminals PAC?

    [Sep 01, 2016] Hillary, liberator of Libya, preaches to the American Legion choir in Ohio

    Notable quotes:
    "... The Democratic presidential nominee called the United States an "exceptional nation," and said the country has a "unique and unparalleled ability to be a force for peace and progress." ..."
    "... Recalling in their fevered minds the legendary Reagan Democrats who took the bait approved of a "walking tall" pitch, the Clintons believe millions of silent majority, Dick Cheney Democrats will cross the aisle to keep America great. ..."
    "... Like Rome, we make a waste land and call it peace. ..."
    "... It's very similar to the whole entire democracy at the end of a rifle thing we've been doing now for over a decade. Our exceptionally unique brand of freedom to choose as long as you choose as we wish if you will. Go America! ..."
    "... "unique and unparalleled ability to be a force for peace and progress." LOL! ……Wha!/! she was serious!? Your sh*tting me! ..."
    Sep 01, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Jim Haygood , August 31, 2016 at 2:20 pm

    Hillary, liberator of Libya, preaches to the American Legion choir in Ohio:

    The Democratic presidential nominee called the United States an "exceptional nation," and said the country has a "unique and unparalleled ability to be a force for peace and progress."

    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/clinton-stress-american-exceptionalism-ohio-41764569

    Recalling in their fevered minds the legendary Reagan Democrats who took the bait approved of a "walking tall" pitch, the Clintons believe millions of silent majority, Dick Cheney Democrats will cross the aisle to keep America great.

    Dick: " I'm with her! "
    Hillary: " Who knew? "

    http://tinyurl.com/jvaqryp

    Roger Smith , August 31, 2016 at 2:32 pm

    Haha I am pretty sure that one does not force peace.

    jsn , August 31, 2016 at 3:54 pm

    Like Rome, we make a waste land and call it peace.

    cwaltz , August 31, 2016 at 6:33 pm

    It's very similar to the whole entire democracy at the end of a rifle thing we've been doing now for over a decade. Our exceptionally unique brand of freedom to choose as long as you choose as we wish if you will. Go America!

    fresno dan , August 31, 2016 at 2:35 pm

    "unique and unparalleled ability to be a force for peace and progress." LOL! ……Wha!/! she was serious!? Your sh*tting me!

    [Sep 01, 2016] Clinton vs. Trump State of the Race

    Notable quotes:
    "... "We speak English in this country, not Spanish!" ..."
    www.strategic-culture.org

    . Rivals and challengers of the past whether it be the British Empire, Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan or the Soviet Union have all fall by the way side in the titanic struggle of nation states and Great Powers.

    So I asked Ms Rivlin, hypothetically, how she thought Americans would react if in a couple of decades to come a significant and visible economic gap opened up between the USA and China.\

    ... She failed to see, whether intentionally or not, that whatever one thinks about the merits of seriousness or silliness of such talk and concerns, a lot of people in America believe it is happening as encapsulated in Mr Trump's campaign slogan: "Make America Great Again". Clearly, a great deal of people in America think the country is in terminal decline and want something radical to reverse such decline. Hence their messenger Donald Trump and his rhetoric of America First.

    ...Part of what Trump represents is not only a deep seated anxiety that America is on a downward trajectory this century, hence his China bashing and protectionist rhetoric, his candidacy also represents a white backlash against the increasing and rapid demographic changes in America society. America is on course by the 2050s to no longer be a white majority country. The population growth of non-white ethnic minorities is over taking that of white Americans. Thus Trump's dog whistle racism with lines such as: "We speak English in this country, not Spanish!"

    [Sep 01, 2016] No wonder people are flocking to his speeches! You wont read about it.

    Notable quotes:
    "... "The Democratic Party is the party of Slavery, Jim Crow and Opposition (to abolition)" ..."
    "... "The Republican Party is the party of Abraham Lincoln.- Freedom, Equality, and Opportunity" says Donald Trump ..."
    "... No wonder people are flocking to his speeches! You won't read about it. ..."
    "... Investment psychology. If you invest in a candidate now, you might work to get them elected, even if it's a little bit. ..."
    Sep 01, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    clarky90 , August 31, 2016 at 3:54 pm

    "The Democratic Party is the party of Slavery, Jim Crow and Opposition (to abolition)"

    "The Republican Party is the party of Abraham Lincoln.- Freedom, Equality, and Opportunity" says Donald Trump

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

    "Against All Odds" Rally in Everett, Washington 8/30/16 WA at about 20 minutes in speech.

    Hmmmmmmmmm? No wonder people are flocking to his speeches! You won't read about it.

    kucha girl , August 31, 2016 at 5:03 pm

    At the rally in Everett, Guiliani asked rally-goers to get out their phone & text $$ to a certain address.

    I was shocked, what about "I'm funding my own campaign, I don't want your money." Guiliani said something about how it is about gaining a big number of people who are donating. Donate $1, if you want to, but just do it.

    I was trying to think of the reasoning behind this. It was certainly counter-messaging. I would suppose it is data-mining. Many people have multiple email addresses … it is easy to create an anonymous email address just to get a Trump rally ticket. I thought of it myself, to avoid spam. But most people only have one cell-phone number. Trump thanked Susan Hutchinson, head of the the state Republican Party. I would imagine she was asking the Trump campaign to get as much info about attendees as possible. That would explain why Guiliani and not Trump said this.

    NotTimothyGeithner , August 31, 2016 at 5:12 pm

    Investment psychology. If you invest in a candidate now, you might work to get them elected, even if it's a little bit.

    Obama had little pledge cards back in 07/08. Campaigns want people to commit or they can leave.

    Pat , August 31, 2016 at 5:12 pm

    There may be another explanation. Clinton and the DNC have been running pretty insistent fund raising campaign over the last couple of weeks as focused on number of donors as on money. Clearly this was another version of Clinton's popularity over Trump.

    As they are asking for $1 on the last day of this reporting period there could be a desire to head that one off at the pass.

    Or they could want your info, and to head that off at the pass.

    clarky90 , August 31, 2016 at 7:43 pm

    Sources and amounts of Donald Trump campaign Funds

    https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/candidate.php?id=N00023864

    Individual Contributions $56,486,064 (45%)
    – Small Individual Contributions$37,236,701 (30%)
    – Large Individual Contributions$19,370,699 (15%)

    PAC Contributions $17,700 (0%)
    Candidate self-financing $52,003,469 (42%)
    Federal Funds $0 (0%)

    There is a similar page listing Hillary Clinton's Sources and amounts.

    Please, do not click on the following link if you are eating or have a delicate disposition.

    https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/contrib.php?id=N00000019

    [Sep 01, 2016] If defeating Clinton is becoming more important, then voting for Trump becomes more necessary.

    Sep 01, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    different clue , August 31, 2016 at 3:20 pm

    If defeating Clinton is becoming more important, then voting for Trump becomes more necessary.
    I am getting more inclined all the time to vote for Trump. A vote FOR Trump counts twice as hard aGAINST Clinton as a vote for some beautiful Third Party.

    Every ballot is a bullet on the field of political combat.

    Carla , August 31, 2016 at 3:38 pm

    I'd rather vote for someone I want and lose than vote for someone I don't want and "win."

    Remember if enough of us vote for the same third party it could get federal matching funds in 2020. That might be important.

    OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL , August 31, 2016 at 3:58 pm

    2020? To pick over the dry bones left by Bush Term 5?
    Some people say a Trump presidency would be a disaster. No. We already have a disaster.
    Trump is a ridiculous blowhard buffoon. He's also against more nation-building, questions NATO/Putin war mongering, thinks the mainstream media is completely corrupt, wants to put the ACA out of its misery, and actually opposes globalist trade deals. I couldn't care less if he said mean things about Rosie O'Donnell.

    cwaltz , August 31, 2016 at 6:07 pm

    You know the Republicans could have picked a better candidate.

    Oh wait they didn't do that because their intent was to hand this to Hillary.

    I'm so tired of hearing how "I have to" do things after a small band of oligarchs chose the candidates I have to choose from.

    I don't have to vote for Trump the buffoon and I don't have to vote for Clinton the corrupt and I can continue to not vote for either of the duopoly. As long as you continue to play the lesser evil game you can be assured the oligarchy is going to continue to pick bad and worse for you.

    I'm opting out of the sick and twisted game the GOP and Democratic Party have going on and those of you who continually vote for the bad choices you are given can blame yourselves for the outcome(instead of projecting the outcome onto everyone who refuses to eat the oligarchy's dog food.)

    Jim Haygood , August 31, 2016 at 7:39 pm

    'their intent was to hand this to Hillary'

    The 8-year partisan alternation pattern structurally imposed by Amendment XXII indicates that it was the R party's "turn."

    Their intent was to hand this to Jeb! or Ted! or some other vetted insider to claim the R party's 8 years of spoils.

    As the howls of protest and invective from Ted! made clear, Trump's nomination was totally unplanned. Trump punked the R party. And they still haven't gotten over their butthurt.

    cwaltz , August 31, 2016 at 8:40 pm

    Oh they left him in place because he is the perfect buffoon to run against Queen Hillary(after all they sat and debated whether or not to make him the nominee ad nauseaum) and he gives the double bonus of once he loses being able to allow them to wail, gnash their teeth and fundraise against the Democrats and Hillary Clinton. Don't kid yourself Clinton is interposable and will serve her purpose just as well as Ted! or Jeb! for the oligarchy. It's Her turn.

    This is a game and the electorate are chumps that just keep playing it.

    HotFlash , August 31, 2016 at 4:17 pm

    No matter who you vote for, or don't, the US will end up with either Clinton or Trump as prez, barring a catastrophic event, eg, death of one or t'other.

    So, you not only have to decide how you can live with who you vote for, but you have to think about how you will live with who you get. Maybe it won't be good enough to say, "Not the president of me."

    cwaltz , August 31, 2016 at 6:11 pm

    They're both horrible choices and I intend to prepare myself to have to live with either of them.

    I also intend to remind people that vote for team bad or team worse that THEY are the ones who force this game to continue by insisting that only a Democrat or Republican can win.

    Carla , August 31, 2016 at 9:18 pm

    Thank you.

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef , August 31, 2016 at 7:00 pm

    There are two types of ethical demand here.

    1 One does one's best to elect the best candidate

    and furthermore

    2. One does one's best to prevent the worst candidate.

    To me, I believe it's not 'either or,' but that, the second demand is an addition call of duty…going beyond the first.

    "What have you done to stop the Foundation?"

    different clue , August 31, 2016 at 6:43 pm

    It won't matter if we don't live that long due to World War Clinton with Russia. If you think Clinton poses no more danger of nuclear annihilation than Trump would, then your logic is impeccable.

    But if you think a President Clinton poses a real and non-trivial risk of global nuclear extermination in a way that a President Trump just simply would not, then you might decide to defer "vote your dreams" for now, and "vote your survival" for Trump so you can live long enough to collect the Big Jackpot in 2024.

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef , August 31, 2016 at 4:10 pm

    I am confronted with the question: "Where were you when they laid the Foundation for the Thousand Year Reign?"

    "Did you do nothing to stop the Foundation?"

    Jeremy Grimm , August 31, 2016 at 5:51 pm

    Both Trump and Hillary are frightening alternatives for President - though Trump seems "the lesser of two evils". Hillary is starting to appear like a female anti-Christ - Damiena Thorn or Nicole Carpathia - the more I learn about her. Regardless which one wins I tend to agree with the commenter here who suggested one of the two VP candidates would be the acting executive.

    I am tempted to vote Green just on the possibility the Green Party might become a viable second party - especially if matching funds become available. But I can't get past viewing the Green Party as a clueless amalgam of underemployed ex-philosophy students.

    Writing-in Sanders is tempting - but I don't trust write-ins will be counted or reported in any meaningful way. As a last resort I can leave President an undercount and register a "No!" vote in what seems the best possible way to do that.

    I will vote. None of the relatively good choices choices offer much to realistically hope for and the bad choices are scary bad and horrifyingly bad.

    Ulysses , August 31, 2016 at 6:25 pm

    "But I can't get past viewing the Green Party as a clueless amalgam of underemployed ex-philosophy students."

    This made me chuckle, since many of my very best friends are actually underemployed Phil majors, along with a healthy cohort of underemployed art historians, medievalists etc.

    [Sep 01, 2016] It was extremely eerie watching Clinton deliver neo-fascist rhetoric in Ohio

    Notable quotes:
    "... The "Global War on Terror" ™ is now a member of the standard vocabulary of Hucksterism. Joining phrases like "Welfare Moms", "Illegal Aliens" "FreeSh#tArmy", etc. ..."
    "... She cares so much about the veterans, she is going to make sure to create more of them! ..."
    "... Someone should remind Hillary that presidents don't get to declare war. It's so nice to know though that she intends to carry on her proud tradition of foreign nationals having to buy their influence instead of getting it for free by way of hacking. ..."
    "... I believe the Patriot Act views hacks by persons or non-governmental agencies as acts of terrorism. I'm sure I'll be corrected if this is wrong. I also had the impression the Patriot Act treats some of the kinds of sabotage commonly used in the labor movements of the last century as acts of terrorism. ..."
    "... Obama's beefing up of our atomic arsenals and Hillary's push to out-hawk Obama mixed with the footsie our military and diplomacy seem inclined to play with Russia and China is extremely frightening. ..."
    "... Hillary is exceptionally stupid apparently. She's been itching for a fight with Russia. There is no other explanation for Ukraine or Syria. The big ol moneypot that they can collect from war is just too tempting. ..."
    Sep 01, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Roger Smith , August 31, 2016 at 2:12 pm

    It was extremely eerie watching Clinton deliver neo-fascist rhetoric in Ohio while an alert flashed across the screen announcing Brazil's Senate's official removal of Dilma Rousseff.

    C-Span claims to offer transcripts, but they do not always work.

    Some highlights:

    – Hacks will be viewed as acts of war
    – the VA will not be privatized (healthcare and education… meh those are okay)
    – Quoted Reagan within the first 5-10 minutes
    – We need to reevaluate our nuclear presence… to make it stronger. (!#$*)
    – We are the best #MERica

    Jim Haygood , August 31, 2016 at 2:28 pm

    Hacks will be viewed as acts of war

    Rather evilly brilliant, in the Report From Iron Mountain vein.

    Terrorism as a permanent, amorphous threat is producing some cultural fatigue. Good to have a War on Hackery on the back burner, since that will never end either, and blame can be attributed freely (as the evil Russians have already learnt to their sorrow).

    Paid Minion , August 31, 2016 at 3:00 pm

    The "Global War on Terror" ™ is now a member of the standard vocabulary of Hucksterism. Joining phrases like "Welfare Moms", "Illegal Aliens" "FreeSh#tArmy", etc.

    Roger Smith , August 31, 2016 at 3:45 pm

    She cares so much about the veterans, she is going to make sure to create more of them!

    cwaltz , August 31, 2016 at 6:18 pm

    Someone should remind Hillary that presidents don't get to declare war. It's so nice to know though that she intends to carry on her proud tradition of foreign nationals having to buy their influence instead of getting it for free by way of hacking.

    Jeremy Grimm , August 31, 2016 at 2:46 pm

    I believe the Patriot Act views hacks by persons or non-governmental agencies as acts of terrorism. I'm sure I'll be corrected if this is wrong. I also had the impression the Patriot Act treats some of the kinds of sabotage commonly used in the labor movements of the last century as acts of terrorism.

    Obama's beefing up of our atomic arsenals and Hillary's push to out-hawk Obama mixed with the footsie our military and diplomacy seem inclined to play with Russia and China is extremely frightening. This 27th of October I'll drink a shot to Vasili Arkhipov and make a little prayer he didn't save the world in vain.

    timbers , August 31, 2016 at 2:48 pm

    Hacks will be viewed as acts of war

    Translation:

    Russia will be viewed as an act of war

    How inspiring and uplifting but than there's "Putin is Hitler" and other masterful strokes from America's top diplomat Sect of State Clinton. She's already earned her Noble Peace prize in Obama's tradition so let's preemptively give it to her now and continue that precedent.

    What will Clinton do when she realizes she's picking on someone who can fight back?

    BTW very interesting analysis from MoonofAlabama regarding Turkey's invasion into Syria is not so good for US regime change in Syrian with hints this is calculated btwn Russia/Turkey/Syria. Had assumed Turkey's invasion was quite bad for Syria/Russia now I'm not sure.

    http://www.moonofalabama.org/2016/08/a-deal-over-syria-that-left-the-us-out.html

    Paid Minion , August 31, 2016 at 3:41 pm

    The GWOT and Russia are meant to focus the rubes attention away from the fact that:

    -We are rapidly turning into a Banana Republic

    -We have no Bananas. Or that 95% of the bananas we do have are owned by 1% of the population, who use the money and influence generated by having all the bananas to make sure the government doesn't interfere with the goal of getting 100% of the remaining 5%.

    – Our half-azzed GWOT has totally fooked things up in the Middle East. Turkey, Iran and Russia are closer to the problem than we are. Doesn't surprise me that they might cooperate in order to straighten out the mess.

    And if they can make our doofuses in Washington look like ineffectual idiots while doing it, so much the better.

    Looking back…….for a long time, even here in the USA, the US has always backed the landowners/business owners/oligarchs/kleptocrats, when confronted by any opposition wanting a more even "distribution of the pie".

    And since they can't say "We are going to war so US Multi-Nationals can keep their stuff/increase their market share/gain access to raw materials", the talk is all about "Liberating the (fill in the blank) people from the (name of opposition dictator) regime.

    Dictators turning machine guns on striking coal miners = "Repression of worker rights"

    US law enforcement/US Army turning machine guns on striking coal miners = Suppressing Commie-inspired domestic unrest.

    Kokuanani , August 31, 2016 at 4:34 pm

    "-We are rapidly turning into a Banana Republic

    -We have no Bananas. "

    Priceless!!!!

    OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL , August 31, 2016 at 4:05 pm

    "Picking on someone who can fight back"
    Um, America doesn't do that, we just smash the defenseless ones. And we still lose, contrary to the Hollywood, media, and MIC myth-making. In the main theater Putin would smash NATO in an afternoon, everywhere else it's CIA Keystone cops, own goals, and drone bombs on kids in hospitals.

    cwaltz , August 31, 2016 at 6:15 pm

    Hillary is exceptionally stupid apparently. She's been itching for a fight with Russia. There is no other explanation for Ukraine or Syria. The big ol moneypot that they can collect from war is just too tempting.

    curlydan , August 31, 2016 at 3:03 pm

    Because we never misattribute hacks (see below)… I was afraid when Ronny had access to the button, but I'm starting to get really fearful of HRC's possible access. Saner heads in the DoD (if that can even be believed) might have throw water on her.

    https://consortiumnews.com/2015/02/03/did-north-korea-really-hack-sony/

    different clue , August 31, 2016 at 3:23 pm

    It was saner heads in the DoD who restrained Obama from starting a war against Syria. I realize many leftists are bigoted anti-militaritic anti-militarites. That bigotry causes such left wing anti-militaritic bigots to miss some events and trends of opinion within the military.

    curlydan , August 31, 2016 at 3:26 pm

    I am well aware of the fact the DoD already constrained Obama on Syria. I actually am a fan of the Department of DEFENSE, yet the fact that we have a $700B war budget shows there are many in the military and Pentagon who are far from sane.

    OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL , August 31, 2016 at 4:12 pm

    What a frightening thought, when even the Curtis LeMay types from the Pentagon are yelling at the Chanel-suited war criminals not to push the button.

    different clue , August 31, 2016 at 6:48 pm

    Yes, well . . . that's where we are now.

    nippersmom , August 31, 2016 at 4:11 pm

    Her rhetoric is positively Orwellian.

    shinola , August 31, 2016 at 2:21 pm

    – Hacks will be viewed as acts of war

    So that's why every hack mentioned in the MSM has some reference to "Russian hackers"

    War pre-justification.

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef , August 31, 2016 at 2:25 pm

    Are we already at war?

    Are some people being committing the offense of dereliction of duty, even as we speak?

    OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL , August 31, 2016 at 4:20 pm

    You can watch the war in realtime:
    http://map.norsecorp.com/#/

    Looks to me like most of the attacks are not from Russia, by a long shot, but Boris Badinov and Natasha must be resurrected.

    Benedict@Large , August 31, 2016 at 3:12 pm

    So we will now go to war with individuals? Or do we just declare war on whatever country they're operating out of?

    Does it count who's getting hacked? Or what? I know Hillary thinks her private e-mails are best kept private, but do we go to war if someone hacks them? Or do we only go to war because she mixed some state secrets in with them? It quickly gets confusing. Or what if Hillary hacks Bill to see if he's still messing around with Monica? Does who we go to war against depend of whether he is or not?

    And I know Hillary is pretty pissed that the DNC got hacked, but do they count? Because a political party is more like a club, and is certainly not a part of the government. And what about corporations? You know they're going to want to get in on this fun. Corporate espionage? We'll declare war on Microsoft at the request of Apple?

    We're going to need a whole branch of government to figure this all out. I was going to suggest Homeland Security, but they're pretty busy right now bugging the reporters' interviews at the DNC lawsuit.

    [Aug 30, 2016] So, Trumps crazy What about Hillary

    Notable quotes:
    "... compulsive lying can be associated with dementia or brain injury ..."
    "... compulsive lying can be associated with a range of diagnoses, such as antisocial, borderline and narcissistic personality disorders. ..."
    "... "This might explain Hillary's consistent unlikability factor, along with her consistent denial of lies, even in her lying about FBI Director Comey pointing out that she lied multiple times. Most of America believes her to be a liar, and yet she seems to have zero remorse, even and up to the point of costing American lives." ..."
    "... In addition to pathological lying, Clinton's temper has reportedly been a problem in the past. A former military K9 handler described how then-Secretary of State Clinton once flew into a blind rage, yelling "get that f**king dog away from me." She then berated her security detail for the next 20 minutes about why the dog was in her quarters. After Clinton left after slamming the door in their faces, the leader of the detail explained to the K9 handler, "Happens every day, brother." ..."
    "... "Hillary's been having screaming, child-like tantrums that have left staff members in tears and unable to work. She thought the nomination was hers for the asking, but her mounting problems have been getting to her and she's become shrill and, at times, even violent." ..."
    Aug 07, 2016 | www.wnd.com

    Hillary Clinton has indeed become well known as a serial liar, as fully two-thirds of Americans, 68 percent in a recent poll, said she was neither honest nor trustworthy. Not only does Clinton lie to protect herself, as she has regarding Benghazi and her private email server, but she lies when there appears to be no benefit to doing so.

    For example, she famously claimed she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary for his conquering of Mt. Everest, even though that didn't happen until six years after Clinton was born. She also notoriously claim she landed under sniper fire in Bosnia in 1996, when newspaper and video accounts revealed exactly the opposite.

    "Robert Reich, M.D., a New York City psychiatrist and expert in psychopathology, says compulsive lying can be associated with dementia or brain injury," Dr. Gina Loudon, a political psychology and behavior expert, told WND. "Otherwise, compulsive lying can be associated with a range of diagnoses, such as antisocial, borderline and narcissistic personality disorders.

    "This might explain Hillary's consistent unlikability factor, along with her consistent denial of lies, even in her lying about FBI Director Comey pointing out that she lied multiple times. Most of America believes her to be a liar, and yet she seems to have zero remorse, even and up to the point of costing American lives."

    In addition to pathological lying, Clinton's temper has reportedly been a problem in the past. A former military K9 handler described how then-Secretary of State Clinton once flew into a blind rage, yelling "get that f**king dog away from me." She then berated her security detail for the next 20 minutes about why the dog was in her quarters. After Clinton left after slamming the door in their faces, the leader of the detail explained to the K9 handler, "Happens every day, brother."

    These types of outbursts continued after Hillary left her office as secretary of state. An aide on her presidential campaign told the New York Post last October: "Hillary's been having screaming, child-like tantrums that have left staff members in tears and unable to work. She thought the nomination was hers for the asking, but her mounting problems have been getting to her and she's become shrill and, at times, even violent."

    [Aug 30, 2016] Hillary Clinton Piles Up Research in Bid to Needle Donald Trump at First Debate

    How Hillary can defend herself from two major and intermixed scandals: emailgate and Clinton cash is unclear to me. Also her strong reputation of a neocon warmonger represents serious weakness on any foreign policy discussion. Essentially she can be buried just with the list of her ;achievements". So Trump is deeply right when he said "It can be dangerous. You can sound scripted or phony - like you're trying to be someone you're not." Cards are on the table. They just need to be played.
    The New York Times

    "I believe you can prep too much for those things," Mr. Trump said in an interview last week. "It can be dangerous. You can sound scripted or phony - like you're trying to be someone you're not."

    she is searching for ways to bait him into making blunders. Mr. Trump, a supremely confident communicator, wants viewers to see him as a truth-telling political outsider and trusts that he can box in Mrs. Clinton on her ethics and honesty.


    He has been especially resistant to his advisers' suggestions that he take part in mock debates with a Clinton stand-in. At their first session devoted to the debate, on Aug. 21 at Mr. Trump's club in Bedminster, N.J., the conservative radio host Laura Ingraham was on hand to offer counsel and, if Mr. Trump was game, to play Mrs. Clinton, said Trump advisers who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the debate preparations were supposed to be kept private. He declined.

    Instead, Mr. Trump asked a battery of questions about debate topics, Mrs. Clinton's skills and possible moderators, but people close to him said relatively little had been accomplished.

    ...

    "I know who I am, and it got me here," Mr. Trump said, boasting of success in his 11 primary debate appearances and in capturing the Republican nomination over veteran politicians and polished debaters. "I don't want to present a false front. I mean, it's possible we'll do a mock debate, but I don't see a real need."

    Mr. Trump is certain that he holds advantages here, saying Mrs. Clinton is likely to come across as a typical politician spouting rehearsed lines.

    [Aug 29, 2016] Paul Wolfowitz, a former Bush advisor, says he'll likely vote for Hillary Clinton

    The Independent

    Agreeing with the 50 former Republican security officials who have called Trump "dangerous," Wolfowitz ultimately admitted that he has no choice but to vote for Clinton.

    "I wish there were somebody I could be comfortable voting for," he continued. "I might have to vote for Hillary Clinton, even though I have big reservations about her."

    Wolfowitz served as deputy secretary leading up to and during the Iraq war, a regime Trump has been highly critical of since it began. Clinton, on the other hand. voted for the war, a point that has been widely criticized by her opponents

    [Aug 29, 2016] Polling data being quantized and plugged into sophisticated computer models allowing Clinton to tailor her message for each region and for each venue

    Notable quotes:
    "... With polling data being quantized and plugged into sophisticated computer models allowing Clinton to tailor her message for each region and for each venue. ..."
    "... As I said before, this is likely something that is being fed to her by her no doubt well paid consultants. ..."
    "... Still, I have made an interesting observation that I wonder if you noticed. You presented two charts, one with holding corporations accountable placed at the top, and the other placing decline in manufacturing jobs at the top in the same position. ..."
    "... They are the same network; point by point. I even compared them using paint and found them to be a perfect match. The only difference is that one is negative and the other is positive. ..."
    "... This completely misunderstand Clinton's approach to the Vulgar people of the United States, which is: Insectionality, not intersectionality, that is the Vulgar People are treated as Insects. ..."
    "... The only Intersection understood by Hilarity Clinton is the one between herself, money and power. All else is irrelevant. ..."
    "... Hillary is an intersectional feminist? ..."
    "... As another untrained clown in intersectional feminism, I'm skeptical about Clinton, especially reading Thomas Frank's description of the International Women's Day event at the Clinton Foundation one year ago: ..."
    "... Microlending is a perfect expression of Clintonism, since it brings together wealthy financial interests with rhetoric that sounds outrageously idealistic. Microlending permits all manner of networking, posturing, and profit taking among the lenders while doing nothing to change actual power relations-the ultimate win-win." ..."
    "... Wait a minute that tangle of buzz phrases connected helter-skelter by lines is a REAL post from the Clinton campaign? Until I read the whole piece I thought it was well done satire. I guess The Onion being bought out doesn't really matter much. In modern American politics satire now seems roughly as difficult a task as exceeding the speed of light in a vacuum or measuring the position and velocity of an electron simultaneously. ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    DFA = Democracy for America. This was Howard Dean's organization and part of his 50 state strategies. During non-campaign seasons, he sent campaign organizers touring the country giving short classes on how to organize and manage a political campaign. They came to Wichita and it was something to see, a lot of local Democratic office holders, some even in the State House had signed up. One guy had held his house seat for 8 years and much of the information they were bringing was completely new to him. Yes, a state level Democrat had won 4 election cycles without even knowing the basics. This was the state of the Democratic Party back then – and is largely that way now.

    Now I am going from memory here, but Clinton's "intersectional" was covered in these classes, with at least the basic idea. The idea was to consider how different elements within your campaign plank are connected. And where those connections are poor, to build up a rhetorical foundation on how to address the contradictions. As I said, the idea is not to build connections between different parts of the planks, but how to present separate planks to the voter as being relevant.

    It's a good exercise, a way of organizing your issues and thinking how they all might fit together.

    Now Clintion's hairball – good word by the way – likely takes it to the absurd degree. With polling data being quantized and plugged into sophisticated computer models allowing Clinton to tailor her message for each region and for each venue.

    –KACHING- As I said before, this is likely something that is being fed to her by her no doubt well paid consultants.

    Still, I have made an interesting observation that I wonder if you noticed. You presented two charts, one with holding corporations accountable placed at the top, and the other placing decline in manufacturing jobs at the top in the same position.

    They are the same network; point by point. I even compared them using paint and found them to be a perfect match. The only difference is that one is negative and the other is positive.

    Synoia , March 7, 2016 at 3:29 pm

    intersectionality

    This completely misunderstand Clinton's approach to the Vulgar people of the United States, which is: Insectionality, not intersectionality, that is the Vulgar People are treated as Insects.

    The only Intersection understood by Hilarity Clinton is the one between herself, money and power. All else is irrelevant.

    DakotabornKansan , March 7, 2016 at 3:39 pm

    Hillary is an intersectional feminist?

    As another untrained clown in intersectional feminism, I'm skeptical about Clinton, especially reading Thomas Frank's description of the International Women's Day event at the Clinton Foundation one year ago:

    "What this lineup suggested is that there is a kind of naturally occurring solidarity between the millions of women at the bottom of the world's pyramid and the tiny handful of women at its very top The mystic bond between high-achieving American professionals and the planet's most victimized people is a recurring theme in [Hillary Clinton's] life and work What the spectacle had to offer ordinary working American women was another story.

    She enshrined a version of feminism in which liberation is, in part, a matter of taking out loans from banks in order to become an entrepreneur the theology of microfinance Merely by providing impoverished individuals with a tiny loan of fifty or a hundred dollars, it was thought, you could put them on the road to entrepreneurial self-sufficiency, you could make entire countries prosper, you could bring about economic development itself What was most attractive about micro­lending was what it was not, what it made unnecessary: any sort of collective action by poor people coming together in governments or unions The key to development was not doing something to limit the grasp of Western banks, in other words; it was extending Western banking methods to encompass every last individual on earth.

    Microlending is a perfect expression of Clintonism, since it brings together wealthy financial interests with rhetoric that sounds outrageously idealistic. Microlending permits all manner of networking, posturing, and profit taking among the lenders while doing nothing to change actual power relations-the ultimate win-win."

    https://harpers.org/blog/2016/02/nor-a-lender-be/

    Nuggets321 , March 7, 2016 at 4:35 pm

    I'm too confused with all of this, but it sounds to me like a concept called "interlocking systems of oppression" and your figure two seems to provide useful diagrammatic example.

    hunkerdown , March 7, 2016 at 5:22 pm

    The diagram offers no understanding of the intersectional dynamics of oppression, carefully cropping out the oppressors - most of whom are Hillary backers - along with the oppressed, who are all affected differently in their lived experiences by their particular relationship to oppressive conditions.

    Lumping these focus-tested ill conditions together with a rat's nest of undistinguished connections misleadingly equates the interests of persons with their set of group memberships (Fascism is Italian for bundle-ism) and sets the stage for those conditions to be traded off and weighed against each other on net in the future. I believe this is the essence of what is called "triangulation".

    RMO , March 7, 2016 at 8:40 pm

    Wait a minute that tangle of buzz phrases connected helter-skelter by lines is a REAL post from the Clinton campaign? Until I read the whole piece I thought it was well done satire. I guess The Onion being bought out doesn't really matter much. In modern American politics satire now seems roughly as difficult a task as exceeding the speed of light in a vacuum or measuring the position and velocity of an electron simultaneously.

    [Aug 29, 2016] Middle East divides the Empire

    Looks like Israel count of IS to serve as a counterbalancing force able to weaken Hezbollah
    Notable quotes:
    "... A weak IS is, counterintuitively, preferable to a destroyed IS. IS is a magnet for radicalized Muslims in countries throughout the world. These volunteers are easier targets to identify, saving intelligence work. They acquire destructive skills in the fields of Syria and Iraq that are of undoubted concern if they return home, but some of them acquire shaheed ..."
    "... Furthermore, Hizballah – a radical Shiite anti-Western organization subservient to Iran – is being seriously taxed by the fight against IS, a state of affairs that suits Western interests. A Hizballah no longer involved in the Syrian civil war might engage once again in the taking of western hostages and other terrorist acts in Europe. ..."
    "... The West yearns for stability, and holds out a naive hope that the military defeat of IS will be instrumental in reaching that goal. But stability is not a value in and of itself. It is desirable only if it serves our interests. The defeat of IS would encourage Iranian hegemony in the region, buttress Russia's role, and prolong Assad's tyranny. Tehran, Moscow, and Damascus do not share our democratic values and have little inclination to help America and the West. ..."
    "... Efraim Inbar, director of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, is professor emeritus of political studies at Bar-Ilan University and a fellow at the Middle East Forum. ..."
    Defend Democracy Press
    The Destruction of Islamic State is a Strategic Mistake

    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The West should seek the further weakening of Islamic State, but not its destruction. A weak but functioning IS can undermine the appeal of the caliphate among radical Muslims; keep bad actors focused on one another rather than on Western targets; and hamper Iran's quest for regional hegemony.

    US Defense Secretary Ashton Carter recently gathered defense ministers from allied nations to plan what officials hope will be the decisive stage in the campaign to eradicate the Islamic State (IS) organization. This is a strategic mistake.

    IS, a radical Islamist group, has killed thousands of people since it declared an Islamic caliphate in June 2014, with the Syrian city of Raqqa as its de facto capital. It captured tremendous international attention by swiftly conquering large swaths of land and by releasing gruesome pictures of beheadings and other means of execution.

    But IS is primarily successful where there is a political void. Although the offensives in Syria and Iraq showed IS's tactical capabilities, they were directed against failed states with weakened militaries. On occasions when the poorly trained IS troops have met well-organized opposition, even that of non-state entities like the Kurdish militias, the group's performance has been less convincing. When greater military pressure was applied and Turkish support dwindled, IS went into retreat.

    It is true that IS has ignited immense passion among many young and frustrated Muslims all over the world, and the caliphate idea holds great appeal among believers. But the relevant question is what can IS do, particularly in its current situation? The terrorist activities for which it recently took responsibility were perpetrated mostly by lone wolves who declared their allegiance to IS; they were not directed from Raqqa. On its own, IS is capable of only limited damage.

    A weak IS is, counterintuitively, preferable to a destroyed IS. IS is a magnet for radicalized Muslims in countries throughout the world. These volunteers are easier targets to identify, saving intelligence work. They acquire destructive skills in the fields of Syria and Iraq that are of undoubted concern if they return home, but some of them acquire shaheed status while still away – a blessing for their home countries. If IS is fully defeated, more of these people are likely to come home and cause trouble.

    If IS loses control over its territory, the energies that went into protecting and governing a state will be directed toward organizing more terrorist attacks beyond its borders. The collapse of IS will produce a terrorist diaspora that might further radicalize Muslim immigrants in the West. Most counter-terrorism agencies understand this danger. Prolonging the life of IS probably assures the deaths of more Muslim extremists at the hands of other bad guys in the Middle East, and is likely to spare the West several terrorist attacks.

    Moreover, a weak and lingering IS could undermine the attraction of the caliphate idea. A dysfunctional and embattled political entity is more conducive to the disillusionment of Muslim adherents of a caliphate in our times than an IS destroyed by a mighty America-led coalition. The latter scenario perfectly fits the narrative of continuous and perfidious efforts on the part of the West to destroy Islam, which feeds radical Muslim hatred for everything the West stands for.

    The continuing existence of IS serves a strategic purpose. Why help the brutal Assad regime win the Syrian civil war? Many radical Islamists in the opposition forces, i.e., Al Nusra and its offshoots, might find other arenas in which to operate closer to Paris and Berlin. Is it in the West's interests to strengthen the Russian grip on Syria and bolster its influence in the Middle East? Is enhancing Iranian control of Iraq congruent with American objectives in that country? Only the strategic folly that currently prevails in Washington can consider it a positive to enhance the power of the Moscow-Tehran-Damascus axis by cooperating with Russia against IS.

    Furthermore, Hizballah – a radical Shiite anti-Western organization subservient to Iran – is being seriously taxed by the fight against IS, a state of affairs that suits Western interests. A Hizballah no longer involved in the Syrian civil war might engage once again in the taking of western hostages and other terrorist acts in Europe.

    The Western distaste for IS brutality and immorality should not obfuscate strategic clarity. IS are truly bad guys, but few of their opponents are much better. Allowing bad guys to kill bad guys sounds very cynical, but it is useful and even moral to do so if it keeps the bad guys busy and less able to harm the good guys. The Hobbesian reality of the Middle East does not always present a neat moral choice.

    The West yearns for stability, and holds out a naive hope that the military defeat of IS will be instrumental in reaching that goal. But stability is not a value in and of itself. It is desirable only if it serves our interests. The defeat of IS would encourage Iranian hegemony in the region, buttress Russia's role, and prolong Assad's tyranny. Tehran, Moscow, and Damascus do not share our democratic values and have little inclination to help America and the West.

    Moreover, instability and crises sometimes contain portents of positive change. Unfortunately, the Obama administration fails to see that its main enemy is Iran. The Obama administration has inflated the threat from IS in order to legitimize Iran as a "responsible" actor that will, supposedly, fight IS in the Middle East. This was part of the Obama administration's rationale for its nuclear deal with Iran and central to its "legacy," which is likely to be ill-remembered.

    The American administration does not appear capable of recognizing the fact that IS can be a useful tool in undermining Tehran's ambitious plan for domination of the Middle East.

    PDF

    Efraim Inbar, director of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, is professor emeritus of political studies at Bar-Ilan University and a fellow at the Middle East Forum.

    BESA Center Perspectives Papers are published through the generosity of the Greg Rosshandler Family

    [Aug 29, 2016] Natsec and Cybersec firms want more money and are ready to fuel anti-Russian hysteria for thier private gains.

    You should take with the grain of slad any such companies declarations. They typically lie and exaggerate the treats. .
    Aug 29, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    hunkerdown , August 29, 2016 at 3:41 pm

    I prefer /dev/random and three passes, if I have any intention of using the drive later. If I were involved in anything seriously malfeasant where using the drive later were not a consideration, I'd be following the established procedures of the masters of the art. (NSA)

    inode_buddha , August 29, 2016 at 2:30 pm

    Some article on Slashdot is going on about how the FBI has proof of foreign election tampering why is this NOW all of a sudden a problem???

    bob , August 29, 2016 at 2:53 pm

    More money for natsec/Cybersec firms.

    "we're under attack!"

    [Aug 29, 2016] Harry Reid Cites Evidence of Russian Tampering in U.S. Vote, and Seeks FBI Inquiry

    Hail Mary pass to save Hillary ? Or Las Vegas mafia style attempt to cry "chief" before stealing elections?
    Aug 29, 2016 | www.nytimes.com

    The Senate minority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, asked the F.B.I. on Monday to investigate evidence suggesting that Russia may try to manipulate voting results in November.

    In a letter to the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey Jr., Mr. Reid wrote that the threat of Russian interference "is more extensive than is widely known and may include the intent to falsify official election results." Recent classified briefings from senior intelligence officials, Mr. Reid said in an interview, have left him fearful that President Vladimir V. Putin's "goal is tampering with this election."

    News reports on Monday said the F.B.I. warned state election officials several weeks ago that foreign hackers had exported voter registration data from computer systems in at least one state, and had pierced the systems of a second one.

    The bureau did not name the states, but Yahoo News , which first reported the confidential F.B.I. warning, said they were Arizona and Illinois. Matt Roberts, a spokesman for Arizona's secretary of state, said the F.B.I. had told state officials that Russians were behind the Arizona attack.

    After the F.B.I. warning, Arizona took its voter registration database offline from June 28 to July 8 to allow for a forensic exam of its systems, Mr. Roberts said.

    Advertisement Continue reading the main story

    The F.B.I., in its notice to states, said the voter information had been "exfiltrated," which means that it was shipped out of the state systems to another computer. But it does not mean that the data itself was tampered with.

    It is unclear whether the hackers intended to affect the election or pursued the data for other purposes, like gaining personal identifying information about voters. The F.B.I. warning referred to "targeting activity" against state boards of elections, but did not discuss the intent of the hackers.

    [Aug 29, 2016] Exclusive - Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn Obama, Hillary Ignored Intelligence They Did Not Like About Middle East, Only Wanted Happy Ta

    Notable quotes:
    "... The Field of Fight ..."
    "... the one thing about intelligence is we should stand for truth to power-meaning we should always say what we believe, and lay the facts out, lay the tough right facts out and then you let the policymakers make the decisions that they have to make. What has happened in the last 10 years, frankly in the last 8 years, is we have seen a level of dishonesty coming out of both the policy and the decision making structure with the American people." ..."
    "... Because of the President's and the Secretary of State's-among other officials in the Obama administration-unwillingness to hear all the facts, including ones they needed to but didn't want to hear, Flynn says the President has presented a narrative to the American people about the war on terrorism and radical Islamism that is simply inaccurate. ..."
    "... The intelligence process starts really at the ground level, but the priorities-the priorities, Matt, for an intelligence system and the intelligence community in our country and that's the President of the United States. ..."
    "... "That means infiltrating into refugee populations, that means conducting of smart information operations," Flynn said. "Most people don't know but these guys have very sophisticated information operations going on, with publications of magazines and websites. They have leaders in their groups that have thousands and thousands-I'm talking tens of thousands of followers on social media and Instagram and Twitter. ..."
    "... Then I call for in the book a new 21st century alliance. This is where we really come to how we take the Arab community to task on how they plan to fix this cancerous disease inside of their own body that has metastasized and grown exponentially over the last five or six years and certainly actually over the last eight to 10 years. So it's one thing to go after the ideology, just like we went after Communism for 40 years ..."
    "... He is a street savvy strategic leader type person who has a vision for this country, and he's turned it into this phrase of 'Make America Great Again.'" ..."
    Aug 29, 2016 | www.breitbart.com
    NEW YORK CITY, New York - Retired Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn, who served for more than two years as the director of President Barack Obama's Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), leveled explosive charges against the President and his former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in an exclusive hour-long interview with Breitbart News Daily on Friday.

    Specifically, during an exclusive interview about his book The Field of Fight , Flynn said that Obama and Clinton were not interested in hearing intelligence that did not fit their "happy talk" narrative about the Middle East. In fact, he alleged the administration actively scrubbed training manuals and purged from the military ranks any thinking about the concept of radical Islamism. Flynn argued that this effort by Obama, Clinton and others to reduce the intelligence community to gathering only facts that the senior administration officials wanted to hear-rather than what they needed to hear-helped the enemy fester and grow, while weakening the United States on the world stage.

    "The administration has basically denied the fact that we have this problem with 'Radical Islamists,'" Flynn said during the interview. "And this is a very vicious, barbaric enemy and I recognize in the book that there is an alliance of countries that are dedicated basically against our way of life and they support different groups in the Islamic movement, principally the Islamic State and formerly Al Qaeda-although Al Qaeda still exists. The administration denied the fact that this even existed and then told those of us in the government to basically excise the phrase 'radical Islamism' out of our entire culture, out of our training manuals, everything. That was a big argument I had internally and I talked a little bit about it in the Senate testimony that I gave two years back."

    Later in the interview, Flynn was even more specific, calling out Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama for not wanting to hear all the facts about what was happening in the Middle East-only some of them.

    "There's a narrative that the President and his team, including Hillary Clinton, wanted to hear-instead of having the tough news or the bad news if you will that they needed to hear," Flynn said. "Now, there's a big difference. And the one thing about intelligence is we should stand for truth to power-meaning we should always say what we believe, and lay the facts out, lay the tough right facts out and then you let the policymakers make the decisions that they have to make. What has happened in the last 10 years, frankly in the last 8 years, is we have seen a level of dishonesty coming out of both the policy and the decision making structure with the American people."

    Because of the President's and the Secretary of State's-among other officials in the Obama administration-unwillingness to hear all the facts, including ones they needed to but didn't want to hear, Flynn says the President has presented a narrative to the American people about the war on terrorism and radical Islamism that is simply inaccurate.

    "The President has said they're jayvee, they're on the run, they're not that strong, what difference does it make what we call-that's being totally dishonest with the American public," Flynn said. "There's one thing that Americans are, and we're tough, resilient people but we have to be told the truth. I think what a lot of this is, in fact what I know a lot of it is. It's a lot of happy talk from a President who did not meet the narrative of his political ideology or his political decision-making process to take our country in a completely different direction and frankly that's why I'm sitting here talking to you here today, Matt. The intelligence process starts really at the ground level, but the priorities-the priorities, Matt, for an intelligence system and the intelligence community in our country and that's the President of the United States. "

    The Obama administration's refusal to take these threats seriously and his, Flynn said, "has allowed an enemy that is using very smart, savvy means to impact our way of life."

    "That means infiltrating into refugee populations, that means conducting of smart information operations," Flynn said. "Most people don't know but these guys have very sophisticated information operations going on, with publications of magazines and websites. They have leaders in their groups that have thousands and thousands-I'm talking tens of thousands of followers on social media and Instagram and Twitter. So we are not even allowed to go after these kinds of things right now. This is the problem-it's a big problem. In fact, if we don't change this we're going to see this strengthening in our homeland."

    Flynn also laid out how to defeat radical Islamism, a plan he has stated repeatedly that the Obama Administration has ignored.

    "The very first thing is we have to clearly define the enemy and we have to get our own house in order, which this administration has not done," Flynn said. "We have to figure out how are we going to organize ourselves. Then I call for in the book a new 21st century alliance. This is where we really come to how we take the Arab community to task on how they plan to fix this cancerous disease inside of their own body that has metastasized and grown exponentially over the last five or six years and certainly actually over the last eight to 10 years. So it's one thing to go after the ideology, just like we went after Communism for 40 years , but I also say in the book we have to crush this enemy wherever they exist. We cannot allow them to have any safe haven. We are dancing around the sort of head of a pin, when we know these guys are in certain places around the world and our military is not allowed to go in there and get them. The 'mother may I' has to go all the way back up to the White House."

    He said the fight has to be very similar to how the United States, over decades, thoroughly degraded Communism on the world stage.

    "There's no enemy that's unbeatable," Flynn said. "We can beat any enemy. We put our minds to it, we decide to do that, we can beat any enemy. And there's no ideology in the world that's better than the American ideology. We should not allow, because they mask themselves behind the religion of Islam, we should not allow our ideology, our way of life, our system of principles, our values that are based on a Judeo-Christian set that comes right out of our Constitution-we should not fear that. In fact, we should fight those that try to impose a different way of life on us. That's what we did against the Nazis, that's what we did against the Communists for the better part of a half a century-in fact, more than half a century. Now we are dealing with another Ism, and that's radical Islamism, and we're going to have to fight it-and we're going to be fighting it for some time. But tactically we can defeat this enemy quickly. Then what we have to do is we have to fight the ideology, and we can do that diplomatically, politically, informationally and we can do that in very, very smart ways much greater than we're doing right now."

    Flynn is a lifelong Democrat, and again served in this senior Obama administration position for more than two years, but is now publicly supporting Republican nominee Donald Trump for president. He spoke at the Republican National Convention in support of Trump, and has been publicly speaking out in favor of the GOP nominee for some time now.

    "My role as Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency-that's almost a 20,000 person organization in 140 plus countries around the world," Flynn said. "I was also the senior military and intelligence officer not only for the Defense Department but for the country. So I mean I was basically told 'hey, you know what, what you're saying we don't like. So you're out.' To Donald Trump, though, and I haven't known him that long but I met him a year ago-in fact a year ago this month. The conversation that we had, which was an amazing conversation, I found a guy that like I to say, 'he gets it.' He gets it. He is a street savvy strategic leader type person who has a vision for this country, and he's turned it into this phrase of 'Make America Great Again.'"

    ... ... ...

    LISTEN TO LT. GEN. MICHAEL FLYNN ON BREITBART NEWS DAILY ON SIRIUSXM 125 THE PATRIOT CHANNEL:

    [Aug 29, 2016] Trump By a Landslide

    Notable quotes:
    "... If we believe the mainstream media and the Establishment it protects and promotes, Trump has no chance of winning the presidential election. For starters, Trump supporters are all Confederate-flag waving hillbillies, bigots, fascists and misogynists. In other words. "good people" can't possibly vote for Trump. Even cartoon character Mike Doonesbury is fleeing to Vancouver to escape Trump_vs_deep_state. (Memo to the Doonesbury family: selling your Seattle home will barely net the down payment on a decent crib in Vancouver.). For another, Trump alienates the entire planet every time he speaks. The list goes on, of course, continuing with his lack of qualifications. ..."
    "... But suppose this election isn't about Trump or Hillary at all. Suppose, as political scientists Allan J. Lichtman and Ken DeCell claimed in their 1988 book, Thirteen Keys to the Presidency , that all presidential elections from 1860 to the present are referendums on the sitting president and his party. ..."
    "... Author/historian Robert W. Merry sorts through the 13 analytic keys in the current issue of The American Conservative magazine and concludes they "could pose bad news for Clinton." ..."
    Aug 29, 2016 | www.oftwominds.com

    ... ... ...

    Based on this analytic structure, Trump may not just win the election in November--he might win by a landslide.

    If we believe the mainstream media and the Establishment it protects and promotes, Trump has no chance of winning the presidential election. For starters, Trump supporters are all Confederate-flag waving hillbillies, bigots, fascists and misogynists. In other words. "good people" can't possibly vote for Trump. Even cartoon character Mike Doonesbury is fleeing to Vancouver to escape Trump_vs_deep_state. (Memo to the Doonesbury family: selling your Seattle home will barely net the down payment on a decent crib in Vancouver.). For another, Trump alienates the entire planet every time he speaks. The list goes on, of course, continuing with his lack of qualifications.

    But suppose this election isn't about Trump or Hillary at all. Suppose, as political scientists Allan J. Lichtman and Ken DeCell claimed in their 1988 book, Thirteen Keys to the Presidency , that all presidential elections from 1860 to the present are referendums on the sitting president and his party.

    If the public views the sitting president's second term favorably, the candidate from his party will win the election. If the public views the sitting president's second term unfavorably, the candidate from the other party will win the election.

    (Lichtman published another book on his system in 2008, The Keys to the White House: A Surefire Guide to Predicting the Next President .)

    Author/historian Robert W. Merry sorts through the 13 analytic keys in the current issue of The American Conservative magazine and concludes they "could pose bad news for Clinton."

    If five or fewer are negative for the incumbent, the incumbent party will win the election. If six or more are negative, the incumbent party loses the election. Merry counts eight negatives for President Obama's second term, which if true spells defeat for the Clinton ticket.

    [Aug 29, 2016] Trump's new aim Poison a Clinton presidency

    Notable quotes:
    "... The Clinton campaign has deliberately positioned its response as an offensive boomerang rather than a rebuttal: Don't defend against the attacks, just redirect fire at the messenger ..."
    "... But the politics are made harder amid the drip-drip revelations from the newly released emails demonstrating the messy overlap between the Clinton Foundation and the State Department, which leave even many Clinton-inclined voters wondering what she was really up to and why it's so hard for her to explain it. ..."
    POLITICO

    The Clinton campaign has deliberately positioned its response as an offensive boomerang rather than a rebuttal: Don't defend against the attacks, just redirect fire at the messenger. "It holds up a mirror to Donald Trump and what his campaign is about, and says everything you need to know about Donald Trump and where these kinds of crazy conspiracy theories are coming from," as one campaign aide put it.

    ... ... ...

    But the politics are made harder amid the drip-drip revelations from the newly released emails demonstrating the messy overlap between the Clinton Foundation and the State Department, which leave even many Clinton-inclined voters wondering what she was really up to and why it's so hard for her to explain it.

    [Aug 29, 2016] The media's obsession with reporting every drop of saliva to emerge from Donald Trump's mouth for the last year and a half

    Notable quotes:
    "... The media's obsession with reporting every drop of saliva to emerge from Donald Trump's mouth for the last year and a half, accompanied by requisite pearl clutching and gasps of offense, wasn't done by accident. Instead, it was a carefully planned campaign to set the bulk of the American populace up to automatically discard any criticism of the Clinton Cult without question ..."
    "... What all that does accomplish, however, is generate the mindset that is now terrifying in its willingness to completely ignore any and all facts that the Clinton Foundation is a huge money-laundering organization. ..."
    Aug 29, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Elizabeth Burton , August 29, 2016 at 7:30 pm

    Submitted for your consideration…

    The media's obsession with reporting every drop of saliva to emerge from Donald Trump's mouth for the last year and a half, accompanied by requisite pearl clutching and gasps of offense, wasn't done by accident. Instead, it was a carefully planned campaign to set the bulk of the American populace up to automatically discard any criticism of the Clinton Cult without question , because the Cultists use the language and connections that have been inserted into the national psyche as being Trump-related.

    So, having made a great fuss over how Trump admires Putin, and spreading the theme that Putin would love to have Trump in the Oval Office, they then embrace with enthusiasm the contention of the DNC that their databases were "hacked by Russians, probably at the behest of government agencies," even though there was no possible way that could have been determined if, as they contend, they weren't aware of the hack until just a few months ago. Oh, and it helps if you believe Russian intelligence agencies are going to hire hackers stupid enough to all but leave their names and addresses around to be "discovered."

    What all that does accomplish, however, is generate the mindset that is now terrifying in its willingness to completely ignore any and all facts that the Clinton Foundation is a huge money-laundering organization. I have seen people who take great pride in their skepticism dismiss the multiple articles exposing the corruption as "unfounded rubbish." I've been told the AP article is "a farce." Point them to articles by qualified professionals showing the utter absence of any proof the Clinton Foundation is a philanthropic organization for anyone but the people it's named for, and the dismissal is abrupt and total.

    I don't know if it's cultism or just that people know she's going to be elected and don't want to think about the consequences, but the vast number of those who won't even consider shenanigans is appalling. It's all part of that Republican conspiracy, and that's all they care to know.

    [Aug 29, 2016] NYT Laments Of Allegedly False Russian News Stories - With A False U.S. News Story

    Notable quotes:
    "... people need to realize what they read is not the truth.. words can and are used to deceive... propaganda seems to be one of the central roles of all media at this point in time... folks need to beware of this.. ..."
    "... Mark Twain said that if you don't read the newspaper, you're uninformed. If you read the newspaper, you're misinformed. ..."
    "... Do not pay attention to the fact the emperor has no clothes. Just look at this other guy!" ..."
    "... Will we USAians ever wake up to 9/11 => Afghanistan => Iraq => Libya => Syria => Ukraine => Yemen ... ..."
    "... How many innocents have 'our' emperors - Bush XLI, Clinton XLII, Bush XLIII, Obama XLIV, coming soon? Clinton XLV - killed in the runup to and execution of series of criminal aggressions post-9/11? Two million? If Clinton sets the world on fire the numbers will rise by two orders of magnitude. ..."
    "... There have been rumours that the US government was helping to bankroll certain social media companies in return for access. I would say that the US government will step in and potentially rescue NYT and the like from being closed down. They serve an intrinsic and important service to the elite. They will not abandon it. ..."
    "... The CIA has bankrolled many startups ... maybe they could take out ads for Raytheon and General Atomic products, run US military/CIA recruitment ads? Pay for placement of articles like Mark Sleboda 's, 'The Turkish Invasion Of Syria As Path To "Regime Change"'? ..."
    "... The NYTimes going bellyup ... happened to the Washington Post and the WSJ. Maybe Eric Schmidt will buy it? Or Rupert Murdoch. ..."
    "... I wonder if the CIA bankrolled Rupert Murdoch? The CIA took out a $500 million data storage contract with Amazon just before Bezos bought the WaPo. Come to think of it, having control of the WaPo, WSJ, and NYTimes archives would be just what Dr. Orwell ordered. Mark Sleboda could then work for the MiniTrue, revising the past as required. ..."
    "... Like all psychopaths, they have a one-track mind that doesn't allow an effective strategy when it comes to bipedal meat units. Their answer to convincing you of their lies is to proffer more outrageous lies. It's kind of like the newspapers fighting declining advertising revenue by making the print smaller, stuffing the paper with more ads at higher rates and raising the price for a printed newspaper. Damn it, why won't you monkeys OBEY! ..."
    "... That's an excellent point, b. I don't even remember the last time I've read anything truthful in any western MSM outlet. Almost everything is a spin of various degree. NYT is one of worst offenders, so another lying piece is not at all surprising. ..."
    "... From the Wikipedia article Factoid : The term was coined in 1973 by American writer Norman Mailer to mean a "piece of information that becomes accepted as a fact even though it's not actually true, or an invented fact believed to be true because it appears in print." ..."
    "... This is a basic tool of Western mainstream propaganda. Sprinkle every article full of "factoids" or small lies. These lies are not about the core topic of article, so they are unlikely to be challenged. Their only purpose is to enforce the narrative and demonize the enemy. When small lies or "lielets" are repeated often enough, they become factoids, meaning that they are no longer recognized as lies. ..."
    Aug 29, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org

    The New York Times is desperate for new readers and therefore tries to branch into the realm of The Onion and other satirical sites. It attempts to show that allegedly Russia controlled media spread false stories for political purpose - by providing a false media story. The purpose of the NYT doing such is yours to guess.

    The sourcing of that Page 1 story is as weak as its content. It starts with claiming that opponents of Sweden joining NATO must be somehow Russia related and are spreading false stories:

    As often happens in such cases, Swedish officials were never able to pin down the source of the false reports.

    Duh! But it must have been Russia. Because Swedish internal opposition to joining NATO would be incapable of opining against it. Right? Likewise anti-EU reports and opposition to the EU within the Czech Republic MUST be caused by Russian disinformation and can in now way be related to mismanagement of the EU project itself.

    The sourcing for the whole long pamphlet is extremely weak:

    But they, numerous analysts and experts in American and European intelligence point to Russia as the prime suspect, noting that preventing NATO expansion is a centerpiece of the foreign policy of President Vladimir V. Putin, who invaded Georgia in 2008 largely to forestall that possibility.

    Whoa! "Experts in American and European intelligence" can of course be trusted not to ever spread false stories or rumors about Russia influencing "news". Such truth tellers they are and have always been.

    Then follows, in a claim about false stories(!) spread by Russia, that factually false claim that Russia "invaded Georgia in 2008". It was obvious in the very first hours of the Georgia war, as we then noted , that Georgia started it. A European Union commission later confirmed that it was Georgia, incited by the Bush government, that started the war. The NYT itself found the same . All Russia did was to protect the areas of South Ossetia and Abchazia that it was officially designated to protect by the United Nations! No invasion of Georgia took place.

    And what was the alleged reason that Russia "invaded" Georgia for? "Largely to forestall".."NATO expansion"? But it was NATO that rejected Georgia's membership in April 2008. Why then would Russia "invade" Georgia in August 2008 to prevent a membership that was surely not gonna happen?

    Utter a-historic nonsense.

    The who tale, written by Neil MacFarquhar , is a long list of hearsay where Russia is claimed to have influenced news but without ever showing any evidence.

    Not mentioned in the story are:

    • the systematic, extensive U.S government slanting of news through the Broadcasting Board of Governors and Voice of America and RFE/RL as well as through dozens of U.S. military financed "news" sites and social media fakes
    • the extensive cooperation between the New York Times and the CIA with spying as well as with manipulating foreign news
    • the acknowledged spreading of false stories about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq an behalf of the Bush administration by the NY Times itself.

    As Carl Bernstein described in his book about the CIA and the media:

    Among the executives who lent their cooperation to the [Central Intelligence] Agency were Williarn Paley of the Columbia Broadcasting System, Henry Luce of Tirne Inc., Arthur Hays Sulzberger of the New York Times , Barry Bingham Sr. of the LouisviIle Courier‑Journal, and James Copley of the Copley News Service. Other organizations which cooperated with the CIA include the American Broadcasting Company, the National Broadcasting Company, the Associated Press, United Press International, Reuters, Hearst Newspapers, Scripps‑Howard, Newsweek magazine, the Mutual Broadcasting System, the Miami Herald and the old Saturday Evening Post and New York Herald‑Tribune.

    By far the most valuable of these associations, according to CIA officials, have been with the New York Times , CBS and Time Inc.

    Bernstein shows that the NYT cooperation with the U.S. government and its intelligence agencies was very extensive and continues uninterrupted up to today.

    To lament about alleged Russian influence on some news outlets while writing a disinformation filled piece, based on "experts in American and European intelligence", for an outlet with proven CIA cooperation in faking news, is way beyond hypocrisy.

    Through this piece the NYT becomes its own parody. Did the author and editors recognize that? Or are they too self-unconscious for even such simple insight?

    Posted by b on August 29, 2016 at 11:04 AM | Permalink

    james | Aug 29, 2016 11:48:02 AM | 1
    thanks b... people need to realize what they read is not the truth.. words can and are used to deceive... propaganda seems to be one of the central roles of all media at this point in time... folks need to beware of this..
    Steve | Aug 29, 2016 11:55:46 AM | 2
    Although, NYT, is bleeding and is losing audience, I am amazed that it is still in print. The Guardian is posting loss in millions of pounds, and that is what I expect NYT to be doing.
    WorldBLee | Aug 29, 2016 12:03:35 PM | 3
    "Do not pay attention to the fact the emperor has no clothes. Just look at this other guy!" That seems to be the official US opinion on Russia as expressed by the Clinton campaign, the NYT, and the other usual suspects purveying official US propaganda.
    IhaveLittleToAdd | Aug 29, 2016 12:11:46 PM | 4
    An amusing thing about the NYT's is the most-emailed/read lists, which are almost always well represented by articles such as "what to cook this weekend" and "48hrs in Tulsa." This is often despite the steady stream of heady world events. My take is that most readers of the Times want to be seen/known as Times readers, but would really prefer to be reading tabloids. The difference is becoming less obvious by the day.
    john | Aug 29, 2016 1:36:44 PM | 5
    Steve says:

    Although, NYT, is bleeding and is losing audience, I am amazed that it is still in print

    well, digital subscribers are apparently soaring. for sure CEO Mark Thompson doesn't seem too miffed about it.

    ToivoS | Aug 29, 2016 1:58:27 PM | 7
    One small quibble with this: But it was NATO that rejected Georgia's membership in April 2008. . That April meeting did not really reject Georgia's membership. The discussion was just postponed to a later meeting. It wasn't until after Russia thrashed Georgia in August that the US took the membership issue off the table.
    P Walker | Aug 29, 2016 2:02:56 PM | 8
    Mark Twain said that if you don't read the newspaper, you're uninformed. If you read the newspaper, you're misinformed.
    jfl | Aug 29, 2016 2:08:59 PM | 9
    @3 wbl, "Do not pay attention to the fact the emperor has no clothes. Just look at this other guy!"

    That's the answer isn't it?

    Will we USAians ever wake up to 9/11 => Afghanistan => Iraq => Libya => Syria => Ukraine => Yemen ...

    How many innocents have 'our' emperors - Bush XLI, Clinton XLII, Bush XLIII, Obama XLIV, coming soon? Clinton XLV - killed in the runup to and execution of series of criminal aggressions post-9/11? Two million? If Clinton sets the world on fire the numbers will rise by two orders of magnitude.

    Don't look at Trump! Don't look at Me! Look at Vladimir, behind the tree!

    Ya gotta wanna believe. How many USAians still wanna believe?

    That is the question .

    Mina | Aug 29, 2016 2:10:00 PM | 10
    OT
    It's been two years now. They don't know where Raqqa is on the map? It's not like the Boko Haram hideouts in the jungle I would say.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3404894/The-saddest-thing-remember-little-girl-12-years-old-raped-without-mercy-Dressed-traditional-wedding-gowns-Yazidi-sex-slaves-relive-torture-ISIS.html

    P Walker | Aug 29, 2016 2:18:11 PM | 11
    @2

    There have been rumours that the US government was helping to bankroll certain social media companies in return for access. I would say that the US government will step in and potentially rescue NYT and the like from being closed down. They serve an intrinsic and important service to the elite. They will not abandon it.

    jsn | Aug 29, 2016 2:21:52 PM | 12
    It's been amusing to watch this electoral season as the Times has dropped all pretense of objectivity. While actual news accounts continue to lightly pepper the broadsheet, the headlines, article placement and, most importantly, what falls before and after the fold is so transparently partisan one is increasingly startled to find well reported and honest journalism.

    I remember back in the first Intifada when Abe Rosenthal had Palestinian youth throwing soviet made rocks while he glossed Sabra and Shatila massacres. The Times was pretty "Onion"y then, but the political coverage this year makes me weep for my country as what little good left in it chokes on growing torrents of BS, obfuscation, prevarication and bombast.

    jfl | Aug 29, 2016 2:33:50 PM | 13
    @11 pw

    The CIA has bankrolled many startups ... maybe they could take out ads for Raytheon and General Atomic products, run US military/CIA recruitment ads? Pay for placement of articles like Mark Sleboda 's, 'The Turkish Invasion Of Syria As Path To "Regime Change"'?

    The NYTimes going bellyup ... happened to the Washington Post and the WSJ. Maybe Eric Schmidt will buy it? Or Rupert Murdoch.

    I wonder if the CIA bankrolled Rupert Murdoch? The CIA took out a $500 million data storage contract with Amazon just before Bezos bought the WaPo. Come to think of it, having control of the WaPo, WSJ, and NYTimes archives would be just what Dr. Orwell ordered. Mark Sleboda could then work for the MiniTrue, revising the past as required.

    Piotr Berman | Aug 29, 2016 3:00:11 PM | 14
    jsn@12: do you really think that objectivity of NYT exhibits seasonal variation? Like neutral to positive stories about Russia between Easter and Passover, and a more usual dreck for the rest of the year?
    Piotr Berman | Aug 29, 2016 3:08:39 PM | 15
    There is still difference between NYT and tabloids. This is the most recent article in NY Post about Russia in NY Post:

    Putin is gobbling up whatever he can – while Obama does nothing

    By Benny Avni August 17, 2016 | 8:22pm.
    As Americans focus on who'll replace President Obama, Russian strongman Vladimir Putin marches around the globe unabated, rushing to gobble up anything and everything he can before the new president...

    Grieved | Aug 29, 2016 3:26:28 PM | 17
    Are we already in the second of the four stages to victory?

    I don't know much about the MSM, and even less about H. Clinton, but what was that all about with the speech she made concerning the "alt-right"? Who in their right mind would bring to the mainstream attention the existence of a body of contradictory writing?

    Is it the same thing here with NYT? Is the sheer prevalence of opposing opinion from its readers forcing the MSM - led by flagship NYT - to turn and address the phenomenon?

    I could not have dared to hope we could already be at stage 2:

    First they ignore you.
    Then they ridicule you.
    Then they fight you.
    Then you win.
    --Gandhi

    PavewayIV | Aug 29, 2016 4:53:23 PM | 18
    Grieved@17 - I'm going to argue we're at stage 2.5, Grieved. DDOS attacks on RT and Sputnik, 'managed' Google search rankings, censored tweets, NSA on your desktop/cellphone. The powers that be and western MSM are having a conniption fit and they are very angry.

    Like all psychopaths, they have a one-track mind that doesn't allow an effective strategy when it comes to bipedal meat units. Their answer to convincing you of their lies is to proffer more outrageous lies. It's kind of like the newspapers fighting declining advertising revenue by making the print smaller, stuffing the paper with more ads at higher rates and raising the price for a printed newspaper. Damn it, why won't you monkeys OBEY!

    jsn | Aug 29, 2016 5:06:49 PM | 20
    Piotr@14,
    The season to which I refer is, as I said, the electoral one!

    The Times blows (or is it sucks?) very much with the political weather, though regretfully our elections now blow for long enough to constitute multiple seasons proper.

    I've long suspected that light seasoning of truth they sprinkle beneath the fold or deep inside is there so that when the bogosity of one of their major narratives periodically explodes they can scrape thin truths from the back pages and later paragraphs to claim the've been reporting the truth all along!

    telescope | Aug 29, 2016 5:12:35 PM | 21
    That's an excellent point, b. I don't even remember the last time I've read anything truthful in any western MSM outlet. Almost everything is a spin of various degree. NYT is one of worst offenders, so another lying piece is not at all surprising.
    Hoarsewhisperer | Aug 29, 2016 5:22:21 PM | 23
    NYT slogan is "All The News That's Fit To Print"

    Did good taste preclude "All The News That's Fit To Read"

    Petri Krohn | Aug 29, 2016 5:37:03 PM | 24
    Russia invading Georgia in 2008 fits the definition of factoid , as defined by Norman Mailer in 1973:
    From the Wikipedia article Factoid : The term was coined in 1973 by American writer Norman Mailer to mean a "piece of information that becomes accepted as a fact even though it's not actually true, or an invented fact believed to be true because it appears in print."

    This is a basic tool of Western mainstream propaganda. Sprinkle every article full of "factoids" or small lies. These lies are not about the core topic of article, so they are unlikely to be challenged. Their only purpose is to enforce the narrative and demonize the enemy. When small lies or "lielets" are repeated often enough, they become factoids, meaning that they are no longer recognized as lies.

    [Aug 29, 2016] Black Panther Party Leader said that Hillary Democrats are promising everything, giving nothing

    Notable quotes:
    "... We, as black people, have to reexamine the relationship. We're being pimped like prostitutes and they're the big pimps pimping us politically… promising us everything and we get nothing in return. We gotta step back now as black people and we gotta look at all the parties and vote our best interests. ..."
    "... Barack Obama, our president, served two terms… the first black president ever… but did our condition get better? Did financially, politically, academically with education in our community… did things get better? Are our young people working more? ..."
    "... If having the Black working community start totally hammering the Dems becomes "cool" the Dem's are screwed for a long time. ..."
    "... Obama trashed all of America, blacks and whites, while transferring millions of jobs overseas to Bangladesh, China, Mexico, etc. ..."
    www.zerohedge.com
    ... following interview with New Black Panther Quanell X requires no further commentary – he breaks it down quite succinctly:

    Let me say this to the brothers and sisters who listened and watched that speech… We may not like the vessel [Donald Trump] that said what he said, but I ask us to truly examine what he said.

    Because it is a fact that for 54 years we have been voting for the Democratic Party like no other race in America. And they have not given us the same loyalty and love that we have given them. We, as black people, have to reexamine the relationship. We're being pimped like prostitutes and they're the big pimps pimping us politically… promising us everything and we get nothing in return. We gotta step back now as black people and we gotta look at all the parties and vote our best interests.

    ...

    I want to say and encourage the brothers and sisters… Barack Obama, our president, served two terms… the first black president ever… but did our condition get better? Did financially, politically, academically with education in our community… did things get better? Are our young people working more?

    The condition got worse.

    froze25 -> jcaz, Aug 29, 2016 10:30 AM
    If having the Black working community start totally hammering the Dems becomes "cool" the Dem's are screwed for a long time.
    847328_3527 -> MANvsMACHINE, Aug 29, 2016 10:36 AM
    Obama trashed all of America, blacks and whites, while transferring millions of jobs overseas to Bangladesh, China, Mexico, etc.
    CJgipper -> FireBrander, Aug 29, 2016 12:28 PM
    I've said that repeatedly. The question for hillary isn't what does the survey show, but how many will actually be motivated enough to go vote. They may not show up and pull the lever for trump this go round, but they may be curious enough to see what happens to just stay home and let things work themselves out to see what the result will be

    [Aug 29, 2016] Yet another instance of the pot calleng the cattle black

    Notable quotes:
    "... Mo Elleithee, who did tours separately as a top aide to Clinton and Tim Kaine and is now executive director of the Georgetown Institute of Politics and Public Service, is nervous that the impact will be much deeper and long lasting. ..."
    "... In addition to the health questions and rigged election talk, Elleithee cited Trump's encouragement of Second Amendment voters to do something about a Clinton presidency's court appointments ..."
    "... Huma Abedin should be arrested, charged with espionage, and mis-handling of classified material, and imprisoned for a long long time, according to recent email releases. ..."
    "... It's deflection because she doesn't want to explain why her family foundation takes money from Saudi Arabia and Qatar. ..."
    "... The Saudis are buying access--not funding Clinton Foundation initiatives to help women and children. ..."
    "... Horatio N. Fisk Are you saying she didn't delete e-mails and use bleaching software to try to hide her tracks? ..."
    "... Classic Clinton propaganda. Are you HONESTLY trying to say she did NOTHING wrong? Then WHY is she stopping doing what she is doing IF she steals the presidency. All along Clinton has denied everything and EVERY SINGLE TIME she has been PROVEN to be a liar! She claimed she NEVER sent a classified email - you called those that said she did lunatic conspiracy theorists - turns out YOU WERE LYING! ..."
    "... If ever a person was so obviously unfit to hold the office of POTUS - it's Clinton. Indeed James Comey said anyone else who did what she did would NEVER be able to hols ANY government office, and would either be in jail or minimum sacked. ..."
    "... SHAME ON YOU for doing your Josepg Goebbels act. The innocent blood she is GUARANTEED to spill will be on the hands of every single person who votes for that war criminal ..."
    "... Hillary is fit to be president? Based on what? Her accomplishments? Her ability to properly handle classified data? Her ability to lie? Being beholden to her big donors from Wall Street, Foreign Countries, shady sources, who made her a 1%er? ..."
    "... No one has to de-legitimize Clinton. She's done a fine job all by herself! She lied to the faces of geiving parents, infront of the coffins containing the remains of their loved ones. She lied to the American people, over and over, about her server and the emails she "turned over". She lied to Congress about those same subjects ..."
    "... She refuses to give a press conference where the questions are not scripted for her. She used her "Charitable Foundation" to sell access to the State Dep, let people like Bloomenthal decide what decisions she made as Sec State. She panders to blacks, treating them like children. You Go Hillary! Keep making the case for how unfit for office you are! ..."
    "... Sure, Mr Trump is not a polished highly trained politician, and ends up very often with foot in mouth disease. But Donald J Trump single-handedly defeated the totally corrupt Republican establishment, and ripped the nomination out of their hands. ..."
    "... Those treasonous RINO (especially the warmonger NeoCons) political hacks are still screaming, and the GOP is self-destructing before our eyes. They are fleeing in panic to the sinking, burning SS Clinton, as the establishment newsmedia desperately tries to hide the self-destructing, dying Hillary from the public. Good riddance; ..."
    "... Too funny...Hillary hides from the press and the only thing she has got is to make Trump look like a deranged psychopath. That's all she has. She has already waffled on TPP because of Trump. She has not been forced to reckon with her own immigration policies or how she will deal with the refugee crisis. ..."
    "... I'm an Independent, I march to my own beat. That said, as a US militay veteran and having served honorably in the United States Marine Corps, in a term I'm sure fellow veterans can understand... "Hillary Rodham Clinton is a scumbag." I'm voting for Dr. Jill Stein on November 8, 2016. ..."
    "... Donald Trump really doesn't have to do very much at this point to impune Hillary Clinton 's reputation. She has already done that to herself. Her actions are indefensible and all he has to do is remind people of it and convince the idiots who keep defending her and can't see her crimes that are right in front of their faces. She has lied to us and Congress, concealed her crimes and sold us out time and time again for her own personal gain. ..."
    www.politico.com

    From: Trump's new aim Poison a Clinton presidency - POLITICO

    The Clinton delegitimization project is now central to Donald Trump's campaign and such a prime component of right-wing media that it's already seeped beyond extremist chat rooms into "lock her up" chants on the convention floor, national news stories debating whether polls actually can be rigged, and voters puzzling over that photo they think they saw of her needing to be carried up the stairs.

    The Clinton campaign has deliberately positioned its response as an offensive boomerang rather than a rebuttal: Don't defend against the attacks, just redirect fire at the messenger. "It holds up a mirror to Donald Trump and what his campaign is about, and says everything you need to know about Donald Trump and where these kinds of crazy conspiracy theories are coming from," as one campaign aide put it.

    But the Democrat's team is aware of how this might factor in beyond November.

    "Some of the campaign and allies' conspiracies are designed to delegitimize her personally. Most are simply designed to spread fear and mistrust. And I am sure if she wins, the right wing will continue to spread these theories," said Clinton senior adviser Jennifer Palmieri. Palmieri is in favor of ignoring most of the wackiness but warned: "Just because they may have zero basis in truth doesn't mean they can't be corrosive. So in this cycle I believe you have to call out the truly destructive theories calmly, but aggressively, and in real time."

    ... ... ...

    For days, Clinton campaign officials purposefully ignored questions coming at them from the Trump-intertwined Breitbart News about her health, according to an aide. But after Fox News host Sean Hannity devoted an episode of his show to a Clinton rumor medical panel, complete with an eager-to-please urologist in a white coat, they shifted gears: a long release emailed to reporters two weeks ago with sourced debunkings of all the rumors and a statement from her doctor attesting that supposedly leaked medical records were forged.

    ... ... ...

    Mo Elleithee, who did tours separately as a top aide to Clinton and Tim Kaine and is now executive director of the Georgetown Institute of Politics and Public Service, is nervous that the impact will be much deeper and long lasting.

    ... ... ...

    In addition to the health questions and rigged election talk, Elleithee cited Trump's encouragement of Second Amendment voters to do something about a Clinton presidency's court appointments and Trump adviser Roger Stone's suggestion of bloodshed if Trump loses.

    Original unedited comments. Red bold/italic emphasis is mine
    Mike Davis
    How does one poison a black widow spider? Hillary Clinton is already poison. She and Slick have been poison for four decades.

    It is Obama and Clinton wanting to bring radical Islam jihadists here to America. There is no possible way to screen them at present. Even HS has no clue how to screen terrorists out and admit so. Huma Abedin should be arrested, charged with espionage, and mis-handling of classified material, and imprisoned for a long long time, according to recent email releases. Of course, losing her radical Islam lover, might be too much for the sickened Hillary to withstand.

    Donald J Trump wants to keep radical Islam sharia law jihadists out, along with other criminals, drug dealers, who would endanger the innocent Americans. You liberals support the criminal dying Clinton; therefore you support her policies, including the middle-class wrecking ball TPP and NAFTA.

    https://www.instagram.com/p/BJkj25RD44E/

    Andreas Nettmayer
    I didn't go to highschool, I went to school high :D
    It's deflection because she doesn't want to explain why her family foundation takes money from Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Doing so would weaken her credibility as a human rights champion. The Saudis are buying access--not funding Clinton Foundation initiatives to help women and children. We should be scrutinizing our arms sales to oppressive regimes like Saudi Arabia and standing up for human rights. Not taking money when it is convenient, selling our best weapons to dictatorships, and then pretending the rest of the world believes we are some City on a Hill human rights champions.
    Mike Moutain

    Thus the dilemma for the gutless Dems, attack the character of Trump while defending the 100% lack of character of the email deleting, ambassador murdering money laundering lying under oath criminal piece of shit..

    Good luck with that..

    Horatio N. Fisk · Works at Writer, Gadfly

    Good luck with proving any of what you said;. You can't

    David J. Lekse · Indianapolis, Indiana

    Horatio N. Fisk Are you saying she didn't delete e-mails and use bleaching software to try to hide her tracks?

    Paul Marston · Works at Self-Employed

    Classic Clinton propaganda. Are you HONESTLY trying to say she did NOTHING wrong? Then WHY is she stopping doing what she is doing IF she steals the presidency. All along Clinton has denied everything and EVERY SINGLE TIME she has been PROVEN to be a liar! She claimed she NEVER sent a classified email - you called those that said she did lunatic conspiracy theorists - turns out YOU WERE LYING!

    The sheer contempt you and all the other Clinton drones have for the American public is genuinely sickening. It has been PROVEN she rigged the primaries - and had to sack 5 staff for it, yet Clinton claims she did nothing wrong.

    If ever a person was so obviously unfit to hold the office of POTUS - it's Clinton. Indeed James Comey said anyone else who did what she did would NEVER be able to hols ANY government office, and would either be in jail or minimum sacked.

    SHAME ON YOU for doing your Josepg Goebbels act. The innocent blood she is GUARANTEED to spill will be on the hands of every single person who votes for that war criminal

    Bob Rousseau

    Pretty pathetic when the do nothing, low IQ Republicans have to resort to conspiracy theories and lies to win elected office. If their voters werent so stupid and toxic, conspiracy theories would be immediately identified for what they are; right wing garbage.

    Marlin Johnson

    Hillary is fit to be president? Based on what? Her accomplishments? Her ability to properly handle classified data? Her ability to lie? Being beholden to her big donors from Wall Street, Foreign Countries, shady sources, who made her a 1%er?

    Not securing the Mexican border so illegal aliens can continue to flood in to be exploited with low paying jobs, burdening social service budgets and taking American jobs? By allowing 550,000 unvetted Syrian refugees enter our country risking that some may be ISIS? Or having Bill back in the White House seeking sexual favors from young interns? Of course you would mind if it were your daughter working as an intern. And Hillary can launch vicious personal character attacks against the victims of Bill's sexual assaults.

    Wayne Barron

    No one has to de-legitimize Clinton. She's done a fine job all by herself! She lied to the faces of geiving parents, infront of the coffins containing the remains of their loved ones. She lied to the American people, over and over, about her server and the emails she "turned over". She lied to Congress about those same subjects.

    She refuses to give a press conference where the questions are not scripted for her. She used her "Charitable Foundation" to sell access to the State Dep, let people like Bloomenthal decide what decisions she made as Sec State. She panders to blacks, treating them like children. You Go Hillary! Keep making the case for how unfit for office you are!

    Mike Davis

    Sure, Mr Trump is not a polished highly trained politician, and ends up very often with foot in mouth disease. But Donald J Trump single-handedly defeated the totally corrupt Republican establishment, and ripped the nomination out of their hands.

    Those treasonous RINO (especially the warmonger NeoCons) political hacks are still screaming, and the GOP is self-destructing before our eyes. They are fleeing in panic to the sinking, burning SS Clinton, as the establishment newsmedia desperately tries to hide the self-destructing, dying Hillary from the public. Good riddance; thank you Mr Trump.

    Tammy McKinnon · Florida State University

    Too funny...Hillary hides from the press and the only thing she has got is to make Trump look like a deranged psychopath. That's all she has. She has already waffled on TPP because of Trump. She has not been forced to reckon with her own immigration policies or how she will deal with the refugee crisis.

    Not much about terror either. She released a tax plan but that is meaningless piece of paper that all candidates put out there..you must get Congress on your side and Republicans will not go for increases.

    Then there is her free public college plan. Obamacare is collapsing and voters are going to see it firsthand Nov 1st (if Obama doesn't delay it until after the election)

    Yeah, the wind is behind her(and the MSM)....it wasn't rosy for her at the end of July. We were told that didn't matter ...but now it does?

    Tammy McKinnon · Florida State University

    Bethsabe David,

    Dems have perfected unsubstantiated attacks in elections. Remember Reid saying that Romney's tax returns showed he had paid no taxes? Remember the commercial accusing Romney of murder and the crying husband? (big lie) Oh and the Hillary camp started the birther movement. All 'lies' are not created equal. Hillary is dangerous.

    Trump is not "loosing" (spell check is your friend Bethsabe) He was doing very well the end on July and we still have a ways to go.

    Benjamin Andrew Marine · American University

    Doug Perry,

    I'm an Independent, I march to my own beat. That said, as a US militay veteran and having served honorably in the United States Marine Corps, in a term I'm sure fellow veterans can understand... "Hillary Rodham Clinton is a scumbag." I'm voting for Dr. Jill Stein on November 8, 2016.

    Michael Iger

    Republicans demonize opponents its in their nature and the Clinton's have been on that long list of enemies now for decades. We see it too with Obama and Trump's birther charges and McConnell talking about not cooperating with the President at a price of hurting the country. Hilary, both as a Clinton and a Democrat, is going to get a double dose in her term of office. The real loser is the country that becomes stalemated and dysfunctional at the top which then permeates the society. We have a dysfunction group in this country with some power and until it changes must deal with it. With Trump's campaign of bigotry and racism that may change sooner than later as the country wakes up to reality of the mess and its done. With stalemate very little gets done and problems don't get solved.

    Michael Welby · Owner at Self-Employed

    Yeah, it is Republicans that demonize. That is why, in Reno, Hillary draped the KKK all over trump. YOu do it too: bigot, racist.

    With such warm greetings and suggesting of cooperation, what the hell do you expect. She may win the office. She will accomplish nothing. Nothing.

    Mark Daigle , Lamar University
    Donald Trump really doesn't have to do very much at this point to impune Hillary Clinton 's reputation. She has already done that to herself. Her actions are indefensible and all he has to do is remind people of it and convince the idiots who keep defending her and can't see her crimes that are right in front of their faces. She has lied to us and Congress, concealed her crimes and sold us out time and time again for her own personal gain.

    [Aug 29, 2016] Trump media feud moves from Megyn Kelly to 'Morning Joe'

    Notable quotes:
    "... there's an opportunity for Trump to draw a sharp contrast with Clinton, who also has issues engaging with the press as a whole. ..."
    "... "If Trump were to more broadly engage the broader media landscape, he can provide a clear contrast to Hillary Clinton, who is clearly playing a 'run out the clock' strategy with regard to the press," McCall said. ..."
    TheHill
    Jeff McCall, a professor of media studies at Depauw University, agrees there's an opportunity for Trump to draw a sharp contrast with Clinton, who also has issues engaging with the press as a whole.

    "If Trump were to more broadly engage the broader media landscape, he can provide a clear contrast to Hillary Clinton, who is clearly playing a 'run out the clock' strategy with regard to the press," McCall said.

    "Trump should speak to any and all news outlets and mention during each of those interviews that he is there to speak to the electorate while Hillary ducks the tough questioning and won't even hold a press conference."

    But a more exposed Trump, McCall said, only works if he stays on the narrative the campaign wishes to articulate.

    "If he expands his media range, but has flimsy or off-target messages, he will just contribute to the perception that his messaging and campaign are rather untethered," he said.

    [Aug 29, 2016] Obama certainly did nothing to put US into the nightmare of peace and prosperity, while Killary will threw the US into perpetual war with bigger adversaries than Sunni goatherds.

    Aug 29, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    ilsm -> Chris G ... Obama certainly did nothing to put US into the nightmare of peace and prosperity, while Killary will threw the US into perpetual war with bigger adversaries than Sunni goatherds.

    What are US "agents" doing on the ground in Syria? ilsm -> Chris G ... , Friday, August 26, 2016 at 04:47 PM

    Obama certainly did nothing to put US into the nightmare of peace and prosperity, while Killary will threw the US into perpetual war with bigger adversaries than Sunni goatherds.

    What are US "agents" doing on the ground in Syria?

    likbez -> ilsm... , Friday, August 26, 2016 at 08:14 PM
    Looks like they are trying to elect Hillary.
    === quote ===
    It is almost as if some journalists believe that deliberately damaging relations with Russia is a price worth paying to embarrass and defeat Trump. If that is so, they are delusional.

    Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is executive director of the Council for the National Interest.

    anne -> likbez... , Saturday, August 27, 2016 at 08:45 AM
    Quotes must be referenced:

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/trump-russia-and-the-washington-post/

    August 24, 2016

    Trump, Russia, and the Washington Post: Reader Beware
    There's more hype than evidence in the paper's claims that Moscow orchestrates politics in Europe and America.
    By PHILIP GIRALDI

    [Aug 29, 2016] How Trumps health smear of Clinton backfired by Dean Obeidallah

    Problems are undeniable, but severity of the condition can be assessed only by qualified doctors after studying all medical record. Which should be a requred stp for all US presidential candidates. CNN presstitutes do disservice to the nation downplaying the concerns.
    Notable quotes:
    "... So, will Hillary accept Trump's challenge to release her medical records? I think we all know the answer to that... ..."
    CNN.com

    ... reminds Americans about Trump's self-professed medical disability, which allowed him to avoid serving in the Vietnam War Second, this baseless attack on Clinton's health reeks of the same conspiracy theory junk we have heard before from him

    ...Even the way Trump's cheerleader-in-chief Rudy Giuliani recently tried to support his claim that Clinton was very ill smacked of typical conspiracy fare:

    ...

    CNN User

    So, will Hillary accept Trump's challenge to release her medical records? I think we all know the answer to that...

    Just like showing up for a press conference, she just has too much to lose by being open with voters.;

    [Aug 29, 2016] The Dumbed-Down New York Times

    Notable quotes:
    "... In a column mocking the political ignorance of the "dumbed-down" American people and lamenting the death of "objective fact," New York Times columnist Timothy Egan shows why so many Americans have lost faith in the supposedly just-the-facts-ma'am mainstream media. ..."
    "... Egan states [lies] as flat fact, "If more than 16 percent of Americans could locate Ukraine on a map, it would have been a Really Big Deal when Trump said that Russia was not going to invade it - two years after they had, in fact, invaded it." ..."
    "... But it is not a "fact" that Russia "invaded" Ukraine – and it's especially not the case if you also don't state as flat fact that the United States has invaded Syria, Libya and many other countries where the U.S. government has launched bombing raids or dispatched "special forces." Yet, the Times doesn't describe those military operations as "invasions." ..."
    "... The Times also played down the key role of neo-Nazis and extreme nationalists in killing police before the coup, seizing government building during the coup, and then spearheading the slaughter of ethnic Russian Ukrainians after the coup. If you wanted to detect the role of these SS-wannabes from the Times' coverage, you'd have to scour the last few paragraphs of a few stories that dealt with other aspects of the Ukraine crisis. ..."
    "... A growing public recognition of that mainstream bias explains why so much of the American population has tuned out supposedly "objective" news (because it is anything but objective). ..."
    "... Indeed, those Americans who are more sophisticated about Russia and Ukraine than Timothy Egan know that they're not getting the straight story from the Times and other MSM outlets. Those not-dumbed-down Americans can spot U.S. government propaganda when they see it. ..."
    Aug 29, 2016 | www.commondreams.org
    A New York Times columnist writes Americans are so "dumbed-down" that they don't know that Russia "invaded" Ukraine two years ago, but that "invasion" was mostly in the minds of Times editors and other propagandists, says Robert Parry.

    In a column mocking the political ignorance of the "dumbed-down" American people and lamenting the death of "objective fact," New York Times columnist Timothy Egan shows why so many Americans have lost faith in the supposedly just-the-facts-ma'am mainstream media.

    Egan states [lies] as flat fact, "If more than 16 percent of Americans could locate Ukraine on a map, it would have been a Really Big Deal when Trump said that Russia was not going to invade it - two years after they had, in fact, invaded it."

    But it is not a "fact" that Russia "invaded" Ukraine – and it's especially not the case if you also don't state as flat fact that the United States has invaded Syria, Libya and many other countries where the U.S. government has launched bombing raids or dispatched "special forces." Yet, the Times doesn't describe those military operations as "invasions."

    Nor does the newspaper of record condemn the U.S. government for violating international law, although in every instance in which U.S. forces cross into another country's sovereign territory without permission from that government or the United Nations Security Council, that is technically an act of illegal aggression.

    In other words, the Times applies a conscious double standard when reporting on the actions of the United States or one of its allies (note how Turkey's recent invasion of Syria was just an "intervention") as compared to how the Times deals with actions by U.S. adversaries, such as Russia.

    Biased on Ukraine

    The Times' reporting on Ukraine has been particularly dishonest and hypocritical. The Times ignores the substantial evidence that the U.S. government encouraged and supported a violent coup that overthrew elected President Viktor Yanukovych on Feb. 22, 2014, including a pre-coup intercepted phone call between Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt discussing who should lead the new government and how to "midwife this thing."

    The Times also played down the key role of neo-Nazis and extreme nationalists in killing police before the coup, seizing government building during the coup, and then spearheading the slaughter of ethnic Russian Ukrainians after the coup. If you wanted to detect the role of these SS-wannabes from the Times' coverage, you'd have to scour the last few paragraphs of a few stories that dealt with other aspects of the Ukraine crisis.

    While leaving out the context, the Times has repeatedly claimed that Russia "invaded" Crimea, although curiously without showing any photographs of an amphibious landing on Crimea's coast or Russian tanks crashing across Ukraine's border en route to Crimea or troops parachuting from the sky to seize strategic Crimean targets.

    The reason such evidence of an "invasion" was lacking is that Russian troops were already stationed in Crimea as part of a basing agreement for the port of Sevastopol. So, it was a very curious "invasion" indeed, since the Russian troops were on scene before the "invasion" and their involvement after the coup was peaceful in protecting the Crimean population from the depredations of the new regime's neo-Nazis. The presence of a small number of Russian troops also allowed the Crimeans to vote on whether to secede from Ukraine and rejoin Russia, which they did with a 96 percent majority.

    In the eastern provinces, which represented Yanukovych's political base and where many Ukrainians opposed the coup, you can fault, if you wish, the Russian decision to provide some military equipment and possibly some special forces so ethnic Russian and other anti-coup Ukrainians could defend themselves from the assaults by the neo-Nazi Azov brigade and from the tanks and artillery of the coup-controlled Ukrainian army.

    "... those Americans who are more sophisticated about Russia and Ukraine than Timothy Egan know that they're not getting the straight story from the Times and other MSM outlets."

    But an honest newspaper and honest columnists would insist on including this context. They also would resist pejorative phrases such as "invasion" and "aggression" – unless, of course, they applied the same terminology objectively to actions by the U.S. government and its "allies."

    That sort of nuance and balance is not what you get from The New York Times and its "group thinking" writers, people like Timothy Egan. When it comes to reporting on Russia, it's Cold War-style propaganda, day in and day out.

    And this has not been a one-off problem. The unrelenting bias of the Times and, indeed, the rest of the mainstream U.S. news media on the Ukraine crisis represents a lack of professionalism that was also apparent in the pro-war coverage of the Iraq crisis in 2002-03 and other catastrophic U.S. foreign policy decisions.

    A growing public recognition of that mainstream bias explains why so much of the American population has tuned out supposedly "objective" news (because it is anything but objective).

    Indeed, those Americans who are more sophisticated about Russia and Ukraine than Timothy Egan know that they're not getting the straight story from the Times and other MSM outlets. Those not-dumbed-down Americans can spot U.S. government propaganda when they see it.

    [Aug 29, 2016] The Trumpster Sends The GOP-Neocon Establishment To The Dumpster

    It is unclear to what extent Trump represents a threat to Washington establishment and how easily or difficult it would be to co-opt him. In any case "deep state" will stay in place, so the capabilities of POTUS are limited by the fact of its existence. But comments to the article are great !
    Notable quotes:
    "... It goes all the way back to the collapse of the old Soviet Union and the elder Bush's historically foolish decision to invade the Persian Gulf in February 1991. The latter stopped dead in its tracks the first genuine opportunity for peace the people of the world had been afforded since August 1914. ..."
    "... Instead, it reprieved the fading remnants of the military-industrial-congressional complex, the neocon interventionist camp and Washington's legions of cold war apparatchiks. All of the foregoing would have been otherwise consigned to the dust bin of history. ..."
    "... And most certainly, this lamentable turn to the War Party's disastrous reign had nothing to do with oil security or economic prosperity in America. The cure for high oil is always and everywhere high oil prices, not the Fifth Fleet. ..."
    "... It is the bombs, drones, cruise missiles and brutal occupations of Muslim lands unleashed by the War Party that has actually fostered the massive blowback and radical jidhadism rampant today in the middle east and beyond. ..."
    "... Indeed, prior to 1991 Bin Laden and his mujahedeen, who had been trained and armed by the CIA and heralded in the west for their help in defeating purportedly godless communism in Afghanistan, had not declaimed against American liberty, opulence and decadence. They did not come to attack our way of life as the neocon propagandists have so speciously claimed. Misguided and despicable as their attack was, it was motivated by revenge and religious fanaticism that had never previously been directed against the American people. That is, not until the Washington War Party decided to intervene in the Persian Gulf in 1991. ..."
    "... Not long thereafter in 1996, these same neocon warmongers produced for newly elected Israeli prime minister, Bibi Netanyahu, the infamous document called "A Clean Break: A New Strategy For Securing The Realm". ..."
    "... There were several crucial moments along the way-–the first being the sacking of Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill by the White House praetorian guard led by Karl Rove. His sin was having the audacity to say that the Afghan and Iraqi wars were going to cost trillions, and that stiff tax increases and painful entitlements cuts were the only way to make ends meet. ..."
    "... The great Dwight Eisenhower left office at the height of the cold war in 1961, warning the American public about the insatiable appetites for budgets and war of the military industrial complex. At the same time, however, his final budget attested to his conviction that $450 billion in today's purchasing power (2015 $) was enough to fund the Pentagon, foreign aid and security assistance and the needs of veterans of past wars. ..."
    "... Thanks to the GOP War Party and neocons we are spending more than double that amount-upwards of $900 billion-–for those same purposes today. Yet unlike the nuclear threat posed by the Soviet Union at the peak of its industrial vigor, we no longer have any industrial state enemy left on the planet; we have appropriately been fired as the world's policeman and have no need for Washington's far flung imperium of bases and naval and air power projection; and would not even be confronted with the domestic policing challenges posed by highly limited and episodic homeland terrorist tempests had Washington not turned Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and others into failed states and economic rubble. ..."
    "... But here's the thing. While spending a lifetime as a real estate speculator and self-created celebrity, The Donald apparently did not have time to get mis-educated by the Council On Foreign Relations or to hob knob with the GOP inner circle in Washington and the special interest group racketeers they coddle. ..."
    "... But a nation tumbling into financial and fiscal crisis will welcome the War Party purge that Trump would surely undertake. He didn't allow the self-serving busy-bodies and fools who inhabit the Council on Foreign Relations to dupe him into believing that Putin is a horrible threat; or that the real estate on the eastern edge of the non-state of the Ukraine, which has always been either a de jure or de facto part of Russia, was any of our business. Likewise, he has gotten it totally right with respect to the sectarian and tribal wars of Syria and Iraq and Hillary's feckless destruction of a stable regime in Libya. ..."
    "... Besides, unlike the boy Senator from Florida who wants to be President so he can play with guns, tanks, ships and bombs, The Donald has indicated no intention of tearing up the agreement on day one in office. ..."
    "... Most importantly, The Donald has essentially proclaimed the obvious. Namely, that the cold war is over and that the American taxpayers have no business subsidizing obsolete relics like NATO and ground forces in South Korea and Japan. ..."
    "... At the end of the day, the reason that the neocons are apoplectic is that Trump would restore the 1991 status quo ante. The nation's self-proclaimed greatest deal-maker might even take a leaf out of Warren G. Harding's playbook and negotiate sweeping disarmament agreements in a world where governments everywhere are on the verge of fiscal bankruptcy. ..."
    "... Faith may be defined briefly as an illogical belief in the occurrence of the improbable.... A man full of faith is simply one who has lost (or never had) the capacity for clear and realistic thought. He is not a mere ass: he is actually ill. H. L. Mencken ..."
    "... Great read Mr. Stockman, and I can only hope you are right, that Super Tuesday really triggers the demise of the Military Industrial Complex, although I seriously doubt it can be removed, replaced or dismantled that easily. ..."
    "... The roots of the neocons and neolibs go so deep - multi-generational, multi-faceted, and removing their control will require Open Regime Surgery, something I don't see anyone capable of performing quite yet. Surely they are going to want their shot at being the first rulers to control the entire earth - just before the energy runs out and the planet collapses in on itself due to being hollowed out :) ..."
    "... David, you are missing some fairly strong evidence that 911 was an inside job. ..."
    "... As an engineer, I find it impossible to fathom that building 7, not hit by any planes and only suffering minor fires, would fall straight into its own footprint at FREEFALL SPEED. This is exactly the sort of thing you would expect ONLY from a controlled demolition. ..."
    "... I think that the neocons, in their meetings regarding the "Project for a New American Century" (PNAC), needed 911 to foment, foster and facilitate a push of patriotic pathos of the American people to go to war. ..."
    "... So so true. Of course this is an abridged version of history. You speak the truth to power. This never makes the news or any of the debate tables with any of the mainstream media. Why...because the media is owned by the corporations that profit from war. ..."
    "... There is no more liberal media unless you watch the Young Turks. With regards to Iran. There is more to their history than...CIA's coup of 1953. From my memory the British controlled the Iranian oilfields up until 1951 when they were nationalized. Why...because the British BP oil company was cheating Iran on the profit sharing deal. So the British are out. It is 1953 and the Americans want in. 1953 the Anglo-American Coup happened and the the profit sharing began again with American oil companies with the Shaw (Shell-mobil-Exxon..I can't remember which one) Of course the American oil companies breached the deal and shorted the POS Shah who then shorted his nation. Rulers forget, poor people are pissed off people. So all this "it was the CIA" crap is baloney...They were tools for corporate America. Don't kid yourself, it was about the oil. IMO ..."
    "... As Stockman points out, it seems that Washington was set on then neocon automatic pilot. The policy of the Democrats was basically a continuation of a policy started prior to Reagan presidency. Both Obama and Hillary Clinton are involved in regime change plans when we thought that Neo-cons has been shown to be a band of idiots that worked for the military industrial complex. ..."
    "... In the seventies, Brzezinski advocated support for the Islamic belt with fundamentalist regimes in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran and Turkey. These Islamo-fascist were supposed to control the perceived enemies of Capitalism. ..."
    "... Thank you Mr. Stockman for fearlessly stating the facts. As to the 1st Iraq War, and the lies on which it was based, the only other significant detail I would have mentioned is that Saddam was suckered into invading Kuwait by the bitch, April Gillespie who, at the time, was serving as his special envoy to the middle east. ..."
    "... @lloydholiday Billionaire "businessman" Glen Taylor owns the influential Minneapolis newspaper. He and his idiotic neocon editorial board ENDORSED RUBIO just before the Minnesota caucuses. Rubio may have made secret promises to Taylor, whose cannot possibly separate his many business interests from Minnesota and national politics. This explanation is as likely any, how the Little Napoleon won the ONLY state he is going to win, unless Floridians are somehow swayed to raise up a man toward the Presidency who isn't qualified to be dog catcher. ..."
    "... As usual concise, accurate. Bush and Shrub were phonies in thrall to the Carlyle Group and their buddies the 'Kingdom' (source and supporter of al-Quaeda) plus the pro-Israeli neocons who wanted US boots on the ground to protect Israel. The Bush duumvirate played along in this duplicitous game, which Trump called them on. Enron also played a role: Shrub let them set policy in the Stans as their consortium sought pipeline rights from the Taliban. Crooks at play in the garden of evil. ..."
    "... It is the bombs, drones, cruise missiles and brutal occupations of Muslim lands unleashed by the War Party that has actually fostered the massive blowback and radical jidhadism rampant today in the middle east and beyond. ..."
    "... Mr Stockman apparently has the bad manners to speak the truth. Washington is going to be PO'd at the blatant disrespect for their BS. ..."
    "... @FreeOregon It will shocked me beyond words if he survives the primaries. Far too much is at stake. In fact, 100 years of lying, cheating, and thieving, and the wealth it has produced is at stake. The Rothschild Establishment, centered in London and Tel Aviv, will not sit idly by and watch as their lucrative racket is dismantled by an up-start politician that cannot be purchased and put under their control. ..."
    "... All true....finally the politicians that have run our country into the ground are exposed for the puppets of oligarchs they are...it is obvious....both parties, phony conservatives and liberals alike, are waging war on Trump because he truly threatens the status quo......it's going to get real ugly now that the powers that be are threatened.....I wouldn't fly to much if I was Trump from here on in! ..."
    davidstockmanscontracorner.com
    Wow. Super Tuesday was an earthquake, and not just because Donald Trump ran the tables. The best thing was the complete drubbing and humiliation that voters all over America handed to the little Napoleon from Florida, Marco Rubio.

    So doing, the voters began the process of ridding the nation of the GOP War Party and its neocon claque of rabid interventionists. They have held sway for nearly three decades in the Imperial City and the consequences have been deplorable.

    It goes all the way back to the collapse of the old Soviet Union and the elder Bush's historically foolish decision to invade the Persian Gulf in February 1991. The latter stopped dead in its tracks the first genuine opportunity for peace the people of the world had been afforded since August 1914.

    Instead, it reprieved the fading remnants of the military-industrial-congressional complex, the neocon interventionist camp and Washington's legions of cold war apparatchiks. All of the foregoing would have been otherwise consigned to the dust bin of history.

    Yet at that crucial inflection point there was absolutely nothing at stake with respect to the safety and security of the American people in the petty quarrel between Saddam Hussein and the Emir of Kuwait.

    The spate, in fact, was over directional drilling rights in the Rumaila oilfield which straddled their respective borders. Yet these disputed borders had no historical legitimacy whatsoever. Kuwait was a just a bank account with a seat in the UN, which had been created by the British only in 1899 for obscure reasons of imperial maneuver. Likewise, the boundaries of Iraq had been drawn with a straight ruler in 1916 by British and French diplomats in the process of splitting up the loot from the fall of the Ottoman Empire.

    As it happened, Saddam claimed that the Emir of Kuwait, who could never stop stuffing his unspeakably opulent royal domain with more petro dollars, had stolen $10 billion worth of oil from Iraq's side of the field while Saddam was savaging the Iranians during his unprovoked but Washington supported 1980s invasion. At the same time, Hussein had borrowed upwards of $50 billion from Kuwait, the Saudis and the UAE to fund his barbaric attacks on the Iranians and now the sheiks wanted it back.

    At the end of the day, Washington sent 500,000 US troops to the Gulf in order to function as bad debt collectors for three regimes that are the very embodiment of tyranny, corruption, greed and religious fanaticism.

    They have been the fount and exporter of Wahhabi fanaticism and have thereby fostered the scourge of jihadi violence throughout the region. And it was the monumental stupidity of putting American (crusader) boots on the ground in Saudi Arabia that actually gave rise to Bin Laden, al-Qaeda, the tragedy of 9/11, the invasion and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq, the Patriot Act and domestic surveillance state and all the rest of the War Party follies which have followed.

    Worse still, George H.W. Bush's stupid little war corrupted the very political soul and modus operandi of Washington. What should have been a political contest over which party and prospective leader could best lead a revived 1920s style campaign for world disarmament was mutated into a wave of exceptionalist jingoism about how best to impose American hegemony on any nation or force on the planet that refused compliance with Washington's designs and dictates.

    And most certainly, this lamentable turn to the War Party's disastrous reign had nothing to do with oil security or economic prosperity in America. The cure for high oil is always and everywhere high oil prices, not the Fifth Fleet.

    Indeed, as the so-called OPEC cartel crumbles into pitiful impotence and cacophony and as the world oil glut drives prices eventually back into the teens, there can no longer be any dispute. The blazing oilfields of Kuwait in 1991 had nothing to do with domestic oil security and prosperity, and everything to do with the rise of a virulent militarism and imperialism that has drastically undermined national security.

    It is the bombs, drones, cruise missiles and brutal occupations of Muslim lands unleashed by the War Party that has actually fostered the massive blowback and radical jidhadism rampant today in the middle east and beyond.

    Indeed, prior to 1991 Bin Laden and his mujahedeen, who had been trained and armed by the CIA and heralded in the west for their help in defeating purportedly godless communism in Afghanistan, had not declaimed against American liberty, opulence and decadence. They did not come to attack our way of life as the neocon propagandists have so speciously claimed. Misguided and despicable as their attack was, it was motivated by revenge and religious fanaticism that had never previously been directed against the American people. That is, not until the Washington War Party decided to intervene in the Persian Gulf in 1991.

    Yes, the wholly different Shiite branch of Islam centered in Iran had a grievance, too. But that wasn't about America's liberties and libertine ways of life, either. It was about the left over liability from Washington's misguided cold war interventions and, specifically, the 1953 CIA coup that installed the brutal and larcenous Shah on the Peacock Throne.

    The whole Persian nation had deep grievances about that colossal injustice--a grievance that was wantonly amplified in the 1980s by Washington's overt assistance to Saddam Hussein. Via the CIA's satellite reconnaissance, Washington had actually helped him unleash heinous chemical warfare attacks on Iranian forces, including essentially unarmed young boys who had been sent to the battle front as cannon fodder.

    Still, with the election of Rafsanjani in 1989 there was every opportunity to repair this historical transgression and normalize relations with Tehran. In fact, in the early days the Bush state department was well on the way to exactly that. But once the CNN war games in the gulf put the neocons back in the saddle the door was slammed shut by Washington, not the Iranians.

    Indeed at that very time, the re-ascendant neocons explicitly choose to demonize the Iranian regime as a surrogate enemy to replace the defunct Kremlin commissars. Two of the most despicable actors in the post-1991 neocon takeover of the GOP--Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz--actually penned a secret document outlining the spurious anti-Iranian campaign which soon congealed into a full-blown war myth.

    To wit, that the Iranian's were hell bent on obtaining nuclear weapons and had become an implacable foe of America and fountain of state sponsored terrorism.

    Not long thereafter in 1996, these same neocon warmongers produced for newly elected Israeli prime minister, Bibi Netanyahu, the infamous document called "A Clean Break: A New Strategy For Securing The Realm".

    Whether he immediately signed off an all of its sweeping plans for junking the Oslo Accords and launching regime change initiatives against the Baathist regimes in Iraq and Syria is a matter of historical debate. But there can be no doubt that shortly thereafter this manifesto became the operative policy of the Netanyahu government and especially its virulent campaign to demonize Iran as an existential threat to Israel. And that when the younger Bush took office and brought the whole posse of neocons back into power, it became Washington's official policy, as well.

    After 9/11 the dual War Party of Washington and Tel Aviv was off to the races and the US government began its tumble toward $19 trillion of national debt and an eventual fiscal calamity. That's because the neocon War Party sucked the old time religion of fiscal rectitude and monetary orthodoxy right out of the GOP in the name of funding what has in truth become a trillion dollar per year Warfare State.

    There were several crucial moments along the way-–the first being the sacking of Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill by the White House praetorian guard led by Karl Rove. His sin was having the audacity to say that the Afghan and Iraqi wars were going to cost trillions, and that stiff tax increases and painful entitlements cuts were the only way to make ends meet.

    Right then and there the GOP was stripped of any fiscal virginity that had survived the Reagan era of triple digit deficits. Right on cue the contemptible Dick Cheney was quick to claim that Reagan proved "deficits don't matter", meaning from that point forward whatever it took to fund the war machine trumped any flickering Republican folk memories of fiscal prudence.

    The great Dwight Eisenhower left office at the height of the cold war in 1961, warning the American public about the insatiable appetites for budgets and war of the military industrial complex. At the same time, however, his final budget attested to his conviction that $450 billion in today's purchasing power (2015 $) was enough to fund the Pentagon, foreign aid and security assistance and the needs of veterans of past wars.

    Thanks to the GOP War Party and neocons we are spending more than double that amount-upwards of $900 billion-–for those same purposes today. Yet unlike the nuclear threat posed by the Soviet Union at the peak of its industrial vigor, we no longer have any industrial state enemy left on the planet; we have appropriately been fired as the world's policeman and have no need for Washington's far flung imperium of bases and naval and air power projection; and would not even be confronted with the domestic policing challenges posed by highly limited and episodic homeland terrorist tempests had Washington not turned Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and others into failed states and economic rubble.

    The Bush era War Party also committed an even more lamentable error in the midst of all of its foreign policy triumphalism and its utter neglect of the GOP's actual purpose to function as an advocate for sound money and free markets in the governance process of our two party democracy. Namely, it appointed Ben Bernanke, an avowed Keynesian and big government statist who had loudly proclaimed in favor of "helicopter money", to a Federal Reserve system that was already on the verge of an economic coup d'état led by the unfaithful Alan Greenspan.

    That coup was made complete by the loathsome bailout of Wall Street during the 2008 financial crisis. And the latter had, in turn, been a consequence of the massive speculation and debt build-up that had been enabled by the Fed's own policies during the prior decade and one-half.

    Now after $3.5 trillion of heedless money printing and 86 months of ZIRP, Wall Street has been transformed into an unstable, dangerous casino. Honest price discovery in the capital and money markets no longer exists, nor has productive capital been flowing into real investments in efficiency and growth.

    Instead, the C-suites of corporate America have been transformed into stock trading rooms where business balance sheets have been hocked to the tune of trillions in cheap debt in order to fund stock buybacks, LBOs and M&A deals designed to goose stock prices and the value of top executive options.

    Indeed, the Fed's unconscionable inflation of the third massive financial bubble of this century has showered speculators and the 1% with unspeakable financial windfalls that are fast creating not only an inevitable thundering financial meltdown, but, also, a virulent populist backlash. The Eccles Building was where the "Bern" that is roiling the electorate was actually midwifed.

    And probably even the far greater political tremblor represented by The Donald, as well.

    Yes, as a libertarian I shudder at the prospect of a man on a white horse heading for the White House, as Donald Trump surely is. His rank demoguery and poisonous rhetoric about immigrants, Muslims, refugees, women, domestic victims of police repression and the spy state and countless more are flat-out contemptible. And the idea of building a horizontal version of Trump Towers on the Rio Grande is just plain nuts.

    But here's the thing. While spending a lifetime as a real estate speculator and self-created celebrity, The Donald apparently did not have time to get mis-educated by the Council On Foreign Relations or to hob knob with the GOP inner circle in Washington and the special interest group racketeers they coddle.

    So even as The Donald's election would bring on a thundering financial crash on Wall Street and political upheaval in Washington-–the truth is that's going to happen anyway. Look at the hideous mess that US policy has created in Syria or the incendiary corner into which the Fed has backed itself or the fiscal projections that show we will be back into trillion dollar annual deficits as the recession already underway reaches full force. The jig is well and truly up.

    But a nation tumbling into financial and fiscal crisis will welcome the War Party purge that Trump would surely undertake. He didn't allow the self-serving busy-bodies and fools who inhabit the Council on Foreign Relations to dupe him into believing that Putin is a horrible threat; or that the real estate on the eastern edge of the non-state of the Ukraine, which has always been either a de jure or de facto part of Russia, was any of our business. Likewise, he has gotten it totally right with respect to the sectarian and tribal wars of Syria and Iraq and Hillary's feckless destruction of a stable regime in Libya.

    Even his bombast about Obama's bad deal with Iran doesn't go much beyond Trump's ridiculous claim that they are getting a $150 billion reward. In fact, it was their money; we stole it, and by the time of the next election they will have it released anyway.

    Besides, unlike the boy Senator from Florida who wants to be President so he can play with guns, tanks, ships and bombs, The Donald has indicated no intention of tearing up the agreement on day one in office.

    Most importantly, The Donald has essentially proclaimed the obvious. Namely, that the cold war is over and that the American taxpayers have no business subsidizing obsolete relics like NATO and ground forces in South Korea and Japan.

    At the end of the day, the reason that the neocons are apoplectic is that Trump would restore the 1991 status quo ante. The nation's self-proclaimed greatest deal-maker might even take a leaf out of Warren G. Harding's playbook and negotiate sweeping disarmament agreements in a world where governments everywhere are on the verge of fiscal bankruptcy.

    He might also come down with wrathful indignation on the Fed if its dares push toward the criminal zone of negative interest rates. As far as I know, The Donald was never mis-educated by the Keynesian swells at Brookings, either. No plain old businessman would ever fall for the sophistry and crank monetary theories that are now ascendant in the Eccles Building.

    When it comes to the nation's current economy wreckers-in-chief, Janet Yellen and Stanley Fischer, he might even dust off on day one the skills he honed during 10-years on the Apprentice.

    Worse things could surely happen.

    bill5

    @Protogonus

    Faith may be defined briefly as an illogical belief in the occurrence of the improbable.... A man full of faith is simply one who has lost (or never had) the capacity for clear and realistic thought. He is not a mere ass: he is actually ill. H. L. Mencken

    The most curious social convention of the great age in which we live is the one to the effect that religious opinions should be respected. Its evil effects must be plain enough to everyone. ... There is, in fact, nothing about religious opinions that entitles them to any more respect than other opinions get. On the contrary, they tend to be noticeably silly. ... No, there is nothing notably dignified about religious ideas. They run, rather, to a peculiarly puerile and tedious kind of nonsense. At their best, they are borrowed from metaphysicians, which is to say, from men who devote their lives to proving that twice two is not always or necessarily four. At their worst, they smell of spiritualism and fortune telling. Nor is there any visible virtue in the men who merchant them professionally. Few theologians know anything that is worth knowing, even about theology, and not many of them are honest. ... But the average theologian is a hearty, red-faced, well-fed fellow with no discernible excuse in pathology. He disseminates his blather, not innocently, like a philosopher, but maliciously, like a politician. In a well-organized world he would be on the stone-pile. But in the world as it exists we are asked to listen to him, not only politely, but even reverently, and with our mouths open. H. L. Mencken

    Amen!

    Rich Lancaster
    Great read Mr. Stockman, and I can only hope you are right, that Super Tuesday really triggers the demise of the Military Industrial Complex, although I seriously doubt it can be removed, replaced or dismantled that easily.

    The roots of the neocons and neolibs go so deep - multi-generational, multi-faceted, and removing their control will require Open Regime Surgery, something I don't see anyone capable of performing quite yet. Surely they are going to want their shot at being the first rulers to control the entire earth - just before the energy runs out and the planet collapses in on itself due to being hollowed out :)

    jimbob23

    David, you are missing some fairly strong evidence that 911 was an inside job.

    As an engineer, I find it impossible to fathom that building 7, not hit by any planes and only suffering minor fires, would fall straight into its own footprint at FREEFALL SPEED. This is exactly the sort of thing you would expect ONLY from a controlled demolition.

    I think that the neocons, in their meetings regarding the "Project for a New American Century" (PNAC), needed 911 to foment, foster and facilitate a push of patriotic pathos of the American people to go to war.

    Washington DC
    Rumor is Bloomberg is going to announce. As an Independent.
    Blackdog5555

    So so true. Of course this is an abridged version of history. You speak the truth to power. This never makes the news or any of the debate tables with any of the mainstream media. Why...because the media is owned by the corporations that profit from war.

    There is no more liberal media unless you watch the Young Turks. With regards to Iran. There is more to their history than...CIA's coup of 1953. From my memory the British controlled the Iranian oilfields up until 1951 when they were nationalized. Why...because the British BP oil company was cheating Iran on the profit sharing deal. So the British are out. It is 1953 and the Americans want in. 1953 the Anglo-American Coup happened and the the profit sharing began again with American oil companies with the Shaw (Shell-mobil-Exxon..I can't remember which one) Of course the American oil companies breached the deal and shorted the POS Shah who then shorted his nation. Rulers forget, poor people are pissed off people. So all this "it was the CIA" crap is baloney...They were tools for corporate America. Don't kid yourself, it was about the oil. IMO

    BTW the Kuwaiti Royalty were friends of the Bushes.

    We also did Israel a favor as Saddam was funding suicide bombers in Palestine ($20,000.00 to the family for every suicide bomber) Arab mothers were happy to have their kids blown up for that Saddam "reward." Ever notice how the suicide bombs ended/slowed in Israel after Saddam was deposed. I did. Also Saddam was amassing his military on the Saudi's border at that time (Saddam wanted Saudi oil to pay off his war debt) and so as a favor the the Saudi King (Bush's buddy) we ended that threat. Yipee for us. This is never brought out in serious debate or news coverage. So if someone says it was not about the oil...It was about the oil and always has been. It is all about the oil. Oil is short for corporate cash cow money.

    SD is right, Osama hated the fact that Bush's infidels were in the land of Mecca, and that was one of the major instigators for the 9/11 attacks. Efing arrogant, ignorant Bush keeping "Merica" safe. Clinton could have done a much better job cleaning up those King George the 1st's foreign policy blunders, so I fault him to a degree too.

    There are some good web sites that talk about this..I don't have them handy.

    Don't you love history.

    Cheers.

    BD

    MPBadger

    You are absolutely right. As Chas Freeman, who was our ambassador to Saudi Arabia during the 1991 Gulf War, has recounted, the stationing of American troops on Saudi soil in response to Saddam's invasion of Kuwait presented a serious issue given that "[m]any Saudis interpret their religious tradition as banning the presence of non-Muslims, especially the armed forces of nonbelievers, on the Kingdom's soil." Shortly after the invasion, Freeman was present at a meeting between King Fahd and Vice-President Cheney at which the King, overruling most of the Saudi royal family, agreed to allow U.S. troops to be stationed in his country. This decision was premised on the clear understanding, stressed by Cheney, that the American forces would be removed from Saudi Arabia once the immediate threat from Saddam was over.

    When that did not happen, Fahd faced serious domestic problems. Several prominent Muslim clerics who objected to his policies were sent into exile, further inflaming the religious community. More significantly for us, Osama Bin Laden began to call for the overthrow of the monarchy and elevated his jihadist fight against the U.S. His Saudi passport was revoked for his anti-government rhetoric, and in April 1991, threatened with arrest, he secretly departed Saudi Arabia for the Afghanistan-Pakistan border region, never to return. The result, ten years later, was 9-11.

    zee_point

    As Stockman points out, it seems that Washington was set on then neocon automatic pilot. The policy of the Democrats was basically a continuation of a policy started prior to Reagan presidency. Both Obama and Hillary Clinton are involved in regime change plans when we thought that Neo-cons has been shown to be a band of idiots that worked for the military industrial complex.

    In the seventies, Brzezinski advocated support for the Islamic belt with fundamentalist regimes in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran and Turkey. These Islamo-fascist were supposed to control the perceived enemies of Capitalism.

    Now, we talk 24/7 about the Islamic threat, while the Islamists are being supported by our closest allies and elements in the deep state in Washington.

    Diacro222

    We rarely hear about the Shah of Iran and OUR CIA back in 1953. Nor about OBL and his stated reason's for 9/11. Including the vengeful and childish bombardment of highlands behind Beirut by our terribly expensive recommissioned Battle Ship -- Imagine the thinking behind taking that 'thing' out of mothballs to Scare the A - rabs. Invading Grenada was Ollie North's idea to save face.

    cbaker0441

    Thank you Mr. Stockman for fearlessly stating the facts. As to the 1st Iraq War, and the lies on which it was based, the only other significant detail I would have mentioned is that Saddam was suckered into invading Kuwait by the bitch, April Gillespie who, at the time, was serving as his special envoy to the middle east.

    CALARISTOS

    @lloydholiday I lived in MPLS. You would be amazed at how sacrificially 'liberal' they are, much like Merkel and the deluded Germans. Minn let in thousands of Ethiopians and other Muslims who are now giving natives a major headache, much like Europe.

    The women over 30 are nearly fanatic over Black oppression, voted for Obama in droves, and appear to be willing to sacrifice the interests of their own children in favor of aliens and minorities (my own niece raised in Minn is a fanatic in this regard). Rubbero is a loser with a wind up tongue. They are easily impressed by patter however inarticulate.

    Protogonus

    @lloydholiday Billionaire "businessman" Glen Taylor owns the influential Minneapolis newspaper. He and his idiotic neocon editorial board ENDORSED RUBIO just before the Minnesota caucuses. Rubio may have made secret promises to Taylor, whose cannot possibly separate his many business interests from Minnesota and national politics. This explanation is as likely any, how the Little Napoleon won the ONLY state he is going to win, unless Floridians are somehow swayed to raise up a man toward the Presidency who isn't qualified to be dog catcher.

    CALARISTOS

    As usual concise, accurate. Bush and Shrub were phonies in thrall to the Carlyle Group and their buddies the 'Kingdom' (source and supporter of al-Quaeda) plus the pro-Israeli neocons who wanted US boots on the ground to protect Israel. The Bush duumvirate played along in this duplicitous game, which Trump called them on. Enron also played a role: Shrub let them set policy in the Stans as their consortium sought pipeline rights from the Taliban. Crooks at play in the garden of evil.

    bill5

    It is the bombs, drones, cruise missiles and brutal occupations of Muslim lands unleashed by the War Party that has actually fostered the massive blowback and radical jidhadism rampant today in the middle east and beyond.

    Mr Stockman apparently has the bad manners to speak the truth. Washington is going to be PO'd at the blatant disrespect for their BS.

    If the GOP disappears, there's always the brain dead Democrats. What we need is an end to both parties. The best way to accomplish that is to cancel the entirety of the Fed Gov. Just get rid of all of it. Let the states become countries and compete on the world stage. Let all those holding Federal paper (the national debt) use it in their bathroom as toilet paper. Cancel the debt - ignore it - lets start fresh with no central bank and real money based on something that the politicians can't conjure into existence. I suggest gold and silver as history has shown that they work well.

    hmkdpm

    @bill5 What I never hear anyone state is that if we had let the Russians alone in Afghanistan this whole mess would have never happened. Isn't that what originally allowed the Taliban and Obama bin Laden rise to power? I though Reagan was a great president but made a catastrophic error in aligning with the islamic insurgents against Russia . The Russians knew a radical Islamic state on their border would be a problem and the existing Afghan government, an ally of Russia, asked them to help quell the islamist civil war. The Russians would have ruthlessly eliminated the islamists without worrying about causing any greenhouse gas emissions or hurting anyones feelings.

    cbaker0441

    @FreeOregon It will shocked me beyond words if he survives the primaries. Far too much is at stake. In fact, 100 years of lying, cheating, and thieving, and the wealth it has produced is at stake. The Rothschild Establishment, centered in London and Tel Aviv, will not sit idly by and watch as their lucrative racket is dismantled by an up-start politician that cannot be purchased and put under their control.

    Mugsy7777

    All true....finally the politicians that have run our country into the ground are exposed for the puppets of oligarchs they are...it is obvious....both parties, phony conservatives and liberals alike, are waging war on Trump because he truly threatens the status quo......it's going to get real ugly now that the powers that be are threatened.....I wouldn't fly to much if I was Trump from here on in!

    @Mugsy7777

    He has his own plane, ground crew, flight crew, and body guards which I would guess make a heck of a lot more than the SS...Secret Service that is.

    I'm figuring the election will be rigged.

    @marcopolo2150 @Mugsy7777 one drone..........

    what a pathetic country America has become.

    [Aug 29, 2016] The Perfect GOP Nominee

    What is amazing is that such column was published is such a sycophantic for Hillary and openly anti-Trump rag as NYT. In foreign policy Hillary is the second incarnation of Cheney... Neocons rules NYT coverage of Presidential race and, of course, they all favor Hillary. Of course chances that some on neocons who so enthusiastically support her, crossing Party lines are drafted, get M16 and send to kill brown people for Wall Street interests now is close to zero. Everything is outsourced now. But still, it is simply amazing that even a lonely voice against neocon campaign of demonization of Trump got published in NYT ...
    MSM shilling for Hillary is simply overwhelming, so why this was in NYT is a mystery to me. But this article of Maureen Dowd in on spot. Simply amazing how she manage to publish it !!!
    Notable quotes:
    "... Hillary will keep the establishment safe. Who is more of an establishment figure, after all? Her husband was president, and he repealed Glass-Steagall, signed the Defense of Marriage Act and got rid of those pesky welfare queens. ..."
    "... Hillary often seems more Republican than the Gotham bling king, who used to be a Democrat and donor to Democratic candidates before he jumped the turnstile. ..."
    "... Hillary is a reliable creature of Wall Street. Her tax return showed the Clintons made $10.6 million last year, and like other superrich families, they incorporated with the Clinton Executive Services Corporation (which was billed for the infamous server). Trump has started holding up goofy charts at rallies showing Hillary has gotten $48,500,000 in contributions from hedge funders, compared to his $19,000. ..."
    "... Unlike Trump, she hasn't been trashing leading Republicans. You know that her pals John McCain and Lindsey Graham are secretly rooting for her. There is a cascade of prominent Republicans endorsing Hillary, donating to Hillary, appearing in Hillary ads, talking up Hillary's charms. ..."
    "... Robert Kagan, a former Reagan State Department aide, adviser to the McCain and Mitt Romney campaigns and Iraq war booster, headlined a Hillary fund-raiser this summer. Another neocon, James Kirchick, keened in The Daily Beast , "Hillary Clinton is the one person standing between America and the abyss." ..."
    "... The Democratic nominee put out an ad featuring Trump-bashing Michael Hayden, an N.S.A. and CIA chief under W. who was deemed "incongruent" by the Senate when he testified about torture methods. And she earned an endorsement from John Negroponte, a Reagan hand linked to American-trained death squads in Latin America. ..."
    "... Politico reports that the Clinton team sent out feelers to see if Kissinger, the Voldemort of Vietnam, and Condi Rice, the conjurer of Saddam's apocalyptic mushroom cloud, would back Hillary. ..."
    "... The Hillary team seems giddy over its windfall of Republicans and neocons running from the Trump sharknado. But as David Weigel wrote in The Washington Post, the specter of Kissinger, the man who advised Nixon to prolong the Vietnam War to help with his re-election, fed a perception that "the Democratic nominee has returned to her old, hawkish ways and is again taking progressives for granted." ..."
    "... Hillary is a safer bet in many ways for conservatives. Trump likes to say he is flexible. What if he returns to his liberal New York positions on gun control and abortion rights? ..."
    "... Trump is far too incendiary in his manner of speaking, throwing around dangerous and self-destructive taunts about "Second Amendment people" taking out Hillary, or President Obama and Hillary being the founders of ISIS ..."
    "... Hillary, on the other hand, understands her way around political language and Washington rituals. Of course you do favors for wealthy donors. And if you want to do something incredibly damaging to the country, like enabling George W. Bush to make the worst foreign policy blunder in U.S. history, don't shout inflammatory and fabricated taunts from a microphone. ..."
    "... You must walk up to the microphone calmly, as Hillary did on the Senate floor the day of the Iraq war vote, and accuse Saddam of giving "aid, comfort and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda," repeating the Bush administration's phony case for war. If you want to carry the GOP banner, your fabrications have to be more sneaky. ..."
    "... "You must walk up to the microphone calmly, as Hillary did on the Senate floor the day of the Iraq war vote, and accuse Saddam of giving "aid, comfort and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda," repeating the Bush administration's phony case for war." ..."
    "... Anyone who believes Bill Clinton didn't know exactly what was going on is just kidding themselves. One clue, for example. They moved the WMD 'intelligence" investigation to the DOD under Paul Wolfowitz. LOL! ..."
    "... Thomas Frank, the author of "What's the Matter with Kansas?" and "Listen Liberal: Or What Ever Happened to the Party of the People?" echoes Ms. Dowd's sentiments. In a recent column Frank says that with Trump certain to lose, you can forget about a progressive Clinton. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/aug/13/trump-clinton-elec... ..."
    "... "America's two-party system itself has temporarily become a one-party system. And within that one party, the political process bears a striking resemblance to dynastic succession. Come November, Clinton will have won her great victory – not as a champion of working people's concerns, but as the greatest moderate of them all." ..."
    "... We've also managed to select one of biggest dissemblers, enablers, war hawks, fungible flip-floppers, pay for play con artists, scandal mongerers candidates since Tricky Dicky. Congratulations America! We did it. As Alexis de Tocqueville said, "Wet get the government we deserve." ..."
    "... The reaction by many to Ms Dowd's column clearly shows that the "save the world" "lesser evil" argument only works is one is willing to suspend belief on the demonstrated evil of Hillary Clinton. ..."
    "... Clinton could well take us to war against Russia. In Syria, Clinton is spoiling to give Russia a punch in the nose, on the theory that Russia will back down and the US will have a free hand there. She advocates a a no-fly zone for Russian jets in Syria. The idea there is to create a confrontation, shoot down a couple of Russian jets and teach them a lesson. There is also the CIA and Pentagon "Plan B" for the Syrian negotiations. ..."
    "... It's always wonderful to see when the truth comes out in the end: Hillary is the perfect Repulican candidate and this is also prove of the fact that on finance and economic issues Democrats and old mainstream Republicans have been in in the same pocket...even under Obama. ..."
    "... One night after the election on the Carson show Goldwater quipped that he didn't know how unpopular a president he would have been until Johnson adopted his policies... ..."
    "... All the things you say about Hillary are true. She is an establishment favorite. She did indeed vote to support Bush and his insane desire to invade Iraq. ..."
    "... Did we all forget the millions who went for Bernie and his direct and aggressive confrontation of Hillary's Wall Street/corporate ties? That was a contest between what used to be the Dem party of the people and the corporate friendly Dem party of today. We understood then that Hillary represented the Right; why the surprise now? (The right pointing arrow on the "H" logo is so appropriate.) ..."
    "... There are reasons Hillary is disliked and distrusted by nearly a majority of us. My reasons are she is of and for the oligarchs and deceitful enough to run as a populist. ..."
    "... America tried to liberalize in the 1960's and the response was swift and violent as three of the greatest liberal lions and voices the country has ever known - JFK, MLK and RFK - were gunned down. ..."
    "... While one can endlessly argue the specific details of those ghastly assassinations of America's liberal superstars, in my view, all three of those murders rest on the violent, nefarious right-wing shoulders and fumes of moneyed American 'conservatism' that couldn't stand to share the profits of their economic parasitism with society. ..."
    "... I truly believe that Congressional Republicans in the House are already drafting articles of impeachment should Hillary become President. Dowd may claim that Republicans are in lock step with her, but don't be surprised when the talk of impeachment starts soon after Jan 20, 2017. ..."
    "... We need a multi party system. With 2 parties dominating the politics, its like having a monopoly of liberalism or conservatism which just does not represent the width and depth of views our citizens resonate with. Having voted democrat all my life, to me Hillary does not represent my choice (Bernie does). ..."
    "... This annoys me..."like enabling George W. Bush to make the worst foreign policy blunder in U.S. history" Maureen is talking about Hillary, but she might as well be talking about her own newspaper. Hillary got it wrong, but so did the New York Times editorial board. ..."
    "... The Bush Administration hinted that the anti-war people were traitors and terrorist sympathizers and everybody got steamrolled. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/22/opinion/culture-war-with-b-2-s.html ..."
    "... HRC couldn't have asked for a better opponent if she'd constructed him out of a six-foot pile of mildewed straw. By running against Trump, the whole Trump and nothing but the Trump, and openly courting neocon war criminals and "establishment" Republicans, she's outrageously giving CPR to what should have been a rotting corpse of a political party by now. ..."
    "... By giving new life to the pathocrats who made Trump possible, Clinton is only making her own party weaker and more right-wing, only making it easier for down-ticket Republicans to slither their way back into power.... the better to triangulate with during the Clinton restoration. Grand Bargain, here we come. TPP, (just waiting for that fig leaf of meager aid for displaced American workers) here we come. Bombs away. ..."
    "... She'll have to stop hoarding her campaign cash and share it with the down-ticket Democrats running against the same well-heeled GOPers she is now courting with such naked abandon. ..."
    "... The Empress needs some new clothes to hide that inner Goldwater Girl. ..."
    Aug 13, 2016 | The New York Times

    All these woebegone Republicans whining that they can't rally behind their flawed candidate is crazy. The G.O.P. angst, the gnashing and wailing and searching for last-minute substitutes and exit strategies, is getting old. They already have a 1-percenter who will be totally fine in the Oval Office, someone they can trust to help Wall Street, boost the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, cuddle with hedge funds, secure the trade deals beloved by corporate America, seek guidance from Henry Kissinger and hawk it up - unleashing hell on Syria and heaven knows where else.

    The Republicans have their candidate: It's Hillary. They can't go with Donald Trump. He's too volatile and unhinged. The erstwhile Goldwater Girl and Goldman Sachs busker can be counted on to do the normal political things, not the abnormal haywire things. Trump's propounding could drag us into war, plunge us into a recession and shatter Washington into a thousand tiny bits.

    Hillary will keep the establishment safe. Who is more of an establishment figure, after all? Her husband was president, and he repealed Glass-Steagall, signed the Defense of Marriage Act and got rid of those pesky welfare queens.

    Pushing her Midwestern Methodist roots, taking advantage of primogeniture, Hillary often seems more Republican than the Gotham bling king, who used to be a Democrat and donor to Democratic candidates before he jumped the turnstile.

    Hillary is a reliable creature of Wall Street. Her tax return showed the Clintons made $10.6 million last year, and like other superrich families, they incorporated with the Clinton Executive Services Corporation (which was billed for the infamous server). Trump has started holding up goofy charts at rallies showing Hillary has gotten $48,500,000 in contributions from hedge funders, compared to his $19,000.

    Unlike Trump, she hasn't been trashing leading Republicans. You know that her pals John McCain and Lindsey Graham are secretly rooting for her. There is a cascade of prominent Republicans endorsing Hillary, donating to Hillary, appearing in Hillary ads, talking up Hillary's charms.

    Robert Kagan, a former Reagan State Department aide, adviser to the McCain and Mitt Romney campaigns and Iraq war booster, headlined a Hillary fund-raiser this summer. Another neocon, James Kirchick, keened in The Daily Beast , "Hillary Clinton is the one person standing between America and the abyss."

    She has finally stirred up some emotion in women, even if it is just moderate suburban Republican women palpitating to leave their own nominee, who has the retro air of a guy who just left the dim recesses of a Playboy bunny club.

    The Democratic nominee put out an ad featuring Trump-bashing Michael Hayden, an N.S.A. and CIA chief under W. who was deemed "incongruent" by the Senate when he testified about torture methods. And she earned an endorsement from John Negroponte, a Reagan hand linked to American-trained death squads in Latin America.

    Politico reports that the Clinton team sent out feelers to see if Kissinger, the Voldemort of Vietnam, and Condi Rice, the conjurer of Saddam's apocalyptic mushroom cloud, would back Hillary.

    Hillary has written that Kissinger is an "idealistic" friend whose counsel she valued as secretary of state, drawing a rebuke from Bernie Sanders during the primaries: "I'm proud to say Henry Kissinger is not my friend."

    The Hillary team seems giddy over its windfall of Republicans and neocons running from the Trump sharknado. But as David Weigel wrote in The Washington Post, the specter of Kissinger, the man who advised Nixon to prolong the Vietnam War to help with his re-election, fed a perception that "the Democratic nominee has returned to her old, hawkish ways and is again taking progressives for granted."

    And Isaac Chotiner wrote in Slate, "The prospect of Kissinger having influence in a Clinton White House is downright scary."

    Hillary is a safer bet in many ways for conservatives. Trump likes to say he is flexible. What if he returns to his liberal New York positions on gun control and abortion rights?

    Trump is far too incendiary in his manner of speaking, throwing around dangerous and self-destructive taunts about "Second Amendment people" taking out Hillary, or President Obama and Hillary being the founders of ISIS. And he still blindly follows his ego, failing to understand the fundamentals of a campaign. "I don't know that we need to get out the vote," he told Fox News Thursday. "I think people that really wanna vote are gonna get out and they're gonna vote for Trump."

    Hillary, on the other hand, understands her way around political language and Washington rituals. Of course you do favors for wealthy donors. And if you want to do something incredibly damaging to the country, like enabling George W. Bush to make the worst foreign policy blunder in U.S. history, don't shout inflammatory and fabricated taunts from a microphone.

    You must walk up to the microphone calmly, as Hillary did on the Senate floor the day of the Iraq war vote, and accuse Saddam of giving "aid, comfort and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda," repeating the Bush administration's phony case for war. If you want to carry the GOP banner, your fabrications have to be more sneaky.

    As Republican strategist Steve Schmidt noted on MSNBC, "the candidate in the race most like George W. Bush and Dick Cheney from a foreign policy perspective is in fact Hillary Clinton, not the Republican nominee."

    And that's how Republicans prefer their crazy - not like Trump, but like Cheney.

    JohnNJ, New jersey August 14, 2016

    For me, this is her strongest point:

    "You must walk up to the microphone calmly, as Hillary did on the Senate floor the day of the Iraq war vote, and accuse Saddam of giving "aid, comfort and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda," repeating the Bush administration's phony case for war."

    There are still people who believe her excuse that she only voted for authorization, blah, blah, blah.

    Anyone who believes Bill Clinton didn't know exactly what was going on is just kidding themselves. One clue, for example. They moved the WMD 'intelligence" investigation to the DOD under Paul Wolfowitz. LOL!

    Red_Dog , Denver CO August 14, 2016

    Thomas Frank, the author of "What's the Matter with Kansas?" and "Listen Liberal: Or What Ever Happened to the Party of the People?" echoes Ms. Dowd's sentiments. In a recent column Frank says that with Trump certain to lose, you can forget about a progressive Clinton. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/aug/13/trump-clinton-elec...

    "America's two-party system itself has temporarily become a one-party system. And within that one party, the political process bears a striking resemblance to dynastic succession. Come November, Clinton will have won her great victory – not as a champion of working people's concerns, but as the greatest moderate of them all."

    And great populist uprising of our times will be gone --- probably for many years.

    FDR Liberal , Sparks, NV August 14, 2016

    Spot on column Ms. Dowd.

    As Americans we are to blame that these two major party candidates are the only viable ones seeking the presidency. Yes, fellow citizens we are to blame because in the end we are the ones that voted for them in various primaries and caucuses. And if you didn't attend a caucus or vote in a primary, you are also part of problem.

    In short, it is not the media's fault, nor is it the top .1%, 1% or 10% fault, nor your kids' fault, nor your parents' fault, nor your neighbors' fault, etc.

    It is our fault because we did this together. Yes, we managed y to select a narcissist, xenophobe, anti-Muslim, racist, misogynist, and dare I say buffoon to the GOP ticket.

    We've also managed to select one of biggest dissemblers, enablers, war hawks, fungible flip-floppers, pay for play con artists, scandal mongerers candidates since Tricky Dicky. Congratulations America! We did it. As Alexis de Tocqueville said, "Wet get the government we deserve."

    Martin Brod, NYC August 14, 2016

    The reaction by many to Ms Dowd's column clearly shows that the "save the world" "lesser evil" argument only works is one is willing to suspend belief on the demonstrated evil of Hillary Clinton.

    The Green Party and Libertarian parties provide sane alternatives to the two most distrusted candidates of the major parties. As debate participants they
    would offer an alternative to evil at a time when the planets count-down clock is racing to mid-night.

    pathenry, berkeley August 14, 2016

    Clinton could well take us to war against Russia. In Syria, Clinton is spoiling to give Russia a punch in the nose, on the theory that Russia will back down and the US will have a free hand there. She advocates a a no-fly zone for Russian jets in Syria. The idea there is to create a confrontation, shoot down a couple of Russian jets and teach them a lesson. There is also the CIA and Pentagon "Plan B" for the Syrian negotiations.

    If the negotiations fail, give stingers to our "vetted allies". Who will those stingers be used against? Russia. At least the ones not smuggled to Brussels. And then there is the plan being bandied about by our best and brightest to organize, arm and lead our "vetted allies" in attacks on Russian bases in Syria. A Bay of Pigs in the desert. A dime to a dollar, Clinton is supportive of these plans.

    All of this is dangerous brinksmanship which is how you go to war.

    Mike A. , East Providence, RI August 14, 2016

    The second Pulitzer quality piece from the NYT op-ed columnists in less than a month (see Charles Blow's "Incandescent With Rage" for the first).

    heinrich zwahlen , brooklyn August 14, 2016

    It's always wonderful to see when the truth comes out in the end: Hillary is the perfect Repulican candidate and this is also prove of the fact that on finance and economic issues Democrats and old mainstream Republicans have been in in the same pocket...even under Obama.

    For real progressives it's useless to vote for her and high time to start a new party. Cultural issues are not the main issues that pain America, it's all about the money stupid.

    JohnD, New York August 14, 2016

    ... One night after the election on the Carson show Goldwater quipped that he didn't know how unpopular a president he would have been until Johnson adopted his policies...

    Lee Elliott , Rochester August 14, 2016

    You've written the most depressing column I've read lately. All the things you say about Hillary are true. She is an establishment favorite. She did indeed vote to support Bush and his insane desire to invade Iraq. But it was that vote kept her from being president in 2008. Perhaps that will convince her to keep the establishment a little more at arm's length. When there is no other behind for them to kiss, then you can afford to be a little hard to get.

    As for Trump, he is proving to be too much like Ross Perot. He looks great at first but begins to fade when his underlying lunacy begins to bubble to the surface.
    Speaking of Perot, I find it an interesting coincidence that Bill Clinton and now Hillary Clinton will depend on the ravings of an apparent lunatic in order to get elected.

    citizen vox, San Francisco August 14, 2016

    Why the vitriol against Dowd? Did we all forget the millions who went for Bernie and his direct and aggressive confrontation of Hillary's Wall Street/corporate ties? That was a contest between what used to be the Dem party of the people and the corporate friendly Dem party of today. We understood then that Hillary represented the Right; why the surprise now? (The right pointing arrow on the "H" logo is so appropriate.)

    Last week's article on how Hillary came to love money was horrifying; because Bill lost a Governor's race, Hillary felt so insecure she called all her wealthy friends for donations. Huh?! Two Harvard trained lawyers asking for financial help?! And never getting enough money to feel secure?! GIVE ME A BREAK (to coin a phrase).

    There are reasons Hillary is disliked and distrusted by nearly a majority of us. My reasons are she is of and for the oligarchs and deceitful enough to run as a populist.

    If readers bemoan anything, let it be that the populist movement of the Dem party was put down by the Dem establishment. We have a choice between a crazy candidate of no particular persuasion and a cold, calculating Republican. How discouraging.

    Thanks, Maureen Dowd.

    Chris, Louisville August 14, 2016

    Maureen please don't ever give up on Hillary bashing. It needs to be done before someone accidentally elects her as President. She is most like Angela Merkel of Germany. Take a look what's happening there. That is enough never to vote for Hillary.

    Susan e, AZ August 14, 2016

    I recall the outrage I, a peace loving liberal who despised W and Cheney, felt while watching the made for TV "shock and awe" invasion of Iraq. I recall how the"liberal Democrats" who supported that disaster with a vote for the IRW could never quite bring themselves to admit their mistake - and I realized that many, like Hillary, didn't feel it was a mistake. Not really. It was necessary for their political careers.

    For me, its not a vote for Hillary, its a vote for a candidate that sees killing innocent people in Syria (or Libya, or Gaza, etc.) as the only way to be viewed as a serious candidate for CIC. I'm old enough to remember another endless war, as the old Vietnam anti-war ballad went: "I ain't gonna vote for war no more."

    John, Switzerland August 14, 2016

    Maureen Dowd is not being nasty, but rather accurate. It is nasty to support and start wars throughout the ME. It is nasty to say (on mic) "We came, we saw, he died" referring to the gruesome torture-murder of Qaddafi.

    Will Hillary start a war against Syria? Yes or no? That is the the "six trillion dollar" question.

    Socrates , is a trusted commenter Downtown Verona, NJ August 13, 2016

    It's hard to a find a good liberal in these United States, not because there's anything wrong with liberalism or progressivism, but because Americans have been taught, hypnotized and beaten by a powerfully insidious and filthy rich right-wing to think that liberalism, progressivism and socialism is a form of fatal cancer.

    America tried to liberalize in the 1960's and the response was swift and violent as three of the greatest liberal lions and voices the country has ever known - JFK, MLK and RFK - were gunned down.

    While one can endlessly argue the specific details of those ghastly assassinations of America's liberal superstars, in my view, all three of those murders rest on the violent, nefarious right-wing shoulders and fumes of moneyed American 'conservatism' that couldn't stand to share the profits of their economic parasitism with society.

    The end result is that political liberals are forced to triangulate for their survival in right-wing America, and you wind up with Presidents like Bill Clinton and (soon) Hillary Clinton who know how to survive in a pool of right-wing knives, assassins and psychopaths lurking everywhere representing Grand Old Profit.

    ... ... ...

    Dotconnector, New York August 14, 2016

    The trickery deep within the dark art of Clintonism is triangulation. By breeding a nominal Democratic donkey with a de facto Republican elephant, what you get is a corporatist chameleon. There's precious little solace in knowing that this cynical political hybrid is only slightly less risky than Trumpenstein.

    And the fact that Henry Kissinger still has a seat at the table ought to chill the spine of anyone who considers human lives -- those of U.S. service members and foreign noncombatants alike -- to have greater value than pawns in a global chess game.

    Bj, is a trusted commenter Washington,dc August 13, 2016

    I truly believe that Congressional Republicans in the House are already drafting articles of impeachment should Hillary become President. Dowd may claim that Republicans are in lock step with her, but don't be surprised when the talk of impeachment starts soon after Jan 20, 2017. They didn't succeed with Bill. And they were chomping at the bit to try to impeach Obama over his use of executive orders and his decision not to defend an early same sex marriage case. They are just waiting for inauguration to start this process all over again - another circus and waste of taxpayer money.

    petey tonei, Massachusetts August 14, 2016

    Two party system is not enough for a country this big, with such a wide spectrum of political beliefs. We need a multi party system. With 2 parties dominating the politics, its like having a monopoly of liberalism or conservatism which just does not represent the width and depth of views our citizens resonate with. Having voted democrat all my life, to me Hillary does not represent my choice (Bernie does). Heard on NPR just today from on the ground reporters in Terre Haute, Indiana, the bellwether of presidential elections, the 2 names that were most heard were Trump and Bernie Sanders, not Hillary. Sadly, Bernie is not even the nominee but he truly represents the guts, soul of mid America

    Schrodinger, is a trusted commenter Northern California August 14, 2016

    This annoys me..."like enabling George W. Bush to make the worst foreign policy blunder in U.S. history" Maureen is talking about Hillary, but she might as well be talking about her own newspaper. Hillary got it wrong, but so did the New York Times editorial board.

    What about Ms Dowd herself? Of the four columns she wrote before the vote on October 11th, 2002, only two mentioned the war vote, and one of those was mostly about Hillary. Dowd said of Hillary that, "Whatever doubts she may have privately about the war, she is not articulating her angst as loudly as some of her Democratic colleagues. She knows that any woman who hopes to be elected president cannot have love beads in her jewelry case."

    In her column 'Culture war with B-2's', Dowd comes out as mildly anti-war. "Don't feel bad if you have the uneasy feeling that you're being steamrolled", Dowd writes, "You are not alone." Fourteen years later that column still looks good, and I link to it at the bottom. However, Dowd could and should have done a lot more. I don't think that anybody who draws a paycheck from the New York Times has a right to get on their high horse and lecture Hillary about her vote. They ignored the antiwar protests just like they ignored Bernie Sanders' large crowds.

    The Bush Administration hinted that the anti-war people were traitors and terrorist sympathizers and everybody got steamrolled. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/22/opinion/culture-war-with-b-2-s.html

    Karen Garcia , is a trusted commenter New Paltz, NY August 13, 2016

    HRC couldn't have asked for a better opponent if she'd constructed him out of a six-foot pile of mildewed straw. By running against Trump, the whole Trump and nothing but the Trump, and openly courting neocon war criminals and "establishment" Republicans, she's outrageously giving CPR to what should have been a rotting corpse of a political party by now.

    By giving new life to the pathocrats who made Trump possible, Clinton is only making her own party weaker and more right-wing, only making it easier for down-ticket Republicans to slither their way back into power.... the better to triangulate with during the Clinton restoration. Grand Bargain, here we come. TPP, (just waiting for that fig leaf of meager aid for displaced American workers) here we come. Bombs away.

    With three months to go before this grotesque circus ends, Trump is giving every indication that he wants out, getting more reckless by the day. And that's a good thing, because with her rise in the polls, Hillary will now have to do more on the stump than inform us she is not Trump. She'll have to ditch the fear factor. She'll have to start sending emails and Tweets with something other than "OMG! Did you hear what Trump just said?!?" on them to convince voters.

    She'll have to stop hoarding her campaign cash and share it with the down-ticket Democrats running against the same well-heeled GOPers she is now courting with such naked abandon.

    The Empress needs some new clothes to hide that inner Goldwater Girl.

    [Aug 29, 2016] Whats a Neoconservative

    Notable quotes:
    "... The "neocons" believe American greatness is measured by our willingness to be a great power-through vast and virtually unlimited global military involvement. Other nations' problems invariably become our own because history and fate have designated America the world's top authority. ..."
    "... neoconservatism has always been sold through the narrative of America's "greatness" or "exceptionalism." This is essentially the Republican Party's version of the old liberal notion promoted by President Woodrow Wilson that it is America's mission to "make the world safe for democracy." (meaning for international corporations). Douthat describes Rubio as the "great neoconservative hope" because the freshman senator is seen by the neocon intelligentsia as one of the few reliable Tea Party-oriented spokesman willing to still promote this ideology to the GOP base. I say "still" because many Republicans have begun to question the old neocon foreign policy consensus that dominated Bush's GOP. Douthat puts the neoconservatives' worries and the Republicans' shift into context... ..."
    "... Almost to a man they have done everything possible to avoid serving in the military as have their children. ..."
    "... The problem with the neoconservatives isn't that they flog American exceptionalism, it's that they aren't really Americans. ..."
    "... Your piece leaves out three important threads in understanding neoconservatives. First, the movement was started by and is largely populated by Jews. The so-called "father of the neoconservative movement" was Irving Kristol, the father of William Kristol, the editor of The Weekly Standard. Another prominent founder was Norman Podhoretz, who succeeded the elder Kristol as editor of Commentary. Many of the most prominent neoconservatives are Jewish: Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, John Bolton, etc., etc. ..."
    "... " For the neoconservatives, religion is an instrument of promoting morality. Religion becomes what Plato called a noble lie. It is a myth which is told to the majority of the society by the philosophical elite in order to ensure social order… In being a kind of secretive elitist approach, Straussianism does resemble Marxism. These ex-Marxists, or in some cases ex-liberal Straussians, could see themselves as a kind of Leninist group, you know, who have this covert vision which they want to use to effect change in history, while concealing parts of it from people incapable of understanding it." ..."
    "... Neoconservatives started out as Scoop Jackson Democratic Hawks. The several that I know well enough to know their non-war views are pretty much conventional Democrats in that they are pro-abortion, pro-gay, pro-immigration, pro-big government. ..."
    "... Their shift to the Republicans was tactical when they, led by Richard Perle, got their foot in the door of the Pentagon under Reagan. Under Bush 2, they completed the process and more-or-less took over the DoD. ..."
    "... Neocons are mostly Zionist who put Israel interest above that of their country the USA. The majority are chicken hawks who never served a day in the military and have no problem sending other people kids to fight their wars. ..."
    "... What's a neoconservative? An unrepentant Trotskyite, who recognized that Marxism wasn't the viable way to take over the world and so now proudly (and openly) pledges allegiance to America but always keeps Israel first in his heart. ..."
    "... Exceptional is something I would hope other countries would say about us without having to remind them or ourselves. It's a form of group narcissism to keep bringing it up to convince ourselves our actions are just. ..."
    "... What a fascinating article. The last paragraph was particularly smack on. When I spoke to a conservative friend recently, I was inflamed about our hyper-sized military and our overseas adventures as an example of very big government. ..."
    "... The only thing I said in response was that he should take his 18 year old son by the arm and require him to sign up for the military to fight the battles he thinks we should be fighting. His response: "but he would rather go to college". I then reminded him that no American soldier has died for my freedom in my lifetime (I am 49 years old). That seemed to rankle him because the neocon argument concerning national defense requires that you buy into the propaganda that these soldiers are fighting for our freedom as a nation. ..."
    "... Wish neoconservatism was a philosophy, but its not, only a bait-and-switch sales pitch for the military industrial complex. Since Scoop Jackson, the senator from Boeing, America's political-police-the-world crowd has been the complex's marketing firm. ..."
    "... All work to keep the US government spending billions of dollars on mostly irrelevant military items. None seriously care about national defense: that's why no heads rolled when our billion-dollar air defense was helpless to protect the Pentagon against a small group of Muslem fanatics with box cutters. ..."
    "... Re "American exceptionalism:" I am sixty-seven years old. When I was a child, my Dad (A Mustang officer), told me that the United States was exceptional for reason that the privileges of aristocracy in Europe were the ordinary civil rights of common equals here. ..."
    "... They stand ready to compromise or to countenance disagreement on almost any strictly parochial American social or economic concern, so long as their foreign policy and other "high political" objectives are met. ..."
    "... I had forgotten that I saved a copy of a book review by David Gordon that appeared in TAC this past October, entitled "Neoconservatism Defined." Actually, it is a combined review of two books, and it is a pretty good introduction to neoconservatism. http://www.amconmag.com/blog/anatomy-of-neoconservatism/ ..."
    "... "Most, though certainly not all, of the leading neocons are Jewish and the defense of Israel is central to their political concerns." ..."
    "... The neocons of the second age did not quit the Democratic Party until, after prolonged struggle, they had failed to take it over. They then discovered in the rising popularity of Ronald Reagan a new strategy to advance their goals; but even when Reagan and his aides received them warmly, many found it distinctly against the grain to vote for a Republican. Once they had overcome this aversion, the neocons proved able markedly to expand their political power and influence. Nevertheless, some neocons found Reagan insufficiently militant. For Norman Podhoretz, a literary critic who imagined himself a foreign policy expert, Reagan became an appeaser reminiscent of Neville Chamberlain. "In 1984-85, however, Podhoretz finally lost hope in his champion; he … lamented the president's desire to do whatever it took to present himself to Europeans and above all to American voters as a 'man of peace,' ready to negotiate with the Soviets." ..."
    "... The "national greatness" neocons of our day continue the pattern of their second age predecessors in their constant warnings of peril and calls for a militant response. They do not apply the law of unintended consequences to foreign policy: skepticism about the efficacy of government action ends at the doors to the Pentagon." ..."
    "... If military hostilities were actually going on in Libya, it certainly would be easy to distinguish between the offensive opponent (all the foreign countries operating under the NATO umbrella and firing all the missiles into Libya and dropping all the bombs on Libyan forces loyal to Qaddafi) and the defensive opponent (the Libyan forces loyal to Qaddafi, the nominal leader of Libya). ..."
    "... What troubles me is that "Neoconservatism" has become mainstream Republicanism. In fact Ronald Reagan was perhaps the first Neocon president. And it looks as if the Tea Party has been hijacked by Palin, Bachmann and Rubio et al . Trying to change the Republican party from within simply will not work -- for Neocons don't just control the Republican party, they ARE the Republican party. We need a third party that overtly champions fiscal and social conservatism and international isolationism as its three main pillars! ..."
    "... Gil, the GOP leadership may be neocon, but the grassroots are more or less non-interventionist. We see the same split on immigration. I think its too early to give up on the party. ..."
    "... In 2011, a neoconservative is the person who always answers yes to the question "Are Israel's objectives always more important than the objectives of the USA?" ..."
    "... They all believe in projecting US military might in order to foster democracy overseas. They ultimately seem to care more about the welfare of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Iraq and, Afghanistan than the United States. ..."
    "... What bothers me is what we consider "mainstream" conservatism today in the form of talk radio, Rush, and others is basically a neconservative movement. ..."
    "... It never ceases to amazes me why any true conservative would go any where near a member of the Bush administration and yet Sean has Rove and others on his show routinely when a case can be made that they should stand trial for being responsible for the abuse of those detainees. I have been student of the Holocaust my entire life and to see some of the circumstances of pre war Germany unfold in front of me, the "we have to take these steps in the name of defending the country" the dehumanizing of the muslims which made it easy to justify torturing them, it is all so very scary. ..."
    www.theamericanconservative.com

    This is a jingoistic political ideology of the Us elite preached by Killary and characterized by an emphasis on free-market capitalism and an interventionist foreign policy.

    The "neocons" believe American greatness is measured by our willingness to be a great power-through vast and virtually unlimited global military involvement. Other nations' problems invariably become our own because history and fate have designated America the world's top authority.

    Critics say the US cannot afford to be the world's policeman. Neoconservatives not only say that we can but we must-and that we will cease to be America if we don't. Writes Boston Globe neoconservative columnist Jeff Jacoby: "Our world needs a policeman. And whether most Americans like it or not, only their indispensable nation is fit for the job." Neocon intellectual Max Boot says explicitly that the US should be the world's policeman because we are the best policeman.

    Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) heartily champions the neoconservative view.

    ...neoconservatism has always been sold through the narrative of America's "greatness" or "exceptionalism." This is essentially the Republican Party's version of the old liberal notion promoted by President Woodrow Wilson that it is America's mission to "make the world safe for democracy." (meaning for international corporations). Douthat describes Rubio as the "great neoconservative hope" because the freshman senator is seen by the neocon intelligentsia as one of the few reliable Tea Party-oriented spokesman willing to still promote this ideology to the GOP base. I say "still" because many Republicans have begun to question the old neocon foreign policy consensus that dominated Bush's GOP. Douthat puts the neoconservatives' worries and the Republicans' shift into context...

    ...But this has always been the neocon ruse-if neoconservatives can convince others that fighting some war, somewhere is for America's actual defense, they will always make this argument and stretch any logic necessary to do so. Whether or not it is true is less important than its effectiveness. But their arguments are only a means to an end. Neoconservatives rarely show any reflection-much less regret-for foreign policy mistakes because for them there are no foreign policy mistakes. America's wars are valid by their own volition. America's "mission" is its missions. Writes Max Boot: "Why should America take on the thankless task of policing the globe… As long as evil exists, someone will have to protect peaceful people from predators."

    bc3b , June 23, 2011 at 8:51 am
    Easy Jack.

    Neoconservatives are primarily socially liberal hawks. Almost to a man they have done everything possible to avoid serving in the military as have their children. Next to liberals they are the greatest danger to our country.

    squib , June 23, 2011 at 10:09 am
    Re "American exceptionalism". I thought America was exceptional until it started acting like any old cynical, corrupt, doomed empire. It's silly to go about boasting of your exceptionalism even as you repeat every hackneyed error of your predecessors, and trade your true character for a handful of dust.

    The problem with the neoconservatives isn't that they flog American exceptionalism, it's that they aren't really Americans.

    Steve , June 23, 2011 at 11:10 am
    Oh, come on guys.

    In 2011, a neoconservative is the person who always answers yes to the question "Are Israel's objectives always more important than the objectives of the USA?"

    Folks will say this is unfair and a gross distortion of reality, if not in fact a bigoted assertion, but can you name any current neoconservative who is oppossed to US support for Israel? Or even just wants tosee it reduced a bit. I suspect not.

    On domestic issues, there's a greater range of variation across the neocon spectrum, but, unlike the case back in the middle 70s when we first began to hear of this troubling new breed of political apostates in the making, it's clear that foreign policy is of much greater importance to the neocons than is domestic policy.

    By the middle eastern sympathiesyou shall know them.

    tbraton , June 23, 2011 at 11:13 am
    "My father suggested to me recently that it might be helpful to better explain what the term "neoconservative" means. "A lot of people don't know," he said. As usual, Dad was right."

    One of those people who didn't know what a "neoconservative" was is our former President, George W. Bush. I remember reading somewhere that, when he was running for President in the late 90's, George W. asked his father what a neoconservative was, and George H. W. replied that he had only to remember one word to understand what a neoconservative was: Israel.

    Your piece leaves out three important threads in understanding neoconservatives. First, the movement was started by and is largely populated by Jews. The so-called "father of the neoconservative movement" was Irving Kristol, the father of William Kristol, the editor of The Weekly Standard. Another prominent founder was Norman Podhoretz, who succeeded the elder Kristol as editor of Commentary. Many of the most prominent neoconservatives are Jewish: Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, John Bolton, etc., etc.

    Secondly, the roots of neoconservatism traces back to very liberal political leanings, bordering on socialism and even communism. The elder Kristol was a Trotskyite into his 20's. That would explain their tendency to favor a strong central government, which, of course, allows them to exert their influence more effectively despite their small numbers. It is also consistent with the views of Leo Strauss, one of the great intellectual shapers of neoconservatism. According to an account by a former neoconservative:

    " For the neoconservatives, religion is an instrument of promoting morality. Religion becomes what Plato called a noble lie. It is a myth which is told to the majority of the society by the philosophical elite in order to ensure social order… In being a kind of secretive elitist approach, Straussianism does resemble Marxism. These ex-Marxists, or in some cases ex-liberal Straussians, could see themselves as a kind of Leninist group, you know, who have this covert vision which they want to use to effect change in history, while concealing parts of it from people incapable of understanding it."

    Thirdly, as evidenced by the George H.W. Bush comment above, a strong underlying belief that seems to unite the neoconservatives is in the perceived need, above all, to make the world safe for Israel.

    Philip Giraldi, June 23, 2011 at 11:22 am
    Great piece Jack! Neoconservatives started out as Scoop Jackson Democratic Hawks. The several that I know well enough to know their non-war views are pretty much conventional Democrats in that they are pro-abortion, pro-gay, pro-immigration, pro-big government.

    Their shift to the Republicans was tactical when they, led by Richard Perle, got their foot in the door of the Pentagon under Reagan. Under Bush 2, they completed the process and more-or-less took over the DoD.

    I expect they are now triangulating frantically to determine if it in their best interests to remain nominally Republicans or to slowly drift back to their natural habitat in the Democratic Party.

    ED. K., June 23, 2011 at 12:28 pm
    Neocons are mostly Zionist who put Israel interest above that of their country the USA. The majority are chicken hawks who never served a day in the military and have no problem sending other people kids to fight their wars.
    eeyore , June 23, 2011 at 2:23 pm
    let us not forget the distinction of constitutional authority for past interventions and the "now in violation of the war powers act" Lybian effort. Those who call themselves conservatives, neo-con or otherwise would do well to refer to their pocket constitution they claim to follow and carry. Criticism of fellow party members who constitutionally oppose these interventions employ the same hate-mongering tactics of the left. Silence the opposition at any cost and never stop feeding the federal leviathan. Thanks to Church and Wilkow for the education.
    Jane Marple , June 23, 2011 at 3:10 pm
    What's a neoconservative? An unrepentant Trotskyite, who recognized that Marxism wasn't the viable way to take over the world and so now proudly (and openly) pledges allegiance to America but always keeps Israel first in his heart.
    Ben, Okla. City , June 23, 2011 at 4:30 pm
    Exceptional is something I would hope other countries would say about us without having to remind them or ourselves. It's a form of group narcissism to keep bringing it up to convince ourselves our actions are just.

    How about some American humility? More Gary Cooper and less Richard Simmons.

    Jack , June 23, 2011 at 5:34 pm
    What a fascinating article. The last paragraph was particularly smack on. When I spoke to a conservative friend recently, I was inflamed about our hyper-sized military and our overseas adventures as an example of very big government.

    The kind that he, as a conservative, should oppose. His retort, of course, was that national security is one of the constitutional purposes of our government. There it is. This friend really thinks that Iraq, Libya, our 1000's of bases all over the world, is what national defense is all about. With his argument, there is literally no limit to the size of the military or the scope of its mission. The neocons have defined it that way.

    The only thing I said in response was that he should take his 18 year old son by the arm and require him to sign up for the military to fight the battles he thinks we should be fighting. His response: "but he would rather go to college". I then reminded him that no American soldier has died for my freedom in my lifetime (I am 49 years old). That seemed to rankle him because the neocon argument concerning national defense requires that you buy into the propaganda that these soldiers are fighting for our freedom as a nation.

    DirtyHarriet , June 23, 2011 at 7:44 pm
    Patrick J. gave a great definition in his Whose War article:

    http://www.amconmag.com/article/2003/mar/24/00007/

    It's one of the best articles ever. TAC should re-run it from time to time, lest we all forget what it's all about.

    Buzz Baldrin , June 24, 2011 at 5:08 am
    Wish neoconservatism was a philosophy, but its not, only a bait-and-switch sales pitch for the military industrial complex. Since Scoop Jackson, the senator from Boeing, America's political-police-the-world crowd has been the complex's marketing firm.

    All work to keep the US government spending billions of dollars on mostly irrelevant military items. None seriously care about national defense: that's why no heads rolled when our billion-dollar air defense was helpless to protect the Pentagon against a small group of Muslem fanatics with box cutters.

    Worse, the military industrial complex will be entrenched until serious elected officials, in the tradition of Dwight Eisenhower, create a peacetime economy to replace our warfare state.

    Until then, too much money, too many jobs in America depend on the complex.

    Nel , June 24, 2011 at 5:10 am
    A Neocon is a con artist.
    Robert Pinkerton , June 24, 2011 at 5:17 am
    Re "American exceptionalism:" I am sixty-seven years old. When I was a child, my Dad (A Mustang officer), told me that the United States was exceptional for reason that the privileges of aristocracy in Europe were the ordinary civil rights of common equals here.

    If I believe in "national greatness," by that I mean a nation of great- soul people, the kind Aristotle calls megalopsychic .

    Nebulosis , June 24, 2011 at 5:49 am
    "On domestic issues, there's a greater range of variation across the neocon spectrum,"

    True, but then domestic issues cause a dull glaze to form over neoconservative eyes. They stand ready to compromise or to countenance disagreement on almost any strictly parochial American social or economic concern, so long as their foreign policy and other "high political" objectives are met.

    samwitwicky , June 24, 2011 at 6:23 am
    Revolutions are internal matters of a country … the revolution in Gypto was successful internally … people were not killed, cities were not bombed, war was not raged, outside countries didn't send their forces … whatever was done … it was within the country and by the people … without outside support … that's a revolution.

    Look at the massacre they are carrying out in Tibby … you call that a revolution man … you call that an operation for the people?

    Read more:

    http://godinthejungle.com/index.php/story-notes/390-saturday-june-18-2011.html

    Bill R. , June 24, 2011 at 11:44 am
    Strictly speaking, a neoconservative, is a member of the traditional FDR coalition (unions, minorities – including Catholics, Jews and African Americans, even Southern whites) who flipped to the Republican party and some element of conservative ideology back in the 1970s. As a former FDR Democrat, Ronald Reagan had elements of neoconservatism in his past.

    And social liberalism is far from neocon orthodoxy. People like Gertrude Himmelfarb and John Neuhaus were at the forefront of neoconservatism. Jeane Kirpatrick, by no means a wobbly or wimpy neoconservative, had roots in socialist activism together with Irving Kristol and the like. Indeed, losing its conservative moral sensibilities helped drive the Democratic Party mad.

    It is only relatively recently that a few – but hardly all – Boom generation neocons such as David Frum and David Brooks also contracted the same form of mental illness. Otherwise, this group has become largely indistinguishable from the Republican mainstream, which draws its roots from Roosevelt, Lincoln, Henry Clay and Alexander Hamilton.

    Of course, with the onset of southern neocons with states rights and libertarian ideology, the demographic advances of the GOP in the late 20th century imported Civil War divisions into the party, a theme that Kevin Phillips has – sadistically – played upon. Still, one might well say that there is nothing wrong with neoconservatism except for its detractors. Down with the Traitor. Up with the Star.

    James deLaurier , June 24, 2011 at 1:50 pm
    Jack Hunter: 6/24/2011

    A "great" power can be and is often less than a "good" power. So, the Neoconservatives manifesto mandates foreign policy from the top – down! Who then, is there that stands – up for and represents,"We the People"?

    Thank you – # 16

    tbraton , June 24, 2011 at 3:45 pm
    I had forgotten that I saved a copy of a book review by David Gordon that appeared in TAC this past October, entitled "Neoconservatism Defined." Actually, it is a combined review of two books, and it is a pretty good introduction to neoconservatism. http://www.amconmag.com/blog/anatomy-of-neoconservatism/ In the course of the review, Gordon makes the following observation:

    "Most, though certainly not all, of the leading neocons are Jewish and the defense of Israel is central to their political concerns."

    One of the books concentrates on the intellectual founder of neoconservatism, Leo Strauss, and the review makes some consise observations about him.

    tbraton , June 24, 2011 at 3:54 pm
    David Gordon's book review also contains the following observations:

    "No one who absorbs Vaïsse's discussion of this second age can harbor any illusions about whether the neocons count as genuine conservatives. [Senator Henry] Jackson made no secret of his statist views of domestic policy, but this did not in the least impede his neocons allies from enlisting in his behalf.

    Vaïsse by the way understates Jackson's commitment to socialism, which dated from his youth. Contrary to what our author suggests, the League for Industrial Democracy, which Jackson joined while in college, was not "a moderate organization that backed unions and democratic principles." It was a socialist youth movement that aimed to propagate socialism to the public.

    It was not Jackson's domestic policy, though, that principally drew the necons to him. They had an elective affinity for the pursuit of the Cold War. Vaïsse stresses in particular that they collaborated with Paul Nitze and other Cold War hawks. In a notorious incident, "Team B," under the control of the hawks, claimed that CIA estimates of Russian armaments were radically understated. It transpired that the alarms of Team B were baseless; they nevertheless served their purpose in promoting a bellicose foreign policy.

    The neocons of the second age did not quit the Democratic Party until, after prolonged struggle, they had failed to take it over. They then discovered in the rising popularity of Ronald Reagan a new strategy to advance their goals; but even when Reagan and his aides received them warmly, many found it distinctly against the grain to vote for a Republican. Once they had overcome this aversion, the neocons proved able markedly to expand their political power and influence. Nevertheless, some neocons found Reagan insufficiently militant. For Norman Podhoretz, a literary critic who imagined himself a foreign policy expert, Reagan became an appeaser reminiscent of Neville Chamberlain. "In 1984-85, however, Podhoretz finally lost hope in his champion; he … lamented the president's desire to do whatever it took to present himself to Europeans and above all to American voters as a 'man of peace,' ready to negotiate with the Soviets."

    The "national greatness" neocons of our day continue the pattern of their second age predecessors in their constant warnings of peril and calls for a militant response. They do not apply the law of unintended consequences to foreign policy: skepticism about the efficacy of government action ends at the doors to the Pentagon."

    Masood , June 24, 2011 at 4:44 pm
    Should "the American Policeman" police the rogue state of Israel? I wonder how many neocons will fo for it.
    DirtyHarriet , June 24, 2011 at 9:17 pm
    Masood, your post reminds me of an article that was published in the New York Times on September 10, 2001, of all dates.

    http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-78029147.html

    "U.S. troops would enforce peace under Army study"

    Excerpt:

    The exercise was done by 60 officers dubbed "Jedi Knights," as all second-year SAMS students are nicknamed.

    The SAMS paper attempts to predict events in the first year of a peace-enforcement operation, and sees possible dangers for U.S. troops from both sides.

    It calls Israel's armed forces a "500-pound gorilla in Israel. Well armed and trained. Operates in both Gaza and the West Bank. Known to disregard international law to accomplish mission. Very unlikely to fire on American forces. Fratricide a concern especially in air space management."

    Of the MOSSAD, the Israeli intelligence service, the SAMS officers say: "Wildcard. Ruthless and cunning. Has capability to target U.S. forces and make it look like a Palestinian/Arab act."

    Henry Drummond , June 25, 2011 at 5:59 am
    This would have had some point 200 years ago. Unfortunately, cannon now shoot more than three miles, the 3 mile limit on national sovereignty is obsolete. You cannot distinguish between an offensive and defensive opponent.
    tbraton , June 25, 2011 at 9:48 am
    "You cannot distinguish between an offensive and defensive opponent."

    If military hostilities were actually going on in Libya, it certainly would be easy to distinguish between the offensive opponent (all the foreign countries operating under the NATO umbrella and firing all the missiles into Libya and dropping all the bombs on Libyan forces loyal to Qaddafi) and the defensive opponent (the Libyan forces loyal to Qaddafi, the nominal leader of Libya).

    Gil , June 26, 2011 at 7:46 pm
    Nice article! I believe that what constitutes a neoconservative has changed over the years. Sure, in an academic sense, a "neoconservative" is someone who might have supported Scoop Jackson in Washington or Strauss at U of Chicago in the 70's- in essence, someone with democratic roots who became more hawkish on foreign policy.

    However, most conservative pundits- Rush, Hannity, Beck, etc, support projecting US power in order to achieve Democracy overseas. As do Bachmann, Palin, Romney, Gingrich, Boener, Perry and most other establishment Republicans.

    They all supported war in Afghanistan and Iraq, all support Saudi Arabia, Israel, Kuwait, Bahrain, and big oil, and all fundamentally decry any attempt to cut the US military budget.

    What troubles me is that "Neoconservatism" has become mainstream Republicanism. In fact Ronald Reagan was perhaps the first Neocon president. And it looks as if the Tea Party has been hijacked by Palin, Bachmann and Rubio et al . Trying to change the Republican party from within simply will not work -- for Neocons don't just control the Republican party, they ARE the Republican party. We need a third party that overtly champions fiscal and social conservatism and international isolationism as its three main pillars!

    Steve in Ohio , June 27, 2011 at 11:04 am
    Gil, the GOP leadership may be neocon, but the grassroots are more or less non-interventionist. We see the same split on immigration. I think its too early to give up on the party.

    By the way, I don't consider RR a neocon President. Along with Eisenhower, he was the most non interventionist prez in recent history.

    Allen , June 28, 2011 at 5:32 am
    WE HAVE A WINNER!;
    'Steve, on June 23rd, 2011 at 11:10 am Said:
    Oh, come on guys.

    In 2011, a neoconservative is the person who always answers yes to the question "Are Israel's objectives always more important than the objectives of the USA?"

    Gil , June 28, 2011 at 11:42 am
    Steve-

    Sure, much of the grassroots is non-interventionist, although many, many Evangelicals support the Likud party in Israel for biblical reasons, and those Republicans who listen regularly to Neocons like Hannity and Limbaugh and Dennis Miller, or watch Krauthammer, Kristol and O'Reilly are influenced to support an interventionist foreign policy. Here is the problem! How can you change the Republican party from within when the Tea Party Caucus is headed by an interventionist Neocon like Michelle Bachmann?

    Ronald Reagan was a semi-isolationist. Except, of course, for bombing Libya, stationing troops in Lebanon, and docking the 6th fleet in Israel. Sorry, I know many people consider him a saint, and on both fiscal and social issues he was wonderful. But let's face it- Reagan was a former democratic Union head who became a conservative later on in life and projected US power overseas when it wasn't necessary. A Neocon? At least 75%

    Wesley Mcgranor , June 29, 2011 at 11:54 am
    A neoconservative as an actual social phenomenon – free from intellectual definition – is from the social upheaval of the 'spirit of the 60's'. With all their socialism and revolution against white-western-protestant civilization.
    Gil , June 29, 2011 at 2:01 pm
    Wesley,

    You are fundamentally correct with respect to the origins of most Neoconservative "intellectuals." However, definitions morph and change over time until their origins become so cloudy as to be practically irrelevant. Let's get real - how many young people know that Bill Kristol's dad used to be a Socialist? How many people even know who Bill Kristol is or Scoop Jackson was?

    Ultimately one can only judge people by their actions. And, in my definition, anyone who ACTS like a Neoconservative- or puts others in harm's way in order to further their expansionist aims- IS a Neoconservative.

    And we will never win our battle against the Neoconservatives unless we call things as they are, without getting bogged down in biographical details about people and philosophers who nobody ever hears about. So, while David Frum, Bill Kristol, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Lindsay Graham Michelle Bachmann and just about every modern republican congressman or senator or conservative think tank member inside the Washington Beltway may never have been hippies in the 60's, and almost all can claim to have been lifelong conservatives, 99% are Neoconservatives because their ACTIONS define who they are.

    They all believe in projecting US military might in order to foster democracy overseas. They ultimately seem to care more about the welfare of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Iraq and, Afghanistan than the United States.

    Patrick , July 6, 2011 at 6:26 am
    What bothers me is what we consider "mainstream" conservatism today in the form of talk radio, Rush, and others is basically a neconservative movement.

    What I would consider true conservatism you find here in TAC and also in the Libertarian publications like Reason and Liberty but the reach of talk radio and the neocon blogs seems to be far greater than that of real conservatives and the neocons appear to be setting the agenda these days. It is nothing short of appalling isn't it to see "conservatives" defending torture and the secret prisons run under the Bush administration, all in the name of "defending" the country.

    It never ceases to amazes me why any true conservative would go any where near a member of the Bush administration and yet Sean has Rove and others on his show routinely when a case can be made that they should stand trial for being responsible for the abuse of those detainees. I have been student of the Holocaust my entire life and to see some of the circumstances of pre war Germany unfold in front of me, the "we have to take these steps in the name of defending the country" the dehumanizing of the muslims which made it easy to justify torturing them, it is all so very scary.

    [Aug 28, 2016] Are Clinton putting putting the interests of a foreign government ahead of those of the United States?

    Aug 28, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org

    Shillary | Aug 26, 2016 5:33:47 PM | 53

    Philip Giraldi• August 23, 2016 - http://www.unz.com/article/are-the-clintons-israeli-agents/

    On August 5th, Michael Morell, a former acting Director of the CIA, pilloried GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump, concluding that he was an "unwitting agent of Russia." Morell, who entitled his New York Times op-ed "I Ran the CIA and now I'm endorsing Hillary Clinton," described the process whereby Trump had been so corrupted. According to Morell, Putin, it seems, as a wily ex-career intelligence officer, is "trained to identify vulnerabilities in an individual and to exploit them. That is exactly what he did early in the primaries. Mr. Putin played upon Mr. Trump's vulnerabilities In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation."

    So who is guilty of putting the interests of a foreign government ahead of those of the United States? I know there are advocates for any number of foreign states running around loose in Washington but the friends of Israel in government and the media come immediately to mind largely because there are so many of them, they are very much in-your-face and they are both extremely well-funded and very successful. Now deceased former Congressman Tom Lantos and Senator Frank Lautenberg were, respectively, often referred to as the congressman and senator from Israel. And there are many more: Chuck Schumer, Chuck Grassley, Ben Cardin, Bob Menendez, Tom Cotton, Mark Kirk, Nita Lowey, Ted Deutch, Brad Sherman, Ileana-Ros Lehtinen and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz to name only a few in the Congress. All are major recipients of Israel related PAC money and all are reliable defenders of Israel no matter what Benjamin Netanyahu does and no matter how it effects the United States.

    And then there are the Clintons. One only has to go back to Bill's one-sided pro-Israeli diplomacy at Camp David in 2000 to discern how the game was played. And then there was the widely condemned January 2001 last minute pardon of Mossad agent Marc Rich, whose wife Denise was a major contributor to the Clintons, to realize that there was always a deference to Israeli interests particularly when money was involved. The only problem is that the Clintons, relying on Morell's formulation, might more reasonably be described as witting agents of Israel rather than unwitting as they have certainly known what they have been doing and have been actively supporting Israeli policies even when damaging to U.S. interests since they first emerged from the primordial political swamps in Arkansas. If one were completely cynical it might be possible to suggest that they understood from the beginning that pandering to Israel and gaining access to Jewish power and money would be a major component in their rise to political prominence. It certainly has worked out that way.

    =====

    So who is guilty of putting the interests of a foreign government ahead of those of the United States? I know there are advocates for any number of foreign states running around loose in Washington but the friends of Israel in government and the media come immediately to mind largely because there are so many of them, they are very much in-your-face and they are both extremely well-funded and very successful. Now deceased former Congressman Tom Lantos and Senator Frank Lautenberg were, respectively, often referred to as the congressman and senator from Israel. And there are many more: Chuck Schumer, Chuck Grassley, Ben Cardin, Bob Menendez, Tom Cotton, Mark Kirk, Nita Lowey, Ted Deutch, Brad Sherman, Ileana-Ros Lehtinen and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz to name only a few in the Congress. All are major recipients of Israel related PAC money and all are reliable defenders of Israel no matter what Benjamin Netanyahu does and no matter how it effects the United States.

    And then there are the Clintons. One only has to go back to Bill's one-sided pro-Israeli diplomacy at Camp David in 2000 to discern how the game was played. And then there was the widely condemned January 2001 last minute pardon of Mossad agent Marc Rich, whose wife Denise was a major contributor to the Clintons, to realize that there was always a deference to Israeli interests particularly when money was involved. The only problem is that the Clintons, relying on Morell's formulation, might more reasonably be described as witting agents of Israel rather than unwitting as they have certainly known what they have been doing and have been actively supporting Israeli policies even when damaging to U.S. interests since they first emerged from the primordial political swamps in Arkansas. If one were completely cynical it might be possible to suggest that they understood from the beginning that pandering to Israel and gaining access to Jewish power and money would be a major component in their rise to political prominence. It certainly has worked out that way.

    [Aug 28, 2016] The Childish Villain-ification Of Donald Trump

    Notable quotes:
    "... vote for Clinton is vote for globalization, while vote for Trump is vote for anti-globalization ..."
    "... Recall that the Obomber passed the legislation that legalized propaganda (lying to the public) and permits no remedy other than the ability to protest in fenced in free speech zones until the cops show up as head knockers or agents provocateurs. ..."
    "... You say that Trump's economic policies as U.S. president would be catastrophic for those most likely to vote for him. Anyone's economic policies will be catastrophic for those most likely to vote for Trump. That's baked into the political and economic structure of things. It is part of the natural order. ..."
    "... The difference with Trump is that after the economic catastrophe that will happen--is now happening , it may be possible under a Trump administration to pick things up and rebuild. Under any other likely regime, the aftermath of economic catastrophe will be limitless debt peonage and unlimited oligarchy. ..."
    "... The shooting down of an Israeli warplane by Syria has not been reported by Western and Israeli media sources. According to Sputnik, on August 21, "the Israeli Air Force resumed airstrikes on Western Syria, targeting a government army base at Khan Al-Sheih in Damascus province and another in the al-Quneitra province after a six-hour halt in attacks that followed their multiple air raids over the Golan Heights." ..."
    Aug 26, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org
    MadMax2 | Aug 27, 2016 5:04:48 PM | 103
    @okie farmer 80, hoarsewhisperer 85

    Some real beauties in there alright. Kerry giving himself yet another uppercut.

    "...U.S. officials say it is imperative that Russia use its influence with Syrian President Bashar Assad to halt all attacks on moderate opposition forces, ..."

    Not Assad must go. Not close. Yet, still blissfully ignorant of the fact their more extreme moderates are getting their jollies out of hacking sick 12 year old kids heads off with fishing knive. I wonder at what point does 'moderate' become a dirty word...?

    @Noirette Pt1

    Big crowds scare Hillary these days. Best not to shake her up too much. I wonder though, how she expects to compete with Trumps fervour... must be pretty happy that they can do a nice back door job on election day. When opening act Rudy G is getting pummelled with calls of 'does Rudy have Alzheimer's...?' you know you're doing something right - really, just...awesome political theatre.

    smarterthanyou | Aug 27, 2016 5:25:22 PM | 104
    vote for Clinton is vote for globalization, while vote for Trump is vote for anti-globalization
    fast freddy | Aug 27, 2016 5:54:37 PM | 105
    The ZioMedia is in the tank for Hillary. Impossible for a candidate who cannot draw a crowd to be "ahead in the polls". And a candidate who packs 10K ppl into any given space at will to be "behind in the polls". Humiliatingly low turnout for the HBomb is stage-crafted by all ziomedia outlets to hide this embarrassing fact.

    Recall that Billy Blowjob ushered in Media Consolidation which gave 5 ziomedia corporations carte blanche to bullshit the public.

    Recall that the Obomber passed the legislation that legalized propaganda (lying to the public) and permits no remedy other than the ability to protest in fenced in free speech zones until the cops show up as head knockers or agents provocateurs.

    Curtis | Aug 27, 2016 6:27:05 PM | 106
    I was reading articles on the Turkish attack into Syria and there is no mention of the Syrian government nor whether/when/if Turkey will engage the Syrian Army. But then I found this chart from CNN:

    http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/25/middleeast/syria-isis-whos-fighting-who-trnd/index.html

    For one thing, they pretend ISIS has no support. We all know differently. Also, it looks like every one is fighting ISIS except ..... Free Syrian Army and Saudi Arabia and Gulf Allies.

    Macon Richardson | Aug 27, 2016 7:57:39 PM | 108
    You say that Trump's economic policies as U.S. president would be catastrophic for those most likely to vote for him. Anyone's economic policies will be catastrophic for those most likely to vote for Trump. That's baked into the political and economic structure of things. It is part of the natural order.

    The difference with Trump is that after the economic catastrophe that will happen--is now happening , it may be possible under a Trump administration to pick things up and rebuild. Under any other likely regime, the aftermath of economic catastrophe will be limitless debt peonage and unlimited oligarchy.

    ALberto | Aug 27, 2016 7:58:07 PM | 109
    The shooting down of an Israeli warplane by Syria has not been reported by Western and Israeli media sources. According to Sputnik, on August 21, "the Israeli Air Force resumed airstrikes on Western Syria, targeting a government army base at Khan Al-Sheih in Damascus province and another in the al-Quneitra province after a six-hour halt in attacks that followed their multiple air raids over the Golan Heights."

    It was struck. An SA-9 from the Iftiraas Air Defense Base and an SA-2 near the Khalkhaala AB were fired. But, the technical wizardry was most on display when an S-300 (SA-10 "Grumble) super-air-defense missile was fired from the Republican Guard base near the Mazza AB at the foot of Qaasiyoon Mountain west of Damascus. This was done so that the F-16's electronic countermeasures would first fix on the SA-2 and SA-9 while the S-300 plowed forward to exterminate the vermin inside the Israeli aircraft. The S-300 vaporized the Israeli bomber. No evidence was seen of the pilot ejecting. Instead, eyewitness accounts described a ball of fire over the Golan and the remains scattering into the air over the Huleh Valley in Palestine.

    Also, the Israelis lost 2 helicopters while flying missions over the Golan Heights in an effort to bolster the sagging morale of the Takfiri rats of Nusra/Alqaeda and Al-Ittihaad Al-Islaami li-Ajnaad Al-Shaam. The 2 helicopters went down over the area near Qunaytra City and were reportedly shot down by shoulder fired, heat-seeking missiles deployed throughout the Syrian Army.

    source - http://www.globalresearch.ca/syria-shoots-down-israeli-warplane-f-16-bomber-and-helicopters/5471009

    [Aug 28, 2016] Iraq still is able to maintain the level of oil output

    Aug 26, 2016 | Reuters

    Original title: Oil exports from Iraq's southern ports up from July Reuters

    Oil exports from Iraq's southern ports have averaged 3.205 million barrels per day (bpd) so far in August, exceeding the average level seen in July, two officials from state-run South Oil Company said on Friday.

    Exports in July averaged 3.202 million bpd. With five days of exports remaining this month, the average for August could change, the officials said.

    The southern region produces most of the OPEC member's crude oil, with an output of 4.6 million bpd last month.

    Independent of the central government in Baghdad, Iraq's northern Kurdish regional government exports about 500,000 bpd through a pipeline to the Turkish port of Ceyhan on the Mediterranean. Baghdad oversees crude production from the south and from parts of the Kirkuk region in the north that is shared with the Kurds.

    (Reporting by Aref Mohammed in Basra; writing by Maher Chmaytelli; editing by Jason Neely)

    [Aug 28, 2016] Hillary Clintons Slanders on Trump, Putin Absurd, Dangerous - Ex-US Diplomat

    Notable quotes:
    "... "Of course Julian Assange is right. Hillary Clinton's harangue depicting Donald Trump as the enabler of some insidious 'Alt Right' movement whose Grand Dragon is Vladimir Putin is too absurd for words," Jatras said on Friday. "It would be just silly if it weren't so dangerous." ..."
    "... She and her surrogates have been banging the 'Kremlin agent' drum for some time. But when Trump asks rock-ribbed GOP [Republican] crowds if it wouldn't be a great thing to get along with Russia and team up with Moscow to fight ISIS [Islamic State], he gets thunderous approval, ..."
    "... Jatras suggested that Clinton's latest attacks on Trump as an alleged racist were meant to distract attention from the latest WikiLeaks documents exposing the leaked information related to "pay to play" between the Clinton Foundation and the State Department. ..."
    "... He also argued that Clinton's attacks were meant to distract pubic attention from her own record of controversy and alleged corruption. "Any American worthy of the name hates her and the whole rotten Deep State she fronts for: the profiteers on endless wars, the globalist corporations that dump their American workers to import their foreign-made goods duty free and the driving down of wages due to a glut of imported foreign labor," he said. ..."
    "... Jatras suggested that these policies that Clinton as secretary of state and her husband, President Bill Clinton had implemented and supported were far more worthy of hate than the false accusations she was throwing against Trump. "Those are things all Americans, whether white, black, brown, red, or yellow should hate, and Hillary right along with them," he concluded. Jatras also formerly served as adviser to the Senate Republican leadership. ..."
    sputniknews.com
    US Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's attempt to falsely portray her Republican opponent Donald Trump as a racist extremist is absurd, silly and dangerous, former US Department of State diplomat Jim Jatras told Sputnik.

    On Thursday, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange told Fox News in an interview that Clinton's campaign was full of anti-Russia hysteria as the Democrats were trying to undermine the campaign of their opponent, Republican nominee Donald Trump.

    "Of course Julian Assange is right. Hillary Clinton's harangue depicting Donald Trump as the enabler of some insidious 'Alt Right' movement whose Grand Dragon is Vladimir Putin is too absurd for words," Jatras said on Friday. "It would be just silly if it weren't so dangerous."

    Jatras said he agreed with Assange's assessment that Clinton's increasingly wild charges against Trump were not based on any reality. "She should get some kind of tinfoil hat award for the finest piece of political paranoia totally divorced from facts in all of American history," Jatras said.

    Hillary Clinton's Anti-Russian Campaign May BackfireJatras also pointed out the falsity of Clinton's related claim that former UK Independence Party leader Nigel Farage, who endorsed Trump this week was a racist. "Take her attack on Nigel Farage. Evidently now it is now 'racist' to believe citizens are shareholders of their own country and have a right to decide who gets in and who doesn't, and that dangerous people should be excluded," Jatras argued.

    However, Jatras expressed skepticism as to how effective Clinton's racist and Russophobic attacks would prove to be.

    "She and her surrogates have been banging the 'Kremlin agent' drum for some time. But when Trump asks rock-ribbed GOP [Republican] crowds if it wouldn't be a great thing to get along with Russia and team up with Moscow to fight ISIS [Islamic State], he gets thunderous approval," Jatras observed.

    Jatras suggested that Clinton's latest attacks on Trump as an alleged racist were meant to distract attention from the latest WikiLeaks documents exposing the leaked information related to "pay to play" between the Clinton Foundation and the State Department.

    He also argued that Clinton's attacks were meant to distract pubic attention from her own record of controversy and alleged corruption. "Any American worthy of the name hates her and the whole rotten Deep State she fronts for: the profiteers on endless wars, the globalist corporations that dump their American workers to import their foreign-made goods duty free and the driving down of wages due to a glut of imported foreign labor," he said.

    Jatras suggested that these policies that Clinton as secretary of state and her husband, President Bill Clinton had implemented and supported were far more worthy of hate than the false accusations she was throwing against Trump. "Those are things all Americans, whether white, black, brown, red, or yellow should hate, and Hillary right along with them," he concluded. Jatras also formerly served as adviser to the Senate Republican leadership.

    Read more:

    Hillary Clinton's Anti-Russian Campaign May Backfire

    [Aug 28, 2016] Leaked Memos Show George Soros Plotted to Oust Putin, Destabilize Russia

    sputniknews.com
    The Hungarian billionaire appeared to have a fascination with not just fostering but creating anti-Putin opposition forces inside of Russia in a bid to destabilize the country.

    The recent DC Leaks document dump of over 2,500 documents from George Soros' Open Society Foundations illustrates a disturbing trend by the billionaire of using his wealth and influence to sow chaos across the world in a bid to profit off of global suffering and impose neoliberal ideas on an international scale.

    The leaks have already exposed Soros' efforts to destabilize the European Union by promoting a policy of open borders and mass migration and fracturing Ukraine's government by fomenting an illegal coup of a democratically elected government using neo-Nazi hardliners. Once dubbed the "puppet master" by the fanatical Glenn Beck, Soros has also been linked to both corruption in the United States and, according to some, positive social reform in his funding of the Black Lives Matter movement.

    Yet the man who has brought regimes around the world to their knees has long wanted to bring Putin's government crashing down, but has proven unsuccessful time and again. New memos from the DC Leaks file dump show that this failure to oust Putin wasn't for lack of trying on the part of Soros. In a November 2012 document titled "OSF [Open Society Foundation] Russia Strategic Planning Meeting Notes" a team of anti-Putin international experts sat down to discuss how to "identify joint priorities for OSF's Russia activities in the coming year. How can we most effectively collaborate, considering the deteriorating political environment for our partners?"

    Whereas that seems benign, the document minutes show that the meeting's participants hoped that Medvedev's years as president would provide "an opening" for the Open Society Foundations to influence and rattle the Russian government. A hope that disappeared when Putin returned to office.

    "The Medvedev period allowed for a number of improvements and significant openings for NGOs… However, pressure has come back very quickly in the short time that Putin has been back in power."

    The NGO operation became quickly distrusted in Russia following the botched "Maidan like" protests which were immediately dismantled before it could threaten the Russian government. "The Russian protests deeply affected the life of NGO's," read the minutes. The meeting explains that the government had attempted to encourage civil opposition by providing funds, "but by encouraging self-organization, they had opened up Pandora's Box… the door was opened for self-mobilization."

    The document proceeded to provide an extensive bullet point list of "what must be done" in order to destabilize Russia including working to flood the country with migrants and influencing the country's media operations.

    The memo was followed up with what was called "the Russia Project" which called for identifying and organizing opponents to Putin, advancing principles of globalism, and undermine Russia's image in the lead up to the Sochi Winter Olympics.

    Read more: http://sputniknews.com/russia/20160828/1044703488/soros-memo-oust-putin-russia.html

    [Aug 27, 2016] Neocons declare war on Trump

    Neocons will support Hillary breaking the ranks of Republican Party, as she is one of them: "The only choice will be to vote for Hillary Clinton," Kagan warned. "The party cannot be saved, but the country still can be."
    Notable quotes:
    "... Donald Trump calls the Iraq War a lie-fueled fiasco, admires Vladimir Putin and says he would be a "neutral" arbiter between Israel and the Palestinians. When it comes to America's global role he asks, "Why are we always at the forefront of everything?" ..."
    "... Even more than his economic positions, Trump's foreign policy views challenge GOP orthodoxy in fundamental ways. But while parts of the party establishment are resigning themselves or even backing Trump's runaway train, one group is bitterly digging in against him: the hawkish foreign policy elites known as neoconservatives. ..."
    "... In interviews with POLITICO, leading neocons - people who promoted the Iraq War, detest Putin and consider Israel's security non-negotiable - said Trump would be a disaster for U.S. foreign policy and vowed never to support him. So deep is their revulsion that several even say they could vote for Hillary Clinton over Trump in November. ..."
    "... "Hillary is the lesser evil, by a large margin," said Eliot Cohen, a former top State Department official under George W. Bush and a strategic theorist who argues for a muscular U.S. role abroad. Trump's election would be "an unmitigated disaster for American foreign policy," Cohen said, adding that "he has already damaged it considerably." ..."
    "... In a March 1 interview with Vox, Max Boot, a military historian at the Council on Foreign Relations who backed the Iraq War and often advocates a hawkish foreign policy, said that he, too, would vote for Clinton over Trump. "I'm literally losing sleep over Donald Trump," he said. "She would be vastly preferable to Trump." ..."
    "... The letter was signed by dozens of Republican foreign policy experts, including Boot; Peter Feaver, a former senior national security aide in George W. Bush's White House; Robert Zoellick, a former deputy to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice; and Dov Zakheim, a former Bush Pentagon official; and Kori Schake, a fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution and a former Bush State Department official. ..."
    "... Kristol and Abrams have advised Florida senator Marco Rubio, the preferred choice of several neoconservatives, who admire his call for "moral clarity" in foreign policy and strong emphasis on human rights and democracy. ..."
    "... Alarm brewing for months in GOP foreign policy circles burst into public view last week, when Robert Kagan, a key backer of the Iraq War and American global might, wrote in the Washington Post that a Trump nomination would force him to cross party lines. ..."
    "... "The only choice will be to vote for Hillary Clinton," Kagan warned. "The party cannot be saved, but the country still can be." ..."
    POLITICO
    Donald Trump calls the Iraq War a lie-fueled fiasco, admires Vladimir Putin and says he would be a "neutral" arbiter between Israel and the Palestinians. When it comes to America's global role he asks, "Why are we always at the forefront of everything?"

    Even more than his economic positions, Trump's foreign policy views challenge GOP orthodoxy in fundamental ways. But while parts of the party establishment are resigning themselves or even backing Trump's runaway train, one group is bitterly digging in against him: the hawkish foreign policy elites known as neoconservatives.

    In interviews with POLITICO, leading neocons - people who promoted the Iraq War, detest Putin and consider Israel's security non-negotiable - said Trump would be a disaster for U.S. foreign policy and vowed never to support him. So deep is their revulsion that several even say they could vote for Hillary Clinton over Trump in November.

    "Hillary is the lesser evil, by a large margin," said Eliot Cohen, a former top State Department official under George W. Bush and a strategic theorist who argues for a muscular U.S. role abroad. Trump's election would be "an unmitigated disaster for American foreign policy," Cohen said, adding that "he has already damaged it considerably."

    Cohen, an Iraq war backer who is often called a neoconservative but said he does not identify himself that way, said he would "strongly prefer a third party candidate" to Trump, but added: "Probably if absolutely no alternative: Hillary."

    In a March 1 interview with Vox, Max Boot, a military historian at the Council on Foreign Relations who backed the Iraq War and often advocates a hawkish foreign policy, said that he, too, would vote for Clinton over Trump. "I'm literally losing sleep over Donald Trump," he said. "She would be vastly preferable to Trump."

    Cohen helped to organize an open letter signed by several dozen GOP foreign policy insiders - many of whom are not considered neocons - that was published Wednesday night by the military blog War on the Rocks. "[W]e are unable to support a Party ticket with Mr. Trump at its head," the letter declared. It cited everything from Trump's "admiration for foreign dictators" to his "inexcusable" support for "the expansive use of torture."

    The letter was signed by dozens of Republican foreign policy experts, including Boot; Peter Feaver, a former senior national security aide in George W. Bush's White House; Robert Zoellick, a former deputy to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice; and Dov Zakheim, a former Bush Pentagon official; and Kori Schake, a fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution and a former Bush State Department official.

    Several other neocons said they find themselves in an impossible position, constitutionally incapable of voting for Clinton but repelled by a Republican whose foreign policy views they consider somewhere between nonexistent and dangerous - and disconnected from their views about American power and values abroad.

    "1972 was the first time I was old enough to vote for president, and I did not vote. Couldn't vote for McGovern for foreign policy reasons, nor for Nixon because of Watergate," said Elliott Abrams, a former national security council aide to George W. Bush who specializes in democracy and the Middle East. "I may be in the same boat in 2016, unable to vote for Trump or Clinton."

    Weekly Standard Editor Bill Kristol, something of a dean of Washington neoconservatives, said he would seek out a third option before choosing between Trump and Clinton.

    "If it's Trump-Clinton, I'd work with others to recruit a strong conservative third party candidate, and do my best to help him win (which by the way would be more possible than people think, especially when people - finally - realize Trump shouldn't be president and Hillary is indicted)," Kristol wrote in an email.

    Kristol and Abrams have advised Florida senator Marco Rubio, the preferred choice of several neoconservatives, who admire his call for "moral clarity" in foreign policy and strong emphasis on human rights and democracy.

    Alarm brewing for months in GOP foreign policy circles burst into public view last week, when Robert Kagan, a key backer of the Iraq War and American global might, wrote in the Washington Post that a Trump nomination would force him to cross party lines.

    "The only choice will be to vote for Hillary Clinton," Kagan warned. "The party cannot be saved, but the country still can be."

    In an interview, Kagan said his opposition to Trump "has nothing to do with foreign policy."

    [Aug 27, 2016] Obama is back to his old game: Assad should go

    Notable quotes:
    "... russia sees this bs crap about 'moderate' for what it is... just another shell game to play hide and seek, switch flags, etc, etc... until the 'moderate' opposition drop their military arms, it ain't 'moderate'... would 'moderate' opposition to the usa leadership be allowed to use weapons? that's the answer to that bs... ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org

    okie farmer | Aug 27, 2016 8:23:27 AM | 80

    OT
    GENEVA - The United States and Russia say they have resolved a number of issues standing in the way of restoring a nationwide truce to Syria and opening up aid deliveries, but were unable once again to forge a comprehensive agreement on stepping up cooperation to end the brutal war that has killed hundreds of thousands.

    After meeting off-and-on for nearly 10 hours in Geneva on Friday, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov could point to only incremental progress in filling in details of a broad understanding to boost joint efforts that was reached last month in Moscow.

    Their failure to reach an overall deal highlighted the increasingly complex situation on the ground in Syria - including new Russian-backed Syrian government attacks on opposition forces, the intermingling of some of those opposition forces with an al-Qaida affiliate not covered by the truce and the surrender of a rebel-held suburb of Damascus - as well as deep divisions and mistrust dividing Washington and Moscow.

    The complexities have also grown with the increasing internationalization of what has largely become a proxy war between regional and world powers, highlighted by a move by Turkish troops across the Syrian border against Islamic State fighters this week.

    Kerry said he and Lavrov had agreed on the "vast majority" of technical discussions on steps to reinstate a cease-fire and improve humanitarian access. But critical sticking points remain unresolved and experts will remain in Geneva with an eye toward finalizing those in the coming days, he said.
    ```
    Lavrov echoed that, saying "we still need to finalize a few issues" and pointed to the need to separate fighters from the al-Nusra Front, which has ties to al-Qaida, from U.S.-backed fighters who hold parts of northwest Syria.

    "We have continued our efforts to reduce the areas where we lack understanding and trust, which is an achievement," Lavrov said. "The mutual trust is growing with every meeting."

    Yet, it was clear that neither side believes an overall agreement is imminent or even achievable after numerous previous disappointments shattered a brief period of relative calm earlier this year.

    The inability to wrest an agreement between Russia and the U.S. - as the major sponsors of the opposing sides in the stalled Syria peace talks - all but spells another missed deadline for the U.N. Syria envoy to get the Syrian government and "moderate" opposition back to the table.
    ```
    In a nod to previous failed attempts to resurrect the cessation of hostilities, Kerry stressed the importance of keeping the details secret.
    ```
    And, underscoring deep differences over developments on the ground, Kerry noted that Russia disputes the U.S. "narrative" of recent attacks on heavily populated areas being conducted by Syrian forces, Russia itself and the Iranian-backed Hezbollah militia. Russia maintains the attacks it has been involved in have targeted legitimate terrorist targets, while the U.S. says they have hit moderate opposition forces.
    ~~~
    At the same time, the Obama administration is not of one mind regarding the Russians. The Pentagon has publicly complained about getting drawn into greater cooperation with Russia even though it has been forced recently to expand communication with Moscow. Last week, the U.S. had to call for Russian help when Syrian warplanes struck an area not far from where U.S. troops were operating.

    U.S. officials say it is imperative that Russia use its influence with Syrian President Bashar Assad to halt all attacks on moderate opposition forces, open humanitarian aid corridors, and concentrate any offensive action on the Islamic State group and other extremists not covered by what has become a largely ignored truce.

    For their part, U.S. officials say they are willing to press rebels groups they support harder on separating themselves from the Islamic State and al-Nusra, which despite a recent name change is still viewed as al-Qaida's affiliate in Syria.

    Those goals are not new, but recent developments have made achieving them even more urgent and important, according to U.S. officials. Recent developments include military operations around the city of Aleppo, the entry of Turkey into the ground war, Turkish hostility toward U.S.-backed Kurdish rebel groups and the presence of American military advisers in widening conflict zones.

    Meanwhile, in a blow to the opposition, rebel forces and civilians in the besieged Damascus suburb of Daraya were to be evacuated on Friday after agreeing to surrender the town late Thursday after four years of grueling bombardment and a crippling siege that left the sprawling area in ruins.

    The surrender of Daraya, which became an early symbol of the nascent uprising against Assad, marks a success for his government, removing a persistent threat only a few miles from his seat of power.

    Hoarsewhisperer | Aug 27, 2016 11:06:17 AM | 85
    Posted by: okie farmer | Aug 27, 2016 8:23:27 AM | 80

    Re: Geneva negotiations...
    Love the goto clause:

    "In a nod to previous failed attempts to resurrect the cessation of hostilities, Kerry stressed the importance of keeping the details secret."

    Yeah, keeping the details secret so that next time the Yankees backstab Russia, observers won't immediately realise that they were, in fact, just shooting themselves in the foot. Again.

    james | Aug 27, 2016 4:27:25 PM | 99
    @92 harrylaw...i agree with you..

    russia sees this bs crap about 'moderate' for what it is... just another shell game to play hide and seek, switch flags, etc, etc... until the 'moderate' opposition drop their military arms, it ain't 'moderate'... would 'moderate' opposition to the usa leadership be allowed to use weapons? that's the answer to that bs...

    as for turkey, clearly the apk has a 'get rid of the kurds' agenda.. works well in their alliance with isis up to a point.. as for turkish/usa alliance and a no fly zone - if russia goes along with this, they better get a hell of a trade off out of it.. i can't see it, although i see the usa continuing on in their support of saudi arabia etc, using their mercenary isis army and saudi arabia to continue to funnel arms sales and weaponry... it is what they do best, bullshite artists that they are...

    james | Aug 27, 2016 4:32:33 PM | 100

    for the latest dose of bullshite - watch

    8 minute propaganda video.. one could flip it around to say the usa supports isis, al nusra, and all the other 'moderate' terrorists they are arming... amazing how these state dept. spokespeople can lie so continuously and not be called out on any of it by the corporate media journalists.. obviously those journalists are paid to go along with the lies, keep their mouth shut, and not ask any hard questions...

    [Aug 27, 2016] Wait a minute! They IDd the hacker and its a business in Israel? And it forced Apple to an emergency software upgrade. But I thought all the evil hackers were Russians working for the government

    Notable quotes:
    "... iPhone hacked by NSO Group based in Israel http://www.businessinsider.com/pegasus-nso-group-iphone-2016-8 ..."
    Aug 27, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org
    Curtis | Aug 27, 2016 12:09:08 PM | 88
    iPhone hacked by NSO Group based in Israel http://www.businessinsider.com/pegasus-nso-group-iphone-2016-8

    http://www.businessinsider.com/nso-group-2016-8

    Wait a minute! They ID'd the hacker and it's a business in Israel? And it forced Apple to an emergency software upgrade. But I thought all the evil hackers were Russians working for the government.

    [Aug 27, 2016] Shepard Smith Tries To Get Reporter To Say Trump Is Racist

    Notable quotes:
    "... Grimaldi went on to explain that Trump "trades in hyperbole," giving Clinton more fodder to work with. ..."
    Aug 27, 2016 | www.westernjournalism.com
    Fox News' Shepard Smith appeared intent on having a guest on his program Thursday say that Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump is a racist.

    Wall Street Journal investigative reporter James Grimaldi joined Smith on Fox Reports immediately after Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton's speech in Reno, Nev., during which she charged that Trump will "make America hate again."

    "He is taking hate groups mainstream and helping a radical fringe take over the Republican Party," she said.

    Smith said that "the problem with any attempt to rebut her" was that "she used Donald Trump's own words, what's historically accurate on his policies on all reviewed points."

    He turned to Grimaldi and said, "Where do you begin with this?"

    "I don't know. It was pretty extraordinary and pretty hard-hitting," the reporter replied.

    Grimaldi went on to explain that Trump "trades in hyperbole," giving Clinton more fodder to work with.

    Smith interjected: "He trades in racism, doesn't he?"

    The Wall Street Journal reporter was not willing to go that far. "Well, I'll leave that up to the commentators. … I'm not one to generally label people like that, so I would pass on that question."

    [Aug 27, 2016] Killary was apparently hours late but it will never be reported by neoliberal MSM

    Notable quotes:
    "... Here is the 'furthest back' shot. TV coverage did not show these. ..."
    "... Bizzaro event. Minuscule, there is almost nobody there. It was deliberatly set up in 'small space' for the cams. The only other important ppl present are one man (Head of the college or? idk) and the Mayor of Reno. The only signs shown say *USA* are not appropriate and are whipped out only when Killary comes onstage. Doesn't even look like a Democrat event! Never mind an important campaign rally for *drum rolls* the person anointed to become Prez. of the most powerful country on Earth, the World Queen or Hegemon. ..."
    "... The US is fracturing...Moreover the speech was perhaps the weakest from any pol I have ever heard. ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org
    Noirette | Aug 27, 2016 10:50:52 AM | 84
    Part 1. ;) Got dragged into Killary's alt-right speech at Truckee Meadows Community College, Reno, Nevada, Aug 2016. Only content: 100% against Trump , as sidebars, Alex Jones, Nigel Farage, Putin, David Duke.

    The official MSM version is 31 mins - the frame is just her with a fixed cam centered nothing around. Sparse occasional clapping (real, one can see the clappers in other vids).. She speaks as one would to a parterre of 30-50 ppl, not as in a campaign rally. A longer version (MSM) is 45 mins and shows some of the preliminaries, some guy, then the Mayor of Reno, youngish blondine, introducing her. Killary was apparently hours late. (> youtube.) Killary is dressed in green.

    To the interesting part. She spoke at the same College in Feb. 2015. Note: red dress, the brick pillars typical of the college, and the big windows behind. A big hall…

    link This shot shows the other direction, see the small windows at the side and back

    link The event has all the hallmarks of a 'proper' pol show, no need to list. Note the Hall, quite large, is not full. The signs are blue and are for Hillary, for Women, for Nevada and so on.

    Noirette | Aug 27, 2016 11:25:41 AM | 86
    Part 2. The Aug. 2016 event took place at the College but either in a small part of the back of the big hall or another locale (similar in architecture obviously)

    link The widest shot Aug. 2016. AFGE (men with black Ts) = American Federation of Gvmt. Employees.

    link Here is the 'furthest back' shot. TV coverage did not show these.

    link The only shot I could find showing the audience facing her. Note the ppl behind her facing out, i.e. the cams (shown on TV etc.) are not identifiable.

    link Bizzaro event. Minuscule, there is almost nobody there. It was deliberatly set up in 'small space' for the cams. The only other important ppl present are one man (Head of the college or? idk) and the Mayor of Reno. The only signs shown say *USA* are not appropriate and are whipped out only when Killary comes onstage. Doesn't even look like a Democrat event! Never mind an important campaign rally for *drum rolls* the person anointed to become Prez. of the most powerful country on Earth, the World Queen or Hegemon.

    After the speech, vids show H.C. talking to a very few ppl, 25 at most, not answering "reporters" questions, two tiny trays of confections were offered. Bwwahhh. She ate one choc. There was also a stop at a Reno Coffee shop (10 ppl?) which made no sense. On these occasions she is accompanied by the Mayor in a cosy girly coffee thingie. (> youtube.)

    The US is fracturing...Moreover the speech was perhaps the weakest from any pol I have ever heard.

    Jackrabbit | Aug 27, 2016 11:35:36 AM | 87
    okie farmer @80

    Strike three for Russia.

    Strike 1: Talks with KSA - no result

    Strike 2: Turkish incursion into Syria (with US blessing)

    Strike 3: Geneva Talks with Kerry - no result

    harrylaw | Aug 27, 2016 1:10:56 PM | 92
    okie farmer@80 Lavrov is on a loser if he accepts this "moderate terrorist" BS from Kerry. Those "moderates" have replaced Islamic state in Jerablus, soon to be expanded to cover that huge area between Jerablus, Azaz and Al-bab,all without a fight and apparent agreement with IS. Next could be the area is controlled by Turkish and US "moderate" head choppers, which of course nobody will be allowed to attack. They should only be called moderate if they oppose Assad and do not carry arms, otherwise its just a case of changing labels, in which case the terrorists could never lose. I find it hard to believe that so soon after the so called normalization of ties and trade deals between Russia and Turkey, Turkey could do what they have threatened to do for years, invade Syria and set up prospective no fly zones. I suppose we must wait and see, but in my opinion, it does not look good.
    jfl | Aug 27, 2016 2:30:39 PM | 93

    @92 hl,

    I agree. Russia has been stabbed in the back by Turkey, and the US is backing Turkey ... of course they were backing the Kurds, too, until they weren't.

    Erdogan is utterly unreliable ... or he is utterly reliable if you're relying on duplicity and betrayal.

    Joaquin Flores observes Syria Violence to increase: Peace talks fail as situation deteriorates . It seems that the US is just all stall, all the time. Alternating with stabs in the back. No point in talking to them ... for 12 hours?!

    [Aug 27, 2016] The Childish Villain-ification Of Donald Trump

    vote for Clinton is vote for globalization, while vote for Trump is vote for anti-globalization
    Notable quotes:
    "... "As for the petty little world of journalism, the media demonstrates how it, more than anyone, is careful to traffic only in authorized ideas and waves; while at the same time it fosters, through its antics, the illusion of a free circulation of ideas and opinions – not unlike jesters in a tyrant's court " - ..."
    "... In the 18th century, Edmund Burke described the role of the press as a Fourth Estate checking the powerful. Was that ever true? It certainly doesn't wash any more. What we need is a Fifth Estate: a journalism that monitors, deconstructs and counters propaganda and teaches the young to be agents of people, not power. We need what the Russians called perestroika – an insurrection of subjugated knowledge. I would call it real journalism. ..."
    "... Add the pollsters in this deception. If polling samples are heavily weighted with yellow-dog Democrats the result is a Clinton lead. One only has to look at crowd draw: Trump = 7,000-10,000; Hiltery can't fill a kindergarten play-pen. ..."
    "... Suggest the Trump campaign deploy IT personnel to inspect all Diebold software seconds before voting commences. ..."
    "... In 8 years $Hillary was a US Senator (D-NY) she accomplished nothing of note. I actually went to one of her public appearances thinking I would hear something positive. She appeared to be an idiot when speaking extemporaneously. Clueless and incapable of expressing empathy with mere mortals. If there are debates with 'The Donald' I would expect that Her Highness will be reading a teleprompter. Her handlers do not allow her to speak off the cuff lest she reveal her total lack of human empathy and a state of perpetual clueless detachment from reality. $hill and 'The Donald.' Sad days for the Republic. ..."
    "... US has to move away from its current hyper-financialized FIRE-based economy toward one based more on making things. There's only a chance to do that under Trump, since HRC is totally owned by Wall Street and the Perpetual War lobby. ..."
    "... The US presidential election this November will tell whether a majority of the US population is irredeemably stupid. If voters elect Hillary, we will know that Americans are stupid beyond redemption. http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2016/08/25/trump-vs-hillary-a-summation-paul-craig-roberts/ ..."
    "... Paul Joseph Watson responds to Hillary's racism speech - The Truth About Hillary's 'Alt-Right' Speech - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufkHt8dgG8I ..."
    "... But I started to doubt once I understood the gist of the song of Escamillo. After some generalities, he tells the events at the bull fight. Among the shouts of the spectators, a big bull is released from the corral. A picador woulds his back, then he is further wounded with banderillas. Bleeding, the bull retreats, only to wheel back and charge once more. Then the torero, with cape and sword, waits for him, fully alert (toreador, en guard!) to misdirect the bull a few times and deliver the final stab. Is Trump the torero or the bull? ..."
    "... All the Trump bashing just reinforces the Propaganda System's utter lack of credibility and imagination. The underlying nature of numerous political websites is also exposed thanks to their shilling for HRC--particularly those calling themselves Progressive: No Genuine Progressive would support HRC ..."
    "... ...Hillary is a one woman criminal enterprise and she's the monster's mother. [a comment from the intercept] ..."
    "... It is called 'Psychological Projection' and seems to be successful for the good reason of being widespread inherent in the population itself. To project one's own shortcomings, flaws and crimes onto somebody else is as common, as it is based on the lack of real intelligence ..."
    "... Even if Hillary is elected, her mandate will be haunted by her email stupidity and the Clinton foundation cupidity. She will be paralyzed and may not even finish her mandate. To avoid the looming shame, I think she should work NOT to be elected, so she can leave the political scene with till some dignity. ..."
    "... Regarding voting against one's own interests, the Republican majority leader of the senate just said no to TPP for the time being... Draw your own conclusions; I'm more bemused by the parallels to eastern Europe under Soviet vs NATO occupation. ..."
    "... "MoA-readers, who are left/progressive/intellectual/democratic/anti-Trump, are warmongering idiots." No, the true idiocy is with those who still buy into this concocted left/right, liberal/conservative, D/R scheme to oppress the masses. Divide and conquer at its very best. The Romans would cry tears of joy how their principle is so successfully implemented - since over 200 years. ..."
    "... [Full Text Of Hillary Clinton's Speech On The Alt-Right ...] ..."
    "... Outside the two traditional parties, there is no effective national political party. ..."
    "... It is actually not stupid. First, raising his support among the Blacks from 1% to 2% may help. More importantly, he has to work on the vote of educated whites, especially suburban female Republicans where he lags. ..."
    "... it makes the msm look like what it actually is - propaganda tool for the 1% with jackass journalists in tow.. ..."
    "... As a long time observer of elections and history, it seems that this time both parties have figured out the value of identity politics and are using that instead of any intelligent discussion of issues to sway voters. ..."
    "... It's probably the total ownership of the media by the oligarchs that allows them to do this, as it appears that no issues such as TPP or the wasteful MIC are ever discussed. Identity politics allows everything to be emotional and not rational, and it appears to be working for anyone who does not have the time or volition to read with care. ..."
    "... Make no mistake: Hillary Clinton is on record as calling for funding of Islamist groups in Syria and overthrowing Assad. If she is elected, we're very likely to see a full-scale US intervention, with US forces openly and aggressively confronting not only Syrian government forces but also facing off with the Russians. ..."
    "... Anyone calling for people to support Hilary Clinton, irrespective of whatever dishonest reasoning they use to try and con people into thinking it is a good idea, is calling for more war, more murder of brown-skinned middle eastern muslims and christians etc., and most importantly: more profits for the US/Zionist Death Machine. ..."
    "... It may be that, despite his rethoric, and like Oboma before him, Trump will bring all those things too, should he win, but we DO know for sure what Killary intends, because we have already seen her handywork, and she has promised more of the same ..."
    "... The proper question is : after Obama, why do people like you still think that voting is of any use? ..."
    "... "What Hillary ought to do is very simple: Resign" I don't think she can, she's just a puppet, and her handlers would never let that happen. Her only chance is with her body finally giving in overwhelmed with guilt, stress, medication, her only way out... ..."
    "... Shillary! Such refined thinking. Face it, the US has always been corrupt. ..."
    "... If the US is to cease being an empire, the average American is going to go through hard times for a bit. If the US continues as a declining empire, the average American citizen will go through hard times plus another lot of harder times when the declining empire crashes and burns. ..."
    "... The foreign policy of the American ruling class, in addition to the impoverishment of American society to fund the vast military apparatus, has had the most horrifying consequences for the peoples of the countries targeted. The war fomented by the United States in Syria has reduced the population of that country from 23 million to about 17 million, killed up to half a million people, and displaced over 13 million. ..."
    "... Returning to protectionism and fair trade will lift all American boats, not just the Wall Street Zionists ..."
    "... America, despite glowing MSM BS, is on the ropes of neoliberalism. As an older American,I remember a land of plenty, with good jobs for all, instead of fast food retail hell. ..."
    "... What is unbelievable is the fact that she corruptly stole the primary with the help of the DNC and the ziomedia, but no one cares. ..."
    "... For clear light on the positive relationship between a Trump presidency and the US economy, David Stockman offers wisdom. Take a look from time to time at his website to educate yourself: http://davidstockmanscontracorner.com/ ..."
    "... Now it is time for people to start saying Roberts is a shill for Trump. If you've read what he has written about Trump, he's highly critical. His point is simple: Do you support those who are so blatantly against Trump? Or, put the other way around, are you in favor of continued oligarchic rule. ..."
    Aug 27, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org

    This pic comparing a young Donald Trump with a child figure in some old Nazi propaganda was posted by Doug Saunders , supposedly a serious international-affairs columnist at the Canadian Globe and Mail.

    bigger

    It is illogical, childish nonsense. But Saunders is by far the only one disqualifying himself as serious commentator by posting such bullshit. Indeed, the villain-ification of Donald Trump is a regular feature which runs through U.S. and international media from the left to the right.

    A few examples:

    1. Pinochet . Chavez . Trump? - Politico
    2. Cher compares Donald Trump to Hitler at Clinton fundraiser - Foxnews
    3. Cher Slams Trump At Clinton Fundraiser; Likens Him To Stalin - CBS
    4. Cher Compares Trump to Mao - Newsbuster
    5. Trump is the GOP's Frankenstein monster - Washington Post
    6. Biden on Trump: 'He woulda loved Stalin ' - USAToday
    7. Huffington likens Trump to Kim Jong Un - MSN
    8. What Hugo Chávez and Donald Trump have in common - Reuters
    9. The best way to thwart Trump Vader - CNN
    10. Warning From the Syrian Border: Trump Reminds Us a Bit Too Much of Assad - Rolling Stone
    11. News Quiz: Trump Rally or Erdogan Event? - The Intercept
    12. Trump & Putin . Yes, It's Really a Thing - TPM
    13. Trump's not Hitler , he's Mussolini - Salon
    14. Media ethics writer compares Trump to Hitler - Politico
    15. Donald Trump's Insane Praise of Saddam Hussein - Daily Beast
    16. Trump and Lenin - Miami Herald
    17. Insult, provoke, repeat: how Donald Trump became America's Hugo Chávez - The Guardian
    18. The Unstoppable Trump Monster - The Atlantic
    19. Donald Trump is GOP's Dark Lord Voldemort - Townhall
    20. Donald Trump is The Joker : Forget Mussolini and Hitler - Salon
    21. Donald Trump's Mansions and Saddam Hussein 's Palaces Are Basically the Same - Vanity Fair
    22. Trump and Baghdadi Join Forces - Huffington Post
    23. Echoes of Joe McCarthy in Donald Trump's Rise - RealClearPolitics
    24. Donald Trump's bromance with Vladimir Putin - CNN
    25. Trump's flirtation with fascism - Washington Post
    26. The Maoism of Donald Trump - The New Yorker.

    Is there any villain in U.S. (political) culture Donald Trump has not been compare to? Let me know what to search for.

    I doubt that this assault on Trump's character is effective. (Hillary Clinton is a more fitting object .) Potential Trump voters will at best ignore it. More likely they will feel confirmed in their belief that all media and media people are anti-Trump and pro-Clinton.

    The onslaught only validates what himself Trump claims: that all media are again him, independent of whatever policies he may promote or commit to.

    ... ... ...

    Selected Skeptical Comments
    Fernando Arauxo | Aug 26, 2016 11:41:25 AM | 2
    The jokes on them. Older voters, smarter voters are voting for Trump. If he remains on message and points out those things that do matter then he can win. He has to stop the joking around and being nasty. Be serious and get to the point.

    Jack Smith | Aug 26, 2016 12:04:00 PM | 6
    @Fernando Arauxo | Aug 26, 2016 11:41:25 AM | 2

    Trump can joke and talk all the nonsense he want, still it won't change my mind. I know Hillary including Bernie Sanders - they're from the same pot of shit.

    The only question remain, should I vote for Jill Stein to bring her Green Party percentage up? Jill Stein spoke repeatedly she will stop all aids to any country and NOT only Israel if human right are abuse - not exact words.

    Further she is a strong support of BDS even as Canada Green Party leader not in favor "Canadian MP Elizabeth May told reporters on Monday that she will stay on as leader of Canada's Green Party after saying she was considering stepping down because of her opposition to the party's recently-adopted policy of endorsing the strategy of Boycott Divest and Sanction against Israel. "

    http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=17070

    likklemore | Aug 26, 2016 12:20:49 PM | 7
    For decades, at least 40 years, it was a whisper that the international medias have been sitting in the lap of a certain 3 letter agency. The mission: Manufacturing Consent by Deception. Globalism, War & Chaos brought by The Establishment owners of Deep Shadow Government. This quote from Robert Faurisson who is tagged a Halocaust denier may offend those who cannot be criticized:

    "As for the petty little world of journalism, the media demonstrates how it, more than anyone, is careful to traffic only in authorized ideas and waves; while at the same time it fosters, through its antics, the illusion of a free circulation of ideas and opinions – not unlike jesters in a tyrant's court " -

    An old article by John Pilger via PCR War by media and the triumph of propaganda http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/12/07/guest-article-john-pilger-war-media-triumph-propaganda/

    In the 18th century, Edmund Burke described the role of the press as a Fourth Estate checking the powerful. Was that ever true? It certainly doesn't wash any more. What we need is a Fifth Estate: a journalism that monitors, deconstructs and counters propaganda and teaches the young to be agents of people, not power. We need what the Russians called perestroika – an insurrection of subjugated knowledge. I would call it real journalism.

    ~ ~ ~

    Add the pollsters in this deception. If polling samples are heavily weighted with yellow-dog Democrats the result is a Clinton lead. One only has to look at crowd draw: Trump = 7,000-10,000; Hiltery can't fill a kindergarten play-pen.

    Suggest the Trump campaign deploy IT personnel to inspect all Diebold software seconds before voting commences.

    ... ... ....

    ALberto | Aug 26, 2016 12:38:22 PM | 10
    In 8 years $Hillary was a US Senator (D-NY) she accomplished nothing of note. I actually went to one of her public appearances thinking I would hear something positive. She appeared to be an idiot when speaking extemporaneously. Clueless and incapable of expressing empathy with mere mortals. If there are debates with 'The Donald' I would expect that Her Highness will be reading a teleprompter. Her handlers do not allow her to speak off the cuff lest she reveal her total lack of human empathy and a state of perpetual clueless detachment from reality. $hill and 'The Donald.' Sad days for the Republic.

    Jackrabbit | Aug 26, 2016 12:41:44 PM | 12
    People vote against their own self interests only because bought-and-paid-for MSM and political pundits SAY that a third-party can't win.

    If everyone would simply turn off toxic media and simply vote for their best interest the establishment would stop taking us all for granted.

    What is better: Trump is elected but Obama-Hillary Democratic "Third-Way" back-stabbing sell-outs are replaced by a real left opposition led by Greens? - OR -

    Obama-Hillary fake left squashes real opposition for another 8 years while extending and deepening the soul-crushing neolib/neocon disaster?

    crv | Aug 26, 2016 12:44:04 PM | 13
    "Trump's economic policies as U.S. president would be catastrophic for those most likely to vote for him."

    US has to move away from its current hyper-financialized FIRE-based economy toward one based more on making things. There's only a chance to do that under Trump, since HRC is totally owned by Wall Street and the Perpetual War lobby.

    h | Aug 26, 2016 12:50:22 PM | 15
    Trump vs. Hillary: A Summation - Paul Craig Roberts
    The US presidential election this November will tell whether a majority of the US population is irredeemably stupid. If voters elect Hillary, we will know that Americans are stupid beyond redemption. http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2016/08/25/trump-vs-hillary-a-summation-paul-craig-roberts/

    likklemore | Aug 26, 2016 12:52:04 PM | 17
    @ rm 5 @ JS 6 @ Jr 8

    The Polls: Recall summer 1980.

    Carter (D) = 39%
    Reagan (R) = 32%
    Anderson (I) = 21%

    Who took it? Polls are still unreliable. The poll sampling is key.

    I don't have a vote. On November 08, the real problem is one of the two will be (s)elected. Your decision does weigh heavily and guarantees the selection. Can you support another 4-8 years of the certified corrupt Clinton couple?

    h | Aug 26, 2016 12:53:23 PM | 18
    Paul Joseph Watson responds to Hillary's racism speech - The Truth About Hillary's 'Alt-Right' Speech - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufkHt8dgG8I

    Formerly T-Bear | Aug 26, 2016 1:05:10 PM | 21
    There is a third way to effectively cast a ballot outside the two main party's candidates and that is not to vote at all. This is effective as a historical fact that some fraction of eligible voters did not participate (whatever the cause) and the winning candidate was enabled by some plurality rather than a majority of the eligible electorate. Throwing away one's vote in a fit of moral superiority is an effective way to throw away one's voting rights, but then the 'moral majority' that wrecked the Republic never realised their culpability and still haven't. Not one of the minority candidates became anything more than a sad footnote to history - not one.
    Piotr Berman | Aug 26, 2016 1:08:48 PM | 22
    I guess instead of violating Goodwin law, or complain one-sidedly, we should eschew "Hitlery" and "fascist Trump", and find some high-brow metaphors. My proposals: Hillary and Trump

    But I started to doubt once I understood the gist of the song of Escamillo. After some generalities, he tells the events at the bull fight. Among the shouts of the spectators, a big bull is released from the corral. A picador woulds his back, then he is further wounded with banderillas. Bleeding, the bull retreats, only to wheel back and charge once more. Then the torero, with cape and sword, waits for him, fully alert (toreador, en guard!) to misdirect the bull a few times and deliver the final stab. Is Trump the torero or the bull?

    karlof1 | Aug 26, 2016 1:20:22 PM | 24
    All the Trump bashing just reinforces the Propaganda System's utter lack of credibility and imagination. The underlying nature of numerous political websites is also exposed thanks to their shilling for HRC--particularly those calling themselves Progressive: No Genuine Progressive would support HRC, or Sanders now that he's exposed himself for what he is, a Chevrolet Liberal. The launching of the self-proclaimed "Our Revolution" website/organization is yet another DNC-based sham that studiously avoids any mention of the military or foreign policy on its "Issues" page, which again belies its nature since the #1 issue for all Genuine Progressives is War and being against it. Still have 10 weeks to go. Stein has earned all the votes within my household.
    mischi | Aug 26, 2016 1:29:27 PM | 25
    I'm not a big fan of Trump's but I find that people don't argue about his politics, but insult him and his wife on a personal basis.

    This makes me think that it's the turn of the 'Left' in the USA to become immature and resort to name calling. Remember when it was the 'Right' that made fun of Kerry's Purple Heart?

    Which also exposes the problem with politics worldwide - the Left and the Right have met at the extremes and we now see progressives arguing for burkinis and the right arguing for workers' rights by trying to prevent the TPP, etc.

    harrylaw | Aug 26, 2016 1:44:01 PM | 26
    ...Hillary is a one woman criminal enterprise and she's the monster's mother. [a comment from the intercept]

    Stillnottheonly1 | Aug 26, 2016 1:56:02 PM | 28
    It is called 'Psychological Projection' and seems to be successful for the good reason of being widespread inherent in the population itself. To project one's own shortcomings, flaws and crimes onto somebody else is as common, as it is based on the lack of real intelligence - no, not the one that is derived from fancy questionnaires, or adding numbers.

    Real intelligence includes the understanding that sitting in a glasshouse throwing rocks does not qualify to be such. It also includes the understanding to be inseparable part of one's environment - a shared environment indicating that there is only interdependence, not separation.

    Furthermore, real intelligence includes compassion, kindness and the will to walk in somebody else's shoes.

    This intelligence is sorely missing in the majority of people that are entrusted with 'journalistic' work, or working in public offices. The stench of being "holier that thou" is covering the U.S.A. and wafts to Europe were it is now also modus operandi.

    The best course of action would be to punish those who engage in this kind of demagoguery with nonobservance.

    Erelis | Aug 26, 2016 2:09:44 PM | 30
    It won't be Trump who brings us fascism as the images implies, but more likely Clinton if she wins and if the Democrats can win over one of the Houses of Congress. As the campaign goes on, these comparisons add up and create in the minds of anybody anti-Trump an actual equivalency to in particular Hitler. This is one half of the combustion needed to go down the road to fascism.

    There is something else that Trump given the Russian hysteria is being called--a traitor. The thing is, Hillary supports believe this to be true in a criminal sense. It is not just some throw away smear normal for any election. I have seen way too way postings in major democratic party sites calls for basically the resurrection of the House Un-American Activities Committee. These supporters are historically clueless on what they are asking for, and I would imagine the same with much of the democratic party lawmakers in Congress.

    I can see if Hillary wins, witch hunts against anti-war protesters, or people who believe we should have rapprochement with Russia and China. The goal will be to criminalize and punish dissenting views on foreign and war policies because the constant Putin/Trump/Hitler/Stalin/etc comparisons created the foundation for actual criminal accusations.

    And the witch hunts will spread beyond war and foreign policy. Look at what is going on in Europe. Literally, and I do mean literally, every problem is being attributed to Putin "weaponizing" some issue. Serious politicians accused Putin of using drunken Russian fans during the Euro futbol championships of starting fights to support Brexit. The Polish minister for internal security accused Putin of master minding the Paris terrorist attacks. And these guys get away with the most outlandish accusations. As the real Nazis understood, repetition of lies is the foundation of propaganda to move people into action.

    harrylaw | Aug 26, 2016 2:11:35 PM | 31
    Vapors@14 Its not Boris Yeltsin, its Boris Johnson http://oi64.tinypic.com/zno56o.jpg
    Shillary | Aug 26, 2016 2:14:21 PM | 32
    The underlying nature of numerous political websites is also exposed thanks to their shilling for HRC--particularly those calling themselves Progressive: No Genuine Progressive would support HRC, or Sanders now that he's exposed himself for what he is, a Chevrolet Liberal.

    Well the resident Zio-Racist Hill-shill (rufus magister | Aug 26, 2016 11:47:38 AM | 5) likes to pretend he is some sort of progressive, but still can't keep from outing himself by banging on non-stop about the Zio-Racists favourite talking points (Heil hillary and "holocaustholocaustholocaut!!")

    likklemore | Aug 26, 2016 2:15:41 PM | 33
    @ Alberto 10

    She appeared to be an idiot when speaking extemporaneously. Clueless and incapable of expressing empathy with mere mortals. If there are debates with 'The Donald' I would expect that Her Highness will be reading a teleprompter. Her handlers do not allow her to speak off the cuff [.]

    Very interesting because I have been discussing with colleagues here the Don should be honing his debating skill sets as Hillary is a trained lawyer/politician.

    From The Hague | Aug 26, 2016 2:22:04 PM | 34
    MoA-readers, who are left/progressive/intellectual/democratic/anti-Trump, are warmongering idiots.
    virgile | Aug 26, 2016 2:36:44 PM | 35
    Even if Hillary is elected, her mandate will be haunted by her email stupidity and the Clinton foundation cupidity. She will be paralyzed and may not even finish her mandate. To avoid the looming shame, I think she should work NOT to be elected, so she can leave the political scene with till some dignity.

    Johan Meyer | Aug 26, 2016 3:50:48 PM | 39
    Regarding voting against one's own interests, the Republican majority leader of the senate just said no to TPP for the time being... Draw your own conclusions; I'm more bemused by the parallels to eastern Europe under Soviet vs NATO occupation.
    xyz | Aug 26, 2016 4:05:16 PM | 40
    Those who see Trump as some kinda Messiah need a cold shower. An ice cold one. All in all still better than war criminal Hillary.
    Shillary | Aug 26, 2016 4:31:43 PM | 41
    FBI Admits Clinton Used Software Designed To "Prevent Recovery" And "Hide Traces Of" Deleted Emails

    . . .Clinton's use of BleachBit undermines her claims that she only deleted innocuous "personal" emails from her private server

    "If she considered them to be personal, then she and her lawyers had those emails deleted. They didn't just push the delete button, they had them deleted where even God can't read them.

    "They were using something called BleachBit You don't use BleachBit for yoga emails."

    "When you're using BleachBit, it is something you really do not want the world to see."

    meok | Aug 26, 2016 4:37:40 PM | 43
    The Bilderbeg group meeting has already decided who should become president, the media has been ordered to get this person elected.
    rg the lg | Aug 26, 2016 4:51:43 PM | 44
    Wow!

    Vitriol galore! If the arguments made above ... either way ... are the best we can do then maybe electing Hillary and hoping for WW3 is the lessor of evils. As I've said before, not a bad idea.

    On the other hand, did anyone read what Eric Zuesse had to say: http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2016/08/23/hellish-end-soon-record-high-likelihood-both-nuclear-burnout.html

    Kinda puts real hope in all of your scenarios.

    Stillnottheonly1 | Aug 26, 2016 5:07:58 PM | 45
    Posted by: From The Hague | Aug 26, 2016 2:22:04 PM | 34

    "MoA-readers, who are left/progressive/intellectual/democratic/anti-Trump, are warmongering idiots." No, the true idiocy is with those who still buy into this concocted left/right, liberal/conservative, D/R scheme to oppress the masses. Divide and conquer at its very best. The Romans would cry tears of joy how their principle is so successfully implemented - since over 200 years.

    To be bold here: a 'left' mother loves her child as much as a 'right' mother and even more so the grandparents. Any grandparent here that denies their grandchildren their love based on the fact that their children cling on to a different belief? And that it is in its entirety - made believe by the Plutocrats and the sheople throw shit at each other instead of UPWARDS .

    Oui | Aug 26, 2016 5:12:26 PM | 48
    Two Worst Possible Candidates Running for U.S. Presidency

    [Full Text Of Hillary Clinton's Speech On The Alt-Right ...]

    Just yesterday, one of Britain's most prominent right-wing leaders, Nigel Farage, who stoked anti-immigrant sentiments to win the referendum on leaving the European Union, campaigned with Donald Trump in Mississippi. Farage has called for a ban on the children of legal immigrants from public schools and health services, has said women are quote "worth less" than men, and supports scrapping laws that prevent employers from discriminating based on race ― that's who Trump wants by his side.

    The godfather of this global brand of extreme nationalism is Russian President Vladimir Putin.

    In fact, Farage has appeared regularly on Russian propaganda programs. Now he's standing on the same stage as the Republican nominee.

    Tim808 | Aug 26, 2016 5:29:02 PM | 51
    Hatred of Trump is nothing more than cloaked Jewish hatred of white Christians. Go ahead and take my comment down, but you are too smart to not know the truth deep down in your heart. This above all else, lie to yourself to protect the Jewish lies.
    Formerly T-Bear | Aug 26, 2016 5:31:02 PM | 52
    About the most successful 'breakaway political movement' ever was probably the Dixiecrats in the 1948 election which actually garnered a small fraction of the electoral college, but that was using the apparatus of an organised national political party existent regionally. Outside the two traditional parties, there is no effective national political party. ...Next time keep your idiot elections to yourselves - Please.
    Shillary | Aug 26, 2016 5:33:47 PM | 53
    Philip Giraldi• August 23, 2016 - http://www.unz.com/article/are-the-clintons-israeli-agents/

    On August 5th, Michael Morell, a former acting Director of the CIA, pilloried GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump, concluding that he was an "unwitting agent of Russia." Morell, who entitled his New York Times op-ed "I Ran the CIA and now I'm endorsing Hillary Clinton," described the process whereby Trump had been so corrupted. According to Morell, Putin, it seems, as a wily ex-career intelligence officer, is "trained to identify vulnerabilities in an individual and to exploit them. That is exactly what he did early in the primaries. Mr. Putin played upon Mr. Trump's vulnerabilities… In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation."

    So who is guilty of putting the interests of a foreign government ahead of those of the United States? I know there are advocates for any number of foreign states running around loose in Washington but the friends of Israel in government and the media come immediately to mind largely because there are so many of them, they are very much in-your-face and they are both extremely well-funded and very successful. Now deceased former Congressman Tom Lantos and Senator Frank Lautenberg were, respectively, often referred to as the congressman and senator from Israel. And there are many more: Chuck Schumer, Chuck Grassley, Ben Cardin, Bob Menendez, Tom Cotton, Mark Kirk, Nita Lowey, Ted Deutch, Brad Sherman, Ileana-Ros Lehtinen and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz to name only a few in the Congress. All are major recipients of Israel related PAC money and all are reliable defenders of Israel no matter what Benjamin Netanyahu does and no matter how it effects the United States.

    And then there are the Clintons. One only has to go back to Bill's one-sided pro-Israeli diplomacy at Camp David in 2000 to discern how the game was played. And then there was the widely condemned January 2001 last minute pardon of Mossad agent Marc Rich, whose wife Denise was a major contributor to the Clintons, to realize that there was always a deference to Israeli interests particularly when money was involved. The only problem is that the Clintons, relying on Morell's formulation, might more reasonably be described as witting agents of Israel rather than unwitting as they have certainly known what they have been doing and have been actively supporting Israeli policies even when damaging to U.S. interests since they first emerged from the primordial political swamps in Arkansas. If one were completely cynical it might be possible to suggest that they understood from the beginning that pandering to Israel and gaining access to Jewish power and money would be a major component in their rise to political prominence. It certainly has worked out that way.

    =====

    So who is guilty of putting the interests of a foreign government ahead of those of the United States? I know there are advocates for any number of foreign states running around loose in Washington but the friends of Israel in government and the media come immediately to mind largely because there are so many of them, they are very much in-your-face and they are both extremely well-funded and very successful. Now deceased former Congressman Tom Lantos and Senator Frank Lautenberg were, respectively, often referred to as the congressman and senator from Israel. And there are many more: Chuck Schumer, Chuck Grassley, Ben Cardin, Bob Menendez, Tom Cotton, Mark Kirk, Nita Lowey, Ted Deutch, Brad Sherman, Ileana-Ros Lehtinen and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz to name only a few in the Congress. All are major recipients of Israel related PAC money and all are reliable defenders of Israel no matter what Benjamin Netanyahu does and no matter how it effects the United States.

    And then there are the Clintons. One only has to go back to Bill's one-sided pro-Israeli diplomacy at Camp David in 2000 to discern how the game was played. And then there was the widely condemned January 2001 last minute pardon of Mossad agent Marc Rich, whose wife Denise was a major contributor to the Clintons, to realize that there was always a deference to Israeli interests particularly when money was involved. The only problem is that the Clintons, relying on Morell's formulation, might more reasonably be described as witting agents of Israel rather than unwitting as they have certainly known what they have been doing and have been actively supporting Israeli policies even when damaging to U.S. interests since they first emerged from the primordial political swamps in Arkansas. If one were completely cynical it might be possible to suggest that they understood from the beginning that pandering to Israel and gaining access to Jewish power and money would be a major component in their rise to political prominence. It certainly has worked out that way.

    Piotr Berman | Aug 26, 2016 6:03:50 PM | 54
    Tom @38: "Trump the racist Appealing to African-Americans was just a demented and sick desperate joke. "

    It is actually not stupid. First, raising his support among the Blacks from 1% to 2% may help. More importantly, he has to work on the vote of educated whites, especially suburban female Republicans where he lags.

    ... ... ...

    james | Aug 26, 2016 8:13:11 PM | 57
    @55 virgile.. either that, or it makes the msm look like what it actually is - propaganda tool for the 1% with jackass journalists in tow..
    Michael | Aug 26, 2016 8:32:03 PM | 58
    As a long time observer of elections and history, it seems that this time both parties have figured out the value of identity politics and are using that instead of any intelligent discussion of issues to sway voters.

    It's probably the total ownership of the media by the oligarchs that allows them to do this, as it appears that no issues such as TPP or the wasteful MIC are ever discussed. Identity politics allows everything to be emotional and not rational, and it appears to be working for anyone who does not have the time or volition to read with care.

    Shillary | Aug 26, 2016 8:57:05 PM | 59
    Make no mistake: Hillary Clinton is on record as calling for funding of Islamist groups in Syria and overthrowing Assad. If she is elected, we're very likely to see a full-scale US intervention, with US forces openly and aggressively confronting not only Syrian government forces but also facing off with the Russians.

    Anyone calling for people to support Hilary Clinton, irrespective of whatever dishonest reasoning they use to try and con people into thinking it is a good idea, is calling for more war, more murder of brown-skinned middle eastern muslims and christians etc., and most importantly: more profits for the US/Zionist Death Machine.

    Make no mistake about that, these shitty Hillary-supporting people cannot claim that they do not know what that that is what they are doing, because she has been quite vocal in her support for more war and more murder (on behalf of Isreal naturally)

    It may be that, despite his rethoric, and like Oboma before him, Trump will bring all those things too, should he win, but we DO know for sure what Killary intends, because we have already seen her handywork, and she has promised more of the same

    Shillary | Aug 26, 2016 9:43:14 PM | 61
    The proper question is : after Obama, why do people like you still think that voting is of any use?

    When did it ever change anything? You going to have to come up with something a tad more effective than mere voting if you want it to change. Personally I think the US deserves a Trump presidency.

    ProPeace | Aug 26, 2016 10:37:23 PM | 66
    @jawbone | Aug 26, 2016 10:19:23 PM | 65

    "What Hillary ought to do is very simple: Resign" I don't think she can, she's just a puppet, and her handlers would never let that happen. Her only chance is with her body finally giving in overwhelmed with guilt, stress, medication, her only way out...

    Look what they did to Reagan and the pope JP2 - GHWB failed with his assassins, but after the attempts, both these puppets were basically doing what told, with only little freedom left to do some good things (served well for maintaining appearances).

    Which brings again that question to my mind - why did they let Hinckley the patsy out recently, what's he's being set up for..?

    rg the lg | Aug 26, 2016 11:35:54 PM | 67
    Oooo! Shillary! Such refined thinking. Face it, the US has always been corrupt. "The American Slave Coast: A History of the Slave-Breeding Industry" reviewed here: http://www.chicagoreviewpress.com/american-slave-coast--the-products-9781613748206.php says it all. Thomas Jefferson, a hero? What about George Washington, the land owner? Trump and Clinton are only unusual in that most Duhmericans have finally no choice but to admit they are venal. Stein, who could NEVER win, seems honorable. Johnson may be a wacked out libertarian, but he is a well meaning wacko.

    Great choices for the great democracy, light of the world, exceptional nation! I agree, Duhmerican politics are stupid ... the dumbest people in the world make it so. Then again, is any place humans habitate NOT idiotically insane stupid?

    Peter AU | Aug 26, 2016 11:49:22 PM | 68
    "Trump's economic policies as U.S. president would be catastrophic for those most likely to vote for him."

    If the US is to cease being an empire, the average American is going to go through hard times for a bit. If the US continues as a declining empire, the average American citizen will go through hard times plus another lot of harder times when the declining empire crashes and burns.

    jfl | Aug 27, 2016 5:37:15 AM | 76
    @71, hoarse

    The Godfather image is a popular one these days. The Godmother use it to deflect attention from her own role as cackling harridan, wailing banshee of DDD&D ... others note that "Godfather" Biden visits Turkey

    The foreign policy of the American ruling class, in addition to the impoverishment of American society to fund the vast military apparatus, has had the most horrifying consequences for the peoples of the countries targeted. The war fomented by the United States in Syria has reduced the population of that country from 23 million to about 17 million, killed up to half a million people, and displaced over 13 million.

    Thirteen years after the invasion of Iraq, which resulted in the deaths of at least a million people, some 4.4 million Iraqis are internally displaced, with over a quarter million forced to flee the country.

    Questions of foreign policy are not decided, much less deliberated, within the framework of elections. Nowhere in the 2016 presidential race is there a serious debate, for instance, on the character of the US alliance with Turkey or the consequences of launching a de facto NATO invasion of Syria. Congress holds no hearings or votes. It neither seeks nor desires to play a serious role.

    As for the people, they simply have no say.

    The press plays a key role in the deception and disenfranchisement of the population. One tactic employed by the corporate-controlled media is simply to exclude "minor" developments such as a US-backed invasion of Syria from the so-called "news." The most remarkable feature of the media coverage to date of the Turkish incursion is its virtual non-existence. It is a good bet, due to the media's corrupt silence, that the percentage of the US population that is even aware of the invasion is in the single digits.

    dahoit | Aug 27, 2016 9:05:41 AM | 81
    Returning to protectionism and fair trade will lift all American boats, not just the Wall Street Zionists, so I am perplexed at b's comment.

    America, despite glowing MSM BS, is on the ropes of neoliberalism. As an older American,I remember a land of plenty, with good jobs for all, instead of fast food retail hell.

    I don't think b has any idea of the realities being endured by US, as the media refuses to give US reality ,instead rosy economic garbage where not once in Obombas terrible reign have they created enough jobs to keep up with the expanding population, and as DT says ,the inner cities are hellholes, witness the NBA star Dwayne Wades cousin shot in Chicago pushing a baby stroller.

    I had a nurse from Hempstead NY, when i had the big C, who said an old man in a wheelchair had a pit bull tied to it to ward off potential crooks. WTF?
    And now the antisemitism card is played by the serial liars, Bannon is accused of calling Jews whiny. Well ,as a longtime observer, he is spot on there.

    And the lying times says 90% chance for Hell bitch victory.

    Will saying it so often make it so? Nah.

    dahoit | Aug 27, 2016 9:28:45 AM | 82
    What is unbelievable is the fact that she corruptly stole the primary with the help of the DNC and the ziomedia, but no one cares.(her supporters) If not emblematic of the depravity of liberals, those who wish the death of others so they live in safety (which of course is poppycock) what is?

    And when Trump gets her in the debates, he'll destroy the MSM narrative of BS.

    Karl Pomeroy | Aug 27, 2016 12:29:37 PM | 90
    There is one villain Trump has not been compared to: Hillary Clinton.

    And don't be the kettle calling the pot black, whoever the author of this ill-researched piece is. Your own journalism strikes me as irresponsible when you claim, "Trump's economic policies as U.S. president would be catastrophic for those most likely to vote for him." Catastrophic? Really? Who exactly is "most likely to vote for him" that would not benefit from better trade deals and more corporate incentives for domestic business? The global elite? They're the ones who definitely won't benefit, but they also definitely won't vote for him. Get your thinking straight.

    For clear light on the positive relationship between a Trump presidency and the US economy, David Stockman offers wisdom. Take a look from time to time at his website to educate yourself: http://davidstockmanscontracorner.com/

    Jackrabbit | Aug 27, 2016 12:32:46 PM | 91
    Curis @88

    I linked to the full report in the Open Thread

    rg the lg | Aug 27, 2016 2:31:01 PM | 94
    Here's a thought:

    http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2016/08/25/trump-vs-hillary-a-summation-paul-craig-roberts/

    Now it is time for people to start saying Roberts is a shill for Trump. If you've read what he has written about Trump, he's highly critical. His point is simple: Do you support those who are so blatantly against Trump? Or, put the other way around, are you in favor of continued oligarchic rule.

    Like Roberts, I am so opposed to Clinton that Trump seems (even ever so slightly) the lessor of evils.

    Unlike Roberts, I think Stein our best bet.

    AtaBrit | Aug 27, 2016 2:52:27 PM | 95
    @b
    Here's a couple for you ...

    1 "Donald Trump is worse than Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad"
    www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/donald-trump/12182955/Donald-Trump-is-worse-than-Irans-Mahmoud-Ahmadinejad.html

    2 "Donald Trump Is America's Gift To Bin Laden"
    www.huffpost.com/us/entry/10445156

    [Aug 27, 2016] M of A - The Childish Villain-ification Of Donald Trump

    Notable quotes:
    "... "As for the petty little world of journalism, the media demonstrates how it, more than anyone, is careful to traffic only in authorized ideas and waves; while at the same time it fosters, through its antics, the illusion of a free circulation of ideas and opinions – not unlike jesters in a tyrant's court " - ..."
    "... In the 18th century, Edmund Burke described the role of the press as a Fourth Estate checking the powerful. Was that ever true? It certainly doesn't wash any more. What we need is a Fifth Estate: a journalism that monitors, deconstructs and counters propaganda and teaches the young to be agents of people, not power. We need what the Russians called perestroika – an insurrection of subjugated knowledge. I would call it real journalism. ..."
    "... Add the pollsters in this deception. If polling samples are heavily weighted with yellow-dog Democrats the result is a Clinton lead. One only has to look at crowd draw: Trump = 7,000-10,000; Hiltery can't fill a kindergarten play-pen. ..."
    "... Suggest the Trump campaign deploy IT personnel to inspect all Diebold software seconds before voting commences. ..."
    "... In 8 years $Hillary was a US Senator (D-NY) she accomplished nothing of note. I actually went to one of her public appearances thinking I would hear something positive. She appeared to be an idiot when speaking extemporaneously. Clueless and incapable of expressing empathy with mere mortals. If there are debates with 'The Donald' I would expect that Her Highness will be reading a teleprompter. Her handlers do not allow her to speak off the cuff lest she reveal her total lack of human empathy and a state of perpetual clueless detachment from reality. $hill and 'The Donald.' Sad days for the Republic. ..."
    "... US has to move away from its current hyper-financialized FIRE-based economy toward one based more on making things. There's only a chance to do that under Trump, since HRC is totally owned by Wall Street and the Perpetual War lobby. ..."
    "... The US presidential election this November will tell whether a majority of the US population is irredeemably stupid. If voters elect Hillary, we will know that Americans are stupid beyond redemption. http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2016/08/25/trump-vs-hillary-a-summation-paul-craig-roberts/ ..."
    "... Paul Joseph Watson responds to Hillary's racism speech - The Truth About Hillary's 'Alt-Right' Speech - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufkHt8dgG8I ..."
    "... But I started to doubt once I understood the gist of the song of Escamillo. After some generalities, he tells the events at the bull fight. Among the shouts of the spectators, a big bull is released from the corral. A picador woulds his back, then he is further wounded with banderillas. Bleeding, the bull retreats, only to wheel back and charge once more. Then the torero, with cape and sword, waits for him, fully alert (toreador, en guard!) to misdirect the bull a few times and deliver the final stab. Is Trump the torero or the bull? ..."
    "... All the Trump bashing just reinforces the Propaganda System's utter lack of credibility and imagination. The underlying nature of numerous political websites is also exposed thanks to their shilling for HRC--particularly those calling themselves Progressive: No Genuine Progressive would support HRC ..."
    "... ...Hillary is a one woman criminal enterprise and she's the monster's mother. [a comment from the intercept] ..."
    "... It is called 'Psychological Projection' and seems to be successful for the good reason of being widespread inherent in the population itself. To project one's own shortcomings, flaws and crimes onto somebody else is as common, as it is based on the lack of real intelligence ..."
    "... Even if Hillary is elected, her mandate will be haunted by her email stupidity and the Clinton foundation cupidity. She will be paralyzed and may not even finish her mandate. To avoid the looming shame, I think she should work NOT to be elected, so she can leave the political scene with till some dignity. ..."
    "... Regarding voting against one's own interests, the Republican majority leader of the senate just said no to TPP for the time being... Draw your own conclusions; I'm more bemused by the parallels to eastern Europe under Soviet vs NATO occupation. ..."
    "... "MoA-readers, who are left/progressive/intellectual/democratic/anti-Trump, are warmongering idiots." No, the true idiocy is with those who still buy into this concocted left/right, liberal/conservative, D/R scheme to oppress the masses. Divide and conquer at its very best. The Romans would cry tears of joy how their principle is so successfully implemented - since over 200 years. ..."
    "... [Full Text Of Hillary Clinton's Speech On The Alt-Right ...] ..."
    "... Outside the two traditional parties, there is no effective national political party. ..."
    "... It is actually not stupid. First, raising his support among the Blacks from 1% to 2% may help. More importantly, he has to work on the vote of educated whites, especially suburban female Republicans where he lags. ..."
    "... it makes the msm look like what it actually is - propaganda tool for the 1% with jackass journalists in tow.. ..."
    "... As a long time observer of elections and history, it seems that this time both parties have figured out the value of identity politics and are using that instead of any intelligent discussion of issues to sway voters. ..."
    "... It's probably the total ownership of the media by the oligarchs that allows them to do this, as it appears that no issues such as TPP or the wasteful MIC are ever discussed. Identity politics allows everything to be emotional and not rational, and it appears to be working for anyone who does not have the time or volition to read with care. ..."
    "... Make no mistake: Hillary Clinton is on record as calling for funding of Islamist groups in Syria and overthrowing Assad. If she is elected, we're very likely to see a full-scale US intervention, with US forces openly and aggressively confronting not only Syrian government forces but also facing off with the Russians. ..."
    "... Anyone calling for people to support Hilary Clinton, irrespective of whatever dishonest reasoning they use to try and con people into thinking it is a good idea, is calling for more war, more murder of brown-skinned middle eastern muslims and christians etc., and most importantly: more profits for the US/Zionist Death Machine. ..."
    "... The proper question is : after Obama, why do people like you still think that voting is of any use? ..."
    "... "What Hillary ought to do is very simple: Resign" I don't think she can, she's just a puppet, and her handlers would never let that happen. Her only chance is with her body finally giving in overwhelmed with guilt, stress, medication, her only way out... ..."
    "... If the US is to cease being an empire, the average American is going to go through hard times for a bit. If the US continues as a declining empire, the average American citizen will go through hard times plus another lot of harder times when the declining empire crashes and burns. ..."
    Aug 27, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org

    This pic comparing a young Donald Trump with a child figure in some old Nazi propaganda was posted by Doug Saunders , supposedly a serious international-affairs columnist at the Canadian Globe and Mail.

    bigger

    It is illogical, childish nonsense. But Saunders is by far the only one disqualifying himself as serious commentator by posting such bullshit. Indeed, the villain-ification of Donald Trump is a regular feature which runs through U.S. and international media from the left to the right.

    A few examples:

    1. Pinochet . Chavez . Trump? - Politico
    2. Cher compares Donald Trump to Hitler at Clinton fundraiser - Foxnews
    3. Cher Slams Trump At Clinton Fundraiser; Likens Him To Stalin - CBS
    4. Cher Compares Trump to Mao - Newsbuster
    5. Trump is the GOP's Frankenstein monster - Washington Post
    6. Biden on Trump: 'He woulda loved Stalin ' - USAToday
    7. Huffington likens Trump to Kim Jong Un - MSN
    8. What Hugo Chávez and Donald Trump have in common - Reuters
    9. The best way to thwart Trump Vader - CNN
    10. Warning From the Syrian Border: Trump Reminds Us a Bit Too Much of Assad - Rolling Stone
    11. News Quiz: Trump Rally or Erdogan Event? - The Intercept
    12. Trump & Putin . Yes, It's Really a Thing - TPM
    13. Trump's not Hitler , he's Mussolini - Salon
    14. Media ethics writer compares Trump to Hitler - Politico
    15. Donald Trump's Insane Praise of Saddam Hussein - Daily Beast
    16. Trump and Lenin - Miami Herald
    17. Insult, provoke, repeat: how Donald Trump became America's Hugo Chávez - The Guardian
    18. The Unstoppable Trump Monster - The Atlantic
    19. Donald Trump is GOP's Dark Lord Voldemort - Townhall
    20. Donald Trump is The Joker : Forget Mussolini and Hitler - Salon
    21. Donald Trump's Mansions and Saddam Hussein 's Palaces Are Basically the Same - Vanity Fair
    22. Trump and Baghdadi Join Forces - Huffington Post
    23. Echoes of Joe McCarthy in Donald Trump's Rise - RealClearPolitics
    24. Donald Trump's bromance with Vladimir Putin - CNN
    25. Trump's flirtation with fascism - Washington Post
    26. The Maoism of Donald Trump - The New Yorker.

    Is there any villain in U.S. (political) culture Donald Trump has not been compare to? Let me know what to search for.

    I doubt that this assault on Trump's character is effective. (Hillary Clinton is a more fitting object .) Potential Trump voters will at best ignore it. More likely they will feel confirmed in their belief that all media and media people are anti-Trump and pro-Clinton.

    The onslaught only validates what himself Trump claims: that all media are again him, independent of whatever policies he may promote or commit to.

    ... ... ...

    Selected Skeptical Comments
    Fernando Arauxo | Aug 26, 2016 11:41:25 AM | 2
    The jokes on them. Older voters, smarter voters are voting for Trump. If he remains on message and points out those things that do matter then he can win. He has to stop the joking around and being nasty. Be serious and get to the point.

    Jack Smith | Aug 26, 2016 12:04:00 PM | 6
    @Fernando Arauxo | Aug 26, 2016 11:41:25 AM | 2

    Trump can joke and talk all the nonsense he want, still it won't change my mind. I know Hillary including Bernie Sanders - they're from the same pot of shit.

    The only question remain, should I vote for Jill Stein to bring her Green Party percentage up? Jill Stein spoke repeatedly she will stop all aids to any country and NOT only Israel if human right are abuse - not exact words.

    Further she is a strong support of BDS even as Canada Green Party leader not in favor "Canadian MP Elizabeth May told reporters on Monday that she will stay on as leader of Canada's Green Party after saying she was considering stepping down because of her opposition to the party's recently-adopted policy of endorsing the strategy of Boycott Divest and Sanction against Israel. "

    http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=17070

    likklemore | Aug 26, 2016 12:20:49 PM | 7
    For decades, at least 40 years, it was a whisper that the international medias have been sitting in the lap of a certain 3 letter agency. The mission: Manufacturing Consent by Deception. Globalism, War & Chaos brought by The Establishment owners of Deep Shadow Government. This quote from Robert Faurisson who is tagged a Halocaust denier may offend those who cannot be criticized:

    "As for the petty little world of journalism, the media demonstrates how it, more than anyone, is careful to traffic only in authorized ideas and waves; while at the same time it fosters, through its antics, the illusion of a free circulation of ideas and opinions – not unlike jesters in a tyrant's court " -

    An old article by John Pilger via PCR War by media and the triumph of propaganda http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/12/07/guest-article-john-pilger-war-media-triumph-propaganda/

    In the 18th century, Edmund Burke described the role of the press as a Fourth Estate checking the powerful. Was that ever true? It certainly doesn't wash any more. What we need is a Fifth Estate: a journalism that monitors, deconstructs and counters propaganda and teaches the young to be agents of people, not power. We need what the Russians called perestroika – an insurrection of subjugated knowledge. I would call it real journalism.

    ~ ~ ~

    Add the pollsters in this deception. If polling samples are heavily weighted with yellow-dog Democrats the result is a Clinton lead. One only has to look at crowd draw: Trump = 7,000-10,000; Hiltery can't fill a kindergarten play-pen.

    Suggest the Trump campaign deploy IT personnel to inspect all Diebold software seconds before voting commences.

    ... ... ....

    ALberto | Aug 26, 2016 12:38:22 PM | 10
    In 8 years $Hillary was a US Senator (D-NY) she accomplished nothing of note. I actually went to one of her public appearances thinking I would hear something positive. She appeared to be an idiot when speaking extemporaneously. Clueless and incapable of expressing empathy with mere mortals. If there are debates with 'The Donald' I would expect that Her Highness will be reading a teleprompter. Her handlers do not allow her to speak off the cuff lest she reveal her total lack of human empathy and a state of perpetual clueless detachment from reality. $hill and 'The Donald.' Sad days for the Republic.

    Jackrabbit | Aug 26, 2016 12:41:44 PM | 12
    People vote against their own self interests only because bought-and-paid-for MSM and political pundits SAY that a third-party can't win.

    If everyone would simply turn off toxic media and simply vote for their best interest the establishment would stop taking us all for granted.

    What is better: Trump is elected but Obama-Hillary Democratic "Third-Way" back-stabbing sell-outs are replaced by a real left opposition led by Greens? - OR -

    Obama-Hillary fake left squashes real opposition for another 8 years while extending and deepening the soul-crushing neolib/neocon disaster?

    crv | Aug 26, 2016 12:44:04 PM | 13
    "Trump's economic policies as U.S. president would be catastrophic for those most likely to vote for him."

    US has to move away from its current hyper-financialized FIRE-based economy toward one based more on making things. There's only a chance to do that under Trump, since HRC is totally owned by Wall Street and the Perpetual War lobby.

    h | Aug 26, 2016 12:50:22 PM | 15
    Trump vs. Hillary: A Summation - Paul Craig Roberts
    The US presidential election this November will tell whether a majority of the US population is irredeemably stupid. If voters elect Hillary, we will know that Americans are stupid beyond redemption. http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2016/08/25/trump-vs-hillary-a-summation-paul-craig-roberts/

    likklemore | Aug 26, 2016 12:52:04 PM | 17
    @ rm 5 @ JS 6 @ Jr 8

    The Polls: Recall summer 1980.

    Carter (D) = 39%
    Reagan (R) = 32%
    Anderson (I) = 21%

    Who took it? Polls are still unreliable. The poll sampling is key.

    I don't have a vote. On November 08, the real problem is one of the two will be (s)elected. Your decision does weigh heavily and guarantees the selection. Can you support another 4-8 years of the certified corrupt Clinton couple?

    h | Aug 26, 2016 12:53:23 PM | 18
    Paul Joseph Watson responds to Hillary's racism speech - The Truth About Hillary's 'Alt-Right' Speech - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufkHt8dgG8I

    Formerly T-Bear | Aug 26, 2016 1:05:10 PM | 21
    There is a third way to effectively cast a ballot outside the two main party's candidates and that is not to vote at all. This is effective as a historical fact that some fraction of eligible voters did not participate (whatever the cause) and the winning candidate was enabled by some plurality rather than a majority of the eligible electorate. Throwing away one's vote in a fit of moral superiority is an effective way to throw away one's voting rights, but then the 'moral majority' that wrecked the Republic never realised their culpability and still haven't. Not one of the minority candidates became anything more than a sad footnote to history - not one.
    Piotr Berman | Aug 26, 2016 1:08:48 PM | 22
    I guess instead of violating Goodwin law, or complain one-sidedly, we should eschew "Hitlery" and "fascist Trump", and find some high-brow metaphors. My proposals: Hillary and Trump

    But I started to doubt once I understood the gist of the song of Escamillo. After some generalities, he tells the events at the bull fight. Among the shouts of the spectators, a big bull is released from the corral. A picador woulds his back, then he is further wounded with banderillas. Bleeding, the bull retreats, only to wheel back and charge once more. Then the torero, with cape and sword, waits for him, fully alert (toreador, en guard!) to misdirect the bull a few times and deliver the final stab. Is Trump the torero or the bull?

    karlof1 | Aug 26, 2016 1:20:22 PM | 24
    All the Trump bashing just reinforces the Propaganda System's utter lack of credibility and imagination. The underlying nature of numerous political websites is also exposed thanks to their shilling for HRC--particularly those calling themselves Progressive: No Genuine Progressive would support HRC, or Sanders now that he's exposed himself for what he is, a Chevrolet Liberal. The launching of the self-proclaimed "Our Revolution" website/organization is yet another DNC-based sham that studiously avoids any mention of the military or foreign policy on its "Issues" page, which again belies its nature since the #1 issue for all Genuine Progressives is War and being against it. Still have 10 weeks to go. Stein has earned all the votes within my household.
    mischi | Aug 26, 2016 1:29:27 PM | 25
    I'm not a big fan of Trump's but I find that people don't argue about his politics, but insult him and his wife on a personal basis.

    This makes me think that it's the turn of the 'Left' in the USA to become immature and resort to name calling. Remember when it was the 'Right' that made fun of Kerry's Purple Heart?

    Which also exposes the problem with politics worldwide - the Left and the Right have met at the extremes and we now see progressives arguing for burkinis and the right arguing for workers' rights by trying to prevent the TPP, etc.

    harrylaw | Aug 26, 2016 1:44:01 PM | 26
    ...Hillary is a one woman criminal enterprise and she's the monster's mother. [a comment from the intercept]

    Stillnottheonly1 | Aug 26, 2016 1:56:02 PM | 28
    It is called 'Psychological Projection' and seems to be successful for the good reason of being widespread inherent in the population itself. To project one's own shortcomings, flaws and crimes onto somebody else is as common, as it is based on the lack of real intelligence - no, not the one that is derived from fancy questionnaires, or adding numbers.

    Real intelligence includes the understanding that sitting in a glasshouse throwing rocks does not qualify to be such. It also includes the understanding to be inseparable part of one's environment - a shared environment indicating that there is only interdependence, not separation.

    Furthermore, real intelligence includes compassion, kindness and the will to walk in somebody else's shoes.

    This intelligence is sorely missing in the majority of people that are entrusted with 'journalistic' work, or working in public offices. The stench of being "holier that thou" is covering the U.S.A. and wafts to Europe were it is now also modus operandi.

    The best course of action would be to punish those who engage in this kind of demagoguery with nonobservance.

    Erelis | Aug 26, 2016 2:09:44 PM | 30
    It won't be Trump who brings us fascism as the images implies, but more likely Clinton if she wins and if the Democrats can win over one of the Houses of Congress. As the campaign goes on, these comparisons add up and create in the minds of anybody anti-Trump an actual equivalency to in particular Hitler. This is one half of the combustion needed to go down the road to fascism.

    There is something else that Trump given the Russian hysteria is being called--a traitor. The thing is, Hillary supports believe this to be true in a criminal sense. It is not just some throw away smear normal for any election. I have seen way too way postings in major democratic party sites calls for basically the resurrection of the House Un-American Activities Committee. These supporters are historically clueless on what they are asking for, and I would imagine the same with much of the democratic party lawmakers in Congress.

    I can see if Hillary wins, witch hunts against anti-war protesters, or people who believe we should have rapprochement with Russia and China. The goal will be to criminalize and punish dissenting views on foreign and war policies because the constant Putin/Trump/Hitler/Stalin/etc comparisons created the foundation for actual criminal accusations.

    And the witch hunts will spread beyond war and foreign policy. Look at what is going on in Europe. Literally, and I do mean literally, every problem is being attributed to Putin "weaponizing" some issue. Serious politicians accused Putin of using drunken Russian fans during the Euro futbol championships of starting fights to support Brexit. The Polish minister for internal security accused Putin of master minding the Paris terrorist attacks. And these guys get away with the most outlandish accusations. As the real Nazis understood, repetition of lies is the foundation of propaganda to move people into action.

    harrylaw | Aug 26, 2016 2:11:35 PM | 31
    Vapors@14 Its not Boris Yeltsin, its Boris Johnson http://oi64.tinypic.com/zno56o.jpg
    Shillary | Aug 26, 2016 2:14:21 PM | 32
    The underlying nature of numerous political websites is also exposed thanks to their shilling for HRC--particularly those calling themselves Progressive: No Genuine Progressive would support HRC, or Sanders now that he's exposed himself for what he is, a Chevrolet Liberal.

    Well the resident Zio-Racist Hill-shill (rufus magister | Aug 26, 2016 11:47:38 AM | 5) likes to pretend he is some sort of progressive, but still can't keep from outing himself by banging on non-stop about the Zio-Racists favourite talking points (Heil hillary and "holocaustholocaustholocaut!!")

    likklemore | Aug 26, 2016 2:15:41 PM | 33
    @ Alberto 10

    She appeared to be an idiot when speaking extemporaneously. Clueless and incapable of expressing empathy with mere mortals. If there are debates with 'The Donald' I would expect that Her Highness will be reading a teleprompter. Her handlers do not allow her to speak off the cuff [.]

    Very interesting because I have been discussing with colleagues here the Don should be honing his debating skill sets as Hillary is a trained lawyer/politician.

    From The Hague | Aug 26, 2016 2:22:04 PM | 34
    MoA-readers, who are left/progressive/intellectual/democratic/anti-Trump, are warmongering idiots.
    virgile | Aug 26, 2016 2:36:44 PM | 35
    Even if Hillary is elected, her mandate will be haunted by her email stupidity and the Clinton foundation cupidity. She will be paralyzed and may not even finish her mandate. To avoid the looming shame, I think she should work NOT to be elected, so she can leave the political scene with till some dignity.

    Johan Meyer | Aug 26, 2016 3:50:48 PM | 39
    Regarding voting against one's own interests, the Republican majority leader of the senate just said no to TPP for the time being... Draw your own conclusions; I'm more bemused by the parallels to eastern Europe under Soviet vs NATO occupation.
    xyz | Aug 26, 2016 4:05:16 PM | 40
    Those who see Trump as some kinda Messiah need a cold shower. An ice cold one. All in all still better than war criminal Hillary.
    Shillary | Aug 26, 2016 4:31:43 PM | 41
    FBI Admits Clinton Used Software Designed To "Prevent Recovery" And "Hide Traces Of" Deleted Emails

    . . .Clinton's use of BleachBit undermines her claims that she only deleted innocuous "personal" emails from her private server

    "If she considered them to be personal, then she and her lawyers had those emails deleted. They didn't just push the delete button, they had them deleted where even God can't read them.

    "They were using something called BleachBit You don't use BleachBit for yoga emails."

    "When you're using BleachBit, it is something you really do not want the world to see."

    meok | Aug 26, 2016 4:37:40 PM | 43
    The Bilderbeg group meeting has already decided who should become president, the media has been ordered to get this person elected.
    rg the lg | Aug 26, 2016 4:51:43 PM | 44
    Wow!

    Vitriol galore! If the arguments made above ... either way ... are the best we can do then maybe electing Hillary and hoping for WW3 is the lessor of evils. As I've said before, not a bad idea.

    On the other hand, did anyone read what Eric Zuesse had to say: http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2016/08/23/hellish-end-soon-record-high-likelihood-both-nuclear-burnout.html

    Kinda puts real hope in all of your scenarios.

    Stillnottheonly1 | Aug 26, 2016 5:07:58 PM | 45
    Posted by: From The Hague | Aug 26, 2016 2:22:04 PM | 34

    "MoA-readers, who are left/progressive/intellectual/democratic/anti-Trump, are warmongering idiots." No, the true idiocy is with those who still buy into this concocted left/right, liberal/conservative, D/R scheme to oppress the masses. Divide and conquer at its very best. The Romans would cry tears of joy how their principle is so successfully implemented - since over 200 years.

    To be bold here: a 'left' mother loves her child as much as a 'right' mother and even more so the grandparents. Any grandparent here that denies their grandchildren their love based on the fact that their children cling on to a different belief? And that it is in its entirety - made believe by the Plutocrats and the sheople throw shit at each other instead of UPWARDS .

    Oui | Aug 26, 2016 5:12:26 PM | 48
    Two Worst Possible Candidates Running for U.S. Presidency

    [Full Text Of Hillary Clinton's Speech On The Alt-Right ...]

    Just yesterday, one of Britain's most prominent right-wing leaders, Nigel Farage, who stoked anti-immigrant sentiments to win the referendum on leaving the European Union, campaigned with Donald Trump in Mississippi. Farage has called for a ban on the children of legal immigrants from public schools and health services, has said women are quote "worth less" than men, and supports scrapping laws that prevent employers from discriminating based on race ― that's who Trump wants by his side.

    The godfather of this global brand of extreme nationalism is Russian President Vladimir Putin.

    In fact, Farage has appeared regularly on Russian propaganda programs. Now he's standing on the same stage as the Republican nominee.

    Shillary | Aug 26, 2016 5:22:34 PM | 50
    Lol PRAVDA

    During a campaign rally in Nevada, US presidential candidate Hillary Clinton spoke about the dangers of right-wing forces in power, as well as about problems of racism. "Clinton noted that her rival Donald Trump supported the policies of Russian President Vladimir Putin. As for relations with Russia, the views of Donald Trump come contrary to the views of all American presidents, from "Truman to Reagan."

    "He talks casually of abandoning our NATO allies, recognizing Russia's annexation of Crimea, giving the Kremlin a free hand in eastern Europe. American presidents from Truman, to Reagan, to Bush, to Clinton, to Obama have rejected the kind of approach Trump is taking on Russia. And we should, too," Clinton said.

    "Vladimir Putin is the grand-godfather of this global brand of extreme nationalism.", Hillary Clinton said", (while standing in front of a gigantic American Flag, without a trace of Irony detectable in her voice)

    Tim808 | Aug 26, 2016 5:29:02 PM | 51
    Hatred of Trump is nothing more than cloaked Jewish hatred of white Christians. Go ahead and take my comment down, but you are too smart to not know the truth deep down in your heart. This above all else, lie to yourself to protect the Jewish lies.
    Formerly T-Bear | Aug 26, 2016 5:31:02 PM | 52
    About the most successful 'breakaway political movement' ever was probably the Dixiecrats in the 1948 election which actually garnered a small fraction of the electoral college, but that was using the apparatus of an organised national political party existent regionally. Outside the two traditional parties, there is no effective national political party. ...Next time keep your idiot elections to yourselves - Please.
    Shillary | Aug 26, 2016 5:33:47 PM | 53
    Philip Giraldi• August 23, 2016 - http://www.unz.com/article/are-the-clintons-israeli-agents/

    On August 5th, Michael Morell, a former acting Director of the CIA, pilloried GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump, concluding that he was an "unwitting agent of Russia." Morell, who entitled his New York Times op-ed "I Ran the CIA and now I'm endorsing Hillary Clinton," described the process whereby Trump had been so corrupted. According to Morell, Putin, it seems, as a wily ex-career intelligence officer, is "trained to identify vulnerabilities in an individual and to exploit them. That is exactly what he did early in the primaries. Mr. Putin played upon Mr. Trump's vulnerabilities… In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation."

    So who is guilty of putting the interests of a foreign government ahead of those of the United States? I know there are advocates for any number of foreign states running around loose in Washington but the friends of Israel in government and the media come immediately to mind largely because there are so many of them, they are very much in-your-face and they are both extremely well-funded and very successful. Now deceased former Congressman Tom Lantos and Senator Frank Lautenberg were, respectively, often referred to as the congressman and senator from Israel. And there are many more: Chuck Schumer, Chuck Grassley, Ben Cardin, Bob Menendez, Tom Cotton, Mark Kirk, Nita Lowey, Ted Deutch, Brad Sherman, Ileana-Ros Lehtinen and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz to name only a few in the Congress. All are major recipients of Israel related PAC money and all are reliable defenders of Israel no matter what Benjamin Netanyahu does and no matter how it effects the United States.

    And then there are the Clintons. One only has to go back to Bill's one-sided pro-Israeli diplomacy at Camp David in 2000 to discern how the game was played. And then there was the widely condemned January 2001 last minute pardon of Mossad agent Marc Rich, whose wife Denise was a major contributor to the Clintons, to realize that there was always a deference to Israeli interests particularly when money was involved. The only problem is that the Clintons, relying on Morell's formulation, might more reasonably be described as witting agents of Israel rather than unwitting as they have certainly known what they have been doing and have been actively supporting Israeli policies even when damaging to U.S. interests since they first emerged from the primordial political swamps in Arkansas. If one were completely cynical it might be possible to suggest that they understood from the beginning that pandering to Israel and gaining access to Jewish power and money would be a major component in their rise to political prominence. It certainly has worked out that way.

    =====

    So who is guilty of putting the interests of a foreign government ahead of those of the United States? I know there are advocates for any number of foreign states running around loose in Washington but the friends of Israel in government and the media come immediately to mind largely because there are so many of them, they are very much in-your-face and they are both extremely well-funded and very successful. Now deceased former Congressman Tom Lantos and Senator Frank Lautenberg were, respectively, often referred to as the congressman and senator from Israel. And there are many more: Chuck Schumer, Chuck Grassley, Ben Cardin, Bob Menendez, Tom Cotton, Mark Kirk, Nita Lowey, Ted Deutch, Brad Sherman, Ileana-Ros Lehtinen and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz to name only a few in the Congress. All are major recipients of Israel related PAC money and all are reliable defenders of Israel no matter what Benjamin Netanyahu does and no matter how it effects the United States.

    And then there are the Clintons. One only has to go back to Bill's one-sided pro-Israeli diplomacy at Camp David in 2000 to discern how the game was played. And then there was the widely condemned January 2001 last minute pardon of Mossad agent Marc Rich, whose wife Denise was a major contributor to the Clintons, to realize that there was always a deference to Israeli interests particularly when money was involved. The only problem is that the Clintons, relying on Morell's formulation, might more reasonably be described as witting agents of Israel rather than unwitting as they have certainly known what they have been doing and have been actively supporting Israeli policies even when damaging to U.S. interests since they first emerged from the primordial political swamps in Arkansas. If one were completely cynical it might be possible to suggest that they understood from the beginning that pandering to Israel and gaining access to Jewish power and money would be a major component in their rise to political prominence. It certainly has worked out that way.

    Piotr Berman | Aug 26, 2016 6:03:50 PM | 54
    Tom @38: "Trump the racist Appealing to African-Americans was just a demented and sick desperate joke. "

    It is actually not stupid. First, raising his support among the Blacks from 1% to 2% may help. More importantly, he has to work on the vote of educated whites, especially suburban female Republicans where he lags.

    However, a position that he is not racist is ... misguided, say. Through most of his life, Trump simply donated to all elected politicians in areas where he was doing business, as it is apparently necessary for every serious developer. But in recent years he became sort of Republican activists, and his premiere issue was "birthism". A conspiracy theory alleging that Obama was born abroad. Incidentally, Ted Cruz was born abroad, in Canada, of non-citizen father and American citizen mother, and, surprise, surprise, he is perfectly eligible to run for President, but simple legal arguments like that, not to mention actual documents from a hospital in Hawaii did not satisfy the insane crowd. The only motivation that is non-insane is ugly: harping on "otherness" of mix-race President with Muslim first name and African last name.

    Or Trump harping that he would be more successful in foreign policy because he would be "more respected" than a women or a Black boy.

    Trump supports police brutality, down to gunning down unarmed poor folks (to err on the side of caution) and death penalty, for innocently accused as it turned later. Somehow a white person killing poor women and refrigerating the corpses does not lead to conniptions and full page newspaper ads, unlike black youth accused of rape. This is really harking to good old time of lynch mobs. LITERALLY.

    And this: "Trump blamed financial difficulties partly on African American accountants.

    "I've got black accountants at Trump Castle and at Trump Plaza - black guys counting my money!" O'Donnell's book quoted Trump as saying. "I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day. Those are the kind of people I want counting my money. Nobody else. . . . Besides that, I've got to tell you something else. I think that the guy is lazy. And it's probably not his fault because laziness is a trait in blacks. It really is; I believe that. It's not anything they can control."

    james | Aug 26, 2016 8:13:11 PM | 57
    @55 virgile.. either that, or it makes the msm look like what it actually is - propaganda tool for the 1% with jackass journalists in tow..
    Michael | Aug 26, 2016 8:32:03 PM | 58
    As a long time observer of elections and history, it seems that this time both parties have figured out the value of identity politics and are using that instead of any intelligent discussion of issues to sway voters.

    It's probably the total ownership of the media by the oligarchs that allows them to do this, as it appears that no issues such as TPP or the wasteful MIC are ever discussed. Identity politics allows everything to be emotional and not rational, and it appears to be working for anyone who does not have the time or volition to read with care.

    Shillary | Aug 26, 2016 8:57:05 PM | 59
    Make no mistake: Hillary Clinton is on record as calling for funding of Islamist groups in Syria and overthrowing Assad. If she is elected, we're very likely to see a full-scale US intervention, with US forces openly and aggressively confronting not only Syrian government forces but also facing off with the Russians.

    Anyone calling for people to support Hilary Clinton, irrespective of whatever dishonest reasoning they use to try and con people into thinking it is a good idea, is calling for more war, more murder of brown-skinned middle eastern muslims and christians etc., and most importantly: more profits for the US/Zionist Death Machine.

    Make no mistake about that, these shitty Hillary-supporting people cannot claim that they do not know what that that is what they are doing, because she has been quite vocal in her support for more war and more murder (on behalf of Isreal naturally)

    It may be that, despite his rethoric, and like Oboma before him, Trump will bring all those things too, should he win, but we DO know for sure what Killary intends, because we have already seen her handywork, and she has promised more of the same

    Shillary | Aug 26, 2016 9:43:14 PM | 61
    The proper question is : after Obama, why do people like you still think that voting is of any use?

    When did it ever change anything?

    You going to have to come up with something a tad more effective than mere voting if you want it to change.

    Personally I think the US deserves a Trump presidency.

    fairleft | Aug 26, 2016 9:51:02 PM | 62
    Rufus at 19: why link to irrelevant OT wikipedia?

    There's Hillary, whose delusion is that she has any political game. Certainly not enough to get elected President, even against a reality TV host. Then there's Donald, whose delusion is that he actually _is_ the person he plays on TV.

    In the midst of the insanity is Jill. JIILLLLLLL people!

    OT, but did Bill marry Hill as a firewall against any possibility he might act on his more than occasional human/humane instincts? She certainly would have none of that, he must've known. NOTHING must stand in the way of ambition.

    jawbone | Aug 26, 2016 10:19:23 PM | 65
    virgile | Aug 26, 2016 2:36:44 PM | 35 --

    What Hillary ought to do is very simple: Resign (or whatever verb works for this presidential nominee situation), Apologize to all the voters who chose her. Explain that she would probably be impeached and would be essentially neutered. She should then tell the public that Bernie Sanders would do the best for all the people of this nation.

    Like that will ever happen....

    ProPeace | Aug 26, 2016 10:37:23 PM | 66
    @jawbone | Aug 26, 2016 10:19:23 PM | 65

    "What Hillary ought to do is very simple: Resign" I don't think she can, she's just a puppet, and her handlers would never let that happen. Her only chance is with her body finally giving in overwhelmed with guilt, stress, medication, her only way out...

    Look what they did to Reagan and the pope JP2 - GHWB failed with his assassins, but after the attempts, both these puppets were basically doing what told, with only little freedom left to do some good things (served well for maintaining appearances).

    Which brings again that question to my mind - why did they let Hinckley the patsy out recently, what's he's being set up for..?

    rg the lg | Aug 26, 2016 11:35:54 PM | 67
    Oooo! Shillary! Such refined thinking. Face it, the US has always been corrupt. "The American Slave Coast: A History of the Slave-Breeding Industry" reviewed here: http://www.chicagoreviewpress.com/american-slave-coast--the-products-9781613748206.php says it all. Thomas Jefferson, a hero? What about George Washington, the land owner? Trump and Clinton are only unusual in that most Duhmericans have finally no choice but to admit they are venal. Stein, who could NEVER win, seems honorable. Johnson may be a wacked out libertarian, but he is a well meaning wacko.

    Great choices for the great democracy, light of the world, exceptional nation!

    I agree, Duhmerican politics are stupid ... the dumbest people in the world make it so. Then again, is any place humans habitate NOT idiotically insane stupid?

    Peter AU | Aug 26, 2016 11:49:22 PM | 68
    "Trump's economic policies as U.S. president would be catastrophic for those most likely to vote for him."

    If the US is to cease being an empire, the average American is going to go through hard times for a bit. If the US continues as a declining empire, the average American citizen will go through hard times plus another lot of harder times when the declining empire crashes and burns.

    fairleft | Aug 27, 2016 12:26:03 AM | 69
    Peter at 68: No, that's conventional economic thinking. Americans or any people will have good economic times if the government stimulates the economy in ways that grow high-paying jobs, restructures economic power toward workers, and massively redistributes income to the middle and working classes. Empire or no Empire.

    paul | Aug 27, 2016 1:44:53 AM | 70
    If only Trump were like Hugo Chavez, right?!

    Hoarsewhisperer | Aug 27, 2016 2:55:01 AM | 71
    ...
    "Vladimir Putin is the grand-godfather of this global brand of extreme nationalism.", Hillary Clinton said, (while standing in front of a gigantic American Flag, without a trace of Irony detectable in her voice).
    Posted by: Shillary | Aug 26, 2016 5:22:34 PM | 50

    Yep. Dangerously stupid.
    Superficial and self-absorbed Hollywoodishness; the polar opposite of self-aware.

    Hoarsewhisperer | Aug 27, 2016 3:06:01 AM | 72
    Clinton = Drama without empathy.

    Johan Meyer | Aug 27, 2016 3:10:47 AM | 73
    The best though in that photo is the wolfsangel---last I checked, it was Hillary that had the ties to pravyy sektor...

    harrylaw | Aug 27, 2016 3:13:03 AM | 74
    Paul@70 Even the "socialist" Sanders thought, Hugo Chávez is Just a Dead Communist Dictator.

    cahaba | Aug 27, 2016 4:29:09 AM | 75
    Blonde hair. Blue eyes.

    It's not "childish", b, it's straight-up racism.

    Do we really need to go into the whole "dumb blonde" meme that has permeated media for decades?

    jfl | Aug 27, 2016 5:37:15 AM | 76
    @71, hoarse

    The Godfather image is a popular one these days. The Godmother use it to deflect attention from her own role as cackling harridan, wailing banshee of DDD&D ... others note that "Godfather" Biden visits Turkey


    The foreign policy of the American ruling class, in addition to the impoverishment of American society to fund the vast military apparatus, has had the most horrifying consequences for the peoples of the countries targeted. The war fomented by the United States in Syria has reduced the population of that country from 23 million to about 17 million, killed up to half a million people, and displaced over 13 million.

    Thirteen years after the invasion of Iraq, which resulted in the deaths of at least a million people, some 4.4 million Iraqis are internally displaced, with over a quarter million forced to flee the country.

    Questions of foreign policy are not decided, much less deliberated, within the framework of elections. Nowhere in the 2016 presidential race is there a serious debate, for instance, on the character of the US alliance with Turkey or the consequences of launching a de facto NATO invasion of Syria. Congress holds no hearings or votes. It neither seeks nor desires to play a serious role.

    As for the people, they simply have no say.

    The press plays a key role in the deception and disenfranchisement of the population. One tactic employed by the corporate-controlled media is simply to exclude "minor" developments such as a US-backed invasion of Syria from the so-called "news." The most remarkable feature of the media coverage to date of the Turkish incursion is its virtual non-existence. It is a good bet, due to the media's corrupt silence, that the percentage of the US population that is even aware of the invasion is in the single digits.

    TheRealDonald | Aug 27, 2016 6:12:11 AM | 77
    11

    You forgot to add: "anyone who willfully votes for either Red Donald or Blue Hillary is a moral leper, ...one who will still have to cough up a $4.5 TRILLION King's Ransom on April 15th for Mil.Gov.Fed metastasizing Technocracy, regardless, and still have to pay $650 BILLION a year of that YUUGE ransom in interest-only debt (sic) tithes to The Chosen."

    Shillary @50 -- Hillary Clinton is completely devoid of any sense of irony or humour. She's a complete emotional and, I would add, intellectual dud. She seems to be a good lawyer, though --- in the US lawyers as far as the eye can see.

    Posted by: Quentin | Aug 27, 2016 6:32:49 AM | 78

    Shillary @50 -- Hillary Clinton is completely devoid of any sense of irony or humour. She's a complete emotional and, I would add, intellectual dud. She seems to be a good lawyer, though --- in the US lawyers as far as the eye can see.

    Posted by: Quentin | Aug 27, 2016 6:32:49 AM | 78

    Stephane | Aug 27, 2016 8:15:02 AM | 79
    Typos:

    is by far the only one

    has not been compare to

    are again him

    would be more effect in

    okie farmer | Aug 27, 2016 8:23:27 AM | 80
    OT
    GENEVA - The United States and Russia say they have resolved a number of issues standing in the way of restoring a nationwide truce to Syria and opening up aid deliveries, but were unable once again to forge a comprehensive agreement on stepping up cooperation to end the brutal war that has killed hundreds of thousands.

    After meeting off-and-on for nearly 10 hours in Geneva on Friday, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov could point to only incremental progress in filling in details of a broad understanding to boost joint efforts that was reached last month in Moscow.

    Their failure to reach an overall deal highlighted the increasingly complex situation on the ground in Syria - including new Russian-backed Syrian government attacks on opposition forces, the intermingling of some of those opposition forces with an al-Qaida affiliate not covered by the truce and the surrender of a rebel-held suburb of Damascus - as well as deep divisions and mistrust dividing Washington and Moscow.

    The complexities have also grown with the increasing internationalization of what has largely become a proxy war between regional and world powers, highlighted by a move by Turkish troops across the Syrian border against Islamic State fighters this week.

    Kerry said he and Lavrov had agreed on the "vast majority" of technical discussions on steps to reinstate a cease-fire and improve humanitarian access. But critical sticking points remain unresolved and experts will remain in Geneva with an eye toward finalizing those in the coming days, he said.
    ```
    Lavrov echoed that, saying "we still need to finalize a few issues" and pointed to the need to separate fighters from the al-Nusra Front, which has ties to al-Qaida, from U.S.-backed fighters who hold parts of northwest Syria.

    "We have continued our efforts to reduce the areas where we lack understanding and trust, which is an achievement," Lavrov said. "The mutual trust is growing with every meeting."

    Yet, it was clear that neither side believes an overall agreement is imminent or even achievable after numerous previous disappointments shattered a brief period of relative calm earlier this year.

    The inability to wrest an agreement between Russia and the U.S. - as the major sponsors of the opposing sides in the stalled Syria peace talks - all but spells another missed deadline for the U.N. Syria envoy to get the Syrian government and "moderate" opposition back to the table.
    ```
    In a nod to previous failed attempts to resurrect the cessation of hostilities, Kerry stressed the importance of keeping the details secret.
    ```
    And, underscoring deep differences over developments on the ground, Kerry noted that Russia disputes the U.S. "narrative" of recent attacks on heavily populated areas being conducted by Syrian forces, Russia itself and the Iranian-backed Hezbollah militia. Russia maintains the attacks it has been involved in have targeted legitimate terrorist targets, while the U.S. says they have hit moderate opposition forces.
    ~~~
    At the same time, the Obama administration is not of one mind regarding the Russians. The Pentagon has publicly complained about getting drawn into greater cooperation with Russia even though it has been forced recently to expand communication with Moscow. Last week, the U.S. had to call for Russian help when Syrian warplanes struck an area not far from where U.S. troops were operating.

    U.S. officials say it is imperative that Russia use its influence with Syrian President Bashar Assad to halt all attacks on moderate opposition forces, open humanitarian aid corridors, and concentrate any offensive action on the Islamic State group and other extremists not covered by what has become a largely ignored truce.

    For their part, U.S. officials say they are willing to press rebels groups they support harder on separating themselves from the Islamic State and al-Nusra, which despite a recent name change is still viewed as al-Qaida's affiliate in Syria.

    Those goals are not new, but recent developments have made achieving them even more urgent and important, according to U.S. officials. Recent developments include military operations around the city of Aleppo, the entry of Turkey into the ground war, Turkish hostility toward U.S.-backed Kurdish rebel groups and the presence of American military advisers in widening conflict zones.

    Meanwhile, in a blow to the opposition, rebel forces and civilians in the besieged Damascus suburb of Daraya were to be evacuated on Friday after agreeing to surrender the town late Thursday after four years of grueling bombardment and a crippling siege that left the sprawling area in ruins.

    The surrender of Daraya, which became an early symbol of the nascent uprising against Assad, marks a success for his government, removing a persistent threat only a few miles from his seat of power.

    dahoit | Aug 27, 2016 9:05:41 AM | 81
    Returning to protectionism and fair trade will lift all American boats,not just the Wall Street Zionists,so I am perplexed at b's comment.
    America,despite glowing MSM BS,is on the ropes of neoliberalism.As an older American,I remember a land of plenty,with good jobs for all,instead of fast food retail hell.I don't think b has any idea of the realities being endured by US,as the media refuses to give US reality,instead rosy economic garbage where not once in Obombas terrible reign have they created enough jobs to keep up with the expanding population,and as DT says,the inner cities are hellholes,witness the NBA star Dwayne Wades cousin shot in Chicago pushing a baby stroller.
    I had a nurse from Hempstead NY,when i had the big C,who said an old man in a wheelchair had a pit bull tied to it to ward off potential crooks.WTF?
    And now the antisemitism card is played by the serial liars,Bannon is accused of calling Jews whiny.Well,as a longtime observer,he is spot on there.
    And the lying times says 90% chance for Hell bitch victory.
    Will saying it so often make it so?Nah.

    dahoit | Aug 27, 2016 9:28:45 AM | 82
    What is unbelievable is the fact that she corruptly stole the primary with the help of the DNC and the ziomedia,but no one cares.(her supporters)If not emblematic of the depravity of liberals,those who wish the death of others so they live in safety(which of course is poppycock)what is?
    And when Trump gets her in the debates,he'll destroy the MSM narrative of BS.

    rufus magister | Aug 27, 2016 9:40:10 AM | 83
    in 29 --

    No facts? Pound the table.

    Pace yourself, though, the election is a long way off, and you won't want to burst into a conniption before then.

    Noirette | Aug 27, 2016 10:50:52 AM | 84
    Part 1. ;) Got dragged into Killary's alt-right speech at Truckee Meadows Community College, Reno, Nevada, Aug 2016. Only content: 100% against Trump , as sidebars, Alex Jones, Nigel Farage, Putin, David Duke.

    The official MSM version is 31 mins - the frame is just her with a fixed cam centered nothing around. Sparse occasional clapping (real, one can see the clappers in other vids).. She speaks as one would to a parterre of 30-50 ppl, not as in a campaign rally. A longer version (MSM) is 45 mins and shows some of the preliminaries, some guy, then the Mayor of Reno, youngish blondine, introducing her. Killary was apparently hours late. (> youtube.) Killary is dressed in green.

    To the interesting part. She spoke at the same College in Feb. 2015. Note: red dress, the brick pillars typical of the college, and the big windows behind. A big hall…

    link

    This shot shows the other direction, see the small windows at the side and back

    link

    The event has all the hallmarks of a 'proper' pol show, no need to list. Note the Hall, quite large, is not full. The signs are blue and are for Hillary, for Women, for Nevada and so on.

    Hoarsewhisperer | Aug 27, 2016 11:06:17 AM | 85
    Posted by: okie farmer | Aug 27, 2016 8:23:27 AM | 80

    Re: Geneva negotiations...
    Love the goto clause:

    "In a nod to previous failed attempts to resurrect the cessation of hostilities, Kerry stressed the importance of keeping the details secret."

    Yeah, keeping the details secret so that next time the Yankees backstab Russia, observers won't immediately realise that they were, in fact, just shooting themselves in the foot. Again.

    Noirette | Aug 27, 2016 11:25:41 AM | 86
    Part 2. The Aug. 2016 event took place at the College but either in a small part of the back of the big hall or another locale (similar in architecture obviously)

    link

    The widest shot Aug. 2016. AFGE (men with black Ts) = American Federation of Gvmt. Employees.

    link

    Here is the 'furthest back' shot. TV coverage did not show these.

    link

    The only shot I could find showing the audience facing her. Note the ppl behind her facing out, i.e. the cams (shown on TV etc.) are not identifiable.

    link

    Bizzaro event. Minuscule, there is almost nobody there. It was deliberatly set up in 'small space' for the cams. The only other important ppl present are one man (Head of the college or? idk) and the Mayor of Reno. The only signs shown say *USA* are not appropriate and are whipped out only when Killary comes onstage. Doesn't even look like a Democrat event! Never mind an important campaign rally for *drum rolls* the person anointed to become Prez. of the most powerful country on Earth, the World Queen or Hegemon.

    After the speech, vids show H.C. talking to a very few ppl, 25 at most, not answering "reporters" questions, two tiny trays of confections were offered. Bwwahhh. She ate one choc. There was also a stop at a Reno Coffee shop (10 ppl?) which made no sense. On these occasions she is accompanied by the Mayor in a cosy girly coffee thingie. (> youtube.)

    The US is fracturing...Moreover the speech was perhaps the weakest from any pol I have ever heard.


    Jackrabbit | Aug 27, 2016 11:35:36 AM | 87
    okie farmer @80

    Strike three for Russia.

    Strike 1: Talks with KSA - no result

    Strike 2: Turkish incursion into Syria (with US blessing)

    Strike 3: Geneva Talks with Kerry - no result

    Curtis | Aug 27, 2016 12:09:08 PM | 88
    iPhone hacked by NSO Group based in Israel
    http://www.businessinsider.com/pegasus-nso-group-iphone-2016-8

    http://www.businessinsider.com/nso-group-2016-8

    Wait a minute! They ID'd the hacker and it's a business in Israel? And it forced Apple to an emergency software upgrade. But I thought all the evil hackers were Russians working for the government.

    Gesine Hammerling | Aug 27, 2016 12:15:34 PM | 89
    A serious question: What would happen if Trump won the majority of the members of the Electoral College but they voted for Clinton?

    Karl Pomeroy | Aug 27, 2016 12:29:37 PM | 90
    There is one villain Trump has not been compared to: Hillary Clinton.

    And don't be the kettle calling the pot black, whoever the author of this ill-researched piece is. Your own journalism strikes me as irresponsible when you claim, "Trump's economic policies as U.S. president would be catastrophic for those most likely to vote for him." Catastrophic? Really? Who exactly is "most likely to vote for him" that would not benefit from better trade deals and more corporate incentives for domestic business? The global elite? They're the ones who definitely won't benefit, but they also definitely won't vote for him. Get your thinking straight.

    For clear light on the positive relationship between a Trump presidency and the US economy, David Stockman offers wisdom. Take a look from time to time at his website to educate yourself:

    http://davidstockmanscontracorner.com/


    Jackrabbit | Aug 27, 2016 12:32:46 PM | 91
    Curis @88

    I linked to the full report in the Open Thread

    harrylaw | Aug 27, 2016 1:10:56 PM | 92
    okie farmer@80 Lavrov is on a loser if he accepts this "moderate terrorist" BS from Kerry. Those "moderates" have replaced Islamic state in Jerablus, soon to be expanded to cover that huge area between Jerablus, Azaz and Al-bab,all without a fight and apparent agreement with IS. Next could be the area is controlled by Turkish and US "moderate" head choppers, which of course nobody will be allowed to attack. They should only be called moderate if they oppose Assad and do not carry arms, otherwise its just a case of changing labels, in which case the terrorists could never lose. I find it hard to believe that so soon after the so called normalization of ties and trade deals between Russia and Turkey, Turkey could do what they have threatened to do for years, invade Syria and set up prospective no fly zones. I suppose we must wait and see, but in my opinion, it does not look good.

    jfl | Aug 27, 2016 2:30:39 PM | 93
    @88, curtis, 'But I thought all the evil hackers were Russians working for the government'

    Maybe they are ... Russian emigre hackers working for the Israeli government?

    @92 hl,

    I agree. Russia has been stabbed in the back by Turkey, and the US is backing Turkey ... of course they were backing the Kurds, too, until they weren't.

    Erdogan is utterly unreliable ... or he is utterly reliable if you're relying on duplicity and betrayal.

    Joaquin Flores observes Syria Violence to increase: Peace talks fail as situation deteriorates . It seems that the US is just all stall, all the time. Alternating with stabs in the back. No point in talking to them ... for 12 hours?!

    rg the lg | Aug 27, 2016 2:31:01 PM | 94
    Here's a thought:

    http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2016/08/25/trump-vs-hillary-a-summation-paul-craig-roberts/

    Now it is time for people to start saying Roberts is a shill for Trump. If you've read what he has written about Trump, he's highly critical. His point is simple: Do you support those who are so blatantly against Trump? Or, put the other way around, are you in favor of continued oligarchic rule.

    Like Roberts, I am so opposed to Clinton that Trump seems (even ever so slightly) the lessor of evils.

    Unlike Roberts, I think Stein our best bet.

    AtaBrit | Aug 27, 2016 2:52:27 PM | 95
    @b
    Here's a couple for you ...

    1 "Donald Trump is worse than Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad"
    www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/donald-trump/12182955/Donald-Trump-is-worse-than-Irans-Mahmoud-Ahmadinejad.html

    2 "Donald Trump Is America's Gift To Bin Laden"
    www.huffpost.com/us/entry/10445156

    PavewayIV | Aug 27, 2016 3:06:20 PM | 96
    Gesine Hammerling@89 - "...What would happen if Trump won the majority of the members of the Electoral College but they voted for Clinton?..."

    The Electoral College vote is absolute - the candidate that gets 270 of the 538 votes wins, so Clinton would be elected. If neither candidate gets that many, then an immediate vote by the House of Representatives decides. The popular vote that takes place at the same time is utterly meaningless other than to chose one of two bribe-funneling political parties who, in turn, chose their typically party-loyal electors. There's a bit more to it than that, but that sums it up. And, yes, the state political parties could chose electors who would jump ship and vote for the other party. That will be the way they will ensure Clinton is elected in November regardless of who the little people think they're voting for. Anyone who is familiar with the process knows this will happen, including the Republican Party. Trump obviously knows the fix is in.

    The paradox comes about because the political parties at the state level have slowly taken over the process of choosing who goes to the electoral college. The founders' original intent was to have (presumably) the best and the brightest citizens representing each state, making an informed decision that would produce the 'best' choice. There were no political parties to speak of when the Constitution was penned. In fact, the founders were rather suspicious of them in general but did not go so far as to prohibit them (to our eventual ruin). They never intended the rigged, two-party freak show popularity contest masquerading as an election that we have today.

    PavewayIV | Aug 27, 2016 3:13:19 PM | 97
    For a bit more nuance in the choice of state electors, their vote pledge and 'jumping ship' (if it's allowed by law in that state, see faithless electors .

    Curtis | Aug 27, 2016 3:46:24 PM | 98
    I check the CPI every now and then looking for the US to drop. The Corruption Perception Index depends on the perception which can be molded by the media. But as more people wake up, I expect the US ranking to drop. Our 2015 ranking is 16 (behind countries in north-east Europe and Canada and New Zealand).
    http://www.transparency.org/cpi2015

    Interesting that 72% say US Govt efforts against corruption are ineffective and 72% say the level of corruption increased from 2007 to 2010.
    http://www.transparency.org/country/#USA_PublicOpinion

    james | Aug 27, 2016 4:27:25 PM | 99
    @92 harrylaw...i agree with you..

    russia sees this bs crap about 'moderate' for what it is... just another shell game to play hide and seek, switch flags, etc, etc... until the 'moderate' opposition drop their military arms, it ain't 'moderate'... would 'moderate' opposition to the usa leadership be allowed to use weapons? that's the answer to that bs...

    as for turkey, clearly the apk has a 'get rid of the kurds' agenda.. works well in their alliance with isis up to a point.. as for turkish/usa alliance and a no fly zone - if russia goes along with this, they better get a hell of a trade off out of it.. i can't see it, although i see the usa continuing on in their support of saudi arabia etc, using their mercenary isis army and saudi arabia to continue to funnel arms sales and weaponry... it is what they do best, bullshite artists that they are...

    james | Aug 27, 2016 4:32:33 PM | 100
    for the latest dose of bullshite - watch this/A> 8 minute propaganda video.. one could flip it around to say the usa supports isis, al nusra, and all the other 'moderate' terrorists they are arming... amazing how these state dept. spokespeople can lie so continuously and not be called out on any of it by the corporate media journalists.. obviously those journalists are paid to go along with the lies, keep their mouth shut, and not ask any hard questions...

    [Aug 27, 2016] Obama is back to his old game: Assad should go

    Notable quotes:
    "... russia sees this bs crap about 'moderate' for what it is... just another shell game to play hide and seek, switch flags, etc, etc... until the 'moderate' opposition drop their military arms, it ain't 'moderate'... would 'moderate' opposition to the usa leadership be allowed to use weapons? that's the answer to that bs... ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org

    okie farmer | Aug 27, 2016 8:23:27 AM | 80

    OT
    GENEVA - The United States and Russia say they have resolved a number of issues standing in the way of restoring a nationwide truce to Syria and opening up aid deliveries, but were unable once again to forge a comprehensive agreement on stepping up cooperation to end the brutal war that has killed hundreds of thousands.

    After meeting off-and-on for nearly 10 hours in Geneva on Friday, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov could point to only incremental progress in filling in details of a broad understanding to boost joint efforts that was reached last month in Moscow.

    Their failure to reach an overall deal highlighted the increasingly complex situation on the ground in Syria - including new Russian-backed Syrian government attacks on opposition forces, the intermingling of some of those opposition forces with an al-Qaida affiliate not covered by the truce and the surrender of a rebel-held suburb of Damascus - as well as deep divisions and mistrust dividing Washington and Moscow.

    The complexities have also grown with the increasing internationalization of what has largely become a proxy war between regional and world powers, highlighted by a move by Turkish troops across the Syrian border against Islamic State fighters this week.

    Kerry said he and Lavrov had agreed on the "vast majority" of technical discussions on steps to reinstate a cease-fire and improve humanitarian access. But critical sticking points remain unresolved and experts will remain in Geneva with an eye toward finalizing those in the coming days, he said.
    ```
    Lavrov echoed that, saying "we still need to finalize a few issues" and pointed to the need to separate fighters from the al-Nusra Front, which has ties to al-Qaida, from U.S.-backed fighters who hold parts of northwest Syria.

    "We have continued our efforts to reduce the areas where we lack understanding and trust, which is an achievement," Lavrov said. "The mutual trust is growing with every meeting."

    Yet, it was clear that neither side believes an overall agreement is imminent or even achievable after numerous previous disappointments shattered a brief period of relative calm earlier this year.

    The inability to wrest an agreement between Russia and the U.S. - as the major sponsors of the opposing sides in the stalled Syria peace talks - all but spells another missed deadline for the U.N. Syria envoy to get the Syrian government and "moderate" opposition back to the table.
    ```
    In a nod to previous failed attempts to resurrect the cessation of hostilities, Kerry stressed the importance of keeping the details secret.
    ```
    And, underscoring deep differences over developments on the ground, Kerry noted that Russia disputes the U.S. "narrative" of recent attacks on heavily populated areas being conducted by Syrian forces, Russia itself and the Iranian-backed Hezbollah militia. Russia maintains the attacks it has been involved in have targeted legitimate terrorist targets, while the U.S. says they have hit moderate opposition forces.
    ~~~
    At the same time, the Obama administration is not of one mind regarding the Russians. The Pentagon has publicly complained about getting drawn into greater cooperation with Russia even though it has been forced recently to expand communication with Moscow. Last week, the U.S. had to call for Russian help when Syrian warplanes struck an area not far from where U.S. troops were operating.

    U.S. officials say it is imperative that Russia use its influence with Syrian President Bashar Assad to halt all attacks on moderate opposition forces, open humanitarian aid corridors, and concentrate any offensive action on the Islamic State group and other extremists not covered by what has become a largely ignored truce.

    For their part, U.S. officials say they are willing to press rebels groups they support harder on separating themselves from the Islamic State and al-Nusra, which despite a recent name change is still viewed as al-Qaida's affiliate in Syria.

    Those goals are not new, but recent developments have made achieving them even more urgent and important, according to U.S. officials. Recent developments include military operations around the city of Aleppo, the entry of Turkey into the ground war, Turkish hostility toward U.S.-backed Kurdish rebel groups and the presence of American military advisers in widening conflict zones.

    Meanwhile, in a blow to the opposition, rebel forces and civilians in the besieged Damascus suburb of Daraya were to be evacuated on Friday after agreeing to surrender the town late Thursday after four years of grueling bombardment and a crippling siege that left the sprawling area in ruins.

    The surrender of Daraya, which became an early symbol of the nascent uprising against Assad, marks a success for his government, removing a persistent threat only a few miles from his seat of power.

    Hoarsewhisperer | Aug 27, 2016 11:06:17 AM | 85
    Posted by: okie farmer | Aug 27, 2016 8:23:27 AM | 80

    Re: Geneva negotiations...
    Love the goto clause:

    "In a nod to previous failed attempts to resurrect the cessation of hostilities, Kerry stressed the importance of keeping the details secret."

    Yeah, keeping the details secret so that next time the Yankees backstab Russia, observers won't immediately realise that they were, in fact, just shooting themselves in the foot. Again.

    james | Aug 27, 2016 4:27:25 PM | 99
    @92 harrylaw...i agree with you..

    russia sees this bs crap about 'moderate' for what it is... just another shell game to play hide and seek, switch flags, etc, etc... until the 'moderate' opposition drop their military arms, it ain't 'moderate'... would 'moderate' opposition to the usa leadership be allowed to use weapons? that's the answer to that bs...

    as for turkey, clearly the apk has a 'get rid of the kurds' agenda.. works well in their alliance with isis up to a point.. as for turkish/usa alliance and a no fly zone - if russia goes along with this, they better get a hell of a trade off out of it.. i can't see it, although i see the usa continuing on in their support of saudi arabia etc, using their mercenary isis army and saudi arabia to continue to funnel arms sales and weaponry... it is what they do best, bullshite artists that they are...

    james | Aug 27, 2016 4:32:33 PM | 100

    for the latest dose of bullshite - watch

    8 minute propaganda video.. one could flip it around to say the usa supports isis, al nusra, and all the other 'moderate' terrorists they are arming... amazing how these state dept. spokespeople can lie so continuously and not be called out on any of it by the corporate media journalists.. obviously those journalists are paid to go along with the lies, keep their mouth shut, and not ask any hard questions...

    [Aug 27, 2016] Trump Clintons are 'the real predators'

    Clinton has a reasonably competitive opponent who has challenged her on her record of Wall Street support, her dismissal of the Glass-Steagall Act and her vote for war in Iraq. She should also be challenged vigorously on her role with the DLC.
    Circumstances have created a unique moment where Clinton has to answer these tough questions.
    www.politico.com
    POLITICO) Donald Trump dug deeper into the archives Friday to point out Hillary Clinton's complicated history of racially divisive politics, including her infamous "super-predators" comment from the 1990s.

    "The Clinton's are the real predators…" Trump wrote in a tweet linking to an Instagram video.

    The video begins with Hillary Clinton in 1996, defending her husband's controversial crime bill, which has long been criticized for its impact on minority communities with respect to mass incarceration.


    Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2016/08/trump-clintons-are-the-real-predators/#hCaMDGFQDlFMqhZS.99

    [Aug 27, 2016] Clintons campaign strategy of making a vote for Clinton 'a vote for a winner'.

    Aug 27, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    PlutoniumKun , August 26, 2016 at 3:22 pm

    Re: Clintons campaign possible strategy of making a vote for Clinton 'a vote for a winner'.

    I know its conventional opinion that when in doubt, people prefer to vote for who they perceive to be a 'winner', but I wonder if this really applies with two such disliked candidates. I've a theory that one reason Brexit won is that the polls beforehand saying it would be a narrow 'no', gave 'permission' for people to vote with their conscience rather than their pragmatism. In other words, presented with a 'pragmatic, but dirty' vote for X, but a 'fun, but risky' vote for Y', people will vote X if its very close or it looks like Y will win, but may be tempted to vote Y if they are pretty sure X will win.

    Part of me thinks the Clinton campaign would have tested the theory to the limit before going for a strategy like this, but the evidence from the nomination campaign is that they are all tactics, no strategy. It seems to me to be a very risky game to play, not least because promoting Clinton as a sure winner may make wavering progressives simply opt to stay at home.

    Pat , August 26, 2016 at 3:36 pm

    I don't even think you have to be a progressive for that to be a concern if you are the Clinton campaign.
    They know the public is not enthusiastic about voting for her for the most part, and yet they are setting up a meme where she is unbeatable. It isn't necessarily going to just keep Trump voters home. But how many people who don't want Clinton but really don't want Trump will be able to convince themselves that there is no need to go hold their nose and vote for her. Republicans who think she is too far left, but he is crazy for instance will be just as likely to stay home as the lefties who know she is lying Neoliberal War Criminal, but not fascist like Trump. (And I know the real fascism signs are all with Clinton, but some may have missed it).

    jsn , August 26, 2016 at 4:27 pm

    On fascism I had the exact same thought after reading Adolph Reeds "Vote For the Lying, NeoLiberal War-Monger, It's Important" link last week.

    Reed's critique was that communist leader Thallman failed to anticipate Hitler's liquidation of all opposition, but frankly with Hillary's and Donald's respective histories its hard for me to see how Trump is more dangerous on this: Hillary has a deep and proven lethal track record and wherever she could justify violent action in the past she has, she keeps an enemies list, holds grudges and acts on them, all thoroughly documented.

    I certainly won't speculate that Trump couldn't do the same or worse, given the state of our propaganda and lawlessness amongst the elite, but like all the other negatives in this campaign its hard to ascertain who really will be worse. Lambert's bet on gridlock in a Trump administration has the further advantage of re-activating the simulation of "anti-war, anti-violence" amongst Dem nomenklatura.

    pretzelattack , August 26, 2016 at 4:53 pm

    exactly, i'm not saying reed is a typical democrat apologist, but i'm not buying that trump is more dangerous than clinton.

    clarky90 , August 26, 2016 at 6:55 pm

    We have collectively known Donald Trump and much of his family for the last 30 or 40 years. Over the years, he has evoked different emotions in me. (Usually being appalled by his big-city, realestate tycoon posturing etc). However, I have never been frightened by him. To me, he is more like a bombastic, well loved, show-off uncle.

    Today I see Trump as a modern day prophet (spiritual teacher). A bringer of light (clarity) to the masses. We live in a rigged system that gives Nobel Peace Prizes to mass murderers; that charges a poor child $600 for a $1 lifesaving Epipen. Trump is waking up The People. Finalllyyyyyy!!

    clarky90 , August 26, 2016 at 7:19 pm

    In my experience, people usually do not change for the better as they age. However, it does happen!; peasant girl (Joan of Arc), patent inspector (Einstein)

    polecat , August 26, 2016 at 7:30 pm

    Maybe Trump is the Claudius of our time…..

    …now, as to whom are the Pretorians…..??

    Elizabeth Burton , August 26, 2016 at 7:51 pm

    It's not about what Trump will or won't do. It's about not handing all three branches of government over to the GOP, which has the Libertarian agenda of eliminating said government altogether. I find it interesting that so many people scornful of identity politics nevertheless seem to be as addicted as anyone to making this a horse race between two candidates that has no real far-reaching consequences beyond with each will or won't do in the Oval Office.

    aab , August 27, 2016 at 1:15 am

    The Republican elite is clearly and strongly aligned with Clinton, which reflects the status quo consensus.

    It is certainly possible that the elected Republicans in the House and the Senate will follow Trump or Trump will follow them. But right now, that seems no more possible than that elected Republican leadership (the ones most indebted to and aligned with the donors/rest of the elite) will rebel at Trump and his takeover of the party. Moreover, IF Trump's in, the Democrats will be forced to enact the roll of "Democrat," thus guaranteeing some obstacle somewhere.

    Clinton is a Republican. Claiming she won't govern like a Republican basically means relying on the Freedom Caucus to stop her. I would just as soon not have to count on those guys to keep throwing poop at the neoliberal walls - especially since they're all being directly targeted in this election.

    Brindle , August 26, 2016 at 3:39 pm

    So true: "My view is that triumphalism from the Clinton campaign - which now includes most of the political class, including the press and both party establishments, and ignores event risk - is engineered to get early voters to "go with the winner."–Lambert
    I have noticed on Google News several "Clinton weighing cabinet choices" articles, to me there is whistling past the graveyard quality to all this. They want the election over now-the votes are just a formality.

    Pat , August 26, 2016 at 3:55 pm

    They really really do not have any short term memory do they? I mean it took sticking both thumbs on the scale and some handy dandy shenanigans with voters to get her past the Primary finish line. And her opponent there was much nicer about pointing out her flaws than her current opponent. It is true they won't have any obvious elections that disprove their position out there, but when you are spending millions and your opponent nothing and he is still within the margin of error with you in the states that people are watching the closest…

    Although that isn't considering the fears of what other shoes have to drop both in the world and in the news that could derail her victory parade, they may have more to fear from that.

    NotTimothyGeithner , August 26, 2016 at 4:49 pm

    It's possible they know.

    One of the problems Democrats have and the 50 state strategy addressed is voting in very Democratic precincts. Without constant pressure, many proud Democrats won't vote because they don't know any Republicans. It's in the bag. College kids are the worst voters alive. They will forget come election day or not be registered because they moved. Dean squeezed these districts. These districts are where Democrats , out in 2010 and 2014 and even a little in 2012. Mittens is a robber baron.

    If Democratic turnout is low and Hillary wins with crossover votes, what happens? It's very likely those Republicans vote for down ticket Republicans. Even for the people who have to vote against Trump, if they believe he is a special kind of super fascist will they bother to vote for the allies of a crook such as Hillary? It's possible Hillary wins and drops a seat in the Senate depending on turnout.

    I think it's clear Hillary isn't going to bring out any kind of voter activism. Judging from photos in Virginia where one would hope a commanding Hillary victory could jump start the Democrats for next year's governors and legislative races, the Democratic Party is dead or very close to it.

    What if Hillary wins but does the unthinkable and delivers a Republican pickup in the Senate? She needs to keep Republicans from coming out because she isn't going to drive Democratic turnout to a spot where that can win on its own.

    Hillary needs to win to keep the never Trump crowd in the GOP from voting because she knows the Democratic side which relies on very Democratic districts and transient voters will not impress. An emboldened GOP congress will be a tough environment for Hillary, and GOP voters won't tolerate bipartisanship especially for anyone suspected of not helping the party 100%. Those House Republicans have to face 2018 and the smaller but arguably more motivated electorate. They will come down hard on Hillary if she can't win the Senate which a literal donkey could do.

    Pat , August 26, 2016 at 5:34 pm

    Hell I don't want Clinton to win by any margin. But if anyone thinks that the bipartisan nature of her possible victory will mean anything but Republicans hunting her scalp, and dare I say getting it, they are not paying attention. As much as both the Benghazi and the email thing has them all flummoxed because the real crimes involved with both are crimes they either agree with or want to use. The Foundation on the other hand, not so much, they will make the case that this is a global slush fund because it is. And the McDonnell decision is not going to save her Presidency, much as it would if she were indicted in a Court.

    I should add, that is with or without winning the Senate. Much of the loyalty any Dems there have towards her will disappear when it is obvious that she keeps most of the money AND has no coattails. Oh, they might not vote to impeach her, but that is about it.

    NotTimothyGeithner , August 26, 2016 at 5:49 pm

    Hillary's only defense is to win the Senate and to be able to stifle investigations through the appearance of a mandate. 2018 is the 2012 cycle, and that is 2006 which should be a good year for the Republicans (a credit to Howard Dean). It's a tough map for Team Blue. If they don't win the Senate in November, they won't win it in 2018.

    With 2018 on its way, a weak Democratic situation will make the Democrats very jumpy as Hillary is clearly not delivering the coattails they imagined.

    Pat , August 26, 2016 at 6:01 pm

    She isn't going to have a mandate. Oh, the electoral college count might look good. But regardless of who wins this sucker, I'm betting this is going to be one of the lowest, if not the lowest, voter turnout for any Presidential election in the last century. I would not be surpised if more people stay home than vote. And that is not a mandate.

    The Senate isn't going to stifle investigations. She doesn't even have to help the Dems get a majority for that problem of conviction if impeached to rear its ugly head. No way is there going to be 2/3 of the Senate in one party or the other. That still won't stop the House. Just as it didn't for her husband.

    [Aug 27, 2016] Clinton gets first classified national security briefing

    Notable quotes:
    "... Trump's presidential campaign had seized on the news of Clinton's briefing to label her an "insider threat." The Trump campaign emailed reporters to point out the news that an Army training presentation previously identified Clinton as a threat ..."
    Washington Examiner
    Trump's presidential campaign had seized on the news of Clinton's briefing to label her an "insider threat." The Trump campaign emailed reporters to point out the news that an Army training presentation previously identified Clinton as a threat, as the Washington Examiner previously reported.

    Clinton was investigated by the FBI for mishandling classified information that appeared on a private email server she had set up, but agency chief James Comey decided not to recommend charges.

    [Aug 27, 2016] The More the Establishment Freaks Out Over Trump, the More Attractive He Becomes

    Aug 10, 2016 | Of Two Minds

    Trump is attractive precisely because the Establishment fears and loathes him because 1) they didn't pick him and 2) he might upset the neoconservative Empire that the Establishment elites view as their global entitlement.

    The Establishment is freaking out about Donald Trump for one reason: they didn't pick him. The Establishment is freaking out because the natural order of things is that we pick the presidential candidates and we run the country to serve ourselves, i.e. the financial-political elites.

    Donald Trump's candidacy upsets this neofeudal natural order, and thus he (and everyone who supports him) is anathema to the Establishment, heretics who must be silenced, cowed, marginalized, mocked and ultimately put back in their place as subservient debt-serfs.

    ... ... ...

    The utter cluelessness of the professional apologists and punditry would be laughable if it wasn't so pathetic: the more you fume and rage that Trump is unqualified, narcissistic, singularly inappropriate, etc. etc. etc., the more appealing he becomes to everyone who isn't inside the protective walls of your neofeudal castle.

    The people outside the cozy walls of the protected elites don't care if he is unqualified (by the standards of those who get to pick our presidents for us) narcissistic, singularly inappropriate, and so on--they are cheering him on because you, the multitudes of water-carriers for the Imperial elites, the teeming hordes of well-paid, I-got-mine-so-shut-the-heck-up pundits, flacks, hacks, sycophants, apparatchiks, toadies, lackeys, functionaries, leeches and apologists, are so visibly afraid that your perks, wealth, influence and power might drain away if the 80% actually get a say.

    Dear pundits, flacks, hacks, sycophants, apparatchiks, toadies, lackeys, functionaries, leeches and apologists: we're sick of you, every one of you, and the neofeudal Empire you support. We want you cashiered, pushed outside the walls with the rest of us, scraping by on well-earned and richly deserved unemployment.

    [Aug 27, 2016] The history of the last forty five years of senior economic advisors to U.S. Presidents seems mostly a competition to see who could piss on Great Society and New Deal remedies in favor of market-based incentives fast enough.

    Notable quotes:
    "... from my perspective the history of the last forty five years of senior economic advisors to U.S. Presidents seems mostly a competition to see who could piss on Great Society and New Deal remedies in favor of "market-based incentives" fast enough. ..."
    "... This bunch has taken our economy and so our country from its position in 1976 to its position in 2016. If you have been among the educated 20% you have benefited from their policy prescriptions over the past 40 years. The rest not so much. This kind of WSJ establishment worship does not travel well outside of NYC, DC, SF, LA, and Boston. ..."
    Aug 27, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    Economist's View

    Bruce Webb : August 25, 2016 at 06:45 PM , August 25, 2016 at 06:45 PM

    "Economists Who've Advised Presidents Are No Fans of Donald Trump"

    Okay I am a guy that wouldn't piss on Trump if he was on fire but this lead gets a little too close to "Praising with Faint Damns" for my taste. I mean who on this list is supposed to impress?

    Okay Stiglitz. And I think Christine Romer had a medium level role as did maybe her husband. But from my perspective the history of the last forty five years of senior economic advisors to U.S. Presidents seems mostly a competition to see who could piss on Great Society and New Deal remedies in favor of "market-based incentives" fast enough.

    I am not saying that this unanimity doesn't mean something important. Just that as phrased we are talking kind of a low bar.

    mrrunangun : , -1
    This bunch has taken our economy and so our country from its position in 1976 to its position in 2016. If you have been among the educated 20% you have benefited from their policy prescriptions over the past 40 years. The rest not so much. This kind of WSJ establishment worship does not travel well outside of NYC, DC, SF, LA, and Boston.

    [Aug 27, 2016] Polls as an instrumnet to influence the elections

    Aug 27, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    "Donald Trump now needs a swing of only 3 to 4 percentage points in key battleground states to win this election" [ MarketWatch ]. "according to a new poll in Michigan, one of the key states in play, as well as the latest polls in other key states… Meanwhile, Trump faces even smaller deficits in other key battleground states. According to the polling averages calculated by Real Clear Politics, Trump trails by just 5 points in Ohio, 4 points in Florida and 2 points in North Carolina. Recent polls have also put him level with Clinton in Nevada and Iowa." Lambert here: My view is that triumphalism from the Clinton campaign - which now includes most of the political class, including the press and both party establishments, and ignores event risk - is engineered to get early voters to "go with the winner."

    Our Revolution: "The senator hailed as a major accomplishment his delegates' work crafting what he called the "strongest and most progressive" platform in the Democratic Party's history. And he vowed to implement many of its planks" [ Seven Days ]. Sanders: "'If anybody thinks that that document and what is in that platform is simply going to be resting on a shelf somewhere accumulating dust, they are very mistaken,' he said. 'We are going to bring the platform alive and make it the blueprint for moving the Democrats forward in Congress and all across this country." So, more than "values." However, where there's less to hate in the Dem platform than usual, it's hardly adequate for the challenges facing the country. Now, if the operational definition of "bring the platform alive" means "incorporate all the Sanders planks the Dem establishment voted down," I'd be a lot happier. I haven't heard that yet.

    UPDATE From the Benjamin Dixon show:

    Previous Dixon interview with Reed here (just for anybody who thinks Reed is a Clinton Democrat).

    [Aug 27, 2016] Hillary Clinton The Neocon in Democrats Clothing

    Notable quotes:
    "... Everyone knows the expression "a wolf in sheep's clothing." Now, it seems the United States will invent the macho Republican in feminist, Democratic clothing. ..."
    "... Bill Clinton had triangulated his presidency to Republican-hood. He had demolished Aid to Families With Dependent Children and bought into the bash-the-poor rhetoric of the right wing. He had passed a crime bill that targeted people of color; he had destroyed FDR's legacy, notably by abolishing the Glass-Steagall Act. ..."
    "... Bill Clinton might not have inhaled marijuana, but he certainly had inhaled the poison of right-wing ideas. ..."
    "... Hillary Clinton openly supported many of Bill Clinton's political measures. She used the terrible expression "superpredators," supported the crime bill and made a hash of health insurance reform . Liza Featherstone talks about Hillary Clinton's faux feminism , and she links her critique to class themes, which is as it should be. Feminists cannot be elite feminists or 1% feminists if they want to defend the rights of all women. ..."
    "... Hillary Clinton's track record on issues of poverty, racial justice and justice for women is appalling. As a former member of the board of Walmart, she sided with the rich and powerful , which she also does when she gives speeches for Wall Street. ..."
    "... On foreign policy issues, Hillary Clinton is not even an Eisenhower Republican, but a war hawk whose philosophy and shortsightedness is evidenced by the flippant way in which she advocated for war in Libya and the way in which she celebrated. "We came, we saw, he died," she said and laughed loudly. ..."
    "... Hillary Clinton, like true neoliberals in the GOP, supported the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), so as Bill had said she supported the bond market and free trade. Now, she claims she did not, but, of course, she is lying. Her lies also have to do with Wall Street (she has not released the text of her speeches), support for people of color and her feminism. ..."
    "... Feminism cannot be only about the equality of CEO compensations. Equality in CEO compensations in general should exist at a much-reduced level. ..."
    "... Hillary Clinton is a 1% millionaire who now talks the progressive talk, but never really walked the progressive walk. ..."
    "... Hillary Clinton is actually to the right of President Dwight D. Eisenhower -- "Ike." He refused to use the atom bomb in Asia, showing more geopolitical prudence than Hillary "we came and he died" Clinton. He also wanted to preserve the FDR advances that the Clintons have done so much to cancel or erase. ..."
    "... the Republicans -- starting with Hillary Clinton's youth idol Barry Goldwater -- and the Democrats calling themselves "New Democrats" vied with each other to dismantle the New Deal ..."
    "... GOP is not a political party any longer, but a radical insurgency ..."
    "... The Democrats have become the Old Republicans and Hillary Clinton is more neocon than traditional conservative of the Eisenhower type. ..."
    "... She is a pro-business, Koch-compatible lover of Wall Street who uses feminism like some pinkwashers or greenwashers use progressive agendas to sell regressive policies. Author Diana Johnstone calls her the " Queen of Chaos ." Clinton is the queen of deception, faux feminism and faux progressivism ..."
    "... Charles Koch (whose hatred of progressivism is well documented by Jane Meyer in her book, Dark Money ) expressed some admiration for Bill and Hillary Clinton and said he could vote for Hillary this time around. ..."
    www.truth-out.org
    ...Everyone knows the expression "a wolf in sheep's clothing." Now, it seems the United States will invent the macho Republican in feminist, Democratic clothing.

    Many authors have quoted a sentence by Bill Clinton:

    We're all Eisenhower Republicans here, and we are fighting the Reagan Republicans. We stand for lower deficits and free trade and the bond market. Isn't that great?

    Eisenhower Republicans were, by today's standards, quite moderate. The quote refers to the 1990s, and already Bill Clinton had triangulated his presidency to Republican-hood. He had demolished Aid to Families With Dependent Children and bought into the bash-the-poor rhetoric of the right wing. He had passed a crime bill that targeted people of color; he had destroyed FDR's legacy, notably by abolishing the Glass-Steagall Act. And he was so "tough on crime" that during the 1992 presidential campaign season, he had gone back to his home state of Arkansas to witness the execution of Ricky Ray Rector, who was "mentally deficient." Bill Clinton might not have inhaled marijuana, but he certainly had inhaled the poison of right-wing ideas.

    As we all know, Hillary Clinton openly supported many of Bill Clinton's political measures. She used the terrible expression "superpredators," supported the crime bill and made a hash of health insurance reform. Liza Featherstone talks about Hillary Clinton's faux feminism, and she links her critique to class themes, which is as it should be. Feminists cannot be elite feminists or 1% feminists if they want to defend the rights of all women.

    Hillary Clinton's track record on issues of poverty, racial justice and justice for women is appalling. As a former member of the board of Walmart, she sided with the rich and powerful, which she also does when she gives speeches for Wall Street. The really important question is how someone who has constantly sided with the rich can campaign as a progressive, as a friend of people of color and even as a feminist? Michelle Alexander exposed the hypocrisy of the situation in arguing that "Hillary Clinton doesn't deserve the black vote."

    On foreign policy issues, Hillary Clinton is not even an Eisenhower Republican, but a war hawk whose philosophy and shortsightedness is evidenced by the flippant way in which she advocated for war in Libya and the way in which she celebrated. "We came, we saw, he died," she said and laughed loudly. This cruel statement does not take into account the mess and mayhem left behind after the intervention, something President Obama calls a "shit show" and his worst mistake. But it is the companion piece to her major fellow elite "feminist" Madeleine Albright declaring that killing half a million Iraqis is worth it.

    Hillary Clinton, like true neoliberals in the GOP, supported the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), so as Bill had said she supported the bond market and free trade. Now, she claims she did not, but, of course, she is lying. Her lies also have to do with Wall Street (she has not released the text of her speeches), support for people of color and her feminism.

    ... ... ...

    Feminism cannot be only about the equality of CEO compensations. Equality in CEO compensations in general should exist at a much-reduced level. In his book Listen, Liberal, Thomas Frank tells the story of a Clinton convention meeting he attended and what he witnessed was Hillary Clinton as "Ms. Walmart," pretending she cares about all women. Frank, who is genuinely worried about rising inequality in the United States and racial justice, suggests that elite feminism is worried about the glass ceiling for CEOs, but does not even worry about working-class women who have "no floors" under them. Hillary Clinton is a 1% millionaire who now talks the progressive talk, but never really walked the progressive walk.

    It would indeed be a symbolic change if the US elected a woman president, but for the symbol not to be empty, something more is needed. If a woman president does not improve the lot of the majority of women, then what is the good of a symbol?

    Hillary Clinton is actually to the right of President Dwight D. Eisenhower -- "Ike." He refused to use the atom bomb in Asia, showing more geopolitical prudence than Hillary "we came and he died" Clinton. He also wanted to preserve the FDR advances that the Clintons have done so much to cancel or erase.

    ...the Republicans -- starting with Hillary Clinton's youth idol Barry Goldwater -- and the Democrats calling themselves "New Democrats" vied with each other to dismantle the New Deal and the Great Society programs that Democrats had set up. Noam Chomsky argues that the GOP is not a political party any longer, but a radical insurgency, for it has gone off the political cliff. The Democrats have become the Old Republicans and Hillary Clinton is more neocon than traditional conservative of the Eisenhower type.

    So Hillary Clinton, the Republican, is poised to win in November, but her Republicanism is closer to George W. Bush's and even more conservative than Ronald Reagan's -- except on the societal issues that have now reached a kind of quasi-consensus like same-sex marriage. She is a pro-business, Koch-compatible lover of Wall Street who uses feminism like some pinkwashers or greenwashers use progressive agendas to sell regressive policies. Author Diana Johnstone calls her the "Queen of Chaos." Clinton is the queen of deception, faux feminism and faux progressivism, whose election will be made easier by her loutish, vulgar, sexist loudmouth of an opponent.

    In his book The Deep State, Mike Lofgren quotes H.L. Mencken, who gave away what explains the success of the political circus: "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."

    George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and the neoconservatives were past masters at this creation of hobgoblins, but now Hillary Clinton, the opportunist, can outdo them and out-Republicanize them. I think Ike would not like her; she might now be even more reactionary than Goldwater. Indeed, Charles Koch (whose hatred of progressivism is well documented by Jane Meyer in her book, Dark Money) expressed some admiration for Bill and Hillary Clinton and said he could vote for Hillary this time around.

    ... ... ...

    Pierre Guerlain is a professor of American studies at Université Paris Ouest, Nanterre, France.

    [Aug 27, 2016] While Obama fiddles ... -

    Krauthammer is probably the most gifted neocon propagandist. Kind of Joseph Goebbels of neocons (I know, I know). But despite his considerable and undisputable gifts as a propagandist, I can't read him without a shoot of Stoli. He is so predictably jingoistic that sometimes I think he was hired by Putin to destroy any semblance of rational thinking in Washington establishment. An interesting question is what he drinks to write such articles.
    Notable quotes:
    "... In Syria, the minds of the 7th century are doing their 7th century thing. Krauthammer's answer? Bomb them (read: assassinate Assad). ..."
    "... In the Ukraine, another group of mid 18th Century thinking is doing their 18th century thing. Krauthammer's answer? Bomb them. ..."
    "... These right wing neocon chickenhawks like Krauthammer and the politicians who ascribe to the "Just bomb 'em, invade 'em, and disband their military" school of thought are precisely the reason the world is in such "disarray". The sooner these blood thirsty miscreants are no longer influential, the sooner things might turn around. Certainly the security of the civilized world is at stake but bombing the heck out of everything (especially if they have brown skin) is not the answer. And given the damage the GHWB/Cheney and li'l bush/Cheney catastrophe CAUSED, the "sooner" part of the equation is likely to take another 100 years. Thanks neocons. Thanks for nothing but fear, blood, destruction, and grief. ..."
    Feb 28, 2016 | The Washington Post

    spkpost, 2/28/2016 2:37 PM EST

    In the South China Sea, China is doing it's China thing. Krauthammer's answer? Bomb them.

    In Syria, the minds of the 7th century are doing their 7th century thing. Krauthammer's answer? Bomb them (read: assassinate Assad).

    In the Ukraine, another group of mid 18th Century thinking is doing their 18th century thing. Krauthammer's answer? Bomb them.

    In Iran, the Iranians are doing what any sovereign nation would do when threatened by outside forces (i.e. Israel and the US)- arm themselves in order to create a deterrent to invasion or worse. Krauthammer's answer? Bomb them, destroy the deterrent, and invade.

    As far as Cuba is concerned, bomb them too (I guess).

    These right wing neocon chickenhawks like Krauthammer and the politicians who ascribe to the "Just bomb 'em, invade 'em, and disband their military" school of thought are precisely the reason the world is in such "disarray". The sooner these blood thirsty miscreants are no longer influential, the sooner things might turn around. Certainly the security of the civilized world is at stake but bombing the heck out of everything (especially if they have brown skin) is not the answer. And given the damage the GHWB/Cheney and li'l bush/Cheney catastrophe CAUSED, the "sooner" part of the equation is likely to take another 100 years. Thanks neocons. Thanks for nothing but fear, blood, destruction, and grief.

    [Aug 27, 2016] Hillary Clinton and Her Hawks

    Notable quotes:
    "... The clear signals of Clinton's readiness to go to war appears to be aimed at influencing the course of the war in Syria as well as US policy over the remaining six months of the Obama administration ..."
    "... Last month, the think tank run by Michele Flournoy, the former Defense Department official considered to be most likely to be Clinton's choice to be Secretary of Defense, explicitly called for "limited military strikes" against the Assad regime. ..."
    "... earlier this month Leon Panetta, former Defense Secretary and CIA Director, who has been advising candidate Clinton, declared in an interview that the next president would have to increase the number of Special Forces and carry out air strikes to help "moderate" groups against President Bashal al-Assad. ..."
    "... When Panetta gave a belligerent speech at the Democratic National Convention on Wednesday night, he was interrupted by chants from the delegates on the floor of "no more war!" ..."
    www.truth-out.org

    The clear signals of Clinton's readiness to go to war appears to be aimed at influencing the course of the war in Syria as well as US policy over the remaining six months of the Obama administration. (She also may be hoping to corral the votes of Republican neoconservatives concerned about Donald Trump's "America First" foreign policy.)

    Last month, the think tank run by Michele Flournoy, the former Defense Department official considered to be most likely to be Clinton's choice to be Secretary of Defense, explicitly called for "limited military strikes" against the Assad regime.

    And earlier this month Leon Panetta, former Defense Secretary and CIA Director, who has been advising candidate Clinton, declared in an interview that the next president would have to increase the number of Special Forces and carry out air strikes to help "moderate" groups against President Bashal al-Assad.

    When Panetta gave a belligerent speech at the Democratic National Convention on Wednesday night, he was interrupted by chants from the delegates on the floor of "no more war!"

    [Aug 27, 2016] Vijay Prashad Hillary Clinton Shows Dangerous Tendency to Go to War No Matter the Consequences

    Notable quotes:
    "... You know, here's somebody who actually pushed Obama to go into the Libyan operation. You know, Obama was reticent to enter the operation in Libya. The French were very eager. And Hillary Clinton led the charge against Libya. ..."
    "... This shows, to my mind, a profound dangerous tendency to go into wars overseas, you know, damn the consequences. And I think, therefore, if you're looking at this from outside the United States, there's a real reason to be terrified that whoever becomes president -- as Medea Benjamin put it to me in an interview, whoever wins the president, there will be a hawk in the White House. ..."
    www.truth-out.org

    ...let's take the case of Hillary Clinton.

    You know, here's somebody who actually pushed Obama to go into the Libyan operation. You know, Obama was reticent to enter the operation in Libya. The French were very eager. And Hillary Clinton led the charge against Libya.

    This shows, to my mind, a profound dangerous tendency to go into wars overseas, you know, damn the consequences. And I think, therefore, if you're looking at this from outside the United States, there's a real reason to be terrified that whoever becomes president -- as Medea Benjamin put it to me in an interview, whoever wins the president, there will be a hawk in the White House.

    [Aug 27, 2016] Will a Clinton presidency be hawkish?

    Notable quotes:
    "... Q.-beyond that, do you still feel that if that information on those American servicemen who are missing in action is forthcoming from the Vietnamese, that then this country has a moral obligation to help rebuild that country, if that information is forthcoming? ..."
    "... THE PRESIDENT [Carter]. Well, the destruction was mutual . You know, we went to Vietnam without any desire to capture territory or to impose American will on other people. We went there to defend the freedom of the South Vietnamese. And I don't feel that we ought to apologize or to castigate ourselves or to assume the status of culpability. ..."
    "... Carter did when Brzezinski said the Shah of Iran was a friend of ours. ..."
    Aug 27, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Unorthodoxmarxist , August 26, 2016 at 3:47 pm

    When dealing with foreign policy it's important to think on at least 3 levels:

    Grand Structure
    State
    Domestic

    Will a Clinton presidency be hawkish?

    A. Grand Structure: No clear successor to the United States as hegemon has emerged to stymie hawkish ambitions. China and Russia exist, of course, but can do little to stop US ambitions. Verdict, yes, hawkish.

    B. State: though US hegemony is in a period of decline, clearly the United States' ruling class is still very much interested and capable of using the Middle East as a demented sandbox to cause other nations to continue to need its security services. China looms as a potential rising hegemon. Verdict: yes, still hawkish.

    C. Domestic: the ruling class investor coalitions backing Clinton are very, very interested in a robust foreign economic policy that favor an interventionist foreign policy. The segments of US society that are opposed to this will not be represented or listened to in Clinton's domestic coalition, either: declining industries, the working class/labor. The professional 10% that Thomas Frank identifies as the broader Dem base tends to acquiesce to Democratic-led wars. Without a reborn, and far more militant, anti-war movement, the verdict has to be: yes, Hawkish.

    neo-realist , August 26, 2016 at 7:16 pm

    The professional 10% and much of middle class america, by and large, doesn't serve in the military and doesn't encourage or let their kids serve either, so they're ok with war. It also seems that the PTB through a combination of corporate media marginalization, robust police state repression, and the lack of conscription has minimized the impact of any anti-war movement.

    longer term movement politics to take power, at least before the PTB blow us all up?

    hemeantwell , August 26, 2016 at 2:52 pm

    "[W]e should expect Clinton to shape her foreign policy to neutralise the threat to her nomination in 2020 from the left of her party. So forget Hillary the hawk. To consolidate her Democrat base she will be even more cautious abroad than Barack Obama has been"

    For the moment ignoring Obama's nuclear weapons policy and NATO belligerence, don't I wish!
    But this sounds very voluntaristic to me, as though the US doesn't face a problem with its empire that might appear to oblige belligerence. For example, if the case is valid that the US has much reason to fear economic consolidation between Europe and Asia, then Clinton/Kagan/Nuland et al are servants of empire, not mad dogs. If, as some say, such a consolidation would undermine dollar hegemony, maybe they feel the script is written. That doesn't mean I don't oppose them, it just means opposing them involves a lot more than being for peace, nonviolent resolution of disputes and such.

    grizziz , August 26, 2016 at 3:02 pm

    Mike Whitney over at Counterpunch has an interesting article reviewing Brzezinski's new book, The Broken Chessboard, with Brzezinski explaining that the US has lost its ability to be the indispensable nation. Maybe HRC will listen. Carter did when Brzezinski said the Shah of Iran was a friend of ours.
    http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/08/25/the-broken-chessboard-brzezinski-gives-up-on-empire/

    nippersmom , August 26, 2016 at 3:27 pm

    When has Clinton ever listened to anyone who wasn't promoting war, war, and more war? Expecting Clinton to respond like Carter in respect to foreign policy is as fruitless as expecting her foundation's "charitable works" to be comparable to Carter's work with Habitat for Humanity.

    Jim Haygood , August 26, 2016 at 3:45 pm

    Habitat for Huma … that's Hillary's promise.

    ambrit , August 26, 2016 at 6:50 pm

    Is that a 'double ender' entendre?

    OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL , August 26, 2016 at 4:18 pm

    Carter: 4 years in office without a single shot fired in anger, imagine the moral and political fortitude required to keep the Military-Monster-That-Must-Be-Fed at bay like that for so long. Yes Carter played lots of footsie with special ops but perhaps we awarded the recent Peace Prize to the wrong guy.

    Unorthodoxmarxist , August 26, 2016 at 4:30 pm

    Really good article on Carter's horrible foreign policy legacy: http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/08/18/jimmy-carters-blood-drenched-legacy/

    pretzelattack , August 26, 2016 at 4:51 pm

    so it was the least bloody of any president? and carter did pressure latin american dictators on human rights, unlike presidents before and after him. east timor was the worst, no defense of him there. we sent money to support the indonesian regime. but carter was no clinton.

    NotTimothyGeithner , August 26, 2016 at 4:59 pm

    Clinton and Reagan didn't just appear fully formed. Carter started trashing unions before they abandoned the Democrats in 1980. Carter created the Carter doctrine.

    Bill is just a personally immoral version of Carter who is capable of self reflection, but Jimmy was building those houses to atone.

    Carter still came in a strong post Vietnam Era. Sending soldiers abroad wouldn't be too popular.

    RabidGandhi , August 26, 2016 at 5:24 pm

    So many Carter favs (Timor, the Shah is an island of stability, defending Samoza…) but this has to be one of the best :

    Q.-beyond that, do you still feel that if that information on those American servicemen who are missing in action is forthcoming from the Vietnamese, that then this country has a moral obligation to help rebuild that country, if that information is forthcoming?

    THE PRESIDENT [Carter]. Well, the destruction was mutual . You know, we went to Vietnam without any desire to capture territory or to impose American will on other people. We went there to defend the freedom of the South Vietnamese. And I don't feel that we ought to apologize or to castigate ourselves or to assume the status of culpability.

    (Bold mine)

    Kim Kaufman , August 26, 2016 at 6:50 pm

    My opinion: we went to Vietnam to keep the Golden Triangle open for heroin trafficking to fund all the covert CIA ops in the rest of the world. It shut down when we lost. US then opened up Afghanistan route, thanks to Jimmy Carter and Brezinski. Which is why we are where we are today in Afghanistan. Just can't shake the poppy monkey.

    polecat , August 26, 2016 at 7:25 pm

    Opium War Redux…bigger theater of shame!

    RabidGandhi , August 26, 2016 at 8:50 pm

    The problem with your theory is that the shift in heroin production to the Golden Triangle didn't occur until after the US involvement. Same as in Afghanistan. And in Nicaragua. I.e., the pattern is the US invades for other reasons, then the CIA starts running dope to funnel guns to "freedom fighters", then drug use spikes in the US.

    Read Alfred McCoy, The Politics of Heroin in Southeast Asia.

    Steve H. , August 26, 2016 at 3:47 pm

    I was trying to figure out if

    – The Obama administration's reckless foreign policy, particularly the toppling of governments in Libya and Ukraine, has greatly accelerated the rate at which these anti-American coalitions have formed. In other words, Washington's enemies have emerged in response to Washington's behavior. Obama can only blame himself.

    was editorial or a quote from Brz himself, and the top headline was from 2012:

    Zbigniew Brzezinski: The man behind Obama's foreign policy

    optimader , August 26, 2016 at 5:04 pm

    Carter did when Brzezinski said the Shah of Iran was a friend of ours.
    He was a friend, unfortunately it was in the vein of a Eddie Haskell

    RabidGandhi , August 26, 2016 at 5:42 pm

    Meh, if only the Tsar knew.

    Au contraire, Carter's a big boy who didn't need Brzezinski. He can do it all by himself .

    polecat , August 26, 2016 at 5:18 pm

    Bo f*cking hooo ……. !!

    I wish mr. B would retire and crawl under a rock somewhere…never to see the sun.

    [Aug 27, 2016] Graphic Footage of Hillary Clinton Could Damage Her - YouTube

    Aug 27, 2016 | www.youtube.com

    Posty Masters 1 day ago Good job. If every one can just get one person to change, you will not have to put up with more of the same. Lies, cheating and selling out the American People.
    Munchmá Fuzi Qüchi 5 days ago She is straight up evil as fuck. If you can't see that something is wrong with you.
    John Henke 2 days ago She has no soul.

    cougar351 1 hour ago She a trail of destruction. Imagine a state official stealing money from the Haitians they sorely needed for survival after the devastation created by the massive earthquake. Very crooked

    [Aug 27, 2016] Neocons declare war on Trump

    Neocons will support Hillary breaking the ranks of Republican Party, as she is one of them: "The only choice will be to vote for Hillary Clinton," Kagan warned. "The party cannot be saved, but the country still can be."
    Notable quotes:
    "... Donald Trump calls the Iraq War a lie-fueled fiasco, admires Vladimir Putin and says he would be a "neutral" arbiter between Israel and the Palestinians. When it comes to America's global role he asks, "Why are we always at the forefront of everything?" ..."
    "... Even more than his economic positions, Trump's foreign policy views challenge GOP orthodoxy in fundamental ways. But while parts of the party establishment are resigning themselves or even backing Trump's runaway train, one group is bitterly digging in against him: the hawkish foreign policy elites known as neoconservatives. ..."
    "... In interviews with POLITICO, leading neocons - people who promoted the Iraq War, detest Putin and consider Israel's security non-negotiable - said Trump would be a disaster for U.S. foreign policy and vowed never to support him. So deep is their revulsion that several even say they could vote for Hillary Clinton over Trump in November. ..."
    "... "Hillary is the lesser evil, by a large margin," said Eliot Cohen, a former top State Department official under George W. Bush and a strategic theorist who argues for a muscular U.S. role abroad. Trump's election would be "an unmitigated disaster for American foreign policy," Cohen said, adding that "he has already damaged it considerably." ..."
    "... In a March 1 interview with Vox, Max Boot, a military historian at the Council on Foreign Relations who backed the Iraq War and often advocates a hawkish foreign policy, said that he, too, would vote for Clinton over Trump. "I'm literally losing sleep over Donald Trump," he said. "She would be vastly preferable to Trump." ..."
    "... The letter was signed by dozens of Republican foreign policy experts, including Boot; Peter Feaver, a former senior national security aide in George W. Bush's White House; Robert Zoellick, a former deputy to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice; and Dov Zakheim, a former Bush Pentagon official; and Kori Schake, a fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution and a former Bush State Department official. ..."
    "... Kristol and Abrams have advised Florida senator Marco Rubio, the preferred choice of several neoconservatives, who admire his call for "moral clarity" in foreign policy and strong emphasis on human rights and democracy. ..."
    "... Alarm brewing for months in GOP foreign policy circles burst into public view last week, when Robert Kagan, a key backer of the Iraq War and American global might, wrote in the Washington Post that a Trump nomination would force him to cross party lines. ..."
    "... "The only choice will be to vote for Hillary Clinton," Kagan warned. "The party cannot be saved, but the country still can be." ..."
    POLITICO
    Donald Trump calls the Iraq War a lie-fueled fiasco, admires Vladimir Putin and says he would be a "neutral" arbiter between Israel and the Palestinians. When it comes to America's global role he asks, "Why are we always at the forefront of everything?"

    Even more than his economic positions, Trump's foreign policy views challenge GOP orthodoxy in fundamental ways. But while parts of the party establishment are resigning themselves or even backing Trump's runaway train, one group is bitterly digging in against him: the hawkish foreign policy elites known as neoconservatives.

    In interviews with POLITICO, leading neocons - people who promoted the Iraq War, detest Putin and consider Israel's security non-negotiable - said Trump would be a disaster for U.S. foreign policy and vowed never to support him. So deep is their revulsion that several even say they could vote for Hillary Clinton over Trump in November.

    "Hillary is the lesser evil, by a large margin," said Eliot Cohen, a former top State Department official under George W. Bush and a strategic theorist who argues for a muscular U.S. role abroad. Trump's election would be "an unmitigated disaster for American foreign policy," Cohen said, adding that "he has already damaged it considerably."

    Cohen, an Iraq war backer who is often called a neoconservative but said he does not identify himself that way, said he would "strongly prefer a third party candidate" to Trump, but added: "Probably if absolutely no alternative: Hillary."

    In a March 1 interview with Vox, Max Boot, a military historian at the Council on Foreign Relations who backed the Iraq War and often advocates a hawkish foreign policy, said that he, too, would vote for Clinton over Trump. "I'm literally losing sleep over Donald Trump," he said. "She would be vastly preferable to Trump."

    Cohen helped to organize an open letter signed by several dozen GOP foreign policy insiders - many of whom are not considered neocons - that was published Wednesday night by the military blog War on the Rocks. "[W]e are unable to support a Party ticket with Mr. Trump at its head," the letter declared. It cited everything from Trump's "admiration for foreign dictators" to his "inexcusable" support for "the expansive use of torture."

    The letter was signed by dozens of Republican foreign policy experts, including Boot; Peter Feaver, a former senior national security aide in George W. Bush's White House; Robert Zoellick, a former deputy to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice; and Dov Zakheim, a former Bush Pentagon official; and Kori Schake, a fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution and a former Bush State Department official.

    Several other neocons said they find themselves in an impossible position, constitutionally incapable of voting for Clinton but repelled by a Republican whose foreign policy views they consider somewhere between nonexistent and dangerous - and disconnected from their views about American power and values abroad.

    "1972 was the first time I was old enough to vote for president, and I did not vote. Couldn't vote for McGovern for foreign policy reasons, nor for Nixon because of Watergate," said Elliott Abrams, a former national security council aide to George W. Bush who specializes in democracy and the Middle East. "I may be in the same boat in 2016, unable to vote for Trump or Clinton."

    Weekly Standard Editor Bill Kristol, something of a dean of Washington neoconservatives, said he would seek out a third option before choosing between Trump and Clinton.

    "If it's Trump-Clinton, I'd work with others to recruit a strong conservative third party candidate, and do my best to help him win (which by the way would be more possible than people think, especially when people - finally - realize Trump shouldn't be president and Hillary is indicted)," Kristol wrote in an email.

    Kristol and Abrams have advised Florida senator Marco Rubio, the preferred choice of several neoconservatives, who admire his call for "moral clarity" in foreign policy and strong emphasis on human rights and democracy.

    Alarm brewing for months in GOP foreign policy circles burst into public view last week, when Robert Kagan, a key backer of the Iraq War and American global might, wrote in the Washington Post that a Trump nomination would force him to cross party lines.

    "The only choice will be to vote for Hillary Clinton," Kagan warned. "The party cannot be saved, but the country still can be."

    In an interview, Kagan said his opposition to Trump "has nothing to do with foreign policy."

    [Aug 26, 2016] Clinton emails - Proof that the West had lost control of the situation in Libya already since 2011

    Notable quotes:
    "... A letter from Clintons' top advisor Sidney Blumenthal to Hillary Clinton in 2011, proves that the West was losing control of the situation in Libya, very fast, already since 2011. Dangerous weapons were going to wrong hands through the black market. ..."
    "... (Source Comment: According to very sensitive sources, the Libyan rebels are concerned that AQIM may also obtain SPIGOTT wire-guided anti-tank missiles and an unspecified number of Russian anti-tank mines made of plastic and undetectable by anti-mine equipment. This equipment again was coming through Niger and Mali, and was intended for the rebels in Libya. They note that AQIM is very strong in this region of Northwest Africa.) ..."
    "... Yet, despite the absolute mess, the Western vultures are racing above the Libyan corpse to take as much as they can. ..."
    "... Their primary goal was probably to overthrow the Chinese economic influence and prevent Russia to expand its sphere of influence. Apparently, preventing the destruction of a whole country is not a top priority issue for them. ..."
    Aug 23, 2016 | failedevolution.blogspot.gr

    On March 16, 2016 WikiLeaks launched a searchable archive for 30,322 emails & email attachments sent to and from Hillary Clinton's private email server while she was Secretary of State. The 50,547 pages of documents span from 30 June 2010 to 12 August 2014. 7,570 of the documents were sent by Hillary Clinton.

    The emails were made available in the form of thousands of PDFs by the US State Department as a result of a Freedom of Information Act request. The final PDFs were made available on February 29, 2016.

    globinfo freexchange

    A letter from Clintons' top advisor Sidney Blumenthal to Hillary Clinton in 2011, proves that the West was losing control of the situation in Libya, very fast, already since 2011. Dangerous weapons were going to wrong hands through the black market.

    The Western clowns have failed, one more time, to bring stability and led another country to absolute chaos and destruction. Waves of desperate people are now trying to reach European shores to save themselves from the hell in Libya, as it happens in Syria, Iraq and elsewhere.

    Key parts:

    • During the early morning of May 2, 2011 sources with access to the leadership of the Libyan rebellion's ruling Transitional National Council (TNC) stated in confidence that they are concerned that the death of al Qa'ida leader Osama Bin Laden will inspire al Qa'ida in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) to use weapons they have obtained, which were originally intended for the rebels in Libya, to retaliate against the United States and its allies for this attack in Pakistan. These individuals fear that the use of the weapons in this manner will complicate the TNC's relationship with NATO and the United States, whose support is vital to them in their struggle with the forces of Muammar al Qaddafi.
    • These individuals note that the TNC officials are reacting to reports received during the week of April 25 from their own sources of information, the French General Directorate for External Security (DGSE), and British external intelligence service (MI-6), stating that AQIM has acquired about 10 SAM 7- Grail/Streela man-portable air-defense systems (MANPADS or MPADS) from illegal weapons markets in Western Niger and Northern Mali. These weapons were originally intended for sale to the rebel forces in Libya, but AQIM operatives were able to meet secretly with these arms dealers and purchase the equipment. The acquisition of these sophisticated weapons creates a serious threat to air traffic in Southern Morocco, Algeria, Northern Mali, Western Niger, and Eastern Mauritania.
    • (Source Comment: According to very sensitive sources, the Libyan rebels are concerned that AQIM may also obtain SPIGOTT wire-guided anti-tank missiles and an unspecified number of Russian anti-tank mines made of plastic and undetectable by anti-mine equipment. This equipment again was coming through Niger and Mali, and was intended for the rebels in Libya. They note that AQIM is very strong in this region of Northwest Africa.)
    • ... Libyan rebel commanders are also concerned that the death of Bin Laden comes at a time when sensitive information indicates that the leaders of AQIM are planning to launch attacks across North Africa and Europe in an effort to reassert their relevance during the ongoing upheavals in Libya, as well as the rest of North Africa and the Middle East. They believe the first step in this campaign was the April 30 bombing of a café in Marrakesh, Morocco that is frequented by Western tourists.

    Full letter:

    https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/13013

    Yet, despite the absolute mess, the Western vultures are racing above the Libyan corpse to take as much as they can.

    Their primary goal was probably to overthrow the Chinese economic influence and prevent Russia to expand its sphere of influence. Apparently, preventing the destruction of a whole country is not a top priority issue for them.

    [Aug 26, 2016] How Think Tanks Generate Endless War by Todd E. Pierce

    Hillary election means new wars and death of the US servicemen/servicewomen. So Khan gambit is much more dangerous that it looks as it implicitly promoted militarism and endless "permanent war for permanent peace".
    Notable quotes:
    "... Information warfare uses disinformation and propaganda to condition a population to hate a foreign nation or population with the intent to foment a war, which is the routine "business" of the best known U.S. think tanks. ..."
    "... There are two levels to this information war. The first level is by the primary provocateur, such as the Rand Corporation, the American Enterprise Institute and the smaller war instigators found wherever a Kagan family member lurks. They use psychological "suggestiveness" to create a false narrative of danger from some foreign entity with the objective being to create paranoia within the U.S. population that it is under imminent threat of attack or takeover. ..."
    "... Once that fear and paranoia is instilled in much of the population, it can then be manipulated to foment a readiness or eagerness for war, in the manner that Joseph Goebbels understood well. ..."
    "... Nevertheless, showing the success that our primary war provocateurs have had in fomenting hostility and possibly war is that less militaristic and bellicose Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), ostensibly working for "peace," have adopted this false propaganda theme uncritically. ..."
    "... The Carnegie Moscow Center Foundation, which includes Russians on its staff, is a prime example. Lately, it has routinely echoed the more provocative and facially false accusations made against Russia by the outright militaristic and war instigating U.S. think tanks. An example is in a recent article of Carnegie, entitled: " Russia and NATO Must Communicate Better. " ..."
    "... So fanatics like the U.S. Generals whom we've seen at the recent political conventions and even worse, General Breedlove, are encouraged to be ever more threatening to the world's populations. ..."
    "... Recognizing that must then be coupled with recognition of a U.S. law passed in 2012 providing for military detention of journalists and social activists as the Justice Department conceded in Hedges v. Obama. Add to that what the ACLU recently compelled the U.S. government to reveal in the "Presidential Policy Guidance" and it is plain to see which nation has become most "authoritarian, nationalistic, and assertive." It is the United States. ..."
    "... As this was when the Politburo was allegedly at its height in subverting and subjugating foreign countries as foreign policy, it should be exactly on point in describing current U.S. foreign policy. ..."
    "... That U.S. think tanks, such as Rand and the American Enterprise Institute, put so much effort into promoting war should not come as a surprise when it is considered their funding is provided by the Military Industrial Complex (MIC) which President Eisenhower warned us about. ..."
    Aug 21, 2016 | Defend Democracy Press

    U.S. "think tanks" rile up the American public against an ever-shifting roster of foreign "enemies" to justify wars which line the pockets of military contractors who kick back some profits to the "think tanks," explains retired JAG Major Todd E. Pierce.

    The New York Times took notice recently of the role that so-called "think tanks" play in corrupting U.S. government policy. Their review of think tanks "identified dozens of examples of scholars conducting research at think tanks while corporations were paying them to help shape government policy."

    Unfortunately, and perhaps predictably, while the Times investigation demonstrates well that the U.S. is even more corrupt – albeit the corruption is better disguised – than the many foreign countries which we routinely accuse of corruption, the Times failed to identify the most egregious form of corruption in our system. That is, those think tanks are constantly engaged in the sort of activities which the Defense Department identifies as "Information War" when conducted by foreign countries that are designated by the U.S. as an enemy at any given moment.

    Information warfare uses disinformation and propaganda to condition a population to hate a foreign nation or population with the intent to foment a war, which is the routine "business" of the best known U.S. think tanks.

    There are two levels to this information war. The first level is by the primary provocateur, such as the Rand Corporation, the American Enterprise Institute and the smaller war instigators found wherever a Kagan family member lurks. They use psychological "suggestiveness" to create a false narrative of danger from some foreign entity with the objective being to create paranoia within the U.S. population that it is under imminent threat of attack or takeover.

    Once that fear and paranoia is instilled in much of the population, it can then be manipulated to foment a readiness or eagerness for war, in the manner that Joseph Goebbels understood well.

    The measure of success from such a disinformation and propaganda effort can be seen when the narrative is adopted by secondary communicators who are perhaps the most important target audience. That is because they are "key communicators" in PsyOp terms, who in turn become provocateurs in propagating the false narrative even more broadly and to its own audiences, and becoming "combat multipliers" in military terms.

    It is readily apparent now that Russia has taken its place as the primary target within U.S. sights. One doesn't have to see the U.S. military buildup on Russia's borders to understand that but only see the propaganda themes of our "think tanks."

    The Role of Rand

    A prime example of an act of waging information war to incite actual military attack is the Rand Corporation, which, incidentally, published a guide to information war and the need to condition the U.S. population for war back in the 1990s.

    A scene from "Dr. Strangelove," in which the bomber pilot (played by actor Slim Pickens) rides a nuclear bomb to its target in the Soviet Union. A scene from "Dr. Strangelove," in which the bomber pilot (played by actor Slim Pickens) rides a nuclear bomb to its target in the Soviet Union.

    Rand was founded by, among others, the war enthusiast, Air Force General Curtis LeMay, who was the model for the character of Gen. Buck Turgidson in the movie "Dr. Strangelove." LeMay once stated that he would not be afraid to start a nuclear war with Russia and that spirit would seem to be alive and well at Rand today as they project on to Vladimir Putin our own eagerness for inciting a war.

    The particular act of information warfare by Rand is shown in a recent Rand article: "How to Counter Putin's Subversive War on the West." The title suggests by its presupposition that Putin is acting in the offensive form of war rather than the defensive form of war. But it is plain to see he is in the defensive form of war when one looks at the numerous provocations and acts of aggression carried out by American officials, such as Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and General Philip Breedlove, and the U.S. and NATO military buildup on Russia's borders.

    Within this Rand article however can be found no better example of psychological projection than this propagandistic pablum that too many commentators, some witless, some not, will predictably repeat:

    "Moscow's provocative active measures cause foreign investors and international lenders to see higher risks in doing business with Russia. Iran is learning a similar, painful lesson as it persists with harsh anti-Western policies even as nuclear-related sanctions fade. Russia will decide its own priorities. But it should not be surprised if disregard for others' interests diminishes the international regard it seeks as an influential great power."

    In fact, an objective, dispassionate observation of U.S./Russian policies would show it has been the U.S. carrying out these "provocative active measures" as the instigator, not Russia.

    Nevertheless, showing the success that our primary war provocateurs have had in fomenting hostility and possibly war is that less militaristic and bellicose Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), ostensibly working for "peace," have adopted this false propaganda theme uncritically.

    The Carnegie Moscow Center Foundation, which includes Russians on its staff, is a prime example. Lately, it has routinely echoed the more provocative and facially false accusations made against Russia by the outright militaristic and war instigating U.S. think tanks. An example is in a recent article of Carnegie, entitled: "Russia and NATO Must Communicate Better."

    It begins: "The risk of outright conflict in Europe is higher than it has been for years and the confrontation between Russia and the West shows no sign of ending. To prevent misunderstandings and dangerous incidents, the two sides must improve their methods of communication."

    Unfortunately, that is now true. But the article's author suggests throughout that each party, Russia and the U.S./NATO, had an equal hand in the deterioration of relations. He wrote: "The West needs to acknowledge that the standoff with Russia is not merely the result of Russia turning authoritarian, nationalistic, and assertive," as if Western officials don't already know that that accusation was only a propaganda theme for their own populations to cover up the West's aggressiveness.

    Blaming Russia

    So Americans, such as myself, must acknowledge and confront that the standoff with Russia is not only not "merely the result of Russia turning authoritarian, nationalistic, and assertive," but it is rather, that the U.S. is "turning authoritarian, nationalistic," and even more "assertive," i.e., aggressive, toward the world.

    Suz Tzu wrote that a "sovereign" must know oneself and the enemy. In the case of the U.S. sovereign, the people and their elected, so-called representatives, there is probably no "sovereign" in human history more lacking in self-awareness of their own nation's behavior toward other nations.

    So fanatics like the U.S. Generals whom we've seen at the recent political conventions and even worse, General Breedlove, are encouraged to be ever more threatening to the world's populations.

    When that then generates a response from some nation with a tin-pot military relative to our own, with ours paid for by the privileged financial position we've put ourselves into post-WWII, our politicians urgently call for even more military spending from the American people to support even more aggression, all in the guise of "national defense."

    Recognizing that must then be coupled with recognition of a U.S. law passed in 2012 providing for military detention of journalists and social activists as the Justice Department conceded in Hedges v. Obama. Add to that what the ACLU recently compelled the U.S. government to reveal in the "Presidential Policy Guidance" and it is plain to see which nation has become most "authoritarian, nationalistic, and assertive." It is the United States.

    The Presidential Policy Guidance "establishes the standard operating procedures for when the United States takes direct action, which refers to lethal and non-lethal uses of force, including capture operations against terrorist targets outside the United States and areas of active hostilities."

    What other nation, besides Israel probably, has a governmental "Regulation" providing for assassinations outside "areas of active hostilities?"

    It should readily be evident that it is the U.S. now carrying out the vast majority of provocative active measures and has the disregard for others complained of here. At least for the moment, however, the U.S. can still hide much of its aggression using the vast financial resources provided by the American people to the Defense Department to produce sophisticated propaganda and to bribe foreign officials with foreign aid to look the other way from U.S. provocations.

    It is ironic that today, one can learn more about the U.S. military and foreign policy from the Rand Corporation only by reading at least one of its historical documents, "The Operational Code of the Politburo." This is described as "part of a major effort at RAND to provide insight into the political leadership and foreign policy in the Soviet Union and other communist states; the development of Soviet military strategy and doctrine."

    As this was when the Politburo was allegedly at its height in subverting and subjugating foreign countries as foreign policy, it should be exactly on point in describing current U.S. foreign policy.

    That U.S. think tanks, such as Rand and the American Enterprise Institute, put so much effort into promoting war should not come as a surprise when it is considered their funding is provided by the Military Industrial Complex (MIC) which President Eisenhower warned us about. That this U.S. MIC would turn against its own people, the American public, by waging perpetual information war against this domestic target just to enrich their investors, might have been even more than Eisenhower could imagine however.

    Todd E. Pierce retired as a Major in the US Army Judge Advocate General (JAG) Corps in November 2012. His most recent assignment was defense counsel in the Office of Chief Defense Counsel, Office of Military Commissions. [This article first appeared at http://original.antiwar.com/Todd_Pierce/2016/08/14/inciting-wars-american-way/]

    See also

    [Aug 26, 2016] Trump, Russia, and the Washington Post Reader Beware by Philip Giraldi

    Notable quotes:
    "... an article loaded with innuendo has appeared on the front page of a major U.S. newspaper, located in Washington, DC, stating that Russia is engaged in widespread subversion in Europe and is trying to do the same on behalf of Donald Trump in the United States. But the evidence presented in the story does not support what is being suggested, and spreading tales about foreign-government misbehavior can have unintended consequences. It is particularly shortsighted and even dangerous in this case, as a stable relationship with a nuclear-armed and militarily very capable Moscow should rightly be regarded as critical. ..."
    "... It is almost as if some journalists believe that deliberately damaging relations with Russia is a price worth paying to embarrass and defeat Trump. If that is so, they are delusional. ..."
    Aug 24, 2016 | The American Conservative

    But there is a certain danger inherent in the media's slanting its coverage to such an extent as to be making the news rather than just reporting it. And when it comes to Russia, the way the stories are reported becomes critically important, as there is a real risk that media hostility toward Putin, even if deployed as a way to get at Trump, could produce a conflict no one actually wants-just as the Hearst and Pulitzer newspapers' yellow journalism, rife with "melodrama, romance, and hyperbole," more or less brought about the Spanish-American War.

    ... ... ...

    So an article loaded with innuendo has appeared on the front page of a major U.S. newspaper, located in Washington, DC, stating that Russia is engaged in widespread subversion in Europe and is trying to do the same on behalf of Donald Trump in the United States. But the evidence presented in the story does not support what is being suggested, and spreading tales about foreign-government misbehavior can have unintended consequences. It is particularly shortsighted and even dangerous in this case, as a stable relationship with a nuclear-armed and militarily very capable Moscow should rightly be regarded as critical.

    It is almost as if some journalists believe that deliberately damaging relations with Russia is a price worth paying to embarrass and defeat Trump. If that is so, they are delusional.

    Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is executive director of the Council for the National Interest.

    [Aug 26, 2016] Clinton emails - Proof that the West had lost control of the situation in Libya already since 2011

    Aug 26, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org
    nmb | Aug 25, 2016 3:35:05 PM | 2
    Clinton emails - Proof that the West had lost control of the situation in Libya already since 2011
    james | Aug 25, 2016 4:10:01 PM | 3
    @ 1 rr.. i thought paveway described it best (his post below).. this is the little game that has been going on for some time and includes all the designations - moderates, isis, white helmets - you name it... this is the line of bs the usa is hoping dupes believe... ps, i also thought curtis comment from george carlin on the previous thread was great and what has come to typify usa foreign policy - " "Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity."

    paveways comment :

    "A NATO country has just rolled tanks into Syria and sent in head-chopper ground forces - the same ones Syria, Russia and Iran have been trying to kill for months on end in Aleppo and Idlib. ISIS isn't putting up much resistance in Jarabulus because they're too busy trading their ISIS ID cards/flags for al Nusra or al Zenki ID cards/flags. Head-choppers need paychecks to feed their families, too:

    Headchopper #1: "Snackbar - somebody is shooting at us! What flag are we suppose to be flying today, brother?"

    Headchopper #2: "Look on your paycheck, brother..."

    Headchopper #1: "No good, brother - it's from ISIS. That was last week!"

    Headchopper #2: "I'll get on the radio - our leaders should know, God willing..."

    (a few minutes later...)

    Headchopper #2: "Nobody knows for sure, but put on this white helmet for now, brother. Soros' checks are clearing."

    Headchopper #1: "Does that mean I have to shave? Snackbar... can't we just be al Nusra this week?"

    Headchopper #2: "No flags yet.. But you have to shave anyway, brother. The CIA won't pay you for FSA Nusra if you look too Wahhabi head-chopperish. Have a Captagon and calm down. Our Turkish brothers will be here soon."

    Posted by: PavewayIV | Aug 24, 2016 11:41:49 AM | 78"

    okie farmer | Aug 25, 2016 4:21:11 PM | 5
    In this episode of Truth in Media, Ben Swann explores the origin of Daesh (ISIS) that has already been long forgotten by American media.

    Swann takes on the central issue of whether or not ISIS was created by "inaction" by the United States government or by "direct" action.

    https://youtu.be/o6kdi1UXxhY

    [Aug 26, 2016] No, Donald Trump, America Isn't a Hellhole

    economistsview.typepad.com
    Chris G Friday, August 26, 2016 at 03:28 PM
    > No, Donald Trump, America Isn't a Hellhole

    But if we roll up our sleeves and get to work we can turn it into one!

    What does it say about our country that The Onion accurately foresees the future?

    http://www.theonion.com/article/bush-our-long-national-nightmare-of-peace-and-pros-464

    http://www.theonion.com/video/after-obama-victory-shrieking-white-hot-sphere-of--30284

    anne said in reply to Chris G
    Wildly funny:

    http://www.theonion.com/video/after-obama-victory-shrieking-white-hot-sphere-of--30284

    After Obama Victory, Shrieking White-Hot Sphere Of Pure Rage Early GOP Front-Runner For 2016

    Sources say the screaming orb might be the only potential candidate that would tap into Republicans' deep-seated, seething fury after this election. Friday, August 26, 2016 at 03:49 PM

    ilsm said in reply to Chris G
    Obama certainly did nothing to put US into the nightmare of peace and prosperity, while Killary will threw the US into perpetual war with bigger adversaries than Sunni goatherds.

    What are US "agents" doing on the ground in Syria?

    [Aug 26, 2016] How Think Tanks Generate Endless War by Todd E. Pierce

    Hillary election means new wars and death of the US servicemen/servicewomen. So Khan gambit is much more dangerous that it looks as it implicitly promoted militarism and endless "permanent war for permanent peace".
    Notable quotes:
    "... Information warfare uses disinformation and propaganda to condition a population to hate a foreign nation or population with the intent to foment a war, which is the routine "business" of the best known U.S. think tanks. ..."
    "... There are two levels to this information war. The first level is by the primary provocateur, such as the Rand Corporation, the American Enterprise Institute and the smaller war instigators found wherever a Kagan family member lurks. They use psychological "suggestiveness" to create a false narrative of danger from some foreign entity with the objective being to create paranoia within the U.S. population that it is under imminent threat of attack or takeover. ..."
    "... Once that fear and paranoia is instilled in much of the population, it can then be manipulated to foment a readiness or eagerness for war, in the manner that Joseph Goebbels understood well. ..."
    "... Nevertheless, showing the success that our primary war provocateurs have had in fomenting hostility and possibly war is that less militaristic and bellicose Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), ostensibly working for "peace," have adopted this false propaganda theme uncritically. ..."
    "... The Carnegie Moscow Center Foundation, which includes Russians on its staff, is a prime example. Lately, it has routinely echoed the more provocative and facially false accusations made against Russia by the outright militaristic and war instigating U.S. think tanks. An example is in a recent article of Carnegie, entitled: " Russia and NATO Must Communicate Better. " ..."
    "... So fanatics like the U.S. Generals whom we've seen at the recent political conventions and even worse, General Breedlove, are encouraged to be ever more threatening to the world's populations. ..."
    "... Recognizing that must then be coupled with recognition of a U.S. law passed in 2012 providing for military detention of journalists and social activists as the Justice Department conceded in Hedges v. Obama. Add to that what the ACLU recently compelled the U.S. government to reveal in the "Presidential Policy Guidance" and it is plain to see which nation has become most "authoritarian, nationalistic, and assertive." It is the United States. ..."
    "... As this was when the Politburo was allegedly at its height in subverting and subjugating foreign countries as foreign policy, it should be exactly on point in describing current U.S. foreign policy. ..."
    "... That U.S. think tanks, such as Rand and the American Enterprise Institute, put so much effort into promoting war should not come as a surprise when it is considered their funding is provided by the Military Industrial Complex (MIC) which President Eisenhower warned us about. ..."
    Aug 21, 2016 | Defend Democracy Press

    U.S. "think tanks" rile up the American public against an ever-shifting roster of foreign "enemies" to justify wars which line the pockets of military contractors who kick back some profits to the "think tanks," explains retired JAG Major Todd E. Pierce.

    The New York Times took notice recently of the role that so-called "think tanks" play in corrupting U.S. government policy. Their review of think tanks "identified dozens of examples of scholars conducting research at think tanks while corporations were paying them to help shape government policy."

    Unfortunately, and perhaps predictably, while the Times investigation demonstrates well that the U.S. is even more corrupt – albeit the corruption is better disguised – than the many foreign countries which we routinely accuse of corruption, the Times failed to identify the most egregious form of corruption in our system. That is, those think tanks are constantly engaged in the sort of activities which the Defense Department identifies as "Information War" when conducted by foreign countries that are designated by the U.S. as an enemy at any given moment.

    Information warfare uses disinformation and propaganda to condition a population to hate a foreign nation or population with the intent to foment a war, which is the routine "business" of the best known U.S. think tanks.

    There are two levels to this information war. The first level is by the primary provocateur, such as the Rand Corporation, the American Enterprise Institute and the smaller war instigators found wherever a Kagan family member lurks. They use psychological "suggestiveness" to create a false narrative of danger from some foreign entity with the objective being to create paranoia within the U.S. population that it is under imminent threat of attack or takeover.

    Once that fear and paranoia is instilled in much of the population, it can then be manipulated to foment a readiness or eagerness for war, in the manner that Joseph Goebbels understood well.

    The measure of success from such a disinformation and propaganda effort can be seen when the narrative is adopted by secondary communicators who are perhaps the most important target audience. That is because they are "key communicators" in PsyOp terms, who in turn become provocateurs in propagating the false narrative even more broadly and to its own audiences, and becoming "combat multipliers" in military terms.

    It is readily apparent now that Russia has taken its place as the primary target within U.S. sights. One doesn't have to see the U.S. military buildup on Russia's borders to understand that but only see the propaganda themes of our "think tanks."

    The Role of Rand

    A prime example of an act of waging information war to incite actual military attack is the Rand Corporation, which, incidentally, published a guide to information war and the need to condition the U.S. population for war back in the 1990s.

    A scene from "Dr. Strangelove," in which the bomber pilot (played by actor Slim Pickens) rides a nuclear bomb to its target in the Soviet Union. A scene from "Dr. Strangelove," in which the bomber pilot (played by actor Slim Pickens) rides a nuclear bomb to its target in the Soviet Union.

    Rand was founded by, among others, the war enthusiast, Air Force General Curtis LeMay, who was the model for the character of Gen. Buck Turgidson in the movie "Dr. Strangelove." LeMay once stated that he would not be afraid to start a nuclear war with Russia and that spirit would seem to be alive and well at Rand today as they project on to Vladimir Putin our own eagerness for inciting a war.

    The particular act of information warfare by Rand is shown in a recent Rand article: "How to Counter Putin's Subversive War on the West." The title suggests by its presupposition that Putin is acting in the offensive form of war rather than the defensive form of war. But it is plain to see he is in the defensive form of war when one looks at the numerous provocations and acts of aggression carried out by American officials, such as Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and General Philip Breedlove, and the U.S. and NATO military buildup on Russia's borders.

    Within this Rand article however can be found no better example of psychological projection than this propagandistic pablum that too many commentators, some witless, some not, will predictably repeat:

    "Moscow's provocative active measures cause foreign investors and international lenders to see higher risks in doing business with Russia. Iran is learning a similar, painful lesson as it persists with harsh anti-Western policies even as nuclear-related sanctions fade. Russia will decide its own priorities. But it should not be surprised if disregard for others' interests diminishes the international regard it seeks as an influential great power."

    In fact, an objective, dispassionate observation of U.S./Russian policies would show it has been the U.S. carrying out these "provocative active measures" as the instigator, not Russia.

    Nevertheless, showing the success that our primary war provocateurs have had in fomenting hostility and possibly war is that less militaristic and bellicose Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), ostensibly working for "peace," have adopted this false propaganda theme uncritically.

    The Carnegie Moscow Center Foundation, which includes Russians on its staff, is a prime example. Lately, it has routinely echoed the more provocative and facially false accusations made against Russia by the outright militaristic and war instigating U.S. think tanks. An example is in a recent article of Carnegie, entitled: "Russia and NATO Must Communicate Better."

    It begins: "The risk of outright conflict in Europe is higher than it has been for years and the confrontation between Russia and the West shows no sign of ending. To prevent misunderstandings and dangerous incidents, the two sides must improve their methods of communication."

    Unfortunately, that is now true. But the article's author suggests throughout that each party, Russia and the U.S./NATO, had an equal hand in the deterioration of relations. He wrote: "The West needs to acknowledge that the standoff with Russia is not merely the result of Russia turning authoritarian, nationalistic, and assertive," as if Western officials don't already know that that accusation was only a propaganda theme for their own populations to cover up the West's aggressiveness.

    Blaming Russia

    So Americans, such as myself, must acknowledge and confront that the standoff with Russia is not only not "merely the result of Russia turning authoritarian, nationalistic, and assertive," but it is rather, that the U.S. is "turning authoritarian, nationalistic," and even more "assertive," i.e., aggressive, toward the world.

    Suz Tzu wrote that a "sovereign" must know oneself and the enemy. In the case of the U.S. sovereign, the people and their elected, so-called representatives, there is probably no "sovereign" in human history more lacking in self-awareness of their own nation's behavior toward other nations.

    So fanatics like the U.S. Generals whom we've seen at the recent political conventions and even worse, General Breedlove, are encouraged to be ever more threatening to the world's populations.

    When that then generates a response from some nation with a tin-pot military relative to our own, with ours paid for by the privileged financial position we've put ourselves into post-WWII, our politicians urgently call for even more military spending from the American people to support even more aggression, all in the guise of "national defense."

    Recognizing that must then be coupled with recognition of a U.S. law passed in 2012 providing for military detention of journalists and social activists as the Justice Department conceded in Hedges v. Obama. Add to that what the ACLU recently compelled the U.S. government to reveal in the "Presidential Policy Guidance" and it is plain to see which nation has become most "authoritarian, nationalistic, and assertive." It is the United States.

    The Presidential Policy Guidance "establishes the standard operating procedures for when the United States takes direct action, which refers to lethal and non-lethal uses of force, including capture operations against terrorist targets outside the United States and areas of active hostilities."

    What other nation, besides Israel probably, has a governmental "Regulation" providing for assassinations outside "areas of active hostilities?"

    It should readily be evident that it is the U.S. now carrying out the vast majority of provocative active measures and has the disregard for others complained of here. At least for the moment, however, the U.S. can still hide much of its aggression using the vast financial resources provided by the American people to the Defense Department to produce sophisticated propaganda and to bribe foreign officials with foreign aid to look the other way from U.S. provocations.

    It is ironic that today, one can learn more about the U.S. military and foreign policy from the Rand Corporation only by reading at least one of its historical documents, "The Operational Code of the Politburo." This is described as "part of a major effort at RAND to provide insight into the political leadership and foreign policy in the Soviet Union and other communist states; the development of Soviet military strategy and doctrine."

    As this was when the Politburo was allegedly at its height in subverting and subjugating foreign countries as foreign policy, it should be exactly on point in describing current U.S. foreign policy.

    That U.S. think tanks, such as Rand and the American Enterprise Institute, put so much effort into promoting war should not come as a surprise when it is considered their funding is provided by the Military Industrial Complex (MIC) which President Eisenhower warned us about. That this U.S. MIC would turn against its own people, the American public, by waging perpetual information war against this domestic target just to enrich their investors, might have been even more than Eisenhower could imagine however.

    Todd E. Pierce retired as a Major in the US Army Judge Advocate General (JAG) Corps in November 2012. His most recent assignment was defense counsel in the Office of Chief Defense Counsel, Office of Military Commissions. [This article first appeared at http://original.antiwar.com/Todd_Pierce/2016/08/14/inciting-wars-american-way/]

    See also

    [Aug 25, 2016] Farage at Trump rally: I wouldnt vote for Clinton if you paid me

    Those who already think Clinton is too sleazy won't be voting for her, but those who think she is too sick, or that she will be impeached, might
    Notable quotes:
    "... I would like to vote for Hillary because she's already harmless and looks friendly with her mild seizures, it's like nehi-nehi Indian dance. But I am so afraid of her corporate backers that they will exploit Hillary and Bill's weakness as ageing senior illuminati couple, how can you unite the Fed with CIA, FBI and US military, not too mention Wall Street. ..."
    "... Are you talking about Hillary and Bill Clinton? Your are describing Hillary and her politics of corruption, bad judgment; incompetence, job outsourcing and total disregard for American people. if anyone is remotely suitable to become POTUS it is her. Only those who really hate America will be happy with its further decline and will vote for Hillary. However, Trump will become America's next President. ..."
    "... After 40 years of EU lies they are more than imbued to being lied to by politicians - no wonder the people are utterly and totally disillusioned with the established parties who show such appalling contempt for the people and democracy. Nothing better explains the growing success of mavericks like Trump and Farage: frankly the people need them as a safety valve for their frustrations. ..."
    "... Ok, let's forget that Farage was the only major political party leader to stand up for democracy. We also should forget that, despite all the horrific personal abuse he suffered, he carried on year after year against the almighty power of the establishment and managed to win us our sovereignty back. We definitely must forget that he is a libertarian and his party is the ONLY major political party that bans all previous members of racist parties from applying. ..."
    "... Her beliefs change with her lobbyist's wishes, she lies openly on camera and in office, puts donors and enormous backhanders before the electorate that voted for her, uses her Clinton Foundation as a cream skimming perk where all cash is welcome and Gov policy a Clinton Foundation sellable asset and entertains despots, juntas and murderous thugs using State Dept as a gun-for-hire. ..."
    "... Neocons seek power through creating social division so can never win more than a small majority and only for a short time. Exhibit A: Tony Useless Abbott, worst PM in Australia's history. ..."
    "... Quote: "For the duration of my appointment as Secretary if I am confirmed, I will not participate personally and substantially in any particular matter involving specific parties in which The William J. Clinton Foundation (or the Clinton Global Initiative) is a party or represents a party, unless I am first authorized to participate," -- Hillary Clinton. ..."
    "... The ethics pledge Hillary violated at least 85 times, but go ahead and believe that she won't ever do it again... ..."
    Aug 25, 2016 | www.theguardian.com
    philipsiron 46m ago
    I would like to vote for Hillary because she's already harmless and looks friendly with her mild seizures, it's like nehi-nehi Indian dance. But I am so afraid of her corporate backers that they will exploit Hillary and Bill's weakness as ageing senior illuminati couple, how can you unite the Fed with CIA, FBI and US military, not too mention Wall Street.
    shockrah 54m ago
    The real problem here is a political vacuum so huge you could fit trump's ego inside it. Just a guess but from what I've seen this last year about half of trump supporters are wwhat could be called die-hard racists. The one major failing of the workers movement that Sanders started in the US was an inability to pull off the 50% of trump supporters who are not fundamentally racist. T

    here was no major appeal to the more rural agricultural communities by Sanders that I ever heard. They may only represent 20% of the population but they are the backbone of the US as they are unable to compete with large scale corporate farming they suffer the same ideological loss that the rest of the working class suffer from. If the progressive movement cannot or will not appeal to this group through small farming and organic farming subsidies then they will go with someone like trump even though he promises them nothing. T

    hey will, in the absence of an alternative political path just choose 'f**k you' for their candidate. Probably too late this time around but in the future the progressive movement needs to include these people or they will be the 'third rail' the left dies on.

    Wynberg 1h ago
    Dear Dorothy,

    My husband is a liar and a cheat. He has cheated on me from the beginning and when I confront him, he denies everything. What's worse, everyone knows he cheats on me. It's so humiliating.
    Also, since he lost his job 14 years ago, he hasn't even looked for a new one. All he does all day is smoke cigars, play golf, cruise around and shoot ball with his buddies and has sex with hookers, while I work so hard to pay our bills.
    Since our daughter went away to college and then got married; he doesn't even pretend to like me, and hints that I may be a lesbian. What should I do?
    Signed:
    Confused

    Answer..
    Dear Confused:
    Grow up and dump him.
    You don't need him anymore!
    Good grief woman, you're running for President of the United States!

    stoneshepherd 44m ago
    People here seem to be posting without thinking things through. Do they really want another Clinton in the White House? Especially this warmonger?

    Maybe they should try a dose of reality and read John Pilger's op ed over here https://www.rt.com/op-edge/356846-provoking-nuclear-war-media /

    We shouldn't be sleepwalking into another disastrous war just to please the shareholders and CEOs of the major armament manufacturing companies.

    [PS Please read Pilger's op ed before trolling this post]

    SerbCanada Ulmus Glabra 1h ago
    Are you talking about Hillary and Bill Clinton? Your are describing Hillary and her politics of corruption, bad judgment; incompetence, job outsourcing and total disregard for American people. if anyone is remotely suitable to become POTUS it is her. Only those who really hate America will be happy with its further decline and will vote for Hillary. However, Trump will become America's next President.

    Listen to his peaches - that would be time better spent than to spend time of defending Hillary, who soon be either behind the bars or forgotten.

    unlywnted kieran2698 1h ago

    After 40 years of EU lies they are more than imbued to being lied to by politicians - no wonder the people are utterly and totally disillusioned with the established parties who show such appalling contempt for the people and democracy. Nothing better explains the growing success of mavericks like Trump and Farage: frankly the people need them as a safety valve for their frustrations.

    thinlizzie mkevinf 1h ago
    Nigel is not making any threats to USA as Obama did in UK (you'll be in back of the queue). It was not Nigel who spoke about obama's ancestry. America has a tough choice Trump/Clinton. My brother lives in Florida - he says he wouldn't vote for Clinton.

    I voted UKIP and for LEAVE and think Nigel Farage will go down in history as one of the most important men in politics for a very long time. We supported him because he spoke for us and the other politicians stopped listening to us. These snidey nasty comments are typical of leftie guardian readers. After all - they're probably going to vote for Corby who hasn't a cat in hells chance of ever being PM!

    Maitreya2016 MrIncredlous 1h ago
    Yes, you're right. It's this sentiment that has pushed the proletariat into the arms of Trump and Farage. Funnily enough, during my time working with the EU there was a very strong push towards less democracy and more population management. Most of it is being done via education and other soft power platforms - reforming children's attitudes, self-awareness training, behavioral feedback and gender confusion. This is being done under the guise of tolerance, diversity and identity politics. It keeps the masses fighting amongst themselves while those in charge of them steal everything.
    DanBlues 3h ago
    Ok, let's forget that Farage was the only major political party leader to stand up for democracy. We also should forget that, despite all the horrific personal abuse he suffered, he carried on year after year against the almighty power of the establishment and managed to win us our sovereignty back. We definitely must forget that he is a libertarian and his party is the ONLY major political party that bans all previous members of racist parties from applying.

    Now hand me some of that racism juice and point me to the bandwagon!

    musolen 3h ago

    ... ... ...

    Her beliefs change with her lobbyist's wishes, she lies openly on camera and in office, puts donors and enormous backhanders before the electorate that voted for her, uses her Clinton Foundation as a cream skimming perk where all cash is welcome and Gov policy a Clinton Foundation sellable asset and entertains despots, juntas and murderous thugs using State Dept as a gun-for-hire.

    ... ... ...

    Karega 3h ago
    I see the Bremain crowd still out for some revenge. And who would Hillary invite from "Brits?" Let's face it most Americans have no clue about other foreign leaders unless they are being splashed across their TV screens as some evil incarnates ready to be bombed by American bombs. Thus Guardian cheap shot at Farage as unknown is just cheap.
    Indeed the whole reporting of that meeting between Farage and Trump is distasteful for a newsmedia like Guardian. Purely designed to belittle Farage and, of course, portray Trump as a non-starter in the race for White House.

    Btw, i was going through list of media giants that have contributed and donated to the Clinton Foundation. Let me confirm whether Guardian or its associates/affiliates are on the list!

    MelindaHaye 3h ago

    Alternative media is so valuable.

    The MSM is trying to make Hillary look popular at the few rallies she conducts when the reality is her crowds are tiny. You then have Trump doing multiple rallies a day where he regularly fills large sports stadiums.

    It just goes to show how corrupt the MSM is and how they manipulate footage to create false impressions.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-VzSG-2oYI

    Lots of people are releasing stuff on this topic.

    Wobbly 4h ago
    Neocons seek power through creating social division so can never win more than a small majority and only for a short time. Exhibit A: Tony Useless Abbott, worst PM in Australia's history.
    camcitizen 4h ago
    Isn't it strange to see so much bile and bitterness being directed towards Mr Farage? We've had the referendum and Brexit won. Please can the many complainers here show some respect to the millions who voted and who did so of the own volition (and without the nonsense of being under some spell cast by imaginary bogeymen!). Can those complaining not accept that after 40 years of effort to make the EU work people are entitled to say - sorry, its over - but hopefully we can still be friends.
    inquisitor16 4h ago

    Farage was a good choice for a support speaker. He is the one person in Europe who has produced a stunning electoral upset and then quit the scene. All the pollsters got it wrong.

    It's distressing that some members of the audience knew nothing about the Brexit, despite efforts by The Guardian and many others to relieve their ignorance. However, might not the same criticism be applied to most American voters, of whatever ilk?

    Sailinghomeo 4h ago
    Quote: "For the duration of my appointment as Secretary if I am confirmed, I will not participate personally and substantially in any particular matter involving specific parties in which The William J. Clinton Foundation (or the Clinton Global Initiative) is a party or represents a party, unless I am first authorized to participate," -- Hillary Clinton.

    The ethics pledge Hillary violated at least 85 times, but go ahead and believe that she won't ever do it again...

    [Aug 25, 2016] Economists Whove Advised Presidents Are No Fans of Donald Trump

    Notable quotes:
    "... And Mankiw was the economic adviser to Mitt Romney, the elitist Nazi who said 47% of the American people were his enemies and who was in favour of economic policies that would stripmine the country to put all its wealth in the offshore bank accounts of the kleptocrats. ..."
    "... Which btw makes you wonder how anyone can call Mankiw an "economist". The guy's a Republican buttboy and that's all he is. ..."
    "... Mankiw didn't enable the Republicans alone. Every two-bit intro macro prof who teaches from Mankiw has aided him. ..."
    "... Real Time whatever at wsj are looking for reasons to keep the GOPster/free trade type progress going! A reason to oppose Trump and vote for Hillary? ..."
    "... Trump is a very controversial figure, but he can be viewed as a disruptive politician and might put some pressure on neoliberal, and especially neocons, before they coopt him. Think of him as a proponent of Brexit II. Making the elections essentially a referendum on neoliberal globalization. ..."
    Aug 25, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    Comments from the discussion in Economist's View

    Sandwichman :
    "who has broken with many of the GOP's traditional positions on economic policy"

    Not seeing much to like in "the GOP's traditional positions" where does this leave me? The truth is all 45 surviving former members of the CEA can be wrong without making Trump right.

    pgl -> Sandwichman, Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 10:31 AM
    Tax cuts for rich people as their "solution" to poverty. And balancing the budget with magic asterisks.
    ilsm -> Sandwichman
    Indeed, see how far the US has "progressed" with these guys' advising since Nixon!
    Decision Overload
    When the deeply established insider "advisers" are against him, you can bet that he is an angry outsider same as the rest of us. Look!

    The most inefficient thing in our taxation system is the taxing of poor folks. Do you recognize what that accomplishes? Poor folk taxation takes money away from the poor person's landlord, his power company, his telephone company and more much more -- just slows down the economy plus administrative overhead that is the cost of slamming on the brakes.

    The Donald has proposed a $25,000 standard deduction which will protect the low-rollers who have no deductions from tax-shelters. $50,000 for married couples! What a savings! What a relief from the churning that has evolved from smoke and mirror politics.

    Get
    it --

    Peter K., Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 09:29 AM
    "Harvard University economist Gregory Mankiw, who chaired the council under George W. Bush and has been mentioned as a possible future Fed chairman, said recently on his blog that he would not support Mr. Trump.

    "I have Republican friends who think that things couldn't be worse than doubling down on Obama policies under Hillary Clinton. And, like them, I am no fan of the left's agenda of large government and high taxes," Mr. Mankiw wrote. "But they are wrong: Things could be worse. And I fear they would be under Mr. Trump.""

    Mankiw and Krugman mini-me Pro Growth Liberal agree on something.

    Vic Twente -> Peter K
    And Mankiw was the economic adviser to Mitt Romney, the elitist Nazi who said 47% of the American people were his enemies and who was in favour of economic policies that would stripmine the country to put all its wealth in the offshore bank accounts of the kleptocrats.

    Which btw makes you wonder how anyone can call Mankiw an "economist". The guy's a Republican buttboy and that's all he is.

    Vic Twente -> Peter K
    Mankiw didn't enable the Republicans alone. Every two-bit intro macro prof who teaches from Mankiw has aided him.

    I laugh when I imagine undergrad econ ten years from now: the textbooks will be full of Murray Rothbard and Ayn Rand, and undergrad sessional lecturers will be drowning in cognitive dissonance as they try to remain straight-faced while lecturing on the benefits of the gold standard and eliminating the Federal Reserve.

    pgl :
    Stiglitz supports Clinton over Trump. No surprise but this is:

    "I have known personally every Republican president since Richard Nixon," said Harvard University economist Martin Feldstein, who chaired the council under President Ronald Reagan. "They all showed a real understanding of economics and international affairs".

    OK - Reagan did get a degree in economics but Krugman - who worked for Feldstein a the CEA - tells a different story about this White House when it comes to macroeconomics, the role of monetary policy, and in particular what was happening with the international aspects of our economy during Reagan's first term. Volcker - once he was done with his damaging tight monetary policy - tried to make a deal where he would lower interest rates in exchange for a reversal of that 1981 tax cut. The Reagan White House had no clue what the FED chair was even proposing even though it would have been a very good idea.

    ilsm :
    Real Time whatever at wsj are looking for reasons to keep the GOPster/free trade type progress going! A reason to oppose Trump and vote for Hillary?

    Dowd is right! The best thuglican is a democrat.

    likbez :
    Hillary Clinton is dyed-in-wool neoliberal. So all she can do is to kick the can down the road. All her elections promises are not worth the cost of the electrical energy that is used to depict them on our screens.

    Trump is a very controversial figure, but he can be viewed as a disruptive politician and might put some pressure on neoliberal, and especially neocons, before they coopt him. Think of him as a proponent of Brexit II. Making the elections essentially a referendum on neoliberal globalization.

    If he wins, a lot of Washington neocon parasites might lose jobs (the cash for the neocons comes mostly from defense contractors), that's why they crossed the party lines and that's why neoliberal propaganda campaign against him is so vicious. Khan gambit was a nasty attempt to speedboat him. It failed.

    While Hillary gets a free pass from neoliberal press (ABC, CBS and NBC). Neoliberal presstitutes (like George Stephanopoulos ) are especially vicious, behave like rabid dogs. Just listen to his interview of Trump about Khan gambit at Democratic convention.

    http://www.softpanorama.org/Skeptics/Political_skeptic/Two_party_system_as_poliarchy/US_presidential_elections/Candidates/Trump/khan_gambit_at_democratic_convention.shtml

    There is another view on Trump that deserves attention:

    === quote ===
    Lupita 08.04.16 at 4:23 am 167

    I think Trump is afraid the imperial global order presided by the US is about to crash and thinks he will be able to steer the country into a soft landing by accepting that other world powers have interests, by disengaging from costly and humiliating military interventions, by re-negotiating trade deals, and by stopping the mass immigration of poor people. Plus a few well-placed bombs .

    Much has been written about the internet revolution, about the impact of people having access to much more information than before. The elite does not recognize this and is still organizing political and media campaigns as if it were 1990, relying on elder statesmen like Blair, Bush, Mitterrand, Clinton, and Obama to influence public opinion. They are failing miserably, to the point of being counterproductive.

    I don't think something as parochial as racism is sustaining Trump, but rather the fear of the loss of empire by a population with several orders of magnitude more information and communication than in 2008, even 2012.

    === end of quote ===

    But it is the deep state that dictates the course of the US, both in foreign policy and domestically, probably from 1963, so the president now is more of a ceremonial figure that adds legitimacy to the actual rule of deep state.

    In any case discussion Hillary vs. Trump and questions of economics (neoliberalism vs. some retrenchment in the direction of the New Deal) we should not miss the key, defining this election fact that Hillary is a war criminal (crimes against peace are war crimes). See http://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/nuremberg-trials

    From this point of view voting for Hillary is highly undesirable as this is an implicit cooperation with the war criminal. That does not mean that people should vote for Trump. Who has his own set of warts.

    ilsm -> likbez... , Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 01:03 PM
    It has been suggested the appropriators owned by the war profiteers won't allocate money to fuel the transports that take America's Soldiers and Marines home.

    The lesser evil killed no one with a vote believing in fake WMD's. The lesser evil is not experienced in keeping the neocons happy.

    The lesser evil may decide body bags forever is not strategy.

    Trump is the lesser evil.

    Imagine what happens if the commander in chief says: stand down and steam for Pearl Harbor, San Diego and Alameda.

    What would all those US retirees do if the commander in chief shuttered those brigades in Germany?

    ilsm -> likbez... , Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 01:08 PM
    If the crooked DNC cared about families of US' slain.....

    The Khan con angered 5990 Gold Star families who are not Muslim and whose star are the result of Hillary voting for AUMF righteously and acting out since 2003.

    As well as veterans!

    Gold star families why not pick 1/5999 rather than 1/14 Muslims?

    [Aug 25, 2016] Arms Industry Donating to Hawkish Clinton Over Incoherent Trump Common Dreams Breaking News Views for the Progressive Com by Deirdre Fulton

    www.commondreams.org

    'My view is Hillary is far more aligned with the types of issues that are important to the defense industry than Trump is'

    Employees of 25 of the nation's largest defense companies-such as Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, and Raytheon-are choosing to fill the coffers of Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton over those of her rival, GOP nominee Donald Trump.

    That's according to a new analysis by Politico, published Wednesday and based on federal campaign finance filings.

    Indeed, Politico found that Clinton-whose hawkish tendencies have been front-and-center during the 2016 campaign-is leading Trump "by a ratio of 2-to-1 in campaign donations from employees working for defense giants like Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics. That's a sharp turnaround from 2012, when defense contractors gave more to then-Republican nominee Mitt Romney than to President Barack Obama."

    Specifically, employees of those 25 firms have donated $93,000 to Clinton, compared with $46,000 for Trump. "Clinton's donor rolls also include more than two dozen top defense executives, while Trump's show just two," Politico adds.

    It's no wonder why defense giants prefer Clinton.

    "My view is Hillary is far more aligned with the types of issues that are important to the defense industry than Trump is," Linda Hudson-who ran the U.S. branch of British defense firm BAE Systems, the Pentagon's eighth largest contractor, from 2009 to 2014-told Politico.

    And an anonymous lobbyist told the publication: "With Hillary Clinton we have some sense of where she would go, and with Trump we have none."

    Signs abound pointing to "where she would go." As commentator JP Sottile wrote earlier this month of Clinton, "she's weaponized the State Department. She really likes regime change. And her nominating convention not only embraced the military, but it sanctified the very Gold Star families that neocon-style interventionism creates."

    Or, as investigative journalist Robert Parry declared in June: "Clinton is an unabashed war hawk who has shown no inclination to rethink her pro-war attitudes."

    Parry quoted the New York Times as calling Clinton "the vessel into which many interventionists are pouring their hopes."

    And defense contractors, too, it seems. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

    [Aug 25, 2016] Some trump supportes belong to the alt-right . So what. Many Hillary supporters belong to Wall Street and military industiral complex.

    Notable quotes:
    "... Some Stooges have expressed a preference for Trump over Killary ..."
    "... Bannon, personally, has not been accused of anti-Semitism, however. ..."
    "... He's just less likely to touch off a global war than Clinton is. What happens to the United States of America is not my concern, and if a series of catastrophic national-leadership decisions cause it to collapse, that is America's business. I'm not saying it would not affect me, because it most certainly would – the collapse of the world's largest (or second-largest) single economy would affect everyone. ..."
    Aug 25, 2016 | marknesop.wordpress.com
    Northern Star , August 25, 2016 at 11:08 am
    https://www.yahoo.com/news/alt-beginners-guide-000000002.html?nhp=1

    Some Stooges have expressed a preference for Trump over Killary,…BUt iF–and I say IF -Trump embraces these "alt-right' vermin…then he is just as unfit to be POTUS as Killary..

    "There are, of course, many strains of thinking under the "alt-right" umbrella. Some factions are preoccupied with a return to "traditional values," while others espouse a philosophy called "Human Biodiversity": the belief that there are significant biological differences between people of different races, which justifies treating them differently. (The other name for this is "scientific racism.") Anti-Semitism is common, in various forms, ranging from Holocaust denial to full-bore denunciations of Jews as agents of the collapse of white Christian society. Bannon, personally, has not been accused of anti-Semitism, however.

    The common thread, however, that connects members of these different factions is a shared desire to protect Western civilization from what many refer to as "white genocide." This manifests in opposition to things like immigration and multiculturalism, as well as a steadfast aversion to political correctness and to establishment politics of all kinds, including Republican."

    The 'alt-right' need to be exterminated every bit as much as fascist warmonger vermin.

    EOS.

    marknesop , August 25, 2016 at 12:00 pm
    Absolutely. Trump would make a terrible president. He's just less likely to touch off a global war than Clinton is. What happens to the United States of America is not my concern, and if a series of catastrophic national-leadership decisions cause it to collapse, that is America's business. I'm not saying it would not affect me, because it most certainly would – the collapse of the world's largest (or second-largest) single economy would affect everyone.

    But it is up to Americans to determine their nation's course, and I'm sure they do not welcome meddling any more than any other country does. I will say their political crisis is appalling, and that their choice has come down to Trump or Clinton is beyond appalling, but in the end it is Americans who must take responsibility for that. That is America's business, and all of my disagreements with America stem from its activities outside its own borders.

    Also, all those rabbiting on about Russia showing a clear preference for Trump should take note of Europe's oft-expressed and extremely public endorsement of Clinton.

    Northern Star , August 25, 2016 at 1:48 pm
    Yes…this is a **real ** dilemma….super corrupt pathological lying (barking) warmonger psycho….OR….prone to be manipulated by white supremacist ideology nutjob…

    [Aug 25, 2016] Leaked Memo Exposes George Soros Plan To Overthrow Putin Destabilise Russia Zero Hedge

    Notable quotes:
    "... The human rights context has greatly changed from 2006 to 2012: the Medvedev period allowed for a number of improvements and significant openings for NGOs. ..."
    "... The Russian protests deeply affected the life of NGOs. The state had been providing money for self-organization, thinking this would defuse the possibility of large-scale opposition. But by encouraging self-organization, they had opened up a Pandora's Box. People became active and began to feel that it was possible to change something; the door was opened for self-mobilization. ..."
    "... The document details in an extensive bullet point list, "what must be done" to destabilize Russia, focusing on many recurrent neo-liberal themes that Soros uses to infect host nations and overturn governments… ..."
    "... We will mitigate the negative impact of new laws via domestic and international advocacy. Key allies in this regard are the growing numbers of diverse Russian citizens opposing the country's regression, along with the sizeable community of Russian legal experts with an in-depth knowledge of NGO law and a strong motivation to help the sector continue its activities. ..."
    "... Engaging with Russian diaspora who oppose the current government, and mobilising the LGBT community through mass media propaganda, are recurrent themes in the Soros document. ..."
    "... Our comparative advantage lies in the deep and wide networks that we have fostered these past years. A strategic use of these networks will maximize the long-term impact of the work that LGBT rights organizations are doing. LGBT rights groups in Russia are professional and effective, yet they lack the capacity to reach far beyond their immediate communities and galvanize other civil society players necessary for their long-term success. ..."
    "... Destabilisation of a country the size of Russia does not come without a significant price tag, for which George Soros seems more than ready to pony up… ..."
    "... Their can be no doubt that the 2014-2017 plan outlined by Soros NGOs, which even envisioned staff growth and Eurasian region restructuring, has hit a major speed bump with the 2015 law that saw these divisive forces operating within Russian finally get booted out of the country. ..."
    "... Vlad, smoke this Globalist scum. American people will cheer you! ..."
    "... MR. Soros needs to get wacked by someone as he is directly responsible for thousands of deaths in Ukraine alone and I won't even mention the Nazi informer days. ..."
    Aug 25, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    Submitted by Alex Christoforou via The Duran.com,

    The recent DC Leaks , of over 2,500 documents from George Soros NGOs, has shed a bright light on how the billionaire uses his vast wealth to create global chaos in an never ending push to deliver his neo-liberal euphoria to the peasant classes.

    While Soros has managed to thoroughly destabilise the European Union by promoting mass immigration and open borders, divided the United States by actively funding Black Lives Matters and corrupting the very corruptible US political class, and destroyed Ukraine by pushing for an illegal coup of a democratically elected government using neo-nazi strong men… one country that Soros has not bee able to crack has been The Russian Federation.

    Russia's political pragmatism and humanist value system rooted in a traditional, "nation-state" culture most likely infuriates Soros.

    Russia is Soros' white whale... a creature he has been trying to capture and kill-off for nearly a decade.

    Unfortunately for Soros (and fortunately for the entire planet) the Russian government realised the cancerous nature of Soros backed NGOs, and took the proper preventative measures…which in hindsight, and after reviewing the DC Leaks memos, proved to be a very wise move.

    On November 30th 2015, ZeroHedge reported ,

    Russian Prosecutor General's Office issued a statement in which it recognized George Soros's Open Society Institute and another affiliated organization as "undesirable groups", banning Russian citizens and organizations from participation in any of their projects.

    –prosecutors said the activities of the Open Society Institute and the Open Society Institute Assistance Foundation were a threat to the foundations of Russia's Constitutional order and national security . They added that the Justice Ministry would be duly informed about these conclusions and would add the two groups to Russia's list of undesirable foreign organizations.

    According to RT , prosecutors launched a probe into the activities of the two organizations – both sponsored by the well-known US financier George Soros – in July this year, after Russian senators approved the so-called "patriotic stop-list" of 12 groups that required immediate attention over their supposed anti-Russian activities.

    The Law on Undesirable Foreign Organizations came into force in early June this year. It requires the Prosecutor General's Office and the Foreign Ministry to draw up an official list of undesirable foreign organizations and outlaw their activities. Once a group is recognized as undesirable, its assets in Russia must be frozen, its offices closed and the distribution of any of its materials must be banned. That said, it is doubtful that Soros still has any active assets in Russia – his foundation, which emerged in Russia in its early post-USSR years in the mid-1990s, wrapped up active operations in 2003 when Putin cemented his control on power.

    The huge document tranche released by DC Leaks shows how dangerous the Open Society and George Soros were to the well being and preservation of the Russian Federation and the Russian culture.

    In a document from November 2012 entitled, "OSF [Open Society Foundation] Russia Strategic Planning Meeting Notes" , Participants:

    Leonard Benardo, Iva Dobichina, Elizabeth Eagen, Jeff Goldstein, Minna Jarvenpaa, Ralf Jürgens, Elena Kovalevskaya, Vicki Litvinov, Tanya Margolin, Amy McDonough, Sara Rhodin, Yervand Shirinyan, Becky Tolson

    Discuss how to …

    Identify joint priorities for OSF's Russia activities in the coming year. How can we most effectively collaborate, considering the deteriorating political environment for our partners?

    The main revelation of the document minutes comes from the hope that Medvedev's years as president would provide the NGOs the "opening" they would need to finally break the Russian bear.

    That all evaporated in 2012, when Vladimir Putin returned to the President's office.

    The OSF, clearly distraught and disappointed, begins to lay down the groundwork for how to challenge the Putin administration, in light of his very different approach to dealing with NGOs like the Open Society Foundation.

    The human rights context has greatly changed from 2006 to 2012: the Medvedev period allowed for a number of improvements and significant openings for NGOs. Amendments to the NGO law in 2006 led to campaigning on behalf of NGOs; many of our grantees benefited during this period. Surkov established ties with many groups that were willing to cooperate with the state and our partners served as experts in key processes like police reform . A space was created for modernization and for the inclusion of civil society during Medvedev's term. However, pressure has come back very quickly in the short time that Putin has been back in power.

    A major turning point for NGO operation in Russia came with the botched Russian "Maidan like" protests, which were promptly dismantled before any damage could be inflicted.

    The Russian protests deeply affected the life of NGOs. The state had been providing money for self-organization, thinking this would defuse the possibility of large-scale opposition. But by encouraging self-organization, they had opened up a Pandora's Box. People became active and began to feel that it was possible to change something; the door was opened for self-mobilization.

    The state has responded with repression and political prisoners, in order to instill fear in the population. The state is also working to undermine social support for the protests. Its support of socially-oriented ("good") NGOs is a way to divide the community, while the foreign agents law frames the protests as foreign money undermining Russia.

    Why the fascination with Russia? Why is it important for OSF to focus on Russia? With Russia comes immense wealth and tremendous geo-political power.

    Key open society themes and issues are highly relevant in Russia

    – Transparency and accountability (anticorruption)
    – Rights and justice (i.e., criminal justice, policing, rule of law, LGBT, women's rights)
    – Migration
    – Inclusive education (disability, Roma)
    – Media freedom, access to information
    – Health (access to medicines, HIV, harm reduction)

    Copy-cat problem: Russian tactics are picked up by Central Asia (ie, anti-extremism law in Kazakhstan)

    Russia's influence in UN Human Rights Council – pushing resolution that says human rights should take into consideration traditional values of country in question – very few HR orgs that are following the council saw this coming – has large implications beyond Russia

    Participation in global international regimes (G20, ICC, WTO) – a more open Russia creates changes in international governing bodies

    European Court litigation

    The document details in an extensive bullet point list, "what must be done" to destabilize Russia, focusing on many recurrent neo-liberal themes that Soros uses to infect host nations and overturn governments…

    – Political prisoners (Bolotnaya, etc.)
    – Media censorship and control (pressure in independent media – work w/ NMP)
    – Surveillance
    – LGBT (push against propaganda laws, which are driven by local officials, not by the federal gov't)
    – Women's rights
    – Disability rights and inclusive education

    Prisons
    – Lots of funding is going to monitoring; where is our money best placed?
    – ONKs don't have sufficient $ for travel and legal representation

    Policing and police violence (Public Verdict, Man and Law, etc.)

    Migrants

    Transparency and accountability
    – State spending – monitoring, analysis
    – Tracking cross-border transactions and business purchases
    – Connections between accountability, human rights, and ordinary citizens' interests

    The complete PDF document can be found here: -Russia-russia strategic planning 2012-meeting notes-russia strategic planning meeting notes 11 16 12.pdf

    * * *

    Following the 2012 document, and the apparent disappointment expressed by OSF members at Russia's resistance to the neo-liberal way of life, DC Leaks provides a follow up memo entitled, "Russia Project Strategy, 2014-2017".

    The document summary…

    Russia today faces a regrettable backsliding into authoritarian practice. Confronted with serious domestic challenges, the regime has become more insular and isolationist, seeking to solidify its base. The progressively draconian laws promulgated since Putin's return to the presidency have placed all foreign- funded organizations under threat of isolation and disrepute. Despite these decidedly challenging conditions, it is essential that we continue to engage Russia, both to preserve its extant democratic spaces, and to ensure that Russian voices do not go dark on the broader global stage.

    The destabilization of Russia, now aptly named, "the Russia Project" goes on to identify three cornerstone concepts…

    Amid the grim landscape, there nonetheless remain apertures for the Russia Project's intervention. Exploiting all available opportunities, we will undertake the following three concepts, which we deem vital in the current climate:

    1) We will mitigate the negative impact of new laws via domestic and international advocacy. Key allies in this regard are the growing numbers of diverse Russian citizens opposing the country's regression, along with the sizeable community of Russian legal experts with an in-depth knowledge of NGO law and a strong motivation to help the sector continue its activities.

    2) We will integrate Russian voices into the global exchange of ideas. Given that Russian intellectuals, practitioners and activists are increasingly sidelined domestically, and academics are often isolated from the international community, we will support venues for inserting diverse, critical Russian thinking into the global discourse. Such opportunities allow Russian actors to enter into mutually beneficial collaborations on topics ranging from migration to digital activism, thus maintaining their relevance and reducing their provincialization.

    3) We aim to mainstream the rights and dignity of one of Russia's most marginalized populations: LGBT individuals. The RP's diverse network of partners provides an opportunity to build a broader base of civil society allies at a time when the LGBT community is under profound threat. We hope to see a more balanced discourse on LGBT rights among the Russian public, as well as a strong cohort of mainstream independent organizations actively incorporating LGBT interests into their work.

    Social mobilisation and the funding of alternative media networks, to promote social discourse and dissatisfaction, are common tactics that Soros NGOs uses to build up towards a revolution.

    Along with these initiatives, we remain committed to supporting three primary fields: (a) access to justice and legal empowerment of marginalized groups, (b) access to independent information and alternative media, and (c) platforms for critical debate, discussion, and social mobilization. The RP plans to provide core support to our trusted partners in each of these fields, investing in their growth and development, and remaining flexible about the funding arrangements necessary to allow them to continue their essential work. We also seek to strengthen their legitimacy and financial sustainability, in order to build a more transparent, effective, and organizationally efficient third sector.

    Russia is currently in a gradual, arbitrary, and haphazard process of becoming more closed. Amid this background, the RP's cardinal role is to create a dense and wide-ranging field of independent civil society actors, who can in the best case help set the agenda for a more open and democratic future in Russia, and in the worst case survive the effects of new draconian legislation.

    Engaging with Russian diaspora who oppose the current government, and mobilising the LGBT community through mass media propaganda, are recurrent themes in the Soros document.

    The media focus on LGBT rights in the run up to the Sochi winter Olympics was an opportunity not to be missed by Soros.

    In the short to mid-term, the RP aims to engender broader civil society support for this highly marginalized group. Even though the "propaganda of homosexuality" law has gained unprecedented international attention in the lead-up to the Winter Olympics in Sochi, the voices of Russian activists are barely being heard over larger international LGBT organizations. We want to make sure that our Russian partners have a leading role in shaping the strategy of the international movement, that planned campaigns have a domestic rather than just an international focus, and that the momentum gathering around Sochi does not dissipate immediately after the Olympics end.

    Our comparative advantage lies in the deep and wide networks that we have fostered these past years. A strategic use of these networks will maximize the long-term impact of the work that LGBT rights organizations are doing. LGBT rights groups in Russia are professional and effective, yet they lack the capacity to reach far beyond their immediate communities and galvanize other civil society players necessary for their long-term success.

    Destabilisation of a country the size of Russia does not come without a significant price tag, for which George Soros seems more than ready to pony up…

    Given the large number of grants in the RP portfolio, we see a need for additional staffing in order to implement our strategic priorities and effectively monitor our activities. However, as a number of programs in the Eurasia region are being restructured, we are awaiting the results of this transition before making any substantive recommendations.

    Their can be no doubt that the 2014-2017 plan outlined by Soros NGOs, which even envisioned staff growth and Eurasian region restructuring, has hit a major speed bump with the 2015 law that saw these divisive forces operating within Russian finally get booted out of the country.

    The complete PDF document can be found here: Russia-Russia Project Revised 2014 2017 Strategy.pdf

    shamus001 -> knukles, Aug 25, 2016 7:50 PM

    Vlad, smoke this Globalist scum. American people will cheer you!
    cowdiddly -> shamus001, Aug 25, 2016 8:04 PM
    They have a warrant out for his arrest if he ever steps foot in Russia (highly unlikely). If I remember correctly another country does also.

    MR. Soros needs to get wacked by someone as he is directly responsible for thousands of deaths in Ukraine alone and I won't even mention the Nazi informer days.

    ... ... ...

    [Aug 25, 2016] The Real Scandal of Clintons Emails Conducting Foreign Policy In Secret

    Notable quotes:
    "... The clintons are a terminally vulgar and unethical couple ..."
    "... Mr. Clinton always had an easy, breezy relationship with wrongdoing. But the Democratic Party overlooked the ethical red flags and made a pact with Mr. Clinton that was the equivalent of a pact with the devil. And he delivered. With Mr. Clinton at the controls, the party won the White House twice. But in the process it lost its bearings and maybe even its soul. ..."
    Aug 25, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    hreik , August 25, 2016 at 7:46 am

    Bob Herbert said it best 15 years ago

    The clintons are a terminally vulgar and unethical couple

    Out of order quotes:

    Mr. Clinton always had an easy, breezy relationship with wrongdoing. But the Democratic Party overlooked the ethical red flags and made a pact with Mr. Clinton that was the equivalent of a pact with the devil. And he delivered. With Mr. Clinton at the controls, the party won the White House twice. But in the process it lost its bearings and maybe even its soul.

    Link http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/26/opinion/in-america-cut-him-loose.html

    Jim Haygood , August 25, 2016 at 8:10 am

    "The clintons are a terminally vulgar and unethical couple "

    Wish this forum allowed signatures, so Bob Herbert's deep truth could appear with every post.

    hreik , August 25, 2016 at 8:23 am

    That's the money quote for me. Just those 9 words. Sums it up beautifully, perfectly even.

    [Aug 25, 2016] The Second Amendment Incident was artificially created by neoliberal media

    Notable quotes:
    "... Washington Post, Salon, Slate, Think Progress ..."
    "... Trump never overtly used the word "assassinate." He says he was just suggesting that advocates of the Second Amendment vote, and was being sarcastic. A sarcastic invocation to vote would sound very different. A sarcastic invocation to vote might be, "The American way to change things is to vote. But maybe you care so much about shooting, you won't be able to organize to vote." ..."
    "... exaggeration, flattery, kidding, joking ..."
    Aug 25, 2016 | www.commondreams.org
    From: Understanding Trump's Use of Language Common Dreams Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community by George Lakoff

    This piece is a follow-up of a Lakoff's article, Understanding Trump , published by Common Dreams last month.

    Responsible reporters in the media normally transcribe political speeches so that they can accurately report them. But Donald Trump's discourse style has stumped a number of reporters. Dan Libit, CNBC's excellent analyst is one of them. Libit writes:

    His unscripted speaking style, with its spasmodic, self-interrupting sentence structure, has increasingly come to overwhelm the human brains and tape recorders attempting to quote him.

    Trump is, simply put, a transcriptionist's worst nightmare: severely unintelligible, and yet, incredibly important to understand.

    Given how dramatically recent polls have turned on his controversial public utterances, it is not hyperbolic to say that the very fate of the nation, indeed human civilization, appears destined to come down to one man's application of the English language - and the public's comprehension of it. It has turned the rote job of transcribing into a high-stakes calling. […]

    Trump's crimes against clarity are multifarious: He often speaks in long, run-on sentences, with frequent asides. He pauses after subordinate clauses. He frequently quotes people saying things that aren't actual quotes. And he repeats words and phrases, sometimes with slight variations, in the same sentence.

    Some in the media ( Washington Post, Salon, Slate, Think Progress , etc.) have called Trump's speeches "word salad." Some commentators have even attributed his language use to "early Alzheimer's," citing "erratic behavior" and "little regards for social conventions." I don't believe it.

    I have been repeatedly asked in media interviews about such use of language by Trump. So far as I can tell, he is simply using effective discourse mechanisms to communicate what his wants to communicate to his audience. I have found that he is very careful and very strategic in his use of language. The only way I know to show this is to function as a linguist and cognitive scientist and go through details.

    Let's start with sentence fragments. It is common and natural in New York discourse for friends to finish one another's sentences. And throughout the country, if you don't actually say the rest of a friend's sentence out loud, there is nevertheless a point at which you can finish it in your head. When this happens in cooperative discourse, it can show empathy and intimacy with a friend, that you know the context of the narrative, and that you understand and accept your friend's framing of the situation so well that you can even finish what they have started to say. Of course, you can be bored with, or antagonistic to, someone and be able to finish their sentences with anything but a feeling of empathy and intimacy. But Trump prefers to talk to a friendly crowd.

    Trump often starts a sentence and leaves off where his followers can finish in their minds what he has started to say. That is, they commonly feel empathy and intimacy, an acceptance of what is being said, and good feeling toward the speaker. This is an unconscious, automatic reaction, especially when words are flying by quickly. It is a means for Trump to connect with his audience.

    The Second Amendment Incident

    Here is the classic case, the Second Amendment Incident. The thing to be aware of is that his words are carefully chosen. They go by quickly when people hear them. But they are processed unconsciously first by neural circuitry - and neurons operate on a thousandth-of-a-second time scale. Your neural circuitry has plenty of time to engage in complex forms of understanding, based on what you already know.

    Trump begins by saying, "Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish the Second Amendment." He first just says "abolish," and then hedges by adding "essentially abolish." But having said "abolish" twice, he has gotten across the message that she wants to, and is able to, change the Constitution in that way.

    Now, at the time the Second Amendment was written, the "arms" in "bear arms" were long rifles that fired one bullet at a time. The "well-regulated militia" was a local group, like a contemporary National Guard unit, regulated by a local government with military command structure. They were protecting American freedoms against the British.

    The Second Amendment has been reinterpreted by contemporary ultra-conservatives as the right of individual citizens to bear contemporary arms (e.g., AK-47's), either to protect their families against invaders or to change a government by armed rebellion if that government threatens what they see as their freedoms. The term "Second Amendment" activates the contemporary usage by ultra-conservatives. It is a dog-whistle term, understood in that way by many conservatives.

    Now, no president or Supreme Court could literally abolish any constitutional amendment alone. But a Supreme Court could judge that that certain laws concerning gun ownership could be unconstitutional. That is what Trump meant by "essentially abolish."

    Thus, the election of Hillary Clinton threatens the contemporary advocates of the 'Second Amendment.'

    Trump goes on:

    "By the way, and if she gets to pick [loud boos] - if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don't know."

    Here are the details.

    " By the way ," marks a parallel utterance, one that does not linearly follow from what was just said, but that has information relevant to what was just said.

    "And" here marks information that follows from what was just said.

    "If she gets to pick …" When said the first time, it was followed immediately by loud boos. The audience could finish the if-clause for themselves, since the word "pick" in context could only be about Hillary picking liberal judges. Trump goes on making this explicit, "if she gets to pick her judges…"

    "Gets to" is important. The metaphor here with "to" is that Achieving a Purpose Is Reaching a Destination" with the object of "to" marking the pick. The "get" in "get to" is from a related metaphor, namely, that Achieving a Purpose Is Getting a Desired Object. In both Purpose metaphors, the Achievement of the Purpose can be stopped by an opponent. The "if" indicates that the achievement of the purpose is still uncertain, which raises the question of whether it can be stopped.

    "Her judges" indicates that the judges are not your judges, from which it follows that they will not rule the way you want them to, namely, for keeping your guns. The if-clause thus has a consequence: unless Hillary is prevented from becoming president, "her judges" will change the laws to take away your guns and your Constitutional right to bear arms. This would be a governmental infringement on your freedom, which would justify the armed intervention of ultra-conservatives, what Sharon Angle in Nevada has called the "Second Amendment solution." In short, a lot is entailed - in little time on a human timescale, but with lots of time on a neural timescale.

    Having set this up, Trump follows the if-clause with "Nothing you can do, folks." This is a shortened version in everyday colloquial English of "There will be nothing you can do, folks." That is, if you let Hillary take office, you will be so weak that you will be unable to stop her. The "folks," suggests that he and the audience members are socially part of the same social group - as opposed to a distant billionaire with his own agenda.

    Immediately after "nothing you can do," Trump goes on: "Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is."

    "Although" is a word used to contrast one possible course of events with an opposite possibility. Trump has just presented a possible course of events that is threatening to ultra-conservative Second Amendment advocates. "Although the Second Amendment people" calls up the alternative for those who would act violently to protect their Second Amendment right.

    "Maybe" brings up a suggestion. "Maybe there is" suggests that there is something the "Second Amendment People" can do to prevent Hillary from taking office and appointing liberal judges who would take away what they see as their Constitutional rights.

    "I don't know" is intended to remove Trump from any blame. But it acts unconsciously in the opposite way. It is like the title of the book I wrote, "Don't Think of an Elephant." The way the brain works is that negating a frame activates the frame. The relevant frame for "Second Amendment people" is use of arms to protect their rights against a government threatening to take away their rights. This is about the right to shoot, not about the right to vote. Second Amendment conservative discourse is about shooting, not about voting.

    The point here is that Trump's use of language is anything but "word salad." His words and his use of grammar are carefully chosen, and put together artfully, automatically, and quickly.

    Trump never overtly used the word "assassinate." He says he was just suggesting that advocates of the Second Amendment vote, and was being sarcastic. A sarcastic invocation to vote would sound very different. A sarcastic invocation to vote might be, "The American way to change things is to vote. But maybe you care so much about shooting, you won't be able to organize to vote."

    He didn't say anything like that. And he chose his words very, very carefully.

    Believe Me! Some People Say…

    People in the media have asked me about Trump's use of "Believe me!" and "Many people say" followed by a statement that is not true, but that he wants he audience to believe. Why does he use such expressions and how do they work in discourse? To understand this, one needs to look at the concept of lying. Most people will say that a lie is a false statement. But a study by linguists Linda Coleman and Paul Kay pointed out more than 30 years ago that the situation is more complex.

    If a statement happens to be false, but you sincerely believe that it is true, you are not lying in stating it. Lying involves a hierarchy of conditions defining worse and worse lies. Here is the hierarchy:

    1. You don't believe it.
    2. You are trying to deceive.
    3. You are trying to gain advantage for yourself.
    4. You are trying to harm.

    As you add conditions in the hierarchy, the lies get worse and worse.

    Though this is the usual hierarchy for lies, there are variations: A white lie is one that is harmless. A social lie is one where deceit is general helpful, as in, "Aunt Susie, that was such a delicious Jello mold that you made." Other variations include exaggeration, flattery, kidding, joking , etc.

    Lying is a form of uncooperative discourse. But most discourse is cooperative, and there are rules governing it that the philosopher Paul Grice called "maxims" in his Harvard Lectures in 1967. Grice observed that uncooperative discourse is created when the maxims are violated. Grice's maxims were extended in the 1970's by Eve Sweetser in a paper on lying.

    Sweetser postulated a Maxim of Helpfulness:

    In Cooperative Discourse, people intend to help to help one another.

    She then observed that there were two models used in helpful communication.

    Ordinary Communication
    If people say something, they are intending to help if and only if they believe it.
    People intend to deceive, if and only if they don't intend to help.

    Justified Belief
    People have adequate reasons for their beliefs.
    What people have adequate reason to believe is true.

    Though this model does not hold for all situations (e.g., kidding), they are models that are used by virtually everyone unconsciously all day every day. If I tell my wife that I saw my cousin this morning, there is no reason to deceive, so I believe it (Ordinary Communication). And since I know my cousin well, if I believe I saw him, then I did see him (Justified Belief). Such principles are part of our unconsciously functioning neural systems. They work automatically, unless they become conscious and we can attend to them and control them.

    Trump uses these communication models that are in your brain. When he says "Believe me!" he is using the principle of Justified Belief, suggesting that he has the requisite experience for his belief to be true. When those in Trump's audience hear "Believe me!", they will mostly understand it automatically and, unconsciously and via Justified Belief, will take it to be true.

    When Trump says, "Many people say that …" both principles are unconsciously activated. If many people say it, they are unlikely to all or mostly be deceiving, which means they believe it, and by Justified Belief, it is taken to be true.

    You have to be on your toes, listening carefully and ready to disbelieve Trump, to avoid the use of these ordinary cognitive mechanisms in your brain that Trump uses for his purposes.

    Is He "On Topic?"

    Political reporters are used to hearing speeches with significant sections on a single policy issue. Trump often goes from policy to policy to policy in a single sentence. Is he going off topic?

    So far as I can discern, he always on topic, but you have to understand what his topic is. As I observed in my Understanding Trump paper, Trump is deeply, personally committed to his version of Strict Father Morality. He wants it to dominate the country and the world, and he wants to be the ultimate authority in this authoritarian model of the family that is applied in conservative politics in virtually every issue area.

    Every particular issue, from building the wall, to using our nukes, to getting rid of inheritance taxes (on those making $10.9 million or more), to eliminating the minimum wage - every issue is an instance of his version of Strict Father Morality over all areas of life, with him as ultimately in charge.

    As he shifts from particular issue to particular issue, each of them activates his version of Strict Father Morality and strengthens it in the brains of his audience. So far as I can tell, he is always on topic - where this is the topic.

    Always Selling

    For five decades, Trump has been using all these techniques of selling and trying to make deals to his advantage. It seems to have become second nature for him to use these devices. And he uses them carefully and well. He is a talented charlatan. Keeping you off balance is part of his game. As is appealing to ordinary thought mechanisms in the people he is addressing.

    It is vital that the media, and ordinary voters, learn to recognize his techniques. When the media fails to grasp what he is doing, it gives him an advantage. Every time someone in the media claims his discourse is "word salad, " it helps Trump by hiding what he is really doing.

    "Regret" or Excuse

    One day after the above was written, Trump made a well-publicized statement of "regret."

    "Sometimes, in the heat of debate and speaking on a multitude of issues, you don't choose the right words or you say the wrong thing.

    I have done that.

    And believe it or not, I regret it.

    And I do regret it, particularly where it may have caused personal pain.

    Too much is at stake for us to be consumed with these issues. …"

    He did not give any specifics.

    What we have just seen is that he chooses his words VERY carefully. And he has done that here.

    He starts out with "sometimes," which suggests that it is a rare occurrence on no particular occasions - a relatively rare accident. He continues with a general, inescapable fact about being a presidential candidate, namely, that he is always "in the heat of debate and speaking on a multitude of issues." The words "heat" and "multitude" suggest that normal attention to details like word choice cannot operate in presidential campaign. In short, it is nothing that he could possibly be responsible for, and is a rare occurrence anyway.

    Then he uses the word "you." This shifts perspective from him to "you," a member of the audience. You too, if you were running for president, would naturally be in such uncontrollable situations all the time, when "you don't choose the right words or you say the wrong thing." It's just a matter of choosing "the right words." This means that he had the right ideas, but under natural, and inevitable attentional stress, an unavoidable mistake happens and could happen to you: "you" have the right ideas, but mess up on the "right words."

    He then admits to "sometimes" making an unavoidable, natural mistake, not in choosing the right ideas, but in word choice and, putting yourself in his shoes, "you say the wrong thing" - that is, you are thinking the right thing, but you just say it wrong - "sometimes."

    His admission is straightforward - "I have done that" - as if he had just admitted to something immoral, but which he has carefully described as anything but immoral.

    "And believe it or not, I regret it." What he is communicating with "believe it or not," is that you, in the audience, may not believe that I am a sensitive soul, but I really am, as shown by my statement of regret. He then emphasizes his statement of personal sensitivity: "And I do regret it, particularly where it may have caused personal pain." Note the "may have caused." No admission that he definitely DID "cause personal pain." And no specifics given. After all, they don't have to be given, because it is natural, unavoidable, accidental, and so rare as to not matter. He states this: "Too much is at stake for us to be consumed with these issues." In short, it's a trivial matter to be ignored - because it is a natural, unavoidable, accidental mistake, only in the words not the thoughts, and is so rare as to be unimportant. All that in five well-crafted sentences!

    Note how carefully he has chosen his words. And what is the intended effect? He should be excused because inaccurate word choice is so natural that it will inevitably occur again, and he should not be criticized when the stress of the campaign leads inevitably to mistakes in trivial word choice.

    But there is a larger effect. Words have meanings. The words he carefully uses, often over and over, get across his values and ideas, which are all too often lies or promotions of racist, sexist, and other un-American invocations. When these backfire mightily, as with the Khans, there can be no hiding behind a nonspecific "regret" that they were just rare, accidental word choice mistakes too trivial for the public to be "consumed with." This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

    George Lakoff is the author of The Little Blue Book: The Essential Guide to Thinking and Talking Democratic (co-authored with Elizabeth Wehling). His previous books include Moral Politics , Don't Think of an Elephant! , Whose Freedom? and Thinking Points (with the Rockridge Institute staff). He is Richard and Rhoda Goldman Distinguished Professor of Cognitive Science and Linguistics at the University of California at Berkeley, and a founding senior fellow at the Rockridge Institute .

    [Aug 25, 2016] Trump calls Clinton a 'bigot' at surreal rally with U.K. Independence Party leader by Holly Bailey

    Better late then never. That's bold attack we all need. After Khna gabmit, you need to nail Hillary who is trying to drive on anti-Russian sentiment and demonization by neoliberal press of the opponent. Bravo Trump !!!
    Notable quotes:
    "... "Hillary Clinton is a bigot who sees people of color only as votes, not as human beings worthy of a better future," the GOP presidential nominee declared at a rally here Wednesday night. "She's going to do nothing for African-Americans. She's going to do nothing for the Hispanics. She's only going to take care of herself, her husband, her consultants, her donors. These are the people she cares about." ..."
    "... he likened his own campaign against the European establishment to the brash developer's insurgent bid for the White House. ..."
    www.yahoo.com

    "Hillary Clinton is a bigot who sees people of color only as votes, not as human beings worthy of a better future," the GOP presidential nominee declared at a rally here Wednesday night. "She's going to do nothing for African-Americans. She's going to do nothing for the Hispanics. She's only going to take care of herself, her husband, her consultants, her donors. These are the people she cares about."

    ... ... ...

    Trump has repeatedly likened his own campaign to Brexit in arguing for "peaceful regime change" in the U.S. on Election Day. The mogul recently predicted that he would soon be known by the moniker "Mr. Brexit."

    Inviting the British politician to the stage at his Wednesday rally, the GOP nominee called it an "honor" to stand with Farage, who all but endorsed Trump as he likened his own campaign against the European establishment to the brash developer's insurgent bid for the White House.

    Speaking to audience members who appeared somewhat baffled at his presence, Farage spoke of how he and allies overcame opposition from the political establishment and even a set of foreign leaders that included U.S. President Obama. As the crowd here booed, Farage pointedly accused Obama of talking down to the British. "He treated us as if we were nothing," Farage said. "One of the oldest functioning democracies in the world, and here he was telling us to 'vote remain.'"

    As Trump stood over his shoulder, a smile on his face, Farage pointedly did not endorse Trump - but he came very, very close. "I could not possibly tell you how you should vote in this election," he said. "But I will say this, if I was an American citizen, I wouldn't vote for Hillary Clinton if you paid me!"

    Farage urged Trump supporters to take advantage of the "fantastic opportunity" they face in November. "You can go out. You can beat the pollsters. You can beat the commentators. You can beat Washington. And you'll do it by doing what we did for Brexit in Britain. We had our own people's army of ordinary citizens," he said. "Anything is possible if enough people are prepared to stand up against the establishment."

    Walking back to the podium, Trump nodded, calling Election Day a chance for the country to "re-declare" its independence. "It's time to recapture our destiny," he said.

    • Signpost 5 minutes ago

      Words mean very little really. The proof is in the pudding. These democrats are very skilled at saying slick words and calling others racists. That's basically a democrats main campaign slogan. "You're a racist!"

      But let's look for a moment at what they have accomplished. After 8 years of a democrat President black people are suffering. Look at the inner cities. Detroit, Milwaukee, ect. We see the anger and hopelessness. 58% of black youth are unemployed. Illegal aliens get treated better that black Americans. And the Hispanics only help their own once they get control of anything. Diversity isn't a Hispanic employers strong suit.

      95 million Americans are out of work. But Obama says the economy is thriving. The democrats know how to say the slick words. But it is only their elite who make any money. The rest of you are on food stamps. So, do we want 4 more years like the last 8? Someone like Clinton who will talk the bs while your families go without? Or do you want someone who can create jobs. As we can see by looking at the Clinton foundation emails, she got hers already. Wow. She was selling a possible future presidency while she was Secretary of State. She figured the American people would be too dumb to find out.

      Out with the democrats. Time to change the batter.

    • Greg Collins 5 minutes ago

      Where is Hillary Clinton can't give a press conference answer real question American can tell truth and you want to vote for a liar misstatements YouTube video and email poor judgment policy open border bring Syria Muslims terrorist will come in and attack kill your family this is what you are vote for and corrupt foundation no thanks

    • crosswalkuser 4 minutes ago

      With Hillary blatant corruption record it looks as though its Hillary who could shoot someone and still be elected as Americans are bent on having a new Pantygon where they see have the generals being women and the other half being gay men matching the current media.

    • still rockin' still rockin' 7 minutes ago

      While Trump is a idiot, he is correct that the only thing Hillary cares about with Blacks and Hispanics are their votes. After that she will keep them on the Democratic treadmill with no possible chance of advancement for the masses. For decades the Democrats have promised them prosperity and given them just enough to live a meager existence while lining their own pockets. Some of the wealthiest Congressional politicians are Democrats!

    • Ghassanids 1 hour ago

      As someone who is branded as "Hispanic" by the government, I am not looking to be taken care of by Clinton nor Trump. Where is all this language coming from? I'm just a normal citizen trying to live out my term on Earth. What's the deal?

    • James D James D 3 hours ago

      Any politician who talks about citizens as belonging to some biologically defined group, as if they all should think and vote alike based on that biological similarity, is a shallow bigot. It doesn't matter what biological feature they decide to focus on at the moment, whether it be gender, age, skin color, ethnicity, sexuality, ...... putting people into a box and stereotyping them is disgusting bigotry.

    • Richard 3 hours ago

      We have Nero and Caligula running for the American presidency. The question is which one is which?

    [Aug 25, 2016] It Is Time to Begin the Process of Rebuilding Our Middle-Class Economy

    Notable quotes:
    "... recently, the paper's former Washington bureau chief, the veteran journalist Hedrick Smith, asked an important question: ..."
    "... Smith, who traveled the country to write his latest book ..."
    "... also serves as the executive editor of the Reclaim the American Dream website, where he keeps a keen eye on efforts to revitalize politics closest to where people live. In his op-ed essay he answered his own question by reporting that "a broad array of state-level citizen movements are pressing for reforms… to give average voters more voice, make elections more competitive and ease gridlock in Congress." ..."
    "... There's a lot of energy stirring in the states, including efforts to create a fairer economy. Unlike our paralyzed and polarized Congress, state legislators - those with eyes to see and ears to hear - know the walking-wounded casualties from the long campaign against working people conducted by Big Business and rabid free-marketeers over the past three decades. Among the stunned and shell-shocked are millions of survivors barely hanging on after the financial crash of 2008 and the Great Recession that followed. They live down the street and around the corner, a mere few blocks from the state capitol. ..."
    "... Here at BillMoyers.com , just as Hedrick Smith's essay appeared last weekend, we were finishing a small book - 95 pages - by one of those state legislators: Minnesota's David Bly. After teaching in the public schools for 30 years he retired and ran for the Minnesota House of Representatives, where he is now serving his fourth term. What he's seen close-up prompted him to write ..."
    "... You can order a copy from the publisher's website . It is short in length but not of passion. Here, with permission, is an excerpt: ..."
    "... The Spirit Level ..."
    "... Capital in the 21 st Century ..."
    "... Invisible Hands: The Businessmen's Crusade Against the New Deal ..."
    "... Winner-Take-All Politics ..."
    "... Who Stole the American Dream? ..."
    "... Citizen's United ..."
    "... The Minneapolis Star Tribune ..."
    "... Excerpted with permission from Levins Publishing. All rights reserved. ..."
    "... Moyers & Company ..."
    "... Bill Moyers Journal: The Conversation Continues , ..."
    "... Moyers on Democracy ..."
    "... Bill Moyers: On Faith & Reason ..."
    "... We All Do Better ..."
    www.commondreams.org
    Our collapse from an "opportunity for all" middle-class economy to a "winner-take-all," dog-eat-dog system is behind many problems we face as a society. 18 Comments

    An ice sculpture reading Middle Class is displayed as people gather to protest before the beginning of the Republican National Convention on August 26, 2012 in Tampa, Florida. (Photo: Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

    In The New York Times recently, the paper's former Washington bureau chief, the veteran journalist Hedrick Smith, asked an important question: "Can the States Save American Democracy?" Smith, who traveled the country to write his latest book, Who Stole the American Dream?, also serves as the executive editor of the Reclaim the American Dream website, where he keeps a keen eye on efforts to revitalize politics closest to where people live. In his op-ed essay he answered his own question by reporting that "a broad array of state-level citizen movements are pressing for reforms… to give average voters more voice, make elections more competitive and ease gridlock in Congress."

    There's a lot of energy stirring in the states, including efforts to create a fairer economy. Unlike our paralyzed and polarized Congress, state legislators - those with eyes to see and ears to hear - know the walking-wounded casualties from the long campaign against working people conducted by Big Business and rabid free-marketeers over the past three decades. Among the stunned and shell-shocked are millions of survivors barely hanging on after the financial crash of 2008 and the Great Recession that followed. They live down the street and around the corner, a mere few blocks from the state capitol.

    Here at BillMoyers.com, just as Hedrick Smith's essay appeared last weekend, we were finishing a small book - 95 pages - by one of those state legislators: Minnesota's David Bly. After teaching in the public schools for 30 years he retired and ran for the Minnesota House of Representatives, where he is now serving his fourth term. What he's seen close-up prompted him to write We All Do Better: Economic Priorities for a Land of Opportunity. You can order a copy from the publisher's website. It is short in length but not of passion. Here, with permission, is an excerpt:

    Not so long ago, the words "Land of Opportunity" really meant something for all Americans. We pretty much took it for granted that each and every one of us should have the opportunity to develop our God-given talents to reach our greatest potential. This didn't mean that everyone would choose to use that opportunity, or that anyone would be forced to use it. It did, however, mean that everyone had that opportunity…. As the late Sen. Paul Wellstone once said, "We all do better when we all do better."

    Things are changing, and not for the better. All too often, we hear stories of families evicted from their homes when unemployment runs out, or senior citizens who must choose between buying groceries and life-sustaining medications, or the single mother who can't get a job because she must spend her time nursing her invalid son. We open the paper to read yet another story about the achievement gap in our schools. We watch the news and are shocked to learn that the United States is the world's leader in putting its citizens behind bars.

    These kinds of thing don't happen, or at least shouldn't, when there is a nationwide commitment for everyone to have what they need to develop their potential. This commitment goes beyond lip service and political speeches. It involves deliberate policies that maintain what I call a "middle-class economy." A middle-class economy is not one in which every single person makes a certain amount of money. Even in a middle-class economy, some are rich and some are poor. But most of the people have most of the money. Most of the people can take care of themselves and fully develop their potential. Those that can't take care of themselves for any number of understandable reasons can count on the rest of us to get them through the rough spots.

    Right now we are in the process of losing our middle-class economy. We know this from news stories, and far too many of us know it from bitter personal experience. This loss of our middle-class economy and the resultant shift to a "winner-take-all" economy of rich and poor are behind most of the problems with which we struggle as a society.

    The Spirit Level by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett helped me see how and why this is so. The authors demonstrate in powerful terms how growing inequality is crippling both our society and our economy in ways that will make it harder to address critical problems we face as a nation. Page after page of graphs illustrate how we have fallen behind other developed nations in the things a well-functioning economy must provide. Wilkinson and Pickett make a solid case that it is not so much the average income of a society that matters. More important is how that income is distributed. Countries that have the most equal income distribution do best on health and social indicators.

    According to Wilkinson and Pickett, who are epidemiologists, income inequality is related to "lower life expectancy, higher rates of infant mortality, shorter height, poor self-reported health, low birth weight, AIDS and depression." They collected data from dozens of other rich countries on health, level of trust, mental illness, drug and alcohol addiction, life expectancy, infant mortality, teenage birth rates, obesity, children's educational performance, homicides, imprisonment and social mobility. "What is most exciting about our research is that it shows that reducing inequality would increase the well-being and quality of life for all of us," the authors say. Today we have a choice: use public investment to reduce inequality or pay for the social harm caused by inequality.

    Right now we are in the process of losing our middle-class economy.

    Wilkinson and Pickett also believe: "Modern societies will depend increasingly on being creative, adaptable, inventive, well-informed and flexible, able to respond generously to each other and to needs wherever they arise. Those are societies not in hock to the rich, in which people are driven by status insecurities, but of populations used to working together and respecting each other as equals." Any search for economic salvation that is motivated and driven by the greed of its individual participants is bound to fail.

    Ours is the oldest modern democracy, but present-day policies and court decisions are undermining our basic democratic principles. Immense power has been ceded to a cadre of financial elites who have figured out how to buy their way into control of our government. The past 30 years have seen two related trends: (1) an unraveling of benefits and opportunities for the vast majority of Americans, and (2) a massive increase in wealth for a relative handful of people. Leading economists assure us that if we don't take decisive action, we can expect more of the same. Economist Emmanuel Saez has carefully analyzed the shift toward a rich-and-poor economy. He says, "The market itself doesn't impose a limit on inequality, especially for those at the top." His partner in research, Thomas Piketty, has further documented and explained income inequality in his book Capital in the 21st Century. As I write this, the very wealthy are enjoying a good recovery from the recession of 2008 while the vast majority of Americans fall further behind.

    Our descent from an economy that provided for all of us to one that provides for only the few has been no accident. Nor was it inevitable. The story of how government has gone from limiting greed to encouraging it is chronicled in several recent books. Kim Phillips-Fein in Invisible Hands: The Businessmen's Crusade Against the New Deal; Paul Pierson and Jacob S. Hacker in Winner-Take-All Politics; and Hedrick Smith in Who Stole the American Dream? tell much the same story in different ways. When the Supreme Court determined that money was speech in 1976, things began to change quickly. The super-rich suddenly gained an advantage in their campaign to silence the power of people and weaken our democracy. Today, with the Supreme Court decision on the Citizen's United case, corporations are "people," and even misinformation and lies spread by these strange new "people" are protected speech.

    Economic value is created by law. We often use the words "free market" to describe our current economic system, but that system, as much as any other, rests on a set of legal rules and a system to enforce those rules. So it matters who writes the laws or what interests those laws serve. Similarly, the distribution of wealth and the flow of capital can flow one way or the other with the stroke of an official pen. Property rights and the distribution of wealth can deny liberty to some just as easily as they bestow it on others. Amartya Sen, a Nobel Award-winning economist, argues that hunger is not a product of the shortage of food. Instead, hungry people lack rights (the entitlement) to eat. The law decides, or as Sen puts it, "The law stands between food availability and food entitlement. Starvation deaths can reflect legality with a vengeance."

    Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, who served 1930-41, argued that the Constitution protects "liberty in a social organization which requires the protection of law against the evils which menace the health, safety, morals and welfare of the people." Beginning with the founding of our nation, we have a rich tradition of concern for equality and protection from the abuses that wealth, poorly distributed, can bring about. As America waged war with Britain for independence over 200 years ago, the revolutionary patriot and journalist super-patriot Tom Paine advocated that public employment be utilized to assist those needing work, that a system of social security should provide for retirement at age 60, and that the state should provide funds so that poor families could educate and care for their children. In another example, the end of the Civil War saw the passage of amendments to the Constitution that banned slavery and limited the degree to which states could discriminate against their citizens. These amendments, in turn, broadened democracy and set us on a path that eventually resulted in the establishment of voting rights for blacks and women.

    So, how do we build and maintain an enduring middle-class economy? In my judgment, every middle-class economy must be built on these five foundations:

    • Quality education for everyone
    • Health care for everyone
    • A world-class transportation system
    • Energy systems that maintain a clean and safe environment
    • Living wages for working people

    Each of these is being challenged today by anti-democratic forces. Budget cuts are wreaking havoc at all levels of education. College is harder to afford, increasingly results in crippling debt and does not guarantee job prospects

    The last 30 years have seen a corporate war against American workers.

    We hear that we have the best health care in the world, but the numbers tell us differently. Our health outcomes do not measure up to the rest of the developed world because our system, even with the advances made with the Affordable Care Act, does not assure universal access.

    Prosperous economies require that goods and people can move around easily. Investment in transportation infrastructure is essential. We all feel the cost as roads, bridges and public transportation are neglected.

    Environment, energy and land use go hand-in-hand in a middle-class economy. A clean, safe environment supports good health and quality of life for everyone. Instead of moving forward on clean energy and correcting harmful practices, we continue to rely on fossil fuels and to live with the economic and environmental consequences.

    The fifth foundation of a middle-class economy is living-wage jobs. Generations before us took for granted that hard-working Americans would share in our prosperity. We have abandoned that understanding. Wages for most Americans have flatlined in spite of continuing pressure from rising costs of life's essentials. In a 2014 survey by the Pew Foundation, over 10 times as many respondents said their incomes were falling behind the cost of living than said they were getting ahead.

    The last 30 years have seen a corporate war against American workers. Corporation after corporation shipped middle-class jobs to Third-World countries. Now, politicians across the country invariably meet out-of-work industrial workers who ask them what they can do about the sell-off of jobs in America. All too often, the politician has no response and no idea what to do. Some extreme free-market ideologues even say that what is happening to so many works is actually a good thing, something that in the long run will make our economy better off. Of course, many of those making such claims have high-paying jobs, stable jobs representing the interests of the financial elite.

    Here in Minnesota wages for new hires, adjusted for inflation, have been heading downward since 2006 and fell to $ll.64 in 2011. The minimum wage went from one of the lowest in the country to $9.50. A family three (the average family size in Minnesota) would need an hourly wage of $l6.34 to make it. How can anyone feel secure and support a family with that kind of discrepancy? People working full-time deserve the dignity of a living wage, but our policies are moving us in the opposite direction. The Minneapolis Star Tribune, for example, tells of a 59-year-old truck driver who lived well on the 4l-cents-a-mile he made 16 years ago, but now he is making the exact same amount in the face of much higher living costs. He works six days a week instead of the five he used to and still can barely make ends meet.

    These are by no means isolated cases in my home state or elsewhere. Economist Robert Reich wrote this about the battered middle class: "Having been roughed up, they face years of catch-up to get to where the once were. They feel poorer because they are poorer. They feel less secure because they are less secure. The crisis's severity - and the fact that it surprised most 'experts' - shocked them. The large income and wealth losses compounded their sense of vulnerability."

    How do those of us in public office respond?

    Former Sen. Byron Dorgan of North Dakota tells the story of the working man who was standing in line to pay his last respects to President Franklin D. Roosevelt. "Did you know the president?" a reporter asked him. "No," the man said through tears, "but he knew me."

    That is our obligation today - to close the distance between the governed and the governing by rebuilding a middle-class economy. The five foundations of that economy have this in common: they are all "we" concepts. We all benefit when they are in place, and we all suffer when they crumble. When we work together toward our common good, we grow a middle-class economy. When we work against each other as individuals, we are on the road to becoming a Third World economy. As much as I hate to say it, this is exactly the path we are on.

    Much of my book is concerned with my home state of Minnesota, where I serve in the state legislature. But I'm sure you will also see that much of what I say about my home state applies just as much to yours. We are all in this together. We all need to get our state and federal spending priorities focused in a way that will make a difference. That way is the way of rebuilding our middle-class economy and opportunity for all.

    Excerpted with permission from Levins Publishing. All rights reserved.

    This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 License.

    Bill Moyers is the managing editor of Moyers & Company and BillMoyers.com. His previous shows on PBS included NOW with Bill Moyers and Bill Moyers Journal. Over the past three decades he has become an icon of American journalism and is the author of many books, including Bill Moyers Journal: The Conversation Continues, Moyers on Democracy, and Bill Moyers: On Faith & Reason. He was one of the organizers of the Peace Corps, a special assistant for Lyndon B. Johnson, a publisher of Newsday, senior correspondent for CBS News and a producer of many groundbreaking series on public television. He is the winner of more than 30 Emmys, nine Peabodys, three George Polk awards.

    David Bly is serving his fourth term in the Minnesota House of Representatives. He is the author of We All Do Better. He retired after teaching for 30 years in the Minnesota public school system. David Bly and his wife Dominique live in Northfield, Minnesota.

    [Aug 25, 2016] Farage to stump with Trump: The Dream Team!

    Aug 25, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    EmilianoZ , August 24, 2016 at 2:28 pm

    Farage to stump with Trump: The Dream Team!

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/24/nigel-farage-donald-trump-mississippi-rally-appearance

    ian , August 24, 2016 at 7:41 pm

    I'll say one thing about Farage – I wish our members of congress could give speeches that were half as entertaining as some of his are. He has some absolute classics on youtube, including the 'who the hell are you?' speech in the European Parliament.

    clarky90 , August 24, 2016 at 7:27 pm

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3h53xa4Ai4U

    Coverage of Donald Trump Rally in Jackson, Mississsippi with Nigel Farage (The Brexit Guy)!

    It is happening today

    I am am right at the beginning. The interviewer is interviewing people waiting in line. It is very entertaining. Very nice people!!!

    Rather than read what the Paid Media Minions SAY and WRITE about "The People", let them speak for themselves! They are so eloquent!

    clarky90 , August 24, 2016 at 7:57 pm

    "The People" (as in We The People), standing in line, want Hillary Clinton charged and tried by a USA Court of Law.

    The population, as a whole, is realizing that the Grifters have been lying to us about almost everything.

    It is that moment when it suddenly dawns on a person (they grok) that their wife/husband/boss/friend/mother/father…… is a sociopath . Suddenly ALL the chaos in their lives makes perfect sense. The light goes on!

    Jim Haygood , August 24, 2016 at 9:38 pm

    Anathema:

    Former leader of the UK Independent Party Nigel Farage, credited for Brexit, addressed the audience at a Trump campaign rally in Jackson, Mississippi on Wednesday night.

    "You can beat the pollsters, you can beat the commentators, you can beat Washington," Farage said to cheers. "If you want change, you better get your walking boots on."

    "Anything is possible if enough decent people want to fight the establishment," Farage said.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/08/24/nigel_farage_at_trump_rally_anything_is_possible_if_enough_decent_people_fight_the_establishment.html

    Pure, populist poison, from the Depublicrat point of view.

    We have drone fleets to take out threats like this.

    How did Farage even get a visa to enter USA, USA!

    [Aug 25, 2016] Trump: I am fighting for a peaceful regime change in our own country

    Notable quotes:
    "... Donald Trump keeps saying, "I think we have a movement here" to his audiences. At the Akron speech, he said "I am fighting for a peaceful regime change in our own country." ..."
    "... I suspect that Donald Trump has awoken from The Great Slumber . ( Māyā means illusion, fraud, deception, magic that misleads and creates disorder) ..."
    Aug 25, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    clarky90 , August 24, 2016 at 3:55 pm

    Re, "Donald Trump's road show has detoured this month to states with no political value to a Republican nominee in a general election."

    Donald Trump keeps saying, "I think we have a movement here" to his audiences. At the Akron speech, he said "I am fighting for a peaceful regime change in our own country."

    I suspect that Donald Trump has awoken from The Great Slumber . ( Māyā means illusion, fraud, deception, magic that misleads and creates disorder)

    [Aug 25, 2016] Neoliberal Obama pushes for TPP/TTIP/TISA

    Notable quotes:
    "... If anything, America is too often at the end of those chains, as the global consumer of last resort. It's not investing in domestic, let alone global, infrastructure. It is the world's largest debtor, and its role in the world economy is primarily to borrow and consume… ..."
    "... CWA staffer and Sanders advisor Larry Cohen: "It was May of 2015. I'd been criticizing TPP at the time and they said, "He'd like to talk to you." What [Obama] told me was: 'I am too far down the road to change.' He repeated it over and over" [ Mother Jones ]. Terrific interview, well worth reading in full. ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    TPP/TTIP/TISA

    "[T]he Obama administration has been careful not to let the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership fall by the wayside. Instead, an enormous amount of work - including regular, bi-weekly communication between U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman and EU Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmström - has been ongoing" [Politico]. "While the administration is optimistic about its own ability to work hard as a creative negotiating partner, it remains an open question as to whether the Europeans are ready to go, the official said." Ouch!

    "Why the TPP Deal Won't Improve Our Security" [Clyde Prestowitz, New York Times]. "If anything, America is too often at the end of those chains, as the global consumer of last resort. It's not investing in domestic, let alone global, infrastructure. It is the world's largest debtor, and its role in the world economy is primarily to borrow and consume…. the administration is absolutely right that America needs tools to counter China's growing influence in Asia and around the world. But until America can come close to matching China's dynamism, it has no hope of countering its economic and geopolitical influence with old-fashioned trade agreements, no matter how monumental they are said to be."

    CWA staffer and Sanders advisor Larry Cohen: "It was May of 2015. I'd been criticizing TPP at the time and they said, "He'd like to talk to you." What [Obama] told me was: 'I am too far down the road to change.' He repeated it over and over" [Mother Jones]. Terrific interview, well worth reading in full.

    "When Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton announced her opposition to TPP last fall, Mr. Obama was furious. He believed she was making a political, not substantive, decision that was designed to diminish an advantage her then-primary opponent Bernie Sanders, who opposed the trade deal, had with Democratic voters" [Wall Street Journal]. No. With Obama, it's about nobody ever making him look bad. Clinton's "political" "decision" was to issue a statement filled with lawyerly parsing designed to allow her to do the deed if Obama can't.

    [Aug 24, 2016] Hillary Clinton Ad Suggests Donald Trump Will Launch Nukes As President

    Breitbart
    The latest ad from Hillary Clinton's campaign suggests that, if elected, Donald Trump might launch nuclear weapons because he lacks the experience and temperament to be president.

    "In times of crisis, America depends on steady leadership, clear thinking, and calm judgement," the narrator says. "Because all it takes is one wrong move."

    ... ... ...

    The strategy from the Clinton campaign is familiar. During the 2008 Democratic primary fight with President Obama, Clinton released an ad questioning whether the young senator would have the experience necessary to keep the country safe when the phone rang at 3 a.m.

    [Aug 24, 2016] Right On Cue Establishment Uses Putin Dog-Whistle As Similarities To Brexit Campaign Deepen

    Notable quotes:
    "... links to Russia were one of the most consistent messages of the 'Remain' campaign's 'Project Fear' strategy to keep Britain in the European Union. Even the Prime Minister at the time, David Cameron, invoked the threat of Russia to try and convince Britons to stay in. ..."
    "... The Clinton campaign's briefings on how Donald Trump is " Helping Putin Consolidate Control of Ukraine ", and how Russia is " meddling in U.S. election " (there's that word again) are Project Fear 101. The journalists willfully writing up these stories are ignoring critical points; such as how Secretary of State Clinton's connections with the Kremlin and Russian oligarchs helped Russia buy up U.S. uranium interests . The New York Times reported in April 2015: ..."
    Aug 23, 2016 | www.breitbart.com

    The Clinton campaign alongside the establishment media have begun blowing the Vladimir Putin dog-whistle, just as their European counterparts did during the United Kingdom's referendum on its membership of the European Union (EU).

    Almost as if on cue, news outlets have begun parroting the same old lines used by Britain's political establishment before June of this year, when they accused anti-establishment 'Leave' campaigners of doing the bidding for, if not being directly linked to, the Russian president and the Kremlin.

    From questioning the marriage of one of the key donors to the Leave campaign , to using Britain's public broadcaster to float conspiracy theories about Russian influence, the Cold War-esque scare tactics of 'Reds Under the Bed' not only reveals the lack of originality in the Clinton camp, it reveals hypocrisy, foreign policy flippancy , and perhaps even a serious misestimation of where the public stands on the issue.

    In the run up to the Brexit referendum, U.S. outlets even went as far as to call Mr. Putin's (lack of) interventions " meddling ". The same charge was never levelled by the media at U.S. President Barack Obama when he flew to the United Kingdom and lectured Britons on how they should vote. In fact, he threatened the country's economy and trade position in the world if they refused to follow his advice. But this was deemed appropriate.

    Meanwhile, the Kremlin and Mr. Putin were broadly absent from the debate, possibly because they knew full well the 'Remain' camp would use any public pronouncements against the Leave camp, but also because they are unlikely to have had a clear-cut position on the issue. Mr Putin is a grand strategist and could have dealt with either outcome. The U.S. establishment, however, has all of its eggs in the globalism basket.

    In March a Kremlin spokesman said : "Russia is being dragged into the domestic debate on Brexit. Why is the wicked Russia thesis used to explain a Government policy?"

    "We'd like the British people to know that those pronouncements have nothing to do with Russia's policy," the embassy said. "As a matter of fact, our Government doesn't have an opinion on Britain's place in the EU."

    Despite this far less "meddling" tactic, links to Russia were one of the most consistent messages of the 'Remain' campaign's 'Project Fear' strategy to keep Britain in the European Union. Even the Prime Minister at the time, David Cameron, invoked the threat of Russia to try and convince Britons to stay in.

    HYPOCRISY

    The Clinton campaign's briefings on how Donald Trump is " Helping Putin Consolidate Control of Ukraine ", and how Russia is " meddling in U.S. election " (there's that word again) are Project Fear 101. The journalists willfully writing up these stories are ignoring critical points; such as how Secretary of State Clinton's connections with the Kremlin and Russian oligarchs helped Russia buy up U.S. uranium interests . The New York Times reported in April 2015:

    "At the heart of the tale are several men, leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have been major donors to the charitable endeavors of former President Bill Clinton and his family. Members of that group built, financed and eventually sold off to the Russians a company that would become known as Uranium One."

    This is barely scratching the surface, as Clinton Cash author Peter Schweizer wrote in the Wall Street Journal in July:

    "In May 2010, the State Department facilitated a Moscow visit by 22 of the biggest names in U.S. venture capital-and weeks later the first memorandums of understanding were signed by Skolkovo and American companies.

    "By 2012 the vice president of the Skolkovo Foundation, Conor Lenihan-who had previously partnered with the Clinton Foundation-recorded that Skolkovo had assembled 28 Russian, American and European "Key Partners." Of the 28 "partners," 17, or 60%, have made financial commitments to the Clinton Foundation, totaling tens of millions of dollars, or sponsored speeches by Bill Clinton."

    Nevertheless, you will likely find more references to Putin and Trump in the past week alone than you will to these dubious affairs in their totality.

    Indeed arch-establishment mouthpiece, Legatum Institute leader, and all-round George Soros activist Anne Applebaum went so far as to declare Donald Trump "a Russian oligarch" in the Washington Post this week.

    Ms. Applebaum is married to the U.S.-hating former Polish foreign minister whose party was turfed out by a populist, nationalist revolt last year. They are now being assisted by Mr. Soros and his third party groups in their bid to destabilise the new Polish government, using the European Union and indeed the Clintons too . This, however, has not proved popular with U.S.-based Polish expats .

    And perhaps far worse than her connections to the Kremlin – a relationship which has evidently soured in recent months – are her connections to the fascist, authoritarian, pseudo-monarchical, Islamist dictatorship in Saudi Arabia. In 2015 the WSJ reported :

    " the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, has given between $10 million and $25 million since the foundation was created in 1999. Part of that came in 2014, although the database doesn't specify how much."

    But few column inches or broadcast air minutes are used to discuss these matters.

    FOREIGN POLICY FLIPPANCY

    In drafting in Russia as a talking point, Mrs. Clinton makes it very difficult for her to deal with President Putin and the Kremlin should she find herself in the Oval Office in 2017.

    Her campaign's claims that Mr. Trump is somehow untrustworthy because he wants to work with Mr. Putin, not against him, is difficult to take seriously given her lauding of Russia as "an ally" in 2012:

    She said, in an attempt to mock then-GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney, who called the country America's greatest geopolitical foe:

    "Russia has been an ally. They're in the P-5+1 talks with us, they have worked with us in Afghanistan and have been very helpful in the Northern Distribution Network and in other ways. So I think it's somewhat dated to be looking backwards instead of being realistic about where we agree, where we don't agree, but looking for ways to bridge the disagreements and then to maximize the cooperation".

    In March 2010 she said:

    "One of the fears that I hear from Russia is that somehow the United States wants Russia to be weak. That could not be farther from the truth. Our goal is to help strengthen Russia."

    Her once-celebrated "reset" with Russia was an inglorious failure. But it is no different to her foreign policy accomplishments across the board. On Iran, Iraq, Europe, TTIP, Israel, Libya, and elsewhere, she has been an unprecedented flop.

    Her willingness to risk fresh discord with Putin's Russia for the sake of some negative Trump headlines speak volumes about her intentions in the Oval Office: endanger the United States and revive old wounds unless there's money to be made. And not for America either. For herself.

    WHERE THE PUBLIC STANDS

    The Russia question is a hard one to pin down. Certainly most Western citizens still remember or know of the Cold War. They see Russia, especially Putin's Russia, as untrustworthy and indeed – as Mitt Romney identified – the U.S.'s greatest geopolitical foe.

    But whether it is New York Magazine or the Washington Post ( again ) – journalists often portray pictures of Europe and Europeans living in the United States that had more relevance in the 1980s than they do today.

    The idea of people lining up for government gruel anti-Russian sentiment is outdated. Many Europeans see the country today as a stalwart of conservatism. Authoritarian, state-driven, religious conservatism. But conservatism nonetheless. There is a wafer-thin line between the political philosophies of Marine Le Pen's Front National and Mr. Putin's Russia.

    And while the WaPo 's and Daily Beasts of the world may think that abhorrent: the public does not.

    This stems from having seen first hand what the centrist political establishments – heralded in by the likes of Bill Clinton and John McCain – have done in their countries. But it also derives its legitimacy from the cultural debates raging across Western nations. In London, Warsaw, Paris, and Kiev there may be much backslapping over liberalism, but the great cultural arguments, those of civilisational import are indeed still being played out across the smaller towns and cities of European countries. The same as in the United States.

    Populists, nationalists, and eurosceptics are winning in the UK, in the Netherlands, in Poland, in France, in Hungary, and before the U.S./EU political coup: in Ukraine.

    So when James Hohmann quotes John McCain alongside failed John Kasich and Jon Huntsman campaign chief John Weaver, it is clear they all see the world from national capitals with their metropolitan, liberal, younger voters. Maybe its a "John" thing.

    "In and around Cleveland, Akron, Toledo, Detroit and all throughout Wisconsin, you're talking about voters with family in Poland, the Baltics, Ukraine and the Czech Republic," Weaver told the Washington Post , adding: "These voters are key to any narrow path that Trump has left."

    Whether or not that is true from a psephological perspective is already sketchy. That it is true from an ideological and cultural one is risible.

    While no one can doubt the Communist-era overhang suffered by places like Poland, the trend is going the other way, not against Mr. Putin. Pew Research from 2015 revealed a much more complex picture than Mr. Weaver et. al would have you believe, and while Russia's standing in the world declined around the Crimea annexation, it has begun to recover in all but the United Kingdom and Canada.

    "As recently as 2010, 45% of Poles had a favorable view of Russia – three times the current share. Just as striking, in 2010 only 11% had a very unfavorable opinion of Russia".

    Even in Ukraine the picture is less clear than U.S. journalists would have you think. Pew (2015) showed :

    "Western Ukrainians are much more likely to say Russia is the sole culprit (56%), while those in the east see the problem as more complicated. A third of Ukrainians in the east think Russia is primarily to blame, but 36% fault more than one of the groups.

    "Roughly half of Ukrainians (47%) believe Russia is a major military threat to other neighboring countries. Another 34% say the former Cold War power is a minor threat. Western Ukrainians are much more concerned about Russia's territorial ambitions (61% major threat) than those in the east (30%)."

    This is a drastically different scenario from the one portrayed in the U.S. media, which usually comes down to "Russia bad. Everywhere else good". But even the American people are growing weary of this slant.

    Pew (2016) demonstrated that while U.S. public opinion towards Russia slumped in 2014 around the time of the Crimea annexation, those numbers have now halved. People don't view Russia as an outright adversary, though they are perhaps rightly wary of its status as a geopolitical competitor.

    "There is no sign of growing public concern about either China or Russia. Roughly a quarter of the public (23%) views each as an adversary, while 44% say each is a serious problem but not an adversary. About three-in-ten say neither China nor Russia pose much of a problem for the U.S."

    Perhaps Mrs. Clinton's greatest folly will be believing that her campaign should be spending time hammering Donald Trump for ostensibly advocating the same "reset" policy she did in 2009.

    Much like during the Brexit campaign, it is hard to see many if any of the wider public placing much weight behind her simultaneously shaky and hypocritical claims.

    Raheem Kassam is the editor in chief of Breitbart London. Follow him on Facebook.

    [Aug 24, 2016] Russian hackers targeted New York Times

    Most of anti-russian hysteria is directed toward instilling fear and increasing solidarity, with neoliberals trying to scare low-information dumb voters away from Trump
    Notable quotes:
    "... The FBI is investigating whether Russian hackers have carried out a series of cyber attacks on the New York Times, officials have told US media. ..."
    "... New York Times was whinging that Chinese hackers had breached and infiltrated their servers a few years ago. NYT is always bitching about something. ..."
    "... Isn't it cute, the way the Americans have lost their minds, and they don't even notice? Here's the Washington Post , blatting about how Putin's meddling in the American elections has backfired on him . Just as if that were actually happening. It's a good thing they have focused on another actual country which is part of this planet, I guess, rather than aliens from another world, because then we would have to lock them up. ..."
    "... Some of it is just agitating for Hillary, trying to scare low-information dumb voters away from Trump. But there is a definite tendency to blame even routine American problems on Russia. They don't seem to get how crazy it makes them look, it's like actual national mental illness. The whole election process should be frozen right here until the country comes to its senses. ..."
    Aug 24, 2016 | marknesop.wordpress.com
    Warren , August 23, 2016 at 7:57 pm
    Russian hackers 'targeted New York Times'

    The FBI is investigating whether Russian hackers have carried out a series of cyber attacks on the New York Times, officials have told US media.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-37171350

    Warren , August 23, 2016 at 8:07 pm
    New York Times was whinging that Chinese hackers had breached and infiltrated their servers a few years ago. NYT is always bitching about something.

    Hackers in China Attacked The Times for Last 4 Months

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/31/technology/chinese-hackers-infiltrate-new-york-times-computers.html?_r=0

    marknesop , August 23, 2016 at 9:49 pm
    Yes, the Chinese in chinked-out China would be very likely to want to tap into a newspaper that doesn't report anything which is true except for the Catholic Bean Supper at St. Patrick's. China can hear US government propaganda along with everyone else, while it is valuable to have advance notice of news only if what is being reported is actually true.
    marknesop , August 23, 2016 at 9:45 pm
    Isn't it cute, the way the Americans have lost their minds, and they don't even notice? Here's the Washington Post , blatting about how Putin's meddling in the American elections has backfired on him . Just as if that were actually happening. It's a good thing they have focused on another actual country which is part of this planet, I guess, rather than aliens from another world, because then we would have to lock them up.

    Not even during the coldest depths of the Cold War did the United States so crazily blame all of its problems on the Russians. If America can't have global war against Russia, it is going to be so disappointed.

    Some of it is just agitating for Hillary, trying to scare low-information dumb voters away from Trump. But there is a definite tendency to blame even routine American problems on Russia. They don't seem to get how crazy it makes them look, it's like actual national mental illness. The whole election process should be frozen right here until the country comes to its senses.

    [Aug 24, 2016] Comments on US Military Website Explode in Ridicule After Top Commander Warns Russia, Syria

    Notable quotes:
    "... "Guess Townsend likes to make wishes to the tooth fairy (Carter)" ..."
    russia-insider.com

    Hannibal Aug 23, 2016 4:15 PM

    Comments on US Military Website Explode in Ridicule After Top Commander Warns Russia, Syria

    "good luck with this guy, but i dont think so!"

    "Guess Townsend likes to make wishes to the tooth fairy (Carter)"

    "With this administration even if you took all of Iraq back they would lose it next day or give it away. - Don't be a fool."

    http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/new-us-commander-iraq-vows-retake-...

    [Aug 24, 2016] The US raises the stakes in Syria, sets up no-fly zones in Syria and threatens to shoot down any Russian/Syrian jets enter these no-fly zones

    Notable quotes:
    "... The USA has no business at all in Syria, was not invited in, and if it is allowed to get its way in this it will progressively control more and more Syrian territory until it succeeds in its objective of unseating and replacing Assad. Once more, it has no right to be there, and I'm sure Russia will pursue that angle at the seat of international law. ..."
    "... The USA also has no right to impose no-fly zones arbitrarily on its own recognition in another sovereign nation. That's a UN decision, and they will never get that through the Security Council. If they try the R2P approach, who are they exercising their right to protect? ISIL? ..."
    "... The problem is that once the US sets a military foothold in Syria there is nothing – outside of using military power – that Russia can do to oust the US from Syria. The international law does not apply to the US because it can break the international law without sanctions being used against it. If there is no punishment there is no incentive for adhering the law either. ..."
    "... American Special Forces have already been caught wearing parts of Kurdish uniforms and badges ..."
    "... On second reading, it's beginning to sound more like American bluster to me. The press tried to pin him down to no-fly zones or not, and he didn't want to back down but he didn't want to go quite that far so he said "Call it what you want". The USA has no authority to unilaterally impose no-fly zones in a sovereign country. It has to go through the UN, and Russia and China will veto it. The USA is not in Syria with the Syrian government's permission, and it has had what must be called very questionable success so far with 'fighting ISIS'. If it wants to 'protect its forces', it can leave, and the Syrian government will not miss it a bit. ..."
    Aug 24, 2016 | marknesop.wordpress.com
    karl1haushofer , August 23, 2016 at 10:06 pm

    The US raises the stakes in Syria, sets up "no-fly zones" in Syria and threatens to shoot down any Russian/Syrian jets enter these "no-fly zones": http://theduran.com/us-pentagon-throws-full-support-behind-al-qaeda-syria-exclusion-zones-ready-shot-syrian-russian-planes/

    This is all about securing that pipeline route that the West hopes that it can some day build from Qatar through Syria to Turkey. The US now claims that part of Syrian territory is their own and it will be used to build that pipeline.

    marknesop , August 23, 2016 at 10:25 pm
    There is one accurate statement in there. The last one in the article. It's endgame time.

    The USA has no business at all in Syria, was not invited in, and if it is allowed to get its way in this it will progressively control more and more Syrian territory until it succeeds in its objective of unseating and replacing Assad. Once more, it has no right to be there, and I'm sure Russia will pursue that angle at the seat of international law.

    But at the same time, Russia is legally in Syria, and I am sure it is not going to allow the USA to tell it where it can and cannot fly in Syria. If the USA is really ready to go to war in Syria, it is going to get it. And I don't think I have to point out to you the kind of logistic nightmare it would be, especially if it can no longer count on Turkey. And I find it hard to believe Erdogan will come on board with the USA carving out a Kurdish homeland right next door. Washington is getting desperate, and that's making it act crazy. Let's see what China says about it.

    The USA also has no right to impose no-fly zones arbitrarily on its own recognition in another sovereign nation. That's a UN decision, and they will never get that through the Security Council. If they try the R2P approach, who are they exercising their right to protect? ISIL?

    What's the USA got in Syria for anti-air systems? Russia has the S-400, and can cover most of Syria without even putting one of its own planes in the air.

    karl1haushofer , August 23, 2016 at 10:32 pm
    The problem is that once the US sets a military foothold in Syria there is nothing – outside of using military power – that Russia can do to oust the US from Syria. The international law does not apply to the US because it can break the international law without sanctions being used against it. If there is no punishment there is no incentive for adhering the law either.
    marknesop , August 23, 2016 at 11:29 pm
    Well, I guess we'll just have to see how it shakes out, won't we? I can tell you that if Syrian forces come knocking to drive out ISIS from other towns after Aleppo falls, and the USAF says it is going to stop them because its forces are mixed with ISIS in the town (remember, American Special Forces have already been caught wearing parts of Kurdish uniforms and badges) it is going to cut no ice with the Syrians – it's their country.

    On second reading, it's beginning to sound more like American bluster to me. The press tried to pin him down to no-fly zones or not, and he didn't want to back down but he didn't want to go quite that far so he said "Call it what you want". The USA has no authority to unilaterally impose no-fly zones in a sovereign country. It has to go through the UN, and Russia and China will veto it. The USA is not in Syria with the Syrian government's permission, and it has had what must be called very questionable success so far with 'fighting ISIS'. If it wants to 'protect its forces', it can leave, and the Syrian government will not miss it a bit.

    [Aug 24, 2016] Our Famously Free Press now reminds Nevada brothels

    Under neoliberalism like under communism political parties to become far more ideologically uniform than they used to be. So we have hard neoliberal party and soft neoliberal party and voters are limited between choosing Pepsi or Cola. And press became just presstitutes for political machine of the parties, especially during election. Those despicable presstitutes now are afraid to talk about the issue facing the country and denigrate to discussion personalities exclusively.
    "Trump has laid bare journalism's [ pressitutes ]contradictions - reporters' desire to be critical of politicians without criticizing anything they stand for "
    Notable quotes:
    "... The dems brand themselves as old time liberal to some constituencies. The repubs brand themselves as conservative to some constituencies. This works for dems and it works for repubs. The straw man arguments fill the boob tube and pass for democracy and self government. ..."
    "... But this year, after so many years, standard baloney like "Bush kept us safe" did not placate the repub base, which is in a serious world of hurt (death rates of poorer middle aged white people are going up!). And the dems faced the most ground shaking challenge to the orthodoxy since Gene McCarthy, as millennials working 2 or 3 jobs saw that the "highest standard of living in the world" had the same relation to reality as pancake syrup has to …maple trees. ..."
    "... We're at the beginning of the beginning – where the 99% is catching on that the vampire squid's gain is our loss. Its gonna be a bumpy ride… ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Lambert Strether Post author

    On Clinton not already having put Trump away:

    Hillary Clinton enjoys about a five-point polling lead over Donald Trump. One way to look at this is that it's a margin, at this stage of a presidential race, that is rarely reversed.

    Here's another way. The Democrats had a successful convention, the Republicans didn't. Clinton's campaign has been smooth; Trump's has careened between disasters. She has reached out to independents and Republicans; he has insulted the family of a soldier killed in Iraq, along with people with disabilities, Latinos and women. Clinton has outspent him 3 to 1.

    And she's only ahead by five percentage points.

    I keep saying the Clinton campaign is like a hot air balloon with a tear in it. They have to keep frantically pumping more hot air into it, simply to stay aloft.

    Trump hasn't spent a dime on TV, either. (I'm sure that he isn't filling up Republican consultants' rice bowls is one reason they hate him.)

    Policy

    UPDATE "No Need to Build The Donald's Wall, It's Built" [Tom Dispatch]. Wait, wait. Obama's policy now is what Trump's would be? And Democrats >and Trump are frothing and stamping over nothing? Is the problem that the wall's not beautiful? What?

    fresno dan

    UPDATE "No Need to Build The Donald's Wall, It's Built" [Tom Dispatch]. Wait, wait. Obama's policy now is what Trump's would be? And Democrats and Trump are frothing and stamping over nothing? Is the problem that the wall's not beautiful? What?

    ======================================
    The dems brand themselves as old time liberal to some constituencies. The repubs brand themselves as conservative to some constituencies. This works for dems and it works for repubs. The straw man arguments fill the boob tube and pass for democracy and self government.

    But it makes for a politics that is completely and totally irrelevant to most people. It is designed not to address issues, and reality is its enemy.

    But this year, after so many years, standard baloney like "Bush kept us safe" did not placate the repub base, which is in a serious world of hurt (death rates of poorer middle aged white people are going up!). And the dems faced the most ground shaking challenge to the orthodoxy since Gene McCarthy, as millennials working 2 or 3 jobs saw that the "highest standard of living in the world" had the same relation to reality as pancake syrup has to …maple trees.

    We're at the beginning of the beginning – where the 99% is catching on that the vampire squid's gain is our loss. Its gonna be a bumpy ride…

    Lambert Strether Post author

    Horrified by Trump, Democrats getting nostalgic about Romney Yahoo News. Boy, I'm so old I remember… Well, let me just collect some of the better headlines at Kos from campaign 2012:

    UPDATE: Mitt Romney Pals Around with Child Molesters

    Romney ignores request from mother of Navy SEAL killed in Benghazi to stop using son in stump speech

    Romney mansplains to lady editor what ladies really care about

    For Mitt Romney, Billy Graham 'Sells Out' His Faith & Jesus for Political Advantage

    Breaking: Did Romney Pay Zero Taxes From 1996 To 2009?

    Mitt Romney's Driving Killed Leola Anderson. His Cover-Up Tale is Proved Dishonest

    Romney Took $77,000 Tax Deduction For His Dancing Horse

    The re-emergence of dick Romney

    A Devastating Expose of Mitt Romney's Mistreatment of Mormon Women Emerges

    [Aug 24, 2016] Scaring voters with Putin is the cornerstone of Hillary electron campaign

    She can not offer anything as she is "kick the can down the road" neoliberal candidate serving financial oligarchy, so playing fear card is her the only chance...
    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    UPDATE "'You can get rid of Manafort, but that doesn't end the odd bromance Trump has with Putin,' Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook said in a statement" [Washington Post]. That's our Democrats; gin up a war scare all to win Eastern Europeans in a swing state (Ohio). That's what this article, read closely, boils down to, read carefully. (I love Mook's "bromance," so reminiscent of the Clinton campaign's vile BernieBro smear.)

    UPDATE "Republicans in North Carolina are pulling out all the stops to suppress the state's reliably Democratic black vote. After the Fourth Circuit court reinstated a week of early voting, GOP-controlled county elections boards are now trying to cut early-voting hours across the state. By virtue of holding the governor's office, Republicans control a majority of votes on all county election boards and yesterday they voted to cut 238 hours of early voting in Charlotte's Mecklenburg County, the largest in the state. 'I'm not a big fan of early voting,' said GOP board chair Mary Potter Summa, brazenly disregarding the federal appeals court's opinion. 'The more [early voting] sites we have, the more opportunities exist for violations'" [The Nation]. Bad Republicans. On the other hand, if the Democrats treated voter registration like a 365/24/7 party function, including purchasing IDs in ID states for those who can't afford them, none of this would be happening.

    [Aug 24, 2016] How arms merchants who mostly support Hillary benefit from tensions with Russia

    Notable quotes:
    "... "Companies like Lockheed Martin and Boeing have pledged to increase the share of exports in their overall revenues, and they have been seeking major deals in East and Central Europe since the 1990s, when NATO expansion began," said William Hartung, director of the Arms & Security Project at the Center for International Policy. Hartung noted that as some nations ramp up spending, U.S. firms will be "knocking at the door, looking to sell everything from fighter planes to missile defense systems." ..."
    Aug 24, 2016 | marknesop.wordpress.com
    Jeremn , August 23, 2016 at 7:32 am
    Some good links here. How arms merchants benefit from tensions with Russia:

    "Companies like Lockheed Martin and Boeing have pledged to increase the share of exports in their overall revenues, and they have been seeking major deals in East and Central Europe since the 1990s, when NATO expansion began," said William Hartung, director of the Arms & Security Project at the Center for International Policy. Hartung noted that as some nations ramp up spending, U.S. firms will be "knocking at the door, looking to sell everything from fighter planes to missile defense systems."

    https://theintercept.com/2016/08/19/nato-weapons-industry/

    [Aug 24, 2016] For neoliberals it becomes all the more necessary to drive hysteria and to rely on fear and the hyped common threat to maintain solidarity

    Anti-Russian hysteria and demonization of Trump is the key strategies for neoliberal media to secure Hillary victory in November. Anti-Russian hysteria is also a tool to maintain solidarity and suppress dissent against neoliberal globalization. Those presstitutes will stop at nothing, even provocations and swiftboating are OK for them (See Khan Gambit)
    Notable quotes:
    "... Oh, and I suppose Elizabeth Warren and Hillary Clinton's vitriol is okay, right? Typical [neo]liberal ranting. Point the finger at someone else, but do the same thing and it's okay. ..."
    "... When candidates wish to distinguish themselves or appeal to various segments of the electorate, there is nothing like a lot of demagoguery and fear mongering to bring attention to a candidate and his issues. ..."
    "... It then becomes all the more necessary to drive hysteria and to rely on fear and the hyped common threat to maintain solidarity. While some may fantasize about a society run by women, what we know from experience is that women in power act and speak just like men, that is, they also act solely in their own parochial personal political interest and say whatever is necessary to win their next election. ..."
    "... I think the divisions are easier to exploit in part because the society has become so greatly divided based of income inequality. ..."
    "... WWII's impact on media tended to paper over many of the differences and tensions that have been present in American life. Aside from the period during WWII and in the few decades after, vitriol has been the norm in U.S. media going back to the 1790s. ..."
    "... The media became more fragmented as well. Broadcast media also used to be seen as a public service. But in the 1970s the major networks started to understand that it could also be a profit center -- and you had another shift in values, where the public function took a back-seat to profit maximization. The market also has become more cut-throat as the media environment has become more fragmented. ..."
    "... [Neo]Liberals are largely to blame - they regarded their opponents as "uneducated" "swivel-eyed" etc. They ruthlessly played "identity politics" for all it was worth. They shut down meaningful debate. ..."
    "... This is very true. Screaming racist at anyone challenging the liberal orthodoxy of black = victim and white = oppressor . ..."
    "... The same is true of ignoring the many black lives that are ended by the type of people the police frequently come into contact with - other young black men. ..."
    "... Politics: policies are never discussed in detail in ANY election. The WHAT, HOW, WHERE, WHEN, WHY and COST is never provided in detail by the politicians. ..."
    "... That is the disaster that what current politicians totally fail. That needs to change. Will such, I doubt it. The current so called political platforms or manifestos, are basically useless and used only for propaganda. ..."
    "... You left out WHO does the dirty work of the politicians. ..."
    "... I largely blame the media (sorry Guardian) for what's happening... the endless need for attention and eyeballs creates an ever louder echo chamber of increasingly extreme opinions masquerading as news, which simply creates a similarly extreme public discourse. ..."
    "... I have always wondered if "spin" is taught in journalism schools, or if it is taught by newspapers after graduation from journalism school. ..."
    "... I largely blame the media (sorry Guardian) for what's happening... the endless need for attention and eyeballs creates an ever louder echo chamber of increasingly extreme opinions masquerading as news, which simply creates a similarly extreme public discourse. ..."
    "... Politically, the Reagan/Thatcher period broke the socially-democratic post-WWII consensus in favour of economic neo-liberalism, which became the new consensus... and once the Cold War was over, there was no real 'peace dividend' and the agreements for global free-trade/globalisation were struck. ..."
    "... That lead to the banking crisis/collapse in 2008, and to the 'solution' whereby most governments imposed 'austerity' and debt on ordinary people to keep most of the bankers 'functional' and 'solvent' ...and not only were the bankers not adequately regulated to curtail their activities, but they carried on paying themselves mega-currency bonuses for using taxpayer guarantees to rescue their dysfunctional businesses. ..."
    "... I agree, its an entirely artificial construct. And the globalists are in a position to punish countries like Britain for its Brexit decision. But they cannot destroy Britain. Rather, it is the globalists who may be destroyed by the nationalism spreading across the globe. Many globalists are actually terrified by all this. General Electric has read the tea leaves and is already reacting: ..."
    "... GE's Immelt Signals End to 7 Decades of Globalization http://fortune.com/2016/05/20/ge-immelt-globalization/ ..."
    "... Fascinating link. The global corporate overlords only respond to sustained political pressure. Brexit was a wakeup call for them and the November election in the U.S. may be another... ..."
    Jul 10, 2016 | www.theguardian.com
    Comments from: Vitriol in American politics is holding the nation back' by Megan Carpentier

    ID6808749 , 11 Jul 2016 12:03

    Oh, and I suppose Elizabeth Warren and Hillary Clinton's vitriol is okay, right? Typical [neo]liberal ranting. Point the finger at someone else, but do the same thing and it's okay.

    The only difference today is that Donald Trump doesn't take the finger pointing and Democratic vitriol laying down, he fires it right back at them and guess what, he keeps winning!

    Dale Roberts 11 Jul 2016 11:59

    Vitriolic and polemical speech has been a ubiquitous ritual since the earliest democracies. When candidates wish to distinguish themselves or appeal to various segments of the electorate, there is nothing like a lot of demagoguery and fear mongering to bring attention to a candidate and his issues. In the end, self-interest motivates voters, and fear is the biggest self-interest of all. Using the specter of the opposition to scare small children and those who think like them is a time honored tradition and well alive today. Further, as groups begin to prosper and start being assimilated into the broader society, the individual self-interests diverge and it becomes harder to hold them together as a cohesive group whose votes can be counted on. It then becomes all the more necessary to drive hysteria and to rely on fear and the hyped common threat to maintain solidarity. While some may fantasize about a society run by women, what we know from experience is that women in power act and speak just like men, that is, they also act solely in their own parochial personal political interest and say whatever is necessary to win their next election.
    Roger Dafremen 11 Jul 2016 3:56
    Noam Chomsky talked about this in "The Corporation." Our division and increased level of emotional isolation is a direct result of marketing attacks on the human psyche designed to get us to buy more products and services. I'm not sure how much of it is Machiavellian and how much is just pure greed reaping it's inevitable harvest.
    barbkay -> Roger Dafremen 11 Jul 2016 7:19
    A smart comment. Greed and fear are indeed the primary drivers of behaviour in many arenas now, and it's partly driven by corporations. This-or-that, black-and-white thinking is largely a product of high emotion, which essentially makes us 'stupid' and unable to reason.

    The impact of viewing - consciously or unconsciously - dozens of ads a day on the Internet, or hours of tranced staring at screens, may be shown to be a major factor in the increasingly mesmerised state of the populace.

    That and, as these venerable politicos point out, the demise of political nous generally.

    JVRTRL 11 Jul 2016 3:16
    Many excellent points. I think the divisions are easier to exploit in part because the society has become so greatly divided based of income inequality. People have completely different frames of reference in terms of their experience, and anxieties, and so it becomes easier to dismiss the concerns of others out-of-hand as illegitimate. You can also overlay racism as part of the equation, which has always been present with varying degrees of intensity in the U.S.

    WWII's impact on media tended to paper over many of the differences and tensions that have been present in American life. Aside from the period during WWII and in the few decades after, vitriol has been the norm in U.S. media going back to the 1790s.

    The idea of a media culture that was objective and bipartisan is a newer idea. It was codified by things like the Fairness Doctrine as well, which tended to moderate, and censor, public discussion through broadcast media. When the Fairness Doctrine fell apart you had people like Limbaugh go national with a highly partisan infotainment model.

    The media became more fragmented as well. Broadcast media also used to be seen as a public service. But in the 1970s the major networks started to understand that it could also be a profit center -- and you had another shift in values, where the public function took a back-seat to profit maximization. The market also has become more cut-throat as the media environment has become more fragmented.

    ServiusGalba 11 Jul 2016 3:06
    [Neo]Liberals are largely to blame - they regarded their opponents as "uneducated" "swivel-eyed" etc. They ruthlessly played "identity politics" for all it was worth. They shut down meaningful debate. Now it's come back to bite them in the form of Donald Trump. They don't like it now they are on the receiving end.
    ionetranq -> ServiusGalba 11 Jul 2016 6:44

    [Neo]Liberals are largely to blame

    This is the type of over-stating a position that they are prone to. But saying that "liberals" are largely to blame is no different to them pointing the finger at "the right" for all the issues.

    There's plenty of blame to go around, and it's evenly spread.

    They ruthlessly played "identity politics" for all it was worth. They shut down meaningful debate.

    This is very true. Screaming racist at anyone challenging the liberal orthodoxy of black = victim and white = oppressor .

    A prime example of one of the issues is BLM. Pushing the view that any black person killed by the police as dying at the hand of a racist cop.

    Using whole population stats to compare the chances of being shot by the police, instead of comparing socio-economic groups. It's not exactly unbiased to compare the chances of a poor black man, and a white lawyer, of being stopped or shot by the police.

    The same is true of ignoring the many black lives that are ended by the type of people the police frequently come into contact with - other young black men.

    Until both sides are truthful about what's happening, nothing is going to change. Both sides - police and young black men - currently approach an interaction with each other fearful of the other. This is made worse on both sides by the rhetoric.

    If you listen to BLM and its supporters, then every cop is racist and wamnts to kill them. Why would you do what the police officer tells you if you think you're just opening yourself up to a racist cop killing you?

    On the other side, the police apparently often assume that every young black man they encounter both has a gun, and thinks they're racist, and therefore operates on that assumption and goes for a shoot first and be safe option.

    Neither of these will get any better while there is this lying and entrenched positions on either side. You could also ask why anyone who's white would support an organization which doesn't appear to care about the white victims of the police (of which AIUI there are an equal number). Or the black murder victims who aren't killed by the police.

    sdgreen 10 Jul 2016 20:51
    Politics: policies are never discussed in detail in ANY election. The WHAT, HOW, WHERE, WHEN, WHY and COST is never provided in detail by the politicians. Every thing in the politicians mind is open ended, and may or may not be adopted, considered, or maybe a totally different thing than what they were elected for.

    That is the disaster that what current politicians totally fail. That needs to change. Will such, I doubt it. The current so called political platforms or manifestos, are basically useless and used only for propaganda.

    GorCro -> sdgreen 11 Jul 2016 15:15
    You left out WHO does the dirty work of the politicians.
    pipspeak 10 Jul 2016 16:26
    I largely blame the media (sorry Guardian) for what's happening... the endless need for attention and eyeballs creates an ever louder echo chamber of increasingly extreme opinions masquerading as news, which simply creates a similarly extreme public discourse.

    Even my beloved Guardian is succumbing, publishing more and more pointless newsy opinion pieces and less and less fact-based, hard news. I don't want to read five takes on a single world event. I'd rather read the facts about five different world events and feel more informed at the end of the day.

    1iJack -> pipspeak 10 Jul 2016 22:41
    I have always wondered if "spin" is taught in journalism schools, or if it is taught by newspapers after graduation from journalism school.

    It gets so far out, you wonder what journalists think the readers think. It would be great to be in on a backroom discussion about headlines and all paraphrasing in articles at the Washington Post and Guardian.

    I'll bet they sit around and chuckle as they try to cook up positive or negative spins. Its more than facts.

    pipspeak 10 Jul 2016 16:26
    I largely blame the media (sorry Guardian) for what's happening... the endless need for attention and eyeballs creates an ever louder echo chamber of increasingly extreme opinions masquerading as news, which simply creates a similarly extreme public discourse.

    Even my beloved Guardian is succumbing, publishing more and more pointless newsy opinion pieces and less and less fact-based, hard news. I don't want to read five takes on a single world event. I'd rather read the facts about five different world events and feel more informed at the end of the day.

    Reddenbluesy 10 Jul 2016 9:13
    I suspect we're seeing the consequences of two events... one political, the other financial (heavily determined by the political, which happened first).

    Politically, the Reagan/Thatcher period broke the socially-democratic post-WWII consensus in favour of economic neo-liberalism, which became the new consensus... and once the Cold War was over, there was no real 'peace dividend' and the agreements for global free-trade/globalisation were struck.

    That lead to the banking crisis/collapse in 2008, and to the 'solution' whereby most governments imposed 'austerity' and debt on ordinary people to keep most of the bankers 'functional' and 'solvent' ...and not only were the bankers not adequately regulated to curtail their activities, but they carried on paying themselves mega-currency bonuses for using taxpayer guarantees to rescue their dysfunctional businesses.

    As the UK-EU Referendum result has proved, populist politicians spouting bullsh*t can succeed in this environment; especially when 'decent politicians' abdicate their responsibilities.

    1iJack -> PrinceVlad 10 Jul 2016 10:37
    I agree, its an entirely artificial construct. And the globalists are in a position to punish countries like Britain for its Brexit decision. But they cannot destroy Britain. Rather, it is the globalists who may be destroyed by the nationalism spreading across the globe. Many globalists are actually terrified by all this. General Electric has read the tea leaves and is already reacting:

    GE's Immelt Signals End to 7 Decades of Globalization http://fortune.com/2016/05/20/ge-immelt-globalization/

    bluepanther -> 1iJack 10 Jul 2016 17:46
    Fascinating link. The global corporate overlords only respond to sustained political pressure. Brexit was a wakeup call for them and the November election in the U.S. may be another...

    [Aug 24, 2016] Meet the "'Trumpocrats" -- Lifelong Democrats Breaking with Party Over Hillary Clinton to Support Donald Trump for President by Matthew Boyle

    Notable quotes:
    "... I believe in the two founding principles of Jacksonian Democracy, social justice and economic fairness. Right now, I think that the Democratic Party-my great party-has got away from some of this ..."
    "... If Hillary Clinton is elected, and not Donald Trump, Rickers says that income inequality-and particularly the "gap" between "the rich and the poor" will get worse. Clinton's refusal to focus on issues that matter to middle class Americans of all political stripes-including Democrats-is why Rickers is calling on Democrats nationwide to join him in a push to elect Donald Trump president of the United States. ..."
    "... his party "used to stand for working people," but "Hillary Clinton's record-NAFTA, SHAFTA, favored nation status for China, Glass-Steagall, I mean we could go on and on and on-she's not been a friend of rural America and rural America knows that and it's shining in the primaries and caucuses. It's a huge ABC feeling out here, Anybody But Clinton." ..."
    "... Bova added that Trump's support for protecting Americans' hard earned benefits like Social Security and Medicare-things that Americans, he says, can't trust Hillary Clinton with-is why his fellow Democrats should back him for president ..."
    "... These same folks, I believe, have been assured that Trump will also protect and seek to strengthen their Social Security and Medicare benefits, and finally, after 20 to 30 years, put their lives back on a level playing field by undoing the very so called free-trade, world-trade, global-trade agreements that that hollowed-out their jobs, their families, their communities, their businesses. That is a powerful reason, a survival reason, for them to want to vote to elect Trump President. ..."
    "... Washington Post ..."
    "... When asked about Clinton's supposed opposition to the Trans Pacific Partnership-she previously supported it more than 40 times, but now claims to be against it as voters rebel against the deal-Rickers laughed. "That's just ridiculous," Rickers said. "She is one of the architects of the complete opposite position. This woman will say anything if she thinks she'll get a vote or money for it." ..."
    Aug 23, 2016 | breitbart.com

    On the Trumpocrats PAC website is a video of David "Mudcat" Saunders, another lifelong Democrat, talking with Fox News.

    I'm a Democrat," Saunders, who worked for many prominent national Democrats over his career, says in the interview video. "I believe in the two founding principles of Jacksonian Democracy, social justice and economic fairness. Right now, I think that the Democratic Party-my great party-has got away from some of this."

    If Hillary Clinton is elected, and not Donald Trump, Rickers says that income inequality-and particularly the "gap" between "the rich and the poor" will get worse. Clinton's refusal to focus on issues that matter to middle class Americans of all political stripes-including Democrats-is why Rickers is calling on Democrats nationwide to join him in a push to elect Donald Trump president of the United States. Rickers said:

    Otherwise, the gap is going to continue to increase between the rich and the poor because a lot of people don't have the ability now to rise up whether they're underemployed or facing hard times. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton is talking about Planned Parenthood or whatever-which is all great, but that's not what we need. We need people to be self-sufficient and feed their families. Trump speaks to that, and there are people all across this country who are fed up with it-obviously, that's what this election is kind of all about. You have party registrations switching by the tens of thousands in Ohio and Pennsylvania and elsewhere, and there's a lot of people-they don't want to be Republicans, but they don't like either party anymore. We're going to give them a place or organize out of, you know? A home, if you will.

    Saunders said in the Fox interview that his party "used to stand for working people," but "Hillary Clinton's record-NAFTA, SHAFTA, favored nation status for China, Glass-Steagall, I mean we could go on and on and on-she's not been a friend of rural America and rural America knows that and it's shining in the primaries and caucuses. It's a huge ABC feeling out here, Anybody But Clinton."

    Billy Bova, another lifelong Democratic operative from Mississippi who is supportive of the effort, told Breitbart News that the answer for Democrats who feel Hillary Clinton does not support them is to back Donald Trump for president. Bova said in an email:

    If you have historically been a working class, middle class person in areas of America that produced good paying, blue collar factory jobs, white collar factory related jobs, small business jobs in your towns around the plants and factories, it would be hard not to support a Trumpocrats effort in electing Donald Trump! Historically, many regular-working Democratic voters have always been most interested in a candidate that supports economic issues, not so much social issues, but bottom-line pocketbook, kitchen table money issues that can pay their bills and help their children. Trump shoots directly at their pocketbooks, gives them hope for a better future.

    Bova added that Trump's support for protecting Americans' hard earned benefits like Social Security and Medicare-things that Americans, he says, can't trust Hillary Clinton with-is why his fellow Democrats should back him for president. He said:

    These same folks, I believe, have been assured that Trump will also protect and seek to strengthen their Social Security and Medicare benefits, and finally, after 20 to 30 years, put their lives back on a level playing field by undoing the very so called free-trade, world-trade, global-trade agreements that that hollowed-out their jobs, their families, their communities, their businesses. That is a powerful reason, a survival reason, for them to want to vote to elect Trump President.

    ... ... ...

    "I think there's a pretty sour taste in a lot of guys' mouths about Iraq and about what happened there," Jim Webb Jr., a Marine veteran and Webb's son-who is also a Trump supporter-told the Washington Post. "You pour time and effort and blood into something, and you see it pissed away, and you think, 'How did I spend my twenties?'"

    The Post cast Webb's son's comments in the light of him praising Trump's vow to end nation-building type of foreign policy that Republicans drove under the Bush administration. While Trump's vows to steer clear of establishment status quo type foreign policy has cost him a handful of votes among GOP elites in Washington, D.C., so the thinking goes, it has won him many more actual voters across America in places like Pennsylvania, Virginia, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, and North Carolina-and potentially even New York state.

    ... ... ...

    JOBS, JOBS, JOBS: IT'S THE ECONOMY STUPID

    When asked about Clinton's supposed opposition to the Trans Pacific Partnership-she previously supported it more than 40 times, but now claims to be against it as voters rebel against the deal-Rickers laughed. "That's just ridiculous," Rickers said. "She is one of the architects of the complete opposite position. This woman will say anything if she thinks she'll get a vote or money for it."

    And he said "hell no, absolutely no" he does not believe that Hillary Clinton is against the TPP.

    "No way," Rickers said. "And she'll say something different when she's in front of another group. Do you think she was saying that when she was being paid $250,000 a speech on Wall Street? No. And she doesn't want anybody to know what she said there."

    As for Trump, Rickers said he believes Trump on the issue of trade.

    "At least during this campaign-I know he's said a lot of things in a lot of different directions, but he's been pretty consistent that that is the foundation of his campaign, to rebuild the infrastructure of the country," Rickers said. "I just wish he wouldn't get distracted all the time and just talk about the main issue of his campaign, which is the rebuilding of the country."

    On the Trumpocrats PAC website are videos of many other Democrats switching parties to vote for Trump. David Abbott, a lifelong Democratic Party member and former local councilman from Kentucky, switched parties to vote for Trump.

    [Aug 24, 2016] Colour-Coded Revolutions and the Origins of World War III Global Research - Centre for Research on Globalization

    Notable quotes:
    "... Andrew Gavin Marshall is a Research Associate with the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). He is currently studying Political Economy and History at Simon Fraser University. ..."
    www.globalresearch.ca
    This is Part 2 of the Series, "The Origins of World War III"

    Part 1: An Imperial Strategy for a New World Order: The Origins of World War III

    Introduction

    Following US geo-strategy in what Brzezinski termed the "global Balkans," the US government has worked closely with major NGOs to "promote democracy" and "freedom" in former Soviet republics, playing a role behind the scenes in fomenting what are termed "colour revolutions," which install US and Western-friendly puppet leaders to advance the interests of the West, both economically and strategically.

    Part 2 of this essay on "The Origins of World War III" analyzes the colour revolutions as being a key stratagem in imposing the US-led New World Order. The "colour revolution" or "soft" revolution strategy is a covert political tactic of expanding NATO and US influence to the borders of Russia and even China; following in line with one of the primary aims of US strategy in the New World Order: to contain China and Russia and prevent the rise of any challenge to US power in the region.

    These revolutions are portrayed in the western media as popular democratic revolutions, in which the people of these respective nations demand democratic accountability and governance from their despotic leaders and archaic political systems. However, the reality is far from what this utopian imagery suggests. Western NGOs and media heavily finance and organize opposition groups and protest movements, and in the midst of an election, create a public perception of vote fraud in order to mobilize the mass protest movements to demand "their" candidate be put into power. It just so happens that "their" candidate is always the Western US-favoured candidate, whose campaign is often heavily financed by Washington; and who proposes US-friendly policies and neoliberal economic conditions. In the end, it is the people who lose out, as their genuine hope for change and accountability is denied by the influence the US wields over their political leaders.

    The soft revolutions also have the effect of antagonizing China and Russia, specifically, as it places US protectorates on their borders, and drives many of the former Warsaw Pact nations to seek closer political, economic and military cooperation. This then exacerbates tensions between the west and China and Russia; which ultimately leads the world closer to a potential conflict between the two blocs.

    Serbia

    Serbia experienced its "colour revolution" in October of 2000, which led to the overthrow of Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic. As the Washington Post reported in December of 2000, from 1999 on, the US undertook a major "electoral strategy" to oust Milosevic, as "U.S.-funded consultants played a crucial role behind the scenes in virtually every facet of the anti-Milosevic drive, running tracking polls, training thousands of opposition activists and helping to organize a vitally important parallel vote count. U.S. taxpayers paid for 5,000 cans of spray paint used by student activists to scrawl anti-Milosevic graffiti on walls across Serbia, and 2.5 million stickers with the slogan "He's Finished," which became the revolution's catchphrase." Further, according to Michael Dobbs,writing in the Washington Post, some "20 opposition leaders accepted an invitation from the Washington-based National Democratic Institute (NDI) in October 1999 to a seminar at the Marriott Hotel in Budapest."

    Interestingly, "Some Americans involved in the anti-Milosevic effort said they were aware of CIA activity at the fringes of the campaign, but had trouble finding out what the agency was up to. Whatever it was, they concluded it was not particularly effective. The lead role was taken by the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development, the government's foreign assistance agency, which channeled the funds through commercial contractors and nonprofit groups such as NDI and its Republican counterpart, the International Republican Institute (IRI)."

    The NDI (National Democratic Institute), "worked closely with Serbian opposition parties, IRI focused its attention on Otpor, which served as the revolution's ideological and organizational backbone. In March, IRI paid for two dozen Otpor leaders to attend a seminar on nonviolent resistance at the Hilton Hotel in Budapest." At the seminar, "the Serbian students received training in such matters as how to organize a strike, how to communicate with symbols, how to overcome fear and how to undermine the authority of a dictatorial regime."[1]

    As the New York Times revealed, Otpor, the major student opposition group, had a steady flow of money coming from the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), a Congress-funded "democracy promoting" organization. The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) gave money to Otpor, as did the International Republican Institute, "another nongovernmental Washington group financed partly by A.I.D."[2]

    Georgia

    In 2003, Georgia went through its "Rose Revolution," which led to the overthrow of president Eduard Shevardnadze, replacing him with Mikhail Saakashvili after the 2004 elections. In a November 2003 article in The Globe and Mail, it was reported that a US based foundation "began laying the brickwork for the toppling of Georgian President Eduard Shevardnadze," as funds from his non-profit organization "sent a 31-year-old Tbilisi activist named Giga Bokeria to Serbia to meet with members of the Otpor (Resistance) movement and learn how they used street demonstrations to topple dictator Slobodan Milosevic. Then, in the summer," the "foundation paid for a return trip to Georgia by Otpor activists, who ran three-day courses teaching more than 1,000 students how to stage a peaceful revolution."

    This US-based foundation "also funded a popular opposition television station that was crucial in mobilizing support for [the] 'velvet revolution,' and [it] reportedly gave financial support to a youth group that led the street protests." The owner of the foundation "has a warm relationship with Mr. Shevardnadze's chief opponent, Mikhail Saakashvili, a New York-educated lawyer who is expected to win the presidency in an election scheduled for Jan. 4."

    During a press conference a week before his resignation, Mr. Shevardnadze said that the US foundation "is set against the President of Georgia." Moreover, "Mr. Bokeria, whose Liberty Institute received money from both [the financier's foundation] and the U.S. government-backed Eurasia Institute, says three other organizations played key roles in Mr. Shevardnadze's downfall: Mr. Saakashvili's National Movement party, the Rustavi-2 television station and Kmara! (Georgian for Enough!), a youth group that declared war on Mr. Shevardnadze [in] April and began a poster and graffiti campaign attacking government corruption." [3]

    The day following the publication of the previously quoted article, the author published another article in the Globe and Mail explaining that the "bloodless revolution" in Georgia "smells more like another victory for the United States over Russia in the post-Cold War international chess game." The author, Mark MacKinnon, explained that Eduard Shevardnadze's downfall lied "in the oil under the Caspian Sea, one of the world's few great remaining, relatively unexploited, sources of oil," as "Georgia and neighbouring Azerbaijan, which borders the Caspian, quickly came to be seen not just as newly independent countries, but as part of an 'energy corridor'." Plans were drawn up for a massive "pipeline that would run through Georgia to Turkey and the Mediterranean." It is worth quoting MacKinnon at length:

    When these plans were made, Mr. Shevardnadze was seen as an asset by both Western investors and the U.S. government. His reputation as the man who helped end the Cold War gave investors a sense of confidence in the country, and his stated intention to move Georgia out of Russia's orbit and into Western institutions such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the European Union played well at the U.S. State Department.

    The United States quickly moved to embrace Georgia, opening a military base in the country [in 2001] to give Georgian soldiers "anti-terrorist" training. They were the first U.S. troops to set up in a former Soviet republic.

    But somewhere along the line, Mr. Shevardnadze reversed course and decided to once more embrace Russia. This summer, Georgia signed a secret 25-year deal to make the Russian energy giant Gazprom its sole supplier of gas. Then it effectively sold the electricity grid to another Russian firm, cutting out AES, the company that the U.S. administration had backed to win the deal. Mr. Shevardnadze attacked AES as "liars and cheats." Both deals dramatically increased Russian influence in Tbilisi.

    Following the elections in Georgia, the US-backed and educated Mikhail Saakashvili ascended to the Presidency and "won the day."[4] This is again an example of the intimate relationship between oil geopolitics and US foreign policy. The colour revolution was vital in pressing US and NATO interests forward in the region; gaining control over Central Asia's gas reserves and keeping Russia from expanding its influence. This follows directly in line with the US-NATO imperial strategy for the new world order, following the collapse of the USSR. [This strategy is outlined in detail in Part 1 of this essay: An Imperial Strategy for a New World Order: The Origins of World War III].

    Ukraine

    In 2004, Ukraine went through its "Orange Revolution," in which opposition and pro-Western leader Viktor Yushchenko became President, defeating Viktor Yanukovych. As the Guardian revealed in 2004, that following the disputed elections (as happens in every "colour revolution"), "the democracy guerrillas of the Ukrainian Pora youth movement have already notched up a famous victory – whatever the outcome of the dangerous stand-off in Kiev," however, "the campaign is an American creation, a sophisticated and brilliantly conceived exercise in western branding and mass marketing that, in four countries in four years, has been used to try to salvage rigged elections and topple unsavoury regimes."

    The author, Ian Traynor, explained that, "Funded and organised by the US government, deploying US consultancies, pollsters, diplomats, the two big American parties and US non-government organisations, the campaign was first used in Europe in Belgrade in 2000 to beat Slobodan Milosevic at the ballot box." Further, "The Democratic party's National Democratic Institute, the Republican party's International Republican Institute, the US state department and USAid are the main agencies involved in these grassroots campaigns as well as the Freedom House NGO" and the same billionaire financier involved in Georgia's Rose Revolution. In implementing the regime-change strategy, "The usually fractious oppositions have to be united behind a single candidate if there is to be any chance of unseating the regime. That leader is selected on pragmatic and objective grounds, even if he or she is anti-American."

    Traynor continues:

    Freedom House and the Democratic party's NDI helped fund and organise the "largest civil regional election monitoring effort" in Ukraine, involving more than 1,000 trained observers. They also organised exit polls. On Sunday night those polls gave Mr Yushchenko an 11-point lead and set the agenda for much of what has followed.

    The exit polls are seen as critical because they seize the initiative in the propaganda battle with the regime, invariably appearing first, receiving wide media coverage and putting the onus on the authorities to respond.

    The final stage in the US template concerns how to react when the incumbent tries to steal a lost election.

    [. . . ] In Belgrade, Tbilisi, and now Kiev, where the authorities initially tried to cling to power, the advice was to stay cool but determined and to organise mass displays of civil disobedience, which must remain peaceful but risk provoking the regime into violent suppression.[5]

    As an article in the Guardian by Jonathan Steele explained, the opposition leader, Viktor Yushchenko, who disputed the election results, "served as prime minister under the outgoing president, Leonid Kuchma, and some of his backers are also linked to the brutal industrial clans who manipulated Ukraine's post-Soviet privatization." He further explained that election rigging is mainly irrelevant, as "The decision to protest appears to depend mainly on realpolitik and whether the challengers or the incumbent are considered more 'pro-western' or 'pro-market'." In other words, those who support a neoliberal economic agenda will have the support of the US-NATO, as neoliberalism is their established international economic order and advances their interests in the region.

    Moreover, "In Ukraine, Yushchenko got the western nod, and floods of money poured in to groups which support him, ranging from the youth organisation, Pora, to various opposition websites. More provocatively, the US and other western embassies paid for exit polls." This is emblematic of the strategic importance of the Ukraine to the United States, "which refuses to abandon its cold war policy of encircling Russia and seeking to pull every former Soviet republic to its side."[6]

    One Guardian commentator pointed out the hypocrisy of western media coverage: "Two million anti-war demonstrators can stream though the streets of London and be politically ignored, but a few tens of thousands in central Kiev are proclaimed to be 'the people', while the Ukrainian police, courts and governmental institutions are discounted as instruments of oppression." It was also explained that, "Enormous rallies have been held in Kiev in support of the prime minister, Viktor Yanukovich, but they are not shown on our TV screens: if their existence is admitted, Yanukovich supporters are denigrated as having been 'bussed in'. The demonstrations in favour of Viktor Yushchenko have laser lights, plasma screens, sophisticated sound systems, rock concerts, tents to camp in and huge quantities of orange clothing; yet we happily dupe ourselves that they are spontaneous."[7]

    In 2004, the Associated Press reported that, "The Bush administration has spent more than $65 million in the past two years to aid political organizations in Ukraine, paying to bring opposition leader Viktor Yushchenko to meet U.S. leaders and helping to underwrite an exit poll indicating he won last month's disputed runoff election." The money, they state, "was funneled through organizations such as the Eurasia Foundation or through groups aligned with Republicans and Democrats that organized election training, with human rights forums or with independent news outlets." However, even government officials "acknowledge that some of the money helped train groups and individuals opposed to the Russian-backed government candidate."

    The report stated that some major international foundations funded the exit polls, which according to the incumbent leader were "skewed." These foundations included "The National Endowment for Democracy, which receives its money directly from Congress; the Eurasia Foundation, which receives money from the State Department, and the Renaissance Foundation," which receives money from the same billionaire financier as well as the US State Department. Since the State Department is involved, that implies that this funding is quite directly enmeshed in US foreign policy strategy. "Other countries involved included Great Britain, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Canada, Norway, Sweden and Denmark." Also involved in funding certain groups and activities in the Ukraine was the International Republican Institute and the National Democratic Institute, which was chaired by former Secretary of States Madeline Albright at the time.[8]

    Mark Almond wrote for the Guardian in 2004 of the advent of "People Power," describing it in relation to the situation that was then breaking in the Ukraine, and stated that, "The upheaval in Ukraine is presented as a battle between the people and Soviet-era power structures. The role of western cold war-era agencies is taboo. Poke your nose into the funding of the lavish carnival in Kiev, and the shrieks of rage show that you have touched a neuralgic point of the New World Order."

    Almond elaborated:

    "Throughout the 1980s, in the build-up to 1989′s velvet revolutions, a small army of volunteers – and, let's be frank, spies – co-operated to promote what became People Power. A network of interlocking foundations and charities mushroomed to organise the logistics of transferring millions of dollars to dissidents. The money came overwhelmingly from Nato states and covert allies such as "neutral" Sweden.

    [ ...] The hangover from People Power is shock therapy. Each successive crowd is sold a multimedia vision of Euro-Atlantic prosperity by western-funded "independent" media to get them on the streets. No one dwells on the mass unemployment, rampant insider dealing, growth of organised crime, prostitution and soaring death rates in successful People Power states.

    As Almond delicately put it, "People Power is, it turns out, more about closing things than creating an open society. It shuts factories but, worse still, minds. Its advocates demand a free market in everything – except opinion. The current ideology of New World Order ideologues, many of whom are renegade communists, is Market-Leninism – that combination of a dogmatic economic model with Machiavellian methods to grasp the levers of power."[9]

    As Mark MacKinnon reported for the Globe and Mail, Canada, too, supported the efforts of the youth activist group, Pora, in the Ukraine, providing funding for the "people power democracy" movement. As MacKinnon noted, "The Bush administration was particularly keen to see a pro-Western figure as president to ensure control over a key pipeline running from Odessa on the Black Sea to Brody on the Polish border." However, "The outgoing president, Leonid Kuchma, had recently reversed the flow so the pipeline carried Russian crude south instead of helping U.S. producers in the Caspian Sea region ship their product to Europe." As MacKinnon analyzes, the initial funding from western nations came from Canada, although this was eventually far surpassed in amount by the United States.

    Andrew Robinson, Canada's ambassador to Ukraine at the time, in 2004, "began to organize secret monthly meetings of Western ambassadors, presiding over what he called "donor co-ordination" sessions among 28 countries interested in seeing Mr. Yushchenko succeed. Eventually, he acted as the group's spokesman and became a prominent critic of the Kuchma government's heavy-handed media control." Canada further "invested in a controversial exit poll, carried out on election day by Ukraine's Razumkov Centre and other groups, that contradicted the official results showing Mr. Yanukovich had won." Once the new, pro-Western government was in, it "announced its intention to reverse the flow of the Odessa-Brody pipeline."[10]

    Again, this follows the example of Georgia, where several US and NATO interests are met through the success of the "colour revolution"; simultaneously preventing Russian expansion and influence from spreading in the region as well as advancing US and NATO control and influence over the major resources and transport corridors of the region.

    Daniel Wolf wrote for the Guardian that, "For most of the people gathered in Kiev's Independence Square, the demonstration felt spontaneous. They had every reason to want to stop the government candidate, Viktor Yanukovich, from coming to power, and they took the chance that was offered to them. But walking through the encampment last December, it was hard to ignore the evidence of meticulous preparation – the soup kitchens and tents for the demonstrators, the slickness of the concert, the professionalism of the TV coverage, the proliferation of the sickly orange logo wherever you looked." He elaborated, writing, "the events in the square were the result of careful, secret planning by Yushchenko's inner circle over a period of years. The true story of the orange revolution is far more interesting than the fable that has been widely accepted."

    Roman Bessmertny, Yushchenko's campaign manager, two years prior to the 2004 elections, "put as many as 150,000 people through training courses, seminars, practical tuition conducted by legal and media specialists. Some attending these courses were members of election committees at local, regional and national level; others were election monitors, who were not only taught what to watch out for but given camcorders to record it on video. More than 10,000 cameras were distributed, with the aim of recording events at every third polling station." Ultimately, it was an intricately well-planned public relations media-savvy campaign, orchestrated through heavy financing. Hardly the sporadic "people power" notion applied to the "peaceful coup" in the western media.[11]

    The "Tulip Revolution" in Kyrgyzstan

    In 2005, Kyrgyzstan underwent its "Tulip Revolution" in which the incumbent was replaced by the pro-Western candidate through another "popular revolution." As the New York Times reported in March of 2005, shortly before the March elections, "an opposition newspaper ran photographs of a palatial home under construction for the country's deeply unpopular president, Askar Akayev, helping set off widespread outrage and a popular revolt." However, this "newspaper was the recipient of United States government grants and was printed on an American government-financed printing press operated by Freedom House, an American organization that describes itself as 'a clear voice for democracy and freedom around the world'."

    Moreover, other countries that have "helped underwrite programs to develop democracy and civil society" in Kyrgyzstan were Britain, the Netherlands and Norway. These countries collectively "played a crucial role in preparing the ground for the popular uprising that swept opposition politicians to power." Money mostly flowed from the United States, in particular, through the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), as well as through "the Freedom House printing press or Kyrgyz-language service of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, a pro-democracy broadcaster." The National Democratic Institute also played a major financing role, for which one of the chief beneficiaries of their financial aid said, "It would have been absolutely impossible for this to have happened without that help."

    The Times further reported that:

    "American money helps finance civil society centers around the country where activists and citizens can meet, receive training, read independent newspapers and even watch CNN or surf the Internet in some. The N.D.I. [National Democratic Institute] alone operates 20 centers that provide news summaries in Russian, Kyrgyz and Uzbek.

    The United States sponsors the American University in Kyrgyzstan, whose stated mission is, in part, to promote the development of civil society, and pays for exchange programs that send students and non-governmental organization leaders to the United States. Kyrgyzstan's new prime minister, Kurmanbek Bakiyev, was one.

    All of that money and manpower gave the coalescing Kyrgyz opposition financing and moral support in recent years, as well as the infrastructure that allowed it to communicate its ideas to the Kyrgyz people."

    As for those "who did not read Russian or have access to the newspaper listened to summaries of its articles on Kyrgyz-language Radio Azattyk, the local United States-government financed franchise of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty." Other "independent" media was paid for courtesy of the US State Department.[12]

    As the Wall Street Journal revealed prior to the elections, opposition groups, NGOs and "independent" media in Kyrgyzstan were getting financial assistance from Freedom House in the US, as well as the US Agency for International Development (USAID). The Journal reported that, "To avoid provoking Russia and violating diplomatic norms, the U.S. can't directly back opposition political parties. But it underwrites a web of influential NGOs whose support of press freedom, the rule of law and clean elections almost inevitably pits them against the entrenched interests of the old autocratic regimes."

    As the Journal further reported, Kyrgyzstan "occupies a strategic location. The U.S. and Russia both have military bases here. The country's five million citizens, mostly Muslim, are sandwiched in a tumultuous neighborhood among oil-rich Kazakhstan, whose regime tolerates little political dissent; dictatorial Uzbekistan, which has clamped down on foreign aid groups and destitute Tajikistan."

    In the country, a main opposition NGO, the Coalition for Democracy and Civil Rights, gets its funding "from the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs, a Washington-based nonprofit funded by the U.S. government, and from USAID." Other agencies reported to be involved, either through funding or ideological-technical promotion (see: propaganda), are the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), the Albert Einstein Institute, Freedom House, and the US State Department.[13]

    President Askar Akayev of Kyrgyzstan had referred to a "third force" gaining power in his country. The term was borrowed from one of the most prominent US think tanks, as "third force" is:

    "… which details how western-backed non-governmental organisations (NGOs) can promote regime and policy change all over the world. The formulaic repetition of a third "people power" revolution in the former Soviet Union in just over one year – after the similar events in Georgia in November 2003 and in Ukraine last Christmas – means that the post-Soviet space now resembles Central America in the 1970s and 1980s, when a series of US-backed coups consolidated that country's control over the western hemisphere."

    As the Guardian reported:

    "Many of the same US government operatives in Latin America have plied their trade in eastern Europe under George Bush, most notably Michael Kozak, former US ambassador to Belarus, who boasted in these pages in 2001 that he was doing in Belarus exactly what he had been doing in Nicaragua: "supporting democracy".

    Further:

    "The case of Freedom House is particularly arresting. Chaired by the former CIA director James Woolsey, Freedom House was a major sponsor of the orange revolution in Ukraine. It set up a printing press in Bishkek in November 2003, which prints 60 opposition journals. Although it is described as an "independent" press, the body that officially owns it is chaired by the bellicose Republican senator John McCain, while the former national security adviser Anthony Lake sits on the board. The US also supports opposition radio and TV."[14]

    So again, the same formula was followed in the Central Asian Republics of the former Soviet Union. This US foreign-policy strategy of promoting "soft revolution" is managed through a network of American and international NGOs and think tanks. It advances NATO and, in particular, US interests in the region.

    Conclusion

    The soft revolutions or "colour revolutions" are a key stratagem in the New World Order; advancing, through deceptions and manipulation, the key strategy of containing Russia and controlling key resources. This strategy is critical to understanding the imperialistic nature of the New World Order, especially when it comes to identifying when this strategy is repeated; specifically in relation to the Iranian elections of 2009.

    Part 1 of this essay outlined the US-NATO imperial strategy for entering the New World Order, following the break-up of the Soviet Union in 1991. The primary aim was focused on encircling Russia and China and preventing the rise of a new superpower. The US was to act as the imperial hegemon, serving international financial interests in imposing the New World Order. Part 2 outlined the US imperial strategy of using "colour revolutions" to advance its interests in Central Asia and Eastern Europe, following along the overall policy outlined in Part 1, of containing Russia and China from expanding influence and gaining access to key natural resources.

    The third and final part to this essay analyzes the nature of the imperial strategy to construct a New World Order, focusing on the increasing conflicts in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Latin America, Eastern Europe and Africa; and the potential these conflicts have for starting a new world war with China and Russia. In particular, its focus is within the past few years, and emphasizes the increasing nature of conflict and war in the New World Order. Part 3 looks at the potential for "A New World War for a New World Order."

    Endnotes

    [1] Michael Dobbs, U.S. Advice Guided Milosevic Opposition. The Washington Post: December 11, 2000: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A18395-2000Dec3?language=printer

    [2] Roger Cohen, Who Really Brought Down Milosevic? The New York Times: November 26, 2000: http://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/26/magazine/who-really-brought-down-milosevic.html?sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1

    [3] Mark MacKinnon, Georgia revolt carried mark of Soros. The Globe and Mail: November 23, 2003: http://www.markmackinnon.ca/dispatches_georgia3.html

    [4] Mark MacKinnon, Politics, pipelines converge in Georgia. The Globe and Mail: November 24, 2003: http://www.markmackinnon.ca/dispatches_georgia2.html

    [5] Ian Traynor, US campaign behind the turmoil in Kiev. The Guardian: November 26, 2004: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/nov/26/ukraine.usa

    [6] Jonathan Steele, Ukraine's postmodern coup d'etat. The Guardian: November 26, 2004: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/nov/26/ukraine.comment

    [7] John Laughland, The revolution televised. The Guardian: November 27, 2004: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2004/nov/27/pressandpublishing.comment

    [8] Matt Kelley, U.S. money has helped opposition in Ukraine. Associated Press: December 11, 2004: http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20041211/news_1n11usaid.html

    [9] Mark Almond, The price of People Power. The Guardian: December 7, 2004: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/dec/07/ukraine.comment

    [10] Mark MacKinnon, Agent orange: Our secret role in Ukraine. The Globe and Mail: April 14, 2007: http://www.markmackinnon.ca/dispatches_ukraine4.html

    [11] Daniel Wolf, A 21st century revolt. The Guardian: May 13, 2005: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/may/13/ukraine.features11

    [12] Craig S. Smith, U.S. Helped to Prepare the Way for Kyrgyzstan's Uprising. The New York Times: March 30, 2005: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9806E4D9123FF933A05750C0A9639C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

    [13] Philip Shishkin, In Putin's Backyard, Democracy Stirs - With U.S. Help. The Wall Street Journal: February 25, 2005: http://www.iri.org/newsarchive/2005/2005-02-25-News-WSJ.asp

    [14] John Laughland, The mythology of people power. The Guardian: April 1, 2005: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/apr/01/usa.russia

    Andrew Gavin Marshall is a Research Associate with the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). He is currently studying Political Economy and History at Simon Fraser University.

    The original source of this article is Global Research

    Copyright © Andrew Gavin Marshall, Global Research, 2009

    [Aug 24, 2016] Bill Kristol Republican Spoiler, Renegade Jew

    Breitbart
    Contrary to Kristol, far from being a non-interventionist, Obama conducted two interventions against dictators in Egypt and Libya with disastrous consequences. The intervention in Libya, which Kristol supported, has created two million refugees, hundreds of thousands of corpses, and a terrorist state. One might suppose that a little re-thinking of interventionism would be in order. Trump's readiness to rethink interventionism is hardly the same as Obama's strategy of retreat and surrender.

    Contrary to Kristol's assertion, Trump is not opposed to all interventions against dictators. He has promised to do what it takes to destroy ISIS, which includes bombing its oil facilities and destroying its headquarters, and is obviously only possible with interventions in Syria and Iraq. Destroying ISIS would also be an action to prevent mass slaughter, despite Kristol groundless claim.

    As for Trump proposing "another re-set with Putin's Russia," there was no re-set with Russia under Obama. Attempting a serious re-set - a re-set from strength - would seem reasonable and prudent, and would hardly be a repeat of Obama's policies. It would be just the opposite.

    "Getting out of the nation-building business and instead focusing on creating stability in the world" is hardly an Obama policy, as Kristol suggests. Obama's intervention in Eygpt, put the Muslim Brotherhood in power; when the Egyptian military then overthrew the Brotherhood, Obama sided with the Brotherhood and alienated the most important power in the Middle East. These acts, together with Obama's withdrawal from Iraq and waffling in Syria, created a power vacuum that spread instability throughout the region.

    "Avoiding nation-building, while focusing on creating stability" is a foreign policy any true constitutional conservative would support - unless that conservative was driven by an irrational hatred of Trump. Finally, Trump's promise to put American interests first and restore respect for America through rebuilding American strength can only be described as a "national retreat" by a very unprincipled - and careless - individual.

    All these dishonesties and flim-flam excuses pale by comparison with the consequences Kristol and his "Never Trump" cohorts are willing to risk by splitting the Republican vote. Obama has provided America's mortal enemy, Iran, with a path to nuclear weapons, $150 billion dollars, and the freedom to develop intercontinental ballistic missiles to deliver the lethal payloads. Trump has promised to abandon the Iran deal, while Hillary Clinton and all but a handful of Democrats have supported this treachery from start to finish. Kristol is now one of their allies.

    I am a Jew who has never been to Israel and has never been a Zionist in the sense of believing that Jews can rid themselves of Jew hatred by having their own nation state. But half of world Jewry now lives in Israel, and the enemies whom Obama and Hillary have empowered - Iran, the Muslim Brotherhood, Hezbollah, ISIS, and Hamas - have openly sworn to exterminate the Jews. I am also an American (and an American first), whose country is threatened with destruction by the same enemies. To weaken the only party that stands between the Jews and their annihilation, and between America and the forces intent on destroying her, is a political miscalculation so great and a betrayal so profound as to not be easily forgiven.

    [Aug 24, 2016] Tragic mistake

    Notable quotes:
    "... In the Dutch "Telegraph" an article has been published in which it is announced that it was all a tragic mistake explained by low-skilled Buka operators who were under stress. ..."
    "... Tomorrow in the Dutch "Telegraph" appears new material about the downing over the Donbas of the Malaysian Boeing MH-17. There has been made an announcement, in which experts are referred to, that states that the Boeing was shot down accidentally (!), that it was "a huge, tragic mistake" and that no one at all had intended to shoot down the Boeing, only those people who were manning the BUK had low skill and had found themselves in a stress situation. In short, they fired a rocket at the Boeing by mistake. ..."
    "... What I find hard to believe is that if these accusations had been made against the separatist militia or the Russian military, then the tone of this discussion would have been otherwise. Such a tone, however is fully appropriate in the Western mass media when relating to Ukrainian anti-aircraft operatives who had been approximately deployed at that place and at that time. There are photos and videos. ..."
    "... It would be profoundly astonishing to me if there was even the slightest move toward Ukraine accepting responsibility, because of all Poroshenko's accusatory rhetoric and the eager baying of the western press, the British being the worst of the lot. The west would have to eat too much crow, while Ukraine would be the object of both disgust for its deliberate deception and renewed lawsuits by relatives of the dead. They've gone way too far to reverse themselves now. Fascinating, nonetheless. ..."
    Aug 24, 2016 | marknesop.wordpress.com
    Moscow Exile , August 23, 2016 at 5:12 am
    MH17 – сбили по "ошибке"

    In the Dutch "Telegraph" an article has been published in which it is announced that it was all a tragic mistake explained by low-skilled Buka operators who were under stress.

    Tomorrow in the Dutch "Telegraph" appears new material about the downing over the Donbas of the Malaysian Boeing MH-17. There has been made an announcement, in which experts are referred to, that states that the Boeing was shot down accidentally (!), that it was "a huge, tragic mistake" and that no one at all had intended to shoot down the Boeing, only those people who were manning the BUK had low skill and had found themselves in a stress situation. In short, they fired a rocket at the Boeing by mistake.

    What I find hard to believe is that if these accusations had been made against the separatist militia or the Russian military, then the tone of this discussion would have been otherwise. Such a tone, however is fully appropriate in the Western mass media when relating to Ukrainian anti-aircraft operatives who had been approximately deployed at that place and at that time. There are photos and videos.

    Moscow Exile , August 23, 2016 at 5:13 am
    Over to you, Secretary of State Kerry…
    marknesop , August 23, 2016 at 10:43 am
    Extremely interesting, and quite a variation on what I thought would be the verdict; "We may never know". But is this actually stipulating that it was non-separatist Ukrainian personnel who were responsible? I don't see that – just 'stressed-out, poorly-trained Buka operators'. That could be anyone.

    It would be profoundly astonishing to me if there was even the slightest move toward Ukraine accepting responsibility, because of all Poroshenko's accusatory rhetoric and the eager baying of the western press, the British being the worst of the lot. The west would have to eat too much crow, while Ukraine would be the object of both disgust for its deliberate deception and renewed lawsuits by relatives of the dead. They've gone way too far to reverse themselves now. Fascinating, nonetheless.

    Moscow Exile , August 23, 2016 at 12:22 pm
    But is this actually stipulating that it was non-separatist Ukrainian personnel who were responsible?

    The translation reads:

    Such a tone, however is fully appropriate in the Western mass media when relating to Ukrainian anti-aircraft operatives…

    Are they classifying separatists as "Ukrainians" when using the term "Ukrainian anti-aircraft operatives"? Wouldn't they have written "Russian backed separatist anti-aircraft operatives" if they had meant those opposed to Kiev rule, or are the "Russian backed separatists" now recognized by the "Telegraph" as being Ukrainian citizens, which they are, of course de jure .

    [Aug 23, 2016] Are the Clintons Israeli Agents by Philip Giraldi

    I think to the extent Israel elite interests are congruent with interests of the US neocons Clinton is pro-Israel. If they stray, she can change. The key here are interests of global corporations and neoliberal globalization. As such Israel is just a pawn in a big game.
    Notable quotes:
    "... So who is guilty of putting the interests of a foreign government ahead of those of the United States? I know there are advocates for any number of foreign states running around loose in Washington but the friends of Israel in government and the media come immediately to mind largely because there are so many of them, they are very much in-your-face and they are both extremely well-funded and very successful. Now deceased former Congressman Tom Lantos and Senator Frank Lautenberg were, respectively, often referred to as the congressman and senator from Israel. And there are many more: Chuck Schumer, Chuck Grassley, Ben Cardin, Bob Menendez, Tom Cotton, Mark Kirk, Nita Lowey, Ted Deutch, Brad Sherman, Ileana-Ros Lehtinen and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz to name only a few in the Congress. All are major recipients of Israel related PAC money and all are reliable defenders of Israel no matter what Benjamin Netanyahu does and no matter how it effects the United States. ..."
    "... And then there are the Clintons. One only has to go back to Bill's one-sided pro-Israeli diplomacy at Camp David in 2000 to discern how the game was played. And then there was the widely condemned January 2001 last minute pardon of Mossad agent Marc Rich, whose wife Denise was a major contributor to the Clintons, to realize that there was always a deference to Israeli interests particularly when money was involved ..."
    "... Trump's crime, per Morell, is that he is disloyal to the United States because he is not sufficiently hostile to the evil Vladimir Putin, which somehow means that he is being manipulated by the clever Russian. Trump has indeed called for a positive working relationship with Putin to accomplish, among other objectives, the crushing of ISIS. And he is otherwise in favor of leaving Bashar al-Assad of Syria alone while also being disinclined to get involved in any additional military interventions in the Middle East or elsewhere, which pretty much makes him the antithesis of the Clintonian foreign policy promoted by Morell. ..."
    "... The leading individual foreign donor to the Clinton Foundation between 1999 and 2014 was Ukrainian Viktor Pinchuk, who "directed between $10 and $25 million" to its Global Initiative, has let the Clintons use his private jet, attended Bill's Hollywood 65 th birthday celebration and hosted daughter Chelsea and her husband on a trip to Ukraine. Pinchuk is a Jewish oligarch married to the daughter of notoriously corrupt former Ukrainian president Leonid Kuchma. He is very closely tied to Israel, a supporter of regime change in his country, who was simultaneously donating money and also lobbying in Washington while Hillary was Secretary of State and promoting a similar agenda as part of her $5 billion program to "democratize" Ukraine. Clinton arranged a dozen meetings with substantive State Department officers for Pinchuk. ..."
    "... Clinton supported Israel's actions in the 2014 Gaza War, which killed more than 500 children, describing them as an appropriate response to a situation that was provoked by Hamas. On the campaign trail recently husband Bill disingenuously defended Hillary's position on Gaza, saying that "Hamas is really smart. When they decide to rocket Israel they insinuate themselves in the hospitals, in the schools " placing all the blame for the large number of civilian casualties on the Palestinians, not on the Israelis. When the media began to report on the plight of the civilians trapped in Gaza Hillary dismissed the impending humanitarian catastrophe, saying "They're trapped by their leadership, unfortunately." ..."
    "... Earlier, as a Senator from New York, Hillary supported Israel's building of the separation barrier on Palestinian land and cheer-led a crowd at a pro-Israel rally that praised Israel's 2006 devastation of Lebanon and Gaza. She nonsensically characterized and justified the bombing campaign as "efforts to send messages to Hamas, Hezbollah, to the Syrians, to the Iranians – to all who seek death and domination instead of life and freedom " More than nine hundred civilians died in the onslaught and when a vote came up subsequently in Congress to stop the supply of cluster bombs to countries that use them on civilians Hillary voted against the bill together with 69 other pro-Israel senators. ..."
    "... Hillary enjoys a particularly close relationship with Netanyahu, writing in November , "I would also invite the Israeli prime minister to the White House in my first month in office." She has worked diligently to "reaffirm the unbreakable bond with Israel – and Benjamin Netanyahu." She has boasted of her being one of the promoters of annual increases in aid to Israel while she was in the Senate and Secretary of State and takes credit for repeatedly using America's Security Council veto to defend it in the United Nations. ..."
    "... o you know how Prince Bandar was coaching G.W. Bush to circumvent the enmity of neocons towards his father? ..."
    "... It looks very much like the US public is starting to mirror the Eastern European public under Communism by automatically disregarding government media + there's the added feature of the internet as a new kind of high-powered Samizdat, that clearly worries the Establishment. ..."
    Aug 23, 2016 | The Unz Review
    On August 5th, Michael Morell, a former acting Director of the CIA, pilloried GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump, concluding that he was an "unwitting agent of Russia." Morell, who entitled his New York Times op-ed "I Ran the CIA and now I'm endorsing Hillary Clinton," described the process whereby Trump had been so corrupted. According to Morell, Putin, it seems, as a wily ex-career intelligence officer, is "trained to identify vulnerabilities in an individual and to exploit them. That is exactly what he did early in the primaries. Mr. Putin played upon Mr. Trump's vulnerabilities In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation."

    I have previously observed how incomprehensible the designation of "unwitting agent" used in a sentence together with "recruited" is, but perhaps I should add something more about Morell that might not be clear to the casual reader. Morell was an Agency analyst, not a spy, who spent nearly his entire career in and around Washington. The high point of his CIA experience consisted of briefing George W. Bush on the President's Daily Brief (PDB).

    Morell was not trained in the arduous CIA operational tradecraft course which agent recruiters and handlers go through. This means that his understanding of intelligence operations and agents is, to put it politely, derivative. If he had gone through the course he would understand that when you recruit an agent you control him and tell him what to do. The agent might not know whom exactly he is really answering to as in a false flag operation, but he cannot be unwitting.

    Morell appears to have a tendency to make promises that others will have to deliver on, but perhaps that's what delegation by senior U.S. government officials is all about. He was also not trained in CIA paramilitary operations, which perhaps should be considered when he drops comments about the desirability of "covertly" killing Russians and Iranians to make a point that they should not oppose U.S. policies in Syria, as he did in a softball interview with Charlie Rose on August 6th.

    Morell appears to be oblivious to the possibility that going around assassinating foreigners might be regarded as state sponsored terrorism and could well ignite World War 3. And, as is characteristic of chickenhawks, it is highly unlikely that he was intending that either he or his immediate family should go out and cut the throats or blow the heads off of those foreign devils who seek to derail the Pax Americana. Nor would he expect to be in the firing line when the relatives of those victims seek revenge. Someone else with the proper training would be found to do all that messy stuff and take the consequences.

    Be that as it may, Morell was a very senior officer and perhaps we should accept that he might know something that the rest of us have missed, so let's just assume that he kind of misspoke and give him a pass on the "recruited unwitting agent" expression. Instead let's look for other American political figures who just might be either deliberately or inadvertently serving the interests of a foreign government, which is presumably actually what Michael Morell meant to convey regarding Trump. To be sure a well-run McCarthy-esque ferreting out of individuals who just might be disloyal provides an excellent opportunity to undertake a purge of those who either by thought, word or deed might be guilty of unacceptable levels of coziness with foreign interests.

    So who is guilty of putting the interests of a foreign government ahead of those of the United States? I know there are advocates for any number of foreign states running around loose in Washington but the friends of Israel in government and the media come immediately to mind largely because there are so many of them, they are very much in-your-face and they are both extremely well-funded and very successful. Now deceased former Congressman Tom Lantos and Senator Frank Lautenberg were, respectively, often referred to as the congressman and senator from Israel. And there are many more: Chuck Schumer, Chuck Grassley, Ben Cardin, Bob Menendez, Tom Cotton, Mark Kirk, Nita Lowey, Ted Deutch, Brad Sherman, Ileana-Ros Lehtinen and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz to name only a few in the Congress. All are major recipients of Israel related PAC money and all are reliable defenders of Israel no matter what Benjamin Netanyahu does and no matter how it effects the United States.

    And then there are the Clintons. One only has to go back to Bill's one-sided pro-Israeli diplomacy at Camp David in 2000 to discern how the game was played. And then there was the widely condemned January 2001 last minute pardon of Mossad agent Marc Rich, whose wife Denise was a major contributor to the Clintons, to realize that there was always a deference to Israeli interests particularly when money was involved. The only problem is that the Clintons, relying on Morell's formulation, might more reasonably be described as witting agents of Israel rather than unwitting as they have certainly known what they have been doing and have been actively supporting Israeli policies even when damaging to U.S. interests since they first emerged from the primordial political swamps in Arkansas. If one were completely cynical it might be possible to suggest that they understood from the beginning that pandering to Israel and gaining access to Jewish power and money would be a major component in their rise to political prominence. It certainly has worked out that way.

    Trump's crime, per Morell, is that he is disloyal to the United States because he is not sufficiently hostile to the evil Vladimir Putin, which somehow means that he is being manipulated by the clever Russian. Trump has indeed called for a positive working relationship with Putin to accomplish, among other objectives, the crushing of ISIS. And he is otherwise in favor of leaving Bashar al-Assad of Syria alone while also being disinclined to get involved in any additional military interventions in the Middle East or elsewhere, which pretty much makes him the antithesis of the Clintonian foreign policy promoted by Morell.

    In comparison with the deeply and profoundly corrupt Clintons, Trump's alleged foreign policy perfidy makes him appear to be pretty much a boy scout. To understand the Clintons one might consider the hundreds of millions of dollars, much of it from foreign sources, that have flowed into the Clinton Foundation while Hillary was Secretary of State. And there is the clear email evidence that Hillary exploited her government position to favor both foreign and domestic financial supporters.

    The leading individual foreign donor to the Clinton Foundation between 1999 and 2014 was Ukrainian Viktor Pinchuk, who "directed between $10 and $25 million" to its Global Initiative, has let the Clintons use his private jet, attended Bill's Hollywood 65th birthday celebration and hosted daughter Chelsea and her husband on a trip to Ukraine. Pinchuk is a Jewish oligarch married to the daughter of notoriously corrupt former Ukrainian president Leonid Kuchma. He is very closely tied to Israel, a supporter of regime change in his country, who was simultaneously donating money and also lobbying in Washington while Hillary was Secretary of State and promoting a similar agenda as part of her $5 billion program to "democratize" Ukraine. Clinton arranged a dozen meetings with substantive State Department officers for Pinchuk.

    Hillary and Bill's predilection for all things Israeli and her promise to do even more in the future is a matter of public record. The Israeli newspaper Haaretz asserted that of all the political candidates in the primaries "Clinton had the longest public record of engagement with Israel, and has spent decades diligently defending the Jewish state." In a speech to AIPAC in March she promised to take the "U.S.-Israel alliance to the next level." Hillary's current principal financial supporter in her presidential run is Haim Saban, an Israeli who has described himself as a "one issue" guy and that issue is Israel.

    Hillary Clinton boasts of having "stood with Israel my entire career." Her website promises to maintain "Israel's qualitative military edge to ensure the IDF is equipped to deter and defeat aggression from the full spectrum of threats," "stand up against the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement (BDS)," and "cut off efforts to unilaterally recognize Palestinian statehood outside of the context of negotiations with Israel." In a letter to Haim Saban, Hillary declared that "we need to make countering BDS a priority," which means she is prepared to support laws limiting First Amendment rights in the U.S. in defense of perceived Israeli interests.

    As part of the Obama Administration Hillary Clinton at first supported his attempts to pressure Israel over its illegal settlements but has now backed off from that position, only rarely criticizing them as a "problem" but never advocating any steps to persuade Netanyahu to reverse his policy. Notably, she has repeatedly decried terroristic attacks on Israelis but has never acknowledged the brutality of the Israeli occupation of much of the West Bank in spite of the fact that ten Palestinians are killed for each Jewish victim of the ongoing violence.

    Clinton supported Israel's actions in the 2014 Gaza War, which killed more than 500 children, describing them as an appropriate response to a situation that was provoked by Hamas. On the campaign trail recently husband Bill disingenuously defended Hillary's position on Gaza, saying that "Hamas is really smart. When they decide to rocket Israel they insinuate themselves in the hospitals, in the schools " placing all the blame for the large number of civilian casualties on the Palestinians, not on the Israelis. When the media began to report on the plight of the civilians trapped in Gaza Hillary dismissed the impending humanitarian catastrophe, saying "They're trapped by their leadership, unfortunately."

    Earlier, as a Senator from New York, Hillary supported Israel's building of the separation barrier on Palestinian land and cheer-led a crowd at a pro-Israel rally that praised Israel's 2006 devastation of Lebanon and Gaza. She nonsensically characterized and justified the bombing campaign as "efforts to send messages to Hamas, Hezbollah, to the Syrians, to the Iranians – to all who seek death and domination instead of life and freedom " More than nine hundred civilians died in the onslaught and when a vote came up subsequently in Congress to stop the supply of cluster bombs to countries that use them on civilians Hillary voted against the bill together with 69 other pro-Israel senators.

    Hillary enjoys a particularly close relationship with Netanyahu, writing in November, "I would also invite the Israeli prime minister to the White House in my first month in office." She has worked diligently to "reaffirm the unbreakable bond with Israel – and Benjamin Netanyahu." She has boasted of her being one of the promoters of annual increases in aid to Israel while she was in the Senate and Secretary of State and takes credit for repeatedly using America's Security Council veto to defend it in the United Nations.

    So I think it is pretty clear who is the presidential candidate promoting the interests of a foreign country and it ain't Trump. Hillary would no doubt argue that Israel is a friend and Russia is not, an interesting point of view as Israel is not in fact an ally and has spied on us and copied our military technology to re-export to countries like China. Indeed, the most damaging spy in U.S. history Jonathan Pollard worked for Israel. In spite of all that Israel continues to tap our treasury for billions of dollars a year while still ignoring Washington when requests are made to moderate policies that damage American interests. Against that, what exactly has Moscow done to harm us since the Cold War ended? And who is advocating even more pressure on Russia and increasing the rewards for Israel, presumably in the completely illogical belief that to do so will somehow bring some benefit to the American people? Hillary Clinton.

    utu, August 23, 2016 at 4:29 am GMT • 100 Words

    Find the true reason why G.H. Bush was not allowed to get the 2nd term. Do you remember his attempt to reign in Yitzhak Shamir when GHB was riding high popularity wave after the Desert Storm? Do you remember anti-Bush Safire and Friedman columns in NYT week after week? Why Ross Perrot was called in? Don't you see similarity with Teddy Rosevelt's run to prevent Taft's reelection and securing Wilson's win? Do you know how Prince Bandar was coaching G.W. Bush to circumvent the enmity of neocons towards his father? Answer these questions and you will know for whom Bill Clinton worked. One more thing, Clinton did not touch Palestinian issue until last several months of his presidency. He did not make G.H. Bush's mistake.

    Miro23, August 23, 2016 at 5:45 am GMT • 100 Words

    This a straightforward factual article about the Clinton sellout to Israel. So the question may come down to the effectiveness of MSM propaganda.

    It looks very much like the US public is starting to mirror the Eastern European public under Communism by automatically disregarding government media + there's the added feature of the internet as a new kind of high-powered Samizdat, that clearly worries the Establishment.

    If the script follows through, then there's a good likelihood that the Establishment and their façade players (Clintons, Bush, Romney, McCain etc) are reaching the end of the line, since like in E.Europe, there's a background problem of economic failure and extreme élite/public inequality that can no longer be hidden.

    Philip Giraldi, August 23, 2016 at 10:32 am GMT • 100 Words

    @hbm

    hbm – the FBI concluded that someone working in the White House was MEGA but they decided that they did not necessarily have enough evidence to convince a jury. He is still around and appears in the media. As I would prefer not to get sued I will not name him but he is not a Clinton (though he worked for them as well as for the two Bushes).

    [Aug 23, 2016] Are the Clintons Israeli Agents by Philip Giraldi

    I think to the extent Israel elite interests are congruent with interests of the US neocons Clinton is pro-Israel. If they stray, she can change. The key here are interests of global corporations and neoliberal globalization. As such Israel is just a pawn in a big game.
    Notable quotes:
    "... So who is guilty of putting the interests of a foreign government ahead of those of the United States? I know there are advocates for any number of foreign states running around loose in Washington but the friends of Israel in government and the media come immediately to mind largely because there are so many of them, they are very much in-your-face and they are both extremely well-funded and very successful. Now deceased former Congressman Tom Lantos and Senator Frank Lautenberg were, respectively, often referred to as the congressman and senator from Israel. And there are many more: Chuck Schumer, Chuck Grassley, Ben Cardin, Bob Menendez, Tom Cotton, Mark Kirk, Nita Lowey, Ted Deutch, Brad Sherman, Ileana-Ros Lehtinen and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz to name only a few in the Congress. All are major recipients of Israel related PAC money and all are reliable defenders of Israel no matter what Benjamin Netanyahu does and no matter how it effects the United States. ..."
    "... And then there are the Clintons. One only has to go back to Bill's one-sided pro-Israeli diplomacy at Camp David in 2000 to discern how the game was played. And then there was the widely condemned January 2001 last minute pardon of Mossad agent Marc Rich, whose wife Denise was a major contributor to the Clintons, to realize that there was always a deference to Israeli interests particularly when money was involved ..."
    "... Trump's crime, per Morell, is that he is disloyal to the United States because he is not sufficiently hostile to the evil Vladimir Putin, which somehow means that he is being manipulated by the clever Russian. Trump has indeed called for a positive working relationship with Putin to accomplish, among other objectives, the crushing of ISIS. And he is otherwise in favor of leaving Bashar al-Assad of Syria alone while also being disinclined to get involved in any additional military interventions in the Middle East or elsewhere, which pretty much makes him the antithesis of the Clintonian foreign policy promoted by Morell. ..."
    "... The leading individual foreign donor to the Clinton Foundation between 1999 and 2014 was Ukrainian Viktor Pinchuk, who "directed between $10 and $25 million" to its Global Initiative, has let the Clintons use his private jet, attended Bill's Hollywood 65 th birthday celebration and hosted daughter Chelsea and her husband on a trip to Ukraine. Pinchuk is a Jewish oligarch married to the daughter of notoriously corrupt former Ukrainian president Leonid Kuchma. He is very closely tied to Israel, a supporter of regime change in his country, who was simultaneously donating money and also lobbying in Washington while Hillary was Secretary of State and promoting a similar agenda as part of her $5 billion program to "democratize" Ukraine. Clinton arranged a dozen meetings with substantive State Department officers for Pinchuk. ..."
    "... Clinton supported Israel's actions in the 2014 Gaza War, which killed more than 500 children, describing them as an appropriate response to a situation that was provoked by Hamas. On the campaign trail recently husband Bill disingenuously defended Hillary's position on Gaza, saying that "Hamas is really smart. When they decide to rocket Israel they insinuate themselves in the hospitals, in the schools " placing all the blame for the large number of civilian casualties on the Palestinians, not on the Israelis. When the media began to report on the plight of the civilians trapped in Gaza Hillary dismissed the impending humanitarian catastrophe, saying "They're trapped by their leadership, unfortunately." ..."
    "... Earlier, as a Senator from New York, Hillary supported Israel's building of the separation barrier on Palestinian land and cheer-led a crowd at a pro-Israel rally that praised Israel's 2006 devastation of Lebanon and Gaza. She nonsensically characterized and justified the bombing campaign as "efforts to send messages to Hamas, Hezbollah, to the Syrians, to the Iranians – to all who seek death and domination instead of life and freedom " More than nine hundred civilians died in the onslaught and when a vote came up subsequently in Congress to stop the supply of cluster bombs to countries that use them on civilians Hillary voted against the bill together with 69 other pro-Israel senators. ..."
    "... Hillary enjoys a particularly close relationship with Netanyahu, writing in November , "I would also invite the Israeli prime minister to the White House in my first month in office." She has worked diligently to "reaffirm the unbreakable bond with Israel – and Benjamin Netanyahu." She has boasted of her being one of the promoters of annual increases in aid to Israel while she was in the Senate and Secretary of State and takes credit for repeatedly using America's Security Council veto to defend it in the United Nations. ..."
    "... o you know how Prince Bandar was coaching G.W. Bush to circumvent the enmity of neocons towards his father? ..."
    "... It looks very much like the US public is starting to mirror the Eastern European public under Communism by automatically disregarding government media + there's the added feature of the internet as a new kind of high-powered Samizdat, that clearly worries the Establishment. ..."
    Aug 23, 2016 | The Unz Review
    On August 5th, Michael Morell, a former acting Director of the CIA, pilloried GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump, concluding that he was an "unwitting agent of Russia." Morell, who entitled his New York Times op-ed "I Ran the CIA and now I'm endorsing Hillary Clinton," described the process whereby Trump had been so corrupted. According to Morell, Putin, it seems, as a wily ex-career intelligence officer, is "trained to identify vulnerabilities in an individual and to exploit them. That is exactly what he did early in the primaries. Mr. Putin played upon Mr. Trump's vulnerabilities In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation."

    I have previously observed how incomprehensible the designation of "unwitting agent" used in a sentence together with "recruited" is, but perhaps I should add something more about Morell that might not be clear to the casual reader. Morell was an Agency analyst, not a spy, who spent nearly his entire career in and around Washington. The high point of his CIA experience consisted of briefing George W. Bush on the President's Daily Brief (PDB).

    Morell was not trained in the arduous CIA operational tradecraft course which agent recruiters and handlers go through. This means that his understanding of intelligence operations and agents is, to put it politely, derivative. If he had gone through the course he would understand that when you recruit an agent you control him and tell him what to do. The agent might not know whom exactly he is really answering to as in a false flag operation, but he cannot be unwitting.

    Morell appears to have a tendency to make promises that others will have to deliver on, but perhaps that's what delegation by senior U.S. government officials is all about. He was also not trained in CIA paramilitary operations, which perhaps should be considered when he drops comments about the desirability of "covertly" killing Russians and Iranians to make a point that they should not oppose U.S. policies in Syria, as he did in a softball interview with Charlie Rose on August 6th.

    Morell appears to be oblivious to the possibility that going around assassinating foreigners might be regarded as state sponsored terrorism and could well ignite World War 3. And, as is characteristic of chickenhawks, it is highly unlikely that he was intending that either he or his immediate family should go out and cut the throats or blow the heads off of those foreign devils who seek to derail the Pax Americana. Nor would he expect to be in the firing line when the relatives of those victims seek revenge. Someone else with the proper training would be found to do all that messy stuff and take the consequences.

    Be that as it may, Morell was a very senior officer and perhaps we should accept that he might know something that the rest of us have missed, so let's just assume that he kind of misspoke and give him a pass on the "recruited unwitting agent" expression. Instead let's look for other American political figures who just might be either deliberately or inadvertently serving the interests of a foreign government, which is presumably actually what Michael Morell meant to convey regarding Trump. To be sure a well-run McCarthy-esque ferreting out of individuals who just might be disloyal provides an excellent opportunity to undertake a purge of those who either by thought, word or deed might be guilty of unacceptable levels of coziness with foreign interests.

    So who is guilty of putting the interests of a foreign government ahead of those of the United States? I know there are advocates for any number of foreign states running around loose in Washington but the friends of Israel in government and the media come immediately to mind largely because there are so many of them, they are very much in-your-face and they are both extremely well-funded and very successful. Now deceased former Congressman Tom Lantos and Senator Frank Lautenberg were, respectively, often referred to as the congressman and senator from Israel. And there are many more: Chuck Schumer, Chuck Grassley, Ben Cardin, Bob Menendez, Tom Cotton, Mark Kirk, Nita Lowey, Ted Deutch, Brad Sherman, Ileana-Ros Lehtinen and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz to name only a few in the Congress. All are major recipients of Israel related PAC money and all are reliable defenders of Israel no matter what Benjamin Netanyahu does and no matter how it effects the United States.

    And then there are the Clintons. One only has to go back to Bill's one-sided pro-Israeli diplomacy at Camp David in 2000 to discern how the game was played. And then there was the widely condemned January 2001 last minute pardon of Mossad agent Marc Rich, whose wife Denise was a major contributor to the Clintons, to realize that there was always a deference to Israeli interests particularly when money was involved. The only problem is that the Clintons, relying on Morell's formulation, might more reasonably be described as witting agents of Israel rather than unwitting as they have certainly known what they have been doing and have been actively supporting Israeli policies even when damaging to U.S. interests since they first emerged from the primordial political swamps in Arkansas. If one were completely cynical it might be possible to suggest that they understood from the beginning that pandering to Israel and gaining access to Jewish power and money would be a major component in their rise to political prominence. It certainly has worked out that way.

    Trump's crime, per Morell, is that he is disloyal to the United States because he is not sufficiently hostile to the evil Vladimir Putin, which somehow means that he is being manipulated by the clever Russian. Trump has indeed called for a positive working relationship with Putin to accomplish, among other objectives, the crushing of ISIS. And he is otherwise in favor of leaving Bashar al-Assad of Syria alone while also being disinclined to get involved in any additional military interventions in the Middle East or elsewhere, which pretty much makes him the antithesis of the Clintonian foreign policy promoted by Morell.

    In comparison with the deeply and profoundly corrupt Clintons, Trump's alleged foreign policy perfidy makes him appear to be pretty much a boy scout. To understand the Clintons one might consider the hundreds of millions of dollars, much of it from foreign sources, that have flowed into the Clinton Foundation while Hillary was Secretary of State. And there is the clear email evidence that Hillary exploited her government position to favor both foreign and domestic financial supporters.

    The leading individual foreign donor to the Clinton Foundation between 1999 and 2014 was Ukrainian Viktor Pinchuk, who "directed between $10 and $25 million" to its Global Initiative, has let the Clintons use his private jet, attended Bill's Hollywood 65th birthday celebration and hosted daughter Chelsea and her husband on a trip to Ukraine. Pinchuk is a Jewish oligarch married to the daughter of notoriously corrupt former Ukrainian president Leonid Kuchma. He is very closely tied to Israel, a supporter of regime change in his country, who was simultaneously donating money and also lobbying in Washington while Hillary was Secretary of State and promoting a similar agenda as part of her $5 billion program to "democratize" Ukraine. Clinton arranged a dozen meetings with substantive State Department officers for Pinchuk.

    Hillary and Bill's predilection for all things Israeli and her promise to do even more in the future is a matter of public record. The Israeli newspaper Haaretz asserted that of all the political candidates in the primaries "Clinton had the longest public record of engagement with Israel, and has spent decades diligently defending the Jewish state." In a speech to AIPAC in March she promised to take the "U.S.-Israel alliance to the next level." Hillary's current principal financial supporter in her presidential run is Haim Saban, an Israeli who has described himself as a "one issue" guy and that issue is Israel.

    Hillary Clinton boasts of having "stood with Israel my entire career." Her website promises to maintain "Israel's qualitative military edge to ensure the IDF is equipped to deter and defeat aggression from the full spectrum of threats," "stand up against the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement (BDS)," and "cut off efforts to unilaterally recognize Palestinian statehood outside of the context of negotiations with Israel." In a letter to Haim Saban, Hillary declared that "we need to make countering BDS a priority," which means she is prepared to support laws limiting First Amendment rights in the U.S. in defense of perceived Israeli interests.

    As part of the Obama Administration Hillary Clinton at first supported his attempts to pressure Israel over its illegal settlements but has now backed off from that position, only rarely criticizing them as a "problem" but never advocating any steps to persuade Netanyahu to reverse his policy. Notably, she has repeatedly decried terroristic attacks on Israelis but has never acknowledged the brutality of the Israeli occupation of much of the West Bank in spite of the fact that ten Palestinians are killed for each Jewish victim of the ongoing violence.

    Clinton supported Israel's actions in the 2014 Gaza War, which killed more than 500 children, describing them as an appropriate response to a situation that was provoked by Hamas. On the campaign trail recently husband Bill disingenuously defended Hillary's position on Gaza, saying that "Hamas is really smart. When they decide to rocket Israel they insinuate themselves in the hospitals, in the schools " placing all the blame for the large number of civilian casualties on the Palestinians, not on the Israelis. When the media began to report on the plight of the civilians trapped in Gaza Hillary dismissed the impending humanitarian catastrophe, saying "They're trapped by their leadership, unfortunately."

    Earlier, as a Senator from New York, Hillary supported Israel's building of the separation barrier on Palestinian land and cheer-led a crowd at a pro-Israel rally that praised Israel's 2006 devastation of Lebanon and Gaza. She nonsensically characterized and justified the bombing campaign as "efforts to send messages to Hamas, Hezbollah, to the Syrians, to the Iranians – to all who seek death and domination instead of life and freedom " More than nine hundred civilians died in the onslaught and when a vote came up subsequently in Congress to stop the supply of cluster bombs to countries that use them on civilians Hillary voted against the bill together with 69 other pro-Israel senators.

    Hillary enjoys a particularly close relationship with Netanyahu, writing in November, "I would also invite the Israeli prime minister to the White House in my first month in office." She has worked diligently to "reaffirm the unbreakable bond with Israel – and Benjamin Netanyahu." She has boasted of her being one of the promoters of annual increases in aid to Israel while she was in the Senate and Secretary of State and takes credit for repeatedly using America's Security Council veto to defend it in the United Nations.

    So I think it is pretty clear who is the presidential candidate promoting the interests of a foreign country and it ain't Trump. Hillary would no doubt argue that Israel is a friend and Russia is not, an interesting point of view as Israel is not in fact an ally and has spied on us and copied our military technology to re-export to countries like China. Indeed, the most damaging spy in U.S. history Jonathan Pollard worked for Israel. In spite of all that Israel continues to tap our treasury for billions of dollars a year while still ignoring Washington when requests are made to moderate policies that damage American interests. Against that, what exactly has Moscow done to harm us since the Cold War ended? And who is advocating even more pressure on Russia and increasing the rewards for Israel, presumably in the completely illogical belief that to do so will somehow bring some benefit to the American people? Hillary Clinton.

    utu, August 23, 2016 at 4:29 am GMT • 100 Words

    Find the true reason why G.H. Bush was not allowed to get the 2nd term. Do you remember his attempt to reign in Yitzhak Shamir when GHB was riding high popularity wave after the Desert Storm? Do you remember anti-Bush Safire and Friedman columns in NYT week after week? Why Ross Perrot was called in? Don't you see similarity with Teddy Rosevelt's run to prevent Taft's reelection and securing Wilson's win? Do you know how Prince Bandar was coaching G.W. Bush to circumvent the enmity of neocons towards his father? Answer these questions and you will know for whom Bill Clinton worked. One more thing, Clinton did not touch Palestinian issue until last several months of his presidency. He did not make G.H. Bush's mistake.

    Miro23, August 23, 2016 at 5:45 am GMT • 100 Words

    This a straightforward factual article about the Clinton sellout to Israel. So the question may come down to the effectiveness of MSM propaganda.

    It looks very much like the US public is starting to mirror the Eastern European public under Communism by automatically disregarding government media + there's the added feature of the internet as a new kind of high-powered Samizdat, that clearly worries the Establishment.

    If the script follows through, then there's a good likelihood that the Establishment and their façade players (Clintons, Bush, Romney, McCain etc) are reaching the end of the line, since like in E.Europe, there's a background problem of economic failure and extreme élite/public inequality that can no longer be hidden.

    Philip Giraldi, August 23, 2016 at 10:32 am GMT • 100 Words

    @hbm

    hbm – the FBI concluded that someone working in the White House was MEGA but they decided that they did not necessarily have enough evidence to convince a jury. He is still around and appears in the media. As I would prefer not to get sued I will not name him but he is not a Clinton (though he worked for them as well as for the two Bushes).

    [Aug 23, 2016] Three of the top four nonfiction hardcover best sellers in the New York Times Book Review on Sunday were anti-Hillary Clinton screeds

    Notable quotes:
    "... Yet after all this, Trump remains around 40% in the polls or better - and only about five points behind Hillary Clinton" [Brent Arends, MarketWatch ]. "n other words, in presidential election terms, it's still either party's race. ..."
    "... Most elections see swings of several points between August and early November. Some see even bigger ones - at this point in 1988 Vice President George H.W. Bush looked like a no-hoper against Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis. Bush went on to win by seven points. ..."
    "... "Three of the top four nonfiction hardcover best sellers in the New York Times Book Review on Sunday were anti-Hillary Clinton screeds ('Hillary's America' by Dinesh D'Souza, 'Crisis of Character' by Gary Byrne, and 'Armageddon' by Dick Morris), and the fourth, 'Liars' by Glenn Beck, was a more general assault on the liberal agenda that certainly has no kind words for Clinton" [ MarketWatch ]. And they say people don't read books any more… ..."
    "... Joyce was still keeping her vote a secret, but she thought she knew why people were so angry. 'I think it's more that we don't trust politicians, period,' she said. 'We've gotten to a point in the United States where they're all liars or they're all cheaters or they've all done something wrong and we're gonna blow that up. And so we don't trust any of them.' The other women were nodding. 'And I think," Joyce said, 'that's where Trump's power came from." Joyce is a volatility voter, then. ..."
    "... Clinton and "welfare reform": "Having abandoned the maternalists' sentimental defense of motherhood as a sacred calling, most second-wave feminists had no terms in which to mount a convincing justification for income support to poor mothers. ..."
    "... Hillary's support for the bill reveals the deep fault lines of class and race that fractured the second-wave feminist movement, as white middle-class women purchased their independence from domestic labor by shifting the burden to working-class women of color " [ N+1 ]. Remember Nannygate ? There you have it. ..."
    Aug 23, 2016 | nakedcapitalism.com
    The Voters

    "Yet after all this, Trump remains around 40% in the polls or better - and only about five points behind Hillary Clinton" [Brent Arends, MarketWatch ]. "n other words, in presidential election terms, it's still either party's race.

    Most elections see swings of several points between August and early November. Some see even bigger ones - at this point in 1988 Vice President George H.W. Bush looked like a no-hoper against Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis. Bush went on to win by seven points.

    There is no reason to think this election will be less volatile than the norm…. Right now the bookmakers give Trump about a 25% chance of winning. That's high enough to be alarming. But what's worse: If I had to take a wager at these levels, I'd take the over rather than the under. This race, terrifyingly, is still open."

    "That remarkable fact underscores how virtually unchallenged Clinton has been on the advertising airwaves, as Democratic and Republican strategists alike say she has gone deeper into the election calendar than any non-incumbent president they can remember in the modern era without sustained, paid opposition on television" [ Politico ]. So, if election 2016 were a WWF match, the [good|bad] guy would be fighting with one hand behind his back, and getting pounded, for sure, but….

    "Three of the top four nonfiction hardcover best sellers in the New York Times Book Review on Sunday were anti-Hillary Clinton screeds ('Hillary's America' by Dinesh D'Souza, 'Crisis of Character' by Gary Byrne, and 'Armageddon' by Dick Morris), and the fourth, 'Liars' by Glenn Beck, was a more general assault on the liberal agenda that certainly has no kind words for Clinton" [ MarketWatch ]. And they say people don't read books any more…

    "Our research suggests yet another reason not to overreact to news stories about the newest poll: Media outlets tend to cover the surveys with the most "newsworthy" results, which can distort the picture of where the race stands" [ WaPo ]. Look! Over there! Another fluctuation well inside the margin of error!

    UPDATE "Despite frequent claims of the 'women's vote' working in Democrats' favor, much depends on which women. Individually, these women's views vary widely, just as the county they live in. Lake County [Ohio] has been nearly evenly split between Democrats and Republicans. Collectively, they make up a demographic that has reliably voted, and reliably voted Republican, in nearly every election since 1972: Married women, especially white married women" [ NBC ]. Joyce was still keeping her vote a secret, but she thought she knew why people were so angry. 'I think it's more that we don't trust politicians, period,' she said. 'We've gotten to a point in the United States where they're all liars or they're all cheaters or they've all done something wrong and we're gonna blow that up. And so we don't trust any of them.' The other women were nodding. 'And I think," Joyce said, 'that's where Trump's power came from." Joyce is a volatility voter, then.

    UPDATE Re: Clinton and "welfare reform": "Having abandoned the maternalists' sentimental defense of motherhood as a sacred calling, most second-wave feminists had no terms in which to mount a convincing justification for income support to poor mothers. Other women were working; why shouldn't they work too? But for middle-class women, work meant public recognition, self-determination, the right to be seen as autonomous individuals and to participate in civic life. For welfare mothers, especially black women, who made up two-thirds of all domestic workers by 1960, it meant watching other women's children, preparing their food, and scrubbing their floors, services that professional women increasingly relied on as they entered the workforce in greater numbers. The version of welfare reform Bill Clinton envisioned was much more generous than the bill eventually passed by the Republican Congress in 1996. It would have included child-care and job-placement programs - but it would still have required welfare recipients to work. Hillary's support for the bill reveals the deep fault lines of class and race that fractured the second-wave feminist movement, as white middle-class women purchased their independence from domestic labor by shifting the burden to working-class women of color " [ N+1 ]. Remember Nannygate ? There you have it.

    [Aug 23, 2016] WikiLeaks Emails From Hillary's Server Expose Criminal Clinton Foundation

    sputniknews.com

    Assange also pointed to Hillary Clinton's relations with Saudi Arabia that have led to great angst among Israel, a country that now worries where her allegiances fall in the region. "[Her connection to Saudi Arabia] is extensive. The relations between Hillary and Saudi Arabia. The Clinton Foundation and Saudi Arabia," opined Assange. "Saudi Arabia is probably the single largest donor to the Clinton Foundation. You can see Hillary's arms export policies where she was Secretary of State favoring Saudi Arabia extensively."

    The whistleblower also blasted Clinton for her allegations that Trump is a secret Russian agent saying that "there is a much deeper connection between Hillary Clinton and Russia on record than there is with Donald Trump." Assange pointed to the fact that her top strategic consultant John Podesta sits on the board of a Russian connected fund and her pay-to-play activities with Moscow businessmen who would make donations to the Clinton Foundation and then miraculously receive State Department clearance to undertake business in the US.

    Perhaps his most damning statements were Clinton's financial links to radical Jihadist groups in the Middle East and the State Department's policy of using Libya as conduit to get arms to Syria.

    "The US government, at the time that Hillary Clinton was in charge of US foreign policy, did use Libya as a conduit to get arms to Jihadists in Syria," said Assange. "That is well established not just by a range of our materials, but also by the investigative work of Sy Hersh."

    Assange also called into question links between Hillary Clinton's former employer LaFarge, a cement company that the presidential candidate served on the board of directors for, which is now under investigation for contracting with the Daesh (known colloquially as ISIS) terror network in Syria.

    "La Monde found that [LaFarge] paid ISIS/Daesh money, taxes if you will, for their operations in certain areas and they engaged in a variety of business deals," said Assange. "Hillary Clinton's involvement is that money from LaFarge in 2015 and 2016 went to the Clinton Foundation. Why did it go to that foundation? There is a long-time connection between Hillary Clinton and La Farge because she used to be on the board."

    [Aug 23, 2016] If Trump is Russias Candidate, Does That Make Clinton the Saudis Pick

    ​The idea that Hillary Clinton can be viewed as Saudi candidate is not as crazy as it looks. She feels the smell of money and that's the most important thing in life for her.
    Notable quotes:
    "... The [neoliberal] media has had a field day commenting on Donald Trump's words about cooperation with Russia against ISIS, labeling him a 'Kremlin agent' and a danger to the Western security order. But what about Hillary Clinton and her foundation's ties to the Saudis? If Trump is 'Moscow's man', does that make Clinton the candidate of Middle Eastern sheikdoms? ..."
    "... The media have accused Moscow of every sin imaginable, from meddling in America's elections, to using Trump advisor Paul Manafort, who was called 'the Kremlin's man in Ukraine', to outright calling Trump himself a 'Russian agent' . ..."
    "... Former NATO chief Anders Rasmussen joined the party bashing Trump recently, slamming him for having "his own views on the Ukrainian conflict," and adding that to top it all off, "he praises President Putin!" ..."
    "... The Times' piece reported on the fact that the Clinton Foundation has accepted tens of millions of dollars from countries that the US State Department has repeatedly criticized for human rights abuses and discrimination against women. The offending countries purportedly include Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait, Oman, and Brunei, along with Algeria. Riyadh, the paper noted, was "a particularly generous benefactor," giving between $10 and $25 million to the Clinton Foundation, with at least another $1 million donated by the 'Friends of Saudi Arabia' organization. ..."
    "... the plot thickens. On Sunday, conservative US and British media revealed that Huma Abedin, a longtime friend and top aid to Clinton, had worked as an assistant editor for a radical Islamic Saudi journal for over a decade. The publication, called the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, featured everything from pieces opposed to women's rights, to articles blaming the US for the September 11 terror attacks. ..."
    "... Abedin has long been accused by independent media in the US and elsewhere of having connections with Islamic organizations, including the Muslim Brotherhood, charges which have long been labeled as nothing more than a conspiracy theory. ..."
    sputniknews.com

    The [neoliberal] media has had a field day commenting on Donald Trump's words about cooperation with Russia against ISIS, labeling him a 'Kremlin agent' and a danger to the Western security order. But what about Hillary Clinton and her foundation's ties to the Saudis? If Trump is 'Moscow's man', does that make Clinton the candidate of Middle Eastern sheikdoms?

    The US media has been relentless in its efforts to sink Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump's campaign, in part due to the candidate's string of friendly remarks and gestures toward Russia and President Vladimir Putin. The media have accused Moscow of every sin imaginable, from meddling in America's elections, to using Trump advisor Paul Manafort, who was called 'the Kremlin's man in Ukraine', to outright calling Trump himself a 'Russian agent'.

    Former NATO chief Anders Rasmussen joined the party bashing Trump recently, slamming him for having "his own views on the Ukrainian conflict," and adding that to top it all off, "he praises President Putin!"

    Admittedly, Mr. Trump does seem very open to the idea of negotiating with Russia, and even partnering with Moscow to tackle some of the greatest challenges facing the world today, including radical Islamist terrorism. In that sense, he may really be the most 'Russia friendly' presidential candidate the US has seen since 1945, not counting the early 1990s, when Washington's friendly overtures toward Russia were based on the condition that Moscow does everything US officials tell it to.

    Does that make him a puppet to the Russians, the Kremlin and to Vladimir Putin personally? Not likely. Despite all the media investigations and even more accusations, no substantiated evidence has been presented demonstrating that Trump has any significant business or personal interests in Russia which would create a conflict of interest. The businessman held a Miss Universe Pageant in Moscow a few years ago, and tried, unsuccessfully, to build a Trump tower in the Russian capital. But he also has assets around the world, in Scotland, Dubai, and in over a dozen other countries. Does that make him the agent of these countries, too?

    Amid the endless suspicions surrounding 'Kremlin Agent Trump', a story in the New York Times unassumingly titled 'Foundation Ties Bedevil Hillary Clinton's Presidential Campaign' almost slipped through the cracks, before blowing up on national television.

    The Times' piece reported on the fact that the Clinton Foundation has accepted tens of millions of dollars from countries that the US State Department has repeatedly criticized for human rights abuses and discrimination against women. The offending countries purportedly include Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait, Oman, and Brunei, along with Algeria. Riyadh, the paper noted, was "a particularly generous benefactor," giving between $10 and $25 million to the Clinton Foundation, with at least another $1 million donated by the 'Friends of Saudi Arabia' organization.

    The scandal didn't end there. Speaking to CNN reporter Dana Bash, Clinton Campaign manager Robby Mook could not coherently explain why the Clintons weren't willing to stop accepting donations from foreign 'investors' unless Clinton became president of the United States. Instead, Mook tried to divert the question to Donald Trump, saying the candidate has never revealed his financials, and adding that Mrs. Clinton had taken "unprecedented" steps to being "transparent."

    And the plot thickens. On Sunday, conservative US and British media revealed that Huma Abedin, a longtime friend and top aid to Clinton, had worked as an assistant editor for a radical Islamic Saudi journal for over a decade. The publication, called the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, featured everything from pieces opposed to women's rights, to articles blaming the US for the September 11 terror attacks.

    In one article in January 1996, Abedin's own mother wrote a piece for the journal, where she complained that Clinton, who was First Lady at the time, was advancing a "very aggressive and radically feminist" agenda which was un-Islamic and dangerous for empowering women.

    Abedin has long been accused by independent media in the US and elsewhere of having connections with Islamic organizations, including the Muslim Brotherhood, charges which have long been labeled as nothing more than a conspiracy theory. But Sunday's story seems to have ruffled a few feathers in some high places, with a Clinton campaign spokesperson explaining (rather unconvincingly) to the New York Post that Abedin played no formal role in the radical journal. "My understanding is that her name was simply listed on the masthead in that periodical," the spokesman said.

    These two stories, the first offering new details including dollar estimates about the money received by the Clinton Foundation from the Saudis, and the second shedding light on her top advisor's apparent ties to a Saudi journal propagating Islamist ideas, should lead the media to look for answers to some very troubling questions. These should be the same kinds of questions asked earlier this summer, when a formerly classified 28 page chapter of the 9/11 Commission Report was finally released, revealing that Saudi officials had supported the hijackers who carried out the terrorist attacks against the United States in 2001.

    ... ... ...

    [Aug 23, 2016] DOUBLE STANDARD: Khizr Khan Receives 50x More Coverage Than Pat Smith on ABC, CBS, NBC by Geoffrey Dickens

    Aug 01, 2016 |

    Two weeks ago at the Republican National Convention (RNC) a grieving mother blasted Hillary Clinton for the debacle of the 2012 Benghazi attack. Last Thursday, at the Democratic National Convention (DNC), grieving parents gave a speech criticizing Donald Trump for his statements against Muslims.

    While all the grieving parents deserve sympathy, the Big Three (ABC, CBS, NBC) network evening and morning shows seemed to only care about the parents that showed up at the Democratic Convention. Khizr Khan and his wife Ghazla's DNC appearance earned 55 minutes, 13 seconds of Big Three network coverage, nearly 50 times more than Pat Smith, whose RNC speech honoring her son earned just 70 seconds of airtime.

    • In the days (July 19 to August 1) that followed Smith's indictment of Clinton from the RNC podium, CBS (3 seconds) ABC (13 seconds) and NBC (54 seconds) gave her speech a total of just 70 seconds of coverage.
    • In the four days (July 29 to August 1) following Khizr Khan and his wife Ghazala's speech NBC (31 minutes, 39 seconds), offered the most amount of time followed by ABC (14 minutes, 21 seconds) and then CBS (9 minutes, 13 seconds).

    This is a textbook case of bias-by-agenda: One of these stories (the Khan story) matched the Democratic agenda, and the partisan media couldn't push it hard enough. The other (the Smith story) reflected poorly on the Democratic nominee, so it was barely mentioned.

    ... ... ...

    While Smith's emotional pleas were downplayed by the networks, Khan's speech and subsequent back and forth with Trump were played up. On the July 29 edition of CBS This Morning co-anchor Norah O'Donnell noted "One of the most powerful convention moments last night came from the father of a Muslim-American soldier who was killed in Iraq in 2004. Khizir Khan criticized Donald Trump for singling out Muslims during the campaign." Her CBS colleague Gayle King added: "That appearance by the Khans is being described as one of the most powerful of the night. People were moved to tears by the two of them standing there."

    On the August 1Today show, substitute host Tamron Hall reported "Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump campaigns in the battleground states of Ohio and Pennsylvania today, but controversy will follow him after his remarks about the parents of a Muslim-American soldier killed in Iraq." Her colleague Andrea Mitchell added "Hillary Clinton is calling on Republicans to abandon Donald Trump, and in her words, 'put country before party' because of his controversial comments about Captain Khan and his family."

    Earlier in the show, co-anchor Savannah Guthrie interviewed the Khans. But so far Pat Smith, shamefully, has yet to be extended the same courtesy on any of the Big Three evening or morning shows.

    [Aug 22, 2016] A Hard Look at the War Criminals, Um, Hawks Who Say Never Trump

    Notable quotes:
    "... Let's start with the last bit: "the leader of the free world." That's what journalists used to call the U.S. president, and occasionally the country as a whole, during the Cold War. Between the end of World War II and the collapse of the Soviet Union, the "free world" included all the English-speaking countries outside Africa, along with western Europe, North America, some South American dictatorships, and nations like the Philippines that had a neocolonial relationship with the United States. ..."
    "... I have absolutely no doubt that he and his eastern European countrymen were far from free. I do wonder, however, how free his counterparts in the American-backed Brazilian, Argentinian, Chilean, and Philippine dictatorships felt. ..."
    "... Some countries in the Third World refused to be pawns in the superpower game, and created a non-aligned movement , which sought to thread a way between the Scylla and Charybdis of the U.S. and the Soviet Union. ..."
    "... Among its founders were some of the great Third World nationalists: Sukarno of Indonesia, Jawaharlal Nehru of India, Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana, and Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt, along with Yugoslavia's President Josip Broz Tito. ..."
    Aug 22, 2016 | naked capitalism
    Posted on August 22, 2016 by Yves Smith Yves here. This article by Rebecca Gordon does a fine job of calling out the recklessness and disregard for the law of a group of foreign policy "experts" who signed a letter calling Trump unfit for office. But it's disconcerting to see Rebecca Gordon document how these individuals have engaged in the same sort of unacceptable behavior that they Trump would undertake, and then argue that Trump is obviously dangerous, and by implication, Clinton is not. Clinton is fully on board with the policies that these experts represent, so how exactly is she better? Gordon needs to make a case, not just assert superiority in the face of facts she presents that indicate otherwise. Gordon tries arguing for Manafort as proof that Trump is tainted. But Manafort was a recent hire and has just been dispatched, while long-term Clinton key player John Podesta's firm also appears to have advised pro-Russia parties in Ukraine .

    By Rebecca Gordon, who teaches in the philosophy department at the University of San Francisco. She is the author of American Nuremberg: The U.S. Officials Who Should Stand Trial for Post-9/11 War Crimes (Hot Books). Her previous books include Mainstreaming Torture: Ethical Approaches in the Post-9/11 United States and Letters from Nicaragua . Originally published at TomDispatch

    It's not every day that Republicans publish an open letter announcing that their presidential candidate is unfit for office. But lately this sort of thing has been happening more and more frequently . The most recent example: we just heard from 50 representatives of the national security apparatus, men - and a few women - who served under Republican presidents from Ronald Reagan to George W. Bush. All of them are very worried about Donald Trump.

    They think we should be alerted to the fact that the Republican standard-bearer "lacks the character, values, and experience to be president."

    That's true of course, but it's also pretty rich, coming from this bunch. The letter's signers include, among others, the man who was Condoleezza Rice's legal advisor when she ran the National Security Council (John Bellinger III); one of George W. Bush's CIA directors who also ran the National Security Agency (Michael Hayden); a Bush administration ambassador to the United Nations and Iraq (John Negroponte); an architect of the neoconservative policy in the Middle East adopted by the Bush administration that led to the invasion of Iraq, who has since served as president of the World Bank (Robert Zoellick). In short, given the history of the "global war on terror," this is your basic list of potential American war criminals.

    Their letter continues, "He weakens U.S. moral authority as the leader of the free world."

    There's a sentence that could use some unpacking.

    What Is The "Free World"?

    Let's start with the last bit: "the leader of the free world." That's what journalists used to call the U.S. president, and occasionally the country as a whole, during the Cold War. Between the end of World War II and the collapse of the Soviet Union, the "free world" included all the English-speaking countries outside Africa, along with western Europe, North America, some South American dictatorships, and nations like the Philippines that had a neocolonial relationship with the United States.

    The U.S.S.R. led what, by this logic, was the un-free world, including the Warsaw Pact countries in eastern Europe, the "captive" Baltic nations of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia, the People's Republic of China (for part of the period), North Korea, and of course Cuba. Americans who grew up in these years knew that the people living behind the " Iron Curtain " were not free. We'd seen the bus ads and public service announcements on television requesting donations for Radio Free Europe , sometimes illustrated with footage of a pale adolescent man, his head crowned with chains.

    I have absolutely no doubt that he and his eastern European countrymen were far from free. I do wonder, however, how free his counterparts in the American-backed Brazilian, Argentinian, Chilean, and Philippine dictatorships felt.

    The two great adversaries, together with the countries in their spheres of influence, were often called the First and Second Worlds. Their rulers treated the rest of the planet - the Third World - as a chessboard across which they moved their proxy armies and onto which they sometimes targeted their missiles. Some countries in the Third World refused to be pawns in the superpower game, and created a non-aligned movement , which sought to thread a way between the Scylla and Charybdis of the U.S. and the Soviet Union.

    Among its founders were some of the great Third World nationalists: Sukarno of Indonesia, Jawaharlal Nehru of India, Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana, and Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt, along with Yugoslavia's President Josip Broz Tito.

    Other countries weren't so lucky. When the United States took over from France the (unsuccessful) project of defeating Vietnam's anti-colonial struggle, people in the U.S. were assured that the war that followed with its massive bombing, napalming, and Agent-Oranging of a peasant society represented the advance of freedom against the forces of communist enslavement. Central America also served as a Cold War battlefield, with Washington fighting proxy wars during the 1980s in Guatemala, El Salvador, and Nicaragua, where poor campesinos had insisted on being treated as human beings and were often brutally murdered for their trouble. In addition, the U.S. funded, trained, and armed a military dictatorship in Honduras, where John Negroponte - one of the anti-Trump letter signers - was the U.S. ambassador from 1981 to 1985.

    The Soviet Union is, of course, long gone, but the "free world," it seems, remains, and so American officials still sometimes refer to us as its leader - an expression that only makes sense, of course, in the context of dual (and dueling) worlds. On a post-Soviet planet, however, it's hard to know just what national or geographic configuration constitutes today's "un-free world." Is it (as Donald Trump might have it) everyone living under Arab or Muslim rule? Or could it be that amorphous phenomenon we call "terrorism" or "Islamic terrorism" that can sometimes reach into the "free world" and slaughter innocents as in San Bernardino , California, Orlando , Florida, or Nice , France? Or could it be the old Soviet Union reincarnated in Vladimir Putin's Russia or even a rising capitalist China still controlled by a Communist Party?

    Faced with the loss of a primary antagonist and the confusion on our planet, George W. Bush was forced to downsize the perennial enemy of freedom from Reagan's old " evil empire " (the Soviet Union) to three "rogue states," Iraq, Iran, and North Korea, which in an address to Congress he so memorably labeled the " axis of evil ." The first of these lies in near ruins; the second we've recently signed a nuclear treaty with; and the third seems incapable of even feeding its own population. Fortunately for the free world, the Bush administration also had some second-string enemies to draw on. In 2002, John Bolton, then an undersecretary of state (and later ambassador to the U.N.), added another group "beyond the axis of evil" - Libya, Syria, and Cuba. Of the three, only Cuba is still a functioning nation.

    And by the way, the 50 Republican national security stars who denounced Donald Trump in Cold War terms turn out to be in remarkably good company - that of Donald Trump himself (who recently gave a speech invoking American Cold War practices as the basis for his future foreign policy).

    "He Weakens U.S. Moral Authority "

    After its twenty-first century wars , its " black sites ," and Guantánamo , among other developments of the age, it's hard to imagine a much weaker "moral authority" than what's presently left to the United States. First, we gave the world eight years of George W. Bush's illegal invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as CIA torture sites, "enhanced interrogation techniques," and a program of quite illegal global kidnappings of terror suspects ( some of whom proved innocent of anything). Under President Obama, it seems we've traded enhanced interrogation techniques for an "enhanced" use of assassination by drone (again outside any "law" of war, other than the legal documents that the Justice Department has produced to justify such acts).

    When Barack Obama took office in January 2009 his first executive order outlawed the CIA's torture program and closed those black sites. It then looked as if the country's moral fiber might be stiffening. But when it came to holding the torturers accountable, Obama insisted that the country should "look forward as opposed to looking backwards" and the Justice Department declined to prosecute any of them. It's hard for a country to maintain its moral authority in the world when it refuses to exert that authority at home.

    Two of the letter signers who are so concerned about Trump's effect on U.S. moral authority themselves played special roles in "weakening" U.S. moral authority through their involvement with the CIA torture program: John Bellinger III and Michael Hayden.

    June 26th is the U.N.'s International Day in Support of Victims of Torture. To mark that day in 2003, President Bush issued a statement declaring, "Torture anywhere is an affront to human dignity everywhere. The United States is committed to the world-wide elimination of torture, and we are leading this fight by example."

    The Washington Post story on the president's speech also carried a quote from Deputy White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan to the effect that all prisoners being held by the U.S. government were being treated "humanely." John Rizzo, who was then the CIA's deputy general counsel, called John Bellinger, Condoleezza Rice's legal counsel at the National Security Council, to express his concern about what both the president and McClellan had said.

    The problem was that - as Rizzo and his boss, CIA director George Tenet, well knew - many detainees then held by the CIA were not being treated humanely. They were being tortured or mistreated in various ways. The CIA wanted to be sure that they still had White House backing and approval for their "enhanced interrogation" program, because they didn't want to be left holding the bag if the truth came out. They also wanted the White House to stop talking about the humane treatment of prisoners.

    According to an internal CIA memo , George Tenet convened a July 29, 2003, meeting in Condoleezza Rice's office to get the necessary reassurance that the CIA would be covered if the truth about torture came out. There, Bellinger reportedly apologized on behalf of the administration, explaining that the White House press secretary had "gone off script," mistakenly reverting to "old talking points." He also "undertook to [e]nsure that the White House press office ceases to make statements on the subject other than [to say] that the U.S. is complying with its obligations under U.S. law."

    At that same meeting, Tenet's chief counsel, Scott Muller, passed out packets of printed PowerPoint slides detailing those enhanced interrogation techniques, including waterboarding, so that Bellinger and the others present, including Rice, would understand exactly what he was covering up.

    So much for the "moral authority" of John Bellinger III.

    As for Michael Hayden (who has held several offices in the national security apparatus), one of his signature acts as CIA Director was to approve in 2005 the destruction of videotapes of the agency's waterboarding sessions. In a letter to CIA employees, he wrote that the tapes were destroyed "only after it was determined they were no longer of intelligence value and not relevant to any internal, legislative, or judicial inquiries."

    Of course destroying those tapes also meant that they'd never be available for any future legislative or judicial inquiry. The letter continued,

    "Beyond their lack of intelligence value the tapes posed a serious security risk. Were they ever to leak, they would permit identification of your CIA colleagues who had served in the program, exposing them and their families to retaliation from al-Qaeda and its sympathizers."

    One has to wonder whether Hayden was more concerned with his CIA colleagues' "security" from al-Qaeda or from prosecution. In any case, he deprived the public - and any hypothetical future prosecutor - of crucial evidence of wrongdoing.

    Hayden also perpetuated the lie that the Agency's first waterboarding victim, Abu Zubaydah - waterboarded a staggering 83 times - was a crucial al-Qaeda operative and had provided a quarter of all the information that the CIA gathered from human subjects about al-Qaeda. He was, in fact, never a member of al-Qaeda at all. In the 1980s, he ran a training camp in Afghanistan for the mujahedin , the force the U.S. supported against the Soviet occupation of that country; he was, that is, one of Ronald Reagan's " freedom fighters ."

    Bellinger later chimed in, keeping the Abu Zubaydah lie alive by arguing in 2007 on behalf of his boss Condoleezza Rice that Guantánamo should remain open. That prison, he said, "serves a very important purpose, to hold and detain individuals who are extremely dangerous [like] Abu Zubaydah, people who have been planners of 9/11."

    "He Appears to Lack Basic Knowledge About and Belief in the U.S. Constitution, U.S. Laws, and U.S. Institutions "

    That's the next line of the open letter, and it's certainly a fair assessment of Donald Trump. But it's more than a little ironic that it was signed by Michael Hayden who, in addition to supporting CIA's torture project, oversaw the National Security Agency's post-9/11 secret surveillance program. Under that program , the government recorded the phone, text, and Internet communications of an unknown number of people inside and outside of the United States - all without warrants .

    Perhaps Hayden believes in the Constitution, but at best it's a selective belief. There's that pesky 4th Amendment, for example, which guarantees that

    "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

    Nor does Hayden appear to believe in U.S. laws and institutions, at least when it comes to the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which established the secret courts that are supposed to issue exactly the sort of warrant Hayden's program never requested.

    John Negroponte is another of the signers who has a history of skirting U.S. laws and the congress that passes them. While ambassador to Honduras, he helped develop a murderous " contra" army, which the United States armed and trained to overthrow the government of neighboring Nicaragua. During those years, however, aid to the contras was actually illegal under U.S. law. It was explicitly prohibited under the so-called Boland Amendments to various appropriations bills, but no matter. "National security" was at stake.

    Speaking of the Constitution, it's instructive to take a look at Article 6, which states in part that "all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land." Such treaties include, for example, the 1928 Kellogg-Briand non-aggression pact (whose violation was the first charge brought against the Nazi officials tried at Nuremberg ) and Article 51 of the U.N. charter, which permits military action only "if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations."

    In 1998, Robert Zoellick, another of those 50 Republicans openly denouncing Trump, signed a different letter , which advocated abrogating those treaties. As an associate of the Project for a New American Century , he was among those who urged then-President Bill Clinton to direct "a full complement of diplomatic, political, and military efforts" to "remove Saddam Hussein from power." This was to be just the first step in a larger campaign to create a Pax Americana in the Middle East. The letter specifically urged Clinton not to worry about getting a Security Council resolution, arguing that "American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council."

    ... ... ...

    relstprof , August 22, 2016 at 2:02 am

    At least give us some lesser evilism, Prof. Gordon. No? But really, Clinton's endorsement of Kissinger and the lack of political and MSM response to that endorsement is perhaps the most shocking thing. My introduction to Kissinger's crimes was via Hitchens, who then promptly backed the Bush regime's interventionism. I shouldn't be surprised anymore at establishment Three-Card Monte.

    Next homework assignment for Gordon: Hillary on Kissinger. What it means, why it matters.

    Better yet: we should get John Oliver on it.

    clarky90 , August 22, 2016 at 2:24 am

    (1) The Republican Party is ALSO the Party of the Great Redeemer, Abraham Lincoln.

    (2) Word(s) are not Things, they are change, change, changing signifiers of nothing.

    (3) The divide (spectrum) is NOT, left to right! The Neo-Bolsheviks (cons/libs) have used money and influence to appropriate (own) BOTH the "Left" and the "Right". They own (as in bought and sold "own") the discussion.

    (4) The true spectrum is up and down. The 99% vs the 1%.

    (5) 1%ers, aspiring 1%ers, the service staff of the 1% (managers etc) should definitely vote for Hillary Clinton. She is the candidate (voice for) The Unique.

    (6) Donald Trump is seeking to be a voice for the 99%. IMO, this make him The Progressive.(The Walt Whitman Progressive) People who see themselves as members of the Masses, The People, The Crowd, The Gaia, The 99%, EveryMan/EveryWoman/EveryGender

    (7) Trump does not look or sound the way most of us imagine, The Redeemer should look. (Obama was a perfectly looking redeemer, IMO, except, he was a false messiah ). IMO, Trump is the Redeemer, the real McCoy .

    (8) " Inattentional blindness, also known as perceptual blindness , is a psychological lack of attention that is not associated with any vision defects or deficits. It may be further defined as the event in which an individual fails to recognize an unexpected stimulus that is in plain sight. When it simply becomes impossible for one to attend to all the stimuli in a given situation, a temporary blindness effect can take place as a result; that is, individuals fail to see objects or stimuli that are unexpected and quite often salient."
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inattentional_blindness

    Trump is right in front of us. Stop listening to all the bullshit and open your eyes and ears to what is going on. (IMO, of course!)

    digi_owl , August 22, 2016 at 3:09 am

    The empire is naked.

    jgordon , August 22, 2016 at 3:31 am

    No matter how bad Trump is, Hillary is worse. Hell I wouldn't be voting for Trump if Hillary weren't in the race, that's for damn sure.

    So just go ahead and keep doing more oppo research on Trump. Please–I beg you. Because no matter what you manage to pull out of your butt I'm just nodding my head and saying to myself, "yep. Probably true, but still far better than Hillary."

    Madmamie , August 22, 2016 at 4:22 am

    " But it's disconcerting to see Rebecca Gordon document how these individuals have engaged in the same sort of unacceptable behavior that they Trump would undertake, and then argue that Trump is obviously dangerous, and by implication, Clinton is not. Clinton is fully on board with the policies that these experts represent, so how exactly is she better? Gordon needs to make a case, not just assert superiority. "

    Isn't this just another good example of why we shouldn't be afraid of the truth and plain talk? When we finally start using words like "liar", "cheater", "thief" "murderer" "assassin" to describe those (politicians) guilty of such crimes, we might be able to get rid of them. PC is too often a trap for the one practicing it. It dims the bright lights we want to shine on the wrong-doer and robs us of our ability to debate . There's a reason why plain-talking demagogues like Trump are so successful. Instead of wrapping ourselves even more tightly in the saran wrap of genteel good manners (sometimes just another way of showing superiority?) we should be honing our language skills and engaging with the enemy.

    Pavel , August 22, 2016 at 6:46 am

    Here's to using the right words. "War" (or, nowadays, military intervention or (ha!) humanitarian intervention - what's "humanitarian" about dropping bombs and destroying infrastructure and causing environmental devastation?) is murder .

    Bill Clinton, George Bush, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton - all mass murderers. The latter two who weep public tears every time there is a mass shooting in the US that kills a dozen or so victims. Hillary is all about "arms control" in the US and slammed Bernie because he was too "lenient" on guns, while she razed Libya and caused the spread of masses of weapons from Libya to Syria.

    There is mass murder going on in Yemen as I type, aided and abetted by the US military, using weapons sold by Obama and HRC to the Saudis.

    Trump is a bloviating idiot (at best) but a simple question: how many people has he actually killed compared to Bush, Obama, and the two Clintons? And never forget Albright's "it was worth it" comment regarding 500,000 Iraqi children killed as a result of Bill Clinton's sanctions.

    The hypocrisy of all this is stunning.

    Tom , August 22, 2016 at 6:54 am

    "The Iraq war was a big, fat, mistake. George Bush made a mistake. We can make mistakes .. but this one was a beauty!"
    Donald Trump

    EndOfTheWorld , August 22, 2016 at 7:18 am

    If Hill actually shows up for the debates, this is one thing Donald can hammer her about without people screaming at him for being mean to the little lady--which is what they will do if he rips into her on some of the other stuff he will rip into her on. HRC will hide behind her skirts, like the phony "feminist" she is.

    Pavel , August 22, 2016 at 7:47 am

    I just stumbled on a new post at CounterPunch regarding Hillary's fake "feminism", including the following 'grafs:

    During her husband's presidency, Hillary was a vocal advocate for the barbaric sanctions regime, as well as the No-Fly Zone and other belligerent actions taken by her husband against the Iraqi Government of Saddam Hussein. In fact, many experts have noted that the Clinton Iraq policy essentially laid the groundwork for George W. Bush's invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003. In particular, Hillary was a leading proponent of the sanctions which, according to the UN, killed roughly 500,000 children.

    And, of course, there's Hillary's infamous support for Bush's Iraq War when she was a Senator from New York. Clinton explained to the Council on Foreign Relations in December 2003, "I was one who supported giving President Bush the authority, if necessary, to use force against Saddam Hussein. I believe that that was the right vote .I stand by the vote." Of course this was in the immediate aftermath of the invasion of Iraq and subsequent capture of Saddam Hussein, a time when one could still justify support for a war that, just a few years later, proved to be politically unpalatable, to say nothing of it being an egregious war crime, as we all knew from the beginning.

    And Hillary was not perturbed in the slightest at the hundreds of thousands of women and children whose lives were irrevocably destroyed by the war and its aftermath, one which is still being reckoned with today.

    Hillary and Bill – the power couple tag team of Washington – also led the charge to bomb Serbia in 1999. During the 78 days of "Operation Allied Force" more than 2,000 civilians were killed, including 88 children. Naturally, this was of little consequence to the great feminist heroine Hillary who, according to biographer Gail Sheehy, proudly proclaimed "I urged [Bill Clinton] to bomb [Serbia]." The barbarism and sheer viciousness of someone who gleefully takes credit for the deaths of scores of children and countless thousands of women should give anyone who believes in the Hillary the feminist mythos serious pause.

    Who could forget Libya? In the war championed by Hillary Clinton, who is regarded by experts as being the loudest voice in favor of regime change against Gaddafi and the destruction of the country, tens of thousands of women were raped, lynched, and murdered by the glorious "rebels" (read terrorists) backed by Clinton and her imperial coterie . Perhaps the great feminist hero could speak to the children of Misrata, Sirte, and Bani Walid who have now grown up without their mothers and fathers, and explain to them just how "worth it" the war was. Maybe Clinton could look mothers in the eyes and tell them how the deaths of their children from war, disease, and terrorism is a small price to pay for the foreign policy objectives of Washington.

    [My emphasis]

    –Eric Draitser: Hillary Clinton: The Anti-Woman 'Feminist'

    Amazing the amount of cognitive dissonance going on with the Clinton "liberal" supporters.

    Ché Pasa , August 22, 2016 at 7:33 am

    The failure of so many partisans to recognize what is going on is startling. This is really one of the most remarkable political seasons in my memory, and I go back to Stevenson/Eisenhower days. (Criminy.)

    We're watching what amounts to a reversal of political polarities, with the Democrats led by Hillary becoming sort of hopped-up post-modern high-end Republicans (what the Republicans would have become if they hadn't gone insane with power during and following the Reagan regime) and the Republicans becoming the party of a hopped-up and angry rabble. Their spokesman is Trump, but he's not their leader by any means. For the moment, there isn't one, but if this reversal/realignment is sustained - and I think it will be - there will be a Leader of the Rabble. It's too juicy an opportunity to resist.

    Hillary is signaling in every way possible that she will govern as a hot-dog Republican, fully on board with the War Party which has been the driving force of the Republican and a significant part of the Democratic establishment since Bush the Old. Hillary is become what Jeb! was supposed to be.

    The Establishment's War Party is fully on board with Herself as well.

    This could turn ugly very quickly. They have been telling us very loudly that they want a confrontation with Russia and then with China to establish once and for all the dominance of the American Empire over the entire globe. They are prepared - and apparently eager - to crush any resistance with whatever force they choose, whenever they choose. Moscow and Beijing to be turned to seas of glowing glass if they do not yield sufficiently and in a timely fashion.

    That's the threat this War Party under Mrs. Clinton holds out.

    That is the threat the Republicans and their Party would have held out if the War Party had continued to hold sway within it. Trump has short-circuited that by insisting that glassing the "terrorists" is the right course of action, leaving the Russians and Chinese pretty much alone. Except that's not what the War Party wants. The "terrorists" in fact are their allies in the quest for ultimate power.

    Instead, the goal seems to be to dismember/destroy Russia and to contain and control China, exploiting both for whatever resources can be extracted, ultimately leaving both as empty husks.

    Trump says he has other goals, but they amount to a similar program with somewhat different victims.

    Partisans see one as ultimate Evil, the other as Less Evil and therefore Good.

    But it's a goon show. The War Party is determined to have its way again. Clinton will follow their lead; Trump would try to lead it. Neither we nor they can escape it.

    When somebody comes up with a way to disable the War Party within the permanent government, I'll listen. Until then, we are as they say, f**ked.

    [Aug 22, 2016] Khizr Khan was tricked into smearing Donald Trump

    This is a really excellent analysys... Bravo --
    Notable quotes:
    "... Despite all efforts by the media to distort Trump's position about "banning" Muslims, he has made perfectly clear time and again that he does not want to ban all Muslims. He wants to simply perform thorough and complete background checks on all immigrants coming from countries presently in the grips of violent Islamic terrorism. ..."
    "... To her, Capt. Khan is not a just soldier who died defending his country in a foreign land. First and foremost, to her, he is a Muslim of Pakistani heritage and therefore is a perfect political pawn for just the right situation. ..."
    "... For just about every American alive, Capt. Khan is an inspiring and unifying figure. To Hillary Clinton, he is a tool to be used to divide people. In her false promise of unifying America, she creates a national political Babylon. Her avaricious greed for more and more power knows no bounds. ..."
    "... Politicians like Hillary Clinton slice and dice people into racial and gender groups. Then they toot on all their little "dog whistles" to send all their little demographic pawns scurrying in various directions. That is how you wind up with Khizr Khan standing on stage beside his head-scarved wife, waving around the U.S. Constitution and distorting Donald Trump's position on keeping radical Islamic terrorism at bay. ..."
    "... Perhaps a better testimony from Khizr Khan would have been for him to talk about how Hillary Clinton was in the U.S. Senate when she voted to invade Iraq. Years later, after that position became politically unpopular, she changed her mind and joined new political forces to vacate all the land across Iraq that so many great American patriots like Capt. Humayun Khan had died for. ..."
    "... It was her vote that sent Capt. Khan to his death. And then it was her decisions later to render that sacrifice worthless. ..."
    Jul 31, 2016 | TheHill

    Khizr Khan is a fine American and the father of a true American patriot. But now he is also everything that is wrong with American politics today.

    It is not entirely his fault, though he has only himself to blame for allowing his dead son to be used for the most hideous of purposes and dragged through the gutter of nasty and dishonest partisan politics.

    Khan and his wife took to the stage at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia last week to deliver an impassioned rebuke of Donald J.Trump that was universally celebrated by the media. Even Republican politicos swooned at the gambit. The Clinton campaign trotted out the Muslim couple because their son, Captain Humayun Khan, was killed by a car bomb in 2004 while guarding a base in Iraq.

    "If it was up to Donald Trump , he never would have been in America," said Khan, sliding easily into the political tradition of lying and distorting the position of one's opponent.

    "Donald Trump consistently smears the character of Muslims," he went on. "He disrespects other minorities, women, judges, even his own party leadership. He vows to build walls and ban us from this country."

    Despite all efforts by the media to distort Trump's position about "banning" Muslims, he has made perfectly clear time and again that he does not want to ban all Muslims. He wants to simply perform thorough and complete background checks on all immigrants coming from countries presently in the grips of violent Islamic terrorism.

    Yes, that means if you are a Muslim who wants to immigrate from Syria or Afghanistan, you are going to get a lot more scrutiny than if you are a Jew trying to immigrate from Canada. That is most unfortunate, but not nearly as unfortunate as innocents getting slaughtered by 10th Century savages killing in the name of Allah.

    Anyway, this higher scrutiny should be no obstacle for the likes of Khizr Khan and his family, except for the additional hassle.

    So, why would Khizr Khan choose to insert himself into politics and demean his son's sacrifice by lying at a political convention on national television? The answer is simple: He allowed himself to be tricked into it. And the Clinton campaign was all too eager to take advantage of him and his family and Capt. Khan and use them for their own political partisan purposes.

    Stop for a moment and ask yourself how exactly the Clinton campaign arrived at the decision to trot out the Khan family in the middle of their highly-choreographed, exhaustively produced convention?

    Were they just looking to give voice to the parents of a soldier? That would be a first. Did they want parents of anyone who had died abroad in the defense of their country? Gee, why not pick the parents of one of the fallen warriors who died defending the U.S. consulate in Benghazi? Oh, that's right. They would have called Hillary Clinton a liar. Can't have that.

    No. Politicians like Hillary Clinton do not see people like Capt. Humayun Khan as a soldier who made the ultimate sacrifice on a foreign battlefield in defense of his country. Politicians like Hillary Clinton see him only a demographic, a dispensable political pawn to be scooted around an electoral map, the way generals used to move armies across giant maps of the lands they were invading.

    But instead of liberating Europe from evil fascists, politicians like Hillary Clinton use their long, worn croupier rakes to move their pawns about with the singular goal of advancing their own personal political careers.

    To her, Capt. Khan is not a just soldier who died defending his country in a foreign land. First and foremost, to her, he is a Muslim of Pakistani heritage and therefore is a perfect political pawn for just the right situation.

    For just about every American alive, Capt. Khan is an inspiring and unifying figure. To Hillary Clinton, he is a tool to be used to divide people. In her false promise of unifying America, she creates a national political Babylon. Her avaricious greed for more and more power knows no bounds.

    It is an open secret in Washington that politics is the last bastion of rampant racial profiling. Both parties do it, but Democrats have taken it to a whole new scientific level.

    Politicians like Hillary Clinton slice and dice people into racial and gender groups. Then they toot on all their little "dog whistles" to send all their little demographic pawns scurrying in various directions. That is how you wind up with Khizr Khan standing on stage beside his head-scarved wife, waving around the U.S. Constitution and distorting Donald Trump's position on keeping radical Islamic terrorism at bay.

    Perhaps a better testimony from Khizr Khan would have been for him to talk about how Hillary Clinton was in the U.S. Senate when she voted to invade Iraq. Years later, after that position became politically unpopular, she changed her mind and joined new political forces to vacate all the land across Iraq that so many great American patriots like Capt. Humayun Khan had died for.

    It was her vote that sent Capt. Khan to his death. And then it was her decisions later to render that sacrifice worthless.

    Try sticking that into your dog whistle and blowing it.

    Hurt writes the "Nuclear Option" column for The Washington Times. A former D.C. bureau chief for the New York Post, he has covered the White House, Congress and presidential campaigns since 2001. Follow him on Twitter @charleshurt.

    [Aug 22, 2016] Clintons Rovian Gambit Against Obama

    This is from 2008. An interesting mention of Rove playbook that says, "Attack your opponent's perceived strength."
    Notable quotes:
    "... Rove playbook that says, "Attack your opponent's perceived strength." If that strength is merely "perceived" and not real, it's a legitimate tactic, but Rove attacks even when the perception is justified, and the Clintons are now doing the same. ..."
    "... Bill did this in New Hampshire when he contended that Obama was not really a consistent war opponent. Hillary put this tactic way out front on Meet the Press today. She said that Obama's campaign is premised entirely on his October 2002 speech, and she said that Obama did nothing after that speech. ..."
    "... A key point that has not been made is, if Hillary Clinton is telling the truth that she secretly opposed the invasion on March 20, 2003, then she cannot possibly claim the mantle of a leader, because she did not speak out against the prospect of invasion, even though she, due to her celebrity status, had one of the loudest megaphones to do so. ..."
    Jan 01, 2008 | The Atlantic
    A reader writes:

    Many of your recent posts on the Obama-Clinton contest are missing the forest for the trees. They are focusing on small annoyances from Camp Clinton. The big story of the last week is that the Clintons are trying to strip Obama of his rightful advantage on the Iraq war "judgment" issue and carry out the tactic from the Rove playbook that says, "Attack your opponent's perceived strength." If that strength is merely "perceived" and not real, it's a legitimate tactic, but Rove attacks even when the perception is justified, and the Clintons are now doing the same.

    Bill did this in New Hampshire when he contended that Obama was not really a consistent war opponent. Hillary put this tactic way out front on Meet the Press today. She said that Obama's campaign is premised entirely on his October 2002 speech, and she said that Obama did nothing after that speech. This is just an out and out lie; there are no shades of gray here. Here are two examples of what Obama did after his October 2002 speech that I was able to find through a simple Nexis search:

    On March 4, 2003, an AP story picked up by an Illinois newspaper, the Belleville News Democrat, states as follows:

    "Barack Obama is criticizing the idea of war against Iraq and challenging his Democratic opponents in the U.S. Senate race to take a stand on the question....'What's tempting is to take the path of least resistance and keep quiet on the issue, knowing that maybe in two or three or six months, at least the fighting will be over and you can see how it plays itself out,' said Obama, a state senator from Chicago."

    On March 17, 2003, the Chicago Sun Times reported this:

    "Thousands of demonstrators packed Daley Center Plaza for a two- hour rally Sunday [two days before Bush issued his ultimatum against Saddam and four days before the invasion], then marched through downtown in Chicago's largest protest to date against an Iraq war. Crowd estimates from police and organizers ranged from 5,000 to 10,000.... State Sen. Barack Obama (D-Chicago) told the crowd, 'It's not too late' to stop the war."

    All of this is highly relevant, because Hillary's account of her own actions in the October 2002 - March 20, 2003 period (March 20 being the day of the invasion) is that she voted, not to authorize war, but inspections, and that when the inspectors were there in March 2003, she, in her own mind, opposed the invasion and would not have carried it out had she been President.

    A key point that has not been made is, if Hillary Clinton is telling the truth that she secretly opposed the invasion on March 20, 2003, then she cannot possibly claim the mantle of a leader, because she did not speak out against the prospect of invasion, even though she, due to her celebrity status, had one of the loudest megaphones to do so.

    [Aug 22, 2016] Trump is 'fundamentally dishonest,' say GOP national security leaders in open letter

    See also Israel lobby in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Notable quotes:
    "... Eliot Cohen, or any member of the PNAC, calling Trump or anyone else 'fundamentally dishonest' is simply beyond the pale. It takes some serious nerve and arrogance for traitorous liars of this magnitude to be calling out Trump regardless of the veracity of their claims. ..."
    "... Nothing pleases me more than the careerist parasites and wannabe czars of DC feeling compelled to justify their proven incompetence by slagging the guy who seems increasingly likely to be their boss. Now if only the other half of the DC cesspool can do the same, maybe something good can actually happen for the rest of the country. ..."
    "... How terrific that the neocons are freaking out. Wait until the pharmaceuticals start hitting his healthcare proposals for bargaining down the cost of drugs. Good to have an outsider in the game. ..."
    "... Instead of calling these opponents Neocons, we should be calling them the Israel Lobby. They will wage war against any politician who doesn't agree to make America's Middle East policy coextensive with that of Israel. They don't care if their attacks destroy the Republican Party, because their loyalties lie elsewhere. Their motto is rule or ruin. ..."
    "... Whatever! There is one and only one reason why Bush-era foreign policy people are attacking Trump: He has rejected their extreme neocon warmongering. They want a president who will start whatever wars Netanyahu orders, and they think Trump will tell Netanyahu to go screw himself. ..."
    Mar 02, 2016 | The Washington Post

    tjm, 3/3/2016 8:29 PM EST

    The neocons in full revolt (or is it full revolting)!

    God, I have not seen such unity within the neocon cabal since they were ginning up support for the Iraq disaster. Trump does show how badly needed a full house cleaning and a serious revamping of the foreign policy establishment is required. However, in this case, with Trump being the complete wild card, I think a plan B is needed, whatever that might be.

    It certainly is not Hillary! She has been embraced by high and mighty poobahs of the neocon cabal so nothing changes with her in charge-more wars, more interventions, more regime changes. We would keep trying until we get one right, as unlikely that might be.

    PDXing, 3/3/2016 4:15 PM EST

    Eliot Cohen, or any member of the PNAC, calling Trump or anyone else 'fundamentally dishonest' is simply beyond the pale. It takes some serious nerve and arrogance for traitorous liars of this magnitude to be calling out Trump regardless of the veracity of their claims.

    David_Lloyd-Jones, 3/3/2016 3:41 PM EST [Edited]

    Wey-yull, I'm no Republican, but FWIW I would think having Michael Chertoff and Robert Zoellick against me would be winning the daily double.

    All this and being condemned by The Mittens? Pure gravy. And people wonder why Trump is doing so well? Seems pretty obvious to me.

    There's only one hope for Rubio: where's Darth Cheney when you need him?

    yibberat, 3/3/2016 3:23 PM EST

    Nothing pleases me more than the careerist parasites and wannabe czars of DC feeling compelled to justify their proven incompetence by slagging the guy who seems increasingly likely to be their boss. Now if only the other half of the DC cesspool can do the same, maybe something good can actually happen for the rest of the country.

    And I hate Trump. But man this show is worth MANY buckets of popcorn.

    Janine, 3/3/2016 12:58 PM EST

    How terrific that the neocons are freaking out. Wait until the pharmaceuticals start hitting his healthcare proposals for bargaining down the cost of drugs. Good to have an outsider in the game.

    JDavis, 3/3/2016 1:01 PM EST

    The neocons will be quite happy in a Hillary administration. She's an even bigger warmonger than Obama.

    technokim, 3/3/2016 12:22 PM EST

    Please tell me how any of these 50 self-purported national security and foreign policy experts have done? Seems the world is less safe and increasingly more messed up as a direct result of these "experts" actions and policies.

    Uselessboy, 3/3/2016 12:37 PM EST

    Conservatives certainly loved them when they were backing their unjustified Iraq invasion and demanding respect for Bush even by those who thought he was breaking laws.

    johng4, 3/3/2016 11:47 AM EST

    Instead of calling these opponents Neocons, we should be calling them the Israel Lobby. They will wage war against any politician who doesn't agree to make America's Middle East policy coextensive with that of Israel. They don't care if their attacks destroy the Republican Party, because their loyalties lie elsewhere. Their motto is rule or ruin.

    JohnMIII, 3/3/2016 11:41 AM EST

    Aren't these the same Necons that swore up and down that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and was such a serious threat we needed to launch an invasion costing thousands of lives and trillions of dollars? They have zero credibility anymore. Who cares what they say?

    DirtyConSanchez, 3/3/2016 7:32 AM EST

    Poor little neocon warmongers squealing like stuck war pigs. Too bad, no more war profiteering for you little piggies. The big bad orange furred wolf Donald is coming to eat your bacon. And he has a 150 million strong wolfpack coming along to assist him.

    Trump '16

    JDavis, 3/3/2016 5:55 AM EST

    Michael Hayden suggesting insubordination isn't surprising. He and Cheney have been mucking up this country for years with the dirt they collected when Hayden was director of the NSA. They don't respect the presidency. They want all power for themselves.

    Jason Oneil, 3/3/2016 4:53 AM EST

    Conservative???
    What a joke. The neocons and the Israel Lobby are in total panic....Trump is not their puppet who will let them hijack our country into endless wars based on lies.
    Expose these traitors.

    ObjectiveReader1, 3/3/2016 4:26 AM EST [Edited]

    Doc Zakheim and Bob Zoellick?! I oppose Trump but these two dolts have no credibility.

    Zakheim was Undersecretary of Defense and Pentagon Comptroller under Bush Jr. He worked on the disastrous funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, both of which were debt financed. In the run up to the Iraq invasion, Zakheim publicly stated that Saddam was working on a nuclear bomb. Why doesn't Zakheim send a Letter to the American people apologizing for his role in not telling American taxpayers the truth about how much the Iraq war was going to cost.

    Bob Zoellick was US Trade Rep under Bush Jr. He worked on Cafta. He's an open borders guy. Free trade agreements like Nafta have hurt American workers. Bernie Sanders and Trump both openly criticize nafta and the TPP.

    Open Borders Zoellick and Iraq War neocon Zakheim have no credibility.

    pamfah_99, 3/3/2016 3:34 AM EST

    Don't these people realize that no one listens to them. They are the people who got us into Bush's mess in the mid-East that we are still paying for. Never mind all our vets who were killed and injured. They just don't understand what Trump represents. They think we are stupid and we are not. Go ahead and try to run Trump - see what happens to you. And Romney - that moron - remember that comment about the 47% or whatever it was. Talk about the establishment and the absolute disregard we had for us. Who listens to him either. About time the Republicans let democracy take its course and stop trying to act like Nazis. We, as Americans, have to right to vote for whomever we please.

    Miro23, 3/3/2016 2:27 AM EST [Edited]

    Their problem with Trump always comes back to the same point:

    He said, "We've spent $4 trillion trying to topple various people that, frankly, if they were there and if we could have spent that $4 trillion in the United States to fix our roads, our bridges, and all of the other problems - our airports and all the other problems we have - we would have been a lot better off, I can tell you that right now.

    We have done a tremendous disservice not only to the Middle East - we've done a tremendous disservice to humanity. The people that have been killed, the people that have been wiped away - and for what? It's not like we had victory. It's a mess. The Middle East is totally destabilized, a total and complete mess. I wish we had the 4 trillion dollars or 5 trillion dollars. I wish it were spent right here in the United States on schools, hospitals, roads, airports, and everything else that are all falling apart!"

    They've smashed up Iraq and Libya, want to do the same to Syria and get on with bombing Iran using US blood and money. They're more AINO's (Americans In Name Only) than "Neo-Conservative" and couldn't care less about parties, Republicans, Democrats. They just want a President who will shut up and do what they want – like Bush, Rubio or Clinton or Romney(?) or some other Muppet.

    PoliticallyIncorrect4, 3/3/2016 1:53 AM EST

    Guess what, nobody gives a damned sh$%#$%# about what these think.

    The people who developed GW Bush's national security agenda of international interventionism -with the Iraq war as the prime example of the perils of such approach- are in no position to lecture anyone on national security or international issues.

    We have tried the professional politicians and their advisers. It didn't work. Time to move ahead with a completely new approach.

    dbi, 3/3/2016 12:39 AM EST

    The Washington Post is calling Frances Townsend "a foreign policy expert"? Give it up. The woman pretends to know the smallest tidbit of information in the Pentagon and White House but the fact is, she doesn't have a security clearance and is not in any of the special briefings or secret meetings. She isn't cleared for anything and talks in gibberish. Michael Hayden was fired and he, too, has no security clearance and no access to confidential and secret material and meetings in the DoD. More gibberish. These people, like others mentioned, are bitter and basically unemployed under President Obama. They just can't get over it and move on.

    Manray9, 3/3/2016 12:11 AM EST [Edited]

    This collection of so-called "Republican foreign policy experts" are all hip-deep in complicity for the Iraq fiasco. Maybe Trump is on to something in calling out Republican "leaders" on the nation's greatest national security and foreign policy disaster since Vietnam? Many people in America, and especially Trump supporters, are disgusted with the course of events created and managed by the same malefactors now attacking Trump. The GOP big shots just don't get it.

    FedEx Sect 120, 3/3/2016 5:16 AM EST

    It is amazing to me how all of these war hawks are complaining now about being lied to about weapons of mass destruction. Those of us who called it a lie then were being told that they were being unpatriotic or better yet un-American. Wake up folk every time a Republican is in office we go to war. Then the Democrats have to clean up their mess. Then get blamed for not doing the cleanup fast enough while Republicans stand in the way and hinder the Democrats for cleaning it up properly. If the Republican get in office get ready to see our children in another war. Get ready to go back to high unemployment , high foreclosures, high losses in your retirement plan, and high bank failures. Don't forget who propped up Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein,; yeah your great Republican leader Ronald Reagan. War War War War War

    Swift301, 3/3/2016 12:09 AM EST

    Eliot Cohen? Trump is totally nuts on many levels but Eliot Cohen is well, just follow his career path, an endless wimp for war whose policy views have resulted in the largest increase of influence in the Middle East of Iran ever:

    "Cohen has referred to the War on Terrorism as "World War IV".[6] In the run-up to the 2003 Invasion of Iraq, he was a member of Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, a group of prominent persons who pressed for an invasion."

    1ofamillion, 3/2/2016 11:36 PM EST

    Neocons are already lining up behind the candidate of the War Party. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/trump-clinto...

    1ofamillion, 3/2/2016 11:33 PM EST

    These are the mouthbreathers who brought us the Iraq War, supported Libyan intervention, and support Syrian intervention. Our foreign policy would be better if directed by a statue.

    Are these idiots going to realize that they're making us all want to vote for him more and more? It's like PNAC founders Kagan and Cohen endorsing Hillary - pretty sure it's having the opposite effect of what they want.

    Stephen Clark, 3/2/2016 10:58 PM EST

    Whatever! There is one and only one reason why Bush-era foreign policy people are attacking Trump: He has rejected their extreme neocon warmongering. They want a president who will start whatever wars Netanyahu orders, and they think Trump will tell Netanyahu to go screw himself.

    [Aug 22, 2016] Irony FBI, DOJ Launch Criminal Probe of Hillary Campaign Chair Over Putin Links

    Notable quotes:
    "... Turns out, the Podesta Group founded by none other than John Podesta, Hillary's campaign chair and chief strategies, was retained by the Russian-owned firm UraniumOne in 2012, 2014, and 2015 to lobby Hillary Clinton's State Department based on John Podesta's longstanding relations with the Clinton family – he was the White House Chief of Staff under Bill Clinton. ..."
    Aug 21, 2016 | sputniknews.com

    The FBI and Department of Justice have launched an investigation into whether the Podesta Group has any connections to alleged corruption that occurred in the administration of former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych.

    It seems like just yesterday that the top campaign official for Donald Trump found himself caught in the middle of a political dragnet for his work as a lobbyist on behalf of Viktor Yanukovych with the media clamoring about his purported ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin as a reason why the Republican nominee was a less desirable candidate than Hillary Clinton. Wait, that was just yesterday?

    It turns out that Hillary Clinton's campaign guru, head of the lobbying firm the Podesta Group, has found himself smack dab in the middle of the same criminal investigation spawned when devious political operatives decide to merge international relations with campaign politics. For weeks, the pages of the Washington Post, the Daily Beast, the New York Times, and the Wall Street Journal have chimed that Trump is a "Putin pawn" as part of some maniacal plot by the Kremlin to interfere with the US election.

    Turns out, the Podesta Group founded by none other than John Podesta, Hillary's campaign chair and chief strategies, was retained by the Russian-owned firm UraniumOne in 2012, 2014, and 2015 to lobby Hillary Clinton's State Department based on John Podesta's longstanding relations with the Clinton family – he was the White House Chief of Staff under Bill Clinton.

    Interestingly, UraniumOne's chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million to the Clinton Foundation from 2009 to 2013. Perhaps a more blatant evidence of allegations that Hillary Clinton's State Department operated on a pay-to-play basis is the fact that, as the New York Times reported last April, "shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting UraniumOne stock.

    Not only are investigators wondering whether there was any impropriety in the lobbying arrangement such as the provision of beneficial treatment by the State Department to an old friend, but they are also probing the work that Viktor Yanukovych's regime paid the Podesta Group to do while he was the head of the Ukrainian government.

    The controversy for Podesta links to his work for the Centre for a Modern Ukraine, a Brussels based organization that describes itself as "an advocate for enhancing EU-Ukraine relations." Unfortunately for Mr. Podesta, the organization has been described as "an operation controlled by Yanukovych" and tied to the former leader's Party of Regions suggesting the Podesta Group may have been, like has been said of Paul Manafort, tasked with greater reporting requirements pursuant to US law.

    The Podesta Group quickly hired the white-shoe law firm Caplin & Drysdale as "independent, outside legal counsel to determine if we were misled by the Centre for a Modern Ukraine or any other individuals with regard to the Centre's potential ties to foreign governments or political parties."

    And the plot of the 2016 presidential election thickens.

    [Aug 21, 2016] Hillary and the War Party by Carl Boggs

    Notable quotes:
    "... You haven't heard much from the Democrats lately about foreign policy or global agendas – indeed virtually nothing at the Philadelphia convention and little worthy of mention along the campaign trail. ..."
    "... But no one should be fooled: a Clinton presidency, which seems more likely by the day, can be expected to stoke a resurgent U.S. imperialism, bringing new cycles of militarism and war. The silence is illusory: Clintonites, now as before, are truly obsessed with international politics. ..."
    "... A triumphant Hillary, more "rational" and "savvy" than the looney and unpredictable Donald Trump, could well have a freer path to emboldened superpower moves not only in Europe but the Middle East, Central Asia, and the Pacific. While the candidate has not revealed much lately, she is on record as vowing to "stand up" to Russia and China, face off against Russian "aggression", escalate the war on terror, and militarily annihilate Iran the moment it steps out of line (or is determined by "U.S. intelligence" to have stepped out of line) in its nuclear agreement with global powers. ..."
    "... A new Clinton presidency can be expected to further boost the U.S./NATO drive to strangle and isolate Russia, which means aggravated "crises" in Ukraine and worrisome encounters with a rival military power in a region saturated with (tactical, "usable") nuclear weapons. Regime change in Syria? Hillary has indeed strongly pushed for that self-defeating act of war, combined with an illegal and provocative no-fly zone - having learned nothing from the extreme chaos and violence she did so much to unleash in Libya as Secretary of State. ..."
    "... Democratic elites say little publicly about these and other imperial priorities, preferring familiar homilies such as "bringing jobs back" (not going to happen) and "healing the country" (not going to happen). Silence appears to function exquisitely in a political culture where open and vigorous debate on foreign-policy is largely taboo and elite discourse rarely surpasses the level of banal platitudes. And Hillary's worshipful liberal and progressive backers routinely follow the script (or non-script) while fear-mongering about how a Trump presidency will destroy the country (now that the Sanders threat has vanished). ..."
    "... Who needs to be reminded that Hillary's domestic promises, such as they are, will become null and void once urgent global "crises" take precedence? The Pentagon, after all, always comes first. ..."
    "... There is a special logic to the Clintonites' explosive mixture of neoliberalism and militarism. They, like all corporate Democrats, are fully aligned with some of the most powerful interests in the world: Wall Street, the war economy, fossil fuels, Big Pharma, the Israel Lobby. They also have intimate ties to reactionary global forces – the neofascist regime in Ukraine, Israel, Saudi Arabia, other Gulf states. ..."
    "... Predictably, Trump's "unreliability" to oversee American global objectives has been an ongoing motif at CNN, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal. ..."
    "... Jackie was reported as saying "that what worried President Kennedy during that very dangerous time was that a war might be started – not by men with self-control and restraint, but by little men, the ones moved by fear and pride." ..."
    www.counterpunch.org
    You haven't heard much from the Democrats lately about foreign policy or global agendas – indeed virtually nothing at the Philadelphia convention and little worthy of mention along the campaign trail. Hillary Clinton's many liberal (and sadly, progressive) supporters routinely steer away from anything related to foreign policy, talk, talk, talking instead about the candidate's "experience", with obligatory nods toward her enlightened social programs. There is only the ritual demonization of that fearsome dictator, Vladimir Putin, reputedly on the verge of invading some hapless European country. Even Bernie Sanders' sorry endorsement of his erstwhile enemy, not long ago denounced as a tool of Wall Street, had nothing to say about global issues. But no one should be fooled: a Clinton presidency, which seems more likely by the day, can be expected to stoke a resurgent U.S. imperialism, bringing new cycles of militarism and war. The silence is illusory: Clintonites, now as before, are truly obsessed with international politics.

    A triumphant Hillary, more "rational" and "savvy" than the looney and unpredictable Donald Trump, could well have a freer path to emboldened superpower moves not only in Europe but the Middle East, Central Asia, and the Pacific. While the candidate has not revealed much lately, she is on record as vowing to "stand up" to Russia and China, face off against Russian "aggression", escalate the war on terror, and militarily annihilate Iran the moment it steps out of line (or is determined by "U.S. intelligence" to have stepped out of line) in its nuclear agreement with global powers. Under Clinton, the Democrats might well be better positioned to recharge their historical legacy as War Party. One of the great political myths (and there are many) is that American liberals are inclined toward a less belligerent foreign policy than Republicans, are less militaristic and more favorable toward "diplomacy". References to Woodrow Wilson in World War I and Mexico, Harry Truman in Korea, JFK and LBJ in Indochina, Bill Clinton in the Balkans, and of course Barack Obama in Afghanistan (eight years of futile warfare), Libya (also "Hillary's War"), and scattered operations across the Middle East and North Africa should be enough to dispel such nonsense. (As for FDR and World War II, I have written extensively that the Pearl Harbor attacks were deliberately provoked by U.S. actions in the Pacific – but that is a more complicated story.)

    ... ... ...

    A new Clinton presidency can be expected to further boost the U.S./NATO drive to strangle and isolate Russia, which means aggravated "crises" in Ukraine and worrisome encounters with a rival military power in a region saturated with (tactical, "usable") nuclear weapons. Regime change in Syria? Hillary has indeed strongly pushed for that self-defeating act of war, combined with an illegal and provocative no-fly zone - having learned nothing from the extreme chaos and violence she did so much to unleash in Libya as Secretary of State. There are currently no visible signs she would exit the protracted and criminal war in Afghanistan, a rich source of blowback (alongside Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, and Israel). Increased aerial bombardments against ISIS in Iraq, Syria, Libya, and elsewhere? More deployments of American troops on the ground? Such ventures, with potentially others on the horizon, amount to elaborate recipes for more blowback, followed by more anti-terror hysteria, followed by more interventions. Uncompromising economic, diplomatic, and military support of Israeli atrocities in Palestine? Aggressive pursuit of the seriously mistaken "Asian Pivot", strategy, a revitalized effort to subvert Chinese economic and military power – one of Clinton's own special crusades? No wonder the Paul Wolfowitzes and Robert Kagans are delighted to join the Hillary camp.

    No wonder, too, that billionaire super-hawk Haim Saban has pledged to spend whatever is needed to get the Clintons back into the White House, convinced her presidency will do anything to maintain Palestinian colonial subjugation. Meeting with Saban in July, Hillary again promised to "oppose any effort to delegitimate Israel, including at the United Nations or through the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement." She backs legislative efforts begun in several states to silence and blacklist people working on behalf of Palestinian rights. For this her celebrated "pragmatism" could work quite effectively.

    Democratic elites say little publicly about these and other imperial priorities, preferring familiar homilies such as "bringing jobs back" (not going to happen) and "healing the country" (not going to happen). Silence appears to function exquisitely in a political culture where open and vigorous debate on foreign-policy is largely taboo and elite discourse rarely surpasses the level of banal platitudes. And Hillary's worshipful liberal and progressive backers routinely follow the script (or non-script) while fear-mongering about how a Trump presidency will destroy the country (now that the Sanders threat has vanished).

    Amidst the turmoil Trump has oddly surfaced to the left of Clinton on several key global issues: cooperating instead of fighting with the Russians, keeping alive a sharp criticism of the Iraq war and the sustained regional chaos and blowback it generated, ramping down enthusiasm for more wars in the Middle East, junking "free trade" agreements, willingness to rethink the outmoded NATO alliance. If Trump, however haphazardly, manages to grasp the historical dynamics of blowback, the Clinton camp remains either indifferent or clueless, still ready for new armed ventures – cynically marketed, as in the Balkans, Iraq, and Libya, on the moral imperative of defeating some unspeakable evil, usually a "new Hitler" waging a "new genocide". Who needs to be reminded that Hillary's domestic promises, such as they are, will become null and void once urgent global "crises" take precedence? The Pentagon, after all, always comes first.

    ... ... ...

    ...At the other extreme, Clinton emerges in the media as the most "rational" and "even-tempered" of candidates, ideally suited to carry out the necessary imperial agendas. A tiresome mainstream narrative is that Hillary is "one of the best prepared and most knowledgeable candidates ever to seek the presidency." And she is smart, very smart – whatever her flaws. All the better to follow in the long history of Democrats proficient at showing the world who is boss. The media, for its part, adores these Democrats, another reason Trump appears to have diminished chances of winning. Further, the well-funded and tightly-organized Clinton machine can count on somewhat large majorities of women, blacks, and Hispanics, not only for the march to the White House but, more ominously, to go along with the War Party's imperial spectacle of the day. Most anything – war, regime change, bombing raids, drone strikes, treaty violations, JFK-style "standoffs" – can escape political scrutiny if carried out by "humanitarian", peace-loving Democrats. Bill Clinton's war to fight "genocide" and "ethnic cleansing" in the Balkans, cover for just another U.S./NATO geopolitical maneuver, constitutes the perfect template here.

    There is a special logic to the Clintonites' explosive mixture of neoliberalism and militarism. They, like all corporate Democrats, are fully aligned with some of the most powerful interests in the world: Wall Street, the war economy, fossil fuels, Big Pharma, the Israel Lobby. They also have intimate ties to reactionary global forces – the neofascist regime in Ukraine, Israel, Saudi Arabia, other Gulf states.

    ... In March 121 members of the Republican "national security community", including the warmongers Wolfowitz, Robert Kagan, and Brent Scowcroft, signed a public letter condemning Trump for not being sufficiently dedicated to American (also Israeli?) interests. Trump compounded his predicament by stubbornly refusing to pay homage to the "experts" – the same foreign-policy geniuses who helped orchestrate the Iraq debacle. A more recent (and more urgent) letter with roughly the same message has made its way into the public sphere. Predictably, Trump's "unreliability" to oversee American global objectives has been an ongoing motif at CNN, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal.

    Returning to the political carneval that was the Democratic convention, amidst all the non-stop flag-waving and shouts of "USA!" Hillary made what she thought would be an inspiring reference to Jackie Kennedy, speaking on the eve of her husband's (1961) ascent to the White House. Jackie was reported as saying "that what worried President Kennedy during that very dangerous time was that a war might be started – not by men with self-control and restraint, but by little men, the ones moved by fear and pride."

    We can surmise that JFK was one of those "big men" governed by "restraint". History shows, however, that Jackie's esteemed husband was architect of probably the worst episode of international barbarism in U.S. history – the Vietnam War, with its unfathomable death and destruction – coming at a time of the Big Man's botched CIA-led invasion of Cuba and followed closely by the Cuban Missile Crisis, where the Big Man's "restraint" brought the world frighteningly close to nuclear catastrophe. As for "fear" and "pride" – nothing permeates JFK's biography of that period more than those two psychological obsessions.

    Could it be that Hillary Clinton, however unwittingly, was at this epic moment – her breakthrough nomination – revealing nothing so much as her own deeply-imperialist mind-set?

    Carl Boggs is the author of The Hollywood War Machine, with Tom Pollard (second edition, forthcoming), and Drugs, Power, and Politics, both published by Paradigm.

    [Aug 21, 2016] Ukraine Releases More Details on Payments for Trump Aide, Paul Manafort

    What a bunch of neoliberal piranha, devouring the poorest country in Europe, where pernneers exist on $1 a day or less, with the help of installed by Washington corrupt oligarchs (Yanukovich was installed with Washington blessing and was controlled by Washington, who was fully aware about the level of corruption of its government; especially his big friend vice-president Biden).
    Notable quotes:
    "... Mr. Kalyuzhny was also a founding board member of a Brussels-based nongovernmental organization, the European Center for a Modern Ukraine, that hired the Podesta Group, a Washington lobbying firm that received $1.02 million to promote an agenda generally aligned with the Party of Regions. ..."
    "... Because the payment was made through a nongovernmental organization, the Podesta Group did not register as a lobbyist for a foreign entity. A co-founder of the Podesta Group, John D. Podesta, is chairman of Hillary Clinton's campaign, and his brother, Tony Podesta, runs the firm now. ..."
    "... The Podesta Group, in a statement, said its in-house counsel determined the company had no obligation to register as a representative of a foreign entity in part because the nonprofit offered assurances it was not "directly or indirectly supervised, directed, controlled, financed or subsidized in whole or in part by a government of a foreign country or a foreign political party." ..."
    "... On Monday, Mr. Manafort issued a heated statement in response to an article in The New York Times that first disclosed that the ledgers - a document described by Ukrainian investigators as an under-the-table payment system for the Party of Regions - referenced a total of $12.7 million in cash payments to him over a five-year period. ..."
    "... In that statement, Mr. Manafort, who was removed from day-to-day management of the Trump campaign on Wednesday though he retained his title, denied that he had personally received any off-the-books cash payments. "The suggestion that I accepted cash payments is unfounded, silly and nonsensical," he said. ..."
    Aug 18, 2016 | The New York Times

    MOSCOW - The Ukrainian authorities, under pressure to bolster their assertion that once-secret accounting documents show cash payments from a pro-Russian political party earmarked for Donald J. Trump's campaign chairman, on Thursday released line-item entries, some for millions of dollars.

    The revelations also point to an outsize role for a former senior member of the pro-Russian political party, the Party of Regions, in directing money to both Republican and Democratic advisers and lobbyists from the United States as the party tried to burnish its image in Washington.

    The former party member, Vitaly A. Kalyuzhny, for a time chairman of the Ukraine Parliament's International Relations Committee, had signed nine times for receipt of payments designated for the Trump campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, according to Serhiy A. Leshchenko, a member of Parliament who has studied the documents. The ledger covered payments from 2007 to 2012, when Mr. Manafort worked for the party and its leader, Viktor F. Yanukovych, Ukraine's former president who was deposed.

    Mr. Kalyuzhny was also a founding board member of a Brussels-based nongovernmental organization, the European Center for a Modern Ukraine, that hired the Podesta Group, a Washington lobbying firm that received $1.02 million to promote an agenda generally aligned with the Party of Regions.

    Because the payment was made through a nongovernmental organization, the Podesta Group did not register as a lobbyist for a foreign entity. A co-founder of the Podesta Group, John D. Podesta, is chairman of Hillary Clinton's campaign, and his brother, Tony Podesta, runs the firm now.

    The role of Mr. Kalyuzhny, a onetime computer programmer from the eastern Ukrainian city of Donetsk, in directing funds to the companies of the chairmen of both presidential campaigns, had not previously been reported. Mr. Kalyuzhny was one of three Party of Regions members of Parliament who founded the nonprofit.

    The Associated Press, citing emails it had obtained, also reported Thursday that Mr. Manafort's work for Ukraine included a secret lobbying effort in Washington that he operated with an associate, Rick Gates, and that was aimed at influencing American news organizations and government officials.

    Mr. Gates noted in the emails that he conducted the work through two lobbying firms, including the Podesta Group, because Ukraine's foreign minister did not want the country's embassy involved. The A.P. said one of Mr. Gates's campaigns sought to turn public opinion in the West against Yulia Tymoshenko, a former Ukrainian prime minister who was imprisoned during Mr. Yanukovych's administration.

    The Podesta Group, in a statement, said its in-house counsel determined the company had no obligation to register as a representative of a foreign entity in part because the nonprofit offered assurances it was not "directly or indirectly supervised, directed, controlled, financed or subsidized in whole or in part by a government of a foreign country or a foreign political party."

    Reached by phone on Thursday, a former aide to Mr. Kalyuzhny said he had lost contact with the politician and was unsure whether he remained in Kiev or had returned to Donetsk, now the capital of a Russian-backed separatist enclave.

    Ukrainian officials emphasized that they did not know as yet if the cash payments reflected in the ledgers were actually made. In all 22 instances, people other than Mr. Manafort appear to have signed for the money. But the ledger entries are highly specific with funds earmarked for services such as exit polling, equipment and other services.

    On Monday, Mr. Manafort issued a heated statement in response to an article in The New York Times that first disclosed that the ledgers - a document described by Ukrainian investigators as an under-the-table payment system for the Party of Regions - referenced a total of $12.7 million in cash payments to him over a five-year period.

    In that statement, Mr. Manafort, who was removed from day-to-day management of the Trump campaign on Wednesday though he retained his title, denied that he had personally received any off-the-books cash payments. "The suggestion that I accepted cash payments is unfounded, silly and nonsensical," he said.

    Mr. Manafort's statement, however, left open the possibility that cash payments had been made to his firm or associates. And details from the ledgers released Thursday by anticorruption investigators suggest that may have occurred. Three separate payments, for example, totaling nearly $5.7 million are earmarked for Mr. Manafort's "contract."

    Another, from October 2012, suggests a payment to Mr. Manafort of $400,000 for exit polling, a legitimate campaign outlay.

    Two smaller entries, for $4,632 and $854, show payments for seven personal computers and a computer server.

    The payments do not appear to have been reported by the Party of Regions in campaign finance disclosures in Ukraine. The party's 2012 filing indicates outlays for expenses other than advertising of just under $2 million, at the exchange rate at the time. This is less than a single payment in the black ledger designated for "Paul Manafort contract" in June of that year for $3.4 million.

    Ukrainian investigators say they consider any under-the-table payments illegal, and that the ledger also describes disbursements to members of the central election committee, the group that counts votes.


    Correction: August 20, 2016

    Because of an editing error, an article on Friday about the political activities in Ukraine of Donald J. Trump's former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, misidentified the office once held by Yulia V. Tymoshenko, a rival of Mr. Manafort's client, the former president Viktor F. Yanukovych. Ms. Tymoshenko served as prime minister of Ukraine, not its president.

    [Aug 21, 2016] The NSA Leak Is Real, Snowden Documents Confirm by Sam Biddle

    Notable quotes:
    "... The evidence that ties the ShadowBrokers dump to the NSA comes in an agency manual for implanting malware, classified top secret, provided by Snowden, and not previously available to the public. The draft manual instructs NSA operators to track their use of one malware program using a specific 16-character string, "ace02468bdf13579." That exact same string appears throughout the ShadowBrokers leak in code associated with the same program, SECONDDATE. ..."
    Aug 19, 2016 | theintercept.com
    On Monday, a hacking group calling itself the "ShadowBrokers" announced an auction for what it claimed were "cyber weapons" made by the NSA. Based on never-before-published documents provided by the whistleblower Edward Snowden, The Intercept can confirm that the arsenal contains authentic NSA software, part of a powerful constellation of tools used to covertly infect computers worldwide.

    The provenance of the code has been a matter of heated debate this week among cybersecurity experts, and while it remains unclear how the software leaked, one thing is now beyond speculation: The malware is covered with the NSA's virtual fingerprints and clearly originates from the agency.

    The evidence that ties the ShadowBrokers dump to the NSA comes in an agency manual for implanting malware, classified top secret, provided by Snowden, and not previously available to the public. The draft manual instructs NSA operators to track their use of one malware program using a specific 16-character string, "ace02468bdf13579." That exact same string appears throughout the ShadowBrokers leak in code associated with the same program, SECONDDATE.

    SECONDDATE plays a specialized role inside a complex global system built by the U.S. government to infect and monitor what one document estimated to be millions of computers around the world. Its release by ShadowBrokers, alongside dozens of other malicious tools, marks the first time any full copies of the NSA's offensive software have been available to the public, providing a glimpse at how an elaborate system outlined in the Snowden documents looks when deployed in the real world, as well as concrete evidence that NSA hackers don't always have the last word when it comes to computer exploitation.

    But malicious software of this sophistication doesn't just pose a threat to foreign governments, Johns Hopkins University cryptographer Matthew Green told The Intercept:

    The danger of these exploits is that they can be used to target anyone who is using a vulnerable router. This is the equivalent of leaving lockpicking tools lying around a high school cafeteria. It's worse, in fact, because many of these exploits are not available through any other means, so they're just now coming to the attention of the firewall and router manufacturers that need to fix them, as well as the customers that are vulnerable.

    So the risk is twofold: first, that the person or persons who stole this information might have used them against us. If this is indeed Russia, then one assumes that they probably have their own exploits, but there's no need to give them any more. And now that the exploits have been released, we run the risk that ordinary criminals will use them against corporate targets.

    The NSA did not respond to questions concerning ShadowBrokers, the Snowden documents, or its malware.

    A Memorable SECONDDATE

    The offensive tools released by ShadowBrokers are organized under a litany of code names such as POLARSNEEZE and ELIGIBLE BOMBSHELL, and their exact purpose is still being assessed. But we do know more about one of the weapons: SECONDDATE.

    SECONDDATE is a tool designed to intercept web requests and redirect browsers on target computers to an NSA web server. That server, in turn, is designed to infect them with malware. SECONDDATE's existence was first reported by The Intercept in 2014, as part of a look at a global computer exploitation effort code-named TURBINE. The malware server, known as FOXACID, has also been described in previously released Snowden documents.

    Other documents released by The Intercept today not only tie SECONDDATE to the ShadowBrokers leak but also provide new detail on how it fits into the NSA's broader surveillance and infection network. They also show how SECONDDATE has been used, including to spy on Pakistan and a computer system in Lebanon.

    The top-secret manual that authenticates the SECONDDATE found in the wild as the same one used within the NSA is a 31-page document titled "FOXACID SOP for Operational Management" and marked as a draft. It dates to no earlier than 2010. A section within the manual describes administrative tools for tracking how victims are funneled into FOXACID, including a set of tags used to catalogue servers. When such a tag is created in relation to a SECONDDATE-related infection, the document says, a certain distinctive identifier must be used:

    The same SECONDDATE MSGID string appears in 14 different files throughout the ShadowBrokers leak, including in a file titled SecondDate-3021.exe. Viewed through a code-editing program (screenshot below), the NSA's secret number can be found hiding in plain sight:

    All told, throughout many of the folders contained in the ShadowBrokers' package (screenshot below), there are 47 files with SECONDDATE-related names, including different versions of the raw code required to execute a SECONDDATE attack, instructions for how to use it, and other related files.

    .

    After viewing the code, Green told The Intercept the MSGID string's occurrence in both an NSA training document and this week's leak is "unlikely to be a coincidence." Computer security researcher Matt Suiche, founder of UAE-based cybersecurity startup Comae Technologies, who has been particularly vocal in his analysis of the ShadowBrokers this week, told The Intercept "there is no way" the MSGID string's appearance in both places is a coincidence.

    Where SECONDDATE Fits In

    This overview jibes with previously unpublished classified files provided by Snowden that illustrate how SECONDDATE is a component of BADDECISION, a broader NSA infiltration tool. SECONDDATE helps the NSA pull off a "man in the middle" attack against users on a wireless network, tricking them into thinking they're talking to a safe website when in reality they've been sent a malicious payload from an NSA server.

    According to one December 2010 PowerPoint presentation titled "Introduction to BADDECISION," that tool is also designed to send users of a wireless network, sometimes referred to as an 802.11 network, to FOXACID malware servers. Or, as the presentation puts it, BADDECISION is an "802.11 CNE [computer network exploitation] tool that uses a true man-in-the-middle attack and a frame injection technique to redirect a target client to a FOXACID server." As another top-secret slide puts it, the attack homes in on "the greatest vulnerability to your computer: your web browser."

    One slide points out that the attack works on users with an encrypted wireless connection to the internet.

    That trick, it seems, often involves BADDECISION and SECONDDATE, with the latter described as a "component" for the former. A series of diagrams in the "Introduction to BADDECISION" presentation show how an NSA operator "uses SECONDDATE to inject a redirection payload at [a] Target Client," invisibly hijacking a user's web browser as the user attempts to visit a benign website (in the example given, it's CNN.com). Executed correctly, the file explains, a "Target Client continues normal webpage browsing, completely unaware," lands on a malware-filled NSA server, and becomes infected with as much of that malware as possible - or as the presentation puts it, the user will be left "WHACKED!" In the other top-secret presentations, it's put plainly: "How do we redirect the target to the FOXACID server without being noticed"? Simple: "Use NIGHTSTAND or BADDECISION."

    The sheer number of interlocking tools available to crack a computer is dizzying. In the FOXACID manual, government hackers are told an NSA hacker ought to be familiar with using SECONDDATE along with similar man-in-the-middle wi-fi attacks code-named MAGIC SQUIRREL and MAGICBEAN. A top-secret presentation on FOXACID lists further ways to redirect targets to the malware server system.

    To position themselves within range of a vulnerable wireless network, NSA operators can use a mobile antenna system running software code-named BLINDDATE, depicted in the field in what appears to be Kabul. The software can even be attached to a drone. BLINDDATE in turn can run BADDECISION, which allows for a SECONDDATE attack:

    Elsewhere in these files, there are at least two documented cases of SECONDDATE being used to successfully infect computers overseas: An April 2013 presentation boasts of successful attacks against computer systems in both Pakistan and Lebanon. In the first, NSA hackers used SECONDDATE to breach "targets in Pakistan's National Telecommunications Corporation's (NTC) VIP Division," which contained documents pertaining to "the backbone of Pakistan's Green Line communications network" used by "civilian and military leadership."

    In the latter, the NSA used SECONDDATE to pull off a man-in-the-middle attack in Lebanon "for the first time ever," infecting a Lebanese ISP to extract "100+ MB of Hizballah Unit 1800 data," a special subset of the terrorist group dedicated to aiding Palestinian militants.

    SECONDDATE is just one method that the NSA uses to get its target's browser pointed at a FOXACID server. Other methods include sending spam that attempts to exploit bugs in popular web-based email providers or entices targets to click on malicious links that lead to a FOXACID server. One document, a newsletter for the NSA's Special Source Operations division, describes how NSA software other than SECONDDATE was used to repeatedly direct targets in Pakistan to FOXACID malware web servers, eventually infecting the targets' computers.

    A Potentially Mundane Hack

    Snowden, who worked for NSA contractors Dell and Booz Allen Hamilton, has offered some context and a relatively mundane possible explanation for the leak: that the NSA headquarters was not hacked, but rather one of the computers the agency uses to plan and execute attacks was compromised. In a series of tweets, he pointed out that the NSA often lurks on systems that are supposed to be controlled by others, and it's possible someone at the agency took control of a server and failed to clean up after themselves. A regime, hacker group, or intelligence agency could have seized the files and the opportunity to embarrass the agency.

    Documents

    Documents published with this story:

    [Aug 21, 2016] Gaius Publius: You Broke It, You Bought It – A Sanders Activist Challenges Clinton Supporters

    No progressives worth their name would vote for Hillary. Betrayal of Sanders made the choice more difficult, but still there no alternative. Clinton "No passaran!". Also "Clinton proved capable of coming to an agreement with Sanders. He received good money, bought a new house, published a book, and joined with Clinton, calling on his supporters to vote for her"...
    Crappy slogans like "hold her feet to the fire" are lies. Has there ever been serious detail about that? I've seen this line over and over. Hillary is dyed-in-the-wool neoliberal and will behave as such as soon as she get into office. You can view her iether as (more jingoistic) Obama II or (equally reckless) Bush III. If she wins, the next opportunity to check her neoliberal leaning will be only during the next Persidential election.
    Notable quotes:
    "... ...was Clinton the better progressive choice against Sanders? Almost no Sanders-supporting Democratic voter would say yes to that. Not on trade, not on climate, not on breaking up too-big Wall Street banks, not on criminally prosecuting (finally) "too big to jail" members of the elite - not on any number of issues that touch core progressives values. ..."
    "... It's time for progressives who helped Hillary Clinton beat Bernie Sanders in the primary to take the lead on holding her accountable. ..."
    "... She's now appointed two pro-TPP politicians to key positions on her campaign  -  Tim Kaine as her Vice President and Ken Salazar to lead her presidential transition team. It's time for progressives who helped Clinton beat Bernie Sanders in the primary to take the lead on holding her accountable. ..."
    "... The choice of Salazar is a pretty good sign that as expected we'll be seeing the 'revolving door' in full force in a Clinton administration. As head of the transition he'll have enormous influence on who fills thousands of jobs at the White House and federal agencies. ..."
    "... It is really important to stop referring to "job-killing trade deals" and point out every single time they are mentioned that the TPP, TTIP and TISA are about GOVERNANCE, not about "trade" in any sense that a normal person understands it. ..."
    "... TPP & its ilk, like NAFTA and CAFTA before them, are about world government by multinational corporations via their Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) provisions. ..."
    "... Regulatory arb, slice of corruption, and like shareholder value memes an equity burnishing tool… ..."
    "... One thing I liked about Thom Hartmann was he relentlessly drove home the point that the US succeeded, grew, and became the dominant economic power in the world through the use of TARIFFS. Tariffs are necessary. ..."
    "... The nafta-shafta deals relinquish the right to even think about tariffs. You don't have a sovereign nation any more. ..."
    "... You can visit the prosperous Samsung-suburb of Suwon, Korea and see all the abandoned manufacturing space (where Korea was just a step on the path to Vietnam and Bangladesh). ..."
    "... Information revolution automation is substituting machines for human intelligence. Here the race to the bottom is a single step, and these "trade" deals are all about rules of governance that will apply when people have been stripped of all economic power. ..."
    "... merely infinite wealth and power for a thin oligarchy of robot/machine owners? ..."
    "... Globalization and Technologization is a canard they use to explain the impoverishment and death of the working class. ..."
    "... The fact that auto manufactures moved plants to low wage, nonunion, right to work states actually highlights the fact that labor costs drive the decision where to locate manufacturing plants. ..."
    Aug 20, 2016 | nakedcapitalism.com

    ...was Clinton the better progressive choice against Sanders? Almost no Sanders-supporting Democratic voter would say yes to that. Not on trade, not on climate, not on breaking up too-big Wall Street banks, not on criminally prosecuting (finally) "too big to jail" members of the elite - not on any number of issues that touch core progressives values.

    ... ... ...

    Becky Bond on the Challenge to Clinton Supporters

    ...Bond looks at what the primary has wrought, and issues this challenge to activists who helped defeat Sanders: You broke it, you bought it. Will you now take charge in the fight to hold Clinton accountable? Or will you hang back (enjoying the fruits) and let others take the lead? ("Enjoying the fruits" is my addition. As one attendee noted, the Democratic Convention this year seemed very much like "a jobs fair.")

    Bond says this, writing in The Hill (my emphasis):

    Progressive Clinton supporters: You broke it, you bought it

    It's time for progressives who helped Hillary Clinton beat Bernie Sanders in the primary to take the lead on holding her accountable.

    With Donald Trump tanking in the polls, there's room for progressives to simultaneously crush his bid for the presidency while holding Hillary Clinton's feet to the fire on the TPP .

    And yet:

    She's now appointed two pro-TPP politicians to key positions on her campaign  -  Tim Kaine as her Vice President and Ken Salazar to lead her presidential transition team. It's time for progressives who helped Clinton beat Bernie Sanders in the primary to take the lead on holding her accountable.

    ... ... ...

    Bond has more on Salazar and why both he and Tim Kaine are a "tell," a signal of things to come from Hillary Clinton: "The choice of Salazar is a pretty good sign that as expected we'll be seeing the 'revolving door' in full force in a Clinton administration. As head of the transition he'll have enormous influence on who fills thousands of jobs at the White House and federal agencies."

    ... ... ...

    Carla , August 20, 2016 at 5:40 am

    It is really important to stop referring to "job-killing trade deals" and point out every single time they are mentioned that the TPP, TTIP and TISA are about GOVERNANCE, not about "trade" in any sense that a normal person understands it.

    This is the evil behind the lie of calling these "trade" agreements and putting the focus on "jobs." TPP & its ilk, like NAFTA and CAFTA before them, are about world government by multinational corporations via their Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) provisions.

    That's what's at stake; not jobs. The jobs will be lost to automation anyway; they are never coming back. The TPP et al legal straight jackets do not sell out jobs, that's already been done. No, what these phony trade agreements do is foreclose any hope of achieving functioning democracies. Please start saying so!

    sd , August 20, 2016 at 5:55 am

    Question – If automation killed jobs, then why did manufacturing move to low wage states and countries?

    Carla , August 20, 2016 at 6:25 am

    I miss-typed above. Of course I meant TPP and not ttp.

    Yes, WTO, NAFTA, CAFTA, etc., certainly killed jobs. However, those jobs are not coming back to these shores. In the higher wage countries, "good" jobs - in manufacturing and in many "knowledge" and "service" sectors - as well as unskilled jobs, are being or have been replaced with automated means and methods.

    Just a few examples: automobile assemblers; retail cashiers; secretaries; steelworkers; highway toll collectors; gas station attendants. ETC. Here's what's happened so far just in terms of Great Lakes freighters:

    "The wheelman stood behind Captain Ross, clutching a surprisingly tiny, computerized steering wheel. He wore driving gloves and turned the Equinox every few seconds in whatever direction the captain told him to. The wheel, computer monitors and what looked like a server farm filling the wheelhouse are indicative of changes in the shipping industry. Twenty years ago, it took 35 crew members to run a laker. The Equinox operates with 16, only a handful of whom are on duty at once."

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/21/travel/great-lakes-montreal-minnesota.html

    TPP, TTIP and TISA are about GOVERNANCE, not trade, and only very incidentally, jobs. The rulers of the universe vastly prefer paying no wages to paying low wages, and whatever can be automated, will be, eventually in low-wage countries as well as here and in Europe. A great deal of this has already happened and it will continue. Only 5 sections of the TPP even deal with trade–that's out of 29. Don't take this on my authority; Public Citizen is the gold standard of analysis regarding these so-called "trade" agreements.

    different clue , August 21, 2016 at 2:00 am

    It took the OverClass several decades to send all those jobs away from our shores. It would take several decades to bring those jobs back to our shores. But it could be done within a context of militant belligerent protectionism.

    Americans are smart enough to make spoons, knives and forks. We used to make them. We could make them again. The only obstacles are contrived and artificial political-economic and policy obstacles. Apply a different Market Forcefield to the American Market, and the actors within that market would act differently over the several decades to come.

    Andrew , August 20, 2016 at 6:34 am

    Automation hasn't eliminated those jobs yet. But it will. See Foxconns investment in automation to eliminate iPhone assemblers.

    Skippy , August 20, 2016 at 6:37 am

    Regulatory arb, slice of corruption, and like shareholder value memes an equity burnishing tool…

    EndOfTheWorld , August 20, 2016 at 6:46 am

    One thing I liked about Thom Hartmann was he relentlessly drove home the point that the US succeeded, grew, and became the dominant economic power in the world through the use of TARIFFS. Tariffs are necessary. They protect your industries while at the same time bringing in a lot of revenue.

    The nafta-shafta deals relinquish the right to even think about tariffs. You don't have a sovereign nation any more.

    casino implosion , August 20, 2016 at 6:07 pm

    Sovereign nations are racist.

    different clue , August 21, 2016 at 2:02 am

    Really? Even multi-ethnic ones like Russia? Or America on a good day? Or Canada?

    You might want to be careful with Davos Man Free-Trade hasbara like that. You could end up giving racism a good name.

    Tom , August 20, 2016 at 6:50 am

    Off-shoring was just a stop-gap measure until human capital could be completely removed from the equation.

    Tom , August 20, 2016 at 7:55 am

    I meant to include a link to this particularly shocking example from a few months ago:
    Foxconn, Apple's Chinese supplier, is replacing 60,000 workers with AI robots.

    John , August 20, 2016 at 10:07 am

    Well then Apple can bring the all it's manufacturing back to the U.S. No need to be in China if they aren't using slave wage workers.

    Tom , August 20, 2016 at 2:55 pm

    Humans are just one line item on the list of expenses..

    dk , August 20, 2016 at 8:20 am

    ^That.

    Vastydeep , August 20, 2016 at 7:19 am

    The first round of industrial revolution automation substituted machines for human/horse mechanical exertion. We reached "peak horse" around 1900, and the move to low-wage/low-regulation states was just a step on the global race to the bottom. You can visit the prosperous Samsung-suburb of Suwon, Korea and see all the abandoned manufacturing space (where Korea was just a step on the path to Vietnam and Bangladesh).

    Information revolution automation is substituting machines for human intelligence. Here the race to the bottom is a single step, and these "trade" deals are all about rules of governance that will apply when people have been stripped of all economic power.

    Will the rise of the machines lead to abundance for all, or merely infinite wealth and power for a thin oligarchy of robot/machine owners? TPP and it's ilk may be the last chance for we the people to have any say in it.

    PhilU , August 20, 2016 at 10:00 am

    Manufacturing is in decline due to Reagan's tax cuts and low investment. Globalization and Technologization is a canard they use to explain the impoverishment and death of the working class.

    John Zelnicker , August 20, 2016 at 10:23 am

    @Squirrel – Labor costs, as you say, are a driving force; they are not the only one. Notice that the products you mentioned are all large heavy items. In these cases the transportation costs are high enough that the companies want their production to be close to their final market. The lower cost of labor elsewhere is not enough to compensate for the higher shipping costs from those locations. In addition, the wage gap between the US and other places has narrowed over the past 20 years, mostly due to the ongoing suppression of wage gains in the US. Your examples are exceptions that do not falsify the original premise that a huge amount of manufacturing has moved to lower wage locations. And those moves are still ongoing, e.g., Carrier moving to Mexico.

    The cost of manufactured goods has not fallen because the labor savings is going to profit and executive compensation, not reduced prices.

    TimmyB , August 20, 2016 at 12:31 pm

    The fact that auto manufactures moved plants to low wage, nonunion, right to work states actually highlights the fact that labor costs drive the decision where to locate manufacturing plants.

    [Aug 21, 2016] Sanders gets 45% of the vote and leads them down Hillarys cattle chute for slaughter – not cooption, not marginalization, but the bolt gun to the head

    Notable quotes:
    "... All these elections are equally fake. At some point you're going to have to stop pecking B.F. Skinner's levers, because the pellets have stopped coming out. But there's no point reasoning with you till your extinction burst finally subsides. ..."
    "... This is not a very good piece for several reasons, one being only in the nonsense universe of US mainstream discourse can Clinton be termed a 'centrist' or can someone be depicted as a bona fide 'progressive' and also be a supporter of Clinton. I wouldn't waste a moment trying to pressure 'Clinton progressives' on anything – there is no historical evidence she or Bill have ever had the slightest interest in the public interest. At best a 'Clinton progressive' might claim to be 'defending' some existing public good, but good luck there as well – as Trump is not the source of any real 'threat', that distinction belonging to the existing power elites (military, financial, corporate, legal, media etc.) Clinton serves. ..."
    "... The idea that Clinton ever was 'open' to progressives reminds me of why the putrid Rahm Emmanuel could dismiss the left as a 'bunch of retards'. Time to make them eat those words by taking ourselves and our values and our thinking seriously enough we stop fearing not being taken 'seriously' by so loathsome a crew as the Clintons. ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Mooooo , August 20, 2016 at 10:42 pm

    Here in Temple Grandin's touchy-feely slaughterhouse, Sanders gets 45% of the vote and leads them down Hillary's cattle chute for slaughter – not cooption, not marginalization, but the bolt gun to the head, with lots of sadistic poleaxing straight out of an illegal PETA video. The surviving livestock are auctioned off for flensing through gleeful trading in influence. This we learn, is not beyond redemption. In some demented psycho-Quaker sense, perhaps. What the fuck WON'T you put up with?

    In this psychotic mindset, Kim Jong Un's 99.97% victory proves he's like twice as worthwhile as any Dem. Write him in. Nursultan Nazarbayev, too, his 98% success speaks for itself. Write him in. All these elections are equally fake. At some point you're going to have to stop pecking B.F. Skinner's levers, because the pellets have stopped coming out. But there's no point reasoning with you till your extinction burst finally subsides.

    Then we can talk about how you knock over moribund regimes.

    Fiver , August 20, 2016 at 6:24 pm

    This is not a very good piece for several reasons, one being only in the nonsense universe of US mainstream discourse can Clinton be termed a 'centrist' or can someone be depicted as a bona fide 'progressive' and also be a supporter of Clinton. I wouldn't waste a moment trying to pressure 'Clinton progressives' on anything – there is no historical evidence she or Bill have ever had the slightest interest in the public interest. At best a 'Clinton progressive' might claim to be 'defending' some existing public good, but good luck there as well – as Trump is not the source of any real 'threat', that distinction belonging to the existing power elites (military, financial, corporate, legal, media etc.) Clinton serves.

    There are 3 critical issues 'progressives', Greens, lefties, libertarians and others must come together en masse to resist: TPP immediately, US foreign policy of permanent wars of aggression now involving the entire Muslim world and fossil fuels. Don't waste any time hoping to influence Clinton (you won't) or fretting about Trump. First TPP, then anti-War/anti-fossil fuels.

    I am convinced TPP can be beaten – not with 'Clinton activists', but with a broad coalition of interests. And once it has been beaten, the supremely idiotic 'war on terror' is next up. Americans' votes and electoral desires have been ignored and suppressed. Other legitimate means therefore must be taken up and utilized to change critical policy failures directly.

    The idea that Clinton ever was 'open' to progressives reminds me of why the putrid Rahm Emmanuel could dismiss the left as a 'bunch of retards'. Time to make them eat those words by taking ourselves and our values and our thinking seriously enough we stop fearing not being taken 'seriously' by so loathsome a crew as the Clintons.

    [Aug 21, 2016] Hillary is a lying war hawk, a neoliberal who can not be reformed

    Notable quotes:
    "... Until she demonstrated her vile nature as Secretary of State, the problem with Hillary has been the cast of miscreants she surrounds herself with such as John Podesta. Obama might have actually at least not surrounded herself with such vile people, but Hillary's 2007 henchmen were a sign she was unfit for any office. Trying to grab an empty suit, Obama, before he made connections just made sense. ..."
    "... Other than that, she was First Lady and an unremarkable Senator. The line about Mos Eisley from Star Wars accurately describes the Senate. ..."
    "... I think "progressive" is a such a mushy term it's hard to fit anybody into it on any criteria other than that they identify themselves as such. ..."
    "... That's why there's never a real answer to "Progress in what direction?" And the progressives of today have no historical "bloodline" connection to the Progressives of the late 19th and early 20th century (except maybe some vague technocratic leanings, the 10% of that day). ..."
    "... But if Hillary Clinton and Ezra Klein at al. get to call themselves progressive, it's a useless term ..."
    "... All I ever hear from Clinton supporters (even those newly aligned former Bernie supporters), is 'because Trump'. They appear starry-eyed and brainwashed because she's 'not Trump'. I don't predict any of 'em pushing Clinton on any issues. ..."
    "... Even if they tried, Clinton has already shown, IMO, that unless you have millions of dollars to throw at her feet you'll never get her attention, let alone force any change in her policies. ..."
    "... 2020 starts on November 9. Even if Clinton seems legitimate on election day, she'll delegitimize herself in short order. She won't be able to help herself. ..."
    "... IMO she already did that at the end of the campaign trail by choosing Kaine as her running mate, Salazar for her transition team (& suggesting Bill as economic advisor?). http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/hillary_clintons_choice_of_ken_salazar_comes_under_fire_video_20160818 ..."
    "... Kaine, along with IIRC Rahm, purged the Democrats of activists from Howard Dean's 50-state strategy post-2006. ..."
    "... Hillary is a lying war hawk. ..."
    "... Too bad Sanders turned out to be a sheepdog for the D party. He really should get the best actor in a political campaign award. After he endorsed Clinton it was clear as day it was ALL one big performance. ..."
    "... Young Sanders voters had a damned clear idea of the limits of what he was offering. They voted for him anyway, because he just sucked so much less than the jowly pair of creeps who stand before us now. ..."
    "... Can anyone doubt that Hillary will pull a super-Obama once elected, rejecting all her promises and implementing their opposites once elected? It amazes me that many people do, that they think they will have some ability to control policy. If things get too hot in the kitchen politically speaking, isn't it OBVIOUS that a 2-pronged propaganda effort will be unleashed, to hide blatantly unpopular moves on the one hand, and/or talk them up as if they were falsely maligned and in the TINA category on the other. ..."
    "... "This really matters. That Clinton is a better progressive choice than Trump is not much contested." Really? Reeeeaaaaa lly? Perhaps, as others have said way upthread, that is part of the problem right there. ..."
    "... Reading the article at this link should help progressives get over their fear of a President Trump. That fear is the only thing preventing them from voting for someone other than Clinton. Maybe the progressives should consider the possibility that they have nothing to fear but fear itself. ..."
    "... Because when he focuses on the last few-couple decades and especially the last few years, including CLINTON'S last few years, he makes serious sense. As well as his discussion of who has what military capabilities nowadays, and what a mistaken estimation of who has what military capabilities nowadays can lead the mistakers to lead their country into, box-canyon-of-no-return speaking-wise. ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    NotTimothyGeithner , August 20, 2016 at 10:53 am

    Until she demonstrated her vile nature as Secretary of State, the problem with Hillary has been the cast of miscreants she surrounds herself with such as John Podesta. Obama might have actually at least not surrounded herself with such vile people, but Hillary's 2007 henchmen were a sign she was unfit for any office. Trying to grab an empty suit, Obama, before he made connections just made sense.

    Other than that, she was First Lady and an unremarkable Senator. The line about Mos Eisley from Star Wars accurately describes the Senate.

    Lambert Strether , August 20, 2016 at 11:32 am

    I think "progressive" is a such a mushy term it's hard to fit anybody into it on any criteria other than that they identify themselves as such. I was there for the creation of the term, and there was a lot of discussion about it in the blogosphere at the time. Basically, the conservatives had managed, by dint of repetition, in making "liberal" a dirty word, so they needed rebranding. That's all "progressive" is; a rebranding.

    That's why there's never a real answer to "Progress in what direction?" And the progressives of today have no historical "bloodline" connection to the Progressives of the late 19th and early 20th century (except maybe some vague technocratic leanings, the 10% of that day).

    So I disagree. Today:

    liberal = progressive = identity politics ≠ left

    aab , August 20, 2016 at 8:33 pm

    I never liked the word liberal and never self-identified as such. Even as a kid, I think I intuited its connection back to Locke and classical liberalism. I had been calling myself progressive for a while, as it seemed like a nice connection to the earlier progressive movement pushing back against the first Gilded Age and a way of talking about the left that wasn't too scary for people trapped in the liberal paradigm.

    But if Hillary Clinton and Ezra Klein at al. get to call themselves progressive, it's a useless term. I've reverted back to "leftist". I strongly doubt Hill and Ezra will want that. We'll see.

    crittermom , August 20, 2016 at 9:31 am

    Sorry, but I saw this article as little more than wishful thinking.

    "It's time for progressives who helped Hillary Clinton beat Bernie Sanders in the primary to take the lead on holding her accountable."

    Not gonna happen.

    Even if those supporting her were to 'make a little noise' over things they're opposed to, what makes Bond think she'd listen? Wasn't the Dem convention revealing enough?

    All I ever hear from Clinton supporters (even those newly aligned former Bernie supporters), is 'because Trump'. They appear starry-eyed and brainwashed because she's 'not Trump'. I don't predict any of 'em pushing Clinton on any issues.

    Even if they tried, Clinton has already shown, IMO, that unless you have millions of dollars to throw at her feet you'll never get her attention, let alone force any change in her policies.

    Lambert Strether , August 20, 2016 at 11:19 am

    2020 starts on November 9. Even if Clinton seems legitimate on election day, she'll delegitimize herself in short order. She won't be able to help herself.

    crittermom , August 20, 2016 at 12:38 pm

    IMO she already did that at the end of the campaign trail by choosing Kaine as her running mate, Salazar for her transition team (& suggesting Bill as economic advisor?). http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/hillary_clintons_choice_of_ken_salazar_comes_under_fire_video_20160818

    She also confirmed it at the convention by silencing those there to push for platform reform. (I really had no idea just how much weight the head of a transition team carries until I watched this video).

    Lambert Strether , August 20, 2016 at 4:02 pm

    Kaine, along with IIRC Rahm, purged the Democrats of activists from Howard Dean's 50-state strategy post-2006.

    So I'm thinking the Sanders people will have some fighting to do sooner than they think.

    sharonsj , August 20, 2016 at 9:55 am

    I'd like to add that although I will be in the voting booth come November, none of the presidential candidates will get my vote. Trump is an ignorant egomaniac. Hillary is a lying war hawk. Johnson is another right-wing looney. And Stein, while she has some really good stances, lied during the CNN town hall (and I know because I actually read the Green Platform). I'm not even sure I will vote for the Dem challenger to my lousy Repub senator because the challenger is just another party hack who, like Hillary, only says what we want to hear.

    John , August 20, 2016 at 11:02 am

    Sanders did not "come out of nowhere".
    I and others followed and heard him for years on the Tom Hartman show.
    But I had gotten sick of hearing the talk but seeing no action and had stopped listening for at least the past two years.

    Also, the reason the "kids" took to him like wild was him calling for student loan cancellation.

    And that's the god's truth.

    Though his other messages about the rich looting us clean and needing to be stopped were what any sane person in the country longed to hear and have changed.

    Too bad Sanders turned out to be a sheepdog for the D party. He really should get the best actor in a political campaign award. After he endorsed Clinton it was clear as day it was ALL one big performance.

    FluffytheObeseCat , August 20, 2016 at 1:36 pm

    In my experience (6 years of pursuing a PhD late in life) young educated people today are so much more savvy, less self-indulgent and broadly "grown up" than the peeved, aging boomers who haunt this board…….. that this assertion is laugh-inducing.

    Young Sanders voters had a damned clear idea of the limits of what he was offering. They voted for him anyway, because he just sucked so much less than the jowly pair of creeps who stand before us now.

    ambrit , August 20, 2016 at 1:57 pm

    Voting for someone who "sucked so much less" than the other candidates is not how a movement gets started. If your assertion is correct, than things are not only looking dim for any reform in the near future, but look equally bad for long range reform. Hate is too self consuming to maintain constantly without renouncing ones humanity. Hope, as the histories of religions show, can keep chugging along for millennia. "True believers" did start in the religious sphere and transfer to other spheres of human endeavour.

    Norb , August 20, 2016 at 10:37 am

    I think what people have forgotten, or have no current experience with, is the actual radical, and destructive nature of Capitalism as a social organizing structure. It is the ocean in which we all swim or the air we all breathe, so take for granted – unreflectively. Commoners cannot connect the misery they experience daily with the system they live under. Capitalists can only double down on their life strategy. The second they hesitate, the game is up. It is an all or nothing strategy. In America, you are given no breathing space. No tolerance for dissent.

    A reformed capitalism ceases to be capitalism. Just as the divine right of Kings falls away when individual liberty takes hold in the mind. The two thoughts are incompatible.

    What is the capitalist goal? To control all- to exploit all? Don't capitalists already possess that power in disguised form already? What is it that they want anyway? Power over individual lives? Materially, the ruling elite have everything already, they have won the struggle of Owners over Labor. We have come full circle to where the elite now require our public displays of affection for their greatness once again. Freedom and liberty of the individual be dammed if not the right individual.

    If forced to express their vision for the human future, the ruling elite would be exposed as the shallow frauds that they are. They have no vision other than the ceaseless striving for material personal wealth. Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are a logical result of an unrelenting capitalist system. They are its products.

    What is the logical end for capitalism? It is an ideology that needs competition to survive. But what happens when there are no more foes to conquer? No more resources to exploit for profit?.

    America is a nation of chaos because it is the leader of the capitalist world. It is not a nation of diverse strength and stability. It is a teetering behemoth, struggling not to fall over from neglect and self inflicted wounds perpetrated by sociopathic ideologues.

    Hopefully, the con game has lost it's effectiveness as harsh reality sinks in. As always, its having a plan ready to go and implement when the crash finally occurs. If the left does't have that plan ready, we all deserve what comes.

    Yves Smith Post author , August 21, 2016 at 1:28 am

    Actually, your intel is dated. Wall Street is her fading clientele. Google and Silicon Valley are much more important to Hillary now.

    DarkMatters , August 20, 2016 at 1:39 pm

    I'm really baffled at the surprise felt at Hillary's choice of associates, and at the policy decisions likely to follow. It reminds me of Condoleeza Rice statement that no one could have seen 911 coming, when drills had been ongoing to handle exactly this eventuality.

    Can anyone doubt that Hillary will pull a super-Obama once elected, rejecting all her promises and implementing their opposites once elected? It amazes me that many people do, that they think they will have some ability to control policy. If things get too hot in the kitchen politically speaking, isn't it OBVIOUS that a 2-pronged propaganda effort will be unleashed, to hide blatantly unpopular moves on the one hand, and/or talk them up as if they were falsely maligned and in the TINA category on the other.

    I state these opinions feeling on the one hand, as if I have 2 heads because this view seems so marginal among the populace, but on the other feeling eerily vindicated, as if I've been seeing a train coming down the track and striking a crowd of people, none of whom apparently saw or did anything during its approach. Is not the political outcome obvious? Hasn't anyone else seen through the level of propaganda diminishing her crimes as either nonexistent or unprosecutable?

    Well, I can entertain myself watching the propaganda, and watching how far political and ethical opinions can be twisted. Like the train metaphor, there's a certain macabre fascination to be savored. This is undoubtedly corrosive to my ethical and moral sensibilities, but trivially compared to all else.

    Jess , August 20, 2016 at 2:24 pm

    God I hate the phony framing of "hold her feet to the fire". After she's elected there is simply no way to do that. The only way her desired policies could be thwarted is by forcing enough members of Congress not to vote for certain bills like the TPP. But even then, nothing we can do can force her to change executive orders and executive branch policies or priorities.

    SpringTexan , August 20, 2016 at 4:08 pm

    Yes, TPP and TTIP are excellent places to "pick your spots," not easy but possibly winnable.

    Katniss Everdeen , August 20, 2016 at 8:01 pm

    You're right. The phoniest. And such crap.

    Bond is not even going to do the feet-to-fire holding herself. She's assigning it to someone else based on a standard she's devised. You broke it, you bought it. Give me a break.

    If you want to send the democrat party a message, you deny them the win. Period. It's how elections work. You don't get the job if your performance is piss poor.

    All this wishy-washiness over giving an unsuitable candidate a job and then assigning someone to stand guard over them to make sure they do it to your satisfaction when you've known from the beginning that s/he won't is just a weak excuse for taking the easy way out.

    You want to send a message to the democrat party that they better shape up now, you vote for Trump. And hold HIS feet to the fire. Two birds, one stone

    Jess , August 20, 2016 at 8:25 pm

    "vote for Trump. And hold HIS feet to the fire. Two birds, one stone"

    Yes. Excellent. And we might actually get some help holding those feet to that fire.

    KYrocky , August 20, 2016 at 4:50 pm

    Gaius asks:

    What will Clinton supporters, those who happily helped bring down Sanders, do then?

    Answer: Nothing. Sorry you wasted so many pixels avoiding the obvious.

    Oregoncharles , August 20, 2016 at 5:43 pm

    "Progressives who supported Clinton in the primary should use their leverage to ensure Clinton makes good on her vow to stop TPP and keep other promises she made on the campaign trail to win progressive votes. "

    This is crapified politics that we've heard before, over and over. HOW are they going to "hold her feet to the fire?" Has there ever been serious detail about that? I've seen this line over and over, but it's NEVER operational, and more important, it can't be. The next opportunity is 4 long years off; she could be dead by then, so could they, and the Republicans will nominate Cruz.

    All that leaves is insurrectionary street action; anything else is easy to ignore, and they know they have progressives hog-tied – hell, the progs did it to themselves.

    This hogswill is nothing but the same lesser-evilism that got us here. I suspect GP agrees; I'm responding to the quote.

    River , August 20, 2016 at 8:48 pm

    I think "hold her feet to the fire" means progressives will get on all fours and act as an Ottoman for Her Grace during a cold D.C winter's night. They seem to be doing it now.

    kimsarah , August 20, 2016 at 10:41 pm

    All fours alright: http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/292086-sanders-looking-forward-to-campaigning-for-clinton-after

    different clue , August 21, 2016 at 1:55 am

    Dear Gaius Publius,

    "This really matters. That Clinton is a better progressive choice than Trump is not much contested." Really? Reeeeaaaaa lly? Perhaps, as others have said way upthread, that is part of the problem right there.

    Perhaps people should consider the possibility that Clinton is the More Effective evil. Perhaps a Trump Administration would be a bunch of sound and fury and clown car fire drills signifying nothing. Whereas a Clinton Administration would be staffed and powered by Decromatic and Third Way Cheneys who know where all the knobs, levers and buttons of power are. And they are determined that what they want . . . they will get.

    One of Ian Welsh's favorite commenters brought this link to his blog.

    markfromireland PERMALINK

    August 19, 2016

    There are lots of reasons not to vote for Clinton and the suppurating corruption she represents. Not letting her owners play with matches rates high among them

    ( and if that sentence does not link to the brought-link here the way it does on Ian Welsh, here is the URL link its own self, so people can link to it and read it.)
    http://fredoneverything.org/hillary-trump-and-war-with-russia-the-goddamdest-stupid-idea-i-have-ever-heard-and-i-have-lived-in-washington/

    Some of the insulting language is harsh on the tender eyeballs of sensitive leftists. I would suggest gritting one's teeth and powering through the relatively few insulting words and phrases. Most of it is fact-based and evidence-supported reasoned reasons to prevent Clinton from getting elected. Reading the article at this link should help progressives get over their fear of a President Trump. That fear is the only thing preventing them from voting for someone other than Clinton. Maybe the progressives should consider the possibility that they have nothing to fear but fear itself.

    Lambert Strether , August 21, 2016 at 3:24 am

    I dunno how tender my eyeballs are, but this at your link caught my eye: "When Washington pushed the South into the Civil War…"

    Wowsers. No, I don't think so.

    different clue , August 21, 2016 at 4:44 am

    Yes, one's eyeballs could be pretty tough and still find that one difficult. Still, it pays to grind one's teeth and power through.

    Because when he focuses on the last few-couple decades and especially the last few years, including CLINTON'S last few years, he makes serious sense. As well as his discussion of who has what military capabilities nowadays, and what a mistaken estimation of who has what military capabilities nowadays can lead the mistakers to lead their country into, box-canyon-of-no-return speaking-wise.

    [Aug 21, 2016] 6 Corporations control 90% Of The Media In North America

    It's like the USSR now: GE, News Corporation, Disney Company, Viacom, Time Warner and CBS. These 6 conglomerates control 90% of the mass media in North America nowadays.
    Notable quotes:
    "... That means that out of all the TV channels we watch, the radio stations we listen to and the movies we see are owned by one of these six main corporations. ..."
    "... People are almost "forced" to wonder if the media controls as well our public taste and interest. They control the information we receive, but not only that, they control exactly what we receive and the way we do, therefore they control what we think. Media companies do not care about how they can be more objective and provide people news and information with a neutral point of view (even thought it sounds contradictory). We could say that they "unintentionally" or "indirectly" tell us what to think and what to believe. ..."
    "... The media's duty is to provide objective information to the public through newspapers, television and radio, in order for the public to make public as well as personal decisions in the diverse fields. ..."
    October 21, 2013 | irenefgoros.wordpress.com
    Image

    GE, News Corporation, Disney Company, Viacom, Time Warner and CBS. These 6 conglomerates control 90% of the mass media in North America nowadays.

    Media ownership is becoming more and more concentrated these days as multi-billion dollar companies such as News corporation, Time warner and Disney company control almost all the shares of the mass media. A total of six corporations control almost 90% of the mainstream media nowadays. That means that out of all the TV channels we watch, the radio stations we listen to and the movies we see are owned by one of these six main corporations. Is this a good or a bad situation? Is the fact that almost the whole media is owned by a very few a positive or a negative aspect? Some argue that this brings benefits to the free market, the multi-billion companies and ultimately, the viewers. On the other hand, others say that this concentration of media ownership has a negative effect on the market and on society as a whole (articleworld.org).

    Image
    People are almost "forced" to wonder if the media controls as well our public taste and interest. They control the information we receive, but not only that, they control exactly what we receive and the way we do, therefore they control what we think. Media companies do not care about how they can be more objective and provide people news and information with a neutral point of view (even thought it sounds contradictory). We could say that they "unintentionally" or "indirectly" tell us what to think and what to believe. A newspaper finds some news and automatically interprets them, even though journalists try to focus on the facts, as many claim, they subconsciously have and opinion about whatever subject they are reporting about. This takes us to the point of "lack of diversity" that is a reality nowadays and that so many criticize. Danny Schechter, a television producer, independent filmmaker, blogger, and media critic states that "we have many channels and a tremendous lack of diversity." It wouldn't be strange to think that a news broadcast would withhold information if it had a negative effect on the company.

    From an international perspective, this situation of media merging is also beneficial for the big conglomerates. For instance, News Corporation owns the top newspaper on 3 continents, that is the Wall Street Journal in the U.S, The Sun in Europe and The Australian in Australia (Lutz, Jason, 2012). The positive aspect of this, is that the spreading of this "influence" is good for the company, and at the same time, readers get what they want, which is reading that newspaper. However, the bad aspect is that big conglomerates are big companies, and big companies main priority is always money, above everything else. Getting more readers, viewers and listeners is for the one and only purpose that matters to them: Money. That is what brings bad or "controversial" consequences, and one of them is that in 2012, they avoided $875 million in U.S taxes (Lutz, Jason, 2012). That would have been enough to double FEMA's budget, or to fund NPR for 40 years. Nonetheless, technically this cannot be criticized since they are a private corporation after all. Another issue that is a big concern in the European Union is the media transparency and plurality.

    Transparency is an essential component of pluralism (Stolte & Smith, 2010). Although the Council of Europe and the European Parliament have brought out recommendations regarding media transparency in the last few years, these have not been acted on. It is left to Member States to implement legislation regarding media ownership transparency, and there is by no means a unified or standard approach to be found across Europe (Stolte & Smith, 2010). This is a big issue in the European Union. The media's duty is to provide objective information to the public through newspapers, television and radio, in order for the public to make public as well as personal decisions in the diverse fields.

    Screen shot 2013-10-21 at 15.57.44

    It may sound scary -and it does to a lot of people- the fact that all our media is controlled by a few big conglomerates, forming an oligopoly, with the power of doing -almost- whatever they want. Also, it is true that this situation implies a very few and personal points of view, and the opportunity for those big conglomerates to "control" in a way what goes out, and how it does. Making the audience think in a certain way. This Infographic shows the media ownsership in the U.S currently.

    [Aug 21, 2016] Manafort's Ukraine ties being probed by FBI by Michael Isikoff

    This is a serious hit. And timing is perfect. Ukrainian government has connections to Hillary. If this is not interference n US election, I do not know what is. And Clinton Foundation ties to Ukraine are not investigated. Podesta firm (run by his brother) is involved by this involvement is hashed down. There is an interesting implicit hypothesis voiced in this article: the regime that replaced Yanukovich is less corrupt and less beholder to impoverishing Ukraine for the benefit of neoliberals like Soros. But the truth is that the country is now is much poor then it was under Yanukovich with his thieves. The best way to convert the country into debt slave is to wage a war. That's exactly what new leaders immediately did. See Ukraine denouement Michael Hudson. Of course FBI will not be investigating that. Like they refuse to investigate things about Hillary. Neoliberals are above the law, other people not so much.
    Isicoff said that Trump is attempting to delegitimize the current political establishment. I think he is correct if he means neoliberals (which MSM are afraid to call by name; imagine the same situation with communists when members of communist party were prohibited to call themselves communist; that would make communism closer to neoliberalism (which is essentially Trotskyism for rich)
    Notable quotes:
    "... Another firm, the Podesta Group, headed by Tony Podesta, brother of Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman, John Podesta, was also recruited by a Manafort deputy and lobbied for the European Centre. In a lengthy statement Friday, the Podesta Group said it had retained another Washington law firm, Caplin & Drysdale,"to determine if we were misled by the Centre for a Modern Ukraine or any other individuals with regard to the Centre's potential ties to foreign governments or political parties." ..."
    "... The lobbyists, political operators and former politicians are allowed to play all three roles interchangeably and that has (and continues) to lead to US foreign policies that consistently work AGAINST the best interests of the American people and the future well being of the country BUT in the in financial best interests of the special interests who own our elected officials and the mainstream media and thus call the shots. ..."
    "... This current case is a very close parallel to the case presidential candidate John McCains' chief foreign policy adviser, Randy Scheunemann, who was a paid lobbyist for for the former Soviet republic of Georgia which explains McCain's insistent that the US should intervene in the Russian/Geogian conflict of 2008 by bombing the pass thru which Russian troops were streaming into Georgia following Georgia attempt to claim South Ossetia and Abkhazia by force of arms. Yes, contrary to US media reports that was was started by the Georgians when they decided to invade and take back by force a couple of disputed regions and killed a number of Russian peacekeeper in the process. ..."
    "... So I guess this means that the FBI will give the Clinton Foundation similar scrutiny since Manafort's $12 million is chump change compared to the hundreds of millions the Clintons got from shady foreign governments in exchange for special favors. Yeah, right! Funny, I didn't know Manafort had more power in the US than the Clintons and so was more dangerous to national security. ..."
    "... Typical Clinton Machine deflection and distraction from their own worse crimes. Typical pro Hillary Yahoo 'news.' Read Breitbart and the Daily Caller, folks if you want real investigative reporting. ..."
    "... The FBI and Department of Justice have launched an investigation into whether the Podesta Group has any connections to alleged corruption that occurred in the administration of former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych. ..."
    "... It turns out that Hillary Clinton's campaign guru, head of the lobbying firm the Podesta Group, has found himself smack dab in the middle of the same criminal investigation spawned when devious political operatives decide to merge international relations with campaign politics. For weeks, the pages of the Washington Post, the Daily Beast, the New York Times, and the Wall Street Journal have chimed that Trump is a "Putin pawn" as part of some maniacal plot by the Kremlin to interfere with the US election. ..."
    "... The controversy for Podesta links to his work for the Centre for a Modern Ukraine, a Brussels based organization that describes itself as "an advocate for enhancing EU-Ukraine relations." Unfortunately for Mr. Podesta, the organization has been described as "an operation controlled by Yanukovych" and tied to the former leader's Party of Regions suggesting the Podesta Group may have been, like has been said of Paul Manafort, tasked with greater reporting requirements pursuant to US law. ..."
    August 19, 2016 | yahoo.com

    The Justice Department and the FBI are conducting a wide-ranging investigation into allegations of corrupt dealings by the government of former Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych, including the hiring of Washington lobbyists for the regime by former Donald Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, a senior law enforcement official confirmed to Yahoo News.

    The investigation, which was first reported by CNN, began two years ago after Yanukovych fled Kiev to Moscow and was replaced by the current government of Petro Poroshenko, the official said. But the inquiry has expanded in recent weeks in the wake of the discovery of documents showing $12.7 million in payments to Manafort by Yanukovych's Party of Regions political party. Investigators are also looking into reports that Manafort recruited two top Washington lobbying firms to advocate on behalf of a Belgian nonprofit that investigators now believe may have served as a front for Yanukovych's party. Neither of the firms, the Mercury Group and the Podesta Group, registered with the U.S. Justice Department as foreign agents - a requirement if they represented a foreign government or political party.

    The disclosure of the Justice Department investigation came on the same day that Manafort stepped down as Trump's campaign chairman - news that sent new shockwaves through Republican circles. Manafort, who served for years as a campaign consultant to Yanukovych, declined requests for comment. But a close associate of his who asked not to be identified explained his resignation this way: Manafort "is not going to take orders or relinquish power to people like" Kellyanne Conway, the new Trump campaign manager, and Steve Bannon, the newly named CEO of the campaign. The Manafort associate also blamed the rapidly unfolding Ukraine allegations on "oppo research" being spread by Corey Lewandowski, Trump's former campaign manager and a bitter foe of Manafort

    Ken Gross, a lawyer at Skadden Arps, which represents the Mercury Group, one of the lobbying firms recruited by Manafort, told Yahoo News that his firm has been "engaged to look into the matter" of whether Mercury was required to register as a foreign agent with the Justice Department when, at Manafort's request, it agreed to represent the Brussels-based European Centre for a Modern Ukraine in 2012. Lobbying reports reviewed by Yahoo News show that the firms sought to burnish Yanokovych's reputation and lobbied against congressional resolutions condemning the regime's treatment of political opponents and opposing Russian aggression in Ukraine.

    Another firm, the Podesta Group, headed by Tony Podesta, brother of Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman, John Podesta, was also recruited by a Manafort deputy and lobbied for the European Centre. In a lengthy statement Friday, the Podesta Group said it had retained another Washington law firm, Caplin & Drysdale,"to determine if we were misled by the Centre for a Modern Ukraine or any other individuals with regard to the Centre's potential ties to foreign governments or political parties."

    The statement added: "When the Centre became a client, it certified in writing that 'none of the activities of the Centre are directly or indirectly supervised, directed, controlled, financed or subsidized in whole or in part by a government of a foreign country or a foreign political party.' We relied on that certification and advice from counsel in registering and reporting under the Lobbying Disclosure Act rather than the Foreign Agents Registration Act. We will take whatever measures are necessary to address this situation based on Caplin & Drysdale's review, including possible legal action against the Centre."

    Sevgil Musaieva, editor of Ukrainskaye Pravda, a newspaper that has conducted multiple investigations into corruption under the Yanukovych regime, told Yahoo News that she first met with a team of FBI agents at the U.S. Embassy in Kiev two years ago. At the time, the new government headed by Poroshenko had asked the FBI for assistance in tracking down millions of dollars that it believed had been stolen by Yanukovych and his associates before they fled Kiev. "The FBI came to Kiev and started an investigation," she said. They asked her detailed questions about what she knew about allegations of corrupt dealings by the Yanukovych regime.

    But sources familiar with the probe say it expanded after a Ukrainian anticorruption bureau discovered a "black book" said to show "off-the-books" cash payments from the party to Manafort totaling $12.7 million between 2007 and 2012. Entries show that some of the payments were signed by a former member of the Ukrainian Parliament who was also a board member of the European Centre. Documents also purportedly show payments to the executive director of the center, according to a source familiar with the probe, reinforcing suspicions that the group was fronting for Yanukovych's political party.

    Sage

    The lobbyists, political operators and former politicians are allowed to play all three roles interchangeably and that has (and continues) to lead to US foreign policies that consistently work AGAINST the best interests of the American people and the future well being of the country BUT in the in financial best interests of the special interests who own our elected officials and the mainstream media and thus call the shots.

    Manafort is getting all this negative publicity only now, years AFTER the fact, because of two reasons---1) the political/special interests are deathly afraid that a Trump victory because they may not be able to control him and thus he might upset their lucrative apple cart that has made them obscenely wealthy at the expense of the rest of the country; and 2)secondly because that Manafort was backing the wrong horse in a race in which the special interests are actively trying to isolate and surround Russian militarily in order to remove a potential obstacle to their goal of global domination thru bought and paid for US politicians.

    However, this incestuous and obscene criminal behavior involving lobbyist/political operator has been going on for a long time and it much wider spread than is normally reported because the special interest owed media usually has no reason to expose it; in fact they usually have reason NOT to expose it.

    This current case is a very close parallel to the case presidential candidate John McCains' chief foreign policy adviser, Randy Scheunemann, who was a paid lobbyist for for the former Soviet republic of Georgia which explains McCain's insistent that the US should intervene in the Russian/Geogian conflict of 2008 by bombing the pass thru which Russian troops were streaming into Georgia following Georgia attempt to claim South Ossetia and Abkhazia by force of arms. Yes, contrary to US media reports that was was started by the Georgians when they decided to invade and take back by force a couple of disputed regions and killed a number of Russian peacekeeper in the process.

    Of course Scheunemann, unlike Manafort, came out completely unscathed and totally untouched by the media because war lover McCain supported the special interests' agenda because unlike Manafort, he was aiding and abetting the same "horse" the neo-con State Dept and the CIA had their bets on.

    A Mcp

    So I guess this means that the FBI will give the Clinton Foundation similar scrutiny since Manafort's $12 million is chump change compared to the hundreds of millions the Clintons got from shady foreign governments in exchange for special favors. Yeah, right! Funny, I didn't know Manafort had more power in the US than the Clintons and so was more dangerous to national security.

    Typical Clinton Machine deflection and distraction from their own worse crimes. Typical pro Hillary Yahoo 'news.' Read Breitbart and the Daily Caller, folks if you want real investigative reporting.

    Billy Willy

    So you biased Hillary asslickers think we don;t know about her SAME issues? So report on this you morons:

    The FBI and Department of Justice have launched an investigation into whether the Podesta Group has any connections to alleged corruption that occurred in the administration of former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych.

    It seems like just yesterday that the top campaign official for Donald Trump found himself caught in the middle of a political dragnet for his work as a lobbyist on behalf of Viktor Yanukovych with the media clamoring about his purported ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin as a reason why the Republican nominee was a less desirable candidate than Hillary Clinton. Wait, that was just yesterday?

    It turns out that Hillary Clinton's campaign guru, head of the lobbying firm the Podesta Group, has found himself smack dab in the middle of the same criminal investigation spawned when devious political operatives decide to merge international relations with campaign politics. For weeks, the pages of the Washington Post, the Daily Beast, the New York Times, and the Wall Street Journal have chimed that Trump is a "Putin pawn" as part of some maniacal plot by the Kremlin to interfere with the US election.

    Turns out, the Podesta Group founded by none other than John Podesta, Hillary's campaign chair and chief strategies, was retained by the Russian-owned firm UraniumOne in 2012, 2014, and 2015 to lobby Hillary Clinton's State Department based on John Podesta's longstanding relations with the Clinton family – he was the White House Chief of Staff under Bill Clinton.

    Interestingly, UraniumOne's chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million to the Clinton Foundation from 2009 to 2013. Perhaps a more blatant evidence of allegations that Hillary Clinton's State Department operated on a pay-to-play basis is the fact that, as the New York Times reported last April, "shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting UraniumOne stock.

    Not only are investigators wondering whether there was any impropriety in the lobbying arrangement such as the provision of beneficial treatment by the State Department to an old friend, but they are also probing the work that Viktor Yanukovych's regime paid the Podesta Group to do while he was the head of the Ukrainian government.

    The controversy for Podesta links to his work for the Centre for a Modern Ukraine, a Brussels based organization that describes itself as "an advocate for enhancing EU-Ukraine relations." Unfortunately for Mr. Podesta, the organization has been described as "an operation controlled by Yanukovych" and tied to the former leader's Party of Regions suggesting the Podesta Group may have been, like has been said of Paul Manafort, tasked with greater reporting requirements pursuant to US law.

    The Podesta Group quickly hired the white-shoe law firm Caplin & Drysdale as "independent, outside legal counsel to determine if we were misled by the Centre for a Modern Ukraine or any other individuals with regard to the Centre's potential ties to foreign governments or political parties."

    Alan

    The bummers FBI who just let off Hillary who should have been indicted and imprisoned? What a shock that they are involved.

    [Aug 21, 2016] An Open Letter From Mr. Trump -

    This Maureen Dowd column reminds me writing about Western capitalist society by some not too brainwashed Soviet propagandists. She managed to put into anti-trump diatibe (which is a requirement for NYT writers; to writing such column is a must; this is just a survival skill) some really damning things about Hillary.
    Notable quotes:
    "... She's like Lyin' Lochte, just sorry she got caught. Hearing her apologize is as likely as seeing those 33,000 yoga emails. ..."
    "... I'm sorry the Clintons didn't realize until now how bad it was to be using the State Department as a favor factory for big donors to the foundation. I'm all for pay-for-play, but only at my golf courses. ..."
    "... I'm sorry Hillary had to besmirch poor Colin Powell by claiming he gave her the idea for private emails. Hasn't his reputation suffered enough pushing that phony war at the U.N.? ..."
    Aug 20, 2016 | The New York Times

    I hated to ship Paul off to Siberia. But Jared and Corey told me I couldn't get swept up in an international money-laundering scandal while I was accusing Hillary of doing favors at State for a money launderer and Clinton Foundation donor.

    ... ... ...

    I'm sorry Huma is posing for Vogue instead of keeping her husband, the pervert, from sexting online again.

    ... ... ...

    I'm sorry that while I'm being too honest, Crooked Hillary is never really sorry for all her lies and illegal operations. She's like Lyin' Lochte, just sorry she got caught. Hearing her apologize is as likely as seeing those 33,000 yoga emails.

    I'm sorry the Clintons didn't realize until now how bad it was to be using the State Department as a favor factory for big donors to the foundation. I'm all for pay-for-play, but only at my golf courses.

    I'm sorry Hillary had to besmirch poor Colin Powell by claiming he gave her the idea for private emails. Hasn't his reputation suffered enough pushing that phony war at the U.N.?

    [Aug 21, 2016] The Clintons, along with Obama, have consistently sided with neoliberalsNeocons/ Trump is against globalistion, bad trade deals, interminable foreign wars and wants to fix America bybringing back jobs, etc. The standard line is that Trump is - oh horror – racist because he wants to stop immigration.

    Notable quotes:
    "... Carla, you are right about the main focus of these trade deals. Sure, it's about degrading labor and avoiding sensible regulation. More importantly, it's about making an end run around democracy and enscouncing the profiteers above governments. The Clinton's, along with Obama, have consistently sided with these elites. ..."
    "... Trump is against globalistion, bad trade deals, interminable foreign wars and wants to fix America by bringing back jobs, etc. The standard line is that Trump is - oh horror – "racist" because he wants to stop immigation. Therefore, etc. ..."
    "... FedupPleb – My thought exactly. Trump has personality issues but many of his positions, sketchy as they are, are in the right ballpark. Clinton by contrast seems to be rated "progressive" mainly because of surprisingly enduring loyalty to the Democrat brand. ..."
    "... The Clintonites are selling First Woman President as an Identity-Progressive goal and achievement. Just as the Obamazoids sold First Black President as an Identity-Progressive goal and achievement. ..."
    "... No, he has called for a $10 minimum wage. http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/27/politics/donald-trump-minimum-wage Not great but not nuthin'. ..."
    "... the bible thumping crowd. Those constituents are not internationalist or pro trade deals. They have been afraid of 'world government' as opposed to nationalism; they have wanted even more local control for decades. ..."
    "... These 'allies' will move the ball. They will shake up the existing coalitions vs the stagnation and corruption we have now. Even as a switch between sets of oligarchs, if they keep Trump's promises, they will give the populace some breathing room. ..."
    "... When a republican candidate, Trump, can push Hillary to the left on such major issues as on war and trade deals, is she really the progressive here? A true progressive would not need to be dragged or pushed to the left. These are MAJOR issues. ..."
    "... Her warmonging and TPP support count against her. Her history in Haiti, etc., count against her. That's not to defend Trump as progressive in any meaningful sense. Just that Clinton is no improvement. ..."
    "... Agreed. This is a joke and Becky Bond, whoever she is, is living in a fantasy world if she thinks these faux progressive careerists will do anything to jeopardize their cush positions (or chance at cush positions, pathetic as that is). ..."
    "... I visit their blogs and watch them: its either outright Stockholm Syndrome (for those who had or have an ethical bone in their bodies) or insincere and dishonest posturing as "progressives" all around. They will hold Clinton as accountable as they held Obama. ..."
    "... The Clinton supporters that live in her bubble are insiders will never betray her because they benefit from the jobs they hope/will have in her administration. ..."
    "... "The narrative that it was the big bad obstructionist Republicans that stopped Obama's change is mostly false." I think it's totally false. If Obama had been who he portrayed on TV pre-election, the democrats would not have lost their seats in the next election. He gave the 2010 elections to the Republicans, so any obstruction from then on was his own creation. ..."
    "... "The central point that emerges from our research is that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence." ..."
    "... Average voters are a group to be messaged/pandered to on a 2/4/6 year cycle and then ignored between election cycles. ..."
    "... When a politician says he cares about the common man, see who he golfs with, see who he has dinner with, it's not the common man ..."
    "... Y'all can hold her feet to the fire all you want. She has asbestos feet. She'll never know the difference. She'll never even feel it. ..."
    "... Yea hard to say who is even being addressed. Nobodies voting for Clinton with voting as their main act of political participation? ..."
    "... Left activists? Let's be realistic how many left activist support Clinton? ..."
    "... This post greatly diminishes my esteem for the opinions of Gaius Publius. "Hold her accountable" as proposed? While we're at it we can bell the cat. Both major parties and government in this country at all levels National, State, and Local are captured beyond any accountability to the public. Our government is no longer interested in the Public Interest and as for the Public Good the term "Good" is only a synonym for a Commodity - as in goods and services. ..."
    "... The spectacle of Sanders kneeling and kissing the Clinton ring, even though reasonably 'spun' as a necessity for political 'survival' by Sanders, has left a bitter taste in the mouths of the "true believers" who flocked to Sanders. ..."
    "... The Democratic Party has shown the depths to which the Clinton cabal will sink in the pursuit of power. Wresting that power out of the hands of the Despicable Duo will perhaps be more trouble than splitting the Party would be. Thus, if "we broke it," why not carry on as one part of the 'new normal' Democratic Party Spectrum. ..."
    "... I have always asked who would win an election if we voted by policy instead of by name in an election? Of course I am assuming that a candidate would tell the truth about their positions from the beginning and not change after they won. Trump, Stein and Johnson have been honest about their positions but Clinton changes with the wind. ..."
    "... The ridicule is a badge of honor. It is the "laughter of fools". Both candidates of the major parties are unacceptable in their own way. To vote for either is to accept subjugation with a smile. Don't be fooled. Whatever happens in the election will be blamed on minor parties by the losing side. Vote your conscience and know that if you were to vote for either major party candidate you would be complicit in the destruction that will follow. ..."
    "... She will be in office for eight years and all the Trumpers will fortify their positions and mobilize on an even greater scale when she is done reigning whatever hell she brings with her. I'm seeing Weimar Republic politics here, and I don't like it. ..."
    "... I have seen it argued that the biggest benefit of sticking with one of the mainstream parties is the 'ground game,' or organizational templates already in place. ..."
    "... The corollary of the earlier assertion of mine about "true believers" is that, except for insular or separatist movements, true believers act as cadres around which larger aggregates coalesce to form an effective party. Trump is effecting this with his courting of the 'second division' level of Republican operatives. The outpouring of negative propaganda from the 'top tier' Republicans suggests a semi panic mind set. The virulence of the anti Trump screeching reinforces the perception that the senior Republicans fear that they can lose to Trump in the power struggle. ..."
    "... All very true, ambrit. The Greens have been on the margins for longer than they should have been because the myth of Nader spoiling the 2000 election has had lasting effect. Hell, I believed it myself until I took the time to take a second look this year. ..."
    "... I'd like to think that I'm not particularly in the vanguard here, and that many other people have recognized that the Democratic party is beyond redemption. The only option for progressives is to start filling in the ranks, to be vocal and to be active. To find talented candidates for down ticket races. ..."
    "... tradeunions in the UK are both stronger and more radical in their leadership and membership than in the USA ..."
    "... voting rule in the usa are state-by-state and filled with various opportunities for suppressing votes. ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Michael C , August 20, 2016 at 9:44 am

    Carla, you are right about the main focus of these trade deals. Sure, it's about degrading labor and avoiding sensible regulation. More importantly, it's about making an end run around democracy and enscouncing the profiteers above governments. The Clinton's, along with Obama, have consistently sided with these elites.

    FedupPLeb , August 20, 2016 at 6:51 am

    . That Clinton is a better progressive choice than Trump is not much contested.

    But shouldn't it be?

    Trump is against globalistion, bad trade deals, interminable foreign wars and wants to fix America by bringing back jobs, etc. The standard line is that Trump is - oh horror – "racist" because he wants to stop immigation. Therefore, etc.

    But don't workers have a genuine interest in protecting the bargaining power of labour? If a capitalist declares that he will import workers from Mexico or India or Russia, or just export his entire production chain to China, because US labour is too expensive. Is it more "progressive" to declare these worried workers racist, or backward, or too intellectual challenged to see the benefits of a global supply chain and its cheap ipads for all still in salaried (i.e. unoutsourced) employment.

    But no matter. Hillary says nice things about hispanic-americans and has long ties to the black community over the last few decades as their standard of living has stagnated with everyone else. She supports LGBT rights and Trump probably doesn't even though I can't think of any negative statements he may have made but OK Hillary is the more Progressive candidate OK. Obviously.

    DWD , August 20, 2016 at 8:37 am

    About the only thing that is progressive for Clinton is the endless dick swinging .

    NYPaul , August 20, 2016 at 11:20 pm

    Pat………..

    "Our nation stands together in solidarity with the members of Orlando's LGBT community." This is a very dark moment in America's history. A radical Islamic terrorist targeted the nightclub not only because he wanted to kill Americans, but in order to execute gay and lesbian citizens because of their sexual orientation."

    "It is a strike at the heart and soul of who we are as a nation. It is an assault on the ability of free people to live their lives, love who they want and express their identity."

    "I refuse to allow America to become a place where gay people, Christian people, and Jewish people, are the targets of persecution and intimidation by radical Islamic preachers of hate and violence, it's a "quality-of-life issue."

    "If we want to protect the quality of life for all Americans – women and children, gay and straight, Jews and Christians and all people – then we need to tell the truth about radical Islam," he said.

    Read more at http://www.businessinsider.my/donald-trump-lgbt-orlando-speech-2016-6/#cDGqLoRmJARSSmfk.99

    Another Gordon , August 20, 2016 at 8:03 am

    FedupPleb – My thought exactly. Trump has personality issues but many of his positions, sketchy as they are, are in the right ballpark. Clinton by contrast seems to be rated "progressive" mainly because of surprisingly enduring loyalty to the Democrat brand.

    The best definition of a brand I ever came across is "a compelling promise, reliably honoured". How's that been working out for Dems in recent years?

    different clue , August 21, 2016 at 2:15 am

    The Clintonites are selling First Woman President as an Identity-Progressive goal and achievement. Just as the Obamazoids sold First Black President as an Identity-Progressive goal and achievement.

    jrs , August 20, 2016 at 9:03 am

    Trump is of course against the minimum wage. Trump is interested in the power of labor, man they can not pass legalized marijuana fast enough, and maybe I can pretend it all makes sense.

    Yves Smith Post author , August 21, 2016 at 12:52 am

    No, he has called for a $10 minimum wage. http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/27/politics/donald-trump-minimum-wage Not great but not nuthin'.

    sharonsj , August 20, 2016 at 9:47 am

    What Trump says doesn't matter (just like Clinton). Take a look at his VP and his advisors. Pence is a dominionist nutjob and the rest of Trump's team are ultra-right-wing bible thumpers. He may say he's against the TPP but his team is for it. As for the Constitution the Republicans are always waving about, they really don't care what's in it unless they can use it to their advantage.

    EndOfTheWorld , August 20, 2016 at 10:48 am

    "take a look at his vp"-that selection was a bone he HAD to throw to the GOP bigwigs so he could make it through the GOP convention. The VP will have no power in the Trump presidency, as even the venerable Yves has pointed out. The only one who took control was Richard "the Bruce" Cheney, and that was a special case.

    The only way Pence will have power is if Trump gets whacked, which is indeed a possibility.

    local to oakland , August 20, 2016 at 10:57 am

    I'm not part of, but I have some direct personal experience with the bible thumping crowd. Those constituents are not internationalist or pro trade deals. They have been afraid of 'world government' as opposed to nationalism; they have wanted even more local control for decades.

    These 'allies' will move the ball. They will shake up the existing coalitions vs the stagnation and corruption we have now. Even as a switch between sets of oligarchs, if they keep Trump's promises, they will give the populace some breathing room.

    As I said to a coworker in a political discussion yesterday, there are very few issues I would weigh above the Supreme Court, but Clinton's pro corporate, pro war stance has taken me to that place.

    TedWa , August 20, 2016 at 10:28 am

    I dispute that as a given also – When a republican candidate, Trump, can push Hillary to the left on such major issues as on war and trade deals, is she really the progressive here? A true progressive would not need to be dragged or pushed to the left. These are MAJOR issues.

    aab , August 21, 2016 at 12:40 am

    Actually, there's evidence in her private speech (leaked emails, etc.) that Hillary is pretty hostile to LGBT rights. Her public speech, of course, should be discounted as performative and dishonest. I think Trump has made some very positive statements about the LGBT community, but I can't point to a reference offhand. That could certainly be equally dishonest and performative. But he doesn't have the same documented history of pandering that way, and unlike Hillary, he's not an evangelical Christian. There's also evidence that in reality Hillary is quite racist, as well.

    I will step up and dispute that she's more progressive. I don't think she is. Her warmonging and TPP support count against her. Her history in Haiti, etc., count against her. That's not to defend Trump as progressive in any meaningful sense. Just that Clinton is no improvement.

    Kokuanani , August 20, 2016 at 7:03 am

    How on earth does ANYONE [other than the FIRE industry, her neo-con pals and the climate killers] "hold her accountable" or have any influence on her?

    She's got the nomination, there's little doubt she'll win the election, she's got 100% of DNC Dems behind her. WTF are folks supposed to do to have any sort of weight in a Clinton administration?

    And if Ms. Bond is speaking to those close to Clinton, what makes her think they WANT to have any influence for good?

    YankeeFrank , August 20, 2016 at 7:11 am

    Agreed. This is a joke and Becky Bond, whoever she is, is living in a fantasy world if she thinks these faux progressive careerists will do anything to jeopardize their cush positions (or chance at cush positions, pathetic as that is).

    I visit their blogs and watch them: its either outright Stockholm Syndrome (for those who had or have an ethical bone in their bodies) or insincere and dishonest posturing as "progressives" all around. They will hold Clinton as accountable as they held Obama.

    DavidE , August 20, 2016 at 8:44 am

    The Clinton supporters that live in her bubble are insiders will never betray her because they benefit from the jobs they hope/will have in her administration. It is the mass of voters who believed what she said are the ones that have to get out and hold her feet to the fire. Most rolled over and said nothing as Obama's "change we can believe in" was only a slogan to fool us. The narrative that it was the big bad obstructionist Republicans that stopped Obama's change is mostly false. Obama never ever fought for real change. He talked a good game but did nothing. The best way to make politicians listen to us is that we show up in mass (millions) in DC and demand that government act in our behalf.

    TedWa , August 20, 2016 at 10:38 am

    "The narrative that it was the big bad obstructionist Republicans that stopped Obama's change is mostly false." I think it's totally false. If Obama had been who he portrayed on TV pre-election, the democrats would not have lost their seats in the next election. He gave the 2010 elections to the Republicans, so any obstruction from then on was his own creation.

    John Wright , August 20, 2016 at 12:46 pm

    Then there is the frequently referenced Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page paper at

    https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf

    "The central point that emerges from our research is that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence."

    Average voters are a group to be messaged/pandered to on a 2/4/6 year cycle and then ignored between election cycles.

    My high school civics teacher (Los Angeles County public school) made a statement 30+ years ago I still remember. "When a politician says he cares about the common man, see who he golfs with, see who he has dinner with, it's not the common man"

    About the only thing that needs to be updated in the statement is the "he" needs to be revised to "he/she"

    Perhaps the best the average citizen can hope for is that there are interest groups on both sides on an issue, but a profitable business group with a rich source of funding vs a public interest group depending on contributions seems mismatched.

    Even when there are powerful business groups that differ on current policy, change is difficult, for example US government price support for domestic sugar producers is opposed by the large sugar industry consumers (candy makers, soft drink producers), but the TPP specifically leaves this USA government subsidy in place.

    different clue , August 21, 2016 at 2:17 am

    Y'all can hold her feet to the fire all you want. She has asbestos feet. She'll never know the difference. She'll never even feel it.

    jrs , August 20, 2016 at 9:11 am

    Yea hard to say who is even being addressed. Nobodies voting for Clinton with voting as their main act of political participation? Sometimes they might just be uninformed, or they may have voted for her thinking she would fare better against Trump, or if better off they might have voted their privilege, etc.. But they have no real power.

    Left activists? Let's be realistic how many left activist support Clinton? I have no doubt many supported Bernie while some may only support Stein etc. but Clinton? I have my doubts there are almost ANY actual left activists who supported Clinton over Sanders (over Trump maybe, but not over Sanders). But he means some talking head somewhere who isn't even an activist but has a public platform? Those people have been bought and paid for.

    EndOfTheWorld , August 20, 2016 at 10:49 am

    "there's little doubt she'll win the election"-not true.

    Jeremy Grimm , August 20, 2016 at 11:10 am

    This post greatly diminishes my esteem for the opinions of Gaius Publius. "Hold her accountable" as proposed? While we're at it we can bell the cat. Both major parties and government in this country at all levels National, State, and Local are captured beyond any accountability to the public. Our government is no longer interested in the Public Interest and as for the Public Good the term "Good" is only a synonym for a Commodity - as in goods and services.

    I supported Sanders. The primary and convention made it clear that making change within the system is no longer a real option. In the best of all possible worlds I feel it's time to tend my garden - far away from the action and with my head held low.

    ambrit , August 20, 2016 at 7:14 am

    The spectacle of Sanders kneeling and kissing the Clinton ring, even though reasonably 'spun' as a necessity for political 'survival' by Sanders, has left a bitter taste in the mouths of the "true believers" who flocked to Sanders.

    There should be little hope of those who embraced the cognitive dissonance that is the Clinton campaign suddenly 'seeing the light' and pivoting to an internally activist position in the Democratic Party. Far from righting the 'progressive' course of the Ship of State, many will conclude that this is just another 'Ship of Fools.'

    Any prospective transformative political movement needs a cadre of "true believers" to energize and channel that energy in the "proper" direction. The Democratic Party has shown the depths to which the Clinton cabal will sink in the pursuit of power. Wresting that power out of the hands of the Despicable Duo will perhaps be more trouble than splitting the Party would be. Thus, if "we broke it," why not carry on as one part of the 'new normal' Democratic Party Spectrum.

    "True believers" respond to appeals to their better nature more readily than appeals to their fear of 'others.' Real 'progressives' would rather live in a New Jerusalem than the White House Outhouse. The 'hostile takeover' of any political party requires a full housecleaning. Half measures will not suffice.

    DavidE , August 20, 2016 at 8:49 am

    I have always asked who would win an election if we voted by policy instead of by name in an election? Of course I am assuming that a candidate would tell the truth about their positions from the beginning and not change after they won. Trump, Stein and Johnson have been honest about their positions but Clinton changes with the wind.

    ... ... ...

    NotTimothyGeithner , August 20, 2016 at 9:19 am

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/25/443287/- You'll want to scroll down, but Edwards won the debate focus groups and polled "undecideds" in 2007 and 2008. Edwards was well to the left of Obama and Hillary from his campaign positions.

    Stephen Gardner , August 20, 2016 at 8:57 am

    The ridicule is a badge of honor. It is the "laughter of fools". Both candidates of the major parties are unacceptable in their own way. To vote for either is to accept subjugation with a smile. Don't be fooled. Whatever happens in the election will be blamed on minor parties by the losing side. Vote your conscience and know that if you were to vote for either major party candidate you would be complicit in the destruction that will follow.

    Michael C , August 20, 2016 at 10:00 am

    I would rather vote for what I want and not get it than to vote for what I don't want and get it. –Eugene Debs. Sanders, you should have remembered the words of your hero whose picture hangs on your office wall.

    Rosario , August 20, 2016 at 3:00 pm

    ... ... ...

    And on to the doom of a Trump presidency. The supposed logic that Hillary will "stop" Trump. I guess people forget that all the right-wing populists that support Trump are not going anywhere. They are having kids and they are rearing them in their toxic worldview. Hillary has done and will do nothing to build an ideology that counters the Trump crowd. Cover our ears and our eyes and it will all go away is the strategy. She will be in office for eight years and all the Trumpers will fortify their positions and mobilize on an even greater scale when she is done reigning whatever hell she brings with her. I'm seeing Weimar Republic politics here, and I don't like it.

    ambrit , August 20, 2016 at 9:04 am

    I have seen it argued that the biggest benefit of sticking with one of the mainstream parties is the 'ground game,' or organizational templates already in place. The Greens are chided for organizational weakness. Whether true or not, this "branding" of the Greens as feckless is a major impediment to popular acceptance of the party. The marginalization of the Green Party in the media magnifies whatever true weaknesses there are within the party.

    The corollary of the earlier assertion of mine about "true believers" is that, except for insular or separatist movements, true believers act as cadres around which larger aggregates coalesce to form an effective party. Trump is effecting this with his courting of the 'second division' level of Republican operatives. The outpouring of negative propaganda from the 'top tier' Republicans suggests a semi panic mind set. The virulence of the anti Trump screeching reinforces the perception that the senior Republicans fear that they can lose to Trump in the power struggle.

    Even though the Sanders supporters have been 'schooled' in hard ball politics by the Clinton camp, they still need a hope for success to motivate them to continue the struggle. The above comments anet the Greens show a perception that the Greens cannot supply that success. It may be all smoke and mirrors, but, absent some serious counter propaganda from the Green Party, the ginned up MSM portrayal of the Greens as irrelevant is pretty much all the information the Sanders supporters have to base a decision on. Get a Green governor, or some Green congresspeople, and the Greens gain inestimable status. It may look like a chicken or egg puzzle, but better propaganda is a good place to start.

    It's time for the Greens to stop looking like victims and to start looking and acting like victors.

    Michael C. , August 20, 2016 at 10:03 am

    Carla, you are right about the main focus of these trade deals. Sure, it's about degrading labor and avoiding sensible regulation. More importantly, it's about rimning sn end rin around democracy and ensconcing the profiteers above governments.

    Otis B Driftwood , August 20, 2016 at 10:12 am

    All very true, ambrit. The Greens have been on the margins for longer than they should have been because the myth of Nader spoiling the 2000 election has had lasting effect. Hell, I believed it myself until I took the time to take a second look this year.

    I'd like to think that I'm not particularly in the vanguard here, and that many other people have recognized that the Democratic party is beyond redemption. The only option for progressives is to start filling in the ranks, to be vocal and to be active. To find talented candidates for down ticket races.

    Unfortunately, one of the ironies of the current Democratic party is that it still does have some room for progressives in state and local office. That's why Zephyr Teachout is still a Democrat. She can win without the full backing of the party. And, I suspect equally unfortunately, she reckons that she would have a harder time running as a Green due to voter bias.

    That's what needs to change. Voters need to see the Green party as a viable alternative. It is indeed a chicken and egg problem. And that's why I see the Stein campaign as an important step in helping rehabilitate the Green party in the minds of voters.

    It is also critically important for progressives to not relent on our critique of neoliberalism and the Democratic party. The so-called progressives like Adolph Reed and others who have already capitulated need to be vigorously rejected.

    If Stein can get enough support this year it may convince candidates of Teachout's caliber that they can run successfully as Green party members and that will start the necessary momentum to building the party from the local and state level upward.

    Anyway, I've donated money to the Stein campaign and I've got my yard sign in front of my house and my "none of the above" sticker on my truck. I'm doing what I can in my own way.

    johnnygl , August 21, 2016 at 12:28 pm

    I'd like to make a couple of points to add to this little side discussion of the Sanders vs. Corbyn compare and contrast.

    1. tradeunions in the UK are both stronger and more radical in their leadership and membership than in the USA. Union leadership in the usa is still wedded to the dem elite, sometimes against the wishes of their members. There have been splits where some unions like nat nurses united and chicago teachers unions have supported sanders and opposed elite dems, but imagine if uaw and afscme had flipped on clinton. That would have really shaken things up. Insurgency plus institutional support is much tougher for the elites to control.
    2. voting rule in the usa are state-by-state and filled with various opportunities for suppressing votes. Imagine if the rules were that anyone could join and vote if they paid $5 and no 'purges' of voters or ridiculous rules like ny where you have to join 6 months in advance. In fact the blairites/plp in england seem to be trying to recreate some of the same tricks and traps that the dems used here.

    [Aug 21, 2016] Hillary said she was against the TPP as currently written

    Notable quotes:
    "... You know, the light bulb over my head went on when Hillary said she was against the TPP "as currently written." Political speak for: she'll fiddle with some words, pronounce it fixed, and pass it ..."
    "... her surrogates extol her penchant for "free trade" and are sure she will support it. ..."
    July 29, 2016 | nakedcapitalism.com
    sharonsj , July 29, 2016 at 4:37 pm

    You know, the light bulb over my head went on when Hillary said she was against the TPP "as currently written." Political speak for: she'll fiddle with some words, pronounce it fixed, and pass it.

    And while she and Kaine claim now to be against the TPP, her surrogates extol her penchant for "free trade" and are sure she will support it.

    [Aug 21, 2016] Hillary and the War Party by Carl Boggs

    Notable quotes:
    "... You haven't heard much from the Democrats lately about foreign policy or global agendas – indeed virtually nothing at the Philadelphia convention and little worthy of mention along the campaign trail. ..."
    "... But no one should be fooled: a Clinton presidency, which seems more likely by the day, can be expected to stoke a resurgent U.S. imperialism, bringing new cycles of militarism and war. The silence is illusory: Clintonites, now as before, are truly obsessed with international politics. ..."
    "... A triumphant Hillary, more "rational" and "savvy" than the looney and unpredictable Donald Trump, could well have a freer path to emboldened superpower moves not only in Europe but the Middle East, Central Asia, and the Pacific. While the candidate has not revealed much lately, she is on record as vowing to "stand up" to Russia and China, face off against Russian "aggression", escalate the war on terror, and militarily annihilate Iran the moment it steps out of line (or is determined by "U.S. intelligence" to have stepped out of line) in its nuclear agreement with global powers. ..."
    "... A new Clinton presidency can be expected to further boost the U.S./NATO drive to strangle and isolate Russia, which means aggravated "crises" in Ukraine and worrisome encounters with a rival military power in a region saturated with (tactical, "usable") nuclear weapons. Regime change in Syria? Hillary has indeed strongly pushed for that self-defeating act of war, combined with an illegal and provocative no-fly zone - having learned nothing from the extreme chaos and violence she did so much to unleash in Libya as Secretary of State. ..."
    "... Democratic elites say little publicly about these and other imperial priorities, preferring familiar homilies such as "bringing jobs back" (not going to happen) and "healing the country" (not going to happen). Silence appears to function exquisitely in a political culture where open and vigorous debate on foreign-policy is largely taboo and elite discourse rarely surpasses the level of banal platitudes. And Hillary's worshipful liberal and progressive backers routinely follow the script (or non-script) while fear-mongering about how a Trump presidency will destroy the country (now that the Sanders threat has vanished). ..."
    "... Who needs to be reminded that Hillary's domestic promises, such as they are, will become null and void once urgent global "crises" take precedence? The Pentagon, after all, always comes first. ..."
    "... There is a special logic to the Clintonites' explosive mixture of neoliberalism and militarism. They, like all corporate Democrats, are fully aligned with some of the most powerful interests in the world: Wall Street, the war economy, fossil fuels, Big Pharma, the Israel Lobby. They also have intimate ties to reactionary global forces – the neofascist regime in Ukraine, Israel, Saudi Arabia, other Gulf states. ..."
    "... Predictably, Trump's "unreliability" to oversee American global objectives has been an ongoing motif at CNN, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal. ..."
    "... Jackie was reported as saying "that what worried President Kennedy during that very dangerous time was that a war might be started – not by men with self-control and restraint, but by little men, the ones moved by fear and pride." ..."
    www.counterpunch.org
    You haven't heard much from the Democrats lately about foreign policy or global agendas – indeed virtually nothing at the Philadelphia convention and little worthy of mention along the campaign trail. Hillary Clinton's many liberal (and sadly, progressive) supporters routinely steer away from anything related to foreign policy, talk, talk, talking instead about the candidate's "experience", with obligatory nods toward her enlightened social programs. There is only the ritual demonization of that fearsome dictator, Vladimir Putin, reputedly on the verge of invading some hapless European country. Even Bernie Sanders' sorry endorsement of his erstwhile enemy, not long ago denounced as a tool of Wall Street, had nothing to say about global issues. But no one should be fooled: a Clinton presidency, which seems more likely by the day, can be expected to stoke a resurgent U.S. imperialism, bringing new cycles of militarism and war. The silence is illusory: Clintonites, now as before, are truly obsessed with international politics.

    A triumphant Hillary, more "rational" and "savvy" than the looney and unpredictable Donald Trump, could well have a freer path to emboldened superpower moves not only in Europe but the Middle East, Central Asia, and the Pacific. While the candidate has not revealed much lately, she is on record as vowing to "stand up" to Russia and China, face off against Russian "aggression", escalate the war on terror, and militarily annihilate Iran the moment it steps out of line (or is determined by "U.S. intelligence" to have stepped out of line) in its nuclear agreement with global powers. Under Clinton, the Democrats might well be better positioned to recharge their historical legacy as War Party. One of the great political myths (and there are many) is that American liberals are inclined toward a less belligerent foreign policy than Republicans, are less militaristic and more favorable toward "diplomacy". References to Woodrow Wilson in World War I and Mexico, Harry Truman in Korea, JFK and LBJ in Indochina, Bill Clinton in the Balkans, and of course Barack Obama in Afghanistan (eight years of futile warfare), Libya (also "Hillary's War"), and scattered operations across the Middle East and North Africa should be enough to dispel such nonsense. (As for FDR and World War II, I have written extensively that the Pearl Harbor attacks were deliberately provoked by U.S. actions in the Pacific – but that is a more complicated story.)

    ... ... ...

    A new Clinton presidency can be expected to further boost the U.S./NATO drive to strangle and isolate Russia, which means aggravated "crises" in Ukraine and worrisome encounters with a rival military power in a region saturated with (tactical, "usable") nuclear weapons. Regime change in Syria? Hillary has indeed strongly pushed for that self-defeating act of war, combined with an illegal and provocative no-fly zone - having learned nothing from the extreme chaos and violence she did so much to unleash in Libya as Secretary of State. There are currently no visible signs she would exit the protracted and criminal war in Afghanistan, a rich source of blowback (alongside Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, and Israel). Increased aerial bombardments against ISIS in Iraq, Syria, Libya, and elsewhere? More deployments of American troops on the ground? Such ventures, with potentially others on the horizon, amount to elaborate recipes for more blowback, followed by more anti-terror hysteria, followed by more interventions. Uncompromising economic, diplomatic, and military support of Israeli atrocities in Palestine? Aggressive pursuit of the seriously mistaken "Asian Pivot", strategy, a revitalized effort to subvert Chinese economic and military power – one of Clinton's own special crusades? No wonder the Paul Wolfowitzes and Robert Kagans are delighted to join the Hillary camp.

    No wonder, too, that billionaire super-hawk Haim Saban has pledged to spend whatever is needed to get the Clintons back into the White House, convinced her presidency will do anything to maintain Palestinian colonial subjugation. Meeting with Saban in July, Hillary again promised to "oppose any effort to delegitimate Israel, including at the United Nations or through the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement." She backs legislative efforts begun in several states to silence and blacklist people working on behalf of Palestinian rights. For this her celebrated "pragmatism" could work quite effectively.

    Democratic elites say little publicly about these and other imperial priorities, preferring familiar homilies such as "bringing jobs back" (not going to happen) and "healing the country" (not going to happen). Silence appears to function exquisitely in a political culture where open and vigorous debate on foreign-policy is largely taboo and elite discourse rarely surpasses the level of banal platitudes. And Hillary's worshipful liberal and progressive backers routinely follow the script (or non-script) while fear-mongering about how a Trump presidency will destroy the country (now that the Sanders threat has vanished).

    Amidst the turmoil Trump has oddly surfaced to the left of Clinton on several key global issues: cooperating instead of fighting with the Russians, keeping alive a sharp criticism of the Iraq war and the sustained regional chaos and blowback it generated, ramping down enthusiasm for more wars in the Middle East, junking "free trade" agreements, willingness to rethink the outmoded NATO alliance. If Trump, however haphazardly, manages to grasp the historical dynamics of blowback, the Clinton camp remains either indifferent or clueless, still ready for new armed ventures – cynically marketed, as in the Balkans, Iraq, and Libya, on the moral imperative of defeating some unspeakable evil, usually a "new Hitler" waging a "new genocide". Who needs to be reminded that Hillary's domestic promises, such as they are, will become null and void once urgent global "crises" take precedence? The Pentagon, after all, always comes first.

    ... ... ...

    ...At the other extreme, Clinton emerges in the media as the most "rational" and "even-tempered" of candidates, ideally suited to carry out the necessary imperial agendas. A tiresome mainstream narrative is that Hillary is "one of the best prepared and most knowledgeable candidates ever to seek the presidency." And she is smart, very smart – whatever her flaws. All the better to follow in the long history of Democrats proficient at showing the world who is boss. The media, for its part, adores these Democrats, another reason Trump appears to have diminished chances of winning. Further, the well-funded and tightly-organized Clinton machine can count on somewhat large majorities of women, blacks, and Hispanics, not only for the march to the White House but, more ominously, to go along with the War Party's imperial spectacle of the day. Most anything – war, regime change, bombing raids, drone strikes, treaty violations, JFK-style "standoffs" – can escape political scrutiny if carried out by "humanitarian", peace-loving Democrats. Bill Clinton's war to fight "genocide" and "ethnic cleansing" in the Balkans, cover for just another U.S./NATO geopolitical maneuver, constitutes the perfect template here.

    There is a special logic to the Clintonites' explosive mixture of neoliberalism and militarism. They, like all corporate Democrats, are fully aligned with some of the most powerful interests in the world: Wall Street, the war economy, fossil fuels, Big Pharma, the Israel Lobby. They also have intimate ties to reactionary global forces – the neofascist regime in Ukraine, Israel, Saudi Arabia, other Gulf states.

    ... In March 121 members of the Republican "national security community", including the warmongers Wolfowitz, Robert Kagan, and Brent Scowcroft, signed a public letter condemning Trump for not being sufficiently dedicated to American (also Israeli?) interests. Trump compounded his predicament by stubbornly refusing to pay homage to the "experts" – the same foreign-policy geniuses who helped orchestrate the Iraq debacle. A more recent (and more urgent) letter with roughly the same message has made its way into the public sphere. Predictably, Trump's "unreliability" to oversee American global objectives has been an ongoing motif at CNN, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal.

    Returning to the political carneval that was the Democratic convention, amidst all the non-stop flag-waving and shouts of "USA!" Hillary made what she thought would be an inspiring reference to Jackie Kennedy, speaking on the eve of her husband's (1961) ascent to the White House. Jackie was reported as saying "that what worried President Kennedy during that very dangerous time was that a war might be started – not by men with self-control and restraint, but by little men, the ones moved by fear and pride."

    We can surmise that JFK was one of those "big men" governed by "restraint". History shows, however, that Jackie's esteemed husband was architect of probably the worst episode of international barbarism in U.S. history – the Vietnam War, with its unfathomable death and destruction – coming at a time of the Big Man's botched CIA-led invasion of Cuba and followed closely by the Cuban Missile Crisis, where the Big Man's "restraint" brought the world frighteningly close to nuclear catastrophe. As for "fear" and "pride" – nothing permeates JFK's biography of that period more than those two psychological obsessions.

    Could it be that Hillary Clinton, however unwittingly, was at this epic moment – her breakthrough nomination – revealing nothing so much as her own deeply-imperialist mind-set?

    Carl Boggs is the author of The Hollywood War Machine, with Tom Pollard (second edition, forthcoming), and Drugs, Power, and Politics, both published by Paradigm.

    [Aug 20, 2016] People, who argue Trump might start a nuclear war out of personal pique because he insults people on teevee might want to examine Clintons bellicose foreign policy record and positions on, say, Israel, Iran, Ukraine, NATO expansion or the South China Sea

    Notable quotes:
    "... "People, who argue Trump might start a nuclear war out of personal pique because he insults people on teevee might want to examine Clinton's bellicose foreign policy record and positions on, say, Israel, Iran, Ukraine, NATO expansion or the South China Sea." ..."
    "... Or, as Ian Welsh points out, her position on Syria. She seems to have advocated for a no-fly zone in Syria after Russia came in, which would presumably put us in the position of shooting down Russian warplanes or having a good chance of doing so. Maybe if she does take on Kissinger as an advisor he'll tell her that superpower conflicts have to be done through proxies or they're too dangerous. ..."
    "... Gen. Wesley Clark standing off against Russians at Belgrade and the missile attack on the Chinese embassy and the bombing of Bulgaria. ..."
    "... Under Obama, support for fascists in Ukraine, near war over chemical weapons in Syria, gunboat diplomacy in South China Sea, shift to preemptive war plans against North Korea, ground troops in Libya and other parts of Africa, and last but not least, blind support for the psychotic Saudi attack on Yemen. ..."
    "... Democrat or Republican, it is the US system of government which is militarist and adventurist. It will not change if either Clinton or Trump is elected, the delusions of Putin et al. notwithstanding. It wouldn't change if Bernie or the rational libertarian of the month was elected either because they do not, didn't and never will stand for real change. Criticizing Clinton and Trump from the right will make sure there is not even a chance of political realignment. At this point, the question is whether that's the point? ..."
    crookedtimber.org

    Rich Puchalsky 08.13.16 at 9:12 pm 800

    BW: "People, who argue Trump might start a nuclear war out of personal pique because he insults people on teevee might want to examine Clinton's bellicose foreign policy record and positions on, say, Israel, Iran, Ukraine, NATO expansion or the South China Sea."

    Or, as Ian Welsh points out, her position on Syria. She seems to have advocated for a no-fly zone in Syria after Russia came in, which would presumably put us in the position of shooting down Russian warplanes or having a good chance of doing so. Maybe if she does take on Kissinger as an advisor he'll tell her that superpower conflicts have to be done through proxies or they're too dangerous.

    For the larger question of whether these comment threads are a good place to campaign or advocate, I sort of come down in a different place than you do. If these comment threads were about good-faith argument, then sure this kind of advocacy might be bad, but I don't think that most people here are capable of good-faith argument even if they were attempting it (most of the time they aren't attempting it). In that case the comment threads serve an alternate purpose of seeing what kinds of beliefs are out there, at least among the limited group of people likely to comment on CT threads. Of course people can be kicked out if they habitually make the threads too difficult to moderate (or really, for whatever other reason an OP decides on), but the well has long since been poisoned and one more drop isn't really going to do much more damage.

    stevenjohnson 08.14.16 at 6:13 am 833

    Gen. Wesley Clark standing off against Russians at Belgrade and the missile attack on the Chinese embassy and the bombing of Bulgaria.

    Under Obama, support for fascists in Ukraine, near war over chemical weapons in Syria, gunboat diplomacy in South China Sea, shift to preemptive war plans against North Korea, ground troops in Libya and other parts of Africa, and last but not least, blind support for the psychotic Saudi attack on Yemen.

    None of which was unilaterally determined by Clinton who was nothing but Secretary of State, who does not determine foreign policy anyhow, or took place after her tenure. Renovation of the nuclear weapons stockpile isn't her doing either.

    Democrat or Republican, it is the US system of government which is militarist and adventurist. It will not change if either Clinton or Trump is elected, the delusions of Putin et al. notwithstanding. It wouldn't change if Bernie or the rational libertarian of the month was elected either because they do not, didn't and never will stand for real change. Criticizing Clinton and Trump from the right will make sure there is not even a chance of political realignment. At this point, the question is whether that's the point?

    [Aug 20, 2016] Anabolic steroids taint Olympic competition, but its what they do to the human brain that is terrifying

    Notable quotes:
    "... studies in animals show that steroid-induced aggression is not impulsive, nor uncontrolled. Steroid-treated rats remain attuned to the context of the fight: who their opponent is and where the fight takes place. This suggests that anabolic steroids can promote not only spur-of-the-moment aggression, but also premeditated violence. ..."
    "... "Anabolic" refers to their muscle-building properties. (Not all steroids are anabolic; cortisol is a steroid widely prescribed as an anti-inflammatory agent.) Despite a variety of pharmaceutical names (e.g. nandrolone, boldenone, dianabol), all anabolic steroids are derivatives of testosterone, the major steroid produced by the testes in men. ..."
    "... In 2011, testosterone was the most-common banned substance found in urine tests administered by the World Anti-Doping Agency. It remains a popular choice for doping by elite athletes because it is challenging to distinguish injected testosterone from naturally occurring sources. ..."
    "... Rank-and-file users choose testosterone because of its low cost and easy availability. Despite being declared controlled substances in 1991, anabolic steroids are widely available through personal trainers in gyms and can be purchased online from international sources ..."
    "... It is estimated that as many as 3 million Americans have availed themselves of these outlets - far more than most people realize. Anabolic steroids are in high schools, fitness centers and "rejuvenation" clinics. A typical user is a young man in his late teens or early 20s. Among U.S. high school students, 4% to 6% of boys have used anabolic steroids, comparable to the rates of crack cocaine or heroin use. Among men in their 20s, that rate is even higher. ..."
    "... Many anabolic steroid users show signs of addiction: They take more than intended and are reluctant to quit because of withdrawal symptoms and loss of muscle mass. In addition, heightened testosterone levels give users a sense of invulnerability and increase their risk-taking. The resulting behavior can endanger themselves and others: fighting, unsafe sex, drinking and driving, carrying a weapon. A Swedish study of anabolic steroid users showed high rates of death from homicide, suicide and drug overdose. ..."
    "... today there is real evidence of the risks from surveys of current users and clinical studies of volunteers, supplemented with research in animals. So instead of just worrying about doped athletes during each Olympic cycle, we should focus on how widespread the use of anabolic steroids is and how dangerous they are for any users - and even those around them. ..."
    LA Times
    The popular image of "road-rage" is a sudden and exaggerated response to a minimal provocation, like "The Incredible Hulk." But that's not how it works. Instead, studies in animals show that steroid-induced aggression is not impulsive, nor uncontrolled. Steroid-treated rats remain attuned to the context of the fight: who their opponent is and where the fight takes place. This suggests that anabolic steroids can promote not only spur-of-the-moment aggression, but also premeditated violence.

    Some background information on anabolic steroids may prove useful. Steroids are organic molecules with rings that resemble chicken wire. "Anabolic" refers to their muscle-building properties. (Not all steroids are anabolic; cortisol is a steroid widely prescribed as an anti-inflammatory agent.) Despite a variety of pharmaceutical names (e.g. nandrolone, boldenone, dianabol), all anabolic steroids are derivatives of testosterone, the major steroid produced by the testes in men.

    At normal levels, testosterone builds muscle and contributes to characteristic "masculine" behavior. Anabolic steroid users may boost their testosterone up to 100 times normal levels.

    In 2011, testosterone was the most-common banned substance found in urine tests administered by the World Anti-Doping Agency. It remains a popular choice for doping by elite athletes because it is challenging to distinguish injected testosterone from naturally occurring sources.

    Rank-and-file users choose testosterone because of its low cost and easy availability. Despite being declared controlled substances in 1991, anabolic steroids are widely available through personal trainers in gyms and can be purchased online from international sources.

    It is estimated that as many as 3 million Americans have availed themselves of these outlets - far more than most people realize. Anabolic steroids are in high schools, fitness centers and "rejuvenation" clinics. A typical user is a young man in his late teens or early 20s. Among U.S. high school students, 4% to 6% of boys have used anabolic steroids, comparable to the rates of crack cocaine or heroin use. Among men in their 20s, that rate is even higher.

    Anabolic steroid users may be loath to admit it, but for most the drugs are just a shortcut to bigger muscles. Still, some people defend their use as a "healthy lifestyle choice" that allows them to work out harder and recover faster.

    My own research on the effects of anabolic steroids on brain and behavior show that there's nothing healthy about it. Many anabolic steroid users show signs of addiction: They take more than intended and are reluctant to quit because of withdrawal symptoms and loss of muscle mass. In addition, heightened testosterone levels give users a sense of invulnerability and increase their risk-taking. The resulting behavior can endanger themselves and others: fighting, unsafe sex, drinking and driving, carrying a weapon. A Swedish study of anabolic steroid users showed high rates of death from homicide, suicide and drug overdose.

    Research into these behavioral changes was slow to accumulate because steroid use became prevalent only in the late 1980s. Though anabolic steroid abuse remains understudied, today there is real evidence of the risks from surveys of current users and clinical studies of volunteers, supplemented with research in animals. So instead of just worrying about doped athletes during each Olympic cycle, we should focus on how widespread the use of anabolic steroids is and how dangerous they are for any users - and even those around them.

    Ruth Wood, chair of the department of cell and neurobiology at USC's Keck School of Medicine, studies the effects of anabolic steroids on brain and behavior.

    [Aug 20, 2016] Trip Reports from Sanders Delegates at the Democrat National Convention

    Notable quotes:
    "... Perhaps the most surreal point of the night is when a military leader speaks to how much butt we're going to kick once Hillary is elected, the Sanders delegates start the chant, "Peace, Not War", and the rest of the arena drowns this out with chants of 'U.S.A ..."
    "... We discussed how it felt Orwellian, like the two minutes of hate in 1984. "Having chants of 'No More War' attempted to be drowned out by chants of 'USA' was baffling," Alan Doucette, Bernie delegate from Las Vegas, said. "To me, USA is a symbol of justice and equality and not warmongering and looking for excuses to go to war. That's what I want it to be and what it should be." ..."
    "... "The most dislocating experience was General Allen's speech, with so many military brass on display, and the 'fight' between No More War and USA. That was chilling. Note, No More War is not: War Criminal! Or similarly 'disrespectful' stuff; it's simply a demand not to make our present worse with more 'hawkish' 'interventionist' 'regime change' wars and war-actions." ..."
    "... The US 2016 election is different. You actually have a huge choice to make. Do you vote(or not vote) to support the Washington establishment, which is clearly pushing for war with Russia, or do you vote Trump who doesn't want such a war? Your choice. ..."
    "... why would you even contemplate gambling that we can survive 4 years of Clinton without a nuclear war? ..."
    naked capitalism
    Militarism

    Mark Lasser (CO): "Perhaps the most surreal point of the night is when a military leader speaks to how much butt we're going to kick once Hillary is elected, the Sanders delegates start the chant, "Peace, Not War", and the rest of the arena drowns this out with chants of 'U.S.A.'"

    Carole Levers (CA): " I was harassed by five Hillary delegates who got in my face while I was sitting in my seat. They told me that we needed to quit chanting, go home, and that we did not belong there. They added that by chanting "No More Wars" we were disrespecting the veterans. I replied that none of us were disrespecting the veterans. We were honoring them by NOT WANTING ANY MORE DEAD VETERANS, killed in illegal wars for the profits of the wealthy. I reiterated that we were exercising our first amendment rights to which one replied that WE (Bernie delegates) had no rights. I was later shoved by a Hillary delegate into the metal frame of the seats."

    Carol Cizauskas (NV): "We heard other Bernie delegates chanting "No more war" and then the "opposing team" of Hillary delegates thundering over those chants with "USA." It was darkly eerie. We discussed how it felt Orwellian, like the two minutes of hate in 1984. "Having chants of 'No More War' attempted to be drowned out by chants of 'USA' was baffling," Alan Doucette, Bernie delegate from Las Vegas, said. "To me, USA is a symbol of justice and equality and not warmongering and looking for excuses to go to war. That's what I want it to be and what it should be."

    #SlayTheSmaugs (NY): "The most dislocating experience was General Allen's speech, with so many military brass on display, and the 'fight' between No More War and USA. That was chilling. Note, No More War is not: War Criminal! Or similarly 'disrespectful' stuff; it's simply a demand not to make our present worse with more 'hawkish' 'interventionist' 'regime change' wars and war-actions."

    Lauren Steiner (CA): "[Clinton supporters] decided to chant with us when we chanted 'Black Lives Matter.' But for some reason, they found 'No More War' to be offensive and shouted "USA" right after. At first, I was puzzled by the fact that they were shouting exactly what Trump supporters shout at his rallies. Then, after all the bellicose speeches and the fact that they had so many Republicans endorsing Clinton, it hit me that perhaps it was because they were courting Republicans now. They didn't care about our support anymore."

    Ike, August 18, 2016 at 1:02 pm

    I am reading Primary Colors by Anonymous. It is entertaining as well as reaffirming a suspected baseline of conduct.

    Lambert Strether, August 18, 2016 at 1:11 pm

    Primary Colors (by Joke Line (Joe Klein)) is terrific. The movie is good too. I am so happy and amazed that I live in a world where John Travolta plays Bill Clinton in a movie.

    Jeremy Grimm, August 18, 2016 at 1:31 pm

    The harassment and dirty tricks pulled against the Sanders people - as described in these collected reports - leaves me wondering whether Sanders actually won the nomination. It would have been much more politic for the Hillary people to let the Sanders delegates blow off steam and wait until the nomination and end of the convention to circle the wagons in "unity". If Hillary clearly won the nomination then the stupidity and arrogance in team Hillary's treatment of the Sanders people speaks to a new level of disdain for the 99%. The business about the $700 hotels and the misinformation and lack of information provided from team Sanders raises other questions.

    trent, August 18, 2016 at 2:17 pm

    Wow, all those testimonials from the democrat convention are an eye opener, for some. Hillary's soft Nazism on full display for any of the still true believers. Yet the press calls trump the Nazi. Trump is crazy, but its almost an honest craziness compared to Hillary. She's nuts, but manipulates everything she can to hide it. I'll take out in the open crazy, easier to plan for.


    EoinW, August 19, 2016 at 8:51 am

    I haven't voted in years. In Canada, however, we've never been given a choice on anything. Doesn't matter if the election is federal, provincial or municipal, no issues just personalities.

    The US 2016 election is different. You actually have a huge choice to make. Do you vote(or not vote) to support the Washington establishment, which is clearly pushing for war with Russia, or do you vote Trump who doesn't want such a war? Your choice.

    But why would you even contemplate gambling that we can survive 4 years of Clinton without a nuclear war? Speculating on global warming or third party movements kind of lose their significance during a nuclear winter.

    Patricia

    This young woman turned it into a tale, "The Bullshittery of the DNC":

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHD_bj5fXO0

    [Aug 20, 2016] Hillary Clinton Could Easily Push America into Open Conflict with Russia by Ted Galen Carpenter

    Notable quotes:
    "... Congrats! The author discovered the obvious: Hillary is a warmongering neocon willing to pursue totally suicidal policy with Russia. She is not called "Mrs. WWIII" for nothing. If we are to survive, this monster should be nowhere near the White House. ..."
    "... Hillary just follows the money, preferring the consensus between AIPAC and Saudis. The buyers and the goods they buy are all disgusting. ..."
    "... While Russia (and this author) may (correctly) believe that fighting terrorism is a common interest of Russia and the US, the fact is, the US has no interest in fighting terrorism. Long ago Bush openly declared that he is not concerned about Osama bin Laden, and Obama continues to arm the so-called moderates, who are really a faction of al Qaeda. These neocon regime change wars are not about terrorism -- except in the sense that the US uses terrorist factions to attempt to overthrow legitimate leaders like Assad and Gaddafi. Rather than fighting terrorism, the US uses it as a weapon. The Russians are playing by one set of rules, but the US is using another. ..."
    "... Hillary Clinton was instrumental in pushing for the Invasion of Iraq, which turned what was essentially a functional state into an ISIS hellhole. As Secretary of State, she was THE personality behind the destruction of Libya, now another Islamist breeding machine with a ruined economy & brutalized population. She has done everything in her power to destabilize Syria & has succeeded beyond her wildest dreams. Now millions of economic migrants are flooding into Europe, which will likely become a Caliphate under Sharia law within 100 years. Clinton's hands are soaked in blood of tens of thousands of men, women, & children. Her thirst for more is unquenchable. She is as much of a war criminal as her hero & good friend Henry Kissinger. All the media can do is scream endless unfounded accusations of Trump being a racist, yet they never mention a whisper of what Clinton has done & intends to do. ..."
    "... Trump has shown he is not a captive to the foreign policy consensus of the economic, social, and political elite of the New York-Wash DC beltway. He does not believe in intervention anywhere and everywhere. That I heartily endorse. ..."
    Aug 18, 2016 | nationalinterest.org
    One especially disturbing trend in global affairs is the marked deterioration in relations between the United States and Russia. Much will depend on the outcome of the upcoming U.S. presidential election. Donald Trump has staked out a reasonably conciliatory policy toward Moscow. And in the highly improbable event that Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson emerged victorious, the United States would certainly pursue a less interventionist, confrontational foreign policy toward Russia as well as other countries.

    But Trump and a handful of other dissenters have triggered the wrath of the foreign-policy establishment by daring to suggest that Washington's Russia policy may be unwise and that the two countries have important mutual interests. Most anti-Russian hawks are backing Hillary Clinton, and the implications of a Clinton victory are extremely ominous. When Russia annexed Crimea, Clinton compared Russian president Vladimir Putin to Adolf Hitler-a comparison so extreme that it drew dissents even from some usual supporters. Yet there is no doubt that she would take a very hard line toward Moscow. Among other things, Clinton recommended that the United States impose a no-fly zone in Syria despite the risk that it could mean shooting down Russian military aircraft that were operating at the request of the Syrian government. Anyone who is that reckless is not likely to retreat from confrontations in eastern Europe or other arenas. Indeed, she has already called for not only more financial assistance but more military aid to Ukraine.

    ... ... ...

    Ted Galen Carpenter, a senior fellow in defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute and a contributing editor at the National Interest, is the author of 10 books and more than 600 articles on international affairs.

    Informed • 2 days ago

    Congrats! The author discovered the obvious: Hillary is a warmongering neocon willing to pursue totally suicidal policy with Russia. She is not called "Mrs. WWIII" for nothing. If we are to survive, this monster should be nowhere near the White House.

    Anthony Informed • 2 days ago

    It's not her it's George Soros he's funding her and Merkel two of the most pathetic politicians I've seen especially dopey Merkel. Soros is also funding blm and a Arab version in israel look at the leaked emails. If you don't know sata... I mean soros then you should just type his name into Google he sold his own people out to Hitler and said it was the best thing he ever did enough said

    Informed Anthony • 2 days ago

    You might be right. Soros looks like he had died already, but he is as greedy as ever. Looks like he plans to bribe God almighty: otherwise why would he need so much money so late in his life? Soros or CIA must have something really damning on Merkel: she is consistently working against her own country for more than two years now. Hillary just follows the money, preferring the consensus between AIPAC and Saudis. The buyers and the goods they buy are all disgusting.

    donnasaggia • 7 hours ago

    We need to shift the analysis somewhat. While Russia (and this author) may (correctly) believe that fighting terrorism is a common interest of Russia and the US, the fact is, the US has no interest in fighting terrorism. Long ago Bush openly declared that he is not concerned about Osama bin Laden, and Obama continues to arm the so-called moderates, who are really a faction of al Qaeda. These neocon regime change wars are not about terrorism -- except in the sense that the US uses terrorist factions to attempt to overthrow legitimate leaders like Assad and Gaddafi. Rather than fighting terrorism, the US uses it as a weapon. The Russians are playing by one set of rules, but the US is using another.

    Frank Blangeard • a day ago

    There will be no 'second Cold War' because the United States never ended the first Cold War.
    alan Frank Blangeard • a day ago
    Amen, brother!
    alan • a day ago
    No other country on earth, save Israel, has legitimate interests or security concerns other than the United States. No spheres other than the western hemispheric one under the control of the US are ever to be considered acceptable. This arrogant hegemon is headed for a fall. Preferably, since I am an American I hope it will be a long slow peaceful one. Athens was as arrogant as the American empire. Athens was defeated by a coalition led by Sparta.
    Joe Stevens alan • a day ago
    Pride always comes before the fall. In this case, it will be a big fall!
    ApqIA • 2 days ago
    A needed countermeasure, a difficult one, even unlikely -- but it would stand a chance of deterring the US' insane ambitions.

    A full military alliance between Russia and China, with integrated conventional and nuclear forces, that would consider an attack on one an attack on both, and a two-nation nuclear retaliation for any nuclear attack. The alliance could also offer membership to other threatened nations, such as Iran.

    Would include technology transfers between the two partners, which among other things would assure China of adequate engines for its aircraft. Perhaps joint business ventures would ease Russian unease at losing business: they can sell armaments together.

    The US points nuclear warheads at both nations, so the US constitutes a credible existential threat to both nations.

    Its depraved, aggressive idea of global "leadership" is a threat to all humanity, and any and all measures to deter it are worth the effort.

    Want evidence? Here's its OWN map of the world, divided into American military provinces.

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/w...

    This development would confront Washington with something like Hitchcock's "Birds" scenario -- how many "fronts" can the US fight in at once? scenario. The Eurasian land mass is a vast, impregnable fortress and US military planners already despair at Russian mobile nukes.

    Unfortunately, only even greater insanity can really hope to deter the American lunatics and self-absordbed interventionists like Hillary.

    ApqIA -> Duane • a day ago

    Georgia was a US-sponsored comic opera.

    Syria was an attempt to use terrorists to get rid of Assad. Failing.

    Ukraine was an attempt to get Ukraine in NATO, taking Crimea was a step to avoid a NATO base in the Black Sea.

    Since before Pearl Harbor, the US has employed the tactic of creating a situation where an opponent has to choose an unacceptable outcome or use force.

    What's the rate for a US-salaried troll?

    Bilguun Khurelbaatar -> ApqIA • 12 hours ago

    Actually I believe that all those who call others as "Russian troll" are mostly Ukrainian trolls. It's easy to find them, they call everyone, even neutral minded people as putin troll, and all they demand is to arm Ukraine, nuke Russia etc...

    Robert Willis • 18 hours ago

    Excellent article. Hillary Clinton was instrumental in pushing for the Invasion of Iraq, which turned what was essentially a functional state into an ISIS hellhole. As Secretary of State, she was THE personality behind the destruction of Libya, now another Islamist breeding machine with a ruined economy & brutalized population. She has done everything in her power to destabilize Syria & has succeeded beyond her wildest dreams. Now millions of economic migrants are flooding into Europe, which will likely become a Caliphate under Sharia law within 100 years. Clinton's hands are soaked in blood of tens of thousands of men, women, & children. Her thirst for more is unquenchable. She is as much of a war criminal as her hero & good friend Henry Kissinger. All the media can do is scream endless unfounded accusations of Trump being a racist, yet they never mention a whisper of what Clinton has done & intends to do.

    deliaruhe • 19 hours ago

    "Unfortunately, given the growing probability of a Clinton victory in November, U.S.-Russian relations, already in bad shape, are likely to deteriorate further."

    Hillary isn't exactly known for her wisdom and judgement (especially in her choice of role models and mentors--i.e., Albright and Kissinger), and she's very good at shooting herself in the foot on a regular basis (e.g., her Putin-as-Hitler hyperbole). She will soon become the imperial president of an empire in decline, and empires in decline are at their most dangerous.

    I think this will end up being the saddest American election ever.

    (Excellent article, by the way.)

    Dank Lastname • 2 days ago

    If Hillary dragged NATO into a war with Russia her incompetent leadership would see the collapse of the US and the Russian occupation of Eastern Europe.

    Mikhailovich • 15 hours ago

    When the money is your god and financial elite employs politicians to run the country, what else we can expect? It looks the American militarism can be tamed by efficient nuclear deterrent or other major power and there are no other way to avoid big war.

    alan -> JPH • a day ago

    That's the tragedy of the situation. Trump has shown he is not a captive to the foreign policy consensus of the economic, social, and political elite of the New York-Wash DC beltway. He does not believe in intervention anywhere and everywhere. That I heartily endorse. On all other points he is totally unqualified and unacceptable. We are left with a war-mongering Neo-Con thug. When She takes office, begin the countdown---war is coming, a very big war

    [Aug 20, 2016] No, Ambassador McFaul Putin Didnt Order Me to Fall in Love with Donald Trump

    Notable quotes:
    "... Former US Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul penned a scathing piece in the Washington Post accusing the Kremlin of intervening in the American election, based solely on the evidence of a harsh article regarding Clinton published by Sputnik News. Boy, was he wrong! ..."
    "... On Wednesday night, Michael McFaul took to the Washington Post to opine that the article was part of a Kremlin-led conspiracy to subvert the American election, referring to the person running the Sputnik Twitter account (that particular day being me) as a "Russian official," before warning (threatening) that we "might want to think about what we plan to do" if Clinton becomes president. ..."
    "... Pursuant to 18 US Code Chapter 115, I'd be writing this article to you from prison, if not awaiting a death sentence, if I were writing content ordered down to me by the Kremlin with a view towards subverting the American election. I am instead writing this piece from my favorite coffeeshop in downtown DC. I am not a Russian official. Our staff members are not Russian officials. We are not Kremlin controlled. We do not speak with Vladimir Putin over our morning coffee. ..."
    "... In fact, the Atlantic Council's Ben Nimmo leveled a completely different view on Friday morning, calling our coverage "uncharacteristically balanced," but arguing that, because we report generally negative stories on both candidates, our real target is American democracy itself. ..."
    "... It may surprise Mr. McFaul and Mr. Nimmo to learn that, in my previous work on political campaigns, I actually helped fundraise for Hillary Clinton - the candidate whose inner circle is now labelling my colleagues and I as foreign saboteurs. It is neither my fault nor Sputnik's fault that Secretary Clinton's campaign has devolved into one predicated upon fear and conspiracy, where the two primary lines are "the Russians did it" and that she is not Trump. ..."
    "... The fact that more than 50% of the country dislikes both presidential candidates is not a Kremlin conspiracy. Would it be appropriate for us to present to our readers an alternate universe a la MSNBC, which defended Clinton's trustworthiness by saying she only perjured herself three times? ..."
    "... Returning to the substance of the article to which Mr. McFaul took exception. This piece was written because it was newsworthy - it informed our readers and forced them to think. The provocative headline of the story was based on a statement by Trump that is a bit of a stretch (notice the air quotes on the title), but which highlights a major policy decision made by this administration that has not been properly scrutinized by the mainstream media. In the article, for those who actually read it, I refer to the 2012 DNI report that correctly calculated that Obama's policy in Syria would lead to the development of a Salafist entity controlling territory and that this outcome was "wanted." Hence, the title. ..."
    "... Today, the Obama Administration grapples with a similar debate over whether to continue to support the "moderate rebels" in Syria, despite the fact that they have now melded with al-Nusra (an al-Qaeda affiliate until they rebranded), under the banner of the Army of Conquest in Syria. ..."
    sputniknews.com

    Former US Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul penned a scathing piece in the Washington Post accusing the Kremlin of intervening in the American election, based solely on the evidence of a harsh article regarding Clinton published by Sputnik News. Boy, was he wrong!

    My name is Bill Moran. A native Arizonan, I have worked on dozens of Democratic Party campaigns, and am more recently a proud writer for Sputnik's Washington, DC bureau.

    It also seems, as of Thursday morning, that I am the source of controversy between the United States and Russia - something I never quite could have imagined - for writing an article that was critical of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton with a stinging headline and a harsh hashtag.

    So, what is this controversy all about? This weekend I published a piece with the headline, "Secret File Confirms Trump Claim: Obama, Hillary 'Founded ISIS' to Oust Assad." I also tweeted out this story from our platform with the hashtag #CrookedHillary. Guilty as charged.

    On Wednesday night, Michael McFaul took to the Washington Post to opine that the article was part of a Kremlin-led conspiracy to subvert the American election, referring to the person running the Sputnik Twitter account (that particular day being me) as a "Russian official," before warning (threatening) that we "might want to think about what we plan to do" if Clinton becomes president.

    I feel it is necessary to pause, here, before having a substantive argument about the article's merits and purpose within the public discourse, to address the severity of the accusation leveled against me and Sputnik's staff (not by name until now), and its disturbing implications on freedom of speech, dissent, and American democracy - implications that I hope Mr. McFaul, other public proponents of the Hillary campaign, and the cadre of Russian critics consider.

    Pursuant to 18 US Code Chapter 115, I'd be writing this article to you from prison, if not awaiting a death sentence, if I were writing content ordered down to me by the Kremlin with a view towards subverting the American election. I am instead writing this piece from my favorite coffeeshop in downtown DC. I am not a Russian official. Our staff members are not Russian officials. We are not Kremlin controlled. We do not speak with Vladimir Putin over our morning coffee.

    Mr. McFaul worked side-by-side with the former Secretary of State in the Obama Administration, and his routine accusations that Trump supporters are siding with Putin leaves me to imagine that he is a Clinton insider if not a direct campaign surrogate. That such a public official would suggest reprisals against those with differing viewpoints in the event that she wins is disturbing.

    Our outlet does not endorse or support any particular US presidential candidate, but rather reports news and views for the day in as diligent a manner as we possibly can. This is evident in our very harsh headlines on Trump, which Mr. McFaul failed to review before making his attack.

    In fact, the Atlantic Council's Ben Nimmo leveled a completely different view on Friday morning, calling our coverage "uncharacteristically balanced," but arguing that, because we report generally negative stories on both candidates, our real target is American democracy itself.

    It may surprise Mr. McFaul and Mr. Nimmo to learn that, in my previous work on political campaigns, I actually helped fundraise for Hillary Clinton - the candidate whose inner circle is now labelling my colleagues and I as foreign saboteurs. It is neither my fault nor Sputnik's fault that Secretary Clinton's campaign has devolved into one predicated upon fear and conspiracy, where the two primary lines are "the Russians did it" and that she is not Trump.

    Donald Trump has the lowest approval rating since presidential polling began. Until recently, Clinton had the second lowest approval rating since presidential polling began. Their numbers are worse than even Barry Goldwater and George Wallace, in fact.

    The fact that more than 50% of the country dislikes both presidential candidates is not a Kremlin conspiracy. Would it be appropriate for us to present to our readers an alternate universe a la MSNBC, which defended Clinton's trustworthiness by saying she only perjured herself three times?

    There is a reason why both presidential candidates have received less than fawning coverage from our outlet: they have not done anything to warrant positive coverage. My colleagues, also Americans, like so many others in this country, wish they would.

    Returning to the substance of the article to which Mr. McFaul took exception. This piece was written because it was newsworthy - it informed our readers and forced them to think.

    The provocative headline of the story was based on a statement by Trump that is a bit of a stretch (notice the air quotes on the title), but which highlights a major policy decision made by this administration that has not been properly scrutinized by the mainstream media.

    In the article, for those who actually read it, I refer to the 2012 DNI report that correctly calculated that Obama's policy in Syria would lead to the development of a Salafist entity controlling territory and that this outcome was "wanted." Hence, the title.

    Today, the Obama Administration grapples with a similar debate over whether to continue to support the "moderate rebels" in Syria, despite the fact that they have now melded with al-Nusra (an al-Qaeda affiliate until they rebranded), under the banner of the Army of Conquest in Syria.

    We do not pretend that these decisions exist in a vacuum with a clear right and wrong answer upon which no two intelligent people differ, but this is a matter worthy of public discourse.

    And what about that hashtag? Why would I use #CrookedHillary? I mean, I could have put #Imwithher, but I wasn't trying to be ironic. When a hashtag is featured at the end of a sentence, its purpose is for cataloging. Some people, usually non-millennials, use hashtags as text to convey a particular opinion. I was not doing that. I also used #NeverTrump in a separate article.

    But Mr. McFaul lazily cherry-picked, and then labeled (maybe unwittingly) Sputnik's American writers traitors to this country.

    That, I personally, expect an apology for.

    [Aug 20, 2016] Hillarys Neoconservatives

    Aug 19, 2016 | The American Conservative

    Her embrace of hawks is more than an electoral strategy.

    The Hillary Clinton campaign has recently been trumpeting endorsements from neoconservatives. The candidate's embrace of figures such as Robert Kagan, Max Boot, and Eliot Cohen-all once regarded as anathema to the contemporary left-has engendered a wave of pushback from progressive critics.

    Jane Sanders, wife of Bernie, is the most recent high-profile objector, publicly expressing queasiness about Clinton's perceived allying with "architects of regime change." Now, predictably, the pushback has been met with its own pushback, including from Brian Beutler of The New Republic, who cautions progressives not to fret.

    ... ... ...

    Kagan, who not so long ago was denounced by liberal Iraq War opponents, co-signed a June report with Michèle Flournoy-the likely candidate for defense secretary under Clinton-calling for escalated U.S. military presence in Syria, a policy that could lead to all-out ground war or direct confrontation with Russia. So it seems he may already be on Clinton's hawkish team in waiting.

    Few reputable critics would argue that Hillary is herself a neoconservative. Far more plausible is that she'll enable the implementation of a neoconservative foreign-policy agenda by casting the neoconservatives' goals in liberal-interventionist terms, thus garnering Democratic support for initiatives that would face widespread opposition were they spearheaded by a Republican president. Lobe has written that Hillary represents "the point of convergence between liberal interventionism … and neoconservatism," and Hillary's willingness to empower a foreign-policy establishment featuring neoconservatives shows that they have in fact received concrete reputational benefit from lining up behind her.

    Hillary may operate on the premise that anything that might conceivably garner her additional votes is justified on that basis alone. Yet even on that premise, heralding neoconservative ideologues doesn't make sense. Again, neoconservatives have virtually no support in the electorate, as the recent Republican primary contest indicated. Their base is mostly among elites. Beyond that, there's a serious chance that continuing to tout these people will actually damage her electoral fortunes by alienating left-wing voters who might be cajoled into voting for the Democratic ticket, but can't countenance the possibility of ushering the Iraq-invasion architects of the George W. Bush era back into power.

    So if there's no obvious electoral upside, the most likely reason why Hillary is reaching out to such characters is a deceptively simple one: she shares common interests with them, respects their supposed expertise, and wants to bring them into her governing coalition. For that, anyone interested in a sane foreign policy over the next eight years should be exceedingly worried.

    Michael Tracey is a journalist based in New York City.

    [Aug 20, 2016] 'Obama has been too Soft on Putin,' Said Soros as he Called the Shots on Ukraine

    Another debt shark is circling this poor country after feeling blood in the water...
    Notable quotes:
    "... Pyatt seemed open to the idea of guiding Ukraine towards a decentralization of power just short of Lavrov's recommendation for a federalized Ukraine, but George Soros pushed back stating that a federalization model would result in Russia gaining influence over eastern regions of the country which the Hungarian billionaire disapproved of. ..."
    "... Ambassador Pyatt's position towards decentralization also appeared to shake as the correspondence continued saying that the "Russian propaganda machine is telling Kharkhiv and Donbass residents that the government in Western Ukraine is looking to take away their resources and rights ..."
    "... In a separate meeting, titled "Civil Society Roundtable Meeting," George Soros directly calls for the formation of a Ukrainian "fifth column" – a group whose sole purpose is to undermine a larger group – in order to push Ukraine away from Russia. ..."
    "... "We would rather have people there as fifth column – pivotal thing for future of Ukrainian society – continue to work with Crimean people" said the document regarding the disputed territory only highlighting that there was potentially improper interference by Soros in Ukraine's civil society. ..."
    sputniknews.com

    New documents released by hackers who compromised George Soros' Open Society Foundations raise serious questions about the Hungarian billionaire's role in Ukraine.

    A leaked document, from the massive 2,500 file dump by DC Leaks of George Soros' most sensitive Open Society Foundations communications, show the inordinate amount of power and authority the Hungarian billionaire wielded over Ukraine in the immediate aftermath of the Maidan government overthrow.

    Soros, along with key executives from the Open Society Foundations, held extensive meetings with nearly every actor involved in the Maidan coup including Ukraine's Ministers of Foreign Affairs, Justice, Health and Education as well as US Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt and the regional director of USAID. However, the documents do exclude one key official, Victoria Nuland, who was allegedly involved in steering the opposition to the Yanukovych government.

    The records focus on plans to minimize and counter Russian influence and cultural ties to Ukraine with a focus towards steering Kiev towards social and economic reforms that Soros favored. The Hungarian billionaire has not been bashful about his acts or intent to influence politics in Ukraine establishing the NGO, International Renaissance Foundation (IRF) to spearhead the formation of the "New Ukraine."

    Most troubling in the document leak appears to be a file titled "Breakfast with US Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt" to discuss Ukraine's future. In the meeting, which took place on March 31, 2014, just months after the Maidan coup and weeks prior to civil strife following Ukrainian forces assault on Donbass, US Ambassador Pyatt outlines a PR war against Putin, a position George Soros viewed favorably in the meeting.

    "The short term issue that needs to be addressed will be the problem in getting the message out from the government through professional PR tools, especially given Putin's own professional smear campaigns," said the US Ambassador.

    George Soros responded, "Agreement on the strategic communications issue – providing professional PR assistance to the Ukrainian government would be very useful."

    Pyatt seemed open to the idea of guiding Ukraine towards a decentralization of power just short of Lavrov's recommendation for a federalized Ukraine, but George Soros pushed back stating that a federalization model would result in Russia gaining influence over eastern regions of the country which the Hungarian billionaire disapproved of.

    The Ambassador noted that Secretary of State John Kerry "would be interested to hear George Soros' views on the situation directly, upon return from his trip" raising the question why one wealthy foreign individual, neither from Ukraine nor Russia, had such access to influence American policy.

    Ambassador Pyatt's position towards decentralization also appeared to shake as the correspondence continued saying that the "Russian propaganda machine is telling Kharkhiv and Donbass residents that the government in Western Ukraine is looking to take away their resources and rights through the decentralization process, feeding into Lavrov's line that the Ukrainian government is dysfunctional and not successful as a unitary state, making it a necessity to have federalization.

    Then, in a full capitulation, the American diplomat point blank asks George Soros, "what should the US government be doing and what is the US government currently doing."

    To which, George Soros responded, "Obama has been too soft on Putin, and there is a need to impose potent smart sanctions." He then called on the US government to "impose sanctions on Russia for 90 days or until the Russian government recognizes the results of the presidential elections."

    In a separate meeting, titled "Civil Society Roundtable Meeting," George Soros directly calls for the formation of a Ukrainian "fifth column" – a group whose sole purpose is to undermine a larger group – in order to push Ukraine away from Russia.

    "We would rather have people there as fifth column – pivotal thing for future of Ukrainian society – continue to work with Crimean people" said the document regarding the disputed territory only highlighting that there was potentially improper interference by Soros in Ukraine's civil society.

    [Aug 20, 2016] LA times as a mirror of neoliberal press dirty campaign against Trump

    Here are some headlines, This is a textbook example of demonization. Persistent attempt not to discuss issues important for Americans and concentrate on personalities, making a show out of election. Out of a hundred that I analyzed only one was positive, around a dozen were neutral. Everything else were brazen, rabid dog style attack of neoliberals on Trump.
    www.latimes.co

    Trump

    1. Amid campaign chaos, Donald Trump seeks reboot
    2. New poll analysis finds a wasted summer for Donald Trump and a boost for Hillary Clinton
    3. Essential Politics: Trump goes nuclear
    4. Trump shows a new emotion - regret
    5. Donald Trump's media obsession has culminated in his hiring the head of a far-right news website to run his campaign
    6. Hey, Los Angeles: There's a naked statue of Donald Trump on Hollywood Boulevard
    7. If Trump won't pay his bills, will he pay America's - LA Times
    8. New poll analysis finds a wasted summer for Donald Trump and a boost for Hillary Clinton
    9. Signs of a shift in Trump's campaign - too little, too late?
    10. Before Trump, Americans hadn't worried this much about nuclear weapons since the Cold War
    11. Clinton campaign manager: Paul Manafort's resignation doesn't 'end the odd bromance' between Trump and Putin
    12. Maybe Trump's not trying to win the White House - he's trying to start Trump TV
    13. If you're worried about rigged elections, look at Trump's tactics first - LA Times
    14. Donald Trump spokeswoman with a history of false statements says Hillary Clinton suffers from a brain disorder
    15. Donald Trump's call for poll watchers brings back memories of 1988 Santa Ana
    16. What's new in Trump's foreign-policy speech isn't good - LA Times
    17. How to stay sane in the time of Trump - LA Times
    18. Clinton: Donald Trump 'is still the same'
    19. Donald Trump calls for 'extreme vetting' and an ideological test for would-be immigrants
    20. Donald Trump losing to Hillary Clinton? 'Says who?'
    21. The silver lining of the Trump campaign: Now we can't deny our racism or xenophobia
    22. Top Clinton backer on shuffling of Trump campaign: 'You can't fix Trump'
    23. Donald Trump's embattled campaign chairman Paul Manafort resigns
    24. Paul Manafort has guided dictators and strongmen, but can he manage Donald Trump?
    25. Memo to Donald Trump: Here's how to make the 'death tax' fair for everybody
    26. Trump's nationalism is just identity politics in a new flannel shirt
    27. Clinton campaign: Trump shake-up a sign he'll 'double down' on nasty, divisive attacks
    28. Warning of election fraud, Trump sparks fear that his backers may intimidate minority voters
    29. Republicans run for reelection - and away from Trump - as GOP tries to keep control of Senate
    30. He drafted a speech for the Republican convention. Now he says he can't vote for Donald Trump.
    31. How to stay sane in the time of Trump
    32. Philippine lawmaker wants to ban Trump from the country
    33. Biden says Trump has heightened danger for U.S. troops abroad
    34. Repudiating Trump: Republicans are damned if they do, damned if they don't
    35. Trump advisor repeats call for Hillary Clinton to be 'shot in a firing squad for treason'
    36. Trump lashes out at the Wall Street Journal for calling on him to change or leave
    37. The high price of living next door to Donald Trump in L.A.: $30 million
    38. I was a Minuteman III nuclear launch officer. Take it from me: We can't let Trump become president
    39. It isn't enough for Republicans to repudiate Donald Trump. They should endorse Hillary Clinton
    40. Essential Politics: Trump puts the squeeze on vulnerable Republicans
    41. What if Trump drops out?
    42. Trump tries to recover from blunders by sketching his economic agenda
    43. Obama says Trump is 'unfit to serve,' and Trump threatens to walk away from leading Republicans
    44. A Trump election could harm L.A.'s Olympics bid, Mayor Garcetti says
    45. His exact words: What did Donald Trump mean with his 2nd Amendment comments?
    46. Panic in GOP ranks will not stop Trump from being Trump
    47. Trump's call for '2nd Amendment people' to stop Clinton isn't helping his dropping poll numbers
    48. Donald Trump just proposed repealing the 'death tax.' Here's why that's a scam.
    49. How Trump's 2nd Amendment remark burned through Twitter before he even left the room
    50. How deferments protected Donald Trump from serving in Vietnam
    51. Donald Trump calls his claim that Obama founded Islamic State 'sarcasm'
    52. Trump was wrong about free speech and falsehoods, but in an interesting way
    53. San Diego roadside sign hacked with profane message about Trump
    54. Clinton slams Trump as unfit for presidency following 2nd Amendment comment
    55. Trump's wife Melania faces questions about her own immigration history
    56. If Donald Trump were black, would the GOP base accept him? The answer is obvious.
    57. Trump plans to take a 'nice, long vacation' if he loses in November
    58. 'Why don't we use nukes?' sounds like a plausible thing for Donald Trump to say
    59. Actress Rose McGowan pens scathing open letter to media, Trump and the Murdochs
    60. Clintons made $10.6 million last year, tax return shows, as Donald Trump is pressed to release his own
    61. Trump Taj Mahal casino will shut down amid strike, costing 3,000 workers their jobs
    62. Trump versus the fire marshals (and everyone else)
    63. 'Words matter, Mr. Trump, no matter when or where you say them'
    64. Snapshot from the trail: Confederate flag at Donald Trump event
    65. Why are Julian Assange and Vladimir Putin helping Donald Trump?
    66. Donald Trump tries to deflect attention away from recent controversies by pushing economic agenda
    67. Trump's campaign chairman fights back against report detailing pro-Russian payment ledgers
    68. Disgraced ex-lawmaker shows up at Trump rally, messes up attack on Clinton
    69. Ryan says Trump ought to clarify 2nd Amendment comment
    70. Hezbollah leader supports Trump's claim that U.S. created Islamic State
    71. Why Trump can't tell the difference between a Twitter war and a presidential campaign
    72. Many GOP foreign policy experts see Donald Trump as unfit to be president
    73. Trump calls Clinton a 'horror show' for coal mining, tries to move past gun controversy
    74. Top GOP security advisors warn Trump is 'dangerous'
    75. Donald Trump says '2nd Amendment people' can prevent Hillary Clinton from choosing judges
    76. Trump mired in another day of controversy with family of soldier killed in Iraq
    77. Sen. Susan Collins becomes latest Republican to break with Trump
    78. Patt Morrison Asks: Vladimir Putin biographer Masha Gessen on Russia, Trump and WikiLeaks
    79. Trump accused of threatening violence against Clinton with gun-rights remarks
    80. New Hampshire Sen. Kelly Ayotte still backing Trump after Maine Sen. Susan Collins says she cannot
    81. Hillary Clinton calls Donald Trump's plans to 'stick it to the rich' a myth
    82. GOP-Trump rift: This split's taking some time
    83. To live in L.A. is to know Trump is wrong: America is not in decline
    84. Clinton campaign launches group for conservatives who don't support Trump
    85. Case against Trump University should move forward, judge rules
    86. Trump sparks uproar by saying 'maybe there is' a way for '2nd Amendment people' to keep Clinton from naming justices
    87. Which Republicans are supporting Trump, and who's jumping ship?
    88. The Khan family's road to confrontation with Donald Trump
    89. Forget the squalling baby; Trump's comments about China on Tuesday were the worse tantrum
    90. Clinton has one big edge on Trump: Her supporting cast is stronger
    91. Essential Politics: Trump's tempest rages onward
    92. Trump loses ground among key voter groups, tracking poll finds
    93. Donald Trump tries to clarify his Islamic State remark. Or maybe not.
    94. Donald Trump says he wouldn't accept Ted Cruz's endorsement even if it were offered
    95. Update on: After several days, Donald Trump decides to endorse Paul Ryan
    96. French president has sharp words for Trump
    97. And the bar drops even lower as Trump calls on Russian hackers to help his election prospects
    98. Analysis: Trump lofts another ill-timed diversion as voters seek to justify their November choice
    99. Melania Trump affirms her immigration story after it's questioned
    100. Has Trump violated the 1st Amendment? Not yet

    [Aug 20, 2016] Washington Puzzled as Putin Doesn't Back Down The American Conservative by Scott McConnell

    Notable quotes:
    "... There is a mystery to the way Washington works-how an entire political class came to see as American policy that that Russia be humiliated at its own doorstep as logical, without ever reflecting upon whether this was a good idea in the larger scheme of global politics nor whether the West had the means and will to see it through ..."
    "... Russia's leaders and diplomats have been telling America to butt out of Ukraine in unambiguous terms for a decade or more . Did American diplomats and CIA agents push for an anti-Russian coup d'etat in Kiev knowing that and pursue it anyway? The sheer recklessness of such an action would border on criminal-but oddly enough, no one who truly counts in Washington, Republican or Democrat, seems even to consider it even slightly misguided. ..."
    September 4, 2014 | theamericanconservative.com

    On hawkish autopilot, America's leaders ignore the obvious off-ramp to the escalating Ukraine crisis.

    Consider an analogy to get a sense of how Russia might perceive America's Ukraine policy. It is imperfect of course, because unlike Russia, America has no history of being invaded, unless you count the War of 1812. But a comparison might be instructive nonetheless:

    By 2034, China's power position has risen relative to America's. America has evacuated its East Asian bases, under peaceful but pressured circumstances. The governments of Korea and Japan and eventually the Philippines had, by 2026, concluded it was better off with a "less provocative" more neutral arrangement. The huge naval base at Subic Bay became home to a multilateral UN contingent. China's economy had been larger than America's for a while, though American per capita income is still somewhat higher. American technological innovation edge has largely disappeared, America still has a lot of soft power-people over the world prefer Hollywood movies to Chinese and America's nuclear arsenal exceeds the Chinese. But the countries are far more equal than today, and throughout much of the world it is assumed that China will be tomorrow's dominant "hyperpower."

    A political crisis erupts in Mexico. Mexico has a freely elected but typically corrupt government, whose leading figures are linked to Wall Street and Miami Beach by ties of marriage and money. But many in Mexico-where anti-gringo nationalism remains a potent force-want to become the first "North American partner" in the China led Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere. Young Mexicans proclaim defiantly they are "people of color" and laud the fact non-white China is rising while America, country of aging white people, is in decline. Their sentiments, materialistic and infused with personal ambitions are so permeated with anti-American, anti-imperialist "third worldist" rhetoric that it is difficult for outsiders to sort out the true motivations. When the Mexican government, under American pressure, rejects a Chinese invitation for candidate membership in China's East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere, long prepared protests erupt in Mexico City.

    The core group of protest leaders and organizers have been on the Chinese payroll for some time, as the heads of various civic action and popular democracy initiatives, many with an obvious anti-gringo flavor. Soon Chinese politicians and movie stars begin flocking to Mexico City to be photographed with the protesters. Thus encouraged, protester demands escalate, including not only the resignation of the government, Mexico's adhesion to the Chinese economic bloc, but a military alliance with China. The NSA captures a cell phone conversation of the Chinese ambassador discussing who will hold what posts in the next Mexican cabinet. Three days later, sniper fire of undetermined origin riddles the protestors and police, and any semblance of order breaks down. Mexico's president flees to Miami.

    The above scenario parallels pretty directly the run-up to the Ukraine crisis, before Russia began to respond forcefully. One can of course see the ambiguities of right and wrong. Why should America have anything to say about whether Mexico has a revolution and joins an anti-American military alliance, some would ask. Mexico is sovereign, and should be able to join any international grouping it wants.

    What is most striking about the Ukraine crisis is how much the Washington debate lacks any sense of how the issue might look to other interested parties, particularly Russia. Putin is analysed of course-is he, as Hillary Clinton suggested, following Hitler's playbook? Or is he merely an aggressive autocrat? Or perhaps he is "in his own world" and not quite sane? But in open Washington conversation at least, and perhaps even at the more reflective levels of government, all talk begins with the premise that Russia's leader is somewhere on the continuum between aggressive and the irrational. That he might be acting reactively and defensively, as any leader of a large power would be in response to threatening events on its doorstep, is not even part of the American conversation. Thus in the waning days of American unipolarism, America diplomacy sinks into a mode of semi-autism, able to perceive and express its own interests, perceptions, and desires, while oblivious to the concerns of others.

    A rare and welcome exception to blindness was the publication in Foreign Affairs of John Mearsheimer's cogent essay on the Ukraine crisis, which with characteristic directness argues that Western efforts to move Ukraine in the Nato/EE orbit were the "taproot" of the present crisis. Prior to Mearsheimer, one could find analyses tracing how various neoliberal and neoconservative foundations had, with their spending and sponsorship of various "pro-Western" groups, fomented a revolution in Ukraine, but they were generally sequestered in left-liberal venues habitually critical of American and Western policies. In the Beltway power loop, such voices were never heard. The policy of pushing NATO eastward, first incorporating Poland and Bulgaria and then going right up to Russia's borders moved forward as if on mysterious autopilot. That such a policy was wise and necessary was considered a given when it was discussed at all, which was seldom. Was Obama even aware that a leading neoconservative, a figure from Dick Cheney's staff, was in charge formulating American policy towards Ukraine-with designs on igniting revolutionary regional transformation? One has to assume not; confrontation with Russia had not been part of Obama's presidential campaign or style, and since the crisis began his comments have always been more measured than the actions of the government he purportedly leads.

    As Mearsheimer points out, there remains still a fairly obvious and quite attractive off-ramp: a negotiation with Russia which settles formally Ukraine's non-aligned status. There are useful precedents for this: Eisenhower's negotiation with Krushchev that brought about the withdrawal of foreign troops from Austria in 1955 is one, and so of course is Finland. No one who contemplates where the Ukraine crisis might lead otherwise-with a war that devastates the country or perhaps brings in outside powers to devastate all of Europe, or even explodes the entire northern hemisphere-could sanely consider Austria or Finland-prosperous and free countries-to be bad outcomes. Nevertheless the entire conversation in Washington revolves around measures to make Putin back down, and accept the integration of Ukraine into the EU and eventually NATO. People act baffled that he won't.

    There is a mystery to the way Washington works-how an entire political class came to see as American policy that that Russia be humiliated at its own doorstep as logical, without ever reflecting upon whether this was a good idea in the larger scheme of global politics nor whether the West had the means and will to see it through. Because to see it through likely means war with Russia over Ukraine. (The West-leaning Ukrainians of course, be they democratic or fascist, want nothing more than to have American troops fighting beside them as they become NATO partners, a tail wagging the dog). America's policy makes sense only if it is taken for granted that Russia is an eternal enemy, an evil power which must be surrounded weakened and ultimately brought down. But very few in Washington believe that either, and virtually no one in the American corporate establishment does. So it's a mystery-a seemingly iron-clad Washington consensus formed behind a policy, the integration of Ukraine in the West, to whose implications no one seems to have given any serious thought.

    Russia's leaders and diplomats have been telling America to butt out of Ukraine in unambiguous terms for a decade or more. Did American diplomats and CIA agents push for an anti-Russian coup d'etat in Kiev knowing that and pursue it anyway? The sheer recklessness of such an action would border on criminal-but oddly enough, no one who truly counts in Washington, Republican or Democrat, seems even to consider it even slightly misguided.

    Scott McConnell is a founding editor of The American Conservative.

    [Aug 20, 2016] No Presidential Wars

    The American Conservative

    Donald Trump has made the 2016 presidential race potentially the most important of the last century. The Constitution repudiates presidential wars: they impoverish the people and undermine the rule of law. Trump, if he heeds our advice, can make the Constitution's foreign policy the battleground of the campaign.

    He did a masterful job of exposing the folly of the war in Iraq. He correctly denounced Hillary Clinton's Senate vote for that war and her later use of her position as secretary of state to wage congressionally unauthorized war against Libya. Rather than learn from her mistakes, which gave birth to ISIS, Clinton is redoubling her efforts to drag our nation into another unconstitutional war in Syria.

    The cornerstone of the Constitution's foreign policy is the exclusive entrustment of the war power to Congress. We made an unprecedented break with history by making Congress the sentinel against gratuitous wars. This was the most important decision we made in Philadelphia. We understood that from the beginning of all government, the Executive has chronically concocted excuses to go to war for power and fame. While Congress is not infallible, the institution has everything to lose and nothing to gain from going to war.

    We recognized that these features of the Executive and Legislative branches were timeless because they reflected personalities of the respective institutions that are as constant as the force of gravity. We examined every prior system of government for thousands of years. Regardless of their state of technology, Egyptian pharaohs, Israel's kings, Genghis Khan, and King George III were indistinguishable in their gravitation toward needless wars.

    The proof of our timeless wisdom is in the results. Less than a century after the ratification of the Constitution, by avoiding presidential wars the United States became the world's largest economy. We attracted the best and the brightest from everywhere to make America the workshop of the world.

    Trump's goal of regaining our former prosperity will be stillborn without restoring the Constitution's foreign policy. We were present at the creation of the Constitution, and we left no room for ambiguity about why we gave the war power to Congress. We call on Donald Trump to establish a precedent for every presidential candidate: an unequivocal pledge in writing never to initiate war without a congressional declaration. He should lead, and ask Hillary Clinton to follow. The pledges will make America great again.

    Trump is to be complimented for questioning alliance commitments that conflict with the pledge. He has asked why we would protect the borders of other countries when we don't protect our own. At present, the United States is obligated through treaties or executive promises to go to war to protect 69 countries. During our many years of public service, we rejected the idea of permanent friends or enemies and warned against the danger of entangling alliances. Trump's "No Presidential Wars" pledge will give him justification to extricate the United States from these military entanglements. Why should we safeguard the borders of almost half of the world's countries, who will betray us whenever their interests diverge from ours?

    In his first foreign-policy address, Trump alluded to John Quincy Adams's signature statement about the inseparability of foreign and domestic policy:

    [The United States has] abstained from interference in the concerns of others. … Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. … She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force. … she would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit. … [America's] glory is not dominion, but liberty.

    The United States is the safest country in history. All the armies of the world couldn't take a drink from the Colorado or make a track in the Rockies. We now possess more than 7,000 nuclear warheads and the biggest, most technologically advanced Navy and Air Force ever seen. By contrast, when we wrote the Constitution in 1787, the world confronted six empires armed to the teeth: the Chinese Empire, the Russian Empire, the British Empire, the French Empire, the Spanish Empire, and the Ottoman Empire. Despite massive superiority in manpower, ships, and weaponry, the British Empire was unable to defeat us in our Revolutionary War and the War of 1812.

    By avoiding standing armies and entangling alliances, our foreign policy of self-defense unleashed the nation's resources and focused our human capital on making us the richest nation in history. Our greatest entrepreneurs did not squander their genius on warfare. But then our nation's leaders became seduced by the lure of the limitless executive power that comes with war. Presidents of both parties replaced invincible self-defense with a global military establishment in the false hope of dictating the affairs of other nations. Presidents concocted pretexts to justify wars against Spain, Vietnam, Serbia, Iraq, and Libya. American jobs were traded away to attract professed foreign allies. The Democratic and Republican nominees have not given the American electorate a choice against unconstitutional presidential wars for more than half a century.

    Now is the time for Trump to end overseas adventurism and trumpet the invincible self-defense that made us the envy of the world. We have lost our way in abandoning the Constitution's foreign policy. A "No Presidential Wars" pledge is the first step to refocusing the genius of our people on production at home rather than destruction abroad. This is the way to make America great again.

    We are the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. We are the champion and vindicator only of our own.

    George Washington and James Madison are a Virginia businessman and lawyer.

    [Aug 20, 2016] For Clintonbots it is not enough to just vote for Clinton. They requres us to pretend that Clinton isn't more evil than Donald Trump

    Notable quotes:
    "... Trump is such a menace and defeating him is so important that I think freedom of speech should be limited temporarily (through informal ostracism and prudent editorial judgment, of course) and only pure HRC bots should be allowed to speak. But that is just my opinion, not my call. ..."
    "... This is how I understand the Clintonbots. ..."
    "... It is not enough to just vote for Clinton or support voting for Clinton against Trump. Let us also *pretend* that Clinton isn't more evil than her liberal supporters recognise, let us *pretend* that Donald Trump is unprecedented among Republicans, let us stop thinking and speaking what we think, let us do anything and say anything, use each and every conceivable argument, sacrifice all of our principles, honesty and future credibility in order to convince our followers and anyone still stupid enough to take our words seriously that Clinton is an angel of light and the difference between her and Trump is in no way less than the one between Heaven and Hell. ..."
    crookedtimber.org

    F. Foundling, 08.09.16 at 2:27 pm

    @RNB 08.08.16 at 10:06 pm

    > I do not think Crooked Timber should be featuring this hugely irresponsible line of thought in their OP's. But that is my opinion, not my call.

    Trump is such a menace and defeating him is so important that I think freedom of speech should be limited temporarily (through informal ostracism and prudent editorial judgment, of course) and only pure HRC bots should be allowed to speak. But that is just my opinion, not my call.

    > 1,2,3,4,5,6

    This is how I understand the Clintonbots. It is not enough to just vote for Clinton or support voting for Clinton against Trump. Let us also *pretend* that Clinton isn't more evil than her liberal supporters recognise, let us *pretend* that Donald Trump is unprecedented among Republicans, let us stop thinking and speaking what we think, let us do anything and say anything, use each and every conceivable argument, sacrifice all of our principles, honesty and future credibility in order to convince our followers and anyone still stupid enough to take our words seriously that Clinton is an angel of light and the difference between her and Trump is in no way less than the one between Heaven and Hell.

    Let us be completely uncritical of everything that she and her allies have ever done or are doing at the moment, until the elections are over. Then, when she uses this free pass we have given her to do the same things as President, we can be happy that at least we have saved the world. And maybe, just maybe our absolute loyalty to the tribe and the establishment will be rewarded.

    [Aug 19, 2016] 6 Problems With Medias Reaction To Trumps ISIS Comments

    This is a very important article and I strongly recommend to read it in full to understand how neoliberal propaganda works.
    This is nice example of how difficult is for ordinary person to cut threw media lies and get to the truth. So some level of brainwashing is inevitable unless you use only alternative media. Neoliberal MSM are disgusting and are lying all the time, but unless you use WWW and foreign sources (like people in the in the USSR did -- substitute radio for WWW, as it did not existed yet) that is not much else.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Donald Trump did something downright shocking for a debate a few days before an important Republican primary. He went after the country's last Republican president, George W. Bush. Hard. He went after the Republican Party's general foreign policy approach. Hard. ..."
    "... Obviously, the war in Iraq was a big, fat mistake. All right? The war in Iraq, we spent $2 trillion, thousands of lives, we don't even have it. Iran has taken over Iraq with the second-largest oil reserves in the world. Obviously, it was a mistake. George Bush made a mistake. We can make mistakes. But that one was a beauty. We should have never been in Iraq. We have destabilized the Middle East. I want to tell you. They lied. They said there were weapons of mass destruction, there were none. And they knew there were none. There were no weapons of mass destruction. ..."
    "... Trump said, "The World Trade Center came down during your brother's reign, remember that That's not keeping us safe." ..."
    "... Compare that little vignette with this week, when Donald Trump repeatedly said that President Obama and Hillary Clinton were founders/co-founders/MVPs of ISIS. ..."
    "... Washington Examiner ..."
    "... DT: I don't care. He was the founder. His, the way he got out of Iraq was that that was the founding of ISIS, okay? ..."
    "... Vanity Fair ..."
    Aug 12, 2016 | thefederalist.com

    Back in February, candidates for the Republican nomination for president debated each other in South Carolina. The Saturday evening discussion was raucous. Donald Trump did something downright shocking for a debate a few days before an important Republican primary. He went after the country's last Republican president, George W. Bush. Hard. He went after the Republican Party's general foreign policy approach. Hard.

    Moderator John Dickerson asked him about his 2008 comments in favor of impeaching George W. Bush. He had said that year that Bush had "lied" to get the United States into a war in Iraq. Trump said to Dickerson:

    Obviously, the war in Iraq was a big, fat mistake. All right? The war in Iraq, we spent $2 trillion, thousands of lives, we don't even have it. Iran has taken over Iraq with the second-largest oil reserves in the world. Obviously, it was a mistake. George Bush made a mistake. We can make mistakes. But that one was a beauty. We should have never been in Iraq. We have destabilized the Middle East. I want to tell you. They lied. They said there were weapons of mass destruction, there were none. And they knew there were none. There were no weapons of mass destruction.

    Jeb Bush attempted to defend his brother's honor, saying, "And while Donald Trump was building a reality TV show, my brother was building a security apparatus to keep us safe. And I'm proud of what he did."

    Trump said, "The World Trade Center came down during your brother's reign, remember that That's not keeping us safe."

    And on it went. Yes, many in the crowd booed. Yes, many Republicans opposed his conspiracy theories about George W. Bush. The media were able to report Trump's challenges to Republican foreign policy without weighing in on the veracity of his claims. The most interesting thing of all? Trump easily won the South Carolina primary a week later with 33 percent of the vote.

    Compare that little vignette with this week, when Donald Trump repeatedly said that President Obama and Hillary Clinton were founders/co-founders/MVPs of ISIS. Even though the media had more than shot their outrage wad for the week, the media doubled, tripled, even quadrupled down on their outrage for the Wednesday night-Thursday news cycle. Here are six problems with the media's complete meltdown over the remarks.

    1. Why Did This Become an Issue Now and Not 7 Months Ago?

      Republicans who oppose Trump claim the media encouraged Trump when he was setting fire to Republican opponents but have fought him tooth and nail in the general. Ammunition for that claim includes the distinct ways the media have reacted to his long-standing claim that Obama and Clinton founded ISIS.

      As the Washington Examiner notes, Trump said this three times in January alone:

      'They've created ISIS. Hillary Clinton created ISIS with Obama,' he said during a campaign rally in Mississippi.

      Trump restated the claim in an interview on CBS in July. 'Hillary Clinton invented ISIS with her stupid policies,' he said. 'She is responsible for ISIS.'

      He said it again during a rally in Florida one month later. 'It was Hillary Clinton – she should take an award from them as the founder of ISIS.'

      Needless to say, the media response to these comments was more bemused enabling than the abject horror they reserved for this week. The full media meltdown over something Trump has been saying all year long is at best odd and unbecoming. At worst, it suggests deep media corruption.

    2. Hyperliteralism

      Listen, Trump might be an effective communicator with his core audience, but others have trouble understanding him. His speaking style couldn't be more removed from the anodyne and cautious political rhetoric of our era. This can be a challenge for political journalists in particular. His sentences run on into paragraphs. He avoids specificity or contradicts himself when he doesn't. His sentences trail into other sentences before they finish. He doesn't play the usual games that the media are used to. It's frustrating.

      So the media immediately decided Trump was claiming that Obama had literally incorporated ISIS a few years back. And they treated this literal claim as a fact that needed to be debunked.

      Politifact gave the claim one of their vaunted "pants on fire" rulings: ... ... ...

      The "fact" "check" admits that both President Barack Obama's leadership in Iraq and Hillary Clinton's push to change regimes in Libya led to the explosion of ISIS but says that since Trump said he really, totally, no-joke meant Obama and Clinton were co-founders, that they must give him a Pants On Fire rating.

      Even ABC News had a piece headlined, "Obama Is Not the 'Founder' of ISIS – These Guys Are." Nobody can be this stupid, not even our media.

      As for the CNN chyron which appears to be deployed never in the case of Hillary Clinton's many serious troubles with truth-telling, or when Joe Biden told black voters that Republicans were going to "put y'all back in chains," but repeatedly in the case of Donald Trump speaking hyperbolically, this tweet is worth considering:

    3. Failure to Do Due Diligence

      On Thursday morning, Trump did a radio interview with Hugh Hewitt. The media clipped one part of his answer and used it to push a narrative that Donald Trump was super serial about Obama literally going to Baghdad, attending organizational meetings, and holding bake sales to launch his new organization ISIS.

      Kapur's tweet went viral but so did about eleventy billion other reporter tweets making the same point. The Guardian headline was "Trump reiterates he literally believes Barack Obama is the 'founder of Isis'."

      You really need to listen to the interview to get the full flavor of how unjournalistic this narrative is.

      Yes, Trump does reiterate over and over that Obama is the founder of ISIS. And yes, he says he really meant to say Obama founded ISIS. But that's definitely not all. How hard is it to listen for an additional minute or read an additional few words? The relevant portion of the interview is from 15:25 to 16:53. So this is not a huge investment of your time.

      First off, let's note for our hyperliteral media that Trump says "I'm a person that doesn't like insulting people" a few seconds before Hewitt asks about the ISIS comments. (Fact check: Pants on fire, amiright?) In this minute and a half, Trump says "I meant he's the founder of ISIS. I do. He was the most valuable player. I give him the most valuable player award. I give her, too, by the way, Hillary Clinton." Hewitt pushes back, saying that Obama is trying to kill ISIS. Trump says:

      DT: I don't care. He was the founder. His, the way he got out of Iraq was that that was the founding of ISIS, okay?

      Here, journalists and pundits, is your first slap across the face that maybe, just maybe, Trump is not talking about articles of incorporation but, rather, something else entirely.

      Hewitt says, yeah, but the way you're saying it is opening you up to criticism. Was it a mistake? Trump says not at all. Obama is ISIS's most valuable player. Then Trump asks Hewitt if he doesn't like the way he's phrasing all this! And here's where journalists might want to put on their thinking caps and pay attention. Hewitt says he'd say that Obama and Hillary lost the peace and created a vacuum for ISIS, but he wouldn't say they created it:

      HH: I don't. I think I would say they created, they lost the peace. They created the Libyan vacuum, they created the vacuum into which ISIS came, but they didn't create ISIS. That's what I would say.

      DT: Well, I disagree.

      HH: All right, that's okay.

      DT: I mean, with his bad policies, that's why ISIS came about.

      HH: That's

      DT: If he would have done things properly, you wouldn't have had ISIS.

      HH: That's true.

      DT: Therefore, he was the founder of ISIS.

      HH: And that's, I'd just use different language to communicate it, but let me close with this, because I know I'm keeping you long, and Hope's going to kill me.

      DT: But they wouldn't talk about your language, and they do talk about my language, right?

      Now, this is undoubtedly true. When people critique Obama's policies as Hewitt did, the media either call the critic racist or ignore him. When Trump critiques Obama's policies, they do talk about the way he does it. Maybe this means the message gets through to people.

      No matter what, though, the media should have stuck through all 90 seconds of the discussion to avoid the idiotic claim that Trump was saying Obama was literally on the ground in Iraq running ISIS' operations. He flat-out admits he's speaking hyperbolically to force the media to cover it.

    4. Pretending This Rhetoric Is Abnormal

      People accuse their political opponents of being responsible for bad things all the time. Clinton accused Trump of being ISIS' top recruiter. Bush's CIA and NSA chief said Trump was a "recruiting sergeant" for ISIS. Former NYC mayor Rudy Guiliani said Hillary Clinton could be considered a founding member of ISIS. Here was Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-MA, just a few weeks ago, making a completely false claim of Republican's literal ties to ISIS:

      Carly Fiorina and Rick Santorum placed blame for ISIS on Obama and Clinton. Sen. John McCain said Obama was "directly responsible" for the Orlando ISIS attack due to his failure to deal with the terror group. President Obama said he couldn't think of a more potent recruiting tool for ISIS than Republican rhetoric in support of prioritizing help for Christians who had been targeted by the group. Last year, Vanity Fair published a piece blaming George W. Bush for ISIS. Heck, so did President Obama. There are many other examples. This type of rhetoric may not be exemplary, but we shouldn't pretend it's unique to Trump.


    5. Missing Actual Problems with His Comments

      Huge kudos to BuzzFeed's Andrew Kaczynski for avoiding the feigned outrage/fainting couch in favor of an important critique of Trump's comments. He didn't pretend to be confused by what Trump was saying. By avoiding that silliness, he noticed something much more problematic with Trump's comments.

      Trump has cited the conservative critique of President Obama's Iraq policy - that the withdrawal of troops in 2011 led to a power vacuum that allowed ISIS to flourish - in making the claim.

      'He was the founder of ISIS, absolutely,' Trump said on CNBC on Thursday. 'The way he removed our troops - you shouldn't have gone in. I was against the war in Iraq. Totally against it.' (Trump was not against the war as he has repeatedly claimed.) 'The way he got out of Iraq was that that was the founding of ISIS, OK?' Trump later said.

      But lost in Trump's immediate comments is that, for years, he pushed passionately and forcefully for the same immediate troop withdrawal from Iraq. In interview after interview in the later 2000s, Trump said American forces should be removed from Iraq.

      Read the whole (brief) thing. One of the Trump quotes in the piece specifically has him acknowledging the civil unrest in Iraq that led to ISIS flourishing. It's a devastating critique and a far smarter one than the silly hysteria on display elsewhere.

    6. We're Still Not Talking about Widespread Dissatisfaction with Our Foreign Policy

      Let's think back to the opening vignette. Trump went into the South in the middle of the Republican primary and ostentatiously micturated over George W. Bush's Iraq policy. The voters of South Carolina rewarded him with a victory.

      Here's the real scandal in this outrage-du-jour: by pretending to think that Trump was claiming Obama had operational control over ISIS' day-to-day decision making, the media failed to cover widespread dissatisfaction with this country's foreign policy, whether it's coming from George W. Bush or Barack Obama.

      Many Americans are rather sick of this country's way of fighting wars, where enemies receive decades of nation-building instead of crushing defeats, and where threats are pooh-poohed or poorly managed instead of actually dealt with.

      Trump may be an uneven and erratic communicator who is unable to force that discussion in a way that a more traditional candidate might, but the media shouldn't have to be forced into it. Crowds are cheering Trump's hard statements about Obama and Clinton's policies in the Middle East because they are sick and tired of losing men, women, treasure and time with impotent, misguided, aimless efforts there.

      The vast majority of Americans supported invading Iraq, even if many of them deny they supported it now. Americans have lost confidence in both Republican and Democratic foreign policy approaches. No amount of media hysteria will hide that reality.

    Mollie Ziegler Hemingway is a senior editor at The Federalist. Follow her on Twitter at @mzhemingway

    [Aug 19, 2016] The supress the disclosure of the DNC emails required a preposterous story of Russian hacking, followed by a gotcha accusing Trump of asking Putin to become a latter day Watergate burglar.

    Notable quotes:
    "... We here in CT comments lead a quiet, parochial life. In the larger world, the disclosure of the DNC emails required a preposterous story of Russian hacking, followed by a gotcha accusing Trump of asking Putin to become a latter day Watergate burglar. ..."
    crookedtimber.org

    bruce wilder 08.08.16 at 5:07 pm

    RP @ 375: the DNC Email

    We here in CT comments lead a quiet, parochial life. In the larger world, the disclosure of the DNC emails required a preposterous story of Russian hacking, followed by a gotcha accusing Trump of asking Putin to become a latter day Watergate burglar.

    I have no sympathy for Trump, who made his bones as birther-in-chief. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

    But, I do have some sympathy for the rest of us, who are the objects of these manipulations. The email discussing whether they can push the atheist hot-button or the Jew hot-button and get a predictable response from voters disturbs me because it seems that the propaganda has drowned out everything else.

    It is one thing when they're wearing out the gay hot-button or the xenophobia hot-button or trying to get the anti-semite hot-button to work again, but I get the idea that there's only hot-buttons, only manipulation. There's no considered, deliberate purpose behind any of it. Hillary Clinton is so pre-occupied affirming support for Israel and condemning Iran or ISIS or Russia, that there's no room left for formulating reality-based policy or explaining such a policy to the American people.

    [Aug 19, 2016] Russian hackers story is propagated to create a distraction form DNC emails revelations and an excuse for pundits to engage in groundless speculation and fake ourage

    Moreover story about the Russkies carrying out a plot to influence the US election is so much juicier than a real story about Clinton's minions doing the humdrum work of influencing US elections by unethical means. It is somewhat similar to "Romney dog" story.
    Notable quotes:
    "... It is a story offered without proof for the purposes of creating a distraction, since it becomes an excuse for pundits engaging in groundless speculation and poses of outrage. Because a far-fetched story about the Russkies carrying out an 11-dimensional plot to influence the U.S. election is so much juicier than a pedestrian story about Clinton's minions doing the humdrum work of . . . influencing U.S. elections by unethical means. ..."
    "... The convoluted and imaginative stories about Guccifer and so on are just that, stories. The U.S. has an enormous and expensive surveillance state apparatus in place. So proof is, presumably, readily available if someone in authority wants to offer it. In the meantime, we have self-styled consultants blowing smoke ..."
    crookedtimber.org

    kidneystones 08.08.16 at 11:42 pm 396

    Lanny Davis, longtime Clinton ally and DNC hack, explaining in great detail ( on Fox no less) why the Romney dog story makes the Republican candidate (is a Mormon the same as an atheist, Debbie?) unfit for the office of the President.

    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/01/13/romneys-dog-on-car-roof-story-makes-him-unfit-to-be-president.html

    bruce wilder 08.08.16 at 11:45 pm 397

    awy @ 389: why is russian hacking of the dnc a preposterous story?

    It is a story offered without proof for the purposes of creating a distraction, since it becomes an excuse for pundits engaging in groundless speculation and poses of outrage.

    Because a far-fetched story about the Russkies carrying out an 11-dimensional plot to influence the U.S. election is so much juicier than a pedestrian story about Clinton's minions doing the humdrum work of . . . influencing U.S. elections by unethical means.

    The convoluted and imaginative stories about Guccifer and so on are just that, stories. The U.S. has an enormous and expensive surveillance state apparatus in place. So proof is, presumably, readily available if someone in authority wants to offer it. In the meantime, we have self-styled consultants blowing smoke.

    But, hey, the Democrat's Platform promises: "Democrats will protect our industry, infrastructure, and government from cyberattacks." Hillary is going to get on that real soon now.

    [Aug 19, 2016] Whatever you tell yourself about the sacrifices US soldiers are making in your peacemaking wars in the ME, the overwhelming majority of those killed and wounded in modern US led military actions are not Americans

    Notable quotes:
    "... The problem with just sitting back and let you invade any country you like is that we all have to live in the world you make. You're certainly correct to point out that there are many things 'we foreigners' don't understand about America. ..."
    "... What we do know is that whatever you tell yourself about the sacrifices US soldiers are making in your peacemaking wars in the ME, the overwhelming majority of those killed and wounded in modern US led military actions are not Americans. I fully believe that many Americans are intensely patriotic and love their country. I also believe that there are many subcultures within America that 'we foreigners' cannot understand. ..."
    "... You believe your nation's commitment to its military is somehow special? Prove it. Instead we get American exceptionalism proudly on display. ..."
    crookedtimber.org

    kidneystones 08.03.16 at 12:37 am 87

    84@ The problem with just sitting back and let you invade any country you like is that we all have to live in the world you make. You're certainly correct to point out that there are many things 'we foreigners' don't understand about America.

    What we do know is that whatever you tell yourself about the sacrifices US soldiers are making in your peacemaking wars in the ME, the overwhelming majority of those killed and wounded in modern US led military actions are not Americans. I fully believe that many Americans are intensely patriotic and love their country. I also believe that there are many subcultures within America that 'we foreigners' cannot understand.

    What is also clear from your comment is that you, and perhaps some others, believe that this love of country and rich tapestry of subcultures somehow makes Americans very, very special and beyond criticism.

    We understand this much: Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor – 68 civilian casualties.

    The US response: "..on the night of March 9-10, 1945…LeMay sent 334 B-29s low over Tokyo from the Marianas. Their mission was to reduce the city to rubble, kill its citizens, and instill terror in the survivors, with jellied gasoline and napalm that would create a sea of flames. Stripped of their guns to make more room for bombs, and flying at altitudes averaging 7,000 feet to evade detection, the bombers, which had been designed for high-altitude precision attacks, carried two kinds of incendiaries: M47s, 100-pound oil gel bombs, 182 per aircraft, each capable of starting a major fire, followed by M69s, 6-pound gelled-gasoline bombs, 1,520 per aircraft in addition to a few high explosives to deter firefighters. [25] The attack on an area that the US Strategic Bombing Survey estimated to be 84.7 percent residential succeeded beyond the wildest dreams of air force planners…

    The Strategic Bombing Survey, whose formation a few months earlier provided an important signal of Roosevelt's support for strategic bombing, provided a technical description of the firestorm and its effects on Tokyo: The chief characteristic of the conflagration . . . was the presence of a fire front, an extended wall of fire moving to leeward, preceded by a mass of pre-heated, turbid, burning vapors . . . . The 28-mile-per-hour wind, measured a mile from the fire, increased to an estimated 55 miles at the perimeter, and probably more within. An extended fire swept over 15 square miles in 6 hours . . . . The area of the fire was nearly 100 percent burned; no structure or its contents escaped damage."

    The survey concluded-plausibly, but only for events prior to August 6, 1945-that

    "probably more persons lost their lives by fire at Tokyo in a 6-hour period than at any time in the history of man. People died from extreme heat, from oxygen deficiency, from carbon monoxide asphyxiation, from being trampled beneath the feet of stampeding crowds, and from drowning. The largest number of victims were the most vulnerable: women, children and the elderly."

    The raids continue for all the 'best' military reasons…

    "In July, US planes blanketed the few remaining Japanese cities that had been spared firebombing with an "Appeal to the People." "As you know," it read, "America which stands for humanity, does not wish to injure the innocent people, so you had better evacuate these cities." Half the leafleted cities were firebombed within days of the warning. US planes ruled the skies. Overall, by one calculation, the US firebombing campaign destroyed 180 square miles of 67 cities, killed more than 300,000 people and injured an additional 400,000, figures that exclude the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki." (My italics) http://apjjf.org/-Mark-Selden/2414/article.html

    kidneystones 08.03.16 at 12:59 am

    @ 86 Both my parents served. My grand-fathers served, and most of my uncles and great-uncles served – you know, the whole mess from being shot to dying in hospitals years after the war from gas attacks. And I served, nothing special about any of this.

    You believe your nation's commitment to its military is somehow special? Prove it. Instead we get American exceptionalism proudly on display.

    Should all the foreigners in your debt salute, or simply prostrate ourselves in awe?

    We're done.

    [Aug 19, 2016] Historical amnesia also includes forgetting Barack Obama was the boss when Clinton was secretary and forgetting Barack Obama is still president pursuing insane war-mongering policies long after Clinton is gone

    Obama is a neocon and is fully dedicated to expansion and maintenance of the US global neoliberal empire, at any cost for the US population. Racism card play against Trump, who opposes neoliberal interventionism, is a variant of the classic " Divide et impera" strategy
    Notable quotes:
    "... Incidentally, historical amnesia also includes forgetting Barack Obama was the boss when Clinton was secretary and forgetting Barack Obama is still president pursuing insane war-mongering policies long after Clinton is gone ..."
    "... Historical amnesia means forgetting the Democratic Party isn't socialist or leftist ..."
    "... Historical amnesia means forgetting all foundations are ways for the wealthy to shelter money and exercise influence, Koch's, Rockefeller's, Carnegie's, Ford's, Soros', not just Clintons'. Historical amnesia means forgetting this government has always conducted foreign policy at the behest of special interests. ..."
    "... Vilifying millions of people in preference to even asking if Trump hasn't got massive elite support is deeply, profoundly reactionary. Divide et impera has been the rulers' game for centuries. ..."
    crookedtimber.org

    stevenjohnson 08.12.16 at 3:45 pm

    Incidentally, historical amnesia also includes forgetting Barack Obama was the boss when Clinton was secretary and forgetting Barack Obama is still president pursuing insane war-mongering policies long after Clinton is gone and forgetting Barack Obama is still president, and won't even be a lame duck till November.

    Historical amnesia means forgetting the Democratic Party isn't socialist or leftist, despite Bernie Sanders' long career as a sort of socialist (only informally a Democrat.)

    Historical amnesia means forgetting to even ask what "Watergate" was, and if or how it mattered (or didn't.)

    Historical amnesia means forgetting all foundations are ways for the wealthy to shelter money and exercise influence, Koch's, Rockefeller's, Carnegie's, Ford's, Soros', not just Clintons'. Historical amnesia means forgetting this government has always conducted foreign policy at the behest of special interests.

    (Yes, Lupita believes that imperialism actually pays off for the whole country, which presumably is why when her preferred rich people try to get their own she'll be for that. Nonetheless, the idea is bullshit. At this point, I can only imagine people don't call her out on that because they actually agree that "we" are all in it together with our owners.)

    Historical amnesia includes forgetting Trump has run for president before, with the same personality and the same tactics and the same party base. It is unclear how the essentially racist nature of the vile masses has changed so much in four years.

    Vilifying millions of people in preference to even asking if Trump hasn't got massive elite support is deeply, profoundly reactionary. Divide et impera has been the rulers' game for centuries.

    [Aug 19, 2016] Clinton has to worry about low voter turnout. Democrats lose low turnout elections and the Democratic Party apparatus is weak in many States, including North Carolina, Ohio and Florida, which are usually considered battlegrounds. If Democratic turnout is low enough, Trump can put unusual states like New York in play

    After stealing money from states to help Hillary, Politburo of democratic Party (aka DNC) now it trying to sink trump is the ocean of lies and distortions. That also helps to hide Hillary helath problems and emailgate fiasco. Attack is the best form of defense.
    Notable quotes:
    "... A vote for Trump is a middle-finger vote [ to neoliberal world globalization] . A Trump voter does not have to believe that Trump will do anything for him, only that Trump breaking the system won't be worse for the voter than for the system. ..."
    "... Obama had a very easy time of it in 2012. He had an opponent highly vulnerable to easily formulated populist attacks and with only muted appeal within the ranks of his own Party. It enabled Obama to run a very highly controlled and modulated campaign, aiming at a very narrow margin, but highly certain victory, a strategy that served Obama's neoliberal policy agenda well, since he neither had to attack the predatory wealth Romney the tax-dodging vampire capitalist symbolized, nor did he have to make extravagant populist promises to bring out additional electoral support. ..."
    "... Clinton has to worry about low voter turnout. Democrats lose low turnout elections and the Democratic Party apparatus is weak in many States, including North Carolina, Ohio and Florida, which are usually considered battlegrounds. If Democratic turnout is low enough, Trump can put unusual states like New York in play. ..."
    "... these things may cause a pivot with Trump standing in place. It would be a pivot to Trump attacking a broader range of establishment elites on a broader range of issues. ..."
    "... Ian Welsh notes that the story of the Trump meltdown is also a ready-made story of "a stab-in-the-back" by elites stealing the election. Trump is the past Teflon Master on these kinds of gotcha fests, but if the Media pivots away from playing gotcha with Trump saying hateful and alarming things about immigration and race to Trump saying arguably true things about foreign policy or economic policy that are kept in an undiscussed box by the perverted norms of conventional wisdom, that might be enough of a broadening pivot. Unlikely, but maybe. ..."
    "... Trump's candidacy is an attack on the legitimacy of elites and elite discourse. The news Media is as much an opponent as Clinton. If he baits them, even inadvertently, into doing a pivot for him, that's worrisome. ..."
    "... even if the attacks on the legitimacy of Clinton, the Media, the Republican establishment won't get far enough to win the election for Trump, they portend badly for Clinton's Administration. ..."
    crookedtimber.org

    bruce wilder 08.03.16 at 4:41 pm 136

    A vote for Trump is a middle-finger vote [ to neoliberal world globalization]. A Trump voter does not have to believe that Trump will do anything for him, only that Trump breaking the system won't be worse for the voter than for the system.

    bruce wilder 08.03.16 at 4:57 pm

    Romney was in every respect a conventional candidate, one that protected the Republican brand and, more importantly, protected the Democratic brand and the Obama brand.

    Obama had a very easy time of it in 2012. He had an opponent highly vulnerable to easily formulated populist attacks and with only muted appeal within the ranks of his own Party. It enabled Obama to run a very highly controlled and modulated campaign, aiming at a very narrow margin, but highly certain victory, a strategy that served Obama's neoliberal policy agenda well, since he neither had to attack the predatory wealth Romney the tax-dodging vampire capitalist symbolized, nor did he have to make extravagant populist promises to bring out additional electoral support.

    Clinton, ironically and even paradoxically, has a harder task because Trump is a "worse" candidate than Romney.

    Laying down markers for governance, as RP puts it, poses challenges Obama did not face in 2012. Carefully calibrating her campaign to get predictable responses and turnout will be much harder.

    bruce wilder 08.03.16 at 9:51 pm

    Layman @ 143

    Yours seems to me like a sound if conventional analysis.

    Clinton has to worry about low voter turnout. Democrats lose low turnout elections and the Democratic Party apparatus is weak in many States, including North Carolina, Ohio and Florida, which are usually considered battlegrounds. If Democratic turnout is low enough, Trump can put unusual states like New York in play.

    Also, attacks on Trump by establishment Republicans, who are worried about his violation of norms and by the Media Wurlitzer staging a gotcha ("oh my gosh, Trump didn't know about Crimea!") - these things may cause a pivot with Trump standing in place. It would be a pivot to Trump attacking a broader range of establishment elites on a broader range of issues.

    Ian Welsh notes that the story of the Trump meltdown is also a ready-made story of "a stab-in-the-back" by elites stealing the election. Trump is the past Teflon Master on these kinds of gotcha fests, but if the Media pivots away from playing gotcha with Trump saying hateful and alarming things about immigration and race to Trump saying arguably true things about foreign policy or economic policy that are kept in an undiscussed box by the perverted norms of conventional wisdom, that might be enough of a broadening pivot. Unlikely, but maybe.

    Trump's candidacy is an attack on the legitimacy of elites and elite discourse. The news Media is as much an opponent as Clinton. If he baits them, even inadvertently, into doing a pivot for him, that's worrisome.

    Again, I am firmly in the camp that thinks he has little chance in the election, but like Ian Welsh and others, I tend to think he's a proof of concept for a more disciplined demagogue and that he's accelerating the loss of legitimacy for the whole political system, and even if the attacks on the legitimacy of Clinton, the Media, the Republican establishment won't get far enough to win the election for Trump, they portend badly for Clinton's Administration.

    [Aug 19, 2016] 50 neocon security parasites blackmail Trump

    They feel danger for their cushy positions and military industrial complex profits. Of course they are concerned and denounce the irresponsibility of Trump.
    Notable quotes:
    "... I think we reached peak "Trump is not like anything we've seen before" today when 50 top GOP national security officials, many of them veterans of the George W. Bush administration, actually came out and said, Trump "would put at risk our country's national security." ..."
    "... just go back and read some of Jane Mayer's reporting on Mr. "we must live on the edge" Hayden ..."
    "... my personal favorite, John Negroponte, the man who thought Kissinger was too soft on the North Vietnamese, a Reaganite veteran of the Central America wars who Stephen Kinzer famously described as "a great fabulist." ..."
    "... Even by the Reagan Administration's standards of fantasy and duplicity -- I know this will come as news to some, but Donald Trump didn't make up the practice of constructing an alternative reality; remember that Ron Suskind interview with Karl "we create our own reality" Rove? -- Negroponte stood out, completely devising a Honduras of his imagination, which not only helped it become a staging ground for the devastation of the Contra war but also turned that country into a hellscape. ..."
    "... Anyway, these are the people who are now being trotted out to denounce the irresponsibility of Trump. ..."
    crookedtimber.org

    Corey Robin 08.09.16 at 12:12 am 399

    I think we reached peak "Trump is not like anything we've seen before" today when 50 top GOP national security officials, many of them veterans of the George W. Bush administration, actually came out and said, Trump "would put at risk our country's national security."

    Among the signatories to this statement:

    • Michael Hayden (just go back and read some of Jane Mayer's reporting on Mr. "we must live on the edge" Hayden),
    • Eliot Cohen, [According to Wikipedia Cohen has referred to the War on Terrorism as "World War IV".[6] In the run-up to the 2003 Invasion of Iraq, he was a member of Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, a group of prominent persons who pressed for an invasion. --NNB]
    • my personal favorite, John Negroponte, the man who thought Kissinger was too soft on the North Vietnamese, a Reaganite veteran of the Central America wars who Stephen Kinzer famously described as "a great fabulist."

    Even by the Reagan Administration's standards of fantasy and duplicity -- I know this will come as news to some, but Donald Trump didn't make up the practice of constructing an alternative reality; remember that Ron Suskind interview with Karl "we create our own reality" Rove? -- Negroponte stood out, completely devising a Honduras of his imagination, which not only helped it become a staging ground for the devastation of the Contra war but also turned that country into a hellscape.

    Anyway, these are the people who are now being trotted out to denounce the irresponsibility of Trump.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/09/us/politics/national-security-gop-donald-trump.html

    [Aug 19, 2016] This is how fascism comes to America by Robert Kagan

    As neocons are neoliberals with the gun, no wonder they switched the party and became Hillary cheerleaders. Robert Kagan is dyed-in-the-wool neocon, one of the founders of PNAC (which promoted the idea of global neoliberal empire led by the USA and the use of 9/11 style event as vital for converting the USA into national security state) and cheerleader of Iraq war. He is also the husband of Victoria Nuland, who was instrumental in bringing into power neo-Nazis in Ukraine. In this WaPo column he conveniently forget about his own track record and the track record of his wife, openly accused Trump of fascist tendencies while being unable to use the words "neocons wars" and "neoliberal globalization" in the whole article even once
    Notable quotes:
    "... What he off ers is an attitude, an aura of crude strength and machismo, a boasting disrespect for the niceties of the democratic culture that he claims, and his followers believe, has produced national weakness and incompetence. ..."
    "... His public discourse consists of attacking or ridiculing a wide range of "others" - Muslims, Hispanics, women, Chinese, Mexicans, Europeans, Arabs, immigrants, refugees - whom he depicts either as threats or as objects of derision. ..."
    "... Trump is a negotiator. A fascist is a dictator. They have absolutely nothing in common. The neocon who wrote this propaganda is far more a fascist than Trump could ever be...demonstrated right here with his utilizing his media platform to spread propagandist lies...which is what Hitler did. ..."
    "... You have no distaste for the strong man, Kagan. You have a distaste for not being in power. ..."
    "... What does that say about those whose interests are served? What is your net worth Robert? How much did you make in the Bush administration, and how did you make it? What was the soldier cost? ..."
    "... A Robert Kagan article lambasting the upcoming Reich in Israel will be forthcoming I assume. ..."
    "... 'What these people do not or will not see is that, once in power, Trump will owe them and their party nothing". Just like GWB in 2000 and 2004? Where were your warnings then? ..."
    May 18, 2016 | The Washington Post

    But of course the entire Trump phenomenon has nothing to do with policy or ideology. It has nothing to do with the Republican Party, either, except in its historic role as incubator of this singular threat to our democracy. Trump has transcended the party that produced him. His growing army of supporters no longer cares about the party. Because it did not immediately and fully embrace Trump, because a dwindling number of its political and intellectual leaders still resist him, the party is regarded with suspicion and even hostility by his followers. Their allegiance is to him and him alone.

    And the source of allegiance? We're supposed to believe that Trump's support stems from economic stagnation or dislocation. Maybe some of it does. But what Trump offers his followers are not economic remedies - his proposals change daily. What he off ers is an attitude, an aura of crude strength and machismo, a boasting disrespect for the niceties of the democratic culture that he claims, and his followers believe, has produced national weakness and incompetence. His incoherent and contradictory utterances have one thing in common: They provoke and play on feelings of resentment and disdain, intermingled with bits of fear, hatred and anger. His public discourse consists of attacking or ridiculing a wide range of "others" - Muslims, Hispanics, women, Chinese, Mexicans, Europeans, Arabs, immigrants, refugees - whom he depicts either as threats or as objects of derision. His program, such as it is, consists chiefly of promises to get tough with foreigners and people of nonwhite complexion. He will deport them, bar them, get them to knuckle under, make them pay up or make them shut up.

    ... ... ...

    This phenomenon has arisen in other democratic and quasi-democratic countries over the past century, and it has generally been called "fascism." Fascist movements, too, had no coherent ideology, no clear set of prescriptions for what ailed society. "National socialism" was a bundle of contradictions, united chiefly by what, and who, it opposed; fascism in Italy was anti-liberal, anti-democratic, anti-Marxist, anti-capitalist and anti-clerical. Successful fascism was not about policies but about the strongman, the leader (Il Duce, Der Führer), in whom could be entrusted the fate of the nation. Whatever the problem, he could fix it. Whatever the threat, internal or external, he could vanquish it, and it was unnecessary for him to explain how. Today, there is Putinism, which also has nothing to do with belief or policy but is about the tough man who single-handedly defends his people against all threats, foreign and domestic.

    Richard Elkind, 6/1/2016 4:06 PM EDT

    Trump is a negotiator. A fascist is a dictator. They have absolutely nothing in common. The neocon who wrote this propaganda is far more a fascist than Trump could ever be...demonstrated right here with his utilizing his media platform to spread propagandist lies...which is what Hitler did.

    Faustfaust, 6/1/2016 3:57 PM EDT

    Kagan,

    A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm. Excerpts:

    "Rather than pursuing a comprehensive peace with the entire Arab world, Israel should work jointly with Jordan and Turkey to contain, destabilize, and roll-back those entities that are threats to all three".

    "Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq - an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right - as a means of foiling Syria's regional ambition"

    "Most important, it is understandable that Israel has an interest supporting diplomatically, militarily and operationally Turkey's and Jordan's actions against Syria, such as securing tribal alliances with Arab tribes that cross into Syrian territory and are hostile to the Syrian ruling elite".

    "Syrian territory is not immune to attacks emanating from Lebanon by Israeli proxy forces".

    Who are those proxy forces? ISIS? It seems so. These statements put you and your ilk in the pot as corroborators for what has happened in the Middle East since it was written, and foremost for Syria and its fallout.

    Faustfaust, 6/1/2016 3:23 PM EDT

    Robert Kagan,

    You aren't afraid of strongmen. You prefer them as long as they are working for your interests and those who you see as your group. Do you remember these excerpts in this letter to George Bush that you signed in 2002?:

    "As a liberal democracy under repeated attack by murderers who target civilians, Israel now needs and deserves steadfast support.... We are both targets of what you have correctly called an "Axis of Evil"... Israel is targeted... in part because it is an island of liberal, democratic principles ...in a sea of tyranny, intolerance, and hatred... the United States should lend its full support to Israel as it seeks to root out the terrorist network that daily threatens the lives of Israeli citizens... Furthermore...we urge you to accelerate plans for removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq... every day that Saddam Hussein remains in power brings closer the day when terrorists will have not just airplanes... but chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons"

    In this letter you:

    1. Are concerned about Israel and its citizens, and are willing to take extreme action on their behalf, in a manner that is not reflected in your concern for American citizens.

    You were willing to destroy nations in the Levant while you call "nazi" when Trump wants to temporarily reduce travel for a group that has been prone to terrorism in the U.S. on a scale that not even Israel as experienced.

    Meanwhile, you have no issue with Israel's walls, population segregation, and ethnocentrism as symbols of a strong man fascist government. While you spin language to paint Trump's relatively mild suggestions as a sign of fascism, you have no issue cosigning the use of liberal superlatives for Israel. Simply, your writing is disingenuous.

    2. Have admitted to your support for the lie that the Iraq invasion was predicated upon, and for Syria's destruction that is now occurring.

    You have no distaste for the strong man, Kagan. You have a distaste for not being in power.

    JMater, 6/1/2016 8:47 AM EDT

    Robert Kagan and the rest of the Israel firsters brought fascism to the US. They have used the CUFI type of organizations and AIPaC and Wall Street money to brainwash Americans and corrupt Washington to the core.

    Faustfaust, 5/31/2016 7:45 PM EDT

    "This is how fascism comes to America, not with jackboots and salutes (although there have been salutes, and a whiff of violence) but with a television huckster, a phony billionaire, a textbook egomaniac "tapping into" popular resentments and insecurities, and with an entire national political party - out of ambition or blind party loyalty, or simply out of fear - falling into line behind him".

    Robert Kagan, the brave patriot sounding the alarm from his entrenched and curiously across-the-aisle regular columnist position at the Washington Post.

    Curiously, all of the mainstream writers in solidarity with the concerns of Trump supporters in this democracy are silent.

    What does that say about those whose interests are served? What is your net worth Robert? How much did you make in the Bush administration, and how did you make it? What was the soldier cost?

    Has anyone in your immediate family ever served in the U.S. military?

    Your World War II abuse is in bad taste Robert, and excessively disrespectful to the population of this nation who your political class has asked to make an unconscionable regular sacrifice for as long as this nation has existed. For shame.

    Faustfaust, 5/31/2016 7:35 PM EDT

    "Get right with the leader and his mass following or get run over".

    Are you more comfortable with the Neocons running over the base? The number of people that benefit in either situation seems skewed toward a small minority in your preference. Is this a country of the politics of the minority?

    "They praise the leader's incoherent speeches as the beginning of wisdom, hoping he will reward them with a plum post in the new order. There are those who merely hope to survive. Their consciences won't let them curry favor so shamelessly, so they mumble their pledges of support, like the victims in Stalin's show trials, perhaps not realizing that the leader and his followers will get them in the end anyway".

    You are awfully bold with the allusions to genocidal regimes when addressing a population whose families gave up hundreds of thousands of soldiers to save your people, while at the same time Israel won't move a muscle to stop ISIS while they ethnically cleanse its region.

    Private Subscriber, 5/31/2016 7:37 AM EDT

    Mr. Kagan is a regular columnist for The Post whose biography is readily available. Every column of his, including this one, is followed by a note that he served in President Reagan's State Department.

    The Post isn't remotely pathetic, but having little faith in the intelligence of other readers and using the fourth-grade term "Shillary" is -- and I say that as a Sen. Sanders voter.

    You seem awfully bold with the allusions to genocidal regimes as an argument against people who want to reduce terrorism and have their immigration laws enforced, in light of your support for a regime that is rabidly more ethno-nationalist in Israel.

    You seem to be taking advantage of the emotions of people whom you obviously do not respect nor appreciate. Perhaps you'll soon resort to drawing overly-simplistic illustrations of political timelines embedded in cartoon explosives.

    "A great number will simply kid themselves, refusing to admit that something very different from the usual politics is afoot".

    Well, let's be honest. It would not be unusual for Israel. These politics would be extremely mild in Israel. A Robert Kagan article lambasting the upcoming Reich in Israel will be forthcoming I assume.

    'What these people do not or will not see is that, once in power, Trump will owe them and their party nothing". Just like GWB in 2000 and 2004? Where were your warnings then?

    Dodgers1, 5/31/2016 7:32 PM EDT

    Before we talk about Trump, we should take a look at Obama, America's version of President Snow in the movie "Hunger Games".

    Edward Snowden, if he was ever kidnapped back to the United States, would most certainly be persecuted by the State. If not for Snowden, we would have never have known about Obama's use of technology to create and move forward with his version of a police state.

    [Aug 19, 2016] The NYT argues for media bias against the Republican nominee

    crookedtimber.org

    kidneystones 08.08.16 at 1:43 pm

    The NYT argues for media bias against the Republican, because…

    The Republican is crazy and unfit to be President. First time, really!

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/08/business/balance-fairness-and-a-proudly-provocative-presidential-candidate.html?_r=0

    [Aug 18, 2016] Clinton is actively seeking Henry Kissingers endorsement.

    Notable quotes:
    "... Hillary Clinton's respect for Kissinger has been noted before I think, and it's awful. Even if she were free of that shithead, though, her current goal is to demolish Trump. Voices on the GOP side really are important to erode his support not just among voters but within the party and the donor base. This could be a historic walloping. If monsters can help the effort to flip the senate, court the monsters. ..."
    crookedtimber.org
    Ah, it's official: Clinton is actively seeking Henry Kissinger's endorsement. The man who helped scuttle the peace talks in 1968, prolonging the Vietnam War by seven years, at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives. Who was at the heart of the secret bombing of Cambodia and Laos-personally selecting targets for bomber runs-which led to the destabilization of Cambodia and ultimately the Khmer Rouge and the Cambodian genocide. Who firmly backed the Pakistani military in its genocidal slaughter in Bangladesh. As Greg Grandin, whose book about Kissinger is must-reading, wrote not so long ago, "The full tally hasn't been done, but a back-of-the-envelope count would attribute 3, maybe 4 million deaths to Kissinger's actions, but that number probably undercounts his victims in southern Africa."

    This is the man whose support Hillary wants. Because Kissinger sways so many votes in Ohio or Georgia? No, because he's prudential, realistic, respectable, unlike that irresponsible reckless madman Donald Trump.

    I'm actually beginning to welcome the "we've never had someone as bad as Trump before" meme. I can't think of a greater (and deliciously unintentional) indictment of the United States than that claim. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/clinton-republican-elder-statesmen-kissinger-226680#ixzz4GklOFXfV 441

    Corey Robin 08.09.16 at 5:02 pm

    Greg's actually just written an excellent piece on the abomination that is Henry Kissinger and Clinton's attempt to secure his endorsement.

    https://www.thenation.com/article/henry-kissinger-hillary-clintons-tutor-in-war-and-peace/

    LFC 08.09.16 at 5:07 pm 442
    A glance at the Politico piece reveals it's a bit vague on the details, saying that, according to an unnamed source, the Clinton campaign has "sent out feelers" to Kissinger, Baker, Schultz, and Rice. But yeah, that's a mistake. Her campaign doesn't need them, and why HRC does not do everything to keep her distance from Kissinger - I mean as a political matter (if they want to be on friendly terms in private life, I guess that's their business) - is mystifying. Maybe Bill Clinton, who attended anti-Vietnam War protests in London while a student at Oxford, shd have a long talk w/ HRC about the period. Since, though she lived through it, it apparently did not make that much of an impact. Anyway, I'd be surprised if Kissinger ends up publicly endorsing her.

    The Temporary Name 08.09.16 at 5:09 pm

    This is the man whose support Hillary wants. Because Kissinger sways so many votes in Ohio or Georgia? No, because he's prudential, realistic, respectable, unlike that irresponsible reckless madman Donald Trump.

    Hillary Clinton's respect for Kissinger has been noted before I think, and it's awful. Even if she were free of that shithead, though, her current goal is to demolish Trump. Voices on the GOP side really are important to erode his support not just among voters but within the party and the donor base. This could be a historic walloping. If monsters can help the effort to flip the senate, court the monsters.

    Corey Robin 08.09.16 at 5:13 pm 445

    It's really not mystifying. Clinton has long courted that imprimatur of foreign policy mainstream respectability, and while the origins of that courting may have been instrumental and strategic, pure political calculation, it has since become a part of her political identity. I don't this is cynicism anymore; she believes it.

    Meanwhile, the poll numbers keep climbing for her. Virtually every mainstream journalist now recognizes what some of us have been saying for months. Absent a "miracle," as Rothenberg says here, Trump will be squashed.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/08/09/donald-trump-needs-a-miracle-to-win/?wpisrc=nl_most-draw5&wpmm=1

    [Aug 18, 2016] The casuality figures suggests that a civil war between factions fighting on approxzimatly level playing field with civilians caught in the middle, sometimes deliberately killed and sometimes dying because of indiscriminate fire

    Notable quotes:
    "... This suggests a civil war between factions that are fighting on a roughly level playing field with civilians caught in the middle, sometimes deliberately killed and sometimes dying because of indiscriminate fire. American politicians including Clinton sometimes talk as though Assad's forces are doing all the killing. It also seems odd that we are told the rebels need outside help so they can stand to Assad. Obviously they have had plenty of outside help– the death toll is what it is because the war keeps dragging on, but to hear Americans talk you'd think it was outgunned rebels along with civilians being massacred year after year, yet it seems 50,000 regular Syrian military along with tens of thousands of pro regime militia have been killed by the poorly armed rebels. ..."
    crookedtimber.org

    Donald 08.10.16 at 7:02 pm 541

    I already answered your question RNB– the mainstream press, HRW, Amnesty, and various blogs. But if you look at the numbers released, they don't quite fit the narrative. For example

    http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/09/syria-civil-war-civilian-deaths/405496/

    Note a couple of things from the Syrian Observatory figures. First, civilians are about a third of the total. The number of Syrian military dead plus associated militia is comparable to the number of civilian dead ( not counting the estimated group) and the rebel dead, adding up the different categories including outside forces, are smaller than the dead on Theproud government side.

    This suggests a civil war between factions that are fighting on a roughly level playing field with civilians caught in the middle, sometimes deliberately killed and sometimes dying because of indiscriminate fire. American politicians including Clinton sometimes talk as though Assad's forces are doing all the killing. It also seems odd that we are told the rebels need outside help so they can stand to Assad. Obviously they have had plenty of outside help– the death toll is what it is because the war keeps dragging on, but to hear Americans talk you'd think it was outgunned rebels along with civilians being massacred year after year, yet it seems 50,000 regular Syrian military along with tens of thousands of pro regime militia have been killed by the poorly armed rebels.

    In the much smaller scale Gaza War the bulk of the deaths were Palestinian civilians– maybe 1500. Hundreds of Hamas fighters were killed and dozens of Israeli soldiers. That's more the kind of ratio I would expect if the Syrian civil war fit into the framework given by American politicians and pundits.

    RNB 08.10.16 at 7:18 pm

    @542 It could be that Hillary Clinton would be willing to put MANPADS in the rebels' hands if they can be shut down if stolen and Trump would not. http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/04/20/the-u-s-wants-to-design-safer-anti-aircraft-missiles-for-syrias-rebels/

    [Aug 18, 2016] Clinton is actively seeking Henry Kissingers endorsement.

    Notable quotes:
    "... Hillary Clinton's respect for Kissinger has been noted before I think, and it's awful. Even if she were free of that shithead, though, her current goal is to demolish Trump. Voices on the GOP side really are important to erode his support not just among voters but within the party and the donor base. This could be a historic walloping. If monsters can help the effort to flip the senate, court the monsters. ..."
    crookedtimber.org
    Ah, it's official: Clinton is actively seeking Henry Kissinger's endorsement. The man who helped scuttle the peace talks in 1968, prolonging the Vietnam War by seven years, at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives. Who was at the heart of the secret bombing of Cambodia and Laos-personally selecting targets for bomber runs-which led to the destabilization of Cambodia and ultimately the Khmer Rouge and the Cambodian genocide. Who firmly backed the Pakistani military in its genocidal slaughter in Bangladesh. As Greg Grandin, whose book about Kissinger is must-reading, wrote not so long ago, "The full tally hasn't been done, but a back-of-the-envelope count would attribute 3, maybe 4 million deaths to Kissinger's actions, but that number probably undercounts his victims in southern Africa."

    This is the man whose support Hillary wants. Because Kissinger sways so many votes in Ohio or Georgia? No, because he's prudential, realistic, respectable, unlike that irresponsible reckless madman Donald Trump.

    I'm actually beginning to welcome the "we've never had someone as bad as Trump before" meme. I can't think of a greater (and deliciously unintentional) indictment of the United States than that claim. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/clinton-republican-elder-statesmen-kissinger-226680#ixzz4GklOFXfV 441

    Corey Robin 08.09.16 at 5:02 pm

    Greg's actually just written an excellent piece on the abomination that is Henry Kissinger and Clinton's attempt to secure his endorsement.

    https://www.thenation.com/article/henry-kissinger-hillary-clintons-tutor-in-war-and-peace/

    LFC 08.09.16 at 5:07 pm 442
    A glance at the Politico piece reveals it's a bit vague on the details, saying that, according to an unnamed source, the Clinton campaign has "sent out feelers" to Kissinger, Baker, Schultz, and Rice. But yeah, that's a mistake. Her campaign doesn't need them, and why HRC does not do everything to keep her distance from Kissinger - I mean as a political matter (if they want to be on friendly terms in private life, I guess that's their business) - is mystifying. Maybe Bill Clinton, who attended anti-Vietnam War protests in London while a student at Oxford, shd have a long talk w/ HRC about the period. Since, though she lived through it, it apparently did not make that much of an impact. Anyway, I'd be surprised if Kissinger ends up publicly endorsing her.

    The Temporary Name 08.09.16 at 5:09 pm

    This is the man whose support Hillary wants. Because Kissinger sways so many votes in Ohio or Georgia? No, because he's prudential, realistic, respectable, unlike that irresponsible reckless madman Donald Trump.

    Hillary Clinton's respect for Kissinger has been noted before I think, and it's awful. Even if she were free of that shithead, though, her current goal is to demolish Trump. Voices on the GOP side really are important to erode his support not just among voters but within the party and the donor base. This could be a historic walloping. If monsters can help the effort to flip the senate, court the monsters.

    Corey Robin 08.09.16 at 5:13 pm 445

    It's really not mystifying. Clinton has long courted that imprimatur of foreign policy mainstream respectability, and while the origins of that courting may have been instrumental and strategic, pure political calculation, it has since become a part of her political identity. I don't this is cynicism anymore; she believes it.

    Meanwhile, the poll numbers keep climbing for her. Virtually every mainstream journalist now recognizes what some of us have been saying for months. Absent a "miracle," as Rothenberg says here, Trump will be squashed.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/08/09/donald-trump-needs-a-miracle-to-win/?wpisrc=nl_most-draw5&wpmm=1

    [Aug 18, 2016] Given that the securityestablishment consists almost entirely of quasi-fascists and grifters looking to get richer acting as agents for defense manufacturers and private security companies, these folks clearly see which candidate is likely to provide more of the filthy lucre.

    Notable quotes:
    "... Dem hacks are promoting the fiction that Sanders, again an Independent, will magically become the most powerful voice in the senate and a strong check (cough, cough) on the worst excesses of HRC and her many neocon friends and admirers. ..."
    "... Given that the 'security establishment' consists almost entirely of quasi-fascists and grifters looking to get richer acting as agents for defense manufacturers and private security companies, these folks clearly see which candidate is likely to provide more of the filthy lucre. Wall st. and the Kochs both want a Clinton-Ryan partnership for 2016. ..."
    crookedtimber.org

    LFC 08.09.16 at 2:11 am

    Do you expect Philip Zelikow, John Negroponte, Eliot Cohen and the other 'natl security' signatories of the letter, and now Susan Collins, to behave other than as they are behaving?

    Is Negroponte going to sign a letter saying "I am a right-wing jerk w blood on my hands who worked for, among others, that idiot Reagan and by the way I can't vote for Trump who is also a jerk, very much in line w the jerk I worked for"?

    Is Susan Collins going to write an oped saying "I am a (supposedly) moderate Repub Senator from Maine who supported McCain and now I'm going to be inconsistent and not vote for Trump even though he's basically not too different from McCain. Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds."? [I think Trump is somewhat worse than McCain, but I'm accepting the premise for the sake of argument.]

    As for Alter, maybe he shd know better than to tweet the Collins oped, but I'm not going to get into that.

    kidneystones 08.09.16 at 2:28 am

    Perhaps the best part of supporting Trump is that he's almost universally loathed by virtually all the 'right people' elites on both sides of the aisle, and the 'morally-minded' billionaires.

    I've argued before that I expect he'll accomplish less than 1/10th of what he wants to do.

    Dem hacks are promoting the fiction that Sanders, again an Independent, will magically become the most powerful voice in the senate and a strong check (cough, cough) on the worst excesses of HRC and her many neocon friends and admirers.

    Given that the 'security establishment' consists almost entirely of quasi-fascists and grifters looking to get richer acting as agents for defense manufacturers and private security companies, these folks clearly see which candidate is likely to provide more of the filthy lucre. Wall st. and the Kochs both want a Clinton-Ryan partnership for 2016.

    So, take your chances with Trump, or be prepared for another 4-8 years of no press conferences, no transparency, and the same screw everyone but the rich policies that have brought us all to this unhappy pass. Safer with Hillary?

    You betcha!

    Keith 08.09.16 at 3:20 am

    RNB, our military-intelligence sector is so dedicated to spending their whole budget every year, even to the detriment of our national defense, that any idiot could see through them.

    And any idiot clearly has.

    Donald 08.09.16 at 11:57 am

    I suspect the reason that neocons hate Trump is not because he is a dangerous maniac, but became he isn't the precise type of dangerous maniac they prefer. He shows contempt for the establishment idiots that favored the Iraq War, not that Trump opposed it himself. That by itself would be unforgivable for them.

    Sanders was hated by many Democrats for the same reason–he pointed out that Clinton supported the Iraq War and therefore had bad judgment, which undercuts the whole argument based on her expertise in foreign policy. I am in no way saying that Sanders is the same as Trump. I voted for Sanders and would vote for almost anyone against Trump.

    It's possible to be terrified by the possibility of a Trump presidency and also be cynical about the motives of the torture apologists and warmongers who criticize him.

    Rich Puchalsky 08.09.16 at 12:49 pm

    Donald: "I suspect the reason that neocons hate Trump is not because he is a dangerous maniac, but became he isn't the precise type of dangerous maniac they prefer."

    The whole concept of "recklessness" doesn't really have much meaning in this context. The foreign policy establishment failed to actually reduce the number of nuclear weapons when it was possible to do so, for no better reason than because it would have harmed the military-industrial complex. They have signally failed to do anything to restrain the ability of the President to declare war at will, instead preferring convenience in carrying out whatever ad hoc goal is current. They are steadily in the process of converting alliances from deterrents to war to possible triggers for war. They did not take any steps to sanction or put on trial war criminals who committed aggressive war and torture. And the establishment candidate, HRC, just accused (through surrogates) of carrying out an act of war against the U.S. (the supposed hacking incident) and declared Russia to be our enemy. And if and when all of this falls into the hands of a demagogue, it will supposedly be the demagogue that is reckless, not the establishment. Therefore we must always vote for the establishment, because they've made the machine so dangerous to run that supposedly if they step away from the controls for a moment it will blow up. That's nonsense. If they continue doing that for long enough, eventually people will vote for a demagogue as the only other choice - and Trump won't be the last one.

    Another bit of nonsense is the whole constellation of ideas around unity, solidarity, allyship, "we must work together", "no circular firing squad" etc. There is no unity or solidarity and the whole idea that there is is manipulative - the people who call on it are not anyone's allies. People have different goals. If the reason we're supposed to work together despite having different goals is to defeat Trump, then we are not allies. We're each just going to do the minimum needed to defeat Trump, and then we're enemies.

    bruce wilder 08.09.16 at 1:42 pm 428

    For all the talk of how Trump is endangering Republican Party candidates down ballot, Clinton is working hard to take no advantage for the Democratic Party or progressive ideas. The "minimum needed to defeat Trump" is conspicuously not anything likely to discredit or drive from office the corrupt war mongers. Clinton seems determined to leave the Republican Party strong and progressive Democrats weak and marginalized.

    [Aug 18, 2016] Khizr Khans sound bite is a good anti-Trump political advertising, but I dont believe he has read the Constitution

    If you view this as "Waiving the flag" type of attack, or as a witch hunt -- you can also read McCarthy-Welch Exchange During the Army-McCarthy Hearings - Online Speech Bank
    Notable quotes:
    "... Khizr Khan's sound bite makes for good free political advertising, following the lead of Trump himself, but I don't believe he has read the Constitution, or if he has read it he didn't understand it. ..."
    "... Obama taught constitutional law and a generation of his students will not understand that only Congress can declare war. ..."
    "... The conditions that produced and enabled Trump are the Democratic Party policies in its fake posture as an opposition party serving the interests of working people. A vote for Hillary is a vote for more of the same-increasing disparity in wealth and income. ..."
    "... The Democratic Party is bully enough to shut me and my chosen candidates down; and I don't like Trump, but I really like it when I see him kicking some lying elitist Democratic Party ass. ..."
    "... Consider then the partisan nature of worthiness determined by Democrats in their vilification of Cindy Sheehan for daring to effect a change in the system that murdered her son, whose death was more recent, the same sorrow that Khizr Khan now deals with from a position of ignorance so common to Democrats, but so much more worthy of respect when the sorrow strikes out in their political favor, unlike with Cindy Sheehan, who struck out in opposition to the Democratic Party in electorally challenging Nancy Pelosi. ..."
    "... It's absolutely not about the money. Pocket Constitution waving grieving father at DNC denouncing temporary ban on Muslim immigration coincidentally runs 'pay-to-play' US immigration visa procurement business. Deletes law firm website and 'wipes' web server clean. ..."
    "... Love of freedom? Love of cash? Grieving Parent? How about all three? Neutral observer? That's a harder sell. ..."
    "... Khizr M. Khan's website notes that he works to help clients with the E-2 and EB-5 programs that let overseas investors buy into U.S. companies and also provides green cards for family members. ..."
    "... As a media-manipulation exercise, it just confirms that the Dems know how to deploy media resources of their own. The stunt was well-executed and achieved its purpose. ..."
    "... The problem with just sitting back and let you invade any country you like is that we all have to live in the world you make. You're certainly correct to point out that there are many things 'we foreigners' don't understand about America. ..."
    "... What we do know is that whatever you tell yourself about the sacrifices US soldiers are making in your peacemaking wars in the ME, the overwhelming majority of those killed and wounded in modern US led military actions are not Americans. I fully believe that many Americans are intensely patriotic and love their country. I also believe that there are many subcultures within America that 'we foreigners' cannot understand. ..."
    "... You believe your nation's commitment to its military is somehow special? Prove it. Instead we get American exceptionalism proudly on display. ..."
    "... Unlike Trump, Bush did it the right way. His team assassinated the character of his bereaved critic through the normal, respectable political channels. Meanwhile the man of the moment enjoyed plausible deniability and the praise of future journalists. ..."
    "... Meanwhile, journalists, liberals, and Democrats are kvelling over John McCain's denunciation of Trump's comments about the Khans. They love this nearly annual morality tale, in which McCain is dutifully trotted out (or trots himself out) to clean up the mess of last night's frat party. ..."
    "... In 2002, after Saxby Chambliss ran that disgusting ad against Max Cleland (which I talk about in the OP), John McCain said, "I'd never seen anything like that ad. Putting pictures of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden next to the picture of a man who left three limbs on the battlefield - it's worse than disgraceful. It's reprehensible." Six years later, McCain campaigned for Chambliss's reelection. ..."
    crookedtimber.org

    Glenn 08.02.16 at 3:26 pm

    Khizr Khan's sound bite makes for good free political advertising, following the lead of Trump himself, but I don't believe he has read the Constitution, or if he has read it he didn't understand it.

    That should not trouble him overly much; Obama taught constitutional law and a generation of his students will not understand that only Congress can declare war.

    ... ... ...

    The conditions that produced and enabled Trump are the Democratic Party policies in its fake posture as an opposition party serving the interests of working people. A vote for Hillary is a vote for more of the same-increasing disparity in wealth and income.

    To quote from "The Big Short", which the Clintons played no small part in bringing about by the repeal of Glass-Steagall and passing NAFTA: "Truth is like poetry. And most people fucking hate poetry."

    The Democratic Party is bully enough to shut me and my chosen candidates down; and I don't like Trump, but I really like it when I see him kicking some lying elitist Democratic Party ass.

    I want to see if Democrats have it in them to stop being weasels.

    Glenn 08.02.16 at 4:23 pm

    Consider then the partisan nature of worthiness determined by Democrats in their vilification of Cindy Sheehan for daring to effect a change in the system that murdered her son, whose death was more recent, the same sorrow that Khizr Khan now deals with from a position of ignorance so common to Democrats, but so much more worthy of respect when the sorrow strikes out in their political favor, unlike with Cindy Sheehan, who struck out in opposition to the Democratic Party in electorally challenging Nancy Pelosi.

    kidneystones 08.02.16 at 9:57 pm

    It's absolutely not about the money. Pocket Constitution waving grieving father at DNC denouncing temporary ban on Muslim immigration coincidentally runs 'pay-to-play' US immigration visa procurement business. Deletes law firm website and 'wipes' web server clean.

    Trump has already seized on the 'If I were president, Captain Khan would be alive meme.'

    How long till the Khan grieving father looking to profit from selling visas access scam blows up the media narrative? What about Khan's business tax returns? Follow the money?

    The media loves building the narrative of the hero almost as much as they love tearing it apart.

    Think Trump will ignore Khan's entirely legitimate immigration business scam? I mean the one he just deleted? Think the media won't give Trumps comments on that story any airtime?

    Love of freedom? Love of cash? Grieving Parent? How about all three? Neutral observer? That's a harder sell.

    From the Wayback machine

    : https://web.archive.org/web/20160801212033/http://www.kmkhanlaw.com/International_Business.html

    Pointing to any or all of Khan's deleted business activities/interests is a 'McCarthyite' slur on the memory of a Gold Star mother and all others who so gloriously serve.

    kidneystones 08.02.16 at 9:59 pm

    Via Breitbart. Who else?

    http://kmkhanlaw.com/?reqp=1&reqr=nzcdYz9ypaMao25yMl5jLab=


    kidneystones 08.02.16 at 10:44 pm

    Going dark. What's the bet the Gold Star father goes off the radar because of 'family' issues? "…

    Khizr M. Khan's website notes that he works to help clients with the E-2 and EB-5 programs that let overseas investors buy into U.S. companies and also provides green cards for family members. It also said that he helps in the purchase of U.S. real estate and businesses. The website lists his ability to practice in New York, though it gives a Washington phone number for the lawyer who lives in Virginia. A man who answered the phone said the website was correct, though he would not identify himself."

    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/khan-specializes-in-visa-programs-accused-of-selling-u.s.-citizenship/article/2598279

    Mr. Khan evidently deleted his website after the Examiner story broke. Needless to say, the facts clearly indicate a highly reputable individual specializing in helping foreign businesses in the Middle East and elsewhere buy/invest in undervalued (we assume) US assets and provide green cards for their families, all according to law.

    There's clearly nothing in this account for Trump to make a fuss about.

    So, why is Mr.Khan suddenly going to such lengths to conceal a business he clearly has no reason to hide?


    kidneystones 08.02.16 at 11:05 pm


    TPM has pretty much dumped the Khan story, making it part of the past. No mention at all of stories of Khan's financial incentives for opposing Trump, naturally. Josh does insert a 'distractor' link to nutcase scare stories. As a media-manipulation exercise, it just confirms that the Dems know how to deploy media resources of their own. The stunt was well-executed and achieved its purpose. So, I fully expect the media and HRC supporters to recommend 'we all just move on.'

    Trump, however, may not let it go.

    http://abc6onyourside.com/news/local/donald-trump-one-on-one-with-sinclair

    Trump is doubling down on his beefs with the GOP establishment. No doubt, this is a full out attack on the globalist-Koch branch of the GOP. The Kochs gave TPP-loving Ryan a standing ovation. Good thing Dems are backing a candidate firmly in favor of TPP.

    Obama, another TPP fan, jumped on the bandwagon – so it's unanimous.

    Trump is the only major political candidate firmly opposed to ending the TPP. But don't support him because Trump hates all Muslims. Just ask Capt. Khan's dad.


    kidneystones 08.03.16 at 12:37 am

    84@ The problem with just sitting back and let you invade any country you like is that we all have to live in the world you make. You're certainly correct to point out that there are many things 'we foreigners' don't understand about America.

    What we do know is that whatever you tell yourself about the sacrifices US soldiers are making in your peacemaking wars in the ME, the overwhelming majority of those killed and wounded in modern US led military actions are not Americans. I fully believe that many Americans are intensely patriotic and love their country. I also believe that there are many subcultures within America that 'we foreigners' cannot understand.

    What is also clear from your comment is that you, and perhaps some others, believe that this love of country and rich tapestry of subcultures somehow makes Americans very, very special and beyond criticism.

    We understand this much: Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor – 68 civilian casualties.

    The US response: "..on the night of March 9-10, 1945…LeMay sent 334 B-29s low over Tokyo from the Marianas. Their mission was to reduce the city to rubble, kill its citizens, and instill terror in the survivors, with jellied gasoline and napalm that would create a sea of flames. Stripped of their guns to make more room for bombs, and flying at altitudes averaging 7,000 feet to evade detection, the bombers, which had been designed for high-altitude precision attacks, carried two kinds of incendiaries: M47s, 100-pound oil gel bombs, 182 per aircraft, each capable of starting a major fire, followed by M69s, 6-pound gelled-gasoline bombs, 1,520 per aircraft in addition to a few high explosives to deter firefighters. [25] The attack on an area that the US Strategic Bombing Survey estimated to be 84.7 percent residential succeeded beyond the wildest dreams of air force planners…

    The Strategic Bombing Survey, whose formation a few months earlier provided an important signal of Roosevelt's support for strategic bombing, provided a technical description of the firestorm and its effects on Tokyo: The chief characteristic of the conflagration . . . was the presence of a fire front, an extended wall of fire moving to leeward, preceded by a mass of pre-heated, turbid, burning vapors . . . . The 28-mile-per-hour wind, measured a mile from the fire, increased to an estimated 55 miles at the perimeter, and probably more within. An extended fire swept over 15 square miles in 6 hours . . . . The area of the fire was nearly 100 percent burned; no structure or its contents escaped damage."

    The survey concluded-plausibly, but only for events prior to August 6, 1945-that

    "probably more persons lost their lives by fire at Tokyo in a 6-hour period than at any time in the history of man. People died from extreme heat, from oxygen deficiency, from carbon monoxide asphyxiation, from being trampled beneath the feet of stampeding crowds, and from drowning. The largest number of victims were the most vulnerable: women, children and the elderly."

    The raids continue for all the 'best' military reasons…

    "In July, US planes blanketed the few remaining Japanese cities that had been spared firebombing with an "Appeal to the People." "As you know," it read, "America which stands for humanity, does not wish to injure the innocent people, so you had better evacuate these cities." Half the leafleted cities were firebombed within days of the warning. US planes ruled the skies. Overall, by one calculation, the US firebombing campaign destroyed 180 square miles of 67 cities, killed more than 300,000 people and injured an additional 400,000, figures that exclude the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki." (My italics) http://apjjf.org/-Mark-Selden/2414/article.html

    kidneystones 08.03.16 at 12:59 am

    @ 86 Both my parents served. My grand-fathers served, and most of my uncles and great-uncles served – you know, the whole mess from being shot to dying in hospitals years after the war from gas attacks. And I served, nothing special about any of this.

    You believe your nation's commitment to its military is somehow special? Prove it. Instead we get American exceptionalism proudly on display.

    Should all the foreigners in your debt salute, or simply prostrate ourselves in awe?

    We're done.

    JM Hatch 08.03.16 at 2:23 am

    @41 Lee Arnold: Are you referring to the Warren Buffet who owns Fruit-of-the-Loom? The same company which had Hillary's State Dept bust up a minimum wage law for Haiti's textile industry? The same company which then donated to the Clinton Foundation for aid that never arrived to Haiti? If not, then who is this Warren Buffet?

    oldster 08.03.16 at 5:28 am

    Still, there was one upside to Bush's minions attacks on Sheehan. Way back in those antediluvian times, John Cole was still a supporter of Bush and the Iraq War. (Bless his heart, he soon learned better) He defended the wing-nuts who were calling Sheehan a prostitute by saying that this was metaphorical. This inspired The Editors writing at The Poor Man to write a response that featured the phrase "enormous mendacious disembodied anus", which has passed into internet legend.

    And probably passed out of internet legend once again, since of the people who were alive in those days to be amused, very few are still alive to recall it. It was the heyday of war-blogging, and anti-(war-blog)-blogging. We really sacrificed in those days, let me tell you–it was our own personal Vietnam.

    Corey Robin 08.03.16 at 4:53 am

    The record of George W. Bush-the man who Ezra Klein claims would never have treated the Khans the way Trump has-with regard to Cindy Sheehan, whose son was also killed in Iraq, is even worse than I realized. As Brendan James reports in Slate:

    It's true, as the people tipping their hats to Bush have pointed out, that the president himself did not attack Sheehan the way Trump has gone after the Khans. But he didn't have to. He let his underlings do it.

    "Cindy Sheehan is a clown," said Bush's senior adviser and dirty trickster Karl Rove, whose management of the media ecosystem was unparalleled. The Washington Post reported at the time that Sheehan was a frequent topic of conversation between the president and his advisers. And somehow, some way, Rove's sentiment trickled down into every pore of the conservative press. Bill O'Reilly called Sheehan "dumb enough" to get "in bed" with the radical left. Glenn Beck called Sheehan a "tragedy pimp" who was "prostituting her son's death." Rush Limbaugh said she was somehow lying about having lost her son.

    Unlike Trump, Bush did it the right way. His team assassinated the character of his bereaved critic through the normal, respectable political channels. Meanwhile the man of the moment enjoyed plausible deniability and the praise of future journalists.

    Corey Robin 08.03.16 at 4:59 am

    Meanwhile, journalists, liberals, and Democrats are kvelling over John McCain's denunciation of Trump's comments about the Khans. They love this nearly annual morality tale, in which McCain is dutifully trotted out (or trots himself out) to clean up the mess of last night's frat party.

    Again, a little memory is helpful.

    In 2002, after Saxby Chambliss ran that disgusting ad against Max Cleland (which I talk about in the OP), John McCain said, "I'd never seen anything like that ad. Putting pictures of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden next to the picture of a man who left three limbs on the battlefield - it's worse than disgraceful. It's reprehensible." Six years later, McCain campaigned for Chambliss's reelection.

    [Aug 18, 2016] After I donated $9600 to Obama's campaigns, I got seven White House Christmas cards, genuinely autopenned by President and Mrs. Obama. These are of course very nice, but what I was hoping to buy was an end to things like rendition, torture, and death by killer robots from the sky

    Notable quotes:
    "... These are of course very nice, but what I was hoping to buy was an end to things like rendition, torture, and death by killer robots from the sky. I guess it takes more money to buy nice things like that. ..."
    crookedtimber.org

    Layman, 08.11.16 at 2:19 pm

    engels @ 595

    That's a story about contributions of $200 or more. I'm guessing those contributions buy no influence at all. In fact, I'm not guessing: I, personally, donated a total of $9600 to Obama's campaigns, which were so influential that I was able to score 7 (so far) White House Christmas cards, genuinely autopenned by President and Mrs. Obama.

    These are of course very nice, but what I was hoping to buy was an end to things like rendition, torture, and death by killer robots from the sky. I guess it takes more money to buy nice things like that.

    [Aug 18, 2016] Clinton's campaign now faces the problem that they have won in August, but the election is in November.

    Notable quotes:
    "... So, taking up CR's Nixon-McGovern analogy: Clinton risks coming into office as a thoroughly disliked President from day one. The level of suspicion and cynicism of expectation is very high. And, though Trump won't ever have a chance in the campaign, his way of attacking opponents is likely to intensify a broad spectrum of opinion that calls into question Clinton's legitimacy and real commitments. ..."
    "... Nixon did experience pressure from the Republican Right, but he was also constrained by a Democratic Congress. If Nixon continued to govern as if the New Deal remained in place, it is because he faced a New Deal Congress. ..."
    "... Clinton will face a similar problem, but it will be more of her own making, because her politics and her hold over the Democratic Party, depend on not challenging the Republican base of power in the States and in Congress. ..."
    "... Trump might withhold an endorsement of Speaker Ryan for a few days, but the Democratic establishment isn't going to unseat Ryan, even though Ryan's district is one Obama won. ..."
    "... One path to this whole thing coming apart is a new generation of much younger Democrats trying to gain power in States where the Republicans have been showing their true colors. They will have to fight the Democratic Establishment in Washington to do so, and fight very hard. ..."
    "... The other is path is crisis. This is a politics of nominal stalemate, enabling a politics of sclerosis and corruption. ..."
    "... These paths are far from mutually exclusive, but there's a very real risk that a fractured and weakened polity turns to authoritarianism. If your politics does not permit reasoned discussion and deliberation, authoritarianism is the alternative when some kind of adaptive reform is required by events. ..."
    "... "Symbiosis" means the two sides work together, feed off each other. And, no I am not saying the Democrats in general feed off the Republicans, though obviously any two-party system locks the two Parties into a waltz in which one Party leads the other, with every step forward by one, a step back by the other. ..."
    "... What I mean by "symbiosis" in this case is a more specific dynamic by which the Clintonites, who are corrupt centrists at best and reactionary conservatives at worst, keep control of the nominally progressive Party. ..."
    crookedtimber.org

    bruce wilder 08.10.16 at 5:00 pm

    "Anything can happen" is one of those things that people say and I suppose it is trivially true. Certainly, if you are trying to sell click-thru's with alleged political news, you at the very least want to preserve the possibility of (new) news. At this point, though, I fear that the affirmation, "Trump could win this" suggests the opposite.

    Clinton's campaign now faces the problem that they have won . . . in August, but the election is in November.

    Do they keep up the campaign, organized around "dangerous Donald"? Is there a risk of wearing out its themes? Trump is in a box assigned to him by the Media. The Media have their canned narrative thru which anything Trump says will be filtered. He's been neutered. The Media Publishers await the spending of campaign cash, while the Editors have their orders.

    Even Scott Adams has conceded that the Donald may have been bested by Clinton's "dangerous Donald" propaganda and may be too inflexible in his personality to take any of the practical options to come back.

    What I would notice is that Clinton's campaign to get people to like her - "I'm with her" - did not win. Clinton will win in November, certainly. But, she will take office as one of the most seriously disliked politicians to win the Presidency in memory. I say this as someone who voted for Tricky Dick Nixon over McGovern. Usually, the seriously disliked Presidents get elected as Vice-President first. But, maybe she did - sorta. Maybe that's what her career as Secretary of State did for her.

    So, taking up CR's Nixon-McGovern analogy: Clinton risks coming into office as a thoroughly disliked President from day one. The level of suspicion and cynicism of expectation is very high. And, though Trump won't ever have a chance in the campaign, his way of attacking opponents is likely to intensify a broad spectrum of opinion that calls into question Clinton's legitimacy and real commitments.

    Nixon did experience pressure from the Republican Right, but he was also constrained by a Democratic Congress. If Nixon continued to govern as if the New Deal remained in place, it is because he faced a New Deal Congress. Not just Democratic majorities, but long-standing majorities and committee chairman who knew where the bodies were buried and how to pull the levers of power. That would change only gradually with the seniority system scrapped in the mid-1970s and the New Deal politics by which Congress critters played interests off against one another to maintain their own power eroded decisively only in Reagan's second term, as trade liberalization and deregulation and other policies took hold and the corporate executive class began their rise, driving changes in the lobbyist culture and dynamic.

    Clinton will face a similar problem, but it will be more of her own making, because her politics and her hold over the Democratic Party, depend on not challenging the Republican base of power in the States and in Congress. Clinton is not going to say to her minions, "OK, we've got this won, let's funnel all the campaign money and effort into winning the House so we have opportunities to govern effectively. Let's get Democratic Governors in place, so we can get Obamacare's Medicaid expansion working properly without privatization."

    Trump might withhold an endorsement of Speaker Ryan for a few days, but the Democratic establishment isn't going to unseat Ryan, even though Ryan's district is one Obama won.

    The Democratic Party - the rank and file and even the general run of Congress people - have become much more "socialist" for lack of a better term, but they have no experience of power. Few have served long in the Obama Administration. Most States are dominated by Republicans. In some States, like Kansas and North Carolina, "dominated" really does mean dominated. Democrats are a minority in Congress and the old leadership is retiring.

    One path to this whole thing coming apart is a new generation of much younger Democrats trying to gain power in States where the Republicans have been showing their true colors. They will have to fight the Democratic Establishment in Washington to do so, and fight very hard.

    The other is path is crisis. This is a politics of nominal stalemate, enabling a politics of sclerosis and corruption.

    These paths are far from mutually exclusive, but there's a very real risk that a fractured and weakened polity turns to authoritarianism. If your politics does not permit reasoned discussion and deliberation, authoritarianism is the alternative when some kind of adaptive reform is required by events.

    bruce wilder 08.10.16 at 5:00 pm

    Faustusnotes misreads me on Benghazi. (What else is new?) I was not saying, "both sides do it". That's not my point. My point is that the Right's obsessions with Benghazi (and with the email server) are gifts to Clinton. They take issues where Clinton's bad judgment is on display, and they transform them into a circus where what is on display instead is the Right's lunacy. The Benghazi hearings made Clinton look good, if that were possible; embattled, persecuted unwarrantedly. No sane person would want to pay much attention and the superficial takeaway impression is that there is no there, there in Rightwing accusations and fantasizing.

    "Symbiosis" means the two sides work together, feed off each other. And, no I am not saying the Democrats in general feed off the Republicans, though obviously any two-party system locks the two Parties into a waltz in which one Party leads the other, with every step forward by one, a step back by the other.

    What I mean by "symbiosis" in this case is a more specific dynamic by which the Clintonites, who are corrupt centrists at best and reactionary conservatives at worst, keep control of the nominally progressive Party.

    [Aug 18, 2016] And the truly frightening part is where team blue supporters insist that everyone pretend every 4 years that a Clinton, or Obama, is somehow less willing to kill at will than a Romney, or a Trump.

    Notable quotes:
    "... What I see is a Reagan, or a Bush, cheerfully admitting to American exceptionalism and in the need to kill at will. What frightens me is the inability of Americans to realize outsiders see pretty much the same willingness to kill at will from a Clinton, or Obama. ..."
    "... And the truly frightening part is where team blue supporters insist that everyone pretend every 4 years that a Clinton, or Obama, is somehow less willing to kill at will than a Romney, or a Trump. ..."
    "... We have a video of one political candidate laughing at murder, who 'never' holds press conferences, running to replace a president who expanded and entrenched the Bush-Cheney security state and who suppresses dissent and whistle-blowing with the vigor of a Nixon. Outsiders have learned to survive every 'too crazy to be true' you people elect. Of course, that's not as easy if one happens to live in the wrong part of the world. ..."
    crookedtimber.org

    kidneystones 08.10.16 at 2:45 am

    @491 This is very good, Corey. I think you are precisely right about how (ahem) informed outsiders view the 'enormous' differences between the two political parties. What I see is a Reagan, or a Bush, cheerfully admitting to American exceptionalism and in the need to kill at will. What frightens me is the inability of Americans to realize outsiders see pretty much the same willingness to kill at will from a Clinton, or Obama.

    And the truly frightening part is where team blue supporters insist that everyone pretend every 4 years that a Clinton, or Obama, is somehow less willing to kill at will than a Romney, or a Trump.

    We have a video of one political candidate laughing at murder, who 'never' holds press conferences, running to replace a president who expanded and entrenched the Bush-Cheney security state and who suppresses dissent and whistle-blowing with the vigor of a Nixon. Outsiders have learned to survive every 'too crazy to be true' you people elect. Of course, that's not as easy if one happens to live in the wrong part of the world.

    Re: Republican weakness. That's sure to be a much-studied topic. At the state level Republicans are very strong. As 'racist' and 'sexist' as it is to say, the uniqueness of electing an African-American and then, perhaps, the woman he defeated speak very positively about the US in general. This stuff matters to you and that's nothing to be ashamed of.

    [Aug 18, 2016] We are seeing right now in real time exactly the same denunciations of one candidate by virtually all media outlets, all elite Dems, and many elite Republicans

    Notable quotes:
    "... We're seeing right now in real time exactly the same denunciations of one candidate by virtually all media outlets, all elite Dems, and many elite Republicans. When there were a number of candidates and two races and two outsiders, much of the press bias may have slipped beneath the radar. ..."
    "... At some point probably very soon Trump is going to be the real underdog. Not the underdog of imagination, no longer a billionaire whining about not being treated fairly. But the target of an unrelenting series of negative news stories and TV and radio commercials that leave no doubt in the minds of most voters that Trump has much less of a chance of winning than Hillary. ..."
    "... The anti-Trump stories are probably white noise already to many neutrals. Trump supporters stopped listening to the media long ago. ..."
    "... When the NYT, MSNBC, Bill Mahr, and on and on and on all tell people they can't possibly vote for Trump, how do you think folks are going to respond? I mean, about being told they don't actually have a choice. Cause that's what's happening now. ..."
    "... And the same people telling folks they don't have a choice are precisely the same people who predicted/promised that Trump would never win the nomination. Trump just needs to stay in the game. If he's within five points in October, I still say he edges it. ..."
    crookedtimber.org

    kidneystones 08.10.16 at 2:23 pm

    We're seeing right now in real time exactly the same denunciations of one candidate by virtually all media outlets, all elite Dems, and many elite Republicans. When there were a number of candidates and two races and two outsiders, much of the press bias may have slipped beneath the radar.

    At some point probably very soon Trump is going to be the real underdog. Not the underdog of imagination, no longer a billionaire whining about not being treated fairly. But the target of an unrelenting series of negative news stories and TV and radio commercials that leave no doubt in the minds of most voters that Trump has much less of a chance of winning than Hillary.

    The anti-Trump stories are probably white noise already to many neutrals. Trump supporters stopped listening to the media long ago.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/08/09/media-justify-anti-trump-bias-claim-hes-too-dangerous-for-normal-rules.html

    When the NYT, MSNBC, Bill Mahr, and on and on and on all tell people they can't possibly vote for Trump, how do you think folks are going to respond? I mean, about being told they don't actually have a choice. Cause that's what's happening now.

    And the same people telling folks they don't have a choice are precisely the same people who predicted/promised that Trump would never win the nomination. Trump just needs to stay in the game. If he's within five points in October, I still say he edges it.

    Go figure!

    [Aug 18, 2016] Trump won the nomination by claiming the media and the elites rig the system against outsiders like Bernie and him and that the media and elites of both parties are indifferent to the problems and concerns of voters

    Notable quotes:
    "... The difference is the media and the elites are openly producing elite narratives in a manner that really do make Trump the underdog. Trump won the nomination by claiming the media elites and most of the politicians in both parties are in the pockets of the rich. That's an argument that continues to resonate. ..."
    "... The fact is that Trump and Sanders are both the result of a system that works precisely the way Trump and Saunders describe it. A significant block of voters understand that. ..."
    "... These voters are extremely unlikely to be distracted by any stories on any topic. Their focus is on jobs and the indifference of the media and politicians of both political parties to the need for jobs. ..."
    "... Trump's experience in the construction trades matters to voters because infrastructure construction provides short-terms and long-term jobs and training programs. Trump went to Detroit and described the city as HRC's blueprint for America. ..."
    "... The problem for the media, the Democrats, and their supporters is that practically nobody sees HRC as anything but the ultimate insider agent of the rich, who happens to wear a dress. She first got to the WH as a political wife. She was parachuted into a safe Senate seat to start her 'run for office.' She was awarded a plum position in the administration in large part to placate her followers and heal some of the 'Clintons and their supporters are all racists' wounds. After leaving the administration, she and her husband earned millions which poured into a private foundation. The DNC and the Dems colluded to keep her only opponent from winning. The DOJ just ruled the Clintion Cash Cow to be beyond investigation. And now, this ultimate insider is re-packaging herself as 'the best darn change-agent' president 'women as tissues' has ever seen. And then there are the drones. ..."
    "... The media can't cover the issues fairly because the issues confirm their chosen candidate can't be trusted on the issues that most Americans care about most. Most voters, including HRC voters, understand the difference between scare stories and solutions. ..."
    "... Suffice to say a counter-narrative exists: one in which Trump has committed very few of the crimes which the gullible routinely swallow as fact ..."
    "... Minds are made up, truth has to be sacrificed in order to 'prevent the end of mankind.' Rest assured, we'd be hearing precisely the same 'end of the world' spew were Bush, or any other placeholder the candidate ..."
    "... The choice between HRC and Bush is essentially no choice ..."
    "... The choice between HRC and Trump may actually be less of a choice than many believe ..."
    "... Take a chance with Trump, or settle in for 4-8 more years of Obama, only worse ..."
    "... Voters decide in November. I still say Trump edges it, at least ..."
    crookedtimber.org

    kidneystones 08.10.16 at 11:06 pm 564

    Trump won the nomination by claiming the media and the elites rig the system against outsiders like Bernie and him and that the media and elites of both parties are indifferent to the problems and concerns of many, many voters.

    The same thing is occurring in real-time now. The difference is the media and the elites are openly producing elite narratives in a manner that really do make Trump the underdog. Trump won the nomination by claiming the media elites and most of the politicians in both parties are in the pockets of the rich. That's an argument that continues to resonate.

    The fact is that Trump and Sanders are both the result of a system that works precisely the way Trump and Saunders describe it. A significant block of voters understand that.

    Voters also understand that HRC/Bush are simply the current/past iterations of a system that denies any voice to ordinary voters. There will be no real change, except on the periphery and that's the function of the elections – in a very real sense we're living the living, breathing embodiment of Burke's conservatism.

    Yes, LGBT rights are a good thing. After that, what?

    kidneystones 08.10.16 at 11:28 pm

    The fact is that a great many voters have seen their wages go down, or remain stagnant, over the past two decades as they read stories day to day of a soaring stock market and all kinds of economic good times.

    These voters are extremely unlikely to be distracted by any stories on any topic. Their focus is on jobs and the indifference of the media and politicians of both political parties to the need for jobs.

    Trump's experience in the construction trades matters to voters because infrastructure construction provides short-terms and long-term jobs and training programs. Trump went to Detroit and described the city as HRC's blueprint for America.

    The problem for the media, the Democrats, and their supporters is that practically nobody sees HRC as anything but the ultimate insider agent of the rich, who happens to wear a dress. She first got to the WH as a political wife. She was parachuted into a safe Senate seat to start her 'run for office.' She was awarded a plum position in the administration in large part to placate her followers and heal some of the 'Clintons and their supporters are all racists' wounds. After leaving the administration, she and her husband earned millions which poured into a private foundation. The DNC and the Dems colluded to keep her only opponent from winning. The DOJ just ruled the Clintion Cash Cow to be beyond investigation. And now, this ultimate insider is re-packaging herself as 'the best darn change-agent' president 'women as tissues' has ever seen. And then there are the drones.

    The media can't cover the issues fairly because the issues confirm their chosen candidate can't be trusted on the issues that most Americans care about most. Most voters, including HRC voters, understand the difference between scare stories and solutions.

    Both candidates traffic in scare stories. Only one offers solutions that resonate with voters.

    That candidate wins.

    kidneystones 08.11.16 at 12:32 am

    Actually, as we can see now. An awful lot of people are betting the farm that enough voters buy into that narrative. As I mentioned above, the people promulgating precisely this myth have been doing just that ever since he began running for office to no great effect.

    Suffice to say a counter-narrative exists: one in which Trump has committed very few of the crimes which the gullible routinely swallow as fact. Unless, of course, you and the vast majority here are about to assert a complete lack of confirmation bias on this matter.

    Minds are made up, truth has to be sacrificed in order to 'prevent the end of mankind.' Rest assured, we'd be hearing precisely the same 'end of the world' spew were Bush, or any other placeholder the candidate.

    The choice between HRC and Bush is essentially no choice.

    The choice between HRC and Trump may actually be less of a choice than many believe. We're unlikely to get to that discussion any time soon.

    No jobs, shitty schools and roads mean more votes for Trump.

    Take a chance with Trump, or settle in for 4-8 more years of Obama, only worse. Many voters have already decided. As we can see, the swing states are indeed swinging.

    Voters decide in November. I still say Trump edges it, at least.

    [Aug 18, 2016] If anyone does plan on seriously trying to make the case Trump is a fascist to me, at least, they'll need to cite policy positions from Trump's web site

    Notable quotes:
    "... I don't see Trump as fascist in any workable, or historically grounded use of the term. ..."
    "... The US government is an enormous cash-cow for an immense number of special interests. The notion that the PACs and special interests will just pack-up shop and write off the money they plan to make with a Bush/HRC in power is absurd. They'll hobble Trump they same way they handcuffed Carter, and start playing the same sorts of games. ..."
    crookedtimber.org

    kidneystones 08.11.16 at 6:45 am 594

    @ 592 'With Trump, X is fascism (roughly) which is why I'm against Trump in spite of the very real possibility that a lot of his threats will turn out to be just empty talk.'

    Recognizing this is a blog comments section and that a certain degree of rhetorical excess is expected, I'd be very curious to learn which 'threats' make Trump a 'fascist.'

    I don't see Trump as fascist in any workable, or historically grounded use of the term.

    I'm not at all confident in Trump's ability to pull the levers of government, hence my own skepticism that he'll actually be able to rebuild the US economy in the way he's promising, or achieve many, any of his foreign policy goals. However, I see no evidence whatsoever to support the notion that any of his most fervent supporters would support abrogating any, or even some parts of the constitution. He is absolutely running as some kind of 'time to clean up Washington' populist. I'm certain, however, that those currently wielding power through their stooges in both parties are entirely willing to make defying Trump a wise and enriching decision.

    The US government is an enormous cash-cow for an immense number of special interests. The notion that the PACs and special interests will just pack-up shop and write off the money they plan to make with a Bush/HRC in power is absurd. They'll hobble Trump they same way they handcuffed Carter, and start playing the same sorts of games.

    If anyone does plan on seriously trying to make the case Trump is a fascist to me, at least, they'll need to cite policy positions from Trump's web site. And we know how few are willing to endure that....

    [Aug 18, 2016] Whether Trump or Clinton, the next president is very likely to be impeached and convicted

    Notable quotes:
    "... In particular, criticizing Clinton by falsely assigning her responsibility for Obama's policies fails because it's so transparently dishonest. The notion that Clinton made Libya policy for the UN ambassador Power is dubious enough. ..."
    "... The further implication that she manipulated Obama is silly on the face of it. It was Obama who dealt with Cameron and Sarkozy, who were above her pay grade. The Syrian policies continued after she was gone, nearly coming to open war entirely without her. ..."
    "... Also, the insistence on using the years of nonsense dispensed by rabid right wingers spouting all sorts of crazed BS about how crooked Billary is, is endorsing the Mighty Wurlitzer. Jerry Falwell was speaking truth to power when he ranted about Vince Foster? ..."
    "... It is of course true that Trump isn't unprecedented. His great precedent is of course Richard Nixon, who also had a plan. ..."
    "... Whether Trump or Clinton, the next president is very likely to be impeached and convicted ..."
    "... The infunny thing is, either Pence (a Ted Cruz without testicles,) or Kaine (an Obama DNC chair and thoroughly vetted Armed Service committeeman,) are nightmares. ..."
    crookedtimber.org

    stevenjohnson 08.09.16 at 3:46 pm

    Criticizing Clinton from the right is just as reactionary as criticizing Trump from the right. Further, assigning an individual such personal responsibility denies the reality of a bipartisan system that administers an imperialist government with only a formal simulacrum of popular support. That is, this "criticism" is fundamentally from the right.

    In particular, criticizing Clinton by falsely assigning her responsibility for Obama's policies fails because it's so transparently dishonest. The notion that Clinton made Libya policy for the UN ambassador Power is dubious enough. The careers of Stevenson and Bolton alone show that the potential importance of security council veto means the President reserves direct supervision for himself, no matter what an organizational chart may say.

    The further implication that she manipulated Obama is silly on the face of it. It was Obama who dealt with Cameron and Sarkozy, who were above her pay grade. The Syrian policies continued after she was gone, nearly coming to open war entirely without her. The implication that for a Secretary of State to sell weapons to foreign nations isn't constituent service borders on the silly. Besides, isolationism is not left win, never has been, never was.

    And the implication that the any US government would ever favor supporting a leftish president in Latin America because of its commitment to democracy thoroughly falsifies the nature of the US government. Disappearing left criticism of Obama is thoroughly reactionary.

    Also, the insistence on using the years of nonsense dispensed by rabid right wingers spouting all sorts of crazed BS about how crooked Billary is, is endorsing the Mighty Wurlitzer. Jerry Falwell was speaking truth to power when he ranted about Vince Foster? Buying into this is buying decades of reactionary propaganda. I suppose this is mindlessness enough to satisfy people who alleged that SYRIZA was going to save Greece (the rock that should by the way have sunk Jacobin magazines credibility, leaving next to the Titanic,) or Bernie Sanders was starting a revolution.

    It is of course true that Trump isn't unprecedented. His great precedent is of course Richard Nixon, who also had a plan. I suppose F. Foundling eager awaits Trump's great "Nixon goes to China" moment. I have no idea why.

    Whether Trump or Clinton, the next president is very likely to be impeached and convicted. As to which one it is, there has really never been much doubt that Clinton in the end will gain enough minority support to carry the big cities. But if the reactionaries depress the turnout enough, Trump has a shot at an electoral college victory, especially given the precedents on how votes are counted.

    The infunny thing is, either Pence (a Ted Cruz without testicles,) or Kaine (an Obama DNC chair and thoroughly vetted Armed Service committeeman,) are nightmares.

    [Aug 18, 2016] Trump is not a republican campaign of Hillary to attact republican voters can backfire

    crookedtimber.org

    Corey Robin, 08.12.16 at 3:21 am 645

    A leaked email from a top DNC official in May shows that Democratic insiders were really leery of Clinton's strategy of trying to claim Trump is completely different from Republicans past and present. As this official points out, that strategy actually runs the risk of harming down-ballot Democrats running for office in Congress and state legislatures. It may help Clinton, but it's not good for the party. It also shows that the line that so many have swallowed about Trump being so different was actually a deliberate meme cultivated by Clinton's people, which then trickled down the food chain of the media and so on down the line, and that it ran in the face of how other DNC officials (and heavy-hitting members of Congress) wanted to frame the debate.

    I discuss the email here:

    http://coreyrobin.com/2016/08/11/how-clinton-enables-the-republican-party/

    Here's the text of the email from Luis Miranda, the DNC official:

    Hi Amy, the Clinton rapid response operation we deal with have been asking us to disaggregate Trump from down ballot Republicans. They basically want to make the case that you either stand with Ryan or with Trump, that Trump is much worse than regular Republicans and they don't want us to tie Trump to other Republicans because they think it makes him look normal.

    They wanted us to basically praise Ryan when Trump was meeting Ryan, or at a minimum to hold him up as an example. So they want to embrace the "Republicans fleeing Trump" side, but not hold down ballot GOPers accountable.

    That's a problem. I pushed back that we cannot have our state parties hold up Paul Ryan as a good example of anything. And that we can't give down ballot Republicans such an easy out. We can force them to own Trump and damage them more by pointing out that they're just as bad on specific policies, make them uncomfortable where he's particularly egregious, but asking state Parties to praise House Republicans like Ryan would be damaging for the Party down ballot.

    Can you help us navigate this with Charlie? We would basically have to throw out our entire frame that the GOP made Trump through years of divisive and ugly politics. We would have to say that Republicans are reasonable and that the good ones will shun Trump. It just doesn't work from the Party side. Let me know what you think.

    Thanks, – Luis.

    P.S. – – that strategy would ALSO put us at odds with Schumer, Lujan, Pelosi, Reid, basically all of our Congressional Democrats who have embraced our talking points and have been using them beautifully over the last couple of weeks to point out that GOPers in Congress have been pushing these ugly policies for years. Trying to dump this approach would probably not work with Members of Congress, it's worse than turning an aircraft carrier, we would lose 3/4 of the fleet. Let me know what you think. It might be a good strategy ONLY for Clinton (which I don't believe), I think instead she needs as many voices as possible on the same page.

    [Aug 18, 2016] Here's Trump's actual position on immigration and the deportations

    crookedtimber.org

    kidneystones 08.12.16 at 6:19 am

    ... ...

    Here's Trump's actual position on immigration and the deportations. Needless to say, some will find it plenty offensive. But it's radically different from what you've described. Were Hayden and company trashing a Dem, they'd be roundly and rightly condemned as precisely the same a-holes who've done so much damage over the years. But with Trump as the target, GOP clowns speak with the authority of god. Perfect.

    https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/immigration-reform

    [Aug 18, 2016] The reason so many foreign policy pundits are opposed to trump is not because of the possibility of making peace with Russia, but because they're neoliberal internationalists

    Notable quotes:
    "... ...As for the neocons, I'm quite sure that the real reason they hate him is because they think he actually might make peace with Russia and possibly deviate from the imperial agenda in other ways. In this, I have no sympathy for them.... ..."
    "... The similarities between the ways the vox crowd and vulgar Marxists view politics is really striking." ..."
    "... But 50 neocons some of them war criminals did issue a statement against.. ..."
    crookedtimber.org

    bruce wilder 08.13.16 at 12:34 am 718

    > F Foundling @ 705: In any case, [solidarity] doesn't need to be irrational or to have to do with narcissism (as suggested in 687) any more than acting in your own personal interests needs to be irrational or to have to do with narcissism.

    Thank you for thoughtful remarks @ 705 and @694.

    "Rational" and "irrational" can be a cause of great confusion. It is not some virtue I wish to ascribe, but, rather, to my mind, a matter of gamesmanship. As a strategy, not an ethic, solidarity is a way of committing one's self irrationally to not reconsider one's interests.

    The rat, betraying solidarity, is rational and selfish and calculating. Upholding solidarity requires an irrational ethic to trump strategic reconsideration.

    There can certainly be an element of enlightened self-interest in a commitment to solidarity. We hope this gift of the self to the community is not done stupidly or without some deliberate consideration of consequences.

    But, in the game, in the political contest where solidarity matters, where elite power is confronted, solidarity entails a degree of passionate commitment and even self-sacrifice. Whether expressed as an individual act of "altruistic punishment" or the common unwillingness to cooperate with the powers-that-be in a labor strike, there has to be a willingness to bear costs and forego opportunities.

    People have to be a bit mad to want justice.

    bruce wilder 08.13.16 at 12:47 am

    engels and others may appreciate Michael Pettis on the Trump phenomenon.

    He wrote this piece back in March and for reasons I cannot quite fathom he tried to tie in the Jacksonians - as if Donald Trump is some faded reprint of Andrew Jackson. But, ignore the part about the Jacksonians in American history and pay attention to what he says about his friend who is a supporter of Trump. It will complement Doug Henwood nicely, I suspect. And, Pettis has nothing nice to say about Trump - so no fear!

    http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/03/michael-pettis-trump-and-the-re-emergence-of-the-jacksonians.html

    F. Foundling, 08.13.16 at 1:56 am<

    ...As for the neocons, I'm quite sure that the real reason they hate him is because they think he actually might make peace with Russia and possibly deviate from the imperial agenda in other ways. In this, I have no sympathy for them....

    Ronan(rf), 08.13.16 at 2:34 am 725
    The reason so many foreign policy pundits ... are opposed to trump is not because of the possibility of making peace with Russia, but because they're liberal internationalists. They support the US led international order, think US hegemony is generally a force for good, and oppose powers and actors which will undermine the [neo]liberal order...

    Ronan(rf) 08.13.16 at 2:46 am 726

    Reasons someone on a middle income from an economically declining region might support trump(that aren't racism)
    Ronan(rf),

    "Reasons someone on a middle income from an economically declining region might support trump(that aren't racism)

    (1) support for other institutions (military , family, religion) mentioned above.

    (2) people don't vote individually but as a member of a group. Being a relatively prosperous member of a declining demographic has psychological consequences and perceived collective responsibilities.

    (3) middle income business owners are not a stable group.(socially or economically)

    (4) who do you think Is voting in these regions ? The poor in the US are less likely to vote.

    The similarities between the ways the vox crowd and vulgar Marxists view politics is really striking."

    engels 08.13.16 at 10:37 am 744

    Bruce thinks narcissism can be healthy, F. Foundling thinks it is excessive by definition. I understand it in what I think is the classical sense as a relation which is properly directed at others turned in on the individual. 'Narcissistic solidarity' would mean something like 'standing with oneself'-a conceptual absurdity. (I agree with the broader point that solidarity isn't inherently altruistic and doesn't preclude self-interest though.)

    Ronan(rf) 08.13.16 at 10:51 am 746

    "But 50 neocons some of them war criminals did issue a statement against.."

    On that. Im sorry for the ungenerous reading and cranky comment, f foundling. I was in a bit of a bad mood .

    ZM, I don't have time to reply at the minute, but will get back to it later .

    Ronan(rf) 08.13.16 at 11:02 am

    "Ronan,

    Weakening of unions is an important cause of support for Trump."

    Right, so you're now agreeing that a concentration on income only does not explain as much as you've been arguing above ?

    [Aug 18, 2016] Trump is no crazier than the current Democratic president

    Notable quotes:
    "... How many ordinary Americans under the age of 40 can look in the mirror and find the stuff of not one, but two autobiographies? That certainly speaks a remarkable level of – what shall we call it? Well, probably not modesty. ..."
    "... 'if you don't support O, you're David Duke in a dress' stuff. No need to dredge up the practical politics of Hope and Change at this late date. ..."
    crookedtimber.org

    kidneystones 08.12.16 at 7:00 am 669

    @ 668 "Mr. Obama told Patrick Gaspard, his political director, at the start of the 2008 campaign, according to The New Yorker. "I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors."

    "But there's more evidence that he's batshit crazy. He declaimed that he knew more about ISIS than all the generals. He will trust no one's judgment but his own."

    So, your argument is that Obama (your Muslim socialist) should never have been trusted to be in the Oval Office.

    And that by these, your standards, Trump is no crazier than the current Democratic president.

    Fair enough.

    https://www.aei.org/publication/obama-im-a-better-intelligence-briefer-than-my-intelligence-briefers/

    kidneystones 08.12.16 at 7:39 am 671

    @670 "I won't even look up the quote"

    Oh, you don't need to. That boat sailed the moment you decided to make Obama level hubris grounds for ineligibility. Obama's 'accomplishments prior to entering the Senate in 2004 are the stuff of legend to the clueless, of course.

    How many ordinary Americans under the age of 40 can look in the mirror and find the stuff of not one, but two autobiographies? That certainly speaks a remarkable level of – what shall we call it? Well, probably not modesty.

    My life twice – plenty for everyone like to learn from! The perfect preparation for a great presidency. That and my love of basketball. That's what makes me so smart! Did anyone notice I'm young, black and handsome? Ignore that, please.

    And we are where we are. I've elided the 'if you don't support O, you're David Duke in a dress' stuff. No need to dredge up the practical politics of Hope and Change at this late date.

    Trump in 2016!

    [Aug 17, 2016] Clinton preps for Trumps Lewinsky attack

    It was Monica who saved us from gutting Social Security, which Bill Clinton conspired with republicans to dismantle. How Monica Lewinsky Saved Social Security
    Notable quotes:
    "... "You have to start off by saying, 'I want to thank the American people, especially Monica and Gennifer Flowers," anticipated a top Clinton ally with close ties to the campaign. "Nobody who is a friend of hers is going to want to say that in debate prep." ..."
    www.politico.com

    POLITICO

    This year in particular, it's a job that nobody close to Clinton is particularly eager to take on. "You have to start off by saying, 'I want to thank the American people, especially Monica and Gennifer Flowers," anticipated a top Clinton ally with close ties to the campaign. "Nobody who is a friend of hers is going to want to say that in debate prep."

    ... ... ...

    "It's a complicated debate prep," agreed Shrum. "The Clinton challenge is to prepare for the crazy Trump who will probably show up, some kind of toned-down Trump, and the somewhere-in-between Trump." Trump could spend 90 minutes berating Clinton for helping to found ISIS, Democrats said, or he could turn on the moderator and the media so that Clinton simply becomes a bystander rather than a participant. He could even devote real time to preparation and surprise Clinton by his substance on the issues.

    [Aug 16, 2016] The culture of medals over morals disgusts me.

    www.bbc.com
    marknesop , August 15, 2016 at 6:56 pm

    The culture of medals over morals disgusts me.

    [Aug 16, 2016] A Yahoo story with a slightly balanced view on doping

    marknesop.wordpress.com
    Patient Observer, August 14, 2016 at 1:55 pm
    A Yahoo story with a slightly balanced view on doping:

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/team-usa-kicked-off-doping-011345417.html

    In addition to shattering world records and breaking down barriers, the swimmers at the Rio Olympics have managed another feat of sorts: reigniting international sport's Cold War. On the self-proclaimed forces of good: swimmers from Western nations who broke unwritten Olympic etiquette by speaking out against competitors they deemed "drug cheats."

    The story mentions that in track and field, the US has an extensive history of doping and concluded:

    Americans may stack up medals on the track in Rio, but they'll have to table their righteousness on that podium.

    [Aug 16, 2016] Notorious Russian arms dealer refused US offer for lighter sentence

    marknesop.wordpress.com
    et Al , August 15, 2016 at 12:00 pm
    Intellinews.org: Notorious Russian arms dealer 'refused US offer for lighter sentence'

    https://intelnews.org/2016/08/10/01-1956/

    …In a newspaper interview on Tuesday, Bout's wife, Alla Bout, said her husband could have gotten away with a considerably lighter sentence had he agreed to testify against a senior Russian government official. Speaking to Moscow-based daily Izvestia, Alla Bout said her husband had been approached by American authorities after being extradited to the United States from Thailand. He was told that US authorities wanted him to testify against Igor Sechin, a powerful Russian government official, whom American prosecutors believed was Bout's boss. In return for his testimony, US prosecutors allegedly promised a jail sentence that would not exceed two years, as well as political asylum for him and his family following his release from prison. Alla Bout added that her husband's American lawyers were told by the prosecution that the 'merchant of death' "would be able to live in the US comfortably, along with his wife and daughter", and that his family could stay in America during his trial "under conditions". Alla Bout claimed she was told this by Bout himself and by members of his American legal team…
    ####

    It goes to show how desperate Washington is, not to mention its extremely short term thinking. No one in their right minds in Russia would trust anyone in Washington worth a damn, and that has major implications for all sorts of state-to-state dealings running in to the future. If Washington thinks saying "It's all water under the bridge" will return relations back to normal just like that, then they are sorely retarded.

    Patient Observer , August 15, 2016 at 6:25 pm
    Speaks well of Bout's character and the profound corruption of the US legal system.

    [Aug 16, 2016] A Yahoo story with a slightly balanced view on doping

    marknesop.wordpress.com
    Patient Observer, August 14, 2016 at 1:55 pm
    A Yahoo story with a slightly balanced view on doping:

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/team-usa-kicked-off-doping-011345417.html

    In addition to shattering world records and breaking down barriers, the swimmers at the Rio Olympics have managed another feat of sorts: reigniting international sport's Cold War. On the self-proclaimed forces of good: swimmers from Western nations who broke unwritten Olympic etiquette by speaking out against competitors they deemed "drug cheats."

    The story mentions that in track and field, the US has an extensive history of doping and concluded:

    Americans may stack up medals on the track in Rio, but they'll have to table their righteousness on that podium.

    [Aug 16, 2016] The culture of medals over morals disgusts me.

    www.bbc.com
    marknesop , August 15, 2016 at 6:56 pm

    The culture of medals over morals disgusts me.

    [Aug 16, 2016] Trust the crooks in Ukraine to come up with documentary evidence which can be used to show Trump is really Putins man

    Notable quotes:
    "... In the New York Times ..."
    marknesop.wordpress.com
    marknesop, August 14, 2016 at 11:06 pm
    Trust the crooks in Ukraine to come up with 'documentary evidence' which can be used to show Trump is really Putin's man. I wonder how big an IMF package Hillary had to promise them? Or did she strike a deal with Porky to get Crimea back?

    In the New York Times , of course; the Democrats' FOX News. They'd like to see a home girl win.

    [Aug 16, 2016] I see Trump more like a reaction on hardships inflicted by neoliberal globalization on the USA common folk.

    marknesop.wordpress.com

    Warren , August 15, 2016 at 3:15 pm

    Donald Trump is the least of the GOP's problems

    marknesop , August 15, 2016 at 5:23 pm
    That's actually a very good piece; the author is a compelling writer.
    likbez , August 15, 2016 at 8:29 pm
    I disagree. And not only regarding his extraordinarily dubious periodization of US political history. This baloney about Republicanism does not make much sense. Also since the 1963 deep state became the dominant political force and parties and elections became more of a legitimization show. .

    I see Trump more like a reaction on hardships inflicted by neoliberal globalization on the USA common folk. So he is standard bearer of the strata of population hit by globalization, the strata which standard of living was dropping for the last two-three decades. Professional classes and financial oligarchy support Hillary, but blue color workers switched to Trump by large numbers. Trade union bosses expect that 50% or more of membership will vote for Trump. That's their way to say "f*ck you" to neoliberal establishment and so far they are saying it pretty politely, if we do not count several recent riots (which mainly involved black population). Now the neoliberal elite is afraid that even the slightest trigger can produce uncontrollable situation.

    That's why Hillary adopted a part of Sanders platform and is now against TPP (only until November:-) A lot of people are just fed up.

    That's why neocons such as Cruze and, especially, Rubio and Jeb! were defeated by Trump, and why only machinations of DNC allowed Hillary to be crowned over Sanders (Sanders betrayal also played a role).

    This is a situation perfect for "color revolution" (what we miss is just a capable and well financed three letter agency of some foreign power 😉 In other words the US elite partially lost the control of ordinary people and MSM no longer can brainwash them with previous efficiency because after 2008 the key idea of "trickle down economy" - that dramatically rising inequality will provide Untermensch with enough crumps from the table of Masters of the Universe (financial oligarchy) were proven to be false.

    Financial oligarchy does not want to share even crumps and decent job almost totally disappeared. Switch to contractor jobs and outsourcing means a significant drop in standard of living for, probably, 80-90% of population. Unemployment after university graduation is now pretty common.

    While neoliberalism managed to survive the crisis of 2008 the next crisis of neoliberalism is probably close (let's, say, can happen within the current decade). The economic plunder of the xUSSR economic space helped to delay this crisis for a decade or more, but now this process is by-and-large over (although Russia still is a piece of economic space to fight for - so its dismembering or color revolution is always in cards and not only for geopolitical reasons) . Secular stagnation does not play well with neoliberal globalization, so nationalistic movements are on the rise in different parts of the globe, including Europe. The "plato oil" situation does not help either. So here all bets are off.

    Note an unprecedented campaign of demonization of Trump in neoliberal media and attempt to link him to Putin, playing on pre-existing Russophobia of the population. I especially like "Khan gambit" (essentially swiftboating of Trump) and recent campaign salivating over the "assassination attempt" on Hillary by inflating one (unfortunate) Trump remark completely our of proportion. And that's only the beginning.

    [Aug 16, 2016] Diary of an Ex-Neocon

    Notable quotes:
    "... If the New York Post is their Pravda , then The Weekly Standard is the neocons' Iskra , where the ideological twists and turns of the Party Line are explicated at some length ..."
    "... The cynical might suspect that this last is a form of neoconservative special pleading, designed to spirit the war party intellectuals away from the scene when the Bush policy goes down in flames ..."
    "... Robert Kagan and Max Boot are shilling for Hillary, with more of their comrades soon to follow-the former Scoop Jackson Democrats have come full circle, their survival skills fully intact. ..."
    "... They "certainly won't disappear in the way that American communism or segregation have," says McConnell , and one big reason is because "Perhaps most importantly neoconservatism still commands more salaries-able people who can pursue ideological politics as fulltime work in think tanks and periodicals-than its rivals." Which means "the reports of the movement's demise"-and I've authored a few of those-"are thus very much exaggerated." ..."
    "... McConnell isn't just an observer, with a keen eye for detail: he projects himself into these geopolitical conundrums, imbued with the sort of empathy that connects both himself and the reader to real human suffering, a quality that makes him a trenchant critic of U.S. policy in the Middle East. ..."
    "... McConnell likes the Israelis, supports their right to nationhood, and yet insists that we treat them as a normal country, not a pampered child who throws tantrums to get what it wants. He is measured, rational, compassionate, and, most of all, very well informed. We find out many things along the way, such as the real nature of the "good deal" that Yasser Arafat rejected, and rightly so. ..."
    The American Conservative
    McConnell's wit, especially sharp when cutting up his former comrades, had me laughing out loud. Describing Fred Barnes's Rebel in Chief , a hagiography of George W. Bush, he writes : "For readers who might wonder what it is like to be a North Korean and required to read formulaic biographies of great helmsman Kim Il Sung and his son, an afternoon spent with Rebel in Chief should provide a proximate answer."

    If the New York Post is their Pravda , then The Weekly Standard is the neocons' Iskra , where the ideological twists and turns of the Party Line are explicated at some length, and not without some elegance, as McConnell notes. The weekly's key role in diverting the Bush administration into Iraq after the 9/11 attacks is here laid out in all its Machiavellian sinuosity. And the distinctly Soviet air of the Kristolian style is illustrated quite nicely by McConnell's description of the magazine's covers, a typical one being "George W. Bush, gesticulating before an audience of troops, arm extended in a Caesarian pose. 'The Liberator,' the Standard headline proclaimed. Flatter the leader who will do your bidding."

    Yet there is a bit more to the literature of the courtier than appears on the surface. Flatter the king, get close enough to whisper in his ear-and then, if necessary, bury the knife deep in his back. Barnes depicts Bush as the bold leader who defied "the crabbed views of experts. And lest we forget, it is Bush alone who has done this, not his advisors. The cynical might suspect that this last is a form of neoconservative special pleading, designed to spirit the war party intellectuals away from the scene when the Bush policy goes down in flames." Which is precisely what happened, as McConnell chronicles in detail.

    The damage this political cult has done to the American polity, and to the Middle East, cannot even be calculated: how much, after all, is a human life worth? What about hundreds of thousands of lives? Yet they never seem to be finally defeated: as McConnell puts it , "if disrespecting the neoconservatives is emerging as a minor national sport, it should be enjoyed and tempered with realism." Sure, "the last few years have been difficult for the faction," but "they have other options." As they stream back into the Democratic Party after being steamrollered by Donald Trump- Robert Kagan and Max Boot are shilling for Hillary, with more of their comrades soon to follow-the former Scoop Jackson Democrats have come full circle, their survival skills fully intact.

    They "certainly won't disappear in the way that American communism or segregation have," says McConnell , and one big reason is because "Perhaps most importantly neoconservatism still commands more salaries-able people who can pursue ideological politics as fulltime work in think tanks and periodicals-than its rivals." Which means "the reports of the movement's demise"-and I've authored a few of those-"are thus very much exaggerated."

    Well, yes, that's unfortunately true. We've heard of the neocons' demise so many times that the prospect has now become somewhat hopeless: they just keep reincarnating themselves in another form. But that shouldn't stop us from hoping against hope.

    In spite of this book's title, there is much more to it than the storied history of the neocons as seen from inside the tent. There are sections on Israel, the run up to the Iraq war, President Obama, reflections on history, Russia and NATO, racial politics, and more. McConnell is at his best when he writes in the first person: a trip through Syria and Palestine, detailed in " Divided and Conquered ," reveals a perception honed to the finest detail, and a sensitivity and compassion that invariably breaks through a reserved WASP-y persona. McConnell isn't just an observer, with a keen eye for detail: he projects himself into these geopolitical conundrums, imbued with the sort of empathy that connects both himself and the reader to real human suffering, a quality that makes him a trenchant critic of U.S. policy in the Middle East.

    That critique is laid out in a long essay, " The Special Relationship With Israel: Is It Worth the Cost? " in which the history and consequences of our protracted and expensive patronage of the Jewish state is analyzed and detailed in ways you haven't seen or read before. McConnell likes the Israelis, supports their right to nationhood, and yet insists that we treat them as a normal country, not a pampered child who throws tantrums to get what it wants. He is measured, rational, compassionate, and, most of all, very well informed. We find out many things along the way, such as the real nature of the "good deal" that Yasser Arafat rejected, and rightly so.

    At the end of a long " Open Letter to David Horowitz on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict ," in which the author takes apart the irascible pro-Israel fanatic's argument that the Palestinians aren't really a people and should just get lost, he writes; "David, I hope you know this letter is written in a spirit of friendly, even comradely, disagreement and that it comes from someone who has plenty of appreciation for everything you have done since you came out as a 'Lefty for Reagan' seventeen years ago, and who was an avid Ramparts reader a dozen years before that."

    For my part, he gives Horowitz far too much credit, but that's an essential part of the author of Ex-Neocon : a gentleness that allows him to appreciate the talent and achievements of his ideological opposite numbers, even as he tears their arguments to shreds. His personality comes through in a way that is understated and yet strong. Here he is in Virginia Beach , canvassing for Obama during the 2012 election, riding around with a bunch of female volunteers, two black and one white:

    It was a curiously moving experience. … I have led most of my life not caring very much whether the poor voted, and indeed have sometimes been aware my interests aligned with them not voting at all. But that has changed. And so one knocks on one door after another in tiny houses and apartments in Chesapeake and Newport News, some of them nicely kept and clearly striving to make the best of a modest lot, others as close to the developing world as one gets in America. And at moments one feels a kind of calling-and then laughs at the Alinskian presumption of it all. Yes, we are all connected.

    So what was this ex-neocon, former campaign manager for Pat Buchanan's last presidential run, and former editor of The American Conservative doing canvassing for Barack Obama? You really have to read this book to find out.

    Justin Raimondo is editorial director of Antiwar.com and the author of Reclaiming the American Right: The Lost Legacy of the Conservative Movement .

    [Aug 16, 2016] The ECHR has, on the other hand, green-lighted the lawsuits of MH-17 relatives against Ukraine

    marknesop.wordpress.com
    marknesop , August 14, 2016 at 1:19 pm

    The ECHR has, on the other hand, green-lighted the lawsuits of MH-17 relatives against Ukraine , for "Failing to protect life" by taking the appropriate precautions to vector air traffic away from the war zone.

    Which means Ukraine's actions will come under close scrutiny once again, and in this instance the plaintiffs have plenty of evidence, since it was broadly agreed at the outset that Ukraine bore responsibility for its own airspace.

    Now, hopefully, there will be some questions asked about Ukraine's odd approach to record-keeping and its determination to control aircraft without any primary radars available.

    [Aug 16, 2016] Is Trumps Extreme Vetting That Far Off Existing US Policies

    Aug 16, 2016 | Zero Hedge
    While the MSM has gone out of its way to question every plausible unintended consequence(s) of Donald Trump's new "extreme" vetting for immigrants, perhaps it is worth looking at some of the current questions the US Immigration Services asks and compare those to Trump's proposals. They may not be that far off.

    To recap, Trump proposed an ideological test of "Islamic sympathizers" to be admitted, focusing on issues including religious freedom, gender equality and gay rights.

    And while some have questioned the validity of a test, and whether a presumed terrorist would even be honest in said test, the experts and political pundits should take a look at what the US currently asks individuals.

    • Have you ever been involved in, or do you seek to engage in, money laundering?
    • Are you coming to the United States to engage in prostitution or unlawful commercialized vice or have you been engaged in prostitution or procuring prostitutes within the past 10 years?
    • Have you ever committed or conspired to commit a human trafficking offense in the United States or outside the United States?
    • Do you seek to engage in terrorist activities while in the United States or have you ever engaged in terrorist activities?
    • Are you a member or representative of a terrorist organization?
    • Have you ever ordered, incited, committed, assisted, or otherwise participated in genocide?
    • Have you ever committed, ordered, incited, assisted or otherwise participated in torture?
    • Have you, while serving as a government official, been responsible for or directly carried out, at any time, particularly severe violations of religious freedom?
    • Have you ever been directly involved in the coercive transplantation of human organs or bodily tissue?

    Evidently, if any of the US allies (e.g. Saudi Arabia) answered these questions honestly, they would not be admitted to the US. But, perhaps the best question still being asked to all immigrants is as follows:

    • Have you ever been or are you now involved in espionage or sabotage; or in terrorist activities; or genocide; or between 1933 and 1945 were involved, in any way, in persecutions associated with Nazi Germany or its allies?

    If the US government currently engages in these and other questionings, is it that far off to ask if you are anti gay rights, anti Semitic or pro sharia law?

    [Aug 16, 2016] Panama Papers were released with intent to expose Vladimir Putin's supposed corruption, only for the release itself to backfire when the only connection to Putin turned out to be a childhood friend violinist.

    Notable quotes:
    "... "US security experts however are blaming the leak on Russian hackers, according to Bloomberg, in a similar reaction seen in the wake of the DNC leaks." ..."
    marknesop.wordpress.com
    More than 2,500 files from the raft of organizations run by billionaire George Soros have been leaked by hackers.

    Saturday's leak, published by DC leaks, includes hundreds of internal documents from multiple departments of Soros' groups, predominantly the Open Society Foundations.

    https://www.rt.com/usa/355919-soros-hacked-files-released/

    marknesop , August 14, 2016 at 11:29 pm
    Explosive. Early analysis says the leak shows his NGO's manipulating EU elections.

    "US security experts however are blaming the leak on Russian hackers, according to Bloomberg, in a similar reaction seen in the wake of the DNC leaks."

    Careful, boys; one day you'll go to the well and there won't be any more water. It's always the Russians.

    Jen , August 15, 2016 at 12:55 am
    Interesting that Soros' Open Society Foundations funds the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists which would explain why when the Panama Papers were released, there were no US individuals or companies named as clients of Mossack Fonseca. So the Panama Papers were released with intent to expose Vladimir Putin's supposed corruption, only for the release itself to backfire when the only connection to Putin turned out to be a childhood friend violinist.

    [Aug 16, 2016] Donald Trump's campaign team must disclose all pro-Russia links

    bbc.co.uk
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37080909

    Donald Trump's campaign team must disclose all pro-Russia links, Hillary Clinton's manager has said, following new allegations in the New York Times.

    [Aug 16, 2016] Must only be a matter of time then, when the US government discovers that Vladimir Putin might have met Melania Trump

    marknesop.wordpress.com
    Dr. Filip Kovacevic @ Boiling Frogs Post/Newsbud: Newsbud Exclusive- Putin in Slovenia: An Analysis
    http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2016/08/10/newsbud-exclusive-putin-in-slovenia-an-analysis/

    The Hidden Subtext Behind Putin's Third Slovenia Visit

    Putin is no stranger to the ex-Yugoslav republic of Slovenia. In fact, in June 2001, when Slovenia was still neither an EU nor a NATO member state, it was chosen as a neutral meeting place for the first official meeting between him and the U.S. president George W. Bush. Ironically, the meeting took place in the Brdo Castle near Kranj, one of the long-time Communist leader Tito's summer residences. At that time, the U.S. high level officials did everything they could to flatter Putin and get him to accept their hegemonic geopolitical agenda for Eastern Europe, Russia, and Eurasia in general. For instance, during the press conference that followed their two-hour long discussions, Bush stated that he could fully trust Putin in international matters because "he's an honest, straight-forward man who loves his country. He loves his family. We share a lot of values. I view him as a remarkable leader. I believe his leadership will serve Russia well."[1]

    But, when Putin, unlike Yeltsin, whose hand-picked successor he was, proved unwilling to play along with the U.S. plans, his stature in the U.S. foreign policy discourse quickly deteriorated from that of "a remarkable leader" and an honest patriot to that of a brutal dictator and even "a thug"…
    ####

    Read on, read on!

    The UNSG bid certainly looks like part of it though I doubt anyone from the Western blocs inc. asia would be favorable, let alone balanced towards Russia. I'm not sure that Washington is stupid enough to pick a fight with Europe over the Balkans, but then again Washington has a long record of their actions causing blowback to their 'allies' and saying "Tough. That's the price for riding on our coattails."

    Jen , August 15, 2016 at 3:17 pm
    Must only be a matter of time then, when the US government discovers that Vladimir Putin might have met Melania Trump (even if they just brushed past each other in a matter of seconds with both of them looking away from each other) and BINGO! – the connection between Lord Sauron and his robot Donald Trump is finally revealed.

    [Aug 16, 2016] 3 minutes before they (and probably most other news) announced that a passenger jet was shot down, NSDC and Ukrainian Pravda announced that separatists suddenly now possess a Buk, which can reach a passenger jet.

    marknesop.wordpress.com

    Jeremn, August 15, 2016 at 7:07 am

    Interesting Timeline of how the downing of MH17 was first reported in the Ukrainian media. Basically, the Ukrainian government spokesman announced that the rebels had a BUK, but just at the time the Malaysian flight was coming down.

    "The headline at 17:26 EEST translates to "NSDC said that militants have equipment that can hit planes at a high altitude." The headline at 17:49 translates to "Source: A passenger jet was shot down in Donetsk region." So, it is interesting that an hour after MH17 crashed and 23 minutes before they (and probably most other news) announced that a passenger jet was shot down, NSDC and Ukrainian Pravda announced that separatists suddenly now possess a Buk, which can reach a passenger jet."

    https://energia.su/mh17/en/article/1/

    marknesop, August 15, 2016 at 10:20 am
    Very interesting indeed, since it implies premeditation. And since it is one of the few Ukrainian statements which was decisively refuted by western intelligence.

    [Aug 15, 2016] American Pravda Did the US Plan a Nuclear First Strike Against Russia in the Early 1960s - The Unz Review

    Notable quotes:
    "... I suggested that if he possessed any private information regarding so astonishing a possibility-that the Kennedy Administration might have considered a nuclear first strike against the USSR-perhaps he had a duty to bring the facts to public awareness lest they be lost to history. ..."
    "... Obviously no nuclear attack took place, so the plans must have been changed at some point or discarded, and there were various indications that President Kennedy had had important doubts from the very beginning. But the argument made was that at the time, the first strike proposal was taken very seriously by America's top political and military leadership. Once we accept that idea, other historical puzzles more easily fall into place. ..."
    "... In a later footnote, Galbraith even mentioned that he subsequently had his interpretation personally confirmed by Kennedy's former National Security Advisor: "When once I asked the late Walt Rostow if he knew anything about the National Security Council meeting of July 20, 1961 (at which these plans were presented), he responded with no hesitation: `Do you mean the one where they wanted to blow up the world?'" ..."
    "... And there is also a sequel on this same topic. In 2001 military affairs writer Fred Kaplan published a major article in The Atlantic with the explicit title " JFK's First-Strike Plan." Drawing on a wealth of newly declassified archival documents, he similarly described how the Kennedy Administration had prepared plans for a nuclear first strike against the Soviets. His analysis was somewhat different, suggesting that Kennedy himself had generally approved the proposal, but that the attack was intended as an option to be used during a hypothetical future military confrontation rather than being aimed for a particular scheduled date. ..."
    "... Consider a particularly troubling thought-experiment. Suppose that the proposed nuclear attack on Russia had actually gone ahead, resulting in millions or tens of millions dead from the bombs and worldwide radioactive fallout, perhaps even including a million or more American casualties if the first strike had failed to entirely eliminate all retaliatory capability. Under such a dire scenario, is it not likely that every American media organ would have been immediately enlisted to sanitize and justify the terrible events, with virtually no dissent allowed? ..."
    www.unz.com
    I suggested that if he possessed any private information regarding so astonishing a possibility-that the Kennedy Administration might have considered a nuclear first strike against the USSR-perhaps he had a duty to bring the facts to public awareness lest they be lost to history.

    He replied that he'd indeed found persuasive evidence that the US military had carefully planned a nuclear first strike against the Soviet Union in the early 1960s, and agreed about the historical importance. But he'd already published an article laying out the case. Twenty years earlier. In The American Prospect , a very respectable though liberal-leaning magazine. So I located a copy on the Internet:

    I quickly read the article and was stunned. The central document was a Top Secret/Eyes Only summary memo of a July 1961 National Security Council meeting written by Howard Burris, the military aide to then-Vice President Lyndon Johnson, which was afterward deposited in the Johnson Archives and eventually declassified. The discussion focused on the effectiveness of a planned nuclear first strike, suggesting that 1963 would be the optimal date since America's relative advantage in intercontinental nuclear missiles would be greatest at that point. Galbraith's student, Heather A. Purcell, had discovered the memo and co-authored the article with him, and as they pointed out, this meeting was held soon after the US military had discovered that the Soviet missile forces were far weaker than previously had been realized, leading to the plans for the proposed attack and also proving that the first strike under discussion could only have been an American one.

    This history was quite different from the deterrent-based framework of American nuclear-war strategy that I had always absorbed from reading my textbooks and newspapers.

    Obviously no nuclear attack took place, so the plans must have been changed at some point or discarded, and there were various indications that President Kennedy had had important doubts from the very beginning. But the argument made was that at the time, the first strike proposal was taken very seriously by America's top political and military leadership. Once we accept that idea, other historical puzzles more easily fall into place.

    Consider, for example, the massive campaign of "civil defense" that America launched immediately thereafter, leading to the construction of large numbers of fallout shelters throughout the country, including the backyard suburban ones which generated some famous ironic images. Although I'm hardly an expert on nuclear war, the motivation had never made much sense to me, since in most cases the supplies would only have been sufficient to last a few weeks or so, while the deadly radioactive fallout from numerous Soviet thermonuclear strikes on our urban centers would have been long-lasting. But an American first strike changes this picture. A successful U.S. attack would have ensured that few if any bombs fell on American soil, with the shelters intended merely to provide a couple of weeks of useful protection until the global radioactive dust-clouds resulting from the nuclear destruction of the Soviet Union had dissipated, and these anyway would have only reached America in highly attenuated form.

    Furthermore, we must reassess the background to the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, certainly one of the most important and dangerous events of that era. If Soviet military analysts had reached conclusions similar to those of their American counterparts, it is hardly surprising that their political leaders would have taken the considerable risk of deploying nuclear warheads on intermediate range missiles close to American cities, thereby greatly multiplying their deterrent capability immediately prior to their point of greatest strategic vulnerability. And there was also the real possibility that their intelligence agents might have somehow gotten hints of the American plans for an actual nuclear first strike. The traditional view presented in the American media has always been that an unprovoked American attack was simply unimaginable, any Soviet paranoia notwithstanding, but if such an attack was not only imagined but actually planned, then our Cold War narrative must be significantly modified. Indeed, perhaps important aspects of the superpower confrontations of that era should be completely inverted.

    Could such a momentous historical discovery have been so totally ignored by our mainstream journalists and historians that I'd never heard of it during the previous twenty years? Gossipy rumors of an additional JFK infidelity might periodically make the headlines, but why was there no discussion of serious plans to launch a non-defensive global thermonuclear war likely to kill many millions?

    I have limited expertise in either analyzing nuclear warfare strategy or interpreting national security documents, so I could easily be making an error in evaluating the strength of the case. But in a later issue of TAP , William Burr and David Alan Rosenberg, scholars proficient in exactly those areas, published a lengthy rebuttal to the article , followed by a rejoinder from Galbraith and Purcell. And in my own opinion, the Burr/Rosenberg critique was quite unpersuasive.

    In their arguments, they emphasized that the key document was found in the Vice Presidential archives, while the National Archives and those of President Kennedy himself are usually a far better source of important material. But perhaps that's exactly the point. The authenticity of the Burris document was never disputed, and Burr/Rosenberg cite absolutely no contradictory archival material, implying that the documentary evidence was not available to them. So the materials dealing with such an extraordinarily explosive proposal had either elsewhere not been declassified or might even have been removed from the main archives, with only the less direct Burris summary memo in a secondary location surviving the purge and later being declassified, perhaps because its treatment of the subject was much less explicit.

    Meanwhile, a careful reading of the Burris memo seems to strongly support the Galbraith/Purcell interpretation, namely that in July 1961 President Kennedy and his top national security officials discussed cold-blooded plans for a full nuclear attack against the Soviet Union in roughly two years' time, when the relative imbalance of strategic forces would be at its maximum. The proposal seemed quite concrete, rather than merely being one of the numerous hypotheticals endlessly produced by all military organizations.

    In a later footnote, Galbraith even mentioned that he subsequently had his interpretation personally confirmed by Kennedy's former National Security Advisor: "When once I asked the late Walt Rostow if he knew anything about the National Security Council meeting of July 20, 1961 (at which these plans were presented), he responded with no hesitation: `Do you mean the one where they wanted to blow up the world?'"

    Once I accepted the reasonable likelihood of the analysis, I was shocked at how little attention the remarkable article had received. When I simply Googled the names of the authors "Galbraith Heather Purcell" I mostly discovered very brief mentions scattered here and there, generally in specialized books or in articles written by Galbraith himself, and found absolutely nothing in the major media. Possibly one of the most important revisions to our entire history of the Cold War-with huge implications for the Cuban Missile Crisis-seems to have never achieved any significant public awareness.

    And there is also a sequel on this same topic. In 2001 military affairs writer Fred Kaplan published a major article in The Atlantic with the explicit title " JFK's First-Strike Plan." Drawing on a wealth of newly declassified archival documents, he similarly described how the Kennedy Administration had prepared plans for a nuclear first strike against the Soviets. His analysis was somewhat different, suggesting that Kennedy himself had generally approved the proposal, but that the attack was intended as an option to be used during a hypothetical future military confrontation rather than being aimed for a particular scheduled date.

    The government plans unearthed by Kaplan are clearly referring to the same strategy discussed in the Burris memo, but since Kaplan provides none of the documents themselves, it is difficult to determine whether or not the evidence is consistent with the somewhat different Galbraith/Purcell interpretation. It is also decidedly odd that Kaplan's long article gives no indication that he was even aware of that previous theory or its differing conclusions, containing not a single sentence mentioning or dismissing it. I find it very difficult to believe that a specialist such as Kaplan remained totally unaware of the earlier TAP analysis, but perhaps this might possibly be explained given the near-total media blackout. Prior to the establishment of the Internet or even in its early days, important information ignored by the media might easily vanish almost without a trace.

    Kaplan's long article seems to have suffered that similar fate. Aside from a few mentions in some of Kaplan's own later pieces, I found virtually no references at all in the last 15 years when I casually Googled it. Admittedly, the timing could not have been worse, with the article appearing in the October 2001 edition of the magazine, released in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, but the silence is still troubling.

    The unfortunate fact is that when a massively important story is reported only once, with virtually no follow-up, the impact may be minimal. Only a small slice of the public encounters that initial account, and the lack of any repetition would eventually lead even those individuals to forget it, or perhaps even vaguely assume that the subsequent silence implied that the claims had been mistaken or later debunked. Every standard historical narrative of the 1960s that continues to exclude mention of serious plans for an American nuclear first strike constitutes a tacit denial of that important reality, implicitly suggesting that the evidence does not exist or had been discredited. As a consequence, I doubt whether more than a sliver of those seemingly informed Americans who carefully read the NYT and WSJ each morning are aware of these important historical facts, and perhaps the same is even true of the journalists who write for those esteemed publications. Only repetition and continuing coverage gradually incorporates a story into our framework of the past.

    It is easy to imagine how things might have gone differently. Suppose, for example, that similarly solid evidence of plans for a devastating and unprovoked nuclear attack on the Soviet Union had been found in the archival records of the presidential administrations of Richard Nixon or Ronald Reagan. Is there not a far greater likelihood that the story have been heavily covered and then endlessly repeated in our media outlets, until it had become full embedded in our standard histories and was known to every informed citizen?

    In some respects, these discussions of events from over a half-century ago have little relevance for us today: the individuals involved are now all merely names in our history books and the world is a very different place. So although the sharp differences between the Galbraith/Purcell analysis and that of Kaplan might engage academic specialists, the practical differences would today be minimal.

    But what has enormous significance is the media silence itself. If our media failed to report these shocking new facts about the early 1960s, how much can we rely upon it for coverage of present-day events of enormous importance, given the vastly more immediate pressures and political interests which are surely brought to bear? If our mainstream histories of what happened fifty years ago are highly unreliable, what does that suggest about the stories we read each morning concerning the ongoing conflicts in Ukraine or the South China Sea or the Middle East?

    Consider a particularly troubling thought-experiment. Suppose that the proposed nuclear attack on Russia had actually gone ahead, resulting in millions or tens of millions dead from the bombs and worldwide radioactive fallout, perhaps even including a million or more American casualties if the first strike had failed to entirely eliminate all retaliatory capability. Under such a dire scenario, is it not likely that every American media organ would have been immediately enlisted to sanitize and justify the terrible events, with virtually no dissent allowed?

    Surely John F. Kennedy would have been enshrined as our most heroic wartime president-greater than Lincoln and FDR combined-the leader who boldly saved the West from an imminent Soviet attack, a catastrophic nuclear Pearl Harbor. How could our government ever admit the truth? Even decades later, this patriotic historical narrative, uniformly endorsed by newspapers, books, films, and television, would have become almost unassailable. Only the most marginal and anti-social individuals would dare to suggest that

    [Aug 15, 2016] The True Story Of How War Broke Out In Syria

    Notable quotes:
    "... The CIA agents running the Deraa operation from their office in Jordan had already provided the weapons and cash needed to fuel the flames of revolution in Syria. With enough money and weapons, you can start a revolution anywhere in the world. ..."
    "... In reality, the uprising in Deraa in March 2011 was not fueled by graffiti written by teenagers, and there were no disgruntled parents demanding their children to be freed. This was part of the Hollywood style script written by skilled CIA agents, who had been given a mission: to destroy Syria for the purpose of regime change. Deraa was only Act 1: Scene 1. ..."
    "... The Libyans stockpiled weapons at the Omari Mosque well before any rumor spread about teenagers arrested for graffiti. The cleric, visually impaired and elderly, was unaware of the situation inside his Mosque, or of the foreign infiltrators in his midst. ..."
    "... The weapons came into Deraa from the CIA office in Jordan. The US government has close ties to the King of Jordan. Jordan is 98% Palestinian, and yet has a long lasting peace treaty with Israel, despite the fact that 5 million of the Jordanian citizen's relatives next door in Occupied Palestine are denied any form of human rights. ..."
    "... However, the US strategy was to create a "New Middle East", which would do away with safety in Syria; through the ensuing tornado, aka 'winds of change'. ..."
    "... Tunisia, Libya, Egypt and then Syria were the stepping stones in the garden of the "Arab Spring". But, the scenario in the Syrian mission did not stay on script. It went over deadline and over budget. The final credits have yet to be rolled, and the curtain has yet to fall on the stage. ..."
    "... Syrians were wondering how Western writers could take the side of the terrorists who were foreigners, following Radical Islam and attacking any unarmed civilian who tried to defend their home and family. The media was portraying the terrorists as freedom fighters and heroes of democracy, while they were raping, looting, maiming, kidnapping for ransom and murdering unarmed civilians who had not read the script before the shooting began in Deraa. ..."
    "... Deraa was the opening act of tragic epic which has yet to conclude. The cleric who was a key character in the beginning scenes, Sheikh Sayasneh, was first put under house arrest, and then he was smuggled out to Amman, Jordan in January 2012. He now gives lectures in America near Washington, DC. Just like aspiring actors usually find their way to Hollywood, which is the Mecca of the film industry, Sheikh Sayasneh found his way to the Mecca of all regime change projects. ..."
    Zero Hedge
    Submitted by Steven Sahiounie via American Herald Tribune,

    The day before September 11, 2001 was like any normal day in New York City. September 10, 2001 was unaware of the earthshaking events which would happen the next day.

    Similarly, one might think the day before the violence broke out in Deraa, Syria in March 2011 would have been an uneventful day, unaware of the uprising about to begin.

    But, that was not the case. Deraa was teaming with activity and foreign visitors to Syria well before the staged uprising began its opening act.

    The Omari Mosque was the scene of backstage preparations, costume changes and rehearsals. The Libyan terrorists, fresh from the battlefield of the US-NATO regime change attack on Libya, were in Deraa well ahead of the March 2011 uprising violence. The cleric of the Omari Mosque was Sheikh Ahmad al Sayasneh . He was an older man with a severe eye problem, which caused him to wear special dark glasses, and severely hampered his vision. He was not only visually impaired, but light sensitive as well, which caused him to be indoors as much as possible and often isolated. He was accustomed to judging the people he talked with by their accent and voice. The Deraa accent is distinctive. All of the men attending the Omari Mosque were local men, all with the common Deraa accent. However, the visitors from Libya did not make themselves known to the cleric, as that would blow their cover. Instead, they worked with local men; a few key players who they worked to make their partners and confidants. The participation of local Muslim Brotherhood followers, who would assist the foreign Libyan mercenaries/terrorists, was an essential part of the CIA plan, which was well scripted and directed from Jordan.

    Enlisting the aid and cooperation of local followers of Salafism allowed the Libyans to move in Deraa without attracting any suspicion. The local men were the 'front' for the operation.

    The CIA agents running the Deraa operation from their office in Jordan had already provided the weapons and cash needed to fuel the flames of revolution in Syria. With enough money and weapons, you can start a revolution anywhere in the world.

    In reality, the uprising in Deraa in March 2011 was not fueled by graffiti written by teenagers, and there were no disgruntled parents demanding their children to be freed. This was part of the Hollywood style script written by skilled CIA agents, who had been given a mission: to destroy Syria for the purpose of regime change. Deraa was only Act 1: Scene 1.

    The fact that those so-called teenaged graffiti artists and their parents have never been found, never named, and never pictured is the first clue that their identity is cloaked in darkness.

    In any uprising there needs to be grassroots support. Usually, there is a situation which arises, and protesters take to the streets. The security teams step in to keep the peace and clear the streets and if there is a 'brutal crackdown' the otherwise 'peaceful protesters' will react with indignation, and feeling oppressed and wronged, the numbers in the streets will swell. This is the point where the street protests can take two directions: the protesters will back down and go home, or the protesters can react with violence, which then will be met with violence from the security teams, and this sets the stage for a full blown uprising.

    The staged uprising in Deraa had some locals in the street who were unaware of their participation in a CIA-Hollywood production. They were the unpaid extras in the scene about to be shot. These unaware extras had grievances, perhaps lasting a generation or more, and perhaps rooted in Wahhabism, which is a political ideology exported globally by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the Royal family and their paid officials.

    The Libyans stockpiled weapons at the Omari Mosque well before any rumor spread about teenagers arrested for graffiti. The cleric, visually impaired and elderly, was unaware of the situation inside his Mosque, or of the foreign infiltrators in his midst.

    The weapons came into Deraa from the CIA office in Jordan. The US government has close ties to the King of Jordan. Jordan is 98% Palestinian, and yet has a long lasting peace treaty with Israel, despite the fact that 5 million of the Jordanian citizen's relatives next door in Occupied Palestine are denied any form of human rights. The King of Jordan has to do a daily high-wire balancing act between his citizens, the peace and safety in his country and America's interests and projects in the Middle East. King Abdullah is not only a tight-rope walker, but a juggler at the same time, and all of this pressure on him must be enormous for him, and Queen Rania, who is herself Palestinian. These facts must be viewed in the forefront of the background painted scenery of The Syrian Arab Republic, which has for the last 40 years had a cornerstone of domestic and foreign policy carved and set in the principle of Palestinian human rights and Palestinian freedom and justice.

    The US policy to attack Syria for the purpose of regime change was not just about the gas lines, the oil wells, the strategic location and the gold: but it was about crushing that cornerstone of Palestinian rights into dust. To get rid of President Bashar al Assad was to get rid of one of the few Arab leaders who are an unwavering voice of Palestinian rights.

    Deraa's location directly on the Jordanian border is the sole reason it was picked for the location-shoot of the opening act of the Syrian uprising. If you were to ask most Syrians, if they had ever been to Derra, or ever plan to go, they will answer, "No." It is a small and insignificant agricultural town. It is a very unlikely place to begin a nationwide revolution. Deraa has a historical importance because of archeological ruins, but that is lost on anyone other than history professors or archeologists. The access to the weapons from Jordan made Deraa the perfect place to stage the uprising which has turned into an international war. Any person with common sense would assume an uprising or revolution in Syria would begin in Damascus or Aleppo, the two biggest cities. Even after 2 ½ years of violence around the country, Aleppo's population never participated in the uprising, or call for regime change.

    Aleppo: the large industrial powerhouse of Syria wanted nothing to do with the CIA mission, and felt that by staying clear of any participation they could be spared and eventually the violence would die out, a natural death due to lack of participation of the civilians. However, this was not to play out for Aleppo. Instead, the US supported Free Syrian Army, who were mainly from Idlib and the surrounding areas, invited in their foreign partners, and they came pouring into Aleppo from Turkey, where they had taken Turkish Airlines flights from Afghanistan, Europe, Australia and North Africa landing in Istanbul, and then transported by buses owned by the Turkish government to the Turkey-Aleppo border. The airline tickets, buses, paychecks, supplies, food, and medical needs were all supplied in Turkey by an official from Saudi Arabia. The weapons were all supplied by the United States of America, from their warehouse at the dock of Benghazi, Libya. The US-NATO regime change mission had ended in success in Libya, with America having taken possession of all the weapons and stockpiles formerly the property of the Libyan government, including tons of gold bullion taken by the US government from the Central Bank of Libya.

    Enter the Libyans stage right. Mehdi al Harati, the Libyan with an Irish passport, was put in charge of a Brigade of terrorists working under the pay and direction of the CIA in Libya. Once his fighting subsided there, he was moved to Northern Syria, in the Idlib area, which was the base of operation for the American backed Free Syrian Army, who Republican Senator John McCain lobbied for in the US Congress, and personally visited, illegally entering Syria without any passport or border controls. In Arizona, Sen. McCain is in favor of deporting any illegal alien entering USA, but he himself broke international law by entering Syria as an illegal and undocumented alien. However, he was in the company of trusted friends and associates, the Free Syrian Army: the same men who beheaded Christians and Muslims, raped females and children of both sexes, sold girls as sex slaves in Turkey, and ate the raw liver of a man, which they proudly videoed and uploaded.

    Previously, Syria did not have any Al Qaeda terrorists, and had passed through the war in neighboring Iraq none the worse for wear, except having accepted 2 million Iraqis as refugee guests. Shortly before the Deraa staged uprising began, Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie were in Damascus and being driven around by the President and First Lady. Pitt and Jolie had come to visit and support the Iraqi war refugees in Damascus. Brad Pitt was amazed that the Syrian President would drive him around personally, and without any body guards or security detail. Pitt and Jolie were used to their own heavy security team in USA. Pres. Assad explained that he and his wife were comfortable in Damascus, knowing that it was a safe place. Indeed, the association of French travel agents had deemed Syria as the safest tourist destination in the entire Mediterranean region, meaning even safer than France itself.

    However, the US strategy was to create a "New Middle East", which would do away with safety in Syria; through the ensuing tornado, aka 'winds of change'.

    Tunisia, Libya, Egypt and then Syria were the stepping stones in the garden of the "Arab Spring". But, the scenario in the Syrian mission did not stay on script. It went over deadline and over budget. The final credits have yet to be rolled, and the curtain has yet to fall on the stage.

    We can't under estimate the role that mainstream media had to play in the destruction of Syria. For example, Al Jazeera's Rula Amin was in Deraa and personally interviewed the cleric Sayasneh at the Omari Mosque. Al Jazeera is the state owned and operated media for the Prince of Qatar. The Prince of Qatar was one of the key funders of the terrorists attacking Syria. The USA was sending the weapons, supplies and providing military satellite imagery, however the cash to make payroll, to pay out bribes in Turkey, and all other expenses which needed cold cash in hand was being paid out by the Prince of Qatar and the King of Saudi Arabia, who were playing their roles as closest Middle East allies of the United States of America. This was a production team between USA, EU, NATO, Turkey, Jordan, Israel and the Persian Gulf Arab monarchies of Saudi Arabia and Qatar primarily. The CIA has no problem with covert operations in foreign countries, and even full scale attacks, but the matter of funding needs to come from a foreign country, because the American voters don't care about killing people in Syria, but they would never agree to pay for it. As long as the Arabs were paying for the project, that was OK by Mr. John Q. Public, who probably was not able to find Syria on a map anyway.

    Rula Amin and others of the Al Jazeera staff, and including the American CNN, the British BBC and the French France24 all began deliberate political propaganda campaign against the Syrian government and the Syrian people who were suffering from the death and destruction brought on by the terrorists who were pretending to be players in a local uprising. Some days, the scripts were so similar that you would have guessed they were all written in the same hotel room in Beirut. Onto the stage stepped the online media personalities of Robert Fisk, from his vantage point in Beirut and Joshua Landis from his perch in Oklahoma. These 2 men, sitting so far removed from the actual events, pretended to know everything going on in Syria. British and American readers were swayed by their deliberate one-sided explanations, while the actual Syrians living inside Syria, who read in English online, were baffled.

    Syrians were wondering how Western writers could take the side of the terrorists who were foreigners, following Radical Islam and attacking any unarmed civilian who tried to defend their home and family. The media was portraying the terrorists as freedom fighters and heroes of democracy, while they were raping, looting, maiming, kidnapping for ransom and murdering unarmed civilians who had not read the script before the shooting began in Deraa.

    There was one global movie trailer, and it was a low budget cell phone video which went viral around the world, and it sold the viewers on the idea of Syria being in the beginning of a dramatic fight for freedom, justice and the American way. From the very beginning, Al Jazeera and all the rest of the media were paying $100.00 to any amateur video shot in Syria. A whole new cottage industry sprang up in Syria, with directors and actors all hungry for the spotlight and fame. Authenticity was not questioned; the media just wanted content which supported their propaganda campaign in Syria.

    Deraa was the opening act of tragic epic which has yet to conclude. The cleric who was a key character in the beginning scenes, Sheikh Sayasneh, was first put under house arrest, and then he was smuggled out to Amman, Jordan in January 2012. He now gives lectures in America near Washington, DC. Just like aspiring actors usually find their way to Hollywood, which is the Mecca of the film industry, Sheikh Sayasneh found his way to the Mecca of all regime change projects.

    [Aug 15, 2016] Putin-Erdogan Meeting a Dud No Common Ground on Syria

    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    naked capitalism

    PERIES: Ok. And, John, give us a sense of what Russia's interests are in this meeting. I mean, although it was downplayed, they did have the meeting with Erdogan, and they were the first to acknowledge and provide some support to Erdogan after the coup. We know that–

    HELMER: –No support. No, no, that's not quite right. Russian policy is for stability on its borders, its neighbors. Russia does not consider its national interests, its security interests, its border stability, to be advanced if there are coups and revolutions in countries around the neighborhood, whether that's Ukraine, the US did sponsor a coup in Kiev in February 2014, whether it's in Iran, whether it's in North Korea, whether it's in China, or whether it's in Turkey. So the Russian position was, stability in the neighborhood. The Russian position was Mr. Erdogan is the elected, constitutional leader of that country, and what was happening was an attempt to kill him, overthrow him, so Russia's position was stability in the neighborhood. That was the Russian position. It was stated rather quicker than Mr. Kerry was capable of stating it when he was trying to put some money on whoever was the winner and wasn't sure who would be the winner.

    But the Russian position is really simple. It's good neighbor policy if you like, but let me try and make it quick and short for you. First, Turkey should stop supporting and fueling and providing safe haven and supplies for groups that threaten Russia to the North, threaten Syria to the south. Threaten Iraq to the east. That means and end to support for ISIS, an end to support for the Chechen Rebellion in the Russian Caucasus. It means an end to support for Crimean Tatar opposition to Russia. It means an end Turkish support for the war against Armenia. That's number one. Number two, Russia has always for the last several hundred years, as long as there are ships, and as long as there's the sea, Russia wants free passage through the so-called Turkish straits, between the Black Sea, the Aegean Sea, and the Mediterranean. The Turks claim that it's a territorial war, they often claim that they lost several wars over this. Russia wants to see no expansion of NATO or enemy operations, naval operations, in the Black Sea, facilitated through the Bosphorus, through the Dardanelles, through the Turkish straits, at the behest and at the permission and the encouragement of the Turkish government. Those are security issues, right? No response from Erdogan. In fact, he said at the press conference, we didn't even talk about Syria, we'll talk about that a bit later in the afternoon. But as for that meeting, there is no record that anything was said, because as I said before the Russian Foreign Ministry has yet to acknowledge there was such a meeting. More important, on the [crosstalk] morning on the day Erdogan– HELMER: Well, let me go back a minute. On the morning of Erdogan's arrival in Saint Petersburg, there is a 30 minute interview that he gave to Russian state television, to the Tass News Agency, which he made a number of statements which he didn't repeat in his press conference. He called again for the overthrow of Bashar al-Assad. He again explicitly referred to support for the Crimean Tatars and their opposition to Crimea's accession, to the Russian Federation.

    Those are two very big no-no's, negatives. Aggressive remarks to make on the eve of your arrival in Russia, so that there was nothing left to discuss when he got there. Instead there's a lot of talk about talking.

    A lot of talk about talking about the future economic relations between the two countries. The revival of the two gas pipeline projects, the Turkish Stream and South Stream for Gazprom. The revival of the nuclear reactor project, which is Russia's building at Akkuyu. Talk about reviving investment, talk about improving visa conditions for Turkish workers in Russia.

    On none of those things, none of those things was any agreement announced. All the sides did, all the presidents said at their press conference was that they agreed to continue talking. And for all Mr. Erdogan's dear friend Putin remark he kept making roughly, I timed him, every three to four minutes of the time he's in front of the camera, nobody believes it. And he didn't offer anything on which the Russian side could say we've reached a new stage.

    He did, yes he apologized for the shoot down of the SU24, but he did not offer Turkish compensation for the murdered pilot, Captain Peshkov. It was very clear Russian policy that Turkey should pay compensation, just as it's been Turkish policy that Israel should pay compensation for the killing of Turkish citizens in the famous vessel incident off the Gaza coast several years ago. Turkey insisted on compensation from Israel. It took years, it's been achieved. Yet Turkey offers no compensation when Russia has insisted, on little issues, on big issues, Erdogan offered nothing.

    PERIES: And John, what now? In terms of moving forward with these two countries who are very pivotal and very strategically located in terms of the Syrian conflict.

    HELMER: Well, I wouldn't say that the direction is forward. From a Greek point of view, there is increasing chaos. From a Greek and Cyprian point of view, there is increasing chaos in Turkey, and around Turkey. And from one point of view, that's a small positive because it makes the Turkish army less capable of expanding aggressively east, south, or west.

    There is not improvement on Turkey's readiness to reach a solution for the withdrawal of troops from Northern Cyprus, illegally there since the invasion of '74. There is no sign that Turkey will relent in its support for the overthrow of Syria. There is no sign that Turkey will do anything to remove the Chechen threat to Russia inside Turkey, so we're going to move sideways.

    We're going to move, we will simply watch and see if Mr. Erdogan himself can survive. But the way he describes his survival is that he's the democratic leader of Turkey, well that's true.

    He produces these street displays of public support, and at the same time he distrusts his own military forces so much that he not only purges the general, generals staff, he couldn't bring a military officer in his delegation to Moscow yesterday. Not one military officer does Mr. Erdogan trust enough to bring to the party in Moscow. Sorry, in St. Petersburg. The chief of the Russian General Staff was there but no Turkish counterpart officer. Steve H. , August 14, 2016 at 10:27 am

    Instability seems to be the best description. Erdogan has so many horses attached to his cart it's hard to see what he wants. Beyond the billions stashed in the walls of his estates; I think it was Russia that released the phone calls with his son talking about moving the cash.

    We know he wants the cash, but is he an Islamic sultan first, or is his main horse the Turkic language group, which pushes into the X-istans to the east? Or is he a Euro, or a Russian lackey?

    Easier to see the view from Russia. No Islamic fundamentalism is a foundation stone. The Kurds have been better friends to Russia on this, and Russia reinforces success . That's close to a deal-killer for Erdogan. But he has to deal with the strategic fact that Russia can control the Black Sea by closing the Bosphorus unilaterally. Assad has managed to keep the same deal with Russia as the Kurds, so far. Erdogan has a lot of enemies to keep close. Does he have any friends?

    RabidGandhi , August 14, 2016 at 12:31 pm

    Funny, it's all speculation but I had the opposite thought.

    Erdogan, allegedly in a position of weakness, runs to Mother Russia for help in his time of need. But as Helmer notes, he brought bupkis to the table: no concessions on Syria, on Chechen seperatist groups, on trade, or even bones of lesser contention like Nato troops in Cyprus or fruit trade. The most obvious conclusion should be that his "failed" trip to Moscow was more signalling than a desperate appeal for help. And at whom is Erdogan's signalling aimed? Well Helmer again tells us: the only ones who think it was a salient rapprochment are the Western Press: yes the same Western Press that are currently hyperventillating that the Russians Are Coming! To wit, if you are Erdogan and you thought Victoria Nuland was going to be the next US Secretary of State, what would be the best way to get the stuff you wanted? Especially when it comes to Cyprus, arms to kill kurds, the overthrow of Assad, leverage with the EU, escalation vs. Iran….

    And on top of this, Erdogan has priors: he used the European press paranoia about immigrants to blackmail Merkl. He shot down a Russian fighter jet to ingratiate himself to Nato. And he's actively re-courting Israel. None of this indicates a realignment toward Russia– in fact his lack of concessions indicates the opposite.

    Like I said, at this point we can only speculate, and I personally lean more to the possibility that Erdogan saw the possibility of the coup happening and realised it could be to his advantage. But if you look at his position before the coup: weak domestically, not fully accepted by the West… and compare that to what he gets from the coup: elimination of enemies in a purge and the ability to use the threat of a Putin-alignment to blackmail the US, I don't see how the self-coup theory has been knocked on the head.

    PlutoniumKun , August 15, 2016 at 9:03 am

    I think your theory is as likely as any. Its very hard to see what Erdogan is doing. I suspects its a situation where he has been too clever by half and has wrapped himself up in knots in his various schemes. But its also possible he is actively trying to create as much ambiguity and uncertainty as possible in order to extract as much as possible from his 'allies'.

    Jagger , August 14, 2016 at 10:54 am

    Seems Erdogan is playing hard ball negotiations. Hopes Russia needs him more than Turkey needs Russia. And certainly he is doing the same with the EU. Undoubtedly he is playing both sides against each other for the best deal he can get. Wonder if he is competent enough to play those sort of games with someone like Putin.

    Although an alternative possibility is that Erdogan is completely out of his depth and burning bridges with everyone by making irrational demands on the EU, the US and Russia.

    financial matters , August 15, 2016 at 12:15 am

    Putin seems to be the most rational statesman in all this.

    One of the best things about Trump, I think, is that he realizes this and wants to work with him rather than demonize him in support of imperialistic type goals.

    Edward , August 14, 2016 at 11:49 am

    If Erdogan can pretend to change his Syria policy while not doing so, he can also pretend to not change this policy while doing so. When is he deceitful and when is he honest? We may need more time for Turkey's new policies to become apparent. Does anyone know what policy Gulen or the coup plotters wants toward Syria?

    makerowner , August 14, 2016 at 3:46 pm

    Does anyone know what policy Gulen or the coup plotters wants toward Syria?

    Seems to be about as confused as Erdogan's. This article on his website from 2011 is supportive of regime change, but this article from 2014 suggests that Gülenists within the media and the miltary/police/security organizations are against intervention in Syria.

    Interestingly, this article from 2014 says almost the exact same things as we're seeing today about a Turkish rapprochement with Russia and Iran.

    Synoia , August 14, 2016 at 12:41 pm

    Erodgan wants to be the caliph of the new Ottoman Empire, with the support of the Salafis in Turkey, ISIS (or whatever) and Saudi Arabia.

    As a supplier to ISIS for these reasons, he has no common ground with Russia, who wants an end to Muslim Unrest, because it fuels problems for the Russian like Chechnya, and the other Muslim states along the silk road.

    Russia wants to ensure the Black Sea is no blockaded, because Sevastopol is their warm water port, and has been both very important and controlled by Russia for over 400 years.

    Erdogan, one expects,is hoping for "approval" from the United States to invade Syria to "keep the peace," which would be a great step towards a unified Salafi empire.

    The Middle East was, is, and will be the cockpit of the world for the foreseeable future.

    Before considering events in the Middle East:

    1. Know you history
    2. Know your geography – look at the maps of borders for the last 1,000 years
    3. Analyze ambitions in,and for, the Middle East

    jo6pac , August 14, 2016 at 5:20 pm

    The reset has started small steps but the just same it moving. The Russian tourist are coming back with announcement the airlines are approved to return Turkey.
    http://atimes.com/2016/08/putin-erdogan-have-a-deal-on-syria/

    This opens the door for others, about a month ago the Russians, Iran's, Syrians meet in Russia. They need to put aside their differences because Hillary coming back onto the world stage with every bat-shit-crazy neo-conn at her command. Turkey sees that also. They are all stronger together and throw in China in the back ground and who knows.

    http://atimes.com/2016/08/iran-taps-into-turkish-russian-reset/

    Then again what the hell do I know? Only time will tell.

    different clue , August 14, 2016 at 5:41 pm

    Erdogan awaits the results of America's election. He hopes that Clinton gets elected because Clinton shares Ergogan's goal of toppling Assad in order to install a Jihadi Cannibal Terrorist LiverEater government over all of Syria.

    If Trump defeats Clinton ( unlikely I know), and if Trump then purges hundreds or thousands of pieces of radioactive Clintonite Filth out of the relevant parts of the Administrative Branch of Government ( even unlikelier) such that he can forcibly and semi-violently impose a "peace with Russia" policy upon an unwilling DC FedRegime Government; then Erdogan may eventually give up on getting Trump's support to topple Assad and install a Jihadi Terrorist government. What would Ergogan do then? Where would he turn?

    Roland , August 15, 2016 at 1:47 am

    I think that some of the other commentators here are overly disparaging of Erdogan.

    Erdogan is a skilful and gutsy politician, with a large body of support in his country.

    I mean, for God's sake, we just saw that man totally punk the old-line Kemalists in Turkish officer corps!

    Late last year, despite the Syrian imbroglio and mounting tension with the Kurds, Erdogan won a convincing electoral victory. His party formed an outright parliamentary majority.

    When Erdogan meets Putin, that is a meeting of peers.

    I'll repeat the prediction I have already made a couple of times on this site: Erdogan is stringing Putin along until after the US election.

    By the time Clinton is inaugurated in 2017, Erdogan will have finished purging the suspect elements in the Turkish officer corps. Turkey will then be ready to play an important role in the US-led escalation of the conflict against Syria and Russia.

    But for the next 5-6 months, Erdogan wants to keep relations with Russia from going foul. That way the Russians might not want to make a more intense effort to help the Syrians recapture all of Aleppo.

    It's a tough situation for Putin. If Russia steps up the offensive at Aleppo, it would be easy for Erdogan and Clinton to use that as a pretext for their own escalation. If Putin waits for 2017, Erdogan and Clinton are likely to escalate anyhow–they'll make whatever pretext they need.æ

    Fiver , August 15, 2016 at 4:06 am

    A reasonable argument, but if Putin knows anything, it's that he can't trust Erdogan, no matter what the truth vis a vis US involvement in the coup or who may have tipped off or otherwise saved Erdogan's regime. Erdogan was an utter fool to become involved in Syria, and like the Saudis and Saddam before him, allow his ego to be captured by dreams of wider regional power and influence under US auspices – in exchange, as always, for going to war against a US enemy. Anyone as encumbered as Erdogan is an ally to be kept close enough to be useful, but not within striking distance.

    I think the meeting was likely very serious, and I expect Erdogan and Putin both were looking for something from the other indicating where there might be wiggle room vis a vis what everyone expects is coming under Clinton, but which may already be underway – a major influx of new rebels/ISIS into the fray in Syria amidst escalating calls for direct US intervention as per Libyan version of a 'no-fly zone'.

    Too bad for Turkey. Had they not become involved in this disastrous regime-change operation, Erdogan could've maintained his balancing act with relative ease. The focus of his Government would've been the continued development of what has become a large, dynamic economy capable of playing the role of Bridge from the West to an East that included Russia.

    I don't know how many rabbits can be left in Putin's hat. The US really wants its 30 years of war to transform all the regions attacked back into desert and I really don't expect Putin to go all the way to the wall to stop them. But he does want the world to know what's happening.

    [Aug 15, 2016] The next NeoCon Presidency will produce another neocon disaster

    www.nakedcapitalism.com
    EoinW

    That's a fair assessment. What I wonder is how much Erdogan's Islamic beliefs effect his judgement and how much his wanting to revive the Ottoman Empire effects it. Seems to me that betraying ISIS would have been an easy concession for him to make to Russia. Yet he's still determined to get rid of Assad and anyone who says that supports ISIS because ISIS is the only means of achieving that result. Does Erdogan continue as an ISIS ally because of: 1) ideologically they are two sides of the same coin? 2) The Saudis are sending him money he doesn't want to give up? 3) he wants continued chaos to have the opportunity to take advantage at Syria's or the Kurds expense? 4) he fears the US more than Russia? After all, America destroys countries, Russia uses diplomacy, which is less threatening.

    Could go on endlessly with all these questions. I suspect the easiest conclusion to reach is that Erdogan is biding his time until the US election results. After all, you couldn't have a more starker choice: Clinton and full support for anything anti-Russian or Trump and a healing of relations, in which case being Russia's would be a good thing. I guess the fly in the ointment is a NeoCon Presidency producing another neocon disaster, meaning Russia kicks NATO's butt, including Turkey.

    I can't help but note that what Erodgan offers to each party – Russia, the US and Europe – is negative. Doesn't that make it inevitable he ends up with no friends? For goodness sake, he only runs Turkey – and a divided Turkey! He's a few centuries too late for that to strike any existential fear into his adversaries. Overplaying his hand perhaps?

    likbez

    > I guess the fly in the ointment is a NeoCon Presidency producing another neocon disaster, meaning Russia kicks NATO's butt, including Turkey.

    The next "neocon disaster" is the most probable outcome, but there one a countervailing factor to "new American militarism" (Bacevich) type of adventurism. The idea that the establishing and maintaining the global neoliberal empire by direct interventions is worth the price we pay as it will take the USA into the period of unprecedented peace and prosperity is now discredited. Prosperity is reserved to top one or ten percent and that factor can't be hidden any longer.

    I think the US elite became split and a smaller part of Washington establishment started to understand that the US neocons overextended the country in permanent wars for permanent peace. In wars for extension of the global neoliberal empire. Much like Britain became exhausted from British empire project before.

    It well might be that soon the impoverishment of the population and, especially, lack of job and shirking middle class, become an internal political instability factor that will force some changes.

    With the total surveillance in place the elite has probably pretty decent picture of the mood of the population. And it is definitely not too encouraging for another reckless neocon experiment.

    Also the power of MSM brainwashing started to wear down and neoliberalism as an ideology that keeps the current Washington elite in power is in crisis.

    The USSR crushed approximately in 20 years after the communist ideology became discredited by the inability to raise the standard of living of the population. The same is happening with neoliberalism. If we count from 2008, neoliberalism probably still has another 12 years or three presidential terms. That means that if "this Trump" fails to be elected, the "next Trump" might be much more dangerous for Washington neocons.

    In a way, emergence of Trump is a sign that the elite can't govern the old way and population does not want to live the old way. Degeneration of the US neoliberal elite is another factor. Looks at quality of presidential candidates - Hillary and the bunch of narrow minded fanatics they produced for Republican nomination as well as the level of Washington detachment from reality - "let them eat cakes" stance , Those factors will only increase internal political tension that already demonstrated itself in recent riots.

    Situation with oil is also dangerous. Artificial suppression of oil prices destroys the US oil producers. They probably will manage to keep the prices low in 2016. Then what?

    [Aug 15, 2016] Russia and Putin have been elected the sticks to beat Mr. Trunp with

    Thos pressitute now talking not stop and ties of Trump and Russia. I wonder when rumors about connections of Putin and Melania surface...
    Notable quotes:
    "... The article, very tendentious and rambling in the Post's normal diffuse style, short on facts, continues on page A10, half page above the fold, with the banner headline across the top "Russian meddling in European politics similar to DNC hack." ..."
    "... Then in the Outlook section, page B4, in the continuation of an article about conspiracy theories, there is a large, very unflattering picture of a frowning Mr. Putin, captioned "Is Russian President Vladimir Putin controlling Donald Trump ? That's one conspiracy theory floating around the 2016 campaign." ..."
    "... No doubt much of this is campaign related. Russia/Putin have been elected the sticks to beat Mr. Trunp with. If it continues until the election, however, it's likely public opinion, manufactured though it is, will be receptive to military action against Russia, as Hillary and her likely advisors have hinted openly, in Syria and the Ukraine. ..."
    "... WAPO's anti-Russia/Putin articles are part of this agenda: The New Cold War but this time it's different. ..."
    "... "The new Cold War is even more pointless than the first. Russia was cooperating with the West, and the Russian economy was integrated into the West as a supplier of raw materials. The neoliberal economic policy that Washington convinced the Russian government to implement was designed to keep the Russian economy in the role of supplier of raw materials to the West. Russia expressed no territorial ambitions and spent very little on its military. ..."
    "... The new Cold War is the work of a handful of neoconservative fanatics who believe that History has chosen the US to wield hegemonic power over the world. Some of the neocons are sons of former Trotskyists and have the same romantic notion of world revolution, only this time it is "democratic-capitalist" and not communist. The new Cold War is far more dangerous than the old, because the respective war doctrines of the nuclear powers have changed. The function of nuclear weapons is no longer retaliatory. Mutually Assured Destruction was a guarantee that the weapons would not be used. In the new war doctrine nuclear weapons have been elevated to first-use in a preemptive nuclear attack. Washington first took this step, forcing Russia and China to follow. ..."
    "... Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama regimes have raised tensions dramatically ..."
    "... William Perry, Secretary of Defense in the Clinton regime, recently spoke of the danger of nuclear war being launched by false alarms resulting from such things as faulty computer chips. Fortunately, when such instances occurred in the past, the absence of tension in the relationship between the nuclear powers caused authorities on both sides to disbelieve the false alarms. Today, however, with constant allegations of pending Russian invasions, Putin demonized as "the new Hitler," and the buildup of US and NATO military forces on Russia's borders, a false alarm becomes believable ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org

    Seward | Aug 14, 2016 9:51:01 AM | 5

    For those that haven't seen it, this morning's Sunday Washington Post features several prominent anti-Russia/Putin articles. One page A1, above the fold, is the headline "Russia's tactic's roil Europe", with subordinate headlines "INTERVENTION IN NEIGHBOR'S POLITIC'S" (all caps) and "Kremlin's alleged role in DNC hack is similar. The article, very tendentious and rambling in the Post's normal diffuse style, short on facts, continues on page A10, half page above the fold, with the banner headline across the top "Russian meddling in European politics similar to DNC hack."

    A large picture of Red Square is labeled "The Kremlin is visible to the right of a women looking at her smartphone in Red Square. Russia has tried hard in recent years tout European countries to its side bankrolling the countries extremist political parties and working to fuel a backlash against migrants."

    Below that there's a small picture of Mr. Putin, looking very worried, captioned ""President Vladimir Putin sought to build support for his vision, favoring authoritarian leaders over democratically elected ones." The article says essentially the same thing, in a diffuse, very rambling manner.

    Then in the Outlook section, page B4, in the continuation of an article about conspiracy theories, there is a large, very unflattering picture of a frowning Mr. Putin, captioned "Is Russian President Vladimir Putin controlling Donald Trump ? That's one conspiracy theory floating around the 2016 campaign."

    No doubt much of this is campaign related. Russia/Putin have been elected the sticks to beat Mr. Trunp with. If it continues until the election, however, it's likely public opinion, manufactured though it is, will be receptive to military action against Russia, as Hillary and her likely advisors have hinted openly, in Syria and the Ukraine.

    Mann | Aug 14, 2016 10:19:58 AM | 9

    Seward

    Question that arise, is MSM brainwashed to hate Russia or are they unknowingly spreading propaganda against Russia?

    Anyone want to take a guess?

    virgile | Aug 14, 2016 10:25:40 AM | 10
    Latest Seymour Hersh on Syria and other White House lies
    Can you summarize what is Turkey's role in the ceaseless clash and bloodletting in Syria?

    The Erdogan government was a covert supporter of the ISIS war against the Bashar al-Assad government in Syria for years, rearming ISIS fighters, buying seized Syrian oil from the ISIS at discount prices, and keeping the borders between Turkey and Syria, especially in Hakkari province, open for a steady stream of anti-Assad jihadists from around the world who wanted to join in the war against Syria. There also is evidence that some anti-Syrian factors in the United States have welcomed the Erdogan support or, at the least, looked away when necessary.

    Erdogan's constantly expanding extremism and grab for power was ignored, more or less, by many in the mainstream US media until early this year, and President Obama, for reasons not known, has yet to fully share the intelligence about Erdogan's political and religious obligations with the nation.

    The irony, or tragedy, of Erdogan's move to extremism is that throughout much of the last decade he was seen as being fully in the Ataturk tradition in Turkey -- that of a strong leader with strong religious beliefs who made sure that his nation remained secular. That is no longer true, as the recent coup, and Erdogan's extremist response to it, has made clear. Those called by Erdogan to go to the street and attack the army when the coup began to fail were not fighting in support of democracy, as widely reported at first, but as Islamists fighting a secular military.

    http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/37223-seymour-hersh-on-white-house-lies-about-bin-laden-s-death-pakistan-and-the-syrian-civil-war

    likklemore | Aug 14, 2016 11:04:21 AM | 13
    @ Seward 5

    WAPO's anti-Russia/Putin articles are part of this agenda: The New Cold War but this time it's different.

    Rethinking The Cold War - Paul Craig Roberts

    http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2016/08/11/rethinking-the-cold-war-paul-craig-roberts/

    [.]
    "The new Cold War is even more pointless than the first. Russia was cooperating with the West, and the Russian economy was integrated into the West as a supplier of raw materials. The neoliberal economic policy that Washington convinced the Russian government to implement was designed to keep the Russian economy in the role of supplier of raw materials to the West. Russia expressed no territorial ambitions and spent very little on its military.

    The new Cold War is the work of a handful of neoconservative fanatics who believe that History has chosen the US to wield hegemonic power over the world. Some of the neocons are sons of former Trotskyists and have the same romantic notion of world revolution, only this time it is "democratic-capitalist" and not communist.

    The new Cold War is far more dangerous than the old, because the respective war doctrines of the nuclear powers have changed. The function of nuclear weapons is no longer retaliatory. Mutually Assured Destruction was a guarantee that the weapons would not be used. In the new war doctrine nuclear weapons have been elevated to first-use in a preemptive nuclear attack. Washington first took this step, forcing Russia and China to follow.

    The new Cold War is more dangerous for a second reason. During the first Cold War American presidents focused on reducing tensions between nuclear powers. But the Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama regimes have raised tensions dramatically .

    William Perry, Secretary of Defense in the Clinton regime, recently spoke of the danger of nuclear war being launched by false alarms resulting from such things as faulty computer chips. Fortunately, when such instances occurred in the past, the absence of tension in the relationship between the nuclear powers caused authorities on both sides to disbelieve the false alarms. Today, however, with constant allegations of pending Russian invasions, Putin demonized as "the new Hitler," and the buildup of US and NATO military forces on Russia's borders, a false alarm becomes believable ."[.]

    ~ ~ ~ ~

    It has a great deal to do with keeping the greedy MISC fed and NATO relevant. {MISC -> military industrial surveillance companies}
    Emphasis mine.

    [Aug 15, 2016] Secret Trump voters reverse their support: 'He seems to be insane' by Amber Jamieson

    What about Hillary Clinton my friend ? What a presstitute...
    Notable quotes:
    "... The media are completely biased...And spread utter lies about Trump, while Hillary immediately hires Debbie wasserman Schultz after she resigned in disgrace when exposed by DNC leaks/Europeans as cheating and colluding against another candidate. ..."
    Aug 12, 2016 | theguardian.com

    AhBrightWings 1d ago

    "The media is like an extension of the DNC at this point. They'll intentionally misinterpret or exaggerate anything Trump says to try to help Hillary win the election," said a 50-year-old college professor from California.

    Of all the risible, most easily shucked off charges, this one takes the toupee. You cannot misinterpret or exaggerate this:

    "Barack Hussein Obama is the creator of ISIS. I mean...he's the literal inventor of ISIS."

    Let that treasonous libel stand for the innumerable times Trump has demonstrated that he's a mental dwarf, a vicious idiot, an unhinged loon. And that's calling it like it is, on his express terms.

    This man belongs in one of two cells: a padded one where he can be safe from his own mental illnesses or a prison one for his financial shenanigans, death threats against others, incitement to violence, "cruel and inhumane" abuse of his first wife (the actual charges that stuck, the rape ones were retracted) and treason. I guess money really can buy anything.

    But hell, I'd settle for seeing him safely ensconced in his own Towers. Anywhere but the White House.

    peter nelson -> Ozponerised , 1d ago
    His followers don't feel that way.

    Thete's a certain sort of university-educated, somewhat cosmopolitan person, who probably places a premium on rationality and an expectation that the world works in reasonably orderly manner. And they're not just on the left. They read the newspaper - the Guardian or the Telegraph or the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal. They plan their careers and their retirements.

    And they cannot CONCEIVE of how Trump supporters (or many Brexit supporters) see the world. They don't get it; they can't wrap their heads around the anger and resentment. And they can't believe that that there are tens of MILLIONS of people like that. All of whom will vote.

    Just as we've seen with recent mass shootings, the rational cannot process the IRrational.

    hureharehure, 1d ago

    '. . . he was trying to be distasteful/politically incorrect as usual, which is why I will vote for the man. PC has ventured into thought policing on things, and along with the ultra surveillance state we have moved towards, I don't want to be answering questions by the Gestapo after I text a tacky joke to someone.'

    This amazes me. It shouldn't, as it seems to be a commonly-held sentiment even here, but it amazes me that people like this feel they have such a strong need to say "tacky" - or, more realistically, racist, misogynistic, and xenophobic - things that somehow they stand no chance of being able to continue saying unless an unhinged 70-year old man who is widely denounced for being disreputable is elected to represent them. It just does not add up as a pile of emotions, let alone as part of a political platform. This guy also seems to have such a poor grasp of history and a hysteric sense of melodrama as to believe that someone who criticizes him for making "a tacky joke" (or possibly just makes him feel awkward for having done so?) is the equivalent of "the Gestapo." He's more melodramatic about the reception his jokes might receive than a maladjusted teen who acts out in class.

    Josh Gilman, 1d ago
    I'm a former Democrat...And I'm voting for trump. Hillary Clinton is one of the most blatantly corrupt politician I have ever seen.

    The media are completely biased...And spread utter lies about Trump, while Hillary immediately hires Debbie wasserman Schultz after she resigned in disgrace when exposed by DNC leaks/Europeans as cheating and colluding against another candidate.

    Hillary didn't address this disgusting, illegal, unethical behavior , but she rewards and condones cheating voters with a JOB.

    Unbelievable.

    Josh Gilman -> hureharehure, 1d ago
    Except judge curiel DOES have ties to la raza and and DOES have a conflict of interest in presiding over trump's case.

    /former dem, Hillary is a liar and the fake journalists are letting her get away with it. Democrats have lost all respect

    [Aug 15, 2016] Hillary, Trump, and War with Russia

    www.unz.com

    The Unz Review

    A good reason to vote for Trump, a very good reason whatever his other intentions, is that he does not want a war with Russia. Hillary and her elite ventriloquists threaten just that. Note the anti-Russian hysteria coming from her and her remoras.

    Such a war would be yet another example of the utter control of America by rich insiders. No normal American has anything at all to gain by such a war. And no normal American has the slightest influence over whether such a war takes place, except by voting for Trump. The military has become entirely the plaything of unaccountable elites.

    A martial principle of great wisdom says that military stupidity comes in three grades: Ordinarily stupid; really, really, really stupid; and fighting Russia. Think Charles XII at Poltava, Napoleon after Borodino, Adolf and Kursk.

    Letting dilettantes, grifters, con men, pasty Neocons, bottle-blonde ruins, and corporations decide on war is insane. We have pseudo-masculine dwarves playing with things they do not understand. So far as I am aware, none of these fern-bar Clausewitzes has worn boots, been in a war, seen a war, or faces any chance of being in a war started by themselves. They brought us Iraq, Afghanistan, and Isis, and can't win wars against goatherds with AKs. They are going to fight…Russia?

    A point that the tofu ferocities of New York might bear in mind is that wars seldom turn out as expected, usually with godawful results. We do not know what would happen in a war with Russia. Permit me a tedious catalog to make this point. It is very worth making.

    When Washington pushed the South into the Civil War, it expected a conflict that might be over in twenty-four hours, not four years with as least 650,000 dead. When Germany began WWI, it expected a swift lunge into Paris, not four years of hideously bloody static war followed by unconditional surrender. When the Japanese Army pushed for attacking Pearl, it did not foresee GIs marching in Tokyo and a couple of cities glowing at night. When Hitler invaded Poland, utter defeat and occupation of Germany was not among his war aims. When the US invaded Vietnam, it did not expect to be outfought and outsmarted by a bush-world country. When Russia invaded Afghanistan it did not expect…nor when America invaded Afghanistan, nor when it attacked Iraq, nor….

    Is there a pattern here?

    The standard American approach to war is to underestimate the enemy, overestimate American capacities, and misunderstand the kind of war it enters. This is particularly true when the war is a manhood ritual for masculine inadequates–think Kristol, Podhoretz, Sanders, the whole Neocon milk bar, and that mendacious wreck, Hillary, who has the military grasp of a Shetland pony. If you don't think weak egos and perpetual adolescence have a part in deciding policy, read up on Kaiser Wilhelm.

    Now, if Washington accidentally or otherwise provoked a war with Russia in, say, the Baltics or the Ukraine, and actually used its own forces, where might this lead, given the Pentagon's customary delusional optimism? A very serious possibility is a humiliating American defeat. The US has not faced a real enemy in a long time. In that time the armed forces have been feminized and social-justice warriorified, with countless officials having been appointed by Obama for reasons of race and sex. Training has been watered down to benefit girl soldiers, physical standards lowered, and the ranks of general officers filled with perfumed political princes. Russia is right there at the Baltic borders: location, location, location. Somebody said, "Amateurs think strategy, professionals think logistics." Uh-huh. The Russians are not pansies and they are not primitive.

    What would Washington do, what would New York make Washington do, having been handed its ass in a very public defeat? Huge egos would be in play, the credibility of the whole American empire. Could little Hillary Dillary Pumpkin Pie force NATO into a general war with Russia, or would the Neocons try to go it alone–with other people's lives? (Russia also has borders with Eastern Europe, which connects to Western Europe. Do you suppose the Europeans would think of this?) Would Washington undertake, or try to undertake, the national mobilization that would be necessary to fight Russia in its backyard? Naval war? Nukes in desperation?

    And, since Russia is not going to invade anybody unprovoked, Washington would have to attack. See above, the three forms of military stupidity.

    The same danger exists incidentally with regard to a war with China in the South China Sea. The American Navy hasn't fought a war in seventy years. It doesn't know how well its armament works. The Chinese, who are not fools, have invested in weaponry specifically designed to defeat carrier battle groups. A carrier in smoking ruins would force Washington to start a wider war to save face, with unpredictable results. Can you name one American, other than the elites, who has anything to gain from war with China?

    What has any normal American, as distinct from the elites and various lobbies, gained from any of our wars post Nine-Eleven? Hillary and her Neocon pack have backed all of them.

    It is easy to regard countries as suprahuman beings that think and take decisions and do things. Practically speaking, countries consist of a small number of people, usually men, who make decisions for reasons often selfish, pathologically aggressive, pecuniary, delusional, misinformed, or actually psychopathic in the psychiatric sense. For example, the invasion of Iraq, a disaster, was pushed by the petroleum lobbies to get the oil, the arms lobbies to get contracts, the Jewish lobbies to get bombs dropped on Israel's enemies, the imperialists for empire, and the congenitally combative because that is how they think. Do you see anything in the foregoing that would matter to a normal American? These do not add up to a well-conceived policy. Considerations no better drive the desire to fight Russia or to force it to back down.

    I note, pointlessly, that probably none of America's recent martial catastrophes would have occurred if we still had constitutional government. How many congressmen do you think would vote for a declaration of war if they had to tell their voters that they had just launched, for no reason of importance to Americans, an attack on the homeland of a nuclear power?

    There are lots of reasons not to vote for Clinton and the suppurating corruption she represents. Not letting her owners play with matches rates high among them

    [Aug 15, 2016] US War Crimes or 'Normalized Deviance' by Nicolas J S Davies

    After the dissolution of the USSR the US elute went completely off rails and started to devour not only other countries, but the USA itself. Neoliberals (like Bolsheviks int he past) are cosmopolitan by definition and consider the USA as just a host to implement their plan. They have zero affinity with the common people of the USA. For them they are just tools for creation and maintnace of the global neoliberal empire. So their allegiance is not to the USA but to the global neoliberal empire. It's the same behaviour that characterized Bolsheviks in Russia.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Then, once the Obama administration had massively escalated the CIA's drone program as an alternative to kidnapping and indefinite detention at Guantanamo, it became even harder to acknowledge that this is a policy of cold-blooded murder that provokes widespread anger and hostility and is counter-productive to legitimate counterterrorism goals – or to admit that it violates the U.N. Charter's prohibition on the use of force, as U.N. special rapporteurs on extrajudicial killings have warned . ..."
    "... The deviant U.S. foreign policy bureaucracy has branded the formal rules that are supposed to govern our country's international behavior as "obsolete" and "quaint", as a White House lawyer wrote in 2004 . And yet these are the very rules that past U.S. leaders deemed so vital that they enshrined them in constitutionally binding international treaties and U.S. law. ..."
    "... In 1945, after two world wars killed 100 million people and left much of the world in ruins, the world's governments were shocked into a moment of sanity in which they agreed to settle future international disputes peacefully. The U.N. Charter therefore prohibits the threat or use of force in international relations. ..."
    "... The U.N. Charter's prohibition against the threat or use of force codifies the long-standing prohibition of aggression in English common law and customary international law, and reinforces the renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy in the 1928 Kellogg Briand Pact . The judges at Nuremberg ruled that, even before the U.N. Charter came into effect, aggression was already the "supreme international crime." ..."
    "... No U.S. leader has proposed abolishing or amending the U.N. Charter to permit aggression by the U.S. or any other country. And yet the U.S. is currently conducting ground operations, air strikes or drone strikes in at least seven countries: Afghanistan; Pakistan; Iraq; Syria; Yemen; Somalia; and Libya. U.S. "special operations forces" conduct secret operations in a hundred more . U.S. leaders still openly threaten Iran, despite a diplomatic breakthrough that was supposed to peacefully settle bilateral differences. ..."
    "... Although torture was authorized from the very top of the chain of command, the most senior officer charged with a crime was a Major and the harshest sentence handed down was a five-month prison sentence. ..."
    "... –U.S. rules of engagement in Iraq and Afghanistan have included: systematic, theater-wide use of torture ; orders to "dead-check" or kill wounded enemy combatants; orders to "kill all military-age males" during certain operations; and "weapons-free" zones that mirror Vietnam-era "free-fire" zones. ..."
    "... A U.S. Marine corporal told a court martial that "Marines consider all Iraqi men part of the insurgency", nullifying the critical distinction between combatants and civilians that is the very basis of the Fourth Geneva Convention. ..."
    "... –For the past year, U.S. forces bombing Iraq and Syria have operated under loosened rules of engagement that allow the in-theater commander General McFarland to approve bomb- and missile-strikes that are expected to kill up to 10 civilians each. ..."
    "... Left In The Dark ..."
    "... Nobody was charged over the Ghazi Khan raid in Kunar province on Dec. 26, 2009, in which U.S. special forces summarily executed at least seven children, including four who were only 11 or 12 years old. ..."
    "... More recently, U.S. forces attacked a Doctors Without Borders hospital in Kunduz, killing 42 doctors, staff and patients, but this flagrant violation of Article 18 of the Fourth Geneva Convention did not lead to criminal charges either. ..."
    "... Richard Barnet explored the deviant culture of Vietnam-era U.S. war leaders in his 1972 book Roots Of War ..."
    "... The U.S. role in anti-democratic coups in Iran, Guatemala, the Congo, Brazil, Indonesia, Ghana, Chile and other countries was veiled behind thick layers of secrecy and propaganda. A veneer of legitimacy was still considered vital to U.S. policy, even as a culture of deviance was being normalized and institutionalized beneath the surface. ..."
    "... When Nicaragua asked the U.N. Security Council to enforce the payment of reparations ordered by the court, the U.S. abused its position as a Permanent Member of the Security Council to veto the resolution. Since the 1980s, the U.S. has vetoed twice as many Security Council resolutions as the other Permanent Members combined, and the U.N. General Assembly passed resolutions condemning the U.S. invasions of Grenada (by 108 to 9) and Panama (by 75 to 20), calling the latter "a flagrant violation of international law." ..."
    "... President George H.W. Bush and British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher obtained U.N. authorization for the First Gulf War and resisted calls to launch a war of regime change against Iraq in violation of their U.N. mandate. Their forces massacred Iraqi forces fleeing Kuwait , and a U.N. report described how the "near apocalyptic" U.S.-led bombardment of Iraq reduced what "had been until January a rather highly urbanized and mechanized society" to "a pre-industrial age nation." ..."
    "... Blood On Our Hands: the American Invasion and Destruction of Iraq ..."
    consortiumnews.com
    August 15, 2016 | Consortiumnews

    The U.S. foreign policy establishment and its mainstream media operate with a pervasive set of hypocritical standards that justify war crimes - or what might be called a "normalization of deviance," writes Nicolas J S Davies.

    Sociologist Diane Vaughan coined the term "normalization of deviance" as she was investigating the explosion of the Challenger space shuttle in 1986. She used it to describe how the social culture at NASA fostered a disregard for rigorous, physics-based safety standards, effectively creating new, lower de facto standards that came to govern actual NASA operations and led to catastrophic and deadly failures.

    Vaughan published her findings in her prize-winning book , The Challenger Launch Decision: Risky Technology, Culture and Deviance at NASA , which, in her words, "shows how mistake, mishap, and disaster are socially organized and systematically produced by social structures" and "shifts our attention from individual causal explanations to the structure of power and the power of structure and culture – factors that are difficult to identify and untangle yet have great impact on decision making in organizations."

    President George W. Bush announcing the start of his invasion of Iraq on March 19, 2003.

    When the same pattern of organizational culture and behavior at NASA persisted until the loss of a second shuttle in 2003, Diane Vaughan was appointed to NASA's accident investigation board, which belatedly embraced her conclusion that the "normalization of deviance" was a critical factor in these catastrophic failures.

    The normalization of deviance has since been cited in a wide range of corporate crimes and institutional failures, from Volkswagen's rigging of emissions tests to deadly medical mistakes in hospitals. In fact, the normalization of deviance is an ever-present danger in most of the complex institutions that govern the world we live in today, not least in the bureaucracy that formulates and conducts U.S. foreign policy.

    The normalization of deviance from the rules and standards that formally govern U.S. foreign policy has been quite radical. And yet, as in other cases, this has gradually been accepted as a normal state of affairs, first within the corridors of power, then by the corporate media and eventually by much of the public at large.

    Once deviance has been culturally normalized, as Vaughan found in the shuttle program at NASA, there is no longer any effective check on actions that deviate radically from formal or established standards – in the case of U.S. foreign policy, that would refer to the rules and customs of international law, the checks and balances of our constitutional political system and the experience and evolving practice of generations of statesmen and diplomats.

    Normalizing the Abnormal

    It is in the nature of complex institutions infected by the normalization of deviance that insiders are incentivized to downplay potential problems and to avoid precipitating a reassessment based on previously established standards. Once rules have been breached, decision-makers face a cognitive and ethical conundrum whenever the same issue arises again: they can no longer admit that an action will violate responsible standards without admitting that they have already violated them in the past.

    This is not just a matter of avoiding public embarrassment and political or criminal accountability, but a real instance of collective cognitive dissonance among people who have genuinely, although often self-servingly, embraced a deviant culture. Diane Vaughan has compared the normalization of deviance to an elastic waistband that keeps on stretching.

    At the start of the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, President George W. Bush ordered the U.S. military to conduct a devastating aerial assault on Baghdad, known as "shock and awe."

    Within the high priesthood that now manages U.S. foreign policy, advancement and success are based on conformity with this elastic culture of normalized deviance. Whistle-blowers are punished or even prosecuted, and people who question the prevailing deviant culture are routinely and efficiently marginalized, not promoted to decision-making positions.

    For example, once U.S. officials had accepted the Orwellian "doublethink" that "targeted killings," or "manhunts" as Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld called them, do not violate long-standing prohibitions against assassination , even a new administration could not walk that decision back without forcing a deviant culture to confront the wrong-headedness and illegality of its original decision.

    Then, once the Obama administration had massively escalated the CIA's drone program as an alternative to kidnapping and indefinite detention at Guantanamo, it became even harder to acknowledge that this is a policy of cold-blooded murder that provokes widespread anger and hostility and is counter-productive to legitimate counterterrorism goals – or to admit that it violates the U.N. Charter's prohibition on the use of force, as U.N. special rapporteurs on extrajudicial killings have warned .

    Underlying such decisions is the role of U.S. government lawyers who provide legal cover for them, but who are themselves shielded from accountability by U.S. non-recognition of international courts and the extraordinary deference of U.S. courts to the Executive Branch on matters of "national security." These lawyers enjoy a privilege that is unique in their profession, issuing legal opinions that they will never have to defend before impartial courts to provide legal fig-leaves for war crimes.

    The deviant U.S. foreign policy bureaucracy has branded the formal rules that are supposed to govern our country's international behavior as "obsolete" and "quaint", as a White House lawyer wrote in 2004 . And yet these are the very rules that past U.S. leaders deemed so vital that they enshrined them in constitutionally binding international treaties and U.S. law.

    Let's take a brief look at how the normalization of deviance undermines two of the most critical standards that formally define and legitimize U.S. foreign policy: the U.N. Charter and the Geneva Conventions.

    The United Nations Charter

    In 1945, after two world wars killed 100 million people and left much of the world in ruins, the world's governments were shocked into a moment of sanity in which they agreed to settle future international disputes peacefully. The U.N. Charter therefore prohibits the threat or use of force in international relations.

    As President Franklin Roosevelt told a joint session of Congress on his return from the Yalta conference, this new "permanent structure of peace … should spell the end of the system of unilateral action, the exclusive alliances, the spheres of influence, the balance of power, and all the other expedients that have been tried for centuries – and have always failed."

    The U.N. Charter's prohibition against the threat or use of force codifies the long-standing prohibition of aggression in English common law and customary international law, and reinforces the renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy in the 1928 Kellogg Briand Pact . The judges at Nuremberg ruled that, even before the U.N. Charter came into effect, aggression was already the "supreme international crime."

    No U.S. leader has proposed abolishing or amending the U.N. Charter to permit aggression by the U.S. or any other country. And yet the U.S. is currently conducting ground operations, air strikes or drone strikes in at least seven countries: Afghanistan; Pakistan; Iraq; Syria; Yemen; Somalia; and Libya. U.S. "special operations forces" conduct secret operations in a hundred more . U.S. leaders still openly threaten Iran, despite a diplomatic breakthrough that was supposed to peacefully settle bilateral differences.

    President-in-waiting Hillary Clinton still believes in backing U.S. demands on other countries with illegal threats of force, even though every threat she has backed in the past has only served to create a pretext for war, from Yugoslavia to Iraq to Libya. But the U.N. Charter prohibits the threat as well as the use of force precisely because the one so regularly leads to the other.

    The only justifications for the use of force permitted under the U.N. Charter are proportionate and necessary self-defense or an emergency request by the U.N. Security Council for military action "to restore peace and security." But no other country has attacked the United States, nor has the Security Council asked the U.S. to bomb or invade any of the countries where we are now at war.

    The wars we have launched since 2001 have killed about 2 million people , of whom nearly all were completely innocent of involvement in the crimes of 9/11. Instead of "restoring peace and security," U.S. wars have only plunged country after country into unending violence and chaos.

    Like the specifications ignored by the engineers at NASA, the U.N. Charter is still in force, in black and white, for anyone in the world to read. But the normalization of deviance has replaced its nominally binding rules with looser, vaguer ones that the world's governments and people have neither debated, negotiated nor agreed to.

    In this case, the formal rules being ignored are the ones that were designed to provide a viable framework for the survival of human civilization in the face of the existential threat of modern weapons and warfare – surely the last rules on Earth that should have been quietly swept under a rug in the State Department basement.

    The Geneva Conventions

    Courts martial and investigations by officials and human rights groups have exposed "rules of engagement" issued to U.S. forces that flagrantly violate the Geneva Conventions and the protections they provide to wounded combatants, prisoners of war and civilians in war-torn countries:

    –The Command's Responsibility report by Human Rights First examined 98 deaths in U.S. custody in Iraq and Afghanistan. It revealed a deviant culture in which senior officials abused their authority to block investigations and guarantee their own impunity for murders and torture deaths that U.S. law defines as capital crimes .

    Although torture was authorized from the very top of the chain of command, the most senior officer charged with a crime was a Major and the harshest sentence handed down was a five-month prison sentence.

    –U.S. rules of engagement in Iraq and Afghanistan have included: systematic, theater-wide use of torture ; orders to "dead-check" or kill wounded enemy combatants; orders to "kill all military-age males" during certain operations; and "weapons-free" zones that mirror Vietnam-era "free-fire" zones.

    A U.S. Marine corporal told a court martial that "Marines consider all Iraqi men part of the insurgency", nullifying the critical distinction between combatants and civilians that is the very basis of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

    When junior officers or enlisted troops have been charged with war crimes, they have been exonerated or given light sentences because courts have found that they were acting on orders from more senior officers. But the senior officers implicated in these crimes have been allowed to testify in secret or not to appear in court at all, and no senior officer has been convicted of a war crime.

    • –For the past year, U.S. forces bombing Iraq and Syria have operated under loosened rules of engagement that allow the in-theater commander General McFarland to approve bomb- and missile-strikes that are expected to kill up to 10 civilians each. But Kate Clark of the Afghanistan Analysts Network has documented that U.S. rules of engagement already permit routine targeting of civilians based only on cell-phone records or "guilt by proximity" to other people targeted for assassination. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism has determined that only 4 percent of thousands of drone victims in Pakistan have been positively identified as Al Qaeda members, the nominal targets of the CIA's drone campaign.
    • –Amnesty International's 2014 report Left In The Dark documented a complete lack of accountability for the killing of civilians by U.S. forces in Afghanistan since President Obama's escalation of the war in 2009 unleashed thousands more air strikes and special forces night raids.

    Nobody was charged over the Ghazi Khan raid in Kunar province on Dec. 26, 2009, in which U.S. special forces summarily executed at least seven children, including four who were only 11 or 12 years old.

    More recently, U.S. forces attacked a Doctors Without Borders hospital in Kunduz, killing 42 doctors, staff and patients, but this flagrant violation of Article 18 of the Fourth Geneva Convention did not lead to criminal charges either.

    Although the U.S. government would not dare to formally renounce the Geneva Conventions, the normalization of deviance has effectively replaced them with elastic standards of behavior and accountability whose main purpose is to shield senior U.S. military officers and civilian officials from accountability for war crimes.

    The Cold War and Its Aftermath

    The normalization of deviance in U.S. foreign policy is a byproduct of the disproportionate economic, diplomatic and military power of the United States since 1945. No other country could have got away with such flagrant and systematic violations of international law.

    But in the early days of the Cold War, America's World War II leaders rejected calls to exploit their new-found power and temporary monopoly on nuclear weapons to unleash an aggressive war against the U.S.S.R.

    General Dwight Eisenhower gave a speech in St. Louis in 1947 in which he warned, "Those who measure security solely in terms of offensive capacity distort its meaning and mislead those who pay them heed. No modern nation has ever equaled the crushing offensive power attained by the German war machine in 1939. No modern nation was broken and smashed as was Germany six years later."

    But, as Eisenhower later warned, the Cold War soon gave rise to a "military-industrial complex" that may be the case par excellence of a highly complex tangle of institutions whose social culture is supremely prone to the normalization of deviance. Privately, Eisenhower lamented, "God help this country when someone sits in this chair who doesn't know the military as well as I do."

    That describes everyone who has sat in that chair and tried to manage the U.S. military-industrial complex since 1961, involving critical decisions on war and peace and an ever-growing military budget . Advising the President on these matters are the Vice President, the Secretaries of State and Defense, the Director of National Intelligence, several generals and admirals and the chairs of powerful Congressional committees. Nearly all these officials' careers represent some version of the "revolving door" between the military and "intelligence" bureaucracy, the executive and legislative branches of government, and top jobs with military contractors and lobbying firms.

    Each of the close advisers who have the President's ear on these most critical issues is in turn advised by others who are just as deeply embedded in the military-industrial complex, from think-tanks funded by weapons manufacturers to Members of Congress with military bases or missile plants in their districts to journalists and commentators who market fear, war and militarism to the public.

    With the rise of sanctions and financial warfare as a tool of U.S. power, Wall Street and the Treasury and Commerce Departments are also increasingly entangled in this web of military-industrial interests.

    The incentives driving the creeping, gradual normalization of deviance throughout the ever-growing U.S. military-industrial complex have been powerful and mutually reinforcing for over 70 years, exactly as Eisenhower warned.

    Richard Barnet explored the deviant culture of Vietnam-era U.S. war leaders in his 1972 book Roots Of War . But there are particular reasons why the normalization of deviance in U.S. foreign policy has become even more dangerous since the end of the Cold War.

    In the aftermath of World War II, the U.S. and U.K. installed allied governments in Western and Southern Europe, restored Western colonies in Asia and militarily occupied South Korea . The divisions of Korea and Vietnam into north and south were justified as temporary, but the governments in the south were U.S. creations imposed to prevent reunification under governments allied with the U.S.S.R. or China. U.S. wars in Korea and Vietnam were then justified, legally and politically, as military assistance to allied governments fighting wars of self-defense.

    The U.S. role in anti-democratic coups in Iran, Guatemala, the Congo, Brazil, Indonesia, Ghana, Chile and other countries was veiled behind thick layers of secrecy and propaganda. A veneer of legitimacy was still considered vital to U.S. policy, even as a culture of deviance was being normalized and institutionalized beneath the surface.

    The Reagan Years

    It was not until the 1980s that the U.S. ran seriously afoul of the post-1945 international legal framework it had helped to build. When the U.S. set out to destroy the revolutionary Sandinista government of Nicaragua by mining its harbors and dispatching a mercenary army to terrorize its people, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) convicted the U.S. of aggression and ordered it to pay war reparations.

    The U.S. response revealed how far the normalization of deviance had already taken hold of its foreign policy. Instead of accepting and complying with the court's ruling, the U.S. announced its withdrawal from the binding jurisdiction of the ICJ.

    When Nicaragua asked the U.N. Security Council to enforce the payment of reparations ordered by the court, the U.S. abused its position as a Permanent Member of the Security Council to veto the resolution. Since the 1980s, the U.S. has vetoed twice as many Security Council resolutions as the other Permanent Members combined, and the U.N. General Assembly passed resolutions condemning the U.S. invasions of Grenada (by 108 to 9) and Panama (by 75 to 20), calling the latter "a flagrant violation of international law."

    President George H.W. Bush and British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher obtained U.N. authorization for the First Gulf War and resisted calls to launch a war of regime change against Iraq in violation of their U.N. mandate. Their forces massacred Iraqi forces fleeing Kuwait , and a U.N. report described how the "near apocalyptic" U.S.-led bombardment of Iraq reduced what "had been until January a rather highly urbanized and mechanized society" to "a pre-industrial age nation."

    But new voices began to ask why the U.S. should not exploit its unchallenged post-Cold War military superiority to use force with even less restraint. During the Bush-Clinton transition, Madeleine Albright confronted General Colin Powell over his "Powell doctrine" of limited war, protesting, "What's the point of having this superb military you're always talking about if we can't use it?"

    Public hopes for a "peace dividend" were ultimately trumped by a "power dividend" sought by military-industrial interests. The neoconservatives of the Project for the New American Century led the push for war on Iraq, while "humanitarian interventionists" now use the "soft power" of propaganda to selectively identify and demonize targets for U.S.-led regime change and then justify war under the "responsibility to protect" or other pretexts. U.S. allies (NATO, Israel, the Arab monarchies et al) are exempt from such campaigns, safe within what Amnesty International has labeled an "accountability-free zone."

    Madeleine Albright and her colleagues branded Slobodan Milosevic a "new Hitler" for trying to hold Yugoslavia together, even as they ratcheted up their own genocidal sanctions against Iraq . Ten years after Milosevic died in prison at the Hague, he was posthumously exonerated by an international court.

    In 1999, when U.K. Foreign Secretary Robin Cook told Secretary of State Albright the British government was having trouble "with its lawyers" over NATO plans to attack Yugoslavia without U.N. authorization, Albright told him he should "get new lawyers."

    By the time mass murder struck New York and Washington on September 11, 2001, the normalization of deviance was so firmly rooted in the corridors of power that voices of peace and reason were utterly marginalized.

    Former Nuremberg prosecutor Ben Ferencz told NPR eight days later, "It is never a legitimate response to punish people who are not responsible for the wrong done. … We must make a distinction between punishing the guilty and punishing others. If you simply retaliate en masse by bombing Afghanistan, let us say, or the Taliban, you will kill many people who don't approve of what has happened."

    But from the day of the crime, the war machine was in motion, targeting Iraq as well as Afghanistan.

    The normalization of deviance that promoted war and marginalized reason at that moment of national crisis was not limited to Dick Cheney and his torture-happy acolytes, and so the global war they unleashed in 2001 is still spinning out of control.

    When President Obama was elected in 2008 and awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, few people understood how many of the people and interests shaping his policies were the same people and interests who had shaped President George W. Bush's, nor how deeply they were all steeped in the same deviant culture that had unleashed war, systematic war crimes and intractable violence and chaos upon the world.

    A Sociopathic Culture

    Until the American public, our political representatives and our neighbors around the world can come to grips with the normalization of deviance that is corrupting the conduct of U.S. foreign policy, the existential threats of nuclear war and escalating conventional war will persist and spread.

    President George W. Bush pauses for applause during his State of the Union Address on Jan. 28, 2003, when he made a fraudulent case for invading Iraq. Seated behind him are Vice President Dick Cheney and House Speaker Dennis Hastert. (White House photo)

    This deviant culture is sociopathic in its disregard for the value of human life and for the survival of human life on Earth. The only thing "normal" about it is that it pervades the powerful, entangled institutions that control U.S. foreign policy, rendering them impervious to reason, public accountability or even catastrophic failure.

    The normalization of deviance in U.S. foreign policy is driving a self-fulfilling reduction of our miraculous multicultural world to a "battlefield" or testing-ground for the latest U.S. weapons and geopolitical strategies. There is not yet any countervailing movement powerful or united enough to restore reason, humanity or the rule of law, domestically or internationally, although new political movements in many countries offer viable alternatives to the path we are on.

    As the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists warned when it advanced the hands of the Doomsday Clock to 3 minutes to midnight in 2015, we are living at one of the most dangerous times in human history. The normalization of deviance in U.S. foreign policy lies at the very heart of our predicament.

    Nicolas J S Davies is the author of Blood On Our Hands: the American Invasion and Destruction of Iraq . He also wrote the chapters on "Obama at War" in Grading the 44th President: a Report Card on Barack Obama's First Term as a Progressive Leader.

    [Aug 14, 2016] Alastair Crooke The Scott Horton Show

    scotthorton.org

    Alastair Crooke, a former British diplomat and founder of the Conflicts Forum, discusses how Washington's foreign policy hawks are trying to stall an Obama-Putin agreement on Syria until Hillary Clinton is (presumably) elected so the new Cold War with Russia can proceed unabated.

    [Aug 14, 2016] Morell's claim that Russian President Vladimir Putin is somehow controlling Donald Trump is a claim of a career sycophant pandering to neocon lobby by Ray McGovern

    "For Michael Morell, as with many other CIA careerists, his strongest suit seemed to be pleasing his boss and not antagonizing the White House" His loyalty is to qhoewver occupies White House, not necessarily to the truth. "Morell [was] at the center of two key fiascoes: he "coordinated the CIA review" of Secretary of State Colin Powell's infamous Feb. 5, 2003 address to the United Nations and he served as the regular CIA briefer to President George W. Bush. Putting Access Before Honesty" Rise of Another CIA Yes Man – Consortiumnews
    Notable quotes:
    "... Let the bizarreness of that claim sink in, since it is professionally impossible to recruit an agent who is unwitting of being an agent, since an agent is someone who follows instructions from a control officer. ..."
    "... However, since Morell apparently has no evidence that Trump was "recruited," which would make the Republican presidential nominee essentially a traitor, he throws in the caveat "unwitting." Such an ugly charge is on par with Trump's recent hyperbolic claim that President Obama was the "founder" of ISIS. ..."
    "... Looking back at Morell's record, it was not hard to see all this coming, as Morell rose higher and higher in a system that rewards deserving sycophants. I addressed this five years ago in an article titled "Rise of Another CIA Yes Man." That piece elicited many interesting comments from senior intelligence officers who knew Morell personally; some of those comments are tucked into the end of the article. ..."
    Aug 13, 2016 | Antiwar.com

    As for Morell's claim that Russian President Vladimir Putin is somehow controlling Donald Trump, well, even Charlie Rose had stomach problems with that and with Morell's "explanation." In the Times op-ed, Morell wrote: "In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation."

    Let the bizarreness of that claim sink in, since it is professionally impossible to recruit an agent who is unwitting of being an agent, since an agent is someone who follows instructions from a control officer.

    However, since Morell apparently has no evidence that Trump was "recruited," which would make the Republican presidential nominee essentially a traitor, he throws in the caveat "unwitting." Such an ugly charge is on par with Trump's recent hyperbolic claim that President Obama was the "founder" of ISIS.

    Looking back at Morell's record, it was not hard to see all this coming, as Morell rose higher and higher in a system that rewards deserving sycophants. I addressed this five years ago in an article titled "Rise of Another CIA Yes Man." That piece elicited many interesting comments from senior intelligence officers who knew Morell personally; some of those comments are tucked into the end of the article.

    Read more by Ray McGovern

    Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. He is a 30-year veteran of the CIA and Army intelligence and co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). McGovern served for considerable periods in all four of CIA's main directorates.

    [Aug 14, 2016] In Defense of Trump's Name-Calling by Ted Rall

    Notable quotes:
    "... "She is the one that caused all this problem with her stupid policies," Trump said, referring to Hillary Clinton. "You look at what she did with Libya, what she did with Syria. Look at Egypt, what happened with Egypt, a total mess. She was truly - if not the - one of the worst secretaries of state in the history of the country. She talks about me being dangerous. She's killed hundreds of thousands of people with her stupidity." ..."
    "... Trump is absolutely right. Hillary voted for the invasion of Iraq, which killed a million people. As I've pointed out , it wasn't just an immoral decision - it was a stupid one ..."
    "... As secretary of state, Clinton never met a war she didn't love. Under her watch and following her counsel, the United States armed radical jihadis who are now terrorists , helped topple Moammar Gaddafi , expanded a civil war that has killed hundreds of thousands of Libyans and reduced one of the most advanced nations in Africa into a failed state . Then she turned around and did the same exact thing to Syria. ..."
    "... Psychology Today ..."
    "... Ted Rall , syndicated writer and the cartoonist for ANewDomain.net ..."
    "... is the author of the book " Snowden ," the biography of the NSA whistleblower. ..."
    Dec 15, 2015 | counterpunch.org

    There is, on the other hand, something wonderfully refreshing about Donald Trump's gleeful deployment of the S-word.

    "She is the one that caused all this problem with her stupid policies," Trump said, referring to Hillary Clinton. "You look at what she did with Libya, what she did with Syria. Look at Egypt, what happened with Egypt, a total mess. She was truly - if not the - one of the worst secretaries of state in the history of the country. She talks about me being dangerous. She's killed hundreds of thousands of people with her stupidity."

    Trump is absolutely right. Hillary voted for the invasion of Iraq, which killed a million people. As I've pointed out, it wasn't just an immoral decision - it was a stupid one, since anyone with a half a brain could see at the time that Saddam probably didn't have WMDs, and that Bush's war would be a disaster.

    As secretary of state, Clinton never met a war she didn't love. Under her watch and following her counsel, the United States armed radical jihadis who are now terrorists, helped topple Moammar Gaddafi, expanded a civil war that has killed hundreds of thousands of Libyans and reduced one of the most advanced nations in Africa into a failed state. Then she turned around and did the same exact thing to Syria.

    Stupid.

    Let Hillary's supporters take offense. How is unfair, wrong or intemperate to call out a foreign policy record that fits the dictionary definition of "stupid" - doing the same thing over and over, even though it never works? Stupid is as stupid does. Hillary is stupid, especially on foreign policy, and Trump is right to say so.

    Winner or loser, Trump has done political debate in America a huge favor by freeing "stupid" from the rhetorical prison of words and phrases polite people aren't allowed to use.

    Interestingly, stupid people aren't all losers and losers aren't always stupid in Trumpworld. Hillary Clinton has one hell of a resume, which she has parlayed into a big pile of cash. She is, by Trump standards, a winner (albeit a stupid one). If I met Trump, I'd ask him if a smart person can be a loser (possible example: he called the obviously smart Russell Brand a loser, but also a "dummy").

    Pre-Trump, American politics and culture suffered from a lack of stupid-calling. I am serious.

    "There has been a long tradition of anti-intellectualism in America, unlike most other Western countries," Ray Williams wrote last year in Psychology Today. Insults reflect a society's values. Americans value macho masculinity, good looks and youth, so our top slurs accuse their victims of being effeminate, weak, ugly, fat, old and outdated. In France, where the life of the mind is prized so much that one of the nation's top-rated TV shows featured philosophers and auteurs discussing politics and culture over cigarettes, there are few things worse than being called stupid and having it stick. A society that ranks "stupid" as of its worst insults lets it be known that being smart is at least as important as being tough or hot or buff.

    So, Donald Trump, thanks for dropping those S-bombs.

    Ted Rall, syndicated writer and the cartoonist for ANewDomain.net, is the author of the book "Snowden," the biography of the NSA whistleblower.

    [Aug 14, 2016] Professor Destroys CNN Anchor on Trump and Russia

    Senator Joseph McCarthy shadow in Clinton campaign. Remember the famous phrase Have You No Sense of Decency
    Notable quotes:
    "... Neo McCarthyism witch hunt against Trump instead of debate of a proper national policy is a sign of corrupted neoliberal media. They want the preservation and expantion of thier global empire at any cost for american people. ..."
    "... Reckless branding of Trump as Russian agent is coming from Clinton campaign and it needs to stop ..."
    Aug 05, 2016 | YouTube

    Neo McCarthyism witch hunt against Trump instead of debate of a proper national policy is a sign of corrupted neoliberal media. They want the preservation and expantion of thier global empire at any cost for american people.

    Reckless branding of Trump as Russian agent is coming from Clinton campaign and it needs to stop

    [Aug 14, 2016] That silly that neoliberal MSM claim that in case of DNC hack Russian government hackers did it. And in case of Hillary bathroom server nobody was able to hack it

    Notable quotes:
    "... What struck me in the article was a conflict between attributing the DNC hack and a possible Clinton hack that the authors didn't even attempt to address. They claim analysts are very confident that Russian hackers, working for the government, hacked the DNC. But as to the possibility that anyone hacked Clinton's private server; well, if they did, they would have been way to savvy to leave any traces that they'd done so. A DNC hack; those sloppy Russian government hackers did it. A personal server; a real pro job. ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org
    Piotr Berman | Aug 13, 2016 2:33:04 PM | 72
    What struck me in the article was a conflict between attributing the DNC hack and a possible Clinton hack that the authors didn't even attempt to address. They claim analysts are very confident that Russian hackers, working for the government, hacked the DNC. But as to the possibility that anyone hacked Clinton's private server; well, if they did, they would have been way to savvy to leave any traces that they'd done so. A DNC hack; those sloppy Russian government hackers did it. A personal server; a real pro job.
    IhaveLittleToAdd | Aug 11, 2016 12:00:03 PM | 2

    I actually find it possible, namely that the firewall in DNC was sloppy, and paranoid Hillary had best computer security consultants she could find. Moreover, hers was a small operation and easier to keep secure, unlike DNC with many employees and many interactive activities. I speculate here, but this is plausible.

    ========

    More importantly, was there a public opprobrium, "How did they dare!" about the putative Russian hack? This is actually an interesting angle. Sometimes public suspects that the government is doing illegal stuff in other countries, it is thinly denied (or "our policy is no to comment"), and most of the citizens are glad that our leaders are so resourceful. But the side effect is that this type of activity becomes "normal", and detecting or convincingly suspecting it exits yawning response.

    For example, there were two assassination or "near assassination" attempts on Israeli diplomatic personal and Iran was suspected. "Sure, didn't they have a string of assassination of nuclear assassinations in Tehran? By the way, what is the weather this weekend?" If I recall, Tehran assassinations stopped.

    Similarly, after American cyber-successes, cyber attacks became a new normal.

    [Aug 14, 2016] Mike Morells Kill-Russians Advice

    This is what "New American Militarism" the term coined by Bacevich is about. And it reflect dominance of jingoism among Washington bureaucrats -- war is a source of money and career advancement.
    Notable quotes:
    "... At the Center of the Storm: My Years at the CIA, ..."
    "... he also reveals that Morell "coordinated the CIA review" of Secretary of State Colin Powell's infamous Feb. 5, 2003 speech to the United Nations – a dubious distinction if there ever was one. ..."
    "... The Great War of Our Time ..."
    "... It is sad to have to remind folks almost 14 years later that the "intelligence" was not "mistaken;" it was fraudulent from the get-go. Announcing on June 5, 2008, the bipartisan conclusions from a five-year study by the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sen. Jay Rockefeller described the intelligence conjured up to "justify" war on Iraq as "uncorroborated, contradicted, or even non-existent." ..."
    "... For services rendered, Tenet rescued Morell from the center of the storm, so to speak, sending him to a plum posting in London, leaving the hapless Stu Cohen holding the bag. Cohen had been acting director of the National Intelligence Council and nominal manager of the infamous Oct. 1, 2002 National Intelligence Estimate warning about Iraq's [nonexistent] WMD. ..."
    "... The Great War of Our Time ..."
    "... When the storm subsided, Morell came back from London to bigger and better things. He was appointed the CIA's first associate deputy director from 2006 to 2008, and then director for intelligence until moving up to become CIA's deputy director (and twice acting director) from 2010 until 2013. ..."
    "... Reading his book and watching him respond to those softball pitches from Charlie Rose on Monday, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that glibness, vacuousness and ambition can get you to the very top of US intelligence in the Twenty-first Century – and can also make you a devoted fan of whoever is likely to be the next President. ..."
    "... Let the bizarreness of that claim sink in, since it is professionally impossible to recruit an agent who is unwitting of being an agent, since an agent is someone who follows instructions from a control officer. ..."
    "... However, since Morell apparently has no evidence that Trump was "recruited," which would make the Republican presidential nominee essentially a traitor, he throws in the caveat "unwitting." Such an ugly charge is on par with Trump's recent hyperbolic claim that President Obama was the "founder" of ISIS. ..."
    "... Looking back at Morell's record, it was not hard to see all this coming, as Morell rose higher and higher in a system that rewards deserving sycophants. I addressed this five years ago in an article titled "Rise of Another CIA Yes Man." That piece elicited many interesting comments from senior intelligence officers who knew Morell personally; some of those comments are tucked into the end of the article. ..."
    Aug 13, 2016 | Antiwar.com
    Perhaps former CIA acting director Michael Morell's shamefully provocative rhetoric toward Russia and Iran will prove too unhinged even for Hillary Clinton. It appears equally likely that it will succeed in earning him a senior job in a possible Clinton administration, so it behooves us to have a closer look at Morell's record.

    My initial reaction of disbelief and anger was the same as that of my VIPS colleague, Larry Johnson, and the points Larry made about Morell's behavior in the Benghazi caper, Iran, Syria, needlessly baiting nuclear-armed Russia, and how to put a "scare" into Bashar al-Assad give ample support to Larry's characterization of Morell's comments as "reckless and vapid." What follows is an attempt to round out the picture on the ambitious 57-year-old Morell.

    I suppose we need to start with Morell telling PBS/CBS interviewer Charlie Rose on Aug. 8 that he (Morell) wanted to "make the Iranians pay a price in Syria. … make the Russians pay a price in Syria."

    Rose: "We make them pay the price by killing Russians?"

    Morell: "Yeah."

    Rose: "And killing Iranians?"

    Morell: "Yes … You don't tell the world about it. … But you make sure they know it in Moscow and Tehran."

    You might ask what excellent adventure earned Morell his latest appearance with Charlie Rose? It was a highly unusual Aug. 5 New York Times op-ed titled "I ran the CIA Now I'm Endorsing Hillary Clinton."

    Peabody award winner Rose – having made no secret of how much he admires the glib, smooth-talking Morell – performed true to form. Indeed, he has interviewed him every other month, on average, over the past two years, while Morell has been a national security analyst for CBS.

    This interview, though, is a must for those interested in gauging the caliber of bureaucrats who have bubbled to the top of the CIA since the disastrous tenure of George Tenet (sorry, the interview goes on and on for 46 minutes).

    A Heavy Duty

    Such interviews are a burden for unreconstructed, fact-based analysts of the old school. In a word, they are required to watch them, just as they must plow through the turgid prose of "tell-it-all" memoirs. But due diligence can sometimes harvest an occasional grain of wheat among the chaff.

    For example, George W. Bush's memoir, Decision Points, included a passage the former president seems to have written himself. Was Bush relieved to learn, just 15 months before he left office, the "high-confidence," unanimous judgment of the U.S. intelligence community that Iran had stopped working on a nuclear weapon in 2003 and had not resumed work on such weapons? No way!

    In his memoir, he complains bitterly that this judgment in that key 2007 National Intelligence Estimate "tied my hands on the military side. … After the NIE, how could I possibly explain using the military to destroy the nuclear facilities of a country the intelligence community said had no active nuclear weapons program?" No, I am not making this up. He wrote that.

    In another sometimes inadvertently revealing memoir, At the Center of the Storm: My Years at the CIA, CIA Director George Tenet described Michael Morell, whom he picked to be CIA's briefer of President George W. Bush, in these terms: "Wiry, youthful looking, and extremely bright, Mike speaks in staccato-like bursts that get to the bottom line very quickly. He and George Bush hit it off almost immediately. Mike was the perfect guy for us to have by the commander-in-chief's side."

    Wonder what Morell was telling Bush about those "weapons of mass destruction in Iraq" and the alleged ties between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. Was Morell winking at Bush the same way Tenet winked at the head of British intelligence on July 20, 2002, telling him that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" of invading Iraq?

    High on Morell

    Not surprisingly, Tenet speaks well of his protégé and former executive assistant Morell. But he also reveals that Morell "coordinated the CIA review" of Secretary of State Colin Powell's infamous Feb. 5, 2003 speech to the United Nations – a dubious distinction if there ever was one.

    So Morell reviewed the "intelligence" that went into Powell's thoroughly deceptive account of the Iraqi threat! Powell later called that dramatic speech, which wowed Washington's media and foreign policy elites and was used to browbeat the few remaining dissenters into silence, a "blot" on his record.

    In Morell's own memoir, The Great War of Our Time, Morell apologized to former Secretary of State Powell for the bogus CIA intelligence that found its way into Powell's address. Morell told CBS: "I thought it important to do so because … he went out there and made this case, and we were wrong."

    It is sad to have to remind folks almost 14 years later that the "intelligence" was not "mistaken;" it was fraudulent from the get-go. Announcing on June 5, 2008, the bipartisan conclusions from a five-year study by the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sen. Jay Rockefeller described the intelligence conjured up to "justify" war on Iraq as "uncorroborated, contradicted, or even non-existent."

    It strains credulity beyond the breaking point to think that Michael Morell was unaware of the fraudulent nature of the WMD propaganda campaign. Yet, like all too many others, he kept quiet and got promoted.

    Out of Harm's Way

    For services rendered, Tenet rescued Morell from the center of the storm, so to speak, sending him to a plum posting in London, leaving the hapless Stu Cohen holding the bag. Cohen had been acting director of the National Intelligence Council and nominal manager of the infamous Oct. 1, 2002 National Intelligence Estimate warning about Iraq's [nonexistent] WMD.

    Cohen made a valiant attempt to defend the indefensible in late November 2003, and was still holding out some hope that WMD would be found. He noted, however, "If we eventually are proved wrong – that is, that there were no weapons of mass destruction and the WMD programs were dormant or abandoned – the American people will be told the truth …" And then Stu disappeared into the woodwork.

    In October 2003, the 1,200-member "Iraq Survey Group" commissioned by Tenet to find those elusive WMD in Iraq had already reported that six months of intensive work had turned up no chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. By then, the U.S.-sponsored search for WMD had already cost $300 million, with the final bill expected to top $1 billion.

    In Morell's The Great War of Our Time, he writes, "In the summer of 2003 I became CIA's senior focal point for liaison with the analytic community in the United Kingdom." He notes that one of the "dominant" issues, until he left the U.K. in early 2006, was "Iraq, namely our failure to find weapons of mass destruction." (It was a PR problem; Prime Minister Tony Blair and Morell's opposite numbers in British intelligence were fully complicit in the "dodgy-dossier" type of intelligence.)

    When the storm subsided, Morell came back from London to bigger and better things. He was appointed the CIA's first associate deputy director from 2006 to 2008, and then director for intelligence until moving up to become CIA's deputy director (and twice acting director) from 2010 until 2013.

    Reading his book and watching him respond to those softball pitches from Charlie Rose on Monday, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that glibness, vacuousness and ambition can get you to the very top of US intelligence in the Twenty-first Century – and can also make you a devoted fan of whoever is likely to be the next President.

    ... ... ...

    As for Morell's claim that Russian President Vladimir Putin is somehow controlling Donald Trump, well, even Charlie Rose had stomach problems with that and with Morell's "explanation." In the Times op-ed, Morell wrote: "In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation."

    Let the bizarreness of that claim sink in, since it is professionally impossible to recruit an agent who is unwitting of being an agent, since an agent is someone who follows instructions from a control officer.

    However, since Morell apparently has no evidence that Trump was "recruited," which would make the Republican presidential nominee essentially a traitor, he throws in the caveat "unwitting." Such an ugly charge is on par with Trump's recent hyperbolic claim that President Obama was the "founder" of ISIS.

    Looking back at Morell's record, it was not hard to see all this coming, as Morell rose higher and higher in a system that rewards deserving sycophants. I addressed this five years ago in an article titled "Rise of Another CIA Yes Man." That piece elicited many interesting comments from senior intelligence officers who knew Morell personally; some of those comments are tucked into the end of the article.

    Read more by Ray McGovern

    Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. He is a 30-year veteran of the CIA and Army intelligence and co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). McGovern served for considerable periods in all four of CIA's main directorates.

    [Aug 14, 2016] Trump Apologizes, Wins Over Critics by Timothy Braatz

    Notable quotes:
    "... Washington Post, ..."
    "... Former CIA director Michael Hayden chimed in, "You aren't just responsible for what you say; you're responsible for what people hear." ..."
    www.counterpunch.org

    On Thursday, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump apologized for comments that have been widely construed as calling for the assassination of Hillary Clinton. "I apologize," Mr. Trump said, clearly struggling with the second word as he addressed supporters at a campaign event in Philadelphia. "I misspoke, okay? It happens. Get over it."

    On Tuesday, Mr. Trump had warned supporters, "If she gets to pick her judges-nothing you can do, folks. Although, the Second Amendment people-maybe there is, I don't know."

    Speaking on CNN later that day, campaign spokesperson Katrina Pierson insisted that Trump meant "that people that support their Second Amendment rights need to come together and get out and stop Hillary Clinton from winning in November." When it was pointed out that Trump was referring to what might happen after the election, Ms. Pierson explained, "He was saying what could happen. He doesn't want that to happen."

    The Clinton campaign, many in the media, and even prominent Republicans rejected this interpretation. Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook said, "This is simple-what Trump is saying is dangerous. A person seeking to be the president of the United States should not suggest violence in any way."

    Clinton's running mate, Tim Kaine, told reporters after an event in Texas, "Nobody who is seeking a leadership position, especially the presidency, the leadership of the country, should do anything to countenance violence."

    Dan Rather, the former CBS news anchor, posted in Facebook that Trump "crossed a line with dangerous potential. By any objective analysis, this is a new low and unprecedented in the history of American presidential politics."

    Writing in the Washington Post, Joe Scarborough, former Republican congressman and current host of the MSNBC show "Morning Joe," called for "every Republican leader" to denounce Trump's assassination suggestion and revoke their endorsement of the controversial candidate.

    Regarding Trump's comment on the Second Amendment, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) said, "I don't believe this to be a serious statement." But Sessions added, "You absolutely shouldn't joke about it. It's contrary to what we believe in."

    Former CIA director Michael Hayden chimed in, "You aren't just responsible for what you say; you're responsible for what people hear."

    With his poll numbers plummeting, Trump was in full damage-control mode in Philadelphia. After apologizing for his misstatement, he went on to say, "I'm a truth-teller. All I do is tell the truth. But some people-some people misinterpret me. On purpose, on accident, I don't know. I was not calling for the assassination of Hillary. Please. I'm not a violent person. Never. Never violent. My friends can tell you. What I meant to call for was the assassination of terrorists or potential terrorists, okay? And there are lots of them, people, I'm telling you, in Afghanistan and Iraq and wherever. Men, women, and children. Guns, not guns. Wedding parties. Doesn't matter. Drones would work fine, right?"

    The response was immediate and overwhelmingly positive. President Barack Obama said, "Contrary to my early statement, I now believe that Donald Trump is, indeed, fit to be president of the United States."

    Fifty prominent Republican foreign policy and national security experts-among them Hayden and other veterans of George W. Bush's administration-signed a letter endorsing Trump's candidacy. "Donald Trump is the answer to America's daunting challenges," the letter began, and went on to note that "without a doubt, he possesses the single most important quality required of an individual who aspires to be President and Commander-in-Chief, with command of the U.S. nuclear arsenal."

    Leon Panetta, Obama's former CIA director and Defense Secretary, told the Washington Post, "As I have said on numerous occasions, we need a leader who is strong and decisive, who has the respect of our generals and admirals, and the trust of our troops, especially our Special Forces, who maintain U.S. credibility around the world. I now am comfortable with either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton winning the presidency." At the Democratic National Convention, in July, Panetta had condemned Trump because he "asks our troops to commit war crimes, endorses torture…and praises dictators."

    On his morning show, Scarborough appeared to be reconciling with the Trump campaign. He said, "I've been telling people for years that torture works. I know it works. You know it works. Donald Trump knows it works. This is going to make members of the mainstream media and Democratic Party uncomfortable, but you can make the argument, can't you, that shooting a member of al-Qaeda or ISIS, even a U.S. citizen, causes less pain than waterboarding."

    Nancy Lindborg, president of the U.S. Institute of Peace, issued a statement that said, "While we applaud Mr. Trump's support for measured counterterrorism, we contend that diplomacy, reconciliation, and no-fly zones are also necessary to achieve the U.S. goal of peace in the Middle East and remove Assad from power in Syria."

    Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), who has received criticism for refusing to withdraw his endorsement of Trump, was heard joyfully singing his favorite campaign song, "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran."

    The Clinton campaign, though, remained skeptical of Trump's correction. Mook stated, "Trump has zero foreign policy experience. Only one candidate in this race has the experience, knowledge, temperament, and judgment to call for assassination. Only one of the candidates was in the room when the decision was made to take out Osama bin Laden. Only one candidate has been privy to the president's kill list. And that's Hillary Clinton. The track record is there."

    On his FiveThirtyEight blog, Pollster Nate Silver wrote, "We now anticipate seeing a bump in Trump's numbers, especially among college-educated voters."

    [Aug 14, 2016] Paul Krugman Pieces of Silver

    economistsview.typepad.com
    Economist's View

    David said... For the demented people that say that Trump and Hillary are the same thing, two things:

    1. You're clearly not rational and observing reality, you're reacting out of some sense of immature pique.

    2. Remember Nader and W. Bush. Tell me why Nader giving W. Bush the White was a good thing.

    But the real reason to fear Trump is not Trump. Trump is the Republican base, but he has little skills as a politician. The next Trump will be more to right, more resentful, more white nationalist, and possibly more dangerous.

    The real danger to our democracy, sadly enough, is the Republican bigoted base.

    Don't believe me? Check the comments of right wing websites. It's there in plain sight. Reply Friday, August 12, 2016 at 01:11 PM likbez said in reply to David ... The vote will be not "for" Hillary or Trump.
    The vote will be against Hillary or Trump.

    As Hillary is a war criminal by Nuremberg trial standards she is like Kelvin absolute zero in evilness. You just can't be more evil.

    Can any intelligent person vote for her ? Reply Sunday, August 14, 2016 at 03:59 PM Peter K. said... The neoliberal totebaggers have given us a world of slow growth and increasing anger and unrest.

    Brexit. Trump. Sanders. Corbyn. Etc.

    I think they somehow feel if they can just make to the finish line and elect Hillary things will be fine.

    I am hoping Trump loses by a record margin. I hope the GOP suffers badly.

    Then the totebaggers will gloat but their problems will just have started. The DNC email leaks show the problem. It wasn't just a a few bad apples. They were doing their job. It's who the totebaggers are. Like PGL. Like Sanjait. It's like the Blairites trying unsuccessfully to limit the vote in the Labour leadership election.

    Hillary was bragging about how she received an average donation of $44 in recent months.

    She's just copying Sanders, stealing his mojo.

    I dont' think Sanjait is going to enjoy the coming revolution.

    Nor will totebagger trash like PGL. He'll try to divert the discussion with stuff like Gerald Friedman whose analysis the Sanders campaign didn't even commission.

    But it's easy to see through his BS. It's sad, really.

    [Aug 14, 2016] I have trouble believing that the GOP elite and pundit's horror regarding Trump is really about what he says or what policies he proposes.

    Notable quotes:
    "... I have trouble believing that the GOP elite and pundit's horror regarding Trump is really about what he says or what policies he proposes. These are the same people who embraced Palin (and many other conspicuously terrible candidates) after all. I suspect their real problem with him is that he got the nomination without having to successfully pass through their approval process. ..."
    "... They simply become apoplectic at the prospect of the great unwashed succeeding in getting the candidate they want rather than the one that's the overlord's choice ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    RMO , August 13, 2016 at 2:11 am

    I have trouble believing that the GOP elite and pundit's horror regarding Trump is really about what he says or what policies he proposes. These are the same people who embraced Palin (and many other conspicuously terrible candidates) after all. I suspect their real problem with him is that he got the nomination without having to successfully pass through their approval process.

    They simply become apoplectic at the prospect of the great unwashed succeeding in getting the candidate they want rather than the one that's the overlord's choice.

    Same thing probably goes for Sanders and Corbyn. Sure they really do hate some of their policy positions (fuzzy as they are in Trump's case) but that would seem like it would be of lesser concern to them than anything which would reduce the power they've had to decide who the voters get to choose from.

    [Aug 14, 2016] Isn't it about time for the President to do something to earn that Peace Prize?

    www.counterpunch.org
    As the current US President and Nobel Peace Prize winner prepares to leave office with a record of a Tuesday morning kill list, unconscionable drone attacks on civilians, initiating bombing campaigns where there were none prior to his election and, of course, taunting Russian President Vladimir Putin with unsubstantiated allegations, the US-backed NATO has scheduled AEGIS anti ballistic missile shields to be constructed in Romania and Poland, challenging the integrity of INF Treaty for the first time in almost thirty years.

    In what may shed new light on NATO/US build-up in eastern Europe, Russian Foreign Secretary Sergei Lavrov denied US charges in June, 2015 that Russia had violated the Treaty and that the US had "failed to provide evidence of Russian breaches." Commenting on US plans to deploy land-based missiles in Europe as a possible response to the alleged "Russian aggression" in the Ukraine, Lavrov warned that ''building up militarist rhetoric is absolutely counterproductive and harmful.' Russian Deputy Defense Minister Anatoly Antonov suggested the United States was leveling accusations against Russia in order to justify its own military plans.

    In early August, the US Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration authorized the final development phase (prior to actual production in 2020) of the B61-21 nuclear bomb at a cost of $350 – $450 billion. A thermonuclear weapon with the capability of reaching Europe and Moscow, the B61-21 is part of President Obama's $1 trillion request for modernizing the US aging and outdated nuclear weapon arsenal.

    Isn't it about time for the President to do something to earn that Peace Prize?

    Renee Parsons has been a member of the ACLU's Florida State Board of Directors and president of the ACLU Treasure Coast Chapter. She has been an elected public official in Colorado, an environmental lobbyist and staff member of the US House of Representatives in Washington DC.

    [Aug 14, 2016] Alastair Crooke The Scott Horton Show

    scotthorton.org

    Alastair Crooke, a former British diplomat and founder of the Conflicts Forum, discusses how Washington's foreign policy hawks are trying to stall an Obama-Putin agreement on Syria until Hillary Clinton is (presumably) elected so the new Cold War with Russia can proceed unabated.

    [Aug 14, 2016] The Crack Up Is the Two-Party System Splintering

    Notable quotes:
    "... One good thing that might come out of the fractious primaries, conventions and final election is that the two-party structure that controls the U.S. political system might fracture, if not fragment, into something unanticipated. If so, a new multi-party system might emerge and change the nation's political landscape. ..."
    "... the whole world was watching ..."
    "... David Rosen is the author of Sex, Sin & Subversion: The Transformation of 1950s New York's Forbidden into America's New Normal (Skyhorse, 2015). He can be reached at [email protected] ; check out www.DavidRosenWrites.com . ..."
    www.counterpunch.org
    August 12, 2016

    shutterstock_257693272

    The 2016 presidential election has been a roller-coaster ride with the last two establishment-party candidates, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, shoving and pushing, snapping, slapping and snarling their way to the finish line. How the November election turns out is an open question.

    One good thing that might come out of the fractious primaries, conventions and final election is that the two-party structure that controls the U.S. political system might fracture, if not fragment, into something unanticipated. If so, a new multi-party system might emerge and change the nation's political landscape.

    The election's winner, whether Democrat or Republican, is likely to usher in a period of unexpected instability, even disruption, as the parties seek to regain control over the electoral system, the American voter. They may fail. Both parties are poised for possible break-up, but along very different ideological lines.

    The Republicans have been splintering since the 2010 election when the rightwing Tea Party insurgency captured a significant slice of the Congressional delegation. They ushered in a period of legislative gridlock that has soured the American public on the do-nothing Washington.

    Trump's presidential run has further fragmented traditional Republicans, but in unanticipated ways. Conventional party "moderates" and "conservatives," like Jeb Bush and Ted Cruz, respectively, have been jettisoned. An opportunistic huckster, a 21st century P.T. Barnum, is reconfiguring the party's identity. Many mainstream stalwarts are jumping ship, refusing to support the candidate. Nevertheless, he is appealing to an apparently large and receptive segment of dissatisfied white working- and middle-class males, let alone some of the 1 percent. Whether Trump wins or loses, a very different Republican Party is likely to emerge.

    The Democrats were destabilized by the disruptive 1968 Chicago convention, when the whole world was watching; in the race of the two VPs, Richard Nixon defeated Hubert Humphrey. It collapsed following the '72 election when Nixon routed Sen. George McGovern (SD). Mr. Clinton's victory in '92 reconstituted the party, establishing the formative neo-liberal period of globalization when the U.S. flourished; a Mrs. Clinton victory in 2016 might codify economic and social stagnation, furthering Pres. Obama's new normal to nowhere.

    Bernie Sanders unexpected popular appeal, especially among younger voters, disrupted the Clinton machine's well-scripted plan. The WikiLeak revelations as to the complicity of party officials in attempting to suppress Sanders campaign only confirmed what most people already knew - the game is rigged. In 2016 election's new-speak, all Democrats are "progressives." How long after the truce between Clinton "liberals" and Sanders "radicals" will the progressive fiction of unity prevail?

    Pres. Obama's 2008 campaign was based on the promise of "hope" and, over the last eight years, hope has dissipated from American politics and life. Trump, a masterful fear monger, has caught the spirit of this disillusionment, proclaiming that he alone can "Make American Great America." Clinton champions unity among the nation's divergent populace - whether in terms of racial, class and gender sectors - and has called for a program to stay the course.

    Both candidates - and their respective parties - are sitting on ticking time bombs, of profound economic instability and social insecurity. No one knows what's coming. Most threatening, incipient movements threaten to disrupt the political order. Something altogether new might be in the works.

    * * *

    Today's U.S. political system was fashioned out of numerous incidents of disruption that occurred over the last two centuries. Three factors have driven this disruption - internal party splits, third-party alternatives and charismatic insurgents. Each disruptive episode is uniquely distinct and offers valuable insight into the formation of the nation's political culture. The fragmentation that might follow from the 2016 presidential election could prefigure a fundamental realignment of political power in U.S. politics.

    Two of the most consequential political disruptions in U.S. history set the parameters of modern American life. The first involved the collapse of the Whig Party and the rise of the (original) Republican Party of Abraham Lincoln, defining the Civil War era. The second involved Theodore Roosevelt's break with the (modern) Robber-Baron Republicans in the pre-WW-I era that set the stage for the rise of the Progressive movement, followed by the Great Depression, F. D. Roosevelt's New Deal and rise of modern state capitalism.

    Among third-party threats, two stand out. In 1856, the Know-Nothing's American Party backed Millard Fillmore for president and secured nearly 1 million votes, a quarter of all votes cast. A century later, in 1948, racists Southern Democrats launched the "Dixiecrat" that, a quarter-century later, would become part of Nixon's "Southern Strategy" and remake the Republican Party.

    With regard to party fragmentation, two campaign splits stand out. In 1964, many moderate Republicans, including Governors Nelson Rockefeller (NY) and George Romney (MI), opposed conservative Sen. Barry Goldwater's presidential run. In 1972, McGovern's electoral defeat marked the party's near collapse until Clinton's '92 neo-liberal resuscitation.

    Finally, the insurgent Eugene Debs, the nation's leading socialist at the turn of the 20th century, challenged the corporatist political system. He ran for president five times and was sentenced to a 10 years prison term for opposing U. S. entry into WW-I. Ralph Nader continued this tradition, but never – including the 2000 presidential election – achieved the level of support that Debs received.

    * * *

    A possible break-up of the traditional two-party system might involve, for example, the two parties morphing into four parties. In this scenario, each major party would split into two factions, establishment and radical, whether of the left for Democrats or right for Republicans – whatever left and right might mean. These parties will likely include Libertarian and Green parties, but also a host of single-issue, far-left groupings as well as white, Christian nationalist.

    A clock is ticking; the current political system is being squeezed by the demands of a new capitalist global order. In the U.S., how this possible political realignment works out – or if it doesn't – depends on changes in demographics and economics. The changing composition of the American people, of ethnic makeup, age-cohort and social class, is one axis of tension; and the social economy, of wages and growing inequality, is a second.

    The U.S. might well be a "better" - more politically representative - country if it fragments along lines suggested by European democracies. At least more voices would be added to the political mix, thus giving expression to the complexity of the social and economic realignment remaking the nation.

    The great tyranny of American democracy is that the 1 percent continues to rule. The 1 percent wrote the Constitution and, as two leading economists of the colonial economy, Jeffrey Williamson and Peter Lindert, report, "Around 1774, the top one percent of free wealthholders in the thirteen colonies held 12.6 percent of total assets, while the richest ten percent held a little less than half of total assets." Two-centuries later, in 2010, the 1 percent still controls Congress as well as 35 percent of the nation's wealth. It's time for change. Join the debate on Facebook

    David Rosen is the author of Sex, Sin & Subversion: The Transformation of 1950s New York's Forbidden into America's New Normal (Skyhorse, 2015). He can be reached at [email protected]; check out www.DavidRosenWrites.com. More articles by: David Rosen

    [Aug 14, 2016] How can any intelligent person vote for a war criminal ?

    Notable quotes:
    "... I am surprised a that so many commenters leave out the elephant in the root - the fact that by standards of Nuremberg trials Hillary Clinton is a war criminal. ..."
    "... I'll briefly sum up the case by noting again Hillary Clinton, like Bill before her, is a creation of the former Democratic Leadership Council. When the Republicans started their journey to the far right the DLC captured the right of center people. That's the moderate Republican base. That was the answer to the southern strategy. Keep some social progressiveness. Remember GBW's compassionate Republicanism? We're going to get a Republican President, but we're going to make believe that she's a progressive Democrat. ..."
    "... You are absolutely right that Hillary is a moderate Republican in a sheep skin of Democrat. That was Bill Clinton "Third Way" strategy from the very beginning. Essentially selling the Party to Wall Street. This "neoliberalization" of Democratic Party worked extremely well for Democratic brass for almost three decades. ..."
    "... Professor Bacevich had shown that the main driver of the US militarism is neocons domination of the US foreign policy, and, especially, neocons domination in State Department regardless of whether Republicans or Democrats are in power. They profess that the US that is uniquely qualified to take on the worldwide foes of peace and democracy, forgetting, revising, or ignoring the painful lessons of World War II, Vietnam, and Iraq. And that establishing and maintaining the neoliberal empire is worth the price we pay as it will take the USA into the period of unprecedented peace. ..."
    angrybearblog.com
    likbez August 14, 2016 5:44 pm

    I am surprised a that so many commenters leave out the elephant in the root - the fact that by standards of Nuremberg trials Hillary Clinton is a war criminal.

    http://www.voterninja.com/es/uncategorized/hillary-clinton-is-a-war-criminal/

    === quote ===
    Excerpts from a Blog by Roland Vincent

    "Using the standard announced by the justices at the Nuremberg trials of Nazi war criminals in World War II, Hillary Clinton is a war criminal

    Justice Robert Jackson's opening statement to the court is as applicable now as then

    MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: May it please Your Honors:

    http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/nuremberg/Jackson.html​

    Hillary Clinton is certainly not the only one, but she is the only one running for president.

    Equally credible cases can be made against W, Cheney, Rice, and Rumsfeld.

    Each supported an illegal war in which thousands of American lives were sacrificed for Big Oil, and in which hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were murdered.

    Each subscribes to belligerent, interventionist military policy. Each supports an American Empire foreign policy.

    Each supports arming the world. Each supports Israel's occupation and war against the Palestinian people.

    Each supports regime change, by force or stealth, where such will benefit US corporate or military interests. Even at the expense of democratically elected governments.

    == end of quote ===

    How can any intelligent person vote for a war criminal ?

    Jack August 14, 2016 6:27 pm

    Oh no, not another HRC the criminal posts. War criminal in this case. Email fraud previously. Failure of duty in Libya. Oh, remember Vincent Foster. Murder no less.

    Trump is a sociopath and HRC has her delusional detractors. What good do they do? Well they draw attention away from HRC's real worst traits.

    I'll briefly sum up the case by noting again Hillary Clinton, like Bill before her, is a creation of the former Democratic Leadership Council. When the Republicans started their journey to the far right the DLC captured the right of center people. That's the moderate Republican base. That was the answer to the southern strategy. Keep some social progressiveness. Remember GBW's compassionate Republicanism? We're going to get a Republican President, but we're going to make believe that she's a progressive Democrat.

    All the definitions have changed since the '60s. She not a criminal. She's just put on a different colored cloak to demonstrate her flexibility. Americans are apparently not yet ready for a good old fashioned New Deal Democrat. Workers are afraid of unions. Americans never could stay out of a good fight. And Democrats since the '70s have learned to love bankers and recognize that if you let bankers have yet more money they'll shed some your way. Roosevelt didn't need their cash. He had his family's banking empire. And he had real compassion. He was an old style Keynesian. He understood the importance of the government spending money on the nation, and that the nation would return that money to the wealthy as they spent it to stay alive.

    Beverly Mann August 14, 2016 7:08 pm

    Bingo.

    Zachary Smith August 14, 2016 8:02 pm

    To likbez August 14, 2016 5:44 pm

    I agree that Hillary Clinton is many kinds of criminal. I also agree with the others that it no longer matters in the US.

    Nixon = unprosecuted treason.
    Reagan = unprosecuted treason.
    Bush Sr. = unprosecuted criminal in Iran Contra and more.
    (Clinton 1 is a black hole for me in terms of information – I just don't know enough to say.)
    Bush Jr. = unprosecuted torturer and war crimes in Iraq.
    Obama = unprosecuted drone killer and war crimes in Libya & Syria.

    That's the Leaders. On down the ladder US policemen routinely kill people. Many are cold-blooded executions. Very seldom is there any prosecution. Even rarer than that is a conviction.

    Big Bankers plundered the US in 2008. Not a single prosecution that I know about.

    ... ... ...

    US citizens are becoming numbed to violence by the sheer frequency frequency. And increasingly have their noses in their handheld devices tuning out all the news. Having learned almost no history, they're suckers for nearly any glib line from very talented propagandists.

    A very nasty piece of work is about to become President of the US of A. She has done many things for which better humans than her are in prison. If the email hackers produce actual evidence of actual crimes, she will NOT be prosecuted. At the very worst the TPP-loving Neocon Kaine will become president.

    This is the US in 2016.

    likbez, August 14, 2016 10:23 pm

    Jack,

    You are absolutely right that Hillary is a moderate Republican in a sheep skin of Democrat. That was Bill Clinton "Third Way" strategy from the very beginning. Essentially selling the Party to Wall Street. This "neoliberalization" of Democratic Party worked extremely well for Democratic brass for almost three decades.

    You are probably wrong in your underestimation of the danger of the "new American militarism" (Professor Bacevich coined the term) factor in the US foreign policy -- the desire to subdue all other countries and establish global neoliberal empire. Which as Zachary Smith observed makes each and every President since Clinton a war criminal, unless we adopt the Roman dictum "Winners [in a war] are never sent to the court of law".

    Professor Bacevich had shown that the main driver of the US militarism is neocons domination of the US foreign policy, and, especially, neocons domination in State Department regardless of whether Republicans or Democrats are in power. They profess that the US that is uniquely qualified to take on the worldwide foes of peace and democracy, forgetting, revising, or ignoring the painful lessons of World War II, Vietnam, and Iraq. And that establishing and maintaining the neoliberal empire is worth the price we pay as it will take the USA into the period of unprecedented peace.

    Bacevich scored a direct hit on the foundations of the American national security state with this scathing critique, and demolishes the unspoken assumptions that he believes have led the United States into a senseless, wasteful, and counter-productive perpetual war for perpetual peace.

    These assumptions clearly visible in "Khan gambit" are as following: the USA has the unique responsibility to intervene wherever it wants, for whatever purpose it wants, by whatever means it wants -- and the supporting "trinity" of requirements for the USA to maintain a global military presence, to configure its military forces for global power projection, and to counter threats by relying on a policy of global interventionism.

    The driving force in all recent wars is the desire to protect and enlarge the neoliberal empire. That means that election of Hillary means war.

    [Aug 14, 2016] An Urgent History Lesson in Diplomacy with Russia

    www.counterpunch.org
    As the current US President and Nobel Peace Prize winner prepares to leave office with a record of a Tuesday morning kill list, unconscionable drone attacks on civilians, initiating bombing campaigns where there were none prior to his election and, of course, taunting Russian President Vladimir Putin with unsubstantiated allegations, the US-backed NATO has scheduled AEGIS anti ballistic missile shields to be constructed in Romania and Poland, challenging the integrity of INF Treaty for the first time in almost thirty years.

    In what may shed new light on NATO/US build-up in eastern Europe, Russian Foreign Secretary Sergei Lavrov denied US charges in June, 2015 that Russia had violated the Treaty and that the US had "failed to provide evidence of Russian breaches." Commenting on US plans to deploy land-based missiles in Europe as a possible response to the alleged "Russian aggression" in the Ukraine, Lavrov warned that ''building up militarist rhetoric is absolutely counterproductive and harmful.' Russian Deputy Defense Minister Anatoly Antonov suggested the United States was leveling accusations against Russia in order to justify its own military plans.

    In early August, the US Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration authorized the final development phase (prior to actual production in 2020) of the B61-21 nuclear bomb at a cost of $350 – $450 billion. A thermonuclear weapon with the capability of reaching Europe and Moscow, the B61-21 is part of President Obama's $1 trillion request for modernizing the US aging and outdated nuclear weapon arsenal.

    Isn't it about time for the President to do something to earn that Peace Prize?

    [Aug 14, 2016] Clintonites Feign Outrage at Threats of Violence

    www.counterpunch.org
    After Trump's asinine quip about a 2nd amendment "solution" to stopping Clinton's presidential run, her campaign manager, Robby Mook, had this to say:

    "What Trump is saying is dangerous. A person seeking to be the President of the United States should not suggest violence in any way."

    A presidential candidate should not suggest violence in any way?!? Really?

    This coming from a high-level supporter of a candidate who…

    …has supported every war during her political career?

    …supported the use of civilian-butchering cluster bombs by Israel in Gaza?

    …supported the brutal invasions by the Saudi dictatorship of Bahrain and Yemen?

    …enthusiastically pushed for the bombing of Libya that turned it into a failed state?

    …threatened use of nuclear weapons vs. Iran?

    …supported the military coups against the elected governments in Honduras and Egypt, turning both into violence-ridden basket cases?

    …adores as her mentor the arch war criminal Henry Kissinger, orchestrator of the tortures and killings of 10s of thousands?

    Tell me, please, Clinton supporters, how is this not "suggest[ing] violence in any way."

    Is it because threats of violence don't count when they're promoted against human beings who aren't Americans? Go ahead, probe the deeply caustic, Trump-like racism behind that assumption.

    Last Friday, four days before Trump issued his violent threat and a few weeks after the constitution-waiving stunt at the Democratic convention, the ACLU and a federal court finally forced the release of the Obama administration's patently unconstitutional guidelines [2] for killing people with drones ( nearly 90% of whom were not the intended targets).

    And yesterday, while the Republican sociopath was issuing his threat, the Obama State Department approved the sale of more than $1 billion in arms to Saudi Arabia , no doubt to continue its bloody invasion of Yemen, where the UN recently estimated that two-thirds of the civilian casualties are caused by Saudi air strikes.

    Where was the Democratic and Republican outrage against those very real, violent threats?

    When Clinton wins the November election, will we stoop ever farther into an Orwellian world as our first "feminist" president continues to shovel billions in arms to arguably the most anti-feminist dictatorship on the planet? Where violence against people doesn't count as violence due to their nationality and/or the color of their skin?

    If you're outraged about Trump's barbarous suggestion of 2 nd Amendment "solutions" to elections, please don't stop there. Get your blood boiling and then also, and just as forcefully, challenge Clinton's own barbarous "solutions."

    As journalist John Pilger recently noted ,

    "A third of the members of the United Nations have felt Washington's boot, overturning governments, subverting democracy, imposing blockades and boycotts. Most of the presidents responsible have been liberal – Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Clinton, Obama…"

    "One of the more violent presidents, Obama gave full reign to the Pentagon war-making apparatus of his discredited predecessor. He prosecuted more whistleblowers – truth-tellers – than any president. He pronounced Chelsea Manning guilty before she was tried. Today, Obama runs an unprecedented worldwide campaign of terrorism and murder by drone."

    "In 2009, Obama promised to help "rid the world of nuclear weapons" and was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. No American president has built more nuclear warheads than Obama."

    So please, no more sermonizing about stopping violence while taking a pass on condemning our government, which then and now, is "the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today."

    [Aug 14, 2016] Charles Woods - Father of Tyrone Woods - Destroys CNN Anchor On Benghazi and Hillary

    www.youtube.com

    YouTube

    This is what happens when the Lame Stream Media gets a guest that doesn't fit the narrative and handily puts the anchor in her place. They deflect and end the interview!

    [Aug 14, 2016] In Defense of Trump's Name-Calling by Ted Rall

    Notable quotes:
    "... "She is the one that caused all this problem with her stupid policies," Trump said, referring to Hillary Clinton. "You look at what she did with Libya, what she did with Syria. Look at Egypt, what happened with Egypt, a total mess. She was truly - if not the - one of the worst secretaries of state in the history of the country. She talks about me being dangerous. She's killed hundreds of thousands of people with her stupidity." ..."
    "... Trump is absolutely right. Hillary voted for the invasion of Iraq, which killed a million people. As I've pointed out , it wasn't just an immoral decision - it was a stupid one ..."
    "... As secretary of state, Clinton never met a war she didn't love. Under her watch and following her counsel, the United States armed radical jihadis who are now terrorists , helped topple Moammar Gaddafi , expanded a civil war that has killed hundreds of thousands of Libyans and reduced one of the most advanced nations in Africa into a failed state . Then she turned around and did the same exact thing to Syria. ..."
    "... Psychology Today ..."
    "... Ted Rall , syndicated writer and the cartoonist for ANewDomain.net ..."
    "... is the author of the book " Snowden ," the biography of the NSA whistleblower. ..."
    Dec 15, 2015 | counterpunch.org

    There is, on the other hand, something wonderfully refreshing about Donald Trump's gleeful deployment of the S-word.

    "She is the one that caused all this problem with her stupid policies," Trump said, referring to Hillary Clinton. "You look at what she did with Libya, what she did with Syria. Look at Egypt, what happened with Egypt, a total mess. She was truly - if not the - one of the worst secretaries of state in the history of the country. She talks about me being dangerous. She's killed hundreds of thousands of people with her stupidity."

    Trump is absolutely right. Hillary voted for the invasion of Iraq, which killed a million people. As I've pointed out, it wasn't just an immoral decision - it was a stupid one, since anyone with a half a brain could see at the time that Saddam probably didn't have WMDs, and that Bush's war would be a disaster.

    As secretary of state, Clinton never met a war she didn't love. Under her watch and following her counsel, the United States armed radical jihadis who are now terrorists, helped topple Moammar Gaddafi, expanded a civil war that has killed hundreds of thousands of Libyans and reduced one of the most advanced nations in Africa into a failed state. Then she turned around and did the same exact thing to Syria.

    Stupid.

    Let Hillary's supporters take offense. How is unfair, wrong or intemperate to call out a foreign policy record that fits the dictionary definition of "stupid" - doing the same thing over and over, even though it never works? Stupid is as stupid does. Hillary is stupid, especially on foreign policy, and Trump is right to say so.

    Winner or loser, Trump has done political debate in America a huge favor by freeing "stupid" from the rhetorical prison of words and phrases polite people aren't allowed to use.

    Interestingly, stupid people aren't all losers and losers aren't always stupid in Trumpworld. Hillary Clinton has one hell of a resume, which she has parlayed into a big pile of cash. She is, by Trump standards, a winner (albeit a stupid one). If I met Trump, I'd ask him if a smart person can be a loser (possible example: he called the obviously smart Russell Brand a loser, but also a "dummy").

    Pre-Trump, American politics and culture suffered from a lack of stupid-calling. I am serious.

    "There has been a long tradition of anti-intellectualism in America, unlike most other Western countries," Ray Williams wrote last year in Psychology Today. Insults reflect a society's values. Americans value macho masculinity, good looks and youth, so our top slurs accuse their victims of being effeminate, weak, ugly, fat, old and outdated. In France, where the life of the mind is prized so much that one of the nation's top-rated TV shows featured philosophers and auteurs discussing politics and culture over cigarettes, there are few things worse than being called stupid and having it stick. A society that ranks "stupid" as of its worst insults lets it be known that being smart is at least as important as being tough or hot or buff.

    So, Donald Trump, thanks for dropping those S-bombs.

    Ted Rall, syndicated writer and the cartoonist for ANewDomain.net, is the author of the book "Snowden," the biography of the NSA whistleblower.

    [Aug 14, 2016] The US/European/Saudi/Israeli policy in the ME and Central Asia can be summed up by one word: Destabilization

    Notable quotes:
    "... It is providing a steady stream of military-age Sunni males to sow ever more creative chaos (terrorism, crime and other forms of "cultural enrichment") in the European and American homelands. Obama and Hillary have been faithful servants of this policy. The architects of this policy will not allow it to be derailed by some big-mouth real-estate developer. ..."
    "... Defense Intelligence Agency document declassified last year shows that the Obama administration was warned in August of 2012 that if it continued it's policies, a radical Islamic regime could form in eastern Syria. Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State at this time. ..."
    "... So in my humble opinion, not only are Obama and Clinton the founders of ISIS, they are the parents that gave birth to his freak of nature known as ISIL/ISIS. ..."
    "... Bush had to invade...of all countries....Iraq....while the perpetrators of 911 were in Afghanistan, and in the Saudi Royal family which bankrolled the 911 operation. The invasion and destruction of Iraq, the phony elections of leaders who walked away with pallets of US dollars, only handed Iraq to Iran through the Shii'ia imams ..."
    "... Bush started a war in the wrong country, this makes him one of the worst presidents in History... ..."
    www.yahoo.com

    F. E. Dec, 8 hours ago

    The US/European/Saudi/Israeli policy in the ME and Central Asia can be summed up by one word: Destabilization. Or what the neocon globalists call "creative chaos". What did it create? Artificially high oil prices to line the pockets of the House of Saud and the House of Bush. It created the conditions for ramping up heroin production from Afghanistan, pipelined through the DIA/CIA with military assets. (The US government is the largest drug cartel ever). It is providing a steady stream of military-age Sunni males to sow ever more creative chaos (terrorism, crime and other forms of "cultural enrichment") in the European and American homelands. Obama and Hillary have been faithful servants of this policy. The architects of this policy will not allow it to be derailed by some big-mouth real-estate developer.

    Bill, 7 hours ago

    Defense Intelligence Agency document declassified last year shows that the Obama administration was warned in August of 2012 that if it continued it's policies, a radical Islamic regime could form in eastern Syria. Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State at this time.

    The report said "There is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in eastern Syria, and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition wants, in order to isolate the Syrian regime". Lt. General Michael Flynn said; "it was a willful decision to do what they're doing. Supporting Salafist's, Al Qaeda, and the Muslim Brotherhood". So in my humble opinion, not only are Obama and Clinton the founders of ISIS, they are the parents that gave birth to his freak of nature known as ISIL/ISIS.

    Al, 14 hours ago

    When America was attacked on 911, the world inhaled waiting for our response. It could have been anything from a nuke on Afghanistan's mountains where the Taliban and Al Qaeda came together with Osama, or an invasion of Afghanistan and the rounding up of all these thugs for hangings.

    The world would never have said even a word, including Russia. But, no Bush had to invade...of all countries....Iraq....while the perpetrators of 911 were in Afghanistan, and in the Saudi Royal family which bankrolled the 911 operation. The invasion and destruction of Iraq, the phony elections of leaders who walked away with pallets of US dollars, only handed Iraq to Iran through the Shii'ia imams.

    Bush started a war in the wrong country, this makes him one of the worst presidents in History...

    [Aug 13, 2016] A Rush to Judgment on Russian Doping by Rick Sterling

    Notable quotes:
    "... These are strong words and accusations, not against the athletes, but against the Russian government. It seems the Russian Paralympic athletes are being collectively punished as a means to punish the Russian government. ..."
    "... Another fact is that this problem exists in many if not all countries, especially since professional athletics is big business. WADA data shows that many countries have significant numbers of doping violations. ..."
    "... In contrast with the accusations, the scientific data prepared by WADA indicates that Russian athletes have a fairly low incidence of positive drug tests in international certified laboratories. The biggest question is whether the Russian government has been "sponsoring" or somehow supervising prohibited doping. This has been repeated many times and is now widely assumed to be true. ..."
    "... But the evidence is far from compelling. The accusations are based primarily on the testimony of three people: the main culprit and mastermind Grigory Rodchenkov who was extorting athletes and "whistle-blowers" Vitaliy and Yuliya Stepanov. The Stepanovs were the star witnesses in the "60 Minutes" feature on this topic. ..."
    "... The "60 Minutes" story also failed to include the important fact that Vitaliy was directly involved in his wife's doping. ..."
    "... Vitaliy even helps his wife with doping, procures the drugs, leads a kind of double life. ..."
    "... If the IPC final number is accurate, it means the committee confirmed 11 Paralympic athletes who tested positive between 2012 and 2015 but had their positive tests "disappeared" to allow these athletes to compete. If that's true, these athletes should be suspended or banned. Instead of doing that, the IPC banned the entire 267-member Russian Paralympic team. ..."
    "... The McLaren Report looks like a rush to judgment. The report was launched after the sensational New York Times story based on Grigory Rodchenkov and the "60 Minutes" segment based on the Stepanovs. Before he was half way done his investigation, Richard McLaren was advising the IAAF to ban the entire Russian team. ..."
    Aug 11, 2016 | Consortiumnews

    The West's anti-Russian bias is so strong that normal standards of fairness are cast aside whenever a propaganda edge can be gained, a factor swirling around the treatment of Russian athletes at the Rio Olympics, Rick Sterling says.

    There is an ugly anti-Russian mood in various Rio Olympic venues. When the Russian swimmers entered the pool for the 4×100-meter Freestyle team event, they were loudly booed. When the Russian team barely lost third place, the announcer happily announced that Russian had been "kept off the medal stand".

    Last Sunday, it was announced that the International Paralympic Committee (IPC) had decided to ban the entire Russian team from the upcoming Paralympics to be held in Rio in September. Next day, The Associated Press story opened as follows: "After escaping a blanket ban from the Olympics, Russia was kicked out of the upcoming Paralympics on Sunday as the ultimate punishment for the state running a doping operation that polluted sports by prioritizing 'medals over morals.'"

    Is this true, exaggerated or false? In this article I will show how some big accusations based on little evidence have contributed to discrimination against clean Russian athletes and fostered a dangerous animosity contrary to the intended spirit of the Olympics.

    The IPC made its decision to ban all 267 Russian Paralympic athletes largely on the basis of the World Anti-Doping Agency's July 16 McLaren Report and private communications with its chief author Richard McLaren.

    IPC President Sir Phillip Craven issued a statement full of accusations and moral outrage. He said, "In my view, the McLaren Report marked one of the darkest days in the history of all sport." However, the McLaren Report is deeply biased. Here are some of the problems with the report:

    • –It relied primarily on the testimony of one person, the former Director of Moscow Laboratory Grigory Rodchenkov, who was implicated in extorting Russian athletes for money and was the chief culprit with strong interest in casting blame somewhere else.
    • –It accused Russian authorities without considering their defense and contrary information.
    • –It excluded a written submission and documents provided by a Russian authority.
    • –It failed to identify individual athletes who benefited but instead cast suspicion on the entire team.
    • –It ignored the statistical data compiled by WADA which show Russian violations to be NOT exceptional.
    • –It did not provide the source for quantitative measurements.
    • –It claimed to have evidence but failed to reveal it.

    A detailed critique of the McLaren Report can be found at Sports Integrity Initiative, Consortiumnews, Counterpunch, Dissident Voice, True Publica, Global Research, Telesur, and other sites.

    Collective Punishment

    The IPC explanation of why they banned the entire Paralympic team boils down to the accusation that "the State-sponsored doping programme that exists within Russian sport regrettably extends to Russian Para sport as well. The facts really do hurt; they are an unprecedented attack on every clean athlete who competes in sport. The anti-doping system in Russia is broken, corrupted and entirely compromised.

    "The doping culture that is polluting Russian sport stems from the Russian government and has now been uncovered in not one, but two independent reports commissioned by the World Anti-Doping Agency. I believe the Russian government has catastrophically failed its Para athletes. Their medals over morals mentality disgusts me. The complete corruption of the anti-doping system is contrary to the rules and strikes at the very heart of the spirit of Paralympic sport."

    These are strong words and accusations, not against the athletes, but against the Russian government. It seems the Russian Paralympic athletes are being collectively punished as a means to punish the Russian government.

    But what are the facts? First, it's true some Russian athletes have used prohibited steroids or other performance enhancing drugs (PEDs). The documentaries by Hajo Seppelt expose examples of Russian athletes admitting to taking PEDs, a banned coach clandestinely continuing to coach, and another banned coach dealing in prohibited drugs.

    Another fact is that this problem exists in many if not all countries, especially since professional athletics is big business. WADA data shows that many countries have significant numbers of doping violations.

    It is claimed that doping by elite athletes is pervasive in Russia but is this true? To answer that accurately would require an objective examination, not a sensation seeking media report. In the current controversy the accusations and assumptions rely substantially on individual anecdotes and testimony which has been publicized through media reports (ARD documentaries, "60 Minutes" report and New York Times stories) with very little scrutiny.

    In contrast with the accusations, the scientific data prepared by WADA indicates that Russian athletes have a fairly low incidence of positive drug tests in international certified laboratories. The biggest question is whether the Russian government has been "sponsoring" or somehow supervising prohibited doping. This has been repeated many times and is now widely assumed to be true.

    But the evidence is far from compelling. The accusations are based primarily on the testimony of three people: the main culprit and mastermind Grigory Rodchenkov who was extorting athletes and "whistle-blowers" Vitaliy and Yuliya Stepanov. The Stepanovs were the star witnesses in the "60 Minutes" feature on this topic.

    The report was factually flawed: it mistakenly reports that Vitaliy had a "low level job at the Russian Anti Doping Agency RUSADA." Actually he was adviser to the Director General, close to the Minister of Sports and a trainer of doping control officers.

    The "60 Minutes" story also failed to include the important fact that Vitaliy was directly involved in his wife's doping. According to Seppelt's documentary "The Secrets of Doping," "First, Vitaliy even helps his wife with doping, procures the drugs, leads a kind of double life."(5:45) Adding to the argument there may be a political bias in these accusations, all three witnesses (Rodchenkov and the Stepanovs) are now living in the United States.

    The "proof" of Russian state-sponsored doping rests on remarkably little solid evidence. The principal assertion is that the Deputy Minister of Sports issued email directives to eliminate positive tests of "protected" athletes. McLaren claims to have "electronic data" and emails proving this. But he has not revealed the emails.

    If the emails are authentic, that would be damning. How would the Ministry of Sports officials explain it? Do they have any alternative explanation of the curious directives to "Quarantine" or "Save" doping test samples? Astoundingly, McLaren decided not to ask them and he still has not shown the evidence he says that he has.

    Tampering with Bottles?

    Another controversial issue is regarding the opening and replacement of "tamper proof" bottles. The Rodchenkov account is that in the middle of the night, in cahoots with FSB (successor to KGB), they would replace "dirty" urine with "clean" urine. Rodchenkov says they found a way to open the tamper-proof urine sample bottles. But the Swiss manufacturer Berlinger continues to stand by its product and has effectively challenged the veracity of the Rodchenkov/McLaren story.

    Since the release of the McLaren Report, Berlinger has issued a statement saying:

    • –To the statement in the McLaren investigation report that some such bottles proved possible to open Berlinger Special AG cannot offer any authoritative response at the present time.
    • –Berlinger Special AG has no knowledge at present of the specifications, the methods or the procedures involved in the tests and experiments conducted by the McLaren Commission.
    • –Berlinger Special AG conducts its own regular reappraisals of its doping kits, and also has its products tested and verified by an independent institute that has been duly certificated by the Swiss authorities.
    • –In neither its own tests nor any tests conducted by the independent institute in Switzerland has any sealed Berlinger Special AG urine sample bottle proved possible to open.
    • –This also applies to the "Sochi 2014" sample bottle model.
    • –The specialists at Berlinger Special AG are able at any time to determine whether one of the company's sample bottles has been tampered with or unlawfully replicated.

    McLaren says he does not know how the Russians were opening the bottles but he knows it can be done because someone demonstrated it to him personally. In contrast with McLaren's assertions, Berlinger states unequivocally: "In neither its own tests nor any tests conducted by the independent institute in Switzerland has any sealed Berlinger Special AG urine sample bottle proved possible to open. This also applies to the 'Sochi 2014' sample bottle model."

    If McLaren's claims are true, why has he not discussed this with the manufacturer? If McLaren's claims are true, isn't it of the highest importance to identify the weakness in the system so that doping test samples cannot be swapped?

    McLaren further claims to be able to forensically determine when a "tamper proof" bottle has been opened by the "marks and scratches" on the inside of the bottle caps. His report does not include photos to show what these "marks and scratches" look like, nor does it consider the possibility of a mark or scratch resulting from some other event such as different force being applied, cross-threading or backing off on the cap.

    In this area also, McLaren has apparently not had his findings confirmed by the Swiss manufacturer despite the fact that the company states: "The specialists at Berlinger Special AG are able at any time to determine whether one of the company's sample bottles has been tampered with or unlawfully replicated."

    If the findings of McLaren's "marks and scratches expert" are accurate, why did they not get confirmation from the specialists at Berlinger? Perhaps it is because Berlinger disputes McLaren's claims and says "Our kits are secure."

    The IPC decision substantially rests on the fact-challenged McLaren report. The IPC statement falsely claims that the McLaren bottle top "scratches and marks" expert has "corroborated the claim that the State directed scheme involved Russian Paralympic athletes."

    Rush to Judgment

    The IPC report includes data that purports to show widespread doping manipulation in Russia, saying: "Professor McLaren provided the names of the athletes associated with the 35 samples and whether the sample had been marked QUARANTINE or SAVE." These 35 samples are presumably the same Paralympic 35 which are identified on page 41 of the McLaren Report as being "Disappearing Positive Test Results by Sport Russian Athletes."

    There is no source for this data but supposedly it covers testing between 2012 and 2015. McLaren provided another 10 samples thus making 45 samples relating to 44 athletes.

    It is then explained that 17 of these samples are actually not from IPC administered sport. So the actual number is 27 athletes (44-minus-17) implicated. However, in another inconsistency, the IPC statement says not all these samples were marked "SAVE" by Moscow Laboratory. That was only done for "at least" 11 of the samples and athletes.

    If the IPC final number is accurate, it means the committee confirmed 11 Paralympic athletes who tested positive between 2012 and 2015 but had their positive tests "disappeared" to allow these athletes to compete. If that's true, these athletes should be suspended or banned. Instead of doing that, the IPC banned the entire 267-member Russian Paralympic team.

    The McLaren Report looks like a rush to judgment. The report was launched after the sensational New York Times story based on Grigory Rodchenkov and the "60 Minutes" segment based on the Stepanovs. Before he was half way done his investigation, Richard McLaren was advising the IAAF to ban the entire Russian team.

    The McLaren Report, with all its flaws and shortcomings, was published just a few weeks ago on July 16. Then, on Aug. 7, the IPC issued its decision to ban the Russian Paralympic Team from the September Rio Paralympics.

    The IPC statement claims that the committee "provided sufficient time to allow the Russian Paralympic Committee to present their case to the IPC" before they finalized the decision. While the Russian Paralympic Committee appeared before the IPC, it's doubtful they had sufficient time to argue their case or even to know the details of the accusations.

    In summary, the accusation of Russian "state sponsored doping" by McLaren and Craven is based on little solid evidence. Despite this, the accusations have resulted in the banning of many hundreds of clean athletes from the Olympics and Paralympics and are contributing to the ugly "ant-Russian" prejudice and discrimination happening at the Olympics right now.

    This seems to violate the purpose of the Olympics movement which is to promote international peace, not conflict and discrimination.

    Rick Sterling is an investigative journalist. He can be contacted at [email protected]

    [Aug 13, 2016] Banning Russia's paralympians from Rio 2016 sends a terrible message about the rights of disabled people

    Doping scandal is a larger problem the Russian athletes, who is this case are simply scapegoats. It is an international problem of huge proportions, which essentially is a cancer of professional sport in general, not only Olympics in particular.
    marknesop.wordpress.com
    et Al, August 12, 2016 at 10:46 am
    Independent: Banning Russia's paralympians from Rio 2016 sends a terrible message about the rights of disabled people
    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/rio-2016-russian-paralympic-team-banned-disablility-rights-sends-terrible-message-russian-putin-a7185791.html?google_editors_picks=true

    Throughout the Soviet period, disabled people were largely banished. In Russian cities, even now, you see the elderly amputees being wheeled to a begging pitch on a trolley

    Mary Dejevsky

    To my mind, such a blanket ban is an outrage. It is not just illogical, but unjust and grievously short-sighted.

    I personally considered even the partial IOC ban on Russia as too harsh on the grounds that a higher standard of proof was effectively set for Russians compared with their non-Russian peers. But the treatment of Russia's Paralympians takes the pillorying of Russian sport to a whole new level

    The team as a whole is being made to answer for the sins of the Russian state – or, to be more accurate, its still largely Soviet-era sports establishment .
    ####

    OK, how long do you guys think it will be before we hear that "Mary Djevsky has left the Independent by mutual agreement with the paper"? She's a bit all over the place herself, but in general I like reading her pieces despite the casual generalizations she makes.

    [Aug 13, 2016] F. William Engdahl - Ambassador John Bass - professional CIA agent provocateur

    This transformation of State Department into the branch of CIA started under Madeleine Albright and reached crescendo during Hillary Clinton.
    Notable quotes:
    "... I personally have suggested investigating the person of the US Ambassador in Ankara John Bass, who was Ambassador in Republic of Georgia in 2008 and who was involved in dirty business in Iraq, and also seems to be involved in "Color revolution" in Kiev. There are very few "traditional" diplomats in a state department. ..."
    Katehon think tank

    The new evidence of the US participation in the coup attempt in Turkey emerged. Greek press published a photo made a day before the coup. It shows the US ambassador in Turkey John Basse together with the Turkish senior officer, who looks like one of the leaders of the coup Col. Ali Yazıcı (former military adviser to President Erdogan). They had a private meeting in Cengelkoy café the day before the coup.

    F. William Engdahl - historian, economic researcher, writer comments this:

    The US right now is on a defensive. Erdogan has openly challenged leading NATO generals. There is investigation of evidences of the US involvement in the coup. I personally have suggested investigating the person of the US Ambassador in Ankara John Bass, who was Ambassador in Republic of Georgia in 2008 and who was involved in dirty business in Iraq, and also seems to be involved in "Color revolution" in Kiev. There are very few "traditional" diplomats in a state department.

    [Aug 13, 2016] In foreign events coverage the US neoliberal media always behaves like it is an arm of CIA Such a disgusting bottom feeders. without any moral principles or courage to resist the government pressure

    Notable quotes:
    "... CBS can go shove itself in its own collective anus: http://rudaw.net/english/middleeast/syria/120820162 Daesh retreats from Manbij with 2000 civilian hostages. Some humanitarians. ..."
    "... Good catch. I hope Assad knows better than to give any legroom to these monkeys, because the SDF is just a rebranded Free Syrian Army. Most are not even Syrian, but Libyan and other mercenaries. Washington keeps changing their acronyms, but the aim remains unchanged – the overthrow and replacement of Assad. ..."
    marknesop.wordpress.com
    Patient Observer , August 12, 2016 at 3:48 pm
    Watching CBS news as I write :
    – Rebels rescuing women and children and taking to hospitals (looking staged for cameras)
    – Air strikes destroy only remaining hospitals (videos showing piles of medical equipment which did not appear to have been damaged by fire or blast)
    – Syrian government would not respond to inquiries from CBS news about air strikes on hospitals in Aleppo. The reporter inferred that since the government did not deny the air strikes, they must be the perpetrators.

    Amazing. Child beheaders are portrayed as rescuers of women and children and the forces trying to defeat them are labeled as murderers.

    marknesop , August 12, 2016 at 5:35 pm
    Remarkable. But a time-tested technique frequently used in the past to portray Palestinian violence against Israelis. And Hezbollah has been frequently accused as well of faking damage and deaths in order to cultivate sympathy. I guess everybody does it. But it is in western interests to portray 'rebels', especially pet 'rebels' like the White Helmets, as closet humanitarians and the Syrian government as the liver-eaters. I think a lot of observers just expect it now and automatically discount about half of what is said.
    kirill , August 12, 2016 at 6:07 pm
    CBS can go shove itself in its own collective anus: http://rudaw.net/english/middleeast/syria/120820162 Daesh retreats from Manbij with 2000 civilian hostages. Some humanitarians.

    marknesop , August 12, 2016 at 6:39 pm

    Good catch. I hope Assad knows better than to give any legroom to these monkeys, because the SDF is just a rebranded Free Syrian Army. Most are not even Syrian, but Libyan and other mercenaries. Washington keeps changing their acronyms, but the aim remains unchanged – the overthrow and replacement of Assad. After that, things will go one of two ways; Assad will be replaced by a compliant western toady who will let Washington have a free hand to dabble, or he will be replaced by someone ineffective who will lead the country to collapse, at which time the west will have to step in to save it.

    [Aug 13, 2016] A Rush to Judgment on Russian Doping by Rick Sterling

    Notable quotes:
    "... These are strong words and accusations, not against the athletes, but against the Russian government. It seems the Russian Paralympic athletes are being collectively punished as a means to punish the Russian government. ..."
    "... Another fact is that this problem exists in many if not all countries, especially since professional athletics is big business. WADA data shows that many countries have significant numbers of doping violations. ..."
    "... In contrast with the accusations, the scientific data prepared by WADA indicates that Russian athletes have a fairly low incidence of positive drug tests in international certified laboratories. The biggest question is whether the Russian government has been "sponsoring" or somehow supervising prohibited doping. This has been repeated many times and is now widely assumed to be true. ..."
    "... But the evidence is far from compelling. The accusations are based primarily on the testimony of three people: the main culprit and mastermind Grigory Rodchenkov who was extorting athletes and "whistle-blowers" Vitaliy and Yuliya Stepanov. The Stepanovs were the star witnesses in the "60 Minutes" feature on this topic. ..."
    "... The "60 Minutes" story also failed to include the important fact that Vitaliy was directly involved in his wife's doping. ..."
    "... Vitaliy even helps his wife with doping, procures the drugs, leads a kind of double life. ..."
    "... If the IPC final number is accurate, it means the committee confirmed 11 Paralympic athletes who tested positive between 2012 and 2015 but had their positive tests "disappeared" to allow these athletes to compete. If that's true, these athletes should be suspended or banned. Instead of doing that, the IPC banned the entire 267-member Russian Paralympic team. ..."
    "... The McLaren Report looks like a rush to judgment. The report was launched after the sensational New York Times story based on Grigory Rodchenkov and the "60 Minutes" segment based on the Stepanovs. Before he was half way done his investigation, Richard McLaren was advising the IAAF to ban the entire Russian team. ..."
    Aug 11, 2016 | Consortiumnews

    The West's anti-Russian bias is so strong that normal standards of fairness are cast aside whenever a propaganda edge can be gained, a factor swirling around the treatment of Russian athletes at the Rio Olympics, Rick Sterling says.

    There is an ugly anti-Russian mood in various Rio Olympic venues. When the Russian swimmers entered the pool for the 4×100-meter Freestyle team event, they were loudly booed. When the Russian team barely lost third place, the announcer happily announced that Russian had been "kept off the medal stand".

    Last Sunday, it was announced that the International Paralympic Committee (IPC) had decided to ban the entire Russian team from the upcoming Paralympics to be held in Rio in September. Next day, The Associated Press story opened as follows: "After escaping a blanket ban from the Olympics, Russia was kicked out of the upcoming Paralympics on Sunday as the ultimate punishment for the state running a doping operation that polluted sports by prioritizing 'medals over morals.'"

    Is this true, exaggerated or false? In this article I will show how some big accusations based on little evidence have contributed to discrimination against clean Russian athletes and fostered a dangerous animosity contrary to the intended spirit of the Olympics.

    The IPC made its decision to ban all 267 Russian Paralympic athletes largely on the basis of the World Anti-Doping Agency's July 16 McLaren Report and private communications with its chief author Richard McLaren.

    IPC President Sir Phillip Craven issued a statement full of accusations and moral outrage. He said, "In my view, the McLaren Report marked one of the darkest days in the history of all sport." However, the McLaren Report is deeply biased. Here are some of the problems with the report:

    • –It relied primarily on the testimony of one person, the former Director of Moscow Laboratory Grigory Rodchenkov, who was implicated in extorting Russian athletes for money and was the chief culprit with strong interest in casting blame somewhere else.
    • –It accused Russian authorities without considering their defense and contrary information.
    • –It excluded a written submission and documents provided by a Russian authority.
    • –It failed to identify individual athletes who benefited but instead cast suspicion on the entire team.
    • –It ignored the statistical data compiled by WADA which show Russian violations to be NOT exceptional.
    • –It did not provide the source for quantitative measurements.
    • –It claimed to have evidence but failed to reveal it.

    A detailed critique of the McLaren Report can be found at Sports Integrity Initiative, Consortiumnews, Counterpunch, Dissident Voice, True Publica, Global Research, Telesur, and other sites.

    Collective Punishment

    The IPC explanation of why they banned the entire Paralympic team boils down to the accusation that "the State-sponsored doping programme that exists within Russian sport regrettably extends to Russian Para sport as well. The facts really do hurt; they are an unprecedented attack on every clean athlete who competes in sport. The anti-doping system in Russia is broken, corrupted and entirely compromised.

    "The doping culture that is polluting Russian sport stems from the Russian government and has now been uncovered in not one, but two independent reports commissioned by the World Anti-Doping Agency. I believe the Russian government has catastrophically failed its Para athletes. Their medals over morals mentality disgusts me. The complete corruption of the anti-doping system is contrary to the rules and strikes at the very heart of the spirit of Paralympic sport."

    These are strong words and accusations, not against the athletes, but against the Russian government. It seems the Russian Paralympic athletes are being collectively punished as a means to punish the Russian government.

    But what are the facts? First, it's true some Russian athletes have used prohibited steroids or other performance enhancing drugs (PEDs). The documentaries by Hajo Seppelt expose examples of Russian athletes admitting to taking PEDs, a banned coach clandestinely continuing to coach, and another banned coach dealing in prohibited drugs.

    Another fact is that this problem exists in many if not all countries, especially since professional athletics is big business. WADA data shows that many countries have significant numbers of doping violations.

    It is claimed that doping by elite athletes is pervasive in Russia but is this true? To answer that accurately would require an objective examination, not a sensation seeking media report. In the current controversy the accusations and assumptions rely substantially on individual anecdotes and testimony which has been publicized through media reports (ARD documentaries, "60 Minutes" report and New York Times stories) with very little scrutiny.

    In contrast with the accusations, the scientific data prepared by WADA indicates that Russian athletes have a fairly low incidence of positive drug tests in international certified laboratories. The biggest question is whether the Russian government has been "sponsoring" or somehow supervising prohibited doping. This has been repeated many times and is now widely assumed to be true.

    But the evidence is far from compelling. The accusations are based primarily on the testimony of three people: the main culprit and mastermind Grigory Rodchenkov who was extorting athletes and "whistle-blowers" Vitaliy and Yuliya Stepanov. The Stepanovs were the star witnesses in the "60 Minutes" feature on this topic.

    The report was factually flawed: it mistakenly reports that Vitaliy had a "low level job at the Russian Anti Doping Agency RUSADA." Actually he was adviser to the Director General, close to the Minister of Sports and a trainer of doping control officers.

    The "60 Minutes" story also failed to include the important fact that Vitaliy was directly involved in his wife's doping. According to Seppelt's documentary "The Secrets of Doping," "First, Vitaliy even helps his wife with doping, procures the drugs, leads a kind of double life."(5:45) Adding to the argument there may be a political bias in these accusations, all three witnesses (Rodchenkov and the Stepanovs) are now living in the United States.

    The "proof" of Russian state-sponsored doping rests on remarkably little solid evidence. The principal assertion is that the Deputy Minister of Sports issued email directives to eliminate positive tests of "protected" athletes. McLaren claims to have "electronic data" and emails proving this. But he has not revealed the emails.

    If the emails are authentic, that would be damning. How would the Ministry of Sports officials explain it? Do they have any alternative explanation of the curious directives to "Quarantine" or "Save" doping test samples? Astoundingly, McLaren decided not to ask them and he still has not shown the evidence he says that he has.

    Tampering with Bottles?

    Another controversial issue is regarding the opening and replacement of "tamper proof" bottles. The Rodchenkov account is that in the middle of the night, in cahoots with FSB (successor to KGB), they would replace "dirty" urine with "clean" urine. Rodchenkov says they found a way to open the tamper-proof urine sample bottles. But the Swiss manufacturer Berlinger continues to stand by its product and has effectively challenged the veracity of the Rodchenkov/McLaren story.

    Since the release of the McLaren Report, Berlinger has issued a statement saying:

    • –To the statement in the McLaren investigation report that some such bottles proved possible to open Berlinger Special AG cannot offer any authoritative response at the present time.
    • –Berlinger Special AG has no knowledge at present of the specifications, the methods or the procedures involved in the tests and experiments conducted by the McLaren Commission.
    • –Berlinger Special AG conducts its own regular reappraisals of its doping kits, and also has its products tested and verified by an independent institute that has been duly certificated by the Swiss authorities.
    • –In neither its own tests nor any tests conducted by the independent institute in Switzerland has any sealed Berlinger Special AG urine sample bottle proved possible to open.
    • –This also applies to the "Sochi 2014" sample bottle model.
    • –The specialists at Berlinger Special AG are able at any time to determine whether one of the company's sample bottles has been tampered with or unlawfully replicated.

    McLaren says he does not know how the Russians were opening the bottles but he knows it can be done because someone demonstrated it to him personally. In contrast with McLaren's assertions, Berlinger states unequivocally: "In neither its own tests nor any tests conducted by the independent institute in Switzerland has any sealed Berlinger Special AG urine sample bottle proved possible to open. This also applies to the 'Sochi 2014' sample bottle model."

    If McLaren's claims are true, why has he not discussed this with the manufacturer? If McLaren's claims are true, isn't it of the highest importance to identify the weakness in the system so that doping test samples cannot be swapped?

    McLaren further claims to be able to forensically determine when a "tamper proof" bottle has been opened by the "marks and scratches" on the inside of the bottle caps. His report does not include photos to show what these "marks and scratches" look like, nor does it consider the possibility of a mark or scratch resulting from some other event such as different force being applied, cross-threading or backing off on the cap.

    In this area also, McLaren has apparently not had his findings confirmed by the Swiss manufacturer despite the fact that the company states: "The specialists at Berlinger Special AG are able at any time to determine whether one of the company's sample bottles has been tampered with or unlawfully replicated."

    If the findings of McLaren's "marks and scratches expert" are accurate, why did they not get confirmation from the specialists at Berlinger? Perhaps it is because Berlinger disputes McLaren's claims and says "Our kits are secure."

    The IPC decision substantially rests on the fact-challenged McLaren report. The IPC statement falsely claims that the McLaren bottle top "scratches and marks" expert has "corroborated the claim that the State directed scheme involved Russian Paralympic athletes."

    Rush to Judgment

    The IPC report includes data that purports to show widespread doping manipulation in Russia, saying: "Professor McLaren provided the names of the athletes associated with the 35 samples and whether the sample had been marked QUARANTINE or SAVE." These 35 samples are presumably the same Paralympic 35 which are identified on page 41 of the McLaren Report as being "Disappearing Positive Test Results by Sport Russian Athletes."

    There is no source for this data but supposedly it covers testing between 2012 and 2015. McLaren provided another 10 samples thus making 45 samples relating to 44 athletes.

    It is then explained that 17 of these samples are actually not from IPC administered sport. So the actual number is 27 athletes (44-minus-17) implicated. However, in another inconsistency, the IPC statement says not all these samples were marked "SAVE" by Moscow Laboratory. That was only done for "at least" 11 of the samples and athletes.

    If the IPC final number is accurate, it means the committee confirmed 11 Paralympic athletes who tested positive between 2012 and 2015 but had their positive tests "disappeared" to allow these athletes to compete. If that's true, these athletes should be suspended or banned. Instead of doing that, the IPC banned the entire 267-member Russian Paralympic team.

    The McLaren Report looks like a rush to judgment. The report was launched after the sensational New York Times story based on Grigory Rodchenkov and the "60 Minutes" segment based on the Stepanovs. Before he was half way done his investigation, Richard McLaren was advising the IAAF to ban the entire Russian team.

    The McLaren Report, with all its flaws and shortcomings, was published just a few weeks ago on July 16. Then, on Aug. 7, the IPC issued its decision to ban the Russian Paralympic Team from the September Rio Paralympics.

    The IPC statement claims that the committee "provided sufficient time to allow the Russian Paralympic Committee to present their case to the IPC" before they finalized the decision. While the Russian Paralympic Committee appeared before the IPC, it's doubtful they had sufficient time to argue their case or even to know the details of the accusations.

    In summary, the accusation of Russian "state sponsored doping" by McLaren and Craven is based on little solid evidence. Despite this, the accusations have resulted in the banning of many hundreds of clean athletes from the Olympics and Paralympics and are contributing to the ugly "ant-Russian" prejudice and discrimination happening at the Olympics right now.

    This seems to violate the purpose of the Olympics movement which is to promote international peace, not conflict and discrimination.

    Rick Sterling is an investigative journalist. He can be contacted at [email protected]

    [Aug 13, 2016] Media Builds Up Enemies For Hillarys Wars

    Notable quotes:
    "... What struck me in the article was a conflict between attributing the DNC hack and a possible Clinton hack that the authors didn't even attempt to address. They claim analysts are very confident that Russian hackers, working for the government, hacked the DNC. But as to the possibility that anyone hacked Clinton's private server; well, if they did, they would have been way to savvy to leave any traces that they'd done so. A DNC hack; those sloppy Russian government hackers did it. A personal server; a real pro job. ..."
    "... Hillary - if elected - will inherit economy in recession or on the brink of it, and her main preoccupation will be dealing with mounting domestic unrest, as well as with the wars she'll inherit from Obama. However she may want to, she'll be in no position to start another war. ..."
    "... The US Dept of State is an equal-opportunity criminal syndicate ..."
    "... There is always money for war, just no money for commons. ..."
    "... Amazing how even the most obvious facts are denied by the largest margin of people - in spite of the truth being available to the contrary. People believed Goebbels and are now believing the propaganda from the cesspool of the totalitarian establishment, because they WANT TO. ..."
    "... Regarding the to Nazi-standards evolving propaganda of the Western establishment, it would be helpful if people would stop 'googling' misinformation from the CIA 'search' engine aka data collection agency. There are other search engines available that will not skew the results. ..."
    "... Psychological projection is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against their own unconscious impulses or qualities (both positive and negative) by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others.[1] For example, a person who is habitually rude may constantly accuse other people of being rude. It incorporates blame shifting. ..."
    "... ...New emails showing ( the worse evil ) Hillarys lies and corruption would be perfect PR to highlight for one of Trump's principle core messages of Washintons and especially Hitlarys corruption. ..."
    "... The war monger industries, think tanks, and DOD want a bigger war. They don't have to kill Obama, they are waiting for the Killary and are using every dirty trick to get her elected. ..."
    "... We're sort of behind schedule on that DoD memo that Wesley Clark saw after 9/11 that said the US would "take out" seven countries in five years. Iraq, Syria, and Libya are basket cases. Somalia and Sudan aren't much better. That leaves Lebanon and Iran. ..."
    "... People know that those aren't true threats to us so following the Brzezinski/PNAC doctrine of not allowing any country to rise in any region leads us to real powers Russia and China. I wonder if Vegas has any odds on which country we'll be at war with next. And will we do it directly or via some sad-sack like Ukraine? ..."
    "... Excellent points. The propaganda process to convince the American people to accept war with Russia (Syria and Iran) has been going on for several years now (the military budgets are just beginning their upward ramp due to Russia). The process is nearly identical to what Bush and the neocons did with Saddam and the invasion of Iraq. And propaganda through the mass media is effective--upwards to 70% of the American people supported Bush's invasion. ..."
    "... Hillary's brain will not survive the pressure of a presidency when half the country thinks she is liar and untrustworthy. Her health is already suspicious and she may collapse after her election as there would be huge demands on her. The next president of the USA won't be Hillary Clinton for long, it will be Tim Kayne. ..."
    "... No doubt there could well be a lot more in what The Don doesn't say. But this election will be about low voter turn out. Record lows. Everyone is nauseous. Trump has his cult following. Hilary disgraced the Bernistas - none of them will vote for Hilary. Hilary has no one except the neocon rats who have jumped ship. ..."
    "... Hillary Clinton's Embrace of Kissinger Is Inexcusable. Bernie Sanders should call on her to repudiate him as the war criminal he is. https://www.thenation.com/article/hillary-clintons-embrace-of-kissinger-is-inexcusable/ ..."
    "... As for the discussion on running out of money for wars ... well al-CIAduh/IS is much cheaper than the US uniformed armed forces, or the same people through the revolving door fighting as mercenaries. The KSA/GCC have been footing the bill ... because the same forces they're directing outwards will devastate them if and when they turn around and go for them directly. As times get harder for al-CIAduh/IS ... up against the Russians, Syrians, Iranians, Hezbulla ... it's got to occur to them that there's a much easier, much larger paycheck available in turning around and robbing the bank that's been feeding them rations. ..."
    "... William Casey-CIA Director "We will know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ..."
    "... William Casey-CIA Director "We will know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ..."
    "... The New York Times is selling a world-view. You can't sell anyone anything they don't want to buy. The American public, having detected that their leaders have no idea how to bring them safely out of the wood of the "new economics", of the air economy, is begging to be told a story that - if we all close our eyes and believe real hard - will bring magic, fairy princess economy back to life. Life was OK ... nostalgia makes it better ... back when we used to hate the Russians. Let's hate 'em again. It's kind of a cargo cult mentality. ..."
    "... Many times, back then, I would confront my comrades with the assertion that the mass produced media outlets (MPMO), such as the New York Times were nothing more than propaganda machines. "Hip" as they might have been, they just could not handle this concept. ..."
    "... I also investigated the world of the eleetoids very deeply -- and I had several unique opportunities to do so. They are certainly not at all like us. They are generally quite vain and oddly shallow. Money, power, and organized violence are one and the same to them. Wall Street, Washington D.C., and the pentagon constellation are all on the same page. Crucially, none of these eleetoids is anywhere near what could be deemed sane. Their minds are profoundly warped just because they are what they are. ..."
    "... And they are easily capable of setting off Armageddon. War and the proliferation of misery is not their goal in the end, much worse, it is simply a consequence, a symptom if you will, of their insanity. ..."
    "... WADC and NYC attract psychopathy, so naturally our two choices for November are Alpha Psychopaths. That doesn't mean that the necrotic American ship of state will alter its course, only settle lower in the water, come to a gradual stop, tip downward at the bow, and then break in half. The psychopaths are The Vampire and will fly away, caww, caww, caww, leaving all the hoi polloi, the Little People, to drink and to drown. ..."
    "... In some ways the rules of engagement for Syria are reminiscent of the restrictions placed on U.S. special operators in El Salvador in the 1980s. The U.S. forces in that tiny country helped train the embattled government's counter-insurgency forces. But they were not allowed to go into battle with the forces they trained. ..."
    "... The people who have brainwashed the Americans are the problem just like in Hitler's time. Those global plutocratic families have been controlling the narrative for centuries and they seem to have convinced you it is the US citizens who are to blame for falling for the propaganda this time. ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org

    Another example that so-called news in U.S. media is often more propaganda than valid information is this NYT piece on the "hack" of the Democratic National Committee:

    WASHINGTON - A Russian cyberattack that targeted Democratic politicians was bigger than it first appeared and breached the private email accounts of more than 100 party officials and groups, officials with knowledge of the case said Wednesday.
    ...

    A "Russian cyberattack"? How can the NYT claim such, in an opening paragraph, when even the Director of U.S. National Intelligence is unable to make such a judgement?

    Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, speaking about the hack of Democratic Party emails, said on Thursday the U.S. intelligence community was not ready to "make the call on attribution" as to who was responsible.

    All the NYT lays out to backup its claim of a "Russian" hack is an anonymous Intelligence Committee staffer who claims U.S. intelligence agencies "have virtually no doubt" about it. If that were true why would the boss of these intelligence agencies publicly point out such doubts?

    There is not even any evidence that the publishing of emails incriminating the DNC for manipulating the Democratic primaries were the result of any "hack". It might have well been an insider who copied the material and handed them to Wikileaks for publication. After the leak the DNC data analyst Seth Rich was mutilated and murdered near his home in Washington DC. The case was obviously no robbery. Julian Assange of Wikileaks pointed out that the circumstances of Rich's death are suspicious. I first attributed that claim to Assange's typical exaggerations, but the facts speak for themselves. The case indeed looks very much like a targeted killing. Who did it and and why?

    The "Russia is guilty" claim for whatever happened, without any proof, is becoming a daily diet fed to the "western" public. A similar theme is the "barrel bombing" of (the always same ) "hospitals" in Syria which is claimed whenever the Syrian government or its allies hit some al-Qaeda headquarter .

    All this propaganda is in preparation of the rule of the " We came, we saw, he died. Hahaha ... " psychopathic queen of war Hillary Clinton.

    As Marc Wheeler, aka emptywheel, reminds us:

    6:13 AM - 10 Aug 2016 emptywheel @emptywheel

    The actions to ensure we will escalate our wars are being taken as we speak. January will be too late to stop it.

    Posted by b at 11:42 AM | Comments (74)

    IhaveLittleToAdd | Aug 11, 2016 12:00:03 PM | 2

    What struck me in the article was a conflict between attributing the DNC hack and a possible Clinton hack that the authors didn't even attempt to address. They claim analysts are very confident that Russian hackers, working for the government, hacked the DNC. But as to the possibility that anyone hacked Clinton's private server; well, if they did, they would have been way to savvy to leave any traces that they'd done so. A DNC hack; those sloppy Russian government hackers did it. A personal server; a real pro job.
    telescope | Aug 11, 2016 12:39:23 PM | 6
    Hillary - if elected - will inherit economy in recession or on the brink of it, and her main preoccupation will be dealing with mounting domestic unrest, as well as with the wars she'll inherit from Obama. However she may want to, she'll be in no position to start another war.

    America is in severe and accelerating decline, and simply has no resources for more wars.

    Noirette | Aug 11, 2016 1:17:21 PM | 8
    The Dems and Repubs. always vie to wage the 'best, most just, necessary, wars.' Wars as in merciless bombing and decimation and installation of a puppet Gvmt, not against and adversary who presents a threat.

    For B. Clinton, that was smashing Yugoslavia (plus various other, Africa etc.), while later the Repub. Bushies concentrated on Iraq (but see Billy C on that, plus Iran sanctions…) and Afghanistan. The two join together under Obama-Killary: Lybia and Syria. (Leaving much aside.)

    Not of course that IRL the division is clear, it isn't, but that is what is used to bamboozle the public. One war is baaaad, horrible, another is ee-ssential for security, and so all grinds on, with one switch after another, year by year, nothing changes, with millions of deaths, maimed, displaced, landscapes, agriculture, towns, whole countries, destroyed.

    ruralito | Aug 11, 2016 1:20:42 PM | 9
    @5 The US Dept of State is an equal-opportunity criminal syndicate.
    fastfreddy | Aug 11, 2016 2:30:23 PM | 14
    6 America is in severe and accelerating decline, and simply has no resources for more wars.

    America prints fiat currency at will and posts numbers on computer terminals. The value of this currency is indicated by its position as the petro-dollar. This arrangement is enforced by American hegemony and illegitimate partnerships with other despotic governments which support and maintain it's dominance as the world's most important currency.

    There is always money for war, just no money for commons.

    Yul | Aug 11, 2016 4:09:31 PM | 20
    The new defender of Al-Qa'ida in Syria:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNkmQzc9vxI

    CNN Clarissa Ward.
    Guess with Tayyip changing his Emperor clothes, Holly Williams can't do the same for CBS

    Stillnottheonly1 | Aug 11, 2016 4:33:03 PM | 21
    Amazing how even the most obvious facts are denied by the largest margin of people - in spite of the truth being available to the contrary. People believed Goebbels and are now believing the propaganda from the cesspool of the totalitarian establishment, because they WANT TO.

    Anybody that has ever had, or still has a shred of critical thinking left, will KNOW. The totalitarian, corporate establishment, that has been inbreeding since thousands of years, is going for the kill. The kill of 'democracy', the kill of freedom of speech, the killing of the 'pursuit of happiness' and a new cold war among the different ethnicities on planet earth.

    Therefore the so called 'racists' are actually 'Ethnicists' - denying ethnicities differing from the white man the right to live. The right to exterminate non-white sub-humans at will.

    Regarding the to Nazi-standards evolving propaganda of the Western establishment, it would be helpful if people would stop 'googling' misinformation from the CIA 'search' engine aka data collection agency. There are other search engines available that will not skew the results.

    This is the result in regards to the tactics of the Western establishments' propaganda: It's called 'Psychological Projection' and has worked for millennia. To find out more about it, one can look at the Wikipedia entry, or search anew for other sources:

    Psychological projection is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against their own unconscious impulses or qualities (both positive and negative) by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others.[1] For example, a person who is habitually rude may constantly accuse other people of being rude. It incorporates blame shifting.

    tom | Aug 11, 2016 4:54:27 PM | 23
    ...New emails showing ( the worse evil ) Hillarys lies and corruption would be perfect PR to highlight for one of Trump's principle core messages of Washintons and especially Hitlarys corruption. But no instead of sitting back and letting the new corruption unfold for himself to take advantage, the moronic narcissistic Trump has to make it about him self again by saying his idiocies and outrages which diverts from his core message that got him so much success.

    Trump(et) needs to rely on getting fake liberals to be discouraged, apathetic or a vote for third party, but Trump the King moron himself is driving these people into Hillarys camp.

    AriusArmenian | Aug 11, 2016 5:39:23 PM | 25
    The transition from Obama to Hillary mirrors the transition from Kennedy to Johnson. The war monger industries, think tanks, and DOD want a bigger war. They don't have to kill Obama, they are waiting for the Killary and are using every dirty trick to get her elected. Much bigger wars are coming after January.
    Jackrabbit | Aug 11, 2016 5:55:19 PM | 27
    Rg the Lg @15:
    ... ethnic cleansing that the modern Israeli's simply copy ...
    Here we go with the US-Israel equivalence meme that is being pushed by the usual suspects. As though nothing was learned in the last 80-120 years or so. If that were so, then Israel might find itself in an even more precarious position. Actually, some might well say that Israel is turning back the clock to pre-modern times, and joining with other reactionary forces to do so.
    Curtis | Aug 11, 2016 6:10:31 PM | 29
    We're sort of behind schedule on that DoD memo that Wesley Clark saw after 9/11 that said the US would "take out" seven countries in five years. Iraq, Syria, and Libya are basket cases. Somalia and Sudan aren't much better. That leaves Lebanon and Iran.

    People know that those aren't true threats to us so following the Brzezinski/PNAC doctrine of not allowing any country to rise in any region leads us to real powers Russia and China. I wonder if Vegas has any odds on which country we'll be at war with next. And will we do it directly or via some sad-sack like Ukraine?

    paulmeli | Aug 11, 2016 6:27:08 PM | 32
    "There is always money for war, just no money for commons."

    A political choice. We can always (or should be able to) buy everything we can produce. Odd that we can't.

    Erelis | Aug 11, 2016 7:42:55 PM | 34
    @ Casowary Gentry |

    Excellent points. The propaganda process to convince the American people to accept war with Russia (Syria and Iran) has been going on for several years now (the military budgets are just beginning their upward ramp due to Russia). The process is nearly identical to what Bush and the neocons did with Saddam and the invasion of Iraq. And propaganda through the mass media is effective--upwards to 70% of the American people supported Bush's invasion.

    January is already too late as this process has been going on for several years. The hysteria is now building to a crescendo and is pretty much impossible to stop with reasoned arguments.

    Speaking of influencing elections. The Ukrano-nazis look to be building up troop levels on the Crimean border to show off horrible Russian/Putin aggression. Looks like the Ukrano-nazis are willing to kill off a bunch of their own soldiers for propaganda effect.

    virgile | Aug 11, 2016 7:48:32 PM | 35
    Hillary's brain will not survive the pressure of a presidency when half the country thinks she is liar and untrustworthy. Her health is already suspicious and she may collapse after her election as there would be huge demands on her. The next president of the USA won't be Hillary Clinton for long, it will be Tim Kayne.
    MadMax2 | Aug 11, 2016 7:51:15 PM | 36
    @22 tom

    No doubt there could well be a lot more in what The Don doesn't say. But this election will be about low voter turn out. Record lows. Everyone is nauseous. Trump has his cult following. Hilary disgraced the Bernistas - none of them will vote for Hilary. Hilary has no one except the neocon rats who have jumped ship.

    Will she be able to excite Obamas #HopeAndChange army...? I don't see them getting out of bed sorry - and it's why you see #NeverTrump. It doesn't matter what Trump does, dem voter turn out will be at historic lows.

    virgile | Aug 11, 2016 8:32:14 PM | 37
    Hillary Clinton's Embrace of Kissinger Is Inexcusable. Bernie Sanders should call on her to repudiate him as the war criminal he is. https://www.thenation.com/article/hillary-clintons-embrace-of-kissinger-is-inexcusable/
    From The Hague | Aug 11, 2016 10:15:06 PM | 39
    @37 January will be too late to what?

    Trump wants John Bolton as Secretary of State????
    http://townhall.com/tipsheet/cortneyobrien/2016/08/11/trump-of-course-i-didnt-mean-to-incite-violence-against-hillary-n2203833
    video: about 03:00 - about 05:00

    Then there will be no difference:
    - continuation of horror and terror in MENO;
    - military tensions with Russia and China.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/06/the-only-mistake-of-the-iraq-war-was-that-we-didnt-get-rid-of-sa/

    Alison DeBeers | Aug 11, 2016 10:43:22 PM | 42
    The Guardian stated yesterday that Putin is ramping up for the 'invasion' (sic) of Crimea, but went out of their way to leave the impression it was a Russian invasion, and not invasion by NATO, behind a current World Bank-funded $10Bs looted from US taxpayers to rebuild Eastern Ukraine roads and bridges to military load capacity, ... just another wholly illegal and pro-war act by the ZIMF-WB to an unconstitutional dual-Israel junta coup leadership in Kiev, and made in violation to a non-NATO state, with no expectation the 'loans' would ever be paid back, ...just as $35B IMF loaned, then Kerry backstopped with US taxpayer savings, will never be repaid. Ever.

    The 'War of Crimea' is necessary for many political purposes, but primarily to cover up that July 2015 looting of $50B from the US Treasury by Kerry and the RINO Congress for war grift to Ukraine that will never be repaid, stolen from SS and disability funds.

    And behind that War of Crimea will come a US Militarized Police State of One Thousand Years, to cover The Chosen's wholly illegal, usurious, odious, onerous synthetic CDS 'scheme' to transfer all of WS's Exceptionalist *gambling debts* onto the backs of our grandchildren, when WS should be tarred and feathered, then beaten with birch switches.

    Instead, we get US Congress bleeting for Bibi and clapping at attention until the blood runs from their fingernails down their arms, afraid to be the first to stop clapping. New America is Kim Jung Un on steroids in 2017.

    Tick tock! What's the plan to protect the US Constitution? Where's the patriot sitrep?

    jfl | Aug 11, 2016 10:54:52 PM | 43
    This stuff pervades the corporate media across the board : A Rush to Judgment on Russian Doping . If war is the continuation of politics by other means, 'news' is the continuation of war by other means.

    As for the discussion on running out of money for wars ... well al-CIAduh/IS is much cheaper than the US uniformed armed forces, or the same people through the revolving door fighting as mercenaries. The KSA/GCC have been footing the bill ... because the same forces they're directing outwards will devastate them if and when they turn around and go for them directly.

    As times get harder for al-CIAduh/IS ... up against the Russians, Syrians, Iranians, Hezbulla ... it's got to occur to them that there's a much easier, much larger paycheck available in turning around and robbing the bank that's been feeding them rations.

    When the oil-archies go up in smoke the free for all will begin in earnest ... 'protecting world security'. Then US/Israeli troops will land in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar put out the fires, grab the checkbooks, reseat their clients under the new dispensation. That'll be their plan anyway. As Obama said, Hillary's will be his third term ... they hope. Pick the low-hanging fruit on the way to Moscow and Beijing.

    I liked the guy with the videos of no people at the Hillary rally. I liked Newt comparing Trump to Truman ... they do seem so alike, on more than the Dewey Defeats Truman level. Harry was as utterly unprepared as Donald is to be POTUS, and was whipsawed by the same old domestic gangsters oblivious to the consequences of their free-flowing gravy-train at home.

    @39 fth

    Good to see you've seen the light.

    We don't have to make a binary choice . We can uproot the seemingly divinely dictated dichotomy . It will take ten or twelve years to do it ... thank goodness for the "founding fathers'" oversight, allowing a two-year election cycle ... but that's not so long. If we'd begun in 2004 we'd be home by now.

    bbbb | Aug 11, 2016 11:24:43 PM | 46
    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/08/stunning_revelation_wikileaks_hack_shows_that_soros_called_the_shots_on_us_policy_toward_albania.html

    ^^^^^BIG revelation IMHO.

    GoraDiva | Aug 12, 2016 1:04:02 AM | 48
    While a good post, I wonder why b. would say "I first attributed that claim to Assange's typical exaggerations..." I've not found him to exaggerate, typically, but I have found the MSM to want us to believe that he does... Also, it is Marcy Wheeler (a woman), not Marc (this mistake has been made here before).
    A friend in Silicon Valley - with a seven-member family all voting for B Sanders - reported that there seemed to be little doubt primaries were stolen. His polling station was managed by guys with IT background (S. Valley, after all) - who witnessed manipulations, including the purging of all provisional ballots.
    Tom Murphy | Aug 12, 2016 1:13:36 AM | 49
    Exactly. NYT Leads With Russia Hack Conspiracy–Despite 'No Evidence' (in Next-to-Last Paragraph) We need to work to prevent a Hillary presidency: HIGHLIGHTS of Jill Stein Speaking BEFORE her Acceptance Speech at Green Party Convention

    William Casey-CIA Director "We will know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false."

    okie farmer | Aug 12, 2016 3:15:40 AM | 50

    William Casey-CIA Director "We will know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false."
    jfl | Aug 12, 2016 3:34:25 AM | 51
    The bottom line on this is ... ya gotta wanna believe. The New York Times is selling a world-view. You can't sell anyone anything they don't want to buy. The American public, having detected that their leaders have no idea how to bring them safely out of the wood of the "new economics", of the air economy, is begging to be told a story that - if we all close our eyes and believe real hard - will bring magic, fairy princess economy back to life. Life was OK ... nostalgia makes it better ... back when we used to hate the Russians. Let's hate 'em again. It's kind of a cargo cult mentality.

    A measure of just how disjoint we all are. There's no there there where our memories of America were, we need a magic spell to bring tinker belle back to life, so we can fly back to never-never land again, live happily ever after. Things are very, very bad for the USA.

    Alison DeBeers | Aug 12, 2016 3:37:55 AM | 52
    49

    Your buddy and mine, ZH Khalizhad, 10 Years After:

    http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a325070.pdf

    Rabels | Aug 12, 2016 4:27:54 AM | 53
    Another hypocrite-liberal-warmonger-idiot michael moore supports hillary,
    http://sputniknews.com/politics/20160812/1044183819/michael-moore-ivanka.html
    blues | Aug 12, 2016 5:19:22 AM | 54
    I was an anti-Vietnam war protester. For the most part we were very loosely organized, or even not at all organized. We were hippies, doing the whole mid-60s to mid-70s thing. Our city decided to actually have the fire department stage a pro-war protest -- Strange times indeed!

    Many times, back then, I would confront my comrades with the assertion that the mass produced media outlets (MPMO), such as the New York Times were nothing more than propaganda machines. "Hip" as they might have been, they just could not handle this concept. They were totally appalled that I could dare to claim this. I was sort of like their first "conspiracy theorist". The comments above reveal how times have changed. Even if they are still in psychological thrall to the propaganda machinery, the seed of dark doubt has now been sewn in their bewildered hearts.

    I also investigated the world of the eleetoids very deeply -- and I had several unique opportunities to do so. They are certainly not at all like us. They are generally quite vain and oddly shallow. Money, power, and organized violence are one and the same to them. Wall Street, Washington D.C., and the pentagon constellation are all on the same page. Crucially, none of these eleetoids is anywhere near what could be deemed sane. Their minds are profoundly warped just because they are what they are.

    And they are easily capable of setting off Armageddon. War and the proliferation of misery is not their goal in the end, much worse, it is simply a consequence, a symptom if you will, of their insanity.

    ProPeace | Aug 12, 2016 7:40:22 AM | 56
    @blues | Aug 12, 2016 5:19:22 AM | 54 "I was an anti-Vietnam war protester.

    God bless you for that.

    I'm still shocked how many people in Israel, Ukraine, ME, the Commonwealth, USA, Poland, are eager to go to war because of twisted ideologies, money, stupidity, or some inner demons, sinful desires.

    May be we need another war after all, just to get rid of them, since they pose a mortal danger to their host societies and cannot be restored to humanity in peaceful ways?

    ProPeace | Aug 12, 2016 8:36:03 AM | 57
    Assuming, of course, it will only be them who get to die.
    dahoit | Aug 12, 2016 9:46:45 AM | 58

    39;How does John Bolton fit with Trumps call for better Russian relations?I'd say he's thinking of him like he thought of Newt, which is not much.

    He does have to placate the warmongers a little bit,or else they'll call him soft on terror.
    Stop getting hysterical over unknown unknowns.:)

    He said he was being sarcastic about Obomba and IsUS,but again,like a jury,the American people are given info that can't be taken back.Of course its true,and I guarantee it will come up again,as we are still almost 3 months to the election.

    And the propaganda,as someone mentioned,is unbelievable,and yes the word should be stricken from the rolls.

    Alison DeBeers | Aug 12, 2016 9:50:50 AM | 59
    54

    WADC and NYC attract psychopathy, so naturally our two choices for November are Alpha Psychopaths. That doesn't mean that the necrotic American ship of state will alter its course, only settle lower in the water, come to a gradual stop, tip downward at the bow, and then break in half. The psychopaths are The Vampire and will fly away, caww, caww, caww, leaving all the hoi polloi, the Little People, to drink and to drown.

    Alison DeBeers | Aug 12, 2016 10:13:17 AM | 60
    15

    WADC

    http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/imagenes_sociopol2/globalelite177_04.jpg

    Les | Aug 12, 2016 11:52:23 AM | 61
    In some ways the rules of engagement for Syria are reminiscent of the restrictions placed on U.S. special operators in El Salvador in the 1980s. The U.S. forces in that tiny country helped train the embattled government's counter-insurgency forces. But they were not allowed to go into battle with the forces they trained.

    Roger Carstens, a former lieutenant colonel for the Green Berets who trained local forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, told me there are good battlefield reasons for allowing the adviser to fight with the forces he trains. "They gain legitimacy and credibility and they show your partner forces that you share the risk," he said.

    Carstens also said that fighting alongside indigenous troops is a kind of vetting process. "The instructor gets to see whether the forces he is training have absorbed their training," which he said is important to evaluate how effective they are.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-08-11/orders-for-u-s-forces-in-syria-don-t-get-shot

    paulmeli | Aug 12, 2016 12:15:29 PM | 62
    ff @32…"every nation is in heavy debt!"

    This is debatable and a lot of nuance is absent from the statement. All debt is not the same, and in fact for a sovereign that has only liabilities in it's own currency the only debt that matters is that owed by the citizens to private banks. Will wait for an open thread to revisit.

    From The Hague | Aug 12, 2016 4:54:59 PM | 64
    @41 Hoarsewhisperer
    @43 jfl
    @58 dahoit

    The Americans are the problem. They're not interested in foreign policy. So if Trump can give them jobs and safety abroad, he may bomb the rest of the world. We can't exclude he appoints a person like John Bolton.

    psychohistorian | Aug 12, 2016 5:47:35 PM | 65
    @ From the Hague wrote "The Americans are the problem".............

    The people who have brainwashed the Americans are the problem just like in Hitler's time. Those global plutocratic families have been controlling the narrative for centuries and they seem to have convinced you it is the US citizens who are to blame for falling for the propaganda this time.

    We will never overcome the Western sick form of social organization if we continue to blame the wrong folks. We need to end private finance and return all those grifted earnings to the global commons along with neutering inheritance globally so no one individually/family can control social policy.

    And then the media would not be the brainwashing mechanism it is now building credence for more wars.

    [Aug 13, 2016] Downing Street-controlled BBC disapproves the thawing of relations between Russia and Turkey

    w_page_12.htmhttps:

    Warren , August 12, 2016 at 4:00 pm

    Downing Street-controlled BBC disapproves the thawing of relations between Russia and Turkey.

    Russia and Turkey: An 'alliance of misfits'?

    It was a gesture that ended a crisis. The leaders of Russia and Turkey met on Tuesday to shake hands and declare a formal end to an eight-month long war of words and economic sanctions.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37045724

    [Aug 13, 2016] One wonders what makes them call themselves Democrats? Certainly not economic and political justice, peace, democracy, or integrity in governance

    Arguments of Sanders supporters against Hillary are not perfectly applicable to Hillary vs Trump contest.
    Notable quotes:
    "... If Bernie does not get the nomination it will be the wilderness for the Democrats - no young voters no independents - unless they can conjure a principled candidate somehow from somewhere. ..."
    "... You'll then cycle back to the lesser of two evils, that Democrats like Obama and Clinton are needed to help the poor blacks and minorities. To me this is a myth. The poor get fucked no matter what party is in office. ..."
    "... What planet African Americans are doing "better off" on is unknown. What is known is that President Obama is about to leave office with African Americans in their worst economic situation since Ronald Reagan . ..."
    "... Of course not. But when you have an issue you can continually put bandaids on the symptoms or you can perform a root cause analysis and then proceed to fix these root causes. The fact is that politicians are disinclined to put the needs of voters first, they tend to pay lip service to the needs of voters, while spending 60% of their time interacting with rich donors, who are very good are articulating their needs, as they hand over large sums of money. This system creates a log jam to reform. If we can return the immutable link to the voters interests, and congress them reform of economic distortions that support racism become far far easier. Motive of change and motives of votes become transparent. ..."
    "... the world is divided in two, half who are nauseated by the above and the other half who purr in admiration at the clever way Clinton has fucked the public once again. As Mencken said democracy is that system of government in which it is assumed that the common man knows what he wants and deserves to get it good and hard. ..."
    "... I don't believe her core statements. Sorry but as a person I just can't buy into the package. Both republicans and democrats on a vague macro level will try to lower unemployment but neither will talk about falling participation. Clinton had already proved she's probably as likely as Trump to get bullets flying. It's her judgement. She's part of the same old we need to intervene yet never understanding the real issues. I despise her unflinching support of Saudi Arabia. That policy is insane!!! Etc etc etc. ..."
    "... I believe both parties represent essentially the same with small regional differences . ..."
    "... One wonders what makes them call themselves Democrats? ..."
    "... Certainly not economic and political justice, peace, democracy, or integrity in governance. ..."
    "... Yes, it's been the single most shocking revelation of the entire election year for me as well. Not just the cynicism of the rank-and-file, but the arrogance and isolation of our corrupt Democratic party elite, many of whom still don't seem to grasp that a revolt by progressive Democrats and Independents is already under way. This is one of the forms it may take. ..."
    "... Hilary Clinton has various comments that reveals somebody who certainly fits the psychopath spectrum. Among the lowest of the low was "We came, we saw, he died!" Accompanied by a cackle of laughter. This was announced in full view of the media and public when Gadhaffi was overthrown by US assistance. Are some Democrats so brainwashed that they think a woman president is the answer regardless of what kind of person that woman is? Since when do decent people in politics exult in death like this? Libya's murdered leader was no angel but Hitler he was not and as older people have told me, the deaths of Hitler and Stalin and the like were greeted publicly with muted and dignified relief by western representatives. ..."
    "... Wake up Democrats. At least read a book called The Unravelling by an American journalist whose name I forget. This heartbreaking book says it all about the realities for the non privileged and non powerful in todays' America. ..."
    "... If Clinton is the Dem nominee it does more than give me shivers. Heck, I view Hillary as demonstrably more dangerous with foreign policy. ..."
    "... Both their economic/domestic policies do little or worse for the current situation. Both are untrustworthy and any rhetoric on policy is highly questionable (although Clinton is certainly the worst in this regard). About the only good thing between either is that Trump is willing to question our empire abroad, which is well overdue (meanwhile Clinton seems to want to expand it). ..."
    "... Uh huh and your supporting a person: That voted for the Iraq War, destabilized Libya, Benghazi, gave tacit approval to a military junta in Honduras as Secretary of State, called black youth super predators, supports trade agreements that destroy our own manufacturing jobs, takes more money from special interests than her constituency, has made millions in speeches from the bank lobby and won't disclose the transcripts......yeah she's real HONEST. ..."
    "... Money buys the influence to be selected as a candidate. Normally. 99% of the time. Sometimes a Huey Long populist breaks through the process and scares the fuck out of the power structures. But you know how candidates are selected. Poor smart people never get to run for president unless they build a populist power base. The existing political parties defer to donors. Donors like the Koch Brothers, who happily funded Bill Clinton and the DLC made their preferences clear. They didn't invest in a fit of altruistic progressivism. They wanted the DNC to swing right. And voila it did and Bill was anointed as the "one" to run. Don't be so naive. ..."
    May 06, 2016 | www.theguardian.com

    Kevin P Brown Carly435 , 2016-05-05 19:28:39

    Robin is relentless is arguing AGAINST, but he is quite light on arguing for anything. It is an interesting question as to what he stands for.

    His main argument is that zero information from "right wing" press is true. He seems unaware that at times, actual facts are presented or not presented or suppressed by either media outlet, depending on their corporate ownership and management slant of what should be reported. Me? I read everything and decide if something is a fact. It is strange that factual reporting about the actual many many FOIA lawsuits only gets printed in right wing press. They of course have an agenda, but does not negate the facts they report. Like Clinton being allowed to be deposed in a civil FOIA suit. That is a fact, with quotes from the Judge. CNN? I guess they couldn't afford to report this factual development.

    When you only read the press looking for a partisan set of narratives, you end up being partisan and ill informed. When you read all the flavours of press in an desire to inform yourself, when your goal is not a narrative but factual accounts of the truth, then you can be better informed. So we have partisans, who only view Fox and we also have partisans who only view CNN. Both are as bad as each other. One must be capable of decreeing the motives of each, and discarding the nonfactual narratives, and then one can be fully informed.

    Robin makes the assumption that facts only occur in his selected set of informational partisan sources. Why? Because he is partisan. This then enables him to argue against a narrative, rather than support his own narrative. He plays the neat trick of simply discarding any factual reporting from places like Breibart. One can see interesting lacks of coverage on google search.

    Kevin P Brown RobInTN , 2016-05-05 19:19:20
    "Libel is a method of defamation expressed by print, writing, pictures, signs, effigies, or any communication embodied in physical form that is injurious to a person's reputation, exposes a person to public hatred, contempt or ridicule, or injures a person in his/her business or profession."

    So surely in America, Clinton with her wealth would take some legal action? I would if I had her money, and wealth. Interesting that she has not? Perhaps you could write to her and suggest she defend herself in a real and palpable way?

    dutchview lsbg_t , 2016-05-05 18:17:57
    Yes and a lot of the press are trying to bury the news about another Sanders success. When you look at how many voting districts he comes out top in, in is a large percentage. Clinton tends to get closer or take the district if their is a higher population density.

    The influence of the super delegates is a scandal in a "democratic process".

    Vladimir Makarenko digit , 2016-05-05 17:00:45
    First I would be very careful taking what G gives, it is nowadays "fixing" news like Fox. Most reliable, if speaking about polls the word can be used, is results of metastudies:

    Both give today's Clinton of 6% when Sanders is whopping 13+%

    So when Hillary's shills preaching how easily she "beats" Trump, they lie. Only Bernie can do this or or see Oval Office moved to Atlantic City.

    luminog simpledino , 2016-05-05 12:48:54
    If Bernie does not get the nomination it will be the wilderness for the Democrats - no young voters no independents - unless they can conjure a principled candidate somehow from somewhere.

    Clinton won't cut it and she won't beat Trump. Trump will out her on every crooked deal she has been involved in.

    Kevin P Brown hillbillyzombie , 2016-05-05 12:23:14
    You'll then cycle back to the lesser of two evils, that Democrats like Obama and Clinton are needed to help the poor blacks and minorities. To me this is a myth. The poor get fucked no matter what party is in office.

    Is this is a Fox News plant article? yeah yeah, let's vote Clinton who promises a continuation of Obama's policies. Will Trump make this much worse? Maybe. Trump or Clinton will in my opinion do little to improve these issues quoted below. You have a different opinion. Great.

    " http://www.blackpressusa.com/is-black-america-better-off-under-obama /

    "Like the rest of America, Black America, in the aggregate, is better off now than it was when I came into office," said President Obama on December 19, in response to a question by Urban Radio Networks White House Correspondent April Ryan.

    What planet African Americans are doing "better off" on is unknown. What is known is that President Obama is about to leave office with African Americans in their worst economic situation since Ronald Reagan . A look at every key stat as President Obama starts his sixth year in office illustrates that.

    • Unemployment. The average Black unemployment under President Bush was 10 percent. The average under President Obama after six years is 14 percent. Black unemployment, "has always been double" [that of Whites] but it hasn't always been 14 percent. The administration was silent when Black unemployment hit 16 percent – a 27-year high – in late 2011 .
    • Poverty. The percentage of Blacks in poverty in 2009 was 25 percent; it is now 27 percent. The issue of poverty is rarely mentioned by the president or any members of his cabinet. Currently, more than 45 million people – 1 in 7 Americans – live below the poverty line.
    • The Black/White Wealth Gap. The wealth gap between Blacks and Whites in America is at a 24-year high. A December study by PEW Research Center revealed the average White household is worth $141,900, and the average Black household is worth $11,000. From 2010 to 2013, the median income for Black households plunged 9 percent.
    • Income inequality. "Between 2009 and 2012 the top one percent of Americans enjoyed 95 percent of all income gains, according to research from U.C. Berkeley," reported The Atlantic. It was the worst since 1928. As income inequality has widened during President Obama's time in office, the president has endorsed tax policy that has widened inequality, such as the Bush Tax cuts.
    • Education: The high school dropout rate has improved during the Obama administration. However, currently 42 percent of Black children attend high poverty schools, compared to only 6 percent of White students. The Department of Education's change to Parent PLUS loans requirements cost HBCU's more than $150 million and interrupted the educations of 28,000-plus HBCU students.
    • SBA Loans. In March 2014, the Wall Street Journal reported that only 1.7 percent of $23 billion in SBA loans went to Black-owned businesses in 2013, the lowest loan of SBA lending to Black businesses on record. During the Bush presidency, the percentage of SBA loans to Black businesses was 8 percent – more than four times the Obama rate.
    Kevin P Brown Kevin P Brown , 2016-05-05 12:16:44
    "All the equations showed strikingly uni- form statistical results: racism as we have measured it was a significantly disequalizing force on the white income distribution, even when other factors were held constant. A 1 percent increase in the ratio of black to white median incomes (that is, a 1 percent decrease in racism) was associated with a .2 percent decrease in white inequality, as measured by the Gini coefficient. The corresponding effect on top 1 percent share of white income was two and a half times as large, indicating that most of the inequality among whites generated by racism was associated with increased income for the richest 1 percent of white families. Further statistical investigation reveals that increases in the racism variable had an insignifi- cant effect on the. share received by the poorest whites and resulted in a decrease in the income share of the whites in the middle income brackets."
    Kevin P Brown hillbillyzombie , 2016-05-05 12:16:13
    "What I said, and still maintain, is that the struggle against racism is as important as the struggle against other forms of oppression, including those with economic and financial causes."

    We can agree on this statement. However, do we need to recognise that legislation alone will not solve racism. A percentage of poor people turn against the "other" and apportion blame for their issues.

    http://tomweston.net/ReichRacism.pdf

    Try reading this.

    " that campaign finance and banking reform will fix everything"

    Of course not. But when you have an issue you can continually put bandaids on the symptoms or you can perform a root cause analysis and then proceed to fix these root causes. The fact is that politicians are disinclined to put the needs of voters first, they tend to pay lip service to the needs of voters, while spending 60% of their time interacting with rich donors, who are very good are articulating their needs, as they hand over large sums of money. This system creates a log jam to reform. If we can return the immutable link to the voters interests, and congress them reform of economic distortions that support racism become far far easier. Motive of change and motives of votes become transparent.

    "The various forms of discrimination are not separable in real life. Employers' hiring and promotion practices; resource allocation in city schools; the structure of transportation sys- tems; residential segregation and housing quality; availability of decent health care; be- havior of policemen and judges; foremen's prejudices; images of blacks presented in the media and the schools; price gouging in ghetto stores-these and the other forms of social and economic discrimination interact strongly with each other in determining the occupational status and annual income, and welfare, of black people. The processes are not simply additive but are mutually reinforcing. Often, a decrease in one narrow form of discrimination is accompanied by an increase in another form. Since all aspects of racism interact, an analysis of racism should incorporate all its as- pects in a unified manner."

    My thesis is this: build economic equality and the the pressing toxins of racism diminish. But yeah dismiss Sanders as a one issue candidate. he is a politician, which I acknowledge. He has a different approach to clinton who will micro triangulate constantly depending on who she in front of. I find his approach ore honest. Your mileage may vary.

    " money spent on campaigns does not correlate very highly to winning"

    No but overall money gets to decide on a narrow set of compliance in the candidates. But it still correlates to winning. Look at the Greens with no cash. Without the cash, they will never win. Sanders has proved that 1. We do not need to depend on the rich power brokers to select narrowly who will be presented as a candidate. 2. He has proved that a voter can donate and compete with corporate donations. I would rather scads of voter cash financing rather than corporate cash buying influence. ABSCAM was a brief flash, never repeated to show us what really happens in back rooms when a wad of cash arrives with a politician. That we cannot PROVE what happens off the grid, we can and should rely on common sense about the influence of money. 85% of the American people believe cash buys influence. The only influence on a politician should be the will of the people. Sure, corporates can speak. Speech is free. Corporate cash as speech is a different matter. It is a moral corruption.

    "most contributions come after electoral success"

    Yes part of the implied contract of corporates and people like the Koch Brothers: Look after us and we will look after you. We will keep you in power, as long as you slant the legislation to favour us over the voters.

    You do realise the Clinton Foundation bought the assets of the DLC, a defunct organisation. Part of the assets are the documents and records that contain the information about the Koch Brothers donations and their executives joining the "management" of the DLC. Why would a Charity be interested in the DLC documents? Ah it is a Clinton Foundation. Yeah yeah, there is no proof of anything is there. No law was broken. Do I smell something ? Does human nature guide my interpretation absent a clear statement from the Foundation of this "investment"?? Yes.

    We have to start SOMEWHERE. Root causes are the best place to start.

    Democrat or Republican, Blacks and Whites at the bottom are thrown in a race for the bottom and this helps fuel the impoverishment of both. It is fuel to feed racism. My genuine belief.

    digit Vladimir Makarenko , 2016-05-05 12:07:33
    Sorry, I mean, here .
    buttonbasher81 o_lobo_solitario , 2016-05-05 12:06:44
    Why is it wrong for democrats to pick their own party leader? Also Obama beat Hilary last time so what's Bernies problem now? Also why moan about a system that's been in place for decades now, surely the onus was on Sanders to attract more middle of the road dem voters? Finally I'm sure republicans would also love to vote in Sanders, easy to demolish with attack ads before the election (you'll note they've studiously ignored him so far).
    Longasyourarm Genpet , 2016-05-05 11:47:49
    the world is divided in two, half who are nauseated by the above and the other half who purr in admiration at the clever way Clinton has fucked the public once again. As Mencken said democracy is that system of government in which it is assumed that the common man knows what he wants and deserves to get it good and hard.
    Longasyourarm nemesis7 , 2016-05-05 11:44:57
    explain to me why the blacks and Hispanics vote for her because it is a mystery to me. She stands for everything they have had to fight against. So you have a 1%er-Wall St.-invade Iraq-subprime-cheat the EU-Goldman Sachs-arms dealing-despot cuddling-fuck the environment coalition. And blacks and Hispanics too? Are they out of their minds?
    Eric L. Wattree , 2016-05-05 09:19:27
    BERNIE SANDERS - OR ZIG AGAINST ZAG
    .
    If the American people don't come to their senses and give Bernie Sanders the Democratic nomination, we're going to end up with a choice between Zig and Zag. Zig is Donald Trump, and Zag is Hillary Clinton. To paraphrase Mort Sahl back in the sixties, the only difference between the two is if Donald 'Zig' Trump sees a Black child lying in the street, he'd simply order his chauffeur to run over him. If Hillary 'Zag' Clinton saw the kid, she'd also order her chauffeur to run over him, but she'd weep, and go apologize to the NAACP, after she felt the bump.
    .
    WAKE UP, BLACK PEOPLE!!!

    IF YOU DON'T, YOU'LL BE SORRY - AGAIN.

    https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1057244620990215&set=a.136305753084111.28278.100001140610873&type=3&theater

    Kevin P Brown hillbillyzombie , 2016-05-05 08:20:53
    Giving aid to the Republicans? If you honestly believe that any criticisms I have is worse than what I discuss, you need to give up politics and get a hobby. Trump will for example use her FOIA/email issues like a stick to beat her with. This is not Soviet Russia where we all adopt the party line. I'm not not ever have been a member of the Democratic Party. I COULD have been this year. Now? Never. The solution to the nations problems will come from outside this party.

    I prefer neither. You love fearmongering about how worse it will be under trump. Hmmm. I don't buy that tale. Take Black family incomes. In the toilet. Under either party it goes south. Abortion? Like slavery nothing ...... Nothing is going to change. It's too late to change that one. But it's a useful tool to make us believe ONLY Clinton can protect us. Economically the Democrats are essentially the same as the Republicans, more of the same corporate welfare. Would Clinton cut Social Security? Maybe. I don't believe her core statements. Sorry but as a person I just can't buy into the package. Both republicans and democrats on a vague macro level will try to lower unemployment but neither will talk about falling participation. Clinton had already proved she's probably as likely as Trump to get bullets flying. It's her judgement. She's part of the same old we need to intervene yet never understanding the real issues. I despise her unflinching support of Saudi Arabia. That policy is insane!!! Etc etc etc.

    You believe a black family gays and women will sing Kumbaya under Clinton and all will be well.

    I believe both parties represent essentially the same with small regional differences .

    SavvasKara irishgaf , 2016-05-05 05:32:13
    It would be perhaps remotely marxist if he said comrades. But even that was used by democrats, socialists and even fascists and nazists so I would say that no, there is nothing marxist about it. One of his central messages is that we need to come together and improve our society, that we are all the same, without race or religion, with the same needs and fears as humans.

    I even disagree with people saying that he promotes class struggle, he is talking about fair share and he is an ardent supporter of following the laws even when they are against his ideology, which is something that radicals do not tend to do. Radicals do not give a damn about laws and neither do Marxists or far-right wingers, fascists etc. Those groups believe in changing the society through struggle into a model that fits their idea of the world whatever that may be. He simply states his beliefs and suggests laws to adjust the society to human needs, to eat, to live, to prosper in an equal footing.

    Carly435 RobertHickson2014 , 2016-05-05 05:28:00

    It is a rather sad commentary on how the bar of integrity and honesty has been so lowered that it doesn't even faze them

    One wonders what makes them call themselves Democrats? Their stance on gun and abortion issues? Certainly not economic and political justice, peace, democracy, or integrity in governance.

    Yes, it's been the single most shocking revelation of the entire election year for me as well. Not just the cynicism of the rank-and-file, but the arrogance and isolation of our corrupt Democratic party elite, many of whom still don't seem to grasp that a revolt by progressive Democrats and Independents is already under way. This is one of the forms it may take.

    Carly435 RobertHickson2014 , 2016-05-05 05:06:51
    Recharging is always a good idea ... and never more so than in an election year as turbulent, crazy, uplifting, disillusioning, energizing, maddening and fascinating as this one. I'll also be away (for weeks) toward the end of this month.

    Before you go, here's Carl Bernstein's interview with Don Lemon, in case you missed it:

    http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/05/03/bernstein-there-will-be-very-damaging-leaks-from-hillary-email-investigation-her-actions-reckless-and-entitled /

    nemesis7 , 2016-05-05 03:24:50
    Hilary Clinton has various comments that reveals somebody who certainly fits the psychopath spectrum. Among the lowest of the low was "We came, we saw, he died!" Accompanied by a cackle of laughter. This was announced in full view of the media and public when Gadhaffi was overthrown by US assistance.
    Are some Democrats so brainwashed that they think a woman president is the answer regardless of what kind of person that woman is? Since when do decent people in politics exult in death like this? Libya's murdered leader was no angel but Hitler he was not and as older people have told me, the deaths of Hitler and Stalin and the like were greeted publicly with muted and dignified relief by western representatives.

    Add to that the continual lies that are being aired in public and this is why the USA has lost its way.

    Hillary will not see that one criminal in the financial world of the USA will face justice for their mafia-like actions and destruction of billions of dollars and assets while stealing the savings of Americans and non Americans. President Obama hasn't done it and he is not the buddy Hilary is to these people.
    And since when does the USA have the ethical superiority to attack countries like Russia for cronyism etc? This is unbelievable - a presidential nominee candidate is being investigated by the FBI and she doesn't stand down?

    Wake up Democrats. At least read a book called The Unravelling by an American journalist whose name I forget. This heartbreaking book says it all about the realities for the non privileged and non powerful in todays' America.

    I recall David Bowie's beautiful song This Is Not America. The Bernie supporters understand that, all power to him, those who think like him, and his supporters.

    macktan894 RobInTN , 2016-05-05 02:29:31
    Please. She lost that race in South Carolina when her husband, along with Geraldine Ferraro, called Obama being president a fairy tale and an affirmative action candidate, respectively. You can't win with only minority support, but you can't win without any of it if you are a Dem. Up until SC, the Clintons had minority support in the bag--most black people had never heard of Obama. Things changed real fast.
    Allan Barr , 2016-05-05 02:21:15
    Like its not obvious? There is now no paper trail to enable ensuring computer votes are true. A man on the moon can now ensure who is going to be President, that was said by a premier computer security expert.

    Along with extensive disenfranchisement, numerous ways its pretty clear these outcomes are preordained. Guess I am not going to be voting for either of the two appointed runners, its pointless. I will vote for Bernie when its time in California.

    Carly435 RobertHickson2014 , 2016-05-05 02:05:34
    And to branch out a bit, there are so many empty stock phrases to choose from in her 2016 campaign alone, including "I'm with her" and "Breaking down barriers" courtesy of her 2008 campaign manager, Mark Penn. Speaking of Penn, there's a hilarious little passage in "Clinton, Inc" (p. 65) which describes Penn running through possible campaign slogans for 2008. "Penn began to walk through all the iterations of Hillary slogans: Solutions for America, Ready for a change, Ready to lead, Big challenges, Real Solutions; Time to pick a President... but then he seem to get a little lost...Working for change, Working for you. There was silence, then snickers as Penn tried to remember all the bumper stickers which run together sounded absurd and indistinguishable. The Hillary I know."....

    Oy. ^__^

    But to pick out my favorite Hillary statement of the week, in honor of her close associate and fellow gonif, Hillary superdelegate, Sheldon Silver, who recently got 12 years in the slammer:

    https://www.americarisingpac.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/clinton-sheldon-silver-meme1.jpg

    Some background:

    https://www.americarisingpac.org/sheldon-silver-critical-to-hillary-clinton-political-machine /

    In 2000, Silver was integral in Clinton's Senate campaign. According to The New York Times, Silver helped Hillary lobby members of the state assembly for their support

    So I guess the former speaker of the NY assembly is just gonna have to vote for Hillary from behind bars, instead of at the DNC? How "super-inconvenient."

    John W , 2016-05-05 01:42:54
    Sanders is also leading in the West Virginia polls, which is the next primary. He just might be able to squeak out a victory.
    Robin Crawford Rouffian , 2016-05-05 01:07:15
    If Clinton is the Dem nominee it does more than give me shivers. Heck, I view Hillary as demonstrably more dangerous with foreign policy. Both use identity politics as a decisive issue- which only is a distraction from their lack of policy.

    Both their economic/domestic policies do little or worse for the current situation. Both are untrustworthy and any rhetoric on policy is highly questionable (although Clinton is certainly the worst in this regard). About the only good thing between either is that Trump is willing to question our empire abroad, which is well overdue (meanwhile Clinton seems to want to expand it).

    If it's between those two I vote Green and take the 'Jesse Ventura' option: vote anyone not Dem or Rep. Both parties are two corrupt subsidiaries of their corporate masters.

    nomorebanksters Jonah92 , 2016-05-04 23:43:43
    You are obviously misinformed about Bernie Sanders:

    https://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/27110/bernie-sanders#.VypxWXopDqA

    Most effective senator for the last 35 years and as Mayor or Burlington stopped corporate real estate developers from turning Burlington into Aspen east coast version.

    She voted for the Iraq war, being investigated by the FBI for her emails, there was Benghazi, turning Libya into a ISIS hotbed, allowed a military junta to assassinate a democratically elected president in Honduras and said nothing, takes $675k from Goldman for 3 speeches and refuses to disclose the transcripts because she KNOWS it'll hurt her, voted for trade deals that's gutted manufacturing in the USA....should I go on?

    Kevin P Brown hillbillyzombie , 2016-05-04 23:10:01
    So please please explain how Hillary Rodham Clinton is going to wave a wand and fix racism? I already know she will not fix poverty, she will slap a few ersatz bandaids onto bills that won't pass and like the spoiled child will seek praise every time mommy gets him to shit on the potty. You might recall a guy called Martin Luther King. he had some words about economic fairness and poverty.

    "" In the treatment of poverty nationally, one fact stands out: there are twice as many white poor as Negro poor in the United States. Therefore I will not dwell on the experiences of poverty that derive from racial discrimination, but will discuss the poverty that affects white and Negro alike . "

    nihilism: the rejection of all religious and moral principles, often in the belief that life is meaningless. The belief that nothing in the world has a real existence.

    You love that word but rejection of the dysfunctional state of DNC politics is NOT nihilism. Moral corruption around campaign finance is real. Moral corruption around money and lobbyists is real. The desire to fix this, this is real. Seeking real change is not nihilism. But yes, if it pleases you to continue in every other post with this word, do so. It's misuse says more about you than Sanders.

    nomorebanksters TehachapiCalifornia , 2016-05-04 23:04:08
    Please tell me exactly how much HRC has done for the U.S.? I'm from NYC and when she brought her carpet bagging ass here and as a 2 term senator she pushed 3 pieces of legislation thru. If you look at Bernie Sanders voting record:

    https://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/27110/bernie-sanders#.VypxWXopDqA

    He's been one of the most effective senators in Congress and has been able to get things done with cooperation from both sides of the aisle.
    So tell me again, what's she done that's so notable?

    nomorebanksters nolashea , 2016-05-04 22:57:13
    Uh huh and your supporting a person: That voted for the Iraq War, destabilized Libya, Benghazi, gave tacit approval to a military junta in Honduras as Secretary of State, called black youth super predators, supports trade agreements that destroy our own manufacturing jobs, takes more money from special interests than her constituency, has made millions in speeches from the bank lobby and won't disclose the transcripts......yeah she's real HONEST......riiigggghhhhttttt....
    Kevin P Brown hillbillyzombie , 2016-05-04 22:31:08
    "Are you really sure that money buys votes"

    Money buys the influence to be selected as a candidate. Normally. 99% of the time. Sometimes a Huey Long populist breaks through the process and scares the fuck out of the power structures. But you know how candidates are selected. Poor smart people never get to run for president unless they build a populist power base. The existing political parties defer to donors. Donors like the Koch Brothers, who happily funded Bill Clinton and the DLC made their preferences clear. They didn't invest in a fit of altruistic progressivism. They wanted the DNC to swing right. And voila it did and Bill was anointed as the "one" to run. Don't be so naive.

    [Aug 13, 2016] Russian official sources said there would be a step-by-step reduction of sanctions against Turkey

    Notable quotes:
    "... The only phrase that I've heard that sticks in my mind and think that is important was that before the talks, Russian official sources said there would be a "step-by-step" reduction of sanctions against Turkey. ..."
    "... As others have pointed out, Erdogan from being the principle backer of Jihadis in Syria (save Saudi Arabia and the UAE), needs to somehow cover his own back as the Jihadis will come for him. Not that I am sympathetic, but not black and white. ..."
    marknesop.wordpress.com
    et Al , August 12, 2016 at 10:06 am
    I don't know what to make of the InSultin' Erdogan and Pootie Poot meet. There's been BS called from both sides, from swapping the West for Russia to Russia not gaining anything.

    The only phrase that I've heard that sticks in my mind and think that is important was that before the talks, Russian official sources said there would be a "step-by-step" reduction of sanctions against Turkey. Now excuse me if I don't understand english properly, but such a phrase implies that one side (in this case Russia), takes the first step and lifts in part or limited sanctions against Turkey. Then it is for Turkey to reciprocate some way. Then Russia lifts another 'step' etc. etc.

    Some anal-ists have been crawing that " Russia done got no-thing *" and that Russia was economically desperate to renew trade relations with Turkey, and you have to wonder what else they have been smoking.

    As others have pointed out, Erdogan from being the principle backer of Jihadis in Syria (save Saudi Arabia and the UAE), needs to somehow cover his own back as the Jihadis will come for him. Not that I am sympathetic, but not black and white.

    * Yee-haw, pass the moonshine paw!

    [Aug 13, 2016] Canadian politicians, making political mischief in order to gain electoral capital with the Ukrainian diaspora (who made Canada what it is dontcha know), have turned the country into a camp of morally offended Russophobes

    marknesop.wordpress.com
    dpsimpson2014 (Dave) , August 12, 2016 at 11:03 am
    Canada: The 'former' politeness capital of the world. Canadian politicians, making political mischief in order to gain electoral capital with the Ukrainian diaspora (who made Canada what it is dontcha know), have turned the country into a camp of morally offended Russophobes. I often wonder how they got away with this as the 'average Canadian' has no real reason to adopt these sentiments, let alone put them on display. It might be that they (our politicians) are using our sense of 'politeness', (referring to a generally believed Canadian pretense toward 'justice in social relations') against us.

    If you told Canadians they have to send their sons and daughters to Afghanistan to protect Western (American) geopolitical dominance and business interests they would mostly tell you to go to perdition. So just tell them it's so Afghan girls can go to school and they'll agree to that, even happy to oblige.

    And there is no choice in the matter. Where I live in Etobicoke I had to chose between two candidates. The Tory came to my door telling me that V. Putin was the biggest evil facing us today."Of course you believe that Ted", I told him, "you wouldn't last longer than a spit bubble in your caucus if you didn't, but I know you are spouting warmongering drivel."

    The liberal came talking junk ( like liberals do) about our mutual respect for sentiments of goodwill and after he's elected I see him grinning like a hamster on Demerol standing with Andriy Parubiy and Nadiya Savchenko as his new best friends.

    Nice one Boris. You couldn't resist your 'inner Pole' from getting the better of you. I guess even Neo-Nazis can have a 'goodwill ambassador'.

    So Canadians have been lured into believing that their frontier forged community ethics, (it was a northern frontier by the way, not a western one) compels them to call out the no-so-nice actors (Russians in this case) that are doing the wrong things. Except in our case we're behaving in the wrong way because we willingly believe the wrong things.

    [Aug 13, 2016] Its TIME For A Big Change In This Presidential Campaign

    Notable quotes:
    "... Reading Time for the 1st time in decades made me feel better because I could not read it, at least not the way they intended it. It was like trying to compile FORTRAN with a source file written in C. I don't understand their language anymore so the reading experience is like looking for errors in your source code. Kind of liberating in a way. ..."
    "... Everyone is recognizing the only way to become a Billionaire for now on is paying off politicians and becoming an extension of the federal government. Write rules in your favor or get the economic mercenaries whether they be the military - CIA - or the state department and take over a country a la Confessions of a Economic Hitman. Hillary is preferred since now you can induce a seizure and she turns into a signature pad with amnesia ..."
    "... Circulation around 3 million copies. Probably covers most waiting rooms across the country and a few Grandmas. ..."
    "... Here's a TIME magazine cover the day after 9/11/2016 when he gives his memorial dedication to those that perished that day with his unwavering pledge for the only investigation that matters!... ..."
    Zero Hedge
    Ralph Spoilsport J S Bach Aug 12, 2016 7:26 PM
    Had to pick up and glance through a copy of Time recently before a dental appt. The other choices were People, Good Housekeeping and some sales literature for dental equipment and other torture gear.

    Reading Time for the 1st time in decades made me feel better because I could not read it, at least not the way they intended it. It was like trying to compile FORTRAN with a source file written in C. I don't understand their language anymore so the reading experience is like looking for errors in your source code. Kind of liberating in a way.

    Omen IV Aug 12, 2016 7:09 PM
    Everyone is recognizing the only way to become a Billionaire for now on is paying off politicians and becoming an extension of the federal government. Write rules in your favor or get the economic mercenaries whether they be the military - CIA - or the state department and take over a country a la Confessions of a Economic Hitman. Hillary is preferred since now you can induce a seizure and she turns into a signature pad with amnesia

    It's over

    cart00ner Aug 12, 2016 7:14 PM
    I think you give TIME too much credit, does anyone still read that rag?
    Smerf cart00ner Aug 12, 2016 8:11 PM
    Circulation around 3 million copies. Probably covers most waiting rooms across the country and a few Grandmas.
    Son of Captain Nemo Aug 12, 2016 7:20 PM
    Here's a TIME magazine cover the day after 9/11/2016 when he gives his memorial dedication to those that perished that day with his unwavering pledge for the only investigation that matters!...

    Trump UNSTOPPABLE!!!

    [Aug 13, 2016] In June 2014, Cuomo openly admitted on camera that the media have abandoned all pretenses at journalistic objectivity, but instead give Hillary Clinton "a free ride"

    Notable quotes:
    "... No wonder this man at a Trump campaign rally yesterday in Kissimmee, Florida, gave the finger to CNN producer Noah Gray and other journalists, shouting, "Go home! You are traitors! I am an American patriot!" ..."
    fellowshipoftheminds.com

    Now we have CNN anchor Chris Cuomo - former ABC News correspondent and "20/20" co-anchor, son of the late New York governor Mario Cuomo, and brother of current New York governor Andrew Cuomo - confirming what so many suspect.

    In June 2014, Cuomo openly admitted on camera that the media have abandoned all pretenses at journalistic objectivity, but instead give Hillary Clinton "a free ride" and are her "biggest" promoters. At the time, although Hillary had not yet declared she would run for the presidency, she was already getting donations for her then-nonexistent presidential campaign.

    Cuomo said:

    "It's a problem because she's [Hillary Clinton] doing what they call in politics 'freezing pockets,' because the donors are giving her money thinking she's going to run, that means they're not going to have available money for other candidates if she doesn't. And I don't think she's going to give it to them. We [the media] couldn't help her any more than we have, she's got just a free ride so far from the media, we're the biggest ones promoting her campaign, so it had better happen. "

    No wonder this man at a Trump campaign rally yesterday in Kissimmee, Florida, gave the finger to CNN producer Noah Gray and other journalists, shouting, "Go home! You are traitors! I am an American patriot!"

    [Aug 13, 2016] Hate Trump You Should Still Hold Clinton's Feet to the Fire

    Notable quotes:
    "... she is living in a glass house funded by Goldman Sachs and should be throwing no stones. ..."
    "... Clinton's been courting endorsements from billionaires Meg Whitman, Warren Buffett and Michael Bloomberg. Her own son-in-law is a "hedge fund guy", and the Wall Street Journal reported that "hedge fund money has vastly favored Clinton over Trump" to the tidy sum of $122m. Being bothered by what this portends for our economic future this is not a vote for Trump. ..."
    "... She has embraced the endorsement of neocon John Negroponte and is even reportedly courting the endorsement of Henry Kissinger. As secretary of state, Clinton controversially supported not designating the 2009 ouster of Honduran president Manuel Zelaya as a coup ..."
    "... turning a critical lens on the presidential candidate who supported the war that killed their son does not equate supporting her opponent. ..."
    Common Dreams

    While she made fun of Trump on the stump for having "a dozen or so economic advisers he just named: hedge fund guys, billionaire guys, six guys named Steve, apparently," she is living in a glass house funded by Goldman Sachs and should be throwing no stones.

    They're not named Steve, but Clinton's been courting endorsements from billionaires Meg Whitman, Warren Buffett and Michael Bloomberg. Her own son-in-law is a "hedge fund guy", and the Wall Street Journal reported that "hedge fund money has vastly favored Clinton over Trump" to the tidy sum of $122m. Being bothered by what this portends for our economic future this is not a vote for Trump.

    And though Trump is hinting to his supporters that they might want to use the second amendment to possibly assassinate Clinton or justices of the supreme court is disgusting, let's not forget Clinton saying in May 2008 that she had to stay in that primary because "Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California" and, ho hum, you never know what might happen to presumptive nominee Barack Obama.

    I bring this all up not to draw parallels between Clinton and Trump. She is clearly the more capable person suited to preside over this corrupt, perpetually and criminally violent enterprise known as the United States of America. But let's not act like Clinton is a dove when it comes to matters of life and death.

    She has embraced the endorsement of neocon John Negroponte and is even reportedly courting the endorsement of Henry Kissinger. As secretary of state, Clinton controversially supported not designating the 2009 ouster of Honduran president Manuel Zelaya as a coup , even though he was woken up by armed soldiers and forced onto a plane and out of his country in his pajamas. She has since defended her role in that situation, which has led to hell for women, children and environmentalists, including the assassination of indigenous activist Berta Cáceres. And as senator, Clinton supported the Iraq war, a vote which helped lead to the death of US army captain Humayun Khan.

    Captain Khan's parents have valiantly and admirably taken on Trump and his ugly Islamophobia. But turning a critical lens on the presidential candidate who supported the war that killed their son does not equate supporting her opponent.

    [Aug 12, 2016] Russian athletes are demonized as the villains of the Rio Olympics

    The problems is with Olympic sport as whole. It became too politicized to be of value. The achievements displayed by athletes now are such that you suspect systematic doping program to be mainstream and revelations about individual athletes doping are just the tip of the iceberg. It might be a time to replace Olympic games with something else.
    Notable quotes:
    "... "It's something not usually heard at the Olympic Games. Booing. Loud, sustained booing. The rain of fury is directed at a common enemy: Russian athletes. The contingent, clouded and shrouded by drug scandal, has quickly emerged as the villains of these Rio 2016 Games. Like Cold War days of old, the Russians are once again the global bad guys. ..."
    "... After avoiding a full Olympic ban, some wondered how fans and fellow athletes would treat Russian athletes. That answer came quickly. At the opening ceremony, even athletes from pariah nations were given polite applause. But fans interrupted the global Kumbya moment to let the Russians know their presence wasn't welcome." ..."
    "... " It's kind of sad that today in sports in general, not just in swimming, there are people who are testing positive and are allowed back in the sport, and multiple times. I think it just breaks what sport is meant to be and that pisses me off." ..."
    "... "We in Australia have been less than impressed with the efforts in America, and if you were to do a survey of the athletes, they'll tell you the country that's the major problem." ..."
    "... "They came to me and asked me to participate in a project in which they wanted to give athletes what they called ATP injections – that's aginicent triphosphate. That's the fuel that muscle cells actually operate on and I refused on the basis that i thought it was unethical to give people things in a non-medical fashion for non-treatment, but just to see if it would help performance. I also thought that even if that substance wasn't directly named or on the IOC list, that it was at least aimed in the direction of doping." ..."
    "... "They've got the facilities, they've got the research, they've got the motivation to be using drugs across the board in many different sports." ..."
    "... Sports Illustrated ..."
    "... The Orange County Register ..."
    "... "The World Anti-Doping Agency steered the Stepanovs to a reporter at the German television network ARD. Their tapes became the centerpiece of this documentary which aired in December 2014 and sent shockwaves through the world of sports." ..."
    "... "The report released Monday was the result of a 10-month investigation by an independent commission of WADA. Its inquiry stemmed from a December 2014 documentary by the German public broadcaster ARD , which drew on accounts from Russian athletes, coaches and antidoping officials, who said that the Russian government had helped procure drugs for athletes and cover up positive test results." ..."
    "... "Dr. Grigory Rodchenkov, the director of the Moscow lab whom Monday's report accused of having solicited and accepted bribes, dismissed the suggestions. "This is an independent commission which only issues recommendations," he said. "There are three fools sitting there who don't understand the laboratory." ..."
    "... "Conte, who spent four months in prison for his role in the affair, said he has offered to provide expert insights to the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), only to be turned down. "I've made myself available, put forward names, addresses, websites, protocols but you know what they told me? That we can't trust someone who's been sentenced ," he added." ..."
    "... Dmitry Peskov, a spokesman for Russian president Vladimir Putin, said Tuesday that "as long as there is no evidence [of state-sponsored doping in Russia], it is difficult to consider the accusations, which appear rather unfounded." How do you respond to that? ..."
    "... That doesn't surprise me. He and others have said that before. But I would expect that won't be the same refrain by the end of the week once they have a chance to study the report. When you draw the connections across the board about what's going on, you can't just say this is just a few isolated people or some of the old coaches dictating out of the Soviet era and nobody else. ..."
    "... Dmitry's correct. We don't have any evidence of a systematic, state-wide doping mechanism. If we did, we would have published it and so we have to go on the inference. But across a vast country [with] all sorts of different training camps, it has to be somehow state supported but we can't actually describe for you how that operates. We can only draw the inference. We've given them a chance to reform, so why don't you reform and join the rest of the world instead of fighting it. ..."
    "... " The IP did not seek to interview persons living in the Russian Federation . I did not seek to meet with Russian government officials and did not think it necessary " ..."
    "... on no grounds but their nationality ..."
    "... "Additionally, no reliance can be made on the McLaren Report as evidence, as it is not complete, it has secret parts that were not shared with or available to the Athlete and there was no date of the sample taking in the information provided by Mr. McLaren." ..."
    "... "FISA applied the criterion and was satisfied that the Athlete was 'clearly implicated' by the McLaren Report and was therefore excluded from the Rio Games." ..."
    "... "Additionally, Mr. McLaren, in his amicus curiae, while not providing the emails on grounds of confidentiality, revealed to the Panel the exact date and times of the message from the Moscow laboratory that the screen of the Athlete's A sample revealed positive for the prohibited substance GW 1516 and the response from the Deputy Minister to change the positive into a negative, following the DPM. While these additional details were not before FISA (primarily due to the lack of time) they have been considered by the Panel in this de novo procedure". ..."
    "... "I have to respect (the track authorities') decision even if it is something I don't necessarily agree with," King said. "No, do I think people who have been caught doping should be on the team? They shouldn't. It is unfortunate we have to see that. ..."
    "... "In the United States, it is a matter of law. If you are not under a ban, regardless of what you may have served in the past, you are fully eligible to be on the team." ..."
    "... "For one, a blanket ban on Russian athletes would likely have been derailed by numerous legal hurdles. The Court of Arbitration for Sport, among others, would likely overturn a universal ban that included athletes who haven't been implicated in doping. ..."
    "... "We were mindful of the need for justice for clean athletes," IOC vice-president John Coates told reporters. "We did not want to penalize athletes who are clean with a collective ban and, therefore, keeping them out of the Games." ..."
    marknesop.wordpress.com

    According to the CBC – the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, a Crown corporation and the official voice of the nation – Russian athletes are "emerging as the villains of the Rio Olympics". And maybe it's just me, but the tone seems approving, self-righteous judgy. As if the official mouthpiece of Canada is delighted to sign on to the Get Russia program offered by its southern neighbour and business partner to all its toadies and would-be chambermaids.

    In a word, this is disappointing. I used that word because I didn't want to start swearing so early, although I'm sure we'll get to it.

    Just so we're clear – whose interests does it serve for Canada to enthusiastically sign on to booing and hooting like howler monkeys whenever Russian athletes step up to compete, like we were English football hooligans? Canada's? How?

    In fact, as everyone who is not thick as a BC pine knows, it serves Washington's interests, because the USA wants Russia isolated and alone and friendless because it is pissed off at it for other things, and the more disrespect and ignorance and rudeness it gets from the former politeness capital of the world, the better Uncle Sam likes it. WADA is going after every medal Russia ever won, and it is not even looking at anyone else. And that entire effort rests on the credibility of two people; one who was convicted of doping herself and barred from competition for two years for it, and her husband who knew and did nothing about it while he worked for the national anti-doping agency.

    We'll get to that.

    "It's something not usually heard at the Olympic Games. Booing. Loud, sustained booing. The rain of fury is directed at a common enemy: Russian athletes. The contingent, clouded and shrouded by drug scandal, has quickly emerged as the villains of these Rio 2016 Games. Like Cold War days of old, the Russians are once again the global bad guys.

    After avoiding a full Olympic ban, some wondered how fans and fellow athletes would treat Russian athletes. That answer came quickly. At the opening ceremony, even athletes from pariah nations were given polite applause. But fans interrupted the global Kumbya moment to let the Russians know their presence wasn't welcome."

    Disappointing. Disappointing to see how easy it is to get people who probably are reasonably nice under ordinary circumstances to get on board with the mob mentality, because it's kind of fun. Why is the western audience (because that's who it is, mostly – the North Americans, the Australians and the English) booing the Russians? Because the whole nation is implicated in a doping scandal.

    Is that all it takes to make otherwise-sensible people make one-syllable sounds of disapproval simultaneously, in a deliberately-insulting fashion? Good. Let's hear a long, sustained 'boooooo .." for the cheatingest nation on the planet – the United States of America.

    Worldly-wise 19-year-old American 100-meter backstroke champion Lilly King unloaded on silver-medalist Russian Yulia Efimova, calling her a drug cheat and sounding off to reporters that the 'twice-banned' Russian athlete should not be allowed at the games; Efimova was booed by the crowd every time she appeared on the pool deck. World-class jackass Michael Phelps, American team leader, went further as he applauded King's rudeness; " It's kind of sad that today in sports in general, not just in swimming, there are people who are testing positive and are allowed back in the sport, and multiple times. I think it just breaks what sport is meant to be and that pisses me off."

    That so, Michael? All about self-discipline, are you? Did you learn that in rehab? "I honestly didn't care about my training" leading up to the 2012 London Olympics; wasn't that you? Is that what sport is meant to be? Isn't this you, with a bong in your face? What's up with that, voice of clean sports?

    While we're having this heart-to-heart, Michael, let me tell you what pisses me off. Hypocrisy.

    Before the 2000 Olympic Games in Sydney even started, Dr. Wade Exum – former director of the US Olympic Committee's (USCOC) drug-testing program – announced that more than half of all US athletes caught doping prior to the Atlanta games (1996) suffered no penalty whatever and were permitted to compete at those games, where some of them won medals. At the time, ally Australia's opinion of America's drug-testing efforts was decidedly negative.

    "We in Australia have been less than impressed with the efforts in America, and if you were to do a survey of the athletes, they'll tell you the country that's the major problem."

    And let me tell you this – that same country is still the major problem. It has hit upon the novel approach that rather than control the athletes and what they are taking, you control the testing process and develop performance enhancements which are ever harder to detect. Within months of Exum's joining USOC in 1991, the organization came to him with a proposal to trial a new injection 'just to see if it enhances performance'.

    "They came to me and asked me to participate in a project in which they wanted to give athletes what they called ATP injections – that's aginicent triphosphate. That's the fuel that muscle cells actually operate on and I refused on the basis that i thought it was unethical to give people things in a non-medical fashion for non-treatment, but just to see if it would help performance. I also thought that even if that substance wasn't directly named or on the IOC list, that it was at least aimed in the direction of doping."

    Other Australians were less circumspect in their criticism. Sean Murphy, chair of the Australian Olympic Committee at the time, said, "They've got the facilities, they've got the research, they've got the motivation to be using drugs across the board in many different sports."

    There was no World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) then; it was founded by Dick Pound in 1999 and he served as president until 2007. But WADA and Dick Pound were certainly around in 2003, when Exum released more than 30,000 pages of documents to Sports Illustrated and The Orange County Register, documents which proved beyond doubt that American athletes and champions such as Carl Lewis and Mary Jo Fernandez tested positive for banned substances in American screening but were allowed to compete anyway. USOC called Exum's accusations 'baseless'. Were they? Evidently not – here's Carl Lewis's reaction: So I was doping, who cares?

    That's the accused, ladies and gentleman. It sounds awfully like a confession to me. What does that mean? That the United States Olympic Committee was comprised of and headed by liars, whose word on anything to do with the clean performance of American athletes was not and is not to be trusted. It also screams "State-sponsored doping program" in chrome letters 18 feet high; USOC is the national authority for Olympic sport, and of the top ten doping scandals of all time in Track and Field, six are Americans.

    Can anybody tell me the last time the United States did not send a team to the Olympics because it was awarded a blanket ban for doping? That's right – never. Nor has any identifiable component of its team, such as Track and Field, been banned from competition, despite ample evidence of doping which was covered up by American sports organizations and its Olympic Commission. But Mr. Clean, Dick Pound, was adamant that Russia be banned completely from competition at Rio, and was vocal in his disappointment that only the Track and Field team was denied the opportunity to compete, including world champion gold medalist Yelena Isinbayeva, who has never, ever failed a drug test conducted by any authority. What a disgrace. But Dick Pound was one of the three members of the 'Independent Commission' appointed to investigate Russia's alleged state-sponsored doping program.

    Let's go back to the Sydney Games, 2000. That event was dogged by allegations that American athletes had used performance-enhancing drugs to win medals. Rubbish, said USOC. An investigation was ordered. Enter Professor Richard McLaren, who headed the probe

    Boom. The BALCO Scandal hit, three years later. The Bay Area Laboratory Cooperative, headed by Victor Conte, whipped up performance cocktails for American athletes. He admitted to it, and implicated dozens of athletes. Perhaps the most well-known was Marion Jones, who won 5 medals at the Sydney Olympics, 3 of them gold. Marion Jones vehemently denied any involvement with drugs, and sued Conte for defamation. Not until 2007 did she finally admit tearfully that it was all true, and was awarded 6 months in jail for lying to federal investigators, as well as being stripped of her medals. Regina Jacobs was also netted, and awarded a 4-year suspension from competition; the same year the BALCO scandal broke, she set a world record in the indoor 1500 meter. Alvin Harrison, who won a gold and a silver for the USA at the Sydney Olympics; he was not stripped of any medals until 2008, when a teammate admitted he had used performance-enhancing drugs. Michelle Collins, the 2003 world-record holder for the 200-meter indoor sprint. She was banned from competition for 8 years, threatened to take the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) to court, and they backed down and cut her suspension to 4 years. The current head of USADA is the alliteratively-named Travis T. Tygart, who bayed like a hound for a Russian national ban at Rio. 'Cause, you know, enough is enough.

    Kevin Toth, a US shot-putter who was United States Track and Field (USATF) Athlete of the Week in April that same year; he got a 2-year suspension. John McEwen, 2-year suspension. Dwain Chambers, a British sprinter – think word got around about the USA's new line of undetectable performance enhancers? He was the top European performer at his Olympic debut at – you guessed it – the Sydney Olympics; 2-year suspension. Calvin Harrison, identical twin brother of the previously-named Alvin Harrison, gold medalist at Sydney in the 4oo-meter relay – 2-year suspension. We could go on with this for quite a while, but I think you get the point.

    Here's what I bet you didn't get, though. Professor McLaren's investigation did not catch any of those people. They were all exposed by the BALCO scandal and press releases like those generated by Exum. McLaren's investigation wrapped up in 2001, and a year after that USATF was still suppressing the case files and refusing to reveal the name of an American athlete who had been cleared to compete at the Sydney Olympics and had won a medal for the USA. USATF defied an order and threats of de-registration from IOC president Dr. Jacques Rogge. What was done about it? Fuck all, as you probably knew.

    Professor McLaren was the public voice of the 'Independent Commission' that recommended a complete national ban for Russia at Rio. The third member was Gunter Younger, a former head of a Bavarian cybercrime division, who was just appointed as WADA's new head of Intelligence and Investigations this past June. Younger headed the actual investigation into Russian doping, and was 'given a free hand' by Dick Pound to use the covert recordings from the German television ARD documentary which initially broke the story of Russian doping.

    Well, sort of. Actually ARD was steered onto the story by WADA, who had acquired the services of the whistle-blowing Stepaonovs, Yulia (nee Rusanova), a doper athlete and her urine-testing husband with the Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA). WADA told Valery Stepanov that it did not have the power to investigate inside Russia. So WADA steered the Stepanovs to ARD with their story, which was released as a documentary and which WADA then pounced on as evidence of 'a culture of cheating'.

    "The World Anti-Doping Agency steered the Stepanovs to a reporter at the German television network ARD. Their tapes became the centerpiece of this documentary which aired in December 2014 and sent shockwaves through the world of sports."

    WADA does not mention this elsewhere, and the rest of the world is led to believe that the ARD documentary was the clarion call which inspired WADA's investigation.

    "The report released Monday was the result of a 10-month investigation by an independent commission of WADA. Its inquiry stemmed from a December 2014 documentary by the German public broadcaster ARD, which drew on accounts from Russian athletes, coaches and antidoping officials, who said that the Russian government had helped procure drugs for athletes and cover up positive test results."

    But WADA considers the Stepanovs 100% credible. It has to – that's the only evidence it has. Grigory Rodchenkov, the former director of the Moscow laboratory, was not always on board, and as recently as November 2015 described the Independent Commission as 'three fools'.

    "Dr. Grigory Rodchenkov, the director of the Moscow lab whom Monday's report accused of having solicited and accepted bribes, dismissed the suggestions. "This is an independent commission which only issues recommendations," he said. "There are three fools sitting there who don't understand the laboratory."

    Yet only months later he was in the WADA camp and singing like a canary. Perhaps the revelation that Vitaly Stepanov recorded 15 hours of their conversations without his knowledge inspired a conversion. Oddly enough, that is generally illegal in Canada, and cannot be used as evidence except in exceptional circumstances. There is a blanket exemption, though, for consent, and this is implied if the person making the recording is a party to the conversation. Still, it kind of makes Rodchenkov sound like the kind of guy who will say anything. Just to give you an idea how ridiculous that is, Victor Conte – the executive in charge of BALCO – offered after the scandal broke to act as an expert assistant to WADA (probably as an effort to plea-bargain; he served four months in prison).

    "Conte, who spent four months in prison for his role in the affair, said he has offered to provide expert insights to the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), only to be turned down. "I've made myself available, put forward names, addresses, websites, protocols but you know what they told me? That we can't trust someone who's been sentenced," he added."

    But they can trust someone who just got through saying the Investigative Commissioners were three fools who don't have any power to do anything and don't know what the fuck they're talking about, when he suddenly says, Yesiree, boss, it was exactly like you said. I'm a crook. And you know who else is a crook? The whole Russian government. Uh huh.

    Which brings me to my favourite part – the legal implications. The McLaren Report is careful not to name names for public consumption, because WADA fears getting sued by individuals. As well it might. So McLaren prefers to leave the oomph of his report to a statement that it proves there is a state sponsored doping program in Russia which is known and countenanced by the highest levels of government. And he's said that, on a number of occasions, and the press has dutifully repeated it. It's basically the most damaging finding of the McLaren Report.

    Which is why it would be odd for him to say that WADA has no evidence of a state-sponsored doping program. Like he did here, after the report came out.

    CBCSports.ca: Dmitry Peskov, a spokesman for Russian president Vladimir Putin, said Tuesday that "as long as there is no evidence [of state-sponsored doping in Russia], it is difficult to consider the accusations, which appear rather unfounded." How do you respond to that?

    McLaren: That doesn't surprise me. He and others have said that before. But I would expect that won't be the same refrain by the end of the week once they have a chance to study the report. When you draw the connections across the board about what's going on, you can't just say this is just a few isolated people or some of the old coaches dictating out of the Soviet era and nobody else.

    Dmitry's correct. We don't have any evidence of a systematic, state-wide doping mechanism. If we did, we would have published it and so we have to go on the inference. But across a vast country [with] all sorts of different training camps, it has to be somehow state supported but we can't actually describe for you how that operates. We can only draw the inference. We've given them a chance to reform, so why don't you reform and join the rest of the world instead of fighting it.

    The 'Independent Commission' did not question or interview any Russian athletes or officials except for the Stepanovs and Grigory Rodchenkov. " The IP did not seek to interview persons living in the Russian Federation . I did not seek to meet with Russian government officials and did not think it necessary "

    And, you see, that's a problem. Because athletes on the Track and Field team who have never failed a drug test were banned, by association, from competing, on no grounds but their nationality. Others were banned in highly ambiguous circumstances, just because their names appeared in McLaren's testimony. Like Russian rower Ivan Balandin, whose appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) is featured here. The whole case is worth reading, as there are many juicy bits, but the upshot was his appeal was rejected on the grounds that he had made out he was unfairly denied the chance to compete because the McLaren Report fingered him for doping, which was not the case – he was fingered as 'ineligible' because one of his samples had allegedly tested positive, except McLaren did not even know when the test was allegedly administered, that information helpfully being provided by the UK, the second-most-Russophobic of the western countries. I'm damned if I can see the difference, but I'm not a lawyer. Anyway, I'd just like to draw your attention to page 7, where we read,

    "Additionally, no reliance can be made on the McLaren Report as evidence, as it is not complete, it has secret parts that were not shared with or available to the Athlete and there was no date of the sample taking in the information provided by Mr. McLaren."

    But on the same page, it reports, "FISA applied the criterion and was satisfied that the Athlete was 'clearly implicated' by the McLaren Report and was therefore excluded from the Rio Games." Wha wha what??? The reference which did not meet evidentiary standards was relied upon in the decision?

    Oh, dear; on Page 11 "Additionally, Mr. McLaren, in his amicus curiae, while not providing the emails on grounds of confidentiality, revealed to the Panel the exact date and times of the message from the Moscow laboratory that the screen of the Athlete's A sample revealed positive for the prohibited substance GW 1516 and the response from the Deputy Minister to change the positive into a negative, following the DPM. While these additional details were not before FISA (primarily due to the lack of time) they have been considered by the Panel in this de novo procedure".

    FISA and the Panel both made decisions based on evidence furnished by McLaren that they never examined or even saw. There just wasn't time. McLaren's report provides the evidence of a state-run doping program, except he doesn't have any evidence of that and says so, although he does and it's secret and he hasn't shown it to anyone.

    Bullshit. From start to finish. No western athlete would have to put up with a ban on competition just because he or she was American or Canadian or Dutch, and he or she would damned sure not be told to accept a ban where he or she had not even seen the evidence against him or her because it was secret.

    Which brings us back to the hooting and booing like the audience at a taping of the Arsenio Hall Show. On the occasion of Ms. King flipping out on Ms. Efimova, some reports of the incident recount the rest of the conversation – in which the reporter asked Ms. King if she thought American doper athletes like Justin Gatlin and Tyson Gay should be allowed to compete. To her credit, she didn't flinch, and said absolutely not.

    "I have to respect (the track authorities') decision even if it is something I don't necessarily agree with," King said. "No, do I think people who have been caught doping should be on the team? They shouldn't. It is unfortunate we have to see that.

    You could almost smell the controlled fury in the response rushed out by USATF:

    "In the United States, it is a matter of law. If you are not under a ban, regardless of what you may have served in the past, you are fully eligible to be on the team."

    Which describes Ms. Efimova's circumstances to a 'T'. What would be the American response to an Olympics audience which booed loudly every time Gay or Gatlin took the field? Low-class? You bet.

    And that brings us back to the beginning, to the article which started the whole post. An associated article on the same page offers, "Analysis: Why a Full Olympic Ban on Russia Never Had a Chance". Why not? Because it would have been illegal.

    "For one, a blanket ban on Russian athletes would likely have been derailed by numerous legal hurdles. The Court of Arbitration for Sport, among others, would likely overturn a universal ban that included athletes who haven't been implicated in doping.

    "We were mindful of the need for justice for clean athletes," IOC vice-president John Coates told reporters. "We did not want to penalize athletes who are clean with a collective ban and, therefore, keeping them out of the Games."

    Totally oblivious to fairness, apparently, are the Olympic crowds booing like a bunch of fourth-graders, and getting across the message so helpful to Washington that 'you Russian cheaters are not welcome here', fattened on non-stop propaganda from the world's biggest cheater and seasoned by the McLaren Report which proves Russia has a state culture of cheating, except it doesn't.

    WADA argued for a total ban. Travis Tygart of USADA argued for a total ban, because it would likely mean more medals for Americans. Neither of them gives a tin weasel whether it would be legal or not. Because that's the way things are done now – you just smash ahead by brute force and momentum, and hope that everyone mistakes action for justification.

    And that's what you're cheering for when you boo the Russians. I'm ashamed of you.

    There will be a price exacted for this later. I will be surprised if Russia does not take WADA to court, and even if it does not, the angry split between WADA and the IOC is evident. The McLaren Report does not prove anything it purports to prove, and it will not stand up to a challenge. At a minimum, WADA should be moved out of Canada to the USA, whose policies and interests it serves, depriving that country of an opportunity to internationalize its own initiatives.

    God speed the plough.

    [Aug 12, 2016] Tactic of Accusing Critics of Kremlin Allegiance Has Long, Ugly History in the USA

    Notable quotes:
    "... The party left me ..."
    "... "The larger conclusion from the data is that the Trump campaign - both through the support Trump generates among working-class whites and the opposition he generates among better educated, more affluent voters - has accelerated the ongoing transformation of the Democratic Party. ..."
    "... Once a class-based coalition, the party has become an alliance between upscale well-educated whites and, importantly, ethnic and racial minorities, many of them low income" ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    "Democrats' Tactic of Accusing Critics of Kremlin Allegiance Has Long, Ugly History in U.S." [The Intercept].

    The party left me

    "The larger conclusion from the data is that the Trump campaign - both through the support Trump generates among working-class whites and the opposition he generates among better educated, more affluent voters - has accelerated the ongoing transformation of the Democratic Party.

    Once a class-based coalition, the party has become an alliance between upscale well-educated whites and, importantly, ethnic and racial minorities, many of them low income"

    [Thomas Edsall, New York Times]. Citing this tweet:

    [Aug 12, 2016] Is Hillary Showing Signs Of Dementia

    This article was written two years ago. Still current...
    Notable quotes:
    "... She was responding, but seemed a little off. I figured she was just distracted and didn't feel like it was worth her time. ..."
    "... I kept going, but was starting to get frustrated. I decided I would ask her something I hadn't really planned on. I said, 'Ms. Clinton, some have suggested that you aren't healthy enough or are too old to pursue the presidency. Do you have a comment on that?' ..."
    "... I knew I had crossed a line for her right away. She snapped back, 'It's my turn. I've done my time, and I deserve it.' Then she stormed off. ..."
    "... When you consider her history of fainting spells, likely the result of strokes and the verbal gaffes she's made recently, you have to wonder if she isn't losing her mental faculties. ..."
    "... Let's face it, she's not a rank amateur when it comes to politics. She's always demonstrated a talent for verbal manipulation and deception. But suddenly it's as if her mask has slipped exposing her ugly, arrogant sense of entitlement. ..."
    "... I guarantee there's a lot of hand wringing going on in Democrat circles right now. They have a lot invested in Hillary as their best and only shot at replacing Obama. Between revelations about her health, her age, the gaffes she's made, the failure of her book, her low approval numbers… They're sweating bullets. ..."
    June 24, 2014 | Blur Brain
    The story goes that a freelance journalist Samuel Rosales-Avila was granted a short interview with Hillary after her LA book signing. He wanted to do a article for a Hispanic publication and was surprised when Hillary granted him a 20 minute meeting.

    He got more than he bargained for…

    I started asking Ms. Clinton questions. Mostly policy stuff, really focused on immigration. She was responding, but seemed a little off. I figured she was just distracted and didn't feel like it was worth her time.

    I kept going, but was starting to get frustrated. I decided I would ask her something I hadn't really planned on. I said, 'Ms. Clinton, some have suggested that you aren't healthy enough or are too old to pursue the presidency. Do you have a comment on that?'

    I knew I had crossed a line for her right away. She snapped back, 'It's my turn. I've done my time, and I deserve it.' Then she stormed off.

    After she left, one of her handlers came up to me and told me he would need the recording of our interview and that it was now 'off the record'. I was shocked and disappointed, but it was clear that it wasn't a negotiation.

    Read the rest:

    Hillary's posse isn't denying that the meeting took place, but without that recording we only have his version of what transpired.

    When you consider her history of fainting spells, likely the result of strokes and the verbal gaffes she's made recently, you have to wonder if she isn't losing her mental faculties.

    Let's face it, she's not a rank amateur when it comes to politics. She's always demonstrated a talent for verbal manipulation and deception. But suddenly it's as if her mask has slipped exposing her ugly, arrogant sense of entitlement.

    I guarantee there's a lot of hand wringing going on in Democrat circles right now. They have a lot invested in Hillary as their best and only shot at replacing Obama. Between revelations about her health, her age, the gaffes she's made, the failure of her book, her low approval numbers… They're sweating bullets.

    [Aug 12, 2016] Michael Hudson: Clintons Red-Baiting Distracts from Failure to Address Inequality, War-Mongering as Trump Flails

    This lesser evilness trap is a standard trick inherent in two party system setup, designed to prevent voting for third party candidate and essentially limiting public discourse to selection between two oligarchy stooges. Moreover Hillary is definitely greater evil. Invoking of Nader to justify voting for Hillary is pure neoliberal propaganda designed to get the establishment candidate (who has significant and dangerous for any politician, to say nothing about POTUS, health problems) into White House. that why neoliberal MSM are baking non-stop at Trump, trying exaggerate any his misstep to galactic proportions. ...
    Notable quotes:
    "... Michael, in a recent article that you penned on your website, you argued that Hillary Clinton's campaign is using a very clever strategy in that it is trying to associate criticism of Clinton with support for Trump and therefore support for Russia, which in the end is anti-American ..."
    "... Trump opposes the neocon line toward Russia, and because he criticizes NATO, Russia benefits. Therefore Putin must have stolen the leaks and put them out, to make America weaker, not stronger, by helping the Trump campaign by showing the DNC's dirty tricks toward Bernie's followers. ..."
    "... Most of all, Hillary is still the war candidate. Trump already has said, "Look at what she did to Libya." By displacing Libya, she turned its arms cache over to terrorist groups that have become ISIS, Al-Nusra, and the other terrorist in the Near East. So she's the Queen of Chaos. Finally, she's the candidate of Wall Street, given the fact even the Koch Brothers have said they're not going to back Trump, they're going to back Hillary because she's on their side. George Soros and most other big moguls and billionaires are now siding with the Democratic Party, not Trump. ..."
    "... She is a candidate of Wall Street and she is as you say, now being supported even by the neocons. They're holding fundraisers for her. And the Koch brothers and so on. ..."
    "... Trump will win if he can make the election all about Hillary, and Hillary will win if she can make the election all about Trump. ..."
    "... "America needs an ineffective president. That's much better than an effective president that's going to go to war with Russia, that's going to push for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, that's going to protect Wall Street, and that's going to oppose neoliberal austerity." ..."
    "... I am absolutely terrified of Hillary Clinton becoming President. She strikes me as having psychopathic tendencies. I mean, just look at the scandals she and Bill have been involved in, and then when she gets caught, she lies, feigns ignorance, deflects, blames others, lies some more. Power and money are her goals. ..."
    "... I'm sure he will quash TPP, renegotiate nafta and be less belligerent with Russia. But what will happen when he and his non-government-indoctrinated team of advisers finally see every bit of redacted and "confidential" information that has been routinely hidden from the public and lied about for decades? ..."
    "... The loss of sovereignty inherent in the "trade" agreements and incoherent Middle East policies, to name a few "strategies" this country is pursuing, have a larger purpose. We private citizens have just not been privy to it. How private citizen Trump will proceed if he is elected and comes to know the government's deepest, darkest secrets is anybody's guess. ..."
    "... I think its a safe assumption that if Trump is elected he will be carefully 'minded' to ensure he can't gain access to information that would upset the applecart. ..."
    "... As for Donnie taking down TPP and being the peace candidate, I think people should sit down and take a few deep breaths. As a New Yorker who's observed him for his entire public life, and as a 90 second scanning of his career demonstrates, the man cannot be trusted to speak truthfully about anything ..."
    "... You're right. He'll make a good court jester. That's about it. as for "the man cannot be trusted to speak truthfully about anything" reminds me of someone who gets on TeeVee and does that well. And he really didn't have any experience but he got himself good handlers and others who ran the country. ..."
    "... Exactly right! Trump is dangerous…to the establishment. And the establishment is what we have to get rid of. ..."
    "... As flawed a character as Trump is, he still represents our last chance to challenge the establishment. It won't be a pretty presidency – but it will be entertaining – however the alternative is the ultimate horror show. Plus you are gambling that Clinton won't start a nuclear war and end the human race. Why would anyone in their right mind touch that wager? ..."
    "... It is unlikely that Trump will be able to deport more people than Obama's record breaking administration. ..."
    "... Obama actually ended up rejecting Clinton's continuous advice for more more more military intervention. ..."
    "... I agree with you that Trump is not likable, and an unknown. The problem is that the known is despicable. Neither, let me repeat, neither candidate should be anywhere near this close to the White House. ..."
    "... You have obviously chosen the despicable hateful war mongering devil you know. Others are willing to roll the dice with the guy who has incoherently at least given a nod to the idea that war with Russia is not a smart plan, and that our current military choices are not effective – not to mention a far more coherent case that our trade policy is screwed up and needs to be changed. ..."
    "... Trump wants to stop "illegal" immigration so that poor Americans can have jobs. Illegals lower wages (because American employers pay them less), they increase rents (supply and demand), and they cost a fortune in medical and educational costs. He's for "legal" immigration when the country needs more workers. I don't think that is being racist, although he doesn't have a very nice way of saying things. ..."
    "... Muslim immigration stopped until they can be properly vetted? That's just being prudent and careful, but again he could say things in a much kinder way. ..."
    "... He's a wild man, but at least he's upfront about it. I see her as being a narcissist that just hides it better than he does. She could get us all killed. ..."
    "... While Trump is upfront (yikes, I know), I see Hillary as the secretive, conniving, manipulative, scheming, backstabbing type. When someone slights Trump, out comes his response right back at them. It's over. But I would not want to cross her. I see her as cold, with very, very little conscience. I mean, would you ever have tried to pull off the scandals she has been involved in? No. She seeks power and money, and look out if you ever got in her way. She never says she's sorry, not really. Most you get out of her is she made a "mistake". ..."
    "... Her outright aggression towards Russia, Syria, Libya, Ukraine should give you a hint of what lurks inside. And she doesn't attack these countries to better the U.S. She's doing it solely for her own person gain: money into the Clinton Foundation, business for her speech-giving husband, all to further the Clinton's. ..."
    "... IMO, a very dangerous person, a very dangerous couple. And she has said, if she's elected, she will put Bill Clinton in charge of "economic affairs"! Can you just imagine what more deregulation will do for the banks? He repealed Glass-Steagall and brought us the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, as well as NAFTA. Get ready to hear a "huge" sucking sound if Hillary is elected. The place will be gutted. ..."
    "... Perhaps with a hateful, racist, despicable con man trying to tell them what to do, congress just might re-assert its authority instead of acting as a rubber stamp. Which is the LOTE – Trump antagonizing congress into gridlock or HRC manipulating them into moar war? ..."
    "... It sounds like you're talking about HRC when you're talking about Trump. She coined the term "super predators" so they could enrich the private prison industry by filling the jails with black people, she has waged wars against brown people in the middle east for no particular reason except corporate profits and power, no respect for their theocracies or the delicate balance that "supposed" tyrants there accomplished that had enduring peace there (some may argue). Where has Trump exhibited such hatred and racism? His policies? What policies? No one that has worked for him ever described him as hateful, racist or despicable. Stop believing the propaganda on TV. ..."
    "... You might think Obama doesn't like us, the 99%, but Hillary probably hates us. Pay attention, the most "effective evil" is the evil to fear. ..."
    "... If it's not close in my state, I will vote 3rd party. If it is close, I'll vote for Clinton over Trump. There is a good interview with Chomsky on this on youtube which I'm too lazy to look up right now. ..."
    "... "Hillary took the lead role in the White House's efforts to pass a corporate-friendly version of "health reform." Along with the big insurance companies the Clintons deceptively railed against, the "co-presidents" decided from the start to exclude the popular health care alternative – single payer – from the national health care "discussion." (Obama would do the same thing in 2009.) ..."
    "... Beyond backing by a citizen super-majority, Himmelstein noted, single-payer would provide comprehensive coverage to the nation's 40 million uninsured while retaining free choice in doctor selection and being certified by the Congressional Budget Office as "the most cost-effective plan on offer." ..."
    "... That whole article deals with the "fake liberalism" exhibited by the Clinton's and Obama. It says they only "pretend" to care. ..."
    "... clinton is the more effective evil for another reason; she is respected by other neoliberals who rule the world in other countries. even if trump wanted to pass the TPP, TTIP and TISA, the intense dislike of him would make it easier to reject the bills in countries like Canada, Australia, the EU. A Hillary presidency would just about guarantee they'd sign. ..."
    "... it's common knowledge that the current "rigged" system, as Donald Trump keeps calling it, has been instrumental in bringing American politics and government to their present state of dysfunction at local, state and national levels. Americans hate and despise this elitist system; everyone is disgusted with the political donor class whose billions of dollars underwrite the election-rigging televised attack ads that dominate it. ..."
    "... At the Demo Convention Bernie Sanders neatly pinpointed the topics with which this bogus system is obsessed: "Let me be as clear as I can be. … This election is not about political gossip. It's not about polls. It's not about campaign strategy. It's not about fundraising. It's not about all the things the media spends so much time discussing." ..."
    "... Do you see it as possible that empowered citizens will truly be willing to take on big capital, even when big capital goes to war on them? I'm skeptical ..."
    "... The evil to fear is the most effective evil. Hillary IS both sides of the aisle and Congress will allow her all her neocon neoliberal desires, Trump is neither side of the aisle and would be ineffective because he doesn't belong to the neoliberal neocons, he's not an insider and obviously won't play their games. ..."
    "... Oh heck yes. This is a fight that has been going on for decades with battles like the War Powers Act and Nixon's impeachment. Supposedly the Founding Fathers didn't want an all powerful chief executive and thought that Congress would be the dominant force. But in modern times, even before Clinton v Trump, we already had gone much too far in the direction of a caudillo. Internally one person with a bully pulpit will never be able to change the current course and overseas presidents have a frightening amount of power that they can wield and then dare Congress to do something about it afterwards. ..."
    "... HRC has got the big corporate money behind her, the media too. Trump is fighting an uphill battle. If you watch CNN, which I watch very little of, they spend almost the whole time pulling apart what Trump has said, and very, very little press on Hillary's email, the Clinton Foundation, etc. ..."
    "... They are going after Trump with all that they have. They want the status quo to remain, and they are very worried that he might change it. Hillary is Wall Street, multinational corporations, arms dealers, weapons manufacturers, the military-industrial complex ..."
    "... "When you join the dots to Trump also preaching a policy revolt against the insatiable corporate jaws feeding on trillions of dollars of public budgets in Washington, the meaning becomes clear. But that connected meaning is blacked out. In its place, the corporate media and politicians present an egomaniac blowhard bordering on fascism who preaches hate, racism and sexism. ..."
    "... He is on record saying he will cut the Pentagon's budget "by 50%". No winning politician has ever dared to take on the military-industrial complex, with even Eisenhower only naming it in his parting speech. ..."
    "... Trump also says that the US "must be neutral, an honest broker" on the Israeli-Palestine conflict – as unspeakable as it gets in US politics ..."
    "... Hillary and her team will try to paint Trump as a lover of Putin, as a racist, bigot, bring the narrative down to this only. This way, no one ends up talking about the corporate elites she represents. Good, read some more, crittermom, and open your eyes even more. There's a lot more going on than meets the eye. ..."
    "... Recently I asked a wise person I know what historically follows an oligarchy (which is what I believe we have been in for awhile now). He told me that an oligarchy is usually followed by a dictatorship. ..."
    "... A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy". ..."
    "... How could Trump become a dictator? Congress will be hostile. Judiciary will be hostile. Pentagon will be hostile (didn't you see all those generals and admirals, in uniform, literally lining up behind Clinton?) Civil administration will be sullen, uncooperative, and leaking like crazy. ..."
    "... Trump does not have his own freestanding parallel state organization, ready to move in and take over the bureaucracy and the armed forces. It would be physically impossible for Trump to attempt a mass purge. ..."
    "... Just think: if you elect Trump, you would actually get to see the US Constitution's fabled "checks and balances" come into play for once in your life! ..."
    "... How could Trump become a dictator? ..."
    "... This is complete rhetorical garbage, the same kind of nonsense displayed when he is shock quoted and only the narrative supporting text is copied (such as the convenient omission that the fabled day in which Clinton could be assassinated would be "horrible"). It also fits well with the Democrats' habit of burying themselves instead of putting up a fight. ..."
    "... While Trump is a buffoon who might lead us into bad situations as he stumbles around, Hillary Clinton displays an undeniable and proven malice aforethought that he does not. ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    ... ... ...

    PERIES: So Michael, in a recent article that you penned on your website, you argued that Hillary Clinton's campaign is using a very clever strategy in that it is trying to associate criticism of Clinton with support for Trump and therefore support for Russia, which in the end is anti-American . Now, this type of association game, which is supposed to make it difficult for Sanders supporters to criticize Clinton, what implication does this have on the overall politics in this country?

    HUDSON: Well, it certainly changed things in earlier elections. The Republican convention was as is normal, all about their candidate Trump. But surprisingly, so was the Democratic convention. That was all about Trump too – as the devil. The platform Hillary's running on is "I'm not Trump. I'm the lesser evil."

    She elaborates that by saying that Trump is Putin's ploy. When the Democratic National Committee (someone within it, or without) leaked the information to Wikileaks, the Democrats and Hillary asked, "Who benefits from this"? Ah-ha. Becaue Trump opposes the neocon line toward Russia, and because he criticizes NATO, Russia benefits. Therefore Putin must have stolen the leaks and put them out, to make America weaker, not stronger, by helping the Trump campaign by showing the DNC's dirty tricks toward Bernie's followers.

    Then Assange did an Internet interview and implied that it was not a cyberwar attack but a leak – indicating that it came from an insider inn the DNC. If this is true, then the Democrats are simply trying to blame it all on Trump – diverting attention from what the leaks' actual content!

    This is old-fashioned red baiting. I saw it 60 years ago when I was a teenager. I went to a high school where teachers used to turn in reports on what we said in class to the FBI every month. The State Department was emptied out of "realists" and staffed with Alan Dulles-type Cold Warriors. One couldn't talk about certain subjects. That is what red-baiting does. So the effect at the Democratic Convention was about Hillary trying to avoid taking about her own policies and herself. Except for what her husband said about "I met a girl" (not meaning Jennifer Flowers or Monica Lewinski.)

    The red baiting succeeded, and the convention wasn't about Hillary – at least, not her economic policies. It was more about Obama. She tied herself to Obama, and next to Trump = Putin, the convention's second underlying theme was that Hillary was going to be Obama's third term. That's what Obama himself said when he came and addressed the convention.

    The problem with this strategy is it's exactly the problem the Republicans faced in 2008, when voters turned against George Bush's administration. Voters wanted change. And they do today. Hillary did not say "I'm going to have hope and change from the last years of Obama." She said, in effect, "I'm not going to change anything. I'm going to continue Obama's policies that have made you all so prosperous." She talked about how employment is rising and everyone is better off.

    Well, the problem is that many people aren't better off than the last eight years. Ten million families have lost their homes, and most peoples' budgets are being squeezed. Obama saved the banks not the economy. So Trump's line and the Republican line in this election could well be: "Are you really better off than you were eight years ago? Or, are you actually worse off? Where are all your gains? You're further in debt. You're having more difficulty meeting your paychecks, you're running up your student loans. You're really not better off and we're going to be the party of hope and change."

    Hillary can't really counter that with the policies she has. Trump and the Republicans can say that even though she disavowed the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the trade agreement with Europe, all the Democratic representatives that voted for the TPP have won re-nomination, and it's still on the burner.

    Most of all, Hillary is still the war candidate. Trump already has said, "Look at what she did to Libya." By displacing Libya, she turned its arms cache over to terrorist groups that have become ISIS, Al-Nusra, and the other terrorist in the Near East. So she's the Queen of Chaos. Finally, she's the candidate of Wall Street, given the fact even the Koch Brothers have said they're not going to back Trump, they're going to back Hillary because she's on their side. George Soros and most other big moguls and billionaires are now siding with the Democratic Party, not Trump.

    What did Hilary actually say at the convention besides "I'm not Trump, Trump is worse." She's trying to make the whole election over her rival, not over herself.

    PERIES: Okay, so everything you say about Hillary Clinton may be true, and it's more in your favor that it is true. She is a candidate of Wall Street and she is as you say, now being supported even by the neocons. They're holding fundraisers for her. And the Koch brothers and so on. So when we opened this interview we were talking about what the Bernie Sanders supporters should now do, because Trump is starting to appeal like he's the candidate of ordinary people. So what are they to do?

    HUDSON: Well, if the election is between the most unpopular woman candidate in America and the most unpopular male candidate, the winner is going to be whoever can make the election fought over the other person. Trump will win if he can make the election all about Hillary, and Hillary will win if she can make the election all about Trump. It looks like she's able to do this, because Trump is even more narcissistic than she is.

    backwardsevolution , August 10, 2016 at 5:37 am

    EndOfTheWorld- totally agree with you. I just shake my head at Bernie. Diametrically opposed to Clinton, he suddenly turns around and embraces her! What? I will never understand that.

    "America needs an ineffective president. That's much better than an effective president that's going to go to war with Russia, that's going to push for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, that's going to protect Wall Street, and that's going to oppose neoliberal austerity."

    He's right too. I am absolutely terrified of Hillary Clinton becoming President. She strikes me as having psychopathic tendencies. I mean, just look at the scandals she and Bill have been involved in, and then when she gets caught, she lies, feigns ignorance, deflects, blames others, lies some more. Power and money are her goals.

    She has called Putin "Hitler", said she wants to expand NATO, and again said she wants to take out Assad. Well, how is she going to do that when Russia is in there? God, she is scary. I just hope that there's a big Clinton Foundation email leak to finish her off.

    Trump is out there, but at least he wants to try to negotiate peace (of course, if war wasn't making so many people rich, it would be stopped tomorrow). He's questioning why NATO is necessary, never mind its continual expansion, and he wants to stop the TPP.

    God, I'd be happy with even one of the above. Hillary will give us TPP, more NATO, more war, and a cackle. Please, if anyone has some loose emails hanging around, now is the time!

    Katniss Everdeen , August 10, 2016 at 7:30 am

    I honestly don't think there's any way to predict what Donald Trump will do if elected. He's effectively a private citizen who, all of a sudden, will have access to every government secret and lie, and no culpability for any of it. It's almost impossible to imagine what that would be like.

    And it's what makes him so "dangerous."

    I'm sure he will quash TPP, renegotiate nafta and be less belligerent with Russia. But what will happen when he and his non-government-indoctrinated team of advisers finally see every bit of redacted and "confidential" information that has been routinely hidden from the public and lied about for decades?

    The loss of sovereignty inherent in the "trade" agreements and incoherent Middle East policies, to name a few "strategies" this country is pursuing, have a larger purpose. We private citizens have just not been privy to it. How private citizen Trump will proceed if he is elected and comes to know the government's deepest, darkest secrets is anybody's guess.

    PlutoniumKun , August 10, 2016 at 8:09 am

    I think its a safe assumption that if Trump is elected he will be carefully 'minded' to ensure he can't gain access to information that would upset the applecart. I doubt he would be able to get much done as there would be an establishment consensus to keep him firmly under wraps. He would mostly busy himself with jetting around meeting foreign leaders and he might actually be quite productive at that.

    jrs , August 10, 2016 at 2:02 pm

    or he'll pass what he campaigns on which is standard Republican policy (sometimes) through an entirely Republican legislature duh. So tax cuts, cuts to regulation etc.. Really he's campaigning on these things and they CAN pass a Republican congress.

    Michael Fiorillo , August 10, 2016 at 3:49 pm

    Yes, if Donnie is elected, we'll see some form of a Regency; that's what Pence is there for. Donnie will be Clown Prince, while more traditionally evil Republican/DC technocrats "run" things. It would be a re-doing of the Reagan/Bush-Baker and Bush/Cheney dynamic, as seen on reality TV.

    As for Donnie taking down TPP and being the peace candidate, I think people should sit down and take a few deep breaths. As a New Yorker who's observed him for his entire public life, and as a 90 second scanning of his career demonstrates, the man cannot be trusted to speak truthfully about anything. Does he lie exactly the way Hillary does? Of course not, she's the accomplished professional, while Donnie spins plates and tries to misdirect by finding someone to insult when they fall and shatter.

    Vote for Hillary or not (I most likely won't, but can't predict much of anything in this all-bets-are-off opera buffa), but by believing anything Donnie says, you risk being the chump he already thinks you are.

    oh , August 10, 2016 at 4:29 pm

    You're right. He'll make a good court jester. That's about it. as for "the man cannot be trusted to speak truthfully about anything" reminds me of someone who gets on TeeVee and does that well. And he really didn't have any experience but he got himself good handlers and others who ran the country.

    EoinW , August 10, 2016 at 8:28 am

    Exactly right! Trump is dangerous…to the establishment. And the establishment is what we have to get rid of.

    When was the last time a political candidate in any country was as hated by the establishment as Trump is? That's all you need to know. As flawed a character as Trump is, he still represents our last chance to challenge the establishment. It won't be a pretty presidency – but it will be entertaining – however the alternative is the ultimate horror show. Plus you are gambling that Clinton won't start a nuclear war and end the human race. Why would anyone in their right mind touch that wager?

    Pat , August 10, 2016 at 10:32 am

    It is unlikely that Trump will be able to deport more people than Obama's record breaking administration. Something, that for all her rhetoric, there is no reason to believe that Clinton will change. As for waging war, we have a whole lot of information that for all his massive drone wars and interventions in the Middle East, Obama actually ended up rejecting Clinton's continuous advice for more more more military intervention.

    I agree with you that Trump is not likable, and an unknown. The problem is that the known is despicable. Neither, let me repeat, neither candidate should be anywhere near this close to the White House.

    You have obviously chosen the despicable hateful war mongering devil you know. Others are willing to roll the dice with the guy who has incoherently at least given a nod to the idea that war with Russia is not a smart plan, and that our current military choices are not effective – not to mention a far more coherent case that our trade policy is screwed up and needs to be changed.

    Once again, people are choosing from known despicable, unknown possibly lesser possibly greater despicable, and unlikely to win third parties or write ins – everyone can only do that for themselves.

    MikeNY , August 10, 2016 at 10:53 am

    That's fair.

    backwardsevolution , August 10, 2016 at 12:43 pm

    One New York reporter (sorry, I don't have the link) said that he has watched Trump his whole life and he said, though he could say many bad things about Trump, racism wasn't one of them. He said he had never in all his years of watching him known Trump to be racist in any way.

    Trump wants to stop "illegal" immigration so that poor Americans can have jobs. Illegals lower wages (because American employers pay them less), they increase rents (supply and demand), and they cost a fortune in medical and educational costs. He's for "legal" immigration when the country needs more workers. I don't think that is being racist, although he doesn't have a very nice way of saying things.

    Muslim immigration stopped until they can be properly vetted? That's just being prudent and careful, but again he could say things in a much kinder way.

    He's a wild man, but at least he's upfront about it. I see her as being a narcissist that just hides it better than he does. She could get us all killed.

    backwardsevolution , August 10, 2016 at 1:23 pm

    While Trump is upfront (yikes, I know), I see Hillary as the secretive, conniving, manipulative, scheming, backstabbing type. When someone slights Trump, out comes his response right back at them. It's over. But I would not want to cross her. I see her as cold, with very, very little conscience. I mean, would you ever have tried to pull off the scandals she has been involved in? No. She seeks power and money, and look out if you ever got in her way. She never says she's sorry, not really. Most you get out of her is she made a "mistake".

    Her outright aggression towards Russia, Syria, Libya, Ukraine should give you a hint of what lurks inside. And she doesn't attack these countries to better the U.S. She's doing it solely for her own person gain: money into the Clinton Foundation, business for her speech-giving husband, all to further the Clinton's.

    IMO, a very dangerous person, a very dangerous couple. And she has said, if she's elected, she will put Bill Clinton in charge of "economic affairs"! Can you just imagine what more deregulation will do for the banks? He repealed Glass-Steagall and brought us the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, as well as NAFTA. Get ready to hear a "huge" sucking sound if Hillary is elected. The place will be gutted.

    Lambert Strether , August 10, 2016 at 3:37 pm

    Needs a link, especially on a key point like that!!

    backwardsevolution , August 10, 2016 at 8:24 pm

    Okay, I'm pretty sure I saw it at Counterpunch. I think I can probably find it. Thanks.

    Michael Fiorillo , August 10, 2016 at 4:05 pm

    That's preposterous about Donnie not being racist. When the Central Park Five (released from prison and compensated by the state for false impisonment) were arrested, Donnie took out full page ads for days in the NYC papers, all but calling for those (innocent) boy's lynching. He was raised in an explicitly racist milieu – his father arrested at a KKK tussle in Queens in the 1920's, and successfully sued by the Nixon DOJ for his discriminatory rental policies…) and has a long history of saying ignorant, absurd and racist things about "The Blacks."

    shinola , August 10, 2016 at 10:56 am

    "Clinton is awful, but that doesn't mean it's a better idea to elect a hateful, racist, despicable con man"

    Perhaps with a hateful, racist, despicable con man trying to tell them what to do, congress just might re-assert its authority instead of acting as a rubber stamp. Which is the LOTE – Trump antagonizing congress into gridlock or HRC manipulating them into moar war?

    TedWa , August 10, 2016 at 11:25 am

    It sounds like you're talking about HRC when you're talking about Trump. She coined the term "super predators" so they could enrich the private prison industry by filling the jails with black people, she has waged wars against brown people in the middle east for no particular reason except corporate profits and power, no respect for their theocracies or the delicate balance that "supposed" tyrants there accomplished that had enduring peace there (some may argue). Where has Trump exhibited such hatred and racism? His policies? What policies? No one that has worked for him ever described him as hateful, racist or despicable. Stop believing the propaganda on TV.

    Hatred and racism is exhibited in leaders by being a war monger and gutting this nation with the TPP and lousy trade deals that sell off our national sovereignty and democracy. You might think Obama doesn't like us, the 99%, but Hillary probably hates us. Pay attention, the most "effective evil" is the evil to fear.

    MikeNY , August 10, 2016 at 12:03 pm

    I am with Noam Chomsky on this. If it's not close in my state, I will vote 3rd party. If it is close, I'll vote for Clinton over Trump. There is a good interview with Chomsky on this on youtube which I'm too lazy to look up right now.

    But as Pat said above, everyone must make up his or her own mind.

    TedWa , August 10, 2016 at 12:21 pm

    Of course my friend, you have to vote your conscience is the way I've always felt. You have to be able to live with your vote.

    lyman alpha blob , August 10, 2016 at 1:47 pm

    Has there ever been any evidence that this type of strategic voting has ever done any good whatsoever or ever had its intended result? Just speculation but I'm guessing that only a very few of the very politically astute would even bother. I say vote your conscience regardless and let the chips fall where they may.

    Not the voters fault that this is the best the two major parties could come up with.

    Tyler , August 10, 2016 at 9:35 am

    Speaking of revolution, I emailed Chomsky yesterday and he replied. The below is my message to him.

    Professor Chomsky,

    In the last years of his life, Martin Luther King, Jr. organized the Poor People's Campaign, which essentially planned to occupy Capitol Hill. The campaign still happened after his death, but not enough people showed up for it to have a great impact.

    I've begun to advocate what would essentially be a continuation of the Poor People's Campaign, but with a broader focus on the numerous crises facing humanity: climate change, poverty, illegal wars, etc.

    Would you possibly be interested in providing rhetorical support for this action?

    Thank you so much for your efforts to make a better world.

    The below is Chomsky's reply.

    It was a wonderful and very important initiative, cruelly undermined by his assassination. I hope you manage to revive it.

    MikeNY , August 10, 2016 at 4:09 pm

    Bravo! Chomsky and MLK are two of my heros, as I think they are for many here.

    backwardsevolution , August 10, 2016 at 1:33 pm

    Butch – "…she helped lead the fight for universal health care." Did she now? Here's a good quote on how she felt about universal health care:

    "Hillary took the lead role in the White House's efforts to pass a corporate-friendly version of "health reform." Along with the big insurance companies the Clintons deceptively railed against, the "co-presidents" decided from the start to exclude the popular health care alternative – single payer – from the national health care "discussion." (Obama would do the same thing in 2009.)

    "David, tell me something interesting." That was then First Lady Hillary Clinton's weary and exasperated response – as head of the White House's health reform initiative – to Harvard medical professor David Himmelstein in 1993. Himmelstein was head of Physicians for a National Health Program. He had just told her about the remarkable possibilities of a comprehensive, single-payer "Canadian style" health plan, supported by more than two-thirds of the U.S. public. Beyond backing by a citizen super-majority, Himmelstein noted, single-payer would provide comprehensive coverage to the nation's 40 million uninsured while retaining free choice in doctor selection and being certified by the Congressional Budget Office as "the most cost-effective plan on offer."

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/05/27/feel-the-hate/

    That whole article deals with the "fake liberalism" exhibited by the Clinton's and Obama. It says they only "pretend" to care.

    Perhaps Yves could highlight Hillary's disdain for single-payer healthcare on another post. Thanks.

    Lambert Strether , August 10, 2016 at 3:35 pm

    Hillary Clinton: Single-payer health care will "never, ever" happen CBS

    vidimi , August 10, 2016 at 9:52 am

    clinton is the more effective evil for another reason; she is respected by other neoliberals who rule the world in other countries. even if trump wanted to pass the TPP, TTIP and TISA, the intense dislike of him would make it easier to reject the bills in countries like Canada, Australia, the EU. A Hillary presidency would just about guarantee they'd sign.

    Steve Sewall , August 10, 2016 at 11:08 am

    I love Michael Hudson. But like everyone commenting here he is needlessly thinking inside the crumbling box of America's existing top-down, money-driven system of political discourse. So what is it that keeps us from thinking outside this godawful box? I think we're all so deeply and habitually embedded in the mode of being status quo critics that we're unable to enter the problem-solving mode of finding alternatives to it. But to make government work in America, we need to think in both modes.

    So let's think outside the box for a minute. After all, it's common knowledge that the current "rigged" system, as Donald Trump keeps calling it, has been instrumental in bringing American politics and government to their present state of dysfunction at local, state and national levels. Americans hate and despise this elitist system; everyone is disgusted with the political donor class whose billions of dollars underwrite the election-rigging televised attack ads that dominate it.

    At the Demo Convention Bernie Sanders neatly pinpointed the topics with which this bogus system is obsessed: "Let me be as clear as I can be. … This election is not about political gossip. It's not about polls. It's not about campaign strategy. It's not about fundraising. It's not about all the things the media spends so much time discussing." Yet like all presidential candidates this year Bernie didn't take the next, logical step: he didn't call for the creation of a new political discourse system. (Note that Hillary alone among the top three candidates never, ever has a bad word to say against the current system.)

    OK, so what might a new system look like? First off, it would be non-partisan, issue-centered and deliberative. And citizen-participatory. It would make citizens and governments responsive and accountable to each other in shaping the best futures of their communities. That's its core principal.

    More specifically, the format of a reality TV show like The Voice or American Idol could readily be adapted to create ongoing, prime-time, issue-centered searches for solutions to any and all of the issues of the day. And of course problem-solving Reality TV is just of any number of formats that could work for TV. Other media could develop formats tap their strengths and appeal to their audiences.

    I'm from Chicago, so here's how it could take shape in the Windy City .

    Thanks to the miracle of modern communications technologies, there's nothing to stop Americans from having a citizen-participatory system of political discourse that gives all Americans an informed voice in the political and government decisions that affect their lives. Americans will flock in drove to ongoing, rule-governed problem-solving public forums that earn the respect and trust of citizens and political leaders alike. When we create them, governments at local, state and national levels will start working again. If we don't, our politics will continue to sink deeper into the cesspool we're in now.

    Left in Wisconsin , August 10, 2016 at 3:59 pm

    Do you see it as possible that empowered citizens will truly be willing to take on big capital, even when big capital goes to war on them? I'm skeptical, unless there is a real socialist-ish movement out there educating and politicizing. In other words, while the political system is indeed broken, the economy is also broken and it is hard to see "empowered" citizens fixing the economy. What I think would happen is the politicians elected by these empowered citizens would be opposed by big business and the politicians they own, nothing good would get done, and there would be a business-financed media drumbeat that more democracy has been "proven" not to work.

    I don't think our political problems can be solved simply be electing better politicians – though of course we do need better politicians.

    TedWa , August 10, 2016 at 11:40 am

    The evil to fear is the most effective evil. Hillary IS both sides of the aisle and Congress will allow her all her neocon neoliberal desires, Trump is neither side of the aisle and would be ineffective because he doesn't belong to the neoliberal neocons, he's not an insider and obviously won't play their games.

    Roger Smith , August 10, 2016 at 1:28 pm

    I have not had nearly the hardship you have had crittermom and I have not lived as long either, but at 27, and being someone who has been discontent with social structure since middle school, I have absolutely had enough. Genetics, environment, the combination of internal-external factors, whatever it was I have always had a very ("annoying" and sarcastic) curiousity or oppositional approach to things, especially things people do not question and accept as is (religion, government…).

    Growing older has only led me to greater understanding of the pit we reside within and how we probably will not get out. This election season in particular has been ridiculously… indescribable. The utter incompetence of our selfish administrations is finally coming to a head and people are completely oblivious, pulling the same stale BS that we have seen every four years since before I was born.

    Bernie totally blew it but, outside your hardship, don't ever think you effort was a waste. For once an honest candidate appeared who was backed by the policies we need and you supported that (as I did). That is the most we can do at this point. Bernie the man should absolutely be criticized because he wanted a "revolution" then sold out to the Junta instead of biting back when it would have really sent a message to the people and high rollers. He wasn't willing to sacrifice what was necessary to make a stand. Instead he sided with the people that have made careers sacrificing citizens like you–and that is terrible. The reality these people live in and teach to others is such a lie.

    Roger Smith , August 10, 2016 at 1:40 pm

    These circumstances constantly remind me of the closing passage from Robert A. Heinlein's All You Zombies" :

    The Snake That Eats Its Own Tail, Forever and Ever. I know where I came from-but where did all you
    zombies come from?

    I felt a headache coming on, but a headache powder is one thing I do not take. I did once-and you all went away.

    So I crawled into bed and whistled out the light.

    You aren't really there at all. There isn't anybody but me-Jane-here alone in the dark.

    I miss you dreadfully!

    Carolinian , August 10, 2016 at 12:30 pm

    America needs an ineffective president .

    Oh heck yes. This is a fight that has been going on for decades with battles like the War Powers Act and Nixon's impeachment. Supposedly the Founding Fathers didn't want an all powerful chief executive and thought that Congress would be the dominant force. But in modern times, even before Clinton v Trump, we already had gone much too far in the direction of a caudillo. Internally one person with a bully pulpit will never be able to change the current course and overseas presidents have a frightening amount of power that they can wield and then dare Congress to do something about it afterwards.

    So despite his potty mouth there's something to be said for Mr. Trump Goes to Washington. By the time he figures out how to be caudillo it may be time for another election.

    backwardsevolution , August 10, 2016 at 9:07 pm

    crittermom – HRC has got the big corporate money behind her, the media too. Trump is fighting an uphill battle. If you watch CNN, which I watch very little of, they spend almost the whole time pulling apart what Trump has said, and very, very little press on Hillary's email, the Clinton Foundation, etc.

    They are going after Trump with all that they have. They want the status quo to remain, and they are very worried that he might change it. Hillary is Wall Street, multinational corporations, arms dealers, weapons manufacturers, the military-industrial complex. Who would have thought that the guy running for the right wants to keep jobs in America, wants to stop wars, and the one on the left is for the monied class! Right is left and left is right. Upside down world.

    The following article is old now, from April, but it gives you an idea of "Why the Establishment Hates Trump" and what he is planning on doing. Watch them go after him; they will vilify him.

    "When you join the dots to Trump also preaching a policy revolt against the insatiable corporate jaws feeding on trillions of dollars of public budgets in Washington, the meaning becomes clear. But that connected meaning is blacked out. In its place, the corporate media and politicians present an egomaniac blowhard bordering on fascism who preaches hate, racism and sexism.

    But the silenced policies he advocates are more like jumping into a crocodile pit. He is on record saying he will cut the Pentagon's budget "by 50%". No winning politician has ever dared to take on the military-industrial complex, with even Eisenhower only naming it in his parting speech.

    Trump also says that the US "must be neutral, an honest broker" on the Israeli-Palestine conflict – as unspeakable as it gets in US politics.

    Big Pharma is also called out with "$400 billion to be saved by government negotiation of prices". The even more powerful HMO's are confronted by the possibility of a "one-payer system", the devil incarnate in America's corporate-welfare state."

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/04/05/why-the-establishment-hates-trump/

    Hillary and her team will try to paint Trump as a lover of Putin, as a racist, bigot, bring the narrative down to this only. This way, no one ends up talking about the corporate elites she represents. Good, read some more, crittermom, and open your eyes even more. There's a lot more going on than meets the eye.

    MLaRowe , August 10, 2016 at 10:53 pm

    So I don't usually post here, just mostly read what other folks have to say.

    Recently I asked a wise person I know what historically follows an oligarchy (which is what I believe we have been in for awhile now). He told me that an oligarchy is usually followed by a dictatorship.

    So if that is the case is Trump going to take us into the land of dictatorship (which I believe is highly likely) or are any of us going to be able to tread water for a little longer with HRC (who I agree is ugh a non-choice but hopefully the lesser of the two evils).

    Looking this up I found the concept of the Tytler Cycle. Interesting and scary. This is off wikipedia:

    Two centuries ago, a somewhat obscure Scotsman named Tytler made this profound observation: "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy".

    Anyway can someone refute this for me so I can sleep tonight? Thanks, in advance.

    flora , August 10, 2016 at 11:03 pm

    Sounds a bit too deterministic.

    Roland , August 11, 2016 at 4:51 am

    @ MLaRowe

    How could Trump become a dictator? Congress will be hostile. Judiciary will be hostile. Pentagon will be hostile (didn't you see all those generals and admirals, in uniform, literally lining up behind Clinton?) Civil administration will be sullen, uncooperative, and leaking like crazy.

    Trump does not have his own freestanding parallel state organization, ready to move in and take over the bureaucracy and the armed forces. It would be physically impossible for Trump to attempt a mass purge.

    So exactly how the hell would Trump impose his will on the American masses? Answer: No Way.

    President Trump can only be a relatively weak president.

    Just think: if you elect Trump, you would actually get to see the US Constitution's fabled "checks and balances" come into play for once in your life!

    Roger Smith , August 11, 2016 at 10:48 am

    How could Trump become a dictator?

    Thank you! The same question I have been asking repeatedly throughout this charade. Everyone's favorite line is "Trump will be a dictator [be afriad]!" The obvious question… how ?!

    How is Trump going to have the same or any more power within or over the system than any president before him?? What is a reasonable strategy with which he could upend and create domination over this system with? This is complete rhetorical garbage, the same kind of nonsense displayed when he is shock quoted and only the narrative supporting text is copied (such as the convenient omission that the fabled day in which Clinton could be assassinated would be "horrible"). It also fits well with the Democrats' habit of burying themselves instead of putting up a fight.

    Roger Smith , August 11, 2016 at 10:42 am

    I have felt for a long time but have struggled to put into words the deep, strong aversion I have towards Clinton (et al.)and that I feel any time I read about her or see her. There is a phrase in the song Art War , by the Knack, that caught my ear; what I originally heard as, "malice of forethought". To me this represents the idea that terrible, harmful, far-reaching, incompetent decisions are made completely on purpose. After doing some research I discovered that the phrase is actually "malice aforethought", related to murderous intent in legal definitions. A second, more appropriate definition here is "a general evil and depraved state of mind in which the person is unconcerned for the lives of others". This represents my internal shuddering exactly – a sort of willful, deadly incompetence.

    While Trump is a buffoon who might lead us into bad situations as he stumbles around, Hillary Clinton displays an undeniable and proven malice aforethought that he does not.

    [Aug 12, 2016] Poland just completed an LNG import terminal and talking about sending Qatari gas from the LNG terminal to Lithuania and the rest of Europe, to reduce horrible dependence on Russian gas, even if LNG gas is priced 3X higher than piped GAZPROM gas

    peakoilbarrel.com
    Watcher , 08/10/2016 at 1:32 am
    GAZPROM wins. Gas will flow thru Turkey to Europe. The amounts will increase. Ukraine will soon no longer be a conduit, and lose all clout when they try to dodge paying the bill for their own.

    Probably back in the Russian sphere of influence in a few years, assuming the EU won't pay their gas bill, and the present leadership will be wards of the EU somewhere in Germany. Actually, were Russia wise, they would just refuse gas to the Ukraine at any price. Surrender or freeze. Maybe needlessly heavy handed. Just impose increasingly crushing conditions. With a smile.

    https://www.rt.com/business/355245-turkey-restart-tukish-stream/

    Watcher , 08/11/2016 at 1:32 am

    Europe Nat Gas consumption:
    1.132 billion cubic meters/day (from mazama and converted to m^3)

    minus Europe Nat Gas production –> about 570 million cubic meters/day imported (9.5% increase in 2015) X 365 = 208 billion cubic meters/yr

    Nordstream pipeline 55 billion cubic meters/yr plans to double by 2019 to 110 billion m^3/yr. That's Gazprom thru Germany.

    Ukraine pipeline(s) into Europe presently: 142 billion cubic meters/year.

    Belarus pipeline(s) into Europe presently: 38 billion cubic meters/year

    Adds to 235 billion cubic meters/yr which is 20 some billion more than the Euro number above because some is going to Macedonia, Serbia and other none EU countries. Relatively inconsequential.

    Note that the popular phrasing that Russia only provides 31% of Europe's gas is almost certainly bogus. More like 45-50%.

    Now then, Nordstream 2 (that's all GAZPROM gas) will be chopped from Ukraine's flow. Because GAZPROM can just force Belarus gas to be used by not flowing enough thru Ukraine.

    The TANAP pipeline is to flow only 16 billion cubic meters/yr of gas from a non Russia source thru Turkey.

    The agreement just reached between Putin and Erdogan is for a pipeline carrying Russian gas at 63 billion cubic meters/yr. Turkey will burn 14 of that (they burn 45 billion m^3 /yr) leaving 49 to flow to Europe.
    The EU is already trying to interfere, saying there is insufficient capacity in pipelines north thru Greece and other countries, but clearly Greece will burn it and that reduces what's left going north.

    Bottom line. Nordstream 2 will be a new 55 billion m^3/yr of GAZPROM gas. TurkeyStream will flow another 49 billion m^3/yr. This will be new from present flows. And Ukraine's flow is 142. They'll be reduced to under 40.

    And that TANAP flow will cut them to 25ish.

    They might as well surrender now.

    Greenbub , 08/11/2016 at 2:20 am
    Well, if the Russians and Turks can be best friends, maybe the Saudis and Iranians can too?
    GoneFishing , 08/11/2016 at 8:17 am
    It's one big family until the valves start to close.
    Watcher , 08/11/2016 at 10:18 am
    Ukraine gets almost $3 billion/yr in transit fees.

    They have demanded just about a double of that 5 mos ago. GAZPROM has not agreed. The Ukraine transit pipeline system apparently also needs $19B in maintenance work GAZPROM had planned to pay for before Ukraine broke relations with Russia. No longer.

    Ukraine GDP 90B in 2015 and is falling this year.

    So either the EU picks up the $19B plus the $3B/yr in transit fees Ukraine will lose starting late next year (plus cost of Ukraine's consumption itself(they are 5th largest in Europe)), or the fat lady sings.

    BTW Poland just completed an LNG import terminal. Look at those flow numbers above in the thread. Now . . . understand Poland is talking about sending Qatari gas from the LNG terminal to Lithuania and the rest of Europe, to reduce horrible dependence on Russian gas, even if LNG gas is priced 3X higher than piped GAZPROM gas. But yes, Poland is going to send gas to other countries from their LNG terminal.

    Oh, and the new LNG terminal has a capacity of 5 billion m^3/yr. Repeat. 5 billion m^3/year. That's max in its final form.

    Poland burns 16.

    [Aug 12, 2016] Michael Hudson: Clinton's Red-Baiting Distracts from Failure to Address Inequality, War-Mongering as Trump Flails

    Notable quotes:
    "... Michael, in a recent article that you penned on your website, you argued that Hillary Clinton's campaign is using a very clever strategy in that it is trying to associate criticism of Clinton with support for Trump and therefore support for Russia, which in the end is anti-American ..."
    "... Trump opposes the neocon line toward Russia, and because he criticizes NATO, Russia benefits. Therefore Putin must have stolen the leaks and put them out, to make America weaker, not stronger, by helping the Trump campaign by showing the DNC's dirty tricks toward Bernie's followers. ..."
    "... Most of all, Hillary is still the war candidate. Trump already has said, "Look at what she did to Libya." By displacing Libya, she turned its arms cache over to terrorist groups that have become ISIS, Al-Nusra, and the other terrorist in the Near East. So she's the Queen of Chaos. Finally, she's the candidate of Wall Street, given the fact even the Koch Brothers have said they're not going to back Trump, they're going to back Hillary because she's on their side. George Soros and most other big moguls and billionaires are now siding with the Democratic Party, not Trump. ..."
    "... She is a candidate of Wall Street and she is as you say, now being supported even by the neocons. They're holding fundraisers for her. And the Koch brothers and so on. ..."
    "... Trump will win if he can make the election all about Hillary, and Hillary will win if she can make the election all about Trump. ..."
    "... "America needs an ineffective president. That's much better than an effective president that's going to go to war with Russia, that's going to push for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, that's going to protect Wall Street, and that's going to oppose neoliberal austerity." ..."
    "... I am absolutely terrified of Hillary Clinton becoming President. She strikes me as having psychopathic tendencies. I mean, just look at the scandals she and Bill have been involved in, and then when she gets caught, she lies, feigns ignorance, deflects, blames others, lies some more. Power and money are her goals. ..."
    "... I'm sure he will quash TPP, renegotiate nafta and be less belligerent with Russia. But what will happen when he and his non-government-indoctrinated team of advisers finally see every bit of redacted and "confidential" information that has been routinely hidden from the public and lied about for decades? ..."
    "... The loss of sovereignty inherent in the "trade" agreements and incoherent Middle East policies, to name a few "strategies" this country is pursuing, have a larger purpose. We private citizens have just not been privy to it. How private citizen Trump will proceed if he is elected and comes to know the government's deepest, darkest secrets is anybody's guess. ..."
    "... I think its a safe assumption that if Trump is elected he will be carefully 'minded' to ensure he can't gain access to information that would upset the applecart. ..."
    "... As for Donnie taking down TPP and being the peace candidate, I think people should sit down and take a few deep breaths. As a New Yorker who's observed him for his entire public life, and as a 90 second scanning of his career demonstrates, the man cannot be trusted to speak truthfully about anything ..."
    "... You're right. He'll make a good court jester. That's about it. as for "the man cannot be trusted to speak truthfully about anything" reminds me of someone who gets on TeeVee and does that well. And he really didn't have any experience but he got himself good handlers and others who ran the country. ..."
    "... Exactly right! Trump is dangerous…to the establishment. And the establishment is what we have to get rid of. ..."
    "... As flawed a character as Trump is, he still represents our last chance to challenge the establishment. It won't be a pretty presidency – but it will be entertaining – however the alternative is the ultimate horror show. Plus you are gambling that Clinton won't start a nuclear war and end the human race. Why would anyone in their right mind touch that wager? ..."
    "... Obama actually ended up rejecting Clinton's continuous advice for more more more military intervention. ..."
    "... I agree with you that Trump is not likable, and an unknown. The problem is that the known is despicable. Neither, let me repeat, neither candidate should be anywhere near this close to the White House. ..."
    "... You have obviously chosen the despicable hateful war mongering devil you know. Others are willing to roll the dice with the guy who has incoherently at least given a nod to the idea that war with Russia is not a smart plan, and that our current military choices are not effective – not to mention a far more coherent case that our trade policy is screwed up and needs to be changed. ..."
    "... Trump wants to stop "illegal" immigration so that poor Americans can have jobs. Illegals lower wages (because American employers pay them less), they increase rents (supply and demand), and they cost a fortune in medical and educational costs. He's for "legal" immigration when the country needs more workers. I don't think that is being racist, although he doesn't have a very nice way of saying things. ..."
    "... Muslim immigration stopped until they can be properly vetted? That's just being prudent and careful, but again he could say things in a much kinder way. ..."
    "... He's a wild man, but at least he's upfront about it. I see her as being a narcissist that just hides it better than he does. She could get us all killed. ..."
    "... Perhaps with a hateful, racist, despicable con man trying to tell them what to do, congress just might re-assert its authority instead of acting as a rubber stamp. Which is the LOTE – Trump antagonizing congress into gridlock or HRC manipulating them into moar war? ..."
    "... It sounds like you're talking about HRC when you're talking about Trump. She coined the term "super predators" so they could enrich the private prison industry by filling the jails with black people, she has waged wars against brown people in the middle east for no particular reason except corporate profits and power, no respect for their theocracies or the delicate balance that "supposed" tyrants there accomplished that had enduring peace there (some may argue). Where has Trump exhibited such hatred and racism? His policies? What policies? No one that has worked for him ever described him as hateful, racist or despicable. Stop believing the propaganda on TV. ..."
    "... You might think Obama doesn't like us, the 99%, but Hillary probably hates us. Pay attention, the most "effective evil" is the evil to fear. ..."
    "... If it's not close in my state, I will vote 3rd party. If it is close, I'll vote for Clinton over Trump. There is a good interview with Chomsky on this on youtube which I'm too lazy to look up right now. ..."
    "... Professor Chomsky, ..."
    "... In the last years of his life, Martin Luther King, Jr. organized the Poor People's Campaign, which essentially planned to occupy Capitol Hill. The campaign still happened after his death, but not enough people showed up for it to have a great impact. I've begun to advocate what would essentially be a continuation of the Poor People's Campaign, but with a broader focus on the numerous crises facing humanity: climate change, poverty, illegal wars, etc. Would you possibly be interested in providing rhetorical support for this action? ..."
    "... Thank you so much for your efforts to make a better world. ..."
    "... It was a wonderful and very important initiative, cruelly undermined by his assassination. I hope you manage to revive it. ..."
    "... clinton is the more effective evil for another reason; she is respected by other neoliberals who rule the world in other countries. even if trump wanted to pass the TPP, TTIP and TISA, the intense dislike of him would make it easier to reject the bills in countries like Canada, Australia, the EU. A Hillary presidency would just about guarantee they'd sign. ..."
    "... Do you see it as possible that empowered citizens will truly be willing to take on big capital, even when big capital goes to war on them? I'm skeptical ..."
    "... The evil to fear is the most effective evil. Hillary IS both sides of the aisle and Congress will allow her all her neocon neoliberal desires, Trump is neither side of the aisle and would be ineffective because he doesn't belong to the neoliberal neocons, he's not an insider and obviously won't play their games. ..."
    "... All You Zombies" ..."
    "... The Snake That Eats Its Own Tail, Forever and Ever. I know where I came from-but where did all you zombies come from? ..."
    "... I felt a headache coming on, but a headache powder is one thing I do not take. I did once-and you all went away. So I crawled into bed and whistled out the light. You aren't really there at all. There isn't anybody but me-Jane-here alone in the dark. ..."
    "... I miss you dreadfully! ..."
    "... Oh heck yes. This is a fight that has been going on for decades with battles like the War Powers Act and Nixon's impeachment. Supposedly the Founding Fathers didn't want an all powerful chief executive and thought that Congress would be the dominant force. But in modern times, even before Clinton v Trump, we already had gone much too far in the direction of a caudillo. Internally one person with a bully pulpit will never be able to change the current course and overseas presidents have a frightening amount of power that they can wield and then dare Congress to do something about it afterwards. ..."
    "... How could Trump become a dictator? ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    ... ... ...

    PERIES: So Michael, in a recent article that you penned on your website, you argued that Hillary Clinton's campaign is using a very clever strategy in that it is trying to associate criticism of Clinton with support for Trump and therefore support for Russia, which in the end is anti-American . Now, this type of association game, which is supposed to make it difficult for Sanders supporters to criticize Clinton, what implication does this have on the overall politics in this country?

    HUDSON: Well, it certainly changed things in earlier elections. The Republican convention was as is normal, all about their candidate Trump. But surprisingly, so was the Democratic convention. That was all about Trump too – as the devil. The platform Hillary's running on is "I'm not Trump. I'm the lesser evil."

    She elaborates that by saying that Trump is Putin's ploy. When the Democratic National Committee (someone within it, or without) leaked the information to Wikileaks, the Democrats and Hillary asked, "Who benefits from this"? Ah-ha. Becaue Trump opposes the neocon line toward Russia, and because he criticizes NATO, Russia benefits. Therefore Putin must have stolen the leaks and put them out, to make America weaker, not stronger, by helping the Trump campaign by showing the DNC's dirty tricks toward Bernie's followers.

    Then Assange did an Internet interview and implied that it was not a cyberwar attack but a leak – indicating that it came from an insider inn the DNC. If this is true, then the Democrats are simply trying to blame it all on Trump – diverting attention from what the leaks' actual content!

    This is old-fashioned red baiting. I saw it 60 years ago when I was a teenager. I went to a high school where teachers used to turn in reports on what we said in class to the FBI every month. The State Department was emptied out of "realists" and staffed with Alan Dulles-type Cold Warriors. One couldn't talk about certain subjects. That is what red-baiting does. So the effect at the Democratic Convention was about Hillary trying to avoid taking about her own policies and herself. Except for what her husband said about "I met a girl" (not meaning Jennifer Flowers or Monica Lewinski.)

    The red baiting succeeded, and the convention wasn't about Hillary – at least, not her economic policies. It was more about Obama. She tied herself to Obama, and next to Trump = Putin, the convention's second underlying theme was that Hillary was going to be Obama's third term. That's what Obama himself said when he came and addressed the convention.

    The problem with this strategy is it's exactly the problem the Republicans faced in 2008, when voters turned against George Bush's administration. Voters wanted change. And they do today. Hillary did not say "I'm going to have hope and change from the last years of Obama." She said, in effect, "I'm not going to change anything. I'm going to continue Obama's policies that have made you all so prosperous." She talked about how employment is rising and everyone is better off.

    Well, the problem is that many people aren't better off than the last eight years. Ten million families have lost their homes, and most peoples' budgets are being squeezed. Obama saved the banks not the economy. So Trump's line and the Republican line in this election could well be: "Are you really better off than you were eight years ago? Or, are you actually worse off? Where are all your gains? You're further in debt. You're having more difficulty meeting your paychecks, you're running up your student loans. You're really not better off and we're going to be the party of hope and change."

    Hillary can't really counter that with the policies she has. Trump and the Republicans can say that even though she disavowed the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the trade agreement with Europe, all the Democratic representatives that voted for the TPP have won re-nomination, and it's still on the burner.

    Most of all, Hillary is still the war candidate. Trump already has said, "Look at what she did to Libya." By displacing Libya, she turned its arms cache over to terrorist groups that have become ISIS, Al-Nusra, and the other terrorist in the Near East. So she's the Queen of Chaos. Finally, she's the candidate of Wall Street, given the fact even the Koch Brothers have said they're not going to back Trump, they're going to back Hillary because she's on their side. George Soros and most other big moguls and billionaires are now siding with the Democratic Party, not Trump.

    What did Hilary actually say at the convention besides "I'm not Trump, Trump is worse." She's trying to make the whole election over her rival, not over herself.

    PERIES: Okay, so everything you say about Hillary Clinton may be true, and it's more in your favor that it is true. She is a candidate of Wall Street and she is as you say, now being supported even by the neocons. They're holding fundraisers for her. And the Koch brothers and so on. So when we opened this interview we were talking about what the Bernie Sanders supporters should now do, because Trump is starting to appeal like he's the candidate of ordinary people. So what are they to do?

    HUDSON: Well, if the election is between the most unpopular woman candidate in America and the most unpopular male candidate, the winner is going to be whoever can make the election fought over the other person. Trump will win if he can make the election all about Hillary, and Hillary will win if she can make the election all about Trump. It looks like she's able to do this, because Trump is even more narcissistic than she is.

    backwardsevolution , August 10, 2016 at 5:37 am

    EndOfTheWorld- totally agree with you. I just shake my head at Bernie. Diametrically opposed to Clinton, he suddenly turns around and embraces her! What? I will never understand that.

    "America needs an ineffective president. That's much better than an effective president that's going to go to war with Russia, that's going to push for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, that's going to protect Wall Street, and that's going to oppose neoliberal austerity."

    He's right too. I am absolutely terrified of Hillary Clinton becoming President. She strikes me as having psychopathic tendencies. I mean, just look at the scandals she and Bill have been involved in, and then when she gets caught, she lies, feigns ignorance, deflects, blames others, lies some more. Power and money are her goals.

    She has called Putin "Hitler", said she wants to expand NATO, and again said she wants to take out Assad. Well, how is she going to do that when Russia is in there? God, she is scary. I just hope that there's a big Clinton Foundation email leak to finish her off.

    Trump is out there, but at least he wants to try to negotiate peace (of course, if war wasn't making so many people rich, it would be stopped tomorrow). He's questioning why NATO is necessary, never mind its continual expansion, and he wants to stop the TPP.

    God, I'd be happy with even one of the above. Hillary will give us TPP, more NATO, more war, and a cackle. Please, if anyone has some loose emails hanging around, now is the time!

    Katniss Everdeen , August 10, 2016 at 7:30 am

    I honestly don't think there's any way to predict what Donald Trump will do if elected. He's effectively a private citizen who, all of a sudden, will have access to every government secret and lie, and no culpability for any of it. It's almost impossible to imagine what that would be like.

    And it's what makes him so "dangerous."

    I'm sure he will quash TPP, renegotiate nafta and be less belligerent with Russia. But what will happen when he and his non-government-indoctrinated team of advisers finally see every bit of redacted and "confidential" information that has been routinely hidden from the public and lied about for decades?

    The loss of sovereignty inherent in the "trade" agreements and incoherent Middle East policies, to name a few "strategies" this country is pursuing, have a larger purpose. We private citizens have just not been privy to it. How private citizen Trump will proceed if he is elected and comes to know the government's deepest, darkest secrets is anybody's guess.

    PlutoniumKun , August 10, 2016 at 8:09 am

    I think its a safe assumption that if Trump is elected he will be carefully 'minded' to ensure he can't gain access to information that would upset the applecart. I doubt he would be able to get much done as there would be an establishment consensus to keep him firmly under wraps. He would mostly busy himself with jetting around meeting foreign leaders and he might actually be quite productive at that.

    jrs , August 10, 2016 at 2:02 pm

    or he'll pass what he campaigns on which is standard Republican policy (sometimes) through an entirely Republican legislature duh. So tax cuts, cuts to regulation etc.. Really he's campaigning on these things and they CAN pass a Republican congress.

    Michael Fiorillo , August 10, 2016 at 3:49 pm

    Yes, if Donnie is elected, we'll see some form of a Regency; that's what Pence is there for.

    Donnie will be Clown Prince, while more traditionally evil Republican/DC technocrats "run" things. It would be a re-doing of the Reagan/Bush-Baker and Bush/Cheney dynamic, as seen on reality TV.

    As for Donnie taking down TPP and being the peace candidate, I think people should sit down and take a few deep breaths. As a New Yorker who's observed him for his entire public life, and as a 90 second scanning of his career demonstrates, the man cannot be trusted to speak truthfully about anything. Does he lie exactly the way Hillary does? Of course not, she's the accomplished professional, while Donnie spins plates and tries to misdirect by finding someone to insult when they fall and shatter.

    Vote for Hillary or not (I most likely won't, but can't predict much of anything in this all-bets-are-off opera buffa), but by believing anything Donnie says, you risk being the chump he already thinks you are.

    oh , August 10, 2016 at 4:29 pm

    You're right. He'll make a good court jester. That's about it. as for "the man cannot be trusted to speak truthfully about anything" reminds me of someone who gets on TeeVee and does that well. And he really didn't have any experience but he got himself good handlers and others who ran the country.

    EoinW , August 10, 2016 at 8:28 am

    Exactly right! Trump is dangerous…to the establishment. And the establishment is what we have to get rid of.

    When was the last time a political candidate in any country was as hated by the establishment as Trump is? That's all you need to know. As flawed a character as Trump is, he still represents our last chance to challenge the establishment. It won't be a pretty presidency – but it will be entertaining – however the alternative is the ultimate horror show. Plus you are gambling that Clinton won't start a nuclear war and end the human race. Why would anyone in their right mind touch that wager?

    Pat , August 10, 2016 at 10:32 am

    It is unlikely that Trump will be able to deport more people than Obama's record breaking administration. Something, that for all her rhetoric, there is no reason to believe that Clinton will change. As for waging war, we have a whole lot of information that for all his massive drone wars and interventions in the Middle East, Obama actually ended up rejecting Clinton's continuous advice for more more more military intervention.

    I agree with you that Trump is not likable, and an unknown. The problem is that the known is despicable. Neither, let me repeat, neither candidate should be anywhere near this close to the White House.

    You have obviously chosen the despicable hateful war mongering devil you know. Others are willing to roll the dice with the guy who has incoherently at least given a nod to the idea that war with Russia is not a smart plan, and that our current military choices are not effective – not to mention a far more coherent case that our trade policy is screwed up and needs to be changed.

    Once again, people are choosing from known despicable, unknown possibly lesser possibly greater despicable, and unlikely to win third parties or write ins – everyone can only do that for themselves.

    MikeNY , August 10, 2016 at 10:53 am

    That's fair.

    backwardsevolution , August 10, 2016 at 12:43 pm

    One New York reporter (sorry, I don't have the link) said that he has watched Trump his whole life and he said, though he could say many bad things about Trump, racism wasn't one of them. He said he had never in all his years of watching him known Trump to be racist in any way.

    Trump wants to stop "illegal" immigration so that poor Americans can have jobs. Illegals lower wages (because American employers pay them less), they increase rents (supply and demand), and they cost a fortune in medical and educational costs. He's for "legal" immigration when the country needs more workers. I don't think that is being racist, although he doesn't have a very nice way of saying things.

    Muslim immigration stopped until they can be properly vetted? That's just being prudent and careful, but again he could say things in a much kinder way.

    He's a wild man, but at least he's upfront about it. I see her as being a narcissist that just hides it better than he does. She could get us all killed.

    backwardsevolution , August 10, 2016 at 1:23 pm

    While Trump is upfront (yikes, I know), I see Hillary as the secretive, conniving, manipulative, scheming, backstabbing type. When someone slights Trump, out comes his response right back at them. It's over. But I would not want to cross her. I see her as cold, with very, very little conscience. I mean, would you ever have tried to pull off the scandals she has been involved in? No. She seeks power and money, and look out if you ever got in her way. She never says she's sorry, not really. Most you get out of her is she made a "mistake".

    Her outright aggression towards Russia, Syria, Libya, Ukraine should give you a hint of what lurks inside. And she doesn't attack these countries to better the U.S. She's doing it solely for her own person gain: money into the Clinton Foundation, business for her speech-giving husband, all to further the Clinton's.

    IMO, a very dangerous person, a very dangerous couple. And she has said, if she's elected, she will put Bill Clinton in charge of "economic affairs"! Can you just imagine what more deregulation will do for the banks? He repealed Glass-Steagall and brought us the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, as well as NAFTA. Get ready to hear a "huge" sucking sound if Hillary is elected. The place will be gutted.

    Lambert Strether , August 10, 2016 at 3:37 pm

    Needs a link, especially on a key point like that!!

    backwardsevolution , August 10, 2016 at 8:24 pm

    Okay, I'm pretty sure I saw it at Counterpunch. I think I can probably find it. Thanks.

    Michael Fiorillo , August 10, 2016 at 4:05 pm

    That's preposterous about Donnie not being racist. When the Central Park Five (released from prison and compensated by the state for false impisonment) were arrested, Donnie took out full page ads for days in the NYC papers, all but calling for those (innocent) boy's lynching. He was raised in an explicitly racist milieu – his father arrested at a KKK tussle in Queens in the 1920's, and successfully sued by the Nixon DOJ for his discriminatory rental policies…) and has a long history of saying ignorant, absurd and racist things about "The Blacks."

    shinola , August 10, 2016 at 10:56 am

    "Clinton is awful, but that doesn't mean it's a better idea to elect a hateful, racist, despicable con man"

    Perhaps with a hateful, racist, despicable con man trying to tell them what to do, congress just might re-assert its authority instead of acting as a rubber stamp. Which is the LOTE – Trump antagonizing congress into gridlock or HRC manipulating them into moar war?

    TedWa , August 10, 2016 at 11:25 am

    It sounds like you're talking about HRC when you're talking about Trump. She coined the term "super predators" so they could enrich the private prison industry by filling the jails with black people, she has waged wars against brown people in the middle east for no particular reason except corporate profits and power, no respect for their theocracies or the delicate balance that "supposed" tyrants there accomplished that had enduring peace there (some may argue). Where has Trump exhibited such hatred and racism? His policies? What policies? No one that has worked for him ever described him as hateful, racist or despicable. Stop believing the propaganda on TV.

    Hatred and racism is exhibited in leaders by being a war monger and gutting this nation with the TPP and lousy trade deals that sell off our national sovereignty and democracy. You might think Obama doesn't like us, the 99%, but Hillary probably hates us. Pay attention, the most "effective evil" is the evil to fear.

    MikeNY , August 10, 2016 at 12:03 pm

    I am with Noam Chomsky on this. If it's not close in my state, I will vote 3rd party. If it is close, I'll vote for Clinton over Trump. There is a good interview with Chomsky on this on youtube which I'm too lazy to look up right now.

    But as Pat said above, everyone must make up his or her own mind.

    TedWa , August 10, 2016 at 12:21 pm

    Of course my friend, you have to vote your conscience is the way I've always felt. You have to be able to live with your vote.

    Reply
    lyman alpha blob , August 10, 2016 at 1:47 pm

    Has there ever been any evidence that this type of strategic voting has ever done any good whatsoever or ever had its intended result? Just speculation but I'm guessing that only a very few of the very politically astute would even bother. I say vote your conscience regardless and let the chips fall where they may.

    Not the voters fault that this is the best the two major parties could come up with.

    Reply
    Tyler , August 10, 2016 at 9:35 am

    Speaking of revolution, I emailed Chomsky yesterday and he replied. The below is my message to him.

    Professor Chomsky,

    In the last years of his life, Martin Luther King, Jr. organized the Poor People's Campaign, which essentially planned to occupy Capitol Hill. The campaign still happened after his death, but not enough people showed up for it to have a great impact.

    I've begun to advocate what would essentially be a continuation of the Poor People's Campaign, but with a broader focus on the numerous crises facing humanity: climate change, poverty, illegal wars, etc.

    Would you possibly be interested in providing rhetorical support for this action?

    Thank you so much for your efforts to make a better world.

    The below is Chomsky's reply.

    It was a wonderful and very important initiative, cruelly undermined by his assassination. I hope you manage to revive it.

    Reply
    MikeNY , August 10, 2016 at 4:09 pm

    Bravo! Chomsky and MLK are two of my heros, as I think they are for many here.

    Reply
    backwardsevolution , August 10, 2016 at 1:33 pm

    Butch – "…she helped lead the fight for universal health care." Did she now? Here's a good quote on how she felt about universal health care:

    "Hillary took the lead role in the White House's efforts to pass a corporate-friendly version of "health reform." Along with the big insurance companies the Clintons deceptively railed against, the "co-presidents" decided from the start to exclude the popular health care alternative – single payer – from the national health care "discussion." (Obama would do the same thing in 2009.)

    "David, tell me something interesting." That was then First Lady Hillary Clinton's weary and exasperated response – as head of the White House's health reform initiative – to Harvard medical professor David Himmelstein in 1993. Himmelstein was head of Physicians for a National Health Program. He had just told her about the remarkable possibilities of a comprehensive, single-payer "Canadian style" health plan, supported by more than two-thirds of the U.S. public. Beyond backing by a citizen super-majority, Himmelstein noted, single-payer would provide comprehensive coverage to the nation's 40 million uninsured while retaining free choice in doctor selection and being certified by the Congressional Budget Office as "the most cost-effective plan on offer."

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/05/27/feel-the-hate/

    That whole article deals with the "fake liberalism" exhibited by the Clinton's and Obama. It says they only "pretend" to care.

    Perhaps Yves could highlight Hillary's disdain for single-payer healthcare on another post. Thanks.

    Reply
    Lambert Strether , August 10, 2016 at 3:35 pm

    Hillary Clinton: Single-payer health care will "never, ever" happen CBS

    vidimi , August 10, 2016 at 9:52 am

    clinton is the more effective evil for another reason; she is respected by other neoliberals who rule the world in other countries. even if trump wanted to pass the TPP, TTIP and TISA, the intense dislike of him would make it easier to reject the bills in countries like Canada, Australia, the EU. A Hillary presidency would just about guarantee they'd sign.

    Steve Sewall , August 10, 2016 at 11:08 am

    I love Michael Hudson. But like everyone commenting here he is needlessly thinking inside the crumbling box of America's existing top-down, money-driven system of political discourse. So what is it that keeps us from thinking outside this godawful box? I think we're all so deeply and habitually embedded in the mode of being status quo critics that we're unable to enter the problem-solving mode of finding alternatives to it. But to make government work in America, we need to think in both modes.

    So let's think outside the box for a minute. After all, it's common knowledge that the current "rigged" system, as Donald Trump keeps calling it, has been instrumental in bringing American politics and government to their present state of dysfunction at local, state and national levels. Americans hate and despise this elitist system; everyone is disgusted with the political donor class whose billions of dollars underwrite the election-rigging televised attack ads that dominate it.

    At the Demo Convention Bernie Sanders neatly pinpointed the topics with which this bogus system is obsessed: "Let me be as clear as I can be. … This election is not about political gossip. It's not about polls. It's not about campaign strategy. It's not about fundraising. It's not about all the things the media spends so much time discussing." Yet like all presidential candidates this year Bernie didn't take the next, logical step: he didn't call for the creation of a new political discourse system. (Note that Hillary alone among the top three candidates never, ever has a bad word to say against the current system.)

    OK, so what might a new system look like? First off, it would be non-partisan, issue-centered and deliberative. And citizen-participatory. It would make citizens and governments responsive and accountable to each other in shaping the best futures of their communities. That's its core principal.

    More specifically, the format of a reality TV show like The Voice or American Idol could readily be adapted to create ongoing, prime-time, issue-centered searches for solutions to any and all of the issues of the day. And of course problem-solving Reality TV is just of any number of formats that could work for TV. Other media could develop formats tap their strengths and appeal to their audiences.

    I'm from Chicago, so here's how it could take shape in the Windy City .

    Thanks to the miracle of modern communications technologies, there's nothing to stop Americans from having a citizen-participatory system of political discourse that gives all Americans an informed voice in the political and government decisions that affect their lives. Americans will flock in drove to ongoing, rule-governed problem-solving public forums that earn the respect and trust of citizens and political leaders alike. When we create them, governments at local, state and national levels will start working again. If we don't, our politics will continue to sink deeper into the cesspool we're in now.

    Left in Wisconsin , August 10, 2016 at 3:59 pm

    Do you see it as possible that empowered citizens will truly be willing to take on big capital, even when big capital goes to war on them? I'm skeptical, unless there is a real socialist-ish movement out there educating and politicizing. In other words, while the political system is indeed broken, the economy is also broken and it is hard to see "empowered" citizens fixing the economy. What I think would happen is the politicians elected by these empowered citizens would be opposed by big business and the politicians they own, nothing good would get done, and there would be a business-financed media drumbeat that more democracy has been "proven" not to work.

    I don't think our political problems can be solved simply be electing better politicians – though of course we do need better politicians.

    Reply
    TedWa , August 10, 2016 at 11:40 am

    The evil to fear is the most effective evil. Hillary IS both sides of the aisle and Congress will allow her all her neocon neoliberal desires, Trump is neither side of the aisle and would be ineffective because he doesn't belong to the neoliberal neocons, he's not an insider and obviously won't play their games.

    Roger Smith , August 10, 2016 at 1:28 pm

    I have not had nearly the hardship you have had crittermom and I have not lived as long either, but at 27, and being someone who has been discontent with social structure since middle school, I have absolutely had enough. Genetics, environment, the combination of internal-external factors, whatever it was I have always had a very ("annoying" and sarcastic) curiousity or oppositional approach to things, especially things people do not question and accept as is (religion, government…).

    Growing older has only led me to greater understanding of the pit we reside within and how we probably will not get out. This election season in particular has been ridiculously… indescribable. The utter incompetence of our selfish administrations is finally coming to a head and people are completely oblivious, pulling the same stale BS that we have seen every four years since before I was born.

    Bernie totally blew it but, outside your hardship, don't ever think you effort was a waste. For once an honest candidate appeared who was backed by the policies we need and you supported that (as I did). That is the most we can do at this point. Bernie the man should absolutely be criticized because he wanted a "revolution" then sold out to the Junta instead of biting back when it would have really sent a message to the people and high rollers. He wasn't willing to sacrifice what was necessary to make a stand. Instead he sided with the people that have made careers sacrificing citizens like you–and that is terrible. The reality these people live in and teach to others is such a lie.

    Roger Smith , August 10, 2016 at 1:40 pm

    These circumstances constantly remind me of the closing passage from Robert A. Heinlein's All You Zombies" :

    The Snake That Eats Its Own Tail, Forever and Ever. I know where I came from-but where did all you
    zombies come from?

    I felt a headache coming on, but a headache powder is one thing I do not take. I did once-and you all went away.

    So I crawled into bed and whistled out the light.

    You aren't really there at all. There isn't anybody but me-Jane-here alone in the dark.

    I miss you dreadfully!

    Carolinian , August 10, 2016 at 12:30 pm

    America needs an ineffective president .

    Oh heck yes. This is a fight that has been going on for decades with battles like the War Powers Act and Nixon's impeachment. Supposedly the Founding Fathers didn't want an all powerful chief executive and thought that Congress would be the dominant force. But in modern times, even before Clinton v Trump, we already had gone much too far in the direction of a caudillo. Internally one person with a bully pulpit will never be able to change the current course and overseas presidents have a frightening amount of power that they can wield and then dare Congress to do something about it afterwards.

    So despite his potty mouth there's something to be said for Mr. Trump Goes to Washington. By the time he figures out how to be caudillo it may be time for another election.

    backwardsevolution , August 10, 2016 at 9:07 pm

    crittermom – HRC has got the big corporate money behind her, the media too. Trump is fighting an uphill battle. If you watch CNN, which I watch very little of, they spend almost the whole time pulling apart what Trump has said, and very, very little press on Hillary's email, the Clinton Foundation, etc.

    They are going after Trump with all that they have. They want the status quo to remain, and they are very worried that he might change it. Hillary is Wall Street, multinational corporations, arms dealers, weapons manufacturers, the military-industrial complex. Who would have thought that the guy running for the right wants to keep jobs in America, wants to stop wars, and the one on the left is for the monied class! Right is left and left is right. Upside down world.

    The following article is old now, from April, but it gives you an idea of "Why the Establishment Hates Trump" and what he is planning on doing. Watch them go after him; they will vilify him.

    "When you join the dots to Trump also preaching a policy revolt against the insatiable corporate jaws feeding on trillions of dollars of public budgets in Washington, the meaning becomes clear. But that connected meaning is blacked out. In its place, the corporate media and politicians present an egomaniac blowhard bordering on fascism who preaches hate, racism and sexism. But the silenced policies he advocates are more like jumping into a crocodile pit. He is on record saying he will cut the Pentagon's budget "by 50%". No winning politician has ever dared to take on the military-industrial complex, with even Eisenhower only naming it in his parting speech. Trump also says that the US "must be neutral, an honest broker" on the Israeli-Palestine conflict – as unspeakable as it gets in US politics. Big Pharma is also called out with "$400 billion to be saved by government negotiation of prices". The even more powerful HMO's are confronted by the possibility of a "one-payer system", the devil incarnate in America's corporate-welfare state."

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/04/05/why-the-establishment-hates-trump/

    Hillary and her team will try to paint Trump as a lover of Putin, as a racist, bigot, bring the narrative down to this only. This way, no one ends up talking about the corporate elites she represents. Good, read some more, crittermom, and open your eyes even more. There's a lot more going on than meets the eye.

    Reply
    MLaRowe , August 10, 2016 at 10:53 pm

    So I don't usually post here, just mostly read what other folks have to say.

    Recently I asked a wise person I know what historically follows an oligarchy (which is what I believe we have been in for awhile now). He told me that an oligarchy is usually followed by a dictatorship.

    So if that is the case is Trump going to take us into the land of dictatorship (which I believe is highly likely) or are any of us going to be able to tread water for a little longer with HRC (who I agree is ugh a non-choice but hopefully the lesser of the two evils).

    Looking this up I found the concept of the Tytler Cycle. Interesting and scary. This is off wikipedia:

    Two centuries ago, a somewhat obscure Scotsman named Tytler made this profound observation: "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy".

    Anyway can someone refute this for me so I can sleep tonight? Thanks, in advance.

    flora , August 10, 2016 at 11:03 pm

    Sounds a bit too deterministic.

    Roland , August 11, 2016 at 4:51 am

    @ MLaRowe

    How could Trump become a dictator?

    Congress will be hostile. Judiciary will be hostile. Pentagon will be hostile (didn't you see all those generals and admirals, in uniform, literally lining up behind Clinton?)

    Civil administration will be sullen, uncooperative, and leaking like crazy.

    Trump does not have his own freestanding parallel state organization, ready to move in and take over the bureaucracy and the armed forces. It would be physically impossible for Trump to attempt a mass purge.

    So exactly how the hell would Trump impose his will on the American masses? Answer: No Way.

    President Trump can only be a relatively weak president.

    Just think: if you elect Trump, you would actually get to see the US Constitution's fabled "checks and balances" come into play for once in your life!

    Roger Smith , August 11, 2016 at 10:48 am

    How could Trump become a dictator?

    Thank you! The same question I have been asking repeatedly throughout this charade. Everyone's favorite line is "Trump will be a dictator [be afriad]!" The obvious question… how ?! How is Trump going to have the same or any more power within or over the system than any president before him?? What is a reasonable strategy with which he could upend and create domination over this system with? This is complete rhetorical garbage, the same kind of nonsense displayed when he is shock quoted and only the narrative supporting text is copied (such as the convenient omission that the fabled day in which Clinton could be assassinated would be "horrible"). It also fits well with the Democrats' habit of burying themselves instead of putting up a fight.

    Roger Smith , August 11, 2016 at 10:42 am

    I have felt for a long time but have struggled to put into words the deep, strong aversion I have towards Clinton (et al.)and that I feel any time I read about her or see her. There is a phrase in the song Art War , by the Knack, that caught my ear; what I originally heard as, "malice of forethought". To me this represents the idea that terrible, harmful, far-reaching, incompetent decisions are made completely on purpose. After doing some research I discovered that the phrase is actually "malice aforethought", related to murderous intent in legal definitions. A second, more appropriate definition here is "a general evil and depraved state of mind in which the person is unconcerned for the lives of others". This represents my internal shuddering exactly–a sort of willful, deadly incompetence.

    While Trump is a buffoon who might lead us into bad situations as he stumbles around, Hillary Clinton displays an undeniable and proven malice aforethought that he does not.

    [Aug 12, 2016] Neoliberal press attacks on Trump

    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    backwardsevolution

    crittermom – HRC has got the big corporate money behind her, the media too. Trump is fighting an uphill battle. If you watch CNN, which I watch very little of, they spend almost the whole time pulling apart what Trump has said, and very, very little press on Hillary's email, the Clinton Foundation, etc.

    They are going after Trump with all that they have. They want the status quo to remain, and they are very worried that he might change it. Hillary is Wall Street, multinational corporations, arms dealers, weapons manufacturers, the military-industrial complex. Who would have thought that the guy running for the right wants to keep jobs in America, wants to stop wars, and the one on the left is for the monied class! Right is left and left is right. Upside down world.

    [Aug 11, 2016] Breedlove Network Sought Weapons Deliveries for Ukraine

    High level military commanders are more politicians then commanders. And if they belong to neocons this is a dangerous and potentially explosive combination. Especially if State Department is fully aligned with Pentagon, like happened under Secretary Clinton tenure.
    Notable quotes:
    "... He had exaggerated Russian activities in eastern Ukraine with the overt goal of delivering weapons to Kiev. ..."
    "... "I think POTUS sees us as a threat that must be minimized,... ie do not get me into a war????" Breedlove wrote in one email, using the acronym for the president of the United States. How could Obama be persuaded to be more "engaged" in the conflict in Ukraine -- read: deliver weapons -- Breedlove had asked former Secretary of State Colin Powell. ..."
    "... Breedlove sought counsel from some very prominent people, his emails show. Among them were Wesley Clark, Breedlove's predecessor at NATO, Victoria Nuland, the assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs at the State Department, and Geoffrey Pyatt, the US ambassador to Kiev. ..."
    "... One name that kept popping up was Phillip Karber, an adjunct assistant professor at Georgetown University in Washington DC and president of the Potomac Foundation, a conservative think tank founded by the former defense contractor BDM. By its own account, the foundation has helped eastern European countries prepare their accession into NATO. Now the Ukrainian parliament and the government in Kiev were asking Karber for help. ..."
    "... According to the email, Pakistan had offered, "under the table," to sell Ukraine 500 portable TOW-II launchers and 8,000 TOW-II missiles. The deliveries could begin within two weeks. Even the Poles were willing to start sending "well maintained T-72 tanks, plus several hundred SP 122mm guns, and SP-122 howitzers (along with copious amounts of artillery ammunition for both)" that they had leftover from the Soviet era. The sales would likely go unnoticed, Karber said, because Poland's old weapons were "virtually undistinguishable from those of Ukraine." ..."
    "... Karber noted, however, that Pakistan and Poland would not make any deliveries without informal US approval. Furthermore, Warsaw would only be willing to help if its deliveries to Kiev were replaced with new, state-of-the-art weapons from NATO. Karber concluded his letter with a warning: "Time has run out." Without immediate assistance, the Ukrainian army "could face prospect of collapse within 30 days." ..."
    "... In March, Karber traveled again to Warsaw in order to, as he told Breedlove, consult with leading members of the ruling party, on the need to "quietly supply arty ( eds: artillery ) and antitank munitions to Ukraine." ..."
    "... In an email to Breedlove, Clark described defense expert Karber as "brilliant." After a first visit, Breedlove indicated he had also been impressed. "GREAT visit," he wrote. Karber, an extremely enterprising man, appeared at first glance to be a valuable informant because he often -- at least a dozen times by his own account -- traveled to the front and spoke with Ukrainian commanders. The US embassy in Kiev also relied on Karber for information because it lacked its own sources. "We're largely blind," the embassy's defense attaché wrote in an email. ..."
    "... At times, Karber's missives read like prose. In one, he wrote about the 2014 Christmas celebrations he had spent together with Dnipro-1, the ultranationalist volunteer battalion. "The toasts and vodka flow, the women sing the Ukrainian national anthem -- no one has a dry eye." ..."
    "... Karber had only good things to report about the unit, which had already been discredited as a private oligarch army. He wrote that the staff and volunteers were dominated by middle class people and that there was a large professional staff that was even "working on the holiday." Breedlove responded that these insights were "quietly finding their way into the right places." ..."
    "... In fact, Karber is a highly controversial figure. During the 1980s, the longtime BDM employee, was counted among the fiercest Cold War hawks. Back in 1985, he warned of an impending Soviet attack on the basis of documents he had translated incorrectly. ..."
    "... He also blundered during the Ukraine crisis after sending photos to US Senator James Inhofe, claiming to show Russian units in Ukraine. Inhofe released the photos publicly, but it quickly emerged that one had originated from the 2008 war in Georgia. ..."
    "... The reasons that Breedlove continued to rely on Karber despite such false reports remain unclear. Was he willing to pay any price for weapons deliveries? Or did he have other motives? The emails illustrate the degree to which Breedlove and his fellow campaigners feared that Congress might reduce the number of US troops in Europe. ..."
    "... General Breedlove's departure from his NATO post in May has done little to placate anyone in the German government. After all, the man Breedlove regarded as an obstacle, President Obama, is nearing the end of his second term. His possible successor, the Democrat Hillary Clinton, is considered a hardliner vis-a-vis Russia. ..."
    "... What's more: Nuland, a diplomat who shares many of the same views as Breedlove, could move into an even more important role after the November election -- she's considered a potential candidate for secretary of state. ..."
    "... The now famous and appropriate quote from President Eisenhower: ..."
    "... In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. ..."
    "... The idea of NATO as a defence organisation, following the 2nd World War was quite rational. The history of this organisation however, has shown, how a well meant intention can be misused to force through policies, which have nothing to do with the original purpose. Currently it would appear to have no other role, than to provide high ranking army officers with well paid employment, which can only be justified by way of international conflicts. In the absence of conflict, NATO would have no other cause for existence. ..."
    "... The Cold War continues, only the enemy is not the Soviet Union but Russia. Ever since the war against Napoleon Russia has emerged as a threat to certain European interests, at first liberal and nationalist interests. After the Bolshevik Revolution the enemy was still Russia, now revitalized with extreme Bolshevik ideology. Hitler used this effectively to target liberals, leftists and especially Jews. ..."
    "... After the fall of Communism nothing has really changed. The West is still urged to resist the Russian threat, a threat invented by Polish, Baltic, and Ukrainian nationalists and perhaps Fascists. Donald Trump alone seems impervious to this propaganda. Let's at least give him credit in this case, if not in many others. NATO has become a permanent anti-Russian phony alliance, financed by America. ..."
    "... These people are hell-bent to bring the world to the brink of war, with lies and excuses about fear of Russian attacks. So Poland was willing to step into the conflict with Ukraine and deliver lethal armament? All the while afraid of Russia invading it? ..."
    "... Philip Breedlove is a war monger and should be fired from his position. The efforts of the group around him seeking to secure weapons for the Ukraine to intensify the conflict must have happened with Breedlove's knowledge and support. If not, then he is not capable to meet the demands of his job and should be dismissed for incompetence. Either way, this guy is unacceptable. ..."
    "... Ms. Nuland is the same us official recorded by Russian intelligence trying to manipulate events in Ukraine before the overthrow of the president and all the tragic events that followed. That she is still working for US state dept. is puzzling to say the least. ..."
    "... Very simple, he is attempting to INVENT a NEW ROLE for NATO, as it is well known in the domain of sociology: any organization strives for survival, especially when it becomes OBSOLETE. ..."
    "... nato Breedhate? ..."
    "... SPON was always parotting him. And SPON member Benjamin Bidder and many other SPON guys were foaming at the mouth with war rhetoric all the time in 2014-15. Shame on those fools. Finally, with this contribution you are approaching your real job. And this is to distribute information instead of propaganda. ..."
    SPIEGEL ONLINE (SPON)
    The newly leaked emails reveal a clandestine network of Western agitators around the NATO military chief, whose presence fueled the conflict in Ukraine. Many allies found in Breedlove's alarmist public statements about alleged large Russian troop movements cause for concern early on. Earlier this year, the general was assuring the world that US European Command was "deterring Russia now and preparing to fight and win if necessary."

    The emails document for the first time the questionable sources from whom Breedlove was getting his information. He had exaggerated Russian activities in eastern Ukraine with the overt goal of delivering weapons to Kiev.

    The general and his likeminded colleagues perceived US President Barack Obama, the commander-in-chief of all American forces, as well as German Chancellor Angela Merkel as obstacles. Obama and Merkel were being "politically naive & counter-productive" in their calls for de-escalation, according to Phillip Karber, a central figure in Breedlove's network who was feeding information from Ukraine to the general.

    "I think POTUS sees us as a threat that must be minimized,... ie do not get me into a war????" Breedlove wrote in one email, using the acronym for the president of the United States. How could Obama be persuaded to be more "engaged" in the conflict in Ukraine -- read: deliver weapons -- Breedlove had asked former Secretary of State Colin Powell.

    Breedlove sought counsel from some very prominent people, his emails show. Among them were Wesley Clark, Breedlove's predecessor at NATO, Victoria Nuland, the assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs at the State Department, and Geoffrey Pyatt, the US ambassador to Kiev.

    One name that kept popping up was Phillip Karber, an adjunct assistant professor at Georgetown University in Washington DC and president of the Potomac Foundation, a conservative think tank founded by the former defense contractor BDM. By its own account, the foundation has helped eastern European countries prepare their accession into NATO. Now the Ukrainian parliament and the government in Kiev were asking Karber for help.

    Surreptitious Channels

    On February 16, 2015, when the Ukraine crisis had reached its climax, Karber wrote an email to Breedlove, Clark, Pyatt and Rose Gottemoeller, the under secretary for arms control and international security at the State Department, who will be moving to Brussels this fall to take up the post of deputy secretary general of NATO. Karber was in Warsaw, and he said he had found surreptitious channels to get weapons to Ukraine -- without the US being directly involved.

    According to the email, Pakistan had offered, "under the table," to sell Ukraine 500 portable TOW-II launchers and 8,000 TOW-II missiles. The deliveries could begin within two weeks. Even the Poles were willing to start sending "well maintained T-72 tanks, plus several hundred SP 122mm guns, and SP-122 howitzers (along with copious amounts of artillery ammunition for both)" that they had leftover from the Soviet era. The sales would likely go unnoticed, Karber said, because Poland's old weapons were "virtually undistinguishable from those of Ukraine."

           A destroyed airport building in the eastern Ukrainian city of Donetsk        : Thousands were killed in fighting during the Ukraine conflict.      Zoom AFP

    A destroyed airport building in the eastern Ukrainian city of Donetsk : Thousands were killed in fighting during the Ukraine conflict.

    Karber noted, however, that Pakistan and Poland would not make any deliveries without informal US approval. Furthermore, Warsaw would only be willing to help if its deliveries to Kiev were replaced with new, state-of-the-art weapons from NATO. Karber concluded his letter with a warning: "Time has run out." Without immediate assistance, the Ukrainian army "could face prospect of collapse within 30 days."

    "Stark," Breedlove replied. "I may share some of this but will thoroughly wipe the fingerprints off."

    In March, Karber traveled again to Warsaw in order to, as he told Breedlove, consult with leading members of the ruling party, on the need to "quietly supply arty ( eds: artillery ) and antitank munitions to Ukraine."

    Much to the irritation of Breedlove, Clark and Karber, nothing happened. Those responsible were quickly identified. The National Security Council, Obama's circle of advisors, were "slowing things down," Karber complained. Clark pointed his finger directly at the White House, writing, "Our problem is higher than State," a reference to the State Department.

    ... ... ...

    'The Front Is Now Everywhere'

    Karber's emails constantly made it sound as though the apocalypse was only a few weeks away. "The front is now everywhere," he told Breedlove in an email at the beginning of 2015, adding that Russian agents and their proxies "have begun launching a series of terrorist attacks, assassinations, kidnappings and infrastructure bombings," in an effort to destabilize Kiev and other Ukrainian cities.

    In an email to Breedlove, Clark described defense expert Karber as "brilliant." After a first visit, Breedlove indicated he had also been impressed. "GREAT visit," he wrote. Karber, an extremely enterprising man, appeared at first glance to be a valuable informant because he often -- at least a dozen times by his own account -- traveled to the front and spoke with Ukrainian commanders. The US embassy in Kiev also relied on Karber for information because it lacked its own sources. "We're largely blind," the embassy's defense attaché wrote in an email.

    At times, Karber's missives read like prose. In one, he wrote about the 2014 Christmas celebrations he had spent together with Dnipro-1, the ultranationalist volunteer battalion. "The toasts and vodka flow, the women sing the Ukrainian national anthem -- no one has a dry eye."

    Karber had only good things to report about the unit, which had already been discredited as a private oligarch army. He wrote that the staff and volunteers were dominated by middle class people and that there was a large professional staff that was even "working on the holiday." Breedlove responded that these insights were "quietly finding their way into the right places."

    Highly Controversial Figure

    In fact, Karber is a highly controversial figure. During the 1980s, the longtime BDM employee, was counted among the fiercest Cold War hawks. Back in 1985, he warned of an impending Soviet attack on the basis of documents he had translated incorrectly.

    He also blundered during the Ukraine crisis after sending photos to US Senator James Inhofe, claiming to show Russian units in Ukraine. Inhofe released the photos publicly, but it quickly emerged that one had originated from the 2008 war in Georgia.

    By November 10, 2014, at the latest, Breedlove must have recognized that his informant was on thin ice. That's when Karber reported that the separatists were boasting they had a tactical nuclear warhead for the 2S4 mortar. Karber himself described the news as "weird," but also added that "there is a lot of 'crazy' things going on" in Ukraine.

    The reasons that Breedlove continued to rely on Karber despite such false reports remain unclear. Was he willing to pay any price for weapons deliveries? Or did he have other motives? The emails illustrate the degree to which Breedlove and his fellow campaigners feared that Congress might reduce the number of US troops in Europe.

    Karber confirmed the authenticity of the leaked email correspondence. Regarding the questions about the accuracy of his reports, he told SPIEGEL that, "like any information derived from direct observation at the front during the 'fog of war,' it is partial, time sensitive, and perceived through a personal perspective." Looking back with the advantage of hindsight and a more comprehensive perspective, "I believe that I was right more than wrong," Karber writes, "but certainly not perfect." He adds that, "in 170 days at the front, I never once met a German military or official directly observing the conflict."

    Great Interest in Berlin

    Breedlove's leaked email correspondences were read in Berlin with great interest. A year ago, word of the NATO commander's "dangerous propaganda" was circulating around Merkel's Chancellery. In light of the new information, officials felt vindicated in their assessment. Germany's Federal Foreign Office has expressed similar sentiment, saying that fortunately "influential voices had continuously advocated against the delivery of 'lethal weapons.'"

    Karber says he finds it "obscene that the most effective sanction of this war is not the economic limits placed on Russia, but the virtual complete embargo of all lethal aid to the victim. I find this to be the height of sophistry -- if a woman is being attacked by a group of hooligans and yells out to the crowd or passersby, 'Give me a can of mace,' is it better to not supply it because the attackers could have a knife and passively watch her get raped?"

    General Breedlove's departure from his NATO post in May has done little to placate anyone in the German government. After all, the man Breedlove regarded as an obstacle, President Obama, is nearing the end of his second term. His possible successor, the Democrat Hillary Clinton, is considered a hardliner vis-a-vis Russia.

    What's more: Nuland, a diplomat who shares many of the same views as Breedlove, could move into an even more important role after the November election -- she's considered a potential candidate for secretary of state.

    bubasan 07/28/2016

    Upon reading this article, I am reminded of Dwight D Eisenhowers Farewell speech to the American Public on January 17, 1961. So long as we continue the PC mentality of NOT Teaching History, as it really was, we are going to repeat past mistake's. The now famous and appropriate quote from President Eisenhower:

    In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.

    Inglenda2 07/28/2016

    The idea of NATO as a defence organisation, following the 2nd World War was quite rational. The history of this organisation however, has shown, how a well meant intention can be misused to force through policies, which have nothing to do with the original purpose. Currently it would appear to have no other role, than to provide high ranking army officers with well paid employment, which can only be justified by way of international conflicts. In the absence of conflict, NATO would have no other cause for existence.

    PeterCT 07/28/2016

    Why is Breedlove so fat? He is setting a bad example to his troops. Show all comments

    turnipseed 07/29/2016

    The Cold War continues, only the enemy is not the Soviet Union but Russia. Ever since the war against Napoleon Russia has emerged as a threat to certain European interests, at first liberal and nationalist interests. After the Bolshevik Revolution the enemy was still Russia, now revitalized with extreme Bolshevik ideology. Hitler used this effectively to target liberals, leftists and especially Jews.

    After the fall of Communism nothing has really changed. The West is still urged to resist the Russian threat, a threat invented by Polish, Baltic, and Ukrainian nationalists and perhaps Fascists. Donald Trump alone seems impervious to this propaganda. Let's at least give him credit in this case, if not in many others. NATO has become a permanent anti-Russian phony alliance, financed by America.

    90-grad 07/31/2016

    Quite detailed article. Not being published in the german website. How to describe these people, basically just trying to ignite bigger conflicts, or even war. Hardliner, hawks, to me not strong enough. These are criminals of war, and they should be named accordingly. These are exactly the kind of persons, who helped Bush to invade Irak, basing on false informations to the public. And their peace endangering activities help politicians like H.Clinton to keep the peoble in fear, solely to their own benefit. Disgusting!

    huguenot1566 07/31/2016

    Extremely disturbing

    I don't even know here to begin. Breedlove, Karber, Clark all Americans, seemingly on their own without Obama's permission, trying to exaggerate or fabricate evidence in order to start a war with Russia and the danger to the world is profoundly terrifying (Iraq 2003). The US Embassy in Ukraine saying they were in the dark and therefore relying on information from a college professor, Karber, who still thinks we're in the Cold War along with Clark who was retired & meddling in an unofficial capacity as far as the story implies tells me they should be brought up on charges. And Breedlove is supposed to follow orders not make up his own policy & then try & manufacture evidence supporting that policy to start war. If the US Embassy in Ukraine says they were in the dark then clearly they were fishing for info to proactively involve themselves in another nation & region's personal business. Congress & the U.S. military should investigate as these actions violate the U.S. Constitution. Thankfully, Germany and NATO is able to say no. It tells Americans that something isn't right on their end of this.

    verbatim128 07/31/2016

    Look who was crying wolf!

    These people are hell-bent to bring the world to the brink of war, with lies and excuses about fear of Russian attacks. So Poland was willing to step into the conflict with Ukraine and deliver lethal armament? All the while afraid of Russia invading it? We, public opinion and most Western peace-loving folk, are played like a fiddle to step into the fray to "protect" and further some age-old ethnic and nationalistic rivalries. Time to put an end to this.

    gerhard38 08/01/2016

    Fucking war monger

    Philip Breedlove is a war monger and should be fired from his position. The efforts of the group around him seeking to secure weapons for the Ukraine to intensify the conflict must have happened with Breedlove's knowledge and support. If not, then he is not capable to meet the demands of his job and should be dismissed for incompetence. Either way, this guy is unacceptable.

    aegiov 08/01/2016

    Ms. Nuland is the same us official recorded by Russian intelligence trying to manipulate events in Ukraine before the overthrow of the president and all the tragic events that followed. That she is still working for US state dept. is puzzling to say the least. good reporting. thank you.

    titus_norberto 08/02/2016

    The Front Is Now Everywhere, indeed...

    Quote: 'The Front Is Now Everywhere', yes indeed, we can go back to the Wilson administration, he invented the League of Nations and his nation did not even joined.

    There is a folly in American presidents, they believe they can solve worlds problems, especially in the Middle East, with two invariable results:

    1- utter failure plus CHAOS; and

    2- utter disregard for DOMESTIC GOVERNANCE.

    Now, the fact that the front is NOW 2016 everywhere is the result of failure one. Donald Trump is the result of failure two. There is another aspect to consider, what is General Breedlove doing ? Very simple, he is attempting to INVENT a NEW ROLE for NATO, as it is well known in the domain of sociology: any organization strives for survival, especially when it becomes OBSOLETE.

    vsepr1975 08/03/2016

    nato Breedhate?

    w.schuler 08/09/2016

    Fat Bredlove is a war monger

    This is true and it was obvious from the very beginning. But SPON was always parotting him. And SPON member Benjamin Bidder and many other SPON guys were foaming at the mouth with war rhetoric all the time in 2014-15. Shame on those fools. Finally, with this contribution you are approaching your real job. And this is to distribute information instead of propaganda.

    [Aug 10, 2016] Owen Jones: vote for Hillary because when she's POTUS we can ask her nice to be progressive by Catte

    Notable quotes:
    "... the U.S. system never has been democratic. It is a show–a very expensive one–that the capitalist class puts on every two years in order to control the citizenry and to provide a justification for U.S. imperialism. ..."
    "... Now, the capitalist class that controls Rome is no longer national, but transnational, being based on the transnational corporations and financial institutions and enjoying the full support of the transnational capitalist media. ..."
    "... new poles: Globaliists vs. Antiglobalists. ..."
    "... Donald Trump is an antiglobalist. That's the reason he deserves the full support of all those who oppose the transnational capitalist class and its institutions, including the EU, NATO, the WTO, the IMF, the World Bank and the OECD, to name just a few. ..."
    "... However, the election should not be about appearances but about policies. Obama sounded intelligent, but his policies all come out of the globalist think tanks, the CIA (his mum's former employer) and the neocon asylum in Washington. So chose: someone who sounds like a television personality with great positions, or… well we all know what Clinton stands for. ..."
    "... submissives to the atomisation of all systems that might afford self-sufficiency to societies, that makes everybody absolutely dependent on and therefore subservient to international finance and it's program of enslavement. ..."
    "... Sanders was clearly the sheep-dog, and I won't be surprised if an e-mail showing that reality appears. ..."
    "... spitting in the face of the latest generation of suckers who thought that the elite plutocracy of the USA could be 'reformed' from within. ..."
    "... sheepdog is accurate. I have been calling him a sheepdog since 2014 and predicting, correctly, that he would both lose the nomination and endorse Hillary. This was inevitable since he SAID he would endorse her from the start of his so-called campaign. ..."
    "... If the majority of people in the USA are really thinking that voting for either Hillary or the Donald is worse than having unprotected sex with an HIV+ hooker, then the Independent would barely need any publicity. They'd just need to be on the ballot. ..."
    "... Course, the Establishment might get cute and put a far-right nutcase up as 'another Independent' so as they would have someone who'd do as they were told no matter what. ..."
    "... The Boy Wonder's credentials as a card-carrying New World Order shill haven't really been in question since January this year – when he penned this fact-free Russophobic screed: ..."
    "... Owen Jones has lost all credibility with his quest for publicity at any price. He'd sell his granny for whatever he could get if it served his interests. He's a hypocrite and a propagandist opportunist. He doesn't give a fig about the Syrians, the Palestinians, the Yemeni or anyone else but himself. At best he is a worthless egocentric loser who wants to be heard, whatever drivel he is spouting and is a traitor to the socialist/centrist movement, his only loyalty is to himself. Nothing he writes or says can be taken seriously anymore. ..."
    July 27, 2016 | OffGuardian

    So, even though Clinton also isn't progressive, or honest, or sane, and even though she has no interest in helping the disadvantaged or rebuilding social infrastructure, and even though she conducted state business on a private email server so no one would be able to tell what nefarious and illegal, and potentially insanely dangerous things she was doing, and even though she presided over the Honduras debacle, and even though she authorised and gloated over the illegal murder of a foreign head of state, and even though she has threatened to "obliterate" Iran and take the confrontations with Russia and China to new heights that really might result in WW3, we absolutely have to get behind her because – hello – she isn't Trump. And anyhow if we get her to be POTUS and make sure there are lots of lovely Democrats in Congress, maybe we can ask them to please do some of the socialist things Bernie talked about. They will probably say yes, of course And anyhow, Owen's not sure if he mentioned this but Hillary isn't Trump

    Yes, this is what passes for political analysis when the neolibs are slipping you wads of cash to endorse the unendorsable, the discredited and the morally broken.

    The likes of Jones are paid to surrender their dignity and ethics and pretend this macabre farce is something called "democracy", and to sell the decaying relics offered up for candidacy as if they were real choices. That doesn't mean we have to pretend to believe them. If I were a US citizen I'd take the only truly free choice left and decline to play this game of fake reality any longer. And if we all did that, the game would be over, wouldn't it.

    anonymous, July 27, 2016

    I am a 57-year-old U.S. citizen. To disabuse those Europeans who both live in smaller countries and have the blessing of a parliamentary system, the U.S. system never has been democratic. It is a show–a very expensive one–that the capitalist class puts on every two years in order to control the citizenry and to provide a justification for U.S. imperialism. The citizens are convinced that they don't have to do a thing in order to make the "democracy" work, and that if they don't like the results that either they are to blame or it is useless to oppose the system. And outside of Rome, people are told that the Roman way is best because it is legitimized by the vote of the citizens.

    Now, the capitalist class that controls Rome is no longer national, but transnational, being based on the transnational corporations and financial institutions and enjoying the full support of the transnational capitalist media. And as the rise of the Alt-Right shows, the old communist vs. far-right poles have become obsolete with the utter defeat and assimilation of the Marxist left, and have been replaced with new poles: Globaliists vs. Antiglobalists.

    Donald Trump is an antiglobalist. That's the reason he deserves the full support of all those who oppose the transnational capitalist class and its institutions, including the EU, NATO, the WTO, the IMF, the World Bank and the OECD, to name just a few. There are not a few "progressives" and "leftists" who refuse to support Trump because he doesn't sound intelligent.

    However, the election should not be about appearances but about policies. Obama sounded intelligent, but his policies all come out of the globalist think tanks, the CIA (his mum's former employer) and the neocon asylum in Washington. So chose: someone who sounds like a television personality with great positions, or… well we all know what Clinton stands for.

    dahoit, August 7, 2016

    I agree totally, Trump is the answer for American recovery.

    But the zionists want no part of America First and Israel on its own.

    And that is why the MSM and web sites everywhere are in full throat propaganda mode for the Hell Bitch.

    I have never seen anything like this before, and the American people can see the fix is in, but over our dead bodies, if necessary. I'm pissed to shite at this massive mis and disinformation bliztkrieg.

    It will backfire, just like all their attempts to marginalize him during the primaries.

    physicsandmathsrevision, July 26, 2016

    He's happy to support Clinton's murderous Jewish racist agenda. All perceived threats to Israel must be destroyed. Iraq, Libya, Syria and (next up) Iran.
    This is where leftist centrists think is a good place to stand in this terrifying age during which we must endure the brain-dead analysis of commentators who, in truth, are most easily understood as simple submissives to the establishment will … a will that everyone is afraid to recognise as being dominated by Jewish money and its globalist anti-commutarian agenda….submissives to the atomisation of all systems that might afford self-sufficiency to societies, that makes everybody absolutely dependent on and therefore subservient to international finance and it's program of enslavement. Are 'gays' a new officer class in this operation?

    OffG Editor, July 26, 2016

    The phrase "a Jewish racists agenda" should qualify for some award for unintended and self-defeating irony.

    If you can tell me how it clarifies, exlains or expands your point then I'll recognise you have a valid reason for adding it that isn't racist or intentionally self-sabotaging.

    proximity1, July 27, 2016

    IF YOU can tell me how the remark is not arguably quite true based on a fair and honest review of facts, then I'll recognise your valid objection to it.

    But, as it seems to me, the simple fact that Clinton's policies aren't solely confined* to the outrages which the writer describes as a "murderous Jewish racist agenda," does not make that observation any the less true- does it!?

    What, other than that, are you objecting to?

    Richard Le Sarcophage, July 28, 2016

    Sanders was clearly the sheep-dog, and I won't be surprised if an e-mail showing that reality appears. He is, in fact, with his total and immediate roll-over, even as the corruption of the process was categorically exposed by the e-mails, making no pretense otherwise, spitting in the face of the latest generation of suckers who thought that the elite plutocracy of the USA could be 'reformed' from within. He was the geriatric Obama, dispensing more Hopium for the dopes. And when Clinton feigns adoption of Sanders policy, like not signing the TPP, she is LYING.

    Diana, July 28, 2016

    Sanders' own campaign called him the "youth whisperer", but sheepdog is accurate. I have been calling him a sheepdog since 2014 and predicting, correctly, that he would both lose the nomination and endorse Hillary. This was inevitable since he SAID he would endorse her from the start of his so-called campaign. Perhaps he did so hoping that the DNC would play fair, but that goes to show you he's no socialist. A real socialist would have been able to size up the opposition, not made any gentleman's agreements with them and waged a real campaign.


    rtj1211, July 26, 2016

    So far as I'm aware, there must be a mechanism for an Independent to put their name on the ballot.

    If the majority of people in the USA are really thinking that voting for either Hillary or the Donald is worse than having unprotected sex with an HIV+ hooker, then the Independent would barely need any publicity. They'd just need to be on the ballot.

    Course, the Establishment might get cute and put a far-right nutcase up as 'another Independent' so as they would have someone who'd do as they were told no matter what.

    But until the US public say 'da nada! Pasta! Finito! To hell with the Democrats and the GOP!', you'll still get the choice of 'let's invade Iran' or 'let's nuke Russia'. You'll get the choice of giving Israel a blowjob or agreeing to be tied up and have kinky sex with Israel. You'll get the choice of bailing out Wall Street or bailing out Wall Street AND cutting social security for the poorest Americans. You'll get the choice of running the USA for the bankers or running the USA for the bankers and a few multinational corporations.

    Oh, they'll have to fight for it, just as Martin Luther King et al had to fight for civil rights. They may have the odd candidate shot by the CIA, the oil men or the weapons men. Because that's how US politics works.

    But if they don't want a Republican or a Republican-lite, they need to select an independent and vote for them.

    The rest of us? We have to use whatever influence we have to try and limit what they try to do overseas…….because we are affected by what America does overseas…….

    reinertorheit, July 26, 2016

    Holy Schmoley, Batman!

    The Boy Wonder's credentials as a card-carrying New World Order shill haven't really been in question since January this year – when he penned this fact-free Russophobic screed:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/26/vladimir-putin-russia-oligarch-british-left-speak-out

    Perhaps the most laughable thing in it is that he claims to be speaking for "the British Left"

    mohandeer, July 26, 2016

    Owen Jones has lost all credibility with his quest for publicity at any price. He'd sell his granny for whatever he could get if it served his interests. He's a hypocrite and a propagandist opportunist. He doesn't give a fig about the Syrians, the Palestinians, the Yemeni or anyone else but himself. At best he is a worthless egocentric loser who wants to be heard, whatever drivel he is spouting and is a traitor to the socialist/centrist movement, his only loyalty is to himself. Nothing he writes or says can be taken seriously anymore.

    [Aug 10, 2016] M of A - Clintons False Assassination Outrage Only Helps Trump

    "Clinton's false assassination outrage" was launched to suppress damaging new emails rulors the Clinton goons are behind asssainatin of GNC staffer, who may have been the source of email leaks scandal articles
    Notable quotes:
    "... I distinctly recall HRC pacing the 2008 DNC stage, furiously red-faced, making a thinly veiled reference to Obama and the assassination of Bobby Kennedy, then later shouting with great exasperation, "Ären't you going to 'do' anything about this (guy)", using 'do' in the full Mafia 'Trail of 50 Bodies' sense. ..."
    "... How can one be so blind not to see that it's Hitlary, who is surrounded by the bloodthirsty CIA people pushing openly for world war? ..."
    "... Hillary's false 'The Russians are coming!' is having as widespread and as dire results as anything the Trump has said. Her program is institutional, with the guy 'who used to run the CIA' - right - plugging assassinations himself, and Hillary pledging to continue Obama's program of murdering 'suspects' and everyone surrounding them, or just people who seem to be acting like you'd think 'suspects' might - while viewing them through an 8 or 10,000 mile long drinking straw. ..."
    "... Actually, that's not the video where she made both those statements, but rather an after-play pre-rehearsed news event to immediately replace in the viewers' minds what was actually said, and the shocking raw horror of her psychopathy. ..."
    "... "We came, we saw, he died, caww, caww, caww!" Remember, she'd just watched Ghadaffi be anally raped to death with a bayonet on closed-circuit satellite feed to the War Room. And that was her psychopathic response. ..."
    "... Trump has a huge advantage over his opponents and critics. He's not a bribed, corrupt politician. The Dems and Republicans are all in the pockets of the Owners of the Military/ Industrial/ Security/ Trade/ pro-Israel Complex. They, and their followers, aren't allowed to stray from the Handed-down Wisdom script. It's an insurmountable obstacle for the anti-Trump crowd and b's perspective, (their) outrage (and fake sincerity) only helps Trump, and can only get worse. ..."
    "... I suspect that Clinton will have some bad news in terms of leaked emails and ties between state department and Clinton foundation so by November when elected she will be embroiled in legal fights. ..."
    "... The effect of all that hysterical shouting and screaming of the Hillary-bots: All members and all supporters of the NRA now know exactly what's on stake. ..."
    "... the Charlie Rose interview with ex-CIA chief Morrell who is backing Clinton: Kill Russians and Iranians, threaten Assad,' https://www.rt.com/usa/355291-morrell-kill-russians-clinton/ ..."
    "... Today's outing at The Wall Street Journal via ZH: Latest Hillary Email Scandal Reveals State Department "Favors" To Clinton Foundation http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-08-10/latest-hillary-email-scandal-shows-state-department-favors-clinton-foundation ..."
    "... A TIME magazine cover recently depicted a headline "Can Hillary be Stopped". Were the editors of TIME suggesting she be assassinated? The media is merely a propaganda tool used to influence our every thought from buying toothpaste to voting for one of two candidates who will be "empty suits" (unless someone comes along who will resist the proffered script) called "President of the USA" - ..."
    "... The internet has been an efficient tool to awaken the people... TPTB (or TPTA) are not adjusting too well. Rather than falsely present a "close race" as is their usual MO, they have persuaded almost 100% of the media to pile on Trump - they think people are too stupid to realize what is going on - same thing with the "polls" - with the "swing states" etc. People are NOT buying it this go round though. Obama's hope & change and subsequent same ol same ol has done alot to "change" people to no longer hope. Then along comes Trump - definitely not one of the establishment. ..."
    "... The more the TPTB pile on Trump's every utterance, and the more they IGNORE the blatant crimes of HRC... imho, the more people will be inclined to vote Anybody But Clinton. Again, in my opinion, many Democrats will stay at home on election day. When in our history of elections has a candidate stolen an election and that fact been verified, and the guilty candidate as much as said to the Party "Deal with It"? ..."
    "... Apologize for the tirade, but I have been a Democrat (actually a LEFTY) for almost 7 decades... in this election cycle most democrats are gleeful over what they see as the decline of the Republican Party, totally BLIND to the evaporation of the Democratic Party. I will never again work or vote for a Democrat - local or national. ..."
    "... "The election will likely be decided on voter turn-out and get-out-the-vote volunteering efforts." If the primaries had been so decided Hillary would not still be in the race. Elections, no less than primaries, are decided by the (corrupt) vote counting. https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2016/06/24/smoking-gun-approximately-15-of-bernies-votes-were-flipped-to-clinton-in-california/ ..."
    "... Richard Charnin has documented the mathematical impossibility of the results in quite a few primaries. ..."
    "... HAHAHA I think more than half the country understands The Washington Post sells lies, bias and bullshit ..."
    "... Killary campaign is unravelling fast imho. Her health problems are all over the net, Assange seems to be hinting at the fact that Seth Rich (goog) was a source, the leaker of DNC mails. (Imho he was a conduit rather than source but who am I.) ..."
    "... Who cares if he's clean? What matters is that he's not a war criminal, and can't be bought. That he can't be bought is why the Establishment is so dead-set against him. ..."
    "... I can't understand your position, given your interest in Russia. Surely you're aware that Hillary would make Obama's relaunching of the Cold War look like a little skirmish? And she would not rest until Syria is destroyed like Libya. One of her advisers has said that he hopes she will kill Russians and Iranians in Syria; another said that NATO is too concerned about ISIS, and attention should go back to overthrowing the legitimate secular Syrian government. ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org
    Karl Pomeroy | Aug 9, 2016 10:18:41 PM | 14
    Geopolitical analyst Finian Cunningham has brilliantly nailed Hillary as an "Exemplar of Neo-Fascism."

    https://quemadoinstitute.org/2016/08/08/hillary-exemplar-of-neo-fascism-trump-an-anathema-to-pentagon-cia-finian-cunningham/

    blues | Aug 9, 2016 10:54:06 PM | 17
    Here are the monsters your scorn should be heaped upon. Yes right here:

    https://electology.org/forum/distracting-unworkable-feints

    bbbb | Aug 10, 2016 12:49:05 AM | 18
    Somebody on the Syria thread got me back on D. Orlov's site. He has a great writeup about how to 'vote' this time around (at least for the president).
    http://cluborlov.blogspot.ca/2016/08/furious-sheep.html
    Alison DeBeers | Aug 10, 2016 1:13:23 AM | 20
    I distinctly recall HRC pacing the 2008 DNC stage, furiously red-faced, making a thinly veiled reference to Obama and the assassination of Bobby Kennedy, then later shouting with great exasperation, "Ären't you going to 'do' anything about this (guy)", using 'do' in the full Mafia 'Trail of 50 Bodies' sense.

    The Cgiseb Trotskyist Now has already rewritten that out of history.

    Back then HRC was speaking without notes, ...directly from her psychopathic brain. Trump was clearly reading from a teleprompter, and you can gargle all you want about that, but the intent was clear, 'crystal', as they say in the halls of Mossad-CIA: 'Do' HRH if she is selected. Who do?

    Then you have to wonder at the cynosure behind the curtain, and their intent, ...which seems to me to be clearly to foment civil war, resolving the inevitable stall and flat spin death spiral of QEn 'goosed' and 'juiced' global markets, so the looting can begin.

    Chinyowinh made a compelling prediction that Bernie was a ruse to round up the Left and deliver them with roses and chocolates to Hillary on a silver plate, which he did; and also that Donald is a ruse to round up Right Wing Rabbinicals, Sovereigntists, Patriots and Crypto-Zionists, and drive them all off Nut Bar Cliff in a hand basket, which he is.

    But that prediction, which seems to have come true, doesn't answer intent. What is the intent of the Chosen controlling all three houses of government, of course, forming a Holy Zionist Kleptocracy. Why? What is their goal, besides enslaving all the Earners?

    Their Solution is all-out civil war, and killing off all the useless EBC mouths to feed.

    Then you have to wonder why nobody has 'done' the cynosures yet, as the bodies pile up.
    Why do we let the cynosure control dissent? Why do we let them hector in the arguments?
    Why waste a NY nanosecond even talking about this psyop brainwashing stress positioning?

    Nothing to see here, citizens, move on dot org.

    Piotr Berman | Aug 10, 2016 6:31:21 AM | 24
    "Those incoherent remarks were certainly off-the-cuff babble without a prepared script. Difficult to follow even if someone were interested in doing so."

    If this is the best that can be said about a candidate, it is not a recommendation. "Vote Trump, he has most incoherent remarks!"

    Most importantly, b correctly observes that Trump, a remarkably successful candidate, uses highly emotional barely coherent speech (or incoherent, if you are charitably inclined), so to compete with him one has to use methodical clear arguments and not an ounce of "false outrage". Just compare with GOP propaganda in the preceding week: there was a deal with Iran allowing access to "frozen" (de-facto, stolen money that belong to the state of Iran), and as a part of that deal some money were sent to Iran before restoring banking connections. Clearly, it was a mean trick on the side of Obama administration, as they are delaying the restoration of normal banking transactions, but GOP is no in full false outrage about "illegal payment", "treason" and so on.

    How about the outrage that Democrats do not use expression "Islamist radical" often enough (or some other expression).

    Emotional and rather base arguments are the specialty of GOP, so it is only fitting to respond in kind. In a counter-narrative, GOP is bent on supplying every right wing psychopath with a ton of machine guns and ammo so they can dispatch LGT folks, social workers, abortion clinics, the public in shopping malls (then and now an armed psychopath is simply, a-politically insane) and liberal politicians. This is an angle directed at "soccer mom" demographic.

    And the situation is a bit scary. American gun nuts are numerous, organized, full of homicidal fantasies (check what "stopping power" means, one of their favorite phrases) and, quite regrettably, they have means to realize their fantasies when angry, depressed etc.

    From The Hague | Aug 10, 2016 6:54:52 AM | 26
    It seems 'bad words' by Trump are worse than bad actions by Hillary.
    He's not a politician (I agree with likklemore #10)

    Talking about assassination: #SethRich

    https://twitter.com/AzaniaJustice/status/759940203616280577

    ProPeace | Aug 10, 2016 8:22:21 AM | 30
    The media bias against Trump has reached unprecedented proportions. I don't know he can be still considered a part of the establishment. Instead of futile speculations about what Trump did not say fueled by the lame-scream media disinformation people should be talking about this:

    WikiLeaks Offers $20,000 Reward For Information On Murder Of DNC Staffer

    ProPeace | Aug 10, 2016 8:27:11 AM | 31
    @Piotr Berman | Aug 10, 2016 6:31:21 AM | 24

    "Trump, a remarkably successful candidate, uses highly emotional barely coherent speech (or incoherent, if you are charitably inclined)"

    Because that's what vast majority of the US public deserves.

    ProPeace | Aug 10, 2016 8:32:21 AM | 32
    @somebody

    How can one be so blind not to see that it's Hitlary, who is surrounded by the bloodthirsty CIA people pushing openly for world war? Are you high on something bad to claim that Killary will be "slow decline" instead of immediate, violent confrontation with the anti-empire block?!

    jfl | Aug 10, 2016 8:34:32 AM | 33
    Hillary's false 'The Russians are coming!' is having as widespread and as dire results as anything the Trump has said. Her program is institutional, with the guy 'who used to run the CIA' - right - plugging assassinations himself, and Hillary pledging to continue Obama's program of murdering 'suspects' and everyone surrounding them, or just people who seem to be acting like you'd think 'suspects' might - while viewing them through an 8 or 10,000 mile long drinking straw.

    From the Olympics come the Americans ... booing the silver medal winning Russian, and her American competitors labeling her a cheater.

    There comes also a ' selfie ' from a young South Korean gymnast, with her new friend from North Korea. There is talk of the USA and its stooges in South Korea making her pay for her 'impure hatred' of the imperially defined other, her own flesh and blood!

    World wide now ... who do love and who do you hate? The Americans? the Koreans? I'm loving the two young Koreans in their selfie myself. Feel sorry for the twisted American swimmers. Amazing they can still float with all the thick bile of hatred weighing them down.

    From The Hague | Aug 10, 2016 9:00:43 AM | 37
    @35,36 ralphieboy,

    Why are you so glad with Hillary? Because of her experience with Libya?
    https://twitter.com/RonSantoFan/status/761725517481455616 (I like her plain talk!)
    Or her experience with Russia?
    https://twitter.com/stranahan/status/760555034660655104 (Stephen Cohen - CNN; Must See!)

    Alison DeBeers | Aug 10, 2016 9:40:40 AM | 41
    25

    Actually, that's not the video where she made both those statements, but rather an after-play pre-rehearsed news event to immediately replace in the viewers' minds what was actually said, and the shocking raw horror of her psychopathy.

    "We came, we saw, he died, caww, caww, caww!" Remember, she'd just watched Ghadaffi be anally raped to death with a bayonet on closed-circuit satellite feed to the War Room. And that was her psychopathic response.

    Here is an example. A still shot of Jackie climbing over the back of the limo as a Secret Service agent rushes up to the limo, and shot from what angle and azimuth, you might ask, since the far ground was level, except by a telephoto spotting scope.

    Then watch the Zapruder video, which shows the agent already on the limo.

    There are 1000's of examples like this from the 9/11 recasting, that's what the Cgiseb Trotskyist Now media people are for, to alter reality in real time, or very near to it.

    19 Arabs who could not fly a Cessna flew two 757s through fighter jet maneuvers with full tanks at full payload dropped two skyscrapers for the first time in history, and two other mythical 757s accomplished what Einstein never did: "They just vaporized!"

    "Hillary just meant that we need a good Vice President, ...you know, just in case."

    Cheney instituted a $5.8B domestic media Black Ops program, that continues to this day, and both Red Donald and Blue Hillary are owned by the same cartels that control the Ops.

    Hoarsewhisperer | Aug 10, 2016 9:51:24 AM | 42
    Trump has a huge advantage over his opponents and critics. He's not a bribed, corrupt politician. The Dems and Republicans are all in the pockets of the Owners of the Military/ Industrial/ Security/ Trade/ pro-Israel Complex. They, and their followers, aren't allowed to stray from the Handed-down Wisdom script. It's an insurmountable obstacle for the anti-Trump crowd and b's perspective, (their) outrage (and fake sincerity) only helps Trump, and can only get worse.
    somebody | Aug 10, 2016 9:55:27 AM | 43
    Posted by: x | Aug 10, 2016 9:03:31 AM | 39

    He is catering for his core voters who made him win the primary but that group won't get him elected in the general election.

    He needs utter amnesia to change his image till October, and youtube and social media will make sure he does not get a chance.

    I suspect that Clinton will have some bad news in terms of leaked emails and ties between state department and Clinton foundation so by November when elected she will be embroiled in legal fights.

    It would be nice to see the Republican and Democrat Parties split.

    From The Hague | Aug 10, 2016 9:57:35 AM | 44
    Wikipedia on the National Rifle Association of America (NRA): Membership surpassed 5 million in May 2013.

    The effect of all that hysterical shouting and screaming of the Hillary-bots: All members and all supporters of the NRA now know exactly what's on stake.

    Brilliant PR from Trump; simple, effective and costless.

    likklemore | Aug 10, 2016 10:07:02 AM | 45
    Connecting the dots.

    "Clinton's false assassination outrage" has accomplished its intent to suppress damaging emailo scandal articles on the front pages, and especially viral on the internet is

    the Charlie Rose interview with ex-CIA chief Morrell who is backing Clinton: Kill Russians and Iranians, threaten Assad,' https://www.rt.com/usa/355291-morrell-kill-russians-clinton/

    "The ex-CIA chief, who worked with Clinton while she was secretary of state, told CBS This Morning co-host Charlie Rose that Iran and Russia should "pay a big price" in Syria – and by that he meant killing them."

    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

    MSM global has it in the bag for Clinton but over the next weeks we will read the connections between her office and pay-for-play Clinton Foundation.

    Today's outing at The Wall Street Journal via ZH: Latest Hillary Email Scandal Reveals State Department "Favors" To Clinton Foundation
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-08-10/latest-hillary-email-scandal-shows-state-department-favors-clinton-foundation

    ~ ~ ~ ~

    Not surprised. Quite revealing the list of CF Board of Directors. There is a descriptor for this that escapes one's capacity to spell. SO, HRC's Chief of Staff served on the CF Board, (2004-2009) then to State Department and back to the Board (2013-present).

    Peruse the others:
    https://www.clintonfoundation.org/about/board-directors

    likklemore | Aug 10, 2016 10:22:47 AM | 48
    "Rudy Giuliani went to bat for Donald Trump during the Republican nominee's campaign rally in Fayetteville, North Carolina"

    I listened to Donald Trump's speech in Wilmington and what he said very clearly was that if Hillary Clinton were elected president she would get to appoint judges to the Supreme Court and among the other things that they would do to destroy us would be to do away with the Second Amendment and your right to bear arms.

    http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/08/09/rudy-giuliani-to-clinton-campaign-press-are-you-out-of-your-mind/

    ~ ~ ~
    Trump's speech pattern, (as b, noted) can be described as a babble….as in good American street talk.

    crone | Aug 10, 2016 11:30:49 AM | 51
    In my view, Trump was speaking to the ballot box... those who support the 2nd amendment (some of whom have probably never voted) turning out in November in enough numbers to "stop Hillary"

    A TIME magazine cover recently depicted a headline "Can Hillary be Stopped". Were the editors of TIME suggesting she be assassinated? The media is merely a propaganda tool used to influence our every thought from buying toothpaste to voting for one of two candidates who will be "empty suits" (unless someone comes along who will resist the proffered script) called "President of the USA" -

    The internet has been an efficient tool to awaken the people... TPTB (or TPTA) are not adjusting too well. Rather than falsely present a "close race" as is their usual MO, they have persuaded almost 100% of the media to pile on Trump - they think people are too stupid to realize what is going on - same thing with the "polls" - with the "swing states" etc. People are NOT buying it this go round though. Obama's hope & change and subsequent same ol same ol has done alot to "change" people to no longer hope. Then along comes Trump - definitely not one of the establishment.

    The more the TPTB pile on Trump's every utterance, and the more they IGNORE the blatant crimes of HRC... imho, the more people will be inclined to vote Anybody But Clinton. Again, in my opinion, many Democrats will stay at home on election day. When in our history of elections has a candidate stolen an election and that fact been verified, and the guilty candidate as much as said to the Party "Deal with It"?

    Apologize for the tirade, but I have been a Democrat (actually a LEFTY) for almost 7 decades... in this election cycle most democrats are gleeful over what they see as the decline of the Republican Party, totally BLIND to the evaporation of the Democratic Party. I will never again work or vote for a Democrat - local or national.

    Penelope | Aug 10, 2016 11:46:25 AM | 52
    "The election will likely be decided on voter turn-out and get-out-the-vote volunteering efforts." If the primaries had been so decided Hillary would not still be in the race. Elections, no less than primaries, are decided by the (corrupt) vote counting.
    https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2016/06/24/smoking-gun-approximately-15-of-bernies-votes-were-flipped-to-clinton-in-california/

    Did you know that exit polls which document that Candidate B is winning are changed (falsified) to agree with the corrupt counting that holds Candidate C the winner? It's official, nonsecret policy of the companies that do exit-polling. Richard Charnin has documented the mathematical impossibility of the results in quite a few primaries.

    From The Hague | Aug 10, 2016 12:31:35 PM | 55
    must be @53 Inkan1969

    NB I googled: Washington Post Trump
    This is the first hit:
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2016/08/09/the-gop-must-dump-trump/

    HAHAHA I think more than half the country understands The Washington Post sells lies, bias and bullshit

    Noirette | Aug 10, 2016 12:34:17 PM | 56
    Killary campaign is unravelling fast imho. Her health problems are all over the net, Assange seems to be hinting at the fact that Seth Rich (goog) was a source, the leaker of DNC mails. (Imho he was a conduit rather than source but who am I.)

    What is nuts about the personal-server e-mails is that what is important now, as everyone seems to have copies, is who releases what when! (Assange, FBI, judiciary, others, possibly Trump …)

    Some commentators correctly insist the personal server-classified info. etc. is secondary to the Clinton Foundation Slush Fund, imho simply a bribery-influence-peddling-dark-deals *criminal* enterprise. That angle seems to be also slowly coming to the surface.

    So someone must be blamed and accused! The only candidate is Putin.

    However it is Killary who is tied to 'shady' deals with Russia, the Uranium One matter.

    Link from NYT, chosen on purpose as *MSM* o-so-supportive of the PTB, sober and prudent supposedly, mealy-mouthed + covering up, obfuscating liars, according to others.

    NYT April 15 2015

    behind paywall? - title : Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal

    Another NYT article with laid-out time-line. Title: Donations to the Clinton Foundation, and a Russian Uranium Takeover

    NYT April 22 2015

    Formerly T-Bear | Aug 10, 2016 12:47:14 PM | 58
    The cockamamie is strong in these parts, any ol' codswallop is being bought at full market value.

    Has any one stopped long enough in spinning gold out of straw to consider candidate Trump's remarks as reference to the constitution without waving the bloody flag which such reference usually entails? A reasonable estimate of the percentage of the public having some sound knowledge of the constitution is vanishingly small outside their familiarity with the second amendment which would run upwards to 60% or slightly greater. This is the cost of not teaching civics in school. Trump's reference can only be understood as such, nothing more, nothing less.

    The balderdash suggestion that the intent of liquidation was present is a factor only in the twisted imaginations of a few media manipulators. To give those manipulations any currency is at great risk (don't believe), give those enhancing currency wide berth (don't trust), don't be going selling the family milch cow for a handful of magic beans to that lot (run away as fast as you can). Interesting times to live in - indeed.

    Piotr Berman | Aug 10, 2016 1:00:09 PM | 59
    It is interesting to observe that in a highly polarized political landscape, like we see currently in USA (but also in a number of other countries, like Poland and Turkey), there is a wide belief that the candidate/president/leader of the other side is so awful that if only the public fully understood this awfulness he/she would become un-electable.

    But, alas, it does not happen. In a milder times this was called "teflon effect", the most obnoxious dirt goes away after a gentle spray with water. But as the adversaries are perceived in increasingly demonic turns, perhaps a better metaphor is a vampire swiftly shrugging off any attempt to wound it and kill.

    "Wampira można zabić przebijając jego serce drewnianym kołkiem, najlepiej osinowym, albowiem osika w wierzeniach Słowian miała moc odpędzania złych duchów." "One can kill a vampire by stabbing it through the heart with a wooden stake, and best of all, made of aspen, as in the Slavic lore, aspen had the ability to shun away the evil spirits". Vampires actually come from Slavic folk lore, I was actually surprised that Americans think that any type of wooden stake could be used. I guess "silver bullet" is a method closer to the imagination and home arsenal of contemporary Americans.

    Thus we can see the quests for a silver bullet or for a stake made of a proper type of wood. How many times adversaries were cheered by the news that from now on, nobody could elect a Clinton, or Mr. Trump? Quite notably, e-mails proved to be worthless. You can make a stake out of e-mails and then drive it through a witch as many times as you want and she does not even need to regenerate: no traces of a wound can be observed at all! A more sober analysis would show that there are no records of e-mails dispelling evil spirits, killing vampires etc.

    YouTube videos are perhaps a sterner material. But alas, showing the public that Mrs. Clinton reports a killing with a maniacal glee is a total non-issue in U.S. of A. As of now, it is inconclusive if it increased or decreased her popularity. Surely she became a darling of neocons and homicidal retirees from CIA, and there exists a demographic that detests it, but the pluses and minuses in electoral sense are so small that no one even tried to measure them.

    And here comes sober foreign policy of Mr. Trump. He would pick fights only in American interests, e.g. he does not overly care about Crimea and Latvia, thus kissing good bye to the vote of ethnic Latvians and Ukrainians, but promises to shoot down Ruskies if they approach our ships and planes too closely. So, on the credit side, no proxy wars for dubious reasons, on the debit side, WWIII for no reason whatsoever. Promises to unleash torture programs above and beyond recent non-negligible American experience also have a reception that is too mixed to assess.

    And indeed, periodically we learned about an exhalation of the Trumpian orifice that should bury his chances once for all. In general, Madam Secretary played that by the book. Mad dog attacks are done only by proxy. She can make a declaration of virtue: "You will never see me singing praises of foreign dictators and strongmen who do not love America". And who would not make little modest requirement, "praise the strongmen only if they love America"? Trump, apparently, for him it suffices that Putin calls him a genius (although that can be deconstructed as a love for America, and exquisite taste to boot.) But her attacks remains proper, grammatical and dignified.

    Noirette | Aug 10, 2016 1:15:32 PM | 61
    Charles Hugh Smith (blogger) is a nice chap, afaik sincere, consistent, with a big following for long years. Has this perhaps counter-intuitive post up recently. For interest, plurality of opinion, etc.:

    Could the Deep State Be Sabotaging Hillary?

    http://www.oftwominds.com/blogaug16/deep-state-hillary8-16.html

    His previous post was in the line of b, title: The More the Establishment Freaks Out Over Trump, the More Attractive He Becomes.

    http://www.oftwominds.com/blogaug16/establishment-trump8-16.html

    Piotr Berman | Aug 10, 2016 3:27:12 PM | 64
    Re: Noisette @61

    I think that the linked article is a satire. Look at that passage:

    Hillary has exhibited the typical flaw of liberal Democrats: fearful of being accused as being soft on Russia, Syria, Iran, terrorism, etc. or losing whatever war is currently being prosecuted, liberal Democrats over-compensate by pursuing overly aggressive and poorly planned policies.
    The forward-thinking elements of the Deep State are not averse to aggressive pursuit of what they perceive as American interests, but they are averse to quagmires and policies that preclude successful maintenance of the Imperial Project.

    "Forward-thinking elements of the Deep State". This is really funny. That really calls for some definition of the Deep State. In USA, it is not that deep, I mean, denizens do not need to hide in cellars, abandoned mines etc. although some members could have private bomb shelters and other measures allowing to survive nuclear war. Instead we have a ruling class that socializes (mostly) in public, where we can discern money people, power people, media people and intelligentsia, think tanks and obedient sectors of the academia. The few who are "forward thinking" may be found among FORMER members or acquaintances of the current members, but those, by definition, have no decision making capacities.

    GOP side of the ruling class is split: some would prefer a serial rapist over anyone who does not believe in decreasing taxes, regulations etc. and Trump, for all his faults, is not THAT bad. Additionally, an entire generation grew on hating anything related to Clintons. Other have various grievances. In particular, the Koch brothers who are close to the center of deep power in GOP side openly bet against Trump, working to assure that GOP will remain in the majority of both houses of Congress. In that scenario, Clinton will harmless. Importantly, from Koch perspective, overly energetic support of Trump may cost the majority in the Senate and dangerously weaken it in the House.

    Democratic side of the ruling class is in the minority (at least, within their class) so it is more cohesive. Whatever minor foibles may be presented by HRC, there are barbarian at the gates that have to be repelled. As Trump the Barbarian approaches the capital, they recognize the familiar annoyance and will the their best to stop him.

    likklemore | Aug 10, 2016 3:32:23 PM | 65
    Where is the Clinton rebuke over this direct call from two of their own - call to assassinate public figures"

    From ex-CIA Chief Morrell, a Clinton supporter, calls to kill Russians, Iranians and Assad. See link at 45
    And today, from CNN host to assassinate Assange? Democratic Strategist Calls For The Assassination Of Julian Assange
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-08-10/democratic-strategist-calls-assassination-julian-assange

    "Amid the media-hyped furor over Donald Trump's 2nd Amendment comments and Wikileaks' suggestions about the untimely death of DNC-staffer Seth Rich, we thought it perhaps of note that Democratic strategist, and CNN host, has publicly called for the "illegal assassination of that son-of-a-bitch" Julian Assange...
    Meet Bob Beckel - Democratic strategist, CNN host (former Fox host), and clear "treasonous, traitor" Assange-hater...
    This strikes us as very dangerous talk... We wonder if he is being questioned or investigated for such a public and unquestionable demand for someone to be murdered? Forget due process... "just kill the son of a bitch."

    From The Hague | Aug 10, 2016 4:24:33 PM | 68
    @67 rg the lg

    Gary Johnson:

    https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/263765/gary-johnsons-campaign-make-hillary-president-daniel-greenfield

    Gary Johnson on Hillary: 'A Wonderful Public Servant'
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIxJicyjLLE

    ProPeace | Aug 10, 2016 4:32:31 PM | 69
    @ somebody | Aug 10, 2016 9:40:00 AM | 40

    Hitlary is a known absolute, unspeakable evil, there is a guarantee she'll escalate dramatically the world tensions. She's has done sbsolutely NOTHING positive during her campaign, zilch, nada. She's MSM's favorite. We have no chance for safe, normal life if she has presidential powers.

    Trump, as many others observed, is an enigma, far less risky. Keeps us guessing but has already inflicted some real damage to the evil empire. MSM has played some really dirty, biased game against him. If he forfeits on his promises, his voters will tear him into pieces.

    Personally I suggest voting AGAINST Killary, NOT for Trump.

    There is absolutely no equivalence between these two alternatives.

    nr27 | Aug 10, 2016 4:47:02 PM | 72
    While the Clinton campaign tries to make everybody believe that Trump was calling for the assassination of Hillary, Hillary or someone associated very likely assassinated the DNC Wikileaks leaker Seth Rich a couple of weeks ago. The Russia did the hack is as bogus as the North Korea hacked Sony story and the most significant whistleblowing has up till now been done by individuals (Manning and Snowden). The Democratic National Committee staffer Seth Rich was shot in the back with no motives for his murder as all his belongings were still on him.

    http://sputniknews.com/us/20160810/1044139492/wikileaks-victim-leak.html

    somebody | Aug 10, 2016 4:58:55 PM | 75
    This is funny. Russia - RT - has decided to run US election spots .

    ProPeace | Aug 10, 2016 4:59:46 PM | 76
    @ somebody | Aug 10, 2016 9:40:00 AM | 40

    BTW It's proven that Hellary ALREADY STOLE the nomination from Sanders.

    Trump has not cheated in the elections so far.

    So no, there is no equivalence here.

    Demian | Aug 10, 2016 6:14:41 PM | 77
    I'm impressed that an actual doctor who is involved with various professional associations has come out about this:

    Is Hillary Clinton Medically Unfit to Serve?

    Strangely silent is the mainstream media about the fitness of the Democrat candidate. And causes for concern are growing. Without considering any statements she has made or positions she has taken, and without presuming to speculate on psychiatric diagnoses, one can point to certain observations. ..

    Videos widely circulated on the internet are, if authentic, very concerning. One shows prolonged, inappropriate laughter; another, strange head movements. In a third, she appeared momentarily dazed and confused, and lost her train of thought.

    Strangely silent indeed. (I found out about that post from a piece at Breitbart , which mentions that Clinton's top aid said in an email that she is "often confused".)

    PavewayIV | Aug 10, 2016 6:16:25 PM | 78
    As much as I try to ignore the election travesty playing out, I can't help but notice Hillary is getting sloppy about her murders. What her and Bill could do in their previous roles they can't do now without drawing unwanted attention. This is why it's so important to own the press/newz. This is a psychopathic strategy of yesteryear, yet Hillary's handlers cling to it desperately. I'm not suggesting Hillary herself controls the press. Her masters are the same masters the NYT, WaPo, CNN and network newz answer to. Whether you buy into the whole psychopath-this and psychopath-that conspiracy, you have to admit Hillary (and Obama for that matter) go ballistic about 'leakers'. Far more so than you would expect ANY normal, powerful person to react. Denial and counter-accusations are 'normal'. Killing (or wishing the death) of leakers is not.

    Wikileaks' Assange Hints Murdered DNC Staffer Was Email-Leaker, Offers $20k Reward For Info

    The usual tactic (for psychopaths) is to immediately blame someone else for something they themselves are guilty of. Funny how Hillary's camp went nuts over Trump's reference to Second Amemdment people changing the law. Who the hell would interpret this - literally - as Trump suggesting they assassinate Hillary? You have to have a seriously sick and twisted mind to see that to begin with, and then wage a futile campaign of outrage about it in the media. Even Hillary supporters are starting to ask WTF??

    crone | Aug 10, 2016 6:49:22 PM | 79
    @ 77 Demian

    Thanks, I missed the fact that Dr. Susan Berry is the author of that piece. I clicked on her name and found this:

    "Dr. Jane Orient, executive director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, observes that "strangely silent is the mainstream media about the fitness" for presidential office of Hillary Clinton. At AAPS' website, Orient summarizes the concerns about Clinton's health that she says are growing:"

    Association of American Physicians and Surgeons website: http://www.aapsonline.org/

    Dr. Orient has a lengthy article there, here are the last three paras:

    "... The U.S. has had problems with incompetent leaders in the White House before. Mrs. Woodrow Wilson (the "First First Lady President") was effectively President for the last year and a half of her husband's term after he suffered a disabling stroke. She managed to conceal the seriousness of Wilson's condition for a long time. This was the reason for the 25th amendment to provide for replacing the President in case of disability.

    While the U.S. government knows more and more about our medical histories and other aspects of our lives, many details about the President are a secret. The press appears to care more about the tax returns of Republican candidates than the medical records of Democrat Presidents or candidates. And Secretary Clinton's public appearances have been rather carefully controlled.

    Is it conceivable that Hillary supporters would really be voting for Huma Abedin, Clinton's top aide, or for the First First Husband President, Bill Clinton? The American people are entitled to know the objective medical facts about Secretary Clinton."


    Demian | Aug 10, 2016 7:30:25 PM | 80
    @ProPeace #76:

    It's proven that Hellary ALREADY STOLE the nomination from Sanders.

    Trump has not cheated in the elections so far.

    So no, there is no equivalence here.

    Indeed. I guess that Western democracy has become so degraded that many people can't grasp or even notice this difference.

    The way the system is rigged has been clear for some time, at least since Bill Clinton's second term. You have two parties that are more or less identical in terms of the policies they implement, except on social wedge issues. The candidate of both parties is pre-selected by the establishment.

    What was unusual about the current election is that there were insurgencies in both parties. The Republican insurgency succeeded; the Democratic one failed. That alone is reason enough to vote for the Republican in this election (something I never even considered doing before).

    The More the Establishment Freaks Out Over Trump, the More Attractive He Becomes

    The Establishment is freaking out about Donald Trump for one reason: they didn't pick him . The Establishment is freaking out because the natural order of things is that we pick the presidential candidates and we run the country to serve ourselves, i.e. the financial-political elites.

    Donald Trump's candidacy upsets this neofeudal natural order, and thus he (and everyone who supports him) is anathema to the Establishment…

    rufus magister | Aug 10, 2016 7:48:51 PM | 81
    Just in case one has forgotten, don't we all know what our "constitutionalist" ammosexuals are capable of? Who can forget Ammo-on Bundy and all the related fun at Malheur?

    And do you really believe The Donald is clean? What NYC property developer and builder isn't mobbed up? I'm sure he's slid plenty of envelopes of cash across tables to state and local politicians. Isn't most of the New York legislature under indictment? Or just the leadership? Here is Jersey, our official motto is "The Pay-to-Play State."

    And of course his penchant for shady business deals and bankruptcies fully vouches for his undeniable probity.

    MadMax2 | Aug 10, 2016 8:01:40 PM | 82
    Yeah, both Hilary and Bill look pretty used up. Spent. For what...? Haha... Great entertainment. You seppos put on a great show. Would be pretty funny except for the fact you're all holding a gun to your head and everyone else's.

    I enjoy Bill still though. A yank I like. The Secret of Oz and The Money Masters are essential viewing for those who want to know HOW they rig it. Here is something i posted in the US Election thread, tho suits here now. Makes a great point about social media figures, the unspoken polls...(what is the future...or...perhaps the now...?)

    @133 Demian
    Yeah, Orwellian indeed...

    I am in no doubt she is suffering. I remember Trump ripping her a new hole when she failed to appear with Bernie and O'Malley during a televised debate. Trump questioned her stamina then, and while Trump draws sell out crowds each day, sometimes twice a day, she is appearing only 3 times before Oct 9 I think.

    You cant hide from what she's got. And she's got it bad.

    The peoples champ and US patriot Bill Still does some Social Media viewing figures for us:
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5pXLGdVlxqk

    Still: How Clinton rigs the polls:
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XLf63B1R5aY

    And of course Still on: Hilary's Handler Carries Diazepam Pen
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wJ6v8yKMX-A

    Jovial stuff...

    Haha...Trump, yeah hes a buffoon, but he's more MSM than the MSM itself and is playing it like a flute... Plus he's causing all sorts of chaos. Destroyed the Republicans already, Dems next.

    Demian | Aug 10, 2016 8:24:14 PM | 85
    @rufus magister #81:

    And do you really believe The Donald is clean?

    Who cares if he's clean? What matters is that he's not a war criminal, and can't be bought. That he can't be bought is why the Establishment is so dead-set against him.

    I can't understand your position, given your interest in Russia. Surely you're aware that Hillary would make Obama's relaunching of the Cold War look like a little skirmish? And she would not rest until Syria is destroyed like Libya. One of her advisers has said that he hopes she will kill Russians and Iranians in Syria; another said that NATO is too concerned about ISIS, and attention should go back to overthrowing the legitimate secular Syrian government.

    Doesn't the world have enough instability? It would just get worse under Hillary. Yet you refuse to acknowledge that Trump is, at the very least, the lesser evil, apparently out of a liberal smugness and dislike for his populism.

    And I don't understand why you can't see this from the Russian point of view. Lavrov keeps on talking about how the world is becoming multipolar, but that US elites refuse to accept this new reality. It is obvious that Trump understands and accepts this new reality. That's why US foreign policy types hate him.

    Jack Smith | Aug 10, 2016 8:41:38 PM | 86
    @MadMax2 | Aug 10, 2016 8:09:49 PM | 84

    Exactly! However, all polls from Realclealpolitics shows Hillary leading and most likely landslide in Nov.

    Trump is no angel either, and his team of economic advisers consists of Oligarch. Between the two who is most evil?

    Boils down to: Hillary love endless wars while Trump will strips everything we have left.

    Buy your pitchforks before it's too late..

    [Aug 10, 2016] Austin Bay on NeverTrumpers

    neoneocon.com

    August 2nd, 2016

    I've long respected Austin Bay , and so I found this article of his making the case for voting for Trump to be of interest, and I think it deserves an audience.

    Everyone who reads this blog regularly knows I've struggled long and hard with the question of whether I can stomach voting for Trump, and I expect I'll probably struggle with it right up to the moment of truth in the voting booth. But I've long said that I respect those who will vote for him and are convinced it is the right thing to do, although I also respect those who will not. There are arguments-good arguments-to be made on either side.

    Bay comes down on the pro-Trump side, and reminds us of some of Trump's good points:

    He won the nomination by boldly and relentlessly addressing difficult political and social issues that his opponents preferred to either avoid or carefully finesse. He damned political and media hacks who run down America. When racist fanatics murdered cops Trump demanded law and order.

    Bay feels that NeverTrumpers are fooling themselves as to the effects of their non-support:

    NeverTrumpLand's childish Sore Losers don't thwart the ambitions of America's all-too-real Captain Crook-Hillary Clinton-and her privileged Clinton Foundation cronies. Quite the opposite. In GetRealLand Sore Losers become Crooked Hillary's political tools.

    That's why I've never been part of the NeverTrump movement-my reluctance to facilitate the election of Hillary Clinton. But I realize that many NeverTrumpers are propelled into that camp by their belief that Trump would not necessarily be better than Clinton-rather, that he and she would both be extremely bad, just in different ways. Weighing a future that features a known and more predictable type of badness (Clinton) with a more unknown and unpredictable type of badness (Trump) would be hard enough, but it's compounded in this election by what Donald Rumsfeld might call the unknown unknowns of both of these candidates.

    [Aug 10, 2016] Neocon Nightmare The Truth Behind the Attacks on Chuck Hagel by Arianna Huffington

    Notable quotes:
    "... This Week with George Stephanopoulos. ..."
    "... America: Our Next Chapter ..."
    "... But the lowest point his critics have gone to is to insinuate, or even claim outright, that Hagel is an anti-Semite. That slanderous charge is being led by Elliott Abrams. He's now a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, but you might remember him as the man convicted in 1991 of two counts of withholding information from Congress (he was pardoned by outgoing President George H.W. Bush). He claims that Hagel "seems to have some kind of problem with Jews," and, in the Weekly Standard ..."
    "... Of course, the reason the opposition to Hagel is so desperate and so focused on side-issues or made-up charges is because they don't want a debate that would shine a spotlight on their spectacular and disastrous failure in Iraq. "This is the neocons' worst nightmare," says Richard Armitage, who was Deputy Secretary of State under Colin Powell, "because you've got a combat soldier, successful businessman and senator who actually thinks there may be other ways to resolve some questions other than force." ..."
    Mar 17, 2013 | www.huffingtonpost.com

    If President Obama's second term includes decision making as bold and intelligent as his nomination of Chuck Hagel to be Secretary of Defense, his presidency might finally fulfill the promise of audacity and change that rallied so many to his campaign five years ago. In fact, the more ridiculous the claims being made by Hagel's critics become, the more the real reasons they don't want him -- and the wisdom of the choice -- come into stark relief.

    The latest canard is about Hagel's supposed "temperament." The charge was made this past Sunday by Tennessee Senator Bob Corker, appearing on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos.

    "I think another thing, George, that's going to come up is just his overall temperament," said Corker, "and is he suited to run a department or a big agency or a big entity like the Pentagon?" Given that this was a new one, Stephanopoulos asked, slightly incredulously, "Do you have questions about his temperament?" Corker replied, "I think there are numbers of staffers who are coming forth now just talking about the way he has dealt with them."

    Ah yes, his temperament. It's a modern-day male version of the old dig that used to be directed at women, that they might be "PMSing" and therefore shouldn't be put too close to big boy military equipment. It's also worth pointing out that this line of attack is coming from a party that thoroughly approved of that shrinking violet of a Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld. It's further worth noting that the opposition to Hagel is being led partly by Senator John McCain, the same guy who thought it prudent to potentially put Sarah Palin second in line to the presidency -- and whose own "temperament" has often been called into question.

    But if Hagel's temperament is somehow relevant, it puts me in mind of the quote by Lincoln who, when approached by some of Grant's critics about the general's drinking, is supposed to have said: "Let me know what brand of whiskey Grant uses. For if it makes fighting generals like Grant, I should like to get some of it for distribution."

    In response to Corker's charge, Politico's Playbook quoted an email from a senior administration official: "This line of attack is a new low. By contrast, Sen. Hagel intends to take the high road in the confirmation process as he defends his strong record." Well, it's certainly a contemptible charge, but whether it's a new low is debatable. There's already been plenty of competition for that title.

    Now, I'm not saying Chuck Hagel is perfect or that I agree with every position he's ever taken, but leadership isn't about conforming to a checklist. Hagel is being nominated for a particular job, and for that job, he has a strong record. And this is exactly why his critics are grasping for straws -- because they don't want to discuss that record, nor what this debate is really about: the Iraq War.

    Yes, then-Senator Hagel voted for the resolution to authorize the war. But even before the vote, he expressed more reservations than most of his colleagues. "You can take the country into a war pretty fast," he said in 2002, "but you can't get us out as quickly, and the public needs to know what the risks are." In his 2008 book America: Our Next Chapter he writes that he voted to authorize military force only as a last option, but the Bush administration had not tried to "exhaust all diplomatic efforts," and that "it all comes down to the fact that we were asked to vote on a resolution based on half truths, untruths, and wishful thinking."

    And after the war began, he became one of the administration's most vocal critics. Among his statements over the course of the war:

    • That Iraq was "a hopeless, winless situation."
    • That Iraq was "an absolute replay of Vietnam."
    • That "Iraq is not going to turn out the way that we were promised it was."
    • That the Iraqi people "want the United States out of Iraq."
    • That the Iraq War was "ill-conceived" and "poorly prosecuted."

    As I wrote back in 2006, criticisms like these were much stronger than what most Democrats were saying at the time. And Hagel was right. We often bemoan the fact that those in Washington who get it wrong never seem to be held accountable, and those who get it right (even if not right away) always seem to be marginalized. Well, this nomination is how the system should -- but seldom does -- work. That's why this nomination, even though Hagel is a Republican, shouldn't be looked at as another attempt by President Obama to curry favor with the opposition. It's the best kind of decision -- one made not to placate some interest group, but, rather, in the interest of the country. As Senator Jack Reed said of the nomination on Sunday, "Chuck has the wherewithal and the ability to speak truth to power. He's demonstrated that throughout his entire career. That is a value that is extraordinarily important to the president." And to the country.

    "When I think of issues like Iraq," Hagel said in 2006, "of how we went into it -- no planning, no preparation, no sense of consequences, of where we were going, how we were going to get out, went in without enough men, no exit strategy, those kinds of things -- I'll speak out. I'll go against my party."

    And that kind of thinking is all the more powerful coming from a man with two Purple Hearts -- and who still has shrapnel lodged in his chest as a reminder, not that he needs one, of what war is really like.

    "Chuck knows that war is not an abstraction," the president said when announcing the nomination. "He understands that sending young Americans to fight and bleed in the dirt and mud, that's something we only do when it's absolutely necessary. 'My frame of reference,' he has said, is 'geared towards the guy at the bottom who's doing the fighting and the dying.'" That's why, in the lead up to the Iraq War, Hagel pointed out the fact that decisions were being made by those who hadn't "sat in jungles or foxholes and watched their friends get their heads blown off." And for that he was called an "appeaser."

    The president added that it was in the Senate where he came to admire Hagel's "courage and his judgment, his willingness to speak his mind -- even if it wasn't popular, even if it defied the conventional wisdom."

    And if you doubt whether Hagel's views go against the conventional wisdom, at least in Washington, just witness the hysterical, desperate pushback to his nomination. This isn't about temperament, or abortion or gay rights (not that those aren't important issues). It's about the path U.S. foreign policy took at the beginning of the last decade, directed by the neocons. As the New York Times' Jim Rutenberg put it, "The campaign now being waged against Mr. Hagel's nomination as secretary of defense is in some ways a relitigation of that decade-old dispute."

    He's right -- to an extent. Where I think he's off is that this isn't a relitigation -- because the disaster that was, and is, the Iraq War was never actually litigated in the first place. We've never really had that debate. Those who conceived it (badly) and executed it (even more badly) were never held accountable. And they are now the ones trying to torpedo the very idea that someone who is thoughtful and careful about sending our soldiers to die might actually have a role in that decision.

    Rutenberg writes that this debate is "a dramatic return to the public stage by the neoconservatives whose worldview remains a powerful undercurrent in the Republican Party." That is some undercurrent. If it's below the surface, then what is the top current?

    It's not like Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham are back-benchers. The latter called Hagel's nomination an "in-your-face nomination" and an "incredibly controversial choice." Sadly, in today's Washington the idea that someone who is skeptical and cautious about the consequences of U.S. military intervention should lead the Pentagon is indeed "incredibly controversial." Turning around conventional wisdom in Washington is no small endeavor, which is why this nomination is so important.

    A week later, with an almost comical lack of self-awareness, Senator Graham contrasted Hagel's decision making with that of Graham's BFF, Senator McCain. "I think [Hagel] was very haunted by Vietnam," Graham said, unlike McCain who "doesn't look at every conflict through the eyes of his Vietnam experience -- you know, 'We shouldn't have been there, it went on too long, we didn't have a plan.'" Yes, thank God we left that kind of thinking back in Vietnam -- no instances of it since then, right?

    The relationship between Hagel and McCain goes back a long time. McCain was one of Hagel's earliest supporters and Hagel was one of the few who jumped on the "Straight Talk Express," back when McCain was taking on what he called "agents of intolerance" in the Republican Party. Unlike McCain, Hagel managed to stay on the Straight Talk Express. And now McCain is grasping at straws over Hagel's skepticism about success of the surge strategy in Iraq, something McCain finds "bizarre." Back when it was being considered, Hagel said "This is a Ping-Pong game with American lives," and that "we better be damn sure we know what we're doing, all of us, before we put 22,000 more Americans into that grinder."

    Since then it's become accepted gospel in Washington that the surge was successful. Accepted gospel that is, once again, wrong. Doug Ollivant was an army planning officer in Iraq who was one of those who actually implemented the surge. "The surge really didn't work, per se," Ollivant, now with the New America Foundation, says, adding, "Fundamentally, it was the Iraqis trying to find a solution, and they did."

    A study by U.S. Special Forces officer Maj. Joshua Thiel came to the same conclusion. Thiel looked at where and when the additional surge troops were deployed and compared that to subsequent drops in violence. As Foreign Policy's Robert Haddick put it,

    Thiel concluded that there was no significant correlation between the arrival of U.S. reinforcements and subsequent changes in the level of violence in Iraq's provinces... the connection between surge troops and the change in the level of incidents seems entirely random.
    Another straw being grasped at by McCain is the question, "Why would [Hagel] oppose calling the Iranian revolutionary guard a terrorist organization?"

    He's referring to the fact that Hagel didn't sign a letter to the European Union designating Hezbollah a terror group. Hagel's defense was that he "didn't sign on to certain resolutions and letters because they were counter-productive and didn't solve a problem." In other words, Hagel refused to posture. A cardinal sin in Washington. Just as he also said that use of reductivist buzzwords and phrases like "cut and run" cheapen the debate and debase the seriousness of war. How refreshing. And it points to the fact that not only do we need better military policy, we also need a more intelligent way of talking about that policy as a means of making it better.

    But the lowest point his critics have gone to is to insinuate, or even claim outright, that Hagel is an anti-Semite. That slanderous charge is being led by Elliott Abrams. He's now a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, but you might remember him as the man convicted in 1991 of two counts of withholding information from Congress (he was pardoned by outgoing President George H.W. Bush). He claims that Hagel "seems to have some kind of problem with Jews," and, in the Weekly Standard, offers as evidence "the testimony of the Jewish community that knew him best is most useful: Nebraskans. And the record seems unchallenged: Nebraskan Jewish activists and officials have said he was hostile, and none -- including Obama supporters and Democratic party activists -- have come forward to counter that allegation."

    Actually, it has been challenged -- by, among others, activist Gary Javitch, who, according to the Forward is "considered by locals to be an expert on the local Jewish political scene." Though Javitch is no fan of Hagel, when asked by the Forward if he though Hagel was biased against Jews, he said "no." He also said that "to make such an accusation you need to be very careful," and that Hagel "never demonstrated anything like that in all the meetings I had with him."

    What's amazing is that the Council on Foreign Relations would allow its credibility to be used to advance an accusation like this. In response, a CFR official told Al-Monitor's Laura Rozen that the views of their experts are "theirs only" and that "the Council on Foreign Relations takes no institutional position on matters of policy." But this isn't policy, it's character assassination. Does the Council take no official position on that? As the Daily Beast's Ali Gharib writes:
    Abrams should be challenged by media and by his fellow scholars in the think tank world to find any member in good standing of the Nebraska Jewish community who will say on the record that they consider their former Senator an anti-Semite. Failing that, Abrams should issue a public apology to Hagel for making this scurrilous charge.
    Of course, the reason the opposition to Hagel is so desperate and so focused on side-issues or made-up charges is because they don't want a debate that would shine a spotlight on their spectacular and disastrous failure in Iraq. "This is the neocons' worst nightmare," says Richard Armitage, who was Deputy Secretary of State under Colin Powell, "because you've got a combat soldier, successful businessman and senator who actually thinks there may be other ways to resolve some questions other than force."

    A nightmare for some but a welcome change for the country. This week, HuffPost is launching a new series focusing on President Obama's second term called "The Road Forward: Obama's Second Term Challenges."

    In the first installment, Howard Fineman writes that "Obama is in an unusually strong position to deliver on the potential of his second term -- but only if he has the will and wherewithal to turn ballot-box victory into real-life results," and asks whether Obama "will be shrewd, persistent and tough enough to turn great promise into true greatness."

    We'll see. But if the nomination of Chuck Hagel is any indication, the road forward is looking much better than what's behind us. Though the upcoming hearings on Hagel's nomination are unlikely to feature the real debate on Iraq that the country deserves, hopefully his tenure will indeed be the departure from the kind of thinking that got us into it that his critics so desperately fear.

    Follow Arianna Huffington on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ariannahuff

    [Aug 10, 2016] Lying Neocon War Propagandist of the Week by Thomas DiLorenzo

    Notable quotes:
    "... Jewish World Review ..."
    December 28, 2015 | www.lewrockwell.com

    There's always a lot of competition for the title of "Lying Neocon War Propagandist." I would like to nominate for this week's award, one George Will. In the course of a long-winded hissy fit over Donald Trump's political success to date published in Jewish World Review, Will goes berserk over Trump's intransigence over the neocon agenda of starting a war with Russia. Smoke must have been coming out of his ears when he quoted Trump as saying that the U.S. government has killed a lot of people, too, referring to all of the government's endless military interventions in the Middle East, after being told of the alleged killing of journalists in Russia.

    George Will responded to this by saying: "Putin kills journalists, the U.S. kills terrorists." Will is not stupid; he cannot possibly believe that all deaths in the Middle East caused by U.S. military intervention over the past quarter of a century have been of "terrorists." There are numerous sources of the civilian death count there, and it is safe to say that Donald Trump is right and George Will is wrong: The civilian death count is in the hundreds of thousands. This includes at least 200 journalists such as Tareq Ayoub, who was killed on April 3, 2003 when a U.S. warplane bombed the Al Jazeera offices in Baghdad. And of course the U.S. military also bombs hospitals, as the entire world learned a few months ago. (Thanks to Chris C. for info on the bombing of the Al Jazeera offices).

    And by the way, there is obviously no evidence that Putin ordered the murder of journalists. ABC News "journalist" (Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!) George Stephanopoulos repeated this latest neocon talking point in an interview with Trump. When Trump asked him for proof, he had NONE). This doesn't prove that Putin did not order the murder of journalists, something the U.S. government has done hundreds of times, but it does prove what a liar and establishment shill George Stephanopoulos is.

    5:35 pm on December 28, 2015 Email Thomas DiLorenzo

    [Aug 09, 2016] New Cold War also competing in Rio Olympics

    Notable quotes:
    "... It is no coincidence that the doping scandals have started around Russian sportsmen. After all, professional athletes from other countries also use steroids. The West needs to strike at Russia's image since sanctions didn't bring about the planned affect and Moscow is not giving in to political and economic pressure. ..."
    "... As in politics, sports is filled with a variety of scandals which have taken place quite often in the history of the Olympic Games and other major events. However, in the case of violations by athletes, things should be handled fairly and objective. Otherwise, having achieved their goal (and all Western law is based on precedent), certain lobbies will begin to repeat the practice of discrediting athletes from other countries, thus not serving the interests of sports at all. ..."
    Defend Democracy Press
    International sporting events have a clear political nature: nation-states enter the stadium under their national anthem, represent their countries, and, in the case of victory, their rank increases. In other words, sports is an instrument of "soft power" if we use Joseph Nye's term. Moreover, the country hosting a sporting event can improve its image, as was the case with the Sochi Winter Olympic Games.

    Thus, athletes, just like politicians, are paid careful attention by their "partners" and detractors. It is no coincidence that the doping scandals have started around Russian sportsmen. After all, professional athletes from other countries also use steroids. The West needs to strike at Russia's image since sanctions didn't bring about the planned affect and Moscow is not giving in to political and economic pressure.

    We should recall that the first article about such was published in the New York Times in May. The media has statutes for tribute for ordered articles, so it is very easy to identify the initiators.

    Russia has the right to maintain sovereign positions on many other issues, but it is also necessary to reach consensus through skillful diplomatic work in international organizations. This is not always effective (for example, in recent years the United Nations has supported sodomites in Russia at the expense of traditional family values), but it is individual persons who often have the last word.

    The doping scandal was put to an end by the head of the International Olympic Committee, Thomas Bach, who is in office since 2013. The Russian Olympic team will not be banned from the competition in Rio de Janeiro. The federation will pass decisions on individual athletes. Bach called this approach distinguishing between "clean" and doping athletes who have the chance to prove their case.

    Although the number of Russian athletes will in fact still be smaller, there still exists the space for a political message: the anthem, the flag, and the possibility to win in different sports.

    Perhaps some can see a pro-Russian position in Bach's activities, since he is against the US' political order on this occasion. He is in fact trying to protect the traditions and mechanisms of big sports.

    As in politics, sports is filled with a variety of scandals which have taken place quite often in the history of the Olympic Games and other major events. However, in the case of violations by athletes, things should be handled fairly and objective. Otherwise, having achieved their goal (and all Western law is based on precedent), certain lobbies will begin to repeat the practice of discrediting athletes from other countries, thus not serving the interests of sports at all.

    [Aug 09, 2016] he USA and the coup in Turkey new disturbing questions - Defend Democracy Press

    Jun 08, 2016 | www.defenddemocracy.press

    Reports that US General John F. Campbell was the organizer of a coup d'etat in Turkey surprised no one. Recall that the July 25th edition of the Turkish Yeni Safak, close to President Recep Erdogan's AKP party, reported that General John F. Campbell, former U.S. commander of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), a NATO-led security mission in Afghanistan, was the organizer of the July 15th military coup attempt in Turkey. The sources stated that he was also involved in the financing of the coup participants and the reshuffling of air base personnel while visiting the base on the eve of the coup attempt. After an unsuccessful coup attempt the Turkish generals Cahit Bakır and Şener Topçu were detained in Dubai airport. Both worked with Campbell in Afghanistan, where they commanded the Turkish contingent within the NATO forces.

    However, these are not the only clues in the Turkish coup plot which directly points to NATO as the mastermind of the coup. There are some other information regarding this issue:

    1. The same coup participants stationed at the Turkish Air Force, were the most NATO-integrated structures of the Turkish Military, and this gave to the observers the first evidence of NATO involvement in the military putsch. The Incirlik Air Base, where the US military was based was used by the putschists to launch air strikes on the Turkish parliament. The base is jointly used by the US and Turkish Air Forces. After the coup attempt, it was suppressed by the Turkish commander of the base. General Bekir Ercan Van was arrested by the troops loyal to Erdogan. General Van sought asylum from the United States but was denied. In the aftermath of the coup, external electrical power from Turkey was cut to the base and a Turkish no fly order had been put into effect for US military aircraft in the area. On July 30th the base was blocked by Turkish troops on information about a second coup attempt.

    .IRPP_ruby .centered-text-area { height: 130px; position: relative; } .IRPP_ruby .postImageUrl { height: 130px; position: relative; } .IRPP_ruby { height: 130px; position: relative; } .IRPP_ruby:active { border:0!important; } .IRPP_ruby:visited { border:0!important; } .IRPP_ruby:hover { border:0!important; } .IRPP_ruby { border:0!important; } .IRPP_ruby .clearfix:after { content: ""; display: table; clear: both; } .IRPP_ruby { display: block; transition: background-color 250ms; webkit-transition: background-color 250ms; width: 100%; opacity: 1; transition: opacity 250ms; webkit-transition: opacity 250ms; background-color: #2C3E50; } .IRPP_ruby:hover { opacity: 1; transition: opacity 250ms; webkit-transition: opacity 250ms; background-color: #34495E; } .IRPP_ruby:active { opacity: 1; transition: opacity 250ms; webkit-transition: opacity 250ms; background-color: #34495E; } .IRPP_ruby .postImageUrl { background-position: center; background-size: cover; float: left; margin: 0; padding: 0; width: 31.59%; } .IRPP_ruby .centered-text-area { float: right; width: 65.65%; padding:0; margin:0; } .IRPP_ruby .centered-text { display: table; height: 130px; left: 0; top: 0; padding:0; margin:0; } .IRPP_ruby .IRPP_ruby-content { display: table-cell; margin: 0; padding: 0 74px 0 0px; position: relative; vertical-align: middle; width: 100%; } .IRPP_ruby .ctaText { border-bottom: 0 solid #fff; color: #3498DB; font-size: 13px; font-weight: bold; letter-spacing: .125em; margin: 0; padding: 0; } .IRPP_ruby .postTitle { color: #ECF0F1; font-size: 16px; font-weight: 600; margin: 0; padding: 0; } .IRPP_ruby .ctaButton { background: url(http://www.defenddemocracy.press/wp-content/plugins/intelly-related-posts-pro/assets/images/next-arrow.png)no-repeat; display: inline-block; height: 130px; width: 54px; } .IRPP_ruby .ctaButton { background-color: inherit; margin-left: 10px; position: absolute; right: 0; top: 0; } .IRPP_ruby:after { content: ""; display: block; clear: both; } Read also: Russia Returns to the Middle East

    2. From the very beginning Western media spread disinformation, that President Erdogan flee the country. American NBS mentioned high ranking US military, proving the information. Thus the US military was directly involved in the disinformation during the most critical early hours of the failed coup operation.
    The US alternative media Newsbud has identified Former NATO Commander-Retired US Army General John F. Campbell as the 'likely' NBC News' source.

    3. The majority of those arrested after the coup attempt were people related to the NATO structure. The the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, speaking at a forum on security organized by the Aspen Institute in Colorado last week, declared that after the coup "many of our interlocutors have been purged or arrested".

    Curtis Scaparrotti, NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe confirmed this information, stating that:

    "Some of the officers that we have our relationships with in Turkey are now either detained, in some cases retired as a result of the coup"

    Thus, NATO de-facto recognized, that their people were in the ranks on the presumptive putschists

    4. It was revealed that NATO aggressively promoted their agents, who then actively participated in the coup:

    According to Erdogan's supporters, thousands of Turkish officers recruited to Gulen's network went up the ladder in their military career on "on high speed" , reaching ranks of generals and colonels in key positions. In sharp contrast, in the Kemalist army base, their former fellows remained captains or majors.

    5. The three most important regiments which participated in the coup were part of Turkey's 'NATO Rapid Deployable Corps'. The registration plates on military vehicles of the putschists, show that they belonged to the 2nd Armoured Brigade, stationed in the Istanbul district of Kartal, and the 66th Mechanised Infantry Brigade, which is based in Hasdal together with the 6th Regiment. The transcript of WhatsApp messagess of the plotters, provided by Bellingcat showed that the group in communications also used the emblem and slogan used by NATO's Rapid Deployable Corps (a quote of Ataturk) : "Peace at home, peace in the world.".

    .IRPP_ruby .centered-text-area { height: 130px; position: relative; } .IRPP_ruby .postImageUrl { height: 130px; position: relative; } .IRPP_ruby { height: 130px; position: relative; } .IRPP_ruby:active { border:0!important; } .IRPP_ruby:visited { border:0!important; } .IRPP_ruby:hover { border:0!important; } .IRPP_ruby { border:0!important; } .IRPP_ruby .clearfix:after { content: ""; display: table; clear: both; } .IRPP_ruby { display: block; transition: background-color 250ms; webkit-transition: background-color 250ms; width: 100%; opacity: 1; transition: opacity 250ms; webkit-transition: opacity 250ms; background-color: #2C3E50; } .IRPP_ruby:hover { opacity: 1; transition: opacity 250ms; webkit-transition: opacity 250ms; background-color: #34495E; } .IRPP_ruby:active { opacity: 1; transition: opacity 250ms; webkit-transition: opacity 250ms; background-color: #34495E; } .IRPP_ruby .postImageUrl { background-position: center; background-size: cover; float: left; margin: 0; padding: 0; width: 31.59%; } .IRPP_ruby .centered-text-area { float: right; width: 65.65%; padding:0; margin:0; } .IRPP_ruby .centered-text { display: table; height: 130px; left: 0; top: 0; padding:0; margin:0; } .IRPP_ruby .IRPP_ruby-content { display: table-cell; margin: 0; padding: 0 74px 0 0px; position: relative; vertical-align: middle; width: 100%; } .IRPP_ruby .ctaText { border-bottom: 0 solid #fff; color: #3498DB; font-size: 13px; font-weight: bold; letter-spacing: .125em; margin: 0; padding: 0; } .IRPP_ruby .postTitle { color: #ECF0F1; font-size: 16px; font-weight: 600; margin: 0; padding: 0; } .IRPP_ruby .ctaButton { background: url(http://www.defenddemocracy.press/wp-content/plugins/intelly-related-posts-pro/assets/images/next-arrow.png)no-repeat; display: inline-block; height: 130px; width: 54px; } .IRPP_ruby .ctaButton { background-color: inherit; margin-left: 10px; position: absolute; right: 0; top: 0; } .IRPP_ruby:after { content: ""; display: block; clear: both; } Read also: They push Turkey into TTIP

    6. And finally, once again the news from Yeni Safak. It revealed information that the Guvercinlik First Army Aviation Regiment's Maintenance Battalion Commander Lieutenant Colonel Murat Bolat told prosecutors that the US was ready to help them to assassinate Erdogan during the coup.

    "Americans were to provide the exact coordinates of Erdoğan, if the team was unable to find him in the hotel. They also said that up to four persons with civil dress have been tracking Erdoğan ", – the Turkish newspaper quotes the rebel.

    The same fact, that Erdogan's newspaper attacks the US and NATO so fiercely corroborates that Turkish authorities are preparing for harsh anti-US moves, including leaving NATO. And they have a lot of the evidence of NATO's involvement in the coup.

    Read also:

    [Aug 09, 2016] Accusations of Trump is being fascist as another attempt to marginalize him

    Notable quotes:
    "... broadly, fascism is an alliance of the state, the corporation, and the military, anyone who doesn't see that today needs to go back to their textbooks. ..."
    "... The only way they have avoided complete revolt has been endless borrowing to fund entitlements, once that one-time fix plays out the consequences will be apparent. The funding mechanism itself (The Fed) has even morphed into a neo-liberal tool designed to enrich Capital while enslaving Labor with the consequences. ..."
    "... The article I cited above in Vox canvasses the opinion of five serious students of fascism, and none of them believe Trump is a fascist. I'd be most interested in knowing what you have been reading. ..."
    "... If anything it is merely a very crude descriptive model of the political process. It doesn't define fascism as a particular set of beliefs that make it a distinct political ideology that can be differentiated from other ideologies ..."
    "... Indeed by your standard virtually every state that has ever existed has to a greater or lesser extent been "fascist". ..."
    "... My objection to imprecise language here isn't merely pedantic. The leftist dismissal of right wing populists like Trump (or increasingly influential European movements like Ukip, AfD, and the Front national) as "fascist" is a reductionist rhetorical device intended to marginalize them by implying their politics are so far outside of the mainstream that they do not need to be taken seriously. ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Lexington , June 2, 2016 at 12:50 pm

    "Fascism" has become the prefered term of abuse applied indiscriminately by the right thinking to any person or movement which they want to tar as inherently objectionable, and which can therefore be dismissed without the tedium of actually engaging with them at the level of ideas.

    Most of the people who like to throw this word around couldn't give you a coherant definition of what exactly they understand it to signify, beyond "yuck!!"

    In fairness even students of political ideology have trouble teasing out a cosistent system of beliefs, to the point where some doubt fascism is even a coherent ideology. That hardly excuses the intellectual vacuity of those who use it as a term of abuse, however.

    OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL , June 2, 2016 at 4:39 pm

    Precisely 3,248 angels can fit on the head of a pin. Parsing the true definition of "fascism" is a waste of time, broadly, fascism is an alliance of the state, the corporation, and the military, anyone who doesn't see that today needs to go back to their textbooks.

    As far as the definition "neo-liberalism" goes, yes it's a useful label. But let's keep it simple: every society chooses how resources are allocated between Capital and Labor. The needle has been pegged over on the Capital side for quite some time, my "start date" is when Reagan busted the air traffic union. The hideous Republicans managed to sell their base that policies that were designed to let companies be "competitive" were somehow good for them, not just for the owners of the means of production.

    The only way they have avoided complete revolt has been endless borrowing to fund entitlements, once that one-time fix plays out the consequences will be apparent. The funding mechanism itself (The Fed) has even morphed into a neo-liberal tool designed to enrich Capital while enslaving Labor with the consequences.

    Lexington , June 2, 2016 at 10:31 pm

    fascism is an alliance of the state, the corporation, and the military, anyone who doesn't see that today needs to go back to their textbooks

    Which textbooks specifically?

    The article I cited above in Vox canvasses the opinion of five serious students of fascism, and none of them believe Trump is a fascist. I'd be most interested in knowing what you have been reading.

    As for your definition of "fascism", it's obviously so vague and broad that it really doesn't explain anything. To the extent it contains any insight it is that public institutions (the state), private businesses (the corporation) and the armed forces all exert significant influence on public policy. That and a buck and and a half will get you a cup of coffee. If anything it is merely a very crude descriptive model of the political process. It doesn't define fascism as a particular set of beliefs that make it a distinct political ideology that can be differentiated from other ideologies (again, see the Vox article for a discussion of some of the beliefs that are arguably characteristic of fascist movements). Indeed by your standard virtually every state that has ever existed has to a greater or lesser extent been "fascist".

    My objection to imprecise language here isn't merely pedantic. The leftist dismissal of right wing populists like Trump (or increasingly influential European movements like Ukip, AfD, and the Front national) as "fascist" is a reductionist rhetorical device intended to marginalize them by implying their politics are so far outside of the mainstream that they do not need to be taken seriously. Given that these movements are only growing in strength as faith in traditional political movements and elites evaporate this is likely to produce exactly the opposite result. Right wing populism isn't going to disappear just because the left keeps trying to wish it away. Refusing to accept this basic political fact risks condemning the left rather than "the fascists" to political irrelevance.

    [Aug 09, 2016] They knew nothing about the coup in Turkey! - Defend Democracy Press

    Notable quotes:
    "... German parliamentarians are preparing to ask for sanctions against the USA, Britain and France also. According to those parliamentarians, by implementing the Chaos Strategy in the Middle East, in order to "promote democracy", as they kept saying, Washington, London and Paris are directly responsible for the refugee crisis, the terror attacks and the whole pattern of instability which has now engulfed Turkey as well. ..."
    "... Mr. Erdogan, President of one of the most important NATO countries, did not meet any of his Western counterparts, but he is going to Russia to meet President Putin, and his closest advisors are proposing that he should institute an alliance with Russia, like Kemal, and wage war against "the Crusaders". ..."
    "... The perspective of a strategic alliance between Ankara and Moscow is the definition of a nightmare for US and Israeli planners. They certainly did not start all those wars just to see a bloc of Russia, Turkey, Iran and Syria being formed in the Middle East, not to mention, potentially, a huge crisis in NATO. ..."
    www.defenddemocracy.press

    The US Ambassador to Ankara explains why his country knew nothing about what was going to happen in Turkey

    http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/no-us-planning-support-knowledge-in-coup-attempt-in-turkey-ambassador.aspx?pageID=238&nID=102529&NewsCatID=510

    In the meantime Austrian and German politicians compare the coup in Turkey with the Reichstag fire in 1933. But they don't know who set the fire

    https://www.rt.com/news/354909-austria-germany-nazi-turkey/

    A leftist politician in Germany wants sanctions against Turkey

    http://www.thelocal.de/20160802/left-party-politician-calls-for-sanctions-against-turkey

    According to our information this is only the first step. German parliamentarians are preparing to ask for sanctions against the USA, Britain and France also. According to those parliamentarians, by implementing the Chaos Strategy in the Middle East, in order to "promote democracy", as they kept saying, Washington, London and Paris are directly responsible for the refugee crisis, the terror attacks and the whole pattern of instability which has now engulfed Turkey as well.

    According also to our information, top US and Israeli officials are outraged at what is happening. They now have to cancel all family vacation planning and concentrate on how to handle an unbelievable new situation. Mr. Erdogan, President of one of the most important NATO countries, did not meet any of his Western counterparts, but he is going to Russia to meet President Putin, and his closest advisors are proposing that he should institute an alliance with Russia, like Kemal, and wage war against "the Crusaders".

    Radicals around Erdogan call for war "against Crusaders"

    The perspective of a strategic alliance between Ankara and Moscow is the definition of a nightmare for US and Israeli planners. They certainly did not start all those wars just to see a bloc of Russia, Turkey, Iran and Syria being formed in the Middle East, not to mention, potentially, a huge crisis in NATO.

    We are still not there and nobody knows if we will reach that point. Russia and Turkey, as history proves, have seriously conflicting interests. As for Erdogan himself, he cannot win over the Kurds by military means and neither can the Kurds win what they want by war. All that is certain is that we are heading straight for very serious conflicts.

    Fortunately for them, and probably for us also, European politicians do not consider any alteration of their vacation programs. They are continuing their enjoyment of their holidays, waiting for Washington to take its decisions.

    D.K.

    [Aug 09, 2016] New Cold War also competing in Rio Olympics

    Notable quotes:
    "... It is no coincidence that the doping scandals have started around Russian sportsmen. After all, professional athletes from other countries also use steroids. The West needs to strike at Russia's image since sanctions didn't bring about the planned affect and Moscow is not giving in to political and economic pressure. ..."
    "... As in politics, sports is filled with a variety of scandals which have taken place quite often in the history of the Olympic Games and other major events. However, in the case of violations by athletes, things should be handled fairly and objective. Otherwise, having achieved their goal (and all Western law is based on precedent), certain lobbies will begin to repeat the practice of discrediting athletes from other countries, thus not serving the interests of sports at all. ..."
    Defend Democracy Press
    International sporting events have a clear political nature: nation-states enter the stadium under their national anthem, represent their countries, and, in the case of victory, their rank increases. In other words, sports is an instrument of "soft power" if we use Joseph Nye's term. Moreover, the country hosting a sporting event can improve its image, as was the case with the Sochi Winter Olympic Games.

    Thus, athletes, just like politicians, are paid careful attention by their "partners" and detractors. It is no coincidence that the doping scandals have started around Russian sportsmen. After all, professional athletes from other countries also use steroids. The West needs to strike at Russia's image since sanctions didn't bring about the planned affect and Moscow is not giving in to political and economic pressure.

    We should recall that the first article about such was published in the New York Times in May. The media has statutes for tribute for ordered articles, so it is very easy to identify the initiators.

    Russia has the right to maintain sovereign positions on many other issues, but it is also necessary to reach consensus through skillful diplomatic work in international organizations. This is not always effective (for example, in recent years the United Nations has supported sodomites in Russia at the expense of traditional family values), but it is individual persons who often have the last word.

    The doping scandal was put to an end by the head of the International Olympic Committee, Thomas Bach, who is in office since 2013. The Russian Olympic team will not be banned from the competition in Rio de Janeiro. The federation will pass decisions on individual athletes. Bach called this approach distinguishing between "clean" and doping athletes who have the chance to prove their case.

    Although the number of Russian athletes will in fact still be smaller, there still exists the space for a political message: the anthem, the flag, and the possibility to win in different sports.

    Perhaps some can see a pro-Russian position in Bach's activities, since he is against the US' political order on this occasion. He is in fact trying to protect the traditions and mechanisms of big sports.

    As in politics, sports is filled with a variety of scandals which have taken place quite often in the history of the Olympic Games and other major events. However, in the case of violations by athletes, things should be handled fairly and objective. Otherwise, having achieved their goal (and all Western law is based on precedent), certain lobbies will begin to repeat the practice of discrediting athletes from other countries, thus not serving the interests of sports at all.

    [Aug 09, 2016] Russophobia by Giulietto Chiesa

    Notable quotes:
    "... Putin is a monster to feed the imagination of the masses, systematically depicted as a psychopathic tyrant, responsible for massacres, cynical weaver of imperialistic plots. ..."
    "... Things are changing. The resolute intervention of Russia against the Daesh terrorists unmasked ambiguities in Turkish and Saudi Arabian policy The West as a whole was stunned. Russophobic propaganda went into panic mode Slowly and steadily another truth is coming out and being glimpsed. The winners of the Cold War were already convinced that Russia was defeated and colonized. ..."
    Defend Democracy Press

    By now it is clear: the crisis in which the West is struggling does not resemble anything known. It is a crisis of values, democracy, economic, financial, environmental, an unprecedented political crisis. All paradigms are collapsing, the US leadership is no longer invincible: clearly it is in serious danger. And when power feels weak, it looks for an enemy to target: somebody to blame, somebody to frighten people with. All is grist for the mill. Instead of an admission of the truth, namely that the crisis is inside the west, is a by-product of the West, instead of an admission that resources are running out and the system is marching toward collapse, Russia is made the enemy. So it was in the past, so it is today. The obsession returns in updated form. Russia with its strongman Vladimir Putin is the new "enemy number one". Reviving Cold War slogans, they (the West, the USA), are reproducing the idea of the Evil Empire, and Putin is a monster to feed the imagination of the masses, systematically depicted as a psychopathic tyrant, responsible for massacres, cynical weaver of imperialistic plots.

    The war in Ukraine, the economic sanctions, even the denial of the Russian role in the defeat of Nazism: everything is pushing in that direction. But is it really so, or is the "Putinophobia" that is being touted by the bulk of the media just a big mirror in which the West sees its own shortcomings and troubles reflected?

    Things are changing. The resolute intervention of Russia against the Daesh terrorists unmasked ambiguities in Turkish and Saudi Arabian policy The West as a whole was stunned. Russophobic propaganda went into panic mode Slowly and steadily another truth is coming out and being glimpsed. The winners of the Cold War were already convinced that Russia was defeated and colonized.

    They were looking to China as the next enemy to be destroyed or reduced to submission. They have been taken by surprise. Putin's Russia, the phoenix reborn from its ashes, is the only superpower that can derail the train that is hurtling towards catastrophe. But it may be also the last hope for the West too. If, obviously, the West can bring itself to understand that it is not, in any case, going to be able to rule over seven billion people.

    [Aug 09, 2016] Slate, Mother Jones, and Buzzfeed News all ran more stories about Trump's dust-up with an infant than they did on what was effectively the start of bombing of Libya

    Notable quotes:
    "... ABC World News Tonight ..."
    "... NBC Nightly News ..."
    www.defenddemocracy.press

    Defend Democracy Press

    Even many center-left outlets barely touched on the massive mission creep. To give some perspective, Slate, Mother Jones, and Buzzfeed News all ran more stories about Trump's dust-up with an infant than they did on what was effectively the start of a new war. ABC World News Tonight mentioned the Libyan air strikes for only 20 seconds, 13 minutes into the show, and NBC Nightly News didn't mention the air strikes at all. The president's announcement that the United States is bombing a new country has become entirely banal.

    [Aug 09, 2016] Fantastic progress of democracy New York Times barely notice the new war in Libya! by Adam H. Johnson

    www.defenddemocracy.press

    Defend Democracy Press

    [Aug 08, 2016] Russian Olympic doping scandal McLaren Report sexed up, implicated clean athletes

    Notable quotes:
    "... the whole way the campaign was conducted, and the timing of the publication of the various WADA reports, shows that the agenda all along was to get the whole of Team Russia expelled from the Olympic Games. ..."
    "... The president of the Australian Olympic Committee, John Coates, who is also an IOC vice president, reportedly wrote to Australia's Health Minister Susan Ley, saying that the IOC had a "lack of confidence in WADA." ..."
    "... We encourage a full report by Professor McLaren before we make any full and frank ­decisions ..."
    theduran.com

    More evidence of deep divisions between the IOC and WADA over the Russian doping scandal have emerged in two articles in The Australian. One article, which is behind a paywall, derives from off-the-record conversations with IOC officials. The other article, which is open access, gives Professor McLaren's side of the story. It alludes to the article behind the paywall and reproduces some of its material.

    For an open source account of what is in the article behind the paywall, one is obliged to turn to RT. It claims that the article says

    " .that there are members within the International Olympic Committee (IOC) who believe the release of the McLaren report on the eve of the Olympics was designed to set off the "nuclear option" of issuing a blanket ban on Russia competing at the games."

    This is very similar to what I said in an article I wrote a few days ago. I said that the whole way the campaign was conducted, and the timing of the publication of the various WADA reports, shows that the agenda all along was to get the whole of Team Russia expelled from the Olympic Games. Here is what I said:

    "That this was indeed the agenda is clear enough from the way the whole anti-doping campaign against Russia has been conducted. It seems that a decision to expel Russia from the Olympic movement was taken probably around the time of the failure of the campaign to boycott the Winter Olympics in Sochi in 2014. All the various allegations of doping in Russia that have circulated since 2010 and even before were then sifted through to construct a case. Someone then put them all together in a dossier, spicing them up with witness testimony from people like Stepanova and Rodchenkov. A series of lurid articles and documentaries then appeared in the Western media, reviving all the allegations and putting the worst possible spin on them. A series of reports from WADA then followed in quick succession starting in the autumn of last year, timed to make the maximum possible impact and to leave the least possible time for proper independent fact checking or for any other steps to be taken before the start of the Rio Games. That way the allegations could not be properly and independently assessed and no fully fair arrangements could be made to allow for the admission of all indisputably clean Russian athletes. That opened the way, just as the Rio Games were about to start, for the IOC to be presented with a demand for a blanket ban."

    In my article I also said on the basis of certain comments by IOC President Thomas Bach that all the facts pointed to the IOC being furious with WADA for its conduct of the whole affair. Again RT's summary of the article behind the paywall confirms as much.

    "Once it was clear that the IOC was not going to support a full ban, the author of the report, the Canadian lawyer Richard McLaren, handed over the names of Russian athletes who had been cited in his document to the 28 federations. These names had initially not been published when the report was first made public on July 18. However, The paper's sources reportedly said that WADA now has a problem as it "had been caught short not having enough detail to justify some of the claims against athletes."

    "They sexed it up which is crazy because now the entire report is under scrutiny and I am sure most of the report is absolutely accurate. It just puts question marks where question marks should not be," a sports official told the publication.

    The president of the Australian Olympic Committee, John Coates, who is also an IOC vice president, reportedly wrote to Australia's Health Minister Susan Ley, saying that the IOC had a "lack of confidence in WADA."

    "McLaren said there was evidence that 170 Russian athletes, the majority of whom were set to compete in Rio, had previously had positive doping tests destroyed by the Moscow Anti-Doping Laboratory. Following further analysis of the samples carried out at the Moscow laboratory, it was found that Russian samples were split into four separate categories of seriousness. However, one of these categories was for samples which were not considered serious at all.

    "We were asked to make a judgment about Russian competitors based on McLaren's report but without having any of the detail to understand the significance of them being named," a senior sports official said, as cited by The Australian. "Now to be told that there were four different categories – why weren't we told this at the very beginning? It's a mess and it's WADA's fault.''"

    That RT is reproducing the article accurately is confirmed by the open access article. It corroborates RT's account of the article behind the paywall:

    "Sports officials have accused WADA of "sexing up" the case against Russian athletes by handing over to sporting federations the names of competitors who had no evidence against them in order to invoke the "nuclear option" of expelling Russia from the Games. IOC spokesman Mark Adams said yesterday the confusion showed the dangers of working with an unfinished report: "To have someone who didn't (commit) a competition doping offence but was counted as such is a very dangerous thing. We encourage a full report by Professor McLaren before we make any full and frank ­decisions.''"

    (bold italics added)

    The reference to McLaren's report being "unfinished" and to the need for a "full report" refers to something else I said in another earlier article I wrote a week ago:

    "In any rational world what ought to have happened is that when Stepanova's and Rochenkov's allegations became public a full and proper investigation ought to have been set up, with all the witnesses examined and represented by legal counsel, and with the forensic evidence examined by a variety of scientific experts, who could have been cross-examined and whose reports would have been made public. Since this would have taken time – a year at least – arrangements of the sort now set up by the IOC should have been made in the meantime to ensure that there was no cheating by Russian athletes at Rio. Given the scale of the allegations and the suspicion of state involvement in the doping, this would inevitably have involved barring Russian athletes already found to have cheated from competing in Rio, harsh though that is. At the end of this process the investigation would have delivered a proper report – not like the deeply flawed report provided by McLaren – either confirming or refuting the allegations, and making specific recommendations to prevent the problem arising again."

    The IOC is obviously right to complain that it should not have been asked to make a decision on the basis of an incomplete report provided just 2 weeks before the Games in Rio were due to begin. However, given his actions in preparing his report and the way he presented it, Professor McLaren is obviously the wrong person to prepare the full report IOC spokesman Mark Adams is referring to.

    The open access article in The Australian shows the extent to which McLaren and WADA have been thrown onto the defensive. It reports McLaren complaining that

    "The focus has been completely lost and the discussion is not about the Russian labs and Sochi Olympic Games, which was under the direction of the IOC. But what is going on is a hunt for people supposed to be doping but that was never part of my work, although it is starting to (become) so. My reporting on the state-based system has turned into a pursuit of individual athletes.''

    I am at a total loss to understand how Professor McLaren thinks that a report supposedly about an alleged state-sponsored system of doping should not look into the evidence of doping on the part of individual athletes, when it is precisely those individual cases of doping which are the evidence that there was a state-sponsored system of doping in the first place.

    Obviously there was insufficient time to look into each and every allegation of doping properly in the 57 days in which Professor McLaren's investigation was conducted. However that merely points to the fact that conducting a proper investigation within a timeframe of just 57 days was impossible. Professor McLaren should have admitted as much and asked for more time to conduct his investigation properly, leaving it to WADA and the IOC to put in place proper arrangements to prevent possible cheating by Russian athletes at the Olympic Games in Rio in the meantime. However that is not what he did. Instead he delivered an incomplete and defective report and demanded a blanket ban on the strength of it.

    Frankly I cannot see in Professor McLaren's words anything other than confirmation that that was his objective all along. Judging from what IOC officials are reported to have told The Australian, it seems that is their opinion too.

    Further confirmation that this was the objective is provided by the way WADA is now desperately trying to retreat from the way McLaren "implicated" individual athletes in his report. In order to explain this away WADA's chief executive Olivier Niggli is quoted by The Australian as providing what can only be called a twisted explanation of what happened.

    "WADA chief executive Olivier Niggli said the confusion arose because sports officials had not understood what the word ''implicated'' meant. ''Professor McLaren gave each sport the list of the athletes who were implicated. That was the word used by the IOC; which athletes were appearing there in the report. Then we get to the confusing part. He gave the international federations everything he had, every name.'' There was no further information about some names, yet the sports federations believed listing meant they were ''implicated'' and they should withdraw the athletes and, following IOC guidelines, they should withdraw them from Olympics competition."

    That Professor McLaren (who is a lawyer) "implicated" athletes in a way that was not intended to cast suspicion on them strikes me as frankly absurd. On the contrary it is now starting to look as if he presented his findings in such a way as to create the impression that there was more evidence of Russian athletes being involved in doping than was actually the case.

    All this is of course grist to the mill for the lawyers in the court cases which the Russian athletes are now bringing. Some of the comments on the thread to the article in which I discussed these court cases doubted that they would have much effect. On the contrary it is precisely because these court cases are being brought that the IOC and WADA are now so publicly at odds with each other. What one can see in these angry exchanges and recriminations are the frantic steps of the two sporting bodies as they try desperately to cover their positions in anticipation of the court cases that are now coming. Moreover in any court case there is a legal duty of full disclosure which the Russian athletes can use to demand sight of all the correspondence (including telephone records and emails) which led to the decision to exclude them being made. I expect their lawyers to advise them to use this right to the hilt. This is beginning to look like a debacle. As I have said before this affair is only at its start.

    [Aug 08, 2016] Fmr Russian doping lab chief sold drugs to athletes, promised cover-up

    Notable quotes:
    "... At the end of June the Investigative Committee filed a request with US authorities to help with carrying out the questioning of Rodchenkov, as part of the criminal case against him. ..."
    "... This guy should be dealt with harshly for he has used, other wise, athletes that would have used better judgment. Temptation in the eyes of rising stars with the promises. Tragic now that they are sideline. Gods speed with this calamity. ..."
    Jul 01, 2005 | RT Sport

    The former head of the Moscow anti-doping laboratory set up a doping scheme in which he sold illegal substances to athletes while also promising to help them obtain a clean doping record, a Russian investigation has revealed.

    Investigators cited witnesses implicating Grigory Rodchenkov in a doping scheme.

    "According to preliminary information, he [Rodchenkov] purchased these substances in the US and when selling them to clients, promised to cover the fact that banned substances had been detected in their samples," Vladimir Markin, spokesman for the Russian Investigative Committee said in a statement published on Monday.

    The committee has reason to think that Rodchenkov was the mastermind behind the illegal trade, the statement continued to say. There is as of yet no information about his possible accomplices.

    "He could have destroyed the samples to conceal the selling of prohibited substances and avoid criminal responsibility that would bring him a much stricter punishment, than that [which exists] for violating WADA [World Anti-Doping Agency] standards," Markin also wrote.

    Another detail revealed by the Investigative Committee is that Rodchenkov's sister had been convicted in 2012 for the illegal trafficking of substances that could have been used for doping. It is yet to be established where she bought the drugs.

    The case against Rodchenkov was launched in the middle of June. He faces charges in Russia of abuse of authority based on World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) reports and media reports which suggested Rodchenkov and Russian athletes violated anti-doping regulations.

    Rodchenkov deliberately decided to destroy 1,437 blood samples in December 2014, despite receiving a letter from WADA requesting that he keep the samples, the investigation stated.

    The former head of the Moscow anti-doping lab is currently in the US where he fled, stating that he has been fearing for his safety.

    In May, Rodchenkov said in an interview with NYT that he substituted more than 100 samples given by Russian athletes during the Sochi 2014 Winter Olympics which was all part of a state-run "decade-long effort to perfect" Russia's performance at international competitions.

    Russian Sports Minister Vitaly Mutko subsequently rejected the claims, stressing that no doping program had ever existed in Russian sports.

    At the end of June the Investigative Committee filed a request with US authorities to help with carrying out the questioning of Rodchenkov, as part of the criminal case against him.

    Blue Sushi -> Red Fish

    "Is anybody stupid enough to think Russia would have admitted its drugs problem on its own?"

    Does any nation?

    ethan hunt

    Grigory Rodchenkov made an allegation and its only right that he provides proof/evidence to backed his allegations.

    Russia does not want to shut him up but it does wanted Rodchenkov to present evidence to claim so that the necessary steps can be taken.

    MeBituman

    Simple question who destroyed the samples that were expressly requested by WADA to be preserved? This is your guilty party. No?

    ethan hunt

    An allegation was made and no evidence was presented. Did the IAAF and WADA actually presented evidence? They did not, their decision was based on the "allegations" made.

    James Hickey

    This guy should be dealt with harshly for he has used, other wise, athletes that would have used better judgment. Temptation in the eyes of rising stars with the promises. Tragic now that they are sideline. Gods speed with this calamity.

    [Aug 08, 2016] America's Dangerous Game of Intrigue Inside International Organizations

    Notable quotes:
    "... From the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) to the Southern Common Market (Mercosur) and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), Washington has been playing a dangerous game of intrigue and deception with regard to steering these organizations in a pro-American direction. The Obama administration has decided that the halls, offices, and conference rooms of international organizations are acceptable battlefields to wage propaganda and sanctions wars. ..."
    www.strategic-culture.org

    From the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) to the Southern Common Market (Mercosur) and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), Washington has been playing a dangerous game of intrigue and deception with regard to steering these organizations in a pro-American direction. The Obama administration has decided that the halls, offices, and conference rooms of international organizations are acceptable battlefields to wage propaganda and sanctions wars.

    The first American target of note was the international football association, FIFA. Not content with trying to sully the reputation of the 2014 Sochi Winter Olympics with issues of gay rights and doping of athletes, the US disinformation boiler rooms began a full-scale attack on FIFA. The major reason is Russia's hosting of the 2018 FIFA World Cup. The US Justice Department, in a major move toward the internationalization of domestic US law, began unsealing indictment after indictment of FIFA officials for financial crimes. The actual target of these indictments was Russia.

    ... ... ...

    Resisting pressure from Washington, IOC president Thomas Bach wisely decided to avoid a blanket ban of Russian athletes. Bach called such a unilateral ban on Russia participating in the Rio games as a "nuclear option". He also said that such a "nuclear option" would have resulted in "collateral damage" among innocent athletes. Bach's use of two geopolitical military terms was no mistake and it bore the mark of someone responding to familiar American "shock and awe" pressure. The United States used its compliant stooges, Germany and Canada, as well as the dubious World Anti-Doping Agency, run by a Scottish lawyer, to call for a total ban on Russian athletes in Rio.

    ... ... ...

    [Aug 08, 2016] Feds: Clinic founder sold performance drugs to athletes

    Fish rots from the head: doping is the most rampant in the USA...
    Notable quotes:
    "... Federal officials said earlier Tuesday that Bosch would agree to plead guilty to a charge of distributing steroids in a conspiracy that stretched from big league club houses to South Florida high schools and youth baseball leagues to sandlots in the Caribbean. ..."
    "... "These defendants were motivated by one thing: money," United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, Wifredo Ferrer, said. "They did this by lining their pockets, by exploiting the pressures of athletes and others to be bigger, to be stronger and to play better." ..."
    "... Bosch told investigators that he provided the illegal substances to at least 18 minors, Ferrer said. ..."
    "... Bosch and his associates distributed the drugs to minors who attended a number of public and private high schools in South Florida. He would charge the teenagers and their parents between $250 and $600 a month, promising that the concoctions -- which included black market steroids -- would improve their game. ..."
    CNN.com
    Tony Bosch, the founder of the now-defunct Biogenesis anti-aging clinic in Miami, is not a licensed doctor, but portrayed himself as one, federal officials said Tuesday.

    Officials said he dispensed performance-enhancing drugs to professional baseball players such as suspended New York Yankees slugger Alex Rodriguez and to impressionable high school athletes in South Florida and teenagers in the Dominican Republic.

    Bosch, 50, surrendered to the Drug Enforcement Administration in Florida on Tuesday. At a court appearance, he pleaded not guilty and a judge set bail at $100,000.

    Federal officials said earlier Tuesday that Bosch would agree to plead guilty to a charge of distributing steroids in a conspiracy that stretched from big league club houses to South Florida high schools and youth baseball leagues to sandlots in the Caribbean.

    One of his attorneys, Susy Ribero-Ayala, said there is a plea agreement in place and Bosch will change his plea later.

    "Mr. Bosch has never had and does not have a DEA registration," said Mark Trouville, special agent in charge of the DEA Miami. "He is not a licensed medical professional. He is not a doctor. He is a drug dealer."

    Also charged in the scandal were Yuri Sucart, a cousin of Rodriguez, and Juan Carlos Nunez, who was named in a scheme to clear All-Star Melky Cabrera after a positive 2012 testosterone test, authorities said.

    Other defendants include Carlos Acevedo, a longtime associate of Bosch's, former University of Miami coach Lazaro "Lazer" Collazo, Jorge Velasquez, and Christopher Engroba.

    Acevedo and three other men, including CarlosLuis Ruiz, a Florida Highway Patrol trooper, also were charged in a separate conspiracy involving the sale of the drug MDMA, or molly.

    Eight of the 10 men charged appeared in court. Acevedo and Engroba also entered not guilty pleas. The other men didn't enter a plea.

    Lengthy investigation

    The drug conspiracy charges against the men stemmed from from a 21-month DEA investigation.

    "These defendants were motivated by one thing: money," United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, Wifredo Ferrer, said. "They did this by lining their pockets, by exploiting the pressures of athletes and others to be bigger, to be stronger and to play better."

    Bosch could face a 10-year prison term in the case.

    Bosch told investigators that he provided the illegal substances to at least 18 minors, Ferrer said.

    Bosch and his associates distributed the drugs to minors who attended a number of public and private high schools in South Florida. He would charge the teenagers and their parents between $250 and $600 a month, promising that the concoctions -- which included black market steroids -- would improve their game.

    A look at performance enhancing drugs in sports

    In addition, investigators said, Bosch and the others operated in the Dominican Republic, where boys as young as 12 were given new baseball equipment and treated with testosterone-loaded syringes in an effort to get them signed with big league teams. Talents scouts working with the children would keep as much as 50 % of their signing bonuses.

    "These defendants provided easy access to dangerous concoctions of steroids and human growth hormones to impressionable high school kids," Ferrer said. "Simply put: Doping children is unacceptable. It is wrong. It is illegal and it is dangerous and Bosch and his reckless recruiters and his black market suppliers ignored the serious health risks posed to their so called patients, all to make a profit."

    Using lollipops

    The drugs were administered in a number of ways, through injections, pills, creams and even lollipops, according to a source with direct knowledge of the investigation.

    Masking agents were used to hide the drugs. "It was so good. The key was being able to fool testers with the league (Major League Baseball), the source said. "The masking agents in the creams would hide the actual drug, and (Bosch) would know the timing involved. He knew if the athlete took the drug right before a game, they'd be tested 12 hours later and the drug would no longer be detectable."

    Earlier this year, Major League Baseball dropped its lawsuit against Bosch and the company the league claims provided performance-enhancing drugs to a number of players, including Rodriguez. The league had agreed to drop the suit if Bosch cooperated in the investigation, according to published reports.

    In a statement Tuesday, Rodriguez's lawyer, Joe Tacopina, said: "This obviously is the beginning of the end of this sordid chapter in baseball."

    Authorities said professional athletes recruited by the clinic paid between $2,000 and $12,000 per month for the drugs.

    The investigation led to the suspension of 14 players for violating the league's drug policy. Besides Rodriguez, suspended players included Milwaukee Brewers outfielder Ryan Braun, the 2011 National League MVP, who served part of his suspension last season.

    Bosch's Biogenesis clinic became part of the story in late January 2013, when the Miami New Times reported that more than a dozen professional baseball players and other athletes had been named in records kept over several years by the clinic.

    Two months later, MLB filed its lawsuit against the clinic in Florida's Miami-Dade County.

    Its 14-page complaint named Biogenesis, its predecessor company and six individuals -- among them program director Bosch, others at the company, someone who worked at a sports agency, a former University of Miami baseball player and a "self-proclaimed chemist" who supplied substances.

    [Aug 08, 2016] The fact that Rodchenkov knew techniques of manipulating test results is not evidence of state controlled doping program, especially since he was the main culprit

    Notable quotes:
    "... That's a excellent article; good catch. I wrote to the Canadian Minister for Sport about it and urged her to revisit Canada's position on this, which is to essentially act as a spear carrier for Washington. ..."
    "... The 'Independent Commission' was McLaren, Dick Pound (who has already made his feelings on banning Russia from the Olympics quite clear), and Gunter Younger, who was just appointed WADA's Chief of Intelligence and Investigations this past June. A reward? I wonder. Whatever the case, you could hardly imagine a more ideological and biased team of 'investigators'. ..."
    marknesop.wordpress.com
    Fern . August 7, 2016 at 4:43 pm
    I came across this guy, Rick Sterling, being interviewed on RT about the ban on Russia's paralympic team where he mentioned that he'd produced a critique of the McLaren report. It's a substantial analysis and worth reading:-

    "The report concludes that Rodchenkov is credible and truthful with little demonstrated proof. In contrast, the November 2015 Independent Commission report concluded that Dr. Rodchenkov was not credible. The fact that Rodchenkov knew techniques of manipulating test results is not evidence of "state controlled doping program," especially since he was the main culprit. The information spread in previous reports on Russian doping that Rodchenkov was involved in extorting money from athletes – this information suggests opportunism on his part rather than integrity. The former director of Moscow Laboratory has admitted his involvement in urine sample swapping, design of a steroid cocktail not easily traced, and more. He was instrumental in helping some athletes cheat the system. He is also the person with most motivation to implicate others, even if unjustly. His testimony obviously needs careful scrutiny and cross-checking."

    http://theduran.com/heres-russian-athletes-unfairly-banned-olympics/

    marknesop says: August 7, 2016 at 7:04 pm
    That's a excellent article; good catch. I wrote to the Canadian Minister for Sport about it and urged her to revisit Canada's position on this, which is to essentially act as a spear carrier for Washington. I am sure there is going to be an independent legal review of the McLaren Report after the Olympics is over, and that it will find it a shambles.

    The 'Independent Commission' was McLaren, Dick Pound (who has already made his feelings on banning Russia from the Olympics quite clear), and Gunter Younger, who was just appointed WADA's Chief of Intelligence and Investigations this past June. A reward? I wonder. Whatever the case, you could hardly imagine a more ideological and biased team of 'investigators'.

    [Aug 08, 2016] Doping must not be tolerated, but neither should the politicizing of sport by Peter Lavelle

    Actually the fact that almost anybody under investigation from Russia can escape to West and on crossing the border be promoted as fighter for democracy or truth creates an unhealthy climate. See Fmr Russian doping lab chief sold drugs to athletes, promised cover-up – investigation - RT Sport
    Notable quotes:
    "... Peter Lavelle is host of RT's political debate program CrossTalk. His views may or may not reflect those of his employer. ..."
    theduran.com

    The International Olympic Committee has decided Russian athletes can attend the Rio Olympic Games – participation to be individually decided by federations. This is the right decision, but a dangerous precedent has been established – entire teams can be targeted for political reasons.

    The IOC probably realized it was playing with fire. The U.S. and some of allies have gone to great lengths to "isolate" Russia for Washington's blunders in Ukraine and elsewhere. The strategy to "isolate" means no stone will be left unturned to damage Russia, including the areas of sports and other prestige events. By banning the Russian team the IOC probably drew the conclusion that itself would face isolation from hundreds of million of sports enthusiasts.

    Also, the IOC probably reflected on what any Olympics would be like without Russia – one of the pillars of international sports. Without the Russians, all medals would have been deemed less worthy.

    ... ... ...

    Washington's neocons and their fellow travelers have been dealt a blow – there are surely feeling they lost an important PR coup. They will certainly regroup and continue their vengeful assault on Russia and international legal norms. The Rio Games have been saved, but the reputation of the IOC has been damaged. Doping must not be tolerated, but neither should the politicizing of sport.

    Peter Lavelle is host of RT's political debate program CrossTalk. His views may or may not reflect those of his employer.

    [Aug 08, 2016] The Olympics as a tool of the new Cold War

    Notable quotes:
    "... Yulia Stepanova's husband is Vitaly Stepanov a former staffer at RUSADA. He had lived and studied in the US since he was 15, but later decided to return to Russia. In 2008, Vitaly Stepanov began working for RUSADA as a doping-control officer. Vitaly met Yulia Rusanova in 2009 at the Russian national championships in Cheboksary. Stepanov now claims that he sent a letter to WADA detailing his revelations back in 2010, but never received an answer. ..."
    "... One fact that deserves attention is that Vitaly has confessed that he was fully aware that his wife was taking banned substances, both while he worked for RUSADA as well as after he left that organization. ..."
    "... In early June he admitted that WADA had not only helped his family move to America, but had also provided them with $30,000 in financial assistance. ..."
    "... Threatened with prosecution, Gregory Rodchenkov began to behave oddly and was repeatedly hospitalized and "subjected to a forensic psychiatric examination." A finding was later submitted to the court, claiming that Rodchenkov suffered from "schizotypal personality disorder," exacerbated by stress. As a result, all the charges against Rodchenkov were dropped. But the most surprising thing was that someone with a "schizotypal personality disorder" and a sister convicted of trafficking in performance-enhancing drugs continued as the director of Russia's only WADA-accredited anti-doping laboratory ..."
    "... All the evidence to be used by the prosecution is subject to challenge, and if some fact included in those charges can be interpreted to the defendant's advantage, then the court is obliged to exclude that fact from the materials at the disposal of the prosecution. ..."
    "... As a lawyer, McLaren understands all this very well. Hundreds of lawsuits filed by Russian athletes resulting in an unambiguous outcome would not only destroy his reputation and ruin him professionally – they could form the basis of a criminal investigation with obvious grounds for accusing him of intentionally distorting a few facts, which in his eyes can be summarized as follows. ..."
    Oriental Review

    The 6th Fundamental Principle of Olympism (non-discrimination of any kind, including nationality and political opinion) seems to be forgotten long ago. In ancient Greece the competition of best athletes was able to halt a war and serve as a bridge of understanding between two recent foes. But in the twentieth century the Olympics have become a political weapon. Back in 1980 the US and its allies boycotted the games in Moscow as a protest against the Soviet troops that entered Afghanistan at the request of that country's legitimate government (in contrast, the 1936 Olympics in Nazi Germany were held as usual, to the applause of the "civilized" world).

    On May 8, 2016 the CBS program 60 Minutes aired a broadcast about doping in Russia. The interviews featured recorded conversations between a former staffer with the Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA), Vitaly Stepanov, and the ex-director of Russia's anti-doping laboratory in Moscow, Grigory Rodchenkov. That program was just the fourth installment in a lengthy series about the alleged existence of a system to support doping in Russian sports.

    A few days later the New York Times published an interview with Rodchenkov. There that former official claims that a state-supported doping program was active at the Sochi Olympics, and that the orders for that program had come almost directly from the Russian president.

    One important fact that escaped most international observers was that a media campaign, which had begun shortly after the 2014 deep freeze in Russian-Western relations, was constructed around the "testimonies" of three Russian citizens who were all interconnected and complicit in a string of doping scandals, and who later left Russia and are trying to make new lives in the West.

    A 29-year-old middle-distance runner, Yulia Stepanova, can be seen as the instigator of this scandal. This young athlete's personal best in global competition was a bronze medal at the European Athletics Indoor Championship in 2011. At the World Championships that same year she placed eighth. Stepanova's career went off the rails in 2013, when the Russian Athletic Federation's Anti-Doping Commission disqualified her for two years based on "blood fluctuations in her Athlete Biological Passport." Such fluctuations are considered evidence of doping. All of Stepanova's results since 2011 have been invalidated. In addition, she had to return the prize money she had won running in professional races in 2011-2012. Stepanova, who had been suspended for doping, acted as the primary informant for ARD journalist Hajo Seppelt, who had begun filming a documentary about misconduct in Russian sports. After the release of ARD's first documentary in December 2014, Stepanova left Russia along with her husband and son. In 2015 she requested political asylum in Canada. Even after her suspension ended in 2015, Stepanova told the WADA Commission (p.142 of the Nov. 2015 WADA Report) that she had tested positive for doping during the Russian Track and Field Championships in Saransk in July 2010 and paid 30,000 rubles (approximately $1,000 USD at that time) to the director of the Russian anti-doping laboratory in Moscow, Gregory Rodchenkov, in exchange for concealing those test results.

    Yulia Stepanova's husband is Vitaly Stepanov a former staffer at RUSADA. He had lived and studied in the US since he was 15, but later decided to return to Russia. In 2008, Vitaly Stepanov began working for RUSADA as a doping-control officer. Vitaly met Yulia Rusanova in 2009 at the Russian national championships in Cheboksary. Stepanov now claims that he sent a letter to WADA detailing his revelations back in 2010, but never received an answer.

    In 2011 Stepanov left RUSADA. One fact that deserves attention is that Vitaly has confessed that he was fully aware that his wife was taking banned substances, both while he worked for RUSADA as well as after he left that organization. Take note that Stepanova's blood tests went positive starting in 2011 – i.e., from the time that her husband, an anti-doping officer, left RUSADA. With a clear conscience, the Stepanovs, now married, accepted prize money from professional races until Yulia was disqualified. Then they no longer had a source of income and the prize money suddenly had to be returned, at which point Vitaly Stepanov sought recourse in foreign journalists, offering to tell them the "truth about Russian sports." In early June he admitted that WADA had not only helped his family move to America, but had also provided them with $30,000 in financial assistance.

    And finally, the third figure in the campaign to expose doping in Russian sports – the former head of the Russian anti-doping laboratory in Moscow,Gregory Rodchenkov. According to Vitaly Stepanov, he was the man who sold performance-enhancing drugs while helping to hide their traces, and had also come up with the idea of "doped Chivas mouth swishing" (pg. 50), a technique that transforms men into Olympic champions. This 57-year-old native of Moscow is acknowledged to be the best at what he does. He graduated from Moscow State University with a Ph.D. in chemistry and began working at the Moscow anti-doping lab as early as 1985. He later worked in Canada and for Russian petrochemical companies, and in 2005 he became the director of Russia's national anti-doping laboratory in Moscow. In 2013 Marina Rodchenkova – Gregory Rodchenkov's sister – was found guilty and received a sentence for selling anabolic steroids to athletes. Her brother was also the subject of a criminal investigation into charges that he supplied banned drugs.

    Threatened with prosecution, Gregory Rodchenkov began to behave oddly and was repeatedly hospitalized and "subjected to a forensic psychiatric examination." A finding was later submitted to the court, claiming that Rodchenkov suffered from "schizotypal personality disorder," exacerbated by stress. As a result, all the charges against Rodchenkov were dropped. But the most surprising thing was that someone with a "schizotypal personality disorder" and a sister convicted of trafficking in performance-enhancing drugs continued as the director of Russia's only WADA-accredited anti-doping laboratory.

    In fact, he held this job during the 2014 Olympics. Rodchenkov was not dismissed until the fall of 2015, after the eruption of the scandal that had been instigated by the broadcaster ARD and the Stepanovs. In September 2015 the WADA Commission accused Rodchenkov of intentionally destroying over a thousand samples in order to conceal doping by Russian athletes. He personally denied all the charges, but then resigned and left for the US where he was warmly embraced by filmmaker Bryan Fogel, who was shooting yet anothermade-to-order documentary about doping in Russia.

    As this article is being written, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) is studying a report from an "Independent Person," the Canadian professor Richard H. McLaren, who has accused the entire Russian Federation, not just individual athletes, of complicity in the use of performance-enhancing drugs. McLaren was quickly summoned to speak with WADA shortly after the NYT published interview with Rodchenkov. The goal was clear: to concoct a "scientific report" by mid-July that would provide the IOC with grounds to ban the Russian team from the Rio Olympics. At a press conference on July 18 McLaren himself acknowledged that with a timeline of only 57 days he was unable "to identify any athlete that might have benefited from such manipulation to conceal positive doping tests." WADA's logic here is clear – they need to avoid any accusations of bias, unprofessionalism, embellishment of facts, or political partisanship. No matter what duplicity and lies are found in the report – it was drafted by an "independent person," period. However, he does not try to hide that the entire report is based on the testimony of a single person – Rodchenkov himself, who is repeatedly presented as a "credible and truthful" source. Of course that man is accused by WADA itself of destroying 1,417 doping tests and faces deportation to Russia for doping-linked crimes, but he saw an opportunity become a "valuable witness" and "prisoner of conscience" who is being persecuted by the "totalitarian regime" in Russia.

    The advantage enjoyed by this "independent commission" – on the basis of whose report the IOC is deciding the fate of Russia's Olympic hopefuls – is that its accusations will not be examined in court, nor can the body of evidence be challenged by the lawyers for the accused. Nor is the customary legal presumption of innocence anywhere in evidence.

    It appears from Professor McLaren's statement that no charges will be brought against any specific Russian athletes. Moreover, they can all compete if they refuse to represent Russia at the Olympics. There are obvious reasons for this selectivity. A law professor and longstanding member of the Court of Arbitration for Sport, Professor McClaren knows very well that any charges against specific individuals that are made publicly and result in "legally significant acts" (such as a ban on Olympic participation) can and will be challenged in court, in accordance with international law and on the basis of the presumption of innocence. All the evidence to be used by the prosecution is subject to challenge, and if some fact included in those charges can be interpreted to the defendant's advantage, then the court is obliged to exclude that fact from the materials at the disposal of the prosecution.

    As a lawyer, McLaren understands all this very well. Hundreds of lawsuits filed by Russian athletes resulting in an unambiguous outcome would not only destroy his reputation and ruin him professionally – they could form the basis of a criminal investigation with obvious grounds for accusing him of intentionally distorting a few facts, which in his eyes can be summarized as follows.

    During the Sochi Olympics, an FSB officer named Evgeny Blokhin switched the doping tests taken from Russian athletes, exchanging them for "clean" urine samples. This agent is said to have possessed a plumbing contractor's security clearance, allowing him to enter the laboratory. In addition, there are reports that Evgeny Kurdyatsev, – the head of the Registration and Biological Sample Accounting Department – switched the doping tests at night, through a "mouse hole" in the wall (!). Awaiting them in the adjascent building was the man who is now providing "credible evidence" – Gregory Rodchenkov – and some other unnamed individuals, who passed Blokhin the athletes' clean doping tests to be used to replace the original samples. If the specific gravity of the clean urine did not match the original profile, it was "adapted" using table salt or distilled water. But of course the DNA was incompatible. And all of this was going on in the only official, WADA-accredited anti-doping laboratory in Russia!

    How would something like that sound in any court? We have witnesses, but the defense team cannot subject them to cross-examination. We cannot prove that Blokhin is an FSB agent, but we believe it. We do not possess any of the original documents – not a single photograph or affidavit from the official examination – but we have sufficient evidence from a single criminal who has already confessed to his crime. We did not submit the emails provided by Rodchenkov to any experts to be examined, but we assert that the emails are genuine, that all the facts they contain are accurate, and that the names of the senders are correct. We cannot accuse the athletes, so we will accuse and punish the state!

    To be honest, we still do not believe that the Olympic movement has sunk so low as to deprive billions of people of the pleasure of watching the competitions, forgetting about politics and politicians. That would mean waving goodbye to the reputations of the WADA and the IOC and to the global system of sports as a whole. Perhaps a solution to the colossal problem of doping is long overdue, but is that answer to be found within the boundaries of only one country, even a great country like Russia? Should we take a moment here and now to dwell upon the multi-volume history of doping scandals in every single country in the world? And in view of these facts that have come to light, is not WADA itself the cornerstone of the existing and far-reaching system to support and cover up athletic doping all over the world?

    In conclusion, we cite below the complete translation of the Russian Olympic Committee'sstatement in response to the WADA report:

    "The accusations against Russian sports found in the report by Richard McLaren are so serious that a full investigation is needed, with input from all parties. The Russian Olympic Committee has a policy of zero tolerance and supports the fight against doping. It is ready to provide its full assistance and work together, as needed, with any international organization.

    We wholeheartedly disagree with Mr. McLaren's view that the possible banning of hundreds of clean Russian athletes from competition in the Olympic Games is an acceptable 'unpleasant consequence' of the charges contained in his report.

    The charges being made are primarily based on statements by Grigory Rodchenkov. This is solely based on testimony from someone who is at the epicenter of this criminal scheme, which is a blow not only to the careers and fates of a great many clean athletes, but also to the integrity of the entire international Olympic movement.

    Russia has fought against doping and will continue to fight at the state level, steadily stiffening the penalties for any illegal activity of this type and enforcing a precept of inevitable punishment.

    The Russian Olympic Committee fully supports the harshest possible penalties against anyone who either uses banned drugs or encourages their use.

    At the same time, the ROC – acting in full compliance with the Olympic Charter – will always protect the rights of clean athletes. Those who throughout their careers – thanks to relentless training, talent, and willpower – strive to realize their Olympic dreams should not have their futures determined by the unfounded, unsubstantiated accusations and criminal acts of certain individuals. For us this is a matter of principle."

    orientalreview.org

    [Aug 08, 2016] Russia scholar Stephen Cohen shuts down CNN shill host who tries to link Trump to Putin

    Notable quotes:
    "... I know a bit about Russian people and one thing I know is this; the U.S. is ignorant of their culture, values and intelligence; a gross miscalculation of an adversary. ..."
    "... The neo-cons are crazy (like rabid dogs) but not overtly suicidal, I think (not sure actually). ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org

    MadMax2 | Aug 7, 2016 7:02:32 AM | 50

    - YouTube Did he get it?Nope

    Youtube:
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mCMyHJJrdDw
    Source:
    https://twitter.com/shekunchik/status/762055101930475520

    jfl | Aug 7, 2016 7:43:54 AM | 52

    @50 mm2

    Stephen Cohen got it. He got shut down. And the talking head at CNN made a note never to have this guy on again. CNN's just had all the conversation - and then some - that they ever want to have with this guy. We'll never see Stephen Cohen on TNC TV again.

    V. Arnold | Aug 7, 2016 8:51:16 AM | 57

    jfl | Aug 7, 2016 8:08:41 AM | 56

    Yes, both. I'm well aware of the long and somewhat "bumpy" history going back decades (many) and see this as a mutual joust against a common enemy/hegemon. Russia is well aware of it's vast area and consequent resources making it a prize like no other on the planet.

    It's Russia's curse and wealth at the same time. It's there's to lose if they play badly.

    I know a bit about Russian people and one thing I know is this; the U.S. is ignorant of their culture, values and intelligence; a gross miscalculation of an adversary.

    Together they (PRC and Russia) are the perfect foil to the U.S. aggression.

    The neo-cons are crazy (like rabid dogs) but not overtly suicidal, I think (not sure actually).

    [Aug 08, 2016] Has al Nusra proven to be a capable fighting force on its own? Or has it proven capable at using the weapons gifted it by its regime-change uncle and with the support of the USAF and

    American Special Forces within Nusra? If true that's rich...
    Notable quotes:
    "... Has al Nusra proven to be a capable fighting force on its own? Or has it proven capable at using the weapons gifted it by its regime-change uncle and with the support of the USAF and American Special Forces? ..."
    "... Natalya Nougayrède hits all the familiar high points in this typical hagiography – Putin is in Syria because he wants to show everyone his penis, and avenge the catastrophic defeat of Soviet forces in Afghanistan while restoring Russia's image as a serious military power. ..."
    "... But despite her love-letter to western imperialism, Nougayrède seems quite clear that Assad is not losing ..."
    marknesop.wordpress.com

    marknesop , August 7, 2016 at 3:03 pm

    Has al Nusra proven to be a capable fighting force on its own? Or has it proven capable at using the weapons gifted it by its regime-change uncle and with the support of the USAF and American Special Forces?

    Natalya Nougayrède hits all the familiar high points in this typical hagiography – Putin is in Syria because he wants to show everyone his penis, and avenge the catastrophic defeat of Soviet forces in Afghanistan while restoring Russia's image as a serious military power. Putin was in the KGB. It has absolutely fuck-all to do with the article, but Putin was in the KGB, just to be sure you know. It was terribly embarrassing for the Soviet Union to be defeated by a ragtag army of Afghan Mujaheddin, but apparently it is not embarrassing at all for America to experience the profound failure of its military policy in Afghanistan . Or perhaps it is embarrassing, since it dares not leave.

    But despite her love-letter to western imperialism, Nougayrède seems quite clear that Assad is not losing, although she plainly would be delighted if that were the case. She also points out that Aleppo is the last remaining significant opposition stronghold. If al Nusra is such an awesome fighting force, why are they surrounded in the last significant objective they hold? Why are they not spreading out and taking more territory?

    [Aug 08, 2016] China, Russia steel hit with EU anti-dumping duties

    Notable quotes:
    "... Curiously, when a country 'can't make anything', the west rolls about and mocks and ridicules it for its perceived inadequacy. When it makes a quality product that western companies want to buy at a price with which western producers cannot compete, western governments erase that advantage so as to force their consumers to buy domestic product. I guess that's democracy and freedom and progress. Gee; it smells funny. ..."
    marknesop.wordpress.com
    euractiv: China, Russia steel hit with EU anti-dumping duties
    http://www.euractiv.com/section/trade-society/news/china-russia-steel-hit-with-eu-anti-dumping-duties/

    …"In the wake of the global steel overcapacity crisis, the Commission is applying the trade defense instruments to re-establish a level-playing field between EU and foreign producers," a statement read.

    The duties range from 18.7% to 36.1% for Russian companies and between 19.7% and 22.1% on Chinese firms Angang Group and Shougang Group….
    ####

    For whys? There's barely a word about Russia. Just another excuse to impose yet more sanctions?

    Link to further detail (langs):
    http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2016.210.01.0001.01.ENG&toc=OJ:L:2016:210:TOC
    ###

    From an extremely brief look at above (YAWN!), it looks like the Commission made its calculations and when the exporters complained, the Commission said " GIve us more information to change our mind " but didn't find such information 'convincing' enough to do so.

    marknesop , August 7, 2016 at 11:38 am
    Curiously, when a country 'can't make anything', the west rolls about and mocks and ridicules it for its perceived inadequacy. When it makes a quality product that western companies want to buy at a price with which western producers cannot compete, western governments erase that advantage so as to force their consumers to buy domestic product. I guess that's democracy and freedom and progress. Gee; it smells funny.

    [Aug 08, 2016] Clinton is a neo con and a neo liberal.

    Notable quotes:
    "... Hillary is definitely both a staunch dyed-in-the-wool neocon ("We came, we saw, he died", anti-Russia stance, appointment of Kagan and Nuland, her role in Syria, etc.) and "born again" ( deviating from Goldwater platform after marriage) neoliberal much like Slick Willie was/is. ..."
    "... "long ago, conservatives decided to harness racial resentment to sell right-wing economic policies to working-class whites, especially in the South." ..."
    "... Isn't the corollary to this that the Clintons harnessed racial resentment to sell neo-lib economic policies to poor blacks, especially in the South? ..."
    "... Classist elitism, cultural chauvinism, standing pat in the economic center, bland words about small plans, neoconservative foreign policy & recruiting of capital-class Republicans are back in the driver's seat. This is the Democratic Party once again without a Sanders campaign to worry about. ..."
    "... What strikes me as telling and important is that the New York Times was reporting on conservatives or neocons moving to support Hillary Clinton as early as July 2014. The sense being that Clinton was, in particular, a foreign policy conservative: ..."
    "... Dismantling of Orthodox hegemony in east Europe.... Hapsburg at the neocon rise. Regime change in Moscow was in the strategy when Strobe Talbot brought in Mrs. Kagan in 1993 and Bill Clinton started arming Croatia and backing separatists in Bosnia and Kosovo. ..."
    "... Clinton voted for universal war and then as SecState implemented it bad and hard. ..."
    economistsview.typepad.com
    jonny bakho -> ilsm... , Friday, August 05, 2016 at 01:35 PM
    Clinton is neither a neo con nor a neo liberal.
    What are you smoking?
    A neo con would not have pushed for a negotiated settlement with Iran.

    HillaryCare was the antithesis of neoliberalism

    Maybe the Cartoon character Hillary Clinton is those things but not the real one.

    jonny bakho -> ilsm... , Friday, August 05, 2016 at 01:39 PM
    Reasons to vote for Clinton:
    • Criminal Justice and policing reform.
    • Extension of bank regulation.
    • Stimulus spending on the 10 20 30 model
    • Immigration reform
    • Expansion of solar and wind energy
    • Use of negotiation in foreign issues
    ilsm -> jonny bakho ...
    Check out Clintons in Serbia, who is Victoria Nuland, and on whose advisory committee is her husband Robert Kagan?

    You have a very limited and benign view of neocon and neoliberals.

    Likbez said in reply to ilsm... , -1
    An excellent comment. I am with you ilsm --

    Hillary is definitely both a staunch dyed-in-the-wool neocon ("We came, we saw, he died", anti-Russia stance, appointment of Kagan and Nuland, her role in Syria, etc.) and "born again" ( deviating from Goldwater platform after marriage) neoliberal much like Slick Willie was/is.

    Anybody who tried to deny this denies the reality.

    • Police state?
    • Wall st sponsors
    • Debt reduction with stimulus?
    • Immigration, what demalarkey is that?
    • Energy is happening with tech.
    • Neocon, just war is pushing Putin around! She negotiated with Qaddafi! She and Kerry on Assad, Benghazi shipping point to ISIS in 2012.

    Send a check I have the deed to a bridge.

    Bob : , Friday, August 05, 2016 at 11:07 AM
    "long ago, conservatives decided to harness racial resentment to sell right-wing economic policies to working-class whites, especially in the South."

    Isn't the corollary to this that the Clintons harnessed racial resentment to sell neo-lib economic policies to poor blacks, especially in the South?

    ilsm -> Bob... ,
    Dem thought crime squads will make sure men get to use the ladies' room in all 50 states and DC.
    Dan Kervick : , Friday, August 05, 2016 at 11:15 AM
    Clinton doesn't need to move to the center to beat Trump, since she is already in the center. She's picking up a number of disaffected Republicans already without doing anything. Trump and his campaign are a circus. Her advisers are probably recommending that she remain inoffensively silent and allow Trump to continue eating his own tail.

    Meanwhile, every result one would realistically have expected from the Democrats disposing of the Sanders campaign has indeed come to pass. Classist elitism, cultural chauvinism, standing pat in the economic center, bland words about small plans, neoconservative foreign policy & recruiting of capital-class Republicans are back in the driver's seat. This is the Democratic Party once again without a Sanders campaign to worry about.

    ilsm -> Dan Kervick... ,

    Yup!

    anne : ,
    What strikes me as telling and important is that the New York Times was reporting on conservatives or neocons moving to support Hillary Clinton as early as July 2014. The sense being that Clinton was, in particular, a foreign policy conservative:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/06/opinion/sunday/are-neocons-getting-ready-to-ally-with-hillary-clinton.html

    July 5, 2014

    The Next Act of the Neocons
    By JACOB HEILBRUNN

    Are they getting ready to ally themselves with Hillary Clinton?

    ilsm -> anne... ,
    Dismantling of Orthodox hegemony in east Europe.... Hapsburg at the neocon rise. Regime change in Moscow was in the strategy when Strobe Talbot brought in Mrs. Kagan in 1993 and Bill Clinton started arming Croatia and backing separatists in Bosnia and Kosovo.
    Fred C. Dobbs : , Friday, August 05, 2016 at 11:47 AM
    (So, is it 'over'?)

    Peggy Noonan: Trump 'doesn't have the skill set needed now'
    http://washex.am/2aAIwqk via @DCExaminer - Aug 5

    Conservative Wall Street Journal columnist and former Reagan speechwriter Peggy Noonan said Donald Trump doesn't have what it takes to win the White House.

    In her latest column, Noonan wrote that the celebrity businessman has been unable to "take yes for an answer" from the voters who made him the Republican presidential nominee.

    "This is what became obvious, probably fatally so: Mr. Trump is not going to get serious about running for president," she wrote. "He does not have a second act, there are no hidden depths, there will be no 'pivot.' It is not that he is willful or stubborn, though he may be, it's that he doesn't have the skill set needed now - discretion, carefulness, generosity, judgment. There's a clueless quality about him."

    After the GOP convention two weeks ago, Trump enjoyed a slight bump in national and some state-level polls against Hillary Clinton, only to suffer a series of setbacks caused by his own controversial comments.

    As a result, his numbers have fallen in more recent polls and Clinton's have risen in light of intense media scrutiny on Trump.

    "All the damage done to him this week was self-inflicted," Noonan wrote. "The arrows he's taken are arrows he shot.

    The Week They Decided He Was Crazy
    by @peggynoonannyc
    http://on.wsj.com/2aZ4p2b
    via @WSJ - Aug 4

    I think this week marked a certain coming to terms with where the election is going. Politics is about trends and tendencies. The trends for Donald Trump are not good, and he tends not to change.

    All the damage done to him this week was self-inflicted. The arrows he's taken are arrows he shot. We have in seven days witnessed his undignified and ungrateful reaction to a Gold Star family; the odd moment with the crying baby; the one-on-one interviews, which are starting to look like something he does in the grip of a compulsion, in which Mr. Trump expresses himself thoughtlessly, carelessly, on such issues as Russia, Ukraine and sexual harassment; the relitigating of his vulgar Megyn Kelly comments from a year ago; and, as his fortunes fell, his statement that he "would not be surprised" if the November election were "rigged." Subject to an unprecedented assault by a sitting president who called him intellectually and characterologically unfit for the presidency, Mr Trump fired back - at Paul Ryan and John McCain.

    The mad scatterbrained-ness of it was captured in a Washington Post interview (*) with Philip Rucker in which five times by my count-again, the compulsion-Mr. Trump departed the meat of the interview to turn his head and stare at the television. On seeing himself on the screen: "Lot of energy. We got a lot of energy." Minutes later: "Look at this. It's all Trump all day long. That's why their ratings are through the roof." He's all about screens, like a toddler hooked on iPad. ...

    *- Donald Trump's Washington Post interview
    should make Republicans panic http://wpo.st/Q4gq1

    ilsm -> Fred C. Dobbs... , -1
    "Skill set" like the "set" that has the US squander $2T in war spending, endure huge casualties, inflict massive collateral damage and is worse off than when Clinton voted for all of it.

    When the Donald calls a general or administration official inept he means the above.

    ilsm -> sanjait... , -1
    One so easily conned not allowed in Oval Office.

    Demalarkey. Crooked Hillary was conned like Colin Powell, the great equivocators.

    Her vote was the switch that turned it all on!

    Did she ever give a speech anywhere saying the Overseas Contingency Operations appropriation were bad? Has she ever proposed ending it all? Send links.

    But worse she equivocates about marked e-mails which at best show ignorance, and expects ignorance from the audience.

    Which is all right with the administration (DoJ) flying cover for her.

    ilsm -> EMichael... , -1
    HEH!

    Clinton voted for universal war and then as SecState implemented it bad and hard.

    [Aug 08, 2016] Hillary is so well qualified to send everything to Wall St and get US into regime change in the former Soviet Union

    Notable quotes:
    "... It's the rigging of our economy – the increasingly tight nexus between wealth and political power. Big money has been buying political clout to get laws and regulations that make big money even bigger." ..."
    "... Odds are that Clinton, now worth $100 million due to public service, will milk the system for all its worth, becoming the first to become a billionaire via public service. Reckoning? LOL! ..."
    "... Aren't we used to the robber barons running the joint, yet? Clinton endorsed by the in crowd, including water boarders. ..."
    "... Hillary is so well qualified to send everything to Wall St and get US into regime change in the former Soviet Union see how well it worked in Iraq, Afghanistan Libya... ..."
    "... Logisticians do planning with the ops guys, we are the guys that tell "strategists": "you don't have transport etc to get there..." Been doing a bit of 'thought exercising' on the fighting for Estonia under defending small countries is "just war" meme. I could see the Clintons installing a fascist in Talinn like they did in Kyiv....... ..."
    "... All because the democrats went from the party of perpetual small conventional profitable wars against third world guerillas and goatherds to taking on Russia run by evil. ..."
    "... Trump did not have Qaddafi or anyone else done! ..."
    economistsview.typepad.com
    JohnH, August 05, 2016 at 08:16 PM

    Robert Reich--Democratic Party needs to start reckoning with reality, too.

    "In a Gallup poll taken in mid-July, before the conventions, 82 percent said America was on the wrong track. In an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll just before that, 56 percent said they preferred a candidate who would bring sweeping changes to the way the government functioned, no matter how unpredictable those changes might be.

    The major issue the public is reacting to isn't terrorism or racism. We didn't see these numbers after 9/11. We didn't even get these sorts of responses in the late 1960s, when American cities were torn by riots and when the Vietnam War was raging.

    It's the rigging of our economy – the increasingly tight nexus between wealth and political power. Big money has been buying political clout to get laws and regulations that make big money even bigger."

    Odds are that Clinton, now worth $100 million due to public service, will milk the system for all its worth, becoming the first to become a billionaire via public service. Reckoning? LOL!

    ilsm -> JohnH...
    Aren't we used to the robber barons running the joint, yet? Clinton endorsed by the in crowd, including water boarders.

    Hillary is so well qualified to send everything to Wall St and get US into regime change in the former Soviet Union see how well it worked in Iraq, Afghanistan Libya....

    I am betting on nuclear winter before climate disaster.

    ilsm -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , -1
    Logisticians do planning with the ops guys, we are the guys that tell "strategists": "you don't have transport etc to get there..." Been doing a bit of 'thought exercising' on the fighting for Estonia under defending small countries is "just war" meme. I could see the Clintons installing a fascist in Talinn like they did in Kyiv.......

    Russia moves in to "protect" Russian nationals (the reason for NATO was so Russia would not move in to West Germany to protect socialists from US puppets).

    The US' deployable armor brigade arrives to kasserns smoldering, gets chewed up and the B-61 start falling.

    You could model a nuclear exchange that stops with a Red Army tank division irradiated.....

    I see it going 99 Red Balloons.

    All because the democrats went from the party of perpetual small conventional profitable wars against third world guerillas and goatherds to taking on Russia run by evil.

    ilsm -> ilsm... , -1
    Then the demalarkey* comes up with: if US don't start WW III the small countries will get their own nukes like Israel............

    Not much different than US holding on to the button, but throws out a new range of MAD thought exercises.

    *"Oh my!! Trump will let everyone get nukes!"

    ilsm -> Fred C. Dobbs... , -1
    I do not want crooked Hillary followed by a junior military officer with the "football". What she knows about operation security and who advises her. Is quite troubling.

    Trump did not have Qaddafi or anyone else done!

    [Aug 08, 2016] The communists of China are seeking a long-term partnership with Russia – a nominally capitalist country? Of course, Russia is seeking the same with China

    Blowback for sleazy Barack Obama neocon policies is coming. And it will not be pretty...
    marknesop.wordpress.com

    Patient Observer , August 7, 2016 at 4:48 pm

    Isn't it interesting that the communists of China are seeking a long-term partnership with Russia – a nominally capitalist country? Of course, Russia is seeking the same with China.

    July 1, China marked an important date on July 1. It was the 95th anniversary of the founding of the Chinese Communist Party. Chairman Xi Jinping addressed the solemn meeting devoted to this event. In addition to the praises of "Long live!" (And deservedly so, since the CCP has much to be proud of) there was Chairman Xi's speech which was short, but very important.

    "The world is on the verge of radical change. We see how the European Union is gradually collapsing, as is the US economy - it is all over for the new world order. So, it will never again be as it was before, in 10 years we will have a new world order in which the key will be the union of China and Russia. "

    http://www.fort-russ.com/2016/08/china-openly-offers-russia-alliance.html

    If the above translation is accurate I wonder what is meant by …key will be the union of China and Russia . In any event, it appears that ideology is not at the core of the unity; its something much deeper and more resilient. I offer that it is a shared view that embraces a realization that the world can no longer accept global hegemony from the West otherwise catastrophe is virtually certain in the form of (pick one or two): nuclear war, financial or ecological collapse. Their mission is basically to save the world from Western insanity which handily trumps anything that may separate them.

    And, I think that the Chinese and Russians are far too wise to seek global hegemony for themselves. The trick for them will be taking down the Western house of cards without triggering a catastrophic miscalculation by the West. …Whew, now time for an hot fudge sundae.

    marknesop , August 7, 2016 at 8:28 pm
    I think it's mutual disgust with the USA's blatant and shameless rigging of the playing field in every contest. If America can't win, then it's a loss for all of mankind. And it blabbers constantly and loudly about its values, and then does things which completely contradict those supposed values, and never appears to notice anything unusual or untoward about it.

    [Aug 08, 2016] The Olympics as a tool of the new Cold War

    Notable quotes:
    "... Yulia Stepanova's husband is Vitaly Stepanov a former staffer at RUSADA. He had lived and studied in the US since he was 15, but later decided to return to Russia. In 2008, Vitaly Stepanov began working for RUSADA as a doping-control officer. Vitaly met Yulia Rusanova in 2009 at the Russian national championships in Cheboksary. Stepanov now claims that he sent a letter to WADA detailing his revelations back in 2010, but never received an answer. ..."
    "... One fact that deserves attention is that Vitaly has confessed that he was fully aware that his wife was taking banned substances, both while he worked for RUSADA as well as after he left that organization. ..."
    "... In early June he admitted that WADA had not only helped his family move to America, but had also provided them with $30,000 in financial assistance. ..."
    "... Threatened with prosecution, Gregory Rodchenkov began to behave oddly and was repeatedly hospitalized and "subjected to a forensic psychiatric examination." A finding was later submitted to the court, claiming that Rodchenkov suffered from "schizotypal personality disorder," exacerbated by stress. As a result, all the charges against Rodchenkov were dropped. But the most surprising thing was that someone with a "schizotypal personality disorder" and a sister convicted of trafficking in performance-enhancing drugs continued as the director of Russia's only WADA-accredited anti-doping laboratory ..."
    "... All the evidence to be used by the prosecution is subject to challenge, and if some fact included in those charges can be interpreted to the defendant's advantage, then the court is obliged to exclude that fact from the materials at the disposal of the prosecution. ..."
    "... As a lawyer, McLaren understands all this very well. Hundreds of lawsuits filed by Russian athletes resulting in an unambiguous outcome would not only destroy his reputation and ruin him professionally – they could form the basis of a criminal investigation with obvious grounds for accusing him of intentionally distorting a few facts, which in his eyes can be summarized as follows. ..."
    Oriental Review

    The 6th Fundamental Principle of Olympism (non-discrimination of any kind, including nationality and political opinion) seems to be forgotten long ago. In ancient Greece the competition of best athletes was able to halt a war and serve as a bridge of understanding between two recent foes. But in the twentieth century the Olympics have become a political weapon. Back in 1980 the US and its allies boycotted the games in Moscow as a protest against the Soviet troops that entered Afghanistan at the request of that country's legitimate government (in contrast, the 1936 Olympics in Nazi Germany were held as usual, to the applause of the "civilized" world).

    On May 8, 2016 the CBS program 60 Minutes aired a broadcast about doping in Russia. The interviews featured recorded conversations between a former staffer with the Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA), Vitaly Stepanov, and the ex-director of Russia's anti-doping laboratory in Moscow, Grigory Rodchenkov. That program was just the fourth installment in a lengthy series about the alleged existence of a system to support doping in Russian sports.

    A few days later the New York Times published an interview with Rodchenkov. There that former official claims that a state-supported doping program was active at the Sochi Olympics, and that the orders for that program had come almost directly from the Russian president.

    One important fact that escaped most international observers was that a media campaign, which had begun shortly after the 2014 deep freeze in Russian-Western relations, was constructed around the "testimonies" of three Russian citizens who were all interconnected and complicit in a string of doping scandals, and who later left Russia and are trying to make new lives in the West.

    A 29-year-old middle-distance runner, Yulia Stepanova, can be seen as the instigator of this scandal. This young athlete's personal best in global competition was a bronze medal at the European Athletics Indoor Championship in 2011. At the World Championships that same year she placed eighth. Stepanova's career went off the rails in 2013, when the Russian Athletic Federation's Anti-Doping Commission disqualified her for two years based on "blood fluctuations in her Athlete Biological Passport." Such fluctuations are considered evidence of doping. All of Stepanova's results since 2011 have been invalidated. In addition, she had to return the prize money she had won running in professional races in 2011-2012. Stepanova, who had been suspended for doping, acted as the primary informant for ARD journalist Hajo Seppelt, who had begun filming a documentary about misconduct in Russian sports. After the release of ARD's first documentary in December 2014, Stepanova left Russia along with her husband and son. In 2015 she requested political asylum in Canada. Even after her suspension ended in 2015, Stepanova told the WADA Commission (p.142 of the Nov. 2015 WADA Report) that she had tested positive for doping during the Russian Track and Field Championships in Saransk in July 2010 and paid 30,000 rubles (approximately $1,000 USD at that time) to the director of the Russian anti-doping laboratory in Moscow, Gregory Rodchenkov, in exchange for concealing those test results.

    Yulia Stepanova's husband is Vitaly Stepanov a former staffer at RUSADA. He had lived and studied in the US since he was 15, but later decided to return to Russia. In 2008, Vitaly Stepanov began working for RUSADA as a doping-control officer. Vitaly met Yulia Rusanova in 2009 at the Russian national championships in Cheboksary. Stepanov now claims that he sent a letter to WADA detailing his revelations back in 2010, but never received an answer.

    In 2011 Stepanov left RUSADA. One fact that deserves attention is that Vitaly has confessed that he was fully aware that his wife was taking banned substances, both while he worked for RUSADA as well as after he left that organization. Take note that Stepanova's blood tests went positive starting in 2011 – i.e., from the time that her husband, an anti-doping officer, left RUSADA. With a clear conscience, the Stepanovs, now married, accepted prize money from professional races until Yulia was disqualified. Then they no longer had a source of income and the prize money suddenly had to be returned, at which point Vitaly Stepanov sought recourse in foreign journalists, offering to tell them the "truth about Russian sports." In early June he admitted that WADA had not only helped his family move to America, but had also provided them with $30,000 in financial assistance.

    And finally, the third figure in the campaign to expose doping in Russian sports – the former head of the Russian anti-doping laboratory in Moscow,Gregory Rodchenkov. According to Vitaly Stepanov, he was the man who sold performance-enhancing drugs while helping to hide their traces, and had also come up with the idea of "doped Chivas mouth swishing" (pg. 50), a technique that transforms men into Olympic champions. This 57-year-old native of Moscow is acknowledged to be the best at what he does. He graduated from Moscow State University with a Ph.D. in chemistry and began working at the Moscow anti-doping lab as early as 1985. He later worked in Canada and for Russian petrochemical companies, and in 2005 he became the director of Russia's national anti-doping laboratory in Moscow. In 2013 Marina Rodchenkova – Gregory Rodchenkov's sister – was found guilty and received a sentence for selling anabolic steroids to athletes. Her brother was also the subject of a criminal investigation into charges that he supplied banned drugs.

    Threatened with prosecution, Gregory Rodchenkov began to behave oddly and was repeatedly hospitalized and "subjected to a forensic psychiatric examination." A finding was later submitted to the court, claiming that Rodchenkov suffered from "schizotypal personality disorder," exacerbated by stress. As a result, all the charges against Rodchenkov were dropped. But the most surprising thing was that someone with a "schizotypal personality disorder" and a sister convicted of trafficking in performance-enhancing drugs continued as the director of Russia's only WADA-accredited anti-doping laboratory.

    In fact, he held this job during the 2014 Olympics. Rodchenkov was not dismissed until the fall of 2015, after the eruption of the scandal that had been instigated by the broadcaster ARD and the Stepanovs. In September 2015 the WADA Commission accused Rodchenkov of intentionally destroying over a thousand samples in order to conceal doping by Russian athletes. He personally denied all the charges, but then resigned and left for the US where he was warmly embraced by filmmaker Bryan Fogel, who was shooting yet anothermade-to-order documentary about doping in Russia.

    As this article is being written, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) is studying a report from an "Independent Person," the Canadian professor Richard H. McLaren, who has accused the entire Russian Federation, not just individual athletes, of complicity in the use of performance-enhancing drugs. McLaren was quickly summoned to speak with WADA shortly after the NYT published interview with Rodchenkov. The goal was clear: to concoct a "scientific report" by mid-July that would provide the IOC with grounds to ban the Russian team from the Rio Olympics. At a press conference on July 18 McLaren himself acknowledged that with a timeline of only 57 days he was unable "to identify any athlete that might have benefited from such manipulation to conceal positive doping tests." WADA's logic here is clear – they need to avoid any accusations of bias, unprofessionalism, embellishment of facts, or political partisanship. No matter what duplicity and lies are found in the report – it was drafted by an "independent person," period. However, he does not try to hide that the entire report is based on the testimony of a single person – Rodchenkov himself, who is repeatedly presented as a "credible and truthful" source. Of course that man is accused by WADA itself of destroying 1,417 doping tests and faces deportation to Russia for doping-linked crimes, but he saw an opportunity become a "valuable witness" and "prisoner of conscience" who is being persecuted by the "totalitarian regime" in Russia.

    The advantage enjoyed by this "independent commission" – on the basis of whose report the IOC is deciding the fate of Russia's Olympic hopefuls – is that its accusations will not be examined in court, nor can the body of evidence be challenged by the lawyers for the accused. Nor is the customary legal presumption of innocence anywhere in evidence.

    It appears from Professor McLaren's statement that no charges will be brought against any specific Russian athletes. Moreover, they can all compete if they refuse to represent Russia at the Olympics. There are obvious reasons for this selectivity. A law professor and longstanding member of the Court of Arbitration for Sport, Professor McClaren knows very well that any charges against specific individuals that are made publicly and result in "legally significant acts" (such as a ban on Olympic participation) can and will be challenged in court, in accordance with international law and on the basis of the presumption of innocence. All the evidence to be used by the prosecution is subject to challenge, and if some fact included in those charges can be interpreted to the defendant's advantage, then the court is obliged to exclude that fact from the materials at the disposal of the prosecution.

    As a lawyer, McLaren understands all this very well. Hundreds of lawsuits filed by Russian athletes resulting in an unambiguous outcome would not only destroy his reputation and ruin him professionally – they could form the basis of a criminal investigation with obvious grounds for accusing him of intentionally distorting a few facts, which in his eyes can be summarized as follows.

    During the Sochi Olympics, an FSB officer named Evgeny Blokhin switched the doping tests taken from Russian athletes, exchanging them for "clean" urine samples. This agent is said to have possessed a plumbing contractor's security clearance, allowing him to enter the laboratory. In addition, there are reports that Evgeny Kurdyatsev, – the head of the Registration and Biological Sample Accounting Department – switched the doping tests at night, through a "mouse hole" in the wall (!). Awaiting them in the adjascent building was the man who is now providing "credible evidence" – Gregory Rodchenkov – and some other unnamed individuals, who passed Blokhin the athletes' clean doping tests to be used to replace the original samples. If the specific gravity of the clean urine did not match the original profile, it was "adapted" using table salt or distilled water. But of course the DNA was incompatible. And all of this was going on in the only official, WADA-accredited anti-doping laboratory in Russia!

    How would something like that sound in any court? We have witnesses, but the defense team cannot subject them to cross-examination. We cannot prove that Blokhin is an FSB agent, but we believe it. We do not possess any of the original documents – not a single photograph or affidavit from the official examination – but we have sufficient evidence from a single criminal who has already confessed to his crime. We did not submit the emails provided by Rodchenkov to any experts to be examined, but we assert that the emails are genuine, that all the facts they contain are accurate, and that the names of the senders are correct. We cannot accuse the athletes, so we will accuse and punish the state!

    To be honest, we still do not believe that the Olympic movement has sunk so low as to deprive billions of people of the pleasure of watching the competitions, forgetting about politics and politicians. That would mean waving goodbye to the reputations of the WADA and the IOC and to the global system of sports as a whole. Perhaps a solution to the colossal problem of doping is long overdue, but is that answer to be found within the boundaries of only one country, even a great country like Russia? Should we take a moment here and now to dwell upon the multi-volume history of doping scandals in every single country in the world? And in view of these facts that have come to light, is not WADA itself the cornerstone of the existing and far-reaching system to support and cover up athletic doping all over the world?

    In conclusion, we cite below the complete translation of the Russian Olympic Committee'sstatement in response to the WADA report:

    "The accusations against Russian sports found in the report by Richard McLaren are so serious that a full investigation is needed, with input from all parties. The Russian Olympic Committee has a policy of zero tolerance and supports the fight against doping. It is ready to provide its full assistance and work together, as needed, with any international organization.

    We wholeheartedly disagree with Mr. McLaren's view that the possible banning of hundreds of clean Russian athletes from competition in the Olympic Games is an acceptable 'unpleasant consequence' of the charges contained in his report.

    The charges being made are primarily based on statements by Grigory Rodchenkov. This is solely based on testimony from someone who is at the epicenter of this criminal scheme, which is a blow not only to the careers and fates of a great many clean athletes, but also to the integrity of the entire international Olympic movement.

    Russia has fought against doping and will continue to fight at the state level, steadily stiffening the penalties for any illegal activity of this type and enforcing a precept of inevitable punishment.

    The Russian Olympic Committee fully supports the harshest possible penalties against anyone who either uses banned drugs or encourages their use.

    At the same time, the ROC – acting in full compliance with the Olympic Charter – will always protect the rights of clean athletes. Those who throughout their careers – thanks to relentless training, talent, and willpower – strive to realize their Olympic dreams should not have their futures determined by the unfounded, unsubstantiated accusations and criminal acts of certain individuals. For us this is a matter of principle."

    orientalreview.org

    [Aug 08, 2016] America's Dangerous Game of Intrigue Inside International Organizations

    Notable quotes:
    "... From the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) to the Southern Common Market (Mercosur) and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), Washington has been playing a dangerous game of intrigue and deception with regard to steering these organizations in a pro-American direction. The Obama administration has decided that the halls, offices, and conference rooms of international organizations are acceptable battlefields to wage propaganda and sanctions wars. ..."
    www.strategic-culture.org

    From the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) to the Southern Common Market (Mercosur) and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), Washington has been playing a dangerous game of intrigue and deception with regard to steering these organizations in a pro-American direction. The Obama administration has decided that the halls, offices, and conference rooms of international organizations are acceptable battlefields to wage propaganda and sanctions wars.

    The first American target of note was the international football association, FIFA. Not content with trying to sully the reputation of the 2014 Sochi Winter Olympics with issues of gay rights and doping of athletes, the US disinformation boiler rooms began a full-scale attack on FIFA. The major reason is Russia's hosting of the 2018 FIFA World Cup. The US Justice Department, in a major move toward the internationalization of domestic US law, began unsealing indictment after indictment of FIFA officials for financial crimes. The actual target of these indictments was Russia.

    ... ... ...

    Resisting pressure from Washington, IOC president Thomas Bach wisely decided to avoid a blanket ban of Russian athletes. Bach called such a unilateral ban on Russia participating in the Rio games as a "nuclear option". He also said that such a "nuclear option" would have resulted in "collateral damage" among innocent athletes. Bach's use of two geopolitical military terms was no mistake and it bore the mark of someone responding to familiar American "shock and awe" pressure. The United States used its compliant stooges, Germany and Canada, as well as the dubious World Anti-Doping Agency, run by a Scottish lawyer, to call for a total ban on Russian athletes in Rio.

    ... ... ...

    [Aug 08, 2016] The World According to Vladimir Putin

    The neoliberal empire requires wars for resources and ruthless psychopaths at top position to impose the will on transactionals on other nations.
    Paul Craig Roberts: Washington has raised the cost of being a member of its Empire too high. Vassals such as France and Germany are beginning to exercise independent policies toward Russia. Observing the cracks in its Empire, Washington has decided to bind its vassals to Washington with terror. Most likely what we are witnessing in the French and German attacks is Operation Gladio. Washington's policy toward Russia, which has been imposed by Washington on all of Europe, benefits no one but the handful of American ideologues known as neoconservatives. Neoconservatives are crazed psychopaths willing to destroy Earth in behalf of American hegemony.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Hilarious part is, it was West that fomented nationalism in the USSR in order to break it up, and it included Russian Republic - Yeltsin suppressed Commies with a cry "Russia for the Russians", Communists failed to gain support, and USSR collapsed. West at the time applauded this, and Russian nationalism was treated as good as Polish nationalism and Latvian nationalism etc. ..."
    "... However, whereas Poland, Latvia etc were happy to become Western vassal states (and there's nothing wrong with that, those countries are too small to amount to anything geopolitically by themselves), Russian nationalism took Russia on a bit of a collision course with the West. Now West lost control of the process, and is blaming Russia for it. How predictable. ..."
    "... On another note, Putin is on some level the Angry Older White Guy who progressives have thought were killed off in the 70s in our cultural sphere, and that's why they vehemently loathe him in a way they don't the Soviet Union. It's also why some of the hardest hawks on the Soviet Union are some of the most friendly people in the USA to Putin. We are again in a Cold War, but this time, our government is the revolutionary one pushing for changing society around the globe. ..."
    "... Russian liberals while more competent on international trade and economics will sell the country for an iPhone. You need somebody who can continue to develop market economy yet at the same time pursue Russian interests on international stage and not be a doormat. ..."
    "... US has OK relationship with current Atlanticist European elite, and even that is rocky at times (see NSA spying on Merkel). European right populist forces are not happy about this arrangement, and they are steadily gaining ground. Ask Marine Le Pen what she thinks about NATO and US some time. ..."
    "... Russian population has stabilized a few years ago, and life expectancy has been increasing a lot under Putin. Excluding currency game that are mostly political, Russian economy on PPP basis is about the same as Germany. ..."
    Dec 30, 2015 | The Atlantic

    ...Partly through interviews with the Russian president himself, it also offers a window on Putin's own realpolitik perspective, one that I've found to be widely shared throughout Russia over many years of living in the country-a worldview according to which international relations consist of competing blocs of nations pursuing their interests, and the violation of sovereignty is a recipe for instability. This stands in contrast to Obama's own position, which he stated at the UN two years ago, that "sovereignty cannot be a shield for tyrants to commit wanton murder, or an excuse for the international community to turn a blind eye to slaughter."

    "I believe," Putin tells Solovyov, "that no one should ever impose any sort of values he considers correct on anyone. We have our own values, our own conceptions of justice." Putin doesn't name names here, but the implication is clear throughout: World Order endeavors to incriminate American foreign policy and place the blame for the current chaos in the Middle East on the United States.

    ... some of its criticisms of wrongheaded U.S. policies and blundering interventions in the Middle East since September 11, 2001, would give American liberals, centrists, and even a few conservatives little cause for dispute. Yet the documentary goes further, leaving the strong impression that greedy, bungling, incorrigibly myopic conspirators "from across the ocean" (a phrase Putin uses repeatedly in the film to describe the U.S. leadership) bent on world domination are to blame; Russia comes off as unjustly demonized and Russians themselves forced to suffer economically as a result.

    ... the root of all international evils is the American penchant for democracy-spreading, both subtle (via U.S. support for "color revolutions" in the post-Soviet sphere) and overt (as in overthrowing Saddam Hussein). Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov declares that the Arab Spring was fomented from abroad, disregarding the Middle Eastern region's widespread popular discontent with official corruption, political stasis, and lack of job opportunities. The United States intervenes despite bitter experience within living memory; the American director Oliver Stone appears onscreen to tell viewers that "America didn't learn the lesson of Vietnam, which is you shouldn't go around invading other countries."

    But Putin denies chiding Obama directly at the UN for the consequences of the Arab Spring. "I wasn't saying this [to President Obama]" Putin tells Solovyov, but to the constellation of leaders, both American and European, who have been meddling in Muslim lands since 2001. "I have always been telling [these leaders] that they have to act carefully. It's wrong to impose one's scheme ... of ideas concerning good and evil, or in this case, good and democracy," on countries "with differing cultures, a different religion, with other traditions. But frankly, no one listens, because they apparently consider themselves infallible and great." No one, he adds, holds those leaders accountable, whatever the outcome. When an "operation" produces the wrong results, Putin says, the (again, unnamed) leaders in question just say, "Oh well. Next!" After all, "They're great and sitting across the ocean, the dollar is the world's currency, they have the biggest economy in the world."

    The "operations" to which Putin refers include, of course, the 2003 Iraq war, which Russia, France, and Germany opposed. Then-French President Jacques Chiraq, Putin claims, even foresaw that terrorist attacks in Europe, resembling those that occurred in Paris this year, could grow out of the anarchy that would result from Saddam's overthrow. Another is the imposition of a no-fly zone over Libya in 2011 (to prevent the regime from using its air force to stage a massacre-a fact that goes unmentioned). The film replays video of then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's remark, delivered with a callous laugh, about Libyan strongman Muammar Qaddafi's subsequent death-"We came, we saw, he died!"-followed by footage of the tyrant's brutal murder, which drives home the real-life consequences of the intervention and its bloody aftermath. (Eerily, the film also shows Qaddafi addressing Arab leaders at a 2011 Arab League summit, and asking, after Saddam Hussein's execution, "Who among you is next?").

    The Wikileaks founder Julian Assange also makes an appearance, citing cables revealing U.S. efforts to undermine the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad-though American officials continue to maintain that Assad must go eventually, the cables in question most likely concern Wikileaks revelations made in 2006. The film shows Syrians lamenting the chaos the presumably American-backed terrorists have unleashed.

    But the message of World Order, as the title implies, extends geographically wider and historically further back than America's post-September 11 policies in the Middle East. As the film, and presumably Putin, have it, the real problem today is not the rise of ISIS but the breakdown in relations between Russia and the West. A key cause of this conflict has been the eastward expansion of NATO since the Berlin Wall fell in 1989, which has brought with it the stationing of troops on Russia's border with the Baltics, plans to one day admit Ukraine (and Georgia), and, as an eventual result, Russia's intervention in Ukraine.

    "Why did [the West] support the coup?" Putin asks...

    Few would dispute Putin's damning description of Ukraine's post-Maidan straits: "The standard of living has fallen catastrophically. ... What have they gotten in return? Possibly [Ukrainians] will be allowed to travel to Europe without a visa. And possibly not."

    But Putin emphasizes that he does not blame Europeans for the policies of the United States, since, in his view, they are nothing more than "vassals" taking orders "from across the ocean," at least as far as foreign policy goes. He surely understands the relationship to be more complicated than that, but such an approach places the blame for the standoff between Russia and the West on America, and lets him make a direct overture to Europe. "We don't expect our European partners to give up their Euro-Atlantic orientation" but they would do well to "unite with Russia" to resolve "economic, political, security, and economic problems. ... We are ready to work with them and aren't about to pout about the sanctions," he says.

    ... ... ...

    The upshot, according to World Order: Putin considers possible a renewed relationship with Europe, but sees no such likelihood with the United States. This is one area where the views from Washington and Moscow aren't so different-and that is bad news.

    Antonov

    >to prevent the regime from using its air force to stage a massacre-a fact that goes unmentioned

    Unmentioned because it was, in fact, bullsh!t. Qaddafi took lots of towns before Benghazi: no massacres. Those breathless claims of thousands dead (UNHRC estimated 15,000 dead by June)? Yeah, also bullsh!t. Estimates for total casualties for the whole war even from the post-war government (which was probably slightly more credible than Baghdad Bob) were under 10,000. As for civilians massacred, when the dust cleared and you could actually make a decent accounting - and, crucially, after everybody had stopped paying attention - know how many you find pre-intervention? Couple hundred tops, and no evidence of deliberate massacres.

    You know where civilians were *actually* massacred? Tawergha. By our proxies. Who were only capable of doing it because of our support. And who targeted Tawergha because it was inhabited by blacks. Somehow Rice and Powers and Clinton and the rest of the imbecilic R2P crowd didn't care about THAT, no more than they cared about Rabaa or Pearl Roundabout.

    But no, only the Russians engage in comically obvious propaganda. Keep telling yourselves that; maybe if you wish hard enough it'll come true.

    nebulafox > chemicalbank

    "Freedom" as heralded by American elites in the 1990s, in the Russian POV, brought economic misery, near starvation, social decay, massive levels of disorder and crime, an incompetent alien overtoned government, and national humiliation. Putin brought an end to all of that. If I were Russian, I'd support him, and I'd imagine that most people here would be doing that rather than being some dissident, whatever they think or say. Tone deaf denial of this strengthens Putin's hand in the propaganda war. Russians have entirely rational reasons for trusting him on the issue.

    You aren't going to convince Russians to give democracy another try-if ever-if what comes to mind is the 1990s or blithely ignore the fact that Russia is a very different-not better or worse, but different-culture from the US and that any system of government must take this into account. And this goes beyond Russia. The CCP is doing their damnedest to make sure that when Chinese people hear American leaders talk about democracy, they think of Iraq or 90s Russia. Our foreign and domestic policies have subverted rather than strengthened the democratic cause there: in the 90s in China, the USA was what people looked to for the future, but now that's not the case.

    agorabum > nebulafox

    Americans think of revolutions, and they think of George Washington. Russians think of revolution, they think of the Red and White terrors of 1918-1922 and the collapse of the economy in the 90s (although that collapse came more from the underlying, decades long failures of the Soviet system in the 70s and 80s). It is natural that they would prefer caution and order over revolution.

    nebulafox > agorabum

    Exactly.

    As another example, Americans think of student protests, they think of the 60s, flower power, liberation, anti-war sentiments, etc. No matter how caricatured or idealized that view can be for certain people, it pretty much dominates our media due to the Boomers, and it is indelibly part of the national fabric.

    Chinese think of that, they also think of the 60s, but that brings the Cultural Revolution to mind. Not exactly peace and love, more in the direction of terror, chaos, and lives being ruined. It elicits a very powerful reaction to this day among older generations of Chinese, and the CCP always makes sure to invoke it when pointing out the need for law and order.

    Edward Olson > nebulafox

    And we Americans are always going on and on about Tiananmen Square, which was a garden party compared to the Cultural Revolution.

    mal > chemicalbank

    What will to power? Russia does have a pretty big prison colony, but it is still only about half that of the US (in per capita terms). In Russia, i can tell you it will be United Russia/Putin who will win the elections, in US, i can tell you it will be Hillary Clinton/Democratic Party with almost the same certainty - they are both establishment candidates.

    I lived in Russia in the 90's, and it wasn't pretty, so your typical Russian doesn't want to go back to that, which is understandable.

    Hilarious part is, it was West that fomented nationalism in the USSR in order to break it up, and it included Russian Republic - Yeltsin suppressed Commies with a cry "Russia for the Russians", Communists failed to gain support, and USSR collapsed. West at the time applauded this, and Russian nationalism was treated as good as Polish nationalism and Latvian nationalism etc.

    However, whereas Poland, Latvia etc were happy to become Western vassal states (and there's nothing wrong with that, those countries are too small to amount to anything geopolitically by themselves), Russian nationalism took Russia on a bit of a collision course with the West. Now West lost control of the process, and is blaming Russia for it. How predictable.

    nebulafox > mal

    Putin's position is secure, it's the levels below him jockeying for power you have to worry about should some disaster ever happen. Remove Putin, and all hell breaks loose. Russia is the last country you want that happening in. He's not Josef Stalin: he has had to court of lot people and hammer out a delicate balance.

    I've said it multiple times that the best chance for a good Russo-US relationship is to stop thinking in terms of friendship and affection. It's not happening now for the same reasons that Nixon and Brezhnev said in 1973-we are both just too big. We will have interests that inevitably collide. We also yet again have ideologies that collide, at least in terms of the Beltway ruling class. (This time around, however, they are alienating swathes of the American people that are a little more important than spoiled college brats.) What we can do is put parameters on conflicts that come up so we don't blow up the world, and cooperate where it is useful. We will probably always be rivals to some extent. Being enemies is unnecessary. And we do have interests that coincide. Or we should. I'd rather that Moscow not be the one in charge of the Middle East, as a hardened American nationalist. But far, far worse is letting Islamism spread

    The brand of Salafi jihadism that faces the West must be exterminated. The danger with Putin is very different from that, however conflicting his ideology is with DC-it's not an existential threat by itself. It is if he thinks the West is so feeble and weak that he ends up doing something that causes a chain reaction beyond everybody's control.

    Herein lies the rub: At a very deep, if unstated subconscious level, Muslims or Chinese acting "uncivilized" (as defined by the "WEIRD" demographic that dominates our media and cultural life) and not obeying Western norms is part of the script and isn't as surprising. Russians are white. They are Europeans of a sort. Yet they act completely differently. That's probably part of it, no matter how futile it is to get anybody to think about it. On another note, Putin is on some level the Angry Older White Guy who progressives have thought were killed off in the 70s in our cultural sphere, and that's why they vehemently loathe him in a way they don't the Soviet Union. It's also why some of the hardest hawks on the Soviet Union are some of the most friendly people in the USA to Putin. We are again in a Cold War, but this time, our government is the revolutionary one pushing for changing society around the globe.

    mal > nebulafox

    It's not too bad - United Russia has Medvedev, Rogozin and Shoigu at least to continue once Putin retires. As far as Beltway goes, as long as nobody directly shoots down Russian jets (Turkey is finding out this the hard way in Syria right now) in a no fly zone, i don't think there anything that can't be resolved diplomatically.

    And yeah, Russia and US will always be rivals to a degree. But it will most often be a friendly competition. This has to do with technological power - Russia is the only power in the planet that is smart and tech advanced enough to hurt US (Europe is smart but US keeps Europe weak), so there will always be parity of sorts between Russians and US, and Beltway doesn't like situations where it can't bomb if it pleases. And Russians are easily seduced but are impossible to bully, this is a problem for anyone trying to look tough at Russian expense.

    nebulafox > mal

    Putin's inner circle is very small and consists exclusively of siloviki-can the delicate dance go on forever? Then again, the dice will roll again: what comes will come.

    No. Russia gets all the news, but China exists as well and has been just as active in their intelligence offensive against the US. And the world is getting more fragmented, not less. I fully expect China by the end of the century, should current political trends go to their logical conclusion, to be more powerful than either the US or Russia. India, Brazil, other regional powers will make the balance even more predictable.

    Bomb... or socially engineer, depending on who is in power. Or both, if you look at the neoconservatives. We haven't had anybody who has understood how the world worked ever since 1992. I occasionally wonder if the fall of the Soviet Union had something to do with that.

    Hah! Let me tell you something-the Eurocrats don't need us to be weak. No, sir! They do that all by their damn selves and affect our elite culturally these days, not the other way around. They won't fight for anything, not even their lives, their nations, and thus will become increasingly easy prey for the Kremlin backed far-right if the situation with the Muslims gets worse. And it will, particularly since Russian intelligence will look to make it worse. Looking at it from that angle, it's no wonder that our bien-pensants love the personalities of Brussels.

    Sanctions are stupid. Russians will just endure as they always have, and will probably find a wry, ironic pleasure in doing so. The thing I've noticed about Russia is that if you want to defeat it, you never, ever go for the direct approach and hit it with a hammer. Everybody who has tried that has failed. But that nation is very vulnerable to internal bleeding, to viruses-the great strength of its size and endless territory is also an Achilles heel. Everybody who has tried that has succeeded. I'm sure Volodya is more aware of this than anybody.

    mal > nebulafox

    "The thing I've noticed about Russia is that if you want to defeat it, you never, ever go for the direct approach and hit it with a hammer. Everybody who has tried that has failed. But that nation is very vulnerable to internal bleeding. Everybody who has tried that has succeeded."

    This is exactly what i mean by 'Russians are easily seduced, but impossible to bully'.

    Putin is super popular for a good reason, but United Russia party is at about 50% approval rating which in parliamentary system is not too bad. So i think after Putin retires, Russia will be in good hands.

    Yeah about sanctions. In 1998, before i came to US, i weighed 140 lbs, and i'm 6" tall. We couldn't buy food. But that's fine, we get over that. When Americans complain about trigger warnings i get confused. Anyway, please sanctions Russians if you think it is best for Western domestic policy - Russians won't notice, and if it will make diplomacy better, great.

    As far as Europe goes, i have no clue what Putin has in mind there, but i personally think strong Europe is in Russia's best interest - not a vassal of US anymore, but a true representative of multipolar world.


    veerkg_23 > mal

    Europe has never been a vassal. Confusing allies and vassals is a very discredited (and Russian) thing.

    mal > veerkg_23

    Lol that's why US has giant military base occupying Germany and NSA spies on Merkel's private phone calls. Some allies.

    Winston Smith > mal

    You sound like you really hate the United States.

    mal > Winston Smith

    I don't. I hate neocons and their idiotic policies. I am and have always been anti-communist, now, and back in USSR, and I consider Putin's United Russia a pretty good alternative to Communist Party. Russian nationalist conservatives are viable for modern time, I think.

    Winston Smith > mal

    I like your adding , " I think." Shows open mindedness!

    mal > Winston Smith

    Well, consider the alternatives - Communism is a dead end, nobody wants to stand in line for toilet paper anymore, and Russian liberals while more competent on international trade and economics will sell the country for an iPhone. You need somebody who can continue to develop market economy yet at the same time pursue Russian interests on international stage and not be a doormat.

    It's a tricky balance.

    Jazzy_C > mal

    Outside of military technology Russia is not as technologically advanced as the U.S., Japan, or even China.

    Name one Russian brand, or manufactured cellphone, laptop, or other consumer electronic device that has been commercially successful?

    mal > Jazzy_C

    "Name one Russian brand, or manufactured cellphone, laptop, or other consumer electronic device that has been commercially successful?"

    yotaphone? Yandex? Mail.ru?

    At any rate, your exclusion of military technology is hilarious - in geopolitics, this is the only tech that matters really. IPhones would not have protected Qadaffi. Russian ballistic missiles would.

    Jazzy_C > mal

    "IPhones would not have protected Qadaffi. Russian ballistic missiles would."

    Saddam's Russian weaponry really helped when the U.S. raided Iraq in 2003.

    mal > Jazzy_C

    You are absolutely right - Russia was weak and worthless still in 2003, with Yelstin's horrible decade just a few years behind, and struggling to contain Chechnya. Russia did protest at the time, and so did most of the rest of the world, including Germany and France, but it was pointless. Protestations mean nothing against hard power, Russia learned its lesson well in 2003, and 2011. With that, North Vietnam did fine with Russian weapons when applied judiciously, and surprisingly, so did Afghanistan - pro-Soviet Afghan government did't collapse well until after USSR's collapse. Russian tech works for a long time.

    Anyway, decade of the 90's must not be repeated in Russia. I think Russians understand it well, and yes, i think Iraqis think so too, with them setting up intel centers with the Russians and such.

    mal > Dr. Preobrazhensky

    In a strategic sense, nothing lasts forever, especially stability. Putin is very popular, but he is also old and is about to retire eventually, so stability is something that needs hard work.

    mal > Winston Smith

    Current balance of power between US and EU is so lopsided, vassals is a charitable definition. I mean US military base in Germany is probably stronger than the entire German military.


    Winston Smith > mal

    I'm sorry but I didn't think we were in an adversarial relationship with Europe. I thought after WWII we were their friends!?!

    mal > Winston Smith

    US has OK relationship with current Atlanticist European elite, and even that is rocky at times (see NSA spying on Merkel). European right populist forces are not happy about this arrangement, and they are steadily gaining ground. Ask Marine Le Pen what she thinks about NATO and US some time.

    Arcite > mal

    Russia now has less than a third of the US population and continues to shrink. They have the lowest life expectancy in EU and an economy smaller than Italy.

    mal > Arcite

    Russian population has stabilized a few years ago, and life expectancy has been increasing a lot under Putin. Excluding currency game that are mostly political, Russian economy on PPP basis is about the same as Germany.

    Your information is outdated and is correct for Yeltsin era, not modern Russia.

    Dr. Preobrazhensky > mal

    "However, whereas Poland, Latvia etc were happy to become Western vassal states

    Not a correct interpretation.

    mal > Dr. Preobrazhensky

    Really? Care to tell me why Poland invaded Iraq in 2003? What pressing national interest did it serve?

    Dr. Preobrazhensky > mal

    They actually hoped to get a share of Iraq's oil, plus wanted military experience, plus expected compensation from the USA in exchange.

    mal > Dr. Preobrazhensky

    There are easier ways to get oil - just sign a deal with Saudi Arabia. Invading countries is a bit drastic. You are on a firmer ground with earning browny points from US. Indeed, Poland invaded Iraq to provide Public Relations support to US. As far as Polish national interest goes though, this decision is highly questionable.


    [Aug 08, 2016] A broader trend in the Western media to offer sensationalistic and misleading coverage that exacerbates poor relations with Russia.

    Notable quotes:
    "... "These three instances are representative of a broader trend in the Western media to offer sensationalistic and misleading coverage that exacerbates poor relations with Russia. The most recent example of the media, including the New York Times and the Washington Post , moving from reporting on events to becoming outright propagandists came during the run-up to the Iraq War. Today, coverage of Russia is starting to resemble the unanimity of opinion that prevailed over a decade ago on Iraq and it is seeping into a variety of outlets." Russia, Trump and Manafort: A Test of the News ..."
    marknesop.wordpress.com
    Evgeny, August 8, 2016 at 12:01 pm
    A surprisingly reasonable article in the Atlantic (or perhaps 'surprisingly' is a wrong adverb considering the article was written by a Moscow-based author):

    The Time Is Ripe for Détente, 2.0.

    Evgeny, August 8, 2016 at 12:19 pm
    By the way, do you perhaps remember that journalist, Rachel Bauman, who has written an acidic response to William Browder a couple months ago? That's what she writes now:

    "These three instances are representative of a broader trend in the Western media to offer sensationalistic and misleading coverage that exacerbates poor relations with Russia. The most recent example of the media, including the New York Times and the Washington Post, moving from reporting on events to becoming outright propagandists came during the run-up to the Iraq War. Today, coverage of Russia is starting to resemble the unanimity of opinion that prevailed over a decade ago on Iraq and it is seeping into a variety of outlets."

    Russia, Trump and Manafort: A Test of the News

    I would say: a good job!

    [Aug 08, 2016] China openly offers Russia an alliance against NATO

    Chairman Xi Jinping is making Russia an offer that Russia can't refuse?
    Notable quotes:
    "... "We are now seeing the aggressive actions on the part of the United States, regarding both Russia and China. I believe that Russia and China could create an alliance toward which NATO will be powerless and which will put an end to the imperialist desires of the West." ..."
    www.fort-russ.com

    jfl | Aug 7, 2016 4:36:20 AM | 45

    "The world is on the verge of radical change. We see how the European Union is gradually collapsing, as is the US economy -- it is all over for the new world order. So, it will never again be as it was before, in 10 years we will have a new world order in which the key will be the union of China and Russia."

    "We are now seeing the aggressive actions on the part of the United States, regarding both Russia and China. I believe that Russia and China could create an alliance toward which NATO will be powerless and which will put an end to the imperialist desires of the West."

    V. Arnold | Aug 7, 2016 5:07:56 AM | 46

    jfl | Aug 7, 2016 4:36:20 AM | 45

    Great link, thanks.
    Given the real world politic, I don't see that Russia has much choice. The lack of pressure by the PRC is an important note; Russia isn't being coerced but rather romanced.
    My fear has been, and remains, the bat shit crazy neo-cons and their inability to let go of the imperialist dream of world hegemon.

    [Aug 08, 2016] Feds: Clinic founder sold performance drugs to athletes

    Fish rots from the head: doping is the most rampant in the USA...
    Notable quotes:
    "... Federal officials said earlier Tuesday that Bosch would agree to plead guilty to a charge of distributing steroids in a conspiracy that stretched from big league club houses to South Florida high schools and youth baseball leagues to sandlots in the Caribbean. ..."
    "... "These defendants were motivated by one thing: money," United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, Wifredo Ferrer, said. "They did this by lining their pockets, by exploiting the pressures of athletes and others to be bigger, to be stronger and to play better." ..."
    "... Bosch told investigators that he provided the illegal substances to at least 18 minors, Ferrer said. ..."
    "... Bosch and his associates distributed the drugs to minors who attended a number of public and private high schools in South Florida. He would charge the teenagers and their parents between $250 and $600 a month, promising that the concoctions -- which included black market steroids -- would improve their game. ..."
    CNN.com
    Tony Bosch, the founder of the now-defunct Biogenesis anti-aging clinic in Miami, is not a licensed doctor, but portrayed himself as one, federal officials said Tuesday.

    Officials said he dispensed performance-enhancing drugs to professional baseball players such as suspended New York Yankees slugger Alex Rodriguez and to impressionable high school athletes in South Florida and teenagers in the Dominican Republic.

    Bosch, 50, surrendered to the Drug Enforcement Administration in Florida on Tuesday. At a court appearance, he pleaded not guilty and a judge set bail at $100,000.

    Federal officials said earlier Tuesday that Bosch would agree to plead guilty to a charge of distributing steroids in a conspiracy that stretched from big league club houses to South Florida high schools and youth baseball leagues to sandlots in the Caribbean.

    One of his attorneys, Susy Ribero-Ayala, said there is a plea agreement in place and Bosch will change his plea later.

    "Mr. Bosch has never had and does not have a DEA registration," said Mark Trouville, special agent in charge of the DEA Miami. "He is not a licensed medical professional. He is not a doctor. He is a drug dealer."

    Also charged in the scandal were Yuri Sucart, a cousin of Rodriguez, and Juan Carlos Nunez, who was named in a scheme to clear All-Star Melky Cabrera after a positive 2012 testosterone test, authorities said.

    Other defendants include Carlos Acevedo, a longtime associate of Bosch's, former University of Miami coach Lazaro "Lazer" Collazo, Jorge Velasquez, and Christopher Engroba.

    Acevedo and three other men, including CarlosLuis Ruiz, a Florida Highway Patrol trooper, also were charged in a separate conspiracy involving the sale of the drug MDMA, or molly.

    Eight of the 10 men charged appeared in court. Acevedo and Engroba also entered not guilty pleas. The other men didn't enter a plea.

    Lengthy investigation

    The drug conspiracy charges against the men stemmed from from a 21-month DEA investigation.

    "These defendants were motivated by one thing: money," United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, Wifredo Ferrer, said. "They did this by lining their pockets, by exploiting the pressures of athletes and others to be bigger, to be stronger and to play better."

    Bosch could face a 10-year prison term in the case.

    Bosch told investigators that he provided the illegal substances to at least 18 minors, Ferrer said.

    Bosch and his associates distributed the drugs to minors who attended a number of public and private high schools in South Florida. He would charge the teenagers and their parents between $250 and $600 a month, promising that the concoctions -- which included black market steroids -- would improve their game.

    A look at performance enhancing drugs in sports

    In addition, investigators said, Bosch and the others operated in the Dominican Republic, where boys as young as 12 were given new baseball equipment and treated with testosterone-loaded syringes in an effort to get them signed with big league teams. Talents scouts working with the children would keep as much as 50 % of their signing bonuses.

    "These defendants provided easy access to dangerous concoctions of steroids and human growth hormones to impressionable high school kids," Ferrer said. "Simply put: Doping children is unacceptable. It is wrong. It is illegal and it is dangerous and Bosch and his reckless recruiters and his black market suppliers ignored the serious health risks posed to their so called patients, all to make a profit."

    Using lollipops

    The drugs were administered in a number of ways, through injections, pills, creams and even lollipops, according to a source with direct knowledge of the investigation.

    Masking agents were used to hide the drugs. "It was so good. The key was being able to fool testers with the league (Major League Baseball), the source said. "The masking agents in the creams would hide the actual drug, and (Bosch) would know the timing involved. He knew if the athlete took the drug right before a game, they'd be tested 12 hours later and the drug would no longer be detectable."

    Earlier this year, Major League Baseball dropped its lawsuit against Bosch and the company the league claims provided performance-enhancing drugs to a number of players, including Rodriguez. The league had agreed to drop the suit if Bosch cooperated in the investigation, according to published reports.

    In a statement Tuesday, Rodriguez's lawyer, Joe Tacopina, said: "This obviously is the beginning of the end of this sordid chapter in baseball."

    Authorities said professional athletes recruited by the clinic paid between $2,000 and $12,000 per month for the drugs.

    The investigation led to the suspension of 14 players for violating the league's drug policy. Besides Rodriguez, suspended players included Milwaukee Brewers outfielder Ryan Braun, the 2011 National League MVP, who served part of his suspension last season.

    Bosch's Biogenesis clinic became part of the story in late January 2013, when the Miami New Times reported that more than a dozen professional baseball players and other athletes had been named in records kept over several years by the clinic.

    Two months later, MLB filed its lawsuit against the clinic in Florida's Miami-Dade County.

    Its 14-page complaint named Biogenesis, its predecessor company and six individuals -- among them program director Bosch, others at the company, someone who worked at a sports agency, a former University of Miami baseball player and a "self-proclaimed chemist" who supplied substances.

    [Aug 07, 2016] Issues of defamation, slander and libel and possible future legal action

    Notable quotes:
    "... any knee jerk withdrawal, boycott, etc., would "prove" Russia is covering up its "misbehaviour" and is a "sore loser". Right now, the Russian athletes in Rio cannot be smeared with the same brush. ..."
    "... I am really hoping that multiple legal actions are launched against WADA and any enablers of its libel ..."
    "... Challenging it in the public political space is doomed to failure since the average sheep does not have enough IQ or desire to evaluate such reports on their merits and simply defers to the "authorities" and their "evidence". ..."
    marknesop.wordpress.com
    kirill, August 6, 2016 at 9:00 am
    Regarding Russia, WADA and the Rio Olympics. The current Russian approach seems optimal. Russian athletes have managed to clear the hurdles set up before them and will participate. That is a major fail for Uncle Scam and his WADA cronies. They were hoping for Russia to knee jerk with indignation. It is something I would have done. But any knee jerk withdrawal, boycott, etc., would "prove" Russia is covering up its "misbehaviour" and is a "sore loser". Right now, the Russian athletes in Rio cannot be smeared with the same brush.

    I am really hoping that multiple legal actions are launched against WADA and any enablers of its libel. This is the right medicine for this scum. They have no legal case and use some two bit propaganda report to smear all Russian athletes. This report will not stand up in court and that is where it should be challenged.

    Challenging it in the public political space is doomed to failure since the average sheep does not have enough IQ or desire to evaluate such reports on their merits and simply defers to the "authorities" and their "evidence".

    Fern , August 6, 2016 at 1:27 pm
    I was watching the Games' opening ceremony from Rio on the BBC and when the Russian team appeared in the parade, we had a quick re-hash of the doping 'scandal'. Then one of the commentators did something surprising – she said, of course, many of these athletes are probably clean and we wish them well. I suspect someone has raised the issues of defamation, slander and libel and possible future legal action and commentators have been warned to take care in what they say.

    Here's another interesting point I learned from last night's BBC coverage – Thomas Bach, newly-labelled as a Putin-stooge for not enforcing a ban on the whole Russian team, was in competition for his post against a Ukrainian. I wonder whether the plan to ruin Russia's Olympics was hatched a while back with the West hoping it would have a Ukrainian in the key job?

    Patient Observer , August 6, 2016 at 1:51 pm
    I had the same initial reaction as you and now agree with your conclusions. Russia has also consistently used a similar "high road" approach in its foreign policy decisions with great results.

    Of course, it takes a savvy (and moral) domestic population to understand the strategy. It would seem that a majority of Western populations would not be able to comprehend, much less support, such actions. They have grown to expect if not demand bellicose, insulting and vindictive actions by their governments over the slightest real or imagined challenge to US hegemony.

    [Aug 07, 2016] Is hillary a female phychopath

    Notable quotes:
    "... It makes me wonder if we ought not to be discussing Clinton in the frame of "The Ego Candidate". It's tempting to characterize Trump for that label, given his boastfulness which does seem to be part of his character. But for all that, Trump comes across to me as mostly law-abiding, and someone who recognizes and observes limits. Clinton neither recognizes or observes anything of the kind, and she is limited only by what she cannot get away with. ..."
    marknesop.wordpress.com
    marknesop , August 5, 2016 at 5:06 pm
    Sayyyyyy…..didn't someone here theorize, right after the news broke that the DNC's emails had been hacked, and Hillary blamed the Russians so people would forget what she and the rest of the coven did to Sanders, that the actual attacker was more likely someone much closer to home?

    Enter the Disgruntled US Intelligence Worker . According to US government whistleblower William Binney, somebody in the NSA released Hillary's and the DNC's emails, infuriated at Teflon Hillary's non-stick escape from any accountability for her hijinks.

    The headline suggests he knows, but the body of the story suggests he is just speculating, though. But it raises a valid point – the NSA probably has all those emails, including the 30,000 she deleted on the grounds that they were 'personal'.

    Cortes , August 5, 2016 at 11:41 pm

    The following piece by Andrew Napolitano speculates on what might have triggered a disgruntled NSA person to leak materials:

    http://www.unz.com/anapolitano/lessons-from-the-deep-state/

    At some point between now and November, is anyone in the media going to put the questions about the likelihood of NSA possession of, and therefore ease of FBI access thereto, the "missing" emails to Director Comey? Or will TPTB just smile grimly and pray no further leaks arrive to shatter the Narnian alternative reality world they inhabit?

    marknesop , August 6, 2016 at 9:16 am

    What an excellent article, quite a bit more authoritative than the one I cited although it helpfully offers the same source, and it shapes some more pieces of the puzzle which now make more sense. The compromising of intelligence personnels' identities was something that, to the best of my knowledge, was never discussed in any stories on her email peccadilloes. Intelligence agencies quite properly despise anyone who casually blows the cover of its operatives. It makes me wonder if we ought not to be discussing Clinton in the frame of "The Ego Candidate". It's tempting to characterize Trump for that label, given his boastfulness which does seem to be part of his character. But for all that, Trump comes across to me as mostly law-abiding, and someone who recognizes and observes limits. Clinton neither recognizes or observes anything of the kind, and she is limited only by what she cannot get away with.

    Thanks for posting that revealing corroborative piece.

    [Aug 07, 2016] Wapo neocon coulumnit Appelbaum goes after Trump

    From a pro-Russian blog... Applebaum is essentially a tool...
    Notable quotes:
    "... While Applebaum does not think that Trump has a direct relationship to Putin, the American Presidential Candidate has been using lines from Russian propaganda, which suggests that he is probably getting the information from his staff; ..."
    "... I couldn't watch it; as soon as I saw Applebaum's horsey face come up on the screen I felt queasy and had to turn it off. I did stay long enough to hear her characterize Manafort's work for Viktor Yanukovych as perhaps the defining moment in his career, working for Ukrainian oligarchs. ..."
    "... Apfelbaum's hatred of Trump, and that of Atlanticists, stems from the fact that Trump does not share the Atlanticists' aggressive foreign policy agenda. The founding tenet and pillar of Atlanticism – is implacable hostility to Russia. Trump deviates from that, hence the reason why Trump is so loathed and viewed as a heretic by Atlanticists. ..."
    "... Well, she wrote a book about the gulags which received 'critical acclaim'. She is married to Radislaw Sikorski, onetime Polish Foreign Minister and who was once under consideration for NATO Secretary-General, and who is now a member of Petro Poroshenko's 'Foreign Advisory Council'. She hates Russia as if she were a native Pole. And that's…about it. She loved Georgie Bush enough to bear his children if he had asked, and in general she is a big fan of America kicking sand in everybody's face all around the world and making them eat dirt with its big, powerful military. As I said, she is a diehard conservative – but these are strange times, and the Republican candidate has refused to say how much he loves Israel and hates Russia, while there is by far a better chance that America will return to its ass-kicking ways under Hillary Clinton, so that's the way Annie is leaning this time around. ..."
    "... Not to mention the numerous sources of information on how Israel influences US foreign policy and how often Satanyahu flies to Washington to lecture O'Bomber on what he's supposed to do. ..."
    marknesop.wordpress.com
    Warren , August 3, 2016 at 4:31 pm
    Published on 2 Aug 2016
    What You Need To Know:

    "Trump is surrounded by people close to Russia in a way that is very unusual not only in American politics but in American business as well;"

    While Applebaum does not think that Trump has a direct relationship to Putin, the American Presidential Candidate has been using lines from Russian propaganda, which suggests that he is probably getting the information from his staff;

    Applebaum says that it is rare for another country to influence U.S. politics, and Trump's campaign was only interested in the Ukraine platform and not much else;

    DNC hack: "the use of illicitly stolen information to affect and shape politics is something that the Kremlin has been working on for a decade."

    "He is surrounded by people close to Russia in a way that is very unusual not only in American politics but in American business as well," says Anne Applebaum, an award-winning author and Washington Post columnist, when speaking about Donald Trump and his entourage. Paul Manafort and Carter Page , two individuals who manage and advise Trump, both have ties to Russia.

    While Applebaum does not think that Trump has a direct relationship to Putin, the American Presidential Candidate has been using lines from Russian propaganda, which suggests that he is probably getting the information from his staff.

    "He seems to have a special interest in Russia and Ukraine. I'm guessing because of who's around him." Applebaum says that it is rare for another country to influence U.S. politics, and Trump's campaign was only interested in the Ukraine platform and not much else.

    Applebaum also touches upon the recent DNC hacks and says that all fingers point at Russia: "the use of illicitly stolen information to affect and shape politics is something that the Kremlin has been working on for a decade."

    Hromadske's Nataliya Gumenyuk spoke to Anne Applebaum, award-winning author and Washington Post columnist via Skype on July 31st, 2016.

    marknesop , August 3, 2016 at 5:07 pm
    I couldn't watch it; as soon as I saw Applebaum's horsey face come up on the screen I felt queasy and had to turn it off. I did stay long enough to hear her characterize Manafort's work for Viktor Yanukovych as perhaps the defining moment in his career, working for Ukrainian oligarchs.

    Somebody better let Tony "shirtfront" Abbott know that he might be establishing the defining moment in his career. Because that's what he's doing; working for Ukrainian oligarchs. And Applebaum did not seem to intend it as a compliment. Mustn't forget Tony "War Criminal" Blair, or Anders "Fogh of War" Fogh Rasmussen.

    The Democrats and their supporters – and we should remember there was a time when Annie Applebaum would not cross the street to spit on Hillary Clinton if she burst into flames, because Annie is as Republican as they come – have to keep up the noise about Putin hacking the DNC so that voters do not ask, "Yeah, but is the information that was released true? And why do political figures have a right to hide that stuff from us? Don't they work for us?"

    Warren , August 3, 2016 at 5:44 pm
    Apfelbaum is far more restrained in this interview, than she is on her twitter feed and her Washington Post column. Where she repeatedly insinuates that Trump is a Russian agent, plant, spy or a "Siberian candidate".

    Tony "the Geordie" Abbott, Tony "JP Morgan" Blair and Anders Fogh "cartoons" Rasmussen are all good and noble Atlanticist, therefore one cannot equate them with Paul Manafort – a professional influence peddler. This how Apfelbaum would rationalise the difference and draw a distinction.

    Whether Apfelbaum is a Republican or Democrat, I don't know. She has worked outside the US most of her career and adult life, her interests are foreign affairs. And when it comes to foreign policy, the two US parties pursue exactly the same policies and objectives – that of expanding US power and maintaining US ascendency.

    Apfelbaum's hatred of Trump, and that of Atlanticists, stems from the fact that Trump does not share the Atlanticists' aggressive foreign policy agenda. The founding tenet and pillar of Atlanticism – is implacable hostility to Russia. Trump deviates from that, hence the reason why Trump is so loathed and viewed as a heretic by Atlanticists.

    Trump's opinions and statements on Russia, Ukraine, Crimea and NATO has made Atlanticists apoplectic – as any US-Russia detente or rapprochement would ruin the careers of countless Atlanticist DC policy wonks, hacks, academics, and propagandists.

    Northern Star , August 3, 2016 at 5:43 pm
    So *exactly* what are the credentials of this Jewess insofar as Russia is concerned..
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Applebaum
    marknesop , August 3, 2016 at 7:37 pm
    Well, she wrote a book about the gulags which received 'critical acclaim'. She is married to Radislaw Sikorski, onetime Polish Foreign Minister and who was once under consideration for NATO Secretary-General, and who is now a member of Petro Poroshenko's 'Foreign Advisory Council'. She hates Russia as if she were a native Pole. And that's…about it. She loved Georgie Bush enough to bear his children if he had asked, and in general she is a big fan of America kicking sand in everybody's face all around the world and making them eat dirt with its big, powerful military. As I said, she is a diehard conservative – but these are strange times, and the Republican candidate has refused to say how much he loves Israel and hates Russia, while there is by far a better chance that America will return to its ass-kicking ways under Hillary Clinton, so that's the way Annie is leaning this time around.
    yalensis , August 4, 2016 at 3:53 am
    She graduated from Yale, 'nuff said!
    yalensis , August 4, 2016 at 3:54 am
    P.S. – her wiki says she is a "Reformed Jew".
    That's code for atheist.
    Jen , August 4, 2016 at 5:18 am
    Reformed Judaism = women rabbis, gender equality, women and girls allowed to read Torah, bat mitzvah celebrations, secular and social justice warrior values, being able to eat food prepared by non-Jews

    Jen , August 3, 2016 at 5:53 pm

    " … Applebaum says that it is rare for another country to influence U.S. politics, and Trump's campaign was only interested in the Ukraine platform and not much else …"

    I guess Annie Apples doesn't read DailyCaller.com much, does she?

    http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/11/exclusive-persian-gulf-sheikhs-gave-bill-hillary-100-million/

    Not to mention the numerous sources of information on how Israel influences US foreign policy and how often Satanyahu flies to Washington to lecture O'Bomber on what he's supposed to do.

    yalensis , August 4, 2016 at 3:55 am
    Hey, every candidate is allowed to have their pet country!

    [Aug 07, 2016] Neocon from Foreign Policy magazine are still dreaming about dismembering and colonizing Russi

    Notable quotes:
    "... No kidding; Kiev's ability to interrupt gas flows to Europe – which the west previously would not even discuss, since it was obviously Russia using energy as a weapon – is presented as just kittenish playfulness, and such an interruption is not a big problem because it's so amusing to watch the clever Ukrainians tweak Moscow's nose. All in good fun, of course, and transit fees are a right. There's just nothing about going around Ukraine to prevent that from happening which could be described as good fun, or tweaking Kiev's nose. Because the Ukrainians are cute, and the Russians are savages. ..."

    ucgsblog, August 5, 2016 at 1:08 pm

    Waaa! Waaa! Waaa! http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/08/05/poland-takes-aim-at-putins-pipe-dreams/

    "This summer hasn't seen a lot of setbacks for Russia, not even for its Olympic hopefuls. Crimea has been annexed and fully absorbed, with the blessing of Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump, who also calls NATO "obsolete." Russian intelligence services have allegedly been pawing through the emails of U.S. political parties, and releasing them at their leisure. Turkey, in the wake of a failed coup attempt, is rushing to mend fences with Moscow."

    Couple of things, my unfellow whiner. First, Crimea has been annexed and absorbed prior to Trump's statement. Ergo it could not have happened with his blessing, since his blessing could only come after the events took place, but what's temporal physics to a "journalist" from FP? Second, at this point I think it's safe to conclude that every intelligence service of any powerful countries studied those e-mails, no need for allegedly. And we don't know if it's the Russians that are releasing them. Third, Turkey rushed to mend ties with Moscow before the coup, not after, but then again, what's temporal physics to a "journalist" from FP? This article promises to deliver mirth, let's read on!

    "All of which makes last month's decision by the Polish antitrust regulator to file a formal objection against Russia's proposed "Nord Stream 2" gas pipeline more noteworthy. That regulatory spanner could be Europe's last and best chance to halt construction of a pipeline that critics say will divide Europe, beggar Ukraine, and reinforce Moscow's energy dominance for another generation."

    That's a big deal? Poland's opposition to Nord Stream 2 has been well document throughout the ages. Ukraine is already beggared, but let's all blame that on Russia. Moscow's energy dominance comes from the EU being a voracious money swallowing pit, and not enough solar/wind/nuclear powerplants being built, due to, wait for it… lack of funding! Those funds are in places like Syria and Iraq. Oh, and won't the lack of construction divide Europe? Cause I doubt that Russia's going to prop up Ukraine, so if Southern Europe has no gas and Northern Europe has some, won't that be divisive?

    "For years, Russia has sought to keep Europe dependent on its exports of energy, especially through natural gas pipelines. But Moscow is also desperate to cut out potentially meddlesome middlemen, like Ukraine, which sits smack between Russia's natural gas fields and millions of European consumers. That gives Kiev the ability to interrupt Russian gas flows headed to Europe, infuriating Moscow, but also earns Ukraine billions of dollars in much-needed transit fees."

    Oh really? So Kaliningrad's border with EU member states are somehow attached to Ukraine? Intriguing, very intriguing, did someone skip his geography class?

    "A decade ago, Russia enlisted former German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder to help it build a pipe across the Baltic from Russia to Germany, sidestepping Ukraine: Nord Stream. Then Russia tried to build another pipeline, "South Stream," across the Black Sea from Russia to Bulgaria, also bypassing Ukraine, but that was quashed by the European Union in 2014. Then, Moscow invented the idea of a "Turkish Stream," another proposed Black Sea pipe, one landing in Turkey, outside of Brussels's reach. But last fall, Turkish F-16s shot down a Russian jet, and with it hopes of any immediate Russo-Turkish energy cooperation."

    Really? Because in the beginning, the article claimed that "Turkey…is rushing to mend fences with Moscow." So they're rushing to cooperate, ergo there won't be cooperation? Stellar "journalism" absolutely stellar.

    *drops mic*

    Jen, August 5, 2016 at 2:34 pm
    '… But the Polish Office of Competition and Consumer Protection last month determined that Nord Stream 2 - which wouldn't even touch Polish territory - could harm consumers. "The Office found that the concentration might lead to restriction of competition," it tentatively concluded, adding that the project could "further strengthen" Gazprom's "dominant position." …'

    Looks as if the Poles and the FP writer have a strange idea of what free market competition is. Their idea seems to be that the more middlemen there are, taking their cut, oops, share of the transit fees, and passing the costs down the pipeline, the more competition there is. Plus the journalist fails to see what's wrong with Ukraine interrupting the flow of gas from Russia to the EU to get transit fee income, unless of course he thinks extortion is a legitimate way of doing business.

    Patient Observer, August 6, 2016 at 11:11 am So many succulent quotes but my favorite is:

    That gives Kiev the ability to interrupt Russian gas flows headed to Europe, infuriating Moscow, but also earns Ukraine billions of dollars in much-needed transit fees.

    So, when Ukraine interrupts gas flow to Europe to "infuriate" Moscow, Europe is not infuriated to contend with a crippling gas shortage? And how long is Russia expected to rely on a transit country that likes to infuriate its customer? Gawd, this guy is stupid.

    marknesop , August 6, 2016 at 1:54 pm
    No kidding; Kiev's ability to interrupt gas flows to Europe – which the west previously would not even discuss, since it was obviously Russia using energy as a weapon – is presented as just kittenish playfulness, and such an interruption is not a big problem because it's so amusing to watch the clever Ukrainians tweak Moscow's nose. All in good fun, of course, and transit fees are a right. There's just nothing about going around Ukraine to prevent that from happening which could be described as good fun, or tweaking Kiev's nose. Because the Ukrainians are cute, and the Russians are savages.

    It looks like Russia is not going to be told that it must continue transiting gas through Ukraine, although Ukraine has been on its best behavior where transit is concerned over the last little while (to show how reliable it can be), and transit through Ukraine has actually increased, a fact they lose no opportunity to point out (as if to say, you need us now more than ever). But Kiev reserves the right to hike the transit fees whenever it needs a little more struttin' money, and while the obstructive talk is on hold for now, the Ukrainians love to shoot their mouths off and have made it clear they will simply take gas intended for Europe if Russia restricts Ukraine's supply (although they have brought their Russia supplies way, way down by buying Russian gas from other European countries, bought with gas money given it by the IMF.

    Russia would very likely agree to continue supplying Ukraine through its own pipeline network, probably even at a quite attractive price – but if Ukraine started any of its special-needs antics, Russia would not have to worry about Europe's supply going through Ukraine's decrepit pipeline system. Ukraine could be cut off without a second thought, as any reasonable supplier would do if it is not getting paid or is otherwise abused by its customer – and as Europe would do in a second if it were the other way round and Russia was spending billions for European gas transited through Ukraine, which the Ukrainians poached at their leisure.

    [Aug 07, 2016] Why does Nord Stream operate at less than 100% capacity?

    Notable quotes:
    "... Expect this issue to take center stage in the coming months, because northwest Europe, with declining production of its own gas, is going to need a reliable solution, and should be getting pretty tired of propping up Ukraine, Romania and Poland the perennial malcontents. At the present time Poland's regulatory commission is holding up Nord Stream II just because it can – but don't expect that to last. The EU is soon going to be faced with the choice of a Russian gas pipeline in whose operation they will at least have input and in whose construction European companies will share some of the lolly – or a Russo-Turkic pipeline in which they have no say at all and the gas delivery point is at the border. ..."
    "... Expect Brussels to accuse Russia of 'dumping' gas on the EU market, regardless of any truth. Russia could still reduce price and make a profit, ergo not 'dumping' in any sense. I would then expect all those new gas reservoirs being built by Germany, Gasprom and others to fill up on cheap Russian gas. ..."
    marknesop.wordpress.com

    marknesop , August 3, 2016 at 11:11 pm

    Why does Nord Stream operate at less than 100% capacity? Because of capacity restrictions imposed by Brussels – just remember that the next time that poxy twat Sefcovic starts blabbering on about why do we need Nord Stream II when the original pipeline only operates at half-capacity? And he will, be sure of it. If Nord Stream could operate at 100% capacity, it would be half the cost of transiting through Ukraine. Just how much charity is Russia expected to offer, especially considering Ukraine imposed a transit rate hike last year for the privilege of using its leaky, whistling, rotting pipeline network?

    Expect this issue to take center stage in the coming months, because northwest Europe, with declining production of its own gas, is going to need a reliable solution, and should be getting pretty tired of propping up Ukraine, Romania and Poland the perennial malcontents. At the present time Poland's regulatory commission is holding up Nord Stream II just because it can – but don't expect that to last. The EU is soon going to be faced with the choice of a Russian gas pipeline in whose operation they will at least have input and in whose construction European companies will share some of the lolly – or a Russo-Turkic pipeline in which they have no say at all and the gas delivery point is at the border.

    And really, the EU's arguments make it look like it was dropped on its head as an infant. If Turkish Stream goes ahead, the story goes, it will increase dependency on Russian gas, but block Caspian supplies. How? Caspian supplies (Azerbaijan) are supposed to come via the Southern Gas Corridor, which the EU keeps saying it is pressing on with but has yet to lay a foot of. Remind you of the talking-shop that Nabucco became? How much money was pissed away on that, and they didn't build any of it. But the argument seems to be that if Turkish Stream is built, the Southern Gas Corridor cannot be. Why not? What's stopping you?

    Price. The EU is scared it cannot do it as cheaply as Russia. And it probably can't. How does that bear on the consumer? Sefcovic already told you – it's not all about price. What price freedom, my friends? Aren't you willing to pay more for your gas so you can say it is Azerbaijani gas instead of Putin's gas? What do you say, European consumer? But it keeps going on about how Turkey and everybody else will get cheap gas, but is still trying to frighten Europeans that if they depend on Russian gas it will go up. Why would it, if it's costing Russia less to ship it?

    Kiev should be getting scared. Because there is an increased chance Brussels will cave on the Nord Stream II issue, considering the factors I've already laid out. Or else Putin will build Turkish Stream, and the EU will have to build its own infrastructure to hook up at the border, and either solution will bypass Ukraine – through which, incidentally, transit was up 21% in the first months of 2016, as the Ukrainians try to showcase what reliable partners they are. But that route fails on price. Wah wah wahhhhhh….sorry, Kiev.

    Jeremn , August 4, 2016 at 1:38 am
    I think EU dithering will force the price of gas up, and then the US will rush to save us with LNG and fracking. But, then, I'm a pessimist.
    marknesop , August 4, 2016 at 6:45 am
    But even if the price of gas did rise due to EU dithering, Russia could still undercut American LNG price. It comes down to how much are you willing to pay to proudly say "No thank you, Mr. Putin"? It's like Sikorski and his Polish LNG terminal, where he said it costs more, but at least it flies the Polish flag, or like how you could probably sleep with the starlet of your dreams…if you were willing to do anything to get her. Prostitute yourself, sell drugs, move to another country, completely change your lifestyle, whatever it took. A lot of things that are attainable in the abstract are simply not worth it. the UK might be able to get by with no gas imports at all – it still has a little, and they could go back to coal and wood-burning fireplaces like on "Upstairs, Downstairs" (my ex loved that program", and theoretically they could do it, with just a little of that famed British pluck and a stiff upper lip. But nobody wants to do it, because the illusion of independence is not worth behaving so stupidly. It has become a game to see who can get their people deeper in self-denial so that their leader can thumb his nose at Putin.
    Jeremn , August 4, 2016 at 7:54 am
    It is a bit like Hinckley Point – the UK can't be reliant on Chinese involvement for security reasons (although the French suffered too when the agreement was frozen). Our elites try to get away with it by keeping the population in a state of fear. But they also reward their own chums with contracts, no matter what the cost.

    So, yes, I do think they'll try to get away with it, whatever the cost (they'll just blame the utility companies).

    marknesop , August 4, 2016 at 8:10 am
    There would be the entry of an opposition political figure, telling the populace as much as it would listen to about how an alternate source which is cheaper is available but our political masters make us pay more in order to score political points with their master and perhaps advance themselves and their positions…if the situation were reversed and Russia were dependent on European gas, and Putin was trying to wean the Russians off of it in favour of a more-expensive but more exclusionary alternative.

    In my opinion, Russia needs to do that more. Sponsor opposition politicians in enemy countries, I mean. It's a go-to western tactic.

    et Al , August 4, 2016 at 9:13 am
    Expect Brussels to accuse Russia of 'dumping' gas on the EU market, regardless of any truth. Russia could still reduce price and make a profit, ergo not 'dumping' in any sense. I would then expect all those new gas reservoirs being built by Germany, Gasprom and others to fill up on cheap Russian gas.

    I have a question though. If gazprom fills up its CEEC/Balkan reservoirs when gas is X price at X time, is that the fixed price of the gas or if the world price drops, it can sell it for less without it technically being 'dumping'? Does anyone know what the mechanism is?

    Fern , August 4, 2016 at 5:07 pm
    Here's those good ole western values again on display here, this time directed at the peons in Europe. You wouldn't know it from our posturing politicians but fuel poverty is a massive problem in Europe affecting between 50 to 125 million people. The health consequences are dire from thousands of excess deaths in winter's maw to increases in chronic lung and respiratory diseases. And would you believe it but the Baltic chihuahuas, ever-reliably yapping at all things Russian, have large numbers of their populations living in fuel poverty. Ever read anything by Edward Lucas on this? No, me neither. So, I couldn't really do justice to how angry the behaviour of these morons makes me….people die before their time every year because they can't afford to properly heat their homes and these geniuses in Brussels paid for by us are totally OK with rocketing fuel prices as long as they can say they poked a finger in Vladimir Putin's eye. Reply

    [Aug 07, 2016] Berine Bro propaganda of Hillary compaign

    Notable quotes:
    "... Anyone not willing to jump to Hillary is a "Bernie Bro"-not willing to vote for anyone but Bernie. Why? Because, Trump. Forget the will of the people, the democratic process, or "voting one's conscience"-Trump trumps all hesitation. We simply cannot afford to give Trump any chance of winning. ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    For months now, the Hillary campaign has vigorously argued that Bernie supporters have to fall in line to support the Democratic National Committee's favorite candidate.

    Anyone not willing to jump to Hillary is a "Bernie Bro"-not willing to vote for anyone but Bernie. Why? Because, Trump. Forget the will of the people, the democratic process, or "voting one's conscience"-Trump trumps all hesitation. We simply cannot afford to give Trump any chance of winning.

    [Aug 07, 2016] The key idea behind MH17 provocation was neutralizing a threat for a determined time frame, taking them down politically and promote more pliable actors

    In this scheme adopted by West "who did it" does not matter, because when the truth eventually surface, the necessary effect was already achieved.
    Notable quotes:
    "... MH17 was just another opportunity to justify sanctions against Russia. Tank the Russian economy, promote a coup. Innit? Except the West and particularly the US are stuck in their own echo chamber. ..."
    "... Anyone even mildly critical of their strategy had seen the way the wind is blowing or has been forced out. Thinktankland has been gutted of critical thought, ironically to the detriment of the US itself. A great example of perfect short term thinking that dominates western thinking and long term thinking based on false premise. ..."
    marknesop.wordpress.com

    Jen , August 6, 2016 at 4:56 am

    Naah, you follow the way forged by the Dutch Safety Board in investigating what brought down MH17: you decide that the Russians are to blame and then you look for and put out the evidence that leads to your chosen decision and ignore all other evidence that leads away from your belief.
    et Al , August 6, 2016 at 7:48 am
    Well that's what the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in the Hague did with Milosevic. The 'surprise' finding in the Karadzic judgment that one of the Stooges posted recently is anything but surprising, but that's not the point. It is neutralizing a 'threat' for a determined time frame to take them out of a political equation and make way for more pliable actors.

    MH17 was just another opportunity to justify sanctions against Russia. Tank the Russian economy, promote a coup. Innit? Except the West and particularly the US are stuck in their own echo chamber.

    Anyone even mildly critical of their strategy had seen the way the wind is blowing or has been forced out. Thinktankland has been gutted of critical thought, ironically to the detriment of the US itself. A great example of perfect short term thinking that dominates western thinking and long term thinking based on false premise.

    [Aug 07, 2016] Does WADA has facts to prove allegations ? If they are lying or cannot furnish any real evidence, the case is in serious trouble

    Professional sport is now almost pure politics and not only athletes destroy their health by taking drugs, the corrupt politicians play their dirty games with impunity. As perforce enhancing drags are not a real menace, singling out Russia as the most egregious abuser based on testimony of the corrupt turncoat (who destroyed the evidence and is under criminal investigation in Russia) looks like a dirty game.
    Notable quotes:
    "... That is a slippery slope in which WADA is putting all its eggs in the Rodchenkov/Stepanov basket. If they are lying or cannot furnish any real evidence, the case is in serious trouble, and it looks like it is only going to heat up after Rio rather than dying down. ..."
    "... If I remember correctly, Dick Pound is not part of WADA any more, or any Olympic organization – he's retired, just (allegedly) 'well-respected' and a former WADA official. He's a co-founder of WADA and a former president, and he had several jobs in both the Canadian and international Olympic committees. but now he's just an international busybody without portfolio, and obviously possessed of the belief that the Russians are what is wrong with clean sport and everything they ever won, they cheated to get. conversely, North America represents everything that's right with clean sport, and has an international obligation to squeeze out those Russian state-sponsored dopers and everyone else who shames their nation. The United States is happy to use him and McLaren because they like to internationalize their Russophobia. ..."
    "... I'm sure there are good reasons for Russia to just bow its head and accept it for now, and probably that's the best thing in the long run, especially if WADA ends up discredited. And hopefully Russia will press it hard once the Olympics is over. But I would be hurt and angry if I were in charge, and I would withdraw from the Olympics, do everything I could to damage it as an institution and it would never see another dime out of me. ..."
    "... I would be exactly the kind of reactionary leader Washington wishes was in charge in Russia. Because the USA would be delighted to see Russia as isolated as it is trying to make it. Here's a very interesting Canadian policy document on the drive for medals in international sport, and how much it means politically. It specifically cites how much Russia spends on sport, and I am sure I'm not speaking out of turn when I say screwing Russia out of medals is a western objective, and one that would not be necessary if they could be easily beaten just by superior athletes. ..."
    "... "International sporting success has many outcomes, which I would argue are beneficial and far reaching. Governments seem to agree with what appears to be a continuing and increasing "arms race" with the hopes of further medals . As but one example on October 11, 2014, Russia announced a new federal funding program worth RUB70 billion ($1.8 billion) to further develop physical education and sports. Understanding how to best invest these funds in any country is difficult, however, as creating world champions is a complicated algorithm. In part, it was this recognition that led to the creation of the Canadian Sport for Life Long-Term Athlete Development (CS4L–LTAD) pathway. ..."
    "... Another way to help answer the question of how to best invest in sport is SPLISS (Sport Policies Leading to International Sporting Success), a theoretical model for understanding (as the name suggests) what policies administrators can influence that will lead to medals in Summer Olympic Games ..."
    "... Forget that 'just do your best; you can do no more' shit. It's about international prestige and winning lots of gold medals gives you a bigger dick to swing around on the world stage. And that's what it's all about. ..."
    "... We've spoken before about the limitations of the human body set against the expectations that new world records will be set at every Olympics. The body can only do so much, and there are thresholds for human performance. These are young people in the prime of health who train every day, and it is not unrealistic to imagine at some point a person is going to lift the greatest weight of which a human is capable of lifting without taking some sort of drug to boost his strength or dull the pain that warns him he is destroying something. ..."
    "... the IOC smackdown is a double kick in the sack. ..."
    "... For all the slurry WADA, the US and its allies have spread in the direction of Russia, two thirds of (now angry) Russian athletes are going to the Olympics. ..."
    "... I'm not for keeping Russian athletes at home. This is about history. It will be another chapter in a series of attempts by the West to pawn Putin that he handles with his usual Judo throw/chess move, at his timing and choice. ..."
    "... I think WADA is going to end up getting its peepee slapped. I certainly hope so, anyway, and I hope Reedie comes through on naming athletes fingered by WADA's 'whistleblowers' because that will leave both the 'whistleblowers' and WADA open to lawsuits. ..."
    "... Let's hope Russia goes after WADA and McClaren once the Games are over – let's see how well his 'evidence' stands up in an actual court rather than the fictious one he seems to have created in his mind. ..."
    "... He looks to be sweating in the picture. I'd say he should get used to that. He just admitted to convicting an entire country on secret evidence that he has shared with nobody else. ..."
    "... Did he actually go to Russia to obtain the samples he alludes to having? If not, I hope he has a chain of custody for them, because they could have come from anywhere and he probably got every bit of it from Rodchenkov. ..."
    marknesop, August 3, 2016 at 10:01 pm
    I wonder if there is an implied threat here; "Russian sports chief says McLaren's doping report to be thoroughly studied after 2016 Rio"

    Moscow knows very well that McLaren has no real evidence, and is pinning everything on Rodchenkov's and the Stepanovs' testimony – he has said as much. Will their wild tales hold up? We'll see. But the public rift between the IOC and WADA, and increasing talk about reform at the latter does not spell confidence in WADA's allegations to me. It would be pretty sweet if their whole case fell through and Russia took WADA to court. They've been strutting around throwing bans and cutting a wide swath as Washington uses them as yet one more of its political tools, but just maybe they have overstepped this time.

    I notice WADA was not able to reward its star nightingale , Yulia Stepanova, with an Olympic slot. The IOC put paid to that proposition, as their quarrel gets more public.

    Speaking of WADA, Russia appears to have goaded its president, Craig Reedie, into announcing that WADA was ready to reveal the names of the Russian athletes who allegedly took performance-enhancing drugs during the Sochi Olympics. That is a slippery slope in which WADA is putting all its eggs in the Rodchenkov/Stepanov basket. If they are lying or cannot furnish any real evidence, the case is in serious trouble, and it looks like it is only going to heat up after Rio rather than dying down.

    et Al, August 4, 2016 at 9:03 am
    I think the legal route will be pretty well inevitable unless WADA rows back. It doesn't actually have to go to court, as you have pointed out their rather whimiscal 'evidence', that I highly doubt would pass the legal smell test to even get beyond a hearing. I would expect that WADA & the IOC may simply be happy to drop the ban with little or no fanfare and 'no comment', after Rio if possible.

    Those re-tested samples would need to be tested even again…

    I suppose the question is what happens to those officials in WADA who backed & demanded the ban. I don't see how anyone could have further confidence in WADA if they remain in place. They may pretend not to be responsible or take any blame but I don't see how they could stay (apart from their government's insistence) without all credibility being lost.

    marknesop , August 4, 2016 at 12:33 pm
    If I remember correctly, Dick Pound is not part of WADA any more, or any Olympic organization – he's retired, just (allegedly) 'well-respected' and a former WADA official. He's a co-founder of WADA and a former president, and he had several jobs in both the Canadian and international Olympic committees. but now he's just an international busybody without portfolio, and obviously possessed of the belief that the Russians are what is wrong with clean sport and everything they ever won, they cheated to get. conversely, North America represents everything that's right with clean sport, and has an international obligation to squeeze out those Russian state-sponsored dopers and everyone else who shames their nation. The United States is happy to use him and McLaren because they like to internationalize their Russophobia.

    I'm sure there are good reasons for Russia to just bow its head and accept it for now, and probably that's the best thing in the long run, especially if WADA ends up discredited. And hopefully Russia will press it hard once the Olympics is over. But I would be hurt and angry if I were in charge, and I would withdraw from the Olympics, do everything I could to damage it as an institution and it would never see another dime out of me.

    I would be exactly the kind of reactionary leader Washington wishes was in charge in Russia. Because the USA would be delighted to see Russia as isolated as it is trying to make it. Here's a very interesting Canadian policy document on the drive for medals in international sport, and how much it means politically. It specifically cites how much Russia spends on sport, and I am sure I'm not speaking out of turn when I say screwing Russia out of medals is a western objective, and one that would not be necessary if they could be easily beaten just by superior athletes.

    Here's a teaser:

    "International sporting success has many outcomes, which I would argue are beneficial and far reaching. Governments seem to agree with what appears to be a continuing and increasing "arms race" with the hopes of further medals . As but one example on October 11, 2014, Russia announced a new federal funding program worth RUB70 billion ($1.8 billion) to further develop physical education and sports. Understanding how to best invest these funds in any country is difficult, however, as creating world champions is a complicated algorithm. In part, it was this recognition that led to the creation of the Canadian Sport for Life Long-Term Athlete Development (CS4L–LTAD) pathway.

    Another way to help answer the question of how to best invest in sport is SPLISS (Sport Policies Leading to International Sporting Success), a theoretical model for understanding (as the name suggests) what policies administrators can influence that will lead to medals in Summer Olympic Games . This model has evolved following rigorous study that began in the early 2000s. At that time, researchers from Belgium, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom recognized that other models were too anecdotal or descriptive in their attempts to understand how to better invest for medal success ."

    Forget that 'just do your best; you can do no more' shit. It's about international prestige and winning lots of gold medals gives you a bigger dick to swing around on the world stage. And that's what it's all about.

    We've spoken before about the limitations of the human body set against the expectations that new world records will be set at every Olympics. The body can only do so much, and there are thresholds for human performance. These are young people in the prime of health who train every day, and it is not unrealistic to imagine at some point a person is going to lift the greatest weight of which a human is capable of lifting without taking some sort of drug to boost his strength or dull the pain that warns him he is destroying something. At the next Olympics, somebody will still win a gold medal in that event, but they will not be able to break the record, and that will be disappointing because it will force everyone to acknowledge that humans have limits.

    Interestingly, Craig Reedie is not only President of WADA, but Vice-President of the IOC. He is British, unsurprisingly – he had to be either that or an American because nobody hates the Russians like the British and the Americans do. So the IOC smackdown is a double kick in the sack. I guess we know who the "1" was in the 84-1 vote, or whatever it was.

    et Al , August 4, 2016 at 1:51 pm
    I think you've just failed your job interview with Vladimir Putin! Never mind.

    Let's look at this dispassionately. For all the slurry WADA, the US and its allies have spread in the direction of Russia, two thirds of (now angry) Russian athletes are going to the Olympics. By not winning a ban, they have already lost. It was the best they could do and there was no way for them to square the circle short of declaring that Russia does not exist and thus cannot be present a the Olympics.

    Then there's the longburn that we've all discussed and heavily speculated upon. Who knows how it is going to shake out, but what we do know is that Putler takes his time and likes to serve his revenge cold, and usually indirectly with little fanfare. It may not garner headlines, but it will be an obvious slap in the face with a large fish a la Asterix to Russia's opponents.

    I'm not for keeping Russian athletes at home. This is about history. It will be another chapter in a series of attempts by the West to pawn Putin that he handles with his usual Judo throw/chess move, at his timing and choice. This will be stuff taught to new cadres of diplomats as textbook 'handling dat shit and then some'. No one is perfect and certainly not Putin (disbanding the firewarning/volunteer service for example), but it is a master class of playing whatever cards you've got their best advantage.

    et Al , August 4, 2016 at 2:51 pm

    Wada's that stuck in your throat, Groaning Man?#

    https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/aug/04/thomas-bach-russians-ioc-soul-searching-rio

    …"For me was that after this decision you have to be able to look into the eyes of all the athletes and during my many visits to the village here in Rio I have been looking into eyes of many athletes."

    McLaren has accused the IOC of misrepresenting his findings, with several Russian athletes challenging bans based on their inclusion within the report. But Bach defended the process, which left those Russian athletes who did travel in limbo until the eve of the Olympics.

    "I think this is a very thorough, strict and clear procedure and you will see the results of the individual analyses and on the application of justice in order to ensure a level playing field here at the Olympic Games," he said.

    As he has since the beginning of the saga, he said that while the presumption of innocence had been reversed, "natural justice does not allow us to deprive human beings of the right to prove their innocence".

    Bach pointed to the near unanimous support he received from members at the IOC decision, with only Britain's Adam Pengilly voting against. ..

    marknesop , August 4, 2016 at 10:14 pm
    Still a lot of mouth from the western press against the IOC, and although I think Bach's position is secure, you can bet that an effort to muscle him out and a compliant toady into his position will depend on how further investigations into the McLaren report go after the Olympics are over. For the moment McLaren seems pretty cocky, saying the IOC misrepresented his findings, but he got all of his testimonial evidence from WADA and its president is vice-president of the IOC! What's the chances of that being true, do you think?

    I think WADA is going to end up getting its peepee slapped. I certainly hope so, anyway, and I hope Reedie comes through on naming athletes fingered by WADA's 'whistleblowers' because that will leave both the 'whistleblowers' and WADA open to lawsuits.

    Cortes , August 4, 2016 at 2:54 pm
    https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/aug/04/richard-mclaren-ioc-wada-russia-rio-2016
    Fern , August 4, 2016 at 4:28 pm
    Looks like the wheels are coming off the WADA wagon and McClaren is getting a tad worried hence the somewhat hysterical tone of this:

    "I have the evidence, I have it secured. I have the evidence backed up by forensic analysis of databases, sample bottles, I have laboratory evidence of some of those samples. It's true I haven't revealed," he said.

    "But if you conduct a proper investigation, you don't put the evidence out there to create misinformation. I was at the stage where I could say what I knew beyond reasonable doubt. I wouldn't put anything in the report that I didn't have evidence of and wouldn't meet the criminal standard in any court around the world," he added.

    I don't know what standard of jurisprudence he's used to but it's a mighty odd one. How can he really have established the provenance of any samples his 'whistleblower' presented him with? Other than the word of his informant, what actual evidence has he got of the involvement of the Russian state? Why did McClaren make no effort to discuss his 'evidence' with Russian officials?

    Let's hope Russia goes after WADA and McClaren once the Games are over – let's see how well his 'evidence' stands up in an actual court rather than the fictious one he seems to have created in his mind.

    marknesop , August 4, 2016 at 11:35 pm
    He looks to be sweating in the picture. I'd say he should get used to that. He just admitted to convicting an entire country on secret evidence that he has shared with nobody else.

    yalensis , August 5, 2016 at 4:57 am

    Yeah, but he said that it appeared that way to him beyond reasonable doubt .
    If that's good enough for this one-man judge-jury-executioner, then it should be good enough for the rest of us.
    marknesop , August 5, 2016 at 10:06 am
    He said he had secret evidence that nobody had seen but him, and that the purpose of his report was never to establish individual guilt, but to demonstrate that there was a state-sponsored doping program. He admitted publicly before he commenced his research that he had no such evidence, so he must have obtained it between the time he announced he had none and the time his report was released. Did he actually go to Russia to obtain the samples he alludes to having? If not, I hope he has a chain of custody for them, because they could have come from anywhere and he probably got every bit of it from Rodchenkov.

    He's just saying nobody else has seen it to avoid saying where he got it, and a conviction in which the accused was not permitted to challenge the veracity of the evidence would not stand up anywhere else in the world except for America, where they are just so exceptional that they can do things that any other country would be condemned for doing. And rightly so.

    Chinese American , August 5, 2016 at 7:53 am

    Alexander Mercouris just put out a good summary of some of the new developments:

    http://theduran.com/russian-olympic-doping-scandal-mclaren-report-sexed-implicated-clean-atheletes/

    Apparently, the IOC and WADA are starting to point fingers at each other, and it's starting to get reported in the Western press.

    [Aug 07, 2016] A nice sample of anti-Trump propaganada

    economistsview.typepad.com

    Fred C. Dobbs said...

    The Sore Loser Uprising http://nyti.ms/2an7bR6
    NYT - Timothy Egan - AUG. 5, 2016

    After a week in which Donald Trump insulted babies and their mothers and war heroes and their families, and threw in fire marshals for good measure, the scariest thing to come out of his team of thugs and political mercenaries is this: the suggestion that civil unrest could follow if he's denied the presidency.

    When the Supreme Court handed George W. Bush the White House in 2000 even though he lost the popular vote, Al Gore graciously conceded and faded away. When Mitt Romney lost to Barack Obama four years ago although his internal polls showed a Republican triumph, he congratulated the winner and went off to rediscover his many grandchildren.

    Despite party-machine manipulation and considerable voting of the dead, the American institution that produces a peaceful transfer of power has survived.

    But this year, facing a likely trouncing in November, Trump has signaled that he will try to bring down our democracy with him. His overlooked comment - "I'm afraid the election is going to be rigged" - is the opening move in a scheme to delegitimize the outcome.

    Because Trump is consistently barbaric and such a prolific liar, it's hard to sustain outrage over any one of his serial scandals. But his pre-emptive attack on the electoral process is very troubling.

    To understand what Trump is up to, listen to his doppelgänger, the veteran political operative Roger Stone. He will say things that even Trump will not say, usually as a way to allow Trump to later repeat some variant of them.

    It was Stone who called a CNN commentator a "stupid Negro" and accused the Gold Star parents of Capt. Humayun Khan of being Muslim Brotherhood agents. And it was Stone who threatened to give out the hotel room numbers of unsupportive Republicans at the party convention, the better for the Trumpian mob to find them.

    He tastes the food for the king to make sure it's not poison. If it doesn't kill Roger Stone, it will not kill Donald Trump.

    Picking up on Trump's rigged-election meme, Stone told a right-wing news outlet that the electoral fix was already in: "The government will be shut down if they attempt to steal this and swear Hillary in." The outcome is fair only if Trump wins.

    "If there's voter fraud, this election will be illegitimate, the election of the winner will be illegitimate, we will have a constitutional crisis, widespread civil disobedience," he said.

    It would be laughable if the campaign were simply laying down the grand excuse for the label that will follow the tyrant from Trump Tower after Nov. 8 - loser. But Trump has crossed all barriers of precedent and civility, from waging an openly racist campaign to loose talk about nuclear weapons. He has challenged the independence of the judiciary system, and called for a religious test for entry into this nation. With this latest tactic, he's trying to destabilize the country itself after he's crushed.

    Let's talk about the basis for his sore loser uprising - the gaming of the system. Trump's casinos were rigged, as are all gambling parlors, in favor of the house. Italian soccer is rigged. But there is virtually no evidence of modern American elections being fixed.

    Studying national elections from 2000 to 2014, and looking at 834 million ballots cast, Justin Levitt of Loyola Law School found a total of 31 instances of credible voter fraud. Yes, 31. The Bush administration, after a five-year investigation concluding in 2007, found no evidence of any organized effort to skew federal elections. A federal judge in Wisconsin found that "virtually no voter impersonation occurs."

    Trump's evidence? "I just hear things and I just feel it." Yeah, he hears things. Like Russia not actually taking over Crimea. Like President Obama not being an American citizen. Like the N.F.L. writing him an imaginary letter. "The voter ID situation has turned out to be a very unfair development," he said this week. "We may have people vote 10 times."

    He's right about the unfairness of voter identification, but not in the way he means it. As a slew of recent court rulings have shown, Republican-led efforts to deny the vote to millions of citizens has rigged the system against the poor, the disabled, ethnic minorities. A voter- suppression law in North Carolina targeted blacks "with almost surgical precision," an appeals court ruled.

    Nationwide rigging, though difficult to do in a system with more than 9,000 voting jurisdictions, is more likely to come from Russian efforts at hacking voting machines, given Vladimir Putin's apparent attempt to tip things in favor of his fellow authoritarian, the unstable Donald Trump.

    With his inability to process basic information, Trump has gone down this road before. After the 2012 contest, which Romney lost by nearly five million votes, Trump said: "This election is a total sham and travesty. We are not a democracy." The last statement, judging by the groundwork he's doing for this November, looks more like a self-fulfilling prophecy.

    [Aug 07, 2016] Do Wikileaks Have the Email That'll Put Clinton in Prison to serve as a counterwiling force for Us oligarchs who almost unimously support Clintons

    www.moonofalabama.org

    John Gilberts | Aug 7, 2016 2:11:10 AM | 38

    Re Trump v Hillary

    America's Oligarchs Support Clinton Almost Unanimously

    https://off-guardian.org/2016/08/06/americas-oligarchs-support-clinton-almost-unanimously/

    "Going forward it's like a hundred-to-one advantage, Clinton over Trump...In the current US presidential race, there is no real contest at all in terms of support by the oligarchs - and their support tends to be decisive."

    But then there's this:

    Julian Assange Special: Do Wikileaks Have the Email That'll Put Clinton in Prison?

    https://youtu.be/h2FfrNGcO3g

    [Aug 07, 2016] WikiLeaks Just Revealed Mainstream Media Works Directly With Hillary, DNC

    www.moonofalabama.org

    MadMax2 | Aug 6, 2016 4:50:59 PM | 13

    ...From 23rd July - WikiLeaks Just Revealed Mainstream Media Works Directly With Hillary, DNC
    http://theantimedia.org/wikileaks-media-dnc-hillary/
    One of the most damning findings of the leak is the fact Clinton and the DNC have worked closely with, manipulated, and bullied media outlets.

    No doubt the Anti-Trump sentiment is rampant in the MSM and now even a good deal of alternate media I pick up... but any cursory glance at Hilary vs Trump youtube viewing numbers would give anyone a fair idea of the state of play. Trumps any publicity is good publicity will eventually pay dividends.

    Reuters had a poll out which seems more on the mark than most. And it's the first time I've seen Nate Silver get slammed so hard - rightly so.
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-08-06/peak-hillary-reuters-baffled-clintons-lead-over-trump-suddenly-evaporates

    Reuters poll from Friday:
    http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN10G2BQ

    [Aug 07, 2016] Shaky, US-led, global financial order and governance is horrified by possibility that Trump can win the election

    Notable quotes:
    "... Some powerful figures clearly want any winding down of this 'new' Cold War dead in its tracks. Trump's questioning of the hostilities with Russia, of the purpose of NATO, and of the costs to the US of it being a global hegemon have turned them cold. ..."
    "... Especially, if those who reject it, and who opt to stay out of the globalised order, find that they can so do – and emerge empowered and with their influence enhanced? If the political 'rules-based order' does erode, what then will be the future for the inter-connected, and presently shaky, US-led, global financial order and governance?" ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org
    james | Aug 6, 2016 3:28:53 PM | 4

    quote i liked from alastair cooke

    ""Some powerful figures clearly want any winding down of this 'new' Cold War dead in its tracks. Trump's questioning of the hostilities with Russia, of the purpose of NATO, and of the costs to the US of it being a global hegemon have turned them cold.

    Does he (Trump) not understand, (these 'ancien régime' figures seem to say,) that rapprochement and entente with Putin now, could bring the whole structure tumbling down? It could collapse America's entire foreign policy? Without a clear Russian 'threat' (the 'threat' being now a constant refrain in the US Beltway), what meaning has NATO? – and without NATO, why should Europe stay "on side, and [do] the right thing". And if Damascus, Moscow and Tehran succeed in emerging with political credit and esteem from the Syria conflict, what price then, the US-led "rules-based" global order?

    Especially, if those who reject it, and who opt to stay out of the globalised order, find that they can so do – and emerge empowered and with their influence enhanced? If the political 'rules-based order' does erode, what then will be the future for the inter-connected, and presently shaky, US-led, global financial order and governance?"

    [Aug 07, 2016] Commentary The worlds best cyber army doesn't belong to Russia

    Notable quotes:
    "... The NSA identified Peña's cellphone and those of his associates using advanced software that can filter out specific phones from the swarm around the candidate. These lines were then targeted. The technology, one NSA analyst noted, "might find a needle in a haystack." The analyst described it as "a repeatable and efficient" process. ..."
    "... Another NSA operation, begun in May 2010 and codenamed FLATLIQUID, targeted Pena's predecessor, President Felipe Calderon. The NSA, the documents revealed, was able "to gain first-ever access to President Felipe Calderon's public email account." ..."
    "... At the same time, members of a highly secret joint NSA/CIA organization, called the Special Collection Service, are based in the U.S. embassy in Mexico City and other U.S. embassies around the world. It targets local government communications, as well as foreign embassies nearby. For Mexico, additional eavesdropping, and much of the analysis, is conducted by NSA Texas, a large listening post in San Antonio that focuses on the Caribbean, Central America and South America. ..."
    "... Unlike the Defense Department's Pentagon, the headquarters of the cyberspies fills an entire secret city. Located in Fort Meade, Maryland, halfway between Washington and Baltimore, Maryland, NSA's headquarters consists of scores of heavily guarded buildings. The site even boasts its own police force and post office. ..."
    "... One top-secret operation, code-named TreasureMap, is designed to have a "capability for building a near real-time interactive map of the global Internet. … Any device, anywhere, all the time." Another operation, codenamed Turbine, involves secretly placing "millions of implants" - malware - in computer systems worldwide for either spying or cyberattacks. ..."
    "... Yet there can never be a useful discussion on the topic if the Obama administration continues to point fingers at other countries without admitting that Washington is engaged heavily in cyberspying and cyberwarfare. ..."
    "... The Shadow Factory: The Ultra-Secret NSA From 9/11 to the Eavesdropping on America ..."
    Aug 4, 2016 | Reuters
    National attention is focused on Russian eavesdroppers' possible targeting of U.S. presidential candidates and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Yet, leaked top-secret National Security Agency documents show that the Obama administration has long been involved in major bugging operations against the election campaigns -- and the presidents -- of even its closest allies.

    The United States is, by far, the world's most aggressive nation when it comes to cyberspying and cyberwarfare. The National Security Agency has been eavesdropping on foreign cities, politicians, elections and entire countries since it first turned on its receivers in 1952. Just as other countries, including Russia, attempt to do to the United States. What is new is a country leaking the intercepts back to the public of the target nation through a middleperson.

    There is a strange irony in this. Russia, if it is actually involved in the hacking of the computers of the Democratic National Committee, could be attempting to influence a U.S. election by leaking to the American public the falsehoods of its leaders. This is a tactic Washington used against the Soviet Union and other countries during the Cold War.

    In the 1950s, for example, President Harry S Truman created the Campaign of Truth to reveal to the Russian people the "Big Lies" of their government. Washington had often discovered these lies through eavesdropping and other espionage.

    Today, the United States has morphed from a Cold War, and in some cases a hot war, into a cyberwar, with computer coding replacing bullets and bombs. Yet the American public manages to be "shocked, shocked" that a foreign country would attempt to conduct cyberespionage on the United States.

    NSA operations have, for example, recently delved into elections in Mexico, targeting its last presidential campaign. According to a top-secret PowerPoint presentation leaked by former NSA contract employee Edward Snowden, the operation involved a "surge effort against one of Mexico's leading presidential candidates, Enrique Peña Nieto, and nine of his close associates." Peña won that election and is now Mexico's president.

    The NSA identified Peña's cellphone and those of his associates using advanced software that can filter out specific phones from the swarm around the candidate. These lines were then targeted. The technology, one NSA analyst noted, "might find a needle in a haystack." The analyst described it as "a repeatable and efficient" process.

    The eavesdroppers also succeeded in intercepting 85,489 text messages, a Der Spiegel article noted.

    Another NSA operation, begun in May 2010 and codenamed FLATLIQUID, targeted Pena's predecessor, President Felipe Calderon. The NSA, the documents revealed, was able "to gain first-ever access to President Felipe Calderon's public email account."

    At the same time, members of a highly secret joint NSA/CIA organization, called the Special Collection Service, are based in the U.S. embassy in Mexico City and other U.S. embassies around the world. It targets local government communications, as well as foreign embassies nearby. For Mexico, additional eavesdropping, and much of the analysis, is conducted by NSA Texas, a large listening post in San Antonio that focuses on the Caribbean, Central America and South America.

    Unlike the Defense Department's Pentagon, the headquarters of the cyberspies fills an entire secret city. Located in Fort Meade, Maryland, halfway between Washington and Baltimore, Maryland, NSA's headquarters consists of scores of heavily guarded buildings. The site even boasts its own police force and post office.

    And it is about to grow considerably bigger, now that the NSA cyberspies have merged with the cyberwarriors of U.S. Cyber Command, which controls its own Cyber Army, Cyber Navy, Cyber Air Force and Cyber Marine Corps, all armed with state-of-the-art cyberweapons. In charge of it all is a four-star admiral, Michael S. Rogers.

    Now under construction inside NSA's secret city, Cyber Command's new $3.2- billion headquarters is to include 14 buildings, 11 parking garages and an enormous cyberbrain - a 600,000-square-foot, $896.5-million supercomputer facility that will eat up an enormous amount of power, about 60 megawatts. This is enough electricity to power a city of more than 40,000 homes.

    In 2014, for a cover story in Wired and a PBS documentary, I spent three days in Moscow with Snowden, whose last NSA job was as a contract cyberwarrior. I was also granted rare access to his archive of documents. "Cyber Command itself has always been branded in a sort of misleading way from its very inception," Snowden told me. "It's an attack agency. … It's all about computer-network attack and computer-network exploitation at Cyber Command."

    The idea is to turn the Internet from a worldwide web of information into a global battlefield for war. "The next major conflict will start in cyberspace," says one of the secret NSA documents. One key phrase within Cyber Command documents is "Information Dominance."

    The Cyber Navy, for example, calls itself the Information Dominance Corps. The Cyber Army is providing frontline troops with the option of requesting "cyberfire support" from Cyber Command, in much the same way it requests air and artillery support. And the Cyber Air Force is pledged to "dominate cyberspace" just as "today we dominate air and space."

    Among the tools at their disposal is one called Passionatepolka, designed to "remotely brick network cards." "Bricking" a computer means destroying it – turning it into a brick.

    One such situation took place in war-torn Syria in 2012, according to Snowden, when the NSA attempted to remotely and secretly install an "exploit," or bug, into the computer system of a major Internet provider. This was expected to provide access to email and other Internet traffic across much of Syria. But something went wrong. Instead, the computers were bricked. It took down the Internet across the country for a period of time.

    While Cyber Command executes attacks, the National Security Agency seems more interested in tracking virtually everyone connected to the Internet, according to the documents.

    One top-secret operation, code-named TreasureMap, is designed to have a "capability for building a near real-time interactive map of the global Internet. … Any device, anywhere, all the time." Another operation, codenamed Turbine, involves secretly placing "millions of implants" - malware - in computer systems worldwide for either spying or cyberattacks.

    Yet, even as the U.S. government continues building robust eavesdropping and attack systems, it looks like there has been far less focus on security at home. One benefit of the cyber-theft of the Democratic National Committee emails might be that it helps open a public dialogue about the dangerous potential of cyberwarfare. This is long overdue. The possible security problems for the U.S. presidential election in November are already being discussed.

    Yet there can never be a useful discussion on the topic if the Obama administration continues to point fingers at other countries without admitting that Washington is engaged heavily in cyberspying and cyberwarfare.

    In fact, the United States is the only country ever to launch an actual cyberwar -- when the Obama administration used a cyberattack to destroy thousands of centrifuges, used for nuclear enrichment, in Iran. This was an illegal act of war, according to the Defense Department's own definition.

    Given the news reports that many more DNC emails are waiting to be leaked as the presidential election draws closer, there will likely be many more reminders of the need for a public dialogue on cybersecurity and cyberwarfare before November.

    (James Bamford is the author of The Shadow Factory: The Ultra-Secret NSA From 9/11 to the Eavesdropping on America. He is a columnist for Foreign Policy magazine.)

    [Aug 07, 2016] Former head of Moscow Anti-Doping Laboratory faces criminal charges

    Notable quotes:
    "... "Rodchenkov used his authority despite the legal interests of the aforementioned organization and with the purpose of gaining personal advantages and benefits, thus having abused rights and legal interests," ..."
    "... "Thus, the Anti-Doping Center lost the right for work. Rodchenkov's activities also have affected the interests of state, damaging its reputation, discrediting the country's anti-doping policies, and caused revoking of the international license from the laboratory, which had been established at expense of the federal budget." ..."
    RT Sport
    Published time: 18 Jun, 2016 10:44 Get short URL Grigory Rodchenkov © Valeriy Melnikov / Sputnik The discredited former chief of the Moscow Anti-Doping Laboratory, Grigory Rodchenkov, now faces criminal proceedings on charges of abuse of authority by Russia's Investigative Committee. The case focuses on media reports alleging violations of anti-doping regulations (including his participation) in Russian sports, as well as the information presented in the report of World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) in November last year.

    Of particular note is Rodchenkov's decision to deliberately destroy evidence after being asked by WADA to preserve and freeze blood samples in December 2014.

    The Investigative Committee's spokesman, Vladimir Markin, explained the case by chronicling the events that eventually led to the suspension of the Moscow lab, as well as creating massive suspicion and mistrust of Russian athletes.

    On December 9, 2014, WADA sent a letter to Rodchenkov, then-director of the Anti-Doping Center, asking that all blood samples that had been taken in the previous three months (as well as those taken in the future) were to be frozen and stored until further instructions from WADA.

    On December 10, Rodchenkov confirmed by e-mail receipt of the letter and assured that the samples would be properly stored.

    Read more Drugs, alcohol & offended insider: 5 reasons why Sochi doping allegations don't hold up

    On December 12, in violation of the Anti-Doping lab's regulations, Rodchenkov issued a verbal order to his staff to discard 1,437 samples. His staff complied the same day.

    "Rodchenkov used his authority despite the legal interests of the aforementioned organization and with the purpose of gaining personal advantages and benefits, thus having abused rights and legal interests," Markin said.

    "Thus, the Anti-Doping Center lost the right for work. Rodchenkov's activities also have affected the interests of state, damaging its reputation, discrediting the country's anti-doping policies, and caused revoking of the international license from the laboratory, which had been established at expense of the federal budget."

    READ MORE: Sochi Olympics doping allegations

    [Aug 07, 2016] Trumpbusters Who You Gonna Call

    Notable quotes:
    "... The Sanders' campaign, like the Obama phenomenon before it, does not offer a program or strategic direction for addressing the current crisis and contradictions of Western capitalist societies. Instead, it is an expression of the moral and political crisis of Western radicalism. This crisis – which is reflective of the loss of direction needed to inform vision, and fashion a creative program for radical change – is even more acute in the U.S. than Western Europe. Yet, what unites both radical experiences is a tacit commitment to Eurocentrism and the assumptions of normalized white supremacy. ..."
    "... I don't like Trump's shrillness, and I don't like Baraka's either. He's too fast and loose with accusations of white supremacy. ..."
    "... As the author of this posts makes clear, against Trump are only his words, but against Hillary are her actions. In that sense, it is no contest: Hillary loses. ..."
    "... It's Putin we need to worry about. Putin is in league with Space Aliens and they are plotting to destroy the American 21st Century. The Space Aliens have leased a Weather Control Machine to Putin and Putin has set the thermostat on high! Worse yet, it's a 100 year lease. It will last the entire century! ..."
    "... Well written! I grow tired of westerners' talk about how peace loving they are, as if by just saying you are for peace makes it so. It's perfectly clear what Clinton represents and how anti-peace she is. Yet so many westerners, especially outside the USA, would choose Clinton while also believing how much they support peace in the world. Thus Trump becomes a convenient excuse to vote for more endless war. Very easy to turn him into the nuclear bomb Prez as one can then support Clinton and claim to be for peace. ..."
    "... As I write this it is clearer to me what a rare gem Bernie coulda been. ..."
    "... Jingoism; assertions that the 21st century will be the "American Century"; odes to "American Exceptionalism"; ..."
    "... Project for the New American Century ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    naked capitalism

    Vatch , August 6, 2016 at 1:01 pm

    This is an example of Baraka's histrionics:

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/09/16/the-yemen-tragedy-and-the-ongoing-crisis-of-the-left-in-the-united-states/

    The Sanders' campaign, like the Obama phenomenon before it, does not offer a program or strategic direction for addressing the current crisis and contradictions of Western capitalist societies. Instead, it is an expression of the moral and political crisis of Western radicalism. This crisis – which is reflective of the loss of direction needed to inform vision, and fashion a creative program for radical change – is even more acute in the U.S. than Western Europe. Yet, what unites both radical experiences is a tacit commitment to Eurocentrism and the assumptions of normalized white supremacy.

    In their desperate attempt to defend Sanders and paint his critics as dogmatists and purists, the Sanders supporters have not only fallen into the ideological trap of a form of narrow "left" nativism, but also the white supremacist ethical contradiction that reinforces racist cynicism in which some lives are disposable for the greater good of the West.

    I don't like Trump's shrillness, and I don't like Baraka's either. He's too fast and loose with accusations of white supremacy.

    Dirk77 , August 6, 2016 at 8:48 am

    As the author of this posts makes clear, against Trump are only his words, but against Hillary are her actions. In that sense, it is no contest: Hillary loses. As Obama's tenure has made abundantly clear, words mean nothing; only actions and facts do. I think this is why the media hates Trump so: they make their living off words and so think they matter. But they do only if they describe actions and facts, not gossip. All the reporting about Trump consists of repeating what he says. So what? He is a politician. Apart from his lack of experience he's a big question mark. But lack of experience didn't stop people from voting for Obama.

    craazyboy , August 6, 2016 at 9:21 am

    It's Putin we need to worry about. Putin is in league with Space Aliens and they are plotting to destroy the American 21st Century. The Space Aliens have leased a Weather Control Machine to Putin and Putin has set the thermostat on high! Worse yet, it's a 100 year lease. It will last the entire century!

    To make matters even worse, the Space Aliens have provided Putin with alien probiotics. This will extend Putin's life by 100 years. We will never get regime change in Russia! At least not without nuclear intervention.

    The diabolical plan is to roast the western world. This will be the end of the American Century! The Space Aliens also developed miniaturizing technology a millennia ago. They can fit more of their kind into space ships that way. The economic growth plan then is to beam the miniaturizing beam at China and India. The population will shrink to 2 inches tall, which is pretty short even for the Chinese. They will have much less resource and environmental impact on the Earth. But they will not devalue their currencies, resulting in steady growth and they will become the largest and second largest economies in the world!

    I'm sure you agree this is pretty scary stuff and you, your children, and grandchildren should be scared to death that these powerful forces are conspiring against our American Century.

    Hillary is the only one that knows how to get things done and save us!

    Don't kill yourself. Vote!

    EoinW , August 6, 2016 at 11:04 am

    Well written! I grow tired of westerners' talk about how peace loving they are, as if by just saying you are for peace makes it so. It's perfectly clear what Clinton represents and how anti-peace she is. Yet so many westerners, especially outside the USA, would choose Clinton while also believing how much they support peace in the world. Thus Trump becomes a convenient excuse to vote for more endless war. Very easy to turn him into the nuclear bomb Prez as one can then support Clinton and claim to be for peace.

    This exercise of moral shenanagans grows tiresome after 18 years. I'd like to say we have fair weather ethical values in our Sodom and Gomorrah society. However i don't even think we rate that highly any longer. Moral hypocrisy is really all we are now capable of. So bring on all the peace loving westerners to kiss the ring of the next neocon President!

    habenicht , August 6, 2016 at 8:45 am

    I posit that there is a gresham dynamic of sorts in politics. If I remember right, this is where bad behavior goes unpunished in an industry and that leads to only "cheaters" in the space because all the ethical players in the space can't compete and need to / elect to drop out.

    If this is right, then it should be no surprise that outsiders to politics (representing ethics) don't have the professional "expertise" held by the insiders. I see it as a straight up trade between ethics and expertise, and we have been relying on experts too long.

    Said another way, I think an ethical person can learn expertise much better than an expert person can learn ethics.

    As I write this it is clearer to me what a rare gem Bernie coulda been.

    Medbh , August 6, 2016 at 11:10 am

    That's what I've experienced with leadership/executive roles. I was on that path, but felt like I was becoming something I hated.

    I used to admire "successful" people, but now I wonder what bodies they stepped over to get there.

    It's discouraging, as the people with the power are unfit for leadership, due to the behaviors and choices they made to get there.

    Baby Gerald , August 6, 2016 at 9:34 am

    Professor Wray wastes a whole lot of column inches arguing against Trump without really offering anything other than a long list of evidence-based reasons not to vote for Clinton, while regurgitating the tried-and-true LOTE argument to not vote for Stein (or Johnson, who for reasons unclear to me has been deemed to be completely untenable by every thinking critic's estimate).

    In a landmark statement this week, our commander-in-chief has deemed Trump somehow fundamentally unqualified to hold that esteemed office. Really? Those of us with memories that extend beyond the last news cycle might recall the exact same arguments levied against Obama eight years ago from his opponents on the right. "He's a 'community organizer', whatever that is," they would claim about the first term senator, "What has he ever run besides a canned food drive?"

    The right-wing who feared that somehow Obama would be sworn in on Monday and on Tuesday take their guns away, close Guantanamo and bring all those captives to criminal trial here on the mainland (whatever threat that entailed, I'm still not sure), give free health care to everyone at the expense of all their friends in the health care and pharma industries, and nationalize flagging industries and banks like some kind of black Lenin… their list of eventually unrealized worries went on and on.

    What was the left's argument to allay these overblown fears during the 2008 campaign? Checks and balances. "Anything the president does has to go through both houses of Congress" they would claim, and that, the government wisely laid down by our founding fathers, would prevent this first-term senator from turning us into a socialist state. Where are those 'checks and balances' arguments now?

    A brash demeanor isn't enough of a reason to not vote for someone, yet we are supposed to believe that Trump is going to somehow cast off the shackles of democracy and crown himself dictator based solely on his demagogic personality. Claiming that Trump won't be able to conduct himself with the esteem required for that high office, pundits have become armchair psychologists and labeled the guy a borderline psychotic while comedians beholden to their major media paymasters have jumped on this bandwagon to have us thinking the guy is nothing more than an egotistical loon who, by the way, also secretly wants to screw his daughter.

    He's a racist because he wants to have a better control of the border where thousands of illegal immigrants cross every year, often at their own peril. He's beholden to nameless Russian oligarchs, we are led to believe without any real evidence to support the claim. He secretly doesn't want to be president and is doing this only to stoke that massive ego, we are told by pundits who have not been correct in any of their other predictions. Maybe he's a secret democratic plant, we've been told, placed there by Clinton and the DNC to guarantee her coronation. I honestly can't believe the level of nonsense this election has generated.

    Anything to deflect attention from the fact that Trump is the only major party candidate left who is honestly questioning aloud the validity of NATO, criticizing the effects of globalization, asking what advantage it gives us to antagonize Russia thirty years after the cold war supposedly ended, wondering whether regime change is the best option on the table while Iraq, Egypt, Libya, and Syria offer solid examples to the contrary, and whether massive trade deals cannot be negotiated in such a way that the middle class American worker doesn't lose in the end.

    Instead we are told to look at his funny hair, marvel at his orange skin, and to count how many times he uses the words 'huge' and 'great'. He eats KFC with a fork and knife. He hates Muslims because he thinks all their women are oppressed and told that it is the man's job to do the talking. The list of deflections away from his policy plans and how they compare and contrast with his opponent gets longer by the day.

    In the end, Professor Wray adds literally nothing to this discussion– paragraph after paragraph offer plenty of reasons to distrust and dislike Clinton, plenty of reasons in his mind that voting for a third party is a wasted vote, but simply nothing to counter the legitimate arguments offered by Trump to change the direction this country has been headed for the last two decades.

    lyman alpha blob , August 6, 2016 at 11:30 am

    With all the fearmongering about Trump potentially having his finger on the nuclear button, I have yet to see anyone bring up Clinton statements during the last presidential campaign regarding Iran and 'all options being on the table' which of course meant nukes and her willingness to use them.

    optimader , August 6, 2016 at 11:43 am

    Jingoism; assertions that the 21st century will be the "American Century"; odes to "American Exceptionalism";
    more than an Ode! That is a bromide direct from the Neocon Project for the New American Century (PNAC) Redbook!

    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

    Neocons are Political Party agnostics, they migrate opportunistically. HRC is just the latest Host opportunity. That is a strategic advantage they wield. No party affiliation inertia. Changelings from the Dark Side

    Question for Lambert.
    I didnt ask yesterday after you stated that no qualified candidate is slated for this POTUS general election cycle, (I happen to agree).
    So tell me, who do you feel was the last qualified POTUS?
    This goes to the strategy voting against perceived greater evils.

    [Aug 06, 2016] Vladimir Putin Issued a Chilling Warning to the United States

    Notable quotes:
    "... Russia is aware of the United States' plans for nuclear hegemony ..."
    "... The Russian president also highlighted the fact that although the United States missile system is referred to as an "anti-missile defense system," the systems are just as offensive as they are defensive: ..."
    "... Putin further explained the implications of this missile defense system's implementation without any response from Russia. The ability of the missile defense system to render Russia's nuclear capabilities useless would cause an upset in what Putin refers to as the "strategic balance" of the world. Without this balance of power, the U.S. would be free to pursue their policies throughout the world without any tangible threat from Russia. Therefore, this "strategic balance," according to Putin, is what has kept the world safe from large-scale wars and military conflicts. ..."
    Aug 04, 2016 | theantimedia.org

    (ANTIMEDIA) As the United States continues to develop and upgrade their nuclear weapons capabilities at an alarming rate, America's ruling class refuses to heed warnings from President Vladimir Putin that Russia will respond as necessary.

    In his most recent attempt to warn his Western counterparts about the impending danger of a new nuclear arms race, Putin told the heads of large foreign companies and business associations that Russia is aware of the United States' plans for nuclear hegemony. He was speaking at the 20th St. Petersburg International Economic Forum.

    "We know year by year what will happen, and they know that we know," he said.

    Putin argued that the rationale the U.S. previously gave for maintaining and developing its nuclear weapons system is directed at the so-called "Iranian threat." But that threat has been drastically reduced since the U.S. proved instrumental in reaching an agreement with Iran that should put to rest any possible Iranian nuclear potential.

    The Russian president also highlighted the fact that although the United States missile system is referred to as an "anti-missile defense system," the systems are just as offensive as they are defensive:

    "They say [the missile systems] are part of their defense capability, and are not offensive, that these systems are aimed at protecting them from aggression. It's not true the strategic ballistic missile defense is part of an offensive strategic capability, [and] functions in conjunction with an aggressive missile strike system."

    This missile system has been launched throughout Europe, and despite American promises at the end of the Cold War that NATO's expansion would not move "as much as a thumb's width further to the East," the missile system has been implemented in many of Russia's neighboring countries, most recently in Romania.

    Russia views this as a direct attack on their security.

    "How do we know what's inside those launchers? All one needs to do is reprogram [the system], which is an absolutely inconspicuous task,"

    Putin stated.

    Putin further explained the implications of this missile defense system's implementation without any response from Russia. The ability of the missile defense system to render Russia's nuclear capabilities useless would cause an upset in what Putin refers to as the "strategic balance" of the world. Without this balance of power, the U.S. would be free to pursue their policies throughout the world without any tangible threat from Russia. Therefore, this "strategic balance," according to Putin, is what has kept the world safe from large-scale wars and military conflicts.

    Following George W. Bush's 2001 decision to unilaterally withdraw the U.S. from the 1972 Antiballistic Missile Treaty, Russia was, according to Putin, left with no choice but to upgrade their capabilities in response.

    Putin warned:

    "Today Russia has reached significant achievements in this field. We have modernized our missile systems and successfully developed new generations. Not to mention missile defense systems We must provide security not only for ourselves. It's important to provide strategic balance in the world, which guarantees peace on the planet.

    Under the guise of following an anti-nuclear weapons policy, the Obama administration has announced plans for a $1 trillion nuclear weapons plan, which - let's face it - is targeted at Russia.

    Neutralizing Russia's nuclear potential will undo, according to Putin, "the mutual threat that has provided [mankind] with global security for decades."

    There is no winner in a nuclear war between Russia and the United States. This has been not only confirmed but repeatedly warned about by atomic scientists who - if we are being honest - are the people whose opinion on this topic should matter the most.

    It should, therefore, come as no surprise that NASA scientists want to colonize the moon by 2022 - we may have to if we don't drastically alter the path we are on. As Albert Einstein famously stated:

    "I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."

    This article (Vladimir Putin Just Issued a Chilling Warning to the United States) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Darius Shahtahmasebi and theAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11 pm Eastern/8 pm Pacific. If you spot a typo, please email the error and name of the article to [email protected].

    [Aug 06, 2016] Empire's Chain Reaction

    Notable quotes:
    "... Whatever the character of America's involvement in the Middle East before 1980, when Bacevich's account begins, it was not a war, at least not in terms of American casualties. "From the end of World War II to 1980, virtually no American soldiers were killed in action while serving in that region," he notes. "Within a decade," however, "a great shift occurred. Since 1990, virtually no American soldiers have been killed in action anywhere except in the Greater Middle East." ..."
    "... The sequence of events, lucidly related by Bacevich, would be a dark absurdist comedy if it weren't tragically real. To check Iran, the U.S. supported Saddam Hussein's Iraq in the Iran-Iraq War of 1980–88, whose final phase, the so-called "Tanker War," involved direct U.S. military engagement with Iranian naval forces. (Bacevich calls this the real first Persian Gulf War.) ..."
    "... Finally, George W. Bush decided to risk what his father had dared not: invading Iraq with the objective of "regime change," he launched a third Gulf War in 2003. The notion his neoconservative advisers put into Bush's head was that, with only a little help from American occupation and reconstruction, the void left by Saddam Hussein's removal would be filled by a model democracy. ..."
    "... Yet the first Bush had been right: Iran, as well as ISIS, reaped the rewards of regime change in Baghdad. And so America is now being drawn into a fourth Gulf War, reintroducing troops-styled as advisors-into Iraq to counter the effects of the previous Gulf War, which was itself an answer to the unfinished business of the wars of 1991 and the late 1980s. Our military interventions in the Persian Gulf have been a self-perpetuating chain reaction for over three decades. ..."
    "... "Wolfowitz adhered to an expansive definition of the Persian Gulf," notes Bacevich, which in that young defense intellectual's words extended from "the region between Pakistan and Iran in the northeast to the Yemens in the southwest." Wolfowitz identified two prospective menaces to U.S. interests in the region: the Soviet Union-this was still the Cold War era, after all-and "the emerging Iraqi threat"; to counter these Wolfowitz called for "advisors and counterinsurgency specialists, token combat forces, or a major commitment" of U.S. forces to the Middle East. ..."
    "... The military bureaucracy took advantage of the removal of one enemy from the map-Soviet Communism-to redirect resources toward a new region and new threats. As Bacevich observes, "What some at the time were calling a 'peace dividend' offered CENTCOM a way of expanding its portfolio of assets." Operation Desert Storm, and all that came afterward, became possible. ..."
    "... The final lesson of this one is simple: "Perpetuating the War for the Greater Middle East is not enhancing American freedom, abundance, and security. If anything, it is having the opposite effect." ..."
    The American Conservative

    Bacevich's latest book, America's War for the Greater Middle East: A Military History, is a bookend of sorts to American Empire. The earlier work was heavy on theory and institutional development, the groundwork for the wars of the early 21st century. The new book covers the history itself-and argues persuasively that the Afghanistan, Iraq, and other, smaller wars since 9/11 are parts of a larger conflict that began much earlier, back in the Carter administration.

    Whatever the character of America's involvement in the Middle East before 1980, when Bacevich's account begins, it was not a war, at least not in terms of American casualties. "From the end of World War II to 1980, virtually no American soldiers were killed in action while serving in that region," he notes. "Within a decade," however, "a great shift occurred. Since 1990, virtually no American soldiers have been killed in action anywhere except in the Greater Middle East."

    Operation Eagle Claw, Carter's ill-fated mission to rescue Americans held hostage in Iran, was the first combat engagement in the war. Iran would continue to tempt Washington to military action throughout the next 36 years-though paradoxically, attempts to contain Iran more often brought the U.S. into war with the Islamic Republic's hostile neighbor, Iraq.

    The sequence of events, lucidly related by Bacevich, would be a dark absurdist comedy if it weren't tragically real. To check Iran, the U.S. supported Saddam Hussein's Iraq in the Iran-Iraq War of 1980–88, whose final phase, the so-called "Tanker War," involved direct U.S. military engagement with Iranian naval forces. (Bacevich calls this the real first Persian Gulf War.)

    Weakened and indebted by that war, and thinking the U.S. tolerant of his ambitions, Saddam then invaded Kuwait, leading to full-scale U.S. military intervention against him: Operation Desert Storm in 1991. (By Bacevich's count, the second Gulf War.) President George H.W. Bush stopped American forces from pushing on to Baghdad after liberating Kuwait, however, because-among other things-toppling Saddam would have created a dangerous vacuum that Iran might fill.

    A decade of sanctions, no-fly zones, and intermittent bombing then ensued, as Washington, under Bush and Clinton, would neither depose Saddam Hussein nor permit him to reassert himself. Finally, George W. Bush decided to risk what his father had dared not: invading Iraq with the objective of "regime change," he launched a third Gulf War in 2003. The notion his neoconservative advisers put into Bush's head was that, with only a little help from American occupation and reconstruction, the void left by Saddam Hussein's removal would be filled by a model democracy. This would set a precedent for America to democratize every trouble-making state in the region, including Iran.

    Yet the first Bush had been right: Iran, as well as ISIS, reaped the rewards of regime change in Baghdad. And so America is now being drawn into a fourth Gulf War, reintroducing troops-styled as advisors-into Iraq to counter the effects of the previous Gulf War, which was itself an answer to the unfinished business of the wars of 1991 and the late 1980s. Our military interventions in the Persian Gulf have been a self-perpetuating chain reaction for over three decades.

    Iran released its American hostages the day Ronald Reagan was sworn in as president: January 20, 1981. So what accounts for another 35 years of conflict with Iran and Iraq? The answer begins with oil.

    Bacevich takes us back to the Carter years. "By June 1979, a just-completed study by a then-obscure Defense Department official named Paul Wolfowitz was attracting notice throughout the national security bureaucracy." This "Limited Contingency Study" described America's "vital and growing stake in the Persian Gulf," arising from "our need for Persian-Gulf oil and because events in the Persian Gulf affect the Arab-Israeli conflict."

    "Wolfowitz adhered to an expansive definition of the Persian Gulf," notes Bacevich, which in that young defense intellectual's words extended from "the region between Pakistan and Iran in the northeast to the Yemens in the southwest." Wolfowitz identified two prospective menaces to U.S. interests in the region: the Soviet Union-this was still the Cold War era, after all-and "the emerging Iraqi threat"; to counter these Wolfowitz called for "advisors and counterinsurgency specialists, token combat forces, or a major commitment" of U.S. forces to the Middle East.

    (Bacevich is fair to Wolfowitz, acknowledging that Saddam Hussein was indeed an expansionist, as the Iraqi dictator would demonstrate by invading Iran in 1980 and seizing Kuwait a decade later. Whether this meant that Iraq was ever a threat to U.S. interests is, of course, a different question-as is whether the Soviet Union could really have cut America off from Gulf oil.)

    Wolfowitz was not alone in calling for the U.S. to become the guarantor of Middle East security-and Saudi Arabia's security in particular-and President Carter heeded the advice. In March 1980 he created the Rapid Deployment Joint Task Force (RDJTF), predecessor to what we now know as the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), which has military oversight for the region. The RDJTF's second head, Lt. Gen. Robert Kingston, described its mission, in admirably frank language, as simply "to ensure the unimpeded flow of oil from the Arabian Gulf."

    Iraq and Iran both posed dangers to the flow of oil and its control by Saudi Arabia and other Arab allies-to use the term loosely-of the United States. And just as the U.S. was drawn into wars with Iran and Iraq when it tried to play one against the other, America's defense of Saudi Arabia would have grave unintended consequences-such as the creation of al-Qaeda. Osama bin Laden was outraged when, in 1990, Saudi Arabia's King Fahd declined his offer to wage holy war against Saddam Hussein and instead turned to American protection, even permitting the stationing of American military personnel in Islam's sacred lands. "To liberate Kuwait," writes Bacevich, bin Laden had "offered to raise an army of mujahedin. Rejecting his offer and his protest, Saudi authorities sought to silence the impertinent bin Laden. Not long thereafter, he fled into exile, determined to lead a holy war that would overthrow the corrupt Saudi royals." The instrument bin Laden forged to accomplish that task, al-Qaeda, would target Americans as well, seeking to push the U.S. out of Muslim lands.

    Bin Laden had reason to hope for success: in the 1980s he had helped mujahedin defeat another superpower, the Soviet Union, in Afghanistan. That struggle, of course, was supported by the U.S., through the CIA's "Operation Cyclone," which funneled arms and money to the Soviets' Muslim opponents. Bacevich offers a verdict on this program:

    Operation Cyclone illustrates one of the central ironies of America's War for the Greater Middle East-the unwitting tendency, while intently focusing on solving one problem, to exacerbate a second and plant the seeds of a third. In Afghanistan, this meant fostering the rise of Islamic radicalism and underwriting Pakistan's transformation into a nuclear-armed quasi-rogue state while attempting to subvert the Soviet Union.

    America's support for the mujahedin succeeded in inflicting defeat on the USSR-but left Afghanistan a haven and magnet for Islamist radicals, including bin Laden.

    Another irony of Bacevich's tale is the way in which the end of the Cold War made escalation of the War for the Greater Middle East possible. The Carter and Reagan administrations never considered the Middle East the centerpiece of their foreign policy: Western Europe and the Cold War took precedence. Carter and Reagan were unsystematic about their engagement with the Middle East and, even as they expanded America's military presence, remained wary of strategic overcommitment. Operation Eagle Claw, Reagan's deployment of troops to Lebanon in 1983 and bombing of Libya in 1986, and even the meddling in Iran and Iraq were all small-scale projects compared to what would be unleashed after the fall of the Berlin Wall.

    The military bureaucracy took advantage of the removal of one enemy from the map-Soviet Communism-to redirect resources toward a new region and new threats. As Bacevich observes, "What some at the time were calling a 'peace dividend' offered CENTCOM a way of expanding its portfolio of assets." Operation Desert Storm, and all that came afterward, became possible.

    The Greater Middle East of Bacevich's title centers strategically, if not geographically, upon Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Iran. But its strategic implications and cultural reach are wide, encompassing Libya, Somalia, and other African states with significant Muslim populations; Afghanistan and Pakistan (or "AfPak," in the Obama administration's parlance); and even, on the periphery, the Balkans, where the U.S. intervened militarily in support of Muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo in the 1990s. That Clinton-era intervention is examined in detail by Bacevich: "Today, years after NATO came to their rescue," he writes, "a steady stream of Bosnians and Kosovars leave their homeland and head off toward Syria and Iraq, where they enlist as fighters in the ongoing anti-American, anti-Western jihad."

    Much as George W. Bush believed that liberal democracy would spring up in Saddam Hussein's wake, the humanitarian interventionists who demanded that Bill Clinton send peacekeepers to Bosnia and bomb Serbia on behalf of the Kosovars thought that they were making the world safe for their own liberal, multicultural values. But as Bacevich notes, the Balkan Muslims joining ISIS today are "waging war on behalf of an entirely different set of universal values."

    Bacevich's many books confront readers with painful but necessary truths. The final lesson of this one is simple: "Perpetuating the War for the Greater Middle East is not enhancing American freedom, abundance, and security. If anything, it is having the opposite effect."

    Daniel McCarthy is the editor of The American Conservative.

    [Aug 06, 2016] Saudi Arabia funds and exports Islamic extremism The truth behind the toxic U.S. relationship with the theocratic monarchy

    Notable quotes:
    "... "In its struggle against terrorism, the West wages war on one, but shakes hands with the other," Daoud continued. "This is a mechanism of denial, and denial has a price: preserving the famous strategic alliance with Saudi Arabia at the risk of forgetting that the kingdom also relies on an alliance with a religious clergy that produces, legitimizes, spreads, preaches and defends Wahhabism, the ultra-puritanical form of Islam that Daesh feeds on." ..."
    "... In the past few decades, the Saudi regime has spent an estimated $100 billion exporting its extremist interpretation of Islam worldwide. It infuses its fundamentalist ideology in the ostensible charity work it performs, often targeting poor Muslim communities in countries like Pakistan or places like refugee camps, where uneducated, indigent, oppressed people are more susceptible to it. ..."
    "... What is not contested, on the other hand, is that Saudi elites in the business community and even segments of the royal family support extremist groups like al-Qaida. U.S. government cables leaked by WikiLeaks admit "donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide." ..."
    "... Sen. Graham has nevertheless insisted that the possibility that elements of the Saudi royal family supported the 9/11 attackers should not be ruled out. In his 2004 book "Intelligence Matters: The CIA, the FBI, Saudi Arabia, and the Failure of America's War on Terror," Graham further argued these points, from his background within the U.S. government. ..."
    "... The independent, non-partisan Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania has detailed the allegations and possible evidence - or lack thereof - of Saudi ties to the 9/11 attacks on its website FactCheck.org. ..."
    "... Yet despite its brutality and support for extremism, the U.S. considers the Saudi monarchy a "close ally." The State Department calls Saudi Arabia "a strong partner in regional security and counterterrorism efforts, providing military, diplomatic, and financial cooperation." It stated in September 2015 it "welcomed" the appointment of Saudi Arabia to the head of a U.N. human rights panel. "We're close allies," the State Department remarked. ..."
    "... During the Cold War - and particularly during the Soviet war in Afghanistan throughout the 1980s - the U.S., hand-in-hand with Saudi Arabia, actively encouraged religious extremism. They stressed that socialist and communist movements were often atheistic, and pitted far-right religious fundamentalists against the secular leftists. The remnants of this policy are the extremist movements we see throughout the Middle East, North Africa and South Asia today. ..."
    "... In order to decimate the left in the Cold War, the U.S. emboldened, armed and trained the extreme-right. The Frankenstein's monsters it created in the pursuit of this policy are the al-Qaedas and ISISes of the world. ..."
    "... Saudi Arabia is truly a country that was created through Western imperialism. Before Roosevelt met with King Ibn Saud, Saudi Arabia was a relatively weak country with little global political influence. It was Western, and principally U.S., patronage that turned Saudi Arabia into what it is today. ..."
    "... Women are essentially second-class citizens in Saudi Arabia. They are given nowhere near equal rights with men - who basically own their wives and daughters - and cannot travel without men accompanying them. Unemployment rates are skyrocketing among women, even though many are educated, and they were only just granted the right to vote in December 2015 - although they do not have any actual effectual politicians to vote for under an absolute monarchy. ..."
    "... The U.S. will realize that there really is an easy way to stop terrorism: It will stop participating in it, and end its alliance with Saudi Arabia. ..."
    "... "There was no 'overthrow.'" ..."
    "... I've seen for myself the investments that Saudi Arabia has made in Kyrgyzstan to turn their Muslim majority into a destabilizing force. They pay for brand new Mosques with gleaming spires, and these are the locations where the local Muslims become radicalized and where guns, ammunition and explosives are held. ..."
    "... one reason the usa government loves saudi is that the government activities enrich the officers of state. dubya not only promoted a war, he enriched his family with munitions contracts. look at the 'carlyle group.' ..."
    "... It's no wonder the average Middle Easterner thinks the US is behind ISIS. ..."
    www.salon.com

    "Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a really easy way: stop participating in it." So advised world-renowned public intellectual Noam Chomsky, one of the most cited thinkers in human history.

    The counsel may sound simple and intuitive - that's because it is. But when it comes to Saudi Arabia, the U.S. ignores it.

    Saudi Arabia is the world's leading sponsor of Islamic extremism. It is also a close U.S. ally.

    ... ... ...

    Saudi Arabia is a theocratic absolute monarchy that governs based on an extreme interpretation of Sharia (Islamic law). It is so extreme, it has been widely compared to ISIS. Algerian journalist Kamel Daoud characterized Saudi Arabia in an op-ed in The New York Times as "an ISIS that has made it."

    "Black Daesh, white Daesh," Daoud wrote, using the Arabic acronym for ISIS. "The former slits throats, kills, stones, cuts off hands, destroys humanity's common heritage and despises archaeology, women and non-Muslims. The latter is better dressed and neater but does the same things. The Islamic State; Saudi Arabia."

    "In its struggle against terrorism, the West wages war on one, but shakes hands with the other," Daoud continued. "This is a mechanism of denial, and denial has a price: preserving the famous strategic alliance with Saudi Arabia at the risk of forgetting that the kingdom also relies on an alliance with a religious clergy that produces, legitimizes, spreads, preaches and defends Wahhabism, the ultra-puritanical form of Islam that Daesh feeds on."

    In the past few decades, the Saudi regime has spent an estimated $100 billion exporting its extremist interpretation of Islam worldwide. It infuses its fundamentalist ideology in the ostensible charity work it performs, often targeting poor Muslim communities in countries like Pakistan or places like refugee camps, where uneducated, indigent, oppressed people are more susceptible to it.

    Whether elements within Saudi Arabia support ISIS is contested. Even if Saudi Arabia does not directly support or fund ISIS, however, Saudi Arabia gives legitimacy to the extremist ideology ISIS preaches.

    What is not contested, on the other hand, is that Saudi elites in the business community and even segments of the royal family support extremist groups like al-Qaida. U.S. government cables leaked by WikiLeaks admit "donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide."

    Supporters of the Saudi monarchy resist comparisons to ISIS. The regime itself threatened to sue social media users who compared it to ISIS. Apologists point out that ISIS and Saudi Arabia are enemies. This is indeed true. But this is not necessarily because they are ideologically different (they are similar) but rather because they threaten each other's power.

    There can only be one autocrat in an autocratic system; ISIS' self-proclaimed Caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi refuses to kowtow to present Saudi King Salman, and vice-versa. After all, the Saudi absolute monarch partially justifies his rule through claiming that it has been blessed and ordained by God, and if ISIS' caliph insists the same, they can't both be right.

    Some American politicians have criticized the U.S.-Saudi relationship for these very reasons. Former U.S. Sen. Bob Graham has been perhaps the most outspoken critic. Graham has called extremist groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda "a product of Saudi ideals, Saudi money and Saudi organizational support."

    ... ... ...

    Sen. Graham has nevertheless insisted that the possibility that elements of the Saudi royal family supported the 9/11 attackers should not be ruled out. In his 2004 book "Intelligence Matters: The CIA, the FBI, Saudi Arabia, and the Failure of America's War on Terror," Graham further argued these points, from his background within the U.S. government.

    The independent, non-partisan Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania has detailed the allegations and possible evidence - or lack thereof - of Saudi ties to the 9/11 attacks on its website FactCheck.org.

    Whatever its role, what is clear is that Saudi Arabia's support for violent extremist groups is well documented. Such support continues to this very day. In Syria, the Saudi monarchy has backed al-Nusra, al-Qaeda's Syrian affiliate. The U.S. government has bombed al-Nusra, but its ally Saudi Arabia is funding it.

    Yet despite its brutality and support for extremism, the U.S. considers the Saudi monarchy a "close ally." The State Department calls Saudi Arabia "a strong partner in regional security and counterterrorism efforts, providing military, diplomatic, and financial cooperation." It stated in September 2015 it "welcomed" the appointment of Saudi Arabia to the head of a U.N. human rights panel. "We're close allies," the State Department remarked.

    ... ... ...

    During the Cold War - and particularly during the Soviet war in Afghanistan throughout the 1980s - the U.S., hand-in-hand with Saudi Arabia, actively encouraged religious extremism. They stressed that socialist and communist movements were often atheistic, and pitted far-right religious fundamentalists against the secular leftists. The remnants of this policy are the extremist movements we see throughout the Middle East, North Africa and South Asia today.

    In order to decimate the left in the Cold War, the U.S. emboldened, armed and trained the extreme-right. The Frankenstein's monsters it created in the pursuit of this policy are the al-Qaedas and ISISes of the world.

    ... ... ...

    Saudi Arabia is truly a country that was created through Western imperialism. Before Roosevelt met with King Ibn Saud, Saudi Arabia was a relatively weak country with little global political influence. It was Western, and principally U.S., patronage that turned Saudi Arabia into what it is today.

    The Saudi monarchy presents itself as modernized, yet it is still feudal in essence. There is almost no developed civil society in Saudi Arabia, because the regime has made all independent institutionalized forms of dissent illegal.

    Women are essentially second-class citizens in Saudi Arabia. They are given nowhere near equal rights with men - who basically own their wives and daughters - and cannot travel without men accompanying them. Unemployment rates are skyrocketing among women, even though many are educated, and they were only just granted the right to vote in December 2015 - although they do not have any actual effectual politicians to vote for under an absolute monarchy.

    ... ... ...

    If it is truly interested in stopping terrorism, then, the U.S. and the rest of the West will heed Chomsky's advice. The U.S. will realize that there really is an easy way to stop terrorism: It will stop participating in it, and end its alliance with Saudi Arabia.

    Ben Norton is a politics staff writer at Salon. You can find him on Twitter at @BenjaminNorton.

    Publicola,

    @RobertSF claims without evidence:

    "There was no 'overthrow.'"

    CIA documents directly contradict your claim.

    ----------------------------

    CIA admits role in 1953 Iranian coup

    Declassified documents describe in detail how US – with British help – engineered coup against Mohammad Mosaddeq

    Monday 19 August 2013

    The CIA has publicly admitted for the first time that it was behind the notorious 1953 coup against Iran's democratically elected prime minister Mohammad Mosaddeq, in documents that also show how the British government tried to block the release of information about its own involvement in his overthrow.

    On the 60th anniversary of an event often invoked by Iranians as evidence of western meddling, the US national security archive at George Washington University published a series of declassified CIA documents.

    "The military coup that overthrew Mosaddeq and his National Front cabinet was carried out under CIA direction as an act of US foreign policy, conceived and approved at the highest levels of government," reads a previously excised section of an internal CIA history titled The Battle for Iran.

    The documents, published on the archive's website under freedom of information laws, describe in detail how the US – with British help – engineered the coup, codenamed TPAJAX by the CIA and Operation Boot by Britain's MI6...

    Mosaddeq's overthrow, still given as a reason for the Iranian mistrust of British and American politicians, consolidated the Shah's rule for the next 26 years until the 1979 Islamic revolution. It was aimed at making sure the Iranian monarchy would safeguard the west's oil interests in the country.

    The archived CIA documents include a draft internal history of the coup titled "Campaign to install a pro-western government in Iran", which defines the objective of the campaign as "through legal, or quasi-legal, methods to effect the fall of the Mosaddeq government; and to replace it with a pro-western government under the Shah's leadership with Zahedi as its prime minister".

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/19/cia-admits-role-1953-iranian-coup

    (emphasis mine)

    T Kosciuszko,

    {The Nixon administration created a "Twin Pillars" Middle East policy, in which the U.S.-backed monarchies in Saudi Arabia and Iran were considered pillars of stability. In 1953, the CIA backed a coup that overthrew Iran's first and only democratically elected head of state, Mohammad Mosaddegh}

    That is a rather odd correlation -- Mr. Nixon was inaugurated in 1973 -- 20 yrs after the CIA/MI6 (Mossad was likely lurking, too) toppled Mr. Mosaddegh.

    The Nixon effect stems from Mr. Kissinger's amorous connection -- he made love to Saudi Arabia, and they had a child named Petro-$. It was the birth of the greatest financial con in Human history.

    If one has a grasp of the nature of the Supreme Power behind that curtain, the events unfolding in the world right now, make much sense.

    Helmey91,

    I've seen for myself the investments that Saudi Arabia has made in Kyrgyzstan to turn their Muslim majority into a destabilizing force. They pay for brand new Mosques with gleaming spires, and these are the locations where the local Muslims become radicalized and where guns, ammunition and explosives are held.

    They were successful in starting an armed revolution against of the Kyrgis government in 2010 in this otherwise peaceful country where Muslims and non-Muslims had coexisted for years in peace and harmony. (During my visit, I even had a Muslim business owner thank George Bush during my visit for our USAID support - I was shocked. Muslims are not the enemy. Extremists and authoritarian governments like SA are. They don't want the two cultures to mix.)

    Saudi Arabia is by far the biggest opponent to peace in the Middle East.

    al loomis,

    one reason the usa government loves saudi is that the government activities enrich the officers of state. dubya not only promoted a war, he enriched his family with munitions contracts. look at the 'carlyle group.'

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/NEW304A.html

    asynchronicity,

    It's no wonder the average Middle Easterner thinks the US is behind ISIS.

    walkingmountain,

    Until the problem of Saudi Arabia is solved, the problems in the Middle East will not be solved. We thought we could go in the back door by changing Iraq, but we only made things worse. Take away the oil and we would have invaded after 9/11.
    The royal family is basically paying off the radicals to leave them, and their wealth, alone.

    ELYDOG 5ptsFeatured

    Americans have to accept that fact that the U.S. and other western governments prefer fundamentalism - which sells us oil - to democracy, socialism or Arab nationalism. It loves a good theocracy. These really are feudal regimes.

    In Palestine, in Afghanistan, in Libya, in Iraq and now Syria, the U.S. and its allies have DIRECTLY funded Al Quada and its offshoots. Much of the weaponry sent from Libya to Syria for 'secular freedom fighters' ended up in the hands of Daesh. The U.S. has worked to crush partially secular regimes over and over again, even using the early Islamic Hamas fundamentalists in Palestine against the PLO, DFLP, PFLP etc. Before that they undermined Nasser, Mossedegh, and ANY left nationalists in sight.

    All for oil. It is still the oil barons and the militarists that back the Saudis and this will not change until the US. government is undermined itself.

    mwcarlton 5ptsFeatured

    These issues are being debated over on MIchael Totten's web site.

    http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/blog/michael-j-totten/saudi-iranian-eruption

    For once I fear I am in full agreement with Ben Norton.

    [Aug 06, 2016] Empire's Chain Reaction

    Notable quotes:
    "... Whatever the character of America's involvement in the Middle East before 1980, when Bacevich's account begins, it was not a war, at least not in terms of American casualties. "From the end of World War II to 1980, virtually no American soldiers were killed in action while serving in that region," he notes. "Within a decade," however, "a great shift occurred. Since 1990, virtually no American soldiers have been killed in action anywhere except in the Greater Middle East." ..."
    "... The sequence of events, lucidly related by Bacevich, would be a dark absurdist comedy if it weren't tragically real. To check Iran, the U.S. supported Saddam Hussein's Iraq in the Iran-Iraq War of 1980–88, whose final phase, the so-called "Tanker War," involved direct U.S. military engagement with Iranian naval forces. (Bacevich calls this the real first Persian Gulf War.) ..."
    "... Finally, George W. Bush decided to risk what his father had dared not: invading Iraq with the objective of "regime change," he launched a third Gulf War in 2003. The notion his neoconservative advisers put into Bush's head was that, with only a little help from American occupation and reconstruction, the void left by Saddam Hussein's removal would be filled by a model democracy. ..."
    "... Yet the first Bush had been right: Iran, as well as ISIS, reaped the rewards of regime change in Baghdad. And so America is now being drawn into a fourth Gulf War, reintroducing troops-styled as advisors-into Iraq to counter the effects of the previous Gulf War, which was itself an answer to the unfinished business of the wars of 1991 and the late 1980s. Our military interventions in the Persian Gulf have been a self-perpetuating chain reaction for over three decades. ..."
    "... "Wolfowitz adhered to an expansive definition of the Persian Gulf," notes Bacevich, which in that young defense intellectual's words extended from "the region between Pakistan and Iran in the northeast to the Yemens in the southwest." Wolfowitz identified two prospective menaces to U.S. interests in the region: the Soviet Union-this was still the Cold War era, after all-and "the emerging Iraqi threat"; to counter these Wolfowitz called for "advisors and counterinsurgency specialists, token combat forces, or a major commitment" of U.S. forces to the Middle East. ..."
    "... The military bureaucracy took advantage of the removal of one enemy from the map-Soviet Communism-to redirect resources toward a new region and new threats. As Bacevich observes, "What some at the time were calling a 'peace dividend' offered CENTCOM a way of expanding its portfolio of assets." Operation Desert Storm, and all that came afterward, became possible. ..."
    "... The final lesson of this one is simple: "Perpetuating the War for the Greater Middle East is not enhancing American freedom, abundance, and security. If anything, it is having the opposite effect." ..."
    The American Conservative

    Bacevich's latest book, America's War for the Greater Middle East: A Military History, is a bookend of sorts to American Empire. The earlier work was heavy on theory and institutional development, the groundwork for the wars of the early 21st century. The new book covers the history itself-and argues persuasively that the Afghanistan, Iraq, and other, smaller wars since 9/11 are parts of a larger conflict that began much earlier, back in the Carter administration.

    Whatever the character of America's involvement in the Middle East before 1980, when Bacevich's account begins, it was not a war, at least not in terms of American casualties. "From the end of World War II to 1980, virtually no American soldiers were killed in action while serving in that region," he notes. "Within a decade," however, "a great shift occurred. Since 1990, virtually no American soldiers have been killed in action anywhere except in the Greater Middle East."

    Operation Eagle Claw, Carter's ill-fated mission to rescue Americans held hostage in Iran, was the first combat engagement in the war. Iran would continue to tempt Washington to military action throughout the next 36 years-though paradoxically, attempts to contain Iran more often brought the U.S. into war with the Islamic Republic's hostile neighbor, Iraq.

    The sequence of events, lucidly related by Bacevich, would be a dark absurdist comedy if it weren't tragically real. To check Iran, the U.S. supported Saddam Hussein's Iraq in the Iran-Iraq War of 1980–88, whose final phase, the so-called "Tanker War," involved direct U.S. military engagement with Iranian naval forces. (Bacevich calls this the real first Persian Gulf War.)

    Weakened and indebted by that war, and thinking the U.S. tolerant of his ambitions, Saddam then invaded Kuwait, leading to full-scale U.S. military intervention against him: Operation Desert Storm in 1991. (By Bacevich's count, the second Gulf War.) President George H.W. Bush stopped American forces from pushing on to Baghdad after liberating Kuwait, however, because-among other things-toppling Saddam would have created a dangerous vacuum that Iran might fill.

    A decade of sanctions, no-fly zones, and intermittent bombing then ensued, as Washington, under Bush and Clinton, would neither depose Saddam Hussein nor permit him to reassert himself. Finally, George W. Bush decided to risk what his father had dared not: invading Iraq with the objective of "regime change," he launched a third Gulf War in 2003. The notion his neoconservative advisers put into Bush's head was that, with only a little help from American occupation and reconstruction, the void left by Saddam Hussein's removal would be filled by a model democracy. This would set a precedent for America to democratize every trouble-making state in the region, including Iran.

    Yet the first Bush had been right: Iran, as well as ISIS, reaped the rewards of regime change in Baghdad. And so America is now being drawn into a fourth Gulf War, reintroducing troops-styled as advisors-into Iraq to counter the effects of the previous Gulf War, which was itself an answer to the unfinished business of the wars of 1991 and the late 1980s. Our military interventions in the Persian Gulf have been a self-perpetuating chain reaction for over three decades.

    Iran released its American hostages the day Ronald Reagan was sworn in as president: January 20, 1981. So what accounts for another 35 years of conflict with Iran and Iraq? The answer begins with oil.

    Bacevich takes us back to the Carter years. "By June 1979, a just-completed study by a then-obscure Defense Department official named Paul Wolfowitz was attracting notice throughout the national security bureaucracy." This "Limited Contingency Study" described America's "vital and growing stake in the Persian Gulf," arising from "our need for Persian-Gulf oil and because events in the Persian Gulf affect the Arab-Israeli conflict."

    "Wolfowitz adhered to an expansive definition of the Persian Gulf," notes Bacevich, which in that young defense intellectual's words extended from "the region between Pakistan and Iran in the northeast to the Yemens in the southwest." Wolfowitz identified two prospective menaces to U.S. interests in the region: the Soviet Union-this was still the Cold War era, after all-and "the emerging Iraqi threat"; to counter these Wolfowitz called for "advisors and counterinsurgency specialists, token combat forces, or a major commitment" of U.S. forces to the Middle East.

    (Bacevich is fair to Wolfowitz, acknowledging that Saddam Hussein was indeed an expansionist, as the Iraqi dictator would demonstrate by invading Iran in 1980 and seizing Kuwait a decade later. Whether this meant that Iraq was ever a threat to U.S. interests is, of course, a different question-as is whether the Soviet Union could really have cut America off from Gulf oil.)

    Wolfowitz was not alone in calling for the U.S. to become the guarantor of Middle East security-and Saudi Arabia's security in particular-and President Carter heeded the advice. In March 1980 he created the Rapid Deployment Joint Task Force (RDJTF), predecessor to what we now know as the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), which has military oversight for the region. The RDJTF's second head, Lt. Gen. Robert Kingston, described its mission, in admirably frank language, as simply "to ensure the unimpeded flow of oil from the Arabian Gulf."

    Iraq and Iran both posed dangers to the flow of oil and its control by Saudi Arabia and other Arab allies-to use the term loosely-of the United States. And just as the U.S. was drawn into wars with Iran and Iraq when it tried to play one against the other, America's defense of Saudi Arabia would have grave unintended consequences-such as the creation of al-Qaeda. Osama bin Laden was outraged when, in 1990, Saudi Arabia's King Fahd declined his offer to wage holy war against Saddam Hussein and instead turned to American protection, even permitting the stationing of American military personnel in Islam's sacred lands. "To liberate Kuwait," writes Bacevich, bin Laden had "offered to raise an army of mujahedin. Rejecting his offer and his protest, Saudi authorities sought to silence the impertinent bin Laden. Not long thereafter, he fled into exile, determined to lead a holy war that would overthrow the corrupt Saudi royals." The instrument bin Laden forged to accomplish that task, al-Qaeda, would target Americans as well, seeking to push the U.S. out of Muslim lands.

    Bin Laden had reason to hope for success: in the 1980s he had helped mujahedin defeat another superpower, the Soviet Union, in Afghanistan. That struggle, of course, was supported by the U.S., through the CIA's "Operation Cyclone," which funneled arms and money to the Soviets' Muslim opponents. Bacevich offers a verdict on this program:

    Operation Cyclone illustrates one of the central ironies of America's War for the Greater Middle East-the unwitting tendency, while intently focusing on solving one problem, to exacerbate a second and plant the seeds of a third. In Afghanistan, this meant fostering the rise of Islamic radicalism and underwriting Pakistan's transformation into a nuclear-armed quasi-rogue state while attempting to subvert the Soviet Union.

    America's support for the mujahedin succeeded in inflicting defeat on the USSR-but left Afghanistan a haven and magnet for Islamist radicals, including bin Laden.

    Another irony of Bacevich's tale is the way in which the end of the Cold War made escalation of the War for the Greater Middle East possible. The Carter and Reagan administrations never considered the Middle East the centerpiece of their foreign policy: Western Europe and the Cold War took precedence. Carter and Reagan were unsystematic about their engagement with the Middle East and, even as they expanded America's military presence, remained wary of strategic overcommitment. Operation Eagle Claw, Reagan's deployment of troops to Lebanon in 1983 and bombing of Libya in 1986, and even the meddling in Iran and Iraq were all small-scale projects compared to what would be unleashed after the fall of the Berlin Wall.

    The military bureaucracy took advantage of the removal of one enemy from the map-Soviet Communism-to redirect resources toward a new region and new threats. As Bacevich observes, "What some at the time were calling a 'peace dividend' offered CENTCOM a way of expanding its portfolio of assets." Operation Desert Storm, and all that came afterward, became possible.

    The Greater Middle East of Bacevich's title centers strategically, if not geographically, upon Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Iran. But its strategic implications and cultural reach are wide, encompassing Libya, Somalia, and other African states with significant Muslim populations; Afghanistan and Pakistan (or "AfPak," in the Obama administration's parlance); and even, on the periphery, the Balkans, where the U.S. intervened militarily in support of Muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo in the 1990s. That Clinton-era intervention is examined in detail by Bacevich: "Today, years after NATO came to their rescue," he writes, "a steady stream of Bosnians and Kosovars leave their homeland and head off toward Syria and Iraq, where they enlist as fighters in the ongoing anti-American, anti-Western jihad."

    Much as George W. Bush believed that liberal democracy would spring up in Saddam Hussein's wake, the humanitarian interventionists who demanded that Bill Clinton send peacekeepers to Bosnia and bomb Serbia on behalf of the Kosovars thought that they were making the world safe for their own liberal, multicultural values. But as Bacevich notes, the Balkan Muslims joining ISIS today are "waging war on behalf of an entirely different set of universal values."

    Bacevich's many books confront readers with painful but necessary truths. The final lesson of this one is simple: "Perpetuating the War for the Greater Middle East is not enhancing American freedom, abundance, and security. If anything, it is having the opposite effect."

    Daniel McCarthy is the editor of The American Conservative.

    [Aug 05, 2016] Hillary on the USA nuclear weapon use

    Notable quotes:
    "... I think that we should be looking to create an umbrella of deterrence that goes much further than just Israel. Of course I would make it clear to the Iranians that an attack on Israel would incur massive retaliation from the United States, but I would do the same with other countries in the region. ..."
    "... Because it does mean that they have to look very carefully at their society, because whatever stage of development they might be in their nuclear weapons program in the next 10 years during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them. ..."
    "... The warmongering neocon woman gets a little careless in the second part of her statement, forgetting "nuclear" and reverting to the 2008 declaration. Worse, she says that even if they don't have nukes quite yet, an attack on Holy Israel means it's "glow-in-the-dark" time in Iran. ..."
    "... It really is a tragic thing to be talking about. That's the way the Madeleine Albright ***** – the one who has declared that any woman who doesn't vote for Hillary will go to hell – put it when speaking of 500,000 dead Iraqi kids. Darned shame, but it had to be done. ..."
    "... Don't even think about a possibility why Hillary might be so devoted to Israel. When she was in the Senate the woman went to a prayer breakfast with some of the most repulsive of the Conservative Republicans. Nobody at all is talking about Hillary's religion. If she is one of the Rapture types, her access to nukes would mean an End-Timer finally has a chance to force God to get off the pot and start with the Second Coming. ..."
    "... Just think of it – the First and the Last woman president. ..."
    "... You are right. She is a huge danger. Not only due to her frail health, age and history of blood clots. As Huma Abedin noted in her deposition, she often is "confused". Which means that she does not have "normal" level of situational awareness. ..."
    "... After the dissolution of the USSR and the "triumphal march" of neoliberalism, the US elite by-and-large lost the sense of self-preservation. ..."
    "... Like sociopaths she has no self-control, no sense of self-preservation, no boundaries. ..."
    angrybearblog.com
    Zachary Smith August 5, 2016 6:55 pm

    Hillary 2008: "George Stephanopoulos: "Senator Clinton, would you [extend our deterrent to Israel]?"

    Hillary Clinton: "Well, in fact I think that we should be looking to create an umbrella of deterrence that goes much further than just Israel. Of course I would make it clear to the Iranians that an attack on Israel would incur massive retaliation from the United States, but I would do the same with other countries in the region."

    Massive Retaliation has always had the meaning of a 'massive' nuclear attack.

    Hillary 2016: "MR. CUOMO: Iran: some language recently. You said if Iran were to strike Israel, there would be a massive retaliation. Scary words. Does massive retaliation mean you'd go into Iran? You would bomb Iran? Is that what that's supposed to suggest?

    SEN. CLINTON: Well, the question was if Iran were to launch a nuclear attack on Israel, what would our response be? And I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran. And I want them to understand that.

    Because it does mean that they have to look very carefully at their society, because whatever stage of development they might be in their nuclear weapons program in the next 10 years during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them.

    That's a terrible thing to say, but those people who run Iran need to understand that, because that perhaps will deter them from doing something that would be reckless, foolish, and tragic."

    The warmongering neocon woman gets a little careless in the second part of her statement, forgetting "nuclear" and reverting to the 2008 declaration. Worse, she says that even if they don't have nukes quite yet, an attack on Holy Israel means it's "glow-in-the-dark" time in Iran.

    It really is a tragic thing to be talking about. That's the way the Madeleine Albright ***** – the one who has declared that any woman who doesn't vote for Hillary will go to hell – put it when speaking of 500,000 dead Iraqi kids. Darned shame, but it had to be done.

    https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2008/04/iran-a24.html

    https://votesmart.org/public-statement/335164/abc-good-morning-america-transcript#.V6UUn5Ma3ow

    But move on – it's the insane Trump who can't be trusted with nukes.

    Don't even think about a possibility why Hillary might be so devoted to Israel. When she was in the Senate the woman went to a prayer breakfast with some of the most repulsive of the Conservative Republicans. Nobody at all is talking about Hillary's religion. If she is one of the Rapture types, her access to nukes would mean an End-Timer finally has a chance to force God to get off the pot and start with the Second Coming.

    Just think of it – the First and the Last woman president.

    likbez , August 5, 2016 11:29 pm

    Hi Zachary,

    > Just think of it – the First and the Last woman president.

    You are right. She is a huge danger. Not only due to her frail health, age and history of blood clots. As Huma Abedin noted in her deposition, she often is "confused". Which means that she does not have "normal" level of situational awareness.

    For some specialties like airplane pilots this is a death sentence. Unfortunately, if elected, she can take the country with her.

    While the USSR existed, as bad as it was for people within its borders, it was a blessing for the people of the USA, as it kept the elite in check and frightful to behave in "natural, greedy and delusional "Masters of the Universe" way".

    After the dissolution of the USSR and the "triumphal march" of neoliberalism, the US elite by-and-large lost the sense of self-preservation.

    If you read what Hillary utters like "no fly zone" in Syria and other similar staff, to me this looks like a sign of madness, plain and simple. No reasonable politician should go of the cliff like that, if stakes are not extremely high.

    And MSM try to sell her as a more reasonable politician then Trump. In reality she is like Kelvin absolute zero. You just can't go lower. The only hope is that she is a puppet and it does not matter what she utters.

    But if we take her statements about Syria and Russia at face value, she is either dangerously ignorant or (more probably) is a female sociopath.

    Like sociopaths she has no self-control, no sense of self-preservation, no boundaries.

    So her arrogant and reckless behavior as for "getting rich quick" and with the private "bathroom" email server is a sign of more general and more dangerous tendency.

    Neocons are still way too powerful. They dominate MSM and essentially dictate the agenda.

    So we can only pray to God to spare us.

    [Aug 05, 2016] Hillary on the USA nuclear weapon use

    Notable quotes:
    "... I think that we should be looking to create an umbrella of deterrence that goes much further than just Israel. Of course I would make it clear to the Iranians that an attack on Israel would incur massive retaliation from the United States, but I would do the same with other countries in the region. ..."
    "... Because it does mean that they have to look very carefully at their society, because whatever stage of development they might be in their nuclear weapons program in the next 10 years during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them. ..."
    "... The warmongering neocon woman gets a little careless in the second part of her statement, forgetting "nuclear" and reverting to the 2008 declaration. Worse, she says that even if they don't have nukes quite yet, an attack on Holy Israel means it's "glow-in-the-dark" time in Iran. ..."
    "... It really is a tragic thing to be talking about. That's the way the Madeleine Albright ***** – the one who has declared that any woman who doesn't vote for Hillary will go to hell – put it when speaking of 500,000 dead Iraqi kids. Darned shame, but it had to be done. ..."
    "... Don't even think about a possibility why Hillary might be so devoted to Israel. When she was in the Senate the woman went to a prayer breakfast with some of the most repulsive of the Conservative Republicans. Nobody at all is talking about Hillary's religion. If she is one of the Rapture types, her access to nukes would mean an End-Timer finally has a chance to force God to get off the pot and start with the Second Coming. ..."
    "... Just think of it – the First and the Last woman president. ..."
    "... You are right. She is a huge danger. Not only due to her frail health, age and history of blood clots. As Huma Abedin noted in her deposition, she often is "confused". Which means that she does not have "normal" level of situational awareness. ..."
    "... After the dissolution of the USSR and the "triumphal march" of neoliberalism, the US elite by-and-large lost the sense of self-preservation. ..."
    "... Like sociopaths she has no self-control, no sense of self-preservation, no boundaries. ..."
    angrybearblog.com
    Zachary Smith August 5, 2016 6:55 pm

    Hillary 2008: "George Stephanopoulos: "Senator Clinton, would you [extend our deterrent to Israel]?"

    Hillary Clinton: "Well, in fact I think that we should be looking to create an umbrella of deterrence that goes much further than just Israel. Of course I would make it clear to the Iranians that an attack on Israel would incur massive retaliation from the United States, but I would do the same with other countries in the region."

    Massive Retaliation has always had the meaning of a 'massive' nuclear attack.

    Hillary 2016: "MR. CUOMO: Iran: some language recently. You said if Iran were to strike Israel, there would be a massive retaliation. Scary words. Does massive retaliation mean you'd go into Iran? You would bomb Iran? Is that what that's supposed to suggest?

    SEN. CLINTON: Well, the question was if Iran were to launch a nuclear attack on Israel, what would our response be? And I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran. And I want them to understand that.

    Because it does mean that they have to look very carefully at their society, because whatever stage of development they might be in their nuclear weapons program in the next 10 years during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them.

    That's a terrible thing to say, but those people who run Iran need to understand that, because that perhaps will deter them from doing something that would be reckless, foolish, and tragic."

    The warmongering neocon woman gets a little careless in the second part of her statement, forgetting "nuclear" and reverting to the 2008 declaration. Worse, she says that even if they don't have nukes quite yet, an attack on Holy Israel means it's "glow-in-the-dark" time in Iran.

    It really is a tragic thing to be talking about. That's the way the Madeleine Albright ***** – the one who has declared that any woman who doesn't vote for Hillary will go to hell – put it when speaking of 500,000 dead Iraqi kids. Darned shame, but it had to be done.

    https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2008/04/iran-a24.html

    https://votesmart.org/public-statement/335164/abc-good-morning-america-transcript#.V6UUn5Ma3ow

    But move on – it's the insane Trump who can't be trusted with nukes.

    Don't even think about a possibility why Hillary might be so devoted to Israel. When she was in the Senate the woman went to a prayer breakfast with some of the most repulsive of the Conservative Republicans. Nobody at all is talking about Hillary's religion. If she is one of the Rapture types, her access to nukes would mean an End-Timer finally has a chance to force God to get off the pot and start with the Second Coming.

    Just think of it – the First and the Last woman president.

    likbez , August 5, 2016 11:29 pm

    Hi Zachary,

    > Just think of it – the First and the Last woman president.

    You are right. She is a huge danger. Not only due to her frail health, age and history of blood clots. As Huma Abedin noted in her deposition, she often is "confused". Which means that she does not have "normal" level of situational awareness.

    For some specialties like airplane pilots this is a death sentence. Unfortunately, if elected, she can take the country with her.

    While the USSR existed, as bad as it was for people within its borders, it was a blessing for the people of the USA, as it kept the elite in check and frightful to behave in "natural, greedy and delusional "Masters of the Universe" way".

    After the dissolution of the USSR and the "triumphal march" of neoliberalism, the US elite by-and-large lost the sense of self-preservation.

    If you read what Hillary utters like "no fly zone" in Syria and other similar staff, to me this looks like a sign of madness, plain and simple. No reasonable politician should go of the cliff like that, if stakes are not extremely high.

    And MSM try to sell her as a more reasonable politician then Trump. In reality she is like Kelvin absolute zero. You just can't go lower. The only hope is that she is a puppet and it does not matter what she utters.

    But if we take her statements about Syria and Russia at face value, she is either dangerously ignorant or (more probably) is a female sociopath.

    Like sociopaths she has no self-control, no sense of self-preservation, no boundaries.

    So her arrogant and reckless behavior as for "getting rich quick" and with the private "bathroom" email server is a sign of more general and more dangerous tendency.

    Neocons are still way too powerful. They dominate MSM and essentially dictate the agenda.

    So we can only pray to God to spare us.

    [Aug 05, 2016] Free cookies……the Clinton-Nuland-Obama legacy – Jackpine Radicals

    jackpineradicals.com

    In case your wondering who the US is financing in Ukraine, its these Nazis who have now killed over 10,000 ethnic Russian civilians while the corrupt US media has intentionally covered it up.

  • Thanks to US funding they continue to march on…….

    Clarity of Signal

  • Neocon Nuland, spouse of Hillary's neocon buddy, Kagan, signer of the PNAC

    sabrina

  • And things like this are why is is hopelessly naive and playing right

    djean111

  • [Aug 05, 2016] Neocons and Liberal Interventionists -- Like Hillary -- Are Converging on Foreign Policy

    Notable quotes:
    "... Financial Times ..."
    "... On the contrary, the Persian Gulf should be deemed a region of vital interest to the security of the United States. ..."
    "... We also reject Iran's attempt to blame others for regional tensions it is aggravating, as well as its public campaign to demonize the government of Saudi Arabia. ..."
    "... Earlier on WorldPost: ..."
    www.huffingtonpost.com

    Wahhab proclaimed those who did not accept his puritan monotheism as apostates and idolaters who should be killed immediately. And now, Shiites, Alawites, Zaidis, Druze, Ismailis - and Kurds, who are mostly Sunni Muslim - are defending themselves and their families from the truly fundamentalist zealotry of neo-Wahhabism that murders all whom it deems apostate. To reverse the narrative and cast their efforts to defend themselves as somehow sectarian is bizarre - especially since the bulk of the Syrian army and Kurds fighting ISIS are themselves Sunni Muslims.

    To fight ISIS is not anti-Sunni. To fight ISIS is to be against Wahhab's revived doctrines. The leading Iraqi commentator Hayder al-Khoei highlighted that in a recent op-ed :

    The tip of the spear in Falluja is not an Iranian-backed paramilitary group but the U.S.-created Counter Terrorism Service and its elite U.S.-trained Special Forces known locally as the Golden Division. These forces, besides being a mixed Shia-Sunni unit, are led by a Kurdish commander ... At a time when sectarian dynamics is one of many factors fueling the crises in Iraq and beyond, it is important for Western journalists and analysts to not be more sectarian than the Iraqis on the ground actually fighting ISIS.
    In short, the ephemeral global narrative does not relate well to the facts on the ground where there is much less sectarianism than this Western-Gulf narrative purports to exist.

    But let that pass. This narrative, echoed widely beyond the Financial Times , is Orwellian in another way. It serves another deeper purpose. It has much to do with finding and articulating, as Jim Lobe notes , the point of intersection between liberal interventionism and neoconservatism. This intersection is the subject of a May 16 report from the Center for a New American Security, which was drawn up by a bipartisan task force of 10 senior members of the U.S. foreign policy establishment and augmented by six dinner discussions with invited experts.

    Their approach is to cast Iran as the source of all 'regional tensions' and to hold onto America's Gulf bases in order to be a 'force that can flex across several different mission sets and prevail.'
    It is, in a sense, the riposte from the two interventionist wings of American politics to Trump's iconoclasm in foreign policy. And, Lobe writes, "it's fair to predict that the above-mentioned report is likely to be the best guide to date of where a Hillary Clinton presidency will want to take the country's foreign policy."

    The report is all about how to maintain America's benevolent hegemony - or how to maintain and expand today's "rules-based international order," which implies maintaining and expanding the geo-financial order as much as the political order. As we saw in U.S. Defense Secretary Ashton Carter's interview with Vox, there are clear, though somewhat cushioned, echoes of the 1992 U.S. Defense Planning Guidance.

    The CNAS report states, "[F]rom a resurgent Russia to a rising China that is challenging the rules-based international order to chaos, and the struggle for power in the Middle East, the United States needs a force that can flex across several different mission sets and prevail." The report simply restates in more nuanced language many of ideas that underline the concept of the " American Century " and U.S.-led unipolar world order.

    What does this have to do with propagating the meme that the war on ISIS is a disguised sectarian war on Sunni Islam? Well, quite a lot. Consider this from the report (italics mine):

    The United States should adopt a comprehensive strategy, employing an appropriate mix of military, economic and diplomatic resources, to undermine and defeat Iran's hegemonic ambitions in the Greater Middle East. Whether in Lebanon, Yemen, Syria or Bahrain, Tehran's advances and longer-term ambitions should be regarded as a threat to stability that it is in the U.S. interest to counter and deter.

    The next administration must make abundantly clear that it has no interest in pursuing an off-shore balancing strategy, such as the 'new equilibrium' some have suggested, which envisages a significant U.S. military drawdown from the region. On the contrary, the Persian Gulf should be deemed a region of vital interest to the security of the United States. As such, U.S. military forces in the region should be sufficient to ensure the security of Gulf allies and the Strait of Hormuz against potential Iranian aggression. At the same time, Gulf allies should have access to sufficient defense articles and services to deter Tehran even if U.S. forces are not present or immediately available to assist.

    We also reject Iran's attempt to blame others for regional tensions it is aggravating, as well as its public campaign to demonize the government of Saudi Arabia.
    The last sentence is truly amazing. So the spread of cultural and militant Wahhabism has nothing to do with tension in the region? Here we see that the crux of the joint neocon, liberal-interventionist foreign policy for the Middle East is to cast Iran as the source of all "regional tensions" and secondly, to hold onto America's Gulf bases - in order to "flex across several different mission sets and prevail."

    Saudi Arabia is mildly rebuked in the CNAS report for having helped radicalize Sunni Islamist groups in the past, but the Kingdom receives applause for its law enforcement and intelligence cooperation. It is very clear from the report's context that a makeover of Saudi Arabia's status as a U.S. ally is underway and that this rehabilitation is seen as integral to aiding America's "hard-nosed enforcement strategy ... to counter Iran's destabilizing activities throughout the region, from its support to terrorist groups like Hezbollah to its efforts to sow instability in the Sunni Arab states."

    The old Western standby of using psychologically inflamed Sunni radicalism as a means to weaken opponents seems like it won't be dismantled completely.
    Another gloss in the CNAS report is striking: while ISIS as a threat is made much of, and a call is issued to "uproot" it, when it comes to Syria, the report simply states that "it is also essential to assist in the formation of a Sunni alternative to ISIS and the [Syria President Bashar] Assad regime" and to create "a safe space ... where moderate opposition militias can arm, train, and organize." Yet there is no mention of Jabhat al-Nusra, al Qaeda's Syria wing. Its role simply is not addressed.

    This conscious lacuna suggests that the authors do not want to embarrass Saudi Arabia for all its fired-up Sunni jihadist tools. The old Western standby of using psychologically inflamed Sunni radicalism as a means to weaken opponents seems like it won't be dismantled completely. It is fine, evidently, to make a hoo-ha about ISIS while Nusra is to be slipped quietly into the Syrian calculus in order to shift the military balance and convince Assad that he cannot remain in power.

    This new/old policy platform is well assisted by broadcasting a narrative that those fighting ISIS on the ground (Iran and its allies) are the "naked sectarians" who compound their sectarian intent by provoking Sunnis to rally to ISIS, their defender. Thus, Iran becomes the threat to regional security, and the CNAS case against Iran is crystalized. This is working quite well, it seems, to judge by its play in the media.

    It may be fairly asked however, why these eminent American foreign policy hands should be espousing what many might see as such a retrograde stance. Promoting Saudi Arabia and Gulf states as key U.S. allies would seem to go against the grain of contemporary - even Congressional - sentiment. Ditto for maintaining America's necklace of (expensive) military bases around the globe in order to project American military power. Are Americans not tiring of endless war? And has not the arming and training of a Sunni opposition in Syria been tried several times and failed? Why should this policy be any more successful next time around?

    ISIS is the consensual scapegoat to be lambasted by all and sundry, but its spirit - neo-Wahabbism - is not to be rooted out.
    It is not that the report's authors don't grasp these points, but if the neocons have one constancy, it has been their unwavering support for Israel. They think that the Gulf states are ready for a normalization with Israel and wish to do profitable business with it. What stands in the way of this rapprochement, in the neocon view, is Iran, Syria and Hezbollah's vehement opposition - and their ability to ignite public opinion across the Muslim world on behalf of the Palestinians.

    So what is the final takeaway from all this? It is that ISIS is the consensual scapegoat to be lambasted by all and sundry, but its spirit - neo-Wahabbism - is not to be rooted out. It is too useful to Saudi Arabia and Turkey and to Western interests - to weaken Assad, for example, and to contain Iran and fight Hezbollah .

    Whether in the form of Nusra or Ahrar al-Sham, another al Qaeda-allied rebel group in Syria, this chameleon-like Sunni jihadist force collectively provides a useful pivot around which neocons and liberal interventionists alike can pursue interventionism and the continuance of "the American Century." It also provides a valuable intersection between Israel and Gulf interests. As Lobe wryly notes , "the authors' undisguised hostility toward Tehran pours forth with specific policy recommendations that, frankly, could have been written as a joint paper submitted by Saudi Arabia and Israel."

    Will the report, like the neocon Project for the New American Century, to which it is perhaps conceived as a successor, come to form the basis of American foreign policy if a Democrat won the forthcoming election? Possibly, yes.

    But there is also an intangible feeling of something passé in these policy prescriptions, a sense that they belong to a former era. The current presidential campaign, with all its iconoclasm and evidence of widespread popular anger towards the status quo, suggests that such a palpable replay of the past is not tenable.

    Earlier on WorldPost:

    [Aug 05, 2016] Meet Neocon "Doughnut Dolly" Victoria Nuland by Wayne MADSEN

    Notable quotes:
    "... Nuland would survive the controversy over the October 2012 attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission/CIA facility in Benghazi, Libya. Initially, many conservative Republicans criticized Nuland for her role in providing ambassador to the UN Susan Rice with "talking points" explaining away the failure of the U.S. to protect the compound from an attack that killed U.S. ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other U.S. personnel. All it took was a tap on the shoulder from Nuland's husband Kagan and his influential friends in the neo-con hierarchy for the criticism of his wife to stop. And stop it did as Nuland was confirmed, without Republican opposition, to be the new Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, a portfolio that gave her a clear mandate to interfere in the domestic policies of Ukraine and other countries, including Russia itself. ..."
    "... Although McCain was defeated by Obama in 2008, Kagan's influence was preserved when his wife became a top foreign policy adviser to Obama. The root of this control by neo-cons of the two major U.S. political parties is the powerful Israel Lobby and is the reason why in excess of 95 percent of neo-cons are also committed Zionists. ..."
    "... Kagan's writings and pronouncements from Brookings have had a common thread: anti-Vladimir Putin rhetoric and a strong desire to see Ukraine and Georgia in NATO, Bashar al Assad falling in Syria and thus eliminating a Russian ally, no further expansion of Shanghai Cooperation Organization membership and the eventual collapse of the counter-NATO organization, and the destabilization of Russia's southern border region by radical Salafists and Wahhabists funded by Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Qatar, not coincidentally, hosts a Brookings Institution office that advises the Qatari government. ..."
    18.12.2013 | www.strategic-culture.org

    Nuland would survive the controversy over the October 2012 attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission/CIA facility in Benghazi, Libya. Initially, many conservative Republicans criticized Nuland for her role in providing ambassador to the UN Susan Rice with "talking points" explaining away the failure of the U.S. to protect the compound from an attack that killed U.S. ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other U.S. personnel. All it took was a tap on the shoulder from Nuland's husband Kagan and his influential friends in the neo-con hierarchy for the criticism of his wife to stop. And stop it did as Nuland was confirmed, without Republican opposition, to be the new Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, a portfolio that gave her a clear mandate to interfere in the domestic policies of Ukraine and other countries, including Russia itself.

    Kagan began laying the groundwork for his wife's continued presence in a Democratic administration when, in 2007, he switched sides from the Republicans and aligned with the Democrats. This was in the waning days of the Bush administration and, true to form, neo-cons, who politically and family-wise hail from Trotskyite chameleons, saw the opportunity to continue their influence over U.S. foreign policy.

    With the election of Obama in 2008, Kagan was able to maintain a PNAC presence, through his wife, inside the State Department. Kagan, a co-founder of PNAC, monitors his wife's activities from his perch at the influential Brookings Institution. And it was no surprise that McCain followed Nuland to Maidan Square. Kagan was one of McCain's top foreign policy advisers in the 2008 campaign, even though he publicly switched to the Democrats the year before. Kagan ensured that he kept a foot in both parties. Although McCain was defeated by Obama in 2008, Kagan's influence was preserved when his wife became a top foreign policy adviser to Obama. The root of this control by neo-cons of the two major U.S. political parties is the powerful Israel Lobby and is the reason why in excess of 95 percent of neo-cons are also committed Zionists.

    Kagan's writings and pronouncements from Brookings have had a common thread: anti-Vladimir Putin rhetoric and a strong desire to see Ukraine and Georgia in NATO, Bashar al Assad falling in Syria and thus eliminating a Russian ally, no further expansion of Shanghai Cooperation Organization membership and the eventual collapse of the counter-NATO organization, and the destabilization of Russia's southern border region by radical Salafists and Wahhabists funded by Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Qatar, not coincidentally, hosts a Brookings Institution office that advises the Qatari government.

    But dominance of U.S. foreign policy does not end with Nuland and her husband. Kagan's brother, Fred Kagan, is another neo-con foreign policy launderer. Residing at the American Enterprise Institute, Fred Kagan was an "anti-corruption" adviser to General David Petraeus. Kagan held this job even as Petraeus was engaged in an extra-marital affair, which he corruptly covered up. Fred Kagan's wife is Kimberly Kagan. She has been involved in helping to formulate disastrous U.S. policies for the military occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. Fred and Kimberly have also worked on U.S. covert operations to overthrow the government of Iran. No family in the history of the United States, with the possible exception of John Foster and Allen Dulles, has had more blood on its hands than have the Kagans. And it is this family that is today helping to ratchet up the Cold War on the streets of Kyiv.

    Victoria Nuland is, indeed, the proper "Doughnut Dolly" for the paid George Soros, U.S. Agency for International Development, National Endowment for Democracy, and Freedom House provocateurs on Maidan Square. Political prostitutes representing so many causes, from nationalistic Ukrainian fascists to pro-EU globalists, require a symbol. There is no better symbol for the foreign-made "Orange Revolution II" than the biscuit-distributing Victoria Nuland.

    Her unleavened biscuits have found the hungry mouths of America's "Three Stooges" of ex-boxer and political opportunist Vitaly Klitschko, globalist Arseny Yatsenyuk, and neo-Nazi Oleg Tyagnibok.

    Wayne MADSEN Investigative journalist, author and syndicated columnist. A member of the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) and the National Press Club

    [Aug 05, 2016] Nuland is a Democrat? Boy they let anybody in

    US Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Vicrotia Nuland was appointed by Hillary nu the forigh policy is domain of the President, so she executed policy hatched by "Obama the neocon", who is great admirer of books by Robert Kagan...
    Notable quotes:
    "... Nuland is a Democrat? Boy they let anybody in. I only ask because she's supposed to be a Bush holdover but maybe worked for the Clintons before that? ..."
    "... Nuland started out with Bill Clinton, then moved on to Dick Cheney . She certainly is nimble! ..."
    "... Because of her marriage to Kagan, most Europeans believe she's a Republican, but her hawkish approach to Russia isn't entirely unique within the Obama administration. ..."
    "... FP professionals don't need no stinkin' party affiliations. They are the other half of the "Double Government" that most voters have never heard of. You know, the half that makes sure foreign policy is consistent from one administration (and party) to the next. Works great! ..."
    "... You start out wherever your opportunity lies. Once established you can follow your heart. Where does her heart lead her when Cheney leaves office? Drum roll… Why, it's Hillary! ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Carolinian , August 4, 2016 at 2:43 pm

    Paul Wolfowitz is leaning Clinton. Nuff said.

    Lambert Strether Post author , August 4, 2016 at 2:50 pm

    Following along with his good friend, Republican Robert Kagan (married, in good bipartisan power couple fashion, to Victoria Nuland, rumored to be inline for Clinton's Secretary of State, but I don't think so. Not even Clinton could be that crazy).

    Carolinian , August 4, 2016 at 3:20 pm

    Nuland is a Democrat? Boy they let anybody in. I only ask because she's supposed to be a Bush holdover but maybe worked for the Clintons before that?

    Lambert Strether Post author , August 4, 2016 at 3:33 pm

    Nuland started out with Bill Clinton, then moved on to Dick Cheney . She certainly is nimble!

    I can't find a link that makes her party affiliation explicit. Foreign Policy :

    Because of her marriage to Kagan, most Europeans believe she's a Republican, but her hawkish approach to Russia isn't entirely unique within the Obama administration.

    But FP does not then go on to clarify. I assumed she was a Democrat because of the Clinton connection. My bad!

    Carla , August 4, 2016 at 3:59 pm

    FP professionals don't need no stinkin' party affiliations. They are the other half of the "Double Government" that most voters have never heard of. You know, the half that makes sure foreign policy is consistent from one administration (and party) to the next. Works great!

    John k , August 4, 2016 at 4:14 pm

    You start out wherever your opportunity lies. Once established you can follow your heart. Where does her heart lead her when Cheney leaves office? Drum roll… Why, it's Hillary!
    Hugoodanode?

    NotTimothyGeithner , August 4, 2016 at 4:45 pm

    It's probably bias, but my sense is Republicans love to parade anyone who is Jewish or not white in front of cameras who can say, "im a Republican" without drooling or dying a little on the inside. Since Nuland is Jewish, the GOP would have her on their book tour if she was suspected Republican especially given the GOP obsession with winning Florida Jewish retirees.

    If Nuland was a Republican, we would know.

    [Aug 05, 2016] Obama's Failed Foreign Policy Change The American Conservative by Philip Giraldi

    Notable quotes:
    "... Interestingly, in a self-promoting recent review of Henry Kissinger's new book World Order, Clinton both defines her own Kissinger-esque foreign policy strategy and also concedes that it is more-or-less the same as Obama's. Clinton wrote that Kissinger's world view "largely fits with the broad strategy behind the Obama administration's effort over the past six years to build a global architecture of security and cooperation for the 21st century." ..."
    "... Clinton inevitably confuses leadership with hegemony, clearly believing as one of her predecessors at State put it, that America is the "indispensable nation." Nor can she discern that few outside the beltway actually believe the hype. It would be difficult to make the case that the United States either stands for justice or is willing to tolerate any kind of international order that challenges American interests. ..."
    "... Any plan to "destroy" ISIS without serious consideration of what that might entail means that the U.S. will inevitably assume the leadership role. Because air strikes cannot defeat any insurgency, and the moderate Syrian rebels waiting to be armed are a fiction, the Obama plan invites escalation and will make the Islamist group a poster child for those who want to see Washington fail yet again in the Middle East. ..."
    "... Yanukovych, an admittedly corrupt autocrat, nevertheless became Prime Minister after a free election. Nuland, who is the Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs at the State Department, provided open support to the Maidan demonstrators opposed to Yanukovych's government, to include media friendly appearances passing out cookies on the square to encourage the protesters. ..."
    "... The replacement of the government in Kiev was only the prelude to a sharp break and escalating conflict with Moscow over Russia's attempts to protect its own interests in Ukraine, most particularly in Crimea. ..."
    "... And make no mistake about Nuland's broader intention to expand the conflict and directly confront Russia. In Senate testimony in May she cited how the administration is "providing support to other frontline states like Moldova and Georgia." Frontline? Last week Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel seemed to confirm that the continued expansion of NATO is indeed administration policy, saying that Georgia would be next to join in light of "Russia's blatant aggression in Ukraine." ..."
    "... The president also reportedly is an admirer of her husband's articles and books which argue that the U.S. must maintain its military power to accommodate its "global responsibilities." So in response to the question "Why does Victoria Nuland still have her job?" the answer must surely be because the White House approves of what she has been doing, which should give everyone pause. ..."
    www.theamericanconservative.com

    A new administration only gave interventionism a confused, humanitarian face-lift.

    President Barack Obama presents something of a dilemma. I voted for him twice in the belief that he was basically a cautious operator who would not rush into a new war in Asia, unlike his Republican opponents who virtually promised to attack Iran upon assuming office. Unfortunately, Obama's second term has revealed that his instinct nevertheless is to rely on America's ability to project military power overseas as either a complement to or a substitute for diplomacy that differs only from George W. Bush in its style and its emphasis on humanitarian objectives.

    That the president is indeed cautious has made the actual process of engagement different, witness the ill-fated involvement in Libya and the impending war-without-calling-it-war in Syria and Iraq, both of which are framed as having limited objectives and manageable risk for Washington even when that is not the case. Obama's foreign and security policy is an incremental process mired in contradictions whereby the United States continues to involve itself in conflicts for which it has little understanding, seemingly doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past thirteen years but without the shock and awe.

    Obama's actual intentions might most clearly be discerned by looking at his inner circle. Three women are prominent in decision making relating to foreign policy: Samantha Power at the United Nations, Susan Rice heading the National Security Council, and Senior Adviser Valerie Jarrett in the White House. One might also add Hillary Clinton who, as Secretary of State, operated far more independently than her successor John Kerry, putting her own stamp on policy much more than he has been able to do. Where Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel fits into the decision making is unclear, but it is notable that both he and Kerry frequently appear to be somewhat out of sync with the White House.

    What does the Obama team represent? Certain things are obvious. They are hesitant to involve the United States in long, drawn out military adventures like Iraq and Afghanistan but much more inclined to intervene than was George W. Bush when there is an apparent humanitarian crisis, operating under the principle of responsibility to protect or R2P. That R2P is often a pretext for intervention that actually is driven by other less altruistic motives is certainly a complication but it is nevertheless the public face of much of American foreign policy, as the nation is currently witnessing regarding ISIS.

    Hillary Clinton has criticized Obama foreign policy because on her view he did not act soon enough on ISIS and "Great nations need organizing principles, and 'don't do stupid stuff' is not an organizing principle." Her criticism is odd as she was a formulator of much of what the president has been doing and one should perhaps assume that her distancing from it might have something to do with her presidential ambitions. Interestingly, in a self-promoting recent review of Henry Kissinger's new book World Order, Clinton both defines her own Kissinger-esque foreign policy strategy and also concedes that it is more-or-less the same as Obama's. Clinton wrote that Kissinger's world view "largely fits with the broad strategy behind the Obama administration's effort over the past six years to build a global architecture of security and cooperation for the 21st century."

    Now if all of that is true, and it might just be putting lipstick on a pig to create an illusion of coherency where none exists, then the United States might just be engaging in a sensible reset of its foreign policy, something like the Nixon Doctrine of old. But the actual policy itself suggests otherwise, with the tendency to "do stupid stuff" prevailing, perhaps attributable to another Clinton book review assertion of "a belief in the indispensability of continued American leadership in service of a just and liberal order."

    Clinton inevitably confuses leadership with hegemony, clearly believing as one of her predecessors at State put it, that America is the "indispensable nation." Nor can she discern that few outside the beltway actually believe the hype. It would be difficult to make the case that the United States either stands for justice or is willing to tolerate any kind of international order that challenges American interests.

    And the arrogance that comes with power means that the country's leadership is not often able to explain what it is doing. Currently, the administration has failed to make any compelling case that the United States is actually threatened by ISIS beyond purely conjectural "what if" scenarios, suggesting that the policy is evolving in an ad hoc but risk-averse fashion to create the impression that something is actually being accomplished. Any plan to "destroy" ISIS without serious consideration of what that might entail means that the U.S. will inevitably assume the leadership role. Because air strikes cannot defeat any insurgency, and the moderate Syrian rebels waiting to be armed are a fiction, the Obama plan invites escalation and will make the Islamist group a poster child for those who want to see Washington fail yet again in the Middle East.

    The tendency to act instead of think might be attributable to fear of appearing weak with midterm elections approaching, but it might also be due to the persistence of neoconservative national security views within the administration, which brings us to Victoria Nuland. Nuland, many will recall, was the driving force behind efforts to destabilize the Ukrainian government of President Viktor Yanukovych. Yanukovych, an admittedly corrupt autocrat, nevertheless became Prime Minister after a free election. Nuland, who is the Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs at the State Department, provided open support to the Maidan demonstrators opposed to Yanukovych's government, to include media friendly appearances passing out cookies on the square to encourage the protesters.

    A Dick Cheney and Hillary Clinton protégé who is married to leading neocon Robert Kagan, Nuland openly sought regime change for Ukraine by brazenly supporting government opponents in spite of the fact that Washington and Kiev had ostensibly friendly relations. It is hard to imagine that any U.S. administration would tolerate a similar attempt by a foreign nation to interfere in U.S. domestic politics, particularly if it were backed by a $5 billion budget, but Washington has long believed in a global double standard for evaluating its own behavior.

    Nuland is most famous for her foul language when referring to the potential European role in managing the unrest that she and the National Endowment for Democracy had helped create. To be sure, her aggressive guidance of U.S. policy in Eurasia is a lot more important than whatever plays out in Syria and Iraq over the remainder of Obama's time in office in terms of palpable threats to actual American interests. The replacement of the government in Kiev was only the prelude to a sharp break and escalating conflict with Moscow over Russia's attempts to protect its own interests in Ukraine, most particularly in Crimea.

    Victoria Nuland is playing with fire. Russia, as the only nation with the military capability to destroy the U.S., is not a sideshow like Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Backing Moscow into a corner with no way out by using threats and sanctions is not good policy. Washington has many excellent reasons to maintain a stable relationship with Moscow, including counter-terrorism efforts, and little to gain from moving in the opposite direction. Russia is not about to reconstitute the Warsaw Pact and there is no compelling reason to return to a Cold War footing by either arming Ukraine or permitting it to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

    And make no mistake about Nuland's broader intention to expand the conflict and directly confront Russia. In Senate testimony in May she cited how the administration is "providing support to other frontline states like Moldova and Georgia." Frontline? Last week Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel seemed to confirm that the continued expansion of NATO is indeed administration policy, saying that Georgia would be next to join in light of "Russia's blatant aggression in Ukraine."

    In 2009 President Barack Obama received the Nobel Peace Prize for "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples." In retrospect it was all hat and no cattle given the ongoing saga in Afghanistan, the reduction of a relatively stable Libya to chaos, meddling in Ukraine while simultaneously threatening Russia, failure to restrain Israel and the creation of an Islamic terror state in the Arab heartland. Not to mention "pivots" and additional developments in Africa and Asia. It is not a record to brag about and it certainly does not suggest that the administration is as strategically agile as Hillary Clinton would like to have one believe.

    Victoria Nuland is a career civil servant and cannot easily be fired but she could be removed from her top-level policy position and sent downstairs to head the mailroom at the State Department. It would send the message that aggressive democracy promotion is not U.S. policy, but President Obama has kept her on the job. The president also reportedly is an admirer of her husband's articles and books which argue that the U.S. must maintain its military power to accommodate its "global responsibilities." So in response to the question "Why does Victoria Nuland still have her job?" the answer must surely be because the White House approves of what she has been doing, which should give everyone pause.

    Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is executive director of the Council for the National Interest.

    [Aug 05, 2016] Clinton's Hawk-in-Waiting The American Conservative by Philip Giraldi

    May 19, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com

    If Hillary wins the White House, expect Victoria Nuland to be at her side.

    The other day, a question popped up on a Facebook thread I was commenting on: "Where is Victoria Nuland?" The short answer, of course, is that she is still holding down her position as assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs.

    But a related question begs for a more expansive response: Where will Victoria Nuland be after January? Nuland is one of Hillary Clinton's protégés at the State Department, and she is also greatly admired by hardline Republicans. This suggests she would be easily approved by Congress as secretary of state or maybe even national-security adviser-which in turn suggests that her foreign-policy views deserve a closer look.

    Nuland comes from what might be called the First Family of Military Interventionists. Her husband, Robert Kagan, is a leading neoconservative who co-founded the Project for the New American Century in 1998 around a demand for "regime change" in Iraq. He is currently a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, an author, and a regular contributor to the op-ed pages of a number of national newspapers. He has already declared that he will be voting for Hillary Clinton in November, a shift away from the GOP that many have seen as a clever career-enhancing move for both him and his wife.

    Robert's brother, Fred, is with the hawkish American Enterprise Institute, and his sister-in-law, Kimberly, is the head of the Institute for the Study of War, which is largely funded by defense contractors. The Kagans work to encourage military action, both through their positions in government and by influencing the public debate through think-tank reports and op-eds. It is a family enterprise that mirrors the military-industrial complex as a whole, with think tanks coming up with reasons to increase military spending and providing "expert" support for the government officials who actually promote and implement the policies. Defense contractors, meanwhile, benefit from the largesse and kick back some money to the think tanks, which then develop new reasons to spend still more on military procurement.

    The Kagans' underlying belief is that the United States has both the power and the obligation to replace governments that are considered either uncooperative with Washington (the "Leader of the Free World") or hostile to American interests. American interests are, of course, mutable, and they include values like democracy and the rule of law as well as practical considerations such as economic and political competition. Given the elasticity of the interests, many countries can be and are considered potential targets for Washington's tender ministrations.

    For what it's worth, President Obama is reportedly an admirer of Robert Kagan's books, which argue that the U.S. must maintain its military power to accommodate its "global responsibilities." The persistence of neoconservative foreign-policy views in the Obama administration has often been remarked upon, though Democrats and Republicans embrace military interventionism for different reasons. The GOP sees it as an international leadership imperative driven by American "exceptionalism," while the Dems romanticize "liberal intervention" as a sometimes-necessary evil undertaken most often for humanitarian reasons. But the result is the same, as no administration wants to be seen as weak when dealing with the outside world. George W. Bush's catastrophic failures in Afghanistan and Iraq continue to bear fruit under a Democratic administration, while Obama has added a string of additional "boots on the ground" interventions in Libya, Syria, Yemen, the Philippines, and Somalia.

    And Nuland herself, many will recall, was the driving force behind efforts to destabilize the Ukrainian government of President Viktor Yanukovych in 2013-14. Yanukovych, admittedly a corrupt autocrat, nevertheless assumed office after a free election. In spite of the fact that Washington and Kiev ostensibly had friendly relations, Nuland provided open support for the Maidan Square demonstrators opposed to Yanukovych's government, passing out cookies to protesters on the square and holding photo ops with a beaming Sen. John McCain.

    Nuland started her rapid rise as an adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney. Subsequently, she was serially promoted by secretaries of state Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, attaining her current position in September 2013. But it was her behavior in Ukraine that made her a media figure. It is hard to imagine that any U.S. administration would tolerate a similar attempt by a foreign nation to interfere in domestic politics, particularly if it were backed by a $5 billion budget, but Washington has long adhered to a double standard when evaluating its own behavior.

    Nuland is most famous for using foul language when referring to the potential European role in managing the unrest in Ukraine that she and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) had helped create. She even discussed with U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt who the new leader of Ukraine ought to be. "Yats is the guy" she said (referring to Arseniy Yatsenyuk), while pondering how she would "glue this thing" as Pyatt simultaneously considered how to "midwife" it. Their insecure phone call was intercepted and leaked, possibly by the Russian intelligence service, though anyone equipped with a scanner could have done the job.

    The inevitable replacement of the government in Kiev, actually a coup but sold to the media as a triumph for "democracy," was only the prelude to a sharp break-and escalating conflict-with Moscow over Russia's attempts to protect its own interests in Ukraine. The new regime in Kiev, as corrupt as its predecessor and supported by neo-Nazis and ultra-nationalists, was consistently whitewashed in the Western media, and the conflict was depicted as "pro-democracy" forces resisting unprovoked "Russian aggression."

    Indeed, the real objective of interfering in Ukraine was, right from the start, to install a regime hostile to Moscow. Carl Gershman, the head of the taxpayer-funded NED, called Ukraine "the biggest prize" in the effort to topple Russian President Vladimir Putin, who "may find himself on the losing end not just in the near abroad but within Russia itself." But Gershman and Nuland were playing with fire in their assessment, as Russia had vital interests at stake and is the only nation with the military capability to destroy the U.S.

    And make no mistake about Nuland's clear intention to expand the conflict and directly confront Moscow. In Senate testimony in May of 2014, she noted how the Obama administration was "providing support to other frontline states like Moldova and Georgia."

    Nuland and her neoconservative allies celebrated their "regime change" in Kiev oblivious to the fact that Putin would recognize the strategic threat to his own country and would react, particularly to protect the historic Russian naval base at Sevastopol in Crimea. Barack Obama responded predictably, initiating what soon became something like a new Cold War against Russia, risking escalation into a possible nuclear confrontation. It was a crisis that would not have existed but for Nuland and her allies.

    Though there was no evidence that Putin had initiated the Ukraine crisis and much evidence to the contrary, the U.S. government propaganda machine rolled into action, claiming that Russia's measures in Ukraine would be the first step in an invasion of Eastern Europe. Former Secretary of State Clinton dutifully compared Putin to Adolf Hitler. And Robert Kagan provided the argument for more intervention, producing a lengthy essay in The New Republic entitled "Superpowers Don't Get to Retire," in which he criticized President Obama for failing to maintain American dominance in the world. The New York Times revealed that the essay was apparently part of a joint project in which Nuland regularly edited her husband's articles, even though this particular piece attacked the administration she worked for.

    As the situation in Ukraine continued to deteriorate in 2014, Nuland exerted herself to scuttle several European attempts to arrange a ceasefire. When NATO Commander Air Force Gen. Philip Breedlove was cited as being in favor of sending more weapons to the Ukrainian government to "raise the battlefield cost for Putin," Nuland commented, "I'd strongly urge you to use the phrase 'defensive systems' that we would deliver to oppose Putin's 'offensive systems.'"

    To return to the initial question of where Victoria Nuland is, the long answer would be that while she is not much in the news, she is continuing to provide support for policies that the White House apparently approves of. Late last month, she was again in Kiev. She criticized Russia for its lack of press freedom and its "puppets" in the Donbas region while telling a Ukrainian audience about a "strong U.S. commitment to stand with Ukraine as it stays on the path of a clean, democratic, European future. … We remain committed to retaining sanctions that apply to the situation in Crimea until Crimea is returned to Ukraine." Before that, she was in Cyprus and France discussing "a range of regional and global issues with senior government officials."

    But one has to suspect that, at this point, she is mainly waiting to see what happens in November. And wondering where she might be going in January.

    Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is executive director of the Council for the National Interest.

    [Aug 04, 2016] Anti-Russian Hysteria, Rigged Primaries Americas Longest War Gets Longer

    Notable quotes:
    "... Anti-Russian hysteria in America reached its apogee this week as Democrats tried to divert attention from embarrassing revelations about how the Democratic Party apparatus had rigged the primaries against Bernie Sanders by claiming Vlad Putin and his KGB had hacked and exposed the Dem's emails. ..."
    "... Unnamed US 'intelligence officials' claimed they had 'high confidence' that the Russian KGB or GRU (military intelligence) had hacked the Dem's emails. These were likely the same officials who had 'high confidence' that Iraq had nuclear weapons. ..."
    "... And what a joy for the war party that those dastardly Ruskis are now back as Enemy Number One. Much more fun than scruffy Arabs. The word is out: more stealth bombers, more warships, more missiles, more troops for Europe. The wicked Red Chinese will have to wait their turn until Uncle Sam can deal with them. ..."
    "... I always find conventions depressing affairs. Rather than the cradle of democracy, they remind me of clownish Shriners Conventions. Or as the witty Democratic advisor Paul Begala said, `Hollywood for ugly people.' What, I kept wondering, is the rest of the world thinking as it watching this tawdry spectacle? ..."
    "... One thing that that amazed me was the Convention's lack of attention to America's longest ever war that still rages in the mountains of Afghanistan. For the past thirteen years, America, the world's greatest military and economic power, has been trying to crush the life out of Afghan Pashtun mountain tribesmen whose primary sin is fiercely opposing occupation by the US and its local Afghan opium-growing stooges. ..."
    "... But the war was far from being 'almost won.' The US-installed puppet regime in Kabul of President Ashraf Ghani, a former banker, holds on only thanks to the bayonets of US troops and the US Air Force. Without constant air strikes, the US-installed Ghani regime and its drug-dealing would have been swept away by Taliban and its tribal allies. ..."
    "... So the US remains stuck in Afghanistan. Obama lacked the courage to pull US troops out. Always weak in military affairs, Obama bent to demands of the Pentagon and CIA to dig in lest the Red Chinese or Pakistan take over this strategic nation. The US oil industry was determined to assure trans-Afghan pipeline routes south from Central Asia. India has its eye on Afghanistan. Muslims could not be allowed to defeat the US military. ..."
    "... This longest of wars has cost nearly $1 trillion to date – all of its borrowed money – and caused the deaths of 3,518 US and coalition troops, including 158 Canadians who blundered into a war none of them understood. ..."
    "... No one has the courage to end this pointless war. Meanwhile, tens of thousands of Afghans are being killed. Too bad no one at the Democratic or Republican Conventions had time to think about the endless war in forgotten Afghanistan. ..."
    www.strategic-culture.org

    Anti-Russian hysteria in America reached its apogee this week as Democrats tried to divert attention from embarrassing revelations about how the Democratic Party apparatus had rigged the primaries against Bernie Sanders by claiming Vlad Putin and his KGB had hacked and exposed the Dem's emails.

    This was rich coming from the US that snoops into everyone's emails and phones across the globe. Remember German chancellor Angela Merkel's cell phone being bugged by the US National Security Agency?

    Unnamed US 'intelligence officials' claimed they had 'high confidence' that the Russian KGB or GRU (military intelligence) had hacked the Dem's emails. These were likely the same officials who had 'high confidence' that Iraq had nuclear weapons.

    Blaming Putin was a master-stroke of deflection. No more talk of Hillary's slush fund foundation or her status as a subsidiary of Goldman Sachs and the rest of Wall Street. All attention was focused on President Putin who has been outrageously demonized by the US media and politicians.

    Except for a small faux pas – a montage of warships shown at the end of the Democratic Convention is a blaze of jingoistic effusion embarrassingly turned out to be Russian warships!

    Probably another trick by the awful Putin who has come to replace Satan in the minds of many Americans.

    And what a joy for the war party that those dastardly Ruskis are now back as Enemy Number One. Much more fun than scruffy Arabs. The word is out: more stealth bombers, more warships, more missiles, more troops for Europe. The wicked Red Chinese will have to wait their turn until Uncle Sam can deal with them.

    I always find conventions depressing affairs. Rather than the cradle of democracy, they remind me of clownish Shriners Conventions. Or as the witty Democratic advisor Paul Begala said, `Hollywood for ugly people.' What, I kept wondering, is the rest of the world thinking as it watching this tawdry spectacle?

    One thing that that amazed me was the Convention's lack of attention to America's longest ever war that still rages in the mountains of Afghanistan. For the past thirteen years, America, the world's greatest military and economic power, has been trying to crush the life out of Afghan Pashtun mountain tribesmen whose primary sin is fiercely opposing occupation by the US and its local Afghan opium-growing stooges.

    The saintly President Barack Obama repeatedly proclaimed the Afghan War over and staged phony troops withdrawals. He must have believed his generals who kept claiming they had just about defeated the resistance alliance, known as Taliban.

    But the war was far from being 'almost won.' The US-installed puppet regime in Kabul of President Ashraf Ghani, a former banker, holds on only thanks to the bayonets of US troops and the US Air Force. Without constant air strikes, the US-installed Ghani regime and its drug-dealing would have been swept away by Taliban and its tribal allies.

    So the US remains stuck in Afghanistan. Obama lacked the courage to pull US troops out. Always weak in military affairs, Obama bent to demands of the Pentagon and CIA to dig in lest the Red Chinese or Pakistan take over this strategic nation. The US oil industry was determined to assure trans-Afghan pipeline routes south from Central Asia. India has its eye on Afghanistan. Muslims could not be allowed to defeat the US military.

    Look what happened to the Soviets after they admitted defeat in Afghanistan and pulled out. Why expose the US Empire to a similar geopolitical risk?

    With al-Qaida down to less than 50 members in Afghanistan, according to former US defense chief Leon Panetta, what was the ostensible reason for Washington to keep garrisoning Afghanistan? The shadowy ISIS is now being dredged up as the excuse to stay.

    This longest of wars has cost nearly $1 trillion to date – all of its borrowed money – and caused the deaths of 3,518 US and coalition troops, including 158 Canadians who blundered into a war none of them understood.

    No one has the courage to end this pointless war. Meanwhile, tens of thousands of Afghans are being killed. Too bad no one at the Democratic or Republican Conventions had time to think about the endless war in forgotten Afghanistan.

    EricMargolis.com

    [Aug 04, 2016] Anti-Russian Hysteria, Rigged Primaries Americas Longest War Gets Longer

    Notable quotes:
    "... Anti-Russian hysteria in America reached its apogee this week as Democrats tried to divert attention from embarrassing revelations about how the Democratic Party apparatus had rigged the primaries against Bernie Sanders by claiming Vlad Putin and his KGB had hacked and exposed the Dem's emails. ..."
    "... Unnamed US 'intelligence officials' claimed they had 'high confidence' that the Russian KGB or GRU (military intelligence) had hacked the Dem's emails. These were likely the same officials who had 'high confidence' that Iraq had nuclear weapons. ..."
    "... And what a joy for the war party that those dastardly Ruskis are now back as Enemy Number One. Much more fun than scruffy Arabs. The word is out: more stealth bombers, more warships, more missiles, more troops for Europe. The wicked Red Chinese will have to wait their turn until Uncle Sam can deal with them. ..."
    "... I always find conventions depressing affairs. Rather than the cradle of democracy, they remind me of clownish Shriners Conventions. Or as the witty Democratic advisor Paul Begala said, `Hollywood for ugly people.' What, I kept wondering, is the rest of the world thinking as it watching this tawdry spectacle? ..."
    "... One thing that that amazed me was the Convention's lack of attention to America's longest ever war that still rages in the mountains of Afghanistan. For the past thirteen years, America, the world's greatest military and economic power, has been trying to crush the life out of Afghan Pashtun mountain tribesmen whose primary sin is fiercely opposing occupation by the US and its local Afghan opium-growing stooges. ..."
    "... But the war was far from being 'almost won.' The US-installed puppet regime in Kabul of President Ashraf Ghani, a former banker, holds on only thanks to the bayonets of US troops and the US Air Force. Without constant air strikes, the US-installed Ghani regime and its drug-dealing would have been swept away by Taliban and its tribal allies. ..."
    "... So the US remains stuck in Afghanistan. Obama lacked the courage to pull US troops out. Always weak in military affairs, Obama bent to demands of the Pentagon and CIA to dig in lest the Red Chinese or Pakistan take over this strategic nation. The US oil industry was determined to assure trans-Afghan pipeline routes south from Central Asia. India has its eye on Afghanistan. Muslims could not be allowed to defeat the US military. ..."
    "... This longest of wars has cost nearly $1 trillion to date – all of its borrowed money – and caused the deaths of 3,518 US and coalition troops, including 158 Canadians who blundered into a war none of them understood. ..."
    "... No one has the courage to end this pointless war. Meanwhile, tens of thousands of Afghans are being killed. Too bad no one at the Democratic or Republican Conventions had time to think about the endless war in forgotten Afghanistan. ..."
    www.strategic-culture.org

    Anti-Russian hysteria in America reached its apogee this week as Democrats tried to divert attention from embarrassing revelations about how the Democratic Party apparatus had rigged the primaries against Bernie Sanders by claiming Vlad Putin and his KGB had hacked and exposed the Dem's emails.

    This was rich coming from the US that snoops into everyone's emails and phones across the globe. Remember German chancellor Angela Merkel's cell phone being bugged by the US National Security Agency?

    Unnamed US 'intelligence officials' claimed they had 'high confidence' that the Russian KGB or GRU (military intelligence) had hacked the Dem's emails. These were likely the same officials who had 'high confidence' that Iraq had nuclear weapons.

    Blaming Putin was a master-stroke of deflection. No more talk of Hillary's slush fund foundation or her status as a subsidiary of Goldman Sachs and the rest of Wall Street. All attention was focused on President Putin who has been outrageously demonized by the US media and politicians.

    Except for a small faux pas – a montage of warships shown at the end of the Democratic Convention is a blaze of jingoistic effusion embarrassingly turned out to be Russian warships!

    Probably another trick by the awful Putin who has come to replace Satan in the minds of many Americans.

    And what a joy for the war party that those dastardly Ruskis are now back as Enemy Number One. Much more fun than scruffy Arabs. The word is out: more stealth bombers, more warships, more missiles, more troops for Europe. The wicked Red Chinese will have to wait their turn until Uncle Sam can deal with them.

    I always find conventions depressing affairs. Rather than the cradle of democracy, they remind me of clownish Shriners Conventions. Or as the witty Democratic advisor Paul Begala said, `Hollywood for ugly people.' What, I kept wondering, is the rest of the world thinking as it watching this tawdry spectacle?

    One thing that that amazed me was the Convention's lack of attention to America's longest ever war that still rages in the mountains of Afghanistan. For the past thirteen years, America, the world's greatest military and economic power, has been trying to crush the life out of Afghan Pashtun mountain tribesmen whose primary sin is fiercely opposing occupation by the US and its local Afghan opium-growing stooges.

    The saintly President Barack Obama repeatedly proclaimed the Afghan War over and staged phony troops withdrawals. He must have believed his generals who kept claiming they had just about defeated the resistance alliance, known as Taliban.

    But the war was far from being 'almost won.' The US-installed puppet regime in Kabul of President Ashraf Ghani, a former banker, holds on only thanks to the bayonets of US troops and the US Air Force. Without constant air strikes, the US-installed Ghani regime and its drug-dealing would have been swept away by Taliban and its tribal allies.

    So the US remains stuck in Afghanistan. Obama lacked the courage to pull US troops out. Always weak in military affairs, Obama bent to demands of the Pentagon and CIA to dig in lest the Red Chinese or Pakistan take over this strategic nation. The US oil industry was determined to assure trans-Afghan pipeline routes south from Central Asia. India has its eye on Afghanistan. Muslims could not be allowed to defeat the US military.

    Look what happened to the Soviets after they admitted defeat in Afghanistan and pulled out. Why expose the US Empire to a similar geopolitical risk?

    With al-Qaida down to less than 50 members in Afghanistan, according to former US defense chief Leon Panetta, what was the ostensible reason for Washington to keep garrisoning Afghanistan? The shadowy ISIS is now being dredged up as the excuse to stay.

    This longest of wars has cost nearly $1 trillion to date – all of its borrowed money – and caused the deaths of 3,518 US and coalition troops, including 158 Canadians who blundered into a war none of them understood.

    No one has the courage to end this pointless war. Meanwhile, tens of thousands of Afghans are being killed. Too bad no one at the Democratic or Republican Conventions had time to think about the endless war in forgotten Afghanistan.

    EricMargolis.com

    [Aug 04, 2016] An Eloquent Silence The West does not respond to Turkish accusations -

    Feb 08, 2016 | Defend Democracy Press

    Something very strange is happening. The great majority of the mainstream western media are "under-reporting" the quite monumental events affecting one of the most important NATO allies.

    In the same time more and more accusations and more concrete ones are coming out of Turkey about the West supporting the failed coup! Still western media and capitals behave like it is just normal for leaders and officials of a NATO country to accuse the United States of supporting a coup in their country!

    It is true that Erdogan is not a popular politician in the West and he is considered rather authoritarian. He made a lot of things to justify this accusation. But the question is they don't like because he is authoritarian or because he became too "uncontrollable"?

    Anyway there is a distance between criticizing a leader (elected by the way) for his authoritarianism and supporting military coups against him. To impose a military dictatorship in Turkey is hardly a way to promote "democracy", as it was hardly the repeated wars in the Middle East (USA and France have just begun a new one against Libya!)

    President Erdogan has again accused the West for its attitude towards his country, just one day after the visit to Turkey of the chief of the US Armed Forces

    http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/west-stands-by-coup-terrorists-president-erdogan-.aspx?pageID=238&nID=102395&NewsCatID=338

    More accusations are addressed every day to the CIA and US Generals of being behind the coup attempt in Turkey. The last one is here

    http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/cia-also-behind-failed-coup-attempt-former-turkish-army-chief-.aspx?PageID=238&NID=102382&NewsCatID=341

    Meanwhile, the British Ambassador to Ankara is using the old imperial know-how of his country to what seems a damage limitation exercise

    http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/uk-envoy-gulen-may-be-behind-failed-coup-attempt.aspx?pageID=238&nID=102258&NewsCatID=510

    And here is what a known Japanese specialist on Turkey had to say about the post-coup situation there

    http://sputniknews.com/europe/20160802/1043871296/japan-turkey-army.html

    [Aug 04, 2016] Commentary The real reason Washington calls Putin a thug by Peter Van Buren

    Notable quotes:
    "... Following the collapse of the Soviet Union and the conclusion of the Cold War (" the end of history ," as Francis Fukuyama, called it), there was no global enemy for America to face down. No big nasty to spur weapons procurement, to justify a huge standing military with hundreds of bases around the world or to pick fights with to allow a president down in the polls to morph into a superhero. ..."
    "... Americans are already well-prepared by the old Cold War to see Russia again as an evil empire, and Putin does look the part. The Russians are involved in Syria's civil war, so there is some sense of continuity. A new Cold War with Russia would require America to buy more expensive military hardware, plus discover new areas of Europe, like the Baltic states, to garrison. It might even breathe new life into a North Atlantic Treaty Organization that is confused about its role vis-a-vis terrorism. For politicians, ceaselessly shouting about the Muslim threat has proved to have downsides: It has inflamed many Muslims, perhaps pushing them toward radicalization. In addition, it turns out there are Muslim voters in the United States, and people who respect Muslims. The Kahn family's moving speech to the Democratic National Convention about the death of their soldier son was proof of that. ..."
    "... On the other hand, Putin doesn't vote, only a handful of far leftists think he's a good guy, and he can be slapped around in sound bites without risk that he will actually launch a war against the United States. Why, he can even be accused, without penalty, of meddling in our democratic processes. ..."
    "... Putin the Thug is a political-military-industrial-complex dream candidate. Expect him to feature heavily in the next administration's foreign policy. ..."
    Aug 02, 2016 | Reuters

    There is a near-certainty in American political speech, going back to the 1980s: When a senior United States official labels you a thug, trouble follows. "Thug" is the safest go-to word in the lexicon of American Exceptionalism.

    So, it is with concern that folks are lining up at the mic to call Russian President Vladimir Putin just that. President Obama called him a "thug," as did presidential hopeful Marco Rubio, who added "gangster" for good measure. Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan's spokesperson found fault with Putin and his whole nation, even adding an adjective: "Russia is a global menace led by a DEVIOUS thug." One rarely hears ruffian, hooligan, vandal, hoodlum or villain, but watch out for thug.

    While throwing the term at Putin is tied to the weak public evidence supposedly linking Russian government hacker(s) to the Democratic National Committee computer breach, there may be larger issues in the background.

    It seems the word "thug" is a sort of dog whistle that when blown signals Americans and their media to psyche up for a new fight. For example:

    Secretary of State John Kerry on Syrian President Bashar al-Assad: "A thug and murderer." Kerry also said, "Daesh [Islamic State] is in fact nothing more than a mixture of killers, of kidnappers, of criminals, of thugs ..."

    Then-President George W. Bush on al Qaeda: "If we let down our guard against this group of thugs, they will hurt us again." Bush also thought Saddam Hussein was a thug.

    Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders on Muammar Gaddafi: "Look, everybody understands Gaddafi is a thug and murderer."

    Madeleine Albright found thugs in Somalia and the Balkans for the wars of her era as secretary of state.

    But why Putin, and why now? Perhaps what we're seeing is preparation for the next iteration of America's perpetual state of war.

    Following the collapse of the Soviet Union and the conclusion of the Cold War ("the end of history," as Francis Fukuyama, called it), there was no global enemy for America to face down. No big nasty to spur weapons procurement, to justify a huge standing military with hundreds of bases around the world or to pick fights with to allow a president down in the polls to morph into a superhero.

    A lot of people had a lot of power and money in play that demanded some real bad guys. An attempt was made in the 1980s to make drug lords the new major threat, but they were too few in number to sustain the media campaign. Following 9/11, the bad guys were "the terrorists." The George W. Bush administration riffed off that theme in appointing Saddam Hussein as a weapons-of-mass-destruction threat and in tagging Iran and North Korea as members of an "axis of evil."

    Saddam Hussein turned out to be a bust, and the war in Iraq was ultimately very unpopular. Osama bin Laden never launched a second attack on the United States, and the Taliban were dragged down by a war that seemed to lose its focus after 15 years. Iran and North Korea make a lot of noise but never seemed able to do real harm to America. The United States made a good-faith effort trying to label all sorts of others – Gaddafi, Assad, Islamic State – as global enemies worthy of perpetual war, but the Middle East in general has turned into a quagmire. America likes a winner, or at least the appearance of winning.

    Ahead of the next administration, Washington really needs an arch enemy, a poster-child kind of guy who looks like a James Bond villain. And preferably one with nuclear weapons he'll brandish but never use.

    Enter Putin the Thug.

    Americans are already well-prepared by the old Cold War to see Russia again as an evil empire, and Putin does look the part. The Russians are involved in Syria's civil war, so there is some sense of continuity. A new Cold War with Russia would require America to buy more expensive military hardware, plus discover new areas of Europe, like the Baltic states, to garrison. It might even breathe new life into a North Atlantic Treaty Organization that is confused about its role vis-a-vis terrorism.

    For politicians, ceaselessly shouting about the Muslim threat has proved to have downsides: It has inflamed many Muslims, perhaps pushing them toward radicalization. In addition, it turns out there are Muslim voters in the United States, and people who respect Muslims. The Kahn family's moving speech to the Democratic National Convention about the death of their soldier son was proof of that.

    On the other hand, Putin doesn't vote, only a handful of far leftists think he's a good guy, and he can be slapped around in sound bites without risk that he will actually launch a war against the United States. Why, he can even be accused, without penalty, of meddling in our democratic processes.

    Putin the Thug is a political-military-industrial-complex dream candidate. Expect him to feature heavily in the next administration's foreign policy.

    Peter Van Buren, who served in the State Department for 24 years, is the author of "We Meant Well: How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People," a look at the waste and mismanagement of the Iraqi reconstruction. His latest book is "Ghosts of Tom Joad: A Story of the #99 Percent." He is on Twitter @WeMeantWell

    [Aug 03, 2016] Hillary Clinton took $100,000 of cash from a company she ran (and worked for in the 80s and 90s) that also funded ISIS in Syria.

    www.theguardian.com

    doublreed -> legalimmigrant

    DryBack, Voilà: Wikileaks recently released documents proving that Hillary Clinton took $100,000 of cash from a company she ran (and worked for in the 80's and 90's) that also funded ISIS in Syria. French industrial giant, Lafarge, gave money to the Islamic state to operate their (Lafarge's) cement plant in Syria, and purchased oil from ISIS. Lafarge are also large donators to Clinton's election and the Clinton Foundation. More is here: http://yournewswire.com/clinton-was-director-of-company-that-donated-money-to-isis/

    Lafarge is a regular donor to the Clinton Foundation – the firm's up to $100,000 donation was listed in its annual donor list for 2015.


    rberger -> doublreed

    Lame. When Clinton worked as a lawyer, she did some legal work for Lafarge. She later said on the board. This was in 1991. The so-called association with ISIS happened in 2014. Clinton did not take $100,000 from the company. The company donated $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation, which is a non-profit organization and not a cent goes to Clinton.

    [Aug 03, 2016] Trump-Khan Flap Puts Republicans in a Bind RealClearPolitics by James Arkin

    Aug 02, 2016 | www.realclearpolitics.com
    In an interview with CNN on Monday, Khan called Trump "ignorant" and "arrogant" and criticized other Republicans for not doing more to denounce their party's nominee.

    "Enough is enough," he said. "Every decent Republican ... has rebuked this behavior, yet no one has stood up and said, 'Enough, stop it. You will not be our candidate.'"

    It was the second time since his convention speech that Khan has directly appealed to GOP leadership on Capitol Hill to push back against the nominee. Over the weekend, he singled out Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Speaker Paul Ryan on MSNBC, saying the "only reason they're not repudiating his behavior, his threat to our democracy, our decency, our foundation, is just because of political consequences."

    [Aug 03, 2016] Israel to US Give Us More! by Justin Raimondo

    Notable quotes:
    "... If the rabidly pro-Israel Hillary Clinton takes the White House, you can expect that this concession will be re-negotiated: in any case, the Israel lobby will wield its considerable resources to get Congress to pressure the White House. ..."
    "... As Glenn Greenwald points out in The Intercept , the Israelis have cradle-to-grave health care. Their life-expectancy is nearly a decade longer than ours. Their infant mortality rate is lower. By any meaningful measure, their standard of living is higher. They should be sending us aid: instead, the opposite is occurring. ..."
    "... We made possible the Israeli Sparta : a state armed to the teeth which thrives on the misery and enslavement of its dispossessed Palestinian helots. Furthermore, our policy of unconditional support for Israel has encouraged the growth and development of a polity that is rapidly going fascist. And I don't use the "f"-word lightly. I've been chronicling Israel's slide toward a repulsive ethno-nationalism for years , and today – with the rise of ultra-rightist parties that openly call for the expulsio n of Arabs and the expansion of the Israeli state to its Biblically-ordained borders – my predictions are coming true. ..."
    "... The "special relationship" is a parasitic relationship: the Israelis have been feeding off US taxpayers since the Reagan era. This in spite of the numerous insults , slights, and outright sabotage they have directed our way. It's high time to put an end to it. To borrow a phrase from You Know Who: it's time to put America first. ..."
    "... What this means in practice is: 1) End aid to Israel, 2) Call out the Israelis for their shameful apartheid policies, and 3) end the power of the Israel lobby by enforcing the Foreign Agents Registration Act and compelling AIPAC and its allied organizations to register as foreign agents. Because that's just what they are. ..."
    original.antiwar.com
    August 03, 2016 | Antiwar.com

    Washington is preparing to increase US aid to Israel by billions of dollars, with a ten-year ironclad agreement that couldn't be altered by President Obama's successor. But that isn't good enough for Bibi Netanyahu. He wants more. Much more.

    Unlike the case with other countries, the US engages in protracted and often difficult negotiations with Israel over how much free stuff they're going to get come budget time. This year, the talks are taking on a particularly urgent tone because of … you guessed it, Donald Trump. While Trump is fervently pro-Israel, he has said that the Israelis, like our NATO allies, are going to have to start paying for their own defense (although with him, you never know what his position is from one day to the next ). This uncertainty has the two parties racing to sign an agreement before President Obama's term is up in January. And it also has inspired the inclusion of a novel clause: a ten-year guarantee that aid will remain at the agreed level, with no possibility that the new President – whoever that may be – will lower it.

    The Israelis currently receive over half the foreign aid doled out by Uncle Sam annually, most of it in military assistance with an extra added dollop for "refugee resettlement." That combined with loan guarantees comes to roughly $3.5 billion per year – with all the money handed to them up front, in the first weeks of the fiscal year, instead of being released over time like other countries.

    So how much is this increase going to amount to? With negotiations still ongoing, the US isn't releasing any solid figures, although Bibi, we are told, is demanding $5 billion annually. The New York Times is reporting the final sum could "top $40 billion." What we do know is that the administration told Congress in a letter that they are prepared to offer Tel Aviv an aid package "that would constitute the largest pledge of military assistance to any country in US history." In addition, it would guarantee US aid for Israel's missile defense, taking it out of the annual appropriations song-and-dance, and immunizing it from any cuts.

    Aside from the "haggling" – as the Times put it – over the amount, there is another issue: the Israeli exception to a rule that applies to all other recipients of American aid. Other countries must spend their welfare check in dollars – that is, they must buy American. Not the Israelis. They're allowed to spend up to 25% of their aid package at home: which means that US taxpayers have been subsidizing the Israeli military-industrial complex to the tune of multi-billions since the 1980s, when this special arrangement was legislated. However, in an era where "America First" is now a popular political slogan – popularized by You Know Who – the Obama administration is trying to end this exception to the rules. Naturally, the Israelis are resisting, but, according to Ha'aretz :

    "The Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth said the White House was prepared to let Israel keep the arrangement for the first five years of the new MOU but it would be gradually phased out in the second five years, except for joint U.S.-Israeli military projects."

    If the rabidly pro-Israel Hillary Clinton takes the White House, you can expect that this concession will be re-negotiated: in any case, the Israel lobby will wield its considerable resources to get Congress to pressure the White House.

    In their letter to Congress, national security honcho Susan Rice and OMB chief Shaun Donovan evoke the Iran deal as justification for this new and sweeter aid package. Yet this argument undermines the administration's contention that the agreement with Iran doesn't endanger Israel – because if it doesn't, then why do the Israelis need billions more in aid in the first place?

    What the letter tiptoes around is the fact that this aid package is extortion, pure and simple. It's a purely political attempt by the Obama White House to appease the Israelis, and mobilize the Israel lobby behind the Democrats in a crucial election year. It's important to keep Haim Saban happy.

    As Glenn Greenwald points out in The Intercept , the Israelis have cradle-to-grave health care. Their life-expectancy is nearly a decade longer than ours. Their infant mortality rate is lower. By any meaningful measure, their standard of living is higher. They should be sending us aid: instead, the opposite is occurring.

    What in the heck is going on here?

    We made possible the Israeli Sparta : a state armed to the teeth which thrives on the misery and enslavement of its dispossessed Palestinian helots. Furthermore, our policy of unconditional support for Israel has encouraged the growth and development of a polity that is rapidly going fascist. And I don't use the "f"-word lightly. I've been chronicling Israel's slide toward a repulsive ethno-nationalism for years , and today – with the rise of ultra-rightist parties that openly call for the expulsio n of Arabs and the expansion of the Israeli state to its Biblically-ordained borders – my predictions are coming true.

    The "special relationship" is a parasitic relationship: the Israelis have been feeding off US taxpayers since the Reagan era. This in spite of the numerous insults , slights, and outright sabotage they have directed our way. It's high time to put an end to it. To borrow a phrase from You Know Who: it's time to put America first.

    What this means in practice is: 1) End aid to Israel, 2) Call out the Israelis for their shameful apartheid policies, and 3) end the power of the Israel lobby by enforcing the Foreign Agents Registration Act and compelling AIPAC and its allied organizations to register as foreign agents. Because that's just what they are.

    [Aug 03, 2016] Neocon-like Groupthink Dominates Both Conventions

    Notable quotes:
    "... The mass migration of apparently hundreds of nominally GOP neocon apparatchiks to the Hillary Clinton camp has moved Democratic Party foreign policy farther to the right, not that the presidential nominee herself needed much persuading. The Democratic convention platform is a template of the hardline foreign policy positions espoused by Clinton and the convention itself concluded with a prolonged bout of Russian bashing that could have been orchestrated by Hillary protégé Victoria Nuland. ..."
    "... The inside the beltway crowd has realized that when in doubt it is always a safe bet to blame Vladimir Putin based on the assumption that Russia is and always will be an enemy of the United States. Wikileaks recently published some thousands of emails that painted the Democratic National Committee, then headed by Hillary loyalist Debbie Wasserman Schultz, in a very bad light. Needing a scapegoat, Russia was blamed for the original hack that obtained the information, even though there is no hard evidence that Moscow had anything to do with it. ..."
    "... Another interesting aspect of the Russian scandal is the widespread assertion that Moscow is attempting to interfere in U.S. politics and is both clandestinely and openly supporting Donald Trump. This is presumably a bad thing, if true, because Putin would, according to the pundits, be able to steamroll "Manchurian Candidate" President Trump and subvert U.S. foreign policy in Russia's favor. Alternatively, as the narrative continues, the stalwart Hillary would presumably defend American values and the right to intervene militarily anywhere in the world at any time against all comers including Putin and those rascals in China and North Korea. Professor Inboden might no doubt be able to provide a reference to the part of the Constitution that grants Washington that right as he and his former boss George W. Bush were also partial to that interpretation. ..."
    "... And the alleged Russian involvement leads inevitably to some thoughts about interference by other governments in our electoral system. Israel and its Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu did so in a rather heavy handed fashion in 2012 on behalf of candidate Mitt Romney but I don't recall even a squeak coming out of Hillary and her friends when that took place. That just might be due to the fact that Netanyahu owns Bill and Hillary, which leads inevitably to consideration of the other big winner now that the two conventions are concluded. The team that one sees doing the victory lap is the state of Israel, which dodged a bigtime bullet when it managed to exploit its bought and paid for friends to eliminate any criticism of its military occupation and settlements policies. Indeed, Israel emerged from the two party platforms as America's best friend and number one ally, a position it has occupied since its Lobby took control of the Congress, White House and the mainstream media around thirty years ago. ..."
    "... Donald Trump, who has perversely promised to be an honest broker in negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, has also described himself as the best friend in the White House that Tel Aviv is ever likely to have. In addition to Trump speaking for himself, Israel was mentioned fourteen times in GOP convention speeches, always being described as the greatest ally and friend to the U.S., never as the pain in the ass and drain on the treasury that it actually represents. ..."
    "... Team Hillary also ignored chants from the convention floor demanding "No More War" and there are separate reports suggesting that one of her first priorities as president will be to initiate a "full review" of the "murderous" al-Assad regime in Syria with the intention of taking care of him once and for all. "No More War" coming from the Democratic base somehow became "More War Please" for the elites that run the party. ..."
    "... If you read through the two party platforms on foreign policy, admittedly a brutal and thankless task, you will rarely find any explanation of actual American interests at play in terms of the involvement of the U.S. in what are essentially other people's quarrels. That is as it should be as our political class has almost nothing to do with reality but instead is consumed with delusions linked solely to acquisition of power and money. That realization on the part of the public has driven both the Trump and Sanders movements and, even if they predictably flame out, there is always the hope that the dissidents will grow stronger with rejection and something might actually happen in 2020. ..."
    The Unz Review

    The mass migration of apparently hundreds of nominally GOP neocon apparatchiks to the Hillary Clinton camp has moved Democratic Party foreign policy farther to the right, not that the presidential nominee herself needed much persuading. The Democratic convention platform is a template of the hardline foreign policy positions espoused by Clinton and the convention itself concluded with a prolonged bout of Russian bashing that could have been orchestrated by Hillary protégé Victoria Nuland.

    The inside the beltway crowd has realized that when in doubt it is always a safe bet to blame Vladimir Putin based on the assumption that Russia is and always will be an enemy of the United States. Wikileaks recently published some thousands of emails that painted the Democratic National Committee, then headed by Hillary loyalist Debbie Wasserman Schultz, in a very bad light. Needing a scapegoat, Russia was blamed for the original hack that obtained the information, even though there is no hard evidence that Moscow had anything to do with it.

    Those in the media and around Hillary who were baying the loudest about how outraged they were over the hack curiously appear to have no knowledge of the existence of the National Security Agency, located at Fort Meade Maryland, which routinely breaks into the government computers of friends and foes alike worldwide. Apparently what is fair game for American codebreakers is no longer seen so positively when there is any suggestion that the tables might have been turned.

    Republican nominee Donald Trump noted that if the Russians were in truth behind the hack he would like them to search for the 30,000 emails that Hillary Clinton reportedly deleted from her home server. The comment, which to my mind was sarcastically making a point about Clinton's mendacity, brought down the wrath of the media, with the New York Times reporting that "foreign policy experts," also sometimes known as "carefully selected 'Trump haters,'" were shocked by The Donald. The paper quoted one William Inboden, allegedly a University of Texas professor who served on President George W. Bush's National Security Council. Inboden complained that the comments were "an assault on the Constitution" and "tantamount to treason." Now I have never heard of Inboden, which might be sheer ignorance on my part, but he really should refresh himself on what the Constitution actually says about treason, tantamount or otherwise. According to Article III of the Constitution of the United States one can only commit treason if there is a declared war going on and one is actively aiding an enemy, which as far as I know is not currently the case as applied to the U.S. relationship with Russia.

    Another interesting aspect of the Russian scandal is the widespread assertion that Moscow is attempting to interfere in U.S. politics and is both clandestinely and openly supporting Donald Trump. This is presumably a bad thing, if true, because Putin would, according to the pundits, be able to steamroll "Manchurian Candidate" President Trump and subvert U.S. foreign policy in Russia's favor. Alternatively, as the narrative continues, the stalwart Hillary would presumably defend American values and the right to intervene militarily anywhere in the world at any time against all comers including Putin and those rascals in China and North Korea. Professor Inboden might no doubt be able to provide a reference to the part of the Constitution that grants Washington that right as he and his former boss George W. Bush were also partial to that interpretation.

    And the alleged Russian involvement leads inevitably to some thoughts about interference by other governments in our electoral system. Israel and its Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu did so in a rather heavy handed fashion in 2012 on behalf of candidate Mitt Romney but I don't recall even a squeak coming out of Hillary and her friends when that took place. That just might be due to the fact that Netanyahu owns Bill and Hillary, which leads inevitably to consideration of the other big winner now that the two conventions are concluded. The team that one sees doing the victory lap is the state of Israel, which dodged a bigtime bullet when it managed to exploit its bought and paid for friends to eliminate any criticism of its military occupation and settlements policies. Indeed, Israel emerged from the two party platforms as America's best friend and number one ally, a position it has occupied since its Lobby took control of the Congress, White House and the mainstream media around thirty years ago.

    Donald Trump, who has perversely promised to be an honest broker in negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, has also described himself as the best friend in the White House that Tel Aviv is ever likely to have. In addition to Trump speaking for himself, Israel was mentioned fourteen times in GOP convention speeches, always being described as the greatest ally and friend to the U.S., never as the pain in the ass and drain on the treasury that it actually represents.

    No other foreign country was mentioned as often as Israel apart from Iran, which was regularly cited as an enemy of both the U.S. and – you guessed it – Israel. Indeed, the constant thumping of Iran is a reflection of the overweening affection for Netanyahu and his right wing government. Regarding Iran, the GOP foreign policy platform states "We consider the Administration's deal with Iran, to lift international sanctions and make hundreds of billions of dollars available to the Mullahs, a personal agreement between the President and his negotiat­ing partners and non-binding on the next president. Without a two-thirds endorsement by the Senate, it does not have treaty status. Because of it, the de­fiant and emboldened regime in Tehran continues to sponsor terrorism across the region, develop a nuclear weapon, test-fire ballistic missiles inscribed with 'Death to Israel,' and abuse the basic human rights of its citizens."

    The final written Republican platform for 2016 as relating to the Middle East, drawn up with the input of two Trump advisors Jason Greenblatt and David Friedman, rather supports the suggestion that Trump would be pro-Israel rather than the claim of impartiality. The plank entitled "Our Unequivocal Support of Israel and Jerusalem," promises to move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, praises Israel in five different sections, eulogizing it as a "beacon of democracy and humanity" brimming over with freedom of speech and religion while concluding that "support for Israel is an expression of Americanism." It pledges "no daylight" between the two countries, denies that Israel is an "occupier," and slams the peaceful Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement (BDS), which it describes as anti-Semitic and seeking to destroy Israel. It calls for legal action to "thwart" BDS. There is no mention of a Palestinian state or of any Palestinian rights to anything at all.

    The Democratic plank on the Middle East gives lip service to a two state solution for Israel-Palestine but is mostly notable for what it chose to address. Two Bernie Sanders supporters on the platform drafting committee James Zogby and Cornel West wanted to remove any illegal under international law affirmation that Jerusalem is the undivided capital of Israel and also sought to eliminated any condemnation of BDS. They failed on both issues and then tried to have included mild language criticizing Israel's occupation of the West Bank and its settlement building. They were outvoted by Hillary supporters on all the issues they considered important. Indeed, there is no language at all critical in any way of Israel, instead asserting that "a strong and secure Israel is vital to the United States because we share overarching strategic interests and the common values of democracy, equality, tolerance, and pluralism." That none of that was or is true apparently bothered no one in the Hillary camp.

    The Democratic platform document explicitly condemns any support for BDS. Hillary Clinton, who has promised to take the relationship with Israel to a whole new level, has reportedly agreed to an anti-BDS pledge to appease her principal financial supporter Haim Saban, an Israeli-American film producer. Clinton also directly and personally intervened through her surrogate on the committee Wendy Sherman to make sure that the party platform would remain pro-Israel.

    But many Democrats on the floor of the convention hall have, to their credit, promoted a somewhat different perspective, displaying signs and stickers while calling for support of Palestinian rights. One demonstrator outside the convention center burned an Israeli flag, producing a sharp response from Hillary's spokeswoman for Jewish outreach Sarah Bard, "Hillary Clinton has always stood against efforts to marginalize Israel and incitement, and she strongly condemns this kind of hatred. Burning the Israeli flag is a reckless act that undermines peace and our values." Bill meanwhile was seen in the hall wearing a Hillary button written in Hebrew. It was a full court press pander and one has to wonder how Hillary would have felt about someone burning a Russian flag or seeing Bill sport a button in Cyrillic.

    Team Hillary also ignored chants from the convention floor demanding "No More War" and there are separate reports suggesting that one of her first priorities as president will be to initiate a "full review" of the "murderous" al-Assad regime in Syria with the intention of taking care of him once and for all. "No More War" coming from the Democratic base somehow became "More War Please" for the elites that run the party.

    The Democratic platform also beats down on Iran, declaring only tepid support for the nuclear deal while focusing more on draconian enforcement, asserting that they would "not hesitate to take military action if Iran violates the agreement." It also cited Iran as "the leading state sponsor of terrorism" and claimed that Tehran "has its fingerprints on almost every conflict in the Middle East." For what it's worth, neither assertion about Iran's regional role is true and Tehran reportedly has complied completely with the multilateral nuclear agreement. It is the U.S. government that is failing to live up to its commitments by refusing to allow Iranian access to financial markets while the Congress has even blocked an Iranian bid to buy Made-in-the-U.S.A. civilian jetliners.

    So those of us who had hoped for at least a partial abandonment of the hitherto dominant foreign policy consensus have to be disappointed as they in the pro-war crowd in their various guises as liberal interventionists or global supremacy warriors continue to control much of the discourse from left to right. Russia continues to be a popular target to vent Administration frustration over its inept posturing overseas, though there is some hope that Donald Trump might actually reverse that tendency. Iran serves as a useful punchline whenever a politician on the make runs out of other things to vilify. And then there is always Israel, ever the victim, perpetually the greatest ally and friend. And invariably needing some extra cash, a warplane or two or a little political protection in venues like the United Nations.

    If you read through the two party platforms on foreign policy, admittedly a brutal and thankless task, you will rarely find any explanation of actual American interests at play in terms of the involvement of the U.S. in what are essentially other people's quarrels. That is as it should be as our political class has almost nothing to do with reality but instead is consumed with delusions linked solely to acquisition of power and money. That realization on the part of the public has driven both the Trump and Sanders movements and, even if they predictably flame out, there is always the hope that the dissidents will grow stronger with rejection and something might actually happen in 2020.

    [Aug 01, 2016] FSB Detects Cyberattacks on 20 Russian Organizations, Including Military Targets

    Notable quotes:
    "... "Instances of planting of malicious software designed for cyber espionage in computer networks of some 20 organizations located on the territory of Russia have been exposed Information resources of public authorities, scientific and military institutions, enterprises of the military - industrial complex and other objects of country's critical infrastructure were contaminated," the statement read. ..."
    sputniknews.com

    Instances of planting of malicious software designed for cyber espionage in computer networks of some 20 organizations located on the territory of Russia have been exposed, according to FSB press service.

    MOSCOW (Sputnik) - Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) exposed planting of malicious software designed for cyber espionage in computer networks of about 20 Russian institutions, including government and military bodies, FSB press service said Saturday.

    "Instances of planting of malicious software designed for cyber espionage in computer networks of some 20 organizations located on the territory of Russia have been exposed Information resources of public authorities, scientific and military institutions, enterprises of the military - industrial complex and other objects of country's critical infrastructure were contaminated," the statement read.

    The press service stressed that the attack was professionally planned, has similar traits with the previously exposed attacks from all over the world.

    "The latest sets of software are made for each 'victim' individually, based on the unique characteristics of the targeted PC. The spread of the virus is carried out by the means of targeted attacks on PC by sending an e-mail containing a malicious attachment," the statement continued adding that the software made it possible to do screenshots, turn on web-camera and microphones, collect data from the keyboard use.

    FSB in cooperation with the ministries and agencies took a number of measures to identify all the "victims" of the malicious program on the Russian territory, as well as to localize the threats and minimize the consequences caused by its spread.

    [Aug 01, 2016] Will Preemptive Accusations Against Russia Cover Up Voting Fraud

    Notable quotes:
    "... Why do we see such an orchestrated attempt to preemptively accuse Russia of potentially manipulating U.S. voting? This without ANY evidence that Russia ever has or would attempt to do so? Are there already plans for such manipulations that need a plausible foreign culprit as cover up story? Or is there a color revolution in preparation to eventually disenfranchise the election winner? ..."
    "... "hacking", or rather, snooping and leaking, is business as usual... remember when the Sanders and Clinton campaigns were fighting over DNC server data? ..."
    "... The source of the DNC email leak is irrelevant. The Orwellian chant "Putin bad; US good!" is the point of the whole thing, and the media is just a bullhorn for the party/parties. ..."
    "... But I do look forward to the show when the emails Trump referred to are released. What is Hillary afraid of? it's not like nobody knows what she's done... and wants to do next. ..."
    "... the United States has been a failed state from the perspective of voting integrity from at least 2000. The lunatics are running the asylum here and we voters are only allowed to participate as a hollow form of placation. ..."
    "... Our famous "free press," so totally controlled by Big Corporations. Always looking for a way to try to persuade the public that any political and social actions is bad and of no importance. ACK! ..."
    "... My immediate thought was of the White House managed meetings with mayors of cities where Occupy was very much not "crushed," and how they coordinated their attacks by knocking down tents, dumped books into dupsters, which were part of the free lending library in some cities, and forcing people out of sites long occupied with the persuasion of threatened force and physical harm. ..."
    "... we know the neocons intend to cheat to get Hillary elected. Sounds like a warning to Russia to keep out of the way or else. ..."
    "... This video below shows that the pressure of the Russian hacking lies worked on Trump. What kind of genius is that b ? Trump: Putin has no respect for the US. Starts at 1min 20 sec : https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=riuduXz5Y2I Trump on Russia finding Hillays emails : https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gNa2B5zHfbQ ..."
    "... If Trump is such a genius then why would he make so many idiotic and contradictory statements, and then cave it so easily into pressure of lies like this against Russia ? Immediately antagonizing Russia. ..."
    "... The problem with the 'Trump as Manchurian Candidate' narrative is that most people (even Democrats) deep down, probably don't really believe it. It runs right into his 'America First' that the same people have been complaining about. In the absence of hard evidence, actually shared with the public, the Putin connection will eventually fall apart. ..."
    "... Bruce Schneier has been having a neolibcon bias for years with a blind spot for NSA activities. I stopped reading his stupid blog, with little to no added value regarding security news, when it became too obvious. ..."
    "... 'The only reason not to have paper copies is to allow fraud.' ..."
    "... Very well and concisely put. Except for the 'copies' bit. The only reason not to have paper ballots ..."
    "... To me the answer seems obvious: voters registered and elections administered, ballots tallied and stored at the precinct level. There are about 175,000 precincts in the USA, each composed of 1,000 to 2,000 people. A workable size for real, participatory democracy, the basis for all constituencies - municipal, county, state, federal - erected upon them. First come the people , then come our governments. ..."
    "... Russia told the United States on Thursday to get to the bottom of of its own hacking scandal. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said accusations of a Russian hand in hacking Democratic Party emails bordered on "total stupidity" and were motivated by anti-Russian sentiment. ..."
    "... Michael Connell - who died at age 45, leaving a wife and four kids - was a computer networking expert who lived near Akron. Last July 17, an attorney who's filed a federal civil rights lawsuit alleging a conspiracy to rig elections in Ohio held a press conference at which he identified Connell as a principal witness. ..."
    "... the missing deleted emails would most likely also reveal the innards of the Clinton family Foundation. Not really missing. It would be a great disappointment if copies are not in a few 3 letter agencies. ..."
    "... Great George Carlin probably did not know many actual names of the "big owners" when he wrote ..."
    "... ...The politicians are put there to give you the idea that you have freedom of choice you don't. You have no choice. You have owners. They own you. They own everything. They own all the important land. They own, and control the corporations. They've long since bought, and paid for the Senate, the Congress, the state houses, the city halls, they got the judges in their back pockets and they own all the big media companies, so they control just about all of the news and information you get to hear. ..."
    "... They got you by the balls. They spend billions of dollars every year lobbying lobbying, to get what they want Well, we know what they want. They want more for themselves and less for everybody else, but I'll tell you what they don't want they don't want a population of citizens capable of critical thinking... ..."
    "... The perfidy of Manly is that he does not say how to _prevent_ possible breaches, but creates perception of "Russians having access to everything" instead. So he does not really care about solving the problem, but about maintaining the notion that the problem magically persist. ..."
    "... "As regards these (email) batches, that is not our headache. We never poke our noses into others' affairs and we really don't like it when people try to poke their nose into ours," he said. "The Americans needs to get to the bottom of what these emails are themselves and find out what it's all about." ..."
    "... The DNC was "hacked "by some of Killary's Israeli chums/clients... Lets look at the proffered "evidence" for a Russian Hack.. The hackers "seem to have been following a schedule of "Russian" holdiays... Half (or more) of the people in Israel follow that same schedule of holdiays... ..."
    "... Article on Gen. Breedlove: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/breedlove-network-sought-weapons-deliveries-for-ukraine-a-1104837.html Defense contractors, think tanks, and Breedlove feared Congress would cut U.S. troop levels in Europe. ..."
    "... desperate ..."
    "... The Americans are beginning to tell themselves another 'real' war will solve their problems ... look at the DNC convention ... and it'll be OK because it will be another war 'over there'. It won't be over there, it'll be right here no matter where that is. ..."
    "... Bruce Schneier used to charge the Chinese in every hacking incident, I guess there is now a "pivot" in the propaganda world. ..."
    "... It is obvious that our elections are hacked: Florida in 2000, Ohio 2004, and now Brooklyn, Nevada, Arizona, California and other locations this year. They were hacked by our own crooks who would never allow Rooskies to muscle in on the action. Few polling stations in crowded districts, removing names from voter lists, private companies contracted to "count", voter suppression ID laws, jailing of voting populations, gerrymandering, etc. The Rooskies can only bring a rubber chicken to a gun fight. ..."
    "... I have said many times: "We must abolish election machines, such as voting computers. If they make casting and tallying 10 times faster, they make organized cheating 10 times easier as well. Which can we truly afford?" ..."
    "... I can't for the life of me understand why so many hawks in the State Dept and elsewhere are sooooo afraid of Putin. They still mad he nationalized oil companies? ..."
    "... Just suppose the emails of the DNC were released by the Clinton Machine, what a creative tactic, and certainly there is no reason to doubt that...a great media firestorm ensues, DWS had to fall on her sword but quickly gets hoisted on the Clinton petard..as a campaign manager ..."
    "... The evil that we face is an alternate philosophical position which rejects all the moral tenets of the world's 7 great religions. The goal is the rule of a tiny sect which imagines itself a godhead over humanity. ..."
    M of A

    The Clinton campaign and some pseudo experts assert that Russia is somehow guilty of hacking the Democratic National Committee and of revealing DNC emails via Wikileaks. There is zero hard evidence for that. The Clinton campaign also claims that Trump asked Russia to hack Clinton's emails. That is also not the case.

    But two "liberal" computer experts, who are taken serious in the security scene, now build on those false assertions to say that Russia might manipulate voting machines in the November 9 elections. It would do so, presumably, to change the vote count in favor of Trump.

    A Bruce Schneier op ed in today's Washington Post is headlined: By November, Russian hackers could target voting machines .

    That headline alone is already dumb. ANY hacker could target and manipulate the easy to deceive voting machines - should those be connected to the Internet. Local administrators of such machines can manipulate them any time.

    Schneier is, untypically for him, in war mongering mode.

    If the intelligence community has indeed ascertained that Russia is to blame, our government needs to decide what to do in response. This is difficult because the attacks are politically partisan, but it is essential. If foreign governments learn that they can influence our elections with impunity, this opens the door for future manipulations, both document thefts and dumps like this one that we see and more subtle manipulations that we don't see.

    The U.S. manipulates foreign elections all the time, according to Bush administration lawyer Jack Goldsmith. It may not feel nice to suddenly be the target of manipulation attempts instead of the perpetrator, but manipulation attempts in elections are normal everywhere and no reason to start a war or other "response" measures.

    Schneier:

    [W]e need to secure our election systems before autumn. If Putin's government has already used a cyberattack to attempt to help Trump win, there's no reason to believe he won't do it again - especially now that Trump is inviting the "help."

    What a joke. Trump has not invited Russian "help" to manipulate voting computers. Trump also did not ask Russia to "hack" the Clinton email sever. That server no longer exists. If the Clinton email-server was secure, as Clinton asserts, and if the emails in question have been deleted, as Clinton also asserts, how could Russia "hack" for them?

    Trump made a FOIA request for emails that, Hillary Clinton claims, have been deleted. What does she fear about that? Trump asked Russia to give the deleted Clinton emails to the FBI, should it by chance have a copy of them. Such a Freedom of Information Act request usually goes to a part of the U.S. administration. But the Obama administration says it does not have those emails. Trump then made a joke in directing the request to Russia.

    Trump did get the furious media "outrage" response he intended to get. He thereby ruined the PR effect of the last night of the Democratic Convention. That was likely the sole intention of his stunt and again shows his marketing genius.

    But back to the Schneier op-ed. That one is now joined by a piece at Boing Boing by Cory Doctorow. Doctorow is like Schneier a famous person in the computer scene. He quotes the Schneier piece and adds:

    Voting machines are so notoriously terrible that they'd be a very tempting target for Russia or other states that want to influence the outcome in 2016 (or merely destabilize the US by calling into question the outcome in an election).

    The Doctorow sentence neglects, like Schneier, that the entities with the most obvious interest and capabilities to manipulate U.S. voting machines are not foreign countries. U.S. presidential candidates and their parties have much more at stake. The candidates and the money and interests behind them have stronger motives as well as more potential to change the voting results.

    Why do we see such an orchestrated attempt to preemptively accuse Russia of potentially manipulating U.S. voting? This without ANY evidence that Russia ever has or would attempt to do so? Are there already plans for such manipulations that need a plausible foreign culprit as cover up story? Or is there a color revolution in preparation to eventually disenfranchise the election winner?

    Cory Doctorow also sees destabilization as a possible motive and outcome of voting manipulations. Already back in March John Robb warned of a scenario this fall in which election results come into serious doubt and where a conflict over voting results escalates into a civil war.

    I do not foresee such a scenario (yet). But should large scale voting manipulations take place, and be blamed on Russia, more than a civil war enters the realm of possibilities.

    Posted by b at 02:21 PM | Comments (130)

    anon | Jul 28, 2016 3:00:23 PM | 4

    "hacking", or rather, snooping and leaking, is business as usual... remember when the Sanders and Clinton campaigns were fighting over DNC server data?
    https://berniesanders.com/press-release/statement-jeff-weaver/

    The source of the DNC email leak is irrelevant. The Orwellian chant "Putin bad; US good!" is the point of the whole thing, and the media is just a bullhorn for the party/parties. The voting machine rumor is probably aimed at the actual corruption in some places that was designed to favor republicans in swing states. (ironic!) watch them call for more honest verification this time around.

    But I do look forward to the show when the emails Trump referred to are released. What is Hillary afraid of? it's not like nobody knows what she's done... and wants to do next.

    Bruno Marz | Jul 28, 2016 3:01:16 PM | 5
    For all intents and purposes, the United States has been a failed state from the perspective of voting integrity from at least 2000. The lunatics are running the asylum here and we voters are only allowed to participate as a hollow form of placation.
    jawbone | Jul 28, 2016 3:16:03 PM | 7
    Our famous "free press," so totally controlled by Big Corporations. Always looking for a way to try to persuade the public that any political and social actions is bad and of no importance. ACK!

    On Tuesday night, iirc, but could have been Wednesday, the discussion mentioned Occupy as a failed political/social movement. PBS's Gwen Ifill said that it was "crushed by its own weight." It was part of the MCM (Mainstream Corporate Media) declaring the Sanders' promoted political revolution dead and nearly buried.

    My immediate thought was of the White House managed meetings with mayors of cities where Occupy was very much not "crushed," and how they coordinated their attacks by knocking down tents, dumped books into dupsters, which were part of the free lending library in some cities, and forcing people out of sites long occupied with the persuasion of threatened force and physical harm.

    But her statement was part and parcel of how the actual left of any type is dismissed and disrespected by the Corporatist Dems and their Repub allies.

    Alaric | Jul 28, 2016 3:22:04 PM | 9
    we know the neocons intend to cheat to get Hillary elected. Sounds like a warning to Russia to keep out of the way or else.
    Mick McNulty | Jul 28, 2016 3:55:30 PM | 11
    The neo-cons realized how easy it was to rig the election in 2000 after which both sides do it. Now it's down to who who rigs it best. It's a one-party state anyway, two cheeks on the same ass, but every politician wants to be the one who does the telling not the told.

    I think the neo-cons impeached Clinton to ruin the Democrat run because 9/11 was ready to go, and they needed to be in power or they risked being uncovered by the security services of a Gore White House. When the impeachment failed they had no choice but to go in and steal it, because they'd have gone down for their treason. Look what it did to the world.

    likklemore | Jul 28, 2016 4:03:55 PM | 12
    Thanks b for your persistence in shining the torchlight.. Unfortunately for Bruce Schneier, Mr. James Clapper is not ready

    US Intelligence Not Ready to Name Party Behind DNC
    http://sputniknews.com/us/20160728/1043732561/usa-intel-not-ready-dnc-hack.html

    US Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said that the US intelligence authorities are not ready to say who is responsible for hacking the Democratic National Committee emails.

    I do not think we are quite ready yet to make a call on attribution," Clapper stated at the Aspen Security Forum.

    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

    Why not and when will he be ready? Oh never mind. If Schneier is so concerned the election voting machines can be hacked -(Notice no mention of pre-programmed votes) - let's return to paper ballots and pencils. And who counts the votes?

    Oh wait... the Supreme Court may issue a decree to stop the count as they did on December 12, 2000.

    tom | Jul 28, 2016 4:08:55 PM | 13
    In a desperate attempt for bs stupid assertion of Trumps genius, b refuses to give a link for what Trump actually said. B also refuses to give us a sentenced quote from Trump. How weak.

    This video below shows that the pressure of the Russian hacking lies worked on Trump. What kind of genius is that b ?
    Trump: Putin has no respect for the US. Starts at 1min 20 sec : https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=riuduXz5Y2I

    Trump on Russia finding Hillays emails : https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gNa2B5zHfbQ

    If Trump is such a genius then why would he make so many idiotic and contradictory statements, and then cave it so easily into pressure of lies like this against Russia ? Immediately antagonizing Russia.

    Also if trump really understands how corrupt the US voting system is, then what kind of genius would not hedge himself against that voting corruption surely to be done against Trump and for Hitlery - by saying insanely incessant stupid moronic things that expose him to attacks.

    Wouldn't you hedge yourself by keeping on core message and not dragging yourself back into the pack with stupidity.

    Trump said that Putin called Trump a genius, and pathetically that's all b needs to know.

    likklemore | Jul 28, 2016 4:10:36 PM | 14
    @ Steve 1

    Oh my. That was quick, even before HRC's acceptance tonight. Bernie has left the Democratic Party, back to being an Independent

    Bernie Sanders Leaves The Democratic Party

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-28/bernie-sanders-leaves-democratic-party

    I am totally confused. What about his supporters?

    ian | Jul 28, 2016 4:43:38 PM | 20
    The problem with the 'Trump as Manchurian Candidate' narrative is that most people (even Democrats) deep down, probably don't really believe it. It runs right into his 'America First' that the same people have been complaining about. In the absence of hard evidence, actually shared with the public, the Putin connection will eventually fall apart.

    Trumps MO is to say something that generates a lot of outrage that dominates the news cycle at opportune moments. He does this when there is something else he doesn't want you to pay attention to. Remember when Trump University was in the news? He comes back with those statements about the judge. Last night, you had the president, the vice-president among the heavy hitters - what better time to pull a stunt like that? For a party that prides themselves as being the 'smart' one, the Democrats have been remarkably slow in figuring this out.

    Trump probably won't pull anything like this with Hillary - the thing with her is that the more people see her, the less they like her - so let her have her hour of shouting a speech at us.

    MRW | Jul 28, 2016 4:58:51 PM | 21
    For voting machine issues, watch the Stephen Spoonamore series on YouTube. Each segment is about 3-4 minutes. Think there are eight segments. The series is 10 years old but extremely timely. Velvet Revolution Interviews Stephen Spoonamore (segment 1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAyEfovA404

    THEN watch his 2008 series, search YouTube. Warning: Annoying white noise in background. His solution to vote fraud specified in the later segments is ingenious. Spoonamore was the guy American Express and major banks called when they are hacked.

    Noirette | Jul 28, 2016 5:00:20 PM | 23
    I *always* disliked that guy Scheneir now b has given me cause, thanks. (No that I know anything about hacking.) Some US rulings:

    Here the kicker:

    A cyber attack has been given the status of a conventional military attack by NATO on 14th June in a major policy change that increases the likelihood of a world war against Russia.

    NATO 14 June

    nr23 | Jul 28, 2016 5:02:10 PM | 24
    Bruce Schneier has been having a neolibcon bias for years with a blind spot for NSA activities. I stopped reading his stupid blog, with little to no added value regarding security news, when it became too obvious.

    PS: when will you remove the embedded links to google, yahoo, ...?

    virgile | Jul 28, 2016 5:22:06 PM | 25
    The democrats are warning loud and clear that Russia may hack the voting machines in favor of Trump. In fact, they are preparing the terrain to use this argument in case Trump is elected. To make such stupid statements, it shows that the dems are seriously worried that Hillary is quickly loosing ground.
    jfl | Jul 28, 2016 6:05:56 PM | 28
    @27 cresty, 'The only reason not to have paper copies is to allow fraud.'

    Very well and concisely put. Except for the 'copies' bit. The only reason not to have paper ballots is to allow fraud.

    To me the answer seems obvious: voters registered and elections administered, ballots tallied and stored at the precinct level.

    There are about 175,000 precincts in the USA, each composed of 1,000 to 2,000 people. A workable size for real, participatory democracy, the basis for all constituencies - municipal, county, state, federal - erected upon them. First come the people , then come our governments.

    MRW | Jul 28, 2016 6:10:02 PM | 29
    Watch: New: Spoonamore - Sep 2008 - Part 8 - "What part don't you understand...paper ballots please."
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WTe8ppEIic
    2:47 minutes
    .
    lysias | Jul 28, 2016 6:52:40 PM | 32
    2004, not 2008. Obama and Dems won Ohio in 2008. The Republicans' computer expert in Ohio died afterwards in a fishy small plane accident just as he was about to testify.
    crone | Jul 28, 2016 6:41:21 PM | 30
    from Russia (with Love). Russia To US: "Sort Out Your Own Hacking Scandal; It Is Not Our Headache" As the silly farce over whether Russia hacked the DNC continues, earlier today the Kremlin had some harsh words for the US.

    Russia told the United States on Thursday to get to the bottom of of its own hacking scandal. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said accusations of a Russian hand in hacking Democratic Party emails bordered on "total stupidity" and were motivated by anti-Russian sentiment. Suggestions of Russian involvement riled the Kremlin, which has categorically denied this and accused U.S. politicians of seeking to play on Cold War-style U.S. fears of Moscow by fabricating stories for electoral purposes.

    "As regards these (email) batches, that is not our headache. We never poke our noses into others' affairs and we really don't like it when people try to poke their nose into ours," he said.

    "The Americans needs to get to the bottom of what these emails are themselves and find out what it's all about."

    Link to ZeroHedge

    Jen | Jul 28, 2016 6:55:21 PM | 33
    "... Trump made a FOIA request for emails that, Hillary Clinton claims, have been deleted. What does she fear about that? Trump asked Russia to give the deleted Clinton emails to the FBI, should it by chance have a copy of them. Such a Freedom of Information Act request usually goes to a part of the U.S. administration. But the Obama administration says it does not have those emails. Trump then made a joke in directing the request to Russia ..."

    What Clinton fears is that the deleted emails are emails related to the work she did (or supposedly did) while she was US Secretary of State and therefore they would be proof that she violated federal US laws on recordkeeping. Some of these emails might cast light on the 2012 Benghazi consulate attack and whether she can be held partly responsible for the deaths of four Americans during that attack.

    Yonatan | Jul 28, 2016 7:47:18 PM | 34
    Jessia @3. Schneier is an insider - Harvard and the US DoD. It is also ironic that he wrote a book titled: Liars and Outliers: Enabling the Trust that Society Needs to Thrive.

    Way to go, Bruce!

    Macon Richardson | Jul 28, 2016 8:00:44 PM | 35
    Bruno Marz @ 5

    If voter fraud is the criterion of a failed state (and why not), the US failed in 1960 when John Kennedy not only stole the Democratic nomination through voter fraud in West Virginia but also stole the general election through voter fraud in Illinois.

    Tricky Dick Nixon was urged to contest the Illinois vote and contest the outcome of the election. He pointedly refused to do so saying that a contested election would do more harm to the country than allowing a fraudulent victory for JFK.

    Nixon was quite a complicated person.

    V. Arnold | Jul 28, 2016 8:57:12 PM | 37
    Well, it does appear the U.S. is in full Loon mode (my apologies to the bird). The Clinton campaign is doing a fantastic job of deflection and distraction and the idiots are falling for it. It would seem Russia's Pres. Putin is indeed omnipotent.
    ProPeace | Jul 28, 2016 9:02:14 PM | 39
    The missing Hitlary Killton's deleted emails would reveal most probably that the current war against Libya, Syria, Iraq has been mostly her private endeavor (plus Petreaus, CIA, Raytheon) at the request of her Bilderberg/City of London Crown Corporation masters, outside Obama's control.
    ProPeace | Jul 28, 2016 9:17:30 PM | 40
    @23 Thank you Noirette for that missing piece of the puzzle.

    I forgot abut that in my reply on earlier thread.

    The scenario deep state/global criminal cabal has been preparing against the US people and the world would go like this:

    1. Hitlary looses to Trump
    2. Russia is blamed with fabricated evidence for rigging the election
    3. civil unrest in incited (Israeli snipers shooting civilians at random + police trained by the Israeli advisors brutalizes protesters)
    4. hot spots in conflict zones (Turkey, Ukraine, Pribaltica) are set on fire - blamed on Russia (Phillipines blamed on China)
    5. nukes going off in Chicago
    6. NATO considers "Russian cyber attack" as an act of war and responds

    In order to avoid this at this point anybody who supports the Hell Bitch should be boycotted and ostracized, including all the celebrities (who obviously pay their dues for their dark, secret deals) not only that filth Sarah Silverman and alike, who lower themselves to such a sewer level, also companies, local politicians and so on...

    ProPeace | Jul 28, 2016 9:24:29 PM | 41
    Let's not forget Karl Rove case witness killed in plane crash, sisters want answers
    Web guru was potential witness in Ohio voting fraud case

    Shannon Connell of Madison says her brother Michael rarely talked about work. She knew he ran an Ohio company called New Media Communications that set up websites for Republicans including former President George H.W. Bush and Florida Gov. Jeb Bush. But it wasn't until after he died last December, when the small plane he was piloting crashed, that she learned via the Internet of his tie to a voter fraud case and to allegations that presidential adviser Karl Rove had made threats against him.

    "At first, it was really hard for me to believe Mike was dead because somebody wanted him dead," says Shannon, a buyer for a local children's resale shop. "But as time goes on, it's hard for me not to believe there was something deliberate about it."

    A native of Illinois, Shannon moved to Madison in 2002, the same year as her sister, Mary Jo Walker. Walker, a former Dane County Humane Society employee, has similar concerns about their brother's death: "It doesn't seem right to me at all."

    Michael Connell - who died at age 45, leaving a wife and four kids - was a computer networking expert who lived near Akron. Last July 17, an attorney who's filed a federal civil rights lawsuit alleging a conspiracy to rig elections in Ohio held a press conference at which he identified Connell as a principal witness.

    The attorney, Cliff Arnebeck of Columbus, Ohio, tells Isthmus he doesn't believe Connell was engaged in criminal activity but may have been a "data-processing implementer" for those who were. "I was told he was at the table when some criminal things were discussed."

    A week after the press conference, on July 24, Arnebeck wrote U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey seeking protection for Connell, whom he said had been "threatened" by Rove, a key player in the campaigns of George W. Bush. Arenebeck says Connell was told through an intermediary that unless he agreed to "take the fall" for election fraud in Ohio, his wife [and New Media partner] faced prosecution for lobby law violations. There was no claim of a threat on Connell's person.

    Arnebeck was permitted to depose Connell last Nov. 3. The portion of this deposition that dealt with the alleged threats was sealed, but Arnebeck is preparing a motion to make it all public. He affirms that Connell denied any involvement in voter fraud, but thinks Rove still had reason to regard him as a threat.

    "The problem that Mike Connell represented is [he was] a guy of conscience," says Arnebeck. "If it came right down to it, he would not commit perjury." Arnebeck "absolutely" would have called Connell as a witness in his lawsuit.

    Shannon and Mary Jo both say their brother, a devout Catholic, seemed upset in the weeks before his death. Mary Jo feels he was "stressed out and depressed" on his birthday last November; Shannon says he atypically did not respond to an email she'd sent.

    On Dec. 19, Connell flew alone in his single-engine Piper Supercub from a small airport near Washington, D.C. The plane crashed on its final approach to his hometown Akron-Canton Airport, between two houses. The cause is still under investigation but is presumed accidental.

    The blogosphere refuses to accept this. "Mike was getting ready to talk," writes one online journalist who labels Connell a source. "He was frightened."

    ProPeace | Jul 28, 2016 9:33:51 PM | 42
    DEMEXIT Is REAL and Is Gaining Steam. Interactive Map To Re-Register
    Going viral and encouraging disgruntled Democrats to leave the party in all states without upcoming primaries. This does not mean that a percentage of these people won't still vote Democrat in the general election but there is also an active effort coming from the Green Party to recruit these people. Sanders very publicly leaving the Democrat Party to return to Independent was very significant and a signal to his supporters to give the Demexit go sign. Many states have a deadline of August 1st for pre-election party switches, so that leaves only a couple days for many.

    The interactive map and Demexit instruction page being circulated is here. As is customary with the left, alot of work and coordination went into putting this together.

    likklemore | Jul 28, 2016 9:44:13 PM | 43
    @ ProPeace 38,39

    Question being asked in Vermont on party affiliation

    Is Bernie Sanders an Independent or a Democrat?

    http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/07/28/bernie-sanders-party-affiliation-not-simple-question/87666494/

    Sanders is an Independent in the Senate but also a member of the Democratic Party, according to his spokesman, Michael Briggs.

    Notice Biggs said member?

    = = = =

    the missing deleted emails would most likely also reveal the innards of the Clinton family Foundation. Not really missing. It would be a great disappointment if copies are not in a few 3 letter agencies.

    likklemore | Jul 28, 2016 10:17:16 PM | 47
    @ ProPeace 44

    Putin did It. with a bowl of popcorn and using one finger. More Hacking – And is said to be of "Great Concern"

    Reuters Exclusive: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-cyber-democrats-exclusive-idUSKCN1082Y7?il=0

    FBI investigates hacking of Democratic congressional group – sources

    [.] Jim Manley, a Democratic strategist who once worked for Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, said the possibility of the DCCC being hacked was cause for great concern.

    "Until proven otherwise, I would suggest that everyone involved with the campaign committee operate under the assumption Russians have access to everything in their computer systems," Manley said.

    [. ] The disclosure of the DCCC breach is likely to further stoke concerns among Democratic Party operatives, many of whom have acknowledged they fear further dumps of hacked files that could harm their candidates. WikiLeaks has said it has more material related to the U.S. election that it intends to release.[.]

    = = = =

    "They fear" Wikileaks intends to release the big one?

    ProPeace | Jul 28, 2016 10:37:33 PM | 48
    Great George Carlin probably did not know many actual names of the "big owners" when he wrote

    ...The politicians are put there to give you the idea that you have freedom of choice you don't.

    You have no choice. You have owners. They own you. They own everything. They own all the important land. They own, and control the corporations. They've long since bought, and paid for the Senate, the Congress, the state houses, the city halls, they got the judges in their back pockets and they own all the big media companies, so they control just about all of the news and information you get to hear.

    They got you by the balls.

    They spend billions of dollars every year lobbying lobbying, to get what they want Well, we know what they want. They want more for themselves and less for everybody else, but I'll tell you what they don't want they don't want a population of citizens capable of critical thinking...

    Blackstone is one of them, others being Fidelity, PIMCO, StateStreet...

    Hillary Clinton Talks Tough on Shadow Banking, But Blackstone Is Celebrating at the DNC

    Blackstone, the giant Wall Street private equity firm, will hold an invitation-only reception before the final night of the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia. The event, at the swanky Barnes Foundation art museum, includes the usual perks for attendees: free food, drink, and complimentary shuttle buses to the final night of the convention.

    What's unusual is that the host is precisely the kind of "shadow banker" that Hillary Clinton has singled out as needing more regulation in her rhetoric about getting tough on Wall Street.

    But Blackstone President and Chief Operating Officer Hamilton "Tony" James doesn't seem the least bit intimidated...

    ... The head-scratcher here is that James runs a private equity firm, exactly the kind of "shadow bank" that Clinton has derided as a scourge to the financial system. Shadow banks are financial institutions that do bank-like activities (such as lending or investing for clients) but aren't chartered as banks, existing outside of the traditional regulatory perimeter.

    Clinton argued during the primaries with Bernie Sanders that they were more dangerous than the big banks, because of the lack of scrutiny on their risk-taking. That was the linchpin of her argument that Sanders's plan was too myopic, and thather plan, which sought to crack down on shadow banking and deny it sources of funds, was more comprehensive.

    James has not only actively engaged in defending the whole concept of shadow banking, he created the original private equity trade group, formerly known as the Private Equity Council. The group later quietly changed its name to the more innocuous-sounding American Investment Council.

    In 2014, James penned a Wall Street Journal op-ed where he called shadow banking an "Orwellian term that can undermine critical thought." It was the regulated entities, not shadow banks, that were "the source of almost all the systemic risk in the financial crisis," he wrote. James explicitly sought to steer policymakers away from "regulations that undermine the many thousands of companies and jobs that need market-based financing to survive and grow."

    That term, "market-based financing," is a Tony James original. He prefers it because it removes the more sinister connotations associated with the shadows. "Private equity sounds bad, but shadow banking is worse," he told NPR.

    Blackstone operates in leveraged buyouts, asset management, and real estate transactions. It is the largest real estate private equity firm in the world, holding over $103 billion in assets. After the housing bubble collapsed, Blackstone bought 43,000 single-family homes over a two-year period, at one point buying more than $100 million worth of homes per week. They converted most of these into rentals, becoming one of the largest landlords in the world.

    Renters have sued Blackstone's real estate unit, Invitation Homes, for renting out homes in shoddy condition. They've also been accused of jacking up rents to satisfy investors, charging as high as 180 percent of the market rent value. Nevertheless, Blackstone plans to spin off Invitation Homes with an initial public offering next year.

    James's company also benefits from taking business lines from regulated banks, such as one of the trading businesses of global firm Credit Suisse. Blackstone then runs that company without government interference; assets in the Credit Suisse group have doubled since 2013.

    ProPeace | Jul 28, 2016 10:55:20 PM | 49
    @likklemore

    So Clapper did not call it, but Manley has already "suggestion" blaming Russia... LOL. The perfidy of Manly is that he does not say how to _prevent_ possible breaches, but creates perception of "Russians having access to everything" instead. So he does not really care about solving the problem, but about maintaining the notion that the problem magically persist.

    Obviously to use that notion/perception later for some sinister goals.

    Cho Nyawinh | Jul 29, 2016 12:14:16 AM | 50
    This is just agitprop disinformation. Since the 'hanging chad' soft coup, all US voting machines have backdoors to allow thevotes to be flipped, and since the Patriot Act, an Israeli subcontractor and AT&T have had an NSA contract to 'hack' all US cell phone and internet traffic, but now there is no need...GOOG and FB have apps on your tablet, your phone, and your sports band that record and database all your thoughts and actions.

    If you following computing, significant breakthroughs have been made in database manipulation, to where terabytes of information can now be ground down to streaming focus group metrics on the entire herd of so-called Little People. They can literally 'read your mind'.

    'Russia' is just a Zionist mind-meld 'shiney object' whatever cognitive dissociation memes they need to blunt-force eye-socket rape we and our children have to endure ... FOREVER

    psychohistorian | Jul 29, 2016 1:01:50 AM | 53

    And to further make my point about the emails there is this quote from a Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov:

    "As regards these (email) batches, that is not our headache. We never poke our noses into others' affairs and we really don't like it when people try to poke their nose into ours," he said. "The Americans needs to get to the bottom of what these emails are themselves and find out what it's all about."

    And DUH! the attribution for that last quote....

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-28/russia-us-sort-out-your-own-hacking-scandal-it-not-our-headache

    sigh....

    Formerly T-Bear | Jul 29, 2016 3:10:37 AM | 56

    The toxicity of this (2016) election has only been equalled by the election of 1860. Republicans and Democrats were involved then also though the rôles have substantially changed, the results are yet to be seen. What will 156 years of experience bring?

    Zico | Jul 29, 2016 4:08:12 AM | 57
    Look everybody, over there.. The Russians are everywhere!!!!

    Gotta hand it to the msm, though. They've managed to turn this Democrats match fixing to "It must be the Russians".. As always, the joke's on us :)

    tod | Jul 29, 2016 4:34:07 AM | 58
    It is worth to mention that Bruce Schneier is part of the "Tor Project" board of directors since July 2016.
    tSinilats | Jul 29, 2016 5:59:56 AM | 59
    The DNC was "hacked "by some of Killary's Israeli chums/clients... Lets look at the proffered "evidence" for a Russian Hack.. The hackers "seem to have been following a schedule of "Russian" holdiays... Half (or more) of the people in Israel follow that same schedule of holdiays... There are "clues" 'suggesting connections" with known Russian hacker groups..right..again, any Russian hacker group "known" this well and this long, is not an active hacker group any more... Except when Israelis, or whoever, are gaslighting them....The rest of the evidence, where any one has even bothered to offer it, is just as weak, or even weaker.
    From The Hague | Jul 29, 2016 7:00:43 AM | 60
    It will be a landslide. So, the outcome can't be manipulated. Or, who will vote for Killary?
    Enrico Malatesta | Jul 29, 2016 7:22:40 AM | 61
    MR @ 35

    A small quibble, but words matter - what is going on is not Voter Fraud, it's Election Fraud.

    Yonatan | Jul 29, 2016 7:46:47 AM | 62
    psychohistorian @52.

    "Nowhere on the intertubes that I frequent are stories about implications of the CONTENT of the DNC emails. The only angle of the story that is allowed to be covered in excruciating detail is who done it."

    That is the whole point of the 'Putin did it' exercise. It is to distract the people from the content. Contrast with the Panama Papers release where the target, Putin, was immediately targeted indirectly in carefully selected releases. There was very little interest in who was behind the hack. The info was publicly released via a US-government funded entity.

    Yonatan | Jul 29, 2016 7:51:29 AM | 63
    psychohistorian @52.

    It should also be seen in context of the earlier public declaration that such hacking would constitute an act of war. Trump has played into USG hands creating a 'reality' that 'Putin did it' - after saying that "Russia should release the emails, if it has them". Was this done wittingly or unwittingly?

    Noirette | Jul 29, 2016 8:02:47 AM | 64
    ian @ 20: The problem with the 'Trump as Manchurian Candidate' narrative is that most people (even Democrats) deep down, probably don't really believe it.

    I agree! .. hogwash. Trump is the Donald and not more. Yet, after thinking about ian's post, there is an oblique argument to be made: that this election is in fact IS all about Putin. Not Putin as Vladimir, but Putin as a stand-in for Russia. The central issue, the ginormous elephant in the room that is not being discussed is foreign policy - it only shows up in some remarks and many are oblivious to it.

    camps

    1. Killary and escalation - the continuation of Bush-Obama foreign policy on speed + steroids, which involves destroying places and going for one 'enemy' after another and flailing about (e.g. Iraq) - now aimed at the higher-stake ones (e.g. weakening Europe, dividing it from Russia, and attacking Russia with all means at hand.) The backers are neo-cons, neo-libs, the MIC, Wall Street (gingerly), and others, long list, some/many are criminal enterprises. Going on strong is the meme.
    2. Trump, with a nationalistic bent (partly calculated and not the most important) shows at the same time an isolationist stance (as opposed to conquering position) e.g. walls, anti-globalization on trade (ostensibly), America first of a certain flavor, and going so far! as to question the existence of NATO and to have a neutral or positive attitude towards the latest green-clawed fire-breathing devil. Reversing decline is the meme.

    Arguably, foreign policy in terms of life/death of its citizens is the most crucial point, but it is sub rosa. That is partly why all the talk/analysis in terms of ethnicity-race-religious identities / values in this election (black / brown voters, abortion..), class (economic), tribal political belonging, has become utterly confused, as these archaic divisions become meaningless, while upheld in political discourse (with endless switcheroos) by all, to confuse and gather votes here 'n there.

    The US public is left adrift with two despised candidates, who do or might represent two very different paths forward if one can even contemplate 'the forward' at present.

    ProPeace, 40, that is scary indeed.

    From The Hague | Jul 29, 2016 8:20:46 AM | 65
    @64 Noirette

    People hoped 8 years ago that Obama was camp 2. But he was a traitor.

    fast freddy | Jul 29, 2016 8:24:31 AM | 66
    Noirette 64

    Your summary is excellent. Reading it, the choice between the two (excluding 3rd choices) is clear. There exists a chance for peace or the guarantee of perpetual war.

    Les | Jul 29, 2016 8:32:26 AM | 67
    Article on Gen. Breedlove: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/breedlove-network-sought-weapons-deliveries-for-ukraine-a-1104837.html Defense contractors, think tanks, and Breedlove feared Congress would cut U.S. troop levels in Europe.
    jfl | Jul 29, 2016 9:27:18 AM | 68
    @64 noirette, 'two despised candidates, who do or might represent two very different paths forward if one can even contemplate 'the forward' at present.'

    Yeah. Absolutely. My italics on the might. Hillary has a record. She can lie, but not to me. Trump has ... a mouth. When he says reasonable things - given Hillary - people are desperate to believe him. I can't.

    I don't think we can, or should. Trump seems far more likely to be another Obama than not. I think we have wasted far too many of these quadrennial exercises and that the time to do something different is now. Look what happened in Libya. That could happen in Russia ... and a lot more people than a US Ambassador will die. The Europeans are mad not to abrogate the US at this point. The Americans are beginning to tell themselves another 'real' war will solve their problems ... look at the DNC convention ... and it'll be OK because it will be another war 'over there'. It won't be over there, it'll be right here no matter where that is.

    Concerted action by our atomized selves is the only option left open to us. Let us Americans envision a different future and simply effect it. No to Clinton, not to Trump . Let's emulate a higher life form . We can make it we try.

    Joe Stalin | Jul 29, 2016 9:52:09 AM | 69
    Bruce Schneier used to charge the Chinese in every hacking incident, I guess there is now a "pivot" in the propaganda world.

    It is obvious that our elections are hacked: Florida in 2000, Ohio 2004, and now Brooklyn, Nevada, Arizona, California and other locations this year. They were hacked by our own crooks who would never allow Rooskies to muscle in on the action. Few polling stations in crowded districts, removing names from voter lists, private companies contracted to "count", voter suppression ID laws, jailing of voting populations, gerrymandering, etc. The Rooskies can only bring a rubber chicken to a gun fight.

    Angry Panda | Jul 29, 2016 10:17:14 AM | 70
    I keep dreaming of a "dream" (or a "nightmare") scenario in which a) Trump wins on the election night, just, maybe by 10-20 electoral votes; and b) on the day the Electoral College actually meets, 10-20 electors from "Trump" states, quote, "vote their conscience", end quote, and Hillary becomes president. Which, legally, they can do - remember the electors aren't formally bound by anything other than "tradition" (read: what their local party officials would do to them were they to change their vote).

    I know, I know, slim chance. But it would be a thing of beauty to behold were it to actually happen. For those of us who revel in chaos and anarchy, of course, the types who wished for a Sarah Palin presidency just for the sheer amount of comedy material involved; the rest of the population might well differ. In any event, the "Russian voting machine fraud" story would fit in very well with this particular sequence of events - the electors "voting their conscience" could then be portrayed as patriotic anti-communists (or whatever), for example.

    lysias | Jul 29, 2016 10:25:26 AM | 71
    For those 10-20 electors to vote for Hillary would be regarded as a betrayal of the system and make her an illegitimate, crippled president.

    What those 10-20 electors could do instead is to vote for some third candidate. Say, Gary Johnson or John Kasich. When no candidate wins a majority of electors, the election is thrown into the House of Representatives, in which each state's delegation has one vote and the vote must be among the three candidates who got the greatest number of electoral votes.

    rg the lg | Jul 29, 2016 10:35:56 AM | 72
    Get a life! Then read: http://sjlendman.blogspot.com/

    He makes a good point: " From inception, America proved itself the cruelest, most ruthless nation in world history, harming more people over a longer duration than any other. Tens of millions of corpses attest to its barbarity."

    "If elected, Hillary risks committing greater high crimes of state than her predecessors, including possible nuclear war - why it's crucial to defeat her in November. Humanity's fate hangs in the balance."

    All the rest is just rhetoric ... and the primary reason AmeriKKKans have Clinton as President in the first place. AmeriKKKans know that their best interests, even when jobless, are with continued murder, rape and theft!

    Proof? You want proof? Each of you AmeriKKKans who post to this site. Not that other are blameless, they just don't vote.

    blues | Jul 29, 2016 10:55:11 AM | 75
    I have stated here and "everywhere" that automated elections are not really elections at all. While the USA buys more and more election computers, most of the rest of the (ostensibly democratic) world has tossed out election computers, and moved to using had counted paper ballots.

    I have said many times: "We must abolish election machines, such as voting computers. If they make casting and tallying 10 times faster, they make organized cheating 10 times easier as well. Which can we truly afford?"

    I read several computer programmer's blogs, and comments almost every day, and I am sure most of these professionals are aware of the fact that their machines can never be made safe for use in elections. Yet, they virtually never come out and say that. Job security trumps having democracy for nearly all of them. Most of these programmers are depressing examples of self-centeredness.

    nr23 | Jul 29, 2016 1:55:10 PM | 76
    @58 "It is worth to mention that Bruce Schneier is part of the "Tor Project" board of directors since July 2016."

    That's indeed worth mentioning since one of the TOR founders, Jacob Appelbaum, was ejected from the board in June by a phony sex scandal identical to the one of Julian Assange. There was also the recent departure in July of one of the major TOR contributors, Lucky Green, who didn't disclose a lot about his reasons ("I feel that I have no reasonable choice left within the bounds of ethics") http://thehackernews.com/2016/07/tor-anonymity-node.html . The departures of Jacob Appelbaum and Lucky Green and the welcoming of sellout Bruce Schneier who's opinions were always in line with US foreign policy spell doom and gloom for TOR's security reliability.

    PhilK | Jul 29, 2016 2:11:16 PM | 78
    A lot of people outside the US are probably unaware of some very important features of federal elections here. Many of these people may assume that the US has a single presidential election, run by the federal government, as is the case in their own countries (Australia, for example). But in reality, there are 51 presidential elections, and only one of them (the one in the District of Columbia) is run by the federal government.

    Each state has its own way of collecting and counting ballots, and its own laws about voter eligibility, absentee voting, ballot access for third parties, voting procedures, etc. Because the counties within each state actually run the polling places, these state election laws are mainly instructions for county election officials. So there are ample opportunities for election fraud at the county and state levels, but not at the federal level (except for mass media mind control).

    In unusual situations, state election laws can be challenged in federal courts. In my home state of Tennessee, Republicans and Democrats many years ago passed a law that essentially makes it impossible for third parties to appear on the ballot. And for all those many years, the Tennessee Green Party has routinely gone to federal court, claiming that the state law unreasonably restricts Tennesseans' voting rights, and the court routinely rules in their favor. Thus my ability to vote for Jill Stein exists only because a federal court has intervened in Tennessee's election system. But judicial intervention like this is essentially the only power the federal government can exercise over voting.

    shadyl | Jul 29, 2016 3:25:23 PM | 80
    I can't for the life of me understand why so many hawks in the State Dept and elsewhere are sooooo afraid of Putin. They still mad he nationalized oil companies?
    dorcus | Jul 29, 2016 4:22:50 PM | 81

    Just suppose the emails of the DNC were released by the Clinton Machine, what a creative tactic, and certainly there is no reason to doubt that...a great media firestorm ensues, DWS had to fall on her sword but quickly gets hoisted on the Clinton petard..as a campaign manager

    Edward | Jul 29, 2016 10:24:21 PM | 85
    It is possible that Schneier and Doctorow may not have an anti-Russia agenda but are using the Russia angle because then the U.S. press will report on the security problems with electronic voting. Russia should just tell the U.S. to switch to mechanical voting if they are worried. How is Russia responsible for our insecure voting?
    Penelope | Jul 29, 2016 11:49:31 PM | 86
    ProPeace,

    Thanks for so much intelligent commentary this thread.

    Your comment, "As I have often mentioned on these pages previously, I do believe pedophiles and various other perverts are actively recruited into positions of power so that they can be compromised and controlled by the criminal cabal." I don't think that the pedophiles are recruited into power so that they can be controlled by fear of disclosure. In fact nothing happens to them when they're found out: the records are "lost", evidence is "insufficient", etc. Rather, the explanation I think is that the secret societies and higher levels of Masonry all use sexual deviancy as a means of bonding their initiates into a criminal cabal outside of the norms of society. There is a philosophical embracing of the destruction of innocence just as there is a glorification of the chaos produced by war.

    The evil that we face is an alternate philosophical position which rejects all the moral tenets of the world's 7 great religions. The goal is the rule of a tiny sect which imagines itself a godhead over humanity. Their main tools against us are informational and moral. Many of the novels of the 20s, the 30s and especially the late 19th century reveal by contrast how greatly they've degraded the very idea of living one's life informed by a moral ideal.

    The examined life has been swept away, replaced by the exclusively material and physical. Did you know that one of the early objectives was to control the appointment of divinity school teachers? The Rockefellers personally championed Unitarianism, which helped to trivialize religion. Without religion or an organized system of moral limits and the complete absence of the idealization of the moral and the possession of moral purpose, that great generational sink of morality once so vibrant among the American people has long-since sprung a leak now become a torrent. One looks in vain for that which would nourish the soul of the very young. The moral ideal has vanished from our culture. How could it not? The Rockefellers alone control over 2,000 domestic NGOs, foundations and think tanks. Even the culturally trivial is now being replaced by the overtly destructive. The human eclipsed by the bestial.

    Enough people, armed simply with knowledge and the resolution to look for the truth wherever it leads, can still stop it.

    ThatDamnGood | Jul 30, 2016 12:06:16 AM | 88
    Hillary to be president by hook or crook.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-29/no-id-no-problem-feds-overrule-north-carolina-voting-rules-discriminatory

    Election preparation underway, they are taking a page from the playbook used in Malaysia.

    [Aug 01, 2016] Julian Assange Meet The Press FULL Interview on DNC Leaks 7-31-16

    Clinton campaign is trying to hide their very serious domestic allegation tried to play "Russians are coming" trick... Sanders campaign was sabotages by crooks in DNC.
    Also does this presstitute who interviewed Julian Assange any moral right to ask question about the legitimacy of foreign interference if this interference is the cornerstone of the US foreign policy. As in color revolutions and similar subversive actions against "not neoliberal enough" government of countries with natural resources or of some geopolitical value.
    This is the situation of "king is naked" -- the state that teaches other countries about democracy has completely corrupted election process, like a typical banana republic.
    Notable quotes:
    "... According to the leaked emails, he, Chuck Todd, is part of the rigging process. ..."
    "... Their Motive is to tell the truth. Clearly that why they released the information before the convention and delegates still went forward with corruption. That defies the DNC, case closed ..."
    "... Because we've never interfered in another government or anything right? what a joke! ..."
    YouTube

    SIMKINETICS 23 hours ago

    Chuck Todd, Establishment Gatekeeper and Chief Presstitute. He proves that the Fourth Estate needs a total overhaul, and that the MSM needs to be broken-up like the banks & other institutions need to be in order to become truly competitive rather than in name only. The tightening grip of oligarchs must be pried apart! Assange is doing his part to expose the powers that oppress us, and should be commended for his work!

    Loki7072

    This interviewer is obviously a democrat , trying to blame the Russians for the content of the emails , so sad the democratic corruption in this country runs so deep

    Charles W

    According to the leaked emails, he, Chuck Todd, is part of the rigging process.

    Anthony Marin

    Chuck Todd isn't a journalist, just another government PR person. Corporate media is a joke.

    Rafael Reyes

    Their Motive is to tell the truth. Clearly that why they released the information before the convention and delegates still went forward with corruption. That defies the DNC, case closed.

    Now do the constituents of that party still have faith in staying with that party? That's totally up to the ppl. Whether of not it was domestic or foreign info isn't important, due to the fact that the information was authentic and proven true by our own officials who investigated the digital encryption of the files.

    Frank Rizzo

    Because we've never interfered in another government or anything right? what a joke!

    Notecrusher

    So what if the Russian government was the source? I have gratitude to WHOEVER provided the leak. Now we know the truth about the DNC's crimes and corruption. I hope they burn.

    [Aug 01, 2016] Donald Trump and Russia: a web that grows more tangled all the time

    Guardian presstitutes are trying hard to please their owners...
    Notable quotes:
    "... Joe Biden's son has major business interests in Ukraine. Is that why Biden is so supportive of Ukraine? Paul Manafort is a rat, like all the major league campaign operatives ..."
    "... Under globalism, it is only natural for corporations and their CEOs to have more contact with foreign entities and their leaders. Apple and CEO Tim Cook has made a huge commitment to communist China, one that he told President Obama will not be shaken or reduced. ..."
    "... This is all so entertaining for as much as they try they cannot lay a finger on Putin.. the PBS special on Putin wealth ended an hour of innuendo with this.. ''How much is a matter of speculation and some educated guesswork.'' ..."
    "... I have family in the military and the last thing we need is Clinton leading us into another cold war. ..."
    "... Clinton: corruption you can believe in. ..."
    "... Well looks like Hillary has stared the cold war again before she ever got into office. This is worse than anything Trump could do...but very beneficial to her military/security industrial complex backers. ..."
    "... Hillary Clinton = Dick Cheney ..."
    "... Julian Assange is not a Republican. He's an Australian with no vested interest in the election. I'd be worried if I were a Clinton supporter. ..."
    "... The extremely well informed Israeli website Debkafile is confident that the Russians didn't hack the DNC or any aspect of the Democrats. Debka believes the signatures on the hack are so easy to find and so obviously intended to be found that the real culprit lies somewhere within an anti-Clinton faction of the Democrats. ..."
    "... This is a fantasy article, pie in the sky stuff. I can't stand Trump and I am sure neither can the Russian government, he's unpredictable, unstable, what he says today he changes his mind on tomorrow and so on. Now, Clinton isn't much better all said. Anyone who would trust either needs to see a psychiatrist urgently. Russia is but a bystander in the US presidential race, except for the conspiracy theorists at The Guardian. ..."
    "... So a former official of that russophobic neocon infested State Department which ran both the 2004 Orange Revolution and the 2014 coup in Kiev also member of the US-Ukraine business council is now supposed to have helped Yanokovich in 2010 and be in bed with Putin. How gullible do you think we are? ..."
    "... Stop the presses! Trump and people associated with him have had dealings with people from the LARGEST country in the world. If that doesn't prove he's an active Manchurian candidate on The Kremlin payroll, then nothing will. ..."
    "... What it really proves is that by going the low road of McCarthyist red-baiting, the Democrats seemed determined to blow another election by not running a campaign on Hillary's supposed merits and attacking Trump for rational, verifiable reasons. ..."
    "... You are all a school of piranhas waiting to tear the flesh of anyone who is against 'Her'. I have noticed your comments towards any rational reply is met with condescending and abusive tones. You've probably realised I am poorly educated. However, I have common sense which I believe most of you don't. Most of you comment in order to receive recognition and votes in order to make you feel good because of low self esteem and belonging issues. ..."
    "... I believe we in the west currently live in a pluralist society for now. If Hillary is elected I reckon she will lay the foundation for sharia law, Merkel is doing her bit. Anyway, how can anyone vote for this vile human being? ..."
    "... Hillary Rodman Clinton does not care about YOU! Its all about her wanting power to control YOU. Have you ever asked yourself why does she want to be President? What is her motivation? ..."
    "... Oh, come on, Hillary has all 30 of the admirals and generals that previously endorsed Jeb. Can't Donald have one general? The US military is in schism between the moderates (represented by Flynn) and the hawks (represented by Allen, presumably). Hillary's hawks got booed off the stage at the convention. Allen was trying to shout down the protesters but they were pretty feisty. ..."
    "... Follow the money. The Clinton elite and the military/security industrial complex will MAKE BILLIONS with a new cold war. As much as they made off of Iraq and MORE! ..."
    "... Julian Assange showed to the DNC who they are, but they are not angry at him, they are angry at Donald Trump. Of course, how can anyone be angry at the mirror because it has shown its ugly face.:-))) ..."
    "... A vote against Hillary is not a vote for Trump any more than a vote against the Iraq War was a vote for Saddam Hussein. ..."
    "... Hilarious. This Red Scare is ridiculous, will only carry weight with the over 60s. It is just one of the many missteps in Hillary's tone deaf campaign which is going to cost her the presidency. ..."
    "... Not a Trump supporter, but this shitty rag attacks everyone except the Red Queen...who is responsible for many acts of terror and murder...documented. ..."
    "... Ta, much of the information, especially what Tom Curley (formerly AP chief) revealed, has been removed from the net. I wish I had saved the pdf of his Kansas speech before it vanished everywhere. There was also something on a British server, but that stopped being fed. ..."
    "... Often we could see it on the posters' string, how many in how many hours, hence the attempts to hide it through multi ID facility. For disqus, they block the string. We know we are being manipulated. And very few people take things at face value these days, or do they? ..."
    "... That single sentence exposes the Guardian as a completely fraudulent news reporting medium. With tears in my eyes I ask you "How does Putin releasing e-mails about the secret and illegal American electoral shenanigans amount to an attack on western democracy?" ..."
    "... The old saying "you can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time" is demonstrated by the Guardians reporting without sources, other than anonymous so-called "experts". Your journalistic integrity is little higher than the height of Hillary Clinton's honesty, or the level of the Donald's business ethics. Shame on you. Double shame for being so blatantly easy to expose. ..."
    "... The western media, controlled by special interest groups, are driving your low-level sputum which tries to pass for accurate and unbiased reportage. ..."
    "... On the whole I would have to agree with you. The picture painted by the Western News Media is that the US is the White Knight when it comes to democracy, they never interfere in other countries political affairs, never try to break into computer systems of other countries, try to topple or assassinate leaders of other countries. They never carry out torture and they ignore the 30m on the poverty line in their own country. ..."
    "... Well at least Trump is fostering positive relations with Russia - Hillary Clinton is pushing us to the brink of nuclear war with them. You Tube it. Wishing Good Luck to all people of courage and honesty. ..."
    "... Reuters/Ipsos changed it polling methodology as soon as they saw a 17 point swing in favor of Donald the Drumpf. When the methodology by their own admission was under reporting Trump support and over reporting Hillbilly's numbers they did nothing. So don't believe any polls. There is no enthusiasm for Hillbilly in the Democratic party, so the Democratic turn out will be low, on the other hand people want to shake things up, they will vote for Drumpf. I just wished Donald had half a brain in his head to see how much good he could do, with the opportunity he has. ..."
    "... A lot of associations and coincidences have been listed here. But no hard evidence linking the hacking to Putin, nor Putin to Trump. It sounds like a load of muckraking. ..."
    "... True. If it was the other way round, Guardian journalists and establishment shills would be screaming 'tin-foil' when they should be holding that woman to account. ..."
    www.theguardian.com

    varyat

    Joe Biden's son has major business interests in Ukraine. Is that why Biden is so supportive of Ukraine? Paul Manafort is a rat, like all the major league campaign operatives. All that is important to them is the win and those that can jump over each other to rent their expertise around the globe to whatever scumbag has money. It is a bipartisan gig. To spin this in such a partisan manner when the entire political machinery on both sides operates like this is is either knowingly deceitful or just plain ignorant. When it is nearly impossible to just get straight balanced news from a newspaper, when the coverage is just so obviously slanted, real journalism is dead. This style of news by innuendo and the selective parsing of fact is shoddy reportage. Shame.

    macmarco

    Under globalism, it is only natural for corporations and their CEOs to have more contact with foreign entities and their leaders. Apple and CEO Tim Cook has made a huge commitment to communist China, one that he told President Obama will not be shaken or reduced.

    US tax laws that allow 'profit centers' to be claimed anywhere around the world will almost certainly bring corporate leaders and foreign leaders closer together as their interests merge and intertwine.

    Political parties will have difficulty claiming this or that country is now an enemy depending on how much corporate investment and profit holdings were made in the new 'enemy'. One could see the enormous difficulty the DNC/Hillary would have if they had to make a case against communist China hacking their emails. Apple, Walmart etal would be working overtime to protect the relationship at all costs.

    notindoctrinated

    Has it ever occurred to you Yanks that Putin may be playing global political chess. I'm sure he is shrewd enough to realize that open support to Trump could be a "kiss of death". A Democratic presidency may be in Russia's long-term interest, if they want the US to go further down the drain:

    1. Overrunning of the US by Hispanics, as well as Muslims from North Africa and the Mideast, the latter resulting in increasing insecurity and terrorist attacks at home
    2. Destruction of US economy by the pursuit of green fanatic policies.

    Of course a trigger-happy Clinton presidency increases the risk for WW3, therefore Putin's finger will never be far from the nuke-button.

    Lee Van Over -> notindoctrinated

    1. This will not happen, please see below.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7U-t3GetV_Q

    2. The number one US economic strain is War.....not windfarms.

    3. Clinton is a bit more hawkish than I would like, but she is far from trigger happy. Also, she can handle an insult without declaring the need to punch someone in the face :p


    Sam3456

    I love the entitled Hillary fans are trying to stifle any dissent of the Queen with "You're a Putin Bot, You're a commie, your a Trumpster."

    Stifling dissent allows for corruption and abuse of power and is what got us into the Iraq War.

    Their condescending attitude is what we can expect from a Clinton Administration?

    JohnManyjars

    Putin bashing idiots...choke on your spittle! At least he puts the interests of his country first, unlike US/UK sell outs to Israel-First traitors.

    R. Ben Madison -> JohnManyjars

    Yet another antisemitic diatribe from the Hillary-haters.


    Lee Van Over -> JohnManyjars

    Lol, the US supports Israel because its in the best interests of the US, not Israel. They, unfortunately, are our little forward base of operations in the Mid-east.


    John Smith

    Burisma is the largest non-governmental gas producer in Ukraine, it was incorporated in 2006 and is based in Limassol, Cyprus - a European tax haven
    April 18, 2014, Burisma Holdings announced us VP Biden's son Hunter Biden appointed to the board

    Aleksander Kwaśniewski,took up in a director's post named in January.[27] Kwaśniewski was President of the Republic of Poland from 1995 to 2005 permitted the CIA torture ops in Poland during the G. W. Bush presidency

    Chairman of Burisma is the Wall Street former Merrill Lynch investment banker Alan Apter

    Devon Archer, Hunter Biden's partner at the US investment firm, Rosemont Seneca Partners, and a manager of the family wealth fund of Secretary of State John Kerry's wife Theresa Heinz Kerry,

    And all friends together in a company that should be helping Ukraine recover nestled away in a tax haven!

    The director of the US-Ukraine Business Council Morgan Williams pointed to an "American tradition that frowns on close family members of government working for organizations with business links to active politics". Williams stated Biden appears to have violated this unwritten principle: "... when you're trying to keep the political sector separate from the business sector, and reduce corruption, then it's not just about holding down corruption, it's also the appearance.

    Blatant yankee cronyism beyond words! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burisma_Holdings
    http://www.theguardian.com/business/shortcuts/2014/may/14/hunter-biden-job-board-ukraine-biggest-gas-producer-burisma

    Joe Biden's son was booted from the military after failing a drug test, it was revealed Thursday.

    Hunter Biden, the youngest son of the vice president, was discharged from the Navy Reserve in February after he tested positive for cocaine, the Navy said.
    http://nypost.com/2014/10/16/bidens-son-hunter-kicked-out-of-the-navy-after-failing-cocaine-test/

    John Smith

    This is all so entertaining for as much as they try they cannot lay a finger on Putin.. the PBS special on Putin wealth ended an hour of innuendo with this.. ''How much is a matter of speculation and some educated guesswork.''

    And thats what it was speculation & guesswork!

    he may be the richest man on the planet.. he may be richer than god... but they just can't find it.. they can't find a bankstatement with billions or trillions in it they can't even find the shoebox with all his cash under his bed... they got nothing!

    MtnClimber -> John Smith

    They found Putin's money. It's cared for by "friends". One is a concert cellist with over a billion dollars. They must pay musicians well in Russia.

    You seem to like dictators. Do you like the complete censorship of the media in Russia? Do you like the new laws that allow Putin to jail anyone that denounces him or Russia?

    Given that Russians are only allowed to post good things about Putin, what do you expect to see from them?

    John Smith -> MtnClimber

    there were plenty of russians in that PBS 'show' complaining about putin and they are still alive n well..
    the only time russian critics become endangered is when they are of no further use to the yankee and then they come to a sticky end and then the finger gets pointed at putin.. then they have fully 'outlived' their usefulness.. more useful dead!

    annberk

    It is obvious that Trump will benefit financially from being nice to Putin and his inner circle. Trump combs the world for projects and money and Russia must be seen as a target. Win or lose the election he'll be seen as a friend who deserves to be rewarded. At some point in the next year or so, the Trump Corporation will announce at least one landmark Russian hotel/condo tower. I'd bet money on it. Meanwhile, poor old Hillary who has devoted her life to doing good, is being bullied and lied about by the serfs who want to elect him. (Read 'Dark Money' to see what I mean by serfs. Trump's adherents won't benefit in the slightest from his policies.)

    Sam3456

    I have family in the military and the last thing we need is Clinton leading us into another cold war.

    delphicvi

    What a lame lead in i.e. "Donald Trump and Russia: a web that grows more tangled all the time.

    Donald Trump travelled to Moscow in 2013 to meet Vladimir Putin hoping to discuss plans for a Trump Tower near Red Square."

    Did it really take four 'journalists' viz. Peter Stone, David Smith, Ben Jacobs, Alec Luhn and Rupert Neate to write this fluff? More worthy of a supermarket check out rag than a serious newspaper. This facile attempt to stitch together the incongruous and the bizarre is downright amazing for a paper that puffs itself as the leaker of truth. By the bye, Ukraine is not Russia. And Russia is not Ukraine.

    Sam3456

    The Director of National Intelligence says Washington is still unsure of who might be behind the latest WikiLeaks release of hacked Democratic National Committee emails, while urging that an end be put to the "reactionary mode" blaming it all on Russia.

    "We don't know enough to ascribe motivation regardless of who it might have been," Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said speaking at Aspen's Security Forum in Colorado, when asked if the media was getting ahead of themselves in fingering the perpetrator of the hack.

    John Smith -> Sam3456

    Anonymous have been quietly busy in the background... laughing at the merkins blaming everything on Russia..
    clintons corrupt... and its Russia's fault??

    ''The State Department misplaced and lost some $6 billion due to the improper filing of contracts during the past six years, mainly during the tenure of former Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, according to a newly released Inspector General report.

    The $6 billion in unaccounted funds poses a "significant financial risk and demonstrates a lack of internal control over the Department's contract actions," according to the report.'' http://nation.foxnews.com/2014/04/07/6-billion-went-missing-hillary-clintons-state-departmentwhere-did-money-go

    I know billions don't mean much today after the american laundering of Trillions of $s worth of their bad mortgage debt causing the 2008 crash....... BUT SURELY $6 Billion missing must count for something!

    sejong -> John Smith

    Clinton: corruption you can believe in.

    John Smith
    So again...
    what really happened in Benghazi? in September 2012
    Were they sending gaddafi's weapons to unsavouries in Syria and Assad got wind of it & sent a team to stop it?
    Because it was not a youtube vid or some people on a friday night out deciding to kill americans as clinton would have us believe. What we have is a clandestine operation.. a democrat version of reagans ''Arms for Iran''.. or shall we say 'Arms for ISIS' Did they get Ollie North out of retirement for this??
    Having failed this gun running operation...
    They then went to Plan B..
    ''claimed 3,000 tons of weapons dating back to the former Yugoslavia have been sent in 75 planeloads from Zagreb airport to the rebels, largely via Jordan since November (2012).'' 3000 tons of weapons!!...... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/9918785/US-and-Europe-in-major-airlift-of-arms-to-Syrian-rebels-through-Zagreb.html

    But When they arrived in Jordan..

    ''Weapons shipped into Jordan by the Central Intelligence Agency and Saudi Arabia intended for Syrian rebels have been systematically stolen by Jordanian intelligence operatives and sold to arms merchants on the black market, according to American and Jordanian officials.'' I mean can the CIA be that incompetent? or is this incompetence covering up something else...?

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/27/world/middleeast/cia-arms-for-syrian-rebels-supplied-black-market-officials-say.html?_r=1
    So who did those weapons go to if not legit Rebel Syrians... I can only think of one other organisation..ISIS

    Then we have the $500,000,000 to train 54 rebel Syrians to fight Assad.
    do we really think the US military or special forces are that dumb?

    ''The Pentagon's $500 million (£300 million) Turkey-based training programme has fallen well short of expectations. Announced in June 2014 as Isil seized swathes of Iraq, it took almost a year to get off the ground and had until recently produced only 54 out of the 5,000 fighters it had intended to train within a year.'' http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/11878048/75-US-trained-rebels-enter-Syria-from-Turkey.html
    ''US-trained Division 30 rebels 'betray US and hand weapons over to al-Qaeda's affiliate in Syria' Pentagon-trained rebels are reported to have betrayed US and handed weapons over to Jabhat al-Nusra immediately after entering Syria'' http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/11882195/US-trained-Division-30-rebels-betrayed-US-and-hand-weapons-over-to-al-Qaedas-affiliate-in-Syria.html
    So what was that HALF BILLION DOLLARS really spent on??
    I am still calling Shenanigans!

    ClaudiaLucarelli

    There is MORE of a connection between Hillary and RUSSIA:

    Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal
    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html

    Sam3456 -> DCBill0

    Well looks like Hillary has stared the cold war again before she ever got into office. This is worse than anything Trump could do...but very beneficial to her military/security industrial complex backers.

    Hillary Clinton = Dick Cheney.

    Oldiebutgoodie

    With all the tension and volatility in the world, we need mature, rational people leading our countries. Let's hope that's what we get -- * Vote thoughtfully.
    While we watch campaign circuses, a serious situation is taking place in Turkey that will effect Europe, the West, and the Middle East.
    - Erdogan has taken control of, and is purging all sectors of Turkish society.

    Scary stuff going on there.
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/31/turkey-to-shut-military-academies-as-it-targets-armed-forces-for-cleansing

    -War in Iraq is escalating- gas depots being destroyed.
    These things have ripple effects for the rest of us.
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/31/militants-storm-iraqi-oil-facility-bai-hassan

    Henrychan -> Wanda Bowen

    Julian Assange is not a Republican. He's an Australian with no vested interest in the election. I'd be worried if I were a Clinton supporter.

    spraydrift

    'Trump's links to Russia are under scrutiny after a hack of Democratic national committee emails,'

    The extremely well informed Israeli website Debkafile is confident that the Russians didn't hack the DNC or any aspect of the Democrats. Debka believes the signatures on the hack are so easy to find and so obviously intended to be found that the real culprit lies somewhere within an anti-Clinton faction of the Democrats. Now who might that be?

    Greg Popa -> spraydrift

    Wired.com's Noah Shachtman wrote in 2001 that the site "clearly reports with a point of view; the site is unabashedly in the hawkish camp of Israeli politics".[4] Yediot Achronot investigative reporter Ronen Bergman states that the site relies on information from sources with an agenda, such as neo-conservative elements of the US Republican Party, "whose worldview is that the situation is bad and is only going to get worse," and that Israeli intelligence officials do not consider even 10 percent of the site's content to be reliable.[1] Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf calls Debka his "favorite alarmist Israeli website trading in rumors."[5]

    The site's operators, in contrast, state that 80 percent of what Debka reports turns out to be true, and point to its year 2000 prediction that al-Qaeda would again strike the World Trade Center, and that it had warned well before the 2006 war in Lebanon that Hezbollah had amassed 12,000 Katyusha rockets pointed at northern Israel.[1]

    mandzorp

    This is a fantasy article, pie in the sky stuff. I can't stand Trump and I am sure neither can the Russian government, he's unpredictable, unstable, what he says today he changes his mind on tomorrow and so on. Now, Clinton isn't much better all said. Anyone who would trust either needs to see a psychiatrist urgently. Russia is but a bystander in the US presidential race, except for the conspiracy theorists at The Guardian.

    errovi

    "The coordinator of the Washington diplomatic corps for the Republicans in Cleveland was Frank Mermoud, a former state department official involved in business ventures in Ukraine via Cub Energy, a Black Sea-focused oil and gas company of which he is a director. He is also on the board of the US Ukraine Business Council."

    So a former official of that russophobic neocon infested State Department which ran both the 2004 Orange Revolution and the 2014 coup in Kiev also member of the US-Ukraine business council is now supposed to have helped Yanokovich in 2010 and be in bed with Putin. How gullible do you think we are?

    Oldiebutgoodie -> errovi

    Seems every news media outlet and reporter is looking into his Russian business dealings and funding.

    http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/289047-exploring-russian-ties-to-the-men-lurking-behind

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3583619/Melania-Trump-s-secret-brother-lives-rural-Slovenia-says-wants-meet-sister-Donald-presidential-election.html

    Brian Burman

    Stop the presses! Trump and people associated with him have had dealings with people from the LARGEST country in the world. If that doesn't prove he's an active Manchurian candidate on The Kremlin payroll, then nothing will.

    What it really proves is that by going the low road of McCarthyist red-baiting, the Democrats seemed determined to blow another election by not running a campaign on Hillary's supposed merits and attacking Trump for rational, verifiable reasons.

    John Smith -> MentalToo

    drivel.. Nuland admitted/boasted about spendin $5 billion in ''bring democracy to ukraine..
    $5 Billion is a lot of money in Ukraine..
    Did they build schools No
    Did they build hospitals No!
    They just destabilised the country...
    So $5 billion wasted and the yanks wonder why they don't really have a space program... coz $5 Billion would have bought 3 Space shuttles!

    jezzam -> John Smith

    The US spent 5 billion over 25 years - trying to encourage the basic institutions of democracy in Ukraine. Without these corruption cannot be eliminated. Without the elimination of corruption, none of the things you mention are possible. Non-coincidentally such institutions have been eliminated in Russia since Putin came to power.

    Brian Burman -> jezzam

    Yes, those NGOs encouraged democracy so well that they instigated a violent coup against the elected government. Halt, you say, that government was corrupt!?! But by all standards, the current government is more corrupt than the one that was overthrown, and polls in the last year show that Ukrainians are convinced of that fact. Infact, the man hand-picked by Victoria Nuland to be Prime Minister, "Yats" Yatesenyuk, had to resign under accusations of corruption. Andbthe current Kiev reginme continues to bomb the civilian population of Donbass and terrorize them with neo-Nazi militias...ah, the wonders of US funded "democracy".

    Виктор Захаров

    I wonder, if you say that you are democrats why you are not interested in truth about Malaysian Boing? Now in the West, Merkel, Obama etc, no one worried about this tragedy because now it's clear that Ukrainian authorities did it. It's barbarian blasphemous....

    Henrychan

    Hello all Hillary supporters,

    You are all a school of piranhas waiting to tear the flesh of anyone who is against 'Her'. I have noticed your comments towards any rational reply is met with condescending and abusive tones. You've probably realised I am poorly educated. However, I have common sense which I believe most of you don't. Most of you comment in order to receive recognition and votes in order to make you feel good because of low self esteem and belonging issues.

    I believe we in the west currently live in a pluralist society for now. If Hillary is elected I reckon she will lay the foundation for sharia law, Merkel is doing her bit. Anyway, how can anyone vote for this vile human being?

    You must be either:
    Ignorant
    Misinformed
    Lack common sense or
    Mentally ill

    Hillary Rodman Clinton does not care about YOU! Its all about her wanting power to control YOU. Have you ever asked yourself why does she want to be President? What is her motivation?

    Comment all you like, you Hillary supporter are defending a witch. I'm not with HER.

    Oilyheart

    Bernie Sanders visited the USSR. Does that make him a communist? Bernie Sanders visited the Vatican. Does that make him a Catholic? Gen. Flynn visited RT. Does that make him Scott Pelley? Bill visits a lot of places.

    Виктор Захаров

    First of all why Obama calls yourself democrat? It's nonsense, by definition democrats those who against the coup! Having lied once who would believe you ( Russian saying ). Obama continued to lie. Malaysian Boing had been shot down by Ukrainian jet, radars neither in Dnepro nor in Rostov hadn't seen buk missile, buk missile weighs 700 kg radar could not to see it. But radars had seen Ukrainian jet, Ukrainian authorities restricted access to records....

    Oilyheart

    Oh, come on, Hillary has all 30 of the admirals and generals that previously endorsed Jeb. Can't Donald have one general? The US military is in schism between the moderates (represented by Flynn) and the hawks (represented by Allen, presumably). Hillary's hawks got booed off the stage at the convention. Allen was trying to shout down the protesters but they were pretty feisty. Try not to bogart all the retired general officers, Democrats. The moderates are trying to de-escalate tensions with Russia, is that so wrong? Does gangsterism have to proliferate all over the place? Does the whole world have to break bad like Walter White into gangsterism and chaos because it's cool?

    GODsaysBRESCAPE

    Clinton wants a new cold war with Russia, forget the real enemy the Islamists. She is showing her warmongering stripes again already. Shame on you Sanders for your betrayal of your supporters, that will now be your ever lasting and shameful legacy.


    Sam3456 -> GODsaysBRESCAPE

    Follow the money. The Clinton elite and the military/security industrial complex will MAKE BILLIONS with a new cold war. As much as they made off of Iraq and MORE!

    HRC is Dick Cheney in a pants suit.


    GODsaysBRESCAPE

    The media, big business and the pentagon: "a web that grows more tangled all the time"


    dikcheney

    I have to do this. #canthackHillary.
    I cant hack her lies
    I cant hack her faux ignorance of IT security
    I cant hack her unbelievability
    I cant hack her attacks on any challenger
    I cant hack the cloth she didn't use to wipe her server
    I cant hack the way she puts USA security at risk to protect her "private" shenanigans
    I cant hack her capacity to corrupt any decent process associated with democray
    I cant hack her network of "get out of jail free cards"
    I cant hack her transparent deceptions
    I cant hack her associates
    I cant hack her war criminal mentors
    I cant hack her media admirers and shills
    I cant hack her Wall Street buddies
    I cant hack her mate Obama

    Is there anyone out there who can hack Hillary?

    Shatford Shatford -> dikcheney

    You left out Clinton Foundation donors who receive lucrative contracts in disaster zones or in African dictatorships.

    nnedjo

    Julian Assange showed to the DNC who they are, but they are not angry at him, they are angry at Donald Trump. Of course, how can anyone be angry at the mirror because it has shown its ugly face.:-)))

    Shatford Shatford -> nnedjo

    Bless cognitive dissonance for keeping everyone from seeing the truth.


    Shatford Shatford -> NewWorldWatcher

    I'm sure once Hillary cheats her way into the White House, she'll sick the IRS on him since she does that to all of her enemies. And naturally, all of her and her husband's crimes will go unpunished as they always have. Her husband almost got impeached. Not for getting a hummer from an intern, but because there was so much other bullshit they wanted to nail him on and lying under oath was the only thing they could use because the Clintons are very good at buying people off.

    nnedjo

    The Democratic Party and its vassal media proves for the umpteenth time that they have nothing to do with democracy. If the opposition is called traitors and accused of collaboration with foreign governments without any evidence, then it is not a democracy, it is called a dictatorship.
    So if they think they have evidence that Trump is a traitor, they should arrest him. Otherwise, they have to admit that Donald Trump is genuine representative of American democracy, and that they would rather belong to a kind of dictatorship.

    gondwanaboy -> nnedjo

    So if they think they have evidence that Trump is a traitor, they should arrest him.

    They don't have any evidence. This is mud slinging and a diversion from the DNC email corruption scandal that actually has proof

    miri84

    Analysts suggest three primary motivations for the WikiLeaks email dump, quite probably overlapping: doing harm to the US political process to undermine its credibility; doing harm to Clinton (WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is no friend); and boosting Trump

    The hack would not have succeeded in any of these areas, had the DNC been conducting its operations fairly and with integrity.

    guest88888

    Donald Trump and Russia: a web that grows more tangled all the time

    Only if you're full of BS, and lack even a shred of journalistic integrity.

    McCarthy would be proud. After years of pretending otherwise, it seems the US government has finally returned to its old and proud tradition of smearing anyone it finds undesirable as in cahoots with the ever-changing 'enemy.'

    All of this is merely a diversion to avoid talking about the mountain of corruption revealed about both parties in recent days. Not to mention a diversion from talking about the key issue, that the US is increasingly antagonizing nuclear armed powers like Russia and China, which if not stopped will lead to a war capable of killing millions.

    selvak

    I am not Trump but I would much rather ally with Russia than Saudi Arabia. Both have plenty of oil by the way. Only one is spreading a Death cult over the Globe but still Presidents Bush and Obama bowed for the Saudi king. More money the be made out of Arab oil for a few uber rich in the US Establishment I guess. Less 'competition" for the Pentagon from Riyadh too.

    sejong -> selvak

    Bibi and King Salman will get joint custody of Clinton, so don't worry.

    PCollens

    100% bullshit, lies and a psy-op being fed to us from all sides on this.
    Seriously Graun, what gives with this bullshit? Confirms my conclusion that the Graun, like the rest of the MSM, has been infiltrated by an Operation Mockingbird as well.
    So many psychopaths - GOP, DNC, Trump, the US deep state petro-nazis, the oligarchs in all countries - all panicking more and more now, out of control.
    Here comes some kind of armagedon. Sorry, sheeple - but its bad news for us all.

    Alec Dacyczyn

    It's worth mentioning the context of the "the US would not automatically come to the aid of Nato allies" thing. He wants for other Nato countries to either pull their own weight militarily (2% of GDP) or pay to cover the costs of other countries for defend them. The threat of willingness to "walk away" is negotiating leverage. He's making a gamble that they will capitulate rather than be left defenseless.

    I believe it's a reasonable safe bet. So until these Nato countries indicate that they'd rather not spend that much on their militarizes I reject the argument that a President Trump would result in a weaker Nato alliance and that Putin want Trump to win for that reason (I suspect Putin would indeed prefer Trump, but because he views Clinton as a neo-con warmonger who would rather bomb someone than negotiate a deal).

    Bruno Costa Alec Dacyczyn

    I hate Trump, but this is a VERY safe bet.
    Russia will not invade Poland or the Baltic. The world change. Putin has an agenda different from Ivan the Terrible...
    NATO countries will pay their bills and psychopaths like Erdogan will think twice before put down a Russian fighter.
    That was insane. The most dangerous act since the 80's!
    Made by a religious fanatical dictator who is ending Turkey secular tradition.
    If Russia had responded, protecting Erdogan would've been fair? NATO starting 3rd WW because of a authoritarian guy that should be expelled is reasonable?

    Sam3456

    A vote against Hillary is not a vote for Trump any more than a vote against the Iraq War was a vote for Saddam Hussein.

    niftydude

    Hilarious. This Red Scare is ridiculous, will only carry weight with the over 60s. It is just one of the many missteps in Hillary's tone deaf campaign which is going to cost her the presidency.

    livingstonfc

    Not a Trump supporter, but this shitty rag attacks everyone except the Red Queen...who is responsible for many acts of terror and murder...documented.

    BSchwartz

    Trump is married to a woman who grew up under communism. Some his closest advisors have worked for communists. Many of his own business dealings are with Russians. He has claimed a relationshp with Putin and says he admires him. He has amended Republican policies to favour Russia. He called on the Russian's to undertake espionage into Hillary Clinton. There is a pattern here.

    A man like Trump, who believed in the conspiracy theory that Obama was Kenyan, should understand that conspiracies grow as evidence build. There was no evidence to sustain Trump's conspiracy regarding Obama.

    But Trump himself provides much evidence to sustain the theory that his interests are closer to the Russians than to much of America.

    Sam3456 -> BSchwartz

    Really? Democrats red baiting and calling people "commies" how shameful and ignorant of you history. What next Hillary comes out with a "list of Trump/Putin sympathizers"? Shame.

    Bruno Costa -> BSchwartz

    Hahahahahahahahahaha OMG! Are you going beyond Manchurian Candidate and saying that Trump is communist? Do you really understand how funny this is?

    PCollens -> BSchwartz

    A-ha! I see it now! Trump is a commie Manchurian candidate, cleverly hidden as a son of a rich guy who became a billionaire, spreading capitalist ideology to the masses as a front for his USSR commie masters. Its obvious! Wake up sheeple!

    Gem59

    The Clinton-Media machine in full force....Those Russians are in bed with Trump! It must be the barbarians! Shame on you traitor Donald! Whatever it takes, corrupted Media! Here is an interview with Julian Assange who argues there is no evidence of any hacking by Russians

    http://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.abc.net.au%2Fradionational%2Fprograms%2Flatenightlive%2Frussia-and-the-dnc-leaks%2F7663250&h=TAQEnZ2rE

    Matronum

    A wee bit...creepy!

    Russian literature, the language, the culture...all quite beautiful. OK, and maybe the women too. But this 'relationship' between Trump and Russia makes me feel uncomfortable. I'm willing to admit that I may simply be conditioned to be wary of Russian involvement because of all those Cold War years. Still...creepy!

    Pork Mistret -> Matronum

    See a doctor . A case of severe russophobia

    Heathenlullaby

    US Military Caught Manipulating Social Media, Running Mass Propaganda Accounts

    http://www.storyleak.com/us-military-caught-social-media-running-mass-propaganda-accounts/

    HauptmannGurski -> Heathenlullaby

    Ta, much of the information, especially what Tom Curley (formerly AP chief) revealed, has been removed from the net. I wish I had saved the pdf of his Kansas speech before it vanished everywhere. There was also something on a British server, but that stopped being fed.

    Often we could see it on the posters' string, how many in how many hours, hence the attempts to hide it through multi ID facility. For disqus, they block the string. We know we are being manipulated. And very few people take things at face value these days, or do they?

    Ping2fyoutoo

    "experts argue Vladimir Putin has attempted in the past to damage western democracy."

    That single sentence exposes the Guardian as a completely fraudulent news reporting medium. With tears in my eyes I ask you "How does Putin releasing e-mails about the secret and illegal American electoral shenanigans amount to an attack on western democracy?"

    It doesn't. It's something the western mainstream media should be doing to enlighten the people about the depths of the crookedness and the evil chicanery surrounding "western democracy" (as practised today in the US). That omission is what weakens and threatens western democracy.

    The old saying "you can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time" is demonstrated by the Guardians reporting without sources, other than anonymous so-called "experts". Your journalistic integrity is little higher than the height of Hillary Clinton's honesty, or the level of the Donald's business ethics. Shame on you. Double shame for being so blatantly easy to expose.

    The western media, controlled by special interest groups, are driving your low-level sputum which tries to pass for accurate and unbiased reportage.

    And please let us know who these "experts" are that you say that you are quoting.

    Alexander Dunnett -> Ping2fyoutoo

    On the whole I would have to agree with you. The picture painted by the Western News Media is that the US is the White Knight when it comes to democracy, they never interfere in other countries political affairs, never try to break into computer systems of other countries, try to topple or assassinate leaders of other countries. They never carry out torture and they ignore the 30m on the poverty line in their own country.

    PCollens -> Ping2fyoutoo

    Agreed. There is a Deep State mole inside the Graun.
    Its Operation Mockingbird for sure.

    normankirk

    So Starbucks is in Russia,sinister? or is it just that globalisation means financial interests are worldwide.
    And why is no one mentioning that James Clapper head of the NSA, who should know, says that he is "taken aback by the media's hyperventilations" and that no one knows who was behind the hack of the DNC.

    Suga

    Whatever Lies you believe or even think of HRC...
    Clinton is our only hope of keeping the White House from The Insane Republican Party!.
    Please...Check-out this excellent interview with Michael Ruppert, who tracked exactly what took place under The Horrible Bush/Cheney Reign Of Terror that brought down America on 9/11!

    (Ruppert supposedly committed suicide in 2014) It's amazing this interview is still available...it will absolutely shock you into realizing that we cannot give the White House back to the GOP...they are surrounded by Pure Evil!

    9/11 and the Cheney Conspiracy with Michael Ruppert
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kW5qiuLb8jY


    PCollens Suga

    Brilliant! - Bless you. Mike Ruppert is the greatest hero to emerge from all this.

    Copy-paste the following - it is pure fact, forensic level evidence, of the most serious issues, yet it always gets taken down. I've concluded that this is by the moles in the MSM, including the Graun, sadly:


    AE911Truth Experts Speak Out
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YW6mJOqRDI4

    9/11 Trillions: Follow The Money
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3xgjxJwedA

    9/11 Pentagon Attack - Behind the Smoke Curtain - Barbara Honegger
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fvJ8nFa5Qk

    Chapter and verse on the drills of terror attacks being run on 911 which removed the air defences – an coordinated by Cheney: 9/11 Synthetic Terror
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ar6I0jUg6Vs

    The Chief CIA back-channel asset who exposed the fore-knowledge of 911 survived the attempts to rub her out, and finally told the truth:
    CIA WhistleBlower Susan Lindauer EXPOSES Everything - "Extreme Prejudice"
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68LUHa_-OlA

    If you only have 5 minutes, this is a great distillation:
    https://youtu.be/yuC_4mGTs98

    poststructuralist

    Well at least Trump is fostering positive relations with Russia - Hillary Clinton is pushing us to the brink of nuclear war with them. You Tube it. Wishing Good Luck to all people of courage and honesty.

    Eddie2000

    Reds under the bed! Reds under the bed! Surely they can beat Trump without resorting to this nonsense?


    woof92105

    ****warning - This comment area is infested with russian trolls. It becomes easy to spot their bizarre but consistent pro-putin statements. They reply to each other and uprate each other, etc. These people are in Russia and are paid by Putin's cronies.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/07/magazine/the-agency.html?_r=0

    sejong -> woof92105

    Accuracy score 1/10.

    normankirk -> woof92105

    and how do we know you aren't part of the cyber warrior force thats become a growth industry in the US and UK?

    Gina Mihajlovska -> woof92105

    Your an idiot. It's not about Putin it's about how the public is being played. No matter where the leak came from the dnc is corrupt.focus on the prize. Not on the BS....

    shaftedpig

    Trump might have his faults, like being a motor mouth but he's not even in the same category as GW Bush or HR Clinton when it comes to corruption, the Democrats haven't got much on Trump, so they resort to tin-foil hat conspiracy theories, when what is staring at us directly in the face is out-and-out full-on corruption by HRC.

    This is not about left vs right, it's about right vs wrong. Read any book by investigative journalist, Roger Stone who nails HRC. If you're on the left and feel let down by Bernie, at least consider Gary Johnson or Jill Stein, I can't for the life of me understand why Americans revere corrupt officials when you got decent potential presidents who aren't in the pockets of banksters like HRC.

    http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5798e0d2e4b01180b5312ad2

    ClearItUp

    Reuters/Ipsos changed it polling methodology as soon as they saw a 17 point swing in favor of Donald the Drumpf. When the methodology by their own admission was under reporting Trump support and over reporting Hillbilly's numbers they did nothing. So don't believe any polls. There is no enthusiasm for Hillbilly in the Democratic party, so the Democratic turn out will be low, on the other hand people want to shake things up, they will vote for Drumpf. I just wished Donald had half a brain in his head to see how much good he could do, with the opportunity he has.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-poll-reutersipsos-idUSKCN10910T

    Tim Cahill

    So the dreaded ruskies are trying to help Trump? Oh my goodness!

    Meanwhile, Clinton's big love for Israel remains unmentioned during most of the Primaries and even now. I've done a lot of work around the Middle East. The reason certain people hate us is because the US has vetoed all UN efforts to right the wrongs committed by Israel against the Palestinians. And with Netanyahu in his 4th term, gelding the news media, and rolling more completely fascist, we can expect more rubber stamping of territory occupation (that seems like a very simple and illegal act, but since the USA - and only the USA - disagrees, it's okay) and abuses that will further fuel hatred from people who'd, at minimum, appreciate it if justice could apply to them.

    Let the candidate without sin cast the first stone of superiority!

    BTW - What the Russians want is more cash for their wealthiest, trusted oligarchs. That's exactly what Clinton and Trump are working to do. So why can't they all just be friends?

    ahmedfez

    A lot of associations and coincidences have been listed here. But no hard evidence linking the hacking to Putin, nor Putin to Trump. It sounds like a load of muckraking.

    shaftedpig -> ahmedfez

    True. If it was the other way round, Guardian journalists and establishment shills would be screaming 'tin-foil' when they should be holding that woman to account.

    [Aug 01, 2016] Strengthening Russo-Turkish Alliance Stokes US-Russian Cold War naked capitalism

    Notable quotes:
    "... The EU has been jerking Turkey around forever about joining the EU. They clearly intend not to let a Muslim country join but keep pretending they might as a key NATO ally. ..."
    "... Merely assuming an official posture of neutrality, as Nasser famously did, would be a big setback for the US and a big gain for Russia ..."
    "... The fact that the heads of NATO and the US government, along with their "brain trusts" get so panicky about a possible warming of relations between Russia and Turkey is ridiculous. These asshats have been behaving all along as if the Soviet Union never fell and that Russia is the same thing it was while the heart of the USSR. ..."
    "... NATO gets aggressive and spreads itself all over Eastern Europe with the intention of kicking the Bear and then gets its panties in a twist when the Bear, quite reasonably, reacts to their aggressive actions. ..."
    "... I literally cannot think of a single thing that Russia has done since the end of the Soviet Union that in any way, shape, or form alarms me or makes me think, "These guys are planning to invade or start a war!" ..."
    "... US aggression in Syria HAD to be responded to by Russia. Russia has LONG time major military bases in Syria. How would the US respond if Russia turned the UAE into a chaotic shithole in order to try and kick the US out of its HUGE military bases there? The initiating of chaos would be the aggressive act, NOT the US response to the chaos. The generating of massive chaos in Syria (by the US and its allies) was the aggressive act, NOT Russia's quite reasonable and understandable reaction. Same goes for Ukraine. ..."
    "... The US is bound and determined to FORCE Russia to be a major foe for Cold War 2.0 whether Russia wants to be or not. The US cannot see any other way to drive its shitty economic system than to fire up the defense industries to full throttle again, ala Cold War 1.0. Instead of dumping the military economic basis to the US and Western economies to focus on truly beneficial development, they are going with the boogieman…both for the economic shot it will provide, but also in an attempt to quell unrest due to income inequality and the rape/pillage economic system of the West. Make the people afraid of being invaded or nuked into oblivion and they wont complain about no more retirement, inability to buy a decent home, or send their kids to college. ..."
    "... If the first Presidents Bush and Clinton had attempted conversion and used some crumbs to mitigate the Soviet collapse, instead of unleashing the worst pack of intellectual sophists, strategists, and black market dregs, then Russia today would probably be neatly colonized into an international system, but after the violent class conflict of decolonization during the Cold War a new world order that appeared like Gore Vidal's semi-sarcastic paradigm-shattering essay in the Nation would prematurely speed up de-colonization with "white privilege" too uncamouflaged: ..."
    "... Thank you. I have been wondering about the relationship between the Gulen movement and the CIA that relationship might shed light about whether the US was involved in or pushed or green lighted the coup. Of course, CIA assets have been known to go rogue as well. ..."
    "... While exploring this subject, there's a good article and talk given by a career CIA case officer (undercover) who now works for a think tank of some sort. (So I assume she's still with the CIA, even if supposedly she's not.) Her book describes the extent of the Gulen network, including the criminal investigations underway for Gulen's charter schools network. (Did you know Gulen has the largest network of charter schools in the USA?!) This presentation implicitly acknowledged the dangerous / illegal aspects to the Gulen movement. ..."
    "... But at a higher, strategic level, CIA seems to be obviously harboring and supporting Gulen, as Edmonds says. ..."
    "... Edmonds has also done some amazing work regarding Hastert's pedophile connections–reported this formally to US law agencies in multiple years, and was interviewed for a triple-fact-checked Vanity Fair article. The FBI agents who were doing the investigating (knowing about Hastert's pedophilia 10-20 years ago) thought they were preparing for a criminal investigation. They became disillusioned when they realized after a couple of years that their FBI higher-ups had no intention of prosecuting. Apparently the issue is so widespread, and everyone knows–Edmonds describes a certain palace in Turkey where US Congress members get taken on VIP trips, where the VIP suites were being monitored / videotapes simultaneously by FBI, DIA, DoJ, criminal gangs, and foreign governments. Yet when most recently Hastert comes to public attention, all the known pedophile activities are not mentioned, just the financial money-laundering aspects. Because so many of our officials & media & prominent people have been compromised by pedophilia that no one is willing to speak out about it. ..."
    "... Whistleblower Sibel Edmonds has a number of insightful video interviews and papers about Turkey. She predicted the coup about 18 months ago–pointing out that the CIA was preparing to replace Erdogan, and showing the pattern with other regime changes with USA involvement. Both the recent and past interviews give a lot of insight–e.g., into Gulen's CIA-backed financial, cultural and political empire spanning Turkey, Turkik-friendly caucasus countries and deeply embedded within the USA and Congress. ..."
    "... For background on Sibel Edmonds, a short 2006 documentary "Kill the Messenger" about her whistleblowing while an FBI translator is a good starting point. ..."
    "... Ever wondered why Russia hasn't attempted to internally overthrow any of the Gulf States or Saudi Arabia since the Iraqi invasion? They are definitely fragile, internally vulnerable states and closely aligned with the west. Two can definitely play these color revolution games. I suspect it is due to the vulnerability of their own, Russian, populations and increased Middle east instability could produce blowback in Russia proper. However the US and allies have been playing hard this game of disrupting Middle East stability for the last 13 years. At what point, would the Russians decide, well, Middle East stability is already gone and it is time to strike back at US allies using our own tactics? Personally, I think Putin is too smart for that but what about after Putin? ..."
    "... Russia's historical ties were with the Byzantine Empire, with which it shared – after the 9th century A.D. – a crucial common feature, viz. Orthodoxy. The center of Orthodoxy was of course Constantinople, with which the Russian Archbishopric and later, Patriarchate, experienced complicated relations. Upon the fall of Constantinople to the Ottoman Turks in 1453, and the loss of Constantinople to Orthodoxy, Russia envisioned its own capital, Moscow, as taking up the mantle and succeeding Constantinople (the "Second Rome") as Christendom's "Third Rome". The title conflates the relationship between the two countries/empires in the Byzantine period with that during the Ottoman period (i.e., the [Sublime] "Porte"). ..."
    "... But for non-U.S. citizens and U.S. citizens who live near the world's hottest geopolitical hotspot, the prospect of Victoria Nuland (of Ukraine regime change fame) as SoS is not at all a happy one. ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com
    nmb , August 1, 2016 at 6:21 am

    It's rather improbable to see a Russo-Turkish alliance against US and NATO. The US and the Russians have probably already agreed on the new Middle East map which includes Kurdish state. This explains to a great extent why Erdogan is so nervous, making sloppy and dangerous moves.

    Yves Smith Post author , August 1, 2016 at 8:30 am

    Um, given reports that the Turks briefly closed the airbase that the US uses to conduct operations in Syria over the weekend, Erdogan seems plenty pissed with the US for not turning over Gulen, as he has repeatedly requested. Europe has agreed to give him only 3 billion euros to halt the refugee flow into Europe, which is hardly adequate, and a vague promise that maybe the EU will give Turks the freedom of movement too. The EU has been jerking Turkey around forever about joining the EU. They clearly intend not to let a Muslim country join but keep pretending they might as a key NATO ally.

    Merely assuming an official posture of neutrality, as Nasser famously did, would be a big setback for the US and a big gain for Russia

    Steve H. , August 1, 2016 at 9:01 am

    Islamic State calls on members to carry out jihad in Russia

    Could be oblique pressure from Turkey, which has been supplying IS.

    Ask Bandar how that works out.

    John Candlish , August 1, 2016 at 6:38 am

    The Guardian is cranking its front page handorgan while its monkey dances to the tune of Syrian rebels launch operation to break Aleppo siege

    The Al-nursra rebranding hits the spotlight.

    Carla , August 1, 2016 at 8:00 am

    Thanks for mentioning the Real News Network fundraiser, Yves. They have a dollar-for-dollar matching grant going on as well, doubling the impact of every donation.

    rhcaldwell , August 1, 2016 at 8:03 am

    'Sure hope we've flown all our nukes out of Incirlik…

    Praedor , August 1, 2016 at 9:14 am

    The fact that the heads of NATO and the US government, along with their "brain trusts" get so panicky about a possible warming of relations between Russia and Turkey is ridiculous. These asshats have been behaving all along as if the Soviet Union never fell and that Russia is the same thing it was while the heart of the USSR.

    They take it on faith that the US/West and Russia MUST be at odds, no matter what, to the point that they create out of whole cloth conflicts where none existed before. NATO gets aggressive and spreads itself all over Eastern Europe with the intention of kicking the Bear and then gets its panties in a twist when the Bear, quite reasonably, reacts to their aggressive actions.

    Personally, I couldn't care less if Turkey and Russia get kissy-faced with each other. Big wup. Russia is NOT preparing to invade Western Europe (as much as NATO WISHES it were). Russia is NOT invading countries and overthrowing their governments to install puppet regimes, that's the USA and NATO ONLY. The West transgresses, grossly, again and again and when Russia coughs or clears its throat in opposition, it is "RUSSIAN AGGRESSION! Yaaaa! The Russians are coming! The Russians are coming!!!!"

    I literally cannot think of a single thing that Russia has done since the end of the Soviet Union that in any way, shape, or form alarms me or makes me think, "These guys are planning to invade or start a war!" On the other hand, I've seen nothing BUT war starting by the West. First NATO takes something that wasn't, in all actuality, THAT bad a situation (the breakup of Yugoslavia) and turns it into a complete hell in Europe.

    US aggression in Syria HAD to be responded to by Russia. Russia has LONG time major military bases in Syria. How would the US respond if Russia turned the UAE into a chaotic shithole in order to try and kick the US out of its HUGE military bases there? The initiating of chaos would be the aggressive act, NOT the US response to the chaos. The generating of massive chaos in Syria (by the US and its allies) was the aggressive act, NOT Russia's quite reasonable and understandable reaction. Same goes for Ukraine.

    The US is bound and determined to FORCE Russia to be a major foe for Cold War 2.0 whether Russia wants to be or not. The US cannot see any other way to drive its shitty economic system than to fire up the defense industries to full throttle again, ala Cold War 1.0. Instead of dumping the military economic basis to the US and Western economies to focus on truly beneficial development, they are going with the boogieman…both for the economic shot it will provide, but also in an attempt to quell unrest due to income inequality and the rape/pillage economic system of the West. Make the people afraid of being invaded or nuked into oblivion and they wont complain about no more retirement, inability to buy a decent home, or send their kids to college.

    Ralph Reed , August 1, 2016 at 11:11 am

    If the first Presidents Bush and Clinton had attempted conversion and used some crumbs to mitigate the Soviet collapse, instead of unleashing the worst pack of intellectual sophists, strategists, and black market dregs, then Russia today would probably be neatly colonized into an international system, but after the violent class conflict of decolonization during the Cold War a new world order that appeared like Gore Vidal's semi-sarcastic paradigm-shattering essay in the Nation would prematurely speed up de-colonization with "white privilege" too uncamouflaged:

     There is now only one way out. The time has come for the United States to make common cause with the Soviet Union. The bringing together of the Soviet landmass (with all its natural resources) and our island empire (with all its technological resources) would be of great benefit to each society, not to mention the world. Also, to recall the wisdom of the Four Horsemen who gave us our empire, the Soviet Union and our section of North America combined would be a match, industrially and technologically, for the Sino-Japanese axis that will dominate the future just as Japan dominates world trade today. But where the horsemen thought of war as the supreme solvent, we now know that war is worse than useless. Therefore, the alliance of the two great powers of the Northern Hemisphere will double the strength of each and give us, working together, an opportunity to survive, economically, in a highly centralized Asiatic world.

    Then again, the international co-operation around protecting the ozone layer could have been deepened if the Red Greens hadn't already been promised as sacrificial lambs to the Gladio remnants, their old money benefactors, Western intelligence agencies, Mossad, the CIA, FBI, and disgruntled Russian elites who already hated hippies.

    Ralph Reed , August 1, 2016 at 11:17 am

    I messed up the format and don't seem to be able to edit. My apologies.

    Ralph Reed (@RalphWalterReed) , August 1, 2016 at 11:32 am

    Rereading this it sacrifices coherence to venting. The premise is that historical contiguity with the racial residues of empire could be confronted or not if they were more simply transparent.

    The bigger point I wanted to make is the current demographic disaster may be intentional if one looks at the recent Russian experience as an experiment. Broken Force? Then social pressure through thwarting the traditional modes of reproduction of labor leading to a reinvigorated military economy in 15 years.

    digi_owl , August 1, 2016 at 2:05 pm

    Yeah the whole "soviet threat" issue vanished the day Stalin passed. But i fear that the US, and thus NATO, needed it to maintain compliance within their own nations.

    And thus the threat was stoked until the 90s, then it was eased back as they thought they had the old bear chained down while Yeltsin was in office, only for their antics to cause a blowback that is still ongoing once Putin took over.

    TheCatSaid , August 1, 2016 at 10:49 am

    Great interview. It's good to see Helmer on TRNN.

    Last week I got curious to have a better understanding of the Turkey situation than what I was getting from MSM. I decided to see if Sibel Edmonds had spoken up–and discovered that she predicted this coup 18 months ago.

    There are a number of insightful interviews she has given about Turkey over the last 18 months. Here are a couple:

    Lengthy video interview with Edmonds about
    Turkey / Gulen background from 2014, "Sibel Edmonds Explains the CIA's "Reverse Engineering" of Erdogan". She says it is easy to document Gulen's close links to the CIA, and makes a strong case for his status as being strongly protected by the USA. It references articles she's written including " Turkish PM Erdogan: The Speedy Transformation of an Imperial Puppet ".

    Two recent interviews since the coup.
    Sibel Edmonds Dissects the Turkish Coup

    Breaking News: Turkey's Coup Plotters are Members of NATO's Rapid Deployable Corps (July 24 2016)

    The "BellingTheCat" website with WhatsApp translated messages of Turkish military during the coup, which Helmers also mentions, are here . Helmers says this website is a NATO-sponsored website and that it is not always trustworthy, but isn't sure in this case. Edmonds doesn't mention this website being linked to NATO.

    For background on Edmonds see " Kill the Messenger ", a 2006 documentary about her whistleblowing within the FBI.

    jagger , August 1, 2016 at 11:40 am

    Thank you. I have been wondering about the relationship between the Gulen movement and the CIA that relationship might shed light about whether the US was involved in or pushed or green lighted the coup. Of course, CIA assets have been known to go rogue as well.

    TheCatSaid , August 1, 2016 at 3:56 pm

    Something I found intriguing:

    While exploring this subject, there's a good article and talk given by a career CIA case officer (undercover) who now works for a think tank of some sort. (So I assume she's still with the CIA, even if supposedly she's not.) Her book describes the extent of the Gulen network, including the criminal investigations underway for Gulen's charter schools network. (Did you know Gulen has the largest network of charter schools in the USA?!) This presentation implicitly acknowledged the dangerous / illegal aspects to the Gulen movement.

    But at a higher, strategic level, CIA seems to be obviously harboring and supporting Gulen, as Edmonds says.

    Within the CIA there are therefore different angles / understandings / strategies. The upper echelon strategy seems to be about supporting Gulen (including helping clandestinely Gulen–or his puppet-master(s)–to effect regime change). LIHOP is too weak an argument, given the kind of support Gulen receives from his USA base. Probably he's just a figurehead and the real power is out of view. (USA? Off-world?)

    Edmonds has also done some amazing work regarding Hastert's pedophile connections–reported this formally to US law agencies in multiple years, and was interviewed for a triple-fact-checked Vanity Fair article. The FBI agents who were doing the investigating (knowing about Hastert's pedophilia 10-20 years ago) thought they were preparing for a criminal investigation. They became disillusioned when they realized after a couple of years that their FBI higher-ups had no intention of prosecuting. Apparently the issue is so widespread, and everyone knows–Edmonds describes a certain palace in Turkey where US Congress members get taken on VIP trips, where the VIP suites were being monitored / videotapes simultaneously by FBI, DIA, DoJ, criminal gangs, and foreign governments. Yet when most recently Hastert comes to public attention, all the known pedophile activities are not mentioned, just the financial money-laundering aspects. Because so many of our officials & media & prominent people have been compromised by pedophilia that no one is willing to speak out about it.

    TheCatSaid , August 1, 2016 at 11:01 am

    Whistleblower Sibel Edmonds has a number of insightful video interviews and papers about Turkey. She predicted the coup about 18 months ago–pointing out that the CIA was preparing to replace Erdogan, and showing the pattern with other regime changes with USA involvement. Both the recent and past interviews give a lot of insight–e.g., into Gulen's CIA-backed financial, cultural and political empire spanning Turkey, Turkik-friendly caucasus countries and deeply embedded within the USA and Congress.

    A longer post with a number of links has been sidetracked to moderation. In case it disappears I'm posting this short comment.

    For background on Sibel Edmonds, a short 2006 documentary "Kill the Messenger" about her whistleblowing while an FBI translator is a good starting point.

    jagger , August 1, 2016 at 11:32 am

    How would the US respond if Russia turned the UAE into a chaotic shithole in order to try and kick the US out of its HUGE military bases there?

    Ever wondered why Russia hasn't attempted to internally overthrow any of the Gulf States or Saudi Arabia since the Iraqi invasion? They are definitely fragile, internally vulnerable states and closely aligned with the west. Two can definitely play these color revolution games. I suspect it is due to the vulnerability of their own, Russian, populations and increased Middle east instability could produce blowback in Russia proper. However the US and allies have been playing hard this game of disrupting Middle East stability for the last 13 years. At what point, would the Russians decide, well, Middle East stability is already gone and it is time to strike back at US allies using our own tactics? Personally, I think Putin is too smart for that but what about after Putin?

    dbk , August 1, 2016 at 6:58 pm

    This thread seems to have petered out rather early on, not sure how much to add.

    For those (if anyone is still out there) interested, Pat Lang's site SST has been posting regularly on Turkey, and he has commenters from the region and who are knowledgeable about ME/NE military and political affairs.

    I had read the John Helmer piece on his blog when it was first posted, and forwarded it to a friend who's similar in many respects to Lang (career military officer, now retired; author of historical studies and books; keen student of the Eastern Mediterranean, Turkey, Cyprus, the Balkans) except that he's Greek.

    In return he sent me a link to his own latest two pieces on a Greek blog. One discusses the "coup" in considerable detail. Some random factoids I picked up on, in no particular order or hierarchy:

    • -Russia is not interested in regime change in Turkey at the moment;
    • -Russia is very interested in maintaining its buffer zone (called "The Rimland" by the late Nicholas Spykman, a geopolitics theoretician), of which Turkey forms perhaps the key part (historically, and now);
    • -Russia turned the shooting down of that SU 24 into an opportunity to install S400s or possibly, S500s, in Syria;
    • -The current situation in Syria is more or less a proxy war between the U.S. and Russia;
    • -Russia has recently become very active in the so-called "Northern Corridor" (aka, the Arctic Circle), something most analysts forget;
    • -By 2020, Russia will be 100% self-sufficient in food production;
    • -It is likely that Russian surveillance technology picked up the news of the impending coup and informed Erdogan of it;
    • -The presence of nuclear weapons at Incirlik is in violation of Article 2 of the 1975 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
    • -Russia wants/needs a "southern corridor" to move LNG to the Med. Turkey is in the right geographic location to serve this purpose.

    The historical relationship between Turkey and Russia comes out a bit garbled in Helmer's (original post) title, i.e. "The New Byzantine Alliance: The Kremlin and the Porte," etc.

    Russia's historical ties were with the Byzantine Empire, with which it shared – after the 9th century A.D. – a crucial common feature, viz. Orthodoxy. The center of Orthodoxy was of course Constantinople, with which the Russian Archbishopric and later, Patriarchate, experienced complicated relations. Upon the fall of Constantinople to the Ottoman Turks in 1453, and the loss of Constantinople to Orthodoxy, Russia envisioned its own capital, Moscow, as taking up the mantle and succeeding Constantinople (the "Second Rome") as Christendom's "Third Rome". The title conflates the relationship between the two countries/empires in the Byzantine period with that during the Ottoman period (i.e., the [Sublime] "Porte").

    Short version: when you start messing around in somebody else's backyard, trouble ensues.

    The 2016 election offers voters two rather stark choices. Another blog I read, LGM, recently had a comment on a thread about Trump-Clinton (there are so many, one loses count) that laid out why voters are choosing one or the other candidate very neatly. If one is in the U.S. and is relatively or very well-off, the Democrats' championing (qualified, I would say) of identity politics looks pretty good, or at least, not as bad as the Republicans' (I'm still aghast at how black voters are so staunchly supportive of someone whose husband shoved TANF through in place of AFDC, but hey). But for non-U.S. citizens and U.S. citizens who live near the world's hottest geopolitical hotspot, the prospect of Victoria Nuland (of Ukraine regime change fame) as SoS is not at all a happy one.

    [Jul 31, 2016] Clearly, from Hickenloopers speech before Clinton, the military brass cant wait for her becoaming POTUS!

    Notable quotes:
    "... 0bama v Bush43, who was the More Effective Evil? At least Bush43 didn't have the passion for Crapifying social insurance like 0bama did – IIRC Bush43 meekly tried to privatize SS & then let it go. Bush43 didn't push any Rigged Trade Outsourcing deals the size of TPP, perhaps there was a minor one (DR-CAFTA?). ..."
    "... I'd guesstimate 0bama is even worse than Bush43. The sad thing is that I fear the Fockin New Guy will be even worse than 0bama ..."
    "... Well, Bush43 has Iraq going for him. And IMNSHO, the only reason Obama didn't seriously put "boots on the ground" is that Iraq and Afghanistan broke the army. But I bet they're recovered enough now, and ready for Hillary! ..."
    "... Clearly, from Hickenlooper's speech before Clinton, the brass can't wait! ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com
    ProNewerDeal , July 29, 2016 at 4:01 pm

    BTW, do you think we "dodge 2 bullets" & make it to Jan 2017 without 0bama being able to implement his beloved TPP & Grand Ripoff?

    Flying Spaghetti Monster Willing, I hope so!

    0bama v Bush43, who was the More Effective Evil? At least Bush43 didn't have the passion for Crapifying social insurance like 0bama did – IIRC Bush43 meekly tried to privatize SS & then let it go. Bush43 didn't push any Rigged Trade Outsourcing deals the size of TPP, perhaps there was a minor one (DR-CAFTA?).

    0bama's passion is allowing the 1%ers enrichment by parasitically ripping off 99%ers. In contrast Bush43's passion was neocon Middle East warmongering regime-change, & Christian Theocratic stances like banning stem cell research & gay marriage, & fellow theocrat SCOTUS nominations.

    I'd guesstimate 0bama is even worse than Bush43. The sad thing is that I fear the Fockin New Guy will be even worse than 0bama.

    Perhaps there is a small chance for HClinton to be less bad than 0bama if the Sanders-ish social democrats (typically labeled Progressives) can force HClinton to halfway stick to the 2016 platform. Based on HClinton's behavior during the campaign, I doubt that is possible – she seems to detest the Progressive faction, based off the Kaine nomination & authoritarian banning of Sanders delegates from the convention floor, etc, & so far HClinton seems to get away with this "hippie punching" behavior.

    One positive aspect is that I feel like that HClinton will be unable to use the 0bama excuses to valid Progressives' policy critiques of

    1. You are a sexist for critizing Dear Leader! (racist in 0bama's case)
    2. Those Evil Rs won't let her do that policy

    These bogus replies are "dead horses" after continual use by 0bamabots, that IMHO will not be available for HClinton to use.

    Lambert Strether Post author , July 29, 2016 at 4:08 pm

    Well, Bush43 has Iraq going for him. And IMNSHO, the only reason Obama didn't seriously put "boots on the ground" is that Iraq and Afghanistan broke the army. But I bet they're recovered enough now, and ready for Hillary!

    Clearly, from Hickenlooper's speech before Clinton, the brass can't wait!

    [Jul 31, 2016] Trump Ad Hillary Clinton Crooked Warmonger

    Stakes are too high to elect warmonger like Hillary Clinton. Vote for Trump in November. See also another look at Hillary's war record. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNu-0Vrvrf0&feature=youtu.be
    Notable quotes:
    "... How can anyone vote for that corrupt warmonger? Seriously, can someone explain why she has 50% of the votes in the USA. Unbelievable. ..."
    "... Killary, like Barry, loves killing people. Psychopaths--both of them. ..."
    "... I honestly don't care if Trump wins. I don't think it will be good, but whatever. But I know for a fact that no matter what, Hillary must not win. ..."
    "... Oy Vey! It's funny how Liberals, most Muslims etc are offended by Trump but not offended by the direct policies of the same old warmongers resulting in the deaths of millions of people in the Middle East for a decade and on going in the sham war on t3rror. The fuck? ..."
    YouTube
    aspiesresearchmom1 week ago
    This video should be viral. #KweenKrookedKillary and her moronic minions don't have a chance when Bernie's voters get on board the #TrumpTrain2016
    Oxymoron2
    How can anyone vote for that corrupt warmonger? Seriously, can someone explain why she has 50% of the votes in the USA. Unbelievable.
    gspotjazz
    Killary, like Barry, loves killing people. Psychopaths--both of them.
    Jim Mooney
    Funny the Dems are so hot for Hillary and don't recognize she's a regime-changing warmonger on a par with Bush, responsible for millions of dead and displaced in Libya, Syria, and Ukraine.
    Bad Dog
    Exactly how nuts do you have to be to think you can go to war with Russia? Even if you come out on top, what's the environment going to be like? Is emerging from your bunker with 70% of the population dead and no atmosphere left considered a win? FUCK HILLARY RAW.
    Alex O.
    I honestly don't care if Trump wins. I don't think it will be good, but whatever. But I know for a fact that no matter what, Hillary must not win. She's bad news.
    Tina Siz
    WE ARE WITNESSING THE MOST CORRUPT, MAFIA-LIKE.. ANTI AMERICAN WOMAN IN HISTORY OF POLITICS. THERE ARE REASONS WHY SCANDALS AND LIES AND DEATHS HAVE FOLLOWED HER FOR YEARS.

    Truth Archives

    Oy Vey! It's funny how Liberals, most Muslims etc are offended by Trump but not offended by the direct policies of the same old warmongers resulting in the deaths of millions of people in the Middle East for a decade and on going in the sham war on t3rror. The fuck?

    2eyesofhorus

    Hillary has become in effect, a NeoConservative, not a Democrat-she votes for war continually

    Aisha K

    Actually a lot of Muslims don't support Hillary or Trump and prefer Bernie because Bernie really did vote against the war in Iraq, while Trump only claims he was once against it. Regardless of that fact, Trump makes a powerful argument against voting for Hillary because of her warmonger record in Iraq, Libya and any other place she gets involved in, and the damage it has caused the entire world, including USA.

    1800 Pupusas

    I'm Hispanic but I prefer Trump

    De Selby

    she will literally say anything to benefit herself. the country will be ruined if she is elected president.

    NSA Spying

    Hilary Clinton is our generation's Henry Kissinger.

    oanimalinho2

    +NSA Spying No, she isn't. She is much worse than that.

    Christopher Horton
    This Trump ad gives us a taste of what the Democrats will be up against if we have to try to mobilize the voters behind Hillary to stop him. And why so many of us won't be able to put our hearts into it. Because on this issue he is absolutely right. Hillary's record on foreign policy is reprehensible - and terrifying. But it's not just on this issue - she has been lying about many things, among them the state of the economy. With no public voting record to defend, no fundamental commitment to the truth or reality, with a prostitute press that selectively forgets what he said yesterday, Trump can be selectively right - and righteous - on any issue he chooses. Until it no longer suits him.

    Do I think Trump would be better than Clinton on issues of war and peace? Not for a minute. Would he be worse? Maybe - I'm honestly not sure...

    Garou

    Take it from me .. She's a monster.

    gamira007

    +PeaceAndJustice Yes absolutely she is propped up by the MSM and the Corporate death machine. The Majority do know this woman is pure evil but our rulers hand pick who is prez here cause if voting did really matter then it would be illegal.

    PeaceAndJustice

    +Philo Beddoe

    Her 'support' is driven by the MSM which is completely controlled by the PRC (Predatory Ruling Class). Basically the people that believe the television think she is just a swell lady.

    [Jul 31, 2016] Democrats Are Now the Aggressive War Party

    Notable quotes:
    "... However, to ease tensions with the Clinton wing of the party, Obama selected Clinton to be his Secretary of State, one of the first and most fateful decisions of his presidency. He also kept on George W. Bush's Defense Secretary Robert Gates and neocon members of the military high command, such as Gen. David Petraeus. ..."
    "... Inside Obama's foreign policy councils, Clinton routinely took the most neoconservative positions, such as defending a 2009 coup in Honduras that ousted a progressive president. ..."
    "... Clinton also sabotaged early efforts to work out an agreement in which Iran surrendered much of its low-enriched uranium, including an initiative in 2010 organized at Obama's request by the leaders of Brazil and Turkey. Clinton sank that deal and escalated tensions with Iran along the lines favored by Israel's right-wing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a Clinton favorite. ..."
    "... But no one should be gullible enough to believe that Clinton's invasion of Syria would stop at a "safe zone." As with Libya, once the camel's nose was into the tent, pretty soon the animal would be filling up the whole tent. ..."
    "... Perhaps even scarier is what a President Clinton would do regarding Iran and Ukraine, two countries where belligerent U.S. behavior could start much bigger wars. ..."
    "... In Ukraine, would Clinton escalate U.S. military support for the post-coup anti-Russian Ukrainian government, encouraging its forces to annihilate the ethnic Russian rebels in eastern Ukraine and to "liberate" the people of Crimea from "Russian aggression" (though they voted by 96 percent to leave the failed Ukrainian state and rejoin Russia)? ..."
    "... Robert Kagan, a co-founder of the neocon Project for the new American Century, has endorsed Clinton, saying "I feel comfortable with her on foreign policy. If she pursues a policy which we think she will pursue it's something that might have been called neocon, but clearly her supporters are not going to call it that; they are going to call it something else." [See Consortiumnews.com's " Yes, Hillary Clinton Is a Neocon. "] ..."
    "... So, by selecting Clinton, the Democrats have made a full 360-degree swing back to the pre-1968 days of the Vietnam War. After nearly a half century of favoring a more peaceful foreign policy – and somewhat less weapons spending – than the Republicans, the Democrats are America's new aggressive war party. ..."
    Jun 08, 2016 | Consortiumnews

    ... But former Secretary of State Clinton has made it clear that she is eager to use military force to achieve "regime change" in countries that get in the way of U.S. desires. She abides by neoconservative strategies of violent interventions especially in the Middle East and she strikes a belligerent posture as well toward nuclear-armed Russia and, to a lesser extent, China.

    Amid the celebrations about picking the first woman as a major party's presumptive nominee, Democrats appear to have given little thought to the fact that they have abandoned a near half-century standing as the party more skeptical about the use of military force. Clinton is an unabashed war hawk who has shown no inclination to rethink her pro-war attitudes.

    As a U.S. senator from New York, Clinton voted for and avidly supported the Iraq War, only cooling her enthusiasm in 2006 when it became clear that the Democratic base had turned decisively against the war and her hawkish position endangered her chances for the 2008 presidential nomination, which she lost to Barack Obama, an Iraq War opponent.

    However, to ease tensions with the Clinton wing of the party, Obama selected Clinton to be his Secretary of State, one of the first and most fateful decisions of his presidency. He also kept on George W. Bush's Defense Secretary Robert Gates and neocon members of the military high command, such as Gen. David Petraeus.

    This "Team of Rivals" – named after Abraham Lincoln's initial Civil War cabinet – ensured a powerful bloc of pro-war sentiment, which pushed Obama toward more militaristic solutions than he otherwise favored, notably the wasteful counterinsurgency "surge" in Afghanistan in 2009 which did little beyond get another 1,000 U.S. soldiers killed and many more Afghans.

    Clinton was a strong supporter of that "surge" – and Gates reported in his memoir that she acknowledged only opposing the Iraq War "surge" in 2007 for political reasons. Inside Obama's foreign policy councils, Clinton routinely took the most neoconservative positions, such as defending a 2009 coup in Honduras that ousted a progressive president.

    Clinton also sabotaged early efforts to work out an agreement in which Iran surrendered much of its low-enriched uranium, including an initiative in 2010 organized at Obama's request by the leaders of Brazil and Turkey. Clinton sank that deal and escalated tensions with Iran along the lines favored by Israel's right-wing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a Clinton favorite.

    Pumping for War in Libya

    In 2011, Clinton successfully lobbied Obama to go to war against Libya to achieve another "regime change," albeit cloaked in the more modest goal of establishing only a "no-fly zone" to "protect civilians."

    Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi had claimed he was battling jihadists and terrorists who were building strongholds around Benghazi, but Clinton and her State Department underlings accused him of slaughtering civilians and (in one of the more colorful lies used to justify the war) distributing Viagra to his troops so they could rape more women.

    Despite resistance from Russia and China, the United Nations Security Council fell for the deception about protecting civilians. Russia and China agreed to abstain from the vote, giving Clinton her "no-fly zone." Once that was secured, however, the Obama administration and several European allies unveiled their real plan, to destroy the Libyan army and pave the way for the violent overthrow of Gaddafi.

    Privately, Clinton's senior aides viewed the Libyan "regime change" as a chance to establish what they called the "Clinton Doctrine" on using "smart power" with plans for Clinton to rush to the fore and claim credit once Gaddafi was ousted. But that scheme failed when President Obama grabbed the limelight after Gaddafi's government collapsed.

    But Clinton would not be denied her second opportunity to claim the glory when jihadist rebels captured Gaddafi on Oct. 20, 2011, sodomized him with a knife and then murdered him. Hearing of Gaddafi's demise, Clinton went into a network interview and declared , "we came, we saw, he died" and clapped her hands in glee.

    Clinton's glee was short-lived, however. Libya soon descended into chaos with Islamic extremists gaining control of large swaths of the country. On Sept. 11, 2012, jihadists attacked the U.S. consulate in Benghazi killing Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other American personnel. It turned out Gaddafi had been right about the nature of his enemies.

    Undaunted by the mess in Libya, Clinton made similar plans for Syria where again she marched in lock-step with the neocons and their "liberal interventionist" sidekicks in support of another violent "regime change," ousting the Assad dynasty, a top neocon/Israeli goal since the 1990s.

    Clinton pressed Obama to escalate weapons shipments and training for anti-government rebels who were deemed "moderate" but in reality collaborated closely with radical Islamic forces, including Al Nusra Front (Al Qaeda's Syrian franchise) and some even more extreme jihadists (who coalesced into the Islamic State).

    Again, Clinton's war plans were cloaked in humanitarian language, such as the need to create a "safe zone" inside Syria to save civilians. But her plans would have required a major U.S. invasion of a sovereign country, the destruction of its air force and much of its military, and the creation of conditions for another "regime change."

    In the case of Syria, however, Obama resisted the pressure from Clinton and other hawks inside his own administration. The President did approve some covert assistance to the rebels and allowed Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the Gulf states to do much more, but he did not agree to an outright U.S.-led invasion to Clinton's disappointment.

    Parting Ways

    Clinton finally left the Obama administration at the start of his second term in 2013, some say voluntarily and others say in line with Obama's desire to finally move ahead with serious negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program and to apply more pressure on Israel to reach a long-delayed peace settlement with the Palestinians. Secretary of State John Kerry was willing to do some of the politically risky work that Clinton was not.

    Many on the Left deride Obama as "Obomber" and mock his hypocritical acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009. And there is no doubt that Obama has waged war his entire presidency, bombing at least seven countries by his own count. But the truth is that he has generally been among the most dovish members of his administration, advocating a "realistic" (or restrained) application of American power. By contrast, Clinton was among the most hawkish senior officials.

    A major testing moment for Obama came in August 2013 after a sarin gas attack outside Damascus, Syria, that killed hundreds of Syrians and that the State Department and the mainstream U.S. media immediately blamed on the forces of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

    There was almost universal pressure inside Official Washington to militarily enforce Obama's "red line" against Assad using chemical weapons. Amid this intense momentum toward war, it was widely assumed that Obama would order a harsh retaliatory strike against the Syrian military. But U.S. intelligence and key figures in the U.S. military smelled a rat, a provocation carried out by Islamic extremists to draw the United States into the Syrian war on their side.

    At the last minute and at great political cost to himself, Obama listened to the doubts of his intelligence advisers and called off the attack, referring the issue to the U.S. Congress and then accepting a Russian-brokered deal in which Assad surrendered all his chemical weapons though continuing to deny a role in the sarin attack.

    Eventually, the sarin case against Assad would collapse. Only one rocket was found to have carried sarin and it had a very limited range placing its firing position likely within rebel-controlled territory. But Official Washington's conventional wisdom never budged. To this day, politicians and pundits denounce Obama for not enforcing his "red line."

    There's little doubt, however, what Hillary Clinton would have done. She has been eager for a much more aggressive U.S. military role in Syria since the civil war began in 2011. Much as she used propaganda and deception to achieve "regime change" in Libya, she surely would have done the same in Syria, embracing the pretext of the sarin attack – "killing innocent children" – to destroy the Syrian military even if the rebels were the guilty parties.

    Still Lusting for War

    Indeed, during the 2016 campaign – in those few moments that have touched on foreign policy – Clinton declared that as President she would order the U.S. military to invade Syria. "Yes, I do still support a no-fly zone," she said during the April 14 debate. She also wants a "safe zone" that would require seizing territory inside Syria.

    But no one should be gullible enough to believe that Clinton's invasion of Syria would stop at a "safe zone." As with Libya, once the camel's nose was into the tent, pretty soon the animal would be filling up the whole tent.

    Perhaps even scarier is what a President Clinton would do regarding Iran and Ukraine, two countries where belligerent U.S. behavior could start much bigger wars.

    For instance, would President Hillary Clinton push the Iranians so hard – in line with what Netanyahu favors – that they would renounce the nuclear deal and give Clinton an excuse to bomb-bomb-bomb Iran?

    In Ukraine, would Clinton escalate U.S. military support for the post-coup anti-Russian Ukrainian government, encouraging its forces to annihilate the ethnic Russian rebels in eastern Ukraine and to "liberate" the people of Crimea from "Russian aggression" (though they voted by 96 percent to leave the failed Ukrainian state and rejoin Russia)?

    Would President Clinton expect the Russians to stand down and accept these massacres? Would she take matters to the next level to demonstrate how tough she can be against Russian President Vladimir Putin whom she has compared to Hitler? Might she buy into the latest neocon dream of achieving "regime change" in Moscow? Would she be wise enough to recognize how dangerous such instability could be?

    Of course, one would expect that all of Clinton's actions would be clothed in the crocodile tears of "humanitarian" warfare, starting wars to "save the children" or to stop the evil enemy from "raping defenseless girls." The truth of such emotional allegations would be left for the post-war historians to try to sort out. In the meantime, President Clinton would have her wars.

    Having covered Washington for nearly four decades, I always marvel at how selective concerns for human rights can be. When "friendly" civilians are dying, we are told that we have a "responsibility to protect," but when pro-U.S. forces are slaughtering civilians of an adversary country or movement, reports of those atrocities are dismissed as "enemy propaganda" or ignored altogether. Clinton is among the most cynical in this regard.

    Trading Places

    But the larger picture for the Democrats is that they have just adopted an extraordinary historical reversal whether they understand it or not. They have replaced the Republicans as the party of aggressive war, though clearly many Republicans still dance to the neocon drummer just as Clinton and "liberal interventionists" do. Still, Donald Trump, for all his faults, has adopted a relatively peaceful point of view, especially in the Mideast and with Russia.

    While today many Democrats are congratulating themselves for becoming the first major party to make a woman the presumptive nominee, they may soon have to decide whether that distinction justifies putting an aggressive war hawk in the White House. In a way, the issue is an old one for Democrats, whether "identity politics" or anti-war policies are more important.

    At least since 1968 and the chaotic Democratic convention in Chicago, the party has advanced, sometimes haltingly, those two agendas, pushing for broader rights for all and seeking to restrain the nation's militaristic impulses.

    In the 1970s, Democrats largely repudiated the Vietnam War while the Republicans waved the flag and equated anti-war positions with treason. By the 1980s and early 1990s, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush were making war fun again – Grenada, Afghanistan, Panama and the Persian Gulf, all relatively low-cost conflicts with victorious conclusions.

    By the 1990s, Bill Clinton (along with Hillary Clinton) saw militarism as just another issue to be triangulated. With the Soviet Union's collapse, the Clinton-42 administration saw the opportunity for more low-cost tough-guy/gal-ism – continuing a harsh embargo and periodic air strikes against Iraq (causing the deaths of a U.N.-estimated half million children); blasting Serbia into submission over Kosovo; and expanding NATO to the east toward Russia's borders.

    But Bill Clinton did balk at the more extreme neocon ideas, such as the one from the Project for the New American Century for a militarily enforced "regime change" in Iraq. That had to wait for George W. Bush in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. As a New York senator, Hillary Clinton made sure she was onboard for war on Iraq just as she sided with Israel's pummeling of Lebanon and the Palestinians in Gaza.

    Hillary Clinton was taking triangulation to an even more acute angle as she sided with virtually every position of the Netanyahu government in Israel and moved in tandem with the neocons as they cemented their control of Washington's foreign policy establishment. Her only brief flirtation with an anti-war position came in 2006 when her political advisers informed her that her continued support for Bush's Iraq War would doom her in the Democratic presidential race.

    But she let her hawkish plumage show again as Obama's Secretary of State from 2009 to 2013 – and once she felt she had the 2016 Democratic race in hand (after her success in the southern primaries) she pivoted back to her hard-line positions in full support of Israel and in a full-throated defense of her war on Libya, which she still won't view as a failure.

    The smarter neocons are already lining up to endorse Clinton, especially given Donald Trump's hostile takeover of the Republican Party and his disdain for neocon strategies that he views as simply spreading chaos around the globe. As The New York Times has reported, Clinton is "the vessel into which many interventionists are pouring their hopes."

    Robert Kagan, a co-founder of the neocon Project for the new American Century, has endorsed Clinton, saying "I feel comfortable with her on foreign policy. If she pursues a policy which we think she will pursue it's something that might have been called neocon, but clearly her supporters are not going to call it that; they are going to call it something else." [See Consortiumnews.com's "Yes, Hillary Clinton Is a Neocon."]

    So, by selecting Clinton, the Democrats have made a full 360-degree swing back to the pre-1968 days of the Vietnam War. After nearly a half century of favoring a more peaceful foreign policy – and somewhat less weapons spending – than the Republicans, the Democrats are America's new aggressive war party.

    [For more on this topic, see Consortiumnews.com's "Would a Clinton Win Mean More Wars?']

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

    [Jul 31, 2016] Clinton has now made Democrats the anti-Russia party

    How about WAPO does some real reporting and compares the two candidate on the issues at hand and leaves out all the speculation"
    Judging from comments the level of brainwashing of WaPo readship is just staggering... Far above that existed in soviet Russia (were most people were supciously about Soviet nomeklatura and did not trust them).
    Notable quotes:
    "... In their zeal to portray Donald Trump as a dangerous threat to national security, the Clinton campaign has taken a starkly anti-Russian stance, one that completes a total role reversal for the two major American parties on U.S.-Russian relations that Hillary Clinton will now be committed to, if she becomes president. ..."
    "... And now, for mostly political reasons, the Clinton campaign has decided to escalate its rhetoric on Russia. ..."
    "... This year, the Clinton team is accusing Putin of waging information warfare against the Democratic candidate in order to help elect the Republican candidate. Clinton is also running ads claiming she stood up to Putin. Meanwhile, Trump is called for a weakening of NATO and his staff worked to remove an anti-Russia stance on Ukraine from the GOP platform. ..."
    "... Now that the Democrats are the tough-on-Russia party, they should explain exactly what that means. What would Clinton do about Russia's increasingly aggressive cyber-espionage and information warfare in Europe and around the world? Would she expand sanctions on Russia in response to the hacks? Would she use U.S. cyber forces to retaliate? Would she abandon President Obama's plan to deepen U.S.-Russian military and intelligence cooperation in Syria? ..."
    "... if Clinton wins, she will be committed to implementing the anti-Putin, tough-on-Russia policy she is running on and Democrats will need to fall in line ..."
    "... I am not a national security expert but it does not look intelligent to antagonize Russia and China at the same time. But I think it is unfair to blame Hillary for this, Obama has been antagonizing Russia and China for some time now. He has being very successful at that, for the first time in many years now Russia and China are BFF doing naval exercises together. ..."
    "... In other words, her use of a homebrew email server constituted a threat to national security? ..."
    "... The Dems and their Washington Post surrogates are apoplectic over Donald Trump's supposed affinity for the Russians. Russia is now America's mortal enemy in the current Dem narrative. ..."
    "... Mook's claim of Russian involvement would be more convincing if he had offered any proof. Otherwise it just looks like pure deflection and distraction and disinformation. ..."
    Jul 28, 2016 | The Washington Post

    In their zeal to portray Donald Trump as a dangerous threat to national security, the Clinton campaign has taken a starkly anti-Russian stance, one that completes a total role reversal for the two major American parties on U.S.-Russian relations that Hillary Clinton will now be committed to, if she becomes president.

    The side switching between the parties on Russia is the result of two converging trends. U.S.-Russian relations have gone downhill since Russian President Vladimir Putin came back to power in 2012, torpedoing the Obama administration's first term outreach to Moscow, which Clinton led. Then, in the past year, Trump's Russia-friendly policy has filled the pro-engagement space that Democrats once occupied.

    And now, for mostly political reasons, the Clinton campaign has decided to escalate its rhetoric on Russia. After Trump suggested Wednesday that if Russia had indeed hacked Clinton's private email server it should release the emails, the Clinton campaign sent out its Democratic surrogates to bash Russia and Trump in a manner traditionally reserved for Republicans.

    "This has gone from being a matter of curiosity, and a matter of politics, to being a national security issue," Clinton senior foreign policy adviser Jake Sullivan said.

    Set to one side that Trump was probably joking. Russia clearly does not need Trump's permission to hack U.S. political organizations or government institutions. And there's no consensus that Russia released the Democratic National Committee emails in order to disrupt the presidential election. In fact, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, who has his own personal vendetta against Clinton, claimed that he alone chose the timing of the release of the DNC emails.

    Regardless, the idea that a GOP presidential nominee would endorse Russian cyber-espionage was too tempting for the Clinton campaign to resist, especially on the day their convention was dedicated to painting Trump as dangerous on national security.

    At an event on the sidelines of the convention Wednesday, several top Clinton national security surrogates focused on Trump's latest comments to argue that they embolden Russia in its plan to destabilize and dominate the West. Former national security adviser Tom Donilon said that Russia is interfering with elections all over Europe and said Trump is helping Russia directly.

    "The Russians have engaged in cyberattacks in a number of places that we know about, in Georgia, in Estonia and in Ukraine. . . . In the Russian takeover of Crimea, information warfare was a central part of their operations," Donilon said. "To dangerously embrace a set of strategies by the Russian Federation that are intent on undermining key Western institutions . . . is playing into the hands of Russian strategy."

    Former defense secretary and CIA director Leon Panetta said that if Donilon was still in the White House, he would have tasked the CIA to retaliate against Moscow. Panetta then doubled down on Sullivan's argument that Trump's comments by themselves are making the United States less safe.

    "This is crazy stuff, and yet somehow you get the sense that people think it's a joke. It has already represented a threat to our national security," Panetta said. "Because if you go abroad and talk to people, they are very worried that someone like this could become president of the United States."

    In 2008, the Russian government was definitely not rooting for the Republican candidate for president. Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) had made a feature of his campaign a pledge to stand up to Russian aggression and dispatched two top surrogates to Georgia after the Russian invasion.

    In 2012, Mitt Romney warned that Russia was the United States' "number one geopolitical foe." Then-Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John F. Kerry mocked Romney at the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, saying that Romney got his information about Russia from the movie "Rocky IV."

    This year, the Clinton team is accusing Putin of waging information warfare against the Democratic candidate in order to help elect the Republican candidate. Clinton is also running ads claiming she stood up to Putin. Meanwhile, Trump is called for a weakening of NATO and his staff worked to remove an anti-Russia stance on Ukraine from the GOP platform.

    Now that the Democrats are the tough-on-Russia party, they should explain exactly what that means. What would Clinton do about Russia's increasingly aggressive cyber-espionage and information warfare in Europe and around the world? Would she expand sanctions on Russia in response to the hacks? Would she use U.S. cyber forces to retaliate? Would she abandon President Obama's plan to deepen U.S.-Russian military and intelligence cooperation in Syria?

    The Clinton team hasn't said. For now, they are content to use Trump's statements about Russia to make the argument that he's not commander-in-chief material. But if Clinton wins, she will be committed to implementing the anti-Putin, tough-on-Russia policy she is running on and Democrats will need to fall in line . If Putin wasn't rooting for Trump before, he is now.

    NotaClinton , 7/28/2016 6:25 PM EDT

    So TRUMP is threat to NATIONAL SECURITY for asking RUSSIA for the emails she destroyed? Because they would be the one likely to have them since she completely ignored Security protocol while in Russia? WOW they get better every day. They have already explain Russia could have been in and out of her accounts all along because of her complete lack of security of her devises. She had less security than a commercial account using the private server the way she did. And she did cause a breach in national security. She fwd classified email to an intern and it did get hacked. Whether or not Russia got any info from her we will never know. Because the lack of security on her server Russia could have got her password and and the info leaving no tracks.

    NotaClinton , 7/28/2016 5:22 PM EDT

    People agree with PUTIN you know like the ones in CRIMEA and SYRIA. I'd rather see a PUTIN TRUMP ticket. I like what I see in PUTIN doing in the world. He seems to be the one SAVING people around the world. Assad let the people have freedom of religion. These Sunni the USA is arming want to force Sharia law. I don't approve of my tax dollars being spent arming those terrorists nor do I consider Saudi Arabia an ally!!! I would rather see a TRUMP PUTIN ticket and add 75 more stars to our flag. Than what the current government is. Although I would more so like to see the USA government take a much more democratic stance. Change our government to be more like Switzerland Norway and the Netherlands. Who were inspired by the USA constitution. Our constitution and democracy has been lost to corruption!!!!

    George1955, 7/28/2016 5:08 PM EDT

    I am not a national security expert but it does not look intelligent to antagonize Russia and China at the same time. But I think it is unfair to blame Hillary for this, Obama has been antagonizing Russia and China for some time now. He has being very successful at that, for the first time in many years now Russia and China are BFF doing naval exercises together. Maybe there is a very profound strategy in that (everybody says that Obama is a genius) but I cannot see what is the logic of provoking at the same time the two biggest military powers apart of the United States while weakening our military forces with budget cuts.

    Aleksandar Malečić, 7/28/2016 5:16 PM EDT

    It's meant to be profitable, not intelligent. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ww_z6Teynow

    chayapartiya, 7/28/2016 5:21 PM EDT

    It is the worst foreign policy since the Arab Spring brought us ISIS. They are incapable of intelligent policy. Their whole idea was to "not do stupid stuff" and here they are. They just can't help themselves.

    chayapartiya, 7/28/2016 5:01 PM EDT

    The only thing standing between a highly productive US/Russian relationship are the other relationships the United States has, both institutional and personal among our elites.

    Russia is the sworn enemy of many US allies and has barred our richest citizens from taking charge of large sectors of the Russian economy. That is the source of our new Cold War.

    Lacking Communist ideology Russia will never be an existential threat to the United States or our way of life. On the other hand, Islam is. On the other hand, Red China is.

    You have to be willing to abandon the entire US foreign policy establishment to turn our relationship with Russia around, and if we did maintaining our relationships with Poland, the Baltics, Georgia, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and more would become vastly more difficult.

    But the idea is too good of one to abandon, Russia is far too influential to ignore. I'm glad one major party is going to recognize that now.

    invention13, 7/28/2016 5:01 PM EDT

    "This has gone from being a matter of curiosity, and a matter of politics, to being a national security issue," Clinton senior foreign policy adviser Jake Sullivan said.

    In other words, her use of a homebrew email server constituted a threat to national security?

    I'm finding this whole flap just too funny. The whole point was probably to step on the news coverage of the convention on the night that the president and vice president were to speak. Trump is happy to fan the flames a bit. This is what he does when there is something he doesn't want people to pay attention to (whether it is unfavorable coverage of Trump University, or a convention). He throws out something outrageous that sucks the oxygen out of the news cycle. This whole thing will die down, simply because in the absence of hard evidence, most people don't believe it is true that Trump is Putin's agent. He may admire him, but work for him? I doubt it.

    NotaClinton, 7/28/2016 5:44 PM EDT

    Her actions DID once agains threaten NATIONAL SECURITY there was no doubt about that. She fwd classified email to her interns who got hacked. That is definitely a threat to national security. She carried her Blackberry and laptop into countries while acting as head of state. Which was not recommended for anyone to do even if there devices were secured by the state. She took hers to countries with her personal server that had zero security less than a commercial account. Then there was the fact she deleted and kept her business out of reach of FOIA. Zero respect for those laws. All federal employees are allowed to have a personal email for there person life. But Hilary decides she is above the law. Those federal laws don't apply to her and got away with it. When Comey was asked about that. He said he wasn't asked to investigate whether she broke those federal laws. He wasn't investigating whether she broke the law. But only if he should charge her for violating security. His conclusion was yes she violated the law. But he sees the law meant nothing so why file a criminal charge.

    Trump only requested information that they very well may have. Because Hilary handed it to them. it's hard to believe the Russians hacked the DNC. They most likely had the passwords from Hilary's accounts. Which would leave no footprints.

    OswegoTex , 7/28/2016 2:54 PM EDT

    The Dems and their Washington Post surrogates are apoplectic over Donald Trump's supposed affinity for the Russians. Russia is now America's mortal enemy in the current Dem narrative. Wasn't Romney ridiculed by a snarky and arrogant Obama and his press sycophants for identifying Russia as a major geopolitical threat in the 2012 election cycle. What happened? Oh-- I know--- the Clinton/Obama "reset".

    stella blue, 7/28/2016 2:45 PM EDT

    Very interesting article. Hillary is a neocon. She never saw a war she didn't like. I don't know what would be so wrong with having good relations with Russia. Wasn't that what Hillary's stupid reset button was all about?

    NotaClinton, 7/28/2016 6:11 PM EDT [Edited]

    I admire PUTIN and so do a lot of people. If you are a Citizens and believe in our values and the constitution. He held a democratic Legal election in Crimea. Where the people voted unanimously in favor of Belonging to Russia, A Vote that would be exactly the same today. The USA invades Syria with terrorists from countries whose own people wouldn't vote them in.

    All I have seen Putin do is save people. He saved Syria finally. i don't know what took him so long. Maybe WMDs he knew the opposition would use and some more dirty filthy rotten tricks that have been happening there. He turned the war around on less money than a shipment of weapons and training to the rebels forces costed the USA. those shipments and training was going on since before the conflict broke out. What was the point?

    Why has the USA spent a dime in that country other than they should have immediately neutralized, destroyed or recovered all the military equipment that was stolen from Iraq. I you like Russian your anti american? If you don't like illegal Immigrants your a racist. That is to be expected from those educated Hilary Voters...

    Nikdo, 7/28/2016 4:26 PM EDT

    Mook's claim of Russian involvement would be more convincing if he had offered any proof. Otherwise it just looks like pure deflection and distraction and disinformation.

    [Jul 31, 2016] Russian television shows what the Kremlin thinks of Clinton

    The video accompanying the article is actually better the the text. John Bolton made some interesting remarks. For example he said that it is stunning that Hillary Clinton said something about damage from hack of DNC server. What she though by engaging in her reckless behaviors with bathroom server four years while she were in office. He also suggested that points to Russia might be just attempt if disinformation from a real perpetuator.
    Notable quotes:
    "... In her acceptance speech, Clinton reaffirmed a commitment to NATO, saying she was "proud to stand by our allies in NATO against any threat they face, including from Russia." ..."
    "... As U.S. secretary of state, Clinton in 2009 presented her Russian counterpart with a red button intended to symbolize a "reset" in relations between the two countries, one of U.S. President Barack Obama's initiatives. In Russia, the gesture is best remembered for the misspelling of the word in Russian, while the reset itself failed in the face of Putin's return as Russian president in 2012 and Russia's seizure of Crimea from Ukraine two years later. ..."
    "... Clinton once compared the annexation of Crimea to Adolf Hitler's moves into Eastern Europe at the start of World War II, a comparison that was deeply offensive in Russia, where the country's victory over Nazi Germany remains a prime source of national pride. ..."
    "... "And as far as the Ukraine is concerned, it's a mess. And that's under the Obama's administration with his strong ties to NATO. So with all of these strong ties to NATO, Ukraine is a mess," Trump said. "Crimea has been taken. Don't blame Donald Trump for that." ..."
    "... Putin was outraged by U.S. support for Ukraine and by U.S. military intervention around the world, particularly in Libya, on Clinton's watch. But it was what he saw as interference in Russia that really rankled. ..."
    "... When Clinton described Russia's 2011 parliamentary elections as rigged, Putin said she was "sending a signal" to his critics. He then accused the U.S. State Department of financially supporting the protests that drew tens of thousands of people to the streets of Moscow to demand free elections and an end to Putin's rule. ..."
    "... Channel One began its report by introducing Clinton as "a politician who puts herself above the law, who is ready to win at any cost and who is ready to change her principles depending on the political situation." The anchorwoman couched the description by saying that was how Clinton is seen by Trump's supporters - but it was a nuance viewers could easily miss. ..."
    Fox News

    MOSCOW – To understand what the Kremlin thinks about the prospect of Hillary Clinton becoming the U.S. president, it was enough to watch Russian state television coverage of her accepting the Democratic nomination.

    Viewers were told that Clinton sees Russia as an enemy and cannot be trusted, while the Democratic Party convention was portrayed as further proof that American democracy is a sham.

    In her acceptance speech, Clinton reaffirmed a commitment to NATO, saying she was "proud to stand by our allies in NATO against any threat they face, including from Russia."

    In doing so, she was implicitly rebuking her rival, Republican nominee Donald Trump, who has questioned the need for the Western alliance and suggested that if he is elected president, the United States might not honor its NATO military commitments, in particular regarding former Soviet republics in the Baltics.

    While Trump's position on NATO has delighted the Kremlin, Clinton's statement clearly stung.

    "She mentioned Russia only once, but it was enough to see that the era of the reset is over," Channel One said in its report.

    As U.S. secretary of state, Clinton in 2009 presented her Russian counterpart with a red button intended to symbolize a "reset" in relations between the two countries, one of U.S. President Barack Obama's initiatives. In Russia, the gesture is best remembered for the misspelling of the word in Russian, while the reset itself failed in the face of Putin's return as Russian president in 2012 and Russia's seizure of Crimea from Ukraine two years later.

    Clinton once compared the annexation of Crimea to Adolf Hitler's moves into Eastern Europe at the start of World War II, a comparison that was deeply offensive in Russia, where the country's victory over Nazi Germany remains a prime source of national pride.

    Trump, on the other hand, told ABC's "This Week" in a broadcast Sunday that he wants to take a look at whether the U.S. should recognize Crimea as part of Russia. "You know, the people of Crimea, from what I've heard, would rather be with Russia than where they were," Trump said.

    This runs counter to the position of the Obama administration and the European Union, which have imposed punishing sanctions on Russia in response to the annexation.

    "And as far as the Ukraine is concerned, it's a mess. And that's under the Obama's administration with his strong ties to NATO. So with all of these strong ties to NATO, Ukraine is a mess," Trump said. "Crimea has been taken. Don't blame Donald Trump for that."

    Putin was outraged by U.S. support for Ukraine and by U.S. military intervention around the world, particularly in Libya, on Clinton's watch. But it was what he saw as interference in Russia that really rankled.

    When Clinton described Russia's 2011 parliamentary elections as rigged, Putin said she was "sending a signal" to his critics. He then accused the U.S. State Department of financially supporting the protests that drew tens of thousands of people to the streets of Moscow to demand free elections and an end to Putin's rule.

    In the years since, the Kremlin has defended Russian elections in part by implying they are no different than in the United States, a country it says promotes democracy around the world while allowing its business and political elite to determine who wins at home.

    The Democratic Convention, which ended Friday morning Moscow time, was given wide coverage throughout the day on the nearly hourly news reports on state television, the Kremlin's most powerful tool for shaping public opinion.

    Channel One began its report by introducing Clinton as "a politician who puts herself above the law, who is ready to win at any cost and who is ready to change her principles depending on the political situation." The anchorwoman couched the description by saying that was how Clinton is seen by Trump's supporters - but it was a nuance viewers could easily miss.

    The reports ran excerpts of Clinton's speech, but the camera swung repeatedly to a sullen Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, her Democratic challenger, and his disappointed supporters. The Rossiya channel also showed anti-Clinton protesters outside the convention hall who it said "felt they have been betrayed after the email leak that showed Bernie Sanders was pushed out of the race."

    Russia is a prime suspect in the hacking of Democratic National Committee computers, which led to the release of emails showing that party officials favored Clinton over Sanders for the presidential nomination.

    The Kremlin has denied interfering in the U.S. election. A columnist at Russia's best-selling newspaper, however, said it would have been a smart move.

    "I would welcome the Kremlin helping those forces in the United States that stand for peace with Russia and democracy in America," Israel Shamir wrote in Komsomolskaya Pravda.

    Trump, meanwhile, has encouraged Russia to seek and release more than 30,000 other missing emails deleted by Clinton. Democrats accused him of trying to get a foreign adversary to conduct espionage that could affect this November's election, but Trump later said he was merely being sarcastic.

    whollop

    Putin has tried to remind the world what a mistake break up of Yugoslavia was and corruption involved and lies, no one listens. Next leader of Russia might not be so restrained and patient. Sad we are letting such bad minds lead US now. What is it about Clinton's that make ppl so gullible?

    whollop

    Read "how the srebrenica massacre redefined US policy," by US professor. Media distorts truth everywhere, all the time. Bought and paid for.

    Russians didn't start last 2 WW's either. You can bet if ISIS attacks Russia, Pres O won't go to their aid.

    This constant demonizing of Russia has pushed them closer to China. Obama and Clinton and Bill Clinton (from earlier and beyond) have made a mess of the world because their values are built on wrong philosophy. German rationalism does not mesh with American freedom and love of law.

    Trump17

    Her and Obama interfered in their affairs and now without any proof they are blaming Russia for a hacking of the DNC. Back in March the FBI told the DNC it was hacked and wanted information to conduct an investigation which Hillary of course blocked. Now they are crying the blues..

    HmmIsee

    Dems have hated Russia ever since Reagan disbanded their beloved USSR

    teabone

    Russia and the U.S. used to have a common enemy, radical/extremist Islamism.

    Not anymore since Obama and Clinton loves Muslims more than they like American citizens.

    [Jul 31, 2016] Clinton blames Russia for DNC hack as Trump seems to back annex of Crimea

    Looks like this is a new part of Hillary strategy to take Trump down
    Notable quotes:
    "... "We know that Russian intelligence services hacked into the DNC," Clinton said, in her first interview with Fox in more than five years. "And we know that they arranged for a lot of those emails to be released and we know that Donald Trump has shown a very troubling willingness to back up Putin, to support Putin." ..."
    www.theguardian.com

    Clinton answered tough questions on Benghazi, her emails and her campaign and policies, and focused her own attack on her opponent's alleged links to Russia and Putin.

    "We know that Russian intelligence services hacked into the DNC," Clinton said, in her first interview with Fox in more than five years. "And we know that they arranged for a lot of those emails to be released and we know that Donald Trump has shown a very troubling willingness to back up Putin, to support Putin."

    Asked if she believed Putin wanted Trump to win the presidency, Clinton said she would not make that conclusion. "But I think laying out the facts raises serious issues about Russian interference in our elections, in our democracy," she said.

    The US would not tolerate that from any other country, Clinton said, adding: "For Trump to both encourage that and to praise Putin despite what appears to be a deliberate effort to try to affect the election, I think, raises national security issues."

    [Jul 31, 2016] Is Hillary the lesser evil

    Notable quotes:
    "... You would rather vote against ..."
    "... …and vote FOR the person who voted for the invasion of Iraq, supported NAFTA and the undermining of universal health coverage in support of private insurance companies/managed care, was likely the deciding factor in overthrowing the Libyan government, was instrumental in supporting multiple dictatorships in Haiti (good pieces linked to that on NC recently), was possibly instrumental in and for sure responsible for the support after the fact of the coup in Honduras, was a founder of what might go down in history as one of the largest fraudulent charities ever (with those tentacles doing the very same things the DNC is accusing Putin of doing), has a history of quid pro quo dealings with predator international investment banks and vulture capitalists (which Elizabeth Warren has identified in speeches that are available on Youtube)… one could go on and on, but basically the candidate who has never met a nation state or corrupt business dealing that she didn't want to stick herself in the middle of the dealings with… ..."
    "... I would think the xenophobe might look more attractive to non-passport holders of the American empire simply based upon a cursory reading of history. But nothing should surprise me anymore. ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Betina , July 29, 2016 at 11:32 am

    This is some irresponsible stuff. For all of Naked Capitalism's concerns with Clinton's neocon tendencies, you neglect to understand that we are terrified of Trump here in Europe, and as a Brazilian, I do not know a single person from my country who would prefer him as President. 2016 Democrats are not "neoliberals," even as they operate in a neoliberal structure. The only thing any of this indicates is Trump has is that he has *no record* – Hudson thinks that every last thing that happened under the Obama government was out of the President's personal desire to make it so. If Trump had a political career, he would be no better, if not much worse. Trump's career in business does not support Hudson's optimism, at all.

    RUKidding , July 29, 2016 at 11:59 am

    I do agree with you. I have many friends in Europe and Australia who are literally begging me to vote for Clinton – and they don't like her much either.

    I love NC, but I disagree with the fawning acceptance of Trump as somehow fit to be President. He's a racist, bigoted, xenophobic, homophobic, sexist jerk with no really good plans in place. The so-called "ideas" or "plans" that he has do not pencil out and would bankrupt this country should they ever be implemented. I agree that Clinton is awful and was well nigh disgusted with the DNC convention (but expected nothing less or different).

    But voting for Trump is irresponsible in my opinion. I just cannot go there. Yet and still in this nation today, you are free to vote for who you want.

    Treadingwaterbutstillkicking , July 29, 2016 at 3:18 pm

    Very confused here.

    You would rather vote against the egomaniacal, sexist, xenophobe, who is willing to downshift international military interventions, lessen spending on NATO, work WITH the Russians on ISIS, possibly exit trade neoliberal trade agreements like NAFTA and the WTO (while not adopting the TPP), etc…

    …and vote FOR the person who voted for the invasion of Iraq, supported NAFTA and the undermining of universal health coverage in support of private insurance companies/managed care, was likely the deciding factor in overthrowing the Libyan government, was instrumental in supporting multiple dictatorships in Haiti (good pieces linked to that on NC recently), was possibly instrumental in and for sure responsible for the support after the fact of the coup in Honduras, was a founder of what might go down in history as one of the largest fraudulent charities ever (with those tentacles doing the very same things the DNC is accusing Putin of doing), has a history of quid pro quo dealings with predator international investment banks and vulture capitalists (which Elizabeth Warren has identified in speeches that are available on Youtube)… one could go on and on, but basically the candidate who has never met a nation state or corrupt business dealing that she didn't want to stick herself in the middle of the dealings with…

    I would think the xenophobe might look more attractive to non-passport holders of the American empire simply based upon a cursory reading of history. But nothing should surprise me anymore.

    Yves Smith Post author , July 30, 2016 at 5:38 am

    There were some newbie walk-ins at the top of the thread who were keen on Trump, which I agree was creepy.

    But aside from our relentless jgordon, no regular LIKES Trump. The ones who say they will vote for him weigh that choice against Jill Stein. They see themselves reluctantly voting for Trump as the "less effective evil," that as an outsider, hated by his own party, he won't get much done. Think Jimmy Carter cubed. The other reasons for being willing to consider Trump are that Hilary clearly wants a hot war with Russia, and that she will push for the TPP, which is a dangerous and irrevocable deal.

    aab , July 30, 2016 at 5:55 am

    As someone who consistently advocates here for Trump being the lesser evil, I want to chime in behind Yves. I do not like Trump. I just consider putting him into the Presidency to be a far safer choice than enabling Clinton into power, and I recognize that however I choose to vote, one of those two people will be President. I also value highly the possibility of weakening the hold of big finance and corporations over the Democratic Party by purging the Clintons and leaving the party too weak to be of much use to its current owners.

    Fundamentally, I am Anyone But Clinton, a handy catchphrase that captures my perspective exactly. I will probably end up voting for a socialist third party no one ever discusses here, because why not support the party closest to my own values and policy desires? But if Stein OR Trump actually got enough traction to possibly take my state, I'd add my vote to that pile, happily. Well, "happily" in that I would feel I was making the best possible choice with whatever tiny amount of agency my vote represents. But the next four years are likely to be quite grim, no matter what.

    John Wright , July 30, 2016 at 9:35 am

    As I live in CA, which is assumed to be in the bag for HRC, my vote against her is only of import to me.

    This election is akin to someone who desperately needs a tricky surgery and their choice of surgeons is limited to two with long records of malpractice but with good media advertising campaigns.

    When I visualize a President Hillary Clinton, my only hope is that once she has successfully climbed the Presidential mountain she has so doggedly pursued (as her faux "namesake" Sir Edmund did his), she might realize she should serve the people, not the elite.

    But my hope in the original trademarked "Hope" candidate Obama dissipated rather quickly.

    And Hillary has a lifetime record of serving herself, her family and her ambitions, not the people.

    I also view Trump as the LOE

    low integer , July 29, 2016 at 1:21 pm

    Look, I live in Australia and the msm Clinton bias verges on is ridiculous. Why is Europe more terrified of Trump than Clinton? The media? I understand Trump is problematic, but do you know Hillary's history? Looking forward to a hot war with Russia?

    Luciano Moffatt , July 29, 2016 at 1:29 pm

    As an Argentinian, I urge you to vote for Trump.
    As bad as Bush was for you and for Middle East, in Latin America we enjoy the possibility of finding our own ways to develop, as Bush did not care about us.
    Once Obama got to office, the wave changed starting from the Honduras' coup, followed by Paraguay coup. Now, the only countries resisting are the ones that reformed its constitution: Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia.
    Policies of Democrats to Latin America, from some reason that I do not comprehend, have been particularly bad for Latin America. The only exception I remember is the active policies of Jimmy Carter against the violation of human rights in Argentina.

    EoinW , July 29, 2016 at 1:39 pm

    Not surprised by the European take on Trump. I've caught bits and pieces of CBC coverage(can't stomach much of it) and they make CNN look objective! Trump has been neatly inserted into the bad guy role and all coverage assumes the viewers only care about one thing: stopping Trump. You'd think they were still covering Iraq and talking about Saddam, not Donald. I can't call the CBC's coverage of Trump juvenile because it's barely infantile in its simplicity. Other Canadian media outlets are pretty much falling in with the CBC narrative. After all, you think pro-neocon/pro-war Sun Media is going to give Trump and his anti-war rhetoric any chance?

    To put it simply: Canadian media is a captured entity. No surprise as Canada has always done what it takes to have a presence in the imperial court(even if it's a spot in the far corner). This is Canada's reason for being: to kiss the imperial ass. First the British Empire and now the American Empire. As a good loyal supplicant, we've now stepped forward to combat the latest imperial threat: Donald Trump.

    The irony is delightful. Part of the national narrative here is how much better educated we are than those ignorant Americans. I'm sure Europeans share the same conceit. Yet we are the ones swallowing all the establishment propaganda while Americans are seeing through all the media lies, are engaged and demanding change. I guess this makes sense. After all, Americans have run the world, while Europeans are the "has beens" and Canadians the "never have been at all"!

    [Jul 31, 2016] Obama and the Kitchen Table

    Notable quotes:
    "... Turning incrementalism into triumphalism is a neat rhetorical trick, and only a con man as smooth as Obama could have achieved it, or even attempted it. But let me draw your attention to one sentence: ..."
    "... [OBAMA:] More work to do for … .everyone who has not yet felt the progress of these past seven and a half years. ..."
    "... Check the charts above in "The Kitchen Table in Chart Form," and you'll see that Obama's "everyone who has not yet felt the progress" is, like, 90% of the population if you use the kitchen table metric of concrete material benefits given to working class households. ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Obama's speech is a return to hope and change, but in a minor key. Here's Obama's appeal to the working class :

    By so many measures [but not the kitchen table charts above] , our country is stronger and more prosperous than it was when we started. And through every victory and every setback, I've insisted that change is never easy, and never quick; that we wouldn't meet all of our challenges in one term, or one presidency, or even in one lifetime.

    So, tonight, I'm here to tell you that, yes, we [who?] 've still got more work to do. More work to do for every American still in need of a good job or a raise, paid leave or a decent retirement; for every child who needs a sturdier ladder out of poverty or a world-class education [credentiaism]; for everyone who has not yet felt the progress of these past seven and a half years. We need to keep making our streets safer and our criminal justice system fairer - (applause) - our homeland more secure, our world more peaceful and sustainable for the next generation. (Applause.) We're not done perfecting our union, or living up to our founding creed that all of us are created equal; all of us are free in the eyes of God. (Applause.)

    (I'm sorry, that's the best I can come up with.) Turning incrementalism into triumphalism is a neat rhetorical trick, and only a con man as smooth as Obama could have achieved it, or even attempted it. But let me draw your attention to one sentence:

    [OBAMA:] More work to do for … .everyone who has not yet felt the progress of these past seven and a half years.

    Check the charts above in "The Kitchen Table in Chart Form," and you'll see that Obama's "everyone who has not yet felt the progress" is, like, 90% of the population if you use the kitchen table metric of concrete material benefits given to working class households.

    So where Sanders exposes the power imbalance between labor and capital - might even be said to enact it in the intellectual and rhetorical concessions in part two of his speech - Obama carefully erases it. He does so by pushing out the horizon for hopes to be realized ("not yet felt," not "even in one lifetime",) and minimizing our expectations for change. Look at his adjectives: "more work," "sturdier ladder," "safer," "fairer," "more secure," "more peaceful." It's like the soft inverted totalitarianism of low expectations.

    This after a candidate explicitly calling for (dread word) socialism - which, for those who came in late, is all about the power imbalance between labor and capital - took 45% of the Democrat vote in a grotesquely rigged primary --

    [Jul 31, 2016] Obama is neoliberal and behaved like a typical neoliberal during 2008 crisis

    Notable quotes:
    "... Obama whipped for the TARP. His support as President presumptive at that point, was essential for its passing (and I have that directly from Congressional staffers). Obama appointed Timothy Geithner as Treasury Secretary, who refused to nationalize any bank, even when, in early 2009, even only mildly left of center economists like Paul Krugman were calling for nationalization of Citi and Bank of America. Shiela Bair's book Taking the Bull by the Horn details how Geithner fought her. ..."
    "... Geithner was also the architect of the second, stealth bank bailout, that of letting the banks out of massive liability for violating their own mortgage securitization agreements, which we described long form here for the better part of two years, and shorter form in a New York Times op ed. The National Mortgage Settlement of 2012 was a massive get out of liability almost free card for the banks, and Obama refused to require bank servicers to make principal modifications for viable borrowers, which would have greatly lowered both investor losses and foreclosures. The liability here was hundreds of billions of dollars when the banks had not rebuilt their balance sheets, so this was most assuredly a bailout. ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Karl , July 30, 2016 at 12:34 am

    Bizarre post. Obama bailed out the banks? Most of the bank bailout money from TARP was spent under the Bush administration after TARP was enacted in October 2008, before Obama took office, and the bulk of the remaining money spent under TARP after Obama took office was for the auto industry rescue. I'm no Hillary fan, but get your facts straight even if they don't fit your narrative. I used to love Naked Capitalism, but it has gone off the rails recently with its authors' bizarre assertions - Krugman a necon, Kaine a Blue Dog Democrat, Hillary soliciting donations from the Koch Brothers and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce on the one hand (both big fans of hers, I hear), and George Soros on the other - and conspiracy theories (Diebold in league with the DNC to fix elections - evidence, please). And let me know when the remake of the "Siberian Candidate" (sic) is released to theaters so I can catch it before your seemingly preferred candidate Trump - that pacifist who thinks nuclear proliferation is a good thing and won't rule out the use of tactical nuclear weapons against ISIS, and that man of the working class who proposes yuuuge! tax cuts for the top 1/10th of 1% - bans such subversive material

    Yves Smith Post author , July 30, 2016 at 1:26 am

    You suffer from a reading comprehension problem, so you should read another site.

    Obama whipped for the TARP. His support as President presumptive at that point, was essential for its passing (and I have that directly from Congressional staffers). Obama appointed Timothy Geithner as Treasury Secretary, who refused to nationalize any bank, even when, in early 2009, even only mildly left of center economists like Paul Krugman were calling for nationalization of Citi and Bank of America. Shiela Bair's book Taking the Bull by the Horn details how Geithner fought her.

    Geithner was also the architect of the second, stealth bank bailout, that of letting the banks out of massive liability for violating their own mortgage securitization agreements, which we described long form here for the better part of two years, and shorter form in a New York Times op ed. The National Mortgage Settlement of 2012 was a massive get out of liability almost free card for the banks, and Obama refused to require bank servicers to make principal modifications for viable borrowers, which would have greatly lowered both investor losses and foreclosures. The liability here was hundreds of billions of dollars when the banks had not rebuilt their balance sheets, so this was most assuredly a bailout.

    As for your other arguments, you seem to have a fondness for fabrication. We've never posted on the Kochs and the Clintons, but a highly respected political reporter, Lee Fang of the Intercept, has on how the Clinton campaign has deep ties to Koch lobbyists , so you seem unable to remember where you read things. We've repeatedly called Krugman a neo liberal because he is one. While technically Kaine cannot be a Blue Dog, because as a Senator while the Blue Dogs are a House coalition. But Hudson finessed that by calling him a Senate Blue Dog. If you Google the term, it is used both specifically to refer to the House coalition, but also generically to describe conservative Southern Democrats.

    And while Clinton boosters like The Nation and FiveThirtyEight in recent days have tried denying that Kaine is a Blue Dog, more detached media outlets like the UK's Sun have used that precise term to describe his politics. Now that the anti-regulation, pro-business Blue Dogs in the House have been largely turfed out, they appear to have been redefined as being further right than they were to Kaine's benefit. They were "pragmatic" and pro-corporate, which hews to Kaine's pro free trade, pro bank deregulation stance. And did you miss that he is also anti abortion?.

    Nor have we said anything re Diebold being in cahoots with the Dems. As for Trump's tax cuts, with Federal spending at 18% of GDP, he can't cut taxes much, as he's finding out. You seem to have missed that he's had to go back to the drawing board on his plan , and is already messaging that the cuts for the rich would be way lower than he originally contemplated. If he wants to lower taxes for the rich, he's going to have to raise taxes elsewhere, and he'll rapidly find out that all those "somewheres" have lots of lobbyists protecting them.

    We don't have a position on Trump but we have pointed out at length the way the media is not merely cheerleading for Hillary but distorting things Trump said and/or taking them badly out of context, the latest being his joke about Russia turning over Hillary's e-mails. If you look at what Trump actually said, he said no one knew who did the hack (and computer forensic experts confirm that is true) and then said if Russia were behind the hack, it would be bad, and next said something like, "Hey, China, Russia, or whoever in your bed, if you have Hillary's missing e-mails, it would be great if you turned them over. I'm sure you would be rewarded handsomely by our media."

    More broadly, what seems to offend you is that we and our readers, to borrow Glen Ford's expression, are willing to consider that Trump may well be the less effective evil. We think both are dreadful candidates, but Trump, who would be even more of an outsider than Jimmy Carter, is more likely to get little done. And let us not forget that Carter had Democrats in charge of the House and Senate, and was not despised by his own party, as Trump is.

    You seem to be attributing many remarks made in comments to the Lambert and me. Readers argue a lot of positions we don't agree with, like pro gunz and the Tory PR that the EU will roll over in Brexit talks to preserve their exports to the UK. I gather you'd rather have us censor comments so they reflect only your views.

    Shorter: better trolls, please.

    [Jul 31, 2016] (((Scott))) on Twitter Has anyone thought to ask THIS about Obama's citizenship

    twitter.com

    #NeverHillary #LockHerUp

    The American people not only deserve to have answers to these questions,
    they must have answers. It makes the debate over Obama's citizenship a
    rather short and simple one.

    Q; Did he travel to Pakistan in 1981, at age 20?
    A : Yes, by his own admission.

    Q: What passport did he travel under?
    A: There are only three possibilities.
    1) He traveled with a U.S. ... Passport,
    2) He traveled with a British passport, or
    3) He traveled with an Indonesia passport.

    Q: Is it possible that Obama traveled with a U.S. Passport in 1981?
    A: No. It is not possible. Pakistan was on the U.S. .. State Department's
    "no travel" list in 1981.
    • (((Scott))) @bamasevere 11 h
    Has anyone thought to ask THIS about Obama's citizenship?
    #NeverHillary #LockHerllp
    4ч 28 V 35 •••

    [Jul 30, 2016] Russian factor in US elections

    Jul 28, 2016 | katehon.com

    The Russian theme has expectedly become one of the most important in the US presidential election. Democrats are unsurprisingly engaged in anti-Russian hysteria. Donald Trump says that he will establish good relations with Russia and is ready to discuss the issue of recognition of the referendum in the Crimea.

    Noise and hysteria

    Mass hysteria on the part of the Democrats, neocons, ultra-liberals and plain and simple Russophobes, was provoked by the recent statements of Donald Trump. Speaking at a press conference in Florida, Trump called on Russia to hand over the 30,000 emails "missing" from the Hillary Clinton's email server in the US. Their absence is a clear sign that Clinton destroyed evidence proving that she used her personal e-mail server to send sensitive information. Democrats immediately accused Trump of pandering to Russian hackers, although in reality the multi-billionaire rhetorically hinted that the data that Clinton hid from the American investigation is in the hands of foreign intelligence services. So, Clinton is a possible target for blackmail.

    Trump's statement that he is ready to discuss the status of Crimea and the removal of anti-Russian sanctions caused even more noise. This view is not accepted either in the Democrat or in the Republican mainstream. Trump also said that Vladimir Putin does not respect Clinton and Obama, while Trump himself hopes to find a common language with him. Trump appreciates Putin's leadership and believes that the US must work together with Russia to deal with common threats, particularly against Islamic extremism.

    The establishment's tantrum

    Both Democrats and Republicans are taking aim at Trump. The vice-presidential candidate, Mike Pence, made threats to Russia. The head of the Republican majority in Congress, Paul Ryan, became somewhat hysterical. He said that Putin is "a thug and should stay out of these elections."

    It is Putin personally, and the Russian security services, who are accused of leaking correspondences of top employees of the National Committee of the Democratic Party. This unverified story united part of the Republicans and all of the Democrats, including the Clinton and Barack Obama themselves. Trump supporters note that the Russian threat is used to divert attention from the content of these letters. And these show the fraud carried out during the primaries which favored Hillary Clinton.

    The pro-American candidate

    The "Russian scandal" demonstrates that on the one hand the thesis of the normalization of relations with Russia, despite the propaganda, is becoming popular in US society. It is unlikely that Donald Trump has made campaign statements that are not designed to gain the support of the public in this election. On the other hand - Trump - a hard realist, like Putin, is not pro-Russian, but a pro-American politician, and therefore the improvement of relations with Russia in his eyes corresponds to the US's national interests. Trump has never to date done anything that would not be to his advantage. Sometimes he even said he would order US fighter jets to engage with Russian ones, and declared he would have a hard stance in relations with Russia.

    Another thing is that his understanding of US national interests is fundamentally different from the dominant American globalist elite consensus. For Trump, the US should not be the source of a global liberal remaking of the world, but a national power, which optimizes its position just as efficiently as any commercial project. And in terms of optimizing the position of the United States, he says there should be a normal American interaction with Putin and Russia in the field of combating terrorism and preventing the sliding of the two countries into a global war. He claims this is to be the priority instead of issues relating to the promotion of democracy and the so-called fight against "authoritarian regimes".

    Related links

    [Jul 30, 2016] Hillary Clinton and the Weaponization of the State Department

    Notable quotes:
    "... This integrated relationship between State and Defense was confirmed by US Special Operations chief Admiral William McRaven shortly after Hillary's speech. When asked about the "unlikely partnership," McRaven assured DefenseNews that SOCOM has "an absolutely magnificent relationship with the State Department" and that SOCOM doesn't "do anything that isn't absolutely fully coordinated and approved by the US ambassador and the geographic combatant commander." ..."
    "... As David Axe aptly described it in Wired , "Together, Special Operations Forces and State's new Conflict Bureau are the twin arms of an expanding institution for waging small, low-intensity shadow wars all over the world." ..."
    "... Ultimately, it became a hand-in-pocket relationship when Clinton and Defense Secretary Gates developed the Global Security Contingency Fund (GSCF) to "incentivize joint planning and to pool the resources of the Departments of State and Defense, along with the expertise of other departments, to provide security sector assistance for partner countries so they can address emergent challenges and opportunities important to US national security." ..."
    "... Although he's been criticized as feckless and deemed less hawkish than Secretary Clinton, President Obama's newly-proposed Counterterrorism Partnership Fund (CTPF) is the logical extension of the Clinton-Gates Global Security Contingency Fund and epitomizes the Whole-of-Government shift. ..."
    "... That "flexibility" is exactly what Hillary Clinton instituted at State and touted at the SOFIC conference in 2012. It also portends a long-term shift to less invasive forms of regime change like those in Yemen , Libya , Syria and Ukraine , and an increased mission flexibility that will make the Authorization for the Use of Military Force functionally irrelevant . ..."
    "... And because terrorism is a tactic – not a political system or a regime – the shadowy, State Department-assisted Special Ops industry that fights them will, unlike the sullen enthusiasts of the Cold War , never be bereft of an enemy. ..."
    Jun 06, 2014 | original.antiwar.com

    On May 23, 2012, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton went to the Special Operations Forces Industry Conference (SOFIC) trade show in Tampa, Florida to share her vision of "smart power" and to explain the State Department's crucial role in extending the reach and efficacy of America's growing "international counterterrorism network."

    First, there is such a thing as a "Special Operations Forces Industry Conference trade show." Without some keen reporting by David Axe of Wired, that peculiar get-together might've flown completely under the radar – much like the shadowy "industry" it both supports and feeds off of like a sleek, camouflaged lamprey attached to a taxpayer-fattened shark.

    Second, "special operations" have officially metastasized into a full-fledged industry. United States Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) is located at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa and, therefore, conveniently located near the special operations trade show, which happened again this year at the Tampa Convention Center. The theme was "Strengthening the Global SOF Network" and the 600,000-square-foot facility was filled with targets of opportunity for well-connected and well-heeled defense contractors.

    According to the SOFIC website, this year's conference afforded attendees "the opportunity to engage with USSOCOM Program Executive Officers, Science and Technology Managers, Office of Small Business Programs and Technology & Industry Liaison Office representatives, and other acquisition experts who will identify top priorities, business opportunities, and interests as they relate to USSOCOM acquisition programs."

    Third, Hillary's widely-ignored speech marked a radical departure from the widely-held perception that the State Department's diplomatic mission endures as an institutional alternative to the Pentagon's military planning. Instead, Secretary Clinton celebrated the transformation of Foggy Bottom into a full partner with the Pentagon's ever-widening efforts around the globe, touting both the role of diplomats in paving the way for shadowy special ops in so-called "hot spots" and the State Department's "hand-in-glove" coordination with Special Forces in places like Pakistan and Yemen.

    Finally, with little fanfare or coverage, America's lead diplomat stood before the shadow war industry and itemized the integration of the State Department's planning and personnel with the Pentagon's global counter-terrorism campaign which, she told the special operations industry, happen "in one form or another in more than 100 countries around the world."

    If this isn't entirely unexpected, consider the fact that under then-Secretaries of State Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, the State Department fought attempts by the Pentagon to trump its authority around the globe and, as reported by Washington Post, "repeatedly blocked Pentagon efforts to send Special Operations forces into countries surreptitiously and without ambassadors' formal approval."

    But that was before Hillary brought her "fast and flexible" doctrine of "smart power" to Foggy Bottom and, according to her remarks, before she applied lessons learned from her time on the Senate Armed Services Committee to launch the first-ever Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review, which she modeled on the Pentagon's Quadrennial Defense Review. That Pentagon-style review spurred the creation of the Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations to "advance the U.S. government's foreign policy goals in conflict areas."

    According to a Congressional Research Service analysis, the initial intent of the Conflict Bureau was to replace the ineffectual Office of the Coordinator of Reconstruction and Stabilization, which was created in 2004 to help manage "stabilization" efforts in two nations the US was actively destabilizing – Afghanistan and Iraq.

    But the new, improved bureau does more than just react to messes made by unlawful invasions or direct costly remediation efforts in war zones – it also collaborates with "relevant partners" in the Department of Defense and NATO "to harmonize civilian and military plans and operations pertaining to conflict prevention, crisis response, and stabilization."

    This integrated relationship between State and Defense was confirmed by US Special Operations chief Admiral William McRaven shortly after Hillary's speech. When asked about the "unlikely partnership," McRaven assured DefenseNews that SOCOM has "an absolutely magnificent relationship with the State Department" and that SOCOM doesn't "do anything that isn't absolutely fully coordinated and approved by the US ambassador and the geographic combatant commander."

    As David Axe aptly described it in Wired, "Together, Special Operations Forces and State's new Conflict Bureau are the twin arms of an expanding institution for waging small, low-intensity shadow wars all over the world."

    In fact, during Hillary's time as America's chief diplomat, the State Department embraced the shadowy edge of US foreign policy where decision-makers engage in activities that look like war, sound like war and, if you were to ask civilians in places like Yemen and Pakistan, feel a lot like war, but never quite have to meet the Constitutional requirement of being officially declared as war.

    The Whole-of-Government Shift

    Once upon a time, "low-intensity shadow wars" were the Congressionally-regulated bailiwick of the Central Intelligence Agency. But 9/11 changed everything. However, the excesses of the Bush Administration led many to hope that Obama could and would change everything back or, at least, relax America's tense embrace of "the dark side."

    Although the new administration did officially re-brand "The War on Terror" as "Overseas Contingency Operations," Team Obama employed an increasingly elastic interpretation of the 9/11-inspired Authorization for Use of Military Force and expanded covert ops, special ops, drone strikes and regime change to peoples and places well-beyond the law's original intent, and certainly beyond the limited scope of CIA covert action.

    Obama's growing counter-terrorism campaign – involving, as Secretary Clinton said, "more than 100 countries" – took flight with a new, ecumenical approach called the "Whole-of-Government" strategy. Advanced by then-Secretary of Defense Bill Gates and quickly adopted by the new administration in early 2009, this strategy catalyzed an institutional shift toward interagency cooperation, particularly in the case of "state-building" (a.k.a. "nation building").

    During remarks to the Brookings Institution in 2010, Secretary Clinton explained the shift: "One of our goals coming into the administration was to begin to make the case that defense, diplomacy and development were not separate entities, either in substance or process, but that indeed they had to be viewed as part of an integrated whole and that the whole of government then had to be enlisted in their pursuit."

    Essentially, the Whole-of-Government approach is a re-branded and expanded version of Pentagon's doctrine of "Full-Spectrum Dominance." Coincidentally, that strategy was featured in the Clinton Administration's final Annual Report to the President and Congress in 2001. It defined "Full-Spectrum Dominance" as "an ability to conduct prompt, sustained, and synchronized operations with forces tailored to specific situations and possessing freedom to operate in all domains – space, sea, land, air, and information."

    In 2001, Full-Spectrum Dominance referred specifically to 20th Century notions of battlefield-style conflicts. But the "dark side" of the War on Terror stretched the idea of the battlefield well-beyond symmetrical military engagements. "Irregular warfare" became the catchphrase du jour, particularly as grinding campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq exposed the reality that the full spectrum still wasn't enough.

    An assessment by the Congressional Research Service identified the primary impetus for the Whole-of-Government "reforms" embraced by Team Obama as the "perceived deficiencies of previous interagency missions" during the military campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq. Those missions failed to address a myriad of problems created – culturally, economically and politically – by the wholesale bombing and occupation of those countries. The Full-Spectrum was half-baked. Lesson learned.

    But the lesson wasn't that the US should avoid intervention, regime change or unleashing nascent civil, ethnic or religious conflicts. Instead, the lesson was that the "Whole-of-Government" must be marshaled to fight a worldwide array of Overseas Contingency Operations in "more than 100 countries."

    This Whole-of-Government shift signaled a renewed willingness to engage on variety of new fronts – particularly in Africa – but in a "fast and flexible" way. With other agencies – like the State Department – integrated and, in effect, fronting the counter-terrorism campaign, the military footprint becomes smaller and, therefore, easier to manage locally, domestically and internationally.

    In some ways, the Whole-of-Government national security strategy is plausible deniability writ-large through the cover of interagency integration. By merging harder-to-justify military and covert actions into a larger, civilian-themed command structure, the impact of the national security policy overseas is hidden – or at least obfuscated – by the diplomatic "stabilization" efforts run through the State Department – whether it's the Conflict Bureau working against Joseph Kony's Lord's Resistance Army in Central Africa, "stabilizing" post-Gaddafi Libya or spending $27 million to organize the opposition to Bashar al-Assad's Syrian regime.

    The Pass Key

    The cover of diplomacy has traditionally been an effective way to slip covert operators into countries and the State Department's vast network of embassies and consulates still offers an unparalleled "pass-key" into sovereign nations, emerging hot spots and potential targets for regime change. In 2001, the Annual Report to the President and Congress foresaw the need for more access: "Given the global nature of our interests and obligations, the United States must maintain the ability to rapidly project power worldwide in order to achieve full-spectrum dominance."

    Having the way "pre-paved" is, based on Hillary's doctrinal shift at State, a key part of the new, fuller-spectrum, Whole-of-Government, mission-integrated version of diplomacy. At the SOFIC's Special Operations Gala Dinner in 2012, Hillary celebrated the integration of diplomatic personnel and Special Operations military units at the State Department's recently created Center for Strategic Counterterrorism Communications – a "nerve center in Washington" that coordinates "military and civilian teams around the world" and serves "as a force multiplier for our embassies' communications efforts."

    As with most doors in Washington, that relationship swings both ways and mission-integrated embassies have served as an effective force multiplier for the Pentagon's full spectrum of activities, particularly around Africa.

    In his 2011 testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee Subcommittee on Africa, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Don Yamamoto noted the "significantly expanded the number of DoD personnel who are integrated into embassies across the continent over the past three years," and read a surprisingly long laundry list of collaborative efforts between State and the United States Africa Command (AFRICOM), including: "reduction of excess and poorly secured man-portable air defense systems (MANPADS); Defense Sector Reform in Liberia, DRC, and South Sudan; counterpiracy activities off the Somali coast; maritime safety and security capacity building; and civil-military cooperation."

    It seems that "civil-military cooperation" is a primary focus of the State Department in Africa. Most notably, Yamamoto told Congress that "embassies implement Department of State-funded Foreign Military Financing (FMF) and International Military Education and Training (IMET) programs, which further US interests in Africa by helping to professionalize African militaries, while also assisting our African partners to be more equipped and trained to work toward common security goals."

    As the ever-vigilant Nick Turse recently reported, US presence on the continent has only grown since that testimony was given in 2011. On TomDispatch.com, Turse identified the infamous attack on Benghazi on September 11, 2012 as the catalyst for "Operation New Normal" – the continent-wide response to, quite ironically, the political potboiler still simmering around Secretary Clinton. Whether or not Congressional Republicans find anything more than incompetence at the root of Benghazi, the US military certainly finds itself in a "new normal" of increased activity in response to the forces – and the weaponry – unleashed by U.S.-led regime change in Libya. According to Turse, the US is "now conducting operations alongside almost every African military in almost every African country and averaging more than a mission a day."

    Those missions are, of course, integrated with and augmented by the State Department's Conflict Bureau which has used a variety of state-building programs and its diplomatic "pass key" in places like Libya, Nigeria, Kenya, South Sudan, Somalia, Democratic Republic of the Congo and six other African nations, all to develop a growing roster of "host country partners."

    Establishing "host country partners" is the nexus where the State Department, its Conflict Bureau and the AFRICOM meet – implementing the Whole-of-Government strategy in emerging or current conflict zones to fuse a mounting counter-terrorism campaign with stabilization, modernization and state-building initiatives, particularly in oil and resource-rich areas like the Niger River Delta, Central Africa and around AFRICOM's military foothold on the Horn of Africa.

    As Richard J. Wilhelm, a Senior Vice President with defense and intelligence contracting giant Booz Allen Hamilton, pointed out in a video talk about "mission integration," AFRICOM's coordination with the Departments of State and Commerce, USAID is the "most striking example of the Whole-of-Government approach."

    And this is exactly the type of "hand-in-glove" relationship Secretary Clinton fostered throughout her tenure at State, leveraging the resources of the department in a growing list of conflict areas where insurgents, terrorists, al-Qaeda affiliates, suspected militants or uncooperative regimes threaten to run afoul of so-called "US interests".

    Ultimately, it became a hand-in-pocket relationship when Clinton and Defense Secretary Gates developed the Global Security Contingency Fund (GSCF) to "incentivize joint planning and to pool the resources of the Departments of State and Defense, along with the expertise of other departments, to provide security sector assistance for partner countries so they can address emergent challenges and opportunities important to US national security."

    Although he's been criticized as feckless and deemed less hawkish than Secretary Clinton, President Obama's newly-proposed Counterterrorism Partnership Fund (CTPF) is the logical extension of the Clinton-Gates Global Security Contingency Fund and epitomizes the Whole-of-Government shift.

    The $5 billion Obama wants will dwarf the $250 million pooled into the GSCF and will, the President said at West Point, "give us flexibility to fulfill different missions including training security forces in Yemen who have gone on the offensive against al Qaeda; supporting a multinational force to keep the peace in Somalia; working with European allies to train a functioning security force and border patrol in Libya; and facilitating French operations in Mali."

    That "flexibility" is exactly what Hillary Clinton instituted at State and touted at the SOFIC conference in 2012. It also portends a long-term shift to less invasive forms of regime change like those in Yemen, Libya, Syria and Ukraine, and an increased mission flexibility that will make the Authorization for the Use of Military Force functionally irrelevant.

    Normalizing the War on Terror

    The ultimate outcome of this shift is, to borrow from Nick Turse, yet another "new normal" – the new normalization of the War on Terror. What the adoption of the Whole-of-Government/mission integration approach has done is to normalize the implementation of the re-branded War on Terror (a.k.a. Overseas Contingency Operations) across key agencies of the government and masked it, for lack of the better term, under the rubric of stabilization, development and democracy building.

    It is, in effect, the return of a key Cold War policy of "regime support" for clients and "regime change" for non-client states, particularly in strategically-located areas and resource-rich regions. Regimes – whether or not they actually "reflect American values" – can count on US financial, military and mission-integrated diplomatic support so long as they can claim to be endangered not by communists, but by terrorists.

    And because terrorism is a tactic – not a political system or a regime – the shadowy, State Department-assisted Special Ops industry that fights them will, unlike the sullen enthusiasts of the Cold War, never be bereft of an enemy.

    JP Sottile is a freelance journalist, radio co-host, documentary filmmaker and former broadcast news producer in Washington, D.C. His weekly show, Inside the Headlines w/ The Newsvandal, co-hosted by James Moore, airs every Friday on KRUU-FM in Fairfield, Iowa and is available online. Visit his website.

    [Jul 30, 2016] Is Russia our enemy?

    Notable quotes:
    "... "In order to rally people, governments need enemies. They want us to be afraid, to hate, so we will rally behind them. And if they do not have a real enemy, they will invent one in order to mobilize us." ..."
    "... Plus there's the psychological advantage of having some country/countries to blame for the lack of US success, or to distract attention away from US problems that need it. ..."
    "... I've always thought the US inherited the hatred of Russia from the Brits and the Brits hated Russia at least back as far as the Crimean War in 1853. Not saying this as fact and am happy to get updated. ..."
    "... Official Brit hatred of Russia got started right after the Napoleonic Wars. About 4 centuries of Brit hatred of France got transferred, lock, stock, and barrel, to Russia, since Russia then became the most powerful land power in the world. ..."
    "... Russia's primary offense is that it has dared to have its own national interests. ..."
    "... Today, all those "freedom-loving" people of former USSR, even including all those scores of West Ukrainians who hate Russian guts and Middle Asian "nationalists" flock to Russia "in pursuit of happiness". ..."
    "... I am not saying that all those people are bad, but the question I do ask sometimes is this: you hated us, you evicted (sometimes with bloodshed) us, Russians, from your places. You got what you asked for, why then, do you come to Russia in millions (I am not exaggerating, in fact, most likely underestimating)? What happened? Of course, we all know what happened. ..."
    "... I read before that Obama was pushing back against this lunacy. Now the HRC-NEOCON camp are in full attack mode. I honestly think I'll be voting for Trump because I feel he can't do all of the things that I would hate for him to do. I KNOW that Hillary would get away with murder. I'm quite serious. ..."
    "... "I KNOW that Hillary would get away with murder. I'm quite serious." It has already happened on this watch, see the case of MH-17. ..."
    "... The American talking point about the Crimea is a laughable piece of High School Debating Team rhetoric. The people in charge know full well the truth about Ukraine's claim to the Crimea. The thing that hurts is that the whole point of the "Nuland Putsch",and the rise of a western aligned govt., was to provide the crown jewel in Nato's (read America) crown: Eliminating Russia's naval base at Sevastopol completing the encirclement of Russia in the west (except for the always vulnerable Kaliningrad). ..."
    "... Once the FreeMarketDemocratic Reformers were removed from power, Russia began to recover. The birth rate started to improve immediately, and Russia's death rate started to decline in 2006. By 2009, the gap between Russia's births and deaths closed sufficiently that immigration could fill it, and so the Russian population was growing. By 2012, births in the Russian Federation exceeded deaths, for the first time since 1991. ..."
    "... In the mid-2000s, Putin proposed measures to support families having children. Western politicians and demographers poured scorn on the very idea that Russian demographics might improve. In fact, the U.S. Census Bureau's population projections had Russia's population declining by 500,000/year as recently as 2015. Now Western politicians and demographers are reduced to claiming that "Putin had nuthin' to do with it!" ..."
    "... Putin inherited a helpless, bankrupt, dying Russia. ..."
    "... Russia, for all the Borg media grandstanding, seems to only be concerned with Russian related interests. There is no indication of greater plan for global domination. They are upgrading and preparing for a future war, sure. Any country would be smart to prepare accordingly to defend itself (and their interests). ..."
    "... Russia became the enemy of United States in early 2000's after Putin started cracking down on the oligarchs that had taken over Russia's economy during Yeltsin's privatization efforts. It is estimated that seven individuals were controlling as much as 50% of Russia's economy at its peak during the late 90's: ..."
    "... The ruling ideology of the West is the free movement of capital and people together with the dismantling of sovereign states and replacing them with global institutions and corporate trade pacts. Donald Trump's "America First" threatens this so he is subject to full throated attacks by the media and the connected. Vladimir Putin stands in the way of the global hegemony and the return of Russia to the 1990s. Thus, the western hybrid war for a Kremlin regime change. ..."
    "... If Clinton takes over for Obama it will only mean continued escalation by the US against any country resisting a unipolar world. There are a lot more than Russia and China resisting US hegemony and that attacks, subtle as they are, continue unabated. If Trump dials that back this can only be a good thing for world peace. The neocons apparently are betting the farm on Hillary. Good, I pray they lose and are cleansed permanently from the US political landscape. Personally, I see a win by Clinton as the end of mankind. ..."
    "... I remember the end of Cold War extremely well, when the relations warmed up and the danger of nuclear exchange faded. In Russia, at that time, this was precisely the idea what you described but, as Pat Buchanan wrote several days ago "The inability to adapt was seen when our Cold War adversary extended a hand in friendship, and the War Party slapped it away." ..."
    "... In the early 1880s the U.S. government decided to become a global seapower. Hostility towards the world's largest landpower followed, as night follows day. ..."
    Jul 28, 2016 | turcopolier.typepad.com
    The Democratic Party convention and the media are full of the assumption that Russia is the enemy of the United States. What is the basis for that assumption?
    • Russian support for the Russian ethnic minority in eastern Ukraine? How does that threaten the United States?
    • Russian annexation of the Crimea? Khrushchev arbitrarily transferred that part of Russia to Ukraine during his time as head of the USSR. Khrushchev was a Ukrainian. Russia never accepted the arbitrary transfer of a territory that had been theirs since the 18th Century. How does this annexation threaten the United States?
    • Russia does not want to see Syria crushed by the jihadis and acts accordingly? How does that threaten the United States?
    • Russia threatens the NATO states in eastern Europe? Tell me how they actually do that. Is it by stationing their forces on their side of the border with these countries? Have the Russians made threatening statements about the NATO states?
    • Russia has made threatening and hostile statements directed at the United States? When and where was that?
    • Russia does not accept the principle of state sovereignty? Really? The United States is on shaky ground citing that principle. Remember Iraq?
    • Russian intelligence may have intercepted and collected the DNC's communications (hacked) as well as HC's stash of illegal e-mails? Possibly true but every country on earth that has the capability does the same kind of thing every single day. That would include the United States.

    The Obama Administration is apparently committed to a pre-emptive assertion that Russia is a world class committed enemy of the United States. The Borgist media fully support that.

    We should all sober up. pl

    Valissa

    "In order to rally people, governments need enemies. They want us to be afraid, to hate, so we will rally behind them. And if they do not have a real enemy, they will invent one in order to mobilize us."
    -- Thich Nhat Hanh

    Not to mention the financial advantages to the Military-Industrial-Thinktank complex (I'm including NATO in this) and all the politicians that benefit from the lobbying monies from that complex.

    Plus there's the psychological advantage of having some country/countries to blame for the lack of US success, or to distract attention away from US problems that need it.

    Grizziz -> Ghostship...

    I've always thought the US inherited the hatred of Russia from the Brits and the Brits hated Russia at least back as far as the Crimean War in 1853. Not saying this as fact and am happy to get updated.

    rkka said in reply to Grizziz...

    Official Brit hatred of Russia got started right after the Napoleonic Wars. About 4 centuries of Brit hatred of France got transferred, lock, stock, and barrel, to Russia, since Russia then became the most powerful land power in the world.

    Maritime empires hate, with undying passion, the most powerful land power in the world.

    And its a funny thing, the U.S. hatred of Russia dates from the early 1880s, right when the U.S. began laying down a new steel navy to replace the rotting wooden navy built for the Civil War, started with the explicit intention of making the U.S. a global power.

    Tel said in reply to Valissa...

    Quote: "Plus there's the psychological advantage of having some country/countries to blame for the lack of US success, or to distract attention away from US problems that need it."

    Clinton and Obama are busy campaigning that the USA has been completely successful, nothing is going wrong, everyone has jobs, etc.

    I dunno who would believe this, but that's their story and for the time being they are sticking to it. You have never had it so good.

    Dave Schuler

    Russia's primary offense is that it has dared to have its own national interests.

    SmoothieX12 -> kooshy ...

    Today, all those "freedom-loving" people of former USSR, even including all those scores of West Ukrainians who hate Russian guts and Middle Asian "nationalists" flock to Russia "in pursuit of happiness".

    I am not saying that all those people are bad, but the question I do ask sometimes is this: you hated us, you evicted (sometimes with bloodshed) us, Russians, from your places. You got what you asked for, why then, do you come to Russia in millions (I am not exaggerating, in fact, most likely underestimating)? What happened? Of course, we all know what happened.

    NotTimothyGeithner said...

    Moscow is large enough to be a mommy figure for a small country with an interest in dealing with China which doesn't want to be swamped by Beijing's sheer size. Moscow is a threat to U.S. financial and military domination without firing a shot, engaging in a trade war, or leading a diplomatic revolt.

    The average American doesn't care about a loss of hegemony. We naturally want cooperation and hippie peace, love, dope. The Western industries with effective monopolies abroad would see immense profits under threat because the Chinese and Russian competitors would drive prices down in finance, defense, pharmaceuticals, tech, and so forth. So they are turning to the Goering play book to keep the Russians out of the world stage. The professional Risk players in the neoconservatives would see their plans fall apart if the Erdogan-Putin meeting is a positive one.

    Also, Putin embarrassed Obama over Syria in 2013 and then was magnanimous. Obama hasn't forgotten that perceived slight.

    SmoothieX12 -> NotTimothyGeithner...

    Moscow is large enough to be

    A medium-size European country herself. It is also a very peculiar economic entity. I do, however, have a question on what do you mean by a "mommy for a small country"? No matter how small the country is, in my understanding, it still will have a fair degree of freedom when building trade relations with any entity, even of such mammoth size as China.

    Cee:

    Col. Lang,

    I read before that Obama was pushing back against this lunacy. Now the HRC-NEOCON camp are in full attack mode. I honestly think I'll be voting for Trump because I feel he can't do all of the things that I would hate for him to do. I KNOW that Hillary would get away with murder. I'm quite serious.

    http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/07/27/hillary-the-hawk-a-history-clinton-2016-military-intervention-libya-iraq-syria/

    Thomas -> Cee...

    "I KNOW that Hillary would get away with murder. I'm quite serious." It has already happened on this watch, see the case of MH-17.

    Erik

    The American talking point about the Crimea is a laughable piece of High School Debating Team rhetoric. The people in charge know full well the truth about Ukraine's claim to the Crimea. The thing that hurts is that the whole point of the "Nuland Putsch",and the rise of a western aligned govt., was to provide the crown jewel in Nato's (read America) crown: Eliminating Russia's naval base at Sevastopol completing the encirclement of Russia in the west (except for the always vulnerable Kaliningrad).

    All the rest about Russia's alleged expansionism is similar debating team poppycock.

    Looking at the history of empire building and aggressive wars, one is well served to think in terms of the 3 legged stool of criminology (for aggressive wars are simply, as Jackson said at Nurnberg, the supreme international crime) and consider means, opportunity, and motive.

    We have motive, the Russians do not. The motive in this case is theft, plain and simple. Russia with its small population and vast real estate holdings is already provided with more resources than she knows what to do with. We, on the other hand are not, and have not been since at least the seventies. Russia has its work cut out for it to develop what it owns already and why would they want to conquer populous resource poor neighbor states?

    Not only has Putin snatched away the score of the century by re-asserting Russian control over Crimea, but he had since 2000 or so been forestalling the western feeding frenzy on the carcass of the Soviet Union that had Americans creaming their jeans. Re assertion of Russian true sovereignty was his real offense.

    What's so poignant is the long standing western ambition to be able to steal what Russia has. 2 centuries of western aggression against Russia, and all dedicated to theft. Same now, and the drumbeat of warmongering rhetoric now directed at Russia is hilarious in a dangerous way. We really are using the Goering argument to drag our unwilling population towards war.


    James said...

    If I might be permitted to express some thoughts about why Russians feel the way they do about Putin ...

    Median income in Russia increased 260% (in inflation adjusted terms) during the first 10 years that Putin was in power. That is a staggering increase in people's financial well being. The Economist and its brethren like to dismiss this achievement as being "solely due to the increased price of oil" - but if you look at Canada, its oil production per capita was and is equal to that of Russia yet Canada's median income only increased 9% during the same time period.

    I think a good way to get a better sense of how the Russian's feel about Putin is to watch the Russian film "Bimmer" (if you can get access to a copy with English subtitles):

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bimmer_(film)

    I took a trip in Africa where our white South African guides favorite catch phrase was "In Africa, anything is possible." Dystopias are terribly messed up and most people living in them suffer greatly - but there is something really sexy about them, about the feeling that anything is possible.

    Russia was dystopic like this before Putin came to power - utter anarchy, crime, poverty, worse corruption than now despite what you hear from the Borg ... but at the same time, anything was possible. Bimmer depicts the transition from the anarchy of the Yeltsin years to the greater prosperity and rule of law that Russia now enjoys - while at the same time communicating the fact that many Russians can't help but feel some nostalgia for the time when anything was possible.

    (I visited Russia before, during, and after this transition. I have friends who live there.)

    kao_hsien_chih said in reply to James...

    The 260% increase in the Russian median income (an important point--the middle Russian became financial secure under Putin) under Putin's watch underscores the other point: before Putin, Russia was a total and complete economic wreck. People who saw economic ruin firsthand don't cavalierly dismiss hard won economic security.

    rkka -> Ulenspiegel...

    While Russia was being run by FreeMarketDemocratic Reformers, Russians were dying off at the rate of nearly a million/year.

    Once the FreeMarketDemocratic Reformers were removed from power, Russia began to recover. The birth rate started to improve immediately, and Russia's death rate started to decline in 2006. By 2009, the gap between Russia's births and deaths closed sufficiently that immigration could fill it, and so the Russian population was growing. By 2012, births in the Russian Federation exceeded deaths, for the first time since 1991.

    In the mid-2000s, Putin proposed measures to support families having children. Western politicians and demographers poured scorn on the very idea that Russian demographics might improve. In fact, the U.S. Census Bureau's population projections had Russia's population declining by 500,000/year as recently as 2015. Now Western politicians and demographers are reduced to claiming that "Putin had nuthin' to do with it!"

    Putin inherited a helpless, bankrupt, dying Russia.

    Russia now has a future. That's what Putin did, and he is rightly popular with Russians, Russians who pine for the days of the drunken incompetent comprador buffoon Yeltsin excepted.


    SmoothieX12 -> Ulenspiegel...

    Putin is judged by his ability to transform the Russian economy from an exporter of oil, gas and academics to something more sustainable.

    It seems like you are one of those thinkers who thinks that repeating popular BS will create new reality. FYI, Russia now is #1 exporter of grain in the world. If you didn't catch real news from Russia, Rosatom's portfolio of contracts exceeds 100 billion USD. Evidently you also missed the fact that Russia is #2 exporter of many #1 weapon systems in the world, some of which are beyond the expertise (industrial and scientific) of Europe (I assume you are from that part of the world). Do you know what it takes and what host of real hi-tech goes into production of a top fighter jet or modern SSK? Russia is an active and a dominant player at the commercial space launch business, in fact whole US Atlas program flies on Russian-made RD-180 rocket engines. I will repeat again, learn facts on the ground, which is relatively easy to do in the world of global IT. And finally, Russia will never live as well as US or Canada, for starters--there is a colossal difference in consumer patterns between Russians and North Americans (albeit there are many similarities too) but there is very little doubt that standard of living in Russia grew tremendously and a lot of it has very little to do with gas or oil prices. It has, however, a lot to do with retooling and re-industrialization of the country, which was ongoing since circa 2008. It is a very significant year. Last, but not least--Russia is huge own consumer market (and then some due to markets of former USSR) and that is a key. German MTU followed sanctions, well, guess what--it will never appear again on Russian markets. Thales loved to sell IR matrices to Russia, well, guess what.....you may fill in the blanks.

    SmoothieX12 said in reply to different clue...

    In terms of pork and poultry Russia produces 100% of that and, which did surprise me, even exports turkey. Beef--about 80% covered. Most of what Russia consumes in food stuff is home grown or made. Exceptions are some luxury food items and things like well-aged cheeses. Russian food stores can give any best US or European grocery chain a run for their money. Variety is excellent and most of it affordable. Per salmon, as far as I know it is both farm-raised and wild. What are the proportions, I don't know. I can, however, testify to the fact that, say, in Troitsky supermarket you can buy alive strelyad' (sturgeon). ...

    SmoothieX12,

    This is good to hear. When the "sanction Russia" crowd began embargoing various food-items being sold to Russia, they unintentionally began without realizing it an economic experiment in Protectionism. The food embargo against food going into Russia amounts to a kind of Protectionism for Russian food production within a protectionized and defended Russian market.

    If it ends up allowing more monetizable food-as-wealth to be produced withIN Russia, that will allow all sorts of sectors and people to buy and sell more monetizable non-food goods and non-food services FROM withIN Russia TO withIN Russia as well. If that allows Russia to become more all-sectors-in-balance wealthier, that fact would be hard to hide eventually. And various farm-sector advocates in America could seize upon it and point to it as evidence that Protectionism WORKS to allow a country to increase its own net production and enjoyment of overall wealth withIN its own borders. And it might inspire more people to suggest we try it here within America as well. And through the abolition of NAFTA, allow Mexico to revive Protectionism for its agricultural sector as well. It might allow for enough broad-based ground-up revival of economic activity withIN Mexico that some of the millions of NAFTAstinian exiles in America might decide they have a Mexican economy to go back to again. And some of them might go back.

    IF! NAFTA can be abolished and Mexico set free to re-protectionize its own agricultural economy. Perhaps if enough Mexican political-economic analysts look at events in Russia and see the ongoing success there, they too might agitate for the abolition of NAFTA and the re-protectionization of farm-country Mexico.


    SmoothieX12 -> different clue...

    Protectionism WORKS to allow a country to increase its own net production and enjoyment of overall wealth withIN its own borders

    Free Trade fundamentalism (which is a first derivative of liberalism) is what killing USA and, I assume, Mexico. Most "academic" so called economists and bankers (monetarists) are clueless but it is them who set the framework of discussion on economy. It is a long discussion but let me put it this way--all their "theories" are crap. As for Russia--she is largely self-sustainable for years now.

    kao_hsien_chih -> Ulenspiegel...

    That Russia before Putin provides for better explanation of his support than even the 260%. Yes, Russia is still a relatively poor country, but only a decade before, it was a total and complete basketcase and people remember that Putin is responsible for putting things back to a semblance of normalcy.


    Daniel Nicolas

    In another thread, it was mentioned that countries have no friends, only interests.

    Russia, for all the Borg media grandstanding, seems to only be concerned with Russian related interests. There is no indication of greater plan for global domination. They are upgrading and preparing for a future war, sure. Any country would be smart to prepare accordingly to defend itself (and their interests).

    Obama's USA has been far too hostile to Russia without apparent cause. A Clinton administration would likely swing even further. While Russia has openly declared that it not want a new hot war, they are preparing accordingly because they have no choice but to prepare for the possible future USA being even more hostile.

    LondonBob -> Daniel Nicolas...

    https://theintercept.com/2016/07/25/robert-kagan-and-other-neocons-back-hillary-clinton/

    Not likely, will be.

    JohnsonR

    Interesting Spiegel piece about some of Breedlove's email exchanges regarding the Ukraine from two years ago:

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/breedlove-network-sought-weapons-deliveries-for-ukraine-a-1104837.html

    The Germans are obviously still sore about it all.

    EricB

    Russia became the enemy of United States in early 2000's after Putin started cracking down on the oligarchs that had taken over Russia's economy during Yeltsin's privatization efforts. It is estimated that seven individuals were controlling as much as 50% of Russia's economy at its peak during the late 90's:

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/jul/02/russia.lukeharding1

    ... ... ...

    VietnamVet :

    Colonel,

    The ruling ideology of the West is the free movement of capital and people together with the dismantling of sovereign states and replacing them with global institutions and corporate trade pacts. Donald Trump's "America First" threatens this so he is subject to full throated attacks by the media and the connected. Vladimir Putin stands in the way of the global hegemony and the return of Russia to the 1990s. Thus, the western hybrid war for a Kremlin regime change.

    Hillary Clinton is supremely qualified to maintain the status quo. If Donald Trump wins, it has to be due to the perfidious Russians hacking the election; not Globalism's Losers voting against their exploitation by the insanely wealthy and the enabling technocrats. Meanwhile, the "War of Russian Aggression" heats up, Turkey turns Islamist and the EU splinters due to the war refugees and austerity.

    Old Microbiologist -> Bill Herschel...

    Bill,
    I am with you all the way. It, of course, goes much further. There are ongoing US-manufactured destabilization events unfolding all around Russia. Then you have the economic attacks via sanctions and trade which have arguably crippled Russia. On top of that you have these insipid attacks via things like SWIFT bank transfers, IMF, World Bank and idiocy such as attempting to ban the entire Russian Olympic team from the Olympics. Russia senses these attacks on all fronts and was unfortunately caught early being unprepared. During the Soviet Union Russia was 100% self sufficient but as mentioned in other comments under Yeltsin's "privatization" programs an awful lot of that industry was sold or closed. Now Russia has had to start from scratch replacements for things not available in Russia and yet still has a budget surplus (unlike the US with a near $20 trillion deficit). They have created alternates to SWIFT, VISA/Mastercard, the IMF and even the G8.

    The Crimea debacle was a clear attempt to kick Russia out of their base in Sevastopol which was brilliantly countered. However, the cost has been enormous. Little commented on is that Ukraine under US leadership has cut off water, gas, and electricity to the peninsula and blocked all traffic to the mainland. Russia is nearing the completion of the bridge to Crimea from Russia and water/power are already being delivered. This is a huge effort which shows the dedication to their control of Crimea.

    Then they have undertaken to directly thwart the anti-Assad US-led coalition in Syria and have hoisted the US on its own petard. It hasn't been easy nor cheap and all of this has been happening simultaneously. On top of all of this we have buildups on the Russian borders so Putin also has to upgrade his military to counter any potential EU/NATO/US invasion of Russia. The aggression has all been one sided but delusional citizens in the US see our aggression as defensive as bizarre as that is. Outside the US people see US aggression for what it is and are not fooled into believing that we are trying to help anyone except the rich plutocrats. The immigrant invasion of Europe is seen as a US caused problem for these continuous insane wars that never end nor apparently have any actual purpose.

    If Clinton takes over for Obama it will only mean continued escalation by the US against any country resisting a unipolar world. There are a lot more than Russia and China resisting US hegemony and that attacks, subtle as they are, continue unabated. If Trump dials that back this can only be a good thing for world peace. The neocons apparently are betting the farm on Hillary. Good, I pray they lose and are cleansed permanently from the US political landscape. Personally, I see a win by Clinton as the end of mankind.

    Peter Reichard said...

    Have always thought Russians and Americans were more like each other than either of us were like Europeans. Both a little crude, crazy, traditionally religious and musical with big countries created from an expanding frontier and thinking big in terms of infrastructure and vehicles. We ought to be natural allies as we were in the nineteenth century in opposition to the British Empire and again in World War 2. Russia, a land power in the heart of the world island in balance with the US, an ocean power on the other side of the planet with mutual respect could create a stable multi-polar world.

    SmoothieX12 -> Peter Reichard...

    That is generally true. There are a lot of similarities. And I remember the end of Cold War extremely well, when the relations warmed up and the danger of nuclear exchange faded. In Russia, at that time, this was precisely the idea what you described but, as Pat Buchanan wrote several days ago "The inability to adapt was seen when our Cold War adversary extended a hand in friendship, and the War Party slapped it away."

    kao_hsien_chih -> SmoothieX12...

    In mid-19th century, Russia was extremely friendly to United States, where many remained deeply suspicious of the British Empire. Somehow, by the end of 19th century, United States became peculiarly fond of the British Empire and inexplicably hostile to Russia--Mahan was both an Anglophile and Russophobe, as I understand, and his sentiments shows up in his ideas, or so I've heard. (I imagine SmoothieX12, as an ex Soviet navy man, is far more familiar with this than I ever could). How did that happen?

    rkka -> kao_hsien_chih...

    "How did that happen?"

    In the early 1880s the U.S. government decided to become a global seapower. Hostility towards the world's largest landpower followed, as night follows day.

    [Jul 30, 2016] Two liberal IT luminaries today pick up the (totally unproven) assertion that Russia hacked and published via wikileaks the DNC shennigens of preferring Clinton

    Notable quotes:
    "... Westen is a Democrat and he basically wrote this book to try and help Democrats win more presidential election, though the research portion in the beginning of the book shows how people in both parties are biased in their interpretation of political events based on their political party allegiance. ..."
    "... Then a year or two later he wrote some follow up articles whining and complaining about how disappointed he was in Obama not being much different from Bush, etc, etc ..."
    "... The fact that Mr. Western could wake up to Obama's basic Bushness in only one or two years means that Mr. Western had a freer mind than most Obama supporters. ..."
    "... Good find. Yes and yes. They never stop manipulating. Now the MSM will finally have to admit that the machines are compromised ONLY when it serves the interests of th few. ..."
    turcopolier.typepad.com

    b , 28 July 2016 at 12:41 PM

    Of interest:

    Two "liberal" IT luminaries today pick up the (totally unproven) assertion that Russia hacked and published via wikileaks the DNC shennigens of preferring Clinton.

    The used this to (preemptively) accuse Russia of manipulating the U.S. election via voting computers on November 9.

    Bruce Schneier

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/07/27/by-november-russian-hackers-could-target-voting-machines/

    By November, Russian hackers could target voting machines >

    Cory Doctorow

    http://boingboing.net/2016/07/27/russia-and-other-states-could.html

    Russia and other states could hack the US election by attacking voting machines

    This is curious as both are usually much more carefully about attribution of such hacks.

    Could this be a "preemptive" attempt to find Russia guilty should the November 9 result come into question?

    John Robb warned earlier that such a scenario could lead to civil war

    http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/2016/03/how-the-us-ends-up-in-a-civil-war.html

    Valissa -> b, 28 July 2016 at 02:02 PM

    I think this is a sign that both Schneier and Doctorow are democrats who fear Trump. Tribal allegiance exerts a very powerful, and irrational, force on the so-called rational mind.

    The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation, by Drew Westen https://www.amazon.com/Political-Brain-Emotion-Deciding-Nation/dp/1586485733/

    Warning, Westen is a Democrat and he basically wrote this book to try and help Democrats win more presidential election, though the research portion in the beginning of the book shows how people in both parties are biased in their interpretation of political events based on their political party allegiance.

    When Obama first ran in 2007-2008, Westen had clearly been drinking the glorious pro-Obama koolaid as was evident in some HuffPo articles he wrote at the time.

    Then a year or two later he wrote some follow up articles whining and complaining about how disappointed he was in Obama not being much different from Bush, etc, etc.

    Clearly this man was so caught up in his tribal allegiance he couldn't recognize the very biases his research showed. Btw, he is still a consultant to the Democrats... attempting to be the Frank Luntz of the left.

    different clue -> Valissa, 28 July 2016 at 08:58 PM

    The fact that Mr. Western could wake up to Obama's basic Bushness in only one or two years means that Mr. Western had a freer mind than most Obama supporters.

    rjj -> b, 28 July 2016 at 03:11 PM
    guessing they are setting the scene to invalidate an unfavorable vote count and take it to House of Representatives.

    writers could be persuaded they were Doing Good.

    Cee -> b, 28 July 2016 at 03:15 PM
    B,

    Good find. Yes and yes. They never stop manipulating. Now the MSM will finally have to admit that the machines are compromised ONLY when it serves the interests of th few.

    [Jul 30, 2016] If Russian Intelligence Did Hack the DNC, the NSA Would Know, Snowden Says

    Notable quotes:
    "... Washington Post ..."
    theintercept.com

    As my colleague Glenn Greenwald told WNYC on Monday, while there may never be conclusive evidence that the Democratic National Committee was hacked by Russian intelligence operatives to extract the trove of embarrassing emails published by WikiLeaks, it would hardly be shocking if that was what happened.

    "Governments do spy on each other and do try to influence events in other countries," Glenn noted. "Certainly the U.S. government has a very long and successful history of doing exactly that."

    Even so, he added, given the ease with which we were misled into war in Iraq by false claims about weapons of mass destruction - and the long history of Russophobia in American politics - it is vital to cast a skeptical eye over whatever evidence is presented to support the claim, made by Hillary Clinton's aide Robby Mook, that this is all part of a Russian plot to sabotage the Democrats and help Donald Trump win the election.

    The theory gained some traction , particularly among Trump's detractors, in part because the candidate has seemed obsessed at times with reminding crowds that Russian President Vladimir Putin once said something sort of nice about him (though not, as Trump falsely claims , that the American is "a genius"). Then last week, Trump's campaign staff watered down a pledge to help Ukraine defend its territory from Russian-backed rebels and the candidate told the New York Times he would not necessarily honor the NATO treaty commitment that requires the United States military to defend other member states from a direct attack by Russia.

    Since Trump has refused to release his tax returns, there are also questions about whether or not his businesses might depend to some extent on Russian investors. "Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets," Trump's son Donald Jr. told a real estate conference in 2008, the Washington Post reported last month. "We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia."

    Paul Manafort, who is directing Trump's campaign and was for years a close adviser of a Putin ally, former President Viktor Yanukovych of Ukraine, called the theory that Trump's campaign had ties to the Russian government "absurd." (On Monday, Michael Isikoff of Yahoo News reported that a DNC researcher looking into Manafort's ties to pro-Russian politicians in Ukraine in May had been warned that her personal Yahoo email account was under attack. "We strongly suspect that your account has been the target of state-sponsored actors," the warning from the email service security team read.)

    Unhelpfully for Trump, his most senior adviser with knowledge of the world of hacking, retired Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn, former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, told Bloomberg View that he "would not be surprised at all" to learn that Russia was behind the breach of the DNC network. "Both China and Russia have the full capability to do this," he said.

    Later on Monday, Trump himself then attributed the attack on the DNC to "China, Russia, one of our many, many 'friends,'" who "came in and hacked the hell out of us."

    Since very few of us are cybersecurity experts, and the Iraq debacle is a reminder of how dangerous it can be to put blind faith in experts whose claims might reinforce our own political positions, there is also the question of who we can trust to provide reliable evidence.

    One expert in the field, who is well aware of the evidence-gathering capabilities of the U.S. government, is Edward Snowden, the former Central Intelligence Agency technician and National Security Agency whistleblower who exposed the extent of mass surveillance and has been given temporary asylum in Russia.

    "If Russia hacked the #DNC, they should be condemned for it," Snowden wrote on Twitter on Monday, with a link to a 2015 report on the U.S. government's response to the hacking of Sony Pictures. In that case, he noted, "the FBI presented evidence" for its conclusion that North Korea was responsible for the hacking and subsequent release of internal emails. (The FBI is now investigating the breach of the DNC's network, which officials told the Daily Beast they first made the committee aware of in April.)

    What's more, Snowden added, the NSA has tools that should make it possible to trace the source of the hack. Even though the Director of National Intelligence usually opposes making such evidence public, he argued, this is a case in which the agency should do so, if only to discourage future attacks.

    Edward Snowden
    ✔ ‎@Snowden

    Even if the attackers try to obfuscate origin, #XKEYSCORE makes following exfiltrated data easy. I did this personally against Chinese ops.

    Edward Snowden
    ✔ ‎@Snowden

    Evidence that could publicly attribute responsibility for the DNC hack certainly exists at #NSA, but DNI traditionally objects to sharing.

    Edward Snowden
    ✔ ‎@Snowden

    The aversion to sharing #NSA evidence is fear of revealing "sources and methods" of intel collection, but #XKEYSCORE is now publicly known.

    Edward Snowden2 Verified account ?
    ‏@Snowden
    Without a credible threat that USG can and will use #NSA capabilities to publicly attribute responsibility, such hacks will become common.

    [Jul 28, 2016] the number of Ukrainian citizens has been reduced by approximately 3 million people over a period of 5 years

    marknesop.wordpress.com
    Moscow Exile , July 26, 2016 at 9:34 am
    ... ... ...

    The other day on the pages of "Correspondent" that quoted figures given by the State Statistics Service there was published data on the Ukrainian demographic catastrophe. It turns out that the population of the Ukraine (excluding the Crimea) as of January 1, 2016, amounted to 42,76,500 people, which is 6.3% or 2,873,000 persons fewer than there were in January 1, 2012 .

    That is to say, the number of Ukrainian citizens has been reduced by approximately 3 million people over a period of 5 years. If this sad trend continues, then in 70 years no "Ukrainians" will remain.

    [Jul 28, 2016] Russian media is being accused of fakes and lies when the reality is that theyre almost always quoting Western media in verbatim on all these things

    Notable quotes:
    "... This is how these fucks build their cases, it's just like the massive disinformation about everything Ukraine. If you pick it apart and study each case of a "fake" or whatever, most (if not all) of it suddenly seems less insidious and more sensible, in the light of medias being medias, people being people, bad translations being bad translations and what not. Heck, a lot of the "fakes" are actually fakes by the alleged fake-spottters. Anyway, that's why the tsunami approach is being used, just a torrent of stuff that nobody will bother picking apart as you have no choice but to submit to the sheer volume of it. ..."
    "... Or take the Sochi Olympics. Total tsunami there as well, by the time false assertion #1 had been debunked by some brave soul there were 300 other assertions stacked on top. Or anything Russia in general, it doesn't matter, it's the same crap all over. ..."
    "... Oh, and one last observation. The Russia disinformation tsunami approach reminds me of something very similar, namely tin foil hats peddling alien conspiracies and so on. They typically set out with their minds made up and then present "evidence" A, B, C. Once these have been debunked, they go "fine, but what about D, E, F" all the way to Z. Once that's been exhausted they jump all the way back to A, B, C as if nothing's happened at all, though this way around they typically attempt to overwhelm by referencing D-Z from the get go. Good god, it's depressing. ..."
    July 25, 2016 | marknesop.wordpress.com
    I've been finding a lot of these things being forwarded on Twitter etc:

    I find it rather amazing, actually. Russian media is being accused of "fakes" and "lies" when the reality is that they're almost always quoting Western media in verbatim on all these things. In this particular case, Swedish media reported a "powerful explosion, possibly several", and "a man holding a gun-like object" and "police has been called to the scene" and so on. Yep, that they did. Since it was in the central parts of the capital and all these things gave the impression something big could be brewing, international media quickly went nuts with it as well:

    The Russians followed suit, naturally. Now, soon thereafter it turned out to be a case of overblown hysteria and the story quickly died out following that, with all media issuing retractions, including Russian dito.

    But, quelle surprise – it's obviously yet another "Russia fake".

    This is how these fucks build their cases, it's just like the massive disinformation about everything Ukraine. If you pick it apart and study each case of a "fake" or whatever, most (if not all) of it suddenly seems less insidious and more sensible, in the light of medias being medias, people being people, bad translations being bad translations and what not. Heck, a lot of the "fakes" are actually fakes by the alleged fake-spottters. Anyway, that's why the tsunami approach is being used, just a torrent of stuff that nobody will bother picking apart as you have no choice but to submit to the sheer volume of it.

    It really pisses me off.

    Drutten , July 25, 2016 at 2:25 am

    Or take the Sochi Olympics. Total tsunami there as well, by the time false assertion #1 had been debunked by some brave soul there were 300 other assertions stacked on top. Or anything Russia in general, it doesn't matter, it's the same crap all over.

    Hybrid war you say? Ну, ну…

    Drutten , July 25, 2016 at 2:40 am
    Also, regarding the above "Russia fake" – just to further prove what bullshit this is, this is what Sweden's most-read news site wrote at the time it had just occurred:
    http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article21715154.ab

    " A powerful detonation was heard on Södermalm in Stockholm at lunch time.
    Police arrived on site with several patrols and the street was cordoned off.
    We don't know what has happened , says Albin Näverberg of the Stockholm police.

    The blast, that witnesses describe as being powerful , was heard at 11:40 AM near Brännkyrkagatan on Södermalm. The street was cordoned off. A large police force was called to the site. Rescue services were there as well."

    "Rescue services" meaning firefighters and/or paramedics. Clearly everybody thought some shit had gone down and there were multiple emergency vehicles, cordons and so on.

    Drutten , July 25, 2016 at 2:56 am
    Oh, and one last observation. The Russia disinformation tsunami approach reminds me of something very similar, namely tin foil hats peddling alien conspiracies and so on. They typically set out with their minds made up and then present "evidence" A, B, C. Once these have been debunked, they go "fine, but what about D, E, F" all the way to Z. Once that's been exhausted they jump all the way back to A, B, C as if nothing's happened at all, though this way around they typically attempt to overwhelm by referencing D-Z from the get go. Good god, it's depressing.

    [Jul 28, 2016] http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/07/exclusive-interview-putin-dnc-emails-russia-love.html

    Notable quotes:
    "... let the buyer beware ..."
    www.washingtonsblog.com

    By Michael Collins
    Satire

    (Washington, DC 7/25) As I was idly wondering what Vladimir Putin would say about the DNC email scandals, I received a call from Vladimir Putin himself. He said he wanted to talk about the Wikileaks release of DNC emails. When I asked why he picked me to contact, he said "I probably strarted at the wrong end of the list" and laughed heartily.

    MC: President Putin, did the Russian government hack the DNC email server and then publically release those emails through Wikileaks the day before the Democratic convention?

    Putin: Yes.

    MC: Yes! Are you serious?

    Putin : I'm quite serious.

    MC: How can you justify this open meddling in United States politics?

    Putin: Your question should be what took Russia so long. The US oligarchs and their minions surround us with military bases and nuclear missiles, damage our trade to Europe, and seek to destabilize our domestic politics. These emails are nothing in the big picture. But they're sort of funny, don't you agree?

    MC: I'm not sure that funny is the right word. What do you mean by that?

    Putin: You've got Hillary Clinton running as a strong and independent woman. Of course, nobody would know who she is had she not married Bill Clinton. She's not independent. Quite the contrary. She had to marry a philandering redneck to get to where she is. When it comes to strength, I can say only this. How strong can you be if you have to cheat and create a rigged game to win the nomination?

    MC: Anything else about your leak to cheer us up?

    Putin: This situation is the epitome of ironic humor. After the emails were released, the focus was all on DNC Chair and Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. That's fine for now but what happens when people start asking why Wasserman-Schultz had the DNC screw Sanders and boost Hillary? Did she just wake up one day and decide this on her own?. Not likely. She was and remains Hillary's agent. It will take people a while to arrive that answer. When enough people hear about Wasserman-Schultz's key role in the Clinton campaign, everything will be clear. It's adios Hillary. That inevitable conclusion, by the way, is the reason the DNC made such a big deal about Russia hacking the DNC. That was diversion one right out of the gate.

    MC: Is Russia an equal opportunity hacker? What about the Trump campaign?

    Putin: Why not? I hear there are some very rather graphic home movies and videos of Mr. Trump with some interesting playmates. But that can wait. Enjoy Hillary's hypocrisy to the fullest. When it comes to either candidate, my only advice is let the buyer beware .

    That was it for my time with the man. I'd like to think it was Putin. Even if it wasn't, this is what I suspect Putin would say.

    Satire
    Creative Commons 4.0

    [Jul 28, 2016] NSA Whistleblower Not So Fast On Claims Russia Behind DNC Email Hack naked capitalism

    Why those unknown forces (probably a disgruntled insider) leaked this bombshell so late. At this point it does not affect Sanders chances to beat Hillary.
    Notable quotes:
    "... "The same people on the Clinton team who made enormous efforts to claim her private email server-which operated unencrypted over the Internet for three months, including during trips to China and Russia, and which contained top-secret national-security data-was not hacked by the Russians now are certain that the DNC server was hacked by the Russians" http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/unpacking-the-dnc-emails/ ..."
    "... The British government has learned that Vladimir Putin recently sought significant quantities of malware from Africa. ..."
    "... Well, golly, if you're going to create a bright, shiny object to distract people from the actual content of the e-mails, why not blame little green men from Mars? I mean, seriously, isn't what this is all about – deflecting away from what the DNC was up to, so as to keep as much of it as possible from further tarnishing the already-clouded view of both the process and the major candidate whom it benefited? ..."
    "... And in addition to this little bit of obviousness, how can it possible have escaped anyone with a functioning brain that this escalating hysteria about the DNC hack was noticeably absent with respect to Clinton's own email operation? ..."
    "... I also find it deeply and almost-hilariously ironic that we're all supposed to be livid at the idea of some foreign government trying to manipulate the US elections when not only is the Democratic Party's flagship organization flagrantly engaged in trying to manipulate the outcome, but the AMERICAN MEDIA wouldn't know what to do with itself if it wasn't constantly fking around with the entire process. ..."
    "... Looks like another false flag propaganda ploy. The Obama Admin flares up with phony indignation and immediately swears there will be more sanctions. The FBI wants to prosecute ( or is it persecute) the messenger instead of investigating the real crimes. The e-mails and their contents are real. The noise is to cover up this fact! ..."
    "... The CNN poll in yesterday's Links shows Trump beats Hillary by huge margins (12 points) on the economy and terrorism. She beats him on foreign policy (and nothing else). Dragging in Russian hackers and foreign intelligence services plays to her strength. ..."
    "... In reality, politically motivated attacks like this are almost always domestic in origin. To go to Wikileaks specifically I expect an inside whistleblower is responsible. The same thing happened to Sony and the Swiss banks. Elites simply don't understand how many people they work with are disgusted by their policies. To them this is a perfectly believable thing. ..."
    "... It reminds me very much of the French Fries to Freedom Fries movement. If you have a critical mass of people in on the fun, it can work, at least for a time. But what happens when most people don't care about being excommunicated from the DNC Serious People List? ..."
    "... Obvious clues pointing back at a known adversary…strategically-timed leaks from anonymous intelligence sources…vague statements on the record from the President and other high-level officials…stories fed to sympathetic media outlets…yep, sounds a lot like the playbook used by the Bush White House for the run-up to the Iraq War. Except there's no way that the Democrats would ever ..."
    "... No matter who is responsible for the hack, I'm just glad that the information about the DNC corruption is out in the open. I'm disappointed that this didn't happen before June 7, when California, New Jersey, and several other states had their primaries. Better late than never, I guess. ..."
    "... why hadn't our press revealed this? ..."
    "... It's now so routine to spin-doctor aggressively that the elites have lost any sense of whether what they are saying is credible or not. ..."
    "... I thought Trump's comments today about wanting the Russians to find Hillary's emails were genius. He fans the flames of this whole Russia-Putin thing on day 3 of the Dem convention and what are the media outlets talking about? Plus, Hillary's campaign, in it's rebuttal to Trump, is indirectly reminding everyone that her homebrew server was putting national security at risk. ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Washington's Blog asked the highest-level NSA whistleblower in history, William Binney – the NSA executive who created the agency's mass surveillance program for digital information, who served as the senior technical director within the agency, who managed six thousand NSA employees, the 36-year NSA veteran widely regarded as a "legend" within the agency and the NSA's best-ever analyst and code-breaker, who mapped out the Soviet command-and-control structure before anyone else knew how, and so predicted Soviet invasions before they happened ("in the 1970s, he decrypted the Soviet Union's command system, which provided the US and its allies with real-time surveillance of all Soviet troop movements and Russian atomic weapons") – what he thinks of such claims:

    Edward Snowden says the NSA could easily determine who hacked Hillary Clinton's emails:

    Evidence that could publicly attribute responsibility for the DNC hack certainly exists at #NSA , but DNI traditionally objects to sharing.

    - Edward Snowden (@Snowden) July 25, 2016

    Even if the attackers try to obfuscate origin, #XKEYSCORE makes following exfiltrated data easy. I did this personally against Chinese ops.

    - Edward Snowden (@Snowden) July 25, 2016

    But mainstream media say it couldn't: http://www.businessinsider.com/dnc-hack-russian-government-2016-7

    The mainstream media is also trumpeting the meme that Russia was behind the hack, because it wants to help Trump get elected. In other words, the media is trying to deflect how damaging the email leaks are to Clinton's character by trying to somehow associate Trump with Putin. See e.g. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/26/us/politics/kremlin-donald-trump-vladimir-putin.html

    Who's right?

    Binney responded:

    Snowden is right and the MSM is clueless. Here's what I said to Ray McGovern and VIPS with a little humor at the end. [McGovern is a 27-year CIA veteran, who chaired National Intelligence Estimates and personally delivered intelligence briefings to Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, their Vice Presidents, Secretaries of State, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many other senior government officials. McGovern is co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity ("VIPS" for short).]

    Ray, I am suspicious that they may have looked for known hacking code (used by Russians). And, I'm sure they were one probably of many to hack her stuff. But, does that mean that they checked to see if others also hacked in?

    Further, do they have evidence that the Russians downloaded and later forwarded those emails to wikileaks? Seems to me that they need to answer those questions to be sure that their assertion is correct. Otherwise, HRC and her political activities are and I am sure have been prime targets for the Russians (as well as many others) but without intent of course.

    I would add that we proposed to do a program that would monitor all activity on the world-wide NSA network back in 1991/92. We called it "Wellgrounded." NSA did not want anyone (especially congress) to know what was going on inside NSA and therefore rejected that proposal. I have not read what Ed has said, but, I do know that every line of code that goes across the network is logged in the network log. This is where a little software could scan, analyze and find the intruders initially and then compile all the code sent by them to determine the type of attack. This is what we wanted to do back in 1991/92.

    The newest allegation tying the Clinton email hack to Russia seems to be all innuendo .

    Binney explained to us:

    My problem is that they have not listed intruders or attempted intrusions to the DNC site. I suspect that's because they did a quick and dirty look for known attacks.

    Of course, this brings up another question; if it's a know attack, why did the DNC not have software to stop it? You can tell from the network log who is going into a site. I used that on networks that I had. I looked to see who came into my LAN, where they went, how long they stayed and what they did while in my network.

    Further, if you needed to, you could trace back approaches through other servers etc. Trace Route and Trace Watch are good examples of monitoring software that help do these things. Others of course exist … probably the best are in NSA/GCHQ and the other Five Eyes countries. But, these countries have no monopoly on smart people that could do similar detection software.

    Question is do they want to fix the problems with existing protection software. If the DNC and OPM are examples, then obviously, they don't care to fix weakness probably because the want to use these weaknesses to their own advantage.

    Why is this newsworthy?

    Well, the mainstream narrative alleges that the Clinton emails are not important … and that it's a conspiracy between Putin and Trump to make sure Trump – and not Clinton – is elected.

    But there are other issues, as well …

    For example, an allegation of hacking could literally lead to war .

    So we should be skeptical of such serious and potentially far-reaching allegations – which may be true or may be false – unless and until they are proven .

    JacobiteInTraining , July 27, 2016 at 4:46 am

    Yup, as a former server admin it is patently absurd to attribute a hack to anyone in particular until a substantial amount of forensic work has been done. (read, poring over multiple internal log files…gathering yet more log files of yet more internal devices, poring over them, then – once the request hops out of your org – requesting logfiles from remote entities, poring over *those* log files, requesting further log files from yet more upstream entities, wash rinse repeat ad infinitum)

    For example, at its simplest, I would expect a middling-competency hacker to find an open wifi hub across town to connect to, then VPN to server in, say, Tonga, then VPN from there to another box in Sweden, then connect to a PC previously compromised in Iowa, then VPN to yet another anonymous cloud server in Latvia, and (assuming the mountain dew is running low, gotta get cracking) then RDP to the target server and grab as many docs as possible. RAR those up and encrypt them, FTP them to a compromised media server in South Korea, email them from there to someones gmail account previously hacked, xfer them to a P2P file sharing app, and then finally access them later from a completely different set of servers.

    In many cases where I did this sort of analysis I still ended up with a complete dead end: some sysadmins at remote companies or orgs would be sympathetic and give me actual related log files. Others would be sympathetic but would not give files, and instead do their own analysis to give me tips. Many never responded, and most IPs ended up at unknown (compromised) personal PCs, or devices where the owner could not be found anyway.

    If the hacker was sloppy and left other types of circumstantial evidence you might get lucky – but that demographic mostly points back to script kiddies and/or criminal dweebs – i.e., rather then just surreptitiously exfiltrating the goods they instead left messages or altered things that seemed to indicate their own backgrounds or prejudices, or left a message that was more easily 'traced'. If, of course, you took that evidence at face value and it was not itself an attempt at obfuscation.

    Short of a state actor such as an NSA who captures it ALL anyway, and/or can access any log files at any public or private network at its own whim – its completely silly to attribute a hack to anyone at this point.

    So, I guess I am reduced to LOL OMG WTF its fer the LULZ!!!!!

    4D , July 27, 2016 at 5:27 am

    Thanks for that great explanation on covering tracks. Now can you please explain how they go about actually hacking into a supposedly secure server?

    JacobiteInTraining , July 27, 2016 at 5:49 am

    hah, well I had a nice long answer but cloudflare blocked me. heh…apparently it doesnt like certain words one uses when describing this stuff. Understandable!

    I guess try looking up 'phishing' and 'privilege elevation' on wikipedia. Former is easiest, latter gives you street cred.

    So easy a kid can do it.

    JacobiteInTraining , July 27, 2016 at 6:25 am

    Just to clarify on the "…If the hacker was sloppy and left other types of circumstantial evidence…" – this is basically what I have seen reported as 'evidence' pointing to Russia: the Cyrillic keyboard signature, the 'appeared to cease work on Russian holidays' stuff, and the association with 'known Russian hacking groups'.

    Thats great and all, but in past work I am sure my own 'research' could easily have gotten me 'associated' with known hacking groups. Presumably various 'sophisticated' methods and tools get you closer to possible suspects…but that kind of stuff is cycled and recycled throughout the community worldwide – as soon as anything like that is known and published, any reasonably competent hacker (or org of hackers) is learning how to do the same thing and incorporating such things into their own methods. (imitation being the sincerest form of flattery)

    I guess I have a lot more respect for the kinds of people I expect to be getting a paycheck from foreign Intelligence agencies then to believe that they would leave such obvious clues behind 'accidentally'. But if we are going to be starting wars over this stuff w/Russia, or China, I guess I would hope the adults in the room don't go all apesh*t and start chanting COMMIES, THE RUSSIANS ARE COMING!, etc. before the ink is dry on the 'crime'.

    Even then, I fail to see why this person (foreign, domestic, professional, amateur, state-sponsored, or otherwise) hasn't done us a great service by exposing the DNC corruption in the first place. Hell, I would love to give them the Medal of Freedom for this and (hopefully) the next boot to drop! :)

    Hacker , July 27, 2016 at 8:35 am

    Spot on JacobitIn Training.

    There is a problem with those who argue that these are sophisticated Nation State attackers and then point to the most basic circumstantial evidence to support their case. I'd bet that, among others, the Israelis have hacked some Russian servers to launch attacks from and have some of their workers on a Russian holiday schedule. Those things have been written about in attack analysis so much over the last 15-20 years that they'd be stupid not to.

    Now, I'm not saying the Israelis did it. I'm saying that the evidence provided so far by those arguing it is Russia is so flaky as to prove that the Russia accusers are blinded or corrupted by their own political agenda.

    Anon , July 27, 2016 at 5:02 pm

    The whole point of the "It's the Russian's" meme is to deflect attention from the corrupt and undemocratic actions of the DNC.

    fajensen , July 27, 2016 at 10:02 am

    Oh, "they" just use the system management features baked right into the embedded computers either the ones inside the "secure server" itself or (much more convenient and easy to do), they attack the cheap-ish COTS lapdog that the support techie will be using to access the "secure server" with:

    http://blog.cr4.sh/2016/06/exploring-and-exploiting-lenovo.html
    http://www.legbacore.com/Research.html

    *Everything PC-ish* is insecure, by sloth & design!

    Steve Gunderson , July 27, 2016 at 6:00 pm

    I thought I read the password was "Obama08" and that they never changed it.

    vlade , July 27, 2016 at 6:44 am

    Indeed. I'd go even further, and say two things:

    – if there's a non-NSA evidence the attacks originated from Russia, then someone wanted the world to know it was from Russia (or was just a private snoop).

    – even if there was a technical evidence that the attack originated from Russia, unless it could be tied very specifically to an institution (as opposed to a "PC in Russia"), it does not prove that it was Russia. All it proves that someone using a computer in Russia initiated it.

    JacobiteInTraining , July 27, 2016 at 7:13 am

    Well phooey. My theory now goes up in smoke: Here we can clearly see an attempt at disinformation from a Russian Operative, likely FSB – possibly from Putin's inner circle.

    We know this through 2 things:

    A.) The name, 'Vlad' – inequivocally a Russian given name, and not a common one at that.

    B.) Note the slightly wrong grammar: "…a non-NSA evidence…" & "..was a technical evidence". Clearly not a native English speaker.

    See how easy that was? Yves, no need for log files to track IP here…case closed. In Soviet Russia, crow eats me.

    Anyone gots some nuke launch codes handy? 00000000 doesn't work for me anymore…

    oho , July 27, 2016 at 9:40 am

    "00000000 doesn't work for me anymore…"

    To those who may not know--for many years 0000 0000 were indeed the nuke launch codes. (namely cuz it would be easy to remember)

    Whine Country , July 27, 2016 at 9:59 am

    Is this another of your nom de plumes?

    http://legalinsurrection.com/2016/07/hillary-supporters-the-russians-are-coming-the-russians-are-coming/

    Love your input BTW!

    Whine Country , July 27, 2016 at 10:01 am

    DNC training film

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=El03KPUeQc4

    jo6pac , July 27, 2016 at 10:07 am

    Thanks for all the info.

    The Trumpening , July 27, 2016 at 5:13 am

    The recently murdered DNC Date Director Seth Rich being the leaker, or at least knowing who the leaker was, as was hinted at recently by Julian Assange himself, makes a far more interesting conspiracy theory.

    From The Forward:

    Ten days after the murder of promising Democratic staffer Seth Rich, the Washington D.C. slaying remains unsolved and police say they have no suspects in the crime.

    Rich, a Jewish data analyst for the Democratic National Committee who worked on polling station expansion, was shot and killed as he walked home on Sunday, July 10.

    Police told Rich's parents that they believed his death was the result of a botched robbery. Though Rich's killer did not take his wallet or phone, D.C. Police Commander William Fitzgerald said that "there is no other reason (other than robbery) for an altercation at 4:30 in the morning" at a community meeting on Monday.

    The meeting was meant to address the recent uptick in robberies in the Bloomingdale neighborhood near Howard University. Police reports say robberies in the area are down 20%, but an investigation by the Washington Post found that armed robberies are actually up over 20% compared with July 2015.

    Of course there is absolutely no proof of Seth Rich's involvement, but I suppose it is a reasonable surmise, as George Will recently said about the Russia allegations! In any case a possible crypto-BernieBro tech-guy mole from within the DNC, as the source of the DNCLeaks, would make a much better made-for-TV movie than the Russian theory. And if it was an internal mole, what better way to cover their tracks than to leave some "traces" of a Russian hack.

    Lambert Strether , July 28, 2016 at 2:31 am

    I always felt it was odd that RIch was involved in GOTV efforts. Not that our voting systems aren't totally on the up and up…

    Skippy , July 27, 2016 at 6:25 am

    Its one thing for Republicans to resort to the old chestnut of red scare mongering, but for the Democrats to use the same ammo they once had lobed at them is surreal….

    WorldBLee , July 27, 2016 at 4:11 pm

    The Demopublicans have become the Republicrats! War is peace!

    But yeah, the Democrats under Clinton and Obama have essentially morphed into the Republican party while claiming to represent "progressive" values.

    TomDority , July 27, 2016 at 6:32 am

    I suppose Hilary's personal server was just as easy to breach…..maybe.

    Sam , July 27, 2016 at 11:29 am

    "The same people on the Clinton team who made enormous efforts to claim her private email server-which operated unencrypted over the Internet for three months, including during trips to China and Russia, and which contained top-secret national-security data-was not hacked by the Russians now are certain that the DNC server was hacked by the Russians" http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/unpacking-the-dnc-emails/

    allan , July 27, 2016 at 7:21 am

    Shorter anonymous administration officials:

    The British government has learned that Vladimir Putin recently sought significant quantities of malware from Africa.

    Lambert Strether , July 27, 2016 at 3:06 pm

    Ha.

    Anne , July 27, 2016 at 7:28 am

    Well, golly, if you're going to create a bright, shiny object to distract people from the actual content of the e-mails, why not blame little green men from Mars? I mean, seriously, isn't what this is all about – deflecting away from what the DNC was up to, so as to keep as much of it as possible from further tarnishing the already-clouded view of both the process and the major candidate whom it benefited?

    And in addition to this little bit of obviousness, how can it possible have escaped anyone with a functioning brain that this escalating hysteria about the DNC hack was noticeably absent with respect to Clinton's own email operation?

    I also find it deeply and almost-hilariously ironic that we're all supposed to be livid at the idea of some foreign government trying to manipulate the US elections when not only is the Democratic Party's flagship organization flagrantly engaged in trying to manipulate the outcome, but the AMERICAN MEDIA wouldn't know what to do with itself if it wasn't constantly fking around with the entire process.

    I'm not sure we're ever coming out of this rabbit-hole-to-hell.

    ger , July 27, 2016 at 8:01 am

    Looks like another false flag propaganda ploy. The Obama Admin flares up with phony indignation and immediately swears there will be more sanctions. The FBI wants to prosecute ( or is it persecute) the messenger instead of investigating the real crimes. The e-mails and their contents are real. The noise is to cover up this fact!

    Whine Country , July 27, 2016 at 10:25 am

    "Why play the Russian/Putin/Trump card with the DNC email hack?" – An excellent question for which you have provided a logical potential answer. Beyond that, this generally seems like an act of desperation. I am nowhere near an expert on the details of hacking like the two who have commented above, but what I see is a desperate attempt to capture the "stupid" vote. The whole Democrat dog and pony show being put on now only serves to make those who will vote for Hillary no matter what, feel self satisfied that they are right minded. What matters though is how they connect with those not inclined to vote for her. In their logic it follows that the HIllary crowd basically believes that anyone who would consider voting for Trump is very stupid, and this is a desperate attempt to convince the "stupid's" to vote for Hillary. I have no idea how Trump will act if he is elected President, but the critical factor for me is that there is now overwhelming evidence that the entire Democrat establishment is just like Hillary (as made clear by Mr. Comey): They are either grossly negligent and incompetent, or criminals who are not being prosecuted. Anyone but her and her merry band of thieves will leave us all better off after November.

    Whine Country , July 27, 2016 at 10:29 am

    I forgot to add: "The fish rots from the head"

    different clue , July 27, 2016 at 7:47 pm

    " And a rotten barrel spoils all the apples."

    reslez , July 27, 2016 at 1:17 pm

    The association the Dems want to create is "scary foreign people support Trump".

    The CNN poll in yesterday's Links shows Trump beats Hillary by huge margins (12 points) on the economy and terrorism. She beats him on foreign policy (and nothing else). Dragging in Russian hackers and foreign intelligence services plays to her strength.

    In reality, politically motivated attacks like this are almost always domestic in origin. To go to Wikileaks specifically I expect an inside whistleblower is responsible. The same thing happened to Sony and the Swiss banks. Elites simply don't understand how many people they work with are disgusted by their policies. To them this is a perfectly believable thing.

    Lambert Strether , July 27, 2016 at 3:38 pm

    I also wonder whether there are significant numbers of Poles and Eastern Europeans generally in the industrial precincts in some swing states; a vote against Russia in the form of a vote against Trump might appeal to them.

    WorldBLee , July 27, 2016 at 4:16 pm

    I doubt it's that strategic–looks more like classic red-baiting (minus any communism but saying "Russia" still evokes the same emotional response for people of a certain age) of the sort a former Goldwater girl like Hillary would understand all too well.

    washunate , July 27, 2016 at 10:43 am

    Linking the hack and delivery of DNC emails to WIkiLeaks by Putin as a way of helping Trump may strategically backfire.

    Agreed. There are so many moving parts at this point the blowback looks to happen more rapidly than they can manage perception, especially with things online. They spent so much time segmenting and dismissing the various developments as disparate conspiracy theories, and now in one fell swoop they've both legitimized critiques and connected them together (they run the risk that even criticism that isn't true will still stick more than it otherwise would have). I'm not sure they fully realize what they've done yet. It's a simple equation to them: Wikileaks = Bad. Russia = Bad. Wikileaks + Russia = DoubleBad.

    It reminds me very much of the French Fries to Freedom Fries movement. If you have a critical mass of people in on the fun, it can work, at least for a time. But what happens when most people don't care about being excommunicated from the DNC Serious People List?

    two beers , July 27, 2016 at 1:00 pm

    Playing the Trump is in bed with Putin meme creates an easily adaptable narrative as more comes out.

    Peter Lee has a piece up on Counterpunch this morning laying out this theory.

    geoff , July 27, 2016 at 3:56 pm

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/07/27/trumputin-and-the-dnc-leaks/

    voteforno6 , July 27, 2016 at 8:26 am

    Obvious clues pointing back at a known adversary…strategically-timed leaks from anonymous intelligence sources…vague statements on the record from the President and other high-level officials…stories fed to sympathetic media outlets…yep, sounds a lot like the playbook used by the Bush White House for the run-up to the Iraq War. Except there's no way that the Democrats would ever do something so shady.

    Uahsenaa , July 27, 2016 at 9:38 am

    It's perfectly circuitous and self-serving logic:

    Admin feeds story to crony media –> media report story as if independently sourced –> admin then uses those reports to corroborate its own claims

    It's not like they can reasonably deny anymore that they do this. The DNC leak provides hard evidence. So plant your stories now, before there's a run!

    Carolinian , July 27, 2016 at 8:44 am

    Hey why fix our cybersecurity problems when we can just bomb Russia instead? To a hammer with bombs everything looks like a nail.

    Perhaps the biggest tell regarding our clueless, and mostly geriatric, establishment is their superstitious misunderstanding of modern technology. Every toddler these days probably knows that you don't put controversial material in emails or on cellphones unless you are willing to take the kind of precautions Snowden talks about. The notion of ginning up an international conflict over hacking is like Hollywood's idea of five years in jail for stealing one of Meryl Streep's movies. The punishment doesn't fit the crime.

    Plus of course there's the immense irony of the US, home of the NSA, getting huffy about other countries doing the same thing. As always with out elites it's "do as we say, not as we do."

    Vatch , July 27, 2016 at 9:45 am

    No matter who is responsible for the hack, I'm just glad that the information about the DNC corruption is out in the open. I'm disappointed that this didn't happen before June 7, when California, New Jersey, and several other states had their primaries. Better late than never, I guess.

    reslez , July 27, 2016 at 1:36 pm

    1. Before the evidence comes out: "The DNC is secretly sabotaging Sanders? Laughable conspiracy theory!"
    2. After the evidence comes out: "There's nothing new here, everyone knew this was happening, it made no difference anyway! Sore loser."

    So predictable.

    1 Kings , July 27, 2016 at 3:12 pm

    Great comment.

    Was flipping through 'convention' last night and happened upon Bernie's face as they try to thank/bury him. It was the look of resignation to corruption, like Mr. Smith's just before Claude Rains goes extra-Hollywood, tries to off himself, then says 'Arrest me', etc.

    Bernie, you should have just run against both of them, damn the torpedoes.

    Frank , July 27, 2016 at 10:13 am

    It doesn't matter if Russia hacked it or someone else. The really important issue this brings up is why hadn't our press revealed this? Why do we need to here about this from outsiders? And why, now that it has been released, do they spend the bulk of their time speculating on the source and not the content? Me thinks it's because our corporate main stream media, that merely masquerades as a press entity, was complicit.

    tgs , July 27, 2016 at 1:29 pm

    why hadn't our press revealed this?

    I think the leaked emails establish that the DNC was working closely with the 'press'. Anyone who watched CNN during the primary season would not be surprised at the revelation that the 'press' was complicit in the coronation of Hillary.

    Anonymous , July 27, 2016 at 5:52 pm

    The DNCLeaks showed that the DNC (aka the Clinton Machine) was heavily influencing,
    if not totally controlling, much of the mass media, using it to smear HRC's rivals and to
    whitewash her crimes.

    This fascist totalitarian control of the mass media by the DNC/Clinton campaign
    has been exposed but that doesn't mean it has stopped! It hasn't. Ergo, one
    will see minimal to no coverage, or whitewashing or diversionary coverage.

    Jon Paul , July 27, 2016 at 10:16 am

    Why isn't it just as grave a concern that the primary contest of one of the 2 major political parties was rigged to favor one candidate? Heck, people worried more about deflategate.

    craazyboy , July 27, 2016 at 3:01 pm

    Yeah. I think that's a Federal crime and the FBI is supposed to investigate….

    https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/news/pressrel/press-releases/ballotfraud_102710

    flora , July 27, 2016 at 10:28 am

    an aside: "A separate story pointed out that Trump's primary banking relationships are with mid-sized players, and that makes sense too. He's be a third-tier account at a too-big-to-fail banks (see here on how a much richer billionaire was abused by JP Morgan). Trump would get much better service at a smaller institution. "

    From what I've read at NC I think everyone would get much better service at a smaller bank than at a TBTF.

    readerOfTeaLeaves , July 27, 2016 at 11:14 am

    Yves wrote:

    "I joked early on that in the Obama administration that its solution to every problem was better propaganda. What is troubling is how so many other players have emulated that strategy. It's now so routine to spin-doctor aggressively that the elites have lost any sense of whether what they are saying is credible or not. And as a skeptical consumer of media, I find it uncomfortable to be living in an informational hall of mirrors."

    It's no coincidence that trust in institutions is at an all-time low.
    Eroded public trust translates to crappy, Banana Republic economies - and politics so venal that it requires constant deceit to (mal)function.

    On the upside, the dwindling credibility of institutions is providing opportunities for outlets like The Young Turks (via YouTube), which take a lot of time unpacking propaganda and looking for alternative perspectives. Ditto 'The Real News Network' (RNN). And ditto NC.

    WorldBLee , July 27, 2016 at 4:21 pm

    Except that the Young Turks fall for the same anti-Russian BS as the MSM and have tried to tie Trump to Putin.

    MaroonBulldog , July 27, 2016 at 11:37 am

    The Russsians did it?

    When I hear the "reporters" and "newscasters" on our American MSM speak, it reminds me of something Wolfgang Leonhard taught: "Pravda lies in such a a way that not even the opposite of what they say is true."

    Praedor , July 27, 2016 at 11:58 am

    Huh. It is clear and irrefutable that the NSA (ie, the USA) has hacked Germany, France, Britain, Japan, etc, etc, etc, etc. So…since hacking is an "act of war" we are now at war with our allies.

    Yes?

    Or does a war-worthy hack HAVE to originate in Russia (or China) to be an "act of war"? If the USA is doing it it's an act of peacylove?

    craazyboy , July 27, 2016 at 2:49 pm

    please tell me you understand the difference between true love and rape.

    Buttinsky , July 27, 2016 at 12:10 pm

    If the issue is the hack itself and its perpetrator(s), as opposed to the content of the hack, I remain curious about the inattention to this fact: One of the documents in the DNC cache released by Wikileaks was an excel spreadsheet of Trump donors. I haven't heard anyone question the origin of a document that would itself appear to be the product of a hack by the DNC (the only other possibility that comes to mind is a mole inside the Trump campaign). I certainly haven't seen a request by the Trump campaign or anybody else for an FBI investigation of what would seem to be prima facie evidence of a hack by the DNC of Trump computers in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1030.

    But, then, there's been relative silence, generally, by the DNC with regard to leaks of donor information. At least I haven't seen any PR-ly apology by the DNC, or Trump's organization for that matter, for the insecure storing of donor information and a promise that steps have been taken to make sure it doesn't happen again. Maybe I just missed that public apology. But I also wonder if there isn't a reluctance to draw any attention whatsoever to that now public information.

    craazyboy , July 27, 2016 at 2:47 pm

    I imagine, privately, donors just got awarded double reward points.

    Philip Martin , July 27, 2016 at 1:08 pm

    Trump's affection for Putin and all things Russian has been known for years. In Russia, however, Trump is considered to be clownish. Putin's affection for Trump might best be characterized as condescending. Trump is the preference of the Putin crowd. And why not? Russian oligarch money has been flowing into Trump's coffers for at least a decade. Why? Well, after four bankruptcies, where else is Trump going to borrow money? There is solid evidence of financial ties between Trump advisors and Putin's circle. Try the website Ballotpedia and look up "Carter Page," Trump's advisor on all things Russian. Other examples are out there.

    That said, I would not absolutely eliminate Putin and his operatives of conspiring with hackers to obtain and then release documents that would denigrate the Democratic party and HRC.

    I find it interesting that Trump telegraphed to the world a skeptical view of NATO allies, especially the Putin-coveted Baltics, and signaled that he might not come to their defense if attacked. Those views were expressed in an interview with the New York Times on Thursday, July 21. These comments, predictably, set off alarms all across Europe, and had Republicans scrambling to backpedal. And then the next day, come the DNC leaks.

    And now rumors of Scalia's assassination are being floated again! Distraction after distraction!

    MaroonBulldog , July 27, 2016 at 3:28 pm

    When you see "Trump" spelled in Cyrillic letters, you might think it would be pronounced "Tramp".

    Yves Smith Post author , July 27, 2016 at 7:50 pm

    Stop prattling nonsense.

    KKR, Blackstone, Apollo, etc al, have bankrupted HUNDREDS of companies each. Yet they not only do they have no trouble borrowing money, they are eagerly pursued by Wall Street.

    Trump has never gone bankrupt personally. He had four companies go bankrupt. Trump has started and operated hundreds of corporate entities. That makes his ratio of bankruptcies way lower than average and thus means he's a good credit, and much better than private equity. I'm not about to waste time tracking it down, but the media has already reported on who Trump's regular lender is, and it's a domestic financial institution, but not one of the TBTF banks.

    In addition, I had a major NYC real estate developer/syndicator, a billionaire, in the late 1980s. The early 1990s recession hit NYC real estate very hard and every developer was in serious trouble. My former client and Trump were the only big NYC developers not to have to give up major NY properties to the banks.

    And as far as your NATO remarks are concerned, you've clearly not been paying attention. Trump has been critical of the US role in NATO for months, and has already gotten plenty of heat for that.

    Finally, as even the New York Times was forced to concede, the timing of the hacks was all wrong to be intended to help Trump. It started long before he was a factor on the Republican side.

    Direction , July 27, 2016 at 1:15 pm

    The DNC hired Crowdstrike to get 2 major Russian hacks off the DNC network prior to this guccifer2.0 nonsense.

    You write: "Binney explained to us:
    My problem is that they have not listed intruders or attempted intrusions to the DNC site. I suspect that's because they did a quick and dirty look for known attacks."
    But they have listed the initial intruders, see links below.

    http://motherboard.vice.com/read/all-signs-point-to-russia-being-behind-the-dnc-hack?trk_source=recommended

    https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democratic-national-committee/

    Binny keeps describing how he would check his LAN back in 1991. His experience is that of a dinosaur. This article is a mess, conflating the Hrc email scandal with the DNC scandal. What is at issue, as stated in the FAIR link, is whether the leak to gawker and wiki etc was perpetrated by a lone Romanian hacker or by the Russian government, not whether the DNC was spied upon by the Russian; it was.

    I am not arguing the the Clinton campaign did not figure out how to use this to their advantage, guccifer 2.0 and crowd strike stuff both came out in June but was not the subject of much crowing until now…

    reslez , July 27, 2016 at 1:45 pm

    > not whether the DNC was spied upon by the Russian; it was.

    Based on what evidence? So many blanket statements we're supposed to accept as fact. No.

    Guccifer 1.0, who is Romanian, hacked Sidney Blumenthal's email. Generally speaking, Romanians like many Eastern Europeans hate Russia. Guccifer 1.0 was extradited to the US and made various statements to the press about Clinton's private email server. I'm not aware of anything he said about the DNC.

    Guccifer 2.0 released DNC documents to the public and apparently to WikiLeaks. There is no evidence he is Russian or connected to the Russians.

    Direction , July 28, 2016 at 10:54 am

    Oops my reply posted below. I am not saying he's Russian. I'm not sure he's the original hacker either. You obviously did not read the links. Here is a third.
    http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/07/clinton-campaign-email-accounts-were-targeted-by-russians-too/

    Anonymous , July 27, 2016 at 1:55 pm

    Isn't there a typo in the following:

    "But mainstream media say it couldn't: http://www.businessinsider.com/dnc-hack-russian-government-2016-7

    The mainstream media is also trumpeting the meme that Russia was behind the hack, because it wants to help Trump get elected. In other words, the media is trying to deflect how damaging the email leaks are to Clinton's character by trying to somehow associate Trump with Putin. See e.g. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/26/us/politics/kremlin-donald-trump-vladimir-putin.html "

    don't you mean MSM wants to get Clinton elected, not Trump?

    MaroonBulldog , July 27, 2016 at 3:23 pm

    Reply to "Anonymous" at 1:55 pm

    think the sentence was trying to express the idea that "Russia" "wants to help Trump get elected–the "it" referring to "Russia" and not to "mainstream media"–as that idea is the predicate of a meme that the mainstream media is trumpeting.

    Always better to repeat the noun you are referring to, rather than use a pronoun, where use of a pronoun could create ambiguity, as "it" (or should I have said, " such use" ?) did here.

    Direction , July 27, 2016 at 2:20 pm

    I'm not saying he is Russian.

    sunny129 , July 27, 2016 at 3:01 pm

    Did any one see the recent docu ' Zero days' re STUXNET worm (invented by combined efforts of US _NSA,CIA + Israeli intelligent +?UK) introduced into the NET to take down the Nulc program in IRAN!

    There is fascinating discussion and the threat of cyber terrorism from any one from any where to the infra structures – Energy grid, transportation ++

    It has lot of bearing on this Hillary E-mail gate scandal

    Brian g , July 27, 2016 at 9:18 pm

    Why are you referencing ,Hillary Clinton emails when the issue is DNC emails?

    Reports the Russins broke into the DNC mail servers have Ben floating around since June

    https://www.wired.com/2016/06/hack-brief-russias-breach-dnc-trumps-dirt/

    What their reasons are is unknown but it is pretty clear that thy broke into the DNC Mail servers

    Yves Smith Post author , July 28, 2016 at 12:17 am

    Did you bother reading the comments earlier in this thread by JacobiteInTraining and Hacker, who confirm that the claims don't stand up to scrutiny?

    And you appear not to have been following this at all. Right after the story broke, a hacker who called himself Guccifer 2.0 posted two sets of DNC docs and said more were coming, which was presumed even then to be a Wikileaks releases (Assange had separately said lots of material on Clinton was coming).

    ian , July 28, 2016 at 2:08 am

    Because Hillary's campaign has insisted that national security was not compromised with her use of a homebrew email server. Which would be the higher value target to a foreign intelligence service – email she used as sec state, or the DNC server? Which would probably have better security – the homebrew server, or the DNC server? If you buy into the idea that the Russians hacked the DNC server, you have to admit there is a _strong_ probability they hacked her personal server as well. I find it kindof amusing that her campaign, in it's response to Trump today, is basically making the same point (even though it hasn't sunk in yet).
    That's why it's relevant.

    Brian g , July 28, 2016 at 8:50 am

    I can't speak to what security Hillary had in place. But I can say with 100% certainty that it is I direly easier to secure a small network for one or two people over a large network that has 100s or 1000s.

    I have been working in network security for 20 years. I guarantee that I could build a small network that would be close to impossible to break into regardless of the ability of the attacker.

    So I reject the premise that we should presume that Hillary was hacked

    Yves Smith Post author , July 28, 2016 at 9:11 am

    I suggest you get up to speed on this story before making assumptions and assertions based on them. It has been widely reported that Hillary's tech had no experience in network security whatsoever, so the issue re the size of the network is irrelevant.

    Bryan Pagliano's resume , which the State Department recently turned over to Judicial Watch, shows he had neither experience nor certification in protecting email systems against cyber security threats

    http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/12/documents-show-hillarys-email-technician-was-underqualified-for-the-job/

    His main qualification seems to be that he had been an IT director for the Clinton campaign in 2006. CNN points out he was hired at State as a "political appointee":

    http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/10/politics/bryan-pagliano-hillary-clinton-server-state-department/

    Brian G , July 28, 2016 at 10:04 am

    Again, irrelevant to my point. The fact that the DNC mail servers were hacked does NOT mean that Clinton's mail servers were hacked. Clinton's mail servers may have been hacked and Assange is claiming that he has documents that prove it was. But, to date, no evidence has been provided to show that her mail servers were hacked.

    What we DO know is that the State Department mail servers were hacked, at least twice and at least once by the Russians.

    Regardless, none of this has anything to do with whether the Russians hacked the DNC mail servers and whether they gave that information to Wikileaks.

    Crowdstrike , Fiedlis Cybersecurity , and Mandiant all independently corroborated that it was the Russians. The German government corroborated that an SSL cert found on the DNC servers was the same cert that was used to infiltrate the German Parliament.

    guccifer 2.0 is some guy that made a claim that made a claim the day AFTER Crowdstrike released their report. He/She offered no evidence to support their claim.

    So perhaps 3 different professional IT security companies are incompetent, despite all evidence to the contrary, or Guccifer 2.0 is just some guy trying to take credit for something they didn't do or it is a Russian agent trying to actively distract people from the actual culprits.

    It is possible that the Russians weren't the ones to give the docs to wikileaks. But they almost certainly were the ones who perpetrated an attack into the DNC mail servers. That in itself is a huge problem.

    washunate , July 28, 2016 at 12:18 pm

    I'm curious, is your background on the computer side or the policy side? You're making some leaps where I think I follow your meaning, but the actual logic/evidence/warrant isn't there, so I'm not sure exactly what you're claiming.

    Aside from questions of whether elements of the Russian government attacked the DNC, for example, you imply that the Russians were the only people attacking the DNC. Do you have any technical reason to conclude that? Or is it just sloppy sentence construction, and you didn't mean to imply that? Because at a policy level, it seems a reasonably solid understanding of the world we inhabit that elements of many foreign governments attack US computer systems, both for active penetration of documents and for more passive denial of service by legitimate users. For goodness sakes, elements of the USFG itself attack US computer systems.

    mrtmbrnmn , July 27, 2016 at 11:56 pm

    Anyone who can stand up straight for 5 minutes without falling over backwards and has half a brain and an ounce of institutional memory knows it wasn't the Russkies who dropped the email dime on the DNC shenanigans…

    It was "Curveball"…!!

    ian , July 28, 2016 at 2:32 am

    I thought Trump's comments today about wanting the Russians to find Hillary's emails were genius. He fans the flames of this whole Russia-Putin thing on day 3 of the Dem convention and what are the media outlets talking about? Plus, Hillary's campaign, in it's rebuttal to Trump, is indirectly reminding everyone that her homebrew server was putting national security at risk.

    This whole Russia-Putin connection thing won't work – it really isn't that believable in the first place, the timing is suspect, and a lot of people in this country really don't care that deeply about Putin one way or the other.

    [Jul 28, 2016] I am missing a white sock from the laundry I did over the weekend. I know Putin did it

    www.moonofalabama.org

    Bob In Portland | Jul 25, 2016 12:18:47 PM | 88

    I am missing a white sock from the laundry I did over the weekend. I know Putin did it, I'm just not sure how he broke into my basement to steal it. All the other sock-stealing suspects, Hussein, Khadafy, bin Laden, they've all been killed. So it has to be Putin.

    [Jul 28, 2016] Putin is God -- it is well-known scientific fact

    Notable quotes:
    "... Seems Putin controls Trump and Clinton! The man is amazing. ..."
    "... Hold on there, Clintonites - Both I and the World remember seeing Madame Clinton herself hand over to Putin that gigantic red Reset button. ..."
    "... So now, of course - he's resetting EVERYTHING! And you, dear lady, you gave it to him! I rest my case. ..."
    "... Putin is god--it is well-known scientific fact. He actually controls the weather and even Earth's rotation speed. Russians always knew it, now, with the advancement of information technologies (also controlled by Putin--ah yes, he, not Al Gore, invented the internet) decadent West can witness his powers and omnipresence. Remember Katrina? Putin! Remember the water main break in NYT--also Putin. I had a constipation last week--damn Putin. Got rid of constipation and back to normal BMs--Putin's hand was definitely in it. If you look attentively at HRC for 20+ minutes you will see Putin's image surfacing on her face. ..."
    "... In an interview Andrew Bacevich spoke about what he saw at various institutes, academic, etc. conferences he attended as an academic which I believe has effected his later known books. He noted among other things, that there was an inability for empathic thinking. He did not mean sympathy, but rather the act of trying to understand the actions of other people. I think the phrase is to treat people as rational actors. As horrific as Hitler was, historians dug into his motivations for example, for his invasion of the Soviet Union. ..."
    "... The propaganda demonization of Putin and the Russians is part of the same playbook republicans and the neocons used to fertilize the field of popular belief for the justification of war and invasion of Iraq to the American people (but now followed by democrats). Every one of those articles is a bit of propaganda manure which will eventually sprout the seeds of conflict and war. ..."
    "... What I find alarming about all of this Putin bashing and Hillary using it in her campaign is that I am seeing many of my acquaintances who identify as liberal/progressive Democrats are becoming more and more anti-Russian. ..."
    "... I like a good meme as much as the next guy, but there wasn't any putin-did-it in that Reuters article about the ferry accident in NY. ..."
    "... 'But Russia is secretly plotting even more nefarious schemes. Putin is infiltrating Europe. And not only Europe.' US regime would never infiltrate europe...its already there! ..."
    "... All I can say here is ... this is Sheer Comedy Gold. Hollywood couldn't make this stuff up. ..."
    "... PS - anyone know what Putin does on the seventh day? ..."
    "... @60 He really is versatile. No sooner had he finished rigging the Brexit vote than he was off to France in a truck. Then he was spotted in Kabul. This week he has been busy making trouble in Germany and he still finds time to fake HRC's emails. The man must be stopped! ..."
    "... Indeed. Democrats have become hysterical and unhinged in all things regarding Clinton. I have been reading a few Democrat partisan sites. With the DNC blaming Putin/Russians for the release of the DNC emails, the partisans are demanding what amounts to McCarthy era witch hunts, and some strong immediate NATO action against the Russians for the evil act. One supporter had a posting showing how the Russians plan to invade the Baltics with graphics showing the invasion route -- good grief. It is curious to see that those not buying the propaganda are drawing comparisons to the witch hunts of the 1950s'. ..."
    "... When I post or talk to partisan Dems I don't get accused of supporting Trump but called a Putin lackey/stooge. ..."
    "... Thanks for quote-will use it . You did something readers of anti-Russian/Putin propaganda don't do. Actually listen to or read what Putin says. I am still puzzled even though I shouldn't be when I read descriptions of Putin in the Western media, and then read what he actually said or acted on: two people from two different planets. I was listening to Stephen Cohen, and he said the same thing. Nobody bothers to read what Putin says, forget his actions. ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org
    Zico | Jul 24, 2016 10:42:09 AM | 1
    M of A - Clinton Asserts Putin Influence On Trump - After Taking Russian Bribes

    Off topic but still within context of the West's "lets bash Russia/Putin at every chance we get"..

    Seems the BBC and their assorted groupies just got eggs all over their collective faces after the IOC ruled that Russian athletes can compete in the olympics. The British press are crying foul - dunno if they're afraid of losing to Russian athlete or something.

    This whole doping thing stunk from day one.. All the accusers pretends they never dope before. But then, anything to humiliate Russia and Putin will do. How many American athletes have been caught doping - yet nobody called for a blanket ban on the American Olympic team. The hypocrisy is just beyond stupid!!!

    Watch this space, won't be long before we see a campaign to oust the current OIC chief..lol

    dh | Jul 24, 2016 12:07:52 PM | 7
    okie farmer posted this on the US election thread...

    https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/07/23/pers-j23.html

    Seems Putin controls Trump and Clinton! The man is amazing.

    Only Jedi Knights can stop him.

    fast freddy | Jul 24, 2016 12:10:28 PM | 8
    Clinton/Kaine certainly confident that the MSM will not report. For all the money given to the Clinton's it didn't prevent the Ukraine disasters. Of course, Ukraine may not have been a concern among the particular oligarchs who made these bribes.
    juliania | Jul 24, 2016 1:49:12 PM | 15
    Hold on there, Clintonites - Both I and the World remember seeing Madame Clinton herself hand over to Putin that gigantic red Reset button.

    C'mon, World - you SAW that, right?

    So now, of course - he's resetting EVERYTHING! And you, dear lady, you gave it to him! I rest my case.

    SmoothieX12 | Jul 24, 2016 2:42:26 PM | 27
    Putin is god--it is well-known scientific fact. He actually controls the weather and even Earth's rotation speed. Russians always knew it, now, with the advancement of information technologies (also controlled by Putin--ah yes, he, not Al Gore, invented the internet) decadent West can witness his powers and omnipresence. Remember Katrina? Putin! Remember the water main break in NYT--also Putin. I had a constipation last week--damn Putin. Got rid of constipation and back to normal BMs--Putin's hand was definitely in it. If you look attentively at HRC for 20+ minutes you will see Putin's image surfacing on her face.
    Erelis | Jul 24, 2016 5:19:58 PM | 41
    In an interview Andrew Bacevich spoke about what he saw at various institutes, academic, etc. conferences he attended as an academic which I believe has effected his later known books. He noted among other things, that there was an inability for empathic thinking. He did not mean sympathy, but rather the act of trying to understand the actions of other people. I think the phrase is to treat people as rational actors. As horrific as Hitler was, historians dug into his motivations for example, for his invasion of the Soviet Union.

    So we get with Putin not a rational understanding of what he does and why, but rather cartoon psychological and religious explanations which cannot be argued against as they defy rationality. How can one argue against people calling Putin evil as that person has not invoked a rational argument.

    The propaganda demonization of Putin and the Russians is part of the same playbook republicans and the neocons used to fertilize the field of popular belief for the justification of war and invasion of Iraq to the American people (but now followed by democrats). Every one of those articles is a bit of propaganda manure which will eventually sprout the seeds of conflict and war.

    ToivoS | Jul 24, 2016 7:07:06 PM | 48
    What I find alarming about all of this Putin bashing and Hillary using it in her campaign is that I am seeing many of my acquaintances who identify as liberal/progressive Democrats are becoming more and more anti-Russian. By the time she becomes president there will be a majority of Democrats clamoring for war against Russia. This is something to worry about. Recall that liberal Democrat Truman got us involved in the Korean war and it was liber LBJ that led us to war in Vietnam. I recall very clearly how the liberal press in the US was advocating for and supporting war in Vietnam between 1964 and 1968. The liberalists of all liberal Democrats Hubert Humphrey was leading that charge.

    Democratic Party partisans are losing their common sense in this effort to back Clinton. A year ago I could carry on rational discussion with those I know about how unwise our Ukraine policy is -- today when I try to defend Russia I am accused of backing Trump.

    Akira | Jul 24, 2016 7:09:57 PM | 49
    Hello Comrades,

    Since the stupid secret encryption rings don't work after the last update, I have prepared our usual weekly PUTIN CONSPIRACY SITREP on the web:

    https://4threvolutionarywar.wordpress.com/2016/07/24/14066/

    We are winning! Rub it in!

    ruralito | Jul 24, 2016 7:53:33 PM | 54
    I like a good meme as much as the next guy, but there wasn't any putin-did-it in that Reuters article about the ferry accident in NY.
    brian | Jul 24, 2016 8:35:27 PM | 57
    'But Russia is secretly plotting even more nefarious schemes. Putin is infiltrating Europe. And not only Europe.' US regime would never infiltrate europe...its already there!
    Jen | Jul 24, 2016 9:02:42 PM | 59
    All I can say here is ... this is Sheer Comedy Gold. Hollywood couldn't make this stuff up.

    Thank you B.

    PS - anyone know what Putin does on the seventh day?

    likklemore | Jul 24, 2016 9:18:34 PM | 60
    @ Jen 59

    PS - anyone know what Putin does on the seventh day?

    He refreshes, reboots his energy and surveys all that he has done; here, there and everywhere on planets known or yet to be discovered.

    Yesterday we had severe thunderstorms. Mr. Putin made mischief.

    dh | Jul 24, 2016 9:45:37 PM | 62
    @60 He really is versatile. No sooner had he finished rigging the Brexit vote than he was off to France in a truck. Then he was spotted in Kabul. This week he has been busy making trouble in Germany and he still finds time to fake HRC's emails. The man must be stopped!
    V. Arnold | Jul 24, 2016 9:53:00 PM | 63
    SmoothieX12 | Jul 24, 2016 2:42:26 PM | 27

    Yes, yes, it's all true; Vladimir Putin, master of the universe; the Whirlwind; omnipotent; everywhere and nowhere all at the same time.
    I'm so glad people are waking up to reality. :-)

    Erelis | Jul 24, 2016 10:23:02 PM | 64
    @ ToivoS 48

    Indeed. Democrats have become hysterical and unhinged in all things regarding Clinton. I have been reading a few Democrat partisan sites. With the DNC blaming Putin/Russians for the release of the DNC emails, the partisans are demanding what amounts to McCarthy era witch hunts, and some strong immediate NATO action against the Russians for the evil act. One supporter had a posting showing how the Russians plan to invade the Baltics with graphics showing the invasion route -- good grief. It is curious to see that those not buying the propaganda are drawing comparisons to the witch hunts of the 1950s'.

    When I post or talk to partisan Dems I don't get accused of supporting Trump but called a Putin lackey/stooge.

    @ Relis 44

    Thanks for quote-will use it . You did something readers of anti-Russian/Putin propaganda don't do. Actually listen to or read what Putin says. I am still puzzled even though I shouldn't be when I read descriptions of Putin in the Western media, and then read what he actually said or acted on: two people from two different planets. I was listening to Stephen Cohen, and he said the same thing. Nobody bothers to read what Putin says, forget his actions.

    Putin should hire an agent and get a role on the TV series SHIELD as the new head of HYDRA. And then attend comic-cons giving out autographs.

    jfl | Jul 25, 2016 1:25:28 AM | 70

    Fort-Russ has the video of ' Putin's full speech ' at St. Petersburg International Economic Forum - 2016 with subtitles, I transcribed the subtitles , if any one else is interested in reading what he actually said on the subject of the US auto-missile defense in Romania and Poland.

    [Jul 28, 2016] Unless it is fully disclosed what Rodchenkov is doing in the United States, who is paying him …and that some of his evidence is made public….then the IOC should discard this entire WADA and Mclaren report

    marknesop.wordpress.com
    Eric : July 23, 2016 at 11:03 am
    https://www.rt.com/op-edge/352656-sochi-doping-scandal-russia/

    Probably one of the best pieces I have read on the doping scandal…..it does highlight what a nonsensical approach it is to punish summer Olympic athletes for Winter Olympic "offences" (which the author knocks down comprehensively).

    This is now both Browder and Rodchenkov, …2 guys punished for offences in Russia, both flee to the USA, both have undetermined locations of residence, both have their bollocks supported in massive PR campaigns by the American state, both can make criminal allegations… but both are unindictable…….and both are allowed to cause harm to the Russian state.

    Unless it is fully disclosed what Rodchenkov is doing in the United States, who is paying him …and that some of his "evidence" is made public….then the IOC should discard this entire WADA and Mclaren report

    marknesop , July 23, 2016 at 10:04 pm
    That is a good piece, and it very effectively makes an important point. He's right that this is an angle on it that nobody has covered. It will be interesting to see what comes of the Speigel report on new discoveries relating to doping at Beijing and in the UK. But of course they would never ban any entire country but Russia.

    This is bringing the real haters out of their holes, the ones who reacted with jubilation to the Russian ban. I can't protest the decision by ignoring the Olympics, because I don't pay any attention to them anyway, only checking the medals standings once in awhile online. Now I won't be interested enough even to do that. But I think there is going to be a significant decline in interest in the Games this time around; that's unfortunate for Brazil, because Washington is agitating for the Games to be a failure to discredit Brazil, as well. But in the end I think the effect will be positive – Brazil will learn a valuable lesson, and hopefully the blame for spoiling the Olympics as a sports venue will be laid at America's door where it belongs. If America cannot own something totally and brag about how thoroughly it is under its control, it must piss all over it to ruin it for everyone else.

    Drutten , July 24, 2016 at 9:47 am

    http://theduran.com/people-behind-ioc-decision/

    This guy nails it, regarding the alleged Russian doping. Like I said a week ago or so, all of this was a way for Rodchenkov and the Stepanovs to secure some sort of future career after having been disgraced in Russia. That's all there is too it. I wonder if the IOC noticed this in their decision NOT to ban Russia from Rio, or if something else was at play.

    marknesop , July 24, 2016 at 12:54 pm
    Yes, most of it is a reprint of the Oriental Review piece. I'm so confused now that I don't know what is what. Is Russia banned from the Summer Olympics, or just its Track Team, or anyone or everyone? There's so much conflicting testimony. I think that Russia should not attend, as a protest to the way it has been treated, but as I mentioned before, it will be the last chance for some of them to set a new world record. That's balanced against Washington's probable heckling from the gallery and the probability that American officials will conspire to rig samples. Washington simply cannot be trusted, and this latest example of its perfidy was a grievous overstep which is building international sympathy for Russia. That will be imperiled if Russia participates. But of course it is up to the athletes.
    Moscow Exile , July 26, 2016 at 4:55 am
    http://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/109793/11206178.ae0/0_11adfa_aad3b3a7_orig
    A veritable icon of US sporting prowess and down-to-earth, honest competitiveness!

    BBC: "WADA утратила пробы американских спортсменов с 1990 по 2016 год"

    "As a result of the negligent actions of an employee of the cleaning company, the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) has lost all samples of American athletes who played for team USA since 1990", reports the BBC.

    Cortes , July 26, 2016 at 10:20 am

    Meanwhile an innocent Russian falls victim to the hysteria:

    https://tyronetribulations.com/2016/07/24/russian-man-stripped-of-1972-washingbay-sports-wheelbarrow-race-medal/

    marknesop , July 26, 2016 at 10:40 am
    Brilliant! marknesop , July 26, 2016 at 10:32 am
    That must be humor, because I can't find any mention of it anywhere in English; that would blow the lid right off the whole thing.
    yalensis , July 26, 2016 at 5:52 pm
    "As a result of the negligent actions of an employee of the cleaning company,…"
    I think that was my brother-in-law, he's a real screw-up.
    Always blame the cleaning crew.

    [Jul 28, 2016] The tireless weaponiser does it again -- he weaponized hillary compaigh

    marknesop.wordpress.com
    Cortes , July 24, 2016 at 2:49 pm
    Comedy gold:

    http://sputniknews.com/politics/20160724/1043565225/trump-putin-hillary-wikileaks-dnc.html

    The tireless weaponiser does it again.

    marknesop , July 24, 2016 at 2:58 pm
    Yes, I wouldn't have believed it if I had not seen it with my own eyes : Putin again. The Russian state obviously does not give him enough to do. He seems to have plenty of time on his hands to meddle around the world and to tirelessly work to thwart that nice Mrs. Clinton's plans. There is a real danger that Putin will suffer some sort of embolism in a laughing fit. What can you do but laugh? The United States government is so ridiculous, how humiliating for Americans.

    As usual, it escapes unnoticed that Russian hackers must have gained access to Mrs. Clinton's illegal email server, which she was repeatedly warned against having in the first place, yet pretended various authorities had signed off on it and she was allowed to have it. She denied anyone else had gained access to it but now Putin is rolling around in a pile of her emails; how is that possible? She therefore deliberately and willfully put American security at risk. How does the FBI not see this? Would it have happened if she had used the government's server as she was supposed to do? Well, how many hacks has Putin offered up from that system? Pavlo Svolochenko , July 24, 2016 at 6:28 pm

    If she treats all her staff like she used to treat the secret service, then the source of the leaks is probably much closer to home.
    Cortes , July 26, 2016 at 4:17 am
    Sauron as Clark Kent (that's Clark Kent, Pulitzer prize winner to you mortals):

    http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/will-putin-get-pulitzer/ri15861

    [Jul 28, 2016] Polish ministers are blaming Russia for Volyn massacres but situation is much worse -- looks like he uses time travel to different centuries freely

    marknesop.wordpress.com
    Warren , July 24, 2016 at 7:09 am

    Published on 24 Jul 2016
    Polish lawmakers have adopted a resolution calling the massacres committed between 1943 and 1945 by Ukrainian nationalists against Polish people, genocide.

    The document makes July 11 a day of remembrance for the victims of the atrocity.

    marknesop , July 24, 2016 at 12:40 pm
    That won't please Banderaland.

    kirill , July 24, 2016 at 6:56 pm

    No problems, Polish ministers are blaming Russia:

    http://en.news-4-u.ru/the-minister-of-defence-of-poland-accused-the-volyn-massacre-russia.html

    marknesop , July 24, 2016 at 7:03 pm
    I wonder how the lurking embryo of Putin could be tied to it. Jen , July 25, 2016 at 5:10 am
    According to The Daily Mail, it would not have been beyond the realms of possibility for Putin to have had a hand in organising the Volyn massacre. In a past life, he sat for Leonardo da Vinci and his portrait now hangs in the Louvre.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3361468/Evidence-suggests-Vladimir-Putin-immortal-thanks-Russians-discovering-secret-time-travel.html

    yalensis , July 25, 2016 at 5:17 am
    One of the commenters pointed out that Putin also served as the model (in 1350) for "Satan" in this detail of "The Last Judgement" by medieval painter Jacopo da Bologna:

    marknesop , July 25, 2016 at 9:43 am
    Don't forget that he is also a skin-changer who can become a dog when he chooses . No wonder he inspires such obsessive behavior.
    colliemum , July 25, 2016 at 11:30 am
    Putin can change into a dog, at will?
    Hah! Now I know why I've found him so simpatico , being a Dog h.c. myself … Cortes , July 26, 2016 at 12:07 am
    The Lord Ismay referred to earlier by Warren as first SecGen of NATO was known to his pals (!) as "Pug"…
    cartman , July 25, 2016 at 5:43 am
    yalensis , July 25, 2016 at 3:57 pm
    The man in the picture is Giovanni Arnolfini , but actually a time-travelling Putin in disguise. His purpose in going back in time to Italy was to impregnate the lady in green. This was the year 1434.
    The ultimate goal was to give birth to Antonio Grimani , who went on to cause several colossal military defeats, in favor of Ottoman Turkey.
    This was Putin's way of changing history and propping up the Ottoman Empire back in the day. Presumably as a counter-weight to Western Europe.
    Playing a very deep and very long game, which is little understood.
    Oh, and the little dog was in on it too. 'cause remember that Putin can talk with the animals.
    colliemum , July 25, 2016 at 10:37 pm
    Heh. In future I shall look out for dogs into which Putin has shape-shifted.
    there's at least one in my neighbourhood of which I'm aware of …

    (At least he's not having any ruck with collies …)

    Jen , July 25, 2016 at 4:18 pm
    Putin must have been an evil Time Lord in disguise – The Master perhaps? – and the dog his trusty alien companion who asks dumb questions (so that TV viewers understand the plot). 'Cos you know, Time Lords don't time-travel alone.
    Jen , July 25, 2016 at 4:15 pm
    In a former life Putin was a 19th-century Greek military hero called Thanassoulas Valtinos:

    … which would conflict with Putin having been some other famous 19th-century figure since Valtinos' year of birth was 1802.

    marknesop , July 25, 2016 at 10:24 pm
    He's like the original 'Highlander'; immortal, pretending to die every couple of decades, and coming back as some new guy. But in that movie, if you put all the names together and ran them through a sophisticated computer program, it would reveal that they are all anagrams of one another, and are really all the same name with the letters rearranged. Too clever by half, Mr. Putin! Or should I call you Napassoulasvalintsocanoline?
    colliemum , July 25, 2016 at 10:40 pm
    And just like the great chess player he is, he also fought on both sides in yon war, see here:
    yalensis , July 26, 2016 at 4:43 am
    Jen is on to something about Putin being a Timelord. But I don't think he is the Master, because the Master is COMPLETELY nuts in the head, he is, like, LA-LA-LA-LALLALALALA!, and the Master's schemes are always of the most hare-brained variety.

    The Master will concoct some uber-complex plot to rule the universe which, after the twists and turns, basically boils down to cloning more Daleks. And in the end is always hoisted upon his own petard. Putin does not show any of this kind of impulsiveness, except in the case of nuzzling children's bellies.

    Instead, I believe there is evidence that Putin is Lord Rassilon himself.

    This is why the Presdient of Russia wears the Belt of Rassilon, the Tie of Rassilon, and even the Watch of Rassilon.

    [Jul 28, 2016] Ambassador Pyatt hallusinations

    marknesop.wordpress.com
    Moscow Exile , July 26, 2016 at 1:30 pm
    Russia can no longer use gas for manipulating Ukraine – Pyatt

    Ukraine has managed to get rid of its gas dependence on Russia, thus destroying the "energy weapon" of the Kremlin, U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt has said.

    The Ukrainian authorities over the past few years have in fact destroyed Moscow's energy weapon, which used gas in this way, Pyatt said during a meeting of the discussion club "Open World" on the transformations in Ukraine, progress and tasks for the future in Kyiv on Tuesday.

    The diplomat said that Ukraine's national gas company Naftogaz Ukrainy currently purchases gas only if it finds the price acceptable, but the natural gas has ceased to be the instrument of manipulation. Ukrainians are no longer in the situation when the Kremlin uses energy resources as a weapon, as an instrument of manipulating Ukrainian politicians, so that they should take certain decisions, he said.

    Pyatt also said that the Ukrainian energy sector is undergoing serious transformations and this is very important to bring these changes to completion.

    What? Buying the cheapest gas on the market is more economical than not paying for it at all, which is what they did as regards gas directly supplied by Russia?

    And where does this cheaper alternative supply come from - originally, not through an intermediary?

    Moscow Exile , July 26, 2016 at 1:36 pm
    Reverse supply, Pyatt! Ever heard f it?

    And the wonderful terms and conditions for EU "association" that Yanukovich could only refuse?

    Remember them, you twat?

    And billions that the Ukraine owes Gazprom?

    Moscow Exile , July 26, 2016 at 9:45 pm
    Perhaps Pyatt lauds this action of the Ukrainians as regards their good business practice concerning energy supplies:

    На Украине не видят причин возвращать России долг в $3 млрд

    Украина не должна возвращать России $3 млрд, которые были получены во времена Виктора Януковича. Об этом в программе "О политике" с Сергеем Руденко в эфире Еспресо [sic].TV заявил министр финансов Александр Данилюк. "Это был политический кредит, который нас заставили взять",- пояснил министр.

    По словам господина Данилюка, эти средства в то время могли пойти на различные выплаты в государстве. "Наша позиция заключается в том, что мы не должны возвращать эти деньги",- сказал Александр Данилюк.

    In the Ukraine they see no reason for paying back their $3 billion debt to Russia

    The Ukraine is not obliged to return to Russia the $3 billion debt that was accrued during Victor Yanukovych's presidency.This is what Finance Minister Alexander Danyluk said live on air to Sergei Rudenko during the Espresso TV programme "On Politics". "Our position was that we were politically forced to accept this credit. Therefore, our position is that we do not have to return this money", explained the minister.

    According to Mr. Danyluk, at the time they were able to use the money for the payment of various state benefits. "Our position is that we should not return the money", said Alexander Danyluk.

    On December 16 last year, the IMF Executive Board recognized the official status of the $3 billion Russian loan to the Ukraine. In response, the Ukraine announced a moratorium on the payment of any debts to the Russian Federation.

    Which is good business practice, according to Pyatt Twat, I presume.

    marknesop , July 26, 2016 at 10:17 pm
    They evidently believe Daddy Pyatt's muck that they are getting off the Gazprom tit just because they are buying Gazprom gas from someone else. I would have a quiet word with those people to warn them of the possibility that they might have to suddenly find 45% to 90% of their gas supplies somewhere else if they did not put pressure on Ukraine to pay its debts. Because it has evidently not occurred to Ukraine where they would get their gas if their brotherly suppliers did not have any to sell, and were scrambling to find enough for themselves. America would crow that Russia was using energy as a weapon, of course, but Russia should be past caring what America thinks or says because they are never going to be anything like friends no matter what Russia says or does.

    Meanwhile, Daddy Pyatt is going to have some 'splainin' to do when Gazprom refuses to sell Ukraine any more gas until they pay. Because they're still getting more than 10% directly. Russia is being nice, and usually sells them gas as soon as they pay in advance for that amount. But maybe they should say, "You know what? I think you should pay all your past dues before you get any more". And they wouldn't have a leg to stand on, because it doesn't matter what 'their position' is; the debt has been recognized as legal and binding.

    Moscow Exile , July 26, 2016 at 10:31 pm
    Посол США на Украине Пайетт – дурак или всё же идиот?

    The United States Ambassador to the Ukraine - a fool or just an an idiot?

    I thought he'd been moved to some Stan-republic?

    marknesop , July 26, 2016 at 11:32 pm
    He would take any criticism from Russia as an accolade, an indicator that he is doing something right, because getting up Russia's nose is his stock in trade and the reason he's posted in there. He's there to provoke confrontation between Russia and Ukraine, the more the better, and he could not care less what will happen to Ukrainians after he's gone.
    marknesop , July 26, 2016 at 1:48 pm
    As usual, Pyatt is trumpeting nonsense, although I would love for some intrepid journalist to ask him why the USA is so resistant to Nord Stream II and preserving Ukraine's transit fees for Russian gas. If it's so easy to cut your imports of Russian gas by more than half that the poorest country in Europe can do it, why couldn't anyone do it?

    Such as the countries from whom Ukraine now buys its gas – Slovakia, Hungary and Poland. Of the three Slovakia is 90% dependent on Russian gas, Hungary 44%, and Poland 45%. These are the countries that scream Nord Stream II must not be built – what would happen if Russia stopped supplying them with gas? Where would Ukraine get its gas then? Where would its suppliers make up their shortfall? American LNG? Ah ha, ha, ha!! Yes, I'm sure; forgive me for laughing, I couldn't help it.

    Russia is not making as much money, that's certainly true and will remain true for as long as the west can force the price down through oversupply. Who will run out first? I guess we'll see. But although profits are undeniably lower, Gazprom's exports to Europe increased by approximately 16% between January and May of this year. I think Europeans should be asking themselves how important Ukraine really is in their gas-distribution network. But bravo to Ukraine! See if you can reduce your Gazprom imports to zero! Now, there's a worthy target. Just ask Daddy Pyatt from time to time how you're doing.

    Cortes , July 26, 2016 at 5:50 pm
    Excellent.

    Back in the day contracts were "consensus in idem" or, my version = "agreement in all essentials".

    The "partners" ought to be aware that the RF (and its "emanations of the State" (c) EU Law) appears to be relying on that, hmmm, understanding of "the rule of Law".

    Chihuahua yelps and Banderastan yowls and EU poodle elite yips aside, the rest of the wide world sees reality as the RF does.

    [Jul 28, 2016] Robert Parry slaps the NYT, Bellingcat and others around over analysis of photos in their struggle to attribute blame for MH17:

    marknesop.wordpress.com
    Robert Parry slaps the NYT, Bellingcat and others around over analysis of photos in their struggle to attribute blame for MH17:

    http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/will-nyt-retract-latest-anti-russian-fraud/ri15814

    [Jul 27, 2016] Clinton is everything thats repugnant in Western politics.

    Notable quotes:
    "... Clinton and the Democrats have far more to worry about from Wikileaks than they do disaffected Sanders supporters. ..."
    "... The game is rigged and the house always win. You should know that by now. ..."
    "... the neoconservatives do not support or trust Trump or anyone who makes nice with Putin. Hillary is a dependable hawk. Victoria Nuland worked in her State Dept. The empire will continue with Hillary in the White House. ..."
    "... The other reason she is vulnerable to Trump is because she is almost as loathed as he is but unlike Trump she doesn't generate the adulation to counter it. ..."
    "... I think the election could be compared to the EU referendum because just like the EU it's very hard to feel much enthusiasm for Clinton, wheras just like the Brexit campaign, Trump generates strong support with a bunch of easy answers and cheap soundbites ..."
    "... Even Bill Clinton chose someone other than Hillary ... shouldn't we? ..."
    "... If Trump is elected. who knows what will happen, but we know what will happen if the Clintons are elected. I will vote for Trump and watch the events and hope that the DNC fragments and then watch as a revolution and a rebuilding of our political system begins. I do not anymore wars. With the Clintons, there will be a continuation and new wars, perhaps a conflict with Russia and mankind will vanish. ..."
    "... Obama didn't equal huge positive change, so why do we think Trump can create huge negative change ??? ..."
    "... There won't be a video, Goldman Sachs own her. And with either Clinton or Trump, we will still be living under the dictate of Wall Street. ..."
    "... Once again this election is proof positive that you BUY elections. The masters of the DNC ordained that Clinton represent them and they were so insulated in their rich little world that they failed to recognize that she is unelectable; the republican turnout will be higher than it has ever been in history, so polarizing is she. People like me, poor people who crave change, will NOT vote for banks so, by default, Trump wins. ..."
    www.theguardian.com
    secretsquirrel72 , 2016-07-27 15:36:40
    Clinton is everything that's repugnant in Western politics.
    Adil Oyango -> Joel Marcuson , 2016-07-27 19:53:07
    If Bernie won the nomination, and Clinton gave him 'belated and tepid support', he would still win the election by a large margin. Which is testament to Clinton's ineptitude as a politician
    badcat , 2016-07-27 15:45:37
    Yep, Clinton is campaigning in a way that increases Trump's chances, and she must know that. Why can't the Guardian have more columns like this one?
    RooseveltDem , 2016-07-27 15:48:14
    Clinton and the Democrats have far more to worry about from Wikileaks than they do disaffected Sanders supporters.
    Drastich , 2016-07-27 15:48:46

    I had hoped Obama would deliver genuine economic change – but that didn't happen. Before becoming a journalist, I even moved to Pennsylvania for a couple of months to volunteer for Barack Obama's campaign. I was enamored by his intelligence and the beautiful ways he wrote and spoke about race. But I was also thrilled (naively) that Obama seemed to get his money from small donors, and that he might break Wall Street's stranglehold on the Democrats.

    The game is rigged and the house always win. You should know that by now.

    JackGC -> MalleusSacerdotum , 2016-07-27 17:08:02
    George won the vote in Florida because Cubans in Dade and Broward counties voted for him 4-1 over Gore. Why do you think she went to Miami last week and her V.P. is fluent in Spanish?

    Latinos and women will vote in the tens of millions for Hillary. Plus, the neoconservatives do not support or trust Trump or anyone who makes nice with Putin. Hillary is a dependable hawk. Victoria Nuland worked in her State Dept. The empire will continue with Hillary in the White House.

    Antagonym , 2016-07-27 15:54:15
    Sanders would never have lost to Trump.
    Hillary is incredibly vulnerable to Trump.

    The Media and the DNC's obsession with making sure that Hillary won may go down as one of the greatest mistakes in American history.

    Obviously she can win. But Sanders looks infinitely more capable of beating Trump in the states where it's going to be dog fight. Whereas Hillary represents everything Trump has specialised in opposing with such great success.

    Ezajur Antagonym , 2016-07-27 20:35:53
    Sanders would have brushed Trump off like a fly and peeled off large parts of his blue collar support. And Rep leaders would blush and giggle when discussing his integrity and honesty. But instead we get Hillary and her baggage train. Lousy.
    extrapolator Antagonym , 2016-07-27 20:43:33

    Whereas Hillary represents everything Trump has specialised in opposing with such great success.

    Very good point.

    The other reason she is vulnerable to Trump is because she is almost as loathed as he is but unlike Trump she doesn't generate the adulation to counter it.

    I think the election could be compared to the EU referendum because just like the EU it's very hard to feel much enthusiasm for Clinton, wheras just like the Brexit campaign, Trump generates strong support with a bunch of easy answers and cheap soundbites.

    If the Democrats are to bring about a different outcome they need to recognise just how bad their candidate is and really concentrate on running an anti-Trump campaign. As I see it it's the only they can win.

    GRBnative -> Antagonym , 2016-07-27 22:24:22
    Even Bill Clinton chose someone other than Hillary ... shouldn't we?
    Axrivers , 2016-07-27 15:54:37
    If Trump is elected. who knows what will happen, but we know what will happen if the Clintons are elected. I will vote for Trump and watch the events and hope that the DNC fragments and then watch as a revolution and a rebuilding of our political system begins. I do not anymore wars. With the Clintons, there will be a continuation and new wars, perhaps a conflict with Russia and mankind will vanish.
    Kevin Skilling , 2016-07-27 15:56:15
    Hopefully trump gets elected and puts Hilary on trial like he's promised...
    bluepanther -> SaguaroRex , 2016-07-27 18:42:22
    Poor whites in the U.S. are not voting for the "Left" because they have been dismissed, if not vilified, by the cosmopolitan luvvies of the Democratic Party who are in thrall to every trendy identity politics of the moment.
    Drastich , 2016-07-27 15:58:21
    The elections are the X-Factor theatre for us lot every 4/5 years.

    The shadow government (Wall Street/global corporations/war machine) always remains the same throughout the decades, regardless of the rolling red/blue figurehead.

    You can't get anywhere near the top job without being in the pocket of the kingmakers.

    If only you could take the money out of politics. Maybe in a parallel universe we'll have grown up sufficiently to understand that it's absolutely this that kills any hope of democracy.

    jgw791, 2016-07-27 16:01:13

    Would a Trump presidency be a disaster? Yes. Would it cause all manner of economic, legal, political and moral crises? Definitely. Yup. Would a good chunk of Trump voters – even angry white Trump voters – grow to regret their votes? No doubt.

    Would poor people and people of color – especially immigrants, those assumed to be immigrants and Muslims – pay the highest price?

    Why would it be a disaster ?

    Would it cause all manner of economic, legal, political and moral crises?

    Would poor people and people of color – especially immigrants, those assumed to be immigrants and Muslims – pay the highest price?

    I don't think you can categorically say it would be a disaster, any policy would still need to be voted through, and congress isn't suddenly going to change based on the President.

    You thought Obama was going to change everything for the better, but he couldn't due to the restrictions of power on a president, so why do people think Trump is suddenly going to have unlimited power.

    Obama didn't equal huge positive change, so why do we think Trump can create huge negative change ???

    RavenGodiva , 2016-07-27 16:04:57
    Bernie actually brought in the young crowd who frankly sees Clinton as an establishment dragging the sack candidate and would have never voted for her. Ron Paul did the same for Republicans.

    He did actually start a conversation about what it means to be a socialist and have all the great ideas and no way to pay for them, except raise taxes.

    Neither Bernie or Hillary have a response to get people employed. Their answer is to send people to school till they actually want to drop out of the perpetual education carousel and try and get a job.

    I wouldn't consider the same old steal (tax) the working stiffs money from them under a different acronym (slush fund) a viable plan.

    PotholeKid , 2016-07-27 16:06:46
    At last some rational commentary coming from the Guardian. The democratic party nominated Hillary Clinton last night and elected Donald Trump.. Blame Clinton, Wasserman and the rest of the crooked DNC cabal for what may well be the disintegration for the Democratic Party...
    Madranon , 2016-07-27 16:14:44
    If Hillary Clinton hadn't been married to Bill Clinton she would have come nowhere, she wouldn't have been a senator, the same principal as the Bush legacy, where would GWBush have got in the selection process if his father hadn't have been pulling strings. The US needs a president on merit, not who they are related to or married to. It is like a monarchy, just what the American revolution was carried out to escape from.
    Curt Chaffee , 2016-07-27 16:16:55
    There really is only one party at the Federal level and that is the $ party. The rest is just a carnival con game with the banners and shouting. The truth is that all of us but the very rich, have been abandoned by what is supposed to be representative govt. Sanders supporters have learned a hard lesson, that you can't reform this level of corruption from inside the system.
    Atlant , 2016-07-27 16:20:49
    Another interesting aspect will be the Wall Street speeches that no one has mentioned for a while.

    Clinton still refuses to disclose anything about those but now, she's up against the very people to whom those speeches were delivered. They not only have transcripts, they doubtless have VIDEO and that video will probably surface at the least-convenient time for Clinton.

    circuit Atlant , 2016-07-27 16:32:02
    There won't be a video, Goldman Sachs own her. And with either Clinton or Trump, we will still be living under the dictate of Wall Street.
    stderr2 , 2016-07-27 16:27:57
    > the Democrats seem bent on putting up people and policies that
    > will redistribute money to Wall Street and ignore the 99% when their
    > base been screaming at them to stop this.
    > Americans might not regret casting a vote for Trump until it's too late.
    >
    One of the policies that Trump advocates is less of a seeming oneness with Wall Street. If Obama couldn't divorce himself of that sort of thing, why do you think that Hillary Big Banks Pay Me Big Bucks For Speeches Clinton would?
    Dalivus , 2016-07-27 16:38:16
    Once again this election is proof positive that you BUY elections. The masters of the DNC ordained that Clinton represent them and they were so insulated in their rich little world that they failed to recognize that she is unelectable; the republican turnout will be higher than it has ever been in history, so polarizing is she. People like me, poor people who crave change, will NOT vote for banks so, by default, Trump wins.

    [Jul 27, 2016] http://www.moonofalabama.org/2016/07/syria-and-the-dnc-hack-how-believes-turn-into-dangerous-policies.html#more

    Notable quotes:
    "... As life exceeds satire, one can imagine that within a week Wikileaks will produce those "missing e-mails". And later Hillary's Wall Street speeches, following the next appeal from Trump. ..."
    "... PB @ 4, confirming some earlier analysis that trump is playing the media for suckers over HRC's hysteria. "Trump calls on Kremlin to commit acts of espionage against Hillary Clinton." omg. ..."
    "... they cannot afford to have the truth about ISIS revealed. They need the next president to continue their lies. It is terrifying. ..."
    "... Even if Russia did the hack and leaked that information (no evidence) -- so what? We have done and do the same all the time in other countries. Just doesn't feel as good when you are at the receiving end. ..."
    "... It's like 9/11. What do you desperately want to believe? What are you desperately afraid to admit? ..."
    "... No amount of 'debunking' of the DNC's assertions will affect the beliefs of those who want to believe, who are afraid to admit that they are going to vote for the corporate whore who mocks them with her pathetic ruses. The corporate media have suffered irreparable damage to their credibility over the past decade, at least. ..."
    "... What is scary about this campaign is that the anti-Russian hysteria is being incorporated by Hillary supporters. By the time she is elected there will be many millions of Democrats crying for war against Russia. The last time a Democrat ran to the right of the Republican in a presidential election was the Kennedy-Nixon race. That resulted in Kennedy entering office and believing his own bs. He then very quickly carried out the Bay of Pigs fiasco but much worse the near start of WWIII during the Cuban missile crisis. ..."
    "... Hillary is definitely stupid enough to listen to her neocon advisers and, fueled with self righteous Russian hatred, get us involved in some shooting war with them in Syria, Ukraine or the Baltic region. Very dangerous times ahead I fear. This why I am moving closer and closer to voting for Trump rather than a third party. ..."
    "... Great observation. Cuts to the chase, to bedrock reality. We are the Evil Empire that Ronald Reagan ranted about. Have been since the Dulles Boys' coup. ..."
    "... Trump is beginning to look like the lessor of two evils. And we Americans are proven suckers for that line of 'reasoning'. The champion poll forecaster now 'shows Donald Trump leading Hillary Clinton with a shocking 15 percentage point-greater chance of winning if the general election were held today.'. ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org
    NoOneYouKnow | Jul 27, 2016 3:04:03 PM | 3
    Usually, the only thing that stops mass- and self-delusion (and the attending propaganda) on this scale is the massive intervention of reality. I worry that many casualties will ensue.

    Trump apparently said in his press conference that the US should cooperate to with Russia to destroy ISIS. The panic created in DC by this man must be incredible.

    Piotr Berman | Jul 27, 2016 3:29:55 PM | 4
    ELECTION 2016
    Trump Calls for Russia's Help to Expose Emails Clinton Deleted
    By ASHLEY PARKER 11:44 AM ET (NYT)

    "Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing," Donald J. Trump said, referring to messages deemed personal by Hillary Clinton and deleted from her private email server.

    ===

    As life exceeds satire, one can imagine that within a week Wikileaks will produce those "missing e-mails". And later Hillary's Wall Street speeches, following the next appeal from Trump.

    jason | Jul 27, 2016 3:37:41 PM | 5
    PB @ 4, confirming some earlier analysis that trump is playing the media for suckers over HRC's hysteria. "Trump calls on Kremlin to commit acts of espionage against Hillary Clinton." omg.

    Terry | Jul 27, 2016 3:45:33 PM | 6

    There is just not enough of Orville Redenbacher's popcorn to last to the end of this crazy 2016 . I think if Putin came out personally and said that he did it the world would cheer . yet for some reason Russia needs to be vilified ...Thanks for the work you do b ...
    jo6pac | Jul 27, 2016 3:46:23 PM | 7
    Here are some real experts on this and check comments there is a former server coder writing this up.

    http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/07/nsa-whistleblower-not-so-fast-on-claims-russia-behind-dnc-email-hack.html

    jo6pac | Jul 27, 2016 3:50:17 PM | 8
    Terry at 6 here is your request.

    http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/07/exclusive-interview-putin-dnc-emails-russia-love.html

    A little humor for the day ;)

    ian | Jul 27, 2016 3:54:01 PM | 9
    What cracks me up about the idea that the Russians were behind the DNC hack is that Putin has little to fear from the accusation. It would probably help him politically at home and seriously, what are we going to do about it? Go to war? More sanctions? Denounce Russia in the UN? He's probably having a good laugh over the whole thing.
    Ondine | Jul 27, 2016 4:03:29 PM | 10
    3, they cannot afford to have the truth about ISIS revealed. They need the next president to continue their lies. It is terrifying.
    karlof1 | Jul 27, 2016 4:10:27 PM | 11

    Pat Buchanan provides some interesting thoughts on the subject, "Will Putin Get a Pulitzer?" http://www.theamericanconservative.com/buchanan/will-putin-get-a-pulitzer/

    psychohistorian | Jul 27, 2016 4:12:41 PM | 12
    Here are a couple of links to techie stories about the issue. They each have links and educational comments. How deep down the rabbit hole do you want to go?
    okie farmer | Jul 27, 2016 4:58:07 PM | 13
    Assange Timed WikiLeaks Release of Democratic Emails to Harm Hillary Clinton

    The New York Times

    By CHARLIE SAVAGE

    5 hrs ago

    WASHINGTON - Six weeks before the anti-secrecy organization WikiLeaks published an archive of hacked Democratic National Committee emails ahead of the Democratic convention, the organization's founder, Julian Assange, foreshadowed the release - and made it clear that he hoped to harm Hillary Clinton's chances of winning the presidency.

    Mr. Assange's remarks in a June 12 interview underscored that for all the drama of the...

    b | Jul 27, 2016 5:38:59 PM | 15
    Bush lawyer Jack Goldsmith: Yet More Thoughts on the DNC Hack: Attribution and Precedent

    Essentially: "Even if Russia did the hack and leaked that information (no evidence) -- so what? We have done and do the same all the time in other countries. Just doesn't feel as good when you are at the receiving end."

    Cortes | Jul 27, 2016 5:41:52 PM | 16
    Thanks, b - a very acute analysis. It reminds me of the warning of false narrative the "Merlin" sponsors were peddling which Control warned George Smiley about in Le Carre's "Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy":

    "They're buying their way in with false money, George."

    jfl | Jul 27, 2016 5:44:47 PM | 17
    It's like 9/11. What do you desperately want to believe? What are you desperately afraid to admit?

    Trump made light of the charges with 'hope the Russians find the 30,000 missing emails' crack, but his vp immediately made a show of taking the claim seriously ... he looks to be the mole set up by the RNC to take down Trump.

    No amount of 'debunking' of the DNC's assertions will affect the beliefs of those who want to believe, who are afraid to admit that they are going to vote for the corporate whore who mocks them with her pathetic ruses. The corporate media have suffered irreparable damage to their credibility over the past decade, at least.

    The D-N-Cee,
    the men-a-ger-ie,
    they're not for you,
    and they're not for me!
    They're runnin' in circles,
    around the tree.

    When they turn to butter, let's make pancakes. I'm so hungry I could eat one hundred and sixty-nine! Breakfast for us indigenes.

    ToivoS | Jul 27, 2016 6:15:43 PM | 18
    What is scary about this campaign is that the anti-Russian hysteria is being incorporated by Hillary supporters. By the time she is elected there will be many millions of Democrats crying for war against Russia. The last time a Democrat ran to the right of the Republican in a presidential election was the Kennedy-Nixon race. That resulted in Kennedy entering office and believing his own bs. He then very quickly carried out the Bay of Pigs fiasco but much worse the near start of WWIII during the Cuban missile crisis.

    Hillary is definitely stupid enough to listen to her neocon advisers and, fueled with self righteous Russian hatred, get us involved in some shooting war with them in Syria, Ukraine or the Baltic region. Very dangerous times ahead I fear. This why I am moving closer and closer to voting for Trump rather than a third party.

    jayc | Jul 27, 2016 6:17:42 PM | 20
    Credit to Julian Assange for having guts. If Clinton should win it's foreseeable that a major effort to regime-change Ecuador will ensue so they can get him booted from the London embassy straight into a CIA jet.
    dahoit | Jul 27, 2016 6:37:29 PM | 21
    Putin knows the zionists hate him, and Trump. I don't believe he would release this stuff. just because of the anti Russian BS the MSD would stir, which wo proof, they are anyway.

    I read it was Guccifer?somewhere,a Russian? blogger.

    This will all backfire,as the American people have been had too many times by the serial liars.

    What if this came from GB,say?What would be the reaction then?

    And why is Russia,who has never done a thing to US,in history,an enemy,when the Zionists spy,bribe and control our whole nation,nakedly,shamelessly,but there is the ol'crickets only, chirping in the weeds?

    Yahoo to Putin; Hey, you are cutting in on our action.

    jfl | Jul 27, 2016 6:38:00 PM | 22
    @18 Toivo S

    Trump as the lessor of two evils. Everyday in every way ... Who'd'a thunk it?

    lysias | Jul 27, 2016 6:40:02 PM | 23
    WaPo comment sections are full of people who seem to be true believers in the ideology of the new Cold War. Or maybe they only say that because they're being paid to do so. Hard to believe so many people could be so stupid.
    hejiminy cricket | Jul 27, 2016 6:51:46 PM | 24
    I was thinking the other day that Putin should send a squad of angry babushkas after the sisterhood of the traveling pantsuits running the DNC. Evidently this is already in the works.

    #UKRAINE-UA police released warning that the "#HolyCross Procession includes violent grandmas who provoke Ukrainian youth to beat them up."

    https://mobile.twitter.com/gbazov/status/758426948309651456

    jfl | Jul 27, 2016 7:06:18 PM | 25
    @15 b

    Great observation. Cuts to the chase, to bedrock reality. We are the Evil Empire that Ronald Reagan ranted about. Have been since the Dulles Boys' coup.

    Still I agree with yours and with Toivo S' point just above. Trump is beginning to look like the lessor of two evils. And we Americans are proven suckers for that line of 'reasoning'. The champion poll forecaster now 'shows Donald Trump leading Hillary Clinton with a shocking 15 percentage point-greater chance of winning if the general election were held today.'.

    psychohistorian | Jul 27, 2016 7:31:06 PM | 26
    @ jfl

    Before the Dulles Boy's coup there was the changing of the motto in the 1950's from E Pluribus Unum (Out of many, one) to In Gawd We Trust.

    Before that in 1913 the Fed was created with the 12 regional banks owned privately.

    Has the City of London and that empire ever died?

    Has the City of Rome corner of the global financial system ever been made clear?

    The basic tenets of the Western way are private ownership of property enhanced by rampant inheritance at the top and private finance owned and operated by historical families and others unknown. It is sad to me when commenter here and other places rail on about bankers and corporations and not the global cabal that own them all.

    Why can't humanity evolve beyond private finance to totally sovereign finance and, at a minimum, neuter inheritance laws globally so that none can accumulate enough to control social policy? Private finance is a cancer humanity can no loner afford.

    [Jul 26, 2016] Hillary Clintons AIPAC speech was a symphony of craven, delusional pandering by Michelle Goldberg

    Notable quotes:
    "... Clinton would want to widen the gulf between AIPAC and Donald Trump, the likely Republican nominee. "We need steady hands, not a president who says he's neutral on Monday, pro-Israel on Tuesday, and who knows what on Wednesday, because everything is negotiable," she said to applause, out-hawking the man who is running on a platform of Middle Eastern war crimes. ..."
    "... In doing so, she offered a bridge to #NeverTrump neoconservatives like Max Boot and Robert Kagan, who has already written that, should Trump be the nominee, "the only choice will be to vote for Hillary Clinton. ..."
    "... It is a strange, strange spectacle, this yearly AIPAC conference, where U.S. politicians from across the political spectrum are compelled to stand in front of a bunch of Israeli flags and proclaim unquestioning fealty to a foreign ethno-state. ..."
    "... This year of all years, Clinton could have afforded to show a bit of courage before AIPAC. Jews will vote Democratic no matter what. Sixty-nine percent of them voted for Obama in 2012, despite the well-known tension between him and Netanyahu. ..."
    "... Her correspondence with adviser Sid Blumenthal-a man loathed by the Israel lobby for not disavowing his anti-Zionist son, Max-suggests that she's aware of the damage Netanyahu is doing to the cause of peace in the Middle East. But if she is, she doesn't care about it enough to take even a tiny political risk, to tell a crowd something other than exactly what it wants to hear. Either Clinton's AIPAC speech was driven by belief, or it was driven by cynicism. It's hard to say which is worse. ..."
    www.slate.com | 791 Comments
    >

    ny presidential candidate speaking to AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, during an election year is going to bow to the hawkish elements of the Israel lobby. Hillary Clinton's keynote speech at AIPAC's annual meeting Monday, however, was more debased than it needed to be, promising that under her administration, Israel will be spared even the mild rebukes it has suffered under President Obama. A symphony of pandering, it attempted to outflank Donald Trump on the right and will end up outraging a large chunk of the left.

    As Joe Biden acknowledged in his AIPAC speech on Sunday, Israel's "steady and systematic process of expanding settlements, legalizing outposts, seizing land" is making a two-state solution impossible. The settlements are pushing Israel toward a one-state reality, in which Jews rule over the Arabs with whom they are geographically intermingled. Clinton's speech, however, barely nodded toward this reality, and when it did, it was with a promise to protect Israel from the consequences of flouting international law. Advertisement

    Here is the entirety of Clinton's remarks about settlements:

    "Everyone has to do their part by avoiding damaging actions, including with respect to settlements. Now, America has an important role to play in supporting peace efforts. And as president, I would continue the pursuit of direct negotiations. And let me be clear-I would vigorously oppose any attempt by outside parties to impose a solution, including by the U.N. Security Council."

    She spent significantly more time railing against the "alarming" Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement , which is gaining traction on college campuses nationwide. Pledging to "take our alliance to the next level," Clinton said that one of the first things she'd do in office is invite the Israeli prime minister to the White House. That was a barely veiled rebuke to Obama, who never treated Benjamin Netanyahu with the deference the prime minister felt entitled to. Before the speech, some had hoped that Clinton might offer a word of solidarity or encouragement to beleaguered progressives in Israel. She gave them nothing. It's understandable that Clinton would want to widen the gulf between AIPAC and Donald Trump, the likely Republican nominee. "We need steady hands, not a president who says he's neutral on Monday, pro-Israel on Tuesday, and who knows what on Wednesday, because everything is negotiable," she said to applause, out-hawking the man who is running on a platform of Middle Eastern war crimes.

    In doing so, she offered a bridge to #NeverTrump neoconservatives like Max Boot and Robert Kagan, who has already written that, should Trump be the nominee, "the only choice will be to vote for Hillary Clinton. The party cannot be saved, but the country still can be." Anti-Trump neoconservatives, however, are a minuscule group of people. And in seeking their approval, Clinton has further alienated left-wing voters, particularly young ones. Polls show that Americans under 30 are far more critical of Israel than are older voters. Liberal Democrats sympathize more with the Palestinians than they do with Israel. There is already deep suspicion of Clinton's foreign-policy instincts among Bernie Sanders' supporters; Clinton doesn't need to give them new reasons to distrust her.

    It is a strange, strange spectacle, this yearly AIPAC conference, where U.S. politicians from across the political spectrum are compelled to stand in front of a bunch of Israeli flags and proclaim unquestioning fealty to a foreign ethno-state.

    This year of all years, Clinton could have afforded to show a bit of courage before AIPAC. Jews will vote Democratic no matter what. Sixty-nine percent of them voted for Obama in 2012, despite the well-known tension between him and Netanyahu. Unlike Obama, Clinton is going to be running against a demagogue with German roots who plays footsie with white supremacists and reportedly kept a volume of Hitler's speeches beside his bed. She'll have all the Jewish support she needs without sucking up to the Likud. So why is she doing it?

    Her correspondence with adviser Sid Blumenthal-a man loathed by the Israel lobby for not disavowing his anti-Zionist son, Max-suggests that she's aware of the damage Netanyahu is doing to the cause of peace in the Middle East. But if she is, she doesn't care about it enough to take even a tiny political risk, to tell a crowd something other than exactly what it wants to hear. Either Clinton's AIPAC speech was driven by belief, or it was driven by cynicism. It's hard to say which is worse.

    Michelle Goldberg is a columnist for Slate and the author, most recently, of The Goddess Pose .

    [Jul 26, 2016] Huge See, I Told You So Hillary Admits We Backed ISIS in Syria

    Notable quotes:
    "... Obama has been refusing to help Iraq for at least a year. A year ago, it would have been easy, comparatively, to wipe out ISIS. They were still gathering tightly together in their staging zones. ..."
    "... Had you heard of ISIS a year ago? I venture to say that most people heard of ISIS for the first time in the past couple months. So Obama had plenty of chances. In fact, ladies and gentlemen, if Obama had wanted to take out ISIS, he would not have formed a supportive relationship with them in Syria! ISIS is who is "the rebels" in Syria opposing Bashar al-Assad. Before I get to Syria, I just want to put the exclamation point on this thought. ..."
    "... Barack Obama, the Democrat Party, and the media (their willing accomplices) need Iraq to be always seen as a Bush miserable failure, a Bush war, a Bush failure. Just as Vietnam was supposed to be seen as a failure for Nixon. Now, you may be learning for the first time that the rebels in Syria were ISIS. Over the weekend, it was reported that Hillary Clinton ripped into Obama for his failure to help the Syrian rebels and that this failure to help the Syrian rebels led to the rise of ISIS. ..."
    "... MCINERNEY: I happen to agree with her. I'm not sure why it's just coming out now. I was pushing for the Free Syrian Army. They were a huge ally. We ended up arming the wrong people over there, and, remember, ISIS was formerly Al-Qaeda in Iraq, and so look at what we have now create -- we didn't create it. By doing nothing, we let it create itself. And if we don't stop it now and stop it and protect the Kurds, we have a huge problem not only in the Middle East, but globally. ..."
    "... I said, "I'm not defending Assad. As always, I'm interested in the truth, and I just don't believe --" I had to work hard to get to a point where I automatically reject everything I hear coming out of the news media in Washington when the Democrats are in power because, by and large, when it comes to foreign policy, every story is made to cover up for their inadequacies, their incompetence, and the fact that they're wrong about everything. But here's McInerney again because there's a little hidden gem in this sound bite that I want to see, if by some chance, some of you picked up. ..."
    Aug 11, 2014 | The Rush Limbaugh Show

    RUSH: Now, I mentioned this, I think, in first hour, previously on the program. Obama has been refusing to help Iraq for at least a year. A year ago, it would have been easy, comparatively, to wipe out ISIS. They were still gathering tightly together in their staging zones.

    Had you heard of ISIS a year ago? I venture to say that most people heard of ISIS for the first time in the past couple months. So Obama had plenty of chances. In fact, ladies and gentlemen, if Obama had wanted to take out ISIS, he would not have formed a supportive relationship with them in Syria! ISIS is who is "the rebels" in Syria opposing Bashar al-Assad. Before I get to Syria, I just want to put the exclamation point on this thought.

    Barack Obama, the Democrat Party, and the media (their willing accomplices) need Iraq to be always seen as a Bush miserable failure, a Bush war, a Bush failure. Just as Vietnam was supposed to be seen as a failure for Nixon. Now, you may be learning for the first time that the rebels in Syria were ISIS. Over the weekend, it was reported that Hillary Clinton ripped into Obama for his failure to help the Syrian rebels and that this failure to help the Syrian rebels led to the rise of ISIS.

    It's in The Atlantic in a story by Jeffrey Goldberg. It's a long interview. But there is this knife-in-the-back criticism that Hillary directs at Obama, a comment that he made while Hillary was his secretary of state. Do you remember he praised her, "best secretary of state ever"? She might be, he said. On the day she resigned or the day they announced of her resignation, there was a joint presser.

    Obama is praising Hillary to the nines and talking about how she may be one of the best secretaries of state ever, and now here comes Hillary back-stabbing Obama by claiming that his failure to help the Syrian rebels led to the rise of ISIS. Right here it is, Jeffrey Goldberg: "The former secretary of state, and probable candidate for president, outlines her foreign-policy doctrine.

    "She says this about President Obama's: 'Great nations need organizing principles, and "Don't do stupid stuff" is not an organizing principle.'" It's a slam, but I wonder: Are reset buttons organizing principles? Because, let's not forget that Mrs. Clinton actually showed up with a Soviet leader... (pfft, slap myself) a Russian leader with a plastic and red toy that said, in crudely spelled words, "reset button." I kid you not!

    ... ... ...

    The conventional wisdom was that Assad was gassing his own people. Remember, Obama, in the previous summer of 2013, issued this red line and dared Assad not to cross it. (imitating Obama) "You cross that red line, pal, you're gonna have me to deal with," and we never did anything. But the word was out that Assad was gassing and harming his own people. And I remember saying on this program -- Koko, go back to that era and just for the website today, go find what I said on those days and relink it, 'cause I made the point, I asked the question, "What if it isn't Assad? What if the people creating mayhem in Syria are actually Assad's enemies disguising themselves as protesters of Assad and trying to make it appear as though he's doing this, when in fact he's not?"

    And after I'd mentioned that, I got an e-mail from a friend who is somewhat aware of the circumstances in Iraq and I was told that I was more right than I knew. And Hillary is now coming along and essentially saying the same thing. She's not suggesting that ISIS was there. She is suggesting that our lack of doing anything about it led to ISIS taking over the anti-Assad movement, when in fact it was ISIS all along. ISIS was doing it and they were making it look like Assad did it. And just like the media was biased toward Hamas, so was the media biased toward the same type of people in Syria who are trying to make it look like Assad was doing this.

    I had never seen any evidence that Bashar Assad -- his father was different. His father, Hafez al-Assad, was a brutal guy and did commit atrocities to keep people in line. But there's no evidence that Bashar had really done it. I knew that Al-Qaeda's on the march and they're trying to gain control. The Muslim Brotherhood's trying to gain control, that whole area. It was a lot of Christians in Syria that were being beaten up, killed, assaulted, what have you, and it was made to look like it was Assad, and now we've learned that it wasn't.

    The point is I called it. I was right, and that's what Hillary is now claiming that Obama missed and that she was right about, but she never said it.

    BREAK TRANSCRIPT

    RUSH: Okay. Here's me, folks, from this program on September 11th, 2013. By the way, Koko, if you want to find the website history to link to what I originally said about this, find September 2nd, 3rd, 4th, somewhere in there, my memory is. But this was September 11th of last year.

    RUSH ARCHIVE: Here we are 12 years later after 9/11, and think about it. Twelve years later we are supporting Muslim terrorists in Syria. Muslim terrorists who are threatening to kill Syrian Christians if they don't convert to Islam. That's who our allies are. Those are the rebels that Bashar Assad is supposedly gassing. So we're aligned with 'em because we're aligned against Assad. They're threatening to kill Syrian Christians if they don't convert to Islam.

    RUSH: This was ISIS, folks, and we were anti-Assad. It was made to look like Assad was doing the gassing. He wasn't, as it turns out. This morning on Fox & Friends, Brian Kilmeade spoke to retired Air Force Lieutenant General Thomas McInerney about Clinton's remarks criticizing Obama's handling of ISIS and here's what the general said about Hillary's remarks.

    MCINERNEY: I happen to agree with her. I'm not sure why it's just coming out now. I was pushing for the Free Syrian Army. They were a huge ally. We ended up arming the wrong people over there, and, remember, ISIS was formerly Al-Qaeda in Iraq, and so look at what we have now create -- we didn't create it. By doing nothing, we let it create itself. And if we don't stop it now and stop it and protect the Kurds, we have a huge problem not only in the Middle East, but globally.

    RUSH: Well, that's General McInerney. I've got 15 seconds before the break. It turns out that my sources on this way back a year ago were absolutely right, that Assad was not the bad guy.

    BREAK TRANSCRIPT

    RUSH: You know, I tell you what's funny about this is Hillary Clinton. It's clear to me that Hillary Clinton obviously thinks that foreign policy is still gonna be her strong pantsuit, as she heads into the campaign. She really does. That's why she's doing all of this. But I want to play this audio sound bite again from General McInerney, because there's a gem in this that is another example of how Obama and the left, the Democrats, the media lied for five years, 2004 to 2009. Actually, 2003 to 2008 would be the specific time period, bashing Iraq every day, every night, every day of the year.

    One other thing. Koko has found exactly what I was talking about. There was a post at RushLimbaugh.com on September 3rd, "What if Assad Didn't Do It?" And my memory has now been refreshed. I had a couple of sources and an e-mail from a friend confirm, so three different confirmations here from people, that what we were getting in the news every day that Assad was gassing his people probably wasn't true. That it was, it turns out ISIS, at the time known as Al-Qaeda in Iraq that was doing it, and making it look like it was Assad, and that's who our allies were. We were anti-Assad and we actually had an alliance, loose though it was, formed with the very people we're now bombing in Iraq.

    I remember I took my fair share of heat, and I always do when I'm not part of the conventional wisdom. Assad's easy to hate. Assad's a dictator. Assad has a typical bad image and when somebody says he's gassing his own people, it's automatically believed. And here I came, all of Washington supports the idea that Assad was doing it, and I said, "I'm not so sure. What if."

    "Rush, you didn't have to say anything. Why are you going out on a limb? Why do you want to sound like you're defending Assad?"

    I said, "I'm not defending Assad. As always, I'm interested in the truth, and I just don't believe --" I had to work hard to get to a point where I automatically reject everything I hear coming out of the news media in Washington when the Democrats are in power because, by and large, when it comes to foreign policy, every story is made to cover up for their inadequacies, their incompetence, and the fact that they're wrong about everything. But here's McInerney again because there's a little hidden gem in this sound bite that I want to see, if by some chance, some of you picked up.

    MCINERNEY: I happen to agree with her. I'm not sure why it's just coming out now. I was pushing for the Free Syrian Army. They were a huge ally. We ended up arming the wrong people over there, and, remember, ISIS was formerly Al-Qaeda in Iraq, and so look at what we have now create -- we didn't create it. By doing nothing, we let it create itself. And if we don't stop it now and stop it and protect the Kurds, we have a huge problem not only in the Middle East, but globally.

    RUSH: In the early days of 2002 when Bush was traveling the country making the case for invading Iraq and getting rid of Saddam Hussein, I remember a couple of instances pointing out that Al-Qaeda, prior to 9/11, had done some training in Iraq. And one of the things that had been found was a hollowed-out shell of an airliner fuselage.

    Now, the conventional wisdom was that Al-Qaeda had never been in Iraq, that Bush was making this up, or that the intel was all wrong, but likely it was just Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld lying to make their case, because Al-Qaeda was clearly the enemy after 9/11. Al-Qaeda had hijacked the planes at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and Al-Qaeda was the evil, Osama bin Laden, and Bush was going after them in Afghanistan and Saddam in Iraq.

    The Democrats and the media, led by Obama starting in 2002, and other Democrats, Teddy Kennedy, they were all -- I mean, John Kerry, they were all making fun and mocking the idea that Al-Qaeda had anything to do with Iraq. Al-Qaeda was never in Iraq and nobody can prove it, they said. Saddam had nothing to do with 911. Now, the Bush people at the time were saying, "We can't afford --" 9/11 had just happened. "What happened here is real. And any time there is anybody in the world vowing to do that or more, we are going to take it seriously."

    They were making the case for preemptive military strikes. That's what all this was called, because the left and the Democrats were arguing that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, therefore it was not moral or strategically wise to hit Iraq. They had nothing to do with it. The Bush people were saying, whether they did or didn't, it doesn't matter, they're threatening to do the same thing. And after it's happened once, we are in charge of protecting this country and defending the people, and we can't sit here and take these threats lightly.

    Saddam at the time was lying to the UN inspectors about his weapons of mass destruction. It turned out that he was big timing and he was trying to look like the most powerful Arab in the region by being the most feared. So he was lying about at least the size of his weapons of mass destruction stock. And part of the lie, part of the illusion was to not let the inspectors in. He wanted everybody to conclude that he had a boatload of the stuff. And the Bush administration was trying to tell everybody we can't afford to wait to be hit again to take action. We've got to hit preemptively.

    I'll never forget any of this, folks. Because I'll never forget the Democrats arguing about it. Because the Democrats, even after 9/11, after a week of solidarity went by, the Democrats conceived a political strategy, the purpose of which was to make sure Bush did not secure any long-lasting credit for any policy he instituted following 9/11.

    Also remember this, along those same lines. Bill Clinton, it was reported -- he later denied it -- but Clinton, according to some famous well-known Democrats, was lamenting that 9/11 didn't happen on his watch, because it prevented him an opportunity to show greatness and leadership. He was upset that it had happened with Bush. If it was gonna happen, why couldn't it have happened during his time? We reported that and all hell broke loose. A string of denials were forthcoming.

    But the point is they politicize everything. There was unity for a week and after that the Democrats devised a political strategy, the purpose of which was to make sure Bush did not secure one positive achievement in the aftermath of 911. So these guys began opposing everything Bush wanted to do when it came to Iraq. At first they even opposed the use of force in Afghanistan. That's when they asked for the vote a second time.

    Remember, there was a memo uncovered, a memo that was written by Jay Rockefeller, Democrat senator from West Virginia, in which it was stated that as a strategy -- and this had come from James Carville and Stan Greenberg in a memo. It was then written up by Rockefeller, who was the Intelligence Committee ranking Democrat in the Senate. He said that they had to make Bush out to be a liar.

    And it said if they were to succeed with this, that their strategy depended on convincing people that Bush was lying about all of this in order to depress and lower his high approval numbers. So, as I say, here's the gem that was in McInerney's piece ('cause I'm running out of time here). Throughout all of this in the run-up to invading Iraq, whenever the possibility that Al-Qaeda might have been in Iraq came up, the Democrats said, "No way!

    "Al-Qaeda never found its way to Iraq! They wouldn't know how to get to Iraq if you gave 'em a map. They haven't been to Iraq. They don't have anything to do with Saddam! They were helpless." Now listen to what we just heard here. ISIS was originally known as Al-Qaeda in Iraq. Now, some of you might be saying, "Well, maybe so, Rush, but Al-Qaeda in Iraq didn't exist before we attacked."

    It did!

    We were able to confirm that elements of Al-Qaeda did connect with Saddam for training exercises and so forth. But the point is, in hindsight, look at what we're learning here. ISIS and Al-Qaeda in Iraq are all over the Middle East, just like the Muslim Brotherhood. And in Syria, we were actually, stupidity and maybe unknowingly (given this bunch, I could believe it was unknowingly) supporting them

    Because we had concluded that Bashar Assad was the one gassing his own people. I had never seen any evidence that Assad treated his own people that way. I knew he treated political enemies that way, which is why it was not a very long leap to making people believe that he might gas his own people if he's gassed others. Ditto, Saddam and the Kurds. But there hadn't been any evidence that Bashar Assad gassed his own people.

    So, anyway, that's that, and it's just... Some of it's ancient history, but some of it's just last year and some of it's just yesterday, and so much of it is lies. And so many of these lies are why we're even here today. So all of these lies about all of this stuff is one of the very large reasons why Obama was elected in the first place. It's just dispiriting in a way -- and in another way, surely frustrating, and that's why I've been so ticked off all day.

    END TRANSCRIPT

    [Jul 25, 2016] Hillary Clinton Admits U.S. Created Al Qaeda, ISIS

    Notable quotes:
    "... If destroying Syria is the way we "help" Israel, how many other nations must the U.S. destroy to "help" Israel? And before John Hagee's braindead disciples start shouting "Destroy them all!" I remind you that Syria and other parts of the Middle East is the historic home of millions of Christians going back to the time of the Apostle Paul. ..."
    "... On the whole, Neocons and Neolibs are people without conscience. At their core, they have no allegiance to the United States or any other country. They are globalists. The only god they serve is the god of power and wealth, and they don't care how many people--including Americans--they kill to achieve it. The blood of millions of dead victims around the world is already dripping from their murderous hands. ..."
    chuckbaldwinlive.com
    May 26, 2016

    Why isn't the Mainstream Media (MSM) in America reporting the fact that Hillary Clinton admitted in public that the U.S. government created Al Qaeda, ISIS, Al Nusra, etc.? Why does the MSM refuse to tell the American people that the United States has not ever actually fought ISIS but instead has surreptitiously and very actively supported ISIS and the other radical Muslim terrorists in the Middle East? Why has the media refused to reveal the fact that ever since Russia started to fight a true offensive war against ISIS the terrorist organization has been reduced to almost half?

    I'll tell you why: the MSM is nothing more than a propaganda machine for the U.S. government--no matter which party is in power. The MSM doesn't work for the U.S. citizenry. It doesn't even work for its corporate sponsors. It works for the Washington Power Elite permanently ensconced in D.C. (and yes, those same Power Elite control most of those media corporate sponsors).

    It is a sad reality that if one wants to get accurate news reporting, one must mostly bypass the U.S. propaganda media and look to sources outside the U.S. Here is a Canadian publication that covered the Hillary admission:

    "The following video features Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton acknowledging that America created and funded Al Qaeda as a terrorist organization in the heyday of the Soviet-Afghan war:

    "'Let's remember here the people we are fighting today we funded them twenty years ago.

    "'Let's go recruit these mujahideen.

    "'And great, let them come from Saudi Arabia and other countries, importing their Wahabi brand of Islam so that we can go beat the Soviet Union.'"

    "What she does not mention is that at no time in the course of the last 35 years has the US ceased to support and finance Al Qaeda as a means to destabilizing sovereign countries. It was 'a pretty good idea', says Hillary, and it remains a good idea today:

    "Amply documented, the ISIS and Al Nusrah Mujahideen are recruited by NATO and the Turkish High command, with the support of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Israel.

    "The more fundamental question:

    "Should a presidential candidate who candidly acknowledges that 'We created Al Qaeda' without a word of caution or regret become president of the US, not to mention Hillary's commitment to waging nuclear war on Russia if and when she becomes president of the United States of America."

    The report continues:

    "The Global War on Terror (GWOT) is led by the United States. It is not directed against Al Qaeda.

    "Quite the opposite: The 'Global War on Terrorism' uses Al Qaeda terrorist operatives as their foot soldiers.

    "'Political Islam' and the imposition of an 'Islamic State' (modeled on Qatar or Saudi Arabia) is an integral part of US foreign policy."

    The report further states:

    "It is a means to destabilizing sovereign countries and imposing 'regime change'.

    "Clinton's successor at the State Department, John Kerry is in direct liaison with Al Nusra, an Al Qaeda affiliated organization in Syria, integrated by terrorists and funded by the US and its allies.

    "In a bitter irony, John Kerry is not only complicit in the killings committed by Al Nusra, he is also in blatant violation of US anti-terrorist legislation. If the latter were to be applied to politicians in high office, John Kerry would be considered as a 'Terror Suspect'".

    See the report here:

    Hillary Clinton: "We Created Al Qaeda". The Protagonists Of The "Global War On Terrorism" Are The Terrorists

    Think it through, folks: the U.S. government creates the radical Islamic terror networks that justify America's "Global War On Terror" which directly results in millions of refugees (and no doubt plants terrorists among them) flooding Europe. At the same time, it purposely refuses to protect our own borders and even forces states and local communities to accept hundreds of thousands of Muslim refugees (but the government is not sending any Christian refugees to America, even though a sizable percentage of the refugees include Christians also) and pushes NATO to the doorstep of Russia, which to any objective observer could only be regarded as an overt incitement to war.

    Furthermore, why doesn't the MSM report the words of Hillary saying that the "best way to help Israel" is to destroy Syria? Why doesn't the media acknowledge that official U.S. foreign policy is to foment perpetual war, not in the name of the safety and security of the United States, but in the name of "helping" Israel?

    Here is how the same Canadian publication covers this part of the story:

    "A newly-released Hillary Clinton email confirmed that the Obama administration has deliberately provoked the civil war in Syria as the 'best way to help Israel.'

    "In an indication of her murderous and psychopathic nature, Clinton also wrote that it was the 'right thing' to personally threaten Bashar Assad's family with death.

    "In the email, released by Wikileaks, then Secretary of State Clinton says that the 'best way to help Israel' is to 'use force' in Syria to overthrow the government."

    It continues:

    "Even though all US intelligence reports had long dismissed Iran's 'atomic bomb' program as a hoax, (a conclusion supported by the International Atomic Energy Agency), Clinton continues to use these lies to 'justify' destroying Syria in the name of Israel."

    And again:

    "The email proves--as if any more proof was needed--that the US government has been the main sponsor of the growth of terrorism in the Middle East, and all in order to 'protect' Israel.

    "It is also a sobering thought to consider that the 'refugee' crisis which currently threatens to destroy Europe, was directly sparked off by this US government action as well, insofar as there are any genuine refugees fleeing the civil war in Syria.

    "In addition, over 250,000 people have been killed in the Syrian conflict, which has spread to Iraq--all thanks to Clinton and the Obama administration backing the 'rebels' and stoking the fires of war in Syria."

    See the report here:

    Hillary Clinton: Destroy Syria For Israel: "The Best Way To Help Israel"

    If destroying Syria is the way we "help" Israel, how many other nations must the U.S. destroy to "help" Israel? And before John Hagee's braindead disciples start shouting "Destroy them all!" I remind you that Syria and other parts of the Middle East is the historic home of millions of Christians going back to the time of the Apostle Paul.

    The truth is, Hillary (and the rest of the grubby gaggle of Neocons) doesn't give a tinker's dam about Israel. Neocons such as Hillary Clinton simply use Israel (and the misguided passions of Christians and conservatives who blindly support Israel) as cover to accomplish their real agenda: manipulating world governments to the enrichment and empowerment of themselves.

    Donald Trump is untested. But if Hillary should be elected, I'm confident she would not make it through her first term without taking us into another G.W. Bush-type war (or worse)--except she will also add the attempted disarmament of the American people to her nefarious agenda.

    That's what Neocons do: they foment war. To their very soul, they are warmongers. And never forget that Hillary Clinton is a true-blue Neocon. Or if the word "Neoliberal" sounds better to you in describing Hillary, so be it. They both mean the same thing: WAR.

    Here is a good explanation of how both Neocons and Neolibs are working from the same script:

    Neocons And Neolibs: How Dead Ideas Kill

    On the whole, Neocons and Neolibs are people without conscience. At their core, they have no allegiance to the United States or any other country. They are globalists. The only god they serve is the god of power and wealth, and they don't care how many people--including Americans--they kill to achieve it. The blood of millions of dead victims around the world is already dripping from their murderous hands.

    And if you think my indictment against the Neocons is an exaggeration, Paul Craig Roberts (Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under President Ronald Reagan) was even more scathing in his condemnation of them:

    "The remaining danger is the crazed American neoconservatives. I know many of them. They are completely insane ideologues. This inhuman filth has controlled the foreign policy of every US government since Clinton's second term. They are a danger to all life on earth. Look at the destruction they have wreaked in the former Yugoslavia, in Ukraine, in Georgia and South Ossetia, in Africa, in Afghanistan and the Middle East. The American people were too brainwashed by lies and by political impotence to do anything about it, and Washington's vassals in Europe, UK, Canada, Australia, and Japan had to pretend that this policy of international murder was 'bringing freedom and democracy.'

    "The crazed filth that controls US foreign policy is capable of defending US hegemony with nuclear weapons. The neoconservatives must be removed from power, arrested, and put on international trial for their horrendous war crimes before they defend their hegemony with Armageddon.

    "Neoconservatives and their allies in the military/security complex make audacious use of false flag attacks. These evil people are capable of orchestrating a false flag attack that propels the US and Russia to war."

    See Roberts' column here:

    The Fall Of The Unipower

    And make no mistake about it: the national news media is a deliberate and willing facilitator of these international crimes against humanity.

    © Chuck Baldwin

    [Jul 25, 2016] Turkey coup

    Amazing: nobody seems to blame Putin
    Warning: Bellingcat is a disinformation outpost probably created by some intelligence agency. It lied about MH17 extensively.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Beware Bellingcat; he's been busted more than once publishing fraudulent information; especially re: Putin and Ukraine ..."
    "... This is an interesting article that explores possibilities (if only partially) of an extremely murky event: the recent coup in Turkey. One very keen observation is that this coup has one extraordinary aspect: nobody seems to blame Putin! The second observation is that it is not typical for a coup that it is not possible to trace who was running it, while indisputably, someone activated a bunch of conspirators to action. In the past, even failed coup had an identified leader. ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org
    chu teh | Jul 25, 2016 8:00:21 AM | 16

    3 Turkish specialized NATO regiments (20,000+ troops?} led coup attempt. Using Bellingcat translated records of coup communications, Sybil Edmonds explains:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KAxjZWy-Lk

    Bellingcat transcripts and photos:

    https://www.bellingcat.com/news/mena/2016/07/24/the-turkey-coup-through-the-eyes-of-its-plotters/

    V. Arnold | Jul 25, 2016 3:48:50 AM | 78

    chu teh | Jul 25, 2016 3:39:31 AM | 76

    Beware Bellingcat; he's been busted more than once publishing fraudulent information; especially re: Putin and Ukraine.

    chu teh | Jul 25, 2016 2:17:00 AM | 72

    re news onTurkey coup: Just in...

    Sybil Edmonds now shows s that 3 top Turk regiments that led the coup are part of NATO Rapid Deployment Forces. Here it is on YouTube:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KAxjZWy-Lk

    Alternatively, this link:

    http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2016/07/24/newsbud-breaking-news-turkeys-coup-plotters-are-members-of-natos-rapid-deployable-corps/

    Seems to demonstrate direct NATO involvement and connection with Gulencia intentions.

    chu teh | Jul 25, 2016 3:39:31 AM | 76

    Detail of Turkey coup:

    Here's reconstructed blow-by-blow account of coup from coup leaders' own WhatsApp communications,; source and English translations per Bellingcat:

    https://www.bellingcat.com/news/mena/2016/07/24/the-turkey-coup-through-the-eyes-of-its-plotters/

    Can note NATO insignia of regimental unit.

    Piotr Berman | Jul 25, 2016 5:03:13 AM | 80

    https://4threvolutionarywar.wordpress.com/2016/07/20/turkey-battle-of-the-conspiracy-theories-akira/

    This is an interesting article that explores possibilities (if only partially) of an extremely murky event: the recent coup in Turkey. One very keen observation is that this coup has one extraordinary aspect: nobody seems to blame Putin! The second observation is that it is not typical for a coup that it is not possible to trace who was running it, while indisputably, someone activated a bunch of conspirators to action. In the past, even failed coup had an identified leader.

    [Tinfoil hat on] This points to a masterful hand behind the plot, perhaps a bit deficient in purely military details but very capable in conspiratorial techniques. [delete]Gulen[end delete] Putin! Putin theory could have a weak spot, namely that he is competent in purely military details, but it can be elegantly rescued by the fact that he had no interest in actually replacing Erdogan, but merely in rendering him ineffective against Russia. As Russians know only too well, the most effective way of disabling a military organization is to imbue the national leader with total paranoia. [Tinfoil hat off, malignant waves enter brain again]

    Clearly, Erdogan is another person who benefits from the coup, and who has much simpler means to assure that the leadership of the coup remains unclear: his devoted stooges run the investigation after all! Moreover, Akira correctly observed that the past actions attributed to Gulen's movement lacked outright violence. In my opinion, this stems from religious principles of Gulen himself, his own interpretation of Islam (which clearly allows for intrigue and subterfuge). Gulen did not create his movement in vacuum, he became a leader of followers of Said Nursi who died in 1960. The way those movements (Nur of Nursi, Hizmet of Gulen) operated is compared to Sufi brotherhoods which may be loosely hierarchical and highly conspiratorial. Some Sufi movements may be violent, by calling to armed Jihad etc. However, Nursi was a pacifist. As I said, unlike some other Muslim movements in Turkey. Erdogan has a somewhat murky religious movement of his own, and he clearly accepts the concept of violent Jihad.

    One can dwell more of it, but pretty safe conclusion is that we have two likely possibilities: Erdogan pulling the strings (in that case, using Hakan Fidan, his spy master) and going to some lengths to make the appearance that Guelen does it, or the reverse. Because of that, no single piece of evidence is conclusive, any single person can be a double/multiple agent etc. And because those possibilities are both so compelling, the true guiding master hand remains hidden (Putin!!!!).

    jfl | Jul 25, 2016 8:08:14 AM | 84

    @80 pb

    Great stuff pb. I think that Erdo's 'genius' lies in his ability to react rather than act. He just waits to see his chances then takes 'em. Having plans opens one up to having one's plans divined by others and so defeated. His strength lies in his nihilism, the g-forces alone of his about faces would so distort the physique of any ordinary man that he could never survive. But Erdo is focused exclusively on his own ends - and possesses the magical ability of convincing his followers of his invincibility and hence, of theirs. His survival of his seemingly endless stream of volte faces proves this in the eyes of his followers and so confounds his more or less principled opposition that their very bones melt and they puddle.

    So the CIA, who have kept Gulen bottled up in their Pennsylvania super-fortress all these years, perhaps their secret, kryptonite-like antidote to al-CIAduh, sprang him to avail Erdogan of yet another of his nine-times-nine-lives, in order to keep his ego-driven presence alive and disruptive on their geostrategic gameboard.

    The terrifying thing from the CIA's/USA's point of view would be any kind of coherent coincidence of aims among Russia, Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Iran, the Caucasus, and the stans of Central Asia. They feel that they can rely upon Erdo to keep the Caucasus and Central Asia high on its own version of the Ottoman dream, and in competition with the Sunni/IS, the Shia, and Kurdish Axes.

    If the Turkmen and the Shia were to cohere rather than contend, or, worse, the Turkmen-Shia-Kurds were to do so, there would be far too much constructive activity in the Middle East for the empire of chaos to survive there let alone prevail. The opposite hand of Putin did it! is ... the CIA did it! I say the CIA did it. That's my story and I'm stickin' to it.

    The real story will become apparent in the fullness of time.

    [Jul 25, 2016] Hillary Clinton Admits U.S. Created Al Qaeda, ISIS

    Notable quotes:
    "... If destroying Syria is the way we "help" Israel, how many other nations must the U.S. destroy to "help" Israel? And before John Hagee's braindead disciples start shouting "Destroy them all!" I remind you that Syria and other parts of the Middle East is the historic home of millions of Christians going back to the time of the Apostle Paul. ..."
    "... On the whole, Neocons and Neolibs are people without conscience. At their core, they have no allegiance to the United States or any other country. They are globalists. The only god they serve is the god of power and wealth, and they don't care how many people--including Americans--they kill to achieve it. The blood of millions of dead victims around the world is already dripping from their murderous hands. ..."
    chuckbaldwinlive.com
    May 26, 2016

    Why isn't the Mainstream Media (MSM) in America reporting the fact that Hillary Clinton admitted in public that the U.S. government created Al Qaeda, ISIS, Al Nusra, etc.? Why does the MSM refuse to tell the American people that the United States has not ever actually fought ISIS but instead has surreptitiously and very actively supported ISIS and the other radical Muslim terrorists in the Middle East? Why has the media refused to reveal the fact that ever since Russia started to fight a true offensive war against ISIS the terrorist organization has been reduced to almost half?

    I'll tell you why: the MSM is nothing more than a propaganda machine for the U.S. government--no matter which party is in power. The MSM doesn't work for the U.S. citizenry. It doesn't even work for its corporate sponsors. It works for the Washington Power Elite permanently ensconced in D.C. (and yes, those same Power Elite control most of those media corporate sponsors).

    It is a sad reality that if one wants to get accurate news reporting, one must mostly bypass the U.S. propaganda media and look to sources outside the U.S. Here is a Canadian publication that covered the Hillary admission:

    "The following video features Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton acknowledging that America created and funded Al Qaeda as a terrorist organization in the heyday of the Soviet-Afghan war:

    "'Let's remember here the people we are fighting today we funded them twenty years ago.

    "'Let's go recruit these mujahideen.

    "'And great, let them come from Saudi Arabia and other countries, importing their Wahabi brand of Islam so that we can go beat the Soviet Union.'"

    "What she does not mention is that at no time in the course of the last 35 years has the US ceased to support and finance Al Qaeda as a means to destabilizing sovereign countries. It was 'a pretty good idea', says Hillary, and it remains a good idea today:

    "Amply documented, the ISIS and Al Nusrah Mujahideen are recruited by NATO and the Turkish High command, with the support of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Israel.

    "The more fundamental question:

    "Should a presidential candidate who candidly acknowledges that 'We created Al Qaeda' without a word of caution or regret become president of the US, not to mention Hillary's commitment to waging nuclear war on Russia if and when she becomes president of the United States of America."

    The report continues:

    "The Global War on Terror (GWOT) is led by the United States. It is not directed against Al Qaeda.

    "Quite the opposite: The 'Global War on Terrorism' uses Al Qaeda terrorist operatives as their foot soldiers.

    "'Political Islam' and the imposition of an 'Islamic State' (modeled on Qatar or Saudi Arabia) is an integral part of US foreign policy."

    The report further states:

    "It is a means to destabilizing sovereign countries and imposing 'regime change'.

    "Clinton's successor at the State Department, John Kerry is in direct liaison with Al Nusra, an Al Qaeda affiliated organization in Syria, integrated by terrorists and funded by the US and its allies.

    "In a bitter irony, John Kerry is not only complicit in the killings committed by Al Nusra, he is also in blatant violation of US anti-terrorist legislation. If the latter were to be applied to politicians in high office, John Kerry would be considered as a 'Terror Suspect'".

    See the report here:

    Hillary Clinton: "We Created Al Qaeda". The Protagonists Of The "Global War On Terrorism" Are The Terrorists

    Think it through, folks: the U.S. government creates the radical Islamic terror networks that justify America's "Global War On Terror" which directly results in millions of refugees (and no doubt plants terrorists among them) flooding Europe. At the same time, it purposely refuses to protect our own borders and even forces states and local communities to accept hundreds of thousands of Muslim refugees (but the government is not sending any Christian refugees to America, even though a sizable percentage of the refugees include Christians also) and pushes NATO to the doorstep of Russia, which to any objective observer could only be regarded as an overt incitement to war.

    Furthermore, why doesn't the MSM report the words of Hillary saying that the "best way to help Israel" is to destroy Syria? Why doesn't the media acknowledge that official U.S. foreign policy is to foment perpetual war, not in the name of the safety and security of the United States, but in the name of "helping" Israel?

    Here is how the same Canadian publication covers this part of the story:

    "A newly-released Hillary Clinton email confirmed that the Obama administration has deliberately provoked the civil war in Syria as the 'best way to help Israel.'

    "In an indication of her murderous and psychopathic nature, Clinton also wrote that it was the 'right thing' to personally threaten Bashar Assad's family with death.

    "In the email, released by Wikileaks, then Secretary of State Clinton says that the 'best way to help Israel' is to 'use force' in Syria to overthrow the government."

    It continues:

    "Even though all US intelligence reports had long dismissed Iran's 'atomic bomb' program as a hoax, (a conclusion supported by the International Atomic Energy Agency), Clinton continues to use these lies to 'justify' destroying Syria in the name of Israel."

    And again:

    "The email proves--as if any more proof was needed--that the US government has been the main sponsor of the growth of terrorism in the Middle East, and all in order to 'protect' Israel.

    "It is also a sobering thought to consider that the 'refugee' crisis which currently threatens to destroy Europe, was directly sparked off by this US government action as well, insofar as there are any genuine refugees fleeing the civil war in Syria.

    "In addition, over 250,000 people have been killed in the Syrian conflict, which has spread to Iraq--all thanks to Clinton and the Obama administration backing the 'rebels' and stoking the fires of war in Syria."

    See the report here:

    Hillary Clinton: Destroy Syria For Israel: "The Best Way To Help Israel"

    If destroying Syria is the way we "help" Israel, how many other nations must the U.S. destroy to "help" Israel? And before John Hagee's braindead disciples start shouting "Destroy them all!" I remind you that Syria and other parts of the Middle East is the historic home of millions of Christians going back to the time of the Apostle Paul.

    The truth is, Hillary (and the rest of the grubby gaggle of Neocons) doesn't give a tinker's dam about Israel. Neocons such as Hillary Clinton simply use Israel (and the misguided passions of Christians and conservatives who blindly support Israel) as cover to accomplish their real agenda: manipulating world governments to the enrichment and empowerment of themselves.

    Donald Trump is untested. But if Hillary should be elected, I'm confident she would not make it through her first term without taking us into another G.W. Bush-type war (or worse)--except she will also add the attempted disarmament of the American people to her nefarious agenda.

    That's what Neocons do: they foment war. To their very soul, they are warmongers. And never forget that Hillary Clinton is a true-blue Neocon. Or if the word "Neoliberal" sounds better to you in describing Hillary, so be it. They both mean the same thing: WAR.

    Here is a good explanation of how both Neocons and Neolibs are working from the same script:

    Neocons And Neolibs: How Dead Ideas Kill

    On the whole, Neocons and Neolibs are people without conscience. At their core, they have no allegiance to the United States or any other country. They are globalists. The only god they serve is the god of power and wealth, and they don't care how many people--including Americans--they kill to achieve it. The blood of millions of dead victims around the world is already dripping from their murderous hands.

    And if you think my indictment against the Neocons is an exaggeration, Paul Craig Roberts (Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under President Ronald Reagan) was even more scathing in his condemnation of them:

    "The remaining danger is the crazed American neoconservatives. I know many of them. They are completely insane ideologues. This inhuman filth has controlled the foreign policy of every US government since Clinton's second term. They are a danger to all life on earth. Look at the destruction they have wreaked in the former Yugoslavia, in Ukraine, in Georgia and South Ossetia, in Africa, in Afghanistan and the Middle East. The American people were too brainwashed by lies and by political impotence to do anything about it, and Washington's vassals in Europe, UK, Canada, Australia, and Japan had to pretend that this policy of international murder was 'bringing freedom and democracy.'

    "The crazed filth that controls US foreign policy is capable of defending US hegemony with nuclear weapons. The neoconservatives must be removed from power, arrested, and put on international trial for their horrendous war crimes before they defend their hegemony with Armageddon.

    "Neoconservatives and their allies in the military/security complex make audacious use of false flag attacks. These evil people are capable of orchestrating a false flag attack that propels the US and Russia to war."

    See Roberts' column here:

    The Fall Of The Unipower

    And make no mistake about it: the national news media is a deliberate and willing facilitator of these international crimes against humanity.

    © Chuck Baldwin

    [Jul 25, 2016] Clinton Asserts Putin Influence On Trump - After Taking Russian Bribes

    Seems the Clinton and her assorted groupies just need a scapegoat :-). Seems Putin controls Trump and Clinton! The man is amazing.
    Notable quotes:
    "... From Bloomberg - "If the Democrats can show the hidden hand of Russian intelligence agencies, they believe that voter outrage will probably outweigh any embarrassing revelations, a person familiar with the party's thinking said' ..."
    "... Ha! Fat chance. I'm thinking the American voter is going to start sending Thank You notes to the Kremlin! As usual, their heads are stuck so far up the arse of their donkey they incapable of gauging Main Street sentiment. ..."
    "... She is just a symptom of the DNC disease. And yes, she'll take the fall for the team, but make no mistake, the cancer remains and will continue to metastasize. ..."
    M of A

    Is Putin manipulating the Clinton campaign?

    Russia is weaponizing everything : Word files, federalism, finance and Jedi mind tricks - everything is transformed into a weapon if Russia or its president Putin is imagined to come near it.

    But Russia is secretly plotting even more nefarious schemes. Putin is infiltrating Europe . And not only Europe.

    Putin, the President of the Russian Federation, is influencing, manipulating and controlling many "western" politicians, parties and movements - in Europe AND in the United States.

    Here are, thanks to Mark Sleboda , a partial list of political entities and issue Putin secretly manipulates and controls:

    Putin is indeed everywhere:

    9:16 PM - 23 Jul 2016 - Billmon @billmon1

    Putin strikes AGAIN! " Seventeen people hurt when Hudson River ferry hits pier in New Jersey "

    And now for the crown of it all.

    Putin is in cahoots with the Republican presidential candidate Trump - claims the Clinton campaign . Putin is behind, it asserts, the leak of the DNC emails which prove that the Democratic National Committee has been working against Sanders to promote Hillary Clinton. The leak of the DNC emails, says the Clinton campaign, is ..:

    .. further evidence the Russian government is trying to influence the outcome of the election.

    The "facts" proving Russian support for Trump are mostly lies , but Putin's nefarious intentions must still be speculated about.

    The Clinton campaign has not looked thoroughly enough into Putin's schemes. Reveal we can that Putin has penetrated U.S. politics even deeper than thought - right down into the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton family itself:

    As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One's chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million.

    That money, surely, had no influence on then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's decisions? And what about her husband?

    Mr. Clinton received $500,000 ... from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin

    These undisputed facts demonstrate that Putin is indeed waging influence by bribing U.S. politicians. But the Clinton campaign is be a bit more hesitant in pointing these out.

    Posted by b at 10:29 AM | Comments (87)

    fast freddy | Jul 24, 2016 12:10:28 PM | 8

    Clinton/Kaine certainly confident that the MSM will not report.

    For all the money given to the Clinton's it didn't prevent the Ukraine disasters. Of course, Ukraine may not have been a concern among the particular oligarchs who made these bribes.

    HOw could this anti-russian hysteria/bashing go on, I mean the level of paranoia and disinformation against Russia and Putin is plain crazy.

    Zedew | Jul 24, 2016 12:32:54 PM | 9

    h | Jul 24, 2016 1:39:54 PM | 14

    From Bloomberg - "If the Democrats can show the hidden hand of Russian intelligence agencies, they believe that voter outrage will probably outweigh any embarrassing revelations, a person familiar with the party's thinking said'

    Ha! Fat chance. I'm thinking the American voter is going to start sending Thank You notes to the Kremlin! As usual, their heads are stuck so far up the arse of their donkey they incapable of gauging Main Street sentiment.

    h | Jul 24, 2016 1:58:17 PM | 17
    Sanders calls for Schultz to step down.

    Funny though, Schultz takes her orders from Obama, as the Chairman of the Party, the DNC Board of Directors and team Hillary. Period. If any blame should go around it should splash onto all individuals NOT just Schultz.

    She is just a symptom of the DNC disease. And yes, she'll take the fall for the team, but make no mistake, the cancer remains and will continue to metastasize.

    [Jul 25, 2016] The New American Century was announced at the UN in November, 1991 by George Herbert Walker Bush

    Notable quotes:
    "... "it's been 15 years now since the dawn of the criminal 'New American Century'," You must be young. The New American Century was announced at the UN in November, 1991 by George Herbert Walker Bush. ..."
    "... Bush lost the election twelve months later, but the criminal who won was even more effective in establishing this new world order than Bush could have ever been. ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org

    Macon Richardson | Jul 23, 2016 6:09:36 PM | 36

    jfl @ 2, you note that "it's been 15 years now since the dawn of the criminal 'New American Century'," You must be young. The New American Century was announced at the UN in November, 1991 by George Herbert Walker Bush. I watched him on television that evening announcing a "new world order" and my blood ran cold. I knew that evening where all this was leading to. It was leading to where we are right now.

    Bush lost the election twelve months later, but the criminal who won was even more effective in establishing this new world order than Bush could have ever been.

    The New American Century was announced in November, 1991. Internationally, the policy began with Bush senior urging Sadaam to invade Kuwait, thereby creating a cassus belli for everything that has happened since.

    Domestically, it began with the wanton siege of the Waco religious sect and the murder of Randy Weaver's wife and baby.

    [Jul 24, 2016] Prominent neocons chickenhawks jump the ship and join Hillary camp

    Notable quotes:
    "... ...if you are a hard-core promoter of wars like Robert Kagan, Dick Cheney, Henry Kissinger, Jamie Weinstein, Max Boot, Eliot Cohen, Richard Perle, George Shultz, Lindsey Graham, John McCain, and many others, you have either endorsed or said very positive things about Hillary Clinton. How to explain this? ..."
    "... But if you believe that the U.S. military is a force for good that hardly ever kills anyone worthy of redemption, that the chief role of the military is to rescue poor innocents from evil by overthrowing tyrants and spreading democracy by drone missile, if you believe air wars are more humane because in air wars nobody gets hurt, if you think presidents checking off kill lists on Tuesdays is ideal as long as it's the right presidents doing it, if you cheer for diversity in the U.S. military and want the Selective Service expanded to force every 18-year-old woman to register for the draft, if you believe Honduras and Ukraine and Libya had it coming or you have no idea what I'm referring to, if you think suggesting the abolition of NATO or a halt to overthrowing governments is crazy talk, and if you believe a good heavy bombing campaign of Syria would be the perfect way to demonstrate that we care about Syrians and value them as human beings, you just might be a Democrat. ..."
    "... I've studied the marketing of wars , and the most successful war marketing campaigns in the United States include, in order from most to least necessary: ..."
    "... The demonization of an entire foreign population. ..."
    "... The demonization of a particular foreign person. ..."
    "... The pretense of urgency, inevitability, and ideally of the state of being already underway. ..."
    "... The pretense of upholding the rule of law. ..."
    "... The pretense of humanitarianism. ..."
    "... Point #7 will pick up a section of the population's support, even among people opposed to some of the other justifications. But alone it won't work. Points #1 and #2 can do well without #7. Any of these points can be strengthened or undone by partisanship if the war is labeled the possession of one political party or the other. And once the war is really up and rolling, a new justification slides into the #1 spot, namely the need to "support the troops" by killing more of them. ..."
    www.informationclearinghouse.info

    RNC War Party, DNC War Makers by David Swanson

    ...if you are a hard-core promoter of wars like Robert Kagan, Dick Cheney, Henry Kissinger, Jamie Weinstein, Max Boot, Eliot Cohen, Richard Perle, George Shultz, Lindsey Graham, John McCain, and many others, you have either endorsed or said very positive things about Hillary Clinton. How to explain this? Are the most rabid war supporters on one side and the most dependable war makers getting nominated by the other? Well, maybe.

    But if you believe that the U.S. military is a force for good that hardly ever kills anyone worthy of redemption, that the chief role of the military is to rescue poor innocents from evil by overthrowing tyrants and spreading democracy by drone missile, if you believe air wars are more humane because in air wars nobody gets hurt, if you think presidents checking off kill lists on Tuesdays is ideal as long as it's the right presidents doing it, if you cheer for diversity in the U.S. military and want the Selective Service expanded to force every 18-year-old woman to register for the draft, if you believe Honduras and Ukraine and Libya had it coming or you have no idea what I'm referring to, if you think suggesting the abolition of NATO or a halt to overthrowing governments is crazy talk, and if you believe a good heavy bombing campaign of Syria would be the perfect way to demonstrate that we care about Syrians and value them as human beings, you just might be a Democrat.

    Yes, Hillary Clinton is the most dependable war monger nominated by a major party in the United States in many years. She has the most consistent and lengthy record of doing what she's paid to do, of marketing U.S. weaponry abroad, of manufacturing justifications for wars, of lobbying branches of the U.S. government and foreign governments to support wars. And she'll do so while keeping up a pretense of abiding by some selection of laws.

    ... ... ...

    I've studied the marketing of wars , and the most successful war marketing campaigns in the United States include, in order from most to least necessary:

    1. The pretense of a threat to anyone in the United States, most powerfully if it is a threat of torture or rape or death by hand or knife. It need not be the least bit realistic.
    2. The demonization of an entire foreign population.
    3. The demonization of a particular foreign person.
    4. Revenge.
    5. The pretense of urgency, inevitability, and ideally of the state of being already underway.
    6. The pretense of upholding the rule of law.
    7. The pretense of humanitarianism.

    Point #7 will pick up a section of the population's support, even among people opposed to some of the other justifications. But alone it won't work. Points #1 and #2 can do well without #7. Any of these points can be strengthened or undone by partisanship if the war is labeled the possession of one political party or the other. And once the war is really up and rolling, a new justification slides into the #1 spot, namely the need to "support the troops" by killing more of them.

    [Jul 24, 2016] Hillary Clinton Didnt Create ISIS, But America Can Still Blame Itself

    Notable quotes:
    "... Robert Mackey would like you to know that many in the Arab-speaking world are doing some genuine soul-searching about their culture's own role in the emergence of ISIS and that these conspiracy theories have simply been a haven for the obstinate and the self-deluded; Muslims who are too afraid to look themselves and their societies in the mirror. ..."
    "... Ha, ha. "Washington." What buffoons! ..."
    "... In a report this week on the blistering efficiency and military prowess of ISIS, ABC News reporter James Gordon Meek got an incredibly great, short answer as to where the Islamic State gained its technical expertise: "Probably the Chechens," a U.S. official said. ..."
    "... ISIS, or ISIL, or the Islamic State-whatever you want to call it-was nearly dead in 2007, after U.S. forces in Iraq and local Sunni tribes successfully joined forces against the group. It wasn't until the Syrian uprisings that it reemerged as a potent force, after a failed merger with the al-Qaida-affiliated Syrian rebel group al-Nusra, lead most of al-Nusra's foreign-born jihadis to defect to ISIS . ..."
    "... "Foreign-born jihadis" here meaning career Islamists like the Chechen groups, which have been conducting terror campaigns, kidnappings, and suicide bombings in Russia , with a reasonable degree of success, for over 15 years now. Some of the most prominent leaders now fighting with ISIS are Chechens: the ginger-bearded "rising star" Omar al-Shishani and the group's Che Guevara, Muslem al-Shishani (the unnervingly studly viking face pictured above). In addition to Saudi and Pakistani assistance, many of the Chechens were led and supported by the CIA-trained Afghan mujahideen, up-to-and-including Osama bin Laden: ace mentors, in other words, with proven experience in a professional terror setting. ..."
    "... When not actively defending the Chechen extremists with weirdly bipartisan neocon-neoliberal advocacy groups , policy makers and government officials in Washington have turned a proactively blind eye to Chechen Islamist activities in Russia and here in the United States with infamously fatal consequences. Both the 9/11 Commission Report and FBI whistleblower Coleen Rowley have shown that senior-level officials refused to classify Islamic terrorists in Chechnya-like their then-leader Ibn al Khattab who had direct contact with bin Laden-as actual terrorists, thus preventing the FBI from properly investigating "20th hijacker" Zaccarias Moussaoui before 9/11. ..."
    "... A big part of the reason for this sensitivity is that covertly letting the Saudis and their Islamic radicals chip away at the oil-rich rubble on the fringes of the collapsed Soviet empire has been America's favored strategy for collecting the spoils of the Cold War. ..."
    "... "The policy of guiding the evolution of Islam and of helping them against our adversaries worked marvelously well in Afghanistan against the Red Army," a former CIA analyst told Swiss journalist Richard Labévière back in the late 1990s . "The same doctrines can still be used to destabilize what remains of Russian power, and especially to counter the Chinese influence in Central Asia." ..."
    blackbag.gawker.com

    Wise Men of Foreign Affairs have jumped at the chance to debunk a wild rumor that Hillary Clinton bragged about creating ISIS in her new memoir-truly an easy layup in the annals of punditry. The rumor even got the name of Clinton's memoir wrong. But, that's OK: The remaining facts still allow America to feel guilty.

    According to at least one Egyptian blogger, the conspiracy theory-complete with fake quotes from a fantasy version of Clinton's memoir entitled Plan 360-emerged from the hothouse of Egypt's Pro-Mubarak/Pro-Military Facebook pages: a social circle in which it is already de rigueur to suggest that the U.S. and the Muslim Brotherhood secretly conspired to orchestrate the Arab Spring. This screenshot of a Facebook page for the Egyptian military's counter-terrorism and special operations unit, Task Force 777, and its reconnaissance special operations unit, Task Force 999, depicts one of the earliest appearances of the fake Clinton quotes:

    Leaving aside for the moment the question of why Clinton would brag about this covert operation, in progress, in her memoir, what foreign policy objectives could possibly be achieved by America manufacturing ISIS? Like: Why do that? To what ends?

    One version involves Israel (obviously), and something about balkanizing Israel's Mid-East neighbors to both justify their nefarious Zionist expansion, or whatever, and remove opposition to it. Another version, as The Week pointed out Tuesday, claims that the U.S. would plan to recognize an ISIS caliphate and that this caliphate would turn out to be (somehow) very amenable to America's strategic and economic interests.

    Despite the fact that the U.S. Embassy in Beirut felt compelled to publicly debunk all this on their Facebook page, it's unclear how many people in the region actually believed it.

    The hashtag #HilaryClintonsMemoirs ( #مذكرات_هيلاري_كلينتون) quickly started trending across social media in the region, Huffington Post UK reported, "with satirical tweets mocking the theory with outlandish claims about what else the Secretary of State might have written-like a secret CIA plot to close all the restaurants in Cairo and replace them with McDonalds."

    Good one, the Middle East. I'm lovin' it.

    Not everyone appreciated the Middle East's jokes, however. Writing in his "Open Source" column for the New York Times, Robert Mackey would like you to know that many in the Arab-speaking world are doing some genuine soul-searching about their culture's own role in the emergence of ISIS and that these conspiracy theories have simply been a haven for the obstinate and the self-deluded; Muslims who are too afraid to look themselves and their societies in the mirror.

    For instance, the Lebanese scholar Ziad Majed wrote on his blog that at least six factors from the recent history of the Middle East helped give birth to the militant movement, including "despotism in the most heinous form that has plagued the region," as well as "the American invasion of Iraq in 2003," and "a profound crisis, deeply rooted in the thinking of some Islamist groups seeking to escape from their terrible failure to confront the challenges of the present toward a delusional model ostensibly taken from the seventh century."

    That sort of introspection is not for everyone, of course, so a popular conspiracy theory has spread online that offers an easier answer to the riddle of where ISIS came from: Washington.

    Ha, ha. "Washington." What buffoons!

    Let's learn a valuable lesson from the psychological projections of these weak-willed Third World plebes: desert Archie Bunkers and izaar-clad Tony Sopranos too parochial in their worldview and too much in denial of their own culpability to face this present danger.

    America is better than that.

    Let us examine with clear eyes all the ways in which our own democratically elected government-in Washington-is responsible for where ISIS came from.

    U.S. Policy in Chechnya

    In a report this week on the blistering efficiency and military prowess of ISIS, ABC News reporter James Gordon Meek got an incredibly great, short answer as to where the Islamic State gained its technical expertise: "Probably the Chechens," a U.S. official said.

    ISIS, or ISIL, or the Islamic State-whatever you want to call it-was nearly dead in 2007, after U.S. forces in Iraq and local Sunni tribes successfully joined forces against the group. It wasn't until the Syrian uprisings that it reemerged as a potent force, after a failed merger with the al-Qaida-affiliated Syrian rebel group al-Nusra, lead most of al-Nusra's foreign-born jihadis to defect to ISIS.

    "Foreign-born jihadis" here meaning career Islamists like the Chechen groups, which have been conducting terror campaigns, kidnappings, and suicide bombings in Russia, with a reasonable degree of success, for over 15 years now. Some of the most prominent leaders now fighting with ISIS are Chechens: the ginger-bearded "rising star" Omar al-Shishani and the group's Che Guevara, Muslem al-Shishani (the unnervingly studly viking face pictured above). In addition to Saudi and Pakistani assistance, many of the Chechens were led and supported by the CIA-trained Afghan mujahideen, up-to-and-including Osama bin Laden: ace mentors, in other words, with proven experience in a professional terror setting.

    When not actively defending the Chechen extremists with weirdly bipartisan neocon-neoliberal advocacy groups, policy makers and government officials in Washington have turned a proactively blind eye to Chechen Islamist activities in Russia and here in the United States with infamously fatal consequences. Both the 9/11 Commission Report and FBI whistleblower Coleen Rowley have shown that senior-level officials refused to classify Islamic terrorists in Chechnya-like their then-leader Ibn al Khattab who had direct contact with bin Laden-as actual terrorists, thus preventing the FBI from properly investigating "20th hijacker" Zaccarias Moussaoui before 9/11. Another pre-9/11 FBI investigation, this time into a Florida summer camp run by the Saudi-funded World Assembly of Muslim Youth (WAMY), discovered that the group was showing children videos praising Chechen bombers, only to be pulled off the case according to an FBI memo, ID 1991-WF-213589, uncovered by Greg Palast for the BBC and Vice.

    Upon further digging by Palast:

    Several insiders repeated the same story: U.S. agencies ended the investigation of the bin Laden-terrorist-Chechen-jihad connection out of fear of exposing uncomfortable facts. U.S. intelligence had turned a blind eye to the Abdullah bin Laden organisation [yes, WAMY was run by a bin Laden brother] because our own government was more than happy that our Saudi allies were sending jihadis to Afghanistan, then, via WAMY, helping Muslims to fight in Bosnia then, later, giving the Russians grief in Chechnya. The problem is that terrorists are like homing pigeons – they come home to roost.

    As Joe Trento of the National Security News Service, who helped me on the investigation, said, "It would be unseemly if [someone] were arrested by the FBI and word got back that he'd once been on the payroll of the CIA What we're talking about is blow-back. What we're talking about is embarrassing, career-destroying blow-back for intelligence officials."

    The agency has gone to great lengths to paper over this. When former CIA agent Robert Baer-whose writing served as the factual basis for that weird George Clooney movie Syriana-wanted to cite Russian sources about the Saudi-Chechen connection in his book Sleeping With the Devil, the agency pressured him not to. This despite the fact that it was publicly available information he'd acquired after retiring from government service.

    A big part of the reason for this sensitivity is that covertly letting the Saudis and their Islamic radicals chip away at the oil-rich rubble on the fringes of the collapsed Soviet empire has been America's favored strategy for collecting the spoils of the Cold War.

    "The policy of guiding the evolution of Islam and of helping them against our adversaries worked marvelously well in Afghanistan against the Red Army," a former CIA analyst told Swiss journalist Richard Labévière back in the late 1990s. "The same doctrines can still be used to destabilize what remains of Russian power, and especially to counter the Chinese influence in Central Asia."

    Granted: The events of September 11th made this grand strategy a little tricky, domestically, but as you may have noticed over the past few years, particularly in Russian-allied Syria, it's mostly back on track.

    [Jul 24, 2016] Vote for Hillary is a vote for military industrial complex

    I knew that Hillary would pick a neo-liberal corporate tool. I still think Trump might be worth voting for - if only to throw sand in the gears of the system - but his picking neo-liberal corporate tool Mike Pence as VP was disappointing. Business as usual? Mike Pence might be viewed as Jeb Bush copycat. Apparently the Pence in the ticket is not "America first" but " Israel First". Trump picked a neocon who voted twice for the Iraq war and also for invasion and regime-change in Libya. This is in contrast to Trump's own non-interventionist policy. See "Trump's VP Choice a Betrayal: Open Letter to the Campaign Team": https://quemadoinstitute.org/2016/07/16/trumps-vp-choice-a-betrayal-open-letter-to-the-campaign-team/
    Notable quotes:
    "... As a Senator since 2013, Kaine has regularly called for increased US involvement in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan. He has consistently supported the Obama administration's reckless brinkmanship against Russia and China, two nuclear-armed powers. He has repeatedly pushed for a Congressional resolution officially declaring war against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) in order to clear the way for stepped-up US intervention. ..."
    "... Like Clinton, Kaine has also supported the creation of a no-fly zone in Syria, an action that would quickly provoke a confrontation with Russia. ..."
    www.informationclearinghouse.info
    • Number Of Iraqis Slaughtered In US War And Occupation Of Iraq "1,455,590"
    • Number of U.S. Military Personnel Sacrificed (Officially acknowledged) In U.S. War And Occupation Of Iraq 4,801
    • Number Of International Occupation Force Troops Slaughtered In Afghanistan : 3,487
    • Cost of War in Iraq & Afghanistan $1,702,044,597,

    In selecting Kaine, Clinton is making clear that she plans on running a right-wing, pro-war campaign targeted at winning over the military and sections of the Republican Party dissatisfied with Trump, and particularly with the Republican candidate's attitude toward Russia. Clinton also wanted to repudiate any association with the issues of social inequality that motivated the widespread support for her main rival in the primaries, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders.

    Kaine is among the most hawkish figures among Senate Democrats. As governor of Virginia from 2006 to 2010, Kaine oversaw billions of dollars in cuts to the state budget. The state of Virginia is a major center for the military and defense industry, and is home to the Pentagon and the headquarters of the CIA

    Between 2009 and 2011, Kaine served as the head of the Democratic National Committee, the leadership body of the Democratic Party. He is close to Wall Street, having recently backed measures to deregulate banks.

    As a Senator since 2013, Kaine has regularly called for increased US involvement in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan. He has consistently supported the Obama administration's reckless brinkmanship against Russia and China, two nuclear-armed powers. He has repeatedly pushed for a Congressional resolution officially declaring war against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) in order to clear the way for stepped-up US intervention.

    Like Clinton, Kaine has also supported the creation of a no-fly zone in Syria, an action that would quickly provoke a confrontation with Russia.

    [Jul 24, 2016] Obama Denies Advance Knowledge of Turkish Coup

    Notable quotes:
    "... Speaking at the White House today, President Obama denied unequivocally that the US had any prior knowledge of last week's failed military coup in Turkey, calling on Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan to make sure everyone in Turkey knows the US wasn't involved. ..."
    "... The early US reaction to the coup has raised a lot of speculation, as Secretary of State John Kerry, during the coup, issued a tepid comment just urging "stability." The US only condemned the coup when it became clear, later that evening, that it was going to fail. ..."
    Jul 22, 2016 | Antiwar.com

    Obama Denies Advance Knowledge of Turkish Coup; Insists US Had No Involvement in Failed Coup

    Speaking at the White House today, President Obama denied unequivocally that the US had any prior knowledge of last week's failed military coup in Turkey, calling on Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan to make sure everyone in Turkey knows the US wasn't involved.

    The early US reaction to the coup has raised a lot of speculation, as Secretary of State John Kerry, during the coup, issued a tepid comment just urging "stability." The US only condemned the coup when it became clear, later that evening, that it was going to fail.

    Turkey cut power to the Incirlik Air Base, where many US warplanes and dozens of US nuclear weapons are based, and jailed the commander as a co-conspirator to the coup. That, and Turkey's blaming of cleric Fethullah Gulen, exiled to the US, as being behind the plot, are likely the source of a lot of the speculation.

    The US has been keen to keep its ties close to Turkey, whoever ends up running it, and the Obama Administration is understandably eager to distance itself from any suspicion. This is a key part of why the US has been so reluctant to seriously criticize Turkey's post-coup purge, and why Turkey feels comfortable pressuring them to extradite Gulen without any evidence.

    [Jul 23, 2016] President Killary Would the World Survive President Hillary

    Notable quotes:
    "... Despite Hillary's blatant willingness to be bribed in public, her opponent, Bernie Sanders, has not succeeded in making an issue of Hillary's shamelessness. Both of the main establishment newspapers, the Washington Post and the New York Times have come to Hillary's defense. ..."
    "... Hillary is a warmonger. She pushed the Obama regime into the destruction of a stable and largely cooperative government in Libya where the "Arab Spring" was a CIA-backed group of jihadists who were used to dislodge China from its oil investments in eastern Libya. She urged her husband to bomb Yugoslavia. ..."
    "... She has pushed for "regime change" in Syria. She oversaw the coup that overthrew the democratically elected president of Honduras. She brought neoconservative Victoria Nuland, who arranged the coup that overthrew the democratically elected president of Ukraine, into the State Department. Hillary has called President Vladimir Putin of Russia the "new Hitler." Hillary as president guarantees war and more war . ..."
    "... For the Clintons government means using public office to be rewarded for doing favors for private interests. The Wall Street Journal reported that "at least 60 companies that lobbied the State Department during her [Hillary Clinton's] tenure as Secretary of State donated a total of more than $26 million to the Clinton Foundation . ..."
    sputniknews.com

    This is an English translation of an article that I wrote for the German magazine, Compact. I was encouraged by the high level of intelligent discourse that Compact brings to its readers. If only the US had more people capable of reaching beyond entertainment to comprehending the forces that affect them, there might be some hope for America.

    Compact brings hope to Germany. The German people are beginning to understand that their country is not sovereign but a vassal of Washington and that their chancellor serves Washington's hegemony and American financial interests, and not the German people.

    Hillary Clinton is proving to be the "teflon candidate." In her campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination, she has escaped damage from major scandals, any one of which would destroy a politician.

    Hillary has accepted massive bribes in the form of speaking fees from financial organizations and corporations.

    She is under investigation for misuse of classified data, an offense for which a number of whistleblowers are in prison. Hillary has survived the bombing of Libya, her creation of a failed Libyan state that is today a major source of terrorist jihadists, and the Benghazi controversy. She has survived charges that as Secretary of State she arranged favors for foreign interests in exchange for donations to the Clintons' foundation.

    And, of course, there is a long list of previous scandals: Whitewater, Travelgate, Filegate. Diana Johnstone's book, Queen of Chaos, describes Hillary Clinton as "the top salesperson for the ruling oligarchy."

    'I Pray for Sanders' - Oliver Stone Condemns Clinton's 'Corrupt' Policy
    Hillary Clinton is a bought-and-paid-for representative of the big banks, the military-security complex, and the Israel Lobby. She will represent these interests, not those of the American people or America's European allies.

    The Clintons' purchase by interest groups is public knowledge. For example, CNN reports that between February 2001 and May 2015 Bill and Hillary Clinton were paid $153 million in speaking fees for 729 speeches, an average price of $210,000.

    As it became evident that Hillary Clinton would emerge as the likely Democratic presidential candidate, she was paid more. Deutsche Bank paid her $485,000 for one speech, and Goldman Sachs paid her $675,000 for three speeches. Bank of American Morgan Stanley, UBS, and Fidelity Investments each paid $225,000.

    Despite Hillary's blatant willingness to be bribed in public, her opponent, Bernie Sanders, has not succeeded in making an issue of Hillary's shamelessness. Both of the main establishment newspapers, the Washington Post and the New York Times have come to Hillary's defense.

    Hillary is a warmonger. She pushed the Obama regime into the destruction of a stable and largely cooperative government in Libya where the "Arab Spring" was a CIA-backed group of jihadists who were used to dislodge China from its oil investments in eastern Libya. She urged her husband to bomb Yugoslavia.

    She has pushed for "regime change" in Syria. She oversaw the coup that overthrew the democratically elected president of Honduras. She brought neoconservative Victoria Nuland, who arranged the coup that overthrew the democratically elected president of Ukraine, into the State Department. Hillary has called President Vladimir Putin of Russia the "new Hitler." Hillary as president guarantees war and more war.

    In the United States government has been privatized. Office holders use their positions in order to make themselves wealthy, not in order to serve the public interest. Bill and Hillary Clinton epitomize the use of public office in behalf of the office holder's interest.

    For the Clintons government means using public office to be rewarded for doing favors for private interests. The Wall Street Journal reported that "at least 60 companies that lobbied the State Department during her [Hillary Clinton's] tenure as Secretary of State donated a total of more than $26 million to the Clinton Foundation."

    [Jul 23, 2016] Did Russia save Erdogan

    Defend Democracy Press
    TEHRAN (FNA)- Arab media outlets quoted diplomats in Ankara as disclosing that Turkey's President Erdogan was alerted by Russia against an imminent army coup hours before it was initiated on Friday, while a western media outlet said Erdogan asked his supporters to remain in the streets after receiving advice from Tehran.

    Several Arab media outlets, including Rai Alyoum, quoted diplomatic sources in Ankara as saying that Turkey's National Intelligence Organization, known locally as the MIT, received intel from its Russian counterpart that warned of an impending coup in the Muslim state.

    The unnamed diplomats said the Russian army in the region had intercepted highly sensitive army exchanges and encoded radio messages showing that the Turkish army was readying to stage a coup against the administration in Ankara.

    The exchanges included dispatch of several army choppers to President Erdogan's resort hotel to arrest or kill the president.

    The diplomats were not sure of the Russian station that had intercepted the exchanges, but said the Russian army intelligence unit deployed in Khmeimim (also called Hmeimim) in Syria's Northern province of Lattakia is reportedly equipped with state-of-the-art electronic and eavesdropping systems to gather highly sensitive information for the Russian squadrons that are on an anti-terrorism mission in Syria.

    Khmeimim in Northwestern Syria is the only Russian air force base in the war-ravaged country that provides cover for Syrian army and popular forces in multiple fronts across the country, in addition to bombing missions against terrorist targets. The Russian naval fleet, including its only aircraft carrier, are deployed along the coasts of Lattakia border province to provide logistical aid to the air base in a short time. Meantime, Russia has deployed its highly sophisticated S-400 air defense shield at Khmeimim and announced that it covers the entire Syrian skies with the same air defense system.

    Last year, Turkey shot down a Russian Sukhoi bomber over Syrian skies and President Erdogan who was then a staunch enemy of Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad rejected extending an apology to Moscow for about a year, although economic sanctions by Russia as well as growing victories by the Syrian army, popular forces, Hezbollah fighters, Iranian advisors and Russian air force that cornered the terrorists in Syria and similar victories against ISIL in Iraq convinced the Turkish president to not just apologize for the Sukhoi incident, but also show signs of a U-turn in foreign policy, saying that he is dropping his opposition to President Assad.

    Four days after the coup, officials in Ankara announced that the two Turkish pilots who played a role in the downing of the Russian plane in November were in custody over the recent failed coup. "Two pilots who were part of the operation to down the Russian Su-24 in November 2015 are in custody," a Turkish official told journalists on Tuesday, adding that they were detained over links to the coup bid.

    Russian President Vladimir Putin called his Turkish counterpart Recep Tayyip Erdogan on Sunday, describing the attempted coup as unacceptable and voicing hope for a speedy return to stability.

    The diplomatic sources said the shift in Erdogan's foreign policy stated only a week before the coup has been "a major cause pushing several foreign states to provoke and promise support for the army to stage the coup, and the same shift also saved him" as it was not clear if the Russians would provide Ankara with their intel, otherwise.

    Officials of neither country have made any comment on the report yet. In Ankara, official sources, including the Army itself, confirmed that the Turkish army's top generals had been informed of last week's coup by the MIT hours before the plot came into action.

    A statement issued by the army on July 19 described the events that took place on July 15, saying a majority within the military managed to suppress the coup attempt due to information provided by the MIT some five hours before the coup plot became public, national newspaper Hurriyet reported.

    "The information given by the National Intelligence Organization on July 15, 2016, at around 4:00 p.m. was evaluated at the General Staff headquarters with the attendance of Chief of Staff General Hulusi Akar, Chief of the Army General Salih Zeki Colak and Deputy Chief of Staff General Yasar Guler."

    In order to counter the coup, high ranking officials within the Turkish army gave orders for all air and ground forces around the country to immediately cease operations including military vehicles such as tanks, planes and helicopters.

    A report by Al-Jazeera Arabic suggests the coup plotters initiated the operation six hours ahead of time as they had previously planned to launch the coup at 3:00 a.m. local time on July 16.

    While the report does not indicate the reason for the coup being initiated ahead of time, the revelation by the military suggests the coup plotters understood their plans had been compromised and decided to act. 1

    Reports also suggest the coup plotters had orders to kidnap or kill President Recep Tayyip Erdogan as helicopters headed toward the hotel he was staying in at the holiday resort of Marmaris. But Erdogan had left 44 minutes before they arrived, according to Al-Jazeera's report.

    The official statements coming out from Ankara are in full compliance with the Arab media reports quoting the diplomatic sources on the Russian intel.

    Only four days after the coup, Erdogan appeared on the media saying that he plans to declare a crucial turn in foreign policy that would "end differences with Turkey's neighboring states".

    Less than a day later, Kremlin Spokesman Dmitry Peskov announced that President Erdogan would visit Russia early in August to meet with his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin.

    Meantime, Iran rushed to condemn the Turkish army coup only two hours after it started. Several top security and foreign policy officials in Tehran were in constant contact with President Erdogan and his cabinet ministers all throughout Friday.

    As July 15 was coming to an end in Tehran, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif was on the phone with his Turkish counterpart Mevlut Cavusoglu, whose government was under the threat of being overthrown by a military coup. Meanwhile, Ali Shamkhani, the secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council (SNSC), was on another line with security officials in Ankara. All the while, Qassem Soleimani, the commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps' Quds Force, Iran's regional military arm, was busy pursuing and reviewing various scenarios that might emerge.

    "It's not a secret anymore," an Iranian official told Al-Monitor on condition of anonymity. "Zarif, Shamkhani and Soleimani were executing higher orders. The whole establishment was too concerned. Turkey is a neighboring state. President Erdogan and his government are strong partners of Iran. Our nations enjoy strong brotherly ties, so it's the least we can do to show solidarity and try to offer any help they might need in such critical times."

    "Another Iranian official saw parallels between the successful coup against Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh in 1953 and this year's coup attempt in Turkey," Al-Monitor said.

    The official told Al-Monitor on condition of anonymity, "What we know is that this move was triggered by foreign hands. We went through the same in the past, and because Mr. Erdogan is today looking forward to playing a better role in the region, they want him down." The Iranian official said, "There was a message that was conveyed to Turkish security officials: Don't leave the streets. This coup might be made up of several waves; it happened in Iran in 1953. When the first coup failed, they had another one ready - and they succeeded."

    In Ankara, the government claims the coup and the generals behind it are loyal followers of US-based Islamic cleric Fethullah Gulen, who was once Erdogan's key ally before a major fallout in 2012. Many believe that Gulen is the main cause of why Ankara officials have repeatedly accused the US of masterminding the plot.

    Gulen is running a multi-billion dollar enterprise in Saudi Arabia and has grown into a serious bone of contention in Ankara-Riyadh ties. Saudi Arabia reserved condemnation of the coup in a suspicious move. Later, reports surfaced the media that the top brass in Riyadh and Abu Dhabi – two strong allies of the US with unbreakably intimate ties with each other in the Persian Gulf – were involved in the coup.

    Saudi whistle-blower Mujtahid, who is believed to be a member of or have a well-connected source in the royal family, dislosed that senior government officials in Riyadh and Abu Dhabi had been informed of the coup in Turkey long before it took place.

    Mujtahid wrote on his twitter page on Monday that the UAE leaders had played a role in the coup and the Turkish spy agencies have come to decode this involvement, adding that the UAE leaders had also alerted the Saudis about the impending coup.

    "Saudi Deputy Crown Prince and Defense Minister Mohammad bin Salman had been informed of the military coup in Turkey," Mujtahid wrote on his twitter page on Monday.

    "There are reasons to prove that given his intimate relations with Mohammad bin Zayed bin Sultan Al-Nahyan (the Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi and Deputy Supreme Commander of the UAE Armed Forces), Mohammad bin Salman had been filled with information about this coup," he added.

    According to Mujtahid, Turkish intelligence agencies had received information about some negative collaboration between bin Salman and bin Zayed, but the Saudis managed to convince the Justice and Development party to rest assured and be optimistic about Riyadh's actions.

    He revealed that bin Salman has been trying to convince the Turks to conceal the UAE's role in the coup and has promised a large amount of cash in retribution.

    The last week coup in Turkey is now growing into a major regional confrontation over Turkey's shift in its Syria policy now. If confirmed, the Russian and Iranian aid to Erdogan would mean the power balance and equations in the region ought to be redefined.

    [Jul 20, 2016] This despicable king of bait and switch Obama wants to join venture capital

    Notable quotes:
    "... I have with Silicon Valley and with venture capital pull together my interests in science and organization in a way I find really satisfying. ..."
    "... I am not aiming to infuriate because the man we elected in 2008 to get tough with high finance and shut the revolving door was now talking about taking his own walk through that door and getting a job in finance. ..."
    "... My object here is to describe the confident, complacent mood of the country's ruling class in the middle of last month ..."
    "... It's easy to see the problems presented by a cliquish elite when they happen elsewhere. ..."
    "... when an "idealistic" American president announces that he wants to seek a career in venture capital, we have trouble saying much of anything. ..."
    "... This panic about so called elites is really a reaction to the notion that economics is a science and that those who 'run' the economy are 'technocrats'. The fact that economists differ so radically among themselves about their discipline is clear evidence that their ideas are not scientific in the properly accepted sense of the word. The world's economy is much too large and complex to be modeled by demonstrable theories. So what we have instead is not science, but politics. And a person's political views are are function of personality, background and worldly experience. ..."
    "... To all this must be added the effect of the near-universal adoption of neo-liberal economic dogma to the globalized economy, with the consequent severity of inequality and its inevitable discontents. ..."
    The Guardian

    And so President Barack Obama did an interview with Business Week in which he was congratulated for his stewardship of the economy and asked "what industries" he might choose to join upon his retirement from the White House. The president replied as follows:

    … what I will say is that – just to bring things full circle about innovation – the conversations I have with Silicon Valley and with venture capital pull together my interests in science and organization in a way I find really satisfying.

    In relating this anecdote, I am not aiming to infuriate because the man we elected in 2008 to get tough with high finance and shut the revolving door was now talking about taking his own walk through that door and getting a job in finance. No.

    My object here is to describe the confident, complacent mood of the country's ruling class in the middle of last month

    ... ... ...

    It's easy to see the problems presented by a cliquish elite when they happen elsewhere. In the countries of Old Europe, maybe, powerful politicians sell out grotesquely to Goldman Sachs; but when an "idealistic" American president announces that he wants to seek a career in venture capital, we have trouble saying much of anything.

    MrSleary

    I suppose that before voting for any candidate these days we would need him/her to be able to demonstrate complete ignorance in every field.

    This panic about so called elites is really a reaction to the notion that economics is a science and that those who 'run' the economy are 'technocrats'. The fact that economists differ so radically among themselves about their discipline is clear evidence that their ideas are not scientific in the properly accepted sense of the word. The world's economy is much too large and complex to be modeled by demonstrable theories. So what we have instead is not science, but politics. And a person's political views are are function of personality, background and worldly experience.

    The other aspect of this is the effect that developments in technology have had on previously industrialized societies. In most of the countries of Western Europe industrialization created a situation in which organized labour had real power and a distinctive voice. De-industrialization has largely eliminated this from our political landscape with the result that people previously represented by the unions no longer have either power or a voice. The alienating effect of this can be seen in both Europe and the USA.

    To all this must be added the effect of the near-universal adoption of neo-liberal economic dogma to the globalized economy, with the consequent severity of inequality and its inevitable discontents.

    The radical, and in many instance, violent responses to various local circumstances in widely different parts of the world - USA, France, Britain, Turkey, Syria, Hungary, Ukraine, Russia - one could go on - may seem to be quite distinct, but they surely have a common root; at a time of rapid and radical change in the very texture of human life, growing inequality within is an explosive factor.

    [Jul 19, 2016] What Republican Foreign Policy Reform Requires by Daniel Larison

    Notable quotes:
    "... Admitting that the Iraq war was a grievous, horrible error is necessary but not sufficient to reform Republican foreign policy. ..."
    "... The trouble with the rest of the 2016 field wasn't just that many of the candidates were Iraq war dead-enders, but that they were so obsessed with the idea of American "leadership" that almost all of them thought that the U.S. needed to be involved in multiple conflicts in different parts of the world in one way or another. ..."
    "... Almost none of the declared 2016 candidates opposed the Libyan war at the time, and very few concluded that the problem with intervening in Libya was the intervention itself. The standard hawkish line on Libya for years has been that the U.S. should have committed itself to another open-ended exercise in stabilizing a country we helped to destabilize. ..."
    "... Until Republican politicians and their advisers start to understand that reflexive support for "action" (and some kind of military action at that) is normally the wrong response, we can't expect much to change. Most Republican foreign policy professionals seem to hold the same shoddy assumptions that led them to endorse all of the interventions of the last 15 years without exception, and nothing that has happened during that time has caused most of them to reexamine those assumptions. ..."
    "... Until they stop fetishizing American "leadership" and invoking "American exceptionalism" as an excuse to meddle in every new crisis, Republicans will end up in the same cul-de-sac of self-defeating belligerence. ..."
    "... Opposition to the deal reflects so many of the flaws in current Republican foreign policy views: automatic opposition to any diplomatic compromise that might actually work, grossly exaggerating the potential threat from another state, conflating U.S. interests with those of unreliable client states, continually moving goalposts to judge a negotiated deal by unreasonable standards, insisting on maximalist concessions from the other side while refusing to agree to minimal concessions from ours, and making spurious and unfounded allegations of "appeasement" at every turn to score points against political adversaries at home. ..."
    July 19, 2016 | The American Conservative

    It would be a good start if all future presidential candidates could acknowledge the disastrous and costly folly of the Iraq war, but it would only be a start. Admitting that the Iraq war was a grievous, horrible error is necessary but not sufficient to reform Republican foreign policy.

    The trouble with the rest of the 2016 field wasn't just that many of the candidates were Iraq war dead-enders, but that they were so obsessed with the idea of American "leadership" that almost all of them thought that the U.S. needed to be involved in multiple conflicts in different parts of the world in one way or another.

    Almost none of the declared 2016 candidates opposed the Libyan war at the time, and very few concluded that the problem with intervening in Libya was the intervention itself. The standard hawkish line on Libya for years has been that the U.S. should have committed itself to another open-ended exercise in stabilizing a country we helped to destabilize. Most Republican politicians are so wedded to a belief in the efficacy of using hard power that they refuse to admit that there are many problems that the U.S. can't and shouldn't try to solve with it.

    Until Republican politicians and their advisers start to understand that reflexive support for "action" (and some kind of military action at that) is normally the wrong response, we can't expect much to change. Most Republican foreign policy professionals seem to hold the same shoddy assumptions that led them to endorse all of the interventions of the last 15 years without exception, and nothing that has happened during that time has caused most of them to reexamine those assumptions.

    Until they stop fetishizing American "leadership" and invoking "American exceptionalism" as an excuse to meddle in every new crisis, Republicans will end up in the same cul-de-sac of self-defeating belligerence. Unless Republicans adopt a much less expansive definition of "vital interests," they will routinely end up on the wrong side of most major foreign policy debates.

    Finally, unless most Republican politicians and their advisers overcome their aversion to diplomatic engagement they will end up supporting costlier, less effective, and more destructive policies for lack of practical alternatives. The virtually unanimous opposition to the nuclear deal with Iran is a good example of the sort of thing that a reformed Republican Party wouldn't do.

    Opposition to the deal reflects so many of the flaws in current Republican foreign policy views: automatic opposition to any diplomatic compromise that might actually work, grossly exaggerating the potential threat from another state, conflating U.S. interests with those of unreliable client states, continually moving goalposts to judge a negotiated deal by unreasonable standards, insisting on maximalist concessions from the other side while refusing to agree to minimal concessions from ours, and making spurious and unfounded allegations of "appeasement" at every turn to score points against political adversaries at home.

    Obviously these are habits cultivated over decades and are not going to be fixed quickly or easily, but if the next Republican administration (whenever that may be) doesn't want to conduct foreign policy as disastrously as the last one did they are habits that need to be broken.

    Daniel Larison is a senior editor at TAC, where he also keeps a solo blog. He has been published in the New York Times Book Review, Dallas Morning News, Orthodox Life, Front Porch Republic, The American Scene, and Culture11, and is a columnist for The Week. He holds a PhD in history from the University of Chicago, and resides in Dallas. Follow him on Twitter.

    [Jul 19, 2016] The Hawks Are Still in Charge

    Notable quotes:
    "... Nonetheless, the Platform Committee's debates last week were interesting to watch and a good barometer of where the Republican Party stands on certain issues. The interactions on foreign policy and national security were especially revealing, and they all led to the same conclusion: neoconservatives are still very much the leaders of the GOP's foreign-policy machinery. ..."
    "... If they were driven by public opinion, then, the delegates would have brought the platform's national-security proposals in a less hawkish and more realist direction. But every single amendment from libertarian-esque and anti-interventionist delegate Eric Brakey was defeated by voice vote without much debate. ..."
    The American Conservative

    In the grand scheme of things, a political party's platform is an insignificant document. The Republican Party's platform this year doesn't change this; despite the media's fascination with the fact that Donald Trump's border wall made its way into the platform, the document is still a non-binding, ideological missive, more of a goodie bag for conservative activists than an operational plan.

    Nonetheless, the Platform Committee's debates last week were interesting to watch and a good barometer of where the Republican Party stands on certain issues. The interactions on foreign policy and national security were especially revealing, and they all led to the same conclusion: neoconservatives are still very much the leaders of the GOP's foreign-policy machinery.

    According to a May 2016 Pew Research Center survey, a majority of Americans would rather let other countries deal with their own affairs (57 percent) than plunge manpower and money overseas to help other countries confront their challenges (37 percent). 62 percent of Republicans surveyed want the United States to start taking its own domestic problems more seriously, and Pew reports that "roughly 55 percent of Republicans view global economic engagement negatively." In addition, the single most consequential foreign-policy decision that neoconservatives have made-the invasion and occupation of Iraq-has been labeled a failure by a majority of Americans.

    If they were driven by public opinion, then, the delegates would have brought the platform's national-security proposals in a less hawkish and more realist direction. But every single amendment from libertarian-esque and anti-interventionist delegate Eric Brakey was defeated by voice vote without much debate. International diplomacy, the life-blood of U.S. foreign policy and the option of first resort, was largely overshadowed by provisions that resemble the doomsday scenarios you would find in an apocalyptic Hollywood thriller.

    ... ... ...

    Daniel R. DePetris is an analyst at Wikistrat, Inc., a geostrategic consulting firm, and a freelance researcher. He has also written for CNN.com, Small Wars Journal, and the Diplomat.

    [Jul 17, 2016] MH17 crash: Malaysia Airlines 'strikes deal on damages', says lawyer

    www.bbc.com

    Dutch media say there are no further details because both parties have agreed to secrecy.

    A memorial service was held for the victims on Sunday near Schiphol.

    Under the Montreal Convention, which regulates air travel, airlines must pay damages of up to about $145,000 (£109,000) to victims' families, regardless of the circumstances of a crash.

    [Jul 11, 2016] Russia and America Destined for Conflict

    Notable quotes:
    "... [The world] respected our strengths, and when they saw to an exaggerated degree that we were not as strong as they thought, that Russia was "a colossus on clay legs," then the picture changed immediately, domestic and foreign enemies raised their heads, and the indifferent stopped paying attention to us. ..."
    "... Dimitri K. Simes, publisher and CEO of the ..."
    "... , is president of the Center for the National Interest. ..."
    nationalinterest.org

    The National Interest

    ONE REASON for avoiding a sense of inevitable confrontation with Russia is that Moscow's truculence is primarily a function of what America does rather than who it is. To the extent that Russia has an ideology, it is an assertive nationalism that allows cooperation with any nation that does not challenge Russian geopolitical interests or its system of government. Russia thus maintains good relations with authoritarian countries like China and Qatar, and with democracies like India and Israel. In part because its leaders are pragmatic rather than messianic, Russia's authoritarianism is still relatively soft and incorporates many democratic procedures including meaningful if not entirely free or fair elections, a judicial branch that is autonomous most of the time and a semi-independent media. Transitions to democracy in other countries are only a problem for Russia's live-and-let-live foreign policy when the Kremlin sees them as either destabilizing (as in some cases in the Middle East) or anti-Russian (as in some cases in its immediate neighborhood).

    While a U.S.-Russian conflict is not inevitable, Russia's estrangement from the West after the Cold War probably stemmed from the unrealistic and contrasting expectations held on both sides. When Mikhail Gorbachev and his liberal allies like Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze, Central Committee Secretary Alexander Yakovlev, and foreign-policy aide Anatoly Chernyaev began articulating and implementing Gorbachev's "new thinking," which emphasized universal human values at the expense of national interests, they assumed that the Soviet Union could cease being a global superpower, give up its system of alliances, rely increasingly on foreign economic assistance and still benefit from others' deference to Moscow as a key player in world affairs. If Soviet leaders had consulted Russia's own history, they would have realized how profoundly unrealistic their expectations were.

    Sergei Witte, who became Russia's first constitutionally appointed prime minister under Czar Nicholas II following the country's humiliating defeat in the Russo-Japanese War, would have immediately foreseen what was to come. "It was not because of our culture or our bureaucratic church or our wealth and welfare that the world respected us," Witte wrote.

    [The world] respected our strengths, and when they saw to an exaggerated degree that we were not as strong as they thought, that Russia was "a colossus on clay legs," then the picture changed immediately, domestic and foreign enemies raised their heads, and the indifferent stopped paying attention to us.

    Of course, the Soviet Union did not suffer a military defeat in the 1980s like the Russian Empire's loss in 1905. Nor did the changes in Russian government, policy and philosophy follow a domestic rebellion; instead, they were imposed from the top by a leadership that decided it was on the wrong side of history. Notwithstanding the motives of Gorbachev and, later, President Boris Yeltsin, Western officials showed little gratitude for their roles in destroying the Soviet empire once it became clear that a Russia collapsing upon itself was unwilling to use force and had very little remaining economic leverage. Similarly, while most Russians not only counted on massive Western assistance but even thought of themselves as Western allies in destroying the USSR, most in the West, particularly in central Europe, determined that the time had finally come to act on historical grievances against Moscow or felt that a weak, corrupt and unstable Russia did not deserve to be taken seriously, much less accepted as an equal partner with the United States and the European Union.

    ... ... ...

    THE DARING combination of NATO expansion and growing interventionism further accentuated Russia's alienation from the West. Remarkably, NATO failed to consider how its dramatically different conduct would affect relations with Russia or world politics in general. With post–Cold War triumphalism increasingly seeping into conventional wisdom, most assumed that when the United States and major European powers wanted to do something in the international arena, they could impose their will without significant costs. Though this new NATO assertiveness was not deliberately directed against Russia, few within the alliance took seriously Moscow's concerns-which were met by most with either indifference or contemptuous disregard. Rarely if ever did U.S. leaders critically assess how they themselves would react if a powerful (and not even necessarily hostile) alliance sought to add Canada and Mexico to its ranks while excluding the United States.

    ... ... ...

    Advocates of NATO expansion argued that Russia could not really object to the process. Neither Washington nor anyone else signed an agreement with Gorbachev or Yeltsin to limit NATO to its current membership, they said. And anyway, the central and eastern European countries themselves were asking to join. Beyond that, advocates said, expansion would actually make Russia more secure because new members under NATO's security umbrella would be less afraid of their former imperial master and would accordingly be better able to set aside their past grievances to begin new relationships with Moscow. Since Yeltsin was instrumental in achieving relatively peaceful independence for the Baltic states by refusing to allow Russian citizens to participate in any military action against them, some expected Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania to be especially grateful. Nevertheless, all these arguments were either incomplete, superficial or just plain wrong.

    It is true that the George H. W. Bush administration did not provide any formal guarantees that NATO would not expand further east. That was perfectly appropriate since neither Gorbachev nor Yeltsin asked for a legally binding agreement. Nevertheless, as their memoirs and other documents make clear, President Bush, James Baker and Brent Scowcroft may not have considered post-Communist Russia to be a superpower, but they did view it as a friendly power. They intended to treat Moscow with respect and dignity and to work to provide it what they saw as an appropriate place in the new European security architecture. This attitude discouraged Gorbachev and Yeltsin from insisting on legally binding guarantees.

    ... ... ...

    In the absence of a serious foreign-policy debate, few Americans understood what an ambitious project Washington was undertaking in allowing NATO's expansion and interventionism to proceed blindly until the alliance had incorporated most of Europe. Yet looking at the last two centuries of Europe's history, a nation or a group of nations has only attempted to dominate Europe three times. Napoleon Bonaparte, World War I's victorious allies and the Third Reich each tried and failed. Napoleon and Hitler were defeated by a countercoalition; the World War I allies created an unsustainable security architecture in Europe that contributed to the rise of Nazism and World War II. Moreover, while Westerners may believe that NATO's eastward expansion has been peaceful and voluntary, Russians see it as inseparable from NATO's European and global military exploits. How could bringing small new members into NATO and mollifying them outweigh the danger of provoking Russia's anti-Western militarism?

    ... ... ...

    Many say that without Ukraine Russia cannot be an empire. This is true, to a point. Conversely, however, Russia's elite and much of its public believes that Russia can never be secure if Ukraine becomes a hostile nation and particularly if it joins a hostile alliance. Russian leaders have already seen how NATO's new members have changed the character of the alliance in its dealings with Moscow. A NATO influenced by not only Poland and the Baltic states, but also Ukraine, may form an existential threat for Moscow. This in turn would place both Ukraine's and NATO's security in terrible jeopardy-a development that America should seek to avoid.

    Relations between the two sides have deteriorated to dangerous levels. It's in the U.S. national interest to explore better relations with Russia from a position of strength, something that will require both patience and realism in acknowledging that the effort may not succeed. If Moscow refuses to oblige, Washington should do whatever is necessary to protect its interests. Since this is likely to be risky and costly, it should not be America's first choice.

    Dimitri K. Simes, publisher and CEO of the National Interest, is president of the Center for the National Interest.

    [Jul 10, 2016] Anti-militarism by John Quiggin

    This thread is interesting by presence of complete lunatics like Brett Dunbar , who claims tha capitalism leads to peace.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Militarism is the belief or desire of a government or people that a country should maintain a strong military capability and be prepared to use it aggressively [^1] to defend or promote national interests ..."
    "... Bringing Bush, Blair, and Aznar to justice would be the greatest deterrent for further war. I like the part about economic crimes. Justice brings peace. ..."
    "... War is a tool of competition for resources. Think Iraq. ..."
    "... the Nuremberg War Crimes tribunal hanged Nazis for doing exactly what Bush 2 and company did ..."
    "... The Labour leader said last year Blair could face trial if the report found he was guilty of launching an illegal war. ..."
    "... John Quiggin, I think your definition of militarism is flawed. I think that cultural attitudes and the social status of the military are very important as well. To paraphrase Andrew Bacevich, Militarism is the idea that military solutions to a country's problems are more effective than they really are. Militarism assumes that the military's way of running things is inherently correct. A militaristic society glorifies violence and the people who carry it out in the name of the state. ..."
    "... They chose force first and dealt with the consequences later. So militarism can exist and flourish on a tight budget. Its all about mentality. ..."
    "... The notion that capitalism is peaceful is preposterous, even if you accept the bizarre notion that only wars between the capitalist Great Powers really count as wars. It's true that it's tacitly presumed by many, perhaps most, learned authorities. But that is an indictment of the authorities, not a justification for the claim. The closely related claim that capitalism is responsible for technological advancement on inspection suggests that the real story is that technological progress enabled the European states to begin empires that funded capitalist development. ..."
    "... Russia and China had achieved success in Central Asia, unlike the United States, by pursuing a respectful [sic] foreign policy based on mutual interest. ..."
    "... Although the term 'global policeman' (or 'cops of the world') is mostly used ironically (in my experience), 'policeman' does have a straight meaning, denoting a person who operates under the authority of law, whereas the supreme Mafia capo is a law and authority unto himself, at least until someone assassinates him. I think this second metaphor more closely approximates the position and behavior of the present United States. ..."
    "... ..."
    crookedtimber.org

    100 years after the Battle of the Somme, it's hard to see that much has been learned from the catastrophe of the Great War and the decades of slaughter that followed it. Rather than get bogged down (yet again) in specifics that invariably decline into arguments about who know more of the historical detail, I'm going to try a different approach, looking at the militarist ideology that gave us the War, and trying to articulate an anti-militarist alternative. Wikipedia offers a definition of militarism which, with the deletion of a single weasel word, seems to be entirely satisfactory and also seems to describe the dominant view of the political class, and much of the population in nearly every country in the world.

    Militarism is the belief or desire of a government or people that a country should maintain a strong military capability and be prepared to use it aggressively[^1] to defend or promote national interests

    Wikipedia isn't as satisfactory (to me) on anti-militarism, so I'll essentially reverse the definition above, and offer the following provisional definition

    Anti-militarism is the belief or desire that a military expenditure should held to the minimum required to protect a country against armed attack and that, with the exception of self-defense, military power should not be used to promote national interests

    I'd want to qualify this a bit, but it seems like a good starting point.

    ... ... ...

    My case for anti-militarism has two main elements.

    1. First, the consequentialist case against the discretionary use of military force is overwhelming. Wars cause huge damage and destruction and preparation for war is immensely costly. Yet it is just about impossible to find examples where a discretionary decision to go to war has produced a clear benefit for the country concerned, or even for its ruling class. Even in cases where war is initially defensive, attempts to secure war aims beyond the status quo ante have commonly led to disaster.
    2. Second, war is (almost) inevitably criminal since it involves killing and maiming people who have done nothing personally to justify this; not only civilians, but soldiers (commonly including conscripts) obeying the lawful orders of their governments.

    Having made the strong case, I'll admit a couple of exceptions. First, although most of the above has been posed in terms of national military power, there's nothing special in the argument that requires this. Collective self-defense by a group of nations is justified (or not) on the same grounds as national self-defense.

    ... ... ...

    [^1]: The deleted word "aggressive" is doing a lot of work here. Almost no government ever admits to being aggressive. Territorial expansion is invariable represented as the restoration of historically justified borders while the overthrow of a rival government is the liberation of its oppressed people. So, no one ever has to admit to being a militarist.

    Dylan 07.04.16 at 6:20 am 2

    Is it obvious that limiting use of military force to self-defense entails a minimal capability for force projection?

    If the cost of entirely securing a nation's territory (Prof Q, you will recognise the phrase "Fortress Australia") is very high relative to the cost of being able to threaten an adversary's territorial interests in a way that is credible and meaningful – would it not then be unavoidably tempting to appeal to an expanded notion of self-defence and buy a force-projection capability, even if your intent is genuinely peaceful?

    To speculate a little further – I would worry that so many people would need to be committed to "national defence" on a purely defensive model that it would have the unintended side effect of promoting a martial culture that normalises the use of armed force.

    Of course, none of this applies if everyone abandons their force-projection capability – but is that a stable equilibrium, even if it could be achieved?

    Lowhim 07.04.16 at 6:24 am 3

    Well, you'll be pleased to know that they're working hard on WWI's perception [1]. Many of us working against militarism. Not easy. And the linked NYtimes piece is worth reading.

    [1] http://www.worldwar1centennial.org/index.php/about.html

    Ze K 07.04.16 at 7:21 am 4

    I think it'd make sense to talk about imperialism, rather than militarism. Military is just a tool. One could, for example, bribe another country's military leaders, or finance a paramilitary force in the targeted state, or just organize a violence-inciting mass-media campaign to produce the same result.

    bad Jim 07.04.16 at 7:54 am 5

    We'd need an alternative history of the Cold War to work through the ramifications of a less aggressive Western military. Russia would have developed nuclear weapons even if there hadn't been an army at its borders, and the borders of the Eastern bloc were arguably more the result of opportunity than necessity. The colonial wars in Vietnam and Afghanistan and everywhere else could be similarly described.

    After World War I, the chastened combatants sheepishly disarmed, cognizant of their insanity. World War II taught a different lesson, perhaps because, in contrast to the previous kerfuffle, both the Russian and American behemoths became fully engaged and unleashed their full industrial and demographic might, sweeping their common foes from the field, and found themselves confronting each other in dubious peace.

    Both sides armed for the apocalypse with as many ways to bring about the end of civilization as they could devise, all the while mindlessly meddling with each other around the globe. Eventually the Russians gave up; their system really was as bad as we thought, and Moore's law is pitiless: the gap expands exponentially. They've shrunk, and so has their military.

    So why is America such a pre-eminent bully, able to defeat the rest of the world combined in combat? Habit, pride, domestic politics, sure; but blame our allies as well. Britain and France asked us to to kick ass in Libya, and Syria is not that different. We've got this huge death-dealing machine and everyone tells us how to use it.

    Ridiculous as it is, it's not nearly as bad as it was a hundred years ago, or seventy, or forty. We may still be on course to extinguish human civilization, but warfare no longer looks like its likely cause.

    david 07.04.16 at 8:14 am

    As you point out in fn1, nobody seems to ever fight "aggressive" wars. By the same token, there's no agreed status quo ante. For France in 1913, the status quo ante bellum has Lorraine restored to France. Also, Germany fractures into Prussia and everyone else, and the Germans should go back to putting out local regionalist fires (as Austria-Hungary is busy doing) rather than challenging French supremacy in Europe and Africa please.

    The position advanced in the essay is one for an era where ships do not hop from coaling station to coaling station, where the supremacy of the Most Favoured Nation system means that powerful countries do not find their domestic politics held hostage for access to raw materials controlled by other countries, where shipping lanes are neutral as a matter of course, and where the Green Revolution has let rival countries be content to bid, not kill, for limited resources. We can argue over whether this state of affairs is contingent on the tiger-repelling rock or actual, angry tigers, but I don't think we disagree that this is the state of affairs, at least for the countries powerful enough to matter.

    But, you know, that's not advice that 1913 would find appealing, which is a little odd given the conceit that this is about the Somme. The Concert of Europe bounced from war to war to war. Every flag that permits war in this 'anti-militarist' position is met and then some. It was unending crisis after crisis that miraculously never escalated to total war, but no country today would regard crises of those nature as acceptable today – hundreds of thousands of Germans were besieging Paris in 1870! Hundreds of thousands of Frenchmen were dead! If Napoleon III had the Bomb he would have used it. But he did not. There was no three score years of postwar consumer economy under the peaceful shadow of nuclear armageddon.

    Anderson 07.04.16 at 9:07 am
    3: "After World War I, the chastened combatants sheepishly disarmed, cognizant of their insanity."
    One could only wish this were true. Germany was disarmed by force and promptly schemed for the day it would rearm; Russia's civil war continued for some years; France and Britain disarmed because they were broke, not because they'd recognized any folly.
    … Quiggin, I don't know if you read Daniel Larison at The American Conservative; his domestic politics would likely horrify us both, but happily


    jake the antisoshul sohulist 07.04.16 at 1:32 pm

    Other than the reference to "the redempive power of war", the mythification of the military is not mentioned in the definition of militarism. I don't think a definition of militarism can focus only on the political/policy aspects and ignore the cultural aspects.
    Militarism is as much cultural as it is political, and likely even more so.

    Theophylact 07.04.16 at 2:17 pm

    Tacitus:

    Auferre, trucidare, rapere, falsis nominibus imperium; atque, ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant (To plunder, butcher, steal, these things they misname empire: they make a desolation and they call it peace).


    LFC 07.04.16 at 4:55 pm

    from the OP:

    100 years after the Battle of the Somme, it's hard to see that much has been learned from the catastrophe of the Great War

    The counterargument to this statement is that the world's 'great powers' did indeed learn something from the Great War: namely, they learned that great-power war is a pointless endeavor. Hitler of course didn't learn that, which is, basically, why WW2 happened. But there hasn't been a great-power war - i.e., a sustained conflict directly between two or more 'great' or major powers - since WW2 (or some wd say the Korean War qualifies as a great-power war, in which case 1953 wd be the date of the end of the last great-power war).

    The next step is to extend the learned lesson about great-power war to other kinds of war. That extension has proven difficult, but there's no reason to assume it's forever impossible.

    -–

    p.s. There are various extant definitions of 'great power', some of which emphasize factors other than military power. For purposes of this comment, though, one can go with Mearsheimer's definition: "To qualify as a great power, a state [i.e., country] must have sufficient military assets to put up a serious fight in an all-out conventional war against the most [militarily] powerful state in the world" (The Tragedy of Great Power Politics (2001), p.5). Using this definition of 'great power', the last war in which two or more great powers directly fought each other in any kind of sustained fashion (i.e. more than a short conflict of roughly a week or two [or less]) was, as stated above, either WW2 or Korea (depending on one's view of whether China qualified as a great power at the time of the Korean War).


    Lupita 07.04.16 at 7:06 pm

    ZM @ 7 quoting Mary Kaldor:

    An emphasis on justice and accountability for war crimes, human rights violations and economic crimes, is something that is demanded by civil society in all these conflicts. Justice is probably the most significant policy that makes a human security approach different from current stabilisation approaches.

    Bringing Bush, Blair, and Aznar to justice would be the greatest deterrent for further war. I like the part about economic crimes. Justice brings peace.


    Kevin Cox 07.04.16 at 9:19 pm

    The place to start is with the Efficient Market Hypothesis as the mechanism to allocate resources. This hypothesis says that entities compete for markets. War is a tool of competition for resources. Think Iraq.

    Instead of allocating resources via markets let us allocate resources cooperatively via the ideas of the Commons. Start with "Think like a Commoner: A short introduction to the Life of the Commons" by David Bollier.

    A country that uses this approach to the allocation of resources will not want to go to war and will try to persuade other countries to use the same approach.

    The place to start is with renewable energy. Find a way to "distribute renewable energy" based on the commons and anti militarism will likely follow.


    Anarcissie 07.05.16 at 12:31 am

    Lupita 07.04.16 at 10:22 pm @ 46 -

    While the Nuremberg War Crimes tribunal hanged Nazis for doing exactly what Bush 2 and company did, I doubt if starting a war of aggression is against U.S. law in an enforceable way. However, since the war was completely unjustified, I suppose Bush could be charged with murder (and many other crimes). This sort of question is now rising in the UK with regard to Blair because of the Chilcot inquiry.


    Ze K 07.05.16 at 1:29 pm

    Not in internal national politics, but in international law. There's something called 'crimes againt peace', for example. Obviously it's not there to prosecute leaders of boss-countries, but theoretically it could. And, in fact, the fact that it's accepted that the leaders of powerful countries are not to be procesuted is exactly a case of perversion of justice you are talking about… no?


    Anarcissie 07.05.16 at 1:56 pm

    Watson Ladd 07.05.16 at 3:57 am @ 56 -
    According to what I read at the time the US, or at least some of its leadership, encouraged the Georgian leadership to believe that if they tried to knock off a few pieces of Russia, the US would somehow back them up if the project didn't turn out as well as hoped. Now, I get this from the same media that called the Georgian invasion of Russia 'Russian aggression' so it may not be very reliable, but that's what was said, and the invasion of a state the size of Russia by a state the size of Georgia doesn't make much sense unless the latter thought they were going to get some kind of help if things turned out badly. I guess the model was supposed to be the dismemberment of Yugoslavia, but bombing the hell out of Serbia is one thing and bombing the hell out of Russia quite another.

    It is interesting in regard to Georgia 2008 to trace the related career of Mr. Saakashvili, who was then the president of Georgia, having replaced Mr. Shevardnadze in one of those color revolutions, and was reported to have said that he wanted Georgia to become America's Israel in central Asia. The Georgians apparently did not relish this proposed role once they found out what it entailed and kicked him out. He subsequently popped up in Ukraine, where according to Wikipedia he is the governor of the Odessa Oblast, whatever that means. Again, I get this from our media, so it may all be lies; but it does seem to make a kind of sense which I probably don't need to spell out.


    Ze K 07.05.16 at 2:10 pm

    No, south Ossetia was a part of Georgia. They were fighting for autonomy (Georgia is a bit of an empire itself), and Russian peacekeeping troops were placed there to prevent farther infighting. One day, Georgian military, encouraged by US neocons, started shelling South Ossetian capital, killing, among other people, some of the Russian peacekeeprs, and this is how the 2008 war started.


    Ze K 07.05.16 at 2:31 pm

    …a lot of these ethnic issues in Georgia are really the legacy of stalinism, when in many places (Abkhazia, for sure) local populations suffered mass-repressions with ethnic Georgians migrating there and becaming majorities (not to mention, bosses). Fasil Iskander, great Abkhaz writer, described that. Once the USSR collapsed, it all started to unwind, and Georgia got screwed. Oh well.


    Anarcissie 07.05.16 at 4:34 pm

    Ze K 07.05.16 at 2:38 pm @ 80 -
    The Russian ruling class experimented with being the US ruling class's buddy in the 1990s, sort of. It didn't work well for them. The destruction of Yugoslavia, the business in Abkhazia and Ossetia, the coup in Ukraine, the American intervention in Syria which must seem (heh) as if aimed at the Russian naval base at Tartus, the extensions of NATO, the ABMs, and so on, these cannot have been reassuring. Reassurance then had to come from taking up bordering territory, building weapons, and the like. Let us hope the Russian leadership do not also come to the conclusion that the best defense is a good offense.


    Lupita 07.05.16 at 5:52 pm

    We're a nation of killers.

    Justice can ameliorate that problem. For example, Pinochet being indicted, charged, and placed under house arrest until his death (though never convicted) for crimes against humanity, murder, torture, embezzlement, arms trafficking, drugs trafficking, tax fraud, and passport forgery and, in Argentina, Videla getting a life sentence plus another 500 being convicted with many cases still in progress, at the very least may give pause to those who would kill and torture as a career enhancement move in these countries and, hopefully, throughout Latin America. Maybe one of these countries can at least indict Kissinger for Operación Cóndor and give American presidents something extra to plan for when planning their covert operations.

    For heads of state to stop behaving as if they were untouchable and people believing that they are, we need more convictions, more accountability, more laws, more justice.

    Asteele 07.05.16 at 7:42 pm

    In a capitalist system if you can make money by impoverishing others you do it. There are individual capitalists and firms that make money off of war, the fact that the public at large sees no aggregate benefit in not a problem for them.


    Anarcissie 07.05.16 at 8:35 pm

    LFC 07.05.16 at 5:28 pm @ 85 -
    I think that, on the evidence, one must doubt (to put it mildly) that either the Russian or the American leadership care whether Mr. Assad is a nice person or not. They have not worried much about a lot of other not-nice people over recent decades as long as the not-nice people seemed to serve their purposes. Hence I can only conclude that the business in Syria, which goes back well before the appearance of the Islamic State, is dependent on some other variable, like maybe the existence of a Russian naval base in mare nostrum. I'm just guessing, of course; more advanced conspiratists see Israeli, Iranian, Saudi, and Turkish connections. Note as well that the business in Ukraine involved a big Russian naval base. And I used to heard it said that navies were obsolete!


    ZM 07.06.16 at 7:06 am

    There has been coverage in The Guardian about the Chilcot report into the UK military interventions in Iraq.

    "The former civil servant promised that the report would answer some of the questions raised by families of the dead British soldiers. "The conversations we've had with the families were invaluable in shaping some of the report," Chilcot said.

    Some of the families will be at the launch of the report at the Queen Elizabeth II Centre, at Westminster. Others will join anti-war protesters outside who are calling for Blair to be prosecuted for alleged war crimes at the international criminal court in The Hague.

    Speaking to BBC Radio 4's Today programme on Wednesday, Karen Thornton, whose son Lee was killed in Iraq in 2006, said she was convinced that Blair had exaggerated intelligence about Iraq's capabilities.

    "If it is proved that he lied then obviously he should be held accountable for it," she said, adding that meant a trial for war crimes. "He shouldn't be allowed to just get away with it," she said. But she did not express confidence that Chilcot's report would provide the accountability that she was hoping for. "Nobody's going to be held to account and that's so wrong," she said. "We just want the truth."

    Chilcot insisted that any criticism would be supported by careful examination of the evidence. "We are not a court – not a judge or jury at work – but we've tried to apply the highest possible standards of rigorous analysis to the evidence where we make a criticism."

    Jeremy Corbyn, who will respond to the report in parliament on Wednesday, is understood to have concluded that international laws are neither strong nor clear enough to make any war crimes prosecution a reality. The Labour leader said last year Blair could face trial if the report found he was guilty of launching an illegal war.

    Corbyn is expected to fulfil a promise he made during his leadership campaign to apologise on behalf of Labour for the war. He will speak in the House of Commons after David Cameron, who is scheduled to make a statement shortly after 12.30pm. "

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jul/05/john-chilcot-says-iraq-war-inquiry-will-not-shy-away-from-criticisms


    Layman 07.06.16 at 11:45 am

    Only Tony Blair could read the Chilcot report and claim it vindicates his conduct.


    LFC 07.06.16 at 5:48 pm

    B. Dunbar @123
    Interstate wars have declined, and the 'logic' you identify might be one of various reasons for that.

    The wars dominating the headlines today - e.g. Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Ukraine/Donetsk/Russia - are not, however, classic interstate wars. They are either civil wars or 'internationalized' civil wars or have a civil-war aspect. Thus the 'logic' of business-wants-peace-and-trade doesn't really apply there. Apple doesn't want war w China but Apple doesn't care that much whether there is a prolonged civil war in Sri Lanka, Afghanistan, etc.

    So even if one accepted the argument that 'capitalism' leads to peace, we'd be left w a set of wars to which the argument doesn't apply. I don't have, obvs., the answer to the current conflicts. I think (as already mentioned) that there are some steps that might prove helpful in general if not nec. w.r.t. specific conflict x or y.

    The Kaldor remark about reversing the predatory economy - by which I take it she means, inter alia, black-market-driven, underground, in some cases criminal commerce connected to war - is suggestive. Easier said than done, I'm sure. Plus strengthening peacekeeping. And one cd come up w other things, no doubt.


    Ze K 07.06.16 at 6:35 pm

    @120, 121, yes, Georgians living in minority areas did suffer. But ethnic cleansing/genocides that would've most likely taken place should the Georgian government have had its way were prevented. Same as Crimea and Eastern Ukraine two years ago. This is not too difficult to understand – if you try – is it? Similarly (to Georgians in Abkhasia) millions of ethnic Russians suffered in the new central Asian republics, in Chechnya (all 100% were cleansed, many killed), and, in a slightly softer manner, in the Baltic republics… But that's okay with you, right? Well deserved? It's only when Abkhazs attack Georgians, then it's the outrage, and only because Russia was defending the Abkhazs, correct?

    Lupita 07.07.16 at 3:23 pm

    My impression since yesterday is that, while Brits are making a very big deal out of the Chilcot report, with much commentary about how momentous it is and the huge impact it will have, coverage of this event by the US media is notoriously subdued, particularly compared with the hysterical coverage Brexit got just some days ago. This leads me to believe that it is indeed justice that is feared the most by western imperialists such as Bush, Blair, Howard, Aznar, and Kwaśniewski and the elites that supported them and continue to cover up for them. I take this cowardly and creepy silence in the US media as an indicator that Pax Americana is so weakened that it cannot withstand the light of justice being shined upon it and that the end is near.


    Anarcissie 07.07.16 at 3:46 pm

    Lupita 07.07.16 at 3:23 pm @ 147 - For the kind of people in the US who pay attention to such things, the Chilcot Report is not really news. And the majority don't care, as witness the fortunes of the Clintons.


    Anarcissie 07.08.16 at 12:25 am

    Brett Dunbar 07.07.16 at 11:47 pm @ 160 -

    If capitalist types are so totally against war, it's hard to understand why the grand poster child of capitalism, the plutocratic United States, is so addicted to war. It is hard to consider it an aberration when the US has attacked dozens of countries not threatening it over the last fifty or sixty years, killed or injured or beggared or terrorized millions of noncombatants, and maintains hundreds of overseas bases and a world-destroying nuclear stockpile. What could the explanation possibly be?

    As human powers of production increase, at least in potential, existing scarcities of basic goods such as food, medicine, and housing are overcome. If people now become satisfied with their standard of living - not totally satisfied, but satisfied enough not to sweat and strain all the time for more - sales, profits, and employment will fall, and capitalists will become less important. In order to retain their ruling-class role, there needs to be a constant crisis of production-consumption which only the capitalist masters of industry can solve. Hence new scarcities must be produced. The major traditional methods of doing this have been imperialism, war, waste, and consumerism (including advertising). Conceded, major processes of environmental destruction such as climate change and the vitiating of antibiotics may lead to powerful new self-reinforcing scarcities which will take their place next to their traditional relatives, so that producing new scarcities would be less of a problem.


    Anarcissie 07.08.16 at 2:30 am

    LFC 07.08.16 at 1:30 am @ 163:
    'OTOH, I don't think capitalism esp. needs war to create this kind of scarcity….'

    But then one must explain why the major capitalist powers have engaged in so much of it, since it is so dirty and risky. I suppose one possible explanation is that whoever has the power to do so engages in it, capitalist or not; it is hardly a recent invention. However, I am mindful of the position of the US at the end of World War 2, with 50% of the worlds total productive capacity. Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive! So war turned out to be pretty handy for some people. And now we have lots of them.


    Matt_L 07.08.16 at 3:32 am

    John Quiggin, I think your definition of militarism is flawed. I think that cultural attitudes and the social status of the military are very important as well. To paraphrase Andrew Bacevich, Militarism is the idea that military solutions to a country's problems are more effective than they really are. Militarism assumes that the military's way of running things is inherently correct. A militaristic society glorifies violence and the people who carry it out in the name of the state.

    I also think that just reducing military spending or the capacity for military action is not enough to counter serious militarism. Austria-Hungary was a very militaristic society, but it spent the less on armaments than the other European Powers in the years leading up to 1914. The leaders of the Austro-Hungarian Dual Monarchy caused World War One by invading Serbia for a crime committed by a Bosnian Serb subject of the Monarchy. They had some good guesses that the Serbian military intelligence was involved, but not a lot of proof.

    Franz Joseph and the other leaders chose to solve a foreign policy problem by placing armed force before diplomacy and a complete criminal investigation. Their capacity to wage war relative to the other great powers of Europe did not enter into their calculations. They chose force first and dealt with the consequences later. So militarism can exist and flourish on a tight budget. Its all about mentality.


    stevenjohnson 07.08.16 at 9:29 pm

    "Great Power warfare became a lot less common after 1815, at the same point that the most advanced of the great powers developed capitalism."

    In Europe, locus of the alleged Long Peace, there were the Greek Rebellion; the First and Second Italian Wars of Independence; the First and Second Schleswig Wars; the Seven Weeks War; the Crimean War; the Franco-Prussian War; the First and Second Balkan Wars. Wars between a major capitalist state and another well established modern state included the Opium Wars; the Mexican War; the French invasion of Mexico; the War of the Triple Alliance; the War of the Pacific; the Spanish-American War; the Russo-Japanese War. Assaults by the allegedly peaceful capitalist nations against non-state societies or weak traditional states are too numerous to remember, but the death toll was enormous, on a scale matching the slaughter of the World Wars.

    Further the tensions between the Great Powers threatened war on numerous occasions, such as conflict over the Oregon territory; the Aroostook "war;" the Trent Affair; two Moroccan crises; the Fashoda Incident…again, these are too numerous to remember.

    The notion that capitalism is peaceful is preposterous, even if you accept the bizarre notion that only wars between the capitalist Great Powers really count as wars. It's true that it's tacitly presumed by many, perhaps most, learned authorities. But that is an indictment of the authorities, not a justification for the claim. The closely related claim that capitalism is responsible for technological advancement on inspection suggests that the real story is that technological progress enabled the European states to begin empires that funded capitalist development.


    Hidari 07.09.16 at 11:13 am

    ' Capitalist states tend to avoid war with their trading partners.'

    This has an element of truth in it, but it can be parsed in a number of ways. For example, 'Rich, powerful countries tend to avoid war with other rich, powerful countries'. After all, in the 2nd half of the 20th century, the US avoided going to war with Russia, despite having clear economic interests in doing so (access to natural resources, markets) mainly because Russia was strong (not least militarily) and the cost-benefit matrix never made sense (i.e. from the Americans' point of view).

    A much stronger case can be made that self-proclaimed Socialist states tend not to go to war with each other. After all, there were big fallings out between the socialist (or 'socialist', depending on your point of view) countries in the 20th century but they rarely turned to war, and when they did (Vietnam-Cambodia, Vietnam-China) they were short term and relatively limited in scope. The Sino-Soviet split was a split, not a war.

    But again this is probably not the best way to look at it. A much stronger case can be made that the basic reason for the non-appearance of a Chinese-Russian war was simply the size and population of those countries. The risks outweighed any potential benefits.

    Of course, between 1914 and 1945, lots of capitalist states went to war with each other.


    Anarcissie 07.09.16 at 3:22 pm

    Layman 07.09.16 at 2:59 pm @ 188 -
    One explanation, I think already given, is that the capitalist powers were too busy with imperial seizures in what we now call the Third World to fight one another. In the New World, the United States and some South American states were busy annihilating the natives, speaking of ethnic cleansing. If capitalism is a pacific influence, the behavior of the British and American ruling classes since 1815 seems incomprehensible, right down to the present: the plutocrat Clinton ought to be the peace candidate, not the scary war freak.


    Hidari 07.09.16 at 5:44 pm

    Surely (assuming that it's real) the decline in wars in some parts of the world since 1945 is because of the Pax Americana?

    Most countries are too frightened to attack (at least directly) the United States. There is a sense in which the US really is the 'Global Policeman'.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pax_Americana

    Anarcissie 07.09.16 at 11:55 pm

    Or the global Mafia capo di tutti capi.


    Ze K 07.10.16 at 6:39 am

    WaPo: Trump, Adviser Carter Page are 'Broadly Non-Interventionist'

    …WaPo continues that Trump is "broadly noninterventionist, questioning the need for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and calling for Europe to play a larger role in ensuring its security." Page, too, "has regularly criticized U.S. intervention":


    In one article for Global Policy Journal, he wrote, "From U.S. policies toward Russia to Iran to China, sanctimonious expressions of moral superiority stand at the root of many problems seen worldwide today."

    Page wrote that the war in eastern Ukraine was "precipitated by U.S. meddling in the Maidan revolution…

    And so, here we are: Trump is the lesser evil in this cycle. Vote Trump, save the world.


    LFC 07.10.16 at 2:40 pm

    Hidari @192

    Surely (assuming that it's real) the decline in wars in some parts of the world since 1945 is because of the Pax Americana?

    Started to write a long reply but decided no point. Shorter version: reasons for no WW2-style-war in Europe from '45 to '90 are multiple; 'pax Americana' only one factor of many.

    End of CW was destabilizing in various ways (e.g., wars in ex-Yugoslavia) but so far not enough to reverse the overall trend in Europe. Decline in destructiveness of conflict in some (not all) other parts of the world has to do in large part w change in nature/type of conflict (sustained interstate wars have traditionally been the most destructive and they don't happen much or at all anymore, for reasons that are somewhat debatable, but, again, pax Americana wd be only one of multiple reasons, if that).


    LFC 07.10.16 at 2:54 pm

    Re Carter Page (see Ze K @194)

    Page refused [speaking in Moscow] refused to comment specifically on the U.S. presidential election, his relationship with Trump or U.S. sanctions against Russia, saying he was in Russia as a "private citizen." He gave a lecture, titled "The Evolution of the World Economy: Trends and Potential," in which he noted that Russia and China had achieved success in Central Asia, unlike the United States, by pursuing a respectful [sic] foreign policy based on mutual interest.

    He generally avoided questions on U.S. foreign policy, but when one attendee asked him whether he really believed the United States was a "liberal, democratic society," Page told him to "read between the lines."

    "If I'm understanding the direction you're coming from, I tend to agree with you that it's not always as liberal as it may seem," he said. "I'm with you."

    In a meeting with The Washington Post editorial board in March, Trump named Page, a former Merrill Lynch executive in Moscow who later advised the Russian state energy giant Gazprom on major oil and gas deals, as one of his foreign policy advisers. Page refused to say whether his Moscow trip included a meeting with Russian officials. He is scheduled to deliver a graduation address Friday at the New Economic School, a speech that some officials are expected to attend.

    Above quote is from the Stars & Stripes piece, evidently republished from WaPo, linked at the 'Washington's Blog' that Ze K linked to.

    If you want to put for. policy in the hands of the likes of Carter Page (former Merrill Lynch exec., Gazprom adviser), vote Trump all right.

    HRC's for. policy advisers may not be great, but I don't think this guy Page is better. He does have connections to the Russian govt as a past consultant, apparently, which is no doubt why Ze K is so high on him.

    Ze K 07.10.16 at 3:16 pm

    You bet this guy Page is better. Anyone is better.

    And why would I care at all (let alone "no doubt") if he was a Gazprom consultant? What the fuck was that supposed to mean? Asshole much?

    LFC 07.10.16 at 5:25 pm

    And why would I care at all (let alone "no doubt") if he was a Gazprom consultant?

    B.c Gazprom is a Russian state-owned company and a fair inference from your many comments on this blog (not just this thread but others) is that you are, in general, favorably disposed to the present Russian govt. and its activities. Not Gazprom in particular necessarily, but the govt in general. You make all these comments and then get upset when they are read to say what they say.

    You consistently attack HRC as a war-monger, as corrupt etc. You consistently say anyone wd be better. "Vote Trump save the world." You said there was no Poland in existence in '39 when the USSR invaded it. Your comments and exchanges in this thread are here for anyone to read, so I don't have to continue.

    Ze K 07.10.16 at 5:44 pm

    "You make all these comments and then get upset when they are read to say what they say. "

    You're right; come to think of it, you've been into slimeball-style slur for a while now, and I should've gotten used to it already, and just ignored you. Fine, carry on.

    Anarcissie 07.11.16 at 2:19 am

    @Hidari 07.10.16 at 2:57 pm @ 197 -

    Although the term 'global policeman' (or 'cops of the world') is mostly used ironically (in my experience), 'policeman' does have a straight meaning, denoting a person who operates under the authority of law, whereas the supreme Mafia capo is a law and authority unto himself, at least until someone assassinates him. I think this second metaphor more closely approximates the position and behavior of the present United States.



    [Jul 04, 2016] Why Is Hillary Clinton Still a Hawk

    Notable quotes:
    "... Then there is Hillary Clinton, who will be this year's nominee. Few Democrats have more consistently favored the use of military force. She voted for the Iraq War. As secretary of state, she urged President Obama to escalate the war in Afghanistan. ..."
    "... New York Times correspondent Mark Landler, author of the new book Alter Egos: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and the Twilight Struggle Over American Power, told me her aides have told him she favored shipping lethal defensive military equipment to the government of Ukraine after the Russian invasion, something Obama rejected. ..."
    "... She pushed for U.S. intervention in Libya. She proposed similar action in Syria. She has recounted her advice to her husband in dealing with Serbia in 1999: "I urged him to bomb. ..."
    "... Clinton thinks "that American intervention does more good than harm, and that the writ of the United States properly reaches, as George W. Bush once declared, into 'any dark corner of the world.'" ..."
    "... Robert Gates, who was defense secretary under Obama, likes and admires Clinton. But when she pressed Obama to bomb Moammar Gadhafi's forces-which Landler says he probably would not have done otherwise-Gates resisted, arguing that Libya was not a vital U.S. interest and that there was no telling what would happen next. "In meetings, I would ask, 'Can I just finish the two wars we're already in before you go looking for new ones?'" he wrote later. ..."
    "... Clinton has gotten endless criticism for her handling of the 2012 attacks on a U.S. facility in Benghazi. She deserves more, but has gotten far less, for recommending an intervention that led to that attack and left Libya in violent turmoil that continues today. ..."
    "... The question is why a child of the 1960s, whose husband strenuously avoided being drafted for the Vietnam War, would grow so fond of military power. Obama needs a compelling reason to use force. Clinton needs a compelling reason not to. ..."
    "... Obama made the mistake of intervening in Libya, but in a recent interview with The Atlantic, he admitted, "It didn't work," and "Libya is a mess." Clinton, however, has never expressed second thoughts. During his recent visit to Chicago, I asked Landler about her ability to confront the possibility she was wrong. ..."
    "... In that instance, she apparently didn't learn from our failed military intervention. If she becomes president, I'm guessing, she'll get another chance. ..."
    Jul 04, 2016 | Reason.com

    In an era of endless military conflict, anti-war sentiment abides among Democrats. In 2004, their presidential nomination went to John Kerry, who was strongly critical of George W. Bush's handling of the war in Iraq. In 2008, they chose Barack Obama, largely because he had opposed that war. This year, 12 million people cast ballots for Bernie Sanders, who voted against it.

    According to Gallup, 68 percent of Democrats think the Iraq War was a mistake-compared with just 31 percent of Republicans. Two in three reject the use of ground combat troops against Islamic State.

    Then there is Hillary Clinton, who will be this year's nominee. Few Democrats have more consistently favored the use of military force. She voted for the Iraq War. As secretary of state, she urged President Obama to escalate the war in Afghanistan.

    New York Times correspondent Mark Landler, author of the new book Alter Egos: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and the Twilight Struggle Over American Power, told me her aides have told him she favored shipping lethal defensive military equipment to the government of Ukraine after the Russian invasion, something Obama rejected.

    She pushed for U.S. intervention in Libya. She proposed similar action in Syria. She has recounted her advice to her husband in dealing with Serbia in 1999: "I urged him to bomb."

    Most Democrats, particularly Obama, have learned to be wary of entangling the United States in wars of choice. But not Clinton. Despite the disaster in Iraq, the failure in Afghanistan and the chaos in Libya, she remains a hawk at heart.

    Landler, who covered Obama and Clinton for The New York Times, sees a clear difference between her approach to foreign policy and that of the president she served. Obama believes "the United States resorts too readily to military force to defend its interests," he writes. Clinton thinks "that American intervention does more good than harm, and that the writ of the United States properly reaches, as George W. Bush once declared, into 'any dark corner of the world.'"

    Robert Gates, who was defense secretary under Obama, likes and admires Clinton. But when she pressed Obama to bomb Moammar Gadhafi's forces-which Landler says he probably would not have done otherwise-Gates resisted, arguing that Libya was not a vital U.S. interest and that there was no telling what would happen next. "In meetings, I would ask, 'Can I just finish the two wars we're already in before you go looking for new ones?'" he wrote later.

    Clinton has gotten endless criticism for her handling of the 2012 attacks on a U.S. facility in Benghazi. She deserves more, but has gotten far less, for recommending an intervention that led to that attack and left Libya in violent turmoil that continues today.

    The question is why a child of the 1960s, whose husband strenuously avoided being drafted for the Vietnam War, would grow so fond of military power. Obama needs a compelling reason to use force. Clinton needs a compelling reason not to.

    Landler attributes this bias to several factors, including her conservative Midwestern upbringing, her rapport with generals and, in the words of one staffer, "a textbook view of American exceptionalism."

    Other reasons come to mind. She saw Democratic senators politically damaged by voting against the 1991 war against Iraq, and she was not about to take the risk of opposing the next one. As a woman, she doubtless has felt the need to demonstrate that she can be as tough-as that term is typically defined in American politics-as any male leader.

    Obama made the mistake of intervening in Libya, but in a recent interview with The Atlantic, he admitted, "It didn't work," and "Libya is a mess." Clinton, however, has never expressed second thoughts. During his recent visit to Chicago, I asked Landler about her ability to confront the possibility she was wrong.

    "I don't find the same evidence of a learning curve with her," he said. "I would have liked to see a little more introspection from her on that, because I think that's the key case where she led the charge, it didn't go the way they hoped it would and there are some really important lessons to be drawn."

    In that instance, she apparently didn't learn from our failed military intervention. If she becomes president, I'm guessing, she'll get another chance.

    [Jul 04, 2016] Brexit Is a Mutiny Against the Cosmopolitan Elite

    www.huffingtonpost.com

    Brexit was a vote against London, globalization and multiculturalism as much as a vote against Europe.

    London is the world's single most important center of global finance - though that may be at risk now. With the surrounding southeast region, it dominates the United Kingdom's economic growth. It has some of the world's most expensive real estate and richest residents - and absentee property owners. It is one of the world's most cosmopolitan cities. It is home to about 1 million continental Europeans. And it voted overwhelmingly to remain in the European Union. The rest of England did not.

    [Jul 04, 2016] Brexit, Seen from the Top of Europe

    Notable quotes:
    "... John Lukacs, the Hungarian-American historian, has spent a lifetime arguing that nationalism-not socialism, or even liberalism-is the core ideology of modernity, and that the lesson of history is that nationalism will assert itself, like an unquenchable microbe, anytime it has the least opportunity. ..."
    The New Yorker

    What was really at stake was a closed vision of the future against a cosmopolitan one. The divide was much less the prosperous versus the poor than it was city versus small towns, the well-educated versus those without advanced degrees, and, most of all, the young versus the old. Economic insecurity was, obviously, one of the things that drove the vote, but nostalgic nationalism drove it more, and what was really striking was that the struggling young took it for granted that the way toward a better future lay in ever-more European and planetary consciousness, not in closing it down. The vote was intolerably cruel in particular to the twentysomethings of Britain, many of whom did not hesitate to protest. They had gone to sleep on Thursday evening with all the world, or at least with all of Europe, before them, as citizens with possible futures in twenty-eight nations; they woke on Friday morning to be told that their future would contract to one nation, and that one possibly shrinking before their eyes, right to the Scottish border.

    ... ... ...

    At this moment, two irascible émigrés from the past century of European tragedies might come to mind. John Lukacs, the Hungarian-American historian, has spent a lifetime arguing that nationalism-not socialism, or even liberalism-is the core ideology of modernity, and that the lesson of history is that nationalism will assert itself, like an unquenchable microbe, anytime it has the least opportunity. (He also draws the distinction between patriotism-the love of place and tradition and a desire to see its particularities thrive-and true nationalism, which is a vengeful, irrational certainty that the alien outside or even within a country's borders is responsible for some humiliation to the true nation.) This pessimistic strain was matched by that of Karl Popper, the Austrian-Anglo philosopher, who saw that what he named the "open society," though essential to the transmission of humane values and the growth of knowledge, can impose great strains on its citizens-strains of lost identity, certainty, tribal wholeness. The reaction to this strain is inevitable, and sure. What keeps an open society from being overturned is only the balm of ever-increased prosperity; when prosperity ends or is endangered, all the bad demons come out of the forest. In this much broader sense, it may be prosperity that makes pluralism possible. Economics alone don't drive the ideology of nationalism, but without prosperity it has more room to bloom. Meanwhile, nationalism won't just go away, and open, liberal societies are far more fragile than their success can make them seem-and these two sad truths seem to need perpetual restating, or the lights really will go out across Europe.

    [Jul 04, 2016] Nationalism and the Brexit Vote

    The New York Times

    Whether it's having any effect will not be known until the vote on Thursday. What is known, what the debate over the referendum has demonstrated with great clarity, is that there is in Britain a populist strain of the sort that has brought nationalist governments to Hungary and Poland, helped right-wing parties make strong showings in France and some other European countries - and, in America, done much to promote the cause of Donald Trump. In the United States and Britain, a relatively normal electoral process became seized with populist nationalism and increasingly immune to normal political discourse.

    In Britain, Prime Minister David Cameron announced back in 2013 that he would hold a referendum on E.U. membership largely to mollify euroskeptics in his Conservative Party, presuming that Britons would vote to stay in. Before long, a similar demographic gathered on the "Leave" side in Britain and the Trump side in America - workers who felt alienated by a globalizing and changing world, who felt politicians had ceased listening to them, who were convinced that tides of foreigners were threatening their livelihood and identity.

    And so the British referendum has become something of a battleground for all Western democracies where anti-immigrant hostilities are building.

    And even if the "Remain" side prevails on Thursday and Mr. Trump is decisively rejected in November, Western democracies will need to take a long, hard look at the social divide, the insecurities, the alienation, the nationalism and racism that have invaded so many political battlegrounds.

    [Jul 04, 2016] Brexit Vote Shows Rising Far-Right Nationalism, Singapore Says

    Notable quotes:
    "... Britain's vote to exit the European Union reflected a resurgence of far-right nationalism that was adding pressure on countries to shore up their borders, ..."
    "... countries facing an increased desire for national identity, and the growing anti-globalization sentiment that was driving them to be more assertive about protecting their markets. ..."
    Bloomberg

    Britain's vote to exit the European Union reflected a resurgence of far-right nationalism that was adding pressure on countries to shore up their borders, said Singapore's Defence Minister Ng Eng Hen.

    The challenge for Singapore in the face of the Brexit vote, Ng said, will be to stay neutral and not judge those countries facing an increased desire for national identity, and the growing anti-globalization sentiment that was driving them to be more assertive about protecting their markets.

    "There is a resurgence of what pundits and political analysts call far-right, a rising nationalism, which is a reaction hearkened to so-called 'good old days', not remembering that the good old days also have many, many bad points," Ng told reporters at a media conference ahead of Singapore Armed Forces day. "We want to be neutral, in terms of not being judgmental because this is as history goes. But nonetheless, it is a challenge," he said.

    As terrorism continues to represent a clear and present threat, Ng, 57, said no country was immune to the defects of home-grown terrorism, and emphasized the need for international cooperation to combat the heightened threat of global terrorism.

    "You can monitor closely your borders, you can even close off your borders but homegrown terrorism is something else. It is very hard to protect against lone wolves or wolf-pack attacks -- somebody who is radicalized, who has really not been contacted physically by somebody outside their own country," he said.

    [Jul 04, 2016] What Do the Brexit Movement and Donald Trump Have in Common

    www.newyorker.com

    When the Brexit referendum is done, tens of millions of Britons will likely have registered a vote against the liberal vision of European unity and assimilation. In this country, even after the disastrous past few weeks Donald Trump has had, a new opinion poll, from Quinnipiac University, indicates that in crucial states like Ohio and Pennsylvania he remains statistically tied with Hillary Clinton.

    Why is this happening? Trump and his counterpart in Britain, the U.K. Independence Party (UKIP) leader Nigel Farage, didn't emerge from nowhere. Both are wealthy men who affect an affinity with the common people, and who have skillfully exploited a deep well of resentment among working-class and middle-class voters, some of whom have traditionally supported left-of-center parties. Certainly, a parallel factor in both men's rise is racism, or, more specifically, nativism. Trump has presented a nightmarish vision of America overrun by Mexican felons and Muslim terrorists. UKIP printed up campaign posters that showed thousands of dark-colored refugees lining up to enter Slovenia, which is part of the E.U., next to the words "BREAKING POINT: The EU has failed us all." But racism and nationalism have both been around for a long time, as have demagogues who try to exploit them. In healthy democracies, these troublemakers are confined to the fringes.

    Historically, transforming radical parties of the right (or left) into mass movements has required some sort of disaster, such as a major war or an economic depression. Europe in the early twentieth century witnessed both, with cataclysmic results. After the First World War, the introduction of social democracy, the socioeconomic system that most Western countries settled on, delivered steadily rising living standards, which helped to keep the extremists at bay. If prosperity wasn't shared equally-and it wasn't-egalitarian social norms and redistributive tax systems blunted some of the inequities that go along with free-market capitalism.

    But in the past few decades Western countries have been subjected to a triad of forces that, while not as visible or dramatic as wars and depressions, have proved equally destabilizing: globalization, technical progress, and a political philosophy that embraces both. In the United States, it is no coincidence that Trump is doing well in the Rust Belt and other deindustrialized areas. A one-two punch of automation and offshoring has battered these regions, leaving many of their residents ill-equipped to prosper in today's economy. Trump is exploiting the same economic anxieties and resentments that helped Bernie Sanders, another critic of globalization and free trade, carry the Michigan Democratic primary.

    "There is no excuse for supporting a racist, sexist, xenophobic buffoon like Donald Trump," Dean Baker, an economist and blogger at the liberal Center for Economic and Policy Research, in Washington, noted recently. "But we should be clear; the workers who turn to him do have real grievances. The system has been rigged against them."

    Similarly, it is not an accident that UKIP is popular in the former mill towns of northern England, in the engineering belt of the West Midlands, and in working-class exurbs of London. "Children emerging from the primary school next door, almost all from ethnic minorities, are just a visible reminder for anyone seeking easy answers to genuine grievance," the Guardian's Polly Toynbee wrote, last week, after a visit to Barking, in Essex, which is close to a big car factory owned by Ford. "As high-status Ford jobs are swapped for low-paid warehouse work, indignation is diverted daily against migrants by the Mail, Sun, Sunday Times and the rest. . . . This is the sound of Britain breaking."

    For the past half century, the major political parties, on both sides of the Atlantic, have promulgated the idea that free trade and globalization are the keys to prosperity. If you pressed the mainstream economists who advise these parties, they might concede that trade creates losers as well as winners, and that the argument for ever more global integration implicitly assumes that the winners will compensate the losers. But the fact that such a sharing of the gains has been sorely lacking was regarded as a relatively minor detail, and certainly not as a justification for calling a halt to the entire process.

    If you are reading this post, the likelihood is that you, like me, are one of the winners. Highly educated, professional people tend to work in sectors of the economy that have benefitted from the changes in the international division of labor (e.g., finance, consulting, media, tech) or have been largely spared the rigors of global competition (e.g., law, medicine, academia). From a secure perch on the economic ladder, it is easy to celebrate the gains that technology and globalization have brought, such as a cornucopia of cheap goods in rich countries and rising prosperity in poor ones. It's also tempting to dismiss the arguments of people who ignore the benefits of this process, or who can't see that it is irreversible.

    But, as Baker points out, "it is a bit hypocritical of those who have benefited" from this economic transformation to be "mocking the poor judgment of its victims"-especially now that the forces of global competition and technological progress are reaching into areas that were previously protected. In a world of self-driving cars and trucks, what is the future for truck drivers, cab and limo drivers, and delivery men? Not a very prosperous one, surely. And the creative destruction that the Austrian economist Joseph Schumpeter celebrated won't stop there. With software that can transfer money at zero cost, medical robots that can carry out the most delicate of operations, and smart algorithms that can diagnose diseases or dispense legal advice, what is the future for bankers, surgeons, doctors, lawyers, and other professionals?

    There is no straightforward answer to this question, just as there is no easy answer to the question of what can be done to help those who have already lost out. One option is to strengthen the social safety net and, perhaps, to move toward some sort of universal basic income, which would guarantee a minimum standard of living to everybody, regardless of employment prospects. The political enactment of such solutions, however, is contingent on the existence of social solidarity, which the very process of economic and technological change, by heightening inequalities and eroding communal institutions, undermines.

    Lacking grounds for optimism, and feeling remote from the levers of power, the disappointed nurse their grievances-until along come politicians who tell them that they are right to be angry, that their resentments are justified, and that they should be mad not just at the winners but at immigrants, too. Trump and Farage are the latest and most successful of these political opportunists. Sadly, they are unlikely to be the last.

    [Jul 04, 2016] After Brexit, Nationalism and Trump Rising

    Notable quotes:
    "... In Bernie Sanders's fulminations against corporate and financial elites one hears echoes of the radical-leftist rhetoric in Greece and Italy against EU banking elites. ..."
    "... And as "Brexit" swept the native-born English outside of multiracial, multiethnic, multicultural, multilingual London, populist-nationalist Donald Trump and antiestablishment Ted Cruz swept the native-born white working and middle classes in the primaries. ..."
    "... In Britain, all the mainstream parties-Labor, Tory, Liberal Democrat, Scottish National-supported "Remain." All lost. ..."
    "... In the past six months, millions of Democrats voted for a 74-year-old socialist against the establishment choice, Hillary Clinton, as Bush-Romney-Ryan Republicanism was massively repudiated in the Republican primaries. ..."
    "... As Trump said last week, "We got here because we switched from a policy of Americanism-focusing on what's good for America's middle class-to a policy of globalism, focusing on how to make money for large corporations who can move their wealth and workers to foreign countries all to the detriment of the American worker and the American economy." ..."
    www.theamericanconservative.com
    By Patrick J. Buchanan

    The American Conservative

    Some of us have long predicted the breakup of the European Union. The Cousins appear to have just delivered the coup de grace .

    While Scotland and Northern Ireland voted to remain in the EU, England voted for independence. These people, with their unique history, language, and culture, want to write their own laws and rule themselves.

    The English wish to remain who they are, and they do not want their country to become, in Theodore Roosevelt's phrase, "a polyglot boarding house" for the world.

    From patriots of all nations, congratulations are in order.

    It will all begin to unravel now, over there, and soon over here.

    Across Europe, tribalism, of all strains, is resurgent. Not only does the EU appear to be breaking up, countries appear about to break up.

    Scotland will seek a second referendum to leave the UK. The French National Front of Marine Le Pen and the Dutch Party for Freedom both want out of the EU. As Scots seek to secede from the UK, Catalonia seeks to secede from Spain, Veneto from Italy, and Flemish nationalists from Belgium.

    Ethnonationalism seems everywhere ascendant. Yet, looking back in history, is this not the way the world has been going for some centuries now?

    The disintegration of the EU into its component nations would follow, as Vladimir Putin helpfully points out, the dissolution of the USSR into 15 nations, and the breakup of Yugoslavia into seven.

    Czechoslovakia lately split in two. The Donbass seeks to secede from Ukraine. Is that so different from Transnistria splitting off from Romania, Abkhazia and South Ossetia seceding from Georgia, and Chechnya seeking separation from Russia?

    After World War II came the disintegration of the French and British empires and birth of dozens of new nations in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East. America returned the Philippine islands to their people.

    The previous century saw the collapse of the Spanish Empire and birth of a score of new nations in our own hemisphere.

    In Xi Jinping's China and Putin's Russia, nationalism is rising, even as China seeks to repress Uighur and Tibetan separatists.

    People want to rule themselves, and be themselves, separate from all others. Palestinians want their own nation. Israelis want "a Jewish state."

    On Cyprus, Turks and Greeks seem happier apart.

    Kurds are fighting to secede from Turkey and Iraq, and perhaps soon from Syria and Iran. Afghanistan appears to be splintering into regions dominated by Pashtuns, Hazaras, Uzbeks, and Tajiks.

    Eritrea has left Ethiopia. South Sudan has seceded from Khartoum.

    Nor is America immune to the populist sentiments surging in Europe.

    In Bernie Sanders's fulminations against corporate and financial elites one hears echoes of the radical-leftist rhetoric in Greece and Italy against EU banking elites.

    And as "Brexit" swept the native-born English outside of multiracial, multiethnic, multicultural, multilingual London, populist-nationalist Donald Trump and antiestablishment Ted Cruz swept the native-born white working and middle classes in the primaries.

    In Britain, all the mainstream parties-Labor, Tory, Liberal Democrat, Scottish National-supported "Remain." All lost.

    Nigel Farage's UK Independence Party alone won.

    In the past six months, millions of Democrats voted for a 74-year-old socialist against the establishment choice, Hillary Clinton, as Bush-Romney-Ryan Republicanism was massively repudiated in the Republican primaries.

    As Trump said last week, "We got here because we switched from a policy of Americanism-focusing on what's good for America's middle class-to a policy of globalism, focusing on how to make money for large corporations who can move their wealth and workers to foreign countries all to the detriment of the American worker and the American economy."

    Yesterday, news arrived that in May alone, the U.S. had run a trade deficit in goods of $60 billion. This translates into an annual deficit of $720 billion in goods, or near 4 percent of our GDP wiped out by purchases of foreign-made rather than U.S.-made goods.

    In 40 years, we have not run a trade surplus. The most self-sufficient republic in all of history now relies for its necessities upon other nations.

    What might a Trumpian policy of Americanism over globalism entail?

    A 10 to 20 percent tariff on manufactured goods to wipe out the trade deficit in goods, with the hundreds of billions in revenue used to slash or eliminate corporate taxes in the USA.

    Every U.S. business would benefit. Every global company would have an incentive not only to move production here, but its headquarters here.

    An "America first" immigration policy would secure the border, cut legal immigration to tighten U.S. labor markets, strictly enforce U.S. laws against those breaking into our country, and get tough with businesses that make a practice of hiring people here illegally.

    In Europe and America, corporate, financial, and political elites are increasingly disrespected and transnationalism is receding. An anti-establishment, nationalist, populist wave is surging across Europe and the USA.

    It is an anti-insider, anti-Clinton wave, and Trump could ride it to victory.

    Patrick J. Buchanan is a founding editor of The American Conservative and the author of the new book The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority .

    [Jul 03, 2016] Obama Will Need His Oratory Powers to Sell Globalization by MARK LANDLER

    Notable quotes:
    "... The case for ambitious trade deals, Dr. Prasad said, is that they allow the United States to set the rules for its dealings with other countries, and to wield greater geopolitical influence. Yet those arguments are easily overshadowed by the simple, if dubious, assertion that the losses to the American economy from these deals are greater than the benefits. ..."
    www.nytimes.com

    When President Obama travels to North Carolina and Europe this week, he will press an argument that could define foreign policy in the last six months of his presidency: that Americans and Europeans must not forsake their open, interconnected societies for the nativism and nationalism preached by Donald J. Trump or Britain's Brexiteers.

    Few presidents have put more faith than Mr. Obama in the power of words to persuade audiences to accept a complex idea, whether it is the morality of a just war or the imperfect nature of American society. Yet countering the anti-immigration and anti-free-trade slogans in this election year will require all of his oratorical skills.

    Mr. Obama road-tested his pitch over the last two weeks in two friendly venues: Silicon Valley and Canada. This week, he will take the case to North Carolina, a swing state that has been hard hit by the forces of globalization, and to a NATO meeting in Poland, where the alliance members will grapple with the effects of Britain's vote to leave the European Union, known as Brexit.

    In Warsaw, Mr. Obama will sit next to Britain's lame-duck prime minister, David Cameron, whose political career was ended by his miscalculation over holding the referendum on European Union membership. But first, in Charlotte, N.C., he will campaign with Hillary Clinton, his former secretary of state and the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, who reversed her position on Mr. Obama's Asian trade deal, formally called the Trans-Pacific Partnership, after many in her party turned sharply against free trade.

    "President Obama has made a valiant attempt to build support for freer trade," said Eswar S. Prasad, a professor of trade policy at Cornell University. "But the arguments in favor of free trade lack rhetorical and political resonance, especially amidst a heated political campaign."

    The case for ambitious trade deals, Dr. Prasad said, is that they allow the United States to set the rules for its dealings with other countries, and to wield greater geopolitical influence. Yet those arguments are easily overshadowed by the simple, if dubious, assertion that the losses to the American economy from these deals are greater than the benefits.

    [Jul 02, 2016] Guardian sinks into Gutter on Corbyn Again! Dissident Voice

    Notable quotes:
    "... Guardian ..."
    "... Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East ..."
    "... Disappearing Palestine: Israel's Experiments in Human Despair ..."
    dissidentvoice.org

    Guardian sinks into Gutter on Corbyn: Again!

    by Jonathan Cook / June 30th, 2016

    This is way beyond a face-palm moment.

    Jeremy Corbyn today launched a review into the Labour party's supposed "anti-semitism crisis" – in fact, a crisis entirely confected by a toxic mix of the right, Israel supporters and the media. I have repeatedly pointed out that misleading claims of anti-semitism (along with much else) are being thrown at Corbyn to discredit him. You can read my criticisms of this campaign and Labour's response here , here and here .

    In his speech, Corbyn made an entirely fair point that Jews should not be blamed for the behaviour of Israel any more than Muslims should be for the behaviour of states that are Islamic. He said:

    Our Jewish friends are no more responsible for the actions of Israel or the Netanyahu government than our Muslim friends are for those of various self-styled Islamic states or organisations.

    But no matter what he said, the usual suspects are now accusing him of comparing Israel with Islamic State, even though that is clearly not what he said – not even close.

    First, even if he had said "Islamic State", which he didn't, that would not have meant he made a comparison with Israel. He was comparing the assumptions some people make that Jews and Muslims have tribal allegiances based on their religious or ethnic background. He was saying it was unfair to make such assumptions of either Jews or Muslims.

    In fact, such an assumption (which Corbyn does not share) would be more unfair to Muslims than to Jews. It would suggest that some Muslims easily feel an affinity with a terror organisation, while some Jews feel an affinity with a recognised state (which may or may not include their support for the occupation). That assumption is far uglier towards Muslims than it is towards Jews.

    But, of course, all of this is irrelevant because Corbyn did not make any such comparison. He clearly referred to "various self-styled Islamic states or organisations". A spokesman later clarified that he meant "Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran or Hamas in Gaza". In other words, "various self-styled Islamic states and organisations" – just as he said in the speech.

    Surprise, surprise, the supposedly liberal Guardian 's coverage of this incident is as appalling as that found in the right wing Telegraph . The Guardian has an article , quoting rabbis and others, pointing out the irony that Corbyn made an anti-semitic comment at the launch of an anti-semitism review – except, of course, that he didn't.

    In fact, contrary to all normal journalism, you have to read the Guardian story from bottom-up. The last paragraph states:

    This story was amended on 30 June to correct the quotation in the second paragraph. An earlier version quoted Corbyn as saying: "Our Jewish friends are no more responsible for the actions for the actions of Israel or the Netanyahu government than our Islamic friends are responsible for Islamic State."

    Or in other words, the Guardian reporter did not even bother to listen to the video of the speech posted alongside her report on the Guardian 's own website. Instead she and her editors jumped on the same bandwagon as everyone else, spreading the same malicious rumours and misinformation.

    When it later emerged that the story was a complete fabrication – one they could have proved for themselves had they listened to what Corbyn really said – they simply appended at the bottom a one-par mea culpa that almost no one will read. The Guardian has continued to publish the same defamatory article, one based on a deception from start to finish.

    This is the very definition of gutter journalism. And it comes as the Guardian editor, Kath Viner, asks (begs?) readers to dig deep in their pockets to support the Guardian . She writes :

    The Guardian's role in producing fast, well-sourced, calm, accessible and intelligent journalism is more important than ever.

    Well, it would be if that is what they were doing. Instead, this story confirms that the paper is producing the same shop-soiled disinformation as everyone else.

    Save your money and invest it in supporting real independent journalism.

    Jonathan Cook , based in Nazareth, Israel is a winner of the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His latest books are Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East (Pluto Press) and Disappearing Palestine: Israel's Experiments in Human Despair (Zed Books). Read other articles by Jonathan , or visit Jonathan's website .

    This article was posted on Thursday, June 30th, 2016 at 5:43pm and is filed under Media , Propaganda , United Kingdom , Zionism .

    [Jul 01, 2016] John Lukacs, the Hungarian-American historian, has spent a lifetime arguing that nationalism-not socialism, or even liberalism-is the core ideology of modernity, and that the lesson of history is that nationalism will assert itself, like an unquenchable microbe, anytime it has the least opportunity

    www.newyorker.com

    http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/brexit-seen-from-the-top-of-europe by Adam Gopnik

    At this moment, two irascible émigrés from the past century of European tragedies might come to mind. John Lukacs, the Hungarian-American historian, has spent a lifetime arguing that nationalism-not socialism, or even liberalism-is the core ideology of modernity, and that the lesson of history is that nationalism will assert itself, like an unquenchable microbe, anytime it has the least opportunity. (He also draws the distinction between patriotism-the love of place and tradition and a desire to see its particularities thrive-and true nationalism, which is a vengeful, irrational certainty that the alien outside or even within a country's borders is responsible for some humiliation to the true nation.) This pessimistic strain was matched by that of Karl Popper, the Austrian-Anglo philosopher, who saw that what he named the "open society," though essential to the transmission of humane values and the growth of knowledge, can impose great strains on its citizens-strains of lost identity, certainty, tribal wholeness. The reaction to this strain is inevitable, and sure. What keeps an open society from being overturned is only the balm of ever-increased prosperity; when prosperity ends or is endangered, all the bad demons come out of the forest. In this much broader sense, it may be prosperity that makes pluralism possible. Economics alone don't drive the ideology of nationalism, but without prosperity it has more room to bloom. Meanwhile, nationalism won't just go away, and open, liberal societies are far more fragile than their success can make them seem-and these two sad truths seem to need perpetual restating, or the lights really will go out across Europe.

    [Jun 29, 2016] Why the Sanders Revolution Must Take on the Permanent War State

    Notable quotes:
    "... The permanent war state is the 800-pound gorilla in US society and political life. As the old joke goes, the answer to the question, "Where does an 800-pound gorilla eat?" is, "Anywhere he likes." As long as the organs of "national security" continue to retain the extraordinary power to appropriate budgetary resources and to involve the United States in foreign conflicts without real accountability, US politics will be grotesquely distorted to the profound disadvantage of the movement for fundamental change. The Pentagon, the CIA and the National Security Agency will continue to control most of the $1.1 trillion federal discretionary spending budget, crowding out programs that would benefit people. And beyond wielding that obvious financial power, by maintaining the premise that the United States must continue to make war indefinitely, they will also wield an ideological weapon that helps the economic elite maintain the status quo. ..."
    "... For more original Truthout election coverage, check out our election section, "Beyond the Sound Bites: Election 2016." ..."
    "... But that fundamental obstacle to change was not even mentioned by any of the speakers who introduced the main themes of the conference on the first night. On the second day, US Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) strongly denounced moves by powerful interests for a new war for regime change in Syria, but she did not address the underlying system of institutional interests and power that keeps the United States at permanent war. There was one breakout session entitled "Healthcare Not Warfare," which highlighted what people already know -- that spending for war and preparation for war robs the people of resources needed to build a more prosperous and equitable society. But it was evidently an afterthought for conference organizers, and did not interest many of the attendees, drawing perhaps 30 people. ..."
    "... The Sanders campaign never explicitly raised the issue of the permanent war state during the primary election contest, either. He did present a sharp contrast to Hillary Clinton when they debated foreign policy, effectively demolishing her position urging a more militarily aggressive policy in Syria. He called for a policy that "destroys ISIS" but "does not get us involved in perpetual warfare in the quagmire of the Middle East."But he never talked about ending the unprecedented power that national security institutions have seized over the resources and security of the American people. ..."
    "... The power of the military-industrial-congressional complex that has morphed into a permanent war state has long been the real "third rail" in US politics, which anyone aspiring to national office touches only at the risk of being branded "anti-American." News media coverage constantly reinforces the idea that US global military presence and aggressiveness are legitimate responses to foreign threats. So, for politicians, explaining why the power of that combination of institutions is a danger not only to people's economic interests, but also to their physical security is seen as extremely difficult and fraught with political risk. Sanders, who had no problem opposing specific wars, undoubtedly feared that an effort to deal with the interests and power behind the wars that most Americans oppose would force him to respond to attacks from the Clinton camp and the corporate media, and thus interfere with his populist message. ..."
    "... Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare ..."
    www.truth-out.org
    The People's Summit in Chicago June 17-19 dramatically displayed both the strengths and the vulnerabilities of what has emerged in 2016 as one of the most potentially powerful movements for fundamental change in the United States in many decades. The event, which brought together 3,000 committed movement activists to rally in support of the "political revolution" given impetus by Bernie Sanders' campaign, was an opportunity to ensure that the movement will not dissipate in the wake of Hillary Clinton's clinching the Democratic nomination.

    The leaders of the movement sought to use the summit to reconcile conflicting activist views on the relationship between movement organizations and electoral politics. The summit may have succeeded in keeping the coalition of those who privilege electoral politics and those who see it as a distraction from their local struggles from splitting up. But despite the political sophistication and pragmatism of the organizers, the gathering failed to deal seriously with the problem of the "permanent war state" -- the central power bloc in the US government that looms menacingly over everything the movement hopes to accomplish.

    The permanent war state is the 800-pound gorilla in US society and political life. As the old joke goes, the answer to the question, "Where does an 800-pound gorilla eat?" is, "Anywhere he likes." As long as the organs of "national security" continue to retain the extraordinary power to appropriate budgetary resources and to involve the United States in foreign conflicts without real accountability, US politics will be grotesquely distorted to the profound disadvantage of the movement for fundamental change. The Pentagon, the CIA and the National Security Agency will continue to control most of the $1.1 trillion federal discretionary spending budget, crowding out programs that would benefit people. And beyond wielding that obvious financial power, by maintaining the premise that the United States must continue to make war indefinitely, they will also wield an ideological weapon that helps the economic elite maintain the status quo.

    For more original Truthout election coverage, check out our election section, "Beyond the Sound Bites: Election 2016."

    But that fundamental obstacle to change was not even mentioned by any of the speakers who introduced the main themes of the conference on the first night. On the second day, US Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) strongly denounced moves by powerful interests for a new war for regime change in Syria, but she did not address the underlying system of institutional interests and power that keeps the United States at permanent war. There was one breakout session entitled "Healthcare Not Warfare," which highlighted what people already know -- that spending for war and preparation for war robs the people of resources needed to build a more prosperous and equitable society. But it was evidently an afterthought for conference organizers, and did not interest many of the attendees, drawing perhaps 30 people.

    The permanent war state is the 800-pound gorilla in US society and political life.

    The Sanders campaign never explicitly raised the issue of the permanent war state during the primary election contest, either. He did present a sharp contrast to Hillary Clinton when they debated foreign policy, effectively demolishing her position urging a more militarily aggressive policy in Syria. He called for a policy that "destroys ISIS" but "does not get us involved in perpetual warfare in the quagmire of the Middle East."But he never talked about ending the unprecedented power that national security institutions have seized over the resources and security of the American people.

    It is not difficult to see why Sanders did not take on that larger issue. The power of the military-industrial-congressional complex that has morphed into a permanent war state has long been the real "third rail" in US politics, which anyone aspiring to national office touches only at the risk of being branded "anti-American." News media coverage constantly reinforces the idea that US global military presence and aggressiveness are legitimate responses to foreign threats. So, for politicians, explaining why the power of that combination of institutions is a danger not only to people's economic interests, but also to their physical security is seen as extremely difficult and fraught with political risk. Sanders, who had no problem opposing specific wars, undoubtedly feared that an effort to deal with the interests and power behind the wars that most Americans oppose would force him to respond to attacks from the Clinton camp and the corporate media, and thus interfere with his populist message.

    The permanent war state also appears to be outside the political comfort zone of National Nurses United, the single most influential organization in planning and funding the People's Summit. As a senior official of National Nurses United explained, the organization is able to talk about corporate control of the health care system because nurses constantly see the consequences in their own work, but most have no such personal experiences enabling them to talk about the war system.

    But despite these understandable reasons for taking a pass on the issue, the leadership of the movement inspired by the Sanders campaign is making a big mistake by failing to take on the problem of the permanent war state. The popular organizations represented in Chicago understand this, but they have hesitated to go up against the most powerful combination bureaucratic interests the world has ever known, in part because they have not had any clear idea about how those interests could be defeated. What has been not been tried, however, is a strategy that attacks the war system where it is most vulnerable -- the fact that the war system bureaucrats have systematically pursued their own personal and institutional interests at the expense of the American people.

    The publicly available records of US intervention and war, especially since the beginning of the Cold War, reveal an endless succession of policies and programs that were utterly useless and provoked reactions from states and from non-state actors that threatened the safety of the American people. But the policy makers preferred those policies, because they gave them and their organizations more power, more budgetary resources, more people under their command, more new technology, more foreign bases and perquisites, and more lucrative jobs and contracts when they leave the government for private companies.

    All the services were looking for a boost in military appropriations when they pushed Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson to intervene militarily in Vietnam. The US Air Force sold its "shock and awe" strategy for regime change in Iraq to then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in order to capture a larger share of the military budget. The CIA got control over a major new mission when it convinced President George W. Bush to launch a drone war in Pakistan.

    But the American people suffered the direct and indirect consequences of these wars in each case.

    The fundamental conflict between the national interest and the personal and bureaucratic interests of the policy makers of the permanent war state explains why the system has continued to produce uniformly disastrous policies decade after decade.

    So the strategy of the movement that the Sanders campaign has mobilized must include a broadly concerted campaign that explains to young people, disaffected working-class people and others how the permanent war state produces winners and losers. The winners are the national security organs themselves, as well as those who make careers and fortunes from the permanent state of war. The losers are those who must suffer the socioeconomic and other consequences of such reckless policies. Such a campaign should aim at nothing less than taking away the flow of money and the legal authority that the permanent war state has seized on the pretext of "threats" that are largely of its own making.

    Even though the permanent war state seems to be at the peak of its power, like all essentially hollow institutions, it has a serious political vulnerability. Millions of Americans know that the wars the war-state agencies have wrought over the past half century -- from the Vietnam War to the war in Afghanistan -- were worse than useless. So the legitimacy of the permanent war state is extremely tenuous. A determined campaign to challenge that legitimacy, carried out with sufficient resources over a few years with the participation of a broad coalition, could shake it to its roots. Such a campaign must be included in the work to open up new political spaces and propel the movement for change. Copyright, Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission .

    Gareth Porter is an independent investigative journalist and historian writing on US national security policy. His latest book, Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare , was published in February of 2014. Follow him on Twitter: @GarethPorter .

    [Jun 28, 2016] There is an interesting campaign going on in Washington right now pushing for a no-fly zone over Syria

    Notable quotes:
    "... There is an interesting campaign going on in Washington right now pushing for a no-fly zone over Syria. As we saw in an earlier thread the petition by those 51 FSOs inside the State Dept calling for this. That was preceded by the main editorial in the WaPo calling for the same. ..."
    "... This is obviously orchestrated very likely involving the Hillary campaign and/or those who are trying to influence her. Hillary has after all called for such in recent months. Could Hillary really be that stupid or incompetent to set off a shooting war with Russia? ..."
    "... Hillary may be the fist president from the democratic party to be impeached. There is no WW3 scenario only nuke apocalypse that would be bad for business and even Putin isn't about to sacrifice his nation for Assad or the Iranians. ..."
    "... The US apparatchiks have measured the Russian ability to protect Assad and found them lacking and are moving to ratchet up the rhetoric hopefully forcing a deal without any real escalation but they appear ready to directly confront the Russians in Syria. ..."
    "... My fear is that if, say Russia, sunk say a destroyer with the loss of all hands the fools running the US would panic and then respond with a nuclear escalation. I think Russia and China really are preparing for conventional weapons confrontation with the US. And the battlefield will not be in Syria but on those nations borders. Russian forces in Syria are no more than a trip wire. ..."
    "... Thus, the humanitarian crisis (which has always existed) will now be touted as a newly-discovered reason for NATO/UN peacekeeping and humanitarian intervention. As long as that intervention creates a well-guarded Sunni Corridor from north to south Syria with the appropriate UN buffer zones. Oh yeah - it should include nearly all of Syria's oil resources (for future U.S. use). Toss in a few bazillion blue helmets and NATO air support for the inevitable No-fly Zones and Operation Yinon: Block the Evil Shia Corridor will have been accomplished. ..."
    "... Russia still has its port and doesn't have to bomb anyone else. Assad still has a leftover chunk of partitioned Syria without any oil, gas or water - but Israel will sell them all they want for a slight premium. The Kurds get whatever bones they're thrown. And the U.S. and Israel have their coveted Sunnistan - even though the Sunnis will be impoverished and little more than oil well guards and human shields for any imaginary Iranian invasion of Syria. Oh, and foreign diplomats will have guaranteed jobs for a decade as they try to solve the unsolvable problem they created. ..."
    "... pretty sorry state of affairs when the world - americans in particular - think it is okay to play chicken over the possibility of nuclear war... basically sums up the level of stupidity in the usa today - reflected best in the idiots running for political office who haven't a clue about anything their there own political future with the military industrial complex/clinton.. ..."
    "... toivo - i really think americans need to be thinking the next war will be on their homeland... enough of the shit of making war in faraway lands on others... americans need to fucking wake up.. ..."
    "... Russia has been boxed into a corner by the Rep, Dem, Brit, NATO neocons. Russia has been exceedingly patient and diplomatic at every turn. Russia should be well prepared now to militarily defend the legitimate Syrian Government and it territory. ..."
    "... john helmers article from a few days ago - US STRATEGY FOR RUSSIA – WAGE WAR BUT NOT DECLARE IT ..."
    "... 'The current head of the US CIA, William Brennan, lived in Saudi Arabia for years' ..."
    Jun 22, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org

    There is an interesting campaign going on in Washington right now pushing for a no-fly zone over Syria. As we saw in an earlier thread the petition by those 51 FSOs inside the State Dept calling for this. That was preceded by the main editorial in the WaPo calling for the same.

    Then yesterday the Yazidi woman who was held as a "sex slave" by ISIS testified before Congress and called for Obama to set up no fly zones so refugees could find safety. Her testimony was horrific and only the most heartless could dismiss her story. But since ISIS does not have nor has ever had an airforce it is not clear how a no fly zone would have prevented the horror she experienced.

    This is obviously orchestrated very likely involving the Hillary campaign and/or those who are trying to influence her. Hillary has after all called for such in recent months. Could Hillary really be that stupid or incompetent to set off a shooting war with Russia?

    ToivoS | Jun 22, 2016 3:27:26 PM | 2 Northern Observer | Jun 22, 2016 3:35:04 PM | 3

    Hillary may be the fist president from the democratic party to be impeached. There is no WW3 scenario only nuke apocalypse that would be bad for business and even Putin isn't about to sacrifice his nation for Assad or the Iranians.

    The US apparatchiks have measured the Russian ability to protect Assad and found them lacking and are moving to ratchet up the rhetoric hopefully forcing a deal without any real escalation but they appear ready to directly confront the Russians in Syria.

    Wayoutwest | Jun 22, 2016 4:27:28 PM | 10

    #10 wow. For once I agree with you. Those forces working for the no fly zone over Syria do not want nuclear war. They happen to believe that in any game of chicken the Russians will blink first. However, I would hope that this would happen but there are other scenarios here short (it is hoped) of nuclear war. The Russians also do not want nuclear war. They like the Chinese have been preparing their military in conventional war tactics against the US. Not that these tactics will defeat the US but that they will cause so much damage that it would drain domestic support for future US aggression against those countries.

    Both China and Russia have concentrated their defenses on anti-ship and anti-aircraft missiles. Today, the Russians have the ability to sink any US warship in either the Black or Baltic seas. The Russians have made those weapons available to Iran and they may possibly be able to easily sink any destroyer or cruiser in the Persian Gulf.

    My fear is that if, say Russia, sunk say a destroyer with the loss of all hands the fools running the US would panic and then respond with a nuclear escalation. I think Russia and China really are preparing for conventional weapons confrontation with the US. And the battlefield will not be in Syria but on those nations borders. Russian forces in Syria are no more than a trip wire.

    ToivoS | Jun 22, 2016 5:07:51 PM | 13

    Wayoutwest@10 - "...but they appear ready to directly confront the Russians in Syria..."

    Whaa...? You're talking about Americans, right?

    The soft invasion of Syria is happening as we speak. What's the latest roll call: French, Belgian, German, UK special forces? Norway on deck? NATO has already invaded without confronting Russia. The U.S. will not permit Sunnistan to fall. If you don't believe the pipeline reason, then you have to recognize the NATO Sunni Corridor must exist to block the Shia Corridor from Iran.

    The U.S./Israeli plan to separate Syria and create the Sunni/Turkey corridor is going along as always planned - although they're rushing as of late. We're at the stage where Turkey and Jordan are shutting their borders. Useless in practice, but necessary to give western MSM the cover story of the threat of ISIS spreading to those countries. Laughable because that's where the head-choppers came from, but reason has nothing to do with propaganda. ZATO has to foment a massive, well-publicised humanitarian crisis to justify the next partitioning step.

    Thus, the humanitarian crisis (which has always existed) will now be touted as a newly-discovered reason for NATO/UN peacekeeping and humanitarian intervention. As long as that intervention creates a well-guarded Sunni Corridor from north to south Syria with the appropriate UN buffer zones. Oh yeah - it should include nearly all of Syria's oil resources (for future U.S. use). Toss in a few bazillion blue helmets and NATO air support for the inevitable No-fly Zones and Operation Yinon: Block the Evil Shia Corridor will have been accomplished.

    Russia still has its port and doesn't have to bomb anyone else. Assad still has a leftover chunk of partitioned Syria without any oil, gas or water - but Israel will sell them all they want for a slight premium. The Kurds get whatever bones they're thrown. And the U.S. and Israel have their coveted Sunnistan - even though the Sunnis will be impoverished and little more than oil well guards and human shields for any imaginary Iranian invasion of Syria. Oh, and foreign diplomats will have guaranteed jobs for a decade as they try to solve the unsolvable problem they created.

    Halliburton and their little Cheney KBR buddy are already salivating over the reconstruction contracts. Let's get those damn blue helmets in there! The former KBR is loosing money every second this scheme is delayed.

    PavewayIV | Jun 22, 2016 5:16:45 PM | 14

    pretty sorry state of affairs when the world - americans in particular - think it is okay to play chicken over the possibility of nuclear war... basically sums up the level of stupidity in the usa today - reflected best in the idiots running for political office who haven't a clue about anything their there own political future with the military industrial complex/clinton..

    james | Jun 22, 2016 5:17:21 PM | 15

    toivo - i really think americans need to be thinking the next war will be on their homeland... enough of the shit of making war in faraway lands on others... americans need to fucking wake up..

    james | Jun 22, 2016 5:19:29 PM | 16

    System is fubar. People are fed up. Let the chips fall where they may. Smart play is to get out of EU.

    Russia has been boxed into a corner by the Rep, Dem, Brit, NATO neocons. Russia has been exceedingly patient and diplomatic at every turn. Russia should be well prepared now to militarily defend the legitimate Syrian Government and it territory.

    fast freddy | Jun 22, 2016 6:23:43 PM | 24

    and... john helmers article from a few days ago - US STRATEGY FOR RUSSIA – WAGE WAR BUT NOT DECLARE IT

    the parallels are disturbing..

    james | Jun 22, 2016 8:41:22 PM | 36

    @34 ghubar shabih 'The current head of the US CIA, William Brennan, lived in Saudi Arabia for years'

    I'm sure you meant John Brennan. Wikipedia has

    At one point in his career, he was a daily intelligence briefer for President Bill Clinton. In 1996 he was CIA station chief in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia when the Khobar Towers bombing killed 19 U.S. servicemen. In 1999 he was appointed chief of staff to George Tenet, then-Director of the CIA
    I hadn't realized he was in Saudi Arabia. I also hadn't realized that he was out and in the revolving door before working for Obama, before having Obama appoint him head of the CIA
    His last post within the Intelligence Community was as director of the National Counterterrorism Center in 2004 and 2005, which incorporated information on terrorist activities across U.S. agencies.

    Brennan then left government service for a few years, becoming Chairman of the Intelligence and National Security Alliance (INSA) and the CEO of The Analysis Corporation (TAC). He continued to lead TAC after its acquisition by Global Strategies Group in 2007 and its growth as the Global Intelligence Solutions division of Global's North American technology business GTEC, before returning to government service with the Obama administration as Homeland Security Advisor on January 20, 2009.

    Made good connections on the other side of the revolving door, I'm sure. No doubt the kickbacks will flow from the drone builders/operators and the electronic communications spies after his next trip through.

    jfl | Jun 22, 2016 8:56:13 PM | 37

    He may not be as good as the parrot with Arabic, but he had Obama parroting his lines very well throughout his eight long years. Obama will share those kickbacks as well, I'm sure. Polly wants a cracker.

    [Jun 28, 2016] Obama family role in Indonesian genocide

    Notable quotes:
    "... united snake orchestrated the 1965 genocide on Chinese indons, [later Clinton called Suharto the executioner 'our kind of guy' .] then instigated the 1989 pogrom [including mass rapes of Chinese girls]. ..."
    Jun 25, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org

    denk | Jun 25, 2016 11:04:51 AM | 98

    facists reunited.

    united snake orchestrated the 1965 genocide on Chinese indons, [later Clinton called Suharto the executioner 'our kind of guy' .] then instigated the 1989 pogrom [including mass rapes of Chinese girls].

    once again united snake has roped in its fascists buddies in Jakarta for another 'open season' on Chinese people.
    http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2016/06/25/obama-family-role-indonesian-genocide-protected-muslim-radicals.html

    [Jun 28, 2016] Weapons from the former Libya military stockpiles were shipped from the port of Benghazi, Libya to the Port of Banias and the Port of Borj Islam, Syria

    Notable quotes:
    "... Weapons from the former Libya military stockpiles were shipped from the port of Benghazi, Libya to the Port of Banias and the Port of Borj Islam, Syria. The weapons shipped during late-August 2012 were Sniper rifles, RPG's, and 125mm and 155mm howitzers missiles. ..."
    "... The weapons shipped from Libya to Syria during late-August 2012 were Sniper rifles, RPG's, and 125mm and 155mm howitzers missiles. The numbers for each weapon were estimated to be: 500 Sniper rifles, 100 RPG launchers with 300 total rounds, and approximately 400 howitzers missiles [200 ea - 125mm and 200ea - 1[55 mm]. ..."
    truepundit.com

    @54 pw

    Here you go ...


    SECRET-NOFORN
    QQQQ

    SERIAL:(U) (b)(3)10 USC§424
    BODY
    DATE OF PUBLICATION: 051443Z OCT 12.

    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
    INFORMATION REPORT, NOT FINALLY EVALUATED INTELLIGENCE.

    COUNTRY OR NONSTATE ENTITY: (U) LIBYA (LBY); SYRIA (SYR).

    SUBJECT: ( S//NF ) (b)(3)10 USC§424. FORMER-LIBYA MILITARY WEAPONS
    Shipped to Syria via the Port of Benghazi. Libya

    DATE OF INFORMATION: (U) 1 May 2012 - 1 Sep 2012.

    CUTOFF: (U) 18 Sep 2012.

    (b)(3)10 USC§424, (b)(3)50 USC§3024(i)
    REDACTED
    CLASSIFIED

    WARNING: (U) THIS IS AN INFORMATION REPORT. NOT FINALLY EVALUATED
    INTELLIGENCE. REPORT CLASSIFIED SECRET//NOFORN .

    TEXT: 1. ( S//NF ) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. Weapons from the former Libya
    military stockpiles were shipped from the port of Benghazi, Libya to
    the Port of Banias and the Port of Borj Islam, Syria. The weapons
    shipped during late-August 2012 were Sniper rifles, RPG's, and 125mm
    and 155mm howitzers missiles.

    2.( S//NF }During Ihe immediate altermath of, and following the
    uncertainty caused by, the downfall of the ((Qaddafi)) regime in
    October 2011 and up until early September of 2012, weapons from the
    former Libya military stockpiles located in Benghazi, Libya were
    shipped from the port of Benghazi, Libya to the ports of Banias and
    the Port of Borj Islam, Syria. The Syrian ports were chosen due to
    the small amount of cargo traffic transiting these two ports. The
    ships used to transport the weapons were medium-sized and able to
    hold 10 or less shipping containers of cargo. (NFI)

    3. ( S//NF ) The weapons shipped from Libya to Syria during late-August
    2012 were Sniper rifles, RPG's, and 125mm and 155mm howitzers
    missiles. The numbers for each weapon were estimated to be: 500
    Sniper rifles, 100 RPG launchers with 300 total rounds, and
    approximately 400 howitzers missiles [200 ea - 125mm and 200ea - 1[55
    mm].

    (b)(1) Sec. 1. 4(c).(b)(3): 10§USC 424,(b)(3):50§USC 3024(i)
    REDACTED
    CLASSIFIED

    Posted by: jfl | Jun 23, 2016 9:05:30 AM | 67

    [Jun 28, 2016] http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article44944.htm

    www.informationclearinghouse.info

    The Looming US War on Russia By Finian Cunningham
    June 22, 2016 "Information Clearing House" - "Sputnik" - Russian President Vladimir Putin's comparison of increasing US-led NATO aggression towards Russia to the attack by Nazi Germany on the Soviet Union is advisedly apt.
    Putin was addressing the Russian State Duma this week on the occasion 75 years ago when the Nazi Third Reich launched Operation Barbarossa on June 22, 1941.

    Nazi Germany's aggression, which led to the Great Patriotic War in which up to 30 million Soviet citizens lost their lives in order to gain victory against that fascist power, was at bottom an attack by Western imperialism. As Putin reminded, this fundamental fact is often omitted in Western commentary.

    In that way, the significance of NATO's current military buildup – what else is that but aggression? – on Russian territory is all too often absent in Western media. And, by extension, Western public appreciation is lacking on how sinister the unfolding situation is.
    ~~~
    The burgeoning US-led aggression towards Russia – in the form of provocative political campaigns to demonize and vilify with false accusations, economic sanctions and the spurning of diplomacy and dialogue, as well as the expansion of military forces, including the deployment of missile systems – is in a long, reprehensible tradition of Western belligerence towards Russia, going back to, among others, French emperor Napoleon Bonaparte and German Fuhrer Adolf Hitler.
    This congenital aggression towards Russia stems from the dynamic of the Western economic system of capitalism, which in turns begets imperialism as its necessary tool for expropriating natural resources and subjugating foreign nations.
    ~~~
    The little-known historical record – at least in Western media – is that Nazi Germany was fomented by American and British capitalism as a proxy with which to vanquish the Soviet Union. The subsequent Western alliance with Soviet Russia to defeat Nazi Germany was merely a cynical damage-control move by the Western powers who were witnessing their Nazi attack dog being muzzled and liquidated.
    ~~~
    As the US presidential election swings towards Democrat contender Hillary Clinton, that portends ominously for relations with Russia. It was Clinton who as Secretary of State in the first Obama administration in 2009-2013 plunged bilateral relations into the freezer and who set the course for the present geopolitical tensions.
    Of further concern is Clinton's likely
    selection to head the Pentagon . It is hotly tipped that Clinton will appoint Michele Flournoy as the first female Secretary of Defense. Flournoy (56) is a prominent Pentagon insider, with close links to the military and CIA We can be sure that this duo will keenly push a bellicose agenda towards Russia.

    Only last week, Flournoy made strident calls for increased US military intervention in Syria. She wants to deploy large numbers of American troops and openly use military force to topple the Syrian government of President Bashar al-Assad.

    Posted by: okie farmer | Jun 23, 2016 12:39:33 AM | 56

    [Jun 28, 2016] The Brexit Rejection of Neoliberal Tyranny

    consortiumnews.com

    Consortiumnews

    Ignoring Russia's Memories

    In the week of the referendum vote, no British politician and, to my knowledge, no journalist referred to Vladimir Putin's speech in St. Petersburg commemorating the seventy-fifth anniversary of Nazi Germany's invasion of the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941. The Soviet victory – at a cost of 27 million Soviet lives and the majority of all German forces – won the Second World War.

    Russian President Vladimir Putin laying a wreath at Russia's Tomb of the Unknown Soldier on May 8, 2014, as part of the observance of the World War II Victory over Germany.

    Russian President Vladimir Putin laying a wreath at Russia's Tomb of the Unknown Soldier on May 8, 2014, as part of the observance of the World War II Victory over Germany.

    Putin likened the current frenzied build up of NATO troops and war materiel on Russia's western borders to the Third Reich's Operation Barbarossa. NATO's exercises in Poland were the biggest since the Nazi invasion; Operation Anaconda had simulated an attack on Russia, presumably with nuclear weapons.

    On the eve of the referendum, the quisling secretary-general of NATO, Jens Stoltenberg, warned Britons they would be endangering "peace and security" if they voted to leave the E.U. The millions who ignored him and Cameron, Osborne, Corbyn, Obama and the man who runs the Bank of England may, just may, have struck a blow for real peace and democracy in Europe.

    John Pilger is an Australian-British journalist based in London. Pilger's Web site is: www.johnpilger.com , the films and journalism of John Pilger.

    [Jun 27, 2016] Transcript: Clinton testifies before House Committee on Benghazi/

    Notable quotes:
    "... ROSKAM: Secretary Clinton, you were meeting with opposition within the State Department from very senior career diplomats in fact. And they were saying that it was going to produce a net negative for U.S. military intervention. ..."
    "... For example, in a March 9th, 2011 e-mail discussing what has become known as the Libya options memo, Ambassador Stephen Mull, then the executive secretary of the State Department and one of the top career diplomats, said this, "In the case of our diplomatic history, when we've provided material or tactical military support to people seeking to drive their leaders from power, no matter how just their cause, it's tended to produce net negatives for our interests over the long term in those countries." ..."
    "... But then you had another big obstacle, didn't you, and that was -- that was the White House itself. There were senior voices within the White House that were opposed to military action -- Vice President Biden, Department of Defense, Secretary Gates, the National Security Council and so forth. ..."
    "... But you persuaded President Obama to intervene militarily. Isn't that right? ..."
    "... ROSKAM: Well I think you are underselling yourself. You got the State Department on board. You convinced the president, you overcame the objections of Vice President Biden and Secretary of Defense Gates, the National Security Council. And you had another obstacle then, and that was the United Nations. ..."
    "... And you were able to persuade the Russians, of all things, to abstain, and had you not been successful in arguing that abstention, the Security Council Resolution 1973 wouldn't have passed because the Russians had a veto. So you overcame that obstacle as well, right? Isn't that right? ..."
    www.washingtonpost.com

    ROSKAM: Good morning, Secretary Clinton.

    Jake Sullivan, your chief foreign policy adviser, wrote a tick- tock on Libya memo on August 21, 2011. And this was the day before the rebels took Tripoli. He titles it, quote, "Secretary Clinton's Leadership on Libya," in which he describes you as, quote, "a critical voice" and, quote, "the public face of the U.S. effort in Libya and instrumental in tightening the noose around Gadhafi and his regime."

    But that didn't come easy, did it? Because you faced considerable opposition, and I can pause while you're reading your notes from your staff.

    CLINTON: One thing at a time, Congressman.

    ROSKAM: OK. That didn't come easy, did it, that leadership role and that public face and so forth that I just mentioned?

    CLINTON: (OFF-MIKE) this is an issue that the committee has raised. And it really boils down to why were we in Libya; why did the United States join with our NATO and European allies, join with our Arab partners to protect the people of Libya against the murderous planning of Gadhafi. Why did we take a role alongside our partners in doing so.

    There were a number of reasons for that. And I think it is important to remind the American people where we were at the time when the people of Libya, like people across the region, rose up demanding freedom and democracy, a chance to chart their own futures. And Gadhafi...

    ROSKAM: I take your point.

    CLINTON: ... Gadhafi threatened them with genocide, with hunting them down like cockroaches. And we were then approached by, with great intensity, our closest allies in Europe, people who felt very strongly -- the French and the British, but others as well -- that they could not stand idly by and permit that to happen so close to their shores, with the unintended consequences that they worried about.

    And they asked for the United States to help. We did not immediately say yes. We did an enormous amount of due diligence in meeting with not only our European and Arab partners, but also with those were heading up what was called the Transitional National Council. And we had experienced diplomats who were digging deep into what was happening in Libya and what the possibilities were, before we agreed to provide very specific, limited help to the European and Arab efforts.

    We did not put one American soldier on the ground. We did not have one casualty. And in fact, I think by many measures, the cooperation between NATO and Arab forces was quite remarkable and something that we want to learn more lessons from.

    ROSKAM: Secretary Clinton, you were meeting with opposition within the State Department from very senior career diplomats in fact. And they were saying that it was going to produce a net negative for U.S. military intervention.

    For example, in a March 9th, 2011 e-mail discussing what has become known as the Libya options memo, Ambassador Stephen Mull, then the executive secretary of the State Department and one of the top career diplomats, said this, "In the case of our diplomatic history, when we've provided material or tactical military support to people seeking to drive their leaders from power, no matter how just their cause, it's tended to produce net negatives for our interests over the long term in those countries."

    Now, we'll come back to that in a minute. But you overruled those career diplomats. I mean, they report to you and you're the chief diplomat of the United States. Go ahead and read the note if you need to.

    (LAUGHTER)

    CLINTON: I have to -- I have to...

    ROSKAM: I'm not done with my question. I'm just giving you the courtesy of reading your notes.

    CLINTON: That's all right.

    ROSKAM: All right.

    They were -- they were pushing back, but you overcame those objections. But then you had another big obstacle, didn't you, and that was -- that was the White House itself. There were senior voices within the White House that were opposed to military action -- Vice President Biden, Department of Defense, Secretary Gates, the National Security Council and so forth.

    But you persuaded President Obama to intervene militarily. Isn't that right?

    CLINTON: Well, Congressman, I think it's important to point out there were many in the State Department who believed it was very much in America's interests and in furtherance of our values to protect the Libyan people, to join with our European allies and our Arab partners. The ambassador, who had had to be withdrawn from Libya because of direct attacks -- or direct threats to his physical safety, but who knew Libya very well, Ambassador Cretz, was a strong advocate for doing what we could to assist the Europeans and the Arabs.

    CLINTON: I think it's fair to say there were concerns and there were varying opinions about what to do, how to do it, and the like. At the end of the day, this was the president's decision. And all of us fed in our views. I did not favor it until I had done, as I said, the due diligence speaking with not just people within our government and within the governments of all of the other nations who were urging us to assist them, but also meeting in-person with the gentleman who had assumed a lead role in the Transitional National Council.

    So it is of course fair to say this is a difficult decision. I wouldn't sit here and say otherwise. And there were varying points of view about it. But at the end of the day, in large measure, because of the strong appeals from our European allies, the Arab League passing resolution urging that the United States and NATO join with them, those were unprecedented requests.

    And we did decide in recommending to the president there was a way to do it. The president I think, very clearly had a limited instruction about how to proceed. And the first planes that flew were French planes. And I think what the United States provided was some of our unique capacity. But the bulk of the work militarily was done by Europeans and Arabs.

    ROSKAM: Well I think you are underselling yourself. You got the State Department on board. You convinced the president, you overcame the objections of Vice President Biden and Secretary of Defense Gates, the National Security Council. And you had another obstacle then, and that was the United Nations.

    And you were able to persuade the Russians, of all things, to abstain, and had you not been successful in arguing that abstention, the Security Council Resolution 1973 wouldn't have passed because the Russians had a veto. So you overcame that obstacle as well, right? Isn't that right?

    [Jun 22, 2016] Bill Kristol 'We Beat Back Ron Paul and Rand Paul'

    June 22, 2016 | The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity

    Neoconservative by birth, Bill Kristol, apparently thinks the libertarian moment is over.

    Kristol was in San Francisco yesterday and appeared at the Commonwealth Club of San Francisco for a "conversation with" event.

    He fielded questions from the audience and also the moderator neocon Kori Schake, mostly about Donald Trump.

    At one point, he named a list of non-mainstream Republican candidates that had their moment in the sun and then faded away.

    This included Ron and Rand Paul. "We beat back Ron Paul and Rand Paul," he said. Implying that they were nothing but a footnote in Republican history.

    Kristol said the current election resembled one coming out of a third world country. He also admitted that he underestimated "Trump's seeing what the people are upset about."

    He said the current move by some delegates to open up the upcoming Republican national convention by "voting conscience" to deny Trump the nomination has about a 15% chance of succeeding. He said only last week he would have said it only had a 5% chance.

    He said he could not rule out a Trump victory in November.

    He said he sent out this tweet to "energize" Reince Priebus:<

    [Jun 19, 2016] Syria - Russian Surprise Attack Blows Up Kerrys Delaying Tactic

    Notable quotes:
    "... Its so sad how the western presstitutes try and work this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79jQSYQYcW0 Russia seems to have the war part covered while Syria is bringing the diplomatic punch into focus .... ..."
    "... Unadulterated BS. As for Obama (see 6) the committee man (he was elected for that role), he is caught between a rock and a hard place. Ukraine was and is an absolute disaster - nothing worked out as wished. (Some may enjoy Helmer, who sometimes must be taken with a dose of salt, linked below, MH17, etc. This war is being fought on 2 fronts, Ukr. + Syria.) ..."
    "... Although the US seems to have gotten tough(er) on ISIS in recent months, there are indications that this is just more smokescreen. The Assad must go! Coalition has merely changed tactics. They still support their extremist proxy army(s) (as demonstrated by recent resupply and pleas for Russia to avoid bombing) . ..."
    "... Obama warned Putin that he could face a 'quagmire' and 'costs'. To paraphrase Madeline Albright: What good is a proxy army if you don't use it? ..."
    "... Obama is a willing and very capable participant in the 'con'. This has been proven in the realm of domestic affairs as well as foreign affairs. james has it right when he says: "this good cop/bad cop (obama/brennan) routine is a pile of bullshite". ..."
    "... The Saudis and its allied are too stupid to realize that they have been taken on a ride. Turkey is on the verge of crumbling as Erdogan keeps attacking the USA and Egypt and has not solve the issue with Israel on Hamas and the defunct Moslem Brotherhood. ..."
    "... Yes, I suppose it is entirely possible that this "schism" between Obama and the Pentagon is just theatrics, optics, useful in declaring helplessness when "policies" are undone or contradicted ... Obama as victim of palace infighting. ..."
    "... "Turkey on the verge of crumbling ..." ..."
    "... Egypt has placed the MB on the terror list and has become allied with Saudi Arabia and UAE. Qatar is isolated for its support of the MB. Erdogan is between a rock and a hard place, its foreign policy has been a disaster. Seeking to restore relations with Russia. The intelligence community of Turkey, Israel and Saudi Arabia have joined assets in the Levant. Al Nusra on the Golan must be defeated, the UK/US training camps of rebels in Jordan must be neutralized to fight in the southern corridor to Damascus. ..."
    "... To remove any ambiguity about the status of the Free Syrian Army, a representative was present at this year's Herzliya Conference. This annual conference is dedicated to issues relating to Israel's Security. Netanyahu and high level Israeli Military Intelligence leaders state they prefer ISIS to Assad. ..."
    "... War criminal Obama was the lead advocate for bombing Syrian government a few years ago, thats until the UK Parliament put a temporary stop to it. So any credit given to Obama by b , or anyone else is ludicrous. LUDICROUS. The destruction of Libya still gets Obama mitigation ? ..."
    "... In 2016 we have the batsh*t crazy appointed government bureaucrats siding with the sole interests of a foreign country. Circle talking seems to be the normal state of affairs at State, Executive and MSM. PBS has gone full Karl Marx. Congress has an 16% approval rating, 80% disapproval, and 4% no opinion [1]. So I guess Congress doesn't really matter? And as far as our military command goes, when you can use 'sold out' and 'son of a bitch' in the same sentence, we, as a nation might have a major problemo. ..."
    "... Actually, Putin has said that their intervention in Syria is in Russia's strategic interests - making much the same argument that Bush did wrt al Queda: we need to fight them there so that we don't have to fight them here . Russia doesn't want to see extremist control of another failed state like Libya. ..."
    "... Clearly there is an ongoing battle in the Obama Administration between Mostly the pentagon (at least some part of it) and the CIA (most part of it). Obama is well aware of this. ..."
    "... Obama's Strategy has been to isolate Russia Politically and to shift the main focus of United State Towards Asia however the unexpected resistance of Russia and Syria wasn't forecast by his administration and part of the Deep state. Now part of the heads in the pentagon and the Obama administration want out of this proxy war against Russia as the World and mainly the US public becomes more and more aware of the real nature of the war ongoing in Syria. The heart of the matter is that The members of the oligarchy that rule the united states through revolving doors between the government , their law firms, foundations, banks and corporations can't afford to lose Syria for obvious reason. ..."
    "... "But Putin invited the evil US Empire into Syria." ..."
    "... I haven't watched or listened to that PBS tripe ever . But considering that PBS is 90% corporate funded, I find it hard to accept your assertion ... it is merely a corporate/permanent government psy-op to keep the intellectually and morally challenged sedated. ..."
    "... Obama's Syria SNAFU was always destined to boil down to Yankees playing Russian Roulette - with Russia. They're probably beginning to realise that playing cat and mouse loses a lot of its appeal when the cat starts getting ready to eat you. ..."
    "... Hillary's so predictably evil, and he's so officially 'unpredictable' that he's the natural focal point of the selection circus. It's too bad only one of them can lose. ..."
    "... Confirmation of other reports ... ..."
    "... Obama and his Administration is a collection of lawyers, political pseudo-"scientists", journos etc. They are very good at promoting suicidal social policies but do not and cannot operate with actual operational categories--briefings by CIA or Pentagon (granted that they reflect a reality on the "ground", which is a question) are not designed to teach some Ivy League lawyer fundamentals of international relations, strategy, operational art etc. They merely distill a very complex geopolitical reality to a several catch phrases which could be understood by people of such qualities as W. (his military briefings papers contained headers with Bible excerpts, supposedly applicable to current situation) or Obama, who has no clue on how to assess the world around himself. ..."
    "... In relation to Russia what Obama has in mind is beaten to death cliche of Afghanistan (obviously without studying that war) with which he wants to impress Russians, who, meanwhile fought two bloody wars against Wahhabi terrorists on own territory and, somehow, do know, unlike Obama or US liberal political class, what does it take to deal with this huge issue. In the end, during last War in Chechnya US media loved to misuse this very term (quagmire) and completely forgot to mention that Chechnya today is, actually, pretty reliable anti-terrorism entity in Russia. Now, add here most of US "elites" and a population being absolutely oblivious to real war and voila'. You have people speaking in platitudes and ignorant cliches. ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org

    The U.S. is unwilling to stop the war on Syria and to settle the case at the negotiation table. It wants a 100% of its demands fulfilled, the dissolution of the Syrian government and state and the inauguration of a U.S. proxy administration in Syria.

    After the ceasefire in Syria started in late February Obama broke his pledge to separate the U.S. supported "moderate rebels" from al-Qaeda. In April U.S. supported rebels, the Taliban like Ahrar al Sham and al-Qaeda joined to attack the Syrian government in south Aleppo. The U.S.proxies broke the ceasefire.

    Two UN resolutions demand that al-Qaeda in Syria be fought no matter what. But the U.S. has at least twice asked Russia not to bomb al-Qaeda. It insists, falsely, that it can not separate its "moderates" from al-Qaeda and that al-Qaeda can not be attacked because that would also hit its "moderate" friends.

    The Russian foreign minster Lavrov has talked wit Kerry many times about the issue. But the only response he received were requests to further withhold bombing. Meanwhile al-Qaeda and the "moderates" continued to break the ceasefire and to attack the Syrian government forces.

    After nearly four month Kerry still insists that the U.S. needs even more time for the requested separation of its proxy forces from al-Qaeda. Foreign Minister Lavrov recently expressed the Russian consternation:

    The Americans are now saying that they are unable to remove the 'good' opposition members from the positions held by al-Nusra Front, and that they will need another two-three months. I am under the impression that there is a game here and they may want to keep al-Nusra Front in some form and later use it to overthrow the [Assad] regime," Lavrov said at the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum.

    The bucket was full and Kerry's latest request for another three month pause of attacking al-Qaeda was the drop that let it overflow. Russia now responded by hitting the U.S. where it did not expect to be hit:

    Russian warplanes hit Pentagon-backed Syrian fighters with a barrage of airstrikes earlier this week , disregarding several warnings from U.S. commanders in what American military officials called the most provocative act since Moscow's air campaign in Syria began last year.

    The strikes hit a base near the Jordanian border, far from areas where the Russians were previously active, and targeted U.S.-backed forces battling the Islamic State militants.
    ...
    These latest strikes occurred on the other side of the country from the usual Russian operations, around Tanf, a town near where the borders of Jordan, Iraq, and Syria meet.
    ...
    The Russian strike hit a small rebel base for staging forces and equipment in a desolate, unpopulated area near the border. About 180 rebels were there as part of the Pentagon's program to train and equip fighters against Islamic State.

    When the first strikes hit, the rebels called a U.S. command center in Qatar, where the Pentagon orchestrates the daily air war against Islamic State.

    U.S. jets came and the Russian jets went away. The U.S. jets left to refuel, the Russian jets came back and hit again. Allegedly two U.S. proxy fighters were killed and 18 were wounded.

    Earlier today another such attack hit the same target.

    This was no accident but a well planned operation and the Russian spokesperson's response makes the intend clear:

    Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov appeared to confirm the attack Friday, telling reporters it was difficult to distinguish different rebel groups from the air.

    Translation: "If you can not separate your forces from al-Qaeda and differentiate and designate exclusively "moderate" zones we can not do so either ."

    The forces near Tanf are supported by U.S. artillery from Jordan and air power via Iraq. British and Jordan special operations forces are part of the ground component (and probably the majority of the "Syrian" fighters.) There is no al-Qaeda there. The Russians know that well. But they wanted to make the point that it is either separation everywhere or separation nowhere. From now on until the U.S. clearly separates them from AQ all U.S. supported forces will be hit indiscriminately anywhere and anytime. (The Syrian Kurds fighting the Islamic State with U.S. support are for now a different story.)

    The Pentagon does not want any further engagement against the Syrian government or against Russia. It wants to fight the Islamic State and its hates the CIA for its cooperation with al-Qaeda and other Jihadi elements. But John Brennan, the Saudi operative and head of the CIA, still seems to have Obama's ear. But what can Obama do now? Shoot down a Russian jet and thereby endanger any U.S. pilot flying in Syria or near the Russian border? Risk a war with Russia? Really?

    The Russian hit near Tanf was clearly a surprise. The Russians again caught Washington on the wrong foot. The message to the Obama administration is clear. "No more delays and obfuscations. You will separate your moderates NOW or all your assets in Syria will be juicy targets for the Russian air force. "

    The Russian hits at Tanf and the U.S. proxies there has an additional benefit. The U.S. had planned to let those forces move north towards Deir Ezzor and to defeat the Islamic State in that city. Eventually a "Sunni entity" would be established in south east Syria and west Iraq under U.S. control. Syria would be split apart.

    The Syrian government and its allies will not allow that. There is a large operation planned to free Deir Ezzor from the Islamic State occupation. Several hundred Syrian government forces have held an isolated airport in Deir Ezzor against many unsuccessful Islamic State attacks. These troops get currently reinforced by additional Syrian army contingents and Hizbullah commandos.A big battle is coming. Deir Ezzor may be freed within the next few month. Any U.S. plans for some eastern Syrian entity are completely unrealistic if the Syrian government can take and hold its largest eastern city.

    The Obama administration's delaying tactic will now have to end. Russia will no longer stand back and watch while the U.S. sabotages the ceasefire and supports al-Qaeda.

    What then is the next move the U.S. will make?

    Posted by b on June 18, 2016 at 11:15 AM | Permalink

    Jackrabbit | Jun 18, 2016 11:42:32 AM | 2
    b:
    But John Brennan, the Saudi operative and head of the CIA, still seems to have Obama's ear.
    Please don't be an Obama apologist b. Isn't it clear by now that Obama is not the peace-loving progressive that he pretends to be?
    paul | Jun 18, 2016 11:42:53 AM | 3
    Putin needs to send a message to Israel that Russia will no longer tolerate Israeli bombing raids in Syria.
    Edomac | Jun 18, 2016 12:06:12 PM | 4
    Line in the sand now for Israel it's about time.
    harrylaw | Jun 18, 2016 12:16:30 PM | 5
    Many pundits have argued that there is no military solution in Syria. I disagree, a military solution is the only one possible and it must be decisive. How is it possible for Saudi Arabia to supply and finance thousands of proxy forces to destroy a fellow Arab state, and still claim to be fighting terrorism. Syria and Iran need to take the gloves off and use their own special forces or better still encourage proxy forces of their own [unattributed of course]to cripple the Saudi economy with various 'incidents' at Ras Tamara oil port. "An assault on Ras Tanura, however, would be vastly more serious. As much as 80% of the near 9m barrels of oil a day pumped out by Saudi is believed to end up being piped from fields such as Ghawar to Ras Tanura in the Gulf to be loaded on to supertankers bound for the west". https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/jun/03/saudiarabia.oil
    This would have the benefit of killing two birds with one stone, the fall of one of the most obnoxious regimes known to mankind and with it the cessation of funding for schools of terrorism throughout the world and with it Assads vision of a secular Syrian state as a role model for the rest of the Middle East.
    WorldBLee | Jun 18, 2016 12:23:55 PM | 6
    @Jackrabbit at 2: Of course Obama is not progressive or peace loving. Only an idiot would argue that he is. But what b is saying is that Obama is weak reed who can be bent depending on which faction has his attention. He both wants to overthrow Assad and to avoid getting pulled into an expensive battle, in my opinion, and in any given week may issue contradictory policies. But it seems he sides more with the CIA than the Pentagon, which is dangerous in this case.
    Terry | Jun 18, 2016 12:44:12 PM | 7

    Seems as though the pressure is on ...this vid Skype presentation by Syrian presidential adviser Dr Bouthaina Shaaban, to GAFTA (Global Alliance for terminating al Qaeda) conference in Washington, June 2016. is well worth the listen to .

    Its so sad how the western presstitutes try and work this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79jQSYQYcW0 Russia seems to have the war part covered while Syria is bringing the diplomatic punch into focus ....

    Au | Jun 18, 2016 12:50:42 PM | 8
    @2 It's always been clear to me that he is not some tremendous beacon of peace for Syria but the alternative was McCain and he definitely wanted and still wants more w/ ever a burning yearning for absolute overt total war against Syria.

    It's tough to tell who Obama listens to; Ben Rhodes? Saudi's (most def) but is it just simply as a sorry for the iran deal or closer ties? The u.s. deep state (i think so but they seemed pretty pissed at him) . . i think he just expected things to go as they did in libya or perhaps as the 2012 dia memo stated, the plan all along was to create a sliver of a sunni state and for the u.s. in that case the objective is coming along whether a kurdistan (hopefully) or a caliphate (hope to god not)... is it a fly trap strategy that'll turn in to a caliphate? hell idk it's going to be insane w/ hillary.

    ALberto | Jun 18, 2016 12:54:31 PM | 9
    Just a reminder. Russia, Syria and Iran have a 'mutual defense treaty' that states an attack on one is an attack on all ...

    http://www.examiner.com/article/the-russia-iran-syria-mutual-defense-treaties-the-western-media-missed

    ALberto | Jun 18, 2016 1:10:20 PM | 10
    June 18, 2016 - You cannot make this stuff up ...

    "On Friday, Defense Secretary Ash Carter called out Russia for bombing a Syrian rebel group that's backed by the U.S.

    Since last year, American and Russian warplanes have shared the skies over Syria while supporting different sides in the civil war. Moscow backs the Assad dictatorship; the U.S. is arming rebels who've been trying to overthrow it.

    The attack by Russian fighter bombers on American-backed opposition forces appeared to be deliberate and to ignore repeated U.S. warnings."

    Once again our so called Department of Defense displays its 'Kindergarten logic' by condemning Russia for acting within the parameters of International Law.

    quote source - http://www.cbsnews.com/news/russia-ignores-warnings-bombs-u-s-backed-syrian-rebel-group/

    Noirette | Jun 18, 2016 1:13:27 PM | 11
    harrylaw at 5, yes, say. They state 'no military solution is possible' because they want a political transition right now. In short, they want the opposing parties to just lie down and die or go off and play WoW or watch Mad Men or sumptin'. Unadulterated BS. As for Obama (see 6) the committee man (he was elected for that role), he is caught between a rock and a hard place. Ukraine was and is an absolute disaster - nothing worked out as wished. (Some may enjoy Helmer, who sometimes must be taken with a dose of salt, linked below, MH17, etc. This war is being fought on 2 fronts, Ukr. + Syria.)

    Read in the Swiss Press (no idea if true) that di Mistura is fed up with the lot of them, implied he will throw in the towel. Not that a return to the negotiating table is realistic, that ship has now sailed into the stormy night, the US can't try that move again, nor will the Russians be so compliant next time (imho.) So that is one thing the US won't do (?).. (b's question.) The rubber is going to hit the road on this one. It will be fought out in the corridors of power in Washington first. Putin has been in speech very conciliatory recently to show the usual 'good will'..

    http://johnhelmer.net/?p=15859

    Jackrabbit | Jun 18, 2016 1:37:26 PM | 13
    b:
    What then is the next move the U.S. will make?
    I will hazard a guess. But first, we should not think that the U.S. will act alone. Direct confrontation with Russia is (of course) too risky.

    As I wrote in an earlier comment (includes timeline) , the San Bernandino attack occurred soon after the downing of the Russian airliner on October 31st 2015. This was the first attack against the US despite the US having (supposedly) bombed ISIS for over a year and engaged in a $500 million program to train anti-ISIS fighters.

    The long delay in responding to USA's anti-ISIS activities sharply contrasts with the quickness with which ISIS had responded to Russia's intervention. This leads to the question of whether the San Bernandino attack was (hastily) arranged to blunt any attempt to associate USA with the proxy army of Sunni extremists.

    Although the US seems to have gotten tough(er) on ISIS in recent months, there are indications that this is just more smokescreen. The Assad must go! Coalition has merely changed tactics. They still support their extremist proxy army(s) (as demonstrated by recent resupply and pleas for Russia to avoid bombing) .

    The recent Orlando shooting better establishes ISIS's hate for USA and thereby distances USA/CIA from ISIS. This distancing may simply be misdirection that allows ISIS to carry out spectacular attack(s) against Russian interests. That it pre-dates attacks on Russian interests merely shows that they learned from the San Bernandino experience (where a lack of previous attacks raised suspicions) .

    Note:

    1) The San Bernandino attackers had visited Saudi Arabia and the wife had lived there. They were well established in the USA and drew little if any suspicion. They could have attacked months before or after the time that they actually did attack.

    2) The Orlando attacker had also visited Saudi Arabia. The background of the wife is (as yet) not well understood. She was born in USA but her last name ("Salman") is the same as the Saudi royal family (I'm not sure how relevant that is) . It is now clear that she had some knowledge of the plans of her husband.

    3) Both the San Bernandino and Orlando (SB&O) attackers had a young child. As a 'young family' they would be less likely to draw suspicion. Were the SB&O attackers really "radicalized via the Internet"? "ISIS-inspired"? "Lone wolf"? Or, were they 'deep cover' operatives?

    4) The FBI has caught/entrapped many potential attackers that were "radicalized over the Internet" but they are invariably clueless and incapable.

    5) AFAIK, "ISIS-inspired" attackers in Paris and Brussels didn't have young children and middle-class lifestyle.

    Obama warned Putin that he could face a 'quagmire' and 'costs'. To paraphrase Madeline Albright: What good is a proxy army if you don't use it?

    Jackrabbit | Jun 18, 2016 1:43:31 PM | 14
    WorldBLee @6:
    Obama is a weak reed
    Obama is a willing and very capable participant in the 'con'. This has been proven in the realm of domestic affairs as well as foreign affairs. james has it right when he says: "this good cop/bad cop (obama/brennan) routine is a pile of bullshite".

    virgile | Jun 18, 2016 1:57:06 PM | 15
    In public the US criticizes and threatens Russia. In private I think that the Pentagon is more than happy to see Russia blowing up these "moderates" that have become polluted by Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar and also Turkey.

    Using Russia, the USA is giving a good lessons to these 'allies' countries that dare stand against the USA shift on Iran. They are becoming increasingly terrified by their powerlessness.

    This has always been the USA double game in the ME: Caress and stab in the back. The Saudis and its allied are too stupid to realize that they have been taken on a ride. Turkey is on the verge of crumbling as Erdogan keeps attacking the USA and Egypt and has not solve the issue with Israel on Hamas and the defunct Moslem Brotherhood.

    The tacit agreement between Kerry and Lavrov on crushing the rebels, islamist or not, is very clear.

    Susan Sunflower | Jun 18, 2016 2:10:09 PM | 16
    Posted by: virgile | Jun 18, 2016 1:57:06 PM | 15

    Yes, I suppose it is entirely possible that this "schism" between Obama and the Pentagon is just theatrics, optics, useful in declaring helplessness when "policies" are undone or contradicted ... Obama as victim of palace infighting.

    I was noticing how they no longer bother to state objectives to justify our actions (and/or inactions) ... Omar Mateens demand that we "stop bombing Afghanistan" made me wonder if we actually were bombing there, who and what and why ...
    Juan Cole/Center from investigative journalism: US still in Conventional War in Afghanistan via . . . Drones? . My impression that our main mission in Afghanistant was "not leaving" ...

    ALberto | Jun 18, 2016 2:18:27 PM | 17
    PBS TV is running a piece on the military draft. Giving a historical perspective dating back to George Washington's request for a draft during the Revolutionary War to the present.

    While stationed at Great Lakes Naval station in 1967 I noticed that all of e gate guards were US Marines. This was during Nam. I asked one Marine how he managed to pull such a plum assignment. He told me that he had been drafted into the Marines. His tour was for two years. He was told that being a draftee he would not serve in a combat unit as a draftee and not an enlistee 'he could not be trusted.'

    Let the fragging begin.

    karlof1 | Jun 18, 2016 2:34:25 PM | 18
    The Outlaw US Empire's behavior regarding the UNSC resolution that al-Qaeda be attacked no matter what proves the Empire's support for that terrorist group absolving its citizens from paying taxes to support terrorism since doing so is against the law. Is my logic sound, or should I rephrase?
    Oui | Jun 18, 2016 2:47:29 PM | 20
    "Turkey on the verge of crumbling ..."

    Egypt has placed the MB on the terror list and has become allied with Saudi Arabia and UAE. Qatar is isolated for its support of the MB. Erdogan is between a rock and a hard place, its foreign policy has been a disaster. Seeking to restore relations with Russia. The intelligence community of Turkey, Israel and Saudi Arabia have joined assets in the Levant. Al Nusra on the Golan must be defeated, the UK/US training camps of rebels in Jordan must be neutralized to fight in the southern corridor to Damascus.

    Oui | Jun 18, 2016 2:53:45 PM | 21
    It must be the US supported Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) heading towards Deir ez-Zor, a crucial cross-roads for Islamic State between Raqqa and Anbar province in Iraq. The U.S. will do all to help establish an enlarged Sunni enclave as a gift for its Arab patrons. A bit of Syria should suffice as punishment for Assad and allies.

    Onslaught on ISIS: Syrian Army enters Raqqa province as Kurds, rebels advance | RT |
    ISIS Sanctuary Map – ISW (May 25, 2016)

    mik | Jun 18, 2016 2:56:33 PM | 22
    Seems like you missed you missed the big news for today:

    On Putin´s order, Sergei Shoigu, the Russian defence minister visited Bashar al Assad and the Kmeimim base.
    That most certainly mean s that something big will be announced next week. Stay tuned...

    jayc | Jun 18, 2016 3:13:17 PM | 24
    The Helmer piece on MH17 is interesting. I remember reports that the Australians were prepared to send troops into the area, but if the Dutch were planning the same thing then it was a NATO op in all probability. The utter hysteria that had been unleashed in the Western media at the time would have provided the cover for such bold move. The desired result would not have necessarily been immediate war with Russia, but certainly the instantaneous creation of cold war standoff and militarization which has been happening incrementally instead. This could be considered similar to the sarin attack in Syria, blamed on Assad, with the hasty response of quickly regime-changing the country, which also was called off (and the policy continued incrementally since). This highlights the centrality of false-flag events to realize policy, particularly to those favouring rapid game-changing moves. It is very possible that the next POTUS will be faced with a false-flag atrocity in the Baltics or mid-east early in the first term, with an attendant bold move offered as response.
    woogs | Jun 18, 2016 3:13:35 PM | 25
    Lol ..... Putin does a Nuland on Kerry.

    "U.S. jets came and the Russian jets went away. The U.S. jets left to refuel, the Russian jets came back and hit again. Allegedly two U.S. proxy fighters were killed and 18 were wounded.

    Earlier today another such attack hit the same target."

    Putin seems quite adept at appearing weak (even to his supporters), then BAM!! IMO, this is not a one-off. No reason to fly clear across Syria to 'make a statement', though it was a helluva statement!

    I expect more of the same, with Russia going back to its original strategy, which worked quite well. So much for Obama's foreign policy (don't do stupid shit).

    Mina | Jun 18, 2016 3:14:29 PM | 26

    Thanks Terry for the Bouthaina Shaaban speech. The most amazing are the questions after the 30 mn speech. A dozen of female hyenas talking non-sense! At some stage one of them is clearly becoming hysterical. Hard to believe they are simply ill-informed. Most of these people are on pay-list, for sure.
    It is relieving to see a Muslim woman talking naturally, unveiled, in the middle of Ramadan. Shaaban is really strong to manage to keep her calm.
    Oui | Jun 18, 2016 3:28:52 PM | 27
    Sergei Shoigu Inspects Khmeimim Airbase in Syria

    At the Khmeimim airbase, the General of the army Sergei Shoigu inspected the accommodation of personnel and issues of providing with all types of support, and also met with Russian pilots performing combat missions to destroy the terrorist infrastructure in Syria and military units for the protection and security of the air base. The head of the Russian military tested the combat duty at the command post of the air defense group, and also the starting positions of anti-aircraft missile system S-400, which is stationed at the air base," stated the message of the Defense Ministry.

    Speaking at the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum, Putin said that maintaining Syria's integrity must be the top priority and warned that the disintegration of the Middle Eastern country would be a "destabilizing factor not only for the region, but for the whole world."

    "We must act carefully, step by step, aiming to establish trust between all sides to the conflict," the Russian president said, adding that a new and effective government could be formed in Syria once this trust is finally built. A political process is the only way to reach peace, Putin said, stressing that Syrian President Bashar Assad "also agrees to such a process."

    Минобороны России

    Minister of Defence General of the Army Sergei ‪#‎ Shoigu ‬ ordered the Chief of the Russian Centre for reconciliation of opposing sides Lieutenant General Sergei ‪#‎Chvarkov‬ to build up negotiations with heads of administrations and armed formation commanders on joining national truce process.

    Mina | Jun 18, 2016 3:52:12 PM | 30
    Saturday night snuff movie on FB! Death for real!! So cool, ain't it?
    Moloch is making cash tonigt!
    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-36566635
    paulmeli | Jun 18, 2016 3:59:22 PM | 32
    I have a great deal more respect for Russian leadership than I do American.

    This coming from a 70 yr old American 'exceptionalist'. Sad.

    Yonatan | Jun 18, 2016 4:11:08 PM | 33
    To remove any ambiguity about the status of the Free Syrian Army, a representative was present at this year's Herzliya Conference. This annual conference is dedicated to issues relating to Israel's Security. Netanyahu and high level Israeli Military Intelligence leaders state they prefer ISIS to Assad.

    https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/fsa-commander-takes-part-herzliya-conference/

    Jack Smith | Jun 18, 2016 4:27:24 PM | 36
    b, an excellent piece, if what you alleged were true! It's now or never. The regime in Washington must be stop. If not now, when? You cannot trust Obomo, Hillary, Trump or Bernie, regardless who is in the WH.
    james | Jun 18, 2016 4:50:27 PM | 38
    @7 terry.. ditto mina's comment @26 - thanks for sharing that video... pretty enlightening how thick the propaganda is inside the usa for them to question Syrian presidential adviser Dr Bouthaina Shaaban in the manner they do... her comment at 49 minutes in is pretty strong and clear..
    tom | Jun 18, 2016 4:52:42 PM | 39
    War criminal Obama was the lead advocate for bombing Syrian government a few years ago, thats until the UK Parliament put a temporary stop to it. So any credit given to Obama by b , or anyone else is ludicrous. LUDICROUS. The destruction of Libya still gets Obama mitigation ?

    But Putin invited the evil US Empire into Syria. What kind of fool would invite humanities worst enemy, as well as Russia's biggest enemy, into a conflict where they oppose each other. Grotesque stupidity.

    Jack Smith | Jun 18, 2016 4:54:33 PM | 40
    Lets be clear there are meetings behind closed doors among players, we are just speculating. While Syria might be the main focus point, Kiev continues bombing Separatists in Donbass, Venezuela in the blinks of anarchy. In joint military exercises off India's east coast, China and Russia's warships watching war game between US, Japan and India...

    Here something you got to watch: TeleSurTV: Media Review: The World According to Seymour Hersh: Part Two

    http://videos.telesurtv.net/en/video/557704/media-review-557704

    Grieved | Jun 18, 2016 5:00:58 PM | 41
    I loved this story. I am somewhat in awe of how the Russians have handled their Syrian presence, and the gains they make with every move. Did they have the moral weight 6 months ago to destroy US assets and perhaps US citizens on the ground in Syria? It seems certain that they do now. They seem to have tested all the players in the US establishment and discovered none who can stand up to them.

    What will the US do next? On past performance, all it can do is lie, cheat and steal, but all this within the paradigms set by Russia and the UN. One assumes that Russia's command has every permutation of treachery war-gamed already, with contingency moves in place. I suggest popcorn.

    It is to the benefit of world peace that the Syrian part of the war between Russia and the US proceed as slowly and deliberately as possible. With every day that passes Russia becomes militarily stronger and US military force continues to atrophy without renewal, while its policy-making remains frozen with no intellectual refreshment or inventiveness.

    Putin and his team are such astonishingly mature peacemakers that every provocation or twitch of malice by the US is net with calm. The global effort continues to allow the US to sink to its knees with as much grace as can be managed. So far, nobody has had to nuke the US, and for this I'm grateful. There is one good and final slapping that the US has to take in public before its time is over, and I yearn for the day, but I think it's far off yet, somewhere in a single-digit range of years.

    bbbb | Jun 18, 2016 5:16:13 PM | 42
    @39 Russia doesn't want a quagmire, nor does it want Western Sanctions. If Syria wasn't a militarily weak and spent force, things would probably go a lot smoother. Instead, outsiders are having to fight outsiders, and Russia and Iran are not tier-1 allies for whatever reason. Russia and China have never shown much defense against western aggression against 'partner' countries as it is, so Syria has been quite a stretch.

    For Iran, Hezbollah and Syrians, Syria is the battle of a lifetime, but for Russia, it's maybe a bargaining chip, or a something less, or something more.. we just don't know. All we can do it wait and see what happens, for we'll never truly know what Russia's intentions in the region are until after the fact.

    I personally want the 'evil' side to be thwarted on all fronts, as it's akin to a cancer that will destroy the host (Syria and its society) unless it's excised. There are multiple ways of accomplishing it, but there are multiple ways of failing as well. I guess that's why I'm glad I'm here making opinions, rather than being in any sort of command position. I just hope that the next administration in Washington will be sick of this business, but unfortunately seems more or less to be only one side that probably won't win(Trump)

    lebretteurfredonnant | Jun 18, 2016 5:28:16 PM | 44
    Hello everyone I heard That France was building a military base near kobane. Is that true ? Can someone knowledgeable in the matter or b shed some light on this news ?
    ALberto | Jun 18, 2016 5:37:24 PM | 45
    At the least during Nam we were given the 'Domino Theory' which, if you could consume enough alcohol, made perfect sense. The Gulf of Tonkin Incident! Where a country without a Navy attacked our Navy. Where do I enlist!

    In 2016 we have the batsh*t crazy appointed government bureaucrats siding with the sole interests of a foreign country. Circle talking seems to be the normal state of affairs at State, Executive and MSM. PBS has gone full Karl Marx. Congress has an 16% approval rating, 80% disapproval, and 4% no opinion [1]. So I guess Congress doesn't really matter? And as far as our military command goes, when you can use 'sold out' and 'son of a bitch' in the same sentence, we, as a nation might have a major problemo.

    Just me opinion

    [1] - http://www.gallup.com/poll/1600/congress-public.aspx

    dahoit | Jun 18, 2016 6:14:46 PM | 48
    I think people should note that this is all Russia black eyeing as collusion with Assad the evil dictator,and it all is about the upcoming election,where Trump,contrary to certain misinfo agents here,supports Russias efforts and promises to try and get along with the neolibcons enemies, who will be ejected from their positions by an American nationalist administration.All these creeps have been installed by the shrub.The HB and Obomba,all American zeros.

    And look at the Olympic blanket judgement on innocent Russian athletes, more propaganda and demonization.

    jfl | Jun 18, 2016 6:43:57 PM | 49
    @48 dahoit

    I haven't heard anything from Trump since Hillary's apotheosis, actually a little before. Has he stopped talking? Or has the corporate media just stopped publishing him? Obama, Kerry, the 50 dancing diplomats ... all that stuff seems made to order for Trump to roll over.

    Jackrabbit | Jun 18, 2016 7:02:33 PM | 50
    bbbb @42:
    For Iran, Hezbollah and Syrians, Syria is the battle of a lifetime, but for Russia, it's maybe a bargaining chip ...
    Actually, Putin has said that their intervention in Syria is in Russia's strategic interests - making much the same argument that Bush did wrt al Queda: we need to fight them there so that we don't have to fight them here . Russia doesn't want to see extremist control of another failed state like Libya.
    lebretteurfredonnant | Jun 18, 2016 7:05:52 PM | 51
    Clearly there is an ongoing battle in the Obama Administration between Mostly the pentagon (at least some part of it) and the CIA (most part of it). Obama is well aware of this.

    Obama's Strategy has been to isolate Russia Politically and to shift the main focus of United State Towards Asia however the unexpected resistance of Russia and Syria wasn't forecast by his administration and part of the Deep state. Now part of the heads in the pentagon and the Obama administration want out of this proxy war against Russia as the World and mainly the US public becomes more and more aware of the real nature of the war ongoing in Syria. The heart of the matter is that The members of the oligarchy that rule the united states through revolving doors between the government , their law firms, foundations, banks and corporations can't afford to lose Syria for obvious reason.

    On the geopolitical scale The control of the silk Road and Pipeline is of primary importance especially the latter if the us wants to efficiently keep its grip on Europe for the next 30 years.France and mainly Germany could turn to Russia as noted by the willing of many member of their oligarchy and this would be a near devastating blow for the US empire.To take an example Europe is more or less today what India was for Great Britain back before the end of world war two.It might be difficult accepting or believing that one country in the near east such as Syria could old such a role in the destiny of an empire but that's exactly it.Syria is in our current present the country where channel all the opposition to the new world order made in America and if it wasn't for the inability of The States to wage a war against Russia a world war Three-this time without proxy-would be in the making.

    The 50 high ranking diplomats,working for the department of state, asking Kerry to take over the Syrian state military in order to destroy the Islamic state wouldn't disagree with that. For those of you who know how to read Spanish this is the link reading of the desire of this high ranking diplomats http://www.telesurtv.net/news/Piden-funcionarios-de-Washington-derrocar-al-gobierno-sirio--20160617-0004.html .

    The Good news is that I have never seen the united States leads a war against adversaries of the same caliber able to efficiently strike back to them (with the exception of japan) as the main lead...Remember It is the Russians who defeated Germany not the US..everything else is just propaganda.The US is more of empire that uses trickery and the weaknesses of its adversaries to forward its agenda more than anything else;otherwise they always ends up negotiating. I will probably be proven wrong at some point but not by the Russians as of now.

    Oui | Jun 18, 2016 7:38:57 PM | 52
    @tom

    "But Putin invited the evil US Empire into Syria."

    No he didn't .... UN resolution was approved under Medvedev.

    lebretteurfredonnant | Jun 18, 2016 8:36:21 PM | 53
    @dahoit

    I can't believe there is people still believing in politician more so when they have been proven liars time and time again.I am all for the welcoming of a saviour and providential man but anyone doing a serious background check (as should any voter) on trump knows the man is a crook .I mean I understand the desire for hope but it shouldn't blind us.

    Trump is just an Obama from the left and that is about it.The Deep state has gotten stronger since the Kennedy's Assassination and is unlikely to release its grip on Syria knowing its geostrategic necessity to the empire.

    Trump will never be ruling the show on the main strategies of the empire, never, unless he wants himself dead. The only thing that will defeat the US empire in Syria is Russian will nothing short of that. Unless The States are able to pull some magic tricks unknown to us at that point. For one thing certain a war is very unlikely (although many want it)against such a mighty foe as Russia-for now.

    The story printed out by many mainstream newspapers on Bill Clinton advising Trump on phone to run as a candidate should give anyone pause as to the hidden scheme behind politic and the trump and Clinton family friendship.Yet Some people still believe trump is an opposition to the system. That boggles the mind.Really.The only reason I can find explaining this attitude in someone knowledgeable of the trickery of the States is political correctness (quiet powerful actually) or blindness and irrational hope....now some say faith is irrational...however I was not expecting to see it having such large part in modern politics.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bill-clinton-called-donald-trump-ahead-of-republicans-2016-launch/2015/08/05/e2b30bb8-3ae3-11e5-b3ac-8a79bc44e5e2_story.html

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bill-clinton-called-donald-trump-ahead-of-republicans-2016-launch/2015/08/05/e2b30bb8-3ae3-11e5-b3ac-8a79bc44e5e2_story.html

    Macon Richardson | Jun 18, 2016 9:20:58 PM | 54
    ALberto @ 45 You say that "PBS has gone full Karl Marx". I haven't watched or listened to that PBS tripe ever . But considering that PBS is 90% corporate funded, I find it hard to accept your assertion ... it is merely a corporate/permanent government psy-op to keep the intellectually and morally challenged sedated.
    Robert Roth | Jun 18, 2016 10:08:06 PM | 55
    Regarding who Obama listens to, a good analysis is Bob Parry on The State Department's Collective Madness, https://consortiumnews.com/2016/06/17/the-state-departments-collective-madness/.

    A piece in today's Wall Street Journal indicates that despite the growing pressure, Obama means to stick by his policy of limited intervention. Of course he's being pig-headed in insisting "Assad must go," but what he's doing beats full-scale US invasion of Syria, "no-fly" zones and similar madness favored by Hillary and likely to lead to WW III although, as John Pilger puts it, WW has already started; on the other hand, it hasn't yet gone thermonuclear, and I see that as a distinct advantage.

    juliania | Jun 18, 2016 10:59:14 PM | 56
    Thank you Grieved, in particular for reminding us as follows:

    ". . .malice by the US is met with calm. The global effort continues to allow the US to sink to its knees with as much grace as can be managed."

    This was well illustrated at the opening of the St. Petersburg economic conference. Pointed questions about political candidates were countered by Putin in a deft manner that left no doubt of his assessment of the 'leading' candidates, without calling anyone a hitler or any suggestion of interference in the US political process. I don't believe Putin is any fonder of Trump than he is of Ms. Clinton - he stated he'll work with whomever comes out on top (my words) and had kind words to say for Bill - not for his policies but for his encouragement of Putin early on. Very diplomatic, and wise.

    Where have our wise politicians gone? We did have a few once. Couldn't we please just sink to our knees gracefully? The world would love us if we did. Here - I'll be first. (Sinks to knees.) After all, tonight is the night of Pentecost and Sunday we do the magnificent kneeling prayers for the first time since before Easter.

    It's a good time to kneel.

    Hoarsewhisperer | Jun 18, 2016 11:33:28 PM | 57
    Obama's Syria SNAFU was always destined to boil down to Yankees playing Russian Roulette - with Russia. They're probably beginning to realise that playing cat and mouse loses a lot of its appeal when the cat starts getting ready to eat you.
    PavewayIV | Jun 19, 2016 12:26:40 AM | 60
    lebretteurfredonnant@44 - I'm not really knowledgeable in the matter, but I have broadband and type fast for what it's worth.

    Little detail is known about the base, but it may be the former Syrian Army Mishtenur/Mushtannour Hill Military Base shown on wikimapia here . The location is just the flat top of Mishtenur Hill (just south of Kobane) with a bulldozed revetment around the periphery. No idea what the Syrian Army used it for - it may have been a simple observation post with a few artillery pieces (long gone). There are no structures on the hilltop other than a commercial radio tower and a few shacks at the northern edge. The hilltop itself isn't much more than 200m x 600m - not large enough for a fixed-wing airstrip but plenty of room for helicopters and a small contingent of French Special Forces. The Kurds probably have a few people there as headchopper lookouts/snipers.

    The Mishtenur Hill location should be considered speculative - I only recall a couple of mentions in english-language Kurdish press. It makes sense to put it there, but who knows.

    Months ago when the U.S. was building its 'secret' base at the Rmelian airstrip , there were rumors of a second 'U.S. base' being constructed somewhere around Kobane, but nothing was heard after that. Not sure if that rumor was related to the potential Mishtenur Hill location the French may be using.

    The Kurds and Kurdish Press have been very tight-lipped about these bases for obvious reasons, so I wouldn't expect to ever see much on them. CNN had a crew run out to Rmeilan so we know it exists and was being worked on, but they were not allowed on the 'base' and couldn't see much over the protective berms surrounding it. There are no pictures or video of the current state. I would imagine the French SF base - wherever it ends up - will remain shrouded in mystery as well.

    If you're doing any on-line searches, keep in mind that these locations have proper Turkish/Kurdish/Arabic names, not 'english' ones. There may be half-a-dozen variations on the derived english name used in various media sources as was the case for Rmeilan.

    V. Arnold | Jun 19, 2016 12:28:50 AM | 61
    paulmeli | Jun 18, 2016 3:59:22 PM | 32
    I have a great deal more respect for Russian leadership than I do American.

    I'll second your comment; this coming from a self exiled 71 yo American radical.

    Joanne Leon | Jun 19, 2016 1:20:31 AM | 63
    This is very, very alarming and I get a strong sense it's about a lot more than separating rebels from AQ. I also wonder who is really at that base in Tanf.

    Have to also keep in mind the daily escalation of hostility around the NATO meetings leading up to the Warsaw summit.

    Putin did a press conf at the end of the St Petersburg econ summit and a Canadian press exec asked about NATO troops deploying to their border. He gave a long answer about US walking away from a missile treaty that had kept the world from serious global war for 70yrs, etc. Had a lot to say about missiles. I wonder.

    From The Hague | Jun 19, 2016 1:26:06 AM | 64

    @49 jfl
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-06-17/something-going-%E2%80%93-and-its-worse-you-thought

    bbbb | Jun 19, 2016 2:24:34 AM | 66
    Here's something to keep in mind as all of this goes on

    http://energyskeptic.com/2016/emerging-threats-of-resource-wars-u-s-house-hearing/

    DANA ROHRABACHER, California. We import 750,000 tons of vital minerals and material every year. An increasing global demand for supplies of energy and strategic minerals is sparking intense economic competition that could lead to a counterproductive conflict.

    A ''zero sum world'' where no one can obtain the means to progress without taking them from someone else is inherently a world of conflict.

    Additional problems arise when supplies are located in areas where production could be disrupted by political upheaval, terrorism or war.

    jfl | Jun 19, 2016 3:53:38 AM | 67
    @49 fth

    Thanks. Actually I'd read that one. I rarely read anything of Justin Raimondo's at aw.com, but I read that one for some reason. It's the run down for those who haven't been paying attention, I thought. Let me look again ...yeah, it's not the Republican candidate (yet) talking about it, but for that one cryptic comment, it's Justin Raimondo talking about it, and he ain't running for president. Of course he's write-in candidate, as are about 200 million of the rest of us.

    But that is just the kind of a pitch that Trump needs to make, has to make really, to keep from being steamrolled by the DNC machine and all the monied interests to whom its sold-out and who are consequently supporting it. Trump is pretty well-free of supervision by the Republicrat party and he needs something COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from what the Demoblicans are trying to make the election about. He could get a lot of attention, and possibly support, from the antiwar right and left, he could pick up Bernie's betrayed ... if he went after not only the sheer misanthropy of it all but the tawdriness, the treachery, the self-dealing of the neo-cons ... at least he could bring all that into the open. Make the neo-cons, their wars and the MIC a topic in the contest. He made a good start with his remarks on Russian and Putin. I think it's his most promising row to hoe.

    But I haven't heard much at all from Trump himself lately, he seems to be 'thinking' ... lining up money, more likely, and tailoring his message accordingly. He's not interested in 'investing' whatever money he actually has in a political campaign. He took money from Adelson, has neo-cons on his payroll.

    Hillary's so predictably evil, and he's so officially 'unpredictable' that he's the natural focal point of the selection circus. It's too bad only one of them can lose.

    I'm going to write-in a candidate, and I hope that millions more of us will as well. If the write-in/none-of-the-above/spoiled-ballot total exceeded that of either of these two sorry characters we'd be off and running ourselves.

    b | Jun 19, 2016 6:07:10 AM | 73
    The Russian defense ministry confirms my take. The attack was intended to push the U.S. to documented separation:

    Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation

    Due to appeal of the American party, representatives of the Russian an US defence departments held videoconference on implementing the Memorandum on preventing incidents while performing military operations in the airspace of Syria dating October 20, 2015.

    The American party has informed the Russian one about alleged premeditated strike by the Russian Aerospace Forcers on detachments of the Syrian opposition in the south of Syria on June 16, 2016 in despite of appeals of the US.

    Representatives of the Russian Defence Ministry explained that the object, which had suffered bombardment, was located more than 300 km far from borders of territories claimed by the American party as ones controlled by the opposition joined the ceasefire regime.

    The Russian Aerospace Forces operated within the agreed procedures and forewarned member states of the US-led coalition about the ground targets to strike on. The American party has not presented coordinates of regions of activity of opposition controlled by the US. This caused impossibility to correct actions of the Russian aviation.

    Therefore, actions by the Russian party have been carried out in strict observance of the Joint Russian-American statement and the Memorandum.

    Moreover, within last few months, the Russian defence department has been suggesting compiling a joint map with actual information about location of forces active in Syria. However, there has been no significant progress reached.

    The parties exchanged their opinions in a constructive manner. They were aimed at strengthening cooperation in fighting against terrorist formations in Syria and preventing all incidents while performing military operations in the territory of Syria

    So - either cooperated, or get your "assets" annihilated. Let's see what the U.S. will come up with ...

    From The Hague | Jun 19, 2016 6:10:52 AM | 74
    @ jfl | 67
    Ok.
    Trump seems consistent in his ideas: Don't mess in other countries, don't provoke Russia, only secure US-borders.
    Now I see the article I gave isn't from Tyler Durden, but from Justin Raimondo.
    Harry | Jun 19, 2016 6:37:50 AM | 76
    @V. Arnold | 75

    Case and point - when Ukie nazis were shelling Donbass cities, resistance went into offensive and broke through the nazis and made them run, Putin forced the resistance to stop immediately, under the gunpoint (literally*). Ukies returned to allowed by Russia front lines right on the outskirts of Donbass cities, and started using artillery and mortars on them again, then Putin acted angry about it.

    The choices we have:
    a) Putin made a cold calculated deal with his "Western partners" and let it happen, and then acted angry on TV for public perception.
    b) Putin couldnt foresee it as he is stupid.

    So which is it? I'm pretty sure everyone here will agree Putin is anything but stupid, which leaves us with option a)

    *Idealistic Donbass resistance leaders who wanted to continue offensive and at the very least push nazis away from the cities, were removed by Russia. Either under blackmail and death threats (like Strelkov), or literally assassinated them (like Batman and others). Follow the history and facts, Russia's leadership arent idealist do-gooders as some like to imagine. Just because they are against even bigger evil like US, doesnt make Russia saintly.

    V. Arnold | Jun 19, 2016 7:02:29 AM | 77
    Harry | Jun 19, 2016 6:37:50 AM | 76
    Just because they are against even bigger evil like US, doesnt make Russia saintly.

    Well, if your comparing the U.S. and Russia for saintly-ness; Russia wins, hands down.
    Again; the differences are chess to checkers; I just like and enjoy Pres. Putin's style; a class act under duress.
    I'm glad you recognise the U.S. as the greater evil (by orders of magnitude).

    MadMax2 | Jun 19, 2016 7:18:05 AM | 78
    @48 dahoit

    Demonisation...? What do you mean...?

    Whitehall fears Russian football hooligans had Kremlin links

    https://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/jun/18/whitehall-suspects-kremlin-links-to-russian-euro-2016-hooligans-vladimir-putin?CMP=fb_gu

    Harry | Jun 19, 2016 7:26:52 AM | 79
    @V. Arnold | 77

    Putin is leaps and bounds ahead of someone like Obama, there is no question. However I respect other resistance leaders even more, who are greater class acts, dont betray alies and are under much greater duress than Putin ever experienced, like Nasrallah, Khameinei (before nuke deal) and especially Assad. There is much to admire about them.

    V. Arnold | Jun 19, 2016 7:31:51 AM | 80
    Harry | Jun 19, 2016 7:26:52 AM | 79

    No argument there; but all of the above (including Putin) are facing annihilation from/by the hegemon.
    It's the main reason I fear war is immanent.
    The insanity is palpable, no?

    From The Hague | Jun 19, 2016 8:56:30 AM | 82
    @ Harry | 81

    I already posted that in #64
    and jfl reacted in #67

    In the article a remarkable fragment about Gen. Michael Flynn:

    The Washington Post, in its mission to debunk every word that comes out of Trump's mouth, ran an article by Glenn Kessler minimizing the DIA document, claiming that it was really nothing important and that we should all just move along because there's nothing to see there. He cited all the usual Washington insiders to back up his thesis, but there was one glaring omission: Gen. Michael Flynn, who headed up the DIA when the document was produced and who was forced out by the interventionists in the administration. Here is what Flynn told Al-Jazeera in an extensive interview:

    Al-Jazeera: "You are basically saying that even in government at the time you knew these groups were around, you saw this analysis, and you were arguing against it, but who wasn't listening?

    Flynn: I think the administration.

    Al-Jazeera: So the administration turned a blind eye to your analysis?

    Flynn: I don't know that they turned a blind eye, I think it was a decision. I think it was a willful decision.

    Al-Jazeera: A willful decision to support an insurgency that had Salafists, Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood?

    Flynn: It was a willful decision to do what they're doing."

    Of course, Glenn Kessler and the Washington Post don't want to talk about that. Neither do the Republicans in Congress, who supported aid to the Syrian rebels and wanted to give them much more than they got. They're all complicit in this monstrous policy – and they all bear moral responsibility for its murderous consequences.

    Gen. Flynn, by the way, is an official advisor to Trump, and is often mentioned as a possible pick for Vice President.

    Oui | Jun 19, 2016 10:19:09 AM | 85
    Confirmation of other reports ...
    Western states amass forces in Syria | Southfront|

    Rumors are growing that Germany is set to deploy special operation forces in Northern Syria in order to assist the predominantly Kurdish Syrian Democratic Forces that has laid a siege on the strategic ISIS-controlled city of Manbij . Reports look realistic amid a series of deployments by different Western states.

    The US built a base in an abandoned airport in the Syrian Kurdish region Hasakah in 2015 and American troops have been participating in clashes against ISIS near Manbij since May 2016.

    France's Defense Ministry admitted the presence of its special forces on the ground in Syria on June 9. French troops have reportedly built a military base near the city of Kobane and are participating in clashes with ISIS along with SDF and US units.

    Meanwhile, UK special forces operating on the front line alongside rebels in Syria near the Jordanian border. They participate in direct clashes, provide training and manage of the opposition group, called " New Syrian Army ."

    jflk | Jun 19, 2016 10:25:47 AM | 86
    @74 fth, 'Trump seems consistent in his ideas: Don't mess in other countries, don't provoke Russia, only secure US-borders.'

    Trump Says Britain Should Leave EU

    "I would personally be more inclined to leave, for a lot of reasons like having a lot less bureaucracy," he told the Sunday Times. "But I am not a British citizen. This is just my opinion."

    The billionaire businessman also told the newspaper that he would seek to have good relationships internationally if he were elected president in November, including with David Cameron. The British Prime Minister has in the past called Trump's proposed temporary ban on Muslims entering the United States "divisive, stupid and wrong".

    Trump also said that if he became president he would try to improve the trade deals the U.S. has with China, and work more closely with Russia and that could include co-operating with Russia in the fight against Islamic State.

    The only thing with quotes is the first, the rest is 'old' news, isn't it? "try to improve the trade deals the U.S. has with China, ... work more closely with Russia ... co-operating with Russia in the fight against Islamic State" That's the kind of stuff that draws a line between himself and Hillary, the harridan horde, and the 50 dancing diplomats. I think that's the vein I would mine if I were The Donald. But I'm not. As I'm sure you've noticed.
    harrylaw | Jun 19, 2016 10:26:04 AM | 87
    Wayoutwest@84 John McCain has already advocated for man pads to be supplied to the US "good terrorists". The Russians can handle that situation simply by flying higher. The unknown repercussions are a different matter. Ben Gurion airport the only International airport in Israel and the hub of its commerce and tourist industry, some analysts say the closure of Ben Gurion for an extended period of time could wreck the Israeli economy. All the Israelis need is a few manpads operating a few miles from Ben Gurion airport or even the threat thereof of bringing down civilian airliners should concentrate the mind. Remember just one wayward missile fired by Hamas, which landed 1 mile from the airport was enough for the FAA to cancel all flights into and out of Ben Gurion.
    okie farmer | Jun 19, 2016 10:30:33 AM | 88
    Russia Dismantles the Myth of the American Navy's Invincibility
    ~~~
    Russian hypersonic weapons

    The main Russian hypersonic weapon are derived from space glider Yu-71 (Project 4202), which flew during tests at a speed of 6000-11200 km/h over a distance of 5,500 km at a cruising altitude below 80,000 m, receiving repeated pulses from a rocket engine to climb, execute maneuvers and cornering trajectory. It is estimated that the glider is armed with warheads that are spatially independent, with autonomous guidance systems similar to the air-ground missiles Kh-29 L/T and T Kh-25 (which provides a probable deviation of 2-6 m). Although it may take nuclear warheads, the space glider will be armed with conventional warheads and will be powered by a rocket launched normally from nuclear-powered Russian submarines.
    ~~~
    Hypersonic concept for a war

    The new Russian military doctrine states that an attack on the American invasion fleet is to be executed in three waves, three alignments, thus preventing American expeditionary naval groups from positioning themselves near the Russian coast of the Baltic Sea. The first wave of hypersonic weapons, consisting of space gliders arranged on Russian nuclear-powered submarines under immersion in the middle of the Atlantic, starts fighting US naval expeditionary groups as they start crossing the Atlantic to Europe. The American naval groups need 7-8 days to cross the Atlantic; the plane Il-76MD-90A has a maximum flight distance of 6300 km and can be powered in the air, reaching the middle of the Atlantic Ocean in a few hours.
    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article44902.htm

    Oui | Jun 19, 2016 10:34:27 AM | 89
    @tom @Harry @From The Hague

    Putin and Medvedev spar over UN resolution on Libya - March 2011
    Medvedev imposes sanctions on Libya | RT – Aug. 2011

    Oui | Jun 19, 2016 10:42:38 AM | 91
    @FTH | #90

    It was Medvedev's call to abstain at the UNSC on Libya ... power of the president. Putin did not agree.

    okie farmer | Jun 19, 2016 10:47:48 AM | 92
    Associated Press 6/19/2016
    Russia says US failed to provide Syrian opposition locations
    MOSCOW - The Russian military on Sunday rejected the Pentagon's accusations that it had deliberately targeted U.S.-backed Syrian opposition forces, arguing the U.S. had failed to warn about their locations.

    Russian Defense Ministry spokesman, Maj. Gen. Igor Konashenkov, said the area targeted in the strike was more than 300 kilometers (186 miles) away from locations earlier designated by the U.S. as controlled by legitimate opposition forces.

    The Pentagon said it held a video conference Saturday with the Russian military to discuss Russian air strikes Thursday on the At-Tanf border garrison, which targeted Syrian opposition forces fighting the Islamic State group.

    "Russia's continued strikes at At-Tanf, even after U.S. attempts to inform Russian forces through proper channels of ongoing coalition air support to the counter-ISIL forces, created safety concerns for U.S. and coalition forces," it said in a statement.

    Konashenkov retorted that the Russian military had warned the U.S. in advance about the planned strike, but the Pentagon had failed to provide coordinates of legitimate opposition forces, "making it impossible to take measures to adjust the Russian air force action."

    He added that the Russian military had proposed months ago to share information about locations of various forces involved in military action in Syria to create a comprehensive map, but the Pentagon hasn't been forthcoming.

    okie farmer | Jun 19, 2016 11:24:47 AM | 94
    OT (Full Article)
    Turkey border guards 'shot Syrian children' - monitors

    Turkish border guards have shot dead at least eight Syrians, including four children, who were trying to cross into Turkey, activists say.

    A further eight people were injured, said the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a UK-based monitoring group.

    The shooting took place at a border crossing north of the Syrian town of Jisr al-Shugour, which is controlled by jihadist groups.

    Turkey has repeatedly denied its guards shoot at Syrians crossing the border.

    More than 2.5 million Syrians who fled the war have taken refuge in Turkey. Turkey has now closed its borders to Syrians.

    The Associated Press news agency quoted a senior Turkish official as saying: "We are unable to independently verify the claims" regarding the shooting, but said authorities were investigating.

    As well as four children, three women and a man were also killed, the Observatory said.

    Other Syrian opposition groups put the death toll at 11.

    Since the beginning of 2016, nearly 60 civilians have been shot while trying to flee across the border from Syria into Turkey, the Observatory says.

    Noirette | Jun 19, 2016 12:42:47 PM | 95
    IMHO the political solution just doesn't exist, because most of the fighters are likely foreigners who don't give a sh!t about Syria or Syrians. bbb @ 23.

    I have read that there are about 30-40K of them, a large number (?) imho, because one tends to underestimate the mayhem well-organised small groups can cause in a fractured, now extremely vulnerable, shattered, society.

    One of the problems for the pro-Assad side, I read, is that once some or many opponents are killed others just show up!

    This last argument is faulty, because while the West likes to paint these forces as either: ideologically/religiously motivated by IS, or even politically-nationally in the sense of a 'New Caliphate', or, alternatively, as rebels against a corrupt despotic national order (freedom-fighters against Assad.)

    All descriptions miss the mark (there might be some slivers of truth in the sense of 'rationalisations'…)

    The bulk of them are mercenaries, imho, lost young men who are paid, regain agency, can send money to families, participate in a cause, and experience soldered group-think and communal 'being,' violent life to perpetrate barbaric acts on occasion, particularly against villagers, women, all would be repressed at home. Their pay is collapsing, at least halved (IS has been fractured and various income streams have become dodgy, oil for ex., support for losers always plummets) and so they leave, the hook becomes less glam, etc. Death also more certain. This one jihad is no longer *that* attractive.

    Yes, these fighters don't give a sh*t about Syrians. They are fighting their 'own' war against the all the West (their enemy indeed), and therefore against Assad as afforded the opportunity. 'Islamist' forces *instrumentalised*, not a new move or flash news..the contradictions are ignored.

    The fighters are patsy-cum-proxy forces, expendable. No seat at the High Table for them.

    A more informed, better picture of the forces on the ground ? .. ??

    SmoothieX12 | Jun 19, 2016 1:35:42 PM | 96
    @13
    Obama warned Putin that he could face a 'quagmire' and 'costs'. To paraphrase Madeline Albright: What good is a proxy army if you don't use it?

    Obama and his Administration is a collection of lawyers, political pseudo-"scientists", journos etc. They are very good at promoting suicidal social policies but do not and cannot operate with actual operational categories--briefings by CIA or Pentagon (granted that they reflect a reality on the "ground", which is a question) are not designed to teach some Ivy League lawyer fundamentals of international relations, strategy, operational art etc. They merely distill a very complex geopolitical reality to a several catch phrases which could be understood by people of such qualities as W. (his military briefings papers contained headers with Bible excerpts, supposedly applicable to current situation) or Obama, who has no clue on how to assess the world around himself.

    In this case the term "quagmire" is merely a simulacra produced by US media (this part Obama understands) to represent a huge number of military and political factors which influence achieving objectives of any campaign (or war) and which require addressing by professionals -- this is NOT Modus Operandi by US top political "elite".

    In relation to Russia what Obama has in mind is beaten to death cliche of Afghanistan (obviously without studying that war) with which he wants to impress Russians, who, meanwhile fought two bloody wars against Wahhabi terrorists on own territory and, somehow, do know, unlike Obama or US liberal political class, what does it take to deal with this huge issue. In the end, during last War in Chechnya US media loved to misuse this very term (quagmire) and completely forgot to mention that Chechnya today is, actually, pretty reliable anti-terrorism entity in Russia. Now, add here most of US "elites" and a population being absolutely oblivious to real war and voila'. You have people speaking in platitudes and ignorant cliches.

    Grieved | Jun 19, 2016 2:39:37 PM | 97
    @ Noirette #95 - Thank you for putting into words the diminishing appeal of being mercenaries for the losing side.

    It's an important dynamic that extends throughout the world and across many fields, not just in local battles by fighters with guns. It's a way in which wars are lost without being obvious at first. It parallels the way in which the US is losing its war against Russia and China in so many ways that are not completely obvious.

    The US military is losing to Russia. The US dollar is losing to the Shanghai Gold Exchange. But neither Russia nor China have any reason to overpower the US in either of these fields, not today at least. Meanwhile, on the sidelines, all the mercenary instincts of players in all fields and all nations and with all interests are finely attuned to the quiet calculation of which side is winning or losing.

    And out of the blue at times we see moments of disaffection - the UK of all allies, against the wishes of its sponsor the US, joins the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, because being on the winning side in some areas matters more than staying with the loser.

    It takes time to create critical mass and tipping points, but we can see the pot coming to the boil if we want to.

    bored muslim | Jun 19, 2016 3:02:52 PM | 99
    @5 Harrylaw,

    Yes, if only the Yemeni army and Houthi's had ballistic missiles capable of reaching Saudi oil facilities. Remember, Saudi's Shiite minority live right on top of its vast oil fields.

    [Jun 18, 2016] 51 US Diplomats Urge Strikes Against Assad in Syria

    51 neocons warmongers, who need to be send to Afghanistan for some on site learning. Nuland's birds of feather try to get worm places in Hillary new administration, playing on her war hawk tendencies... Those "diplomats" forgot about the existence of Saudis and other theocracies which are much more brutal and less democratic, viewing woman as domestic animals. These are dark times for American foreign policy. the easy part is to depose Assad. But what might happen after Assad is disposed of? You know, the hard part, what follows?
    Notable quotes:
    "... These Diplomats should be fired as idiots. Did they not just live through the Iraqi occupation, destruction and disaster? ..."
    "... Are you a bit confused as to who these neocon dissenters at State support in the Syrian civil war? ..."
    "... This is simply a roll call of neocon diplomats making a case for another non-strategic war that would badly hurt US interests. It does not represent State Department policy. The neocons have been very persistent in securing career appointments at State for decades now. ..."
    "... You are pushing the world closer to war. ..."
    "... what is intolerable about the position of the 51 "diplomats" in the memo is that it is their (failed) efforts to dislodge Assad by proxy, facilitating and organizing the flow of arms that more often than ended up in the hands of hard-line jihadists, that has led to almost 400,000 deaths (not to mention wounded) and the flight of over a million refugees. ..."
    "... Wow, sounds like some housecleaning is needed at State. Whatever happened to jaw-jaw being better than war-war? If they are so keen on military action, they're in the wrong building. I'm sure some of the overworked troops and officers in the armed forces would be happy to let these guys take a few of the chances of getting shot or blown up that they deal with daily. ..."
    "... It is troubling that the State Department, long a bulwark of common sense against America's foreign adventurism, has become as hawkish as its former head, Hillary Clinton. ..."
    "... The Middle East Institute is financed, primarily, by the petroleum and arms industries. The Washington Institute for Near Eastern Policy has HRC's close ally, Dennis Ross; who, with Martin Indyk, founded AIPAC in the mid-80's. ..."
    "... This group's contention that direct confrontation with Russia could be avoided echoes their 2002 claim that Operation Iraqi Freedom would be a three month cake walk. ..."
    "... Since WWII, U.S. foreign policy has been rooted in the projection and use of force (covert and overt) as the primary means to achieve whatever goals the executive office seeks. It placed the world on notice that the U.S. was ready and willing to use violence to back its foreign policy objectives. Just as in Vietnam and before the disastrous decision to escalate the use of ground forces, President Johnson's national security advisors (all holdovers from Kennedy's Presidency) pressed Johnson to use aerial bombardment against N. Vietnam to induce them to seek a negotiated peace that would allow the U.S. to withdraw from the conflict and save face while preserving the policy of projecting force as a means to maintain world order in accordance with U.S. designs. ..."
    "... My oldest son is now completing his sixth Afghan/Iraq tour.I don't want him in Syria. Let these 51 diplomats volunteer their sons/daughters for Syria.That'll demonstrate their commitment.I'll bet not one of these 51 "geniuses" has a child on active military duty in Iraq/Afghan. ..."
    "... These folks are, it appears, mid-level foreign service officers like I was. They are utterly unqualified to make these judgements as the Department of State is a failed organization culturally and functionally. Like HRC, who is still advocating for forced regime change if she wins, they have learned nothing from the past and again have no answer for what follows Asad being deposed. A majority Sunni regime in Syria will tear Iraq apart and there is no likelihood of it avoiding the trajectory of other "pluralistic" Arab state attempts. The fact that State has no culture of strategic analysis informing operational design and operational planning which, in turn, spawn series of tactical events, comes clear in situations like this. Doing nothing is the best case here. Tragic but still the best case. President Obama has seen this. Asad needs to regain control of Syria's territory, all of it. Feeding the hopes of the Ahmed Chalabi equivalents in Syria is perpetuating the violence. And, there is no room for an independent Kurdistan in the region, nor is it in the United States' interest for there to be one. ..."
    "... That's the same class of people who figured that invading in Iraq in 2003 would turn out all right. ..."
    "... Exhibit A being Samantha Power, the latest in a long line of militaristic, European-born white Americans (see Albright, Kissinger, Brzezinski) who believe that American firepower can bring order to the world. ..."
    "... Sorry hawkish diplomats, but you're living in a fantasyland where the invasion of Iraq in 2003 did not permanently tarnish the image of the USA and wreck its credibility as an honest arbiter. That is the reality all US presidents will have to face in the post-Bush 43 era. ..."
    "... Are those 51 U.S. Diplomats responsible for advising the Obama Administration to bomb Libya back in 2011? Apparently they have not learned from their mistakes. Or maybe they should just go work for their true Employer, The Military Industrial Complex. ..."
    "... This is reckless and irresponsible. US backed "moderates" are fighting elbow to elbow with the Nusra Front and other radicals groups; that is why the cease-fire is collapsing. ..."
    "... If we weaken Assad, Islamists will take over Damascus and if Damascus falls, soon Beirut will follow. These folk at State are neo cons, as usual shooting from the hip. ..."
    "... Vietnam, 212,000 dead and countless north and south Vietnamese and citizens. Unjust and unwarranted war on Iraq with 4,491 and counting dead and countess Iraqi citizens. Now, Syria? Are you wanting the draft returned? You asking for boots on the ground? How about you 50 join up. I will willingly pay for taxes just arm you and send you in. Along with every other know it all who wants us 'TO DO MORE'!! Spare me. You have learned NOTHING in your past failures, have you? 1956, Iran. Cause the over throw of a duly elected government for the Shahs which led to 1980 revolution to fear of them acquiring nuclear weapons. Vietnam led to 'WHAT'? Now Iraq. ..."
    "... The worse destabilization in that area I can remember. Not even during their many attacks on Israel when Egypt got a clue. Fire Saddam Hussein's soldiers and they become ISIS by 2006, yet one bright senator lied and said Obama caused them when we left which was President Bush's treaty Maliki. They did not want us there. Leave per the Iraqi people, also. When ISIS showed up they ran and left the weaponry we gave them and the money in the banks for them to grab. Now, you want us steeped into Syria. It's been said, hindsight is 20/20, ..."
    "... In these so called diplomats cases, it is totally and legally blind. Stevie Wonder and Ray Charles has a better perception and one of them is dead. ..."
    "... The war hawks, so comfortably away from the battle, are banging those drums of war again. Easy to do when your life and the lives of your fellow military are not at risk. ..."
    "... We all know now that the invasion of Iraq by Mr. Bush junior was a) a mistake, and b) a War Crime - there were no threatening WMDs nor did Saddam hold hads with Al Quaeda (he was, actually, their worst enemy - and our security!), so, Iraq was c) total stupidity. It was an aggressive war without any cause - for the USA! ..."
    "... This is much more about what Mark Landler thinks than about what those generic diplomats think. The Times's principal hawk, Landler has book and a series of articles pushing his neocon view. I guess we should assume the Times agrees. ..."
    "... Having spent substantial time as a private consultant at the US Embassy in Kabul I was shocked by the lack of feelings of midlevel officials there with regard to the dead and injuries of American Troops. The Embassy shared a wall with the ISAF/NATO Main Quarters and every single day the US Flag there was half-mast to acknowledge the dead of our troops on that day in that country. The Embassy never shared this sadness and all midlevel officials there were only concerned about their paycheck, quality of meals served, having a drink, going for a swim, and their frequent trips back to the US; for such people wanting to have a say in when to fight in Syria is a sad state of affair. ..."
    "... Perhaps we should figure out one take-down before we move on to the next. After 13 years, we still haven't figured out life in Iraq without Saddam. Any thoughts, neocons, on what might happen after Assad is disposed of? You know, the hard part, what follows? ..."
    "... Get Rid of Assad, make relations with Russia worse (they back Assad) and allow ISIS to effectively take over Syria. Sounds like a great plan. I guess our military-industrial complex is getting itchy for a new war. And, of course, doing what these diplomats want will also result in putting boots on the ground. This will be a great legacy for Ms. Clinton (under her watch ISIS came into being), Mr. Kerry (who continued Clinton's failed legacy) and Mr. Obama (the Nobel Peace Prize president; who wasn't). ..."
    "... The signers of the dissent letter are militarist neocons (of the Victoria Nuland ilk). More than any other, these people and their CIA collaborators are responsible for the death and destruction in Syria and the ensuing refugee crisis. They can't even give a cogent reason for deposing Assad other than point to the carnage of the civil war they fomented-as if Assad were solely responsible. Assad is acting no differently than the US did during it's own Civil War. ..."
    "... The value of the memo can be summed up in one sentence as described in the article itself "what would happen in the event that Mr. Assad was forced from power - a scenario that the draft memo does not address." ..."
    "... I wonder about the arrogance of these mid-level State Department foreign service officers. ..."
    "... Sure -- a few well-placed cruise missiles will make it all good. Yeah, right. ..."
    "... Absolutely amazing. My first question is who released this memo? Having a back channel does not permit anyone to unilaterally decide to release information that could cost lives and ruin negotiations that the releasing person knows nothing about. If you do not like the chain of command, then leave. We cannot continue to be involved in sectarian conflicts that cannot be resolved except by the combatants. Haven't we learned anything from Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, and Vietnam? No neocon insanity. We have lost enough lives and treasure in the ME. ..."
    "... Are these the same ingrates who urged Bush to attack Iraq - his legacy - ISIS! ..."
    "... As a 26 year Marine Corps combat veteran I have a hard time trying to figure out what is going on here, and a harder time not becoming totally disgusted with our State Department. ..."
    "... My suggestion would be that we arm these 51 individuals, given them a week's worth of ammunition and rations, and drop them into Syria, I am sure they can lead the way in showing us how to solve the mess in the ME. ..."
    "... It's the fact that these are not "widely known names" which scares me most. However, Western-instituted regime change in that region has proven disastrous in every single country it has been tried. If possible, I would investigate these diplomats' ties to defense contractors. ..."
    "... US intervention created the rubble and hell that is now Syria. When Assad had full control of Syria, the human rights of the people of Syria suffered under him but many if not most people led a civilised life. They had water and electricity. Past US interventions created Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. To puy it simply, life expectancy in all these countries dropped by 20 to 30 years after the US intervened, each time with the highest utopian ideals, and increased the power of Sunni supremacists after each act. ..."
    "... Let's not forget that Bush's hasty appointment of Paul Bremer as the hapless Governor of Iraq following the defeat of Hussein's military regime led immediately to the disbanding of the entire Iraqi military, an incredibly short-sighted and reckless move that essentially unleashed 400,000 young trained fighters (including a honed officers corps) absent support programs to assimilate back into Iraqi society, only to have them emerge as readily available fodder essential for ISIS's marshalling a strong military force almost overnight. A huge price is now being exacted for this astounding stupidity. ..."
    "... This is conveniently laying grounds for Hillary's grand comeback to the theatre of "humanitarian interventionism" in the Middle East. God help us all, as this is a prelude to the WW3. ..."
    "... Wow the neo-cons are beating the war drums yet again! They have already created a huge mess throughout the Middle East with wars and revolutions directly attributable to the United States in invading Afghanistan and Iraq under false pretenses, helping overthrow the government in Libya, and arming rebels in Syria and Yemen. ..."
    "... Unfortunately if Hillary Clinton wins, she is a neo-con puppet and we will be at war in Syria and/or Iran within a year or two. God help us! ..."
    "... First of all, if this was a channel for employees to share "candidly and privately" about policy concerns, why is it on the front page of the NY Times? Additionally, as usual, it seems the war hawks are hawking war without thought for what comes next. We've done this most recently in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, all of which are now failed states and havens for terrorists. Because this seems rather obvious, either we are pathologically incapable of learning from past mistakes, or there are people who have an agenda different from the publicly stated one. ..."
    "... The U.S. has a lengthy, very sordid history of leaping into the fray in areas such as the Middle East, Southeast Asia, Central America and Afghanistan, among others - all with catastrophic results, for which we never seemed to have a credible, well- crafted plan, nor have we ever comprehended the millennia of internecine tribal hatred and sectarian warfare. ..."
    "... I am more scared of US diplomats and politicians than terrorists! Have they learned nothing from the US efforts to create western style democracy in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria (by supporting separatists att an early stage). The US diplomats proposal would ensure more chaos, death and prolonged wR. 38 % of the population are Alewits. They will be killed, Christians will be killed. ..."
    The New York Times

    ScottW, is a trusted commenter Chapel Hill, NC 16 hours ago

    These Diplomats should be fired as idiots. Did they not just live through the Iraqi occupation, destruction and disaster?

    A few years ago, a diplomat who quit was complaining about Syria at a conference I attended. When I asked who would fill the void if Assad was deposed he said, "That is a difficult question to answer." What he really meant to say is, "I don't have a clue."

    We have already disrupted Syria by supporting rebels/terrorists. The region cannot tolerate another Iraq.

    Dan Stewart, NYC 16 hours ago

    Are you a bit confused as to who these neocon dissenters at State support in the Syrian civil war?

    Here's a helpful hint:

    If they have beards down to their belt buckles and seem to be hollering something about Allah, those are the guys the neocons support.

    If they're recently shaved and wearing Western attire, in other words, if they look like anyone you might bump into on a US city street, those are the people the neocons call the enemy.


    Retroatavist,
    DC 10 hours ago

    This is simply a roll call of neocon diplomats making a case for another non-strategic war that would badly hurt US interests. It does not represent State Department policy. The neocons have been very persistent in securing career appointments at State for decades now. It's as if we hadn't forgotten the endless horrible mess they got us and the rest of the world into by breaking Iraq and destroying all its institutions with the insane de-baathification policy. And it all started with a similar steady drumbeat for war throughout the mid and late '90s and up to the 2003 disastrous invasion. Did we not learn anything? Really: Whose interest would an open US war against Assad really serve, and what predictable outcome would be in the US's strategic favor?

    Robert Sawyer, New York, New York 14 hours ago

    How many among the 51 are members of "Hillary's Legions, " the same geniuses responsible for the unqualified success we achieved in Libya?

    Gennady, Rhinebeck 16 hours ago

    Stop this irresponsible reporting. You are pushing the world closer to war. Humanitarian support is all we should bring to the Syrian people, regardless of which side they are on.

    ScottW, is a trusted commenter Chapel Hill, NC

    These Diplomats should be fired as idiots. Did they not just live through the Iraqi occupation, destruction and disaster?

    A few years ago, a diplomat who quit was complaining about Syria at a conference I attended. When I asked who would fill the void if Assad was deposed he said, "That is a difficult question to answer." What he really meant to say is, "I don't have a clue."

    We have already disrupted Syria by supporting rebels/terrorists. The region cannot tolerate another Iraq.

    Alyoshak, Durant, OK

    Isn't Congress supposed to declare war, and the President command our armed forces when such declarations occur? But what is intolerable about the position of the 51 "diplomats" in the memo is that it is their (failed) efforts to dislodge Assad by proxy, facilitating and organizing the flow of arms that more often than ended up in the hands of hard-line jihadists, that has led to almost 400,000 deaths (not to mention wounded) and the flight of over a million refugees. But no, these casualties have nothing to do with our attempts at regime change, No!, the blame for them lies squarely upon Assad for not scooting out of town immediately and submissively when the U.S. decided it was time for him to go. So now we're supposed to double-down on a deeply immoral and flawed strategy? How many more Syrians' lives must be ruined to "save" them from Assad?

    Everyman, USA 16 hours ago

    Wow, sounds like some housecleaning is needed at State. Whatever happened to jaw-jaw being better than war-war? If they are so keen on military action, they're in the wrong building. I'm sure some of the overworked troops and officers in the armed forces would be happy to let these guys take a few of the chances of getting shot or blown up that they deal with daily.

    Dan, Alexandria 16 hours ago

    It is troubling that the State Department, long a bulwark of common sense against America's foreign adventurism, has become as hawkish as its former head, Hillary Clinton.

    I am grateful to President Obama for resisting this foolishness, but make no mistake, no matter who gets into office in January, the kind of farcical, counterproductive, unrealistic "limited engagement" advocated by these so-called diplomats will be our future. Clinton is champing at the bit for it, and Trump is too weak to do anything but go along with it.

    Clark M. Shanahan, Oak Park, Illinois 16 hours ago

    Sadly, they'll most likely have a more accommodating commander and chief with HRC.

    The Middle East Institute is financed, primarily, by the petroleum and arms industries. The Washington Institute for Near Eastern Policy has HRC's close ally, Dennis Ross; who, with Martin Indyk, founded AIPAC in the mid-80's.

    This group's contention that direct confrontation with Russia could be avoided echoes their 2002 claim that Operation Iraqi Freedom would be a three month cake walk.

    Paul Cohen, is a trusted commenter Hartford CT 15 hours ago

    Since WWII, U.S. foreign policy has been rooted in the projection and use of force (covert and overt) as the primary means to achieve whatever goals the executive office seeks. It placed the world on notice that the U.S. was ready and willing to use violence to back its foreign policy objectives. Just as in Vietnam and before the disastrous decision to escalate the use of ground forces, President Johnson's national security advisors (all holdovers from Kennedy's Presidency) pressed Johnson to use aerial bombardment against N. Vietnam to induce them to seek a negotiated peace that would allow the U.S. to withdraw from the conflict and save face while preserving the policy of projecting force as a means to maintain world order in accordance with U.S. designs.

    Nixon carried on this bombing for peace strategy to insane war crime level. This heavy reliance on military force over a diplomatic solution has never worked. It didn't work for our knee-jerk response to 9/11 by immediately resorting to military force without first thinking through the consequences. We are now into our 15th year of aggression against the Muslim World. The time is long past due to question our failed policy and seek an alternative solution.

    Bud, McKinney, Texas 16 hours ago

    My oldest son is now completing his sixth Afghan/Iraq tour.I don't want him in Syria. Let these 51 diplomats volunteer their sons/daughters for Syria.That'll demonstrate their commitment.I'll bet not one of these 51 "geniuses" has a child on active military duty in Iraq/Afghan.

    Abu Charlie, Toronto, Ontario 14 hours ago

    These folks are, it appears, mid-level foreign service officers like I was. They are utterly unqualified to make these judgements as the Department of State is a failed organization culturally and functionally. Like HRC, who is still advocating for forced regime change if she wins, they have learned nothing from the past and again have no answer for what follows Asad being deposed. A majority Sunni regime in Syria will tear Iraq apart and there is no likelihood of it avoiding the trajectory of other "pluralistic" Arab state attempts. The fact that State has no culture of strategic analysis informing operational design and operational planning which, in turn, spawn series of tactical events, comes clear in situations like this. Doing nothing is the best case here. Tragic but still the best case. President Obama has seen this. Asad needs to regain control of Syria's territory, all of it. Feeding the hopes of the Ahmed Chalabi equivalents in Syria is perpetuating the violence. And, there is no room for an independent Kurdistan in the region, nor is it in the United States' interest for there to be one.

    AR, is a trusted commenter Virginia 15 hours ago

    How undiplomatic. I don't care that these people are diplomats and that many of them probably have impeccable academic pedigrees with degrees from the usual suspects such as the Ivy League schools, SAIS, the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, and Kennedy. That's the same class of people who figured that invading in Iraq in 2003 would turn out all right. Obama is correct to ignore these people, who more often than not are possessed by the notion of American Exceptionalism. Exhibit A being Samantha Power, the latest in a long line of militaristic, European-born white Americans (see Albright, Kissinger, Brzezinski) who believe that American firepower can bring order to the world.

    Let this be made clear: Any escalation of American involvement in Syria will be interpreted as 1) an attempt to enhance the national security of Israel, 2) a means of benefiting the revenue stream of the American military industrial complex, or 3) both. Only the most naive and foolish people, since the absolutely disastrous events of 2003, would be inclined to believe that American military intervention in Syria is motivated mainly by humanitarian impulses.

    Sorry hawkish diplomats, but you're living in a fantasyland where the invasion of Iraq in 2003 did not permanently tarnish the image of the USA and wreck its credibility as an honest arbiter. That is the reality all US presidents will have to face in the post-Bush 43 era.

    Robert Roth, NYC 14 hours ago

    Everyone closes their eyes and imagines all the bloodshed they will prevent by all the bloodshed they will cause.

    Samsara, The West 16 hours ago

    Have Iraq and Libya taught these State Department officials NOTHING??

    Simon, Tampa 15 hours ago

    The neo-cons who love regime change that never works. Let us examine their track record:

    Iraq - a mess and infested with ISIS and Al Qaeda.
    Libya - now an anarchist state infested with ISIS and Al Qaeda.
    Yemen - bombing and murdering thousands of innocents and Al Qaeda.

    Syria, the only secular Arab state, destroyed and infested with ISIS and Al Qaeda. The only reason Syria hasn't completely fallen apart is thanks to Assad and his Sunni dominated army, Iran, and the Russians. So of course, these neo-cons want to complete the job at the behest of the money they will be getting from the Saudis and the other Gulf States.

    Don't worry you warmongering greedy neocon, Hillary Clinton is one of you and will be president soon enough.

    Title Holder, Fl 15 hours ago

    Are those 51 U.S. Diplomats responsible for advising the Obama Administration to bomb Libya back in 2011? Apparently they have not learned from their mistakes. Or maybe they should just go work for their true Employer, The Military Industrial Complex.

    Andrea, New Jersey 15 hours ago

    This is reckless and irresponsible. US backed "moderates" are fighting elbow to elbow with the Nusra Front and other radicals groups; that is why the cease-fire is collapsing. Syrians and Russians can not split hairs on the battlefield.

    If we weaken Assad, Islamists will take over Damascus and if Damascus falls, soon Beirut will follow. These folk at State are neo cons, as usual shooting from the hip.

    Jett Rink, lafayette, la 15 hours ago

    Here's the thing most people don't get about ISIS. They thrive on us being involved in the Middle East. They are willing to kill other Muslims in order to keep us involved. As long as we are there, terrorism will persist, over there and here too. They are playing us like chumps. They use our tendency to knee-jerk reactions against us. They're out smarting us at every juncture.

    Of course it's human nature to want to help people in such dire straights. But that's exactly what ISIS wants, and correctly predict, that we'll do. So as long as they out-think us, they'll continue to win.

    If you want to help the innocent people caught in the cross-hairs of ISIS, the best thing we could possibly do is pack up and leave. There'll be some more carnage, but eventually the backlash from within will force them to stop the wrecking and killing. Many people will die, but in the end, the tally would be far fewer.

    Their goal is to keep us engaged. Ours should be to get out! As long as we stay, they win. And that's how they're able to convince long-wolf's to strike us here, even when here is home to them too.

    Joane Johnson, Cleveland, Ohio 15 hours ago

    Vietnam, 212,000 dead and countless north and south Vietnamese and citizens. Unjust and unwarranted war on Iraq with 4,491 and counting dead and countess Iraqi citizens. Now, Syria? Are you wanting the draft returned? You asking for boots on the ground? How about you 50 join up. I will willingly pay for taxes just arm you and send you in. Along with every other know it all who wants us 'TO DO MORE'!! Spare me. You have learned NOTHING in your past failures, have you? 1956, Iran. Cause the over throw of a duly elected government for the Shahs which led to 1980 revolution to fear of them acquiring nuclear weapons. Vietnam led to 'WHAT'? Now Iraq.

    The worse destabilization in that area I can remember. Not even during their many attacks on Israel when Egypt got a clue. Fire Saddam Hussein's soldiers and they become ISIS by 2006, yet one bright senator lied and said Obama caused them when we left which was President Bush's treaty Maliki. They did not want us there. Leave per the Iraqi people, also. When ISIS showed up they ran and left the weaponry we gave them and the money in the banks for them to grab. Now, you want us steeped into Syria. It's been said, hindsight is 20/20,

    In these so called diplomats cases, it is totally and legally blind. Stevie Wonder and Ray Charles has a better perception and one of them is dead.

    Bev, New York 16 hours ago

    Yes the war machine wants more wars. Who will take the place of the evil Assad? We have removed a number of evil dictators in that area of the world and all it has done is sap our resources, killed hundreds of thousands of innocents, made millions hate us, and created vacuums of power which are then filled with Saudi-assisted ISIS - AND profited our war machine (that's the important part!) We need less involvement in the Mideast, not more. Bring them all home and start transitioning from a war economy to an economy that serves the American citizens here.

    ME, Toronto 13 hours ago

    Thank goodness Obama kept his head and didn't (and hopefully won't) listen to such crazy advice. To call the signers "diplomats" is a real stretch. It seems that somewhere back in time various U.S. "diplomats" decided that they have the right to decide who and what the government should be in various jurisdictions throughout the world. Of course this is motivated by purely humanitarian concerns and love of democracy and not the self-interest of the U.S., as in having a friendly government in place. As despicable as some governments are, the lessons over many years now should be that military strikes are just as (maybe more) likely to produce something bad as anything good. Better to talk and try to influence the development of nations through positive reinforcement (as Obama has done in Iran). Undoubtedly this is a slow and somewhat frustrating process but that is something real "diplomats" should be good at. If this process had been pursued in Syria we would all be better off today and especially the Syrian people.

    Mitchell, New York 16 hours ago

    I assume these people at State also believe in the Tooth Fairy. The fantasy of "moderate" rebels who will be grateful to us after they depose a tyrant and put in a fair democratic government that takes into account all of our Western ideals and freedoms is so unrealistic that these people at State need to find a job where their last words are, "Can I supersize that for you?" Our involvement in the Middle East displacing despots and replacing them with chaos has been the biggest disaster in foreign policy in many decades. Egypt, Iraq, Libya, and even Syria (remember the line in the sand?). We should join with Russia in destroying ISIS and use our leverage to push Assad to make some level of concessions.

    Dan, Sandy, UT 15 hours ago

    Here we go again. The war hawks, so comfortably away from the battle, are banging those drums of war again. Easy to do when your life and the lives of your fellow military are not at risk.

    Second thought, as stated by a political comedian/satirist, let the Middle East take its own trash out.
    I couldn't agree more.

    blackmamba, IL 16 hours ago

    Since 9/11/01 only 0.75% of Americans have volunteered to put on the military of any American armed force. They have been ground to emotional, mental and physical dust by repeated deployments. Getting rid of Arab dictators has unleashed foreign ethnic sectarian socioeconomic political educational civil wars that cannot be resolved by American military power.

    Assad is an Arab civil secular dictator. Just like many of Americas Arab allies and unlike those American Arab allies who are Islamic royal fossil fuel tyrants. But Assad is an Alawite Shia Muslim allied with Russia. The alternatives to Assad are al Qaeda, ISIL and al Nusra. Diplomats need to stick to diplomacy.

    Jo Boost, Midlands 16 hours ago

    This situation is not that simple.

    There is not -as people in Washington who know better have told for years now- one big bad wolf called Assad preying and devouring all poor little peaceful lambs (who, accidentally, have been armed to their teeth by a certain Ms. Clinton and her Saudi friends - even with poison gas which was, then, blamed on the said Assad).
    We have here a follow-up civil war to the (also US started) one in Libya.

    Let us just look at International Law, as understood since the Nuremberg Trials:

    We all know now that the invasion of Iraq by Mr. Bush junior was a) a mistake, and b) a War Crime - there were no threatening WMDs nor did Saddam hold hads with Al Quaeda (he was, actually, their worst enemy - and our security!), so, Iraq was c) total stupidity. It was an aggressive war without any cause - for the USA!
    But a great cause for Saudi "Royals" whose cousins had been thrown out of Iraq, which is good enough cause, in Arab customs, for a bloody feud and revenge.
    The same applies to Syria, and could one, therefore, still wonder why ISIL was so well equipped for the follow-up (envisaged) invasion?

    Libya was a danger for Saudi Autocrates, because a secular Arab country with such a living standard from fair distribution of oil wealth would be a dangerous advertisement for a Mother of All Arab Springs in the desert.

    So, we have one side with interest - and one without any - but the latter does the dirty work. Is there more than one tail that wags the US dog?

    Bonnie Rothman, NYC 13 hours ago

    How brilliant---not! And what do these 50 people expect to happen if and when Assad falls, chaos prevails and ISIS rushes in? Not to mention the immediate nasty confrontation with Putin. This isn't 1941 and big Armies and big bombs are useless, USELESS against ISIS which operates like cancer cells in the human body. And the last time we toppled a tyrant we midwived the ISIS group which is funded by the Saudis which is funded by our own use of oil. Don't you dopes ever read history and see the "whole" problem? Sheesh.

    Prof. Jai Prakash Sharma, is a trusted commenter Jaipur, India. 16 hours ago

    Given the complexity of the Syrian crisis and the multipower stakes involved in Syria, it would be foolish for the US to direct its unilateral military fury at toppling the Assad regime ignoring its fall out and the military financial cost to the US itself, specially when except for meeting the common challenge and threat of the ISIS no direct national interests are at stake for the US in Syria. The state department's dissenting memo to the President seems an attempt by the vested interests to further complicate President Obama's Middle East policy that's on the right track following the Iran deal.

    Dennis Sullivan, NYC 16 hours ago

    This is much more about what Mark Landler thinks than about what those generic diplomats think. The Times's principal hawk, Landler has book and a series of articles pushing his neocon view. I guess we should assume the Times agrees.


    Rudolf, New York 7 hours ago

    Having spent substantial time as a private consultant at the US Embassy in Kabul I was shocked by the lack of feelings of midlevel officials there with regard to the dead and injuries of American Troops. The Embassy shared a wall with the ISAF/NATO Main Quarters and every single day the US Flag there was half-mast to acknowledge the dead of our troops on that day in that country. The Embassy never shared this sadness and all midlevel officials there were only concerned about their paycheck, quality of meals served, having a drink, going for a swim, and their frequent trips back to the US; for such people wanting to have a say in when to fight in Syria is a sad state of affair.

    pat knapp, milwaukee 16 hours ago

    Perhaps we should figure out one take-down before we move on to the next. After 13 years, we still haven't figured out life in Iraq without Saddam. Any thoughts, neocons, on what might happen after Assad is disposed of? You know, the hard part, what follows?

    Mike Edwards, Providence, RI 16 hours ago

    In what way do the views of the State Department officials in ISIS differ from those in the US State Department who signed this memo?

    Recent terrorist attacks in France and the US have been inspired by ISIS, not Mr. Assad. ISIS is our enemy right now. Let Mr. Assad do what he can to eliminate them.

    And haven't we learnt that the removal of a head of State, be it in Iraq, Afghanistan or Libya does not lead to an improvement; it actually causes an outright deterioration.

    Finally, please let's also do away with this twaddle about "moderate" forces being present in the Middle East, ready to enact our fantasy of what a peaceful Middle East should be like. They don't exist in the Middle East. Ask the Israelis. Those moderates that do exist seem to serve one purpose, which is to hand over the weapons supplied to them by the West to the terrorists.

    I wish the signatories would have had the guts to spell it out. The Middle East is home to a number of weal nations, a situation the stronger ones don't wish to correct. The only solution would be for the West to take over the running of those countries and provide for their policing and defense, as once the West leaves, a vacuum is created allowing terrorist groups to proliferate.

    I doubt there is any appetite in the West for such a cause.

    Donald, Yonkers 16 hours ago

    Interesting how these " moderate" Syrian rebels so often fight alongside al Nusra.

    The death toll in Syria is as high as it is because the rebels have outside help, Somehow no one in the American mainstream, including the NYT, ever points this out. Incidently, note how the NYT always uses the largest estimates for the death toll-- quite different from what they did in Iraq.

    Nick Metrowsky, is a trusted commenter Longmont, Colorado 17 hours ago

    Get Rid of Assad, make relations with Russia worse (they back Assad) and allow ISIS to effectively take over Syria. Sounds like a great plan. I guess our military-industrial complex is getting itchy for a new war. And, of course, doing what these diplomats want will also result in putting boots on the ground. This will be a great legacy for Ms. Clinton (under her watch ISIS came into being), Mr. Kerry (who continued Clinton's failed legacy) and Mr. Obama (the Nobel Peace Prize president; who wasn't).

    So, guess what? The US starts bombing Syria, Assad will use human shields. ISIS is already using human shields. So, the US will have more innocent blood on their hands. Of course, the US follows through with these diplomats idea, ISIS, and their allies, will increase the risk of terrorism attacks in the US. More mass shootings and bombings.

    Of course, in an election year, the political rhetoric will be pushed up a notch between the two wonderful people now running for president. Both who are more than willing to love the diplomat's idea to show they are "strong". Mr. Obama may or may not follow through, but he hand may be forced. Clinton or Trump will go after him, as both would pull the trigger first and ask questions later.

    But, rest assured,. if you feel that a terrorist is lurking around each corner now, just wait until the US decides that getting in the middle of the Syrian civil war is some warped good idea.

    Diplomacy can be messy, as can politics.

    Dan Stewart, NYC 16 hours ago

    The signers of the dissent letter are militarist neocons (of the Victoria Nuland ilk). More than any other, these people and their CIA collaborators are responsible for the death and destruction in Syria and the ensuing refugee crisis. They can't even give a cogent reason for deposing Assad other than point to the carnage of the civil war they fomented-as if Assad were solely responsible. Assad is acting no differently than the US did during it's own Civil War.

    For five years the US has been promoting Muslim extremists in Syria that move with fluidity between the ranks of ISIL, al Nusra, al Qeada, etc. There are no reliable "moderates" in Syria. The best hope for a stable Syria lies only with Bashar Assad, the secular Western-trained optometrist (and his J.P. Morgan investment banker wife, Asma), who has kept Syria stable and free of terrorists for decades.

    To end the killing in Syria, and to defeat ISIL, the US should immediately stop arming and funding the Islamic jihadists trying to overthrow the Assad government and join with Russia to support Assad's military in regaining control over all Syrian territory and borders.

    CT View, CT 17 hours ago

    The value of the memo can be summed up in one sentence as described in the article itself "what would happen in the event that Mr. Assad was forced from power - a scenario that the draft memo does not address."

    Why on earth would we support deposing a secular dictator who has multi-ethnic multi-religious support in favor of a non-secular/ie religious leadership that has no moderates...remember we tried to train vetted moderates, we found about 2 dozen and gave up on the program after half were killed and the rest defected to the radicals WITH THE WEAPONS WE SUPPLIED. Perhaps, since the military is anti-intervention and these diplomats are pro-intervention, the diplomats can take the front line...would that change their opinion?

    Gimme Shelter, 123 Happy Street 17 hours ago

    I wonder about the arrogance of these mid-level State Department foreign service officers. Do they think the National Security Council hasn't considered all options with respect to the use of air power to affect the political situation in Syria? Do they think the President is unaware of the what is required to stem the humanitarian crisis? How certain are they that their recommendations will lead to their desired outcome? Do they not realize their actions undermine the commander in chief in effectively addressing these issues?

    Sure -- a few well-placed cruise missiles will make it all good. Yeah, right.

    Wayne, Lake Conroe, Tx 7 hours ago

    Absolutely amazing. My first question is who released this memo? Having a back channel does not permit anyone to unilaterally decide to release information that could cost lives and ruin negotiations that the releasing person knows nothing about. If you do not like the chain of command, then leave. We cannot continue to be involved in sectarian conflicts that cannot be resolved except by the combatants. Haven't we learned anything from Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, and Vietnam? No neocon insanity. We have lost enough lives and treasure in the ME.

    Chagrined, La Jolla, CA 10 hours ago

    Are these the same ingrates who urged Bush to attack Iraq - his legacy - ISIS!

    Real Americans don't want any more squandered blood and treasure in wars in the Middle East!

    It is sad that our tax dollars pay the salaries for these insidious State Department war mongering fools. How many neocons are among them?

    The war in Syria is tragic as was the war in Iraq. Even more tragic would be more squandered American blood and treasure.

    Fifteen hundred American Jews joined the IDF terrorists to commit the "Gaza Genocide." Perhaps they will volunteer to go to Syria.??

    President Obama has the intellect, sophistication and morals not to repeat the mistakes of the Bush administration. These State Department rank and file are obviously attempting to undermine him just as many members of congress attempted to undermine him by supporting Netanyahu and Israel during the Iran Diplomacy debate. Betraying America has become sport for so many insidious ingrates. America deserves better!

    xtian, Tallahassee 11 hours ago

    As a 26 year Marine Corps combat veteran I have a hard time trying to figure out what is going on here, and a harder time not becoming totally disgusted with our State Department.

    So these 51 mid-level diplomates want to bomb a bit more, and that is going to do what????? And how will that bring peace to that region of the world? Oh, and by the way, the Department of Defense is not in agreement with that course of action. How wonderful.

    My suggestion would be that we arm these 51 individuals, given them a week's worth of ammunition and rations, and drop them into Syria, I am sure they can lead the way in showing us how to solve the mess in the ME.

    David Henry, Concord 17 hours ago

    War is easy to do. Ask "W."

    Lives matter! These "diplomats" should be fired.

    Yinka Martins, New York, NY 17 hours ago

    It's the fact that these are not "widely known names" which scares me most. However, Western-instituted regime change in that region has proven disastrous in every single country it has been tried. If possible, I would investigate these diplomats' ties to defense contractors.

    PKJharkhand, Australia 7 hours ago

    US intervention created the rubble and hell that is now Syria. When Assad had full control of Syria, the human rights of the people of Syria suffered under him but many if not most people led a civilised life. They had water and electricity. Past US interventions created Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. To puy it simply, life expectancy in all these countries dropped by 20 to 30 years after the US intervened, each time with the highest utopian ideals, and increased the power of Sunni supremacists after each act.

    Jai Goodman, SF Bay Area 7 hours ago

    These "diplomats" should instead be urging US to pressure Turkey and Saudi to stop supporting terrorists in the region. Both Al Nusra and ISIS. That'll be the right step.

    Thank you.

    cml, pittsburgh, pa 10 hours ago

    How many of these are the same (or same sort) of "wise" men that advised ignoring our weapon's inspectors and invading Iraq? They're living inside an echo chamber. In a world of imperfect choices I would prefer Assad to the Nusra Front or ISIL, as apparently our president does as well.

    Lawrence, Washington D.C. 15 hours ago

    How many of those 51 diplomats haves served in front line units and seen combat? How many have their children in uniform? They wouldn't allow it.
    Each bombing mission costs more than a million dollars, and we live in a nation of Chiraq and Orlando.
    We have more pressing needs at home, and you can't fix stupid mixed with superstition, topped with hatred.
    These diplomats want to continue to strap suicide vests on the rest of us, while they sip champagne.
    Out now, no more of our children wasted for corporate profits.

    John, San Francisco 15 hours ago

    50 employees? There are approximately 24,000 employees in the state department. That's 0.002833%. Not really a significant voice. Don't listen.


    Vanessa Hall, is a trusted commenter Millersburg MO 13 hours ago

    Reminds me of those 47 idiots in the House who signed on to the warmonger Tom Cotton's treasonous letter.

    John Townsend, Mexico 15 hours ago

    Let's not forget that Bush's hasty appointment of Paul Bremer as the hapless Governor of Iraq following the defeat of Hussein's military regime led immediately to the disbanding of the entire Iraqi military, an incredibly short-sighted and reckless move that essentially unleashed 400,000 young trained fighters (including a honed officers corps) absent support programs to assimilate back into Iraqi society, only to have them emerge as readily available fodder essential for ISIS's marshalling a strong military force almost overnight. A huge price is now being exacted for this astounding stupidity.

    Hobart, Los Angeles, CA 7 hours ago

    This is conveniently laying grounds for Hillary's grand comeback to the theatre of "humanitarian interventionism" in the Middle East. God help us all, as this is a prelude to the WW3.

    rice pritchard, nashville, tennessee 12 hours ago

    Wow the neo-cons are beating the war drums yet again! They have already created a huge mess throughout the Middle East with wars and revolutions directly attributable to the United States in invading Afghanistan and Iraq under false pretenses, helping overthrow the government in Libya, and arming rebels in Syria and Yemen. Apparently no regime that does not knuckle under to the U.S. war machine is "fair game". This turmoil is sending millions of refugees fleeing their homeland, many trying to swamp Europe, but the arm chair warriors in the diplomatic corps, Congress, Wall Street, and the military contractors still cry for more intervention, more bombing, more blockades, more invasions, etc.! Sheer madness! The more America meddle in the Middle East the worse things become and unrest and fighting spread. Unfortunately if Hillary Clinton wins, she is a neo-con puppet and we will be at war in Syria and/or Iran within a year or two. God help us!

    xmas, Delaware 13 hours ago

    HOW MUCH WILL THIS COST????? When people demand an invasion of a foreign country, can they please add the total cost of the bill to their request? Instead of saying "we need to invade," can they say, "I want your support to spend $1.7 trillion for invading this other country for humanitarian reasons. Oh, by the way, sorry, about all the cuts to domestic spending. We just don't have the money." We spent $1.7 TRILLION on Iraq. $1.7 TRILLION. I can think of several things I would have preferred to spend a fraction of that on. I'm sure you can too.

    Robert G. McKee, Lindenhurst, NY 12 hours ago

    This is a very interesting development within the walls of the State Department. There seems to be much enthusiasm for escalating war in the Middle East. My only question is does this enthusiasm extend to the deaths and maiming of these same State Department officials' children and grandchildren? Or do they propose that other people's children should die pursuing their high ideals in this endless and fruitless religious civil war in Syria?

    Kathy, Flemington, NJ 13 hours ago

    First of all, if this was a channel for employees to share "candidly and privately" about policy concerns, why is it on the front page of the NY Times? Additionally, as usual, it seems the war hawks are hawking war without thought for what comes next. We've done this most recently in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, all of which are now failed states and havens for terrorists. Because this seems rather obvious, either we are pathologically incapable of learning from past mistakes, or there are people who have an agenda different from the publicly stated one.

    Rebecca Rabinowitz, . 13 hours ago

    The U.S. has a lengthy, very sordid history of leaping into the fray in areas such as the Middle East, Southeast Asia, Central America and Afghanistan, among others - all with catastrophic results, for which we never seemed to have a credible, well- crafted plan, nor have we ever comprehended the millennia of internecine tribal hatred and sectarian warfare. We have "been there, done that" countless times, at the cost of our precious military blood and treasure, and incurring the enmity of hundreds of millions of people. I empathize with the frustration of these State Department employees - but apparently, they do not recall our overthrow of the Shah of Iran when it suited our "cause du jour," or our fraudulent "domino theory" in Vietnam, or the hard reality that no one has ever successfully invaded or "governed" Afghanistan, not to mention being able to battle ideology with weapons. The President has already presided over significant mission creep in the Iraq cesspool left by the Cheney-Bush neo-con crowd. His judicious caution is to be lauded when it comes to Syria. Are these mid-level State Department employees advocating a war against Vladimir Putin?

    Yngve Frey, Sweden 12 hours ago

    I am more scared of US diplomats and politicians than terrorists! Have they learned nothing from the US efforts to create western style democracy in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria (by supporting separatists att an early stage). The US diplomats proposal would ensure more chaos, death and prolonged wR. 38 % of the population are Alewits. They will be killed, Christians will be killed.

    The only way will probably be to work with Russia and force other opposition groups to sign a peace agreement. Then we should arrange an intensive training course for US diplomats as well as Syrian leaders: "There is no final truth: we have to learn the art of tolerance and accept to live in a society where people you don't agree with also can live."

    [Jun 18, 2016] 51 US Diplomats Urge Strikes Against Assad in Syria

    51 neocons warmongers, who need to be send to Afghanistan for some on site learning. Nuland's birds of feather try to get worm places in Hillary new administration, playing on her war hawk tendencies... Those "diplomats" forgot about the existence of Saudis and other theocracies which are much more brutal and less democratic, viewing woman as domestic animals. These are dark times for American foreign policy. the easy part is to depose Assad. But what might happen after Assad is disposed of? You know, the hard part, what follows?
    Notable quotes:
    "... These Diplomats should be fired as idiots. Did they not just live through the Iraqi occupation, destruction and disaster? ..."
    "... Are you a bit confused as to who these neocon dissenters at State support in the Syrian civil war? ..."
    "... This is simply a roll call of neocon diplomats making a case for another non-strategic war that would badly hurt US interests. It does not represent State Department policy. The neocons have been very persistent in securing career appointments at State for decades now. ..."
    "... You are pushing the world closer to war. ..."
    "... what is intolerable about the position of the 51 "diplomats" in the memo is that it is their (failed) efforts to dislodge Assad by proxy, facilitating and organizing the flow of arms that more often than ended up in the hands of hard-line jihadists, that has led to almost 400,000 deaths (not to mention wounded) and the flight of over a million refugees. ..."
    "... Wow, sounds like some housecleaning is needed at State. Whatever happened to jaw-jaw being better than war-war? If they are so keen on military action, they're in the wrong building. I'm sure some of the overworked troops and officers in the armed forces would be happy to let these guys take a few of the chances of getting shot or blown up that they deal with daily. ..."
    "... It is troubling that the State Department, long a bulwark of common sense against America's foreign adventurism, has become as hawkish as its former head, Hillary Clinton. ..."
    "... The Middle East Institute is financed, primarily, by the petroleum and arms industries. The Washington Institute for Near Eastern Policy has HRC's close ally, Dennis Ross; who, with Martin Indyk, founded AIPAC in the mid-80's. ..."
    "... This group's contention that direct confrontation with Russia could be avoided echoes their 2002 claim that Operation Iraqi Freedom would be a three month cake walk. ..."
    "... Since WWII, U.S. foreign policy has been rooted in the projection and use of force (covert and overt) as the primary means to achieve whatever goals the executive office seeks. It placed the world on notice that the U.S. was ready and willing to use violence to back its foreign policy objectives. Just as in Vietnam and before the disastrous decision to escalate the use of ground forces, President Johnson's national security advisors (all holdovers from Kennedy's Presidency) pressed Johnson to use aerial bombardment against N. Vietnam to induce them to seek a negotiated peace that would allow the U.S. to withdraw from the conflict and save face while preserving the policy of projecting force as a means to maintain world order in accordance with U.S. designs. ..."
    "... My oldest son is now completing his sixth Afghan/Iraq tour.I don't want him in Syria. Let these 51 diplomats volunteer their sons/daughters for Syria.That'll demonstrate their commitment.I'll bet not one of these 51 "geniuses" has a child on active military duty in Iraq/Afghan. ..."
    "... These folks are, it appears, mid-level foreign service officers like I was. They are utterly unqualified to make these judgements as the Department of State is a failed organization culturally and functionally. Like HRC, who is still advocating for forced regime change if she wins, they have learned nothing from the past and again have no answer for what follows Asad being deposed. A majority Sunni regime in Syria will tear Iraq apart and there is no likelihood of it avoiding the trajectory of other "pluralistic" Arab state attempts. The fact that State has no culture of strategic analysis informing operational design and operational planning which, in turn, spawn series of tactical events, comes clear in situations like this. Doing nothing is the best case here. Tragic but still the best case. President Obama has seen this. Asad needs to regain control of Syria's territory, all of it. Feeding the hopes of the Ahmed Chalabi equivalents in Syria is perpetuating the violence. And, there is no room for an independent Kurdistan in the region, nor is it in the United States' interest for there to be one. ..."
    "... That's the same class of people who figured that invading in Iraq in 2003 would turn out all right. ..."
    "... Exhibit A being Samantha Power, the latest in a long line of militaristic, European-born white Americans (see Albright, Kissinger, Brzezinski) who believe that American firepower can bring order to the world. ..."
    "... Sorry hawkish diplomats, but you're living in a fantasyland where the invasion of Iraq in 2003 did not permanently tarnish the image of the USA and wreck its credibility as an honest arbiter. That is the reality all US presidents will have to face in the post-Bush 43 era. ..."
    "... Are those 51 U.S. Diplomats responsible for advising the Obama Administration to bomb Libya back in 2011? Apparently they have not learned from their mistakes. Or maybe they should just go work for their true Employer, The Military Industrial Complex. ..."
    "... This is reckless and irresponsible. US backed "moderates" are fighting elbow to elbow with the Nusra Front and other radicals groups; that is why the cease-fire is collapsing. ..."
    "... If we weaken Assad, Islamists will take over Damascus and if Damascus falls, soon Beirut will follow. These folk at State are neo cons, as usual shooting from the hip. ..."
    "... Vietnam, 212,000 dead and countless north and south Vietnamese and citizens. Unjust and unwarranted war on Iraq with 4,491 and counting dead and countess Iraqi citizens. Now, Syria? Are you wanting the draft returned? You asking for boots on the ground? How about you 50 join up. I will willingly pay for taxes just arm you and send you in. Along with every other know it all who wants us 'TO DO MORE'!! Spare me. You have learned NOTHING in your past failures, have you? 1956, Iran. Cause the over throw of a duly elected government for the Shahs which led to 1980 revolution to fear of them acquiring nuclear weapons. Vietnam led to 'WHAT'? Now Iraq. ..."
    "... The worse destabilization in that area I can remember. Not even during their many attacks on Israel when Egypt got a clue. Fire Saddam Hussein's soldiers and they become ISIS by 2006, yet one bright senator lied and said Obama caused them when we left which was President Bush's treaty Maliki. They did not want us there. Leave per the Iraqi people, also. When ISIS showed up they ran and left the weaponry we gave them and the money in the banks for them to grab. Now, you want us steeped into Syria. It's been said, hindsight is 20/20, ..."
    "... In these so called diplomats cases, it is totally and legally blind. Stevie Wonder and Ray Charles has a better perception and one of them is dead. ..."
    "... The war hawks, so comfortably away from the battle, are banging those drums of war again. Easy to do when your life and the lives of your fellow military are not at risk. ..."
    "... We all know now that the invasion of Iraq by Mr. Bush junior was a) a mistake, and b) a War Crime - there were no threatening WMDs nor did Saddam hold hads with Al Quaeda (he was, actually, their worst enemy - and our security!), so, Iraq was c) total stupidity. It was an aggressive war without any cause - for the USA! ..."
    "... This is much more about what Mark Landler thinks than about what those generic diplomats think. The Times's principal hawk, Landler has book and a series of articles pushing his neocon view. I guess we should assume the Times agrees. ..."
    "... Having spent substantial time as a private consultant at the US Embassy in Kabul I was shocked by the lack of feelings of midlevel officials there with regard to the dead and injuries of American Troops. The Embassy shared a wall with the ISAF/NATO Main Quarters and every single day the US Flag there was half-mast to acknowledge the dead of our troops on that day in that country. The Embassy never shared this sadness and all midlevel officials there were only concerned about their paycheck, quality of meals served, having a drink, going for a swim, and their frequent trips back to the US; for such people wanting to have a say in when to fight in Syria is a sad state of affair. ..."
    "... Perhaps we should figure out one take-down before we move on to the next. After 13 years, we still haven't figured out life in Iraq without Saddam. Any thoughts, neocons, on what might happen after Assad is disposed of? You know, the hard part, what follows? ..."
    "... Get Rid of Assad, make relations with Russia worse (they back Assad) and allow ISIS to effectively take over Syria. Sounds like a great plan. I guess our military-industrial complex is getting itchy for a new war. And, of course, doing what these diplomats want will also result in putting boots on the ground. This will be a great legacy for Ms. Clinton (under her watch ISIS came into being), Mr. Kerry (who continued Clinton's failed legacy) and Mr. Obama (the Nobel Peace Prize president; who wasn't). ..."
    "... The signers of the dissent letter are militarist neocons (of the Victoria Nuland ilk). More than any other, these people and their CIA collaborators are responsible for the death and destruction in Syria and the ensuing refugee crisis. They can't even give a cogent reason for deposing Assad other than point to the carnage of the civil war they fomented-as if Assad were solely responsible. Assad is acting no differently than the US did during it's own Civil War. ..."
    "... The value of the memo can be summed up in one sentence as described in the article itself "what would happen in the event that Mr. Assad was forced from power - a scenario that the draft memo does not address." ..."
    "... I wonder about the arrogance of these mid-level State Department foreign service officers. ..."
    "... Sure -- a few well-placed cruise missiles will make it all good. Yeah, right. ..."
    "... Absolutely amazing. My first question is who released this memo? Having a back channel does not permit anyone to unilaterally decide to release information that could cost lives and ruin negotiations that the releasing person knows nothing about. If you do not like the chain of command, then leave. We cannot continue to be involved in sectarian conflicts that cannot be resolved except by the combatants. Haven't we learned anything from Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, and Vietnam? No neocon insanity. We have lost enough lives and treasure in the ME. ..."
    "... Are these the same ingrates who urged Bush to attack Iraq - his legacy - ISIS! ..."
    "... As a 26 year Marine Corps combat veteran I have a hard time trying to figure out what is going on here, and a harder time not becoming totally disgusted with our State Department. ..."
    "... My suggestion would be that we arm these 51 individuals, given them a week's worth of ammunition and rations, and drop them into Syria, I am sure they can lead the way in showing us how to solve the mess in the ME. ..."
    "... It's the fact that these are not "widely known names" which scares me most. However, Western-instituted regime change in that region has proven disastrous in every single country it has been tried. If possible, I would investigate these diplomats' ties to defense contractors. ..."
    "... US intervention created the rubble and hell that is now Syria. When Assad had full control of Syria, the human rights of the people of Syria suffered under him but many if not most people led a civilised life. They had water and electricity. Past US interventions created Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. To puy it simply, life expectancy in all these countries dropped by 20 to 30 years after the US intervened, each time with the highest utopian ideals, and increased the power of Sunni supremacists after each act. ..."
    "... Let's not forget that Bush's hasty appointment of Paul Bremer as the hapless Governor of Iraq following the defeat of Hussein's military regime led immediately to the disbanding of the entire Iraqi military, an incredibly short-sighted and reckless move that essentially unleashed 400,000 young trained fighters (including a honed officers corps) absent support programs to assimilate back into Iraqi society, only to have them emerge as readily available fodder essential for ISIS's marshalling a strong military force almost overnight. A huge price is now being exacted for this astounding stupidity. ..."
    "... This is conveniently laying grounds for Hillary's grand comeback to the theatre of "humanitarian interventionism" in the Middle East. God help us all, as this is a prelude to the WW3. ..."
    "... Wow the neo-cons are beating the war drums yet again! They have already created a huge mess throughout the Middle East with wars and revolutions directly attributable to the United States in invading Afghanistan and Iraq under false pretenses, helping overthrow the government in Libya, and arming rebels in Syria and Yemen. ..."
    "... Unfortunately if Hillary Clinton wins, she is a neo-con puppet and we will be at war in Syria and/or Iran within a year or two. God help us! ..."
    "... First of all, if this was a channel for employees to share "candidly and privately" about policy concerns, why is it on the front page of the NY Times? Additionally, as usual, it seems the war hawks are hawking war without thought for what comes next. We've done this most recently in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, all of which are now failed states and havens for terrorists. Because this seems rather obvious, either we are pathologically incapable of learning from past mistakes, or there are people who have an agenda different from the publicly stated one. ..."
    "... The U.S. has a lengthy, very sordid history of leaping into the fray in areas such as the Middle East, Southeast Asia, Central America and Afghanistan, among others - all with catastrophic results, for which we never seemed to have a credible, well- crafted plan, nor have we ever comprehended the millennia of internecine tribal hatred and sectarian warfare. ..."
    "... I am more scared of US diplomats and politicians than terrorists! Have they learned nothing from the US efforts to create western style democracy in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria (by supporting separatists att an early stage). The US diplomats proposal would ensure more chaos, death and prolonged wR. 38 % of the population are Alewits. They will be killed, Christians will be killed. ..."
    The New York Times

    ScottW, is a trusted commenter Chapel Hill, NC 16 hours ago

    These Diplomats should be fired as idiots. Did they not just live through the Iraqi occupation, destruction and disaster?

    A few years ago, a diplomat who quit was complaining about Syria at a conference I attended. When I asked who would fill the void if Assad was deposed he said, "That is a difficult question to answer." What he really meant to say is, "I don't have a clue."

    We have already disrupted Syria by supporting rebels/terrorists. The region cannot tolerate another Iraq.

    Dan Stewart, NYC 16 hours ago

    Are you a bit confused as to who these neocon dissenters at State support in the Syrian civil war?

    Here's a helpful hint:

    If they have beards down to their belt buckles and seem to be hollering something about Allah, those are the guys the neocons support.

    If they're recently shaved and wearing Western attire, in other words, if they look like anyone you might bump into on a US city street, those are the people the neocons call the enemy.


    Retroatavist,
    DC 10 hours ago

    This is simply a roll call of neocon diplomats making a case for another non-strategic war that would badly hurt US interests. It does not represent State Department policy. The neocons have been very persistent in securing career appointments at State for decades now. It's as if we hadn't forgotten the endless horrible mess they got us and the rest of the world into by breaking Iraq and destroying all its institutions with the insane de-baathification policy. And it all started with a similar steady drumbeat for war throughout the mid and late '90s and up to the 2003 disastrous invasion. Did we not learn anything? Really: Whose interest would an open US war against Assad really serve, and what predictable outcome would be in the US's strategic favor?

    Robert Sawyer, New York, New York 14 hours ago

    How many among the 51 are members of "Hillary's Legions, " the same geniuses responsible for the unqualified success we achieved in Libya?

    Gennady, Rhinebeck 16 hours ago

    Stop this irresponsible reporting. You are pushing the world closer to war. Humanitarian support is all we should bring to the Syrian people, regardless of which side they are on.

    ScottW, is a trusted commenter Chapel Hill, NC

    These Diplomats should be fired as idiots. Did they not just live through the Iraqi occupation, destruction and disaster?

    A few years ago, a diplomat who quit was complaining about Syria at a conference I attended. When I asked who would fill the void if Assad was deposed he said, "That is a difficult question to answer." What he really meant to say is, "I don't have a clue."

    We have already disrupted Syria by supporting rebels/terrorists. The region cannot tolerate another Iraq.

    Alyoshak, Durant, OK

    Isn't Congress supposed to declare war, and the President command our armed forces when such declarations occur? But what is intolerable about the position of the 51 "diplomats" in the memo is that it is their (failed) efforts to dislodge Assad by proxy, facilitating and organizing the flow of arms that more often than ended up in the hands of hard-line jihadists, that has led to almost 400,000 deaths (not to mention wounded) and the flight of over a million refugees. But no, these casualties have nothing to do with our attempts at regime change, No!, the blame for them lies squarely upon Assad for not scooting out of town immediately and submissively when the U.S. decided it was time for him to go. So now we're supposed to double-down on a deeply immoral and flawed strategy? How many more Syrians' lives must be ruined to "save" them from Assad?

    Everyman, USA 16 hours ago

    Wow, sounds like some housecleaning is needed at State. Whatever happened to jaw-jaw being better than war-war? If they are so keen on military action, they're in the wrong building. I'm sure some of the overworked troops and officers in the armed forces would be happy to let these guys take a few of the chances of getting shot or blown up that they deal with daily.

    Dan, Alexandria 16 hours ago

    It is troubling that the State Department, long a bulwark of common sense against America's foreign adventurism, has become as hawkish as its former head, Hillary Clinton.

    I am grateful to President Obama for resisting this foolishness, but make no mistake, no matter who gets into office in January, the kind of farcical, counterproductive, unrealistic "limited engagement" advocated by these so-called diplomats will be our future. Clinton is champing at the bit for it, and Trump is too weak to do anything but go along with it.

    Clark M. Shanahan, Oak Park, Illinois 16 hours ago

    Sadly, they'll most likely have a more accommodating commander and chief with HRC.

    The Middle East Institute is financed, primarily, by the petroleum and arms industries. The Washington Institute for Near Eastern Policy has HRC's close ally, Dennis Ross; who, with Martin Indyk, founded AIPAC in the mid-80's.

    This group's contention that direct confrontation with Russia could be avoided echoes their 2002 claim that Operation Iraqi Freedom would be a three month cake walk.

    Paul Cohen, is a trusted commenter Hartford CT 15 hours ago

    Since WWII, U.S. foreign policy has been rooted in the projection and use of force (covert and overt) as the primary means to achieve whatever goals the executive office seeks. It placed the world on notice that the U.S. was ready and willing to use violence to back its foreign policy objectives. Just as in Vietnam and before the disastrous decision to escalate the use of ground forces, President Johnson's national security advisors (all holdovers from Kennedy's Presidency) pressed Johnson to use aerial bombardment against N. Vietnam to induce them to seek a negotiated peace that would allow the U.S. to withdraw from the conflict and save face while preserving the policy of projecting force as a means to maintain world order in accordance with U.S. designs.

    Nixon carried on this bombing for peace strategy to insane war crime level. This heavy reliance on military force over a diplomatic solution has never worked. It didn't work for our knee-jerk response to 9/11 by immediately resorting to military force without first thinking through the consequences. We are now into our 15th year of aggression against the Muslim World. The time is long past due to question our failed policy and seek an alternative solution.

    Bud, McKinney, Texas 16 hours ago

    My oldest son is now completing his sixth Afghan/Iraq tour.I don't want him in Syria. Let these 51 diplomats volunteer their sons/daughters for Syria.That'll demonstrate their commitment.I'll bet not one of these 51 "geniuses" has a child on active military duty in Iraq/Afghan.

    Abu Charlie, Toronto, Ontario 14 hours ago

    These folks are, it appears, mid-level foreign service officers like I was. They are utterly unqualified to make these judgements as the Department of State is a failed organization culturally and functionally. Like HRC, who is still advocating for forced regime change if she wins, they have learned nothing from the past and again have no answer for what follows Asad being deposed. A majority Sunni regime in Syria will tear Iraq apart and there is no likelihood of it avoiding the trajectory of other "pluralistic" Arab state attempts. The fact that State has no culture of strategic analysis informing operational design and operational planning which, in turn, spawn series of tactical events, comes clear in situations like this. Doing nothing is the best case here. Tragic but still the best case. President Obama has seen this. Asad needs to regain control of Syria's territory, all of it. Feeding the hopes of the Ahmed Chalabi equivalents in Syria is perpetuating the violence. And, there is no room for an independent Kurdistan in the region, nor is it in the United States' interest for there to be one.

    AR, is a trusted commenter Virginia 15 hours ago

    How undiplomatic. I don't care that these people are diplomats and that many of them probably have impeccable academic pedigrees with degrees from the usual suspects such as the Ivy League schools, SAIS, the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, and Kennedy. That's the same class of people who figured that invading in Iraq in 2003 would turn out all right. Obama is correct to ignore these people, who more often than not are possessed by the notion of American Exceptionalism. Exhibit A being Samantha Power, the latest in a long line of militaristic, European-born white Americans (see Albright, Kissinger, Brzezinski) who believe that American firepower can bring order to the world.

    Let this be made clear: Any escalation of American involvement in Syria will be interpreted as 1) an attempt to enhance the national security of Israel, 2) a means of benefiting the revenue stream of the American military industrial complex, or 3) both. Only the most naive and foolish people, since the absolutely disastrous events of 2003, would be inclined to believe that American military intervention in Syria is motivated mainly by humanitarian impulses.

    Sorry hawkish diplomats, but you're living in a fantasyland where the invasion of Iraq in 2003 did not permanently tarnish the image of the USA and wreck its credibility as an honest arbiter. That is the reality all US presidents will have to face in the post-Bush 43 era.

    Robert Roth, NYC 14 hours ago

    Everyone closes their eyes and imagines all the bloodshed they will prevent by all the bloodshed they will cause.

    Samsara, The West 16 hours ago

    Have Iraq and Libya taught these State Department officials NOTHING??

    Simon, Tampa 15 hours ago

    The neo-cons who love regime change that never works. Let us examine their track record:

    Iraq - a mess and infested with ISIS and Al Qaeda.
    Libya - now an anarchist state infested with ISIS and Al Qaeda.
    Yemen - bombing and murdering thousands of innocents and Al Qaeda.

    Syria, the only secular Arab state, destroyed and infested with ISIS and Al Qaeda. The only reason Syria hasn't completely fallen apart is thanks to Assad and his Sunni dominated army, Iran, and the Russians. So of course, these neo-cons want to complete the job at the behest of the money they will be getting from the Saudis and the other Gulf States.

    Don't worry you warmongering greedy neocon, Hillary Clinton is one of you and will be president soon enough.

    Title Holder, Fl 15 hours ago

    Are those 51 U.S. Diplomats responsible for advising the Obama Administration to bomb Libya back in 2011? Apparently they have not learned from their mistakes. Or maybe they should just go work for their true Employer, The Military Industrial Complex.

    Andrea, New Jersey 15 hours ago

    This is reckless and irresponsible. US backed "moderates" are fighting elbow to elbow with the Nusra Front and other radicals groups; that is why the cease-fire is collapsing. Syrians and Russians can not split hairs on the battlefield.

    If we weaken Assad, Islamists will take over Damascus and if Damascus falls, soon Beirut will follow. These folk at State are neo cons, as usual shooting from the hip.

    Jett Rink, lafayette, la 15 hours ago

    Here's the thing most people don't get about ISIS. They thrive on us being involved in the Middle East. They are willing to kill other Muslims in order to keep us involved. As long as we are there, terrorism will persist, over there and here too. They are playing us like chumps. They use our tendency to knee-jerk reactions against us. They're out smarting us at every juncture.

    Of course it's human nature to want to help people in such dire straights. But that's exactly what ISIS wants, and correctly predict, that we'll do. So as long as they out-think us, they'll continue to win.

    If you want to help the innocent people caught in the cross-hairs of ISIS, the best thing we could possibly do is pack up and leave. There'll be some more carnage, but eventually the backlash from within will force them to stop the wrecking and killing. Many people will die, but in the end, the tally would be far fewer.

    Their goal is to keep us engaged. Ours should be to get out! As long as we stay, they win. And that's how they're able to convince long-wolf's to strike us here, even when here is home to them too.

    Joane Johnson, Cleveland, Ohio 15 hours ago

    Vietnam, 212,000 dead and countless north and south Vietnamese and citizens. Unjust and unwarranted war on Iraq with 4,491 and counting dead and countess Iraqi citizens. Now, Syria? Are you wanting the draft returned? You asking for boots on the ground? How about you 50 join up. I will willingly pay for taxes just arm you and send you in. Along with every other know it all who wants us 'TO DO MORE'!! Spare me. You have learned NOTHING in your past failures, have you? 1956, Iran. Cause the over throw of a duly elected government for the Shahs which led to 1980 revolution to fear of them acquiring nuclear weapons. Vietnam led to 'WHAT'? Now Iraq.

    The worse destabilization in that area I can remember. Not even during their many attacks on Israel when Egypt got a clue. Fire Saddam Hussein's soldiers and they become ISIS by 2006, yet one bright senator lied and said Obama caused them when we left which was President Bush's treaty Maliki. They did not want us there. Leave per the Iraqi people, also. When ISIS showed up they ran and left the weaponry we gave them and the money in the banks for them to grab. Now, you want us steeped into Syria. It's been said, hindsight is 20/20,

    In these so called diplomats cases, it is totally and legally blind. Stevie Wonder and Ray Charles has a better perception and one of them is dead.

    Bev, New York 16 hours ago

    Yes the war machine wants more wars. Who will take the place of the evil Assad? We have removed a number of evil dictators in that area of the world and all it has done is sap our resources, killed hundreds of thousands of innocents, made millions hate us, and created vacuums of power which are then filled with Saudi-assisted ISIS - AND profited our war machine (that's the important part!) We need less involvement in the Mideast, not more. Bring them all home and start transitioning from a war economy to an economy that serves the American citizens here.

    ME, Toronto 13 hours ago

    Thank goodness Obama kept his head and didn't (and hopefully won't) listen to such crazy advice. To call the signers "diplomats" is a real stretch. It seems that somewhere back in time various U.S. "diplomats" decided that they have the right to decide who and what the government should be in various jurisdictions throughout the world. Of course this is motivated by purely humanitarian concerns and love of democracy and not the self-interest of the U.S., as in having a friendly government in place. As despicable as some governments are, the lessons over many years now should be that military strikes are just as (maybe more) likely to produce something bad as anything good. Better to talk and try to influence the development of nations through positive reinforcement (as Obama has done in Iran). Undoubtedly this is a slow and somewhat frustrating process but that is something real "diplomats" should be good at. If this process had been pursued in Syria we would all be better off today and especially the Syrian people.

    Mitchell, New York 16 hours ago

    I assume these people at State also believe in the Tooth Fairy. The fantasy of "moderate" rebels who will be grateful to us after they depose a tyrant and put in a fair democratic government that takes into account all of our Western ideals and freedoms is so unrealistic that these people at State need to find a job where their last words are, "Can I supersize that for you?" Our involvement in the Middle East displacing despots and replacing them with chaos has been the biggest disaster in foreign policy in many decades. Egypt, Iraq, Libya, and even Syria (remember the line in the sand?). We should join with Russia in destroying ISIS and use our leverage to push Assad to make some level of concessions.

    Dan, Sandy, UT 15 hours ago

    Here we go again. The war hawks, so comfortably away from the battle, are banging those drums of war again. Easy to do when your life and the lives of your fellow military are not at risk.

    Second thought, as stated by a political comedian/satirist, let the Middle East take its own trash out.
    I couldn't agree more.

    blackmamba, IL 16 hours ago

    Since 9/11/01 only 0.75% of Americans have volunteered to put on the military of any American armed force. They have been ground to emotional, mental and physical dust by repeated deployments. Getting rid of Arab dictators has unleashed foreign ethnic sectarian socioeconomic political educational civil wars that cannot be resolved by American military power.

    Assad is an Arab civil secular dictator. Just like many of Americas Arab allies and unlike those American Arab allies who are Islamic royal fossil fuel tyrants. But Assad is an Alawite Shia Muslim allied with Russia. The alternatives to Assad are al Qaeda, ISIL and al Nusra. Diplomats need to stick to diplomacy.

    Jo Boost, Midlands 16 hours ago

    This situation is not that simple.

    There is not -as people in Washington who know better have told for years now- one big bad wolf called Assad preying and devouring all poor little peaceful lambs (who, accidentally, have been armed to their teeth by a certain Ms. Clinton and her Saudi friends - even with poison gas which was, then, blamed on the said Assad).
    We have here a follow-up civil war to the (also US started) one in Libya.

    Let us just look at International Law, as understood since the Nuremberg Trials:

    We all know now that the invasion of Iraq by Mr. Bush junior was a) a mistake, and b) a War Crime - there were no threatening WMDs nor did Saddam hold hads with Al Quaeda (he was, actually, their worst enemy - and our security!), so, Iraq was c) total stupidity. It was an aggressive war without any cause - for the USA!
    But a great cause for Saudi "Royals" whose cousins had been thrown out of Iraq, which is good enough cause, in Arab customs, for a bloody feud and revenge.
    The same applies to Syria, and could one, therefore, still wonder why ISIL was so well equipped for the follow-up (envisaged) invasion?

    Libya was a danger for Saudi Autocrates, because a secular Arab country with such a living standard from fair distribution of oil wealth would be a dangerous advertisement for a Mother of All Arab Springs in the desert.

    So, we have one side with interest - and one without any - but the latter does the dirty work. Is there more than one tail that wags the US dog?

    Bonnie Rothman, NYC 13 hours ago

    How brilliant---not! And what do these 50 people expect to happen if and when Assad falls, chaos prevails and ISIS rushes in? Not to mention the immediate nasty confrontation with Putin. This isn't 1941 and big Armies and big bombs are useless, USELESS against ISIS which operates like cancer cells in the human body. And the last time we toppled a tyrant we midwived the ISIS group which is funded by the Saudis which is funded by our own use of oil. Don't you dopes ever read history and see the "whole" problem? Sheesh.

    Prof. Jai Prakash Sharma, is a trusted commenter Jaipur, India. 16 hours ago

    Given the complexity of the Syrian crisis and the multipower stakes involved in Syria, it would be foolish for the US to direct its unilateral military fury at toppling the Assad regime ignoring its fall out and the military financial cost to the US itself, specially when except for meeting the common challenge and threat of the ISIS no direct national interests are at stake for the US in Syria. The state department's dissenting memo to the President seems an attempt by the vested interests to further complicate President Obama's Middle East policy that's on the right track following the Iran deal.

    Dennis Sullivan, NYC 16 hours ago

    This is much more about what Mark Landler thinks than about what those generic diplomats think. The Times's principal hawk, Landler has book and a series of articles pushing his neocon view. I guess we should assume the Times agrees.


    Rudolf, New York 7 hours ago

    Having spent substantial time as a private consultant at the US Embassy in Kabul I was shocked by the lack of feelings of midlevel officials there with regard to the dead and injuries of American Troops. The Embassy shared a wall with the ISAF/NATO Main Quarters and every single day the US Flag there was half-mast to acknowledge the dead of our troops on that day in that country. The Embassy never shared this sadness and all midlevel officials there were only concerned about their paycheck, quality of meals served, having a drink, going for a swim, and their frequent trips back to the US; for such people wanting to have a say in when to fight in Syria is a sad state of affair.

    pat knapp, milwaukee 16 hours ago

    Perhaps we should figure out one take-down before we move on to the next. After 13 years, we still haven't figured out life in Iraq without Saddam. Any thoughts, neocons, on what might happen after Assad is disposed of? You know, the hard part, what follows?

    Mike Edwards, Providence, RI 16 hours ago

    In what way do the views of the State Department officials in ISIS differ from those in the US State Department who signed this memo?

    Recent terrorist attacks in France and the US have been inspired by ISIS, not Mr. Assad. ISIS is our enemy right now. Let Mr. Assad do what he can to eliminate them.

    And haven't we learnt that the removal of a head of State, be it in Iraq, Afghanistan or Libya does not lead to an improvement; it actually causes an outright deterioration.

    Finally, please let's also do away with this twaddle about "moderate" forces being present in the Middle East, ready to enact our fantasy of what a peaceful Middle East should be like. They don't exist in the Middle East. Ask the Israelis. Those moderates that do exist seem to serve one purpose, which is to hand over the weapons supplied to them by the West to the terrorists.

    I wish the signatories would have had the guts to spell it out. The Middle East is home to a number of weal nations, a situation the stronger ones don't wish to correct. The only solution would be for the West to take over the running of those countries and provide for their policing and defense, as once the West leaves, a vacuum is created allowing terrorist groups to proliferate.

    I doubt there is any appetite in the West for such a cause.

    Donald, Yonkers 16 hours ago

    Interesting how these " moderate" Syrian rebels so often fight alongside al Nusra.

    The death toll in Syria is as high as it is because the rebels have outside help, Somehow no one in the American mainstream, including the NYT, ever points this out. Incidently, note how the NYT always uses the largest estimates for the death toll-- quite different from what they did in Iraq.

    Nick Metrowsky, is a trusted commenter Longmont, Colorado 17 hours ago

    Get Rid of Assad, make relations with Russia worse (they back Assad) and allow ISIS to effectively take over Syria. Sounds like a great plan. I guess our military-industrial complex is getting itchy for a new war. And, of course, doing what these diplomats want will also result in putting boots on the ground. This will be a great legacy for Ms. Clinton (under her watch ISIS came into being), Mr. Kerry (who continued Clinton's failed legacy) and Mr. Obama (the Nobel Peace Prize president; who wasn't).

    So, guess what? The US starts bombing Syria, Assad will use human shields. ISIS is already using human shields. So, the US will have more innocent blood on their hands. Of course, the US follows through with these diplomats idea, ISIS, and their allies, will increase the risk of terrorism attacks in the US. More mass shootings and bombings.

    Of course, in an election year, the political rhetoric will be pushed up a notch between the two wonderful people now running for president. Both who are more than willing to love the diplomat's idea to show they are "strong". Mr. Obama may or may not follow through, but he hand may be forced. Clinton or Trump will go after him, as both would pull the trigger first and ask questions later.

    But, rest assured,. if you feel that a terrorist is lurking around each corner now, just wait until the US decides that getting in the middle of the Syrian civil war is some warped good idea.

    Diplomacy can be messy, as can politics.

    Dan Stewart, NYC 16 hours ago

    The signers of the dissent letter are militarist neocons (of the Victoria Nuland ilk). More than any other, these people and their CIA collaborators are responsible for the death and destruction in Syria and the ensuing refugee crisis. They can't even give a cogent reason for deposing Assad other than point to the carnage of the civil war they fomented-as if Assad were solely responsible. Assad is acting no differently than the US did during it's own Civil War.

    For five years the US has been promoting Muslim extremists in Syria that move with fluidity between the ranks of ISIL, al Nusra, al Qeada, etc. There are no reliable "moderates" in Syria. The best hope for a stable Syria lies only with Bashar Assad, the secular Western-trained optometrist (and his J.P. Morgan investment banker wife, Asma), who has kept Syria stable and free of terrorists for decades.

    To end the killing in Syria, and to defeat ISIL, the US should immediately stop arming and funding the Islamic jihadists trying to overthrow the Assad government and join with Russia to support Assad's military in regaining control over all Syrian territory and borders.

    CT View, CT 17 hours ago

    The value of the memo can be summed up in one sentence as described in the article itself "what would happen in the event that Mr. Assad was forced from power - a scenario that the draft memo does not address."

    Why on earth would we support deposing a secular dictator who has multi-ethnic multi-religious support in favor of a non-secular/ie religious leadership that has no moderates...remember we tried to train vetted moderates, we found about 2 dozen and gave up on the program after half were killed and the rest defected to the radicals WITH THE WEAPONS WE SUPPLIED. Perhaps, since the military is anti-intervention and these diplomats are pro-intervention, the diplomats can take the front line...would that change their opinion?

    Gimme Shelter, 123 Happy Street 17 hours ago

    I wonder about the arrogance of these mid-level State Department foreign service officers. Do they think the National Security Council hasn't considered all options with respect to the use of air power to affect the political situation in Syria? Do they think the President is unaware of the what is required to stem the humanitarian crisis? How certain are they that their recommendations will lead to their desired outcome? Do they not realize their actions undermine the commander in chief in effectively addressing these issues?

    Sure -- a few well-placed cruise missiles will make it all good. Yeah, right.

    Wayne, Lake Conroe, Tx 7 hours ago

    Absolutely amazing. My first question is who released this memo? Having a back channel does not permit anyone to unilaterally decide to release information that could cost lives and ruin negotiations that the releasing person knows nothing about. If you do not like the chain of command, then leave. We cannot continue to be involved in sectarian conflicts that cannot be resolved except by the combatants. Haven't we learned anything from Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, and Vietnam? No neocon insanity. We have lost enough lives and treasure in the ME.

    Chagrined, La Jolla, CA 10 hours ago

    Are these the same ingrates who urged Bush to attack Iraq - his legacy - ISIS!

    Real Americans don't want any more squandered blood and treasure in wars in the Middle East!

    It is sad that our tax dollars pay the salaries for these insidious State Department war mongering fools. How many neocons are among them?

    The war in Syria is tragic as was the war in Iraq. Even more tragic would be more squandered American blood and treasure.

    Fifteen hundred American Jews joined the IDF terrorists to commit the "Gaza Genocide." Perhaps they will volunteer to go to Syria.??

    President Obama has the intellect, sophistication and morals not to repeat the mistakes of the Bush administration. These State Department rank and file are obviously attempting to undermine him just as many members of congress attempted to undermine him by supporting Netanyahu and Israel during the Iran Diplomacy debate. Betraying America has become sport for so many insidious ingrates. America deserves better!

    xtian, Tallahassee 11 hours ago

    As a 26 year Marine Corps combat veteran I have a hard time trying to figure out what is going on here, and a harder time not becoming totally disgusted with our State Department.

    So these 51 mid-level diplomates want to bomb a bit more, and that is going to do what????? And how will that bring peace to that region of the world? Oh, and by the way, the Department of Defense is not in agreement with that course of action. How wonderful.

    My suggestion would be that we arm these 51 individuals, given them a week's worth of ammunition and rations, and drop them into Syria, I am sure they can lead the way in showing us how to solve the mess in the ME.

    David Henry, Concord 17 hours ago

    War is easy to do. Ask "W."

    Lives matter! These "diplomats" should be fired.

    Yinka Martins, New York, NY 17 hours ago

    It's the fact that these are not "widely known names" which scares me most. However, Western-instituted regime change in that region has proven disastrous in every single country it has been tried. If possible, I would investigate these diplomats' ties to defense contractors.

    PKJharkhand, Australia 7 hours ago

    US intervention created the rubble and hell that is now Syria. When Assad had full control of Syria, the human rights of the people of Syria suffered under him but many if not most people led a civilised life. They had water and electricity. Past US interventions created Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. To puy it simply, life expectancy in all these countries dropped by 20 to 30 years after the US intervened, each time with the highest utopian ideals, and increased the power of Sunni supremacists after each act.

    Jai Goodman, SF Bay Area 7 hours ago

    These "diplomats" should instead be urging US to pressure Turkey and Saudi to stop supporting terrorists in the region. Both Al Nusra and ISIS. That'll be the right step.

    Thank you.

    cml, pittsburgh, pa 10 hours ago

    How many of these are the same (or same sort) of "wise" men that advised ignoring our weapon's inspectors and invading Iraq? They're living inside an echo chamber. In a world of imperfect choices I would prefer Assad to the Nusra Front or ISIL, as apparently our president does as well.

    Lawrence, Washington D.C. 15 hours ago

    How many of those 51 diplomats haves served in front line units and seen combat? How many have their children in uniform? They wouldn't allow it.
    Each bombing mission costs more than a million dollars, and we live in a nation of Chiraq and Orlando.
    We have more pressing needs at home, and you can't fix stupid mixed with superstition, topped with hatred.
    These diplomats want to continue to strap suicide vests on the rest of us, while they sip champagne.
    Out now, no more of our children wasted for corporate profits.

    John, San Francisco 15 hours ago

    50 employees? There are approximately 24,000 employees in the state department. That's 0.002833%. Not really a significant voice. Don't listen.


    Vanessa Hall, is a trusted commenter Millersburg MO 13 hours ago

    Reminds me of those 47 idiots in the House who signed on to the warmonger Tom Cotton's treasonous letter.

    John Townsend, Mexico 15 hours ago

    Let's not forget that Bush's hasty appointment of Paul Bremer as the hapless Governor of Iraq following the defeat of Hussein's military regime led immediately to the disbanding of the entire Iraqi military, an incredibly short-sighted and reckless move that essentially unleashed 400,000 young trained fighters (including a honed officers corps) absent support programs to assimilate back into Iraqi society, only to have them emerge as readily available fodder essential for ISIS's marshalling a strong military force almost overnight. A huge price is now being exacted for this astounding stupidity.

    Hobart, Los Angeles, CA 7 hours ago

    This is conveniently laying grounds for Hillary's grand comeback to the theatre of "humanitarian interventionism" in the Middle East. God help us all, as this is a prelude to the WW3.

    rice pritchard, nashville, tennessee 12 hours ago

    Wow the neo-cons are beating the war drums yet again! They have already created a huge mess throughout the Middle East with wars and revolutions directly attributable to the United States in invading Afghanistan and Iraq under false pretenses, helping overthrow the government in Libya, and arming rebels in Syria and Yemen. Apparently no regime that does not knuckle under to the U.S. war machine is "fair game". This turmoil is sending millions of refugees fleeing their homeland, many trying to swamp Europe, but the arm chair warriors in the diplomatic corps, Congress, Wall Street, and the military contractors still cry for more intervention, more bombing, more blockades, more invasions, etc.! Sheer madness! The more America meddle in the Middle East the worse things become and unrest and fighting spread. Unfortunately if Hillary Clinton wins, she is a neo-con puppet and we will be at war in Syria and/or Iran within a year or two. God help us!

    xmas, Delaware 13 hours ago

    HOW MUCH WILL THIS COST????? When people demand an invasion of a foreign country, can they please add the total cost of the bill to their request? Instead of saying "we need to invade," can they say, "I want your support to spend $1.7 trillion for invading this other country for humanitarian reasons. Oh, by the way, sorry, about all the cuts to domestic spending. We just don't have the money." We spent $1.7 TRILLION on Iraq. $1.7 TRILLION. I can think of several things I would have preferred to spend a fraction of that on. I'm sure you can too.

    Robert G. McKee, Lindenhurst, NY 12 hours ago

    This is a very interesting development within the walls of the State Department. There seems to be much enthusiasm for escalating war in the Middle East. My only question is does this enthusiasm extend to the deaths and maiming of these same State Department officials' children and grandchildren? Or do they propose that other people's children should die pursuing their high ideals in this endless and fruitless religious civil war in Syria?

    Kathy, Flemington, NJ 13 hours ago

    First of all, if this was a channel for employees to share "candidly and privately" about policy concerns, why is it on the front page of the NY Times? Additionally, as usual, it seems the war hawks are hawking war without thought for what comes next. We've done this most recently in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, all of which are now failed states and havens for terrorists. Because this seems rather obvious, either we are pathologically incapable of learning from past mistakes, or there are people who have an agenda different from the publicly stated one.

    Rebecca Rabinowitz, . 13 hours ago

    The U.S. has a lengthy, very sordid history of leaping into the fray in areas such as the Middle East, Southeast Asia, Central America and Afghanistan, among others - all with catastrophic results, for which we never seemed to have a credible, well- crafted plan, nor have we ever comprehended the millennia of internecine tribal hatred and sectarian warfare. We have "been there, done that" countless times, at the cost of our precious military blood and treasure, and incurring the enmity of hundreds of millions of people. I empathize with the frustration of these State Department employees - but apparently, they do not recall our overthrow of the Shah of Iran when it suited our "cause du jour," or our fraudulent "domino theory" in Vietnam, or the hard reality that no one has ever successfully invaded or "governed" Afghanistan, not to mention being able to battle ideology with weapons. The President has already presided over significant mission creep in the Iraq cesspool left by the Cheney-Bush neo-con crowd. His judicious caution is to be lauded when it comes to Syria. Are these mid-level State Department employees advocating a war against Vladimir Putin?

    Yngve Frey, Sweden 12 hours ago

    I am more scared of US diplomats and politicians than terrorists! Have they learned nothing from the US efforts to create western style democracy in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria (by supporting separatists att an early stage). The US diplomats proposal would ensure more chaos, death and prolonged wR. 38 % of the population are Alewits. They will be killed, Christians will be killed.

    The only way will probably be to work with Russia and force other opposition groups to sign a peace agreement. Then we should arrange an intensive training course for US diplomats as well as Syrian leaders: "There is no final truth: we have to learn the art of tolerance and accept to live in a society where people you don't agree with also can live."

    [Jun 18, 2016] Why Did 51 American State Department Officials Dissent Against Obama and Call for Bombing Syria?

    Notable quotes:
    "... By Vijay Prashad, professor of international studies at Trinity College in Hartford, Connecticut. He is the author of 18 books, including Arab Spring, Libyan Winter (AK Press, 2012), The Poorer Nations: A Possible History of the Global South (Verso, 2013) and the forthcoming The Death of a Nation and the Future of the Arab Revolution (University of California Press, 2016). Originally published at Alternet ..."
    "... Seymour Hersh has reported that Obama was forced to call off the attack on Syria on 30 August 2013 because General Dempsey informed him that the British defence lab at Porton Down had analysed environmental samples from the Ghouta chemical attack and had established that the sarin was "kitchen sarin" that could not have come from Syrian military stocks. Hersh reports that Dempsey effectively threatened Obama by warning him that he would testify to Congress (and would prime them to ask the question) on what he had told Obama. Hersh names Sir Peter Wall, then the head of the British army, as the officer who had briefed Dempsey on Porton Down's findings. ..."
    "... I vividly recall how irate Obama was during that Rose Garden press conference when he backed down from bombing Syria. He was not pleased. Attempting to rewrite the historical record doesn't wash for anyone with a memory of the Kerry statement about chemical weapons and the alacrity with which Lavrov responded. Obama was boxed in, and he didn't like it one bit. ..."
    "... If she had any involvement in this it certainly shows her contempt for Obama just a few days after he endorsed her and while the FBI investigation still plods on. Beyond that, I think the cable directly reflects the power of the Israeli lobby and the perceived benefits of a destroyed Syria. ..."
    "... We make out that the national security apparatus taken as a system - and singling out the rare exceptions, who help the country by whistleblowing, leaking, and throwing bureaucratic obstacles in the way of the bad craziness - is corrupt to the bone. Also too insane. And that both characteristics are rewarded, and that individuals who display them tend to rise to the top. ..."
    "... That the State Dept should be populated by neocons seems a logical consequence of the political leadership assigned to it. ..."
    "... The story of the arrest in May 2013 of the Nusra Front sarin procurement team in Turkey, and the prosecutors' report completed in July 2013, was no longer a "bombshell" when reported by Hersh and raised by Turkish opposition MPs. A careful reading of Hersh's articles shows that this report was available to US Defence Intelligence agencies by summer 2013. Two other lines of evidence were available to US and UK intelligence agencies by summer 2013 that pointed to sarin production by the opposition. ..."
    "... but given the idiocy shown by repeated US governments, it still shows a scintilla of sentience on Obama's part ..."
    "... But in the world of those who wish to keep their jobs as good lap dogs to the Beltway conventional wisdom and not so accurate facts, ..."
    "... Victoria Nuland and Robert Kagan have a great mom-and-pop business going. From the State Department, she generates wars and from op-ed pages he demands Congress buy more weapons. There's a pay-off, too, as grateful military contractors kick in money to think tanks where other Kagans work, writes Robert Parry. ..."
    "... If you'll allow a bit of speculation, I would argue that this push for war was created because it creates opportunities to loot the US treasury. It is of course backed by the ideology of US supremacy and invincibility which allows these people push for war against Russia. ..."
    "... Its is pretty horrifying that professional diplomats could sign something so simpleminded, even within the context of neocon policy. ..."
    "... Victoria Nuland could not have instigated the neo-nazi coup in Ukraine without her superiors' knowledge and approval. I still wonder who told L. Paul Bremer that disbanding the Iraqi Army before disarming its soldiers was a good idea. When asked about it Bush acted as if he never actually heard about it. ..."
    "... Interesting War Nerd podcast#36 featuring American Conservative writer Kelley Vlahos. The basic claim is that the US security state which includes the State Dept., the MIC and the various think tanks and Universities surrounding Washington DC has produced dynastic clans which suck money from the defense budgets to fund lavish lifestyles. These 51 players are merely cheer leading for more war because there is simply not enough money in peace to keep the generational Ponzi going in luxury. ..."
    "... Seems Cheny and Rumsfeld were successful stocking the State Dept shelves with career neocon bureaucrats. ..."
    "... I've finally put my finger on why I will not vote for HRC. HRC is the embodiment of the notion that "ends justify the means". You cannot believe this and believe in the law … ethics … morality … at the same time. ..."
    "... There have been rumblings over the years that many of the coalitions in the current Syria conflict are the result of countries competing for a Natural Gas pipeline between the Middle East and Europe: ..."
    "... the old-guard professionals left, a new breed of aggressive neoconservatives was brought in, the likes of Paul Wolfowitz, Robert McFarlane, Robert Kagan and Abrams. After eight years of Reagan and four years of George H.W. Bush, the State Department was reshaped into a home for neocons[…] ..."
    "... As the 1990s wore on, the decimation of foreign policy experts in the mold of White and Derian left few on the Democratic side who had the courage or skills to challenge the deeply entrenched neocons. Many Clinton-era Democrats accommodated to the neocon dominance by reinventing themselves as "liberal interventionists," sharing the neocons' love for military force but justifying the killing on "humanitarian" grounds.[…] ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com
    By Vijay Prashad, professor of international studies at Trinity College in Hartford, Connecticut. He is the author of 18 books, including Arab Spring, Libyan Winter (AK Press, 2012), The Poorer Nations: A Possible History of the Global South (Verso, 2013) and the forthcoming The Death of a Nation and the Future of the Arab Revolution (University of California Press, 2016). Originally published at Alternet

    Close to half a million people are dead in Syria, as the country falls further and further into oblivion. Data on the suffering of the Syrians is bewildering, but most startling is that the Syrian life expectancy has declined by over 15 years since the civil war started. On the one side, ISIS holds territory, while on the other a fratricidal war pits the Assad government against a motley crew of rebels that run from small pockets of socialists to large swathes of Al Qaeda-backed extremists. No easy exit to this situation seems possible. Trust is in short supply. The peace process is weak. Brutality is the mood.

    What should America do? In the eyes of 51 U.S. diplomats who still haven't grasped the negative outcomes of the disastrous wars launched since 2002, the solution is to bomb the world into America's image. In an internal dissent cable addressed to Barack Obama, seasoned diplomats have urged airstrikes on the government of Bashar al-Assad in Syria.

    ... ... ..

    Why did the diplomats write their dissent now, and why was it leaked to the press? A former ambassador, with deep experience in the Middle East, told me it was an error to leak the cable.

    "Someone decided to leak it," he said, "for whatever irrational reason, an action as blatantly incorrect as it is most certainly politically and diplomatically counterproductive."

    pmr9 , June 18, 2016 at 6:27 am

    "Obama did not strike Syria in 2013 because he recognized, correctly, that the Russians, Chinese and most of the major countries of the Global South (including India) deeply opposed regime change"

    This version of events gives undeserved credit to Obama. Seymour Hersh has reported that Obama was forced to call off the attack on Syria on 30 August 2013 because General Dempsey informed him that the British defence lab at Porton Down had analysed environmental samples from the Ghouta chemical attack and had established that the sarin was "kitchen sarin" that could not have come from Syrian military stocks. Hersh reports that Dempsey effectively threatened Obama by warning him that he would testify to Congress (and would prime them to ask the question) on what he had told Obama. Hersh names Sir Peter Wall, then the head of the British army, as the officer who had briefed Dempsey on Porton Down's findings.

    On 29 August 2013 the UK Joint Intelligence Committee had reported to the Prime Minister, in a summary that was made available before the House of Commons debate on war with Syria, that there was "no evidence for an opposition CW capability" and "no plausible alternative to a regime attack scenario". It is clear from Hersh's report (and other sources that corroborate it) that this was misleading, and that officials in UK Defence Intelligence were aware, as were the Russians, that the Ghouta attack was a false flag using sarin produced by the opposition. To mislead the House of Commons is "contempt of Parliament" a crime against the British constitution that the House has powers to investigate and punish. Unfortunately no MP and no journalist has been prepared to ask the relevant questions.

    James Levy , June 18, 2016 at 6:53 am

    Excellent comment. Nevertheless, Obama deserves some credit, as the sad tale of General Shinseki and the invasion of Iraq shows. Obama had to listen to reason, and actually did. This is an incredibly low bar for praise, but given the idiocy shown by repeated US governments, it still shows a scintilla of sentience on Obama's part.

    Would such a warning stop Clinton? Would it stop Trump if his ego was tied up in such a venture? I doubt it.

    pretzelattack , June 18, 2016 at 7:36 am

    it's very plausible that clinton coordinated the leak, as the article suggests. save us, cthulhu.

    juliania , June 18, 2016 at 10:27 am

    I vividly recall how irate Obama was during that Rose Garden press conference when he backed down from bombing Syria. He was not pleased. Attempting to rewrite the historical record doesn't wash for anyone with a memory of the Kerry statement about chemical weapons and the alacrity with which Lavrov responded. Obama was boxed in, and he didn't like it one bit.

    sleepy , June 18, 2016 at 10:17 am

    If she had any involvement in this it certainly shows her contempt for Obama just a few days after he endorsed her and while the FBI investigation still plods on. Beyond that, I think the cable directly reflects the power of the Israeli lobby and the perceived benefits of a destroyed Syria.

    Lambert Strether , June 18, 2016 at 12:51 pm

    > What do we as American citizens make out of 51 diplomats proposing war?

    We make out that the national security apparatus taken as a system - and singling out the rare exceptions, who help the country by whistleblowing, leaking, and throwing bureaucratic obstacles in the way of the bad craziness - is corrupt to the bone. Also too insane. And that both characteristics are rewarded, and that individuals who display them tend to rise to the top.

    Kudos to President Obama, which I very rarely say, for not being deked by these guys.

    John Merryman , June 18, 2016 at 1:27 pm

    That the State Dept should be populated by neocons seems a logical consequence of the political leadership assigned to it.

    John Merryman , June 18, 2016 at 1:24 pm

    Wasn't Baal an Assyrian deity? One which drew a bad rap for being opposed to our own preferred God of the Israelites. In which case, not likely one to promote bombing Syria.

    pmr9 , June 18, 2016 at 2:27 pm

    The story of the arrest in May 2013 of the Nusra Front sarin procurement team in Turkey, and the prosecutors' report completed in July 2013, was no longer a "bombshell" when reported by Hersh and raised by Turkish opposition MPs. A careful reading of Hersh's articles shows that this report was available to US Defence Intelligence agencies by summer 2013. Two other lines of evidence were available to US and UK intelligence agencies by summer 2013 that pointed to sarin production by the opposition.

    1. a report to the UNSG from Mokhtar Lamani, the UN Special Representative in Damascus, that the Nusra Front was bringing nerve agent through the border from Turkey.

    2. analyses by Porton Down and its Russian counterpart of environmental samples from two incidents in March 2013, showing that the agent was "kitchen sarin".

    This has been discussed in some detail on Pat Lang's blog. By summer 2013 it was clear to US and UK defence intelligence staff that a false flag operation using sarin was being planned, and that their civilian counterparts were at least tacitly colluding with this. The analysis of samples from Ghouta and the use of the results to threaten Obama appears to have been a last-minute effort to block the use of this to start a war

    MikeNY , June 18, 2016 at 9:55 am

    but given the idiocy shown by repeated US governments, it still shows a scintilla of sentience on Obama's part

    +1

    "We had to destroy the village in order to save it". I marvel that there is anything still standing in Syraqistan; from the pictures I see, it looks like a gravel quarry. And now blowback has metastasized into domestic mass-shootings, sufficient to stain the Mississippi red; we wring our national hands in a Hamlet-like production of anguish and earnestness, and then change precisely NOTHING about how we conduct our affairs. We are insane.

    tegnost , June 18, 2016 at 1:07 pm

    Nor did hillary fight the nazi's, she has, however, viewed the atrocities for which she is largely responsible on tv and seemed quite pleased (wondering where the trump thing came from, I thought the discussion was about A.S.?). Nice of me to mention each of them once, gives a sense of balance or something. And your final sentence, you could put either name and corresponding gender identity there, both statements would be true. Googed robert kagan/Alexander Solzhenitsyn, and found this article that was interesting it's from 2014 so it's funny how events then rhyme with events currently. Never heard of the publication before but found it interesting, bonus points for featuring debate footage between richard dawkins and john lennox
    http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/07/08/the-people-vs-former-trotskysts-neo-bolsheviks-and-intellectual-whores
    I'd be interested in your views on this

    jawbone , June 18, 2016 at 2:53 pm

    Friday's PBS NewHour demonstrated in a segment with Judy Woodruff and Margaret Warner that the program is remarkably good at "catapulting the propaganda", in this case that Assad's government used chemical weapons to kill a thousand of his own people. Factually, most of the dead were supporters of the government, which, if Assad ordered such an attack, would have made it even more evil. And only by knowing the actual facts about the chemicals involved does it belie the initial US assertions that Assar was responsible.

    In due time, it was made known to those who read and retain information that, indeed, it was not an attack by the Syrian government, that the chemical signatures indicated "kitchen sarin," as pmr9's quote about Gen. Dempsey and results from the British defense lab at Porton Down showed.

    But in the world of those who wish to keep their jobs as good lap dogs to the Beltway conventional wisdom and not so accurate facts, Margaret Warner made a special point of saying that Obama had backed down on enforcing his promise to go after Assad if Syria used chemical weapons.

    After a video quote from Obama, Warner immediately repeated the now discounted charge.

    PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: A red line for us is, we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus.

    MARGARET WARNER: But after a regime chemical attack killed more than 1,000 Syrians in August 2013, the president didn't launch military strikes, nor step up arming the Syrian rebels. ….

    She's not the only public broadcast reporter to say exactly the same thing. It's now become one of those zombie lies: Nothing can keep them down.

    http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/state-department-officials-push-for-military-intervention-in-syria/

    The segment isn't very long, and the sad and worried expression on Warner's face at the end, where she talks about how sincere the signers of the letter are, is well worth looking at. And wondering about how they do it - how do they keep repeating lies?

    Probably because no one calls them on it, no one who matters. And everyone they talk to repeats the same untruths.

    Sheesh.

    tony , June 18, 2016 at 6:52 am

    Victoria Nuland and Robert Kagan have a great mom-and-pop business going. From the State Department, she generates wars and from op-ed pages he demands Congress buy more weapons. There's a pay-off, too, as grateful military contractors kick in money to think tanks where other Kagans work, writes Robert Parry. A Family Business of Perpetual War

    If you'll allow a bit of speculation, I would argue that this push for war was created because it creates opportunities to loot the US treasury. It is of course backed by the ideology of US supremacy and invincibility which allows these people push for war against Russia.

    PlutoniumKun , June 18, 2016 at 7:37 am

    Its an interesting article, but (not I assume the authors fault) doesn't actually answer the question. I'd always assumed that the diplomatic corps was significantly more pragmatic and anti-military intervention than other arms of the US foreign policy establishment, but this would seem evidence otherwise. Its is pretty horrifying that professional diplomats could sign something so simpleminded, even within the context of neocon policy. It doesn't say much for the quality of people involved. Perhaps its not just the military that has been degraded by a decade and a half of the war on terror, it may well be degrading the quality of people attracted to, and recruited by, all elements of the government establishment.

    The other explanation – and its not all that encouraging – is that this is simply an attempt by a certain level of diplomats to say 'hey, its not our fault'. But I would have thought they would have picked a different target for their complaints than Obama if that was the case. It does seem more likely that this is a deliberate attempt by the Samantha Power/Hilary wing of the establishment to stake a claim to the high ground.

    Procopius , June 18, 2016 at 8:16 am

    A lot of what I've seen over the last few years only makes sense if I believe the State Department is the last bastion of PNAC (Project for a New American Century). There is no acknowledged strategy in Syria, no end game, no way to tell when/if we've won, except regime change. The CIA and the Pentagon seem to be backing different factions who are hostile to each other and both seem to be providing weapons to ISIS (perhaps, but not certainly, unintentionally). Victoria Nuland could not have instigated the neo-nazi coup in Ukraine without her superiors' knowledge and approval. I still wonder who told L. Paul Bremer that disbanding the Iraqi Army before disarming its soldiers was a good idea. When asked about it Bush acted as if he never actually heard about it.

    art guerrilla , June 18, 2016 at 9:53 am

    "A former ambassador told me that many of the diplomats have great fealty to Hillary Clinton. Could they have leaked this cable to boost Clinton's narrative that she wanted a more robust attack on Damascus as early as 2012? Is this a campaign advertisement for Clinton, and a preparation for her likely Middle East policy when she takes power in 2017?"

    um, there is your answer right there, plutonium, all the rest is inside-inside baseball bullshit…

    besides essentially using their gummint positions in an unusual calculated political manner, i am sure all these knob-polishers are simply jockeying for positions in Empress Cliton the First's reign of Empire… pass the soma, please…

    DJG , June 18, 2016 at 10:50 am

    Yes: And the use of the world fealty astounds me. Fealty, as in feudal relations? As in clientelism? These people shouldn't be allowed near foreign policy at all. Fealty indeed.

    JTMcPhee , June 18, 2016 at 1:00 pm

    But they dedicate themselves and bend all their efforts toward getting themselves into these positions where they get to use the wealth and credulity of ordinary people to "advance," and I use that word quite advisedly given where it's taking all of us, their interests and friends and agendas…

    Not man of the rest of us, who might be interested in survival and sustainability and comity and all that, have the skills, schooling, connections and inclination to take part in the fokking Great Game, in all its parts and parameters…

    ex-PFC Chuck , June 18, 2016 at 2:56 pm

    Speaking of fealty, this from John Robb of Global Guerillas a few days ago.

    craazyboy , June 18, 2016 at 11:58 am

    There's a simple solution, however. Congress can cut the State Dept. budget to zero.

    There's an old saying, "If you stop paying them, they stop showing up for work."

    wellclosed , June 18, 2016 at 7:40 am

    It is a pathetic sign of our times that the narrative of the " Fabulous 51 " has any traction at all, when such perspective is so demonstrably flawed. Pat Lang (and too few others) has been chronicling this neocon "Borg" delusion for quite some time – not unlike efforts here with respect to orthodox neo-econs, libertards, etc. It was pretty easy to assume, as the Kennedy administration must have, the outcome of belligerent threats against the evil Ruskies when they were way beyond their capacities in Cuba. But to threaten a modern, very militarily capable state with Neocon Wargasm Regime Change – – is truly insane. They really do have WMDs – like the ones only we have ever used.

    tegnost , June 18, 2016 at 9:50 am

    Hey, cmon, we've get the f-35, think of the boost to gdp when the russkis shoot down one or ten of those overweight video game platforms! We need some more heros like pat tillman (not dissing tillman, but the people who tried to use his good name for their own bitter ends), you know, to garner support for our noble casus belli.

    twonine , June 18, 2016 at 7:42 am

    Per Ray McGovern (RT interview this AM), the 51 are bucking for a promotion with the prospective new boss.

    grizziz , June 18, 2016 at 9:00 am

    Interesting War Nerd podcast#36 featuring American Conservative writer Kelley Vlahos. The basic claim is that the US security state which includes the State Dept., the MIC and the various think tanks and Universities surrounding Washington DC has produced dynastic clans which suck money from the defense budgets to fund lavish lifestyles. These 51 players are merely cheer leading for more war because there is simply not enough money in peace to keep the generational Ponzi going in luxury.

    JTMcPhee , June 18, 2016 at 10:53 am

    Once upon a time, even some editor at the WaPo let a little corner of the seraglio tent get lifted:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/petraeus-scandal-puts-four-star-general-lifestyle-under-scrutiny/2012/11/17/33a14f48-3043-11e2-a30e-5ca76eeec857_story.html

    And of course you have a recent general officer who out-grabbed himself, selling very top secret Navy info on for money, prostitutes etc. to a guy nicknamed "Fat Leonard." Was allowed to plead to the lesser offense of lying to investigators. Bullshit, Just fokking bullshit. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/06/10/us-navy-admiral-pleads-guilty-to-lying-to-investigators-in-fat-leonard-bribery-case.html

    An enlisted guy in my unit in Vietnam got drunk, convinced himself he could fly an Army Sioux helicopter. Started it, got it up out of the revetment, then when setting back down caught the left skid on the 4 foot high revetment wall and crashed it. He was court-martialed, jailed at Long Binh, busted to permanent E-1, denied even a discharge, and may still be paying off the $125,000 the Army said that broke-down chopper was worth on that E-1 pay. How many tiers of "justice" in "the system?"

    Sam Adams , June 18, 2016 at 7:57 am

    Seems Cheny and Rumsfeld were successful stocking the State Dept shelves with career neocon bureaucrats.

    John , June 18, 2016 at 8:00 am

    Regardless of the motivations first of the message itself and secondly of its purpose, my first thought was that the Clinton camp directly or indirectly was behind it. But it is such a ham fisted ploy; you would have to be a political idiot, wouldn't you? Then I recalled the other boneheaded moves and dismissed it.

    ArkansasAngie , June 18, 2016 at 8:12 am

    I've finally put my finger on why I will not vote for HRC. HRC is the embodiment of the notion that "ends justify the means". You cannot believe this and believe in the law … ethics … morality … at the same time.

    HRC is no Gandhi.

    False flags
    Circumventing laws

    Slippery slope? HRC has her skis on and her goggles down.

    That is change I do not believe in.

    ex-PFC Chuck , June 18, 2016 at 8:18 am

    See also Pat Lang's post on this yesterday. As is the case with Naked Capitalism, the comment threads there are worth thorough reads as well as the posts. The consensus there seems to be that it demonstrates the success of the neo-con infiltration of the State Department, the signers' utter lack of experience in understanding of the military and warfare, and finally the results of the demise of DoS's area expertise in the Middle East.

    afisher , June 18, 2016 at 9:17 am

    I agree. I would add that Victoria Nuland has been in DC with week being grilled (/s) by Congress.

    JTMcPhee , June 18, 2016 at 10:55 am

    "Are you, or have you ever been, a member of the People for a New American Century or any other neoconservative group? I remind you that you are under oath to testify truthfully to Congress…"

    Carolinian , June 18, 2016 at 8:21 am

    Cutting to the chase.

    A former ambassador told me that many of the diplomats have great fealty to Hillary Clinton.

    Hugo Chavez joked that you would never have a coup in Washington because it has no US embassy. But it does have the State Department itself and it now appears they are using their partners in the press to help shape the coming regime change in our own country. How long before Vicky appears out on the Mall, giving out cookies?

    Ignim Brites , June 18, 2016 at 8:43 am

    Maybe the notion is that bombing the Assad military would provoke a military confrontation with Russia in Syria but more importantly in Eastern Europe. This will bolster the case for NATO which will face increased scrutiny in the upcoming POTUS campaign.

    Cry Shop , June 18, 2016 at 9:33 am

    Circulating the cable to get signatures is probably Clinton's attempt to push the Overton Window on Obama's dime, but leaking the cable was probably a jerk on Obama's chain for "leaking" their concerns to Carl Bernstein, which was covered on NC earlier this month.

    Top Democrat officials are TERRIFIED that Hillary campaign IS IN FREEFALL! – Carl Bernstein

    Mark John , June 18, 2016 at 9:48 am

    The leak is ridiculous and ham-handed, but that is nothing new.

    I hope we will all keep in mind what starts these wars and keeps them alive, as well as global warming and wealth inequality. THE PROFIT MOTIVE.

    Harold , June 18, 2016 at 9:49 am

    This whole election is like a military coup.

    redleg , June 18, 2016 at 11:13 am

    Corporate. The military would have some kind of plan for afterward. HRC and the Clintonian daleks see the election itself as the end game.

    NYPaul , June 18, 2016 at 9:52 am

    Questions, questions.

    Seems to me like C.I.C. Clinton just can't wait another 6 months to start blowing the world up. I, too, believe Hillary is behind this gang of 51's insubordinate pronouncement. It's got her signature, intemperance and incompetence, written all over it. And, where's the current S.O.S. Cat, Kerry, while the Foggy Bottom mice are stirring this very dangerous Vladimir cauldron? So, maybe Obama kinda wishes he waited a little longer with his demented endorsement, "I don't think there's ever been someone so qualified to hold this office.".

    Harold , June 18, 2016 at 10:19 am

    Is it true that State Dept. employees are investing in Ukrainian utilities?

    oho , June 18, 2016 at 10:38 am

    yesterday morning, the NYT headlined its site w/this story. then anti-war/anti-neocon comments and upvotes flooded.

    by lunch this story was buried well below the fold.

    Automated analytics downgrading an unread story? Or an editorial decision by someone "surprised" that even the NYT bobbleheads don't buy the Neo-Con lies?

    nothing but the truth , June 18, 2016 at 10:45 am

    these guys are sending a "hire me" signal to goldman sachs and other (((tribe))) operations.

    Chauncey Gardiner , June 18, 2016 at 11:00 am

    Since they disagree with this president's policies, the honorable course of action by these 51 State Department employees would be to resign. Absent that, I believe the president can require their resignations.

    steelhead23 , June 18, 2016 at 11:21 am

    Bingo. It strikes me as analogous to holding a seance at church for seasoned diplomats to lobby for war. The stumbling block is that the document itself followed existing protocol for dissent. Its release to the public is the fire-able offense. I wonder if Obama is investigating.

    Denis Drew , June 18, 2016 at 11:43 am

    So Al Qaeda takes over Syria; so what? Al Qaeda would not kill half a million Syrians! !!! Once Al Qaeda takes over a country it is on its way to becoming a large bureaucratic entity - more inherently conservative. What are they going to do, declare war on the US; throw their government behind crashing airliners? The specter of a million US boots on the ground would squash that. We do have a reputation for that sort of thing going back to Korea.

    My view of the world is the Rick Steves, Anthony Bourdain view - not their ideology (if any) but the Marshall McLuhan/medium-is-the-message view. It's just land and people - people like us.

    If Obama cared about the Iraqi people he would have/could have gotten our reverse Saddam, Maliki, under control and coerced him in the direction of greater inclusion of the Sunni into a new coalition - instead of terrorizing them and forcing them into the open arms of ISIS. Ditto for arming and training the vast majority of innocents. We could have identified most people (the vast majority) that's not hard, and worked with them.

    We could have tried to do both. But, as usual, Obama doesn't care.

    craazyboy , June 18, 2016 at 12:29 pm

    One real problem is they set up terrorist training camps, similar to the Taliban in Afgan. These are then organized terrorists they send out elsewhere in the world, even the USofA, if they can sneak past the TSA in airports.

    However, Saddam never did that and neither did Assad. So our State Dept's strategy seems to be give terrorists a training ground so they can export a trained and organized terrorist network around the world. And this is after we've had at least 15 years to observe how it works. Note that the reason we felt we had to go into into Afgan originally was that the Taliban was running terrorist training camps.

    Not to mention arming these "moderate Arabs" to overthrow Assad.

    jawbone , June 18, 2016 at 2:57 pm

    Another real problem is how Al Q tend to terrorize the captive populations, especially the females.

    craazyboy , June 18, 2016 at 3:03 pm

    I guess we could call that the worser of two evils?

    JimTan , June 18, 2016 at 11:57 am

    There have been rumblings over the years that many of the coalitions in the current Syria conflict are the result of countries competing for a Natural Gas pipeline between the Middle East and Europe:

    http://www.news.com.au/world/middle-east/is-the-fight-over-a-gas-pipeline-fuelling-the-worlds-bloodiest-conflict/news-story/74efcba9554c10bd35e280b63a9afb74

    I genuinely hope that our current state of foreign relations is not filled with actors following a 'Realist' school of thought:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realism_(international_relations)

    Ultimately who knows, but this might be one motivation behind 51 diplomats calling for the bombing of Syria.

    JimTan , June 18, 2016 at 12:27 pm

    International relations following Machiavelli and Hobbes is a very bad thing.

    Carolinian , June 18, 2016 at 12:03 pm

    Robert Parry – with sources inside the State Dept. – offers up some insight on this story

    But the descent of the U.S. State Department into little more than well-dressed, well-spoken but thuggish enforcers of U.S. hegemony began with the Reagan administration. President Ronald Reagan and his team possessed a pathological hatred of Central American social movements seeking freedom from oppressive oligarchies and their brutal security forces.[…]

    As the old-guard professionals left, a new breed of aggressive neoconservatives was brought in, the likes of Paul Wolfowitz, Robert McFarlane, Robert Kagan and Abrams. After eight years of Reagan and four years of George H.W. Bush, the State Department was reshaped into a home for neocons[…]

    As the 1990s wore on, the decimation of foreign policy experts in the mold of White and Derian left few on the Democratic side who had the courage or skills to challenge the deeply entrenched neocons. Many Clinton-era Democrats accommodated to the neocon dominance by reinventing themselves as "liberal interventionists," sharing the neocons' love for military force but justifying the killing on "humanitarian" grounds.[…]

    when Obama entered the White House, he faced a difficult challenge. The State Department needed a thorough purging of the neocons and the liberal hawks, but there were few Democratic foreign policy experts who hadn't sold out to the neocons. An entire generation of Democratic policy-makers had been raised in the world of neocon-dominated conferences, meetings, op-eds and think tanks, where tough talk made you sound good while talk of traditional diplomacy made you sound soft.

    More here–all good.

    https://consortiumnews.com/2016/06/17/the-state-departments-collective-madness/

    Personally I'd say "blame it on Reagan" is a good all purpose explanation for current ills. This response also takes in the Dems since they so often knuckled under to the Gipper.

    Gaylord , June 18, 2016 at 12:13 pm

    The MIC must be pushing for more gravy to buoy the fake economy. This Empire based on greed, exploitation and chaos will take the whole of life down with itself.

    oh , June 18, 2016 at 1:25 pm

    I wonder if this memo is really meant to the legacy of the current administration by showing how it resisted the efforts of the hawks?

    Sluggeaux , June 18, 2016 at 1:33 pm

    All this foreign policy discussion is a bit over my head, but couldn't the leaked "dissent" have come from the White House ?

    Isn't it most likely that Obama's concern for his "legacy" is going to make him want to out HRC and her grossly incompetent sycophants and cronies at State as the Bomb-Baby-Bomb crowd who goaded him to the brink of war with Russia over Syria based on faulty false-flag intelligence?

    [Jun 17, 2016] Know-Nothing Diplomats Prepare For Hillarys War On Syria

    Looks like State Department became a paradise for neocons. Protest of diplomats is typical trick used by State Departement during color revolution. That actually means this "color revolution" trick came to the USA. Our presidents come and go, Republican or Democrat, but our Strangeloves remain permanent employees of State Department. .
    Notable quotes:
    "... The State Department and the CIA's 'Plan C' (or are they on 'Plan D' yet?) is an independent Syrian Kurdistan. ..."
    "... A desperate attempt to save the rebels, who now hate them and completely understand how they have been thrown under the bus by the State Department neocons. I really don't think the rebels will be the least bit impressed by the phony theatrics of a internal memo by mid-level bureaucrats. ..."
    "... The Pentagram is in a bit of a different pickle. They have to do something to stop the Wahhabi head-choppers, but its a bit like herding cats. The best they've come up with is ginning up the SDF to take/hold ISIS territory. But they can't arm the Kurds or Arab members with any REAL weapons because that would anger Turkey. So they give them a bunch of eastern European AKs and a few pickup trucks with anti-aircraft guns, promise air support and toss in a few SF guys ..."
    "... The MSM (as CIA lapdogs are paid to do) constantly try to reinforce the message that the independent YPG/YPJ militias are somehow 'the PYD's army'. Nothing is further from the truth - it's all MSM spin to create the impression that the Syrian Kurds uniformly desire the usurped PYD vision of an independent Kurdistan. In reality, the U.S. State Department neocons and the CIA are the ones that want an independent Syrian Kurdistan for their own scheming (and to deny Assad the land/water/oil). The MSM is constantly on message with this to set the narrative to the American public for Syrian partition - most people have no clue. ..."
    "... For what it's worth, Assad is keenly aware of his history with the Kurds. Even by Kurdish media reports , he is willing to work with the Syrian Kurds as part of a unified Syrian state. He does not object to Kurdish rights or autonomy, just the U.S. meddling to goad the PYD into creating a separate Kurdish state. ..."
    "... The whole Syria nightmare was planned from the US Embassy in Damascus in 2006 because Assad was so broadly popular in the country and "the region." Can't have that so a strategy was drummed up: http://www.globalresearch.ca/syria-and-conspiracy-theories-it-is-a-conspiracy/29596 ..."
    "... I'm sure the US will throw the Syrian Kurds "under the bus" when their usefulness is finished. I'm sure also that a lot of Syrian Kurds know this, and are hedging their bets. ..."
    "... http://www.globalresearch.ca/france-building-military-bases-in-syria-report/5531259 "The use of proxy forces to destroy the secular government of Syria is now starting to give way to stealth methods of direct ground deployment of Western Special Forces and ground troops under the guise of assistance and coordination with "moderate" terrorists. "With a wide variety of Western-backed terrorist groups ranging from "extremist" terrorists like ISIS, al-Qaeda, and al-Nusra to the "moderate" terrorists of the FSA and the loose collection of terrorists, Kurds, and Arabs like the SDF, the West has a kaleidoscope of proxy forces on the ground already. ..."
    "... So Russian peace talks with US evil empire in Syria were a disaster, which makes Putin look like an idiot, as well as the supporters of this idiocy. As well as Russian invitations for the US to join it in Syria makes it one of the most stupidest invitations ever. ..."
    "... A preview on America's future strategies? http://www.cnas.org/sites/default/files/publications-pdf/CNASReport-EAP-FINAL.pdf ..."
    "... The Iranians have been warring with Kurds by the border with Turkey. Neither the Turks nor the Iranians - nor the Syrians, but they do need the Kurds now - want a Kurdistan. The Kurds must know by now - must have been betrayed enough by now - to know that the US will tell them anything, promise them anything, and deliver nothing but betrayal in the end. ..."
    "... As regards the State Department, the Pentagon, the US government ... what's required is a neo-con purge, top to bottom. They are all working against American interests and against the American people. and have been for the past two decades. The likelihood of such a purge is about zero. Neither Trump nor Hillary has the will or the backbone to stand up to anyone. Trump's all mouth and looking out for number one, and Hillary's plugged in to the money-mosaic as well. Obama's getting ready to cash in his chips. ..."
    "... I am amazed at your unflagging obsession with holding Putin responsible for the US/UK/EU/NATO/GCC destruction of Syria. You've set him up as your omnipotent god and he's failed you, somehow. Putin, Rusia, is not responsible for the death, devastation, and destruction of Iraq, Syria, Libya or the rest of the middle east or north africa. You're throwing your stones at the wrong guy, at the only guy who's done anything at all to help the Syrians and to forestall the monstrous neo-con plan. ..."
    "... Israeli bombed military base in Homs province with impunity from S400 http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.723701 ..."
    "... There is more about Russian de-facto acquiescence for Syrian partition and pivot to Israel: STRANGE DAYS: Did Israelis Pivoted to Russia? Or the other way around. https://syrianwarupdate.wordpress.com/ ..."
    "... On the bright side, maybe the 50 signatures are just trying to get noticed by the Clinton transition crew. ..."
    "... The document you posted is a typical wet dream written by utterly incompetent neocons (Kagan's and Zoellik names are a tell), people who can not and must not be allowed to operate with serious strategic and operational categories in any "advisory" role. ..."
    "... i read about 30 of 160 or so comments on this article at NYT. given who the audience of that shit rag is & that comments are vetted, overwhelmingly commenters stated increased military involvement is retarded. ..."
    "... How can Russia, which dwarfs Israel in every meaningful category -- from economy to military -- and who does remember her history well can "pivot" to largely regional player -- I don't know. Russian "neocons" are a dramatically different breed than US ones, for starters they are much more educated and, actually, support Assad. Israel's pivot to Russia in some sense is inevitable, albeit it could be fairly protracted, with Russia being observed as honest broker. They are not completely stupid in Israel and are very aware of real situation in American politics, economy and military. ..."
    "... I note that the 'moderate' Hillary Clinton is a blood-soaked queen of chaos, who if elected is certain to embroil us in pointless wars and spread death and devastation across even more of the world. ..."
    "... Donald Trump is admittedly a gamble, but depute his over-the-top stage persona, his track record is of actually getting along with people and brokering stable working relationships. ..."
    "... At this point I wish I could vote for Richard Nixon (!), but we have the choice that we have... ..."
    "... This piece out of the NYT is pure propaganda. Period. Here's the big clue - where's the memo? It's not embedded in the article. It can't be found anywhere on the web. It's b/c it doesn't exist. The reader is 'TOLD' by a third party journalist few follow who writes for a MIC/Political/Policy corporate mouthpiece. ..."
    "... We see the point of all the saber-rattling by NATO on Russia's borders: to get Putin tied up in a diversionary direct threat to Russia, thereby mitigating or eliminating his efforts in behalf of Assad. And you know what? Americans on the street couldn't care one way or the other what Obama or CIA or DoS does or says about Syria. 280,000 dead, millions displaced and Americans are more concerned by a factor of 1000 about 4 dozen gays in Orlando. ..."
    "... Saudi Arabia rejoining Turkey: http://en.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13950326000441 ..."
    "... These 51 useful idiots are IMO auditioning for the Clinton team while also providing cover for the neo-cons above them like Nuland, Powers, etc. And directionless Kerry says he'll rush home to confer with these idiots rather than dismissing them out of hand. Kerry could only be useful to anyone if Lavrov was in the room with him at all times to keep him in line -- otherwise he reverts to his normal mindless servant of US empire viewpoint, which is to follow whichever way the winds of power are blowing through Washington, DC. ..."
    "... Hillary is the neocon's neocon. Pravy Sektor's honorary storm trooper Vicky Nuland is a Hillary protege. NYT has been positioning its readers to embrace Kerry's Plan B for the last month-plus. ..."
    "... How many of these diplomats were bribed by Saudi Arabia? ..."
    "... This clown Kagan is also the husband of the infamous Victoria Nuland who somehow, defying all logic, still has her job post imbroglio that is the Ukraine today. Hell, she's probably being hailed for that and is an inspiration for lowly State employees. ..."
    "... Thank you Victoria, for giving Crimea back to the Russian Federation where it belongs. ..."
    "... There are almost exactly 7 months until either Trump or Clinton takes office (presuming that the elites manage to completely control any bad news prior to the Dem nominating convention in late July; if the email dam breaks after that I have no idea what the Dem elites will do, but I figure they won't choose the obviously best candidate against Trump, Bernie). ..."
    "... might the West actually directly take on Russia/Syrian government forces? Claiming, of course, some version of R2P ..."
    "... State Department Diplomats who have captained failure after failure? If these people were Russian or Chinese they would have been executed for their serial failures in the ME and Afghanistan. The main problem with being 'exceptional' is that the 'exceptional' ones never make a mistake. "War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength" ..."
    "... So I was kind of wondering what psychopathic qualities the U.S. War... er, State Department is looking for in potential parasitic career bureaucrats, and came across this self-promotion page on their site. ..."
    "... Counterpunch had a great article: http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/06/17/the-case-for-not-voting-in-defense-of-the-lazy-ungrateful-and-uniformed/ ..."
    "... And though the content of the review by Army Gen. John W. Nicholson is secret, the U.S. strategy in Afghanistan received a major incentive this month when President Obama decided to expand America's involvement with more airstrikes against insurgents, giving the U.S. military wider latitude to support Afghan forces, both in the air and on the ground." ..."
    "... No respect for R2P warriors at the State Department, nor for HRC, Susan Rice and Samantha Power. ..."
    "... For Israel to bomb the Syrian military right under the nose of Russian s-400s? Russia, supposedly so dedicated to defending sovereignty, smiles and yawns benignly? A dirty deal has been made... ..."
    "... Saudi Arabia desperately needs battlefield success, or there will be a prince, I mean price, to pay http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/u-s-officials-fear-saudi-collapse-if-new-prince-fails-n593996 ..."
    "... "Earlier this week as America was trying to make sense of the deadliest case of Islamic terrorism on US soil since 9/11, I wrote a detailed article here at Breitbart News that laid out the clear factual case about Hillary Clinton's top assistant Huma Abedin. I showed how she has deep, clear, and inarguable connections to a Saudi Arabian official named Abdul Omar Naseef, a powerful Kingdom insider who has helped lead a group called the Muslim World League. The Muslim World League is the huge "charity" whose goal is to spread Islam throughout the world and which has been connected to terror groups like Al Qaeda. ..."
    "... What is Huma's relationship with a Saudi Arabian official named Abdullah Omar Naseef? ..."
    "... Was he the founder of a Saudi charity called the Rabita Trust? ..."
    "... Right after 9/11, was the Rabita Trust put on a list by the U.S. government of groups that were funding terrorism? ..."
    "... the State Department official obviously has an agenda by providing it to the NYT. The NYT has its own agenda filled as well by prominently posting the article on the top of the front page . ..."
    "... One senior official said that the test for whether these proposals for more aggressive action are given high-level consideration will be whether they "fall in line with our contention that there is no military solution to the conflict in Syria." ..."
    "... It's important for Russia to ensure that the remains of the first "Israeli" jet it shoots down falls to earth inside Syria. If you've seen a story about the IAF doing something courageous it's bullshit. ..."
    "... Wonder how many of these 51 war mongers were appointed by Hillary. ..."
    "... The EU-Turkey deal's financial package includes one billion euros in humanitarian aid. There are undoubtedly needs in Turkey, a country which currently hosts close to three million Syrian refugees, but this aid has been negotiated as a reward for border control promises, rather than being based solely on needs. This instrumentalisation of humanitarian aid is unacceptable. ..."
    "... kreepy kerry is "running out of patience" since his most desired regime change isn't happening fast enough. ..."
    "... The difference between Hillary and ISIS: the latter "takes" the head of enemies, Hillary "gives" head to donors. Forgive the graphic. ..."
    "... 50 diplomats petition president for war. Was that written by Orwell? ..."
    "... Allow me to further my argument against American Exceptionalism. It is not merely the fact that the U.S. is far from exceptional. From education to infant mortality, the U.S. is woefully behind much of the world. ..."
    "... So Hillary, the bloodthirsty Goddess of War, is longing for a second Libya, i.e., a Syria smashed to smithereens, in ashes and ruins, ruled by a chaotic bunch of mad Takfiri extremists, at war all against all. ..."
    "... The FBI is stonewalling, keeping the contents of Mateen's 911 call unavailable - though it's part of the public record - presumably because it undermines the "ISIS did it" meme poured over the Orlando mass murder. Apparently Mateen may have mentioned ISIS not quite in the same light as has been portrayed. ..."
    "... Now the NYTimes/WSJ are doing the same thing with the 50 dancing diplomats. Releasing what they want us to know and redacting what we want to know : the names of those 50 dancing diplomats. ..."
    "... I suppose it comes under the CIA's blanket excuse for secrecy? "Methods and means", or whatever their boilerplate. ..."
    "... No doubt the State Department dwarves were ginned up by "Cookies" Nuland and Count Kagan by visions of "x memorandum" of 1946 immortality by attacking the resistance to an unipolar hegemony. Mixing it up in Syria with the Russian presence seems civilization limiting at the outer limits of challenge/ response in a military confrontation. ..."
    Moon of Alabama

    There are at least 51 stupid or dishonest "diplomats" working in the U.S. State Department. Also - Mark Lander is a stupid or dishonest NYT writer. The result is this piece: Dozens of U.S. Diplomats, in Memo, Urge Strikes Against Syria's Assad

    WASHINGTON - More than 50 State Department diplomats have signed an internal memo sharply critical of the Obama administration's policy in Syria, urging the United States to carry out military strikes against the government of President Bashar al-Assad to stop its persistent violations of a cease-fire in the country's five-year-old civil war.

    Note that it was Ahrar al Sham, Jabhat al-Nusra and other U.S. paid and supported "moderates" who on April 9 broke the ceasefire in Syria by attacking government troops south of Aleppo. They have since continuously bombarded the government held parts of Aleppo which house over 1.5 million civilians with improvised artillery.

    Back to the piece:

    The memo, a draft of which was provided to The New York Times by a State Department official , says American policy has been "overwhelmed" by the unrelenting violence in Syria. It calls for "a judicious use of stand-off and air weapons, which would undergird and drive a more focused and hard-nosed U.S.-led diplomatic process."
    ...
    The names on the memo are almost all midlevel officials - many of them career diplomats - who have been involved in the administration's Syria policy over the last five years, at home or abroad. They range from a Syria desk officer in the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs to a former deputy to the American ambassador in Damascus.

    While there are no widely recognized names, higher-level State Department officials are known to share their concerns. Mr. Kerry himself has pushed for stronger American action against Syria, in part to force a diplomatic solution on Mr. Assad.

    ...

    The State Department officials insisted in their memo that they were not "advocating for a slippery slope that ends in a military confrontation with Russia," but rather a credible threat of military action to keep Mr. Assad in line.

    These State Department loons have their ass covered by Secretary of State Kerry. Otherwise they would (and should) be fired for obvious ignorance. What "judicious" military threat against Russian S-400 air defense in Syria is credible? Nukes on Moscow (and New York)?

    In the memo, the State Department officials argued that military action against Mr. Assad would help the fight against the Islamic State because it would bolster moderate Sunnis , who are necessary allies against the group, also known as ISIS or ISIL.

    Would these "diplomats" be able to name even one group of "moderate Sunnis" in Syria that is not on the side of the Syrian government? Are Ahrar al-Sahm and the other U.S. supported groups, who recently killed 50 civilians out of purely sectarian motives when they stormed the town of Zara, such "moderate Sunnis"?

    These 50 State Department non-diplomats, and the stinking fish head above them, have obviously failed in their duty:

    • "Diplomats" urging military action do nothing but confirm that they do not know their job which is diplomacy, not bombing. They failed.
    • These "diplomats" do not know or do not want to follow international law. On what legal basis would the U.S. bomb the Syrian government and its people? They do not name any. There is none.
    • To what purpose would the Syrian government and the millions of its followers be bombed? Who but al-Qaeda would follow if the Assad-led government falls? The "diplomats" ignore that obvious question.

    The NYT writer of the piece on the memo demonstrates that he is just as stupid or dishonest as the State Department dupes by adding this paragraph:

    [T]he memo mainly confirms what has been clear for some time: The State Department's rank and file have chafed at the White House's refusal to be drawn into the conflict in Syria .

    How is spending over $1 billion a year to hire, train, arm and support "moderate rebels" against the Syrian government consistent with the claim of a U.S. "refusal to be drawn into the conflict"?

    It is obvious and widely documented that the U.S. has been fueling the conflict from the very beginning throughout five years and continues up to today to deliver thousands of tons of weapons to the "moderate rebels".

    All the above, the "diplomats" letter and the NYT writer lying, is in preparation of an open U.S. war on Syria under a possible president Hillary Clinton. (Jo Cox, the "humanitarian" British MP who was murdered yesterday by some neo-nazi, spoke in support of such a crime.)

    The U.S. military continues to reject an escalation against the Syrian government. Its reasonable question "what follows after Assad" has never been seriously answered by the war supporters in the CIA and the State Department.

    Unexpected support of the U.S. military's position now seems to come from the Turkish side. The Erdogan regime finally acknowledges that a Syria under Assad is more convenient to it than a Kurdish state in north-Syria which the U.S. is currently helping to establish:

    "Assad is, at the end of the day, a killer. He is torturing his own people. We're not going to change our stance on that," a senior official from the ruling AK Party told Reuters, requesting anonymity so as to speak more freely.

    "But he does not support Kurdish autonomy. We may not like each other, but on that we're backing the same policy ," he said.

    Ankara fears that territorial gains by Kurdish YPG fighters in northern Syria will fuel an insurgency by the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), which has waged an armed struggle in Turkey's southeast for three decades.

    The Turks have suddenly removed their support for their "Turkmen" proxies fighting the Syrian government in Latakia in north west Syria. Over the last few days the "Turkmen" retreated and the Syrian army advanced . It may soon reach the Turkish border. Should the Latakia front calm down the Syrian army will be able to move several thousand troops from Latakia towards other critical sectors. The Turkish government, under the new Prime Minister Binali Yildirim, is now also sending peace signals towards Russia.

    The situation in Syria could rapidly change in favor of the Syrian government should Turkey change its bifurcating policies and continue these moves. Without their Turkish bases and support the "moderate rebels" would soon be out of supplies and would lack the ability to continue their fighting. The Russians and their allies should further emphasize the "Kurdish threat" to advance this Turkish change of mind.

    The race to preempt a Hillary administration war on Syria, which the "diplomats" memo prepares for, is now on. May the not-warmongering side win.

    Hoarsewhisperer | Jun 17, 2016 1:43:36 AM | 1
    This is the Yankees trying to pretend that they're still exceptionally invincible, in order to conceal the fact that they never were. One only need look at all the tentative tiptoeing around China & Russia to see that they're trying to convince themselves that Russia and China are run by people as loony and disconnected as the self-seducers in charge of AmeriKKKan Foreign Policy.

    SmoothieX got it 100% right in the previous thread..

    Roitan | Jun 17, 2016 2:22:17 AM | 2
    "The names on the memo are almost all medeival offiCIAls ..."

    There, fixed it for you. Enjoying the calm before the Goldman Sturm, the takeover of the US Executive in 2017 for the Final Solution on liberating the Fifth Quintile's Last Free Life Savings, and plunging the globe into a New Dark Ages: Trump or Clinton, allatime same-same.

    PavewayIV | Jun 17, 2016 2:36:19 AM | 3
    The State Department and the CIA's 'Plan C' (or are they on 'Plan D' yet?) is an independent Syrian Kurdistan.

    The FSA Sunnistan plan has been going down the tubes for months. With the imminent fall of the last few FSA strongholds, the State Department has gone berserk with their latest standoff bombing memo 'leak' nonsense. A desperate attempt to save the rebels, who now hate them and completely understand how they have been thrown under the bus by the State Department neocons. I really don't think the rebels will be the least bit impressed by the phony theatrics of a internal memo by mid-level bureaucrats.

    The Pentagram is in a bit of a different pickle. They have to do something to stop the Wahhabi head-choppers, but its a bit like herding cats. The best they've come up with is ginning up the SDF to take/hold ISIS territory. But they can't arm the Kurds or Arab members with any REAL weapons because that would anger Turkey. So they give them a bunch of eastern European AKs and a few pickup trucks with anti-aircraft guns, promise air support and toss in a few SF guys. This almost works, but not completely. For what it's worth, I don't think the Pentagram cares at all about an independent Syrian Kurdistan, unifying the cantons or who gets what land/resources, as long as it's taken from ISIS. When ISIS is wiped out, the SDF will cease to exist and the SF guys will leave. The SDF and especially the YPG/YPJ will NOT ever be incented to provoke or go to war with Assad after ISIS is gone. That's a problem for the State Department and CIA

    The neocon State Department and CIA - normally at odds with the Pentagon's increasing reluctance to get involved at all - are taking this opportunity to agitate for an independent Kurdistan. This is done by funding the Kurdish PYD political party which purports to speak for all Kurds. The State Department and CIA also fund the PYD's growing Asayish thug secret police 'enforcers'. The PYD took control of Rojava by throwing out all the other political parties last year and crowning itself the King of all Syrian Kurds. But most Kurds don't trust the PYD, figuring that either Assad or the U.S. is really pulling the strings. The Kurds agree with the original PYD ideology, but not its current land/resource-grabbing frenzy NOR the kind of independent Kurdistan the PYD is suggesting. They want more rights and control of their affairs, but they do not want an actual or de facto independent Syrian Kurdistan.

    The MSM (as CIA lapdogs are paid to do) constantly try to reinforce the message that the independent YPG/YPJ militias are somehow 'the PYD's army'. Nothing is further from the truth - it's all MSM spin to create the impression that the Syrian Kurds uniformly desire the usurped PYD vision of an independent Kurdistan. In reality, the U.S. State Department neocons and the CIA are the ones that want an independent Syrian Kurdistan for their own scheming (and to deny Assad the land/water/oil). The MSM is constantly on message with this to set the narrative to the American public for Syrian partition - most people have no clue.

    For what it's worth, Assad is keenly aware of his history with the Kurds. Even by Kurdish media reports , he is willing to work with the Syrian Kurds as part of a unified Syrian state. He does not object to Kurdish rights or autonomy, just the U.S. meddling to goad the PYD into creating a separate Kurdish state. The U.S. State Department does NOT want Rojava to be part of Syria or the Syrian State and spins the Assad/Kurd relation as antagonistic in the MSM. This is the 'Plan C' Syrian partition scheme. Hopefully, the average Kurd can see through their scheming and will not follow the dictates of a usurped PYD to go to war with Syria for their independence. They would be better off dumping and outlawing the PYD completely and working with the new Syrian government on the future AFTER ISIS (and hopefully without any U.S. State Department and CIA).

    okie farmer | Jun 17, 2016 3:45:06 AM | 4

    Finally!
    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-strike-idUSKCN0Z306L
    Russia strikes U.S.-backed rebels in Syria: U.S. official

    Felicity | Jun 17, 2016 3:55:04 AM | 5
    The whole Syria nightmare was planned from the US Embassy in Damascus in 2006 because Assad was so broadly popular in the country and "the region." Can't have that so a strategy was drummed up: http://www.globalresearch.ca/syria-and-conspiracy-theories-it-is-a-conspiracy/29596

    Your assessment above is a supremely eloquent assessment and a scream for sanity to return. Thank you so very much for your always illuminating writings.

    Laguerre | Jun 17, 2016 5:17:21 AM | 7
    re 3 Paveway.

    I think you're quite right. That corresponds with what I've thought for some time. I'm sure the US will throw the Syrian Kurds "under the bus" when their usefulness is finished. I'm sure also that a lot of Syrian Kurds know this, and are hedging their bets.

    Penelope | Jun 17, 2016 5:20:17 AM | 8
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/france-building-military-bases-in-syria-report/5531259 "The use of proxy forces to destroy the secular government of Syria is now starting to give way to stealth methods of direct ground deployment of Western Special Forces and ground troops under the guise of assistance and coordination with "moderate" terrorists. "With a wide variety of Western-backed terrorist groups ranging from "extremist" terrorists like ISIS, al-Qaeda, and al-Nusra to the "moderate" terrorists of the FSA and the loose collection of terrorists, Kurds, and Arabs like the SDF, the West has a kaleidoscope of proxy forces on the ground already.

    "Yet, even as Syria's military clashes with the West's proxies, the United States, Britain, and France have begun moving in Special Forces soldiers to assist in the mission of destroying the Syrian government, a mission that Israeli, Jordanian, and Turkish officers have joined in as well. That is, of course, despite the fact that Russian Special Forces are on the ground fighting on the side of the Syrian military.

    "Likewise, both the United States and Russia are busy building military bases in the northern regions of Syria to use as staging grounds for new operations."

    tom | Jun 17, 2016 5:31:31 AM | 9
    So Russian peace talks with US evil empire in Syria were a disaster, which makes Putin look like an idiot, as well as the supporters of this idiocy. As well as Russian invitations for the US to join it in Syria makes it one of the most stupidest invitations ever.

    Since B is not mentioning it, he might as well not mention that the French terrorist invaders along with the already US terrorists, and possibly German invaders will be occupying parts of Syria.

    Oh, but that's alright because Putin invited the evil minions of the Us empire into Syria, you know, because the bad PR opportunity is a much better outcome then world War three.

    Nicola | Jun 17, 2016 5:37:58 AM | 10
    A preview on America's future strategies? http://www.cnas.org/sites/default/files/publications-pdf/CNASReport-EAP-FINAL.pdf
    jfl | Jun 17, 2016 5:47:50 AM | 11
    The Iranians have been warring with Kurds by the border with Turkey. Neither the Turks nor the Iranians - nor the Syrians, but they do need the Kurds now - want a Kurdistan. The Kurds must know by now - must have been betrayed enough by now - to know that the US will tell them anything, promise them anything, and deliver nothing but betrayal in the end.

    As regards the State Department, the Pentagon, the US government ... what's required is a neo-con purge, top to bottom. They are all working against American interests and against the American people. and have been for the past two decades. The likelihood of such a purge is about zero. Neither Trump nor Hillary has the will or the backbone to stand up to anyone. Trump's all mouth and looking out for number one, and Hillary's plugged in to the money-mosaic as well. Obama's getting ready to cash in his chips.

    It looks to be more of the same, until they really do go after Russia, when it will be all over for all of us. I can't imagine that they really believe they can get away with this, but this bunch is all 'mid-level', 'just following orders', it won't be 'their fault' and that's the level they're working at. The people calling the tune think they can play the real world as they do their fake financial world, making up new rules as they go along, as they redefine success after each of their serial failures.

    Talk about boiled frogs. How in the hell have we let it get this far?

    jfl | Jun 17, 2016 6:00:26 AM | 12
    @9 Tom

    I am amazed at your unflagging obsession with holding Putin responsible for the US/UK/EU/NATO/GCC destruction of Syria. You've set him up as your omnipotent god and he's failed you, somehow. Putin, Rusia, is not responsible for the death, devastation, and destruction of Iraq, Syria, Libya or the rest of the middle east or north africa. You're throwing your stones at the wrong guy, at the only guy who's done anything at all to help the Syrians and to forestall the monstrous neo-con plan. This letter may be, as b says, a measure of theneo-cons' fear that it will all be over for 'their guys' in Syria by 21 January. If that were to come to pass, Vladimir Putin will have had a big hand in it.

    harrylaw | Jun 17, 2016 7:40:46 AM | 13
    Nicola @10 from your link 'Extending American power' I had to laugh at this... 4. "All of which provides the basis for our strong belief
    that the United States still has the military, economic,
    and political power to play the leading role in pro
    -tecting a stable rules-based international order". 'Rules based',ha, the US is the leading regime change state, acting always contrary to International law to benefit its hegemonic ambitions. All five veto wielding powers and their friends are above International law for all time. Thankfully, Russia and China cannot be threatened militarily and will confront the monstrous US designs in Syria, once the head choppers are defeated the victors should move against the real source of terrorism in the region, Saudi Arabia and the various GCC satraps. b's article above is excellent and is echoed in this piece in Antiwar.com http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2016/06/16/something-going-worse-thought/
    Kalen | Jun 17, 2016 8:50:40 AM | 14
    There are other worrying development in Syroi a namely changing of Riusssian attitude to Assaad. First Lavrov said that Russia is not Syrian government ally, they just fight terrorists together. An obvious nonsense.

    And now this.

    Israel, following several similar air raids in previous months just bombed SAA installation in Homs province, in the middle of Syria just 45 second flight of S400 rockets located in latakia, while Netanyahu was smiling with Putin in Moscow.

    Israeli bombed military base in Homs province with impunity from S400 http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.723701

    Can you explain WTF? All of that while IDF artillery provides cover for ANF commanded by formed ISIL commander in Golan Heights foothills,

    There is more about Russian de-facto acquiescence for Syrian partition and pivot to Israel: STRANGE DAYS: Did Israelis Pivoted to Russia? Or the other way around. https://syrianwarupdate.wordpress.com/

    Michael | Jun 17, 2016 9:14:54 AM | 15
    On the bright side, maybe the 50 signatures are just trying to get noticed by the Clinton transition crew.
    Yul | Jun 17, 2016 9:17:33 AM | 16
    @ b Come on, U.S. military have a role to play in helping to export American values . Even with threats, Assad told Powell to "get lost". This interview says a lot about the US of A: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2007/04/a-conversation-with-colin-powell/305873/
    okie farmer | Jun 17, 2016 9:52:11 AM | 18
    15,000 FSOs, 51 signed the doc.
    SmoothieX12 | Jun 17, 2016 10:09:54 AM | 20
    @10
    A preview on America's future strategies?

    This is not preview nor is it a strategy, since strategies are based on more or less professional and realistic, I may add, assessments of the outside world. I do not have any recollection of any serious US doctrinal (policy or military wise) document in the last 20 years written from the position of comprehensive situational awareness--this is a non existent condition among most of US current "power elites". The document you posted is a typical wet dream written by utterly incompetent neocons (Kagan's and Zoellik names are a tell), people who can not and must not be allowed to operate with serious strategic and operational categories in any "advisory" role. They simply have no qualifications for that and are nothing more than a bunch of ideologues and propagandists from Ivy League humanities degree mill. Back to "preview"--it is a dominant ideology of "exceptionalism" which afflicted US "elites" today, this document is just another iteration of this ideology.

    jason | Jun 17, 2016 10:11:33 AM | 21
    i read about 30 of 160 or so comments on this article at NYT. given who the audience of that shit rag is & that comments are vetted, overwhelmingly commenters stated increased military involvement is retarded. Of course, many of those speak from ignorance of what's really going on, but the knee-jerk suspicion of US Syria policy & these FSO dickheads seems a good sign.
    SmoothieX12 | Jun 17, 2016 10:25:16 AM | 22
    @Kalen
    There is more about Russian de-facto acquiescence for Syrian partition and pivot to Israel:

    It is exactly the other way around. How can Russia, which dwarfs Israel in every meaningful category -- from economy to military -- and who does remember her history well can "pivot" to largely regional player -- I don't know. Russian "neocons" are a dramatically different breed than US ones, for starters they are much more educated and, actually, support Assad. Israel's pivot to Russia in some sense is inevitable, albeit it could be fairly protracted, with Russia being observed as honest broker. They are not completely stupid in Israel and are very aware of real situation in American politics, economy and military. In other words -- they know how to count and see who pulls the strings. And then there is another "little tiny" factor--Israelis know damn well who won WW II in Europe. It matters, a great deal.

    dahoit | Jun 17, 2016 10:38:36 AM | 23
    12; I'm amazed at your unflagging obsession in stating Trump will be a pushover for the Ziomonsters.:)
    TG | Jun 17, 2016 10:49:55 AM | 24
    Interesting as always.

    I note that the 'moderate' Hillary Clinton is a blood-soaked queen of chaos, who if elected is certain to embroil us in pointless wars and spread death and devastation across even more of the world. I say this not because I am psychic, but because that is her unambiguous record.

    Donald Trump is admittedly a gamble, but depute his over-the-top stage persona, his track record is of actually getting along with people and brokering stable working relationships.

    This November I'm going for the wild-card who at least sounds rational (if you listen to what he actually proposes, and not his style) and has a track record of actually being pragmatic, over certain doom.

    At this point I wish I could vote for Richard Nixon (!), but we have the choice that we have...

    okie farmer | Jun 17, 2016 10:57:48 AM | 25
    Kalen is a bit of a troll.
    h | Jun 17, 2016 11:04:23 AM | 26
    This piece out of the NYT is pure propaganda. Period. Here's the big clue - where's the memo? It's not embedded in the article. It can't be found anywhere on the web. It's b/c it doesn't exist. The reader is 'TOLD' by a third party journalist few follow who writes for a MIC/Political/Policy corporate mouthpiece.

    If an article does not link to an original source OR quotes only 'anon sources' be skeptical. Journalism, especially alt news journalists, site original sources AND try like hell to get sources to go on the record.

    My apologies in advance if I'm being offensive to our generous host. That is not my intent. Rather, it's venting a long held frustration I've had with the division within corporate newsrooms who are there solely to sell the readers the news, even if it's made up out of thin air.

    Denis | Jun 17, 2016 11:17:36 AM | 27
    Yeah . . .agree 90%. Here are some minor details that need to be tidied up, and a couple thoughts.

    1.

    b: it was Ahrar al Sham, Jabhat al-Nusra and other U.S. paid and supported "moderates" who on April 9 broke the ceasefire in Syria.

    This is not quite accurate. Resolution 2254 exempted al Nusra from the cease-fire, not sure about al Sham and whatever others you are referring to. If they were excluded from the cease-fire, then they couldn't break it.

    2.
    The NYT writer is Mark Landler, not Lander. If you're going to accuse him of being stupid or dishonest, you want to get the name right. Mark Lander, whoever he is, might have a pack of bulldog lawyers.

    3.
    I don't see in Landler's article a link to the memo or a list of the people who signed it. Someone needs to publish that list of signatories to preserve the record of who the DOS idiots are.

    4.
    We see the point of all the saber-rattling by NATO on Russia's borders: to get Putin tied up in a diversionary direct threat to Russia, thereby mitigating or eliminating his efforts in behalf of Assad. And you know what? Americans on the street couldn't care one way or the other what Obama or CIA or DoS does or says about Syria. 280,000 dead, millions displaced and Americans are more concerned by a factor of 1000 about 4 dozen gays in Orlando.

    Les | Jun 17, 2016 11:19:27 AM | 28
    Trump makes reference to this article in blaming Obama and Clinton for Orlando attack

    http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/06/14/hillary-clinton-received-secret-memo-stating-obama-admin-support-for-isis/

    SitoAurora | Jun 17, 2016 11:23:30 AM | 29

    Saudi Arabia rejoining Turkey: http://en.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13950326000441

    WorldBLee | Jun 17, 2016 11:36:33 AM | 30
    Thanks for sharing your outrage, b. I completely agree. I have been ranting about this all morning and it's good to see someone else stating the case so the rest of us don't feel isolated in our anger at this vicious and dangerous stupidity. These 51 useful idiots are IMO auditioning for the Clinton team while also providing cover for the neo-cons above them like Nuland, Powers, etc. And directionless Kerry says he'll rush home to confer with these idiots rather than dismissing them out of hand. Kerry could only be useful to anyone if Lavrov was in the room with him at all times to keep him in line -- otherwise he reverts to his normal mindless servant of US empire viewpoint, which is to follow whichever way the winds of power are blowing through Washington, DC.
    M | Jun 17, 2016 11:45:35 AM | 31
    CIA .... YPG .... ALNUSRA.... FSL , all these acronyms are so confusing , how about considering the level of sanity and intelligence of these groups ( which is probably below that of a wounded flea .... ) why not call them Scoobidoos vs the Syrian Army

    so the article would go something like this :

    In the memo, the Scoobidoos State Department officials argued that military action against Mr. Assad would help the fight against the Scoobidoos because it would bolster moderate Scoobidoos, who are necessary allies against the group, also known as Scoobidoos .

    :)

    shargash | Jun 17, 2016 11:54:36 AM | 32
    I thought it was a "cessation of hostilities" not a case fire. The difference is not trivial, and State Department employees should know the difference. The signers are either incompetent or evil (not mutually exclusive, of course).
    5 dancing shlomos | Jun 17, 2016 12:07:16 PM | 33
    dont think landler is stupid. dishonest and deceiving would be my say. he is a nyt's jew writing, maybe lying, regarding syria. NYT: only news acceptable to jews. sometimes, many times we have to make up stories and facts to (maybe) fit.

    cant find any of the dissenting names.

    like to know how many are jew if story not total fake

    then there is the political hatchet job on the russian track/field olym team.

    Mike Maloney | Jun 17, 2016 12:26:08 PM | 34
    I think the key takeaway is b's last two sentences: "The race to preempt a Hillary administration war on Syria, which the 'diplomats' memo prepares for, is now on. May the not-warmongering side win."

    Hillary is the neocon's neocon. Pravy Sektor's honorary storm trooper Vicky Nuland is a Hillary protege. NYT has been positioning its readers to embrace Kerry's Plan B for the last month-plus.

    Whether during or shortly after Hillary's first 100 days in office, U.S. military engagement with Libya and Syria will likely be significantly greater than it is now.

    james | Jun 17, 2016 12:26:55 PM | 35
    thanks b and thanks to some of the posters here too - paveway, smoothie and a few others..
    bored muslim | Jun 17, 2016 12:46:59 PM | 36
    This is the exact reason the Ministers of Defense of Syria, Russia and Iran held meeting in Teheran just recently. My assumption is they are planning on rolling up the acres, so to speak in Syria. All before the new POTUS comes to office. Also, Hezbollah just announced it's sending in reinforcements to the battlefield. All this while the Chinese continue to sleep. Sigh.
    Edward | Jun 17, 2016 1:10:22 PM | 37
    How many of these diplomats were bribed by Saudi Arabia?
    bored muslim | Jun 17, 2016 1:16:44 PM | 38
    @3, paveway.

    The Kurds are the last great hope for the oil and especially natural gas pipelines dream from the GCC to Europe, but still, Israel is not happy. They wanted a branch-off pipeline for themselves. Also Jordan was to get a small branch-off too. Israel is no more than a parasite, look up the definition. It's exact. Turkey would benefit economically due to transit fees. That's why the Turks are so heavily involved. Turkey, who's economy is done for due to Chinese cheap products swamping the M.E; is crashed. Jordan is broke (hence they allow the head choppers to be trained on their territory). The U.S is the overlord who wants this project to be implemented so as to deny Russia the European market (see Saudia too).

    Netanyahu has visited Russia 3-4 times (not sure)to dissuade Putin on his support for Bashar ( who said yes to the Friendship pipeline- Running from Russia, Iran, Iraq, Syria..to the Mediterranean thru to Greece, Europe). No other World leader makes that many visits is such a short time to another capital. Netanyahu obviously failed in his endeavor, as the Russians are familiar with these Zionist snakes very well. All they have to look at is the genocide perpetrated by said Zionists in their very own 20th Century history. I even read that Putin irked Netanyahu when Putin offered him back the Pale of Settlement if they wanted to make the smart choice. Beautiful if true. Probably wishful thinking tho.

    Anyways, Israel runs the U.S State Department(see, the Crazies in the Basement). They don't call it Foggy Bottom for nothing. Must be foggy now due to too many employess smoking bongs in the downstairs cafeteria, hence the ridiculous memo. Also the writer of the memo is most certainly another member of the chosen tribe.

    bored muslim | Jun 17, 2016 1:24:16 PM | 39
    @11, jfl,

    Yes, a 'Night of the Broken Glass' or 'Night of the Long Knives' is much needed to save Humanity essentially. But don't hope for it. Congress, Capital Hill leaders , MSM heads and head anchors, most everybody in the Whit house(except the kitchen staff) would have to be rounded up.

    The only hope would have been the U.S Military Officer Corp. before the great purges post 9-11. Now it's I'm possible. God help the American people and the World.

    bored muslim | Jun 17, 2016 1:32:08 PM | 40
    @20, smoothie,

    This clown Kagan is also the husband of the infamous Victoria Nuland who somehow, defying all logic, still has her job post imbroglio that is the Ukraine today. Hell, she's probably being hailed for that and is an inspiration for lowly State employees.

    Thank you Victoria, for giving Crimea back to the Russian Federation where it belongs.

    jawbone | Jun 17, 2016 1:41:07 PM | 41
    Re: Mike M @ 24 --

    There are almost exactly 7 months until either Trump or Clinton takes office (presuming that the elites manage to completely control any bad news prior to the Dem nominating convention in late July; if the email dam breaks after that I have no idea what the Dem elites will do, but I figure they won't choose the obviously best candidate against Trump, Bernie).

    Seven months. If Russia lends more of its strength, is it possible to gain the territory and hold it to the point that, oh, the West's illegal bases will have to close down? Or might the West actually directly take on Russia/Syrian government forces? Claiming, of course, some version of R2P

    ALberto | Jun 17, 2016 1:49:25 PM | 44
    State Department Diplomats who have captained failure after failure? If these people were Russian or Chinese they would have been executed for their serial failures in the ME and Afghanistan. The main problem with being 'exceptional' is that the 'exceptional' ones never make a mistake. "War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength"
    sejmon | Jun 17, 2016 2:15:32 PM | 45
    #12 jfl - Thanks..VVP/LAVROV know what they doing
    PavewayIV | Jun 17, 2016 2:56:22 PM | 46
    So I was kind of wondering what psychopathic qualities the U.S. War... er, State Department is looking for in potential parasitic career bureaucrats, and came across this self-promotion page on their site. They seem to feel that working for them immerses you in a 'Culture of Leadership'. I guess the 'Culture of Chaos and Death' theme, although more neocon-appropriate, was shot down in favor of tempting potential employees with the possibility of more power and control.

    Offered for your enjoyment and/or revulsion: Congratulations on taking the first step towards your new career!

    Picture Hillary watching streaming video of Stevens get whacked in Benghazi when you read through that list of Leadership and Management Principles.

    rg the lg | Jun 17, 2016 3:17:01 PM | 47
    There are times the depressing mood on MoA is mitigated by some of the rather classic spelling errors. I sometimes wonder if they might be intentional in order to lighten the mood?

    Or not ...

    Counterpunch had a great article: http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/06/17/the-case-for-not-voting-in-defense-of-the-lazy-ungrateful-and-uniformed/

    I think maybe (maybe, I think) this is also good advice regarding posting to blogs, or not?

    ALberto | Jun 17, 2016 3:39:15 PM | 49
    June 17, 2016 - You cannot make this stuff up ...

    In the inner halls of Pentagramagon nothing succeeds financially like serial designed failure ...

    KABUL, Afghanistan - "The new U.S. commander in Afghanistan has submitted his first three-month assessment of the situation in the war-torn country and what it's going to take to defeat the Taliban, a U.S. military official has told The Associated Press.

    And though the content of the review by Army Gen. John W. Nicholson is secret, the U.S. strategy in Afghanistan received a major incentive this month when President Obama decided to expand America's involvement with more airstrikes against insurgents, giving the U.S. military wider latitude to support Afghan forces, both in the air and on the ground."

    source - http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/pentagon/2016/06/16/afghanistan-nicholson-commander-pentagon-report-war/85972056/

    Oui | Jun 17, 2016 3:59:47 PM | 52
    No respect for R2P warriors at the State Department, nor for HRC, Susan Rice and Samantha Power. Jo Cox as former Oxfam executive was moved by the same massacres of Rwanda, Yugoslavia and Darfur.

    Unwittingly (?) the R2P argument was used by the Obama White House to intervene in Libya and Syria. The US took R2P a step further to force regime change which is illegal by International law. See George Bush and Tony Blair to white-wash the cruelty of torture, rendition, Abu Ghraib, extrajudicial assassinations, etc, etc.

    Former US Ambassador to Syria Robert S. Ford was an apprentice of John Negroponte in Baghdad, Iraq.

    Oui | Jun 17, 2016 4:00:47 PM | 53
    White Supremacist Hate Crime

    No political motive about the Brexit discussion ... a local incident waiting to happen for more than a decade.

    Thomas Mair a Long Time neo-Nazi of National Alliance

    paul | Jun 17, 2016 4:08:30 PM | 54
    If I were Assad, I would be shaking in my boots right now and having Gaddafi dreams. Russia has clearly allied itself closely to Israel and Nato in Syria. Some kind of sanctions relief deal must be in the works. Syria will be split up soon. Assad is a dead man.

    For Israel to bomb the Syrian military right under the nose of Russian s-400s? Russia, supposedly so dedicated to defending sovereignty, smiles and yawns benignly? A dirty deal has been made...

    Les | Jun 17, 2016 4:23:28 PM | 55
    Saudi Arabia desperately needs battlefield success, or there will be a prince, I mean price, to pay http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/u-s-officials-fear-saudi-collapse-if-new-prince-fails-n593996
    ALberto | Jun 17, 2016 4:41:44 PM | 56
    "Earlier this week as America was trying to make sense of the deadliest case of Islamic terrorism on US soil since 9/11, I wrote a detailed article here at Breitbart News that laid out the clear factual case about Hillary Clinton's top assistant Huma Abedin. I showed how she has deep, clear, and inarguable connections to a Saudi Arabian official named Abdul Omar Naseef, a powerful Kingdom insider who has helped lead a group called the Muslim World League. The Muslim World League is the huge "charity" whose goal is to spread Islam throughout the world and which has been connected to terror groups like Al Qaeda. If that sounds like a serious accusation, you're damn right it is."

    "The three questions are very simple, very straightforward, and, frankly, anybody can research the answers themselves. They are:

    1) What is Huma's relationship with a Saudi Arabian official named Abdullah Omar Naseef?

    2) Was he the founder of a Saudi charity called the Rabita Trust?

    3) Right after 9/11, was the Rabita Trust put on a list by the U.S. government of groups that were funding terrorism?"

    source - http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/06/15/roger-stone-three-questions-huma-abedin-hillary-wont-answer/

    ALberto | Jun 17, 2016 4:49:33 PM | 57
    paul @54

    "If I were Assad, I would be shaking in my boots right now and having Gaddafi dreams."

    Interesting opinion? If you made a list of democratically elected Presidents and National Leaders the US/GB/ISR axis have terminated you will fill a book. From Patrice Lumumba to Hugo Chavez the list goes on and on. Could you supply me with a list of National Leaders that Russia under Putin has terminated?

    PavewayIV | Jun 17, 2016 4:54:52 PM | 58
    State Dept: 'No Plans' to Make Public Memo Urging Strikes on Syrian Gov't
    WASHINGTON (Sputnik) - US Department of State has no plans to make public an internal memo calling for the United States to take military action against Syrian President Bashar Assad's government, US Department of State spokesperson John Kirby said in a briefing on Friday. "There's no plans to make it public," Kirby stated when asked when the State Department would release the dissent letter.

    Furthermore, Kirby said there will be no investigation as to how the letter ended up in the public domain.

    By 'public domain', Kirby means on some writer's desk at the NYT, never to be seen by the unwashed masses. To be fair, the State Department's "Dissent Memo" program is supposed to be confidential even within the State Department itself to encourage its use. Mark Landler said in his article that a draft of it was leaked by 'a State Department official' to the NYT. So some skepticism of the existence or eventual submission of the actual memo is warranted. Not that Landry is lying or hasn't verified it, but the State Department official obviously has an agenda by providing it to the NYT. The NYT has its own agenda filled as well by prominently posting the article on the top of the front page .

    Mina | Jun 17, 2016 5:08:46 PM | 60
    Nyt participating in these pressures is coordinated with medecins sans frontiere announcing today that they ll refuse eu money to protest on the treatment of refugees and with recent surge in french and uk msm of so called white helmets exclusive pictured
    Laguerre | Jun 17, 2016 5:24:14 PM | 61
    re 60 mina

    I've not fully understood the refusal of médecins sans frontieres of European funding. It's a major source, I think. They've gone American, I suppose.

    james | Jun 17, 2016 5:24:58 PM | 62
    @ why bother engaging people who change their handle and say the same thing over again?
    okie farmer | Jun 17, 2016 5:27:58 PM | 63
    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-usa-cable-idUSKCN0Z3087

    Obama, despite dissent on Syria, not shifting toward strikes on Assad

    The U.S. administration sought on Friday to contain fallout from a leaked internal memo critical of its Syria policy, but showed no sign it was willing to consider military strikes against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's forces called for in the letter signed by dozens of U.S. diplomats.

    Several U.S. officials said that while the White House is prepared to hear the diplomats' dissenting viewpoint, it is not expected to spur any changes in President Barack Obama's approach to Syria in his final seven months in office.

    One senior official said that the test for whether these proposals for more aggressive action are given high-level consideration will be whether they "fall in line with our contention that there is no military solution to the conflict in Syria."

    Hoarsewhisperer | Jun 17, 2016 5:32:25 PM | 64
    Posted by: paul | Jun 17, 2016 4:08:30 PM | 54

    It's important for Russia to ensure that the remains of the first "Israeli" jet it shoots down falls to earth inside Syria. If you've seen a story about the IAF doing something courageous it's bullshit.

    lysias | Jun 17, 2016 6:01:45 PM | 66
    Mid-level bureaucrats trying to establish a case for being promoted when and if Hillary becomes president.
    jfl | Jun 17, 2016 6:27:23 PM | 67
    @55 Les, 'Saudi Arabia desperately needs battlefield success, or there will be a prince, I mean price, to pay'

    The Prince is in the Oval office. Looks like the Houthi currency has tanked , Obama is going to ( try to ) pay off in Assad 's?

    South Front's map is finally up to date? Eisenhower follows Truman into the Mediterranean.

    Vollin | Jun 17, 2016 6:37:47 PM | 68

    Wonder how many of these 51 war mongers were appointed by Hillary.

    james | Jun 17, 2016 7:08:01 PM | 69
    How about know-nothing state dept spokespeople preparing for assad to leave to be replaced by isis?
    Oui | Jun 17, 2016 7:10:10 PM | 70
    @Laguerre
    MSF: Nothing remotely humanitarian about EU policies

    The EU-Turkey deal's financial package includes one billion euros in humanitarian aid. There are undoubtedly needs in Turkey, a country which currently hosts close to three million Syrian refugees, but this aid has been negotiated as a reward for border control promises, rather than being based solely on needs. This instrumentalisation of humanitarian aid is unacceptable.

    Last week the European Commission unveiled a new proposal to replicate the EU-Turkey logic across more than 16 countries in Africa and the Middle East.

    These deals would impose trade and development aid sanctions on countries that do not stem migration to Europe or facilitate forcible returns, rewarding those that do. Among these potential partners are Somalia , Eritrea , Sudan and Afghanistan – four of the top ten* refugee generating countries.

    Barbara | Jun 17, 2016 7:35:09 PM | 71
    kreepy kerry is "running out of patience" since his most desired regime change isn't happening fast enough. How many others are in the works? I'm running-out-of-patience waiting for the regime change anyone with 1/2 a brain wants, right here in the U.S. Regime Change US. It's our turn. I just read Putin's speech at the St. Petersburg Int'l Forum. He must have used the word "cooperation" at least 20 times. We need such a great leader. Terroristic turds like kerry and co. belong in jail.
    metni | Jun 17, 2016 7:50:24 PM | 72
    The difference between Hillary and ISIS: the latter "takes" the head of enemies, Hillary "gives" head to donors. Forgive the graphic.
    steelhead23 | Jun 17, 2016 7:53:07 PM | 73
    50 diplomats petition president for war. Was that written by Orwell? Isn't it enough that this "peaceful" nation arms the world and places economic "pressure" on those nations that displease her to the point of causing millions to die - do we really have to "kill the village to save it?" Yes, I agree, each and every one of those "career diplomats" should be looking for other work. They have not merely lost their way, they have lost their minds. My contempt for them is manifest, as is my contempt for the entire MIC. That those trained in diplomacy should send such a despicable petition illuminates the deep corrupting influence of American Exceptionalism - a force for the kind of nationalism Germany endured 1933-45. Idiots.

    Allow me to further my argument against American Exceptionalism. It is not merely the fact that the U.S. is far from exceptional. From education to infant mortality, the U.S. is woefully behind much of the world. My objection is that belief in exceptionalism leads to moral decay. It is the functional equivalent of the 19th Century preachers who endorsed slavery, who preached that negroes carried the mark of Cain, etc. Whites were God's chosen. The pseudo-righteousness that preaching created in believers was largely responsible for America's Civil War. Americans will be better people, with a better society, if we dispel this myth immediately. We're OK, you're OK. Then we could have peace. Wouldn't that be nice?

    Enrique Ferro | Jun 17, 2016 7:58:26 PM | 74
    So Hillary, the bloodthirsty Goddess of War, is longing for a second Libya, i.e., a Syria smashed to smithereens, in ashes and ruins, ruled by a chaotic bunch of mad Takfiri extremists, at war all against all. The Queen of Chaos, indeed, loves these scenarios. Especially because her quick attack as first thing should she win the White House would shut the mouths of her critics wanting her prosecuted for her crooked political and business corruption. But she and her State Department surrogates would be in for a surprise: Russian and Syrian defences would not remain silent. And afterwards, what would be left? How would the Exceptionalist who "gets things done" proceed?
    jfl | Jun 17, 2016 8:28:15 PM | 75
    The FBI is stonewalling, keeping the contents of Mateen's 911 call unavailable - though it's part of the public record - presumably because it undermines the "ISIS did it" meme poured over the Orlando mass murder. Apparently Mateen may have mentioned ISIS not quite in the same light as has been portrayed.

    Now the NYTimes/WSJ are doing the same thing with the 50 dancing diplomats. Releasing what they want us to know and redacting what we want to know : the names of those 50 dancing diplomats.

    I suppose it comes under the CIA's blanket excuse for secrecy? "Methods and means", or whatever their boilerplate.

    Releasing their names might give us the means to track the 5th column as it winds its way through 'our' government, and that must be prevented at all costs. Think it might lead through Hillary? Seems no doubt here.

    Jay M | Jun 17, 2016 8:30:36 PM | 77
    No doubt the State Department dwarves were ginned up by "Cookies" Nuland and Count Kagan by visions of "x memorandum" of 1946 immortality by attacking the resistance to an unipolar hegemony. Mixing it up in Syria with the Russian presence seems civilization limiting at the outer limits of challenge/ response in a military confrontation.

    [Jun 17, 2016] Know-Nothing Diplomats Prepare For Hillarys War On Syria

    Looks like State Department became a paradise for neocons. Protest of diplomats is typical trick used by State Departement during color revolution. That actually means this "color revolution" trick came to the USA. Our presidents come and go, Republican or Democrat, but our Strangeloves remain permanent employees of State Department. .
    Notable quotes:
    "... The State Department and the CIA's 'Plan C' (or are they on 'Plan D' yet?) is an independent Syrian Kurdistan. ..."
    "... A desperate attempt to save the rebels, who now hate them and completely understand how they have been thrown under the bus by the State Department neocons. I really don't think the rebels will be the least bit impressed by the phony theatrics of a internal memo by mid-level bureaucrats. ..."
    "... The Pentagram is in a bit of a different pickle. They have to do something to stop the Wahhabi head-choppers, but its a bit like herding cats. The best they've come up with is ginning up the SDF to take/hold ISIS territory. But they can't arm the Kurds or Arab members with any REAL weapons because that would anger Turkey. So they give them a bunch of eastern European AKs and a few pickup trucks with anti-aircraft guns, promise air support and toss in a few SF guys ..."
    "... The MSM (as CIA lapdogs are paid to do) constantly try to reinforce the message that the independent YPG/YPJ militias are somehow 'the PYD's army'. Nothing is further from the truth - it's all MSM spin to create the impression that the Syrian Kurds uniformly desire the usurped PYD vision of an independent Kurdistan. In reality, the U.S. State Department neocons and the CIA are the ones that want an independent Syrian Kurdistan for their own scheming (and to deny Assad the land/water/oil). The MSM is constantly on message with this to set the narrative to the American public for Syrian partition - most people have no clue. ..."
    "... For what it's worth, Assad is keenly aware of his history with the Kurds. Even by Kurdish media reports , he is willing to work with the Syrian Kurds as part of a unified Syrian state. He does not object to Kurdish rights or autonomy, just the U.S. meddling to goad the PYD into creating a separate Kurdish state. ..."
    "... The whole Syria nightmare was planned from the US Embassy in Damascus in 2006 because Assad was so broadly popular in the country and "the region." Can't have that so a strategy was drummed up: http://www.globalresearch.ca/syria-and-conspiracy-theories-it-is-a-conspiracy/29596 ..."
    "... I'm sure the US will throw the Syrian Kurds "under the bus" when their usefulness is finished. I'm sure also that a lot of Syrian Kurds know this, and are hedging their bets. ..."
    "... http://www.globalresearch.ca/france-building-military-bases-in-syria-report/5531259 "The use of proxy forces to destroy the secular government of Syria is now starting to give way to stealth methods of direct ground deployment of Western Special Forces and ground troops under the guise of assistance and coordination with "moderate" terrorists. "With a wide variety of Western-backed terrorist groups ranging from "extremist" terrorists like ISIS, al-Qaeda, and al-Nusra to the "moderate" terrorists of the FSA and the loose collection of terrorists, Kurds, and Arabs like the SDF, the West has a kaleidoscope of proxy forces on the ground already. ..."
    "... So Russian peace talks with US evil empire in Syria were a disaster, which makes Putin look like an idiot, as well as the supporters of this idiocy. As well as Russian invitations for the US to join it in Syria makes it one of the most stupidest invitations ever. ..."
    "... A preview on America's future strategies? http://www.cnas.org/sites/default/files/publications-pdf/CNASReport-EAP-FINAL.pdf ..."
    "... The Iranians have been warring with Kurds by the border with Turkey. Neither the Turks nor the Iranians - nor the Syrians, but they do need the Kurds now - want a Kurdistan. The Kurds must know by now - must have been betrayed enough by now - to know that the US will tell them anything, promise them anything, and deliver nothing but betrayal in the end. ..."
    "... As regards the State Department, the Pentagon, the US government ... what's required is a neo-con purge, top to bottom. They are all working against American interests and against the American people. and have been for the past two decades. The likelihood of such a purge is about zero. Neither Trump nor Hillary has the will or the backbone to stand up to anyone. Trump's all mouth and looking out for number one, and Hillary's plugged in to the money-mosaic as well. Obama's getting ready to cash in his chips. ..."
    "... I am amazed at your unflagging obsession with holding Putin responsible for the US/UK/EU/NATO/GCC destruction of Syria. You've set him up as your omnipotent god and he's failed you, somehow. Putin, Rusia, is not responsible for the death, devastation, and destruction of Iraq, Syria, Libya or the rest of the middle east or north africa. You're throwing your stones at the wrong guy, at the only guy who's done anything at all to help the Syrians and to forestall the monstrous neo-con plan. ..."
    "... Israeli bombed military base in Homs province with impunity from S400 http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.723701 ..."
    "... There is more about Russian de-facto acquiescence for Syrian partition and pivot to Israel: STRANGE DAYS: Did Israelis Pivoted to Russia? Or the other way around. https://syrianwarupdate.wordpress.com/ ..."
    "... On the bright side, maybe the 50 signatures are just trying to get noticed by the Clinton transition crew. ..."
    "... The document you posted is a typical wet dream written by utterly incompetent neocons (Kagan's and Zoellik names are a tell), people who can not and must not be allowed to operate with serious strategic and operational categories in any "advisory" role. ..."
    "... i read about 30 of 160 or so comments on this article at NYT. given who the audience of that shit rag is & that comments are vetted, overwhelmingly commenters stated increased military involvement is retarded. ..."
    "... How can Russia, which dwarfs Israel in every meaningful category -- from economy to military -- and who does remember her history well can "pivot" to largely regional player -- I don't know. Russian "neocons" are a dramatically different breed than US ones, for starters they are much more educated and, actually, support Assad. Israel's pivot to Russia in some sense is inevitable, albeit it could be fairly protracted, with Russia being observed as honest broker. They are not completely stupid in Israel and are very aware of real situation in American politics, economy and military. ..."
    "... I note that the 'moderate' Hillary Clinton is a blood-soaked queen of chaos, who if elected is certain to embroil us in pointless wars and spread death and devastation across even more of the world. ..."
    "... Donald Trump is admittedly a gamble, but depute his over-the-top stage persona, his track record is of actually getting along with people and brokering stable working relationships. ..."
    "... At this point I wish I could vote for Richard Nixon (!), but we have the choice that we have... ..."
    "... This piece out of the NYT is pure propaganda. Period. Here's the big clue - where's the memo? It's not embedded in the article. It can't be found anywhere on the web. It's b/c it doesn't exist. The reader is 'TOLD' by a third party journalist few follow who writes for a MIC/Political/Policy corporate mouthpiece. ..."
    "... We see the point of all the saber-rattling by NATO on Russia's borders: to get Putin tied up in a diversionary direct threat to Russia, thereby mitigating or eliminating his efforts in behalf of Assad. And you know what? Americans on the street couldn't care one way or the other what Obama or CIA or DoS does or says about Syria. 280,000 dead, millions displaced and Americans are more concerned by a factor of 1000 about 4 dozen gays in Orlando. ..."
    "... Saudi Arabia rejoining Turkey: http://en.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13950326000441 ..."
    "... These 51 useful idiots are IMO auditioning for the Clinton team while also providing cover for the neo-cons above them like Nuland, Powers, etc. And directionless Kerry says he'll rush home to confer with these idiots rather than dismissing them out of hand. Kerry could only be useful to anyone if Lavrov was in the room with him at all times to keep him in line -- otherwise he reverts to his normal mindless servant of US empire viewpoint, which is to follow whichever way the winds of power are blowing through Washington, DC. ..."
    "... Hillary is the neocon's neocon. Pravy Sektor's honorary storm trooper Vicky Nuland is a Hillary protege. NYT has been positioning its readers to embrace Kerry's Plan B for the last month-plus. ..."
    "... How many of these diplomats were bribed by Saudi Arabia? ..."
    "... This clown Kagan is also the husband of the infamous Victoria Nuland who somehow, defying all logic, still has her job post imbroglio that is the Ukraine today. Hell, she's probably being hailed for that and is an inspiration for lowly State employees. ..."
    "... Thank you Victoria, for giving Crimea back to the Russian Federation where it belongs. ..."
    "... There are almost exactly 7 months until either Trump or Clinton takes office (presuming that the elites manage to completely control any bad news prior to the Dem nominating convention in late July; if the email dam breaks after that I have no idea what the Dem elites will do, but I figure they won't choose the obviously best candidate against Trump, Bernie). ..."
    "... might the West actually directly take on Russia/Syrian government forces? Claiming, of course, some version of R2P ..."
    "... State Department Diplomats who have captained failure after failure? If these people were Russian or Chinese they would have been executed for their serial failures in the ME and Afghanistan. The main problem with being 'exceptional' is that the 'exceptional' ones never make a mistake. "War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength" ..."
    "... So I was kind of wondering what psychopathic qualities the U.S. War... er, State Department is looking for in potential parasitic career bureaucrats, and came across this self-promotion page on their site. ..."
    "... Counterpunch had a great article: http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/06/17/the-case-for-not-voting-in-defense-of-the-lazy-ungrateful-and-uniformed/ ..."
    "... And though the content of the review by Army Gen. John W. Nicholson is secret, the U.S. strategy in Afghanistan received a major incentive this month when President Obama decided to expand America's involvement with more airstrikes against insurgents, giving the U.S. military wider latitude to support Afghan forces, both in the air and on the ground." ..."
    "... No respect for R2P warriors at the State Department, nor for HRC, Susan Rice and Samantha Power. ..."
    "... For Israel to bomb the Syrian military right under the nose of Russian s-400s? Russia, supposedly so dedicated to defending sovereignty, smiles and yawns benignly? A dirty deal has been made... ..."
    "... Saudi Arabia desperately needs battlefield success, or there will be a prince, I mean price, to pay http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/u-s-officials-fear-saudi-collapse-if-new-prince-fails-n593996 ..."
    "... "Earlier this week as America was trying to make sense of the deadliest case of Islamic terrorism on US soil since 9/11, I wrote a detailed article here at Breitbart News that laid out the clear factual case about Hillary Clinton's top assistant Huma Abedin. I showed how she has deep, clear, and inarguable connections to a Saudi Arabian official named Abdul Omar Naseef, a powerful Kingdom insider who has helped lead a group called the Muslim World League. The Muslim World League is the huge "charity" whose goal is to spread Islam throughout the world and which has been connected to terror groups like Al Qaeda. ..."
    "... What is Huma's relationship with a Saudi Arabian official named Abdullah Omar Naseef? ..."
    "... Was he the founder of a Saudi charity called the Rabita Trust? ..."
    "... Right after 9/11, was the Rabita Trust put on a list by the U.S. government of groups that were funding terrorism? ..."
    "... the State Department official obviously has an agenda by providing it to the NYT. The NYT has its own agenda filled as well by prominently posting the article on the top of the front page . ..."
    "... One senior official said that the test for whether these proposals for more aggressive action are given high-level consideration will be whether they "fall in line with our contention that there is no military solution to the conflict in Syria." ..."
    "... It's important for Russia to ensure that the remains of the first "Israeli" jet it shoots down falls to earth inside Syria. If you've seen a story about the IAF doing something courageous it's bullshit. ..."
    "... Wonder how many of these 51 war mongers were appointed by Hillary. ..."
    "... The EU-Turkey deal's financial package includes one billion euros in humanitarian aid. There are undoubtedly needs in Turkey, a country which currently hosts close to three million Syrian refugees, but this aid has been negotiated as a reward for border control promises, rather than being based solely on needs. This instrumentalisation of humanitarian aid is unacceptable. ..."
    "... kreepy kerry is "running out of patience" since his most desired regime change isn't happening fast enough. ..."
    "... The difference between Hillary and ISIS: the latter "takes" the head of enemies, Hillary "gives" head to donors. Forgive the graphic. ..."
    "... 50 diplomats petition president for war. Was that written by Orwell? ..."
    "... Allow me to further my argument against American Exceptionalism. It is not merely the fact that the U.S. is far from exceptional. From education to infant mortality, the U.S. is woefully behind much of the world. ..."
    "... So Hillary, the bloodthirsty Goddess of War, is longing for a second Libya, i.e., a Syria smashed to smithereens, in ashes and ruins, ruled by a chaotic bunch of mad Takfiri extremists, at war all against all. ..."
    "... The FBI is stonewalling, keeping the contents of Mateen's 911 call unavailable - though it's part of the public record - presumably because it undermines the "ISIS did it" meme poured over the Orlando mass murder. Apparently Mateen may have mentioned ISIS not quite in the same light as has been portrayed. ..."
    "... Now the NYTimes/WSJ are doing the same thing with the 50 dancing diplomats. Releasing what they want us to know and redacting what we want to know : the names of those 50 dancing diplomats. ..."
    "... I suppose it comes under the CIA's blanket excuse for secrecy? "Methods and means", or whatever their boilerplate. ..."
    "... No doubt the State Department dwarves were ginned up by "Cookies" Nuland and Count Kagan by visions of "x memorandum" of 1946 immortality by attacking the resistance to an unipolar hegemony. Mixing it up in Syria with the Russian presence seems civilization limiting at the outer limits of challenge/ response in a military confrontation. ..."
    Moon of Alabama

    There are at least 51 stupid or dishonest "diplomats" working in the U.S. State Department. Also - Mark Lander is a stupid or dishonest NYT writer. The result is this piece: Dozens of U.S. Diplomats, in Memo, Urge Strikes Against Syria's Assad

    WASHINGTON - More than 50 State Department diplomats have signed an internal memo sharply critical of the Obama administration's policy in Syria, urging the United States to carry out military strikes against the government of President Bashar al-Assad to stop its persistent violations of a cease-fire in the country's five-year-old civil war.

    Note that it was Ahrar al Sham, Jabhat al-Nusra and other U.S. paid and supported "moderates" who on April 9 broke the ceasefire in Syria by attacking government troops south of Aleppo. They have since continuously bombarded the government held parts of Aleppo which house over 1.5 million civilians with improvised artillery.

    Back to the piece:

    The memo, a draft of which was provided to The New York Times by a State Department official , says American policy has been "overwhelmed" by the unrelenting violence in Syria. It calls for "a judicious use of stand-off and air weapons, which would undergird and drive a more focused and hard-nosed U.S.-led diplomatic process."
    ...
    The names on the memo are almost all midlevel officials - many of them career diplomats - who have been involved in the administration's Syria policy over the last five years, at home or abroad. They range from a Syria desk officer in the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs to a former deputy to the American ambassador in Damascus.

    While there are no widely recognized names, higher-level State Department officials are known to share their concerns. Mr. Kerry himself has pushed for stronger American action against Syria, in part to force a diplomatic solution on Mr. Assad.

    ...

    The State Department officials insisted in their memo that they were not "advocating for a slippery slope that ends in a military confrontation with Russia," but rather a credible threat of military action to keep Mr. Assad in line.

    These State Department loons have their ass covered by Secretary of State Kerry. Otherwise they would (and should) be fired for obvious ignorance. What "judicious" military threat against Russian S-400 air defense in Syria is credible? Nukes on Moscow (and New York)?

    In the memo, the State Department officials argued that military action against Mr. Assad would help the fight against the Islamic State because it would bolster moderate Sunnis , who are necessary allies against the group, also known as ISIS or ISIL.

    Would these "diplomats" be able to name even one group of "moderate Sunnis" in Syria that is not on the side of the Syrian government? Are Ahrar al-Sahm and the other U.S. supported groups, who recently killed 50 civilians out of purely sectarian motives when they stormed the town of Zara, such "moderate Sunnis"?

    These 50 State Department non-diplomats, and the stinking fish head above them, have obviously failed in their duty:

    • "Diplomats" urging military action do nothing but confirm that they do not know their job which is diplomacy, not bombing. They failed.
    • These "diplomats" do not know or do not want to follow international law. On what legal basis would the U.S. bomb the Syrian government and its people? They do not name any. There is none.
    • To what purpose would the Syrian government and the millions of its followers be bombed? Who but al-Qaeda would follow if the Assad-led government falls? The "diplomats" ignore that obvious question.

    The NYT writer of the piece on the memo demonstrates that he is just as stupid or dishonest as the State Department dupes by adding this paragraph:

    [T]he memo mainly confirms what has been clear for some time: The State Department's rank and file have chafed at the White House's refusal to be drawn into the conflict in Syria .

    How is spending over $1 billion a year to hire, train, arm and support "moderate rebels" against the Syrian government consistent with the claim of a U.S. "refusal to be drawn into the conflict"?

    It is obvious and widely documented that the U.S. has been fueling the conflict from the very beginning throughout five years and continues up to today to deliver thousands of tons of weapons to the "moderate rebels".

    All the above, the "diplomats" letter and the NYT writer lying, is in preparation of an open U.S. war on Syria under a possible president Hillary Clinton. (Jo Cox, the "humanitarian" British MP who was murdered yesterday by some neo-nazi, spoke in support of such a crime.)

    The U.S. military continues to reject an escalation against the Syrian government. Its reasonable question "what follows after Assad" has never been seriously answered by the war supporters in the CIA and the State Department.

    Unexpected support of the U.S. military's position now seems to come from the Turkish side. The Erdogan regime finally acknowledges that a Syria under Assad is more convenient to it than a Kurdish state in north-Syria which the U.S. is currently helping to establish:

    "Assad is, at the end of the day, a killer. He is torturing his own people. We're not going to change our stance on that," a senior official from the ruling AK Party told Reuters, requesting anonymity so as to speak more freely.

    "But he does not support Kurdish autonomy. We may not like each other, but on that we're backing the same policy ," he said.

    Ankara fears that territorial gains by Kurdish YPG fighters in northern Syria will fuel an insurgency by the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), which has waged an armed struggle in Turkey's southeast for three decades.

    The Turks have suddenly removed their support for their "Turkmen" proxies fighting the Syrian government in Latakia in north west Syria. Over the last few days the "Turkmen" retreated and the Syrian army advanced . It may soon reach the Turkish border. Should the Latakia front calm down the Syrian army will be able to move several thousand troops from Latakia towards other critical sectors. The Turkish government, under the new Prime Minister Binali Yildirim, is now also sending peace signals towards Russia.

    The situation in Syria could rapidly change in favor of the Syrian government should Turkey change its bifurcating policies and continue these moves. Without their Turkish bases and support the "moderate rebels" would soon be out of supplies and would lack the ability to continue their fighting. The Russians and their allies should further emphasize the "Kurdish threat" to advance this Turkish change of mind.

    The race to preempt a Hillary administration war on Syria, which the "diplomats" memo prepares for, is now on. May the not-warmongering side win.

    Hoarsewhisperer | Jun 17, 2016 1:43:36 AM | 1
    This is the Yankees trying to pretend that they're still exceptionally invincible, in order to conceal the fact that they never were. One only need look at all the tentative tiptoeing around China & Russia to see that they're trying to convince themselves that Russia and China are run by people as loony and disconnected as the self-seducers in charge of AmeriKKKan Foreign Policy.

    SmoothieX got it 100% right in the previous thread..

    Roitan | Jun 17, 2016 2:22:17 AM | 2
    "The names on the memo are almost all medeival offiCIAls ..."

    There, fixed it for you. Enjoying the calm before the Goldman Sturm, the takeover of the US Executive in 2017 for the Final Solution on liberating the Fifth Quintile's Last Free Life Savings, and plunging the globe into a New Dark Ages: Trump or Clinton, allatime same-same.

    PavewayIV | Jun 17, 2016 2:36:19 AM | 3
    The State Department and the CIA's 'Plan C' (or are they on 'Plan D' yet?) is an independent Syrian Kurdistan.

    The FSA Sunnistan plan has been going down the tubes for months. With the imminent fall of the last few FSA strongholds, the State Department has gone berserk with their latest standoff bombing memo 'leak' nonsense. A desperate attempt to save the rebels, who now hate them and completely understand how they have been thrown under the bus by the State Department neocons. I really don't think the rebels will be the least bit impressed by the phony theatrics of a internal memo by mid-level bureaucrats.

    The Pentagram is in a bit of a different pickle. They have to do something to stop the Wahhabi head-choppers, but its a bit like herding cats. The best they've come up with is ginning up the SDF to take/hold ISIS territory. But they can't arm the Kurds or Arab members with any REAL weapons because that would anger Turkey. So they give them a bunch of eastern European AKs and a few pickup trucks with anti-aircraft guns, promise air support and toss in a few SF guys. This almost works, but not completely. For what it's worth, I don't think the Pentagram cares at all about an independent Syrian Kurdistan, unifying the cantons or who gets what land/resources, as long as it's taken from ISIS. When ISIS is wiped out, the SDF will cease to exist and the SF guys will leave. The SDF and especially the YPG/YPJ will NOT ever be incented to provoke or go to war with Assad after ISIS is gone. That's a problem for the State Department and CIA

    The neocon State Department and CIA - normally at odds with the Pentagon's increasing reluctance to get involved at all - are taking this opportunity to agitate for an independent Kurdistan. This is done by funding the Kurdish PYD political party which purports to speak for all Kurds. The State Department and CIA also fund the PYD's growing Asayish thug secret police 'enforcers'. The PYD took control of Rojava by throwing out all the other political parties last year and crowning itself the King of all Syrian Kurds. But most Kurds don't trust the PYD, figuring that either Assad or the U.S. is really pulling the strings. The Kurds agree with the original PYD ideology, but not its current land/resource-grabbing frenzy NOR the kind of independent Kurdistan the PYD is suggesting. They want more rights and control of their affairs, but they do not want an actual or de facto independent Syrian Kurdistan.

    The MSM (as CIA lapdogs are paid to do) constantly try to reinforce the message that the independent YPG/YPJ militias are somehow 'the PYD's army'. Nothing is further from the truth - it's all MSM spin to create the impression that the Syrian Kurds uniformly desire the usurped PYD vision of an independent Kurdistan. In reality, the U.S. State Department neocons and the CIA are the ones that want an independent Syrian Kurdistan for their own scheming (and to deny Assad the land/water/oil). The MSM is constantly on message with this to set the narrative to the American public for Syrian partition - most people have no clue.

    For what it's worth, Assad is keenly aware of his history with the Kurds. Even by Kurdish media reports , he is willing to work with the Syrian Kurds as part of a unified Syrian state. He does not object to Kurdish rights or autonomy, just the U.S. meddling to goad the PYD into creating a separate Kurdish state. The U.S. State Department does NOT want Rojava to be part of Syria or the Syrian State and spins the Assad/Kurd relation as antagonistic in the MSM. This is the 'Plan C' Syrian partition scheme. Hopefully, the average Kurd can see through their scheming and will not follow the dictates of a usurped PYD to go to war with Syria for their independence. They would be better off dumping and outlawing the PYD completely and working with the new Syrian government on the future AFTER ISIS (and hopefully without any U.S. State Department and CIA).

    okie farmer | Jun 17, 2016 3:45:06 AM | 4

    Finally!
    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-strike-idUSKCN0Z306L
    Russia strikes U.S.-backed rebels in Syria: U.S. official

    Felicity | Jun 17, 2016 3:55:04 AM | 5
    The whole Syria nightmare was planned from the US Embassy in Damascus in 2006 because Assad was so broadly popular in the country and "the region." Can't have that so a strategy was drummed up: http://www.globalresearch.ca/syria-and-conspiracy-theories-it-is-a-conspiracy/29596

    Your assessment above is a supremely eloquent assessment and a scream for sanity to return. Thank you so very much for your always illuminating writings.

    Laguerre | Jun 17, 2016 5:17:21 AM | 7
    re 3 Paveway.

    I think you're quite right. That corresponds with what I've thought for some time. I'm sure the US will throw the Syrian Kurds "under the bus" when their usefulness is finished. I'm sure also that a lot of Syrian Kurds know this, and are hedging their bets.

    Penelope | Jun 17, 2016 5:20:17 AM | 8
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/france-building-military-bases-in-syria-report/5531259 "The use of proxy forces to destroy the secular government of Syria is now starting to give way to stealth methods of direct ground deployment of Western Special Forces and ground troops under the guise of assistance and coordination with "moderate" terrorists. "With a wide variety of Western-backed terrorist groups ranging from "extremist" terrorists like ISIS, al-Qaeda, and al-Nusra to the "moderate" terrorists of the FSA and the loose collection of terrorists, Kurds, and Arabs like the SDF, the West has a kaleidoscope of proxy forces on the ground already.

    "Yet, even as Syria's military clashes with the West's proxies, the United States, Britain, and France have begun moving in Special Forces soldiers to assist in the mission of destroying the Syrian government, a mission that Israeli, Jordanian, and Turkish officers have joined in as well. That is, of course, despite the fact that Russian Special Forces are on the ground fighting on the side of the Syrian military.

    "Likewise, both the United States and Russia are busy building military bases in the northern regions of Syria to use as staging grounds for new operations."

    tom | Jun 17, 2016 5:31:31 AM | 9
    So Russian peace talks with US evil empire in Syria were a disaster, which makes Putin look like an idiot, as well as the supporters of this idiocy. As well as Russian invitations for the US to join it in Syria makes it one of the most stupidest invitations ever.

    Since B is not mentioning it, he might as well not mention that the French terrorist invaders along with the already US terrorists, and possibly German invaders will be occupying parts of Syria.

    Oh, but that's alright because Putin invited the evil minions of the Us empire into Syria, you know, because the bad PR opportunity is a much better outcome then world War three.

    Nicola | Jun 17, 2016 5:37:58 AM | 10
    A preview on America's future strategies? http://www.cnas.org/sites/default/files/publications-pdf/CNASReport-EAP-FINAL.pdf
    jfl | Jun 17, 2016 5:47:50 AM | 11
    The Iranians have been warring with Kurds by the border with Turkey. Neither the Turks nor the Iranians - nor the Syrians, but they do need the Kurds now - want a Kurdistan. The Kurds must know by now - must have been betrayed enough by now - to know that the US will tell them anything, promise them anything, and deliver nothing but betrayal in the end.

    As regards the State Department, the Pentagon, the US government ... what's required is a neo-con purge, top to bottom. They are all working against American interests and against the American people. and have been for the past two decades. The likelihood of such a purge is about zero. Neither Trump nor Hillary has the will or the backbone to stand up to anyone. Trump's all mouth and looking out for number one, and Hillary's plugged in to the money-mosaic as well. Obama's getting ready to cash in his chips.

    It looks to be more of the same, until they really do go after Russia, when it will be all over for all of us. I can't imagine that they really believe they can get away with this, but this bunch is all 'mid-level', 'just following orders', it won't be 'their fault' and that's the level they're working at. The people calling the tune think they can play the real world as they do their fake financial world, making up new rules as they go along, as they redefine success after each of their serial failures.

    Talk about boiled frogs. How in the hell have we let it get this far?

    jfl | Jun 17, 2016 6:00:26 AM | 12
    @9 Tom

    I am amazed at your unflagging obsession with holding Putin responsible for the US/UK/EU/NATO/GCC destruction of Syria. You've set him up as your omnipotent god and he's failed you, somehow. Putin, Rusia, is not responsible for the death, devastation, and destruction of Iraq, Syria, Libya or the rest of the middle east or north africa. You're throwing your stones at the wrong guy, at the only guy who's done anything at all to help the Syrians and to forestall the monstrous neo-con plan. This letter may be, as b says, a measure of theneo-cons' fear that it will all be over for 'their guys' in Syria by 21 January. If that were to come to pass, Vladimir Putin will have had a big hand in it.

    harrylaw | Jun 17, 2016 7:40:46 AM | 13
    Nicola @10 from your link 'Extending American power' I had to laugh at this... 4. "All of which provides the basis for our strong belief
    that the United States still has the military, economic,
    and political power to play the leading role in pro
    -tecting a stable rules-based international order". 'Rules based',ha, the US is the leading regime change state, acting always contrary to International law to benefit its hegemonic ambitions. All five veto wielding powers and their friends are above International law for all time. Thankfully, Russia and China cannot be threatened militarily and will confront the monstrous US designs in Syria, once the head choppers are defeated the victors should move against the real source of terrorism in the region, Saudi Arabia and the various GCC satraps. b's article above is excellent and is echoed in this piece in Antiwar.com http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2016/06/16/something-going-worse-thought/
    Kalen | Jun 17, 2016 8:50:40 AM | 14
    There are other worrying development in Syroi a namely changing of Riusssian attitude to Assaad. First Lavrov said that Russia is not Syrian government ally, they just fight terrorists together. An obvious nonsense.

    And now this.

    Israel, following several similar air raids in previous months just bombed SAA installation in Homs province, in the middle of Syria just 45 second flight of S400 rockets located in latakia, while Netanyahu was smiling with Putin in Moscow.

    Israeli bombed military base in Homs province with impunity from S400 http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.723701

    Can you explain WTF? All of that while IDF artillery provides cover for ANF commanded by formed ISIL commander in Golan Heights foothills,

    There is more about Russian de-facto acquiescence for Syrian partition and pivot to Israel: STRANGE DAYS: Did Israelis Pivoted to Russia? Or the other way around. https://syrianwarupdate.wordpress.com/

    Michael | Jun 17, 2016 9:14:54 AM | 15
    On the bright side, maybe the 50 signatures are just trying to get noticed by the Clinton transition crew.
    Yul | Jun 17, 2016 9:17:33 AM | 16
    @ b Come on, U.S. military have a role to play in helping to export American values . Even with threats, Assad told Powell to "get lost". This interview says a lot about the US of A: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2007/04/a-conversation-with-colin-powell/305873/
    okie farmer | Jun 17, 2016 9:52:11 AM | 18
    15,000 FSOs, 51 signed the doc.
    SmoothieX12 | Jun 17, 2016 10:09:54 AM | 20
    @10
    A preview on America's future strategies?

    This is not preview nor is it a strategy, since strategies are based on more or less professional and realistic, I may add, assessments of the outside world. I do not have any recollection of any serious US doctrinal (policy or military wise) document in the last 20 years written from the position of comprehensive situational awareness--this is a non existent condition among most of US current "power elites". The document you posted is a typical wet dream written by utterly incompetent neocons (Kagan's and Zoellik names are a tell), people who can not and must not be allowed to operate with serious strategic and operational categories in any "advisory" role. They simply have no qualifications for that and are nothing more than a bunch of ideologues and propagandists from Ivy League humanities degree mill. Back to "preview"--it is a dominant ideology of "exceptionalism" which afflicted US "elites" today, this document is just another iteration of this ideology.

    jason | Jun 17, 2016 10:11:33 AM | 21
    i read about 30 of 160 or so comments on this article at NYT. given who the audience of that shit rag is & that comments are vetted, overwhelmingly commenters stated increased military involvement is retarded. Of course, many of those speak from ignorance of what's really going on, but the knee-jerk suspicion of US Syria policy & these FSO dickheads seems a good sign.
    SmoothieX12 | Jun 17, 2016 10:25:16 AM | 22
    @Kalen
    There is more about Russian de-facto acquiescence for Syrian partition and pivot to Israel:

    It is exactly the other way around. How can Russia, which dwarfs Israel in every meaningful category -- from economy to military -- and who does remember her history well can "pivot" to largely regional player -- I don't know. Russian "neocons" are a dramatically different breed than US ones, for starters they are much more educated and, actually, support Assad. Israel's pivot to Russia in some sense is inevitable, albeit it could be fairly protracted, with Russia being observed as honest broker. They are not completely stupid in Israel and are very aware of real situation in American politics, economy and military. In other words -- they know how to count and see who pulls the strings. And then there is another "little tiny" factor--Israelis know damn well who won WW II in Europe. It matters, a great deal.

    dahoit | Jun 17, 2016 10:38:36 AM | 23
    12; I'm amazed at your unflagging obsession in stating Trump will be a pushover for the Ziomonsters.:)
    TG | Jun 17, 2016 10:49:55 AM | 24
    Interesting as always.

    I note that the 'moderate' Hillary Clinton is a blood-soaked queen of chaos, who if elected is certain to embroil us in pointless wars and spread death and devastation across even more of the world. I say this not because I am psychic, but because that is her unambiguous record.

    Donald Trump is admittedly a gamble, but depute his over-the-top stage persona, his track record is of actually getting along with people and brokering stable working relationships.

    This November I'm going for the wild-card who at least sounds rational (if you listen to what he actually proposes, and not his style) and has a track record of actually being pragmatic, over certain doom.

    At this point I wish I could vote for Richard Nixon (!), but we have the choice that we have...

    okie farmer | Jun 17, 2016 10:57:48 AM | 25
    Kalen is a bit of a troll.
    h | Jun 17, 2016 11:04:23 AM | 26
    This piece out of the NYT is pure propaganda. Period. Here's the big clue - where's the memo? It's not embedded in the article. It can't be found anywhere on the web. It's b/c it doesn't exist. The reader is 'TOLD' by a third party journalist few follow who writes for a MIC/Political/Policy corporate mouthpiece.

    If an article does not link to an original source OR quotes only 'anon sources' be skeptical. Journalism, especially alt news journalists, site original sources AND try like hell to get sources to go on the record.

    My apologies in advance if I'm being offensive to our generous host. That is not my intent. Rather, it's venting a long held frustration I've had with the division within corporate newsrooms who are there solely to sell the readers the news, even if it's made up out of thin air.

    Denis | Jun 17, 2016 11:17:36 AM | 27
    Yeah . . .agree 90%. Here are some minor details that need to be tidied up, and a couple thoughts.

    1.

    b: it was Ahrar al Sham, Jabhat al-Nusra and other U.S. paid and supported "moderates" who on April 9 broke the ceasefire in Syria.

    This is not quite accurate. Resolution 2254 exempted al Nusra from the cease-fire, not sure about al Sham and whatever others you are referring to. If they were excluded from the cease-fire, then they couldn't break it.

    2.
    The NYT writer is Mark Landler, not Lander. If you're going to accuse him of being stupid or dishonest, you want to get the name right. Mark Lander, whoever he is, might have a pack of bulldog lawyers.

    3.
    I don't see in Landler's article a link to the memo or a list of the people who signed it. Someone needs to publish that list of signatories to preserve the record of who the DOS idiots are.

    4.
    We see the point of all the saber-rattling by NATO on Russia's borders: to get Putin tied up in a diversionary direct threat to Russia, thereby mitigating or eliminating his efforts in behalf of Assad. And you know what? Americans on the street couldn't care one way or the other what Obama or CIA or DoS does or says about Syria. 280,000 dead, millions displaced and Americans are more concerned by a factor of 1000 about 4 dozen gays in Orlando.

    Les | Jun 17, 2016 11:19:27 AM | 28
    Trump makes reference to this article in blaming Obama and Clinton for Orlando attack

    http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/06/14/hillary-clinton-received-secret-memo-stating-obama-admin-support-for-isis/

    SitoAurora | Jun 17, 2016 11:23:30 AM | 29

    Saudi Arabia rejoining Turkey: http://en.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13950326000441

    WorldBLee | Jun 17, 2016 11:36:33 AM | 30
    Thanks for sharing your outrage, b. I completely agree. I have been ranting about this all morning and it's good to see someone else stating the case so the rest of us don't feel isolated in our anger at this vicious and dangerous stupidity. These 51 useful idiots are IMO auditioning for the Clinton team while also providing cover for the neo-cons above them like Nuland, Powers, etc. And directionless Kerry says he'll rush home to confer with these idiots rather than dismissing them out of hand. Kerry could only be useful to anyone if Lavrov was in the room with him at all times to keep him in line -- otherwise he reverts to his normal mindless servant of US empire viewpoint, which is to follow whichever way the winds of power are blowing through Washington, DC.
    M | Jun 17, 2016 11:45:35 AM | 31
    CIA .... YPG .... ALNUSRA.... FSL , all these acronyms are so confusing , how about considering the level of sanity and intelligence of these groups ( which is probably below that of a wounded flea .... ) why not call them Scoobidoos vs the Syrian Army

    so the article would go something like this :

    In the memo, the Scoobidoos State Department officials argued that military action against Mr. Assad would help the fight against the Scoobidoos because it would bolster moderate Scoobidoos, who are necessary allies against the group, also known as Scoobidoos .

    :)

    shargash | Jun 17, 2016 11:54:36 AM | 32
    I thought it was a "cessation of hostilities" not a case fire. The difference is not trivial, and State Department employees should know the difference. The signers are either incompetent or evil (not mutually exclusive, of course).
    5 dancing shlomos | Jun 17, 2016 12:07:16 PM | 33
    dont think landler is stupid. dishonest and deceiving would be my say. he is a nyt's jew writing, maybe lying, regarding syria. NYT: only news acceptable to jews. sometimes, many times we have to make up stories and facts to (maybe) fit.

    cant find any of the dissenting names.

    like to know how many are jew if story not total fake

    then there is the political hatchet job on the russian track/field olym team.

    Mike Maloney | Jun 17, 2016 12:26:08 PM | 34
    I think the key takeaway is b's last two sentences: "The race to preempt a Hillary administration war on Syria, which the 'diplomats' memo prepares for, is now on. May the not-warmongering side win."

    Hillary is the neocon's neocon. Pravy Sektor's honorary storm trooper Vicky Nuland is a Hillary protege. NYT has been positioning its readers to embrace Kerry's Plan B for the last month-plus.

    Whether during or shortly after Hillary's first 100 days in office, U.S. military engagement with Libya and Syria will likely be significantly greater than it is now.

    james | Jun 17, 2016 12:26:55 PM | 35
    thanks b and thanks to some of the posters here too - paveway, smoothie and a few others..
    bored muslim | Jun 17, 2016 12:46:59 PM | 36
    This is the exact reason the Ministers of Defense of Syria, Russia and Iran held meeting in Teheran just recently. My assumption is they are planning on rolling up the acres, so to speak in Syria. All before the new POTUS comes to office. Also, Hezbollah just announced it's sending in reinforcements to the battlefield. All this while the Chinese continue to sleep. Sigh.
    Edward | Jun 17, 2016 1:10:22 PM | 37
    How many of these diplomats were bribed by Saudi Arabia?
    bored muslim | Jun 17, 2016 1:16:44 PM | 38
    @3, paveway.

    The Kurds are the last great hope for the oil and especially natural gas pipelines dream from the GCC to Europe, but still, Israel is not happy. They wanted a branch-off pipeline for themselves. Also Jordan was to get a small branch-off too. Israel is no more than a parasite, look up the definition. It's exact. Turkey would benefit economically due to transit fees. That's why the Turks are so heavily involved. Turkey, who's economy is done for due to Chinese cheap products swamping the M.E; is crashed. Jordan is broke (hence they allow the head choppers to be trained on their territory). The U.S is the overlord who wants this project to be implemented so as to deny Russia the European market (see Saudia too).

    Netanyahu has visited Russia 3-4 times (not sure)to dissuade Putin on his support for Bashar ( who said yes to the Friendship pipeline- Running from Russia, Iran, Iraq, Syria..to the Mediterranean thru to Greece, Europe). No other World leader makes that many visits is such a short time to another capital. Netanyahu obviously failed in his endeavor, as the Russians are familiar with these Zionist snakes very well. All they have to look at is the genocide perpetrated by said Zionists in their very own 20th Century history. I even read that Putin irked Netanyahu when Putin offered him back the Pale of Settlement if they wanted to make the smart choice. Beautiful if true. Probably wishful thinking tho.

    Anyways, Israel runs the U.S State Department(see, the Crazies in the Basement). They don't call it Foggy Bottom for nothing. Must be foggy now due to too many employess smoking bongs in the downstairs cafeteria, hence the ridiculous memo. Also the writer of the memo is most certainly another member of the chosen tribe.

    bored muslim | Jun 17, 2016 1:24:16 PM | 39
    @11, jfl,

    Yes, a 'Night of the Broken Glass' or 'Night of the Long Knives' is much needed to save Humanity essentially. But don't hope for it. Congress, Capital Hill leaders , MSM heads and head anchors, most everybody in the Whit house(except the kitchen staff) would have to be rounded up.

    The only hope would have been the U.S Military Officer Corp. before the great purges post 9-11. Now it's I'm possible. God help the American people and the World.

    bored muslim | Jun 17, 2016 1:32:08 PM | 40
    @20, smoothie,

    This clown Kagan is also the husband of the infamous Victoria Nuland who somehow, defying all logic, still has her job post imbroglio that is the Ukraine today. Hell, she's probably being hailed for that and is an inspiration for lowly State employees.

    Thank you Victoria, for giving Crimea back to the Russian Federation where it belongs.

    jawbone | Jun 17, 2016 1:41:07 PM | 41
    Re: Mike M @ 24 --

    There are almost exactly 7 months until either Trump or Clinton takes office (presuming that the elites manage to completely control any bad news prior to the Dem nominating convention in late July; if the email dam breaks after that I have no idea what the Dem elites will do, but I figure they won't choose the obviously best candidate against Trump, Bernie).

    Seven months. If Russia lends more of its strength, is it possible to gain the territory and hold it to the point that, oh, the West's illegal bases will have to close down? Or might the West actually directly take on Russia/Syrian government forces? Claiming, of course, some version of R2P

    ALberto | Jun 17, 2016 1:49:25 PM | 44
    State Department Diplomats who have captained failure after failure? If these people were Russian or Chinese they would have been executed for their serial failures in the ME and Afghanistan. The main problem with being 'exceptional' is that the 'exceptional' ones never make a mistake. "War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength"
    sejmon | Jun 17, 2016 2:15:32 PM | 45
    #12 jfl - Thanks..VVP/LAVROV know what they doing
    PavewayIV | Jun 17, 2016 2:56:22 PM | 46
    So I was kind of wondering what psychopathic qualities the U.S. War... er, State Department is looking for in potential parasitic career bureaucrats, and came across this self-promotion page on their site. They seem to feel that working for them immerses you in a 'Culture of Leadership'. I guess the 'Culture of Chaos and Death' theme, although more neocon-appropriate, was shot down in favor of tempting potential employees with the possibility of more power and control.

    Offered for your enjoyment and/or revulsion: Congratulations on taking the first step towards your new career!

    Picture Hillary watching streaming video of Stevens get whacked in Benghazi when you read through that list of Leadership and Management Principles.

    rg the lg | Jun 17, 2016 3:17:01 PM | 47
    There are times the depressing mood on MoA is mitigated by some of the rather classic spelling errors. I sometimes wonder if they might be intentional in order to lighten the mood?

    Or not ...

    Counterpunch had a great article: http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/06/17/the-case-for-not-voting-in-defense-of-the-lazy-ungrateful-and-uniformed/

    I think maybe (maybe, I think) this is also good advice regarding posting to blogs, or not?

    ALberto | Jun 17, 2016 3:39:15 PM | 49
    June 17, 2016 - You cannot make this stuff up ...

    In the inner halls of Pentagramagon nothing succeeds financially like serial designed failure ...

    KABUL, Afghanistan - "The new U.S. commander in Afghanistan has submitted his first three-month assessment of the situation in the war-torn country and what it's going to take to defeat the Taliban, a U.S. military official has told The Associated Press.

    And though the content of the review by Army Gen. John W. Nicholson is secret, the U.S. strategy in Afghanistan received a major incentive this month when President Obama decided to expand America's involvement with more airstrikes against insurgents, giving the U.S. military wider latitude to support Afghan forces, both in the air and on the ground."

    source - http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/pentagon/2016/06/16/afghanistan-nicholson-commander-pentagon-report-war/85972056/

    Oui | Jun 17, 2016 3:59:47 PM | 52
    No respect for R2P warriors at the State Department, nor for HRC, Susan Rice and Samantha Power. Jo Cox as former Oxfam executive was moved by the same massacres of Rwanda, Yugoslavia and Darfur.

    Unwittingly (?) the R2P argument was used by the Obama White House to intervene in Libya and Syria. The US took R2P a step further to force regime change which is illegal by International law. See George Bush and Tony Blair to white-wash the cruelty of torture, rendition, Abu Ghraib, extrajudicial assassinations, etc, etc.

    Former US Ambassador to Syria Robert S. Ford was an apprentice of John Negroponte in Baghdad, Iraq.

    Oui | Jun 17, 2016 4:00:47 PM | 53
    White Supremacist Hate Crime

    No political motive about the Brexit discussion ... a local incident waiting to happen for more than a decade.

    Thomas Mair a Long Time neo-Nazi of National Alliance

    paul | Jun 17, 2016 4:08:30 PM | 54
    If I were Assad, I would be shaking in my boots right now and having Gaddafi dreams. Russia has clearly allied itself closely to Israel and Nato in Syria. Some kind of sanctions relief deal must be in the works. Syria will be split up soon. Assad is a dead man.

    For Israel to bomb the Syrian military right under the nose of Russian s-400s? Russia, supposedly so dedicated to defending sovereignty, smiles and yawns benignly? A dirty deal has been made...

    Les | Jun 17, 2016 4:23:28 PM | 55
    Saudi Arabia desperately needs battlefield success, or there will be a prince, I mean price, to pay http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/u-s-officials-fear-saudi-collapse-if-new-prince-fails-n593996
    ALberto | Jun 17, 2016 4:41:44 PM | 56
    "Earlier this week as America was trying to make sense of the deadliest case of Islamic terrorism on US soil since 9/11, I wrote a detailed article here at Breitbart News that laid out the clear factual case about Hillary Clinton's top assistant Huma Abedin. I showed how she has deep, clear, and inarguable connections to a Saudi Arabian official named Abdul Omar Naseef, a powerful Kingdom insider who has helped lead a group called the Muslim World League. The Muslim World League is the huge "charity" whose goal is to spread Islam throughout the world and which has been connected to terror groups like Al Qaeda. If that sounds like a serious accusation, you're damn right it is."

    "The three questions are very simple, very straightforward, and, frankly, anybody can research the answers themselves. They are:

    1) What is Huma's relationship with a Saudi Arabian official named Abdullah Omar Naseef?

    2) Was he the founder of a Saudi charity called the Rabita Trust?

    3) Right after 9/11, was the Rabita Trust put on a list by the U.S. government of groups that were funding terrorism?"

    source - http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/06/15/roger-stone-three-questions-huma-abedin-hillary-wont-answer/

    ALberto | Jun 17, 2016 4:49:33 PM | 57
    paul @54

    "If I were Assad, I would be shaking in my boots right now and having Gaddafi dreams."

    Interesting opinion? If you made a list of democratically elected Presidents and National Leaders the US/GB/ISR axis have terminated you will fill a book. From Patrice Lumumba to Hugo Chavez the list goes on and on. Could you supply me with a list of National Leaders that Russia under Putin has terminated?

    PavewayIV | Jun 17, 2016 4:54:52 PM | 58
    State Dept: 'No Plans' to Make Public Memo Urging Strikes on Syrian Gov't
    WASHINGTON (Sputnik) - US Department of State has no plans to make public an internal memo calling for the United States to take military action against Syrian President Bashar Assad's government, US Department of State spokesperson John Kirby said in a briefing on Friday. "There's no plans to make it public," Kirby stated when asked when the State Department would release the dissent letter.

    Furthermore, Kirby said there will be no investigation as to how the letter ended up in the public domain.

    By 'public domain', Kirby means on some writer's desk at the NYT, never to be seen by the unwashed masses. To be fair, the State Department's "Dissent Memo" program is supposed to be confidential even within the State Department itself to encourage its use. Mark Landler said in his article that a draft of it was leaked by 'a State Department official' to the NYT. So some skepticism of the existence or eventual submission of the actual memo is warranted. Not that Landry is lying or hasn't verified it, but the State Department official obviously has an agenda by providing it to the NYT. The NYT has its own agenda filled as well by prominently posting the article on the top of the front page .

    Mina | Jun 17, 2016 5:08:46 PM | 60
    Nyt participating in these pressures is coordinated with medecins sans frontiere announcing today that they ll refuse eu money to protest on the treatment of refugees and with recent surge in french and uk msm of so called white helmets exclusive pictured
    Laguerre | Jun 17, 2016 5:24:14 PM | 61
    re 60 mina

    I've not fully understood the refusal of médecins sans frontieres of European funding. It's a major source, I think. They've gone American, I suppose.

    james | Jun 17, 2016 5:24:58 PM | 62
    @ why bother engaging people who change their handle and say the same thing over again?
    okie farmer | Jun 17, 2016 5:27:58 PM | 63
    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-usa-cable-idUSKCN0Z3087

    Obama, despite dissent on Syria, not shifting toward strikes on Assad

    The U.S. administration sought on Friday to contain fallout from a leaked internal memo critical of its Syria policy, but showed no sign it was willing to consider military strikes against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's forces called for in the letter signed by dozens of U.S. diplomats.

    Several U.S. officials said that while the White House is prepared to hear the diplomats' dissenting viewpoint, it is not expected to spur any changes in President Barack Obama's approach to Syria in his final seven months in office.

    One senior official said that the test for whether these proposals for more aggressive action are given high-level consideration will be whether they "fall in line with our contention that there is no military solution to the conflict in Syria."

    Hoarsewhisperer | Jun 17, 2016 5:32:25 PM | 64
    Posted by: paul | Jun 17, 2016 4:08:30 PM | 54

    It's important for Russia to ensure that the remains of the first "Israeli" jet it shoots down falls to earth inside Syria. If you've seen a story about the IAF doing something courageous it's bullshit.

    lysias | Jun 17, 2016 6:01:45 PM | 66
    Mid-level bureaucrats trying to establish a case for being promoted when and if Hillary becomes president.
    jfl | Jun 17, 2016 6:27:23 PM | 67
    @55 Les, 'Saudi Arabia desperately needs battlefield success, or there will be a prince, I mean price, to pay'

    The Prince is in the Oval office. Looks like the Houthi currency has tanked , Obama is going to ( try to ) pay off in Assad 's?

    South Front's map is finally up to date? Eisenhower follows Truman into the Mediterranean.

    Vollin | Jun 17, 2016 6:37:47 PM | 68

    Wonder how many of these 51 war mongers were appointed by Hillary.

    james | Jun 17, 2016 7:08:01 PM | 69
    How about know-nothing state dept spokespeople preparing for assad to leave to be replaced by isis?
    Oui | Jun 17, 2016 7:10:10 PM | 70
    @Laguerre
    MSF: Nothing remotely humanitarian about EU policies

    The EU-Turkey deal's financial package includes one billion euros in humanitarian aid. There are undoubtedly needs in Turkey, a country which currently hosts close to three million Syrian refugees, but this aid has been negotiated as a reward for border control promises, rather than being based solely on needs. This instrumentalisation of humanitarian aid is unacceptable.

    Last week the European Commission unveiled a new proposal to replicate the EU-Turkey logic across more than 16 countries in Africa and the Middle East.

    These deals would impose trade and development aid sanctions on countries that do not stem migration to Europe or facilitate forcible returns, rewarding those that do. Among these potential partners are Somalia , Eritrea , Sudan and Afghanistan – four of the top ten* refugee generating countries.

    Barbara | Jun 17, 2016 7:35:09 PM | 71
    kreepy kerry is "running out of patience" since his most desired regime change isn't happening fast enough. How many others are in the works? I'm running-out-of-patience waiting for the regime change anyone with 1/2 a brain wants, right here in the U.S. Regime Change US. It's our turn. I just read Putin's speech at the St. Petersburg Int'l Forum. He must have used the word "cooperation" at least 20 times. We need such a great leader. Terroristic turds like kerry and co. belong in jail.
    metni | Jun 17, 2016 7:50:24 PM | 72
    The difference between Hillary and ISIS: the latter "takes" the head of enemies, Hillary "gives" head to donors. Forgive the graphic.
    steelhead23 | Jun 17, 2016 7:53:07 PM | 73
    50 diplomats petition president for war. Was that written by Orwell? Isn't it enough that this "peaceful" nation arms the world and places economic "pressure" on those nations that displease her to the point of causing millions to die - do we really have to "kill the village to save it?" Yes, I agree, each and every one of those "career diplomats" should be looking for other work. They have not merely lost their way, they have lost their minds. My contempt for them is manifest, as is my contempt for the entire MIC. That those trained in diplomacy should send such a despicable petition illuminates the deep corrupting influence of American Exceptionalism - a force for the kind of nationalism Germany endured 1933-45. Idiots.

    Allow me to further my argument against American Exceptionalism. It is not merely the fact that the U.S. is far from exceptional. From education to infant mortality, the U.S. is woefully behind much of the world. My objection is that belief in exceptionalism leads to moral decay. It is the functional equivalent of the 19th Century preachers who endorsed slavery, who preached that negroes carried the mark of Cain, etc. Whites were God's chosen. The pseudo-righteousness that preaching created in believers was largely responsible for America's Civil War. Americans will be better people, with a better society, if we dispel this myth immediately. We're OK, you're OK. Then we could have peace. Wouldn't that be nice?

    Enrique Ferro | Jun 17, 2016 7:58:26 PM | 74
    So Hillary, the bloodthirsty Goddess of War, is longing for a second Libya, i.e., a Syria smashed to smithereens, in ashes and ruins, ruled by a chaotic bunch of mad Takfiri extremists, at war all against all. The Queen of Chaos, indeed, loves these scenarios. Especially because her quick attack as first thing should she win the White House would shut the mouths of her critics wanting her prosecuted for her crooked political and business corruption. But she and her State Department surrogates would be in for a surprise: Russian and Syrian defences would not remain silent. And afterwards, what would be left? How would the Exceptionalist who "gets things done" proceed?
    jfl | Jun 17, 2016 8:28:15 PM | 75
    The FBI is stonewalling, keeping the contents of Mateen's 911 call unavailable - though it's part of the public record - presumably because it undermines the "ISIS did it" meme poured over the Orlando mass murder. Apparently Mateen may have mentioned ISIS not quite in the same light as has been portrayed.

    Now the NYTimes/WSJ are doing the same thing with the 50 dancing diplomats. Releasing what they want us to know and redacting what we want to know : the names of those 50 dancing diplomats.

    I suppose it comes under the CIA's blanket excuse for secrecy? "Methods and means", or whatever their boilerplate.

    Releasing their names might give us the means to track the 5th column as it winds its way through 'our' government, and that must be prevented at all costs. Think it might lead through Hillary? Seems no doubt here.

    Jay M | Jun 17, 2016 8:30:36 PM | 77
    No doubt the State Department dwarves were ginned up by "Cookies" Nuland and Count Kagan by visions of "x memorandum" of 1946 immortality by attacking the resistance to an unipolar hegemony. Mixing it up in Syria with the Russian presence seems civilization limiting at the outer limits of challenge/ response in a military confrontation.

    [Jun 13, 2016] Why Trump Is Panicking

    Notable quotes:
    "... National Review ..."
    "... If Donald Trump, as seems more than likely, prevails in the GOP primary, then a number of neocons may defect to the Clinton campaign. Already Robert Kagan announced in the Washington Post ..."
    "... The impulse of the neocons to return to the Democratic Party should not be wholly surprising. In 1972, for example, Robert L. Bartley, the editorial page editor of the Wall Street Journal ..."
    "... Washington Post ..."
    "... For its part, neoconservatism has always had a nationalistic streak. But Trump represents everything that the neocons believed that they had purged from the GOP. He represents continuity with the Buchananite wing, the belief that America should tend to its own knitting before launching hopeless wars abroad. When it comes to foreign policy, however, the second generation of neocons such as Kagan does not trace its lineage back to Ohio Senator Robert Taft but to the one that Republicans in the early 1950s reviled: the Truman administration. ..."
    The National Interest
    Anyone looking for further converts to the Hillary Clinton campaign might do well to look at the Marco Rubio campaign. If Clinton is the leading liberal hawk, Rubio is the foremost neocon candidate. In 2014 National Review published an article about him titled "The neocons return."

    Whether it's Cuba or Iran or Russia, he stakes out the most intransigent line: "I disagree with voices in my own party who argue we should not engage at all, who warn we should heed the words of John Quincy Adams not to go 'abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.'" Not surprisingly, he's surrounded himself with neocon advisers, ranging from Max Boot to Jamie Fly to Elliott Abrams.

    If Donald Trump, as seems more than likely, prevails in the GOP primary, then a number of neocons may defect to the Clinton campaign. Already Robert Kagan announced in the Washington Post on Thursday that he intends to back Hillary Clinton if Donald Trump receives the GOP nomination. The fact is that the loyalty of the neocons has always been to an ideology of American exceptionalism, not to a particular party.

    This is what separates the neocon conversion to Clinton from previous examples of Republicans endorsing Barack Obama. Colin Powell wasn't making an ideological statement. He was making a practical one, based on his distaste for where the GOP was headed. For the neocons this is a much more heartfelt moment. They have invested decades in trying to reshape the GOP into their own image, and were quite successful at it. But now a formidable challenge is taking place as the GOP reverts to its traditional heritage.

    The impulse of the neocons to return to the Democratic Party should not be wholly surprising. In 1972, for example, Robert L. Bartley, the editorial page editor of the Wall Street Journal, wrote that the fledgling neoconservatives represented "something of a swing group between the two major parties." He was right. The neoconservatives had their home in the Democratic Party in the 1960s. Then they marched rightward, in reaction to the rise of the adversary culture inside the Democratic Party. George McGovern's run for the presidency in 1972, followed by the Jimmy Carter presidency, sent them into the arms of Ronald Reagan and the GOP.

    But it wasn't until the George W. Bush presidency that the neocons became the dominant foreign policy force inside the GOP. They promptly proceeded to wreck his presidency by championing the war in Iraq. Today, having wrecked it, they are now threatening to bolt the GOP and support Hillary Clinton rather than Donald Trump for the presidency.

    Something like this scenario is what I predicted in the New York Times in July 2014. Trump wasn't around then as a force inside the GOP. But already it seemed clear that some of the leading neocons such as Kagan were receptive to Clinton. Now, in a Washington Post column, Kagan has gone all in.

    He decries Republican obstructionism, antipathy to Obama, and the rise of Trump. The tone is apocalyptic. According to Kagan,

    "So what to do now? The Republicans' creation will soon be let loose on the land, leaving to others the job the party failed to carry out. For this former Republican, and perhaps for others, the only choice will be to vote for Hillary Clinton. The party cannot be saved, but the country still can be."

    This itself represents a curious case of neocon hyperbole. Kagan is an eloquent writer, but he elides the fact that many of Trump's positions are not all that different from what the GOP has espoused in the past when it comes to domestic issues. It is on foreign affairs where Trump represents a marked shift and it is this that truly troubles the neocon wing.

    Trump has made it clear that he's dubious about foreign interventions. He's indicated that he would treat with Russian president Vladimir Putin. His entire foreign policy credo, such as it is, seems to have a Jacksonian pedigree-don't tread on me.

    For its part, neoconservatism has always had a nationalistic streak. But Trump represents everything that the neocons believed that they had purged from the GOP. He represents continuity with the Buchananite wing, the belief that America should tend to its own knitting before launching hopeless wars abroad. When it comes to foreign policy, however, the second generation of neocons such as Kagan does not trace its lineage back to Ohio Senator Robert Taft but to the one that Republicans in the early 1950s reviled: the Truman administration.

    Here we come full circle. The origins of the neocons are in the Democratic Party. Should Clinton become the Democratic nominee and Trump the Republican one, a number of neocons may make common cause with Clinton. Watch Rubio's ranks first.

    Jacob Heilbrunn is editor of the National Interest.

    [Jun 13, 2016] Neocon Kagan Endorses Hillary Clinton

    Notable quotes:
    "... Prominent neocon Robert Kagan has endorsed Democrat Hillary Clinton for president, saying she represents the best hope for saving the United States from populist billionaire Donald Trump, who has repudiated the neoconservative cause of U.S. military interventions in line with Israel's interests. ..."
    "... Then referring to himself, he added, "For this former Republican, and perhaps for others, the only choice will be to vote for Hillary Clinton. The [Republican] party cannot be saved, but the country still can be." ..."
    "... Kagan, who I've known since the 1980s when he was a rising star on Ronald Reagan's State Department propaganda team (selling violent right-wing policies in Central America), has been signaling his affection for Clinton for some time, at least since she appointed him as an adviser to her State Department and promoted his wife Victoria Nuland, a former top aide to Vice President Dick Cheney, to be the State Department's chief spokesperson. Largely because of Clinton's patronage, Nuland rose to assistant secretary of state for European affairs and oversaw the provocative "regime change" in Ukraine in 2014. ..."
    "... "I feel comfortable with her on foreign policy. If she pursues a policy which we think she will pursue it's something that might have been called neocon, but clearly her supporters are not going to call it that; they are going to call it something else." ..."
    "... Now, Kagan, whose Project for the New American Century wrote the blueprint for George W. Bush's disastrous Iraq War, is now abandoning the Republican Party in favor of Hillary Clinton. ..."
    "... While Kagan's op-ed surely makes some accurate points about Republicans, his endorsement of Hillary Clinton raises a different issue for Democrats: Do they want a presidential candidate who someone as savvy as Kagan knows will perpetuate neocon strategies around the world? Do Democrats really trust Hillary Clinton to handle delicate issues, such as the Syrian conflict, without resorting to escalations that may make the neocon disasters under George W. Bush look minor by comparison? ..."
    "... Perhaps Robert Kagan's endorsement of Hillary Clinton and what that underscores about the likely foreign policy of a second Clinton presidency might finally force war or peace to the fore of the campaign. ..."
    "... America's Stolen Narrative, ..."
    Feb 25, 2016 | Consortiumnews

    Exclusive: Hillary Clinton's cozy ties to Washington's powerful neocons have paid off with the endorsement of Robert Kagan, one of the most influential neocons. But it also should raise questions among Democrats about what kind of foreign policy a President Hillary Clinton would pursue, writes Robert Parry.

    Prominent neocon Robert Kagan has endorsed Democrat Hillary Clinton for president, saying she represents the best hope for saving the United States from populist billionaire Donald Trump, who has repudiated the neoconservative cause of U.S. military interventions in line with Israel's interests.

    In a Washington Post op-ed published on Thursday, Kagan excoriated the Republican Party for creating the conditions for Trump's rise and then asked, "So what to do now? The Republicans' creation will soon be let loose on the land, leaving to others the job the party failed to carry out."

    Then referring to himself, he added, "For this former Republican, and perhaps for others, the only choice will be to vote for Hillary Clinton. The [Republican] party cannot be saved, but the country still can be."

    While many of Kagan's observations about the Republican tolerance and even encouragement of bigotry are correct, the fact that a leading neocon, a co-founder of the infamous Project for the New American Century, has endorsed Clinton raises questions for Democrats who have so far given the former New York senator and Secretary of State mostly a pass on her pro-interventionist policies.

    The fact is that Clinton has generally marched in lock step with the neocons as they have implemented an aggressive "regime change" strategy against governments and political movements that don't toe Washington's line or that deviate from Israel's goals in the Middle East. So she has backed coups, such as in Honduras (2009) and Ukraine (2014); invasions, such as Iraq (2003) and Libya (2011); and subversions such as Syria (from 2011 to the present) all with various degrees of disastrous results.

    Yet, with the failure of Republican establishment candidates to gain political traction against Trump, Clinton has clearly become the choice of many neoconservatives and "liberal interventionists" who favor continuation of U.S. imperial designs around the world. The question for Democrats now is whether they wish to perpetuate those war-like policies by sticking with Clinton or should switch to Sen. Bernie Sanders, who offers a somewhat less aggressive (though vaguely defined) foreign policy.

    Sanders has undermined his appeal to anti-imperialist Democrats by muting his criticism of Clinton's "regime change" strategies and concentrating relentlessly on his message of "income inequality" for which Clinton has disingenuously dubbed him a "single-issue candidate." Whether Sanders has the will and the time to reorient his campaign to question Clinton's status as the new neocon choice remains in doubt.

    A Reagan Propagandist

    Kagan, who I've known since the 1980s when he was a rising star on Ronald Reagan's State Department propaganda team (selling violent right-wing policies in Central America), has been signaling his affection for Clinton for some time, at least since she appointed him as an adviser to her State Department and promoted his wife Victoria Nuland, a former top aide to Vice President Dick Cheney, to be the State Department's chief spokesperson. Largely because of Clinton's patronage, Nuland rose to assistant secretary of state for European affairs and oversaw the provocative "regime change" in Ukraine in 2014.

    Later in 2014, Kagan told The New York Times that he hoped that his neocon views which he had begun to call "liberal interventionist" would prevail in a possible Hillary Clinton administration. The Times reported that Clinton "remains the vessel into which many interventionists are pouring their hopes" and quoted Kagan as saying:

    "I feel comfortable with her on foreign policy. If she pursues a policy which we think she will pursue it's something that might have been called neocon, but clearly her supporters are not going to call it that; they are going to call it something else."

    Now, Kagan, whose Project for the New American Century wrote the blueprint for George W. Bush's disastrous Iraq War, is now abandoning the Republican Party in favor of Hillary Clinton.

    ... ... ...

    While Kagan's op-ed surely makes some accurate points about Republicans, his endorsement of Hillary Clinton raises a different issue for Democrats: Do they want a presidential candidate who someone as savvy as Kagan knows will perpetuate neocon strategies around the world? Do Democrats really trust Hillary Clinton to handle delicate issues, such as the Syrian conflict, without resorting to escalations that may make the neocon disasters under George W. Bush look minor by comparison?

    Will Clinton even follow the latest neocon dream of "regime change" in Moscow as the ultimate way of collapsing Israel's lesser obstacles - Iran, Syria, Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Palestinian resistance? Does Clinton have the wisdom to understand that neocon schemes are often half-baked (remember "the cakewalk" in Iraq) and that the risk of overthrowing Vladimir Putin in Moscow might lead not to some new pliable version of Boris Yeltsin but to a dangerous Russian nationalist ready to use the nuclear codes to defend Mother Russia? (For all Putin's faults, he is a calculating adversary, not a crazy one.)

    The fact that none of these life-and-death foreign policy questions has been thoroughly or intelligently explored during the Democratic presidential campaign is a failure of both the mainstream media moderators and the two candidates, Sanders and Clinton, neither of whom seems to want a serious or meaningful debate about these existential issues.

    Perhaps Robert Kagan's endorsement of Hillary Clinton and what that underscores about the likely foreign policy of a second Clinton presidency might finally force war or peace to the fore of the campaign.

    [For more on the powerful Kagan family, see Consortiumnews.com's "A Family Business of Perpetual War."]

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

    [Jun 13, 2016] Why Trump Is Panicking

    Notable quotes:
    "... National Review ..."
    "... If Donald Trump, as seems more than likely, prevails in the GOP primary, then a number of neocons may defect to the Clinton campaign. Already Robert Kagan announced in the Washington Post ..."
    "... The impulse of the neocons to return to the Democratic Party should not be wholly surprising. In 1972, for example, Robert L. Bartley, the editorial page editor of the Wall Street Journal ..."
    "... Washington Post ..."
    "... For its part, neoconservatism has always had a nationalistic streak. But Trump represents everything that the neocons believed that they had purged from the GOP. He represents continuity with the Buchananite wing, the belief that America should tend to its own knitting before launching hopeless wars abroad. When it comes to foreign policy, however, the second generation of neocons such as Kagan does not trace its lineage back to Ohio Senator Robert Taft but to the one that Republicans in the early 1950s reviled: the Truman administration. ..."
    The National Interest
    Anyone looking for further converts to the Hillary Clinton campaign might do well to look at the Marco Rubio campaign. If Clinton is the leading liberal hawk, Rubio is the foremost neocon candidate. In 2014 National Review published an article about him titled "The neocons return."

    Whether it's Cuba or Iran or Russia, he stakes out the most intransigent line: "I disagree with voices in my own party who argue we should not engage at all, who warn we should heed the words of John Quincy Adams not to go 'abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.'" Not surprisingly, he's surrounded himself with neocon advisers, ranging from Max Boot to Jamie Fly to Elliott Abrams.

    If Donald Trump, as seems more than likely, prevails in the GOP primary, then a number of neocons may defect to the Clinton campaign. Already Robert Kagan announced in the Washington Post on Thursday that he intends to back Hillary Clinton if Donald Trump receives the GOP nomination. The fact is that the loyalty of the neocons has always been to an ideology of American exceptionalism, not to a particular party.

    This is what separates the neocon conversion to Clinton from previous examples of Republicans endorsing Barack Obama. Colin Powell wasn't making an ideological statement. He was making a practical one, based on his distaste for where the GOP was headed. For the neocons this is a much more heartfelt moment. They have invested decades in trying to reshape the GOP into their own image, and were quite successful at it. But now a formidable challenge is taking place as the GOP reverts to its traditional heritage.

    The impulse of the neocons to return to the Democratic Party should not be wholly surprising. In 1972, for example, Robert L. Bartley, the editorial page editor of the Wall Street Journal, wrote that the fledgling neoconservatives represented "something of a swing group between the two major parties." He was right. The neoconservatives had their home in the Democratic Party in the 1960s. Then they marched rightward, in reaction to the rise of the adversary culture inside the Democratic Party. George McGovern's run for the presidency in 1972, followed by the Jimmy Carter presidency, sent them into the arms of Ronald Reagan and the GOP.

    But it wasn't until the George W. Bush presidency that the neocons became the dominant foreign policy force inside the GOP. They promptly proceeded to wreck his presidency by championing the war in Iraq. Today, having wrecked it, they are now threatening to bolt the GOP and support Hillary Clinton rather than Donald Trump for the presidency.

    Something like this scenario is what I predicted in the New York Times in July 2014. Trump wasn't around then as a force inside the GOP. But already it seemed clear that some of the leading neocons such as Kagan were receptive to Clinton. Now, in a Washington Post column, Kagan has gone all in.

    He decries Republican obstructionism, antipathy to Obama, and the rise of Trump. The tone is apocalyptic. According to Kagan,

    "So what to do now? The Republicans' creation will soon be let loose on the land, leaving to others the job the party failed to carry out. For this former Republican, and perhaps for others, the only choice will be to vote for Hillary Clinton. The party cannot be saved, but the country still can be."

    This itself represents a curious case of neocon hyperbole. Kagan is an eloquent writer, but he elides the fact that many of Trump's positions are not all that different from what the GOP has espoused in the past when it comes to domestic issues. It is on foreign affairs where Trump represents a marked shift and it is this that truly troubles the neocon wing.

    Trump has made it clear that he's dubious about foreign interventions. He's indicated that he would treat with Russian president Vladimir Putin. His entire foreign policy credo, such as it is, seems to have a Jacksonian pedigree-don't tread on me.

    For its part, neoconservatism has always had a nationalistic streak. But Trump represents everything that the neocons believed that they had purged from the GOP. He represents continuity with the Buchananite wing, the belief that America should tend to its own knitting before launching hopeless wars abroad. When it comes to foreign policy, however, the second generation of neocons such as Kagan does not trace its lineage back to Ohio Senator Robert Taft but to the one that Republicans in the early 1950s reviled: the Truman administration.

    Here we come full circle. The origins of the neocons are in the Democratic Party. Should Clinton become the Democratic nominee and Trump the Republican one, a number of neocons may make common cause with Clinton. Watch Rubio's ranks first.

    Jacob Heilbrunn is editor of the National Interest.

    [Jun 12, 2016] Putin signs NGO bill exempting charities from Russia's 'foreign agents law'

    Notable quotes:
    "... The new law lists political activity as participation in street rallies and marches and any activity aimed at influencing the result of an election or a referendum. The list also includes elections monitoring, participation in the work of political parties, public appeals to state agencies seeking changes in laws, circulating appraisals of existing laws or state policies and attempts to influence views on political issues through opinion polls. ..."
    "... The act also names the spheres where no activity can be recognized as political. These are culture, science, sport, fine arts, healthcare, environmental protection, volunteering and charity. ..."
    "... The Foreign Agents Law, introduced in late 2012, obliges all NGOs who receive funding from abroad and engaged in political activities to register as foreign agents or risk substantial fines. In November 2014, the law was expanded with a bill making it illegal for Russian political parties to receive sponsorship, or enter any business deals with NGOs with "foreign agent" status. ..."
    "... basically they force the Western group to abbolish their mask of well-doing and care-takers. Now, any organisation has to stick to it's public platform, the one that they use to get supporters, Basically, is using their weapons against them ..."
    "... Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs is doing God's work. ..."
    "... Is the Clinton Foundation exempted? -:) ..."
    "... do not be naive, there will not short of George Soros. There are many already groomed George Soros even more evil than the original. George Soros and all others evil personal, organizations and other could only disappear when the nation America's current fake democracy change & real democracy introduce. But this is far farfetch for obvious reasons ..."
    "... Those, who work for the Russia they compete and receive grants for their deeds. And these NGOs - is 5 column, all rose by grants of the west, and must lie to and to pour dirt on Russia in the Western media. In Russia, they do not need anyone, so that is why feeds them west. ..."
    "... I think you have to be careful as agents can be coming in to work for charities too or being bought by foreign interests. ..."
    "... They are the principle vehicles used by CIA, thats how they toppled Yugoslavia, Ukraine and subvert the EU. ..."
    Jun 3, 2016 | RT

    The Russian president has signed into law a bill defining the term political activity of non-governmental organizations and allowing charity groups receiving funding from abroad not to register as foreign agents.

    The new law lists political activity as participation in street rallies and marches and any activity aimed at influencing the result of an election or a referendum. The list also includes elections monitoring, participation in the work of political parties, public appeals to state agencies seeking changes in laws, circulating appraisals of existing laws or state policies and attempts to influence views on political issues through opinion polls.

    The act also names the spheres where no activity can be recognized as political. These are culture, science, sport, fine arts, healthcare, environmental protection, volunteering and charity. Groups involved in these activities should not register as foreign agents even if they get foreign funding and at the same time participate in events seeking to influence the decisions of state bodies.

    READ MORE: Justice Ministry defines 'political activity' to amend 'Foreign Agents Law'

    The bill was drafted by the Justice Ministry in January and passed by the lower and upper houses of parliament in late May. The move came after President Vladimir Putin last October ordered his administration to take measures aimed at defining political activities in Russia. Putin also personally promised human rights activists that the controversial law on foreign agents would be amended.

    "The definition of political activity must not be vague, it must not be expandable, and there must be only one way to understand it. And in any case we should not fit anything that is not welcomed by representatives of the authorities or Justice Ministry or anyone else under this definition," Putin told the members of the Presidential Council for Human Rights.

    The Foreign Agents Law, introduced in late 2012, obliges all NGOs who receive funding from abroad and engaged in political activities to register as foreign agents or risk substantial fines. In November 2014, the law was expanded with a bill making it illegal for Russian political parties to receive sponsorship, or enter any business deals with NGOs with "foreign agent" status.

    Many rights groups in Russia and abroad protested the move saying it would jeopardize their existence. The sponsors of the act and top Russian officials including President Putin have repeatedly emphasized that its main purpose was providing better information for voters, and that it would eventually benefit democracy.

    SMD99> ursulariches

    ursulariches

    I think you have to be careful as agents can be coming in to work for charities too or being more...

    Putin being a former KGB agent might be the most aware leader of this and special measures against this have already been taken behind the scene. I think the bill has another goal. By saying exactly what types of 'foreign-funding' is considered to be 'political' and against the law, basically they force the Western group to abbolish their mask of well-doing and care-takers. Now, any organisation has to stick to it's public platform, the one that they use to get supporters, Basically, is using their weapons against them

    Enrique Ferro> Lord Vadar

    Lord Vadar

    Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs is doing God's work.

    Ha! Ha!

    Enrique Ferro

    Is the Clinton Foundation exempted? -:)

    Alemseged Makonnen> Out Lander

    Out Lander

    He is too Old ... George Soros will be dead in next 1 or 2 years and directly go to hell...

    do not be naive, there will not short of George Soros. There are many already groomed George Soros even more evil than the original. George Soros and all others evil personal, organizations and other could only disappear when the nation America's current fake democracy change & real democracy introduce. But this is far farfetch for obvious reasons

    james greer

    All good leaders will take care of their own country first, then what's left over can be used to help others. MR Putin is a good leader.

    Lord Vadar

    Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs is doing God's work.

    GarricRus > Av Toma

    Av Toma

    Russia allocates huge funds for the opposition and on different programs ....
    Those, who work for the more...

    Their "party" have reached the grand total of ZERO deputie

    Av Toma

    Russia allocates huge funds for the opposition and on different programs ....

    Those, who work for the Russia they compete and receive grants for their deeds. And these NGOs - is 5 column, all rose by grants of the west, and must lie to and to pour dirt on Russia in the Western media. In Russia, they do not need anyone, so that is why feeds them west.

    ursularichea

    I think you have to be careful as agents can be coming in to work for charities too or being bought by foreign interests.

    Machentse

    They are the principle vehicles used by CIA, thats how they toppled Yugoslavia, Ukraine and subvert the EU.

    [Jun 10, 2016] In 2009 it was immediately obvious Obama was a complete and total fraud and he has governed center right because he has a neocon much like Bush 11 and Clinton were

    Notable quotes:
    "... Obama implemented health care "reforms" that were written by a health care industry lobbyist and have further enriched Big Pharma and health insurers. ..."
    "... Oh, come on. Lots of people have covered this at length. The country was petrified when Obama took office. He had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and the House. He could has passed anything he wanted. It was his own Robert Rubin holdover, bank friendly neoliberal Larry Summers, who argued for a smaller stimulus and bullied Christine Romer, whose modeling called for more. He could have passed real health care reform and didn't. ..."
    "... Obama has governed center right because he has a center right world view. Presidents have enormous bully pulpits. They can move the Overton window if they choose to. He didn't make an effort because that is what he believes. I saw that with his disappointing first inauguration speech. He has even failed to do things that were entirely within his power, like his promised "first action" of his Administration of closing Gitmo. ..."
    "... However, come 2009 it was immediately obvious Obama was a complete and total fraud ..."
    "... With the help of the IM, by mid-2009 I fully understood that Obama was a continuation of Bush, and Bush was a continuation of Clinton. ..."
    "... ike Clinton and Bush, Obama has done nothing but aggressively push this country, and the world, to the FAR right… by embracing a Global Corporate/Mafia/Neoliberal/Neocon 'New World Order' that exclusively privileges the 5% capitalist class over the 95% working class. ..."
    "... You admit "Bill Clinton took the Democratic Party in a neoliberal direction"… but don't see that Obama did the exact same thing? How is that possible? ..."
    "... NO WAY, NEVER EVER KILLERY. ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Yves Smith Post author

    Huh? Obama has not moved the US to the left. He had the opportunity to come down hard on Wall Street and didn't. He even engineered a second huge bailout for Wall Street, in the form of the "get out of liability almost free" card of the 2012 National Mortgage Settlement. He is keen to implement trade deals that would be huge wins for multinationals at the expense of national sovereignity, including the ability of the US to regulate product safety, financial services, and the environment. His Presidency has seen profit share of GDP rise to record levels, and a "recovery" where the 1% gained at the expense of everyone else.

    Google "Jane Hamsher" and "veal pen". Obama from the very start of his presidency targeted well funded leftist groups and got them defunded, systematically.

    Obama implemented health care "reforms" that were written by a health care industry lobbyist and have further enriched Big Pharma and health insurers. He made promises to raise the minimum wage that he failed to act on. His Supreme Court picks were centrist at best. His Department of Justice has been soft on anti-trust, soft on elite white collar crime. He's routinely used the Republicans as an excuse to do what he wanted, which was to govern center-right. He'd regularly concede 75% of what they asked for as his opening gambit. And then he'd move further right to get bills passed.

    Yves Smith Post author

    Oh, come on. Lots of people have covered this at length. The country was petrified when Obama took office. He had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and the House. He could has passed anything he wanted. It was his own Robert Rubin holdover, bank friendly neoliberal Larry Summers, who argued for a smaller stimulus and bullied Christine Romer, whose modeling called for more. He could have passed real health care reform and didn't.

    He similarly could have passed real financial services industry reform and didn't. Dodd Frank was weak tea and had many of its provisions kicked over for study and later rulemaking, which was designed to let the industry have another go at watering it down. Danny Tarullo at the Fed singlehandedly has been a more effective force for reform than the Obama Administration.

    The Obama administration enabled the taking by bank servicer of millions of homes when investors in those securitizations preferred modifications.

    And please tell me what Obama has done in terms of improvements in consumer rights. The only thing I can think of is the CFPB's proposed rulemaking on mandatory arbitration. The only reason we got that is basically due to how Elizabeth Warren started up the CFPB, by creating a solid culture that held up over time. And he gave her that job with the hope she'd screw it up, not succeed. She had become a huge thorn in Timothy Geithner's side and they wanted to take her down a peg. But that plan backfired.

    We wrote at GREAT length at the time how the FCIC was designed to do a crappy job and it did. By contrast, Ronald Reagan formed the Brady Commission to investigate the 1987 crash ten days after it happened, had it staffed with serious people, not lightweights like Phil Angildes (well meaning but out of his depth) and a subpoena process that guaranteed that no real investigation could or would be done. Obama reappointed Ben Bernanke, a Bush holderover who represented a continuation of the Greenspan policies that led to the crisis and bailed out the banks, imposed no executive or board changes, and did not pump for reform. By contrast, the Bank of England was much tougher with banks and fought tooth and nail for a Glass-Steagall type breakup of banks (it was stymied by the UK Treasury and got a partial win).

    Gay rights? You mean Obama's weak and late endorsement of gay marriage? That's not legal action.

    And the ACA was not "reform" but a program for more rent extraction by pharma and insurers. Did you manage to miss that the biggest groups funding the Obama campaign were the financial services industry, tech, and the medical/industrial complex?

    It strengthened the position of insurers, and allows for profit levels that were higher than the industry enjoyed before the bill was passed. Obama never tried to sell single payer (in fact, his operatives targeted groups that advocated it), and was never serious about a public option. He took that off the table and got no concession from the other side. You never give a free concession in bargaining, ever. He just didn't want people talking about it any more.

    The ACA has harmed a lot of people. Everyone I know who has to get a policy under the ACA is worse off. It is a nightmare for self employed people and people with erratic incomes. The only real benefit has been Medicaid expansion. And the ACA is going into a death spiral anyhow.

    You really need to get out and deal with facts, not Democratic party/Administration PR.

    More generally, you are selling the line "Obama was constrained." Bollocks. Obama has governed center right because he has a center right world view. Presidents have enormous bully pulpits. They can move the Overton window if they choose to. He didn't make an effort because that is what he believes. I saw that with his disappointing first inauguration speech. He has even failed to do things that were entirely within his power, like his promised "first action" of his Administration of closing Gitmo.

    The success of the Sanders campaign, despite the MSM efforts to first ignore it and then ridicule it, shows how strong public support is for true progressive positions. If the Administration had gone in that direction, it would have had public opinion behind it and the media would have fallen in line.

    I suggest you read:

    Felix_47

    Thank you for saying the obvious. And thank you for the Politico article which formulated my view as well and I am easily in the 1%, white, over educated and travelled, male and in the sixth decade. And I have mailed in my vote for Bernie. However in the cafeteria today one of the workers was talking about how he thought Bernie would kill in in CA and I reminded him he needed to vote since he was for him and his comment scared me…….He said he would vote for Bernie in the general but that he was registered as an independent because he does not believe in any of the parties and that he could not vote for Bernie……..but he said it did not matter…..unfortunately our precariate is not necessarily fully aware of the hoops required to vote…..and I am certain he is not alone…..there are many that want Bernie but just don't have it together to be able to vote for him.

    Waldenpond

    Yes, I just posted this…. 40% of NPPs that claimed to want to vote for Sanders just sent in their NPP ballots. They simply did not bother to request a D ballot.

    Lambert Strether
  • Print this out and put it on the fridge, if you have a fridge.
  • (I'd also add that prosecuting banksters for accounting control fraud was under Obama's control at Justice, and would have been wildly popular across the political spectrum. Instead we got "I stand between you and the pitchforks."
  • Waldenpond

    Your back on memeorandum….which is pro-Clinton, ignore/excoriate Sanders today (well, most days)

    I did not read any of them, just the highlight that pops up….

    LGM… the people you know are 'dumb'
    DeLong is sorry he ever linked to you….
    Echidne of the Snakes… rotting, stinking something or other and your commenters are not representative of the D party.

    Steve in Dallas

    Yikes… "Barack Obama, a transformational figure, has moved the US back to the left – as much as possible"???

    At 45yo in late 2007 I was a "political naif"… still trusting the mainstream media. However, the Murdoch/FOX takeover of the WSJ pushed me to the internet… to follow the 'big crash'. Independent media sites like NakedCapitalism were so obviously and infinitely better to anything in the MSM I quickly was begging family/friends/everybody… "Please turn off the MSM. I learned more in one month reading the IM than I learned reading the WSJ daily for 20 years! The MSM is total garbage and totally corrupt"… BOYCOTT the MSM.

    Regarding Obama? All through 2008 I followed the IM election coverage, listened to his and Michael's campaign speeches. The message was clear… Obama was going to stop the out-of-control criminal banksters and Wall Streeters… AND stop the crazed out-of-control war criminals… MUCH more than Hillary! However, come 2009 it was immediately obvious Obama was a complete and total fraud. He immediately surrounded himself with the exact same economic and war criminals from the Clinton and Bush administrations. With the help of the IM, by mid-2009 I fully understood that Obama was a continuation of Bush, and Bush was a continuation of Clinton.

    Like Clinton and Bush, Obama has done nothing but aggressively push this country, and the world, to the FAR right… by embracing a Global Corporate/Mafia/Neoliberal/Neocon 'New World Order' that exclusively privileges the 5% capitalist class over the 95% working class.

    1) You admit "Bill Clinton took the Democratic Party in a neoliberal direction"… but don't see that Obama did the exact same thing? How is that possible?

    2) Even more audaciously disingenuous… "Clinton – pushed by progressive supporters – would continue that transformation". Bill's a neolib and Hillary is not? How is that possible?

    3) Reagan-Bush-Clinton-Bush-Obama were all consistent at creating your list of problems… "social justice issues, living wages, reversal of supply-side economic policy, protecting Social Security and other government agencies from privatization, and ending the Citizens United campaign finance regime… Supreme Court justice… Senate to provide its advice and consent"… and Hillary is here to fix those problems?

    4) To me your post sounds like just another TINA (there is no alternative) threat from the 5% telling the working class 95% slobs to back down and just take what they're given.

    I'm totally 100% with Yves' description of NC readers… NO WAY, NEVER EVER KILLERY.

    Thank you so much Yves… we/I love you!!!

    [Jun 10, 2016] This despicable, corrupt Clinton-style neocon Obama

    Notable quotes:
    "... He is keen to implement trade deals that would be huge wins for multinationals at the expense of national sovereignty, including the ability of the US to regulate product safety, financial services, and the environment. ..."
    "... His Presidency has seen profit share of GDP rise to record levels, and a "recovery" where the 1% gained at the expense of everyone else. ..."
    "... Obama implemented health care "reforms" that were written by a health care industry lobbyist and have further enriched Big Pharma and health insurers. ..."
    "... He made promises to raise the minimum wage that he failed to act on. ..."
    "... His Supreme Court picks were centrist at best. ..."
    "... His Department of Justice has been soft on anti-trust, soft on elite white collar crime. ..."
    "... He's routinely used the Republicans as an excuse to do what he wanted, which was to govern center-right. ..."
    "... He'd regularly concede 75% of what they asked for as his opening gambit. And then he'd move further right to get bills passed. ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Yves Smith Post author

    Huh? Obama has not moved the US to the left. He had the opportunity to come down hard on Wall Street and didn't. He even engineered a second huge bailout for Wall Street, in the form of the "get out of liability almost free" card of the 2012 National Mortgage Settlement.

    He is keen to implement trade deals that would be huge wins for multinationals at the expense of national sovereignty, including the ability of the US to regulate product safety, financial services, and the environment.

    His Presidency has seen profit share of GDP rise to record levels, and a "recovery" where the 1% gained at the expense of everyone else.

    Google "Jane Hamsher" and "veal pen". Obama from the very start of his presidency targeted well funded leftist groups and got them defunded, systematically.

    1. Obama implemented health care "reforms" that were written by a health care industry lobbyist and have further enriched Big Pharma and health insurers.
    2. He made promises to raise the minimum wage that he failed to act on.
    3. His Supreme Court picks were centrist at best.
    4. His Department of Justice has been soft on anti-trust, soft on elite white collar crime.
    5. He's routinely used the Republicans as an excuse to do what he wanted, which was to govern center-right.
    6. He'd regularly concede 75% of what they asked for as his opening gambit. And then he'd move further right to get bills passed.

    [Jun 08, 2016] Ukraine SBI is checking whether Poroshenko violated border crossing rules during trip to Maldives

    Jun 08, 2016 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

    UkrinForm

    Ukraine's State Bureau of Investigation (SBI) has opened criminal proceedings regarding the possible organization by former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko of illegal crossing through the border with the use of fake documents, the SBI has reported on its Facebook page.

    "SBI investigators will check reports on former President Petro Poroshenko organizing illegal crossing through the state border of Ukraine with the use of deliberately forged documents," the report reads.

    In particular, the report specifies that it will be established during the investigation whether officials of the customs and border authorities included deliberately false information in official documents in order to ensure border crossing.

    Former Deputy Head of the Presidential Administration Andriy Portnov reported earlier that according to his statement, the SBI opened a criminal case to check possible violations of border crossing "by persons close to Poroshenko in 2018 under other people's passports to the Maldives archipelago."

    [Jun 02, 2016] US stabs Saudi ally in the back – again – with terror scapegoating by Finian Cunningham

    Notable quotes:
    "... 'The World Reaps What the Saudis Sow' ..."
    "... "promoting Wahhabism, the radical form of Sunni Islam that inspired the 9/11 hijackers and that now inflames the Islamic State." ..."
    "... "Saudi Arabia has frustrated American policy makers for years," ..."
    "... In particular, the august US "newspaper of record", which can be taken as a barometer of official Washington thinking, accused Saudi Arabia and the other Persian Gulf monarchies of turning the Balkan country of Kosovo into a failed state. This was because the Saudis have sponsored "extremist clerics" who are "fostering violent jihad", thereby making it a "fertile ground for recruitment to radical ideology". ..."
    "... "free riders" ..."
    "... As for claims that the Saudis and other Persian Gulf states are sponsoring Islamic extremism, this conveniently obscures US covert policy since the 1970s and 80s in Afghanistan, when American planners like Zbigniew Brzezinski conceived of al Qaeda terrorist proxies to fight against the Soviet Union. ..."
    "... The question is: how much can the strategic alliance between the US and its Saudi partner bear – before a straw breaks the camel's back? ..."
    RT Op-Edge
    For months now, US-Saudi relations have become increasingly strained. The latest American aggravation is blaming its Arab ally for turning Kosovo into an "extremist breeding ground". In an article by the New York Times' editorial board last week, entitled 'The World Reaps What the Saudis Sow' , the leading US publication castigated the Saudi rulers for "promoting Wahhabism, the radical form of Sunni Islam that inspired the 9/11 hijackers and that now inflames the Islamic State."

    It was an astounding broadside of condemnation, articulated with palpable contempt towards the Saudi rulers. "Saudi Arabia has frustrated American policy makers for years," the editorial bitterly lamented.

    In particular, the august US "newspaper of record", which can be taken as a barometer of official Washington thinking, accused Saudi Arabia and the other Persian Gulf monarchies of turning the Balkan country of Kosovo into a failed state. This was because the Saudis have sponsored "extremist clerics" who are "fostering violent jihad", thereby making it a "fertile ground for recruitment to radical ideology".

    That Kosovo has become a hotbed of Islamic radicalism and a source of young militants going to Syria and Iraq to join the ranks of the Islamic State and other terrorist groups is not in dispute.

    Nor is it in dispute that the Saudis and other Gulf Arab states have pumped millions of dollars into the Balkan territory to promote their version of Islamic fundamentalism – Wahhabism – which is correlated with extremist groups.

    ... ... ...

    US President Barack Obama riled the already-irked Saudi rulers when he referred to them as "free riders" in a high-profile interview published in April, suggesting that the oil-rich kingdom was overly reliant on American military power. In the same interview, Obama also blamed Saudi Arabia for destabilizing Iraq, Syria and Yemen.

    The Saudis reacted furiously to Obama's claims. The White House then tried to back-pedal on the president's criticisms, but it was noticeable that when Obama flew to Saudi Arabia for a summit with Persian Gulf leaders later that month, he received a chilly reception.

    Since then, relations have only become even more frigid. The passage of a bill through Congress which would permit American citizens to sue the Saudi state over alleged terrorism damages from the 9/11 events has provoked the Saudi rulers to warn that they will retaliate by selling off US Treasury holdings.

    Then there are strident calls by US politicians and media pundits for the declassification of 28 pages in a 2002 congressional report into 9/11, which reputedly indicate Saudi state involvement in financially supporting the alleged hijackers of the civilian airliners that crashed into public buildings in September 2001.

    President Obama has said that he will veto the controversial legislation and publication of classified information. Nevertheless, the Saudi rulers are incensed by the moves, which they see as treacherous backstabbing by their American ally. An alliance that stretches back seven decades, stemming from FDR and the first Saudi king Ibn Saud.

    As American writer Paul Craig Roberts has pointed out, the latest twists in the 9/11 controversy appear to be efforts by the US "deep state" to make the Saudis a convenient fall guy.

    The same goes for Obama accusing Saudi Arabia for destabilizing Iraq, Syria and Yemen. Yes, sure, the Saudis are involved in fomenting violence and sectarianism in these countries and elsewhere. But, again, the bigger culprit is Washington for authoring the overarching agenda of regime change in the Middle East.

    As for claims that the Saudis and other Persian Gulf states are sponsoring Islamic extremism, this conveniently obscures US covert policy since the 1970s and 80s in Afghanistan, when American planners like Zbigniew Brzezinski conceived of al Qaeda terrorist proxies to fight against the Soviet Union.

    Blaming the Saudis over the failed state of Kosovo is but the latest in a long list of scapegoating by Washington. No wonder the Saudis are livid at this American maneuver to dish the dirt. Washington is setting the Saudi rulers up to take the rap for a myriad of evils that arguably it has much more responsibility for.

    The question is: how much can the strategic alliance between the US and its Saudi partner bear – before a straw breaks the camel's back?

    [Jun 02, 2016] Oil trading giant Gunvor handed its chief executive a $1bn dividend to fund a deal that helped the company distance itself from US sanctions against Russia.

    Notable quotes:
    "... Timchenko's exit was designed to quell any concerns about his role in the company, as he was due to be named in a list of people with alleged links to the Kremlin sanctioned by the US after Russia's invasion of Crimea. ..."
    peakoilbarrel.com
    likbez , 06/01/2016 at 9:25 am
    This is from Guardian:

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/may/31/gunvor-oil-chief-dividend-russia-us-sanctions-tornqvist-timchenko

    Oil trading giant Gunvor handed its chief executive a $1bn dividend to fund a deal that helped the company distance itself from US sanctions against Russia.

    Torbjörn Törnqvist agreed to buy a 43% stake in the company, the fourth largest oil trader in the world, from co-founder Gennady Timchenko in 2014 for an undisclosed fee.

    Timchenko's exit was designed to quell any concerns about his role in the company, as he was due to be named in a list of people with alleged links to the Kremlin sanctioned by the US after Russia's invasion of Crimea.

    But the sheer size of Gunvor, which pulled in revenues of $64bn (£44bn) last year despite rock-bottom oil prices, meant Törnqvist could not fund the deal in one go.

    The payment of a $1bn dividend, only part of which was used to fund the deal, allowed Törnqvist to settle his remaining debt to Timchenko.

    [Jun 02, 2016] Medvedev to launch a new complex at Lukoil's oil refinery in Volgograd Russia Oil and Gas, Metals and Mining News

    rusmininfo.com

    ​The new complex will allow to increase the output of diesel fuel of Euro-5 class.

    The PM D. Medvedev will visit Volgograd on May 31st.

    He will participate in the ceremony of start-up and commissioning works at the plant "Lukoil-Volgogradnetepererabotka".

    The new complex of deep processing of vacuum gasoil with the capacity of 3,500 thousand tons a year is to become the largest one in Russia. The complex comprises: a unit of vacuum gasoil hyrocracking; a hydrogen production unit meant for hydrogen containing gas supply to the hydrocracking process; a combined sulfur unit used for utilization of hydrogen disulfide containing amine solution of the hydroracking process. With the putting of the complex into operation the output of diesel fuel of class-5 will grow by 1.8 mln tons a year, oil processing efficiency will reach 95%.

    [May 30, 2016] Endless war: Trump and the fantasy of cost-free conflict

    Wrapped in the flag neocon bottom feeders like Hillary (and quite possibly Trump, although this article is from Guardian which is a fiercely pro-Clinton rag) might eventually destroy this nice country.
    Notable quotes:
    "... the Golden Era of the Chickenhawk. We keep electing leaders who, on the most basic experiential level, literally have no idea what they're doing. ..."
    "... Maybe they get away with it because we the people who keep voting them into office don't know anything about war ourselves. ..."
    "... As long as we're cocooned in our comfortable homeland fantasy of war, one can safely predict a long and successful run for the Era of the Chickenhawk ..."
    "... The author, like most Americans, is in denial about America's role in the world. The reason the US spends more on defense than the next 12 countries has nothing to do with self-defense. America wants to maintain its global military dominance. Both parties agree on this. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, the war's purpose was to demonstrate American military power. Bill Kristol takes this a stage further and wants America to play the role of global hegemon and be in a state of constant war. This is a stupid idea. ..."
    "... It is a simple an obvious fact that the people most eager to see the US go to war, in every generation, are not the people who will suffer and die in those wars. Today is our Memorial Day. This is an article suggesting we, as Americans, stop and think about the people who were wounded and those who died in service to our country. Set aside your partisan rage and consider those people and their deaths, before you listen to words from any politician calling for more of those deaths. ..."
    "... And the hypocrisy of all this is how Hillary Clinton doesn't have a problem with war. She participated in toppling Libya and she was doing the same to Syria. So how is it all about Trump and what a war monger he is? ..."
    "... The corporations that sell war materiel actively push their products, ensure the support of the government through political contributions, and engage in blackmail by spreading out manufacturing over many locations. In this manner, the only way to profit is by selling weapons, killing more people. What state or city will want to lose employment by letting a manufacturer close? It is incredibly difficult to close an un-needed military base for the same reason, whether here or abroad. War is a great racket, the US has it down pat. ..."
    "... Hillary Clinton has started more wars, caused more death than Donald Trump....and yet....you don't mention that do you "We came, He died, We Laughed" ..."
    "... Unfortunately we're in a position where the United States is a debtor nation, and the easiest way to keep the house of cards from falling is to maintain "full spectrum dominance" in the words of the Pentagon. There's no easy way to unwind this situation. It is, however, absolutely crucial to keep a known psychopath like Clinton out of the command chair. ..."
    "... When congress votes to fund wars then [they need to] add 75% more for after care. As a combat veteran it pisses me off that [instead] charities are used to care for us. Most are run by want a be military, Senease, types. No charities, it's up to American people to pay every penny for our care, they voted for the war mongers so, so pay up people. Citizens need to know true costs, tax raises, cuts in SS , welfare, cuts in schools. Biggest thing, all elected officials and families and those work for them must use VA hospitals, let's see how that works out. ..."
    "... we insulate ourselves in a nice, warm cocoon of "Support Our Veterans" slogans and flag waving. ..."
    "... "Endless war: Trump and the fantasy of cost-free conflict " How about Hillary and the fantasy of war, PERIOD. There hasn't been a war she didn't like. Did you listen to her AIPAC speech? No 2 State solution there. ..."
    "... So easy to be the hero in your wet dreams, your shooter games, your securely located war rooms stocked with emergency rations and the external defibrillator. This sort of unhinged fantasizing has been the defining pattern of the Era of Endless War, in which people – old men, for the most part, a good number of them rich – who never experienced war – who in their youth ran as fast from it as they could – send young men and women – most of them middle- and working-class – across oceans to fight wars based on half-facts, cooked intelligence, and magical thinking on the grand geopolitical scale. Surely it's no coincidence that the Era of the AUMF, the Era of Endless War, is also the Golden Era of the Chickenhawk. We keep electing leaders who, on the most basic experiential level, literally have no idea what they're doing. ..."
    "... It is actually NOT Donald Trump who is advocating the endless global conflict and confrontation with Russia, China, India, Iran, Europe and North Korea. The candidate secretly advocating a never-ending war with the rest of the world is -- Madame Secretary, Hillary Clinton, in person. Aided and abetted - publicly - by her right-hand woman, another Madame Secretary, Madeleine Albright and yet another Madame Undersecretary, Samantha Power. All chicken hawks, all neoconservatives, all pseudo-democrats, all on Wall Street payroll, all white, and all women who will never see a second of combat for the rest of their lives. ..."
    "... So, the very major premise of the article is flawed and unsustainable. Which, of course, then makes the entire article collapse as false and misleading. ..."
    "... John Mearsheimer who is a history professor at the University of Chicago wrote a great book about American foreign policy. Mearsheimer explains how American foreign policy has developed over the centuries. He argues that it firs objective was to dominate the Western Hemisphere before extending its reach to Asia and Europe. The War of 1812 and the Monroe Doctrine was part of a plan to dominate the Americas. The U.S. stopped Japan and Germany dominating Asia and Europe in the 20th century. The U.S. continued to view the British Empire as its greatest threat and Roosevelt set about dismantling it during WW2. Once WW2 was won, the Soviet Union became America's new adversary and it maintained forces in Europe to check Soviet expansion. ..."
    "... Mearsheimer argues that the U.S. is often in denial about its behavior and Americans are taught that the U.S. is altruistic and a force for good in the world. Measheimer states that "idealist rhetoric provided a proper mask for the brutal policies that underpinned the tremendous growth of American power." In 1991 the U.S. became the world's only super-power and according to Mearsheimer its main foreign policy objective was to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival. ..."
    "... Mearsheimer claims that America's foreign policy elite is still largely made up of people who want to keep America on top, but these days they usually prefer to keep their views under wraps. ..."
    "... Trump is the only candidate I've ever heard question the cost of war, it's part of the reason he said we should flush NATO and we can't police the world for free any longer. ..."
    "... I have no problem with destroying ISIS. I have a problem with fighting Russia over every former Soviet state on their doorstep ala Madam Secretary. The best way to remember the war dead is to work to ensure that their ranks do not swell. ..."
    May 28, 2016 | theguardian.com

    As America marks Memorial Day, politicians should spare us the saber-rattling and reserve some space for silence

    ... ... ...

    The times are such that fantasy war-mongering is solidly mainstream. We've seen candidates call for a new campaign of "shock and awe" (Kasich), for carpet-bombing and making the desert glow (Cruz), for "bomb[ing] the shit out of them" (Trump), for waterboarding "and a hell of a lot worse" (Trump again), and for pre-emptive strikes and massive troop deployments (Jeb). One candidate purchased a handgun as "the last line of defense between Isis and my family" (Rubio), and the likely Democratic nominee includes "the nail-eaters – McChrystal, Petraeus, Keane" among her preferred military advisers, and supports "intensification and acceleration" of US military efforts in Iraq and Syria. Yes, America has many enemies who heartily hate our guts and would do us every harm they're able to inflict, but the failures of hard power over the past 15 years seem utterly lost on our political class. After the Paris attacks last December, Bill Kristol of the Weekly Standard suggested that a force of 50,000 US troops deployed to Syria, supported by air power, would crush Isis in short order, leading to the liberation of Fallujah, Mosul, and other Isis strongholds. "I don't think there's much in the way of unanticipated side-effects that are going to be bad there," opined Kristol – funny guy! – who back in 2002 said that removing Saddam Hussein "could start a chain reaction in the Arab world that would be very healthy".

    ... ... ...

    "A night of waking," as Bierce tersely described it years later. The sheer volume and accuracy of ordnance made this a new kind of war, a machine for pulping acres of human flesh. Regardless of who was winning or losing, shock-and-awe was the common experience of both sides; Confederate and Union soldiers alike could hardly believe the things they were doing and having done to them, and when Bierce turned to the writer's trade after the war, some fundamental rigor or just plain contrariness wouldn't let him portray his war in conventionally heroic terms. In his hands, sentimentality and melodrama became foils for twisted jokes. Glory was ambiguous at best, a stale notion that barely hinted at the suicidal nature of valor in this kind of war. A wicked gift for honesty served up the eternal clash between duty and the survival instinct, as when, early in the war, Bierce and his fellow rookies come across a group of Union dead:

    How repulsive they looked with their blood-smears, their blank, staring eyes, their teeth uncovered by contraction of the lips! The frost had begun already to whiten their deranged clothing. We were as patriotic as ever, but we did not wish to be that way.

    ... ... ...

    Black humor sits alongside mordantly cool accounts of battles, wounds, horrors, absurd and tragic turns of luck. There are lots of ghosts in Bierce's work, a menagerie of spirits and bugaboos as well as hauntings of the more prosaic sort, people detached in one way or another from themselves – amnesiacs, hallucinators, somnambulists, time trippers. People missing some part of their souls. Often Bierce writes of the fatal, or nearly so, shock, the twist that flips conventional wisdom on its back and shows reality to be much darker and crueler than we want to believe. It's hard not to read the war into much of Bierce's writing, even when the subject is ostensibly otherwise. He was the first American writer of note to experience modern warfare, war as mass-produced death, and the first to try for words that would be true to the experience. He charted this new terrain, and it's in Bierce that we find the original experience that all subsequent American war writers would grapple with. Hemingway and Dos Passos in the first world war; Mailer, Heller, Jones and Vonnegut in the second world war; O'Brien, Herr and Marlantes in Vietnam: they're all heritors of Bierce.

    It's not decorative, what these writers were going for. They weren't trying to write fancy, or entertain, or preach a sermon; they weren't writing to serve a political cause, at least not in any immediate sense. One suspects that on some level they didn't have a choice, as if they realized they would never know any peace in themselves unless they found a way of writing that, if it couldn't make sense of their war, at least respected it. Words that represented the experience for what it was, without illusion or fantasy. Words that would resist the eternal American genius for cheapening and dumbing down.

    .... ... ...

    ...unhinged fantasizing has been the defining pattern of the Era of Endless War, in which people – old men, for the most part, a good number of them rich – who never experienced war – who in their youth ran as fast from it as they could – send young men and women – most of them middle- and working-class – across oceans to fight wars based on half-facts, cooked intelligence, and magical thinking on the grand geopolitical scale. Surely it's no coincidence that the Era of the AUMF, the Era of Endless War, is also the Golden Era of the Chickenhawk. We keep electing leaders who, on the most basic experiential level, literally have no idea what they're doing.

    Maybe they get away with it because we the people who keep voting them into office don't know anything about war ourselves. We know the fantasy version, the movie version, but only that 1% of the nation – and their families – who have fought the wars truly know the hardship involved. For the rest of us, no sacrifice has been called for: none. No draft. No war tax (but huge deficits), and here it bears noting that the top tax rate during the second world war was 90%. No rationing, the very mention of which is good for a laugh. Rationing? That was never part of the discussion. But those years when US soldiers were piling sandbags into their thin-skinned Humvees and welding scrap metal on to the sides also happened to coincide with the heyday of the Hummer here at home. Where I live in Dallas, you couldn't drive a couple of blocks without passing one of those beasts, 8,600 hulking pounds of chrome and steel. Or for a really good laugh, how about this: gas rationing. If it's really about the oil, we could support the troops by driving less, walking more. Or suppose it's not about the oil at all, but about our freedoms, our values, our very way of life – that it's truly "a clash of civilizations", in the words of Senator Rubio. If that's the case, if this is what we truly believe, then our politicians should call for, and we should accept no less than, full-scale mobilization: a draft, confiscatory tax rates, rationing.

    Some 3.5 million Americans fought in the civil war, out of a population of 31 million. For years the number killed in action was estimated at 620,000, though recent scholarship suggests a significantly higher figure, from a low of 650,000 to a high of 850,000. In any case, it's clear that the vast majority of American families had, as we say these days, skin in the game. The war was real; having loved ones at risk made it real. Many saw battles being fought in their literal backyards. Lincoln himself watched the fighting from the DC ramparts, saw men shot and killed. The lived reality of the thing was so brutally direct that it would be more than 50 years before the US embarked on another major war. To be sure, there was the brief Spanish-American war in 1898, and a three-year native insurgency in the Philippines, and various forays around the Caribbean and Central America, but the trauma of the civil war cut so deep and raw that the generation that fought it was largely cured of war. Our own generation's appetite seems steadily robust even as we approach the 15th anniversary of the AUMF, which, given the circumstances, makes sense. As long as we're cocooned in our comfortable homeland fantasy of war, one can safely predict a long and successful run for the Era of the Chickenhawk

    Bierce survived his own war, barely. Two weeks after writing to a friend "my turn will come", and one day before his 22nd birthday, he was shot in the head near Kennesaw Mountain, Georgia. The sniper's ball broke his skull "like a walnut", penetrating the left temple, fracturing the temporal lobe and doglegging down and around behind his left ear, where it stayed. Head shots in that era were almost always fatal, but Bierce survived not only the initial wound, but an awful two-day train ride on an open flatcar to an army hospital in Chattanooga.

    He recovered, more or less. Not the easiest personality to begin with, Bierce showed no appreciable mellowing from his war experience. His life is an ugly litany of feuds, ruptures, lawsuits, friends betrayed or abandoned, epic temper tantrums and equally epic funks. He was a lousy husband – cold, critical, philandering – and essentially abandoned his wife after 17 years of marriage. His older son shot himself dead at age 16, and the younger drank himself to death in his 20s; for his own part, Bierce maintained a lifelong obsession with suicide. In October 1913, after a distinguished, contentious 50-year career that had made him one of the most famous and hated men in America, Bierce left Washington DC and headed for Mexico, intending to join, or report on – it was never quite clear – Pancho Villa's revolutionary army. En route, dressing every day entirely in black, he paid final visits to the battlefields of his youth, hiking for miles in the Indian summer heat around Orchard Knob, Missionary Ridge, Hell's Half-Acre. For one whole day at Shiloh he sat by himself in the blazing sun. In November he crossed from Laredo into Mexico, and was never heard from again, an exit dramatic enough to inspire a bestselling novel by Carlos Fuentes, The Old Gringo, and a movie adaptation of the same name starring Gregory Peck.

    Late in life, Bierce described his military service in these terms:

    It was once my fortune to command a company of soldiers – real soldiers. Not professional life-long fighters, the product of European militarism – just plain, ordinary American volunteer soldiers, who loved their country and fought for it with never a thought of grabbing it for themselves; that is a trick which the survivors were taught later by gentlemen desiring their votes.

    About those gentlemen – and women – desiring votes: since when did it become not just acceptable but required for politicians to hold forth on Memorial Day? Who gave them permission to speak for the violently dead? Come Monday we'll be up to our ears in some of the emptiest, most self-serving dreck ever to ripple the atmosphere, the standard war-fantasy talk of American politics along with televangelist-style purlings about heroes, freedoms, the supreme sacrifice. Trump will tell us how much he loves the veterans, and how much they love him back. Down-ticket pols will re-terrorize and titillate voters with tough talk about Isis. Hemingway, for one, had no use for this kind of guff, as shown in a famous passage from A Farewell to Arms:

    There were many words that you could not stand to hear and finally only the names of the places had dignity. Certain numbers were the same way and certain dates and these with the names of the places were all you could say and have them mean anything. Abstract words such as glory, honor, courage, or hallow were obscene beside the concrete names of villages, the numbers of roads, the names of rivers, the numbers of regiments and the dates.
    caravanserai , 2016-05-31 01:46:32
    The author, like most Americans, is in denial about America's role in the world. The reason the US spends more on defense than the next 12 countries has nothing to do with self-defense. America wants to maintain its global military dominance. Both parties agree on this. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, the war's purpose was to demonstrate American military power. Bill Kristol takes this a stage further and wants America to play the role of global hegemon and be in a state of constant war. This is a stupid idea.

    Even if Saddam had WMDs, he still had nothing to do with 9/11. The politicians are very good at finding new scapegoats and switching the blame. A bunch of Saudis attacked the US on 9/11 so invade Iraq and Afghanistan. Bin Laden moves to Pakistan so pretend you don't know where he is. Some European terrorists kill other Europeans so Hillary wants to invade Syria. The assumption seems to be that all Muslims are the same, it does not matter where you kill them.

    JohnManyjars , 2016-05-31 01:12:38
    Fantastic writing...shame Murika won't listen to any of it.

    charlieblue

    Reading the comments and conversations below, I found myself sickened and saddened by how many of my fellow Americans can read a considered and well written article like this and imagine it is a partisan screed.

    It is a simple an obvious fact that the people most eager to see the US go to war, in every generation, are not the people who will suffer and die in those wars. Today is our Memorial Day. This is an article suggesting we, as Americans, stop and think about the people who were wounded and those who died in service to our country. Set aside your partisan rage and consider those people and their deaths, before you listen to words from any politician calling for more of those deaths.

    lattimote, 2016-05-30T13:08:53Z
    "Endless war," but it's not only attacks against other nations, it's a war against civil liberties thus leading to a state in which, whistle blowers, folks who poke holes in the government's 911 theory or complain about military operations in the China Sea may be considered unpatriotic, maybe worse.
    Dubikau
    A friend recently asked, "What's the big deal about wars? I'v seen them on TV lots of times. They have nothing to do with me." Alas, a generation or two after a devastating conflict, it seems people forget. The lessons of history are unknown or irrelevant to the ignorant, the horror beyond imagination. That the clown, Trump, has made it this far is a living horror movie. As Emerson said about someone:

    "The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons."

    He's a liar and a joke. Neither friends nor enemies can take him seriously and he is unpredictable.

    Bellanova Nova
    Excellent article.

    We must start talking seriously about Trump's pathology guarantees conflict and chaos, and should he get elected, an escalation of an endless war. The ramifications of his incurable and uncontrollable character defect in a political leader are dire and people should be educated about them before it's too late: https://medium.com/@Elamika/the-unbearable-lightness-of-being-a-narcissist-251ec901dae7#.xywh6cceu

    Philip Lundt
    As a veteran I have to ask you Ben: who gave you "permission to speak for the violently dead?"

    A lot of people love Donald Trump. It's not because they are racists warmongers, ignorant, misinformed or stupid. Veterans overwhelmingly support Donald trump. Go ahead call us racists and warmongers too.

    And the hypocrisy of all this is how Hillary Clinton doesn't have a problem with war. She participated in toppling Libya and she was doing the same to Syria. So how is it all about Trump and what a war monger he is?

    villas1
    Bravo. War is a racket.
    olman132 -> villas1
    As practiced in the US, certainly. The corporations that sell war materiel actively push their products, ensure the support of the government through political contributions, and engage in blackmail by spreading out manufacturing over many locations. In this manner, the only way to profit is by selling weapons, killing more people. What state or city will want to lose employment by letting a manufacturer close? It is incredibly difficult to close an un-needed military base for the same reason, whether here or abroad. War is a great racket, the US has it down pat.
    Jim Given
    When your'e putting your life at risk in a war zone wondering if you're going to make it back home, there's damned little discussion about politics. Whatever your reasons might have been for signing on the dotted line, all that matters then is the sailor, soldier, marine or airman standing beside you. It's discouraging, although painfully predictable, to read so few comments about veterans and so many comments about divisive politics.
    Mshand
    Hillary Clinton has started more wars, caused more death than Donald Trump....and yet....you don't mention that do you "We came, He died, We Laughed"
    USApatriot12
    Unfortunately we're in a position where the United States is a debtor nation, and the easiest way to keep the house of cards from falling is to maintain "full spectrum dominance" in the words of the Pentagon. There's no easy way to unwind this situation. It is, however, absolutely crucial to keep a known psychopath like Clinton out of the command chair.

    talenttruth

    For over 30 years, Americans have been carefully "programmed" 24/7, by deliberate Fear / Fear / Fear propaganda, so we would believe that the entire world is full of evil, maniacal enemies out to "get us."

    Of course there always ARE insane haters out there, who are either jealous of America's wealth, or who (more sophisticated than that) resent America's attempt to colonize-by-marketing, the entire world for its unchecked capitalism. Two sides of the same American "coin." Those who are conscripting jobless, hopeless young men overseas to be part of an equally mad "fundamentalist" army against America ~ benefit hugely FROM our militarism, which "proves their point," from their warped perspective.

    Thus do the (tiny minority) of crazy America-haters out there (who we help create WITH our militarism), serve as ongoing Perfectly Plausible Proof for Paranoia ~ the fuel for 24/7 fear/fear/fear propaganda. And who benefits from that propaganda? Oh wait, let us all think on that. For five seconds.

    In 1959, Republican war hero and President Dwight David Eisenhower warned us against combining the incentives of capitalism with the un-audited profitability of wars: the "military industrial complex." But in we Americans' orgy of personal materialism since the 1960's, we all forgot his warning and have let that "complex" take over the nation, the world, all our pocketbooks (53% or more of our treasury now goes to "defense" ~ what a lying word THAT is).

    Answer? It it the 1-percent, crazily Wealth Hoarder super-rich who (a) profit insanely from Eternal War and who now own (b) America's so-called "free press" (ha ha), the latter of which now slants all news towards Threat, Fear, and War, again, 24/7. And now that "their" Nazi Supreme Court has ruled that "money" = free speech, that same of sociopathic criminal class ALSO is coming to own politics. Welcome to fully blooming Corporate Fascism, folks.

    bullypulpit

    In his book "1984" George Orwell wrote, "War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength." Have we fallen so far that we are living that nightmare without question? When we hear the voices of politicians, with those on the political right being the most egregious offenders, clamoring for war, we must not forget the cost. Not just in terms of treasure, but especially of the blood spilled by our men and women in uniform. Ask, "Are the causes they are being asked to fight...and die...for, worthy of the sacrifice?"

    Jim Given -> bullypulpit

    I'm afraid that yes, we actually have fallen that far. The Patriot Act is the quintessential example. Who could possibly oppose something called The Patriot Act?

    Jim Given -> bullypulpit

    The War on Terror, another fine example. What, you oppose fighting terrorists? The language stifles (reasoned) dissent. It's brilliant, really.

    Tom Farkas

    Every year I get an uncomfortable sensation around Memorial Day. I know why now thanks to this article. I didn't serve in the armed forces. Not for want. I was a post Vietnam teenager. The armed forces were a joke during the Carter years and the US was in the middle of detante with the USSR. Nothing to fight about and the word terrorist was still a few years away from being reinvented. My Dad was a decorated veteran of the police action in Korea. He lost his best friend there. He rarely talked about it. He and I sat on the couch watching the fall of Saigon on TV. He silently cried. It was all for not. All those lives, all that misery, all for nothing but power and glory. He knew it and I've known it since but just couldn't put a finger on it. Thanks for this article.

    talenttruth -> Tom Farkas

    Tom, what a beautiful post. My husband and I (recently married after we were finally "allowed" to, just like "real people"), are both Vietnam veterans (we had to "hide" in order to serve). And I had majored in college in "U.S. Constitutional History," then worked worked (ironically!) in the advertising "industry" (the Lie Factory) for enough years to see how America, business and our society actually works, INSTEAD of "constitutionally."

    My self-preoccupied generation sleepwalked from the 1960's until now, foolishly allowing the super-rich to gradually make nearly every giant corporation dependent on military contracts.

    Example? The European Union has openly subsidized its aircraft manufacturer, Airbus. But here, in the USA ~ that would be "socialism," and so Boeing was forced instead (in order to compete) to rely on military contracts ("military welfare.") They're both "government subsidization," but ours is crooked.

    So what do we get when all corporations "must have" ongoing Business, in order to keep their insatiable profits rolling in? Eternal War. And its "unfortunate side effects" - maimed veterans, dead soldiers, sailors and airmen, and the revolting hypocrisy of "Memorial Day."

    On that day, we pay "respect" to those who died serving the Military Marketing Department for America's totally out of control, unchecked capitalism, which only serves the overlords at the top.

    Sorry to sound so grim, but I did not serve my country, to have it thus stolen.

    Barclay Reynolds

    When congress votes to fund wars then [they need to] add 75% more for after care. As a combat veteran it pisses me off that [instead] charities are used to care for us. Most are run by want a be military, Senease, types. No charities, it's up to American people to pay every penny for our care, they voted for the war mongers so, so pay up people. Citizens need to know true costs, tax raises, cuts in SS , welfare, cuts in schools. Biggest thing, all elected officials and families and those work for them must use VA hospitals, let's see how that works out.

    Jim Given -> Barclay Reynolds

    Failure to care for our veterans is a national disgrace. Thanks for your service brother.

    SusanPrice58 -> Barclay Reynolds

    I agree. While I'm sure that most of these charities try to do well, it always makes me angry to think about why the need for charities to care for veterans exists. If we are determined to fight these wars - then every citizen should have to have deep involvement of some sort. Raise taxes, ration oil, watch footage of battles, restore the draft - whatever. Instead, we insulate ourselves in a nice, warm cocoon of "Support Our Veterans" slogans and flag waving.

    Tom Wessel

    "Endless war: Trump and the fantasy of cost-free conflict "

    How about Hillary and the fantasy of war, PERIOD. There hasn't been a war she didn't like. Did you listen to her AIPAC speech? No 2 State solution there.

    gwpriester
    The obscene amount of money the US pays just on the interest on the trillions "borrowed" for the Afghanistan and Iraq adventures would fix most that is wrong with the world. Bush & Cheney discovered if you don't raise taxes, require financial sacrifices, and do not have a draft, that you can wage bogus wars of choice for over a decade without so much as a peep of protest from the public. It is sickening how much good that money could do instead of all the death and destruction it bought.
    AllenPitt
    "So easy to be the hero in your wet dreams, your shooter games, your securely located war rooms stocked with emergency rations and the external defibrillator. This sort of unhinged fantasizing has been the defining pattern of the Era of Endless War, in which people – old men, for the most part, a good number of them rich – who never experienced war – who in their youth ran as fast from it as they could – send young men and women – most of them middle- and working-class – across oceans to fight wars based on half-facts, cooked intelligence, and magical thinking on the grand geopolitical scale. Surely it's no coincidence that the Era of the AUMF, the Era of Endless War, is also the Golden Era of the Chickenhawk. We keep electing leaders who, on the most basic experiential level, literally have no idea what they're doing."

    EXACTLY!

    OZGODRK

    It is actually NOT Donald Trump who is advocating the endless global conflict and confrontation with Russia, China, India, Iran, Europe and North Korea. The candidate secretly advocating a never-ending war with the rest of the world is -- Madame Secretary, Hillary Clinton, in person. Aided and abetted - publicly - by her right-hand woman, another Madame Secretary, Madeleine Albright and yet another Madame Undersecretary, Samantha Power. All chicken hawks, all neoconservatives, all pseudo-democrats, all on Wall Street payroll, all white, and all women who will never see a second of combat for the rest of their lives.

    So, the very major premise of the article is flawed and unsustainable. Which, of course, then makes the entire article collapse as false and misleading.

    MOZGODRK -> arrggh

    But you are missing the entire point. Trump is NOT advocating the conflict; he is advocating that we TALK to our enemies, so his lack of combat experience is a moot point.

    On the other hand, the Clintons, the Alzhe...er, Albright, and the Samantha Power-Tripp are all totally kosher with sending millions to die, knowing that they themselves will not experience a nanosecond of hot cognitive experience.

    caravanserai

    John Mearsheimer who is a history professor at the University of Chicago wrote a great book about American foreign policy. Mearsheimer explains how American foreign policy has developed over the centuries. He argues that it firs objective was to dominate the Western Hemisphere before extending its reach to Asia and Europe. The War of 1812 and the Monroe Doctrine was part of a plan to dominate the Americas. The U.S. stopped Japan and Germany dominating Asia and Europe in the 20th century. The U.S. continued to view the British Empire as its greatest threat and Roosevelt set about dismantling it during WW2. Once WW2 was won, the Soviet Union became America's new adversary and it maintained forces in Europe to check Soviet expansion.

    Mearsheimer argues that the U.S. is often in denial about its behavior and Americans are taught that the U.S. is altruistic and a force for good in the world. Measheimer states that "idealist rhetoric provided a proper mask for the brutal policies that underpinned the tremendous growth of American power." In 1991 the U.S. became the world's only super-power and according to Mearsheimer its main foreign policy objective was to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival. Following the difficult wars in Afghanistan and Iraq the U.S. is less certain of its global role. Mearsheimer claims that America's foreign policy elite is still largely made up of people who want to keep America on top, but these days they usually prefer to keep their views under wraps. Trump seems to be proposing something completely different.

    Rescue caravanserai
    Trump is not proposing anything different. His foreign policy is the same as the establishment. He is not anti-war, nor more hawkish than Obama or Clinton. Trumps FP is unilateral i.e. The US will go it alone without the UN or anyone else, attack any country he feels is threatning, without paying attention to intl. law, or "political correctness" as he calls it, i.e. the US will kill and torture as many ppl as it feels like to feel safe, and pay no attention to the Geneva Conventions. Other statements about his intended FP, that the msm calls shocking, has already been done, i.e. bomb the crap out of people, kill families of terrorists, waterboarding and much worse. These have been common policies since 9/11 & before. Another policy is to steal Iraq's oil. This has been de facto US FP in the Middle East since Eisenhower. The difference is that Trump says it outright. He makes subtext into the text.
    Falanx
    I agree with the overall point of this article... but focusing on the GOP and Trump, detracts from its otherwise valid points. What about Wilson, Truman, Johnson, Clinton, Obama and Hillary? Especially Hillary ("We came, We saw, He died") who evidently considers herself a latter day Caesar. The plain fact is that the US was conceived as a warmongering nation. Everyone else in the world understands this.
    DanInTheDesert
    Wow. What a fantastic article . This is what we need in the era of twitter journalism -- a long think piece. Thank you.[*]

    Having said that I have disagree with the conclusion -- we have just a little over a week to avoid a forced choice between two hawks. The chances are slim but not impossible -- be active this weekend. Phonebank for Sanders. Convince a Californian to show up and vote.

    PrinceVlad

    Trump is the only candidate I've ever heard question the cost of war, it's part of the reason he said we should flush NATO and we can't police the world for free any longer.

    Kenarmy -> PrinceVlad

    "Donald Trump would deploy up to 30,000 American soldiers in the Middle East to defeat the Islamic State, he said at Thursday night's debate."
    http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-gop-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/03/trump-iraq-syria-220608#ixzz49yJWQras

    30,000? More like 300,000! The 30,000 will be the dead and wounded. But hey, Trump went to a military academy high school, and thus he has a military background ("always felt that I was in the military" because he attended a military boarding school)- http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/donald-trump-military-service-213392#ixzz49yKU9awC

    PrinceVlad -> Kenarmy

    I have no problem with destroying ISIS. I have a problem with fighting Russia over every former Soviet state on their doorstep ala Madam Secretary. The best way to remember the war dead is to work to ensure that their ranks do not swell.

    [*] and if anyone is reading who deals with such things -- y'all need to accept paypal or bitcoin so I can subscribe. Who uses their credit card online anymore?

    [May 30, 2016] MH17 Coroner Michael Barnes, Australian Lawyers in Head-On Crash With the Rules of Evidence

    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    naked capitalism

    Barnes also ignored the warning from the state lawyer, Catherine Follent. Read her statement in full here . In written testimony she told the coroner: "as to the manner of deaths then, in our submission it would be appropriate for your Honour to adopt the findings of the Dutch Safety Board as to the source and mechanics of the detonation, in addition to finding that the deaths of the New South Wales passengers were the result of the actions of another person or persons."

    Follent (right) also told the coroner, according to a SkyNews report: "It would be inappropriate for the coroner to declare the deaths were a result of 'the action of another person or persons', as criminal investigations are still under way."

    Coroner Barnes (below, left) was asked to explain why his claims lacked evidence and contradicted what his counsel had testifed he could judge. Follent (centre) was asked the same question. Barnes and Follent said through Angus Huntsdale (right), a press officer for the coroner: "Ms Follent did not make the remarks." Also, according to Huntsdale, "she didn't do an interview with Sky News or any other media."

    The SkyNews report of Follent's remarks was published on May 17, the day of the Barnes inquest. Days later, on May 23, when Barnes and Follent were asked to clarify what she had said, they and Huntsdale were provided with the story link . Huntsdale did not deny the media report; in guarded comments he left open the possibility that Follent had made her warning in open court, for which no transcript has been made available. But several hours after Barnes, Follent and Huntsdale had reviewed what Follent had been quoted as saying, her warning to the coroner was removed from the SkyNews version of the story.

    The coroner and his associates were unable to remove Follent's quote entirely. This is how it appeared originally, on May 17 .

    Barnes and Follent were asked to explain why they had imposed a secrecy order on the evidence, and to identify the sources of the documents they had classified. They replied through Huntsdale: "The documentary evidence included portions of the Dutch Safety Board's report, the reports of the deaths to the coroner by NSW Police, two statements of Australian Federal Police officers providing an update on the status of the investigations (including the Dutch Safety Board and criminal investigations) and forensic pathology reports."

    One of the Australian Federal Police (AFP) statements, dating from last November, had been tested in the Victorian Coroner's Court in December. Kept secret in Sydney last week, this statement was publicly accessible in Melbourne five months earlier. At that time AFP Detective Superintendent Andrew Donoghoe (pictured above) said the evidence on what caused the downing of MH17 and the deaths of the passengers and crew was inconclusive.

    Donoghoe also said : "it was also necessary that other scenarios – such as the possibility that MH17 was shot down by another type of missile, or that it was shot down from the air – must be ruled out convincingly." Donoghoe repeated the point in an interview outside the courtroom, adding this "is a tougher standard than the DSB report."

    By gagging Donoghoe from testifying as a witness, and keeping his 2015 testimony secret, Barnes has claimed the DSB report warranted his conclusion there had been deliberate aiming of a missile at MH17 and intentional "mass murder". Barnes and Follent refuse to identify what parts of the DSB report they relied on for this conclusion.

    Instead, Barnes ordered a DSB videotape to be played in court. Watch it here .

    The original DSB videoclip runs for 19:58 minutes. But according to Huntsdale, the coroner's spokesman, "the first 15 minutes of the clip were played. It wasn't necessary to play the remainder of the video because it went beyond the scope of the coroner's inquiry."

    Did Coroner Barnes decide that the last 5 minutes of the tape were unnecessary, he was asked, and why. According to Huntsdale, "the NSW State Coroner made his findings on the basis of the documentary material tendered…coroners do not provide additional commentary on their cases outside of court."

    The missing five minutes of the DSB tape which Barnes suppressed contain two charges by the DSB chairman, Tjibbe Joustra.

    The Dutch official blames the Ukrainian government for failure to close the airspace and for putting MH17 at risk. "Ukraine had sufficient information to close the airspace to civil aviation prior to July 17, " Joustra said. He also criticized the operator of MH17, Malaysia Airlines, for ignoring the risks and flying through the conflict zone.

    On Saturday, as Skinner was advertising his claims against Russia in the Australian papers and stalling his claims against Malaysia Airlines in the Sydney court, the Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak announced his own agreement on MH17 with President Putin directly.

    "'I understand and feel the sadness and pain experienced by the families of the victims. I lost my step-grandmother, Puan Sri Siti Amirah Prawira Kusuma in the tragedy,' said Najib in a post on his website Saturday evening. 'I see that we have started on positive steps towards seeking justice for the family members and victims of MH17 when the Russian President and I reached an agreement that follow-up action will be determined after the results of the investigation are presented by the Joint Investigation Team in October. I pray that the families of all the victims remain patient in facing the challenges,' said Najib."

    According to a spokesman for the Dutch prosecutors, who are leading the Joint Investigation Team (JIT), there will be no JIT report in October. Alex morfesis , May 30, 2016 at 6:50 pm

    Oh thank goodness…I was worried they were going to tell the public the truth…

    and then where might that lead to…

    even more expectations…

    and you know where that might lead to…

    peace, prosperity, freedom and democracy…

    so none of that, thank you very much….

    Jagger , May 30, 2016 at 7:47 pm

    Anyone know what compensation was paid to the victims of that Iranian airliner the US Navy shot down back in 1988?

    Harry , May 30, 2016 at 8:21 pm

    US$75k each. But that was an accident ;)

    Jagger , May 30, 2016 at 8:32 pm

    I just skimmed Capt Rogers III, commander of the Vincennes, in the wiki article. He was not reprimanded or relieved of his command for the shoot down of the civilian airliner. However his next assignment was a shore position and he retired after those last 2 years in 1991. Punishment was going from fast track to earlier than expected, honorable retirement.

    polecat , May 30, 2016 at 7:48 pm

    Are the Ausralian public that clueless and /or crazy enough not to push for the truth…or do they love Murdoch so much they just don't care??

    [May 30, 2016] Red Hot Jingoism, With a Side of Apple Pie

    marknesop.wordpress.com
    Peruse, if you will, this sabre-rattling pile of poop . Coming on the heels of recent articles which warn that the west sees a nuclear war as both winnable and possible , even probable, and the conviction that a new western strategy is the attempt to initiate a Kremlin palace coup by Russian nationalist hardliners fed up with Putin's squishiness because he will not respond more aggressively to NATO provocations on Russia's doorstep, it's hard not to conclude that the west has lost its mind. If the fear of a planet-devastating nuclear war – in which the two major world nuclear powers pull out all the stops in an unrestricted attempt to annihilate one another – no longer holds our behaviors in check…what's scarier than that?

    We seriously need to persuade our leaders, in the strongest terms, that they cannot talk smack like that. It might seem funny to you to hear a senior government official from the country that fabricated a case for war so it could destroy its old enemy, Saddam Hussein, and lay waste to his country and people, prattling on about 'the rules-based international order', just as if the United States recognizes any limitations on its application of raw power, anywhere on the globe, in its own interests. It's quite true that whenever the USA wants to start a war with someone, it first makes out a case that this is a situation in which it must act. And even its critics would have to acknowledge that it is damned good at this sort of fakery, and has come a long way since one of its premiere PR firms – Hill & Knowlton – coached the daughter of the Kuwaiti Ambassador to the United States through her performance as a make-believe Kuwaiti nurse devastated by Saddam's forces' make-believe plundering of a Kuwaiti hospital, something which did not happen. It did, however, strike precisely the right responsive chord in public anger and disgust to kick off Gulf War I. Both wars against Iraq got off the ground on entirely fabricated scenarios calculated to get the rubes all in a lather to do the right thing. To hear a self-righteous assrocket like Ashton Carter maunder on about the rules-based international order, considering the United States encouraged the military campaign by the Ukrainian government to kill its own citizens in a blatant violation of the very core principles of the imaginary rules-based international order…why, it's a little like listening to Imelda Marcos teaching a seminar on how to take care of your shoes so they'll last a long time and you won't have to buy more. I have to say, it just… it makes me mad.

    What has really brought us to this point in the history of the Big Blue Marble is that despite the progress we've made together since the end of the Cold War, the indispensable and exceptional nation has in recent years tried by various means to overthrow the government of Russia, without success. It has tried incentivizing and supporting opposition movements, and got most of its NGO's kicked out of the country for its pains. It has tried sexual politics, hoping to mobilize the world's homosexuals against 'Putin's draconian anti-gay laws', only to have the effort fall flat. It has tried open economic warfare, which worked just long enough for President Obama to take credit for it , then Russian counter-sanctions made European businesses wish they had never heard of President Obama . Shortly after that, Russia began to muscle in on US agricultural markets ; a startlingly lifelike performance for a dying country. It looks like everything that has been tried in the effort to send Russia down for a dirtnap has failed. What's left? They're running out of war-alternative regime-change efforts.

    And what has made Washington suddenly so cocky with the nuclear stick? Could it be that its European-based missile defense system has just gone live ? After all Obama's waffling, after his backing away from the missile defense the hawks wanted, in the winding-down days of his presidency he re-committed to it, and the site in Romania has started up, with great fanfare. Washington continues to insist, tongue in cheek, that the system is not and cannot be targeted against Russia's nuclear deterrent, but for what other purpose could it be there? The rogue-missiles-from-Iran canard is pretty much played out. It seems pretty clear that Washington figures its interceptors (the Standard series SM3) give it a potential first-strike capability, which would – in theory – see Washington's unalerted launch taking out most of Russia's ICBM's in their silos, and the forward-based interceptors taking out the few missiles that avoided Washington's hammer-blow. If they don't believe that, why the sudden nuclear-weapons nose-thumbing?

    If they do believe that, it's a big mistake. First of all, where the USA relies on a nuclear triad deterrent – land-based, air-deployable and seaborne nuclear missiles – Russia adds a fourth leg; mobile Transporter/Erector/Launcher (TEL) vehicles which have a demonstrated off-road capability, so that they could be most anywhere. The USA could not be sure of hitting all Russia's land-based missiles before launch. Then there is the sea-based component, in SSBN's, ballistic-missile submarines. The BOREI Class carries the Bulava missile. Each of the 20 missiles can carry up to 10 MIRV warheads of 150 kilotons yield. The USA is already worried that it is falling behind Russia and China in submarine capability. Finally, Russia has the 'dead hand' system, which is an automatic program that will launch all undestroyed fixed-site missiles even if everyone in Russia is dead.

    ... ... ...

    This is an existential battle for Russia. No amount of conciliatory gestures will buy it peace, and the United States is determined to push it off the edge of the world. With NATO surrounding it, even if it disbanded its military and plowed all its croplands into flowerbeds, the west would still pretend to see it as a threat, and would foment internal discord until it broke apart. Russia's leaders know this. Its people know this. Strutting up and down the border and waving the NATO flag is not going to make Russia get scared about 'consequences', and kneel in the dirt. NATO's fundamental problem is that it understands neither the Russian character or the true circumstances in the country, preferring to rely on rosy estimates presented by its think tanks.

    The biggest 'consequence' of this dick-waving and posturing is that we are back where we were in 1947.

    Patient Observer , May 24, 2016 at 10:16 am
    Mark, a very timely and well-written post! The red hot approaching white hot rhetoric is unnerving to the sane. Yet, there is virtually no chance of a successful US first strike for the reasons you mentioned. If some breakthrough in ABM technology were to occur that could be quickly retrofit to existing installations then a strategic imbalance could occur. I suppose Russia must assume that is the US thinking so such a worst-case scenarios needs to be part of their strategic planning.

    We had Star Wars back in the 80's designed to render Soviet missiles useless. Yet any competent scientist or engineer could determine that it was ALL BS. A favorite story was that a scientist indicated an anti-missile laser system they were working on had achieve 10 to the 7th power output (don't remember the units) but they needed to reach 10 to the 14th power output. An eager politician reported to the administration that all they needed was TWO of the lasers to shoot down Soviet missiles.

    So, my take is that the US rhetoric is based on two possibilities – one that you mentioned is that everything else has failed so why not give war a chance. The Russians, being substantially saner that the West, and knowing the horrors of war, could back down in deference to the survival of humanity. The other ploy could be to induce Russia into another arms race to bankrupt their economy. This later strategy, if it is the case, would have been formulated from the widely mistaken belief that the 80's Star Wars eventually forced the collapse of the Soviet Union. That is the danger of using sustained propaganda indiscriminately, your own side may end up believing it.

    One last thought is that no one foresaw the collapse of the Soviet Union. By poking around enough, perhaps the West thinks something can trigger a similar cascade of events resulting in the collapse of Russia. Its sort of magical thinking without basis in reality but its good enough for politicians and think tanks. Just keep Gorbachev out of Russia:)

    Your warning about how the West, having given up on a liberal revolution, would now like a nationalistic coup in Russia was spot on. Nothing could be worse for Russia than engaging in a tit-for-tat battle with the West. The Russian strategy seems to be working quite nicely as its economy adjusts to life without the West, it outsmarts the Empire at every turn and the Eurasian Union proceeds.

    Northern Star , May 24, 2016 at 1:12 pm
    Depending on how things go in November….one must remember that Santa Coup could come down the White House chimney….
    et Al , May 24, 2016 at 2:08 pm
    …everything else has failed so why not give war a chance
    ####

    John Lennon would have wept. Genius PO! Genius!

    It looks like we all agree that the US is at loose ends. So far all its plans have come to naught, so trying a little bit of everything in the hope that something magical will happen (as noted), is a massive indictment on US governmental institutions. Damned stubborn Russians.

    [May 26, 2016] Out of the Cold War? by Caroline Dorminey

    Notable quotes:
    "... The basic foreign policy here is one of liberal hegemony-and it has two dimensions to it. The first is that we're bent on militarily dominating the entire globe-there's no place on the planet that doesn't matter to the indispensable nation, we care about every nook and cranny of the planet and we're interested in being militarily dominate here, there, and everywhere. That's the first dimension. The second dimension is we're deeply committed to transforming the world-we're deeply committed to making everybody look like us. ..."
    "... Without a strategic rethink in U.S.-Russian relations, Mearsheimer warned that Russian paranoia and sense of vulnerability could ignite conflict. When asked about the biggest foreign policy mistake of the last 25 years, Mearsheimer first said Iraq, and then added the crisis in Ukraine and the resulting destabilization of U.S.-Russian relations: "If you take a country like Russia, that has a sense of vulnerability, and you push them towards the edge, you get in their face, you're asking for trouble." ..."
    May 23, 2016 | theamericanconservative.com
    "CKI Vice President William Ruger began by posing the question: "Has there been a coherent theme to U.S. foreign policy over the last 25 years?" In response, Mearsheimer dove into a description of liberal hegemony over the last two decades, which essentially amounts to the U.S. being involved everywhere to avoid a problem popping up anywhere. He argued that the U.S. undertook this commitment to direct globalization and proceeded to muck up the Middle East and Europe. To most people, this sounds a lot like a vestige of post-Cold War triumphalism:

    The basic foreign policy here is one of liberal hegemony-and it has two dimensions to it. The first is that we're bent on militarily dominating the entire globe-there's no place on the planet that doesn't matter to the indispensable nation, we care about every nook and cranny of the planet and we're interested in being militarily dominate here, there, and everywhere. That's the first dimension. The second dimension is we're deeply committed to transforming the world-we're deeply committed to making everybody look like us.

    ... ... ...

    Without a strategic rethink in U.S.-Russian relations, Mearsheimer warned that Russian paranoia and sense of vulnerability could ignite conflict. When asked about the biggest foreign policy mistake of the last 25 years, Mearsheimer first said Iraq, and then added the crisis in Ukraine and the resulting destabilization of U.S.-Russian relations: "If you take a country like Russia, that has a sense of vulnerability, and you push them towards the edge, you get in their face, you're asking for trouble."

    [May 26, 2016] Nearly everyone concerned is trying to prevent the investigation from widening beyond the present hazy conclusions offered by the DSB, and suppress any mention of Ukrainian culpability

    Notable quotes:
    "... An Australian coroner and a firm of Sydney, Australia, lawyers have taken the global lead in fabricating criminal charges and billion-dollar compensation claims for the crash of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 - without producing evidence. Michael Barnes (lead image), a former tabloid journalist and now coroner for the state of New South Wales, ruled last week that MH17 had been shot down in a "deliberate" act of "mass murder" by "firing a missile equipped with an exploding warhead at the jetliner". The coroner accepted testimony from the Crown Solicitor assisting the inquest who testified that "certain persons of interest have been identified" as the murderers…. ..."
    marknesop.wordpress.com

    et Al , May 24, 2016 at 9:42 am

    John Helmer.net (via Russia Insider): MH17 CORONER MICHAEL BARNES, AUSTRALIAN LAWYERS IN HEAD-ON CRASH WITH THE RULES OF EVIDENCE
    http://johnhelmer.net/?p=15710

    An Australian coroner and a firm of Sydney, Australia, lawyers have taken the global lead in fabricating criminal charges and billion-dollar compensation claims for the crash of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 - without producing evidence. Michael Barnes (lead image), a former tabloid journalist and now coroner for the state of New South Wales, ruled last week that MH17 had been shot down in a "deliberate" act of "mass murder" by "firing a missile equipped with an exploding warhead at the jetliner". The coroner accepted testimony from the Crown Solicitor assisting the inquest who testified that "certain persons of interest have been identified" as the murderers….

    ####

    Much more at the link of course.

    marknesop , May 24, 2016 at 11:31 am
    That nearly everyone concerned is trying to

    (a) prevent the investigation from widening beyond the present hazy conclusions offered by the DSB, and

    (b) suppress any mention of Ukrainian culpability, is telling.

    What the west would like to arrive at is a situation in which it can continue to blame Russia, but does not have to prove it. It would be like gold for the Barnes charges to get in front of the ECHR, but there seems little hope of that as it appears to have been just a grandstanding stunt, and the ECHR has already warned that it will not hear it.

    [May 24, 2016] 'I'm not with her': why women are wary of Hillary Clinton

    Notable quotes:
    "... the question should not be why some don't trust Clinton, but why some still do? ..."
    www.theguardian.com

    FDiscussion , 2016-05-23 19:20:33
    how can it be 'on the whole' women support HRC when the next breath says '49%' do not? I smell bias in this article. People tend to forget that Margaret Thatcher was a woman whose vicious attacks on working people and trade unions and enthusiastic support of criminal right wing dictators inspired Reagan in their ruthlessness. And whose bellicose foreign adventures scared us all. HRC is in this class except her ideology seems to be greed rather than outright 1% class war on the poor but same difference?
    Lisa Glass Calvert , 2016-05-23 19:19:18
    Smear campaign? Billy boy has abused women sexually for decades and then smeared his victims. This isn't the Republicans' fault. Unless you think that James Carville (former chief of staff for Clinton) saying "drag a $20 through a trailer park & see what you'll get" is respectful to women. He basically called every one of Bill's victims trailer trash.

    Nope, Bill's abuse of women and Hillary's enabling of it IS NOT the fault of Republicans. Bill & Hillary WERE the war on women!

    MartiniShaken1 aguy777 , 2016-05-23 19:19:14

    You know ... support your party's nominee, vote in midterms ... little things like that.

    You assume incorrectly that we "lefties" have a political party. The Democratic party is currently not one that even attempts to listen to our needs. Across the political spectrum Americans seem to have at long last discovered that not only does the government not meet the minimum needs of the populace, voters have started to figure out that neither political party will send to Washington leaders who have any intention of helping anyone but high-level campaign contributors.

    This is why the only voter enthusiasm is for two complete outsiders- Trump and Sanders.

    We could take your advice and hold our noses and carry the garbage to the curb every 4 years in hopes that something good will happen.

    But isn't there an old saw about the definition of insanity being the repetition of the same ineffectual routine while hoping for a different outcome?

    Alexander Nekrasov , 2016-05-23 19:17:37
    the question should not be why some don't trust Clinton, but why some still do?
    BlooEyedDevil casta1139diva , 2016-05-23 19:16:58
    Possession of ovaries does not equal qualified. Not saying they hurt, but if you want a woman president, why on earth would you take the first one offered simply because she is the first one offered, especially someone as venal, corrupt, morally bankrupt, uncaring, and mendacious as Hillary Clinton? It's myopic when you fail to see that if this gargoyle is elected, her record as POTUS will absolutely reflect poorly on women, giving all those who oppose women presidents plenty of ammo to suggest they were right all along. I don't mind a female POTUS, just don't make it Hillary Clinton. Nope.
    aguy777 Paul Little , 2016-05-23 19:16:33
    Do you mean besides securing healthcare coverage for 8 million of their children through SCHIP, advocating for women's rights & issues around the world as Secretary of State, and compiling an extraordinarily strong voting record on women's issues in the Senate that won her endorsements from NARAL, Planned Parenthood, and other women's organizations ... ?

    And what has TRUMP done for women besides insult them??

    FrederikII nevermind84 , 2016-05-23 19:13:41
    What neither of you two geniuses seem to realize is that Hillary Clinton cannot succeed in becoming president. No matter how the coronation has been fixed and promised, she simply is unelectable, and if she is the Democratic nominee then that idiot Trump will be sitting in the Oval Office.

    I used to admire the loyalty, albeit naivety, of Clinton fans, but things are getting far too serious. Do you guys really want President Trump? Because that seems to be where you are heading.

    Smells TheRat , 2016-05-23 19:13:33
    Her Thighness has certainly used her position as Secretary of State to enrich herself and Slick Willie...
    RecantedYank , 2016-05-23 19:11:28
    I am glad that Hillary is supporting abortion, even is she is beginning to quibble about terms. Of course, Bernie supports it unequivocally.

    The only difference between the two on this matter essentially is that one hell of a lot more women will have to consider abortion under a Clinton administration to get out of the low wage jobs, unaffordable health care for themselves or their children death spiral for the low and low middle incomers who are going to be caught AGAIN in a hell of Hillary's making. Hillary protects the mass profit taking of insurance, pharma, and medical industry...she also stutters over even a 12$ minimum wage (and that only in SOME states), has backed trade agreements that force ever more working people into those going nowhere jobs... so yeah...there are going to be a LOT more desperate women needing those abortions. Of course, as any fool knows...abortions are not illegal in many countries in middle and northern Europe...and guess what...they don't need as many of them because they do more for workers, and have a right to health care!

    Hillary for women...my aunt fanny's a**!

    Obelisk1 aguy777 , 2016-05-23 19:09:17
    I am not a Trump supporter. But his awfulness does not make her any better.

    That Clinton was married to a president doesn't impress me in the slightest. That she became a senator was because she exploited her name-recognition after her husband's term of office. As Sec State she was not just a pathological liar, but also incompetent.

    If I was religious, I would pray for her indictment. Then the dems would be compelled to pick someone else.

    Paul Little somebody_stopme , 2016-05-23 19:09:22
    And she runs on Bills record, not her own
    FrederikII InnocenceAbroad , 2016-05-23 19:07:43
    Ironic that you don't realize how sexist your comment is. But it is an attitude not untypical of Clinton supporters.

    Hillary will not give us a third term of Obama, she will give us a third term for her husband. And this is all that Bill wants, to be back holding the reins of power again.

    DHBarr InnocenceAbroad , 2016-05-23 19:06:14
    How many "true feminists" hire private detectives to intimidate women accusing their husbands of sexual harassment or actual assault? Hillary is a hypocrite of the highest order - "All women must be believed" - except the ones accusing her husband. If Monica Lewinski hadn't had DNA evidence to back up her claims they would have had her committed to a mental institution.
    FrederikII aguy777 , 2016-05-23 19:03:19
    Trump and Clinton deserve each other. That's why they are running neck and neck in the unpopularity stakes. Trouble is that Trump is starting to gain on her - and she has nothing to fight back with and stop her slide.
    FrederikII aguy777 , 2016-05-23 18:57:04
    You really haven't a clue, have you? Obama was a pretty poor president as far as the Democratic party was concerned. He made no effort whatever to build up the party, and spent wasteful years trying to compromise with the Republicans (when it was obvious to everyone he was getting nowhere.

    The first two years of his presidency could have been the golden years had he lived up to the hype he projected during the nomination process. He destroyed the Democratic party with his attempts to compromise with Republican rattle snakes when no compromise was possible. And, yes, Hillary wants to carry on his good work! And she is already well in with the republican elite like the Bushes and Romney. Friend, take your head out of your ...

    [May 24, 2016] 'I'm not with her': why women are wary of Hillary Clinton

    Notable quotes:
    "... the question should not be why some don't trust Clinton, but why some still do? ..."
    www.theguardian.com

    FDiscussion , 2016-05-23 19:20:33
    how can it be 'on the whole' women support HRC when the next breath says '49%' do not? I smell bias in this article. People tend to forget that Margaret Thatcher was a woman whose vicious attacks on working people and trade unions and enthusiastic support of criminal right wing dictators inspired Reagan in their ruthlessness. And whose bellicose foreign adventures scared us all. HRC is in this class except her ideology seems to be greed rather than outright 1% class war on the poor but same difference?
    Lisa Glass Calvert , 2016-05-23 19:19:18
    Smear campaign? Billy boy has abused women sexually for decades and then smeared his victims. This isn't the Republicans' fault. Unless you think that James Carville (former chief of staff for Clinton) saying "drag a $20 through a trailer park & see what you'll get" is respectful to women. He basically called every one of Bill's victims trailer trash.

    Nope, Bill's abuse of women and Hillary's enabling of it IS NOT the fault of Republicans. Bill & Hillary WERE the war on women!

    MartiniShaken1 aguy777 , 2016-05-23 19:19:14

    You know ... support your party's nominee, vote in midterms ... little things like that.

    You assume incorrectly that we "lefties" have a political party. The Democratic party is currently not one that even attempts to listen to our needs. Across the political spectrum Americans seem to have at long last discovered that not only does the government not meet the minimum needs of the populace, voters have started to figure out that neither political party will send to Washington leaders who have any intention of helping anyone but high-level campaign contributors.

    This is why the only voter enthusiasm is for two complete outsiders- Trump and Sanders.

    We could take your advice and hold our noses and carry the garbage to the curb every 4 years in hopes that something good will happen.

    But isn't there an old saw about the definition of insanity being the repetition of the same ineffectual routine while hoping for a different outcome?

    Alexander Nekrasov , 2016-05-23 19:17:37
    the question should not be why some don't trust Clinton, but why some still do?
    BlooEyedDevil casta1139diva , 2016-05-23 19:16:58
    Possession of ovaries does not equal qualified. Not saying they hurt, but if you want a woman president, why on earth would you take the first one offered simply because she is the first one offered, especially someone as venal, corrupt, morally bankrupt, uncaring, and mendacious as Hillary Clinton? It's myopic when you fail to see that if this gargoyle is elected, her record as POTUS will absolutely reflect poorly on women, giving all those who oppose women presidents plenty of ammo to suggest they were right all along. I don't mind a female POTUS, just don't make it Hillary Clinton. Nope.
    aguy777 Paul Little , 2016-05-23 19:16:33
    Do you mean besides securing healthcare coverage for 8 million of their children through SCHIP, advocating for women's rights & issues around the world as Secretary of State, and compiling an extraordinarily strong voting record on women's issues in the Senate that won her endorsements from NARAL, Planned Parenthood, and other women's organizations ... ?

    And what has TRUMP done for women besides insult them??

    FrederikII nevermind84 , 2016-05-23 19:13:41
    What neither of you two geniuses seem to realize is that Hillary Clinton cannot succeed in becoming president. No matter how the coronation has been fixed and promised, she simply is unelectable, and if she is the Democratic nominee then that idiot Trump will be sitting in the Oval Office.

    I used to admire the loyalty, albeit naivety, of Clinton fans, but things are getting far too serious. Do you guys really want President Trump? Because that seems to be where you are heading.

    Smells TheRat , 2016-05-23 19:13:33
    Her Thighness has certainly used her position as Secretary of State to enrich herself and Slick Willie...
    RecantedYank , 2016-05-23 19:11:28
    I am glad that Hillary is supporting abortion, even is she is beginning to quibble about terms. Of course, Bernie supports it unequivocally.

    The only difference between the two on this matter essentially is that one hell of a lot more women will have to consider abortion under a Clinton administration to get out of the low wage jobs, unaffordable health care for themselves or their children death spiral for the low and low middle incomers who are going to be caught AGAIN in a hell of Hillary's making. Hillary protects the mass profit taking of insurance, pharma, and medical industry...she also stutters over even a 12$ minimum wage (and that only in SOME states), has backed trade agreements that force ever more working people into those going nowhere jobs... so yeah...there are going to be a LOT more desperate women needing those abortions. Of course, as any fool knows...abortions are not illegal in many countries in middle and northern Europe...and guess what...they don't need as many of them because they do more for workers, and have a right to health care!

    Hillary for women...my aunt fanny's a**!

    Obelisk1 aguy777 , 2016-05-23 19:09:17
    I am not a Trump supporter. But his awfulness does not make her any better.

    That Clinton was married to a president doesn't impress me in the slightest. That she became a senator was because she exploited her name-recognition after her husband's term of office. As Sec State she was not just a pathological liar, but also incompetent.

    If I was religious, I would pray for her indictment. Then the dems would be compelled to pick someone else.

    Paul Little somebody_stopme , 2016-05-23 19:09:22
    And she runs on Bills record, not her own
    FrederikII InnocenceAbroad , 2016-05-23 19:07:43
    Ironic that you don't realize how sexist your comment is. But it is an attitude not untypical of Clinton supporters.

    Hillary will not give us a third term of Obama, she will give us a third term for her husband. And this is all that Bill wants, to be back holding the reins of power again.

    DHBarr InnocenceAbroad , 2016-05-23 19:06:14
    How many "true feminists" hire private detectives to intimidate women accusing their husbands of sexual harassment or actual assault? Hillary is a hypocrite of the highest order - "All women must be believed" - except the ones accusing her husband. If Monica Lewinski hadn't had DNA evidence to back up her claims they would have had her committed to a mental institution.
    FrederikII aguy777 , 2016-05-23 19:03:19
    Trump and Clinton deserve each other. That's why they are running neck and neck in the unpopularity stakes. Trouble is that Trump is starting to gain on her - and she has nothing to fight back with and stop her slide.
    FrederikII aguy777 , 2016-05-23 18:57:04
    You really haven't a clue, have you? Obama was a pretty poor president as far as the Democratic party was concerned. He made no effort whatever to build up the party, and spent wasteful years trying to compromise with the Republicans (when it was obvious to everyone he was getting nowhere.

    The first two years of his presidency could have been the golden years had he lived up to the hype he projected during the nomination process. He destroyed the Democratic party with his attempts to compromise with Republican rattle snakes when no compromise was possible. And, yes, Hillary wants to carry on his good work! And she is already well in with the republican elite like the Bushes and Romney. Friend, take your head out of your ...

    [May 23, 2016] Kerry Threatens War-Without-End on Syria

    Notable quotes:
    "... The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do notnecessarily reflect the official position of Sputnik. ..."
    sputniknews.com

    Alleged peace-maker John Kerry threatened to wage war-without-end on Syria - if the Middle East country does accept the US demand for regime change.

    That's hardly the language of a supposed bona fide diplomat who presents an image to the world as a politician concerned to bring about an end to the five-year Syrian conflict.

    The US Secretary of State repeatedly sounds anxious to alleviate the appalling suffering of the Syrian nation, where over the past five years some 400,000 people have been killed and millions displaced as refugees.

    Anyone who has not been brainwashed by Western media propaganda knows full well that the suffering of Syria has been caused by Washington and its allies sponsoring a covert war for regime change in that country.

    Kerry was speaking during another round of failed negotiations - this time in Vienna - along with other leaders from the 17-nation International Syria Support Group that includes Russia, as well as the United Nations.

    The "support group" is a disgustingly erroneous name, given that certain members of this entity - primarily the US, Saudi Arabia and Turkey - have done everything in their power to sponsor a proxy terrorist war on Syria. If the truth were not so abject, it would be laughable.

    In a Voice of America report headlined "US still has leverage in Syria," Kerry is quoted thus: "He said the greatest leverage [on Syria] was the fact that [President] Assad and his backers would never be able to end the war in Syria if they declined to negotiate a political settlement."

    In Kerry's Footsteps: What Saudi 'Plan B' Actually Means for Syria and Iran Consider the pernicious import of that for a moment. In other words, America's top "diplomat" is laying down a criminal ultimatum to the sovereign state of Syria and its elected government of President Bashar al-Assad. Kerry is saying in no uncertain terms that unless the Syrian authorities do not accept Washington's demand for regime change, then the country is facing never-ending war.

    Of course, being a weasel-worded diplomat, Kerry does not use the illegal term "regime change". He instead talks about "political transition". And he has set a date in August for this "transition" to take place. But what Kerry's euphemistic jargon boils down to is this: the Syrian president and his administration must vacate government - or else face more violence and destruction.

    This is the political objective that Washington and its allies in NATO, Saudi Arabia and Turkey have wanted all along. They want what is an independent, anti-imperialist Syrian government to give way to some composite regime that would be a puppet for Washington's geopolitical interests in the oil-rich, strategically vital Middle East region.

    Any replacement regime would spurn its erstwhile allies of Russia, Iran and Lebanon's Hezbollah resistance movement to become an American vassal.

    In reality, the supposed pro-democracy change that Washington allegedly wants to install in Syria would be dominated by a repressive, fundamentalist regime that would betray the interests of the Syrian people. We can count on this outcome because the proxies who are waging Washington's covert war are dominated by extremists fully aligned with their despotic sponsors in Saudi Arabia and Turkey.

    Kerry's apparent confidence in predicting that Syria faces a war of attrition if it does capitulate is a tacit admission by Washington that it controls the illegally armed factions in Syria.

    The United States may officially proscribe terror groups like al Qaeda-linked Jabhat al Nusra and the so-called Islamic State (also known as Daesh). The US pays lip service to "defeating terrorism".

    But anyone with an informed understanding of what is really happening in Syria and other countries subjected to US-led regime change knows that Washington has orchestrated these same terror groups for its criminal political objectives.

    This is corroborated by the fact that Washington refuses to coordinate its (ineffectual) bombing campaign with Russia to eliminate the terror groups. It is corroborated by the fact that Washington and its allies point-blank refuse Russia's proposals at the UN Security Council to designate other known terror outfits - Jaysh al-Islam and Ahrar al-Shams - as terrorist.

    Jaysh al-Islam and Ahrar al-Shams are every bit as vile and barbaric as the other al Qaeda-affiliated franchises. They all espouse the same twisted death-cult ideology; fight alongside each others (when they are not feuding, that is, over war spoils); and ultimately they all share the same sponsors and American-supplied weaponry.

    'Fair Game'? What Kerry's 'Absolute Lines' in Syria Really Mean It is openly admitted that America's allies Saudi Arabia and Turkey, as well as Qatar, bankroll Jaysh al-Islam and Ahrar al-Shams and that this nexus serves as a conduit for American weapons from the Central Intelligence Agency.

    Why else would John Kerry begin his week of "diplomacy" in Vienna by first making an urgent visit to Saudi King Salman last weekend. Kerry was reportedly appealing to the 9/11-sponsoring Saudi regime to support his diplomatic push in Vienna. The Western media "reported" Kerry's Saudi visit as if it were a benign mission, as they usually do. Whenever it should be obvious that what he was really doing was trying to get the Saudis to ease off on the terror war in Syria.

    Washington is currently trying to wrangle regime change in Syria through a political track. That is a world of difference from gullible Western media projections of Kerry's pretensions of "negotiating peace".

    Yet all the while the US and the Saudis are reserving the right to use "Plan B" if the political track should not materialize in regime change.

    That is what Kerry really means when he said in Vienna that "Assad and his backers would never be able to end the war in Syria if they declined to negotiate a political settlement."

    Washington's "leverage" in Syria is due to the simple, diabolical fact that it and its despotic allies ultimately can turn on and off the violence when it is expedient for their interests. And that violence relies on the deployment of known terrorist organizations, including the ones that Washington's double-think refuses to recognize as "terrorist".

    So let's put this into stark perspective. Despite his Orwellian title of diplomat and peace-maker, US Secretary of State John Kerry is the public face of a terrorist enterprise.

    What other world power gives itself the right to threaten nations with "regime change or war"? And yet this same nation considers itself a paragon of democracy, human rights and law-abiding probity.

    The United States of America is a rogue regime on a criminal scale that exceeds the very worst in history.

    As a parting footnote, John Kerry is a decorated American "war hero". He served four months as a navy officer during the US genocidal war on Vietnam during the late 1960s. Kerry received a bunch of medals for his "actions", which according to reliable accounts from veterans on his river-boat patrols, involved shooting fleeing Vietnamese peasants in the back.

    This is the same Kerry who is now purporting to bring peace to Syria.

    Like everything that Washington says, it is full of lies and deception. The abiding lesson: don't turn your back on Washington and its terrorist-sponsoring, war-mongering "diplomats".

    The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do notnecessarily reflect the official position of Sputnik.

    [May 20, 2016] Venezuelan President Maduro USA fatally obsessed with Russia

    www.pravdareport.com

    PravdaReport

    President of Venezuela Nicolas Maduro said that the United States is doing everything possible to keep the oil market from stabilizing.

    The US administration takes every effort to counter OPEC's attempts to stabilize oil prices, he said.

    "You can't imagine all the pressure that is coming from Washington to ensure the failure of the efforts we have made during the last year to create a common strategy among OPEC and non-OPEC producers to stabilize the market and prices," Maduro said, speaking Tuesday in his own TV show.

    He also said that the US economic war against Russia and Venezuela affects the United States as well.

    "These are almost war-like pressure on governments, on heads of state. The US has a "fatal obsession" with Russia, OPEC and Venezuela's leftist government," Maduro added.

    Many specialists are convinced that the ongoing decline in oil prices is intentional. However, according to Maduro, the United States is trying to exhaust Russia. The tactics of dumping oil hits the " shale revolution " the US and Canada hardest. Oil companies in these countries working to their own detriment.

    A barrel of shale oil costs $32. A barrel of oil produced on Russian old fields costs $28, ($16 at new ones). The cost of Venezuelan oil makes up about $9.

    The US aims to raise the degree of public discontent in Russia, before the US market collapses. In Russia, low oil prices, due to a large tax component, equally affect the budget and ordinary consumers.
    Kenneth T. Tellis в 03:39 15 апреля The days of U.S. domination in Latin America are long gone. The very assumption that assassinating Hugo Chaves Frias, would give the U.S. the upper hand was a serious mistake, beause Venezuelans are holding steadfast to the Bolivarian Revolucion ofHugo Chvas and will coninue on tht path till sll their goals are achieved. Hasta Victoria Siempre!Butto confuse Nicolas Maduro the Venezuelan President with SaddamHussein shows how the addled minds of America's stooges cannot think out of the box. But Ghizlane Kamalova is badly in need of psychiatric help.

    • Ghizlane Kamalova в 21:33 14 апреля Venezuela has one of the worst performing economies in the world. Oh, and Maduro looks like a younger Saddam Hussein!
    • Hillarious Clinton в 00:38 14 апреля I've lived in Pacific Northwest for 22 years,with some brief stops for few months in Boston,New York, washington,D.C.,Philadelphia,Chicago,Cleveland,Minneapolis,san Diego,L.A., and 3 times Alaska...I've seen and experienced more than some idiots here can comment,on that Great "rich" Satan,where are the obese soulless mutants indeed,very poor in their hearts and minds! I prefer UK 100 times as better country than that Great Satan,where people associate only in the shopping malls!! A such idiots like Banan sucker,or that japanese radioactive mutant Takayama and Chernobyl Mishka cannot fool me,nor others!!!
      Reply Toggle branch ⇓
      • Bob Brunner в 19:27 13 апреля So, OPEC was formed to keep oil prices artifically high for the benefit of themselves, and at a great cost to the US citizens. High oil prices also negatively affected develoing countries and the poor. Governments started to depend on oil money instead of productivity. Now, US producers (not the government) come up with a way to get more oil, driving the price of oil down to a more market-based level, leaving OPEC out in the cold. Boo Hoo. What you are calling an economic war on Venezuala and Russia is just a lesson in supply and demand economics. Grow up and start producing stuff on your own.
    • Google_103325543317843925342 в 17:12 13 апреля From retired in midAmerica. People should realize the U.S. (and probably EU, europe, et al) is beginning to collapse. Economy. US an empiire without a manufacturing base (all "outsourced"), produces nothing but military arms trying to force other countries to buy them; fatal debt to GDP ratio; imports everything, much from China; exports vertually nothing. this once prosperous city is becoming a ghost town of closed stores, businesses; abandoned homes of those that lost jobs. Indeedd the great US manufacturing city Detroit is a total ghost town. We now see street beggars, beg for food. US massive military it can't afford , the unemployed unemployable uneducated warehoused inhundreds of foreign bases. Like collapse of Rome, returning Legions promised retirement land to farm but found all land owned by the wealthy and farmed by slaves. When Alaric kicked down gates of Rome 410AD found a mostly deserted pestulence ridden city. The U.S. is now a rabid dying mad dog, so will it just crumble away a Rome, or start WW-III ? The latter seems already underway does it not.
      • Hillarious Clinton в 00:32 14 апреля I've lived in that "rich"zionist country,Seattle,WA,over 22 years,and I'm very happy that I'm out of that boxed in country where the mutants barely knows about Canada,only 80 to the north...An idiots who plays sports no one in the world plays,and then these obese mutants shouts,"we are the world champs"! What you call "rich",I call poverty!!! And furthermore,they have powerty in their hearts and minds!
    • Rita Szentendrey в 16:56 13 апреля In fact is very true. The ENEMIES of RUSSIA are send out to the sides similar to PRAVDA not necessary Russian site by their HANDLERS to CAUSE CONFUSION for those who are NOT very well informed. This is "OK" because ARE very well "informed" people and they will CORECT all the vile rotten NAZIS and FASCISTS who do constantly ATTACK all ================================================================= those NATIONS who REFUSE to dance on their DEADLY TUNES -- The world is AWAKENED already what this rotten GREEDY maggots did cooked for their ENSLAVEMENT and SUBJUGATION -- Their LIES are going only for a TIME span -- Then the TRUST in them is CRUMBLING with a HUGE SPEED -- This is why HONESTY is PRICELESS -- NOBODY will never ever respect GREEDY KILLERS and LIARS --
      Reply
    • Yoshihiro Takayama в 15:20 13 апреля I'd say the editorial staff of Pravda is very obsessed by the United States. Very low self-esteem grows and harvests anger and hatred. We pity Russians.

    [May 20, 2016] Iraq has peaked

    The problem is that Iraq government has no money to pay oil companies. So they are running on fumes.
    Notable quotes:
    "... I think the title of the article is misleading. A sharp decrease in investments does not mean a peak in Iraqi oil output. It will result in a slower growth in production. Iraqi government's goal of 6 mb/d by 2020 is obviously unrealistic. But Iraq still can increase output from the current 4.3 mb/d to more than 5 mb/d in 2020. ..."
    peakoilbarrel.com

    Ron Patterson , 05/19/2016 at 1:31 pm

    Iraq has peaked.

    Iraq's Oil Output Seen by Lukoil at Peak as Government Cuts Back

    Crude output in Iraq, OPEC's second-largest producer, has probably peaked and is likely to fall short of the country's target over the next two years, according to an official with Lukoil PJSC, operator of one of the country's biggest fields.

    AlexS , 05/19/2016 at 3:43 pm
    I think the title of the article is misleading. A sharp decrease in investments does not mean a peak in Iraqi oil output. It will result in a slower growth in production. Iraqi government's goal of 6 mb/d by 2020 is obviously unrealistic. But Iraq still can increase output from the current 4.3 mb/d to more than 5 mb/d in 2020.

    [May 18, 2016] Isis attacking Iraqi gas plants. How long before they go after the export oil facilities?

    Notable quotes:
    "... Isis attacking Iraqi gas plants. How long before they go after the export oil facilities? ..."
    peakoilbarrel.com
    Toolpush , 05/16/2016 at 4:01 am
    Isis attacking Iraqi gas plants. How long before they go after the export oil facilities?

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/isis-suicide-attack-baghdad-iraq-gas-plant-a7030161.html

    Isis claims responsibility for deadly suicide attack on Baghdad gas plant

    Militants have launched a suicide attack on a natural gas plant near the Iraqi capital Baghdad, killing at least 11 people and injuring a dozen more.

    During the assault, which extremist militant group Isis said it had carried out, a car was blown up at the entrance to the facility approximately 20km north of Baghdad.

    Six people then entered the site with explosive vests and fought security officers, the Reuters news agency reported. Three gas storage tanks were set on fire during the fighting.

    Oldfarmermac , 05/16/2016 at 7:43 am
    Suppose they had hauled a small artillery piece within range, meaning anywhere out to fifteen or twenty kilometers, and set up those same suicide fighters to defend the gun. My guess is they could have burned everything that WOULD burn, and shot the rest up pretty good.

    Such a gun could be concealed in a load of building material or even inside a tanker truck.

    [May 18, 2016] Russian Q1 GDP came in better

    oilprice.com

    Russian Q1 GDP came in better than expected but still showing contraction at -1.2 percent YoY (versus -2.1 percent expected). A piece in the Wall Street Journal today addresses the challenges experienced by Russia currently, as the government is considering raising taxes to help ease its budget deficit. As the chart below illustrates, Russia's reserve fund is being swiftly depleted – to levels not seen since the 2009 financial crisis – as the government tries to plug the gap left by lost revenue from lower oil prices:

    [May 18, 2016] Russias oil policy is driven by economic considerations

    Notable quotes:
    "... Russia is diversifying oil and gas exports towards rapidly rising Asian markets due to economic and security considerations. But cutting oil exports to Europe, even for one month, would be inefficient and self-destroying. ..."
    "... There are also serious logistical issues. Russia exports oil to Asia from the fields in Eastern Siberia and Far East. The fields in West Siberia, Volga-Urals and Timan-Pechora regions are not linked by pipelines with Russia's eastern borders and transportation costs in this case would be too high. ..."
    "... Cutting energy supplies to Europe, even for a month, would destroy Russia's reputation as a reliable supplier and result in multiple lawsuits and potential multi-billion fines. Note that Russian oil companies own significant assets in Europe, including refineries, oil terminals, storage facilities, etc. ..."
    "... However, if Russia (even for economic reasons) began diverting supplies to Asia via pipelines, wouldn't that mean there would be less for the West to buy? Due to the laws of mathematics? ..."
    "... Try putting together a spreadsheet with sources and sinks. Use transport costs to link these two. When you do you'll see the only difference is to change transport costs and security. I used to work and live in Russia and I'm sure they are using models like we did to understand the best options to move Russian oil. I'm a bit outdated, but what we see is a need to refine oil for internal consumption with a better kit. They need to improve their refineries to grind oil molecules for real. ..."
    "... This is a very questionable assumption. Supply/demand dynamics, especially reckless financing of shale in the USA was a factor (as in "crisis of overproduction" - if we remember classic Marxist term ;-), but this is only one and probably not decisive contributing factor. Paper oil, HFT, Saudis oil damping and Western MSM and agencies (Wild cries "Oil Glut !!!", "OMG Oil glut !!!" supported by questionable statistics from EIA, IEA and friends) were equally important factors. It you deny this you deny the reality. ..."
    "... I agree, but this not the whole story. Western MSM went to crazy pitch trying to amplify Saudi animosities and to play "young reckless prince" card toward Iran and Russia. Do you remember the interview the prince gave to Bloomberg just before the freeze ? Do you think that this was accidental? ..."
    "... definitely $50-$60 price band is not enough to revive the US shale. LTO is dead probably on any level below $80 and may be even above this level. That does not exclude "dead chicken bounce". Moreover LTO is already played card for financial industries. In reality it probably needs prices above $100 to fully recover. ..."
    "... neoliberals still dominates in Russia. Especially oil and economics ministries. Reading interviews of Russian oil officials is pretty depressing. They swallow and repeat all the Western propaganda one-to-one. Unfortunately. In this area they have a lot to learn from Americans :-). ..."
    "... At the same time, increasing the volume of high additional value products such as plastics, rubber, composites, etc is in best Russia's interest. It is difficult to achieve though. I think creating the ability to withhold substantial amount of oil from the markets for the periods of say 6 to 12 month is more important. And here they can get some help from OPEC members, Saudi be damned. ..."
    "... This is a tricky balancing solution, but still this is some insurance against the price slumps like the current one, when Russia was caught swimming naked and did not have any viable game plan. It is unclear what is the optimal mix, but in no way this 100% or even 80% raw oil. ..."
    peakoilbarrel.com
    SatansBestFriend , 05/13/2016 at 6:32 pm
    3) Russia's oil policy is driven by economic considerations. Cutting oil exports (and hence foreign currency revenues) in order to "punish" the West is like shooting yourself in the foot.

    Aleks,

    I agree that a sustained embargo on the West by Russia is not realistic economically. Cutting supplies for a month to send a message might be.

    Or you could do something else…send your supplies via pipeline to Asia.
    There by you get your money and decrease the supplies the West has access to.

    Russia pipeline to India:

    https://in.rbth.com/economics/cooperation/2015/12/21/gas-pipeline-to-india-being-considered_553397

    Russia to China oil pipeline:

    http://www.rferl.org/content/russia-china-pipeline-cnpc/27731340.html

    Russia to Pakistan pipeline:

    http://learningenglish.voanews.com/a/russia-to-spend-billions-on-gas-pipeline-in-pakistan/3193228.html

    AlexS , 05/13/2016 at 7:55 pm
    SatansBestFriend,

    I am sorry, but what you and likbez are saying here sounds naïve.

    Russia is diversifying oil and gas exports towards rapidly rising Asian markets due to economic and security considerations. But cutting oil exports to Europe, even for one month, would be inefficient and self-destroying.

    1) European customers could easily find alternative sources of supply. Saudi Arabia and Iran would be happy to take Russia's share in the European market and it would be very difficult to take it back.

    2) It is impossible to redirect all Russian oil exports to Asia. Nobody there expects sharply increased volumes of Russian oil. China has increased oil imports from Russia, but is not willing to depend entirely on Russian supplies. There are also serious logistical issues. Russia exports oil to Asia from the fields in Eastern Siberia and Far East. The fields in West Siberia, Volga-Urals and Timan-Pechora regions are not linked by pipelines with Russia's eastern borders and transportation costs in this case would be too high.

    3) Contrary to what the western MSM is saying, Russia has never used energy exports as a political weapon. The episodes when Russia was cutting gas supplies to Ukraine were related with prolonged non-payments from that country. As soon as payments were resumed, Russia restarted gas supplies. Today, when relations between Russia and Ukraine are worse than ever, Russia is supplying gas to Ukraine as Ukraine is paying for it.

    Cutting energy supplies to Europe, even for a month, would destroy Russia's reputation as a reliable supplier and result in multiple lawsuits and potential multi-billion fines. Note that Russian oil companies own significant assets in Europe, including refineries, oil terminals, storage facilities, etc.

    In general, Russia and Europe are so interdependent in the energy sector, that any drastic steps there may have extremely negative consequences for both sides. Not surprisingly, the western sanctions against Russia did not include a ban on the imports of Russian oil and gas. Russia, on its side, will never cut its energy supplies to Europe.

    SatansBestFriend , 05/13/2016 at 8:10 pm
    "Russia is diversifying oil and gas exports towards rapidly rising Asian markets due to economic and security considerations. But cutting oil exports to Europe, even for one month, would be inefficient and self-destroying ".

    Hey AlexS,

    I think you are correct with the bolded part above.

    However, if Russia (even for economic reasons) began diverting supplies to Asia via pipelines, wouldn't that mean there would be less for the West to buy? Due to the laws of mathematics?

    Unless of course Russia's Oil/Gas production is growing to offset the diversion.

    Also, please note that my couch potato analysis was meant to be considered under Peak Oil/ELM conditions. Not BAU as in today. I should have specified.

    If there is anyone to trust on this point…It isn't me!!! LOL!

    thanks for you analysis AlekS.

    Fernando Leanme , 05/14/2016 at 11:10 am
    No. Try putting together a spreadsheet with sources and sinks. Use transport costs to link these two. When you do you'll see the only difference is to change transport costs and security. I used to work and live in Russia and I'm sure they are using models like we did to understand the best options to move Russian oil. I'm a bit outdated, but what we see is a need to refine oil for internal consumption with a better kit. They need to improve their refineries to grind oil molecules for real.
    likbez , 05/13/2016 at 10:16 pm
    Alex,

    The current oil price slump is due to supply/demand dynamics, not to western conspiracies

    This is a very questionable assumption. Supply/demand dynamics, especially reckless financing of shale in the USA was a factor (as in "crisis of overproduction" - if we remember classic Marxist term ;-), but this is only one and probably not decisive contributing factor. Paper oil, HFT, Saudis oil damping and Western MSM and agencies (Wild cries "Oil Glut !!!", "OMG Oil glut !!!" supported by questionable statistics from EIA, IEA and friends) were equally important factors. It you deny this you deny the reality.

    Remember the key Roman legal principle "cue bono". And who in this case is the prime suspect? Can you please answer this question.

    And please remember that the originator of the word "conspiracies" was CIA (to discredit those who questioned the official version of JFK assassination).

    2) The Doha deal was torpedoed by Saudi Arabia, primarily due to its conflict with Iran and the intention to defend market share.

    I agree, but this not the whole story. Western MSM went to crazy pitch trying to amplify Saudi animosities and to play "young reckless prince" card toward Iran and Russia. Do you remember the interview the prince gave to Bloomberg just before the freeze ? Do you think that this was accidental?

    BTW I agree that this was a huge win of Western diplomacy and "low oil price forever" forces.

    An increase in oil prices well above $50 this year is not in Russia's or Saudi interest, as it could reverse the declining trend in LTO output.

    Nonsense. First of all mankind now needs oil above $100 to speed up the switch to hybrid cars for personal transportation, and Russia and Saudi are the part of mankind.

    It is also in best Russia's and Saudi economic interests, contrary to what you read on Bloomberg or similar rags. World oil production is severely damaged by low oil prices and 1MB/d that shale it can probably additionally produce in best circumstances is not that easy to achieve after this slump.

    And definitely $50-$60 price band is not enough to revive the US shale. LTO is dead probably on any level below $80 and may be even above this level. That does not exclude "dead chicken bounce". Moreover LTO is already played card for financial industries. In reality it probably needs prices above $100 to fully recover.

    For probably the next five-seven years everybody will be too shy in financing shale and other high risk oil production ventures. So the oil price will probably set a new record. After that we will have another round of "gold rush" in oil as institutional memory about the current oil price slump will gradually evaporate. Neoliberalism is an unstable economic system, you can bet on that.

    Russia's oil policy is driven by economic considerations. Cutting oil exports (and hence foreign currency revenues) in order to "punish" the West is like shooting yourself in the foot.

    Nonsense. No nation politics is driven only by economic consideration but Russia stupidly or not tried to play the role of stable, reliable oil and gas supplier to people who would betray you for a penny. And sometimes this desire to play nice with the West led to betraying its own national interests.

    If I were Putin I would create strategic reserves and divert part of oil export to them to sell them later at higher prices. Buy low, sell high: is not this a good strategy :-)

    Or play some other card by artificially restricting export of oil to Western Europe to refined products (and to please the USA, as it so badly wanted Russia to restrict supplies to EU to damage their long time strategic partner :-) and let the EU face consequences of their own polices.

    But this is probably not a possibility as neoliberals still dominates in Russia. Especially oil and economics ministries. Reading interviews of Russian oil officials is pretty depressing. They swallow and repeat all the Western propaganda one-to-one. Unfortunately. In this area they have a lot to learn from Americans :-).

    Exports are reliable hard currency stream. But it not a stable stream, as Russia recently discovered.

    At the same time, increasing the volume of high additional value products such as plastics, rubber, composites, etc is in best Russia's interest. It is difficult to achieve though. I think creating the ability to withhold substantial amount of oil from the markets for the periods of say 6 to 12 month is more important. And here they can get some help from OPEC members, Saudi be damned.

    Upgrading oil refining capacity means that Russian oil companies are able to increase the share of refined products in total exports at the expense of crude oil.

    This is a tricky balancing solution, but still this is some insurance against the price slumps like the current one, when Russia was caught swimming naked and did not have any viable game plan. It is unclear what is the optimal mix, but in no way this 100% or even 80% raw oil.

    [May 18, 2016] - Lenta.ru

    lenta.ru

    За последний месяц на Украине появилось новое правительство во главе с Владимиром Гройсманом, была переформатирована коалиция в Верховной Раде и назначен новый генпрокурор. Бывший депутат Рады, а потом спикер парламента Новороссии Олег Царев рассказал "Ленте.ру" о том, чего ждать от обновленной украинской власти.

    "Порошенко дожал американцев и олигархов"

    "Лента.ру": Что изменится на Украине с назначением нового правительства Владимира Гройсмана? Можно ли ожидать улучшения социально-экономической ситуации?

    Царев: Главным итогом последнего политического кризиса я считаю то, что Петру Порошенко удалось сосредоточить в своих руках всю полноту власти. На пути к этому он смог дожать американцев, олигархов, продавить оппонентов внутри страны. Финальным аккордом стало избрание 12 мая генпрокурором Украины кума президента Юрия Луценко. Порошенко получил полный карт-бланш, установил контроль и над кабинетом министров, и над Верховной Радой, и над силовыми структурами. Оппоненты Порошенко - [Игорь] Коломойский и [Арсений] Яценюк - пытались ему противостоять. В частности, с их противодействием я связываю активную раскрутку на Украине скандала с панамскими офшорами президента. Вся эта кампания неслучайно началась в тот момент, когда глава государства поехал на переговоры в США. Целью было его ослабление, чтобы он не смог договориться с американцами. Тем не менее он американцев дожал и своего добился. Основным аргументом для расширения его полномочий было устранение угрозы сползания страны к анархии. Да, это движение в сторону диктатуры, но американцы никогда не возражали против диктатуры, если она действует в их интересах.

    А что этот личный успех Порошенко значит для украинского народа?

    К интересам украинского народа вся эта политическая борьба не имеет никакого отношения. Речь идет о контроле финансовых потоков, в частности крупные игроки готовятся к намечающейся последней приватизации. Одно из последствий украинского переворота и, как следствие, гражданской войны в Донбассе и разрыва экономических связей с Россией - обесценивание активов у олигархов. На сегодняшний день их активы, заложенные под взятые в зарубежных банках кредиты, меньше самих кредитов. Фактически они банкроты. Спасти олигархов может только срочная покупка по заниженным ценам новых активов, чтобы получить за рубежом под них новые кредиты и за их счет перекрыть старые. В продажу должны пойти порты, железная дорога, АЭС, сельскохозяйственные угодья. Как вы понимаете, мировая банковская система устроена так, что в конечном итоге вся украинская собственность должна поменять владельцев с украинских на зарубежных.

    Этот процесс уже начался?

    Первоначально договоренности у олигархов имелись с уже бывшим премьером Яценюком. Активы были распределены. Например, Коломойский должен был забрать Одесский припортовый завод, еще ряд предприятий. Яценюк их устраивал, его аппетиты были поменьше, чем у президента, поэтому олигархи поддерживали главу правительства в борьбе против Порошенко. Все СМИ Коломойского активно раздували панамский скандал, работа велась по всему миру, оплачивалась международная пиар-кампания. Но Порошенко выдержал, договорился с американцами, а у тех есть рычаги давления на украинских олигархов, хранящих свои средства в странах Запада. Теперь все олигархи пришли договариваться к Порошенко. Коломойский и другие контролируют своих депутатов, дают им указания. Благодаря этому президенту удалось сделать премьер-министром лично преданного ему Гройсмана и назначить генпрокурором Луценко.

    "У каждого украинского политика есть куратор в США"

    Какие перспективы у такой конфигурации власти?

    На сегодняшний момент американцы против резких изменений. Такова логика президентских выборов в США - уходящий президент не должен оставлять проблемы следующему главе государства. Поэтому сейчас Россию будут похлопывать по плечу, говорить о возможной отмене санкций, может быть, даже откатится цена на нефть. Но это временная ситуация! У администрации нового американского президента будет свой план по Украине. Москва получила временную передышку, важно использовать это короткое время для решения внутренних проблем, наведения порядка в экономике.

    На Украине по-прежнему периодически заявляют о себе радикальные националисты, экстремисты. Почему Запад не выступает против этого?

    Тут ситуация двойственная. С одной стороны, Порошенко для того и дали возможность сосредоточить власть в своих руках, чтобы он укрепил государство. Он от нацистов потихоньку уже избавляется, но полностью убирать их со сцены не будет. Отморозков под рукой иметь удобно. Надо разобраться с "Оппозиционным блоком" или Васей Волгой (лидер партии "Союз левых сил" - "прим. "Ленты.ру" ), другими какими-то оппонентами? И типа возмущенная общественность делает это. Президент разводит руками: "Что я могу? Это не я, это другие люди". Радикалы полностью не исчезнут, но будут работать по команде, в строго очерченных границах выполняя ту роль, которую выполняли батальоны смерти в Латинской Америке.

    Отношение к России будет меняться?

    Никаких надежд на это питать не стоит - Украина останется русофобской по духу. Просто русофобия будет не самодеятельной, а санкционированной, управляемой государством. России и украинцам с отличной от официальной точкой зрения лучше не станет.

    Активно проявляет себя в украинском политическом пространстве Михаил Саакашвили. Понятно, что у него огромные амбиции, ограничиваться Одесской областью он не желает. Каковы его перспективы?

    У него хорошие шансы войти в высшие эшелоны украинской власти. У Саакашвили второй личный рейтинг после Юлии Тимошенко. Надо понимать, что у каждого более-менее серьезного украинского политика сейчас есть свой американский куратор. Кто-то работает с демократами, кто-то - с консерваторами, кто-то связан с Госдепартаментом, другие взаимодействуют с конкретным чиновником, у кого-то "крыша" ЦРУ, как, например, у Наливайченко (бывший глава СБУ - прим. "Ленты.ру" ). При этом между самими кураторами идет серьезная борьба. Из-за этого возникают различные казусы. Так, куратор бывшего министра финансов Украины Натальи Яресько сообщила ей, что ее кандидатура утверждена на должность главы правительства. Та стала уже делать какие-то высокомерные заявления, но в итоге в правительстве Гройсмана не сохранила даже должность главы Минфина. Проблема Саакашвили связана с тем, что его кураторы в США сегодня не на вершине власти. Вторая трудность - отсутствие у него своей политической силы. Ему надо свой рейтинг как-то конвертировать в движение, чтобы закрепиться внутри Украины.

    Юлия Тимошенко сможет вернуться во власть?

    У нее не только высокий рейтинг, но есть и собственная политическая сила - партия "Батькивщина". Да, в Раде это всего 25 депутатов, поэтому она и не претендует на какие-то серьезные посты. Я знаю, что ей при формировании правительства Гройсмана предлагали войти в кабмин. Но она посчитала, что ей лучше еще нарастить рейтинг, находясь в оппозиции.

    "Боевые действия в Донбассе продолжатся"

    Что в ближайшее время ждет Донбасс? И какова судьба минских соглашений?

    По сути, жители Донбасса - заложники неопределенности, вызванной минскими соглашениями. Меня совсем не удивило отсутствие результатов на последней встрече министров иностранных дел нормандской четверки. Для украинской власти вопросом жизни и смерти в полном смысле этого слова является непризнание вооруженного конфликта на востоке страны гражданской войной. Если война в Донбассе - не война с Россией, а внутренний гражданский конфликт, то начало АТО, привлечение армии, насильная мобилизация, обстрелы городов Донбасса - это не только грубое нарушение Конституции Украины, но и преступление, по которому нет сроков давности. Руководители страны - военные преступники. Все погибшие в результате конфликта, как военные так и мирные жители, на их совести. Представители киевской власти как попугаи будут говорить об агрессии России на востоке Украины. То, что они сами себе противоречат, их не сильно волнует. Если Россия агрессор, то надо разрывать дипломатические отношения и объявлять войну России. Причем логичнее всего начинать "освобождение от России" с Крыма. Ведь то, что в Крыму, в отличие от Донбасса, находится российская армия, ни для кого не секрет. Но дураков нет. Одно дело воевать в Донбассе с выдуманными российскими войсками, а совсем другое - столкнуться с настоящей кадровой российской армией в Крыму.

    С соглашениями тупиковая ситуация?

    То, что подписи под минскими соглашениями поставили представители самопровозглашенных народных республик, и так поставило Киев в сложное положение. Если договоренности будут выполнены, то дело Киеву придется иметь уже с легитимными представителями Донбасса. (Лично я считаю, что у глав ДНР Александра Захарченко и ЛНР Игоря Плотницкого легитимности больше, чем у Порошенко). Это значит, что в случае конфликта он попадает под определение "гражданская война", а действия киевского руководства можно трактовать как военное преступление. Таким образом, при выполнении минских соглашений Киев окажется в шпагате.

    Фашистские режимы держатся на страхе, они устойчивы, если существует только одна точка зрения. А не разделяющих ее государство или батальоны смерти устраняют. Неподконтрольный центральной власти анклав на востоке нельзя физически раздавить, и это делает режим очень неустойчивым. С другой стороны, минский комплекс мер продавливают европейцы и публично отказываться от него нельзя. Но и выполнить невозможно. Все это прекрасно понимают как в Киеве, так и в Вашингтоне. Если бы американцы действительно хотели выполнения соглашений, то Виктория Нуланд сегодня бы сидела в Киеве и разговаривала с депутатами, руководителями фракций и олигархами в жесткой форме. Аргументов много: угроза запрета въезда в ЕС, закрытие кредитования в зарубежных банках, конфискация собственности и арест счетов за границей Государственные СМИ и СМИ, подчиняющиеся олигархам, с утра и до вечера, в случае если бы действительно ставилась такая задача, говорили о том что, минские договоренности надо выполнять. Но мы этого не наблюдаем.

    Мое резюме такое: Украина и США как минимум до президентских выборов в Америке сохранят риторику о том, что минские соглашения следует выполнять. Но в то же время выполнять их, голосуя в Верховной Раде за амнистию, специальный статус отдельных районов, изменения в Конституцию, закон о выборах в Донбассе, не будут. Организовывать крупномасштабное наступление тоже не будут, дабы не нарваться на контрнаступление. Но боевые действия в ограниченном режиме на границе с Донбассом, очевидно, продолжатся по той причине, что первый пункт соглашений - прекращение огня. Невыполнение первого пункта дает возможность затягивать и с другими.

    Какие-то поводы для оптимизма вы все-таки видите?

    Медленно, шаг за шагом, но в Донбассе все-таки становится спокойнее, а уровень жизни немного растет. Я как один из тех, кто стоял в начале этого процесса, хотел бы большего. Поэтому я, возможно, слишком резко оцениваю ситуацию, хотя сделано, конечно, очень много.

    "Я не общаюсь с Януковичем"

    Есть регионы Украины, которые готовы пойти по пути ДНР и ЛНР?

    За время правления Порошенко украинские силовики провели точечную, но системную работу по выявлению недовольных киевской властью. Одни попали в тюрьму, другие покинули Украину. Движение сопротивления во многом подавлено. Общее недовольство теми, кто пришел к власти после госпереворота в 2014 году, есть, уровень жизни падает, тарифы растут, социально-экономическая ситуация ухудшается. Но отсутствуют лидеры, способные повести за собой людей.

    Вы общаетесь с кем-то из прежнего руководства Украины? Может быть, обсуждаете что-то с беглым президентом Виктором Януковичем?

    Я с глубоким уважением отношусь к бывшему главе правительства Николаю Азарову. С ним мы обсуждаем много вопросов. С Януковичем не общаюсь. Знаете, после госпереворота в Киеве погибло громадное количество людей, Донбасс стал зоной боевых действий. Через возглавляемый мной парламент Новороссии шла первая российская гуманитарная помощь, другой структуры для такой работы просто не было. Я по пять-шесть раз в день посещал пострадавшие семьи в Луганске, Донецке. Мне важно было показать людям, что их не бросили. Я приезжал в семьи, где погибли дети, старики, где разрушены дома. Я видел это горе, которое принесла, в том числе, политика Януковича. Это очень тяжело.

    Вы считаете, что лично Янукович виноват в происходящем на Украине сейчас?

    У него были все рычаги власти. Он мог бороться как Каддафи, как сирийский лидер Башар Асад, он мог погибнуть, как Альенде (Сальвадор Альенде, президент Чили, погиб в 1973 году в ходе военного переворота - прим. "Ленты.ру" ), и остаться символом сопротивления в веках, но он этого не сделал. Политик не имеет права думать о себе.

    И что же, не было тогда людей, близких к "телу", которые могли оказать на него какое-то влияние, чтобы он принял другое решение? Или он никого не слушал?

    Украина - олигархическая страна, причем классическая олигархическая страна. Можно много говорить про демократические выборы, но в итоге украинский народ выбирает того кандидата, которого выбрали олигархи. Ну, как минимум из перечня тех, на кого они сделали ставку. Поэтому его обязательства перед ними были важнее, чем перед простыми людьми.

    А олигархам, выходит, невыгодно было сохранить страну?

    В какой-то момент олигархов взяли за самое дорогое, что у них есть, - за деньги и за собственность. Вариантов не было.

    [May 17, 2016] Work starts on new pipeline bringing Azeri gas to Italy

    bakken.com

    Construction work is starting on a new pipeline project bringing Azeri gas through northern Greece and Albania to Italy, reducing Europe's energy dependency on Russia.


    The Trans Adriatic Pipeline will run for 878 kilometers (550 miles), from Greece's border with Turkey to southern Italy, and includes a 105-kilometer (65-mile) stretch under the Adriatic Sea. First deliveries to Europe are expected in 2020.

    Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras said the project would create 8,000 jobs in his financially struggling country, which has more than 24 percent unemployment.

    He spoke at a ceremony Tuesday to mark the beginning of the pipeline's construction in the northern port city of Thessaloniki.

    TAP is a joint project by Britain's BP, Azerbaijan's SOCAR, Italy's Snam, Belgium's Fluxys, Spain's Enagas and Swiss Axpo.

    [May 16, 2016] Thinking the Unthinkable Russia Has Re-Emerged As a Great Power

    www.huffingtonpost.com

    The Western image of Russia and Putin in recent years has been very negative. President Obama has publicly called Vladimir Putin a " schoolboy who slouches in his chair in the back of the room " and derided his country as a mere " regional power ." This begs the question: how Russia could again become a major power after the disintegration of the Soviet Union in 1991? How could Putin do this without an agrarian or consumer revolution and with the massive drop in the price of oil? If Putin is a terrible leader, then how can you explain successful interventions in Georgia (2008), Crimea (2014), Ukraine (2014-2016) and Syria (2015-2016)? Putin, however, is actually a very shrewd leader with a brilliant Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov, who relies on a capable Foreign Ministry. Putin has rebuilt Russia's military capability by spending $49B a year on security. Russia retains 1,790 strategic nuclear weapons . With over 140 million people and 13 million college graduates, Russia has nearly a million first-class scientists, engineers and technicians, most of whom work for the military. Many former great powers are now no longer major powers. Japan, which smashed the Russian army in the 1904 Sino-Japanese War, occupied much of China from 1937-1945 and has a four trillion dollar economy is no longer a great power. After its defeat in World War II capped by the American dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and American post-war occupation, Japan has sworn off further intervention in the world and refused to acquire nuclear weapons. Europe, which once teemed with great powers such as Germany, France, England and Austro-Hungary, now has gone in another direction. Germany soundly beat the Russians in every World War I battle and came close to doing the same in 1941 and 1942. Today with weak power projection the three main powers have less than 1,000 mainline battle tanks and few aircraft carriers. Weak economic growth ( 1.5%/year ), disputes among its 28 members, migration from the Middle East, serious problems with weaker members such as Greece, promote domestic over international issues. China, with its ten trillion dollar GDP , over two trillion dollars of exports, over three trillion dollars in its reserve fund, 1.35 billion people and 3.7 million square miles of territory, is a future great power. It has made huge economic progress since Deng Xiaopong launched the Four Modernizations in 1978. Yet, its remaining problems are staggering: enormous air pollution , 675 million peasants, huge governmental corruption, authoritarian one party dictatorship, lack of rule of law, rapidly aging population, hundreds of thousands of children raising themselves and only $7,500 GDP/capita. Its military, while boosted by 150 billion dollars of spending , still needs another decade to become a truly modern force. India has 20 percent illiteracy , 300 million people without electricity and a $1,300 GDP/capita that is less than three percent of the United States. It faces Pakistan soon with 200 atomic bombs. India, with over a billion people, will be a major power but not for several decades. Then there is the United States, the sole global superpower since victory in the Cold War and one of two superpowers in the world since 1945. Its 18 trillion dollar economy , 17 of the world's top 20 universities, world leadership in high technology, over 550 billion dollars in military spending and 330 million people give it serious advantages over Russia. But, with the rise of popular neo-isolationist Presidential candidates, the slowest economic recovery since the Great Depression, decline in its manufacturing sector, administration talk of reducing the size of the American military to the 1940 level, and the Obama semi-withdrawal from the Middle East, the door that had been shut to Russia has been open. The unthinkable has become a reality. Russia, seemingly finished after its defeat in the Cold War, now is emerging as a prospective great power challenging the West. Russia has done the unthinkable-become a great power filling the void left by other former great powers that have now shrunk in size, power and influence.

    [May 14, 2016] Russian oil exports are expected to shrink

    Notable quotes:
    "... This is a very questionable assumption. Supply/demand dynamics, especially reckless financing of shale in the USA was a factor (as in "crisis of overproduction" - if we remember classic Marxist term ;-), but this is only one and probably not decisive contributing factor. Paper oil, HFT, Saudis oil damping and Western MSM and agencies (Wild cries "Oil Glut !!!", "OMG Oil glut !!!" supported by questionable statistics from EIA, IEA and friends) were equally important factors. It you deny this you deny the reality. ..."
    "... I agree, but this not the whole story. Western MSM went to crazy pitch trying to amplify Saudi animosities and to play "young reckless prince" card toward Iran and Russia. Do you remember the interview the prince gave to Bloomberg just before the freeze ? Do you think that this was accidental? ..."
    "... definitely $50-$60 price band is not enough to revive the US shale. LTO is dead probably on any level below $80 and may be even above this level. That does not exclude "dead chicken bounce". Moreover LTO is already played card for financial industries. In reality it probably needs prices above $100 to fully recover. ..."
    "... neoliberals still dominates in Russia. Especially oil and economics ministries. Reading interviews of Russian oil officials is pretty depressing. They swallow and repeat all the Western propaganda one-to-one. Unfortunately. In this area they have a lot to learn from Americans :-). ..."
    "... At the same time, increasing the volume of high additional value products such as plastics, rubber, composites, etc is in best Russia's interest. It is difficult to achieve though. I think creating the ability to withhold substantial amount of oil from the markets for the periods of say 6 to 12 month is more important. And here they can get some help from OPEC members, Saudi be damned. ..."
    "... This is a tricky balancing solution, but still this is some insurance against the price slumps like the current one, when Russia was caught swimming naked and did not have any viable game plan. It is unclear what is the optimal mix, but in no way this 100% or even 80% raw oil. ..."
    peakoilbarrel.com

    likbez , 05/13/2016 at 3:45 pm

    Alex,

    I doubt that Russian will so easily forgive the West the current price slump and sanctions. Remember it was Russia which was one on the main initiators of "freeze" the US and EU managed to derail.

    My impression is that Russia wants to process most of its oil internally which will reduce the amount of oil available for export significantly. That's now semi-official policy.

    Production figures are less meaningful in this context then export volumes and are like a smokescreen on the eminent move to oil shortages on world markets.

    Yes, production might be stable or slowly declining. But exports will not be stable. They will be declining. Now what ?

    AlexS , 05/13/2016 at 5:45 pm

    nonsense.

    1) The current oil price slump is due to supply/demand dynamics, not to western conspiracies. This is very well understood by Russian officials.

    2) The Doha deal was torpedoed by Saudi Arabia, primarily due to its conflict with Iran and the intention to defend market share.

    3) The output freeze deal was intended at changing the sentiment in the market and prevent further decline in oil prices. This objective was achieved: oil prices are up 70% from February lows, which is partly due to the talks between Russia, Saudi Arabia and others that started in February.

    Nobody expected the Doha deal to help oil prices to return to $100 levels, as an output freeze is not an output cut. Besides, the agreement should have been non-binding and there was no mechanism to control its implementation.

    An increase in oil prices well above $50 this year is not in Russia's or Saudi interest, as it could reverse the declining trend in LTO output. Russia's government officials, management of oil companies and experts generally think that rebalancing of the oil market should be left to market forces, and any attempts to artificially cut supply would be counter-productive. Therefore, nobody saw the failure of the Doha agreement as a tragedy, particulalry as prices are already at acceptable levels.

    3) Russia's oil policy is driven by economic considerations. Cutting oil exports (and hence foreign currency revenues) in order to "punish" the West is like shooting yourself in the foot.

    4) As Russian oil production was increasing in the past 15 years, and domestic demand remained relatively stable, the country has been ramping up exports of both crude oil and refined products. Upgrading oil refining capacity means that Russian oil companies are able to increase the share of refined products in total exports at the expense of crude oil.
    This results in changing structure of liquid fuel exports, not in the decrease in its combined volume. In fact, the structure of petroleum exports depends on comparative profitability of crude and product exports. Sometimes it is more profitable to export crude rather than diesel or fuel oil.

    likbez , 05/13/2016 at 10:16 pm
    Alex,

    The current oil price slump is due to supply/demand dynamics, not to western conspiracies

    This is a very questionable assumption. Supply/demand dynamics, especially reckless financing of shale in the USA was a factor (as in "crisis of overproduction" - if we remember classic Marxist term ;-), but this is only one and probably not decisive contributing factor. Paper oil, HFT, Saudis oil damping and Western MSM and agencies (Wild cries "Oil Glut !!!", "OMG Oil glut !!!" supported by questionable statistics from EIA, IEA and friends) were equally important factors. It you deny this you deny the reality.

    Remember the key Roman legal principle "cue bono". And who in this case is the prime suspect? Can you please answer this question.

    And please remember that the originator of the word "conspiracies" was CIA (to discredit those who questioned the official version of JFK assassination).

    2) The Doha deal was torpedoed by Saudi Arabia, primarily due to its conflict with Iran and the intention to defend market share.

    I agree, but this not the whole story. Western MSM went to crazy pitch trying to amplify Saudi animosities and to play "young reckless prince" card toward Iran and Russia. Do you remember the interview the prince gave to Bloomberg just before the freeze ? Do you think that this was accidental?

    BTW I agree that this was a huge win of Western diplomacy and "low oil price forever" forces.

    An increase in oil prices well above $50 this year is not in Russia's or Saudi interest, as it could reverse the declining trend in LTO output.

    Nonsense. First of all mankind now needs oil above $100 to speed up the switch to hybrid cars for personal transportation, and Russia and Saudi are the part of mankind.

    It is also in best Russia's and Saudi economic interests, contrary to what you read on Bloomberg or similar rags. World oil production is severely damaged by low oil prices and 1MB/d that shale it can probably additionally produce in best circumstances is not that easy to achieve after this slump.

    And definitely $50-$60 price band is not enough to revive the US shale. LTO is dead probably on any level below $80 and may be even above this level. That does not exclude "dead chicken bounce". Moreover LTO is already played card for financial industries. In reality it probably needs prices above $100 to fully recover.

    For probably the next five-seven years everybody will be too shy in financing shale and other high risk oil production ventures. So the oil price will probably set a new record. After that we will have another round of "gold rush" in oil as institutional memory about the current oil price slump will gradually evaporate. Neoliberalism is an unstable economic system, you can bet on that.

    Russia's oil policy is driven by economic considerations. Cutting oil exports (and hence foreign currency revenues) in order to "punish" the West is like shooting yourself in the foot.

    Nonsense. No nation politics is driven only by economic consideration but Russia stupidly or not tried to play the role of stable, reliable oil and gas supplier to people who would betray you for a penny. And sometimes this desire to play nice with the West led to betraying its own national interests.

    If I were Putin I would create strategic reserves and divert part of oil export to them to sell them later at higher prices. Buy low, sell high: is not this a good strategy :-)

    Or play some other card by artificially restricting export of oil to Western Europe to refined products (and to please the USA, as it so badly wanted Russia to restrict supplies to EU to damage their long time strategic partner :-) and let the EU face consequences of their own polices.

    But this is probably not a possibility as neoliberals still dominates in Russia. Especially oil and economics ministries. Reading interviews of Russian oil officials is pretty depressing. They swallow and repeat all the Western propaganda one-to-one. Unfortunately. In this area they have a lot to learn from Americans :-).

    Exports are reliable hard currency stream. But it not a stable stream, as Russia recently discovered.

    At the same time, increasing the volume of high additional value products such as plastics, rubber, composites, etc is in best Russia's interest. It is difficult to achieve though. I think creating the ability to withhold substantial amount of oil from the markets for the periods of say 6 to 12 month is more important. And here they can get some help from OPEC members, Saudi be damned.

    Upgrading oil refining capacity means that Russian oil companies are able to increase the share of refined products in total exports at the expense of crude oil.

    This is a tricky balancing solution, but still this is some insurance against the price slumps like the current one, when Russia was caught swimming naked and did not have any viable game plan. It is unclear what is the optimal mix, but in no way this 100% or even 80% raw oil.

    [May 14, 2016] Russia is not planning to significantly ramp production capacity

    Notable quotes:
    "... Russia is not planning to significantly ramp production capacity. Energy Minister Novak said today that the country will be able to maintain long-term production levels within the range 525-545 million tons per year (10.5-10.9 mb/d). That's what Russian officials were saying earlier. ..."
    "... According to the Saudi officials, planned expansion of the Khurais and Shaybah oil fields will only compensate for falling output at other fields. They claim that the country's "maximum sustainable output capacity is 12 million barrels per day and the nation's total capacity is 12.5 million bpd", but there are no plans to increase capacity and there is no evidence that this capacity really exists. ..."
    peakoilbarrel.com
    Hi Ron,

    In your opinion will the Saudi's and Russians be able to significantly ramp further production capacity as they threaten?

    AlexS , 05/13/2016 at 7:14 am
    I'm not Ron, but this is my view:

    Russia is not planning to significantly ramp production capacity. Energy Minister Novak said today that the country will be able to maintain long-term production levels within the range 525-545 million tons per year (10.5-10.9 mb/d). That's what Russian officials were saying earlier.

    According to the Saudi officials, planned expansion of the Khurais and Shaybah oil fields will only compensate for falling output at other fields. They claim that the country's "maximum sustainable output capacity is 12 million barrels per day and the nation's total capacity is 12.5 million bpd", but there are no plans to increase capacity and there is no evidence that this capacity really exists.

    I think that in reality Saudi Arabia is able to increase crude production from the current 10.2 mb/d to 10.5-10.6 mb/d during the peak season for local demand in the Summer, but not well above those levels.

    Dennis Coyne , 05/13/2016 at 11:40 am
    Hi John,

    I agree with AlexS's assessment. In short, no not much further increase in output will come from Russia and Saudi Arabia, certainly not until oil prices rise above $70/b in 2018, and perhaps never.

    The combined output of Russia and KSA will remain within +/- 2 Mb/d of 2015 C+C output levels until 2020 in my view.

    likbez , 05/13/2016 at 3:47 pm
    IMHO Alex missed the bigger picture. Exports will decrease. Might be significantly because more and more oil will be processed internally.

    [May 11, 2016] Every defeat is just getting that bit more embarrassing for Clinton now

    Notable quotes:
    "... Everything is just getting that bit more embarrassing for Clinton now, as if it wasn't for her early jump on Sanders before people got to know who he was, she could well be behind. ..."
    "... Vote for Bernie is more like a protest vote: people just show their disgust with neocon Killary posing as a Democrat. That's why if Dems nominate Killary, many Bernie supporters won't vote at all, and some would even vote Trump. Trump and Bernie are opposites in many things, but they have one thing in common: Republicratic establishment is afraid of both. ..."
    www.theguardian.com

    yinyanggrl Jason Ma 10 May 2016 22:26

    Trump will be 70 in less than a month, Sanders is 74. Not a huge difference. The main difference is hair dye and injections.

    ucic , 2016-05-11 03:32:02

    Maybe the 'mis-spoke' argument for Clinton's crushing in WV today (a state she won in 2008) is not the only a influence on today's vote? Perhaps the people of WV have also been reading or hearing about Clinton's appalling polling in a showdown with Trump compared to Sanders? Meanwhile, if the state does goes Repub in the general, it will just be like all those other southern states that Hillary won!
    Eugene Harvey johnjohn12 , 2016-05-11 03:28:39
    I do believe it may be yourself and your beloved Hillary that are hitting the bottle. The more Sanders wins the more he may be able to swing the Super Delegates who are free to pledge for who they want. Everything is just getting that bit more embarrassing for Clinton now, as if it wasn't for her early jump on Sanders before people got to know who he was, she could well be behind.
    It is something the Democrats can't ignore, just as they can't ignore Clintons popularity ratings along side Trump.
    Why pull out when you're winning? Sounds like something a loser would do.


    Eugene Harvey , 2016-05-11 03:16:38
    Got to love the Guardian, first they get a bit over excited and announce Clinton and Trump win after almost no votes counted, with their ridiculous little Clinton/Trump graphics waving their arms, then have to wakeup from their warm fuzzy dream and face reality, Sanders and done it again.

    The Fat Lady is starting to get nervous as the Orchestra start to leave the pit.

    RobertAussie danielnc , 2016-05-11 03:03:09
    Whereas cocaine capitalists are so good at maths that they sold sub-prime mortgage packages, created the GFC and destroyed the world economy... and then got bailed out by the people... (that is, they suddenly and briefly embraced socialism in their time of need, in case that's lost on you.)
    Informed17 danielnc , 2016-05-11 03:01:42
    Vote for Bernie is more like a protest vote: people just show their disgust with neocon Killary posing as a Democrat. That's why if Dems nominate Killary, many Bernie supporters won't vote at all, and some would even vote Trump. Trump and Bernie are opposites in many things, but they have one thing in common: Republicratic establishment is afraid of both.

    Siamesemama1 , 2016-05-11 02:50:15
    Guardian: I'm getting tired of waiting for a fair headline from you, for example, "Bernie Takes West Virginia in May 10th state primary" instead of "Trump this, Trump that/hillary_clinton. blah, blah, blah". It's as simple as Who, What, When, Where & Why-accurately reported. As taught in 9th grade journalism classes.
    Im waiting for an article without the negatives such as West Virginians only voted for Sanders because they are waiting to vote for Trump.
    It's bad enough to have Hillary, Bill, the Koch bros., the banksters, the Supreme Court et al subverting our democracy, must you join in as well?
    Bernie's formidable & we, his supporters are tenacious!
    GO BERNIE!!!!
    WarlockScott JimmySands , 2016-05-11 02:40:41
    Sociopath taps into public discontent amongst smaller demographic group by giving them someone to blame and displaying authoritarian strength in the face of hated establishment (who lets be honest with maybe one exception were hopeless candidates). Tbf I'd be less concerned with what Republicans think and more concerned with the Independent voting block who have massive concerns about Hillary for mostly different reasons
    relgin Severus1 , 2016-05-11 02:40:12
    Clinton's campaign has soaked up a goodly portion of this allegedly donated money. She believes that *she* is the Democratic Party heir. Clinton is for Clinton and will do anything to get what she wants.
    BaldwinP whyohwhy1 , 2016-05-11 02:31:59
    The point is that while Sanders gets support from people to the left of Clinton, he also gets a lot of support from people to the right of Clinton and who are backing him as an anti-establishment guy, not a left-wing guy.
    exdiplomat ArchieWahWah , 2016-05-11 02:27:04
    Why would Sanders, who has made his entire campaign about the corrupting influence of Wall Street and corporate interests in government, and has self funded his campaign as a result, team up with a person who is the living embodiment of all he disdains? Hillary Clinton's campaign is the nexus of Wall Street and corruption, with an FBI investigation thrown in for good measure.

    Do not trust her. Do not want her.

    PrinceVlad ryanpatrick9192 , 2016-05-11 02:26:56
    He says it was a disaster, is against regime change, questions our relationship with the Saudis, wants to be neutral with regard to Israel and Palestine, and questions why we need NATO decades after the Soviet Union collapsed. All sound positions in my book.
    PlayaGiron , 2016-05-11 02:24:43
    How is Sanders campaign "quixotic"?

    Just report the fucking news without the insults!!

    exdiplomat USfan , 2016-05-11 02:17:56
    Not me. I'm voting Sanders. And if its not Sanders, then I'm voting Trump.

    The problem is corruption in government, and how the government and economy are rigged.

    Only Sanders and Trump talk about this. Clinton... with her speech money and tens of millions from Wall Street donors and Pentagon supplier donors... she is part of the problem, and certainly not the solution.

    krnewman , 2016-05-11 02:11:34
    Once again we have uniformly lousy, almost criminally responsibly terrible political reporting from the Guardian concerning the Democratic Party's race. I come expecting you to be awful and you never disappoint. You know nothing, you understand nothing.
    WarlockScott Arsenaltribe , 2016-05-11 02:09:19
    Well Hillary's fucked in that case but I disagree that Americans only care about tax cuts especially when you consider certain studies...

    TPC found that the average tax burden would increase by about $9,000 in 2017 but the average amount of benefits would increase by more than $13,000. As a result, households would on average receive a net income gain of almost $4,300 under Sanders's proposals, TPC said.

    Households in the bottom fifth of income would on average receive a net gain of more than $10,000, and those in the middle fifth of income would have an average gain of about $8,500. Those in the top 5 percent of income would see a net loss of about $111,000, TPC said.

    Bernie has a very strong case to not only be the most progressive candidate but also the one lightest on the average American's pocket

    erik_ny Arsenaltribe , 2016-05-11 01:54:00
    She's a greedy warmongering horror with nothing to offer anyone. Sanders supports will simply not vote. At all. For anyone. A handful might vote for Trump but not in significant numbers.

    I would refrain from too many predictions six months out. (a) USA is a moody country with (b) a love of novelty and (c) there's no frame of reference for what's going to come next. Except that we're in for a wild ride.

    to the extent Trump generates buzz, clicks, excitement & controversy -- the press must secretly praying for him to win

    furrypuppet , 2016-05-11 01:45:10
    Welcome to our live wire coverage with our rock star interns. After another terrible night for Sanders, who was expected to gain 99.9% of the vote, this latest win in West Virginia is another devastating blow to the Sanders campaign, coming after a series of 17 incredibly lucky shock results by landslide margins which of course don't mean anything.

    Because of the large number of comments which disagree with the Guardian editorial line we will be closing this blog shortly.

    Sam3456 justdoug , 2016-05-11 01:42:48
    You can make the case that Hillary's 30,000 deleted personal emails are = to Nixons 18 minutes of missing tape. Also her use of "enemies list" and her use of the Super Pac "Correct the Record" cyber war against anyone who speaks out about her in a negative manner, as well as her hawkish foreign policy and her close relationship with Kissenger to me be very similar to Nixon.

    Except for your already disproved slander that Sanders is a "socialist" there is not much else he has in common with Lenin.

    Sam3456 USfan , 2016-05-11 01:37:33
    http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-clinton-digital-trolling-20160506-snap-htmlstory.html


    495620 MtnClimber , 2016-05-11 01:33:56
    Well, the moderator is making it easier for Clinton's super Pac to work these comments now. You can't debate these people rationally, they are paid to distort and reflect back to you the opposite of everything.
    RonaldMcDonald666 Eugene Harvey , 2016-05-11 01:30:23
    Body language works on a different level. You can't fake it easily. It's almost impossible to fake micro expressions. And we all pick them up. This is probably the main reason why Clinton is deemed untrustworthy. It's because her body's expressions can't hide her lies
    whyohwhy1 , 2016-05-11 01:25:38
    Bernie Sanders got 72% in West Virginia among those who want more liberal policies than the Obama Administration. Or in a nutshell according to the Guardian, "Trump voters".

    SeenItAlready CurtBrown , 2016-05-11 01:19:19
    My view is that Hillary is bought and sold by a small group of ultra-wealthy 0.001%ers who have some form of personality disorder which means that they are only interested in unending self-enrichment beyond any from of rational limit, all at the expense of *everybody else* on the planet

    The article rather backs this up, and furthermore points out that at least some of these same people were also backing the frightful Cruz until he dropped out of the race

    Are you happy to be shilling for Hillary now you have this information?

    dutchcookie , 2016-05-11 01:13:16
    Guardian office alert !!! Guardian office alert !!!
    There are elections in the USA at the moment in some of the states and the Guardian editor in charge is worried. Why ?
    There are not enough anti Trump articles yet written for today and one (?new) staffer had the audacity to write an article on Hillary that had one line in it that was seen as a bit 'negative' for our former first lady.
    The editor in charge may have to write a negative article on Trump him/herself.... so what to do now.........the news staffer is walking down the road already

    If you need some help Guardian staff..ask me.. I have read so many of your anti Trump articles that I can memorize most of the lines.....................

    Vermouth Brilliantine suddenoakdeath , 2016-05-11 01:12:46
    True colours, alright. Bernie voters have principles- they're not willing to toss those aside in order to support NAFTA-loving, email-losing, regime-change-addict Clinton, the woman whose campaign platform changes entirely depending on which way the wind is blowing. It beats me why anyone voting for Bernie would want to vote for Clinton- expect more outsourcing, more 'free trade', more TPIP, and more Middle East interventions if she snakes her way into the Oval office.
    Sam3456 dopamineboy , 2016-05-11 01:07:11
    Clinton = Moderate Republican

    Sam3456 dopamineboy , 2016-05-11 01:07:11
    Clinton = Moderate Republican

    Psyren Michronics42 , 2016-05-11 01:03:50
    Yes Clinton is cleverly using a LEGAL way to bypass campaign financing laws thanks to her joint account with the DNC.
    Although, to be fair, she is not the first candidate to do that.
    The legality is not for debate here but I won't say that much about the morality...

    Sam3456 Michronics42 , 2016-05-11 00:59:16
    She consistently has shown that money and power is all she is interested in. She does not care where that money or power comes from as long as she gets it.

    That's why she took "the evil ones" campaign contribution.

    The lesser of two evils is still evil.

    Markmarkmark56 , 2016-05-11 00:51:55
    "But I believe that it is not enough to just reject Trump – this is an opportunity to define a progressive vision for America."

    Exactly! The Clinton campaign is basically stating "Vote Hillary, she's less worse than Trump!", there's nothing progressive or innovative about it, just plain sailing everything thing is fine stop thinking now and get back to work stuff. Shame really, the woulda shoulda coulda that's coming to the US in a few months after Trump wins...because he's going to, dour predictions by the media aside (they didn't see any of this coming) he's just the kind of guy Americans will vote for, I mean, we elected Bush II twice! Well...once, really.

    SeenItAlready suddenoakdeath , 2016-05-11 00:48:40
    Where did I say that? Bit of an 'Ad Hominem' from you there I'm afraid

    Here's another link showing where some of that money is going:
    Pro-Hillary PAC Spending $1 Million to Hire Online Trolls

    Are you benefiting directly from it or are you just doing this out of the goodness of your heart?

    SeenItAlready , 2016-05-11 00:37:10
    Today's article in The Guardian: Top 25 hedge fund managers earned $13bn in 2015 – more than some nations

    Quote:

    Simons, a string theory expert and former cold war codebreaker, has made an estimated $15.5bn from Renaissance Technologies the mathematics-driven "quant" hedge fund he set up 34 years ago.

    The fund, which is run from the tiny Long Island village of Setauket where Simons owns a huge beachfront compound, has donated $13m to Cruz's failed campaign. With Cruz out of the race, Renaissance has switched donations to Hillary Clinton, with more than $2m donated so far. Euclidean Capital, Simon's family office, has donated more than $7m to Clinton.

    Just saying...

    westoeden ucic , 2016-05-11 00:34:16
    The media and the parties conveniently forget that more than 40% of Americans are Independents and they can swing this election. Most of them would vote for Sanders in the general election in Nov., but they won't vote for Clinton. The DNC should be assessing who could best win the White House and back that candidate. I am at a lose as to why they aren't doing that.
    MOZGODRK , 2016-05-11 00:30:30
    Hillary, let's face it: you and the working class just don't go together. It is a very awkward , tense and schizo combination. You should be campaigning on Broadway, Sunset Strip or Rodeo Drive. West Virginia just isn't your natural habitat: It is like putting an anaerobic bacterium into an oxygen tank.

    Stick to the 1% quarters, and you'll do just fine (plus, they give good speech fees). And you don't even have to watch those unwashed coalminers' faces and pretend that you are one of them.

    Huples , 2016-05-11 00:17:58
    Hey Guardian fascinating to know what the Clinton Camp (Machine) thinks about tonight but what does Senator Sanders campaign think? Just curious you know. Helps to have reporting from both sides to help unbiased voters make up their minds.

    Don't get me wrong I think it was nice you mentioned Bernie's landslide in Nebraska but what is he saying? Sure he's holding 25,000 rallies but could you cover his actual words and policies with an equal amount of reporting as you are covering Clinton?

    Of note I read elsewhere he is 281 delegates behind and expected to win 8 out of 9 remaining states. Does that mean Clinton has no chance of becoming the presumptive nominee until the Convention? Also have you investigated her Goldman Sachs speeches? She said she'd release them when others have and I do not think Sanders or Trump are withholding their speeches.

    RonaldMcDonald666 ImaHack , 2016-05-11 00:10:02
    Because the mainstream media is just a propaganda machine for big money interests makes them a horrid place to look for facts
    Bonita Goodrich , 2016-05-11 00:09:49
    Key word.... Integrity. It's not about Bernie,it's about us. No more taxation without representation. Corporations aren't people.. I should know as I work for one and own one. Capitalism without regulation self cannibalises as it is left with no consumers. That's what the new deal was really about... Saving capitalism and I'm all for that.
    nomdinterweb judyblue , 2016-05-10 23:51:44
    My Graun headline predictions, if Sanders wins by any margin large or small today:

    "Clinton Narrowly Defeated in West Virginia But Wins Several Delegates"

    "Is This the Last Stop on the Road for the Sanders Campaign?"

    "Trump [insert any random story here]"

    Anyone else? Virtual Snickers as prize for the closest prediction...

    TEESMEE , 2016-05-10 23:31:50
    This liveblog is illustrative of the inane soma that the media, unfortunately this appears to include the guardian, will feed to its readers over the general election. Again you have forgotten that smart young people, who make up a large proportion of your readership, are extremely put off by the extent of Trump's coverage. I know he's the presumptive nominee, but that puts the onus on discussing his policies more, contrasting them with hillary's etc, but you do nothing of the sort. I know it's a liveblog and you're scraping through the day for tidbits but i really think more analysis instead of random useless coverage of events is in order. Oh Trump's a buffoon that says stupid things? Thanks, I needed more evidence of that. Oh he polls worse than Nickelback? Hilarious. No, no, no. Give us some real information and not this public interest nonsense - that's what social media is for.
    marshwren Pleasetickother3 , 2016-05-10 22:50:21
    Delegate math in the primaries is one thing; electoral college math in the general election is quite another. Clinton's margin in popular votes derives from red (mostly southern) state primaries that, with few exceptions (like NC), neither will win in the general. As others have noted, in swing states Sanders lost, he's polling better against Trump than Clinton does (FL, OH, PA). There's even an interesting poll from NH that has Sanders ahead of Trump by 21 points (the same as his primary win margin), but Clinton is only up +5--the difference between Clinton keeping Sen. Ayotte (R) in the Senate for another term, and Sanders dragging the Hill-shill Gov. Hassen (D) into the Senate.
    Given Clinton's poor showing against Trump, both nationally and state-by-state, i'm beginning to suspect that difference isn't Trump gaining supporters against Clinton, but Clinton losing supporters to those not voting, voting third party (mostly Green), or writing Sanders' in--aka, the Bernie or Bust movement.
    It's still very possible Clinton goes to the Convention well short of the 2,383 pledged delegates she needs to win the nomination without the help of super delegates. And if her polls keep tanking (and taking any chance of winning back the Senate, the House, governors and statehouses) with it, the SD's will have a very hard time justifying awarding her the nomination simply out of personal loyalty, and still face the prospect of losing the presidency anyway.
    rumirules , 2016-05-10 22:47:54
    Two things happened in New York in July 2015.

    1) The New York Board of Elections received whopping pay raises, for unexplained reasons.

    2) The NY BOE's own internal minutes of July 7, 2015 (available to the public) show that the full board were completely aware of purging ~160,000 NY voters, treated that as a routine vote, and moved onto other apparently more pressing business

    http://m.nydailynews.com/news/politics/board-elections-managers-huge-pay-raises-article-1.2270469
    http://www.kingscountypolitics.com/doe-chief-ryan-commissioners-knew-mass-purging-voters-records-show /

    DogsLivesMatter AppalledAmerican , 2016-05-10 22:15:23
    Nobody in Congress works anymore. They spend the majority of their time looking for donations. This was from 60 minutes a few weeks back: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-are-members-of-congress-becoming-telemarketers /

    [May 09, 2016] Russian Oil Executives Not Optimistic About Oil Prices

    Russia is bleeding hard currency but still its oil industry is the best shape among OPEC nations, despite low oil prices and sanctions. It might well be that Russia will preserve the level of oil production which it reached in 2015 in 2016.
    OilPrice.com

    While discussing major factors influencing the oil market at the Forum, the speakers agreed the geopolitics have become an essential factor, although the condition of the world economy and market forces along with the technological advancement seemed to still be taking a lead in driving oil prices.

    "We must understand that the oil prices cannot change drastically because we are now reaching the projected output level that we set out to achieve with the investments that we historically made six, five, four years ago, and the production cannot be curtailed," said Vagit Alekperov, LUKoil's Chief Executive Officer. According to Alekperov, last year LUKoil spent 300 billion rubles on investments in the industry, and 112 billion rubles of investments in the first quarter of 2016.

    Related: ISIS Working On Driverless Car Causes More Worry Than Necessary

    Alekperov also said that the complex geopolitical situation in the Persian Gulf has caused the OPEC members from the Middle East to compete harder for their share of the oil market.

    "What we see here, is that amidst the oil prices slump the Persian Gulf countries attempt to increase their production output to cover their budget deficits caused by slashed oil revenues, including compensating for the part of budget they need for procuring arms", Alekperov noted.

    However, LUKoil's CEO believes oil prices are passed their lowest point, and the equilibrium price should fluctuate around $50 per barrel for the rest of 2016 and first half of 2017. Prices should then rise in the second half of 2017 as demand begins to exceed supply.

    The Chairman of the Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs, Alexander Shohin, described a litany of geopolitical issues affecting oil prices. "The fact that the Saudis rejected freezing the output blaming it on Iran's absence from the negotiations and its refusal to cooperate by announcing intention to raise the production back to pre-sanctions level of 5 million bpd plus a couple million bpd on top of that; turmoil in Libya's political situation, and a lack of a legitimate government there ; let alone the conspiracy plots that impact oil prices in countries that may be regarded as 'unfriendly'…all this definitely points to a high role of geopolitics in global oil market," he said.

    [May 07, 2016] So fed up is the American nation of plasticity, artificiality, botoxicity, hollow buffoonery and wizard-of-oz fakery of lobby-made candidates like Clinton that I comfortably predict that, if she ends up confronting Donald Trump in a general election, she will be mauled to threads and fronds

    Notable quotes:
    "... Simply put, the nation is sick to death of lies, deceptions and swindles - media and otherwise - which Hillary Clinton so capably embodies, personifies and endorses. In fact, one of the reasons why Donald Trump is the presumptive republican nominee is that, with all his extremism, vitriol and xenophobia, he still comes across as more genuine - even if genuinely nasty ..."
    "... So fed up is the American nation of plasticity, artificiality, botoxicity, hollow buffoonery and wizard-of-oz fakery of lobby-made candidates like Clinton that I comfortably predict that, if she ends up confronting Donald Trump in a general election, she will be mauled to threads and fronds, and I will get a kick of a lifetime. Donald Trump will eat her for mid-morning snack and she will have deserved every bit of drubbing she gets to receive. It will be more fun than the 6:00 AM sex. ..."
    "... Shock?!!!! How could the American Queen lose right?!!! ..."
    "... The main point is, Hillary has no chance of winning against Trump. She is already trying to get a cadre of neocon Republicans to support her, thinking she could get swing a portion of Republicans to support her, forgetting why she is so despised by a large segment of Democrats and majority of independents. It is her default cling to neocon interventionist, and corporate base of support that causes it. She is tone deaf, ignorant and arrogant. Unless, we Democrats stop her now Trump will beat her handily. I have no doubt about it. ..."
    "... In all of Hillary's 'closed' primary wins, they have been plagued with voter suppression tactics, voter purges, lack of voting machines and ballots, people (Sanders) having their party affiliation changed so they couldn't vote and 'Oh Yes' - Bill Clinton clearly violating election laws by 'wandering into a polling station in Boston. ..."
    "... Popular vote? When closed primaries arn't enough good old fashioned fraud will do. ..."
    "... Sanders has been consistently winning smaller states and may well have won New York too if not for the shenanigans going on there. ..."
    "... it will be a little awkward for Hillary wrenching the nomination from him after another series of massive wins. ..."
    "... Her 'sharing' means raising money for the states but giving them 1% of amount raised while diverting the funds back to the DNC who will be funding her campaigns. Smart technique, but deceptive, like much of her political life. ..."
    "... The fact is, a substantial section of the politically active electorate are sick and tired of the rotten do-nothing political system, and are doing whatever they can to deliberately disrupt business as usual. Don't be "shocked". ..."
    "... The "free press" continues to show that it is TOTALLY out of touch with the "we've had enough and we're not going to take it any more" quality of voters across the political spectrum. The U.S. "media" (i.e. corporate PR Sock Puppet), called Bernie's demise inevitable from the start (that is, when it wasn't blacklisting any coverage of him at all), and when there WAS coverage, it always had Kleverly manipulated headlines (Bernie shocks with a victory, yada yada yada). ..."
    "... The press has become so owned, so corrupt and also (in the case of the Guardian coverage of sanders) so Parrot- Lazy , I could just puke. A pox on all your pathetic "media" houses. ..."
    "... This rag like others do not get it. Sanders wins open primaries. The closed primaries with all the problems reported are why Clinton is in front. Democracy is not for the democrats. ..."
    "... Not only doesn't Killary know that 'this thing is not over", but the media doesn't know what's going on with the Empire of the entrenched Democratic party, nor the media Empire, nor the militarist Empire abroad, nor the financial Empire, nor the corporate Empire, nor any of the sectors of this Disguised Global Capitalist Empire, which is nominally HQed in. ..."
    "... This damn Disguised Global Capitalist EMPIRE that has by "singing so softly" imposed itself and its boot upon us, and which is a highly-integrated (but well hidden, like a cancer) six-sectored; corporate, financial, military, media/propaganda, extra-legal, and most dangerously dual-party Vichy-political facade of both the rougher neocon 'R' Vichy party and smoother lying neoliberal-con 'D' Vichy parties of the EMPIRE is "goin' down" ..."
    "... Using a dysfunctional system to change that very system is not hypocritical. ..."
    "... Sanders victory is not a "shock" to those of us who don't believe the media propaganda. Clinton and the DNC elite are the ones who will be shocked after the Oregon and California primaries as Sanders pulls neck and neck with her. ..."
    "... wrong, dems have been split down the middle since april 7. The DNC chose their candidate a year ago, that is not democracy. ..."
    "... Bow out gracefully, what a joke. Obama only got her support after she extorted the price of Secretary of State from him. ..."
    "... NYT is touted as being leftist by all the FOX readers and listeners, especially. They have an incredible bias for right wing Likud Party and Bibi Netanhayu and Hillary fits into that analysis as a veteran AIPAC speaker. ..."
    "... Christian Zionist, John Hagee, is also a favored speaker and colleague of Hillary's. She is a committed Neo-con and puppet of the New World Order Chicago School of Economics (Friedman). ..."
    "... The candidate who most appeals to women for support in this campaign is the same one who as US Senator and as US Sec. of State, has violated Moslem and Christian women's and children's fundamental human rights in Gaza, Libya, Yemen, Syria, Cuba. She has supported notorious violators of women rights, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Israel. ..."
    "... Wish to better understand Hillary Clinton? Review her relationship with Victoria Nuland the Neo-con who worked for Hillary in US Dept. of State as Undersecretary. Nation destabilizer Nuland is the wife of Robert Kagan, co-founder with William Kristol of PNAC. She worked for Dick Cheney as senior foreign policy advisor, now working for Sec. Kerry!! <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_Nuland> Then the original Neo-con agenda here: https://en.wikipedia.org/.../Project_for_the_New_American ... ..."
    "... Now PNAC and Nuland's husband, Robert Kagan have updated to this anti-American New World Order; the same agenda that is wolly embraced by Hillary Clinton and Sec. of State Kerry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Policy_Initiative ..."
    "... Sanders supporters are not merely disgusted by what they have seen in all the other candidates including Clinton, they know a good thing when they see it and are willing to support what they believe in fully. No more settling for " the lesser evil " which is evil . ..."
    "... Indiana is further proof that people have reached the limit of their tolerance. Democracy is not possible without choices. Bernie Sanders is the closest thing to a choice that was offered The rest of the characters running for President were...well, just that, characters--cartoon characters. ..."
    "... Bernie's policies are far better for the middle and working classes than Hillary's, and she is a warhawk to boot. Sometimes you have to vote your conscience instead of your team. Sander's actions are not assisting the GOP, it is the stubborn insistence of the DNC that we continue with the life-destroying policy of neoliberalism that is driving the Trump campaign. ..."
    "... On the idea of compromising to "get things done," I see an analogy to the Hippocratic oath. ..."
    discussion.theguardian.com
    MOZGODRK , 2016-05-04 17:34:33
    There is nothing "shocking" about Bernie Sanders' victory in Indiana. Simply put, the nation is sick to death of lies, deceptions and swindles - media and otherwise - which Hillary Clinton so capably embodies, personifies and endorses. In fact, one of the reasons why Donald Trump is the presumptive republican nominee is that, with all his extremism, vitriol and xenophobia, he still comes across as more genuine - even if genuinely nasty - than the rest of the man-made, prefabricated plastic stuff that Republican party has to offer. There is a perfectly good and legitimate reason why Jebb Bush and Carly Fiorina could not crawl out of their lower single-digit poll ratings: the general public found them insincere, dishonest and carrying hidden agendas -- and this was NOT merely a misperception on part of the paranoid nation: you CAN'T con 330 million people into perpetual dumbness simultaneously. It just isn't done.

    So fed up is the American nation of plasticity, artificiality, botoxicity, hollow buffoonery and wizard-of-oz fakery of lobby-made candidates like Clinton that I comfortably predict that, if she ends up confronting Donald Trump in a general election, she will be mauled to threads and fronds, and I will get a kick of a lifetime. Donald Trump will eat her for mid-morning snack and she will have deserved every bit of drubbing she gets to receive. It will be more fun than the 6:00 AM sex.

    Bernie Sanders is America's last best hope and change , and the very first real one. Come November, America has only one choice: to vote for one of the neoliberal corporate pieces of toxic human waste , or to vote for a decent human being. Alternatives do not exist. This is it.

    Timothy Everton -> MAINEindependent , 2016-05-04 17:33:50
    I don't see how the DNC can support a candidate who is under F.B.I. investigation. It doesn't matter if she is indicted?
    I'm so glad Bernie is going the distance.
    Manami , 2016-05-04 17:33:14
    Shock?!!!! How could the American Queen lose right?!!!

    The main point is, Hillary has no chance of winning against Trump. She is already trying to get a cadre of neocon Republicans to support her, thinking she could get swing a portion of Republicans to support her, forgetting why she is so despised by a large segment of Democrats and majority of independents. It is her default cling to neocon interventionist, and corporate base of support that causes it. She is tone deaf, ignorant and arrogant. Unless, we Democrats stop her now Trump will beat her handily. I have no doubt about it.

    RobertHickson2014 -> Margaret Telford , 2016-05-04 17:33:13
    In all of Hillary's 'closed' primary wins, they have been plagued with voter suppression tactics, voter purges, lack of voting machines and ballots, people (Sanders) having their party affiliation changed so they couldn't vote and 'Oh Yes' - Bill Clinton clearly violating election laws by 'wandering into a polling station in Boston.

    Hillary can't win in a fair fight, so she resorts to dirty tricks that would shame Richard Nixon.

    UNOINO -> ryanpatrick9192 , 2016-05-04 17:31:26
    Popular vote? When closed primaries arn't enough good old fashioned fraud will do.

    Election Fraud Special Report!

    kalpa108 -> OpineOpiner , 2016-05-04 17:30:36
    You beat me too it! Guardian-why is it a shock victory? Just report the news in an impartial manner, please.

    Sanders has been consistently winning smaller states and may well have won New York too if not for the shenanigans going on there.

    Its no shock at all.

    4hundred -> Genevieve K. Doyle , 2016-05-04 17:30:33
    I don't think anyone, anyone who has followed the primaries thus far. I thought it was 'likely' myself, only doubt that lingered was the supposed 'lost momentum' theories after Philly. Sanders is solid, I think most people now see through the mainstream bias against him. He'll fight till the convention, and it will be a little awkward for Hillary wrenching the nomination from him after another series of massive wins.
    MOPtimusP -> nevermind84 , 2016-05-04 17:29:48
    That's actually not strictly true.... Many states have laws that criminalize pledged delegates breaking their pledge... They can go to jail
    RobertHickson2014 -> talenttruth , 2016-05-04 17:28:39
    In all of 2015, Bernie received a total of 10 minutes of coverage from ABC network.
    lostinbago -> Julie Doering-Christiany , 2016-05-04 17:27:50
    Her 'sharing' means raising money for the states but giving them 1% of amount raised while diverting the funds back to the DNC who will be funding her campaigns. Smart technique, but deceptive, like much of her political life.
    Carmel Day -> ClareLondon , 2016-05-04 17:26:08
    The world gave up on the US years ago!!
    lostinbago -> Tamás Stiller , 2016-05-04 17:24:56
    I keep seeing that argument that Sander's supporters will vote for Trump. People aroused by his message of anti war; opposing the growing disparity of wealth; increasing the taxes for the rich to match the benefits they have been privileged to have such a greater share of the wealth; and other reforms: in what world would they easily switch to voting for an egomaniac, elitist, narcissist, misogynist, racist, xenophobe? I for one could consider skipping a vote, but NEVER could I see going from a Sanders to a Fascist.
    Matt062 , 2016-05-04 17:23:57
    Hear we go again with the gratuitous elitist spin. First it was how Trump was going to be stopped short of cinching the nomination "this time" - just you wait! Now the Guardian journalists have been instructed to feign "shock" that Sanders has once again shown what pull he has in this primary season.

    The fact is, a substantial section of the politically active electorate are sick and tired of the rotten do-nothing political system, and are doing whatever they can to deliberately disrupt business as usual. Don't be "shocked".

    talenttruth , 2016-05-04 17:23:06
    The "free press" continues to show that it is TOTALLY out of touch with the "we've had enough and we're not going to take it any more" quality of voters across the political spectrum. The U.S. "media" (i.e. corporate PR Sock Puppet), called Bernie's demise inevitable from the start (that is, when it wasn't blacklisting any coverage of him at all), and when there WAS coverage, it always had Kleverly manipulated headlines (Bernie shocks with a victory, yada yada yada).

    The press has become so owned, so corrupt and also (in the case of the Guardian coverage of sanders) so Parrot- Lazy , I could just puke. A pox on all your pathetic "media" houses.

    Margaret Telford , 2016-05-04 17:22:03
    This rag like others do not get it. Sanders wins open primaries. The closed primaries with all the problems reported are why Clinton is in front. Democracy is not for the democrats.
    4hundred -> ryanpatrick9192 , 2016-05-04 17:18:46
    well we should just ditch the super delegates outright
    lostinbago -> Merle Le Blanc , 2016-05-04 17:14:44
    That shifting of funds from the National committees to the states and then back to the national to avoid scrutiny of funds is the similar trick that tom DeLay used in texas that he was charged with evading election laws. Clinton does the same and there is no coverage?
    RobertHickson2014 , 2016-05-04 16:54:51
    When you think about it rationally, which Clintonistas are incapable of, how weak a candidate Hillary is that a little known Senator from a small North Eastern state can carry forth a campaign into May.

    After all she has repared her run for four years, placed her flunky Debbie Wassermann Schultz as head of the DNC, built a war chest from Corporate money, lined up commitments from over 400 Super Delegates before the primaries even began and yet, Bernie's still hanging in there.

    "In Friday, while Hillary Clinton was addressing the Democratic National Committee in Minneapolis, Minnesota, senior campaign officials announced that Clinton had already received pledges of support from at least 440 of the party's estimated 713 super delegates. That total includes 130 superdelegates who have publicly endorsed Clinton, as well as an additional 310 who have made private commitments to support Hillary."

    http://www.politicususa.com/2015/08/29/hillary-clinton-moves-lock-nomination-voting-starts-super-delegate-pledges.html

    Bernie had no name recognition, campaign staff and very little money to begin with, but his message of hope resonated enough to attract millions of supporters who were tired of the status quo. and they have raised over $200,000,000 in small donations without any SuperPacs.

    Keep going Bernie, you are a true Progressive and American Hero.

    Ladyhawke1 , 2016-05-04 16:52:18
    There is a God! You go Bernie. I am waiting for you here in California.

    When Bernie was speaking about healthcare for all .I started wondering how many people died at home .because there they are with a pain in their chests and then they grab their healthcare booklets and they start adding it all up and what it takes just to get them to the hospital and the hospital stay.

    There is the .. "Ambulance co-pay" ..$225.00 one way. ( God forbid you decide to go for a joy-ride.) Oh wait ..you have to add the "Emergency Room co-pay $75.00, then if you get admitted .it is a co-pay of $250.00 per day (PER DAY) for six days. If you stay longer whoopee it's for free. ( I could be staying at Four Seasons for that.)

    Who is fucking kidding who? What in the hell am I paying health insurance for and I am retired I have Medicare too? Who is making money on my and other people's misfortunes? We are all victims who have been convinced that ALL OF THIS shite is our own faults and individually we are on our own.

    Little do we realize that if we stand shoulder to shoulder and we get together and protest this travesty called healthcare, that we could get all of this changed to our benefit.

    It is time for Medicare for all. My taxes are to be used for the Common Good of everyone in this country. I do not want my taxes to go to war, war and more war.

    Bernie also addresses our shameful infrastructure in this country. The rich corporations and individuals take all of these illicit profits; my money, and yours and they just sit on it and do nothing to help this country or its people. When do we start getting smarter?

    amacd2 , 2016-05-04 16:38:59

    Not only doesn't Killary know that 'this thing is not over", but the media doesn't know what's going on with the Empire of the entrenched Democratic party, nor the media Empire, nor the militarist Empire abroad, nor the financial Empire, nor the corporate Empire, nor any of the sectors of this Disguised Global Capitalist Empire, which is nominally HQed in.

    metropoled, and merely 'posing' as our former country ---- and which Bernie's only partially revealed and vague, "Political Revolution" is going to be expanding into his, and OUR, fully defined sentence (with an 'object') and is growing into a loud, courageous, but peaceful, "Political Revolution against EMPIRE" as the Second American Revolution against EMPIRE again before this the 240th year's anniversary of our First (and only successful) American Revolution against EMPIRE.

    Everyone, and every sector, of this EMPIRE is deaf, dumb, and blind about this Revolution against Empire:

    "There's something happening here
    But what it is ain't exactly clear ...

    Stop, children, what's that sound?
    Everybody look what's going down"

    This damn Disguised Global Capitalist EMPIRE that has by "singing so softly" imposed itself and its boot upon us, and which is a highly-integrated (but well hidden, like a cancer) six-sectored; corporate, financial, military, media/propaganda, extra-legal, and most dangerously dual-party Vichy-political facade of both the rougher neocon 'R' Vichy party and smoother lying neoliberal-con 'D' Vichy parties of the EMPIRE is "goin' down"

    Kevin P Brown -> nevermind84 , 2016-05-04 16:38:50
    Using a dysfunctional system to change that very system is not hypocritical.
    MAINEindependent , 2016-05-04 16:25:19
    Sanders victory is not a "shock" to those of us who don't believe the media propaganda. Clinton and the DNC elite are the ones who will be shocked after the Oregon and California primaries as Sanders pulls neck and neck with her.

    For the good of the country, the Democrat Party should consider having Clinton pull out, because Trump will beat her, but Sanders would be him. But they won't and she won't, because they serve their owners, and their arrogance, hubris and sense of entitlement is supreme to their concerns for the rest of the 99%. Hopefully this election year ill see the destruction of both corrupt major corporate parties, and a rebirth of actual democracy in the USA. One person, one vote, not bought and unsuppressed.

    Merle Le Blanc -> HammyFooter , 2016-05-04 16:24:30
    wrong, dems have been split down the middle since april 7. The DNC chose their candidate a year ago, that is not democracy.
    California is an open primary, means that the 40 independents can vote.
    Merle Le Blanc , 2016-05-04 16:18:52
    Here's what the Guardian refuses to report, the obvious reason for the private server, and the destruction of evidence, watergate-style.
    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/most-firms-that-gave-to-clinton-foundation-also-lobbied-state-department/article/2564553
    RobertHickson2014 -> Julie Doering-Christiany , 2016-05-04 16:18:10
    Bow out gracefully, what a joke. Obama only got her support after she extorted the price of Secretary of State from him.
    jgwilson55 , 2016-05-04 16:16:25
    Hmmm, looking at the math today things have gotten very interesting. Clinton has 1701 pledged delegates, Bernie has 1417. To win outright before the convention you need 2382 pledged delegates. That would mean 1) Bernie cannot do it. 2) Hillary would have to win 681 out of the final 933 delegates up for grabs. That's 73% she needs to win.

    That ain't going to happen so it pretty much a fact now that the super delegates will pick this years Democratic nominee.

    Let's start putting the pressure on them NOW to make the right choice. Call them, write to them.....

    Source for delegate counts: http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/delegate-targets/democrats /

    Ussurisk -> Riverdale , 2016-05-04 16:10:32
    NYT is touted as being leftist by all the FOX readers and listeners, especially. They have an incredible bias for right wing Likud Party and Bibi Netanhayu and Hillary fits into that analysis as a veteran AIPAC speaker.

    Christian Zionist, John Hagee, is also a favored speaker and colleague of Hillary's. She is a committed Neo-con and puppet of the New World Order Chicago School of Economics (Friedman).

    ID0248595 , 2016-05-04 16:08:04
    If Bernie, a socialist can win in a conservative Nazi state like Indiana, he can win any where.
    He even won in Indiana"s third largest city (Evansville) the most conservative large city in Indiana.
    Kevin P Brown -> AuntieMame , 2016-05-04 16:06:50
    Yeah cause Clinton has detailed policies on fixing this? Or does she play identity politics and hand wave?

    "In 2010, the median wealth, or net worth, for black families was $4,900, compared to median wealth for whites of $97,000. Blacks are nearly twice as likely as whites to have zero or negative net worth-33.9 percent compared to 18.6 percent."

    Ussurisk -> Tamás Stiller , 2016-05-04 16:03:52
    At this point, the only hope for world peace is Sanders. I'll write in Sanders before I would vote for Hillary "Failed State" Clinton. Hillary carries too high a load of baggage to prevail, even with historical trivia like Trevor 0691 above.

    Trump is safer bet because he will not be able to get Congressional support, the same problem Jimmy Carter, the Washington outsider had. Hillary's commitment to war, with her experience on Capital Hill is a most depressing specter.

    Martin Thompson -> andthensome , 2016-05-04 15:57:22
    Haha a sheep cheering for the farmer as he is dragged away for slaughter. Smacks of Stockholm syndrome.
    skells , 2016-05-04 15:56:11
    No comments allowed on the 'what is sander's route to the Democratic nomination' article but it is exceptionally poor journalism

    I quote: No numbers are available for the primaries that will be held in Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Oregon and Kentucky, partly because pollsters know the voters there won't change the political calculus much – they're not "wasting" their time in places with few delegates available.

    This is factually incorrect as a 30 second look on wikipedia shows:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statewide_opinion_polling_for_the_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016#Oregon

    Polls are available for Oregon, Kentucky, West Virginia.
    The most recent Oregon poll shows Sanders 1 point behind. The West Virginia poll shows him 5 points ahead, the most recent Kentucky poll (taken at start of March) has him 5 points behind.

    The latest New Jersey poll shows a 9 point deficit for him (compared with a 23 point deficit less than 2 months earlier).

    It's fair enough that journalists have their opinions in opinion pieces, but when factual inaccuracies are mixed up in such pieces, or so-called analytical pieces, it's just really shoddy, unprofessional journalism...

    Ussurisk , 2016-05-04 15:54:25
    The candidate who most appeals to women for support in this campaign is the same one who as US Senator and as US Sec. of State, has violated Moslem and Christian women's and children's fundamental human rights in Gaza, Libya, Yemen, Syria, Cuba. She has supported notorious violators of women rights, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Israel.
    How then are we to think that she will not import this treatment to the women of America?
    She supports human rights criminal Bibi Netanyahu and AIPAC with undying expressions of apology for extreme Zionism and Orthodox suppression of women. She opposes Jewish Voice for Peace and the indigenous Israel peace movement.

    Remember Dixie Lee Ray who was elected disastrous Governor of WA State when ERA movement shooed her in? Women voters beware.

    Wish to better understand Hillary Clinton? Review her relationship with Victoria Nuland the Neo-con who worked for Hillary in US Dept. of State as Undersecretary. Nation destabilizer Nuland is the wife of Robert Kagan, co-founder with William Kristol of PNAC. She worked for Dick Cheney as senior foreign policy advisor, now working for Sec. Kerry!! <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_Nuland> Then the original Neo-con agenda here: https://en.wikipedia.org/.../Project_for_the_New_American ...

    Now PNAC and Nuland's husband, Robert Kagan have updated to this anti-American New World Order; the same agenda that is wolly embraced by Hillary Clinton and Sec. of State Kerry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Policy_Initiative

    jgwilson55 , 2016-05-04 15:52:39
    Dan & Ben,

    Can you guys please make sure the Guardian reports on the Hillary Victory Fund hoarding 99% of the money it raises "for State races". It is of critical importance that voters be made aware of how the Clinton campaign is behaving (or mis-behaving).

    http://usuncut.com/politics/hillary-clinton-bilking-state-democrats

    Jay Bennett , 2016-05-04 15:39:39
    Sorry media controlling elites, Bernie has not lost yet. After her canary died in Indiana... Hillary has 1700 or 71% of the 2383 pledged delegates needed. So HRC will need 60% of the remaining 1114 pledged delegates to clinch. Bernie is favored in most of the remaining states. Contested convention!!! And what a rowdy party in the streets it will be. Bernie will likely go in into Philly just slightly behind in pledged delegates but with majority of states - and many of these states the ones Dems most count on to win in the general. Considering Bernie's popularity with Independents(had they been allowed to vote in the primary he would have won big) he would be the best choice against Trump. But as we all know from exit poll discrepancies - this election is rigged. Pointing to evidence of the corrupted process he will announce his run as the Green Party candidate.
    Merle Le Blanc -> Jackblob , 2016-05-04 15:35:30
    actually, it was only during this campaign that I bothered to check out why HRC had a private server, and it's not pretty. Washington Examiner did an excellent researched piece, laying out how the Clintons amassed $3b through their private foundation and big speaking feeds, and that's where the private server was needed, to organize the millions in state department contracts in line with donations. Prime time, mainstream media including the Guardian has simply refused to check out the work that has been done in the emails released last year. This is no GOP conspiracy. In fact, the Examiner lays out how Bush family used similar methods to amass their $3b fortune. That is the amassing of private wealth through the use of public office that is endemic to Washington - pretty close to Oligarchy at the scale of operations by former presidents, and heads of state. It's a level of corruption that has reached proportions that led to the $700billion bailout and $6 trillion loan bailout - the Clintons use neo-liberal 'charity' to mask their real program, personal wealth and unlimited power.
    nanciel , 2016-05-04 15:30:39

    Sanders once again proved his appeal to disaffected midwest voters

    Hah! What a joke!

    Disaffected? More like realistic, compassionate, ethical, intelligent, and fair to all...
    Sanders supporters are not merely disgusted by what they have seen in all the other candidates including Clinton, they know a good thing when they see it and are willing to support what they believe in fully. No more settling for " the lesser evil " which is evil .

    Dorothy2 , 2016-05-04 15:19:24
    Indiana is further proof that people have reached the limit of their tolerance. Democracy is not possible without choices. Bernie Sanders is the closest thing to a choice that was offered The rest of the characters running for President were...well, just that, characters--cartoon characters.
    Longleveler , 2016-05-04 14:59:00
    "Sanders led front-runner Hillary Clinton by 6 points, with 68 percent of precincts reporting, when networks declared him the winner. Exit polls had Sanders winning by 12 points, but they were based solely on interviews with voters on Election Day. "
    'Bernie Sanders Wins Indiana Democratic Primary' Huffington Post 3 May 2016
    More voting machine hijinks. The Democratic Primary winner should not be decided until all investigations are complete.
    Merle Le Blanc -> aguy777 , 2016-05-04 14:58:41
    who illegally gets millions from the DNC to pay young people to post comments for her ... He can beat Trump, 40 percent of all American registered voters are independent who'll vote for Sanders, not for the DNC candidate (Dems are split 50/50 since April 7, and that's with tricky campaign finance rules thanks to your 'qualified' candidate. She is very qualified to sell out the American people on every score, from Nafta to support for military coup in Hondurus. I mean, is she even a Democrat, or just a closeted GOP zombie Kissinger lover?
    Alan Herbertz -> JaneThomas , 2016-05-04 14:51:23
    This isn't a football game where you put on the colors and cheer on your team. People are not interested in business as usual, every four years, support the platform, my party right or wrong politics. I don't know you, and I don't know how tough or easy you have things. But here in Indy, about 90% of the people I know struggle to make ends meet. Those of us who voted for Bernie are not necessarily trying to destroy the democratic party, but there's more to life for us than electing Hillary Clinton the 1st female president.

    Bernie's policies are far better for the middle and working classes than Hillary's, and she is a warhawk to boot. Sometimes you have to vote your conscience instead of your team. Sander's actions are not assisting the GOP, it is the stubborn insistence of the DNC that we continue with the life-destroying policy of neoliberalism that is driving the Trump campaign.

    TurkBuddy -> JaneThomas , 2016-05-04 14:50:33
    At least be original. That article isn't a showstopping mic-drop, and trashing Bernie doesn't make HRC look any better. People aren't loyal to Bernie for his party affiliation, they're loyal to him for his consistent policy positions. Not just his consistency, but also the fact that he's been proven right again and again. That's an arena where HRC simply can't compete.

    On the idea of compromising to "get things done," I see an analogy to the Hippocratic oath. First and foremost, do no harm. Someone who compromises to insert slivers of good legislation into bad bills still, in the net, passes more bad laws than good ones. Maybe we're all traumatized by the incompetence of congress over the past several years, but seeing the gears of lawmaking in motion for the sake of motion is not the answer.

    [May 07, 2016] If Hillary ends up confronting Donald Trump in a general election, she will be mauled to threads and fronds

    Notable quotes:
    "... Simply put, the nation is sick to death of lies, deceptions and swindles - media and otherwise - which Hillary Clinton so capably embodies, personifies and endorses. In fact, one of the reasons why Donald Trump is the presumptive republican nominee is that, with all his extremism, vitriol and xenophobia, he still comes across as more genuine - even if genuinely nasty ..."
    "... So fed up is the American nation of plasticity, artificiality, botoxicity, hollow buffoonery and wizard-of-oz fakery of lobby-made candidates like Clinton that I comfortably predict that, if she ends up confronting Donald Trump in a general election, she will be mauled to threads and fronds, and I will get a kick of a lifetime. Donald Trump will eat her for mid-morning snack and she will have deserved every bit of drubbing she gets to receive. It will be more fun than the 6:00 AM sex. ..."
    "... Shock?!!!! How could the American Queen lose right?!!! ..."
    "... The main point is, Hillary has no chance of winning against Trump. She is already trying to get a cadre of neocon Republicans to support her, thinking she could get swing a portion of Republicans to support her, forgetting why she is so despised by a large segment of Democrats and majority of independents. It is her default cling to neocon interventionist, and corporate base of support that causes it. She is tone deaf, ignorant and arrogant. Unless, we Democrats stop her now Trump will beat her handily. I have no doubt about it. ..."
    "... In all of Hillary's 'closed' primary wins, they have been plagued with voter suppression tactics, voter purges, lack of voting machines and ballots, people (Sanders) having their party affiliation changed so they couldn't vote and 'Oh Yes' - Bill Clinton clearly violating election laws by 'wandering into a polling station in Boston. ..."
    "... Popular vote? When closed primaries arn't enough good old fashioned fraud will do. ..."
    "... Sanders has been consistently winning smaller states and may well have won New York too if not for the shenanigans going on there. ..."
    "... it will be a little awkward for Hillary wrenching the nomination from him after another series of massive wins. ..."
    "... Her 'sharing' means raising money for the states but giving them 1% of amount raised while diverting the funds back to the DNC who will be funding her campaigns. Smart technique, but deceptive, like much of her political life. ..."
    "... The fact is, a substantial section of the politically active electorate are sick and tired of the rotten do-nothing political system, and are doing whatever they can to deliberately disrupt business as usual. Don't be "shocked". ..."
    "... The "free press" continues to show that it is TOTALLY out of touch with the "we've had enough and we're not going to take it any more" quality of voters across the political spectrum. The U.S. "media" (i.e. corporate PR Sock Puppet), called Bernie's demise inevitable from the start (that is, when it wasn't blacklisting any coverage of him at all), and when there WAS coverage, it always had Kleverly manipulated headlines (Bernie shocks with a victory, yada yada yada). ..."
    "... The press has become so owned, so corrupt and also (in the case of the Guardian coverage of sanders) so Parrot- Lazy , I could just puke. A pox on all your pathetic "media" houses. ..."
    "... This rag like others do not get it. Sanders wins open primaries. The closed primaries with all the problems reported are why Clinton is in front. Democracy is not for the democrats. ..."
    "... After all she has prepared her run for four years, placed her flunky Debbie Wassermann Schultz as head of the DNC, built a war chest from Corporate money, lined up commitments from over 400 Super Delegates before the primaries even began and yet, Bernie's still hanging in there. ..."
    "... Not only doesn't Killary know that 'this thing is not over", but the media doesn't know what's going on with the Empire of the entrenched Democratic party, nor the media Empire, nor the militarist Empire abroad, nor the financial Empire, nor the corporate Empire, nor any of the sectors of this Disguised Global Capitalist Empire, which is nominally HQed in. ..."
    "... This damn Disguised Global Capitalist EMPIRE that has by "singing so softly" imposed itself and its boot upon us, and which is a highly-integrated (but well hidden, like a cancer) six-sectored; corporate, financial, military, media/propaganda, extra-legal, and most dangerously dual-party Vichy-political facade of both the rougher neocon 'R' Vichy party and smoother lying neoliberal-con 'D' Vichy parties of the EMPIRE is "goin' down" ..."
    "... Using a dysfunctional system to change that very system is not hypocritical. ..."
    "... Sanders victory is not a "shock" to those of us who don't believe the media propaganda. Clinton and the DNC elite are the ones who will be shocked after the Oregon and California primaries as Sanders pulls neck and neck with her. ..."
    "... wrong, dems have been split down the middle since april 7. The DNC chose their candidate a year ago, that is not democracy. ..."
    "... Bow out gracefully, what a joke. Obama only got her support after she extorted the price of Secretary of State from him. ..."
    "... NYT is touted as being leftist by all the FOX readers and listeners, especially. They have an incredible bias for right wing Likud Party and Bibi Netanhayu and Hillary fits into that analysis as a veteran AIPAC speaker. ..."
    "... Christian Zionist, John Hagee, is also a favored speaker and colleague of Hillary's. She is a committed Neo-con and puppet of the New World Order Chicago School of Economics (Friedman). ..."
    "... The candidate who most appeals to women for support in this campaign is the same one who as US Senator and as US Sec. of State, has violated Moslem and Christian women's and children's fundamental human rights in Gaza, Libya, Yemen, Syria, Cuba. She has supported notorious violators of women rights, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Israel. ..."
    "... Wish to better understand Hillary Clinton? Review her relationship with Victoria Nuland the Neo-con who worked for Hillary in US Dept. of State as Undersecretary. Nation destabilizer Nuland is the wife of Robert Kagan, co-founder with William Kristol of PNAC. She worked for Dick Cheney as senior foreign policy advisor, now working for Sec. Kerry!! <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_Nuland> Then the original Neo-con agenda here: https://en.wikipedia.org/.../Project_for_the_New_American ... ..."
    "... Now PNAC and Nuland's husband, Robert Kagan have updated to this anti-American New World Order; the same agenda that is wolly embraced by Hillary Clinton and Sec. of State Kerry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Policy_Initiative ..."
    "... Sanders supporters are not merely disgusted by what they have seen in all the other candidates including Clinton, they know a good thing when they see it and are willing to support what they believe in fully. No more settling for " the lesser evil " which is evil . ..."
    "... Indiana is further proof that people have reached the limit of their tolerance. Democracy is not possible without choices. Bernie Sanders is the closest thing to a choice that was offered The rest of the characters running for President were...well, just that, characters--cartoon characters. ..."
    "... Bernie's policies are far better for the middle and working classes than Hillary's, and she is a warhawk to boot. Sometimes you have to vote your conscience instead of your team. Sander's actions are not assisting the GOP, it is the stubborn insistence of the DNC that we continue with the life-destroying policy of neoliberalism that is driving the Trump campaign. ..."
    "... On the idea of compromising to "get things done," I see an analogy to the Hippocratic oath. ..."
    discussion.theguardian.com
    MOZGODRK , 2016-05-04 17:34:33
    There is nothing "shocking" about Bernie Sanders' victory in Indiana. Simply put, the nation is sick to death of lies, deceptions and swindles - media and otherwise - which Hillary Clinton so capably embodies, personifies and endorses. In fact, one of the reasons why Donald Trump is the presumptive republican nominee is that, with all his extremism, vitriol and xenophobia, he still comes across as more genuine - even if genuinely nasty - than the rest of the man-made, prefabricated plastic stuff that Republican party has to offer. There is a perfectly good and legitimate reason why Jebb Bush and Carly Fiorina could not crawl out of their lower single-digit poll ratings: the general public found them insincere, dishonest and carrying hidden agendas -- and this was NOT merely a misperception on part of the paranoid nation: you CAN'T con 330 million people into perpetual dumbness simultaneously. It just isn't done.

    So fed up is the American nation of plasticity, artificiality, botoxicity, hollow buffoonery and wizard-of-oz fakery of lobby-made candidates like Clinton that I comfortably predict that, if she ends up confronting Donald Trump in a general election, she will be mauled to threads and fronds, and I will get a kick of a lifetime. Donald Trump will eat her for mid-morning snack and she will have deserved every bit of drubbing she gets to receive. It will be more fun than the 6:00 AM sex.

    Bernie Sanders is America's last best hope and change , and the very first real one. Come November, America has only one choice: to vote for one of the neoliberal corporate pieces of toxic human waste , or to vote for a decent human being. Alternatives do not exist. This is it.

    Timothy Everton -> MAINEindependent , 2016-05-04 17:33:50
    I don't see how the DNC can support a candidate who is under F.B.I. investigation. It doesn't matter if she is indicted?
    I'm so glad Bernie is going the distance.
    Manami , 2016-05-04 17:33:14
    Shock?!!!! How could the American Queen lose right?!!!

    The main point is, Hillary has no chance of winning against Trump. She is already trying to get a cadre of neocon Republicans to support her, thinking she could get swing a portion of Republicans to support her, forgetting why she is so despised by a large segment of Democrats and majority of independents. It is her default cling to neocon interventionist, and corporate base of support that causes it. She is tone deaf, ignorant and arrogant. Unless, we Democrats stop her now Trump will beat her handily. I have no doubt about it.

    RobertHickson2014 -> Margaret Telford , 2016-05-04 17:33:13
    In all of Hillary's 'closed' primary wins, they have been plagued with voter suppression tactics, voter purges, lack of voting machines and ballots, people (Sanders) having their party affiliation changed so they couldn't vote and 'Oh Yes' - Bill Clinton clearly violating election laws by 'wandering into a polling station in Boston.

    Hillary can't win in a fair fight, so she resorts to dirty tricks that would shame Richard Nixon.

    UNOINO -> ryanpatrick9192 , 2016-05-04 17:31:26
    Popular vote? When closed primaries arn't enough good old fashioned fraud will do.

    Election Fraud Special Report!

    kalpa108 -> OpineOpiner , 2016-05-04 17:30:36
    You beat me too it! Guardian-why is it a shock victory? Just report the news in an impartial manner, please.

    Sanders has been consistently winning smaller states and may well have won New York too if not for the shenanigans going on there.

    Its no shock at all.

    4hundred -> Genevieve K. Doyle , 2016-05-04 17:30:33
    I don't think anyone, anyone who has followed the primaries thus far. I thought it was 'likely' myself, only doubt that lingered was the supposed 'lost momentum' theories after Philly. Sanders is solid, I think most people now see through the mainstream bias against him. He'll fight till the convention, and it will be a little awkward for Hillary wrenching the nomination from him after another series of massive wins.
    MOPtimusP -> nevermind84 , 2016-05-04 17:29:48
    That's actually not strictly true.... Many states have laws that criminalize pledged delegates breaking their pledge... They can go to jail
    RobertHickson2014 -> talenttruth , 2016-05-04 17:28:39
    In all of 2015, Bernie received a total of 10 minutes of coverage from ABC network.
    lostinbago -> Julie Doering-Christiany , 2016-05-04 17:27:50
    Her 'sharing' means raising money for the states but giving them 1% of amount raised while diverting the funds back to the DNC who will be funding her campaigns. Smart technique, but deceptive, like much of her political life.
    Carmel Day -> ClareLondon , 2016-05-04 17:26:08
    The world gave up on the US years ago!!
    lostinbago -> Tamás Stiller , 2016-05-04 17:24:56
    I keep seeing that argument that Sander's supporters will vote for Trump. People aroused by his message of anti war; opposing the growing disparity of wealth; increasing the taxes for the rich to match the benefits they have been privileged to have such a greater share of the wealth; and other reforms: in what world would they easily switch to voting for an egomaniac, elitist, narcissist, misogynist, racist, xenophobe? I for one could consider skipping a vote, but NEVER could I see going from a Sanders to a Fascist.
    Matt062 , 2016-05-04 17:23:57
    Hear we go again with the gratuitous elitist spin. First it was how Trump was going to be stopped short of cinching the nomination "this time" - just you wait! Now the Guardian journalists have been instructed to feign "shock" that Sanders has once again shown what pull he has in this primary season.

    The fact is, a substantial section of the politically active electorate are sick and tired of the rotten do-nothing political system, and are doing whatever they can to deliberately disrupt business as usual. Don't be "shocked".

    talenttruth , 2016-05-04 17:23:06
    The "free press" continues to show that it is TOTALLY out of touch with the "we've had enough and we're not going to take it any more" quality of voters across the political spectrum. The U.S. "media" (i.e. corporate PR Sock Puppet), called Bernie's demise inevitable from the start (that is, when it wasn't blacklisting any coverage of him at all), and when there WAS coverage, it always had Kleverly manipulated headlines (Bernie shocks with a victory, yada yada yada).

    The press has become so owned, so corrupt and also (in the case of the Guardian coverage of sanders) so Parrot- Lazy , I could just puke. A pox on all your pathetic "media" houses.

    Margaret Telford , 2016-05-04 17:22:03
    This rag like others do not get it. Sanders wins open primaries. The closed primaries with all the problems reported are why Clinton is in front. Democracy is not for the democrats.
    4hundred -> ryanpatrick9192 , 2016-05-04 17:18:46
    well we should just ditch the super delegates outright
    lostinbago -> Merle Le Blanc , 2016-05-04 17:14:44
    That shifting of funds from the National committees to the states and then back to the national to avoid scrutiny of funds is the similar trick that tom DeLay used in texas that he was charged with evading election laws. Clinton does the same and there is no coverage?
    RobertHickson2014 , 2016-05-04 16:54:51
    When you think about it rationally, which Clintonistas are incapable of, how weak a candidate Hillary is that a little known Senator from a small North Eastern state can carry forth a campaign into May.

    After all she has prepared her run for four years, placed her flunky Debbie Wassermann Schultz as head of the DNC, built a war chest from Corporate money, lined up commitments from over 400 Super Delegates before the primaries even began and yet, Bernie's still hanging in there.

    "In Friday, while Hillary Clinton was addressing the Democratic National Committee in Minneapolis, Minnesota, senior campaign officials announced that Clinton had already received pledges of support from at least 440 of the party's estimated 713 super delegates. That total includes 130 superdelegates who have publicly endorsed Clinton, as well as an additional 310 who have made private commitments to support Hillary."

    http://www.politicususa.com/2015/08/29/hillary-clinton-moves-lock-nomination-voting-starts-super-delegate-pledges.html

    Bernie had no name recognition, campaign staff and very little money to begin with, but his message of hope resonated enough to attract millions of supporters who were tired of the status quo. and they have raised over $200,000,000 in small donations without any SuperPacs.

    Keep going Bernie, you are a true Progressive and American Hero.

    Ladyhawke1 , 2016-05-04 16:52:18
    There is a God! You go Bernie. I am waiting for you here in California.

    When Bernie was speaking about healthcare for all .I started wondering how many people died at home .because there they are with a pain in their chests and then they grab their healthcare booklets and they start adding it all up and what it takes just to get them to the hospital and the hospital stay.

    There is the .. "Ambulance co-pay" ..$225.00 one way. ( God forbid you decide to go for a joy-ride.) Oh wait ..you have to add the "Emergency Room co-pay $75.00, then if you get admitted .it is a co-pay of $250.00 per day (PER DAY) for six days. If you stay longer whoopee it's for free. ( I could be staying at Four Seasons for that.)

    Who is fucking kidding who? What in the hell am I paying health insurance for and I am retired I have Medicare too? Who is making money on my and other people's misfortunes? We are all victims who have been convinced that ALL OF THIS shite is our own faults and individually we are on our own.

    Little do we realize that if we stand shoulder to shoulder and we get together and protest this travesty called healthcare, that we could get all of this changed to our benefit.

    It is time for Medicare for all. My taxes are to be used for the Common Good of everyone in this country. I do not want my taxes to go to war, war and more war.

    Bernie also addresses our shameful infrastructure in this country. The rich corporations and individuals take all of these illicit profits; my money, and yours and they just sit on it and do nothing to help this country or its people. When do we start getting smarter?

    amacd2 , 2016-05-04 16:38:59

    Not only doesn't Killary know that 'this thing is not over", but the media doesn't know what's going on with the Empire of the entrenched Democratic party, nor the media Empire, nor the militarist Empire abroad, nor the financial Empire, nor the corporate Empire, nor any of the sectors of this Disguised Global Capitalist Empire, which is nominally HQed in.

    metropoled, and merely 'posing' as our former country ---- and which Bernie's only partially revealed and vague, "Political Revolution" is going to be expanding into his, and OUR, fully defined sentence (with an 'object') and is growing into a loud, courageous, but peaceful, "Political Revolution against EMPIRE" as the Second American Revolution against EMPIRE again before this the 240th year's anniversary of our First (and only successful) American Revolution against EMPIRE.

    Everyone, and every sector, of this EMPIRE is deaf, dumb, and blind about this Revolution against Empire:

    "There's something happening here
    But what it is ain't exactly clear ...

    Stop, children, what's that sound?
    Everybody look what's going down"

    This damn Disguised Global Capitalist EMPIRE that has by "singing so softly" imposed itself and its boot upon us, and which is a highly-integrated (but well hidden, like a cancer) six-sectored; corporate, financial, military, media/propaganda, extra-legal, and most dangerously dual-party Vichy-political facade of both the rougher neocon 'R' Vichy party and smoother lying neoliberal-con 'D' Vichy parties of the EMPIRE is "goin' down"

    Kevin P Brown -> nevermind84 , 2016-05-04 16:38:50
    Using a dysfunctional system to change that very system is not hypocritical.
    MAINEindependent , 2016-05-04 16:25:19
    Sanders victory is not a "shock" to those of us who don't believe the media propaganda. Clinton and the DNC elite are the ones who will be shocked after the Oregon and California primaries as Sanders pulls neck and neck with her.

    For the good of the country, the Democrat Party should consider having Clinton pull out, because Trump will beat her, but Sanders would be him. But they won't and she won't, because they serve their owners, and their arrogance, hubris and sense of entitlement is supreme to their concerns for the rest of the 99%. Hopefully this election year ill see the destruction of both corrupt major corporate parties, and a rebirth of actual democracy in the USA. One person, one vote, not bought and unsuppressed.

    Merle Le Blanc -> HammyFooter , 2016-05-04 16:24:30
    wrong, dems have been split down the middle since april 7. The DNC chose their candidate a year ago, that is not democracy.
    California is an open primary, means that the 40 independents can vote.
    Merle Le Blanc , 2016-05-04 16:18:52
    Here's what the Guardian refuses to report, the obvious reason for the private server, and the destruction of evidence, watergate-style.
    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/most-firms-that-gave-to-clinton-foundation-also-lobbied-state-department/article/2564553
    RobertHickson2014 -> Julie Doering-Christiany , 2016-05-04 16:18:10
    Bow out gracefully, what a joke. Obama only got her support after she extorted the price of Secretary of State from him.
    jgwilson55 , 2016-05-04 16:16:25
    Hmmm, looking at the math today things have gotten very interesting. Clinton has 1701 pledged delegates, Bernie has 1417. To win outright before the convention you need 2382 pledged delegates. That would mean 1) Bernie cannot do it. 2) Hillary would have to win 681 out of the final 933 delegates up for grabs. That's 73% she needs to win.

    That ain't going to happen so it pretty much a fact now that the super delegates will pick this years Democratic nominee.

    Let's start putting the pressure on them NOW to make the right choice. Call them, write to them.....

    Source for delegate counts: http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/delegate-targets/democrats /

    Ussurisk -> Riverdale , 2016-05-04 16:10:32

    NYT is touted as being leftist by all the FOX readers and listeners, especially. They have an incredible bias for right wing Likud Party and Bibi Netanhayu and Hillary fits into that analysis as a veteran AIPAC speaker.

    Christian Zionist, John Hagee, is also a favored speaker and colleague of Hillary's. She is a committed Neo-con and puppet of the New World Order Chicago School of Economics (Friedman).

    ID0248595 , 2016-05-04 16:08:04
    If Bernie, a socialist can win in a conservative Nazi state like Indiana, he can win any where.
    He even won in Indiana"s third largest city (Evansville) the most conservative large city in Indiana.
    Kevin P Brown -> AuntieMame , 2016-05-04 16:06:50
    Yeah cause Clinton has detailed policies on fixing this? Or does she play identity politics and hand wave?

    "In 2010, the median wealth, or net worth, for black families was $4,900, compared to median wealth for whites of $97,000. Blacks are nearly twice as likely as whites to have zero or negative net worth-33.9 percent compared to 18.6 percent."

    Ussurisk -> Tamás Stiller , 2016-05-04 16:03:52
    At this point, the only hope for world peace is Sanders. I'll write in Sanders before I would vote for Hillary "Failed State" Clinton. Hillary carries too high a load of baggage to prevail, even with historical trivia like Trevor 0691 above.

    Trump is safer bet because he will not be able to get Congressional support, the same problem Jimmy Carter, the Washington outsider had. Hillary's commitment to war, with her experience on Capital Hill is a most depressing specter.

    Martin Thompson -> andthensome , 2016-05-04 15:57:22
    Haha a sheep cheering for the farmer as he is dragged away for slaughter. Smacks of Stockholm syndrome.
    skells , 2016-05-04 15:56:11
    No comments allowed on the 'what is sander's route to the Democratic nomination' article but it is exceptionally poor journalism

    I quote: No numbers are available for the primaries that will be held in Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Oregon and Kentucky, partly because pollsters know the voters there won't change the political calculus much – they're not "wasting" their time in places with few delegates available.

    This is factually incorrect as a 30 second look on wikipedia shows:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statewide_opinion_polling_for_the_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016#Oregon

    Polls are available for Oregon, Kentucky, West Virginia.
    The most recent Oregon poll shows Sanders 1 point behind. The West Virginia poll shows him 5 points ahead, the most recent Kentucky poll (taken at start of March) has him 5 points behind.

    The latest New Jersey poll shows a 9 point deficit for him (compared with a 23 point deficit less than 2 months earlier).

    It's fair enough that journalists have their opinions in opinion pieces, but when factual inaccuracies are mixed up in such pieces, or so-called analytical pieces, it's just really shoddy, unprofessional journalism...

    Ussurisk , 2016-05-04 15:54:25
    The candidate who most appeals to women for support in this campaign is the same one who as US Senator and as US Sec. of State, has violated Moslem and Christian women's and children's fundamental human rights in Gaza, Libya, Yemen, Syria, Cuba. She has supported notorious violators of women rights, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Israel.
    How then are we to think that she will not import this treatment to the women of America?
    She supports human rights criminal Bibi Netanyahu and AIPAC with undying expressions of apology for extreme Zionism and Orthodox suppression of women. She opposes Jewish Voice for Peace and the indigenous Israel peace movement.

    Remember Dixie Lee Ray who was elected disastrous Governor of WA State when ERA movement shooed her in? Women voters beware.

    Wish to better understand Hillary Clinton? Review her relationship with Victoria Nuland the Neo-con who worked for Hillary in US Dept. of State as Undersecretary. Nation destabilizer Nuland is the wife of Robert Kagan, co-founder with William Kristol of PNAC. She worked for Dick Cheney as senior foreign policy advisor, now working for Sec. Kerry!! <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_Nuland> Then the original Neo-con agenda here: https://en.wikipedia.org/.../Project_for_the_New_American ...

    Now PNAC and Nuland's husband, Robert Kagan have updated to this anti-American New World Order; the same agenda that is wolly embraced by Hillary Clinton and Sec. of State Kerry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Policy_Initiative

    jgwilson55 , 2016-05-04 15:52:39
    Dan & Ben,

    Can you guys please make sure the Guardian reports on the Hillary Victory Fund hoarding 99% of the money it raises "for State races". It is of critical importance that voters be made aware of how the Clinton campaign is behaving (or mis-behaving).

    http://usuncut.com/politics/hillary-clinton-bilking-state-democrats

    Jay Bennett , 2016-05-04 15:39:39
    Sorry media controlling elites, Bernie has not lost yet. After her canary died in Indiana... Hillary has 1700 or 71% of the 2383 pledged delegates needed. So HRC will need 60% of the remaining 1114 pledged delegates to clinch. Bernie is favored in most of the remaining states. Contested convention!!! And what a rowdy party in the streets it will be. Bernie will likely go in into Philly just slightly behind in pledged delegates but with majority of states - and many of these states the ones Dems most count on to win in the general. Considering Bernie's popularity with Independents(had they been allowed to vote in the primary he would have won big) he would be the best choice against Trump. But as we all know from exit poll discrepancies - this election is rigged. Pointing to evidence of the corrupted process he will announce his run as the Green Party candidate.
    Merle Le Blanc -> Jackblob , 2016-05-04 15:35:30
    actually, it was only during this campaign that I bothered to check out why HRC had a private server, and it's not pretty. Washington Examiner did an excellent researched piece, laying out how the Clintons amassed $3b through their private foundation and big speaking feeds, and that's where the private server was needed, to organize the millions in state department contracts in line with donations. Prime time, mainstream media including the Guardian has simply refused to check out the work that has been done in the emails released last year. This is no GOP conspiracy. In fact, the Examiner lays out how Bush family used similar methods to amass their $3b fortune. That is the amassing of private wealth through the use of public office that is endemic to Washington - pretty close to Oligarchy at the scale of operations by former presidents, and heads of state. It's a level of corruption that has reached proportions that led to the $700billion bailout and $6 trillion loan bailout - the Clintons use neo-liberal 'charity' to mask their real program, personal wealth and unlimited power.
    nanciel , 2016-05-04 15:30:39

    Sanders once again proved his appeal to disaffected midwest voters

    Hah! What a joke!

    Disaffected? More like realistic, compassionate, ethical, intelligent, and fair to all...
    Sanders supporters are not merely disgusted by what they have seen in all the other candidates including Clinton, they know a good thing when they see it and are willing to support what they believe in fully. No more settling for " the lesser evil " which is evil .

    Dorothy2 , 2016-05-04 15:19:24
    Indiana is further proof that people have reached the limit of their tolerance. Democracy is not possible without choices. Bernie Sanders is the closest thing to a choice that was offered The rest of the characters running for President were...well, just that, characters--cartoon characters.
    Longleveler , 2016-05-04 14:59:00
    "Sanders led front-runner Hillary Clinton by 6 points, with 68 percent of precincts reporting, when networks declared him the winner. Exit polls had Sanders winning by 12 points, but they were based solely on interviews with voters on Election Day. "
    'Bernie Sanders Wins Indiana Democratic Primary' Huffington Post 3 May 2016
    More voting machine hijinks. The Democratic Primary winner should not be decided until all investigations are complete.
    Merle Le Blanc -> aguy777 , 2016-05-04 14:58:41
    who illegally gets millions from the DNC to pay young people to post comments for her ... He can beat Trump, 40 percent of all American registered voters are independent who'll vote for Sanders, not for the DNC candidate (Dems are split 50/50 since April 7, and that's with tricky campaign finance rules thanks to your 'qualified' candidate. She is very qualified to sell out the American people on every score, from Nafta to support for military coup in Hondurus. I mean, is she even a Democrat, or just a closeted GOP zombie Kissinger lover?
    Alan Herbertz -> JaneThomas , 2016-05-04 14:51:23
    This isn't a football game where you put on the colors and cheer on your team. People are not interested in business as usual, every four years, support the platform, my party right or wrong politics. I don't know you, and I don't know how tough or easy you have things. But here in Indy, about 90% of the people I know struggle to make ends meet. Those of us who voted for Bernie are not necessarily trying to destroy the democratic party, but there's more to life for us than electing Hillary Clinton the 1st female president.

    Bernie's policies are far better for the middle and working classes than Hillary's, and she is a warhawk to boot. Sometimes you have to vote your conscience instead of your team. Sander's actions are not assisting the GOP, it is the stubborn insistence of the DNC that we continue with the life-destroying policy of neoliberalism that is driving the Trump campaign.

    TurkBuddy -> JaneThomas , 2016-05-04 14:50:33
    At least be original. That article isn't a showstopping mic-drop, and trashing Bernie doesn't make HRC look any better. People aren't loyal to Bernie for his party affiliation, they're loyal to him for his consistent policy positions. Not just his consistency, but also the fact that he's been proven right again and again. That's an arena where HRC simply can't compete.

    On the idea of compromising to "get things done," I see an analogy to the Hippocratic oath. First and foremost, do no harm. Someone who compromises to insert slivers of good legislation into bad bills still, in the net, passes more bad laws than good ones. Maybe we're all traumatized by the incompetence of congress over the past several years, but seeing the gears of lawmaking in motion for the sake of motion is not the answer.

    [May 07, 2016] Bernie Sanders pulls off shock victory over Hillary Clinton in Indiana

    Notable quotes:
    "... At the end, the brainwashing media convince the people to vote for the "bad choice" instead of the worst (which is Trump in this case). You don't need to have any plans or anything, just repeat "Trump bad, Trump bad, Trump bad, Me good" and the sheeple will follow! This strategy has been so successful that almost everywhere around the world are using it to win all types of elections! xD ..."
    "... Maybe Trump becoming president is necessary for the people to realize once and for all that this cycle of mistakes and corruption needs to stop and fundamental changes need to happen! ..."
    "... She should be a felon by now, and only her name protects her from jail. ..."
    "... "David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy won the authorisation to use "all necessary means" from the UN security council in March on the basis that Gaddafi's forces were about to commit a Srebrenica-style massacre in Benghazi. Naturally we can never know what would have happened without Nato's intervention. But there is in fact no evidence – including from other rebel-held towns Gaddafi re-captured – to suggest he had either the capability or even the intention to carry out such an atrocity against an armed city of 700,000 . ..."
    "... "Explanations of what one thought was happening in these countries were often misinterpreted as justification for odious and discredited regimes. In Libya, where the uprising started on 15 February 2011, I wrote about how the opposition was wholly dependent on Nato military support and would have been rapidly defeated by pro-Gaddafi forces without it. It followed from this that the opposition would not have the strength to fill the inevitable political vacuum if Gaddafi was to fall. I noted gloomily that Arab states, such as Saudi Arabia and the Gulf monarchies, who were pressing for foreign intervention against Gaddafi, themselves held power by methods no less repressive than the Libyan leader. It was his radicalism – muted though this was in his later years – not his authoritarianism that made the kings and emirs hate him. ..."
    "... Given our support of Saudi and knowing their interventions, as well as Pakistan, we were stupid to intervene. ..."
    "... If Bernie does not get the nomination it will be the wilderness for the Democrats - no young voters no independents - unless they can conjure a principled candidate somehow from somewhere. ..."
    "... What planet African Americans are doing "better off" on is unknown. What is known is that President Obama is about to leave office with African Americans in their worst economic situation since Ronald Reagan . A look at every key stat as President Obama starts his sixth year in office illustrates that. ..."
    "... the world is divided in two, half who are nauseated by the above and the other half who purr in admiration at the clever way Clinton has fucked the public once again. As Mencken said democracy is that system of government in which it is assumed that the common man knows what he wants and deserves to get it good and hard. ..."
    "... It would be perhaps remotely Marxist if he said comrades. But even that was used by democrats, socialists and even fascists and nazists so I would say that no, there is nothing Marxist about it. One of his central messages is that we need to come together and improve our society, that we are all the same, without race or religion, with the same needs and fears as humans. ..."
    "... I even disagree with people saying that he promotes class struggle, he is talking about fair share and he is an ardent supporter of following the laws even when they are against his ideology, which is something that radicals do not tend to do. Radicals do not give a damn about laws and neither do Marxists or far-right wingers, fascists etc. ..."
    "... Hilary Clinton has various comments that reveals somebody who certainly fits the psychopath spectrum. Among the lowest of the low was "We came, we saw, he died!" Accompanied by a cackle of laughter. This was announced in full view of the media and public when Gadhaffi was overthrown by US assistance. ..."
    "... Hillary will not see that one criminal in the financial world of the USA will face justice for their mafia-like actions and destruction of billions of dollars and assets while stealing the savings of Americans and non Americans. President Obama hasn't done it and he is not the buddy Hilary is to these people. ..."
    "... Please. She lost that race in South Carolina when her husband, along with Geraldine Ferraro, called Obama being president a fairy tale and an affirmative action candidate, respectively. You can't win with only minority support, but you can't win without any of it if you are a Dem. Up until SC, the Clintons had minority support in the bag--most black people had never heard of Obama. Things changed real fast. ..."
    "... But to pick out my favorite Hillary statement of the week, in honor of her close associate and fellow gonif, Hillary superdelegate, Sheldon Silver, who recently got 12 years in the slammer: https://www.americarisingpac.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/clinton-sheldon-silver-meme1.jpg ..."
    "... In 2000, Silver was integral in Clinton's Senate campaign. According to The New York Times, Silver helped Hillary lobby members of the state assembly for their support ..."
    "... If Clinton is the Dem nominee it does more than give me shivers. Heck, I view Hillary as demonstrably more dangerous with foreign policy. Both use identity politics as a decisive issue- which only is a distraction from their lack of policy. Both their economic/domestic policies do little or worse for the current situation. Both are untrustworthy and any rhetoric on policy is highly questionable (although Clinton is certainly the worst in this regard). About the only good thing between either is that Trump is willing to question our empire abroad, which is well overdue (meanwhile Clinton seems to want to expand it). ..."
    "... If it's between those two I vote Green and take the 'Jesse Ventura' option: vote anyone not Dem or Rep. Both parties are two corrupt subsidiaries of their corporate masters. ..."
    "... She voted for the Iraq war, being investigated by the FBI for her emails, there was Benghazi, turning Libya into a ISIS hotbed, allowed a military junta to assassinate a democratically elected president in Honduras and said nothing, takes $675k from Goldman for 3 speeches and refuses to disclose the transcripts because she KNOWS it'll hurt her, voted for trade deals that's gutted manufacturing in the USA....should I go on? ..."
    "... Uh huh and your supporting a person: That voted for the Iraq War, destabilized Libya, Benghazi, gave tacit approval to a military junta in Honduras as Secretary of State, called black youth super predators, supports trade agreements that destroy our own manufacturing jobs, takes more money from special interests than her constituency, has made millions in speeches from the bank lobby and won't disclose the transcripts......yeah she's real HONEST......riiigggghhhhttttt.... ..."
    "... Donors like the Koch Brothers, who happily funded Bill clinton and the DLC made their preferences clear. They didn't invest in a fit of altruistic progressivism. They wanted the DNC to swing right. And voila it did and Bill was anointed as the "one" to run. Don't be so naive. ..."
    www.theguardian.com

    thevorlon -> newyorkred , 2016-05-06 17:59:00

    Most politicians these days don't care about the people and this ridiculous cycle is repeating every 4 years! Candidates who actually want to make progress get dumped by the corrupt system and the parties that are being controlled by their corporate masters and their money to do as they want to return the more money to them later when they have the office!

    At the end, the brainwashing media convince the people to vote for the "bad choice" instead of the worst (which is Trump in this case). You don't need to have any plans or anything, just repeat "Trump bad, Trump bad, Trump bad, Me good" and the sheeple will follow! This strategy has been so successful that almost everywhere around the world are using it to win all types of elections! xD

    Maybe Trump becoming president is necessary for the people to realize once and for all that this cycle of mistakes and corruption needs to stop and fundamental changes need to happen! Starts with the USA and the world will follow over time. I personally am done with following these corrupt political systems and their media and do as they tell me to (same goes for the financial system but there's no escaping this one in the near future with corps and banks being in total control of the society).

    John Kennedy -> Allan Burns , 2016-05-06 17:35:46
    She should be a felon by now, and only her name protects her from jail.
    Ilupi Ilupi -> EagleOMC , 2016-05-06 17:05:43
    Establishment baby.
    Kevin P Brown -> MeereeneseLiberation , 2016-05-06 09:53:20
    http://foreignpolicy.com/2011/04/07/was-there-going-to-be-a-benghazi-massacre /

    "As Alan Kuperman of the University of Texas and Stephen Chapman of the Chicago Tribune have now shown, the claim that the United States had to act to prevent Libyan tyrant Muammar al-Qaddafi from slaughtering tens of thousands of innocent civilians in Benghazi does not stand up to even casual scrutiny. Although everyone recognizes that Qaddafi is a brutal ruler, his forces did not conduct deliberate, large-scale massacres in any of the cities he has recaptured, and his violent threats to wreak vengeance on Benghazi were directed at those who continued to resist his rule, not at innocent bystanders. There is no question that Qaddafi is a tyrant with few (if any) redemptive qualities, but the threat of a bloodbath that would "stain the conscience of the world" (as Obama put it) was slight. "

    "If humanitarian intervention is to remain a live possibility, there must be much more public scrutiny, debate and discussion of what triggers that intervention and what level of evidence we can reasonably require. Did administration officials have communications intercepts suggesting plans for large-scale killings of civilians? How exactly did they reach their conclusion that these reprisals were likely? It should be no more acceptable to simply accept government claims on this score than it was for previous administrations.

    As I've argued previously, the term "humanitarian crisis" is desperately imprecise and the informed public's ability to distinguish between civil strife (which is always bloody) and outright massacres and extermination campaigns is weak. Walt's certainty notwithstanding, the debate about the humanitarian rationale in this case has not been settled. In fact, it's barely begun."

    Kevin P Brown -> MeereeneseLiberation , 2016-05-06 09:50:28
    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/oct/26/libya-war-saving-lives-catastrophic-failure

    So no, we should have not intervened.

    "David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy won the authorisation to use "all necessary means" from the UN security council in March on the basis that Gaddafi's forces were about to commit a Srebrenica-style massacre in Benghazi. Naturally we can never know what would have happened without Nato's intervention. But there is in fact no evidence – including from other rebel-held towns Gaddafi re-captured – to suggest he had either the capability or even the intention to carry out such an atrocity against an armed city of 700,000 .

    What is now known, however, is that while the death toll in Libya when Nato intervened was perhaps around 1,000-2,000 (judging by UN estimates), eight months later it is probably more than ten times that figure. Estimates of the numbers of dead over the last eight months – as Nato leaders vetoed ceasefires and negotiations – range from 10,000 up to 50,000. The National Transitional Council puts the losses at 30,000 dead and 50,000 wounded.

    Of those, uncounted thousands will be civilians, including those killed by Nato bombing and Nato-backed forces on the ground. These figures dwarf the death tolls in this year's other most bloody Arab uprisings, in Syria and Yemen. Nato has not protected civilians in Libya – it has multiplied the number of their deaths, while losing not a single soldier of its own.

    For the western powers, of course, the Libyan war has allowed them to regain ground lost in Tunisia and Egypt, put themselves at the heart of the upheaval sweeping the most strategically sensitive region in the world, and secure valuable new commercial advantages in an oil-rich state whose previous leadership was at best unreliable. No wonder the new British defence secretary is telling businessmen to "pack their bags" for Libya, and the US ambassador in Tripoli insists American companies are needed on a "big scale".

    But for Libyans, it has meant a loss of ownership of their own future and the effective imposition of a western-picked administration of Gaddafi defectors and US and British intelligence assets. Probably the greatest challenge to that takeover will now come from Islamist military leaders on the ground, such as the Tripoli commander Abdel Hakim Belhaj – kidnapped by MI6 to be tortured in Libya in 2004 – who have already made clear they will not be taking orders from the NTC.

    Kevin P Brown -> MeereeneseLiberation , 2016-05-06 09:40:10
    Libya:

    An interesting article. Note I trust Cockburn as a journalist.
    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/the-arab-spring-reported-and-misreported-foreign-intervention-in-libya-and-the-last-days-of-colonel-a6992726.html

    "Explanations of what one thought was happening in these countries were often misinterpreted as justification for odious and discredited regimes. In Libya, where the uprising started on 15 February 2011, I wrote about how the opposition was wholly dependent on Nato military support and would have been rapidly defeated by pro-Gaddafi forces without it. It followed from this that the opposition would not have the strength to fill the inevitable political vacuum if Gaddafi was to fall. I noted gloomily that Arab states, such as Saudi Arabia and the Gulf monarchies, who were pressing for foreign intervention against Gaddafi, themselves held power by methods no less repressive than the Libyan leader. It was his radicalism – muted though this was in his later years – not his authoritarianism that made the kings and emirs hate him.

    This was an unpopular stance to take on Libya during the high tide of the Arab Spring, when foreign governments and media alike were uncritically lauding the opposition. The two sides in what was a genuine civil war were portrayed as white hats and black hats; rebel claims about government atrocities were credulously broadcast, though they frequently turned out to be concocted, while government denials were contemptuously dismissed. Human rights organisations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch were much more thorough than the media in checking these stories, although their detailed reports appeared long after the news agenda had moved on."

    Kevin P Brown -> MeereeneseLiberation , 2016-05-06 09:34:01
    And then in another note, why do people like you condemn the Taliban but give a free pass to the Saudi's who have a lot to do with the state of fundamentalism in Afghanistan, and essentially operate the same as the Taliban? Why are we not intervening in Saudi Arabia to free the people? Nah. Do people die from either side in Afghanistan? Yes. Excusively the Taliban? no. The western press prefers the narrative of Taliban extremism. The western press ignores and fails to report killings by US troops, one incident I know of personally in Kabul. Never reported in the press.

    So I suggest you educate yourself on the complexities of Afghanistan before you sound off with smugness. It is obvious you have no idea of what really goes on there.

    Have you ever visited Saudi Arabia? Want a litany of the horrors there? No, you don't. You have a narrative which I suspect is ill informed.

    the Taliban were winning against the Northern Alliance for various reasons, one was that a lot of people supported them. We turned a blind eye to the destabilising effects of Saudi and Pakistan support of the Taliban as well. We set this up for failure a long time ago. Riding in like the calvary and handing out billions to the Northern Alliance was not very helpful for stability.

    Kevin P Brown -> MeereeneseLiberation , 2016-05-06 09:33:31
    "was if ending Taliban rule had made things better"

    You try to simplify a very complex situation. In fact there was never absolute rule by the Taliban. You seem to forget there was a civil war in the country before 9/11. There was the Taliban and the Northern Alliance. There was Pakistan and the ISI ( Pakistan of course if often supported by the US, then we had Saudi Arabia, again supported by us). Before 9/11 The northern alliance was about to be defeated. On both sides was indiscriminate killings. You also had a complex mix if Pashtun Tajiks, Uzbeks and Hazaras. You had multiple political alliances which I will not bother to list. Kabul was destroyed by the fighting. Atrocities on both sides. You had Dostum with the Northern Alliance and Massod as well. Massod was reasonable, Dostum was an animal worse than the Taliban.

    What people related to me was this: The Taliban were more predictable. Dostum was not predictable. Both were bad, but as Clinton fans love to highlight, the lessor of two evils must be selected. The Taliban also represented the Pashtun who were the largest ethnic bloc in Afghanistan. So in essence the people mostly supported the Taliban. The Northern Alliance had the support of Russia, and you might recall the Afghans did not have fond memories of them.

    So, you want to simplify the Taliban atrocities and ignore the rest. Afghans did not have the luxury of this. They had to choose the lesser evil. Had Massood not been entangled with Dostum, perhaps things would have been different.

    We came in and supported the Northern Alliance, which did NOT sit well with a lot of people. The majority? I don't have statistics exactly pointing this out. The Pashtun felt pushed out of affairs by the minority remnants of the Northern Alliance. Every ..... and I mean every government office had photos of Massood on the wall. Not Karzai. Karzai was seen as irrelevant by all sides, he was seen as the American imposed choice. ( I will not even discuss the "election" but I was on the ground dealing with Identity cards before the UN arrived, had meetings with the UN team about approaches to getting ID cards out to all voters, and there is a stink over aspects of the participation in the elections).

    "And seeing a self-described leftist explaining that life under the Taliban wasn't all that bad if you just grew a beard [!] and fell in line is really sort of pathetic."

    Your smug simplistic statement indicates you have no idea of the horrors enacted on both sides. I was told this time and time again as how people decided to survive by picking a side where there were rules and they could survive the rules.

    But lets put aside my anecdotal evidence and look at the people of Afghanistan:

    http://www.d3systems.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/AAPOR-2012-Taliban-Reconciliation-John-Richardson.pdf

    "Looking at Afghans' views on reconciling with the Taliban does not appear to bear out the concerns over ethnic divisions shared by Jones and Kilcullen. When asked whether the Afghan central government should negotiate a settlement with the Taliban or continue fighting the Taliban and not negotiate, a recent national survey of Afghanistan found that roughly three- quarters (74%) of Afghans favor negotiating with the Taliban .74 This is in line with previous studies, such as a series of polls sponsored by ABC News which found that the number of Afghans favoring reconciliation had risen from 60% in 2007 to 73% in 2009."

    ""Do you think the government in Kabul should negotiate a settlement with Afghan Taliban in which they are allowed to hold political offices if they stop fighting, or do you think the government in Kabul should continue to fight the Taliban and not negotiate a settlement?""

    77% of men and 70% of women agree with this.

    Here is the ultimate point. We intervened and we had no fucking idea what we were doing. The Afghans saw the money flowing to Beltway Bandits rather than flowing to real aid and needs. They saw this! They were not stupid. They saw that the Pashtuns were pushed out of Government, ( hence the Massod images in ALL government offices [My project of reform dealt with EVERY government offices and I visited a fair few personally and finally had to ask abut why each office had Masood an not Karzai)

    My opinion? I see indications that the Taliban would have handed over Bin Laden. We refused. Is this disputed? Yes. Were we right to favour the Northern Alliance? No. They were as bad as the Taliban, but more ..... unpredictable.

    Given our support of Saudi and knowing their interventions, as well as Pakistan, we were stupid to intervene.

    Kevin P Brown -> Carly435 , 2016-05-05 19:28:39
    Robin is relentless is arguing AGAINST, but he is quite light on arguing for anything. It is an interesting question as to what he stands for.

    His main argument is that zero information from "right wing" press is true. He seems unaware that at times, actual facts are presented or not presented or suppressed by either media outlet, depending on their corporate ownership and management slant of what should be reported. Me? I read everything and decide if something is a fact. It is strange that factual reporting about the actual many many FOIA lawsuits only gets printed in right wing press. They of course have an agenda, but does not negate the facts they report. Like Clinton being allowed to be deposed in a civil FOIA suit. That is a fact, with quotes from the Judge. CNN? I guess they couldn't afford to report this factual development.

    When you only read the press looking for a partisan set of narratives, you end up being partisan and ill informed. When you read all the flavours of press in an desire to inform yourself, when your goal is not a narrative but factual accounts of the truth, then you can be better informed. So we have partisans, who only view Fox and we also have partisans who only view CNN. Both are as bad as each other. One must be capable of decreeing the motives of each, and discarding the nonfactual narratives, and then one can be fully informed.

    Robin makes the assumption that facts only occur in his selected set of informational partisan sources. Why? Because he is partisan. This then enables him to argue against a narrative, rather than support his own narrative. He plays the neat trick of simply discarding any factual reporting from places like Breibart. One can see interesting lacks of coverage on google search.

    Kevin P Brown -> RobInTN , 2016-05-05 19:19:20
    "Libel is a method of defamation expressed by print, writing, pictures, signs, effigies, or any communication embodied in physical form that is injurious to a person's reputation, exposes a person to public hatred, contempt or ridicule, or injures a person in his/her business or profession."

    So surely in America, Clinton with her wealth would take some legal action? I would if I had her money, and wealth. Interesting that she has not? Perhaps you could write to her and suggest she defend herself in a real and palpable way?

    dutchview -> lsbg_t , 2016-05-05 18:17:57
    Yes and a lot of the press are trying to bury the news about another Sanders success. When you look at how many voting districts he comes out top in, in is a large percentage. Clinton tends to get closer or take the district if their is a higher population density.

    The influence of the super delegates is a scandal in a "democratic process".

    Vladimir Makarenko -> digit , 2016-05-05 17:00:45
    First I would be very careful taking what G gives, it is nowadays "fixing" news like Fox. Most reliable, if speaking about polls the word can be used, is results of metastudies:
    http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-general-election-trump-vs-clinton
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html
    Both give today's Clinton of 6% when Sanders is whopping 13+%
    So when Hillary's shills preaching how easily she "beats" Trump, they lie. Only Bernie can do this or or see Oval Office moved to Atlantic City.
    luminog -> simpledino , 2016-05-05 12:48:54
    If Bernie does not get the nomination it will be the wilderness for the Democrats - no young voters no independents - unless they can conjure a principled candidate somehow from somewhere.

    Clinton won't cut it and she won't beat Trump. Trump will out her on every crooked deal she has been involved in.

    Kevin P Brown -> hillbillyzombie , 2016-05-05 12:23:14
    You'll then cycle back to the lesser of two evils, that Democrats like Obama and Clinton are needed to help the poor blacks and minorities. To me this is a myth. The poor get fucked no matter what party is in office.

    Is this is a Fox News plant article? yeah yeah, let's vote Clinton who promises a continuation of Obama's policies. Will Trump make this much worse? Maybe. Trump or Clinton will in my opinion do little to improve these issues quoted below. You have a different opinion. Great.

    " http://www.blackpressusa.com/is-black-america-better-off-under-obama /

    "Like the rest of America, Black America, in the aggregate, is better off now than it was when I came into office," said President Obama on December 19, in response to a question by Urban Radio Networks White House Correspondent April Ryan.

    What planet African Americans are doing "better off" on is unknown. What is known is that President Obama is about to leave office with African Americans in their worst economic situation since Ronald Reagan . A look at every key stat as President Obama starts his sixth year in office illustrates that.

    • Unemployment. The average Black unemployment under President Bush was 10 percent. The average under President Obama after six years is 14 percent. Black unemployment, "has always been double" [that of Whites] but it hasn't always been 14 percent. The administration was silent when Black unemployment hit 16 percent – a 27-year high – in late 2011 .
    • Poverty. The percentage of Blacks in poverty in 2009 was 25 percent; it is now 27 percent. The issue of poverty is rarely mentioned by the president or any members of his cabinet. Currently, more than 45 million people – 1 in 7 Americans – live below the poverty line.
    • The Black/White Wealth Gap. The wealth gap between Blacks and Whites in America is at a 24-year high. A December study by PEW Research Center revealed the average White household is worth $141,900, and the average Black household is worth $11,000. From 2010 to 2013, the median income for Black households plunged 9 percent.
    • Income inequality. "Between 2009 and 2012 the top one percent of Americans enjoyed 95 percent of all income gains, according to research from U.C. Berkeley," reported The Atlantic. It was the worst since 1928. As income inequality has widened during President Obama's time in office, the president has endorsed tax policy that has widened inequality, such as the Bush Tax cuts.
    • Education: The high school dropout rate has improved during the Obama administration. However, currently 42 percent of Black children attend high poverty schools, compared to only 6 percent of White students. The Department of Education's change to Parent PLUS loans requirements cost HBCU's more than $150 million and interrupted the educations of 28,000-plus HBCU students.
    • SBA Loans. In March 2014, the Wall Street Journal reported that only 1.7 percent of $23 billion in SBA loans went to Black-owned businesses in 2013, the lowest loan of SBA lending to Black businesses on record. During the Bush presidency, the percentage of SBA loans to Black businesses was 8 percent – more than four times the Obama rate.
    Kevin P Brown -> Kevin P Brown , 2016-05-05 12:16:44
    "All the equations showed strikingly uni- form statistical results: racism as we have measured it was a significantly disequalizing force on the white income distribution, even when other factors were held constant. A 1 percent increase in the ratio of black to white median incomes (that is, a 1 percent decrease in racism) was associated with a .2 percent decrease in white inequality, as measured by the Gini coefficient. The corresponding effect on top 1 percent share of white income was two and a half times as large, indicating that most of the inequality among whites generated by racism was associated with increased income for the richest 1 percent of white families. Further statistical investigation reveals that increases in the racism variable had an insignifi- cant effect on the. share received by the poorest whites and resulted in a decrease in the income share of the whites in the middle income brackets."
    Kevin P Brown -> hillbillyzombie , 2016-05-05 12:16:13
    "What I said, and still maintain, is that the struggle against racism is as important as the struggle against other forms of oppression, including those with economic and financial causes."

    We can agree on this statement. However, do we need to recognise that legislation alone will not solve racism. A percentage of poor people turn against the "other" and apportion blame for their issues.

    http://tomweston.net/ReichRacism.pdf

    Try reading this.

    " that campaign finance and banking reform will fix everything"

    Of course not. But when you have an issue you can continually put bandaids on the symptoms or you can perform a root cause analysis and then proceed to fix these root causes. The fact is that politicians are disinclined to put the needs of voters first, they tend to pay lip service to the needs of voters, while spending 60% of their time interacting with rich donors, who are very good are articulating their needs, as they hand over large sums of money. This system creates a log jam to reform. If we can return the immutable link to the voters interests, and congress them reform of economic distortions that support racism become far far easier. Motive of change and motives of votes become transparent.

    "The various forms of discrimination are not separable in real life. Employers' hiring and promotion practices; resource allocation in city schools; the structure of transportation sys- tems; residential segregation and housing quality; availability of decent health care; be- havior of policemen and judges; foremen's prejudices; images of blacks presented in the media and the schools; price gouging in ghetto stores-these and the other forms of social and economic discrimination interact strongly with each other in determining the occupational status and annual income, and welfare, of black people. The processes are not simply additive but are mutually reinforcing. Often, a decrease in one narrow form of discrimination is accompanied by an increase in another form. Since all aspects of racism interact, an analysis of racism should incorporate all its as- pects in a unified manner."

    My thesis is this: build economic equality and the the pressing toxins of racism diminish. But yeah dismiss Sanders as a one issue candidate. he is a politician, which I acknowledge. He has a different approach to clinton who will micro triangulate constantly depending on who she in front of. I find his approach ore honest. Your mileage may vary.

    " money spent on campaigns does not correlate very highly to winning"

    No but overall money gets to decide on a narrow set of compliance in the candidates. But it still correlates to winning. Look at the Greens with no cash. Without the cash, they will never win. Sanders has proved that 1. We do not need to depend on the rich power brokers to select narrowly who will be presented as a candidate. 2. He has proved that a voter can donate and compete with corporate donations. I would rather scads of voter cash financing rather than corporate cash buying influence. ABSCAM was a brief flash, never repeated to show us what really happens in back rooms when a wad of cash arrives with a politician. That we cannot PROVE what happens off the grid, we can and should rely on common sense about the influence of money. 85% of the American people believe cash buys influence. The only influence on a politician should be the will of the people. Sure, corporates can speak. Speech is free. Corporate cash as speech is a different matter. It is a moral corruption.

    "most contributions come after electoral success"

    Yes part of the implied contract of corporates and people like the Koch Brothers: Look after us and we will look after you. We will keep you in power, as long as you slant the legislation to favour us over the voters.

    You do realise the Clinton Foundation bought the assets of the DLC, a defunct organisation. Part of the assets are the documents and records that contain the information about the Koch Brothers donations and their executives joining the "management" of the DLC. Why would a Charity be interested in the DLC documents? Ah it is a Clinton Foundation. Yeah yeah, there is no proof of anything is there. No law was broken. Do I smell something ? Does human nature guide my interpretation absent a clear statement from the Foundation of this "investment"?? Yes.

    We have to start SOMEWHERE. Root causes are the best place to start.

    Democrat or Republican, Blacks and Whites at the bottom are thrown in a race for the bottom and this helps fuel the impoverishment of both. It is fuel to feed racism. My genuine belief.

    digit -> Vladimir Makarenko , 2016-05-05 12:07:33
    Sorry, I mean, here .
    buttonbasher81 -> o_lobo_solitario , 2016-05-05 12:06:44
    Why is it wrong for democrats to pick their own party leader? Also Obama beat Hilary last time so what's Bernies problem now? Also why moan about a system that's been in place for decades now, surely the onus was on Sanders to attract more middle of the road dem voters? Finally I'm sure republicans would also love to vote in Sanders, easy to demolish with attack ads before the election (you'll note they've studiously ignored him so far).
    Longasyourarm -> Genpet , 2016-05-05 11:47:49
    the world is divided in two, half who are nauseated by the above and the other half who purr in admiration at the clever way Clinton has fucked the public once again. As Mencken said democracy is that system of government in which it is assumed that the common man knows what he wants and deserves to get it good and hard.
    Longasyourarm -> nemesis7 , 2016-05-05 11:44:57
    explain to me why the blacks and Hispanics vote for her because it is a mystery to me. She stands for everything they have had to fight against. So you have a 1%er-Wall St.-invade Iraq-subprime-cheat the EU-Goldman Sachs-arms dealing-despot cuddling-fuck the environment coalition. And blacks and Hispanics too? Are they out of their minds?
    Eric L. Wattree , 2016-05-05 09:19:27
    BERNIE SANDERS - OR ZIG AGAINST ZAG
    .
    If the American people don't come to their senses and give Bernie Sanders the Democratic nomination, we're going to end up with a choice between Zig and Zag. Zig is Donald Trump, and Zag is Hillary Clinton. To paraphrase Mort Sahl back in the sixties, the only difference between the two is if Donald 'Zig' Trump sees a Black child lying in the street, he'd simply order his chauffeur to run over him. If Hillary 'Zag' Clinton saw the kid, she'd also order her chauffeur to run over him, but she'd weep, and go apologize to the NAACP, after she felt the bump.
    .
    WAKE UP, BLACK PEOPLE!!!
    IF YOU DON'T, YOU'LL BE SORRY - AGAIN.
    https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1057244620990215&set=a.136305753084111.28278.100001140610873&type=3&theater
    Kevin P Brown -> hillbillyzombie , 2016-05-05 08:20:53
    Giving aid to the Republicans? If you honestly believe that any criticisms I have is worse than what I discuss, you need to give up politics and get a hobby. Trump will for example use her FOIA/email issues like a stick to beat her with. This is not Soviet Russia where we all adopt the party line. I'm not not ever have been a member of the Democratic Party. I COULD have been this year. Now? Never. The solution to the nations problems will come from outside this party.

    I prefer neither. You love fearmongering about how worse it will be under trump. Hmmm. I don't buy that tale. Take Black family incomes. In the toilet. Under either party it goes south. Abortion? Like slavery nothing ...... Nothing is going to change. It's too late to change that one. But it's a useful tool to make us believe ONLY Clinton can protect us. Economically the Democrats are essentially the same as the Republicans, more of the same corporate welfare. Would Clinton cut Social Security? Maybe. I don't believe her core statements. Sorry but as a person I just can't buy into the package. Both republicans and democrats on a vague macro level will try to lower unemployment but neither will talk about falling participation. Clinton had already proved she's probably as likely as Trump to get bullets flying. It's her judgement. She's part of the same old we need to intervene yet never understanding the real issues. I despise her unflinching support of Saudi Arabia. That policy is insane!!! Etc etc etc.

    You believe a black family gays and women will sing Kumbaya under Clinton and all will be well.

    I believe both parties represent essentially the same with small regional differences .

    SavvasKara -> irishgaf , 2016-05-05 05:32:13
    It would be perhaps remotely Marxist if he said comrades. But even that was used by democrats, socialists and even fascists and nazists so I would say that no, there is nothing Marxist about it. One of his central messages is that we need to come together and improve our society, that we are all the same, without race or religion, with the same needs and fears as humans.

    I even disagree with people saying that he promotes class struggle, he is talking about fair share and he is an ardent supporter of following the laws even when they are against his ideology, which is something that radicals do not tend to do. Radicals do not give a damn about laws and neither do Marxists or far-right wingers, fascists etc. Those groups believe in changing the society through struggle into a model that fits their idea of the world whatever that may be. He simply states his beliefs and suggests laws to adjust the society to human needs, to eat, to live, to prosper in an equal footing.

    Carly435 -> RobertHickson2014 , 2016-05-05 05:28:00

    It is a rather sad commentary on how the bar of integrity and honesty has been so lowered that it doesn't even faze them

    One wonders what makes them call themselves Democrats? Their stance on gun and abortion issues? Certainly not economic and political justice, peace, democracy, or integrity in governance.

    Yes, it's been the single most shocking revelation of the entire election year for me as well. Not just the cynicism of the rank-and-file, but the arrogance and isolation of our corrupt Democratic party elite, many of whom still don't seem to grasp that a revolt by progressive Democrats and Independents is already under way. This is one of the forms it may take.

    Carly435 -> RobertHickson2014 , 2016-05-05 05:06:51
    Recharging is always a good idea ... and never more so than in an election year as turbulent, crazy, uplifting, disillusioning, energizing, maddening and fascinating as this one. I'll also be away (for weeks) toward the end of this month.

    Before you go, here's Carl Bernstein's interview with Don Lemon, in case you missed it:

    http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/05/03/bernstein-there-will-be-very-damaging-leaks-from-hillary-email-investigation-her-actions-reckless-and-entitled /

    nemesis7 , 2016-05-05 03:24:50
    Hilary Clinton has various comments that reveals somebody who certainly fits the psychopath spectrum. Among the lowest of the low was "We came, we saw, he died!" Accompanied by a cackle of laughter. This was announced in full view of the media and public when Gadhaffi was overthrown by US assistance.

    Are some Democrats so brainwashed that they think a woman president is the answer regardless of what kind of person that woman is? Since when do decent people in politics exult in death like this? Libya's murdered leader was no angel but Hitler he was not and as older people have told me, the deaths of Hitler and Stalin and the like were greeted publicly with muted and dignified relief by western representatives.

    Add to that the continual lies that are being aired in public and this is why the USA has lost its way.

    Hillary will not see that one criminal in the financial world of the USA will face justice for their mafia-like actions and destruction of billions of dollars and assets while stealing the savings of Americans and non Americans. President Obama hasn't done it and he is not the buddy Hilary is to these people.

    And since when does the USA have the ethical superiority to attack countries like Russia for cronyism etc? This is unbelievable - a presidential nominee candidate is being investigated by the FBI and she doesn't stand down?

    Wake up Democrats. At least read a book called The Unravelling by an American journalist whose name I forget. This heartbreaking book says it all about the realities for the non privileged and non powerful in todays' America.

    I recall David Bowie's beautiful song This Is Not America. The Bernie supporters understand that, all power to him, those who think like him, and his supporters.

    macktan894 -> RobInTN , 2016-05-05 02:29:31
    Please. She lost that race in South Carolina when her husband, along with Geraldine Ferraro, called Obama being president a fairy tale and an affirmative action candidate, respectively. You can't win with only minority support, but you can't win without any of it if you are a Dem. Up until SC, the Clintons had minority support in the bag--most black people had never heard of Obama. Things changed real fast.
    Allan Barr , 2016-05-05 02:21:15
    Like its not obvious? There is now no paper trail to enable ensuring computer votes are true. A man on the moon can now ensure who is going to be President, that was said by a premier computer security expert.

    Along with extensive disenfranchisement, numerous ways its pretty clear these outcomes are preordained. Guess I am not going to be voting for either of the two appointed runners, its pointless. I will vote for Bernie when its time in California.

    Carly435 -> RobertHickson2014 , 2016-05-05 02:05:34
    And to branch out a bit, there are so many empty stock phrases to choose from in her 2016 campaign alone, including "I'm with her" and "Breaking down barriers" courtesy of her 2008 campaign manager, Mark Penn. Speaking of Penn, there's a hilarious little passage in "Clinton, Inc" (p. 65) which describes Penn running through possible campaign slogans for 2008. "Penn began to walk through all the iterations of Hillary slogans: Solutions for America, Ready for a change, Ready to lead, Big challenges, Real Solutions; Time to pick a President... but then he seem to get a little lost...Working for change, Working for you. There was silence, then snickers as Penn tried to remember all the bumper stickers which run together sounded absurd and indistinguishable. The Hillary I know."....

    Oy. ^__^

    But to pick out my favorite Hillary statement of the week, in honor of her close associate and fellow gonif, Hillary superdelegate, Sheldon Silver, who recently got 12 years in the slammer: https://www.americarisingpac.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/clinton-sheldon-silver-meme1.jpg

    Some background:

    https://www.americarisingpac.org/sheldon-silver-critical-to-hillary-clinton-political-machine /

    In 2000, Silver was integral in Clinton's Senate campaign. According to The New York Times, Silver helped Hillary lobby members of the state assembly for their support

    So I guess the former speaker of the NY assembly is just gonna have to vote for Hillary from behind bars, instead of at the DNC? How "super-inconvenient."

    John W , 2016-05-05 01:42:54
    Sanders is also leading in the West Virginia polls, which is the next primary. He just might be able to squeak out a victory.
    Robin Crawford -> Rouffian , 2016-05-05 01:07:15
    If Clinton is the Dem nominee it does more than give me shivers. Heck, I view Hillary as demonstrably more dangerous with foreign policy. Both use identity politics as a decisive issue- which only is a distraction from their lack of policy. Both their economic/domestic policies do little or worse for the current situation. Both are untrustworthy and any rhetoric on policy is highly questionable (although Clinton is certainly the worst in this regard). About the only good thing between either is that Trump is willing to question our empire abroad, which is well overdue (meanwhile Clinton seems to want to expand it).

    If it's between those two I vote Green and take the 'Jesse Ventura' option: vote anyone not Dem or Rep. Both parties are two corrupt subsidiaries of their corporate masters.

    nomorebanksters -> Jonah92 , 2016-05-04 23:43:43
    You are obviously misinformed about Bernie Sanders:
    https://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/27110/bernie-sanders#.VypxWXopDqA
    Most effective senator for the last 35 years and as Mayor or Burlington stopped corporate real estate developers from turning Burlington into Aspen east coast version.

    She voted for the Iraq war, being investigated by the FBI for her emails, there was Benghazi, turning Libya into a ISIS hotbed, allowed a military junta to assassinate a democratically elected president in Honduras and said nothing, takes $675k from Goldman for 3 speeches and refuses to disclose the transcripts because she KNOWS it'll hurt her, voted for trade deals that's gutted manufacturing in the USA....should I go on?

    Kevin P Brown -> hillbillyzombie , 2016-05-04 23:10:01
    So please please explain how Hillary Rodham Clinton is going to wave a wand and fix racism? I already know she will not fix poverty, she will slap a few ersatz bandaids onto bills that won't pass and like the spoiled child will seek praise every time mommy gets him to shit on the potty. You might recall a guy called Martin Luther King. he had some words about economic fairness and poverty.

    "" In the treatment of poverty nationally, one fact stands out: there are twice as many white poor as Negro poor in the United States. Therefore I will not dwell on the experiences of poverty that derive from racial discrimination, but will discuss the poverty that affects white and Negro alike . "

    nihilism: the rejection of all religious and moral principles, often in the belief that life is meaningless. The belief that nothing in the world has a real existence.

    You love that word but rejection of the dysfunctional state of DNC politics is NOT nihilism. Moral corruption around campaign finance is real. Moral corruption around money and lobbyists is real. The desire to fix this, this is real. Seeking real change is not nihilism. But yes, if it pleases you to continue in every other post with this word, do so. It's misuse says more about you than Sanders.

    nomorebanksters -> TehachapiCalifornia , 2016-05-04 23:04:08
    Please tell me exactly how much HRC has done for the U.S.? I'm from NYC and when she brought her carpet bagging ass here and as a 2 term senator she pushed 3 pieces of legislation thru. If you look at Bernie Sanders voting record:
    https://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/27110/bernie-sanders#.VypxWXopDqA

    He's been one of the most effective senators in Congress and has been able to get things done with cooperation from both sides of the aisle.
    So tell me again, what's she done that's so notable?

    nomorebanksters -> nolashea , 2016-05-04 22:57:13
    Uh huh and your supporting a person: That voted for the Iraq War, destabilized Libya, Benghazi, gave tacit approval to a military junta in Honduras as Secretary of State, called black youth super predators, supports trade agreements that destroy our own manufacturing jobs, takes more money from special interests than her constituency, has made millions in speeches from the bank lobby and won't disclose the transcripts......yeah she's real HONEST......riiigggghhhhttttt....
    Kevin P Brown -> hillbillyzombie , 2016-05-04 22:31:08
    "Are you really sure that money buys votes"

    Money buys the influence to be selected as a candidate. Normally. 99% of the time. Sometimes a Huey Long populist breaks through the process and scares the fuck out of the power structures. But you know how candidates are selected. Poor smart people never get to run for president unless they build a populist power base. The existing political parties defer to donors. Donors like the Koch Brothers, who happily funded Bill clinton and the DLC made their preferences clear. They didn't invest in a fit of altruistic progressivism. They wanted the DNC to swing right. And voila it did and Bill was anointed as the "one" to run. Don't be so naive.

    [May 06, 2016] Ted Cruz, the master strategist, was no match for Trumps cult of personality

    Looks like neoliberal Guardian presstitutes love neocons and religious nuts Cruz. Who would guess ? Interesting...
    Notable quotes:
    "... He also has a certain kind of roguish charm and can be quite amusing, which Hillary Clinton rarely is; he'd easily win the "who'd I prefer to have a beer with" competition. ..."
    "... How can anyone say that yet? What we DO know is that the Bush-Obama administration has been an unqualified disaster on many fronts. Change, even with the possibility - NOT 'certainty' - of "bad things happening" is much more desirable... ..."
    "... The more this election plays out the more I totally understand why Trump has made it this far. I've lived a long time and been politically active my entire adult life, and I've never seen voters send such a resounding and well deserved fuck you to the political elite. ..."
    "... Indeed, the failure and dysfunction of the present political system in the US can be traced to one thing: the failure of the fourth estate. It is worse than failure, it is a betrayal of the nation for those thirty pieces of silver. ..."
    "... What his campaign ultimately proves, is that only appealing to ideologically conservative Republicans is not enough to win the nom. The bulk of the party is traditionalist and reactionary rather than puritanical. They'll pretty reliably vote for any grumpy old white guy with a sense of humour (Nixon, Reagan, Bush I, Romney, McCain, now Trump). Secondly Cruz misread the issues of the year. People are frustrated because they believe that they are struggling while others are milking them. Trump gets this, so does Bernie. Hillary, not so much. This will be a big problem for her in the general. ..."
    "... I'm getting just a bit tired of the feigned "I can't understand it" air of these articles about Donald Trump. The Trump gave the voters in his party the red meat of bigotry and hate that they require. The others dog-whistled a merry tune. Why talk about 'strange political jujitsu'? Why not admit that a large portion of the Republican Party is unloved by their own candidates. Why not look at the fact that Republicans accept the votes of 'poor white trash' but do nothing for them. ..."
    www.theguardian.com

    The Guardian

    bhyujn -> Bohemina1 5 May 2016 13:54

    No, I did not think that....however, I do think that there is enough awareness of this issue that it does not get dangerously into the main stream in Europe. In the US there much less awareness. Decades of the indoctrination that all bad things are either "communist" or "socialist" has left the door wide open for a return of the populist nationalist. Trump is just that.

    bluet00ns 5 May 2016 13:18

    "happy campaign"?...review the tapes, "happy" is nowhere in the oily, twisted, display of sly that was cruz's campaign, the numb, if not painful, looks on the faces of family as he trotted them out like props, is exhibit A.

    bcarey -> sour_mash 5 May 2016 13:08

    My point is that it's common for candidates to suspend their campaigns and continue to collect money.

    Definitely true.

    However, we must also take into account the fact that the Cruz delegates are still active and maybe able to deliver Cruz.... or Romney if necessary. It is likely that Trump will get way more delegates than needed to stop a contested/open convention, however.

    The Cruz suspension is about 2 things. It accomplishes potentially 2 things. Money is just one of them. The other part is Romney, if he can.

    fallentower 5 May 2016 13:02

    I actually think the Republican Party made a good choice once it was down to "Cruz or Trump" by sitting on its hands and thereby letting Trump win. Of course, Trump is far more likely to do and say unorthodox (from a post-Reagan Republican Party standpoint) things, and will probably increase the tension and turmoil within the party. But he actually has a chance of winning the election; Cruz's smarmy personality and nauseating brand of religious conservatism would have gone down like a lead balloon outside the Bible belt, and he's too committed ideologically to change his policy positions.

    Trump will turn on a sixpence and happily disavow things he may have said in the primary if he considers them unhelpful baggage for the general, and because he's seen as a showman rather than a professional politician he'll have much more leeway to do so than your average flip-flopper.

    He also has a certain kind of roguish charm and can be quite amusing, which Hillary Clinton rarely is; he'd easily win the "who'd I prefer to have a beer with" competition. Admittedly he is going to have to cut down on the clownishness and ill-disciplined outbursts, but if he gets the right campaign team together and they manage to keep him vaguely on-message I think he'll have good chances. Better than Cruz, anyway, who had zero chance.

    sour_mash bcarey 5 May 2016 12:58

    I take your point regarding Secret Agent Mormon and I was aware that he had filed with the FEC. My point is that it's common for candidates to suspend their campaigns and continue to collect money.

    The exploratory PAC is the new retirement vehicle but that's a different issue.

    taxhaven wjousts 5 May 2016 12:58

    Trump most certainly is not change for the better.

    How can anyone say that yet? What we DO know is that the Bush-Obama administration has been an unqualified disaster on many fronts. Change, even with the possibility - NOT 'certainty' - of "bad things happening" is much more desirable...

    Harry Dresdon 5 May 2016 12:42

    Good riddance to Cruz. Boehner called him "the devil in the flesh". Cruz would have been way worse for the country than Trump will ever be. Sad but true.

    DillyDit2 5 May 2016 12:34

    Hey Stephanie Cutter: You think Bernie is responsible for what his supporters think, whether we'll support Hillary, and how we will decide to vote in the fall? Pappa Bernie should tell us what to do, and we should fall in line and salute?

    Could Cutter and Hillary's minions be any more clueless?! And could they reveal their top down authoritarian mindset any more clearer?

    The more this election plays out the more I totally understand why Trump has made it this far. I've lived a long time and been politically active my entire adult life, and I've never seen voters send such a resounding and well deserved fuck you to the political elite.

    I wish I could support Trump, because I second that fuck you. For now, along with what is likely the majority of American voters, all I can do is say- pox on BOTH your houses and may 2020 be the year an Independent runs and wins.

    danubemonster 5 May 2016 12:32

    I think it is worth comparing Cruz with Nixon. Both men are/were not particularly likable, yet Nixon was able to be a two-term president. Nixon was a conservative, but he was not an ideologue - and he lived in an age where the Republican Party was a relatively broad church. Nixon also have political instincts which were way beyond those of Cruz. He knew how to play high politics, and he knew what was required to get to the White House.

    PATROKLUS00 -> Tommy Cooper 5 May 2016 12:14

    Trump will beat her to death with being the Queen of the Establishment... the Dems will be idiots to nominate her.

    PATROKLUS00 -> voxusa 5 May 2016 12:12

    Indeed, the failure and dysfunction of the present political system in the US can be traced to one thing: the failure of the fourth estate. It is worse than failure, it is a betrayal of the nation for those thirty pieces of silver.

    PATROKLUS00 -> 8MilesHigh 5 May 2016 12:09

    Yup, and the Democrat establishment is too stupid and out of touch to recognize that HRC is just the grist that Trump needs for his anti-establishment mill.

    PATROKLUS00 5 May 2016 12:07

    Cruz a master strategist???? BWWWWWwwwwwaaaaahhhhhhhaaaaaaaa! Ludicrous ... beyond ludicrous.

    Vintage59 David Perry 5 May 2016 12:07

    His religious beliefs and the political dogma that goes with them have been well documented. Have you not been paying attention? Do you insist your wife get you a beer from the fridge when you can get off your ass and get it yourself?

    8MilesHigh 5 May 2016 12:06

    What his campaign ultimately proves, is that only appealing to ideologically conservative Republicans is not enough to win the nom. The bulk of the party is traditionalist and reactionary rather than puritanical. They'll pretty reliably vote for any grumpy old white guy with a sense of humour (Nixon, Reagan, Bush I, Romney, McCain, now Trump). Secondly Cruz misread the issues of the year. People are frustrated because they believe that they are struggling while others are milking them. Trump gets this, so does Bernie. Hillary, not so much. This will be a big problem for her in the general.

    MalleusSacerdotum 5 May 2016 12:05

    I'm getting just a bit tired of the feigned "I can't understand it" air of these articles about Donald Trump. The Trump gave the voters in his party the red meat of bigotry and hate that they require. The others dog-whistled a merry tune. Why talk about 'strange political jujitsu'? Why not admit that a large portion of the Republican Party is unloved by their own candidates. Why not look at the fact that Republicans accept the votes of 'poor white trash' but do nothing for them.

    The Donald has understood the dynamic better than the rest and has given the voters a coherent, albeit repugnant, analysis of their problems. An article like this that can shed no light on the phenomenon that is Trump is hardly worth publishing.

    [May 06, 2016] The claim that the United States had to act to prevent Libyan tyrant Muammar al-Qaddafi from slaughtering tens of thousands of innocent civilians in Benghazi does not stand up to even casual scrutiny

    Muammar al-Qaddafi was an easy target. Oil was the goal. Everything else is describable attempt to white wash the crime.
    Notable quotes:
    "... At the end, the brainwashing media convince the people to vote for the "bad choice" instead of the worst (which is Trump in this case). You don't need to have any plans or anything, just repeat "Trump bad, Trump bad, Trump bad, Me good" and the sheeple will follow! This strategy has been so successful that almost everywhere around the world are using it to win all types of elections! xD ..."
    "... She should be a felon by now, and only her name protects her from jail. ..."
    "... Although everyone recognizes that Qaddafi is a brutal ruler, his forces did not conduct deliberate, large-scale massacres in any of the cities he has recaptured, and his violent threats to wreak vengeance on Benghazi were directed at those who continued to resist his rule, not at innocent bystanders. There is no question that Qaddafi is a tyrant with few (if any) redemptive qualities, but the threat of a bloodbath that would "stain the conscience of the world" (as Obama put it) was slight ..."
    "... As I've argued previously, the term "humanitarian crisis" is desperately imprecise and the informed public's ability to distinguish between civil strife (which is always bloody) and outright massacres and extermination campaigns is weak. Walt's certainty notwithstanding, the debate about the humanitarian rationale in this case has not been settled. In fact, it's barely begun ..."
    "... on the basis that Gaddafi's forces were about to commit a Srebrenica-style massacre in Benghazi. Naturally we can never know what would have happened without Nato's intervention. But there is in fact no evidence – including from other rebel-held towns Gaddafi re-captured – to suggest he had either the capability or even the intention to carry out such an atrocity against an armed city of 700,000 . ..."
    "... Of those, uncounted thousands will be civilians, including those killed by Nato bombing and Nato-backed forces on the ground. These figures dwarf the death tolls in this year's other most bloody Arab uprisings, in Syria and Yemen. Nato has not protected civilians in Libya – it has multiplied the number of their deaths, while losing not a single soldier of its own. ..."
    "... For the western powers, of course, the Libyan war has allowed them to regain ground lost in Tunisia and Egypt, put themselves at the heart of the upheaval sweeping the most strategically sensitive region in the world, and secure valuable new commercial advantages in an oil-rich state whose previous leadership was at best unreliable. No wonder the new British defence secretary is telling businessmen to "pack their bags" for Libya, and the US ambassador in Tripoli insists American companies are needed on a "big scale". ..."
    "... But for Libyans, it has meant a loss of ownership of their own future and the effective imposition of a western-picked administration of Gaddafi defectors and US and British intelligence assets. Probably the greatest challenge to that takeover will now come from Islamist military leaders on the ground, such as the Tripoli commander Abdel Hakim Belhaj – kidnapped by MI6 to be tortured in Libya in 2004 – who have already made clear they will not be taking orders from the NTC. ..."
    "... This was an unpopular stance to take on Libya during the high tide of the Arab Spring, when foreign governments and media alike were uncritically lauding the opposition. The two sides in what was a genuine civil war were portrayed as white hats and black hats; rebel claims about government atrocities were credulously broadcast, though they frequently turned out to be concocted, while government denials were contemptuously dismissed. Human rights organisations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch were much more thorough than the media in checking these stories, although their detailed reports appeared long after the news agenda had moved on." ..."
    "... the Taliban were winning against the Northern Alliance for various reasons, one was that a lot of people supported them. We turned a blind eye to the destabilising effects of Saudi and Pakistan support of the Taliban as well. We set this up for failure a long time ago. Riding in like the calvary and handing out billions to the Northern Alliance was not very helpful for stability. ..."
    "... What people related to me was this: The Taliban were more predictable. Dostum was not predictable. Both were bad, but as Clinton fans love to highlight, the lessor of two evils must be selected. The Taliban also represented the Pashtun who were the largest ethnic bloc in Afghanistan. So in essence the people mostly supported the Taliban. The Northern Alliance had the support of Russia, and you might recall the Afghans did not have fond memories of them. ..."
    "... Given our support of Saudi and knowing their interventions, as well as Pakistan, we were stupid to intervene. ..."
    www.theguardian.com

    thevorlon -> newyorkred , 2016-05-06 17:59:00

    Most politicians these days don't care about the people and this ridiculous cycle is repeating every 4 years! Candidates who actually want to make progress get dumped by the corrupt system and the parties that are being controlled by their corporate masters and their money to do as they want to return the more money to them later when they have the office!

    At the end, the brainwashing media convince the people to vote for the "bad choice" instead of the worst (which is Trump in this case). You don't need to have any plans or anything, just repeat "Trump bad, Trump bad, Trump bad, Me good" and the sheeple will follow! This strategy has been so successful that almost everywhere around the world are using it to win all types of elections! xD

    Maybe Trump becoming president is necessary for the people to realize once and for all that this cycle of mistakes and corruption needs to stop and fundamental changes need to happen! Starts with the USA and the world will follow over time. I personally am done with following these corrupt political systems and their media and do as they tell me to (same goes for the financial system but there's no escaping this one in the near future with corps and banks being in total control of the society).

    John Kennedy -> Allan Burns , 2016-05-06 17:35:46
    She should be a felon by now, and only her name protects her from jail.
    Ilupi Ilupi -> EagleOMC , 2016-05-06 17:05:43
    Establishment baby.
    Kevin P Brown -> MeereeneseLiberation, 2016-05-06 09:53:20
    http://foreignpolicy.com/2011/04/07/was-there-going-to-be-a-benghazi-massacre /

    "As Alan Kuperman of the University of Texas and Stephen Chapman of the Chicago Tribune have now shown, the claim that the United States had to act to prevent Libyan tyrant Muammar al-Qaddafi from slaughtering tens of thousands of innocent civilians in Benghazi does not stand up to even casual scrutiny.

    Although everyone recognizes that Qaddafi is a brutal ruler, his forces did not conduct deliberate, large-scale massacres in any of the cities he has recaptured, and his violent threats to wreak vengeance on Benghazi were directed at those who continued to resist his rule, not at innocent bystanders. There is no question that Qaddafi is a tyrant with few (if any) redemptive qualities, but the threat of a bloodbath that would "stain the conscience of the world" (as Obama put it) was slight. "

    "If humanitarian intervention is to remain a live possibility, there must be much more public scrutiny, debate and discussion of what triggers that intervention and what level of evidence we can reasonably require. Did administration officials have communications intercepts suggesting plans for large-scale killings of civilians? How exactly did they reach their conclusion that these reprisals were likely? It should be no more acceptable to simply accept government claims on this score than it was for previous administrations.

    As I've argued previously, the term "humanitarian crisis" is desperately imprecise and the informed public's ability to distinguish between civil strife (which is always bloody) and outright massacres and extermination campaigns is weak. Walt's certainty notwithstanding, the debate about the humanitarian rationale in this case has not been settled. In fact, it's barely begun."

    Kevin P Brown -> MeereeneseLiberation , 2016-05-06 09:50:28
    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/oct/26/libya-war-saving-lives-catastrophic-failure

    So no, we should have not intervened.

    "David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy won the authorisation to use "all necessary means" from the UN security council in March on the basis that Gaddafi's forces were about to commit a Srebrenica-style massacre in Benghazi. Naturally we can never know what would have happened without Nato's intervention. But there is in fact no evidence – including from other rebel-held towns Gaddafi re-captured – to suggest he had either the capability or even the intention to carry out such an atrocity against an armed city of 700,000 .

    What is now known, however, is that while the death toll in Libya when Nato intervened was perhaps around 1,000-2,000 (judging by UN estimates), eight months later it is probably more than ten times that figure. Estimates of the numbers of dead over the last eight months – as Nato leaders vetoed ceasefires and negotiations – range from 10,000 up to 50,000. The National Transitional Council puts the losses at 30,000 dead and 50,000 wounded.

    Of those, uncounted thousands will be civilians, including those killed by Nato bombing and Nato-backed forces on the ground. These figures dwarf the death tolls in this year's other most bloody Arab uprisings, in Syria and Yemen. Nato has not protected civilians in Libya – it has multiplied the number of their deaths, while losing not a single soldier of its own.

    For the western powers, of course, the Libyan war has allowed them to regain ground lost in Tunisia and Egypt, put themselves at the heart of the upheaval sweeping the most strategically sensitive region in the world, and secure valuable new commercial advantages in an oil-rich state whose previous leadership was at best unreliable. No wonder the new British defence secretary is telling businessmen to "pack their bags" for Libya, and the US ambassador in Tripoli insists American companies are needed on a "big scale".

    But for Libyans, it has meant a loss of ownership of their own future and the effective imposition of a western-picked administration of Gaddafi defectors and US and British intelligence assets. Probably the greatest challenge to that takeover will now come from Islamist military leaders on the ground, such as the Tripoli commander Abdel Hakim Belhaj – kidnapped by MI6 to be tortured in Libya in 2004 – who have already made clear they will not be taking orders from the NTC.

    Kevin P Brown -> MeereeneseLiberation , 2016-05-06 09:40:10
    Libya:

    An interesting article. Note I trust Cockburn as a journalist.
    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/the-arab-spring-reported-and-misreported-foreign-intervention-in-libya-and-the-last-days-of-colonel-a6992726.html

    "Explanations of what one thought was happening in these countries were often misinterpreted as justification for odious and discredited regimes. In Libya, where the uprising started on 15 February 2011, I wrote about how the opposition was wholly dependent on Nato military support and would have been rapidly defeated by pro-Gaddafi forces without it. It followed from this that the opposition would not have the strength to fill the inevitable political vacuum if Gaddafi was to fall. I noted gloomily that Arab states, such as Saudi Arabia and the Gulf monarchies, who were pressing for foreign intervention against Gaddafi, themselves held power by methods no less repressive than the Libyan leader. It was his radicalism – muted though this was in his later years – not his authoritarianism that made the kings and emirs hate him.

    This was an unpopular stance to take on Libya during the high tide of the Arab Spring, when foreign governments and media alike were uncritically lauding the opposition. The two sides in what was a genuine civil war were portrayed as white hats and black hats; rebel claims about government atrocities were credulously broadcast, though they frequently turned out to be concocted, while government denials were contemptuously dismissed. Human rights organisations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch were much more thorough than the media in checking these stories, although their detailed reports appeared long after the news agenda had moved on."

    Kevin P Brown -> MeereeneseLiberation, 2016-05-06 09:34:01
    And then in another note, why do people like you condemn the Taliban but give a free pass to the Saudi's who have a lot to do with the state of fundamentalism in Afghanistan, and essentially operate the same as the Taliban? Why are we not intervening in Saudi Arabia to free the people? Nah. Do people die from either side in Afghanistan? Yes. Excusively the Taliban? no. The western press prefers the narrative of Taliban extremism. The western press ignores and fails to report killings by US troops, one incident I know of personally in Kabul. Never reported in the press.

    So I suggest you educate yourself on the complexities of Afghanistan before you sound off with smugness. It is obvious you have no idea of what really goes on there.

    Have you ever visited Saudi Arabia? Want a litany of the horrors there? No, you don't. You have a narrative which I suspect is ill informed.

    the Taliban were winning against the Northern Alliance for various reasons, one was that a lot of people supported them. We turned a blind eye to the destabilising effects of Saudi and Pakistan support of the Taliban as well. We set this up for failure a long time ago. Riding in like the calvary and handing out billions to the Northern Alliance was not very helpful for stability.

    Kevin P Brown -> MeereeneseLiberation, 2016-05-06 09:33:31
    "was if ending Taliban rule had made things better"

    You try to simplify a very complex situation. In fact there was never absolute rule by the Taliban. You seem to forget there was a civil war in the country before 9/11. There was the Taliban and the Northern Alliance. There was Pakistan and the ISI ( Pakistan of course if often supported by the US, then we had Saudi Arabia, again supported by us). Before 9/11 The northern alliance was about to be defeated. On both sides was indiscriminate killings. You also had a complex mix if Pashtun Tajiks, Uzbeks and Hazaras. You had multiple political alliances which I will not bother to list. Kabul was destroyed by the fighting. Atrocities on both sides.

    You had Dostum with the Northern Alliance and Massod as well. Massod was reasonable, Dostum was an animal worse than the Taliban.

    What people related to me was this: The Taliban were more predictable. Dostum was not predictable. Both were bad, but as Clinton fans love to highlight, the lessor of two evils must be selected. The Taliban also represented the Pashtun who were the largest ethnic bloc in Afghanistan. So in essence the people mostly supported the Taliban. The Northern Alliance had the support of Russia, and you might recall the Afghans did not have fond memories of them.

    So, you want to simplify the Taliban atrocities and ignore the rest. Afghans did not have the luxury of this. They had to choose the lesser evil. Had Massood not been entangled with Dostum, perhaps things would have been different.

    We came in and supported the Northern Alliance, which did NOT sit well with a lot of people. The majority? I don't have statistics exactly pointing this out. The Pashtun felt pushed out of affairs by the minority remnants of the Northern Alliance. Every ..... and I mean every government office had photos of Massood on the wall. Not Karzai. Karzai was seen as irrelevant by all sides, he was seen as the American imposed choice. ( I will not even discuss the "election" but I was on the ground dealing with Identity cards before the UN arrived, had meetings with the UN team about approaches to getting ID cards out to all voters, and there is a stink over aspects of the participation in the elections).

    "And seeing a self-described leftist explaining that life under the Taliban wasn't all that bad if you just grew a beard [!] and fell in line is really sort of pathetic."

    Your smug simplistic statement indicates you have no idea of the horrors enacted on both sides. I was told this time and time again as how people decided to survive by picking a side where there were rules and they could survive the rules.

    But lets put aside my anecdotal evidence and look at the people of Afghanistan:

    http://www.d3systems.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/AAPOR-2012-Taliban-Reconciliation-John-Richardson.pdf

    "Looking at Afghans' views on reconciling with the Taliban does not appear to bear out the concerns over ethnic divisions shared by Jones and Kilcullen. When asked whether the Afghan central government should negotiate a settlement with the Taliban or continue fighting the Taliban and not negotiate, a recent national survey of Afghanistan found that roughly three- quarters (74%) of Afghans favor negotiating with the Taliban .74 This is in line with previous studies, such as a series of polls sponsored by ABC News which found that the number of Afghans favoring reconciliation had risen from 60% in 2007 to 73% in 2009."

    ""Do you think the government in Kabul should negotiate a settlement with Afghan Taliban in which they are allowed to hold political offices if they stop fighting, or do you think the government in Kabul should continue to fight the Taliban and not negotiate a settlement?""

    77% of men and 70% of women agree with this.

    Here is the ultimate point. We intervened and we had no fucking idea what we were doing. The Afghans saw the money flowing to Beltway Bandits rather than flowing to real aid and needs. They saw this! They were not stupid. They saw that the Pashtuns were pushed out of Government, ( hence the Massod images in ALL government offices [My project of reform dealt with EVERY government offices and I visited a fair few personally and finally had to ask abut why each office had Masood an not Karzai)

    My opinion? I see indications that the Taliban would have handed over Bin Laden. We refused. Is this disputed? Yes. Were we right to favour the Northern Alliance? No. They were as bad as the Taliban, but more ..... unpredictable.

    Given our support of Saudi and knowing their interventions, as well as Pakistan, we were stupid to intervene.

    [May 05, 2016] Nuland Tells Cyprus To Cut Russian Ties – Pressures Anastasiades To Accept Nato Plan For Turkish Troops In Cyprus

    Notable quotes:
    "... After 25 years of not seeming to car at all, now the US wants to make the problem worse by polishing apples for Erdogan for some reason I really cannot fathom. Cui bono indeed. ..."
    "... Looks pretty clear cut to me. Turkey is an ally. Russia most definitely not. Turkey could use somewhere to store all that surplus ME oil they've been buying. The USA(Nuland) can even kick in a few bucks for infrastructure. It all makes sense. Win-Win all around. ..."
    "... That Nuland is still around is all that I have to know about HRClinton's vaunted foreign-policy experience. That Nuland is still around is all that I have to know about Obama, American exceptionalism, and this supposedly scandal-free administration. And the Democratic elites want to get all snotty about Trump? ..."
    "... I am really really worried about how aggressive our foreign policy is, and this remarkable essay shows how dangerous our policy with respect to Russia can be. ..."
    "... Where Neocons like Nuland go, death and destruction follow in their wake. Look at Ukraine. ..."
    "... Instead we might already be into a countdown on a shooting war with Russia. This wouldn't just rally all Americans to the imperial cause, it was also force President Trump to rely on his nationalistic traits. ..."
    May 4, 2016 | nakedcapitalism.com

    Yves here. We were one of the few sites to follow the brutal handling of the Cyprus banking system when one of its major banks got wobbly in 2013. Cyprus was demonized as a money laundering center , when its main sin was that it served as a conduit for inbound investment into Russia, including investment by large, well-recognized companies. The reason for structuring investments via entities in Cyprus was that that enabled them to be subject to British law, which investors greatly preferred to relying on Russian law and courts. Cyprus thus has a significant amount of its economy dependent on lawyers and bankers to structure these deals. The ECB lowered the boom and forced bail-ins, which were more severe than they needed to be by virtue of one of the major banks being restructured in a way that led to a significant subsidy to a Greek bank that bought some of its operations. In other words, while something may well have needed to be done with the Cyprus banks, the brutality of the operation was driven by geopolitics, not the professed reasons.

    The geopolitical angle of the West's meddling in Cyprus a bit more obvious in this John Helmer sighting.

    By John Helmer , the longest continuously serving foreign correspondent in Russia, and the only western journalist to direct his own bureau independent of single national or commercial ties. Helmer has also been a professor of political science, and an advisor to government heads in Greece, the United States, and Asia. He is the first and only member of a US presidential administration (Jimmy Carter) to establish himself in Russia. Originally published at Dances with Bears

    The US is intensifying the pressure on Cyprus to accept a secret NATO plan to keep Turkish forces on the island.

    Victoria Nuland, the State Department official in charge of regime change in Russia and Ukraine, met for talks last week with the President of Cyprus, Nicos Anastasiades, and with Turkish Cypriot figures. The State Department and US Embassy in Nicosia have kept silent on what was said. A well-informed Cypriot source reports Nuland "was in Cyprus to pre-empt any likelihood of future deepening in relations with Russia. Anastasiades may not want to, but he may have no other option." A second Cypriot political source said: "[Nuland] will try to blackmail him. I'm not sure how he will react."

    lyman alpha blob, May 4, 2016 at 2:21 pm

    Greece isn't happy about the Turks in Cyprus, period.

    I was in Greece about 25 years ago when poppy Bush was president and paid a visit. That was the first glimpse I had of US power first hand – there were hundreds of suits talking into their sleeves lining the major route through Athens taken by the Bush motorcade. The whole city was essentially shut down and I couldn't believe that the US could project that kind of power in a foreign country. Later while I was at the Thessalonike airport coincidentally at the same time Bush was there, our flight was delayed due to a bomb threat presumably directed at Bush. Never did find out if it was a real bomb or not.

    Don't remember the ostensible reason for the Bush visit to Greece but I do remember the Greeks wanting the question Bush about the Turks occupying Cyprus and if the US would help end it. I remember thinking Bush probably doesn't even know where Cyprus is but even if he did, the US wasn't interested and weren't going to do a damn thing about it.

    After 25 years of not seeming to car at all, now the US wants to make the problem worse by polishing apples for Erdogan for some reason I really cannot fathom. Cui bono indeed.

    craazyboy, May 4, 2016 at 10:39 am

    Looks pretty clear cut to me. Turkey is an ally. Russia most definitely not. Turkey could use somewhere to store all that surplus ME oil they've been buying. The USA(Nuland) can even kick in a few bucks for infrastructure. It all makes sense. Win-Win all around.

    ambrit, May 4, 2016 at 11:26 am

    Poor Cyprus. We might as well revive the Crusader Kingdom of Cyprus. Are there any Lusignans alive today?

    John Wright , May 4, 2016 at 2:22 pm

    Here is a recent comment I made that includes Nuland and her immediate family.

    Note that the establishment's candidate HRC "remains the vessel into which many interventionists are pouring their hopes"

    http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/05/open-thread-debacle-for-us-iraq-policy-as-protesters-seize-parliament-in-green-zone.html#comment-2589491

    DJG , May 4, 2016 at 3:16 pm

    That Nuland is still around is all that I have to know about HRClinton's vaunted foreign-policy experience. That Nuland is still around is all that I have to know about Obama, American exceptionalism, and this supposedly scandal-free administration. And the Democratic elites want to get all snotty about Trump?

    After the streaming of the video-assassination of Osama bin Laden of the last few days, and after this maneuver, which is assassination of a small and vulnerable state, I respect George Orwell even more as a voice of prophecy.

    apber , May 5, 2016 at 7:35 am

    With Nuland, the ultimate neocon, we get WWIII in a Clinton Presidency. The key to Trump will be his proposed cabinet, VP, advisors etc. If nary a dual citizen neocon or a Goldman Treasury Secretary, we may have a chance; otherwise Trump will be outed as just another globalist stooge.

    TheCatSaid , May 4, 2016 at 5:42 pm

    Are the oil discoveries off of Cyprus (announced in 2014) be part of the geopolitics discussed here? Cyprus made an agreement with Greece & Egypt according to the Guardian .

    ltr , May 4, 2016 at 5:44 pm

    I am really really worried about how aggressive our foreign policy is, and this remarkable essay shows how dangerous our policy with respect to Russia can be.

    RBHoughton , May 4, 2016 at 11:00 pm

    Resuscitating the Turkish part of Cyprus may be a great money-maker for Ms Nuland's friends. You can wander though entire deserted towns and villages. Everyone's voted with their feet and land can be had at a fraction of its cost in the south. It used to have the added advantage of being immune to extradition requests (remember Polly Peck?) but I am unsure if that continues.

    This looks like another aspect of Erdogan's vice-like grip on the reproductive glands of the European Commission and ECB. It really is quite funny to see the two countries directing EU policy these days are USA and Turkey.

    Punxsutawney , May 4, 2016 at 11:04 pm

    Where Neocons like Nuland go, death and destruction follow in their wake. Look at Ukraine.

    EoinW , May 5, 2016 at 8:47 am

    I have been thinking that the NeoCon response to a Trump Presidency will be assassination. Naturally an assassination blamed on some left wing fanatic – will the next Oswald please stand up! Could it be, however, that the NeoCons recognize their problem isn't Trump, it's the people supporting Trump and their anti-establishment views? In that case, the only way to whip them into line is falling back on the most tried and true form of of social conditioning: nationalism/patriotism. Perhaps it won't be a countdown to knock off Trump before January. Instead we might already be into a countdown on a shooting war with Russia. This wouldn't just rally all Americans to the imperial cause, it was also force President Trump to rely on his nationalistic traits.

    I wonder if the NeoCons could be that clever. They have succeeded in running the most powerful country in the world for 15 years in spite of countless disasters. Maybe they are clever enough to achieve their next great misadventure, one ending in nuclear war.

    [Apr 24, 2016] In riposte to Riyadh, Russia says ready to ramp up oil output

    Notable quotes:
    "... "They (Saudis) have the ability to raise output significantly. But so do we," Russian Energy Minister Alexander Novak told journalists on the sidelines of an international energy conference in Moscow. ..."
    "... He said Russia was "in theory" able to raise production to 12 or even 13 million bpd from current record levels of close to 11 million bpd. ..."
    "... Russian oil output has repeatedly surprised on the upside over the past decade, rising from as low as 6 million bpd at the turn of the millennium. Oil experts have repeatedly predicted an unavoidable decline but it has yet to happen. ..."
    "... we are headed for some incredibly rough times. We need for oil to be just like Goldilock's porridge, not to hot, not too cold, not too plentiful and cheap, not too scarce and expensive, for at least another couple of decades. ..."
    peakoilbarrel.com

    AlexS , 04/20/2016 at 11:16 am

    A war of words:

    In riposte to Riyadh, Russia says ready to ramp up oil output

    Apr 20, 2016
    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-opec-russia-idUSKCN0XH1ST

    Russia said on Wednesday it was prepared to push oil production to new historic highs, just days after a global deal to freeze output levels collapsed and Saudi Arabia threatened to flood markets with more crude.

    The deal had been meant to help the market rebalance by removing a large chunk of oversupply and a stockpile glut.

    But Saudi Arabia said it could jack up output instead – by as much as 2 million barrels per day (bpd) to over 12 million, which would allow it to overtake Russia as the world's largest producer.

    "They (Saudis) have the ability to raise output significantly. But so do we," Russian Energy Minister Alexander Novak told journalists on the sidelines of an international energy conference in Moscow.

    He said Russia was "in theory" able to raise production to 12 or even 13 million bpd from current record levels of close to 11 million bpd.

    Russian oil output has repeatedly surprised on the upside over the past decade, rising from as low as 6 million bpd at the turn of the millennium. Oil experts have repeatedly predicted an unavoidable decline but it has yet to happen.

    Silicon Valley Observer , 04/20/2016 at 1:47 pm
    I'll believe it when I see it.
    Oldfarmermac , 04/20/2016 at 1:05 pm
    "Oil experts have repeatedly predicted an unavoidable decline but it has yet to happen."

    This is a "WHEN" question, rather than an "if" question. Let's hope and pray to the Sky Daddy or Sky Mommy of our choice that the supply of oil holds up well enough, long enough, for the renewables and electric car industries to grow up.

    Otherwise, we are headed for some incredibly rough times. We need for oil to be just like Goldilock's porridge, not to hot, not too cold, not too plentiful and cheap, not too scarce and expensive, for at least another couple of decades.

    [Apr 24, 2016] Foreign intervention in Libya and the last days of Gaddafi by Patrick Cockburn

    Notable quotes:
    "... This is an extract from 'Chaos and Caliphate: Jihadis and the West in the Struggle for the Middle East' by Patrick Cockburn, published by OR Books, price £18. The discount code readers can use for 15% off 'Chaos and Caliphate' is: INDEPENDENT ..."
    www.unz.com

    Apr 20, 2016 |The Unz Review

    7 Comments

    I was sceptical from an early stage about the Arab Spring uprisings leading to the replacement of authoritarian regimes by secular democracies. Optimistic forecasts I was hearing in the first heady months of 2011 sounded suspiciously similar to what I had heard in Kabul after the fall of the Taliban in 2001 and in Baghdad after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in 2003. In each of the three cases, there was the same dangerous conviction on the part of the domestic opposition, outside powers and the international media that all ills could be attributed to the demonic old regime and a brave new world was being born.

    This seemed very simple-minded: I was very conscious that these police states – be they in Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Syria, Yemen or Bahrain – were the product as well as the exploiters of threats to their country's independence from abroad as well as social, sectarian and ethnic divisions at home. Journalists, who earn their bread by expressing themselves freely, were particularly prone to believe that free expression and honest elections were all that was needed to put things right.

    Explanations of what one thought was happening in these countries were often misinterpreted as justification for odious and discredited regimes. In Libya, where the uprising started on 15 February 2011, I wrote about how the opposition was wholly dependent on Nato military support and would have been rapidly defeated by pro-Gaddafi forces without it. It followed from this that the opposition would not have the strength to fill the inevitable political vacuum if Gaddafi was to fall. I noted gloomily that Arab states, such as Saudi Arabia and the Gulf monarchies, who were pressing for foreign intervention against Gaddafi, themselves held power by methods no less repressive than the Libyan leader. It was his radicalism – muted though this was in his later years – not his authoritarianism that made the kings and emirs hate him.

    This was an unpopular stance to take on Libya during the high tide of the Arab Spring, when foreign governments and media alike were uncritically lauding the opposition. The two sides in what was a genuine civil war were portrayed as white hats and black hats; rebel claims about government atrocities were credulously broadcast, though they frequently turned out to be concocted, while government denials were contemptuously dismissed. Human rights organisations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch were much more thorough than the media in checking these stories, although their detailed reports appeared long after the news agenda had moved on.

    Whatever their other failings, the rebels ran a slick and highly professional press campaign from their headquarters in Benghazi. Spokesmen efficiently fended off embarrassing questions and crowds waved placards bearing well-thought-out slogans in grammatical English in front of the television cameras.

    My doubts about many aspects of the Libyan uprising, as it was presented to the world, are open to misinterpretation. There was nothing phony about people's anger against a man and a regime that had monopolised power over them for 43 years. As in other Arab military regimes turned police states, Gaddafi had once justified his rule as necessary to defend Libyan national interests against foreign states and oil companies. But as the decades passed, these justifications became excuses for a Gaddafi family dictatorship that stifled all dissent.

    Just how claustrophobic it was to be a Libyan at this time was brought home to me by Ahmed Abdullah al-Ghadamsi, an intelligent, able and well-educated man whom I met by accident after the fall of Tripoli and who worked for me as a guide and assistant. He came from a family and a district in Tripoli that was always anti-Gaddafi, and he had been on the edge of the resistance movement before we met. He was good at talking his way through checkpoints and winning the confidence of the suspicious militiamen who were manning them.

    We shared a feeling of exhilaration now that the old regime was gone. I remember Ahmed saying to me with amused exasperation that "books used to be more difficult to bring into the country than weapons". Seven weeks later, he was dead. He had felt he must play some active role in the revolution rather than just making money, had volunteered as a fighter and was shot through the head in the last days of the civil war.

    In the early months of the uprising, a good place to judge the rebel movement was close to the front line in the largely deserted town of Ajdabiya, two hours' drive south of Benghazi. Here the military stalemate of sudden advances and retreats was very visible: in the restaurant of the local hotel waiters started to ask journalists to pay their bills before they ate. The urgency on the part of the hotel management reflected their bitter experience of seeing journalists – their only customers – abandon meals half-eaten and leave, bills unpaid, because of a sudden and unexpected advance by the pro-Gaddafi forces.

    On the outskirts of Ajdabiya, rebel pick-ups and trucks, with heavy machine guns welded to the back, rushed backwards and forwards, the speed of their retreats so swift as to endanger any camera crews or reporters standing nearby. I had an ominous feeling, as I drove about Ajdabiya, Benghazi and the hinterland of Cyrenaica, that all would not turn out well. "It would take a long time to reduce Libya to the level of Somalia," I wrote on 13 April 2011, "but civil conflicts and the hatreds they induce build up their own momentum once the shooting has begun. One of the good things about Libya is that so many young men – unlike Afghans and Iraqis of a similar age – do not know how to use a gun. This will not last."

    Nor did it. But it was not the militarisation of Libyans that broke the stalemate but the intervention of Nato air forces. The shape of things to come was already becoming clear: on 22 May I described how flames were billowing up "from the hulks of eight Libyan Navy vessels destroyed by Nato air attacks as they lay in ports along the Libyan coast. Their destruction shows how Muammar Gaddafi is being squeezed militarily, but also the degree to which the US, France and Britain, and not the Libyan rebels, are now the main players in the struggle for power in Libya. Probably Gaddafi will go down because he is too weak to withstand the forces arrayed against him. Failure to end his regime would be too humiliating and politically damaging for Nato after 2,700 air strikes. Once he goes, there will be a political vacuum that the opposition will scarcely be able to fill. The fall of the regime may usher in a new round of a long-running Libyan crisis that continues for years to come."

    By August, Gaddafi had fled and I was in Tripoli touring the abandoned palaces, villas and prisons of the ruling family that had so recently abandoned them. I tried not to be a professional pessimist, pointing out hopefully that, unlike Iraqis and Afghans, Libyans had a high standard of living, were well educated and were not split by age-old ethnic and sectarian divisions. But even this upbeat summary concluded plaintively as I added: "All the same, I wish the shooting outside my window would stop."

    It never really did stop. Tripoli was full of checkpoints that reminded me of Lebanon during the civil war of 1975 to 1990. The arrival of the new transitional government from Benghazi did not fill me with confidence since one of its first measures was to announce the end of the ban on polygamy introduced by Gaddafi. I had periodically visited Tripoli in the 1980s and 1990s and had noticed that, as in the oil states of the Gulf, most of the work was done by migrants from poor countries that were Libya's African neighbours. To find out what was happening in Libya at that time, I would go for a walk in the marketplace and fall into conversation with bored Ghanaians or Chadians, all migrants on their day off, who would tell me more about the real state of the country than any Libyan official or Western diplomat.

    But with the fall of Gaddafi, all black faces were regarded with suspicion by the new rulers as likely supporters of the fallen leader. They were often accused of being "pro-Gaddafi mercenaries", interrogated, jailed and occasionally murdered. Life for the migrant and indigenous black population was to get steadily worse in the coming years as Libya disintegrated, and by 2015 Ethiopian and Egyptian Christians were being executed by Islamic State's Libyan clone. Meanwhile, the West Europeans were reaping what they had sown by destroying the Libyan state: migrant labourers, who had once found jobs in Libyan markets and building sites, were now risking their lives as they sailed in over-crowded and unseaworthy boats across the Mediterranean in a desperate attempt to reach Europe.

    My fears about the "Somalianisation" of Libya, first expressed in March 2011, had turned out to be all too true. Four years later, Libya was ruled, in so far as it was ruled at all, by two governments, one based in Tripoli and the other in Tobruk, while real authority lay in the hands of militias that fought each other for power and money. Demonstrators in the streets of Tripoli were shot down by anti-aircraft machine guns whose large calibre bullets tore apart the bodies of protesters; Tripoli International Airport was destroyed in fighting between rival militias; torture was ubiquitous; and the country split between east and west. For all his quirky personality cult and monopoly of power, life in Libya under Gaddafi had not been as bad as this. The demonisation of Gaddafi had an unfortunate effect in ensuring the opposition had no real programme other than his replacement by themselves.

    Libyans were relieved at the end of 2011 to find that they no longer had to study the puerile nostrums of Gaddafi's Green Book – in the knowledge that if you failed the exam devoted to this work, you had to retake the entire course. But Libyans also found to their horror that they had lost a haphazard but functioning state, and with it personal security in the sense of being able to walk the streets in safety. They were now at the mercy of predatory militiamen who were paid out of Libya's diminished oil revenues. I remember a fellow journalist upbraiding me politely in 2011 for stressing the failings of the Libyan rebels, saying: "Let's remember who are the good guys." A few months later, as the revolution turned sour, good and bad in Libya were ever more difficult to tell apart.

    This was a common experience in the six countries most affected by the Arab Spring. By 2015, three of these – Libya, Syria and Yemen – were being ravaged by warfare and two others – Egypt and Bahrain – were ruled by authoritarian governments more brutal and dictatorial than anything that had gone before. Only in Tunisia, where it had all started, did an elected civilian government cling on, though increasingly destabilised by massacres of foreign tourists by Isis training camps in Libya. The Arab Spring had turned into the age of jihad.

    This is an extract from 'Chaos and Caliphate: Jihadis and the West in the Struggle for the Middle East' by Patrick Cockburn, published by OR Books, price £18. The discount code readers can use for 15% off 'Chaos and Caliphate' is: INDEPENDENT

    [Apr 23, 2016] Treanor Structures of Nationalism

    socresonline.org.uk


    Sociological Research Online, vol. 2, no. 1, < http://www.socresonline.org.uk/2/1/8.html>

    To cite from articles published in Sociological Research Online, please reference the above information and include paragraph numbers if necessary

    Received: 10/12/96 Accepted: 15/1/97 Published: 31/3/97

    Abstract

    The article reviews briefly the theory of nationalism, and introduces (yet another) definition of nations and nationalism. Starting from this definition of nationalism as a world order with specific characteristics, oppositions such as core and periphery, globalism/nationalism, and realism/idealism are formally rejected. Nationalism is considered as a purely global structure. Within this, it is suggested, the number of states tends to fall to an equilibrium number which is itself falling, this number of states being the current best approximation to a single world state. Within nationalism variants are associated with different equilibrium numbers: these variants compete. Together, as the nationalist structure, they formally exclude other world orders. Such a structure appears to have the function of blocking change, and it is tentatively suggested that it derives directly from an innate human conservatism. The article attempts to show how characteristics of classic nationalism, and more recent identity politics, are part of nationalist structures. They involve either the exclusion of other forms of state, or of other orders of states, or the intensification of identity as it exists.

    javpo


    Keywords:
    Culture; Globalism; Identity; Innovation; Multiculturalism; Nation State; Nationalism; Structuralism

    Introduction

    1.1
    If a world order of states is so arranged that similarity within each state is maximized, and the number of states is minimized, then that world order is a nationalist world order, and its components are nation states. This definition does not start from the characteristics of a nation, as many definitions of nationalism do. It starts instead from the world order, considering the nation only in a very abstract sense. Implicitly this definition is also a functionalist theory of nationalism, and this is expanded later in this article. The article closes with a more speculative section on how identity politics could replace nationalism, but continue its function.

    1.2
    That nations have a function, and what it is, is nowhere more clearly expressed than in President Clinton's First Inaugural speech:
    When our founders boldly declared America's independence to the world and our purposes to the Almighty, they knew that America, to endure, would have to change. Not change for change's sake, but change to preserve America's ideals - life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness. Though we march to the music of our time, our mission is timeless.
    1.3
    A world of nation states is a world of states built to maintain past ideals, where change is limited to that necessary for their survival, a world structured against 'change for the sake of change'. Structuralism, functionalism, and voluntarism are currently taboo in the social sciences. Yet, I think it strange to reject the clear explanations of the purpose of nationalism, so often given by nationalists and national leaders. In practice it is often an abdication of moral judgment on the actions of nationalists.

    1.4
    Before considering the relation of structure and function of nations, a brief indication of the range of theories of nationalism. Any comprehensive review of theories of nationalism could only be of book length (for instance Smith, 1983). The Oxford Reader on Nationalism (Hutchinson and Smith, 1994) collects examples of the main theories.

    1.5
    At least nine academic disciplines develop theories of nationalism and nation states:
    • political geography
    • international relations
    • political science
    • cultural anthropology
    • social psychology
    • political philosophy (normative theory)
    • international law and Staatsrecht
    • sociology
    • history

    1.6
    It is not surprising that authors in one discipline are unfamiliar with theory in another, or that there is overlap and duplication. Peter Alter (1985: p. 169) remarks that the literature can scarcely be overseen. In this fragmentation among disciplines, a plurality of theories is at least possible. In turn, plurality of theories should give more space for innovative theories - more than in a single recent paradigmatic discipline. (This reverses the standard assumption, that periods of revolution in science are the periods of innovation in science. Given fragmentation of disciplines, there might be more innovation in 'normal science' than through paradigm change.) However, in this respect nationalism theory is a disappointment. Plurality of disciplines has not produced an equivalent plurality of theory. Some common approaches recur across disciplines. Examples of such common features are the tendency, to approach nationalism on a country-by-country basis, and to date it as a phenomenon of modernity.

    1.7
    In any case, it is possible to give some simple (non-inclusive) categorization of theories of nationalism:
    • normative theory of nationalism in political philosophy, for instance in Walzer (1983).
    • theories of nationalism as political extremism. These use a definition of nationalism common in the media: as equivalent to jingoism, ethnic hatred, expansionism, militarism, or aggressive separatism, contrasted with constitutionalism, liberalism or patriotism (see Connor, 1994: pp. 196 - 209). This approach is related to 'shopping list' definitions of the extreme right (Mudde, 1996: pp. 228 - 9).
    • modernization theories of nationalism: these form the bulk of social science theory of nationalism
    • primordialist theories, disputing the modern origin of nations
    • civilization theories of nationalism, often implying an ultimate global community. Freud's (1932) comparison of peoples with primitive organisms is a core version of such a theory of nations.
    • historicist theories, which take the existence of nations as given, and consider their development (or obstacles to that development).
    • social-integrative theories, especially 'substitute religion' theories
    • state formation theories, residually explaining nationalism, usually as a product of centralizing policy to uniformity
    • global system or global order theories, which do not usually consider internal characteristics of nation states. Theory of state formation through war combines this with the last category (for instance, Rasler and Thompson, 1989).

    1.8
    This is only one categorization, and indicative only. James Goodman (1996), for instance, categorizes theories of nationalism into five approaches: ethno-national, modernization, state-centred, class-centred, and 'uneven development' theories.

    Little material is available online but a collection of further resources has been collected by the author and can be accessed from here. Links are ordered on the basis of scale, not of categories of theory, and the list is mainly illustrative.

    1.9
    Four authors have dominated academic consideration of nationalism in the last 10 years:

    1.10
    The first three are in the category modernization theories, A. D. Smith is the main 'primordialist'. Gellner's academic field was the philosophy of sociology, Anderson taught international relations, Hobsbawm is a social historian, and Smith a sociologist (notes in Hutchinson and Smith, 1994).

    1.11
    Gellner's work is the most consistently theoretical: it proposes a model of the transformation to nation states derived from economic factors:
    So the economy needs both the new type of central culture and the central state; the culture needs the state; and the state probably needs the homogeneous branding of its flock ... (Gellner, 1983: p. 140)
    1.12
    Anderson does not propose a derivation of this kind, but his central thesis is that communication and media did facilitate the emergence of nations as imagined communities. For Anderson, only face- to-face contact can sustain community: nations are in some sense an illusion. Both of these views date nationalism as definitively modern. A. D. Smith's central thesis is that pre-modern equivalents of nations existed - indirectly invalidating the modernization theories. Hobsbawm's article on invented tradition appeared earlier, but can be read as a refutation of the pre-modern origin of national tradition. Hobsbawm gives examples of how such tradition, even the sustaining myth of nations, can be borrowed, added to, or simply invented. (A similar work by Bernard Lewis (1977), did not apparently have the same impact.)

    1.13
    The so-called resurgence of nationalism in Eastern Europe after 1989 brought these works to media attention, as well as academic status. (At one time I could chose between six different courses on them, at one university.) All of them are also very readable, with much interesting illustration from the history of nations. No more recent work has made the same impact, and the fixation on the themes of these authors may have limited theoretical perspectives.

    1.14
    Any attempt to compress these works into one paragraph is inadequate. However, one thing is clear: the authors have not engaged in any wide speculation about hypothetical worlds of entirely non-national states. Nations are explained in these theories, not the absence of non-nations. Insofar as possible alternatives are considered, these are possible continuations of the mediaeval European order.

    Universalist Particularism

    2.1
    Most nationalism theory pays little attention to nationalism as a world order. This is surprising, since nationalists themselves so often treat it as such. Some definitions of nationalism are entirely particularistic: Elwert (1989: p. 37) says that nationalists only want a nation for themselves, not others. This is untrue: nationalists have often wanted other nations. The classic example is Mazzini, who founded or inspired not only Young Italy, but Young Germany, Switzerland, Poland, Bohemia and Argentina among others (Mack Smith, 1994: pp. 11-12). Mazzini's vision was global: he saw the peoples as nothing less then the units of humanity's army:
    L'Umanità è un grande esercito che move alla conquista di terre incognite, contro nemici potenti e avveduti. I Popoli sono i diversi corpi, le divisioni di quello esercito. (Mazzini (1860) [1953]: p. 89)
    2.2
    This is a metaphor, but it should emphasize the extreme universalism of nationalism. Armies are not known for maximizing autonomy or individual will. Any listing of the ethical claims of nationalism (the subject of a separate article) will show that nationalism can not de derived, from Enlightenment ideas of self-determination. That was the basic thesis of Elie Kedourie's influential Nationalism (1960, revised 1992).

    2.3
    Peter Taylor (1989: p. 175) summarizes the world as seen by nationalists, at three levels (approximately the global, national and individual).
    • The world is, for them, a mosaic of nations which find harmony when all are free nation states.
    • Nations themselves are natural units with a cultural homogeneity based on common ancestry or history, each requiring its own sovereign state on its own inalienable territory.
    • Individuals all belong to a nation, which requires their first loyalty, and in which they find freedom.

    2.4
    This standard nationalist thought says more about nationalism than the immediate goals of any one nationalist group. For both of these things - world view and activism - the word 'nationalism' is used. This may be confusing, but it is also misleading to split nationalism into 'international relations' and 'internal politics', and then include secessionism in the second category. Basque separatists in Northern Spain and South-western France want a nation state, and are labelled nationalists: the governments of France and Spain, who have already got a nation state, are not. There is undeniably a secessionist nationalism, with claims against a larger state, such as those of the ETA. However, the definition at the start of this article is intended to emphasize the global effect of such movements, and their historical equivalence to the founders of the states they oppose. The term nationalism is used here, deliberately, to describe both aspects of the phenomenon.

    2.5
    Nationalism is not a particularism. It is a universalism, a consistent vision or ideology. Autonomy, secession, war and conquest can be compatible with a universal shared goal. Apparently amending his earlier view of nationalism, Peter Taylor (1995: p. 10) described one world as 'the nemesis of interterritoriality'. However, a world of nations can still be one world, if it is one nationalist world. The definition of nationalism used here is intended to emphasize this universal, 'world order', aspect of nationalism. Since nations, united nations.

    2.6
    The definition implies that nationalism is a substitute for a world state. If cultural homogeneity cannot be achieved, because co-ordination over distance is not perfect, then a strategy of co-operating local similarities is the best option. The number of cultures on earth will be the outcome of this strategy. Later, as states form on the basis of pre-existing ethnic or cultural groups, the number of states will also derive from this strategy. If there are too few states, and each too large, they may become internally diverse. If there are too many, they will differ too much among themselves. It is therefore not possible to project the long term fall in the number of states to the point at which only one is left, as Robert Carneiro did (1976; see Chase- Dunn, 1990). The trend to fewer political units seemed clear enough to Carneiro, to project a date for world government: 2300 AD. If however, the nationalist world order is considered as a global structure, and not seen as competing states, then there is no certainty of reaching a single world state. If there is already such a global order, globalization does not imply the reduction of its components to one. Instead, there is an optimum number of nation states at any one time, within such a nationalist world order. That optimum is determined by limits of communications, transport, and the degree of political and social organization. This number is falling, but constraints of distance may never be eroded enough to reduce it to one. The optimum number may in fact exceed the number of states that now exist. The many separatist movements, the success of small states, and the fact that there are many more languages than states, all indicate a world with many more than 185 states: perhaps closer to 1000.

    2.7
    That implies a change in the nature of the component states. The classic 19th century European nation state, the basis of most definitions of nationalism, would best fit a world of between 200 and 500 states. It is a universalism: but there are competing universalisms, variants within nationalism. This is very clear in Europe, where these variants are used as programmes for the whole continent. Most are serious, some are what might be called geopolitical kitsch (Heineken, 1992; Pedersen, 1992). Classic nationalists speak of Europe des patries, ethno-nationalists of Europe des ethnies (Heraud, 1993), regionalists of Europe of the regions (Borrп╠s-Alomar, 1994). Only in Europe are the alternatives formulated so explicitly, but these universalist structures are implicitly global. They are ways of dividing the world: alternatives to classic nationalism. In other words, use of similar terms at a global scale can be expected: a world of the regions, a world of the peoples, and so on.

    2.8
    There is what might be called world- nationalism, associated with a single global state. Its explicit form is world federalism, and plans to the UN into a sort of world government. This centuries-old tradition (see ter Meulen, 1917; van der Linden, 1987) is represented by the work of Richard Falk (1987; 1992) and many others (Marien, 1995: pp. 297 - 301). It is paralleled by the philosophical tradition of cosmopolitanism (see Toulmin, 1990), and by a belief in globalization. (Marien's 1995 article covers a very wide range of global visions, from New Age to neo-liberal.) Then there is inter-culturalism - the division of the world into 5 to 50 cultures or civilizations, once used in organicist versions by historians (Demandt, 1978: pp. 96 - 101), and recently revived by Samuel Huntington (1993). At the same scale are the pan- nationalist movements, all of them failures until now (Snyder, 1984: p. 254). Then there is classic (inter-) nationalism, the basis of the existing world order. Next to that is ethno-nationalism (Connor, 1994; Heraud, 1993; Tiryakian, 1985; Watson, 1990). Although there is no clear distinction between some 'nations' and 'peoples', the scale of the inter-ethnic world is very different, with up to 10,000 'peoples'. It is this variant which has the clearest demands at present, classically stated in the International Covenant on the Rights of Indigenous Nations (CWIS, 1994). At a similar scale is a historic-cultural-linguistic regionalism, well organized in Europe (see Kohr, 1986; Labasse, 1991). These regions are often seen as units of a future federal Europe, combining regionalism with a weak pan-nationalism. Finally although it rarely generates separatism, there is an inter-localism: it sees the small community, the village or neighbourhood, as the only authentic unit of social organization.

    2.9
    In all these variants, the possible states share four functional characteristics (described later), and there is a global order of such states. I would emphasize that this article is not intended to explain all aspects of nationalism, but to consider why states do not deviate from this model.

    Core, Periphery, Hegemony

    3.1
    In universal structures (functional or not) there is logically no core or periphery - at least, not in the sense of most world system models. However, competition between universalisms can create this appearance. Some separatist movements, for instance, defy the expected logic of core and periphery: the Lega Nord, or Catalonian separatism. Mansvelt Beck (1991) explains this as an 'inverted core- periphery relationship'. This kind of explanation can be avoided on the assumption that there is no real separatism at all. Catalonian regionalism is regionalism, a model for the whole world, not just Spain: Basque nationalism is a manifestation of global ethno- nationalism, and so on. The variants of nationalism are superimposed universalisms. An ETA attack on a Spanish army barracks is, seen in this way, a clash of universalisms.

    3.2
    To this extent, nationalist movements cannot logically be analyzed in terms of social movement theories. (This is an example of the formal consequences of adopting the universalist definition used in this article). Nor can electoral support for 'nationalist parties' be analyzed. In Britain, the Scottish National Party supports a nation state, but then so do the Labour Party and the Conservative Party. Support for nationalism in UK elections is consistently around 99 percent. Again, separatist sentiment is labelled nationalist, but unionist sentiment is not. In this way, SNP support enters a different category for electoral analysis: but this is a purely taxonomic effect.

    3.3
    In a similar way, a rise in the number of states may generate the illusion of power, struggle and resistance. This may be the case, even if there is no difference of scale. All units (potential states) might be comparable, as with Czechoslovakia, Czechia, and Slovakia. These are all classic European nation states. However, seen from Slovakia, Czechoslovakia stands for hegemonic culture, an imposed universalism, oppression and 'power'. Earlier, the Slavic nationalists who inspired the Czechoslovak state, had opposed the dominance of German-language culture in Central Europe. Earlier still, German romantic nationalists had opposed the dominance of French Enlightenment rationalist culture. All secessionist movements are anti-hegemonic and anti-universalist, until independence day. After that they become another's hegemonic universalism, another's 'state'. And, indeed, Slovakia has been criticized, for its treatment of the Hungarian minority.

    3.4
    Logically, in a perfect order of nations, there is no dominance or 'power': everyone co-operates a nationalist in sustaining the structure. This may however involve changing the number of states, creating the illusion of conflict. People volunteer for military service: that is said to prove they are willing to die for their country. It is equally logical to say they die for the functioning of the world order. That, emphasized, in a perfect order of nations.

    3.5
    This is an abstraction, true. Nevertheless, it is not such an abstraction that is has no real effect. Conflicts do involve common reinforcement, including reinforcement of national structure. Secession, especially, forces both sides further into their own identity. Identity makes counter- identity (see Barth, 1969), as with Slovak and Czech. It is probably true that Czecho-Slovakia is more nationalist since it split: it is certainly true of Yugoslavia. In this way the action of individuals in one nation can intensify global identity, affecting the number of nations in the process. So it is logically possible that there is no national oppression, nor national liberation. The 'struggle' is to intensify nationalism, the world order. Inside it, to oppress or be oppressed as a nation serves the same function. In practice, an oppressed group will say it is a nation fighting a state: the state will say it is a nation fighting terrorists.

    Global/National, Order/Chaos

    4.1
    Another opposition recurrent in theory on nations is that between the national and the global (see Arnason, 1990). The nation state and national culture are being eroded by global communication - it is often said. It is said that Internet will dissolve nations. Much the same thing was said about satellite television, air travel, radio, the telegraph, and railways. Nation states are still here. Yet few people are sceptical about 'globalization' (Cox, 1992; Smith, 1990), and in a sense there is no reason to be. There is no erosion of the national by the global, but only because there is nothing to erode. Nationalism is 100% global: a world order cannot logically be further globalized.

    4.2
    The components of an order do not stand in opposition to it: certainly not in the sense implied by the term 'globalization'. The implicit assumption is that nations are particular entities, necessarily at a sub-global level. In other worlds, the whole idea starts from the assumption that there is no universal nationalism. If I claim the people on the pitch at a football match walked there by chance, and I see them playing football, then I could say they are being 'football- ized'. In fact they went there as a group, for that purpose.

    4.3
    The question is why there is such enthusiasm for the concept of globalization. First, it is in the nature of nationalism itself. The world of nations is an imperfect substitute for a homogenous world state: it is logical for nationalists to hope it is approaching. Secondly, the enthusiasm is in any case matched by the anti-universalist ideas mentioned above. There are books and conferences on the coming global state, but equally on the rise of regions. It seems possible to combine two scales of thought, for instance in cultural pan-syncretism (see Nederveen Pieterse, 1993) or sub-state federation (Bengoetxea, 1993). Thirdly, this is only one example of a pattern: for each of the level of scale of nationalism, there are possible upward and downward transitions. Shifts from the ethno-regional to the global, for instance, or from pan-nationalism to linguistic regionalism.
    4.4
    Only three of these possibilities are active at present:
    • globalism, more normative than descriptive
    • anti-hegemonic criticism of existing national states and their cultures, without any territorial effect as yet. In reaction there is some new defence of the nation state, especially in response to multiculturalism and identity politics. This applies most in high-immigration western industrialized countries, where it is a major issue. (The U.S.A. especially: see Schlesinger, 1992.) In any case, more recent interest in fusion, hybridity, and 'crossing boundaries' favours pan- nationalism. Separatist identity politics seems on the way out.
    • ethno-nationalism, and in Europe regionalism at the same subnational scale - which enjoys some support within the EU (van der Knaap, 1994).

    This last is by far the most active shift. The next ten years are unlikely to see a world government, and the US is unlikely to break up (and does not need Arthur Schlesinger to save it): but it might see an independent Vlaanderen or Catalunya, or the definitive break-up of Afghanistan.

    4.5
    The world order of nations is therefore characterized by both secession and fusion, but it is not being 'torn apart'. It is a structure being rebuilt to function better. All these shifts in scale merely substitute one universalism for another, all variants of one world order. There is no dramatic fragmentation, and no paradigmatic shift to one world community. No shift is needed.

    4.6
    It also follows, from the definitions used here, that a world of nation states cannot be chaotic or anarchic. The academic discipline of international relations is influenced by the idea of a slow progress toward the imposition of some kind of order on warring, aggressive states, the tradition of, for instance, Hedley Bull (1977, 1984). This tradition concedes some 'order in the system'. However, logically there cannot be anything else but order. A world order is by definition not disorder: international relations are by definition 'idealist' in International Relations terms, and a national state cannot be a Machtsstaat. So called realism models a world of aggressively competitive states - sometimes identified with mediaeval Europe. From this a recognition of commonalities may emerge, and states may co-operate, bringing order and peace. Those who consider this inherent or inevitable are usually classified as idealist.

    4.7
    But war is not disorder: Carneiro's model, the simplest possible, demonstrates that states disappear through 'competitive exclusion' until there is one left: there are many wars, but it is an ordered, linear process (see Cioffi-Revilla, 1991). The realist/idealist dispute ignores the type of state involved. The question is not why there are so many wars between nations, but why there are so few wars between non-nations. Not why there is ethnic cleansing, but why there is so little non-ethnic cleansing. Not what is international relations, but why there are only inter-national relations. Any attempt to imagine a fundamentally non-national world, should make clear how stable the world of nations is. Nation states can apparently fight each other, without risk of emergence of new state forms in the alleged 'chaos'.

    Other Worlds

    5.1
    It may seem that all this imposes a simplistic order on a complex world. However it is nationalists who want to impose a simple structure, and they have been remarkably successful. Of course the world order is not perfect, and states do have autonomous interests. These may be of the kind graphically attributed to them in pre-war Geopolitik (Schmidt, 1929), or less obsessively in recent geopolitical atlases. Nations do sometimes act as entities 'seeking access to the sea', or 'control of river basins', or resources, or historical territories. The Schmidt-Haack Atlas maps tens of different types of claim, and some were later used by Germany. However, if all nation states consistently acted like this, there would be constant all-state war.
    5.2
    There is also the possibility that a state will turn against the world order, a real renegade state. Usually this term merely indicates a state disliked by western policy makers: see Dror (1971) on 'crazy states'. A real renegade state would have to stop being a nation state: no-one speaks of 'crazy nations'. More probable is that nationalism as a universal order conflicts with other universalisms; other world orders of one or more states, or perhaps a stateless world. The definition of nationalism used here, defines it as a monolith with great historical continuity. It should then react to competing monoliths, as a unit. The Greek polis is often cited as the prototype of nations, indeed of all political community. It was also a unit within an order of similar states. That Hellenic order may have had a proto-national identity itself. However, as an order of city states, it was in intermittent conflict with Asian empires. The present order of nation states covers the globe, however, so that any competing world will be found within it.
    5.3
    There is at present one clear example of a competing world order: theocratic religious universalism, of the kind promoted (in Britain) by the Muslim Unity Organization. It advocates a world caliphate, khilafa. It is not accidental that this group operates from Britain: the existing Islamic nation states would be the first to disappear on the road to the caliphate. However small such groups are, they have a coherent and radical alternative not just to 'the West', but to the whole existing world:
    ...there is a long and still vibrant tradition of Muslim agitation against nationalism and the nation state. The most recent manifestation of this agitation has had Shi'i inspiration, but there are no significant differences between Sunni and Shi'a on this question, or between Arab and non-Arab Muslims. Feeling that Islam's decline is due chiefly to the adoption of Western ideas and culture, all express pessimism and suggest a radical restructuring of the world order. (Piscatori, 1986: p. 145)
    5.4
    A complete alternative world order is unlikely to control any territory within the world order it rejects. It is however not adequate to consider such universalist Islamic movements as 'social movements' within existing nation states. They cannot be accommodated within the 'public domain' of these states, as suggested by John Rex (1996) in a previous article in Sociological Research Online. This has nothing to do with their immigrant or ethnic status: a Catholic theocracy would not fit into a liberal democratic nation state either.

    Blocking

    6.1
    As long as there are nations, there will be no caliphate; it is neither a people, nor a region, nor a nation, nor a culture. Structurally, nationalism excludes other entities from state status. Nationalism is a blocking world order: it excludes other worlds. It is difficult to imagine all these possible worlds from inside the world of nations, and that is part of its success. Any attempt to imagine them will lead to apparent absurdity.

    6.2
    What nationalism blocks, above all, is change. The definition of nationalism as tending to total homogeneity implies stability also. The order blocks, but not without direction. It may well be, in itself, empty: it does not define, for instance, what language will be spoken in the third nation east of the Rhine. That does not stop it having a purpose. If the world order of nations (as defined here) is superimposed on a world, it will block change in time, and exclude the alternative worlds that are possible at any point in time. That is an ethical choice, and the ethics of nations are outside the scope of this article, as noted.

    6.3
    If nationalism is chosen, someone chose it. No one person invented nationalism: the most logical 'someone' is, exactly as Mazzini suggested, humanity. There is some theory which links the nation to the psyche: the most obvious areas of interest are self-determination (Ronen, 1979) and personal identity, sense of self (Bloom, 1990). I suggest the structure of nationalism derives from an innate human conservatism. This is no more absurd than saying that structures of reservoirs and water supply derive from an innate human need for water. It does not imply that all persons at all times are absolutely conservative. (Nor does it contradict biology: change causes stress.)

    6.4
    How can the world order of nations answer such an innate aversion to change? First, in that it gives a monopoly of state formation - and so of sovereignty - to nations. Not that all states correspond exactly to one nation: again, the point is how few states correspond to non-national entities. They do exist as historical curiosities: the Vatican, and the autonomous Agio Oros (Athos) in Greece. Some nationalists have a horror of a state without a nation: see Heraud's comment on the Vatican as a product of History, 'qui est violence' (1993: p. 11). If national divisions were not dominant, there should be more of these counter-examples. Secondly, the nation itself is past-based. Trans-generationality is a key characteristic of nations, and found in many definitions of nation. Writing on the subjective experience of cultural identity, A. D. Smith (1990: p. 179) names three components of shared experience: a sense of transgenerational continuity, shared memories, and a sense of common destiny. Collapsing the three into one gives the purpose of a nation: it exists to project the past (as collectively remembered) into the future, as little changed as possible. Nationalists almost do not ignore the future:

    Nations are thus projects for the future and have the right to self-determination in order to organise their future. (Bengoetxea, 1993: p.95)
    6.5
    However in a national world order, nations are the only entities with self-determination and territory, and they are past- constituted. Just as with the world order, the nation is empty but not directionless: superimpose a nation on a heritage, and it will preserve it. In fact it will make the past into a 'heritage', one of the metaphors of possession common in nationalism. It is logical in nations, that the past should increase its share of economy, society and culture (see Horne, 1984; Lowenthal, 1985), that territory undergoes 'heritage-ization' (Walsh, 1992: pp. 138 - 147), that memory is cultural (see Assman, 1988) and that its preservation is a task of the state. Despite Lowenthal's title, the past is not treated as an apart entity, but rather divided up to correspond to existing nations. The world is thus occupied by states projecting parallel pasts into the future: there is no non-memory space, no space which is not of the past.

    6.6
    Thirdly, the nations are in principle eternal, and so the nation state, and so the world order. (Dependent territories and mandates can have a formal time limit, but this relates to a transfer of power. Mandate territories become independent nation states, or join an existing neighbour.) The idea of setting up a state for a limited time for a specific purpose is alien to nationalism. The exceptions which show it is possible - for example extraterritorial mining concessions - are curiosities in a world of nations. The projection of the past will continue.

    6.7
    Fourth, and most specifically, no state has ever been established for the primary purpose of change. This logical possibility is not limited by available technology or culture - it could have been done 1000 years ago.

    6.8
    Returning to the definition: there logically exists a general class of orders of states where the boundaries are not drawn so as to maximise change. In other words, a class of change-limiting orders, in effect change-minimizing orders. The order of nations is probably the most effective of these. Formally, it is an order of coterminous states covering the entire land surface, formed by transgenerational identity communities, claiming a monopoly of state formation, and eternal legitimacy. All the scale variants of nationalism conform to this definition.

    6.9
    These four functional characteristics of the nationalist world order emphasize how different it is from other possible orders, and how it has excluded them for a long time. In effect it has become superimposed on the world, by choice. It would be inaccurate to say it arrived at one instant. No-one can give a definitive date for when nationalism began: Marcu (1976: pp. 3 - 15) quotes 41 different views on the issue. Instead, a structure has been elaborated and intensified, and the beginnings of other structures have been abandoned. Compare the five possible futures of thirteenth century Europe suggested by Tilly (1975: p. 26), or the different routes to the national identity suggested by Armstrong (1982: pp. 283 - 300). The intensification has increased in the last 200 years, as nations become more national.

    6.10
    It is a property of nationalism that intensifying the national identity intensifies the world order. Most theory of nationalism attributes this process to the state, at most to the interaction of state and civil society:
    Après avoir ajusté à leur échelle propre l'armée, la justice, la religion et l'administration, ils en viennent à nationaliser le marché (impôts, douanes, lois et règlements, poids et mesures, etc.) à nationaliser l'école (langue officielle, programmes, examens, etc.) et, de proche en proche, à nationaliser encore la conscription, les services publics, certaines entreprieses au moins (chemins de fer, postes, ports etc.) ... l'Etat tend à façonner toute la societé civile, laquelle tend, en retour, a soumettre l'Etat à ses finalités propres... (Fossaert, 1994: p. 195)

    After having adjusted the army, the courts, religion and administration to national scale, they start to national-ise the market (taxes, customs, laws and regulations, weights and measures), to national-ise the schools (official language, educational programmes, exams), and then to nationalise in turn, conscription, public service, some business enterprises (railways, post, ports) ... The State forms civil society, which in turn begins to use the State for its own goals... (Fossaert, 1994: p. 195)

    6.11
    The logic of nationalism however, is that this is a process of convergence driven from below, that the national identity is exactly what A. D. Smith (1990: p. 179) says it is not: an average. The state is merely an instrument. Too large a state and the convergence will be ineffective, too small and the averages will differ too much - and so back to the starting definition. Neither secession nor conquest disturb this process in the long run: the new nations will have their own 'nationalization', their own convergence. In other words, even at the level of the individual state, attitudes to change can determine the degree of national uniformity. Secession, in effect, punishes the state for allowing too much difference in the population. This is not an abstraction: many nationalists explicitly value homogeneous communities.

    6.12
    In any case, daily reality in most nations is not secession, but less spectacular processes of emancipation. Nations are not perfect: they include minorities (or majorities) which do not conform to the national ideal, but have no other national identity. Repeatedly, such groups chose to integrate into the nation, rather than allow non-national secession. They pressure the state for inclusion, and often try to adjust the national identity, through cultural politics. Once again, there is no political-geographic inevitability in this: if people can secede as a nation they can secede as something else. They chose not to, with some historical exceptions. Again, the remarkable feature of the world order of nations is not the number of secessionist movements, but the fact that all of them represent a people, or a nation.

    6.13
    A good example of the intensity of this choice is the campaign of gay and lesbian groups - especially in the U.S.A. - against the military ban on service, for 'the right to die for my country'. It seems absurd to demand to be killed in an army which discriminates against you. The emotions here can only be nationalist, U.S.A. nationalist: a sort of desperate desire to be part of an identity, to conform, to belong, not to be different. This is an example of genuine anger directed against the state, for failing to homogenize the nation. The logically possible alternatives do not occur. Despite the influence of religion in the U.S.A., there is no comparable demand for the 'right to die for my church', let alone any other organization. There is also no serious secessionist movement of gays and/or lesbians despite decades of social organization. When Cardinal Archbishop Quarracino of Buenos Aires proposed (in August 1994) a 'separate country for homosexuals', he had to publicly apologise, saying it was a joke. He did not know, probably, of Queer Nation (Bérubé, 1991; Chee, 1991), nor that it makes no territorial demands, despite its name.

    6.14
    Many processes, then, which may seem separate or contradictory, can be described in a structure of nationalism, starting from its formal definition as a specific world order. Integration through formalism is a characteristic of conspiracy theories: does all this imply a vast conspiracy involving almost all humans over centuries? Not necessarily: it is possible to generate complex structures from simple rules. The most general rule for a nationalist world as a blocking world order would be approximately: 'if there is change, intensify identity'. A second rule might be to intensify identity preferably by fusion or accretion, and only if that failed, by secession. However, it is not necessary to imply a hidden formal grammar of nationalism. People do not need one: they can reflect on what is happening, and produce open doctrines of complex action - as did Mazzini, and other nationalist ideologists.

    Identity Politics and Territory

    7.1
    National identity links the individual to the world order. It has also been a central theme in universities over the last 15 - 20 years. Especially so, in English-speaking countries where a liberal political tradition is confronted by ethnic diversity (Rex, 1996). Some of that academic activity has an obvious link to nationalism, ethnic studies for example. More generally, there is an interest in what might be called structures of cultural identity, which may have a spatial or territorial counterpart.

    7.2
    In the US the work of bell hooks, for instance, shows a transition from marginality as a 'site of deprivation' to a 'site of resistance' to a 'site one stays in' (hooks, 1990: p. 341), which is almost a summary of secessionist nationalism. In this way nationalist models, even of classic Mazzinian nationalism, may be adopted for identity politics. (That is, without necessarily breaking up existing nation states.) This continuity from 19th century nationalism to recent identity politics has yet to be researched. Even before the First World War, the Austro-Marxist Bauer (1907) anticipated the model of a multicultural state, now common in political speech in western Europe. Already in 1944, Louis Adamic described the United States as 'A Nation of Nations', and President Kennedy echoed the idea in the sixties (Kennedy, 1964). In contrast to Benedict Anderson's view (1992) that multiculturalism is transitional, there is no reason why a nation state can not be a Vielvölkerstaat, with diversity as a national value. The ultimate logic would be to make each nation itself a microcosm of the world order: united nations of united nations.

    7.3
    It seems possible that use of identity can be further intensified, possibly to the point that a non-territorial structure of transgenerational identity replaces classic nationalism. For an example of the new politics, see the post-structuralist critique of Transgender Nation by Newitz (1993), and other texts at the same site. The new world order could be 'syncretic', a term from the study of religion (see Colpe, 1987). It could be a world order of gender pluralism, trans- diaspora cultures, trans-trans hybrids, and other new combinations of the existing - suppressing change by the volume of diversity.

    7.4
    More probable is, that the parallels between the new politics and the old, will reinforce classic nationalism. Take this (random) example: a comment on bell hooks from a recent paper on spaces of citizenship:
    In hooks's case these 'homes' entailed her grandparent's house and then the black neighbourhoods containing this house and also her own, and the implication is that these houses and neighbourhoods were rather more to her than 'just' sites of belonging, they were also sites where black people could escape from the antagonism, anger and attacks which arose when they trespassed on white space (however legitimate in legal terms their presence in this white space would actually be). In other words, hooks indicates something of how black people can never be citizens confidently occupying the spaces of white society, but hints too at how they may find ways of trying to foster alternative locales in which some sense of being a citizen - this time of a distinctively black world - is made possible. (Painter & Philo, 1995: pp. 116 - 7)
    7.5
    Change some names and this becomes much less friendly:
    In Tudjman's case these 'homes' entailed his grandparent's house and then the Croat neighbourhoods containing this house and also his own, and the implication is that these houses and neighbourhoods were rather more to him than 'just' sites of belonging, they were also sites where Croat people could escape from the antagonism, anger and attacks which arose when they trespassed on Yugoslav space (however legitimate in legal terms their presence in this Yugoslav space would actually be). In other words, Tudjman indicates something of how Croat people can never be citizens confidently occupying the spaces of Yugoslav society, but hints too at how they may find ways of trying to foster alternative locales in which some sense of being a citizen - this time of a distinctively Croat world - is made possible.
    7.6
    And of course it was made possible.

    7.7
    There is no need to reinvent nationalism, for nations have not disappeared, but some people seem determined to reinvent it anyway. The structure of nationalism is being altered, but its singularity and purpose are not. It remains one structure, one world order excluding other worlds. The man who more than anyone, was the founding father of modern nationalism, Johann Gottlieb Herder, wrote in 1774:
    Ist nicht das Gute auf der Erde ausgestreut? Weil eine Gestalt der Menschheit und ein Erdstrich es nicht fassen konnte, wards geteilt in tausend Gestalten, wandelt - ein ewiger Proteus! - durch alle Weltteile und Jahrhunderte hin...(Herder, 1990/1774: p. 36)
    7.8
    Nationalism is a Proteus, but it changes only to prevent change. Rewriting Herder in the negative gives the judgment of nationalism: Only that which is already strewn about the Earth, is good.

    References

    ADAMIC, L. (1944) A Nation of Nations. New York: Harper.

    ALTER, P. (1985) Nationalismus. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. (Translation: Nationalism (1989) London: Edward Arnold.)

    ANDERSON, B. (1983) Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso.

    ANDERSON, B. (1992) Long Distance Nationalism: World Capitalism and the Rise of Identity Politics. Amsterdam: Centre for Asian Studies Amsterdam.

    ARMSTRONG, J. A. (1982) Nations Before Nationalism. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

    ARNASON, J. (1990) 'Nationalism, Globalization and Modernity', Theory, Culture and Society, vol. 7, pp. 207 - 236.

    ASSMANN, J (1988) 'Kollektives Geduchtnis und kulturelle Identitut' in J. Assmann & T. Hilscher (editors) Kultur und Geduchtnis. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

    BARTH, F. (1969) Introduction to Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The Social Organization of Culture Difference. Bergen: Universitetsforlaget.

    BAUER, O. (1907) Die Nationalitutenfrage und die Sozialdemokratie. Wien: Verlag der Wiener Volksbuchhandlung Ignaz Brand

    BENGOETXEA, J. (1993) 'L'etat c'est Fini?' in Mikael M. Karlsson, Olafur Pall Jonsson, Eyja Margret & Brynjarsdottir Recht (editors) Recht, Gerechtigkeit und der Staat. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.

    BERUBE, A. & ESCOFFIER, J. (1991) 'Queer/Nation', Out/look, Winter, pp. 12 - 14.

    BLOOM, W. (1990) Personal Identity, National Identity and International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    BORRп╠s-ALOMAR, S. (1994) 'Towards a "Europe of the regions"? Visions and Reality from a Critical Perspective', Regional Politics and Policy, vol. 2, pp. 1 - 27.

    BULL, H. & WATSON, A. (1984) The Expansion of International Society. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    BULL, H. (1977) The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics. London: Macmillan.

    CARNEIRO, R. (1976) 'Political Expansion as an Expression of the principle of competitive Exclusion' in R. Cohen & E. Service (editors) Origins of the State: The Anthropology of Political Evolution. Philadelphia: Institute for the Study of Human Issues.

    CHASE-DUNN, C. (1990) World State Formation: Historical Processes and Emergent Necessity', Political Geography Quarterly, vol. 9, pp. 108 - 130.

    CHEE, A. (1991) 'Queer Nationalism', Out/look, Winter, pp. 15-19.

    CIOFFI-REVILLA, C. (1991) 'The Long-Range Analysis of War', Journal of Interdisciplinary History, vol. 21, pp. 603 - 629.

    COLPE, C. (1987) 'Syncretism' in M. Eliade (editor) Encyclopedia of Religion. New York: Macmillan.

    CONNOR, W. (1994) Ethnonationalism: The Quest for Understanding. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    COX, K. (1992) 'The Politics of Globalization: A Sceptic's View', Political Geography, vol. 11, pp. 427 - 429.

    CWIS (CENTER FOR WORLD INDIGENOUS STUDIES) (1994) International Covenant on the Rights of Indigenous Nations. Geneva. ftp://ftp.halcyon.com/pub/FWDP/International/icrin-94.txt

    DEMANDT, A. (1978) Metaphern fur Geschichte: Sprachbilder und Gleichnisse in historisch-politischen Denken. Munchen: Beck.

    DROR, Y. (1971) Crazy States: A Counterconventional Strategic Problem. Lexington, MA: Heath Lexington.

    ELWERT, G. (1989) 'Nationalismus, Ethnizitet und Nativismus - ober die Bildung von Wir-Gruppen' in P. Waldmann & G. Elwert (editors) Ethnizitet im Wandel. Saarbrucken: Breitenbach.

    FALK, R. (1987) The Promise of world Order: Essays in normative International Relations. Brighton: Wheatsheaf.

    FALK, R. (1992) Explorations at the Edge of Time: The Prospects for World Order. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

    FOSSAERT, R. (1994) 'La Question Nationale, et Apres?', Herodote, nos. 72 - 73, pp. 193 - 200.

    FREUD, S. (1932) [1972]Warum Krieg? Gesammelte Werke XVI. Frankfurt am Main: Fischer.

    GELLNER, E. (1983) Nations and Nationalism. Blackwell: Oxford.

    GOODMAN, J. (1996) Nationalism and Transnationalism: The National Conflict in Ireland and European Union Integration. Aldershot: Avebury.

    HEINEKEN, A. H. (1992) The United States of Europe: A Eurotopia? Amsterdam: Amsterdamsche Stichting voor de Historische Wetenschap.

    HERAUD, G. (1993) L'Europe des Ethnies (3rd edition). Bruxelles: Bruylant.

    HERDER, J. G. (1990) [1774] Auch eine Philosophie der Geschichte zur Bildung der Menschheit. Stuttgart: Reclam.

    HOBSBAWM, E & RANGER, T. (editors) (1983) The invention of Tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    HOBSBAWM, E. J. (1992) Nations and Nationalism Since 1780: Programme, Myth, Reality. 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    HOOKS, bell (1990) 'Marginality as a Site of Resistance' in Russell Ferguson, Martha Gever, Trinh Minh-ha & Cornel West (editors) Out There: Marginalization and Contemporary Cultures. New York: New Museum of Contemporary Art.

    HORNE, D. (1984) The Great Museum: The Re- Presentation of History. London: Pluto.

    HUNTINGTON, S. (1993) 'The Clash of Civilizations', Foreign Affairs, vol. 72, no. 3, pp. 22 - 49.

    HUTCHINSON, J. & SMITH, A. D. (editors) (1994) Nationalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    KEDOURIE, E. (1994) (Fourth, revised edition) Nationalism. Oxford: Blackwell.

    KENNEDY, J. F. (1964) [1958] A Nation of Immigrants. New York: Harper.

    KNAAP, P. van der (1994) 'The Committee of the Regions: The Onset of a "Europe of the Regions"?', Regional Politics and Policy, vol. 4, no. 20, pp. 86 - 100.

    KOHR, L. (1957) [1986] The Breakdown of Nations. London: Routledge.

    LABASSE, J. (1991) 'Geopolitique et Regions d'Europe', L'information Geographique, vol. 1, pp. 89 - 98.

    LEWIS, B. (1977) History: Remembered, Recovered, Invented (2nd printing, with corrections). Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    LINDEN, W. H. van der (1987) The International Peace Movement 1815-1874. Amsterdam: Tilleul.

    LOWENTHAL, D. (1985) The Past is a Foreign Country. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    MACK SMITH, D. (1994) Mazzini. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    MANSVELT BECK, J. (1991) 'Catalaanse zelfbeschikking versus Madrileens centralisme: een "omgekeerde centrum-periferie benadering" nader belicht', Geografisch Tijdschrift, vol. 23, pp. 135 - 147.

    MARCU, E. D. (1976) Sixteenth Century Nationalism. New York: Abaris.

    MARIEN, M. (1995) 'World Futures and the United Nations: A Guide to recent Literature', Futures, vol. 27, pp. 287 - 310.

    MAZZINI, G. (1860) [1953] I Doveri dell'Uomo. Firenze: La Nuova Italia.

    MEULEN, J. ter. (1917) Der Gedanke der internationalen Organization in seiner Entwicklung 1300-1800. Den Haag: Martinus Nijhoff.

    MUDDE, C. (1996) 'Defining the Extreme Right Party Family', West European Politics, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 225 - 248.

    NEDERVEEN PIETERSE, J. (1992) Globalization as Hybridization. The Hague: Institute of Social Studies. ISS working papers, no. 152.

    NEWITZ, A. (1993) 'Gender Slumming', paper indexed at < http://english- www.hss.cmu.edu/Gender.html>.

    PAINTER, J. & PHILO, C. (1995) 'Spaces of Citizenship: An Introduction', Political Geography, vol. 14, pp. 107 - 120.

    PEDERSEN, R. N. (1992) One Europe - 100 Nations. Clevedon: Channel View.

    PISCATORI, J. P. (1986) Islam in a World of Nation- States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    RASLER, K. A. & THOMPSON, W. R. (1989) War and State Making: The Shaping of the Global Powers (Studies in International Conflict, Volume II). Boston: Unwin Hyman.

    REX, J. (1996) 'National Identity in the Democratic Multi- Cultural State', Sociological Research Online, vol. 1, no. 2, <http://www.socresonli ne.org.uk/socresonline/1/2/1.html>.

    RONEN, D. (1979) The Quest for Self-Determination. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    SCHLESINGER, A. (1992) The Disuniting of America: Reflections on a Multicultural Society. New York: Norton.

    SCHMIDT, M. (1929) Schmidt-Haack geopolitischer Typen-Atlas zur Einfuhring in die Grundbegriffe der Geopolitik: 176 Kartenskizze zur Veranschaulichung geopolitischer Erscheinungsformen. Gotha: Justus Perthes.

    SMITH, A. D. (1983) (2nd edition) Theories of Nationalism. New York: Holmes and Meier.

    SMITH, A. D. (1986) The Ethnic Origins of Nations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

    SMITH, A. D. (1990) 'Towards a Global Culture?', Theory, Culture, and Society, vol. 7, pp. 171 - 191.

    SNYDER, L. (1984) Macronationalisms: A History of the Pan-Movements. Westport: Greenwood.

    TAYLOR, P. (1989) Political Geography: World Economy, Nation State and Locality. Harlow: Longman.

    TAYLOR, P. (1995) 'Beyond Containers: Internationality, Interstateness, Interterritoriality', Progress in Human Geography, vol. 19, pp. 1-15.

    TILLY, C. (1975) The Formation of National States in Western Europe. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    TIRYAKIAN, E. & ROGOWSKI, R. (editors) (1985) New Nationalisms of the Developed West. London: Allen & Unwin.

    TOULMIN, S. (1990) Cosmopolis: The Hidden Agenda of Modernity. New York: Free Press.

    WALSH, K. (1992) The Representation of the Past: Museums and Heritage in the Post-Modern World. London: Routledge.

    WALZER, M. (1983) Spheres of justice. New York: Basic Books.

    [Apr 23, 2016] My support for Obama evaporated as it became apparent that, rather than fighting for civil rights, he was doubling down on Bush/Cheneys totalitarian approach to all issues of security

    Notable quotes:
    "... This question contains one truly huge assumption: that liberals actually support Obama and Clinton. My support for Obama evaporated as it became apparent that, rather than fighting for civil rights, he was doubling down on Bush/Cheney's totalitarian approach to all issues of security. ..."
    "... The only time I've really thought he was fighting for anything was against Hillary during the latter part of his first nominating process. Since then he's been fairly spineless. ..."
    "... The Clintons have never been liberal. They're all about taking the safe middle of the road; they'd never take on the corporate interests because they want their donations just like the right wing. ..."
    "... If you want to find liberals, find folks like me that are at least interested in Sanders. Or at least initiate political conversations on your own. Educate yourself on the issues that are important to you and start talking with the people around you. ..."
    www.quora.com

    This question contains one truly huge assumption: that liberals actually support Obama and Clinton. My support for Obama evaporated as it became apparent that, rather than fighting for civil rights, he was doubling down on Bush/Cheney's totalitarian approach to all issues of security. His incessant compromises with GOP on health-care during his first year or two left us with an ACA that is somewhat better than nothing but falls dramatically far short of what it should have been; and the compromises were just tricks, the GOP intended to stonewall it from the beginning.

    His FCC's actions on net neutrality were essential but don't outweigh his failings on liberty, privacy, and other issues. His failures to respond to the Bundy family's two armed insurrections are typical of his passive afraid-of-the-backlash approach to just about everything.

    His administration is complicity embedded with the Content Ownership industry to eliminate the fair-use exception to copyright law. The only time I've really thought he was fighting for anything was against Hillary during the latter part of his first nominating process. Since then he's been fairly spineless.

    Only reason I don't usually air these concerns publicly is the scandalous amount of racism and sheer hatred in the heart of the GOP's nut-job opposition.

    The Clintons have never been liberal. They're all about taking the safe middle of the road; they'd never take on the corporate interests because they want their donations just like the right wing.

    ... ... ... ...

    If you want to find liberals, find folks like me that are at least interested in Sanders. Or at least initiate political conversations on your own. Educate yourself on the issues that are important to you and start talking with the people around you.

    [Apr 17, 2016] Russia as an energy exporting country

    Notable quotes:
    "... There is a LOT of food for thought in it. Russia may soon peak as as oil producer, but gas production is another story. Russia may now turn out to be the swing producer in some respects. ..."
    "... I read that the Russian government is selling a 19.5% stake in Rosneft and looking for a "non-greedy" partner for the interest. Russia also says do not expect prices to rise after Doha meeting. I believe we discussed this back in February. The goal is not necessarily to return prices back to 2011-14 levels, but to stop the speculators driving the prices into the $20s and below. ..."
    "... I wish they shale guys would say they need $70 to survive. Then OPEC and Russia would be ok with $60, and $60 WTI would be just fine by us for quite awhile. ..."
    "... Wait, you're playing the speculator card? I thought those HFT engines were all that was putting it at $110. ..."
    peakoilbarrel.com
    Oldfarmermac , 04/15/2016 at 7:03 am
    This link is a longer one ( not for sound bite fans ) going into some substantial detail concerning Russia as an energy exporting country, and what it means to the rest of the world politically and economically.

    Read it for insight. There is a LOT of food for thought in it. Russia may soon peak as as oil producer, but gas production is another story. Russia may now turn out to be the swing producer in some respects.

    Russia can sell pipeline gas cheaper than we yankees can sell LNG overseas for instance.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/the-conversation-us/russia-a-global-energy-po_b_9693032.html

    shallow sand , 04/15/2016 at 7:20 am
    I read that the Russian government is selling a 19.5% stake in Rosneft and looking for a "non-greedy" partner for the interest. Russia also says do not expect prices to rise after Doha meeting. I believe we discussed this back in February. The goal is not necessarily to return prices back to 2011-14 levels, but to stop the speculators driving the prices into the $20s and below.

    I wish they shale guys would say they need $70 to survive. Then OPEC and Russia would be ok with $60, and $60 WTI would be just fine by us for quite awhile.

    Watcher , 04/15/2016 at 1:43 pm
    Wait, you're playing the speculator card? I thought those HFT engines were all that was putting it at $110.

    [Apr 13, 2016] John Helmer: Brookings Launches Unguided Missile – The Panama Papers as Putin Plot

    Notable quotes:
    "... By John Helmer , the longest continuously serving foreign correspondent in Russia, and the only western journalist to direct his own bureau independent of single national or commercial ties. Helmer has also been a professor of political science, and an advisor to government heads in Greece, the United States, and Asia. He is the first and only member of a US presidential administration (Jimmy Carter) to establish himself in Russia. Originally published at Dances with Bears ..."
    "... But it is most likely that such an operation would be run out of an agency called the Russian Financial Monitoring Service (RFM). RFM is Putin's personal financial intelligence unit -- he created it and it answers only to him. It is completely legitimate and is widely recognized as the most powerful such agency in the world, with a monopoly on information about money laundering, offshore centers, and related issues involving Russia or Russian nationals." ..."
    "... According to Putin, "we must prepare a national plan to combat money laundering, tax evasion, and offshore tax evaders, while understanding which company is the ultimate beneficiary of this. This is what other countries, or at least many of them, do." ..."
    "... According to Gaddy's resume , in the mid-1990s he was "an advisor to the Russian finance ministry and regional governments on issues of fiscal federalism for the U.S. Government's Tax Reform Oversight Project for Russia." Talbott was Under-Secretary of State. ..."
    "... Talbott's mandate was to keep Yeltsin in power if possible – and if impossible, build up as his replacement Yegor Gaidar at best, Victor Chernomyrdin at worst. Getting rid of Prime Minister Yevgeny Primakov was one of Talbott's regime changes; at the same time as he was plotting the overthrow of Slobodan Milosevic in Serbia. For details, read this . ..."
    "... For quality, independence, and impact this is what Talbott and Gaddy define as Brookings' current mission on Russia: "Confronting an aggressive Russia, U.S. policymakers must understand President Putin's motivations and worldview in order to devise an effective strategy to counter Moscow's revanchist agenda. Whether considering Putin's efforts to re-establish a sphere of influence in Eastern Europe or his turn to nationalism to burnish his domestic popularity, Senior Fellows Fiona Hill and Clifford Gaddy offer U.S. policymakers comprehensive insights into the Russian leader. In 2015, Gaddy and Hill, director of the Center on the United States and Europe, released an expanded edition of Mr. Putin: Operative in the Kremlin, adding five new chapters that provide greater context on Putin's ambitions for Russia." Russia and China are defined by the think-tank as the principal "direct challengers to the liberal, international order." ..."
    "... The second alternate expert on Russia on the Brookings payroll, titled "senior fellow in the Project on International Order and Strategy in the Foreign Policy program", is Robert Kagan . He is the husband of Victoria Nuland, who is in charge of regime-change operations for Russia and Ukraine at the State Department at the moment. For details, click to read . ..."
    "... For the money in the pay packets of Talbott, Gaddy, Hill and Kagan, open page 39 of the 2015 annual report for the current list of Brookings paymasters. The foreign governments giving this cash include the US military allies, Australia (foreign ministry, defence ministry), Canada, UK, Japan, South Korea, Qatar, Turkey, United Arab Emirates (UAE), and Norway. To match these countries and governments to the list of names revealed in the Panama Papers, open this . Of the governments appearing on both the Brookings and Panama lists, either directly or through proxies, the most obvious are Qatar, Ukraine, UK, and UAE. ..."
    "... There are no Russian donors to Brookings - only anti-Russian donors. The flushest of them is the Ukrainian oligarch, Victor Pinchuk. ..."
    "... the financiers of ICIJ and its Washington parent, the Center for Public Integrity (CPI), there are George Soros's Open Society Foundations; many of the same American foundations to be found on the Brookings benefactor list; plus proprietors of the media which are publishing the Panama Papers. This cui bono trail runs around the world in a circle. For example, Soros pays money to the ICIJ to receive the Panama Papers, and pays the Mail& Guardian of South Africa to report them. ..."
    "... The US Agency for International Development (USAID) also pays into the circle by financing "fact checking", "investigative journalism", and "responsible media" projects in countries where the Panama Papers stories have been amplified, such as the Balkans , Ukraine , Mexico , and the Philippines . ..."
    "... On April 9 , the State Department spokesman acknowledged that one of the funnels for the Panama Papers, the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) , is financed by USAID. "They", claimed spokesman Mark Toner (below) " this organization conducts investigative journalism, primarily, I think, in Europe." ..."
    "... "Obviously, these are the kind of organizations that USAID has and continues to fund, but not specifically for – to go after any particular government, but – or any particular individual, but simply to conduct what – and what we're supporting here is the conduct of independent investigative journalism that we believe can shine a light on corruption, because, as the Secretary on down have said, corruption continues to have a corrosive effect on good governance around the world. So it's part of our – a core tenet of our foreign policy that we support organizations that go after corruption." ..."
    "... Despite all the mud being slung at him, Putin, as an old KGB apparatchik, comes across as an unqualified Russian patriot. That independent streak is what the Neocons cannot stomach. ..."
    "... Heh heh. I subscribed to Brookings' newsletter in March – they are actually doing some marketing as there must be concern in Imperial circles that the teevee and the ny times are just not reaching enough pawns anymore. ..."
    "... You've got to cast a wide net – there is so much disinformation floating around – but even the most obvious propaganda reveals more than the propagandist wants revealed. That's why Russians used to read Pravda – the knew it was propaganda but they also knew it contained information for those with eyes to see. ..."
    "... I thought the timing of the Mossack Fonseca story was possibly convenient, coming out within a few days after the Unaoil story, and effectively eclipsing it. One would think a journalist (at least one?) would put one and one together and associate (or seek to cross-reference) these two stories, but that has not happened yet. ..."
    "... Birkenfeld, major banking whistleblower, late of UBS, believes that the Panama Papers leak originates with the CIA & NSA. Given that the targets thus far revealed are nations with a vexed relationship with the US, this seems plausible. ..."
    "... Despite being at a Swiss bank, Birkenfeld appears to have had no or few dealings with the world of Mossack Fonseca. He knew that his customers were American. That's how he was able to blow the whistle on the bank. ..."
    "... The whole point of using a firm like Mossack Fonseca is to set up a structure so that the ultimate owners can't be found. Birkenfeld would have had no idea where his customers were if he was dealing with registered agents like Mossack Fonseca. ..."
    "... And the leak has hurt one of the US's pet project, our pet government in Ukraine The CIA can't have wanted that. See Economist: The Mossack Fonseca leak shakes Ukraine more than Russia ..."
    "... The REAL question is will anything at all be done about tax evasion, money laundering, hidden criminal activities, and shell corporations doing anything from assisting terrorism, acquiring nuclear materials, continuing sex trafficking/slavery, organ harvesting and all the other "activities" they facilitate. Whole countries are being bankrupted by the SHELL GAME. Rob Kall says my "take" is essentially the same as John Perkins and an interview with him will be running soon. ..."
    "... We should really stop calling these places "think tanks" and use the term "Ministries Of Truths" instead. ..."
    "... My "three day" prediction on Panama Papers was pretty accurate, pretty much gone after the initial frisson. There's probably some superset of money hiding companies that are trying to scare clients out of Mossack and into their arms. What will be done? Zero, maybe a few perps walks for low level lawyers. ..."
    April 13, 2016 | nakedcapitalism.com

    Yves here. The Brookings paper in question showed up in my inbox. Normally, when think tanks tell a howler, they do so through misleading framing or cherry picking data. This one, by contrast, had a speculation to information ratio that was off the charts.

    By John Helmer , the longest continuously serving foreign correspondent in Russia, and the only western journalist to direct his own bureau independent of single national or commercial ties. Helmer has also been a professor of political science, and an advisor to government heads in Greece, the United States, and Asia. He is the first and only member of a US presidential administration (Jimmy Carter) to establish himself in Russia. Originally published at Dances with Bears

    Clifford Gaddy (lead image, left) has never recovered from his 20-year infatuation with Anatoly Chubais and Alexei Kudrin. Neither has Gaddy's boss at Brookings Institution in Washington, Strobe Talbott, the regime changer-in-chief at the State Department in the 1990s, when Boris Yeltsin was his man in the Kremlin, and the rest of the country too weak to resist.

    If only they ruled Russia today, President Chubais, Prime Minister Kudrin or vice versa, instead of President Vladimir Putin, there could never ever be the Kremlin plot Gaddy and Brookings charged last week for blackmailing United States officials and their allies with something like the Panama Papers. A regime-changing plot like that isn't as preposterous as it sounds - not because Putin thought of it, as Gaddy now claims, but because Gaddy and Talbott used it a good many times themselves in Moscow, and in Belgrade too, until Putin put a stop to them. For lossmaking Brookings, however, putting a stop to Putin's plotting is a desperate advertisement for badly needed funds.

    "Are the Russians actually behind the Panama Papers?" is the title of Gaddy's indictment. It isn't an opinion-page piece placed in a newspaper. There's no institutional disclaimer either. It is an official publication of the Brookings think-tank where Gaddy is chief expert on Russia, and Talbott is chief executive.

    Also, the question isn't a genuine one, because Gaddy's answer is yes. "My thinking", he says, ignoring the subjunctives, conditionals, and the cyrillization of control (контроль)

    "is this could have been a Russian intelligence operation, which orchestrated a high-profile leak and established total credibility by 'implicating' (not really implicating) Russia and keeping the source hidden. Some documents would be used for anti-corruption campaigns in a few countries-topple some minor regimes, destroy a few careers and fortunes. By then blackmailing the real targets in the United States and elsewhere (individuals not in the current leak), the Russian puppet masters get 'kontrol' and influence."

    Gaddy provides no evidence. Instead, he proposes the ancient Roman courtroom trick of casting blame in the direction of motive when the evidence of commission of acts is absent. "The cui bono ["to whose good"] principle connects profits with motives, asking who stands to gain from a certain action. If it's the Russians who win, isn't it possible that they are somehow behind at least part of this story?" - that's another of Gaddy's trick questions, to which he has the ready answer.

    "So let's say that the 'who' is the Russians, and the 'why' is to deflect attention and show that 'everybody does it.' But how? Given Russia's vaunted hacking capabilities, a special cyber unit in the Kremlin may have been able to obtain the documents. (Monssack [sic] Fonseca is maintaining that the leak was not an inside job.) But it is most likely that such an operation would be run out of an agency called the Russian Financial Monitoring Service (RFM). RFM is Putin's personal financial intelligence unit -- he created it and it answers only to him. It is completely legitimate and is widely recognized as the most powerful such agency in the world, with a monopoly on information about money laundering, offshore centers, and related issues involving Russia or Russian nationals."

    RosFinMonitoring's chief, Yury Chikhanchin, who has an economics doctorate like Gaddy and 16 years in the security services, first took charge of the agency in 2008. Four years later, in June 2012, Putin met him publicly, twice, to hand him the cover story, according to Gaddy, for what RFM really does that's different from its US counterpart, the US Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) , headed by Jennifer Shasky Calvery (right).

    According to Putin, "we must prepare a national plan to combat money laundering, tax evasion, and offshore tax evaders, while understanding which company is the ultimate beneficiary of this. This is what other countries, or at least many of them, do."

    Putin-and-Chikhanchin

    Putin and Chikhanchin, June 13, 2012 . According to Brookings, Putin told Chikhanchin to break into Panamanian offshore company registration files to find the names of influential US government officials and businessmen in order to blackmail them into taking Kremlin orders.

    Putin also told Chikhanchin to keep his work secret. "I note that over these years, despite the complexity and confidential nature of your work, the Service has never had any leak of information that could be damaging for our country's business and economy. I hope that you will continue to work just as intensely, thoroughly and carefully."

    In July 2013 the RFM was exposed in public as Putin's personal spy agency. That was in a publication financed by the Russian state media budget. The author of the disclosure was… Gaddy. One of the secrets Gaddy kept then, and now, is that between 2000 and 2002 Chikhanchin was head of the Currency Control Department at the Finance Ministry. The minister to whom he reported was… Kudrin.

    But the Putin-Chikhanchin secret is now out, leaked by Gaddy:

    "the purpose of the Panama Papers operation… is a message directed at the Americans and other Western political leaders who could be mentioned but are not. The message is: 'We have information on your financial misdeeds, too. You know we do. We can keep them secret if you work with us.' In other words, the individuals mentioned in the documents are not the targets. The ones who are not mentioned are the targets."

    When Cicero called out "cui bono", the Romans in court didn't know what a boomerang was. Without evidence, the Putin plot according to Gaddy is just that. He invites the question – what motive, benefit, or profit can he, Talbott, and Brookings have for attacking the Panama Papers as a Putin blackmail scheme? This isn't a trick question.

    According to Gaddy's resume , in the mid-1990s he was "an advisor to the Russian finance ministry and regional governments on issues of fiscal federalism for the U.S. Government's Tax Reform Oversight Project for Russia." Talbott was Under-Secretary of State. The recent release of the transcripts of telephone-calls and meetings at the time between President Bill Clinton and British Prime Minister Tony Blair reveals that Talbott's mandate was to keep Yeltsin in power if possible – and if impossible, build up as his replacement Yegor Gaidar at best, Victor Chernomyrdin at worst. Getting rid of Prime Minister Yevgeny Primakov was one of Talbott's regime changes; at the same time as he was plotting the overthrow of Slobodan Milosevic in Serbia. For details, read this .

    How are their interests now, and Brookings' interests, affected by the Panama Papers? For cui bono, read cash. Brookings doesn't fully reveal the identity and value of its funding sources. But this how it describes them: "Generous individuals, foundations, leading corporations, and U.S. and foreign government agencies that share our commitment to quality, independence, and impact in public policy research and analysis support Brookings with financial contributions and intellectual engagement. Donors invest in Brookings with both project-specific gifts and unrestricted funds that help us react nimbly to breaking events and confront urgent challenges, from the domestic and global economies to foreign affairs to the health of America's cities and metropolitan areas."

    For quality, independence, and impact this is what Talbott and Gaddy define as Brookings' current mission on Russia: "Confronting an aggressive Russia, U.S. policymakers must understand President Putin's motivations and worldview in order to devise an effective strategy to counter Moscow's revanchist agenda. Whether considering Putin's efforts to re-establish a sphere of influence in Eastern Europe or his turn to nationalism to burnish his domestic popularity, Senior Fellows Fiona Hill and Clifford Gaddy offer U.S. policymakers comprehensive insights into the Russian leader. In 2015, Gaddy and Hill, director of the Center on the United States and Europe, released an expanded edition of Mr. Putin: Operative in the Kremlin, adding five new chapters that provide greater context on Putin's ambitions for Russia." Russia and China are defined by the think-tank as the principal "direct challengers to the liberal, international order."

    Fiona Hill (right), the alternate expert on Russia after Gaddy, was a UK national; a Harvard PhD, then an academic, and between 2006 and 2009 "the national intelligence officer for Russia and Eurasia at The National Intelligence Council."

    The second alternate expert on Russia on the Brookings payroll, titled "senior fellow in the Project on International Order and Strategy in the Foreign Policy program", is Robert Kagan . He is the husband of Victoria Nuland, who is in charge of regime-change operations for Russia and Ukraine at the State Department at the moment. For details, click to read .

    For the money in the pay packets of Talbott, Gaddy, Hill and Kagan, open page 39 of the 2015 annual report for the current list of Brookings paymasters. The foreign governments giving this cash include the US military allies, Australia (foreign ministry, defence ministry), Canada, UK, Japan, South Korea, Qatar, Turkey, United Arab Emirates (UAE), and Norway. To match these countries and governments to the list of names revealed in the Panama Papers, open this . Of the governments appearing on both the Brookings and Panama lists, either directly or through proxies, the most obvious are Qatar, Ukraine, UK, and UAE.

    But their wars may be hurting Brookings' bottom-line. The think-tank reports its revenue in 2015 fell from the year before by 11% to $95.6 million, while its operating costs jumped 5% to $104.2 million. Brookings' investment income also suffered, dropping from a positive $38.9 million in 2014 to a negative $22 million in 2015. This means the think-tank is in the red operationally, and needs to raise more donor cash urgently.

    BROOKINGS IS NOW LOSS-MAKING – THE 2015 BALANCE-SHEET

    1798_t

    Source: http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/About/Content/annualreport/2015annualreport.pdf -- page 42.

    The need for fresh money is particularly urgent for foreign policy, because Talbott, Gaddy, Hill, Pifer, and Kagan aren't cheap: they consume one-third of the think-tank budget each year. Foreign enemies, not domestic American issues, are what brings home the bacon for Brookings.

    Brookings' committee for offshore money-raising is headed by Antoine van Agtmael, an American of Dutch origin. His business is emerging market investment funds; they appear to be based in the UK, and use Ireland for offshore registration; Russia has not been one of his investment targets. The Brookings board is heavy on Americans (3), Spaniards (3), Mexicans (2), Canadians (2), and Israelis (2).

    BROOKINGS' BIGGEST PAYMASTERS IN 2015

    1798_1

    Source: Brookings Annual Report 2015 -- page 39

    The Panama Papers list of names counts five Israeli oligarchs - Lev Leviev, Idnan Ofer, Teddy Sagi, Dan Gertler, and Beny Steinmetz. There are several Spaniards, including the Spanish duchess, Pilar de Borbon, sister of former King Juan Carlos.

    There are no Russian donors to Brookings - only anti-Russian donors. The flushest of them is the Ukrainian oligarch, Victor Pinchuk. He has been providing $200,000 annually to the institution, and he takes a seat on its International Advisory Council. He funds the pro-Kiev, anti-Moscow Ukrainian coverage by former US Ambassador to Ukraine, Steven Pifer, a salaried Brookings Fellow. For more details, including Brookings' and Pifer's refusal to discuss the Pinchuk money, read this . The latest report from Brookings on where its money came from in 2015 identifies Pinchuk as continuing to give in the range of $100,000-$249,000.

    1798_2

    Talbott (right) was Pinchuk's guest at the Yalta European Strategy (YES) meeting in Kiev on September 12, 2015. On the left, Ukrainian foreign minister Pavlo Klimkin; centre, James Appathurai, the Canadian spokesman for NATO. Pifer of Brookings has been a regular guest of Pinchuk's at the annual YES convention for years.

    Source: http://yes-ukraine.org/en/photo-and-video/photo/sammit-2015

    Following the Brookings money trail identifies a cui bono motive for Brookings to protect its benefactors, local and foreign, by attacking the Panama Papers in case the money landing in the Brookings till has been laundered from benefactor crimes. The Russian charges that Pinchuk stole more than $200 million from his Rossiya Insurance Company in Moscow suggest something of the sort, though there have been no trials, no convictions. For details of that case, read this .

    For the Talbott-Gaddy theory of Putin-Chikhanchik blackmail to turn into publishable evidence requires a naïve believer, a stooge - indeed, several of them, including the most rabidly anti-Russian media in the English-speaking world: the London Guardian, the Rupert Murdoch press, the Daily Beast (director, Chelsea Clinton), and the Nikkei-owned Financial Times (Nikkei gave more than $50,000 to Brookings last year). According to Gaddy's version, the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) of Washington, which has supervised the authentication and dissemination of the Panama Papers, is "the self-described elite of investigative journalists-but what have they discovered about the source of all these documents?"

    Nichevo, says Gaddy. "Perhaps, since the ICIJ is funded by Americans, they're not going to bite the hand that feeds them… Perhaps, then, someone purged those references before the documents were handed over to the German newspaper. The 'someone' would… be the Russians-and the absence of incriminating information about Americans is an important hint of what I think to be the real purpose of this leak."

    Brookings almost follows the money trail into the ICIJ, but stops short. Had it gone further, it would have discovered among the financiers of ICIJ and its Washington parent, the Center for Public Integrity (CPI), there are George Soros's Open Society Foundations; many of the same American foundations to be found on the Brookings benefactor list; plus proprietors of the media which are publishing the Panama Papers. This cui bono trail runs around the world in a circle. For example, Soros pays money to the ICIJ to receive the Panama Papers, and pays the Mail& Guardian of South Africa to report them.

    The US Agency for International Development (USAID) also pays into the circle by financing "fact checking", "investigative journalism", and "responsible media" projects in countries where the Panama Papers stories have been amplified, such as the Balkans , Ukraine , Mexico , and the Philippines .

    On April 9 , the State Department spokesman acknowledged that one of the funnels for the Panama Papers, the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) , is financed by USAID. "They", claimed spokesman Mark Toner (below) " this organization conducts investigative journalism, primarily, I think, in Europe."

    ... ... ...

    "Obviously, these are the kind of organizations that USAID has and continues to fund, but not specifically for – to go after any particular government, but – or any particular individual, but simply to conduct what – and what we're supporting here is the conduct of independent investigative journalism that we believe can shine a light on corruption, because, as the Secretary on down have said, corruption continues to have a corrosive effect on good governance around the world. So it's part of our – a core tenet of our foreign policy that we support organizations that go after corruption."

    Cui bono? asked reporters at the briefing. "We have no editorial control over what over their reporting," Toner answered. "They're allowed [by the US Government] to and permitted to cover whatever they want."

    The Brookings attack on the Panama Papers as a Russian plot appeared on April 7, two days before the State Department made these admissions.

    The OCCRP reports the US Government and Soros money in the funding section of its website ; it omits them both in its history of the organization . As for how accountable the ICIJ is to investigation of its own funds, it isn't. This is what happened when the ICIJ's director, Gerard Ryle, was asked questions about a Russian investigation he had just published with the Guardian in November 2012 – before Ryle cut the telephone line.

    Rich , April 13, 2016 at 1:07 am

    it really looks like the PP is an American plot where ICIJ have been told to keep anything that makes Americans look bad, secret, or else. I'm sure they would comply without question.

    ambrit , April 13, 2016 at 4:47 am

    Once one learns to filter out the 'nationalist' bias in all this, and shift to a class based analysis, things become clearer. "Cui bono" indeed.

    Despite all the mud being slung at him, Putin, as an old KGB apparatchik, comes across as an unqualified Russian patriot. That independent streak is what the Neocons cannot stomach.

    James Levy , April 13, 2016 at 6:19 am

    Why would the Russians release anything if they wanted to use this stuff for blackmail? Don't they also want to blackmail foreigners?

    divadab , April 13, 2016 at 6:53 am

    Heh heh. I subscribed to Brookings' newsletter in March – they are actually doing some marketing as there must be concern in Imperial circles that the teevee and the ny times are just not reaching enough pawns anymore.

    Helmer's article confirms what is pretty obvious about Brookings if you read a few articles – it is a propaganda organ of Empire (or some major elements thereof). That's not to say that it doesn't get some stuff right – it is highly likely that the shadowy figures behind the Mossack Fonsecka data hack are using it for making money – blackmail such a dirty word but how about selectively releasing data based on who will pay the most to expose their enemies? SO just take bad evil Russia out of the mix and consider who the initial targets were and who would want them exposed and you can get a pretty good idea of who the paymasters are.

    You've got to cast a wide net – there is so much disinformation floating around – but even the most obvious propaganda reveals more than the propagandist wants revealed. That's why Russians used to read Pravda – the knew it was propaganda but they also knew it contained information for those with eyes to see.

    McKillop , April 13, 2016 at 7:12 am

    Good old "cui bono" – is it similar to children's 'I know you are but what am I", or a more sophisticated Monty Python exercise in logic?

    Those who own the hidden money, some of the shady 'winners' of our societies have been exposed. Perhaps other humans who are suffering from governmental poverty will benefit from the potential windfall.

    Wait, wait; if the hungry or the homeless or ill benefit that must mean that they are the ones to whom the "bono" falls. How dare such perpetrators of need behave so criminally as to hide money and then criminally exposed proprietarily information? Let the rich keep the money and the rest of us receive a well-deserved nothing of their ill-gotten gains.

    Chris Tobe , April 13, 2016 at 7:13 am

    Good to see Arnold foundation listed. xEnron Hedge Fund Billionaire is now messing in state pensions everywhere, encouraging secret PE and HF while cutting benefits to workers.

    dk , April 13, 2016 at 7:43 am

    So, what of Unaoil and that leak/scandal? What is known of the pedigree of its sources and publishers? I cast no aspersion, just asking the question (at this point).

    I thought the timing of the Mossack Fonseca story was possibly convenient, coming out within a few days after the Unaoil story, and effectively eclipsing it. One would think a journalist (at least one?) would put one and one together and associate (or seek to cross-reference) these two stories, but that has not happened yet.

    ltr , April 13, 2016 at 8:26 am

    Brookings has become shockingly slanted on international affairs over the last decade or so.

    JerseyJeffersonian , April 13, 2016 at 9:52 am

    http://www.cnbc.com/2016/04/12/swiss-banker-whistleblower-cia-behind-panama-papers.html .

    Birkenfeld, major banking whistleblower, late of UBS, believes that the Panama Papers leak originates with the CIA & NSA. Given that the targets thus far revealed are nations with a vexed relationship with the US, this seems plausible.

    Short article, not dispositive, yet considering the interviewee, difficult to discount out of hand, no?

    Yves Smith Post author , April 13, 2016 at 5:49 pm

    Despite being at a Swiss bank, Birkenfeld appears to have had no or few dealings with the world of Mossack Fonseca. He knew that his customers were American. That's how he was able to blow the whistle on the bank.

    The whole point of using a firm like Mossack Fonseca is to set up a structure so that the ultimate owners can't be found. Birkenfeld would have had no idea where his customers were if he was dealing with registered agents like Mossack Fonseca.

    Our Richard Smith knows way more about this than Bireknfeld. He's being called by the UK media heavily. He think Birkenfeld is all wet.

    And the leak has hurt one of the US's pet project, our pet government in Ukraine The CIA can't have wanted that. See Economist: The Mossack Fonseca leak shakes Ukraine more than Russia

    Ranger Rick , April 13, 2016 at 10:32 am

    I think it's an interesting theory, but a theory it remains. Why would the leaker pick a random (to an American observer) German paper?

    SumiDreamer , April 13, 2016 at 10:40 am

    I put up a simplistic argument about the propaganda, misdirection and defocussing around the papers on OpEd News – trying to get people to stay focused on the fight against plutocracy and what can be gained. I pointed that the alphabetsoupers are doing a really poor job.

    I got trolled, had accusations heaped on my head and was dismayed to see that people cannot even sit down and read the websites. People are just falling for every type of clickbait headline.

    We can speculate all like about the leaker; the truth is WE DON'T KNOW. At least I got a handle on how it was done with my friend: http://www.unicornriot.ninja/?p=5357 so to say this was done as a robbery is pure bunk. The breech is still open and servers have been seized by El Salvador. Who's gonna check them for the hands that took out information?

    This entire zeitgeist opens up all sorts of opportunities for spin, manipulation, outright lies, deluded accusations.

    The REAL question is will anything at all be done about tax evasion, money laundering, hidden criminal activities, and shell corporations doing anything from assisting terrorism, acquiring nuclear materials, continuing sex trafficking/slavery, organ harvesting and all the other "activities" they facilitate. Whole countries are being bankrupted by the SHELL GAME. Rob Kall says my "take" is essentially the same as John Perkins and an interview with him will be running soon.

    The biggest howler in the mess is the idea of DodgyDave running his transparency conference in May!
    https://www.facebook.com/ajplusenglish/videos/715351548606355/?pnref=story

    craazyboy , April 13, 2016 at 10:42 am

    We should really stop calling these places "think tanks" and use the term "Ministries Of Truths" instead.

    The Brookings Ministry of Truth, etc…etc…etc…

    Maybe Trump or someone will build a "Cone of Silence" around them??

    templar555510 , April 13, 2016 at 12:13 pm

    Of course we know ' who benefits ' ; the neoliberal consensus in its myriad forms . How ? I offer three examples :

    1. Make the little people everywhere believe that the big fish are going to be caught .

    2. Keep plugging the ' Putin is Evil ' meme.

    3. Create a climate of fear among the really dodgy money owners as a first strike before offering them an accommodation within the properly laundered club.

    I am sure there are others, but these stood out to me as soon as the story broke.

    OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL , April 13, 2016 at 4:52 pm

    Geez Helmer does good old-fashioned investigative journalism.

    My "three day" prediction on Panama Papers was pretty accurate, pretty much gone after the initial frisson. There's probably some superset of money hiding companies that are trying to scare clients out of Mossack and into their arms. What will be done? Zero, maybe a few perps walks for low level lawyers.

    Seeing BillG's name on Brookings confirms the obvious: he's just another corporo-fascist, he backs stuff like The Better Than Cash Alliance whose sole aim is to get the world's citizens hooked on credit card debt. So Mr. Super-Rich Goofy IT Guy shows his true colors, kinda like Sergey Brin at Google and his efforts to overthrow Assad.

    [Apr 13, 2016] Rosneft is implementing the most ambitions modernization program in RF

    peakoilbarrel.com
    AlexS , 04/12/2016 at 4:06 pm
    "All oil producing countries … now started accelerated development of petrochemical industry.
    This is probably the most important consequence of this oil price slump.
    They all want to export more refined products and products with substantial added value (plastics, composites)."

    This process started at least 10 years ago and has nothing to do with the drop in oil prices. See, for example, the chart below:

    Russia's crude oil and refined products exports (million tons)

    likbez , 04/12/2016 at 4:45 pm
    Alex,

    Not so fast. I remember that Sechin on one of International conferences had proudly pumped his chest explaining how good a player Russia is in a sense that they are just exporting raw oil instead of refined products. This guy dumped huge amount of money into Arctic shelf instead of building refineries and other chemical plants which would help enormously in 2015.

    Can you please compare that with KSA dynamics. Because that will tell us how backward in this respect Russians were up to this day in comparison with Arab sheikhs.

    The recent refinery built in KSA (0.4 Mb/d):

    Yanbu Aramco Sinopec Refining Company (YASREF) Ltd. King Salman and Chinese President Xi Jinping inaugurate YASREF Refinery Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, January 20, 2016 The Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, the King of Saudi Arabia and His Excellency Xi Jinping, the President of the People's Republic of China today jointly inaugurated the Yanbu Aramco Sinopec Refining Company (YASREF)refinery. https://lnkd.in/eCBZ4PZ W.J

    AlexS , 04/12/2016 at 5:39 pm
    I do not know what you remember, but there are statistical facts.
    The share of refined products in Russia's oil and product exports increased from 25-30% in 2000-2005 to 41-42% in 2014-2015.
    In volume terms, exports of refined products increased by 174% (almost 3 times) between 2000 and 2015.
    Given that Russia has sufficient primary distillation capacity, there was an intensive modernization program.

    Saudi Arabia has also been developing refining capacity and currently covers all its domestic needs. In 2015, refining products accounted for 13% of total crude and products exports.

    Saudi Arabia's crude and refined product exports (mb/d)
    source: JODI

    AlexS , 04/12/2016 at 5:51 pm
    As you mentioned Sechin, here is a brief summary of Rosneft's refinery modernization program:

    "Rosneft is implementing the most ambitions modernization program in RF: more than 30 construction projects, reconstruction of re-refinery units. The Company's refineries are implementing the modernization program that implies significant increase of the refining depth and improvement of the produced petroleum products (all motor fuels will correspond to the European environmental class Euro-5).

    The capacity of the modernization program projects:

    primary processing – 12.0 million tons/year;
    conversion processes – 23.6 million tons/year;
    reforming processes – 35.9 million tons/ year.
    At present, within the framework of implementation of the program, reconstruction and construction works are being performed with respect of the following:

    reforming, isomerization, alkylation plants for production of high-octane gasoline components;
    catalytic cracking plants for production of high-quality gasoline components and oil conversion rate increase;
    hydrocracking plants for production of high-quality diesel fuel components, jet fuel and oil conversion rate increase;
    hydrotreatment plants for compliance with the requirements of the Technical Regulations of the Customs Union in terms of sulfur content in the products."

    http://www.rosneft.com/Downstream/refining/Refinery_Modernization_Program/

    likbez , 04/12/2016 at 6:27 pm
    Alex,

    Sorry, I was wrong.

    [Apr 11, 2016] Russia produces higher volume of oil with a much less number of wells.

    Notable quotes:
    "... even if LTO output starts to recover, its annual growth rate will never return to previous high growth rate of 1 mb/d. ..."
    "... Potential 300-400 kb/d annual growth in LTO output will be much less than 1.2mb/d projected growth in global demand. ..."
    "... I do not dispute Russian companies are cash flow positive. My point is, what do Russian oil and gas industry workers make in salary and benefits, in relation to their US peers? If it is substantially less, is this why, in part, Russian oil and gas companies are still cash flow positive? ..."
    "... Yes, salaries in Russia are generally much lower than in the U.S., not just in the oil industry. Especially, if they are measured in dollar-terms, rather than in real purchasing power. Locally produced equipment, pipes, other materials, electricity, services, etc. are also much less expensive, especially after the depreciation of the local currency. ..."
    "... Finally, and particularly important, Russia produces higher volume of C+C with a much less number of wells. The number of new wells drilled annually is also several times less than in the U.S. ..."
    "... Old conventional onshore fields are on average less mature. There is almost no stripper wells. There is much less (high-cost) deep offshore production. And almost no LTO output. ..."
    "... I do not know a lot about Russian oil and gas production, but it does appear to me that a combination of lower costs, and less mature fields, is keeping Russian oil and gas companies generally profitable, despite the downturn. ..."
    "... Maybe too simplistic, but there was a time, from 1986-2004, where we would have been cheering $40 WTI. A combination of lower production volumes, combined with much higher costs, make $40 WTI a money loser in most onshore US fields, or at least not enough for new wells. I guess maybe Russia is just where the US was 30 years ago? 30 years ago, $40 WTI would have been very profitable in most US onshore fields. ..."
    peakoilbarrel.com
    AlexS , 04/11/2016 at 8:30 am
    "I read Russian companies are still making money, but the purchasing power of their currency is much less than it was."

    shallow sand,

    Their revenues are mostly in dollars, and 90% of costs are in rubles. So the decline of the ruble's rate versus the dollar is very positive for the Russian companies, as it partially mitigates the negative effect of low oil prices.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-08/goldman-sees-russian-oil-output-rising-amid-doha-freeze-talks
    ----------–
    "LTO has almost destroyed the balance sheets of noteworthy companies like Marathon Oil, Hess, ConocoPhillips, Apache and Anadarko, just to name a few."

    Which means that OPEC decision not to cut output was correct. One year more of relatively low oil prices ($40-50) and LTO will not be a threat to other producers.
    The excess supply will be eliminated by that time. And even if LTO output starts to recover, its annual growth rate will never return to previous high growth rate of 1 mb/d.

    Potential 300-400 kb/d annual growth in LTO output will be much less than 1.2mb/d projected growth in global demand.

    shallow sand , 04/11/2016 at 8:49 am
    AlexS,

    I do not dispute Russian companies are cash flow positive. My point is, what do Russian oil and gas industry workers make in salary and benefits, in relation to their US peers? If it is substantially less, is this why, in part, Russian oil and gas companies are still cash flow positive?

    I do not know the answer, maybe you could provide some information in that regard?

    AlexS , 04/11/2016 at 9:16 am
    shallow sand,

    Yes, salaries in Russia are generally much lower than in the U.S., not just in the oil industry. Especially, if they are measured in dollar-terms, rather than in real purchasing power. Locally produced equipment, pipes, other materials, electricity, services, etc. are also much less expensive, especially after the depreciation of the local currency.

    Finally, and particularly important, Russia produces higher volume of C+C with a much less number of wells. The number of new wells drilled annually is also several times less than in the U.S.

    Old conventional onshore fields are on average less mature. There is almost no stripper wells. There is much less (high-cost) deep offshore production. And almost no LTO output.

    Fernando Leanme , 04/11/2016 at 11:00 am
    They earn less. They also spend less.
    shallow sand , 04/11/2016 at 11:38 am
    AlexS,

    Thanks. I always appreciate your comments on this site.

    I do not know a lot about Russian oil and gas production, but it does appear to me that a combination of lower costs, and less mature fields, is keeping Russian oil and gas companies generally profitable, despite the downturn.

    Maybe too simplistic, but there was a time, from 1986-2004, where we would have been cheering $40 WTI. A combination of lower production volumes, combined with much higher costs, make $40 WTI a money loser in most onshore US fields, or at least not enough for new wells. I guess maybe Russia is just where the US was 30 years ago? 30 years ago, $40 WTI would have been very profitable in most US onshore fields.

    Fernando, I also agree on the spending part, but I doubt you will find many places more consumer spending driven than the US. But I am going to refrain from further comment on this topic, as last time I discussed it, I put both feet in my mouth. And we need to stick to the oil topic. LOL!

    [Apr 10, 2016] Russia wants oil price to be between 50 and 60 in a short run and above 80 in a long run

    Notable quotes:
    "... Looks like this is what the West wants Russia to want, not what Russia wants :-). I think in reality Russia wants $80 or higher, but with capex reduced most Russian oil companies for some short period might be content with $50-$60 range. ..."
    "... If we are talking about a fair price of oil globally, I believe this is $80 per barrel. Keep in mind that a significant part of oil – about a third – is produced offshore, where the cost can be high. And there is a deep-water shelf, for example, in Brazil, where one of the first well cost more than $300 million. Subsequent wells would of course cost less, around the half the price, but still very expensive. ..."
    peakoilbarrel.com

    Heinrich Leopold , 04/09/2016 at 3:23 am

    Silicon Valley Observer,

    Russia and Saudi Arabia gave signals that they want to have a price of no more than USD 45 per barrel as this prevents high cost oil to gain market share for some time.

    Thus, Saudi Arabia prefers to export 10 mill bbl/d at USD 45 per barrel rather than 5 mill bbl/d at USD 90 per barrel. Saudi Arabia has still 2 mill bbl/d as reserve capacity, which will take some time to come to the market, yet I think the Saudis are ready to use this. USD 45 per barrel is a comfortable price for Saudi Arabia and Russia.

    As a conclusion, it could take – depending on the Saudis – a long time until prices can go up again, which is clearly a disadvantage for shale. It is now up to the shale production to reduce capacity and bring prices up again.

    likbez , 04/09/2016 at 6:32 pm
    Russia and Saudi Arabia gave signals that they want to have a price of no more than USD 45 per barrel as this prevents high cost oil to gain market share for some time.

    Looks like this is what the West wants Russia to want, not what Russia wants :-). I think in reality Russia wants $80 or higher, but with capex reduced most Russian oil companies for some short period might be content with $50-$60 range. See interview of the President of the Union of oil and gas Industrialists of Russia Gennady Shmal ( http://peakoilbarrel.com/open-thread-petroleum-oil-natural-gas/#comment-565010 ):

    A: If we are talking about a fair price of oil globally, I believe this is $80 per barrel. Keep in mind that a significant part of oil – about a third – is produced offshore, where the cost can be high. And there is a deep-water shelf, for example, in Brazil, where one of the first well cost more than $300 million. Subsequent wells would of course cost less, around the half the price, but still very expensive. Therefore, the capex of this oil extraction is high enough. The breakeven price of our oil production without taxes is around $10 per barrel, nationally. But when we include taxes, we get around $30 per barrel. But this cost is not no tragedy for us. I remember a time when a barrel of oil was less than $10. Then we dreamed about the price rising to $20.

    When the three-year average cost of oil was above $100 per barrel, we got too used to it. But the high price has one big drawback – it can negatively affect demand and stimulates production. And that's what basically happened.

    Therefore, now our oil companies might be now content with the price around $50-60 per barrel.

    And I think in general, globally it would be OK price for both producers and consumers. Even for the United States that would be an acceptable price. Canadians with their oil sands would need a higher price – up to $80. But as the Canadian oil going to the United States, anyway, losses can be compensated with the domestic shale production and they would have to come to a common denominator.

    [Apr 10, 2016] KAS oil policy clearly demonstrates the grave danger inherent in absolute monarchy - a lot depends on the man at the top

    peakoilbarrel.com

    Silicon Valley Observer, 04/09/2016 at 7:45 pm

    I have to laugh at the argument that today's low oil prices are something Saudi Arabia wants in order to (1) punish LTO producers in the U.S or (2) punish Russia or (3) punish other OPEC producers or (4) punish (insert country name here). There is no way SA wants low prices and their economy is suffering. They are burning through their foreign reserves. So why are the continuing to produce flat out as Ron insightfully informs us?

    Because they have no choice! They need every dollar they can get and they don't control the price of oil. If they export less the price of oil will go up somewhat, of course, but not enough to increase their net take. In other words, their profitability would go up but their total profit would decrease.

    Now it's true that SA has made statements that make it look like this is part of some strategy, but I believe that is all just public relations. Putting lipstick on a pig, if you will (apologies to Muslim readers). If prices remain low we could be looking at some big time internal and regional disruption as poor Saudi's (and there are lots of them) become desperate and the privileged Saud class finds their standard of living declining. Saudi Arabia has been a pillar of stability (yes, repressive stability) in the mid east for decades. If that changes many bad things could happen.

    But please, stop with the talk that SA wants low oil prices.

    Econ , 04/10/2016 at 4:00 am
    If KSA cut production by 3 million barrels per day (for example), I'd bet my life savings that oil prices would at least double to say 70 or even 80 USD per barrel – and I think that is being conservative. That cut would totally eliminate the current rate of oversupply.

    That sacrifice would reduce their volume of oil exported by about 30%, but revenue from that oil would double – with that production providing greater profit margins as well for the same given revenue.

    I don't think it is accurate to say that a) they couldn't control the price of oil at least directionally, and b) that their total profit would decrease – it simply wouldn't, it would increase. How else did OPEC work in the past if that was not the case?

    Silicon Valley Observer , 04/10/2016 at 12:32 pm
    Well, you can make your bet and I'd make mine. When I say control the price of oil I mean CONTROL the price - not just influence it. Any producer can influence the price at some marginal level. But Saudi Arabia is seen by many as holding the key to world prices. So your assertion is that KSA could cut back and increase the price sufficiently to more than make up for the lost exports. So why aren't they? To hurt the US frackers? To hurt Russia? To hurt Iran? I just don't but it. They are burning through their foreign exchange reserves at a blistering pace. And if they someday decide to cut production and increase world prices, won't that just bring back the other producers?

    It's all my opinion, of course, and we are all entitled to one, but I don't see how KSA is operating on some kind of brilliant strategy.

    likbez , 04/10/2016 at 8:01 pm
    Silicon Valley Observer,

    I have to laugh at the argument that today's low oil prices are something Saudi Arabia wants in order to (1) punish LTO producers in the U.S or (2) punish Russia or (3) punish other OPEC producers or (4) punish (insert contry name here). There is no way SA wants low prices and their economy is suffering. They are burning through their foreign reserves. So why are the continuing to produce flat out as Ron insightfully informs us?

    KSA used predatory pricing to drive down oil prices. This is undisputable. It takes two for tango and they were supported by growth of US shale production and the heavy artillery of the USA MSM claiming "Oh my God, oil glut, oil glut !" as well as disingenuous statistics from EIA and IEA (both controlled by the same people).

    It looks that oil glut did occurred, mainly due to condensate overproduction for the second half of 2014 and the first half of 2015 and this fact was used to drive oil prices from over $100 to below $30 or three times. Wall Street guys are called "masters of the universe" for a reason.

    That put most oil producing nations in a very precarious situation with several countries balancing of the wedge of bankruptcies. This also was equivalent to huge monetary stimulus for the Western and Asian economies. For the USA it was equivalent to the continuation of the Fed stimulus program.

    Probably around 600 billion per year worldwide were redistributed from oil producing nations to oil consuming nations.

    KSA actions also created tensions between two groups of OPEC nations - Gulf monarchies and everybody else to the extent that OPEC now exists only formally (not withstanding that cheating OPEC quotas was widespread practice even before).

    In February the situation looked really grim for oil producing nations and Russians became really concerned that Wall Street manipulators (aka paper oil producers) will manage to drive oil to $20 (you can almost sense the level of panic in Sechin speech in London http://www.rosneft.com/attach/0/57/51/pdf_10022016_en.pdf )

    Our message about the gap between the financial instruments of the oil market which, in fact, determine the prices and specifics of the actual industry development has been clearly confirmed. The financial market observes its own interests, and they are often abstracted from the problems of sustainable development of the industry. In this market, prices can both fall to the "bottom" where any development or stable functioning are impossible, and climb to unreasonably high levels.

    Financial players have tools that allow them making profit on both rise and fall in prices. Today, the financial technique implies that decisions are often made by robots at the trading platforms, and the programs managed by them impersonally respond instantly to such short-term changes of the situation or information on the oil reserves movements;

    Link of the price dynamics with the parameters of production is primarily important to the producers who have a long-term horizon of decision-making, investment and implementation of major projects, and the consumers who are also interested in predictability. In the past year, we saw developments in which producers were split up, and some of them announced a "price war" setting up a mission to oust "ineffective" suppliers from the market and take their place at the market, in fact, this price war should have determined who is "ineffective".

    In these circumstances, it is quite expected that the financial market players went bears while the related (if not affiliated) think tanks helpfully prompted lower and lower price benchmarks to the market.

    Who was the main beneficiary of the current crisis? Apparently, not consumers because the retail prices fell by less than 20% on average, but rather financial players who, by the way, have not redirected $250-300 bln investments released from oil sector into projects in other sectors of the economy so far.

    Slide 5. Explosive growth of shale oil production in the US in 2013-2014 ceased in 2015

    As we know, the explosive growth of shale production in the US in 2013-2014 became another crucial factor, and even the "trigger" of the crisis.

    In 2013-2014, this growth was probably unprecedented in the world history in terms of its scale and pace. We have already noted that this reflected the advantage of the developed US market with its financial instruments (large-scale hedging of risks, availability of cheap investment, propensity of investors to take prompt decisions, use of land pledge and encumbrances, etc.), and its capacities in drilling, service and transportation.

    In late 2014, some of the leading oil producers from the Middle East followed the example of the US strategy in increasing oil production.

    As the result, the problems of excess oil on the market, long-time decline in oil prices, falloff in capacity of commercial shale oil production in the US have become worse.

    Slide 6. OPEC actions gave backing to imbalance in the oil market

    There is every reason to believe that these producers have deliberately created and continue to maintain a surplus of supply over demand claiming their commitment to the policy of low prices. The consequences of this policy, even if it is changed or adjusted, will have affect for a certain time.

    Slide 7. Positions of major speculators in the oil futures markets

    We have to admit we underestimated the fact that the financial market players have no restrictions in dealing with their sheer financial objectives and are ready to "test" any price levels – for example, 27$ in January – down to $10 per barrel as it was recently announced by a reputable investment structure. What is it if not "an invitation to the irresponsible game" for an unlimited price drop?

    That's why all those talks about freeze started in February - this was a meek attempt of damage control of KSA reckless gambit from which other oil producing nations suffered greatly (and Saudis decided to get on board of this initiative for a simple reason that events got out of control and they also feel really threatened by the possibility of $20 oil).

    The most interesting is the fact that Saudis cooperated with Russia (whom they consider their enemy). Russia in turn decided to cooperate with KSA not out of good will toward KSA. They consider Wahhabism a mortal threat for Russia and you can get in jail if you just get Wahhabi literature in Russia, to say nothing about openly declaring yourself to be adherent of this dominant in KSA sect (it is considered to be criminal organization in Russia). That tells us something about the precarious situation in which oil producing nations has found themselves in February.

    In any case, in February it looked like oil producing nations will be taken for a ride by Wall Street for 2016 and probably 2017. And financially raped.

    That's why this freeze agreement was announced and it helped to push prices slightly higher even before it full ratification which might occur in late April despite all the efforts by the West to torpedo the agreement (and somewhat duplicitous behavior of Iran, which it seems does not understand that producing 4 Mb/day at $30 is equivalent to producing 2 Mb/d at $60).

    Russia also launched a national program of development of their petrochemical industry which will eventually reduce the amount of oil available for export, even if production remains flat.

    Saudis did the same and actually on much larger scale. So their internal consumption will be rising faster then their production capacities.

    To get out this KSA induced fiasco with oil prices this cocky and impulsive new Saudi prince is now trying to save his butt pretending to be Margaret Thatcher of Saudi Arabia. He is trying to launch the program of privatization of state assets including part of Aramco to lessen the draw of foreign reserves due to budget deficit (currently around $100 billion a year; KAS needs around $90 per barrel to balance the budget; Russia needs around $60).

    So either with gentle encouragement of Obamoids or on their own initiative this new prince ( who actually rules the county instead of his father king who is suffering from dementia ) essentially destroyed around one third of the country foreign reserves, engaged in destructive war in Yemen, deteriorated relations with the major geopolitical rivals such as Iran (via war in Yemen and the execution of Shiite cleric) and Russia (by supporting and financing (indirectly) Syria jihadists) and got nothing in return.

    Moreover he managed even to cool relations with the USA - the major beneficiary of his actions.

    That clearly demonstrates the grave danger inherent in absolute monarchy - a lot depends on the man at the top.


    Heinrich Leopold , 04/10/2016 at 11:24 am
    SVO,

    I still differ with your opinion and I am in good company:

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/panosmourdoukoutas/2016/03/27/saudi-arabia-sets-a-20-40-price-range-for-crude-oil-for-now/#3c1cb7554a6b

    …..Why would a price spike above $40 be a bad thing for Saudi Arabia?

    Because it would provide a life support to American frackers who have undermined the pricing power of the Kingdom these days, as was discussed in a previous piece here.

    But there's another, more important problem: high crude prices can help Russia and Iran raise the funds they need to support insurgent movements that threaten the Kingdom's regime………

    http://oilpro.com/post/23672/iran-steps-up-market-share-battle-freeze-talks-near

    Saudi Arabia and Russia are by no means at the end of their finances as can be seen from their still unabated drilling activity, buying refineries in the US, investing in Europe…:

    http://oilpro.com/links/detail/30982/gazprom-to-invest-european-lng-facilities

    It is the shale industry which is at its knees.

    Please stop trying to prevent other people to express their opinion.

    Silicon Valley Observer , 04/10/2016 at 12:26 pm
    Heinrich, your assertion that I am trying to prevent people from expressing their opinion is insulting as well as misplaced. I did nothing of the sort. Also, I certainly don't consider Forbes to be good company on pretty much any subject. SA's foreign exchange reserves dropped from about $740 billion in Oct 2014 to about $590 billion today, having dropped $9 billion in February alone. I'm not saying they are on the ropes yet, but the Kingdom is scaling back on social welfare payments. They are running a massive budget deficit. Anyone who thinks this is part of some brilliant strategy is misguided.

    Your assertion that unabated drilling activity is a sign of financial strength is not supported by the link you provided. That's about investing in LNG facilities. What does that have to do with oil production?

    [Apr 10, 2016] The Problem Neither Obama Nor Bush Could Solve by Nikolas K. Gvosdev

    Note how carefully Nikolas K. Gvosdev avoid any issues connected with the costs of maintaining global American neoliberal empire, promotion of globalization at all costs and subservience of the USA national interests to transnational corporations interests...
    Notable quotes:
    "... The United States must either be prepared to increase what it is willing to spend in terms of funds, personnel and attention, or it must be willing to scale back its ambitions and to redefine what it considers to be acceptable outcomes. ..."
    "... Currently, there is no sign that the American foreign-policy establishment is any readier to contemplate hard choices and entertain unpleasant tradeoffs in the coming years. The paradigm of low-cost, no-casualty intervention is a bipartisan construction that will endure with only minor modifications after 2017 in the absence of a truly existential threat to U.S. security. A new approach in 2016? Don't believe a word of it. ..."
    "... Nikolas K. Gvosdev is a contributing editor at the National Interest and coauthor of ..."
    "... (Georgetown, 2015). The views expressed here are his own. ..."
    nationalinterest.org

    ...Hopes that Washington could usher the Arab Spring into a glorious summer of democracy have been replaced by the pessimism of an Arab Winter, with states collapsing and extremism on the rise. The Obama administration is preparing to leave office with the Iran nuclear issue essentially frozen for a decade-they were potentially successful in preventing a short-term Iranian dash to weapons capability, but they have left larger concerns about Iran's intentions unresolved. Russia's resurgence and its unwillingness to accept the post–Cold War settlement in Europe, together with the European Union's own ongoing internal travails, have dashed hopes that Europe could become a security provider to augment U.S. efforts elsewhere. A rising China seems prepared to test American commitments in Asia as it seeks to redefine a regional order that the United States has underwritten for many decades. The fate of landmark trade deals that would put the United States at the center of both trans-Atlantic and trans-Pacific economic areas remains in doubt. Polling data collected at the end of 2015 suggests that Americans feel more unsafe and believe that the Obama administration's policies are not sufficient to ensure the safety and security of the United States in what they see as an increasingly dangerous and chaotic world.

    ... ... ...

    This popular but mistaken view holds that the setbacks experienced in American foreign policy are the results of errors in programming and execution made by a national-security team. This avoids the more rigorous question: are those errors instead attributable to fundamental flaws in America's perception of the world and its own place in it?

    Indeed, the roots of Obama-era dysfunction precede his election by at least a decade, before Obama was even a national figure; they arise from the still-unhealed 2002 Democratic schism over the impending war in Iraq. Beyond that, the problems experienced during the Obama years reflect an increasing sclerosis in the U.S. policy process itself that has made it far more difficult for Washington to implement effective policy. If nothing is done, this dysfunction is likely to continue into the next administration, regardless of party.

    ... ... ...

    The Libyan intervention also soured relations with both Beijing and Moscow. UN Security Council resolution 1973 was ratified as a way to create safe havens for civilians to find refuge from the fighting-a condition Russia and China were prepared to accept in order not to veto its passage in the Security Council. Almost immediately, the Western-led intervention focused not on ending a threat to civilians but entering the Libyan conflict as cobelligerents on the side of the opposition. Eventually, U.S. and NATO airpower overwhelmed Qaddafi's military-and the Libyan despot ended up being captured and executed by rebel forces. Russia and China, concluding that they were fooled by the Obama administration, have subsequently resisted U.S. efforts to push for humanitarian action in other conflicts, notably in Syria, where the opposition has concluded that if the United States had intervened in Libya to stop a planned massacre in Benghazi, it would take action against the much more tangible crimes of the Bashar al-Assad regime. The Syrian crisis has thus festered for more than four years. Combined with the effective collapse of Libya as a state, spurring a migration crisis which has seriously destabilized the European Union and allowed for militants to find a base from which to spread their influence through Africa, the Libyan and Syrian wars have facilitated the rise of the Islamic State as a new and more potent replacement for Al Qaeda, one that is also developing a reach capable of striking targets in the West, including the U.S. homeland. The same warnings that Brent Scowcroft sounded in 2002 prior to the start of the Iraq war were also voiced in the run-up to the Libya intervention, and dismissed by a Democratic administration almost as quickly. Libya today is no more a model of successful intervention in 2016 than Iraq was in 2007, with the one saving grace that the United States is not expending large amounts of blood and treasure.

    THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION has settled into a pattern of delaying tough choices for as long as possible, and then being not fully on board with owning the results. For instance, a national-security goal is for America to enjoy energy independence by decreasing dependence on the Middle East, and offering an alternative to Russian sources of energy supply to our European allies. An ambitious and expensive program of alternative options (such as biofuels) would be unable to achieve this on its own-but tapping further sources of hydrocarbons in North America might.

    Yet there has been sustained opposition on environmental grounds to expanding production and development of unconventional sources, as well as constructing the necessary infrastructure to bring them on the market. The Obama administration delayed making a decision on the Keystone XL pipeline for years for fear of alienating different domestic constituencies, but was also unwilling to make the case that prioritizing environment and climate concerns trumped national-security concerns about global energy markets. The result has been that other countries that choose to be proactive can drive results. A Saudi Arabian decision to increase its oil supply to the international market, followed by a Russian one not to cut supplies, lowered energy prices to levels that made the cost of North American projects like the Keystone XL pipeline prohibitively high. Yet the long-term strategic questions remain unresolved: the United States and its allies are once again becoming addicted to cheap foreign oil, which can kill off alternative-energy programs-and makes it much harder to achieve another announced strategic goal of being able to rebalance from the Middle East at any point in the near future.

    The current crop of candidates vying to succeed Obama have all offered variants of the same message: that a change in the occupant of the Oval Office will produce vastly different (and more preferable) outcomes for U.S. foreign policy. If Hillary Clinton succeeds in her quest, she is unlikely to embrace the team-of-rivals approach to governance and seems much more committed to following a more hawkish, liberal-interventionist line. All of the Republican challengers also signal that they would be "different" than Obama. Yet Clinton or any of the Republicans will find it extremely hard to break out of the morass Obama finds himself in. Here's why.

    THE CANDIDATES have criticized the Obama administration's responses to the crises in Ukraine and Syria and to the growing threat of the Islamic State. Yet a closer examination of the accusations does not reveal fundamentally different approaches. Instead, they indicate that a different president would somehow be more effective in carrying out existing policies. For instance, across the spectrum, different politicians continue to express the opinion that the solution to the chaos in Libya and Syria is to find that illusive species of local moderates prepared to fight against extremist forces and establish liberal-leaning, pro-American regimes to obviate the need for a large deployment of U.S. ground forces. The red lines that political advisers that surround the current president and also his potential successors insist cannot be crossed for fear of triggering another Iraq are the same.

    Obama has also received tremendous criticism-some of which is justified-for how he has handled Putin and the relationship with Russia. Yet a good deal of the Obama administration's Russia policy has been shaped by self-imposed U.S. constraints. Beyond the standard trope of Russia as a nuclear superpower that cannot be subjected to much direct pressure, Americans want a policy of confronting Russia that limits the risks they will be asked to bear-for example, the requirement that economic sanctions imposed on Russia to punish it for the seizure of Crimea and its operations in Eastern Ukraine have minimal fallout for U.S. economic and business interests. Additionally, for the Iran nuclear deal to work, Russian cooperation is needed, and there is a growing desire for Moscow to better align its operations in Syria with American preferences-shifting most of its military strikes against Islamic State targets while using its influence to persuade al-Assad to step down. At the same time, while proposals to settle the Ukraine crisis by formally designating Ukraine as a neutral state is a nonviable option because the U.S. does not want to be seen as appeasing Moscow, it is also reluctant to spend the necessary resources to pull Ukraine into the Euro-Atlantic orbit. One principal policy divergence between Obama and his potential successors is the question of providing aid to the Ukrainian military. Yet those who criticize Obama's refusal to take a more aggressive stance on this issue still search for a way for the United States to supply weapons to Kiev to pressure Russia to reverse its course while being able to disavow U.S. responsibility for how those arms might be used by Kiev. Most of the 2016 candidates' stance on Russia policy involves some variant of being "tougher" on Putin and showing "resolve," but not showing much willingness to own the only two plausible policy options: a commitment to renewed and robust containment of Russia-requiring a much higher expenditure than anyone in the U.S. seems willing to pay, plus the risks of losing Russian cooperation on other issues-or a search for accommodation.

    Such a loosely defined Ukraine policy represents in a microcosm what an October 2015 RAND report indicates is the prevailing problem for U.S. national-security policy today: the pronounced imbalance between resources and requirements. The United States must either be prepared to increase what it is willing to spend in terms of funds, personnel and attention, or it must be willing to scale back its ambitions and to redefine what it considers to be acceptable outcomes.

    Currently, there is no sign that the American foreign-policy establishment is any readier to contemplate hard choices and entertain unpleasant tradeoffs in the coming years. The paradigm of low-cost, no-casualty intervention is a bipartisan construction that will endure with only minor modifications after 2017 in the absence of a truly existential threat to U.S. security. A new approach in 2016? Don't believe a word of it.

    Nikolas K. Gvosdev is a contributing editor at the National Interest and coauthor of U.S. Foreign Policy and Defense Strategy (Georgetown, 2015). The views expressed here are his own.

    [Apr 10, 2016] Why David Cameron Went Neocon by Freddy Gray

    Notable quotes:
    "... Cameron's attempts to look perspicacious in foreign affairs only show him once again to be over impulsive and delusional-proof once again that the prime minister's foreign policy is, as General Richards had put it, "more about the Notting Hill liberal agenda rather than statecraft." ..."
    February 22, 2016 |
    FAR FROM BEING an example of successful intervention, however, Libya has turned into a study in how the West makes things worse. It is now a failed state, a vast ungoverned space. The World Food Program says that 2.4 million Libyans are in need of humanitarian assistance; the country's population is 6.2 million. Its economy is at one quarter of its capacity. Instead of fostering democracy in the Maghreb, Libya has become a breeding ground for Islamist terror-security analysts call it "Scumbag Woodstock"-and a springboard for the refugee crisis into Europe. Towards the end of 2015, Abdullah al-Thani, one of Libya's competing prime ministers, wrote to Philip Hammond, Cameron's foreign secretary, offering to cooperate against ISIS and the people-smuggling rackets that bring so many migrants across the Mediterranean into Europe. He didn't receive a reply.

    The Cameroons ignore the reality of Libya in favor of congratulating themselves on a job well done. As one Cabinet minister put it to the journalist Matthew D'Ancona, "whenever things get bad, and the press are saying what a rubbish government we are, I remind myself that there are people alive in Benghazi tonight because we decided to take a risk." In a Christmas interview with the Spectator magazine, Cameron insisted that

    "Libya is better off without Qaddafi. What we were doing was preventing a mass genocide. Then, as you say, the coalition helped those on the ground to get rid of the Qaddafi regime and it's very disappointing that there hasn't been an effective successor regime."

    Yet the idea of an imminent Libyan genocide in 2011 seems to have been exaggerated. The International Crisis Group concluded by the end of that year: "There are grounds for questioning the more sensational reports that the regime was using its air force to slaughter demonstrators, let alone engaging in anything remotely warranting use of the term 'genocide.'"

    Moreover, Cameron's insistence that his intervention saved lives-when in the long run, it did not-and his use of word "disappointing" is telling. It suggests a near pathological unwillingness to accept mistakes. To admit failure in Libya would be to undermine the prime minister's judgment, and he can't have that. He would rather blame Libyans for not taking their big shot at democracy. This stubbornness seems to have driven him to be hawkish over Syria. Cameron and his friends want to recapture some of the magic they felt when they rid the world of a tyranny. It doesn't matter whether Britain is tackling Assad, or attacking Assad's enemy. It doesn't even matter that Britain is making a pathetically insignificant contribution. What counts is that the Tory top brass can feel they are fighting the good fight. When it comes to international statesmanship, the Cameroons prefer West Wing–style fantasy to realpolitik.

    Cameron is aware of this criticism, which is why he has tried to pretend that he had thought through his latest adventure in Syria. But his strategy didn't stand up to much scrutiny. The prime minister's office issues a document claiming that while the immediate motive for airstrikes was to degrade ISIS, there was a medium-term plan to work with seventy thousand "Syrian opposition fighters on the ground who do not belong to extremist groups." This was an obvious fudge to suggest that destroying ISIS did not mean propping up Assad; that a third force existed in Syria, one which could be brought to the fore, with Western help. Unfortunately for democrats everywhere, this idea seems based on wishful thinking. Experts maintain that the armed opposition to Assad is dominated by ISIS, as well as the Al Qaeda affiliate Jabhat al-Nusra and the equally Islamist Ahrar al-Sham. The smaller rebel groups might be labeled moderate, but they are able to operate only with the blessing of the jihadists. Besides, as journalist Patrick Cockburn, citing Aymenn Jawad al-Tamimi of the Middle East Forum, writes, these groups "commonly exaggerate their numbers, are very fragmented and have failed to unite, despite years of war."

    Cameron's attempts to look perspicacious in foreign affairs only show him once again to be over impulsive and delusional-proof once again that the prime minister's foreign policy is, as General Richards had put it, "more about the Notting Hill liberal agenda rather than statecraft."

    [Apr 09, 2016] There Is No Secret Russian Oil War The National Interest by Paul J. Saunders

    April 3, 2016 | nationalinterest.org

    Moscow isn't sowing Middle East chaos to drive up oil prices.

    Russia's leaders certainly do care about oil prices, and with good reason. Plunging oil prices decrease the ruble's value, which closely follows oil prices. Oil exports are important to Russia's federal budget and to its overall balance of trade. Indeed, when monthly average Brent oil prices peaked at about $125 per barrel in March 2012, the ruble was close to its own peak, at approximately twenty-nine rubles to every U.S. dollar. When Brent prices fell to $30.70 per barrel in January 2016, the ruble had fallen to about eighty rubles to the dollar. It is easy to examine this currency-resource correlation by comparing U.S. Energy Information Administration oil price data with Russian Central Bank ruble values. As a result, the Russian government has imposed sweeping budget cuts that will now affect defense expenditures as well as social programs and other areas.

    ... ... ...

    On the contrary, Russia has been working with Riyadh to contain prices and announcing a withdrawal from Syria and a new focus on peace talks there. If Russia were determined to play the oil card, it could do so in many different ways. For example, one option might be to step up support for Assad's government to win a comprehensive military victory over its foes. If Russia looked seriously at this option, the changing conditions could draw Saudi Arabia and other supporters of the Syrian opposition more deeply into the conflict and perhaps expand it. This is much more likely to raise oil prices than what Moscow has done in the past. But Syria is not a major oil producer or exporter. So perhaps Russia's policy in Syria is not oil centric, but its approach to other problems could. Unfortunately, there is not much evidence to support this argument either.

    One of the strongest counterarguments to the oil-price theory of Russian foreign policy is the recent Iran nuclear agreement, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JPCOA). If higher oil prices were Russia's principal goal in dealing with Iran-which has the world's fourth-largest proven oil reserves-why facilitate the JPCOA at all? It would be far better to block the agreement in hopes of forcing a showdown between Washington and Tehran, possibly including U.S. military action. Alternatively, Russia could have agreed to Western proposals to tighten sanctions on Iran's energy sector, further limiting oil supplies. Or Moscow could have delayed the talks, hoping that this would create sufficient uncertainty to raise oil prices. Instead, at a time when Russia was already suffering economically from low oil prices and from Western economic sanctions, President Vladimir Putin decided to support an agreement that would only further decrease oil prices.

    ... ... ...

    ...Russia did much less to oppose U.S. and NATO air strikes in Libya in 2011-so maybe this proves that Moscow wanted disorder there to increase oil prices? It doesn't look that way. First, then-president Dmitry Medvedev agreed to accept the strikes after intense pressure from President Obama and appeared to do so in large part to appease the United States. Second-perhaps more importantly-then-prime minister Putin criticized Medvedev's decision to order Russian diplomats to abstain in United Nations Security Council vote, prompting a rebuke from Medvedev. Since Putin has been controlling Russian foreign policy for most of the last sixteen years, Medvedev's move was likely an exception rather than the rule. Finally, oil prices were already quite high in early 2011 when Medvedev made his choice. Even if moving oil prices upward was a top priority in Russian foreign policy, it would have been much less necessary at this specific time.

    While oil prices are important for Russia, they are generally not a driving factor of Russian leaders' key decisions. Thus, Russia does seek to shape oil prices, but does so through routine diplomatic processes. There are many reasons for this, but one of the most significant is that Russia sees critical national-security interests in the Middle East that override its concerns over oil prices. In fact, in each of the above cases-Syria, Iran and Iraq-President Putin has pursued policies that appear intended to produce stability. So Russia's supposed secret plans to boost oil prices may produce entertaining conversation, but they don't lead to much else.

    Paul J. Saunders is Executive Director at the Center for the National Interest and a Research Scientist at CNA Corporation.

    Borgþór Jónsson > Guest

    You are correct,except the US wars are not so secret.
    They are there for everyone to see.

    Sinbad2 > Borgþór Jónsson

    Americans don't see their wars. The US Government keeps the American people in a cocoon of ignorance.

    O_Pinion > Guest

    Who needs secret wars when you can have secret bank accounts?

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...

    O_Pinion > Sinbad2

    So the US fracking oil boom never happened, iraq's oil output didn't increase to an all time high, there are no macroeconomic forces cooling demand and the law of supply and demand is a fiction.

    it is all simply a grand conspiracy cooked up by Saudi Arabia and the US.

    Serge Krieger > Sinbad2

    It is very complex topic. I think too many things came together to create this perfect storm. Frankly, new oil reserves are not profitable at anything below $70.

    I guess it was both market overproduction with Canadian sands and US fracking and Saudis and possibly even Russian oil production that caused this. I do not think Saudis alone would be capable of such fit.

    Anthony Papagallo , 7 days ago
    Sensible analysis, its much more likely Russia is just preparing the way to make sure it doesn't end up with an American boot stamping on its face forever.
    International Thinker -> Guest , 7 days ago
    Because of this Russia is in the cross hairs of the Anglo-Zionists who can only survive if they tear apart Russia and take control of its vast resources.
    bob bear -> Guest , 7 days ago

    So?

    China and the US who are the 2 biggest purchasers of energy in the world, have been doubling their investments in renewable energy!

    Castlerock58

    The US,Turkey and Saudi Arabia are promoting the instability in the Middle East.

    Bankotsu

    "Moscow isn't sowing Middle East chaos...."

    I think the writer confused Russia with U.S.

    Pacemaker4

    Russia oil and gas industry accounts for 15% of their GDP.... that fact is lost on the author.


    Kalinin Yuri > HotelQuebec

    All the vessels in the ocean instead of Diesel should use some nuclear reactors, right? The trucks that move all the goods - also batteries? Has anybody calculated emissions from power stations in order to charge a car that runs 80 km? Also how much does it cost to recycle the batteries?

    Sinbad2 > Kalinin Yuri

    The silicon used in solar panels, is one of the dirtiest refining processes on the planet.

    Hippies are well meaning critters, but not very smart.

    Gregory Anbreit

    Oh wow, so it was Russia who started all the chaos in the Middle East? Is this a joke? Who invaded Iraq in 2003? Who has destroyed Libya? Who was supporting "Arab springs"? Who sends weapons to AQ and ISIS in Syria?

    But yeah, blame Russia.....how typical.


    deadman449

    Russia exports two things. Oil and weapons. If you think about it, it makes sense to cause mischief in other countries near oil production. Question is, then why is the oil price so low?

    Andre

    If Russia really wanted to use conflict to raise oil prices and achieve irridentist ambitions at the same time, it would launch a Crimean/Donbas-type dirty war in northern Kazakhstan with a view to annexing the Russian-inhabited areas. Kazakhstan occupies a similar position with respect to oil production as Libya did in 2011 and its cost of production is not too much more than many Gulf Arab states. Kazakhstan is also non-aligned and quite frankly indefensible. From a geopolitical standpoint I see this move as much more likely than some dangerous play in the Baltics which would yield little in terms of added Russian citizens or resources.

    Andre
    If Russia really wanted to use conflict to raise oil prices and achieve irridentist ambitions at the same time, it would launch a Crimean/Donbas-type dirty war in northern Kazakhstan with a view to annexing the Russian-inhabited areas. Kazakhstan occupies a similar position with respect to oil production as Libya did in 2011 and its cost of production is not too much more than many Gulf Arab states. Kazakhstan is also non-aligned and quite frankly indefensible. From a geopolitical standpoint I see this move as much more likely than some dangerous play in the Baltics which would yield little in terms of added Russian citizens or resources.
    Roman Lvovskiy > Andre
    you're like Tom Clancy reborn, honestly
    Andre > Roman Lvovskiy
    Tom Clancy was remarkably prescient among techno-thriller writers, although some works were much better than others, particularly "The Hunt for Red October", "Red Storm Rising" and "SSN".

    You may consider my opinions fanciful, but look at the academic debate: there is an assumption that Russian military intervention in Georgia and Ukraine poses a threat to NATO, and that the Syrian adventure merely compounds this.

    In comparison, I maintain the view that while Putin can be reckless - a common human flaw - his aggression has been highly targeted to interests that have been articulated for many years, including prior to his presidency e.g. absorbing the ethnic Russian diaspora bordering the RF, halting NATO expansion, regaining global prestige.

    Both Georgia and Ukraine were non-aligned countries when he invaded, and there is every indication that he is aware of the distinction between NATO and non-NATO members. Therefore, if he is planning on intervening anywhere, I would expect that country to: (a) be a "core interest", (b) be non-aligned and (c) feature developments that challenge Russian interests. Belarus and Kazakhstan both meet all these criteria, as each is drifting away from Russia. In Kazakhstan's case, the recent policies concerning the official use of Kazakh and Russian are increasingly discriminatory toward Russian-speakers, more so than any policies even contemplated by the post-Maidan Ukrainian government. Unlike Belarus, Kazakhstan features immense natural resources and many more ethnic Russians...

    Roman Lvovskiy > Andre
    i suspect it, that 'Red Storm Rising' is your fave. i like it as well, despite the fact that it's hardly accurate when it comes to wording out actual features possessed by the Soviet hardware of that period, described thereby.

    one thing that eludes you always is that Putin can not afford to subjugate anyone. that would be stretching beyond capacity, both financially and politically. also, there's hardly that much of anyting that is in Kazakhstan's possession presently or in short-to-midterm perspective to make Putin even think about considering the risks.

    so i'm guessing it's just your wishful thinking. i'd also suggest reading something more profound, like something by Vonnegut or Trumbo. there's more to American culture than your garden variety of trash usually presented on TV, sadly - less and less with each passing year.

    Andre > Roman Lvovskiy
    You're correct that Putin can't afford a grinding counter-insurgency, and he seems to have taken in the Soviet experience in occupying East-Central Europe, as well as the quagmires in Afghanistan and Chechnya. Interestingly, as soon as it became apparent that support for union with Russia was not as warm in Donbas as Crimea, the Novorossiya project was quietly buried.

    But Putin certainly has his eye on Belarus and Kazakhstan, and Astana's been taking an increasingly independent line. There is a demographic and economic case, as I've laid out in prior comments. But this is not a "call", after all, Crimea was annexed 20 years after analysts were worried about it.

    I'll be honest with you - I've never read a Clancy book all the way through - I've read many papers on military technology and strategy, but I still find Clancy too dry. There are more contemporary American authors that are great, McCarthy being one.

    dennis powell
    There seems to be a lot of russian supporters , who are seeing the world thru rose colored glasses , commenting here. Russia would love nothing more then to see oil higher. Inside their own country the fall of the ruble isn't as much a big deal as it is when they try and conduct business outside of russia.

    They are paying for their actions in the ukraine. The annexation of crimea was a just move to take back what should have never been given away. Their mistake was in how it was done. Their move into syria wasn't about right and wrong but about protecting their military interests. Any one who says anything different is being foolish. Their subsequent withdrawal is an indication that they have satisfied that end. It also , I suspect , is to contain the costs of such an operation. Russia is a gas station parading as a country.

    Their only claim to significance is their nuclear arsenal. They have an overblown view of themselves which masks their deep paranoia. Take away their nuclear arsenal and they wouldn't be anymore significant then brazil.

    Frank Blangeard > dennis powell • 6 days ago
    The last three lines of your comment seem to apply more to the United States than to Russia.
    Randal > dennis powell • 7 days ago
    "They are paying for their actions in the ukraine."

    How have Russia's actions in the Ukraine caused the oil price to fall dramatically? The US sphere sanctions are an irrelevant pinprick in comparison.

    "The annexation of crimea was a just move to take back what should have never been given away. Their mistake was in how it was done."

    I'd love to hear how you think it could possibly have been done any other way.

    "Their move into syria wasn't about right and wrong but about protecting their military interests. Any one who says anything different is being foolish."

    What military interests? Surely you aren't talking about the Tartus base? Have you actually seen it? Apart from that they had almost zero military interests in Syria before the commencement of the regime change attempt there.

    "Their subsequent withdrawal is an indication that they have satisfied that end. It also , I suspect , is to contain the costs of such an operation."

    Given the trivial costs in Russian budgetary terms of their relatively small operation in Syria, how do you justify claiming that would be an overwhelming factor in their decision making?

    "Russia is a gas station parading as a country."

    That pretty much discredits you terminally as any kind of objective observer on Russia, I think.

    "Their only claim to significance is their nuclear arsenal. They have an overblown view of themselves which masks their deep paranoia. Take away their nuclear arsenal and they wouldn't be anymore significant then brazil."

    Oh, really? Do feel free to explain exactly how their nuclear arsenal enabled them to intervene successfully in Syria, in stark contrast to the US regime's repeated failures. And while you are about it, feel free also to explain the utility of their nuclear arsenal in recovering the Crimea, or any of Russia's other recent activities.

    Presumably you think Brazil could have done both, if it only had a nuclear arsenal like Russia's.

    Borgþór Jónsson > dennis powell

    Of course Putin went to Syria to protect the bases,but there are also several other reasons.

    • Putin wanted to protect the sovereignty of Syria.
    • He did not want a state similar to Libya so close to his boarders.

    That is exactly what would have happened if he did not intervene.
    It would have happened ,because that is what the US wanted. They wanted to grow a terrorist state close to Russia borders.

    Putin also went to Syria because he wanted to fight terrorism in area where they would be easier to defeat than in Caucasus.
    Imagine the trouble it had cost him if he had a terrorist state in Syria constantly supplying terrorists and weapons to the Caucasus.
    That was one of the aims of the US,that is the reason they fed the terrorists with weapons.
    The final goal was that they would later use those weapons against Russian people.

    Same goes for the Ukraine.

    The final goal there is that the Ukrainian Nasis will finally attack Russia.That is the reason for the Us cooperation with Ukrainian nationalists. Ukrainian nationalists are violent idiots on par with ISIS as you know.

    You are not the only person that are obsessed with that misunderstanding that Russia is a gas station. This misunderstanding is the reason the US sanctioned Russia. But it does not work,because after all, the oil is only 12% of the Russian GDP. It is uncomfortable because it is so big part of the export, but Russia is in no way going to collapse because of it.

    In fact the Russian economy is exceptionally strong,I believe that no other nation on earth would have been able to withstand such hardship as the sharp fall of their export and at the same time sanctions from the western powers.

    Later this year or next year their economy will most likely start growing again. Well done Russia.

    Borgþór Jónsson > Borgþór Jónsson

    I forgot to address another misunderstanding of yours. Russia has not left Syria.

    In the beginning Russia used SU 24 and SU 25 plains for strategic bombing. What it means is that they were used for taking out the oil business of the terrorists and also their weapons depots,their control stations and training facilities. That is now over and those plains are sent home.

    Now they have the SU 34 And SU 35 that are more suitable for assisting the Syrian Army in their offence. On top of that they have the MI 28 attack helicopters and of course the the dreaded KA 52. All those plains and helicopters played a vital role in the liberation of Palmyra.

    The Russians are not home yet,they will stay in Syria and fight the terrorists till the end.

    Valhalla rising

    its not the jewish NeoCohens and liberal Hawks that destabilized the Middle East.Nope the Russians are goyim -- The Russians are evil goyim -- Czar Putin shuts us down -- The Russians disposed Muhammad Gaddafi -- The Russians supported the Muslim Brotherhood in egypt -- The Russians supported the islamic onslaught against Assad -- ... ... ...
    http://www.dailystormer.com/gl...


    [Apr 07, 2016] 'Who's funding this' CIA MI5 whistleblowers question credibility of Panama Papers coverage

    Notable quotes:
    "... "Everyone in corporate press is controlled by corporations that profit on wars and have an interest in creating tensions – all these people in the Western press, like the Guardian, are blackening Putin [for being] a designated villain here. Curiously, his name is not in these documents," ..."
    "... "a complete lack of standards on the part of the Western media." ..."
    "... "a major mistake made by the leaker" ..."
    "... "It seems the Western press has lost all sense of fairness. This would be humorous if it weren't so serious. It seems even if Vladimir Putin was seen walking on water, the report in the Western media would come out as 'Putin doesn't know how to swim,'" ..."
    "... "It's always worth taking a step back from whatever you read in the media – and seeing who's funding this, what are the corporate interests behind what is being published in this particular outlet." ..."
    "... "RT gets slated for that, and I think most western outlets could also be slated for the same reasons. The BBC is state funded, Fox News is corporate funded – there is always going to be some sort of agenda behind any editorial decisions on any medium there," ..."
    "... "The Guardian still has this 'how to hide your billions offshore' and a video with Putin and his family. I understand that journalistic organizations want to maximize the impact – they should – but you can maximize it and then minimize it by dragging it up too long. It's interesting that the press seems to have a certain agenda and yet the [primary] interest is the corruption of their leaders." ..."
    "... "There is an obligation for the people who hold these documents to release the full text. I would caution people that the main points are not out [yet] – all we see so far is what the corporate media selected for us to see, while certainly [there are] people in the US who do not want [everything] released until after the presidential primaries," ..."
    "... "made a splash," ..."
    "... "crowdsourcing journalism, crowdsourcing democracy" ..."
    RT Op-Edge
    While neither Vladimir Putin nor any members of his family were mentioned in the Panama Papers leak, most Western media chose to break the story with the Russian president's photo. Former US and UK intelligence officers told RT this is no coincidence. Ray McGovern, a former CIA officer, told RT that the fact that the Western media has been using Putin as the "face" of the Panama Papers leak can be easily explained by looking at the people and organizations behind these news outlets.

    "Everyone in corporate press is controlled by corporations that profit on wars and have an interest in creating tensions – all these people in the Western press, like the Guardian, are blackening Putin [for being] a designated villain here. Curiously, his name is not in these documents," Ray says.

    Read more Russian investigators to launch criminal probe after Panama data leak

    He also claims that the way the story was presented demonstrates "a complete lack of standards on the part of the Western media." McGovern believes it was "a major mistake made by the leaker" to hand the documents over to the corporate media, instead of leaking them to trusted independent journalists.

    "It seems the Western press has lost all sense of fairness. This would be humorous if it weren't so serious. It seems even if Vladimir Putin was seen walking on water, the report in the Western media would come out as 'Putin doesn't know how to swim,'" McGovern said.

    Annie Machon, a former MI5 agent, advised being cautious when reading news in the MSM, as there is always an agenda behind what is presented in those publications.

    "It's always worth taking a step back from whatever you read in the media – and seeing who's funding this, what are the corporate interests behind what is being published in this particular outlet."

    "RT gets slated for that, and I think most western outlets could also be slated for the same reasons. The BBC is state funded, Fox News is corporate funded – there is always going to be some sort of agenda behind any editorial decisions on any medium there," she stressed.

    Machon also suggests that the journalists who broke the story concerning the Panama Papers leaks lost control of the story as they tried to maximize its impact to make it "breaking."

    Read more US government, Soros funded Panama Papers to attack Putin – WikiLeaks

    "The Guardian still has this 'how to hide your billions offshore' and a video with Putin and his family. I understand that journalistic organizations want to maximize the impact – they should – but you can maximize it and then minimize it by dragging it up too long. It's interesting that the press seems to have a certain agenda and yet the [primary] interest is the corruption of their leaders."

    Meanwhile, both experts question the speed with which the information contained in the papers is being released, calling on the news outlets to make all of the information public instead of holding on to it, creating a mystery where there shouldn't be one.

    "There is an obligation for the people who hold these documents to release the full text. I would caution people that the main points are not out [yet] – all we see so far is what the corporate media selected for us to see, while certainly [there are] people in the US who do not want [everything] released until after the presidential primaries," McGovern stressed.

    According to Machon, now that the media has "made a splash," it must put all the information out for everyone to research, which she says is what "crowdsourcing journalism, crowdsourcing democracy" is really about and what is, in her opinion, what the global community needs.

    [Apr 07, 2016] Is A Permanent Decline Coming For Russia

    Apr 06, 2016 | OilPrice.com

    The Russian energy ministry sees the very real possibility that Russian oil production enters long-term decline, possibly even falling by half by 2035. Russia's major oil fields are decades old, so it will be increasingly difficult to prevent output from falling. At the same time, Russian oil companies are not discovering new sources of supply that could replace that lost output. The Arctic offers one area where very large reserves could be exploited, but western sanctions have blocked the participation of major international oil companies, which could help Russian companies pull off the expensive and tricky Arctic drilling operations.

    Meanwhile, Russia's natural resources minister said in late March – with an eye on the Doha meeting – that Rosneft will likely lower its output this year. Rosneft actually did not comment on his remarks, but the minister's comments were likely meant to demonstrate Russia's willingness to cooperate with OPEC in Doha.

    ... ... ....

    Russian output is expected to decline by 20,000 barrels per day on average this year, according to OPEC's latest assessment.

    [Apr 07, 2016] Putin on Panama Papers 'Info product' aimed to destabilize Russia - RT News

    Notable quotes:
    "... So here we've got some friend of the Russian president, he has done something, probably there is an aspect of corruption to it... But what aspect [exactly]? Well, there is none ..."
    "... You are all journalists here and you know what an informational product is... They've plowed through offshore [funds]. [Putin] is not there, there is nothing to talk about. But the task has been assigned! So what have they done? They've created an informational product by having found some acquaintances and friends ..."
    "... more agreeable ..."
    "... The easiest way to do so is to induce some mistrust to authorities within the society ..."
    "... I am proud of people like Sergey Pavlovich [Roldugin]... and am proud to have him among my friends ..."
    "... Almost all money that he has earnt he spent on buying music instruments abroad, which he then brought to Russia ..."
    "... got used to a monopoly ..."
    "... and don't want to consider others ..."
    "... Our position on the situation in the south-east of Ukraine, as well as smaller scale things, such as [Russia's] refusal to extradite [Edward] Snowden have become irritants in our relations ..."
    www.rt.com

    Putin on Panama Papers: 'Info product' aimed to destabilize Russia

    Published time: 7 Apr, 2016 14:42 Edited time: 7 Apr, 2016 15:22 Get short URL The Russian part of the so-called Panama Papers leak that claims to reveal offshore financial activities of a number of public figures is not about corruption, but aims to destabilize Russia, says President Vladimir Putin. Trends Panama Papers

    " So here we've got some friend of the Russian president, he has done something, probably there is an aspect of corruption to it... But what aspect [exactly]? Well, there is none ," Putin said on Thursday, addressing a media forum in St. Petersburg. He also pointed out that he himself had not been mentioned in the leaked documents.

    " You are all journalists here and you know what an informational product is... They've plowed through offshore [funds]. [Putin] is not there, there is nothing to talk about. But the task has been assigned! So what have they done? They've created an informational product by having found some acquaintances and friends ," the president told the media forum.

    WikiLeaks has already shown who's behind all this scandal, he added.

    According to Putin, the Panama Papers episode is yet another attempt to destabilize Russia from within, and make it " more agreeable ."

    " The easiest way to do so is to induce some mistrust to authorities within the society ," Putin said, adding that the creators of the leak aimed at the unity of the multiethnic Russian people.

    Read more 'Goebbels had less-biased articles': Public slams MSM for Putin focus after Panama papers leak

    The " biggest leak " on corruption in journalistic history was published on Sunday, claiming to expose offshore holdings and financial activities of dozens of politicians and public figures from different countries. Russian businessmen Suleiman Kerimov and Arkady Rotenberg, as well as figure skater Tatiana Navka and musician Sergey Roldugin are among those featured in the released data.

    " I am proud of people like Sergey Pavlovich [Roldugin]... and am proud to have him among my friends ," Putin said, adding that claims that the cellist has billions are nonsense. " Almost all money that he has earnt he spent on buying music instruments abroad, which he then brought to Russia " and gave them to state institutions, Putin said.

    Some of Russia's counterparts on the international arena " got used to a monopoly " there " and don't want to consider others ," he said, having also quoted some opinions on why relations with the West have worsened.

    " Our position on the situation in the south-east of Ukraine, as well as smaller scale things, such as [Russia's] refusal to extradite [Edward] Snowden have become irritants in our relations ," Putin said.

    READ MORE: Panama Papers leak not specifically directed against Russia – ICIJ head

    READ MORE: 'Russia poses threat to US designs for global domination'

    READ MORE: 'Who's funding this?' CIA & MI5 whistleblowers question credibility of Panama Papers coverage

    [Apr 07, 2016] Panama Tax Haven Scandal The Bigger Picture Zero Hedge

    www.zerohedge.com
    A Huge Leak

    The "Panama Papers" tax haven leak is big …

    After all, the Prime Minister of Iceland resigned over the leak, and investigations are taking place worldwide over the leak.

    But Why Is It Mainly Focusing On Enemies of the West?

    But the Panama Papers reporting mainly focuses on friends of Russia's Putin, Assad's Syria and others disfavored by the West.

    Former British Ambassador Craig Murray notes :

    Whoever leaked the Mossack Fonseca papers appears motivated by a genuine desire to expose the system that enables the ultra wealthy to hide their massive stashes, often corruptly obtained and all involved in tax avoidance. These Panamanian lawyers hide the wealth of a significant proportion of the 1%, and the massive leak of their documents ought to be a wonderful thing.

    Unfortunately the leaker has made the dreadful mistake of turning to the western corporate media to publicise the results. In consequence the first major story, published today by the Guardian, is all about Vladimir Putin and a cellist on the fiddle. As it happens I believe the story and have no doubt Putin is bent.

    But why focus on Russia? Russian wealth is only a tiny minority of the money hidden away with the aid of Mossack Fonseca. In fact, it soon becomes obvious that the selective reporting is going to stink.

    The Suddeutsche Zeitung, which received the leak, gives a detailed explanation of the methodology the corporate media used to search the files. The main search they have done is for names associated with breaking UN sanctions regimes. The Guardian reports this too and helpfully lists those countries as Zimbabwe, North Korea, Russia and Syria. The filtering of this Mossack Fonseca information by the corporate media follows a direct western governmental agenda. There is no mention at all of use of Mossack Fonseca by massive western corporations or western billionaires – the main customers. And the Guardian is quick to reassure that "much of the leaked material will remain private."

    What do you expect? The leak is being managed by the grandly but laughably named "International Consortium of Investigative Journalists", which is funded and organised entirely by the USA's Center for Public Integrity. Their funders include

    Ford Foundation
    Carnegie Endowment
    Rockefeller Family Fund
    W K Kellogg Foundation
    Open Society Foundation (Soros)

    among many others. Do not expect a genuine expose of western capitalism. The dirty secrets of western corporations will remain unpublished.

    Expect hits at Russia, Iran and Syria and some tiny "balancing" western country like Iceland. A superannuated UK peer or two will be sacrificed – someone already with dementia.

    The corporate media – the Guardian and BBC in the UK – have exclusive access to the database which you and I cannot see.

    They are protecting themselves from even seeing western corporations' sensitive information by only looking at those documents which are brought up by specific searches such as UN sanctions busters. Never forget the Guardian smashed its copies of the Snowden files on the instruction of MI6.

    What if they did Mossack Fonseca database searches on the owners of all the corporate media and their companies, and all the editors and senior corporate media journalists? What if they did Mossack Fonseca searches on all the most senior people at the BBC? What if they did Mossack Fonseca searches on every donor to the Center for Public Integrity and their companies?

    What if they did Mossack Fonseca searches on every listed company in the western stock exchanges, and on every western millionaire they could trace?

    That would be much more interesting. I know Russia and China are corrupt, you don't have to tell me that. What if you look at things that we might, here in the west, be able to rise up and do something about?

    And what if you corporate lapdogs let the people see the actual data?

    Indeed, Wikileaks comments :

    Washington DC based Ford, Soros funded soft-power tax-dodge "ICIJ" has a WikiLeaks problem # PanamaPapers https:// twitter.com/ChMadar/status /717395684207550467 …

    And :

    Putin attack was produced by OCCRP which targets Russia & former USSR and was funded by USAID & Soros.

    U.S. Companies Use Foreign Tax Evasion

    American companies are big users of foreign tax havens. For example, we pointed out in 2014:

    American multinationals pay much less in taxes than they should because they use a widespread variety of tax-avoidance scams and schemes, including … Pretending they are headquartered in tax havens like Bermuda, the Cayman Islands or Panama , so that they can enjoy all of the benefits of actually being based in America (including the use of American law and the court system, listing on the Dow, etc.), with the tax benefits associated with having a principal address in a sunny tax haven.

    ***

    U.S. Public Interest Research Group notes :

    Tax haven abusers benefit from America's markets, public infrastructure, educated workforce, security and rule of law – all supported in one way or another by tax dollars – but they avoid paying for these benefits. Instead, ordinary taxpayers end up picking up the tab, either in the form of higher taxes, cuts to public spending priorities, or increases to the federal debt.

    USPIRG continues:

    The United States loses approximately $184 billion in federal and state revenue each year due to corporations and individuals using tax havens to dodge taxes. On average, every filer who fills out a 1040 individual income tax form would need to pay an additional $1,259 in taxes to make up for the revenue lost.

  • Pfizer , the world's largest drug maker, paid no U.S. income taxes between 2010 and 2012 despite earning $43 billion worldwide. In fact, the corporation received more than $2 billion in federal tax refunds. In 2013, Pfizer operated 128 subsidiaries in tax haven countries and had $69 billion offshore and out of the reach of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
  • Microsoft maintains five tax haven subsidiaries and stashed $76.4 billion overseas in 2013. If Microsoft had not booked these profits offshore, they would have owed an additional $24.4 billion in taxes.
  • Citigroup, bailed out by taxpayers in the wake of the financial crisis of 2008 , maintained 21 subsidiaries in tax haven countries in 2013, and kept $43.8 billion in offshore jurisdictions. If that money had not been booked offshore, Citigroup would have owed an additional $11.7 billion in taxes.
  • Al Jazeera reports :

    Rich individuals and their families have as much as $32 trillion of hidden financial assets in offshore tax havens, representing up to $280bn in lost income tax revenues, according to research published on Sunday.

    ***

    "We're talking about very big, well-known brands – HSBC, Citigroup, Bank of America , UBS, Credit Suisse – some of the world's biggest banks are involved… and they do it knowing fully well that their clients, more often than not, are evading and avoiding taxes."

    Much of this activity , Christensen added, was illegal .

    So the Panama Papers stories haven't focused on it, but U.S. corporations are hiding huge sums of money in foreign tax havens.

    Obama and Clinton Enabled Panamanian Tax Evasion Havens

    Of course, Obama and Hillary Clinton enabled and supported Panama's ability to act as a tax evasion haven.

    So it's a little disingenuous for them now to say we should "crack down" on tax havens.

    US and UK – Not Panama – Biggest Tax Havens for Money Laundering Criminals and Tax Cheats

    But the bigger story is that America is the world's largest tax haven … with the UK in a close second-place position.

    The Guardian noted last year:

    The US has overtaken Singapore, Luxembourg and the Cayman Islands as an attractive haven for super-rich individuals and businesses looking to shelter assets behind a veil of secrecy, according to a study by the Tax Justice Network (TJN).

    Bloomberg headlined in January, The World's Favorite New Tax Haven Is the United States :

    After years of lambasting other countries for helping rich Americans hide their money offshore, the U.S. is emerging as a leading tax and secrecy haven for rich foreigners. By resisting new global disclosure standards, the U.S. is creating a hot new market, becoming the go-to place to stash foreign wealth. Everyone from London lawyers to Swiss trust companies is getting in on the act, helping the world's rich move accounts from places like the Bahamas and the British Virgin Islands to Nevada, Wyoming, and South Dakota.

    "How ironic-no, how perverse-that the USA, which has been so sanctimonious in its condemnation of Swiss banks, has become the banking secrecy jurisdiction du jour," wrote Peter A. Cotorceanu , a lawyer at Anaford AG, a Zurich law firm, in a recent legal journal. "That 'giant sucking sound' you hear? It is the sound of money rushing to the USA."

    Rothschild, the centuries-old European financial institution, has opened a trust company in Reno, Nev., a few blocks from the Harrah's and Eldorado casinos. It is now moving the fortunes of wealthy foreign clients out of offshore havens such as Bermuda, subject to the new international disclosure requirements, and into Rothschild-run trusts in Nevada, which are exempt.

    The U.S. "is effectively the biggest tax haven in the world" -Andrew Penney, Rothschild & Co.

    ***

    Others are also jumping in: Geneva-based Cisa Trust Co. SA, which advises wealthy Latin Americans, is applying to open in Pierre, S.D., to "serve the needs of our foreign clients," said John J. Ryan Jr., Cisa's president.

    Trident Trust Co. , one of the world's biggest providers of offshore trusts, moved dozens of accounts out of Switzerland, Grand Cayman, and other locales and into Sioux Falls, S.D., in December, ahead of a Jan. 1 disclosure deadline.

    "Cayman was slammed in December, closing things that people were withdrawing," said Alice Rokahr, the president of Trident in South Dakota, one of several states promoting low taxes and confidentiality in their trust laws. "I was surprised at how many were coming across that were formerly Swiss bank accounts, but they want out of Switzerland."

    ***

    One wealthy Turkish family is using Rothschild's trust company to move assets from the Bahamas into the U.S., he said. Another Rothschild client, a family from Asia, is moving assets from Bermuda into Nevada. He said customers are often international families with offspring in the U.S.

    Forbes points out that the U.S. is not practicing what it is preaching:

    A report by the Tax Justice Network says that the U.S. doesn't even practice what it preaches. Indeed, the report ranks America as one of the worst. How bad? Worse than the Cayman Islands. The report claims that America has refused to participate in the OECD's global automatic information exchange for bank data. The OECD has been designing and implementing the system to target tax evasion. Given the IRS fixation on that topic, you might think that the U.S. would join in.

    However, it turns out that the United States jealously guards its information. The Tax Justice Network says the IRS is stingy with data. Of course, with FATCA, America has more data than anyone else. FATCA , the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act is up and running. The IRS says it is now swapping taxpayer data reciprocally with other countries. The IRS says it will only engage in reciprocal exchanges with foreign jurisdictions meeting the IRS's stringent safeguard, privacy, and technical standards.

    The Tax Justice Network report blasts the U.S. for being a one-way street:

    The United States, which has for decades hosted vast stocks of financial and other wealth under conditions of considerable secrecy, has moved up from sixth to third place in our index. It is more of a cause for concern than any other individual country – because of both the size of its offshore sector, and also its rather recalcitrant attitude to international co-operation and reform. Though the U.S. has been a pioneer in defending itself from foreign secrecy jurisdictions, aggressively taking on the Swiss banking establishment and setting up its technically quite strong Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) – it provides little information in return to other countries, making it a formidable, harmful and irresponsible secrecy jurisdiction at both the Federal and state levels. (Click here for a short explainer; See our special report on the USA for more)."

    The Washington Post writes :

    One of the least recognized facts about the global offshore industry is that much of it, in fact, is not offshore. Indeed, some critics of the offshore industry say the U.S. is now becoming one of the world's largest "offshore" financial destinations.

    ***

    A 2012 study in which researchers sent more than 7,400 email solicitations to more than 3,700 corporate service providers - the kind of companies that typically register shell companies, such as the Corporation Trust Company at 1209 North Orange St. - found that the U.S. had the laxest regulations for setting up a shell company anywhere in the world outside of Kenya. The researchers impersonated both low- and high-risk customers, including potential money launderers, terrorist financiers and corrupt officials.

    Contrary to popular belief, notorious tax havens such as the Cayman Islands, Jersey and the Bahamas were far less permissive in offering the researchers shell companies than states such as Nevada, Delaware, Montana, South Dakota, Wyoming and New York , the researchers found.

    ***

    "In some places [in the U.S.], it's easier to incorporate a company than it is to get a library card," Joseph Spanjers of Global Financial Integrity, a research and advocacy organization that wants to curtail illicit financial flows, said in an interview earlier this year.

    ***

    Too often, however, shell companies are used as a vehicle for criminal activity - disguising wealth from tax authorities, financing terrorism, concealing fraudulent schemes, or laundering funds from corruption or the trafficking in drugs, people and arms.

    ***

    The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, a group of 34 advanced countries, drew up its own tough tax disclosure requirements, called Common Reporting Standards, and asked roughly 100 countries and jurisdictions around the world to approve them. Only a handful of countries have refused, including Bahrain, Vanuatu and the United States .

    Bloomberg reports :

    Advisers around the world are increasingly using the U.S. resistance to the OECD's standards as a marketing tool - attracting overseas money to U.S. state-level tax and secrecy havens like Nevada and South Dakota, potentially keeping it hidden from their home governments.

    Salon notes :

    Several states – Delaware, Nevada, South Dakota, Wyoming – specialize in incorporating anonymous shell corporations. Delaware earns between one-quarter and one-third of their budget from incorporation fees, according to Clark Gascoigne of the FACT Coalition. The appeal of this revenue has emboldened small states, and now Wyoming bank accounts are the new Swiss bank accounts. America has become a lure, not only for foreign elites looking to seal money away from their own governments, but to launder their money through the purchase of U.S. real estate .

    And the UK is a giant swamp of tax evasion and laundering as well …

    The Independent reported last year:

    The City of London is the money-laundering centre of the world's drug trade, according to an internationally acclaimed crime expert.

    ***

    His warning follows a National Crime Agency (NCA) threat assessment which stated: "We assess that hundreds of billions of US dollars of criminal money almost certainly continue to be laundered through UK banks, including their subsidiaries, each year."

    Last month, the NCA warned that despite the UK's role in developing international standards to tackle money laundering, the continued extent of it amounts to a "strategic threat to the UK's economy and reputation". It added that the same money-laundering networks used by organised crime were being used by terrorists as well.

    ***

    Interviewed by The Independent on Sunday, Mr Saviano said of the international drugs trade that "Mexico is its heart and London is its head". He said the cheapness and the ease of laundering dirty money through UK-based banks gave London a key role in drugs trade. "Antonio Maria Costa of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime found that drug trafficking organisations were blatantly recycling dirty money through European and American banks, but no one takes any notice," he said. "He found that banks were welcoming dirty money because they need cash, liquidity during the financial crisis. The figures are too big to be rejected …. Yet there was no reaction."

    ( Background .)

    In a separate article, the Independent wrote :

    Billions of pounds of corruptly gained money has been laundered by criminals and foreign officials buying upmarket London properties through anonymous offshore front companies – making the city arguably the world capital of money laundering.

    The flow of corrupt cash has driven up average prices with a "widespread ripple effect down the property price chain and beyond London", according to property experts cited in the most comprehensive study ever carried out into the long-suspected money laundering route through central London real estate, by the respected anti-corruption organisation Transparency International.

    ***

    Any anonymous company in a secret location, such as the British Virgin Islands, can buy and sell houses in the UK with no disclosure of who the actual purchaser is. Meanwhile, TI said, estate agents only have to carry out anti-money-laundering checks on the person selling the property, leaving the buyers bringing their money into the country facing little, if any scrutiny.

    ***

    Detective Chief Inspector Jon Benton, director of operations at the Proceeds of Corruption Unit, said: "Properties that are purchased with illicit money, which is often stolen from some of the poorest people in the world, are nearly always layered through offshore structures.

    ***

    Companies set up in the Crown Dependencies and British Overseas Territories such as Jersey, British Virgin Islands and Gibraltar are the preferred option for concealment of corrupt property purchases.

    More than a third of company-owned London houses are held by effectively anonymous firms ….

    TruePublica notes :

    The consequence of its operations is that money laundering is now at such levels and so widespread that the authorities have recently admitted defeat in its battle of attrition by stating openly it has been completely overwhelmed and lost control. Keith Bristow Director-General of the UK's National Crime Agency said just six months ago that the sheer scale of crime and its subsequent money laundering operations was "a strategic threat" to the country's economy and reputation and that "high-end money laundering is a major risk".

    Indeed :

    TJN [the Tax Justice Network] says the UK would be ranked as the worst offender in the world if considered along with the three Crown Dependencies (Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man) and the 14 Overseas Territories (including notorious tax havens such as Bermuda, the Cayman and Virgin islands).

    In their 2015 Index, TJN state: "Overall, the City of London and these offshore satellites constitute by far the most important part of the global offshore world of secrecy jurisdictions."

    For background on the Isle of Jersey, see this Newsweek article .

    Agence France-Press points out :

    "London is the epicentre of so much of the sleaze that happens in the world," Nicholas Shaxson, author of the book "Treasure Islands", which examines the role of offshore banks and tax havens, told AFP.

    ***

    "Tax evasion and stuff like that will be done in the external parts of the network. Usually there will be links to the City of London, UK law firms, UK accountancy firms and to UK banks," he said, calling London the centre of a "spider's web" .

    "They're all agents of the City of London -- that is where the whole exercise is controlled from," Richard Murphy, professor at London's City University, said of the offshore havens.

    ***

    "When the British empire collapsed, London swapped being the governor of the imperial engine to being an offshore island and allowing money to come with no questions asked," he added.

    With public pressure mounting, Murphy said Britain had the power to legislate directly on its overseas territories, but the lobbying power of the financial sector and worries about upsetting the jewel in Britain's economic crown were holding back efforts.

    "The City of London seems to believe that without these conduits, then it would not have the competitive edge that it needs," he said.

    "The financial institutions have become like wild animals," added Shaxson.

    Snípéir_Ag_Obair

    as is often the case [wikileaks, snowden] - it is perhaps more important to discern who and what is not covered or divulged in a leak.

    This seems to largely be as GW describes.

    What's amazing is reading, say, the NYT coverage. They have such contempt for the American people they really don't even try to hide the fact that they are the voice of the Deep State.

    dumb_funded

    OT - WTC7 evidence of demolition. Not a demolition? This is one of the best videos that show numerous charges set off just before the implosion

    https://twitter.com/RichieAllenShow

    scroll down to the video clip. I did a quick youtube search and didn't find this particular footage. It's the best i have seen yet.

    You'd think it's only a matter of time before the door's blown open on the complicity of Cheney, Rumsfeld and company but they've got everybody's hands tied and mouth taped shut with threats if they speak.

    These bastards need to be help accountable!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Maybe Putin will release the info he has on 911. Mr. Churchhill tells me Putin hangs out here at ZH

    johnofRandI

    Once the propaganda clips on youtubish settings started to come out on the Panama Papers it became clear... the propaganda was to be aimed at western enemies..

    "look, look, Putin and Assad used these Nazis to hide ill-gottten money and kill innocent Syrian revolutionaries ( and well meaning Isils,) so we should "arm up" surround Russia and invade Syria with boots on the ground.

    We must get Cheney's Sunni pipeline built and end the Russia Shia threat

    CheapBastard

    Murder by poison is only one clue to offshore dealings by top Chinese

    For months, Gu Kailai worried about a secret that threatened to upend her comfortable life and stop her husband's climb to the top rungs of China's political leadership. So she took action. In a hotel room in the southwestern Chinese megacity of Chongqing, she mixed tea and rat poison in a small container as Neil Heywood, a British business associate, lay drunken and dazed on the hotel bed. Then she dripped the mixture into Heywood's mouth.

    Full [fascinating] article: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article70303717.html

    Hannibal , Thu, 04/07/2016 - 08:55

    Land of plenty: Duma committee approves bill for free handover of Russian territory to foreigners

    A plot of land in Russia's Far East could be yours, after a Russian lower house committee approved a bill that, if passed, will introduce the free handover of land to Russians and foreigners who want to build homes or start businesses in agriculture or tourism in the region.

    https://www.rt.com/politics/338775-duma-committee-approves-bill-introduc ...

    Paul Kersey , Thu, 04/07/2016 - 08:55

    To the best of my knowledge, none of our Presidential candidates have had anything to say about the Panama Papers, and only two of our Presidential candidates have had anything to say about Panama, itself. Their statements clash.

    ""Panama is a world leader when it comes to allowing wealthy Americans and large corporations to evade US taxes by stashing their cash in offshore tax havens. The Panama free trade agreement will make this bad situation much worse. Each and every year, the wealthiest people in this country and the largest corporations evade about $100 billion in taxes through abusive and illegal offshore tax havens in Panama and in other countries." Bernie Sanders

    As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton was on the complete opposite side of the issue. In an official statement issued by the US Department of State on October 13, 2011 (one day after Sanders' floor address), Clinton congratulated President Obama for passing the trade pact, citing the very same job creation arguments Sen. Sanders shot down a day earlier. Clinton made no mention of Panama's reputation as a tax haven, and even invoked "working families" in her statement:

    "These initiatives are the leading edge of a job-creating trade agenda that will open markets, level the playing field for our businesses and workers, and champion America's working families in an age of tough global competition. They deserve the historic and widespread support they received in Congress tonight. We will continue our work to rebuild an American consensus on trade."

    rex-lacrymarum , Thu, 04/07/2016 - 08:55

    It is perfectly legitimate to set up foreign accounts and to do whatever one can legally do to ensure their safety and privacy. The ONLY reason one actually needs is "I feel like it". It should be obvious that these leaks are not at all about unmasking corruption - that is just the pretext. In reality it is all about smearing perceived enemies, distracting from recent scandals like the IMF's secret Greece agenda, expanding State control, and cutting off all avenues for escape for citizens who want to defend their legitimately accumulated wealth from the depredations of the State. The fact that criminals are using these structures as well is a big "so what"? Drugs shouldn't be prohibited anyway - repeal prohibition, and 90% of the criminal cartels disappear. Moroever, this argument is on the same level as saying "criminals use guns" or "criminals use iPhones" - therefore, so the statist logic goes, guns should be made illegal and the government should have a "backdoor" into every citizen's smart phone. If you join the faux "outrage" over these leaks, you are simply being played.

    hedgiex , Thu, 04/07/2016 - 08:55

    It just stirs moral indignations among the 99% with no actions. Salivating at treasures that you can see but not touch. The sheep are impotent because of mindsets. So what if these vaults are dismantled with the full display of their movements to fully transparent virtual websites. Are you looking the distractions of nip slips or at the faces of the Predators ? Where is the focus of the 99% ?

    jeff montanye , Thu, 04/07/2016 - 03:09

    the 99% are focused on how skinny Angelina Jolie is, the opening of baseball season, whose looking good on idol and the voice, how to keep the mortgage paid . . . .

    break the 9-11 story wide open and no one will see the elite that runs this country and the world the same way. the crime is too great and too black. the perps don't even need to be tried and convicted although i strongly recommend trials if only for the truth uncovering (like south africa).

    it is the best and gravest chink in their armor. they went too far and killed too many of "their own".

    Kayman , Thu, 04/07/2016 - 09:55

    Jeff

    "vatican city??? where are the papists in the u.s./u.k. government?"

    Look up Tony Blair. The $10 million payoff for bleating about Saddam's purported yellow cake in Africa went to the Vatican Bank. Tony outed himself within 6 months of leaving office.

    But naming Putin in these Panama Papers makes me wonder when he will name the European and U.S. criminals in their tax havens.

    After all, it was Putin that outed Erdogan's dirty ISIS oil deal.

    K

    Snípéir_Ag_Obair , Thu, 04/07/2016 - 11:47

    look up richard perle, douglas feith, scooter libby, and dozens of prominent jewish neocons who advocated for that war because they felt it would benefit Israel .

    even if true - 10 million is couch cushion money as to Zionist involvement. This isn't to say that the Vatican has no power, or engages in evil fuckery, it surely does, but it has nowhere near the power over us and british policy, or banking, as does the Jewish/Israeli lobbies in each country. I mean it isn;t even a serious question. Those who constantly bring up the vatican like karen hude are curiously silent about the role of Israel and its global network of advocates.

    And I don't mean to just pick on them. The fucking Saudis are also more complicit, more insidious, more powerful - So probably is Hong Kong, Singapore, Dubai... This isn't the 15th century - if anything the Vatican is dependent on the whims of the US/UK and those who control it... as for who fabricated the evidence - it wasnt the Vatican.

    Rusty Shorts , Thu, 04/07/2016 - 09:19

    The 9/11 Script in 'War of Terror' Ballbuster Premiere Episode

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NO8HjUTULeo

    nmewn , Wed, 04/06/2016 - 21:32

    Why do people think it extremely important and a world wide government concern/function to know & regulate where people have their money?

    If it is SO IMPORTANT (and they think it somehow criminal) why not stop the wealth accumulation at its source, which is those governments themselves?

    jeff montanye , Thu, 04/07/2016 - 02:58

    i think it's tax avoidance that's the violation not "where people have their money" that's the issue.

    but gw's real point is the constant, unrelenting control of news by the, essentially, zionist/bankster cabal/cartel and their ownership of the traditional media (and much of the internet).

    apparently trump and sanders scare them and their plans for hillary clinton to assume the presidency.

    i swear 9-11 is still the litmus test under all the obfuscation. they so don't want to be found out.

    [Apr 02, 2016] Once upon the time we dreamed that the price of barrel of oil rising to 20 dollars per barrel

    likbez, 04/03/2016 at 4:35 pm
    See an interesting interview (slightly edited Google translation). Looks like the new oil reserves in Russia are very expensive, on par with the US shale and the old are mostly depleted.

    ============================================

    izvestia.ru

    The President of the Union of oil and gas Industrialists of Russia Gennady Shmal told "Izvestia" about what oil price is needed for Russia and when the industry will overcome dependence on imported equipment

    Q: OPEC believe that soon the price of oil should stabilize at a "normal", but not a too high level. What do you think, what level of oil prices can be considered normal for Russia today?

    A: If we are talking about a fair price of oil globally, I believe this is $80 per barrel. Keep in mind that a significant part of oil – about a third – is produced offshore, where the cost can be high. And there is a deep-water shelf, for example, in Brazil, where one of the first well cost more than $300 million. Subsequent wells would of course cost less, around the half the price, but still very expensive. Therefore, the capex of this oil extraction is high enough. The breakeven price of our oil production without taxes is around $10 per barrel, nationally. But when we include taxes, we get around $30 per barrel. But this cost is not no tragedy for us. I remember a time when a barrel of oil was less than $10. Then we dreamed about the price rising to $20.

    When the three-year average cost of oil was above $100 per barrel, we got too used to it. But the high price has one big drawback – it can negatively affect demand and stimulates production. And that's what basically happened.

    Therefore, now our oil companies might be now content with the price around $50-60 per barrel.

    And I think in general, globally it would be OK price for both producers and consumers. Even for the United States that would be an acceptable price. Canadians with their oil sands would need a higher price – up to $80. But as the Canadian oil going to the United States, anyway, losses can be compensated with the domestic shale production and they would have to come to a common denominator.

    Q: You're talking about this level of prices, without taking into account the Arctic shelf projects?

    A: Arctic shelf – it is quite another matter. My point of view on this issue is different from the most popular view that exists today. I believe that we need to engage the shelf in terms of prospecting, exploration. We generally do not even know that there, how much oil we have on the shelf. We have so far only preliminary estimates of reserves – C2, C3 (preliminary estimated reserves, potential reserves). And in order to have A, B, C1 (proven reserves), it is necessary to drill. I am sure that we are not ready to work on the Arctic shelf both technically and technologically, nor economically.

    We do not have qualified people for that too. First of all, we need several platforms. One platform for "Prirazlomnoe" that we now have been built for more than 15 years, and we sank into it about $4 billion

    And this one is not a new one, this is a second hand equipment. In order to seriously develop the shelf, we need not one, but dozens of platforms, support vessels. Also offshore operations must have the regulatory framework.

    That means all the necessary technical regulations, standards. We have nothing. But the main thing – the cost effectiveness of this oil: it is necessary to consider how profitable in today's environment to produce Arctic oil. So, I think we now have enough things to do on land – in Eastern Siberia, for example, before we need to jump with two legs into arctic oil extraction.

    Q: How record oil production that Russian oil companies demonstrate in the past few years, affects the structure of the Russian economy?

    A: First of all, I believe that there are no records. Yes, we produced 534 million tons. But in 1987 the Russian Federation has produced 572 million tons. Compared to the 1990s there is a certain growth in recent years, but I would not talk about records. Second, the question about optimal production volumes is a very complex one. The main question to which I have no answer today: how much oil we need to extract?

    Without answer on this question it is impossible to say whether we produced too little oil or too much. If we consider that in 2015 we extracted more then 246 million tons, then, I would say we produced too much. This is not the way this business should be run. The fact is that Russia can not influence the world oil price too much because we make only 19-20% of the market. But we can and should make the country less dependent on raw oil price fluctuations. We could process all extracted oil and export mainly gasoline and diesel fuel, as well as products with high added value in the form of chemicals, petrochemicals, composite materials.

    That means that we need to adopt a different approach to the structure of our industrial production.

    For example, China in the last twenty years has built a series of petrochemical plants, and today they have the chemical products sector with total value of production about $1.4 trillion, or around 20% of China GDP. It should be noted that China's GDP is eight times more than ours. Our chemical sector production is around $80 billion – 1.6% of Russia's GDP. In 2014 alone BASF Chemicals (which is a single German company) produced 1.5 times more than all the chemical enterprises of Russia. Petrochemicals may be the critical link, pulling which we could change the whole structure of industrial production in Russia.

    Q: If we talk about production prospects, what we levels of production we can expect in the future, based on our today's oil reserves structure?

    A: Unfortunately, today we do not have a reliable statistics. According to some estimates, of those oil reserves that are under development, about 70% are so-called hard-to-extract oil. That is, stocks, where oil production is complicated mining and geological, geographical conditions.

    In these fields there might be tight reservoirs, reservoirs with low permeability, viscous oil, etc. By the way, today we have no any clear definition of hard-to-extract inventory, although this defines the benefits that can be granted to companies to work on the fields with such reserves. Therefore we need serious work on the classification and definition of reserves that will be put into the hard-to-extract category.

    By the way, the current production mostly (about 70%) relies on the old fields, which now have a high water content, high percentage of depletion of reserves. Of course, they will not last forever. Therefore, sooner or later, will have to enter the development of the fields with hard to recover reserves.

    Q: Extraction of hard inventory requires new technologies, which in Russia does not fully have. What are the tools the government has to encourage their development?

    A: The state has a lot of tools to stimulate those technological developments. Our tax system can perform stimulating role along with fiscal and re-distributive functions. However, our tax system currently performs mostly fiscal function and only slightly – re-distributive function. Simulative function is not yet here. As an illustration, take Texas, USA: if the well there gives 500 liters of oil per day, it is considered a cost-effective – this way the tax system is built. For us a well, which gives 4000 liters per day, is already viewed as unprofitable, and is moved into the idle fund. Now, of course, some work is being done in respect of incentives for low producing wells – MET rates introduced.

    But I believe that the future of our oil industry is largely dependent on whether we are able to create the technology of oil production from the Bazhenov Formation or not. Because the geological reserves of the Bazhenov Formation in Western Siberia are more than 100 billion tons of oil. Even at a conservative estimate, if it is possible to extract around 40-60 billion tones of oil with the current technologies.

    And please remember that all we have in Russia today, all C2 stocks, are just around 28 billion tons So if we find the necessary technology that can be applied to the Bazhenov Formation, the peak oil production issue for Russia can be resolved for a sufficiently long period of time. And in respect of the help from the state it could be such measures such as tax holidays, tax exemption, reduction in mineral extraction tax, etc.

    But currently the Ministry of Finance is interested only in filling the budget. We need to make sure that taxes are fair. For this, they must be applied to the end result of production. In our country today we have taxes on earnings – up to 65-70% of the average withdrawal. Norway, for example, has high taxes too, but they are levied on profits.

    Taxes should be applied to profits, not revenue, the latter for us looks like the absolutely wrong approach.

    Q: According to various estimates, in the Russian oil and gas industry today up to 45-50% of the equipment are imported. Will Russian oil companies to move away from this dependence in view of sanctions. And what should be role of the state in achieving this results?

    A: At the request of "Lukoil" we did last year such a study. We've got that on average 53% of drilling equipment in Russia is imported. Of course, we must bear in mind that, for example, pipes, with rare exceptions, we can produce domestically. But today there are some technological segments where there is a high dependence of Russian oil from foreign suppliers. Those segments include: software control, automation and remote control.

    Today, the Ministry of Energy to the Ministry of Industry set up working groups that are engaged in import substitution. And we have already been there for some equipment that is competitive with foreign models. So, one of the factories in Perm began to produce excellent pumps, which match in quality the best foreign analogues. Some factories in Bashkortostan started the production of valves, cut-offs switches and other fittings for any type of drilling. But it is not necessary to replace all the foreign oil production equipment. And, of course, we can not do this.

    We make good tanks, but we do not produce luxury cars like Mercedes. We just don't produce them. I believe that if we had a dependence on imports in the range of 20-25%, it would be acceptable and probably close to optimal.

    Today we can get rigs from China. Our experts say that they are of a sufficient level of quality. We also have a factory, which in 1990 produced drilling rigs – "Uralmash". Then, the plant produced 365 sets of drilling equipment per year. In the past year – only 25.

    Therefore we need to rely on the Chinese oil extracting equipment, as they have learned to make a decent drilling equipment. And for the price, no one can match them. I believe that we need to very clearly define few areas of oil extraction equipment, which are critical for us. and then pay close attention and allocate resources to those areas. We do not need to cover everything. And I am sure that before the end of 2020 Russia could reduce this dependence on foreign equipment to 25-30%.

    [Mar 29, 2016] Russia could face long gradual decline in oil

    oilprice.com

    Russia's oil output hit a post-Soviet record of 10.9 mb/d in January 2016, but that could be a ceiling as the country's massive oil fields face decline. The bulk of Russia's oil output comes from its aging West Siberian fields, which require ever more investment just to keep output stable. The depreciation of the ruble has helped a bit, lowering the real cost of spending on production and allowing Russian companies to increase investment by one-third this year. However, some long-term projects are being pushed off due to the financial squeeze from western sanctions and low oil prices. An estimated 29 projects, amounting to 500,000 barrels per day in new production, have been delayed. With most of Russia's large oil fields having been under production since the Soviet era, and with precious few new sources of supply, Russia is facing long-term decline.

    [Mar 18, 2016] NYT Conceals U.S. Control Over Anti-Russian Pro-Democracy Nonprofit

    The US government always subscribed to Al Capone maxim "You can get much farther with a kind word and a gun than you can with a kind word alone. ". Bu now this allegiance took slightly more sophisticated form.
    Notable quotes:
    "... We all need to do what we can to try to make your take on the NY Times into a more mainstream understanding of that capitalist/imperialist propaganda rag. ..."
    "... The NYT is only good for the periodic correct quote buried deeply within it's bombastic verbiage. ..."
    "... Granted, the NYT does provide a view into the mindset of the Empire, but is otherwise nothing more than a propaganda rag. I find it fascinating that anyone gives it any credence as 'information' ... ..."
    "... more light needs to be shone on this topic of 'ngos', 'non profits' and any other sacrimonious name tag the money wants to give to 'regime change'... democracy my ass. ..."
    "... U.S. embassies are primarily and above all else organs of espionage and subversion. With modern communications abilities allowing online performance of many traditional ambassadorial functions. If I were Putin, I would clip the wings of hostile powers' embassies by eliminating most attaches and other mischief makers and placing restrictions on the total numbers of staff. ..."
    "... Beware of Yanks bringing democracy Have caution of NGO's in general, they may not always be what they appear ..."
    "... institutions like the New York Times are essentially organs of authoritarian government, with the clandestine mission of "manufacturing consent" for the government's policies and programs. ..."
    "... by Douglas Jehl and David E. Sanger - July 17, 2005 ..."
    "... Despite the denials by some Bush administration officials, others who took part in or were briefed on the discussion said they could not rule out the possibility that the United States and its allies might have provided secret aid to augment the broad overt support provided to Iraqi candidates and parties by the State Department, through organizations like the (Inter)national Democratic Institute . ..."
    "... IRI was founded in 1983 as the result of a Reagan administration initative to fight Communism by providing government funding to private groups -- most notably the National Endowment for Democracy -- that would promote U.S. policies in ways the government could not undertake directly. In 1991, one of the creators of the NED would be quoted as saying, "a lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA" This initiative led to the creation of two organizations, the International Republican Institute and the National Democratic Institute, associated with the two political parties. ..."
    "... The CIA used to handle all the subversive activities of the US Government abroad until the Church and Pike commissions opened up that can of worms post-Watergate. The Reagan regime eventually repackaged the US Government's efforts at subversion of foreign governments at the State Department ..."
    "... The NYTimes and WaPo are now funny papers, bald propaganda sites posing as newspapers, and have been since the younger, neo-con Sulzberger took over from his 'liberal' dad at the one, and since the Amazonian CIA contractor, Bezos, took over the other. ..."
    "... US 'democracy loving' spies out! ..."
    "... GNGOs - Government-funded Non-Governmental Organizations - are in every way a contradiction in terms, and those exporting Government-funded Non-Governmental product ought to be turned around at the border of any and every other supposedly independent state to which they are sent, as an obvious infringement of national sovereignty. ..."
    "... Next to the NED and the IRI, The Open Society of George Soros must be added to the forefront of Pro Democracy nonprofit group used by The CIA and The deep state and the oligarchs linked to them. ..."
    "... Syrian rebels claim to have downed a Syrian air force MiG-21 fighter jet that crashed in Hama Province while bombing militant positions. At least one pilot died, for which conflicting reports blame either fire from the ground or a jet malfunction. "The pilot was ejected and brought to safety in al-Mughayr," a military source told the Syrian Al Masdar News outlet. The same source insisted that the plane was not taken down by militants, but crashed due to a technical failure. ..."
    "... Biden Jr's resume is unsurprisingly sprinkled with Ivy-league dust - he is on the Chairman's Advisory Board for the National Democratic Institute , a director for the Center for National Policy and the US Global Leadership Coalition comprising 400 American businesses, NGOs, senior national security and foreign policy experts. ..."
    "... Former US President Bill Clinton appointed him an Executive Director of E-Commerce Policy and he was honorary co-chair of the 2008 Obama-Biden Inaugural Committee. ..."
    "... perpetuum mobile ..."
    "... How any nation could trust American based NGOs in this day and age ..."
    "... Yeah the WaPo was trash before Bezos ... they played it straight though, tryied to carry on as a newspaper with a poker face. Now the joker is unmasked. Bezos doesn't even care what people think. He's laughing ... in print ... at the people who read his rag. \ ..."
    March 12, 2016 | M of A

    What is a pro-democracy nonprofit?

    Pro-Democracy Nonprofit Is Banned in Russia

    MOSCOW - A nonprofit group that promotes democracy has become the latest American-linked group to be banned in Russia under restrictions on "undesirable" organizations signed into law by President Vladimir V. Putin in May.

    The office of Russia's prosecutor general on Thursday outlawed the group, the National Democratic Institute, claiming in a statement that the it posed "a threat to the foundations of Russia's constitutional order and national security."

    The above quoted NYT piece studiously avoids to describe what the "pro-democracy nonprofit" really is. There is no mention at all of its sources of money or its relations to non-Russian governments.

    The National Democratic Institute, a group promoting democracy and civil society, had operated in Russia directly since the late 1980s, but it decided to close its offices there in 2012, according to its website. It has continued to establish programs in Russia through partner organizations, however. Madeleine K. Albright, an former United States secretary of state, is its chairwoman.

    When asked about U.S. sanctions against Iraq Madeleine Albright once said (vid) that 500,000 killed Iraqi children were "worth it". Any organization led by here must surely be a morally good. But who pays it? And what for?

    To know what exactly this "nonprofit" is, is certainly relevant to understand the Russian position. But the NYT writer hides from the readers the fact that the NDI is a U.S. government financed organization. It is a "nonprofit organization" in the same sense that the U.S. Armed Forces are a "nonprofit organization". The NDI has been involved throughout the years in dozens of right-wing "regime change" coups . Its direct parent organization is the U.S. National Endowment of Democracy:

    The private, congressionally funded NED has been a controversial tool in U.S. foreign policy because of its support of efforts to overthrow foreign governments. As the writers Jonah Gindin and Kirsten Weld remarked in the January/February 2007 NACLA Report on the Americas: "Since [1983], the NED and other democracy-promoting governmental and nongovernmental institutions have intervened successfully on behalf of 'democracy'-actually a very particular form of low-intensity democracy chained to pro-market economics-in countries from Nicaragua to the Philippines, Ukraine to Haiti, overturning unfriendly 'authoritarian' governments (many of which the United States had previously supported) and replacing them with handpicked pro-market allies."[2]

    NED works principally through four core institutes: the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDIIA or NDI), the International Republican Institute (IRI), the American Center for International Labor Solidarity (ACILS), and the Center for International Private Enterprise-representing, respectively, the country's two major political parties, organized labor, and the business community.

    To call the NDI and its brothers and sisters non-government organization is obviously wrong. To call them "pro-democracy" is only right when one has some fondness for the peculiar kind of "democracy" in foreign countries that sets U.S. business interests above the interest of its own people.

    What the Russian prosecutor general kicked out of Russia is obviously a U.S. government organization. The NDI was acting clandestinely by secretly financing local groups in Russia which work against the duly elected Russian government and against the interest of the Russian people.

    But the petty-minded NYT, with its slavishly U.S. centric view, can not allow its readers to learn such facts.

    fairleft | Mar 12, 2016 12:30:02 PM | 1

    Thank you b, excellent work!

    We all need to do what we can to try to make your take on the NY Times into a more mainstream understanding of that capitalist/imperialist propaganda rag.

    Rg an LG | Mar 12, 2016 12:54:32 PM | 2
    The NYT is only good for the periodic correct quote buried deeply within it's bombastic verbiage. It is often quoted by authors such as this one, PCRoberts, Vltchek, the Saker, etc., to make a point ... but is otherwise useless as information. Granted, the NYT does provide a view into the mindset of the Empire, but is otherwise nothing more than a propaganda rag. I find it fascinating that anyone gives it any credence as 'information' ...
    james | Mar 12, 2016 12:56:13 PM | 3
    thanks b.. more light needs to be shone on this topic of 'ngos', 'non profits' and any other sacrimonious name tag the money wants to give to 'regime change'... democracy my ass... we don't have it here in canada..

    plutocracy is encouraged instead.. the russians are smart to not allow this kind of bs to enter the pic.. take george soros and tie him up.. that would be a better example of democracy in action..

    karlof1 | Mar 12, 2016 1:02:48 PM | 4
    About the only truthful items published by the NY Times are its recipes and page numbers. /a>
    Oui | Mar 12, 2016 1:11:38 PM | 6
    US Policy of Military 'Re-alignment' and Obama's Military Think-tank
    World In Turmoil: Role of Brzezinski and Albright, Our Democrats

    Brzezinski and Albright belong to the "in-crowd" of the Clintons and likely foreign policy advisors to HRC's campaign for the presidency.

    adrian | Mar 12, 2016 1:15:49 PM | 7
    "Nest of spies" is the correct term for all such organizations.
    Russia, and any other country interested in preserving its autonomy, would be crazy to permit any outside funded organization whose raison d'etre is subversion.
    In fact the members of such organizations when operating clandestinely through front organizations should be subject to arrest and prosecution.

    Another thing: U.S. embassies are primarily and above all else organs of espionage and subversion. With modern communications abilities allowing online performance of many traditional ambassadorial functions. If I were Putin, I would clip the wings of hostile powers' embassies by eliminating most attaches and other mischief makers and placing restrictions on the total numbers of staff.

    The term NGO is too cute by half.

    Formerly T-Bear | Mar 12, 2016 1:18:21 PM | 8
    Beware of Greeks bearing gifts (especially if you live in Troy) Beware of Yanks bringing democracy Have caution of NGO's in general, they may not always be what they appear
    Ort | Mar 12, 2016 1:23:12 PM | 9
    Good catch, but I'm not sure I agree with your characterization of the NYT as "petty-minded".

    It's a semantic cavil, perhaps. I think that an argument can be made that any pejorative term applied to the NYT poobahs... er, fits.

    But I refer you to the Gospel of Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky, who masterfully demonstrated that institutions like the New York Times are essentially organs of authoritarian government, with the clandestine mission of "manufacturing consent" for the government's policies and programs.

    "Petty-minded" implies that the NYT publisher/editors choose to withhold or distort the truth out of a sort of personal-- perhaps aristocratic-- pique. It's way worse than that; it's a calculated "business" decision to further their above-cited consent-manufacturing function.

    All that said, you could've gone with "evil-minded".

    Oui | Mar 12, 2016 1:42:21 PM | 10
    Plan Called for Covert Aid In Iraq Vote | NY Times | by Douglas Jehl and David E. Sanger - July 17, 2005
      Despite the denials by some Bush administration officials, others who took part in or were briefed on the discussion said they could not rule out the possibility that the United States and its allies might have provided secret aid to augment the broad overt support provided to Iraqi candidates and parties by the State Department, through organizations like the (Inter)national Democratic Institute .
    Oui | Mar 12, 2016 2:32:04 PM | 12
    GOP organization linked to dirty politics, attempted coups, 'building democracy' for US | Raw Story – June 2006 |
      Crushing Kerry

      In December 2004, IRI contracted with Tony Marsh and Lance Copsey of the media consulting firm Marsh, Copsey & Scott to set up a Baghdad Media Center on behalf of the U.S. State Department. Its stated purpose was to assist Iraqi political parties and candidates in the upcoming January elections.

      Earlier that year, in January 2004, Marsh Copsey & Scott (now Marsh Copsey & Associates) had registered the domain name crushkerry.com , which was used throughout the 2004 election for an anti-Kerry blog run by their senior account executive, Patrick Hynes . The site was heavily involved in promoting both the SwiftBoat Veterans and CBS Memos stories . It also encouraged readers to suggest other ways of discrediting John Kerry, and claimed to have inside sources of information on the Kerry campaign.

      Outsourcing regime change

      IRI was founded in 1983 as the result of a Reagan administration initative to fight Communism by providing government funding to private groups -- most notably the National Endowment for Democracy -- that would promote U.S. policies in ways the government could not undertake directly. In 1991, one of the creators of the NED would be quoted as saying, "a lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA" This initiative led to the creation of two organizations, the International Republican Institute and the National Democratic Institute, associated with the two political parties.

    Linked to my story in 2012 - LaHood Nabbed at Cairo Airport Fleeing Egypt .

    tom | Mar 12, 2016 2:43:03 PM | 13
    The 'Empire Times' is the NYT objectives, so let's call it by its actions instead of its PR lies... The Empire Times.
    Jen | Mar 12, 2016 3:29:35 PM | 16
    Native speakers of English would not say that the New York Propaganda Crimes is not "petty minded" in the sense of being vindictive but "small minded" in the bland way it makes its report and leaves it there, in the manner of bureaucrats or those who fulfill the minimum work tasks required of them and then do no more.

    The fact that former US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright is a chair of this National Democratic Institute probably tells most people with a triple-digit IQ all they need to know and then they can go away and do their own research.

    Incidentally that NYT report was filed by Ivan Nechepurenko who writes for The Moscow Times (a pro-US newspaper) and who has worked with the Carnegie Moscow Center, another NGO that the Kremlin should be fixing its sights on.

    ALberto | Mar 12, 2016 3:51:02 PM | 17
    Comment on previous Obama Doctrine Whitewash thread Geoff # 106 Mar 11, 2016 1:56:01 2016 1:56:01 PM

    "The only thing good about the political class perhaps, is that on the whole they keep the rest of us moving, while simultaneously holding back a better future. Without their class, however, perhaps we would propegate unimpeded and run out of food supplies."

    Geoff,

    This is the type of dystopian logic that is utilized at West Point and other War Colleges that allows them to Manchurian Candidate drone pilots so they can mass murder brown people without blinking an eye.

    Go F*#K yourself A$$wipe.

    psychohistorian | Mar 12, 2016 3:55:54 PM | 18
    For many, if they didn't read about it in the NYT or saw it on Fox news then it never happened. Combine enough of those missing ITS together and one can see what flavor of reality is being fed to those that believe the myth of the last sentence.

    Its the old Faith thingy, it works until it doesn't. Faith in America is not on the upswing and is quite close to the tipping point on numerous fronts, ME politics, private finance (Fed, IMF & World Bank), US Manifest Destiny, etc.

    I am encouraged to recently hear David Draiman's (Disturbed) cover of 'Sound of Silence'. I don't care about his background. I just want to note that, IMO, he upped the in your face aspect of the message.... ".....People bowed and prayed, to the neon Gods THEY made...."

    Just like what happened in Chicago yesterday with shutting down the Trump rally, the energy level of the complacent is rising.

    Nana2007 | Mar 12, 2016 5:24:36 PM | 19
    Just like what happened in Chicago yesterday with shutting down the Trump rally, the energy level of the complacent is rising.

    Posted by: psychohistorian | Mar 12, 2016 3:55:54 PM | 18

    Moveon.org has taken credit for the disturbance. I predict more non events like this will occur in the lead up to the non event elections.

    Rg an LG | Mar 12, 2016 5:27:38 PM | 20
    " ...the energy level of the complacent is rising" is an assumption that cuts both directions. While it certainly is possible that Americans in general want change, I suspect that what many want is really a return to the 1950's when the assumption was that we were the winners of a recent war ... despite the fact that only a few hundred thousand Americans lost their lives defeating the Japanese and Germany while China lost about 15 million, and the Russians lost around 25 Million. WWII was simply a war between fascists and not a war against fascism.
    The carpet bombing of Dresden and Tokyo, or the threat of being "Hiroshima'd" or "Nagasaki'd" was the only real post WWII threats we had, and there was really no question we would use them again.
    It is really too bad that the best we Americans stand for is to be oblivious to the real issues faced by the rest of the world so long as our plutocrats and oligarchs allow us to have some of the benefits of world domination. /a>
    jfl | Mar 12, 2016 5:59:29 PM | 21
    The CIA used to handle all the subversive activities of the US Government abroad until the Church and Pike commissions opened up that can of worms post-Watergate. The Reagan regime eventually repackaged the US Government's efforts at subversion of foreign governments at the State Department:

    These were apparently modeled on the CIA's efforts, organizations it had founded or subverted in Germany, during the US' administration of West Germany after WW II:

    It amazes me that any nation allows such blatant, political organizations, sponsored from abroad, to operate within its borders, but ... money talks.

    The NYTimes and WaPo are now funny papers, bald propaganda sites posing as newspapers, and have been since the younger, neo-con Sulzberger took over from his 'liberal' dad at the one, and since the Amazonian CIA contractor, Bezos, took over the other.

    P Cockshott | Mar 12, 2016 6:24:58 PM | 22
    I know that RLS are pretty social democratic, but do they actually take US state dept money? /a>
    shadyl | Mar 12, 2016 6:34:03 PM | 23
    Hm, same money behind all the pro-democracy people in Egypt?
    Hoarsewhisperer | Mar 12, 2016 7:05:46 PM |
    24
    But the NYT writer hides from the readers the fact that the NDI is a U.S. government financed organization. It is a "nonprofit organization" in the same sense that the U.S. Armed Forces are a "nonprofit organization".

    Posted by b on March 12, 2016 at 12:03 PM

    Nailed it, b!

    The United States Of AmeriKKKa's raison d'être in two short sentences. Pure genius & effing brilliant!

    virgile | Mar 12, 2016 7:39:14 PM | 25
    Well done Putin! US 'democracy loving' spies out!
    jfl | Mar 12, 2016 8:35:20 PM | 26
    @22 pc ' I know that RLS are pretty social democratic, but do they actually take US state dept money? '

    I don't know. I imagine that by now all the German GNGOs are German-government-funded. Just as are the German and other NATO contingents. Still 'centrally coordinated' though, aren't they? RLS was among the German political exporters at wikipedia, so I included it as well. Wikipedia doesn't list the source of their funding, but I imagine they're government funded? A budget of €44,391,120 in 2012, according to wp.

    GNGOs - Government-funded Non-Governmental Organizations - are in every way a contradiction in terms, and those exporting Government-funded Non-Governmental product ought to be turned around at the border of any and every other supposedly independent state to which they are sent, as an obvious infringement of national sovereignty.

    fairleft | Mar 12, 2016 10:10:10 PM | 28
    Nana2007 @19

    " ...the energy level of the complacent is rising"

    ISIS and Al Nusra pose at rebelling against their Saudi/CIA masters, and yet through war and terror do exactly what Saudi/U.S./Israel want them to do.

    Black Lives Matter and other identity politics groups pose at rebelling against their MoveOn and Democratic Party masters, and yet through creation of chaos and 'FEAR OF TRUMP' do exactly what the Democratic Party and Hillary 2016 want them to do.

    Rg an LG @20

    I thought where you were going was ... When the previously complacent but now energized are tightly restricted in what they think is permissible thought, poorly and politically correctly 'educated', and (therefore) easily manipulated, they are as likely to be placated by 'other hatred', or by imperialist fear-mongering and "Let's have a war!" as by all the good things we wish they'd fight for.

    Lozion | Mar 12, 2016 10:41:46 PM | 29
    Simply put, any and all organization pretending to do "good" has actually been infiltrated and subverted by the PTB. From local NGO's all the way to HRW, USAID, Red Cross, and even UN agencies like the Minustah who spread cholera to Haiti post-earthquake. But you dont believe in the NWO, do you? ;) /a>
    psychohistorian | Mar 12, 2016 10:57:17 PM | 30
    As the originator of " ...the energy level of the complacent is rising", please notice that I didn't say what the result would be. I continue to smoke hopium or I would have offed myself long ago.

    i agree with fairleft/28 and Lozion/29 that all the spreading of Democracy since WWII has been more about empire building with private finance at the core.

    The reason we won't see world wide uprisings in the smaller countries is because our organizations of empire backed by the MIC/NSA/CIA et. al. have eliminated any potential threats, likely in their youth for decades now.

    Again, the ring that rules them all is private finance and those that own that hidden matrix.

    Forest | Mar 12, 2016 11:10:08 PM | 31
    @21

    Or like AIPAc et.al

    lebretteurfredonnant | Mar 12, 2016 11:10:53 PM | 32
    Great article B

    Next to the NED and the IRI, The Open Society of George Soros must be added to the forefront of Pro Democracy nonprofit group used by The CIA and The deep state and the oligarchs linked to them.

    One thing about all this Russo-phobia is that with the new Russia military dominance all this habit To scream bloody murder every time Russia does something seems Like water off a duck's back.It is too late and unless Russia get another Yeltsin or Gorbachev after Putin or the united state catch up on its military technology we are already living in a new world.The US dominance throughout the world is over.

    Wayoutwest | Mar 13, 2016 12:10:58 AM | 33
    This action seems more about Putin's paranoia about internal dissent than the effectiveness of these pseudo NGO's who can be easily monitored. Russia may have a military backed with Nukes but their economy is about the size of Mexico so I doubt they will be projecting much military might for very long.

    Putin is apparently settling into his President for Life position and informing the weak opposition that any dissent will be viewed as foreign interference.

    Oui | Mar 13, 2016 12:36:53 AM | 34
    @ALAN - #15

    Originally an unconfirmed news bulletin from Reuters published by many news outlets.

    This article offers a bit more details, yet still unconfirmed whether it was "shot-down" by rebels ...

      Syrian rebels claim to have downed a Syrian air force MiG-21 fighter jet that crashed in Hama Province while bombing militant positions. At least one pilot died, for which conflicting reports blame either fire from the ground or a jet malfunction. "The pilot was ejected and brought to safety in al-Mughayr," a military source told the Syrian Al Masdar News outlet. The same source insisted that the plane was not taken down by militants, but crashed due to a technical failure.
    Oui | Mar 13, 2016 12:51:26 AM | 35
    VP's Son Hunter Biden Joins Ukraine Gas Corporation

    NED and affiliates: a perpetuum mobile for reapimg benefits from US imperialism!

    Oui | Mar 13, 2016 12:59:01 AM | 36
    @ lebretteurfredonnant

    Soros Joins USAID in Cold War II Propaganda
    European Nations and Soros Apologize for Gaddafi Ties

    dahoit | Mar 13, 2016 9:00:40 AM | 38
    5;You will be very unhappy;Trump says he's gonna put Jesus back in Xmas!We'll be able to say Merry Christmas wo getting the haters upset.I didn't see that quote in todays Ziorags though.
    The lying times also gets yesterdays weather and sports scores correct,so lets be fair now.
    Blaming the violence from outside agitators on Trumps "political arson"is hilarious.Who da Nazis?
    Bernie quickly denounced Trumps claim of them being Sanders supporters.He has to eschew that commie label. Move on .Org has been silent throughout the abysmal Obomba reign.There resurrection as Trump bashers will be a death knell for the Ziohypocrites who run it.Trump is a direct threat to the Zionist control of America.Their hair is on fire.

    I think what is really happening is the that Trump people are not the complacent,as anyone fighting his words obviously are stuck in the narrative of BS foisted on US by the global monsters,or have skin in the illegal immigrant game.

    Why are there no protesters at the hell bitches rallies?I mean she is directly responsible for hundreds of thousands of innocents deaths,division and destruction to rival ww2,while Trump calls to bring back troops,help the working man,protect and expand SS are protest worthy?All things they protested under the shrub?Hypocrisy writ large.

    dahoit | Mar 13, 2016 9:20:29 AM | 39

    21;Wapo was just as bad under the previous owners.

    How any nation could trust American based NGOs in this day and age reveals the absolutely perfidy of the leaders of those nations in allowing it. Payoffs.

    jfl | Mar 13, 2016 9:44:36 AM | 41
    @39 dahoit

    I just read that The Donald has been invited and is going to make an appearance at the AIPAC ring-kissing event toward the end of the month. The Hil and Joe Biden will be there too, of course, kissing ass for all they're worth ... the only 'logical' thing for Trump to do is to let 'er rip in opposition. Send his critics in both forks of the War Party around the bend, set his 'loyalists' ... and how many others? ... dancin' in the streets. The AIPAC command performance might be interesting this year ...

    Yeah the WaPo was trash before Bezos ... they played it straight though, tryied to carry on as a newspaper with a poker face. Now the joker is unmasked. Bezos doesn't even care what people think. He's laughing ... in print ... at the people who read his rag. \

    Yonatan | Mar 13, 2016 9:58:38 AM | 42
    It is a "nonprofit organization" in the same sense that the U.S. Armed Forces are a "nonprofit organization".

    An excellent description of all US/AngloZionist NGOs

    @41 Trump has also stated, given the ISIS situation, he would put 20,000-30,000 US troops in Iraq/Syria. He doesn't say whether they would be fighting with ISIS or against it.

    dahoit | Mar 14, 2016 12:56:55 PM | 46
    41;Of course the donald will make nice with the framers of the agenda,or else they'll call in Mossad to kill him off,or invent memes like HE is the fascist.Sheesh.The crimes of the Hell Bitch leave one, with the lack of arrows at her huge inviting target suspicious,eh?

    AIPAC;Talk bout a foreign NGO and its tax exempt!

    Trump is not afraid to talk turkey with these clowns,he's dome it already,with his neutrality comment.

    dahoit | Mar 14, 2016 1:06:04 PM | 47
    43;Yes,America doesn't act Christian.Can't disagree.

    You are not American right?

    Over the last 40 years or so it has become unfashionable among the intelligentsia to want Merry Xmas said.It's the generic happy holidays.

    Because the Zionists didn't like it. It's ok for the 60% Israelis to have a Jewish State, but its not ok for 90%Christian America to have a Christian (nominal)state. And do you know who had prayer (voluntary)t aken out of schools? Zionists from LI.Nazis. Just like the idiots in Chicago who gave Sanders a black eye. Soros, the Zionist. Helps Shillary?

    Their hypocrisy is breathtaking.

    I hate organized religion btw, its all personal. Freedom.

    And the FF agreed,by keeping religion far from govt.

    Piotr Berman | Mar 15, 2016 2:32:07 AM | 48
    @43 pb ' Rama out of Ramadan '

    [... ] I imagine all the Pakistanis reading your joke are 'laughing' uproariously.

    jfl | Mar 13, 2016 7:54:47 PM | 45

    I do not know many Pakistanis but I know some. And in that small sample, some do show a sense of humor and some do not.

    By the way, I actually had hard time understanding if the problem of "Happy Holidays" versus "Merry Christmas" is totally contrived or not. It reminds me when as a "wee lad" someone stopped me on the street with a simple question "Where is the store?" "What do you mean, the store?" "Liquor store, of course!" The point is that when you say "Happy Holidays" in Poland it is an obvious abbreviation of Holiday of the God's Birth.

    And after few months another problem. You can wish "Happy Holidays" once more, but more standard is "Happy Great Night Holidays" and somewhat rare "Happy Holidays of the Lord's Resurection".

    So to people who have a choleric attitude to some variations of the greetings I would wish "Be yourself! Be grumpy if you wish! No need to be happy!".

    [Mar 14, 2016] Putin's $50 Billion Oil Cache Gives Russia Luxury to Ignore ECB

    Notable quotes:
    "... Their decision whether to resume an interest rate-cutting cycle this week is almost beside the point as the government of Vladimir Putin lubricates the economy in the background with oil wealth amassed in better times. Russian banks are sitting on the most cash in five years, allowing them to lend to each other at a lower rate than they borrow from the central bank. In the euro zone and in the U.S., money market rates are higher than benchmarks. ..."
    "... "This amounts to easing of monetary conditions without key rate cuts," said Alina Slyusarchuk, Morgan Stanley's London-based economist for Russia and the Commonwealth of Independent States. ..."
    "... Considering US is constantly painting Russia as Satan, surrounds them with nuclear missiles through NATO, tries to economically isolate them from the world's banking system, and politically manipulates their neighboring countries with CIA sponsored coups and revolts Russia shows considerable restraint and resilience. ..."
    "... Do not believe everything you hear about these brave leaders and nations standing against US force and controls./ ..."
    finance.yahoo.com

    Russian central bankers have fewer reasons to offer relief to their recession-wracked economy than you might think.

    Their decision whether to resume an interest rate-cutting cycle this week is almost beside the point as the government of Vladimir Putin lubricates the economy in the background with oil wealth amassed in better times. Russian banks are sitting on the most cash in five years, allowing them to lend to each other at a lower rate than they borrow from the central bank. In the euro zone and in the U.S., money market rates are higher than benchmarks.

    "This amounts to easing of monetary conditions without key rate cuts," said Alina Slyusarchuk, Morgan Stanley's London-based economist for Russia and the Commonwealth of Independent States.

    How did this happen? The Finance Ministry transferred 2.6 trillion rubles ($37 billion) of accumulated oil riches from the $50 billion rainy-day sovereign wealth fund into the economy last year to cover a fiscal gap. It's budgeting another 2 trillion-ruble drawdown from the Reserve Fund in 2016. The influx of cash is allowing Russian banks to wean themselves off the central bank loans they were relying on to help them weather international sanctions. Those obligations fell to 1.57 trillion rubles as of March 10 from 7.8 trillion rubles at the end of 2014.

    Since the Bank of Russia brought its rate-cutting cycle to an end on Sept. 11, the overnight money-market rate known as Ruonia has detached from central bank benchmarks, falling to 10.83 percent compared with an average 11.17 percent over the past six months.

    In contrast to unprecedented stimulus measures by European peers, Russian central bank governor, Elvira Nabiullina, is expected to leave rates unchanged at 11 percent when she convenes policy makers Friday. The European Central Bank cut all its rates on March 10 and expanded its bond buying program by 20 billion euros ($22 billion) to 80 billion euros a month.

    Unlike for Mario Draghi, easy conditions pose a threat to Nabiullina's goals. She is still working to curb inflation of 8.1 percent, twice her medium-term target even after it fell from almost 17 percent a year ago. The governor is juggling the need to spur an economy that has been shrinking since the first quarter of 2015 against the risk of runaway inflation. Brent crude, used to price Russia's main export blend, has averaged $34 per barrel this year compared with an average $86 the previous decade.

    Scorpio

    Considering US is constantly painting Russia as Satan, surrounds them with nuclear missiles through NATO, tries to economically isolate them from the world's banking system, and politically manipulates their neighboring countries with CIA sponsored coups and revolts Russia shows considerable restraint and resilience. We still need them for a ride to the space station.

    There are Churches in Russian. They have 10 commandments. They don't obsess over gays, transexuals, killing unborn children, drugs, and mass marketing alcoholism, drugs, and adultry through the media.

    Maybe they're not so bad. Maybe we just don't like competition selling arms and destruction to the world. Don't worry. We're still number one.

    Calgery

    There is a value in devaluation of money. The great example is China where the US is constantly bit**ing about it. Russia is naturally getting that. Iran fixed its one time oil depending economy through natural sanction devaluation imposed by the enemies of its independance and is now in tracks for more exports and relevance with the world economy. Do not believe everything you hear about these brave leaders and nations standing against US force and controls./

    JohnC

    In other words, the vaunted Pen Weapon (signing economic sanctions on Russia) of President Obama has failed and Vladimir Putin is laughing of the U.S.' 21st century benign weapon it has ever created...

    [Mar 13, 2016] Carson's Trump endorsement: have Republicans lost their soul?

    Notable quotes:
    "... I really don't buy into this anti Trump hysteria, he is far better an option than slime bag Rubio or nut case Cruz. Hes a conservative nationalist who actually says some sensible things that resonate with a lot of working Americans. ..."
    www.theguardian.com

    The Guardian

    macmarco , 2016-03-12 22:48:46
    Clinton has recently endorsed, Nancy Reagan on HIV/Aides, and Kissinger and Albright on foreign policy. The Huffington Post has recently endorsed, Rubio, and is preparing to endorse Ted Cruz. Their political pundits have written new favorable histories on Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, and Ronald Reagan.

    Washington DC both politicians and pundits are a sea of whores, and despised by a majority of the population.

    kriss669 , 2016-03-12 21:51:54
    Let's not forget that Reagan ruined the American financial system with "voodoo economics," cutting taxes for the rich and impoverishing our nation's ability to balance its budget and meet its obligations, let alone do anything good for its people. He was also responsible for the substitution of the 401k for what had been the almost universal provision of employer-financed pensions for American workers. Plus, he brought in HMOs, which resulted in the vastly expensive and ineffective system of health care that has been causing Americans to pay the most for the least of any advanced nation.

    Not the greatest President, imho, despite his popularity.

    LauraFlorin , 2016-03-12 21:43:08
    Guardian can't stand that Trump is actually not racist, and that a black candidate (whom the Guardian liked a few months ago) now endorses Trump. Oooo the lefties are in a spin
    Zev Love , 2016-03-12 20:47:01
    The Guardian bias is getting toi much. When Carson and Christie endorse Trump its because they are failed has beens. But you were gushing when the failed has been Romney and Lindsay Graham attacked Trump...am sure if Jeb endorsed Rubio or Kasich you wud be falling over yourselves to praise that! Why dont u just throw ur hat in the ring and declare urselves to be a liberal party political mouth piece rather than try to disguise ur partisan attacks as journalism.
    Aria Price mbidding , 2016-03-12 17:05:50
    He actually said he wants to end the H1B abuse multiple times. I have no idea what Trump is going to do in office, but the current Republican party is basically just pushing the disgusting Koch Brother agenda, I trust them even less than I trust Donald Trump. I'm not sure if you can post links on here but look up "What The Koch Brothers Want." by Bernie Sanders, then listen to what every Republican running says & then tell me that you could actually vote for one of them. I truly love this country, I cannot vote for someone I know will push this agenda by a bunch of people who have no trouble poisoning an entire city, want to screw over the elderly, & want to let people die on the streets. One of the reasons the Kochs don't like Trump is because he DOESN'T want to kick people off SS & allow Americans who can't afford healthcare to just be left to die. Unfortunately, what many people don't seem to understand is that our other choices besides Bernie Sanders are just as vile even if they are "politically correct."
    mbidding Aria Price , 2016-03-12 16:44:37
    Further, we're becoming a third world country because 35+ years of rhetoric that taxes are bad and government is evil means we have failed to invest in, let alone maintain, those public goods that keeps a country vibrant and economically competitive - you know, things like transportation infrastructure, basic pre-K-16 education (public support for higher education was gutted in the '80's leading to the high debt load you rightly identify as an issue), cutting edge research, affordable housing, food security, healthcare and the like that helps to release the productive potential of all citizens.

    As an immigrant yourself (and my spouse is a naturalized citizen so I am well familiar with immigration processes), you well know that we're not letting in folks willy nilly as you state in your post. Further, as you also know, Obama has deported more folks than any other president, including Eisenhower's efforts , while at the same time immigration from Mexico is decreasing.

    Trump is merely paying lip service to the issues... He had put forward no realistic plans to address such.

    Aria Price cheesymoon , 2016-03-12 14:46:34
    I have yet to understand what exactly Donald Trump has said that is "bigoted" or "racist". Our politicians have decided unilaterally to allow EVERYONE into this country despite the fact that people literally cannot afford it. People's incomes have been stagnant, taxes have gone up, student loans are out of control & more people than ever are homeless. I live in NYC & despite the insane taxes that we pay here our government has cut a bunch of federally funded programs like mental health hospitals, so now these people with mental health issues are homeless and they mostly hang out in the subway, where they sometimes attack & try to kill people. Thanks to our PC politicians, the police can barely do their jobs anymore. America has been a very welcoming country, I myself am first generation American, and I've grown up here but Donald Trump is not exaggerating when he says this country is turning into a third world country. I barely recognize it anymore & the changes haven't been for the better. American taxpayers CANNOT be responsible for everyone in this world.
    curiouswes Barmaidfromhell , 2016-03-12 12:08:44
    right and wrong is subjective - most people (and most religions) think that the golden rule is an accurate measuring device, but beyond that, its pretty difficult for one to impose one's morals on another. The golden rule implies that if you don't want people trying to kill you and yours, it is a good idea not to kill them and theirs. Fighting terrorism sounds like a good thing to do, but killing innocent people in the process thereof causes otherwise neutral people to become combative. Therefore, what some would call fighting terrorism, others would call causing terrorism... subjective
    Barmaidfromhell , 2016-03-12 09:00:55
    Rascism from the guardian - well in pursuit of a Hillary victory why not?
    Only pasty white liberals have souls.
    What a lost ship you are.
    Beckow deavonlea , 2016-03-12 03:26:51

    "Trump starting a trade war would be disastrous, and he is not going to be able to bring back corporations that have moved their jobs out of the country"

    A trade war would devastate China and Asian economies, US would be just fine. Corporations make 90% of their profits in US and EU, they are completely dependent on those markets, they would cease to exist if barred from US. So they will bring the jobs back if that is required.

    danubemonster , 2016-03-12 02:57:52
    The party of Reagan? The worst postwar president whose achievements include the creation of Islam militancy, the Iran-contra affair, and the appointment of Scalia to the Supreme Court.
    OldRINO , 2016-03-12 02:03:08
    This title is misleading. It implies that the party has just lost its soul when in fact it was lost years ago. And I would submit that things haven*t devolved quickly. To me it seems to have started during the Reagan years, (yes I did vote for him), and accelerated quickly to becoming the party on ONLY the wealthy. Look at the policy changes that occurred under Reagan that still affect us today. The Saving & Loan debacle started the current financial crap that we still have by siphoning off money from the middle to the top and has only gotten worse. I will say, in my defense, he was the last Republican I voted for and while I don't think he foresaw what he was unleashing, he will most likely be the last ever.
    Budovski Ximples , 2016-03-12 00:36:21
    I really don't buy into this anti Trump hysteria, he is far better an option than slime bag Rubio or nut case Cruz. Hes a conservative nationalist who actually says some sensible things that resonate with a lot of working Americans.
    srgraham , 2016-03-12 00:21:36
    The Republican Party did not give us Trump. He is not a Republican. He is exposing the hypocrisy of the last 40 years of conservatism. He is horrible. But he is not one of them. That's why the GOP is scared.
    And can we quit calling the GOP the party of Lincoln please. Lincoln won the Civil War, saved the Union, and freed the slaves. Modern Republicans used to be Democrats and switched in the late 50's early 60's during the civil rights era. Have them read THAT history and stop erroneously attaching themselves to Lincoln. The GOP is an odorous lot.
    Rowlocks talenttruth , 2016-03-12 00:03:20

    Ben Carson never met a rich white man's ass he wouldn't kiss. "Bad at so MANY levels."

    I imagine if a non Guardianista had made a remark anything like this, he or she would have been screamed down and permanently banned for racism. But the left is given a free pass in the Guardian.

    Bob Hitchen brianboru1014 , 2016-03-11 22:56:33
    The lack of good jobs means that the masses no longer have the 'American Dream'. Education is irrelevant the poorer classes never had phd's but they had jobs and that gave them purpose. Notice Trump's message it's about work being undermined by globalisation and immigration.
    Hmeckardt , 2016-03-11 21:01:12
    A manipulative, win-at-all costs organization that targets people's basest instincts in the interest of mere commerce has no soul. The Republican Party lost its soul long ago if it ever had one. The Democratic Party is not far behind. (The devil does not wear Prada; she wears pant suits.) Come to think of it, in what sense can ANY organization be said to have a soul?
    Alan_Johnson , 2016-03-11 20:33:20
    This article is simply incredible. The journalist attacks Trump for probably never having read a book since college - this is a claim with no basis in fact. This article has multiple suppositions, such as Trump paying people to endorse him, that are pure speculation. It is really a scandal. Trump's views on the media gain credibility thanks to such articles thus I conclude the author is pro Trump!
    Beckow Brian Gilmer , 2016-03-11 20:30:00
    Most of your list are things that are either too vague or too common to take too seriously ("working for the benefit", are you kidding? have you met Bushes and Clintons?).

    But these two deserve a response:

    "He promised to round up and deport US Citizens"
    "He suggested suppressing religious liberty"

    People in US illegally are not citizens and asking them to leave is not wrong. All countries do it. If you come illegally or over-stay a visa, you can be deported. Period. If you object to that, your criticism is bordering on saying that law should not be enforced.

    I am assuming the religious liberty refers to Trump saying that "until we figure out what is going on", US shouldn't issue new visas to people from Moslem countries. This is perfectly legal - visa is a privilege and not a right and there are large categories of people banned from getting visas to US today and in all countries in the world. The religious test might be trickier, but it is all in implementation - what qualifies as religion, what would be asked, for how long, what would be the appeal process.

    My point is that Trump is really, really good on trade and immigration control. That would result in a significantly higher incomes and a better economy. The other stuff is more vague and often border-line unimplementable. But you list has nothing on it. The real question about Trump is his sincerity, and we simply don't know. We do know 100% that Clinton is dishonest and will never carry out any of her promises. After 30 years of the same lying how could anyone fall for it again?

    geot22 , 2016-03-11 20:29:20
    When the Dem.s dropped the Segregationists at the curb with the trash, they likely imagined, not only the glory of a righteous deed well done, unique in my lifetime, but foresaw the considerable cost and turmoil that would follow. And sure they did accept losses to Rep.s, with their Southern strategy.

    But who forecast that the Rep.s, who picked up, embraced, and swallowed, whole, that trash, would be so poisoned by it, would become it, through and through, an evil parody reflecting, in photo negative, the virtue Dem.s bore that day?

    RINO's, save your soul; today is the last. No one who goes this way now deserves sound sleep, ascension.

    PirrhoOfElis , 2016-03-11 20:10:05
    Carson and Trump combine to form a powerful synergy, Trump's gusto and zeal complimented and tempered by Carson's mellower, more cerebral person. This is a winning foundation going forward. My condolences to the masses of uber trendy, 'liberal', ultra-'enlightened' intelligentsia out there who can only spout cynical, ironic musings in observation of Trump's developing preeminence.

    [Mar 13, 2016] Theres no such thing as imperialism-lite, Obama. Libya has shown that once again

    Notable quotes:
    "... Besides which, it's hard to buy the idea that Gaddafi was "rogue" or " a threat" when both parties named here were "rendering" secret prisoners to him for outsourced torture. ..."
    "... There is no honour among thieves, clearly. But it would be folly to depict a squabble among them as a narrative of sinner vs saint... ..."
    "... After the cold war, the US and had the chance to lead to a new world order based on democracy and human rights. Yet instead, its politics based became based on bullying and warmongering, and joined by their European allies. As a result we have a world entrenched in chaos and violence. ..."
    "... To top it off, there is also their allies, the Saudi and Gulf allies. Therefore, if you want to know how bad the world has become as a result of the US, European and Gulf allies, their hypocrisy, criminal behavior, destruction of countries, and total disregard of international law, all you need to see is the war in Yemen. ..."
    "... Imperialism never left,.. The Capitalists are always working at complete control, it has no problem dancing with Dictators and Authoritarian rulers when it suites its purpose. Its just now they appear to be wanting to improve their image by changing their partners who stepped on their toes and Israel's on occasion .. ..."
    "... Yes, I will claim it as a U.S. inspired regime change policy, in all those Middle East secular and sovereign countries, by our own beloved War Mongering Nationalistic Neo Cons.. That is already being shown as a complete disaster.. Only 2 million dead so far and just wait until the religious fanatics are in complete control.. ..."
    "... "keeping alive the military-industrial lobbies" mmm. An incomplete reading I think. What about oil and gas? Libya is north African richest country if I'm not mistaken ... Is Britain (and France) still trying to get its share there? ..."
    "... "Western [ mostly american and british ] warmongering over the past two decades has had nothing to do with the existential defense of territory. "Defense" has become attack, keeping alive the military-industrial lobbies and lumbering military establishments that depend on it." ..."
    "... "The result has been mass killing, destruction and migration on a scale not seen, at least outside Africa, since the second world war." ..."
    "... The Sykes-Picot agreement was one of the secrets uncovered by the Russian Revolution: it was in the files of the newly-overthrown government, and promptly publicized by the Bolsheviks, along with lots of other documents relating to imperialist secret diplomacy. Sound familiar? ..."
    "... The interventionist model that the West has carried out recently is really an extension of the old colonialism in a different guise. In the olden days, the excuse was to spread Western civilization and Christianity to the world living in backwardness. In the modern era, it's democracy. Unfortunately democracy cannot be installed by force. Even if the people of the country being invaded wanted it, the opportunists (either among them or the outsiders) would find ways to exploit the chaos for their own benefits. We have seen different forms of such evolution in Libya, Egypt, Syria, Iraq. ..."
    "... The CIA funded and trained the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, to fight the Russians, just as they backed Saddam against Iran. And the US has been mucking about in the Middle East since the 50s, the Brits since the late 19th century. Yours is a very selective reading of history. ..."
    "... No, small groups of people with their own particular interests "begged for help." The "Arab Spring" was a Western media confection used to justify Western intervention to get rid of Gaddafi and Assad. Worked with Gaddafi, Assad not so well. ..."
    "... You forget who triggered the French intervention. Another neo-con working for Israel. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/02/world/africa/02levy.html?_r=2 ..."
    "... Israel does not want a functioning Arab State left in the Middle-East. ..."
    "... It's like the Soviet Union invading the US because a few militiamen holed up in a wildlife refuge in Oregon. The neo-con press feeds us this propaganda and the willing idiots lap it up and deny responsibility when everything falls apart. ..."
    "... Jihad Dave is supporting islamist maniacs in Libya and Syria. He succeeded in Libya, along with the ludicrous Sarkozy clown, but Russia and Iran have stood up to the plate in Syria. ..."
    "... However much we might sympathise with fellow human beings living under brutal dictators and governments, a country can only really progress from within. Certainly, dialogue, sanctions and international cooperation can help foster change, but ultimately countries must want to change. ..."
    "... No, Gaddafy's crime was actually to spend the bulk of Libya's oil revenues on useless things such as schools, hospitals, housing and subsidised food when that money could have been flowing into the pockets of the West. ..."
    "... Taliban has been trained in the Saudi religious schools in Pakistan. Wahhabism is the official ideology of Saudi Arabia. 10 out of 11 terrorists 9/11 were the Saudis. All the Islamic terror in the last two decades was sponsored by the Saudis, including ISIS. ..."
    "... Bosnia - a slow ticking bomb. Just bubbling under the surface. Kosovo - a mafia state run by drug lord Thaci, supported by the US. It is no secret that the main source of income in Kosovo today is drugs, prostitution, organ trafficking. ..."
    "... There are no winners or losers in Iraq, everyone lost. Not a single group benefited from that western backed regime change, same in Libya and Syria. ..."
    "... The US empire blew up Libya with some help from it's puppets, Sarkozy and Cameron. 100% imperialism. ..."
    "... The USA - and its mini-me, the UK - have so blatantly bombed societies, manipulated governments and undermined social change in so many parts of the world that their trading positions are under real threat from emerging economic powers. ..."
    "... Yes, Obama shows himself for the buffoon he really is. ..."
    "... I, however, would caution against thinking the US led Neoliberal Empire of the Exceptionals is weakening. Its economic hegemony is almost complete only China and Russia remaining, and Obama with his "Pivot to Asia" (TM) has them surrounded and all set up for the female Chaney - Clinton the warmonger to get on with it. ..."
    "... The Empire will only get more and more brutal - it has absolutely no concern for human life or society - power over the globe as the Pentagon phrases it: "Global full spectrum domination" don't kid yourself they are going all out to reach their goal and a billion people could be killed - the Empire would say - so what, it was in our strategic interest. ..."
    "... Very well put, Sir. Obama's self-serving statement is borderline stupid. I constantly wonder why I voted for him twice. His Deep State handlers continue from the Bush period and having installed their coterie of right-wing extremists from Hillary to the Directors of the CIA, FBI, NSA, DOD, ad nauseum Obama has not had the courage at any point to admit not only the "mess" he makes, but the he is a captive mess of the shadow government. ..."
    "... Your comment is so stereotyped: when British aggression or war crimes are involved, every excuse is trundle out, every nuance examined, every extenuating circumstance and of course there is always a convenient statute of limitations. But when others are involved, specifically America and Israel, the same Guardian readers allow no excuses or nuances and every tiny detail going back hundreds of years is repeatedly and thoroughly examined. ..."
    "... Smith was murdered by extremists that took over Libya precisely because the death of Gadaffi left a dangerous power vacuum. The US aided and abetted certain groups, weapons found their way to the worse groups and Smith, a brave man, was his own country's victim in one sense. Hilary Clinton who should have known better publicly gloated over Gadaffi's death. Since his death the victimisation of black Libyans and other black Africans has become common, Libya has been overrun by extremists, and as we write is being used as a conduit for uncontrolled entry into Europe. ..."
    "... The biggest unanswered and puzzling question, is that of how could Obama have expected or assumed that Britain and France would have stayed behind and clean up the mess they and the Americans have made of Libya? Why did the Americans resolved to play only the part of 'hired guns' to go in and blitzed the Libyan Government and its armed forces, and neglected to learn the lesson of planning what should follow after the destruction? ..."
    "... The argument that the Americans had assumed that France and Britain would clean up the euphemistic mess has little or no credibility, since all three countries had been very clear about not wanting American, British and French 'boots on the ground.' ..."
    "... "The result has been mass killing, destruction and migration on a scale not seen, at least outside Africa, since the second world war." ..."
    "... We bombed in support of competing Jihadis groups, bandits and local war Lords then our well laid plans for a Utopian peace were thwarted because of the unforeseen chaos created as the Militias we gave close airsupport to fought over the spoils. ..."
    "... We should remember that we funded the terrorists in Libya and then sent weapons to ISIS from Libya to Syria that is we again used Al Qaeda as a proxy force. We then again used the "threat" from the proxy forces i,e. Al Qaeda to justify mass surveillance of the general population. ..."
    "... Of its 237 years of existence it has been at war or cold war for 222 of those years. ..."
    "... NATO is behind ISIS and the wars in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Chechen, Afghanistan, Libya and Ukraine. ..."
    "... Jane they didn't "come apart" and Libya and Syria were the most stable and least under the thumb of radicals. Syria had equality and education for women who could wear whatever they wanted. Furthermore they did not fall apart they were attacked by the largest military forces in the world excluding Russia. NATO sent in special operations forces to destabilise the government. They along with Al Nusra and other violent Wahabi terrorists attacked police and army barracks, and when Assads police and military hit back it was presented by the Western media and propagandists as an attack on the people of Syria. Do you think any other country would allow terrorists to attack police and other public institutions without retaliating and restoring order. ..."
    "... Many people who do not accept the Western medias false reporting at face value know that the wars in Syria were about changing the leaders and redrawing national boundaries to isolate Iran and sideline Russian influence. It was and is an illegal war and it was the barbarity of our Western leaders that caused the terrible violence. It was a pre planned plan and strategy outlined in the US Special Forces document below. http://nsnbc.me/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/special-forces-uw-tc-18-01.pdf ..."
    "... In the Libyan case, it was a clear US strategy to put in the forefront their English and French valets, in a coup (euphemistically called "regime change") wanted by them. The nobel peace winner got some nerves to put the blame on his accomplices for the chaos in Libya, while the permanent objective of the US is to divide and conquer, sowing chaos wherever it occurs: Afghanistan, Sudan, Iraq, Syria. Also Hillary is no stranger to the actions in Libya. ..."
    "... Simon Jenkins, don't pretend you were against American punitive expeditions around the world to overthrow third world dictators. You worked from the same neo-con ideological script to defend the ultra-liberal, military industrial economy; scare mongering in the pages of the Guardian, as far back as I can remember. You lot are as totally discredited as Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield and American Nato toadies. ..."
    "... Libya , Ukraine ,Syria have had the same recipe of de-stabilisation by the US and NATO. The so called popular rebels were in fact CIA trained and financed. Jihadist in Libya and Syria and neo-Nazis in Ukraine. After completing regime change in Libya as planned ,the Jihadist, with their looted arms were transferred to Syria and renamed ISIS. ISIS is Washingtons Foreign Legion army, used as required for their Imperial ends. Renamed as required on whichever territory they operate ..."
    "... Cameron has been given a free pass on Libya. It really is quite astonishing. The man has turned a functioning society into a jihadi infested failed state which is exporting men and weapons across North Africa and down the Sahara and now serves as a new front line for ISIS ..."
    "... Attacking Libya and deposing Gaddafi was down to enforcing the R2P doctrine on the pretext of "stopping another Rwanda". But it was a pretext. Islamist rebels attacked the armouries within Libya and the Libyans had every right to try and put down the rebellion. Samantha Powers et al were the war mongers. ..."
    "... The 2011 regime change shenanigans of the west against Libya is colonialism at its worst from all the parties who instigated it. The aftermath, the resultant mayhem and chaos, was in itself adding insult to injury. Gaddafi was no saint, but the militias, Muslim Brotherhood and ISIS now running rampant in the country are infinitely worse. This is a war crime of the first magnitude and no effort should be spared to address it ..."
    "... The west who has assassinated or organised coups against democratically elected secular leaders who didn't give us their natural resources (eg iran) and installed brutal, clepto dictatorships who also take part in plundering the resources leaving the general population poor, uneducated and susceptible to indoctrination from Islamists. ..."
    www.theguardian.com
    So Barack Obama thinks Britain in 2011 left Libya in chaos – and besides it does not pull its weight in the world. Britain thinks that a bit rich, given the shambles America left in Iraq. Then both sides say sorry. They did not mean to be rude.

    Thus do we wander across the ethical wasteland of the west's wars of intervention. We blame and we name-call. We turn deaf ears to the cries of those whose lives we have destroyed. Then we kiss and make up – to each other.

    Related: David Cameron was distracted during Libya crisis, says Barack Obama

    Obama was right first time round about Libya's civil war. He wanted to keep out. As he recalls to the Atlantic magazine , Libya was "not so at the core of US interests that it makes sense for us to unilaterally strike against the Gaddafi regime". He cooperated with Britain and France, but on the assumption that David Cameron would clear up the resulting mess. That did not happen because Cameron had won his Falklands war and could go home crowing.

    Obama is here describing all the recent "wars of choice".

    America had no "core interest" in Afghanistan or Iraq, any more than Britain had in Libya . When a state attacks another state and destroys its law and order, morally it owns the mess. There is no such thing as imperialism-lite. Remove one fount of authority and you must replace and sustain another, as Europe has done at vast expense in Bosnia and Kosovo.

    America and Britain both attacked countries in the Middle East largely to satisfy the machismo and domestic standing of two men, George Bush and Tony Blair. The result has been mass killing, destruction and migration on a scale not seen, at least outside Africa, since the second world war. In this despicable saga, Cameron's Libyan venture was a sideshow, though one that has destabilised north Africa and may yet turn it into another Islamic State caliphate. It is his Iraq.

    Related: The Guardian view on Libya: yet another messy frontier in the war on Isis | Editorial

    As for Obama's charge that Britain and other countries are not pulling their weight and are "free riders" on American defence spending, that too deserves short shrift. British and French military expenditure is proportionately among the highest in the world, mostly blown on archaic weapons and archaic forms of war. Western warmongering over the past two decades has had nothing to do with the existential defence of territory. "Defence" has become attack, keeping alive the military-industrial lobbies and lumbering military establishments that depend on it.

    Meanwhile the bonds between America and Britain will continue to strengthen. They do so, against all the odds, because they grow from one culture and one outlook on life. That mercifully has nothing to do with politicians.

    Manveer95 , 2016-03-13 11:04:35

    I'm stunned that Obama has been able to get away with his absolutely abysmal record with foreign policy. Libya was a complete disaster and there is evidence to suggest that Libya was a much better place under Gaddafi. And the fact that once they were in Iraq (something started by his predecessor) he wasn't committed to bringing about serious change, thus leaving a giant vacuum which, coincided with the Syrian Civil War, has now been filled by ISIS.

    That's not even talking about the Iran deal, Benghazi and the disastrous "Bring Back our Girls" campaign.

    JaneThomas -> grauniadreader101 , 2016-03-13 10:59:42
    I take it that you do not think that the Guardian is making up such stories as these in dated order:

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/apr/01/libyan-revolution-battle-torn-families

    "People find it very hard," said Iman Fannoush, with her two children in tow and a husband she knows not where. "They are up all night shooting because of good news. We hear the UN is coming to help us or our fighters have taken Brega or the air strikes have destroyed Gaddafi's tanks. Then everyone is afraid again when they hear Gaddafi's army is coming and they all want to know where is France, where are the air strikes, why is the west abandoning us?

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/sep/27/revolution-belongs-to-all-libyans
    We are grateful for the role played by the international community in protecting the Libyan people; Libyans will never forget those who were our friends at this critical stage and will endeavour to build closer relations with those states on the basis of our mutual respect and common interests. However, the future of Libya is for the Libyans alone to decide. We cannot compromise on sovereignty or allow others to interfere in our internal affairs, position themselves as guardians of our revolution or impose leaders who do not represent a national consensus.
    http://www.theguardian.com/books/2012/apr/27/sandstorm-libya-revolution-lindsey-hilsum-review
    Hilsum gives a riveting account of the battle for Tripoli, with activists risking their lives to pass intelligence to Nato, whose targeting – contrary to regime propaganda – was largely accurate, and too cautious for many Libyans.
    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jan/08/libyan-revolution-casualties-lower-expected-government
    The UN security council authorised action to protect Libyan civilians from the Gaddafi regime but Russia, China and other critics believe that the western alliance exceeded that mandate and moved to implement regime change.
    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/16/libyas-arab-spring-the-revolution-that-ate-its-children
    Libya's Arab spring was a bloody affair, ending with the killing of Gaddafi, one of the world's most ruthless dictators. His death saw the rebel militias turn on each other in a mosaic of turf wars. Full-scale civil war came last summer, when Islamist parties saw sharp defeats in elections the United Nations had supervised, in the hope of bringing peace to the country. Islamists and their allies rebelled against the elected parliament and formed the Libya Dawn coalition, which seized Tripoli. The new government fled to the eastern city of Tobruk and fighting has since raged across the country.
    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/16/libyas-arab-spring-the-revolution-that-ate-its-children
    With thousands dead, towns smashed and 400,000 homeless, the big winner is Isis, which has expanded fast amid the chaos. Egypt, already the chief backer of government forces, has now joined a three-way war between government, Libya Dawn and Isis.

    It is all a long way from the hopes of the original revolutionaries. With Africa's largest oil reserves and just six million people to share the bounty, Libya in 2011 appeared set for a bright future. "We thought we would be the new Dubai, we had everything," says a young activist who, like the student, prefers not to give her name. "Now we are more realistic."
    Anthony J Petroff -> fairviewplz , 2016-03-13 00:46:41
    Perpetually engineered destabilization is highly lucrative and has been for 200 years, but I don't know what's Central or Intelligent about it......except for a tiny handful at the top globally.
    Ziontrain -> Monrover , 2016-03-13 00:25:45

    On balance, is Libya worse off now than it would have been, had Gaddaffi been allowed free rein in Benghazi?

    No-one can possibly know the answer to that, certainly not Mr Jenkins.

    Clearly it was a dictatorship like say Burma is today.....but....from an economic point of view, it was like the Switzerland of Africa. And actually tons of European companies had flocked over there to set up shop. In contrast to now where its like the Iraquistan of Africa. No contest in the comparison there...

    Besides which, it's hard to buy the idea that Gaddafi was "rogue" or " a threat" when both parties named here were "rendering" secret prisoners to him for outsourced torture.

    There is no honour among thieves, clearly. But it would be folly to depict a squabble among them as a narrative of sinner vs saint...

    Ziontrain , 2016-03-13 00:16:06
    I wonder what the Nobel Peace Prize Committee is thinking. "Oh god - we made the mother of all #$%ups"? Surely...
    fairviewplz , 2016-03-13 00:04:24
    After the cold war, the US and had the chance to lead to a new world order based on democracy and human rights. Yet instead, its politics based became based on bullying and warmongering, and joined by their European allies. As a result we have a world entrenched in chaos and violence.

    To top it off, there is also their allies, the Saudi and Gulf allies. Therefore, if you want to know how bad the world has become as a result of the US, European and Gulf allies, their hypocrisy, criminal behavior, destruction of countries, and total disregard of international law, all you need to see is the war in Yemen.

    SUNLITE -> lestina , 2016-03-12 22:59:05
    Imperialism never left,.. The Capitalists are always working at complete control, it has no problem dancing with Dictators and Authoritarian rulers when it suites its purpose. Its just now they appear to be wanting to improve their image by changing their partners who stepped on their toes and Israel's on occasion ..
    SUNLITE -> buticomillas , 2016-03-12 22:39:23
    Yes, I will claim it as a U.S. inspired regime change policy, in all those Middle East secular and sovereign countries, by our own beloved War Mongering Nationalistic Neo Cons.. That is already being shown as a complete disaster.. Only 2 million dead so far and just wait until the religious fanatics are in complete control..
    grauniadreader101 -> JaneThomas , 2016-03-12 22:36:33
    Yep, many pictures, as there always are with media confections. Remember the footage of Saddam's statue being torn down in front of a huge crowd? It was only months later we saw the wide angle shot that showed just how few people there really were there.
    grauniadreader101 -> JaneThomas , 2016-03-12 22:34:20
    These US and UK involvement in the ME are matters of official record; are you really denying the CIA trained the Mujahideen, or that both the UK and US propped up Saddam? Even Robert Fisk acknowledges that! And please, don't patronise me. You have no idea what I've read or haven't.
    Anthony J Petroff , 2016-03-12 22:32:36
    ......c'mon, the powers behind the powers intentionally engineer mid-East destabilization to keep the perpetual war pumping billions to the ATM's in their living rooms; then, on top of it, they send the bill to average joe's globally; when is this farce going to be called out ?

    It is completely illogical, can't stand even eye tests, yet continues like an emperor with new clothes in our face.

    pierotg -> pierotg , 2016-03-12 22:23:48
    "keeping alive the military-industrial lobbies" mmm. An incomplete reading I think. What about oil and gas? Libya is north African richest country if I'm not mistaken ... Is Britain (and France) still trying to get its share there?

    Syria has the misfortune to be somehow in the middle of a proposed natural gas pipeline ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar-Turkey_pipeline ) too ...

    Just add a couple of paragraphs Mr. Jenkins in order to complete your article which, I'm sorry to say, told me nothing I didn't know already .

    pierotg , 2016-03-12 22:00:04
    "Western [ mostly american and british ] warmongering over the past two decades has had nothing to do with the existential defense of territory. "Defense" has become attack, keeping alive the military-industrial lobbies and lumbering military establishments that depend on it."

    "The result has been mass killing, destruction and migration on a scale not seen, at least outside Africa, since the second world war."

    Clear and concise.
    Thank you Mr. Jenkins

    jdanforth -> coombsm , 2016-03-12 21:45:36
    The Sykes-Picot agreement was one of the secrets uncovered by the Russian Revolution: it was in the files of the newly-overthrown government, and promptly publicized by the Bolsheviks, along with lots of other documents relating to imperialist secret diplomacy. Sound familiar?
    skepticaleye -> ID9108400 , 2016-03-12 20:49:36
    The interventionist model that the West has carried out recently is really an extension of the old colonialism in a different guise. In the olden days, the excuse was to spread Western civilization and Christianity to the world living in backwardness. In the modern era, it's democracy. Unfortunately democracy cannot be installed by force. Even if the people of the country being invaded wanted it, the opportunists (either among them or the outsiders) would find ways to exploit the chaos for their own benefits. We have seen different forms of such evolution in Libya, Egypt, Syria, Iraq.
    grauniadreader101 -> JaneThomas , 2016-03-12 19:35:02

    Get your facts right. Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan were all states that crumbled after the demise of the USSR.

    Bullshit. The CIA funded and trained the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, to fight the Russians, just as they backed Saddam against Iran. And the US has been mucking about in the Middle East since the 50s, the Brits since the late 19th century. Yours is a very selective reading of history.

    grauniadreader101 -> JaneThomas , 2016-03-12 19:32:20
    No, small groups of people with their own particular interests "begged for help." The "Arab Spring" was a Western media confection used to justify Western intervention to get rid of Gaddafi and Assad. Worked with Gaddafi, Assad not so well.
    coombsm -> buticomillas , 2016-03-12 19:09:34
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar-Turkey_pipeline

    this might answer your question. Syria has suffered for its geography since it was artificially created by the Sykes Picot agreement at the end of the Ottoman Empire.

    IamBaal -> Hanwell123 , 2016-03-12 18:36:40
    Don't forget the French "Philosopher" Bernard Henri-Levy

    Levy on the Libyan insurgents

    http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Global-Viewpoint/2011/0326/Bernard-Henri-Levy-War-in-Iraq-was-detestable.-War-in-Libya-was-inevitable

    "Libyan rebels are secularists, want unified country

    Gardels: If the French aim is successful and Qaddafi falls, who are the rebels the West is allying with? Secularists? Islamists? And what do they want?

    Levy: Secularists. They want a unified Libya whose capital will remain Tripoli and whose government will be elected as a result of free and transparent elections. I am not saying that this will happen from one day to the next, and starting on the first day. But I have seen these men enough, I have spoken with them enough, to know that this is undeniably the dream, the goal, the principle of legitimacy.

    IamBaal -> FelixMyIcecream , 2016-03-12 18:13:17
    You forget who triggered the French intervention. Another neo-con working for Israel. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/02/world/africa/02levy.html?_r=2
    IamBaal -> TonyBlunt , 2016-03-12 18:11:45
    Israel does not want a functioning Arab State left in the Middle-East.
    IamBaal -> Bilingual , 2016-03-12 18:09:37
    It's like the Soviet Union invading the US because a few militiamen holed up in a wildlife refuge in Oregon. The neo-con press feeds us this propaganda and the willing idiots lap it up and deny responsibility when everything falls apart.
    IamBaal -> JohnHawkwood , 2016-03-12 18:07:15
    The French led the way, with the French "Philosopher" Bernard-Henri Levy doing all the behind the scenes manipulation.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/02/world/africa/02levy.html?_r=2

    IamBaal , 2016-03-12 18:01:58
    Britain started the mess in the Middle-East with the Balfour declaration and the theft of Palestinian land to create an illegal Jewish state. Europe should pay massive reparations of money and equivalent land in Europe for the Palestinian refugees living in squalid camps. Neo-con Jews who lobbied for the Iraq, Syria and Libyan wars should have their wealth confiscated to pay for the mess they created.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/02/world/africa/02levy.html?_r=2
    ID4352889 , 2016-03-12 15:31:41
    Jihad Dave is supporting islamist maniacs in Libya and Syria. He succeeded in Libya, along with the ludicrous Sarkozy clown, but Russia and Iran have stood up to the plate in Syria.

    Presumably he's going down the Blair/Clinton route of cosying up to Middle Eastern Supremacist Cults in the hope that he can increase his income by tens of millions within the next 10 years. There can be no other explanation for his actions, that have never had anything whatsoever to do with the interests of either Britain or the wider European community.

    ID9108400 , 2016-03-12 15:07:56
    For me, the bottom line is that, however much might like to believe it, military intervention does not create nice, liberal, secular democracies. These can only be fostered from within.

    However much we might sympathise with fellow human beings living under brutal dictators and governments, a country can only really progress from within. Certainly, dialogue, sanctions and international cooperation can help foster change, but ultimately countries must want to change.

    The military, under the instruction of politicians, of the West should be pro-defence but anti-regime change or "nation building".

    I'm not suggesting a completely isolationist position, but offensive military action should be seen as a last resort.

    SomlanderBrit -> JustARefugee , 2016-03-12 15:05:53
    Mr Jenkins is a knowledgeable man but should've thought through this a bit more before so casually associating death and destruction and misery with Africa.

    China's cultural revolution and the Great Leap Forward alone killed and displaced more people after the second world war than all the conflicts in Africa put together. How about the break up of India in 1947? Korean War?

    But no when he thought about misery Africa popped into his mind..

    totemic , 2016-03-12 10:58:16

    Meanwhile the bonds between America and Britain will continue to strengthen. They do so, against all the odds, because they grow from one culture and one outlook on life. That mercifully has nothing to do with politicians.

    One culture?
    One outlook?
    Sounds all very Soviet.
    So, all Enlightened souls are reduced to a monoculture, within the Anglo American Empire.

    NezPerce , 2016-03-12 10:45:56
    Obama is a bill of goods. The Voters that choose him thought that they were getting a progressive, Obama used the reverend Wright to make himself seem like a man committed to radical change, but behind Obama was Chicago investment banker Louis Susman (appointed ambassador to Britain).

    Obama, a Harvard law professor, is the choice of the bankers, he does not play a straight bat, all the wars and killing are someone else's fault. Banking wanted rid of Gaddafi since he threatened the dollar as the reserve currency (as did Dominique Strauss-Kahn) as does the Euro, Obama let Cameron think he was calling the shots but he was just Obama's beard. Obama is nothing if not cunning, when he says stay in Europe but the Elites of the Tory party are pushing for out guess what, they got the nod from Obama and the Banks.

    titorelli -> Histfel , 2016-03-12 10:25:33
    So? All the numbers in the world can't undo Jenkins' thesis: there is no imperialism-lite. Imperialist wars are imperialist wars no matter how many die, and whether chaos, or neo-colonial rule follow. In his interview, Obama claims a more deliberate, opaque, and efficient war machine. To him, and his conscience, John Brennan, these metrics add up to significant moral milestones. To us innumerates, it's just more imperialist b.s.
    chaumont , 2016-03-12 08:21:52
    Gadaffy had since long planned to free his country and other African states from the yoke of being forced to trade within the American dollar sphere. He was about to lance his thoroughy well prepared alternative welcomed not the least by the Chinese when Libya was attacked. Obama is not truthful when suggesting the attack was not a "core" interest to the US. It was of supreme interest for the US to appear with its allies, Gadaffy´s independence of mind being no small challenge.
    backtothepoint , 2016-03-12 07:00:41
    Gadafy may have been particularly nasty with dissidents, but the UK has plenty of allies in the Muslim world that are far worse: Saudi Arabia, Bahrain... The Gulf States work their imported slaves to death and the UK kowtows to them. The UK has supplied billions of pounds worth of weapons to Saudi Arabia and sent military advisors to advise them how to use them to bomb Yemeni schools and hospitals.

    No, Gaddafy's crime was actually to spend the bulk of Libya's oil revenues on useless things such as schools, hospitals, housing and subsidised food when that money could have been flowing into the pockets of the West.

    Kosovo is also mentioned. There was a relatively low-level conflict (much like the Northern Ireland 'troubles') there until NATO started bombing and then oversaw the massive ethnic cleansing of Kosovo Serbs from their homeland (Serbs are the most ethnically-cleansed group in the former Yugoslavia: around 500,000 refugees).

    Yugoslavia's real crime? It was the last country in Europe to refuse the market economy and the hegemony of Western banks and corporates.

    The message is, 'Accept capitalism red in tooth or claw, or we'll bomb the crap out of you.'

    backtothepoint -> Nola Alan , 2016-03-12 06:44:38
    Did the attack on Afghanistan improve the situation? Perhaps temporarily in the cities, some things got a little better as long as you weren't shot or blown up. Over the country as a whole, it made the situation much worse.

    I remember John Simpson crowing that the Western invaders had freed Afghanistan when they entered Kabul. My reaction at the time was, 'Well, the Soviets had no problem holding the cities. Wait until you step outside them.' There followed many years of war achieving pretty much nothing except to kill a lot of people and get recruits flocking to the Taliban.

    It seemed we had learned absolutely nothing from the British and Soviet experiences.

    And you seem to have forgotten the multitude of US terror attacks on Muslims before the Afghan invasion, repackaged for our media as 'targeted attacks with collateral damage'. Bombing aspirin factories and such. And the First Gulf War. And US bases occupying the region. And the fact that the situation in Afghanistan was due to the Americans and Saudis having showered weapons and cash on anyone who was fighting the Soviets, not giving a damn about their aims. Bin Laden, for instance.

    And one aspect of law and order under the Taliban was that they virtually stopped opium production. After the invasion, it rose again to dizzying heights.

    The only way to deal with countries such as Afghanistan as it returns to its default system, along with other, more aggressive rogue states such as Saudi Arabia, is to starve them of all weapons and then let their peoples sort it out. It may take a long time but it's the sole possibility.

    As long as we keep pouring weapons into the Middle East for our own shameful purposes, the apocalypse will continue.

    Bosula , 2016-03-12 00:43:38
    Reading this excellent article one wonders how the war criminal Blair can be offered any peace-keeping role in the world or continue to get any air or press time.
    wmekins , 2016-03-12 00:08:02
    This is what Cameron's promises are worth, after boasting how he helped to topple Gadaffi. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_OFaE19myg
    enocharden -> honeytree , 2016-03-11 23:50:37
    Taliban has been trained in the Saudi religious schools in Pakistan. Wahhabism is the official ideology of Saudi Arabia. 10 out of 11 terrorists 9/11 were the Saudis. All the Islamic terror in the last two decades was sponsored by the Saudis, including ISIS.

    MissSarajevo , 2d ago

    Bosnia - a slow ticking bomb. Just bubbling under the surface. Kosovo - a mafia state run by drug lord Thaci, supported by the US. It is no secret that the main source of income in Kosovo today is drugs, prostitution, organ trafficking. Tear gas in Parliament for the third time in as many months. While the squares full of unemployed young and old are adorned with statues of those that gave them this opportunity Tony Blair and Bill Clinton were popular but I think their halos are tarnished somewhat. The situation is so serious that the US is beefing up its presence in camp Bondsteel but you won't read about it in the Guardian.
    AssameseGuy87 , previous , 2016-03-11 22:34:48

    when British aggression or war crimes are involved, every excuse is trundle out, every nuance examined, every extenuating circumstance and of course there is always a convenient statute of limitations

    So true . "Oh, oh, but the Spanish/Mongols/Romans etc etc", "Oh, like they were all so peaceful before Empire came along", "Oh, but but" (ad infinitum).

    Mick James -> Andrew Nichols , 2016-03-11 22:25:02
    End of Roman empire 476 AD
    End of Byzantine Empire 1453 AD

    Happy days.

    JacobJonker , 2016-03-11 21:31:10
    The bonds between America and Britain will continue to strengthen? Here's hoping. The neo-con cum neo-ultra liberal dream keeps on giving. Even after Brexit, Britain remains America's poodle at its peril. The rest of the article is right, but by now accepted wisdom amongst those capable of independent and rational thought.
    redleader -> Rudeboy1 , 2016-03-11 21:01:53
    The usual ways are carpet bombing (perhaps with incendiaries) or artillery bombardment (perhaps with phosphorus "shake and bake" shells).
    Bilingual -> ohhaiimark , 2016-03-11 19:52:11
    Here we go again, off course next phase is the "enlightment" in Al-Andalus...

    1. Conflict between sunni and shiites has been dormant for decades. Saudi Arabias promotion of Wahhabism has awoken it again, along with the catalyst for the recent bloodshed, the invasion of Iraq. That placed it back in the hands of the majority Shia and upset radical sunnis (eg the Saudis).

    Wahabism grew because of the oil export from Saudi Arabia which started way before World war II.

    Bollocks, there was a short period of calm while Europe defeated the Ottoman empire , but the Mughal empire took great pleasure in slaughtering shiites, and the Ottoman empire had huge conflicts with the Safavid empire.

    2. Pogroms were common against Jews in Europe and Europe has a far worse history of treating Jews than Muslims ever had. The "golden age of Judaism" in Europe was under Muslim rule in Spain. Need I mention that the Holocaust was perpetrated by European Christians?

    He-he, the fabulous golden age which is always mentioned, no doubt they were golden at that time compared to Europe, but to compare it today, it would be like living in Nazi Germany as a Jew before the Nürnberg laws were implemented.

    Would you like to pay a special non-muslim tax, step aside when a Muslim passed the street, be unable to claim any high positions in society to due to your heritage?

    3. Didnt forget. the USSR didnt hand them chemical weapons though. That would be the West. And it wasnt Russia who invaded Iraq later over the scam that they had WMDs.

    The Iran-Iraq war made the millions of dead possible primarily due to Soviet equipment, Halabja killed 5000. No, Russia prefered Chechnya and directly killed 300.000 civilians with the Grad bombings of cities and villages, whereas the casualties in Iraq primarily can be contributed to sectional violence.

    4. I think you are forgetting Mossadeq in Iran in the 50s. Nasser in Egypt and any Pan-Arab group that was secular in nature. Pan-Arabism is now dead and radical Islamism is alive and well thanks to our lust for control over the region.

    None of the mentioned were prime examples of democracy, Nasser for example had no problems in eliminating the Muslim brotherhood or killing 10s of thousands of rebels and civilians in Yemen with mustard gas.
    Hanwell123 , 2016-03-11 18:55:47
    Obama's remark that the Europeans and Gulf States "detested" Gaddafi and wanted to get rid of him while others had "humanitarian concerns" is of interest. It's unlikely the Arabs had humanitarian concerns in all the circumstances; they just wanted Regime Change. It is the lethal combination of Gulf Arabs and Neo-colonial France and Britain that has driven the Syrian war too- and continues to do so. No wonder America claims these countries enthuse about war until it comes and then expect them to fight it. France currently demands the surrender of Assad and for Russia to "leave the country immediately". Britain says there can be no peace while he remains and that Russia's "interference" is helping IS.
    Mary Yilma , 2016-03-11 18:55:22
    It's your prerogative whether or not you believe that the US and NATO intervene in countries based on moral grounds. But if you do want to delude yourself, remember that they only intervene in countries where they can make money off resources, like Libya and Iraq's oil revenues. If it were about morality, don't you think NATO and the West would have rushed to help Rwanda during the genocide?
    smush772 -> SomlanderBrit , 2016-03-11 18:45:30
    There are no winners or losers in Iraq, everyone lost. Not a single group benefited from that western backed regime change, same in Libya and Syria. You do not win when your situation is worse than it was before Saddam. You can't be a winner when you life in generally worse off than it was before. basically there is no rule of law now in these nations. Saddam was no monster like you want to portray him.
    Serv_On -> Monrover , 2016-03-11 18:47:01
    Gaddafi wanted a United Africa
    and was pushing for oil trading for gold not dollars

    World would have been better

    zolotoy -> PVG2012 , 2016-03-11 18:05:53
    Actually, some of those Latin American governments we overthrew were indeed liberal democracies.

    As for Canada, there are several reasons we haven't invaded. Too big, too sparse too white...and economically already a client state. Of course, we did try once: the War of 1812.

    dragonpiwo -> pinarello , 2016-03-11 17:37:03
    Libya is sitting on a lake of oil also. I worked for an oil company there for a decade.
    Scratcher99 -> thenewcat , 2016-03-11 17:36:32
    "When the same leaders did initially stand aside (as in Syria) "

    They didn't stand aside though, they helped create the trouble in the first place, as too with Libya; gather intelligence to find out who will take up arms, fund, train and give them promises, get them to organize and attack, then when the dictator strikes back the press swing into action to tell us all how much of a horrible bastard he is(even though we've been supporting and trading with him for eons), ergo, we have to bomb him! It's HUMANITARIAN! Not. It would be conquest though. Frightening.

    patricksteen -> JohnHawkwood , 2016-03-11 17:15:07
    Wrong. American fighters flew 27% of the sorties - the rest were conducted by other NATO members and primarily by the British and the French.
    midnightschild10 , 2016-03-11 17:09:42
    Obama has done everything in his power to morph into Bush including hiring a flaming chicken hawk in Ash Carter to play the role of Dick Cheyney. Bush left us with Iraq and Afghanistan, to which Obama added Egypt with the overthrow of the Muslim Brotherhood, Libya, Syria and Yemen. He also restarted the Cold War with Russia. He is now going after China for building islands in the South China Sea, a disputed area, something he as well as other Presidents before him has allowed Israel to build settlements on disputed land for the past fifty years and throughthrough $ 3.5 billion in gifts annually, has provided for enough concrete to cover all the land the Palestinians live on.

    The 3.5 billion annually will increase by $40 billion over ten years, unless Netanyahu gets the increase he wants to 15 billion per year. So Obama must settle on a legacy which makes him both a warmonger and one of the very best arms dealer in the world. His family must be so proud.

    Serv_On -> SomlanderBrit , 2016-03-11 17:08:19
    Iraq was an illegal war
    journeyinthewest -> kippers , 2016-03-11 17:06:14

    To be a humanitarian intervention, a military intervention has to avoid causing regime collapse, because people will die because of regime collapse. This is an elementary point that the political class appears not to want to learn.

    I agree with your analysis except the last paragraph. Pretty much in all interventions that we have witnessed, the political class deliberately caused the regimes to collapse. That was always the primary goal. Humanitarian intervention were never the primary, secondary or even tertiary objective.

    If the political class want to do some humanitarian interventions, they can always start with Boko Haram in Nigeria.

    EamonnStircock , 2016-03-11 16:37:40

    America had no "core interest" in Afghanistan or Iraq

    The USA was enforcing the UN blockade of Iraq, and had massive forces in place to do it. It was costing a fortune and there were regular border skirmishes taking place. It has been suggested that Bush and his advisors thought that they could take out Saddam and then pull all their forces back to the US. They won't admit it now because of the disaster that unfolded afterwards.
    JanePeryer , 2016-03-11 16:36:32
    Another good piece. What about all the weapons we sold Israel after they started their recent slaughter in Gaza and the selling of weapons to Saudi Arabia for use in Yemen (one of the poorest country's in the world) says everything you need to know about the tory party. They are sub humans and as such should be treated like dirt. I don't believe in the concept of evil...all a bit religious for me but if I did, it's what they are.
    B5610661066 -> WankSalad , 2016-03-11 16:23:10

    Describing the intervention in Libya as imperialism - 'lite' or otherwise - is ridiculous.

    The US empire blew up Libya with some help from it's puppets, Sarkozy and Cameron. 100% imperialism.

    Donald Mintz , 2016-03-11 16:21:59
    It astonishes me that these great men and women-I include Sec'y Clinton here-give no indication that their calculations were made without the slightest knowledge of the countries they were preparing to attack in one way or another. From what one read in the long NYTimes report on preparations for the Libyan intervention, the participants in the planning knew a great deal about military matters and less about Libya than they could have found out in a few minutes with Wikipedia. Tribal societies are different from western societies, dear people, and you damn well should have known that.
    willpodmore -> jezzam , 2016-03-11 16:21:31
    Honduras. The USA backed the coup there. Honduras is now run by generals and is the world's murder capital. I could go on, jezzam. Please read William Blum's books on US foreign policy. They provide evidence that the US record is not good.
    B5610661066 , 2016-03-11 16:20:50
    Without the US the UK and France couldn't have overthrown Gaddafi. The jihadis would have been killed or fled Libya. I don't believe any post-Gaddafi plan existed. Why would there have been one? Killing Gaddafi was the war's aim. A western puppet strong man leader grabbing power would have been icing on the cake of course but why would the US care about Libya once Gaddafi was gone?
    fanUS , 2016-03-11 16:20:16
    Well, Cameron just followed Obama's 'regime change' bad ideas.
    Obama is a failed leader of the World who made our lives so much worse.
    Obama likes to entertain recently, so after his presidency the best job for him is a clown in a circus.
    NYbill13 -> NezPerce , 2016-03-11 16:19:43
    We will never know why Stevens and the others were killed.

    Absent reliable information, everyone is free to blame whomever they dislike most.

    Based on zero non-partisan information, Hillary is the media's top choice for Big Villain. She may in fact be more responsible than most for this horror, but she may not be too.

    Who ya gonna ask: the CIA, the Pentagon, Ted Cruz?

    It seems everyone who's ever even visited Washington,D.C., has some anonymous inside source that proves Hillary did it.

    To hear the GOP tell it, she flew to Libya secretly and shot Stevens herself just because she damn well felt it, o kay -- (female troubles)

    My question is: Where has US/Euro invasion resulted in a better government for all those Middle Eastern people we blasted to bits of blood and bone? How's Yemen doin' these days?

    Hope Europe enjoys assimilating a few million people who share none of Europe's customs, values or languages.

    I'm sure euro-businesses would never hire the new immigrants instead of union-backed locals.

    Why, that would almost be taking advantage of a vast reservoir of ultra-cheap labor!

    Nor will the sudden ocean of euro-a-day workers undercut unions or wages in the EU. No siree, not possible.

    Just like unions have not been decimated, and wages have not stagnated in the US since 1980 or so. No siree. Not in Europe .

    willpodmore -> jezzam , 2016-03-11 16:18:31
    jezzam writes, "the dictator starts massacring hundreds of thousands of his own civilians." But he didn't. Cameron lied.

    The rebellion against Gaddafi began in February 2011. The British, French and US governments intervened on their usual pretext of protecting civilians. The UN said that 1,000-2,000 people had been killed before the NATO powers attacked.

    Eight months later, after the NATO attack, 30,000 people had been killed and 50,000 wounded (National Transitional Council figures).

    Cameron made the mess; Cameron caused the vast refugee crisis. The NATO powers are getting what they want – the destruction of any states and societies that oppose their rule, control over Africa's rich resources. Libya is now plagued by "relentless warfare where competing militias compete for power while external accumulators of capital such as oil companies can extract resources under the protection of private military contractors."

    sarkany -> xyz123xyz321 , 2016-03-11 15:59:16
    any state that wishes to be taken seriously as a player on the world stage

    The classic phrase of imperialism - an attitude that seems to believe any nation has the right to interfere in, or invade, other countries'.
    Usually done under some pretence of moral superiority - it used to be to 'bring the pagans to God', these days more 'they're not part of our belief system'. In fact, it only really happens when the imperial nations see the economic interests of their ruling class come under threat.

    The USA - and its mini-me, the UK - have so blatantly bombed societies, manipulated governments and undermined social change in so many parts of the world that their trading positions are under real threat from emerging economic powers.

    The two that they are most scared of are Russia and China, who combined can offer the capital and expertise to replace the old US / European axis across Africa, for instance. The war is already being fought on many fronts, as this article makes clear.

    Corrections -> xyz123xyz321 , 2016-03-11 15:44:02
    When Dubya was POTUS, the EU wanted to create its own military force. The US insisted Nato be the only regional force. Just sayin'....
    Lafcadio1944 , 2016-03-11 15:33:46
    Yes, Obama shows himself for the buffoon he really is. Clinton had it right when the going gets tough Obama gives a speech (see Cairo).

    I, however, would caution against thinking the US led Neoliberal Empire of the Exceptionals is weakening. Its economic hegemony is almost complete only China and Russia remaining, and Obama with his "Pivot to Asia" (TM) has them surrounded and all set up for the female Chaney - Clinton the warmonger to get on with it.

    The Empire will only get more and more brutal - it has absolutely no concern for human life or society - power over the globe as the Pentagon phrases it: "Global full spectrum domination" don't kid yourself they are going all out to reach their goal and a billion people could be killed - the Empire would say - so what, it was in our strategic interest.

    zkiwi , 2016-03-11 15:27:56
    The odd thing is, Obama didn't seem to think getting rid of Gaddafi a bad thing at all at the time. Clinton was all, "We came, we saw, he died." And this bit about "no core interest" in Afghanistan and Iraq is just bizarre. Given the mess both countries are in, and the resurgence of the Taliban and zero clue about Iraq it was clearly a master stroke for Obama to decide the US exit both with no effective governments in place, ones that could deal with the Taliban et al. Never mind, he can tootle off and play golf.
    fragglerokk -> fragglerokk , 2016-03-11 15:25:04
    here's a decent summing up of the state of play in Libya and Hilarys role in it

    http://chinamatters.blogspot.co.uk/2016/03/libya-worse-than-iraq-sorry-hillary.html

    Anonymot , 2016-03-11 15:24:49
    Very well put, Sir. Obama's self-serving statement is borderline stupid. I constantly wonder why I voted for him twice. His Deep State handlers continue from the Bush period and having installed their coterie of right-wing extremists from Hillary to the Directors of the CIA, FBI, NSA, DOD, ad nauseum Obama has not had the courage at any point to admit not only the "mess" he makes, but the he is a captive mess of the shadow government.

    America has a historic crisis of leadership and being the sole model left in that field, the world has followed, the UK and all of Europe included.

    fragglerokk , 2016-03-11 15:21:07
    Libya is all Hilarys work so expect to return with boots on the ground once Wall Sts finest is parked in the Oval office. She has the midas touch in reverse and Libya has turned (and will continue) to turn out worse than Iraq and Syria (believe me its possible) There is absolutely no one on the ground that the west can work with so the old chestnut of arming and training al qaeda or 'moderate' opposition is not an option. ISIL are solidifying a base there and other than drones there is zip we can do.

    Critising Cameron just shows how insecure Obama is, lets be honest the middle east and afghanistan are in the state they are because Obama had zero interest in foreign policy when his first term started, thus allowing the neocons to move into the vacuum and create the utter disaster that is Syraq and Ukraine. We in europe are now dealing with the aftermath of this via the refugee crisis which will top 2 million people this year. Obamas a failure and he knows it, hence the criticism of other leaders. Cameron is no different, foreign policy being almost totally abandoned to the US, there is no such thing as independent defence policy in the UK, everything is carried out at the behest of the US. Don't kid yourself we have any autonomy, we don't and there are plenty of high level armed forces personnel who feel the same way. Europe is leaderless in general and with the economy flatlining they too have abandoned defence and foreign affairs to the pentagon.

    Right now we're in the quiet before the storm, once HRC gets elected expect the situation to deteriorate rapidly, our only hope is that someone has got the dirt to throw her out of the race.

    previous -> thenewcat , 2016-03-11 15:03:43
    "Not Syria"

    ISIS established itself in Iraq before moving into Syria. Would ISIS exist is Britain had not totally destabilized Iraq? Going back even further, it is the 100th anniversary of the Sykes-Picot agreement, that great exercise in British Imperialism that created the artificial nations in the Middle East that are collapsing today.

    Your comment is so stereotyped: when British aggression or war crimes are involved, every excuse is trundle out, every nuance examined, every extenuating circumstance and of course there is always a convenient statute of limitations. But when others are involved, specifically America and Israel, the same Guardian readers allow no excuses or nuances and every tiny detail going back hundreds of years is repeatedly and thoroughly examined.

    Transparent hypocrisy. Accept responsibility and stop offloading it to Calais.

    NezPerce -> nemesis7 , 2016-03-11 15:00:09
    Ambassador Stevens was killed in a cover up over the arms dealing from Libya to Syria, (weapons and fighters to ISIS). It seems more likely that he was killed because he was investigating the covert operation given that he was left to fend for himself by all US military forces but in a classic defamation strategy he has been accused of being behind the operation. Had he been he would have been well defended.
    nofatebutwhatyoumake , 2016-03-11 14:50:24

    "Defense" has become attack, keeping alive the military-industrial lobbies and lumbering military establishments that depend on it.

    Couldn't put it better myself. Yes, America is a full blown Empire now. Evil to it's very core. Bent on world domination and any cost. All we lack is a military dictatorship. Of course, with the nation populated by brainwashed sheep, a "Dear Leader" is inevitable,

    nemesis7 , 2016-03-11 14:48:17
    President Obama was correct in keeping US boots off the ground in Syria. An active US troop presence would have resulted in an even greater level of confusion and destruction on all sides. However, it was precisely the US' meddling in Libya that helped pave the way for its current dysfunctional, failed state status, riven by sectarian conflicts and home to a very active Al Quaida presence.

    US interference in Libya saw Gadaffi backstabbed by the US before literally being stabbed to death although he had been given assurances that the US would respect his rule particularly as he had sought to become part of the alliance against the likes of Al Quaida.

    Obama was behind the disgraceful lie that the mob that attacked the US' Benghazi Embassy and murdered Ambassador Smith y was 'inflamed' by an obscure video on youtube that attacked extremist elements of the Islamic faith. Smith deserved better than this blatant lie and the grovelling, snivelling faux apologies Obama and then Secretary of State Hilary Clinton made to the Muslim world for something that had nothing to do with 99.9 percent of non Muslims.

    Smith was murdered by extremists that took over Libya precisely because the death of Gadaffi left a dangerous power vacuum. The US aided and abetted certain groups, weapons found their way to the worse groups and Smith, a brave man, was his own country's victim in one sense. Hilary Clinton who should have known better publicly gloated over Gadaffi's death. Since his death the victimisation of black Libyans and other black Africans has become common, Libya has been overrun by extremists, and as we write is being used as a conduit for uncontrolled entry into Europe.

    Disappointingly, President Obama forgets the Biblical saying about pointing out a speck in somebody's eye while ignoring the plank in his own.

    markdowe , 2016-03-11 14:46:54
    Mr President doesn't privately refer to the Libyan upheaval as the "shit show" for no good reason. The chaos and anarchy that have ensued since, including the migrant crisis in Europe and the rise of Islamic State, is directly attributable to the shoddy interventionist approach used by both Britain and France.
    FelixMyIcecream -> Hanwell123 , 2016-03-11 14:42:30

    it seems Cameron jumped on the bandwagon in fear France would take all the glory.

    He wanted his Falklands moment .

    Taku2 , 2016-03-11 14:37:45
    Good article, with justified moral indignation. Only thing I would have changed, is "imperialism-lite" to 'lesser and greater imperialism.

    Would it not have been a great contribution towards peace and justice, had the US decided not to invade Iraq and Libya, on account that other western countries were "free-riders" and would not have pulled their weight?

    So, what does the world needs now? More 'free-riding countries' to dissuade so-called responsible countries - Britain, France, America, Italy - from conspiring to invade other countries, after consulting in the equivalent of a 'diplomatic toilet and drawing up their war plans on the back of the proverbial cigarette packet.'

    For all Obama's niceties, it would now appear that he has been seething and mad as hell about his perception of Britain and France 'abandoning' Libya and watching it perceptible destabilizing the region and the flames fanning farther afield.

    The biggest unanswered and puzzling question, is that of how could Obama have expected or assumed that Britain and France would have stayed behind and clean up the mess they and the Americans have made of Libya? Why did the Americans resolved to play only the part of 'hired guns' to go in and blitzed the Libyan Government and its armed forces, and neglected to learn the lesson of planning what should follow after the destruction?

    The argument that the Americans had assumed that France and Britain would clean up the euphemistic mess has little or no credibility, since all three countries had been very clear about not wanting American, British and French 'boots on the ground.'

    Is the Americans now telling the world that they went into Libya without planning for the aftermath, because it was 'an emergency to save lives' and they had to go in immediately?

    Well, if so, that is now how nations behave responsibly, and it is now clear that more lives have probably been lost and continue to be sacrificed, than those which might have been saved as a result of the West invading and attacking Libya.

    FelixMyIcecream -> Hanwell123 , 2016-03-11 14:35:04

    the Europeans expected America to pick up the tab for reconstruction

    I don't think there would be many complaints from Halliburton or other American companies to help with the reconstruction, if the place wasn't such a shit-storm right now.

    previous , 2016-03-11 14:32:31
    "The result has been mass killing, destruction and migration on a scale not seen, at least outside Africa, since the second world war."

    Judging from the sentiments expressed in the overwhelming majority of comments posted on multiple threads on this forum, the British people don't want to accept responsibility for "migration on a scale not seen... since the second world war". The almost universal resistance to accepting refugees and migrants that fled their homes due to unprovoked British aggression is disgusting and pathetic. It highlights the hypocrisy of those who see themselves morally fit to judge almost everyone else.

    NezPerce , 2016-03-11 14:25:27
    Mitchell says that we had a plan to stabilise Libya but that it could not be implement the plan because there was no peace?#*^..... Der

    We bombed in support of competing Jihadis groups, bandits and local war Lords then our well laid plans for a Utopian peace were thwarted because of the unforeseen chaos created as the Militias we gave close airsupport to fought over the spoils.

    Well there you have it- its the fault of the Libyans.

    Hanwell123 , 2016-03-11 14:05:15
    Hilary Clinton recently blamed Sarkozy for Libya describing him as so "very excited" about the need to start bombing that he persuaded her and she, Nuland and Power persuaded a reluctant Obama. Three civilian females argued down the military opinion that it was unnecessary and likely to cause more trouble than it was worth.

    As this was clearly to support French interests the Americans insisted the Europeans do it themselves if they were that keen. Old Anglo-French rivalry has never been far from the surface in the ME and it seems Cameron jumped on the bandwagon in fear France would take all the glory. Neither of them appear to have given any thought about reconstruction. The blame is mostly Cameron's as Sorkozy was chucked out of office just months later. Did Cameron have a plan at all? If so it was his biggest mistake and one we'll be paying for over the coming years.

    SHappens -> jezzam , 2016-03-11 14:03:29

    Without Putin's mischief making though, this would have been sorted out long ago.

    Putin intervened in September 2015. What have the West been doing since 2011 to stop the conflict, one wonders.

    Russia vetoes any UN attempt to sort out the mess

    Looking bad you'd realize that it at least prompted Obama to retract in 2013. Since then though support to Saudi and proxies destabilizing Syria has only increased.

    Russia is clearing the mess of the West, and they should be grateful. Obama might be from what I read today from his "confessions".

    grauniadreader101 -> JaneThomas , 2016-03-11 14:03:19
    Yes. I don't think that is a pro-imperialist stance. He's arguing that there is no middle ground; getting rid of dictators you don't like is imperialism, and whether you follow through or not, there are serious consequences, but to not follow through is an abnegation of moral responsibility to the people you are at attemting to "free". It seems to me he is arguing against any foreign intervention, hence his castigation of Obama and Cameron for the "ethical wasteland of their wars of intervention."
    ohhaiimark -> PVG2012 , 2016-03-11 13:53:27
    Please do me a favour and study 20th century history a little more. The US overthrow countless democracies in Latin America and the Middle East and installed fascist dictatorships.

    Liberal Democracy haha come on now. They dont care about Democracy. They care about money. They will install and support any dictatorship (look at Saudi Arabia for example) as long as they do as they are told economically.

    I love western values, dont get me wrong. It is the best place to live freely. However, if you werent lucky enough to be born in the west and the west wants something your country has (eg. oil).....you are in for a lot of bad times.

    I just wish western leaders/governments actually followed the western values that we all love and hold dear.

    NezPerce , 2016-03-11 13:49:00
    We should remember that we funded the terrorists in Libya and then sent weapons to ISIS from Libya to Syria that is we again used Al Qaeda as a proxy force. We then again used the "threat" from the proxy forces i,e. Al Qaeda to justify mass surveillance of the general population.

    The solution as Corbyn pointed out is to stop funding the Terrorists.

    http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n08/seymour-m-hersh/the-red-line-and-the-rat-line

    By the terms of the agreement, funding came from Turkey, as well as Saudi Arabia and Qatar; the CIA, with the support of MI6, was responsible for getting arms from Gaddafi's arsenals into Syria. A number of front companies were set up in Libya, some under the cover of Australian entities. Retired American soldiers, who didn't always know who was really employing them, were hired to manage procurement and shipping. The operation was run by David Petraeus, the CIA director who would soon resign when it became known he was having an affair with his biographer.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06s0qy9

    Peter Oborne investigates claims that Britain and the West embarked on an unspoken alliance of convenience with militant jihadi groups in an attempt to bring down the Assad regime.

    He hears how equipment supplied by the West to so called Syrian moderates has ended up in the hands of jihadis, and that Western sponsored rebels have fought alongside Al Qaeda. But what does this really tell us about the conflict in Syria?

    This edition of The Report also examines the astonishing attempt to re brand Al Nusra, Al Qaeda's Syrian affiliate, as an organisation with which we can do business.

    pfbulmer , 2016-03-11 13:46:44
    What is good that this is finally coming out ,the denial by both Obama and a very left wing media has failed to confront this issue in what is an incredibly low point for Obama and Hilary Clinton and their naive ideas about the Arab Spring.

    As it is equally so for David Cameron and William Hague. Sarkozy is different he was not naive he knew exactly what he was doing thais was about saving french influence in North Africa,he was thinking about Tunisa, Algeria which he was keen to drag others into -- He was the most savvy of all those politicians at least he was not a fool,but France priorities are not the same as the UK --

    Obama's comments once again as usual do not really confront the real problems of Libya and gloss over the key issues and ending up passing the buck, he can do no wrong ? It was not the aftermath of Libya but the whole idea of changing the controlling demographics of the country which he played a major part in destabilising through the UN AND Nato which was the problem --

    It was thought the lessons of Iraq was all about not putting boots on the ground ,or getting your feet dirty ,as this antagonises the locals and that a nice clinical arms length bombardment creating havoc ,is the best way to go .

    This was not the lesson of Iraq , which was actually not to destabilise the controlling demographics of the country which will never recover if you do ..It is one thing to depose a leader or ask a leader to step down but do not disturb 100 of years controlling demographics, sectarian or not in these countries is not wise . To do so is a misstep or misjudgement --

    Demographics are like sand dunes they have taken many years to evolve and rest uneasy, in the highly religious and sectarian landscape but can be unsettled over night, grain by grain even by a small shift in the evening night breeze , a small beetle can zig zag across and the whole dune will crumble

    Once again the US pushed the UK who vied with France at how high they could jump, using the UN blank cheque as cover ,for melting down the country and has left UN credibilty in taters has now no credibility and Nato is now not trusted .

    They took disgracefully no less the UN 1973 Peace Resolution , point one, Cease fire and point two No Fly Zone .They bent it , twisted it , contorted it into blatant out right support of the eastern shiite sympathisers sectarian group, against the more secular Sunni Tripoli groups .

    (Gaddafi was not one man Mr apologist Rifkind he was the tribal leaders of a quite a large tribe !)

    Which has been part of a historic rivalry going back hundreds of years . They killed more civilians that Gaddafi ever had or could have done . They even attacked in a no fly zone government troops retreating and fired on government planes on the ground in a non fly zone .

    Then they refused to negotiate with the government or allow the Organisation of African states to mediate who had agreed general elections .They went on bombing until there was no infrastructure no institutions or sand dunes ,or beetles left --

    It was done after Iraq and that is why it is so shameful and why Obama , Cameron, Sarkozy , the UN , Nato must face up to what they have done , and after the Chilcot enquiry there needs to be a Cameron enquiry . Presumably it will have the backing of Obama --

    What is worse is the knock on effect on this massive arm caches and fighters from Libya then went on to Syria, reek havoc and destabilised the country . Because Russia and China could never trust again the UN , the UN has been ineffective in Syria for that very reason .The deaths of British tourist in next door Tunisia has to laid firmly at David Cameron's and the foreign office door --

    No wonder Libya is keeping Obama awake at night , no wonder he is indulging in damage limitation , no wonder he is trying to re write history ? How can I get this out of my legacy . If only I had not met Mr Cameron a yes man -- If only I had been told by some with an once of common sense , not to touch this country with a barge pole ?

    The poor Libyan people will agree with him --

    The lesson for the UK is do want you think is right not what the US thinks as right , a lesson that David Cameron has failed to learn , and has shown he is not a safe pari of hands and lacks judgement --

    ohhaiimark -> Bilingual , 2016-03-11 13:45:40
    1. Conflict between sunni and shiites has been dormant for decades. Saudi Arabias promotion of Wahhabism has awoken it again, along with the catalyst for the recent bloodshed, the invasion of Iraq. That placed it back in the hands of the majority Shia and upset radical sunnis (eg the Saudis).

    2. Pogroms were common against Jews in Europe and Europe has a far worse history of treating Jews than Muslims ever had. The "golden age of Judaism" in Europe was under Muslim rule in Spain. Need I mention that the Holocaust was perpetrated by European Christians?

    3. Didnt forget. the USSR didn't hand them chemical weapons though. That would be the West. And it wasn't Russia who invaded Iraq later over the scam that they had WMDs.

    4. I think you are forgetting Mossadeq in Iran in the 50s. Nasser in Egypt and any Pan-Arab group that was secular in nature. Pan-Arabism is now dead and radical Islamism is alive and well thanks to our lust for control over the region.

    mothersuperior5 , 2016-03-11 13:45:06
    Obama? Censored? You forgot Hillary. she even said the other day at the townhall before Miss/MI to the effect 'if Assad had been taken out early like Gaddafi then Syria would only be as bad as Libya'. laughable really. i presume you aren't criticising Hillary Clinton?
    upthecreek -> Colossian , 2016-03-11 13:41:18

    Gaddafi who was openly threatening to massacre all rebels in Benghazi.

    Yes that was the narrative that Western media wanted to portray but in reality was not the reason Libya was attacked --

    NezPerce , 2016-03-11 13:37:15
    Kosovo is now basket case that we are paying for but it is small. Now we have also backed NeoCon regime change in Ukraine which we are going to be paying for. Libya will soon have enough Jihadist training camps to be a direct threat.

    What we see is a Strategy of Chaos from the US NeoCons but what we have failed to notice is that the NeoCons see us as the target, as the enemy.

    david119 , 2016-03-11 13:35:56
    Totally agree that there is no such thing as Imperialism Lite, just as there is no such thing as Wahabi Lite or Zionism Lite. So I wonder why Hilary Benn thinks Britain has anything to feel proud about our foreign policy. It seems to me Britain's Foreign Policy is a combination of incompetence, jingoism and pure evil.
    What is the point of employing the brightest brains in the land at the Foreign Office when we get it wrong almost all the time ?
    James Barker , 2016-03-11 13:29:27
    "Western warmongering over the past two decades has had nothing to do with the existential defence of territory. "Defence" has become attack, keeping alive the military-industrial lobbies and lumbering military establishments that depend on it."
    Attacking Al qaeda in Afghanistan had nothing to do with defending territory?
    John Smith -> AddisLig , 2016-03-11 13:26:33
    Libyan 'rebels' were armed and trained by 'the West' in a first place. The plan was the same for Syria but Russians stopped it with not allowing 'no fly zone' or to call it properly 'bomb them into the stone age'.

    You probably don't know how 'bloody' Gaddafi was to the Libyans.

    * GDP per capita - $ 14,192.
    * For each family member the state pays $ 1000 grants per year.
    * Unemployment - $ 730.
    * Salary Nurse - $ 1000.
    * For every newborn is paid $ 7000.
    * The bride and groom given away $ 64,000 to buy an apartment.
    * At the opening of a one-time personal business financial assistance - $ 20,000.
    * Large taxes and extortions are prohibited.
    * Education and medicine are free.
    * Education and training abroad - at the expense of the state.
    * Store chain for large families with symbolic prices of basic foodstuffs.
    * For the sale of products past their expiry date - large fines and detention.
    * Part of pharmacies - with free dispensing.
    * For counterfeiting - the death penalty.
    * Rents - no.
    * No Fees for electricity for households!
    * Loans to buy a car and an apartment - interest free.
    * Real estate services are prohibited.
    * Buying a car up to 50% paid by the state, for militia fighters - 65%.
    * Gasoline is cheaper than water. 1 liter - 0,14 $.
    * If a Libyan is unable to get employment after graduation the state would pay the average salary of the profession as if he or she is employed until employment is found.
    * Gaddafi carried out the world's largest irrigation project, known as the Great Man-Made River project, to make water readily available throughout the desert country

    antipodes -> Jeshan , 2016-03-11 13:19:04
    The Gadaffi regime had upset the USA because Gadaffi was setting up an oil currency system based on gold rather than US dollars. While this was not the sole reason the West turned against him it was an important factor. The largest factor for the wars so far, and the planned war against Iran was to cut out the growing Russian domination of the oil supply to Europe, China and India.
    Potyka Kalman , 2016-03-11 13:18:58
    A decent article as we could expect from the author.

    However personally I doubt there was no ulterior motive in the case of Lybia. Lybia was one of the countries who tried the change the status quo on the oil market and it has huge reserves too (as we know Europe is running out of oil, at least Great Britain is).

    It is very likely that the European countries retreated because Libya started to look like another Iraq.

    TatianaAD -> David Ellis , 2016-03-11 13:16:32
    When you are talking about "democratic forces of the revolution.." i imagine you being an enthusiastic teenager girl who hardly knows anything about the world but goes somewhere far for a gap year as a volunteer to make locals aware of something that will help them forever. It is instead of demanding responsible policies and accountability from her own government.
    antipodes -> MarkB35 , 2016-03-11 13:12:18
    Sorry!!!
    What planet have you been living on. What do you read apart from lifestyle magazines full of shots of celebrity boobs and bums.
    The United states is the most interventionist country in history. Of its 237 years of existence it has been at war or cold war for 222 of those years.
    NATO is behind ISIS and the wars in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Chechen, Afghanistan, Libya and Ukraine.
    If the West stopped intervening there would be very few wars and if the West used its influence for peace rather than control there would rarely be any was at all.
    Nothingness -> ohhaiimark , 2016-03-11 13:04:10
    Well put. People forget the importance of oil in maintaining the standard of living in our western democracies. Controlling it's supply trumps all other issues.
    antipodes -> JaneThomas , 2016-03-11 12:57:20
    Jane they didn't "come apart" and Libya and Syria were the most stable and least under the thumb of radicals. Syria had equality and education for women who could wear whatever they wanted. Furthermore they did not fall apart they were attacked by the largest military forces in the world excluding Russia. NATO sent in special operations forces to destabilise the government. They along with Al Nusra and other violent Wahabi terrorists attacked police and army barracks, and when Assads police and military hit back it was presented by the Western media and propagandists as an attack on the people of Syria. Do you think any other country would allow terrorists to attack police and other public institutions without retaliating and restoring order.

    Many people who do not accept the Western medias false reporting at face value know that the wars in Syria were about changing the leaders and redrawing national boundaries to isolate Iran and sideline Russian influence. It was and is an illegal war and it was the barbarity of our Western leaders that caused the terrible violence. It was a pre planned plan and strategy outlined in the US Special Forces document below.
    http://nsnbc.me/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/special-forces-uw-tc-18-01.pdf

    If you get your facts right it ruins your argument doesn't it.

    SHappens , 2016-03-11 12:56:32
    In the Libyan case, it was a clear US strategy to put in the forefront their English and French valets, in a coup (euphemistically called "regime change") wanted by them. The nobel peace winner got some nerves to put the blame on his accomplices for the chaos in Libya, while the permanent objective of the US is to divide and conquer, sowing chaos wherever it occurs: Afghanistan, Sudan, Iraq, Syria. Also Hillary is no stranger to the actions in Libya.

    These Middle East countries should have been left alone by the West. Due to their nature, these countries have strong divisions and battle for their beliefs and a strong man, a dictator is what prevented them to fall into the chaos they are today. Without the Western meddling, arming and financing various rebel groups, Isis would not exist today.

    BlackBlue1984 -> CABHTS , 2016-03-11 12:49:40
    Neither is putting political opponents in acid baths and burning tyres, as Tony Blair's friends in the central Asian Republics have been doing, neither is beheading gays, raped women and civil rights protesters, as Cameron's Saudi friends have been enjoying, the latter whilst we sell them shit loads of munitions to obliterate Yemeni villagers. I wonder how the Egyptian president is getting on with all that tear gas and bullets we sold him? And are the Bahrani's, fresh from killing their own people for daring to ask for civil rights, enjoying the cash we gave them for that new Royal Navy base? Our foreign policy is complacent and inconsistent, we talk about morality but the bottom line is that that doesn't come into it when BAE systems and G4S have contracts to win. Don't get me wrong, Britain has played a positive role internationally in many different areas, but there is always a neo-liberal arsehole waiting to pop up and ruin the lives of millions, a turd with a school tie that just wont be flushed away.
    tonall -> TidelyPom , 2016-03-11 12:46:45
    Simon Jenkins, don't pretend you were against American punitive expeditions around the world to overthrow third world dictators. You worked from the same neo-con ideological script to defend the ultra-liberal, military industrial economy; scare mongering in the pages of the Guardian, as far back as I can remember. You lot are as totally discredited as Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield and American Nato toadies.
    Newmacfan , 2016-03-11 12:25:21
    It is high time that Europe reviewed and evaluated its relationship with the United States, with NATO, Russia and China. The world needs to be a peaceable place and there needs to be more legislation imposed upon the Financial Markets to stop them being a place where economic destabilisation and warfare can and do take place. The United States would not contemplate these reviews taking place as they are integral to their continuing position in the world but also integral to the problems we are all experiencing? It will take a brave Europe to do this but it is a step that has to be taken if the world is to move forward! Britain should be a huge part of this, outside a weakend EU this would benefit the United States from Britains lack of input, another reason we should vote to stay and be positive to our European position. The most vulnerable herring is the one that breaks out of the shoal?
    SalfordLass , 2016-03-11 12:24:58
    Libya , Ukraine ,Syria have had the same recipe of de-stabilisation by the US and NATO. The so called popular rebels were in fact CIA trained and financed. Jihadist in Libya and Syria and neo-Nazis in Ukraine. After completing regime change in Libya as planned ,the Jihadist, with their looted arms were transferred to Syria and renamed ISIS. ISIS is Washingtons Foreign Legion army, used as required for their Imperial ends. Renamed as required on whichever territory they operate
    Scahill , 2016-03-11 11:52:53
    Cameron has been given a free pass on Libya. It really is quite astonishing. The man has turned a functioning society into a jihadi infested failed state which is exporting men and weapons across North Africa and down the Sahara and now serves as a new front line for ISIS

    Cameron's Libya policy from start to finish is a foreign policy catastrophe and in a just world would have seen him thrown out of office on his ear

    Newsel -> IntoTheSilence , 2016-03-11 11:50:06
    Attacking Libya and deposing Gaddafi was down to enforcing the R2P doctrine on the pretext of "stopping another Rwanda". But it was a pretext. Islamist rebels attacked the armouries within Libya and the Libyans had every right to try and put down the rebellion. Samantha Powers et al were the war mongers.

    Then there is this gem: "Egypt's President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi has called for a United Nations resolution allowing international forces to intervene in Libya.
    There was no other choice, he told French radio. "We will not allow them to cut off the heads of our children."

    "We abandoned the Libyan people as prisoners to extremist militias," Mr Sisi told Europe 1 radio. He was referring to the aftermath of the 2011 war in which Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi was toppled with the help of an international coalition.
    That intervention was "an unfinished mission", he said."

    The US, France and the UK own this ongoing mess but do not have the moral fortitude to clean it up. As with the "Arab Spring", this will not end well.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-31500382?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=%2AMorning%20Brief&utm_campaign=2015_MorningBrief_New_America_PROMO

    SilkverBlogger , 2016-03-11 11:49:56
    The 2011 regime change shenanigans of the west against Libya is colonialism at its worst from all the parties who instigated it. The aftermath, the resultant mayhem and chaos, was in itself adding insult to injury. Gaddafi was no saint, but the militias, Muslim Brotherhood and ISIS now running rampant in the country are infinitely worse. This is a war crime of the first magnitude and no effort should be spared to address it
    ohhaiimark -> Bilingual , 2016-03-11 11:43:08
    The west who propped up the Saudis, who's crazy wahhabi brand of Islam helped radicalise the Islamic world with 100 billion dollars spent on promoting it.

    The west who created israel and then has done nothing to stop israels ever growing land theft and occupation over decades (not even a single sanction)...leading the Muslim world to hate us more for our hypocrisy and double standards.

    The west who has assassinated or organised coups against democratically elected secular leaders who didn't give us their natural resources (eg iran) and installed brutal, clepto dictatorships who also take part in plundering the resources leaving the general population poor, uneducated and susceptible to indoctrination from Islamists.

    The west who arms brutal dictators to wage proxy wars and then invades and bombs these same dictators countries over claims they have WMDs (that we sold to them).

    The west has been intervening in the middle east alot longer than post 9/11. We are very very culpable for the disasters engulfing the region.

    Jeshan , 2016-03-11 11:42:44
    Libya was "not so at the core of US interests that it makes sense for us to unilaterally strike against the Gaddafi regime"

    Let's examine what Obama is saying here: when it is perceived to be at the core of US interests, the USA reserves the right to attack any country, at any time.

    The world inhabits a moral vacuum, and in that state, any country can justifiably choose to do anything, against anyone, for any reason. And this guy got the Nobel Peace Prize.

    FelixMyIcecream , 2016-03-11 11:42:29

    In this despicable saga, Cameron's Libyan venture was a sideshow, though one that has destabilised north Africa and may yet turn it into another Islamic State caliphate.

    You forgot to mention Cameron was only following Sarkozy .

    Don't forget the French role .

    25 February 2011: Sarkozy said Gaddafi "must go."

    28 February 2011: British Prime Minister David Cameron proposed the idea of a no-fly zone

    11 March 2011: Cameron joined forces with Sarkozy after Sarkozy demanded immediate action from international community for a no-fly zone against air attacks by Gaddafi.

    14 March 2011: In Paris at the Élysée Palace, before the summit with the G8 Minister for Foreign Affairs, Sarkozy, who is also the president of the G8, along with French Foreign Minister Alain Juppé met with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and pressed her to push for intervention in Libya

    .

    19 March 2011: French[72] forces began the military intervention in Libya, later joined by coalition forces


    2011_military_intervention_in_Libya#Chronology
    Sal2011 , 2016-03-11 11:41:36
    Well said in the headline. Imperialism-lite/heavy, colonialism, and neo-colonialism don't work, should be a thing of the past. Intervening in the politics of another country is a mug's game.

    Don't understand why Obama is blaming Cameron for it, perhaps playing to his domestic gallery. Blair's love fest with the deluded Gaddafi family, followed by the volte-face of pushing for his violent overthrow by the next government, were both severely misguided policies. Need to diplomatically encourage change, in foreign policy, and the desired type of political movements to take hold. Military interventions have the opposite effect, so does propping up dictators, religiously fanatical regimes, proven time and time again.

    WarrenDruggs -> KinoLurtz , 2016-03-11 11:41:07

    Gadaffi was on the verge of massacring an entire city of people

    Who needs well paid journalists when you can get this level of propaganda for free?

    DavidGW -> TruffleWednesday , 2016-03-11 11:40:31

    So the choices are to do nothing, or invade and create a colony?

    Pretty much. As Jenkins rightly says, if you want to launch an aggressive war you either do it or you don't. If you do it then it is your responsibility to clear up the mess, however many of your own lives are lost and however much it costs. Trashing a country and then buggering off is not an option.

    Of course, using force for defensive reasons is fine. That's why modern warmongering politicians always call it "defence" when they drop bombs on innocent people in faraway countries. It is no such thing.

    David Hart -> AmandaLothian , 2016-03-11 11:22:15
    There was no massacre, not even a hint of one. Total obfuscation to give Hillary Clinton a foreign policy "success" so that she could use it as a springboard to the presidency. "Hillary Clinton was so proud of her major role in instigating the war against Libya that she and her advisors initially planned to use it as basis of a "Clinton doctrine", meaning a "smart power" regime change strategy, as a presidential campaign slogan.

    War creates chaos, and Hillary Clinton has been an eager advocate of every U.S. aggressive war in the last quarter of a century. These wars have devastated whole countries and caused an unmanageable refugee crisis. Chaos is all there is to show for Hillary's vaunted "foreign policy experience".

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/03/10/hillary-clinton-the-queen-of-chaos-and-the-threat-of-world-war-iii /

    [Mar 13, 2016] http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/12/five-foreign-policy-questions-us-election-candidates

    Notable quotes:
    "... Yeah. Painting the Syria/Libya crisis as Hillary vs the Repubs however is dishonest. not lacking insight or clarity. dishonest. On the Repubs: all the candidates except Trump said at the debate a few days ago that peace was not in the interests of Israel and therefore a US President would betray Israel by SEEKING peace. ..."
    "... Hillary said at the townhall before Miss/MI that 'if we'd taken out Assad earlier like we did Gaddafi then Syria would only be as bad as Libya'. Your Hillary vs the Repubs routine is dishonest. This is the neocon oligrachy fighting for its life election. do not fake it in the name of Hillary. ..."
    "... The Obama administration has redefined the word "militant " to be a "male of military age within the strike zone" and here's the killer ..."unless POSTHUMOUSLY proven to be innocent" ..."
    "... Ramos ought to have asked Hilary exactly why Gadaffi was deposed, and came back at her fiercely with statistics and independent reports if she dared to even muse the suggestion that it was another "humanitarian intervention". ..."
    "... If Hillary's two decade history of war mongering was exposed for what it really represents by "journalists" in the corporate media, she would no longer be insulated from the scrutiny her deeply flawed decision making warrants. ..."
    "... Unfortunately, the American public have only independent news sites like the Intercept, Truthdig, the Jacobin, Harpers Magazine, Mondoweiss, and a few others from which to evaluate the real damage Hillary has caused. ..."
    "... What gives Amerika the right to intervene in the affairs of other nations in the first place? Are they unaware that the rest of the world fears American terrorism more that anything else, or more likely, do they care? No wonder Hillary and the Republican hawks are worrying the planet. ..."
    www.theguardian.com
    jparmetler , 2016-03-13 08:44:03
    You are absolutely right as far as these five questions are concerned. Yet you forgot an important one: TTIP as well as the Trans-Pacific Partnership. These so-called free trade agreements are a fatal threat to democracy as they invest more power in corporations than in parliaments and additionally they are detrimental to labour and the environment in the concerned countries.
    Robert Maxwell , 2016-03-13 02:59:28
    It's a good article and reflects some of the questions I've been having.

    My curiosity was aroused when the first CIA-directed drone killed its first victims, a terrorist leader and some comrades in Yemen years ago. I'd thought that the CIA's assassination of anyone in a foreign country was illegal. Evidently the rules have changed but I don't recall hearing about it.

    The media are always an easy target but lately I think their responsibility for our collective ignorance has increased. The moderators in the TV debates seem deliberately provocative. I can remember the first televised debate -- Kennedy vs. Nixon -- when both men soberly addressed the camera when answering questions of substance.

    The first interaction BETWEEN debators was a brief remark in 1980 by Reagan aimed at Jimmy Carter. "There you go again." Before then, the debates were sober and dignified, as in a courtroom. After that, the debates slowly slid into the cage fights they've become.

    I'm afraid I see the media as not setting the proper ground rules. Fox News is the absolute worst. The result is a continuous positive feedback loop in which we are gradually and unwittingly turned into those people who buy gossip tabloids at the supermarket checkout counter.

    BREAKING NEWS! HILLARY WETS BED UNTIL TWELVE YEARS OLD!

    If we wind up with one of these egomaniacal clowns in the White House, we'll deserve what we get.

    mothersuperior5 , 2016-03-13 01:34:11
    here it is again Cruz: right now in Fox: Iran wants to kill us; 'Donald' wants to negotiate deals with Iran and Cuba. We don't negotiate with terrorists. By failing to note what Trump actually says and by pretending that Hillary is not a neocon - a subtle one to be sure - you are revising the facts. actually as the facts appear. think about it and be clear. the moderate Islam routine BY Cruz Rubio Kasich is not about islam. its about the supposed sunni supposed allies. like please. add some insight. at least a bit.
    mothersuperior5 , 2016-03-13 01:20:33
    Yeah. Painting the Syria/Libya crisis as Hillary vs the Repubs however is dishonest. not lacking insight or clarity. dishonest. On the Repubs: all the candidates except Trump said at the debate a few days ago that peace was not in the interests of Israel and therefore a US President would betray Israel by SEEKING peace.

    Trump said he'd be even-handed for the purpose of negotitating a peace deal. the other candidates say - reading from a script, certainly not thinking - that the trick was to get Saudi Arabia and Turkey to fight ISIS. sure, except they wont. Their agenda is anti-Assad in the name of conservative sunni-ism. the moderate arab sheikdom theocracy routines IS part of the problem. frankly the other Repub candidates would flirt with nuking Iran. Iran must be part of the solution like it or not. Hillary said at the townhall before Miss/MI that 'if we'd taken out Assad earlier like we did Gaddafi then Syria would only be as bad as Libya'. Your Hillary vs the Repubs routine is dishonest. This is the neocon oligrachy fighting for its life election. do not fake it in the name of Hillary.

    michtom , 2016-03-12 20:10:53
    Isn't the reason for most foreign policy decisions that they will make money for the Military Industrial Complex?

    "Modernizing" nuclear weapons? Helping Saudi Arabia slaughter citizens of Yemen? Destabilizing multiple countries so that MORE weapons become "necessary" to deal with the instability?

    All the question should be framed on that basis: "Is there any reason to 'modernize' our nuclear weapons other than to enhance the bottom line of the companies involved, especially when we are supposed to be working against nuclear proliferation?"

    Powerspike michtom , 2016-03-12 22:29:01
    An excellent statement of reality - sometimes it needs saying.
    http://fff.org/2016/03/11/the-u-s-middle-east-killing-racket /
    normankirk , 2016-03-12 19:06:03
    Fantastic article, absolutely spot on. Its been a long wait , thank you.

    The Obama administration has redefined the word "militant " to be a "male of military age within the strike zone" and here's the killer ..."unless POSTHUMOUSLY proven to be innocent"

    Democrats or Republicans alike, foreign policy is predicated on the American drive to maintain global dominance, whatever illegal murderous callous action it takes.

    Powerspike lorimerhotshot , 2016-03-12 21:56:21
    Try this website
    http://www.antiwar.com /
    Featherstone1 , 2016-03-12 17:41:16
    Ramos ought to have asked Hilary exactly why Gadaffi was deposed, and came back at her fiercely with statistics and independent reports if she dared to even muse the suggestion that it was another "humanitarian intervention".

    Sanders should be pressed on Israel, and whether he can formally condemn the state for repeatedly breaking promises re: settlement on the West Bank and for committing war crimes during the Gaza strip conflict.

    Michronics42 , 2016-03-12 17:34:44
    If Hillary's two decade history of war mongering was exposed for what it really represents by "journalists" in the corporate media, she would no longer be insulated from the scrutiny her deeply flawed decision making warrants. If democracy and transparency actually functioned in the media, Hillary would be exposed as a neocon, whose terrible policy decisions have led to one global disaster after another, fomenting terrorism. (Even the New York Times-which endorsed Hillary-detailed her disastrous decisions in Libya).

    Unfortunately, the American public have only independent news sites like the Intercept, Truthdig, the Jacobin, Harpers Magazine, Mondoweiss, and a few others from which to evaluate the real damage Hillary has caused.

    But, like her domestic policies-historically: from Clintonomics to mass incarceration; welfare reform; the war on drugs; education (especially in Arkansas); disastrous "free" trade agreements; rampant fascism in the form of corporatism; plus, the millions donated to her campaign from dark money super pacs; and her sham "foundation; Hillary continues to represent the worst that politics offers, both globally and domestically.

    And the list above also includes the devolution of the Democratic Party from FDR-like socialism to Clinton dominated corporate hacks, since Bill's election in 1992.

    Until Clinton, Inc is stopped from commanding allegiance from "democratic" politicians on everything from the macro to micro levels of Democratic Party matters, voters will continue to be denied a true forum for change.

    FraidyMan , 2016-03-12 16:46:27
    What gives Amerika the right to intervene in the affairs of other nations in the first place? Are they unaware that the rest of the world fears American terrorism more that anything else, or more likely, do they care? No wonder Hillary and the Republican hawks are worrying the planet.
    jokaz , 2016-03-12 16:34:27
    "Currently Saudi Arabia is engaged in an indiscriminate bombing campaign in one of the world's poorest.."
    Saudi Arabia is bombing with logistical help from US and UK, we're not only silent on the crimes of KSA, we help them
    jokaz , 2016-03-12 16:34:27
    "Currently Saudi Arabia is engaged in an indiscriminate bombing campaign in one of the world's poorest.."
    Saudi Arabia is bombing with logistical help from US and UK, we're not only silent on the crimes of KSA, we help them
    Bogdanich , 2016-03-12 16:01:59
    Hillary was the push behind the U.S. Participation in Ukraine, Syria and Libya. Just a pathological warlord. She appointed VIc Nuland as undersecretary of state for Gods sake. A neo-con. The people that brought us the Iraq war. If she's elected you will get more of the same in a big way as she will increase the force structure and the involvement.
    no1ban , 2016-03-12 15:55:05
    This is the kind of informative and vital article I am buying the Guardian to read and which these days is all too rarely printed.
    Hanwell123 no1ban , 2016-03-12 16:49:52
    Try the Independent, it is much more forthcoming about foreign affairs and doesn't just parrot the stock Neo conservative stance.
    alberto grieve , 2016-03-12 15:20:07
    It is futile to expect reason from people whose foreign policy education comes primarily from Hollywood. It used to be that 96 % of people in congress had never left the country, even less lived abroad with other people and learned a foreign language. The ignorance is truly amazing and it would be funny if these people were not those that decide what happens in the world.
    If the US keeps meddling in world affairs then the whole world should vote in their elections.
    MrConservative2016 David Ellis , 2016-03-12 14:45:33
    Don't exactly celebrate the US 'wag my tail' relationship with Wahhabi Arabia but on Syria, the only good option is to ally with President Assad and bomb out the Wahhabi infestation.
    knightpestle , 2016-03-12 14:26:03
    Libya is the dog that doesn't bark in the night in UK politics too.

    During the debate on bombing Syria, speaker after speaker alluded to the disastrous intervention in Iraq, for which the guilty parties are no longer in the house.

    But not one brought up the disastrous intervention in Libya, for which the guilty party was currently urging us into another intervention.

    Having an amateurish, inward-looking Labour party doesn't help, of course.

    The only people who have called Cameron out on Libya in the past year are Nigel Farage and Barack Obama. Ye gods.

    Kevin P Brown MrConservative2016 , 2016-03-12 14:35:03
    "According to the 24 February 2010 policy analysis "The Year of the Drone", released by the New America Foundation, the civilian fatality rate since 2004 is approximately 32%. The study reports that 114 reported UAV-based missile strikes in northwest Pakistan from 2004 to present killed between 830 and 1,210 individuals, around 550 to 850 of whom were militants."

    You can quibble about the exact number of civilians killed, but the moment you approve of your local police bagging bad guys even if your family gets killed then you can maybe make a comment.

    nnedjo , 2016-03-12 14:18:49

    Many human rights organizations have called them illegal, and retired military leaders have said they backfire, creating more terrorists than they kill.

    After reading " The Dron Papers " Edward Snowden came to the conclusion that drones do not really chase the terrorists, but they chase their mobile phones. Hence so many innocent victims, because who can guarantee that the mobile phone which was earlier in the possessions of some terrorist, is not now in the hands of entirely innocent people.
    So, in addition to many ethical questions about the use of drones, this raised another question on how much "high-tech killing" is indeed reliable.
    mothercourage , 2016-03-12 14:13:56
    Excellent article.
    Informative and quite rightly challenging.
    America is really running away with itself on who, where, how and why they attack.
    Britains 'special' relations with the US, should be curtailed, forthwith, because they have the audacity to now start pressuring us about the EU refferendum, too.
    Obama had the nerve to say that we were free loading on the back of "US might" and their attempts at "global order", his words. While neatly avoiding the questions you ask here, about their role in Libya, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, drones etc., etc, etc.
    Britain should fight back with these facts and distance ourselves from this aggression.
    SergeantPave , 2016-03-12 14:10:37
    Hardly amazing. There's not one American in a thousand for whom these issues will determine their vote.
    jez37med SergeantPave , 2016-03-12 14:24:56
    quite right
    nnedjo , 2016-03-12 13:55:54

    While an enormous amount of time during this campaign has focused around the Iran nuclear deal, almost no attention has been given to any country that actually has nuclear weapons and what they plan to do with them over the coming years and decades.

    This is also a proof of the "schizophrenic" Obama-Clinton foreign policy. US administration is doing everything to solve the problem of the Iranian nuclear program, and at the same time doing everything to spoil relations with the other nuclear power in the world, Russia.
    The curiosity of its kind is that Russia, which is also affected by the US sanctions, helps US to resolve its dispute with Iran and suspend sanctions against this country. And not only that, but Russia agrees to relocate enriched uranium from Iran to its territory and thus provide a practical implementation of the agreement on the Iranian nuclear program.
    nnedjo , 2016-03-12 13:43:40

    yet the presidential candidates are almost never asked about why congress has not authorized the military action like the constitution requires.

    Yes, Trevor Timm also criticized this in some of his previous articles, as well as Ron Paul, who also often criticized Obama for this fact. It's completely unclear why Obama continues to rely on the two authorizations that George W. Bush has got from Congress "to punish the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks", and for "the destruction of Saddam Hussein's [non-existent] WMD". This is particularly unclear given that Obama himself came to power mainly due to his criticism of Bush's war adventures.

    It is possible that Obama does not have enough confidence that he can get authorization from the GOP dominant Congress to combat Isis in Syria and Iraq. However, by using authorizations for the old wars for something that has nothing to do with the new wars, Obama is not only acting illegally, but also provides an opportunity for the conclusion that he now supports Bush for the same thing for which he criticized him earlier, that is, for the Afghan and Iraq war.

    kattw Kevin P Brown , 2016-03-12 14:57:33
    'course I wouldn't approve. And I doubt most countries approve of being invaded (except for the folks who DO approve anyways).

    "The US must stop acting as the world police.' Great phrase. You hear it a lot. Totally insupportable. Here's the fundamental problem: the globe is a small place these days. Countries really are no longer isolated entities than can act with little to no impact on anybody else. What one does, others feel. And leadership is a thing - somebody will always lead. Right now, there are very few candidates for that. With the fall of imperial England, the US became the only real superpower left (other than Russia, which has since collapsed, and is busy trying to come back). Thus, whether it likes it or not, the US has a leadership role to play. If it abdicates that position, and does as you and so many other less-than-brilliant folks demand? Power abhors a vacuum. Most likely is that either Russia or China will take over the role currently played by the US. And if you think either of THOSE countries will do a better job than the US, well... enjoy your personal delusion.

    As for 'scratching heads and bleating' about intervention... we did not have to intervene. Said that before, saying it again, get it through your skull - we did not have to intervene. We could, in fact, totally disarm and just sit back and do nothing, anywhere. But. THIS WOULD HAVE CONSEQUENCES TOO. Seriously. Understand that. Doing nothing is doing something. Sitting out is still an action one can take. And it is INCREDIBLY likely that things would be WORSE in Libya right now had we not intervened. Not guaranteed, but likely.

    The situation sucks. It would have been great if it had all turned out better. It didn't. But it probably would have been worse had we made a substantially different choice. Yeah, sure, you could then pat yourself on the back, and pretend that at least the US wasn't responsible, but, well, as a certain red-and-blue clad superhero says, with great power comes great responsibility. The US has great power - if we didn't intervene, and horrible things happened, it'd be just as much our fault as it is now that we DID intervene, and bad things happened. Because it would have been in our power to stop it, and we didn't.

    [Mar 13, 2016] There's no such thing as imperialism-lite, Obama. Libya has shown that once again

    Notable quotes:
    "... Besides which, it's hard to buy the idea that Gaddafi was "rogue" or " a threat" when both parties named here were "rendering" secret prisoners to him for outsourced torture. ..."
    "... There is no honour among thieves, clearly. But it would be folly to depict a squabble among them as a narrative of sinner vs saint... ..."
    "... After the cold war, the US and had the chance to lead to a new world order based on democracy and human rights. Yet instead, its politics based became based on bullying and warmongering, and joined by their European allies. As a result we have a world entrenched in chaos and violence. ..."
    "... To top it off, there is also their allies, the Saudi and Gulf allies. Therefore, if you want to know how bad the world has become as a result of the US, European and Gulf allies, their hypocrisy, criminal behavior, destruction of countries, and total disregard of international law, all you need to see is the war in Yemen. ..."
    "... Imperialism never left,.. The Capitalists are always working at complete control, it has no problem dancing with Dictators and Authoritarian rulers when it suites its purpose. Its just now they appear to be wanting to improve their image by changing their partners who stepped on their toes and Israel's on occasion .. ..."
    "... Yes, I will claim it as a U.S. inspired regime change policy, in all those Middle East secular and sovereign countries, by our own beloved War Mongering Nationalistic Neo Cons.. That is already being shown as a complete disaster.. Only 2 million dead so far and just wait until the religious fanatics are in complete control.. ..."
    "... "keeping alive the military-industrial lobbies" mmm. An incomplete reading I think. What about oil and gas? Libya is north African richest country if I'm not mistaken ... Is Britain (and France) still trying to get its share there? ..."
    "... "Western [ mostly american and british ] warmongering over the past two decades has had nothing to do with the existential defense of territory. "Defense" has become attack, keeping alive the military-industrial lobbies and lumbering military establishments that depend on it." ..."
    "... "The result has been mass killing, destruction and migration on a scale not seen, at least outside Africa, since the second world war." ..."
    "... The Sykes-Picot agreement was one of the secrets uncovered by the Russian Revolution: it was in the files of the newly-overthrown government, and promptly publicized by the Bolsheviks, along with lots of other documents relating to imperialist secret diplomacy. Sound familiar? ..."
    "... The interventionist model that the West has carried out recently is really an extension of the old colonialism in a different guise. In the olden days, the excuse was to spread Western civilization and Christianity to the world living in backwardness. In the modern era, it's democracy. Unfortunately democracy cannot be installed by force. Even if the people of the country being invaded wanted it, the opportunists (either among them or the outsiders) would find ways to exploit the chaos for their own benefits. We have seen different forms of such evolution in Libya, Egypt, Syria, Iraq. ..."
    "... The CIA funded and trained the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, to fight the Russians, just as they backed Saddam against Iran. And the US has been mucking about in the Middle East since the 50s, the Brits since the late 19th century. Yours is a very selective reading of history. ..."
    "... No, small groups of people with their own particular interests "begged for help." The "Arab Spring" was a Western media confection used to justify Western intervention to get rid of Gaddafi and Assad. Worked with Gaddafi, Assad not so well. ..."
    "... You forget who triggered the French intervention. Another neo-con working for Israel. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/02/world/africa/02levy.html?_r=2 ..."
    "... Israel does not want a functioning Arab State left in the Middle-East. ..."
    "... It's like the Soviet Union invading the US because a few militiamen holed up in a wildlife refuge in Oregon. The neo-con press feeds us this propaganda and the willing idiots lap it up and deny responsibility when everything falls apart. ..."
    "... Jihad Dave is supporting islamist maniacs in Libya and Syria. He succeeded in Libya, along with the ludicrous Sarkozy clown, but Russia and Iran have stood up to the plate in Syria. ..."
    "... However much we might sympathise with fellow human beings living under brutal dictators and governments, a country can only really progress from within. Certainly, dialogue, sanctions and international cooperation can help foster change, but ultimately countries must want to change. ..."
    "... No, Gaddafy's crime was actually to spend the bulk of Libya's oil revenues on useless things such as schools, hospitals, housing and subsidised food when that money could have been flowing into the pockets of the West. ..."
    "... Taliban has been trained in the Saudi religious schools in Pakistan. Wahhabism is the official ideology of Saudi Arabia. 10 out of 11 terrorists 9/11 were the Saudis. All the Islamic terror in the last two decades was sponsored by the Saudis, including ISIS. ..."
    "... Bosnia - a slow ticking bomb. Just bubbling under the surface. Kosovo - a mafia state run by drug lord Thaci, supported by the US. It is no secret that the main source of income in Kosovo today is drugs, prostitution, organ trafficking. ..."
    "... There are no winners or losers in Iraq, everyone lost. Not a single group benefited from that western backed regime change, same in Libya and Syria. ..."
    "... The US empire blew up Libya with some help from it's puppets, Sarkozy and Cameron. 100% imperialism. ..."
    "... The USA - and its mini-me, the UK - have so blatantly bombed societies, manipulated governments and undermined social change in so many parts of the world that their trading positions are under real threat from emerging economic powers. ..."
    "... Yes, Obama shows himself for the buffoon he really is. ..."
    "... I, however, would caution against thinking the US led Neoliberal Empire of the Exceptionals is weakening. Its economic hegemony is almost complete only China and Russia remaining, and Obama with his "Pivot to Asia" (TM) has them surrounded and all set up for the female Chaney - Clinton the warmonger to get on with it. ..."
    "... The Empire will only get more and more brutal - it has absolutely no concern for human life or society - power over the globe as the Pentagon phrases it: "Global full spectrum domination" don't kid yourself they are going all out to reach their goal and a billion people could be killed - the Empire would say - so what, it was in our strategic interest. ..."
    "... Very well put, Sir. Obama's self-serving statement is borderline stupid. I constantly wonder why I voted for him twice. His Deep State handlers continue from the Bush period and having installed their coterie of right-wing extremists from Hillary to the Directors of the CIA, FBI, NSA, DOD, ad nauseum Obama has not had the courage at any point to admit not only the "mess" he makes, but the he is a captive mess of the shadow government. ..."
    "... Your comment is so stereotyped: when British aggression or war crimes are involved, every excuse is trundle out, every nuance examined, every extenuating circumstance and of course there is always a convenient statute of limitations. But when others are involved, specifically America and Israel, the same Guardian readers allow no excuses or nuances and every tiny detail going back hundreds of years is repeatedly and thoroughly examined. ..."
    "... Smith was murdered by extremists that took over Libya precisely because the death of Gadaffi left a dangerous power vacuum. The US aided and abetted certain groups, weapons found their way to the worse groups and Smith, a brave man, was his own country's victim in one sense. Hilary Clinton who should have known better publicly gloated over Gadaffi's death. Since his death the victimisation of black Libyans and other black Africans has become common, Libya has been overrun by extremists, and as we write is being used as a conduit for uncontrolled entry into Europe. ..."
    "... The biggest unanswered and puzzling question, is that of how could Obama have expected or assumed that Britain and France would have stayed behind and clean up the mess they and the Americans have made of Libya? Why did the Americans resolved to play only the part of 'hired guns' to go in and blitzed the Libyan Government and its armed forces, and neglected to learn the lesson of planning what should follow after the destruction? ..."
    "... The argument that the Americans had assumed that France and Britain would clean up the euphemistic mess has little or no credibility, since all three countries had been very clear about not wanting American, British and French 'boots on the ground.' ..."
    "... "The result has been mass killing, destruction and migration on a scale not seen, at least outside Africa, since the second world war." ..."
    "... We bombed in support of competing Jihadis groups, bandits and local war Lords then our well laid plans for a Utopian peace were thwarted because of the unforeseen chaos created as the Militias we gave close airsupport to fought over the spoils. ..."
    "... We should remember that we funded the terrorists in Libya and then sent weapons to ISIS from Libya to Syria that is we again used Al Qaeda as a proxy force. We then again used the "threat" from the proxy forces i,e. Al Qaeda to justify mass surveillance of the general population. ..."
    "... Of its 237 years of existence it has been at war or cold war for 222 of those years. ..."
    "... NATO is behind ISIS and the wars in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Chechen, Afghanistan, Libya and Ukraine. ..."
    "... Jane they didn't "come apart" and Libya and Syria were the most stable and least under the thumb of radicals. Syria had equality and education for women who could wear whatever they wanted. Furthermore they did not fall apart they were attacked by the largest military forces in the world excluding Russia. NATO sent in special operations forces to destabilise the government. They along with Al Nusra and other violent Wahabi terrorists attacked police and army barracks, and when Assads police and military hit back it was presented by the Western media and propagandists as an attack on the people of Syria. Do you think any other country would allow terrorists to attack police and other public institutions without retaliating and restoring order. ..."
    "... Many people who do not accept the Western medias false reporting at face value know that the wars in Syria were about changing the leaders and redrawing national boundaries to isolate Iran and sideline Russian influence. It was and is an illegal war and it was the barbarity of our Western leaders that caused the terrible violence. It was a pre planned plan and strategy outlined in the US Special Forces document below. http://nsnbc.me/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/special-forces-uw-tc-18-01.pdf ..."
    "... In the Libyan case, it was a clear US strategy to put in the forefront their English and French valets, in a coup (euphemistically called "regime change") wanted by them. The nobel peace winner got some nerves to put the blame on his accomplices for the chaos in Libya, while the permanent objective of the US is to divide and conquer, sowing chaos wherever it occurs: Afghanistan, Sudan, Iraq, Syria. Also Hillary is no stranger to the actions in Libya. ..."
    "... Simon Jenkins, don't pretend you were against American punitive expeditions around the world to overthrow third world dictators. You worked from the same neo-con ideological script to defend the ultra-liberal, military industrial economy; scare mongering in the pages of the Guardian, as far back as I can remember. You lot are as totally discredited as Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield and American Nato toadies. ..."
    "... Libya , Ukraine ,Syria have had the same recipe of de-stabilisation by the US and NATO. The so called popular rebels were in fact CIA trained and financed. Jihadist in Libya and Syria and neo-Nazis in Ukraine. After completing regime change in Libya as planned ,the Jihadist, with their looted arms were transferred to Syria and renamed ISIS. ISIS is Washingtons Foreign Legion army, used as required for their Imperial ends. Renamed as required on whichever territory they operate ..."
    "... Cameron has been given a free pass on Libya. It really is quite astonishing. The man has turned a functioning society into a jihadi infested failed state which is exporting men and weapons across North Africa and down the Sahara and now serves as a new front line for ISIS ..."
    "... Attacking Libya and deposing Gaddafi was down to enforcing the R2P doctrine on the pretext of "stopping another Rwanda". But it was a pretext. Islamist rebels attacked the armouries within Libya and the Libyans had every right to try and put down the rebellion. Samantha Powers et al were the war mongers. ..."
    "... The 2011 regime change shenanigans of the west against Libya is colonialism at its worst from all the parties who instigated it. The aftermath, the resultant mayhem and chaos, was in itself adding insult to injury. Gaddafi was no saint, but the militias, Muslim Brotherhood and ISIS now running rampant in the country are infinitely worse. This is a war crime of the first magnitude and no effort should be spared to address it ..."
    "... The west who has assassinated or organised coups against democratically elected secular leaders who didn't give us their natural resources (eg iran) and installed brutal, clepto dictatorships who also take part in plundering the resources leaving the general population poor, uneducated and susceptible to indoctrination from Islamists. ..."
    www.theguardian.com
    So Barack Obama thinks Britain in 2011 left Libya in chaos – and besides it does not pull its weight in the world. Britain thinks that a bit rich, given the shambles America left in Iraq. Then both sides say sorry. They did not mean to be rude.

    Thus do we wander across the ethical wasteland of the west's wars of intervention. We blame and we name-call. We turn deaf ears to the cries of those whose lives we have destroyed. Then we kiss and make up – to each other.

    Related: David Cameron was distracted during Libya crisis, says Barack Obama

    Obama was right first time round about Libya's civil war. He wanted to keep out. As he recalls to the Atlantic magazine , Libya was "not so at the core of US interests that it makes sense for us to unilaterally strike against the Gaddafi regime". He cooperated with Britain and France, but on the assumption that David Cameron would clear up the resulting mess. That did not happen because Cameron had won his Falklands war and could go home crowing.

    Obama is here describing all the recent "wars of choice".

    America had no "core interest" in Afghanistan or Iraq, any more than Britain had in Libya . When a state attacks another state and destroys its law and order, morally it owns the mess. There is no such thing as imperialism-lite. Remove one fount of authority and you must replace and sustain another, as Europe has done at vast expense in Bosnia and Kosovo.

    America and Britain both attacked countries in the Middle East largely to satisfy the machismo and domestic standing of two men, George Bush and Tony Blair. The result has been mass killing, destruction and migration on a scale not seen, at least outside Africa, since the second world war. In this despicable saga, Cameron's Libyan venture was a sideshow, though one that has destabilised north Africa and may yet turn it into another Islamic State caliphate. It is his Iraq.

    Related: The Guardian view on Libya: yet another messy frontier in the war on Isis | Editorial

    As for Obama's charge that Britain and other countries are not pulling their weight and are "free riders" on American defence spending, that too deserves short shrift. British and French military expenditure is proportionately among the highest in the world, mostly blown on archaic weapons and archaic forms of war. Western warmongering over the past two decades has had nothing to do with the existential defence of territory. "Defence" has become attack, keeping alive the military-industrial lobbies and lumbering military establishments that depend on it.

    Meanwhile the bonds between America and Britain will continue to strengthen. They do so, against all the odds, because they grow from one culture and one outlook on life. That mercifully has nothing to do with politicians.

    Manveer95 , 2016-03-13 11:04:35

    I'm stunned that Obama has been able to get away with his absolutely abysmal record with foreign policy. Libya was a complete disaster and there is evidence to suggest that Libya was a much better place under Gaddafi. And the fact that once they were in Iraq (something started by his predecessor) he wasn't committed to bringing about serious change, thus leaving a giant vacuum which, coincided with the Syrian Civil War, has now been filled by ISIS.

    That's not even talking about the Iran deal, Benghazi and the disastrous "Bring Back our Girls" campaign.

    JaneThomas -> grauniadreader101 , 2016-03-13 10:59:42
    I take it that you do not think that the Guardian is making up such stories as these in dated order:

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/apr/01/libyan-revolution-battle-torn-families

    "People find it very hard," said Iman Fannoush, with her two children in tow and a husband she knows not where. "They are up all night shooting because of good news. We hear the UN is coming to help us or our fighters have taken Brega or the air strikes have destroyed Gaddafi's tanks. Then everyone is afraid again when they hear Gaddafi's army is coming and they all want to know where is France, where are the air strikes, why is the west abandoning us?

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/sep/27/revolution-belongs-to-all-libyans
    We are grateful for the role played by the international community in protecting the Libyan people; Libyans will never forget those who were our friends at this critical stage and will endeavour to build closer relations with those states on the basis of our mutual respect and common interests. However, the future of Libya is for the Libyans alone to decide. We cannot compromise on sovereignty or allow others to interfere in our internal affairs, position themselves as guardians of our revolution or impose leaders who do not represent a national consensus.
    http://www.theguardian.com/books/2012/apr/27/sandstorm-libya-revolution-lindsey-hilsum-review
    Hilsum gives a riveting account of the battle for Tripoli, with activists risking their lives to pass intelligence to Nato, whose targeting – contrary to regime propaganda – was largely accurate, and too cautious for many Libyans.
    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jan/08/libyan-revolution-casualties-lower-expected-government
    The UN security council authorised action to protect Libyan civilians from the Gaddafi regime but Russia, China and other critics believe that the western alliance exceeded that mandate and moved to implement regime change.
    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/16/libyas-arab-spring-the-revolution-that-ate-its-children
    Libya's Arab spring was a bloody affair, ending with the killing of Gaddafi, one of the world's most ruthless dictators. His death saw the rebel militias turn on each other in a mosaic of turf wars. Full-scale civil war came last summer, when Islamist parties saw sharp defeats in elections the United Nations had supervised, in the hope of bringing peace to the country. Islamists and their allies rebelled against the elected parliament and formed the Libya Dawn coalition, which seized Tripoli. The new government fled to the eastern city of Tobruk and fighting has since raged across the country.
    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/16/libyas-arab-spring-the-revolution-that-ate-its-children
    With thousands dead, towns smashed and 400,000 homeless, the big winner is Isis, which has expanded fast amid the chaos. Egypt, already the chief backer of government forces, has now joined a three-way war between government, Libya Dawn and Isis.

    It is all a long way from the hopes of the original revolutionaries. With Africa's largest oil reserves and just six million people to share the bounty, Libya in 2011 appeared set for a bright future. "We thought we would be the new Dubai, we had everything," says a young activist who, like the student, prefers not to give her name. "Now we are more realistic."
    Anthony J Petroff -> fairviewplz , 2016-03-13 00:46:41
    Perpetually engineered destabilization is highly lucrative and has been for 200 years, but I don't know what's Central or Intelligent about it......except for a tiny handful at the top globally.
    Ziontrain -> Monrover , 2016-03-13 00:25:45

    On balance, is Libya worse off now than it would have been, had Gaddaffi been allowed free rein in Benghazi?

    No-one can possibly know the answer to that, certainly not Mr Jenkins.

    Clearly it was a dictatorship like say Burma is today.....but....from an economic point of view, it was like the Switzerland of Africa. And actually tons of European companies had flocked over there to set up shop. In contrast to now where its like the Iraquistan of Africa. No contest in the comparison there...

    Besides which, it's hard to buy the idea that Gaddafi was "rogue" or " a threat" when both parties named here were "rendering" secret prisoners to him for outsourced torture.

    There is no honour among thieves, clearly. But it would be folly to depict a squabble among them as a narrative of sinner vs saint...

    Ziontrain , 2016-03-13 00:16:06
    I wonder what the Nobel Peace Prize Committee is thinking. "Oh god - we made the mother of all #$%ups"? Surely...
    fairviewplz , 2016-03-13 00:04:24
    After the cold war, the US and had the chance to lead to a new world order based on democracy and human rights. Yet instead, its politics based became based on bullying and warmongering, and joined by their European allies. As a result we have a world entrenched in chaos and violence.

    To top it off, there is also their allies, the Saudi and Gulf allies. Therefore, if you want to know how bad the world has become as a result of the US, European and Gulf allies, their hypocrisy, criminal behavior, destruction of countries, and total disregard of international law, all you need to see is the war in Yemen.

    SUNLITE -> lestina , 2016-03-12 22:59:05
    Imperialism never left,.. The Capitalists are always working at complete control, it has no problem dancing with Dictators and Authoritarian rulers when it suites its purpose. Its just now they appear to be wanting to improve their image by changing their partners who stepped on their toes and Israel's on occasion ..
    SUNLITE -> buticomillas , 2016-03-12 22:39:23
    Yes, I will claim it as a U.S. inspired regime change policy, in all those Middle East secular and sovereign countries, by our own beloved War Mongering Nationalistic Neo Cons.. That is already being shown as a complete disaster.. Only 2 million dead so far and just wait until the religious fanatics are in complete control..
    grauniadreader101 -> JaneThomas , 2016-03-12 22:36:33
    Yep, many pictures, as there always are with media confections. Remember the footage of Saddam's statue being torn down in front of a huge crowd? It was only months later we saw the wide angle shot that showed just how few people there really were there.
    grauniadreader101 -> JaneThomas , 2016-03-12 22:34:20
    These US and UK involvement in the ME are matters of official record; are you really denying the CIA trained the Mujahideen, or that both the UK and US propped up Saddam? Even Robert Fisk acknowledges that! And please, don't patronise me. You have no idea what I've read or haven't.
    Anthony J Petroff , 2016-03-12 22:32:36
    ......c'mon, the powers behind the powers intentionally engineer mid-East destabilization to keep the perpetual war pumping billions to the ATM's in their living rooms; then, on top of it, they send the bill to average joe's globally; when is this farce going to be called out ?

    It is completely illogical, can't stand even eye tests, yet continues like an emperor with new clothes in our face.

    pierotg -> pierotg , 2016-03-12 22:23:48
    "keeping alive the military-industrial lobbies" mmm. An incomplete reading I think. What about oil and gas? Libya is north African richest country if I'm not mistaken ... Is Britain (and France) still trying to get its share there?

    Syria has the misfortune to be somehow in the middle of a proposed natural gas pipeline ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar-Turkey_pipeline ) too ...

    Just add a couple of paragraphs Mr. Jenkins in order to complete your article which, I'm sorry to say, told me nothing I didn't know already .

    pierotg , 2016-03-12 22:00:04
    "Western [ mostly american and british ] warmongering over the past two decades has had nothing to do with the existential defense of territory. "Defense" has become attack, keeping alive the military-industrial lobbies and lumbering military establishments that depend on it."

    "The result has been mass killing, destruction and migration on a scale not seen, at least outside Africa, since the second world war."

    Clear and concise.
    Thank you Mr. Jenkins

    jdanforth -> coombsm , 2016-03-12 21:45:36
    The Sykes-Picot agreement was one of the secrets uncovered by the Russian Revolution: it was in the files of the newly-overthrown government, and promptly publicized by the Bolsheviks, along with lots of other documents relating to imperialist secret diplomacy. Sound familiar?
    skepticaleye -> ID9108400 , 2016-03-12 20:49:36
    The interventionist model that the West has carried out recently is really an extension of the old colonialism in a different guise. In the olden days, the excuse was to spread Western civilization and Christianity to the world living in backwardness. In the modern era, it's democracy. Unfortunately democracy cannot be installed by force. Even if the people of the country being invaded wanted it, the opportunists (either among them or the outsiders) would find ways to exploit the chaos for their own benefits. We have seen different forms of such evolution in Libya, Egypt, Syria, Iraq.
    grauniadreader101 -> JaneThomas , 2016-03-12 19:35:02

    Get your facts right. Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan were all states that crumbled after the demise of the USSR.

    Bullshit. The CIA funded and trained the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, to fight the Russians, just as they backed Saddam against Iran. And the US has been mucking about in the Middle East since the 50s, the Brits since the late 19th century. Yours is a very selective reading of history.

    grauniadreader101 -> JaneThomas , 2016-03-12 19:32:20
    No, small groups of people with their own particular interests "begged for help." The "Arab Spring" was a Western media confection used to justify Western intervention to get rid of Gaddafi and Assad. Worked with Gaddafi, Assad not so well.
    coombsm -> buticomillas , 2016-03-12 19:09:34
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar-Turkey_pipeline

    this might answer your question. Syria has suffered for its geography since it was artificially created by the Sykes Picot agreement at the end of the Ottoman Empire.

    IamBaal -> Hanwell123 , 2016-03-12 18:36:40
    Don't forget the French "Philosopher" Bernard Henri-Levy

    Levy on the Libyan insurgents

    http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Global-Viewpoint/2011/0326/Bernard-Henri-Levy-War-in-Iraq-was-detestable.-War-in-Libya-was-inevitable

    "Libyan rebels are secularists, want unified country

    Gardels: If the French aim is successful and Qaddafi falls, who are the rebels the West is allying with? Secularists? Islamists? And what do they want?

    Levy: Secularists. They want a unified Libya whose capital will remain Tripoli and whose government will be elected as a result of free and transparent elections. I am not saying that this will happen from one day to the next, and starting on the first day. But I have seen these men enough, I have spoken with them enough, to know that this is undeniably the dream, the goal, the principle of legitimacy.

    IamBaal -> FelixMyIcecream , 2016-03-12 18:13:17
    You forget who triggered the French intervention. Another neo-con working for Israel. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/02/world/africa/02levy.html?_r=2
    IamBaal -> TonyBlunt , 2016-03-12 18:11:45
    Israel does not want a functioning Arab State left in the Middle-East.
    IamBaal -> Bilingual , 2016-03-12 18:09:37
    It's like the Soviet Union invading the US because a few militiamen holed up in a wildlife refuge in Oregon. The neo-con press feeds us this propaganda and the willing idiots lap it up and deny responsibility when everything falls apart.
    IamBaal -> JohnHawkwood , 2016-03-12 18:07:15
    The French led the way, with the French "Philosopher" Bernard-Henri Levy doing all the behind the scenes manipulation.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/02/world/africa/02levy.html?_r=2

    IamBaal , 2016-03-12 18:01:58
    Britain started the mess in the Middle-East with the Balfour declaration and the theft of Palestinian land to create an illegal Jewish state. Europe should pay massive reparations of money and equivalent land in Europe for the Palestinian refugees living in squalid camps. Neo-con Jews who lobbied for the Iraq, Syria and Libyan wars should have their wealth confiscated to pay for the mess they created.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/02/world/africa/02levy.html?_r=2
    ID4352889 , 2016-03-12 15:31:41
    Jihad Dave is supporting islamist maniacs in Libya and Syria. He succeeded in Libya, along with the ludicrous Sarkozy clown, but Russia and Iran have stood up to the plate in Syria.

    Presumably he's going down the Blair/Clinton route of cosying up to Middle Eastern Supremacist Cults in the hope that he can increase his income by tens of millions within the next 10 years. There can be no other explanation for his actions, that have never had anything whatsoever to do with the interests of either Britain or the wider European community.

    ID9108400 , 2016-03-12 15:07:56
    For me, the bottom line is that, however much might like to believe it, military intervention does not create nice, liberal, secular democracies. These can only be fostered from within.

    However much we might sympathise with fellow human beings living under brutal dictators and governments, a country can only really progress from within. Certainly, dialogue, sanctions and international cooperation can help foster change, but ultimately countries must want to change.

    The military, under the instruction of politicians, of the West should be pro-defence but anti-regime change or "nation building".

    I'm not suggesting a completely isolationist position, but offensive military action should be seen as a last resort.

    SomlanderBrit -> JustARefugee , 2016-03-12 15:05:53
    Mr Jenkins is a knowledgeable man but should've thought through this a bit more before so casually associating death and destruction and misery with Africa.

    China's cultural revolution and the Great Leap Forward alone killed and displaced more people after the second world war than all the conflicts in Africa put together. How about the break up of India in 1947? Korean War?

    But no when he thought about misery Africa popped into his mind..

    totemic , 2016-03-12 10:58:16

    Meanwhile the bonds between America and Britain will continue to strengthen. They do so, against all the odds, because they grow from one culture and one outlook on life. That mercifully has nothing to do with politicians.

    One culture?
    One outlook?
    Sounds all very Soviet.
    So, all Enlightened souls are reduced to a monoculture, within the Anglo American Empire.

    NezPerce , 2016-03-12 10:45:56
    Obama is a bill of goods. The Voters that choose him thought that they were getting a progressive, Obama used the reverend Wright to make himself seem like a man committed to radical change, but behind Obama was Chicago investment banker Louis Susman (appointed ambassador to Britain).

    Obama, a Harvard law professor, is the choice of the bankers, he does not play a straight bat, all the wars and killing are someone else's fault. Banking wanted rid of Gaddafi since he threatened the dollar as the reserve currency (as did Dominique Strauss-Kahn) as does the Euro, Obama let Cameron think he was calling the shots but he was just Obama's beard. Obama is nothing if not cunning, when he says stay in Europe but the Elites of the Tory party are pushing for out guess what, they got the nod from Obama and the Banks.

    titorelli -> Histfel , 2016-03-12 10:25:33
    So? All the numbers in the world can't undo Jenkins' thesis: there is no imperialism-lite. Imperialist wars are imperialist wars no matter how many die, and whether chaos, or neo-colonial rule follow. In his interview, Obama claims a more deliberate, opaque, and efficient war machine. To him, and his conscience, John Brennan, these metrics add up to significant moral milestones. To us innumerates, it's just more imperialist b.s.
    chaumont , 2016-03-12 08:21:52
    Gadaffy had since long planned to free his country and other African states from the yoke of being forced to trade within the American dollar sphere. He was about to lance his thoroughy well prepared alternative welcomed not the least by the Chinese when Libya was attacked. Obama is not truthful when suggesting the attack was not a "core" interest to the US. It was of supreme interest for the US to appear with its allies, Gadaffy´s independence of mind being no small challenge.
    backtothepoint , 2016-03-12 07:00:41
    Gadafy may have been particularly nasty with dissidents, but the UK has plenty of allies in the Muslim world that are far worse: Saudi Arabia, Bahrain... The Gulf States work their imported slaves to death and the UK kowtows to them. The UK has supplied billions of pounds worth of weapons to Saudi Arabia and sent military advisors to advise them how to use them to bomb Yemeni schools and hospitals.

    No, Gaddafy's crime was actually to spend the bulk of Libya's oil revenues on useless things such as schools, hospitals, housing and subsidised food when that money could have been flowing into the pockets of the West.

    Kosovo is also mentioned. There was a relatively low-level conflict (much like the Northern Ireland 'troubles') there until NATO started bombing and then oversaw the massive ethnic cleansing of Kosovo Serbs from their homeland (Serbs are the most ethnically-cleansed group in the former Yugoslavia: around 500,000 refugees).

    Yugoslavia's real crime? It was the last country in Europe to refuse the market economy and the hegemony of Western banks and corporates.

    The message is, 'Accept capitalism red in tooth or claw, or we'll bomb the crap out of you.'

    backtothepoint -> Nola Alan , 2016-03-12 06:44:38
    Did the attack on Afghanistan improve the situation? Perhaps temporarily in the cities, some things got a little better as long as you weren't shot or blown up. Over the country as a whole, it made the situation much worse.

    I remember John Simpson crowing that the Western invaders had freed Afghanistan when they entered Kabul. My reaction at the time was, 'Well, the Soviets had no problem holding the cities. Wait until you step outside them.' There followed many years of war achieving pretty much nothing except to kill a lot of people and get recruits flocking to the Taliban.

    It seemed we had learned absolutely nothing from the British and Soviet experiences.

    And you seem to have forgotten the multitude of US terror attacks on Muslims before the Afghan invasion, repackaged for our media as 'targeted attacks with collateral damage'. Bombing aspirin factories and such. And the First Gulf War. And US bases occupying the region. And the fact that the situation in Afghanistan was due to the Americans and Saudis having showered weapons and cash on anyone who was fighting the Soviets, not giving a damn about their aims. Bin Laden, for instance.

    And one aspect of law and order under the Taliban was that they virtually stopped opium production. After the invasion, it rose again to dizzying heights.

    The only way to deal with countries such as Afghanistan as it returns to its default system, along with other, more aggressive rogue states such as Saudi Arabia, is to starve them of all weapons and then let their peoples sort it out. It may take a long time but it's the sole possibility.

    As long as we keep pouring weapons into the Middle East for our own shameful purposes, the apocalypse will continue.

    Bosula , 2016-03-12 00:43:38
    Reading this excellent article one wonders how the war criminal Blair can be offered any peace-keeping role in the world or continue to get any air or press time.
    wmekins , 2016-03-12 00:08:02
    This is what Cameron's promises are worth, after boasting how he helped to topple Gadaffi. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_OFaE19myg
    enocharden -> honeytree , 2016-03-11 23:50:37
    Taliban has been trained in the Saudi religious schools in Pakistan. Wahhabism is the official ideology of Saudi Arabia. 10 out of 11 terrorists 9/11 were the Saudis. All the Islamic terror in the last two decades was sponsored by the Saudis, including ISIS.

    MissSarajevo , 2d ago

    Bosnia - a slow ticking bomb. Just bubbling under the surface. Kosovo - a mafia state run by drug lord Thaci, supported by the US. It is no secret that the main source of income in Kosovo today is drugs, prostitution, organ trafficking. Tear gas in Parliament for the third time in as many months. While the squares full of unemployed young and old are adorned with statues of those that gave them this opportunity Tony Blair and Bill Clinton were popular but I think their halos are tarnished somewhat. The situation is so serious that the US is beefing up its presence in camp Bondsteel but you won't read about it in the Guardian.
    AssameseGuy87 , previous , 2016-03-11 22:34:48

    when British aggression or war crimes are involved, every excuse is trundle out, every nuance examined, every extenuating circumstance and of course there is always a convenient statute of limitations

    So true . "Oh, oh, but the Spanish/Mongols/Romans etc etc", "Oh, like they were all so peaceful before Empire came along", "Oh, but but" (ad infinitum).

    Mick James -> Andrew Nichols , 2016-03-11 22:25:02
    End of Roman empire 476 AD
    End of Byzantine Empire 1453 AD

    Happy days.

    JacobJonker , 2016-03-11 21:31:10
    The bonds between America and Britain will continue to strengthen? Here's hoping. The neo-con cum neo-ultra liberal dream keeps on giving. Even after Brexit, Britain remains America's poodle at its peril. The rest of the article is right, but by now accepted wisdom amongst those capable of independent and rational thought.
    redleader -> Rudeboy1 , 2016-03-11 21:01:53
    The usual ways are carpet bombing (perhaps with incendiaries) or artillery bombardment (perhaps with phosphorus "shake and bake" shells).
    Bilingual -> ohhaiimark , 2016-03-11 19:52:11
    Here we go again, off course next phase is the "enlightment" in Al-Andalus...

    1. Conflict between sunni and shiites has been dormant for decades. Saudi Arabias promotion of Wahhabism has awoken it again, along with the catalyst for the recent bloodshed, the invasion of Iraq. That placed it back in the hands of the majority Shia and upset radical sunnis (eg the Saudis).

    Wahabism grew because of the oil export from Saudi Arabia which started way before World war II.

    Bollocks, there was a short period of calm while Europe defeated the Ottoman empire , but the Mughal empire took great pleasure in slaughtering shiites, and the Ottoman empire had huge conflicts with the Safavid empire.

    2. Pogroms were common against Jews in Europe and Europe has a far worse history of treating Jews than Muslims ever had. The "golden age of Judaism" in Europe was under Muslim rule in Spain. Need I mention that the Holocaust was perpetrated by European Christians?

    He-he, the fabulous golden age which is always mentioned, no doubt they were golden at that time compared to Europe, but to compare it today, it would be like living in Nazi Germany as a Jew before the Nürnberg laws were implemented.

    Would you like to pay a special non-muslim tax, step aside when a Muslim passed the street, be unable to claim any high positions in society to due to your heritage?

    3. Didnt forget. the USSR didnt hand them chemical weapons though. That would be the West. And it wasnt Russia who invaded Iraq later over the scam that they had WMDs.

    The Iran-Iraq war made the millions of dead possible primarily due to Soviet equipment, Halabja killed 5000. No, Russia prefered Chechnya and directly killed 300.000 civilians with the Grad bombings of cities and villages, whereas the casualties in Iraq primarily can be contributed to sectional violence.

    4. I think you are forgetting Mossadeq in Iran in the 50s. Nasser in Egypt and any Pan-Arab group that was secular in nature. Pan-Arabism is now dead and radical Islamism is alive and well thanks to our lust for control over the region.

    None of the mentioned were prime examples of democracy, Nasser for example had no problems in eliminating the Muslim brotherhood or killing 10s of thousands of rebels and civilians in Yemen with mustard gas.
    Hanwell123 , 2016-03-11 18:55:47
    Obama's remark that the Europeans and Gulf States "detested" Gaddafi and wanted to get rid of him while others had "humanitarian concerns" is of interest. It's unlikely the Arabs had humanitarian concerns in all the circumstances; they just wanted Regime Change. It is the lethal combination of Gulf Arabs and Neo-colonial France and Britain that has driven the Syrian war too- and continues to do so. No wonder America claims these countries enthuse about war until it comes and then expect them to fight it. France currently demands the surrender of Assad and for Russia to "leave the country immediately". Britain says there can be no peace while he remains and that Russia's "interference" is helping IS.
    Mary Yilma , 2016-03-11 18:55:22
    It's your prerogative whether or not you believe that the US and NATO intervene in countries based on moral grounds. But if you do want to delude yourself, remember that they only intervene in countries where they can make money off resources, like Libya and Iraq's oil revenues. If it were about morality, don't you think NATO and the West would have rushed to help Rwanda during the genocide?
    smush772 -> SomlanderBrit , 2016-03-11 18:45:30
    There are no winners or losers in Iraq, everyone lost. Not a single group benefited from that western backed regime change, same in Libya and Syria. You do not win when your situation is worse than it was before Saddam. You can't be a winner when you life in generally worse off than it was before. basically there is no rule of law now in these nations. Saddam was no monster like you want to portray him.
    Serv_On -> Monrover , 2016-03-11 18:47:01
    Gaddafi wanted a United Africa
    and was pushing for oil trading for gold not dollars

    World would have been better

    zolotoy -> PVG2012 , 2016-03-11 18:05:53
    Actually, some of those Latin American governments we overthrew were indeed liberal democracies.

    As for Canada, there are several reasons we haven't invaded. Too big, too sparse too white...and economically already a client state. Of course, we did try once: the War of 1812.

    dragonpiwo -> pinarello , 2016-03-11 17:37:03
    Libya is sitting on a lake of oil also. I worked for an oil company there for a decade.
    Scratcher99 -> thenewcat , 2016-03-11 17:36:32
    "When the same leaders did initially stand aside (as in Syria) "

    They didn't stand aside though, they helped create the trouble in the first place, as too with Libya; gather intelligence to find out who will take up arms, fund, train and give them promises, get them to organize and attack, then when the dictator strikes back the press swing into action to tell us all how much of a horrible bastard he is(even though we've been supporting and trading with him for eons), ergo, we have to bomb him! It's HUMANITARIAN! Not. It would be conquest though. Frightening.

    patricksteen -> JohnHawkwood , 2016-03-11 17:15:07
    Wrong. American fighters flew 27% of the sorties - the rest were conducted by other NATO members and primarily by the British and the French.
    midnightschild10 , 2016-03-11 17:09:42
    Obama has done everything in his power to morph into Bush including hiring a flaming chicken hawk in Ash Carter to play the role of Dick Cheyney. Bush left us with Iraq and Afghanistan, to which Obama added Egypt with the overthrow of the Muslim Brotherhood, Libya, Syria and Yemen. He also restarted the Cold War with Russia. He is now going after China for building islands in the South China Sea, a disputed area, something he as well as other Presidents before him has allowed Israel to build settlements on disputed land for the past fifty years and throughthrough $ 3.5 billion in gifts annually, has provided for enough concrete to cover all the land the Palestinians live on.

    The 3.5 billion annually will increase by $40 billion over ten years, unless Netanyahu gets the increase he wants to 15 billion per year. So Obama must settle on a legacy which makes him both a warmonger and one of the very best arms dealer in the world. His family must be so proud.

    Serv_On -> SomlanderBrit , 2016-03-11 17:08:19
    Iraq was an illegal war
    journeyinthewest -> kippers , 2016-03-11 17:06:14

    To be a humanitarian intervention, a military intervention has to avoid causing regime collapse, because people will die because of regime collapse. This is an elementary point that the political class appears not to want to learn.

    I agree with your analysis except the last paragraph. Pretty much in all interventions that we have witnessed, the political class deliberately caused the regimes to collapse. That was always the primary goal. Humanitarian intervention were never the primary, secondary or even tertiary objective.

    If the political class want to do some humanitarian interventions, they can always start with Boko Haram in Nigeria.

    EamonnStircock , 2016-03-11 16:37:40

    America had no "core interest" in Afghanistan or Iraq

    The USA was enforcing the UN blockade of Iraq, and had massive forces in place to do it. It was costing a fortune and there were regular border skirmishes taking place. It has been suggested that Bush and his advisors thought that they could take out Saddam and then pull all their forces back to the US. They won't admit it now because of the disaster that unfolded afterwards.
    JanePeryer , 2016-03-11 16:36:32
    Another good piece. What about all the weapons we sold Israel after they started their recent slaughter in Gaza and the selling of weapons to Saudi Arabia for use in Yemen (one of the poorest country's in the world) says everything you need to know about the tory party. They are sub humans and as such should be treated like dirt. I don't believe in the concept of evil...all a bit religious for me but if I did, it's what they are.
    B5610661066 -> WankSalad , 2016-03-11 16:23:10

    Describing the intervention in Libya as imperialism - 'lite' or otherwise - is ridiculous.

    The US empire blew up Libya with some help from it's puppets, Sarkozy and Cameron. 100% imperialism.

    Donald Mintz , 2016-03-11 16:21:59
    It astonishes me that these great men and women-I include Sec'y Clinton here-give no indication that their calculations were made without the slightest knowledge of the countries they were preparing to attack in one way or another. From what one read in the long NYTimes report on preparations for the Libyan intervention, the participants in the planning knew a great deal about military matters and less about Libya than they could have found out in a few minutes with Wikipedia. Tribal societies are different from western societies, dear people, and you damn well should have known that.
    willpodmore -> jezzam , 2016-03-11 16:21:31
    Honduras. The USA backed the coup there. Honduras is now run by generals and is the world's murder capital. I could go on, jezzam. Please read William Blum's books on US foreign policy. They provide evidence that the US record is not good.
    B5610661066 , 2016-03-11 16:20:50
    Without the US the UK and France couldn't have overthrown Gaddafi. The jihadis would have been killed or fled Libya. I don't believe any post-Gaddafi plan existed. Why would there have been one? Killing Gaddafi was the war's aim. A western puppet strong man leader grabbing power would have been icing on the cake of course but why would the US care about Libya once Gaddafi was gone?
    fanUS , 2016-03-11 16:20:16
    Well, Cameron just followed Obama's 'regime change' bad ideas.
    Obama is a failed leader of the World who made our lives so much worse.
    Obama likes to entertain recently, so after his presidency the best job for him is a clown in a circus.
    NYbill13 -> NezPerce , 2016-03-11 16:19:43
    We will never know why Stevens and the others were killed.

    Absent reliable information, everyone is free to blame whomever they dislike most.

    Based on zero non-partisan information, Hillary is the media's top choice for Big Villain. She may in fact be more responsible than most for this horror, but she may not be too.

    Who ya gonna ask: the CIA, the Pentagon, Ted Cruz?

    It seems everyone who's ever even visited Washington,D.C., has some anonymous inside source that proves Hillary did it.

    To hear the GOP tell it, she flew to Libya secretly and shot Stevens herself just because she damn well felt it, o kay -- (female troubles)

    My question is: Where has US/Euro invasion resulted in a better government for all those Middle Eastern people we blasted to bits of blood and bone? How's Yemen doin' these days?

    Hope Europe enjoys assimilating a few million people who share none of Europe's customs, values or languages.

    I'm sure euro-businesses would never hire the new immigrants instead of union-backed locals.

    Why, that would almost be taking advantage of a vast reservoir of ultra-cheap labor!

    Nor will the sudden ocean of euro-a-day workers undercut unions or wages in the EU. No siree, not possible.

    Just like unions have not been decimated, and wages have not stagnated in the US since 1980 or so. No siree. Not in Europe .

    willpodmore -> jezzam , 2016-03-11 16:18:31
    jezzam writes, "the dictator starts massacring hundreds of thousands of his own civilians." But he didn't. Cameron lied.

    The rebellion against Gaddafi began in February 2011. The British, French and US governments intervened on their usual pretext of protecting civilians. The UN said that 1,000-2,000 people had been killed before the NATO powers attacked.

    Eight months later, after the NATO attack, 30,000 people had been killed and 50,000 wounded (National Transitional Council figures).

    Cameron made the mess; Cameron caused the vast refugee crisis. The NATO powers are getting what they want – the destruction of any states and societies that oppose their rule, control over Africa's rich resources. Libya is now plagued by "relentless warfare where competing militias compete for power while external accumulators of capital such as oil companies can extract resources under the protection of private military contractors."

    sarkany -> xyz123xyz321 , 2016-03-11 15:59:16
    any state that wishes to be taken seriously as a player on the world stage

    The classic phrase of imperialism - an attitude that seems to believe any nation has the right to interfere in, or invade, other countries'.
    Usually done under some pretence of moral superiority - it used to be to 'bring the pagans to God', these days more 'they're not part of our belief system'. In fact, it only really happens when the imperial nations see the economic interests of their ruling class come under threat.

    The USA - and its mini-me, the UK - have so blatantly bombed societies, manipulated governments and undermined social change in so many parts of the world that their trading positions are under real threat from emerging economic powers.

    The two that they are most scared of are Russia and China, who combined can offer the capital and expertise to replace the old US / European axis across Africa, for instance. The war is already being fought on many fronts, as this article makes clear.

    Corrections -> xyz123xyz321 , 2016-03-11 15:44:02
    When Dubya was POTUS, the EU wanted to create its own military force. The US insisted Nato be the only regional force. Just sayin'....
    Lafcadio1944 , 2016-03-11 15:33:46
    Yes, Obama shows himself for the buffoon he really is. Clinton had it right when the going gets tough Obama gives a speech (see Cairo).

    I, however, would caution against thinking the US led Neoliberal Empire of the Exceptionals is weakening. Its economic hegemony is almost complete only China and Russia remaining, and Obama with his "Pivot to Asia" (TM) has them surrounded and all set up for the female Chaney - Clinton the warmonger to get on with it.

    The Empire will only get more and more brutal - it has absolutely no concern for human life or society - power over the globe as the Pentagon phrases it: "Global full spectrum domination" don't kid yourself they are going all out to reach their goal and a billion people could be killed - the Empire would say - so what, it was in our strategic interest.

    zkiwi , 2016-03-11 15:27:56
    The odd thing is, Obama didn't seem to think getting rid of Gaddafi a bad thing at all at the time. Clinton was all, "We came, we saw, he died." And this bit about "no core interest" in Afghanistan and Iraq is just bizarre. Given the mess both countries are in, and the resurgence of the Taliban and zero clue about Iraq it was clearly a master stroke for Obama to decide the US exit both with no effective governments in place, ones that could deal with the Taliban et al. Never mind, he can tootle off and play golf.
    fragglerokk -> fragglerokk , 2016-03-11 15:25:04
    here's a decent summing up of the state of play in Libya and Hilarys role in it

    http://chinamatters.blogspot.co.uk/2016/03/libya-worse-than-iraq-sorry-hillary.html

    Anonymot , 2016-03-11 15:24:49
    Very well put, Sir. Obama's self-serving statement is borderline stupid. I constantly wonder why I voted for him twice. His Deep State handlers continue from the Bush period and having installed their coterie of right-wing extremists from Hillary to the Directors of the CIA, FBI, NSA, DOD, ad nauseum Obama has not had the courage at any point to admit not only the "mess" he makes, but the he is a captive mess of the shadow government.

    America has a historic crisis of leadership and being the sole model left in that field, the world has followed, the UK and all of Europe included.

    fragglerokk , 2016-03-11 15:21:07
    Libya is all Hilarys work so expect to return with boots on the ground once Wall Sts finest is parked in the Oval office. She has the midas touch in reverse and Libya has turned (and will continue) to turn out worse than Iraq and Syria (believe me its possible) There is absolutely no one on the ground that the west can work with so the old chestnut of arming and training al qaeda or 'moderate' opposition is not an option. ISIL are solidifying a base there and other than drones there is zip we can do.

    Critising Cameron just shows how insecure Obama is, lets be honest the middle east and afghanistan are in the state they are because Obama had zero interest in foreign policy when his first term started, thus allowing the neocons to move into the vacuum and create the utter disaster that is Syraq and Ukraine. We in europe are now dealing with the aftermath of this via the refugee crisis which will top 2 million people this year. Obamas a failure and he knows it, hence the criticism of other leaders. Cameron is no different, foreign policy being almost totally abandoned to the US, there is no such thing as independent defence policy in the UK, everything is carried out at the behest of the US. Don't kid yourself we have any autonomy, we don't and there are plenty of high level armed forces personnel who feel the same way. Europe is leaderless in general and with the economy flatlining they too have abandoned defence and foreign affairs to the pentagon.

    Right now we're in the quiet before the storm, once HRC gets elected expect the situation to deteriorate rapidly, our only hope is that someone has got the dirt to throw her out of the race.

    previous -> thenewcat , 2016-03-11 15:03:43
    "Not Syria"

    ISIS established itself in Iraq before moving into Syria. Would ISIS exist is Britain had not totally destabilized Iraq? Going back even further, it is the 100th anniversary of the Sykes-Picot agreement, that great exercise in British Imperialism that created the artificial nations in the Middle East that are collapsing today.

    Your comment is so stereotyped: when British aggression or war crimes are involved, every excuse is trundle out, every nuance examined, every extenuating circumstance and of course there is always a convenient statute of limitations. But when others are involved, specifically America and Israel, the same Guardian readers allow no excuses or nuances and every tiny detail going back hundreds of years is repeatedly and thoroughly examined.

    Transparent hypocrisy. Accept responsibility and stop offloading it to Calais.

    NezPerce -> nemesis7 , 2016-03-11 15:00:09
    Ambassador Stevens was killed in a cover up over the arms dealing from Libya to Syria, (weapons and fighters to ISIS). It seems more likely that he was killed because he was investigating the covert operation given that he was left to fend for himself by all US military forces but in a classic defamation strategy he has been accused of being behind the operation. Had he been he would have been well defended.
    nofatebutwhatyoumake , 2016-03-11 14:50:24

    "Defense" has become attack, keeping alive the military-industrial lobbies and lumbering military establishments that depend on it.

    Couldn't put it better myself. Yes, America is a full blown Empire now. Evil to it's very core. Bent on world domination and any cost. All we lack is a military dictatorship. Of course, with the nation populated by brainwashed sheep, a "Dear Leader" is inevitable,

    nemesis7 , 2016-03-11 14:48:17
    President Obama was correct in keeping US boots off the ground in Syria. An active US troop presence would have resulted in an even greater level of confusion and destruction on all sides. However, it was precisely the US' meddling in Libya that helped pave the way for its current dysfunctional, failed state status, riven by sectarian conflicts and home to a very active Al Quaida presence.

    US interference in Libya saw Gadaffi backstabbed by the US before literally being stabbed to death although he had been given assurances that the US would respect his rule particularly as he had sought to become part of the alliance against the likes of Al Quaida.

    Obama was behind the disgraceful lie that the mob that attacked the US' Benghazi Embassy and murdered Ambassador Smith y was 'inflamed' by an obscure video on youtube that attacked extremist elements of the Islamic faith. Smith deserved better than this blatant lie and the grovelling, snivelling faux apologies Obama and then Secretary of State Hilary Clinton made to the Muslim world for something that had nothing to do with 99.9 percent of non Muslims.

    Smith was murdered by extremists that took over Libya precisely because the death of Gadaffi left a dangerous power vacuum. The US aided and abetted certain groups, weapons found their way to the worse groups and Smith, a brave man, was his own country's victim in one sense. Hilary Clinton who should have known better publicly gloated over Gadaffi's death. Since his death the victimisation of black Libyans and other black Africans has become common, Libya has been overrun by extremists, and as we write is being used as a conduit for uncontrolled entry into Europe.

    Disappointingly, President Obama forgets the Biblical saying about pointing out a speck in somebody's eye while ignoring the plank in his own.

    markdowe , 2016-03-11 14:46:54
    Mr President doesn't privately refer to the Libyan upheaval as the "shit show" for no good reason. The chaos and anarchy that have ensued since, including the migrant crisis in Europe and the rise of Islamic State, is directly attributable to the shoddy interventionist approach used by both Britain and France.
    FelixMyIcecream -> Hanwell123 , 2016-03-11 14:42:30

    it seems Cameron jumped on the bandwagon in fear France would take all the glory.

    He wanted his Falklands moment .

    Taku2 , 2016-03-11 14:37:45
    Good article, with justified moral indignation. Only thing I would have changed, is "imperialism-lite" to 'lesser and greater imperialism.

    Would it not have been a great contribution towards peace and justice, had the US decided not to invade Iraq and Libya, on account that other western countries were "free-riders" and would not have pulled their weight?

    So, what does the world needs now? More 'free-riding countries' to dissuade so-called responsible countries - Britain, France, America, Italy - from conspiring to invade other countries, after consulting in the equivalent of a 'diplomatic toilet and drawing up their war plans on the back of the proverbial cigarette packet.'

    For all Obama's niceties, it would now appear that he has been seething and mad as hell about his perception of Britain and France 'abandoning' Libya and watching it perceptible destabilizing the region and the flames fanning farther afield.

    The biggest unanswered and puzzling question, is that of how could Obama have expected or assumed that Britain and France would have stayed behind and clean up the mess they and the Americans have made of Libya? Why did the Americans resolved to play only the part of 'hired guns' to go in and blitzed the Libyan Government and its armed forces, and neglected to learn the lesson of planning what should follow after the destruction?

    The argument that the Americans had assumed that France and Britain would clean up the euphemistic mess has little or no credibility, since all three countries had been very clear about not wanting American, British and French 'boots on the ground.'

    Is the Americans now telling the world that they went into Libya without planning for the aftermath, because it was 'an emergency to save lives' and they had to go in immediately?

    Well, if so, that is now how nations behave responsibly, and it is now clear that more lives have probably been lost and continue to be sacrificed, than those which might have been saved as a result of the West invading and attacking Libya.

    FelixMyIcecream -> Hanwell123 , 2016-03-11 14:35:04

    the Europeans expected America to pick up the tab for reconstruction

    I don't think there would be many complaints from Halliburton or other American companies to help with the reconstruction, if the place wasn't such a shit-storm right now.

    previous , 2016-03-11 14:32:31
    "The result has been mass killing, destruction and migration on a scale not seen, at least outside Africa, since the second world war."

    Judging from the sentiments expressed in the overwhelming majority of comments posted on multiple threads on this forum, the British people don't want to accept responsibility for "migration on a scale not seen... since the second world war". The almost universal resistance to accepting refugees and migrants that fled their homes due to unprovoked British aggression is disgusting and pathetic. It highlights the hypocrisy of those who see themselves morally fit to judge almost everyone else.

    NezPerce , 2016-03-11 14:25:27
    Mitchell says that we had a plan to stabilise Libya but that it could not be implement the plan because there was no peace?#*^..... Der

    We bombed in support of competing Jihadis groups, bandits and local war Lords then our well laid plans for a Utopian peace were thwarted because of the unforeseen chaos created as the Militias we gave close airsupport to fought over the spoils.

    Well there you have it- its the fault of the Libyans.

    Hanwell123 , 2016-03-11 14:05:15
    Hilary Clinton recently blamed Sarkozy for Libya describing him as so "very excited" about the need to start bombing that he persuaded her and she, Nuland and Power persuaded a reluctant Obama. Three civilian females argued down the military opinion that it was unnecessary and likely to cause more trouble than it was worth.

    As this was clearly to support French interests the Americans insisted the Europeans do it themselves if they were that keen. Old Anglo-French rivalry has never been far from the surface in the ME and it seems Cameron jumped on the bandwagon in fear France would take all the glory. Neither of them appear to have given any thought about reconstruction. The blame is mostly Cameron's as Sorkozy was chucked out of office just months later. Did Cameron have a plan at all? If so it was his biggest mistake and one we'll be paying for over the coming years.

    SHappens -> jezzam , 2016-03-11 14:03:29

    Without Putin's mischief making though, this would have been sorted out long ago.

    Putin intervened in September 2015. What have the West been doing since 2011 to stop the conflict, one wonders.

    Russia vetoes any UN attempt to sort out the mess

    Looking bad you'd realize that it at least prompted Obama to retract in 2013. Since then though support to Saudi and proxies destabilizing Syria has only increased.

    Russia is clearing the mess of the West, and they should be grateful. Obama might be from what I read today from his "confessions".

    grauniadreader101 -> JaneThomas , 2016-03-11 14:03:19
    Yes. I don't think that is a pro-imperialist stance. He's arguing that there is no middle ground; getting rid of dictators you don't like is imperialism, and whether you follow through or not, there are serious consequences, but to not follow through is an abnegation of moral responsibility to the people you are at attemting to "free". It seems to me he is arguing against any foreign intervention, hence his castigation of Obama and Cameron for the "ethical wasteland of their wars of intervention."
    ohhaiimark -> PVG2012 , 2016-03-11 13:53:27
    Please do me a favour and study 20th century history a little more. The US overthrow countless democracies in Latin America and the Middle East and installed fascist dictatorships.

    Liberal Democracy haha come on now. They dont care about Democracy. They care about money. They will install and support any dictatorship (look at Saudi Arabia for example) as long as they do as they are told economically.

    I love western values, dont get me wrong. It is the best place to live freely. However, if you werent lucky enough to be born in the west and the west wants something your country has (eg. oil).....you are in for a lot of bad times.

    I just wish western leaders/governments actually followed the western values that we all love and hold dear.

    NezPerce , 2016-03-11 13:49:00
    We should remember that we funded the terrorists in Libya and then sent weapons to ISIS from Libya to Syria that is we again used Al Qaeda as a proxy force. We then again used the "threat" from the proxy forces i,e. Al Qaeda to justify mass surveillance of the general population.

    The solution as Corbyn pointed out is to stop funding the Terrorists.

    http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n08/seymour-m-hersh/the-red-line-and-the-rat-line

    By the terms of the agreement, funding came from Turkey, as well as Saudi Arabia and Qatar; the CIA, with the support of MI6, was responsible for getting arms from Gaddafi's arsenals into Syria. A number of front companies were set up in Libya, some under the cover of Australian entities. Retired American soldiers, who didn't always know who was really employing them, were hired to manage procurement and shipping. The operation was run by David Petraeus, the CIA director who would soon resign when it became known he was having an affair with his biographer.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06s0qy9

    Peter Oborne investigates claims that Britain and the West embarked on an unspoken alliance of convenience with militant jihadi groups in an attempt to bring down the Assad regime.

    He hears how equipment supplied by the West to so called Syrian moderates has ended up in the hands of jihadis, and that Western sponsored rebels have fought alongside Al Qaeda. But what does this really tell us about the conflict in Syria?

    This edition of The Report also examines the astonishing attempt to re brand Al Nusra, Al Qaeda's Syrian affiliate, as an organisation with which we can do business.

    pfbulmer , 2016-03-11 13:46:44
    What is good that this is finally coming out ,the denial by both Obama and a very left wing media has failed to confront this issue in what is an incredibly low point for Obama and Hilary Clinton and their naive ideas about the Arab Spring.

    As it is equally so for David Cameron and William Hague. Sarkozy is different he was not naive he knew exactly what he was doing thais was about saving french influence in North Africa,he was thinking about Tunisa, Algeria which he was keen to drag others into -- He was the most savvy of all those politicians at least he was not a fool,but France priorities are not the same as the UK --

    Obama's comments once again as usual do not really confront the real problems of Libya and gloss over the key issues and ending up passing the buck, he can do no wrong ? It was not the aftermath of Libya but the whole idea of changing the controlling demographics of the country which he played a major part in destabilising through the UN AND Nato which was the problem --

    It was thought the lessons of Iraq was all about not putting boots on the ground ,or getting your feet dirty ,as this antagonises the locals and that a nice clinical arms length bombardment creating havoc ,is the best way to go .

    This was not the lesson of Iraq , which was actually not to destabilise the controlling demographics of the country which will never recover if you do ..It is one thing to depose a leader or ask a leader to step down but do not disturb 100 of years controlling demographics, sectarian or not in these countries is not wise . To do so is a misstep or misjudgement --

    Demographics are like sand dunes they have taken many years to evolve and rest uneasy, in the highly religious and sectarian landscape but can be unsettled over night, grain by grain even by a small shift in the evening night breeze , a small beetle can zig zag across and the whole dune will crumble

    Once again the US pushed the UK who vied with France at how high they could jump, using the UN blank cheque as cover ,for melting down the country and has left UN credibilty in taters has now no credibility and Nato is now not trusted .

    They took disgracefully no less the UN 1973 Peace Resolution , point one, Cease fire and point two No Fly Zone .They bent it , twisted it , contorted it into blatant out right support of the eastern shiite sympathisers sectarian group, against the more secular Sunni Tripoli groups .

    (Gaddafi was not one man Mr apologist Rifkind he was the tribal leaders of a quite a large tribe !)

    Which has been part of a historic rivalry going back hundreds of years . They killed more civilians that Gaddafi ever had or could have done . They even attacked in a no fly zone government troops retreating and fired on government planes on the ground in a non fly zone .

    Then they refused to negotiate with the government or allow the Organisation of African states to mediate who had agreed general elections .They went on bombing until there was no infrastructure no institutions or sand dunes ,or beetles left --

    It was done after Iraq and that is why it is so shameful and why Obama , Cameron, Sarkozy , the UN , Nato must face up to what they have done , and after the Chilcot enquiry there needs to be a Cameron enquiry . Presumably it will have the backing of Obama --

    What is worse is the knock on effect on this massive arm caches and fighters from Libya then went on to Syria, reek havoc and destabilised the country . Because Russia and China could never trust again the UN , the UN has been ineffective in Syria for that very reason .The deaths of British tourist in next door Tunisia has to laid firmly at David Cameron's and the foreign office door --

    No wonder Libya is keeping Obama awake at night , no wonder he is indulging in damage limitation , no wonder he is trying to re write history ? How can I get this out of my legacy . If only I had not met Mr Cameron a yes man -- If only I had been told by some with an once of common sense , not to touch this country with a barge pole ?

    The poor Libyan people will agree with him --

    The lesson for the UK is do want you think is right not what the US thinks as right , a lesson that David Cameron has failed to learn , and has shown he is not a safe pari of hands and lacks judgement --

    ohhaiimark -> Bilingual , 2016-03-11 13:45:40
    1. Conflict between sunni and shiites has been dormant for decades. Saudi Arabias promotion of Wahhabism has awoken it again, along with the catalyst for the recent bloodshed, the invasion of Iraq. That placed it back in the hands of the majority Shia and upset radical sunnis (eg the Saudis).

    2. Pogroms were common against Jews in Europe and Europe has a far worse history of treating Jews than Muslims ever had. The "golden age of Judaism" in Europe was under Muslim rule in Spain. Need I mention that the Holocaust was perpetrated by European Christians?

    3. Didnt forget. the USSR didn't hand them chemical weapons though. That would be the West. And it wasn't Russia who invaded Iraq later over the scam that they had WMDs.

    4. I think you are forgetting Mossadeq in Iran in the 50s. Nasser in Egypt and any Pan-Arab group that was secular in nature. Pan-Arabism is now dead and radical Islamism is alive and well thanks to our lust for control over the region.

    mothersuperior5 , 2016-03-11 13:45:06
    Obama? Censored? You forgot Hillary. she even said the other day at the townhall before Miss/MI to the effect 'if Assad had been taken out early like Gaddafi then Syria would only be as bad as Libya'. laughable really. i presume you aren't criticising Hillary Clinton?
    upthecreek -> Colossian , 2016-03-11 13:41:18

    Gaddafi who was openly threatening to massacre all rebels in Benghazi.

    Yes that was the narrative that Western media wanted to portray but in reality was not the reason Libya was attacked --

    NezPerce , 2016-03-11 13:37:15
    Kosovo is now basket case that we are paying for but it is small. Now we have also backed NeoCon regime change in Ukraine which we are going to be paying for. Libya will soon have enough Jihadist training camps to be a direct threat.

    What we see is a Strategy of Chaos from the US NeoCons but what we have failed to notice is that the NeoCons see us as the target, as the enemy.

    david119 , 2016-03-11 13:35:56
    Totally agree that there is no such thing as Imperialism Lite, just as there is no such thing as Wahabi Lite or Zionism Lite. So I wonder why Hilary Benn thinks Britain has anything to feel proud about our foreign policy. It seems to me Britain's Foreign Policy is a combination of incompetence, jingoism and pure evil.
    What is the point of employing the brightest brains in the land at the Foreign Office when we get it wrong almost all the time ?
    James Barker , 2016-03-11 13:29:27
    "Western warmongering over the past two decades has had nothing to do with the existential defence of territory. "Defence" has become attack, keeping alive the military-industrial lobbies and lumbering military establishments that depend on it."
    Attacking Al qaeda in Afghanistan had nothing to do with defending territory?
    John Smith -> AddisLig , 2016-03-11 13:26:33
    Libyan 'rebels' were armed and trained by 'the West' in a first place. The plan was the same for Syria but Russians stopped it with not allowing 'no fly zone' or to call it properly 'bomb them into the stone age'.

    You probably don't know how 'bloody' Gaddafi was to the Libyans.

    * GDP per capita - $ 14,192.
    * For each family member the state pays $ 1000 grants per year.
    * Unemployment - $ 730.
    * Salary Nurse - $ 1000.
    * For every newborn is paid $ 7000.
    * The bride and groom given away $ 64,000 to buy an apartment.
    * At the opening of a one-time personal business financial assistance - $ 20,000.
    * Large taxes and extortions are prohibited.
    * Education and medicine are free.
    * Education and training abroad - at the expense of the state.
    * Store chain for large families with symbolic prices of basic foodstuffs.
    * For the sale of products past their expiry date - large fines and detention.
    * Part of pharmacies - with free dispensing.
    * For counterfeiting - the death penalty.
    * Rents - no.
    * No Fees for electricity for households!
    * Loans to buy a car and an apartment - interest free.
    * Real estate services are prohibited.
    * Buying a car up to 50% paid by the state, for militia fighters - 65%.
    * Gasoline is cheaper than water. 1 liter - 0,14 $.
    * If a Libyan is unable to get employment after graduation the state would pay the average salary of the profession as if he or she is employed until employment is found.
    * Gaddafi carried out the world's largest irrigation project, known as the Great Man-Made River project, to make water readily available throughout the desert country

    antipodes -> Jeshan , 2016-03-11 13:19:04
    The Gadaffi regime had upset the USA because Gadaffi was setting up an oil currency system based on gold rather than US dollars. While this was not the sole reason the West turned against him it was an important factor. The largest factor for the wars so far, and the planned war against Iran was to cut out the growing Russian domination of the oil supply to Europe, China and India.
    Potyka Kalman , 2016-03-11 13:18:58
    A decent article as we could expect from the author.

    However personally I doubt there was no ulterior motive in the case of Lybia. Lybia was one of the countries who tried the change the status quo on the oil market and it has huge reserves too (as we know Europe is running out of oil, at least Great Britain is).

    It is very likely that the European countries retreated because Libya started to look like another Iraq.

    TatianaAD -> David Ellis , 2016-03-11 13:16:32
    When you are talking about "democratic forces of the revolution.." i imagine you being an enthusiastic teenager girl who hardly knows anything about the world but goes somewhere far for a gap year as a volunteer to make locals aware of something that will help them forever. It is instead of demanding responsible policies and accountability from her own government.
    antipodes -> MarkB35 , 2016-03-11 13:12:18
    Sorry!!!
    What planet have you been living on. What do you read apart from lifestyle magazines full of shots of celebrity boobs and bums.
    The United states is the most interventionist country in history. Of its 237 years of existence it has been at war or cold war for 222 of those years.
    NATO is behind ISIS and the wars in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Chechen, Afghanistan, Libya and Ukraine.
    If the West stopped intervening there would be very few wars and if the West used its influence for peace rather than control there would rarely be any was at all.
    Nothingness -> ohhaiimark , 2016-03-11 13:04:10
    Well put. People forget the importance of oil in maintaining the standard of living in our western democracies. Controlling it's supply trumps all other issues.
    antipodes -> JaneThomas , 2016-03-11 12:57:20
    Jane they didn't "come apart" and Libya and Syria were the most stable and least under the thumb of radicals. Syria had equality and education for women who could wear whatever they wanted. Furthermore they did not fall apart they were attacked by the largest military forces in the world excluding Russia. NATO sent in special operations forces to destabilise the government. They along with Al Nusra and other violent Wahabi terrorists attacked police and army barracks, and when Assads police and military hit back it was presented by the Western media and propagandists as an attack on the people of Syria. Do you think any other country would allow terrorists to attack police and other public institutions without retaliating and restoring order.

    Many people who do not accept the Western medias false reporting at face value know that the wars in Syria were about changing the leaders and redrawing national boundaries to isolate Iran and sideline Russian influence. It was and is an illegal war and it was the barbarity of our Western leaders that caused the terrible violence. It was a pre planned plan and strategy outlined in the US Special Forces document below.
    http://nsnbc.me/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/special-forces-uw-tc-18-01.pdf

    If you get your facts right it ruins your argument doesn't it.

    SHappens , 2016-03-11 12:56:32
    In the Libyan case, it was a clear US strategy to put in the forefront their English and French valets, in a coup (euphemistically called "regime change") wanted by them. The nobel peace winner got some nerves to put the blame on his accomplices for the chaos in Libya, while the permanent objective of the US is to divide and conquer, sowing chaos wherever it occurs: Afghanistan, Sudan, Iraq, Syria. Also Hillary is no stranger to the actions in Libya.

    These Middle East countries should have been left alone by the West. Due to their nature, these countries have strong divisions and battle for their beliefs and a strong man, a dictator is what prevented them to fall into the chaos they are today. Without the Western meddling, arming and financing various rebel groups, Isis would not exist today.

    BlackBlue1984 -> CABHTS , 2016-03-11 12:49:40
    Neither is putting political opponents in acid baths and burning tyres, as Tony Blair's friends in the central Asian Republics have been doing, neither is beheading gays, raped women and civil rights protesters, as Cameron's Saudi friends have been enjoying, the latter whilst we sell them shit loads of munitions to obliterate Yemeni villagers. I wonder how the Egyptian president is getting on with all that tear gas and bullets we sold him? And are the Bahrani's, fresh from killing their own people for daring to ask for civil rights, enjoying the cash we gave them for that new Royal Navy base? Our foreign policy is complacent and inconsistent, we talk about morality but the bottom line is that that doesn't come into it when BAE systems and G4S have contracts to win. Don't get me wrong, Britain has played a positive role internationally in many different areas, but there is always a neo-liberal arsehole waiting to pop up and ruin the lives of millions, a turd with a school tie that just wont be flushed away.
    tonall -> TidelyPom , 2016-03-11 12:46:45
    Simon Jenkins, don't pretend you were against American punitive expeditions around the world to overthrow third world dictators. You worked from the same neo-con ideological script to defend the ultra-liberal, military industrial economy; scare mongering in the pages of the Guardian, as far back as I can remember. You lot are as totally discredited as Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield and American Nato toadies.
    Newmacfan , 2016-03-11 12:25:21
    It is high time that Europe reviewed and evaluated its relationship with the United States, with NATO, Russia and China. The world needs to be a peaceable place and there needs to be more legislation imposed upon the Financial Markets to stop them being a place where economic destabilisation and warfare can and do take place. The United States would not contemplate these reviews taking place as they are integral to their continuing position in the world but also integral to the problems we are all experiencing? It will take a brave Europe to do this but it is a step that has to be taken if the world is to move forward! Britain should be a huge part of this, outside a weakend EU this would benefit the United States from Britains lack of input, another reason we should vote to stay and be positive to our European position. The most vulnerable herring is the one that breaks out of the shoal?
    SalfordLass , 2016-03-11 12:24:58
    Libya , Ukraine ,Syria have had the same recipe of de-stabilisation by the US and NATO. The so called popular rebels were in fact CIA trained and financed. Jihadist in Libya and Syria and neo-Nazis in Ukraine. After completing regime change in Libya as planned ,the Jihadist, with their looted arms were transferred to Syria and renamed ISIS. ISIS is Washingtons Foreign Legion army, used as required for their Imperial ends. Renamed as required on whichever territory they operate
    Scahill , 2016-03-11 11:52:53
    Cameron has been given a free pass on Libya. It really is quite astonishing. The man has turned a functioning society into a jihadi infested failed state which is exporting men and weapons across North Africa and down the Sahara and now serves as a new front line for ISIS

    Cameron's Libya policy from start to finish is a foreign policy catastrophe and in a just world would have seen him thrown out of office on his ear

    Newsel -> IntoTheSilence , 2016-03-11 11:50:06
    Attacking Libya and deposing Gaddafi was down to enforcing the R2P doctrine on the pretext of "stopping another Rwanda". But it was a pretext. Islamist rebels attacked the armouries within Libya and the Libyans had every right to try and put down the rebellion. Samantha Powers et al were the war mongers.

    Then there is this gem: "Egypt's President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi has called for a United Nations resolution allowing international forces to intervene in Libya.
    There was no other choice, he told French radio. "We will not allow them to cut off the heads of our children."

    "We abandoned the Libyan people as prisoners to extremist militias," Mr Sisi told Europe 1 radio. He was referring to the aftermath of the 2011 war in which Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi was toppled with the help of an international coalition.
    That intervention was "an unfinished mission", he said."

    The US, France and the UK own this ongoing mess but do not have the moral fortitude to clean it up. As with the "Arab Spring", this will not end well.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-31500382?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=%2AMorning%20Brief&utm_campaign=2015_MorningBrief_New_America_PROMO

    SilkverBlogger , 2016-03-11 11:49:56
    The 2011 regime change shenanigans of the west against Libya is colonialism at its worst from all the parties who instigated it. The aftermath, the resultant mayhem and chaos, was in itself adding insult to injury. Gaddafi was no saint, but the militias, Muslim Brotherhood and ISIS now running rampant in the country are infinitely worse. This is a war crime of the first magnitude and no effort should be spared to address it
    ohhaiimark -> Bilingual , 2016-03-11 11:43:08
    The west who propped up the Saudis, who's crazy wahhabi brand of Islam helped radicalise the Islamic world with 100 billion dollars spent on promoting it.

    The west who created israel and then has done nothing to stop israels ever growing land theft and occupation over decades (not even a single sanction)...leading the Muslim world to hate us more for our hypocrisy and double standards.

    The west who has assassinated or organised coups against democratically elected secular leaders who didn't give us their natural resources (eg iran) and installed brutal, clepto dictatorships who also take part in plundering the resources leaving the general population poor, uneducated and susceptible to indoctrination from Islamists.

    The west who arms brutal dictators to wage proxy wars and then invades and bombs these same dictators countries over claims they have WMDs (that we sold to them).

    The west has been intervening in the middle east alot longer than post 9/11. We are very very culpable for the disasters engulfing the region.

    Jeshan , 2016-03-11 11:42:44
    Libya was "not so at the core of US interests that it makes sense for us to unilaterally strike against the Gaddafi regime"

    Let's examine what Obama is saying here: when it is perceived to be at the core of US interests, the USA reserves the right to attack any country, at any time.

    The world inhabits a moral vacuum, and in that state, any country can justifiably choose to do anything, against anyone, for any reason. And this guy got the Nobel Peace Prize.

    FelixMyIcecream , 2016-03-11 11:42:29

    In this despicable saga, Cameron's Libyan venture was a sideshow, though one that has destabilised north Africa and may yet turn it into another Islamic State caliphate.

    You forgot to mention Cameron was only following Sarkozy .

    Don't forget the French role .

    25 February 2011: Sarkozy said Gaddafi "must go."

    28 February 2011: British Prime Minister David Cameron proposed the idea of a no-fly zone

    11 March 2011: Cameron joined forces with Sarkozy after Sarkozy demanded immediate action from international community for a no-fly zone against air attacks by Gaddafi.

    14 March 2011: In Paris at the Élysée Palace, before the summit with the G8 Minister for Foreign Affairs, Sarkozy, who is also the president of the G8, along with French Foreign Minister Alain Juppé met with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and pressed her to push for intervention in Libya

    .

    19 March 2011: French[72] forces began the military intervention in Libya, later joined by coalition forces


    2011_military_intervention_in_Libya#Chronology
    Sal2011 , 2016-03-11 11:41:36
    Well said in the headline. Imperialism-lite/heavy, colonialism, and neo-colonialism don't work, should be a thing of the past. Intervening in the politics of another country is a mug's game.

    Don't understand why Obama is blaming Cameron for it, perhaps playing to his domestic gallery. Blair's love fest with the deluded Gaddafi family, followed by the volte-face of pushing for his violent overthrow by the next government, were both severely misguided policies. Need to diplomatically encourage change, in foreign policy, and the desired type of political movements to take hold. Military interventions have the opposite effect, so does propping up dictators, religiously fanatical regimes, proven time and time again.

    WarrenDruggs -> KinoLurtz , 2016-03-11 11:41:07

    Gadaffi was on the verge of massacring an entire city of people

    Who needs well paid journalists when you can get this level of propaganda for free?

    DavidGW -> TruffleWednesday , 2016-03-11 11:40:31

    So the choices are to do nothing, or invade and create a colony?

    Pretty much. As Jenkins rightly says, if you want to launch an aggressive war you either do it or you don't. If you do it then it is your responsibility to clear up the mess, however many of your own lives are lost and however much it costs. Trashing a country and then buggering off is not an option.

    Of course, using force for defensive reasons is fine. That's why modern warmongering politicians always call it "defence" when they drop bombs on innocent people in faraway countries. It is no such thing.

    David Hart -> AmandaLothian , 2016-03-11 11:22:15
    There was no massacre, not even a hint of one. Total obfuscation to give Hillary Clinton a foreign policy "success" so that she could use it as a springboard to the presidency. "Hillary Clinton was so proud of her major role in instigating the war against Libya that she and her advisors initially planned to use it as basis of a "Clinton doctrine", meaning a "smart power" regime change strategy, as a presidential campaign slogan.

    War creates chaos, and Hillary Clinton has been an eager advocate of every U.S. aggressive war in the last quarter of a century. These wars have devastated whole countries and caused an unmanageable refugee crisis. Chaos is all there is to show for Hillary's vaunted "foreign policy experience".

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/03/10/hillary-clinton-the-queen-of-chaos-and-the-threat-of-world-war-iii /

    [Mar 12, 2016] Death of former Putin aide: conspiracy theories abound back home in Russia

    Notable quotes:
    "... It's on the front page of the Washington Post website today. I happened almost 4 months ago FFS. The Guardian is getting worse and worse. An entire group of comments were just vanished for having some fun speculating about Russian and American agencies and pimps in DC. This paper is getting untrustworthy and PC beyond belief. I suppose some executive decision has been made that the only way to survive is to cater exclusively to their political base. Might as well be Fox News. Just sell it to Murdock. ..."
    The Guardian
    anders otterland toryrebel , 2016-03-12 04:48:31
    Putin ain't no saint, however, the clearly orchestrated demonizing of Putin in western news media alerts my sceptisism.
    GrazieMiele , 2016-03-12 02:23:18

    Some bloggers suggest Mikhail Lesin could be in US witness protection and faked his own death while others say it could have happened as a result of a fight

    Reporting social media rumour = journalism

    GrazieMiele MacFhlannchaidh , 2016-03-12 02:17:28
    RT is the only serious media outlet. BBC, ABC, CNN all report government press releases with no investigative journalism involved.

    RT's coverage of the masscare of a few hundred Kurdish civilians by Turkey last month is something you would never see reported by Western media, despite it being a war crime.

    TheLongMarcher Talgen , 2016-03-12 02:08:27
    That's REALLY NOTHING in comparison with BUSH FAMILY/BIN LADEN TERRORIST CLAN victims: African Embassies, 9-11, and way TOO MANY to name...
    banthem Extracrispy , 2016-03-12 02:05:55
    "Putin, Lesin". To hell with them.

    You'll better say, what do you think about Hrivna and Ruble, my Kyivan friend.

    MacFhlannchaidh Not4TheFaintOfHeart , 2016-03-12 01:52:48
    Much prefer RT to the to dreary BBC with it's tired predictable spin, not to mention Jimmy Saville related excesses. RT covers stories and angles you can't find in western mainstream corporate media.
    banthem Extracrispy , 2016-03-12 01:29:55
    No! It's Putin in your head, Bro.! Hey, Putler, get out!
    Are you still insisting that You are "A Western Folk" but not from the Kyiv Region?
    Aion30 Vadim Dmitriev , 2016-03-12 01:24:45
    Alexander Litvinenko, Boris Berezovsky, Sergei Magnitsky.. are surely connected with trying to grab Russia [wealth] with help of America and Britain security services:
    https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/uncategorized/so-who-really-tried-to-blackmail-yeltsin-takeover-russia-nsa-cia-or-investment-bankers /
    For such a blatant unbelievable crime, every country would done the same.
    ytrewq BatigolStatue , 2016-03-12 00:40:23
    Russian (small time) oligarch gets beaten to death in nice DC hotel near embassy.
    Suspects: Some bigger oligarchs, secretive but clumsy operatives from USA, Russia, Opec, simple robbery or angry whore he tried to cheat. Neither the US nor Russia wants to actually know the truth which could be embarrassing, so schtum. Forgeddaboudit.
    Talgen Extracrispy , 2016-03-12 00:39:15
    22 - Dr. Stanley Heard - Chairman of the National Chiropractic Health Care Advisory Committee, died with his attorney Steve Dickson in a small plane crash. Again, tampering with the plane. Dr. Heard, in addition to serving on Clinton's advisory council personally treated Clinton's mother, stepfather and brother.
    23 - Barry Seal - Drug running pilot out of Mena Arkansas, death was no accident.
    24 - Johnny Lawhorn Jr. - Mechanic, found a check made out to Bill Clinton in the trunk of a car left at his repair shop. He was found dead after his car had hit a utility pole. Apparently he was dead before the car hit the pole.
    25 - Stanley Huggins - Investigated Madison Guarantee. His death was a purported suicide and his report was never released.
    26 - Hershell Friday - Attorney and Clinton fund raiser died March 1, 1994 when his plane exploded. This happen two days after an argument with Clinton.
    27 - Kevin Ives and Don Henry - Known as "The boys on the track" case. Reports say the boys may have stumbled upon the Mena Arkansas airport drug operation. A controversial case, the initial report of death said, due to falling asleep on railroad tracks. Later reports claim the two boys had been slain before being placed on the tracks. Many linked to the case died before their testimony could come before a Grand Jury.

    THE FOLLOWING PERSONS HAD INFORMATION ON THE IVES/HENRY CASE:
    28 - Keith Coney - Died when his motorcycle apparently slammed into the back of a truck, July 1988. No one saw the accident and the bike was not damaged.
    29 - Keith McMaskle - Died stabbed 113 times, Nov, 1988
    30 - Gregory Collins - Died from a gunshot wound January 1989.
    31 - Jeff Rhodes - He was shot, mutilated and found burned in a trash dump in April 1989.
    33 - James Milan - Found decapitated. However, the Coroner ruled his death was due to "natural causes."
    34 - Jordan Kettleson - Was found shot to death in the front seat of his pickup truck in June 1990.
    35 - Richard Winters - A suspect in the Ives / Henry deaths. He was killed in a set-up robbery July 1989.

    THE FOLLOWING CLINTON BODYGUARDS ARE DEAD:
    36 - Major William S. Barkley Jr.
    37 - Captain Scott J. Reynolds
    38 - Sgt. Brian Hanley
    39 - Sgt. Tim Sabel
    40 - Major General William Robertson
    41 - Col. William Densberger
    42 - Col. Robert Kelly
    43 - Spec. Gary Rhodes
    44 - Steve Willis
    45 - Robert Williams
    46 - Conway LeBleu
    47 - Todd McKeehan
    All had said to friends that they had seen too much.

    Jai R. Emmett Not4TheFaintOfHeart , 2016-03-12 00:38:53
    Because everyone knows that American practice is to brutally kill its former favourites with a blunt instrument to the back of the head. God knows Putin couldn't be associated with "justice" of this kind.
    Talgen Extracrispy , 2016-03-12 00:38:17
    That's nothing compared to the Clinton associates, do you care to explain?

    1 - James McDougal - Clinton's convicted Whitewater partner died of an apparent heart attack, while in solitary confinement. He was a key witness in Ken Starr's investigation.
    2 - Mary Mahoney - A former White House intern was murdered July 1997 at a Starbucks Coffee Shop in Georgetown. The murder happened just after she was to go public with her story of sexual harassment in the White House.
    3 - Vince Foster - Former white House councilor, and colleague of Hillary Clinton at Little Rock's Rose Law firm. Died of a gunshot wound to the head, ruled a suicide.
    4 - Ron Brown - Secretary of Commerce and former DNC Chairman who had a serious disagreement with Clinton. Reported to have died by impact in a plane crash. A pathologist close to the investigation reported that there was a hole in the top of Brown's skull resembling a gunshot wound. At the time of his death Brown was being investigated, and spoke publicly of his willingness to cut a deal with prosecutors.
    5 - C. Victor Raiser II and Montgomery Raiser, Major players in the Clinton fund raising organization died in a private plane crash in July 1992.
    6 - Paul Tulley - Democratic National Committee Political Director found dead in a hotel room in Little Rock, September 1992...after a serious disagreement with Clinton. Described by Clinton as a "Dear friend and trusted advisor." 7- Ed Willey - Clinton fund raiser, found dead November 1993 deep in the woods in VA of a gunshot wound to the head. Ruled a suicide. Ed Willey died on the same day after his wife Kathleen Willey claimed Bill Clinton groped her in the oval office in the White House. Ed Willey was involved in several Clinton fund raising events.
    8 - Jerry Parks - Head of Clinton's gubernatorial security team in Little Rock. Gunned down in his car at a deserted intersection outside Little Rock. Park's son said his father was building a dossier on Clinton. He allegedly threatened to reveal this information. After he died the files were mysteriously removed from his house.
    9 - James Bunch - Died from a gunshot suicide. It was reported that he had a "Black Book" of people which contained names of influential people who visited prostitutes in Texas and Arkansas. Although the book was seen by several persons, it disappeared.
    10 - James Wilson - Was found dead in May 1993 from an apparent hanging suicide. He had ties to Whitewater.
    11- Kathy Ferguson, ex-wife of Arkansas Trooper Danny Ferguson, was found dead in May 1994, in her living room with a gunshot to her head. It was ruled a suicide even though there were several packed suitcases, as if she were going somewhere. Danny Ferguson was a co-defendant along with Bill Clinton in the Paula Jones lawsuit. Kathy Ferguson was a corroborating witness for Paula Jones.
    12 - Bill Shelton - Arkansas State Trooper and fiancÈe of Kathy Ferguson. Critical of the suicide ruling of his fiancÈe, he was found dead in June, 1994 of a gunshot wound also ruled a suicide at the grave site of his fiancee. There were no powder burns.
    13 - Gandy Baugh - Attorney for Clinton's friend Dan Lassater, died by jumping out a window of a tall building January, 1994. His client was a convicted drug distributor.
    14 - Florence Martin - Accountant & sub-contractor for the CIA, was related to the Barry Seal Mena Airport drug smuggling case. He died of three gunshot wounds.
    15 - Suzanne Coleman - Reportedly had an affair with Clinton when he was Arkansas Attorney General. Died of a gunshot wound to the back of the head, ruled a suicide. Was pregnant at the time of her death.
    16 - Paula Grober - Clinton's speech interpreter for the deaf from 1978 until her death December 9, 1992. She died in a one car accident. She told a friend that Clinton made advances.
    17 - Danny Casolaro - Investigative reporter. Investigating Mena Airport and Arkansas Development Finance Authority. He slit his wrists, apparently, in the middle of his investigation. Before his death, he claimed to have found a shattering story involving Clinton.
    18 - Paul Wilcher - Attorney investigating corruption at Mena Airport with Casolaro and the 1980 "October Surprise" was found dead on a toilet June 22, 1993 in his Washington DC apartment. Had delivered a shocking report to Janet Reno three weeks before his death.
    19 - Jon Parnell Walker - Whitewater investigator for Resolution Trust Corp. Jumped to his death from his Arlington, Virginia apartment balcony August 15, 1993. He was investigating the Morgan Guarantee scandal.
    20 - Barbara Wise - Commerce Department staffer. Worked closely with Ron Brown and John Huang. Cause of death unknown. Died November 29, 1996. Her bruised, nude body was found locked in her office at the Department of Commerce.
    21- Charles Meissner - Assistant Secretary of Commerce who gave John Huang special security clearance, died shortly thereafter in a small plane crash. The plane had been tampered with.

    Extracrispy Luther Rhein , 2016-03-12 00:36:14
    If Russians did it it means they are the only super power in the world and you all can get stuffed.

    Ahhh yes... another shinning example of Russian mental masturbation.

    Talgen , 2016-03-12 00:31:48

    On Friday, Russian officials said they had been asking the Americans for information about the investigation with no results.

    This is very strange indeed, why arent they sharing info with the Russians? Can anyone imagine the uproar, if a former high ranking american official died like this in Moscow? Im sure they would already be talking about adding more sanctions to say the least..

    Not4TheFaintOfHeart , 2016-03-12 00:25:17
    So... Lesin died in Sept 2015.. and since then it has escaped the U.S. coroner that the deceased had blunt force trauma to the head, neck, torso and limbs.. His family were told that he'd had a heart attack... I've attended a few post mortems myself, and I can say quite safely that blunt force trauma and heart attacks cannot be confused with one another...

    There is something rotten in the state of Denmark..
    and by Denmark I mean DC.

    ytrewq Hank Rodgers , 2016-03-12 00:06:27
    It's on the front page of the Washington Post website today. I happened almost 4 months ago FFS. The Guardian is getting worse and worse. An entire group of comments were just vanished for having some fun speculating about Russian and American agencies and pimps in DC. This paper is getting untrustworthy and PC beyond belief. I suppose some executive decision has been made that the only way to survive is to cater exclusively to their political base. Might as well be Fox News. Just sell it to Murdock.
    alexis2016 , 2016-03-12 00:05:32
    Several Western media reports speculating on the cause of Lesin's death, including one by the DailyMail tabloid, immediately surfaced.
    ytrewq , 2016-03-11 23:54:49
    Jacqueline von Hettlingen
    2:29 PM MST

    The Russian embassy in Washington confirmed Mikhail Lesin's Last November and State-owned RIA Novosti reported that he died of a heart attack, citing a spokesman for his family. Russian officials must have known that he died under suspicious circumstances. This was in DC near all the embassies not out in the sticks.

    Last year the Mississippi senator Roger Wicker called for an investigation into Lesin's wealth on suspicion of money laundering and corruption. He allegedly amassed millions of dollars in assets in Europe and the US, including $28m in Los Angeles real estate.

    pacificed , 2016-03-11 23:47:39
    What amazes me most about the thread below is not so much the insane conspiracies stupid americans and their equally facile englander 'cousins' have posted, it is that absolutely none of them are provided with a scintilla of evidence implicating the Russian prez in any of it.

    Yet the drongos & dipshits continue to spout their total bullshit in the belief that if enough of these propagandists and their willing jackasses paper the media with fantasy, that fools will lap it up.

    It is looking increasingly like that isn't the case.

    Ever since Russia has sorted Syria inside 6 months after 'western' corruption/incompetence failed to do so after 4 years and many billions of dollars were used up, ordinary humans about the world and increasingly in 'the west' are realising they have been fed a total crock by worthless outlets such as this one for far too long.

    As for the actual case it appears that Mr Lesin isn't only a victim of US' violent society he is also a victim of the incompetence of the US 'justice' system. Once again people are beginning to wake up to the serial incompetence & corruption of the multi-headed hydra that is US 'law enforcement' thanks to organisations such as Black Lives Matter & documentaries like "Making a Murderer".

    Anyone who hasn't watched that program should- afterwards you will wonder how it is the US finds the gall to criticise Russian law enforcement when even small town US police and prosecution entities are riven with bias, perjury, torture and evidence planting.

    Not only is US law enforcement totally corrupt, the justice system has been perverted into a Kafkaesque machine to conceal that corruption and actively prevent injustice from being corrected.

    Sort out your own shit america - once you have done that, then maybe you will earn the right to push your self righteous exceptionalism onto the rest of us.

    Of course if you did sort yourself out, then you wouldn't need to be pointing to other nations and telling them what to do - you would be secure in the knowledge that you were doing OK.

    But that won't happen - what will happen is that US functionaries will get louder and more hysterical in their critiques of everyone else, meanwhile ordinary decent humans about the planet will recognise the howls for what they are - the death throes of an empire in terminal decline.

    Luther Rhein airman23 , 2016-03-11 23:41:47
    because he deserved it and back then they kept quite about it until Ukraine and Syria crisis appeared. The guardian, BBC, the boys in Riga who write here are all part of anti-Russian propaganda machine. believe or not but it is a fact. Ffs, they even use Sharapova to attack Russia. the west is so desperate.
    Scipio1 HumanistLove , 2016-03-11 23:31:19
    This is a common story and a common end to people who fall out with Putin.

    And those hapless souls who earn the mainstream oligarch American disapprobation. Where to Start:

    Mossadegh in Iran
    Arbenz in Guatelema
    Allende in Chile
    Lamumba in the Congo
    Multiple attempts on Castro
    Noriega in Panama
    Saddam in Iraq (a public lynching)
    Gaddafi in Libya what was it Hilary said, 'we came, we saw, he died,'

    All felt the wrath of American justice usually dished out by CIA-trained and funded proxies.

    Then of course were those deaths of leading Americans, the Kennedy bros, and the assassination of dissidents Martin Luther King and Malcolm X. All very murky. And you have the temerity to call Russia a mafia state.

    Luther Rhein TwoFingeredSalute , 2016-03-11 23:27:43
    the golden rule: kill first and then blame Russians, since there are plenty of idiots in the western world to believe anything their pig-fucking leaders say.
    Jeff1000 , 2016-03-11 23:25:39
    What kind of medical examiner takes four months to decide whether a man had a heart attack or was beaten to death?

    Or, if they had this information months ago, why is it only now being released?

    With Russia/Assad/Iran completing a very embarrassing destruction of NATO plans for Syria, as well as establishing just how false the Western media's narrative had become, you can expect a lot more anti-Putin, anti-Russia gossip and nonsense. Snide, bitter insinuation and propaganda is all they have left.

    Luther Rhein MMGALIAS , 2016-03-11 23:22:38
    the guy died in Washington ffs, and fucking 4 months ago. wasn't it obvious to police he was killed by beating? is it the Russian coroners and police in charge of his death? no! it is the job of either CIA or Mossad as he was Jewish.
    Hank Rodgers , 2016-03-11 23:12:32
    This story is much delayed, and is apparently being intentionally "back burnered" by our major U.S. media orgs. The story should be kept on the first page, regardless of what the U.S. government has asked the media to do and not do. It is potentially instructive to we U.S. citizens, likely more as to our own government activities than those of Russia.
    Malkatrinho wightangler , 2016-03-11 23:04:43
    $28m is peanuts to Erdogan. He's no Putin, but he's more than likely got hundreds of millions stashed away, if not more.

    Estimates of Blair's wealth range from £20m to £60m. Who knows with that slippery bastard. Osborne's supposedly worth £5m, but I suspect the real figure is much higher.

    What seems to be most apparent in the majority of modern neo-liberal politicians is their evident desire to use public office as merely a stepping stone to vast wealth.

    BatigolStatue , 2016-03-11 22:59:55
    Western powers will view the reaction to this story as a very encouraging sign that the propaganda is most definitely working.

    - Major Russian figure murdered.
    - Happens in the US, home of the CIA
    - US coroner rules the what looks like a clearly violent death as inconclusive
    - Everyone thinks Putin is responsible
    - Slow handclap

    [Mar 12, 2016] President Obama's Interview With Jeffrey Goldberg on Syria and Foreign Policy

    Notable quotes:
    "... Obama is just another establishment drone like Bush and Clinton. If you already hate Wall Street then all these people are covered. Obama is a corporate lawyer who worked for Wall Street. Nothing new here to see. ..."
    "... Obama: pre-emptive strikes on Afghanistan, Libya, Syria--all of which have resulted in disasters like the growth of ISIS. Obama: Meets weekly to decide where the drones will kill people, without charge or trial (and without revealing who the targets are and what the success/failure was--and how much "collateral damage" there was in human lives.) Certainly the most lawless president we've had--and the most bloodthirsty. ..."
    "... "The most lawless president . . . and the most bloodthirsty?" One need not support Obama to know that he's not even close the most bloodthirsty, or lawless. I strongly recommend you study Nixon, LBJ, and Reagan. Then drop back to Eisenhower and Guatemala to wrap up the bloody evening. ..."
    "... I was counting all blood, not simply American blood, which is what I thought the original post was doing. I would also count proxies, such as the Contra, because American aid was essential to them. I would not count the aid Reagan covertly provided Iraq, because that war would have been long and horrid in any event. ..."
    "... The lawlessness question is more complex. Nixon and Reagan set up clandestine organizations that did not appear in any budget line, both of which performed illegal actions. (Nixon's was more serious because the Plumbers' actions related to domestic opponents.) ..."
    "... So are Yemen, Syria, Honduras and Ukraine ... all put in play during Obama's reign. But much of the credit goes to Hillary and the other war harpies in the Administration. Obama has tried to pull back from the brink. ..."
    "... Obama did nothing to de-escalate the conflict in the Ukraine. The "somewhat" means you don't have any clue at all. It has to to more with Putin not wanting to conquer the entire Ukraine. The Ukrainians could have been initially defeated, but holding them down would be impossible. ..."
    "... And the fact is the Foreign Policy Establishment is utterly mad; they're furious at Obama for not implementing their crazy militaristic schemes. Which is more or less the same story that Goldberg reports here in the Atlantic. ..."
    "... According to the State Department's neoCon Czarina for European Affairs, the US pumped $5 Billion into underwriting NGO agitation in Ukraine. Nuland herself was on the front-lines in the Maidan and picked out "our guy Yats" ... In fact, Congress has passed a motion to prevent further funds to the neo-Nazis in Kiev. ..."
    "... Syria was invaded by a jihadi army largely armed by the US (part of the Benghazi affair involved the US Ambassador shipping weapons seized from Qaddafi to the Syrian jihadis via Turkey) and funded by US allies in the Gulf monarchies and Turkey. ..."
    "... Russia - not "Putin" - is fighting to defend Syrians - not "Assad" - from terrorist aggressors. ..."
    "... Currently, about 4,000 fighters of the 25,000 estimated (by the US) in Latakia province have laid down their weapons. Most of these have been re-deployed back into their original territories alongside Syrian Arab Army support units. ..."
    "... That comes out to about 80% of the fighters in Syria are Al Qaida or ISIS-affiliated, and the *VAST* majority of these fighters are foreign mercenaries. ..."
    "... Acknowledgement of Obama's feckless, misguided foreign policy is not an endorsement of Bush's adventurism. ..."
    "... Hillary Clinton and Samantha Power are engaging in pure speculation that starting this CIA program a few months earlier would have had a different outcome. Why so? This is nothing more than wishful thinking. ..."
    "... Our real mistake was in not supporting the 2012 Geneva peace plan which called for post-civil war elections that would include Assad. We maintained an absolutist demand for 'Assad must go' so of course he and the people who depend on him, 50% to 60% of the population would soldier on. ..."
    "... American foreign policy has been a disaster since Kissinger. Neocons convinced many on the right it was a solid ideology. Many of you cheered when Reagan armed Al Qaeda, transferred weapons to Iran, terrorized Central/South America by arming death squads and displacing indigenous people to make way for large multinationals. And, to add insult to injury, you all cheered for Bush initiated torture on our soil (torture has been a tool for decades at black sites), created Guantanamo, started illegal wars, helped to foment a global economic system that is the equivalent of carpet bombing, especially as it relates to weaker or poorer countries; the list goes on. ..."
    "... You're not wrong about Obama. He has embraced the same insanity, although, not to the same extent. Neoconservatism needs to die but gullible fools in both parties seem to embrace the insanity when their guy is in charge. ..."
    "... Hillary supports the same ideology as Bush but you guys will pretend to hate her and Dems will now say her plans are great. It's Americans who allow this insanity to continue. ..."
    "... Afghans and Saudis including Bin Laden were first trained by the US, and then the UK. Read the link I attached, Carter started this mass bloodshed and he isn't the least repentant. Yeah, that sweet old peanut farmer is almost as bad as Hitler. Shucks. ..."
    "... Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians. Inexplicably, and with disastrous consequences, it never appears to have occurred to Washington that once Russia was out of the way, Bin Laden's organisation would turn its attention to the west. ..."
    The Atlantic

    Obama said that to achieve this rebalancing, the U.S. had to absorb the diatribes and insults of superannuated Castro manqués. "When I saw Chávez, I shook his hand and he handed me a Marxist critique of the U.S.–Latin America relationship," Obama recalled. "And I had to sit there and listen to Ortega"-Daniel Ortega, the radical leftist president of Nicaragua-"make an hour-long rant against the United States. But us being there, not taking all that stuff seriously-because it really wasn't a threat to us"-helped neutralize the region's anti-Americanism.

    The president's unwillingness to counter the baiting by American adversaries can feel emotionally unsatisfying, I said, and I told him that every so often, I'd like to see him give Vladimir Putin the finger. It's atavistic, I said, understanding my audience.

    "It is," the president responded coolly. "This is what they're looking for."

    He described a relationship with Putin that doesn't quite conform to common perceptions. I had been under the impression that Obama viewed Putin as nasty, brutish, and short. But, Obama told me, Putin is not particularly nasty.

    "The truth is, actually, Putin, in all of our meetings, is scrupulously polite, very frank. Our meetings are very businesslike. He never keeps me waiting two hours like he does a bunch of these other folks." Obama said that Putin believes his relationship with the U.S. is more important than Americans tend to think. "He's constantly interested in being seen as our peer and as working with us, because he's not completely stupid. He understands that Russia's overall position in the world is significantly diminished. And the fact that he invades Crimea or is trying to prop up Assad doesn't suddenly make him a player. You don't see him in any of these meetings out here helping to shape the agenda. For that matter, there's not a G20 meeting where the Russians set the agenda around any of the issues that are important."

    Russia's invasion of Crimea in early 2014, and its decision to use force to buttress the rule of its client Bashar al-Assad, have been cited by Obama's critics as proof that the post-red-line world no longer fears America.

    So when I talked with the president in the Oval Office in late January, I again raised this question of deterrent credibility. "The argument is made," I said, "that Vladimir Putin watched you in Syria and thought, He's too logical, he's too rational, he's too into retrenchment. I'm going to push him a little bit further in Ukraine."

    Obama didn't much like my line of inquiry. "Look, this theory is so easily disposed of that I'm always puzzled by how people make the argument. I don't think anybody thought that George W. Bush was overly rational or cautious in his use of military force. And as I recall, because apparently nobody in this town does, Putin went into Georgia on Bush's watch, right smack dab in the middle of us having over 100,000 troops deployed in Iraq." Obama was referring to Putin's 2008 invasion of Georgia, a former Soviet republic, which was undertaken for many of the same reasons Putin later invaded Ukraine-to keep an ex–Soviet republic in Russia's sphere of influence.

    "Putin acted in Ukraine in response to a client state that was about to slip out of his grasp. And he improvised in a way to hang on to his control there," he said. "He's done the exact same thing in Syria, at enormous cost to the well-being of his own country. And the notion that somehow Russia is in a stronger position now, in Syria or in Ukraine, than they were before they invaded Ukraine or before he had to deploy military forces to Syria is to fundamentally misunderstand the nature of power in foreign affairs or in the world generally. Real power means you can get what you want without having to exert violence. Russia was much more powerful when Ukraine looked like an independent country but was a kleptocracy that he could pull the strings on."

    Obama's theory here is simple: Ukraine is a core Russian interest but not an American one, so Russia will always be able to maintain escalatory dominance there.

    "The fact is that Ukraine, which is a non-nato country, is going to be vulnerable to military domination by Russia no matter what we do," he said.

    I asked Obama whether his position on Ukraine was realistic or fatalistic.

    "It's realistic," he said. "But this is an example of where we have to be very clear about what our core interests are and what we are willing to go to war for. And at the end of the day, there's always going to be some ambiguity." He then offered up a critique he had heard directed against him, in order to knock it down. "I think that the best argument you can make on the side of those who are critics of my foreign policy is that the president doesn't exploit ambiguity enough. He doesn't maybe react in ways that might cause people to think, Wow, this guy might be a little crazy."

    "The 'crazy Nixon' approach," I said: Confuse and frighten your enemies by making them think you're capable of committing irrational acts.

    "But let's examine the Nixon theory," he said. "So we dropped more ordnance on Cambodia and Laos than on Europe in World War II, and yet, ultimately, Nixon withdrew, Kissinger went to Paris, and all we left behind was chaos, slaughter, and authoritarian governments that finally, over time, have emerged from that hell. When I go to visit those countries, I'm going to be trying to figure out how we can, today, help them remove bombs that are still blowing off the legs of little kids. In what way did that strategy promote our interests?"

    But what if Putin were threatening to move against, say, Moldova-another vulnerable post-Soviet state? Wouldn't it be helpful for Putin to believe that Obama might get angry and irrational about that?

    "There is no evidence in modern American foreign policy that that's how people respond. People respond based on what their imperatives are, and if it's really important to somebody, and it's not that important to us, they know that, and we know that," he said. "There are ways to deter, but it requires you to be very clear ahead of time about what is worth going to war for and what is not. Now, if there is somebody in this town that would claim that we would consider going to war with Russia over Crimea and eastern Ukraine, they should speak up and be very clear about it. The idea that talking tough or engaging in some military action that is tangential to that particular area is somehow going to influence the decision making of Russia or China is contrary to all the evidence we have seen over the last 50 years."

    ... ... ...

    A weak, flailing Russia constitutes a threat as well, though not quite a top-tier threat. "Unlike China, they have demographic problems, economic structural problems, that would require not only vision but a generation to overcome," Obama said. "The path that Putin is taking is not going to help them overcome those challenges. But in that environment, the temptation to project military force to show greatness is strong, and that's what Putin's inclination is. So I don't underestimate the dangers there." Obama returned to a point he had made repeatedly to me, one that he hopes the country, and the next president, absorbs: "You know, the notion that diplomacy and technocrats and bureaucrats somehow are helping to keep America safe and secure, most people think, Eh, that's nonsense. But it's true. And by the way, it's the element of American power that the rest of the world appreciates unambiguously. When we deploy troops, there's always a sense on the part of other countries that, even where necessary, sovereignty is being violated."

    TotoCatcher -> Whateveryousay

    Obama is just another establishment drone like Bush and Clinton. If you already hate Wall Street then all these people are covered. Obama is a corporate lawyer who worked for Wall Street. Nothing new here to see.

    Question -> TotoCatcher

    Establishment? I thought he was unqualified because he was a "junior Senator" and "community leader". Now he's establishment?

    So basically establishment has about as much meaning as "entitlement" - its definition varies entirely depending on who you're referencing?

    pp91303 -> Question

    Totocatcher is a leftist accusing Obama of being a wall street, "corporate lawyer". He wasn't. The right never said he was. So an ignorant leftist calls Obama a corporate crony and that is somehow an indictment of the right. Brilliant.

    Obama was a red diaper baby, who went to a racist and anti-American church in Chicago, who worked a few years for a scummy little law firm that represented leftist-subsidized-housing developers like Tony Rezco, and who previously worked as a community organizer.

    nubwaxer -> Whateveryousay

    mine's not a hate comment but the extreme right, all republicans it seems, think bush's preemptive or proactive militarized foreign policy is still the right approach. it's still the shoot, aim, oops quagmire approach and obama's careful and patient evolving approach drives them crazy.

    the problem seems to me our oversized military is so well trained and well armed with the newest gear, which of course keeps profits flowing to defense contractors, that since we have it we nee to use it constantly to keep its edge. president obama seems to have reluctantly accepted our endless war strategy, but to the great ire of the right has shifted away from a militarized foreign policy to a primarily diplomatic approach. i for one see great success in the iran nuclear deal and restoration of relations with cuba.

    of course there will be those whipped into mass hysteria and seething anger by the relentless right wing propaganda and i'll be gone before i have to read any of their comments.

    Tom Hoobler -> nubwaxer

    Obama: pre-emptive strikes on Afghanistan, Libya, Syria--all of which have resulted in disasters like the growth of ISIS. Obama: Meets weekly to decide where the drones will kill people, without charge or trial (and without revealing who the targets are and what the success/failure was--and how much "collateral damage" there was in human lives.) Certainly the most lawless president we've had--and the most bloodthirsty.

    Oscarthe4th -> Tom Hoobler

    "The most lawless president . . . and the most bloodthirsty?" One need not support Obama to know that he's not even close the most bloodthirsty, or lawless. I strongly recommend you study Nixon, LBJ, and Reagan. Then drop back to Eisenhower and Guatemala to wrap up the bloody evening.

    Oscarthe4th -> David Murphy

    Glad we agree on LBJ.

    I was counting all blood, not simply American blood, which is what I thought the original post was doing. I would also count proxies, such as the Contra, because American aid was essential to them. I would not count the aid Reagan covertly provided Iraq, because that war would have been long and horrid in any event.

    The lawlessness question is more complex. Nixon and Reagan set up clandestine organizations that did not appear in any budget line, both of which performed illegal actions. (Nixon's was more serious because the Plumbers' actions related to domestic opponents.)

    Obama, like most other presidents in messy wars, has expanded the president's power, and I fully agree that he has gone beyond what is constitutional. For the most part, however, it has not been covert. That reduces some elements of the danger his acts pose, but not all.

    screendummie -> Kimo Krauthammer

    No, the Arab Spring happened after Obama was president. The Arab Spring occurred in 2011, first in Tunisia and then elsewhere throughout North Africa and the Middle East. The uprisings in Libya and Syria happened a couple years after Obama was president. Libya is a complete mess and a declared failed state because of Obama.

    Sarastro92 -> screendummie

    So are Yemen, Syria, Honduras and Ukraine ... all put in play during Obama's reign. But much of the credit goes to Hillary and the other war harpies in the Administration. Obama has tried to pull back from the brink.

    screendummie -> Sarastro92

    Special operation troops are in Syria. This has been reported numerous times. There was even a Congressional grilling of a general on our troops training Syrian fighters with the revelation that a half billion was spent training of 3 or 4 Syrian fighters. The officer grilled was Centcom commander, General Lloyd Austin back last year. You're blatantly ignorant of what's going on in the world.

    screendummie -> Sarastro92

    I hope you don't really believe 50 U.S. troops are only in Syria. I bet it's far greater. You have to remember they get rotated out. More than 50 troops have been deployed to Syria if they're being rotated. The troops in Jordan are supporting the combat mission. How is that any different? I'm curious how those 50 troops in Syria are fed and supported. Do they bring it all in themselves, or are more U.S. troops crossing in and out of Syria on a daily basis? If you really believe there are 50 U.S. troops in Syria, then you're really kidding yourself.

    There are several thousand troops now in Iraq. Before it was just 300. No, I'm not buying the advisor claim one bit.

    Obama did nothing to de-escalate the conflict in the Ukraine. The "somewhat" means you don't have any clue at all. It has to to more with Putin not wanting to conquer the entire Ukraine. The Ukrainians could have been initially defeated, but holding them down would be impossible.

    Davis Pruett -> Sarastro92

    >>>And the fact is the Foreign Policy Establishment is utterly mad; they're furious at Obama for not implementing their crazy militaristic schemes. Which is more or less the same story that Goldberg reports here in the Atlantic.

    More-or-less the general disposition reported by Goldberg - but minus a vast trove of key facts which he purposefully distorts and obscures.

    Sarastro92 -> David Murphy

    Bull. According to the State Department's neoCon Czarina for European Affairs, the US pumped $5 Billion into underwriting NGO agitation in Ukraine. Nuland herself was on the front-lines in the Maidan and picked out "our guy Yats" ... In fact, Congress has passed a motion to prevent further funds to the neo-Nazis in Kiev.

    Syria was invaded by a jihadi army largely armed by the US (part of the Benghazi affair involved the US Ambassador shipping weapons seized from Qaddafi to the Syrian jihadis via Turkey) and funded by US allies in the Gulf monarchies and Turkey.

    The French and Brits are culpable. Putin has changed the whole dynamic leading to a ceasefire and the demise of ISIS in Syria. But the whole thing can blow up at anytime.

    Your problem is that you read the CNN- NY Times propaganda and think you know something.

    David Murphy -> screendummie

    Can't exclude Cameron and Sarkozy from guilt over Libya. They sent in some special forces, dropped a few bombs and then moved on to other things. The arab spring was a grass-roots attempt to bring about democracy, which failed sadly.

    elHombre -> Kimo Krauthammer

    Really? Libya, Syria and ISIS were "debacles" when Obama took office? Really?

    And 23 up votes? The revisionist rubes are out in force on this one.

    Kimo Krauthammer -> hyphenatedamerican

    Everywhere the US treads we leave chaos and increased radicalism. Time for the US to get out now and let Putin wipe put ALL the terrorist vermin, even those we have been backing.

    Davis Pruett -> hyphenatedamerican

    >>>Putin is not fighting terrorists, he is fighting for Assad. Not the same thing.

    Russia - not "Putin" - is fighting to defend Syrians - not "Assad" - from terrorist aggressors.

    Apparently, you missed the part where a few weeks ago Syria and Russia offered a ceasefire and complete amnesty to any "revolutionaries" who are not associated with Al Qaida or ISIS.

    Currently, about 4,000 fighters of the 25,000 estimated (by the US) in Latakia province have laid down their weapons. Most of these have been re-deployed back into their original territories alongside Syrian Arab Army support units.

    That comes out to about 80% of the fighters in Syria are Al Qaida or ISIS-affiliated, and the *VAST* majority of these fighters are foreign mercenaries.

    So, long story short:

    You don't know what you're talking about. You are factually wrong, and should be ashamed for sounding off in public about something you have no knowledge of.

    azt24 -> Question

    By every objective measure, Iraq was in better shape in 2009 vs. 2016. There was no ISIS, no Christian or Yazidi genocide, no slave markets in 2009, and violence was a tiny fraction of what it is today. These are just facts.

    As for picking 2009 for a start date, the article is titled The Obama Doctrine. The subject is Obama, the topic is politics.

    David Murphy -> azt24

    Iraq's problem now are largely self-inflicted. The Shia majority decided to oppress the Sunni, and Al Qaeda and ISIS are sunni. A simple resolution to ISIS in the ME would have been for the Iraq government to act as a national government being fair to all not a partisan Shia government. Iran has been active in Iraq since Bush's day. Obama could achieve little in that benighted country, which was in a far better state before Bush led the attack on it.

    elHombre -> nubwaxer

    Acknowledgement of Obama's feckless, misguided foreign policy is not an endorsement of Bush's adventurism.

    Only Obamadupes can fail to appreciate the risks of Obama's one-sided, ego-assuaging Iran fiasco and Cuba-courting.

    Defense contractors employ people, but you probably believe we don't need the jobs.

    You are, indeed, an Obama nubwaxer.

    azt24 -> rswfire

    " I feel President Obama isn't someone who really seeks the spotlight"

    Surely you jest. No President has been more in love with the sound of own voice, or more given to "I-me-mine-I-me-mine" when talking. Because it's always about him. Like when he explained to Bibi Netanyahu that he understood the Middle East because he was raised by a single mom.

    If Obama has quieted down in recent years, I can only suppose that it must have become obvious even inside the WH bubble that it wasn't working -- people have completely tuned Obama out.

    TotoCatcher

    The Atlantic is removing comments from most of the articles. Why? I won't read here if they don't bring comments back.

    This story is booooring. So I don't have much to comment on it. Obama was just another Bush who was just another Clinton. NEXT!

    chris chuba

    This article clearly states that we DID start to arm and equip the rebels after 'several months' in 2011 via a CIA program. It is a myth that we did nothing in Syria.

    What ended up happening is exactly what Obama feared would happen. The farmers and doctors were supplanted by the foreign Jihadist groups that Turkey and Saudi Arabia were sponsoring. This was inevitable and the only thing that could have prevented that was an actual invasion and occupation of Syria which I in no way, shape or form endorse.

    Hillary Clinton and Samantha Power are engaging in pure speculation that starting this CIA program a few months earlier would have had a different outcome. Why so? This is nothing more than wishful thinking.

    Our real mistake was in not supporting the 2012 Geneva peace plan which called for post-civil war elections that would include Assad. We maintained an absolutist demand for 'Assad must go' so of course he and the people who depend on him, 50% to 60% of the population would soldier on.

    Hurrya -> EnderAK12

    Are we sure that there was ever a free Syrian army? The Free Syrian Army was a media concept and never had a significant presence on the ground.

    Thermite -> EnderAK12

    We were supporting the Free Syrian Army since 2011. Basically when it started.

    gtiger -> EnderAK12

    You talk about the FSA as it's a viable entity. At best it's a loose alliance of rebel groups of widely differing ideology. It's Libya part II.

    Fresh -> Guyzer

    American foreign policy has been a disaster since Kissinger. Neocons convinced many on the right it was a solid ideology. Many of you cheered when Reagan armed Al Qaeda, transferred weapons to Iran, terrorized Central/South America by arming death squads and displacing indigenous people to make way for large multinationals. And, to add insult to injury, you all cheered for Bush initiated torture on our soil (torture has been a tool for decades at black sites), created Guantanamo, started illegal wars, helped to foment a global economic system that is the equivalent of carpet bombing, especially as it relates to weaker or poorer countries; the list goes on.

    You're not wrong about Obama. He has embraced the same insanity, although, not to the same extent. Neoconservatism needs to die but gullible fools in both parties seem to embrace the insanity when their guy is in charge.

    Hillary supports the same ideology as Bush but you guys will pretend to hate her and Dems will now say her plans are great. It's Americans who allow this insanity to continue.

    Innes Mizner -> hyphenatedamerican

    They called the Mujahadeen back then, and Carter then Reagan created them, armed them and trained them. Even a certain Bin Laden.

    Innes Mizner -> azt24

    Afghans and Saudis including Bin Laden were first trained by the US, and then the UK. Read the link I attached, Carter started this mass bloodshed and he isn't the least repentant. Yeah, that sweet old peanut farmer is almost as bad as Hitler. Shucks.

    Innes Mizner -> azt24

    I have already provided background information and proof he and his crew were trained in Scotland.

    I assumed this was well known in the US, I mean before you invaded Afghanistan and Iraq.

    A lot of the other articles have been buried, but the BBC one is good, and if you give me a while I will dig out an SAS officer discussing this.

    The Afghan Mujahideen were deported from their southern Scottish, and northern English, training grounds after the Lockerbie bombing. Nobody suspects them of being the cause of that crash, the biggest terrorist atrocity in the UK to date, but they were under the flight path and they were terrorists/freedom fighters training to down Soviet planes, so they were instantly deported to avoid media attention.

    Innes Mizner -> hyphenatedamerican link
    No, I'm claiming that the original fundamentalist Islamic extremist terrorist Mujadeen recruited by the CIA by Carter included Bin Laden's bodyguards and other Saudis.

    I know that because I'm Scottish, they were trained in Scotland.

    Guerrillas who protect US terror attack suspect Osama bin Laden were trained in Scotland, it has been alleged.

    There used to be other more informative media links available, but it's more difficult for 'them' to 'retire' a widely linked BBC report.

    Innes Mizner -> hyphenatedamerican link
    No, I think that individual died before "Al Qaeda".

    Are you aware "Al Qaeda" is a name assigned by western security agencies, they just adopted the name after we named them that?

    This was written by the British foreign secretary at the time, Robin Cook, someone who had access to all the MI6 and NSA and CIA files:

    Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians. Inexplicably, and with disastrous consequences, it never appears to have occurred to Washington that once Russia was out of the way, Bin Laden's organisation would turn its attention to the west.
    Innes Mizner -> Fresh
    "American foreign policy has been a disaster since Kissinger"

    I agree with your post but I'd roll it back 20 years. Kissinger extended the Vietnam debacle and extended it to create Pol Pot. A lot of Reagan's problems were clearing up his mess, and failing.

    Eisenhower, FDR, those guys I admire. New Dealers who knew what war was.

    CharlieSeattle -> Innes Mizner
    Did ja ever wonder why Reagan gets the teary e/RINO "neocon" accolades and not Eisenhower?

    Lets see...

    Reagan embraced the Military Industrial Complex. Eisenhower warned America about the dangers of the MIC corrupting the US government.

    Reagan granted amnesty to 3.5 million illegal aliens. Eisenhower deported them all after WWII in Operation Wet back.

    Reagan administration was #6th worst scandalous, worse than Obama. Eisenhower administration was #23rd worst scandalous, only because of VP Nixon!

    Face it, if Eisenhower was running for office today, the Reagan RINO "neocons" would KILL HIM!

    I am very glad Trump is not like Reagan.

    .............Trump/Eisenhower in 2016

    veerkg_23 -> Innes Mizner
    Pol Pot was a Chinese thing. The US supported the Royalists, whoever they were, in Cambodia. Mao decided he wanted a piece because he fear Soviet domination so formed the Khmer Rouge. Didn't turn out so well.
    Innes Mizner -> veerkg_23
    To begin with the Khmer Rouge were a local Nazi group that emerged from the ashes of Kissenger's cross border bombing. Then after they'd wiped out a third of their population neighbouring Vietnam invaded, ejected them and then retreated in one of the few genuine examples of military humanitarian interventions.

    The Chinese did hate the Vietnamese, so that annoyed them. But it annoyed Reagan more, because you yanks also had a big hang up about Vietnam kicking your arse.

    So Reagan sent in the Green Berets to train Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge in guerilla tactics - and supply them with funds, weapons and diplomatic cover.

    Then Iran-Contra broke, Reagan sacrificed Ollie North on that bonfire, withdrew the Green Berets from Cambodia, and instead persuaded Maggie Thatcher to send in the SAS to support the Khmer Rouge.

    Now say what you want about Thatcher, but she was never a liar. She sent the SAS in and boasted about her support for the Khmer Rouge on 'Blue Peter', a British childrens TV programme.

    None of that is widely known in the US, I know, but I can provide supporting links that prove what I've claimed here if you ask for any.

    Innes Mizner -> hyphenatedamerican
    Sigh.

    Stop me when you have have read enough of my links, or when you need an explanation. I can go on and on without mentioning Chomsky.

    Kris -> Innes Mizner link
    Thanks, Innes. If it's not too much trouble, I'd like a link or two to read more about this, particularly US involvement.
    Innes Mizner -> Kris link
    NATO's Secret Armies: Operation Gladio and Terrorism in Western Europe, Daniele Ganser, 2005 Cass Press.

    In yet another top-secret operation US Green Berets trained genocidal Khmer Rouge units in Cambodia after contact was established between Ray Cline, senior CIA agent and Steve Arnold, special adviser to US President Reagan. When the Iran Contra scandal got under way in 1983, President Reagan, fearing another unpleasant exposure, asked British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher to take over. She sent the SAS to train Pol Pot forces. 'We first went to Thailand in 1984' senior officials of the SAS (British equivalent of CIA) later testified, 'The Yanks and us work together; we're close like brothers they didn't like it anymore than we did. We trained the Khmer Rouge in a lot of technical stuff', the officer remembers. 'At first they wanted to go into the villages and just chop people up. We told them go easy'. The SAS felt uneasy with the operation and a lot of us would change sides given half a chance. That's how

    Innes Mizner -> Kris
    The Long Secret Alliance: Uncle Sam and Pol Pot, John Pilger, Covert Action Quarterly Fall 1997

    Plus PDF

    [Mar 11, 2016] WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Angola, Grenada, Cuban Bay of Pigs, Libya, Syria, Yemen, that is what the Democrats have done

    Notable quotes:
    "... What wars are you citing? WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Angola, Grenada, Cuban Bay of Pigs, Libya, Syria, Yemen,....that is what the Democrats have done. ..."
    "... The Reps are no peackeniks but somehow Democrats are better able to initiate and conduct war because people like you build myths that Democrats are more peace loving. Sorry, history does not support your view. ..."
    "... Hillary is by far the most dangerous because she has both Administration and Senatorial experience and knows how to muster support for her war mongering ways with the likes of Neo-cons and AIPAC'ers. ..."
    "... The RTP doctrine was born with the Balkan war, driven by Clinton and Blair, the latter advocating a ground assault, and Blair's military intervention in Sierra Leone, rebirthing the whole idea of British expeditionary forces ..."
    "... The proportion of superdelegates has actually increased from 14% to 20% of the total delegate count over the years since this was introduced (in 1982). So the Democratic Party have been adding more slots for party cronies and making the results less and less democratic. ..."
    "... Slick Willy/Obama moderate centrists running Dem establishment, same sleaze bags that did the welfare and justice reforms of 90s and deregulated WS in the first place ..."
    discussion.theguardian.com

    Ussurisk chrisbrown, 10 Mar 2016 08:48

    What wars are you citing? WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Angola, Grenada, Cuban Bay of Pigs, Libya, Syria, Yemen,....that is what the Democrats have done.

    The Reps are no peackeniks but somehow Democrats are better able to initiate and conduct war because people like you build myths that Democrats are more peace loving. Sorry, history does not support your view.

    Trump is impetuous and dangerous but he would be a lame duck president like Jimmy Carter; unable to muster Congressional support to do much of anything.

    Hillary is by far the most dangerous because she has both Administration and Senatorial experience and knows how to muster support for her war mongering ways with the likes of Neo-cons and AIPAC'ers.

    FrankBnov14 -> ID8020624 ,

    Since the Oligarchy supposedly control the media, the corporations, the money, the congress, the bureaucracy, the states, the armed forces, etc, why on earth would one alleged Lefty in the White House be 'very dangerous' for them? Even assuming he really wanted to be a real threat to them (as distinct from merely saying the things that get him votes), he simply wouldn't have the power to do any more than a few minor things that marginally protect the interests of the 99.9% of us who are not so-called Oligarchs.
    ID8020624 -> twistsmom ,
    Did you watch the debate tonight? He brought up all the coups. He is a Social Democrat, so was Allende and Albeniz.
    Cruz is a political whore, I am a simple Dem Socialist Bernie supporter.
    Cruz is a phony Jesus freak (was Catholic), I am an Atheist, like all Dem Socialists.
    Cruz is a Canadian, I am an American.
    Cruz is a transgender, I am straight.
    Cruz is a racist teabagger, who made fame by opposing even the most conservative Obama policies. I have Dr. King's portrait in my office and a fierce enemy of social injustice.
    Cruz is a demagogue, I simply pointed some historical facts (bloody Coups) and some of our historical atrocities around the globe.

    Super delegates are almost completely with HRC, the WS call girl. Why...do you think it is so?

    Again, Bernie is very dangerous for the ruling few that run this Oligarchy. He used the term Oligarchy again in this debate. And he stated again that this is not a democracy.

    PearsonGooner -> Christopher3175 ,
    All US presidents are owned by corporations and bankers, not just Hillary, her and Bill have their own criminal enterprise.

    All US presidents are war criminals at worst and blatant liars at best.

    Bernie will get lead poisoning from as assassins bullet if, in the unlikely event he becomes POTUS

    PearsonGooner -> Mei P ,
    Hillary and Bill are murderers, rapists, thieves, fraudsters and drug dealers. A long history of criminal violence. Google "Mena Airport" and take it from there, you will be busy for days.

    The elite don't care about you, they only care about their own access to your tax dollar.

    Do not vote for Hillary, the world will be a better place when she and rapist Bill swing from the end of a rope

    subgeometer -> john7appleyard ,
    Pally with Clinton , then with Bush.

    The RTP doctrine was born with the Balkan war, driven by Clinton and Blair, the latter advocating a ground assault, and Blair's military intervention in Sierra Leone, rebirthing the whole idea of British expeditionary forces

    Kira Kinski ,
    This is a cause worth fighting for. America is crumbling under our feet, yet the Uniparty continues to point us towards a downward spiral. But, the People have awakened. They realize the game is rigged. Nothing illustrates this better than Big Media and the DNC that marginalize Sanders and his message every chance it gets. Why? They obviously support the official Uniparty pick, Clinton. America is fortunate that Sanders has stepped up to face the Clinton campaign machine. Sanders wants to do what is best for America. Not the elite. But the People. Sanders has fought for civil rights and equality his entire political career. Name anyone else who has done this over decades. We can use them on the good ship Reclaim America.

    Join the political revolution of the People, for the People, by the People. Vote for Bernie. He is the only candidate running who is for all of us, because he cares...

    >>> www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rpm4rjejFgQ

    If nothing else, America, please stop voting for the same crowd, the Uniparty; they are literally sucking the life out of the People and have been for decades (going back to Bill Clinton and beyond)...

    >>> www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2011/09/04/opinion/04reich-graphic.html

    Let's fix America together. Now is a once in a lifetime chance for a reboot.

    Jerome Fryer -> DracoFerret ,
    The proportion of superdelegates has actually increased from 14% to 20% of the total delegate count over the years since this was introduced (in 1982). So the Democratic Party have been adding more slots for party cronies and making the results less and less democratic.
    ID8020624 ,
    Corporate media and Dem establishment campaign against Bernie's chances have completely backlashed. And the more he stays in the race, the more likely he will get the max number of pledged delegates or nomination.

    And the longer the race for nomination is, the more likely that the WS speeches, Sec of State emails, and bribes by foreign sleazy regimes to the Foundation will be exposed before nomination.

    Slick Willy/Obama moderate centrists running Dem establishment, same sleaze bags that did the welfare and justice reforms of 90s and deregulated WS in the first place, wanted Bernie out by last night;...thanks to Michigan...we will see them all in Philadelphia!

    The WS(Ruben, Summers, Geithner,...)/Clinton/Obama wing of the party will be buried by Uncle Bernie when all this is said and done, and with it the D-establishment media: msnbc athews, the executive Wolffe and te corporate-feminist Maddows!

    I am toasting over here,...Feeling the Bern!

    MaxBoson ,
    The truth is that before Tuesday's elections, Clinton was ahead of Sanders by 673 to 477 pledged delegates, and her lead is now 745 to 540-by no means insurmountable, as a recent NBC-Washington Post poll shows (the numbers don't sum to 100% because 'Other' and 'No opinion' replies were included): In December Clinton led Sanders 59% to 28%; in January 55% to 36%; in March 49% to 42%. These figures show that Hillary's lead is slowly but steadily evaporating.

    Anyone who believes that superdelegates can hand Clinton the nomination even if she loses the primary fight is betting the Democratic Party is willing to commit suicide: Sanders supporters already loathe Hillary Clinton, and if she is carried to the coronation throne on the backs of superdelegates, that loathing will multiply, and many of them will stay home or participate in a write-in campaign for Bernie, enough to cause Hillary to lose the general election. Debbie Wasserman Schultz and her friends in the DNC will have achieved their goal: a woman will have been nominated, but at the price of making Donald Trump President, and having to find another name for their party-"Democratic Party" would hardly be fitting after such a betrayal.

    Martin Thompson -> smudge10 ,
    free trade is unfair trade it is like these subsidies on food where people pay tax and then farmers get money from govt to grow what they are told. Then there is free trade deal such as with europe where the american subsidised food too compete with the european subsidised food but there are differences in regulations so too compete fairly the europeans would have to reduce the regulations in a race to the bottom with the Americans who are already suffering from obesity.
    http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/economy/2015/12/ttip-disaster-left-brexit-would-be-worse

    amacd2 ,
    Here's my comment finally allowed to be published in the NYT today 3/8 after Michigan

    Bernie is on the Bern across America --- and he hasn't even fired a 'shout heard round the world' yet.

    When Bernie fires a non-violent 'shout heard round the world' to further ignite his & our "Political Revolution against Empire" the Bern will burn through the rest of the primary states.

    Understand that Bernie will increase both the enthusiasm and the education of Americans in evolutionary ways of understanding the essential need for the "Political Revolution against Empire".

    Initially, Bernie can point to the flaws and failures of a 'foreign policy' that does not serve the interests of Americans nor peace in our world, any better than domestic economic tyranny at home, because our country is being pushed by the same corrupted politics to "act like a global Empire abroad".

    Even the most trusted elder anchorman and author of "Greatest Generation", Tom Brokaw, on "Meet the Press" shocked Chuck Toad and other young pundits at the 'Round Table' when he explained, "When Trump and Cruz are talking about three year old orphans and refugees [from Syria to Europe], what we're really talking about is three year old orphans and refugees, caused by
    American policy".

    Such truth telling by older and politically experienced people like Bernie, Tom, and the late Walter Cronkite is what has radically changed, even Revolutionized the political landscape as it did half a century ago when such truthful shocks caused LBJ not to run and admit, "If I've lost Cronkite, we've lost the war"

    Quartz001 ,
    Looks like the corporate media attempts to keep Bernie Sanders coverage down, and making any attention they do give him negative isn't totally working... what will they try next?

    Corporate Media to Begin Adding Fangs to Images of Bernie Sanders
    http://www.theniladmirari.com/2016/03/corporate-media-to-begin-adding-fangs-to-all-images-of-bernie-sanders-and-push-narrative-storyline-fantasy-secretary-hillary-clinton-inevitable-democratic-presidential-candidate.html

    antipodes -> jambin ,
    I just don't like the slaughter of half a million Syrians and Libyans and 10 million refugees facing devastation of their lives just so the USA and NATO can control oil supplies out of the Middle East. Its not a good look Hillary.
    I'm not all that happy about the splitting up of Syria just to isolate Iran and destroy the Russian economy while risking a nuclear war.
    illary needs to explain why we can't have world peace because the insecurity and armaments industry makes so much money for the 1%. In fact Hilary needs to prove she cares about the worlds ordinary people like the Palestinians living under the yoke of the cruel oppresive Israeli Gogernment. And she would need to demonstrate her concern with policies to help the people living on the streets of America before I would support her.
    Junnie Quorra Lee -> Junnie Quorra Lee ,
    (Can Hillary be trusted? Also See:)

    Reich Risked getting fired from Clinton Admin by slamming Corporate Welfare
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffmvPuGxmzA&feature=youtu.be

    (RECENT!) Hillary Clinton's Email About Gay Parents Should Seriously Trouble Her LGBT Supporters
    http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2015/10/01/hillary_clinton_on_gay_rights_a_new_email_is_troubling.html
    Looks like she hasn't really "evolved" on LGBT acceptance, but is simply taking on positions that she thinks is politically beneficial to her, as usual. Much of her campaign platform (specifically her sudden focus on social and civil issues) is pretty much copied over from Sander's after all.

    Bernie Sanders Was For Transgender Rights Before It Was A Thing
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0kCDFxODx4

    Hillary Paid Herself $250000 From Campaign Funds
    http://freebeacon.com/politics/hillary-paid-herself-250000-from-campaign-funds /

    Hillary Clinton says outsourcing jobs is good for America (top 1%)
    http://realprogress.online/2016/03/05/hillary-clinton-told-crowd-outsourcing-good-america /

    Her shock when he says he supports Bernie Sanders (the "socialist", rather than Hillary, on Fox News) is priceless!
    https://www.facebook.com/OccupyDemocrats/videos/1080899312003122/?pnref=story

    Why I Switched My Support From Hillary Clinton to Bernie Sanders
    https://www.thewrap.com/carole-mallory-bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-swtich-support-president-guest-blog /

    Hillary Calls for Michigan Gov's Resignation an Hour After Her Spox Slammed Bernie for Same (This pretty much sums up her dis-ingenious campaign)
    http://www.mediaite.com/tv/hillary-calls-for-michigan-govs-resignation-an-hour-after-her-spox-slammed-bernie-for-same /

    ---

    Racism is still alive. Black lives DO matter, and the things BLM activists are doing may look excessive, but I find it necessary if they are EVER to be heard by the government. Things are desperate now, and the Clintons has a hand in the current sad sate of things for African Americans due to the policies that they have pushed. Bernie have repeatedly highlighted how Black people in America is oppressed. Just look at the % of black vs white jobless rate, and % of black vs white people being jailed for weed possession. Something needs to be done. "Enough is Enough" as Bernie says.

    Clinton confronted for calling black kids 'super predators'
    http://nypost.com/2016/03/01/clinton-confronted-for-calling-black-kids-super-predators /
    Activist Ashley Williams Confronts Hillary Clinton On Calling Black People Super Predators
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwFii9IYTIw&feature=youtu.be
    Prominent Black Activists Want to Set The Record Straight On Hillary Clinton!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pACLnwDe7Ms

    [Mar 10, 2016] War Is A Drug Images From The Eerie Syrian Ceasefire Zero Hedge

    www.zerohedge.com

    Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence.
    Oxford University Press. (2015)
    www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199296422.001.0001...

    Chin up, boys. Like Lt. Lockhart said in Full Metal Jacket: "In other words, it's a huge shit sandwich, and we're all gonna have to take a bite."

    Life will not get any better, or at least much better, than it is already. And it's likely to get a whole lot worse tomorrow. There is true freedom in realizing that. The strength in personality is to grok the horrors of reality without retreating to the comfort of fantasy stories . Most aren't up to the task.

    "The irony of man's condition is that the deepest need is to be free of the anxiety of death and annihilation; but it is life itself which awakens it, and so we must shrink from being fully alive."
    -
    Ernest Becker
    The Denial of Death

  • Login or register to post comments
  • Father Thyme , |

    "A Civilization is a dominant community that imposes its beliefs upon all other communities by violence, which must involve the use of genocide; so any community that recoils from inflicting genocide will suffer genocide."

    Philip Atkinson www.ourcivilisation.com

    Its war. Who wins? The winner. For what that's worth.

    It's worth life. For what that's worth.

    Father Thyme , |

    It's not a bad thing...

    Humans are neither good nor bad. Really.

    The best essay I've ever seen on the philosophical question of good/evil comes from an anarchist...and you know what I think of anarchist. (Im still willing to learn from my lessors.)

    Are humans essentially good, or essentially evil? This is one of the most basic, perennial questions in philosophy. Many identify our individual answers to this question as determing our political spectrum - conservatives believe humans are inherently evil, and require strict rules to make them good, while liberals believe humans are inherently good, and must simply be free to act on such goodness. Both positions are unrealistic. Humans are products of evolution, and evolution is unconcerned with such abstractions as "good" or "evil." As Aristotle said, humans are social animals. We are neither "good" nor "evil." We are only inherently social.

    Thesis #5: Humans are neither good nor evil.
    The Thirty Theses
    http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/jason-godesky-thirty-theses

    SteveNYC , |

    "How much can you know about yourself, if you've never been in a fight?"

    Father Thyme , |

    We're all in a fight, if you...

    "Think about it. We all start out the same way... a single sperm among 50 million other sperm, all desperate to get to one egg. To win. You, me, everyone else on the planet ever in history, we all won that 100-meter in-utero, winner-take-all race to mama's enchanted, life-giving egg. First prize? Life? Second prize? Death. Right. Now, you think we weren't throwing a few elbows? You think you weren't knocking a few other sperm over, stabbing 'em in the back just to get ahead, just to win? Thom, you don't win that kind of race without being an asshole. I mean, a huge asshole. Your problem is you think that assholes are some sort of anomaly, some sort of aberration. Nature is an asshole factory, my friend. If you exist, you're an asshole. You think, therefore you are, but you are, therefore you're an asshole."
    -
    Nature is an asshole making factory
    Happyish
    Showtime, 2015
    www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGjTHtPn_No

    new game , |

    merica is the destabilizing force , ongoing, as soon as order and boundries get established like wolves do, we will re-arrive on command from a secret message from our higher powers and stir the hornets nests. then we can claim democracy is in progress once again. now do you understand?

    THE SOLUTION IS... , |

    I am almost certain that at least some on the ground are more than aware of who orchestrated this nightmare (hell some probably get patched up in Israeli hospitals)...but I bet they are more concerned with the bastards shooting at them right now. However, it is certain that whatever the result of this mess, Israel has not made many new friends in the region...but once you realise that the whole purpose of Israel is to remain a weeping sore in the most resource rich region on earth everything starts to make sense.

    Israel is supposed to be a nightmare apartheid weapons testing ground murdering kids everyday. That way the Rothschild central bank owners in the three city states that comprise the City of London, Washington DC and the Vatican can extract resources from the surrounding countries for pennies on the dollar!!! The plan works perfectly when you think like a diabolical psychopath. If anything the poor Jewish people comprise a useful scapegoat that can at anytime be ditched and blamed once the resources in the region become depleted or the global economy moves beyond petroleum products. Israel is a vital lynchpin of the petrodollar like Saudi Arabia. I am actually quite sure that once supporting it is no longer profitable to the "west" it will be cut adrift. In fact, I believe that barring any Zionist plots, this process has already begun with the Iran deal. If oil becomes redundant or abundant in the next few centuries I actually expect the Israelis themselves will push for a peace deal before they get pushed into the sea. Any thoughts?

    THE SOLUTION IS... , |

    In fact, I would go so far as to say that Israel is a classic British colonial project. We British are renowned for transplanting foreigners into other peoples lands and hoovering up the resources that fall out of the inevitable bust up!! Just look at the Sri Lankan mess we made by importing Indians of a different religion to work the tea plantations...It caused a bloody nightmare for over a century whilst we extracted Ceylon's finest...It is kind of depressing when you think about how well it worked. Thankfully the Sri Lankans kicked us out once the jig was up but the damage it caused continued for decades after we left. Disgraceful really.

    TahoeBilly2012 , |

    Israel is a Rothchild backup State in case they ever got booted outta Europe.

    Kaleb , |

    Geepers, whose propoganda book did you pull this mess from? And as far as he US backing away from Israel, you're right on that one. But...its because of that Dangling Dingbat with a Loose Wingnut we got in DC and his slightly confused and murdering self destructing administration that's doing it. Not the "We the people" or is that "we the folk"

    [Mar 10, 2016] Dear Ms. Merkel, Be Careful What You Wish For Zero Hedge

    Notable quotes:
    "... So now Greece has to accommodate ever more refugees because all borders close, something Greece cannot afford since the bailout talks left it incapable of even looking after its own people, while over the next ten days it can expect a surge of 'new' refugees to arrive from Turkey, afraid they'll be stuck there after a deal is done. Greece will become a "holding pen", and the refugees will be the livestock. A warehouse of souls, a concentration camp. ..."
    "... Refugees from war -torn countries are per definition not 'illegal'. What is illegal, on the other hand, is to refuse them asylum. So all the talk about 'illegal migrants' emanating from shills like Donald Tusk is at best highly questionable. The freshly introduced term 'irregular migrants' is beyond the moral pale. ..."
    "... In that same terminology vein, the idea that Turkey is a 'safe third country', as the EU so desperately wants to claim, is downright crazy. That is not for the EU to decide, if only because it has -again, immoral- skin in the game. ..."
    "... All this terminology manipulation, ironically, plays into the hands of the very right wing movements that Angela Merkel fears losing this weekend's elections to. They create a false picture and atmosphere incumbent 'leaders' try to use to hold on to power, but it will end up making them lose that power. ..."
    www.zerohedge.com
    Submitted by Raul Ilargi Meijer via The Automatic Earth blog,

    "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them… well, I have others."

    – Groucho Marx

    What is perhaps most remarkable about the deal the EU is trying to seal with Turkey to push back ALL refugees who come to Greece is that the driving force behind it turns out to be Angela Merkel. Reports say that she and temp EU chairman Dutch PM Mark Rutte 'pushed back' the entire EU delegation that had been working on the case, including Juncker and Tusk, and came with proposals that go much further than even Brussels had in mind.

    Why? Angela has elections this weekend she's afraid to lose.

    It's also remarkable that the deal with the devil they came up with is fraught with so many legal uncertainties -it not outright impossibilities- that it's highly unlikely the deal will ever be closed, let alone implemented. One thing they will have achieved is that refugees will arrive in much larger numbers over the next ten days, before a sequel meeting will be held, afraid as they will be to be pushed back after that date.

    They may not have to be so scared of that, because anything remotely like what was agreed on will face so many legal challenges it may be DOA. Moreover, in the one-for-one format that is on the table, Europe would be forced to accept as many refugees from Turkey as it pushes back to that country. Have Merkel and Rutte realized this? Or do they think they can refuse that later, or slow it down?

    Under the deal, Turkey seems to have little incentive to prevent refugees from sailing to Greece. Because for every one who sails and returns, Turkey can send one to Europe. What if that comes to a million, or two, three? The numbers of refugees in Turkey will remain the same, while the number in Europe will keep growing ad infinitum.

    * * *

    Sweet Jesus, Angela, we understand you have problems with the refugee situation, and that you have elections coming up this weekend, but what made you think the answer can be found in playing fast and loose with the law? And what, for that matter, do you expect to gain from negotiating a Faustian deal with the devil? Surely you know that makes you lose your soul?

    You said yesterday that history won't look kindly on the EU if it fails on refugees, but how do you think history will look on you for trying to sign a deal that violates various international laws, including the Geneva Conventions? You have this aura of being kinder than most of Europe to the refugees, but then you go and sell them out to a guy who aids ISIS, massacres Kurds, shuts down all the media he doesn't like and makes a killing smuggling refugees to Greece?

    Or are we getting this backwards, and are you shrewdly aware that the elections come before the next meeting with Turkey, and are you already planning to ditch the entire deal once the elections are done, or have your legal team assured you that there's no way it will pass the court challenges it will inevitably provoke?

    It would be smart if that's the case, but it's also quite dark: we are still talking about human beings here, of which hundreds of thousands have already died in the countries the living are fleeing, or during their flight (and we don't mean by plane), and tens of thousands -and counting, fast- are already stuck in Greece, with one country after the other closing their borders after the -potential- deal became public knowledge.

    So now Greece has to accommodate ever more refugees because all borders close, something Greece cannot afford since the bailout talks left it incapable of even looking after its own people, while over the next ten days it can expect a surge of 'new' refugees to arrive from Turkey, afraid they'll be stuck there after a deal is done. Greece will become a "holding pen", and the refugees will be the livestock. A warehouse of souls, a concentration camp.

    The circumstances under which these human beings have been forced to flee their homes, to travel thousands of miles, and now to try and stay alive in Greece, are already way below morally acceptable. Just look at Idomeni! You should do all you can to improve their conditions, not to risk making them worse. Where and how you do that is another matter, but the principle should stand.

    You should be in Greece right now, Angela, asking Tsipras how you can help him with this unfolding mayhem, how much money he needs and what other resources you can offer. Instead, Athens today hosts the Troika and Victoria "F**k the EU" Nuland. That is so completely insane it can't escape the protagonists themselves either.

    * * *

    Refugees from war -torn countries are per definition not 'illegal'. What is illegal, on the other hand, is to refuse them asylum. So all the talk about 'illegal migrants' emanating from shills like Donald Tusk is at best highly questionable. The freshly introduced term 'irregular migrants' is beyond the moral pale.

    As is the emphasis on using the term 'migrant' versus 'refugee' that both European politicians and the international press are increasingly exhibiting, because it is nothing but a cheap attempt to influence public opinion while at the same time throwing desperate people's legal status into doubt.

    What their status is must be decided by appropriate legal entities, not by reporters or politicians seeking to use the confusion of the terms for their own personal benefit. And numbers show time and again that most of the people (93% in February GRAPH) arriving in Greece come from Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan, all war-torn, and must therefore be defined as 'refugees' under international law. It is really that simple. Anything else is hot air. Trying to redefine the terminology on the fly is immoral.

    In that same terminology vein, the idea that Turkey is a 'safe third country', as the EU so desperately wants to claim, is downright crazy. That is not for the EU to decide, if only because it has -again, immoral- skin in the game.

    All this terminology manipulation, ironically, plays into the hands of the very right wing movements that Angela Merkel fears losing this weekend's elections to. They create a false picture and atmosphere incumbent 'leaders' try to use to hold on to power, but it will end up making them lose that power.

    * * *

    The funniest, though also potentially most disruptive, consequence of the proposed deal may well be that the visa requirements for the 75 million Turks to travel to Europe are to be abandoned in June, just 3 months away, giving them full Schengen privileges. Funny, because that raises the option of millions of Turkish people fleeing the Erdogan regime travelling to Europe as refugees, and doing it in a way that no-one can call illegal.

    There may be as many as 20 million Kurds living in Turkey, and Erdogan has for all intents and purposes declared war on all of them. How about if half of them decide to start a new life in Europe? Can't very well send them back to 'safe third country' Turkey.

    Be careful what you wish for, Angela.

    [Mar 10, 2016] Turks cannot support financially and politically the whole Iraqs Kurdistan entity where the oil is coming from

    Notable quotes:
    "... Turkey announced today that the Kurdish pipeline should be back online in about a week. There's been a major mine-sweeping effort going on there since the break. ..."
    "... Turks can fix the pipeline but Turks cannot support financially and politically the whole Iraq's Kurdistan entity where the oil is coming from. You still got eat even when the oil is $30 :), so the Kurds are doing bidding process on who will help pay the most. Iraqis central government has an offer dangling to take care of Kurdish government employees in exchange for re-routing that kurdish oil through central government for sale. ..."
    "... But Turks have way bigger problems than one pipeline. They are in real bind and are pushed real hard from both Russians and Americans. When it is all said and done they could be in process of being dismembered. ..."
    "... The only leverage that Turks have is over Euro elite that still needs them for their dirty work in ME. Notice how Ms. Markel can easily find 3 billion for Turkey (refugees will not see a single penny of it) while last year Euro pensioners in Greece/Spain/Italy/France all they got is austerity. ..."
    "... It is a class war and it has always been like that. ..."
    "... The damaged pipeline is an Iraqi pipeline; it carries Iraqi oil all the way to Ceyhan, a Turkish port on the Mediterranean. The KRG built a pipeline that joins it at the Turkish border, so the pipeline carries Kurdish oil too. It's in Iraq's interest to have it open but since SE Turkey is essentially a war zone that can be hard to bring about. ..."
    peakoilbarrel.com
    Synapsid , 03/09/2016 at 8:04 pm
    Ves,

    Turkey announced today that the Kurdish pipeline should be back online in about a week. There's been a major mine-sweeping effort going on there since the break.

    The PKK denies blowing up the pipeline. Who knows?

    Ves , 03/09/2016 at 11:34 pm
    Synapsid,

    Turks can fix the pipeline but Turks cannot support financially and politically the whole Iraq's Kurdistan entity where the oil is coming from. You still got eat even when the oil is $30 :), so the Kurds are doing bidding process on who will help pay the most. Iraqis central government has an offer dangling to take care of Kurdish government employees in exchange for re-routing that kurdish oil through central government for sale.

    But Turks have way bigger problems than one pipeline. They are in real bind and are pushed real hard from both Russians and Americans. When it is all said and done they could be in process of being dismembered.

    The only leverage that Turks have is over Euro elite that still needs them for their dirty work in ME. Notice how Ms. Markel can easily find 3 billion for Turkey (refugees will not see a single penny of it) while last year Euro pensioners in Greece/Spain/Italy/France all they got is austerity.

    It is a class war and it has always been like that.

    Synapsid , 03/10/2016 at 12:56 am
    Ves,

    The damaged pipeline is an Iraqi pipeline; it carries Iraqi oil all the way to Ceyhan, a Turkish port on the Mediterranean. The KRG built a pipeline that joins it at the Turkish border, so the pipeline carries Kurdish oil too. It's in Iraq's interest to have it open but since SE Turkey is essentially a war zone that can be hard to bring about.

    I suspect that Iraqi Kurdistan could support itself from sale of the oil they produce if they were allowed to just sell it and not have the money come from Baghdad–and if they straightened out their own corrupt economy.

    [Mar 10, 2016] EIA Inventory Report and Oil Market Analysis 3 9 2016

    (Video)
    Notable quotes:
    "... The rising clamor at home from the crashing shale sector and the banks that financed it; the resilience of Russia in spite of sanctions and its exclusion from Western capital markets; Russia's entrance into the Syrian take-down attempt having put Russia into a new position of influence in the Middle East; demands for higher prices from more and more OPEC members; Russian and Iranian resistance to demands that they agree to limit production; Kuwait refusing to limit production; Venezuela and Mexico nearing default; Ukraine melting down politically, financially, and militarily: financial tremors at home and in Europe; and the rise of Trump and Bernie as an election nears, - these factors have led Western leaders to stop suppressing the price of crude. ..."
    Zero Hedge

    Al Tinfoil ,|

    IMHO, the rise in crude prices is evidence that the West has blinked and is giving up on its attempt to bankrupt Russia in order to make Putin kowtow to the West.

    The rising clamor at home from the crashing shale sector and the banks that financed it; the resilience of Russia in spite of sanctions and its exclusion from Western capital markets; Russia's entrance into the Syrian take-down attempt having put Russia into a new position of influence in the Middle East; demands for higher prices from more and more OPEC members; Russian and Iranian resistance to demands that they agree to limit production; Kuwait refusing to limit production; Venezuela and Mexico nearing default; Ukraine melting down politically, financially, and militarily: financial tremors at home and in Europe; and the rise of Trump and Bernie as an election nears, - these factors have led Western leaders to stop suppressing the price of crude.

    The commodities traders and their algos will now be allowed to manipulate up the prices. Fundamentals of excess supply and weak demand do not matter, and have not mattered for a long time. Futures contracts, refinery shutdowns for fires or scheduled maintenance, pipeline ruptures, and rumors of international instability can all be used to increase crude prices.

    The oil bulls are being let loose!

    [Mar 10, 2016] Do you remember five men being arrested by NYPD on 9-11 for filming and celebrating the attacks

    www.zerohedge.com

    Zero Hedge

    Submitted by hedgeless_horseman on 03/08/2016 13:14 -0500

    disbelief
    - noun - dis·be·lief \?dis-b?-?l?f\
    : a feeling that you do not or cannot believe or accept that something is true or real.

    >

    I cringe every time I see a, "9-11 Never Forget," bumper sticker, t-shirt, or beer coozie. I sigh and say to myself, "How can you never forget what you never knew?"

    There are many conspiracy theories surrounding 9-11, but this article focuses on just one conspiracy fact. The FBI released the, "Five Dancing Israelis," that were arrested by the NYPD on 9-11 for filming and celebrating the attacks on the WTC and driving around in a van that tested positive for explosives. These were admitted Mossad agents working undercover in the USA.

    Here is an interesting exercise that I invite all zerohedge readers to try. The next several times that you engage someone in a conversation, preferably a politician running for office , ask the following questions.

    Do you remember anything about five Middle Eastern men being arrested by the NYPD on 9-11 for filming and celebrating the attacks on the WTC and driving around Manhattan in a van that tested positive for explosives...these were admitted foreign intelligence agents working undercover in the USA?

    In asking this question dozens of times, most recently in a conversation with two rabbis at one of the five Holocaust Museums in Texas, I have personally never, not once, had a person answer yes.

    However, if they do answer yes to you, then ask if they recall what nation the men were from. I would be shocked to hear any American say, "Israel."

    If they answer no, tell them they were Israeli Mossad agents, and ask if that helps them to remember.

    Again, I have never had anyone say that they knew anything about what I was talking about. Not once, not in any city, nor in any state of the USA. If the conversation does continue, what I do hear, almost exclusively, is utter disbelief that what I am saying is true.

    But it is true.

    Now, consider that since 9-11, the USA has invaded and occupied what was once the sovereign nation of Afghanistan for almost 15 years and counting, allegedly due to the role it played in 9-11. We have spent billions upon billions of dollars and killed tens of thousands of people, if not hundreds of thousands, in this war effort.

    A girl who was burned beyond recognition by a U.S. drone in Afghanistan and left for dead in a trashcan before she had to undergo reconstructive surgery. The chemicals in the missiles burn so hot they can light a tank on fire, but this is somehow different from the chemical warfare allegedly waged by our enemy...

    Hellfire thermobaric warhead using a metal augmented explosive charge is used primarily in urban warfare, against bunkers, buildings caves and other concealed targets. This warhead is designed to inflict greater damage in multi-room structures, compared to the Hellfire's standard or blast-fragmentation warheads. The Metal Augmented Charge or MAC (Thermobaric) Hellfire, designated AGM-114N, has completed rapid development cycle in 2002 and was deployed during OIF by US Marines Helicopters in Iraq. The new warhead contains a fluorinated aluminum powder that is layered between the warhead casing and the PBXN-112 explosive fill. When the explosive detonates, the aluminum mixture is dispersed and rapidly burns. The resultant sustained high pressure is extremely effective against enemy personnel and structures. The AGM-114N is designed for deployment from helicopters such as the AH-1W or UAVs such as the Predator drones.

    http://defense-update.com/products/h/hellfire.htm

    I hear that more US soldiers serving in Afghanistan now die from suicide than are killed by the Afghanis, in what is now the longest war in American history . Yet, we are now in our third Presidential election in the USA since 9-11 and the occupation of Afghanistan, and the candidates aren't talking about any of this, and the Fourth Estate sure as hell isn't asking any questions.

    Why?

    Don't you want to know how the Presidential candidates feel about the fact that the FBI released the Five Dancing Israelis? What about your congressmen and senators? Don't you want to know how our nation can imprison Afghanis in Guantanamo Bay, without trial, and torture them for information regarding 9-11... for more than a decade ...yet the FBI released the Five Dancing Israelis to fly back to Israel and do television interviews .

    If our politicians respond with disbelief, like everyone else I have ever asked, then what does that tell us?

    If nobody from the Fourth Estate ever asks them these questions, then what does that tell us?

    If you are afraid to engage people with this type of conversation, then please read my article: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-01-06/hedgelesshorsemans-revolutionar...

    Never forget: War is a racket!

    [Mar 09, 2016] Russias exposure to low oil prices has been mitigated by the depreciation of the ruble relative to the dollar, given ruble-denominated production costs, and by Russias taxation regime for the oil sector

    peakoilbarrel.com
    Ron Patterson , 03/09/2016 at 7:51 am
    Now here is a type of headline you don't see very often. Bold mine.

    Russia may be running out of oil

    Oil production in Russia will inevitably decline by 2035 according to an Energy Ministry report seen by the Vedomosti business daily. The different scenarios predict an output drop from 1.2 percent up to 46 percent two decades from now.

    The document, obtained by the newspaper and confirmed by a source in the ministry, says by 2035 existing oil fields will be able to provide Russia with less than half of today's production of about 10.1 million barrels per day.

    The shortfall should be met by increased production from proven reserves, according to projections by the Energy Ministry.

    In the best case for oil producers, short-term growth remains possible only until 2020, according to the report. After that, production will contract. The figures vary from 1.2 percent to 46 percent, depending on prices, taxation and whether or not anti-Russian sanctions will be in force.

    A slight increase in production is possible only for smaller companies like Slavneft and Russneft, while the market leaders are facing the depletion of existing deposits. Added to an unfavorable tax environment, their production is set to fall by 39-61 percent.

    To counter the decline in oil production, the Energy Ministry proposes giving private companies access to the Arctic shelf, to soften the tax regime and support for small and medium-sized independent companies.

    The Ministry also suggests promoting the processing of high-sulfur and super viscous heavy oil with the introduction of preferential rates of excise duties on fuel produced from such oil.

    Desperate times call for desperate measures.

    AlexS , 03/09/2016 at 8:37 am
    This forecast published by "Vedomosti" is for crude only and excludes condensate (around 520 kb/d in 2015). It was not yet officially released. Condensate production growth in 2014-15 was higher than crude only. There are gas condensate fields in the far north of West Siberia that should start production in the next few years.

    The worse case assumes very low oil prices and sanctions remaining for the whole period. Is $30-40 oil a realistic scenario to 2035?

    Base case implies 2035 crude production only 2.1% below 2015 levels

    "Reasonably favorable" scenario: crude production in 2020-2030 slightly above 2015 levels;
    2035: 1.6% below 2015.

    Russian crude (ex condensate) production scenarios.
    Source: Vedomosti newspaper based on the Energy Ministry data

    AlexS , 03/09/2016 at 8:48 am
    Meanwhile, the EIA in its Short-Term Energy Outlook has revised upwards estimates and projections for Russian oil production in 2015-17.

    From the report:

    "Russia is one example of production exceeding EIA's expectations. Fourth quarter 2015 oil production in Russia is 0.2 million b/d higher than in last month's STEO, with initial data indicating it has remained at high levels in early 2016. This higher historical production creates a higher baseline level that carries through the forecast period. Russia's production is expected to increase by 0.2 million b/d in 2016 and then decline by 0.1 million b/d in 2017. Russia's exposure to low oil prices has been mitigated by the depreciation of the ruble relative to the dollar, given ruble-denominated production costs, and by Russia's taxation regime for the oil sector."

    The EIA is the last of the key international energy forecasting agencies to revise the numbers for Russia (others are IEA, JODI and OPEC)

    Dean , 03/09/2016 at 10:06 am
    Besides what Alex already said, I want to add another important point: the recovery of oil-in-place in Russia is very low compared to international averages, around 20-25%. This is why there is a lot of potential just by improving extraction from current fields.

    P.S. Then, there is shale oil, really a lot of it, but it requires much higher prices for it to be developed, and economically it makes more sense to first increase the % extracted of oil-in-place

    [Mar 09, 2016] Article Obama. Putin and the U.S. Election

    Notable quotes:
    "... The Russians have cooperated with the U.S. on the Iran deal and in trying to bring about a truce in Syria (their intervention was provoked by CIA "covert" weapons deals with jihadists against their ally Assad, the legally UN-recognized government), and in calming down the situation in Ukraine by a cease fire (another intervention initiated by the U.S.- E.U. role in overthrowing the legally elected government in that country and the installation of an ultraright-wing anti-Russian regime. ..."
    "... Cohen says the mass media in the U.S. attributes all these international problems to Russian aggression and to Putin's megalomania ["Putin's Russia"]. So while we play around with farcical political debates and a news media that misinforms rather than informs, Obama stealthily builds up the aggressive capabilities of U.S. imperialism and, consciously or unconsciously, further endangers the peace of the world and the future of humanity. ..."
    "... The Left is falling down on the job of warning the working class of the dangers it faces in the coming election. HRC has wrapped herself in the Obama legacy and will no doubt continue the march towards more wars and military adventures that the U.S. has embarked upon ever since Korea. The Republican candidates are no different in this respect. Whoever wins in November, the big losers will be the working class and the minorities who will continue to be abused and exploited by the U.S. ruling establishment. ..."
    "... This military build-up is part of the profit-generating foreign policy of the military-industrial complex. It justifies the transfer of billions of dollars in "defense" spending to the private coffers of the 1%. What are the chances that HRC will adopt a pro-peace agenda and come out against the U.S.- NATO build-up in Europe? Sanders is also weak on this issue but he can be more easily pressured to change, as cutting the military budget frees up money for the progressive changes to reduce income inequality that he favors and he is not beholden to the establishment. What is to be done? ..."
    Mar 07, 2016 | OpEdNews

    Why is Obama deliberately stirring up old Cold War tensions with Russia by ordering saber-rattling by the Pentagon and our puppet military alliance Nato? Professor Steven Cohen, writing in The Nation (2-29-16), says Obama is escalating the tensions with Russia in an unprecedented manner not seen since the days of Nazi Germany. These hostile actions are being basically ignored by the mass media and none of the presidential candidates in either party have addressed them in the debates except indirectly (Sanders and Clinton supporting NATO, Trump mentioning he wants to make a "deal" with Putin).

    The issue is Obama's decision to increase by 400% military expenditures and deployments on or near the Russian border by the U.S. and NATO. Such a huge concentration of Western military power on the Russian border has not been seen in modern times -- not even at the height of the Cold War. Cohen says Russia will have to respond by its own build-up including the positioning of advanced missiles. Thus the whole of Eastern Europe will become a tinderbox, increasing the probability of a regional war or worse if some minor incident flares up.

    This is, I might add, wholly unnecessary and reckless behavior on the part of Obama and his generals (the type of behavior a future President Cruz or Rubio are characterized of being capable of initiating). Why is this coming at the very time Russia is trying to de-escalate tensions with the U.S.?

    The Russians have cooperated with the U.S. on the Iran deal and in trying to bring about a truce in Syria (their intervention was provoked by CIA "covert" weapons deals with jihadists against their ally Assad, the legally UN-recognized government), and in calming down the situation in Ukraine by a cease fire (another intervention initiated by the U.S.- E.U. role in overthrowing the legally elected government in that country and the installation of an ultraright-wing anti-Russian regime.

    Cohen says the mass media in the U.S. attributes all these international problems to Russian aggression and to Putin's megalomania ["Putin's Russia"]. So while we play around with farcical political debates and a news media that misinforms rather than informs, Obama stealthily builds up the aggressive capabilities of U.S. imperialism and, consciously or unconsciously, further endangers the peace of the world and the future of humanity.

    The Left is falling down on the job of warning the working class of the dangers it faces in the coming election. HRC has wrapped herself in the Obama legacy and will no doubt continue the march towards more wars and military adventures that the U.S. has embarked upon ever since Korea. The Republican candidates are no different in this respect. Whoever wins in November, the big losers will be the working class and the minorities who will continue to be abused and exploited by the U.S. ruling establishment.

    The Left has, however, done its duty in one respect. There is a slight possibility the dire consequences enumerated above could be avoided or alleviated and that would be the election of Bernie Sanders as president. This event would open up progressive political action outside of the control of the establishment and could lead to a democratic renaissance in the U.S. The Left - Progressive movement has solidly backed Sanders (aside from some fringe elements). Unfortunately, the Left cannot agree on a Plan B. HRC's election would be a victory for the establishment and there is no third party that the Left is willing to unite behind.

    This military build-up is part of the profit-generating foreign policy of the military-industrial complex. It justifies the transfer of billions of dollars in "defense" spending to the private coffers of the 1%. What are the chances that HRC will adopt a pro-peace agenda and come out against the U.S.- NATO build-up in Europe? Sanders is also weak on this issue but he can be more easily pressured to change, as cutting the military budget frees up money for the progressive changes to reduce income inequality that he favors and he is not beholden to the establishment. What is to be done?

    Born Lake Worth, FL 1942. Educated FSU and Graduate Center CUNY. Currently teaching philosophy in NYC. Associate editor of Political Affairs online.

    [Mar 07, 2016] The Danger Of Media Blackout Zero Hedge

    Notable quotes:
    "... Of particular importance here is the term, "legitimate interests." With this term, the doctrine reveals that its goal is the suppression of other nations, regardless of whether their ambitions are reasonable or not. All that matters is US hegemony over the world. ..."
    "... Second, the sociopathic goals of those in power are a clear and present danger to the peace and well-being of the population. ..."
    "... "to combat and prevent Russian aggression." is merely NATO double-speak for... "To combat a Russian Counter-Attack to our First Strike to a National Coup. Bellarus is next. The boa-like encirclement of the USSR, er, I mean Russia , will continue." ..."
    "... Unfortunately for the war-makers, the game is up. More and more people have woken up to the lies. NATO has overplayed its hand, and its propaganda is just not believed any more. ..."
    "... WAR is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. ..."
    "... The imperialism of the United States began well before Paul Wolfowitz. He's simply turned the tradition into one of perpetual warfare. When I think of Dantes nine circles of hell, I can't help but imagine him & Dick Cheney in the center. ..."
    "... We've been in a media blackout since November 22, 1963. ..."
    "... We had some dinner guests over, and the topic of the situation in Ukraine came up. I took the position that the US/EU helped stage the coup that tossed the elected government of Yanukovych, and that the current government is illegitimate, not to mention Nazi thugs. And that the trigger was Yanukovych intending to accept the Russian bail-out, turning his back on the punitive EU austerity program. I didn't even get into the US being pissed at Russia for blocking their Syrian/Assad regime change operation at the UN security council, and were intent on making Russia pay for their insolence. ..."
    "... Our guests were incredulous that I took that position, accusing me of falling for Russian propaganda. Their view is that it was a popular rebellion against a corrupt government, that Russia illegally and forcibly annexed Crimea, and that Russia continues to kill Ukrainians on Ukrainian soil. Any US involvement is/was for the good of the Ukrainian people. ..."
    "... Mission accomplished. And I don't see it changing. MSM blankets North America with western propaganda so thoroughly that otherwise intelligent people don't recognize it as such. Espousing an alternative worldview, and one gets labelled a conspiracy nut or a Putin sympathizer. Sooo Orwellian. ..."
    www.zerohedge.com
    Submitted by Jeff Thomas via InternationalMan.com,

    Recently, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov held a press conference with about 150 journalists from around the world, including representatives of the western media.

    Mister Lavrov was brief and concise; however, the question period lasted for some two hours. A breadth of topics was discussed, including the re-convening of the Syrian peace talks in Geneva, diplomatic relations in Georgia and, tellingly, the increasingly fragile relations with the US. This has not been reported on in Western media.

    This followed close on the heels of reports (again, not to be found in Western media) that the US has quadrupled its budget for the re-armament of NATO in Europe (from $750 million to $3 billion), most of which is to be applied along the Russian border. The decision was explained as being necessary "to combat and prevent Russian aggression."

    It should be mentioned that this decision, no matter how rash it may be, is not a random incident. It's a component of the US' decidedly imperialist Wolfowitz Doctrine of 1992. This doctrine, never intended for public release, outlined a policy of military aggression to assure that the US would reign as the world's sole superpower and, in so-doing, establish the US as the leader within a new world order. In part, its stated goal is,

    "[That] the U.S. must show the leadership necessary to establish and protect a new order that holds the promise of convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests."

    Of particular importance here is the term, "legitimate interests." With this term, the doctrine reveals that its goal is the suppression of other nations, regardless of whether their ambitions are reasonable or not. All that matters is US hegemony over the world.

    Clearly, relations are reaching a dangerous level. The Russian message has repeatedly been, "Stop, before it's too late," yet Washington has reacted by stepping up its threat of hegemony. If the major powers do not call "time out", world war could easily be on the horizon . Yet, incredibly, it appears that the Russian press conference has received zero coverage in the West. No British, French, German, or US television network has made a single comment. As eager as the Russians have been to get the word out as to their concerns, there has been a complete blackout of reporting it in the West.

    Russia Insider has published an article on the internet, but little else appears to be available.

    Today, the internet allows us to tap into information from every country in the world. Both official and non-official versions of the reports are available, if we know where to find them. And for those who have the time to do so, and take the time to do so, it's possible to stay abreast of The Big Picture, although, admittedly, it's a major undertaking to do so.

    Separating the wheat from the chaff is the greatest difficulty in this pursuit; however, as events unfold, a trend is being revealed – that the world is becoming divided with regard to information. In most of the world, there's an expanse of available information, but, increasingly, the US, EU, and their allies are revealing a pattern of information removal . Whatever does not fit the US/EU position on events never reaches the public.

    A half-century ago, this was the case in the USSR, China, and several smaller countries where tyranny had so taken hold that all news was filtered. The people of these countries had a limited understanding as to what was truly occurring in the world, particularly with regard to their own leaders' actions on the world stage.

    However, in recent decades, that tyranny has dissipated to a great degree and those countries that had been isolationist with regard to public information are now opening up more and more. Certainly, their governments still prefer that their press provide reporting that's favourable to the government, but the general direction has been toward greater openness.

    Conversely, the West – that group of countries that was formerly called "the Free World" – has increasingly been going in the opposite direction. The media have been fed an ever-narrower version of what their governments have been up to internationally.

    The overall message that's received by the Western public is essentially that there are good countries (the US, EU, and allies) and bad countries whose governments and peoples seek to destroy democracy. Western propaganda has it that these bad countries will not stop until they've reached your home and robbed you of all your freedoms.

    The view from outside this cabal is a very different one. The remainder of the world view the attacks by US-led forces (Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, Somalia, Syria, etc.) as a bid for world dominance. In examining the Wolfowitz Doctrine, this would seem to be exactly correct.

    This is not to say, however, that the people of the NATO countries are entirely on-board with this aggression. In fact, if they were allowed to know the ultimate objective of the NATO aggression, it's entirely likely that they would oppose it.

    And, of course, that's exactly the point of the blackout. A country, or group of countries, that seeks peace and fair competition, with equal opportunity for all, need not resort to a media blackout. The average citizen, wherever he may live, generally seeks only to be allowed to live in freedom and to get on with his life. Whilst every country has its Generals Patton, its Napoleons, its Wolfowitzes, who are sociopathically obsessive over world domination, the average individual does not share this pathology.

    Therefore, whenever we observe a nation (or nations) creating a media blackout, we can be assured of two things.

    First, the nation has, at some point, been taken over (either through election, appointment, or a combination of the two) by leaders who are a danger to the citizenry and are now so entrenched that they have little opposition from those remaining few higher-ups who would prefer sanity.

    Second, the sociopathic goals of those in power are a clear and present danger to the peace and well-being of the population.

    In almost all such cases, the blackout causes the population to go willingly along each time their leaders make another advance toward warfare. They may understand that they will be directly impacted and worry about the possible outcome but, historically, they tend to put on the uniform and pick up the weapon when the time comes to "serve the country."

    Trouble is, this by no means "serves the country." It serves leaders who have become a danger to the country. The people themselves are the country. It is they, not their leaders, who will go off to battle and it is they who will pay the price of their leaders' zeal for domination.

    Kirk2NCC1701

    "to combat and prevent Russian aggression." is merely NATO double-speak for... "To combat a Russian Counter-Attack to our First Strike to a National Coup. Bellarus is next. The boa-like encirclement of the USSR, er, I mean Russia , will continue."

    FIFY

    BarnacleBill ,

    Unfortunately for the war-makers, the game is up. More and more people have woken up to the lies. NATO has overplayed its hand, and its propaganda is just not believed any more.

    http://barlowscayman.blogspot.com/2016/01/nato-overplays-its-hand.html

    hedgeless_horseman ,

    WAR is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.

    A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of
    the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit
    of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge
    fortunes.

    In the World War [I] a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000 new
    millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War. That
    many admitted their huge blood gains in their income tax returns. How many other war
    millionaires falsified their tax returns no one knows.

    How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle? How many of them dug a trench?
    How many of them knew what it meant to go hungry in a rat-infested dug-out? How many of
    them spent sleepless, frightened nights, ducking shells and shrapnel and machine gun
    bullets? How many of them parried a bayonet thrust of an enemy? How many of them were
    wounded or killed in battle?

    https://archive.org/stream/WarIsARacket/WarIsARacket_djvu.txt

    Proctologist ,

    The imperialism of the United States began well before Paul Wolfowitz. He's simply turned the tradition into one of perpetual warfare. When I think of Dantes nine circles of hell, I can't help but imagine him & Dick Cheney in the center.

    SillySalesmanQu... ,

    We've been in a media blackout since November 22, 1963.

    MedicalQuack ,

    It's called News Rigging, 60% of what you read is written by bots, so just spin one up and off you go and works good to create knock off news too, technology is smarter than most realize. One guy wrote 10k books with a bot and put them on sale at Amazon..

    http://ducknetweb.blogspot.com/2015/04/news-rigging-has-arrived-astroturf-and.html

    swmnguy,

    Wolfowitz is just an apologist for what's already been going on. So is Zbigniew Brzezinski. It's the same insane megalomania Kubrick skewered in "Dr. Strangelove." By this time it's gone on long enough the host is being drained dangerously low. But it's not anything new.

    VWAndy ,

    Banker wars and fiat games in a never ending cycle.

    rainingFrogs,

    Well this information removal strategy seems to be working quite well.

    We had some dinner guests over, and the topic of the situation in Ukraine came up. I took the position that the US/EU helped stage the coup that tossed the elected government of Yanukovych, and that the current government is illegitimate, not to mention Nazi thugs. And that the trigger was Yanukovych intending to accept the Russian bail-out, turning his back on the punitive EU austerity program. I didn't even get into the US being pissed at Russia for blocking their Syrian/Assad regime change operation at the UN security council, and were intent on making Russia pay for their insolence.

    Our guests were incredulous that I took that position, accusing me of falling for Russian propaganda. Their view is that it was a popular rebellion against a corrupt government, that Russia illegally and forcibly annexed Crimea, and that Russia continues to kill Ukrainians on Ukrainian soil. Any US involvement is/was for the good of the Ukrainian people.

    Mission accomplished. And I don't see it changing. MSM blankets North America with western propaganda so thoroughly that otherwise intelligent people don't recognize it as such. Espousing an alternative worldview, and one gets labelled a conspiracy nut or a Putin sympathizer. Sooo Orwellian.

    [Mar 07, 2016] Will Russia End Up Controlling 73% of Global Oil Supply

    OilPrice.com
    Though Iran hasn't committed to a production freeze, since it wants to ramp up production to pre-sanction levels, Russian Energy Minister Aleksander Novak has noted that "Iran has a special situation as the country is at its lowest levels of production. So I think, it might be approached individually, with a separate solution."

    With all the major Gulf nations agreeing, Iraq, which is without a credible political leadership, will also likely follow suit if Russia assures them of stronger support against ISIS.

    If the above scenario plays out, Russia will emerge as the de facto leader of the major oil producing nations of the world, accounting for almost 73 percent of the global oil supply.

    Related: It's Time For Canadian Oil To Re-Shuffle, Re-shape And Rebound

    Along with this, Russia has been in the forefront of plans to move away from Petrodollars, and Moscow has formed pacts with various nations to trade oil in local currencies. With this new cartel of ROPEC (Russia and OPEC nations), a move away from petrodollars will become a reality sooner rather than later.

    Russia is smart. Vladimir Putin is genius. Moscow senses the opportunity that is almost tangibly floating about in the low crude price environment and appears to be ready to capitalize on it in a way that would reshape the geopolitical landscape exponentially.

    [Mar 06, 2016] Saudis Awarded Frances Highest National Honor For Fight Against Terrorism Zero Hedge

    Notable quotes:
    "... the ISIS that made it ..."
    www.zerohedge.com

    There is perhaps no more perverse relationship in the world than that which exists between the West and Saudi Arabia - or, "the ISIS that made it," as Kamel Daoud, a columnist for Quotidien d'Oran, and the author of "The Meursault Investigation" calls the kingdom.

    We've been over and over the glaring absurdity inherent in the fact that the US and its partners consider the kingdom to be an "ally" in the fight against terrorism and you can read more in the article linked above, but the problem is quite simply this: the Saudis promote and export an ultra orthodox, ultra puritanical brand of Sunni Islam that is virtually indistinguishable from that espoused by ISIS, al-Qaeda, and many of the other militant groups the world generally identifies with "terrorism."

    Wahhabism - championed by the Saudis - is poisonous, backward, and fuels sectarian strife as well as international terrorism. That's not our opinion. It's a fact.

    But hey, Riyadh has all of the oil, so no harm, no foul right?

    Even as the very same ideals exported by Riyadh inspire the ISIS jihad, the kingdom is so sure it has the political world in its pocket that it sought a seat on the UN Human Rights Council, even as the country continues to carry out record numbers of executions.

    They even had the nerve to establish what they called a 34-state Islamic military alliance against terrorism in December. Of course the members don't include Shiite Iran (the Saudis' mortal enemy) or Shiite Iraq, both of which are actually fighting terror rather than bombing civilians in Yemen and engaging in Wahhabist proselytizing.

    But while everyone in the world is well aware of just how silly the "alliance" is, the farce will apparently continue as French President Francois Hollande on Friday awarded Crown Prince Mohammed bin Naif France's highest national honor, the Legion of Honor for "for his efforts in the region and around the world to combat extremism and terrorism."

    [Mar 04, 2016] After southern setbacks can Bernie Sanders revolution just be white?

    Notable quotes:
    "... you mean like superpredators? Hillary has gone from working for Goldwater to stop the civil rights movement in its tracks, to working for Goldman sachs. ..."
    "... Stop scapegoating blacks. Why don't you blame Hispanics? They voted for her over Sanders 2 to 1 in Texas. ..."
    "... To the race issue: Black voters didn't reject Sanders' platform, this is a bunch of nonsense. They rejected, in part, the unknown. Black people in the South are SOUTHERNERS. Yes, they are also Black, a demographic in which there exists substantial diversity that many overlook, but Southerners tend to be conservative, and this has to do with the issue of Southern identity more generally, which isn't irrelevant to black folks. ..."
    "... Another point: Blacks in the South may not feel they have the luxury to risk their vote on an idealistic candidate they don't really know, even if they like his ideas. ..."
    "... Hispanic voters voted strongly for Bernie in Colorado. Perhaps African-Americans living in the South need to find out Sanders positions prior to voting for Hillary. Some of his positions might have been more in line with their thinking now that it is 2016. ..."
    "... the Clintons have vacationed there for many years; they raise a lot of money there and are extremely well-connected with the MA Dem Machine, which is one of the most highly organized in the country. The Boston Globe and the rest of the MSM were for her. There is a long history. In 2008, Hillary beat Obama in MA by 15.4%, and that's with Ted Kennedy endorsing Obama. ..."
    "... So, for Bernie to get within 2 points of her is an amazingly strong showing. Knock it off with the "liberal state Sanders should have won" - this is just a MSM line trying to make Bernie's strong showing look weak. Not the case. ..."
    "... Hey, guess what? There are all different kinds of black people. I suppose that might be a little difficult for MSM to understand. Black people have regional differences, just like white people do. Yes, really. ..."
    "... Last I checked, African Americans and self-identifying "black" people constituted about 13 percent of U.S. population and, thanks to mandatory sentencing policies adopted or enacted under the [Bill] Clinton administration, actually make up an even smaller percentage of Americans eligible to vote. ..."
    "... How, then, did the Democratic Party decide to make its nominating process so skewed toward minority voters in Southern states the eventual Democratic nominee might be less likely to carry? But let's ignore, for the moment, the structural 'rigging' of a primary schedule ..."
    "... Goldman Sachs ran the Clinton White House and has paid Hillary hundreds of thousands in "speaker's fees". Goldman owns her. ..."
    "... Bernie Sanders did lead the civil rights movement and joined CORE,at the expense of his studies at the University of Chicago! He was arrested in a demonstration against discrimination in housing! Why do you mock this? And why do African Americans not recognize the good will of Sanders? What about anti-semitism? ..."
    "... It really has not been demonstrated that Goldman Sachs and HRC connection are all that bad. An excellent article about it all... http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2009/06/is-goldman-sachs-the-root-of-all-evil/20210 / ..."
    "... Clinton was nearly mocking Sanders' positions until she saw how many people they resonate with, and then she simply adopted them for herself. But the problem with that is she every few days runs back to Wall Street ( or Wall Street comes to her ) to have her meetings with Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs and Jamie Dimin at Chase and a few 'BFF' hedge fund managers to get her marching orders and some money and then she heads back out on the trail talking tough about breaking up the big banks, "if they need to be broken up". ..."
    "... The majority of blacks, 55%, live in the South, yet the DNC has seen fit to upload those Red/Black states in the nomination process, knowing full well that they are Republican states. Where is the logic in that? ..."
    "... African Americans could have closed this deal. I think they have made a "huge" mistake, Hillary will do nothing for the poor in general. But we will see I guess ..."
    "... It is rather remarkable how the Bush/Obama regime candidate - Clinton - specifically chose to play the black race card. That won't go over well with the white majority. ..."
    "... Clinton promised to break down all the barriers, barriers of race, sexism, class.....is that possible? or is there a certain level of rhetoric being used in political campaigns? and are you biased in your assesment? ..."
    "... Right on with regard to old FDR! That man had courage and a big heart. But you and I are a bit older than most voters, I presume, so we get the whole FDR thing easily -- in my case, the connection is through my parents, both of whom were tough-as-nails Depression-Era people. My point is that Bernie's a well-read, very bright guy, an intellectual -- it isn't that people "gasp with fear," it's more like they're looking for something not so directly based on economics, and Bernie doesn't seem to give them that. ..."
    "... Trump does better with low educational voters...as Does Clinton - take a moment to think about your bias here, you automatically state "Well trump voters are idiots cause they obviously haven't all the information I have about trump but clinton voters are smart because they agree with me" ..."
    "... Sanders is not going to win 500 delegates from California-- nobody is, since the delegate count is proportional. To keep to your example, a best case scenario for Sanders would be just to *win* California, since he's behind in all the polls. But that isn't good enough at this point. He has to rack up huge margins in California (and other big states) to close the lopsided 80/20 results across the south. That is not going to happen. ..."
    "... Exactly. The US has a far right party and a center right party. Bernie, who's basically a Social Democrat, chose to run as part of the center right party. And bizzarely, he and his supporters wonder why he doesn't get more traction and why the party insiders are against him. ..."
    "... Well out of touch black southern voters may keep it mainstream with Hillary on this one but Bernie has caused enough of a disruption that she has had to rewrite many of her strategies. At least it exposes just how bad at being consistent she is to those who pay attention. I never thought I would have to but Trump it is. Thanks for your votes/ voices being heard. "Duh, votins fun. I wish we could do this more than once every 4 years." ..."
    "... He won Colorado, why? The Latino vote!!! "The entire Democratic congressional delegation in Colorado supports Hillary Clinton-the Democratic governor, John W. Hickenlooper, here supports Hillary Clinton; former U.S. Secretary of the Interior and U.S. Senator Ken Salazar supports Hillary Clinton; the mayor of Denver; the former mayor of Denver. And yet Hillary Clinton lost to Bernie Sanders here in Colorado by what looks like about 20 points." -- The Nation. ..."
    "... It's way off topic, but my favorite Mencken quote was, "We have to respect the other man's religion, but only in the same way, and to the same extent, that we have to respect his belief that his wife is beautiful and his kids are smart." ..."
    "... Not really a better America for all, just a better America for the 99%. As it turns out, the vast majority don't matter. History has always shown that the vast majority don't matter. 1% moneyed people with a lot of influence, can easily sway a huge swathe of the great unwashed to simply do their bidding. ..."
    "... If you want to take a break from yet another Shillary article see here where it says Hillary finds common ground with disgraced Tom Delay http://www.star-telegram.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/politex-blog/article53787095.html ..."
    "... Identity politics is overshadowing class politics. This is a sad turn of events at a time when class inequality is larger than it has ever been - and at a time when poverty corresponds overwhelmingly with race. ..."
    "... That and the fact that the Guardian has been repeating Clintons talking points that "He wan'ts to demolish Obamacare" - No he doesn't, the implication is that he will repeal Obamacare and then try for new healthcare that may or may not be succesful - it's not true but southern blacks have bought it, hook, line and sinker ..."
    "... Not to mention that in 2008, Hillary won Massachusetts by a large margin over Barack Obama, demonstrating both her strength in that state and how amazingly well-run the Sanders campaign was this year. At the time, people also said it was the the death knell of Obama's campaign. Of course, he then went on to do extremely well in the west and north, which Bernie may or may not do. But to say his very close 2nd in Massachusetts means he's done is not accurate or historical. ..."
    "... The statement ... "the former secretary of state is now well on the road to reaching the 2,383 total needed to win the nomination, leading Sanders by 1,001 to 371" is disingenuous. The actual totals are HRC 596, Bernie 399. http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/delegate-targets/democrats / The Guardian has added superdelegates in their numbers. These superdelegates can change their mind at any time before the convention and historically will honor the candidate who get the most delegates through primaries and caucus'. ..."
    "... For anyone who needs a non-Guardian perspective on same: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/why-bernie-sanders-won-su_b_9363416.html ..."
    "... Bernie does not do poisonous identity politics. That's a Clinton specialty. my real news from The Young Turks even though I'm over 50. ..."
    "... Sad thing is that it isn't a lie. In 2008 the superdelegates could switch from one Establishment candidate (Hillary) to another Establishment candidate (Obama). But Bernie isn't establishment. Superdelegates know that if they switch to him, their careers as Party hacks are over. ..."
    "... remember warren used to be republican. she is pretty militaristic, coming from a military family ..."
    "... Grauniad playing the race card on behalf of its darling corporatist warmonger. How utterly predictable. ..."
    "... I agree that Elizabeth Warren has shown herself to be a coward. ..."
    "... The Guardian needs to find a new Bureau Chief or start paying him more than the Clinton Machine. Or is MSNBC trying to buy the Guardian, and just has you trying out the Company standard line? ..."
    "... Can someone actually explain to me the difference between Bill Clinton and George Bush's Sr. presidency? Outside of actually balancing the budget, I don't see that much difference between both presidencies... . ..."
    "... With Clinton, though? There is SO much baggage going in that the level of discourse will never go beyond Benghazi, emails, Whitewater, the Iraq war, President Clinton's affairs and impeachment hearings, tax problems, etc. ..."
    "... Additionally, if the Republicans actually wanted to go up against Sanders and not Clinton, their rhetoric would reflect that. They, like many members of the establishment, are treating Clinton as the presumptive winner and licking their chops waiting to get to her. If they wanted Sanders instead, they would be propping him up as "the" candidate, thus galvanizing his legitimacy in the race. ..."
    "... I used to be able to read articles in The Guardian and glean what was really happening by reading between the lines. Now they just insult our intelligence, and though a few decent writers remain in their employ, there really isn't much of substance. Just asinine puffery. ..."
    "... It seems that on number of issues, healthcare, foreign intervention, Wall St, Trump is actually on the LEFT of Clinton. ..."
    "... on the whole, he is actually a good deal more liberal than Clinton. ..."
    "... The media seem to be willing a Clinton win and are desperate to have us believe her nomination is a given. What they don't realise is that this is 2016 and this sort of spinning only strengthens peoples resolve to stick behind the only truly progressive candidate and probably dig another few dollars in donation. ..."
    "... Said it before and I'll say it again, MLK is rolling in his grave. ..."
    "... Black leadership has let us down. Clearly, they're on the payroll. ..."
    "... I know many of them don't think he does. That's because the American people are pretty dumb, by and large. The fact remains that Bill Clinton sold out leftist, liberal views and values. From three strikes and mandatory minimums, expanding the death penalty, deregulating Wall Street, shipping American industry out of the country, slashing capital gains tax rates, demonizing and slashing the welfare safety net, Don't Ask, Don't Tell and the Defense of Marriage Act, it's quite demonstrably true that the man owes American liberals an apology. ..."
    "... The establishment grief of the Guardian is just so obvious. I'm literally disgusted by the relentless shilling of this newspaper rag for a deeply corrupt Wall Street owned candidate like Shillary. ..."
    "... Clinton is winning the black vote without having ever really done a thing to deserve it. Sanders has much more of an actual participatory record in the Civil Rights movement. ..."
    "... Make that NEO-liberal not liberal that seems to be happy keeping people like you in power. ..."
    "... She very obviously did not win the youth vote ..."
    "... The establishment are TERRIFIED of Sanders - because with Hillary they know they can control her with money! Just listen to her speech last night, and it literally was a compilation of platitudes! In terms of speaking without actually saying anything she is as bad as Trump! ..."
    "... She has e-mails PROVING she has been actively campaigning FOR nafta and TTIP! ..."
    "... Fast running out of patience with the Guardian and its bias for Clinton. This article is biased, it is rooted in hunches. ..."
    The Guardian
    freepedestrian R. Ben Madison link

    Horse feathers. Sanders has supported civil rights since before Clinton was a GOLDWATER GIRL! He put his life on the line for civil rights and got arrested for his trouble.

    pretzelattack R. Ben Madison , 2016-03-03 05:40:40

    you mean like superpredators? Hillary has gone from working for Goldwater to stop the civil rights movement in its tracks, to working for Goldman sachs.
    freepedestrian , 2016-03-03 05:39:50
    What a nasty smear. The support for Senator Sanders comes from all races. He has also been embraces by many black civil rights leaders and others. I'm sick of the media and its attacks on Bernie.
    arbmahla lodger16 , 2016-03-03 05:22:17
    Stop scapegoating blacks. Why don't you blame Hispanics? They voted for her over Sanders 2 to 1 in Texas.
    lodger16 , 2016-03-03 05:01:22
    Yes, he can and must win without blacks, because they have opted out of a role in a progressive movement. At least for now in the South. They chose staus quo and Madame Secretary Establishment.
    The Southern states Hillary won Tuesday are Deep Red Republican states she cannot possibly win in NOV. So writers pushing the idea it's over are exagerrating, or worse.
    Turnout has been very low in America for decades, if Sanders can turn out just a few first time voters he can overcome Hillary's Big Money advantages.
    I have never seen before now liberals insist that The Word of The South is final, demanding Sanders' immediate surrender at Appamattox Courthouse. They're scared of a new coalition Madame Secretary Establishment can't control.
    IanB52 MonotonousLanguor , 2016-03-03 04:53:49
    All this, even after Warren let Massachusetts go to Clinton by a hair while standing on the sideline.
    HowardFineHoward JackGC , 2016-03-03 04:46:20

    White liberals would NEVER vote for a Republican.

    For Hillary? Sure.

    AllyDavies , 2016-03-03 04:41:34
    This article is trying to be clever, but comes off as snarky. Never mind that, though. The bigger problem is that it lacks any context, historical or otherwise, about the United States and its politics, demographics, and culture. It seems that the writer doesn't have a very deep understanding of such things, which The Guardian may want to consider when it hires journalists to cover the U.S..

    Of course the "revolution" that Sanders is touting can't be all white, and his supporters would be the first to tell you that (I am one of them, and white, grew up in South Carolina, and have worked for racial justice for some time now). It's just simply ridiculous to state that African Americans' voting preferences on Super Tuesday was a "withering refutation of the central premise of [Sanders'] campaign: that an overthrow of the billionaire class is possible if ordinary Americans come together as one." Where do I start? First, the premise of Sanders' campaign is that the system is rigged - that even when ordinary people play by the rules, they get screwed economically. It's not that different from what Obama has said many times, it's just that his solutions are different.

    Sanders never said his campaign alone would "overthrow" the billionaire class. His campaign must be seen in a larger historical context - which is not provided in this article - that includes Occupy Wall Street, the strong and growing labor movement in the U.S. focused on the abysmal situation of fast food and Wal-Mart-type workers, and yes, even racial justice movements such as Black Lives Matter. The point this article misses - egregiously - is that movements are not built in an election cycle, and that again, Sanders' campaign is part of a much greater trajectory that involves much more than electoral politics.

    That's why Sanders is so persistent, I believe, because he knows that what he is doing is helping to build that sense of belief in something more just. Over sometimes very long periods of time, enough ordinary people eventually CAN come together and, as you say, "overthrow the billionaire class." It's just that it's going to take much more than one election to do that. What's amazing is that so many people are willing to work for a better country even though they know -- and Sanders knows this full well since he is 74 -- that they won't be around to see the fruits of those efforts.

    To the race issue: Black voters didn't reject Sanders' platform, this is a bunch of nonsense. They rejected, in part, the unknown. Black people in the South are SOUTHERNERS. Yes, they are also Black, a demographic in which there exists substantial diversity that many overlook, but Southerners tend to be conservative, and this has to do with the issue of Southern identity more generally, which isn't irrelevant to black folks. You have to understand that Blacks in the South are not politicized in the same way that Blacks in other parts of the country, such as New York City or Boston or Oakland are.

    The South has a totally different labor history (very anti-union), for example, which has been the context in which the working-class has developed its expectations of what is politically possible. Somebody like Bernie Sanders, who is a classic Northeastern (Jewish) Leftist, is very culturally alien (and don't even get me started on the long history of animosity between the Northeast and the South - which also plays into this). So to expect Blacks to vote for Sanders just because of his ideas, without really knowing him (and eight visits is not a lot compared to Clinton's history with South Carolina) is unfair.

    Another point: Blacks in the South may not feel they have the luxury to risk their vote on an idealistic candidate they don't really know, even if they like his ideas. They haven't exactly been in a social position to vie for such dreams as free education, a decent social safety net, etc., whereas whites are more accustomed to demanding things and having those demands met. This may also explain some of the racial divide. I am not trying to say that white Liberals/Leftists don't have a lot of work to do on race; nor am I saying that Sanders didn't make big mistakes in his campaign with regard to his message in the South (Spike Lee, for instance, may not be the best person to move Southern Blacks). But to trash his whole campaign as just an all-white "protest" movement is just a gross oversimplification, and missing the point entirely.

    999Jasper OneRedBottle , 2016-03-03 04:21:30

    Bernie needs to win 53% of the remaining delegates to take a non 'superdelegate' lead to the convention. Not unfeasible by any stretch

    Impossible? No. Feasible? Not really. Sanders has won about 38% of the pledged delegates so far. What makes you think he's going to go from 38 to 53 points from here on out? No doubt he'll win a few remaining states by large margins, but that's not going to be enough to boost his aggregate numbers up enough, given the fact that the remaining large states -- NY, California, Ohio, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Florida, New Jersey -- all look at least as Hillary friendly as Massachusetts (where Clinton won). There are also a number of states with high black populations left, including Louisiana, Arkansas, Michigan and Missouri.

    Sure, a black swan event could get Bernie back in it. But that's what it'll take.

    Jane Marie Law Giacamo , 2016-03-03 04:06:52
    Yes. Here. Here. The Guardian is now a fox news llite on this. Wonder what the Clintons paid for this.
    lavala Zorroremade , 2016-03-03 04:02:01
    Hispanic voters voted strongly for Bernie in Colorado. Perhaps African-Americans living in the South need to find out Sanders positions prior to voting for Hillary. Some of his positions might have been more in line with their thinking now that it is 2016.
    Othnocerus peter nelson , 2016-03-03 03:50:03
    This is a canard. There are many reasons why Hillary did well in MA: the Clintons have vacationed there for many years; they raise a lot of money there and are extremely well-connected with the MA Dem Machine, which is one of the most highly organized in the country. The Boston Globe and the rest of the MSM were for her. There is a long history. In 2008, Hillary beat Obama in MA by 15.4%, and that's with Ted Kennedy endorsing Obama.

    So, for Bernie to get within 2 points of her is an amazingly strong showing. Knock it off with the "liberal state Sanders should have won" - this is just a MSM line trying to make Bernie's strong showing look weak. Not the case.

    RobertHickson2014 JackGC , 2016-03-03 03:49:41
    There are not enough minority votes to compensate for losing 80% of the white voters.

    The DNC has totally miscalculate the political climate of the electorate. Those white voters that are angry at the rigged economy and income inequality are going to Trump.

    Bernie Sanders has the right message, but is being stifled by the party elite who want a return to the 1990s.

    bloggod , 2016-03-03 03:41:11
    the author of the article, Dan Roberts, has been slanting for Clinton for many months.

    Senator Sanders did as well or better in 5 states, winning progressive enclaves, rural areas, and Oklahoma.

    What this article purports is more of the same undercutting dishonesty.

    RobertHickson2014 R. Ben Madison , 2016-03-03 03:31:00
    States vie for earlier primaries to claim greater influence in the nomination process, as the early primaries can act as a signal to the nation, showing which candidates are popular and giving those who perform well early on the advantage of the bandwagon effect.

    In such a primary season, however, many primaries will fall on the same day, forcing candidates to choose where to spend their time and resources.

    Indeed, Super Tuesday was created deliberately to increase the influence of the South. Moreover, a compressed calendar limits the ability of lesser-known candidates to corral resources and raise their visibility among voters, especially when a better-known candidate enjoys the financial and institutional backing of the party establishment.

    So if, the northern or western states would now want to change there primary dates, and have their own 'Super Monday', the penalties would be harsh.

    For Democrats, states violating these rules will be penalized half of their pledged delegates and all of their Super Delegates.

    So, in effect, the non representative nature of the southern Super Tuesday is locked in place. I rest my case.

    funnynought , 2016-03-03 03:25:01
    Hey, guess what? There are all different kinds of black people. I suppose that might be a little difficult for MSM to understand. Black people have regional differences, just like white people do. Yes, really.
    europeangrayling o_lobo_solitario , 2016-03-03 03:13:59
    He will likely not win, but that's just wrong what you are saying. He is losing big with African-Americans, between 80-90% depending on the state voted for Hillary so far, that's true, and that's his biggest hurdle and why Hillary was able run up the score on him in the south.

    But he won with Latinos in Nevada and Colorado, probably not in Texas, but still not bad, and he is actually beating Hillary with working class whites and independents big time, and that includes moderate and conservative whites.
    While Hillary is beating him with middle aged white women and women over 65, and people over 65 in general, that's also true. But the fact that it's just 'white liberals' and young people who are for Bernie is not true.

    In fact, the 2008 and 2016 primary voter groups have completely switched this year, and Bernie is getting most of the white working class voters who voted for Hillary over Obama in 2008, while Hillary is getting the African-American vote overwhelmingly, and is probably still slightly up with the Latino vote overall, and Hillary is also getting white people making over $200,000 a year, but not by huge margins like with African-Americans.

    CraigieBob , 2016-03-03 03:08:22
    Last I checked, African Americans and self-identifying "black" people constituted about 13 percent of U.S. population and, thanks to mandatory sentencing policies adopted or enacted under the [Bill] Clinton administration, actually make up an even smaller percentage of Americans eligible to vote.

    How, then, did the Democratic Party decide to make its nominating process so skewed toward minority voters in Southern states the eventual Democratic nominee might be less likely to carry? But let's ignore, for the moment, the structural 'rigging' of a primary schedule that allows such small percentages of voters to choose the nominee and ask why African Americans, who got very little beyond lip service and pleasing optícs from Barack Obama, would now believe that they can expect any better from Hillary Clinton (who promises to do little else than continue the Obama program, or whatever remains of it, at this point). I'm suspecting that Afrcan American voters don't know enough about either Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton -- neither what he could do FOR them nor what she has sad and done TO them.

    MKB1234 , 2016-03-03 02:41:02
    The tactics that Hillary and her husband are employing show they are still very much worried about Bernie.

    Go Bernie go!!

    RandomMusings Haynonnynonny , 2016-03-03 02:22:22
    Goldman Sachs ran the Clinton White House and has paid Hillary hundreds of thousands in "speaker's fees". Goldman owns her.
    Giacamo , 2016-03-03 02:17:15
    I am really astounded at the cynical and unsympathetic Guardian stance on Sanders! I thought you might deal with the substance of the Sanders message about the need to destroy the strangle hold that the U. S. Oligarchy has on politics and how they have damaged the country by pursuing their own economic interests at the expense of the general public. Instead, you parrot the U. S. media by treating it all as a spectator sport--concentrating on tactics and strategies rather than substance and mocking his losses in southern republican states?

    You might ask why African American voters have supported Hillary Clinton when her husband's trade policies, welfare policies, and crime sentencing policies so harmed them?

    What does that say about the political consciousness, or the lack thereof, of the U. S. electorate?

    Bernie Sanders did lead the civil rights movement and joined CORE,at the expense of his studies at the University of Chicago! He was arrested in a demonstration against discrimination in housing! Why do you mock this? And why do African Americans not recognize the good will of Sanders? What about anti-semitism?

    You might deal with some deeper analysis of U. S. society and politics rather than this cynical and superficial journalism that is slanted in support of the existed rotten social and economic order?

    Haynonnynonny sbabcock , 2016-03-03 02:15:50
    It really has not been demonstrated that Goldman Sachs and HRC connection are all that bad. An excellent article about it all... http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2009/06/is-goldman-sachs-the-root-of-all-evil/20210 /
    sbabcock , 2016-03-03 02:01:33
    Clinton was nearly mocking Sanders' positions until she saw how many people they resonate with, and then she simply adopted them for herself. But the problem with that is she every few days runs back to Wall Street ( or Wall Street comes to her ) to have her meetings with Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs and Jamie Dimin at Chase and a few 'BFF' hedge fund managers to get her marching orders and some money and then she heads back out on the trail talking tough about breaking up the big banks, "if they need to be broken up".
    RobertHickson2014 , 2016-03-03 02:00:53
    One really has to start questioning the over influence of Blacks in the Democratic Party.

    The majority of blacks, 55%, live in the South, yet the DNC has seen fit to upload those Red/Black states in the nomination process, knowing full well that they are Republican states. Where is the logic in that?

    It makes as much sense as if the Republicans upload all the New England states and California in their process.

    Logic would dictate that a hard right conservative wouldn't make it and it's being shown that a true progressive can't win in the Democratic Party rigged system.

    atkurebeach , 2016-03-03 01:59:44
    African Americans could have closed this deal. I think they have made a "huge" mistake, Hillary will do nothing for the poor in general. But we will see I guess
    taxhaven , 2016-03-03 01:56:58
    It is rather remarkable how the Bush/Obama regime candidate - Clinton - specifically chose to play the black race card. That won't go over well with the white majority.

    President Trump!

    Mshand peter nelson , 2016-03-03 01:05:51
    Independents love Bernie over Hillary, and thats what the general is about, who do independents and libertarians hate less - clinton or bernie? you think the right are not going to bring up FBI, emails, benghazi? not saying it's fair, but neither is it fair of them to hate leftists for being leftists

    The point is Hillary is not a favourable general election candidate

    Mshand peter nelson , 2016-03-03 01:02:19
    Clinton promised to break down all the barriers, barriers of race, sexism, class.....is that possible? or is there a certain level of rhetoric being used in political campaigns? and are you biased in your assesment?
    impledino Will Morgan , 2016-03-03 00:54:28
    Right on with regard to old FDR! That man had courage and a big heart. But you and I are a bit older than most voters, I presume, so we get the whole FDR thing easily -- in my case, the connection is through my parents, both of whom were tough-as-nails Depression-Era people. My point is that Bernie's a well-read, very bright guy, an intellectual -- it isn't that people "gasp with fear," it's more like they're looking for something not so directly based on economics, and Bernie doesn't seem to give them that.

    American social life and politics are labyrinthine, so one "master discourse" isn't capable of dealing with it all. All the same, I admire Bernie Sanders' courage and convictions. I mentioned in another post (about Ben Carson) that running for president diminishes most people who dare attempt it. That hasn't been the case with Bernie. If anything and no matter what the outcome, his campaign is showing us what a wise and wonderful man he is.

    Mshand justdoug , 2016-03-03 00:47:06
    Trump does better with low educational voters...as Does Clinton - take a moment to think about your bias here, you automatically state "Well trump voters are idiots cause they obviously haven't all the information I have about trump but clinton voters are smart because they agree with me"

    The demos tell us, the dumber you are, the more likely you will vote for clinton and trump

    Herr_Settembrini MooseMcNaulty , 2016-03-03 00:45:40
    Sanders is not going to win 500 delegates from California-- nobody is, since the delegate count is proportional. To keep to your example, a best case scenario for Sanders would be just to *win* California, since he's behind in all the polls. But that isn't good enough at this point. He has to rack up huge margins in California (and other big states) to close the lopsided 80/20 results across the south. That is not going to happen.

    If the Democratic primary were more like the Republican one (with lots of winner take all contests), it would still be anyone's game. However, that is simply not the case. The Democratic primary is set up to reward the candidate with the broadest coalition of supporters, and this year that person is Clinton.

    peter nelson jmonty , 2016-03-03 00:33:31
    Exactly. The US has a far right party and a center right party. Bernie, who's basically a Social Democrat, chose to run as part of the center right party. And bizzarely, he and his supporters wonder why he doesn't get more traction and why the party insiders are against him.

    If Jeremy Corbyn tried to run as a Tory what kind of welcome do you think he would get?

    IanB52 Herr_Settembrini , 2016-03-03 00:29:27
    What she is doing here is stifling Democracy, and denying the public meaningful say in who runs the country and how. Using the party establishment in absolute lockstep to keep the electorate out in the cold is staunchly anti-democratic. She really thinks she has the right to control the entire party and the nomination process in her favor.

    We already know she is an authoritarian. She is a staunch imperialist, supports NSA spying, the national security state, protects torture, executive power, endless wars, the war on drugs, mass incarceration, and we know that she stands for the richest and most powerful factions in society.

    This sounds autocratic to me.

    TIM Anderson , 2016-03-03 00:29:03
    Well out of touch black southern voters may keep it mainstream with Hillary on this one but Bernie has caused enough of a disruption that she has had to rewrite many of her strategies. At least it exposes just how bad at being consistent she is to those who pay attention. I never thought I would have to but Trump it is. Thanks for your votes/ voices being heard. "Duh, votins fun. I wish we could do this more than once every 4 years."
    Z8r00k1yN , 2016-03-03 00:27:16
    He won Colorado, why? The Latino vote!!! "The entire Democratic congressional delegation in Colorado supports Hillary Clinton-the Democratic governor, John W. Hickenlooper, here supports Hillary Clinton; former U.S. Secretary of the Interior and U.S. Senator Ken Salazar supports Hillary Clinton; the mayor of Denver; the former mayor of Denver. And yet Hillary Clinton lost to Bernie Sanders here in Colorado by what looks like about 20 points." -- The Nation.
    Nate Dogg , 2016-03-03 00:24:54
    More than likely the smart Sanders strategists know that winning or losing these early primaries doesn't really matter, not in the long run, just do enough to keep Sanders in the running, but keep your powder dry.

    In a month, maybe 6 weeks, charges should be laid against Clinton, and that will be her campaign done. Sanders needs to simply hold on till then, at which point he'll default to being the Democratic candidate.

    My 2 cents.

    MooseMcNaulty MonotonousLanguor , 2016-03-03 00:16:17
    It's way off topic, but my favorite Mencken quote was, "We have to respect the other man's religion, but only in the same way, and to the same extent, that we have to respect his belief that his wife is beautiful and his kids are smart."
    sbabcock Barry Smith , 2016-03-03 00:12:14
    Yeah, that's funny, incarcerations of black men went up during Bill Clinton. Hmm, interesting...
    Nate Dogg MonotonousLanguor , 2016-03-03 00:12:12
    Not really a better America for all, just a better America for the 99%. As it turns out, the vast majority don't matter. History has always shown that the vast majority don't matter. 1% moneyed people with a lot of influence, can easily sway a huge swathe of the great unwashed to simply do their bidding.

    Hence, so many uneducated imbeciles are happy to vote against their own interests. Please, heap on the vitriolic nonsense, calling me bigoted, etc, but it doesn't change anything. The majority of voters have happily voted against their own interests, and not even bothered realising that they're done it.

    Mary Titus pretzelattack , 2016-03-03 00:10:32
    Because Americans are so distrustful of our media sources at this point, that we've started reading foreign media sources. I think someone took notice.
    sbabcock , 2016-03-03 00:02:12
    If you want to take a break from yet another Shillary article see here where it says Hillary finds common ground with disgraced Tom Delay http://www.star-telegram.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/politex-blog/article53787095.html
    DrKropotkin , 2016-03-02 23:51:29
    http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-02-29/super-tuesday-predictions-point-to-trump-clinton-rout

    Here is a Bloomberg article from a few days ago, just before Super tuesday. It predicts Clinton will win every state except Vermont. I.e., 10 out of 11. Now that Sanders actually won 4, Bloomberg just whistles past, pretends it didn't happen and gets it's next set of lies ready.

    It's not just Bloomberg of course, it's every establishment rag that has been banging on about of Clinton's inevitability, without any evidence other than - well, it's Clinton.

    A lot of savvy pundits, that I have learned to trust over the years are saying Sanders has a better than 50-50 chance of being the nominee. Every time you see the Guardian or it's ilk tell you why Clinton is a certainty, remember they don't even believe this, It's editorial policy.

    We don't know why the Guardian has chosen Clinton as their candidate but we have discovered the motives for other outlets. The Daily Beast for example upset a lot of it's readers by gunning for Hillary. The Daily Beast is a part of the IAC group, which boasts owning over 150 websites. The following page lists their board of directors, one name stands out - Chelsea Clinton. http://iac.com/about/leadership

    Barry Smith , 2016-03-02 23:46:29
    The reason Sanders is getting no cut through with black voters is nothing to do with his failure to communicate or his offer, which would actually help the black community far more than Hillary - from education to minimum wage and health insurance. It also has little to do with Hillary. It's to do with Bill. He was and is incredibly popular with black voters across the whole of the USA and did a lot of good work for true equality, so much so that he was even known as 'the first black president'. He's also seen as a true Democrat hero and it's no surprise that he spent his last day of Super Tuesday canvassing in Massachusetts, home of Democrat royalty, which could well have swung that state. How Jeb must regret his family legacy.
    MonotonousLanguor , 2016-03-02 23:43:39
    Bernie has been criticized for running with the Class Struggle Idea, i.e., the 99% vs 1%. The Media Pundits said he would have to sharpen up the message to include African-American Democrats. He did that and still lost the African-American Vote.

    Everyone would benefit from a higher minimum wage, Medicare for all, reining in Wall Street and a free College Education. The message is clear Bernie has the promise of a better America for all. If people cannot take the time or effort to educate themselves then perhaps H. L. Mencken was right, - Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public.

    Another quote from Mencken came true when GWB was elected President - On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.

    Tim MacNeill , 2016-03-02 23:39:49
    Identity politics is overshadowing class politics. This is a sad turn of events at a time when class inequality is larger than it has ever been - and at a time when poverty corresponds overwhelmingly with race.
    Mshand kaltnadel , 2016-03-02 23:37:35
    Nah, Liz is playing it smart, she doesn't want the progressive faction in washington to live and die by Bernies campaign. She wants to remain neutral so that she and all other progressives are not written off, discredited by the establishment if Bernie doesn't win.

    Malcom X and MLK didn't agree on tactics, that doesn't make one of them a coward, nor does it make one of them right and the other wrong, it takes all kinds

    MooseMcNaulty IanB52 , 2016-03-02 23:37:17
    Elizabeth Warren isn't endorsing because she wants to have sway with Clinton if she wins. She already knows she would with Bernie. That woman is the power broker for Senate Democrats, and she, and everyone else, knows it. She's going to go along with Clinton, and not actively oppose her in the primary, so she can call in a favor or two during a Clinton administration, if that's the way it pans out. She'll be the one who tries to hold Clinton to her new-found liberalism if she's elected. She's also the only one who might be able to muster the Democratic troops to put a stop to the TPP, TTIP and TISA, which is where I hope she uses her influence. Staying on speaking terms with Clinton is the smart move for her, as much as we'd like to see her on the stump for Bernie.
    jmonty , 2016-03-02 23:36:37
    So perhaps it is not just southern whites who are more conservative. Perhaps that is true also of southern blacks too. Talking class politics is a novelty for most Americans. British readers need to remember that unlike Europe, there is no mass socialist or social democratic party in the U.S. We have two conservative parties basically, one really of the right, the other more moderate.
    Mshand peter nelson , 2016-03-02 23:35:05
    I predicted arrogant Clinton supporters would write a bunch of trash in order to try manifest the reality they want
    Mshand Zaarth , 2016-03-02 23:32:54
    That and the fact that the Guardian has been repeating Clintons talking points that "He wan'ts to demolish Obamacare" - No he doesn't, the implication is that he will repeal Obamacare and then try for new healthcare that may or may not be succesful - it's not true but southern blacks have bought it, hook, line and sinker
    yinyanggrl DesertPear , 2016-03-02 23:30:22
    Not to mention that in 2008, Hillary won Massachusetts by a large margin over Barack Obama, demonstrating both her strength in that state and how amazingly well-run the Sanders campaign was this year. At the time, people also said it was the the death knell of Obama's campaign. Of course, he then went on to do extremely well in the west and north, which Bernie may or may not do. But to say his very close 2nd in Massachusetts means he's done is not accurate or historical.
    rgrabman , 2016-03-02 23:30:08
    What does a primary win in a state whose general election electoral college votes will be going to the other party mean, anyway? OK, so Clinton does well among African-Americans in states that are solidly Republican. I don't think the pundit class has dealt with the demographic fact that Latinos are the larger minority, and that in the so called "swing states" (like Colorado) Sanders is winning and in very large states like California... where Latino support is going to be crucial, there hasn't been any action, yet. As it is, the whole point of "Super Tuesday" has been to knock insurgents out of the running, and it just didn't work this time.
    jgwilson55 , 2016-03-02 23:29:32
    The statement ... "the former secretary of state is now well on the road to reaching the 2,383 total needed to win the nomination, leading Sanders by 1,001 to 371" is disingenuous. The actual totals are HRC 596, Bernie 399. http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/delegate-targets/democrats / The Guardian has added superdelegates in their numbers. These superdelegates can change their mind at any time before the convention and historically will honor the candidate who get the most delegates through primaries and caucus'.

    Do your homework writers!!! :)

    kerfuffler , 2016-03-02 23:28:51
    For anyone who needs a non-Guardian perspective on same: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/why-bernie-sanders-won-su_b_9363416.html
    Thijs Buelens kerfuffler , 2016-03-02 23:28:07
    Yup in Colorado: http://www.democracynow.org/2016/3/2/latino_vote_helps_bernie_sanders_surge
    DesertPear ID0191623 , 2016-03-02 23:26:49
    The Young Turks have had fabulous unbiased reporting, also entertaining, but full of intelligent analysis. It's no coincidence that they are funded largely by their viewers rather than corporations. Also, they have fantastic LIVE coverage during and after primaries and debates. Check it out here https://www.youtube.com/user/TheYoungTurks/featured
    Tomas Ocampo , 2016-03-02 23:26:40
    First, I definitely encourage all of you to read how the political establishment and the elite-controlled media address people like Bernie Sanders: http://portside.org/2016-01-27/seven-stages-establishment-backlash-corbynsanders-edition
    Second, percentages mean nothing (Clinton winning 86% of African-American vote over Bernie's 14%) when we look at just how many people ACTUALLY voted; only 367,000 votes for the Democrats- 30% LESS than in 2008: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-do-the-voting-turnout-numbers-say-about-the-2016-presidential-race /
    The voting population in South Carolina alone is roughly 3 million people (with about 700,000 votes cast on the Republican side). This means only ONE THIRD of people ACTUALLY voted in the primary; to conclude that Sanders lost this one because Blacks voted more for Hillary grossly undermines the real problem: LESS African-Americans actually voted period.
    This can be for many reasons, but I am willing to bet that scheduling less Democratic Party debates, at odd times, and constant scrutiny by the media to sow doubt against Bernie by Hillary and the Democratic Party establishment IS largely what is determining these results. They say that he can't win and support Hillary (without disclosing their own financial interests in her campaign: https://theintercept.com/2016/02/25/tv-pundits-praise-hillary-clinton-on-air-fail-to-disclose-financial-ties-to-her-campaign /), they schedule less coverage on TV for him, they scrutinize his policies, ideas (but not Hillary's), and supposed lack of minority support, and when they see 86-14% they conclude "See, we told you- You should have listened to us."
    There's more to this charade of an election and political system than merely "Sanders lost the Black vote". The Democratic Party will do nothing to mobilize its base if it means Sanders becomes the nominee, and minorities will continue to loose under this status quo enforced by the political establishment because free college for their kids, healthcare for their families, a protected environment, and a US government that works for them is too lofty a goal for us to be striving for. #Feelthatbern
    BaconButty7 , 2016-03-02 23:25:51
    Really, Mr. Roberts, even by your standards this is an appallingly biased article. Have you no shame?
    MooseMcNaulty pretzelattack , 2016-03-02 23:25:13
    Everyone needs to be protected by financial regulation. The history of banking is quite clear. Every ten to fifteen years they overleverage themselves, or invest too heavily in a bubble, and they sink themselves. We removed the Glass-Steagall Act and passed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, and 8 years later they bankrupted themselves, after more than 60 years of largely sound and stable banking. If we've decided that the financial institutions are too important and too interconnected to allow them to fail, then we need regulation to protect these greedy bastards from themselves. The alternative is more than a trillion dollars in taxpayer money every 10 or 15 years to bail them out when they've gone and stuck their feet in it again.
    kerfuffler , 2016-03-02 23:23:09
    Sanders won the Latino vote in both Nevada and Colorado. 20 points win in swing state Colorado? You call this a protest movement? Who wrote this crap?
    There's all the western progressive states and northern to come. I'm glad he has the money to keep going without sucking up to Wall Street, so we can vote for him in California. To keep up with his fundraising Hillz is having to stage a fundraiser where one of the hosts is an NRA lobbyist. Really. And she's going to "take on the NRA"
    The fact that Bernie has the money to do this is the REAL story that no-one is covering. It's historic.
    https://theintercept.com/2016/03/01/nra-lobbyist-will-co-host-clinton-fundraiser /
    Herr_Settembrini pretzelattack , 2016-03-02 23:23:04
    What are you talking about? Shrum didn't consult for Clinton. Dukakis, yes, Gore, yes, Kerry, yes, but not Clinton.
    Anjeska , 2016-03-02 23:18:00
    Bernie does not do poisonous identity politics. That's a Clinton specialty. my real news from The Young Turks even though I'm over 50.
    Mary Titus peter nelson , 2016-03-02 23:14:15
    To quote an analysis of Rushkoff's work:

    "He argues that young people who have used computers and other microchipped devices since infancy will have effortless advantages over their elders in processing information and coping with change when they reach adulthood. Their short attention spans, now disparaged by educators and parents, may be an advantage in coping with the huge mass of disparate bits of information that will bombard the wired person of the 21st century."

    We've been force fed this bullshit our whole lives, and we're just really good at seeing through it now.

    peter nelson MrRico1 , 2016-03-02 23:03:39
    So why couldn't Sanders win Masachusetts, one of the most progressive states in the US, and home to more colleges and universities per-capita (and thus lots of young people - his big supporters) than anywhere else? It's easier to blame the media than to take a good hard look at your campaign.
    Herr_Settembrini IanB52 , 2016-03-02 22:59:03
    "Why would she sit this one out and help hand her home state over the pro-bank and payday lender faction of the Democratic party? The answer is that she doesn't think Bernie will win and is afraid of the consequences of supporting him, just like all the other liberals in Congress. They know there is a steep price to pay to go against a Clinton, and to not fall in line with DNC, and they don't want to be punished."

    1) The evidence for your conspiracy theory is silly. Elizabeth Warren is not afraid to speak out if she wishes. 2) The second part of your post is a classic slippery slope fallacy. Somehow you're moved from Warren not endorsing a candidate to Clinton will be an absolute dictator if elected (even more hilarious since you grant Trump is a fascist and somehow see Clinton as worse than that).

    MrRico1 , 2016-03-02 22:54:49
    To me this looks bad for the Democrats. This block of southern black democrats seem to control the nomination the way white evangelicals control the Republican nomination, but are likewise a minor factor in the actual election. For a start most or all of these states aren't going to go to the democrats anyway. It sounds like a pyrrhic for either party to have a nominee who owes it all to a demographic that won't have such a big say in the actual election.
    zolotoy notmurdoch , 2016-03-02 22:51:02
    Donald Trump is somewhat less likely to start new Middle Eastern wars. Hillary has a proven track record of doing just that, which is one of many reasons this newspaper is in love with her.
    zolotoy pappa john , 2016-03-02 22:44:03
    Sad thing is that it isn't a lie. In 2008 the superdelegates could switch from one Establishment candidate (Hillary) to another Establishment candidate (Obama). But Bernie isn't establishment. Superdelegates know that if they switch to him, their careers as Party hacks are over.
    DesertPear , 2016-03-02 22:43:27
    More capitalist propaganda for Clinton. Remember, it is mainstream media that stands to lose most from a Sanders win. Any effort to get money out of politics must be opposed by media outlets--political campaigns are their CASH COW.
    peter nelson IanB52 , 2016-03-02 22:41:26
    But that's politics and always has been. She's no more ruthless and calculating in that respect than any major, successful politician in either party. Personally I can't stand her and would never vote for her, but I think your complaint about her cutthroat politics is a bit naive. Did you ever see 'House of Cards' ? (I haven't see the recent American remake, but I saw the original on the BBC), and that is exactly how politics works.
    aprestonlane , 2016-03-02 22:41:10
    Another mainstream media hack celebrating the success of the mainstream media's unique ability to to simultaneously ignore Sanders' achievements and Clinton's disastrous racist record.
    pretzelattack IanB52 , 2016-03-02 22:34:53
    remember warren used to be republican. she is pretty militaristic, coming from a military family. she's good on financial reform, may not favor bernie's foreign policy or being a democratic socialist--just because she wants the laws enforced doesn't mean she wants an fdr level change (which is what we need at this point).
    zolotoy , 2016-03-02 22:39:23
    Grauniad playing the race card on behalf of its darling corporatist warmonger. How utterly predictable.
    kaltnadel , 2016-03-02 22:37:06
    There was a significant Hispanic vote in CO.

    I agree that Elizabeth Warren has shown herself to be a coward.

    steveky , 2016-03-02 22:34:41
    First Wolffe, an MSNBC Shill bought and paid for by Corporations, now the Guardians own Bureau Chief regurgitating Wolfie's article, even to using the same graphics.
    And you believe the public stupid enough to believe they are unbiased.

    The Guardian needs to find a new Bureau Chief or start paying him more than the Clinton Machine. Or is MSNBC trying to buy the Guardian, and just has you trying out the Company standard line?

    yinyanggrl Giancarlo , 2016-03-02 22:33:46
    Hear, hear. There has been a massive drop-off in quality since Alan Rusbridger left. A slant is one thing; blatantly superficial, badly researched, regurgitative journalism such has been the level of late is just a shame for this paper that once did far better. But now it has joined the ranks of LCD internet rags that are all about the clicks. I almost hate to give them the satisfaction by clicking on this piece, but it's too important that errors in it be pointed out.
    Baldobilly , 2016-03-02 22:32:13
    Can someone actually explain to me the difference between Bill Clinton and George Bush's Sr. presidency? Outside of actually balancing the budget, I don't see that much difference between both presidencies... .
    Chris Woyton arbmahla , 2016-03-02 22:29:07
    I'm going to have to invoke Occam's Razor here.

    Is it possible that the donations and polling in favor of Sanders is the result of right-wing scheming? I suppose it's possible.

    But is it likely? No, not even close to likely. To the best of my knowledge there has been 1 right-wing sponsored ad criticizing Clinton ( http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/anti-sanders-attack-ad-isnt-quite-what-it-seems-be ). As for mass small donation fund raising by Republicans on the behalf of Sanders - the level of complexity (and money) necessary to execute that is just too large to keep under wraps.

    As for how Sanders will stand up under scrutiny - here's the "trump" card (pun intended). The right wing will dub him a "Socialist" and Bernie will reply "Yup. Socialist. Next question?". He's never shied away from that. In the Republican mind (and I worked for the Libertarian party for a while so I have a little first-hand experience in how the right views the term) that's the kiss of death right there.

    They are myopic in their views and don't understand (or vastly underestimate) how *anyone* could possibly have left-leaning views, let alone be a Progressive.

    Beyond that, they'll have the same talking points on policy they would have with anyone from the Democratic Party, and that's that.

    With Clinton, though? There is SO much baggage going in that the level of discourse will never go beyond Benghazi, emails, Whitewater, the Iraq war, President Clinton's affairs and impeachment hearings, tax problems, etc.

    Additionally, if the Republicans actually wanted to go up against Sanders and not Clinton, their rhetoric would reflect that. They, like many members of the establishment, are treating Clinton as the presumptive winner and licking their chops waiting to get to her. If they wanted Sanders instead, they would be propping him up as "the" candidate, thus galvanizing his legitimacy in the race.

    Honestly, assuming that Trump wins the nomination, Sanders will be their worst nightmare. There are no "gotchas" with the man. His record as a public servant is pretty transparent. They could go after age, or perhaps his previous careers before public servant (he's just an aging hippy that couldn't get a job until he got into politics, etc. etc.) but..well...that's about it.

    Here's a nice amalgamation of polls (that were almost certainly not all sponsored by Fox News) that runs the numbers that you might be interested in; http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-general-election-trump-vs-sanders

    If Sanders tells his supporters at the convention to vote for Clinton then will you vote for Hillary?

    Against any of the viable Republican candidates, yes. Though I live in a Red state so I am considering a write-in for Sanders out of conscience. But, should the polling numbers suggest the Democratic nominee stands even a snowball's chance, I will vote for Secretary Clinton if she is the nominee.

    pretzelattack raffine , 2016-03-02 22:28:35
    did he once sing about superpredators?
    Giancarlo Michael Parsons , 2016-03-02 22:20:35
    I agree, it isn't really a new development. What upsets me is that despite its bias, it used to be more sophisticated and subtly propagandistic. Their coverage of the Labour leadership election and the US presidential election so far has been abysmal. The vast majority of the articles they publish bashing Corbyn and Sanders or boosting Hillary Clinton and Yvette Cooper haven't just been hopelessly slanted, they have also been puerile and light on serious probing of the issues at hand.

    I used to be able to read articles in The Guardian and glean what was really happening by reading between the lines. Now they just insult our intelligence, and though a few decent writers remain in their employ, there really isn't much of substance. Just asinine puffery.

    sqeptiq , 2016-03-02 22:19:20
    Sanders leads with Asians, and may do better with black, and for that matter, other Christian voters outside the South, where you pretty much have to be a Protestant to win statewide.
    IanB52 GringoReader , 2016-03-02 22:18:50
    It seems that on number of issues, healthcare, foreign intervention, Wall St, Trump is actually on the LEFT of Clinton. People support him mainly because of racism, Islamophobia, xenophobia, a reaction against PC culture, and the breakdown of immigration policy, and he plays the demagogue card well. But on the whole, he is actually a good deal more liberal than Clinton.
    IanB52 , 2016-03-02 22:14:08
    What I am beginning to realize, and which is making me more adamantly against Clinton, is how she is wielding power in this election. Elizabeth Warren, the only other liberal in the Senate, Sander's natural ally, refused to endorse him before the Massachusetts primary likely allowing a narrow Clinton victory. This at a time when Clinton's main supporters, and the head of the DNC, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz are pushing a bill to protect payday lenders, one of Warren's fiercest enemies. Why would she do this? Why would she sit this one out and help hand her home state over the pro-bank and payday lender faction of the Democratic party? The answer is that she doesn't think Bernie will win and is afraid of the consequences of supporting him, just like all the other liberals in Congress. They know there is a steep price to pay to go against a Clinton, and to not fall in line with DNC, and they don't want to be punished.

    I infer from this that Clinton will run the country with an iron fist, exercising gangster like political control on behalf of her interests. Even Trump, though an unstable xenophobe authoritarian, doesn't have the same capacity for authoritarianism as Clinton. He might blow everything up and move in fascist direction, but a Clinton presidency will be about total and absolute power and control, and she knows how to accomplish it. Pander here, lie there, take that bribe, intimidate, muckrake, exploit identity politics and prestige networks. She's practically out of Game of Thrones and she may be the more dangerous of two incredibly dangerous candidates.

    arbmahla Baldobilly , 2016-03-02 22:10:35
    "Hillary bought off the entire Southern black religious establishment, and their local pastors duped their 'flocks' into voting for her."

    Bought them off with what? ... "walkin' around money"? This is slimy racism.
    She bought them off by promising to help rebuild their crumbling communities, education, and healthcare resources. She promised more jobs and equal pay and they believed her. The real Sanders supporters here must feel queasy about having to share a forum with all these neo- Jim Crow unreconstructed racists!

    Baldobilly Desiree Washington , 2016-03-02 22:08:05
    Hmm, let's see... . Hillary has:

    -the full support of the DNC
    -25 years of media celebrity
    - a popular ex-president campaigning for her
    -a swooning corporate media
    -cabinet experience
    -endorsements from: all the major unions, famous celebrities, civil rights leaders, prominent congressmen, secretaries of state and president Obama himself
    -a bottomless campaign war chest

    And yet she's facing a stiff challenge from an obscure elderly socialist from Vermont... .

    joey88 , 2016-03-02 21:59:06
    The common tone being spouted by mass media is almost defeatist of Sanders' viability. I wouldn't be surprised if this was already orchestrated long before Super Tuesday as it was apparent Clinton would sweep the majority of southern states. The media seem to be willing a Clinton win and are desperate to have us believe her nomination is a given. What they don't realise is that this is 2016 and this sort of spinning only strengthens peoples resolve to stick behind the only truly progressive candidate and probably dig another few dollars in donation.
    GringoReader , 2016-03-02 21:54:08
    If you ever want a solid look at how well-managed you are by the establishment and its media teams, compare Trump and Clinton on the issues. The dominant narrative constantly "reminds" you that Trump is scary because noone knows what he truly believes. Yet look how differently this is constructed when assessing Clinton. If you are going to be honest, you have to admit that either we don't know what SHE believes either, or she has changed her mind on virtually everything. If you are a Hillary supporter, prove this wrong by listing, in your reply, a list of ten things Hillary believes, that she has publicly believed her whole life. Seriously. Go for it Hilaristas.
    onevote , 2016-03-02 21:53:51
    Said it before and I'll say it again, MLK is rolling in his grave.

    John Lewis did a great disservice to 'his people' in downplaying Bernie's importance, focussing on fame rather than the core of his message in step with MLK's plan of economic justice, tying it all together.

    Black leadership has let us down. Clearly, they're on the payroll. Just more exploitation for the disenfranchised Southern populace. But it's hardly time to lay down.
    Great job on Super T, Bernie and friends. Onward!...

    joey88 , 2016-03-02 21:51:23
    Why was such scrutiny not put on Hillary who it seems predominantly depends on votes from ethnic communities mainly in the south. I wonder what the media mantra will be if Sanders starts sweeping the Northern and Western states as projected. Will they then ask can Clinton sustain a path to the nomination without the support of traditionally Democrat states and white folks?
    yelzohy ionee101 , 2016-03-02 21:49:21
    This could help explain the African American vote.

    http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/02/27/us/elections/south-carolina-democrat-poll.html?_r=1

    African Americans under 30 are voting for Sanders. They tend to get their news from the internet. Older Americans rely more on the mainstream media which has been providing little if no coverage of Sanders.

    Michael Parsons Sean Ryan , 2016-03-02 21:48:14
    I'm not for Trump but do not underestimate him, he has consistently outperformed expectations.

    Bernie used very little ammo against Hilary. He doesn't run negative campaigns

    Trump would be like an unwaivering battering ram. Polls already show he can beat her. Yet when polled against Bernie he gets crushed

    Marcedward p_promet , 2016-03-02 21:41:36
    " to **pragmatically**navigate the entire [read, "Republican and Democratic"] Washington Establishment"

    Uh huh - except she already had her chance with Health Care Reform. She had the President behind her, she had a Democrat House and Senate, back when the Republicans were nice, when Newt Gingrich was an impotent back bencher - and Hillary fell flat on her face.

    Shanajackson Prehistorian , 2016-03-02 21:41:02
    You should look more carefully at the poll Sanders beats all the GOP candidates Hillary can only beat Trump and that is not by as much as Sanders does. Trump has not even started on Clinton. Can you remember the sexist comments by Clinton and Trumps reply, Clinton and her husband hid under a rock and never said anything else against Trump. Well expect this times 100 in the general if it is Clinton. she has to much baggage and bad history, plus she is under FBI investigation people, come on wake up. Only Sanders can beat Trump.
    BigGaloot , 2016-03-02 21:40:14
    Can the media kindly write about the things Bernie Sanders is actually bringing up? The tightening grip of the oligarchy? The corrupt pols? The Wall Street malfeasance? Instead all we get is; "Bernie's on the ropes!" Every day.
    GringoReader , 2016-03-02 21:39:03
    It is beyond disgusting the way the mainstream media has played along with the Clinton campaign narrative that Sanders is somehow ignoring racial minorities or preaching a message that ignores them. Sanders and Clinton are lightyears apart on racial relations and politics, when one gets past the Clinton-paid pundits spin doctoring. Bernie marched with Doctor King. He got arrested fighting for civil rights, and has the documentation to prove it. When BLM took over the stage at a rally, he let them talk as long as they wanted to, leaving the microphone with them as he waded through the crowd. He didn't boot the activists out of a $500/head fundraiser at a mansion, the way Clinton did. Clinton has spent a lifetime supporting all types of legislation that threw black people under a bus to impress her rich, white donor base and her husband's rightwing supporters. It wasn't Sanders who referred to black teens as "superpredators", or made dozens of speeches for NAFTA, or the crime bills of the 90's, or the elimination of welfare programs. And lets look at actual facts, for once. Just last week Glenn Greenwald reported on a study showing that the longer people know who Sanders is, the higher his popularity, while the longer people know who Clinton is, the lower her popularity is. This extends to all racial groups. So in Nevada, for example, we've already seen where Latinos clearly demonstrated a preference for Sanders over Clinton, as they got to know both candidates. The advantage Clinton has "racially" evaporates when you account for class distinctions too. Look at her "black vote" in large, wealthier northern cities like Boston, Minneapolis, Chicago, Milwaukee, and you'll notice that the massive advantages she enjoys in the South disappear. That is because her advantage comes from time and southern disinvestment in public education, not any sort of racial bias in Sanders. Wherever people have any serious amount of time to study both candidates, her leads disappear. If the media paid attention to this, instead of declaring the race over with only 30% of the states wrapped up, we'd TRULY give racial minorities around the country the voice they deserve in this election. Just think how screwy and irrational the narrative is, when you look for precedents. Where else in history have you seen racial minorities, Wall Street, and retirement-age baby boomers voting as a bloc? This has more to do with ignorance and clear media bias for the establishment, more than some sort of inherent flaw in Sanders message. Honestly, point out exactly where his platform is somehow unfriendly or less open to racial minorities than Clinton is. Her advantage is fleeting, and not something she can wield against Republicans. Failure to acknowledge this "strength" as the weakness it truly is, is going to be expensive for Democrats during the general election. The South is NOT going to be some sort of bastion for Hillary in November. In fact, nominating her instead of Sanders is going to COST the Dems southern states this autumn, if polling is at all accurate over the last few months.
    heinrichz , 2016-03-02 21:37:47
    More nonsense spin from the Guardian. Barbara Boxer claims to be a progressive ? Gimme a break!
    MooseMcNaulty notmurdoch , 2016-03-02 21:35:51
    I know many of them don't think he does. That's because the American people are pretty dumb, by and large. The fact remains that Bill Clinton sold out leftist, liberal views and values. From three strikes and mandatory minimums, expanding the death penalty, deregulating Wall Street, shipping American industry out of the country, slashing capital gains tax rates, demonizing and slashing the welfare safety net, Don't Ask, Don't Tell and the Defense of Marriage Act, it's quite demonstrably true that the man owes American liberals an apology.
    Baldobilly circuit , 2016-03-02 21:33:05
    Genuine question, what do Blacks or Latinos see in Clinton?

    Most Latino's live on the gulf coast, not exactly the most progressive part of the U.S. to begin with. Then you've got the Miami Cubans, who're naturally hostile to a candidate who describes himself as a 'socialist'. And to be honest, Sanders has been ambivalent at best about immigration.

    lanchrobster Porl D , 2016-03-02 21:32:57
    "lack of mainstream media coverage"

    But what do you mean no coverage? I've read a dozen mainstream media articles today about how Sanders is irrelevant and doesn't stand a chance!

    pretzelattack Bruce Hill , 2016-03-02 21:29:34
    as a hilary supporter, how many young black males would you call super predators? how would you "rein them in"? tasers? shotguns? bull conor's boys used cattle prods--don't forget the conservative democrats back then were the southern racists. of course hilary wasn't one of those; she was one of the conservative republican types, working in the goldwater campaign so he could fight the civil rights movement.
    ionee101 sdwoodruff , 2016-03-02 21:27:35
    Yeah! Because of course black people cannot possibly vote for Clinton for any reason other than that they're being duped by her. Funny how republicans say blacks vote for democrats because of all the "free stuff" and "obamaphones". Different sides of the same coin. Patronizing condescension much?
    Marcedward , 2016-03-02 21:22:29
    When you see the media pushing and pushing and pushing the narrative that "Hillary cannot be defeated", you know it's because they are scared to death that Hillary will be defeated.

    As for Barbara Boxer, used to admire her, but YEP she joined the inside-the-beltway establishment years ago. She wouldn't know a liberal if she ran over a liberal in her hemp-powered SUV

    TangoAlphaDelta arbmahla , 2016-03-02 21:20:25
    Don't buy into the game of dividing people up by race and putting them in this or that camp. That's the media narrative trying to tell you it's game over for Bernie when all that's happened is he has lost in overwhelmingly conservative states. No race thinks with one mind, black, white or hispanic and the blatant racism of the media and how they treat racial groups as homogenous entities is tiresome. Sanders may not win, but he is very much in the race and we don't need to get down on the black community because many of them actually support Sanders.
    Juanita Withrow Tom Wessel , 2016-03-02 21:19:48
    Barbara Boxer said this morning that Hilary winning the White House will be the crowning glory of the women's right to vote 100 years ago. For these people, it's another party & they want to shop for a new dress.

    Barbara Boxer has never returned my emails over the years. Wish we could take away her retirement package.

    TangoAlphaDelta , 2016-03-02 21:16:17
    35 states still to vote. Sanders needs about 53% to gain a majority of the popular vote. And the media is calling the whole thing for Clinton because she won strongly in southern conservative states that are never going to go Democratic.
    Baldobilly , 2016-03-02 21:15:58
    But that argument risks looking dismissive, suggesting that voters in the south and in African American communities were just too ignorant to understand what was in their best interests.

    So we can't say the truth now? Hillary bought off the entire Southern black religious establishment, and their local pastors duped their 'flocks' into voting for her. Typical Clinton sleaze if you ask me. The establishment grief of the Guardian is just so obvious. I'm literally disgusted by the relentless shilling of this newspaper rag for a deeply corrupt Wall Street owned candidate like Shillary.

    Mary Titus ryanpatrick9192 , 2016-03-02 21:15:12
    Whether Hillary wins or the GOP wins the country will be hijacked, although I'm sure there are others in power who are feeling like they're being hijacked (what goes around comes around). And yes they are trying to paint a narrative, that the only people who support him must be white people. This is totally a divisive tactic.
    Will Morgan simpledino , 2016-03-02 21:14:01
    I wasn't around in 1933 when FDR decried Wall Street, Big banks and pedatory Capital run amok but I was around for a part of the fifty or sixty years that followed on the changes he brought about that created a level playing field in society and which helped gaurantee that we would deafat Facism around the world. So I don't gasp with fear if Bernie, or anyone else, rails against milliobaires and billonaires. Bully for him!
    Prehistorian Zepp , 2016-03-02 21:13:44
    You're right to some extent, but if Sanders was to look like a potential winner he really needed to do better in Nevada and Massachusetts to counteract Clinton's strength elsewhere.
    Chris Woyton arbmahla , 2016-03-02 21:12:19

    By turning your back on Clinton you are, in effect, acting as a Trump shill

    This is a rather cynical position to take, don't you think? Especially considering that Sanders leads most Republican candidates by larger margins than does Clinton.

    I mean, that's the only context I can think of where your statement actually makes sense - that by pushing for Sanders one is somehow guaranteeing a Republican win which is, to put it delicately, factually inaccurate based on actual polling.

    nd BTW, you're a fake Sanders supporter too.

    Damn, now ya tell me! All those donations, working the phone banks, both local marches, and canvassing were wasted. If I had known I was just a poseur for Sanders I would have stayed home and saved a few bucks.

    Sarcasm aside, you have no standing or knowledge sufficient to make such a claim either factually or ethically so I would recommend you stop using it as your standard reply. Setting up a false dichotomy does not make you correct (See GW Bush, circa 2002).

    So, just in case it isn't evident, I am an actual supporter of Sanders and want to see him be our next president.

    Sanders would never condone your statements and actions.

    Would you care to share the special relationship you have to the Senator that actually backs up your claim? I'm pretty certain he doesn't have the time to comment on the Guardian right now so safe to say you're not him. So, I'll be charitable here...maybe you're a distant cousin or something.

    Zepp Prehistorian , 2016-03-02 21:06:58
    Now you're just kitchen-synching it. Sanders has overwhelming support amongst the party's rank-and-file. And in case you haven't notice, votes for both parties are staging a full on revolt against the enscronced and bought-out political operatives who govern the parties. They main difference is their guy is a monster.
    MooseMcNaulty heavenairport , 2016-03-02 21:05:45
    I don't follow this argument. What concerns of the black community hasn't he engaged with? He's addressed mandatory minimum sentencing, the drug war, for-profit prisons, community policing, police homicide, poverty, and criminal justice reform. What else does he need to address?
    sdwoodruff , 2016-03-02 20:59:50
    Clinton is winning the black vote without having ever really done a thing to deserve it. Sanders has much more of an actual participatory record in the Civil Rights movement. Will Clinton finally make the banking establishment pay attention to the financial needs of black voters. Yeah, right.
    Tom Wessel , 2016-03-02 20:58:26
    " I'm Barbara Boxer: a Jewish, liberal feminist from California,..."Whereas Bernie Sanders calls me 'the establishment'. Have you seen Bernie Sanders rallies? I haven't seen that many white voters since the Oscars ."

    Make that NEO-liberal not liberal that seems to be happy keeping people like you in power. It's hard for Bernie to get his message across to people that want change but vote the same old, same old people in. Please tell us how much better the black situation improved with that attitude the last 7 years? It will only get worse under Hillary. Of course she is an expert at pandering so she'll get the older black and older feminist votes. Bernie has great appeal to both of that sector's younger voters that want real change.

    Dan Henry notmurdoch , 2016-03-02 20:57:04
    She very obviously did not win the youth vote:

    "Even in the states where Clinton won handily, like Texas, Virginia, and Georgia, Sanders still won handily with his core constituencies - voters aged 18 to 29, first-time primary voters, and independents. According to NBC News' exit polls, Sanders won young voters by a 30-point margin in Texas, 39 points in Virginia, 13 points in Georgia, and even captured the youth vote in Clinton's home state of Arkansas, where Bill Clinton served as governor, by 24 points. Among first-time primary voters, Sanders won by, again, 30 points in Texas and 8 points in Virginia. And Sanders captured independent voters by 16 points in both Texas and Virginia, 3 points in Georgia, 13 points in Tennessee, and 17 points in Arkansas."

    http://usuncut.com/news/sanders-wins-4-super-tuesday-states/

    macktan894 , 2016-03-02 20:56:47
    I'm black and I and many black people I know voted for Sanders, so to represent him as a for whites only candidate is really an unfair angle for covering him. But unfair media coverage is hardly a new complaint. If the media had spent even half of the time it spent on Trump or Clinton, Bernie and his issues might be better known by more people.

    In any case, I have voted for Bernie and he's the only candidate I'm voting for this year. I'll write his name in for the general election if I have to, but I'm not voting for that other person, the fake Bernie.

    Janette Dean , 2016-03-02 20:55:07
    I trust Robert Reich's perspective far more than this columnist Dan Robert's perspective. Robert Reich's post from yesterday on SuperTuesday at https://www.facebook.com/RBReich/posts/1163809603631634:0 says:

    "Regardless of how well Bernie does today, the media will say Hillary is now the Democratic candidate. Baloney. The "momentum" theory of politics is based on momentum stories the media itself generates. Don't succumb to the "momentum" game. Regardless of what happens today, this race is still very much alive, for at least 3 reasons:
    1. In the next few months the primary map starts tilting in Bernie's favor: In later March: Maine, Michigan, Florida, Ohio, Illinois, Arizona, Washington state, and Hawaii. In April: Wisconsin, New York, Connecticut, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island. In May: Indiana and Oregon. In June, California, New Jersey, and New Mexico.
    2, Small-donor contributions continue to flow in to Bernie's campaign. In February, the campaign raised a whopping $42 million. South Carolina's loss didn't stop the flow: The campaign received $6 million on Monday alone.
    3. Bernie's campaign is a movement. Americans know we must get big money out of politics and take back our economy from an incipient oligarchy. That's why Bernie will take this movement all the way to the Democratic convention in, July 25-28 in Philadelphia (you might make plans to be there, too)."

    Mary Titus simpledino , 2016-03-02 20:54:19
    And they shouldn't be doing that. I think part of that frustration comes from people that HAVE been supportive of solving problems black commumities face, and feeling like there's no mutual cohesion and solidarity in return (I've cared about this stuff long before Sanders came onto the national scene). At least that was how I initially felt when I saw the election results. I know that there are tons of different opinions out there, and I can't speak for everyone.
    MooseMcNaulty , 2016-03-02 20:54:09
    A shame that the black community doesn't seem to want to get behind Bernie. It's too bad Martin Luther King isn't still around to give an endorsement. I don't think there's much doubt who it'd go to. People tend to forget he'd become a bit of a radical leftist by the end.
    Forward123 , 2016-03-02 20:52:13
    If you want to see politically organized racism at work , look no farther than Clinton surrogate Debra Wasserman- Schultz recent activities to encourage abusive payday lending in Fla.

    This coming from the leader of the DNC and Clinton's hand-picked former campaign manager....

    And yes Black minorites have been deceived by their own leaders who are in the Clinton machine pockets to the detriment of their constituents. When black community leaders are promised big donations from the Clinton Foundation , is it any surprise that they exhort their followers to vote the Clinton line? "legalized bribery"Jimmy Carter calls it....

    And Clinton has the chutzpah to claim the Obama mantle... and raising minority anger at Trump and paint Sanders black at the same time. Her spin doctors like Barbara Boxer are working overtime.

    Quite incredible that such mis-direction has been so successfull until now.

    The only hope we have that this creature will not reach the WH is that she is her own worst enemy and may yet fall at the gate.

    Regardless , the only course is to press on.

    HoldenC , 2016-03-02 20:50:19
    Now it's abundantly obvious why Glenn Greenwald left The Guardian....it's run by the Washington establishment.
    pappa john , 2016-03-02 20:49:02
    The establishment are TERRIFIED of Sanders - because with Hillary they know they can control her with money! Just listen to her speech last night, and it literally was a compilation of platitudes! In terms of speaking without actually saying anything she is as bad as Trump!

    Does ANYONE actually know what she stands for ? Is she FOR or AGAINST gun control? Is she the '08 Annie Oakley Clinton, or 16 Anti-gun Clinton? The '10 anti-gay marriage or the '16 Pro gay marriage?

    She has e-mails PROVING she has been actively campaigning FOR nafta and TTIP! And let's not forget the time bomb of the corruption scandal in the Clinton foundation! She "forgot" to include $1 million dollars in foreign contributions - and this was what has been found so far!

    She is a liability - an empty suit. She wants power for power's sake! She simply is UNFIT for purpose

    ID0191623 , 2016-03-02 20:43:23
    Fast running out of patience with the Guardian and its bias for Clinton. This article is biased, it is rooted in hunches. This article follows Richard Wollfe's biased opinion piece. Where is the pro Sanders opinion piece? How about looking at some numbers: The author is basing a lot on South Carolina. It is not very important since it will go for the GOP in the general. If you look at the total number of votes cast for Sanders and Clinton and compare them to any one of the 3 GOP leaders, then it is clear that the democrats have no hope in the state. Then look at New Hampshire which will be a battleground state and look at Bernie's win there. Most of these southern states came together early and bias the number of wins toward Clinton. There are 35 primaries to go. Barack Obama for example lost Boston by a bigger margin than Sanders in 2008. Now in the next few weeks we have a lot of states Bernie will do well in. Look at the donations pouring into Bernie, look at the marches for him that are not covered. Look at the statement of the author here that it is unfair to call African Americans in SC uninformed and blame the media for not covering Sanders enough there. Well, what was to blame, there were a significant number of voters interviewed leaving the polls in SC who had never heard of Sanders. Is there not some onus on a voter to watch a debate before voting to at least get some impression of the candidates?
    I am a loyal Guardian reader but this is complete bias. I recommend Democracy Now! and The Young Turks for unbiased and detailed news.
    midnightschild10 , 2016-03-02 20:43:03
    Well, the elites of the NAACP are trying their best to turn Hillary into the nations third black President after Bill and Obama. Maybe they can get her to promise she won't sign another draconian Welfare Reform Bill like her husband did, causing an explosion of children and families living below the poverty line. Or maybe she will promise not to sign another Omnibus federal crime bill like the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, giving us the three strikes law and setting mandatory sentences that impacted the black community more so then the whites who were incarcerated. But then again she was Bills strongest advisor. Its too late for them to ask her not to support another awful trade bill like NAFTA, that destroyed manufacturing, because she has given her full throsted support to TPP which will impact negatively on all segments of the population and takes us back to the good old days of deregulating banks and insurance companies ,extending patents to pharmaceutical companies to limit access to affordable generic drugs,send high paying jobs overseas to low wage countries, attack labor and consumer safety, just for starters. This is what the NAACP is now supporting. All minority groups will be effected. Following the elites of groups desperate to hold on to power at the expense of their members is now considered just politics. Sanders policies are not just for whites, but are for everyone. They are the same as he has fought for forty years. That is why he is fighting not only Hillary, but the Super delegates, and the rich and powerful. A novel idea, government of the people, for the people and by the people is what Sanders stands for. But its all the people.
    pretzelattack Pepe Abola , 2016-03-02 20:41:25
    and the article completely ignores that lewis backtracked, instead describing him as "pointing out" as if there were no factual dispute. it's as dishonest as the wolfe article this morning.
    Forward123 , 2016-03-02 20:30:38
    Barbara Boxer is just stirring up the black vote in favor of her pal.

    Meanwhile, the reality is that Sanders is the most electable Democrat due to electoral dynamics :

    From Real Clear Politics :

    Ms. Clinton won 4 Southern states that have not voted for a Democrat in the presidential elections since before Nixon. Mr. Sanders won 4 states that are reliable Democratic in the general election. In the general election, almost all states are winner take all for electoral delegates, so winning southerns states in the primary is meaningless for a Democrat in the grand scheme of things, which is the November general election. They essentially tied in Mass. She kicked his ass in Virginia. Objectively, he is still the best bet for taking the White House.

    "
    So yes , she won the Alabama vote big . and Texas ... but neither Texas nor Alabama nor many Southern states will vote Democrat in the general and she has no hope of this.

    [Mar 04, 2016] Paul Krugman: Clash of Republican Con Artists

    If Krugman is so concerned with con men, why he is supporting Hillary? Just because she is a con women? Or he wants to become one by securing a position in her administration?
    Notable quotes:
    "... First, there's the con Republicans usually manage to pull off in national elections ... where they pose as a serious, grown-up party honestly trying to grapple with America's problems. The truth is that that party died a long time ago, that these days it's voodoo economics and neocon fantasies all the way down. But the establishment wants to preserve the facade, which will be hard if the nominee is someone who refuses to play his part. ... ..."
    "... Equally important, the Trump phenomenon threatens the con the G.O.P. establishment has been playing on its own base..., the bait and switch in which white voters are induced to hate big government by dog whistles about Those People, but actual policies are all about rewarding the donor class. ..."
    "... What Donald Trump has done is tell the base that it doesn't have to accept the whole package. He promises to make America white again - surely everyone knows that's the real slogan, right? - while simultaneously promising to protect Social Security and Medicare, and hinting at (though not actually proposing) higher taxes on the rich. Outraged establishment Republicans splutter that he's not a real conservative, but neither, it turns out, are many of their own voters. ..."
    "... As I see it, then, we should actually welcome Mr. Trump's ascent. Yes, he's a con man, but he is also effectively acting as a whistle-blower on other people's cons. That is, believe it or not, a step forward in these weird, troubled times. ..."
    economistsview.typepad.com
    "Why, exactly, the Republican establishment is really so horrified by Mr. Trump?":
    Clash of Republican Con Artists, by Paul Krugman, Commentary, NY Times : So Republicans are going to nominate a candidate who talks complete nonsense on domestic policy; who believes that foreign policy can be conducted via bullying and belligerence; who cynically exploits racial and ethnic hatred for political gain.
    But that was always going to happen, however the primary season turned out. The only news is that the candidate in question is probably going to be Donald Trump.
    Establishment Republicans denounce Mr. Trump as a fraud... In fact, you have to wonder why, exactly, the Republican establishment is really so horrified by Mr. Trump. Yes, he's a con man, but they all are. ...
    The answer, I'd suggest, is that the establishment's problem with Mr. Trump isn't the con he brings; it's the cons he disrupts.
    First, there's the con Republicans usually manage to pull off in national elections ... where they pose as a serious, grown-up party honestly trying to grapple with America's problems. The truth is that that party died a long time ago, that these days it's voodoo economics and neocon fantasies all the way down. But the establishment wants to preserve the facade, which will be hard if the nominee is someone who refuses to play his part. ...
    Equally important, the Trump phenomenon threatens the con the G.O.P. establishment has been playing on its own base..., the bait and switch in which white voters are induced to hate big government by dog whistles about Those People, but actual policies are all about rewarding the donor class.
    What Donald Trump has done is tell the base that it doesn't have to accept the whole package. He promises to make America white again - surely everyone knows that's the real slogan, right? - while simultaneously promising to protect Social Security and Medicare, and hinting at (though not actually proposing) higher taxes on the rich. Outraged establishment Republicans splutter that he's not a real conservative, but neither, it turns out, are many of their own voters.
    Just to be clear, I find the prospect of a Trump administration terrifying... But you should also be terrified by the prospect of a President Rubio, sitting in the White House with his circle of warmongers, or a President Cruz, whom one suspects would love to bring back the Spanish Inquisition.
    As I see it, then, we should actually welcome Mr. Trump's ascent. Yes, he's a con man, but he is also effectively acting as a whistle-blower on other people's cons. That is, believe it or not, a step forward in these weird, troubled times.

    Posted by Mark Thoma on Friday, March 4, 2016 at 08:51 AM in Economics , Politics | Permalink Comments (18)

    [Mar 04, 2016] BREAKING News As Propaganda

    Notable quotes:
    "... BREAKING!: Millions may have contracted "MUMI" virus. "MUMI" = Made Up Mass Information ..."
    "... Are all the so-called "news" published in the USA just right-wing zionist neo-con propaganda? ..."
    "... I call this a vicious manipulation of the information. The trouble is that there is no international legal body that could sanction that sort of deviancy. The MSM take advantage of their immunity ( 'Freedom of expression") to spread lies and throw people against each other's throats. They get away with it ( remember the infamous Judith Miller of the NY times about false scoops on Iraq nuclear weapons.. she should have been jailed) ..."
    "... I'd like to see the weasel meme which makes the appearance of the US Ambassador to Russia "among" a crowd of anti-Putin demonstrators seem pro-Russian, or even diplomatically wise. ..."
    "... Poor man's word play for the ignorant. Twitter is a perfect platform for this type of shite. Shameful to be fair. ..."
    "... #BREAKING Saudi bombs bring peace and stability. ..."
    "... Mr Cameron said he was proud of the "brilliant things" BAE had sold to the Middle Eastern country such as the Eurofighter Typhoon. The Saudi government has bought £3 billion of UK aircraft, arms and other defence products in 2015. ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org

    For your daily media competence training:

    The hint that the above AFP #BREAKING tweet was nonsense is the use of the word may. Like in "#BREAKING Sky may have fallen". There is also the rhetoric redundancy in "have starved to death".

    But notice the 217 retweets which likely will have caused many secondary retweets and many, many more viewer impressions.

    Three hours later ...

    Cont. reading: #BREAKING News As Propaganda

    Maxcrat | Feb 29, 2016 12:59:36 PM | 1
    BREAKING!: Millions may have contracted "MUMI" virus. "MUMI" = Made Up Mass Information
    tom | Feb 29, 2016 2:25:16 PM | 5
    So ( mostly in the West ) the Russians won nothing with the BS recent " peace" deal, except to being propagandised and lied against as being starvationists and peace destroyers. With O chance of peace
    james k. sayre | Feb 29, 2016 2:56:57 PM | 8
    Are all the so-called "news" published in the USA just right-wing zionist neo-con propaganda? I have given watching news on TV here in the USA. I trust RT.com, Moon of Alabama, xymphora, cannonfire, cluborlov and a few other web sites. Local TV news is just depressing overload of crime, sports and weather. If anyone knows of a daily newspaper published in English that tells the truth, please let me know... Thanks. J.
    virgile | Feb 29, 2016 2:59:50 PM | 9
    I call this a vicious manipulation of the information. The trouble is that there is no international legal body that could sanction that sort of deviancy. The MSM take advantage of their immunity ( 'Freedom of expression") to spread lies and throw people against each other's throats. They get away with it ( remember the infamous Judith Miller of the NY times about false scoops on Iraq nuclear weapons.. she should have been jailed)
    Oui | Feb 29, 2016 3:09:01 PM | 10
    ISIS infighting in Raqqa: Dutch battalion of Moroccan fighters in Raqqa: 8 executed and dozens incarcerated
    Hoarsewhisperer | Feb 29, 2016 3:35:04 PM | 11
    One COULD construct a meme that the tweet was incomplete and omitted the words "...but for UN aid" from the end. However, I'd like to see the weasel meme which makes the appearance of the US Ambassador to Russia "among" a crowd of anti-Putin demonstrators seem pro-Russian, or even diplomatically wise.
    Petri Krohn | Feb 29, 2016 6:05:38 PM | 12
    #BREAKING Erdogan may have gone mad! Turkish president Erdogan tweets on the official Twitter account of the Turkish Presidency:
    Turkish Presidency ‏@trpresidency Feb 28

    "I Neither Obey Nor Respect Constitutional Court's Ruling" tccb.gov.tr/en/news/542/39…

    This did not go well with the public. Even his own supporters are critical. Like @eczferas ‏who tweets : @trpresidency my dear president - i respect you more than i respect my self but wished if you didn't say because they will use it against us

    The issue is the two Turkish journalists who were jailed in November and now released (awaiting trial) by Turkey's Constitutional Court. The journalist had revealed something about how Turkey works hand in glove with the Islamic State. The Western media was careful not to reveal to their readers what the journalist had found out. Something about "alleging that President Recep Tayyip Erdogan's government tried to ship arms to Islamists in Syria. This can hardly be news. The US does it openly all the time!

    P.S. - In case Erdogan decides to remove the tweet, I saved a screenshot here.

    MadMax2 | Feb 29, 2016 7:48:48 PM | 14
    Poor man's word play for the ignorant. Twitter is a perfect platform for this type of shite. Shameful to be fair.
    Petri Krohn | Feb 29, 2016 10:09:40 PM | 15
    #BREAKING Turkey switches sides, joins fight against ISIS. The Turkish daily newspaper Daily Sabah writes today quoting Reuters:
    Turkish military pounds Daesh positions in Syria with artillery fire

    The Turkish military targeted Daesh positions north of Syria's Aleppo province with artillery fire as part anti-Daesh coalition efforts on Monday afternoon.

    Turkish broadcaster NTV reported that approximately 50 to 60 rounds of howitzer shells were fired into Syrian territory.

    The cease-fire in Syria does not include Daesh, Nusra Front and other al-Qaida affiliates.

    The Turkish military had earlier targeted Daesh positions with F-16 jets.

    The operation took place while there was an ongoing Cabinet meeting in Ankara in which ministers discussed anti-terror measures.

    Daesh militants had attacked the Syrian town of Tel Abyad controlled by the YPG militia at the Turkish border as well as the nearby town of Suluk on Saturday.

    While a U.S. and Russian sponsored "cessation of hostilities" came into effect in Syria over the weekend, the U.S.-led coalition and Russia reserve the right to continue attacks against Daesh or the al Qaeda affiliate the Nusra Front.

    Funny! Kurdish sources and even Western mainstream sources are telling , that the Turkish artillery was targeting YGP positions in support of an ISIS attack that had been launched across the border from the Turkish side.

    Petri Krohn | Feb 29, 2016 10:37:48 PM | 16
    #BREAKING Saudi bombs bring peace and stability.

    The Telegraph writes today:

    Saudi Arabia is bombing in Yemen to bring peace and stability

    Contrary to misinformation, the Saudi intervention in Yemen is intended to help the country and protect civilians there.

    (Never mind the typo in the lede. I corrected it for you. Saudi Arabia is not yet attacking Syria .)

    jfl | Mar 1, 2016 2:41:05 AM | 18
    @16 Petri Krohn

    David Cameron backs 'brilliant' arms deals with Saudi Arabia... hours after Europe says we should ban them

    Mr Cameron said he was proud of the "brilliant things" BAE had sold to the Middle Eastern country such as the Eurofighter Typhoon. The Saudi government has bought £3 billion of UK aircraft, arms and other defence products in 2015.

    "I can see the planes being built right behind me here. We've got more work to do in Saudi Arabia," Mr Cameron told the assembled BAE employees.

    Oliver Sprague from Amnesty International told the Guardian: "The 'brilliant things' that David Cameron says BAE sells include massive amounts of weaponry for the Saudi Arabia military, despite Saudi Arabia's dreadful record in Yemen.

    "Thousands of Yemeni civilians have been killed and injured in devastating and indiscriminate Saudi coalition air strikes, and there's strong evidence that further weapons sales to Saudi Arabia are not just ill-advised but actually illegal."

    The Cameroon just can't get enough of that peace and stability, can he? Death, devastation, destruction ... and deceit, are all the Anglo-Americans - the 5 eyes of Oceania - have left for sale, and they're gonna sell same till they drop!

    You bet Le Monde made an article from the AFP cable yesterday
    And there was no word there about Yemen or the Saudis as head of the HR council

    Mina | Mar 1, 2016 4:56:50 AM | 19
    Good riddance
    http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/2/8/189899/World/Region/Dutch-probe-report--nationals-executed-after-joini.aspx

    [Mar 04, 2016] In their fanatical crusade against Russia, the EU countries have opted for a catastrophic energy policy that has rendered them global economic growth laggards

    peakoilbarrel.com

    Ulenspiegel, 03/03/2016 at 7:10 am

    "The EU, which gets 30 percent of its gas from Russia, was equally hungry for the pipeline, which would have given its members cheap energy and relief from Vladimir Putin's stifling economic and political leverage."

    That is nonsense. The issue is that Russia has quite limited leverage: They can not replace the European customers on short notice – pipeline chain producer to certain custrumers – and they urgently need the income.

    The more interesting question for Russia is how to cope with a customers who may reduce the demand for NG by 1% per year for the next few decades.

    Ves, 03/03/2016 at 8:25 am
    "The issue is that Russia has quite limited leverage: They can not replace the European customers on short notice"

    Leverage is always mutual in the gas trade that involves long term contracts and long gas supply lines. It is like marriage :-)

    "The more interesting question for Russia is how to cope with a customers who may reduce the demand for NG by 1% per year for the next few decades."

    I am not sure that this is the case.
    "Gazprom's gas exports to Europe – including Turkey – had increased to 158.6 billion cubic meters in 2015 with a 8.2 percent increase compared to 2014."

    Stavros H, 03/04/2016 at 2:51 pm
    @Ulenspiegel : No it is anything BUT nonsense.

    The EU's domestic production of natural gas, including non-EU member Norway, is already in terminal decline and will be declining into the future by almost 2% per year until it reaches zero.

    Unless the EU can find alternative sources of natural gas at competitive prices, Russia remains the only economical option, hence the extremely high stakes over the Syrian War.

    Moreover, the EU's "Green Energy" policies are an outright, insolvent disaster. Windmills and solar panels can never and will never compete with hydrocarbons and don't let any muppet claim otherwise. If wind and solar were anywhere remotely viable sources then why would anyone give a toss over the Middle East at all? The degree to which "alternative energy" is uneconomical can be seen from the EU's extremely high energy costs, far and away the highest in the world. In their fanatical crusade against Russia, the EU countries have opted for a catastrophic energy policy that has rendered them global economic growth laggards. All this, just so that Russia's gas exports could be kept at the absolute minimum.

    What Russia seeks to achieve vis-a-vis Europe, is to force/encourage/compel the EU to integrate by as much as possible with Russia. What NATO (and especially the US and Euro-Atlanticists) most fear is that a Russia rich in capital and technology would be the world's dominant geopolitical player.

    This is what is at stake in the current Global Hybrid War.

    [Mar 03, 2016] Obamas Justice Department Just Gave Bryan Pagliano Immunity and Bernie Sanders the Presidency

    Notable quotes:
    "... Bryan Pagliano, the person who set up Clinton's private server and email apparatus, was just given immunity by the Justice Department. According to The Washington Post ..."
    "... These 31,830 deleted emails, by the way, were deleted without government oversight. ..."
    "... Only one person set up the server that circumvented U.S. government networks and this person is Bryan Pagliano. Not long ago, Pagliano pleaded the Fifth , so this new development speaks volumes. ..."
    "... The New York Times ..."
    "... Washington Post ..."
    "... I'm a Bernie supporter. And honestly, offering immunity to Pagliano is almost certainly just so they can close loose ends and begin to close their investigation. Most likely, Clinton or her aides will get called in for one last round and then the FBI will end their investigation. This says nothing to a possibility of her guilt in anything. ..."
    "... Thats not an assumption-its a fact. SHE scrubbed the server when she knew the FBI had asked her for it-SHE erased over 31,000 emails, SHE has dozens of emails SHE sent and received that were SEP classification-the very highest level. THis is about corruption at the highest levels and now SHE will have to pay the piper. ..."
    "... The real issue i have had for a couple of years are the middle eastern gov. Donors to the clinton foundation while she was sec. Of state... Yeah i am waiting for that to come to light. That the huge REAL as opposed to emails ..."
    "... Granting "use immunity" to this witness probably means that they have little to no evidence a crime was committed, and that they need his testimony to advance the investigation. If they had evidence, they would prosecute (or threaten to prosecute), convict him, and then use him to testify about his higher-ups in exchange for leniency. Use immunity means they don't have the goods even on this small fish. ..."
    "... It is not a tempest in a teapot. Only a federal judge can grant immunity, and this means they are seating a grand jury, prosecutors, whole nine yards. ..."
    "... With Donald Trump revving up his attacks against Clinton, as he is proving to be the Republican nominee, you know that he's not going to let this go. Bernie Sanders may be running a campaign that doesn't get caught up on issues outside of policy, but this is exactly the kind of thing that Donald Trump will obsess about. It's like when he went after Obama's birth certificate. If he makes this a primary issue of his campaign, Hillary will be deemed guilty before anybody has a chance to say otherwise. ..."
    "... Clinton wanted to avoid the Wikileaks-revealed searches into her hopefully private exchanges. ..."
    www.huffingtonpost.com
    Bernie Sanders's path to the presidency was never going to be easy. After surging in the polls and consistently proving America's political establishment wrong, Sanders won Colorado and other states on Super Tuesday. He still has a path to win the Democratic nomination via the primaries, but Bernie Sanders just won the presidency for another reason: Hillary Clinton's quest for "convenience."

    Bryan Pagliano, the person who set up Clinton's private server and email apparatus, was just given immunity by the Justice Department. According to The Washington Post, "The Clintons paid Pagliano $5,000 for 'computer services' prior to his joining the State Department, according to a financial disclosure form he filed in April 2009."

    First, this can't be a right-wing conspiracy because it's President Obama's Justice Department granting immunity to one of Hillary Clinton's closest associates. Second, immunity from what? The Justice Department won't grant immunity to anyone unless there's potential criminal activity involved with an FBI investigation. Third, and most importantly for Bernie Sanders, there's only one Democrat in 2016 not linked to the FBI, Justice Department, or 31,830 deleted emails.

    These 31,830 deleted emails, by the way, were deleted without government oversight.

    Only one person set up the server that circumvented U.S. government networks and this person is Bryan Pagliano. Not long ago, Pagliano pleaded the Fifth, so this new development speaks volumes. His immunity, at this point in Clinton's campaign, spells trouble and could lead to an announcement in early May from the FBI about whether or not Clinton or her associates committed a crime. As stated in The New York Times, "Then the Justice Department will decide whether to file criminal charges and, if so, against whom."

    ... ... ...

    In addition to born classified emails (emails that were classified from the start of their existence, undermining the claim that certain emails weren't classified when Clinton stored them on her server), as well as Top Secret intelligence on an unguarded server stored in her basement, Hillary Clinton has never explained the political utility of owning a private server.

    Why did Hillary need to own a private server?

    Aside from her excuse pertaining to convenience, why did Clinton need to circumvent U.S. government networks?

    ... ... ...

    There are most likely a number of reasons Clinton needed the server and Pagliano's immunity helps the FBI immeasurable in deciphering whether or not criminal intent or behavior is a part of their recommendation to the Justice Department. Pagliano's immunity is explained in a Washington Post piece titled Justice Dept. grants immunity to staffer who set up Clinton email server:

    The Justice Department has granted immunity to a former State Department staffer, who worked on Hillary Clinton's private email server, as part of a criminal investigation into the possible mishandling of classified information, according to a senior law enforcement official.

    The official said the FBI had secured the cooperation of Bryan Pagliano, who worked on Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign before setting up the server in her New York home in 2009.

    As the FBI looks to wrap up its investigation in the coming months, agents are likely to want to interview Clinton and her senior aides about the decision to use a private server, how it was set up, and whether any of the participants knew they were sending classified information in emails, current and former officials said.

    ... Spokesmen at the FBI and Justice Department would not discuss the investigation. Pagliano's attorney, Mark J. MacDougall, also declined to comment.

    "There was wrongdoing," said a former senior law enforcement official. "But was it criminal wrongdoing?"

    ... ... ...

    As for the issue of criminality, Detroit's Click on Detroit Local 4 News explains the severity of this saga in a piece titled DOJ grants immunity to ex-Clinton staffer who set up email server:

    Bryan Pagliano, a former Clinton staffer who helped set up her private email server, has accepted an immunity offer from the FBI and the Justice Department to provide an interview to investigators, a U.S. law enforcement official told CNN Wednesday.

    With the completion of the email review, FBI investigators are expected to shift their focus on whether the highly sensitive government information, including top secret and other classified matters, found on Clinton's private email server constitutes a crime.

    .... Huma Abedin is also part of this email investigation, as stated in a CNN article titled Clinton emails: What have we learned?:

    The State Department is furthermore being sued for the emails of top aides, and for the tens of thousands of emails Clinton deemed personal and didn't turn over for review.

    At a hearing last week in one such lawsuit, U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan said he's considering asking the State Department to subpoena Clinton, and aide Huma Abedin, in an effort to learn more about those emails...

    Clinton and her aides insist none of the emails she sent or received were marked as classified at the time they were sent, but more than 2,101 have been retroactively classified during the State Department-led pre-release review process.

    Whether or not the intelligence was classified at the time is irrelevant; there's already proof of born classified intelligence on Clinton's server. Former Obama official Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn believes Hillary Clinton should "drop out" of the race because of the FBI investigation.

    ... ... ....

    Tim Black

    Thank You HA Goodman! As a former Managerof Executive IT Services for an Obama Cabinet member I can say with total certainty this dangerous handling of government correspondence Hillary Clinton not only broke security protocols, she ripped them in half, stepped on them and did the 'Dab'. Based on the information provided no one's framing, stalking, shalacking or setting up the Clintons.

    This is the Clintons sabotaging The Clintons. I don't want to hear the cop outs "They're attacking me!". No Madame Secretary. You're attacking yourself. No Republicans necessary!

    Tab Pierce · Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

    AMEN TIM!!! I to worked for the government for 5 years as an email administrator. There is no way that she was not briefed and well versed in the protocols surrounding emails. If it had been me the FBI would have kicked down my door day one and I would be in jail. She should be held accountable to an even higher standard than you and I. She was the Secrtary of State for gods sake. Igorance is no excusse and on top of that is a lie.

    Malcolm Smith · Translator at Self-Employed

    O lord, they used an MS Exchange server that was naked on the internet to boot. Microsoft's pervasive OS presence in Government is all by itself a national security risk.

    Scott Laytart · Los Angeles, California

    I'm a Bernie supporter. And honestly, offering immunity to Pagliano is almost certainly just so they can close loose ends and begin to close their investigation. Most likely, Clinton or her aides will get called in for one last round and then the FBI will end their investigation. This says nothing to a possibility of her guilt in anything.

    This is not positive or negative for Clinton, other than the investigation part of this may be over (probably) before June. If charges are filed, that's most likely when it would happen. Or they may not... no one knows but the FBI/DoJ.

    Karen Teegarden
    No one should take anything H.A. Goodman writes seriously.

    Hillary has been asking for him to testify all along. What does immunity represent? Does it mean that either Pagliano (or Clinton) are accused of offenses? Quite the opposite. If the DOJ thought they had a case against Pagliano, they would not grant him immunity. In any event, for all the shrill attention that it will get, immunity for Bryan Pagliano will help move the Hillary Clinton email inquiry toward an end – and be one less thing for her to worry about.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/charlestiefer/2016/03/02/immunity-for-bryan-pagliano-will-help-end-the-hillary-clinton-email-inquiry

    Jyade Gloria Kardos · Author at Jyade Cythrawl
    Andy Stanton http://www.wnd.com/.../ex-u-s-attorney-hillary-case.../

    Thats not an assumption-its a fact. SHE scrubbed the server when she knew the FBI had asked her for it-SHE erased over 31,000 emails, SHE has dozens of emails SHE sent and received that were SEP classification-the very highest level. THis is about corruption at the highest levels and now SHE will have to pay the piper.

    Trevor Mooney
    The real issue i have had for a couple of years are the middle eastern gov. Donors to the clinton foundation while she was sec. Of state... Yeah i am waiting for that to come to light. That the huge REAL as opposed to emails
    Steve Smith · Attorney at Myself
    Granting "use immunity" to this witness probably means that they have little to no evidence a crime was committed, and that they need his testimony to advance the investigation. If they had evidence, they would prosecute (or threaten to prosecute), convict him, and then use him to testify about his higher-ups in exchange for leniency. Use immunity means they don't have the goods even on this small fish.
    Jyade Gloria Kardos · Author at Jyade Cythrawl
    http://www.wnd.com/.../ex-u-s-attorney-hillary-case.../
    Malcolm Smith, Translator at Self-Employed
    It is not a tempest in a teapot. Only a federal judge can grant immunity, and this means they are seating a grand jury, prosecutors, whole nine yards.

    Carl Gainsworth

    This is an important aspect of the campaign at this point. With Donald Trump revving up his attacks against Clinton, as he is proving to be the Republican nominee, you know that he's not going to let this go. Bernie Sanders may be running a campaign that doesn't get caught up on issues outside of policy, but this is exactly the kind of thing that Donald Trump will obsess about. It's like when he went after Obama's birth certificate. If he makes this a primary issue of his campaign, Hillary will be deemed guilty before anybody has a chance to say otherwise.
    Molly Cruz · Santa Cruz, Guanacaste, Costa Rica
    Clinton wanted to avoid the Wikileaks-revealed searches into her hopefully private exchanges. My God, if Merkel was being hacked, surely everyone else of note was also, both foreign and domestic. My question is, to whom were these questionably high intensity emails sent? Don't the recipients have a say in this? Everyone knows they're being watched.

    There are no exceptions I would think, least of all those searches useful for later political assassination. But those on the other end of these questionable emails must have some interest here, as they are involved.

    [Mar 03, 2016] M of A - Russia Is Weaponizing ... Everything

    Notable quotes:
    "... weaponized bullsh!t, so we're safe for now. ..."
    "... The weaponized Western propaganda. ..."
    "... AmeriKan elites showing they are ever desperate for an eternal enemy...or as a distraction from their own corruption. Delay that "off with their heads" moment forever if possible. ..."
    "... What a dangerous country. Thank God the world has America to protect it. And thank heavens it weaponized depleted uranium for the benefit of all the countries it has liberated. ..."
    "... I think that take is confined to the Zionists and their whores, as Trump says he can get along with Russia and the American people seem to agree. The West caused this whole disaster of refugees, not Russia. Wake up world, and give Frau Merkle a nudge in the right direction. ..."
    "... When the only tool you (the U.S.) have is a hammer (war), everything looks like a nail (a weapon). ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org

    Jackrabbit | Mar 3, 2016 8:43:31 AM | 4

    Apparently the West still maintains the lead in weaponized actors (ht Penelope), weaponized extremists (ht Sy Hersh), and weaponized bullsh!t, so we're safe for now.
    nmb | Mar 3, 2016 8:00:06 AM | 1
    The weaponized Western propaganda.
    farflungstar | Mar 3, 2016 8:06:58 AM | 2
    AmeriKan elites showing they are ever desperate for an eternal enemy...or as a distraction from their own corruption. Delay that "off with their heads" moment forever if possible.
    metni | Mar 3, 2016 8:46:57 AM | 6
    The mass production of faux news demonizing Russians invokes depictions of Orwell's nefarious Eurasians from whom the populace needed Big Brother for protection.
    Lysander | Mar 3, 2016 9:07:28 AM | 8
    What a dangerous country. Thank God the world has America to protect it. And thank heavens it weaponized depleted uranium for the benefit of all the countries it has liberated.
    dahoit | Mar 3, 2016 9:58:47 AM | 13
    9; Serious free people take this seriously.

    I think that take is confined to the Zionists and their whores, as Trump says he can get along with Russia and the American people seem to agree. The West caused this whole disaster of refugees, not Russia. Wake up world, and give Frau Merkle a nudge in the right direction. Another lost human in the maze of Zion.

    Vietnam Vet | Mar 3, 2016 10:53:03 AM | 17
    When the only tool you (the U.S.) have is a hammer (war), everything looks like a nail (a weapon).

    [Mar 03, 2016] Former US Marine President Obama should be tried for treason

    Notable quotes:
    "... a strategy of destabilizing all of the areas surrounding Israel, this includes Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq and even Egypt and Saudi Arabia. This long-term goal is a part of a Greater Israel project, so in terms of sectarian divide you see happening in Iraq today it's actually all part of the very well designed plan to try and secure this fantasy goal of the Greater Israel project. ..."
    "... The last thing Israel or US wants is a strong Nasser-type leader, an Arab nationalist who will seriously ensure that the resources of that country are taken and protected and used for the benefit of the people – that's the last thing that the empire wants and Israel wants. ..."
    "... They're drunk on their own power, they are used to getting everything they want, they can buy anything and anyone that can be bought. This explains the corruption of virtually every government we can look at, and the policies do not reflect the interests of the people. They reflect, pure and simple, the interests of the bankers. ..."
    RT - SophieCo

    Sophie Shevardnadze:So I am here with activist Kenneth O'Keefe, it's really great to have you on our show. Kenneth, I know that you've led a human shield action in Iraq, right before the war started and then you were deported – do you follow what's going on in Iraq right now? For example, the November death toll was almost 1,000 and 2013 is the deadliest year since 2008. Why do you think the removal of Saddam hasn't improved the lives of Iraqis? – Or has it? I don't know…

    Kenneth O'Keefe: Well, I think if you really want to know the truth about the invasion in Iraq, there are clearly some incentives from the invasion: oil, securing oil was one of them, establishing prominent military bases in the region was another one, but the far less talked about reality is Israeli plans which made clear that the Balkanization of surrounding countries and particularly Iraq, if we go to Odid Yinon's plan for Israel in the 1980s, it lays out very clearly a strategy of destabilizing all of the areas surrounding Israel, this includes Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq and even Egypt and Saudi Arabia. This long-term goal is a part of a Greater Israel project, so in terms of sectarian divide you see happening in Iraq today it's actually all part of the very well designed plan to try and secure this fantasy goal of the Greater Israel project.

    SS: Why would Israel benefit from an unstable Middle East, unstable Arab nations? Because what we see is that this instability actually is followed by fundamental Islam. People who are overthrown are either replaced by fundamentalist powers or there's just more sectarian violence that grows…

    KK: Yes, if would seem on the surface from a sane point of view that everything is going wrong, but in fact, when you fracture a country along sectarian divides, ultimately you weaken the country. The last thing Israel or US wants is a strong Nasser-type leader, an Arab nationalist who will seriously ensure that the resources of that country are taken and protected and used for the benefit of the people – that's the last thing that the empire wants and Israel wants. While you have these religious fundamentalist nutcases who are running around bombing and doing all sorts of stuff like that, you have a weakened, fractured country in Iraq, and that is the prerequisite for ultimately expanding Israel into a fantasy of a Greater Israel project. It doesn't seem sane and it's not sane because those who are trying to carry out these agendas are pure and simple psychopaths.

    SS: So you think that American administrations, one after another, have been following this plan for 30 years?

    KK: If you ask me how the world functions, then you have to understand one thing plain and simple – the head of the snake, the system of power is headed by the financial system. The bankers rule the Earth, through the private control of issuance of money, debt-based money which we all are supposed to pay. Ultimately with all of these things that they call "austerity" and whatnot, the bankers, basically, through the control of issuance of money which allows them to provide themselves with an infinite supply of money, means that they can buy anything and anyone that can be bought – so if we look at it, the vast majority of governments around the world, they are nothing more than puppets carrying out an agenda for the bankers, and the bankers at the top of this pyramid are, as I've said, plain and simple psychopath

    They're drunk on their own power, they are used to getting everything they want, they can buy anything and anyone that can be bought. This explains the corruption of virtually every government we can look at, and the policies do not reflect the interests of the people. They reflect, pure and simple, the interests of the bankers.

    SS: So if what you're saying is true, that governments obey the big banks and the big money, then it would really take the people and a revolution in each country that you have named to actually change things around. Do you really see revolution taking place in America, for example?

    KK: It's already happening. I'll give you a great example why I'm optimistic about things in America. You know that the president of the US, traitor that he is, is actually a constitutional lawyer? He actually has trained at the highest levels [of academia] in constitutional law. Do you know how obscene it is that somebody who was trained in constitutional law, giving himself the authority to execute anyone, anywhere, in any part of the planet with no jury, no trial, no conviction, nothing – this man is a dictator who has assigned himself the right to execute anyone, including US citizens. I am confident that at some point the American patriots, who seem to be in a bit of a coma and have been sleeping for a long time, are going to wake up soon and realize that when they took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the US, the president of the US also took that oath and has breached it so badly that he should be arrested and charged with treason right now – and ultimately all of the sycophants of the US Congress who pass things like the Patriot Act and the NDAA, again, completely a contrary to the US constitution, which is supposed to be the supreme law of the land. These people need to be arrested, and a government needs to be put in place that actually honors the US Constitution, and I honestly believe that's going to happen, one way or another.

    ... ... ...

    SS: So you actually bring me to my next point, which is Syria. You're saying the allegations in the Western press that it wasn't Syria but Iran that was the actual goal, the final goal, are true. What happens now if Assad starts to look like he is finally achieving a decisive victory, how will the US respond, do you think?

    KK: Again, keep in mind that the real problem that Assad faces is that, well, yes, there are major human rights violations that happen in Syria and then in every other Arab country, and the US and the Western world – ultimately there are human rights violations of obscene levels, especially in the US. So they are in no position to talk about other leaders – our leaders, the US president can execute anyone, anywhere, anytime – and he does. So how can we talk about Bashar Al-Assad seriously and say that this man is a problem…

    SS: Oh, Kenneth, they will talk about that and [say] the world listens to the American president, that's the difference. They will talk about that, they keep talking about it. That was the whole purpose of why they wanted to overthrow Assad, because there were supposedly human rights violations in Syria.

    KK: The point that I'm making is that the US has given himself the authority to execute anyone, anywhere, anytime for any pretext, any bogus reason. Is that more of a problem to the world than Bashar Al-Assad? Of course it is! It's much more of a problem that the president of the US says he can execute anyone, anywhere anytime, and yet we're sitting here talking about Bashar Al-Assad which, granted, this man has committed crimes in Syria, there's no question of that. But when we look at the US president, when we look at Israel, we look at Britain – that alliance, this true Axis of Evil between these three countries. The amount of devastation that has occurred in Iraq, in Afghanistan and in other parts of world – Yemen, Pakistan – it's so devastating, I think its beggars belief that we as people can be conned into thinking that Bashar Al-Assad is the problem, or that Ahmadinejad was the problem. We are the problem; we in the West are the problem, especially the US government. It really is quite ridiculous that we get manipulated into saying, "Oh, we have to take care of this problem over there." The problem is in our own backyard, and we know this. We better take care of our dirty, filthy House of corruption. The US Congress is nothing but a den of traitors, the most sycophantic, disgusting traitors you can imagine, and the White House has got a dictator. This is a problem; this is a major problem, a much bigger problem than what's happening in Syria or Bashar Al-Assad.

    SS: Now, you have great knowledge and strong opinions about events in the Middle East. Iran has recently softened its attitude toward its opponent after decades of deadlock. Israel is annoyed. How do you see that developing?

    KK: I think it's a reflection of the sanity of people around the world who realize that any kind of attack on Iran is tantamount to initiating a full-scale Third World War, which of course could very well and almost inevitably would lead to a war with China and Russia. This is pure madness and those of us who've lost loved ones or who have served in combat like myself, and others who know the devastating cost of war, not just for the so-called "victor" – because the only victor really is the bankers, quite frankly – but even those who are supposedly on the winning side suffer greatly, and testimony to that fact aside from 1 million to 2 million dead in Iraq is the 22 American servicemen a day who are committing suicide because of the horrendous things that they were told to do in places like Afghanistan and Iraq. This policy, this shift in policy to actually resolve this conflict with Iran, this false conflict, in truth – is a reflection of the will of the people, if you ask me, who are starting to achieve their goal.

    SS: You think Netanyahu is bluffing, because I've spoken to a couple of Israeli parliamentarians, I've spoken to Israelis – and they all are for a strike.

    KK: No, I don't think he is bluffing, he is an absolute psychopath and he reflects the agenda for the powers that be in Israel. Each one of these players – Netanyahu, George W. Bush, Obama, Cameron – they are all puppets and they all are supposed to read a different script at different times, depending on what the agenda is. The agenda is shifting slightly. It looks like Israel and the people of Israel, the Jewish state of Israel, are like sheep being led into slaughter, because ultimately the policies of Israel are completely and totally unsustainable. Even the CIA said in 2009 that Israel would not even exist within 20 years. Henry Kissinger himself said it wouldn't exist in 10 years, and the reason why is because its policies are totally self-destructive. The puppet masters are quite happy to sacrifice the people of Israel, they are going to destroy themselves if they do attack Iran, because Iran can fight back and does have allies, and a lot of countries are sick and tired of Israel's threats to both its immediate neighbors and even the rest of the world. When we look at the Samson Option, I encourage people to Google "Samson Option" and look at the threat Israel has posed to the world if things don't go its way.

    SS: When you talk about the US, [it's] Israel's main supporter – but right now we see that it's kind of open to Iran as well, knowing, how much anxiety that raises among Israelis – what does it tell you about the US?

    KK: It tells me that people are beginning to realize their power. I think there are things that correlate – the approval rating for Barack Obama and the US Congress is as low as it's possible to get, somewhere in the neighborhood of 10 percent, 20 percent maximum. The people have come to a point where they are sick and tired of being lied to, they know they are being lied to, and when they see their so-called leaders try to cooperate with Israel and get another war that would lead to disastrous consequences for the region and for the US and every other person involved – they've had it. The reflection of the policies is indeed that of the people, it's the people who are sick and tired. I do see that there is some demarcation going on between Israel and the US, but this is because the power of people is rising - and as we saw on Syria, the Congress and the president were all basically saying, "The red line was crossed, blah-blah-blah," and this blatantly false flag attack in Ghouta in Syria has backfired, they were not able to carry out this agenda, and this is only empowering the people that much further.

    SS: So you think Iran should be allowed to develop its nuclear program?

    KK: I think it's absolutely hypocritical and insane that we would sit here and fixate on Iran and its supposed nuclear weapons program, which I don't believe exists, but nonetheless, who could blame Iran if they were developing nuclear weapons? If the US and the West taught any lessons to the rest of the world with the invasion and occupation of Iraq it was that Saddam Hussein was a fool for actually disarming, because by disarming all he did was make that much easier for the empire to come in and destroy the entire country. So the lesson we teach to the world is that the best way to defend yourself is to get yourself a nuclear weapon, and of course the biggest culprit of using nuclear weapons and producing nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction is my birth nation, the US, and I find it absolute insane that we sit here and talk about Iran's supposed nuclear weapons program when we know the US is producing every kind of weapon under this sun. It is spending more than any other military on the planet combined, and it's involved in more war, more death and more suffering than any other nation combined. And yet it's sitting there on a pedestal talking about other nations developing weapons of mass destruction? It is insane that we even allow them to do this, the first nation that needs to disarm without questions is the US, and the first nation to be charged with war crimes and crimes against humanity is my birth nation – the United States. Once we start seeing actions like this, then we'll know the people in positions of power are serious, because ultimately the rest of the world is sick and tired of the impunity and continuous threats of a Third World War. We've reached the point now when human beings around the planet are realizing we can't do this. We can't have a Third World War, this is not a game.

    SS: But you haven't answered my question – do you think Iran should be able to develop its nuclear program?

    KK: I think that every nation should disarm right now, every nation that has a weapons program should be inspected by a legitimate international body and those nations with the highest amount of WMDs, nuclear weapons should be the first ones to start disarming. When those nations start disarming, then I would say that the rest of the world will also have to show that it's disarming as well. While the US is able to maintain the largest military might in the history of the world and continues to use those weapons against all other countries, I only see it as a pure hypocrisy that the West would say that other countries can't have such things. I don't want any weapons in this world, but it's not right for us in the West and particular for the US to say that we can have all these weapons and for the rest of the world – we'll bomb you to the Stone Age if you even try to think to defend yourself. It's beyond hypocrisy, it's ridiculous. The US needs to disarm first, and the world needs to assist on that.

    SS: I've read in your blog that you said this world needs one thing above all others – and that's sanity. But doesn't sanity depend on what side of the argument you're on?

    KK: No, I think we were all sane when we were children and unfortunately what passes as education is actually an indoctrination and through indoctrination we've turned into really largely a bunch of dupes who've enslaved ourselves without even knowing it, but when you regain the capacity to think for yourself, to actually become human, it becomes very clear. For instance, if we look at these politicians who are historically lying to us, over and over and over again, and we realize that the war-making are absolutely inherently interested in perpetuating war, and if we look at the people in the positions of power, we see how they continuously reap major bonuses with the banks – they get bailouts to the tune of trillions and yet we're being told that we're not working hard enough, that we're in debt. All of these things combined lead us to the point when we reach a certain level of sanity, and realize: "You know what? This entire system does not represent me," and in fact every person on this planet is fighting the same enemy. That enemy uses the financial system to enslave all of us. It doesn't take a genius to figure this out; in fact more and more people are figuring this out. A point of sanity brings us to the point when we realize: "Enough, this is a game that cannot be played, we're risking our own collective suicide here and as a sane person I will not contribute in any way towards this never-ending policy of war which is leading us to the brink of destruction". This is not about being intelligent, this is about being sane first and foremost. The average person can understand this very easily.

    [Mar 03, 2016] The meeting of oil-producing countries will be held on March 20th in Russia

    Notable quotes:
    "... The meeting of oil-producing countries will be held on March 20th in Russia, the Minister of oil of Nigeria, Emmanuel Kachikwu, announced. According to him, it will be attended by representatives of countries who are OPEC members and countries that are not members in the organization. Mr. Kachikwu noted that producers seek to restore oil prices to $50 per barrel ..."
    peakoilbarrel.com
    Ves, 03/03/2016 at 8:36 am
    SS,

    here is some good news. You have heard it first from me here on POB 2 weeks ago. We are moving in direction of restoring the prices to acceptable level that major producers can live temporarily.

    "The meeting of oil-producing countries will be held on March 20th in Russia, the Minister of oil of Nigeria, Emmanuel Kachikwu, announced. According to him, it will be attended by representatives of countries who are OPEC members and countries that are not members in the organization. Mr. Kachikwu noted that producers seek to restore oil prices to $50 per barrel."

    [Mar 03, 2016] Russia can not replace the European customers but US neocons are trying to kick Russia out of Europe

    Notable quotes:
    "... Instead, it reprieved the fading remnants of the military-industrial-congressional complex, the neocon interventionist camp and Washingtons legions of cold war apparatchiks. All of the foregoing would have been otherwise consigned to the dust bin of history. ..."
    "... The Saudis geopolitical goal is to contain the economic and political power of the kingdoms principal rival, Iran, a Shiite state, and close ally of Bashar Assad. The Saudi monarchy viewed the U.S.-sponsored Shiite takeover in Iraq (and, more recently, the termination of the Iran trade embargo) as a demotion to its regional power status and was already engaged in a proxy war against Tehran in Yemen, highlighted by the Saudi genocide against the Iranian backed Houthi tribe. ..."
    "... But the Sunni kingdoms with vast petrodollars at stake wanted a much deeper involvement from America. On September 4, 2013, Secretary of State John Kerry told a congressional hearing that the Sunni kingdoms had offered to foot the bill for a U.S. invasion of Syria to oust Bashar Assad. In fact, some of them have said that if the United States is prepared to go do the whole thing, the way weve done it previously in other places [Iraq], theyll carry the cost. Kerry reiterated the offer to Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.): With respect to Arab countries offering to bear the costs of [an American invasion] to topple Assad, the answer is profoundly yes, they have. The offer is on the table. ..."
    "... Gazproms gas exports to Europe – including Turkey – had increased to 158.6 billion cubic meters in 2015 with a 8.2 percent increase compared to 2014 ..."
    peakoilbarrel.com
    Longtimber , 03/02/2016 at 7:35 pm
    Stockman's Tales of western intervention into the ME Oil Puzzle.
    "The Trumpster Sends The GOP/Neocon Establishment To The Dumpster"
    "And most certainly, this lamentable turn to the War Party's disastrous reign had nothing to do with oil security or economic prosperity in America. The cure for high oil is always and everywhere high oil prices, not the Fifth Fleet"

    http://davidstockmanscontracorner.com/the-trumpster-sends-the-gopneocon-establishment-to-the-dumpster/

    likbez , 03/02/2016 at 10:50 pm
    Longtimber,

    Thank you.

    It goes all the way back to the collapse of the old Soviet Union and the elder Bush's historically foolish decision to invade the Persian Gulf in February 1991. The latter stopped dead in its tracks the first genuine opportunity for peace the people of the world had been afforded since August 1914.

    Instead, it reprieved the fading remnants of the military-industrial-congressional complex, the neocon interventionist camp and Washington's legions of cold war apparatchiks. All of the foregoing would have been otherwise consigned to the dust bin of history.

    Yet at that crucial inflection point there was absolutely nothing at stake with respect to the safety and security of the American people in the petty quarrel between Saddam Hussein and the Emir of Kuwait.

    Compare with the recent article by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. in Politico:
    http://www.politico.eu/article/why-the-arabs-dont-want-us-in-syria-mideast-conflict-oil-intervention/

    Having alienated Iraq and Syria, Kim Roosevelt fled the Mideast to work as an executive for the oil industry that he had served so well during his public service career at the CIA. Roosevelt's replacement as CIA station chief, James Critchfield, attempted a failed assassination plot against the new Iraqi president using a toxic handkerchief, according to Weiner. Five years later, the CIA finally succeeded in deposing the Iraqi president and installing the Ba'ath Party in power in Iraq. A charismatic young murderer named Saddam Hussein was one of the distinguished leaders of the CIA's Ba'athist team.
    … … …

    The EU, which gets 30 percent of its gas from Russia, was equally hungry for the pipeline, which would have given its members cheap energy and relief from Vladimir Putin's stifling economic and political leverage. Turkey, Russia's second largest gas customer, was particularly anxious to end its reliance on its ancient rival and to position itself as the lucrative transect hub for Asian fuels to EU markets. The Qatari pipeline would have benefited Saudi Arabia's conservative Sunni monarchy by giving it a foothold in Shia-dominated Syria. The Saudis' geopolitical goal is to contain the economic and political power of the kingdom's principal rival, Iran, a Shiite state, and close ally of Bashar Assad. The Saudi monarchy viewed the U.S.-sponsored Shiite takeover in Iraq (and, more recently, the termination of the Iran trade embargo) as a demotion to its regional power status and was already engaged in a proxy war against Tehran in Yemen, highlighted by the Saudi genocide against the Iranian backed Houthi tribe.

    Of course, the Russians, who sell 70 percent of their gas exports to Europe, viewed the Qatar/Turkey pipeline as an existential threat. In Putin's view, the Qatar pipeline is a NATO plot to change the status quo, deprive Russia of its only foothold in the Middle East, strangle the Russian economy and end Russian leverage in the European energy market. In 2009, Assad announced that he would refuse to sign the agreement to allow the pipeline to run through Syria "to protect the interests of our Russian ally."
    … … …

    But the Sunni kingdoms with vast petrodollars at stake wanted a much deeper involvement from America. On September 4, 2013, Secretary of State John Kerry told a congressional hearing that the Sunni kingdoms had offered to foot the bill for a U.S. invasion of Syria to oust Bashar Assad. "In fact, some of them have said that if the United States is prepared to go do the whole thing, the way we've done it previously in other places [Iraq], they'll carry the cost." Kerry reiterated the offer to Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.): "With respect to Arab countries offering to bear the costs of [an American invasion] to topple Assad, the answer is profoundly yes, they have. The offer is on the table."

    Ulenspiegel , 03/03/2016 at 7:10 am
    "The EU, which gets 30 percent of its gas from Russia, was equally hungry for the pipeline, which would have given its members cheap energy and relief from Vladimir Putin's stifling economic and political leverage."

    That is nonsense. The issue is that Russia has quite limited leverage: They can not replace the European customers on short notice – pipeline chain producer to certain customers – and they urgently need the income.

    The more interesting question for Russia is how to cope with a customers who may reduce the demand for NG by 1% per year for the next few decades.

    Ves , 03/03/2016 at 8:25 am
    "The issue is that Russia has quite limited leverage: They can not replace the European customers on short notice"

    Leverage is always mutual in the gas trade that involves long term contracts and long gas supply lines. It is like marriage :-)

    "The more interesting question for Russia is how to cope with a customers who may reduce the demand for NG by 1% per year for the next few decades."

    I am not sure that this is the case.

    "Gazprom's gas exports to Europe – including Turkey – had increased to 158.6 billion cubic meters in 2015 with a 8.2 percent increase compared to 2014."

    [Mar 03, 2016] Iraqs oil exports in February fall below planned levels

    Notable quotes:
    "... Iraq's Oil Ministry said Tuesday that crude exports averaged 3.225 million barrels a day in February ..."
    March 2, 2016 bakken.com

    by SINAN SALAHEDDIN | Associated Press

    BAGHDAD (AP) - Iraq's Oil Ministry said Tuesday that crude exports averaged 3.225 million barrels a day in February, far below levels planned to provide the nation with badly needed cash for ongoing military operations against Islamic State extremists.

    Last month exports grossed about $2.2 billion, based on an average price of about $23 per barrel, ministry spokesman Assem Jihad said in a statement. Iraq's 2016 budget is based on an expected price of $45 per barrel with a daily export capacity of 3.6 million.

    January's daily exports averaged 3.283 million barrels, bringing that month's revenues to $2.261 billion.

    The figures do not include oil being independently exported from Iraq's self-ruled northern Kurdish region since mid-2015, preventing the government from reaping revenues of nearly 600,000 barrels a day.

    Iraq holds the world's fourth largest oil reserves, some 143.1 billion barrels, and oil revenues make up nearly 95 percent of its budget. But like other oil-reliant countries, Iraq's economy has been severely hit by plummeting oil prices since 2014.

    This year's budget stands at nearly 106 trillion Iraqi dinars, or about $89.7 billion. It runs with a deficit of over 24 trillion dinars (about $20.5 billion) that are planned to be relieved through loans from local and international lenders.

    In the summer of 2014, Iraq was plunged into its worst crisis in the aftermath of the withdrawal of U.S. troops at the end of 2011. The Islamic State group - which emerged out of al-Qaida's branch in Iraq - blitzed across vast swaths of Iraqi territory, including the country's second largest city, Mosul, and captured nearly a third of Iraq.

    Iraq introduced austerity measures earlier this year - eliminating government posts, merging some ministries, halting spending on construction projects and imposing new taxes to pay for civil servants and fund its military.

    [Mar 02, 2016] Why the Arabs Don't Want Us in Syria by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

    A really interesting analyses of the USA foreign policy from the son of Robert Kennedy "They don't hate 'our freedoms.' They hate that we've betrayed our ideals in their own countries-for oil. "
    Notable quotes:
    "... But thanks in large part to Allen Dulles and the CIA, whose foreign policy intrigues were often directly at odds with the stated policies of our nation, the idealistic path outlined in the Atlantic Charter was the road not taken. ..."
    "... This is the bloody history that modern interventionists like George W. Bush, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio miss when they recite their narcissistic trope that Mideast nationalists "hate us for our freedoms." For the most part they don't; instead they hate us for the way we betrayed those freedoms-our own ideals-within their borders. ..."
    "... But in March 1949, Syria's democratically elected president, Shukri-al-Quwatli, hesitated to approve the Trans-Arabian Pipeline, an American project intended to connect the oil fields of Saudi Arabia to the ports of Lebanon via Syria. In his book, Legacy of Ashes, CIA historian Tim Weiner recounts that in retaliation for Al-Quwatli's lack of enthusiasm for the U.S. pipeline, the CIA engineered a coup replacing al-Quwatli with the CIA's handpicked dictator, a convicted swindler named Husni al-Za'im. Al-Za'im barely had time to dissolve parliament and approve the American pipeline before his countrymen deposed him, four and a half months into his regime. ..."
    "... That posture caused CIA Director Dulles to declare that "Syria is ripe for a coup" and send his two coup wizards, Kim Roosevelt and Rocky Stone, to Damascus. ..."
    "... Despite Dulles' needling, President Harry Truman had forbidden the CIA from actively joining the British caper to topple Mosaddegh. When Eisenhower took office in January 1953, he immediately unleashed Dulles. After ousting Mosaddegh in "Operation Ajax," Stone and Roosevelt installed Shah Reza Pahlavi, who favored U.S. oil companies but whose two decades of CIA sponsored savagery toward his own people from the Peacock throne would finally ignite the 1979 Islamic revolution that has bedeviled our foreign policy for 35 years. ..."
    "... Stone arrived in Damascus in April 1957 with $3 million to arm and incite Islamic militants and to bribe Syrian military officers and politicians to overthrow al-Quwatli's democratically elected secularist regime, according to Safe for Democracy: The Secret Wars of the CIA, by John Prados. ..."
    "... That report observes that control of the Persian Gulf oil and gas deposits will remain, for the U.S., "a strategic priority" that "will interact strongly with that of prosecuting the long war." Rand recommended using "covert action, information operations, unconventional warfare" to enforce a "divide and rule" strategy. "The United States and its local allies could use the nationalist jihadists to launch a proxy campaign" and "U.S. leaders could also choose to capitalize on the sustained Shia-Sunni conflict trajectory by taking the side of the conservative Sunni regimes against Shiite empowerment movements in the Muslim world ... possibly supporting authoritative Sunni governments against a continuingly hostile Iran." ..."
    "... When Sunni soldiers of the Syrian Army began defecting in 2013, the western coalition armed the Free Syrian Army to further destabilize Syria. The press portrait of the Free Syrian Army as cohesive battalions of Syrian moderates was delusional. The dissolved units regrouped in hundreds of independent militias most of which were commanded by, or allied with, jihadi militants who were the most committed and effective fighters. ..."
    "... Despite the prevailing media portrait of a moderate Arab uprising against the tyrant Assad, U.S. intelligence planners knew from the outset that their pipeline proxies were radical jihadists who would probably carve themselves a brand new Islamic caliphate from the Sunni regions of Syria and Iraq. ..."
    "... a seven-page August 12, 2012, study by the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency, obtained by the right-wing group Judicial Watch, warned that thanks to the ongoing support by U.S./Sunni Coalition for radical Sunni Jihadists, "the Salafist, the Muslim Brotherhood and AQI (now ISIS), are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria." ..."
    "... The Pentagon report warns that this new principality could move across the Iraqi border to Mosul and Ramadi and "declare an Islamic state through its union with other terrorist organizations in Iraq and Syria." ..."
    "... Bremer elevated the Shiites to power and banned Saddam's ruling Ba'ath Party, laying off some 700,000 mostly Sunni, government and party officials from ministers to schoolteachers. He then disbanded the 380,000-man army, which was 80 percent Sunni. Bremer's actions stripped a million of Iraq's Sunnis of rank, property, wealth and power; leaving a desperate underclass of angry, educated, capable, trained and heavily armed Sunnis with little left to lose. The Sunni insurgency named itself Al Qaeda in Iraq. Beginning in 2011, our allies funded the invasion by AQI fighters into Syria. ..."
    "... "ISIS is run by a council of former Iraqi generals. ... Many are members of Saddam Hussein's secular Ba'ath Party who converted to radical Islam in American prisons." ..."
    Feb 23, 2016 | POLITICO Magazine

    America's unsavory record of violent interventions in Syria-little-known to the American people yet well-known to Syrians-sowed fertile ground for the violent Islamic jihadism that now complicates any effective response by our government to address the challenge of ISIL. So long as the American public and policymakers are unaware of this past, further interventions are likely only to compound the crisis. Secretary of State John Kerry this week announced a "provisional" ceasefire in Syria. But since U.S. leverage and prestige within Syria is minimal-and the ceasefire doesn't include key combatants such as Islamic State and al Nusra--it's bound to be a shaky truce at best. Similarly President Obama's stepped-up military intervention in Libya-U.S. airstrikes targeted an Islamic State training camp last week-is likely to strengthen rather than weaken the radicals. As the New York Times reported in a December 8, 2015, front-page story, Islamic State political leaders and strategic planners are working to provoke an American military intervention. They know from experience this will flood their ranks with volunteer fighters, drown the voices of moderation and unify the Islamic world against America.

    To understand this dynamic, we need to look at history from the Syrians' perspective and particularly the seeds of the current conflict. Long before our 2003 occupation of Iraq triggered the Sunni uprising that has now morphed into the Islamic State, the CIA had nurtured violent jihadism as a Cold War weapon and freighted U.S./Syrian relationships with toxic baggage.

    This did not happen without controversy at home. In July 1957, following a failed coup in Syria by the CIA, my uncle, Sen. John F. Kennedy, infuriated the Eisenhower White House, the leaders of both political parties and our European allies with a milestone speech endorsing the right of self-governance in the Arab world and an end to America's imperialist meddling in Arab countries. Throughout my lifetime, and particularly during my frequent travels to the Mideast, countless Arabs have fondly recalled that speech to me as the clearest statement of the idealism they expected from the U.S. Kennedy's speech was a call for recommitting America to the high values our country had championed in the Atlantic Charter; the formal pledge that all the former European colonies would have the right to self-determination following World War II. Franklin D. Roosevelt had strong-armed Winston Churchill and the other allied leaders to sign the Atlantic Charter in 1941 as a precondition for U.S. support in the European war against fascism.

    But thanks in large part to Allen Dulles and the CIA, whose foreign policy intrigues were often directly at odds with the stated policies of our nation, the idealistic path outlined in the Atlantic Charter was the road not taken. In 1957, my grandfather, Ambassador Joseph P. Kennedy, sat on a secret committee charged with investigating the CIA's clandestine mischief in the Mideast. The so called "Bruce-Lovett Report," to which he was a signatory, described CIA coup plots in Jordan, Syria, Iran, Iraq and Egypt, all common knowledge on the Arab street, but virtually unknown to the American people who believed, at face value, their government's denials. The report blamed the CIA for the rampant anti-Americanism that was then mysteriously taking root "in the many countries in the world today." The Bruce-Lovett Report pointed out that such interventions were antithetical to American values and had compromised America's international leadership and moral authority without the knowledge of the American people. The report also said that the CIA never considered how we would treat such interventions if some foreign government were to engineer them in our country.

    This is the bloody history that modern interventionists like George W. Bush, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio miss when they recite their narcissistic trope that Mideast nationalists "hate us for our freedoms." For the most part they don't; instead they hate us for the way we betrayed those freedoms-our own ideals-within their borders.

    ***

    For Americans to really understand what's going on, it's important to review some details about this sordid but little-remembered history. During the 1950s, President Eisenhower and the Dulles brothers-CIA Director Allen Dulles and Secretary of State John Foster Dulles-rebuffed Soviet treaty proposals to leave the Middle East a neutral zone in the Cold War and let Arabs rule Arabia. Instead, they mounted a clandestine war against Arab nationalism-which Allen Dulles equated with communism-particularly when Arab self-rule threatened oil concessions. They pumped secret American military aid to tyrants in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon favoring puppets with conservative Jihadist ideologies thath they regarded as a reliable antidote to Soviet Marxism. At a White House meeting between the CIA's director of plans, Frank Wisner, and John Foster Dulles, in September 1957, Eisenhower advised the agency, "We should do everything possible to stress the 'holy war' aspect," according to a memo recorded by his staff secretary, Gen. Andrew J. Goodpaster.

    Two years later, Amb. Kennedy served on a secret committee that sharply criticized the CIA-backed oversees operations that inflamed anti-American sentiment in the Middle East. That same year, freshman Senator John F. Kennedy, pictured right with brother Robert during a Senate committee hearing, delivered a speech from the Senate floor titled "Imperialism-The Enemy of Freedom," similarly excoriating the Eisenhower administration for hindering political self-determination in the region.

    The CIA began its active meddling in Syria in 1949-barely a year after the agency's creation. Syrian patriots had declared war on the Nazis, expelled their Vichy French colonial rulers and crafted a fragile secularist democracy based on the American model. But in March 1949, Syria's democratically elected president, Shukri-al-Quwatli, hesitated to approve the Trans-Arabian Pipeline, an American project intended to connect the oil fields of Saudi Arabia to the ports of Lebanon via Syria. In his book, Legacy of Ashes, CIA historian Tim Weiner recounts that in retaliation for Al-Quwatli's lack of enthusiasm for the U.S. pipeline, the CIA engineered a coup replacing al-Quwatli with the CIA's handpicked dictator, a convicted swindler named Husni al-Za'im. Al-Za'im barely had time to dissolve parliament and approve the American pipeline before his countrymen deposed him, four and a half months into his regime.

    Following several counter-coups in the newly destabilized country, the Syrian people again tried democracy in 1955, re-electing al-Quwatli and his National Party. Al-Quwatli was still a Cold War neutralist, but, stung by American involvement in his ouster, he now leaned toward the Soviet camp. That posture caused CIA Director Dulles to declare that "Syria is ripe for a coup" and send his two coup wizards, Kim Roosevelt and Rocky Stone, to Damascus.

    Two years earlier, Roosevelt and Stone had orchestrated a coup in Iran against the democratically elected President Mohammed Mosaddegh, after Mosaddegh tried to renegotiate the terms of Iran's lopsided contracts with the British oil giant Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (now BP). Mosaddegh was the first elected leader in Iran's 4,000-year history and a popular champion for democracy across the developing world. Mosaddegh expelled all British diplomats after uncovering a coup attempt by U.K. intelligence officers working in cahoots with BP. Mosaddegh, however, made the fatal mistake of resisting his advisers' pleas to also expel the CIA, which, they correctly suspected, was complicit in the British plot. Mosaddegh idealized the U.S. as a role model for Iran's new democracy and incapable of such perfidies. Despite Dulles' needling, President Harry Truman had forbidden the CIA from actively joining the British caper to topple Mosaddegh. When Eisenhower took office in January 1953, he immediately unleashed Dulles. After ousting Mosaddegh in "Operation Ajax," Stone and Roosevelt installed Shah Reza Pahlavi, who favored U.S. oil companies but whose two decades of CIA sponsored savagery toward his own people from the Peacock throne would finally ignite the 1979 Islamic revolution that has bedeviled our foreign policy for 35 years.

    Flush from his Operation Ajax "success" in Iran, Stone arrived in Damascus in April 1957 with $3 million to arm and incite Islamic militants and to bribe Syrian military officers and politicians to overthrow al-Quwatli's democratically elected secularist regime, according to Safe for Democracy: The Secret Wars of the CIA, by John Prados. Working with the Muslim Brotherhood and millions of dollars, Rocky Stone schemed to assassinate Syria's chief of intelligence, the chief of its General Staff and the chief of the Communist Party, and to engineer "national conspiracies and various strong arm" provocations in Iraq, Lebanon and Jordan that could be blamed on the Syrian Ba'athists. Tim Weiner describes in Legacy of Ashes how the CIA's plan was to destabilize the Syrian government and create a pretext for an invasion by Iraq and Jordan, whose governments were already under CIA control. Kim Roosevelt forecast that the CIA's newly installed puppet government would "rely first upon repressive measures and arbitrary exercise of power," according to declassified CIA documents reported in The Guardian newspaper.

    ... ... ...

    Having alienated Iraq and Syria, Kim Roosevelt fled the Mideast to work as an executive for the oil industry that he had served so well during his public service career at the CIA. Roosevelt's replacement as CIA station chief, James Critchfield, attempted a failed assassination plot against the new Iraqi president using a toxic handkerchief, according to Weiner. Five years later, the CIA finally succeeded in deposing the Iraqi president and installing the Ba'ath Party in power in Iraq. A charismatic young murderer named Saddam Hussein was one of the distinguished leaders of the CIA's Ba'athist team. The Ba'ath Party's Secretary, Ali Saleh Sa'adi, who took office alongside Saddam Hussein, would later say, "We came to power on a CIA train," according to A Brutal Friendship: The West and the Arab Elite, by Said Aburish, a journalist and author. Aburish recounted that the CIA supplied Saddam and his cronies a murder list of people who "had to be eliminated immediately in order to ensure success." Tim Weiner writes that Critchfield later acknowledged that the CIA had, in essence, "created Saddam Hussein."

    ... ... ...

    The EU, which gets 30 percent of its gas from Russia, was equally hungry for the pipeline, which would have given its members cheap energy and relief from Vladimir Putin's stifling economic and political leverage. Turkey, Russia's second largest gas customer, was particularly anxious to end its reliance on its ancient rival and to position itself as the lucrative transect hub for Asian fuels to EU markets. The Qatari pipeline would have benefited Saudi Arabia's conservative Sunni monarchy by giving it a foothold in Shia-dominated Syria. The Saudis' geopolitical goal is to contain the economic and political power of the kingdom's principal rival, Iran, a Shiite state, and close ally of Bashar Assad. The Saudi monarchy viewed the U.S.-sponsored Shiite takeover in Iraq (and, more recently, the termination of the Iran trade embargo) as a demotion to its regional power status and was already engaged in a proxy war against Tehran in Yemen, highlighted by the Saudi genocide against the Iranian backed Houthi tribe.

    Of course, the Russians, who sell 70 percent of their gas exports to Europe, viewed the Qatar/Turkey pipeline as an existential threat. In Putin's view, the Qatar pipeline is a NATO plot to change the status quo, deprive Russia of its only foothold in the Middle East, strangle the Russian economy and end Russian leverage in the European energy market. In 2009, Assad announced that he would refuse to sign the agreement to allow the pipeline to run through Syria "to protect the interests of our Russian ally."

    Despite pressure from Republicans, Barack Obama balked at hiring out young Americans to die as mercenaries for a pipeline conglomerate. Obama wisely ignored Republican clamoring to put ground troops in Syria or to funnel more funding to "moderate insurgents." But by late 2011, Republican pressure and our Sunni allies had pushed the American government into the fray.

    In 2011, the U.S. joined France, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the UK to form the Friends of Syria Coalition, which formally demanded the removal of Assad. The CIA provided $6 million to Barada, a British TV channel, to produce pieces entreating Assad's ouster. Saudi intelligence documents, published by WikiLeaks, show that by 2012, Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia were arming, training and funding radical jihadist Sunni fighters from Syria, Iraq and elsewhere to overthrow the Assad's Shiite-allied regime. Qatar, which had the most to gain, invested $3 billion in building the insurgency and invited the Pentagon to train insurgents at U.S. bases in Qatar. According to an April 2014 article by Seymour Hersh, the CIA weapons ratlines were financed by Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

    The idea of fomenting a Sunni-Shiite civil war to weaken the Syrian and Iranian regimes in order to to maintain control of the region's petrochemical supplies was not a novel notion in the Pentagon's lexicon. A damning 2008 Pentagon-funded Rand report proposed a precise blueprint for what was about to happen. That report observes that control of the Persian Gulf oil and gas deposits will remain, for the U.S., "a strategic priority" that "will interact strongly with that of prosecuting the long war." Rand recommended using "covert action, information operations, unconventional warfare" to enforce a "divide and rule" strategy. "The United States and its local allies could use the nationalist jihadists to launch a proxy campaign" and "U.S. leaders could also choose to capitalize on the sustained Shia-Sunni conflict trajectory by taking the side of the conservative Sunni regimes against Shiite empowerment movements in the Muslim world ... possibly supporting authoritative Sunni governments against a continuingly hostile Iran."

    As predicted, Assad's overreaction to the foreign-made crisis-dropping barrel bombs onto Sunni strongholds and killing civilians-polarized Syria's Shiite/Sunni divide and allowed U.S. policymakers to sell Americans the idea that the pipeline struggle was a humanitarian war. When Sunni soldiers of the Syrian Army began defecting in 2013, the western coalition armed the Free Syrian Army to further destabilize Syria. The press portrait of the Free Syrian Army as cohesive battalions of Syrian moderates was delusional. The dissolved units regrouped in hundreds of independent militias most of which were commanded by, or allied with, jihadi militants who were the most committed and effective fighters. By then, the Sunni armies of Al Qaeda in Iraq were crossing the border from Iraq into Syria and joining forces with the squadrons of deserters from the Free Syrian Army, many of them trained and armed by the U.S.

    Despite the prevailing media portrait of a moderate Arab uprising against the tyrant Assad, U.S. intelligence planners knew from the outset that their pipeline proxies were radical jihadists who would probably carve themselves a brand new Islamic caliphate from the Sunni regions of Syria and Iraq. Two years before ISIL throat cutters stepped on the world stage, a seven-page August 12, 2012, study by the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency, obtained by the right-wing group Judicial Watch, warned that thanks to the ongoing support by U.S./Sunni Coalition for radical Sunni Jihadists, "the Salafist, the Muslim Brotherhood and AQI (now ISIS), are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria." Using U.S. and Gulf state funding, these groups had turned the peaceful protests against Bashar Assad toward "a clear sectarian (Shiite vs. Sunni) direction." The paper notes that the conflict had become a sectarian civil war supported by Sunni "religious and political powers." The report paints the Syrian conflict as a global war for control of the region's resources with "the west, Gulf countries and Turkey supporting [Assad's] opposition, while Russia, China and Iran support the regime." The Pentagon authors of the seven-page report appear to endorse the predicted advent of the ISIS caliphate: "If the situation unravels, there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor) and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want in order to isolate the Syrian regime." The Pentagon report warns that this new principality could move across the Iraqi border to Mosul and Ramadi and "declare an Islamic state through its union with other terrorist organizations in Iraq and Syria."

    Of course, this is precisely what has happened. Not coincidentally, the regions of Syria occupied by the Islamic State exactly encompass the proposed route of the Qatari pipeline.

    Across the Mideast, Arab leaders routinely accuse the U.S. of having created the Islamic State. To most Americans, such accusations seem insane. However, to many Arabs, the evidence of U.S. involvement is so abundant that they conclude that our role in fostering the Islamic State must have been deliberate.

    In fact, many of the Islamic State fighters and their commanders are ideological and organizational successors to the jihadists that the CIA has been nurturing for more than 30 years from Syria and Egypt to Afghanistan and Iraq.

    Prior to the American invasion, there was no Al Qaeda in Saddam Hussein's Iraq. President George W. Bush destroyed Saddam's secularist government, and his viceroy, Paul Bremer, in a monumental act of mismanagement, effectively created the Sunni Army, now named the Islamic State. Bremer elevated the Shiites to power and banned Saddam's ruling Ba'ath Party, laying off some 700,000 mostly Sunni, government and party officials from ministers to schoolteachers. He then disbanded the 380,000-man army, which was 80 percent Sunni. Bremer's actions stripped a million of Iraq's Sunnis of rank, property, wealth and power; leaving a desperate underclass of angry, educated, capable, trained and heavily armed Sunnis with little left to lose. The Sunni insurgency named itself Al Qaeda in Iraq. Beginning in 2011, our allies funded the invasion by AQI fighters into Syria.

    In April 2013, having entered Syria, AQI changed its name to ISIL. According to Dexter Filkins of the New Yorker, "ISIS is run by a council of former Iraqi generals. ... Many are members of Saddam Hussein's secular Ba'ath Party who converted to radical Islam in American prisons." The $500 million in U.S. military aid that Obama did send to Syria almost certainly ended up benefiting these militant jihadists. Tim Clemente, the former chairman of the FBI's joint task force, told me that the difference between the Iraq and Syria conflicts is the millions of military-aged men who are fleeing the battlefield for Europe rather than staying to fight for their communities.

    The obvious explanation is that the nation's moderates are fleeing a war that is not their war. They simply want to escape being crushed between the anvil of Assad's Russian-backed tyranny and the vicious jihadist Sunni hammer that we had a hand in wielding in a global battle over competing pipelines. You can't blame the Syrian people for not widely embracing a blueprint for their nation minted in either Washington or Moscow. The superpowers have left no options for an idealistic future that moderate Syrians might consider fighting for. And no one wants to die for a pipeline.

    ... ... ..

    Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. is the president of Waterkeeper Alliance. His newest book is Thimerosal: Let The Science Speak.

    [Mar 02, 2016] Crude Tumbles Into Red After Putin Comments

    Zero Hedge
  • Login or register to post comments
  • Tue, 03/01/2016 - 11:50 | 7256850 Huh Reeeally

    So, max oil production when there has been falling demand causes low prices which is good for consumers, what could go wrong?

    If you're Syria you're the pipeline hub to enable either NATO or Russian control of european gas supplies.

    If you're Ukraine, well, everything has gone wrong, hasn't it? Innocence of the masses VS effective propaganda...

    If you're Yemen then your border is contiguous with that of a large Saudi oil field, not to mention a competing brand of Islam.

    If you're Iraq then, well, you've been totally f*d over since Bush Sr., sorry about that.

    If you're Libya and want to sell oil in gold Dinars, and your name is Kadaffy (I know, but who cares how it's spelled?) then you should have known better. Doesn't matter if you have a huge aquaifier and can give away land and irrigate it, or provide free university education.

    I guess I should be glad I'm just a simple consumer! Wait, I'm paying for all this shiite!!!

    Tue, 03/01/2016 - 11:53 | 7256869 inosent

    Short term, the trade was to sell w/34.69 APR 16 as a stop. There is still the trend, mojo to the downside, which has not yet broken. The shot game is to hold feb high, and plunge to new lows, so March is a thich red monthly bar that closes near the lows. I think the trigger price is Feb highs, and it isn't too far away prev year sett, meaning a break of feb = touching the prev yr sett, and going positive for the year, which is an epic event, esp in this setting. Right now the market is trapped inside of the 2/16/2016 shadow, w yday close conspicuously settling (once again) inside that shadow @.75, with the top of yday bar @.98, last trade 90.

    the news is bad, but the news is bs. just a headline. the news is only a story, the truth is somewhere else. so trading on old news wears out and the paradigm shifts. pretty soon they talk about how the world's population break 8 BB, so many ppl, so much demand, all that stuff. then you stare at a chart that is in love with the upper right hand corner of the chart, instead of the lower.

    It's hard to see it, and believe me, impossible to feel it, esp with all this short sniping and juking ower, threatening, etc, but, and I get the velocity of money thing, I had not really taken that fully into consideration, but nonetheless, the money supply flying around out there is still 4x greater today that it was in 2009, where the prices were higher than they are now. On the surface of it, that seems crazy to me.

    So, theoretically, commods across the board are front running a collapse in money supply (which has not happened yet) bcz, if I have this right, the ponzi scheme of this money system requires fresh debt to cover old % obligations, and those % obligations touch innumerable amounts of debt instruments, govt, corp, down to mom and pop private.

    As ZH hammers away on all the time, the question is, exactly where is the fresh money supply supposed to come from to cover? If ZIRP failed for lack of takers, and one could argue that failure is real because of the existence of NIRP, where the banks just go into your acct and simply take your money to cover their obligations, and if NIRP is only a temporary bandaid (TM, haha) solution, the argument goes that if there is not enough liquidity in the system, these obligations cannot be covered, and as we saw in 2008, when that happens, the par value of the bonds pretty much hits zero, and when that happens, then the money supply crashes, because as we know, debt is money.

    Assuming Putin is not (at least completely) right about the selling politically motivated, with the hidden hand behind it the US Treasury, trying to destroy Mother Russia (that has to at least be a factor), what I would say that we are looking at, considering the extreme, mind blowing divergence between oil prices and the stock market indices, is at least the possibility the market has just priced in the coming money supply wipe out, the worst case scenario.

    So let's say the money supply crashes from today's levels to 2009, that is a big drop, for sure, but oil already played that , to the extreme of hitting $26 (!). That would definitely have an impact on stock prices, but if oil was at $35 @2009 MS levels, why would it be @10?

    Of course, when the money supply crashes, moving away from the current, seemingly impenatrable MS ceiling, this then leaves a lot of room for fresh injections of money supply, to get the game started all over again - but not after a lot of ppl get whatever they had in equity totally wiped out.

    But, under my analysis here, assuming that scenario, oil was way out in front, so they wont be trading on that anymore because it happened. That is old news, for real. And in that scenario, oil production gets wiped out, but the demand (static as it generally is, increasing only with a steady rise in population, in broad terms), this would force oil prices much higher.

    And what if the bet on money supply crash is wrong, and the central banks pull a rabbit out of their hat? That is supportive of oil prices as well.

    Finally, setting aside all else, assuming our crazy world just keeps on keeping on, and the fraud of headlines continues to mask the truth that things are far better in the world than the headline dictates, and that no new technology has come into play that makes oil obsolete, the most basic and primitive analysis has one looking at $26 v 0 and $26 v $150. You tell me, where is the risk?

    Getting to new all time highs in a commod can take a very long time, I grant you that. But no matter how I slice it, while sellers might get some love down here for, what, $10, $15, they are starting to play a game of market roulette, where instead of one bullet in the chamber, there are like 3 or 4.

    Thus, (150 - 25) / 2 = $62. (150 - 15) / 2 = $67. In other words, the lower the prices go, the higher the mid point in the range between old all time high, and last printed low. Some would argue the $150 oil was an anomaly, but I say it has to be accounted for, and the underlying factors that led to it are still in play, and not likely to change for years to come. Even if there is an equity crash back to 2009 lows, what does anybody thing the odds are that the fed res system will be abolished and the hands that control the money system will change?

    If that happens, then the FRN becomes extinct, and then perhaps we see a repricing across the board, where everybody gets a massive haircut. But that is a separate issue. Apples and oranges, and a different risk discussion. Hence, in the present context, I see oil back in the mid 60s, hard to say when, 2 years? Who knows. But if the context doesn't change, I am far more focused on that $150 than the $10, because if the context doesn't change, even if there is a MS crash, as oil is way out in front of it, they can just rebuild the MS and put everybody right back where they were in 2007, or even worse - meaning oil trades @ $200 p/bbl, back to peak oil headlines, incessent demand, etc.

    You cant see it now. 5 years? 7? Yeah, it wont look like this. Leave it to the markets and the news and all the BS of the day distract you from seeing a once in a lifetime opportunity. But, that is what makes a market a market. Everybody has their own ideas, and definitions of risk, and execute accordingly.

    As always, the best trader wins.

    [Mar 02, 2016] In the summer of 2016 Russia might face lack of gasoline

    peakoilbarrel.com
    AlexS, 03/02/2016 at 5:46 am
    Russia's crude and condensate production in February was 10,840 kb/d (preliminary estimate), up 2.1% year-on-year, and down 25 kb/d (0.2%) from January level.

    source: Russian Energy Ministry

    ERRATA, 03/02/2016 at 8:20 am
    http://www.19rus.info/index.php/ekonomika-i-finansy/item/44314-rossiyan-preduprezhdayut-ob-ostrom-defitsite-benzina-s-1-iyulya

    Russians warn of the acute shortage of petrol from July 1
    --------
    http://www.the-village.ru/village/situation/situation/231679-benzin

    In the summer of 2016 Russia will face with lack of gasoline.

    [Mar 01, 2016] Could Hillary Clinton Be a Sociopath?

    Notable quotes:
    "... I wonder if voters will be beguiled by Clinton's steely public persona-or if they'll look at the broken life of the victim, whom the attack left infertile for life? Will they remember that defense lawyer Hillary Clinton smeared the 12-year-old victim as a delusional seducer? ..."
    "... I fear that this story will go away. That Hillary will dodge this bullet as her husband dodged a credible charge that he actually, personally, raped a woman with his very own penis. ..."
    "... We still think that our country is a beautiful exception to the cruel calculus of politics, and expect that our leaders will be more than schemers skilled at clawing their way to power. Perhaps it's a lingering ghost of our Puritan forefathers who meant to found a "city on a hill," ..."
    "... We see an immaculately groomed, elite-educated person like Hillary Clinton who repeats all the pious phrases of humanitarian liberalism, and we cannot wrap our heads around the idea that she might be an icy, conscienceless sociopath. ..."
    "... But the best-selling expert on sociopaths, Dr. Martha Stout of Harvard, reminds us that some four Americans out of a 100 are in fact clinical sociopaths-people who simply do not experience empathy with their fellow human beings, who do not experience guilt. ..."
    "... Sociopaths experience horror stories-such as the story of a 12-year-old girl being brutally raped-the way you and I experience crossword puzzles. And one might very well chuckle and brag over how quickly one finished a crossword puzzle. ..."
    "... I have known a few such sociopaths in my life, and like most normal people I simply could not accept the evidence of my senses. Faced with their ruthless actions and habitual lies, I fell back on denial. I made excuses for their cruelties and believed their jaw-dropping lies. ..."
    Mar 01, 2016 | TheBlaze.com

    John Zmirak received his B.A. from Yale University in 1986, then his M.F.A. in screenwriting and fiction and his Ph.D. in English in 1996 from Louisiana State University. John Zmirak is author, most recently, of the upcoming book The Race to Save Our Century (with Jason Jones). His columns are archived at www.badcatholics.com.

    Will the scandal over Hillary Clinton's cynical, take-no-prisoners defense of a child rapist damage her chances at winning the White House?

    Can we choke down the fact that she willingly took on that rape case, then lied about it in print-as revealed by recently unearthed audio tapes? (Clinton wrote that she was assigned the case against her will; the tapes reveal that she took on the case as a personal favor, representing a rapist who seems to have calculated that a female attorney would help his chances.)

    Will women vote for a woman who used technicalities to get a brutal rapist less than a year in jail, then chuckled about the case to another lawyer? A lawyer who bragged how cleverly she had helped her client cheat justice?

    I wonder if voters will be beguiled by Clinton's steely public persona-or if they'll look at the broken life of the victim, whom the attack left infertile for life? Will they remember that defense lawyer Hillary Clinton smeared the 12-year-old victim as a delusional seducer? Will Hillary's campaign be dogged by women who have suffered the trauma of rape, picketing her speeches with signs that say, "Hillary Blames Victims"?

    I fear that this story will go away. That Hillary will dodge this bullet as her husband dodged a credible charge that he actually, personally, raped a woman with his very own penis.

    And I wonder how on God's earth that can happen-how any woman, or any man with a wife, daughter, or sister, can look at Hillary Clinton now without throwing up in his mouth. Are Americans morally deaf, dumb, and blind?

    No. I think that I've figured it out. It's not just that liberals will read the story and assume it's a baseless slander-not when the Daily Beast and ABC News are echoing the claims that appear on Fox. Not when you can read what the rape victim thinks of Hillary:

    "I would say [to Clinton], 'You took a case of mine in '75, you lied on me I realize the truth now, the heart of what you've done to me. And you are supposed to be for women? You call that [being] for women, what you done to me? And I hear you on tape laughing."

    Americans are not jaded cynics who expect their politicians to be moral monsters, on a par with stone-faced killers like Vladimir Putin. (Charles de Gaulle famously agreed with Nietzsche that "the State is a cold monster.")

    Americans are not so blasé about political evil-which is why we drove Richard Nixon out of power after Watergate, to the puzzlement of foreigners worldwide who took Nixonian "dirty tricks" for granted.

    We still think that our country is a beautiful exception to the cruel calculus of politics, and expect that our leaders will be more than schemers skilled at clawing their way to power. Perhaps it's a lingering ghost of our Puritan forefathers who meant to found a "city on a hill," or the faded echo of the Founding Fathers who warned that without virtuous citizens and upright leaders, our Republic would degenerate into just another squalid tyranny, like today's Venezuela.

    But we expect better.

    So when we are faced with evil, we are confused. We cannot quite believe it.

    We see an immaculately groomed, elite-educated person like Hillary Clinton who repeats all the pious phrases of humanitarian liberalism, and we cannot wrap our heads around the idea that she might be an icy, conscienceless sociopath. When we visualize a sociopath, we think of a leering loner who dresses up as a clown and murders children, or a late-term abortionist who collects fetal feet as trophies.

    But the best-selling expert on sociopaths, Dr. Martha Stout of Harvard, reminds us that some four Americans out of a 100 are in fact clinical sociopaths-people who simply do not experience empathy with their fellow human beings, who do not experience guilt.

    Brain scans of sociopaths have shown that when they are presented with photos that in normal humans provoke strong emotions, such as pictures of dead children or animals being tortured, the emotional centers in sociopaths' brains remain coolly inactive. Instead, what lights up is the part of their brains that in normal people gets active when they play chess. Sociopaths experience horror stories-such as the story of a 12-year-old girl being brutally raped-the way you and I experience crossword puzzles. And one might very well chuckle and brag over how quickly one finished a crossword puzzle.

    I have known a few such sociopaths in my life, and like most normal people I simply could not accept the evidence of my senses. Faced with their ruthless actions and habitual lies, I fell back on denial. I made excuses for their cruelties and believed their jaw-dropping lies.

    That seemed like the "Christian" thing to do. Of course it wasn't. It was just a lie I told myself, but choking it down was easier than facing the stark, appalling fact: That I had befriended a moral monster.

    My question for Americans is: Will we go ahead and elect one?

    John Zmirak is author, most recently, of the upcoming book "The Race to Save Our Century" (with Jason Jones). His columns are archived at www.badcatholics.com.

    [Mar 01, 2016] Russia is ready for the implementation of the freeze of oil production

    peakoilbarrel.com
    likbez, 03/01/2016 at 8:25 pm
    Looks like Russian bear after being hit in the head and robbed at gun point starts slow awakening from hibernation. The honchos of Russian oil companies are now officially onboard for the freeze and some of them want more drastic measures. They have a discussion of "stabilization of Russian economy" (which means stabilization of oil prices) with President Putin, which means that Putin got his marching orders from oil oligarchs, some of which wants "quid pro quo" from the government (not to increase taxes on oil despite budget deficit). Details are scarce. But previously hapless head of Rosneft Igor Sechin lamented about the situation he drove his company into, being completely unprepared to the oil price crush. May be he got promises of additional loans to keep the company afoot.

    Generally Russian performance in this crises leaves to me the impression of complete incompetence on high level. Especially unimpressive is Alexander Novak – the Russian Minister of Energy. He speaks like a typical neoliberal. This is when more centralized economy should score points and they instead were taken for the ride and continued to buy the US Treasuries. Why not to buy Russia oil for the strategic reserve instead, like China did ? I think Russia still does not have any state strategic oil reserves (the only major country in such a position).

    Russia is ready for the implementation of the freeze of oil production

    Slightly edited Google translation

    Izvestia.ru

    President Vladimir Putin and the heads of major Russian oil companies discussed implementation of decisive measures to stabilize the Russian economy in view of increased volatility of world markets.

    As a start Russia is ready to join the group of countries within and outside OPEC, which approved the proposal to freeze the level of production of oil in 2016 at January level. Such production limits can be implemented by a joint agreement of key countries, that is already was put on table on Feb 16, 2016 by Saudis, Russia, Qatar and Venezuela and now is at the stage of multilateral discussion with other oil exporting countries. The final decision is expected somewhere in March on a new meeting of Ministers of oil producing countries.

    This meeting at the Kremlin was chaired by Vladimir Putin and was attended by all key representatives of the Russian oil industry - the Chairman of the Board of "LUKOIL" Vagit Alekperov, the General Director "Surgutneftegaz" Vladimir Bogdanov, the head of Board "Gazprom oil" Alexander Dyukov, the President of the company "Bashneft" Alexander Korsik, the General Director of Zarubezhneft Sergey Kudryashov, the head of "Tatneft" Nail Maganov, President of "Rosneft" Igor Sechin, the head of the Independent oil and gas company Eduard Khudainatov.

    In addition, the Russian minister of energy Alexander Novak and the head of the presidential administration Sergei Ivanov, as well as aide to President Putin Andrei Belousov also participated in this meeting.

    This year Alexander Novak held a series of meetings with Ministers of oil-producing countries. In February, the negotiations in the Qatari capital and it was proposed to fix the production at the level of January. In January, Russia produced 46,006 million metric tons of oil with gas condensate. This is 1.5% more than in January 2015. Average daily production amounted to 10.9 million barrels.

    Before the meeting, when everybody was sitting at the table, Vladimir Putin held a short private consultation with Alexander Novak. After that Putin opened the meeting with the following statement:

    "As the Minister reported to me, some of you have more radical suggestions (for the countries - exporters of oil. - Izvestia) for the stabilization of oil markets, but about this particular measure (fixation of production at the level of January. - "The news") as I understand something close to a consensus already exists.

    The purpose of our meeting today is to hear from each of the heads of the companies represented here personally the opinion of each of you on the subject of the discussion. How do you really feel about the current situation and measures that need to be taken ?"

    CEOs of major Russian companies remained silent while journalists were present. Only the General Director "Tatneft" Nail Maganov and Chairman of the Board "Gazprom oil" Alexander Dyukov start grinning, because these companies in January of this year recorded a growth of production relative to January of last year (by 4.2% and 5.6% respectively, according to the Central Department of Control of Fuel and Energy Complex).

    After those introductory remarks journalists were asked to leave the meeting.

    The meeting did not last long. After the meeting ended, Minister Alexander Novak in a press conference said to journalists that all heads the Russian companies who were present supported this international initiative. He stated that:

    The implementation of this freeze should give a positive impulse on oil markets. It increases the predictability of behaviors of key market participants, which should lead to the reduction of volatility…

    Today, the total surplus of world oil production is estimated to be around 1.5 million barrels per day. If you freeze the level of production on the level of January, 2016 and the demand increases by 1.3 million to 1.5 million barrels a day, the oversupply in the market will be eliminated at the end of the year. And we already saw some signs of stabilization of the market after this measure was announced.

    Alexander Novak also noted that this freeze may not only reduce price volatility but also shorten the period of depressed oil prices to the end of 2016, when in his opinion oil prices can return to the $50-60 per barrel range. He noted that as of today 15 oil producing countries have publicly declared his readiness to sign the agreement.

    According to the Minister, they represent around 73% of world oil production. The exact format of the agreement, in which the key is the method of monitoring of compliance, is yet to be determined.

    The sighing of the freeze agreement can happen at another meeting of oil ministers in March. According to Alexander Novak, even if Iran does not join the agreement, the market will still stabilize, as Iran still has a very low level of production and can't increase it fast. Due to this countries-signers of the agreement can make an exception for Iran and increase its ceiling over the January 2016 level.

    Freezing production at least will stop flooding the market with new volumes of oil in the delusionary pursuit of "market share", commented on the event the analyst of FC "Discovery Broker" Andrei Kochetkov. It will more be influenced by the financial strength of companies and countries as well as the real costs of production from the depleting fields. On average, traditional oil wells lose 3-5% of production volume each year, he said. Accordingly, if the flow of new investments in the field slow down to a halt, the global market might lose another 3-4 million barrels per day of the production at the end of the year. This drop even if less drastic as stated will increase the pressure on oil prices said the expert.

    There should not be any major problem for Russian companies with freezing the production of oil on January, 2016 level said the head of the analytical company of the Small Letters Vitaly Kryukov. We should not fear that this measure damage our fields, given that in Western Siberia production continues to fall, he said.

    That, of course, might lead to less drilling in some places but will not affect the commissioning of new projects that were under construction. For example, LUKOIL is expected to launch new projects this year in the Caspian sea, but at the same time they are quickly losing the volume of production in Western Siberia.

    The second topic discussed at the meeting with the President was the taxation of Russian oil companies. The heads of the companies have asked the head of state in the medium term, not to raise taxes and to keep the current system of taxation while the current turmoil with oil prices exist. In his after the meeting interview Alexander Novak stated that Vladimir Putin is now aware about the position of the heads of Russian oil companies on this subject, but this issue still needs to be discussed inside the government.

    [Feb 29, 2016] LiveJournal

    www.livejournal.com
    http://pravdoiskatel77.livejournal.com/12040016.html


    Опубликованная в "Новой газете" моя статья "Нормальные герои всегда идут в обход", рассказывает о коррумпированном экс-премьере и ныне оппозиционере Михаиле "Два Процента" Касьянове. Нет, нет. Я не ошибся. Журналистское расследование о махинациях, жульничестве и миллионах долларов нынешнего главы "Парнас" Михаила Касьянова опубликовано именно в "Новой газете". Вот ЗДЕСЬ .

    Только статья датирована 28 февраля 2000 года. То есть, ровно 16 лет назад. Что, впрочем, ничего не меняет. Ни один факт, из приведенных мною в "Новой газете" в 2000 году, не был опровергнут ни самой "Новой газетой", ни Михаилом Касьяновым.

    Привожу свое расследование, опубликованное " Новой газетой ", полностью.

    " Нормальные герои всегда идут в обход


    Неизвестные факты из жизни Михаила Касьянова

    Стране нужны новые герои. Надоели Березовский и Абрамович. На них и без нас уже пробы негде ставить. Я кинул взгляд окрест Кремля и Белого дома и обнаружил в пыли Министерства финансов настоящий бриллиант из короны будущего президента - это не кто иной, как второй человек в государстве Российском, вице-премьер Михаил Касьянов. Начав изучение жизни своего "героя", я вскоре понял, что этот на первый взгляд скромный переговорщик с МВФ - просто находка для журналистского расследования. За тихим и внешне приятным Михаилом Михайловичем тянутся весьма и весьма странные следы... Итак, несколько историй из жизни нового "героя" России Михаила Касьянова

    ИЗ НАШЕГО ДОСЬЕ.

    Касьянов Михаил Михайлович родился 8 декабря 1957 года в Солнцеве, окончил Московский автодорожный институт. С 1981 по 1990 год работал в Госплане РСФСР, специализируясь на внешнеэкономических связях. С 1990 по 1993 год Касьянов трудился в Министерстве экономики, где также отвечал за внешнеэкономические вопросы. В 1993 году перешел в Министерство финансов, где возглавил департамент иностранных кредитов и внешнего долга. В 1995 году Михаил Михайлович назначен заместителем министра финансов РФ, а 25 мая 1999 года наш "герой" занял пост министра. В настоящее время Касьянов - первый вице-премьер, министр финансов и практически исполняет обязанности главы кабинета министров Владимира Путина.

    Касьянов и "Мабетекс"

    Перед нами - удивительный документ периода расцвета скандала под названием "Мабетекс". Помните? В этой весьма откровенной бумаге, именуемой "Разрешением № 1972 от 2.08.1995", говорится следующее: "Министерство финансов РФ разрешает перечислить... двадцать три миллиона шестьсот пять тысяч восемьсот девяносто долларов на оплату оборудования и выполнения комплекса работ по реконструкции Московского Кремля, производимого фирмой "Мабетекс" (Швейцария). Внешторгбанку РФ перечисления рублевого покрытия не контролировать".

    Вот такое знатное разрешение было выдано Минфином России, и почти 24 миллиона долларов утекло скандально известному "Мабетексу", но при этом никакого рублевого покрытия в российский бюджет не поступило. Письмо подписали замминистра финансов А. Головатый и казначей В. Волков. Но, как мне стало известно, на этом документе Головатый всего лишь поставил свою закорючку, а подлинным автором индульгенции был не кто иной, как нынешний первый вице-премьер Михаил Касьянов. Именно Михаил Михайлович в 1995 году являлся заместителем министра финансов и единолично ведал всеми валютными операциями Минфина РФ и соответственно всеми проплатами по "Мабетексу". Ну а конкретно это разрешение на оплату услуг господина Пакколи оформлял и готовил лично Касьянов, и в архиве Минфина имеются документы по этим 24 миллионам за подписью нынешнего первого вице-премьера. По информации нашего источника, работавшего в 1995-1996 годах в ближайшем окружении Касьянова, все финансовые расчеты с "Мабетексом", "Меркатой" и другими компаниями, "уводившими" бюджетные деньги через управление делами президента, готовились лично Михаилом Касьяновым. И, кстати, в уголовном деле по "Мабетексу", которое ведет швейцарская прокуратура кантона Женева, имеются еще три таких же разрешения на оплату по 20 миллионов долларов каждое. И к каждому из них самое прямое отношение имел Касьянов, а на многих документах, подшитых в том же уголовном деле, присутствует аккуратный росчерк нынешнего первого вице-премьера.


    Касьянов и долги

    Есть такое понятие, как коммерческие долги государства. Сейчас много говорят и пишут о том, что Россия должна миллиарды различным странам, фондам и фирмам. И вот как раз этими долгами последние четыре года и ведает не кто иной, как Михаил Касьянов. Тут-то и начинает действовать уникальная схема игры, придуманная Касьяновым и его ближайшим партнером Александром Мамутом. Суть в следующем.

    Долг России какой-либо фирме или фонду составляет, предположим, сотни миллионов долларов. Касьянов на международном уровне сообщает, что мы не можем вернуть долг, и тут же банки, "аффилиированные" с господином Мамутом (МДМ-Банк, Собинбанк и другие), скупают за бесценок российские долговые обязательства, платя за них примерно 25-30 процентов стоимости. Как известно, отчаявшийся кредитор зачастую идет на все, лишь бы получить хоть часть долга.

    А в обязанности Михаила Касьянова последние годы входит составление списка первоочередных долгов России, которые нужно срочно погашать. Эта бумага впоследствии ложится на стол премьер-министру. И вот тут-то в "ежемесячный список Касьянова" в обязательном порядке попадают те долги, которые приобрел господин Мамут. И государство выплачивает компаньону Касьянова практически полную сумму долга. И разница в размере 60-70 процентов остается в структурах Мамута. Далее мамутовско-касьяновские деньги перечисляются в дочерние компании, принадлежащие компаньонам, а оттуда миллионы долларов уходят через корсчета то в "Бэнк оф Нью-Йорк", то в оффшорные зоны.
    О масштабе сумм, проходящих через схему Касьянова - Мамута, свидетельствует ряд документов. Приведем один из них. Перед нами - платежное поручение, в котором "Компания проектного финансирования", принадлежащая Мамуту, перечисляет двенадцать миллионов долларов США через "Бэнк оф Нью-Йорк" в оффшорную фирму, зарегистрированную на Барбадосе. Документ датирован 18 апреля 1996 года. Незадолго до этого Россия погасила целый ряд долгов крупным западным табачным компаниям. И, кстати, именно в то время заместителем министра финансов, курирующим внешние коммерческие долги и выплаты по ним, был... Михаил Касьянов. Но, как свидетельствуют очевидцы, приведенная нами сумма в 12 миллионов долларов - это лишь маленькая часть денег, "прокрученных" дуэтом Касьянов - Мамут.


    Касьянов и кредит

    Помните 1998 год - то сладкое время, когда МВФ еще давал России большие кредиты? Именно тогда наше отечество получило очередной кредит в размере 4 миллиарда 800 миллионов долларов на стабилизацию курса рубля. Эти немалые деньги поступили на счет Минфина в федеральном резерве Центробанка. После чего Михаил Касьянов распорядился перевести миллиарды на зарубежные корсчета уполномоченных банков (СБС-Агро, Менатеп, Инком, Объединенный банк и проч.) для того, чтобы эти банки перечислили в российский бюджет рубли на эквивалентную сумму и тем самым стабилизировали отечественную валюту. Так думали различные чиновники, включая и МВФ. Но Касьянов наверняка так не думал, являясь организатором и мозговым центром всей этой операции.

    А суть в том, что банки, получив 4 миллиарда долларов, вместо живых рублей вручили любимому государству гособлигации ГКО и ОФЗ, которые к тому времени превратились в никчемные бумажки и могли использоваться только в качестве обоев. И тут же все крупные банки, провернувшие аферу с кредитом МВФ, начали моментально банкротиться, переводя капиталы в свои более мелкие структуры. Помните: сначала Инком, потом СБС-Агро... То есть никто в обиде не остался - разумеется, кроме российского бюджета и "лохов" из МВФ.

    И еще один не менее увлекательный эпизод из истории с кредитом МВФ. В 1998 году большинство российских банков, получивших кредитные деньги, держали свои зарубежные корсчета в "Нейшнл Рипаблик Бэнк оф Нью-Йорк", владельцем которого был ныне покойный банкир-миллионер Эдмон Сафра. Так вот, Сафра, будучи человеком неглупым, увидел, что через его банк российскими банкирами и Минфином прокручивается многомиллиардная афера. Наивный бизнесмен пожелал сообщить в ФБР о том, куда делся кредит МВФ. И вот тут-то у Сафры и случились неприятности. А начались они с того момента, как к нему на Лазурный Берег летом 1999 года прибыл некий эмиссар российских финансистов по имени Борис Березовский, который, кстати, является хозяином Объединенного банка - одного из тех, что получили кредитные деньги. О чем беседовали Березовский и Сафра, остается тайной за семью печатями. Известно только, что после разговора Сафра в срочном порядке переехал в свою резиденцию в Монако, где имелись усиленная охрана и даже бункер на случай ядерной войны. Но перепуганному банкиру не помогла надежная охрана - через три месяца он был убит...

    Я, конечно, не утверждаю, что в гибели Сафры, пожелавшего раскрыть ФБР историю аферы с кредитом, виновны Березовский или Касьянов, который к тому времени уже поднялся до уровня министра финансов России. Но уж очень много странных совпадений!

    Перед вами - лишь три истории из жизни второго человека в Российском государстве Михаила Михайловича Касьянова. Но на этом наше расследование жизненного пути первого вице-премьера не заканчивается. Продолжение следует.


    Олег ЛУРЬЕ
    28.02.2000".


    PS . Надеюсь, что коллеги не станут в срочном порядке чистить свои архивы, где упоминается имя "видного оппозиционера" Михаила Касьянова.


    [Feb 28, 2016] Republicans wage all-out war as Rubio and Cruz seek to destroy Trump

    The crisis of Republican Party then establishment no longer can control rank-and-file members reflects not only the crisis of neoliberalism as a social system, but might also reflect the fact that with 300 million of people the county became too big and too diverse to be governed from a single center of political power in non authoritarian ways. a Hillary v Trump scenario will bee a difficult choice for most Americans. A jingoistic sociopathic woman, essentially a puppet of financial oligarchy, who is a front for the neoliberal forces hell-bent of destroying Russia vs. a narcissistic person with zero political experience and vague set of ideas (but at the same time with more realistic foreign policy ideas at least).
    Notable quotes:
    "... I'm afraid this strategy will have the exact opposite effect. To Trump, an attack from Rubio or Cruz is a badge of honor. ..."
    "... 80% of young people are for Sanders. If he gets unfairly dumped, they will never forgive the Democrapic party. Both parties are in danger of losing the duopoly. ..."
    "... We're a divided country, living separate cultures over four time zones (mainland alone). We're a big big country with big big problems. I don't know how it will shake out, especially when the bills come due. I only wish we had the problems of a small European country that you can drive across in four hours. That's a luxury. ..."
    "... Hillary and Trump make Nixon look like a stand up guy. There is only one authentic, principled and electable candidate in the race. Bernie Sanders, the only candidate with a positive national favorability rating. ..."
    "... Donald Trump is almost entirely a creation of the media. Most people don't realize it, but the media got addicted to him back in the early 1980, when he became one of the most flamboyant characters on the New York scene with a string of bimbos by his side, splashing around money, mostly not his, and creating the Trump brand, which he used to get into business with OPM (other people's money). ..."
    "... Sadly, this is exactly what America has become. Fox News, talk radio, lunatics and raving psychopaths, a cesspool of fear and hate. The candidates are what we have become. We're in a canoe headed for the waterfall and all we hear is "Paddle faster! Paddle faster!" What the American people will do in the end is anyone's guess. ..."
    "... Headline news says in Iran ... hardliners suffer defeat as reformists make gains ... And ... in the USA ...? hardliners on the rampage? O Tempora ... O Mores .... ..."
    "... I agree that the republican party is a despicable joke, but a look at the turnout suggests that they will very likely control the WH, senate, and increass their majority in the House. Its unfortunate, but that is definitely the way it looks right now! ..."
    "... "I believe that a first-rate con artist is on the verge of taking over the party of Reagan and Lincoln." Pretty funny comment. They are all con artists. And Hillary can match them con for con. ..."
    "... Yup it's a shitfest all-round, the Dems debate schedule was so openly biased towards Hillary that it was comical but at least they were talking about substantive issues. ..."
    "... "Struggling Americans"? Since when has Rubio's ultra-corporate free market ideology recognised their struggle? What the fuck does he have to offer except rich man's You're OK I'M OK preaching? ..."
    "... Fuck off, Rubio -- We are going to vote Trump. ..."
    "... Trump is not Mussolini, his political, economic and social thinking has very little, if anything, in common with that man. He may be dangerous, but that doesn't mean he is a Fascist. ..."
    "... Yep, MIC depends on bankster puppets like Rubio and Clinton following their orders. Oh and the power of money is so persuasive. Bill Clinton is a very bright guy and he still repealed Glass Steagall under orders...... ..."
    "... The problem is that Rubio and Cruz are just as bad -- or worse. They're a bit more polished politically but they have the same awful mindset and espouse the same awful policies. ..."
    "... Anyway, ganging up on Trump is likely to backfire. Unlike most politicians Trump makes absolutely no attempt to hide who he is and what he stands for. People respect that even as they ignore that what he stands for is corporatism -- he's not the reincarnation of Hitler (as those two MX has-been described him), he's Mussolini. ..."
    "... I think Rubio and Cruz's attempts to destroy Trump will backfire. He can just say he is the outside being ganged up on by the establishment and how he "wont be pushed around just like America wont be pushed around anymore! blah blah". ..."
    "... The establishment will do and say anything to get Trump out. They have total control over all the others but not Trump. Donald is the only candidate who will do what's right for the country and the people and make America great again. TRUMP 2016 ..."
    "... Rubio seems power-mad. Another reason why he is deeply unsuitable to wield ultimate power. ..."
    "... As a democrat I am terrified and so too should all democrats be. Turnout so far has been down about 26% compared to 2008. The republicans on the other hand have seen an increase of almost the smae amount compared to their 2012 numbers! Thats a disaster waiting to happen in November. Turnout in primaries is one of the best indicators, if not the best, of what will happen in a general election. ..."
    "... Indeed. If I was American, a Hillary v Trump scenario would be mindscrewingly difficult to choose between. An evil woman who is a front for all the neoliberal forces out there. Or an evil man who is a complete moron and will drive America to its knees. ..."
    "... "Donald Trump is a liberal Republican" In the crazy world of Republican politics 2016 you're not wrong. You then drift of into a fantasy world where Trump actually wins the presidency. More people hate him than love him, with barely anything in-between. Plus they've only just started digging for dirt. ..."
    "... Guardian sub-heading: "Rubio attacks 'con artist' as Cruz links Trump to mafia" I link all of them to oligarchy, patriarchy and Christian jihadism. Admittedly, there are some conceptual overlaps there. ..."
    "... OMG Cruz, Rubio or Trump vs Hilary Clinton. Jeez, America. I got kids to care about - is that IT? ..."
    "... Rubio isn't what he presents himself as. Look at his voting record- http://politicsthatwork.com/voting-record/Marco-Rubio-412491 Does that match up to the way he talks about his policies? I don't think so. ..."
    "... One "good" thing about Trump in this election is that he is clearly not a consultant-packaged candidate (like Rubio) or a fake (like Cruz), but Trump is a quintessentially amoral salesman. He pitches whatever the customers want to hear. Customers need to read the fine print before buying products from him. ..."
    "... Truth is both parties pander to the emotions -- the more frenzied the better it seems -- none of the candidates respect voters enough to discuss policy with anything even resembling depth. Politics is cotton candy in America, sprinkled with just enough cayenne to arouse burnt tongues. Oh what a tangled web we weave... ..."
    "... Unless she is indicted before the election. Then it might be problematic. Look up Spiro Agnew if you think investigations are all for show. ..."
    "... I can't stand Trump...but he seems to be better than Cruz & Rubio...the problem seems to be a politically bankrupt party disintegrating before our eyes... ..."
    "... Full blown panic mode now by the GOP establishment, as they belatedly realize they have a problem with no agreeable solution. ..."
    "... But let's notice one more time that all the discomfort about Trump as expressed by the GOP functionaries is centered around their suspicions that he may be a closet "liberal". They're worrying aloud about whether he'd support single-payer healthcare insurance, or refuse to vigorously oppose gay marriage or draconian positions on abortion. ..."
    "... Supporting war in Iraq was spectacularly I'll judged. ..."
    "... Trump's game seems to have been to use The Republican Party's machinery to boost himself, aware that his appeal to the populace is that he is counter the old guard, awaiting that old guard's attempt to ditch him and then becoming his own man with his own party. That would split the GOP's ranks; if, having only, say, half its voters so not winning this time, he will have sown the seed in his long game to win next time. ..."
    "... When Trump was still normal, he left The Reform Party because David Duke from the KKK had joined it. Now, he says doesn't know David Duke, not even the KKK!!!! ..."
    "... As Cruz desperately tries to salvage something before slithering under the exit door Rubio keeps insisting that he will keep receiving participation ribbons just for showing up and they will add up to victory. ..."
    "... Trump looks more and more like the mature actor in the room. From lunatic insider to the presumptive candidate for the republican party in about 6 months. Pretty impressive. The voters will flock to Trump, who in the end will do what all presidents do and screw the voters and support the rich. Both parties do it to the voters, but the voters never learn. ..."
    "... Hillary doesn't exist politically. It is a front for banks and foreign investments. A sham. ..."
    "... This is awesome, America is embarking on a long overdue conversation. The Republicans are now using tax returns to play the 1% card on Trump, yes they hate those richer than themselves as well as poorer. You wonder why they bother, and I'm sure some of them are. So hate it will be from the Republicans and 'love and kindness' from Hillary. It's mapping out. ..."
    The Guardian
    AnthonyFlack -> ryanpatrick9192, 2016-02-28 20:44:44
    Democratic party is not investing in voting drives this year because doing so would benefit Sanders, whereas a low voter turnout favors Clinton (who is increasingly unpopular and looks increasingly likely to lose the general).

    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/election/dem-voter-registration-leading-turnout-article-1.2545420

    samwisehere, 2016-02-28 20:44:25
    I'm afraid this strategy will have the exact opposite effect. To Trump, an attack from Rubio or Cruz is a badge of honor.
    Nedward Marbletoe -> olman132, 2016-02-28 20:44:04
    Sanders was nearly tied with Clinton in delegates before South Carolina. So it's very close right now.

    80% of young people are for Sanders. If he gets unfairly dumped, they will never forgive the Democrapic party. Both parties are in danger of losing the duopoly.

    Robert Hoover -> Nedward Marbletoe, 2016-02-28 20:42:23
    Sorry. boys. It's a case of "too little, too late." Hopefully the Dems will not underestimate Trump like the GOP did. http://moronmajority.com/are-democrats-underestimating-trump-like-the-gop/
    JRWirth, 2016-02-28 20:39:56
    What everyone is glossing over, is that the country is too big and the politics have become too small. You have a special problem with the presidency in that the person who occupies it should embody the basic American ethos from Boston to Honolulu and from Miami to Anchorage. No one exists who can do this.

    We're a divided country, living separate cultures over four time zones (mainland alone). We're a big big country with big big problems. I don't know how it will shake out, especially when the bills come due. I only wish we had the problems of a small European country that you can drive across in four hours. That's a luxury.

    dig4victory, 2016-02-28 20:38:52
    Hillary and Trump make Nixon look like a stand up guy. There is only one authentic, principled and electable candidate in the race. Bernie Sanders, the only candidate with a positive national favorability rating.
    WyntonK, 2016-02-28 20:37:08
    Donald Trump is almost entirely a creation of the media. Most people don't realize it, but the media got addicted to him back in the early 1980, when he became one of the most flamboyant characters on the New York scene with a string of bimbos by his side, splashing around money, mostly not his, and creating the Trump brand, which he used to get into business with OPM (other people's money).

    A lot of his revenues come from licensing out the Trump name out to various development ventures into which he doesn't contribute a penny, and which generate a large income that finances his extravagant lifestyle. He is basically a con man, always has been. The corporate media refrains from mentioning his four bankruptcies, despite inheriting a quarter of a billion dollars from his father. They media wants him to stay on the campaign scene till the end, because he is the largest entertainment story that have had in years, and covering his carnival act keeps generating great revenues for them.

    daniel1948 -> IMSpardagus, 2016-02-28 20:36:46
    Sadly, this is exactly what America has become. Fox News, talk radio, lunatics and raving psychopaths, a cesspool of fear and hate. The candidates are what we have become. We're in a canoe headed for the waterfall and all we hear is "Paddle faster! Paddle faster!" What the American people will do in the end is anyone's guess.
    Teebs, 2016-02-28 20:35:48
    Headline news says in Iran ... hardliners suffer defeat as reformists make gains ... And ... in the USA ...? hardliners on the rampage? O Tempora ... O Mores ....
    turn1eft -> Rialbynot, 2016-02-28 20:35:43
    Think how many billions are tied up in an establishment win. Trump will be taxing companies that move blue collar jobs out of the US. He will be a jobs president. I am really really suspicious of papers and parties like the Guardian and Labour that don't support this agenda.
    AlabasterCodefy -> Rialbynot, 2016-02-28 20:35:23
    Destroy Trump? CNN has placed Trump on hard rotation since mid-2015, to join their rolling Clinton love-in. They haven't reported on him so much as run his campaign. That would imply that they' re getting paid down the line.
    timnorfolk, 2016-02-28 20:35:11
    Let Trump build his walls along the Mexican and Canadian borders. Only when they are completed reveal they are intended to keep Americans in.
    ryanpatrick9192 -> deddzone, 2016-02-28 20:34:53
    I agree that the republican party is a despicable joke, but a look at the turnout suggests that they will very likely control the WH, senate, and increass their majority in the House. Its unfortunate, but that is definitely the way it looks right now!
    David Galbraith, 2016-02-28 20:33:28
    "I believe that a first-rate con artist is on the verge of taking over the party of Reagan and Lincoln." Pretty funny comment. They are all con artists. And Hillary can match them con for con.
    Robert Jenkins -> Flugler, 2016-02-28 20:33:09
    Yup it's a shitfest all-round, the Dems debate schedule was so openly biased towards Hillary that it was comical but at least they were talking about substantive issues.

    The main thing that interests me though is the money still pouring into the GOP even though it's clear that the party has become unelectable.

    africanland123, 2016-02-28 20:30:06
    " Lincoln
    Marco Rubio

    Pressed on whether he could win in this week's elections, the 12-state "Super Tuesday" contest, Rubio said: "Sure. That's not the plan, by the way, but sure."

    "He then voiced anxieties that have coursed through the Republican party for months: "I believe that a first-rate con artist is on the verge of taking over the party of Reagan and Lincoln."

    Calling the billionaire "a clown act" who is "preying on" struggling Americans, Rubio warned that..."

    "Struggling Americans"? Since when has Rubio's ultra-corporate free market ideology recognised their struggle? What the fuck does he have to offer except rich man's You're OK I'M OK preaching?

    Fuck off, Rubio -- We are going to vote Trump.

    JordiPujol -> martinusher, 2016-02-28 20:28:45
    I seem to recall that Benito embroiled Italy in fruitless war or two....

    Trump is not Mussolini, his political, economic and social thinking has very little, if anything, in common with that man. He may be dangerous, but that doesn't mean he is a Fascist.

    Flugler -> Rialbynot, 2016-02-28 20:20:05
    Yep, MIC depends on bankster puppets like Rubio and Clinton following their orders. Oh and the power of money is so persuasive. Bill Clinton is a very bright guy and he still repealed Glass Steagall under orders......

    ...

    martinusher, 2016-02-28 20:16:18
    The problem is that Rubio and Cruz are just as bad -- or worse. They're a bit more polished politically but they have the same awful mindset and espouse the same awful policies.

    A Trumpohpile told me that the reason he likes Trump (and possibly Sanders) is that neither of them are likely to end up embroiling us in yet more fruitless wars. I understand where he was coming from -- we've been conned so many times by the political establishment that voting is really choosing the lesser of evils. People are tired of this.

    Anyway, ganging up on Trump is likely to backfire. Unlike most politicians Trump makes absolutely no attempt to hide who he is and what he stands for. People respect that even as they ignore that what he stands for is corporatism -- he's not the reincarnation of Hitler (as those two MX has-been described him), he's Mussolini.

    ArdentSocialist, 2016-02-28 20:14:23
    I think Rubio and Cruz's attempts to destroy Trump will backfire. He can just say he is the outside being ganged up on by the establishment and how he "wont be pushed around just like America wont be pushed around anymore! blah blah".

    Trump will emerge the victor. I'm almost positive.

    Tim Osman, 2016-02-28 20:02:11
    The establishment will do and say anything to get Trump out. They have total control over all the others but not Trump. Donald is the only candidate who will do what's right for the country and the people and make America great again. TRUMP 2016
    janpcb -> maggie111, 2016-02-28 20:01:54
    Clinton: When i'm POTUS we will attack Iran!
    Trump : Let's work with Russia to destroy ISIS!
    Out of the two, i'm thinking Clinton is a total psychopath.
    Svalbard, 2016-02-28 19:58:15
    Rubio seems power-mad. Another reason why he is deeply unsuitable to wield ultimate power.
    ryanpatrick9192, 2016-02-28 19:57:27
    As a democrat I am terrified and so too should all democrats be. Turnout so far has been down about 26% compared to 2008. The republicans on the other hand have seen an increase of almost the smae amount compared to their 2012 numbers! Thats a disaster waiting to happen in November. Turnout in primaries is one of the best indicators, if not the best, of what will happen in a general election.

    If this trend doesnt change (and theres no reason to believe it will) then we are not only looking at a Republican controlled WH, but democrats will have almost no chance of regaining control of the Senate and they could even increase their majority in the House (which they are going to control no matter what happens)

    Big_Boss -> SuchArticleSoComment, 2016-02-28 19:55:48
    Indeed. If I was American, a Hillary v Trump scenario would be mindscrewingly difficult to choose between. An evil woman who is a front for all the neoliberal forces out there. Or an evil man who is a complete moron and will drive America to its knees.

    I think the best option is not to play

    xavierzubercock -> SPappas, 2016-02-28 19:41:13
    "Donald Trump is a liberal Republican" In the crazy world of Republican politics 2016 you're not wrong. You then drift of into a fantasy world where Trump actually wins the presidency. More people hate him than love him, with barely anything in-between. Plus they've only just started digging for dirt.
    funnynought, 2016-02-28 19:37:20
    Guardian sub-heading: "Rubio attacks 'con artist' as Cruz links Trump to mafia" I link all of them to oligarchy, patriarchy and Christian jihadism. Admittedly, there are some conceptual overlaps there.
    quilt, 2016-02-28 19:35:15
    OMG Cruz, Rubio or Trump vs Hilary Clinton. Jeez, America. I got kids to care about - is that IT?
    Texas_Sotol -> skepticaleye, 2016-02-28 19:30:20
    "amoral salesman" Very succinct character description!

    How about:

    A moral
    S elf-indulgent
    S alesman

    tuhaybey, 2016-02-28 19:22:10
    Rubio isn't what he presents himself as. Look at his voting record- http://politicsthatwork.com/voting-record/Marco-Rubio-412491 Does that match up to the way he talks about his policies? I don't think so.
    skepticaleye, 2016-02-28 19:18:52
    One "good" thing about Trump in this election is that he is clearly not a consultant-packaged candidate (like Rubio) or a fake (like Cruz), but Trump is a quintessentially amoral salesman. He pitches whatever the customers want to hear. Customers need to read the fine print before buying products from him.
    ustanonlooker -> Doug Steiner, 2016-02-28 19:18:46
    Poorly educated and stupid. Sadly, that sums up the majority of Americans.
    Woops1gottasneeze, 2016-02-28 19:18:20
    Truth is both parties pander to the emotions -- the more frenzied the better it seems -- none of the candidates respect voters enough to discuss policy with anything even resembling depth. Politics is cotton candy in America, sprinkled with just enough cayenne to arouse burnt tongues. Oh what a tangled web we weave...
    chiefwiley -> PeteGr1, 2016-02-28 19:17:54
    Unless she is indicted before the election. Then it might be problematic. Look up Spiro Agnew if you think investigations are all for show.
    ajbsmurphy, 2016-02-28 19:17:43
    I can't stand Trump...but he seems to be better than Cruz & Rubio...the problem seems to be a politically bankrupt party disintegrating before our eyes...
    gunnison, 2016-02-28 19:17:40
    Full blown panic mode now by the GOP establishment, as they belatedly realize they have a problem with no agreeable solution.

    But let's notice one more time that all the discomfort about Trump as expressed by the GOP functionaries is centered around their suspicions that he may be a closet "liberal". They're worrying aloud about whether he'd support single-payer healthcare insurance, or refuse to vigorously oppose gay marriage or draconian positions on abortion.

    Not a word about his promise to be a war criminal by torturing people "because they deserve it", or unconstitutionally banning entry to the US on religious grounds or his support for the idea of rendering the press vulnerable to lawsuits under brand spanking new libel laws.

    The guy has come out brazenly in support of attitudes that the GOP has been covertly dog-whistling about for years, and now they're panicking.

    Embracing him as their candidate destroys the brand.

    Torpedoing his candidacy by deploying internal party shenanigans either in the remaining days of the campaign and/or at the convention will fracture the party.

    All the people who Trump has excited with his "he's just saying what people are really thinking" meme are sure as hell not going to just roll over and let their hero "be robbed" of the nomination. And you can bet that's how, with Donald's help, they will see it.

    SundridgePete -> John Dagne, 2016-02-28 19:16:32
    Supporting war in Iraq was spectacularly I'll judged. But I'd rather have someone who once made a mistake than a psychopath.
    ClaudeNAORobot, 2016-02-28 19:15:15
    Trump's game seems to have been to use The Republican Party's machinery to boost himself, aware that his appeal to the populace is that he is counter the old guard, awaiting that old guard's attempt to ditch him and then becoming his own man with his own party. That would split the GOP's ranks; if, having only, say, half its voters so not winning this time, he will have sown the seed in his long game to win next time.
    RealSoothsayer, 2016-02-28 19:14:54
    When Trump was still normal, he left The Reform Party because David Duke from the KKK had joined it. Now, he says doesn't know David Duke, not even the KKK!!!!
    Vintage59, 2016-02-28 19:07:42
    As Cruz desperately tries to salvage something before slithering under the exit door Rubio keeps insisting that he will keep receiving participation ribbons just for showing up and they will add up to victory.
    benbache, 2016-02-28 18:58:44
    Trump looks more and more like the mature actor in the room. From lunatic insider to the presumptive candidate for the republican party in about 6 months. Pretty impressive. The voters will flock to Trump, who in the end will do what all presidents do and screw the voters and support the rich. Both parties do it to the voters, but the voters never learn.
    bcarey -> SuchArticleSoComment, 2016-02-28 18:55:51
    Hillary doesn't exist politically. It is a front for banks and foreign investments. A sham.
    JonnyNoone, 2016-02-28 18:47:47
    This is awesome, America is embarking on a long overdue conversation. The Republicans are now using tax returns to play the 1% card on Trump, yes they hate those richer than themselves as well as poorer. You wonder why they bother, and I'm sure some of them are. So hate it will be from the Republicans and 'love and kindness' from Hillary. It's mapping out.

    [Feb 28, 2016] Russia predicts a shortage of oil in four years

    Looks like Russian oil minister decided to play the role of a regular supply and demand jerk, may be intentionally. Generally Russians unlike Chinese's behaved like idiots in this situation. Inread of building state petroleum reserves like Chinese did and later selling oil later at reasonable prices they continued to dump the oil on market helping Saudis to crash the price. Russia is still buying US treasures instead as if oil is not as reliable as currency. Russia is the only major country that does not have strategic oil reserves.
    Alexander Novak mostly sounded like a regular member of the neoliberal cosmopolitan elite not as a Russian oil minister who is interested in well-being of Russian citizens. As Soros aptly mentioned such people have more in common with Wall Street financial oligarchs that with interests of their own country.
    Whether this was intentional of this is a his assumed position for Die Welt I do no know.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Given the pricing environment we expect in 2016 further reductions of 15-40%. Thus, this year 30 largest companies in the world can cut $200 billion from capex budgets . At the same time, we see that rise in in the price of the credit for oil producers in the US hinders their access to financial markets. ..."
    "... On a global scale in the short term, these effects will be minimal. However, in the medium and long term they will be dramatic, because many of the cancelled projects were important for stability of oil supply from the point of view of growing global demand, have been postponed or frozen. So we can assumed that after 2020 a stable supply of oil is under threat. In this regard, Russia seeks to remain a stable supplier of oil globally. ..."
    24.02.2016 | Die Welt/InoSMI

    Russia is suffering from extremely low oil prices. Energy Minister Alexander Novak warned us against the dramatic consequences of falling oil prices for the entire world. After the oversupply of oil, according to him, a severe deficit is coming.

    Die Welt: You have agreed with the oil Minister of Saudi Arabia on the limitation of oil production. At first the market reacted to the results of your negotiations negativity and oil prices continued to fall. What, in general, gives us this arrangement?

    Alexander Novak: I Think our meeting with the colleagues from Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Venezuela were very productive. The main result was a preliminary agreement on limiting oil production in 2016 at the level of January of this year. The final decision will be made when this initiative will join most other oil producers. In our view, this approach would gradually reduce the oversupply and stabilize prices at a level that will ensure the stability of the industry in the long term.

    - Let's assume that others will agree with this. However, experts believe that price stabilization is necessary not just freeze, and a reduction in oil production.

    - Such proposals are periodically received. But we think that this may soon lead to an abrupt artificial increase in prices. Because such a rise in prices entails the inflow of speculative money into capital-intensive projects, for example, in the production of shale oil that, in turn, will lead to rapid increase of oil production and as a result another round of oil prices fall. Of crucial importance is the level of prices at which US shale oil is unprofitable. If the oil price moved higher higher, we will again be faced with the effect of plummeting oil prices. That is why we need mutual consultation in order better to access the current supply and demand situation.

    - But the decline in prices over the last 18 months ago is already having a serious negative impact on producers with higher costs.

    - Yes, albeit slower than expected. This is a change from previous oil price cycles, when only the oil exporting countries influenced the market by voluntarily reducing the production. But after the invention of the technology for shale gas extraction in 2009, the situation has changed.

    - So you agree with the International energy Agency, believes that in 2016, contrary to expectations, oil prices stabilize?

    - In general yes. Because when in mid-2014 oil prices began to decline, many thought that soon shale oil will fall prey of it. However, this did not happen. We can see that the price at around $100 per barrel was too high, but shale oil companies for more then a year managed to withstood the falling oil prices and continue oil extraction is volumes comparable with the volume at peak. Demand and supply grow equally, and the gap between them did not became smaller. That's why in 2016 everyone is adjusting their predictions about the end of low oil prices regime.

    Limited access to funding by high cost producers and delay in implementation of capital intensive projects will play a role in the alignment of supply and demand in the market and the volume of oil production outside OPEC, primarily in North America, will be reduced. For example, in the US, the number of drilling rigs already has declined by two-thirds.

    - Not only in the United States. All the world's leading oil companies reduced their investment programs by 10-35%. What reductions we can expect in 2016?

    - Given the pricing environment we expect in 2016 further reductions of 15-40%. Thus, this year 30 largest companies in the world can cut $200 billion from capex budgets . At the same time, we see that rise in in the price of the credit for oil producers in the US hinders their access to financial markets.

    - What can be the consequences of reducing investments in the foreseeable future?

    - On a global scale in the short term, these effects will be minimal. However, in the medium and long term they will be dramatic, because many of the cancelled projects were important for stability of oil supply from the point of view of growing global demand, have been postponed or frozen. So we can assumed that after 2020 a stable supply of oil is under threat. In this regard, Russia seeks to remain a stable supplier of oil globally.

    - Can Russia to help stabilize prices, "selling" to OPEC and other major producers the idea to reduce production?

    - We haven't made exact calculations. For Russia, this is a difficult question due to the technological aspects of oil extraction, the current state of the projects under construction and climatic conditions. You can understand our situation from a simple fact: Russia has more than 170 thousand wells, and to reduce their number very difficult. And in the middle East much less wells: Saudi Arabia produces the same amount of oil as we do, with only 3500 wells. In addition, our oil companies are independent joint-stock companies which are independently planning the level of their own production.

    - The head of the second largest Russian oil company LUKOIL Vagit Alekperov said recently that the Russian oil sector is most afraid that the government will change tax rules for him.

    - I share the opinion of the head of the Lukoil concern. We needs a stable tax system. Oil prices, along with the ruble and so fell and to this created for oil companies the problems of financing of the oil extraction. If in addition we change the rules of taxation, the future would become impossible to predict and the companies would be unable to plan their activities for more then one year. We in the last two years had introduced some tax breaks which should encourage the production at new fields in Eastern Siberia and the far East. Their effect is already noticeable: in 2015, we got from those fields additional 60 million tons.

    - And in the Arctic region?

    - This region now is off-limit due to the costs. But the investments in the extraction of Okhotsk and Caspian seas have risen because they are attractive from the point of view of taxation. In the long run we are - regardless of the dynamics of oil prices - will have to change the tax system. Together with the Ministry of Finance we will develop in the course of this year proposals.

    - Russia, as you know, is struggling with declining production in current fields. If the investment will be reduced, won't this mean that in 2017 the volume of oil production will fail?

    - Much will depend on the situation with oil prices and the ruble exchange rate. All our major companies confirm that they will be able to maintain production at the current fields at the current level. However, at the current oil prices, investment in new projects will be reduced - at least by 20-30%.

    - In the medium to long term additional load on unconventional and expensive projects will fall and Western sanctions. How noticeable the effect of them now?

    - Impact on overall production is extremely small. In the last two years we have extracted from these "difficult" fields were we do need western technology just 18 million tons, or around 3% of our total production. The growth of their share is a matter of the future.

    - However, without the Western technologies to achieve it will be difficult.

    - I expect the opposite effect. Since our companies cannot cooperate with the West in this area, they had to do this work independently and to develop new technologies in Russia.

    - Let me get this straight: in the next few years Russia can't eliminate technological handicap with the West. This will not work.

    At least, we achieve our goals. In three years we seriously upgraded the level of our current technology. Professionals, scientific and practical basis of all that we have. Many companies are working on it.

    - As for the gas sector, the European Commission seeks to obtain access to all of the gas contracts. What is that in your shows?

    - It's hard for me to comment on it. We believe that commercial contracts are a matter between the two companies.

    - Are you concerned about the behaviour of the EU?

    - European authorities want the contract on deliveries was coordinated by the European Commission. However, many countries disagree. Much will depend on them.

    - Differences between the EU and Gazprom have a long tradition. For a long time Gazprom attitude to the EU's was aggressive and disrespectful. Now his tone was softer. How do you evaluate the bilateral relations at the moment?

    - We believe that Russia is a reliable supplier and that the relationship is beneficial to both parties. Thus the entire current infrastructure was created. Now, however, we have to expand it taking into account the fact that production in Europe will decrease and demand will increase.

    But differences remain. Can we call the position of Europe a constructive policy ?

    - Political aspects now take precedence over the economic aspect of natural gas and oil supplies. So, for political reasons the project "South stream" was blocked . For political reasons, there are attempts to prevent the expansion of Nord stream. It is obvious that the construction of the first two lines of the "Nord stream" conformed to European legal norms. However, the attitude to the two new branches is different. In addition, we see that in the new energy strategy of the EU does n mention relations with Russia. How can this be considering the fact that we are the main supplier of energy to EU? We hope, however, that pragmatism will prevail. We need to develop relations based on mutual interests, guarantees and long-term prospects.

    - I can assume that you are counting on the support of Germany to expand the "Nord stream".

    - We presume that we are talking, primarily, about economic project. Major energy companies of Europe are interested in him. Because this is a long term project. And we will compete with other suppliers of natural and liquefied gas, which is the rate now.

    [Feb 28, 2016] The USA want to limit Russian supplies of energy to Europe by all means possible

    Notable quotes:
    "... the Saudi Arabia of natural gas ..."
    fuelfix.com
    It has been an historic week for the US energy market, as hot on the heels of US oil exports is the first US LNG export cargo – leaving from the Sabine Pass terminal. Yet while this is viewed as a game-changer for the US – as it can now truly live up to its moniker as 'the Saudi Arabia of natural gas' – exports could be just as big a game-changer for parts of Europe.

    By reducing its reliance upon Russia, Europe will not only see benefits from a pricing perspective, but it will also help limit the political power that Russia holds over many countries. The chart below starkly illustrates Russia's dominance in Europe, with a number of countries leaning on it for the majority of its gas needs.

    In total, Russia supplies a third of Europe's natural gas. Nonetheless, some estimates suggest that the US could catch up with Russia within a decade in terms of exports into Europe. Estimates also suggest that US exports could drop European LNG prices by 25% over the next two years. This benefit would be widespread across the continent; Germany relies on Russia for half of its gas needs, Italy for a third, while countries such as Bulgaria lean on Russia for the vast majority of its supplies.

    eu natural gas

    [Feb 27, 2016] Gazprom plant weitere Pipeline nach Europa

    Google translation.
    welt.de
    Gazprom is under time pressure

    Since the Gazprom long-favored pipeline project South Stream by the end of 2014 due to the European resistance was abandoned, Russia tirelessly seeks for new Pipelinevarianten to secure its dominant position in the lucrative European market. It also tries to hedge supplied. But suppied to Chinese market are not so quick to occur.

    From the point of view of the Russians, time is short, because the Kremlin and Gazprom have decided, the problematic gas transit through Ukraine to Europe from 2019 to shut down, and on other routes to redirect. The fundamental plan does not change, even if Russia's energy Minister last week in an Interview with the "world" did not exclude "that part of the deliveries to continue over the Ukraine is running".

    As a substitute for South Stream was Russia has been an Alternative at the ready: the "Turkish Stream" Pipeline should Gas through the Black sea and via Turkey to the EU border. But it has not been more than a flash in the pan, because the project since the Russian-Turkish upheavals of the past few months has been put on hold.

    New Pipeline plans to increase the pressure on Brussels

    The revival of the Poseidon Pipeline is therefore to become more important. Also as a Signal to the Mediterranean countries. The namely were recently very angry about the Gazprom group, the majority of its energy in the intended Expansion of the Nord Stream Baltic sea pipeline (Nord Stream 2) to Germany to invest in it.

    Nord Stream 2 should the Plan to the existing capacity of 110 billion cubic meters of double, which the majority of Europe in particular Russian gas in Germany would arrive. For comparison: ITGI Poseidon has the original concept after only eight billion cubic meters of capacity, equal to one tenth of the German annual consumption. In total, Gazprom delivered in the previous year 158,56 billion cubic meters of Gas to Europe and, thus, eight percent more than in the weak Exportjahr 2014.

    For Nord Stream 2 has Gazprom, with Shell, BASF, E. on, very interesting to count and OMV five leading European gas companies for a consortium and won the support of individual EU member States. The EU Commission is, however, resists this project, because it is a violation of the EU energy Package, and sees the dependence on Russian Gas supplies anyway would rather like to reduce. With the Poseidon project would have Gazprom at least a small lever to the participants of Nord Stream 2 to get your pressure in Brussels to increase.

    [Feb 20, 2016] Saudi minister says Syrian rebels should get surface-to-air missiles

    Reuters
    Moderate Syrian rebels should be supplied with surface-to-air missiles to defend against air strikes, Germany weekly Der Spiegel quoted Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir as saying.

    The rebels are under attack from both the Syrian air force and Russian strikes. Jubeir said providing them with the rockets would "enable the moderate opposition to neutralize the regime's helicopters and planes".

    Al-Jubeir repeated his calls for Syrian president Bashar al-Assad to step down in order to enable a political solution to the five-year-long war.

    "The other option is that the war goes on and Assad is being defeated," al-Jubeir said.

    At least 250,000 people have been killed, 11 million made homeless and hundreds of thousands have fled to Europe since the conflict began in 2011.

    Riyadh was still ready to support the U.S.-led coalition against the militant group Islamic State (IS) with special forces on the ground, he said.

    Al-Jubeir rejected any similarities between the Islamist extremist group and Saudi-Arabia's national, conservative interpretation of Islam, the Wahhabism.

    "IS is about as Islamic as the Ku-Klux-Klan is Christian," al-Jubeir said.

    [Feb 20, 2016] Dutch investigators think it might take ten years to prosecute the guilty parties

    Notable quotes:
    "... Dutch investigators think it might take ten years to prosecute the guilty parties. Also, there are no satellite images , [note the wording], because it was cloudy on the day of the disaster. Apparently the procedure is this: The Dutch secret services MIVD can get a briefing from their American counterparts. If the Dutch MIVD then makes a report of these briefings it can be used as evidence. ..."
    "... The West claims that there are no satellite images. Is this a weasel-worded statement? No pictures = no optical satellite pictures. Word by word true, but they conveniently dont mention the radar-based or SIGNINT satellite recordings? ..."
    "... But there were also many radar-based satellites. ..."
    "... The US military has two systems for high resolution radar IMINT: the Lacrosse (ONYX) system of which currently only one satellite, Lacrosse 5 (2005-016A) is left on-orbit, and the radar component of the Future Imagery Architecture (known as TOPAZ), consisting of three satellites: FIA Radar 1, 2 and 3 (2010-046A, 2012-014A and 2013-072A). These systems should be capable of providing imagery with sub-meter resolutions, and like optical imagery, they can be used to look for the presence of missile systems in the area. They have the added bonus that they are not hampered by cloud cover, unlike optical imagery. ..."
    "... Given what was happening in the area around this time, and the strong concern of NATO and the EU about this, it is almost certain that imagery of the area was collected by these US, German and French satellite systems. ..."
    "... Just when you think that Yahoo is a shit-river of lies, they run this story… and from the Boston Globe! ..."
    "... Americans are said to be ignorant of the world. We are, but so are people in other countries. If people in Bhutan or Bolivia misunderstand Syria, however, that has no real effect. Our ignorance is more dangerous, because we act on it. The United States has the power to decree the death of nations. – quote from the above referenced article. ..."
    marknesop.wordpress.com

    Terje M, February 19, 2016 at 1:47 am

    3 Stories about MH17:

    An eyewitness account from someone who was part of the team of OSCE inspectors and observers :

    http://slavyangrad.org/2014/10/28/they-are-playing-tennis-three-sets-every-match-to-try-and-kill-us/

    Dutch investigators think it might take ten years to prosecute the guilty parties. Also, there are no satellite images , [note the wording], because it was cloudy on the day of the disaster. Apparently the procedure is this: The Dutch secret services MIVD can get a briefing from their American counterparts. If the Dutch MIVD then makes a report of these briefings it can be used as evidence. They also have 5 billion webpages to cherry pick from.

    https://translate.google.com.au/translate?hl=en&sl=nl&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rtlnieuws.nl%2Fnieuws%2Fbinnenland%2Fom-zomer-bewijs-over-raket-mh17

    Which brings me to the third story, what types of Western satellites were over SE Ukraine at the time.
    http://sattrackcam.blogspot.com.au/2016/01/sigint-imint-and-mh17.html

    The West claims that there are no satellite images. Is this a weasel-worded statement? No pictures = no optical satellite pictures. Word by word true, but they conveniently don't mention the radar-based or SIGNINT satellite recordings?

    But there were also many radar-based satellites. From the article:

    2. Radar IMINT

    The US military has two systems for high resolution radar IMINT: the Lacrosse (ONYX) system of which currently only one satellite, Lacrosse 5 (2005-016A) is left on-orbit, and the radar component of the Future Imagery Architecture (known as TOPAZ), consisting of three satellites: FIA Radar 1, 2 and 3 (2010-046A, 2012-014A and 2013-072A). These systems should be capable of providing imagery with sub-meter resolutions, and like optical imagery, they can be used to look for the presence of missile systems in the area. They have the added bonus that they are not hampered by cloud cover, unlike optical imagery.

    Apart from the USA, the German military also operates a radar satellite system, the SAR-Lupe satellites. The French military likewise operates its own radar satellite system, the Hélios system. Japan operates the IGS system (which includes both optical and radar satellite versions).

    All of these satellites made passes over the Ukraine at one time or another on July 17 2014, so all of them might have provided useful imagery. FIA Radar 3 made a pass right over the area in question near 11:43 UT for example, some 1.5 hours before the tragedy. FIA Radar 2 made a pass over the area at 18:00 UT, 4.5 hours after the shootdown. These are just a few examples.

    Given what was happening in the area around this time, and the strong concern of NATO and the EU about this, it is almost certain that imagery of the area was collected by these US, German and French satellite systems.

    The article has more interesting information about these satellites.

    Cortes , February 19, 2016 at 4:09 am
    MH17 is likely to become just a minor curiosity like the affair of the Libyan pilot, dead for 12 days, allegedly responsible for the Ustica Massacre:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerolinee_Itavia_Flight_870

    Jeremn , February 19, 2016 at 2:31 am
    Very interesting. I also think the Germans said that they had picked up some Target Acquisition Radar of the launch unit)?

    http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/flug-mh17-regierung-hat-keine-sicheren-erkenntnisse-ueber-abschuss-a-990288.html

    Patient Observer , February 19, 2016 at 4:54 am
    Astounding!
    http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016/02/18/the-media-are-misleading-public-syria/8YB75otYirPzUCnlwaVtcK/story.html
    Just when you think that Yahoo is a shit-river of lies, they run this story… and from the Boston Globe!
    Patient Observer , February 19, 2016 at 5:12 am
    'Americans are said to be ignorant of the world. We are, but so are people in other countries. If people in Bhutan or Bolivia misunderstand Syria, however, that has no real effect. Our ignorance is more dangerous, because we act on it. The United States has the power to decree the death of nations. " – quote from the above referenced article.

    [Feb 20, 2016] US shale gas bluff: combined net natural gas exports from the US and Australia to Europe would be approximately zero.Such a replacement for Russian gas

    Notable quotes:
    "... And as I commented on another post, a couple of years ago Citi Research put the gross decline rate from existing US gas production at about 24%/year. This would be the rate of decline in the absence of new wells. Note that Louisiana showed a 20%/year net rate of decline in total marketed gas production from 2012 to 2014 (this was the net rate of decline after new wells were put on line). So, the Louisiana case history would seem to confirm the CIti estimate. ..."
    "... The estimated volumetric loss of US gas production from existing wells, about 17 BCF/day per year, matches or exceeds the 2014 annual dry gas production of every country in the world, except for the US Russia (2014 BP data). ..."
    peakoilbarrel.com

    Jeffrey J. Brown , 02/20/2016 at 12:31 pm

    Oilpro.com had an article about the EU importing LNG from the US and Australia, in order to reduce their reliance on Russian gas. My response:

    Based on production and consumption data through 2014 (BP), and ignoring changes in storage volumes, in 2014 Russia had net natural gas exports of 16 BCF/day, Australia had net natural gas exports of 2.5 BCF/day and the US had net natural gas imports of 3 BCF/day. So, as of 2014 anyway, combined net natural gas exports from the US + Australia would be approximately zero.

    And as I commented on another post, a couple of years ago Citi Research put the gross decline rate from existing US gas production at about 24%/year. This would be the rate of decline in the absence of new wells. Note that Louisiana showed a 20%/year net rate of decline in total marketed gas production from 2012 to 2014 (this was the net rate of decline after new wells were put on line). So, the Louisiana case history would seem to confirm the CIti estimate.

    The estimated volumetric loss of US gas production from existing wells, about 17 BCF/day per year, matches or exceeds the 2014 annual dry gas production of every country in the world, except for the US & Russia (2014 BP data).

    So, while the Marcellus/Utica Play has some very impressive wells, in round numbers it seems likely that we need the productive equivalent of a new Marcellus Play every year, or the productive equivalent of all of Qatar's gas production every year, just to offset the declines from existing US wells–as the overall US rig count has declined about 70% from the rig counts we have seen in recent years.

    [Feb 17, 2016] Bigger Than Watergate - Hillary Clinton And The Syrian Bloodbath

    While we would be the first to admit that Jeffrey Sachs was the godfather of "shock therapy" (aka "the economic rape of Russia" and several other xUSSR republics), he is right as for the ongoing Syria bloodbath which has come to define the geopolitical situation for the past 3 years. And how this is an event that would "surely rival Watergate in shaking the foundations of the US establishment" if the truth were fully known, we agree 100 percent.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Clinton bears heavy responsibility for that carnage, which has by now displaced more than 10 million Syrians and left more than 250,000 dead. ..."
    "... As every knowledgeable observer understands, the Syrian War is not mostly about Bashar al-Assad, or even about Syria itself. It is mostly a proxy war, about Iran. And the bloodbath is doubly tragic and misguided for that reason. ..."
    "... Saudi Arabia and Turkey, the leading Sunni powers in the Middle East, view Iran, the leading Shia power, as a regional rival for power and influence. Right-wing Israelis view Iran as an implacable foe that controls Hezbollah, a Shi'a militant group operating in Lebanon, a border state of Israel. Thus, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Israel have all clamored to remove Iran's influence in Syria. ..."
    "... And Israeli right-wingers are naïve, and deeply ignorant of history, to regard Iran as their implacable foe, especially when that mistaken view pushes Israel to side with Sunni jihadists. ..."
    "... Yet Clinton did not pursue that route. Instead she joined Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and right-wing Israelis to try to isolate, even defeat, Iran. In 2010, she supported secret negotiations between Israel and Syria to attempt to wrest Syria from Iran's influence. Those talks failed. Then the CIA and Clinton pressed successfully for Plan B: to overthrow Assad. ..."
    "... When the unrest of the Arab Spring broke out in early 2011, the CIA and the anti-Iran front of Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey saw an opportunity to topple Assad quickly and thereby to gain a geopolitical victory. Clinton became the leading proponent of the CIA-led effort at Syrian regime change. ..."
    "... Clinton has been much more than a bit player in the Syrian crisis. Her diplomat Ambassador Christopher Stevens in Benghazi was killed as he was running a CIA operation to ship Libyan heavy weapons to Syria. Clinton herself took the lead role in organizing the so-called "Friends of Syria" to back the CIA-led insurgency. ..."
    "... This instrument of U.S. foreign policy has not only been in stark violation of international law but has also been a massive and repeated failure. Rather than a single, quick, and decisive coup d'état resolving a US foreign policy problem, each CIA-led regime change has been, almost inevitably, a prelude to a bloodbath. How could it be otherwise? Other societies don't like their countries to be manipulated by U.S. covert operations. ..."
    "... And where is the establishment media in this debacle? The New York Times finally covered a bit of this story last month in describing the CIA-Saudi connection , in which Saudi funds are used to pay for CIA operations in order to make an end-run around Congress and the American people. The story ran once and was dropped. Yet the Saudi funding of CIA operations is the same basic tactic used by Ronald Reagan and Oliver North in the Iran-Contra scandal of the 1980s (with Iranian arms sales used to fund CIA-led covert operations in Central America without consent or oversight by the American people). ..."
    "... Clinton herself has never shown the least reservation or scruples in deploying this instrument of U.S. foreign policy. Her record of avid support for US-led regime change includes (but is not limited to) the US bombing of Belgrade in 1999, the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, the Iraq War in 2003, the Honduran coup in 2009, the killing of Libya's Muammar Qaddafi in 2011, and the CIA-coordinated insurrection against Assad from 2011 until today. ..."
    "... Many historians believe that JFK was assassinated as a result of his peace overtures to the Soviet Union, overture he made against the objections of hardline rightwing opposition in the CIA and other parts of the U.S. government. ..."
    "... Hillary Clinton has never shown an iota of bravery, or even of comprehension, in facing down the CIA She has been the CIA's relentless supporter, and has exulted in showing her toughness by supporting every one of its misguided operations. The failures, of course, are relentlessly hidden from view. Clinton is a danger to global peace. She has much to answer for regarding the disaster in Syria. ..."
    "... She is totally unqualified, a disaster of a secretary of state, has incredibly poor judgement is a terrible candidate and should never be allowed to serve in any government capacity - EVER. ..."
    "... Well said. Hillary is a warmonger neocon just like Bush/McCain/Graham/Cheney. Trump and Bernie are not. ..."
    "... Pundits do not realize when they heap praises at Hillary Clinton's debate performances that ordinary people watching cannot get past her lack of trustworthiness and her dishonesty; and that whatever she says is viewed in that context and is therefore worthless. ..."
    "... It's dismaying that the blowback from the 1953 CIA-assisted overthrow of Mossadegh is still behind the instability of the Middle East, and that we have continued to commit the same mistakes over and over. Can't we just get rid of this agency? ..."
    "... The CIA repeated this stunt in Vietnam 10 years after the Mossadegh mess and have been doing it at least once every decade since then. In every case, it has been a failure. How supporting that nonsense is seen as foreign policy experience, I'll never know. ..."
    "... Hillary helped facilitate the arming of terrorists in Syria in 2010 and 2011. She as far as I al concerned, Hillary supported the deaths of Syrians and terrorism. So why on earth would I want her to be president? Hello? ..."
    "... More like a continuance of a disaster deferred. Thanks to John Kerry cleaning up the mess of her disastrous term as SoS. Syria is still a mess, but he has been working his butt off to be every bit of diplomat that Hillary was not. ..."
    "... she was for an all out invasion by the USA into Syria to remove Assad. She, John McCain, and Linsey Graham had to settle for just arming the Al Queda and IS for the time being. ..."
    "... Clinton, Obama, Bush, etc DC corruption used to bring down regimes that have continually destabilized America & the world. ..."
    "... Where & Why was Obama & Holder not as directly held accountable in this discussion. Trump rightfully points that Americans have died for nothing yet the villains who are the catalysts of these atrocities still have jobs & stature in US. America needs to be rebooted once again & bring in leadership not buoyed by greed. power & indifference of those before him. ..."
    "... The problem here really is the fact that Americans bitch and don't vote every election and this has let money just walk in and buy more influence, you want a real revolution, ..."
    "... That is about it, Clinton is a repub in dem clothing and the US is the biggest threat to world peace when it can not get its way in another countries politics or to get them to follow the US master plan that mainly supports the US's goal. ..."
    "... what makes her so maddeningly hawkish? what credentials she has that her peace-loving supporters believe that she can lead the US/world for peace? wake-up, and let's get united behind bernie. ..."
    "... They believe the mythology that if women ruled the world it would be a better place...I beg to differ....Margaret Thatcher, Catherine the Great, Elizabeth I were not exactly peace lovers... ..."
    "... years ago I was shocked to see that there were women members of the KKK. So much for women by their gender alone saving the world. ..."
    "... But let us not forget Hillary Clinton's "regime change" record in Ukraine with Victoria "Fuc# the E.U.!" Nuland, wife of Neocon Robert Kagan and an Under Secretary of Hillary Clinton's at The State Department. ..."
    "... Hillary Clinton's fingerprints are all over Ukraine: ..."
    "... Yes, Somehow the so-called MSM refuses to expose the continuing debacle of our worldwide acts of Terrorism! The failure after failure of "our" military establishment such as targeted assassinations ..."
    "... Further it is American war industry in partnership with our military that is arming the world with military grade weapon systems, tons and tons of munitions, and training to use them for such terror weapons as IEDs. It is MSM control by the establishment that enables the failures of Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Obama, Clinton to treat horrendous failures as successes! ..."
    "... Hillary Clinton supporters don't care, they don't care that she could be a felon nor do they care she is owned by Wall Street and many other corporate special interest, they just don't care. ..."
    "... Up here in New Hampshire, we soundly rejected untrustworthy, dishonest, disingenuous and corrupt Hillary, we just wish the rest of the nation had as much time to get to know the candidates as we had up here! ..."
    www.huffingtonpost.com

    In the Milwaukee debate, Hillary Clinton took pride in her role in a recent UN Security Council resolution on a Syrian ceasefire:

    But I would add this. You know, the Security Council finally got around to adopting a resolution. At the core of that resolution is an agreement I negotiated in June of 2012 in Geneva, which set forth a cease-fire and moving toward a political resolution, trying to bring the parties at stake in Syria together.

    This is the kind of compulsive misrepresentation that makes Clinton unfit to be President. Clinton's role in Syria has been to help instigate and prolong the Syrian bloodbath, not to bring it to a close.

    In 2012, Clinton was the obstacle, not the solution, to a ceasefire being negotiated by UN Special Envoy Kofi Annan. It was US intransigence - Clinton's intransigence - that led to the failure of Annan's peace efforts in the spring of 2012, a point well known among diplomats. Despite Clinton's insinuation in the Milwaukee debate, there was (of course) no 2012 ceasefire, only escalating carnage. Clinton bears heavy responsibility for that carnage, which has by now displaced more than 10 million Syrians and left more than 250,000 dead.

    As every knowledgeable observer understands, the Syrian War is not mostly about Bashar al-Assad, or even about Syria itself. It is mostly a proxy war, about Iran. And the bloodbath is doubly tragic and misguided for that reason.

    Saudi Arabia and Turkey, the leading Sunni powers in the Middle East, view Iran, the leading Shia power, as a regional rival for power and influence. Right-wing Israelis view Iran as an implacable foe that controls Hezbollah, a Shi'a militant group operating in Lebanon, a border state of Israel. Thus, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Israel have all clamored to remove Iran's influence in Syria.

    This idea is incredibly naïve. Iran has been around as a regional power for a long time--in fact, for about 2,700 years. And Shia Islam is not going away. There is no way, and no reason, to "defeat" Iran. The regional powers need to forge a geopolitical equilibrium that recognizes the mutual and balancing roles of the Gulf Arabs, Turkey, and Iran. And Israeli right-wingers are naïve, and deeply ignorant of history, to regard Iran as their implacable foe, especially when that mistaken view pushes Israel to side with Sunni jihadists.

    Yet Clinton did not pursue that route. Instead she joined Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and right-wing Israelis to try to isolate, even defeat, Iran. In 2010, she supported secret negotiations between Israel and Syria to attempt to wrest Syria from Iran's influence. Those talks failed. Then the CIA and Clinton pressed successfully for Plan B: to overthrow Assad.

    When the unrest of the Arab Spring broke out in early 2011, the CIA and the anti-Iran front of Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey saw an opportunity to topple Assad quickly and thereby to gain a geopolitical victory. Clinton became the leading proponent of the CIA-led effort at Syrian regime change.

    In early 2011, Turkey and Saudi Arabia leveraged local protests against Assad to try to foment conditions for his ouster. By the spring of 2011, the CIA and the US allies were organizing an armed insurrection against the regime. On August 18, 2011, the US Government made public its position: "Assad must go."

    Since then and until the recent fragile UN Security Council accord, the US has refused to agree to any ceasefire unless Assad is first deposed. The US policy--under Clinton and until recently--has been: regime change first, ceasefire after. After all, it's only Syrians who are dying. Annan's peace efforts were sunk by the United States' unbending insistence that U.S.-led regime change must precede or at least accompany a ceasefire. As the Nation editors put it in August 2012:

    The US demand that Assad be removed and sanctions be imposed before negotiations could seriously begin, along with the refusal to include Iran in the process, doomed [Annan's] mission.

    Clinton has been much more than a bit player in the Syrian crisis. Her diplomat Ambassador Christopher Stevens in Benghazi was killed as he was running a CIA operation to ship Libyan heavy weapons to Syria. Clinton herself took the lead role in organizing the so-called "Friends of Syria" to back the CIA-led insurgency.

    The U.S. policy was a massive, horrific failure. Assad did not go, and was not defeated. Russia came to his support. Iran came to his support. The mercenaries sent in to overthrow him were themselves radical jihadists with their own agendas. The chaos opened the way for the Islamic State, building on disaffected Iraqi Army leaders (deposed by the US in 2003), on captured U.S. weaponry, and on the considerable backing by Saudi funds. If the truth were fully known, the multiple scandals involved would surely rival Watergate in shaking the foundations of the US establishment.

    The hubris of the United States in this approach seems to know no bounds. The tactic of CIA-led regime change is so deeply enmeshed as a "normal" instrument of U.S. foreign policy that it is hardly noticed by the U.S. public or media. Overthrowing another government is against the U.N. charter and international law. But what are such niceties among friends?

    This instrument of U.S. foreign policy has not only been in stark violation of international law but has also been a massive and repeated failure. Rather than a single, quick, and decisive coup d'état resolving a US foreign policy problem, each CIA-led regime change has been, almost inevitably, a prelude to a bloodbath. How could it be otherwise? Other societies don't like their countries to be manipulated by U.S. covert operations.

    Removing a leader, even if done "successfully," doesn't solve any underlying geopolitical problems, much less ecological, social, or economic ones. A coup d'etat invites a civil war, the kind that now wracks Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria. It invites a hostile international response, such as Russia's backing of its Syrian ally in the face of the CIA-led operations. The record of misery caused by covert CIA operations literally fills volumes at this point. What surprise, then, the Clinton acknowledges Henry Kissinger as a mentor and guide?

    And where is the establishment media in this debacle? The New York Times finally covered a bit of this story last month in describing the CIA-Saudi connection, in which Saudi funds are used to pay for CIA operations in order to make an end-run around Congress and the American people. The story ran once and was dropped. Yet the Saudi funding of CIA operations is the same basic tactic used by Ronald Reagan and Oliver North in the Iran-Contra scandal of the 1980s (with Iranian arms sales used to fund CIA-led covert operations in Central America without consent or oversight by the American people).

    Clinton herself has never shown the least reservation or scruples in deploying this instrument of U.S. foreign policy. Her record of avid support for US-led regime change includes (but is not limited to) the US bombing of Belgrade in 1999, the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, the Iraq War in 2003, the Honduran coup in 2009, the killing of Libya's Muammar Qaddafi in 2011, and the CIA-coordinated insurrection against Assad from 2011 until today.

    It takes great presidential leadership to resist CIA misadventures. Presidents get along by going along with arms contractors, generals, and CIA operatives. They thereby also protect themselves from political attack by hardline right-wingers. They succeed by exulting in U.S. military might, not restraining it. Many historians believe that JFK was assassinated as a result of his peace overtures to the Soviet Union, overture he made against the objections of hardline rightwing opposition in the CIA and other parts of the U.S. government.

    Hillary Clinton has never shown an iota of bravery, or even of comprehension, in facing down the CIA She has been the CIA's relentless supporter, and has exulted in showing her toughness by supporting every one of its misguided operations. The failures, of course, are relentlessly hidden from view. Clinton is a danger to global peace. She has much to answer for regarding the disaster in Syria.


    Steven Beliveau, Northeastern University
    The people of the United States do not want that woman, Hillary Rodham Clinton to have relations with the people of the United States. She is totally unqualified, a disaster of a secretary of state, has incredibly poor judgement is a terrible candidate and should never be allowed to serve in any government capacity - EVER.
    Matt Hemingway
    Simple equation....war=money=power. Perpetual warfare is the post 911 gold rush and every establishment politician in every country is the snake oil salesman pushing this through. The people on the top make money and the rest of us get killed and go broke.
    Max South
    Not only the root cause, but also to-ols are important: now Western media/StateDep try depict what happens in Syria as sectarian, all while majority of both Syrian army and government are Sunni (even Assad's wife is Sunni) -- secular ones.

    Syrian government is only hope for them, as well as for Christians, Kurds and all other ethnic and religious minorities that fight against Wahhabi/Salafist jihadists.

    Ram Samudrala, Professor and Chief, Division of Bioinformatics at SUNY Buffalo
    Sanders' platform is expansive and IMO he has provided the most detail on how he will get things done, which anyone can find out with a bit of investigation (http://berniesanders.com/issues/). But all of it doesn't matter since you can't predict how events will unfold. In this regard, I trust Sanders more than anyone else to decide what is best for all people in the the country (and even the world). I personally will do well with anyone but I think Sanders is looking out for the average person more than anyone else.
    Charles Hill, Works at Seif employed
    Well said. Hillary is a warmonger neocon just like Bush/McCain/Graham/Cheney. Trump and Bernie are not.
    Masha Manning, Houston, Texas
    Pundits do not realize when they heap praises at Hillary Clinton's debate performances that ordinary people watching cannot get past her lack of trustworthiness and her dishonesty; and that whatever she says is viewed in that context and is therefore worthless.
    Eric Smith, Burlington, Vermont
    It's dismaying that the blowback from the 1953 CIA-assisted overthrow of Mossadegh is still behind the instability of the Middle East, and that we have continued to commit the same mistakes over and over. Can't we just get rid of this agency?
    Bijan Sharifi
    as an iranian-american (and veteran), i appreciate sen sanders bringing this up in the debate.
    Eric Smith, Burlington, Vermont
    Bijan Sharifi Indeed. The CIA repeated this stunt in Vietnam 10 years after the Mossadegh mess and have been doing it at least once every decade since then. In every case, it has been a failure. How supporting that nonsense is seen as foreign policy experience, I'll never know.
    Timothy Francis, Project Manager at CHC Consulting
    Hillary helped facilitate the arming of terrorists in Syria in 2010 and 2011. She as far as I al concerned, Hillary supported the deaths of Syrians and terrorism. So why on earth would I want her to be president? Hello?
    Dianne Primmer, Houston, Texas
    This is the much vaunted foreign policy that Hillary's supporters think qualify her for the presidency. That's a disaster waiting to happen.

    Christopher Head, Lighting Designer at Freelance Lighting Designer

    More like a continuance of a disaster deferred. Thanks to John Kerry cleaning up the mess of her disastrous term as SoS. Syria is still a mess, but he has been working his butt off to be every bit of diplomat that Hillary was not. As soon as she returns to office expect more of her warfare first and diplomacy 'meh'.
    Gary Pack
    Ignacio, she was for an all out invasion by the USA into Syria to remove Assad. She, John McCain, and Linsey Graham had to settle for just arming the Al Queda and IS for the time being.
    Sheia Mahone
    This is what Trump has been alluding to in re Clinton, Obama, Bush, etc DC corruption used to bring down regimes that have continually destabilized America & the world.

    Where & Why was Obama & Holder not as directly held accountable in this discussion. Trump rightfully points that Americans have died for nothing yet the villains who are the catalysts of these atrocities still have jobs & stature in US. America needs to be rebooted once again & bring in leadership not buoyed by greed. power & indifference of those before him.

    Ronald Burker, Boonsboro Senior High
    James Elliott cheerleading will not get anything done, I don't think Bernie understands how to get things done in our system, reality is 40 years of bad will not be fixed in even 4 years.

    The problem here really is the fact that Americans bitch and don't vote every election and this has let money just walk in and buy more influence, you want a real revolution, vote every election you are alive and you will let your children and their children a better life.

    Harvey Riggs
    That is about it, Clinton is a repub in dem clothing and the US is the biggest threat to world peace when it can not get its way in another countries politics or to get them to follow the US master plan that mainly supports the US's goal.

    More messes in this world has been started with covert means in order to get what we want and millions upon milllions are suffering and the rest of the world countries 1'%ers who run those countries are scared to stand up aguinst the US and lose that under the table support.

    Robert Chan
    what makes her so maddeningly hawkish? what credentials she has that her peace-loving supporters believe that she can lead the US/world for peace? wake-up, and let's get united behind bernie.
    Kathleen Lowy, MSW: Rutgers
    They believe the mythology that if women ruled the world it would be a better place...I beg to differ....Margaret Thatcher, Catherine the Great, Elizabeth I were not exactly peace lovers...

    Additionally, years ago I was shocked to see that there were women members of the KKK. So much for women by their gender alone saving the world.

    Sheila Rajan
    Looking at the various misguided US excursions over the past 2 decades from outside of America, this comes as no surprise. Clinton's deep involvement in these venal adventures comes as no surprise either. Bill Clinton may have been adored in liberal America, but he was NOT, outside of your borders. To us he appeared as just another one in a long line of Presidents under the sway of the arms manufacturers, CIA, banks and financiers. Hillary Clinton is just an offshoot.
    Charlene Avis Richards, Works at Self-Employed
    Excellent article.

    But let us not forget Hillary Clinton's "regime change" record in Ukraine with Victoria "Fuc# the E.U.!" Nuland, wife of Neocon Robert Kagan and an Under Secretary of Hillary Clinton's at The State Department.

    Hillary Clinton's fingerprints are all over Ukraine:

    See More

    Leo Myers, Univ. of Minnesota
    Yes, Somehow the so-called MSM refuses to expose the continuing debacle of our worldwide acts of Terrorism! The failure after failure of "our" military establishment such as targeted assassinations as an official policy using drones, black ops, spec ops, military "contractors", hired mercenaries, war lord militias and the like; the illegal and immoral acts of war cloaked in the Israeli framed rubric of "national defense".

    Further it is American war industry in partnership with our military that is arming the world with military grade weapon systems, tons and tons of munitions, and training to use them for such terror weapons as IEDs. It is MSM control by the establishment that enables the failures of Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Obama, Clinton to treat horrendous failures as successes!

    James Aliberti, Wentworth Institute of Technology
    Hillary Clinton supporters don't care, they don't care that she could be a felon nor do they care she is owned by Wall Street and many other corporate special interest, they just don't care.

    Up here in New Hampshire, we soundly rejected untrustworthy, dishonest, disingenuous and corrupt Hillary, we just wish the rest of the nation had as much time to get to know the candidates as we had up here!

    [Feb 17, 2016] The US is the dominant force in international banking. It is this position from which sanctions are derived.

    peakoilbarrel.com

    Watcher , 02/16/2016 at 11:51 am

    The US is the dominant force in international banking. It is this position from which sanctions are derived. Iran had to (and often did) find other ways to get paid for shipping oil than money flow through international banking, which US and EU sanctions prohibited.

    If you seek to oppose the US, you must not fight in a money arena. It's a disadvantageous battlefield.

    The price of oil is determined by what? NYMEX traders? Or agreement between a refinery and an oil exporter?

    I would suggest it is the latter, which need not depend on NYMEX numbers at all.

    If your goal is to destroy US shale, the last thing you would do is allow your weapon (price) to be defined by your target (the US in general, which is where the NYMEX is). Nor would you allow it to be defined by something as variable as free market forces. If you specify price to your buyer, perhaps lower than his bid, you remove the marketplace from involvement in the battle.

    The goal is victory. Not profit. How could you allow yourself to define victory in pieces of paper printed by your enemy?

    Ron Patterson , 02/16/2016 at 12:13 pm
    If your goal is to destroy US shale, the last thing you would do is allow your weapon (price) to be defined by your target (the US in general, which is where the NYMEX is). Nor would you allow it to be defined by something as variable as free market forces.

    If your goal is to destroy US shale then the only way you can do that is to produce every barrel of oil you possibly can. It would not be within your power to allow the price to be defined by anyone or anything other than market forces. Of course every exporter negotiates a price with his buyer. But that price must be within a reasonable amount of what the world oil price is at the moment.

    The price of oil is determined by supply and demand just like every commodity on the market.

    Every day, there are thousands of oil buyers around the world. There are dozens of sellers, many of them exporters. All the buyers are in competition with other buyers to get the lowest possible price. All the sellers are in competition with other sellers to get the highest price possible. And the price moves up and down with each trade, hourly or sometimes minute by minute.

    To believe that even one of those dozens of exporters has the power to set the price oil, much higher than everyone else is getting, is just silly. And likewise, to believe that a buyer can get a much lower price than everyone else is getting, is just as silly.

    They say that depletion never sleeps. Well, market forces never sleep either.

    Watcher , 02/16/2016 at 3:01 pm
    But that price must be within a reasonable amount of what the world oil price is at the moment.

    Which is why it took the predator 18 mos to get it down to lethal levels. Just repeatedly be willing to sell for a bit less than the bid and down it will go, because others will protect their marketshare by matching your price (sound familiar?). Then you're no longer the only one offering a low price.

    All the sellers are in competition with other sellers to get the highest price possible.

    Were this so there would exist no wiki for predatory pricing.

    You aren't thinking about victory. If you seek victory, you don't fight in an arena where you are disadvantaged. If you're the low cost producer of the lifeblood of civilization, you assert that advantage and kill the enemy.

    Dennis Coyne , 02/16/2016 at 3:58 pm
    Hi Watcher,

    By your reasoning the price of oil should be close to zero, say $1/b.

    Explain why that isn't the case, if "victory" is the sole objective.

    Also predatory pricing is not an effective strategy especially in commodity markets where the barriers to entry are low.

    OPEC does not set the price of oil on World Markets, they simply influence it by their level of output. In the case of the oil industry attempts at predatory pricing are not rational, it is simply a strategy for losing money.

    Ron Patterson , 02/16/2016 at 4:08 pm
    Which is why it took the predator 18 mos to get it down to lethal levels. Just repeatedly be willing to sell for a bit less than the bid and down it will go, because others will protect their market share by matching your price (sound familiar?). Then you're no longer the only one offering a low price.

    Oh good grief. I give up. You are a hopeless case.

    Watcher , 02/16/2016 at 8:40 pm
    Tell that to the Soviets.
    likbez , 02/17/2016 at 12:00 am
    "Tell that to the Soviets."

    Perfect --

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/11220027/Cheap-oil-will-win-new-Cold-War-with-Putin-just-ask-Reagan.html

    http://www.susmitkumar.net/index.php/reason-for-ussr-collapse-oil-a-german-banks-not-reagan

    http://www.hubbertpeak.com/reynolds/sovietdecline.htm

    Jimmy , 02/17/2016 at 12:00 am
    I don't think Watcher expresses the situation very clearly, especially with words like 'predator'. I don't see it as an apt analogy. I do however feel that the current price war/production war/phantom production war is clearly an act of economic warfare by Saudi Arabia against their competitors. It seems odd to me that a world oil production system that can't very accurately tell me how much oil was produced today until months after the fact is going to start the day tomorrow by saying 'we are over supplied by 1.8 million barrels a day today' and then proceed to talk the price into the gutter.
    Watcher , 02/17/2016 at 11:59 am
    The predator is not KSA.

    [Feb 17, 2016] Putin Foresaw US Drive for World Domination in 2007 Speech

    sputniknews.com

    Russian President Vladimir Putin predicted the US ambitions to rule the world, experts said.

    WASHINGTON (Sputnik) - Russian President Vladimir Putin clearly identified a documented US drive to dominate the world in his 2007 Munich speech, but nations around the world continue to resist it, American and European scholars told Sputnik.

    "President Putin is obviously aware of the fundamental tenets of neo-conservative US foreign policy since 2001," California State University Emeritus Professor of Political Science Beau Grosscup, an author and terrorism analyst, told Sputnik.

    That plan was spelled out clearly in the 1992 Pentagon Defense Planning Guidance (DPG) authored by Paul Wolfowitz and future Vice President Dick Cheney to maintain the United States as the sole architect of the post-Cold War landscape, Grosscup noted.

    "[The plan] includes by-passing existing international institutions, the United Nations in particular, for unilateral reliance on military power, backed by ad hoc alliances," Grosscup pointed out.

    The plan also included a Full Spectrum Doctrine that said the United States should be able to fight and win numerous wars, including nuclear ones, for regime change purposes in rogue nations, and that it should prevent the rise of competing powers such as Russia, China and Europe, Grosscup added.

    "Most notable is the right wing Neo-Nazi-inspired Ukrainian regime-change coup backed by the United States. Along with the Georgia political crisis in 2008, [they] are the final building blocks to move NATO to Russia's immediate borders," Grosscup claimed.

    The purpose of these moves was to prevent Russia rise as a competing power and to control Central Asian oil and gas reserves, he observed.

    "President Putin's concerns expressed at Munich are understandable. Putin points out correctly that the United States and its ad hoc coalition allies have used non-UN sanctioned unilateral military force in the Middle East to de-stabilize Iraq, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Libya, Palestinian Occupied Areas and Syria," Grosscup observed.

    On the nuclear front, the United States continues its effort to "out-invent" its strategic weapons rivals with a technological breakthrough that would allow it to win a strategic nuclear war with Russia," he stated.

    Also, "Current US President Barack Obama had given battlefield commanders the authority to breach the conventional-nuclear threshold on their own, Grosscup warned.

    However, recent Russian policies in the Middle East and Eastern Europe had blunted the drive to expand US influence, University of Louvain Professor and author of "Humanitarian Imperialism" Jean Bricmont told Sputnik.

    "The resistance of Russia in Syria and Ukraine has strengthened the hand of the anti-interventionists in the US," he stated.

    The current US presidential election campaign had already demonstrated that the American public did not share their rulers' appetite for endless interventions and wars around the world, Bricmont emphasized.

    "The tide is changing, slowly but surely. The American public does not go along any more with the neo-cons-liberal interventionists," he maintained.

    The pattern of voting in the early US primary and caucuses indicated that the US public had no enthusiasm for new wars, Bricmont concluded.

    [Feb 17, 2016] USSR collapsed because of oil prices heralding Russia's future

    Notable quotes:
    "... The myth was created to conceal the consciously made choice of the then Soviet administration. The choice was to deliberately destroy the Soviet Union. They lied when they said that the Soviet Union was starving in 1990-1991 because of very poor harvest. On the contrary, the harvest in the Soviet Union was fantastic in 1990 and 1991. ..."
    "... The Russian authorities need to properly estimate the times that Russia lived under Gorbachev and Yeltsin not to go back to those times again. President Vladimir Putin says that the destruction of the Soviet Union was a geopolitical catastrophe . However, this catastrophe has a name - the first name and the last name. This Soviet Union did not break up just like that. Three people gathered and signed something. The fourth person did nothing to stop them. We need to have a legal approach to what happened back then. ..."
    Jan 01, 2016 PravdaReport

    Pravda.Ru editor-in-chief Inna Novikova sat down with historian Alexander Fursov to speak about Russia's foreign and domestic policy.

    "In connection with the collapse of the world prices on oil, many analysts say that the times that we are living now are very similar to the times of the 90s when the Soviet Union broke up."

    "The Soviet Union did not break up because of the oil prices, although it did create a number of problems for the country. The myth was created to conceal the consciously made choice of the then Soviet administration. The choice was to deliberately destroy the Soviet Union. They lied when they said that the Soviet Union was starving in 1990-1991 because of very poor harvest. On the contrary, the harvest in the Soviet Union was fantastic in 1990 and 1991.

    "During the 80s, a whole group of people appeared in the Soviet Union, who wanted to remove the Communist Party from power. The West won the game back then. Gorbachev and Shevardnadze where only the exterior facade, and we will probably never know the names of the real puppeteers. If you believe when they say the Soviet Union broke out because of oil, just look at the share of oil in the export of the Soviet Union and in the export of today's Russia.

    "Chaos around Russia never stops from growing, but our goal is not to let the chaos in. The strategy of controllable chaos is a fundamentally new strategy. We can see it developing in the Middle East and along our borders. It is very hard to struggle against it but we need to learn how to live in a completely different world. Who could ever think 20 years ago that it would be possible to commit terrorist acts in the centre of Moscow, that all metro passengers would have to listen to announcements warning them about the danger of terrorist attacks. This is the reality that we're dealing with today."

    "What about the contradictions between our internal and external ambition? The majority of Russians fully support the foreign policy of the country, but have many questions about economic policy of the Russian government."

    "This is a very serious contradiction that cannot last long and will have to be resolved in the nearest future this way or other."

    "Do you see any ray of light in the dark kingdom of the Russian domestic policy?"

    "For the time being, I don't. Of course, Russia has got up from its knees but now everything depends a lot on how the situation unfolds in the world. The future depends on the people and to which extent they are ready to fight for it and even sacrifice something for it. When people live in times of the crisis and Chubais says at the same time that he has a lot of money - this is not good."

    "Chubais is a notorious character."

    "Chubais is part of the authorities. The Russian authorities need to properly estimate the times that Russia lived under Gorbachev and Yeltsin not to go back to those times again. President Vladimir Putin says that the destruction of the Soviet Union was a geopolitical catastrophe. However, this catastrophe has a name - the first name and the last name. This Soviet Union did not break up just like that. Three people gathered and signed something. The fourth person did nothing to stop them. We need to have a legal approach to what happened back then."

    "But this is a very difficult step to make."

    "I'm not saying it's easy. Being in power is a hard job to do. It means that you have to be responsible and take risks for very unpopular things. Yet, a traitor shall be called and judged as a traitor. Such things exclude understatement. One cannot curse and praise one and the same thing at once."

    "History shows us that assessments may alter with time. The things that were generally seen as negative in the past can be seen as positive in present times. We can brand Gorbachev [as triator], but it may turn out in 20 years that everything that he did was right and that he even saved us."

    "From whom did he save us? This relativity theory is a favorite trick of our liberals. The Soviet Union was a nuclear power with a very strong economy. In 1991, Margaret Thatcher acknowledged in Houston that the Soviet economy was a threat for Western economies during the 80s. Gorbachev came to power in 1985 and the country was destroyed six years later. There can be only one assessment made to what he had done to the country. As Lenin used to say, best politics is politics based on principles."

    Interview conducted by Inna Novikova
    Pravda.Ru

    [Feb 17, 2016] On the Art of Noticing the Obvious, and Invisible People

    Notable quotes:
    "... a sense of disgust and horror he did not himself understand, ..."
    "... "War and Peace" ..."
    "... But what does our dear Krechetnikov do next? Oh, that's a real gem! Here is his main reason for opposing Kadyrov and his "attacks" on the shy and conscientious democratic opposition in Russia, whom he dares to call "the enemies of the people": ..."
    "... "In fact, the term is meaningless because there is no national-superpersonality, able to want something or do not want it, to love or hate someone. There are many people who have different interests, opinions, and, accordingly, friends and enemies". ..."
    "... That's it, people! That was my own "Bingo!" moment, when I finally got it all about the real issue of this "Kadyrov's scandal", but most importantly, I've 'groked' the essence of the modern international so-called Liberalism and its faithful servants in Russian. Let me explain it. ..."
    "... What does it mean? Well, it means that any given country of the Progressive And Culturally Superior West™ is ruled by this or that iteration of a filthy rich elite brought up to power by this or that iteration of the local Bourgeoisie Revolution™ – with the motto " Fuck the Poor! " engraved on every single decision of this self-perpetuation oligarchy draped in the, ha-ha, republican robes. Then there is a small – but very, very noisy, so they appear larger than they actually are – strata of the "intellectuals", high-priests in the temples of the long-dead gods of Freedom, Liberty and Equality, who fancy themselves as the one and only true keepers of the Democratic Legacy, of the Quintessence of what their particular "Nation" is all about – but screw the history and traditions if we feel the other way on Tuesday. The fact that both of these"ruling classes" comprise (combined) perhaps less than 10% of the entire population doesn't discourage them at all in their perceived view of the world at large – naturally, with them at the top. ..."
    "... So, who are the rest of the people? Pfft, what a silly question! They do not exist. At all. Why are you looking so surprised at me? Didn't the good Sir Krechentikov just say that 'the people' do not exist? There you go! Move along – nothing to see here. What you have for the 90% of the population instead of the "people" or even the "working class" are what good pro-democracy (and – as any idiot in the Net will tell you – pro-gay) Greeks referred as "walking and talking tools". And tools, as we know, usually are dumb, mono-tasked and easily replaceable. By other tools, no matter what their country of origin or the reasons of becoming "tools" in the first place. Ultimately, to the "ruling classes" they are all the same. ..."
    "... So, when the so-called 'Russian liberals' are decrying 'their' own people and wish it to be replaced entirely one way or another – they are actually voicing in their naive neophyte way what their much more experienced masters and colleagues from across the "Civilized World" have been keeping in mind for a long, long time. ..."
    "... The Washington Post ..."
    "... Well, what can one say? These fuckers are beyond redemption. Yes, I'm talking about WaPos Editorial Board – not the Chechens. ..."
    "... Andrei Piontkovsky is a "Russian journalist" (once again – sorry for the word "journalist"), a researcher at the Institute for Systemic Analysis, a member of the International PEN Club. In 2012 he was elected to the Coordinating Council of the Opposition. In 2014 Piontkovsky signed a statement demanding the withdrawal of Russian troops from the territory of the Ukraine and an end to "the annexation of Crimea". Such a paragon of handshakeability is just a rank'n'file "non-systemic opposition" figure – a very typical representative indeed, but not on par with some of the more notorious ones. ..."
    "... Editor's Note : We're only halfway through this thing, gang, so I have decided to break it in two so that it will not be too long. We'll give this first installment a week or so of exposure, and then follow with the conclusion. I have to say I like it so far! ..."
    marknesop.wordpress.com
    February 13, 2016

    Uncle Volodya says, "There is a noticeable element of the pathological in some current leftist critiques, which I tend to attribute to feelings of guilt allied to feelings of impotence. Not an attractive combination, because it results in self-hatred."

    One principal advantage this blog enjoys over many other Russia-focused blogs in English is the participation of some ethnic-Russian and extremely competent speakers of English, some of whom still live in Russia. We are therefore offered direct access to at least some opinion which comes from the country which is our focus of interest, rather than being told what Russians think by English-speaking journalists such as Shaun Walker, Roland Oliphant, Edward Lucas and thoroughly-westernized Russian émigrés like Julia Ioffe and Leonid Bershidsky. The importance of that unfiltered opinion cannot be exaggerated, because the foregoing journalists and émigrés frequently sample only the opinions of groups likely to provide the soundbites they are looking for, or simply make them up. This offers the comforting – for some – picture that there is widespread discontent within Russia of the current government, wages have remained stagnant for decades and Russians envy and covet western freedoms, which we must acknowledge is a popular narrative in the Anglosphere. Our only opportunity to rebut it comes from passionate Russians who can express themselves competently in English, and substantiate, flesh out and bring to life the alternative reality we know exists.

    This, of course, is leading into another post from the erudite native Muscovite we know as Lyttenburgh. I am delighted to be able to offer it here. Lyttenburgh, it's all yours.

    Prologue :

    Prince Andrew was somewhat refreshed by having ridden off the dusty highroad along which the troops were moving. But not far from Bald Hills he again came out on the road and overtook his regiment at its halting place by the dam of a small pond. It was past one o'clock. The sun, a red ball through the dust, burned and scorched his back intolerably through his black coat. The dust always hung motionless above the buzz of talk that came from the resting troops. There was no wind. As he crossed the dam Prince Andrew smelled the ooze and freshness of the pond. He longed to get into that water, however dirty it might be, and he glanced round at the pool from whence came sounds of shrieks and laughter. The small, muddy, green pond had risen visibly more than a foot, flooding the dam, because it was full of the naked white bodies of soldiers with brick-red hands, necks, and faces, who were splashing about in it. All this naked white human flesh, laughing and shrieking, floundered about in that dirty pool like carp stuffed into a watering can, and the suggestion of merriment in that floundering mass rendered it specially pathetic.

    […]

    "Flesh, bodies, cannon fodder!" he thought, and he looked at his own naked body and shuddered, not from cold but from a sense of disgust and horror he did not himself understand, aroused by the sight of that immense number of bodies splashing about in the dirty pond .

    – L. Tolstoy, "War and Peace" , volume 3, Book 10, Chapter V.

    Part I.

    I was "triggered" into writing this article by two factors. First – by a somewhat "popular" in narrow circles writer, Lyudmila Ulitskaya (a regular of "intelligentsia gatherings" organized by Mikhail Khodorkovskiy) who just recently compared Russians to "filthy, sick savages" . Not something out of the ordinary, really – sadly, this is just another example of the self-proclaimed members of the "Nation's Conscience" passing judgment on the rest of the people, who might (o, horror!) disagree with them and their foreign sponsors.

    Another came from a rather unusual source. As you all probably know, the "Kadyrov Scandal", started when the President of the Chechen Republic of the Russian Federation called non-systemic oppositionists "traitors" and "enemies of the people" and called for them to be investigated and, if needed, prosecuted in accordance with Russian Law. The scandal is not abating in Russia and now even the Foreign Democratic And Independent™ press began noticing it. And so we have many different pieces from across the Civilized World, all of them professing their love for the so-called "Russian liberals", "true opposition", "civil society" and a burning hatred for the "wrong" Chechen Kadyrov (as opposed to the "good " Chechens, whose actions they supported in the 90s and 00s). This article on a British government funded BBC Russia site is typical. Its author – Artyom Krechetnikov – is a fine example of sad and failed dissident and émigré, who just physically can't write a good thing about his former country of birth.

    Quite predictably, our Artyom is highly critical of Kadyrov's comparisons of the non-systemic opposition to the enemies of the people. He even decided to write a little "historical essay" devoted to that question – starting with the Great French Revolution and ending with Mao's China. He makes all possible mistakes one can expect from a rabid Russophobe and anti-Sovietist (which, all too often, means the same thing). Say, while admitting that the Committee on the National Safety executed via " Mme Guillotine " only 18,613 people, he immediately references 1935 "studies" of the American historian Donald Greer, who, somehow, managed to increase this number to 40,000. The same way he acts while talking about the "Great Terror" in the Soviet Union. He claims that in the period of 1921-1953, 3, 777, 380 people were persecuted by "political" charges (read: "they were completely innocent from our absolutely superior liberal POV") and that 799,445 of them were executed. On the one hand – that's kinda-sorta progress compared to Beevor-SoLZHEnytsin's "millions of innocents shot for nothing in the span of a few years" concept; but, still, a gross exaggeration and a shameless lie. First of all he conflates in his "persecuted" claim in the form of a number of people close to 4 million. Both those who were just charged with various political (but very real) crimes and then released, and those who were sentenced to prison time or executed. Next, for an uninformed reader a number of 799,455 looks big, scary and (because it's uneven) legit. But it's actually a number of death warrants issued – not the number of the actual executions carried out in the USSR for this sort of crime in the period of more than 30 years . The actual number is lower – about 680,000. Which is, kinda-sorta, less scary and also, by its mere fact of existence, proves that some people (a whopping 120,000 of them) got pardoned or successfully pleaded their cause before the ghoulish, baby-eating Stalinist government. But we don't want any ideological ambiguity, do we? Even then, possessing basic skills of math, some primitive solar-panel calculator and access to reliable and relevant statistical data will lead any would be "demolisher of Stalinism" to rather disheartening conclusion – that bloody mustachioed vampire managed to repress for political reasons about 2.7-3% of the entire population. Boo-fricking-hoo.

    But what does our dear Krechetnikov do next? Oh, that's a real gem! Here is his main reason for opposing Kadyrov and his "attacks" on the shy and conscientious democratic opposition in Russia, whom he dares to call "the enemies of the people":

    "In fact, the term is meaningless because there is no national-superpersonality, able to want something or do not want it, to love or hate someone. There are many people who have different interests, opinions, and, accordingly, friends and enemies".

    That's it, people! That was my own "Bingo!" moment, when I finally got it all about the real issue of this "Kadyrov's scandal", but most importantly, I've 'groked' the essence of the modern international so-called Liberalism and its faithful servants in Russian. Let me explain it.

    Part II

    It is considered to be a mauvais ton , a taboo even to talk about 'the people' or the 'working class' in the Western Respectable Media and Academia. Big Scary No-No. Why? Well, because if you are talking about the 'people' then you will inevitably go Patriotism=>Nationalism=>Nazism road. And were you ever to raise a question about the 'working class', then, surely you will next arrive at Socialism=>Stalinism=>gulags. That's a Well Known Fact™ . And no use to argue against the Free and Independent Opinion, you Commie-Nazi Freak!

    What does it mean? Well, it means that any given country of the Progressive And Culturally Superior West™ is ruled by this or that iteration of a filthy rich elite brought up to power by this or that iteration of the local Bourgeoisie Revolution™ – with the motto " Fuck the Poor! " engraved on every single decision of this self-perpetuation oligarchy draped in the, ha-ha, republican robes. Then there is a small – but very, very noisy, so they appear larger than they actually are – strata of the "intellectuals", high-priests in the temples of the long-dead gods of Freedom, Liberty and Equality, who fancy themselves as the one and only true keepers of the Democratic Legacy, of the Quintessence of what their particular "Nation" is all about – but screw the history and traditions if we feel the other way on Tuesday. The fact that both of these"ruling classes" comprise (combined) perhaps less than 10% of the entire population doesn't discourage them at all in their perceived view of the world at large – naturally, with them at the top.

    So, who are the rest of the people? Pfft, what a silly question! They do not exist. At all. Why are you looking so surprised at me? Didn't the good Sir Krechentikov just say that 'the people' do not exist? There you go! Move along – nothing to see here. What you have for the 90% of the population instead of the "people" or even the "working class" are what good pro-democracy (and – as any idiot in the Net will tell you – pro-gay) Greeks referred as "walking and talking tools". And tools, as we know, usually are dumb, mono-tasked and easily replaceable. By other tools, no matter what their country of origin or the reasons of becoming "tools" in the first place. Ultimately, to the "ruling classes" they are all the same.

    So, when the so-called 'Russian liberals' are decrying 'their' own people and wish it to be replaced entirely one way or another – they are actually voicing in their naive neophyte way what their much more experienced masters and colleagues from across the "Civilized World" have been keeping in mind for a long, long time.

    Naturally, it's a little wonder that the "nonexistent people" (according to the liberal l'Internationale ) have no "enemies" wishing to harm them or to screw them over . And because about 90% of these "non-people" are basically not even cognizant citizens who can take responsible actions on their own – its only in their best interests if some much more educated, handshakeable (albeit – miniscule) group of the "full-rights citizens" will decide what's better for them and, ugh, the "nation". And to hell with these "elections" – cattle know not how to vote properly anyway!

    Don't believe me? I remind you, that thoroughly-beloved-by-the-West Russian journalist Yulia Latynina argued against allowing poor people to vote . Plus, this Russian Ayn Rand-wannabe also denies global warming . She insists that only when the "proper" Russia will "cut-away" the Far East, Siberia and North Caucasus will we "start living like human beings" To no one's surprise, she's a great fan of Pinochet's Chile and Lee Kwan-Yew's Singapore .

    Another rather descriptive example: Garry Kasparov, touted by the Free Press as yet another "leader of the Russian opposition", now living in a self-imposed (and very comfortable) exile in the West, who recently "erupted" with a program of actions for the Liberal Opposition when (not if – when!) they capture the power from the Regime. A breathtaking read , I must say. He calls for the "purification" (that's not totalitarian purges, no – it's democratic "purification"!) of the society, because " the society will have to pay for everything – for the support of Putin, for Georgia, for Crimea and for Donbass " – just like Germany and Japan had to pay after 1945. He, jumping from here, calls for a "historical Nuremberg", with real " judicial process punishing the architects of the current regime ". And elections, democracy and all that jazz? Oh, no – it's impossible. No elections after the destruction of the Evil Regime – the people are too brainwashed, could be easily swayed and, Freedom forbid, might not vote for the Good Guys. Dictatorship of the Warriors of the Light (now with Filtration Camps of Freedom) are the only true way.

    And now read anything from a bunch of other articles about "poor, isolated Russia" from our usual suspects belonging to the Free And Independent Western Media™ and you'll notice the trend – not a peep about what the Russian people really, really want. Sure, you will find here many ballsy claims about "Many in Russia suspect that Kadyrov [something-something-something-Dark Side]" – without any real proof about these mythical "many". 'Cause this particular ambiguously big "many" actually covers only a Barbie-seized crowd of shy and conscientious intilligents , democratic journalists, kreakls, hipsters and gays from the breadth of Russia. They are seen as the voice of Russia and the true Elite who is entitled to rule the country – not the 86% of unmentionable "others".

    See for yourself . There is no more vanilla anti-Russian pro-jingoistic neo-con paper in the American Olympus of the 4th Estate than the "Pravda on the Potomac" AKA " The Washington Post ". This time, they scare their readership shitless with this scaaaary tale:

    " Now, the attack dog seems to be unleashed. Mr. Kadyrov has written an article published in the daily Izvestia that pours scorn on the "nonsystemic opposition" to Mr. Putin and suggests it be punished. The term "systemic opposition" in Russia usually refers to the toadies and sycophants who support Mr. Putin. Mr. Kadyrov's sights are on everyone else who criticizes the president - and he named names, including prominent opposition figure Alexei Navalny and journalists for Echo of Moscow radio and Dozhd television, both progressive outlets. In the article, Mr. Kadyrov declares that "there is a very good psychiatric hospital" in Chechnya where "we will not be stingy with injections" to these critics. "When they are prescribed one injection, we can give two." He says the opposition is a "pack of jackals," "bunch of traitors," "Western lackeys," "enemies of the people," "haters of Russia," people who are trying "to destroy our country and undermine its constitutional order." Stalin would recognize the language. Mr. Kadyrov's chief of staff drove the point home with a photo posted on social media of the Chechen leader holding back a massive Caucasian Shepherd dog named Tarzan, saying the beast's "teeth itch."

    Well, what can one say? These fuckers are beyond redemption. Yes, I'm talking about WaPos Editorial Board – not the Chechens. Not only did Mr. Kadyrov avoid naming anyone whom this article claims he already wrote down into his "proscription lists" – the article fails to mention that, in both of his articles, Ramzan Achmadovitch didn't call for extra-judicial punishment of the so-called "non-systemic opposition". He called for them to be investigated in accordance with Russian law. Meanwhile, the very same Russian oppositionists who decry at every opportunity the brutality of Stalinist purges and the sordid fact that a lot of people indeed wrote anonymous reports to NKVD… wrote an anonymous report accusing the president of Chechnya of violating art. 282 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, i.e. "inflammation of national strife" (as if "non-systemic opposition" is in itself a nationality or ethnicity to be targeted specifically) and "the humiliation of dignity of a certain social group". Some of them even went as far as to demand his resignation. But, understandably, the chances of such demarches are very slim – "traitors" and "the enemies of the people" are not a social group according to existing Russian legislation, as well as "non-systemic opposition", so that people labeled such could not demand any kind of legal recognition or compensation. Besides, if the so-called Russian liberals are truly innocent before Russian law – why are they fretting so much at quite ordinary calls for an inquiry? C'mon, liberals are just a bunch of shy and conscientious blokes and shiksas, who only want to embrace sweet Freedom and Universal Western Values! And, really guys, no one is threatening Russia – claiming otherwise means endorsing Kremlinite propaganda! Right?

    Wrong. Just last Saturday, on ultra-liberal pro-opposition radio "Ekho Moscvy" (hailed by the West as "one of the few remaining Free Media Sources in Russia") site, an article by equally ultra-liberal and pro-opposition Andrey Piontkovskiy had been brought to the attention of urbi et orbi . And there was a good reason for that – in his article Piontkovskiy calls for the secession of Chechnya from Russia . In this article, among other things, the author claims that the continued presence of the Chechen republic within Russia threatens "a third Chechen war", so stopping the "ticking clock of the Russian-Chechen disaster" is only possible through the provision of the full state of independence of the republic. Among other reasons why it is necessary to do so, Piontkovsky lists the murder of Boris Nemtsov and Anna Politkovskaya, and the story of the Krasnoyarsk deputy Senchenko, who was forced to make a "humiliating apology" to Ramzan Kadyrov for calling him "a disgrace of Russia". According to the "journalist" (sorry for the word journalist here), the Chechen people are the "most difficult" of all the peoples of Russia and they don't want " to transform from the Germans into the Jews of the Third Reich ."

    Later that part was cut from the article, but only after a huge (and I mean – HUGE!) wave of angry responses from both readers and from the people beyond the "comfort zone" of the "Ekho". And, of course, ordinary users of RuNet proved themselves wily beasts by making lots of screenshots of that page pre-"purging". Meanwhile, this whole fracas is more serious than it looks. According to art. 280, p.1 of the LC RF there is a real legal responsibility for public calls for action aimed at violating the territorial integrity of the Russian Federation. Part two of this article states that said actions are punishable by up to 5 years of imprisonment for such calls made with the use of the media. Also, not only the author, but the editorial board of the media source hosting such articles are equally responsible, and must answer before the law. That's the current Russian legislation. And not knowing it does not absolve anyone from having committed a crime.

    Andrei Piontkovsky is a "Russian journalist" (once again – sorry for the word "journalist"), a researcher at the Institute for Systemic Analysis, a member of the International PEN Club. In 2012 he was elected to the Coordinating Council of the Opposition. In 2014 Piontkovsky signed a statement demanding the withdrawal of Russian troops from the territory of the Ukraine and an end to "the annexation of Crimea". Such a paragon of handshakeability is just a rank'n'file "non-systemic opposition" figure – a very typical representative indeed, but not on par with some of the more notorious ones.

    I think the whole world must be reminded about other "achievements" of the so-called "Russian liberal opposition". In 1994 they went to Dudayev's stronghold in separatist Chechnya and, while there, used the radio relay to call for Russian soldiers to commit an act of treason and surrender to the militants. Among them, human rights activist Sergey Kovalyov, who swore that no harm will come to all who will surrender immediately – they will even be transported back to their military bases. The lucky ones of those naive soldiers who raised up their arms and surrendered entered into years-long slavery. The less lucky were brutally tortured and mutilated, and then – killed.

    And, yes – these are the people hailed as true heroes by the Western Press, NGOs and Governments (which, as Everybody Knows, are totally not interconnected between themselves). Should such persons be investigated in accordance with Russian law and do they really deserve the term "enemies of the people"? Well, the collective West thinks "No!". Russians have a diametrically opposite opinion – but who cares, as long as the Western Enlightened Populace's™ opinion is formed by the rabid Russophobic spin-doctors from the WaPo and their ilk? Hell, even the best of them in the professional circle of the "Russia-watchers" (read: as ethical and loyal as 17th century German mercenaries) are no better and can't even bring themselves to say one simple phrase – "Russian People". But they, unwittingly, provide a useful insight into other interesting tidbits of this ugly elitist worldview.

    Editor's Note : We're only halfway through this thing, gang, so I have decided to break it in two so that it will not be too long. We'll give this first installment a week or so of exposure, and then follow with the conclusion. I have to say I like it so far!

    Markus Nystrom , February 14, 2016 at 1:02 am
    A gulping dose of fresh air. Or should I say a slaking dip in a cool pond? Thank you, Lyttenburgh.
    kirill , February 14, 2016 at 7:00 am
    A very good piece. The under 3% figure is something that is never presented to the western (and Russian) masses. Sadly many good people suffered after 1917. They were not 5th column scum like the liberast "non systemic" opposition today. Yet this scum is treated with kid gloves with no sign of legal sanction for their actions. Kadyrov is right, it is time to throw the book at them. I would say they merit more than simple legal prosecution. They need real persecution befitting of their behaviour. They should be coerced out of Russia to go and live in their NATzO paradise.

    The Russian constitution needs to be changed to allow for the revocation of citizenship. Liberast 5th columnists need to be stripped of Russian citizenship. This is quite natural and fair. These mentally sick freaks are a real threat to Russian society and the Russian people.

    Moscow Exile , February 14, 2016 at 1:35 am
    I may be mistaken, but I don't think Lyttenburgh is a native Muscovite. I'm almost certain he once said that he originates from the Urals somewhere, which makes his opinion even better, because many often say that Moscow life does not reflect "real" life in Russia, and Lyttenburgh knows full well what life in the provinces is ike as well as how things are in the capital.

    If you really want the views of a much lauded by the Moscow Times native Muscovite, see the opinions of Alexei Bayer.

    I jest, of course.

    Lyttenburgh , February 14, 2016 at 4:01 am
    If Vladimir Volfovitch Zhirinovky could be a Kzakstan born native Muscovite and chief defender of ethnic Russians ans the poor – well, who am I to resist a title of Muscovite myself? ;)

    I was born in Sverdlovsk, USSR. Now its Yekaterinburg, Groysmanstan. I'm indeed a member of provincial intilligentsia who had it rought for itself during the 'Rough 90s' which makes us more aligned to the plights of the working class, so to speak.

    Years later I moved to Moscow region, and then to Moscow. Now I live on "two homes", with Moscow being for work/study and the oblast for living like a human being (TM).

    I also would like to use this comment as opportunity to come forward before the whole mir of the "Kremlin Stooge

    [Feb 16, 2016] Ukraines Poroshenko asks embattled PM to resign

    news.yahoo.com

    Recent opinion polls show 70 percent of Ukrainians supporting Yatsenyuk's ouster and only one percent backing his People's Front parliamentary bloc.

    IMF chief Christine Lagarde warned last week that it was "hard to see" how the bailout could continue without Ukraine pushing through the economic restructuring and anti-corruption measures it had signed on to when the package was agreed.

    Ukraine's economy shrank by about 10 percent last year while annual inflation soared to more than 43 percent even with the Western assistance in place.

    [Feb 16, 2016] The half-frozen oil production for Russia and Saudis

    Slightly edited Google Translation
    Don't forget that of every four barrels of extra oil that we need over the next 25 years, only one will be used to meet demand growth. Three others will just compensate for the decline of existing fields. The number of vehicles in the world tin 2012 was over a billion (700 M cars, 300 m trucks and buses).
    Notable quotes:
    "... The question what will happen now with the oil prices in a short run still remains open. Iran has offered Europe a good discount to compete with Saudi Arabia depressing prices. According to National Iranian oil company , the discount on Iranian oil grades Iran Heavy (part of the OPEC basket) is $6.55 dollar while Saudi Arabia discount is $4.85 dollars per barrel. ..."
    "... In this situation, in my opinion, the statement about the freezing of the production is from Saudi Arabia was just a tactical move, which hints on possible production cuts by OPEC later. A bluff if you wish. ..."
    "... However, from now on the most natural trend for oil prices is up. And not due to any agreements, but due to depletion when production in most countries naturally goes down because of low capex. This is a more fundamental factor, but the agreement allow to win some time before this fundamental factor fully comes into play. ..."
    "... The fact is that the oil the world economy still consumes more and more oil each year and now this trend was accelerated by low prices. As the result problems with meeting demand might arise as early ad the end of 2016 and inventories will start being depleted. ..."
    "... After that we will enter a new uptrend , a new phase of higher prices of energy. But once scared twice shy and it is unlikely that oil prices will go up quickly. But I expect 2016 average in the range of $40-45 per barrel. This price range, I believe, will suit most conventional oil companies in the world. And especially Russian, which due to the devaluation of the national currency is largely compensated for falling prices of the oil on world markets... ..."
    "... The key value of the Doha statement is that it implies that the restriction of volumes of production is possible, changing market expectation. Thats it. ..."
    "... No one still can predict how much more time will be needed for coming to agreement to reduce oil production, and whether agreement will be reached at all, but it does change market expectations immediately. ..."
    svpressa.ru
    ... ... ...

    From my point of view, it is a signal that Saudi game in the oil dumping is close to the end, from now on Riyadh is interested in raising energy prices. Another thing, again, that the Saudis are ready to freeze and to reduce production only if Iran and Russian freeze or proportionately reduce their production too.

    "SP": How will other members of OPEN react on Doha announcement?

    Other members will most probably support this decision. Already, a number of members of OPEC with higher production costs, were in favor of restricting their production.

    This is first of all Venezuela, partially United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Oman. And we must understand that if for Saudi Arabia and Russia low oil prices created problems with balancing the budgets, for Venezuela this is a real question of survival.

    This alignment of interests have led to the situation with this joint statement and subsequent reaction of the market which is currently unfolding before our eyes. One way to move another step forward might be an emergency OPEC meeting, which could take place in early March, and on which the proposal to freeze production by cartel members can be officially adopted.

    "SP": will oil price go up from now on?

    The market is essentially ready for the return of higher oil prices, therefore, it might respond positively to this news. However, the oil market is very speculative, and responding primarily to the expectations - the real figures of production do not play a primary role in forming the spot price for oil.

    And yet, to seriously move oil prices up, it is probably necessary to reduce the world production by around 1.5 million barrels a day. No matter by what measures.

    We also think that oil speculators might use this situation to switch the trend and try to earn money on uptrend instead of downtrend. This is the opinion of the head of the analytical Department of the Russian energy Security Fund Alexander Pasechnik. Even minimal 'warming" of oil market is beneficial to the producers of "black gold", including Russia which now waist their national treasure.

    He suggested that the agreement in Doha was possible because it was impossible to wait longer for some measures to stop speculative attacks on oil price. The possibility of creating an artificial shortage of supply in the oil market were actively discussed for the last few months on different levels, but no decision were made.

    The question what will happen now with the oil prices "in a short run" still remains open. Iran has offered Europe a good discount to compete with Saudi Arabia depressing prices. According to "National Iranian oil company", the discount on Iranian oil grades Iran Heavy (part of the OPEC basket) is $6.55 dollar while Saudi Arabia discount is $4.85 dollars per barrel.

    In this situation, in my opinion, the statement about the freezing of the production is from Saudi Arabia was just a tactical move, which hints on possible production cuts by OPEC later. A bluff if you wish.

    "SP": What are the risks for Russia, due to freeze of production at the current level?

    In my opinion, there is no any significant risks. In any case we will be forced to reduce production due to the increase of the fiscal burden on the oil industry, and the consequent reduction of investments in the sector. Let me remind you that in 2016, the oil companies will pay 200 billion rubles of additional taxes, and government intends to stick to this tax regime in 2017 and possibly in 2018. This means that the coming drop of production in the Russian Federation is baked into the cake. Agreement with Saudis for freeze production on January 2016 level does not change this reality.

    On the other hand, we should not expect much from the agreements in Doha. Even if the position the Quartet will be supported by all other members of OPEC, it does not guarantee that such a "gentleman's agreement" will be respected by all members of the cartel.

    However, from now on the most natural trend for oil prices is up. And not due to any agreements, but due to depletion when production in most countries "naturally" goes down because of low capex. This is a more fundamental factor, but the agreement allow to win some time before this fundamental factor fully comes into play.

    The fact is that the oil the world economy still consumes more and more oil each year and now this trend was accelerated by low prices. As the result problems with meeting demand might arise as early ad the end of 2016 and inventories will start being depleted.

    After that we will enter a new "uptrend", a new phase of higher prices of energy. But once scared twice shy and it is unlikely that oil prices will go up quickly. But I expect 2016 average in the range of $40-45 per barrel. This price range, I believe, will suit most conventional oil companies in the world. And especially Russian, which due to the devaluation of the national currency is largely compensated for falling prices of the oil on world markets...

    "The key value of the Doha statement is that it implies that the restriction of volumes of production is possible, changing market expectation. That's it." This is how Director of the Energy Institute Sergey Pravosudov thinks about the announcement. The key purpose of such statements is to spook speculators pushing the oil price down, and not to push oil prices up. No one still can predict how much more time will be needed for coming to agreement to reduce oil production, and whether agreement will be reached at all, but it does change market expectations immediately.

    [Feb 14, 2016] The tragedy of our times of information warfare is that well-educated and sincere citizens are blind-sighted

    marknesop.wordpress.com

    Oddlots, February 13, 2016 at 3:17 pm

    Re: "Is NATO actually willing to go to war with Russia for NATO's credibility rather than the slightly less fabulous idea of a Russian invasion of Poland and the Baltics (as the BBC would like us to believe)? Germany doesn't want moslem Turkey in the EU, so why would 'Christian Europe' sacrifice itself for power mad moslem Erdogan?"

    Gilbert Doctorow wrote quite a great piece about the BBC piece here:

    https://newcoldwar.org/making-sense-of-the-bbcs-documentary-film-world-war-three-inside-the-war-room/

    I think GD is actually right about Russia's over-reaction:

    "The tragedy of our times of information warfare is that well-educated and sincere citizens are blind-sighted. We have an old maxim that when you cannot persuade, confuse. The fatal flaw is when you believe your own propaganda. If nothing else, the BBC documentary demonstrates that for Western elites this is what has happened. The reaction to the film from the Kremlin, suggests the same has happened to Eastern elites."

    I think this the first time I've seen Russian officials "losing their heads" a little bit.

    marknesop, February 13, 2016 at 4:55 pm
    Yes, that is a great piece, and Doctorow seldom disappoints. Russia certainly did miss a golden opportunity to highlight those closing quotes, if they are as described (I didn't see it), although they were perfectly right to rage against the demonization of Russia implicit in the scenario, which supposedly had it attacking Latvia. Why would Russia do such a thing? If left to its own devices and if current trends prevail (plummeting population and a youth unemployment rate of more than 18%), the place will be empty in 20 years anyway.

    Moreover, the scenario proposes that some 20 Latvian towns are 'taken by pro-Russian separatists', a la Donbas. What happened to the will of the people? These are ethnic-Russian Latvians, not foreign invaders. The west in general and Washington in particular has always had a soft spot in its heart for popular uprisings, and if there is not a good one happening somewhere it often tries to create one, it likes them so much. are you telling me that's just a political destabilization device, and not a value the west champions at all?

    Patient Observer, February 13, 2016 at 5:37 pm
    The Russian outrage, which was genuine I believe, was in support of its own people and not as a complaint to the Western psychopaths.

    [Feb 13, 2016] Armenia-Iran Deal May Threaten Russia's Natural Gas Market

    11 February 2016 | OilPrice.com
    By Eurasianet

    Economic hopes are rising in Armenia that the country can serve as a trade conduit for Iran now that international sanctions against Tehran are being lifted.

    Armenia has long-standing ties to Iran, and is a member of the Russia-led Eurasian Economic Union (EEU), a factor that potentially increases its attractiveness as a trade partner for Tehran. Yerevan is "an important avenue for both Iran to export through Armenia into that large combined market [EEU], and as a platform for Western engagement in the now opening Iranian market," noted Richard Giragosian, director of the non-governmental Regional Studies Center in the Armenian capital, Yerevan.

    The World Bank's country director for Armenia, Laura Bailey, told RFE/RL's Armenian service in January that stalled energy partnerships between Iran and Armenia could be the first sector to take off.

    Indeed, National Iranian Gas Exports Company Managing Director Alireza Kameli announced on February 7 that Iran is considering increasing five-fold the 1 million cubic meters of gas it sends daily to Armenia, state-run Iranian media reported. At the same time, plans for a new power line to increase Armenia's electricity exports to Iran are developing.

    The gas deal appears to fit into a larger, regional scheme. In December, quadripartite talks took place during which Armenia, Iran, and the Black Sea countries of Georgia and Russia agreed to establish a coordinating group on establishing an energy corridor linking the four countries.

    "We should spare no efforts to connect the Persian Gulf with the Black Sea [via Georgia, Armenia's northern neighbor]," Iranian President Hassan Rouhani told his Armenian counterpart, Serzh Sargsyan in a January 24 phone conversation, Iran's MehrNews agency reported.

    Negotiations already have occurred between Iran and the Georgian government about sending Iranian gas to Georgia via Armenia, Iranian state media reported Kameli, the Iranian gas official, as saying in early January.

    Some Armenian experts are tempering their optimism with caution. Russian-owned companies control an estimated 80 percent of Armenia's energy sector. Energy giant Gazprom runs the gas pipelines from Iran and on to Georgia, and it tends to look askance at competitors who might try to muscle in on their markets. At the same time, no clear sign has emerged that Moscow opposes an increase in Iranian gas exports to Armenia. The Sputnik news agency, a Kremlin mouthpiece, promptly reported Kameli's announcement on February 7.

    Iranian affairs specialist Armen Vardanian at Yerevan's Armenian Institute of International and Security Affairs believes that "Russia will embrace the projects that will not contradict its national interests."

    [Feb 13, 2016] The Obama Administration Recklessly Escalates Confrontation With Russia

    Notable quotes:
    "... Russia will certainly react, probably by moving more of its own heavy weapons, including advanced missiles, to its Western borders, possibly along with a number of tactical nuclear weapons. Indeed, a new and more dangerous US-Russian nuclear arms race has been under way for several years, which the Obama administration's latest decision can only intensify. ..."
    "... Astonishingly, these potentially fateful developments have barely been reported in the US media, and there's been no public discussion, not even by the current presidential candidates during their debates. ..."
    "... Every presidential candidate and the other leaders of both parties, as well as the editors and writers in the mainstream media who profess to be covering the 2016 campaign, the state of our nation, and world affairs are professionally and morally obliged to bring these dire developments to the fore. Otherwise, they will be harshly judged by history-if anyone is still around to write it. ..."
    The Nation

     he Obama administration has just recklessly escalated its military confrontation with Russia. The Pentagon's announcement that it will more than quadruple military spending on the US-NATO forces in countries on or near Russia's borders pushes the new Cold War toward actual war-possibly even a nuclear one.

    The move is unprecedented in modern times. With the exception of Nazi Germany's invasion of the Soviet Union, Western military power has never been positioned so close to Russia. The Obama administration's decision is Russian roulette Washington-style, making the new Cold War even more dangerous than the preceding one. Russia will certainly react, probably by moving more of its own heavy weapons, including advanced missiles, to its Western borders, possibly along with a number of tactical nuclear weapons. Indeed, a new and more dangerous US-Russian nuclear arms race has been under way for several years, which the Obama administration's latest decision can only intensify.

    The decision will also have other woeful consequences. It will undermine ongoing negotiations between Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov on the Ukrainian and Syrian crises, and it will further divide Europe itself, which is far from united on Washington's increasingly hawkish approach to Moscow.

    Astonishingly, these potentially fateful developments have barely been reported in the US media, and there's been no public discussion, not even by the current presidential candidates during their debates. Never before in modern times has such a dire international situation been so ignored in an American presidential campaign. The reason may be that everything related to the new Cold War in US-Russian relations since the Ukrainian crisis erupted in November 2013 has been attributed solely to the "aggression" of Russian President Vladimir Putin or to "Putin's Russia"-a highly questionable assertion, but long the media's standard policy narrative.

    Every presidential candidate and the other leaders of both parties, as well as the editors and writers in the mainstream media who profess to be covering the 2016 campaign, the state of our nation, and world affairs are professionally and morally obliged to bring these dire developments to the fore. Otherwise, they will be harshly judged by history-if anyone is still around to write it.

    [Feb 13, 2016] Democratic debate: the five biggest moments

    Notable quotes:
    "... Watch the very good summary below of American involvement in Iraq, 2003-2014, done by PBS Frontline . It specifically states that during the 2007 Surge to stabilize an Iraq that had been de-stabilized by the American invasion, the US gave about $400 million to the progenitor of ISIS, the Sunni Sons of Iraq . ..."
    "... The unintended consequences of the American (and British) invasion was the creation of ISIS, funded by the American taxpayer. Sanders voted against those consequences ; Clinton, the old Klingon war-bird that she is, voted for them. ..."
    "... Wow. Almost completely biased yet again. Did you watch the actual debate? Do these 5 points strike you as the main ones? I am Hillary Clinton and I approved this article. PS Obama? Kissinger? Both rate as crucial talking points last night and Hillary and no decent answer to Bernie on either ..."
    "... I would love to see those transcripts, and have in fact written to her suggesting that she release them. I understand that Goldman Sachs paid good money to hear those speeches, and might like them to remain private, but I think it would be better for the nation, since she is running, for people to know what she said. ..."
    "... Sanders catches Clinton on her advice from Henry Kissinger , Hillary doubles down on her assertion that getting advice from war criminals is good policy. I guess if she could get advice from Josef Mengele about Health care shed do that too? ..."
    "... Lamest line of the night - when Hillary tried to make a big deal about there being a majority of women on stage . Sorry Hill, but that kind of sexism is just as offensive as if you said majority of straight people on stage . You come across like some gender supremacist. ..."
    "... Im sorry, but as a woman and a feminist, I find this one of the most offensive things I have ever read! In what fucking universe is Hillary Clinton one of the most accomplished women in the world ? ..."
    "... She was a bright student who chose to sacrifice her own career and tone down her own ambitions and persona to become the political wife so the man she married could have the career he wanted, then, once he left office, coatailed on his connections and name recognition to win a (open-goal) U.S. Senate Seat, in which she did nothing brave or revolutionary or remarkable and which she then abandoned for a decent presidential run of her own (I voted for her in 2008, as it happens) in which she threw in the towel far too early and easily in the face of the party establishment ordering her to. Her reward for this was a post as U.S. Secretary of State, where she distinguished herself by helping implement a series of foreign policy disasters (Libya alone she haunt her for the rest of her life, and no, I dont mean the irrelevant Benghazi incident, but the complete destruction of what was once one of the most stable countries in the region)... ..."
    "... Killary proclaims listening to and following a war criminal and her neocon cohorts is somehow a good thing. ..."
    "... Killary says may many past mistakes having nothing to do with my future ones. ..."
    "... Faux-identity politics has run its course. ..."
    "... Really believe Republicans havent changed? Eisenhower had a 92% income tax on the rich, supported unions and warned of our industrial military. Your bible thumping party would crucify Eisenhower and Jesus today. Conservatives golden rule is help the rich . ..."
    "... Hillary Clinton has never had an original opinion on anything her whole political life. When she opens her mouth, all that comes out is a endless stream of views which safeguards the interests of the many wealthy organizations and institutions she has supported over the decades. ..."
    "... And really, what does Clinton have other than serving a pretty disastrous tenure as Obamas Secretary of State? (At least Kerry, for all his faults, c.f. Ukraine, managed the Iran deal - all Clinton did was manage to utterly destroy Libya.) ..."
    "... The only reason that Republicans find any support is because America is dumbing down. Based on my own observation because I happen to live in a very red state, by and large, Republican voters are willfully uninformed. Put a Republican in the Oval Office and our education system will not improve. Nor will the collective IQ of the American populace jump any curves. ..."
    "... Ill take Sanders proven judgment over Clintons shoot first; ask questions later approach. ..."
    "... Clinton, who received $225,000 for her appearance, praised the diversity of Goldmans workforce and the prominent roles played by women at the blue-chip investment bank and the tech firms present at the event. She spent no time criticizing Goldman or Wall Street more broadly for its role in the 2008 financial crisis. ..."
    "... For some reason I have a feeling that the big banks wouldnt be asking Mr . Sanders to speak at their events. ..."
    "... So if the Commander in Chief should be, first of all, a courageous person, who would you rather entrust the defense of the United States and the safety of its citizens; to Bernie Sanders or to Hillary Clinton. ..."
    "... she voted for gw bushs disastrous war. that is not slavishly denigrating clinton, thats just a fact. she caved on the most important foreign policy issue since vietnam. ..."
    "... This debate solidified my desire that Hillary NOT be Commander in Chief. She really did scare me that she would be too eager to go to war. The way she kept saying the words Commander in Chief, it made me feel she couldnt wait to get her fingers on the button. ..."
    "... Why anyone would believe corporate clone Hillary Clinton is beyond me. Hillary Clinton has two guiding principles: the advancement of Hillary Clinton, and the enrichment of Hillary Clinton. ..."
    www.theguardian.com
    smkngman, 2016-02-13 00:55:28
    Please!

    The biggest moment was when Bernie responded to,
    "Journalists have asked who you do listen to on foreign policy, and we have yet to know who that is."

    Aside from the "Journalists have asked" bull, his reply was most certainly the biggest moment of the entire debate!

    "Well it ain't Henry Kissinger,"

    According to Google, this moment created the BIGGEST spike of internet searches during the debate.

    RobertHickson2014, 2016-02-12 22:57:04
    Hypothetically, if Hillary is 500 delegates short of winning the nomination, while Bernie is only short 200, and 600 of the 700 Supers break her way....

    A scenario like that could very well happen; the DNC needs to abolish the Super Delegates once and for all to remove the prospect of a rigged nomination process.

    EDVDGN -> imipak, 2016-02-12 18:45:58
    Watch the very good summary below of American involvement in Iraq, 2003-2014, done by PBS' "Frontline". It specifically states that during the 2007 "Surge" to stabilize an Iraq that had been de-stabilized by the American invasion, the US gave about $400 million to the progenitor of ISIS, the Sunni "Sons of Iraq".

    The "unintended consequences" of the American (and British) invasion was the creation of ISIS, funded by the American taxpayer. Sanders voted against those "consequences"; Clinton, the old Klingon war-bird that she is, voted for them.

    Of course, daughter Chelsea, didn't have to get all dirty and bloody herself by going to fight her mother's war, but your sons, daughters, fathers, and mothers did. Vote for more of that with Clinton.

    "Losing Iraq", PBS, "Frontline", 7/29/14, 1 ½ hours
    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/losing-iraq /

    uples, 2016-02-12 18:20:20
    Wow. Almost completely biased yet again. Did you watch the actual debate? Do these 5 points strike you as the main ones? I am Hillary Clinton and I approved this article. PS Obama? Kissinger? Both rate as crucial talking points last night and Hillary and no decent answer to Bernie on either
    kattw -> dochi1958, 2016-02-12 17:00:19
    I would love to see those transcripts, and have in fact written to her suggesting that she release them. I understand that Goldman Sachs paid good money to hear those speeches, and might like them to remain private, but I think it would be better for the nation, since she is running, for people to know what she said.

    ... ... ...

    Marcedward, 2016-02-12 16:18:17
    Big Moments:

    1) Hillary tries to mention a local African American killed by police, forgets the name mid sentence and struggles to get it out of her mouth. Came across as very rehearsed, especially when it turns out the victims mom was in the audience, being used by the Clinton Campaign for an obvious photo opportunity. Clinton wins the HAM HANDED Award.

    2) Hillary tries to go after Sanders for disagreeing with Obama and comes across like an inside the beltway clueless blithering idiot. She claims progressive creds, but she's totally unaware of how disappointing Obama has been to the Left. Hillary exposed as another Washington Insider, again.

    3) Sanders command of the agenda while all Clinton could do is follow his lead quipping "me too!" Clearly Sanders is in control of this race, Clinton is not, one is a leader, one is not. Hillary should just step down for the good of the country and the party

    4) Sanders catches Clinton on her "advice from Henry Kissinger", Hillary doubles down on her assertion that getting advice from war criminals is good policy. I guess if she could get advice from Josef Mengele about Health care she'd do that too?

    5) Hillary wearing what looked to be a Star Trek (the original series) Admiral's uniform - was that a nod to trekkies? I couldn't tell if it was a Star Fleet or a Romulan top. Anyway, cred for Hillary for shouting out to Trekkies.

    6) Lamest line of the night - when Hillary tried to make a big deal about there being a "majority of women on stage". Sorry Hill, but that kind of sexism is just as offensive as if you said "majority of straight people on stage". You come across like some gender supremacist.

    SocalAlex -> kattw, 2016-02-12 15:13:11

    of one of the most accomplished women in the world

    I'm sorry, but as a woman and a feminist, I find this one of the most offensive things I have ever read! In what fucking universe is Hillary Clinton "one of the most accomplished women in the world"?

    She was a bright student who chose to sacrifice her own career and tone down her own ambitions and persona to become the "political wife" so the man she married could have the career he wanted, then, once he left office, coatailed on his connections and name recognition to win a (open-goal) U.S. Senate Seat, in which she did nothing brave or revolutionary or remarkable and which she then abandoned for a decent presidential run of her own (I voted for her in 2008, as it happens) in which she threw in the towel far too early and easily in the face of the party establishment ordering her to. Her reward for this was a post as U.S. Secretary of State, where she "distinguished" herself by helping implement a series of foreign policy disasters (Libya alone she haunt her for the rest of her life, and no, I don't mean the irrelevant Benghazi incident, but the complete destruction of what was once one of the most stable countries in the region)...

    Sorry, Clinton may well be an intelligent and competent woman, but by what stretch of the imagination is she "one of the most accomplished women in the world"? The U.S. perhaps - through arguably not even - but the world? Seriously? And then you have the gall to claim Sanders supporters are delusional?

    Women like Angela Merkel or Christine Lagarde (like them or loathe them) could and would eat the likes of Clinton for breakfast, and they accomplished what they have without any husband's help!

    om Voloshen, 2016-02-12 15:12:45
    1. Killary plays the sex card.
    2. Killaty says little about her famaly's policy toward jailing nearly a third of all black men and foreclosing on so many of their homes due to Bill's passing GlassSteagall.
    3. Killary conveniently leaves out the fact that all key Latino and minority interest groups supported Bernie's no vote.
    4. Killary proclaims listening to and following a war criminal and her neocon cohorts is somehow a good thing.
    5. Killary says may many past mistakes having nothing to do with my future ones.
    ocalAlex -> Reality_Man, 2016-02-12 14:55:18
    Both Cruz and Rubio are as white as Clinton and Sanders. And having parents who were part of the upper-class who fled Cuba after the Revolution doesn't remotely reflect the personal histories of the vast majority of Hispanic-Americans. (Nor, for that matter, does being the son of a wealthy Kenyan student and middle-class white mother reflect the reality of 99% of African-Americans.)

    Faux-identity politics has run its course. It was never as instrumental in Obama's election(s) as was made out in the first place, and many of the minority for whom it was have learned their lesson.

    As the Republicans are painfully aware and Clinton is learning, blacks and Latinos and women and young people aren't stupid - they will ultimately rather vote for the "old white man" who represents their interests than the person they have slightly more of a genetic or cultural link to who doesn't!

    RobertHickson2014, 2016-02-12 14:33:36
    Hillary learned her lessons well from that douche bag, Henry Kissinger. Here are some of his 'foreign policy' quotes.

    http://www.rawstory.com/2016/02/here-are-the-top-10-most-callous-and-inhumane-henry-kissinger-quotes /

    SocalAlex -> Adrian, 2016-02-12 14:30:17
    Well, Sanders was the first Senator to announce he was boycotting Netanyahu's speech to Congress last year, and while he's certainly adopted a more mainstream line towards Israel in recent years, he's still never spoken at or accepted support from AIPAC and makes it quite clear in his policy brief that he believes Israel needs to end the siege of Gaza and withdraw from the West Bank .

    Clinton, on the other hand, is an AIPAC darling who doesn't even "believe" Gaza is under siege and merely has some mealy-mouthed platitudes to offer about how settlement expansion in the West Bank is not "helpful". (And one of her largest individual campaign donors is an Israeli-American billionaire who she has assured she will, if elected, do everything in her power to crack down on the BDS movement!)

    At least Obama treated the extremist bunch who are now in power in Israel exactly how they deserved.

    You mean even more $100s of billions in U.S. "aid" than they were already getting and complete diplomatic cover for their assault on Gaza and other assorted war crimes? If you think that's tough love, I'd hate to see how your children turn out!

    *For more background see thisAl-Jazeera English piece or the Electronic Intifada's exhaustive coverage.

    Sanders is far from perfect on this issue, but he's about as "progressive" as it is possible for any high-profile U.S. politician to be. (And I really hope you weren't implying the fact that he is Jewish makes him more likely to be pro-Israel - that is precisely the kind of crap which helps those opposed to Palestinian rights paint all of us campaigning for them in a bad light...)

    nnedjo -> kattw, 2016-02-12 14:26:01

    Of course, Clinton distances herself from her supporters by running a tight campaign

    Of course, that's the way how it works, Clinton left to her supporters to do the dirty work, and then she distances herself from them, and continue to play an angel.
    newellalan -> Reality_Man, 2016-02-12 14:21:17
    Really believe Republicans haven't changed? Eisenhower had a 92% income tax on the rich, supported unions and warned of our industrial military. Your bible thumping party would crucify Eisenhower and Jesus today. Conservatives golden rule is "help the rich".
    mouchefisher -> kattw, 2016-02-12 14:12:57
    You either misunderstood my comment, or you're being disingenuous.

    What I find strange is The Guardian's evident pro-Clinton bias, even though it pretends to be a progressive paper. Sanders is obviously the true progressive, not Clinton. So yes, it does make me (and many, many other readers of The Guardian) wonder.

    ajreddish, 2016-02-12 14:12:07
    Hillary Clinton has never had an original opinion on anything her whole political life. When she opens her mouth, all that comes out is a endless stream of views which safeguards the interests of the many wealthy organizations and institutions she has supported over the decades.

    At least when Bernie Sanders opens his mouth on any issue, there's no puppet strings moving furiously up and down in the background.

    SocalAlex -> DennisLaw , 2016-02-12 14:10:16
    What foreign policy credentials/experience did Obama have? (Or W. Bush or Bill Clinton for that matter?)

    And really, what does Clinton have other than serving a pretty disastrous tenure as Obama's Secretary of State? (At least Kerry, for all his faults, c.f. Ukraine, managed the Iran deal - all Clinton did was manage to utterly destroy Libya.)

    Agi Tater -> imipak , 2016-02-12 14:03:26
    The only reason that Republicans find any support is because America is dumbing down. Based on my own observation because I happen to live in a very red state, by and large, Republican voters are willfully uninformed. Put a Republican in the Oval Office and our education system will not improve. Nor will the collective IQ of the American populace jump any curves.

    Sanders' one weakness is he does not articulate a clear foreign policy. On the other hand, these are complex issues that can't be reduced to talking points. Further, Sanders' voting record on these issues is solid. Unlike Clinton he did vote against the war in Iraq. And he predicted the unintended consequence of instability and thus ISIS. Clinton has far more experience but she pretends her vote for a disastrous war in Iraq has no connection to ISIS. That's a serious lack of judgment and/or honesty on her part.

    I'll take Sanders' proven judgment over Clinton's "shoot first; ask questions later" approach.

    Agi Tater, 2016-02-12 13:38:25
    This article is not balanced and thus disappointing. Same with Graves' opinion piece stating that Sanders "squandered" his lead. Absurd.

    Everything that comes out of Clinton's mouth is a strategic ploy for votes. She will say whatever she and her advisors think she must say to get elected. If she is elected, she will maintain the status quo, at least when it comes to the economy and campaign financing. Those are the two areas that must be reformed before we can see any real progress.

    Anyone who believes that Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street criminals are funding Clinton's campaign because she's going to follow through with the real economic reforms that she's now promising (copying Sanders) and that will eliminate their fraudulent business models is a fucking idiot. What Wall Street type is going to donate to a candidate who's going to level the playing field and thus destroy their business model? Are people really that stupid? (rhetorical question) Let's see those transcripts from her speeches that she clearly does not want voters to see.

    The truth is, Clinton's talking points have shifted and evolved to match Sanders' positions that voters find attractive. This is a matter of record. She's an Establishment politician and will be to the end. Sander is the real deal.

    Murphy1983, 2016-02-12 13:36:57
    From Politico Feb. 9, 2016:

    NEW YORK - "When Hillary Clinton spoke to Goldman Sachs executives and technology titans at a summit in Arizona in October of 2013, she spoke glowingly of the work the bank was doing raising capital and helping create jobs, according to people who saw her remarks.

    "Clinton, who received $225,000 for her appearance, praised the diversity of Goldman's workforce and the prominent roles played by women at the blue-chip investment bank and the tech firms present at the event. She spent no time criticizing Goldman or Wall Street more broadly for its role in the 2008 financial crisis.

    "'It was pretty glowing about us," one person who watched the event said. "It's so far from what she sounds like as a candidate now. It was like a rah-rah speech. She sounded more like a Goldman Sachs managing director.' "

    Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/clinton-speeches-218969#ixzz3ztCCKaHe

    sharethewealth -> kattw, 2016-02-12 13:34:37
    It's a tough question to ask, given the American track record on foreign policy. Who would you listen to? American interests overseas have never been, shall we say, altruistic; more self serving and clandestine. It's no wonder Bernie is focusing his attention on the national socio/political climate. It seems ironic to think that any government can influence foreign policy in a positive way while issues such a racism and a living wage are so rampantly out of balance in their own nation.
    Elfeesh, 2016-02-12 13:29:10
    So your "5 things we learned" is actually "A positive spin on 4 things about Clinton and one thing Sanders said", whilst totally failing to mention the fact that Clinton outright lied about things that Bernie had said in an attempt to make it seem like he actively opposes Obama, or that she said, verbatim, that she wouldn't allow child refugees to settle in the US and to send them back AS A MESSAGE.

    This paper's coverage is getting more and more biased by the minute as its journalists realise that "kooky old Sanders" is actually getting some traction with the American people. That article by Lucia Gravesis a disgrace and cherry picks the one liners Sanders came back to Hillary's attacks with, as though its somehow terrible for someone to defend themselves with witty and quick comebacks.

    Just FYI Guardian, your readership is actually half intelligent and can see through your biased BS, just as the general electorate can see through the crappy CNN and PBS coverage given to Sanders. You say that Clinton "won" the debate, yet it seems that most people disagree(Note the person saying this is an Associated Press journalist) and there is more than one source to suggest that, in Nevada a focus group say Sanders' won by a 25-9 margin and even Chris Matthews, who for the longest time has been struggling to say "Bernie Sanders" without the "Democratic Socialist" prefix, says that Bernie beat Hillary at her own game. Finally, and I'm afraid I don't have a link for this one, CNN and PBS' own coverage of the debate cut to a room in South Carolina filled with a focus group of women of mixed age and race. (Please note SC is supposed to be Clinton's version of New Hampshire where she'll stomp all over Sanders) Almost all people in the group said Bernie had done the best in the debate, and the one black woman they interviewed (again, black women is supposedly Clinton's demographic) said that Sanders was the most convincing out of the two, though she remained undecided.

    People would start taking this paper seriously again if you guys actually paid attention to whats going on, instead of just closing your eyes to all the evidence and continuing to hammer out ridiculous articles bigging up your chosen candidate. There's a reason people aren't even bothering to read your coverage anymore, and instead go straight to the comments to see what people are actually thinking.

    DrKropotkin -> Serv_On , 2016-02-12 13:19:41
    "Bernie should give a pledge that he will never take a red cent for a speech ever ever ever"

    It's not about cents - it's hundreds of thousands per hour and behind closed doors, which is an unsubtle way to bribe a future president. Sanders did give a speech recently to a University that paid him $1,800. Transcripts are available and he donated all of the money to charity.

    Anatoliy Asanov -> Serv_On, 2016-02-12 13:13:08
    For some reason I have a feeling that the big banks wouldn't be asking Mr . Sanders to speak at their events.
    Zendjan -> elterrifico, 2016-02-12 13:12:17
    She makes Lucrezia Borgia look like Mother Teresa.
    DrKropotkin -> Reality_Man, 2016-02-12 13:08:57
    In both primaries Sanders beat the polls by 5-8%. Nationally he is now just 2 points off Clinton according to the latest poll.

    The MSMBS has created a reality bubble around Clinton, but nobody takes print media or TV news seriously anymore, everybody knows they have to use multiple sources online to get a real balanced picture. So everyday more and more people are learning about Sanders and liking what they see - a consistent advocate for progressive policies even when it was neither profitable nor popular to be one.

    In particular voters are learning about his anti segregation campaigning in the 1960's and his pro gay rights positions in the 1980's. When they look at Clinton's past they see a calculating fair weather supporter on these issues, possibly based on the latest polling.

    Also, her pockets full of Wall Street money is really damaging her and when she tries to defend it she comes across as disingenuous (at best).

    ouKnightedStates -> EbenezerSeattle, 2016-02-12 13:04:38
    It's amazing. Three articles in the Guardian praising her "vote in 2002 not a plan for ISIS 2016" line as a winner. Vote in 2002 caused ISIS in 2016!
    Stetson Meyers, 2016-02-12 12:58:36
    She is hiding behind Obama. Defending him while bringing up the fact that he took Wall Street money does nothing to endear me to you. It makes me angry at Obama.
    elterrifico, 2016-02-12 12:55:25
    If Hillary wants low blow then let's talk about

    The rose law firm and the missing subpoenaed files that a cleaning crew found in the living quarters while slick Willie Clinton was president.

    Cattlegate and how Hillary claims she made millions on cattle futures from a wall street article that the wall street journal said didn't exist.

    Lets talk about all the people how suspiciously died who were connected to the Clinton's and who had information to Clinton wrong doings.

    I bet that would shut Hillary's sleazy mouth

    DrKropotkin, 2016-02-12 12:49:52
    From ATL:

    "Clinton dropped this critique on the senator from Vermont: "Journalists have asked who you do listen to on foreign policy, and we have yet to know who that is." "

    Let me finish the Guardian's reporting for them:

    Sanders quickly responds "Well it ain't Henry Kissinger" - the audience applauds and laughs.

    Janosik53 -> UNOINO, 2016-02-12 12:27:30
    Exactly. ISIS is part of the unintended consequences that were created by the West's Middle East adventure. "Blowback" as the security services have it. The same thing could be said about the U.S. backing of the mujahadeen in Afghanistan, the better to scupper the Soviets. Elements of the mujahadeen morphed into the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. Bin Laden was a CIA asset at one time.

    Bernie remembers what happened, Hillary dismisses it with the "2002 vote" quip. Hillary is a tactician, Bernie is a strategist. I think a moral strategist makes a better C-in-C than a bought and paid for tactician.

    pretzelattack -> Yunnaan, 2016-02-12 12:08:39
    the point is electing a republican lite to deal with republican intransigence makes no sense whatever. she will work with them to advance the neoliberal austerity agenda, which hurts the middle class, and everybody else but the kind of people who pay her so much money to give a canned speech.
    nnedjo, 2016-02-12 12:03:37
    Let me get this straight. You have politicians who all his life was not afraid to swim against the mainstream, neither he worried that it could jeopardize his political career.

    And on the other hand, you have a careerist politician, which the whole of her life was "turning with the wind", climbed the ladder of political power, both in its Democratic Party and in the state too, and finally ended up with hundreds of millions of dollars on her private account, gained thanks to its political influence.

    So if the Commander in Chief should be, first of all, a courageous person, who would you rather entrust the defense of the United States and the safety of its citizens; to Bernie Sanders or to Hillary Clinton.

    Anatoliy Asanov -> SenseCir, 2016-02-12 12:01:54
    The same plan she and the establiment was shoving down our throats and digging in in our pockets... And Putin wouldn't be Putin if US weren't prowling around the world. Why is Saudi Arabia is our ally?
    mouchefisher, 2016-02-12 11:45:30
    I think I'll soon just start skipping The Guardian's articles completely, and head straight to the comments.
    The articles read like pro-Clinton adverts, which seems strange coming from a self-proclaimed progressive news source...
    Fortunately, we do have The Nation, The Atlantic, Salon, Alternet, etc.
    Adrian, 2016-02-12 10:29:34
    Am I the only one who's wondering why Bernie Sanders is not being asked a single question about his position on the Palestinian problem, on the recent events involving Netanyahu and the Israeli lobby in the USA trying to derails the Iran nuclear deal and so on?

    I don't think we need now at the White House someone willing to follow Netanyahu's lead in the Middle East... At least Obama treated the extremist bunch who are now in power in Israel exactly how they deserved.

    devin42 -> Marcedward, 2016-02-12 09:50:47
    Hey, Guardian writers. I don't know if you ever come into the comments - but realise this. We aren't morons. This isn't the Mail. We can see through it. A great many of us watched the debates, follow the campaigns, know the facts from other sources. The internet is great like that, as corporate media no longer has an exclusive stranglehold on framing and spin.

    The constituents of your 'paper' are not easily hoodwinked and most, as you can see, find the spin disgusting. You're going to keep haemorrhaging readers unless you either refocus on integrity in journalism (unlikely, considering who's on the board), or fully commit to being a pseudo-intellectual Buzzfeed. Best of luck.

    pretzelattack -> Philman, 2016-02-12 09:43:42
    she voted for gw bush's disastrous war. that is not slavishly denigrating clinton, that's just a fact. she caved on the most important foreign policy issue since vietnam.
    EDVDGN, 2016-02-12 09:23:32
    The American Public Broadcasting System's (PBS) "NewsHour" reports:*
    • --The cost of US health care is more than 2 1/2 times the average of 33 other countries,
    • --There are fewer doctors per person in the US than in 33 other countries. In 2010, the U.S. had 2.4 doctors per 1,000 people; international average, 3.1.
    • --Hospital beds in the U.S. were 2.6 per 1,000 people in 2009; international average, 3.4.
    • --US life expectancy increased 9 years between 1960 and 2010, but 15 years in Japan, over 11 years on average in 33 other countries.

    In other news, some of Clinton's speaker fees from Wall Street, 2013-15**:

    • Goldman Sachs $675,000
    • Deutsche Bank $485,000
    • Golden Tree Asset Management $275,000
    • Ameriprise $225,000
    • Apollo Management Holdings $225,000
    • Bank of America $225,000
    • Fidelity Investments $225,000
    • Morgan Stanley $225,000
    • UBS $225,000
    • Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce $150,000

    TOTAL: $2,935,000

    Thus, our health care system is expensive and sub-par, but a resounding and understandable "No, we can't" from Clinton on universal health care, and many other issues.
    _____________________________________
    *"Health Costs: How the U.S. Compares With Other Countries", PBS
    http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/health-costs-how-the-us-compares-with-other-countries /
    **"Hillary Clinton Got Paid More for 12 Speeches to Wall Street Banks than Most Americans Make in a Lifetime",
    http://humansarefree.com/2016/01/hillary-clinton-got-paid-more-for-12.html

    FeatherWood, 2016-02-12 09:19:32
    This debate solidified my desire that Hillary NOT be Commander in Chief. She really did scare me that she would be too eager to go to war. The way she kept saying the words "Commander in Chief," it made me feel she couldn't wait to get her fingers on the button.

    When Hillary praised President Obama and criticized Bernie for some mild critiques he'd made of the president, it was an utterly transparent ploy for the votes of African-Americans in South Carolina. So obvious that I was a bit disgusted. Hillary and President Obama have a rocky history. Any comments Bernie has made are tame compared to the stuff Hillary said about him during the 2008 campaign. I really wonder if people will buy Hillary trying to wrap herself so closely with Obama.

    Sandra Bowen -> CDKBM180715, 2016-02-12 09:03:56
    Hillary wears a new outfit every campaign day. Sanders' has 2 suits, 1 blazer. Looks say a lot about a person
    SirWillis -> CDKBM180715, 2016-02-12 08:30:10
    At least try to understand what he is saying. He's saying her smile is false, he's not commenting on her looks. Her smile is false, it's not natural, and I have no doubt she was coached to smile in the way focus groups decided was the most electable. Trouble is a genuine smile is hard to fake.

    Please try to understand these things, context is everything.

    CanadianAtheist, 2016-02-12 08:19:57

    Clinton drops a well-tuned response to Sanders' criticism of her vote in support of the Iraq war: "I don't believe that a vote in 2002 is a plan to defeat Isis in 2016."


    But it is a reflection of her judgement. We condemn Republicans, journalists, academics, etc. who supported the Iraq War, but we are supposed to give Clinton a pass? Let's also not forget that she supported the troop increase in Afghanistan and pushed for military action in Libya.
    CanadianAtheist -> crap_in, 2016-02-12 08:14:00
    According to congress.gov Sanders has sponsored 780 pieces of legislation and cosponsored 5428.
    noraak15 -> noraak15, 2016-02-12 06:50:20
    To be clear this is in relation to this being Obama's fault.

    As for the Dems doing their best to lose a winnable election you may be right but Sanders really has hit the nail on the head. It doesn't matter who wins no change will occur until the big money and special interests are reined in and that won't happen unless and until there is a president backed by a movement of ordinary people demanding change that is so large and undeniable that politicians in Washington realize that unless they accede to the people's demands (as presented by the President) and get behind the President in respect of such change they will actually lose their seats... only incumbents fearful of losing their seats will vote for anything other than what the lobbyists tell them to. Only then will change happen. I'd bet there is more certainty that won't happen then Villa making a surprising comeback and not being relegated.

    noraak15 -> EssoBlue, 2016-02-12 06:38:54
    For the same reason they voted for Blair and Bush Dubya and Clinton and Bush Sr... Poor people, the same people I honestly want to help as a responsible socialist democrat, are essentially stupid and generally vote against their own interests hence the number of blue collar workers in the US flocking to Donald Trump rallies. It defies belief but there it is, that and the fact that smart people who aren't only out for themselves have better things to do like discover gravitational waves, perform your surgery, teach and other less snazzy things then simply make money.
    Peter Kinnaird -> Serv_On, 2016-02-12 06:35:45
    On the contrary. The economy crashed because the unfettered free markets failed. You don't need someone who "understands" or in other words supports the free market status quo, you need someone who understands the flaws of the markets and the need for regulation.
    noraak15 -> Serv_On, 2016-02-12 06:31:26
    Uh? You do realize it was the deregulation of Wall Street that led to the collapse right? You do realize Wall Street aready leads the government by the nose don't you (the very reason Sanders quite rightly states that any reform will be impossible no matter who is elected President unless they have a groundswell of popular support beneath them)? You are aware that laws and trade agreements are written by Wall Street lawyers and that Wall Street is regulated by Wall Street lawyers due to the continuous rotating door between government agencies and Wall Street? You do understand that QE and bailouts were at the behest of and in the interest of Wall Street bound to create asset bubbles they can make a lot of money insider trading on then exit and leave pension funds on the hook and not designed to save the economy don't you?

    Oh why do I bother you believe in "continuous growth" generated by perfect rationale markets and of course unicorns and leprechauns waiting with your pot of gold.

    EssoBlue, 2016-02-12 05:30:29
    Why anyone would believe corporate clone Hillary Clinton is beyond me. Hillary Clinton has two guiding principles: the advancement of Hillary Clinton, and the enrichment of Hillary Clinton.

    Lest we forget, in 2008 Hillary Clinton ran as a gun-loving churchgoer against Barack Obama.

    PlayaGiron, 2016-02-12 05:20:01
    Only the graun can make the exposure of Clinton's ties to the butcher Kissinger into a win for Team Hillary.

    Watch the video and you will the crowd totally backs Sanders during the exchange

    Nice to see the Guardian still has war criminal Kissinger's back.

    Too bad we are seeing through your corporatist propaganda.

    joeblow9999, 2016-02-12 05:09:13
    Hillary appeared desperate and her attacks came off as unimaginative and sleazy. More and more she is appearing to be a liability to the nomination.

    [Feb 12, 2016] Theres A Special Place at The Hague for Madeleine Albright

    Notable quotes:
    "... Too bad she is a neocon monster. ..."
    "... Albright doesn't have a whole lot of empathy for those who find themselves on the disadvantageous side of American foreign policy. She neither came down wholly for or wholly against the 2003 invasion of Iraq. But that might just have been silly partisan politics and not due to any actual concern for the lives of Iraqi civilians. In 1996, Albright stated that the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children due to American sanctions was justified. ..."
    "... From Rwanda: The Preventable Genocide ..."
    "... Unlike Rwanda, Albright was involved in every step of Clinton's Balkan policy, although she was not his Secretary of State until 1997. Before that, she was U.S. Ambassador to the UN, and served as president of the Center for National Policy . She is a former student of Zbigniew Brzezinski . ..."
    "... Albright actively advocated policies that led to American military action in 1999, and placed all of the blame for the situation on the Belgrade government . (Does that ring a bell?) Albright's contention was that "a little bombing" would encourage Milosevic to sign Rambouillet Peace Accords, which would allow for the NATO occupation of Kosovo. ..."
    "... The Clinton Administration demanded Milosevic's removal from power , and in 2000, Albright rejected Vladimir Putin's offer to try to use his influence to defuse the situation. ..."
    "... War may have been the American end game in the Balkans from the start. In 1992, the American ambassador torpedoed Bosnian secession peace negotiations by convincing Bosnian Muslim leader Alija Izetbegovic to refuse to sign the peace accords. The ensuing catastrophic civil war, which ended in 1995, was blamed on Bosnian Serbs and Milosevic. Colin Powell recalled, as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he was pressured by Albright in 1992 to use military force on Bosnia. ..."
    "... Albright has never wavered from her stance on the Balkans. In 2012, she got into a shouting match with pro-Serbian activists over her role in that conflict , calling the protesters "dirty Serbs." ..."
    russia-insider.com

    Madeleine Albright proves to the young, aspiring women of America that warmongering psychopathy has no glass ceiling.

    Former U.S. Secretary of State under Bill Clinton Madeleine Albright thinks there is "a special place in hell" for young women if they don't vote for Hillary Clinton.

    Despite overwhelming evidence that most young American women who still plan to remain involved in the electoral process would rather go to hell than vote for Hillary Clinton, Madeleine Albright, from her seat of war criminal wisdom, has informed the naive lasses that support for Bernie Sanders will land them in the VIP room in a superstitious underground torture chamber.

    By repurposing her own original quote, Albright has proven yet once again that she is an expert on hell's admission standards because she's probably going there.

    Of course it should come to no surprise that Albright is stumping for Hillary Clinton. After all, she was Bill Clinton's Secretary of State, the first female to hold the office. And sure, Albright has an interesting bio. She and her family, fleeing Czechoslovakia from approaching German army, escaped to Serbia, and she survived the Nazi Blitzkrieg of London.

    Too bad she is a neocon monster.

    Although she personally experienced the horrors of WWII, and had family members who died in the Nazi death camps, Albright doesn't have a whole lot of empathy for those who find themselves on the disadvantageous side of American foreign policy. She neither came down wholly for or wholly against the 2003 invasion of Iraq. But that might just have been silly partisan politics and not due to any actual concern for the lives of Iraqi civilians. In 1996, Albright stated that the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children due to American sanctions was justified.

    When is genocide justified? Or when does it simply not matter?

    Let's ask the Rwandans.

    Although the Clinton Administration's stated purpose for intervening in the Balkans was to stop genocide, the Rwandan genocide in 1994 continued unabated. From Rwanda: The Preventable Genocide:

    "Rather than respond with appropriate force, the opposite happened, spurred by the murders of the Belgian Blue Berets and Belgium's withdrawal of its remaining troops. Exactly two weeks after the genocide began – following strenuous lobbying for total withdrawal led by Belgium and Britain, and with American UN Ambassador Madeleine Albright advocating the most token of forces and the United States adamantly refusing to accept publicly that a full-fledged, Convention defined genocide was in fact taking place – the Security Council made the astonishing decision to reduce the already inadequate UNAMIR force to a derisory 270 men" (10.11)

    "The lesson to be learned from the betrayal at ETO and other experiences was that the full potential of UNAMIR went unexplored and unused, and, as result, countless more Rwandans died than otherwise might have. If anyone in the international community learned this lesson at the time, it was not evident at the UN. For the next six weeks, as the carnage continued, the UN dithered in organizing any kind of response to the ongoing tragedy. The Americans, led by US Ambassador Madeleine Albright, played the key role in blocking more expeditious action by the UN.[18] On May 17, the Security Council finally authorized an expanded UNAMIR II to consist of 5,500 personnel.[19] But there is perhaps no distance greater on earth than the one between the Security Council chambers and the outside world. Once the decision to expand was finally made, as we will soon show in detail, the Pentagon somehow required an additional seven weeks just to negotiate a contract for delivering armed personnel carriers to the field; evidently it proved difficult to arrange the desired terms for "maintenance and spare parts."[20] When the genocide ended in mid-July with the final RPF victory, not a single additional UN soldier had landed in Kigali." 10.16

    Unlike Rwanda, Albright was involved in every step of Clinton's Balkan policy, although she was not his Secretary of State until 1997. Before that, she was U.S. Ambassador to the UN, and served as president of the Center for National Policy. She is a former student of Zbigniew Brzezinski.

    Not only did Albright support Clinton's bombing, she was a key figure in the conflict and in the ousting of Slobodan Milosevic. Time went so far as to call the Balkan campaign "Madeleine's War." Despite her assertions that the bombing of Yugoslavia was a humanitarian mission, it is irrefutable at this point in history that the U.S. pretext for military intervention was fabricated.

    Albright actively advocated policies that led to American military action in 1999, and placed all of the blame for the situation on the Belgrade government. (Does that ring a bell?) Albright's contention was that "a little bombing" would encourage Milosevic to sign Rambouillet Peace Accords, which would allow for the NATO occupation of Kosovo.

    The Clinton Administration demanded Milosevic's removal from power, and in 2000, Albright rejected Vladimir Putin's offer to try to use his influence to defuse the situation.

    War may have been the American end game in the Balkans from the start. In 1992, the American ambassador torpedoed Bosnian secession peace negotiations by convincing Bosnian Muslim leader Alija Izetbegovic to refuse to sign the peace accords. The ensuing catastrophic civil war, which ended in 1995, was blamed on Bosnian Serbs and Milosevic. Colin Powell recalled, as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he was pressured by Albright in 1992 to use military force on Bosnia.

    Albright has never wavered from her stance on the Balkans. In 2012, she got into a shouting match with pro-Serbian activists over her role in that conflict, calling the protesters "dirty Serbs."

    Dirty Serbs, huh? And she wants to tell idealistic young American women, who still believe in the American democratic process, how to vote? Yay, feminism!

    [Feb 10, 2016] Theres a special place in hell for women who have the blood of children on their hands.

    www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Generalfeldmarschall von Hindenburg

    Re: Albright – There's a special place in hell for women who have the blood of children on their hands.

    Jim Haygood

    Meanwhile, the kids she hasn't 'neutralized' yet scream when they see Albright's ghoulish visage, calling in another drone strike:

    https://griid.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/albright_at_war-thumb.jpg

    One word, Madeleine: Nuremberg.

    sleepy , February 9, 2016 at 4:30 pm

    Clinton campaigned in 2008 on the notion of inevitability. When that inevitability showed cracks, she failed. She has campaigned in 2016 on the notion of inevitability. Same result.

    In 2016 as in 2008 she has no alternative game plan other than to react with childish insults, as if the thought of having a real challenger was never considered. Must be that famous legend in her own mind at work. Another example of poor judgment.

    NotTimothyGeithner , February 9, 2016 at 5:27 pm

    Inevitability is a nice way to put entitlement. "I'm with Hillary" says the campaign is about Hillary's personal success. She could have run a unity campaign about electing more Democrats and just ignored a challenger.

    Jim Haygood , February 9, 2016 at 5:56 pm

    Not to mention that her HillaryCare celebrity tour of six Congressional committees in 1993-94 also was premised on inevitability.

    Results : (1) not a single committee reported out a bill; (2) the Democratic party lost its majority in the House for the first time in forty years.

    How many times do we have to watch this boring movie … especially with such dismal casting?

    ekstase , February 9, 2016 at 6:13 pm

    Perhaps we should be grateful for the blind spots. They're a big part of karma's delightful unfolding.

    [Feb 09, 2016] A group of Russian Duma deputies proposed to prohibit oil exports for 5 years

    Notable quotes:
    "... A group of Russian Duma deputies proposed to prohibit for 5 years the sale of raw oil abroad and develop a strategy for the development of the economy of Russia in the direction of reducing the dependence on the fluctuations of world oil prices. ..."
    peakoilbarrel.com

    likbez , 02/09/2016 at 12:23 am

    Russian Duma deputies proposed to prohibit oil exports for 5 years (http://izvestia.ru/news/603420)

    A group of Russian Duma deputies proposed to prohibit for 5 years the sale of raw oil abroad and develop a strategy for the development of the economy of Russia in the direction of reducing the dependence on the fluctuations of world oil prices.

    A letter to the Minister of Economic Development Alexei Ulyukayev was sent by deputies from the minority party "Fair Russia", informs "RIA Novosti".

    According to the parliamentarians, the biggest problem is that Russia still sits on an oil needle. So state reforms are needed for the domestic economy.

    "Today we need to summon all the courage to declare the abolition of the raw oil sales to world markets. We must start to turn out economy in the direction of increasing the level of oil processing in domestic petrochemical industry and lessening the priority of oil extraction industries. Russia has repeatedly demonstrated that it can rise from the ashes. The state needs reforms which reallocates currency reserves to ensure this path of development of the domestic economy based on the internal opportunities of economic development " says deputies' request.

    According to the parliamentarians, the immediate introduction of such prohibition is impossible, because Russia has obligations to the current trading partners.

    Instead Deputies proposed to adopt a government program "Development of the economy of the Russian Federation in the direction of reduction of its dependence on raw oil sales".

    "While we procrastinate and endure the slump of oil prices waiting for the rise of oil prices, Russian economy deteriorates and Russian state suffers too. Why do we recklessly waste our precious natural resources depriving future generations? To be the world's gas fueling station is not what Russia wants to be", they wrote.

    [Feb 09, 2016] The most dangerious man in the Middle East

    Notable quotes:
    "... Since his appointment, there has been a genuine effort in the field of PR. the goal is to create for him an image of a politician of an international stature. He seeks to become the counterpart, if not the equal of the great western powers. ..."
    "... It is important to be opportunistic at this level and not to alienate the fringe wahhabi elements of Saudi Arabia is of paramount importance. A little interaction with the West it OK, too much of interactions with the West, this is detrimental to his image and his credibility. Therefore he tries to advance his goal, while at the same time trying not to offend nobody. It is, after all, a dive of discovery in the international political universe. ..."
    "... Regardless of his background, he needs to prove that he matters, that he is a hardliner, that he is a good minister of Defence, and that that he is anti-shiite, he is a man capable of confronting Iran. At the same time, he needs to satisfy needs of Saudi population which is increasingly flocks to jihadism. ..."
    "... It is necessary to remove the ground under the feet of those who believe that the monarchy has for too long been moderate, particularly during the reign of the former king Abdallah. It is this desire to build his leadership, which leads to the direct confrontation with the shia, including such political decisions as the execution of the leader of shiite Nimr al-Nimr, and the increased tension with Iran. Finally, it also represents a reaction of the Saudi monarchy, which was disappointed by the United States. He would like to stop normalization of Iranian-American relations, because in the event of a confrontation with Iran, the Saudis would find themselves in a difficult position without 100% US support. ..."
    "... Prince Mohammed bin Salman tenure as the head of the armed forces can be characterized as a failure. In Yemen, there has been a stalemate ..."
    "... Moreover, where he was able to displaced the allies of Iran, the radicals from Al Qaeda and DAESH took the control of those area. Iran became firmly positioned at the southern gateway to Saudi Arabia. It is anything but a success. ..."
    "... Nevertheless, he was applauded because he stood up and responded, tried to stop to Iran. He responded to the Iran thereat, but has not managed to achieve his goals, which was expected of him. However, in the eyes of the Saudis, a manly reaction that tha fact that has the the will to challenge to the hegemony of Iran in the region was positive steps. ..."
    "... In addition, Mohammed bin Salman has a revenge in mind: in 2009, the houthis crossed the Saudi border, and despite the superiority of Saudis weaponry, the Saudi troops were able to repel that offence only after 3 months of fighting which left 130 soldiers dead. ..."
    "... It is perceived as dangerous because of the war, reckless and ineffective in Yemen as well as its strategy of tension vis-à-vis Iran. Moreover, for the Germans, Iran is a huge market. They have relied heavily on Iran in recent years, in the logical continuation of the long tradition of trade between the two countries. Dont forget that it is a country that lives from exports, and that it is therefore very important for the Germans to arrive at an agreement with Iran. Moreover, Germany is a country whose strategy is intimately linked to that of the United States and totally dependent on NATO due to the fact that it is forbidden to have an army of its own. Germany knows that if it was a direct confrontation between Saudi Arabia and Iran, it would be required to be supportive of Saudi Arabia – regardless of the efforts by Barack Obama to move closer to Iran. ..."
    "... the strategy of the prince Mohammed Bin Salman is to push Iran to the fault in causing the tensions that can go up to a risk of open warfare that would force the west to choose Saudi Arabia against Iran ..."
    "... The Prince Mohammed bin Salman is now the most powerful man in Saudi Arabia. It has exclusive access to his father, King Salman, and effectivly he can rule the coutries inread of him. He is head of his office, which means that nobody can contact or be received by the King without going through the son ..."
    "... Saudi Arabia is extremely disturbed by the detente with Iran on the international scene. We are witnessing more or less a reversal of alliances, and of countries images in the eyes of the West. A short time ago, Iran was demonized in the West. Today, it is accepted as a normal partner. Iran, therefore, benefits from a relatively favorable treatment, while at the same time when the Arab monarchies, particularly Saudi Arabia, are seen as retrograde, unable to provide for reforms and creating the flow of Islamic radicals... The nature of Hezbollah, interference military and terrorists of Iran is currently forgotten. ..."
    "... I think it will be very difficult to see any reapprochement with Iran in the coming months as Saudi Arabia has two hardliners in the young rising generation of leaders. The heir and the vice-inherit the Kingdom share the same radical line toward Iran. ..."
    "... Moreover, Saudi Arabia pays very dear to his strategy of crushing oil prices, which makes it less able to buy social peace than before. Therefore, there is an internal demand of radicalism, because the discontent rumbles in the parts of the Saudi population fueled by the effects of the falling oil prices. ..."
    "... If one wanted to summaries, we could say that to buy a peace with Islamist Wahhabi radicals, it is necessary to kill shia... besides, the Saudis have a genuine complex of encirclement by the Shiite states. They try to counter it by creating an opposite ark of Sunni radicals. ..."
    "... even if this does not lead to open warfare, the tension between Saudi Arabia and Iran is sustainable, if only because this new generation of Saudis leaders is more combative. They differ from the former kings who belonged to a generation that was distinguished rather by its search for a compromise and some consensus. This is absolutely not the case for those two heirs of the throne. ..."
    Atlantico

    Et l'homme le plus dangereux du Moyen-Orient est

    Atlantico : While today Saudi Arabia play the central role in the conflicts around the Middle East which are worried the whole world. What do we know bout young chief of the armed forces of Saudi Arabia ?

    Antoine Basbous : His position is more precarious than the last year, and it looks like he is trying to double cross his cousin crown prince.

    He tries to use the advantage of the presence of his father on the throne to become a direct successor. It is an assumption that is pretty crazy since theoretically, Mohammed bin Salman does not belong to the chain of the succession because of his position in the family. In addition, it is clearly lacking experience and legitimacy, compared to its brothers and cousins, but also to public opinion.

    He is someone of impulsive, short-tempered, as we already observed in the past. He behaves somewhat like like his father when he was young. Previously, when he was less in the spotlight, he could afford some mistakes. But since his appointment to the ministry of defense, he embodies the virile answer of the kingdom to the set of challenges from Iran. Now, he certainly has placed contracts with firms of communication that has allowed him to acquire the elements of language needed to smooth impression about himself. They also help him to appear on major foreign media : recently, he appeared in the journal The Economist. Since his appointment, there has been a genuine effort in the field of PR. the goal is to create for him an image of a politician of an international stature. He seeks to become the counterpart, if not the equal of the great western powers.

    It is important to be opportunistic at this level and not to alienate the fringe wahhabi elements of Saudi Arabia is of paramount importance. A little interaction with the West it OK, too much of interactions with the West, this is detrimental to his image and his credibility. Therefore he tries to advance his goal, while at the same time trying not to offend nobody. It is, after all, a dive of discovery in the international political universe.

    Inside, however, his authority comes from his status of the son to the King to whom his father is listening a lot. In one year, it has greatly expanded its power. It controls not only the military, budgets but also key sectors of the economy. It has separated the' ARAMCO (the biggest oil company in the world) from the ministry of oil. This dramatically increases his economic power. In addition, the minister of oil shall soon leave the position, and should be replaced by his half-brother. Mohammed bin Salman leaves him a ministry deprived of any substance.

    For his education, we know that he has studied the Law in Saudi Arabia, but has not, to my knowledge, pursued follow-up studies in the West. Currently, he oversees the operations of the Coalition in Yemen, together with his cousin prince Mohammed bin Nayef, the Interior minister and deputy crown prince. So far, they are not in rivalry, on the contrary: as the minister of the Interior had no sons, he might appoint Mohammed bin Salman to be a crown prince since their age gap is 21 years. Moreover, the two men appear together on the front.

    Alexander del Valle : Regardless of his background, he needs to prove that he matters, that he is a hardliner, that he is a good minister of Defence, and that that he is anti-shiite, he is a man capable of confronting Iran. At the same time, he needs to satisfy needs of Saudi population which is increasingly flocks to jihadism. To consolidate its legitimacy, it is obliged to give grain to grind to the islamists because a large part of the Saudi society is seduced by the dream of Daech. It is also in a logic of competition with her uncle, who is the current heir of the thone, as well as with the other princes. It is necessary to remove the ground under the feet of those who believe that the monarchy has for too long been moderate, particularly during the reign of the former king Abdallah. It is this desire to build his leadership, which leads to the direct confrontation with the shia, including such political decisions as the execution of the leader of shiite Nimr al-Nimr, and the increased tension with Iran. Finally, it also represents a reaction of the Saudi monarchy, which was disappointed by the United States. He would like to stop normalization of Iranian-American relations, because in the event of a confrontation with Iran, the Saudis would find themselves in a difficult position without 100% US support.

    Why his actions caused the concerns of the German intelligence services ? What assessment can we make of year tenure at the head of the armed forces of Saudi Arabia ?

    Antoine Basbous : It is important to understand the origins of this report. It is not excluded that it comes from someone with an interest to harm the image of the Kingdom or of the Prince. Prince Mohammed bin Salman tenure as the head of the armed forces can be characterized as a failure. In Yemen, there has been a stalemate. The conflict began in April. We are in January. Nine months later, despite the multiple bombardments, all of the money spent, the control of the Yemen government from Ryad remains illusive... He has not managed to clean, to conquer and to install a protected area. Moreover, where he was able to displaced the allies of Iran, the radicals from Al Qaeda and DAESH took the control of those area. Iran became firmly positioned at the southern gateway to Saudi Arabia. It is anything but a success.

    Nevertheless, he was applauded because he stood up and responded, tried to stop to Iran. He responded to the Iran thereat, but has not managed to achieve his goals, which was expected of him. However, in the eyes of the Saudis, a "manly" reaction that tha fact that has the the will to challenge to the hegemony of Iran in the region was positive steps. Iran has claimed control of four Arab capitals. Hassan Rohani has announced the training of 200 000 militia in the five nations in their neighborhood. A reaction of Saudi Arabia, in the light of these elements, is not unexpected or abnormal. However, the latter has been slow to arrive and is not manifested in the most timely, the most intelligent or the most effective.

    However, this operation was his baptism of fire. Prior to the commencement thereof, the Prince was suffering from a bad press. This conflict, it was his moment of truth so to speak. It should be judged on its ability to generate a "surge" of military and diplomatic activities in the region, so that Saudi Arabia free itself the control of the Us administration, and that the country acquires a greater autonomy. The fact that Barack Obama has approved the nuclear deal with Iran has been perceived as a lesson for the Turks and the Saudis. In addition, Mohammed bin Salman has a revenge in mind: in 2009, the houthis crossed the Saudi border, and despite the superiority of Saudis weaponry, the Saudi troops were able to repel that offence only after 3 months of fighting which left 130 soldiers dead.

    Alexander del Valle : It is perceived as dangerous because of the war, reckless and ineffective in Yemen as well as its strategy of tension vis-à-vis Iran. Moreover, for the Germans, Iran is a huge market. They have relied heavily on Iran in recent years, in the logical continuation of the long tradition of trade between the two countries. Don't forget that it is a country that lives from exports, and that it is therefore very important for the Germans to arrive at an agreement with Iran. Moreover, Germany is a country whose strategy is intimately linked to that of the United States and totally dependent on NATO due to the fact that it is forbidden to have an army of its own. Germany knows that if it was a direct confrontation between Saudi Arabia and Iran, it would be required to be supportive of Saudi Arabia – regardless of the efforts by Barack Obama to move closer to Iran.

    In fact, since the Covenant of Quincy, Saudi Arabia is bound by a close alliance with the United States and through this with the western countries. Thus, the strategy of the prince Mohammed Bin Salman is to push Iran to the fault in causing the tensions that can go up to a risk of open warfare that would force the west to choose Saudi Arabia against Iran. This tactic is based on the alliance of ultra-strategic-Pact of Quincy, which was renewed in 2006 by George W. Bush and still valid today that fact that in any conflict, as soon as Saudi Arabia is struggling with a rival in the region, the United States should support it. This looks like what Erdogan doing shoot down a Russian plane. It was to prevent a warming of relations between the Russians and the Americans.

    What are the limits of his influence in Saudi Arabia ? In what extent his role as the Minister of Defence is decisive for his own future in the kingdom ?

    Antoine Basbous : The Prince Mohammed bin Salman is now the most powerful man in Saudi Arabia. It has exclusive access to his father, King Salman, and effectivly he can rule the coutries inread of him. He is head of his office, which means that nobody can contact or be received by the King without going through the son. He also can say to anyone inside as well as abroad, "This is the will of the King". So he has phenomenal power, and does not suffer from the luch of desire to exercise it. As to whether his role as Defence minister, is decisive for his own future, it is obvious. If he succeeds in this position and it shows the virility of the military success, this can strengthen its position. On the other hand, if this gets stuck into yeme war quadmire, if the failures multiply, it is not excluded that this will ruin completely his chances of succeeding his father. In a situation like this, He might well became a falling star. It is vital that he achive a good results in the war on the ground, although in a majority of arab countries, the people is not necessarily looking very attentively at the quality of governance.

    What is the analysis of personality of this key figure and the balance sheet of his first year as the Defense minister can say about the position of Saudi Arabia on the international scene in the comong months ? What will be developments in the relations of Saudis and Iran ?

    Antoine Basbous : Saudi Arabia is extremely disturbed by the detente with Iran on the international scene. We are witnessing more or less a reversal of alliances, and of countries images in the eyes of the West. A short time ago, Iran was demonized in the West. Today, it is accepted as a normal partner. Iran, therefore, benefits from a relatively favorable treatment, while at the same time when the Arab monarchies, particularly Saudi Arabia, are seen as retrograde, unable to provide for reforms and creating the flow of Islamic radicals... The nature of Hezbollah, interference military and terrorists of Iran is currently forgotten.

    Mohammed bin Salman is still an "emerging" politician, politician in the course of "on the job" training. But despite of that he is exercising functions that are extremely strategic, and he must demonstrate whether he can adapt to situations to which the country is facing.

    Alexander del Valle : I think it will be very difficult to see any reapprochement with Iran in the coming months as Saudi Arabia has two "hardliners" in the young rising generation of leaders. The heir and the vice-inherit the Kingdom share the same radical line toward Iran.

    Moreover, Saudi Arabia pays very dear to his strategy of crushing oil prices, which makes it less able to buy social peace than before. Therefore, there is an internal demand of radicalism, because the discontent rumbles in the parts of the Saudi population fueled by the effects of the falling oil prices. An increase of sympathy for jihadism can be felt with those segments of the population. So even if the prince Mohammed bin Salman and prince Mohammed ben Nayef – heir to the throne and minister of the Interior - were moderate, they would be obliged to give pledges to their people, who account for more of the "appeasers of Shiites". If one wanted to summaries, we could say that to buy a peace with Islamist Wahhabi radicals, it is necessary to kill shia... besides, the Saudis have a genuine complex of encirclement by the Shiite states. They try to counter it by creating an opposite ark of Sunni radicals.

    I thus do not see how there could be a rapprochement with Iran. Or it can be only via the pressure of the United States, as was the case between Greece and Turkey in the past. Therefore, even if this does not lead to open warfare, the tension between Saudi Arabia and Iran is sustainable, if only because this new generation of Saudis leaders is more combative. They differ from the former kings who belonged to a generation that was distinguished rather by its search for a compromise and some consensus. This is absolutely not the case for those two heirs of the throne.

    [Feb 09, 2016] University Study Shows that the Maidan Massacre was Planned by the Putschists

    Notable quotes:
    "... This university investigation concluded that the massacre was a false flag operation, which was rationally planned and executed with the aim to overthrow the government and seize power. ..."
    January 17, 2016 | www.voltairenet.org

    Ivan Katchanovski, professor of political science at the University of Ottawa, conducted a study on the massacre perpetrated by snipers on the Maidan square of Kiev in February, 2014.

    This document, from a presentation to the American Association of Political Sciences in San Francisco in September 2015, is the first academic study on this event.

    It uses rational choice theory and Weber's theory of instrumental rationality to examine the actions of key players from both the Yanukovich government, specifically various police and security forces, and opposition, especially of the extreme right and oligarchic elements, during the massacre.

    The paper analyzes a large amount of material available from different sources: about 1500 videos and recordings from the internet and television in different countries (about 150 gigabytes), newsletters and social media messages from a hundred journalists covering the massacre of Kiev, about 5000 photos, and nearly 30 gigabytes of radio interceptions of snipers and commanders of the Alfa unit of the Security Service of Ukraine and Ministry troops of the Interior and finally records of the massacre trial. This study is also based on field research on the massacre site, witness' reports from both camps, the commanders of the special units, the statements made by current and former government officials, approximate estimates of ballistic trajectories, bullets and weapons used and the types of injuries on both sides. This study establishes a specific timetable for the various events of the massacre, the shooters locations and the precise timing and location of the death of nearly 50 protesters.

    This university investigation concluded that the massacre was a false flag operation, which was rationally planned and executed with the aim to overthrow the government and seize power.

    Ivan Katchanovski teaches at the School of Political Studies at the University of Ottawa. He has been a visiting scholar at the Davis Center for Russian and Eurasian Studies at Harvard University, visiting Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science at the State University of New York at Potsdam, postdoctoral fellow at the Political Science Department at the University of Toronto and Kluge Postdoctoral Fellow at the Kluge Center at the Library of Congress.

    Translation
    Roger Lagassé

    [Feb 08, 2016] Chesapeake has hired Kirkland and Ellis as its bankruptcy attorney which a typical step before formal Chapter 11 filing

    Signs of troubles for the USA natural gas production. This is a larger player and if it is in trouble the whole US shale gas industry is in trouble too.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Keep oil at $30 and gas at $2 through summer and there will be a very long list of these. ..."
    "... Note how the Dow/S P continues to trade lockstep with crude. ..."
    "... Not until the executives have configured themselves to the extent possible within insider trading regs. After that, maybe theyll have plans . ..."
    "... A total of 74 energy companies, including Energy XXI Gulf Coast Inc. and Halcon Resources Corp., are expected to have significant difficulties sustaining their debt, according to the report. ..."
    "... BTW, Halcon is down 12.8% today, 67.5% year-to-date, and 96% in one year. ..."
    peakoilbarrel.com

    George Kaplan , 02/08/2016 at 10:05 am

    Zero hedge info. so treat accordingly:

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-02-08/chesapeake-plummets-over-20-report-it-has-hired-bankruptcy-attorneys

    shallow sand , 02/08/2016 at 10:35 am
    Accurate report, shares about halved, currently $1.77.

    Keep oil at $30 and gas at $2 through summer and there will be a very long list of these.

    Note how the Dow/S&P continues to trade lockstep with crude.

    How long is it going to take the corns to realize these prices are going to take the whole sucker down?

    Longtimber , 02/08/2016 at 11:55 am
    Trading halted. No Bueno for Shareholders.
    http://seekingalpha.com/symbol/CHK
    shallow sand, 02/08/2016 at 1:39 pm
    Question. How many of the rigs still left in onshore lower 48 are contracted out to companies that have filed for BK protection in 2015 or 2016?

    For example, how many rigs does Samson have running? Magnum Hunter, etc?

    AlexS, 02/08/2016 at 2:20 pm
    Chesapeake Energy Says It Has No Plans to Pursue Bankruptcy

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-08/chesapeake-says-it-has-no-plans-of-pursuing-bankruptcy

    Watcher, 02/08/2016 at 3:26 pm
    Not until the executives have configured themselves to the extent possible within insider trading regs. After that, maybe they'll have "plans".

    AlexS, 02/08/2016 at 2:35 pm

    U.S. Companies at Risk of Default Near Crisis Peak, Says Moody's

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-03/u-s-companies-at-risk-of-default-near-crisis-peak-says-moody-s

    The number of U.S. companies that have the highest risk of defaulting on their debt is nearing a peak not seen since the height of the financial crisis.
    With the energy industry crumbling amid record low oil prices, the number of companies with the lowest credit ratings reached 264 as of Feb. 1, just shy of the high of 291 set in April 2009, according to a report by Moody's Investors Service Wednesday. That's a 44 percent jump in the past 12 months, Moody's said.
    "The majority of new additions came from oil & gas ….

    A total of 74 energy companies, including Energy XXI Gulf Coast Inc. and Halcon Resources Corp., are expected to have significant difficulties sustaining their debt, according to the report."

    BTW, Halcon is down 12.8% today, 67.5% year-to-date, and 96% in one year.

    [Feb 05, 2016] Oil as a strategic weapon of the US empire

    Notable quotes:
    "... the global oil market is not a market like those for smartphones, automobiles or ladies purses. The global oil ( gas) market is a STRATEGIC one. Which goes on to say that the core states, such as first of all, North America, then NW Europe get to have the first and final say. ..."
    "... This problem is compounded by the fact that high oil prices enable geo-strategic rivals such as Russia/Iran/Iraq/Venezuela to be more defiant than they would otherwise be. ..."
    "... The oil rich countries that are directly controlled by the US co (the US Empire) also known as GCC, follow an oil production policy that largely suits the core states themselves, depending on the situation and their ability to affect the global market. ..."
    "... As North America was a massive oil importer circa 2009 (Canada cannot be seen in isolation, but as appendix to the US) this increased oil production went a lot way in: a)boosting economic growth (North America has easily outpaced other advanced economies since the Lehman crisis) b) Minimize the US trade deficit and therefore: c) Boosting the value of the US dollar. ..."
    "... Countries outside of the US, Canada (to a lesser extent UK, Norway ) that are major oil producers, need to accrue massive profits from their oil sales, since they universally divert most of those funds into financing the government, the military and social spending, while they must also keep some for re-investments into their oil sectors. US Canada are uber-happy if they can more or less break-even. ..."
    peakoilbarrel.com
    yiedyie, 02/04/2016 at 5:51 pm
    Could this have been due to the special place US has in the hierarchy.

    When camels are thirsty they are chewing thistle to relieve their thirst, but the thistle is dry, so in fact their own blood relieve their thirst.

    Dogs chew old bones but there is nothing in them, but pieces of splited bone pierce their mouth ceiling and fresh blood makes them think there is food in there.

    This is what US has done f.ed the little economic moment it still had because is the forefront of the empire, he is going for the fresh blood of shale.

    Stavros H, 02/05/2016 at 12:16 am
    As I have repeatedly stated on this blog, the global oil market is not a market like those for smartphones, automobiles or ladies purses. The global oil (& gas) market is a STRATEGIC one. Which goes on to say that the core states, such as first of all, North America, then NW Europe get to have the first and final say.

    The problem for the US, Canada, Norway and the UK (the only wealthy countries producing large quantities of oil) is that their oil reserves are extremely marginal and can only be accessed with high oil prices (in the long-run) This problem is compounded by the fact that high oil prices enable geo-strategic rivals such as Russia/Iran/Iraq/Venezuela to be more defiant than they would otherwise be.

    The oil rich countries that are directly controlled by the US & co (the US Empire) also known as GCC, follow an oil production policy that largely suits the core states themselves, depending on the situation and their ability to affect the global market.

    In my view, this is what preceded the recent oil market collapse:

    • NATO-GCC to Russia in 2011/12: "Give up Assad, or we'll fill our media with BS stories about you. We will also 'encourage' our corporations to not invest in your country"
    • Russia to NATO-GCC: "You have been doing that for ages, who cares for even more propaganda. Assad stays"
    • NATO-GCC to Russia in 2013/14: "Give up Assad, or we will turn Ukraine against you, there will be serious trouble for you, as now we will make our economic warfare against you, official. Moreover, our 'regime-change' efforts will intensify"
    • Russia replies to NATO-GCC: "Bring it on, Assad stays"
    • NATO-GCC to Russia in 2014: "We will pummel the oil price into oblivion*, we promise that you will feel the strain, just give up on Assad or we will destroy you"
    • Russia replies to NATO-GCC: "I have seen worse. Assad stays"

    *Notice that NATO-GCC did not use the oil-price weapon until one of two things happened:

    a) Time-pressure on regime-changing-Syria became serious.

    b) The shale and tar sands infrastructure had been already put in place under high oil prices.

    But back to Ron's core (and largely correct) claim that the global oil production gains of recent years have been a North American phenomenon (I would also add Iraq)

    North America has been able to ramp-up production spectacularly in recent years because of the following reasons:

    a) It's capital rich. Instead of diverting all of that QE-enabled loans to the parasitic "housing market" and lots of inane Silicon Valley start-ups (that fail 99 times of 100) it was wiser to have some dough flow into the "shale oil & gas miracle" as well as Alberta's vast tar sands deposits. Which made both economic as well as strategic sense.

    b) As North America was a massive oil importer circa 2009 (Canada cannot be seen in isolation, but as appendix to the US) this increased oil production went a lot way in: a)boosting economic growth (North America has easily outpaced other advanced economies since the Lehman crisis) b) Minimize the US trade deficit and therefore: c) Boosting the value of the US dollar.

    As I have noted many times before on this blog, some (maybe several) countries around the world have massive oil reserves that are far more prolific than those currently being exploited in North America. But these countries, do not enjoy neither the political/military clout over the GCC, nor remotely the financial capital to engage in such massive (and risky) investments.

    Countries outside of the US, Canada (to a lesser extent UK, Norway ) that are major oil producers, need to accrue massive profits from their oil sales, since they universally divert most of those funds into financing the government, the military and social spending, while they must also keep some for re-investments into their oil sectors. US & Canada are uber-happy if they can more or less break-even.

    But the peak-oil-environmental bias of many, does not allow them to see this.

    Javier, 02/05/2016 at 4:14 am
    Your strategic analyses are very interesting Stavros, and fit many of the things we all know are true. However I have a problem with the "We will pummel the oil price into oblivion" part.

    The available evidence is that the price of oil followed very closely the supply/demand ratio. The chart below is from Dr. Ed's blog.

    I am always skeptical of interpretations that are not supported by evidence. There are multiple theories about who caused the oil price to go down and why. I rather stick with the data, it is not a PO bias but quite the opposite. A supply/demand mismatch caused it and nobody wanted to cut production unilaterally.

    Ron Patterson, 02/05/2016 at 8:51 am
    The oil rich countries that are directly controlled by the US & co (the US Empire) also known as GCC, The oil rich countries that are directly controlled by the US & co (the US Empire) also known as GCC, follow an oil production policy that largely suits the core states themselves, depending on the situation and their ability to affect the global market.

    That statement makes no sense whatsoever. Just who is/are "US & Co"? Would that be Obama? Or perhaps the US Congress? Or perhaps the US Oil Companies? Then in the second half of that long sentence, you completely contradict the first half of the sentence. You say: follow an oil production policy that largely suits the core states themselves," Now which is it? Are they controlled by US & co, or are do they pay no attention to whomever in the US that is doing the controlling and follow a policy that simply suits themselves?

    I would definitely agree with the second half of your sentence, the GCC states do exactly what they damn well please. And I would definitely disagree with the first half of your sentence. They would pay no attention to any US politician or businessman that might call them up and try to tell them what to do.

    But back to Ron's core (and largely correct) claim that the global oil production gains of recent years have been a North American phenomenon (I would also add Iraq).

    Well no, that's not what I said. Yes, recent oil production gains have been from US, Canada, Iraq and Saudi Arabia. But what I said was:

    The recent surge in world production that was brought about by high prices…

    The recent gains in Iraq and Saudi Arabia were after the price already started to fall. Those gains were not brought about by high prices. They were despite a steep decline in prices.

    likbez , 02/05/2016 at 10:22 am
    Ron,

    That statement makes no sense whatsoever. Just who is/are "US & Co"?

    "US and Co" is essentially a codename for NATO. It is ruled by international financial elite (Davos crowd) which BTW consider the USA (and, by extension, NATO) as an enforcer, a tool for getting what they want, much like Bolsheviks considered Soviet Russia to be such a tool.

    The last thing they are concerned is the well-being of American people.

    [Feb 03, 2016] Russia Production may fall this year 150000 barrels a day or about one percent

    www.bloomberg.com

    Output from Russia, which vies with Saudi Arabia and the U.S. as the world's top producer, may fall this year by as much as 150,000 barrels a day, or about 1.3 percent, according to analysts including Neil Beveridge, at Sanford C. Bernstein & Co.

    The country's production set a post-Soviet high in January as output of crude and a light oil called condensate climbed 1.5 percent from a year earlier to 10.878 million barrels a day, according to the Energy Ministry's CDU-TEK unit.

    [Feb 03, 2016] Global gas market braced for price war

    Do FT honchos know that the USA is importer of natural gas and will stay as such in foreseeable future due to decimation of shale oil/gas sector. See http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_move_impc_s1_a.htm
    Notable quotes:
    "... Finally, like Saudi Arabia in oil, Gazprom is one of the lowest-cost gas producers. According to calculations by Mr Henderson at OIES, the cost to Gazprom of delivering its gas to Germany is $3.5 per mmbtu (million British thermal unit) - compared with an estimated $4.3 per mmbtu break-even for US LNG supplies despite US gas prices trading near 16-year lows. ..."
    "... Gazprom's contract prices, which are largely tied to oil prices, have kept pace with the spot gas market decline and are likely to fall further in the next six to nine months. ..."
    FT.com

    ... ... ...

    Just as Saudi Arabia is the main swing producer for the global oil market thanks to its ability to ramp up production if needed, Gazprom is the main holder of spare capacity in the global gas market.

    According to Gazprom executives, the company has about 100bn cu m of spare production capacity - thanks largely to investments made on over-optimistic assumptions about future gas demand - equivalent to almost a quarter of its production and about 3 per cent of world output.

    And just as Saudi Arabia has been unnerved by the prospect of US shale oil producers eroding its market share, Gazprom faces a similar prospect in the gas market. The flood of cheap gas unleashed by the US shale boom has prompted a wave of US LNG projects in recent years. The first cargo of LNG from the "lower 48" contiguous states of the US is due to be shipped in the next two months, and the total export capacity under construction is equivalent to two-thirds of Gazprom's exports to Europe.

    Finally, like Saudi Arabia in oil, Gazprom is one of the lowest-cost gas producers. According to calculations by Mr Henderson at OIES, the cost to Gazprom of delivering its gas to Germany is $3.5 per mmbtu (million British thermal unit) - compared with an estimated $4.3 per mmbtu break-even for US LNG supplies despite US gas prices trading near 16-year lows.

    Chart - Gazprom has the lowest production costs

    Put all those facts together, and it would seem to make sense for the Russian company to push down prices to keep US LNG out of the market.

    "Now the market is getting excited about it; but also the Russians have done their maths and they know they can win if it happens," says Thierry Bros, European gas analyst at Société Générale in Paris.

    Such a move would be cheaper to implement now because European gas prices have already fallen dramatically - spot UK gas prices are down 50 per cent in the past two years. Gazprom's contract prices, which are largely tied to oil prices, have kept pace with the spot gas market decline and are likely to fall further in the next six to nine months.

    Mr Bros estimates it would cost Gazprom $1.3bn in lost revenues to price US LNG out of the market this year - less than 1 per cent of its historical annual sales.

    Gazprom executives have studied the economics of the price war approach and are discussing the issue, according to people familiar with the company's thinking.

    At a meeting with investors in New York this week, Alexander Medvedev, Gazprom's deputy chief executive, argued that low spot prices in Europe had already made US LNG supplies uneconomical. "Despite the prevailing view on the market that North American LNG can change the current pricing model in Europe, in reality this is not the case at all," he said.

    ... ... ...

    [Feb 03, 2016] Lies of the Neocons From Leo Strauss to Scooter Libby

    Notable quotes:
    "... A superb account of the ideas of Strauss, his followers and his influence is to be found in The Political Ideas of Leo Strauss (hereafter PI) and Leo Strauss and The American Right (hereafter AR), both by Shadia Drury, professor of politics at the University of Calgary. Her account of Strausss ideas and the prominence they play in American politics today will give you chills or nausea, perhaps both. As she says in PI (p.xii), Strauss is the key to understanding the political vision that has inspired the most powerful men in America under George W. Bush. In my view men who are in the grip of Straussian political ideas cannot be trusted with political power in any society, let alone a liberal democracy. This book explains why this is the case. ..."
    "... So the covert elite must be certain that myths like religion or the glory of the nation are not weakened for these are among the best ways to rule over the ignorant herd and lead it into war. (Note that the Straussians themselves are not religious. They are above religion, capable of dealing with tough truths like mans mortality. But in their view, religion is a crucial factor in governing in their view. Irving Kristol, following Strauss, tells us that religion is far more important politically than the Founding Fathers believed and that to rescue America it is necessary to breathe new life into the older, now largely comatose religious orthodoxies. (AR, p. 148). ..."
    "... But useful lies of the grand sort like religious myth or blind nationalism need support by lesser lies at crucial moments. And so we go to the smaller lies like weapons of mass destruction, the smoking gun that comes in the form of the mushroom cloud. And here too the elite has a role to play. They are to use their superior rhetorical skills to make the weak argument seem stronger. In other words the cabal not only has to protect myths and manufacture lies but go to work in selling them. What Strauss called rhetoric, we call spin. ..."
    "... All of this comes down to one word: lying. But for Strauss, these lies are necessary for the smooth function of society and triumph of ones own nation in war. Hence for Strauss, the lie becomes noble. This phrase Strauss borrows and distorts from Plato who meant by a noble lie a myth or parable that conveyed an underlying truth about morality or nature. But in Strausss hands the noble lie becomes a way of deceiving the herd. Strausss noble lies are far from noble. They are intended to dupe the multitude and secure power for a special elite (AR, p. 79). ..."
    OpEdNews
    All governments lie as I. F. Stone famously observed, but some governments lie more than others. And the neocon Bush regime serves up whoppers as standard fare every day. Why this propensity to lie? There are many reasons, but it is not widely appreciated that the neocons believe in lying on principle. It is the "noble" thing for the elite to do, for the "vulgar" masses, the "herd" will become ungovernable without such lies. This is the idea of the "noble lie" practiced with such success and boldness by Scooter Libby and his co-conspirators and concocted by the political "philosopher" Leo Strauss whose teachings lie at the core of the neoconservative outlook and agenda, so much so that they are sometimes called "Leocons."

    Leo Strauss (1899-1973) was a Jewish-German émigré from the Nazi regime who eventually landed at the University of Chicago where he developed a following that has achieved enormous prominence in American politics. Among his students were Paul Wolfowitz who has openly acknowledged that he is a follower of Straus as has the godfather of neconservatism, Irving Kristol. Irving Kristol begat William Kristol, the director of operation for the DC neocons, editor of the Weekly Standard and "chairman" of the Project for the New American Century, which laid out the plans for the Iraq War. (PNAC also opined in 2000 that a Pearl Harbor-like event would be necessary to take the country to war, and one year later, presto, we had the strange and still mysterious attack of September 11.) For his part Paul Wolfowitz begat Libby, in the intellectual sense, when he taught Libby at Yale. Others stars in the necon firmament are Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and lesser figures like Abram Shulsky, director of the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans, created by Donald Rumsfeld. Shulsky, also a student of Strauss, was responsible for fabricating the lies masquerading as intelligence that were designed to get the U.S. into the war on Iraq. While the neocons have a passion for the Likud party and Zionism, they also count among their number not a few pre-Vatican II Catholics and an assortment of cranks like Newt Gingrich and John Bolton and crypto fascists like Jeanne Kirkpatrick. The list goes on and Justin Raimondo has documented it in great detail over the years on Antiwar.com. But it is enough to note that Cheney's alter ego was Libby, and Rumsfeld's second in command until recently was Wolfowitz. So both Cheney, the de facto president with an apparently ill perfused cerebrum, and the geezer commanding the Pentagon have been managed by younger and very prominent Straussians for the past five years.

    A superb account of the ideas of Strauss, his followers and his influence is to be found in The Political Ideas of Leo Strauss (hereafter PI) and Leo Strauss and The American Right (hereafter AR), both by Shadia Drury, professor of politics at the University of Calgary. Her account of Strauss's ideas and the prominence they play in American politics today will give you chills or nausea, perhaps both. As she says in PI (p.xii), "Strauss is the key to understanding the political vision that has inspired the most powerful men in America under George W. Bush. In my view men who are in the grip of Straussian political ideas cannot be trusted with political power in any society, let alone a liberal democracy. This book explains why this is the case."

    For those who wish to understand the neocon agenda, Drury's books are essential reading. She is clear and thorough.

    Of pertinence to "Scooter's" case and the pack of lies he was concealing is Strauss's idea that a "philosopher elite" (i.e., Straussians) must rule. Moreover they must do so covertly. As someone remarked before last Friday, "Who ever heard of I. Lewis Libby?" a man who shunned the spotlight and operated behind the scenes. The reason for such covert rule, or cabal, is that the "vulgar" herd, as Strauss liked to call the rest of us, cannot appreciate "higher truths" such as the inevitability and necessity of wars in relations between states and even the utility of wars in governing a state.

    So the covert elite must be certain that myths like religion or the glory of the nation are not weakened for these are among the best ways to rule over the ignorant herd and lead it into war. (Note that the Straussians themselves are not religious. They are "above" religion, capable of dealing with tough truths like man's mortality. But in their view, religion is a crucial factor in governing in their view. Irving Kristol, following Strauss, tells us that religion is "far more important politically" than the Founding Fathers believed and that to rescue America it is necessary "to breathe new life into the older, now largely comatose religious orthodoxies." (AR, p. 148). Any religion will do except perhaps Islam, which is more or less verboten, given the affinity of all leading neocons for Israel. Hence the neocons readily embrace the ideology and leadership of Christian fundamentalism which can keep the crowd under control and get them to march off to war and death. The neocons are mainly interested in foreign policy, as was Strauss, but in exchange for the support of the religious Right in foreign affairs, the neocons line up behind the domestic program of the fundamentalists. It's a win win situation, from their point of view

    But useful lies of the grand sort like religious myth or blind nationalism need support by lesser lies at crucial moments. And so we go to the "smaller" lies like "weapons of mass destruction," the "smoking gun that comes in the form of the mushroom cloud." And here too the elite has a role to play. They are to use their "superior rhetorical skills" to make the weak argument seem stronger. In other words the cabal not only has to protect myths and manufacture lies but go to work in selling them. What Strauss called "rhetoric," we call spin.

    All of this comes down to one word: lying. But for Strauss, these lies are necessary for the smooth function of society and triumph of one's own nation in war. Hence for Strauss, the lie becomes "noble." This phrase Strauss borrows and distorts from Plato who meant by a "noble lie" a myth or parable that conveyed an underlying truth about morality or nature. But in Strauss's hands the "noble lie" becomes a way of deceiving the herd. Strauss's "noble lies are far from "noble." They are intended to "dupe the multitude and secure power for a special elite" (AR, p. 79).

    One other idea of Strauss's bears on the situation of "Scooter" Libby. How is the Straussian philosophical elite going to get from the halls of academe to the corridors of power? This depends on good luck and the "chance" encounter between the powerful and the Straussian. Here the contemporary neocons go beyond Strauss and leave nothing to chance. It would even appear that they look for the stupid, gullible or those who are mentally compromised. So William Kristol becomes Vice President Quayle's chief of Staff, and Libby becomes the right hand man to the addled Cheney as well as assistant to the Quayle-like Bush. And there are many more.

    Finally, Drury makes the point the Strauss and the neocons are not really conservative at all. They are radicals, at war with the entire modern enterprise which makes them turn to the ancients for their inspiration and even there they need to distort the teachings of Socrates or Plato to make their case. But the Enlightenment comes to us with the advance of science to which Strauss is also hostile. He says that he is not against science as such "but popularized science or the diffusion of scientific knowledge.Science must remain the preserve of a small minority; it must be kept secret from the common man" (PI, p. 154). But this is impossible. Science by its very nature is a vast social enterprise requiring the widest possible dissemination of its findings. Any society that puts a lid on this will fail, and so by natural selection, the Straussian project is doomed to fail.

    But before that happens the Straussians can do a lot of damage. As Drury says, they "cannot be trusted with political power." But we can learn from them the importance of boldness, not in the pursuit of the "noble lie" but of the truth. And we must be certain that we are vigorous as we hunt them down and get them out of power. In that effort Shadia Drury has done us a great service.

    John Walsh can be reached at [email protected].

    He thanks Gary Leupp a regular on CounterPoint.com for pointing him to Shadia Drury's books.

    [Feb 03, 2016] The Gloating of the Neocons

    Notable quotes:
    "... The greatest crime of the twenty-first century so far was the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq. ..."
    "... First Bush and Cheney (and Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz and Rice) made the decision to go to war. Then they sat down and carefully invented the reasons ..."
    "... On Sept. 11, 2001 Bush asked his counterterrorism advisor Richard A. Clarke, who had warned him in early 2001 about an "immanent al-Qaeda threat" (warnings Clarke alleges Bush "ignored") to produce a report blaming Iraq for the attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon. ..."
    "... In his own account Clarke says: "I said, Mr. President. We've done this before." (Meaning, we've explored the possibility of ties between Baghdad and al-Qaeda before.) "We have been looking at this. We looked at it with an open mind. There is no connection." ..."
    "... Meanwhile Secretary of "Defense" Donald Rumsfeld advocated - from day one - attacks on Iraq as a response to 9/11. Clarke has stated that he assumed Rumsfeld was joking when he first suggested, immediately after the event, that since Afghanistan had "no good targets" the U.S. should proceed to bomb the totally un-related country. But he soon learned that Rumsfeld and his staff headed by Paul Wolfowitz were in deadly earnest. ..."
    "... Some are describing Obama's renewed bombing of Iraq, and the strikes on Syrian targets, as a new "neocon moment." ..."
    "... Recall how, in late 2003, as it became embarrassingly evident that Iraq had had no weapons of mass destruction, Wolfowitz in Iraq tried to change the subject entirely. Who cares about weapons of mass destruction? he told a reporter. The Iraqi people want to reconstruct their country, he declared (as though the question of the war's legitimacy was an irrelevant detail). Having acknowledged some "intelligence flaws" (attributing them to the CIA, rather than to themselves-despite what we know of the unprecedented Cheney-Libby visits to the Pentagon to browbeat the intelligence professionals to include their bullshit into official reports), Cheney and his neocon camp changed the subject. ..."
    "... No, it wasn't about the announced reasons: weapons of mass destruction, or al-Qaeda ties. Nor was it about U.S. Big Oil (which hasn't profited from the Iraq War, the big contracts going to China and Russia). Nor was it about permanent military bases; the Iraqis have successfully rejected them. What does that leave us with? ..."
    "... A war pushed by the neocons to destroy a foe of Israel. It succeeded, surely, but only to produce a vicious Sunni successor state in Anbar Province potentially far more threatening to Israel than Saddam ever was. ..."
    October 31, 2014 | counterpunch.org

    The greatest crime of the twenty-first century so far was the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq. Broadly conceived by George W. Bush and Dick Cheney immediately after 9/11, it initially lacked a coherent justification . But as Condoleezza Rice noted at the time, the tragedy brought "opportunities." (People in fear can be persuaded to support things policy-makers long wanted, but couldn't quite sell to the public.)

    First Bush and Cheney (and Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz and Rice) made the decision to go to war. Then they sat down and carefully invented the reasons for their war.

    On Sept. 11, 2001 Bush asked his counterterrorism advisor Richard A. Clarke, who had warned him in early 2001 about an "immanent al-Qaeda threat" (warnings Clarke alleges Bush "ignored") to produce a report blaming Iraq for the attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon.

    In his own account Clarke says: "I said, Mr. President. We've done this before." (Meaning, we've explored the possibility of ties between Baghdad and al-Qaeda before.) "We have been looking at this. We looked at it with an open mind. There is no connection."

    But Clarke's recollection of the event continues:

    "He came back at me and said, 'Iraq! Saddam! Find out if there's a connection.' And in a very intimidating way. I mean that we should come back with that answer. We wrote a report. It was a serious look. We got together all the FBI experts, all the CIA experts. We wrote the report. We sent the report out to CIA and found FBI and said, 'Will you sign this report?' They all cleared the report. And we sent it up to the president and it got bounced by the National Security Advisor or Deputy. It got bounced and sent back saying, 'Wrong answer. … Do it again.'"

    Few policy decisions in modern history can rival the evil of that demand that the U.S. intelligence community deliberately contrive a false historical narrative, to justify a war that has destroyed a country and killed half a million people.

    Meanwhile Secretary of "Defense" Donald Rumsfeld advocated - from day one - attacks on Iraq as a response to 9/11. Clarke has stated that he assumed Rumsfeld was joking when he first suggested, immediately after the event, that since Afghanistan had "no good targets" the U.S. should proceed to bomb the totally un-related country. But he soon learned that Rumsfeld and his staff headed by Paul Wolfowitz were in deadly earnest.

    The Powell UN speech, demanding global support for an attack on a threatening, al-Qaeda aligned Iraq, in fact bombed. But more than that, key U.S. allies-NATO heavies France and Germany among them-refused to get on board the program. This occasioned an amazing campaign of vilification of France, best symbolized by Congress's decision to rename "French fries" "freedom fries" in the Congressional cafeteria. An asinine book trashing France as "our oldest enemy" became a best-seller.

    ... ... ...

    Republican presidents, Democratic presidents. All on the same page when it comes to maintaining what Wolfowitz termed "full-spectrum dominance" in the post-Cold War world. Now as it all falls apart-as ISIL expands its "caliphate," as the Syrian Baathists hold out against both U.S.-backed and other Islamists, as Iran gains respect as a serious negotiator in the Geneva talks, as China rises, as Russia thwarts NATO expansion, as U.S.-Israeli ties fray, as a multi-polar world inevitably emerges- what triumphs can the neocons claim?

    Once flushed with history, proclaiming the "end of history" with the triumph of capitalist imperialism over Marxist socialism and other competing ideologies, they have only a handful of successes they can claim.

    • They have successfully avoided prison. They calculated that they could mislead the people and commit the gravest possible crimes with impunity, under the U.S. system. Wolfowitz was nominated by Bush to become World Bank president in 2005, and held the post two years before departing amidst a scandal. Feith sashayed out of office the same year, hired at Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service (despite opposition from the more principled faculty). They serve as news consultants and live comfortable lives.
    • They have left behind in positions of power and influence fellow neocons (most notably, Victoria Nuland, architect of the Ukraine disaster) and neocon allies, "liberal internationalists" like former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, as well as an assortment of dear friends who simply love war, such as Sen. John McCain. Some are describing Obama's renewed bombing of Iraq, and the strikes on Syrian targets, as a new "neocon moment." It must give them great pleasure.
    • Perhaps most importantly: Iraq, although (or because) it has been absolutely destroyed as a modern state by U.S. fury, is no longer a threat to Israel.

    Oilmen Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush (and Rice who has an oil tanker named after her) lusted after oil profits. They lusted too for an expansion of U.S. military power in the "Greater Middle East." They were less concerned with Israel. But Israel's survival as a specifically "Jewish" state, with a subject Arab population that must never become demographically threatening-and blow the whole Zionist project by forcing a one-state multi-ethnic solution-is the central neocon concern. They will not say this, of course; Leo Strauss students like Wolfowitz and Shulsky believe in the need for deception to get things done. But this was the minimal objective of the neocons' response to 9/11: to use the event to advantage Israel.

    Recall how, in late 2003, as it became embarrassingly evident that Iraq had had no weapons of mass destruction, Wolfowitz in Iraq tried to change the subject entirely. Who cares about weapons of mass destruction? he told a reporter. The Iraqi people want to reconstruct their country, he declared (as though the question of the war's legitimacy was an irrelevant detail). Having acknowledged some "intelligence flaws" (attributing them to the CIA, rather than to themselves-despite what we know of the unprecedented Cheney-Libby visits to the Pentagon to browbeat the intelligence professionals to include their bullshit into official reports), Cheney and his neocon camp changed the subject.

    The real issue, they now averred, was creating "democracy" in the Middle East. Condi Rice happily connived with this strategy, arguing dramatically that it was as wrong to deny people in the Middle East their freedom as it had been to deny black people in her home of Birmingham, Alabama their right to vote. Suddenly special diplomats were dispatched to Arab countries to lecture skeptical, sometimes glowering audiences on the advantages of the U.S. political system.

    Under great pressure, some Arab countries somewhat expanded their parliamentary processes. The effort backfired as Islamists were elected in Egypt, Hizbollah made advances in Lebanon, and Hamas won a majority in the first free Palestinian election (in 2006). The "terrorists" were winning elections! The State Department denounced such results and has since shut up about "democracy" in the Middle East.

    No, it wasn't about the announced reasons: weapons of mass destruction, or al-Qaeda ties. Nor was it about U.S. Big Oil (which hasn't profited from the Iraq War, the big contracts going to China and Russia). Nor was it about permanent military bases; the Iraqis have successfully rejected them. What does that leave us with?

    A war pushed by the neocons to destroy a foe of Israel. It succeeded, surely, but only to produce a vicious Sunni successor state in Anbar Province potentially far more threatening to Israel than Saddam ever was.

    But Binyamin Netanyahu doesn't see it that way. He has repeatedly dubbed Iran as a greater threat than ISIL. Having predicted since 1992 that Iran is close to developing a nuclear bomb; having repeatedly demanded (echoed by prominent U.S. neocons such as Norman Podhoretz) that the U.S. bomb Iran (to prevent a "nuclear holocaust"); having angrily dismissed U.S. intelligence assessments that Iran has no nuclear weapons program, Netanyahu wants Obama to focus on destroying the Iranian regime.

    GARY LEUPP is Professor of History at Tufts University, and holds a secondary appointment in the Department of Religion.

    [Feb 03, 2016] Neoconservatives as neoliberals with a gun

    Notable quotes:
    "... In short, unless the semi-free democratic society is strong, and not only ready to defend itself but also willing to go on the offensive in support of its system abroad, it will perish. The neocon view is that either you're willing to export liberal democracy or it will be crushed by all kinds of barbaric global groups. ..."
    "... They too believe – some of them because they were taught it by Strauss Co – that their most important values are best advanced and preserved in a relatively free society, provided such a society is strong and wields power wisely, both at home and abroad. ..."
    "... Neoconservatives are neoliberals with a gun, changing Al Capone maxim into You can get much farther with a neoliberal recommendations and a gun than you can with a neoliberal recommendation (as in Washington consensus) alone. Kind of attack dogs of neoliberalism. ..."
    "... The failure of the Weimar regime to prevent the rise of fascism, in his view, resided in its failure to put power into the hands of the strong and good, who inevitably, unable to acquire popular support through honest methods, should (like their Nazi adversaries) have cleverly used Big Lies (towards good ends) to nudge the people towards those ends. Only wise men, acting in secrecy, can do that. ..."
    "... As Hersh points out, the neocons (just about a dozen officials-including Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith, Bolton, Abrams - operating in concert with the oil-baron contingent in the administration-Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice, Bush-and providing them with intellectual guidance) refer to themselves (with smug amusement) as a cabal (a word with an interesting etymology). ..."
    "... That seizure is still in progress, messily, untidily, brutally and illegally, and with results no cabal, however wise, can really predict. Among the results might be a growing revulsion among the American people themselves at the neocons misanthropic arrogance, and perhaps (much though it should be regretted and fought) anti-Semitism. ..."
    peakoilbarrel.com
    R Walter, 02/03/2016 at 6:43 pm
    Neoconservatives follow the philosophy of Leo Strauss, the father of the neoconservative movement. Whether is has been bad or good, hard to know. A little bit and a good read about the neoconservatives and Leo Strauss:

    "Neoconservatives hold the view that 'American' is the best bet for the world – America's institutional set-up is a very useful combination of modern elements, having to do with the sovereignty of individuals together with the older idea of a substantial role for government – and that this is an idea that needs to be widely promulgated. Indeed, without its promulgation there can arise and persist major threats to the countries which do embrace this set up, such as the United States of America. In short, unless the semi-free democratic society is strong, and not only ready to defend itself but also willing to go on the offensive in support of its system abroad, it will perish. The neocon view is that either you're willing to export liberal democracy or it will be crushed by all kinds of barbaric global groups.

    Now let us return to Strauss. Recall his prudential endorsement of classical liberalism as the best bet for philosophy. (Just exactly why philosophy ought to be cherished is not made clear by Strauss & Co; and their implicit or explicit nihilism calls the merit of philosophy into serious question.) Strauss's embrace of classical liberalism – or at least a watered down version of it, as per liberal democracy – did appear to influence the neocons. They too believe – some of them because they were taught it by Strauss & Co – that their most important values are best advanced and preserved in a relatively free society, provided such a society is strong and wields power wisely, both at home and abroad."

    https://philosophynow.org/issues/59/Leo_Strauss_Neoconservative

    For what it's worth.

    likbez, 02/03/2016 at 7:16 pm
    "Neoconservatives follow the philosophy of Leo Strauss, the father of the neoconservative movement."

    No. They follow the philosophy of Leo Trotsky with "proletariat" replaced by "international elite" and global corporations.
    http://softpanorama.org/Skeptics/Political_skeptic/neocons.shtml

    Neoconservatives are neoliberals with a gun, changing Al Capone maxim into "You can get much farther with a neoliberal recommendations and a gun than you can with a neoliberal recommendation (as in Washington consensus) alone." Kind of attack dogs of neoliberalism.

    Using deception as a smoke screen in politics was actually introduced by Machiavelli, not by Leo Strauss; that's why Bush II administration was called Mayberry Machiavelli (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayberry_Machiavelli)

    What Leo Strauss introduced and what is used in neoconservative/neoliberal discourse is the concept of "noble lie" (which includes "false flag" operations; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag). Here is how Professor of History at Tufts University Gary Leupp defines their behavior:

    == quote ==
    Hersh notes the critical influence of the philosopher Leo Strauss (d. 1973) on Wolfowitz's thinking. His article stimulated, among other articles, a substantial piece on Strauss by Jeet Heer in the Boston Globe (May 11), and another by William Pfaff in the International Herald Tribune (May 15), the latter noting that "Strauss's thought is a matter of public interest because his followers are in charge of U.S. foreign policy." Strauss, of German Jewish origins who taught for many years at the University of Chicago, mentoring Wolfowitz among others, was a brilliant man. No question about that. But also a man profoundly hostile to the modern world and to the concept of rule by the people. He believed it was the natural right of the wise and strong to lead societies to the fulfillment of their wise aims, using subterfuge when necessary, because speaking the naked truth won't get the job done.

    Strauss's point of departure is Socrates, who in Plato's Republic denounces Athenian democracy (the rule of the untutored masses) and instead promotes government by "philosopher-kings." Strauss had experienced the Weimar Republic (one of the more democratic experiments in modern history) and seen Germany fall into the hands of the Nazis. He understandably opposed the latter, but he derived some lessons from their methodology.

    The failure of the Weimar regime to prevent the rise of fascism, in his view, resided in its failure to put power into the hands of the strong and good, who inevitably, unable to acquire popular support through honest methods, should (like their Nazi adversaries) have cleverly used Big Lies (towards good ends) to nudge the people towards those ends. Only wise men, acting in secrecy, can do that.

    As Hersh points out, the neocons (just about a dozen officials-including Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith, Bolton, Abrams - operating in concert with the oil-baron contingent in the administration-Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice, Bush-and providing them with intellectual guidance) refer to themselves (with smug amusement) as a "cabal" (a word with an interesting etymology).

    They have contempt for the masses, and feel utterly justified in wisely misleading those masses into a roadmap for global peace on their terms. That meant, initially, using 9-11 to produce support for the seizure of Iraq,

    That seizure is still in progress, messily, untidily, brutally and illegally, and with results no cabal, however wise, can really predict. Among the results might be a growing revulsion among the American people themselves at the neocons' misanthropic arrogance, and perhaps (much though it should be regretted and fought) anti-Semitism. The latter might be provoked by the fact that persons inclined to embrace the most extreme factions in the Israeli political apparatus are disproportionately represented in the neocons' cabal, and while the general movement of U.S. foreign policy is driven by broad geopolitical concerns, rather than the alliance with Israel, the neocons' allegiance to what they perceive to be the interests of Sharon's Israel is highly conspicuous.
    == end of quote ==

    See also

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/10/31/the-gloating-of-the-neocons/

    [Feb 03, 2016] Russian oil output hits high in January amid OPEC deal speculation

    Notable quotes:
    "... Were going on 2 yrs since the price decline began, what . . . about 20 months ago? Just how long is that long run were supposed to be waiting for to see sharp production decline? ..."
    peakoilbarrel.com

    AlexS , 02/02/2016 at 5:39 am

    Russian oil output hits high in January amid OPEC deal speculation

    http://af.reuters.com/article/commoditiesNews/idAFL8N15H0JL

    MOSCOW, Feb 2 (Reuters) – Oil production in Russia hit a post-Soviet high in January, reaching an average of 10.88 million barrels per day (bpd), preliminary data released by the Energy Ministry showed on Tuesday.
    ------------
    My comment:
    At 7.3 barrels / ton ratio, production in January was 10,834 kb/d vs. 10,76o kb/d (revised) in December 2015 and 10,613 in January 2015 (year-on-year increase of 2.1%)

    Russian crude and condensate production (mb/d)
    source: Russian Energy Ministry

    Daniel , 02/02/2016 at 8:55 am
    wasn't the original December volume also ±1.83 kb/d? Scaling in your chart makes the 0,6% increase look very dramatic :-)
    AlexS , 02/02/2016 at 12:05 pm
    Two new mid-sized fields came onstream, one in December and one in January
    Several new field start-ups are expected for 2016, including a relatively large Filanovskogo project in Northern Caspian.

    The numbers in tons (as stated in Ministry's report and in b/d)
    (sorry, the last column is January 2016)

    Watcher , 02/02/2016 at 2:15 pm
    Voila.

    People are going to have to wrap their minds around reality. Production doesn't have to fall because of price - especially in locales with total government control.

    We're going on 2 yrs since the price decline began, what . . . about 20 months ago? Just how long is that long run we're supposed to be waiting for to see sharp production decline?

    likbez , 02/03/2016 at 12:03 am
    Watcher,

    "Just how long is that long run we're supposed to be waiting for to see sharp production decline?"

    Russian Rosneft is in trouble partially due to incompetence on the leadership level.
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-13/putin-said-to-blame-energy-chief-sechin-after-rosneft-missteps

    Estimates of decline are varied from none to 0.5Mb/d, but when it can start and how sharp it will be is anybody guess.

    I think it will not be sharp as Russian producers are partially isolated from oil price slump by the currency depreciation and long term contracts that they typically use.

    But Russians might participate in a joint action with OPEC, if such materialize (saving the scalp of the USA shale producers as a side effect):
    http://www.oilvoice.com/n/Russian-Position-Moving-But-Deal-Still-Unlikely/20b76a123b12.aspx?src=sideslides

    == quote ==
    The economics of Russian production provide a glimpse of how painful current prices are. According to ESAI Energy's analysis in the accompanying chart, when the Urals price is $30 per barrel, a producer's net revenue after paying the crude export duty and Mineral Extraction tax is $17. But since their costs are paid in rubles, the value of which has plummeted, lifting costs and pipeline transport from West Siberia are roughly $8 per barrel.

    These numbers indicate Russian producers can withstand prices as low as even $20 per barrel without them having a significant impact on production in 2016. That said, oil companies like Lukoil and Rosneft, which together account for 5.5 million b/d of Russian production, might participate in production limits were the Putin regime to pursue them.

    [Feb 02, 2016] The primary US elite objective is to prevent the reemergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere

    Notable quotes:
    "... Hopefully after reading your comment, those who believe that the US is not an empire, shall have at least a bit clearer understanding of the fact(s) that: ..."
    "... Japan, although de jure a developed democracy, is de facto the 51st state of the US and it is not its democracy and economic might that keeps China from sinking it, but indeed the 50000 US Military personal permanently staged in Okinawa ..."
    "... It is not the South Korean peoples will that keeps the fat, ugly Kim (and the other fatter and uglier Kim-s before him) from turning Seoul into an ashtray within an hour, but indeed the 50000 US Military personal permanently staged there…. ..."
    "... US does not spend more than the next 20 countries COMBINED in war/military just for the fun of it – but indeed to secure its unchallenged hegemony throughout the world. ..."
    "... US does not maintain and pay for more than 200 military bases and installations (1/3 of them on a permanent status) throughout the globe just to enjoy the climate and eat sushi…, but indeed to influence affairs in EVERY corner of the globe. ..."
    "... By directly and indirectly creating, fueling and influencing every (and I mean that literally: every and all!) war and conflict throughout the world since WWII gives a full and complete meaning to: ..."
    "... Not only is the US an Empire, but it is an Empire that puts to shame all preceding ones ~ Stavros H ..."
    "... Russia is at a massive disadvantage vis-a-vis NATO-GCC in anything other than nuclear capability: ..."
    peakoilbarrel.com
    Petro, 02/01/2016 at 11:30 pm
    "…Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power…" ~ 02/18/1992 Defense Planning Guidance (aka: the Wolfowitz Doctrine). Authored by Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Paul Wolfowitz and Scooter Libby.

    Dear Stavros,

    I have to say that your comment is a "must read" for the multitude of un-initiated commentators who naively think the US is not an empire , or for those who have the 15 century understanding of "Empire" and think that to be an empire the US must include more than Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands in/on its map…

    The best and most synthetic comment (within the time/space limits of a blog akin to this) with regard to history and geopolitics of the US Empire.

    With the exception of a few outdated and "linear" thinking passages (i.e.: "…with Russia openly defying the entire North-American-EU-Turkey-GCC-Israel complex despite a relative balance of forces that is on paper nothing less than catastrophic (for Russia)…" – what Mr. Fermi did in Chicago in 1942 and Mr. Oppenheimer et al, did in New Mexico in the Summer of 1945, reduce to irrelevancy the amount and size of the adversaries of countries like Russia and the US when it comes to war…hint: there will be no adversaries left and nothing to conquer afterwards!), I fully agree with your assessment and comprehension of the "puzzle".

    Hopefully after reading your comment, those who believe that the US is not an empire, shall have at least a bit clearer understanding of the fact(s) that:

    • Japan, although de jure a developed democracy, is de facto the 51st state of the US and it is not its democracy and economic might that keeps China from "sinking" it, but indeed the >50000 US Military personal permanently staged in Okinawa (and GOD knows how many more "civilian" personal). Young Chinese minds – whose most important history lesson taught in school to this day is : "The rape of Nankin" know that very well!
    • It is not the South Korean people's will that keeps the fat, ugly Kim (and the other fatter and uglier Kim-s before him) from turning Seoul into an ashtray within an hour, but indeed the >50000 US Military personal permanently staged there….
    • US does not spend more than the next 20 countries COMBINED in war/military just for the fun of it – but indeed to secure its unchallenged hegemony throughout the world.
    • US does not maintain and pay for more than 200 military bases and installations (1/3 of them on a "permanent" status) throughout the globe just to enjoy the climate and eat sushi…, but indeed to "influence" affairs in EVERY corner of the globe.
    • By directly and indirectly creating, fueling and influencing every (and I mean that literally: every and all!) war and conflict throughout the world since WWII gives a full and complete meaning to:

    "Not only is the US an Empire, but it is an Empire that puts to shame all preceding ones" ~ Stavros H

    I am impressed and will read you more attentively in the future.

    Be well,

    Petro

    Stavros H , 02/02/2016 at 10:06 am
    @Petro

    Thanx for your kind words.

    Regarding my comment on Russia being "catastrophically" outgunned by the NATO-GCC-Israel complex opposing her, allow me to attempt a clarification/elaboration.

    Obviously, the existence of nuclear weapons (both tactical & strategic) and Russia's very own formidable arsenal of such weapons almost certainly forestalls any hopes/plans that her enemies may have had in launching some kind of 21st century Operation Barbarossa/Napoleonic invasion. Notice that I say "almost" since at least a few western "security experts" believe that a surprise decapitating "First Strike" could potentially neutralize Russia's nuclear deterrent and pave the way for victory.

    But, this being a 21st century Global Hybrid War, conventional/unconventional military assets are not the only factor at play.

    Russia is at a massive disadvantage vis-a-vis NATO-GCC in anything other than nuclear capability:

    a) Conventional Air and Naval Forces. NATO's (read; US's) fleet roams the oceans. NATO's drone fleet also handily exceeds Russia's in both quantity and quality.

    b) Geostrategic reach. US-NATO boasts proxies and military bases bestriding most of the globe's surface. NATO even has proxies on Russia's borders (a tremendous threat to Russia) That includes the Baltic states (only minutes of flight between them and St. Petersburg) Georgia in the Caucasus, as well most importantly and recently, Ukraine. Ukraine is now an open wound for Russia as well as an existential threat.

    c) Most importantly, NATO-GCC is immensely superior to Russia in economic terms. GDP, financial assets, ability to issue currency, you name it. This allows NATO-GCC not only to buy more influence around the global chessboard, but also to at least inflict short-term economic pain on Russia. If Russia fails to cope, it will become much more than that.

    d) "Soft Power". The "West" culturally dominates the world. And when I say culturally, I use that term in its broadest sense. Not only films, music and fashion, but also in terms of language, education, political and behavioral norms etc. Moreover, and this is quite crucial, NATO-GCC outguns Russia in terms of propaganda outlets. Russia only boasts one state-funded TV network and a couple websites and also has to rely on several "alternative media" websites in the West itself (which it does not control or fund) but who are I think, its most prized asset in the "informational war" sphere. People who feel disenfranchised in the West itself (mostly the far-left and the far-right) have largely sided with Russia on this one. This is so for obvious reasons that I don't have to go into right now.

    On the other hand, NATO, possesses an entire global behemoth of propaganda factories, some state funded, others partially so, others wholly private, but all of them with direct links to western Intelligence Agencies, pushing a particular narrative in myriads of ways, at all times adjusted to the targeted audience.

    You must also add the so-called NGO's to the equation. In this arena, Russia owns little if any assets. Her enemies on the other hand, again possess entire armies of "international agencies", "charities", "watchdogs", "think-tanks" etc. All are designed to push the NATO agenda around the globe, subverting any and all governments that step out of line. Their first and foremost target is of course, you guessed it. These include: HRW, AI, SOHR, PHR and so on and so on ad infinitum.

    Russia is of course scrambling to find asymmetrical ways to partially counter for this imbalance, with some success, it has to said. It is in this vein that I made that claim.

    Petro , 02/02/2016 at 10:40 am
    Stavros,

    No arguments what so ever! Fully agree, but just for the sake of discussion:

    1- "Notice that I say "almost" since at least a few western "security experts" believe that a surprise decapitating "First Strike" could potentially neutralize Russia's nuclear deterrent and pave the way for victory." ~ Stavros

    Those who say that (i.e: McCain, Graham etc) are first class morons!

    Even if we had 90% success rate during that first strike would live them with 800+ high yield heads which will assure there will be no winners.

    Even if we had 99% destruction rate during the first strike (impossible even if we new where they hide them…and I mean all 8000+ of war heads they possess.

    They have more then all the others combined!) will still live them with 80+ deliverable high yield heads – which still assures NO winners!

    That is why smart people in the '60s and '70s called it MAD (mutually assured destruction).

    2- "Conventional Air and Naval Forces. NATO's (read; US's) fleet roams the oceans. NATO's drone fleet also handily exceeds Russia's in both quantity and quality."

    Those are WWII technology which are successful against countries like Iran/Iraq/Vietnam/Granada/Libya/Argentina/Brasil etc, etc.
    But against Russia/China and the new generation hyper-sonic anti ship weaponry and EMP/electronic jamming technology they are truly and utterly VERY expensive sitting ducks.

    http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/11/13/aegis-fail-in-black-sea-ruskies-burn-down-uss-donald-duck/

    Again, no argument with what you write. Fully agree.

    [Feb 02, 2016] Russia open to meeting with major oil-producing countries

    www.dailyherald.com

    Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told reporters in the United Arab Emirates on Tuesday that Moscow is "open for other forms of cooperation, if there is general interest in holding a meeting between OPEC members and producer countries."

    [Feb 01, 2016] Looks like Iraq enetered final phaze of the cycle cheap money - over investment - over production - low prices - pump harder to cover the losses - bankruptcy

    peakoilbarrel.com
    Patrick R , 02/01/2016 at 2:45 am
    However the flip side of the steep Shale decline curves in a high drilling environment is much flatter decline curves in a low drilling environment. So once the initial drop is weathered Shale oil will produce much more steadily albeit at a lower rate from existing wells. Add some drilling and completions and the supply from Shale will chug along undramatically. Even if a number or even all of the over-indebted players crash, their wells will still be there, snapped up cheaply and still produce.

    Still Shale has shot its bolt, done its worst, and the story of marginal supply turns back to the Middle East, after all, while so many in the MSM were banging on about the KSA or their arch rival Iran, it has been Iraq that added the extra 1 mbps over last 18 months: 3.2 to 4.2 mbps mid 2014-2015.

    Has this trajectory got more legs? If so it may happily replace Shales flop till it flattens out, preventing any major price correction to get the roustabouts rigging up again on baleful steppes of North Dakota.

    George Kaplan , 02/01/2016 at 5:47 am
    How was the development in Iraq funded – my guess is various sources of very low interest loans? All the new production has involved western, Chinese or Russian oil companies which would have had low interest funds available and the IMF has made some money available directly to the Iraq government. Iraq and Kurdistan are going bust at the moment.

    So it looks a lot like the shale plays: cheap money -> over investment -> over production -> low prices -> pump harder to cover the losses -> bankruptcy -> something far worse in Iraq than will be seen in ND and Texas I expect.

    AlexS , 02/01/2016 at 10:21 am
    Patrick R ,

    "…it has been Iraq that added the extra 1 mbps over last 18 months: 3.2 to 4.2 mbps mid 2014-2015. Has this trajectory got more legs? "

    From IEA World Energy Outlook 2014:
    "Iraq remains the largest source of global oil production growth over the entire period to 2040, even though our outlook is progressively getting closer to the "Delayed Case" examined in WEO-2012, in which institutional and political obstacles were assumed to hold back upstream investment in Iraq."

    Projected C+C+NGL production in Iraq and Iran (mb/d)
    source: IEA WEO-2014

    Patrick R , 02/01/2016 at 2:46 am
    As:

    [Feb 01, 2016] Russia Cries Dyadya (Uncle), Is Saudi Arabia Listening

    The article is weak and one-sided, but some facts (or more correctly fuzzy estimates) are interesting. While this is not an objective assessment of russian conditions, it is pretty good assement of Western sentiments toward Russia as reflected in MSM.
    Notable quotes:
    "... in the key Soviet-era fields in western Siberia, the annual rate of depletion is averaging 8 percent to 11 percent, while new projects are being curtailed. ..."
    "... According to the Telegraph [ article by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard ( 14 Jan 2016)], Transneft, the Russian crude and product pipeline monopoly, estimated that Russian crude exports could decrease in 2016 by some 460,000 barrels per day, based on producer applications for pipeline capacity. ..."
    "... At the end of Q3, Rosneft's net debt stood at $24 billion. ..."
    "... Rosneft likely cannot generate the cash to cover its investment, interest, and debt repayment obligations. ..."
    OilPrice.com

    Until recent weeks, the Russian government had some basis to harbor hope that GDP, after contracting ~3.5 percent in 2015, would return to growth within this two year window. As late as Q3 2015, the IMF estimated that in 2016, GDP would grow, if only anemically at below 1 percent.

    Recent crude price action, however, has dashed such hopes and instead has raised the prospect of a deeper and longer recession. In a "stress" test it conducted in November, the Russian Central Bank estimated that with Ural crude prices below $40 per barrel between 2016-2018, the Russian economy would contract five percent in 2016, inflation would run at 7-to-9 percent, and that these conditions "would also raise risks to inflation and financial stability.

    Central Bank efforts to stabilize the Ruble and contain inflation are one reason the "stress" test results may prove prescient. The plunge in crude prices is preventing the Central Bank from easing monetary policy to stimulate the economy. Friday, January 29, it announced that it would keep its benchmark interest rate at 11 percent, to support the Ruble (which fell as low as ~R82.5/US$ last week before recovering to ~RUB75.5/US$ on January 29) and contain inflation. In its announcement, it noted that its next move could be to raise rather than lower the benchmark rate, were inflationary pressures to increase.

    .... ... ...

    The Russian government is also contemplating asset sales (including part of its stake in Rosneft and in VTB, a major bank), but such sales would provide one-time boosts to revenue and in any case would take time to organize. Borrowing is a possibility, since Russia's sovereign debt is low, but the Russian government can't access U.S. and European capital markets, closed to it due to U.S. and EU sanctions related to the conflict over Ukraine).

    The Russian energy industry is also a target-and potentially a lucrative one, given the structure of Russian taxes on the industry. In 2015's first three quarters, for example, low crude prices decreased the revenues the Russian government collected in export customs duties from Rosneft, Russia's largest producer, by RUB 520 billion (RUB 1058 billion to RUB 738 billion), while taxes other than income taxes increased only RUB 80 billion, from RUB 919 billion to RUB 1009 billion).

    It is therefore not surprising that in September, the Russian Finance Ministry attempted to increase the mineral extraction tax. Industry opposition and opposition from other Russian ministries-citing the negative impact on investment and output-forced it to back down (Venezuela is an example, admittedly extreme, of what happens when government raids on industry revenues to fund current operations squeezes investment). It proposed instead to slow down the planned decrease in crude export duty rate (from 42 percent to 36 percent. Also under consideration is a windfall profits tax on Russian energy exporters benefitting from the Ruble's depreciation.

    Deteriorating Energy Industry Conditions

    The situation of Russian energy producers is also difficult. The Telegraph (UK) in early January quoted Russia's deputy finance minister, Maxim Oreshkin, as telling TASS earlier this month that low crude prices could lead to "hard and fast closures in coming months." The article also said noted that in the key Soviet-era fields in western Siberia, the annual rate of depletion is averaging 8 percent to 11 percent, while new projects are being curtailed.

    According to the Telegraph [ article by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard ( 14 Jan 2016)], Transneft, the Russian crude and product pipeline monopoly, estimated that Russian crude exports could decrease in 2016 by some 460,000 barrels per day, based on producer applications for pipeline capacity.

    In an interview with TASS, the Russian news agency last week, Lukoil Vice President Leonid Fedun commented that Lukoil was unlikely to produce the one hundred million tons it produced in 2015. He also said that it made more economic sense to sell one barrel of oil for $50 than two barrels for $30.

    Gazprom, Russia's natural gas giant, shows signs of stress. In recent weeks, it has instituted a series of cuts in investments. January 11, Reuters reported Gazprom cancelled one tender in December and three tenders in January for work on the construction of the Ukhta-Torzhok pipeline, a domestic key component of pipeline system which will transport natural gas directly to Germany through the Nord Stream II pipeline. According to Reuters, Gazprom Neft (of which Gazprom is the majority shareholder) recently terminated negotiations to acquire a 49 percent stake in Vietnam's Binh Son Refining and Petrochemical, a subsidiary of Vietnam's state-owned PetroVietnam.

    A January 15 Reuters article quoted "sources close to Gazrpom" as saying that Chinese economic problems and low energy prices have reduced the volume of natural gas Gazprom expects to export to China via the Power of Siberia pipeline-the project on which Gazprom has bet its future-when it is completed. Given the already questionable economics of the Power of Siberia project, reduced volumes will intensify doubts about the project's financial viability and future (Putin Is Taking A Big Risk With China Gas Deals).

    Overleveraged, Rosneft's Pain is Particularly Acute

    The pain for Rosneft, the company which the Russian government hoped would gain the size necessary to compete on equal terms with Western oil majors, is particularly acute. As part of its effort to gain scale, the company in 2013 took on massive debt-$40 billion according to Reuters-to finance its acquisition of Russian competitor TNK-BP for $55 billion.

    To help pay down debt, Rosneft, also in 2013, concluded an agreement with Chinese National Petroleum Corporation to supply 400 million metric tons of crude over twenty five years, under which Rosneft was entitled to receive prepayment equal to 30 percent of the contract's value (Rosneft received RUB 1027 billion in 2015 Q3).

    At the end of Q3, Rosneft's net debt stood at $24 billion. Yet, Alexey Bulgakov, a fixed income analyst at Sberbank CIB estimates that Rosneft may already have accessed the maximum amount of cash it can under the deal, given the decline in price from ~$100-plus per barrel in 2013 to ~$30 per barrel now and the terms of the agreement.

    And, should crude prices remain at current levels, Rosneft likely cannot generate the cash to cover its investment, interest, and debt repayment obligations.

    Russian government officials and energy producers argue that a depreciating Ruble has attenuated the impact of lower crude prices, since each US$ generates more Rubles, which is important given that the bulk of their expenses are in Rubles. This, however, isn't the only impact of a weak Ruble. It can also cause inflation, and this has been the case in Russia.

    Dalan McEndree has a BA in history, MA in European History, M.Phil. in Russian and Soviet history, Soviet economics, and International economics, and MBA in finance and marketing. He also studied at the East European Institute of Berlin's Free University and the U.S. Army Russian Institute in Garmisch, Germany (now the George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies). His career has focused on the Soviet Union and Russia, and has included fifteen years in Russia as a U.S. diplomat, in business, working both for international and Russian businesses, and in consulting. He is also the author of several self-published Russia-focused murder mysteries, and two satires.

    [Jan 31, 2016] Pepe Escobar: You have now landed in Geneva, Syria

    Jan 29, 2016 | www.rt.com

    KashNCarry

    Here's what 'the deciders' can't get their brains around come Jan 31, 2016

    Pepe Escobar: You have now landed in Geneva, Syria Pepe Escobar
    RT

    The alleged Syrian peace process now enters its Geneva charade stage. This could last months; get ready for lavish doses of posturing and bluster capable of stunning even Donald Trump.

    The notion that Geneva may be able to impersonate Damascus in a suit-and-tie pantomime is ludicrous to begin with. Even the UN envoy, the sartorially superb Staffan de Mistura, admits the Sisyphean task ahead - even if all relevant players were at the table.

    Then we have Syrian "opposition figure" George Sabra announcing that no delegation from the Riyadh-based High Negotiations Committee will be at the table in Geneva. As if Syrians needed an "opposition" instrumentalized by Saudi Arabia.

    So in the interest of providing context, here's an extremely concise recap of recent, crucial facts on the Syrian ground which the "new capital" Geneva may ignore at its own peril.

    Let's start with last summer, when Iranian Quds Force superstar commander Qasem Soleimani laid down the law, in person, in Moscow, establishing without a doubt the grim situation across the Syrian theater of war.

    Essentially Soleimani told the Kremlin and Russian intelligence that Aleppo might be about to fall; that Jabhat al-Nusra was at the doors of southern Damascus; that Idlib had fallen; and Latakia - home to Russia's naval base at Tartus - would be next.

    One can imagine the effect of this jolt of realpolitik on President Putin's mind. That clinched his resolution to stop the fall of Syria, and prevent it from becoming a Libyan remix.

    The Russian Air Force campaign turned out to be the ultimate game-changer. It is in the process of securing the Damascus-Homs-Latakia-Hama-Aleppo network - the urban, developed Western Syria that holds 70 percent of the country's population. ISIS/ISIL/Daesh and/or Jabhat al-Nusra, a.k.a. al-Qaeda in Syria, have zero chances of taking over this territory. The rest is mostly desert.

    Jaysh al-Islam - a motley crew weaponized by Saudi Arabia - still holds a few positions north of Damascus. That's containable. The country bumpkins in Daraa province, south of Damascus, could only make a push towards the capital in an impossible 1991 Desert Storm context.

    "Moderate rebels" - that Beltway concoction - did try to hold Homs and Al-Qusayr, cutting off the resupply of Damascus. They were repelled. As for the gaggle of "moderate rebels" who took all of Idlib province, they are being pounded mercilessly for four months now by the Russian Air Force. Aleppo's southern front is also being secured.

    Don't bomb "our" rebels

    It's easy to pinpoint who's livid with all the Russian action: Saudi Arabia, Turkey and - last but not least - the 'Empire of Chaos', all at the table in Geneva.

    Jabhat al-Nusra - remote-controlled by Ayman al-Zawahiri - is intimately linked to a gaggle of Salafi-jihadists in the Saudi-sponsored Army of Conquest, as well as tactically allied with myriad outfits nominally grouped in the nearly extinct Free Syrian Army (FSA).

    The CIA, using the Saudis for plausible deniability, fully weaponized "vetted" FSA outfits, which received, among other things, TOW anti-tank missiles. Guess who "intercepted" virtually all the weapons: Jabhat al-Nusra.

    The follow-up was nothing short of hilarious: Washington, Ankara and Riyadh furiously denouncing Moscow for bombing their "moderate rebels" and not ISIS/ISIL/Daesh.

    Slowly but surely, the Syrian Arab Army (SAA), parallel to the Russian offensive, retook the initiative. The "4+1" - Russia, Syria, Iran (Special Forces, many of them from Afghanistan), Iraq, plus Hezbollah - started coordinating their efforts. Latakia Province - which hosts not only Tartus but the Khmeimim Russian airbase - is now under total control by Damascus.

    And that brings us to Ankara's nightmares. Russian Air Force smashed most of Ankara's Turkmen proxies - heavily infiltrated by Turkish fascists - in northwest Syria. That was the key reason for Sultan Erdogan's desperate move of shooting down the Su-24.

    It's by now clear that the winners, as it stands, on the ground, are the "4+1", and the losers are Saudi Arabia and Turkey. So no wonder the Saudis want at least some of their proxies at the negotiating table in Geneva, while Turkey tries to change the subject by barring the Syrian Kurds: these are accused of being terrorists, much more than ISIS/ISIL/Daesh.

    Exit Geneva, enter Jarabulus

    As if this was not messy enough, US 'Think Tankland' is now spinning there is an "understanding" between Washington and Ankara for what will be, for all practical purposes, a Turkish invasion of northern Syria, under the pretext of Ankara smashing ISIS/ISIL/Daesh in northern Aleppo.

    This is utter nonsense. Ankara's game is three-pronged; prop up their heavily battered Turkmen proxies; keep very much alive the corridor to Aleppo - a corridor that crucially includes the Jihadi Highway between Turkey and Syria; and most of all prevent by all means necessary that YPG Kurds bridge the gap from Afrin to Kobani and unite all three Syrian Kurd cantons near the Turkish border.

    None of this has anything to do with fighting ISISL/ISIL/Daesh. And the nuttiest part is that Washington is actually assisting the Syrian Kurds with air support. Either the Pentagon supports the Syrian Kurds or Erdogan's invasion of northern Syria; schizophrenia does not apply here.

    A desperate Erdogan may be foolish enough to confront the Russian Air Force during his purported "invasion". Putin is on the record saying response to any provocation will be immediate, and lethal. To top it off, the Russians and Americans are actually coordinating airspace action in northern Syria.

    This is bound to be the next big thing, fully eclipsing the Geneva pantomime. The YPG and its allies are planning a major attack to finally seize the 100-kilometer stretch of the Syria-Turkey border still controlled by ISIS/ISIL/Daesh - thus reuniting their three cantons.

    Erdogan was blunt; if the YPG pushes west of the Euphrates, it's war. Well, looks like war then. The YPG is getting ready to attack the crucial towns of Jarabulus and Manbij. Russia most certainly will aid the YPG to reconquer Jarabulus. And that will directly pit - once again - Turkey against Russia on the ground.

    Geneva? That's for tourists; the capital of the Syrian horror show is now Jarabulus.

    [Jan 29, 2016] The so-called experts know the real situation yet they continue to cloud the issue with ideologically based biased spin by Leonard Brecken

    Notable quotes:
    "... Thanks to a great post from John Kemp from Reuters we now know who is behind the magically higher imports starting in 2015 and that continues. This incremental 500,000 barrels per day of imports has been the primary reason for why the U.S. market remains imbalanced (although not nearly as much as what is portrayed in media). ..."
    "... The motives for Saudi Arabia's oil market strategies today – whether for vengeance, ego, politics or irrationality – cannot be known for sure. But it surely was not economics, given the price drop in 2015. A 50 percent drop in price on 9 million barrels per day (mb/d) was not made up by a 500,000 bpd [exports] increase. ..."
    "... I should also note that almost all of the Saudi production ramp up in 2015 went to fuel this surge. We should recall a U.S. State Department visit to Saudi Arabia in late summer 2014 when all of this started, as the dollar rose and Russia Ruble imploded. In light of the recent EPA methane crack down and tax levy on U.S. wells, one has to wonder how much of a coincidence all this is, as there is clearly a war on fossil energy as the global warming agenda ramps up. ..."
    January 29, 2016 | OilPrice.com

    The so-called experts know this yet they continue to cloud the issue with ideologically based biased spin.

    Thanks to a great post from John Kemp from Reuters we now know who is behind the magically higher imports starting in 2015 and that continues. This incremental 500,000 barrels per day of imports has been the primary reason for why the U.S. market remains imbalanced (although not nearly as much as what is portrayed in media).

    The motives for Saudi Arabia's oil market strategies today – whether for vengeance, ego, politics or irrationality – cannot be known for sure. But it surely was not economics, given the price drop in 2015. A 50 percent drop in price on 9 million barrels per day (mb/d) was not made up by a 500,000 bpd [exports] increase.

    I should also note that almost all of the Saudi production ramp up in 2015 went to fuel this surge. We should recall a U.S. State Department visit to Saudi Arabia in late summer 2014 when all of this started, as the dollar rose and Russia Ruble imploded. In light of the recent EPA methane crack down and tax levy on U.S. wells, one has to wonder how much of a coincidence all this is, as there is clearly a war on fossil energy as the global warming agenda ramps up.

    ... ... ...

    [Jan 29, 2016] Russia probably reached a plateau of oil production in 2015

    Notable quotes:
    "... As regards the future, I agree that Russia is on a plateau, with potential +/- 1-2% annual fluctuations around 2014-2015 average levels. ..."
    "... Is it possible that there is some political bias in those reports by the Russian Oil Minister? ..."
    "... Not any more likely than political bias by the EIA or NEB, imo. I think EIA numbers for the US are pretty good, NEBs numbers for Canada are best and the Russian Energy Ministry numbers for Russia would be best. ..."
    peakoilbarrel.com

    AlexS, 01/27/2016 at 4:45 pm

    "Russia peaked in January at 10,246,000 bpd and in Octber was down 106,000 bpd to 10,140,000 bpd. Russia appears to be on a plateau, likely before a slow decline that begins in 2016."

    Oh yes, the EIA doesn't know exactly how much oil is produced in the U.S., but they surely know better than the Russian Energy Ministry what are production volumes in Russia.

    As regards the future, I agree that Russia is on a plateau, with potential +/- 1-2% annual fluctuations around 2014-2015 average levels.

    Russian crude and condensate production (mb/d)

    source: Russian Energy Ministry

    Ron Patterson, 01/27/2016 at 5:53 pm
    Alex, the EIA depends entirely on other sources for its Russian oil production reports. This is very similar to OPEC's "Secondary Sources". The EIA and JODI, for the last three years or so, are extremely close with their Russian production numbers. They both report numbers well below what the Russian Oil Minister reports. And they both often report a monthly decline in production when the official Russian numbers report an increase in production.

    Is it possible that there is some political bias in those reports by the Russian Oil Minister?

    Just asking.

    Dennis Coyne, 01/28/2016 at 7:31 am
    Hi Ron,

    Not any more likely than political bias by the EIA or NEB, imo. I think EIA numbers for the US are pretty good, NEB's numbers for Canada are best and the Russian Energy Ministry numbers for Russia would be best.

    Ron Patterson , 01/28/2016 at 8:42 am
    Dennis, I do appreciate your input but sometimes you just try way too hard to be fair. ;-) What motive would the EIA or the NEB have for fudging the numbers? And which way would they fudge them if they did?

    A perfect example: If you go to OPEC's MOMR and check the production numbers for each OPEC nation, you will find two different sets of numbers. One set will be from "Secondary Sources" and the other set will be from "Direct Communication". The direct communication numbers, for several countries, is always off by several hundred barrels per day. For others the two sets of numbers are relatively close. The difference is some have a motive for fudging the numbers, others do not. And also, secondary sources, such as Platts and others, is almost always more accurate than the numbers produced by direct communication with the country itself.

    Also Dennis, I must ask, and this is very important, does the EIA or NEB have a reputation of producing propaganda? Does the Soviet Government have a reputation of producing propaganda?

    Now I do fault the EIA in some of their numbers. But they do not fudge the numbers deliberately. But due to budget restraints or lack of a good data source they sometimes just seem to insert a number. But there is no malicious intent here. They don't have a good number so they just use the last good number they had… again.

    As to those Russian numbers. JODI, when they reduced Russia's numbers significantly a few years ago, was highly criticized for doing so. (They just brought them into line with what the EIA was already reporting.) They said they had several sources for those numbers and stood by them. Now the JODI numbers and the EIA numbers still vary but not by any significant amount. Prior to that adjustment JODI had been using Russia's direct communication numbers.

    Bottom line, I trust the EIA's and JODI's "Secondary Sources" far more than I trust Russia's "Direct Communication".

    Dennis Coyne, 01/28/2016 at 9:58 am
    Hi Ron,

    You may not have noticed, but the Soviet Union no longer exists. ;-)

    AlexS is very sharp, if the Russian Energy ministry was fudging its numbers he would be aware.

    I have no evidence that the Russian Energy ministry is fudging any numbers and to assume otherwise is a mistake in my opinion.

    I agree the OPEC numbers based on direct communication may be fudged, there is no auditing of OPEC data.

    The Russians report in metric tonnes rather than barrels or cubic meters so the output numbers depend on the appropriate average density of the oil.

    The difference between US and Russian data may be a matter of how C5 is reported, in the US C5 produced in the field is counted with crude and C5 produced in a natural gas processing plant is considered NGL.

    This is a strange distinction unique to the United States. In Canada all pentanes and pentanes plus are grouped together regardless of where they are produced, perhaps Russia does the same.

    If so, it is the US EIA which is not accounting for C+C properly rather than the Russians, so I am being both fair and logical if my guess is correct.

    I don't know Russian so I cannot read the Russian Energy Ministry website. Perhaps AlexS can comment on how pentanes( and C5+) from natural gas processing plants in Russia are reported. Are they included in C+C output numbers (similar to the way Canada reports its data)?

    Luís, 01/28/2016 at 3:34 am
    Hi AlexS. It would be nice to have a link to the source of that data. Looking at the discrepancy to other datasets I work with, I would guess it is not reporting exactly the same products. The EIA C+C dataset is pretty restrictive (as it should be), for instance, it only includes fossil products that are stable in liquid state at the surface.

    Cheers.

    AlexS, 01/28/2016 at 7:34 am
    Luís,

    The source of data is Russia's energy ministry's website: http://minenergo.gov.ru/en/activity/statistic

    The numbers are in tons per months. I am using 7.3 barrels/ton ratio to convert into b/d. Condensate is included, but not NGLs.

    More detailed data by each company and by each subsidiary of large vertically integrated companies is available in the CDU TEK (a Russian analogue of the EIA) website, but it's not free.

    http://www.riatec.ru/en/catalog/operative_data/section.php?SECTION_ID=117

    These detailed numbers are republished in a number of Russian oil&gas industry journals (also not free). Detailed monthly and annual averages in kb/d are also published by Energy Intelligence (paid site) http://www.energyintel.com/pages/login.aspx?fid=art&DocId=913740

    But they are using 7.33 conversion ratio, so their numbers in kb/d are slightly higher than mine. >

    [Jan 29, 2016] Crude Combat Riyadh Reduced Oil Prices to Hurt Russia and Iran

    sputniknews.com
    By reducing oil prices, Saudi Arabia is waging a secret war against Russia and Iran, according to political analyst Bassam Tahhan.

    In an interview with RT , political analyst Bassam Tahhan said that Saudi Arabia and the other countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council are trying to force down oil prices in order to harm Iran and a number of other oil-producing countries, including Russia.

    "A secret war is being waged by Saudi Arabia and Gulf Cooperation Council states which are slashing oil prices so as to strangle Iran, Russia, Algeria and Venezuela, as well as the entire 'anti-American' axis created by these countries," Tahhan said.

    He explained that all those countries had refused to adhere to Washington's demands with regard to Ukraine , Syria and Yemen .

    According to Tahhan, the oil spat between Riyadh and Tehran is unlikely to lead to a war, given Iran's military potential and the sheer territory of the country.

    What's more, he said, Saudi Arabia will fail to prod the UN or the West to issue a resolution to condemn Iran and authorize invasion of the country.

    Rather, Saudi Arabia itself may be attacked by Iran's allies, such as Yemen, a scenario that Tahhan said may see Saudi oil fields destroyed and oil prices rise.

    At the same time, he noted that the United States is unlikely to say "no" to the war between Saudi Arabia and Iran, because Washington could supply arms to both parties to the conflict.

    Earlier this month, international business analyst Ralph Winnie told Sputnik that Saudi Arabia has dropped its oil prices to try and wreck the Iranian economy and keep Tehran's oil exports out of major European markets.

    "The Saudis are looking to gain a competitive advantage: this is a response to the lifting of Western economic sanctions on Iran , which allow the Iranians to reenter the global energy marketplace," he said.

    His remarks came after the Saudi oil giant Aramco announced that it would cut oil prices for Europe, apparently in preparation for Iran's resumption of oil exports to the region later this year.

    He was echoed by Executive Intelligence Review senior editor Jeff Steinberg , who said in a separate interview with Sputnik that by slashing their oil prices, the Saudis were targeting US and Russian oil producers as well as the Iranian ones.

    [Jan 27, 2016] The Implications of Foreign Minister Lavrovs Snub of Victoria Nuland

    naked capitalism
    timbers, January 27, 2016 at 9:30 am

    "…the US need not push Russia into a corner, market forces are doing that work far more efficiently."

    I think you're confusing markets with the US government.

    It is the fall in the price of oil in part caused by political decisions, and partly Obama's illegal economic sanctions on Russia and US lies and propaganda and regime change directed at Russia that are "efficiently" doing what they're doing.

    Would be very surprised if Washington is successful with any of it's "market forces" regarding Russia because Russia knows if it loses this matchup in Syria and retreats, the part that comes next is it Uncle Sam funding ISIS like terrorists on Russian soil instead of Syria as it is now. And if Russia can free itself of Western economic orthodoxy and dump the dollar, it will never fear a falling Rubble so much ever again. Lets hope Putin orders a moving away of short term Russian dollar holdings, so that a deliberate Russian default sees the West lose more in lost Russian payments than it can seize in Russian assets held in their countries.

    Then who would "market forces be efficiently working for"?

    In broad simplified stroke, Russia is fighting on the side of the angels and US is the Darth Vader of the world. The U.N. has said we have the biggest refugee crisis since WWII and the refugees are all coming from nations the US is or has done regime change in. Aside for this meaning Obama is directly responsible for the suffering if tens of millions of families and deaths of hundreds of thousands, it also is producing maybe dangerous right wing political reactions in Europe.

    The Russians are smart enough to know the difference between economic sanctions and military threats and US funded/promoted terrorism. I've watched their actions long enough to trust them to make sound, intelligent responses (though was disappointed Lavrov agreed to allow Obama&Co funded Al-qaeda like terrorists to be included as legitimate political opponents of Assad in the peace talks).

    hidflect, January 27, 2016 at 6:56 am

    Why the hell should he shake her hand? She's an ideological, irrational hate-monger who despises Russia. Kerry was an ass for bringing her along.

    susan the other, January 27, 2016 at 1:58 pm

    Kerry was probably disciplining her or rehabilitating her; there musts be a tempered new consensus at State. You're coming with me Vicki and you are going to behave like a rational, sincere diplomat because you've got some big fences to mend.

    ltr, January 27, 2016 at 8:01 am

    Victoria Nuland is a monstrous diplomat who has soufght to cause or caused untold harm in American-Russian relations. She reflected Hillary Clinton's thinking and evidently reflects John Kerry's and ultimately the President's thinking.

    ltr, January 27, 2016 at 10:17 am

    Correcting and adding:

    Victoria Nuland is a monstrous diplomat who has sought to cause or caused untold harm in American-Russian relations. She reflected Hillary Clinton's thinking and evidently reflects John Kerry's and ultimately the President's thinking. (I could care less about the shaking or not shaking. Nuland's presence is a sign of disrespect to Russia and the Russians know that perfectly well. This post is needed and excellent.)

    susan the other, January 27, 2016 at 2:08 pm

    I think her presence and her humiliation (notice Kerry left the room) are the equivalent of an apology to Lavrov and Russia for her dingbat, destructive role in Ukraine.

    McKillop, January 27, 2016 at 10:55 am

    If Nuland and her posse are as instrumental in the devastation brought to Ukraine as reported then I think she deserves a damned good shaking.

    RUKidding, January 27, 2016 at 11:05 am

    Interesting, thanks. I think the article is worthy. I certainly could not blame Lavrov for snubbing this horrid excuse for a human being. The Kaganate of Nuland represents a portion of Obama's foreign policy and reflects what will be ahead should HRC win the election. The entire Kagan family should not be hired to do this work on behalf of "We the People," but there they are… doing their evil thing.

    oho, January 27, 2016 at 11:06 am

    Bill Kristol and David Brooks cries out wondering where all the conservatives have gone?

    The answer is right there….Nuland, Kristol and Co. have driven the GOP base who are even mildly aware of foreign affairs to Trump's camp.

    Gaylord, January 27, 2016 at 12:41 pm

    Nuland was not even appropriately dressed for a diplomatic meeting IMO.

    shinola, January 27, 2016 at 1:45 pm

    I guess I'll never be a diplomat.

    I would have spit on her (& I'm Amurkin)

    Wat, January 27, 2016 at 2:24 pm

    Perhaps Nuland thought Lavrov was a subject of some kind. She's probably too arrogant and stupid to figure it out, but she has now encountered a legitimate opponent. When the day of reckoning comes for her, she may learn what responsibility is.

    [Jan 26, 2016] Russian economy contracts 3.7% on falling oil prices

    Notable quotes:
    "... The average monthly salary in Russia last year was 30,311 rubles ($381). ..."
    RT Business

    Russia's Federal Statistics Service says the country's economy contracted 3.7 percent last year. This corresponds to the prediction from the Economic Development Ministry.


    Unemployment in Russia grew to 7.4 percent last year or 4.2 million jobless.

    Retail trade turnover fell by 10 percent compared to the previous year at 27.6 trillion rubles (or $452.5 billion at 61 rubles per dollar, average exchange rate in 2015). Capital investment decreased by 8.4 percent to $230 billion.

    Car manufacturing and industrial production have also seen a decline. In 2015, Russia's automobile production was down 27.7 percent. Industrial production contracted 3.4 percent from 2014.

    Positive news came from the agricultural sector. Preliminary estimates for agricultural production show an increase of 3 percent to $82 billion. This figure includes data for all farmers - from households to large holdings.

    Last week, the International Monetary Fund predicted a 3.7 percent contraction for the Russian economy in 2015. The IMF also forecast Russia's GDP to drop this year from negative 0.6 percent to negative one percent.

    In its 2016 outlook, the Economic Development Ministry is forecasting a 0.8 percent GDP fall revising its previous projection of 0.7 percent growth, according to business daily Vedomosti.

    The main reason for the downgrade is collapsing oil prices that have fallen $6 per barrel this year to $31 which is still a rebound from last week's 12-year low of $26. Brent crude was trading at $31.1 per barrel at 2:00pm GMT on Monday, while US WTI oil stood at $31.27

    Tom Brite

    As Russia's inflation reached double-digits last year, Russians saw their real wages decline by 9.5 percent compared to 2014, data published by the Rosstat state statistics service showed Monday.

    In December 2015, real wages of Russians dropped 10 percent when compared to the same month in 2014, according to Rosstat data. The average monthly salary in Russia last year was 30,311 rubles ($381).

    [Jan 25, 2016] Iraq set record in December producing 4.13 million barrels a day

    peakoilbarrel.com

    Greenbub, 01/25/2016 at 8:13 pm

    "Iraq's oil ministry said on Monday that the country had record output in December, with its fields in the central and southern regions producing as much as 4.13 million barrels a day."

    That does not even include Kurdistan.

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/markets-feb25-1.3418170

    AlexS, 01/25/2016 at 9:38 pm
    Iraq may further raise oil output this year: senior official

    Mon Jan 25, 2016
    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-iraq-oil-idUSKCN0V3193?mod=related&channelName=ousivMolt

    Iraq may further raise oil output this year, reaching levels as high as 4 million barrels per day (bpd) from the country's south, a senior Iraqi oil official, who asked not to be named, said on Monday.
    Iraq has been producing from its southern fields around 3.7-3.8 million bpd in recent months.

    [Jan 25, 2016] George Soros The hidden hand behind color revolutions -- Puppet Masters

    Notable quotes:
    "... Looking beneath the facade of the color revolutionary movement we also find a desire-based behavioral structure, in particular one that has been built upon historical lessons offered by social movements and periods of political upheaval. ..."
    "... It then makes sense that the personnel of such operations include perception managers, PR firms, pollsters and opinion-makers in the social media. Through the operational infrastructure, these entities work in close coordination with intelligence agents, local and foreign activists, strategists and tacticians, tax-exempt foundations, governmental agencies, and a host of non- governmental organizations. ..."
    "... Collectively, their job is to make a palace coup (of their sponsorship) seem like a social revolution; to help fill the streets with fearless demonstrators advocating on behalf of a government of their choosing, which then legitimizes the sham governments with the authenticity of popular democracy and revolutionary fervor. ..."
    "... Their effectiveness is predicated on their ability to deceive, targeting both local populations and foreign audiences with highly-misleading interpretations of the underlying causes provoking these events. ..."
    "... The American people must quickly learn the formula behind color revolutions, destabilizations, and the agendas of the world oligarchy before it becomes too late for us all. They must learn that simply because leaders appear to them, attempt to speak the same language and articulate rage does not mean that these leaders are men of the people. ..."
    "... the wanton destruction of communities belonging to you or your neighbors is not only counterproductive, it produces rage that will be aimed back at you, and justifiably so. The entire country is being played like a fiddle. ..."
    Sott.net
    The relevance of the Soros connection may seem confusing to many. Certainly, however, no one in their right mind will suggest that a man that has made his fortune bankrupting nations and impoverishing their peoples lies awake at night wringing his hands over concerns for black people in America.

    Soros is most well-known for playing a major role in the funding and facilitating of the "Bulldozer Revolution" in Serbia that overthrew Slobodan Milosevic in 2000, Georgia's "Rose Revolution" of 2003, the 2006 push to move Turkey toward a more Islamist governing structure, and even the Occupy movement in the United States among a great many others - none of which brought anything other than greater misery, impoverishment, and police state mechanisms to bear on the general public. The Occupy movement, being the only exception, still brought nothing to its participants except the opportunity to burn off excess anger and energy along with a few cracked protester skulls. It was otherwise an incredible waste of time.

    Regardless, the methods being used by the Soros machine in terms of the #blacklivesmatter and other related campaigns across the country are much the same as those used in Europe to usher in greater austerity, police states, and fascism through government-coup and social protest - i.e. a coordinated media campaign to provide the general public with a false perception of events as well as a false narrative, the use of social media and slogans, and the deployment of "swarming adolescents" in the streets.

    When media campaigns alone are not enough, there are other methods that are able to be implemented if need be. For instance, a Mother Jones report revealed the fact that in some areas where rioting began, there appears to have been a concerted effort on the part of the authorities to create an environment in which riots would be inevitable. For example, in an instance where it was reported that teens in Baltimore attacked police by throwing rocks, it was never mentioned that police had corralled these teens - who should have been on their way home - off the bus and into an area in between the mall and the high school. According to onlookers, it appeared that both the teens and the police were surprised at the situation - the police surprised at the lack of violence and the teens surprised that they were kept from going home. Eventually, rocks and bottles were reportedly thrown at police and the situation deteriorated from there. Of course, the entire story was never fully reported in the mainstream press. Still, while the rocks and bottles may have started from those in the crowd, others may justifiably wonder if there were not provocateurs already placed simply waiting to cause violence as soon as the tension had reached a boiling point. As it is, it is very likely that protesters and police alike were dupes in a devious game.

    Consider also the fact that the Baltimore authorities, despite implementing heavy-handed tactics against high schoolers on their way home, allowed criminals, thieves, and violent thugs to prey upon innocent people, private property, and communities for quite some time without a serious effort to stop them. In fact, Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake even openly admitted that the looters were allowed to riot when she stated that "We also gave those who wish to destroy space to do that as well." The police were prevented from actually stopping the riots and were kept largely unequipped as well. In other words, the riots were both allowed and encouraged until they had reached a boiling point and the National Guard was called in.

    Of course, the color revolution and destabilization is not merely some communiqué presented to a small group of people that organically takes on a life of its own. There is an entire science behind the application of a movement of destabilization both when it takes place overseas as well as when it takes place domestically. As Pottenger and Frieson of Color Revolutions and Geopolitics write,

    Many are the professions that utilize this type of understanding, including (but not limited to) marketing, advertising, public relations, politics and law-making, radio, television, journalism and news, film, music, general business and salesmanship; each of them selling, branding, promoting, entertaining, sloganeering, framing, explaining, creating friends and enemies, arguing likes and dislikes, setting the boundaries of good and evil: in many cases using their talents to circumvent their audiences' intellect, the real target being emotional, oftentimes even subconscious.

    Looking beneath the facade of the color revolutionary movement we also find a desire-based behavioral structure, in particular one that has been built upon historical lessons offered by social movements and periods of political upheaval.

    It then makes sense that the personnel of such operations include perception managers, PR firms, pollsters and opinion-makers in the social media. Through the operational infrastructure, these entities work in close coordination with intelligence agents, local and foreign activists, strategists and tacticians, tax-exempt foundations, governmental agencies, and a host of non- governmental organizations.

    Collectively, their job is to make a palace coup (of their sponsorship) seem like a social revolution; to help fill the streets with fearless demonstrators advocating on behalf of a government of their choosing, which then legitimizes the sham governments with the authenticity of popular democracy and revolutionary fervor.

    Because the operatives perform much of their craft in the open, their effectiveness is heavily predicated upon their ability to veil the influence backing them, and the long-term intentions guiding their work.

    Their effectiveness is predicated on their ability to deceive, targeting both local populations and foreign audiences with highly-misleading interpretations of the underlying causes provoking these events.

    With this explanation in mind, consider the description provided by Ian Traynor of the Guardian regarding the "revolutions" and "mass movements" which was taking place in Ukraine, Serbia, Belarus, and Georgia in 2004 and the time of the writing of his article. Indeed, Traynor's depiction of the methodology used by the Foundations, NGOs, and government agencies stirring up dissent and popular revolt is equally illuminating. Traynor writes,
    In the centre of Belgrade, there is a dingy office staffed by computer-literate youngsters who call themselves the Centre for Non-violent Resistance. If you want to know how to beat a regime that controls the mass media, the judges, the courts, the security apparatus and the voting stations, the young Belgrade activists are for hire.
    They emerged from the anti-Milosevic student movement, Otpor, meaning resistance. The catchy, single-word branding is important. In Georgia last year, the parallel student movement was Khmara. In Belarus, it was Zubr. In Ukraine, it is Pora, meaning high time. Otpor also had a potent, simple slogan that appeared everywhere in Serbia in 2000 - the two words "gotov je", meaning "he's finished", a reference to Milosevic. A logo of a black-and-white clenched fist completed the masterful marketing.

    In Ukraine, the equivalent is a ticking clock, also signalling that the Kuchma regime's days are numbered.

    Stickers, spray paint and websites are the young activists' weapons. Irony and street comedy mocking the regime have been hugely successful in puncturing public fear and enraging the powerful.

    These slogans and symbols are the product of mass marketers employed by State Departments and intelligence agencies for the sole purpose of destabilizing and/or overthrowing a democratically elected or unfavorable (to the oligarchy)government.

    The details and techniques of the manipulation of mass numbers of people have only continued to become more and more advanced and sophisticated, particularly with the advent of social media.

    As Jonathan Mowat wrote,

    As in the case of the new communication technologies, the potential effectiveness of angry youth in postmodern coups has long been under study. As far back as 1967, Dr. Fred Emery, then director of the Tavistock Institute, and an expert on the "hypnotic effects" of television, specified that the then new phenomenon of "swarming adolescents" found at rock concerts could be effectively used to bring down the nation-state by the end of the 1990s. This was particularly the case, as Dr. Emery reported in "The next thirty years: concepts, methods and anticipations,'' in the group's "Human Relations," because the phenomena was associated with "rebellious hysteria." The British military created the Tavistock Institute as its psychological warfare arm following World War I; it has been the forerunner of such strategic planning ever since. Dr. Emery's concept saw immediate application in NATO's use of "swarming adolescents" in toppling French President Charles De Gaulle in 1967.[1]
    [...]
    In November 1989, Case Western Reserve in Cleveland, Ohio, under the aegis of that university's "Program for Social Innovations in Global Management," began a series of conferences to review progress towards that strategic objective, which was reported on in "Human Relations" in 1991. There, Dr. Howard Perlmutter, a professor of "Social Architecture'' at the Wharton School, and a follower of Dr. Emery, stressed that "rock video in Kathmandu," was an appropriate image of how states with traditional cultures could be destabilized, thereby creating the possibility of a "global civilization." There are two requirements for such a transformation, he added, "building internationally committed networks of international and locally committed organizations,'' and "creating global events" through "the transformation of a local event into one having virtually instantaneous international implications through mass-media."[2]
    The American people must quickly learn the formula behind color revolutions, destabilizations, and the agendas of the world oligarchy before it becomes too late for us all. They must learn that simply because "leaders" appear to them, attempt to speak the same language and articulate rage does not mean that these leaders are men of the people.

    Protests are necessary. Directed rage may also be necessary. But the wanton destruction of communities belonging to you or your neighbors is not only counterproductive, it produces rage that will be aimed back at you, and justifiably so. The entire country is being played like a fiddle. Baltimore is not an isolated collection of dupes, it is a microcosm. It is time the American people wise up and become street smart before it is too late.

    [Jan 25, 2016] Congress is Writing the President a Blank Check for War by Ron Pau

    Notable quotes:
    "... The senior Senator from Kentucky is scheming, along with Sen. Lindsey Graham, to bypass normal Senate procedure to fast-track legislation to grant the president the authority to wage unlimited war for as long as he or his successors may wish. ..."
    "... The legislation makes the unconstitutional Iraq War authorization of 2002 look like a walk in the park. It will allow this president and future presidents to wage war against ISIS without restrictions on time, geographic scope, or the use of ground troops. ..."
    "... President Obama has already far surpassed even his predecessor, George W. Bush, in taking the country to war without even the fig leaf of an authorization. ..."
    "... Instead of impeachment, which he deserved for the disastrous Libya invasion, Congress said nothing. House Republicans only managed to bring the subject up when they thought they might gain political points exploiting the killing of US Ambassador Chris Stevens in Benghazi. ..."
    "... Vice President Joe Biden said that if the upcoming peace talks in Geneva are not successful, the US is prepared for a massive military intervention in Syria. Such an action would likely place the US military face to face with the Russian military, whose assistance was requested by the Syrian government. In contrast, we must remember that the US military is operating in Syria in violation of international law. ..."
    "... At the insistence of Saudi Arabia and with US backing, the representatives of the Syrian opposition at the Geneva peace talks will include members of the Army of Islam, which has fought with al-Qaeda in Syria. Does anyone expect these kinds of people to compromise? Isn't al-Qaeda supposed to be our enemy? ..."
    "... The purpose of the Legislative branch of our government is to restrict the Executive branch's power. The Founders understood that an all-powerful king who could wage war at will was the greatest threat to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That is why they created a people's branch, the Congress, to prevent the emergence of an all-powerful autocrat to drag the country to endless war. Sadly, Congress is surrendering its power to declare war. ..."
    January 24, 2016 | The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity
    While the Washington snowstorm dominated news coverage this week, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell was operating behind the scenes to rush through the Senate what may be the most massive transfer of power from the Legislative to the Executive branch in our history. The senior Senator from Kentucky is scheming, along with Sen. Lindsey Graham, to bypass normal Senate procedure to fast-track legislation to grant the president the authority to wage unlimited war for as long as he or his successors may wish.

    The legislation makes the unconstitutional Iraq War authorization of 2002 look like a walk in the park. It will allow this president and future presidents to wage war against ISIS without restrictions on time, geographic scope, or the use of ground troops. It is a completely open-ended authorization for the president to use the military as he wishes for as long as he (or she) wishes. Even President Obama has expressed concern over how willing Congress is to hand him unlimited power to wage war.

    President Obama has already far surpassed even his predecessor, George W. Bush, in taking the country to war without even the fig leaf of an authorization. In 2011 the president invaded Libya, overthrew its government, and oversaw the assassination of its leader, without even bothering to ask for Congressional approval. Instead of impeachment, which he deserved for the disastrous Libya invasion, Congress said nothing. House Republicans only managed to bring the subject up when they thought they might gain political points exploiting the killing of US Ambassador Chris Stevens in Benghazi.

    It is becoming more clear that Washington plans to expand its war in the Middle East. Last week the media reported that the US military had taken over an air base in eastern Syria, and Defense Secretary Ashton Carter said that the US would send in the 101st Airborne Division to retake Mosul in Iraq and to attack ISIS headquarters in Raqqa, Syria. Then on Saturday, Vice President Joe Biden said that if the upcoming peace talks in Geneva are not successful, the US is prepared for a massive military intervention in Syria. Such an action would likely place the US military face to face with the Russian military, whose assistance was requested by the Syrian government. In contrast, we must remember that the US military is operating in Syria in violation of international law.

    The prospects of such an escalation are not all that far-fetched. At the insistence of Saudi Arabia and with US backing, the representatives of the Syrian opposition at the Geneva peace talks will include members of the Army of Islam, which has fought with al-Qaeda in Syria. Does anyone expect these kinds of people to compromise? Isn't al-Qaeda supposed to be our enemy?

    The purpose of the Legislative branch of our government is to restrict the Executive branch's power. The Founders understood that an all-powerful king who could wage war at will was the greatest threat to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That is why they created a people's branch, the Congress, to prevent the emergence of an all-powerful autocrat to drag the country to endless war. Sadly, Congress is surrendering its power to declare war.

    Let's be clear: If Senate Majority Leader McConnell succeeds in passing this open-ended war authorization, the US Constitution will be all but a dead letter.


    Copyright © 2016 by RonPaul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.
    Please donate to the Ron Paul Institute

    [Jan 24, 2016] Iraq potential for increasing oil production

    Notable quotes:
    "... Those foreign company contracts are allowing the strip mining of Iraqi oil fields. It's pretty criminal to produce them that way. ..."
    peakoilbarrel.com
    Watcher, 01/24/2016 at 3:13 pm
    Kirkuk estimated 9 billion barrels remaining proven and recoverable. Flowing 500K bpd.

    Rumailia estimated 17 billion barrels remaining proven and recoverable. (BP targets output of 2.1 mbpd. 22 yrs of flow. 2.1 is up from 1.6 mbpd now)

    Majnoon estimated 13 billion barrels remaining proven and recoverable. (Petronas and RDS have the contract and target 1.8 mbpd within 7 yrs (of 2009), interim target from 45K bpd in March 2010 to 175K bpd in 2012. Latest RDS website bragging says now 210K bpd. They ain't gonna hit 1.8 mbpd this year)

    West Qurna estimated 43 billion barrels remaining proven and recoverable. (Exxon RDS won the Phase 1 (9B in reserves) contract planning 0.27 mbpd to 2.2 mbpd. 7 yrs from 2009. 480K bpd in 2013)

    (Lukoil now owns 75% of the rights to WQ Phase II 13B remaining proven and recoverable, planning for raising from 180K bpd in 2012 to 1.8 mbpd by 2020).

    Several other single digit billion barrel fields in Iraq.

    Fernando Leanme, 01/24/2016 at 4:12 pm
    Those foreign company contracts are allowing the strip mining of Iraqi oil fields. It's pretty criminal to produce them that way.
    Jeffrey J. Brown, 01/24/2016 at 4:18 pm
    Globally, we consumed about 270 GB of C+C in past 10 years, and as I have occasionally opined, it seems likely that actual global crude oil production has been on an "Undulating Plateau" since 2005.

    [Jan 23, 2016] U.S. Relies Heavily on Saudi Money to Support Syrian Rebels

    Notable quotes:
    "... And yet the alliance persists, kept afloat on a sea of Saudi money and a recognition of mutual self-interest. In addition to Saudi Arabia's vast oil reserves and role as the spiritual anchor of the Sunni Muslim world, the long intelligence relationship helps explain why the United States has been reluctant to openly criticize Saudi Arabia for its human rights abuses ..."
    "... Although the Saudis have been public about their help arming rebel groups in Syria, the extent of their partnership with the CIA's covert action campaign and their direct financial support had not been disclosed. Details were pieced together in interviews with a half-dozen current and former American officials and sources from several Persian Gulf countries. Most spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the program. ..."
    "... Months later, Mr. Obama gave his approval for the CIA to begin directly arming and training the rebels from a base in Jordan, amending the Timber Sycamore program to allow lethal assistance. Under the new arrangement, the CIA took the lead in training, while Saudi Arabia's intelligence agency, the General Intelligence Directorate, provided money and weapons, including TOW anti-tank missiles. ..."
    "... The Qataris have also helped finance the training and allowed a Qatari base to be used as an additional training location. But American officials said Saudi Arabia was by far the largest contributor to the operation. While the Obama administration saw this coalition as a selling point in Congress, some, including Senator Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat, raised questions about why the CIA needed Saudi money for the operation, according to one former American official. Mr. Wyden declined to be interviewed, but his office released a statement calling for more transparency. "Senior officials have said publicly that the U.S. is trying to build up the battlefield capabilities of the anti-Assad opposition, but they haven't provided the public with details about how this is being done, which U.S. agencies are involved, or which foreign partners those agencies are working with," the statement said. ..."
    "... While the Saudis have financed previous CIA missions with no strings attached, the money for Syria comes with expectations, current and former officials said. "They want a seat at the table, and a say in what the agenda of the table is going to be," said Bruce Riedel, a former CIA analyst and now a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution . ..."
    "... "The more that the argument becomes, 'We need them as a counterterrorism partner,' the less persuasive it is," said William McCants, a former State Department counterterrorism adviser and the author of a book on the Islamic State . "If this is purely a conversation about counterterrorism cooperation, and if the Saudis are a big part of the problem in creating terrorism in the first place, then how persuasive of an argument is it?" ..."
    "... Prince Mohammed bin Nayef, the Saudi interior minister who took over the effort to arm the Syrian rebels from Prince Bandar, has known the CIA director, John O. Brennan, from the time Mr. Brennan was the agency's Riyadh station chief in the 1990s. Former colleagues say the two men remain close, and Prince Mohammed has won friends in Washington with his aggressive moves to dismantle terrorist groups like Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. ..."
    "... The roots of the relationship run deep. In the late 1970s, the Saudis organized what was known as the "Safari Club" - a coalition of nations including Morocco, Egypt and France - that ran covert operations around Africa at a time when Congress had clipped the CIA's wings over years of abuses. ..."
    "... In the 1980s, the Saudis helped finance CIA operations in Angola, where the United States backed rebels against the Soviet-allied government. While the Saudis were staunchly anticommunist, Riyadh's primary incentive seemed to be to solidify its CIA ties. "They were buying good will," recalled one former senior intelligence officer who was involved in the operation. ..."
    "... In perhaps the most consequential episode, the Saudis helped arm the mujahedeen rebels to drive the Soviets out of Afghanistan. The United States committed hundreds of millions of dollars each year to the mission, and the Saudis matched it, dollar for dollar. ..."
    "... Prince Bandar pledged $1 million per month to help fund the contras, in recognition of the administration's past support to the Saudis. The contributions continued after Congress cut off funding to the contras. By the end, the Saudis had contributed $32 million, paid through a Cayman Islands bank account. ..."
    Jan 23, 2016 | The New York Times

    WASHINGTON - When President Obama secretly authorized the Central Intelligence Agency to begin arming Syria 's embattled rebels in 2013, the spy agency knew it would have a willing partner to help pay for the covert operation. It was the same partner the CIA has relied on for decades for money and discretion in far-off conflicts: the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia .

    Since then, the CIA and its Saudi counterpart have maintained an unusual arrangement for the rebel-training mission, which the Americans have code-named Timber Sycamore. Under the deal, current and former administration officials said, the Saudis contribute both weapons and large sums of money, and the CIA takes the lead in training the rebels on AK-47 assault rifles and tank-destroying missiles.

    The support for the Syrian rebels is only the latest chapter in the decadeslong relationship between the spy services of Saudi Arabia and the United States, an alliance that has endured through the Iran-contra scandal, support for the mujahedeen against the Soviets in Afghanistan and proxy fights in Africa. Sometimes, as in Syria , the two countries have worked in concert. In others, Saudi Arabia has simply written checks underwriting American covert activities.

    Decades of Discreet Cooperation

    The joint arming and training program, which other Middle East nations contribute money to, continues as America's relations with Saudi Arabia - and the kingdom's place in the region - are in flux. The old ties of cheap oil and geopolitics that have long bound the countries together have loosened as America's dependence on foreign oil declines and the Obama administration tiptoes toward a diplomatic rapprochement with Iran.

    And yet the alliance persists, kept afloat on a sea of Saudi money and a recognition of mutual self-interest. In addition to Saudi Arabia's vast oil reserves and role as the spiritual anchor of the Sunni Muslim world, the long intelligence relationship helps explain why the United States has been reluctant to openly criticize Saudi Arabia for its human rights abuses, its treatment of women and its support for the extreme strain of Islam, Wahhabism , that has inspired many of the very terrorist groups the United States is fighting. The Obama administration did not publicly condemn Saudi Arabia's public beheading this month of a dissident Shiite cleric, Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr, who had challenged the royal family.

    Although the Saudis have been public about their help arming rebel groups in Syria, the extent of their partnership with the CIA's covert action campaign and their direct financial support had not been disclosed. Details were pieced together in interviews with a half-dozen current and former American officials and sources from several Persian Gulf countries. Most spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the program.

    From the moment the CIA operation was started, Saudi money supported it.

    "They understand that they have to have us, and we understand that we have to have them," said Mike Rogers, the former Republican congressman from Michigan who was chairman of the House Intelligence Committee when the CIA operation began. Mr. Rogers declined to discuss details of the classified program.

    American officials have not disclosed the amount of the Saudi contribution, which is by far the largest from another nation to the program to arm the rebels against President Bashar al-Assad's military. But estimates have put the total cost of the arming and training effort at several billion dollars.

    The White House has embraced the covert financing from Saudi Arabia - and from Qatar, Jordan and Turkey - at a time when Mr. Obama has pushed gulf nations to take a greater security role in the region.

    Spokesmen for both the CIA and the Saudi Embassy in Washington declined to comment.

    When Mr. Obama signed off on arming the rebels in the spring of 2013, it was partly to try to gain control of the apparent free-for-all in the region. The Qataris and the Saudis had been funneling weapons into Syria for more than a year. The Qataris had even smuggled in shipments of Chinese-made FN-6 shoulder-fired missiles over the border from Turkey.

    The Saudi efforts were led by the flamboyant Prince Bandar bin Sultan, at the time the intelligence chief, who directed Saudi spies to buy thousands of AK-47s and millions of rounds of ammunition in Eastern Europe for the Syrian rebels. The CIA helped arrange some of the arms purchases for the Saudis, including a large deal in Croatia in 2012.

    By the summer of 2012, a freewheeling feel had taken hold along Turkey's border with Syria as the gulf nations funneled cash and weapons to rebel groups - even some that American officials were concerned had ties to radical groups like Al Qaeda.

    The CIA was mostly on the sidelines during this period, authorized by the White House under the Timber Sycamore training program to deliver nonlethal aid to the rebels but not weapons. In late 2012, according to two former senior American officials, David H. Petraeus, then the CIA director, delivered a stern lecture to intelligence officials of several gulf nations at a meeting near the Dead Sea in Jordan. He chastised them for sending arms into Syria without coordinating with one another or with CIA officers in Jordan and Turkey.

    Months later, Mr. Obama gave his approval for the CIA to begin directly arming and training the rebels from a base in Jordan, amending the Timber Sycamore program to allow lethal assistance. Under the new arrangement, the CIA took the lead in training, while Saudi Arabia's intelligence agency, the General Intelligence Directorate, provided money and weapons, including TOW anti-tank missiles.

    The Qataris have also helped finance the training and allowed a Qatari base to be used as an additional training location. But American officials said Saudi Arabia was by far the largest contributor to the operation. While the Obama administration saw this coalition as a selling point in Congress, some, including Senator Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat, raised questions about why the CIA needed Saudi money for the operation, according to one former American official. Mr. Wyden declined to be interviewed, but his office released a statement calling for more transparency. "Senior officials have said publicly that the U.S. is trying to build up the battlefield capabilities of the anti-Assad opposition, but they haven't provided the public with details about how this is being done, which U.S. agencies are involved, or which foreign partners those agencies are working with," the statement said.

    When relations among the countries involved in the training program are strained, it often falls to the United States to broker solutions. As the host, Jordan expects regular payments from the Saudis and the Americans. When the Saudis pay late, according to a former senior intelligence official, the Jordanians complain to CIA officials.

    While the Saudis have financed previous CIA missions with no strings attached, the money for Syria comes with expectations, current and former officials said. "They want a seat at the table, and a say in what the agenda of the table is going to be," said Bruce Riedel, a former CIA analyst and now a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution .

    The CIA training program is separate from another program to arm Syrian rebels, one the Pentagon ran that has since ended. That program was designed to train rebels to combat Islamic State fighters in Syria, unlike the CIA's program, which focuses on rebel groups fighting the Syrian military.

    While the intelligence alliance is central to the Syria fight and has been important in the war against Al Qaeda, a constant irritant in American-Saudi relations is just how much Saudi citizens continue to support terrorist groups, analysts said.

    "The more that the argument becomes, 'We need them as a counterterrorism partner,' the less persuasive it is," said William McCants, a former State Department counterterrorism adviser and the author of a book on the Islamic State . "If this is purely a conversation about counterterrorism cooperation, and if the Saudis are a big part of the problem in creating terrorism in the first place, then how persuasive of an argument is it?"

    In the near term, the alliance remains solid, strengthened by a bond between spy masters. Prince Mohammed bin Nayef, the Saudi interior minister who took over the effort to arm the Syrian rebels from Prince Bandar, has known the CIA director, John O. Brennan, from the time Mr. Brennan was the agency's Riyadh station chief in the 1990s. Former colleagues say the two men remain close, and Prince Mohammed has won friends in Washington with his aggressive moves to dismantle terrorist groups like Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.

    The job Mr. Brennan once held in Riyadh is, more than the ambassador's, the true locus of American power in the kingdom. Former diplomats recall that the most important discussions always flowed through the CIA station chief.

    Current and former intelligence officials say there is a benefit to this communication channel: The Saudis are far more responsive to American criticism when it is done in private, and this secret channel has done more to steer Saudi behavior toward America's interests than any public chastising could have.

    The roots of the relationship run deep. In the late 1970s, the Saudis organized what was known as the "Safari Club" - a coalition of nations including Morocco, Egypt and France - that ran covert operations around Africa at a time when Congress had clipped the CIA's wings over years of abuses.

    "And so the kingdom, with these countries, helped in some way, I believe, to keep the world safe at a time when the United States was not able to do that," Prince Turki al-Faisal, a former head of Saudi intelligence, recalled in a speech at Georgetown University in 2002.

    In the 1980s, the Saudis helped finance CIA operations in Angola, where the United States backed rebels against the Soviet-allied government. While the Saudis were staunchly anticommunist, Riyadh's primary incentive seemed to be to solidify its CIA ties. "They were buying good will," recalled one former senior intelligence officer who was involved in the operation.

    In perhaps the most consequential episode, the Saudis helped arm the mujahedeen rebels to drive the Soviets out of Afghanistan. The United States committed hundreds of millions of dollars each year to the mission, and the Saudis matched it, dollar for dollar.

    The money flowed through a CIA-run Swiss bank account. In the book " Charlie Wilson's War ," the journalist George Crile III describes how the CIA arranged for the account to earn no interest, in keeping with the Islamic ban on usury.

    In 1984, when the Reagan administration sought help with its secret plan to sell arms to Iran to finance the contra rebels in Nicaragua, Robert C. McFarlane, the national security adviser, met with Prince Bandar, who was the Saudi ambassador to Washington at the time. The White House made it clear that the Saudis would "gain a considerable amount of favor" by cooperating, Mr. McFarlane later recalled.

    Prince Bandar pledged $1 million per month to help fund the contras, in recognition of the administration's past support to the Saudis. The contributions continued after Congress cut off funding to the contras. By the end, the Saudis had contributed $32 million, paid through a Cayman Islands bank account.

    When the Iran-contra scandal broke, and questions arose about the Saudi role, the kingdom kept its secrets. Prince Bandar refused to cooperate with the investigation led by Lawrence E. Walsh , the independent counsel.

    In a letter, the prince declined to testify, explaining that his country's "confidences and commitments, like our friendship, are given not just for the moment but the long run."

    C .J. Chivers contributed reporting. Follow The New York Times's politics and Washington coverage on Facebook and Twitter , and sign up for the First Draft politics newsletter .

    [Jan 23, 2016] Russian bombs take toll in Syria as Islamic State under pressure Reuters

    Notable quotes:
    "... While playing down the importance of government gains, Saleh said military aid from the rebels' foreign backers - including Saudi Arabia and Turkey - was not enough to confront offensives that are also backed on the ground by Iran. ..."
    "... These are among the difficulties facing the FSA on the ground especially since the aerial bombing is affecting some headquarters, equipment, cars and personnel ..."
    Jan 20, 2016 | reuters.com

    ... The government last week made one of its most significant gains since the start of the Russian intervention, capturing the town of Salma in Latakia province.

    While recent gains do not appear to mark a tipping point in the conflict, with rebels fighting back and regaining positions in some places, insurgents describe high levels of attrition on the front lines of western Syria.

    Officials close to Damascus say sealing the northwestern border with Turkey is the priority. A Syrian military source said rebel supply lines from Turkey, which backs the insurgents, were under pressure from Russian and Syrian air strikes.

    ... ... ...

    "Most opposition-held areas turned to defense because of the huge mobilization by Russians troops and the use of a large number of planes with unlimited munitions," said Jamil al-Saleh, commander of a rebel Free Syrian Army (FSA) group.

    While playing down the importance of government gains, Saleh said military aid from the rebels' foreign backers - including Saudi Arabia and Turkey - was not enough to confront offensives that are also backed on the ground by Iran.

    "These are among the difficulties facing the FSA on the ground especially since the aerial bombing is affecting some headquarters, equipment, cars and personnel and the aid given is little compared to the ferocious attack," he told Reuters.

    Saudi Arabia's support for the opposition has yet to be translated into the kind of heavier weapons the rebels are seeking, notably anti-aircraft missiles.

    The military source, speaking on condition of anonymity, said rebels were suffering from the destruction of their weapons depots, made possible by good intelligence. Their appeals for more support showed they had "lost a lot of field capacities", the source said.

    [Jan 22, 2016] Russian net exports have been on an "Undulating plateau" since 2007

    peakoilbarrel.com
    Jeffrey J. Brown, 01/22/2016 at 9:53 am
    Re: Russia

    In the discussion thread following the original 2006 Oil Drum post, Sam Foucher ("Khebab") and I had a number of discussions about Russian production, and after talking to Sam, I suggested that some point after 2007 we should see a very sharp decline in production. Clearly I was wrong, but on the other hand the post-2007 rate of increase in production slowed, versus 2002 to 2007, and Russian net exports have been on an "Undulating plateau" since 2007.

    Based on EIA data (total petroleum liquids + other liquids for production), Russian net exports increased from 5.1 million bpd in 2002 to 7.0 million bpd in 2007. At this rate of increase, they would have been at about 10 million bpd in 2013 (EIA 2014 consumption data not yet available, but the EIA shows that Russian production increased by 0.1 million bpd from 2013 to 2014).

    From 2007 to 2013 inclusive, Russian net exports have been within a range of 6.9 to 7.2 million bpd with an average value of 7.1 million bpd, versus 7.0 million bpd in 2014, based on the most recent EIA data.

    And virtually flat Russian net exports, combined with the post-2005 decline in Norway's and Saudi Arabia's net exports, contributed to the observed overall decline in (2005) Top Three net exports from 2005 to 2013. As I discussed, at the time of my Oil Drum essay, the (then) Top Three net exporters were showing a very strong combined increase in net exports.

    Or let me put it this way. If either Saudi Arabia or Russia had maintained their previous rates of increase in net exports, the combined (2005) Top Three net exports would have been up, not down in 2013, relative to 2005.

    [Jan 20, 2016] Russian ruble hits a new low as oil prices weaken

    Notable quotes:
    "... The national currency declined by 2 percent to 79.1 rubles to the dollar in Moscow, its lowest trading level since December 2014. ..."
    "... Russia is running a budget deficit of 3 percent of GDP this year, and the government is looking to cut 10 percent from the federal budget, which was drafted with oil prices of $50 a barrel in mind. ..."
    "... The government has recently downgraded its economy forecast for this year, from 0.7 percent growth to a 0.8 percent decline. ..."
    January 19, 2016 | bakken.com

    Associated Press

    MOSCOW - The Russian ruble, battered by weak oil prices, on Monday fell to an all-time low against the euro and dropped to its lowest level in more than a year against the dollar.

    The Central Bank set the official exchange rate at over 85 rubles to the euro on Monday. The national currency declined by 2 percent to 79.1 rubles to the dollar in Moscow, its lowest trading level since December 2014.

    Oil, the mainstay of the Russian economy, recently plummeted to under $30 a barrel, a 13-year low. The ruble is also under pressure from economic sanctions that the West imposed on Russia for its involvement in the Ukraine crisis.

    Russia is running a budget deficit of 3 percent of GDP this year, and the government is looking to cut 10 percent from the federal budget, which was drafted with oil prices of $50 a barrel in mind.

    All Russian ministries are expected to present their proposed cuts by the end of the month with a view to cutting 500 billion rubles ($6.3 billion) in government expenses, Finance Minister Anton Siluanov said.

    Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev, in televised comments on Monday, said that the government finds the price of oil "difficult to predict" and that Russia should use this moment to diversify its economy away from oil since it "has got a chance now to do it as quickly as possible."

    The government has recently downgraded its economy forecast for this year, from 0.7 percent growth to a 0.8 percent decline.

    Deputy Prime Minister Arkady Dvorkovich told Russian news agencies in Hong Kong that the government and monetary officials are discussing ways to spur growth and hoping GDP will be flat this year compared with 2015.

    [Jan 18, 2016] World oil supply and demand by James_Hamilton

    econbrowser.com

    The big story up to this point has been Iraq. The country continues to log impressive increases in production despite ongoing turmoil in the region.

    Monthly Iraq field production of crude oil, thousands of barrels per day, Jan 1973 to Sept 2015.  Data source: EIA Monthly Energy Review.

    Monthly Iraq field production of crude oil, thousands of barrels per day, Jan 1973 to Sept 2015. Data source: EIA Monthly Energy Review .

    [Jan 18, 2016] While U.S.-Iran Relations Warm, Russia Is The Real Winner

    Notable quotes:
    "... Supreme Leader Ali Khameini has said Iran isn't ready to make big deals with U.S. oil companies. ..."
    "... The current market turmoil has created a once in a generation opportunity for savvy energy investors. Whilst the mainstream media prints scare stories of oil prices falling through the floor smart investors are setting up their next winning oil plays. ..."
    OilPrice.com
    As the lifting of sanctions neared, it appeared that Iran, about to be re-integrated into the world economy, was tilting toward closer relations with Russia, not with the United States. For example, until Saturday Iran showed no inclination to release the American prisoners it was holding, and Supreme Leader Ali Khameini has said Iran isn't ready to make big deals with U.S. oil companies.

    Meanwhile, Iran's ties to Russia seemed to be warming. First, President Vladimir Putin was a special guest at the Nov. 23 Tehran summit of gas-exporting countries. Moscow has also been considering extending two loans to the Iranian government worth a total of $7 billion, and Russia will equip Iran with modern air-defense systems, according to country's financial daily, Kommersant.

    Finally, Iran Shipbuilding & Offshore Industries Complex Co. (ISOICO) has reached a tentative deal with the Russian shipyard Krasnye Barrikady, or Red Barricades, to cooperate in the construction of oil rigs and share technology.

    The current market turmoil has created a once in a generation opportunity for savvy energy investors. Whilst the mainstream media prints scare stories of oil prices falling through the floor smart investors are setting up their next winning oil plays.

    If all these deals with Russia come to pass, Tehran and Moscow likely will fast become economic and political allies, while the United States, and especially its large corporations, appear to be left out of Iran's economic rebirth. Further, critics of the nuclear deal with Iran said that to engage Tehran rather than fight it would merely make Iran twice the threat it already is to an unstable Middle East.

    Throughout the Vienna negotiations, the Obama administration argued exactly the opposite, that to engage Iran was the best way to soften, if not eliminate, its hostility to the West, just as President Richard Nixon's overtures to China in 1972 turned Beijing from a communist adversary into what President George W. Bush once described as a "strategic competitor."

    [Jan 18, 2016] US will eventually bomb Iran as it bombed others - foreign policy expert by William Blum

    Looks like Iran if far from safe even after sanctions were lifted...
    Notable quotes:
    "... The idea that were the exceptional nation and have something very important to impart to the rest of the world, our marvelous values, American exceptionalism... Each party believes in that very strongly. They dont argue about that at all, except through their campaign debate, theyll take certain opposing views just to appear different. But, in power, they have the exact same policy – world domination. ..."
    "... NATO is just an arm of the U.S. foreign policy, theres no point actually in making a distinction between US foreign policy and NATO policy – they are the same. If US were not in NATO, NATO would not exist. US founded NATO, US is its main supporter and financial source, theres no distinction between US and NATO, and they share the same view of American world domination. So, it doesnt matter whether Iran is doing this or that – they know that Iran is not a lover of an Empire, and anyone whos not a lover of the Empire has a short life span. Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, whatever. That is the test, do you love Empire or not. ..."
    "... Because Russia has two characteristics of an enemy, which Washington cannot tolerate: one, it has very powerful military capabilities, and two, it is not a kind of Washingtons policy, it is not a great admirer of the Empire. The same applies to China. Thats all it takes: you dont admire us and have military force – thats all it takes to be an enemy of Washington. ..."
    "... Washington is not looking for peace or war. It is looking for domination, and if they can achieve domination peacefully – thats fine. If they cant, theyll use war. Its that simple. ..."
    "... They are still supporting the enemies of Syria, and they are making sure that Assad will not come back to power. They are bombing places all over Syria, which can be useful militarily to Syria. They have not forgotten about Syria at all. Iraq is ally at the moment, but tomorrow or yesterday it is something different. You cant just look at today and say "theyre not fighting here and there" and think "Oh, Washington has finally found peace". No. Their basic goal is unchanged – today, tomorrow, or next year. I must say, again, for the tenth time, it is world domination. ..."
    "... The US has created ISIS. Let me point this out – a short while ago, there were four major states in the Middle East and South Asia, which were secular. The US invaded Iraq, then invaded Libya and overthrew that secular government. Then its been in the process now, for some years, attempting to overthrow the secular government in Syria. Theres no wonder that Middle East and South Asia have been taken over by religious fanatics: all the possible enemies and barriers to that had been wiped out by Washington. Why will they stop now? ..."
    "... Well, I could say "yes", except that the US will cheat. They will use the same force to attack other people, like in Syria, they will use the same force to help overthrow Assad, and they will use the same force to suppress any segment of Iraq or what have you, which are anti-America. They cannot be trusted, thats the problem. When they start to use force, theres no holding them back, and they dont care about the civilians. The civilian death toll with any bombing of Syria and Iraq is unlimited. So, for those reasons, I cannot support US bombing of Iraq or Syria or anywhere else. The US bombing should cease everywhere in the world. ..."
    Apr 17 , 2015 | RT - SophieCo

    Obama's time as leader of the US is coming to an end - his term concludes next year. Wannabe presidents have already joined the race to the White House. And as President Obama goes through the final year of his rule, Washington suddenly changes its tone – now Iran is an appropriate nation to talk to, and it's okay to meet with Cuban and Venezuelan leaders. But what is in that change? Has Washington finally dropped its previous policies? What does Obama want to achieve? And will the new, as yet unknown, leader of America make any difference? We pose these questions to prominent historian, author of bestsellers on US foreign policies, William Blum, who is on Sophie&Co today.

    Sophie Shevardnadze :William Blum, historian and author of bestsellers like "Rogue State" and "America's Deadliest Export", welcome to the show, it's great to have you with us. Now, Hillary Clinton has announced she's running to become the Democrats' presidential candidate; Jeb Bush is also likely to put his bit forward for the Republicans. Now, Bush, Clinton – we've been here before. Who would be better candidate do you think? Not just for the U.S., but also for the world, like, global peace efforts, for instance?

    William Blum: I don't think US foreign policy will change at all, regardless of who is in the White House, Bush or Clinton, or who else is running. Our policy does not change... I can add Obama to that. It wouldn't even matter which party it is, Republican or Democrat, they have the same foreign policy.

    SS: Why do you think it's the same policy for both parties? Why do you think they are not different from each other?

    WB: Because America, for two centuries has had one basic, overriding goal, and that is world domination, at least from 1890s if not earlier, one can say that. World domination is something which appeals to both Republicans and Democrats or Liberals or Conservatives. The idea that we're the exceptional nation and have something very important to impart to the rest of the world, our marvelous values, American exceptionalism... Each party believes in that very strongly. They don't argue about that at all, except through their campaign debate, they'll take certain opposing views just to appear different. But, in power, they have the exact same policy – world domination.

    SS: Now back in 2009 President Obama made it clear that the missile shield in Europe would no longer be necessary if the threat from Iran was eliminated – and nuclear deal with Iran was struck. Now, historic deal is close, but NATO is saying there will be no change in missile shield plans – why not?

    WB: Because NATO shares America's desire to dominate the world. NATO is just an arm of the U.S. foreign policy, there's no point actually in making a distinction between US foreign policy and NATO policy – they are the same. If US were not in NATO, NATO would not exist. US founded NATO, US is its main supporter and financial source, there's no distinction between US and NATO, and they share the same view of American world domination. So, it doesn't matter whether Iran is doing this or that – they know that Iran is not a lover of an Empire, and anyone who's not a lover of the Empire has a short life span. Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, whatever. That is the test, do you love Empire or not.

    SS: But, can we be a little bit more precise about this "domination" theory – NATO has been strengthening its eastern borders with military building up on Russia's doorsteps, and a rapid reaction force to include 30,000 personnel – why this deployment? Who is it aimed against?

    WB: It is aimed against Russia. The US cannot stand anyone who might stay in the way of the Empire's expansion – and Russia and China are the only nations which can do that. Other nations, like Cuba or Iran or Venezuela are regarded as enemy just as well, because they have the polity influence: Cuba has influence over all of the Western hemisphere. That makes them a great enemy. But the basic criteria of Empire's expansion is whether you support Empire or not, and that excludes all the countries I've named – from Cuba to Russia.

    SS: Do you think U.S. would go as far as using force against its enemies?

    WB: Well, the US has used force against its enemies on a regular basis for two centuries. Of course they would use force! They've used force against Cuba, they invaded Cuba and they've supported Cuban exiles in all kinds of violent activities for 60 years. Violence is never far removed from the U.S. policy. Let me summarize something for the benefit of listeners: since 1946 the US has attempted to overthrow more than 50 foreign governments. In the same time period it has attempted to assassinate more than 50 foreign leaders. It has bombed the people of 30 countries, it has suppressed revolutionary parties in at least 20 nations – and I forgot other factors on my list. This is a record unparalleled in all of human history, and there's no reason to think it is changing of will change, except if some superior force comes on a scene, that can actually defeat U.S.

    SS: But, you know, French intelligence – and France seems to be an ally of the U.S. - the French intelligence chief has recently said that they found no evidence of Russia planning to invade Ukraine. So why has NATO been pressing these claims of an imminent invasion so hard and for so long?

    WB: Because Russia has two characteristics of an enemy, which Washington cannot tolerate: one, it has very powerful military capabilities, and two, it is not a kind of Washington's policy, it is not a great admirer of the Empire. The same applies to China. That's all it takes: you don't admire us and have military force – that's all it takes to be an enemy of Washington.

    SS: The problem is, there's a ceasefire that seems in place, right? But US paratroopers have arrived in Ukraine to train forces in the country, and it's not the first such deployment we've seen. So, with ceasefire agreement and peace deal on the way, why is Washington sending troops now?

    WB: They know very well that Ukraine is not...or those who live in Ukraine and support Russia, Washington knows very well that these people are not on their side, and will not be on their side, and there's no way to make them on our side, so, US is expecting to wipe them out militarily at some point in the near future. As soon as they can get all the politics in place, there's no backtracking from these policies. I must repeat myself again: Washington wants to dominate the world and anyone, including people in the south-eastern part of Ukraine, who don't share that view, they are enemies, and at some point they may be met with military force.

    SS: So are you saying that America doesn't want peace in Ukraine, because US is sending military personnel to Ukraine – like I've said – while Europeans are negotiating peace without America's involvement?

    WB: Washington is not looking for peace or war. It is looking for domination, and if they can achieve domination peacefully – that's fine. If they can't, they'll use war. It's that simple.

    SS: So, like you've said, America is one of the main financiers of NATO; there's also Estonia and they meet NATO's funding goals. Why are the rest of its members lagging behind? Isn't the alliance important to them as well?

    WB: They have their own home politics that they deal with, they each have their own financial needs to deal with, they each have their own relation with Washington to deal with, it varies. It is not exactly the same in these countries, but overall, no member of NATO is going to fight against Washington. No member of NATO was going to support the insurgence in Ukraine – not one. So there's no need to go upon who is not paying and who is paying – none of them will ever go against Washington's policies in Ukraine or elsewhere.

    SS: Now, on the other hand, Europe, U.S. and Russia – they share similar security threats, issues like Syria, Islamic State, there's Afghanistan, and they are not going anywhere. Can these states work together if it is absolutely necessary, for example?

    WB: They don't have the same security threats. Washington just announces that people of various countries are enemies of the U.S. - that doesn't make them a threat. Syria, for example, is no threat to the U.S. Neither was Iraq, neither was Libya. U.S. invades one country after another, totally independent of whether they are threat or not. As long as they don't believe in the Empire, as long as they are helping enemies of the Empire. I mean, what threat was Libya to Washington? NATO invaded them without mercy, bombed them out of existence, they are a failed state now. What was their threat? There's no threat. If Russia doesn't announce Libya as a threat, it's not because Russia has a different foreign policy – it's because Russia is not so paranoid as the U.S., and Russia is not looking for world domination.

    SS: Russia has been criticized many times for its decision to supply air defense missile systems to Iran. Now, why is America so worried about anti-air missile defense Iran may get from Russia? It's not like Washington got plans to bomb Iran, right?

    WB: Of course they do, and so does Israel. You can't put aside those fears. Washington, as I mentioned before, has bombed more than 30 countries. Why would they stop now? Iran is a definite target of the U.S. and Israel, and it's very understandable that Iran would want to have advanced missile defense systems.

    SS: But look: US is staying out of Yemen now, it's not willing to commit ground troops to Iraq or get involved in Syria. It sometimes looks like Washington is growing weary of foreign interventions, lately.

    WB: They are still supporting the enemies of Syria, and they are making sure that Assad will not come back to power. They are bombing places all over Syria, which can be useful militarily to Syria. They have not forgotten about Syria at all. Iraq is ally at the moment, but tomorrow or yesterday it is something different. You can't just look at today and say "they're not fighting here and there" and think "Oh, Washington has finally found peace". No. Their basic goal is unchanged – today, tomorrow, or next year. I must say, again, for the tenth time, it is world domination.

    SS: Now, you've written in one of your books, the "Rogue State" that if you were President, you'd end all US foreign interventions at once. Can the US do that? Is it that simple? I mean, US left Iraq and look what happened.

    WB: If I were a President, yes, that's what I would do. And then I add, to the portion you've quoted, I add at the end of paragraph, on my fifth day in the office I would be assassinated. So, that's what happens to people who want to challenge the Empire's policies. But I would have great time for the first few days.

    SS: But can the US realistically do that? End all of their foreign interventions at once? Because, we see an example of Iraq, once they left, ISIS spread.

    WB: The US has created ISIS. Let me point this out – a short while ago, there were four major states in the Middle East and South Asia, which were secular. The US invaded Iraq, then invaded Libya and overthrew that secular government. Then it's been in the process now, for some years, attempting to overthrow the secular government in Syria. There's no wonder that Middle East and South Asia have been taken over by religious fanatics: all the possible enemies and barriers to that had been wiped out by Washington. Why will they stop now?

    SS: I see your point. While Iraq and Afghanistan cannot be exactly described as victories for American troops, I mean, the invasions have also resulted, for instance, in girls being able to go to school in Afghanistan, or Kurds finally having a state in Iraq, for instance.

    WB: I must tell you something and all your listeners. At one time, in 1980s, Afghanistan had a progressive government, where women had full rights; they even wore mini-skirts. And you know what happened to that government? The US overthrew it. So please, don't tell me about US policy helping the girls or the women of Afghanistan. We are the great enemy of females of Afghanistan.

    SS: You've also said that an end to US interventions would mean an end to terror attacks. What makes you think Islamic State and Al-Qaeda and other terror groups would cease to exist – and I'm talking about right now, I am not talking about "if America hadn't invaded them back then". Right now, if American interventions cease, what makes think that these terrorist groups would cease to exist as well?

    WB: It may be too late now. When I wrote that, it was correct. It may be too late now. After what we've done to all secular governments in the Middle East and in South Asia, after all that, I am not sure I would say the same thing again. We've unleashed ISIS, and they're not going to be stopped by any kind words or nice changes of policy by Washington. They have to be wiped out militarily. They are an amazing force of horror, and the U.S. is responsible for them, but the barn door may be closed, it may be too late now to simply change our policy.

    SS: So do you think US should use military force to eradicate these terrorist groups?

    WB: Well, I could say "yes", except that the US will cheat. They will use the same force to attack other people, like in Syria, they will use the same force to help overthrow Assad, and they will use the same force to suppress any segment of Iraq or what have you, which are anti-America. They cannot be trusted, that's the problem. When they start to use force, there's no holding them back, and they don't care about the civilians. The civilian death toll with any bombing of Syria and Iraq is unlimited. So, for those reasons, I cannot support US bombing of Iraq or Syria or anywhere else. The US bombing should cease everywhere in the world.

    SS: When I listen to you, it sounds like America overthrows all these governments and bombs all these countries, and makes revolutions – from people's point of view, revolutions and overthrows are really impossible if they are not conducive to people's moods on the ground. So you're saying the foreign policy has greatly contributed to the rise of radical Islam in the Middle East, but I wonder – don't locals have control over their own direction at all?

    WB: The locals had no say whatsoever on whether the US would bomb or not, they had no say whatsoever on whether the US would overthrow governments chosen by the people, often – they have no say in these things. Now, they may hate ISIS, or some of them might hate ISIS, but it's too late. They can't do anything about it. The world is in terrible position. The world had a chance, 30-40 years ago, to stop the US from all of these interventions. If NATO had been closed, the way the Warsaw Pact was closed, the Soviet Union closed the Warsaw Pact with the expectation that NATO will also go out of business – but the US did not do that, and it's too late now. I don't know what to say, what will save the world now.

    SS: You've mentioned Cuba and Venezuela in the beginning of the programme. Now, we witnessed several historic meetings recently, between President Obama and Cuba's President Raul Castro, also Obama's meeting with Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro – why is Obama now talking with states the US has long considered arch-enemies?

    WB: You must keep in mind, first of all, that nothing whatsoever has changed, as of this moment nothing has changed. We have to wait and see what happens, and I'm very sceptical. For example, with Cuba, the main issue is the US sanctions which have played havoc with Cuban economy and society. That has not changed, and I don't think it is going to change even in my lifetime. So, you can't apply some kind of changes taking place. Why Obama is saying these things he's saying now may have to do with his so-called "legacy". He knows his time is very limited, and he knows he has many enemies amongst progressives in the US and elsewhere. He may want to cater to them for some reason. I don't know, neither do you know, no one knows exactly why he's saying these things – but they don't mean anything yet. Nothing has changed whatsoever.

    SS: So you're saying there's really no substance in those meetings... Now, looking back, what would you call Obama's biggest achievements of his two terms - I mean, people say there's been a reconciliation with Cuba, with Iran, there's an earnest attempt to end US deployment in Iraq and in Afghanistan, he didn't move troops into Syria. Would you disagree with all of that?

    WB: Yes, all of that. There's no accomplishment whatsoever. He didn't move troops into Syria because of Russia, and not because of him making any change. He was embarrassed in that. John Kerry made a remark about "it would be nice if Syria would get rid of its chemical weapons – but that's not going to happen" he said, and then foreign minister Lavrov of Russia jumped in and said "Oh really? We'll arrange that" - and they arranged Syria to get rid of chemical weapons. That was, yes, a slip of the tongue by John Kerry, and he was embarrassed to challenge Lavrov. We can say the same thing about any of the things you've mentioned. There's no substance involved in any of these policies. The US has not relented at all over Syria. As I've mentioned before, they are bombing Syria's military assets, they are killing civilians every day. Syria is still a prime target of Washington, and they will never escape.

    SS: Thank you very much for this interesting insight, we were talking to William Blum, historian and author of bestsellers "Rogue State" and "America's Deadliest Export" discussing matters of the US foreign policy and what would happen if the US decides to end all of its foreign interventions at once. That's it for this edition of Sophie&Co, I will see you next time.

    [Jan 16, 2016] Graun is difficult to navigate and very slow to load with the weight of all the spam

    Notable quotes:
    "... Graun is difficult to navigate and very slow to load with the weight of all the spam. Ad blockers make it actually usable. You just have to get used to deleting the notice banners on every page. ..."
    "... Use "https everywhere" to avoid the sticky at the top if it annoys you as it does me - tends to mess up the btl however.. ..."
    "... Well, Guardian, I am using an ad blocker because your adware fucks up my browser. ..."
    "... I cannot get even one word typed and my browser gets all fucked up. The screen does flips and all sorts of things as if someone else is controlling my mouse. I try to type a word and it takes a full minute for one letter to appear after I have typed it, and sometimes everything disappears. ..."
    www.theguardian.com

    puppetlife -> ConventionPrevention, 2016-01-16 10:01:00

    Agree with your post if a little off topic, but where else can we post about this. Graun is difficult to navigate and very slow to load with the weight of all the spam. Ad blockers make it actually usable. You just have to get used to deleting the notice banners on every page.

    Use "https everywhere" to avoid the sticky at the top if it annoys you as it does me - tends to mess up the btl however..

    ConventionPrevention, 2016-01-16 08:38:06

    We notice you're using an ad-blocker. Perhaps you'll support us another way? Become a supporter for just 50 pounds per year.

    WTF? How do they know I am using an ad blocker? I am Using Ublock by the way. Well, Guardian, I am using an ad blocker because your adware fucks up my browser.

    I cannot get even one word typed and my browser gets all fucked up. The screen does flips and all sorts of things as if someone else is controlling my mouse. I try to type a word and it takes a full minute for one letter to appear after I have typed it, and sometimes everything disappears.

    THIS is WHY I use an ad-blocker, Guardian. Since I have been using an ad-blocker, I don't have those problems anymore when I visit your site, and it only happens on your site. Your incessant use of automatic videos and other tactics is not advertising.

    It is ADWARE! Get it?! Adware! And why would I want to support a paper that is just as biased as any other paper? Wow, you really pissed me off just now when I saw that little banner at the bottom of my screen, Guardian. Of all the nerve.

    Leeblue -> ConventionPrevention, 2016-01-16 09:05:47
    Spot on CP, I actually switched my adblocker off to accommodate the graun, I thought fair enough they need to generate income. But as you said the browser goes haywire.

    Another thing is the ridiculous moderation I receive for expressing a viewpoint, without foul language, without racist overtones, in fact just normal comments and like yesterday I commented on the fact that I do not believe in religion in any form, I think it is fantasist nonsense, put their by the ruling class elitist's in order to keep the plebs in place with angst, that gets moderated.

    It is absolutely shameful how the graun operates these days.

    [Jan 15, 2016] This strategy engineered to hurt Russia can only last another six months or so. Mass shutting down of stripper wells leads to the permanent loss of production and cannot be be allowed

    Notable quotes:
    "... This oil decline is a genius move by the US foreign policy. ..."
    "... That being said, this part of the strategy engineered to hurt Russia can only last another six months or so. Stripper wells shutting down in mass would be a permanent loss of production and cannot be be allowed. Its better to keep the Fracking oil in the ground now where it can act as a second "strategic petroleum reserve" to keep OPEC from getting too greedy. ..."
    "... The Saudis really screwed up. Had they let oil stay over 100 the Emperor would have been truly naked in a few years. This way the threat of a renewed fracking push keeps things tame for a while. ..."
    peakoilbarrel.com
    Andy H, 01/15/2016 at 12:31 am
    This oil decline is a genius move by the US foreign policy. Had oil stayed over 100 the Fracking fools would have pumped the things dry and the Baaken and Eagle Ford would be looking like the Barnett in a few years.

    That being said, this part of the strategy engineered to hurt Russia can only last another six months or so. Stripper wells shutting down in mass would be a permanent loss of production and cannot be be allowed. Its better to keep the Fracking oil in the ground now where it can act as a second "strategic petroleum reserve" to keep OPEC from getting too greedy.

    The Saudis really screwed up. Had they let oil stay over 100 the Emperor would have been truly naked in a few years. This way the threat of a renewed fracking push keeps things tame for a while.

    [Jan 14, 2016] Expected reduction of Russian oil exports via Transneft pipelines is estimated to be 6.4% in 2016

    Slightly edited Google translation
    Notable quotes:
    "... Russian companies plan to pump for export via the Transneft system 6.4%f (of 215.8 million tones total) tons less oil than the last year. ..."
    "... According to the Director of the Small Letters research company Vitaly Kryukov, the possible reduction of oil exports indicates that companies will reduce production. Senior analyst of Aton Alexander Kornilov agreed that at current low oil prices, record oil production achieved in 2015 will not happen again in the near future . ..."
    "... A strong decline is observed in West Siberia (the main oil producing region of Russia), said Vitaly Kryukov. The main oil producing asset of Rosneft, Yuganskneftegaz, has reduced production by 3.3% to 62.4 million tons, LUKOIL - Western Siberia - by 6,1 % to 41 million tones. ..."
    ura.ru

    Russian companies plan to pump for export via the Transneft system 6.4%f (of 215.8 million tones total) tons less oil than the last year.

    The companies plans to reduce exports in 2016 surprised experts. Director, Moscow oil & gas center EY Denis Borisov said that there are no obvious prerequisites for a drop in production of black gold in Russia yet. "It's hard to say what caused such a drop in export", - quote "Vedomosti" the words of Borisov.

    Deputy energy Minister Kirill Molodtsov noted that these figures are based on preliminary applications, which are compiled according to conservative projections and may change during thef the year. The low preliminary requests by companies might be explained by the principle "pump or pay": if the declared volume of oil is not pumped, they will have to pay a fine.

    According to the Director of the "Small Letters" research company Vitaly Kryukov, the possible reduction of oil exports indicates that companies will reduce production. Senior analyst of "Aton" Alexander Kornilov agreed that at current low oil prices, record oil production achieved in 2015 will not happen again in the near future .

    A strong decline is observed in West Siberia (the main oil producing region of Russia), said Vitaly Kryukov. The main oil producing asset of Rosneft, Yuganskneftegaz, has reduced production by 3.3% to 62.4 million tons, "LUKOIL - Western Siberia" - by 6,1 % to 41 million tones.

    [Jan 14, 2016] Russia 2016 production is expected to be flat

    Notable quotes:
    "... Experts say the fall in Russian exports could nonetheless indicate a fall in production. "With current low oil prices, 2015's record high oil production will not be continued in the near future," said analyst Aleksandr Kornilov. ..."
    "... Russia's willingness to cut oil production could also be a signal to Saudi Arabia. Moscow could be testing to see if OPEC can agree to do the same in order to stabilize sliding crude prices. At this point, Riyadh has been unwilling to cut output despite pleas from other OPEC members. ..."
    "... Any thoughts on how long Gulf OPEC members will hold out? ..."
    "... Our companies say now that production volume in 2016 will be kept at last-year level, ..."
    "... I think we're in a situation where at some point we're going to see prices rising and production continuing to fall, which will push prices even higher as talk of a future shortage starts up. ..."
    "... China was up 10% yr over yr for December and India fuel consumption rose 8.3% yr over yr. ..."
    "... when oil again spikes due to low investment, OPEC and Russian economies will rebound greatly. ..."
    "... Too bad there is so much volatility in all markets. ..."
    peakoilbarrel.com
    Ron Patterson, 01/14/2016 at 10:54 pm
    Are you serious? They only expect production to be flat next year? I would have thought they would expect another increase.

    At any rate they are expecting exports to drop rather dramatically.

    Russia could cut oil exports by 6%

    State-owned oil transportation monopoly Transneft says Russian oil companies have applied for 215 million tons of crude exports in 2016. This is 6.4 percent less than last year, business daily Vedomosti reports.

    In 2015, the situation was the opposite for Transneft, which accounts for almost 90 percent of Russian oil shipments. The company transported seven percent more oil than in 2014.

    "It's hard to say what caused the drop in export applications. There is no evident reason for oil production to fall in Russia," EY's (Ernst & Young) Moscow oil and gas director Denis Borisov told Vedomosti….

    Experts say the fall in Russian exports could nonetheless indicate a fall in production. "With current low oil prices, 2015's record high oil production will not be continued in the near future," said analyst Aleksandr Kornilov.

    The fight for Europe could intensify even more, once sanctions against Iran are lifted and the country resumes oil exports. Europe is a key market for Tehran, and if it cuts prices Russian companies could lose more market share.

    Russia's willingness to cut oil production could also be a signal to Saudi Arabia. Moscow could be testing to see if OPEC can agree to do the same in order to stabilize sliding crude prices. At this point, Riyadh has been unwilling to cut output despite pleas from other OPEC members.

    I am not predicting anything. But I when Russian officials say something to the effect: No we will not increase production in 2016 but intend to keep product at the same level as 2105…., I believe that says enough right there.

    Kellyb, 01/14/2016 at 9:56 pm
    Shallow Sand,

    These 2 articles oughta make you happy:

    http://sputniknews.com/business/20160111/1032954003/iraq-oil-prices.html

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/12100609/Glimmers-of-hope-for-oil-as-Russia-poised-to-slash-output.html

    shallow sand, 01/14/2016 at 10:08 pm
    Hey, thanks Kellyb. I saw rig count in North Dakota hit 49. Any thoughts on how long Gulf OPEC members will hold out?
    AlexS, 01/14/2016 at 10:20 pm
    Too early to be happy:

    Russia plans to repeat last year's oil production record in 2016 - minister

    MOSCOW, January 14. /TASS/. Russian oil producers plan to repeat the last-year production record in 2016, Energy Minister Alexander Novak said on Thursday on the sidelines of 2016 Gaidar Forum. "Our companies say now that production volume in 2016 will be kept at last-year level," the minister said. Russian oil companies produced record-breaking 534 mln tonnes of oil in 2015, up 1.4% year-on-year, according to data of the Central Dispatching Department of Fuel and Energy Complex.

    More: http://tass.ru/en/economy/849744

    Based on daily production numbers for the first half of January from CDU TEK, it seems that this month will see another post-Soviet record oil production in Russia.

    The article is misleading. Given the current tensions between Iran and Saudi Arabia the likelyhood of any OPEC agreement on output cuts is very low. How can Russia discuss output cuts with OPEC, if there is no accord within this organization.

    Kellyb, 01/14/2016 at 10:27 pm
    I have no idea really but my theory is Saudi wanted to see U.S. production and investment come down enough, which it certainly has, and cuts were put on hold the last meeting to get Russia onboard. I remembered you saying a few months back that every time in the past OPEC had always cut xx amount of time into a crash. I think it makes sense, Brents currently at 28.58; the OPEC basket is at $25. A 1 mmbpd cut would probably get us to 45, maybe 50. At $50 I don't see shale ramping up enough to increase production.

    I think we're in a situation where at some point we're going to see prices rising and production continuing to fall, which will push prices even higher as talk of a future shortage starts up. That's assuming demand doesn't fall, but thus far China and India consumption have been increasing significantly. China was up 10% yr over yr for December and India fuel consumption rose 8.3% yr over yr.

    shallow sand, 01/14/2016 at 11:10 pm

    AlexS,

    I have been surprised by the lack of US demand growth, given I have seen gasoline for sale as low as $1.49 US. Maybe that will change when spring hits.

    As I have said many times, we are part of a very small minority in the US that want higher oil prices. My view is the oil war between OPEC, Russia and shale hurts all and helps none. But, of those three I suppose OPEC is damaged most, followed by Russia and then US. US economy is going to take a hit, but likely least of the three.

    However, when oil again spikes due to low investment, OPEC and Russian economies will rebound greatly.

    Too bad there is so much volatility in all markets. But also too bad there is so much hostility between governments.

    [Jan 14, 2016] The American tight oil boom was almost entirely financed by junk bonds and only made financial sense at oil prices a lot higher than they are now

    Notable quotes:
    "... Our mission now questions how much the Saudis can now substantively influence the crude markets over the long term. Clearly they can drive prices up, but we question whether they any longer have the power to drive prices down for a prolonged period. ..."
    "... The following year, Mining Weekly ran a story which suggested the overestimation of The Kingdoms reserves might go as high as 70% . They meant all of OPEC, but Saudi reserves would have to be overstated by more than 40% to make that true. Business Insider suggests that it is elementary the Saudis are fibbing about their reserves – but it also says oil may have peaked in 2005 and production might start to fall in the next year or two . That was in 2011. ..."
    "... For how long are they going to allow their OPEC allies to continue pumping at maximum capacity into a glutted market? It is an obvious radical departure from the former careful balance of supply and demand, which was supposed to be a clever plan to make Russia collapse. What if it makes America collapse instead? ..."
    "... Hundreds of billions of dollars were invested in the oil fracking effort. alternative energy projects and other technologies that banked on high energy costs. The incurred debt would take many years or decades to pay off. However, a relatively short term drop in oil prices can drive the debt holders out of business. Massive loan defaults and hundreds of thousands of good-paying jobs will be lost. The ensuing drag on the economy can exceed the benefits of lower oil prices, at least in the short term. ..."
    "... Up and down energy prices are likely more harmful than steady high prices on long term economic development. If oil prices were to remain low for, say, 5 years, then the net economic gain can become significant. Dont bank on that being the case. ..."
    "... The American tight oil boom was almost entirely financed by junk bonds and only made financial sense at oil prices a lot higher than they are now. There is going to be a lot of pain as those bonds get defaulted on and the companies that issued them go bankrupt. However, the big question is what kinds and amounts of derivatives were leveraged on those bonds, and who is going to blow up when those bonds blow. ..."
    "... Unless the USA withdraws its sponsorship of The Kingdom, and lets Saudi Arabia collapse from its internal problems. God knows America has learned a lot about the regime-change game considering all the practice its gotten. ..."
    marknesop.wordpress.com
    Oddlots , January 12, 2016 at 6:37 pm
    I can't promise anything like a simple explanation but the most thought provoking take I've seen is from hedge-fund manager and father of MMT, Warren Mosler. It's summarized quite well here (though FFS don't surmise from that that Agora is a fount of wisdom. It's not: a pump and dump stock kiting scheme with kick ass copywriters.) Regardless, I have a lot of time for Mosler. He has very rewarding unconventional views:

    http://dailyreckoning.com/oils-pricing-mystery-solved/

    marknesop , January 12, 2016 at 8:12 pm
    That is a very interesting explanation. But there is a great big hole in it, reasoning-wise, and that is, why does the USA continue to put up with this? Two of its oil companies are among the ten most profitable entities in the world, and they can't be happy with the Saudis' largess. You could see the USA letting it go on for as long as it possibly can, considering it makes the U.S. dollar stronger for consumers, if and only if the core of very rich and very powerful people who run the United States were happy with a situation in which corporate profits were halved, but the people were giddy because their dollar buys more pots and pans and vacations and gasoline and picnic baskets. Are they happy with that situation, do you think? Are the two biggest energy companies in the USA – Exxon-Mobil and Chevron – happy with an economy in which the big boys take home a lot less, but the rubes are in clover? And not even that the rubes make more, because they don't – it just buys more.

    Call me a cynic, but I can't see them being happy with that. In fact, I can't see America's corporate hurt, after they went to all the trouble of declaring that a corporation is legally a person and can therefore contribute an unlimited amount to political campaigns, being happy with a situation in which oil costs around what it did in the 1960's. Especially when that situation could end at any time, and they do not have any control over when that time is. They were probably okay with it while they thought it was going to destroy Russia, but it's not – not before the United States is itself destroyed. And long before either of those countries cries "Uncle!!" there is going to be a wave of poverty and bankruptcies such as the world has never seen.

    We'll see. But back in 2011 there was fear – you'll love this – that Saudi Arabia was not going to be able to keep a lid on prices at $100.00 a barrel, according to Wikileaks . They based this on an alleged overestimation of Saudi reserves by about 40%, that overstating having been introduced deliberately to spur foreign investment. Here's my favourite quote, I love this one;

    "Our mission now questions how much the Saudis can now substantively influence the crude markets over the long term. Clearly they can drive prices up, but we question whether they any longer have the power to drive prices down for a prolonged period."

    Well, I guess that one was answered, wasn't it?

    The following year, Mining Weekly ran a story which suggested the overestimation of The Kingdom's reserves might go as high as 70% . They meant all of OPEC, but Saudi reserves would have to be overstated by more than 40% to make that true. Business Insider suggests that it is elementary the Saudis are fibbing about their reserves – but it also says oil may have peaked in 2005 and 'production might start to fall in the next year or two". That was in 2011.

    marknesop , January 12, 2016 at 11:12 am
    What's that going to mean to the American economy? Three of the ten most profitable companies in the world are oil companies, and of them two – Exxon-Mobil and Chevron – are American. Chevron's profits in 2014 were $33.6 Billion, and even that was a drop of 40% over fiscal year 2012/13. For how long can the American economy sustain that kind of hit?

    For how long are they going to allow their OPEC allies to continue pumping at maximum capacity into a glutted market? It is an obvious radical departure from the former careful balance of supply and demand, which was supposed to be a clever plan to make Russia collapse. What if it makes America collapse instead? Of the vaunted most profitable companies, the remaining American star is Appple . Are people going to want an Apple watch or a new Smartphone if the economy starts to falter?

    karl1haushofer , January 12, 2016 at 11:15 am
    I would say the low oil price benefits the American economy since it is a net oil importer. Their economy eats a lot of oil. In fact the USA is still the biggest net importer of oil in the world even with their "shale revolution".
    marknesop , January 12, 2016 at 11:30 am
    Yes, that's true on the consumption side, so low prices are a boon to homeowners and consumers in general. But what is it doing to corporate profits? Exxon and Chevron are used to turning a profit on oil sales in America, too.

    Gasoline is finally starting to fall at the pump, down more than 12 cents over the past couple of weeks here.

    karl1haushofer , January 12, 2016 at 12:43 pm
    USA also has lots of industries that use oil. So they benefit as well.
    cartman , January 12, 2016 at 3:26 pm
    The steel industry boomed when it was making pipes for the oil industry. Who are they producing for now?
    Patient Observer , January 13, 2016 at 4:14 pm
    Karl, its not that simple. Hundreds of billions of dollars were invested in the oil fracking effort. alternative energy projects and other technologies that banked on high energy costs. The incurred debt would take many years or decades to pay off. However, a relatively short term drop in oil prices can drive the debt holders out of business. Massive loan defaults and hundreds of thousands of good-paying jobs will be lost. The ensuing drag on the economy can exceed the benefits of lower oil prices, at least in the short term.

    Up and down energy prices are likely more harmful than steady high prices on long term economic development. If oil prices were to remain low for, say, 5 years, then the net economic gain can become significant. Don't bank on that being the case.

    shargash , January 13, 2016 at 4:48 pm
    The American tight oil boom was almost entirely financed by junk bonds and only made financial sense at oil prices a lot higher than they are now. There is going to be a lot of pain as those bonds get defaulted on and the companies that issued them go bankrupt. However, the big question is what kinds and amounts of derivatives were leveraged on those bonds, and who is going to blow up when those bonds blow.

    My personal take is this is going to be a very, very bad year. There are no bright spots that I can see anywhere in the world. It is going to get very ugly out there, and the US is no exception.

    marknesop , January 13, 2016 at 5:29 pm
    Unless the USA withdraws its sponsorship of The Kingdom, and lets Saudi Arabia collapse from its internal problems. God knows America has learned a lot about the regime-change game considering all the practice it's gotten.

    [Jan 14, 2016] Syria Obamas Delusion Over Russian Retreat Continues

    Notable quotes:
    "... Is there still this neocon superiority illusion that lets U.S. news media and politicians believe they are the only ones who matter? That the U.S. is the only country which has a say in global issues? ..."
    "... We here in the US are not free, nor do we have a democracy at present. This is because the people are not being listened to by those appointed by them, nor is it clear that those appointed have actually been appointed by the people. (Putin did not say that - it is my own assessment.) ..."
    "... Ignatius is a member of the American ruling class. His father was Secretary of the Navy and publisher of the Washington Post. Ignatius himself was educated at St. Albans School, Harvard, and Cambridge. During his career in journalism, he has occupied all sorts of prestigious postings. ..."
    "... In the particular case of Obama and the US government, they dont seem motivated at all to reduce this dissonance, or to avoid situations and information likely to increase it, on the contrary, cognitive dissonance is the platform from which they constantly deny, contort, distort, and twist reality to fit their spurious needs. Thanks b for expounding into the US denial syndrome. ..."
    "... Regarding the US vessels drifting into Irans territorial waters: Yes, my first thought was Gulf of Tonkin/USS Pueblo redux? ..."
    "... The factual scenarios are different in all of these incidents, but there is a common denominator of US naval forces provocatively entering a hostile nations territorial waters, and claiming afterwards that it was either fully justified or an innocent mistake. ..."
    "... The extract from the Putin interview contains some not-so-subtle swipes at US-style democracy which seem to have flown under the radar. Putin raised the Snowden issue because he sees Snowden Assad as equally Patriotic and trustworthy. Snowden believes in an America for all Americans and Assad believes in a Syria for all Syrians. And thats the reason the criminally insane USG hates them. ..."
    "... He is making the point that Obama (unlike Assad) doesnt want Syrians deciding who their President should be and made damn sure that Americans didnt get to decide whether Snowden should be rewarded or punished for exposing USG criminality. ..."
    "... It seems that the US media is so desperate that the US administration leaked that Bashar Al Assad will will stay until 2017 ( at least) that they are trying to present some compensation to that humiliating reality by inventing the idea of a punishment on Bashar al Assad. ..."
    "... David Cameron concedes his claim of 70,000 moderate rebels was nonsense, but reiterates the policy: using rebel forces as pressure to achieve the removal of Assad. ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org

    Some U.S. media say that Iran is "aggressive" when it detains U.S. ships and sailors ... who invade Iranian waters.

    It is such delusional worldview that has people all over the world shake their heads over U.S. media and politics.

    But this messy thinking starts at the top. The Obama administration is filled with delusional thinkers. Consider this nonsense , relayed by the unofficial spokesperson David Ignatius, over Putin's position towards the Syrian President Assad:

    Putin this week seemed to take a public step toward the U.S. position that Assad must go eventually . In an interview with the German newspaper Bild released Tuesday, Putin hinted that he might grant Assad asylum.
    ...
    Putin's reference to asylum was taken "very seriously" by the White House, a second administration official noted Tuesday. "I think he was sending a signal about where he stands" that was consistent with what Russian officials have been telling the United States in private, the official said.

    The transcript of the interview is available in English and Russian for all to see.

    Putin was in no way "sending a signal". He was deflecting a direct question that the reporters asked. He took a firm stance that Assad must stay and be allowed to take part in new elections:

    Question: If, contrary to expectations, al-Assad loses the elections, will you grant him the possibility of asylum in your country?

    Vladimir Putin: I think it is quite premature to discuss this. We granted asylum to Mr Snowden, which was far more difficult than to do the same for Mr al-Assad.

    First, the Syrian people should be given the opportunity to have their say. I assure you, if this process is conducted democratically, then al-Assad will probably not need to leave the country at all. And it is not important whether he remains President or not.

    How is that "sending a signal"? The only signal I perceive therein is that - as far as Russia is concerned - Assad will stay where he is right now. I have no doubt that the private statements of Putin and the Russian government in this case are exactly the same than the official ones.

    In October Obama demanded that Russia let go of Assad or end in a quagmire. Since then the position of the Syrian government has solidified and the Russian support has turned out to be very effective and not a burden. The position of the U.S. administration and its jihadist proxy forces in Syria has deteriorated. With each Islamic State attack the pressure to end the U.S. war on Syria is increasing.

    How then can the "administration official" come up with this nonsense?

    Is there still this neocon superiority illusion that lets U.S. news media and politicians believe they are the only ones who matter? That the U.S. is the only country which has a say in global issues?

    One would have thought that the lost war in Iraq and the U.S. quagmire in Afghanistan would have cured such delusions. But stupid thinking seems hard to heal.

    juliania | Jan 13, 2016 11:34:09 AM | 3

    The interview you link to up top is important reading if only for the final comment on sports and the arts that Putin makes. But I also enjoyed his reference to Goethe and the difference between the Russian and German languages. I find Russian very hard to follow because of the rapid pace at which it is spoken - Putin's explanation certainly corroborates that impression.

    Also, his points about "freedom' and 'democracy' are worth consideration.

    We here in the US are not free, nor do we have a democracy at present. This is because the people are not being listened to by those appointed by them, nor is it clear that those appointed have actually been appointed by the people. (Putin did not say that - it is my own assessment.)

    lysias | Jan 13, 2016 11:47:16 AM | 5

    Mikhail Lermontov did a great translation into Russian of Goethe's Wandrers Nachtlied 2. Here's the German:

    Über allen Gipfeln/ Ist Ruh,/ In allen Wipfeln/ Spürest du/ Kaum einen Hauch;/ Die Vögelein schweigen im Walde./ Warte nur, balde/ Ruhest du auch.

    And Lermontov's Russian:

    Горные вершины/ Спят во тьме ночной./ Тихие долины/ Полны свежей мглой./ Не пылит дорога,/ Не дрожат листы./ Подожди немного,/ Отдохнёшь и ты.

    Preserves Goethe's metrical/rhyme scheme almost perfectly, and stays remarkably close to the sense of the German version.

    Seward | Jan 13, 2016 12:04:52 PM | 6

    Remember that David Ignatius is a writer of fiction. (He also has close insider ties with the CIA, so often reflects their point of view. A mid-level manager I knew from there, now deceased, was amazed at how much he knew.)

    lysias | Jan 13, 2016 12:26:20 PM | 7

    Ignatius is a member of the American ruling class. His father was Secretary of the Navy and publisher of the Washington Post. Ignatius himself was educated at St. Albans School, Harvard, and Cambridge. During his career in journalism, he has occupied all sorts of prestigious postings.
    Lone Wolf | Jan 13, 2016 12:39:05 PM | 9

    How then can the "administration official" come up with this nonsense?

    Typical cognitive dissonance, which Wikipedia defines as

    [...]"an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time, performs an action that is contradictory to one or more beliefs, ideas or values, or is confronted by new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas, or values.[1][2]

    Leon Festinger's theory of cognitive dissonance focuses on how humans strive for internal consistency. An individual who experiences inconsistency (dissonance) tends to become psychologically uncomfortable, and is motivated to try to reduce this dissonance-as well as actively avoid situations and information likely to increase it.[1] [...]

    In the particular case of Obama and the US government, they don't seem motivated at all to reduce this dissonance, or to "avoid situations and information likely to increase it," on the contrary, cognitive dissonance is the platform from which they constantly deny, contort, distort, and twist reality to fit their spurious needs. Thanks b for expounding into the US denial syndrome.

    Ort | Jan 13, 2016 1:34:52 PM | 13

    Regarding the US vessels "drifting" into Iran's territorial waters: Yes, my first thought was "Gulf of Tonkin/USS Pueblo redux?"

    The factual scenarios are different in all of these incidents, but there is a common denominator of US naval forces provocatively entering a hostile nation's territorial waters, and claiming afterwards that it was either fully justified or an innocent mistake.

    As noted in the links and comments, US wingnut politicians and pundits will incorporate this event into their ever-bubbling stream of reactionary demagoguery. However, it seems as though this contretemps is not escalating on the geopolitical level. So perhaps this time it really was just a merry mixup.

    Still-- I'm no sailor, and I defer to nautical experts here. But with all of the billions invested in procuring state-of-the-art, high-tech navigation equipment for US Navy ships-- including a network of satellites to support GPS location and tracking systems-- is it really plausible that these vessels can indeed "drift" past territorial boundaries? Just askin'.

    Hoarsewhisperer | Jan 13, 2016 1:47:43 PM | 14
    The extract from the Putin interview contains some not-so-subtle swipes at US-style democracy which seem to have flown under the radar. Putin raised the Snowden issue because he sees Snowden & Assad as equally Patriotic and trustworthy. Snowden believes in an America for all Americans and Assad believes in a Syria for all Syrians. And that's the reason the criminally insane USG hates them.

    He is making the point that Obama (unlike Assad) doesn't want Syrians deciding who their President should be and made damn sure that Americans didn't get to decide whether Snowden should be rewarded or punished for exposing USG criminality.

    He described Smowden's asylum in Russia as "far more difficult" because Obama and Putin both know that the USG cancelled Snowden's passport, rendering him stateless and stranding him in Russia.

    virgile | Jan 13, 2016 2:02:02 PM | 16

    What a ridiculous idea! Why Bashar al Assad who stood facing the hateful plots of the USA, France, the UK, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar and is winning over ISIS would go on exile? Who will decide that? The UN? The US? The pathetic opposition? Erdogan? Under which authority? Normally a leader is sent to exile if he loose the war. Bashar did not loose the war, he is winning politically and militarily. The losers are the SNC and the rebels and they are already exiled in Turkey where they will stay to the end of their lives if they care for their lives.

    It seems that the US media is so desperate that the US administration leaked that Bashar Al Assad will will stay until 2017 ( at least) that they are trying to present some compensation to that humiliating reality by inventing the idea of a punishment on Bashar al Assad.

    Ignatius is totally off track as he has been for 4 years...

    jayc | Jan 13, 2016 2:35:41 PM | 17
    Not sure the political leadership or punditry are delusional or stupid - they are simply staying "on message" and their statements reflect policy. The policy, even after Russia's intervention in Syria, continues to be regime-change in Damascus and the use of "rebel" proxy forces to see this through.

    Here, David Cameron concedes his claim of 70,000 moderate rebels was nonsense, but reiterates the policy: using rebel forces as "pressure" to achieve the removal of Assad.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/syria-air-strikes-david-cameron-admits-there-aren-t-enough-moderate-fighters-on-the-ground-and-some-a6808021.html

    [Jan 14, 2016] M of A - Syria Obamas Delusion Over Russian Retreat Continues

    Notable quotes:
    "... Is there still this neocon superiority illusion that lets U.S. news media and politicians believe they are the only ones who matter? That the U.S. is the only country which has a say in global issues? ..."
    "... Ignatius is a member of the American ruling class. His father was Secretary of the Navy and publisher of the Washington Post. Ignatius himself was educated at St. Albans School, Harvard, and Cambridge. During his career in journalism, he has occupied all sorts of prestigious postings. ..."
    "... Regarding the US vessels drifting into Irans territorial waters: Yes, my first thought was Gulf of Tonkin/USS Pueblo redux? ..."
    "... The factual scenarios are different in all of these incidents, but there is a common denominator of US naval forces provocatively entering a hostile nations territorial waters, and claiming afterwards that it was either fully justified or an innocent mistake. ..."
    "... The extract from the Putin interview contains some not-so-subtle swipes at US-style democracy which seem to have flown under the radar. Putin raised the Snowden issue because he sees Snowden Assad as equally Patriotic and trustworthy. Snowden believes in an America for all Americans and Assad believes in a Syria for all Syrians. And thats the reason the criminally insane USG hates them. ..."
    "... He is making the point that Obama (unlike Assad) doesnt want Syrians deciding who their President should be and made damn sure that Americans didnt get to decide whether Snowden should be rewarded or punished for exposing USG criminality. ..."
    "... David Cameron concedes his claim of 70,000 moderate rebels was nonsense, but reiterates the policy: using rebel forces as pressure to achieve the removal of Assad. ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org

    Some U.S. media say that Iran is "aggressive" when it detains U.S. ships and sailors ... who invade Iranian waters.

    It is such delusional worldview that has people all over the world shake their heads over U.S. media and politics.

    But this messy thinking starts at the top. The Obama administration is filled with delusional thinkers. Consider this nonsense , relayed by the unofficial spokesperson David Ignatius, over Putin's position towards the Syrian President Assad:

    Putin this week seemed to take a public step toward the U.S. position that Assad must go eventually . In an interview with the German newspaper Bild released Tuesday, Putin hinted that he might grant Assad asylum.
    ...
    Putin's reference to asylum was taken "very seriously" by the White House, a second administration official noted Tuesday. "I think he was sending a signal about where he stands" that was consistent with what Russian officials have been telling the United States in private, the official said.

    The transcript of the interview is available in English and Russian for all to see.

    Putin was in no way "sending a signal". He was deflecting a direct question that the reporters asked. He took a firm stance that Assad must stay and be allowed to take part in new elections:

    Question: If, contrary to expectations, al-Assad loses the elections, will you grant him the possibility of asylum in your country?

    Vladimir Putin: I think it is quite premature to discuss this. We granted asylum to Mr Snowden, which was far more difficult than to do the same for Mr al-Assad.

    First, the Syrian people should be given the opportunity to have their say. I assure you, if this process is conducted democratically, then al-Assad will probably not need to leave the country at all. And it is not important whether he remains President or not.

    How is that "sending a signal"? The only signal I perceive therein is that - as far as Russia is concerned - Assad will stay where he is right now. I have no doubt that the private statements of Putin and the Russian government in this case are exactly the same than the official ones.

    In October Obama demanded that Russia let go of Assad or end in a quagmire. Since then the position of the Syrian government has solidified and the Russian support has turned out to be very effective and not a burden. The position of the U.S. administration and its jihadist proxy forces in Syria has deteriorated. With each Islamic State attack the pressure to end the U.S. war on Syria is increasing.

    How then can the "administration official" come up with this nonsense?

    Is there still this neocon superiority illusion that lets U.S. news media and politicians believe they are the only ones who matter? That the U.S. is the only country which has a say in global issues?

    One would have thought that the lost war in Iraq and the U.S. quagmire in Afghanistan would have cured such delusions. But stupid thinking seems hard to heal.

    juliania | Jan 13, 2016 11:34:09 AM | 3

    The interview you link to up top is important reading if only for the final comment on sports and the arts that Putin makes. But I also enjoyed his reference to Goethe and the difference between the Russian and German languages. I find Russian very hard to follow because of the rapid pace at which it is spoken - Putin's explanation certainly corroborates that impression.

    Also, his points about "freedom' and 'democracy' are worth consideration.

    We here in the US are not free, nor do we have a democracy at present. This is because the people are not being listened to by those appointed by them, nor is it clear that those appointed have actually been appointed by the people. (Putin did not say that - it is my own assessment.)

    lysias | Jan 13, 2016 11:47:16 AM | 5

    Mikhail Lermontov did a great translation into Russian of Goethe's Wandrers Nachtlied 2. Here's the German:

    Über allen Gipfeln/ Ist Ruh,/ In allen Wipfeln/ Spürest du/ Kaum einen Hauch;/ Die Vögelein schweigen im Walde./ Warte nur, balde/ Ruhest du auch.

    And Lermontov's Russian:

    Горные вершины/ Спят во тьме ночной./ Тихие долины/ Полны свежей мглой./ Не пылит дорога,/ Не дрожат листы./ Подожди немного,/ Отдохнёшь и ты.

    Preserves Goethe's metrical/rhyme scheme almost perfectly, and stays remarkably close to the sense of the German version.

    Seward | Jan 13, 2016 12:04:52 PM | 6

    Remember that David Ignatius is a writer of fiction. (He also has close insider ties with the CIA, so often reflects their point of view. A mid-level manager I knew from there, now deceased, was amazed at how much he knew.)

    lysias | Jan 13, 2016 12:26:20 PM | 7

    Ignatius is a member of the American ruling class. His father was Secretary of the Navy and publisher of the Washington Post. Ignatius himself was educated at St. Albans School, Harvard, and Cambridge. During his career in journalism, he has occupied all sorts of prestigious postings.
    Lone Wolf | Jan 13, 2016 12:39:05 PM | 9

    How then can the "administration official" come up with this nonsense?

    Typical cognitive dissonance, which Wikipedia defines as [...]"an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time, performs an action that is contradictory to one or more beliefs, ideas or values, or is confronted by new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas, or values.[1][2]

    Leon Festinger's theory of cognitive dissonance focuses on how humans strive for internal consistency. An individual who experiences inconsistency (dissonance) tends to become psychologically uncomfortable, and is motivated to try to reduce this dissonance-as well as actively avoid situations and information likely to increase it.[1] [...]

    In the particular case of Obama and the US government, they don't seem motivated at all to reduce this dissonance, or to "avoid situations and information likely to increase it," on the contrary, cognitive dissonance is the platform from which they constantly deny, contort, distort, and twist reality to fit their spurious needs.

    Thanks b for expounding into the US denial syndrome.

    Ort | Jan 13, 2016 1:34:52 PM | 13

    Regarding the US vessels "drifting" into Iran's territorial waters: Yes, my first thought was "Gulf of Tonkin/USS Pueblo redux?"

    The factual scenarios are different in all of these incidents, but there is a common denominator of US naval forces provocatively entering a hostile nation's territorial waters, and claiming afterwards that it was either fully justified or an innocent mistake.

    As noted in the links and comments, US wingnut politicians and pundits will incorporate this event into their ever-bubbling stream of reactionary demagoguery. However, it seems as though this contretemps is not escalating on the geopolitical level. So perhaps this time it really was just a merry mixup.

    Still-- I'm no sailor, and I defer to nautical experts here. But with all of the billions invested in procuring state-of-the-art, high-tech navigation equipment for US Navy ships-- including a network of satellites to support GPS location and tracking systems-- is it really plausible that these vessels can indeed "drift" past territorial boundaries? Just askin'.

    Hoarsewhisperer | Jan 13, 2016 1:47:43 PM | 14
    The extract from the Putin interview contains some not-so-subtle swipes at US-style democracy which seem to have flown under the radar. Putin raised the Snowden issue because he sees Snowden & Assad as equally Patriotic and trustworthy. Snowden believes in an America for all Americans and Assad believes in a Syria for all Syrians. And that's the reason the criminally insane USG hates them.

    He is making the point that Obama (unlike Assad) doesn't want Syrians deciding who their President should be and made damn sure that Americans didn't get to decide whether Snowden should be rewarded or punished for exposing USG criminality.

    He described Smowden's asylum in Russia as "far more difficult" because Obama and Putin both know that the USG cancelled Snowden's passport, rendering him stateless and stranding him in Russia.

    virgile | Jan 13, 2016 2:02:02 PM | 16

    What a ridiculous idea! Why Bashar al Assad who stood facing the hateful plots of the USA, France, the UK, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar and is winning over ISIS would go on exile? Who will decide that? The UN? The US? The pathetic opposition? Erdogan? Under which authority? Normally a leader is sent to exile if he loose the war. Bashar did not loose the war, he is winning politically and militarily. The losers are the SNC and the rebels and they are already exiled in Turkey where they will stay to the end of their lives if they care for their lives.

    It seems that the US media is so desperate that the US administration leaked that Bashar Al Assad will will stay until 2017 ( at least) that they are trying to present some compensation to that humiliating reality by inventing the idea of a punishment on Bashar al Assad.

    Ignatius is totally off track as he has been for 4 years...

    jayc | Jan 13, 2016 2:35:41 PM | 17
    Not sure the political leadership or punditry are delusional or stupid - they are simply staying "on message" and their statements reflect policy. The policy, even after Russia's intervention in Syria, continues to be regime-change in Damascus and the use of "rebel" proxy forces to see this through.

    Here, David Cameron concedes his claim of 70,000 moderate rebels was nonsense, but reiterates the policy: using rebel forces as "pressure" to achieve the removal of Assad.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/syria-air-strikes-david-cameron-admits-there-aren-t-enough-moderate-fighters-on-the-ground-and-some-a6808021.html

    [Jan 13, 2016] Interview of President Putin to German newspaper Bild. Part 1

    January 11, 2016 | en.kremlin.ru

    You have mentioned sanctions. In my view, this was a foolish decision and a harmful one. I have said that our turnover with Germany amounted to $83–85 billion, and thousands of jobs were created in Germany as a result of this cooperation. And what are the restrictions that we are facing? This is not the worst thing we are going through, but it is harmful for our economy anyway, since it affects our access to international financial markets.

    As to the worst harm inflicted by today's situation, first of all on our economy, it is the harm caused by the falling prices on our traditional export goods. However, both the former and the latter have their positive aspects. When oil prices are high, it is very difficult for us to resist spending oil revenues to cover current expenses. I believe that our non-oil and gas deficit had risen to a very dangerous level. So now we are forced to lower it. And this is healthy…

    Question: For the budget deficit?

    Vladimir Putin: We divide it. There is the total deficit and then there are non-oil and gas revenues. There are revenues from oil and gas, and we divide all the rest as well.

    The total deficit is quite small. But when you subtract the non-oil and gas deficit, then you see that the oil and gas deficit is too large. In order to reduce it, such countries as Norway, for example, put a significant proportion of non-oil and gas revenues into the reserve. It is very difficult, I repeat, to resist spending oil and gas revenues to cover current expenses. It is the reduction of these expenses that improves the economy. That is the first point.

    Second point. You can buy anything with petrodollars. High oil revenues discourage development, especially in the high technology sectors. We are witnessing a decrease in GDP by 3.8 percent, in industrial production by 3.3 percent and an increase in inflation, which has reached 12.7 percent. This is a lot, but we still have a surplus in foreign trade, and the total exports of goods with high added value have grown significantly for the first time in years. That is an expressly positive trend in the economy.

    The reserves are still at a high level, and the Central Bank has about 340 billion in gold and foreign currency reserves. If I am not mistaken, they amount to over 300. There are also two reserve funds of the Government of the Russian Federation, each of which amounts to $70 to $80 billion. One of them holds $70 billion, the other – $80 billion. We believe that we will be steadily moving towards stabilisation and economic growth. We have adopted a whole range of programmes, including those aimed at import replacement, which means investing in high technologies.

    [Jan 13, 2016] Petrobras Reduces Output Estimates on Deeper Spending Cuts

    Notable quotes:
    "... The Rio de Janeiro-based company reduced its 2020 target for Brazilian oil production by 3.6 percent to 2.7 million barrels a day. ..."
    Bloomberg Business

    Petroleo Brasileiro SA, as Brazil's state-controlled oil producer is formally known, slashed its business plan for the five years through 2019 to $98.4 billion, the latest adjustment to the original $130 billion announced last year, it said Tuesday in a filing. The Rio de Janeiro-based company reduced its 2020 target for Brazilian oil production by 3.6 percent to 2.7 million barrels a day.

    ... ... ...

    The world's most-indebted oil company said it plans to invest $20 billion in 2016, up slightly from its most recent estimate of $19 billion. Petrobras still plans to divest $14.4 billion this year to help fund its spending plan. The company expects Brent crude prices to average $45 a barrel this year, down from its previous estimate of $55 a barrel.

    [Jan 13, 2016] Russia Stock Swings Widen as Oil Rout Dims Investor Outlook

    Notable quotes:
    "... "I can't think of too many investors who predicted that oil would be trading at current levels, so a continuing slump in crude adds to investor nervousness, leading to a spike in volatility," ..."
    "... crude at $35 a barrel would cause Russia's gross domestic product to decline by as much as 3 percent in 2016, its central bank said in December. ..."
    Bloomberg Business

    "I can't think of too many investors who predicted that oil would be trading at current levels, so a continuing slump in crude adds to investor nervousness, leading to a spike in volatility," Pavel Laberko, who helps manage $150 million in emerging-market assets at Union Bancaire Privee in London, said by phone on Wednesday. "There is a lot of uncertainty as to where oil is going to go from current levels, and this uncertainty is not doing much to decrease price swings."

    ... ... ...

    ...crude at $35 a barrel would cause Russia's gross domestic product to decline by as much as 3 percent in 2016, its central bank said in December.

    ... ... ...

    The ruble advanced 0.5 percent to 76.65 against the dollar at 3:18 p.m. in New York, narrowing its retreat this year to 4 percent, among the biggest drops among emerging-market currencies. The Market Vectors Russia ETF slid 0.7 percent to $13.10. The dollar-denominated RTS Index fell 0.2 percent in Moscow, while futures contracts on the index retreated 0.7 percent to 68,530 in U.S. hours.

    [Jan 13, 2016] Tomgram Michael Klare, The Look of a Badly Oiled Planet

    Notable quotes:
    "... Financial Times ..."
    "... Wall Street Journal ..."
    "... Michael T. Klare, a ..."
    "... , is a professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College and the author, most recently, of ..."
    "... . A documentary movie version of his book ..."
    "... is available from the Media Education Foundation ..."
    "... Follow him on Twitter at @mklare1. ..."
    Jan 13, 2016 | TomDispatch

    ... If anything, the Saudis have actually increased their output.

    Many reasons have been given for the Saudis' resistance to production cutbacks, including a desire to punish Iran and Russia for their support of the Assad regime in Syria. In the view of many industry analysts, the Saudis see themselves as better positioned than their rivals for weathering a long-term price decline because of their lower costs of production and their large cushion of foreign reserves. The most likely explanation, though, and the one advanced by the Saudis themselves is that they are seeking to maintain a price environment in which U.S. shale producers and other tough-oil operators will be driven out of the market. "There is no doubt about it, the price fall of the last several months has deterred investors away from expensive oil including U.S. shale, deep offshore, and heavy oils," a top Saudi official told the Financial Times last spring.

    Despite the Saudis' best efforts, the larger U.S. producers have, for the most part, adjusted to the low-price environment, cutting costs and shedding unprofitable operations, even as many smaller firms have filed for bankruptcy. As a result, U.S. crude production, at about 9.2 million barrels per day, is actually slightly higher than it was a year ago.

    In other words, even at $33 a barrel, production continues to outpace global demand and there seems little likelihood of prices rising soon, especially since, among other things, both Iraq and Iran continue to increase their output. With the Islamic State slowly losing ground in Iraq and most major oil fields still in government hands, that country's production is expected to continue its stellar growth. In fact, some analysts project that its output could triple during the coming decade from the present three million barrels per day level to as much as nine million barrels.

    For years, Iranian production has been hobbled by sanctions imposed by Washington and the European Union (E.U.), impeding both export transactions and the acquisition of advanced Western drilling technology. Now, thanks to its nuclear deal with Washington, those sanctions are being lifted, allowing it both to reenter the oil market and import needed technology. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, Iranian output could rise by as much as 600,000 barrels per day in 2016 and by more in the years to follow.

    Only three developments could conceivably alter the present low-price environment for oil: a Middle Eastern war that took out one or more of the major energy suppliers; a Saudi decision to constrain production in order to boost prices; or an unexpected global surge in demand.

    The prospect of a new war between, say, Iran and Saudi Arabia -- two powers at each other's throats at this very moment -- can never be ruled out, though neither side is believed to have the capacity or inclination to undertake such a risky move. A Saudi decision to constrain production is somewhat more likely sooner or later, given the precipitous decline in government revenues. However, the Saudis have repeatedly affirmed their determination to avoid such a move, as it would largely benefit the very producers -- namely shale operators in the U.S. -- they seek to eliminate.

    The likelihood of a sudden spike in demand appears unlikely indeed. Not only is economic activity still slowing in China and many other parts of the world, but there's an extra wrinkle that should worry the Saudis at least as much as all that shale oil coming out of North America: oil itself is beginning to lose some of its appeal.

    While newly affluent consumers in China and India continue to buy oil-powered automobiles -- albeit not at the breakneck pace once predicted -- a growing number of consumers in the older industrial nations are exhibiting a preference for hybrid and all-electric cars, or for alternative means of transportation. Moreover, with concern over climate change growing globally, increasing numbers of young urban dwellers are choosing to subsist without cars altogether, relying instead on bikes and public transit. In addition, the use of renewable energy sources -- sun, wind, and water power -- is on the rise and will only grow more rapidly in this century.

    These trends have prompted some analysts to predict that global oil demand will soon peak and then be followed by a period of declining consumption. Amy Myers Jaffe, director of the energy and sustainability program at the University of California, Davis, suggests that growing urbanization combined with technological breakthroughs in renewables will dramatically reduce future demand for oil. "Increasingly, cities around the world are seeking smarter designs for transport systems as well as penalties and restrictions on car ownership. Already in the West, trendsetting millennials are urbanizing, eliminating the need for commuting and interest in individual car ownership," she wrote in the Wall Street Journal last year.

    The Changing World Power Equation

    Many countries that get a significant share of their funds from oil and natural gas exports and that gained enormous influence as petroleum exporters are already experiencing a significant erosion in prominence. Their leaders, once bolstered by high oil revenues, which meant money to spread around and buy popularity domestically, are falling into disfavor.

    Nigeria's government, for example, traditionally obtains 75% of its revenues from such sales; Russia's, 50% ; and Venezuela's, 40% . With oil now at a third of the price of 18 months ago, state revenues in all three have plummeted, putting a crimp in their ability to undertake ambitious domestic and foreign initiatives.

    In Nigeria, diminished government spending combined with rampant corruption discredited the government of President Goodluck Jonathan and helped fuel a vicious insurgency by Boko Haram, prompting Nigerian voters to abandon him in the most recent election and install a former military ruler, Muhammadu Buhari, in his place. Since taking office, Buhari has pledged to crack down on corruption, crush Boko Haram, and -- in a telling sign of the times -- diversify the economy, lessening its reliance on oil.

    Venezuela has experienced a similar political shock thanks to depressed oil prices. When prices were high, President Hugo Chávez took revenues from the state-owned oil company, Petróleos de Venezuela S.A. , and used them to build housing and provide other benefits for the country's poor and working classes, winning vast popular support for his United Socialist Party. He also sought regional support by offering oil subsidies to friendly countries like Cuba, Nicaragua, and Bolivia. After he died in March 2013, his chosen successor, Nicolas Maduro, sought to perpetuate this strategy, but oil didn't cooperate and, not surprisingly, public support for him and for Chávez's party began to collapse. On December 6th, the center-right opposition swept to electoral victory, taking a majority of the seats in the National Assembly. It now seeks to dismantle Chávez's "Bolivarian Revolution," though Maduro's supporters have pledged firm resistance to any such moves.

    The situation in Russia remains somewhat more fluid. President Vladimir Putin continues to enjoy widespread popular support and, from Ukraine to Syria, he has indeed been moving ambitiously on the international front. Still, falling oil prices combined with economic sanctions imposed by the E.U. and the U.S. have begun to cause some expressions of dissatisfaction, including a recent protest by long-distance truckers over increased highway tolls. Russia's economy is expected to contract in a significant way in 2016, undermining the living standards of ordinary Russians and possibly sparking further anti-government protests. In fact, some analysts believe that Putin took the risky step of intervening in the Syrian conflict partly to deflect public attention from deteriorating economic conditions at home. He may also have done so to create a situation in which Russian help in achieving a negotiated resolution to the bitter, increasingly internationalized Syrian civil war could be traded for the lifting of sanctions over Ukraine. If so, this is a very dangerous game , and no one -- least of all Putin -- can be certain of the outcome.

    Saudi Arabia, the world's leading oil exporter, has been similarly buffeted, but appears -- for the time being, anyway -- to be in a somewhat better position to weather the shock. When oil prices were high, the Saudis socked away a massive trove of foreign reserves, estimated at three-quarters of a trillion dollars. Now that prices have fallen, they are drawing on those reserves to sustain generous social spending meant to stave off unrest in the kingdom and to finance their ambitious intervention in Yemen's civil war, which is already beginning to look like a Saudi Vietnam. Still, those reserves have fallen by some $90 billion since last year and the government is already announcing cutbacks in public spending, leading some observers to question how long the royal family can continue to buy off the discontent of the country's growing populace. Even if the Saudis were to reverse course and limit the kingdom's oil production to drive the price of oil back up, it's unlikely that their oil income would rise high enough to sustain all of their present lavish spending priorities.

    Other major oil-producing countries also face the prospect of political turmoil, including Algeria and Angola . The leaders of both countries had achieved the usual deceptive degree of stability in energy producing countries through the usual oil-financed government largesse. That is now coming to an end, which means that both countries could face internal challenges.

    And keep in mind that the tremors from the oil pricequake have undoubtedly yet to reach their full magnitude. Prices will, of course, rise someday. That's inevitable, given the way investors are pulling the plug on energy projects globally. Still, on a planet heading for a green energy revolution, there's no assurance that they will ever reach the $100-plus levels that were once taken for granted. Whatever happens to oil and the countries that produce it, the global political order that once rested on oil's soaring price is doomed. While this may mean hardship for some, especially the citizens of export-dependent states like Russia and Venezuela, it could help smooth the transition to a world powered by renewable forms of energy.

    Michael T. Klare, a TomDispatch regular , is a professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College and the author, most recently, of The Race for What's Left . A documentary movie version of his book Blood and Oil is available from the Media Education Foundation . Follow him on Twitter at @mklare1.

    [Jan 12, 2016] Syria Russian Campaign Enables Government Progress - Terrorists Lines Fall Apart

    The West goal from the very beginning was the regime change by whatever means and to neoliberalize Syria just like Iraq. Now Germany got payback.
    Notable quotes:
    "... The Turkish government says the culprit was a 28 year old Saudi man. That mostly excludes that this was an attack of the PKK or any radical left group. ..."
    "... The attacks real target is the Turkish economy. Istanbul is the third most visited tourist city in Europe. That will now change. ..."
    "... The border crossing remained open until Kurdish forces took control of the town in June, at which point Turkey promptly sealed it. The crossing remains closed, a government official confirmed. ..."
    "... There are still other parts of the border where people can cross from Islamic State held territory to Turkey and back. Imports to the Islamic State come mostly from Turkey while stolen oil is exported to Turkey. Turkey will have to stop all support for the various terrorist groups in Syria and Iraq or it will experience ever increasing mayhem on its own soil. ..."
    "... Last year Turkey helped an alliance that included al-Qaeda in Syria and similar groups in capturing Idleb province and Idleb city from the Syrian government. That attack und the Turkish support for these groups was one of the reasons that prompted the Russians to intervene on the Syrian government side. ..."
    "... But Turkey is not the only western country that is still actively supporting the Jihadidsts ..."
    "... Can someone explain why and how the U.S. Syrian Emergency Task Force, which is financed by the U.S. State Department , can continue to operate in al-Qaeda occupied Idleb? ..."
    "... According to the Indian ambassador in Syria at that time al-Qaeda was involved even in the very first weeks of the 2011 peaceful protests . A fact that at that time was denied by western media and is still covered up in recent reporting. ..."
    "... Nabil Fadli, a 28-year-old ISIL militant of Syrian origin who was born in Saudi Arabia in 1988 , blew himself up after blending into a tourist group of 33 German citizens ..."
    "... Oddly, and alarmingly, CCTV picked up on BBCs starvation bs fake photos only moments after BBC started the rumours. But this morning (less than an hour ago) reported that the rebels had been commandeering the food aid and extorting money from BBCs starving Syrians - a pretty difficult crime to pin on the SAA or Assad in the circumstances. ..."
    "... Why would Daesh attack its patron Erdogan, even if only to strike against Germany? Why would Erdogan openly blame his proteges in Daesh? ..."
    "... Erdogan made a lucrative deal with the EU in exchange for stemming the flow of refugees and part of that deal was Turkey closing its borders discernibly to the free (and very lucrative) flow of money, oil, personnel, weapons TO and FROM ISIS ... i.e. they became (at least publicly) accomodationists if not fully collaborators in the war against ISIS (talk is cheap, proof of the pudding, etc). ..."
    "... Because it is Turkey, nothing can be taken for what it seems to be ... is Turkey begin punished by ISIS? or is this Turkey way of proving that it is stifling ISIS ambitions (false flags can never be ruled out wrt Turkey) ..."
    "... At this point in time, you seriously have to have your f*cking head examined to visit ANY place at all in the Islamic world. Why risk becoming collateral damage while the West is at war with them and the Muslims are at war with each other? ..."
    "... Iran is quite safe, and will see the biggest tourist boom this year. But you are right, other than Iran the rest of Muslim World is f**cked, US and its puppets set them all ablaze. ..."
    "... I suspect that Bibi is praying to whatever G-d he worships, that Erdogan doesnt start questioning his belief that some of my best friends are Israelis . ..."
    "... Looks like Turkeys little pet cobra project has taken a new turn.. All the cuddly pet cobras have now grown into uncontrollable king cobras that dont mind biting anyone - including their masters. ..."
    M of A

    ... Ten people, most of them foreign tourists, were killed in a suicide attack in the Sultanahmet district, a main tourist area in Istanbul.

    The Turkish government says the culprit was a 28 year old Saudi man. That mostly excludes that this was an attack of the PKK or any radical left group. The Islamic State is likely the organization behind this attack.

    The attack's real target is the Turkish economy. Istanbul is the third most visited tourist city in Europe. That will now change.

    ...Until very recently the Islamic State ran a sophisticated immigration operation through the Turkey-Syria border:

    Turkey has long said that it is unable to secure its 500-mile border with Syria. In January, as Isis was logging people passing in and out of Tel Abyad, the Turkish prime minister, Ahmet Davutoğlu, told the Independent that sealing the border would be impossible.
    ...
    The border crossing remained open until Kurdish forces took control of the town in June, at which point Turkey promptly sealed it. The crossing remains closed, a government official confirmed.

    There are still other parts of the border where people can cross from Islamic State held territory to Turkey and back. Imports to the Islamic State come mostly from Turkey while stolen oil is exported to Turkey. Turkey will have to stop all support for the various terrorist groups in Syria and Iraq or it will experience ever increasing mayhem on its own soil.

    Last year Turkey helped an alliance that included al-Qaeda in Syria and similar groups in capturing Idleb province and Idleb city from the Syrian government. That attack und the Turkish support for these groups was one of the reasons that prompted the Russians to intervene on the Syrian government side.

    ... ... ...

    But Turkey is not the only "western" country that is still actively supporting the Jihadidsts :

    In a statement Monday to Foreign Policy, the Syrian Emergency Task Force said Russian planes bombed one of its offices in central Idlib province in a strike that "completely destroyed" the facility and equipment. The staff - which host civil society workshops, helps distribute U.S. humanitarian aid, and documents atrocities - was not present during the incident, and no one was killed, according to SETF.

    Can someone explain why and how the U.S. Syrian Emergency Task Force, which is financed by the U.S. State Department , can continue to operate in al-Qaeda occupied Idleb?

    When the Russian air support in Syria started and the Syrian army went on the offense a large number of U.S. provided anti-tank guided missiles where used by the terrorists. The number of such missile attacks has now significantly decreased. The Russian bombing broke the logistic lines of the various groups and ransacked their headquarters and support areas. The four month bombing campaign is now showing real results.

    In Latakia in north west Syria the Syrian army today took the resort town Salma which had been a major center of terrorist activities in the area. Yesterday a whole suburb west of Aleppo city fell to the Syrian army. East of Aleppo city the Syrian army is advancing towards Al Bab which lies on one of the Islamic State's major roads to Turkey. Near Rastan in Homs province the Syrian army crossed the Orontes river and captured Jarjisah. Further south the Syrian army is progressing towards the Jordanian border. The Russian air attacks also support the advances of the Kurdish forces fighting the Islamic State under the label of the U.S. created Syrian Democratic Front.

    The SDF is now moving to Manbij north east from Aleppo from the east and towards Avaz north-west of Aleppo from the west which together with the Syrian government rush north towards Al Bab develops into a pincer movement that will cut the Islamic State and other terrorist groups from the Turkish border.

    ... ... ...

    The "starving" claims were fake assertions as they have accompanied the war on Syria from its very beginning. According to the Indian ambassador in Syria at that time al-Qaeda was involved even in the very first weeks of the 2011 "peaceful protests". A fact that at that time was denied by "western" media and is still covered up in recent reporting.

    lysias | Jan 12, 2016 11:18:48 AM | 5
    9 dead Germans was what I thought I heard on RT television, but RT's print report only says "At least nine German citizens were injured in the blast, Reuters reports citing a senior Turkish official." https://www.rt.com/news/328603-turkey-istanbul-blast-square/

    There was apparently a party of German tourists in Sultanahmet Square when the bomb went off.

    lysias | Jan 12, 2016 11:22:37 AM | 6

    Sultanahmet Square (Sultanahmet Meydanı), located between Hagia Sophia and the Blue (Sultanahmet) Mosque, is the site of the Hippodrome of Constantine, one of the prime tourist sites in Istanbul. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippodrome_of_Constantinople

    danx | Jan 12, 2016 11:36:19 AM | 10

    Well, I regret to say that that initial report on RT television turns out to have been correct. Berlin Tagesspiegel is reporting at least 9 Germans dead: Anschlag in der Türkei im Newsblog: Mindestens neun Deutsche in Istanbul getötet .
    kooshy | Jan 12, 2016 11:38:11 AM | 12
    " Nabil Fadli, a 28-year-old ISIL militant of Syrian origin who was born in Saudi Arabia in 1988 , blew himself up after blending into a tourist group of 33 German citizens on a visit to the Obelisk of Theodosius in Sultanahmet Square near the Blue Mosque in the morning hours of Jan. 12 when the popular square was relatively less crowded compared to the rest of the day. "

    http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/isil-militant-kills-10-injures-15-in-istanbul-suicide-attack.aspx?pageID=238&nID=93778&NewsCatID=341

    Maracatu | Jan 12, 2016 11:39:18 AM | 13
    You all are on top of things more than I am, so excuse me if you have already taken note of this :
    The Islamic State terror group is making significant gains in Libya as hundreds of its members have been detected moving there from Syria and Iraq in recent weeks amid stepped up bombing and tighter border controls.
    james | Jan 12, 2016 1:21:43 PM | 16
    i walked thru this area a number of times when we visited turkey in 2012...

    i feel sorry for the people of turkey and the world by extension that we have to suffer thru this all..

    "Can someone explain why and how the U.S. Syrian Emergency Task Force, which is financed by the U.S. State Department, can continue to operate in al-Qaeda occupied Idleb?" the usa is in bed with '''moderate''' terrorists...

    "Bombing (only) is not a solution for conflicts." ditto that.

    "information operations".. they are running out of pretty well everything else and hollywood is all they have..

    Les | Jan 12, 2016 1:39:08 PM | 17
    Sounds like Jihadi John 2.0 is another MI6 spy. The previous Jihadi John, aka Mohammed Emwazi, had also been targeted to work as a double agent.

    http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/article1654698.ece?CMP=OTH-gnws-standard-2016_01_09

    Hoarsewhisperer | Jan 12, 2016 1:42:30 PM | 18
    Thanks for the timely report, b. CCTV and the once-a-week RT broadcast I watch have been silent on Russia's Syria campaign for nearly 2 months. Sporadic reports from other sources have been positive so I assumed that Russia had decided to let the results speak for themselves or, more accurately, to be whined about by Zio-FRUKUS. The BBC led the Western Whine-fest with its Bliar-ish reports about Madaya, quickly followed by the Turkish Govt which is whining about Russia helping Assad instead of "fighting IS" (a US joke which is only funny if you're not Syrian or Russian).

    Oddly, and alarmingly, CCTV picked up on BBC's starvation bs & fake photos only moments after BBC started the rumours. But this morning (less than an hour ago) reported that the "rebels" had been commandeering the food aid and extorting money from BBC's 'starving Syrians' - a pretty difficult crime to pin on the SAA or Assad in the circumstances.

    NoOneYouKnow | Jan 12, 2016 2:05:30 PM | 20
    Why would Daesh attack its patron Erdogan, even if only to strike against Germany? Why would Erdogan openly blame his proteges in Daesh?
    Susan Sunflower | Jan 12, 2016 2:18:11 PM | 21
    Erdogan made a lucrative deal with the EU in exchange for stemming the flow of refugees and part of that deal was Turkey closing its borders discernibly to the free (and very lucrative) flow of money, oil, personnel, weapons TO and FROM ISIS ... i.e. they became (at least publicly) accomodationists if not fully collaborators in the war against ISIS (talk is cheap, proof of the pudding, etc).

    Because it is Turkey, nothing can be taken for "what it seems to be" ... is Turkey begin punished by ISIS? or is this Turkey way of proving that it is stifling ISIS' ambitions (false flags can never be ruled out wrt Turkey)

    It's rather shocking that all stories on the suicide bombing fret immediately about the effect on Turkey's tourism economy ... "Nuclear War? -- There goes my whole career" graphic . Yes, investor dividends may be disappointing.

    farflungstar | Jan 12, 2016 2:23:08 PM | 22
    At this point in time, you seriously have to have your f*cking head examined to visit ANY place at all in the Islamic world. Why risk becoming collateral damage while the West is at war with them and the Muslims are at war with each other?
    Harry | Jan 12, 2016 2:33:46 PM | 23
    @22

    Iran is quite safe, and will see the biggest tourist boom this year. But you are right, other than Iran the rest of Muslim World is f**cked, US and its puppets set them all ablaze.

    Hoarsewhisperer | Jan 12, 2016 2:34:29 PM | 24
    Posted by: b | Jan 12, 2016 1:48:56 PM | 19

    I suspect that Bibi is praying to whatever G-d he worships, that Erdogan doesn't start questioning his belief that "some of my best friends are "Israelis". Because if that belief falters then it's Game Over for Israel and a slightly better than even chance of a Turkey-Iran alliance.

    Zico | Jan 12, 2016 2:49:45 PM | 27
    Looks like Turkey's little pet cobra project has taken a new turn.. All the cuddly pet cobras have now grown into uncontrollable king cobras that don't mind biting anyone - including their masters.

    When Turkey started messing around in Syria, I said Turkey will eventually become like Pakistan. Guess I was right.

    May the souls of the innocent, who had absolutely nothing to do with all this mess, rest in peace. Every sane Europeans should begin questioning their leaders about their support of the AKP, Saudi Arabia and the whole regime change nonsense in Syria. It's brought them nothing but pain.

    john | Jan 12, 2016 2:52:54 PM | 28
    Can someone explain why and how the U.S. Syrian Emergency Task Force, which is financed by the U.S. State Department, can continue to operate in al-Qaeda occupied Idleb?

    you didn't read the fine print

    from their web site :

    Civilian Administrative Councils

    In the liberated areas in the north of Syria, civilians are finding ways to develop grassroots civilian democratic structures to provide rule of law, basic services such as trash collection, civilian police force, and utilities. These CACs are being created out of necessity, but they are also the seeds of proto-democratic structures that the Syrian people themselves developed without international help. Defying conventional wisdom, the authority of the CACs is respected by the armed opposition, because they are providing social services and a structure that encourages stability for the families of the men currently fighting the regime. It is important that the funding mechanism being employed helps to further unite the opposition and mitigates financial competition from occurring. Support of CACs helps to stabilize liberated areas and provide civilian oversight and authority.

    (my bold)

    [Jan 12, 2016] International Rig Counts Still Falling - Peak Oil BarrelPeak Oil Barrel

    Notable quotes:
    "... Not sure about Russia, but the Middle East knows if they go all out and produce as much as they can they will just drive the oil price lower and reduce their profits. ..."
    "... Lately OPEC seems to have forgotten this, but they must have other motives besides profits. If they were concerned about profits they would cut production as they have almost always done in the past (except when Saudi Arabia decides to punish other OPEC members (or the Soviet Union) by flooding the market and driving down the oil price. ..."
    "... If the Saudi aim was to drive the high cost producers out of business, I think it has taken longer than they expected, now that they have chosen this road they may stubbornly stick to it until high cost producers go belly up and supply from non-OPEC decreases to the point that oil prices rise. ..."
    "... This will be a valuable lesson to the rest of the World, that always assumed they could produce as much as they wanted and OPEC would cut back to keep oil prices high. ..."
    "... The chart AlexS posted is a snapshot of current costs, it could be that these costs have increased as expensive projects have been started, but the chart is median cost rather than marginal cost. There may be some expensive fields in Russia and several OPEC countries that have come on line recently, but there are also older less expensive fields producing which brings the median cost lower for many countries. ..."
    "... As regards Russia, most of the current upstream capex is also in lower-cost brownfield developments in Western Siberia and Volga-Urals regions. This includes infill drilling, development of satellite fields, previously undeveloped zones or deeper horizons of the old producing fields (such as Samotlor). There are also a number of new fields in these old regions. They are much smaller, but unit costs are not too high, as the necessary infrastructure, including roads and pipeline, is already in place. ..."
    "... Costs in newly developed regions, such as Eastern Siberia, Timan Pechora, far north of Western Siberia (Yamal peninsula), Northern Caspian (shallow water fields), Far East (Sakhalin), are higher, sometimes much higher. But not prohibitively high even at current prices, as the key infrastructure, such as large pipelines (Eastern Siberia–Pacific Ocean oil pipeline), terminals ( Varandey on the Barents Sea), roads, etc. was already built during the years of high oil prices. ..."
    "... Important to note that average unit costs in Russia were much lower than global average even before 2014, but they have significantly declined in dollar terms due to the depreciation of the ruble (see the chart below). ..."
    "... Low oil prices have however significantly delayed high cost offshore Arctic and tight oil projects. ..."
    "... The only producing offshore Arctic project is Prirazlomnoye oil field on the Pechora Sea shelf (developed by Gazpromneft). Rosneft has postponed further drilling in the Kara Sea and is now only exploring new blocks using 2D seismic. ..."
    peakoilbarrel.com
    AlexS , 01/12/2016 at 12:01 am
    Rystad Energy recently released estimates for the total, all-in production cost for one barrel of oil across major oil-producing countries.

    According to Rystad, "this chart was compiled using data from more than 15,000 oil fields across 20 nations. The production costs were calculated by including a mix of capital expenditures and operational expenditures. Capital expenditures included the costs involved with building oil facilities, pipelines and new wells. Operational expenditures included the costs of lifting oil out of the ground, paying employee salaries and general administrative duties."

    Note that these numbers apparently do not include interest payments and taxes.
    Furthermore, these are full-cycle costs rather than breakeven price, as Internal rate of return (IRR) is not included.

    Also note that these are median costs, which does not represent the whole picture, as there are significant differences in production costs within each country.

    In any case, the chart shows that at today's price of $31/barrel (Brent and WTI), most of oil from the already producing fields can still be extracted profitably. There are, however, notable exceptions, including U.S. stripper wells, several deepwater projects (incl. Brazil), some fields in the North Sea, etc.
    As regards new projects, they are already unprofitable in a number of countries, including the U.S., Canada, U.K., Norway, Brazil, and West Africa.

    Median Total Cost of Oil Production per Barrel
    Source: Rystad Energy

    http://money.cnn.com/interactive/economy/the-cost-to-produce-a-barrel-of-oil/index.html?iid=EL

    Enno Peters , 01/12/2016 at 5:41 am
    Alex,

    I was wondering about these low full cycle costs in the Middle East & Russia.

    During several years of high oil prices, why weren't more high-cost projects started in these area's, like what happened in the US & Canada? If the costs are really as low as indicated in your above chart, couldn't they have earned much more by starting slightly higher cost projects? Is it that except these low-cost fields, there are not that many, even higher-cost, projects available? Or is there less of a capitalistic spirit/access to financial markets?

    To me it would make sense if everywhere around the world costs have increased to a much higher level, given several years of high oil prices, reflecting the incentives to try to bring us much oil to the market as long as costs are (significantly) lower than the price.

    Syndroma , 01/12/2016 at 7:01 am
    Effective oil price for Russian oil companies was always the same, around $30 per barrel. Everything above was taxed. Some fields, especially in Eastern Siberia, were exempted from the tax, but there aren't that many of them.
    Ves , 01/12/2016 at 8:15 am
    Enno: " reflecting the incentives to try to bring us much oil to the market as long as costs are (significantly) lower than the price."

    There are no incentives to bring as much oil to the market in the environment of high prices, same as there are no incentives to bring less oil to the market in the low price environment like today.

    Dennis Coyne , 01/12/2016 at 9:03 am
    Hi Enno,

    Not sure about Russia, but the Middle East knows if they go all out and produce as much as they can they will just drive the oil price lower and reduce their profits.

    Lately OPEC seems to have forgotten this, but they must have other motives besides profits. If they were concerned about profits they would cut production as they have almost always done in the past (except when Saudi Arabia decides to punish other OPEC members (or the Soviet Union) by flooding the market and driving down the oil price.

    If the Saudi aim was to drive the high cost producers out of business, I think it has taken longer than they expected, now that they have chosen this road they may stubbornly stick to it until high cost producers go belly up and supply from non-OPEC decreases to the point that oil prices rise.

    This will be a valuable lesson to the rest of the World, that always assumed they could produce as much as they wanted and OPEC would cut back to keep oil prices high.

    In the future non-OPEC producers will not be so sure that this is the case and may be a little more careful about expanding output too quickly.

    On re-reading you comment above, I think I see better what you are asking.

    The chart AlexS posted is a snapshot of current costs, it could be that these costs have increased as expensive projects have been started, but the chart is median cost rather than marginal cost. There may be some expensive fields in Russia and several OPEC countries that have come on line recently, but there are also older less expensive fields producing which brings the median cost lower for many countries.

    AlexS , 01/12/2016 at 10:17 am
    Enno,

    I guess average unit costs in the Middle East have risen at least twice over the past 10-15 years, reflecting input cost inflation in the global oil industry. But costs are still very low as:

    1) Most of the capex is in brownfields (infill drilling, water floods, etc.)

    2) Most of the fields that start production now were actually discovered several decades ago, so exploration costs are close to zero. These fields are located onshore and a few of them in shallow waters. Geology is generally favorable. There is no ice, no winter cold, and high temperatures are not a problem. The necessary infrastructure is already in place. The fields are huge, with very high production per well and low decline rates. Therefore, average development costs are also very low.

    As regards Russia, most of the current upstream capex is also in lower-cost brownfield developments in Western Siberia and Volga-Urals regions. This includes infill drilling, development of satellite fields, previously undeveloped zones or deeper horizons of the old producing fields (such as Samotlor). There are also a number of new fields in these old regions. They are much smaller, but unit costs are not too high, as the necessary infrastructure, including roads and pipeline, is already in place.

    Costs in newly developed regions, such as Eastern Siberia, Timan Pechora, far north of Western Siberia (Yamal peninsula), Northern Caspian (shallow water fields), Far East (Sakhalin), are higher, sometimes much higher. But not prohibitively high even at current prices, as the key infrastructure, such as large pipelines (Eastern Siberia–Pacific Ocean oil pipeline), terminals ( Varandey on the Barents Sea), roads, etc. was already built during the years of high oil prices. There are a number of new projects at later stages of development, which will not be postponed or delayed and are scheduled to begin production in 2016-18.

    Important to note that average unit costs in Russia were much lower than global average even before 2014, but they have significantly declined in dollar terms due to the depreciation of the ruble (see the chart below). The tax component of the costs was also significantly lowered thanks to the Russia oil tax system.

    Low oil prices have however significantly delayed high cost offshore Arctic and tight oil projects. There is a significant dollar-denominated component in capex (imported equipment, services and technologies), which is exacerbated by the effect of the sanctions. The only producing offshore Arctic project is Prirazlomnoye oil field on the Pechora Sea shelf (developed by Gazpromneft). Rosneft has postponed further drilling in the Kara Sea and is now only exploring new blocks using 2D seismic. Gazpromneft, Lukoil and others are still working on pilot projects in the Bazhenov shale, but commercial development will not start before next decade.

    Comparative lifting costs: Russian oils vs. global majors

    Enno Peters , 01/12/2016 at 10:20 am
    Thanks for all the excellent info Alex.
    Ron Patterson , 01/12/2016 at 11:23 am
    2) Most of the fields that start production now were actually discovered several decades ago, so exploration costs are close to zero.

    Well that was true a few years ago, especially for Saudi Arabia. But I just don't believe that is the case anymore. Perhaps there are some very small fields that didn't seem worth developing back then. But I don't think there are any large, long ago discovered fields, that are still undeveloped.

    [Jan 12, 2016] M of A - The Saudi War On Everything Iran May Bounce Back As New Houthi Missile

    Notable quotes:
    "... The world is awash in blood because two sociopathic brothers (Dulles Brothers) took over US foreign policy and eventually killed a President. ..."
    "... There is reasonable possibility that the decision by the Saudi dictatorship to execute the high profile Shiite Sheikh Nimr may have been motivated, at least in part, by the desire to deflect the probability of retribution by the Shiite-hating Islamic State since the majority of the 47 executed along with Nimr were comprised of violent, hard-core Sunni devotees of ISIS. ..."
    "... No political system is exempt from corruption and in my opinion this outcome might even be somehow inexorable due to the nature of a state based polity. ..."
    "... there is a conflict at the top in saudi arabia and only a matter of time where one or the other goes? it seems that since Mohammad bin Salman Al Saud was given the position of 2nd in command in sa (and minister of defense responsibility), a lot of shite has hit the fan... this began with the war on yemen in march 26 2015 and continues on in everything else ..."
    "... Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org
    The BS nuclear deal between US and Iran was to get Iran to massively reduce its nuclear capabilities, which except for a war which the US is no way near ready for, So sophisticated subversion and sanction pressure was used instead.
    And those corporations wanting access to Iran now what access to extract from Iran, not contribute to it's economy.

    All the huffing and puffing by the Israeli state terrorists and Saudi tyranny about that deal, simply betrays their brutal idiotic methods, compared to more sophisticated methods to the US empire is capable of.

    And The US already set up the war showdown between Iran and Saudi Arabia, with its divide and conquer policy, and its massive sales of weapons to the Saudi tyranny. That war is just A matter of time. It's proxies first and then it's full scale engagement between those two states.

    tom | Jan 4, 2016 2:22:50 PM | 2
    Unless you know something and are not sharing this article is speculation. Arming the Houthi's would, in my opinion, be about as intelligent as was arming the Taliban in the 1980's. The armed Houthi's may take care of the Saudi's (just like the Taliban took care of the Russians in that case) but then who would take care of the Houthi's? and what other havoc would they cause? Different players here but the tactic would be similar and have the same potential of backfiring in the long run.
    Khalid Shah | Jan 4, 2016 2:24:45 PM | 3
    B, from what you are saying your 'smart move by KSA' is looking more and more like another dumb move by KSA... If the Saudis had executed just 'al-Qaeda types' and put out a press release showing how they are cracking down on terrorism the kingdom would be attracting support from their allies right now--"Those Saudis are brutal but at least they know how to get the job done." Of course, it's unclear how much right wing/Islamic State backlash they might have gotten domestically but I suspect it would have been minimal as long as the unofficial KSA paychecks to the terrorists kept coming.
    WorldBLee | Jan 4, 2016 2:28:11 PM | 4
    There is another reason why Saudi Arabia created a crisis just after the killing of Alloush.

    Saudi Arabia has failed to set a serious Syrian opposition group. It has just lost its strongest ally, Alloush, the leader of the militias it has been supporting for years. It now worries that the other side, the Syrian government will win an overwhelming diplomatic victory if the planned meeting in Geneva takes place. Therefore it is doing all it can to prevent that meeting to happen. The execution of Sheikh Nimr and the subsequent rupture of the diplomatic relation with Iran is the first move. More of these desperate gesticulation are necessary. But as they'll fail to change much of Iran and Russia's determination to move on on Syria, it will only confirm to the whole world that it is not Bashar al Assad and his government that are weak, isolated and on the defensive, but rather Saudi Arabia and its inept and amateurish leadership.

    virgile | Jan 4, 2016 4:09:26 PM | 12
    #12 -- ""Saudi Arabia has failed to set a serious Syrian opposition group. It has just lost its strongest ally, Alloush, the leader of the militias it has been supporting for years. ""

    good, excellent point ... this execution could simply have been payback ... and/or "dog ate my homework" excuse providing for why they're going to, say, no-show in Vienna ...

    Susan Sunflower | Jan 4, 2016 4:17:10 PM | 14
    It could be that the killing of Sheikh Nimr is to the Saudis what the shooting of the Russian plane has been to the Turks: a provocative blunder with unexpected consequences.
    The two Sunni leaders, Erdogan and King Salman are very close to loose the 4 years old game of toppling Bashar al Assad. In these desperate moves, are they hoping to reshuffle the cards by provoking Syria's allies?
    virgile | Jan 4, 2016 4:28:01 PM | 18
    Andoheb,

    They are Quahir1 missiles. While the Yemeni Forces claim they are upgraded , obsolete Soviet ballistic missiles, re-engineered in Yemen,

    Visual identification suggests that they are ancient, obsolete SAM-3 antiaircraft missiles, ( which the Yemen Army had thousands), with a new warhead and a guidance system conversion to make them ballistic missiles.

    To date, Iran has supplied nothing to the Ansrallah Movement, other than kind words,.....

    And a single shipment of Humanitarian aid to Yemeni NGO's.

    Brunswick | Jan 4, 2016 4:57:38 PM | 23
    Sunni Islam is actually more democratic than Shia Islam. The Wahabist strain is just such a huge departure from traditional Sunni values. I wish I saved all my conversations with a Muslim friend about these issues. We boiled it down to making a comparison that Christians can understand. Sunni Islam is similar to Protestantism is that it is highly decentralized. Anyone that reaches that status of Iman (Minister) can issue a religious ruling (fatwa). Shia are similar to Catholics. The Grand Ayatollahs are bishops but in the Iranian government the Grand Ayatollah is the Pope.

    The Wahabist are....I do not know how to properly describe them.

    Sunni have a natural inclination to a democratic government (I'm not saying that Shia do not, 1954...). Western Imperialism has prevented every moderate attempt. The only place left for Muslims to organize is in radical religious groups. All other modes of reform have been destroyed. We are all witnessing the children of the Dulles era CIA The world is awash in blood because two sociopathic brother's (Dulles Brothers) took over US foreign policy and eventually killed a President.

    AnEducatedFool | Jan 4, 2016 5:11:46 PM | 24
    I still find it very interesting that everyone seems to think that these "smart, stupid" whatever you want to call them are actually KSA independent choices

    Lol they are flying the worlds most expensive toys in Yemen and getting their asses handed to them. Trust me when i tell you this. Saudis and Emirate Arabs in general are nothing but Bedouin desert dwellers or as the line from titanic goes "new money"

    If people are too blind to see the British/US/Israeli hands in this then go ahead and keep debating about the smoke screen or the true colour of wool being pulled over your eyes.

    Saudis and Bahrain are not independent states. They are military bases for the US against Iran, Rusia, China grabbing control of the rest of the middle east.

    Executing "rabble rousing" Nimr , will in turn be the downfall of KSA and all these "Analysts" think tanks and what not will finally realize that the ME is not what it always seems

    Deebo | Jan 4, 2016 5:33:05 PM | 29
    Iraq Says Mosque Bombings Were False Flag ISIS Attacks
    "An Iraqi official blamed the Islamic State group on Monday for the bombing of two Sunni mosques in a predominantly Shiite city in southern Iraq the previous night, saying the militant group seeks to stoke sectarian tensions," AP reports. ISIS "did this to inflame sectarian strife in the country," provincial security official Falah al-Khafaji contends.

    ZeroHedge speculates:

    Taking it a step further, one has to wonder whether there's a larger plan here. That is, if we assume ISIS, like the multitude of other Sunni extremist groups operating in the region, is taking its cues from handlers and benefactors, it's not difficult to imagine that "someone" could be attempting to create an excuse for an intervention in Iraq.
    Jackrabbit | Jan 4, 2016 6:07:47 PM | 33
    Save that date -- the next installment of Syrian peace negotiations:
    "[Staffan] De Mistura is due to launch peace talks between Assad's government and the opposition in Geneva on January 25, but it remained unclear whether the Iran-Saudi crisis would have an impact on that plan.

    De Mistura has flown to Ryadh and is due to then visit Tehran ... Yeah, I can't see these two parties sharing a table ....

    ""UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said he was "deeply dismayed" by the Saudi execution of 47 people including prominent Shiite cleric Nimr al-Nimr, who has been critical of the Sunni royal family and was a driving force behind anti-government protests in 2011. snip

    In his talks with Saudi Foreign Minister Adel Jubeir, Ban urged Saudi Arabia "to renew its commitment to a ceasefire" in Yemen after the Riyadh-led coalition announced on Sunday that it was ending the truce with Iran-backed rebels in the country.[yemen]

    The U.N. envoy for Yemen, Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed, was to hold talks in Riyadh on Wednesday to push for a renewed ceasefire.

    Alaraiya.net

    It was a brilliant move in an effort to hit "re-set back to nil" at a moment when "progress" might appear on the far horizon.

    Susan Sunflower | Jan 4, 2016 7:10:48 PM | 34
    @12 virgile '... it is not Bashar al Assad and his government that are weak, isolated and on the defensive, but rather Saudi Arabia and its inept and amateurish leadership.'

    Yes. Solid observation. How come their best friends in USrael didn't warn them of that particular aspect of their stupid act?

    @24 AEF ' The world is awash in blood because two sociopathic brother's (Dulles Brothers) took over US foreign policy and eventually killed a President. '

    Ain't that the truth. Because of those two and their succeeding stream of 'investment bankers' at the CIA

    @33 SS from your link 'UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said he was "deeply dismayed" by the Saudi execution of 47 people including prominent Shiite cleric Nimr al-Nimr, who has been critical of the Sunni royal family and was a driving force behind anti-government protests in 2011.'

    Ban Ki-moon is a US poodle, so this further indicates to me that USrael wouldn't mind at all if there were a change in management in Saudi Arabia ... and if the place goes up for grabs, why they - NATO - will just have to step in to provide 'stability'.

    jfl | Jan 4, 2016 7:47:02 PM | 36
    SS@34

    Iran is not known to allow irate citizens to run amuck so it might be a planned Basij attack on the KSA Embassy, they certainly came prepared to torch the place and met little resistance from Iranian security.

    Wayoutwest | Jan 4, 2016 8:03:51 PM | 39
    @24 AnEducatedFool,

    Would the Wahhabis be equivalent to a Christian Reconstructionist movement gone militant with state funding?

    @39 ATH,

    I don't see how we can say policies are decided at the ballot box unless they can recall their "representatives" as easily as they can elect them. It's part of the weak-mindedness of liberal society that management somehow equals democracy.

    Jonathan | Jan 4, 2016 8:09:21 PM | 41
    @Wayoutwest

    "Iran is not known to allow irate citizens to run amuck so it might be a planned Basij attack on the KSA Embassy..."

    The same can be said about any country in the world and there is no need for a militia to do that. It is a well known facts, maybe not by you but among those who are following the real news, that the more than 10 or so Iranian embassies and consulates ransacked et pillaged during the 80's in the European cities were all done under the complacent eyes and noses of the security services of the protecting states. In actuality I believe doing it the Iranian way, i.e. keeping a façade of deniability, is more honorable that what the European state did... and for some are still doing.

    ATH | Jan 4, 2016 8:16:38 PM | 43
    @44 ATH,

    I'm uneasy about Rouhani's rapprochement with the usurious Western financial sector[1], but from a systems standpoint I'm more worried about corruption in the assemblies than the figureheads. The usual failure mode of republics is that there is nothing binding the alleged "representative" to the popular will post-election and no effective means to stop disloyalty in progress. In the US, especially, we've had ample experience with "representatives" who, as an assembly, invariably take on some sacred duty of delivering concrete material benefits to elites while delivering excuses and pat stories (according to their Party's mythology) to their constituents. The question always on my mind is, how to prevent the color of public interest from enabling disproportional private benefit?

    It could be that I'm not thinking Islamically enough with respect to the roles of citizens within an Islamic society. But if Iran has a system that guarantees sturdy alignment of policy outcomes with citizens' collective interests, even against vested interests of state officials, I'd love to hear it.

    [1] Islamic finance on Wall Street would mean dropping shock troops onto one end and chopping every right hand down to the other end. I doubt I will be seeing this in the near future.

    Jonathan | Jan 4, 2016 9:42:01 PM | 51
    @44 ATH,

    I'm uneasy about Rouhani's rapprochement with the usurious Western financial sector[1], but from a systems standpoint I'm more worried about corruption in the assemblies than the figureheads. The usual failure mode of republics is that there is nothing binding the alleged "representative" to the popular will post-election and no effective means to stop disloyalty in progress. In the US, especially, we've had ample experience with "representatives" who, as an assembly, invariably take on some sacred duty of delivering concrete material benefits to elites while delivering excuses and pat stories (according to their Party's mythology) to their constituents. The question always on my mind is, how to prevent the color of public interest from enabling disproportional private benefit?

    It could be that I'm not thinking Islamically enough with respect to the roles of citizens within an Islamic society. But if Iran has a system that guarantees sturdy alignment of policy outcomes with citizens' collective interests, even against vested interests of state officials, I'd love to hear it.

    [1] Islamic finance on Wall Street would mean dropping shock troops onto one end and chopping every right hand down to the other end. I doubt I will be seeing this in the near future.

    Jonathan | Jan 4, 2016 9:42:01 PM | 51
    @Lone Wolf

    "Pariah status" or "rebuilding" a presumed broken relations "with the world" is what you have been made to believe by the MSM. Iran is actually reducing tension in the nuclear dossier to better work out its strategic realignment that are based on sovereignty and political independence. The first sign of which has already appeared in a strategic alliance in Syria.

    ATH | Jan 4, 2016 9:57:05 PM | 55

    There is reasonable possibility that the decision by the Saudi dictatorship to execute the high profile Shiite Sheikh Nimr may have been motivated, at least in part, by the desire to deflect the probability of retribution by the Shiite-hating Islamic State since the majority of the 47 executed along with Nimr were comprised of violent, hard-core Sunni devotees of ISIS.

    From the Saudi prism, the orgy of executions was on the one hand, a performance intended to downplay growing criticism of the kingdom's funding of the globally despised ISIS and on the other end, an act of appeasing ISIS by killing this highly popular Shiite leader. Nimr's execution could have been intended to mitigate the group's rage and reduce the potential to target Saudi institutions instead of Shiite mosques as they have done in the past.

    metni | Jan 4, 2016 10:11:51 PM | 58
    @Jonathan

    This sounds off topic but for the sake of a reply,

    No political system is exempt from corruption and in my opinion this outcome might even be somehow inexorable due to the nature of a state based polity. The difference between the Iranian political scaffolding and the European systems in particular but also, at the limit, the American one is that the former is based on a younger society and still in formation while the latters have already passed the middle-age period in their life cycle.

    And to answer your question: "how to prevent the color of public interest from enabling disproportional private benefit?" the only way for this to be possible in my opinion is the breakdown of states with globalist reach into local and regional states with decision-making being directly made by citizens... a Helvetic kind of confederation.

    ATH | Jan 4, 2016 10:18:09 PM | 59
    Not to forget, nearly a thousand Iranians died during the hajj in Mecca:

    The 2015 Mina Crush disaster has increased tensions in the already-strained relationship between Saudi Arabia and Iran, led to calls from politicians in a number of Muslim nations for changes in oversight of Mecca and the Hajj, and bolstered opposition to King Salman among the senior members of the Saudi Arabian royal family.

    Oui | Jan 4, 2016 10:51:34 PM | 63
    how many think like this author - michael krieger from sept 30th 2015, that there is a conflict at the top in saudi arabia and only a matter of time where one or the other goes? it seems that since Mohammad bin Salman Al Saud was given the position of 2nd in command in sa (and minister of defense responsibility), a lot of shite has hit the fan... this began with the war on yemen in march 26 2015 and continues on in everything else ..

    i don't know who is doing what inside the sa hierarchy, but it sure comes across as chaotic and troublesome.. regime change is a distinct probability! which guy goes? the old guy, or the young guy? scary either way..

    james | Jan 5, 2016 12:10:18 AM | 70
    A couple of assassins and mass-murderers who are grateful for the chance to compare themselves to the Saudis and find the Saudis lacking ...

    US warned Saudis of Nimr's execution in advance

    "There have been direct concerns raised by US officials to Saudi officials about the potential damaging consequences of following through on the execution, on mass executions, in particular, the execution of" al-Nimr, White House spokesman Josh Earnest said on Monday.
    Turkey: Politics behind Nimr's execution
    Deputy Prime Minister Numan Kurtulmus told a press conference on Monday that the execution did not have Ankara's support.

    "We are against all instances of capital punishment, especially when it is politically motivated," he said.

    Both had meetings with the Saudis before their mass beheading festival and could have saved the Saudi junior woodchuck if they wanted to. I wonder what's in the collapse of the present Saudi regime for them? Control of orphaned Saudi oilfields in the one case and of orphaned Saudi Mamluk terrorists in the other?
    jfl | Jan 5, 2016 2:48:31 AM | 71
    The Real Reason Why Saudi Arabia Executed Sheikh Nimr

    by Shireen Hunter

    http://lobelog.com/the-real-reason-why-saudi-arabia-executed-sheikh-nimr/

    Nor is this mere speculation. Saudi Arabia for some time has been trying to provoke Iran. First there was the Saudi military intervention in Bahrain. Then there were Saudi efforts to topple the Assad regime. These were followed by the bombing of the Iranian embassy in Beirut in 2013, which killed a number of Lebanese as well as Iran's cultural attaché. More recently, during the Haj ceremonies, Saudi authorities harassed two Iranian youth and a large number of Iranian pilgrims died as well. The Saudi government, moreover, created many difficulties for Iranian officials trying to locate, identify, and transfer the bodies of the victims to Iran. And of course Saudi Arabia launched a full-scale war in Yemen against what it claimed were Iranian-backed rebels.

    Another provocation came last month when Nigerian authorities arrested the country's Shia leader, Sheikh Ibrahim Zakzaki, and the Nigerian army killed close to a thousand Shias for spurious reasons. Following Sheikh Zakzaki's arrest Saudi King Salman reportedly congratulated Nigeria's president for dealing effectively with terrorism (the king's definition of terrorism apparently extends to the peaceful observance of religious rituals). Meanwhile, the abuse of the Shias in other countries, notably Azerbaijan, continued as did their indiscriminate killing by Saudi- influenced groups in Pakistan and Afghanistan, as illustrated by the beheading in November of a nine-year-old Hazara girl in Afghanistan.

    virgile | Jan 5, 2016 9:38:11 AM | 75
    One also shouldn't forget that there's struggle going on between the "Group Abdullah" and the "Group Salman".

    Abdullah was the former king and Salman is the current king of Saudi Arabia. Former king Abdullah and his "followers" did A LOT OF things to reduce the influence/power of the "Group Salman". E.g. Abdullah appointed his followers to influential positions.

    But now with Salman on the throne, Salman is doing the same thing with his followers. Appoint as much of followers to influential positions as possible. And it seems the struggle is far from over.

    And Saudi Arabia is in "not the best of financial shapes". No surprise there. A combination of:
    - Falling/Fallen oil prices.
    - VERY large military expenses (Yemen, Syria).
    - Increased expenses for the saudi population. Saudi Arabia increased payments to its citizens to bribe them into not revolting during & after the "Arab Spring" in 2011.
    - ((Very) large) subsidies for Healthcare, electricity, gasoline.

    Recently the saudi government increased the price of gasoline by 50% (!!!!) from 15 cents to 22 cents. Outrageous !!!!!!!!

    Willy2 | Jan 5, 2016 9:38:47 AM | 76
    @onatan@73

    Aircraft keep falling out of the sky over Yemen quite regularly. They are always described as the result of 'technical reasons'. That covers a whole range of possibilities from engine failure to back end of aircraft disappearing after missile strike.

    Here is a report on a recent incident (30 Dec) involving a Bahraini F-16.

    Thanks for those links, it's been my impression Yemen army/Houthis have no flak capability, hence the Saudis control of the skies, and the carnage on civilians/damage to infrastructure.

    I have read news of Saudi fighter jets downed over Yemen due to "technical failure" as you mentioned, that could or could not be the Houthis/Yemen army. I certainly hope they develop AA defenses, as the Vietnamese progressively did, that would help diminish the carnage and will give the Saudis a pause in their impunity.

    Lone Wolf | Jan 5, 2016 11:57:11 AM | 83
    The U.S. Doesn't "Need" to "Stand With" the Saudis

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/the-u-s-doesnt-need-to-stand-with-the-saudis/

    D | Jan 5, 2016 7:59:23 PM | 94
    Yesterday, I saw a headline on (I think) RT that said the US was "standing with the Saudis"
    Today, I saw this.

    Bloomberg oah Feldman: U.S. Can Afford to Side With Iran Over Saudis

    To be sure, the Iranian government is a complex organism with many moving parts, and the whole response likely wasn't planned or coordinated by a single actor. But the result was highly effective. It showed the Saudis that Iran took the execution as directed toward it. And it simultaneously gave other countries the cover they would need to side with Iran.

    The Americans, rather remarkably, took the Iranian side. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry let it be known that he was talking to his Iranian counterpart, Mohammad Javad Zarif. In the past, a U.S. secretary of state would've reached out solely to the Saudi foreign minister, not least because there were no official diplomatic ties to Iran. Meanwhile, a former deputy CIA director, Michael Morell, publicly praised the Iranians for their handling of the situation in Tehran. This was downright astonishing, given Americans' historical associations with embassy occupation there.
    bqqTo be sure, the Iranian government is a complex organism with many moving parts, and the whole response likely wasn't planned or coordinated by a single actor. But the result was highly effective. It showed the Saudis that Iran took the execution as directed toward it. And it simultaneously gave other countries the cover they would need to side with Iran.

    The Americans, rather remarkably, took the Iranian side. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry let it be known that he was talking to his Iranian counterpart, Mohammad Javad Zarif. In the past, a U.S. secretary of state would've reached out solely to the Saudi foreign minister, not least because there were no official diplomatic ties to Iran. Meanwhile, a former deputy CIA director, Michael Morell, publicly praised the Iranians for their handling of the situation in Tehran. This was downright astonishing, given Americans' historical associations with embassy occupation there.

    Susan Sunflower | Jan 6, 2016 1:50:10 AM | 97
    metni says:

    Further efforts devoted at tightening our embrace of the House of Saud is less a choice than a consummation of an existing Faustian bargain

    Faustian bargain? it's fucking national security doctrine .

    Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force

    john | Jan 6, 2016 9:05:15 AM | 99
    @Lozion@96

    Can any of you recommend a good blog/site following the events in Yemen? With the media blackout it is very hard to find out was is really going on on the ground.. Txs.

    Try the Russian Defense Forum, they have two sections on Yemen, Yemeni Conflict: News, and Yemeni Conflict: News #2.

    There is very little news on Yemen, and I don't know of any bloggers following Yemen per se. Hope that helps.

    [Jan 10, 2016] The Wall Street Casino so far handed out losses well.

    This might be not an end of S&P500 rally but this might well be the beginning of the end.
    Notable quotes:
    "... It's good: the less money the US will have the less wars it will wage in the world. My congrats! ..."
    "... Baron von Rothschild said "the time to buy is when there's blood in streets" - i.e. when it's all doom and gloom. We've not there yet but there's always hope. ..."
    "... Be careful what you wish for. ..."
    "... The whole 401K thing was a scam from it's inception. The employment figures are total nonsense--figures don't lie but liars can figure etc. --oh and "there was no inflation last year." ..."
    "... With this load of gambling morons running stock markets, financial major rip offs and services we will all be declared bankrupt and broke without doing anything or lifting a finger. ..."
    "... This is not about China. Saudis (and other oil producers) are selling investments to fund their current budget. Most economies are very slow, workforce participation rates all around West are the lowest on record. US has 90 million non-working adults who are not in military, retired or in school. 90 million idle people and the government claims a 5% unemployment rate based on "statistical survey". The economies are in much worse shape than the cheerful and manipulated numbers that governments produce. Inflation is higher than reported. ..."
    "... I think the US is showing signs of "growth" that is, the number of "new" jobs went up last month to 292K (also November was adjusted higher with better information). I understand your hesitation about the "5% unemployment" but this is in spite of a lot of people now coming back into the workforce. And wages are now going up, which probably shows that the number of available people suitable for work is declining. This has got to be a good thing. ..."
    "... Well gosh no QE to save these bandits again, what will they do? ..."
    "... they are the sellers, not to worry though, they'll be back out with their begging bowls when the market nr bottoms out.. ready for the next wild ride back up. ..."
    "... The QE was a godsend for the super rich they got to use that money for stock and property speculation because of that the economy is still not moving. ..."
    "... If they given that money to the poor the pensioners the unemployed and underpaid they would have spent every cent in the real economy generated employment and profits, growth would have been 3%-4% by now. ..."
    discussion.theguardian.com
    John Pacella , 9 Jan 2016 06:45
    What a shock...the Wall Street Casino handed out losses...imagine my surprise.
    PlatonKuzin -> John Pacella , 9 Jan 2016 06:56

    It's good: the less money the US will have the less wars it will wage in the world. My congrats!

    anyoneanytime , 9 Jan 2016 05:24
    Looks like its going to be a great year. Eat the rich.
    peter nelson , 9 Jan 2016 05:08
    Things have a long way to fall before they're low. I hope it's 2008 all over again. I was laid off in January 2009 with a generous severance packet. I invested it all in the US stock market in Q1 09, when everyone was wailing and moaning. That was the bottom of the market. Over the next few years it soared and I made a fortune. I sold most of it last year so I'm hoping for another crash.

    Baron von Rothschild said "the time to buy is when there's blood in streets" - i.e. when it's all doom and gloom. We've not there yet but there's always hope.

    ID470129 -> peter nelson , 9 Jan 2016 05:16
    Be careful what you wish for.
    giveusaclue -> peter nelson , 9 Jan 2016 09:52
    That's ok unless you are about to retire and draw your private pension.

    benbache -> greven , 9 Jan 2016 07:02

    "In the garden, growth has it seasons. First comes spring and summer, but then we have fall and winter. And then we get spring and summer again." Chance the Gardener, mistakenly known as Chauncey Gardiner.

    Economic gurus come in all forms.

    goatrider , 9 Jan 2016 04:28
    The whole 401K thing was a scam from it's inception. The employment figures are total nonsense--figures don't lie but liars can figure etc. --oh and "there was no inflation last year."
    benbache -> goatrider , 9 Jan 2016 07:02
    Except on food.
    BlackAbbott , 9 Jan 2016 04:12
    With this load of gambling morons running stock markets, financial major rip offs and services we will all be declared bankrupt and broke without doing anything or lifting a finger.

    These people are utterly stupid. All a load of chooks with missing heads running round causing chaos and more stupidity.
    But Wait. Are we the stupid ones for letting them have their greedy little comer of the world to gamble away the lives of others?

    FreddySteadyGO -> BlackAbbott , 9 Jan 2016 05:30

    But Wait. Are we the stupid ones for letting them have their greedy little comer of the world to gamble away the lives of others?

    Not stupid but captivated perhaps?

    We have no influence and are impotent against these chancers and thieves.

    BlackAbbott -> FreddySteadyGO , 9 Jan 2016 06:00

    We have no influence and are impotent against these chancers and thieves.

    Markets get closed. Also during the Bush GFC we had futures, derivatives or whatever banned for a while. The problem was letting them start up again.
    So its just a case of finding some real honest politicians...........maybe your right.
    Zhubajie , 9 Jan 2016 02:41
    The US has been de-industrialized. Most Americans are too poor to buy new gadgets. Many are homeless. We have a 3d world economy. Of course the stock market etc is bad!
    420atmosphere -> Zhubajie , 9 Jan 2016 03:50
    We do not have a third world economy. Get real...
    BlackAbbott -> 420atmosphere , 9 Jan 2016 04:14

    We do not have a third world economy. Get real

    It will be if the stock market fools carry on the way they are.
    Beckow , 9 Jan 2016 01:53
    This is not about China. Saudis (and other oil producers) are selling investments to fund their current budget. Most economies are very slow, workforce participation rates all around West are the lowest on record. US has 90 million non-working adults who are not in military, retired or in school. 90 million idle people and the government claims a 5% unemployment rate based on "statistical survey". The economies are in much worse shape than the cheerful and manipulated numbers that governments produce. Inflation is higher than reported.

    The governments have learned in the last 30-40 years how to "manage" the reported metrics by changing definitions, adjustments and outright lying. You can only do it for so long before real world catches up with you.

    ID2463357 -> Beckow , 9 Jan 2016 02:09
    Well, it's complicated :-)

    I think the US is showing signs of "growth" that is, the number of "new" jobs went up last month to 292K (also November was adjusted higher with better information). I understand your hesitation about the "5% unemployment" but this is in spite of a lot of people now coming back into the workforce. And wages are now going up, which probably shows that the number of available people suitable for work is declining. This has got to be a good thing.

    Yes, things could be better there and in many other places. (In Canada, we are truly screwed for at least several years, fwiw.)

    prematureoptimsim -> Beckow , 9 Jan 2016 02:24
    Sounds absolutely dismal.
    But accurate.
    boscovee , 9 Jan 2016 01:29
    Well gosh no QE to save these bandits again, what will they do?
    ID NO. 1984 -> boscovee , 9 Jan 2016 01:46
    they are the sellers, not to worry though, they'll be back out with their begging bowls when the market nr bottoms out.. ready for the next wild ride back up.
    Alex Newman -> boscovee , 9 Jan 2016 04:01
    What has QE got to do with Chinese stock market volatility?
    greven -> boscovee , 9 Jan 2016 04:46
    The QE was a godsend for the super rich they got to use that money for stock and property speculation because of that the economy is still not moving. \

    If they given that money to the poor the pensioners the unemployed and underpaid they would have spent every cent in the real economy generated employment and profits, growth would have been 3%-4% by now.

    [Jan 10, 2016] US Hellfire missile mistakenly shipped to Cuba

    Notable quotes:
    "... A missile has two explosive parts . Explosives in the armament and the fuel for the missile. In this case it was solid state rocket fuel which by its' very definition is another type of explosive. It's illegal to ship this in an commercial air plane or fly over any sovereign country's air space without getting permission . Very very shocking . ..."
    "... Mistake? I doubt it. And, this what happens shipping such equipment on commercial flights. Whoever made that call, should be fired and kicked in the arse on his (or more likely her) way out the door. ..."
    "... Once again, privatization wreaks havoc. Private contractors have massacred civilians in Iraq, turned US prisons into even worse hell-holes than previously, and now this. ..."
    "... Corporate america and privatization work SOoo well. Congress is bribed by corporate 1% so we have increased the military budget and pass funding for new ships planes and weapons even the Pentagon doesn't want or need. It's all a scam to drag money out of the many and enrich the few. Think of the trillions spent on nuclear bombs and missiles, the use of which would only end civilization. ..."
    "... You didn't need to incorrectly ID yourself. The language itself gives you away. You are NOT a conservative but rather a reactionary that thinks he is conservative by emulating Fox and Limbaugh and the like. Conserve means to save, reactionaries mean overturning conditions as they are. Liberals intend to gradually improve a few things while Radicals want Radical change. ..."
    "... TV and Radio and Internet have perverted the language and thus created arguments over nothing since the usage of nonsense words in discussion can only lead to nonsense expectations and nonsense conclusions. ..."
    "... Other than visibly embarrassing for our NATO friends and Lockheed, not that big of a deal since the Hellfire training missile contains an incomplete guidance section and has no operational seeker head, warhead, fusing system or rocket motor. ..."
    "... It's not just the individual incompetence, it's the whole system. Ok, so someone slaps the wrong address sticker on the box with the missile in (they probably didnt know what was in the box, most mail rooms dont). I can see that happening, (wasn't checked which was odd). Then it manages to get on, completely unscanned, onto an EU passenger jet. I'm assuming it wasnt scanned, as i'm pretty sure a missile, sounds and quacks like a missile on any Xray scanning device. If it wasn't scanned, how the hell does the US military have "diplomatic immunity" on a european airline! ..."
    "... i know i feel a lot safer after reading this. all those billions spent on homeland security and spying on american citizens, and they ship missles by air france. one might suspect the whole enterprise is a boondoggle to enrich political contributors and politicians. ..."
    "... Bit of a non-story this. There will have been plenty of duds dropped/fired around the globe which could then have found their way into the hands of the Russians or Chinese etc. I recall seeing TV footage of a Hellfire misfire from an Israeli Apache gunship over the West Bank a few years back. ..."
    "... Hellfire was designed in the 70s-80s. Soviets themselves had laser guided air to ground missiles at that time. I seriously doubt that in 2016 this is going to be some treasure trove of information for the Russians or the Chinese. ..."
    "... The continued disorganization of the greatest fighting force on the planet is hillarious however. Heck at least they only schlep nukes around by mistake within the 50 states. For now. ..."
    "... What would be interesting to know is what they mean by 'dummy'. There are generally two kinds of dummy rounds for missiles like this: one with no warhead but a fully functional motor (used for practice firings), and ones with no warhead or motor (used for handling training). ..."
    "... Cuba WILL share the technology with Russia. That will allow the Russians the ability to develop countermeasures to it. The missile guidance system will have to be entirely re-done. ..."
    "... Not sure that situation has improved since the 80s. There was recently an excellent survey that asked just two simple questions: where is Ukraine on the world map, and should US forces be sent there. There was a significant correlation between how far off the participants were for the first question, and their willingness to send troops. ..."
    "... US Hellfire missile mistakenly shipped to Cuba. Meanwhile, loads of US & UK varied and sophisticated weaponry deliberately shipped to Saudi Arabia. ..."
    The Guardian


    Kosala Kodikara 9 Jan 2016 12:28

    A missile has two explosive parts . Explosives in the armament and the fuel for the missile. In this case it was solid state rocket fuel which by its' very definition is another type of explosive. It's illegal to ship this in an commercial air plane or fly over any sovereign country's air space without getting permission . Very very shocking .


    newpilgrim 9 Jan 2016 09:23

    Just another example of collateral damage? These missiles seem to keep landing in the wrong places, wedding parties etc. Are the military of any nation capable of managing dangerous hi-tech military hardware responsibly?


    Kevin Brent 9 Jan 2016 02:24

    Mistake? I doubt it. And, this what happens shipping such equipment on commercial flights. Whoever made that call, should be fired and kicked in the arse on his (or more likely her) way out the door.


    beermad -> CheaterA 8 Jan 2016 16:27

    Ah, but without a large enemy bogeyman there would be no excuse for spending billions upon billions on "defence". The government's paymasters in the weapons industry would never stand for that.

    BG Davis 8 Jan 2016 10:51

    Once again, privatization wreaks havoc. Private contractors have massacred civilians in Iraq, turned US prisons into even worse hell-holes than previously, and now this.

    lostinbago -> JoeP 8 Jan 2016 10:09

    Corporate america and privatization work SOoo well. Congress is bribed by corporate 1% so we have increased the military budget and pass funding for new ships planes and weapons even the Pentagon doesn't want or need. It's all a scam to drag money out of the many and enrich the few. Think of the trillions spent on nuclear bombs and missiles, the use of which would only end civilization.


    lostinbago -> Al Lewis 8 Jan 2016 10:04

    You didn't need to incorrectly ID yourself. The language itself gives you away. You are NOT a conservative but rather a reactionary that thinks he is conservative by emulating Fox and Limbaugh and the like. Conserve means to save, reactionaries mean overturning conditions as they are. Liberals intend to gradually improve a few things while Radicals want Radical change.

    TV and Radio and Internet have perverted the language and thus created arguments over nothing since the usage of nonsense words in discussion can only lead to nonsense expectations and nonsense conclusions.

    CheaterA 8 Jan 2016 09:59

    What is wrong with our leadership (and often the press) for this persistence re retaining Russia as a "potential" enemy?! NATO needs to be renamed, Turkey dumped, and Russia invited to join. Russia would be the best ally the west will ever have against terrorism. Tons of money would be saved (yes, tons) plus the ensuing safety and cultural exchange would be, well, priceless.


    Smallworld5 8 Jan 2016 09:11

    Other than visibly embarrassing for our NATO friends and Lockheed, not that big of a deal since the Hellfire training missile contains an incomplete guidance section and has no operational seeker head, warhead, fusing system or rocket motor.

    Basically it's a shell with the laser receiver part of the seeker package which tells the weapons operator on the aircraft that the missile has acquired the laser designator (locked on). No ground breaking technology there as just about everyone else has similar weapons.


    trazer985 -> pretzelattack 8 Jan 2016 09:01

    It's not just the individual incompetence, it's the whole system. Ok, so someone slaps the wrong address sticker on the box with the missile in (they probably didnt know what was in the box, most mail rooms dont). I can see that happening, (wasn't checked which was odd). Then it manages to get on, completely unscanned, onto an EU passenger jet. I'm assuming it wasnt scanned, as i'm pretty sure a missile, sounds and quacks like a missile on any Xray scanning device. If it wasn't scanned, how the hell does the US military have "diplomatic immunity" on a european airline!

    Next time they ask me if my bag has "any of the following" in it, I'll try not to think of this story...


    TommyGuardianReader 8 Jan 2016 08:34

    "The official said the US did not want any defense technology to remain in a proscribed country, whether that country can use it or not."

    Lockheed Martin may have had their own commercial motives for allowing the equipment to be accidentally sent to Havana, or they may have been acting under instruction.

    However, if it was a simple fuck-up:

    1. The easy short-term answer is to take Cuba off the list of proscribed countries.

    2. The more difficult, long-term answer is to remove all the other unauthorised US defence equipment that is currently in Cuba. Especially in and around the south-eastern area known as Guantanamo Bay.

    There can be no doubt that the continued existence of the unlawful, anachronistic foreign naval facility makes it very difficult, if not impossible, to achieve genuine consensus at the United Nations.

    While that may suit the interests of the shareholders in Lockheed Martin very nicely, it does not suit the interests of most of humanity and the other living beings on the planet.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_Naval_Base


    pretzelattack -> Ziontrain 8 Jan 2016 08:33

    i know i feel a lot safer after reading this. all those billions spent on homeland security and spying on american citizens, and they ship missles by air france. one might suspect the whole enterprise is a boondoggle to enrich political contributors and politicians.


    mikedow -> toggy12 8 Jan 2016 07:50

    They're used to losing weaponry. They even have a special name(Broken Arrow) for when they lose a nuclear device. In 1950 the USAF jettisoned a nuclear bomb off the coast of BC, before crashing a B-36 "Peacemaker".


    Julie Lamin 8 Jan 2016 07:49

    Another of the United States efforts to poison international opinion against Cuba? Perhaps once the United States has returned Guatanamo to Cuba and paid for the fifty years of damage they have caused to Cuban people through their acts of aggression, the US might get their little bit of kit back.

    TonyBistol 8 Jan 2016 05:39

    Perhaps I'm wrong, but I wouldn't imagine that this drone would be able to teach the Russians an awful lot, especially seeing as they have recently demonstrated that they have the capability of being able to launch seaborne cruise missiles which can pinpoint targets 1800 Km away.


    jgbg Tradingman66 8 Jan 2016 05:24

    They don't need to hand them to a freight forwarder to screw up. Whilst the Soviets had some accidents with nuclear weapons and reactors, the US has had quite a few accidents involving nuclear weapons, reactors and materials, including the permanent loss of some nuclear weapons. One nuclear weapon that was lost over Georgia (the US state, not the country) was armed and almost detonated.


    tellyheads 8 Jan 2016 05:24

    LOL, the US DoD is less competent than Amazon.

    Lucky it wasn't a nuke.


    jgbg Freddienerk 8 Jan 2016 05:11

    I am sure the Russians and Chinese already have the know how to build a similar weapon.

    Yes - but they might be interested in the specifics of this missile e.g. sensors and guidance systems, so as to facilitate the development of effective countermeasures.


    JaitcH 8 Jan 2016 05:06

    What's to hide?

    The target is painted with an infra-red signal, or infra-red markers, similar to torches, are placed on or near a target. Whichever is used is encoded with a 4-digit code.

    The pilot of the aircraft carrying the Hellfire weapon loads this 4-digit code into the Hellfire before releasing it and it's ready to go hunting.

    The Freedom Fighters know about this and use infra-red detectors to either locate the hand-dropped markers or to sense infra-red markers projected in a site - then they move, hopefully in time yo watch the explosion from a distance!

    The information was published in a book devoted to modern warfare technology.

    Doug_Niedermeyer 8 Jan 2016 04:52

    Bit of a non-story this. There will have been plenty of duds dropped/fired around the globe which could then have found their way into the hands of the Russians or Chinese etc. I recall seeing TV footage of a Hellfire misfire from an Israeli Apache gunship over the West Bank a few years back.

    hogsback -> ID0728468 8 Jan 2016 04:47

    I'm sure all munitions are shipped via the US Military themselves via the USAAF

    So when Lockheed sells Hellfires to say Pakistan, or Egypt, or Saudi, you think they are delivered in person by the USAAF with a little bow and ribbons? You realise that Hellfire has been sold to over 25 countries, not all of them friendly to the US?

    They're sent by air cargo or in a container on a ship like anything else.

    SenseCir 8 Jan 2016 04:36

    This is a tragedy. What if technical details reach poor farmers in Yemen, Afghanistan, Iraq or Syria who are then able to avoid being killed by one of those missiles? Unthinkable. Cuba must return the missile at once.


    juster 8 Jan 2016 04:35

    Hellfire was designed in the 70s-80s. Soviets themselves had laser guided air to ground missiles at that time. I seriously doubt that in 2016 this is going to be some treasure trove of information for the Russians or the Chinese.

    The continued disorganization of the greatest fighting force on the planet is hillarious however. Heck at least they only schlep nukes around by mistake within the 50 states. For now.


    hogsback -> trazer985 8 Jan 2016 04:30

    Probably in the cargo hold on a passenger flight. You would be surprised as to what is sitting under you when you are off on your hols.

    What would be interesting to know is what they mean by 'dummy'. There are generally two kinds of dummy rounds for missiles like this: one with no warhead but a fully functional motor (used for practice firings), and ones with no warhead or motor (used for handling training).


    DThompson5 -> martinusher 8 Jan 2016 04:30

    The link to that survey...

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2014/04/07/the-less-americans-know-about-ukraines-location-the-more-they-want-u-s-to-intervene/


    Polly Parrot 8 Jan 2016 04:26

    What the hell are they doing using ordinary freight services to send missiles around the world, do they send live ones the same way. They should only be carried by military transport regardless of cost because what is the cost of loosing it and it falling into the wrong hands


    EpaminondasUSA 8 Jan 2016 04:25

    Cuba WILL share the technology with Russia. That will allow the Russians the ability to develop countermeasures to it. The missile guidance system will have to be entirely re-done.


    DThompson5 martinusher 8 Jan 2016 04:14

    Not sure that situation has improved since the 80s. There was recently an excellent survey that asked just two simple questions: where is Ukraine on the world map, and should US forces be sent there. There was a significant correlation between how far off the participants were for the first question, and their willingness to send troops.

    2bveryFrank 8 Jan 2016 03:57

    A Hellfire missile does the rounds in Europe, visiting Spain, Germany and France before being sent to Havana, Cuba by mistake! And our security is supposed to be in these people's hands! Idiots the lot of them!

    Epivore 8 Jan 2016 03:57

    "instead, it was loaded onto an Air France flight to Havana."

    And it's not just dummy missiles that end up on civilian flights...

    UncertainTrumpet 8 Jan 2016 03:26

    US Hellfire missile mistakenly shipped to Cuba. Meanwhile, loads of US & UK varied and sophisticated weaponry deliberately shipped to Saudi Arabia.

    Dubhgaill -> Wendy Stolz 8 Jan 2016 03:15

    The US military is virtually entirely run by private companies. Every single member of GW Bush's cabinet, to a man or woman, were boardmembers and shareholders in either an oil company or arms producer or a military logistics firm. Every single one of them. This is a minor symtom of a far more insidious malaise.


    siansim -> bemusedbyitall 8 Jan 2016 03:02


    bemusedbyitall said:

    No chance, from experience even if it was used against a hospital with numerous medical staff and civilian deaths and casualties it would just be put down to a minor clerical or communications error...

    ...And then you drive a tank into the hospital wards to destroy any evidence.

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/15/us-tank-enters-ruined-afghan-hospital-putting-war-evidence-at-risk

    US Military: putting the FUBAR into high military spending

    poplartree1 8 Jan 2016 02:58

    Great! How wonderful they work like a charm...Yesterday I placed in comments how the US government (who is totally inthe hands of contractors such a Lockheed Martin and other yahoos, how they are corrupt. Today here is one more example of total ineptitude;

    Here is the link of yesterday:
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-01-06/how-corrupt-american-government and today Zero hedge has some very interesting articles
    like this oneL Has anyone noticed how the guardian covers Libya?

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-01-06/pray-us-libya-issues-cry-help-isis-advances-oil-fields
    and
    Qadafi warned Tony Blair (the bozo): Jihadists will attack Europe!
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-01-07/jihadists-will-attack-europe-leaked-phone-call-shows-gaddafi-warned-tony-blair-terro
    and Hillaryton's motive for invading Lybia:

    http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2016/01/06/new-hillary-emails-reveal-true-motive-for-libya-intervention/
    "The email identifies French President Nicholas Sarkozy as leading the attack on Libya with five specific purposes in mind: to obtain Libyan oil, ensure French influence in the region, increase Sarkozy's reputation domestically, assert French military power, and to prevent Gaddafi's influence in what is considered "Francophone Africa."

    Most astounding is the lengthy section delineating the huge threat that Gaddafi's gold and silver reserves, estimated at "143 tons of gold, and a similar amount in silver," posed to the French franc (CFA) circulating as a prime African currency. In place of the noble sounding "Responsibility to Protect" (R2P) doctrine fed to the public, there is this "confidential" explanation of what was really driving the war [emphasis mine]:

    This gold was accumulated prior to the current rebellion and was intended to be used to establish a pan-African currency based on the Libyan golden Dinar. This plan was designed to provide the Francophone African Countries with an alternative to the French franc (CFA).
    (Source Comment: According to knowledgeable individuals this quantity of gold and silver is valued at more than $7 billion. French intelligence officers discovered this plan shortly after the current rebellion began, and this was one of the factors that influenced President Nicolas Sarkozy's decision to commit France to the attack on Libya.)

    Though this internal email aims to summarize the motivating factors driving France's (and by implication NATO's) intervention in Libya, it is interesting to note that saving civilian lives is conspicuously absent from the briefing.

    Instead, the great fear reported is that Libya might lead North Africa into a high degree of economic independence with a new pan-African currency.
    French intelligence "discovered" a Libyan initiative to freely compete with European currency through a local alternative, and this had to be subverted through military aggression."

    Loosing a missile is not important...important is to increase hell on earth...and to make people suffer like in Libya, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, and Ukraine.


    Havingalavrov 8 Jan 2016 02:50

    Look who uses the Hellfire missile and they are making a fuss about Cuba having the technology ???

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-114_Hellfire#Operators


    Mohanraj Cp 8 Jan 2016 01:56

    The US stripped down a MIG27 Foxbat jet brought in by a defecting Soviet pilot and is now complaining! Sauce for Soviet goose is sauce for American gander!


    Long6fellow 8 Jan 2016 01:52

    The Yanks are losing their grip on their delivery service, firstly, there was a drone brought down by the Iranians, "can we have our drone back please", then the wrong delivery of 1Billion$ of war equipment to SISI, the latter being set up by the Pentagon, now the Hellfire Missile sent to Cuba, and after all these years of dirty tricks on Cuba, it proves the Yanks cannot be trust at all.


    BudGreen -> Freddienerk 8 Jan 2016 00:47

    Specific knowledge of the guidance systems could be valuable to someone interested in developing electronic countermeasures. This much should be obvious. Personally, I would be surprised that with the number of these used in combat (they've been in use since the early 80's) that there would not have been at least several unexploded units recovered by our enemies. Having one that was never fired and probably undamaged might be a real prize, though.


    synchronicfusion 8 Jan 2016 00:05

    As an American, I am truly embarrassed and ashamed that my own government had a habit of shipping weapons and technology into the wrong hands. I might be more forgiving if it only happened once, but how many times now? This is the same government that insists on spying on we innocent citizens as though we are in the wrong. Please! Dumb....., Da Dumb, Dumb, DUMB! It's been said that every empire comes to an end, eventually.

    [Jan 10, 2016] Neoliberalism Raises Its Ugly Head in South America: Washington Targets Venezuela, Brazil and Argentina by Jack Rasmus

    Notable quotes:
    "... The USA used to complain about Japan Inc. Of course now it's USA as Neolibraconia Inc. and it's business is war along all lines : military, economic, environmental, social ... ..."
    www.counterpunch.org

    After 9-11, the United States focused its most aggressive foreign policy on the Middle East – from Afghanistan to North Africa. But the deal recently worked out with Iran, the current back-door negotiations over Syria between U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, and Russia Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, and the decision to subsidize, and now export, U.S. shale oil and gas production in a direct reversal of U.S. past policy toward Saudi Arabia – together signal a relative shift of U.S. policy away from the Middle East.

    With a Middle East consolidation phase underway, U.S. policy has been shifting since 2013-14 to the more traditional focus that it had for decades: first, to check and contain China; second, to prevent Russia from economically integrating more deeply with Europe; and, third, to reassert more direct U.S. influence once again, as in previous decades, over the economies and governments in Latin America.

    ... ... ...

    Argentina & Brazil: Harbinger of Neoliberal Things to Come

    Should the new pro-U.S., pro-Business Venezuela National Assembly ever prevail over the Maduro government, the outcome economically would something like that now unfolding with the Mauricio Macri government in Argentina. Argentina's Macri has already, within days of assuming the presidency, slashed taxes for big farmers and manufacturers, lifted currency controls and devalued the peso by 30 percent, allowed inflation to rise overnight by 25 percent, provided US$2 billion in dollar denominated bonds for Argentine exporters and speculators, re-opened discussions with U.S. hedge funds as a prelude to paying them excess interest the de Kirchner government previously denied, put thousands of government workers on notice of imminent layoffs, declared the new government's intent to stack the supreme court in order to rubber stamp its new Neoliberal programs, and took steps to reverse Argentine's recent media law. And that's just the beginning.

    Politically, the neoliberal vision will mean an overturning and restructuring of the current Supreme Court, possible changes to the existing Constitution, and attempts to remove the duly-elected president from office before his term by various means. Apart from plans to stack the judiciary, as in Argentina, Venezuela's new business controlled National Assembly will likely follow their reactionary class compatriots in Brazil, and move to impeach Venezuela president, Maduro, and dismantle his popular government – just as they are attempting the same in Brazil with that country's also recently re-elected president, Rousseff.

    What happens in Venezuela, Argentina, and Brazil in the weeks ahead, in 2016, is a harbinger of the intense economic and political class war in South America that is about to escalate to a higher stage in 2016.

    jfl | Jan 8, 2016 6:08:12 PM | 10

    The USA used to complain about Japan Inc. Of course now it's USA as Neolibraconia Inc. and it's business is war along all lines : military, economic, environmental, social ... Jack Rasmus has an excellent survey at Neoliberalism Raises Its Ugly Head in South America: Washington Targets Venezuela, Brazil and Argentina .

    The war on the homefront seems won as far as Neolibraconia is concerned, at least the lock-up, see A Minimal Demand: Roll Back Incarceration to 1970 Levels , and here are pictures: animated and still .

    That report from FARS seems worrisome indeed.

    Our man b called Merkel's move for what it was before it was : After Creating Migration Flood Merkel Throws Up Emergency Dikes .

    I'm still unconvinced that 1,000 rapists ran rampant in Cologne on New Years Eve. Where's Penelope and her fraud analysis when it seems most needed?

    2016 will be the year when all this comes to a head. Perhaps Russia and the BRICS should preemptively repudiate their dollar denominated debts? It all seems to be going south at this particular point in time anyway.

    jfl | Jan 8, 2016 6:45:14 PM | 11

    Trying to follow nmb's link @1 without actually being shortened and sold myself led me to Pepe Escobar of 29 Dec

    The lame duck Obama administration – whatever rhetorical and/or legalistic contortions – still sticks to the Cold War 2.0 script on Russia, duly prescribed by Obama mentor Dr. Zbigniew "Grand Chessboard" Brzezinski.

    That follows a "tradition" Bill Blum , for instance, has extensively documented, as since the end of WWII Washington attempted to overthrow more than 50 governments – the absolute majority full democracies; dropped bombs on the civilian population of over 30 nations ; attempted to assassinate over 50 foreign leaders ; attempted to suppress nationalist movements in 20 nations ; interfered on countless democratic elections; taught torture through manuals and "advisers"; and the list goes on.

    The key front though is the Russian economy; sooner or later there's got to be a purge of the Russian Central Bank and the Finance Ministry, but Putin will only act when he has surefire internal support, and that's far from given.

    The fight to the death in Moscow's inner circles is really between the Eurasianists and the so-called Atlantic integrationists, a.k.a. the Western fifth column. The crux of the battle is arguably the Russian Central Bank and the Finance Ministry – where some key liberalcon monetarist players are remote-controlled by the usual suspects, the Masters of the Universe.

    The same mechanism applies, geopolitically, to any side, in any latitude, which has linked its own fiat money to Western central banks. The Masters of the Universe always seek to exercise hegemony by manipulating usury and fiat money control.

    So why President Putin does not fire the head of the Russian Central Bank, Elvira Nabiulina, and a great deal of his financial team - as they keep buying U.S. bonds and propping up the U.S. dollar instead of the ruble? What's really being aggressed here if not Russian interests?

    [Jan 10, 2016] Engineered Migration as a Coercive Instrument: The 1994 Cuban Balseros Crisis

    "... I suppose you could say the migration was engineered in both the Cuban and Turkey cases, with the US and US/EU/Turkey creating the migrants and Castro and Erdogan, respectively, acting as gatekeepers. ..."
    "... The difference is that the migrants are not Turks, in Erdogan's case, but his prey, the people of Syriaq. And the people of the EU, of course. ..."
    moonofalabama.org
    jfl | Jan 9, 2016 9:30:54 PM | 100

    #87 juliania

    Somebody provided a link to a pdf of a Kathy Greenhill's paper. Although I have the pdf, I only find the paper in html now ...

    Engineered Migration as a Coercive Instrument: The 1994 Cuban Balseros Crisis

    Abstract: This paper presents a case study of the August 1994 Cuban "balseros"-i.e. rafters-crisis, commonly known as Mariel II, during which over 35,000 Cubans fled the island and headed towards Florida. This paper argues that Castro launched the crisis in an attempt to manipulate the US's fears of another Mariel boatlift, in order to compel a shift in United States (US) policy, both on immigration and on a wider variety of issues. As the end of the crisis brought with it a radical redefinition of US immigration policy toward Cuba, the paper further contends that from Castro's perspective, this exercise in coercion proved a qualified success-his third such successful use of the Cuban people as an asymmetric political weapon against the US.
    ... one of the few arrows in Castro's quiver, he used it effectively. The article is about the 1994 Balseros Crisis, but Greenhill recounts : The Camarioca Crisis, 1965; The Mariel Boatlift, 1980; and The August 1994 Balseros Crisis. The Mariel Boatlift was 'the big one' : 125,000 Cubans. Dwarfed by Erdogan. A million in Germany alone.

    I suppose you could say the migration was engineered in both the Cuban and Turkey cases, with the US and US/EU/Turkey creating the migrants and Castro and Erdogan, respectively, acting as gatekeepers.

    The difference is that the migrants are not Turks, in Erdogan's case, but his prey, the people of Syriaq. And the people of the EU, of course.

    [Jan 10, 2016] The Wall Street Casino so far handed out losses well.

    This might be not an end of S&P500 rally but this might well be the beginning of the end.
    Notable quotes:
    "... It's good: the less money the US will have the less wars it will wage in the world. My congrats! ..."
    "... Baron von Rothschild said "the time to buy is when there's blood in streets" - i.e. when it's all doom and gloom. We've not there yet but there's always hope. ..."
    "... Be careful what you wish for. ..."
    "... The whole 401K thing was a scam from it's inception. The employment figures are total nonsense--figures don't lie but liars can figure etc. --oh and "there was no inflation last year." ..."
    "... With this load of gambling morons running stock markets, financial major rip offs and services we will all be declared bankrupt and broke without doing anything or lifting a finger. ..."
    "... This is not about China. Saudis (and other oil producers) are selling investments to fund their current budget. Most economies are very slow, workforce participation rates all around West are the lowest on record. US has 90 million non-working adults who are not in military, retired or in school. 90 million idle people and the government claims a 5% unemployment rate based on "statistical survey". The economies are in much worse shape than the cheerful and manipulated numbers that governments produce. Inflation is higher than reported. ..."
    "... I think the US is showing signs of "growth" that is, the number of "new" jobs went up last month to 292K (also November was adjusted higher with better information). I understand your hesitation about the "5% unemployment" but this is in spite of a lot of people now coming back into the workforce. And wages are now going up, which probably shows that the number of available people suitable for work is declining. This has got to be a good thing. ..."
    "... Well gosh no QE to save these bandits again, what will they do? ..."
    "... they are the sellers, not to worry though, they'll be back out with their begging bowls when the market nr bottoms out.. ready for the next wild ride back up. ..."
    "... The QE was a godsend for the super rich they got to use that money for stock and property speculation because of that the economy is still not moving. ..."
    "... If they given that money to the poor the pensioners the unemployed and underpaid they would have spent every cent in the real economy generated employment and profits, growth would have been 3%-4% by now. ..."
    discussion.theguardian.com
    John Pacella , 9 Jan 2016 06:45
    What a shock...the Wall Street Casino handed out losses...imagine my surprise.
    PlatonKuzin -> John Pacella , 9 Jan 2016 06:56

    It's good: the less money the US will have the less wars it will wage in the world. My congrats!

    anyoneanytime , 9 Jan 2016 05:24
    Looks like its going to be a great year. Eat the rich.
    peter nelson , 9 Jan 2016 05:08
    Things have a long way to fall before they're low. I hope it's 2008 all over again. I was laid off in January 2009 with a generous severance packet. I invested it all in the US stock market in Q1 09, when everyone was wailing and moaning. That was the bottom of the market. Over the next few years it soared and I made a fortune. I sold most of it last year so I'm hoping for another crash.

    Baron von Rothschild said "the time to buy is when there's blood in streets" - i.e. when it's all doom and gloom. We've not there yet but there's always hope.

    ID470129 -> peter nelson , 9 Jan 2016 05:16
    Be careful what you wish for.
    giveusaclue -> peter nelson , 9 Jan 2016 09:52
    That's ok unless you are about to retire and draw your private pension.

    benbache -> greven , 9 Jan 2016 07:02

    "In the garden, growth has it seasons. First comes spring and summer, but then we have fall and winter. And then we get spring and summer again." Chance the Gardener, mistakenly known as Chauncey Gardiner.

    Economic gurus come in all forms.

    goatrider , 9 Jan 2016 04:28
    The whole 401K thing was a scam from it's inception. The employment figures are total nonsense--figures don't lie but liars can figure etc. --oh and "there was no inflation last year."
    benbache -> goatrider , 9 Jan 2016 07:02
    Except on food.
    BlackAbbott , 9 Jan 2016 04:12
    With this load of gambling morons running stock markets, financial major rip offs and services we will all be declared bankrupt and broke without doing anything or lifting a finger.

    These people are utterly stupid. All a load of chooks with missing heads running round causing chaos and more stupidity.
    But Wait. Are we the stupid ones for letting them have their greedy little comer of the world to gamble away the lives of others?

    FreddySteadyGO -> BlackAbbott , 9 Jan 2016 05:30

    But Wait. Are we the stupid ones for letting them have their greedy little comer of the world to gamble away the lives of others?

    Not stupid but captivated perhaps?

    We have no influence and are impotent against these chancers and thieves.

    BlackAbbott -> FreddySteadyGO , 9 Jan 2016 06:00

    We have no influence and are impotent against these chancers and thieves.

    Markets get closed. Also during the Bush GFC we had futures, derivatives or whatever banned for a while. The problem was letting them start up again.
    So its just a case of finding some real honest politicians...........maybe your right.
    Zhubajie , 9 Jan 2016 02:41
    The US has been de-industrialized. Most Americans are too poor to buy new gadgets. Many are homeless. We have a 3d world economy. Of course the stock market etc is bad!
    420atmosphere -> Zhubajie , 9 Jan 2016 03:50
    We do not have a third world economy. Get real...
    BlackAbbott -> 420atmosphere , 9 Jan 2016 04:14

    We do not have a third world economy. Get real

    It will be if the stock market fools carry on the way they are.
    Beckow , 9 Jan 2016 01:53
    This is not about China. Saudis (and other oil producers) are selling investments to fund their current budget. Most economies are very slow, workforce participation rates all around West are the lowest on record. US has 90 million non-working adults who are not in military, retired or in school. 90 million idle people and the government claims a 5% unemployment rate based on "statistical survey". The economies are in much worse shape than the cheerful and manipulated numbers that governments produce. Inflation is higher than reported.

    The governments have learned in the last 30-40 years how to "manage" the reported metrics by changing definitions, adjustments and outright lying. You can only do it for so long before real world catches up with you.

    ID2463357 -> Beckow , 9 Jan 2016 02:09
    Well, it's complicated :-)

    I think the US is showing signs of "growth" that is, the number of "new" jobs went up last month to 292K (also November was adjusted higher with better information). I understand your hesitation about the "5% unemployment" but this is in spite of a lot of people now coming back into the workforce. And wages are now going up, which probably shows that the number of available people suitable for work is declining. This has got to be a good thing.

    Yes, things could be better there and in many other places. (In Canada, we are truly screwed for at least several years, fwiw.)

    prematureoptimsim -> Beckow , 9 Jan 2016 02:24
    Sounds absolutely dismal.
    But accurate.
    boscovee , 9 Jan 2016 01:29
    Well gosh no QE to save these bandits again, what will they do?
    ID NO. 1984 -> boscovee , 9 Jan 2016 01:46
    they are the sellers, not to worry though, they'll be back out with their begging bowls when the market nr bottoms out.. ready for the next wild ride back up.
    Alex Newman -> boscovee , 9 Jan 2016 04:01
    What has QE got to do with Chinese stock market volatility?
    greven -> boscovee , 9 Jan 2016 04:46
    The QE was a godsend for the super rich they got to use that money for stock and property speculation because of that the economy is still not moving. \

    If they given that money to the poor the pensioners the unemployed and underpaid they would have spent every cent in the real economy generated employment and profits, growth would have been 3%-4% by now.

    [Jan 10, 2016] US Hellfire missile mistakenly shipped to Cuba

    Notable quotes:
    "... A missile has two explosive parts . Explosives in the armament and the fuel for the missile. In this case it was solid state rocket fuel which by its' very definition is another type of explosive. It's illegal to ship this in an commercial air plane or fly over any sovereign country's air space without getting permission . Very very shocking . ..."
    "... Mistake? I doubt it. And, this what happens shipping such equipment on commercial flights. Whoever made that call, should be fired and kicked in the arse on his (or more likely her) way out the door. ..."
    "... Once again, privatization wreaks havoc. Private contractors have massacred civilians in Iraq, turned US prisons into even worse hell-holes than previously, and now this. ..."
    "... Corporate america and privatization work SOoo well. Congress is bribed by corporate 1% so we have increased the military budget and pass funding for new ships planes and weapons even the Pentagon doesn't want or need. It's all a scam to drag money out of the many and enrich the few. Think of the trillions spent on nuclear bombs and missiles, the use of which would only end civilization. ..."
    "... You didn't need to incorrectly ID yourself. The language itself gives you away. You are NOT a conservative but rather a reactionary that thinks he is conservative by emulating Fox and Limbaugh and the like. Conserve means to save, reactionaries mean overturning conditions as they are. Liberals intend to gradually improve a few things while Radicals want Radical change. ..."
    "... TV and Radio and Internet have perverted the language and thus created arguments over nothing since the usage of nonsense words in discussion can only lead to nonsense expectations and nonsense conclusions. ..."
    "... Other than visibly embarrassing for our NATO friends and Lockheed, not that big of a deal since the Hellfire training missile contains an incomplete guidance section and has no operational seeker head, warhead, fusing system or rocket motor. ..."
    "... It's not just the individual incompetence, it's the whole system. Ok, so someone slaps the wrong address sticker on the box with the missile in (they probably didnt know what was in the box, most mail rooms dont). I can see that happening, (wasn't checked which was odd). Then it manages to get on, completely unscanned, onto an EU passenger jet. I'm assuming it wasnt scanned, as i'm pretty sure a missile, sounds and quacks like a missile on any Xray scanning device. If it wasn't scanned, how the hell does the US military have "diplomatic immunity" on a european airline! ..."
    "... i know i feel a lot safer after reading this. all those billions spent on homeland security and spying on american citizens, and they ship missles by air france. one might suspect the whole enterprise is a boondoggle to enrich political contributors and politicians. ..."
    "... Bit of a non-story this. There will have been plenty of duds dropped/fired around the globe which could then have found their way into the hands of the Russians or Chinese etc. I recall seeing TV footage of a Hellfire misfire from an Israeli Apache gunship over the West Bank a few years back. ..."
    "... Hellfire was designed in the 70s-80s. Soviets themselves had laser guided air to ground missiles at that time. I seriously doubt that in 2016 this is going to be some treasure trove of information for the Russians or the Chinese. ..."
    "... The continued disorganization of the greatest fighting force on the planet is hillarious however. Heck at least they only schlep nukes around by mistake within the 50 states. For now. ..."
    "... What would be interesting to know is what they mean by 'dummy'. There are generally two kinds of dummy rounds for missiles like this: one with no warhead but a fully functional motor (used for practice firings), and ones with no warhead or motor (used for handling training). ..."
    "... Cuba WILL share the technology with Russia. That will allow the Russians the ability to develop countermeasures to it. The missile guidance system will have to be entirely re-done. ..."
    "... Not sure that situation has improved since the 80s. There was recently an excellent survey that asked just two simple questions: where is Ukraine on the world map, and should US forces be sent there. There was a significant correlation between how far off the participants were for the first question, and their willingness to send troops. ..."
    "... US Hellfire missile mistakenly shipped to Cuba. Meanwhile, loads of US & UK varied and sophisticated weaponry deliberately shipped to Saudi Arabia. ..."
    The Guardian


    Kosala Kodikara 9 Jan 2016 12:28

    A missile has two explosive parts . Explosives in the armament and the fuel for the missile. In this case it was solid state rocket fuel which by its' very definition is another type of explosive. It's illegal to ship this in an commercial air plane or fly over any sovereign country's air space without getting permission . Very very shocking .


    newpilgrim 9 Jan 2016 09:23

    Just another example of collateral damage? These missiles seem to keep landing in the wrong places, wedding parties etc. Are the military of any nation capable of managing dangerous hi-tech military hardware responsibly?


    Kevin Brent 9 Jan 2016 02:24

    Mistake? I doubt it. And, this what happens shipping such equipment on commercial flights. Whoever made that call, should be fired and kicked in the arse on his (or more likely her) way out the door.


    beermad -> CheaterA 8 Jan 2016 16:27

    Ah, but without a large enemy bogeyman there would be no excuse for spending billions upon billions on "defence". The government's paymasters in the weapons industry would never stand for that.

    BG Davis 8 Jan 2016 10:51

    Once again, privatization wreaks havoc. Private contractors have massacred civilians in Iraq, turned US prisons into even worse hell-holes than previously, and now this.

    lostinbago -> JoeP 8 Jan 2016 10:09

    Corporate america and privatization work SOoo well. Congress is bribed by corporate 1% so we have increased the military budget and pass funding for new ships planes and weapons even the Pentagon doesn't want or need. It's all a scam to drag money out of the many and enrich the few. Think of the trillions spent on nuclear bombs and missiles, the use of which would only end civilization.


    lostinbago -> Al Lewis 8 Jan 2016 10:04

    You didn't need to incorrectly ID yourself. The language itself gives you away. You are NOT a conservative but rather a reactionary that thinks he is conservative by emulating Fox and Limbaugh and the like. Conserve means to save, reactionaries mean overturning conditions as they are. Liberals intend to gradually improve a few things while Radicals want Radical change.

    TV and Radio and Internet have perverted the language and thus created arguments over nothing since the usage of nonsense words in discussion can only lead to nonsense expectations and nonsense conclusions.

    CheaterA 8 Jan 2016 09:59

    What is wrong with our leadership (and often the press) for this persistence re retaining Russia as a "potential" enemy?! NATO needs to be renamed, Turkey dumped, and Russia invited to join. Russia would be the best ally the west will ever have against terrorism. Tons of money would be saved (yes, tons) plus the ensuing safety and cultural exchange would be, well, priceless.


    Smallworld5 8 Jan 2016 09:11

    Other than visibly embarrassing for our NATO friends and Lockheed, not that big of a deal since the Hellfire training missile contains an incomplete guidance section and has no operational seeker head, warhead, fusing system or rocket motor.

    Basically it's a shell with the laser receiver part of the seeker package which tells the weapons operator on the aircraft that the missile has acquired the laser designator (locked on). No ground breaking technology there as just about everyone else has similar weapons.


    trazer985 -> pretzelattack 8 Jan 2016 09:01

    It's not just the individual incompetence, it's the whole system. Ok, so someone slaps the wrong address sticker on the box with the missile in (they probably didnt know what was in the box, most mail rooms dont). I can see that happening, (wasn't checked which was odd). Then it manages to get on, completely unscanned, onto an EU passenger jet. I'm assuming it wasnt scanned, as i'm pretty sure a missile, sounds and quacks like a missile on any Xray scanning device. If it wasn't scanned, how the hell does the US military have "diplomatic immunity" on a european airline!

    Next time they ask me if my bag has "any of the following" in it, I'll try not to think of this story...


    TommyGuardianReader 8 Jan 2016 08:34

    "The official said the US did not want any defense technology to remain in a proscribed country, whether that country can use it or not."

    Lockheed Martin may have had their own commercial motives for allowing the equipment to be accidentally sent to Havana, or they may have been acting under instruction.

    However, if it was a simple fuck-up:

    1. The easy short-term answer is to take Cuba off the list of proscribed countries.

    2. The more difficult, long-term answer is to remove all the other unauthorised US defence equipment that is currently in Cuba. Especially in and around the south-eastern area known as Guantanamo Bay.

    There can be no doubt that the continued existence of the unlawful, anachronistic foreign naval facility makes it very difficult, if not impossible, to achieve genuine consensus at the United Nations.

    While that may suit the interests of the shareholders in Lockheed Martin very nicely, it does not suit the interests of most of humanity and the other living beings on the planet.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_Naval_Base


    pretzelattack -> Ziontrain 8 Jan 2016 08:33

    i know i feel a lot safer after reading this. all those billions spent on homeland security and spying on american citizens, and they ship missles by air france. one might suspect the whole enterprise is a boondoggle to enrich political contributors and politicians.


    mikedow -> toggy12 8 Jan 2016 07:50

    They're used to losing weaponry. They even have a special name(Broken Arrow) for when they lose a nuclear device. In 1950 the USAF jettisoned a nuclear bomb off the coast of BC, before crashing a B-36 "Peacemaker".


    Julie Lamin 8 Jan 2016 07:49

    Another of the United States efforts to poison international opinion against Cuba? Perhaps once the United States has returned Guatanamo to Cuba and paid for the fifty years of damage they have caused to Cuban people through their acts of aggression, the US might get their little bit of kit back.

    TonyBistol 8 Jan 2016 05:39

    Perhaps I'm wrong, but I wouldn't imagine that this drone would be able to teach the Russians an awful lot, especially seeing as they have recently demonstrated that they have the capability of being able to launch seaborne cruise missiles which can pinpoint targets 1800 Km away.


    jgbg Tradingman66 8 Jan 2016 05:24

    They don't need to hand them to a freight forwarder to screw up. Whilst the Soviets had some accidents with nuclear weapons and reactors, the US has had quite a few accidents involving nuclear weapons, reactors and materials, including the permanent loss of some nuclear weapons. One nuclear weapon that was lost over Georgia (the US state, not the country) was armed and almost detonated.


    tellyheads 8 Jan 2016 05:24

    LOL, the US DoD is less competent than Amazon.

    Lucky it wasn't a nuke.


    jgbg Freddienerk 8 Jan 2016 05:11

    I am sure the Russians and Chinese already have the know how to build a similar weapon.

    Yes - but they might be interested in the specifics of this missile e.g. sensors and guidance systems, so as to facilitate the development of effective countermeasures.


    JaitcH 8 Jan 2016 05:06

    What's to hide?

    The target is painted with an infra-red signal, or infra-red markers, similar to torches, are placed on or near a target. Whichever is used is encoded with a 4-digit code.

    The pilot of the aircraft carrying the Hellfire weapon loads this 4-digit code into the Hellfire before releasing it and it's ready to go hunting.

    The Freedom Fighters know about this and use infra-red detectors to either locate the hand-dropped markers or to sense infra-red markers projected in a site - then they move, hopefully in time yo watch the explosion from a distance!

    The information was published in a book devoted to modern warfare technology.

    Doug_Niedermeyer 8 Jan 2016 04:52

    Bit of a non-story this. There will have been plenty of duds dropped/fired around the globe which could then have found their way into the hands of the Russians or Chinese etc. I recall seeing TV footage of a Hellfire misfire from an Israeli Apache gunship over the West Bank a few years back.

    hogsback -> ID0728468 8 Jan 2016 04:47

    I'm sure all munitions are shipped via the US Military themselves via the USAAF

    So when Lockheed sells Hellfires to say Pakistan, or Egypt, or Saudi, you think they are delivered in person by the USAAF with a little bow and ribbons? You realise that Hellfire has been sold to over 25 countries, not all of them friendly to the US?

    They're sent by air cargo or in a container on a ship like anything else.

    SenseCir 8 Jan 2016 04:36

    This is a tragedy. What if technical details reach poor farmers in Yemen, Afghanistan, Iraq or Syria who are then able to avoid being killed by one of those missiles? Unthinkable. Cuba must return the missile at once.


    juster 8 Jan 2016 04:35

    Hellfire was designed in the 70s-80s. Soviets themselves had laser guided air to ground missiles at that time. I seriously doubt that in 2016 this is going to be some treasure trove of information for the Russians or the Chinese.

    The continued disorganization of the greatest fighting force on the planet is hillarious however. Heck at least they only schlep nukes around by mistake within the 50 states. For now.


    hogsback -> trazer985 8 Jan 2016 04:30

    Probably in the cargo hold on a passenger flight. You would be surprised as to what is sitting under you when you are off on your hols.

    What would be interesting to know is what they mean by 'dummy'. There are generally two kinds of dummy rounds for missiles like this: one with no warhead but a fully functional motor (used for practice firings), and ones with no warhead or motor (used for handling training).


    DThompson5 -> martinusher 8 Jan 2016 04:30

    The link to that survey...

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2014/04/07/the-less-americans-know-about-ukraines-location-the-more-they-want-u-s-to-intervene/


    Polly Parrot 8 Jan 2016 04:26

    What the hell are they doing using ordinary freight services to send missiles around the world, do they send live ones the same way. They should only be carried by military transport regardless of cost because what is the cost of loosing it and it falling into the wrong hands


    EpaminondasUSA 8 Jan 2016 04:25

    Cuba WILL share the technology with Russia. That will allow the Russians the ability to develop countermeasures to it. The missile guidance system will have to be entirely re-done.


    DThompson5 martinusher 8 Jan 2016 04:14

    Not sure that situation has improved since the 80s. There was recently an excellent survey that asked just two simple questions: where is Ukraine on the world map, and should US forces be sent there. There was a significant correlation between how far off the participants were for the first question, and their willingness to send troops.

    2bveryFrank 8 Jan 2016 03:57

    A Hellfire missile does the rounds in Europe, visiting Spain, Germany and France before being sent to Havana, Cuba by mistake! And our security is supposed to be in these people's hands! Idiots the lot of them!

    Epivore 8 Jan 2016 03:57

    "instead, it was loaded onto an Air France flight to Havana."

    And it's not just dummy missiles that end up on civilian flights...

    UncertainTrumpet 8 Jan 2016 03:26

    US Hellfire missile mistakenly shipped to Cuba. Meanwhile, loads of US & UK varied and sophisticated weaponry deliberately shipped to Saudi Arabia.

    Dubhgaill -> Wendy Stolz 8 Jan 2016 03:15

    The US military is virtually entirely run by private companies. Every single member of GW Bush's cabinet, to a man or woman, were boardmembers and shareholders in either an oil company or arms producer or a military logistics firm. Every single one of them. This is a minor symtom of a far more insidious malaise.


    siansim -> bemusedbyitall 8 Jan 2016 03:02


    bemusedbyitall said:

    No chance, from experience even if it was used against a hospital with numerous medical staff and civilian deaths and casualties it would just be put down to a minor clerical or communications error...

    ...And then you drive a tank into the hospital wards to destroy any evidence.

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/15/us-tank-enters-ruined-afghan-hospital-putting-war-evidence-at-risk

    US Military: putting the FUBAR into high military spending

    poplartree1 8 Jan 2016 02:58

    Great! How wonderful they work like a charm...Yesterday I placed in comments how the US government (who is totally inthe hands of contractors such a Lockheed Martin and other yahoos, how they are corrupt. Today here is one more example of total ineptitude;

    Here is the link of yesterday:
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-01-06/how-corrupt-american-government and today Zero hedge has some very interesting articles
    like this oneL Has anyone noticed how the guardian covers Libya?

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-01-06/pray-us-libya-issues-cry-help-isis-advances-oil-fields
    and
    Qadafi warned Tony Blair (the bozo): Jihadists will attack Europe!
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-01-07/jihadists-will-attack-europe-leaked-phone-call-shows-gaddafi-warned-tony-blair-terro
    and Hillaryton's motive for invading Lybia:

    http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2016/01/06/new-hillary-emails-reveal-true-motive-for-libya-intervention/
    "The email identifies French President Nicholas Sarkozy as leading the attack on Libya with five specific purposes in mind: to obtain Libyan oil, ensure French influence in the region, increase Sarkozy's reputation domestically, assert French military power, and to prevent Gaddafi's influence in what is considered "Francophone Africa."

    Most astounding is the lengthy section delineating the huge threat that Gaddafi's gold and silver reserves, estimated at "143 tons of gold, and a similar amount in silver," posed to the French franc (CFA) circulating as a prime African currency. In place of the noble sounding "Responsibility to Protect" (R2P) doctrine fed to the public, there is this "confidential" explanation of what was really driving the war [emphasis mine]:

    This gold was accumulated prior to the current rebellion and was intended to be used to establish a pan-African currency based on the Libyan golden Dinar. This plan was designed to provide the Francophone African Countries with an alternative to the French franc (CFA).
    (Source Comment: According to knowledgeable individuals this quantity of gold and silver is valued at more than $7 billion. French intelligence officers discovered this plan shortly after the current rebellion began, and this was one of the factors that influenced President Nicolas Sarkozy's decision to commit France to the attack on Libya.)

    Though this internal email aims to summarize the motivating factors driving France's (and by implication NATO's) intervention in Libya, it is interesting to note that saving civilian lives is conspicuously absent from the briefing.

    Instead, the great fear reported is that Libya might lead North Africa into a high degree of economic independence with a new pan-African currency.
    French intelligence "discovered" a Libyan initiative to freely compete with European currency through a local alternative, and this had to be subverted through military aggression."

    Loosing a missile is not important...important is to increase hell on earth...and to make people suffer like in Libya, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, and Ukraine.


    Havingalavrov 8 Jan 2016 02:50

    Look who uses the Hellfire missile and they are making a fuss about Cuba having the technology ???

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-114_Hellfire#Operators


    Mohanraj Cp 8 Jan 2016 01:56

    The US stripped down a MIG27 Foxbat jet brought in by a defecting Soviet pilot and is now complaining! Sauce for Soviet goose is sauce for American gander!


    Long6fellow 8 Jan 2016 01:52

    The Yanks are losing their grip on their delivery service, firstly, there was a drone brought down by the Iranians, "can we have our drone back please", then the wrong delivery of 1Billion$ of war equipment to SISI, the latter being set up by the Pentagon, now the Hellfire Missile sent to Cuba, and after all these years of dirty tricks on Cuba, it proves the Yanks cannot be trust at all.


    BudGreen -> Freddienerk 8 Jan 2016 00:47

    Specific knowledge of the guidance systems could be valuable to someone interested in developing electronic countermeasures. This much should be obvious. Personally, I would be surprised that with the number of these used in combat (they've been in use since the early 80's) that there would not have been at least several unexploded units recovered by our enemies. Having one that was never fired and probably undamaged might be a real prize, though.


    synchronicfusion 8 Jan 2016 00:05

    As an American, I am truly embarrassed and ashamed that my own government had a habit of shipping weapons and technology into the wrong hands. I might be more forgiving if it only happened once, but how many times now? This is the same government that insists on spying on we innocent citizens as though we are in the wrong. Please! Dumb....., Da Dumb, Dumb, DUMB! It's been said that every empire comes to an end, eventually.

    [Jan 09, 2016] Allen Dulles and modern neocons

    This is the review of the book of David Talbot's The Devil's Chessboard. Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America's Secret Government by one of Moon of Alabama readers.
    Looks like the course on making The USA imperial power (which was related later in Washington consensus and Wolfowitz doctrine) was taken directly after WWII. Cold War was just a smoke screen under which the USA tried to establish hegemony over the world. Both documents could well be written by Alan Dulles himself.
    Any president who dare to deviate from this is ostracized , impeached or killed. So the political role of intelligence agencies since their establishment by Truman was to serve as the brain center if USA imperial beuracracy (as well as the tools for projecting it abroad)
    The CIA is a hybrid of an intelligence service that gathers and analyzes foreign intelligence and a clandestine service that conducts covert operations. Both functions are essential to creating pretexts for wars and for expanding the US influence abroad for multinationals, and that is what they have done for 70 years (Dulles came from Wall Street). Among other things it deliberately creates small wars just to demonstrate the US military might. Neoconservative theorist and intelligence operative Michael Ledeen suggested that every 10 years or so, the United States "pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show we mean business."
    Another book deserves to mentioned here too here too. Prouty book The Secret Team: The CIA and its Allies in Control of the United States and the World (which was suppressed in 1973 when irt was published and did not see shelves before republishing in 2011) is described like the the U.S.'s aggressive and illegal war policy conducted by CIA has finally provoked a real military threat to the U.S., albeit one that has emerged only in response to U.S. war plans
    U.S. Air Force Colonel Fletcher Prouty was the chief of special operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1955 to 1964, managing the global military support system for the CIA in Vietnam and around the world. described how the CIA infiltrated the U.S. military, the State Department, the National Security Council and other government institutions, covertly placing its officers in critical positions to ensure that its plans are approved and that it has access to whatever forces, weapons, equipment, ammunition and other resources it needs to carry them out.
    Highly recommended!
    Notable quotes:
    "... We find Dulles attempting to convince his superiors of the need and advantages of dealing with "moderate Nazis" like Reinhard Gehlen, so today there are personalities in our government following a policy of working with "moderate Islamists" and "moderate ultra-nationalists" to achieve our goals. ..."
    "... Perhaps someone looking for more focus on Dulles the man might be disappointed by this, but for someone like myself interested in the history and insights of era Dulles lived in. The era covered is approximately the 1930s through the 1969. ..."
    "... the ruling elite of the US was deeply split. ..."
    "... A large portion of the US elite was sympathetic to the Nazis. Indeed, the pro-Nazi segment of the US elite had built up ties with Germany during the inter-war period. The bonds were economic, political and even ideological - indeed, these links were so important that likely Germany would not have been able to rearm itself without the help of these "patriotic" Americans (Talbot makes clear that in some cases this kinship was evident even during the war itself!). ..."
    "... And no one represents the fascist sympathizing segment of the US elite like Allen Dulles. ..."
    "... Talbot covers this topic well and makes a very good case for Dulles involvement - including revealing (from his day calendar) the fact that "fired" and "retired" from the CIA Allen Dulles, spent the weekend - from the time Kennedy was shot and killed Friday through the hours that Oswald was gunned down - at a CIA command facility in Virginia. ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org
    guest77 | Jan 9, 2016 3:28:12 AM | 55

    I just finished listening to the audio book of David Talbot's The Devil's Chessboard. Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America's Secret Government . It was very good I think.

    I'll spare you a full review, but the Dulles era has some very important and interesting similarities with our own (in fact, the ties are most certainly those first formed during the Dulles brothers tenure at State and CIA). Talbot doesn't delve deeply into these more recent aspects, but he does acknowledge them. And the similarities are quite clear. We find Dulles attempting to convince his superiors of the need and advantages of dealing with "moderate Nazis" like Reinhard Gehlen, so today there are personalities in our government following a policy of working with "moderate Islamists" and "moderate ultra-nationalists" to achieve our goals.

    Initially I had heard that it was a Allen Dulles biography, and though there is a lot of detail about his personal life, his marriage, and even his kids, I would say it strays from what one might consider a "standard" biography and is more about Dulles and his times. For instance, there are a couple of chapters devoted just to the Kennedy Assassination, another on Oswald, and one on the "Generals' putsch" in France in '61. Perhaps someone looking for more focus on Dulles the man might be disappointed by this, but for someone like myself interested in the history and insights of era Dulles lived in. The era covered is approximately the 1930s through the 1969.

    Talbot uses Dulles life as the base to build up the important (and to my mind misunderstood and misconstrued) stories in recent US history. That story is, of course, the following: despite the impression most Americans have of our country fighting the ultimate "good war" against universally despised enemies - that fact is that the ruling elite of the US was deeply split.

    A large portion of the US elite was sympathetic to the Nazis. Indeed, the pro-Nazi segment of the US elite had built up ties with Germany during the inter-war period. The bonds were economic, political and even ideological - indeed, these links were so important that likely Germany would not have been able to rearm itself without the help of these "patriotic" Americans (Talbot makes clear that in some cases this kinship was evident even during the war itself!).

    And no one represents the fascist sympathizing segment of the US elite like Allen Dulles. And Talbot tracks this key figure's fascist ties as he rises in the US power structure from his early years as an OSS man wheeling and dealing with Nazi generals in Bern, Switzerland and on through Dulles' creation and/or support of fascist governments in Latin America, the Middle East, and Africa during the Cold War. Talbot covers the events surrounding Dulles life excellently. Especially moving was his chapter on Guatemala - the tragedy of the Arbenz family as a mirror of the tragedy of Guatemala is covered through the eyes of the grandson of Arbez.

    Talbot covers the horror stories of the results of America working closely with dictators like Trujillo, the Shah, Mobutu Sese Seko, and Batista (he misses Indonesia though, an operation that caused the death of 1,000,000 Indonesians). But of course, as an American, the most important question to Talbot is that of Dulles role in the Kennedy assassination. Talbot covers this topic well and makes a very good case for Dulles involvement - including revealing (from his day calendar) the fact that "fired" and "retired" from the CIA Allen Dulles, spent the weekend - from the time Kennedy was shot and killed Friday through the hours that Oswald was gunned down - at a CIA command facility in Virginia.

    guest77 | Jan 9, 2016 4:08:48 AM | 59

    https://blogs.princeton.edu/mudd/2008/01/allen-dulles-papers-released-by-cia-to-princeton-are-now-online/
    Allen Dulles papers released by CIA to Princeton are now online
    Posted on January 23, 2008 by Dan Linke

    The Central Intelligence Agency has released to Princeton University some 7,800 documents covering the career of Allen W. Dulles, the agency's longest-serving director, which now can be viewed online at http://arks.princeton.edu/ark:/88435/st74cq497

    Dulles (1893-1969), a Princeton alumnus who headed the CIA from 1953 to 1961, was renowned for his role in shaping U.S. intelligence operations during the Cold War. Last March, the CIA released to Princeton a collection of letters, memoranda, reports and other papers - some still redacted - that the agency had removed from Dulles' papers after his death and before their transfer to the University in 1974.

    [Jan 09, 2016] Allen Dulles and modern neocons

    This is the review of the book of David Talbot's The Devil's Chessboard. Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America's Secret Government by one of Moon of Alabama readers.
    Looks like the course on making The USA imperial power (which was related later in Washington consensus and Wolfowitz doctrine) was taken directly after WWII. Cold War was just a smoke screen under which the USA tried to establish hegemony over the world. Both documents could well be written by Alan Dulles himself.
    Any president who dare to deviate from this is ostracized , impeached or killed. So the political role of intelligence agencies since their establishment by Truman was to serve as the brain center if USA imperial beuracracy (as well as the tools for projecting it abroad)
    The CIA is a hybrid of an intelligence service that gathers and analyzes foreign intelligence and a clandestine service that conducts covert operations. Both functions are essential to creating pretexts for wars and for expanding the US influence abroad for multinationals, and that is what they have done for 70 years (Dulles came from Wall Street). Among other things it deliberately creates small wars just to demonstrate the US military might. Neoconservative theorist and intelligence operative Michael Ledeen suggested that every 10 years or so, the United States "pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show we mean business."
    Another book deserves to mentioned here too here too. Prouty book The Secret Team: The CIA and its Allies in Control of the United States and the World (which was suppressed in 1973 when irt was published and did not see shelves before republishing in 2011) is described like the the U.S.'s aggressive and illegal war policy conducted by CIA has finally provoked a real military threat to the U.S., albeit one that has emerged only in response to U.S. war plans
    U.S. Air Force Colonel Fletcher Prouty was the chief of special operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1955 to 1964, managing the global military support system for the CIA in Vietnam and around the world. described how the CIA infiltrated the U.S. military, the State Department, the National Security Council and other government institutions, covertly placing its officers in critical positions to ensure that its plans are approved and that it has access to whatever forces, weapons, equipment, ammunition and other resources it needs to carry them out.
    Highly recommended!
    Notable quotes:
    "... We find Dulles attempting to convince his superiors of the need and advantages of dealing with "moderate Nazis" like Reinhard Gehlen, so today there are personalities in our government following a policy of working with "moderate Islamists" and "moderate ultra-nationalists" to achieve our goals. ..."
    "... Perhaps someone looking for more focus on Dulles the man might be disappointed by this, but for someone like myself interested in the history and insights of era Dulles lived in. The era covered is approximately the 1930s through the 1969. ..."
    "... the ruling elite of the US was deeply split. ..."
    "... A large portion of the US elite was sympathetic to the Nazis. Indeed, the pro-Nazi segment of the US elite had built up ties with Germany during the inter-war period. The bonds were economic, political and even ideological - indeed, these links were so important that likely Germany would not have been able to rearm itself without the help of these "patriotic" Americans (Talbot makes clear that in some cases this kinship was evident even during the war itself!). ..."
    "... And no one represents the fascist sympathizing segment of the US elite like Allen Dulles. ..."
    "... Talbot covers this topic well and makes a very good case for Dulles involvement - including revealing (from his day calendar) the fact that "fired" and "retired" from the CIA Allen Dulles, spent the weekend - from the time Kennedy was shot and killed Friday through the hours that Oswald was gunned down - at a CIA command facility in Virginia. ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org
    guest77 | Jan 9, 2016 3:28:12 AM | 55

    I just finished listening to the audio book of David Talbot's The Devil's Chessboard. Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America's Secret Government . It was very good I think.

    I'll spare you a full review, but the Dulles era has some very important and interesting similarities with our own (in fact, the ties are most certainly those first formed during the Dulles brothers tenure at State and CIA). Talbot doesn't delve deeply into these more recent aspects, but he does acknowledge them. And the similarities are quite clear. We find Dulles attempting to convince his superiors of the need and advantages of dealing with "moderate Nazis" like Reinhard Gehlen, so today there are personalities in our government following a policy of working with "moderate Islamists" and "moderate ultra-nationalists" to achieve our goals.

    Initially I had heard that it was a Allen Dulles biography, and though there is a lot of detail about his personal life, his marriage, and even his kids, I would say it strays from what one might consider a "standard" biography and is more about Dulles and his times. For instance, there are a couple of chapters devoted just to the Kennedy Assassination, another on Oswald, and one on the "Generals' putsch" in France in '61. Perhaps someone looking for more focus on Dulles the man might be disappointed by this, but for someone like myself interested in the history and insights of era Dulles lived in. The era covered is approximately the 1930s through the 1969.

    Talbot uses Dulles life as the base to build up the important (and to my mind misunderstood and misconstrued) stories in recent US history. That story is, of course, the following: despite the impression most Americans have of our country fighting the ultimate "good war" against universally despised enemies - that fact is that the ruling elite of the US was deeply split.

    A large portion of the US elite was sympathetic to the Nazis. Indeed, the pro-Nazi segment of the US elite had built up ties with Germany during the inter-war period. The bonds were economic, political and even ideological - indeed, these links were so important that likely Germany would not have been able to rearm itself without the help of these "patriotic" Americans (Talbot makes clear that in some cases this kinship was evident even during the war itself!).

    And no one represents the fascist sympathizing segment of the US elite like Allen Dulles. And Talbot tracks this key figure's fascist ties as he rises in the US power structure from his early years as an OSS man wheeling and dealing with Nazi generals in Bern, Switzerland and on through Dulles' creation and/or support of fascist governments in Latin America, the Middle East, and Africa during the Cold War. Talbot covers the events surrounding Dulles life excellently. Especially moving was his chapter on Guatemala - the tragedy of the Arbenz family as a mirror of the tragedy of Guatemala is covered through the eyes of the grandson of Arbez.

    Talbot covers the horror stories of the results of America working closely with dictators like Trujillo, the Shah, Mobutu Sese Seko, and Batista (he misses Indonesia though, an operation that caused the death of 1,000,000 Indonesians). But of course, as an American, the most important question to Talbot is that of Dulles role in the Kennedy assassination. Talbot covers this topic well and makes a very good case for Dulles involvement - including revealing (from his day calendar) the fact that "fired" and "retired" from the CIA Allen Dulles, spent the weekend - from the time Kennedy was shot and killed Friday through the hours that Oswald was gunned down - at a CIA command facility in Virginia.

    guest77 | Jan 9, 2016 4:08:48 AM | 59

    https://blogs.princeton.edu/mudd/2008/01/allen-dulles-papers-released-by-cia-to-princeton-are-now-online/
    Allen Dulles papers released by CIA to Princeton are now online
    Posted on January 23, 2008 by Dan Linke

    The Central Intelligence Agency has released to Princeton University some 7,800 documents covering the career of Allen W. Dulles, the agency's longest-serving director, which now can be viewed online at http://arks.princeton.edu/ark:/88435/st74cq497

    Dulles (1893-1969), a Princeton alumnus who headed the CIA from 1953 to 1961, was renowned for his role in shaping U.S. intelligence operations during the Cold War. Last March, the CIA released to Princeton a collection of letters, memoranda, reports and other papers - some still redacted - that the agency had removed from Dulles' papers after his death and before their transfer to the University in 1974.

    [Jan 09, 2016] Sheikh Nimr: Martyr of World War III

    Notable quotes:
    "... "WikiLeaks cables (see below) show that the US has been tracking, and exploiting, the rise of ISIS since 2006, when the organisation first appeared in Iraq as a direct result of the Bush-Blair invasion. Like Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, ISIS are the mutations of a western state terror dispensed by a venal imperial elite undeterred by the consequences of actions taken at great remove in distance and culture. Their culpability is unmentionable in "our" societies." ..."
    "... The WikiLeaks revelations tell of former French Foreign Minister Roland Dumas' statements on this too. What he revealed is that Britain basically made plans for the Syria disaster years ago. ..."
    journal-neo.org

    Lone Wolf | Jan 9, 2016 8:18:11 PM | 95

    Saudi Arabia is in dire trouble today as the outcry over recent executions mounts. The execution of Shia Sheikh Nimr Baqr al-Nimr in the most brutal day of executions in the country in three decades has now sparked violence across the region. If Saudi Arabia is destabilized, the Middle East could easily turn into a bloodbath of biblical proportions. This begs the big question, "What is really behind these apparently symbolic executions?" [...]

    [...] In the Shadow of Machiavelli

    The best clue as to "who stands behind" this new Saudi-Iran crisis comes to us from the Washington Post. For anyone still unaware, this Amazon owned media outlet is the perfect barometer of what is NOT true in the world of international affairs these days. Using "reverse news" psychology here, the article by Karen DeYoung tells us all we need to know about al-Nimr's execution. If you will allow me this quote:

    "Obama administration officials expressed deep concern Sunday that the abrupt escalation of tensions between Saudi Arabia and Iran could have repercussions extending to the fight against the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq, the diplomatic efforts to end Syria's civil war, and wider efforts to bring stability to the Middle East."

    Citing unnamed officials in Barack Obama's administration has become the guiding principle of corporate media in America these last few years, and the Washington Post misdirects have never been more transparent than today. This piece is misleading, supportive of Saudi and US disruption in the region, and anti-Iranian to the extreme. The author continues using another source who is a "authorized to convey Saudi thinking on the condition of anonymity," if you can imagine such a conveyance. According to the WP, Saudi Arabia is framed as the only nation "doing something", and I quote:

    "Tehran has thumbed its nose at the West again and again, continuing to sponsor terrorism and launch ballistic missiles and no one is doing anything about it."

    Then BAM! Steve Bezos' newspaper barks the real intent of this propaganda bit bringing Russia into the fray with:

    " Iran, along with Russia, is the leading backer of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, a member of a minority Shiite sect, and Riyadh views the civil war as part of Iran's fight for sectarian dominance."

    As I type this from our offices in Germany, US F-15 and F-16 fighters fly overhead in a continuous stream from the US air base at Spangdahlem Air Base. I mention this only because 2 years ago we seldom if ever heard fighter aircraft overhead. These days even locals wonder if the flyovers have a purpose beyond intimidation, or at least some residents have expressed this to me personally. The current undeclared war of resolve, it bears witnessing and a focus on all these events in the Middle East. My point being, Riyadh's actions of the last few days are part of an overall western strategy of unrest. If the Washington Post tells you Obama's White House is worried over something, you can count on the Washington having been part of the cause of the event. In this case we see the "never say die" war against Assad and Russia in the works. It is a crazy bit of irony that WP's editor Karen DeYoung was once quoted as saying; "We are inevitably the mouthpiece for whatever administration is in power."

    Meanwhile, at the newspaper (The Wall Street Journal) owned by billionaire Rupert Murdoch (who has energy investments in the region) we have another indicative report, or should I say "counter indicative?" Jay Solomon reports on the weeping sadness of Barack Obama that his non-existent peace plan for Syria may be derailed by Riyhad's decision to sever ties with Iran. Within this report the "real" mission of the Saudis, and Washington's current administration is revealed. I'll rely on another quite to clue the reader. Referring to the John Kerry brokered "plan" the Wall Street Journal writer inadvertently betrays the Obama administration with:

    "Under the deal, Iran in the coming months is set to receive as much as $100 billion in frozen oil revenues, which could be used to support its proxies in Iraq, Lebanon, Syria and Yemen."

    To sum up here, the goal all along has been misdirect from Obama's team. The Iran deal, the parlaying at various peace accords, all the State Department's efforts have been designed to frame the United States as peace loving, with the teddy bear John Kerry as a sort of Mother Teresa of détente. Has anyone noticed yet how every deal the man makes goes south in the end? Now Iran coming out of decades of useless sanctions is on the rocks, as was planned so it appears. The WSJ piece further implicates (by inaccuracy) the White House's Machiavellian strategies with.

    " As the conflict deepened over the weekend, with Saudi Arabia officially severing ties with Iran, U.S. officials expressed skepticism over how much influence Washington had in heading off a conflict based on centuries-old religious divisions."

    It is with this, and with the ad nauseam with which mainstream media parrots State Department rhetoric we find the true backers of terrorism and strife in the Middle East. The statement misleads readers into believing the situation in the Middle East is "out of the control" of Obama and Washington, when the reverse is absolutely true. The story goes on to plant the seed of military support for Saudi Arabia should the situation escalate, which it is certain to with the help of the lame duck Obama.

    When all is said and done, Nimr Baqr al-Nimr was a man of peaceful advocacy for the people of his belief and his region of Saudi Arabia. There is literally no proof to the contrary, yet he was summarily executed by a regime notorious for beheading its citizens. The Unites States of America has not only backed this regime, but has aligned herself in an auspicious manner over the years essentially using the Saudis as a vassal for regional control. This section of a WikiLeaks cable damns the Saudis for helping create the mess in Syria and elsewhere:

    "The USG engages regularly with the Saudi Government on terrorist financing. The establishment in 2008 of a Treasury attache office presence in Riyadh contributes to robust interaction and information sharing on the issue. Despite this presence, however, more needs to be done since Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for al-Qa'ida, the Taliban, LeT, and other terrorist groups, including Hamas, which probably raise millions of dollars annually from Saudi sources, often during Hajj and Ramadan. In contrast to its increasingly aggressive efforts to disrupt al-Qa'ida's access to funding from Saudi sources, Riyadh has taken only limited action to disrupt fundraising for the UN 1267-listed Taliban and LeT-groups that are also aligned with al-Qa'ida and focused on undermining stability in Afghanistan and Pakistan."

    Revelations Verse 19:11

    The cable is from the US State Department to various offices of the Saudi government, that of the UAE, Kuwait, and Qatar. This cable, along with dozens of other revelations about the backers of terror in the world, leaves no room for ambiguity. But what's far more disturbing is the way Washington, London and to a lesser extent Brussels are portraying current unrest as some type of religious war. The Christian-Jew-Muslim aspects of these crises are being used to hide the real cause of corporate governments supplanting rights and freedoms. This is a larger argument, but the correct one at this stage. What the world suffers from now is a hell bent effort by the godless of the world (elite bankers) to once again spark crusades for the purposes of strategy and profit. Most people reading this fully understand this, even though the exact culprits may be obscure.

    The summary of this story is fairly easy to parlay. Saudi Arabia just made a play for the neocons in Washington, the bankers in London, and for the Tel Aviv instigators who have so far remained in the shadows in all this. They created a martyr who may well serve their utterly evil needs, to set the world on fire one more time. Let me leave you with the most damning quote I have yet found. It is from WikiLeaks, and implicates the Obama and previous US administrations:

    "WikiLeaks cables (see below) show that the US has been tracking, and exploiting, the rise of ISIS since 2006, when the organisation first appeared in Iraq as a direct result of the Bush-Blair invasion. Like Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, ISIS are the mutations of a western state terror dispensed by a venal imperial elite undeterred by the consequences of actions taken at great remove in distance and culture. Their culpability is unmentionable in "our" societies."

    Make no mistake here, America and Britain created this mess in the world, with the help of profiting allies like Saudi Arabia. The WikiLeaks revelations tell of former French Foreign Minister Roland Dumas' statements on this too. What he revealed is that Britain basically made plans for the Syria disaster years ago. What we are witnessing is a last ditch effort to counter Vladimir Putin's play in the region, and to either win a new Syria partitioning, or else burn the deserts in total. This is a world war in the making, and the man on the pale horse seems evident now, the leader of the faithful and true. God help us all.

    [Jan 09, 2016] Lets not forget that the Syrian refugee migration is a manufactured crisis

    www.moonofalabama.org
    Jackrabbit | Jan 9, 2016 10:01:45 AM | 75

    Lets not forget that the Syrian refugee migration is a manufactured crisis - as b pointed out early on when he noted that it fuels calls that "something must be done!" about Assad/Syria.

    EU President Donald Tusk has talked publicly of this :

    "For the first time in my political career I have heard politicians openly declaring that the refugees heading to Europe are their method of getting (us) [the EU] to act a certain way,"

    [Jan 09, 2016] There are indications that some in Saudi Arabia are on a mission to drag the entire region to conflict

    www.moonofalabama.org

    harry law | Jan 9, 2016 6:22:57 AM | 64

    Can't disagree with this message from the Iranian Foreign Minister..

    "Saudi Arabia can either continue supporting extremist terrorists and promoting sectarian hatred, or it can opt for good neighborliness and play a constructive role in promoting regional stability, however; Iran hopes that Saudi Arabia will be persuaded to heed the call of reason,"

    Zarif said that there are indications that some in Saudi Arabia are on a mission to drag the entire region to conflict; fearing that removal of the smokescreen of the manufactured Iranian nuclear threat would expose the real global threat posed by extremists and their sponsors, according to IRNA.

    The Iranian foreign minister recalled that those involved in extremist carnage and most members of Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, ISIL and Al-Nusra Front being either Saudi nationals, or otherwise brainwashed by petro-financed demagogues, who have promoted an anti-Islamic message of hatred, exclusion and sectarianism across the globe for decades.

    http://www.almanar.com.lb/english/adetails.php?eid=248972&cid=19&fromval=1&frid=19&seccatid=32&s1=1

    [Jan 09, 2016] Russian Federation has now openly declared the US and NATO strategic threats to Russia

    Notable quotes:
    "... ...Russia ( China) will continue to promote the BS plan of partnership with the West... because it maintains and reinforces their record of promoting global unity and cooperation. Their (almost) joint military announcements on the same forum, on the same day (January 2, 2016) was intended as a final(?) warning that theres an iron fist in Chinas velvet glove of friendship, and that Russia isnt buying US-NATOs bs. ..."
    "... This thing about Russia, and Putin especially, calling everybody colleagues and partners, tends to make us think that Russia believes that these nations can be trusted, but I dont think for one moment that this is the case. The language Russia uses is simply the courtesy of reason, used equally by friend and hangman. Russia likes to give people a chance to change because it knows how frequently this happens. We can see ourselves that this is so. ..."
    "... Either the American people will discover how to regain control of their politics - unlikely, given that no other Western democracy can pull off that trick - or President Carters oligarchs will get their act together. As in Francos Spain or as in Russia in the late 1990s they will discover that theres more to running a country than looting it. Someone has to set long term policy objectives and hold it all together just so theres something to loot. ..."
    "... the case of the 2008 meltdown where the little people where penalized and the banks were let off with a bailout is a good example of how i see things unfolding.. the banks are considered more central and in need of being bailed out then the little people.. that seems like money is the main driver, as opposed to looking after the society more generally.. ..."
    "... The USA attacks militarily directly, or by overt other means (economic), or behind the curtain: ..."
    "... countries, groups, that have a socialistic bent, try to do well for their citizens, and/or espouse some ideology that appears, *on the face of it*, anti-capitalistic, nationalistic, or pan-national (e.g. Communism in the past, Baath party, Arab nationalism, Cuba.) ..."
    "... Energy rich countries who wont open up to US corps, domination. (ex. Venezuela), or wont permit US type banking system in their country, or arent subservient enough on a host of points (ex. Syria, Lybia) or somehow manage to cozy and then resist for a long while (ex. Iraq) ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org
    Excepted from: M of A - Contrary To Media Claims U.S. Always Sides With Its Saudi Clients

    tom | Jan 5, 2016 2:29:04 PM | 14

    Since now the Russian Federation has now openly declared the US and NATO strategic threats to Russia, will Russia and Putin now quit with the always BS plan of partnership with the West against terrorism in Syria?

    Putin did try hard to retain a status quo friendly position with the current leadership of the West, but that is a genocidal, racist, class war, maniacle capitilist, earth polluting, and generally evil west, that deserves to die ASAP. If small Cuba right on the evil US empires door was able to resist, why not far larger Russia?

    Hoarsewhisperer | Jan 6, 2016 1:20:07 AM | 40

    ...Russia (& China) will continue to promote the "BS plan of partnership with the West..." because it maintains and reinforces their record of promoting global unity and cooperation. Their (almost) joint military announcements on the same forum, on the same day (January 2, 2016) was intended as a final(?) warning that there's an iron fist in China's velvet glove of friendship, and that Russia isn't buying US-NATO's bs.

    Russia's Syria intervention was, imo, more of an experiment than an exercise in resuscitating a broken Syria. Putin needed to know whether thwarting ISIS was REALLY as hard as US-NATO was making it look, and gave himself 4 months to find out. But he'd be the first, one imagines, to admit that swatting head-chopping mosquitoes whilst doing NOTHING about the swamps in which they breed, could easily become an exercise in Perpetual Pointlessness.

    As the end of Russia's 4-month 'fact-finding mission' in Syria draws to a close, it's highly likely that Russia knows a lot more about swamps and head-choppers than it did on September 30, 2015 and what, and how, to implement a more effective course of therapy. Preferably non-violent but if n-v proves to be impractical, then with as much (Russian & Chinese) violence as necessary to produce a cure.

    psychohistorian | Jan 6, 2016 1:40:06 AM | 41

    Great posting b

    Your description of the Orwellian nature of current media output is sickeningly accurate. During recent annual phone conversations with old friends that were hip to the BS in the 60-70's, a few are now ranting about Muslims and those conversations were short. The effectiveness of TV as a brainwashing tool is under 'appreciated". That said, it is encouraging to read b and commenters here cutting through the BS.

    Just keep remembering the role that private financing and the global plutocrats play at the top of our real-life SimWorld

    Grieved | Jan 6, 2016 2:09:03 AM | 42

    This thing about Russia, and Putin especially, calling everybody colleagues and partners, tends to make us think that Russia believes that these nations can be trusted, but I don't think for one moment that this is the case. The language Russia uses is simply the courtesy of reason, used equally by friend and hangman. Russia likes to give people a chance to change because it knows how frequently this happens. We can see ourselves that this is so.

    If you haven't watched the World Order documentary yet, I highly recommend it. It's a powerful dose of realpolitik and recent history, with English subtitles by Vox Populi. Putin describes in very plain terms much of the substance of Russia's foreign policy. There will be no nuclear war, he believes, and I trust his judgment on this.

    He is consciously changing the world, nudging it to return to a fundamental recognition of the global balance of power, as it once relied on that recognition. I believe he will live to see this effort succeed in his own time: World Order. Documentary. Eng. Subs.

    MadMax2 | Jan 6, 2016 10:49:27 AM | 43

    @39 Piotr Berman

    Haha, I like the notion of Israel and Saudi Arabia's inverse relationship in our wonderful capitalist ideal...Israel being the western capitalist 'welfare state' if you will. A tumour...a useless growth displaying all the nasty excesses of the ideal... the type of sick rich child that repeatedly tortures animals because there is no negative recourse for doing so. Saudi Arabia, the other sick rich kid sitting on an inheritance it does not have the wisdom to know what to do with - its plaything called oil.

    Its surplus, foolishly, reinvested in the US financial sector...creating this monster called the petrodollar...the major denomination of our age...our reality.

    Peter J A Wright | Jan 6, 2016 11:12:18 AM | 44

    Might I respond to a comment made earlier.?

    "@17 lw... yes - money is a factor, even if pl at ssr doesn't agree!"

    Could we say that money is an indispensable but secondary factor? The corporations and lobbyists do buy the politicians, as President Carter explained to us recently, but that's to get immediate benefits such as contracts or other favours in return. They do of course need a foreign policy framework that allows for such a return but I don't think they are too bothered by what that framework is.

    The present framework, if that's not too kind a term for it, is partly set by the ideologues - Wolfowitz and Brzezinski et al are first and foremost ideologues rather than pork barrel practitioners - and partly by the random workings of the American political and administrative machinery. Random because there is little control of that machinery from underneath - government by the people scarcely exists in the US since it costs so much to get a politician elected - and little control from above: as explained, as long as the corporations get their immediate return they have no interest in setting long term and coherent foreign policy objectives.

    So the crazies are out of the basement and running the front office. Why not? - it was empty anyway so it was open to whoever chanced along.

    They won't be there for ever. Either the American people will discover how to regain control of their politics - unlikely, given that no other Western democracy can pull off that trick - or President Carter's 'oligarchs' will get their act together. As in Franco's Spain or as in Russia in the late 1990's they will discover that there's more to running a country than looting it. Someone has to set long term policy objectives and hold it all together just so there's something to loot.

    Which will happen, and how, is anyone's guess but I doubt we'll see current American foreign policy perpetuated. Unless the US is destined simply to self-destruct - and take the rest of us down with it - someone, voter or oligarch, will be obliged to take its government in hand and do some thinking about the long term.

    When that happens the crazies will have to return to the basement and, if only out of the need for survival, someone is going to have to work at devising policies that aren't so obviously suicidal for the US. With any luck, they won't be so murderous for the rest of us either.

    Peter J A Wright

    Posted by: james | Jan 6, 2016 12:28:05 PM | 45

    @44 peter... thanks.. those are reasonable viewpoints to hold on the complicated dynamics that define how the usa operates.. i think they are more idealistic then how i see it.. i am not sure money is a 2ndary consideration so much as it is the most important ingredient in the capitalist ideology, devoid of more social considerations.. it seems to me that democracy is only a good idea if it can't be bought out by (special interests groups) - money.. as it stands the usa is a good example of what happens when it is bought out by money.. meanwhile there are a lot of good people that wish the best for the country and hopefully the world by extension, but i don't see them as having the influence and control that the more self interested moneyed group has.. so, i would flip the way you see it whereby money is the primary consideration, especially in an atmosphere where the folks on the bottom end will do whatever they have to do, to continue to live, eat and have a roof over their heads..

    the case of the 2008 meltdown where the little people where penalized and the banks were let off with a bailout is a good example of how i see things unfolding.. the banks are considered more central and in need of being bailed out then the little people.. that seems like money is the main driver, as opposed to looking after the society more generally..

    dahoit | Jan 6, 2016 1:32:55 PM | 46

    24;comparing 17th,18th and 19th century attitudes with 20th and 21st century ones are very problematic.Yes,the white settlers,who to a man(and woman)believed themselves superior to the red black and brown man.Many still do,but the internal domestic expansion violence was nationalistic,while our current escapades world wide are internationalist Zionism and imperialism,and are not really comparable other than victim counts.
    Obomba;A lot of words while the roof falls in;Hamlet.

    Noirette | Jan 6, 2016 2:35:19 PM | 47

    Dan at 2. There is no single cohesive policy. Only selfishness

    The USA attacks militarily directly, or by overt other means (economic), or behind the curtain:

    1. those that challenge it even in the imagination, provided small and pretty powerless
    2. countries, groups, that have a 'socialistic' bent, try to do well for their citizens, and/or espouse some ideology that appears, *on the face of it*, anti-capitalistic, nationalistic, or pan-national (e.g. Communism in the past, Baath party, Arab nationalism, Cuba.)
    3. those who try to annul or wash away ethnic, racist, religious, and so on differences in favor of some kind of 'universality', a citizen status, mandate - this goes against the colonialist model, abroad and at home, in which ppl are sand niggers, blacks, etc. The US support for equality thus turns to trivia, gay marriage, quarrels about abortion, etc.
    4. Energy rich countries who won't open up to US corps, domination. (ex. Venezuela), or won't permit US type banking system in their country, or aren't subservient enough on a host of points (ex. Syria, Lybia) or somehow manage to cozy and then resist for a long while (ex. Iraq)
    5. Those who are involved massively with illegal and dubious trade - human trafficking, organ sales, child forced prostitution, drugs, illegal arms, condoned murder of rivals, vicious internal repression, heavy torture, prisons, etc. are generally supported, but on occasion they rebel or try for other, which is not to be allowed (ex. Afghanistan)
    6. Anyone that can be attacked on any grounds, opportunistically, to racketeer fines, big sums of money, such as in the banking sector.
    7. Countries it pretends to admire who are secretely dominated by them and only escape ostracim, sanctions or bombs or more by subservience, and a 'belonging to a controlled block' (EU.) Sweden and the Netherlands come to mind.
    8. Other.

    That is a lot countries, people, all together. The foreign policy is not cohesive, I agree, it is simply all over the board, adjusted all the time, based on ad hoc criteria, racist supremacy, capitalistic short term profiteering, snobby disaproval, empty rage, power plays, sectorial interests, corporate meddling, personal arm-twisting and blackmail, deals with foreign potentates, arms production and selling which needs war, and on and on.


    [Jan 09, 2016] What countries Us attack

    Notable quotes:
    "... The USA attacks militarily directly, or by overt other means (economic), or behind the curtain: ..."
    "... countries, groups, that have a socialistic bent, try to do well for their citizens, and/or espouse some ideology that appears, *on the face of it*, anti-capitalistic, nationalistic, or pan-national (e.g. Communism in the past, Baath party, Arab nationalism, Cuba.) ..."
    "... Energy rich countries who wont open up to US corps, domination. (ex. Venezuela), or wont permit US type banking system in their country, or arent subservient enough on a host of points (ex. Syria, Lybia) or somehow manage to cozy and then resist for a long while (ex. Iraq) ..."
    moonofalabama.org

    Noirette | Jan 6, 2016 2:35:19 PM | 47

    Dan at 2. There is no single cohesive policy. Only selfishness

    The USA attacks militarily directly, or by overt other means (economic), or behind the curtain:

    1. those that challenge it even in the imagination, provided small and pretty powerless
    2. countries, groups, that have a 'socialistic' bent, try to do well for their citizens, and/or espouse some ideology that appears, *on the face of it*, anti-capitalistic, nationalistic, or pan-national (e.g. Communism in the past, Baath party, Arab nationalism, Cuba.)
    3. those who try to annul or wash away ethnic, racist, religious, and so on differences in favor of some kind of 'universality', a citizen status, mandate - this goes against the colonialist model, abroad and at home, in which ppl are sand niggers, blacks, etc. The US support for equality thus turns to trivia, gay marriage, quarrels about abortion, etc.
    4. Energy rich countries who won't open up to US corps, domination. (ex. Venezuela), or won't permit US type banking system in their country, or aren't subservient enough on a host of points (ex. Syria, Lybia) or somehow manage to cozy and then resist for a long while (ex. Iraq)
    5. Those who are involved massively with illegal and dubious trade - human trafficking, organ sales, child forced prostitution, drugs, illegal arms, condoned murder of rivals, vicious internal repression, heavy torture, prisons, etc. are generally supported, but on occasion they rebel or try for other, which is not to be allowed (ex. Afghanistan)
    6. Anyone that can be attacked on any grounds, opportunistically, to racketeer fines, big sums of money, such as in the banking sector.
    7. Countries it pretends to admire who are secretely dominated by them and only escape ostracim, sanctions or bombs or more by subservience, and a 'belonging to a controlled block' (EU.) Sweden and the Netherlands come to mind.
    8. Other.

    That is a lot countries, people, all together. The foreign policy is not cohesive, I agree, it is simply all over the board, adjusted all the time, based on ad hoc criteria, racist supremacy, capitalistic short term profiteering, snobby disaproval, empty rage, power plays, sectorial interests, corporate meddling, personal arm-twisting and blackmail, deals with foreign potentates, arms production and selling which needs war, and on and on.

    [Jan 09, 2016] The Bizarre Need to Take Sides and Our Foreign Policy Debates

    Notable quotes:
    "... Hawks often "adopt" a faction or government and then fault the U.S. for "failing" to do enough to help "our" side. Refusing to take a side is portrayed as "abdication" of "leadership" or otherwise pilloried as too passive, and the bias in favor of action in our debates helps to make it harder to advocate against taking sides. ..."
    "... The U.S. cannot expect and does not receive the sort of automatic support and cooperation from so-called "allies" that many hawks expect the U.S. to provide to them, but it is often assumed that the U.S. would be "abandoning" the so-called "ally" if it chose not to take their side against a regional rival. For some reason, many Americans forget that the relationship with an "ally" exists to advance our interests and not so that our government can indulge theirs in its vendettas and obsessions. When U.S. interests are no longer served by such a relationship (if they ever were), the U.S. doesn't need and shouldn't want to keep it the way it is. ..."
    "... But when you live your life with a Manichean Worldview–then you have to pick a side.. because it is always good vs. evil… ..."
    "... From a cold realist position, why do we cafe if we keep Saudi oil flowing when we could always turn the Iranian spigots on? From a liberal interventionist position, Saudi Arabia has a far worse record than Iran of foreign aggression, sponsorship of terrorism, and human rights violations at home. If we have to be someone's ally over there, we should be Iran's. ..."
    "... That being said, I agree that we should not take sides in a spat between regional rivals, especially when an ancient theological blood feud is at the heart of the spat. ..."
    "... Saudi Arabia allows us access to their oil resources on our terms, and to be more specific, Saudi Arabia does us the very kind favor of denominating all of her oil transactions in dollars, requiring every other country on Earth to maintain huge reserves of dollars and US debt. If Iran was in the driver's seat they would never sustain the petrodollar. ..."
    "... now would be a good time to disabuse that 30-year-old deputy crown price of the notion that we'll be there for him no matter how audacious and emboldened he becomes. I don't really expect a rational mindset to prevail, of course, but in my mind, that would be true "leadership" on our part. ..."
    The American Conservative

    There is a strong bias against neutrality in our foreign policy debates. Not taking sides in this or that conflict is rarely taken seriously as an appropriate response. Instead of asking whether the U.S. should even take a side, it is taken for granted that the U.S. "must" choose one or the other, and the main debate concerns only how much and what kind of support to provide. This is a recurring problem in debating the proper response to conflicts inside countries as well as rivalries between them. One reason for this is that U.S. interests and the interests of another state or faction within a state are conflated from the beginning, and this is done to make it much more difficult to recognize that the U.S. doesn't actually have interests in the conflict or rivalry in question. Hawks often "adopt" a faction or government and then fault the U.S. for "failing" to do enough to help "our" side. Refusing to take a side is portrayed as "abdication" of "leadership" or otherwise pilloried as too passive, and the bias in favor of action in our debates helps to make it harder to advocate against taking sides.

    Today's Fareed Zakaria column shows how difficult it is for most pundits to do this. Even when arguing for steering clear of regional sectarian rivalry, Zakaria can't avoid endorsing U.S. support for the Saudis:

    In general, the United States should support Saudi Arabia in resisting Iran's encroachments in the region, but it should not take sides in the broader sectarian struggle.

    But it is not possible to support an overtly sectarian Saudi government in its preoccupation with opposing Iranian influence without being pulled into the "broader sectarian struggle," in no small part because the Saudis define their resistance to Iran's supposed "encroachments" in terms of religious sect. The Saudis falsely claim that their war on Yemen is aimed at "resisting Iran's encroachments," and the U.S. has been supporting their campaign from the start, and in so doing it is helping to fuel sectarian hatreds in Yemen and beyond. Zakaria correctly recognizes the pitfalls of being pulled into sectarian conflicts in the region, but won't acknowledge that the U.S. is caught up in them because of the support it provides to sectarian governments. He specifically mentions the growing sectarianism in Yemen, but doesn't make the connection with U.S. support for the Saudi-led intervention there. Despite explicitly saying that the U.S. shouldn't take sides in "someone else's civil war," he approves of doing just that by accepting that the U.S. should keep supporting the Saudis.

    One of the most common arguments for siding with the Saudis in their hostility towards Iran is that they are our "ally," and therefore the U.S. should automatically support the position of its "ally." This overlooks that the U.S. has no treaty obligations to the kingdom, and ignores that the so-called "ally" does virtually nothing for us. The U.S. cannot expect and does not receive the sort of automatic support and cooperation from so-called "allies" that many hawks expect the U.S. to provide to them, but it is often assumed that the U.S. would be "abandoning" the so-called "ally" if it chose not to take their side against a regional rival. For some reason, many Americans forget that the relationship with an "ally" exists to advance our interests and not so that our government can indulge theirs in its vendettas and obsessions. When U.S. interests are no longer served by such a relationship (if they ever were), the U.S. doesn't need and shouldn't want to keep it the way it is.

    Prof. Woland, January 8, 2016 at 1:56 pm

    But when you live your life with a Manichean Worldview–then you have to pick a side.. because it is always good vs. evil…

    Ian G., January 8, 2016 at 2:19 pm

    I pull my hair out when seemingly reasonable people like Zakaria don't even bother asking why Saudi Arabia is our "ally". From a cold realist position, why do we cafe if we keep Saudi oil flowing when we could always turn the Iranian spigots on? From a liberal interventionist position, Saudi Arabia has a far worse record than Iran of foreign aggression, sponsorship of terrorism, and human rights violations at home. If we have to be someone's ally over there, we should be Iran's.

    That being said, I agree that we should not take sides in a spat between regional rivals, especially when an ancient theological blood feud is at the heart of the spat.

    jamie, January 8, 2016 at 3:19 pm

    From a cold realist position, why do we cafe if we keep Saudi oil flowing when we could always turn the Iranian spigots on?

    Saudi Arabia allows us access to their oil resources on our terms, and to be more specific, Saudi Arabia does us the very kind favor of denominating all of her oil transactions in dollars, requiring every other country on Earth to maintain huge reserves of dollars and US debt. If Iran was in the driver's seat they would never sustain the petrodollar.

    There's also very little question of Saudi regime's oil resources falling in the hands of populist or democratic elements that might use oil to overtly embarrass or destabilize the United States - the Saudi's bleed us dry, but subtlety and in a way that US voters are unlikely to punish their leaders for.

    Jon Lester, January 8, 2016 at 7:13 pm

    American neutrality might be the very thing needed to keep the conflict contained, and now would be a good time to disabuse that 30-year-old deputy crown price of the notion that we'll be there for him no matter how audacious and emboldened he becomes. I don't really expect a rational mindset to prevail, of course, but in my mind, that would be true "leadership" on our part.

    [Jan 08, 2016] Contrary To Media Claims U.S. Always Sides With Its Saudi Clients

    Notable quotes:
    "... The Obama administration has since March provided expedited arms sales, logistics support, targeting intelligence, air refueling and combat search and rescue for the Saudi war on Yemen. Its navy helps with the blockade of the Yemeni coast. How can the Obama administration be sharply critical of the Saudi war on Yemen when it provides the critical means for that war? ..."
    "... I doubt that we will hear any sharply critical condemnation of that bombing of civilian infrastructure from U.S. officials. ..."
    "... In the Saudi-Iran proxy conflicts the U.S. supports and urges the Saudis on because it is in its geopolitical interest . Saudi financed jihadist have been helpful in achieving U.S. geopolitical goals in the 1980s in Afghanistan against the Soviets, in Yugoslavia, in Chechnya as now in Syria against the Russians and in Xinjiang against the Chinese. There is no room for human rights or other concerns within that framework. There is room though for billions of weapon sales and millions given by the Saudis to U.S. and UK politicians as well as for public relations . ..."
    "... That is utter bullshit. The U.S. is working on regime change in Syria at least since 2006 . The U.S. is enabling the clear and present danger posed by Islamist terrorists through its alliance with al-Qaeda . It always had and has the choice to cease and desist from meddling in the Middle East and elsewhere to the benefit of the average U.S. citizen as well as to the benefit of the people living in the Middle East. ..."
    "... U.S. media lie when they depict the U.S. as a benevolent entity that stumbles through the Middle East and other areas misled in the dark by Saudi Arabia and Israel. It is the U.S. that is the ruthless superpower that solely enables those barbaric entities to exist. ..."
    "... The US government is beholden to lobby groups interested in feathering their nests and getting their way. US foreign policy has also been consistent from one presidential administration to the next. ..."
    "... The fact that US foreign policy has been consistent from George W Bush to Barack Obama could say a great deal about the style of Obamas presidency. What has Obama been able to achieve in the 8 years he has been POTUS that has been positive and which has given his presidency a particular distinction and flavour that represent the mans character and personality? I submit not much at all. The impression I get (btw, I live on the other side of the Pacific Ocean from the US) is that Obama is a weak leader who has never been able to control and rein in particular members of his cabinet like his previous Secretary of State, much less the ideologue she brought with her who planned and carried out the coup that deposed President Yanukovych in Ukraine in February 2014, and who handpicked the fellow who is currently that nations prime minister. I might also suggest that George W Bush was a weak leader who did as he was told. ..."
    "... The neo-cons are the establishments political death-squads, the sinister arm of the executive who resorts to them whenever the establishment/Deep State need to eliminate anyone considered an enemy of the empire, followed by an installation of puppets. ..."
    "... Neo-cons are in close coordination with CIAs clandestine/black operations branch, working together all aspects of any operation at hand, the CIA with the operative/military goons, the neo-cons with the political crooks. A typical example was in Banderastan, where the CIA had been actively recruiting/training the nazi bastards for years, ready for the Maidan, ehem, revolution, with the neo-cons putting together the political puppets ( I think Yats is the guy ) who would become the facade of the nazi takeover. ..."
    Jan 05, 2016 | M of A

    The "western" public, especially in Europe , now prefers good relations with Iran over relations with Saudi Arabia. It is a natural development when one considers that jihadi terrorism is a real concern and that the people involved in most international terrorist incidents follow variants of the Saudi spread Wahhabi ideology.

    This is now developing into a problem for the U.S. administration. Saudi Arabia, as other Gulf statelets, is a U.S. client state. Without U.S. support it would have ceased to exist a long time ago. The Saudis are made to pay for U.S. protection by buying overpriced U.S. weapon systems for tens of billion dollars per year. They also finance joint projects like the war against the Soviets in Afghanistan and currently the U.S. regime change war on Syria.

    U.S. relation with Iran have become somewhat better due to the nuclear deal. But the Islamic Republic of Iran will never be a U.S. client state. Seen from the perspective of the global strategic competition it is in the same camp as the U.S. foes Russia and China. Unless the U.S. ceases to strive for global dominance it will continue to support its proxies on the western side of the Persian Gulf rather then the Iranians of the eastern side.

    The changed public view, very much visible after the recent Saudi execution of Nimr Baqr al-Nimr, necessitates to mask the real U.S. position by claiming that it is opposed to Saudi Arabian policies. The stenographers in U.S. media are always willing to help their government when such a cover up for a shoddy position is needed.

    In the Washington Post Karen De Young supports the administration by providing this lie:

    The United States has long joined international human rights organizations and other Western governments in criticizing Saudi human rights abuses ..

    Her colleague David Sanger at the New York Times is debunks that nonsense point with a rare reference to reality:

    The United States has usually looked the other way or issued carefully calibrated warnings in human rights reports as the Saudi royal family cracked down on dissent and free speech and allowed its elite to fund Islamic extremists.

    Sanger then replaces the "U.S. supports human-rights in Saudi Arabia" lie with another blatant one:

    the administration has [..] been sharply critical of the Saudi intervention in Yemen

    The Obama administration has since March provided expedited arms sales, logistics support, targeting intelligence, air refueling and combat search and rescue for the Saudi war on Yemen. Its navy helps with the blockade of the Yemeni coast. How can the Obama administration be "sharply critical" of the Saudi war on Yemen when it provides the critical means for that war?

    Since Sunday there have been at least 11 Saudi air attacks on Yemen's capital Sanaa. Last night another wedding hall, the Commerce Chamber and the AlNoor Centre for the Blind were destroyed by U.S. provided Saudi bombs. I doubt that we will hear any "sharply critical" condemnation of that bombing of civilian infrastructure from U.S. officials.

    In the Saudi-Iran proxy conflicts the U.S. supports and urges the Saudis on because it is in its geopolitical interest . Saudi financed jihadist have been helpful in achieving U.S. geopolitical goals in the 1980s in Afghanistan against the Soviets, in Yugoslavia, in Chechnya as now in Syria against the Russians and in Xinjiang against the Chinese. There is no room for human rights or other concerns within that framework. There is room though for billions of weapon sales and millions given by the Saudis to U.S. and UK politicians as well as for public relations .

    The New York Times editors falsely claim there is no choice for the U.S. other then to do what it does:

    The tangled and volatile realities of the Middle East do not give the United States or the European Union the luxury of choosing or rejecting allies on moral criteria. Washington has no choice but to deal with regimes like those in Tehran [..] or in Riyadh to combat the clear and present danger posed by Islamist terrorists or to search for solutions to massively destabilizing conflicts like the Syrian civil war.

    That is utter bullshit. The U.S. is working on regime change in Syria at least since 2006 . The U.S. is enabling "the clear and present danger posed by Islamist terrorists" through its alliance with al-Qaeda . It always had and has the choice to cease and desist from meddling in the Middle East and elsewhere to the benefit of the average U.S. citizen as well as to the benefit of the people living in the Middle East.

    U.S. media lie when they depict the U.S. as a benevolent entity that stumbles through the Middle East and other areas misled in the dark by Saudi Arabia and Israel. It is the U.S. that is the ruthless superpower that solely enables those barbaric entities to exist.

    Au | Jan 5, 2016 11:03:32 AM | 1

    "The Western public now prefers good relations w/ Iran over relations w/ Saudi Arabia" I can't speak for everyone in the West but that is my sentiments exactly. Iran has been the center of deep state propaganda for so long that we have failed to realize - the Saudi's are more in need of a regime change then anyone in that region. Ultimately, screw them all, except for Syria - i'll never forget what Saudi Arabia and Turkey / western cohorts did to Syria - I hope it comes back to nest in Saudi Arabia..

    Bluemot5 | Jan 5, 2016 11:31:19 AM | 4

    Pat Buchanan article questioning current USA alliances.... http://www.theamericanconservative.com/buchanan/saudi-recklessness-exposes-our-own/

    harry law | Jan 5, 2016 1:18:56 PM | 9

    Pleased that you included that excellent link from the Intercept, this from 'rrheard' in the comments section, it was so good I do hope he does not mind me posting part of it here. "America's foreign policy relationship with Saudi Arabia is based on exactly two things historically–Saudi's willingness to be a US proxy against communism in the region and the oil and weapons trade.

    And that says all you need to know about America's moral compass as well. I love the idea of my country, and absolutely detest what its leaders have done since WWII in service if its elites perceived "interests". Because I can guaranfuckingtee you that America's foreign policy over the last 60 years has nothing to do with the "best interests" of the American people, humanitarianism, human rights or the "interests" of any other people on the planet despite the cradle to grave propaganda apparatus in America that has a significant majority of American's believing such transparent twaddle as "American exceptionalism" or "we are always well intentioned, we just make mistakes" when it comes to the mass slaughter of non-Americans all over the globe.

    There hardly a fucking dictator on the planet that hasn't been backed by the American government and its business elites, politically and/or economically, so long as they are pliant when it comes to towing the line on America's "interests"."

    tom | Jan 5, 2016 2:12:32 PM | 10

    Agree with B, except with popular opinion. Most of the Western public so politically unprincipled and cowardly that they can be swayed quite easily to western imperial propaganda. It's just a matter of when the media turned on the hate/fear switch up to 2/10.

    Just look at the reminder in Congo genocide, with the people couldn't give a fuck, and is one of the worst genocides since World War II. Or the Rwandan genocide, with the propaganda that turned most of the victims into the guilty party and then lead genocidedal maniac - Paul Kagame, as the "sympathetic" president -now for life - thanks to the evil US empires evil media.

    Blaming the Russians for the plane crash over Ukraine, gas attacks blamed on Assad. And then you can count thousands of examples where people in the west vote or support policies that are against their own health, social and political interests.
    No, most Western people are willing to place the jackboot gladly under their neck, till they realise it's too late.

    Jen | Jan 5, 2016 2:49:13 PM | 15

    To Dan @2 and Jackrabbit @5:

    In an odd way, you are both right. The US government is beholden to lobby groups interested in feathering their nests and getting their way. US foreign policy has also been consistent from one presidential administration to the next.

    Think of the US government as several psychopaths working together. Psychopaths basically only care about looking out for No 1. If two or more psychopaths discover that working together allows them to fulfill their individual goals quicker than if they worked separately, then they'll co-operate.

    The fact that US foreign policy has been consistent from George W Bush to Barack Obama could say a great deal about the style of Obama's presidency. What has Obama been able to achieve in the 8 years he has been POTUS that has been positive and which has given his presidency a particular distinction and flavour that represent the man's character and personality? I submit not much at all. The impression I get (btw, I live on the other side of the Pacific Ocean from the US) is that Obama is a weak leader who has never been able to control and rein in particular members of his cabinet like his previous Secretary of State, much less the ideologue she brought with her who planned and carried out the coup that deposed President Yanukovych in Ukraine in February 2014, and who handpicked the fellow who is currently that nation's prime minister. I might also suggest that George W Bush was a weak leader who did as he was told.

    In short, if the oil lobby, the pro-Israeli lobby, other industry and country lobbies in the US government find that their interests coincide, they'll work as one through Congress and the various federal government departments.

    harry law | Jan 5, 2016 3:42:05 PM | 19

    Lysias@18 Trump: 'I would want to protect Saudi Arabia' he goes on, "That's phase one - to go into Saudi Arabia and, frankly, the Saudis don't survive without us. And the question is, at what point do we get involved and how much will Saudi Arabia pay us to save them?"
    This is exactly what the Mafia say to their victims.

    Oui | Jan 5, 2016 4:13:45 PM | 21

    Trump speaks the lingo of the House of Saud, well at least of Prince Bandar, now deposed of his key role to influence the West. Wasn't it Bandar who offered a terror free Sochi games for Assad's head on a platter. Putin must have calmly replied if any harm comes to Russia in the period of the Olympic Winter games, Saudi Arabia may just lose one of it's cities.

    Blair and now Cameron deal with Saudi Arabia to exchange modern weapons for protection from AQ terror in the UK. It's the British (and French) who were willing to join Obama in bombing Assad's Syria in September 2013. Now it's the British and Americans who offer intelligence and logistic support to KSA and the GCC allies in bombing Yemen back to deeper medieval times. AQAP will use this to their advantage.

    Obama 'Connived' with Neocons for a Bashar Replacement

    Kooshy | Jan 5, 2016 4:44:08 PM | 26

    The DC rag WP is really craving for a good, big sectarian regional war in ME, I am afraid they are not going to get it, Iranian have been acting responsibly not letting US, Israel, and their Arab insecure clientele wishes come

    Through. Never the less WP editors would want their readers believe Iranian protestors meant to attack a SUNNI embassy, and not the Embassy of Saudi Arabia who was responsible for executed an innocent Shia high clergy.

    "The execution of Shiite cleric Nimr Baqr al-Nimr by Saudi Arabia has sparked a furor in the Middle East along sectarian lines. In Iran, the regional Shiite superpower, the Sunni embassy was ransacked and burned."

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/01/05/5-facts-about-sunnis-and-shiites-that-help-makes-sense-of-the-saudi-iran-crisis/

    Lone Wolf | Jan 5, 2016 5:25:51 PM | 28

    @Oui@21

    Obama 'Connived' with Neocons for a Bashar Replacement

    Very good points, Oui. The neo-cons are the establishment's political death-squads, the sinister arm of the executive who resorts to them whenever the establishment/Deep State need to eliminate anyone considered an "enemy" of the empire, followed by an installation of puppets.

    Neo-cons are in close coordination with CIA's "clandestine/black operations" branch, working together all aspects of any operation at hand, the CIA with the operative/military goons, the neo-cons with the political crooks. A typical example was in Banderastan, where the CIA had been actively recruiting/training the nazi bastards for years, ready for the Maidan, ehem, "revolution," with the neo-cons putting together the political puppets ("I think Yats is the guy") who would become the facade of the nazi takeover.

    Syria, on the other hand, was a hard nut to crack, the neo-cons and the CIA made severe mistakes underestimating Assad and the resistance of the Syrian people. US/UK/NATO were announcing the fall of Assad every other day, and while many of those Western "leaders" are gone, Assad has survived all their ill-predictions. Neo-cons/CIA are fuming at the mouth constantly looking for a way to reverse their losses, and starting a little war between KSA-Iran is not such a bad idea, neo-cons swim like fish in chaos.

    They are getting set for another defeat by old Persian wisdom.

    Noirette | Jan 6, 2016 2:35:19 PM | 47

    Dan at 2. There is no single cohesive policy. Only selfishness

    The USA attacks militarily directly, or by overt other means (economic), or behind the curtain:

    1. those that challenge it even in the imagination, provided small and pretty powerless
    2. countries, groups, that have a 'socialistic' bent, try to do well for their citizens, and/or espouse some ideology that appears, *on the face of it*, anti-capitalistic, nationalistic, or pan-national (e.g. Communism in the past, Baath party, Arab nationalism, Cuba.)
    3. those who try to annul or wash away ethnic, racist, religious, and so on differences in favor of some kind of 'universality', a citizen status, mandate - this goes against the colonialist model, abroad and at home, in which ppl are sand niggers, blacks, etc. The US support for equality thus turns to trivia, gay marriage, quarrels about abortion, etc.
    4. Energy rich countries who won't open up to US corps, domination. (ex. Venezuela), or won't permit US type banking system in their country, or aren't subservient enough on a host of points (ex. Syria, Lybia) or somehow manage to cozy and then resist for a long while (ex. Iraq)
    5. Those who are involved massively with illegal and dubious trade - human trafficking, organ sales, child forced prostitution, drugs, illegal arms, condoned murder of rivals, vicious internal repression, heavy torture, prisons, etc. are generally supported, but on occasion they rebel or try for other, which is not to be allowed (ex. Afghanistan)
    6. Anyone that can be attacked on any grounds, opportunistically, to racketeer fines, big sums of money, such as in the banking sector.
    7. Countries it pretends to admire who are secretly dominated by them and only escape ostracism, sanctions or bombs or more by subservience, and a 'belonging to a controlled block' (EU.) Sweden and the Netherlands come to mind.
    8. Other.

    That is a lot countries, people, all together. The foreign policy is not cohesive, I agree, it is simply all over the board, adjusted all the time, based on ad hoc criteria, racist supremacy, capitalistic short term profiteering, snobby disapproval, empty rage, power plays, sectorial interests, corporate meddling, personal arm-twisting and blackmail, deals with foreign potentates, arms production and selling which needs war, and on and on.

    [Jan 07, 2016] Obama as yet another neocon president

    Notable quotes:
    "... Never liked the guy, knew the hopium and changium memes and slogans were a big scam! Worse than Bush, because you at least knew where Bush stood. Obama is a fraudster of the worse kind! ..."
    "... Obama has done a lot of his slaughtering under the radar with drones and assassination teams and, being a black guy with a funny name, this is not sufficient to make many feel safe . ..."
    "... All these factors lead us to see Obama as a dubious or awful president ..."
    "... I think most of us who find Obama seriously wanting are more objectively correct than those who excuse what we see as his deliberate malfeasance. ..."
    "... the critique of Obama because sometimes it gives off the angry white guy vibe that can be ugly and render your criticisms suspect. ..."
    "... . Youd think that a nation that adores England would note how the British Empire decayed and how the north of England was a swath of poverty and degradation well into the 1960s. ..."
    "... You may know that some interpretations of the Pandoras Box myth have the release of Hope at the very end not as a type of relief, but as a final scourge. ..."
    "... Obama came in with Democratic majorities in both houses. Why does he always get a free pass to blame obstructionist Republicans? People were begging for a change in direction. Truly mediocre status quo writ large. ..."
    "... Obama has a lot of enablers. I think the little good things he does (Iran negotiations, baby steps to curb climate change, nods to growing prison population, etc) are just palliatives to shut up the progressive opposition, to the extent that even exists. ..."
    "... Obama blew that majority as quickly as he could. Democrats were happy to lose majorities because they no longer had to produce results and could say the Republicans made me do it. ..."
    "... Democrats would have passed an omnibus budget reconciliation with a big jobs program. They could have done this with simple majorities in both houses ..."
    "... TPP is the big tell for Obama. Hes fighting for that like nothing else. ..."
    "... ACA belongs in the Failures column, at least for anyone who cares about the cost of healthcare and understands single payer. Stopping the Great Recession belongs in the Central Banks column, they put $13T on their balance sheets and the bill just has not come due yet. ..."
    "... Diplomacy? Bombing 7 nations with no declaration of war does not count as diplomacy ..."
    "... Obama wins my coveted Worst_President_Ever award ..."
    "... Can we also mention the $100M he spent on personal Versailles-style vacations? Cmon people…we know a good president when we see one, or even a marginal one…and O is at the other end of the spectrum. ..."
    "... I live in Australia and people often ask me what I think of Obama. My reply: I think hes a war criminal, a corporo-fascist, a hypocrite, a liar, and a fraud. But hes got a passable jump shot, so theres that . ..."
    "... Its hard to imagine anyone whos a liberal or a progressive looking at the Obama years as anything other than a huge bust. ..."
    "... Obama has said he aspires to follow in Lincolns footsteps. However, the closest analogy is Buchanan, who thought the way to handle the slavers power was to appease it, just like Obama appeared to think the way to handle corporate power was to appease it. And like Buchanan turned out to be the agent of the slavers power, Obama is the agent of corporate power. ..."
    "... The same exact script that we had under Bill Clinton. It turns out when you give people hope, they come out to vote for you. ..."
    "... Obama doesnt care about building a majority any more than the Clintons did. He cares about his personal power, perception, and ultimately his own wealth. ..."
    "... Sure looks like an Obot, tuned down to soft sell mode. ..."
    "... I dont believe that he is the sociopath that some on the left think he is ..."
    "... I think Obama is, quite simply, not as bright as everyone assumes. ..."
    "... Quite simply, I think Obama isnt bright enough to realise that a clever political compromise is not the same thing as a good policy. He is surrounded by too many privileged people to realise that the consensus among privileged smart people is one distorted by deeply conservative and regressive assumptions. ..."
    "... he genuinely believes deep in his guts that if the self-identified smart people have a consensus, then its the right thing to do. ..."
    "... I find it shocking and dismaying at just how regressive and damaging Obama has been. If you compare him to another very conservative Dem – LBJ – the comparison is particularly stark. LBJ, in the face of huge odds and his own natural political proclivities, did quite amazing things in terms of Civil Rights and protecting the poor. Obama has, in my view, made things even worse, in a much more favourable political environment. ..."
    "... I think hes ultimately just plain cynical. ..."
    "... I recall seeing the German film Mephisto, with Klaus Maria Brandauer. Brandauers artist was a well-meaning, left-leaning guy who slowly went along with the Nazis, since it was beneficial to his career. ..."
    "... Truth be told, Obama has grown very creepy to me. More than a few of us have vivid images of him with that deck of playing cards of those on the kill list. I am not charmed by his appearances with media darlings like Jerry Seinfeld and Marc Maron, who, perhaps unwittingly, legitimize the great droner. ..."
    "... I found part of his writing quite moving, but I always felt there was something calculated about it, something that didnt feel quite right. Even reading about his academic career, he always struck me as someone always so careful to quote and study the right philosophers and writers and past politicians, reminiscent of those post grad students I know always careful to modulate their writings to their Professors prejudices. ..."
    "... in his foreign affairs his understanding has always seemed to me to be shockingly shallow ..."
    "... he let the same old neo-imperialist playbook work itself out there, with a constant undermining of democratic centre left governments in the region. ..."
    "... He could, for example, have simply refused to give in to Hilarys idiotic tilt to the Pacific policy which is stupidly tin eared about Chinas genuine geopolitical concerns. ..."
    "... He could have said no to the Saudis idiotic attack on Yemen. ..."
    "... He could have stopped the meddling in the Ukraine and tried to understand Russias genuine local concerns better without necessarily sucking up to Putin. ..."
    "... He could have stood up to Turkeys meddling in Syria and Iraq (not to mention the Gulf States support for Islamacists). ..."
    "... These are all things he could have done within his powers and with little real political cost, but he didnt do them. These, to me, are all evidence of someone out of his depth rather than someone who is a complete cynic. ..."
    "... PK, your analysis is certainly fascinating, in particular the portrait of Obama as the teachers pet. My brother-in-law completed both a PhD in philosophy and a law degree. He equates his academic career to glorified clerking, more than an investment in the life of the mind. ..."
    "... Obama seems to have just the right combination of intelligence, political correctness, breeding, and a conformist streak to thrive as a full-fledged member of the elite, whether in academia or in Washington. ..."
    "... Neoliberalism generally also includes the belief that freely adopted market mechanisms is the optimal way of organising all exchanges of goods and services (Friedman 1962; 1980; Norberg 2001). Free markets and free trade will, it is believed, set free the creative potential and the entrepreneurial spirit which is built into the spontaneous order of any human society, and thereby lead to more individual liberty and well-being, and a more efficient allocation of resources (Hayek 1973; Rothbard [1962/1970] 2004). Neoliberalism could also include a perspective on moral virtue: the good and virtuous person is one who is able to access the relevant markets and function as a competent actor in these markets. He or she is willing to accept the risks associated with participating in free markets, and to adapt to rapid changes arising from such participation (Friedman 1980). Individuals are also seen as being solely responsible for the consequences of the choices and decisions they freely make: instances of inequality and glaring social injustice are morally acceptable, at least to the degree in which they could be seen as the result of freely made decisions (Nozick 1974; Hayek 1976). If a person demands that the state should regulate the market or make reparations to the unfortunate who has been caught at the losing end of a freely initiated market transaction, this is viewed as an indication that the person in question is morally depraved and underdeveloped, and scarcely different from a proponent of a totalitarian state (Mises 1962). – Joe Firestone ..."
    "... incompletes ..."
    "... I recall a profile of Obama in the New Yorker that referred to him as a Javanese prince, a pregnant metaphor, given his background. ..."
    "... I think that Obama is detached, which has meant that he is inured to the suffering of others. ..."
    "... There have been repeated complaints from congressional reps that he doesnt call. Not even colleagues in his own party. ..."
    "... He may be competitive, like many business people, but he lacks the ability to get things done. ..."
    "... He went to an elite high school, an elite college, and an elite law school (where he has the distinction of being an editor of a law review yet, again, never publishing). The detachment is internal and external–an empty suit, a child of privilege, no understanding of the consequences of wielding power. ..."
    "... I recall Angela Merkel complaining about how cold Obama is. She argued that at least Bush seems to connect on a personal level. Merkel and other world leaders were surprised at his unwillingness to socialize. ..."
    "... He may be competitive, like many business people, but he lacks the ability to get things done. ..."
    "... failing upwards has been part of Barrys compensation package. ..."
    "... Its part and parcel of the US clepto-chrony-capitalist system. And the best is yet to come, just you wait until he vies with Bubba for being the richest ex-president… ..."
    "... all of Bubbas charisma couldnt overcome Barrys shtick in 2008. Barry left them all in the dust in fundraising, and a large chunk of that came from Wall Street. So unless there is no honor amongst thieves, Barry will get his payday. ..."
    "... some of us who have always seen Obama as a total narcissist ..."
    "... A true narcissist wouldnt be as obviously thin-skinned as Obama is. If he was narcissistic he might actually have been a better president, narcissists dont back down at the first obstacle the way he constantly seems to do. ..."
    "... Narcissists are thin-skinned. Unflattering feedback is met with narcissistic rage. ..."
    "... Narcissistic rage is a reaction to narcissistic injury, which is a perceived threat to a narcissists self-esteem or self-worth. Narcissistic injury (or narcissistic scar) is a phrase used by Sigmund Freud in the 1920s; narcissistic wound and narcissistic blow are further, almost interchangeable terms.[1] The term narcissistic rage was coined by Heinz Kohut in 1972. ..."
    "... Obama like Clinton before him has no sense of the large picture, his own power, and any particular plans beyond Presidentin. ..."
    "... I voted for Obama over Hillary in the 2008 primary because I did not want another Bill Clinton administration. What I got was another Bill Clinton administration–the same advisors and staff, whose advice Obama followed, especially economic advice. Obama is a lawyer by training, no numbers required. ..."
    "... Two bumper stickers I wrote for my car– Drone bomb Obamas kids, as he drone bombs the kids of others and Hillary and Barack are war criminals . ..."
    "... America! Locked in Lovers of making decisions based on two and only two choices by the time tested means of blind rage and blind team loyalty to raw ignorance. ..."
    "... Concussions – USA ..."
    "... Concussions – USA ..."
    "... He is the designated spokesmodel for the love me Im a liberal wing of the power duopoly (as opposed to the proud to be an asshole wing) ..."
    "... Obamas disastrous, failed presidency should have been a wake up call for Democrats and liberals. Instead theyre doubling down on neoliberalism, militarism and Wall St toadyism in the form of Hillary Clinton. Their delusion that demographics and progress on social wedge issues will rescue them from the Republican dominance at the state and local level resulting from the disenchantment of voters with their party and candidates (case in point – losing the Maryland governorship to a Republican real-estate hack mostly because of low turnout in Dem strongholds) seems to be unshakeable. They dont seem to get that its not enough to not be the Republicans or to be only slightly less worse than them. ..."
    "... Oh, and another tell that this is conventional writing from conventional propaganda is the phrase Russias land grab in Ukraine. No, there was a coup in Kiev helped by 5 Billion US dollars. Right wing thugs forced the elected President to flee. Then all kinds of crazy statements about banning the Russian language in Ukraine and Russian speakers being sub human made it pretty easy for Crimea which Krushchev had ceded to Ukraine in 1954 to vote to go back to Mother Russia in an election. It was a defensive move not a grab . ..."
    "... Her husband is Robert Kagan, co-founder of PNAC (Project for a New American Century). Incredible damage Kagan engineered. Hard to fathom how Nuland made it into a BO admin., much less in position to craft US Ukraine (the coup) policy. ..."
    "... In truth, Obama and Eric Holders inaction on the prosecution of white collar criminals has highlighted the undeniable two-tiered justice system ..."
    "... I often wondered as he was led to the stage for his inauguration if someone didnt point out the snipers and hand him a script. ..."
    "... Despite his rhetoric to the contrary, listened too much to the neocon advisors ( including HRC) on foreign policy and Holder and Rahm on domestic issues. At that point, hope and change went out the window. What happened: prosecution of whistleblowers, more black inmates, affordable housing programs cut, Guantanamo stays open, schools turn private, environmental regs are not enforced, progressive voices are ignored. Not what most of us voted for. ..."
    "... Obama is best understood as a CIA project since his early teens. hes been groomed ..."
    "... I said early on in other blogs years ago that Obama is easily the most right wing President in history, and soon after said he was the worst President in history. ..."
    "... TPP alone (Modified Feudalism. Thats more right wing than even the Tea Party – am I right?) makes Obama the most right wing President in history and its not even close. And the reason I called him the worst, is because of the Trojan Horse Affect he has being an enemy behind the oppositions lines or what Glenn Greenwald expressed by saying Obama may not be more evil than Bush, but he is the more effective evil. By occupying the party that is supposed to be liberal when he is not, he can more effectively and quickly pass right wing change from within than could the most right wing of all right-wingers in the other party. ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Winston Smith , January 2, 2016 at 4:12 am

    If I was passing out grades, with the TPP project, Obama gets a big fat F-

    Never liked the guy, knew the hopium and changium memes and slogans were a big scam! Worse than Bush, because you at least knew where Bush stood. Obama is a fraudster of the worse kind!

    Jill Stein's got my vote if Uncle Bernie isn't on the ticket! In my humbe opinion of course!

    James Levy , January 2, 2016 at 6:19 am

    Almost all commentary in the US mass media (which Alternet is on the fringes of) has as basic assumptions two memes: "compared to the Republicans" and "in the real world." I think if we want to be honest that we must say compared to a President Cruz or President Santorum, Obama looks fairly good. And as the commenter notes about Paris, in "the real world" tens of millions of Americans take it for granted that the job of the President is to "keep us safe" by slaughtering foreigners in sufficient numbers so that they fear us. Obama has done a lot of his slaughtering under the radar with drones and assassination teams and, being a black guy with a funny name, this is not sufficient to make many feel "safe".

    Here, our criteria are different. We have both a broader picture of what is happening, what was and is possible (we could be wrong about the extent of what's possible, but that's another argument), and what the potential options are. All these factors lead us to see Obama as a dubious or awful president (opinions differ, even around here). Objectively, I think most of us who find Obama seriously wanting are more objectively correct than those who excuse what we see as his deliberate malfeasance.

    On a personal note, all this horror is affecting me personally and sending me into flights of rage. This also hurts the critique of Obama because sometimes it gives off the "angry white guy" vibe that can be ugly and render your criticisms suspect. I know that global warming and gun violence have me so upset that my own judgment is at times distorted, although I can't have much truck with anyone who isn't deeply upset by these phenomena. And the old academic stance of radical objectivity and dispassion really can be a pose and socially sterile–leadership and mobilizing people is rarely all about dispassionate objectivity and pulling one's punches with neutral language. It all leaves me baffled as to the way ahead.

    DJG , January 2, 2016 at 3:41 pm

    Jim Levy: An excellent comment. As always, you argue carefully and even use unfashionable words like "dispassionate." (And how many blogs these days have commenters who might use the word "probity?")

    On a personal note: I don't believe in hope, which is a theological virtue. By and large, it serves Christian eschatology, which is why I became suspicious of the decidedly un-religious Obama and his use of it. (Not right away. It took me till after the first inauguration and the Cabinet of re-treads.) And I am not persuaded the arc of history bends toward justice in the United States of America, which may be what makes the country exceptional. American crassness has defeated even its greatest prophets, not just Martin Luther King but Walt Whitman, Abraham Lincoln, Jane Addams, and Sinclair Lewis.

    Yesterday, I had an open house to begin the year, and we touched on insurance. Many of my friends are free lances or self-employed owners of small businesses. We touched on what has happened here in Illinois, collectively blanched, and then discussed the fact that after 19 years of free lance I took a job. It is a plum job, and it has health benefits. ACA is going to grind down the middle class, and the happy talk of extended coverage doesn't talk about the crappiness, the insulting crappiness, of the policies.

    I suspect that major change with regard to global warming, peace, and conversion to a new economy will not come from the United States . You'd think that a nation that adores England would note how the British Empire decayed and how the north of England was a swath of poverty and degradation well into the 1960s. So the solutions are going to come from smaller, odder places, just as mammals were a small and odd group when they arose, years ago. Portugal is intriguing, as is Norway. Sweden is trying in ways that the U.S. just won't do. And even Japan changes in remarkable ways. And I would never rule out Brazil.

    Recommended reading: It may be the moment for Cavafy, who knew about decadent societies and the feeling of loss. See "Waiting for the Barbarians" and "Ithaca."

    Yves Smith Post author , January 2, 2016 at 11:29 pm

    DLG,

    You may know that some interpretations of the Pandora's Box myth have the release of "Hope" at the very end not as a type of relief, but as a final scourge.

    sd , January 2, 2016 at 6:21 am

    Obama came in with Democratic majorities in both houses. Why does he always get a free pass to blame "obstructionist" Republicans? People were begging for a change in direction. Truly mediocre status quo writ large.

    Inverness , January 2, 2016 at 8:01 am

    You got it. Obama has a lot of enablers. I think the little "good things" he does (Iran negotiations, baby steps to curb climate change, nods to growing prison population, etc) are just palliatives to shut up the progressive opposition, to the extent that even exists.

    Steven D. , January 2, 2016 at 10:34 am

    Obama blew that majority as quickly as he could. Democrats were happy to lose majorities because they no longer had to produce results and could say the Republicans made me do it.

    If they were serious, the Democrats would have passed an omnibus budget reconciliation with a big jobs program. They could have done this with simple majorities in both houses . It's the lack of good jobs that is causing the implosion of society. And that's on Obama and the Democrats who didn't turn things around when they had the chance.

    TPP is the big tell for Obama. He's fighting for that like nothing else.

    OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL , January 2, 2016 at 2:36 pm

    All of the "Incompletes" belong in the "Failures" column. And the "Successes"? ACA belongs in the "Failures" column, at least for anyone who cares about the cost of healthcare and understands single payer. Stopping the Great Recession belongs in the "Central Banks" column, they put $13T on their balance sheets and the bill just has not come due yet.

    Diplomacy? Bombing 7 nations with no declaration of war does not count as "diplomacy" , recall that Jimmy Carter went 4 whole years without a single shot fired in anger, now THAT's diplomacy. And please point me to one single solitary foreign policy "success", I suppose you'd have to mention Cuba and Iran, Cuba was a gimme and it's far from clear that the Iran rapprochement has succeeded and is a net "win" for the US given the witches brew of the ME.

    Obama wins my coveted "Worst_President_Ever" award , and yes I'm counting Andrew Johnson and Millard Fillmore. He simply normalized everything we hated about Bush, from Permanent War to unbridled corporo-fascism to a free pass for Wall St to unlimited spying that would make the Stasi drool. And no mention of the War on Whistleblowers. Can we also mention the $100M he spent on personal Versailles-style vacations? C'mon people…we know a "good" president when we see one, or even a marginal one…and O is at the other end of the spectrum.

    I live in Australia and people often ask me what I think of Obama. My reply: "I think he's a war criminal, a corporo-fascist, a hypocrite, a liar, and a fraud. But he's got a passable jump shot, so there's that".

    david s , January 2, 2016 at 6:14 pm

    It's hard to imagine anyone who's a liberal or a progressive looking at the Obama years as anything other than a huge bust.

    Steven D. , January 2, 2016 at 8:45 pm

    Obama has said he aspires to follow in Lincoln's footsteps. However, the closest analogy is Buchanan, who thought the way to handle the slavers' power was to appease it, just like Obama appeared to think the way to handle corporate power was to appease it. And like Buchanan turned out to be the agent of the slavers' power, Obama is the agent of corporate power.

    Larry , January 2, 2016 at 8:11 am

    The same exact script that we had under Bill Clinton. It turns out when you give people hope, they come out to vote for you.

    Especially at a time of economic crisis. But then when you deliver nothing for the largest block of voters, you quickly disenfranchise them and they either change their vote or don't bother to vote at all. The Senatorial elections in Massachusetts were a good barometer for Obama's quick loss of appeal. We had a tightly contested race between our former Attorney General, Martha Coakley, and Scott Brown for senate. Coakley was an awful candidate who was a somewhat effective AG, but had no personality or desire to run a strong campaign. Scott Brown was a fluff candidate who had been a local state representative.

    When the race was clearly close due to the democrats failed policy and the potential for Scott Brown to be a deciding vote against Obamacare, Obama himself came and stumped for Coakley. A sitting president who had won an overwhelming majority of the vote in Massachusetts could do little to bring up Coakley's flagging campaign.

    Scott Brown was elected and had a largely feckless few years in office. Now look who sits in that Senate seat. Elizabeth Warren, who one could say has stood up to Obama's largest policies and is by no means a democratic insider. So this is to say that most democrats or temporary Obama supporters were quickly disillusioned when the president they got didn't match the marketing promises they received on TV. But Obama doesn't care about building a majority any more than the Clintons did. He cares about his personal power, perception, and ultimately his own wealth.

    craazyboy , January 2, 2016 at 6:26 am

    Sure looks like an Obot, tuned down to soft sell mode. The "failures and incompletes" remind me of GWB's aweshucks moments. Iran needs to be moved from the Big Successes category to the aweshucks column now. Because, aweshucks, furry faced crazy mullahs. If only they were more like bankers, corporate America and the security state – where we could control them better?

    PlutoniumKun , January 2, 2016 at 6:52 am

    A few months ago on a thread here I asked generally what people thought actually motivated Obama – what makes him tick as a person – he clearly isn't a narcissist like Clinton, or a captive of his upbringing like Bush. I got some really interesting answers, its a pity I can't find them now. I don't believe that he is the sociopath that some on the left think he is – there is enough evidence from the first 2 years or so of his presidency that he was genuinely trying to do the right thing by the economy and in the Middle East, but the speed with which he retreated into an establishment shell at the first sign of trouble was remarkable and disturbing. I suspect that for someone thought of as a 'thinker', he seems to have a lack of real self awareness.

    I'm less cynical than some about his motives with Obamacare, drones and TPP. I think Obama is, quite simply, not as bright as everyone assumes. I've met very educated, progressive-minded people, who will defend strongly some very regressive policies on the basis that 'yes, they are not ideal, but they are a step in the right direction, anything else is not politically feasible'. And yes, I used to think like that (NC being one of my big educators). It sounds pretentious to say people like that are not 'enlightened' yet, but to an extent it is true. It took me many years to shake off the assumptions of my own education (conservative) and upbringing (conservative). Quite simply, I think Obama isn't bright enough to realise that a clever political compromise is not the same thing as a good policy. He is surrounded by too many privileged people to realise that the consensus among privileged smart people is one distorted by deeply conservative and regressive assumptions. You can see it in his pre-presidential writings – he genuinely believes deep in his guts that if the self-identified 'smart' people have a consensus, then its the right thing to do.

    But back to the point – I agree with Yves that this article is surprisingly generous to Obama, and given that it comes from the left, it shows that his natural charm works even on people who should know better. I find it shocking and dismaying at just how regressive and damaging Obama has been. If you compare him to another very conservative Dem – LBJ – the comparison is particularly stark. LBJ, in the face of huge odds and his own natural political proclivities, did quite amazing things in terms of Civil Rights and protecting the poor. Obama has, in my view, made things even worse, in a much more favourable political environment. I'm particularly horrified at his supposed environmentalism – he has done absolutely nothing that he wasn't dragged kicking and screaming into doing. I believe that deep down he has a natural distaste for 'regular folks'. In theory he wants to help them, but he can't help wishing they didn't actually exist. I've met a lot of people like him – many come from privilege, many do not – the fact that they think they bootstrapped themselves up makes their contempt even stronger.

    Inverness , January 2, 2016 at 8:33 am

    Yet, I do think Obama is quite bright, with a subtle wit and a profound understanding of oppression. I read parts of one of his books, and his poetic way of exploring how the poor on Chicago's South side live was truly moving. Which makes his transition to the dark side even more troubling.

    That's why I think he's ultimately just plain cynical. What makes him tick? He's one of the most powerful men in the world, and he has plenty of enablers in the "intelligentsia" and on media outlets like NPR and the New York Times to convince him that he's some sort of great compromiser, a martyr for the Middle Path. I really do think Obama thinks he's just so damn reasonable, if only he didn't have to content with Congress and "bitter working class people." Ha. You're right, when he had both houses, he didn't exactly push for Wall Street prosecutions and regulations, did he? But why would he invest emotionally in that version of himself, which is the highly unflattering portrait of somebody who sold his soul?

    After awhile, you buy into the narrative which both enables, and is flattering, to you. And I don't think brilliance makes you immune to that, not when you have access to all of that power. The mind is a flexible thing, and even smart people can just create new stories which are validating.

    I recall seeing the German film "Mephisto," with Klaus Maria Brandauer. Brandauer's artist was a well-meaning, left-leaning guy who slowly went along with the Nazis, since it was beneficial to his career. I wouldn't underestimate what access to power and money can do. I suspect that Alexis Tsipras wanted to sincerely help his fellow Greeks out of economic devastation. However, the Troika has way more goodies to give him, than Greece ever could. So, why wouldn't he be seduced?

    Truth be told, Obama has grown very creepy to me. More than a few of us have vivid images of him with that deck of playing cards of those on the kill list. I am not charmed by his appearances with media darlings like Jerry Seinfeld and Marc Maron, who, perhaps unwittingly, legitimize the great droner. To me, his chilling asides (like droning rivals to his daughter's favourite pop group, sharing his contempt for the angry poors, or his story about decrepit world leaders peeing themselves) reveal somebody who has lost touch with his humanity and has become dangerously self-satisfied. Jerry Seinfeld shared that "power corrupts." Did Obama recognize himself in that equation? Does he even care anymore? Either way, he has a very lucrative future career in speeches and publishing, so I think he'll be just fine. Leave it to the plebes, those pesky consciences.

    PlutoniumKun , January 2, 2016 at 9:07 am

    @inverness, I think you are generally right about that. I found part of his writing quite moving, but I always felt there was something calculated about it, something that didn't feel quite right. Even reading about his academic career, he always struck me as someone always so careful to quote and study the 'right' philosophers and writers and past politicians, reminiscent of those post grad students I know always careful to modulate their writings to their Professors prejudices. But I've always suspected this was instinctual rather than calculated with Obama, but its hard to be sure. But one thing that immediately struck me when I was reading his books was his huge lack of curiosity about economics and science – there was nothing, absolutely nothing to indicate he gave any thought whatever to those subjects.

    I do think that he (along with his close advisors) see themselves as 'the grown-ups in the room' and bulwarks against 'the crazies'. Supporting drone strikes can be seen as 'grown up' policy when you are constantly dealing with hawks. But in his foreign affairs his understanding has always seemed to me to be shockingly shallow . As an obvious example where he could have made a very real difference without too much political issues, he could have reached out more to progressive governments in South and Central America, but he let the same old neo-imperialist playbook work itself out there, with a constant undermining of democratic centre left governments in the region.

    • He could, for example, have simply refused to give in to Hilary's idiotic "tilt to the Pacific' policy which is stupidly tin eared about China's genuine geopolitical concerns.
    • He could have said 'no' to the Saudi's idiotic attack on Yemen.
    • He could have stopped the meddling in the Ukraine and tried to understand Russia's genuine local concerns better without necessarily sucking up to Putin.
    • He could have stood up to Turkeys meddling in Syria and Iraq (not to mention the Gulf States support for Islamacists).

    These are all things he could have done within his powers and with little real political cost, but he didn't do them. These, to me, are all evidence of someone out of his depth rather than someone who is a complete cynic.

    Inverness , January 2, 2016 at 9:25 am

    PK, your analysis is certainly fascinating, in particular the portrait of Obama as the teacher's pet. My brother-in-law completed both a PhD in philosophy and a law degree. He equates his academic career to glorified clerking, more than an investment in the life of the mind.

    Obama seems to have just the right combination of intelligence, political correctness, breeding, and a conformist streak to thrive as a full-fledged member of the elite, whether in academia or in Washington. He certainly lacks the iconoclastic/rebellious streak which you see in brilliant minds like Noam Chomsky, unless he's disciplined enough to keep that under wraps for opportunistic reasons.

    Left in Wisconsin , January 2, 2016 at 11:39 am

    Obama seems to have just the right combination of intelligence, political correctness, breeding, and a conformist streak to thrive as a full-fledged member of the elite, whether in academia or in Washington.

    Well said.

    skippy , January 2, 2016 at 5:31 pm

    Methinks this describes Obama to a 'T'

    "Neoliberalism generally also includes the belief that freely adopted market mechanisms is the optimal way of organising all exchanges of goods and services (Friedman 1962; 1980; Norberg 2001). Free markets and free trade will, it is believed, set free the creative potential and the entrepreneurial spirit which is built into the spontaneous order of any human society, and thereby lead to more individual liberty and well-being, and a more efficient allocation of resources (Hayek 1973; Rothbard [1962/1970] 2004). Neoliberalism could also include a perspective on moral virtue: the good and virtuous person is one who is able to access the relevant markets and function as a competent actor in these markets. He or she is willing to accept the risks associated with participating in free markets, and to adapt to rapid changes arising from such participation (Friedman 1980). Individuals are also seen as being solely responsible for the consequences of the choices and decisions they freely make: instances of inequality and glaring social injustice are morally acceptable, at least to the degree in which they could be seen as the result of freely made decisions (Nozick 1974; Hayek 1976). If a person demands that the state should regulate the market or make reparations to the unfortunate who has been caught at the losing end of a freely initiated market transaction, this is viewed as an indication that the person in question is morally depraved and underdeveloped, and scarcely different from a proponent of a totalitarian state (Mises 1962)." – Joe Firestone

    Skippy…. a product of environmental conditioning which was mentored in the early stages of political – life – by where the currant paradigm could be extended and advanced.

    sd , January 2, 2016 at 10:54 am

    Instead, one of his earliest initiatives – and remember, this marks the use of his earliest political capital in May 2009 – indefinite detention. I was beyond horrified and have regretted voting for him since that day.

    Indefinite Detention = the real Barack Obama.

    1 Kings , January 2, 2016 at 12:09 pm

    Or siding with the telecoms sanctioning surveillance the first week he was official. Or Summers and Geithner. Or the great O-Care insurance sell out. Or pretending he was going after the banksters. Or Fracking. Or, Or, Or.

    By the way, "The Great Droner' by one of the commenters above is genius. Certainly applies in a multitude of ways.

    participant-observer-observed , January 2, 2016 at 2:25 pm

    Notice your litany of or, or, or-s exemplify how nearly all of the so-called incompletes are actually failures (although we can count Congress and Senate as whole class failures).

    I couldn't even read about the so-called economic recovery and bank bailouts by holding my nose. NC readers would need Dramamine (polite way if saying it).

    Nevertheless, I have had a few dreams about informal meetings with Bho, and while i seem to have tried to give him some guidance, he was always charming and amicable…maybe simple good manners is enough to score with excellence.

    DJG , January 2, 2016 at 4:07 pm

    PK and Inverness: Astute comments, very thought provoking. I recall a profile of Obama in the New Yorker that referred to him as a Javanese prince, a pregnant metaphor, given his background. I believe, though, that the writer was referring to ceremonial kingship. Obama as embodying a symbolic kind of power.

    I think that Obama is detached, which has meant that he is inured to the suffering of others. Surely, the video-kill of Osama bin Laden is detached (and immoral, but let's not go there yet)–especially publishing photos of the control room. This detachment evidently continues into retail politics. If he isn't giving a grand speech, he doesn't want to have to shake hands. There have been repeated complaints from congressional reps that he doesn't call. Not even colleagues in his own party.

    The detachment devolves into a certain designed lack of excellence. He may be competitive, like many business people, but he lacks the ability to get things done. The endless droning about his background as a professor of constitutional law (it's an article of faith among his fan club) is belied by his policies (Guantanamo, drone killings, the extrajudicial killing and disposal of OBL). Yet he was so detached as a con law prof that he neglected to publish articles or books about the U.S. Constitution. Who did he influence? No one is ever quoted as saying that the class was good or that Obama has any kind of constitutional theories. Again, he's the Javanese prince, ceremonial, detached, waiting to rule. He's like an ever-shiny-and-new M.B.A.

    He went to an elite high school, an elite college, and an elite law school (where he has the distinction of being an editor of a law review yet, again, never publishing). The detachment is internal and external–an empty suit, a child of privilege, no understanding of the consequences of wielding power.

    I owe Geraldine Ferraro an apology–isn't she the one who was hushed for saying something like, So he gave one good speech? And the whole kerfuffle about the location of the Obama library, with the many sites? Isn't the presidential library supposed to be at the person's "home," and does Obama have a home?

    Inverness , January 2, 2016 at 4:40 pm

    I recall Angela Merkel complaining about how cold Obama is. She argued that at least Bush seems to connect on a personal level. Merkel and other world leaders were surprised at his unwillingness to socialize. When Europeans, in particular Germans, find you too reserved…this also speaks to your theory of detachment, albeit on a social level.

    Martha Retallick , January 2, 2016 at 5:19 pm

    Wait a minute. Did I just read that? Angela Merkel complaining about how cold Obama is? Yeesh!

    OIFVet , January 2, 2016 at 5:41 pm

    "He may be competitive, like many business people, but he lacks the ability to get things done." Yet, like many business people, failing upwards has been part of Barry's compensation package.

    It's part and parcel of the US clepto-chrony-capitalist system. And the best is yet to come, just you wait until he vies with Bubba for being the richest ex-president…

    optimader , January 2, 2016 at 6:35 pm

    Clinton's natural skill has been his adept, and presumably disingenuous ability to insightfully focus and project empathy toward people, make them think he has their interests. Combined with an ability to triangulate opportunity, this is why he is such a excellent grifter BClinton's naturally ability to interact and ingratiate seems to me to be exactly the skillset BHO is utterly void of.

    I think IN GENERAL, one on one most people have a hard time not liking BClinton. It is what it is.

    OTOH, other than BHO's true believers, most of whom probably are of relatively modest means other than the Hollywood liberal dilettante sort that want the superficial interaction w/ the first half black POTUS, I don't really see BHO pulling off a BClinton scale payday..do you?

    His narcissistic nature will inhibit that. So ok some BOD opportunity, maybe some foundation at UofC?, but who in the serious old money crowd will want to engage him as a peer and for what reason?

    He kinda has the charisma of a POTUS version of Alberto Gonzalez.

    OIFVet , January 2, 2016 at 6:59 pm

    You may be right, but then again all of Bubba's charisma couldn't overcome Barry's shtick in 2008. Barry left them all in the dust in fundraising, and a large chunk of that came from Wall Street. So unless there is no honor amongst thieves, Barry will get his payday.

    And FWIW, 'serious old money' looks like a pittance compared to the serious new money whose bacon Barry saved. Besides, I don't really see Bubba rolling with the old fogies club, I see him hobnobbing with Bono. In any case, we shall find out soon enough just how much Barry's service is worth.

    Optimader , January 2, 2016 at 8:06 pm

    Serious old money is a misnomer indeed, makes that serious money, that said i doubt Bono lets a nickel go too easily. Wall st looks to future opportunity will be yesterdays fish wrapper in a year. On 2098, that's a pretty good surrogate for HRC charm. I just dont see BHO being a wheeler dealer which in the end is about all BClinton has to offer anyone,

    Still such a shame Chicago is BHO last known address

    OIFVet , January 2, 2016 at 8:37 pm

    "such a shame Chicago is BHO last known address" Dude, this fact harshest my mellow every time. Throw in the inevitability of His lie-Barry coming to the neighborhood and I completely crumple into a bottomless pit of self-pity. The thought of the hordes of 0bots making the pilgrimage to Hyde Park in the coming years is simply unbearable.

    Sam Adams , January 2, 2016 at 9:01 am

    What motivates Obama? I'd venture his upbringing as a half black outsider licking the Windows who now sees himself at the main house dining room table.

    Carolinian , January 2, 2016 at 9:46 am

    he clearly isn't a narcissist like Clinton

    You're kidding, right? Of course some of us who have always seen Obama as a total narcissist could be wrong, but "clearly isn't"–where does that come from? In fact I'll just quote you later in your comment.

    he can't help wishing they didn't actually exist. I've met a lot of people like him – many come from privilege, many do not – the fact that they think they bootstrapped themselves up makes their contempt even stronger.

    Narcissist.

    PlutoniumKun , January 2, 2016 at 2:20 pm

    A true narcissist wouldn't be as obviously thin-skinned as Obama is. If he was narcissistic he might actually have been a better president, narcissists don't back down at the first obstacle the way he constantly seems to do.

    Carolinian , January 2, 2016 at 2:30 pm

    To punish Narcissus, the avenging goddess Nemesis made Narcissus fall hopelessly in love with his own beautiful face as he saw it reflected in a pool. As he gazed in fascination, unable to remove himself from his image, he gradually pined away. At the place where his body had lain grew a beautiful flower, honoring the name and memory of Narcissus.

    –MS Encarta

    If it quacks like a duck…..

    nycTerrierist , January 2, 2016 at 5:25 pm

    Narcissists are thin-skinned. Unflattering feedback is met with 'narcissistic rage'.

    from wiki:

    "Narcissistic rage is a reaction to narcissistic injury, which is a perceived threat to a narcissist's self-esteem or self-worth. Narcissistic injury (or narcissistic scar) is a phrase used by Sigmund Freud in the 1920s; narcissistic wound and narcissistic blow are further, almost interchangeable terms.[1] The term narcissistic rage was coined by Heinz Kohut in 1972.

    Narcissistic injury occurs when a narcissist feels that their hidden 'true self' has been revealed. This may be the case when the narcissist has a fall from grace, such as when their hidden behaviors or motivations are revealed or when their importance is brought into question. Narcissistic injury is a cause of distress and can lead to dysregulation of behaviors as in narcissistic rage.

    Narcissistic rage occurs on a continuum from instances of aloofness, and expression of mild irritation or annoyance, to serious outbursts, including violent attacks and murder…

    NotTimothyGeithner , January 2, 2016 at 10:29 am

    Obama isn't just the object if the Obot devotion, he is the biggest Obot of them all.

    Obama like Clinton before him has no sense of the large picture, his own power, and any particular plans beyond Presidentin'.

    Universal health care was never an end goal for either President. Being put in the history books as a bipartisan hero was their goal. Healthcare was a means to an end. They picked what they perceived as the easiest path to what they could call change. Bill handed off responsibility to his never elected wife with no relevant back ground in hopes no one would attack her. The difference between Bill/Obama and other narcissists (even Bernie is full of himself. He thinks he can have George Washington's old job) is they don't grasp the difference between quality and brand.

    Jim Haygood , January 2, 2016 at 11:45 am

    Big incompletes : playing more rounds of golf during two terms than any other president.

    FORE!

    OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL , January 2, 2016 at 2:45 pm

    He has a place in the history books as "the first black president" nevermind that he was a complete disaster. Next up we will have "the first woman president", same outcome (hopefully not much worse, that would be difficult but given her politics and her backers she's already in the runner-up spot for my "Worst_President_Ever" award..

    verifyfirst , January 2, 2016 at 7:11 am

    I voted for Obama over Hillary in the 2008 primary because I did not want another Bill Clinton administration. What I got was another Bill Clinton administration–the same advisors and staff, whose advice Obama followed, especially economic advice. Obama is a lawyer by training, no numbers required.

    As a professor of constitutional law, I would have guessed Obama would have at least been strong on civil liberties, but he was not.

    Two bumper stickers I wrote for my car–"Drone bomb Obama's kids, as he drone bombs the kids of others" and "Hillary and Barack are war criminals".

    Sorry if these are "too weak".

    They are magnetic, so I can take them off when others are in the car with me–I worry about being attacked by an enraged Prius driver here in "progressive" Ann Arbor, Michigan.

    Brooklin Bridge , January 2, 2016 at 7:59 am

    A long post could be done on the subject of American sports, football in particular, as self mandated training wheels to our corresponding political duopoly; America! Locked in Lovers of making decisions based on two and only two choices by the time tested means of blind rage and blind team loyalty to raw ignorance. For short, we could call it, Concussions – USA .

    The pluses this author attributes to a morally and ethically bankrupt individual who with overwhelming shock and awe provided by the system described above, Concussions – USA , conned Americans into making him president of their sometime democracy would simply dissolve into public ridicule and laughter under any other system (unless it had America's big gun pointed right at it's head).

    Kokuanani , January 2, 2016 at 8:25 am

    I'm curious – but too lazy to go over there & find out - how regular Alternet readers are replying to this fluff.

    diptherio , January 2, 2016 at 9:48 am

    Reaction there is largely similar to that here: Obama is a failure on nearly every count, is actually a conservative, and this "report card" is giving him too much of a pass. Encouraging!

    Here's a representative comment from dave3137:

    Oh, yes, and let's not forget the guy who stood by his Wall Street pals (Geithner, et al.) and told the banksters "help me to help you," while letting "Main Street" drown in the crisis they did NOT create. And let's not forget how this administration let people go because Breitbart and Fox threw up a smokescreen. And let's not forget that this administration is trying desperately to shove a "trade deal" (or three) down our throats that have almost zero advantages for ordinary Americans. And let's not forget how this Administration's justice department failed to prosecute ANY banksters but managed to exact a few minutes' worth of profits as "fines" - while bragging these were "record-breaking." Oh, and remember how Obama spoke out so forcefully against the "death panel" crap? And remember how "single payer" disappeared after big pharma had a White House meeting? And remember ending "endless war"? Closing Guantanamo? And oh yeah, let's not forget to give "credit" for "the most transparent administration in US history."

    Llewelyn Moss , January 2, 2016 at 8:27 am

    Obamacare, a Big Success. hahaha.
    It mandated participation in a system that is based on horrific price gouging.

    Stopping the great recession, a Big Success.
    Yeah the Morbidly Rich did nicely by transferring their losses to the taxpayers. Thanks Bush-Bama.

    After those two, I can't take the list seriously.

    It's either Bernie or I go full Green Party from here on out.

    Glen , January 2, 2016 at 8:54 am

    I don't consider Obamacare or our "economic" recovery to be successes unless, 1) you're rich enough not to need Obamacare and 2) you're rich enough to benefit from the "economic" recovery. Nobody else benefited aside from those using the Medicare expansion, not the middle class, and most definitely not the poor.

    Anybody who still votes Democratic based on "this is the best we can get" is admitting that our democracy is broke and they are getting screwed. One of the required actions to fix our democracy is to quit voting for the Democratic party based on that self defeating rational. I will vote for Bernie, I will not vote for Hillary.

    Arizona Slim , January 2, 2016 at 10:11 am

    I'm with you, Glen and Lleweyen.

    And I'm meeting quite a few Republicans who don't care for Hillary or Trump. Tells me that the Sanders campaign has a huge opportunity to pick up votes.

    mad as hell. , January 2, 2016 at 8:58 am

    You won't find a better entertainer than B.O. I think in the last week I saw references to him hiking on some travel channel and also doing a segment with Jerry Seinfeld. Come on folks he's giving America what it wants in it's screen captured environment

    I'll never forget the time my wife and I were sitting in a restaurant and across from me was a family or I at least assume it was a family of father, son and daughter. Teenage Son was playing some game on a hand held device. Early twenty something daughter was texting on a smart phone. Old school pop had his head tilted up and watching some show on the tv. I did not hear one word uttered that entire time by the Screen family.

    Obama knows we are a nation of screen watchers and being the entertainer that he is covers the part exceptionally well. Although I have lost interest in watching his shtick anymore.

    Carolinian , January 2, 2016 at 10:11 am

    He is the designated spokesmodel for the "love me I'm a liberal" wing of the power duopoly (as opposed to the "proud to be an asshole" wing) , and as reward for staying on script he gets to enjoy the considerable privileges of office–privileges that, according to plugged in commentators like Pat Lang, he enjoys greatly.

    Obama's only noteworthy accomplishment is providing the country with it's first African American President and for that he will always deserve some credit. He himself may be a big phony, but the pride this accomplishment has given to many black people isn't. One can also say that in a long line of Presidential mediocrities Obama is merely the latest. Clearly it's our American system that is deeply flawed and unable to cope with ever more serious problems.

    NotTimothyGeithner , January 2, 2016 at 11:57 am

    Obama loves the limelight, but he's going on shows, not drawing the crowds himself. Jerry Seinfeld isn't edgy or provocative (not that there's anything wrong with that), and he can't say no to the President, in a way a Carlin might, more mock the person to their face the way a Colbert might if he were so motivated. I didn't watch the Seinfeld appearance, but I've heard he is the nicest celebrity to meet.

    Obama has recognized that the screens which once featured him are no longer tuned in and he's searching for attention. Every Presidential candidate is inherently an anti-Obama candidate.

    roadrider , January 2, 2016 at 9:48 am

    Yeah Yves I almost lost my lunch when I read this on Alternet yesterday. But I guess its par for the course from the Dem/liberal establishment. For better or worse, Obama is their guy, just like Hillary will be their girl and IOKIADDI (its OK if a Democrat does it). Neoliberal Heritage Foundation/Romney health insurance "reform"? No problem! It's a "Big Success"! Turning a blind eye to the largest, most destructive white-collar crime wave in our history? Well, he had "no choice". "Foaming the runway" for the Wall St perps while screwing ordinary workers, distressed homeowners and fraud victims? File it under 'saving the economy". Continuity (and worse) with the Bush/Cheney foreign policy and "War on Terrah"? Well, that's just "keeping use safe from the 21st century boogey-men that fuel the MIC and the warfare consensus among the "serious people". And I haven't even gotten to economic inequality remaining the same (or even worsening), the TPP, persecution of whistle blowers, inaction of student loans, promotion of Arctic oil drilling while pretending to be serious about climate change and on and on.

    Obama's disastrous, failed presidency should have been a wake up call for Democrats and liberals. Instead they're doubling down on neoliberalism, militarism and Wall St toadyism in the form of Hillary Clinton. Their delusion that demographics and progress on social wedge issues will rescue them from the Republican dominance at the state and local level resulting from the disenchantment of voters with their party and candidates (case in point – losing the Maryland governorship to a Republican real-estate hack mostly because of low turnout in Dem strongholds) seems to be unshakeable. They don't seem to get that its not enough to not be the Republicans or to be only slightly less worse than them.

    Until the Dem/liberal establishment wakes up I'm afraid that not much will change. I think its better to focus less on worrying about which establishment apparatchik will win the presidency to changing the electoral process so that more voices are heard (opening up the debates) which I hope will get more voters engaged in participating. That's the only way to take down the establishment that produces empty suit infotainment candidates like Obama and Clinton (not to mention the GOP troglodytes).

    Jim McKay , January 2, 2016 at 9:52 am

    Seems we/U.S. has become content grading our leaders withing paradigms of mediocrity. Seems like yesterday, the 2k election mess… recounts in Florida, Jeb's state troopers impeding black voters getting to voting booths, the black box voting machines producing more votes in Repub precincts then there were registered voters, Kathryn Harris (was Jeb "doing her"?) exerting "authority" ignoring law….

    Scotus' decision remanding consideration of Florida recounts back to Florida Supreme Court was a calculated political decision to run out the legal clock, as several key SCOTUS members have explicitly and implicitly acknowledged. And then Tom Delay's illegal thugs bused into Florida on Tax Payer's dime, to thwart recounts.

    BushCo and winger chest thumping but blind bravado intimidating their way to an election "victory" demonstrated the same blindness they executed in their other disasters: ignoring Enron, the lies behind Iraq, "Mushroom Clouds" and Israel's crimes levelling Lebanon, bailing out Banks while U.S. economy crumbled….

    This was biggest political wakeup call of my life, and now 15+ years in the rear view mirror. AFAIC, the influences that allowed that to happen have gone unchanged. The U.S. tail still wags the dog. The Bush years were an illusory horror, setting the U.S. and world back in almost unfathomable ways.

    Obama was elected with Bush approval ratings the lowest of ANY president in history. Many of the hardest of hard right wingers I knew who treated their neighbors who criticized Bush as moral enemies, had come around to grudingly acknowledge he was an…. asshole.

    Obama had a mandate. He had an opportunity to change directions hugely had he the courage, vision and grasp of reality many "hoped". Despite many capable economic advisers after he won but before the inauguration, my heart sank when he announced nomination of Geithner: eg. someone guaranteed to "fix" things by moving piles of money around, but not remove the people who stole so much and deceived (literally) the world banking system. He instead gave them a get out of jail card, and re-filled their bank accounts and "trusted" them to "fix" things.

    This is my take on BO's "hope".

    He has done little more then continue in Bush's worst foibles, and in many ways looks to me like the world is worse off now then when he arrived. The ME mess has grown, and false premises under lie our disastrous polices there. In both US media and current candidates, these delusions seem to be accepted fact.

    I take issue with author's (similarly assumed untruth) "Russia's land grab in Ukraine": that utterly ignores all the other forces (US and Israel policy especially) at play there with no regard for local interests: another example of "US Interests", no matter how selfish or destructive to a given area… if expressed by the White House, it must be so.

    WRT authors bullet points, I take issue with 2 items in particular:

    • – Energy: BO nominated the right guy (Dr. Chu): he knew the "territory" and was on the cutting edge of the science… both from climate aspect and energy generation alternatives. Obama ignored him, subjugated Chu's best advice to "more pressing" issues dominated by Geithner recommendation ("we can't afford energy until economy is fixed"). But there was no hope of "fix", and "kicking the can" down the road on clean energy is the same as learning to "live with cancer". Chu left quietly, no wonder.
    • – Embracing Diplomacy: I'm glad he did Cuba… didn't see that coming. Decades overdue. But… despite our cascading disasters in ME, BO has learned little. Putin is the "threat", when evidence is overwhelming Russia's efforts in Syria are turning the tide there. Biggest contributors to Syria mess have been Turkey and Saudi Arabia (they've funded ISIS): US policy ignores this. Putin has reached out… repeatedly. Love to see Putin and BO (or next president) together, in public… for a week: open, frank discussions where the public can decide, not "policy makers" and advisers looking for an advantage for their petroleum client. Seems backroom discussions on Kerry's latest tour are moving towards some acknowledgment of this, but just as crooks on wall street still run the show, we'll never root out biggest cause of foolish Sunni/Shia endless conflicts without acknowledging those who fuel it. Again, worst players in this arena: Saudis and Turkey (Ergodan).

    I guess I'll just leave it there… could write a book on this, but so what? I think BO had one of greatest opportunities to change course of America in huge ways, and in ways that were badly needed for US' and world's future. He missed most of them.

    And at the risk of sounding racist, I'm disappointed at so many of our High Profile African Americans so many look up to (Oprah, Denzell…) who speak of BO with pride seemingly on advancement socially we could elect a Black president, but have ignored these larger issues. I think they could have done far better, to press him.

    When it's all said and done, from where I site, we and the world are moving far too slowly and blindly to do what's needed to ensure a bright future for a lot more people. Our most pressing problems have been kicked down the road, and hardly acknowledged. I see not one current candidate even close to addressing things the way that's needed.

    Just not enough courage, clarity and truth… period.

    wbgonne , January 2, 2016 at 10:19 am

    At a moment of historical inflection, when the fate of the entire world was to be determined, Barack Obama deceived the American people into believing he would usher in the systemic change needed after the collapse of conservatism. Instead, Obama revealed himself as a neoliberal ideologue who attempted to destroy progressivism and, in doing so, revived conservatism. Obama's deceit squandered the last good chance for the nation and humanity to roll back global warming. For that alone, history will condemn him.

    As for his "substantive accomplishments," the only one even worth considering is his use of diplomacy. But, as usual with Obama, there is sleight of hand. Yes, he has shown reluctance to enter shooting wars. But at the same time, he doesn't hesitate to use drones and economic weapons to inflict untold punishment and generate evermore strife and create new generations of people who hate America. Which brings me to another point about Obama: apart from achieving his neoliberal dystopia, Obama's primary goal appears to be that he look good and be respected. (That weakness is why the Democrats and the Left might have inhibited Obama had they not defended and enabled him.) From Obamacare to fracking to economic royalism to race relations, Obama wants credit now and doesn't care that everything he has set in motion is a ticking time bomb.

    All things considered, Obama is the worst president in American history. He was supposed to be the corrective, like FDR, showing the genius once again of the American Experiment. Obama had the mandate and he had the power but he was a liar and a fraud. Obama is an historical failure, one from which I'm not sure we can recover.

    roadrider , January 2, 2016 at 10:40 am

    At a moment of historical inflection, when the fate of the entire world was to be determined, Barack Obama deceived the American people into believing he would usher in the systemic change needed after the collapse of conservatism.

    He never wanted to change the system – he merely wanted to be the guy who presided over it.

    Ché Pasa , January 2, 2016 at 7:09 pm

    +1

    People who were paying attention, which I guess weren't a whole lot, saw pretty early that Obama was running to the right of Hillary. There was never much of a systemic "change" promise in what he had to offer.

    He offered a change from W's bloody bluster and hope of escape from Cheney's visceral contempt for basic decency, and sure enough… that's about as far as the Hope and Change thing went.

    Policy-wise, millions of Americans were forced into poverty from which most will never emerge. That was true under W and that is true under Obama. Economic policies are approximately consistent, favoring the financial sector at the expense of workers and social services. The Obamacare insurance scam might well have been implemented by a Republican president with or without a Democratic congress.

    Foreign policy is different, but mostly because the failures of the Bush/Cheney model were monumental and unsustainable. Foreign policy is marginally less terrible, marginally less bloody, but it's no less imperialist, no less absurd, no less foolhardy.

    Ché Pasa , January 2, 2016 at 12:42 pm

    Obama is the worst president in American history

    Oh fer gawdssake. Everybody knows that W was the worst president in American history, "all things considered." Obama is merely the worst since W.

    Feh.

    wbgonne , January 2, 2016 at 1:58 pm

    I disagree. Bush was an abject failure in large part because he was pursuing a doctrine that was dead. Conservatism was spent yet Bush insisted upon it until it failed floridly. But we've had other failed presidents in out history and we've recovered. In a democracy like ours, the ballot is supposed to provide the corrective to such political failure. And that's exactly what Obama promised. Hope and change, remember that? But Obama lied - utterly and fundamentally - and, in doing so, Obama wrecked what remained of the Democratic Party, sent our polity into a tailspin and - most ominously - set us on a likely irreversible course of calamitous global warming. All things considered, that makes Obama the worst president in American history, IMNSHO.

    Ché Pasa , January 2, 2016 at 7:17 pm

    Bush/Cheney were not conservatives by any stretch of the imagination. They were radicals, especially Cheney, who saw that his mission in life was to redeem the legacy of the Nixon-Ford debacle - by killing and displacing millions in Mesopotamia and Afghanistan, creating as much chaos overseas as he could, and destroying what was left of a semi-egalitarian economy.

    Pleased and proud of his accomplishments he is to this day. At least for his part W knows better than to crow.

    MaroonBulldog , January 2, 2016 at 5:50 pm

    By increasing the population covered by health insurance, Obamacare also increases demand for physicians to treat the additionally covered. Where are all those physicians going to come from?

    Last year, the primary care physician who had been treating me for ten years resigned from the practice group, and I received a letter asking me to select a physician from new members of the practice group, who were now accepting patients. When I called, I was given a list of six young physicians to choose from: three graduated fromf medical schools in India, one from Pakistan, one from Colombia, and one from a local osteopathic medical school here in the United States.

    Apparently, once consequence of Obamacare is a brain drain of medical practitioners from the rest of the world, mostly trained at the rest of the world's expense.

    frosty zoom , January 2, 2016 at 10:52 am

    first, a big shout out to our buddies at the nsa! happy new year, guys!

    now, how could someone as evil as barack obama receive anything but an expulsion from the high school of human governance?

    if only he'd stick to doodling on his desk..

    NotTimothyGeithner , January 2, 2016 at 10:53 am

    Emotional attachment, and breaking away from the pack is hard. I never liked the President. I thought his speeches were word salad and his books were boring and full of conventional wisdom. I have no problem pointing out his mistakes. If you thought the Preside the was a once in a lifetime figure in 2004, how would you feel if you decided to read his 2004 DNC speech?

    -Plenty of Democrats don't want to become "racist unicorn chasers who want equality today" or acknowledge that the people they said were loons in 2009 for suggesting Obama didn't pass rainbows after eating were right and received undue criticism. There was a considerable amount of nastiness directed towards Obama critics who dared point out that guys like Rahm Emmanuel were disasters waiting to happen.

    There is a good element of the population who has internalized an acceptable left-center-right view of politics. For them judging Obama as a failure would mean judging the left and center as failures. They have lives where they might not know the name and general background of every Senator and just hear a simple Republican/Democrat pie fight. They then assume he GOP is dastardly clever to have foiled Obama and his wonderful plans. Obama critics and even potential critics were drowned out for so long the echo chamber doesn't repeat a narrative of the Team Blue Reagan admirer desperately wants to be a Republican.

    montanamaven , January 2, 2016 at 11:12 am

    Oh, and another "tell" that this is conventional writing from conventional propaganda is the phrase "Russia's land grab in Ukraine." No, there was a coup in Kiev helped by 5 Billion US dollars. Right wing thugs forced the elected President to flee. Then all kinds of crazy statements about banning the Russian language in Ukraine and Russian speakers being sub human made it pretty easy for Crimea which Krushchev had ceded to Ukraine in 1954 to vote to go back to Mother Russia in an election. It was a defensive move not a "grab".

    DJG , January 2, 2016 at 4:13 pm

    Yep. That was one point in the article where I checked out mentally. The writer never heard of Victoria Nuland?

    Jim McKay , January 2, 2016 at 7:58 pm

    The writer never heard of Victoria Nuland?

    Her husband is Robert Kagan, co-founder of PNAC (Project for a New American Century). Incredible damage Kagan engineered. Hard to fathom how Nuland made it into a BO admin., much less in position to craft US Ukraine (the coup) policy.

    tegnost , January 2, 2016 at 11:30 am

    Successes? 1.) medicaid clawbacks 2.)trillions instead of billions for wall st. 3.)reproductive rights for same sex couples 4.)drone diplomacy 5.)ice free passage through the arctic
    Looks an awful lot like the "failures" list are the successes, no need to comment further
    Incomplete 11.) more people living in tents, true, but not everyone yet 12.) H1b, H2b 13.) less gun violence, yep mm hmmm 14.) shoot the potentially violent 15.) go on a congressional junket to israel, but then come back to the house of reps, don't like, stay there forever, what would that accomplish?
    tegnost reporting from LJ, the land of no (well, extremely lame) public transportation and unabashed HRC supporters. Think I'll sit outside the breakers and watch the world go by…

    blurtman , January 2, 2016 at 11:41 am

    The president repeatedly lied to Americans early on in his first term when he said that the banks had committed no crimes. The president's failure was not merely a failure in prosecuting and jailing bankers, it was much more:

    1.) illustrating to all the undeniable existence of a two-tiered justice system. There are folks doing time for money laundering, you know.
    2.) not re-establishing faith in the US financial system.

    Perhaps it was a designed plan to shine a light on the corruption and hypocrisy that is Amerika, but I kind of doubt it.

    Warf Rat , January 2, 2016 at 1:25 pm

    In truth, Obama and Eric Holders inaction on the prosecution of white collar criminals has highlighted the undeniable two-tiered justice system ……….too bad nobody is paying attention. One could say that all the failures of Obama's presidency have done a good job shinning a light on all that is wrong with our country.

    Chauncey Gardiner , January 2, 2016 at 6:23 pm

    The terminology "Coddling corporate America" under the "Big Failures" list is much too charitable to this administration. This hasn't been about inviting a big campaign contributor to a sleepover at the White House, and the issues are ongoing.

    TedWa , January 2, 2016 at 11:59 am

    More succinctly, he's the Wall St Manchurian candidate and any benefits we the people have derived from his Presidency have only been "trickle down" at best. He lied at every turn to the American people to become President in 2008 all the while knowing that once in office his masters on Wall St would be well served. He's smart enough to fool everyone that voted for him – is that ever worthy of praise by Democrats? No – only by the Republicans that he had emboldened. They must have been laughing their arses off when they saw how this hope and change Presidency was unfolding in the 1st week and every week since. He had exposed his Achilles heel the 1st week in office, appointing one Wall St veteran after the other and the REpugs saw this and attacked. The Republican party was on it's way out, their President had lied us into wars and into invading other countries, torture and war crimes. But Barack alone saved them from their fates, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. No, nothing about BO should get a passing grade. As he said to Hillary in 2008, the Presidency is just a figure head office (not an office for a leader). Figure head and trickle down voodoo economics, that's about all we the people got. Oh yeah, and don't forget all the Republican victories over the last 8 years that never should have happened.

    CraaaaaaaazyChris , January 2, 2016 at 12:15 pm

    As I look back on the Obama presidency, his primary domestic achievement seems to be "Gay Lives Matter".

    NotTimothyGeithner , January 2, 2016 at 1:41 pm

    After major pressure and defeats in court. DADT was struck down before it was repealed, and Obama came out for gas marriage after fighting efforts against an anti-gay referendum in North Carolina.

    James Housel , January 2, 2016 at 12:30 pm

    I often wondered as he was led to the stage for his inauguration if someone didn't point out the snipers and hand him a script. After all, Kennedy was killed for not following his…We have been captive of the "deep state" for a long time. The business of America is the enabling of a global looting. Always has been, always will be.

    It was obvious from the appointment of Eric(Pardon Me)Holder, Timmy (what tax?)Geithner and Robert Gates that nothing was going to change and that hope had left the building. Maybe that was the point, that it was pointless to hope.

    NotTimothyGeithner , January 2, 2016 at 1:40 pm

    Or he was a pronounced Reagan admirer and claimed the right to bomb anywhere on the planet whenever he felt like it all along and you didn't listen?

    James Housel , January 2, 2016 at 2:57 pm

    Well,

    I confess I voted for him in 2008 (with reservations). The "lesser of two weevils". And perhaps seduced by "Dreams from my Father". I didn't expect revolution, but I also allowed "hope" for a moment. I voted for Jill Stein in 2012. And I vote in EVERY election. But I can't forget Emma Goldman's wisdom, "If elections changed anything, they would make it illegal".

    TedWa , January 2, 2016 at 3:36 pm

    Don't forget all the Republican victories over the last 8 years that never would have happened if he had been a man of his word. He owns those too. If the scale is A to F, I'd give him a G.

    wbgonne , January 2, 2016 at 5:21 pm

    I often wondered as he was led to the stage for his inauguration if someone didn't point out the snipers and hand him a script.

    I was and I remain astonished at how Obama metamorphasized immediately after he won in 2007. I listened to a lot of Obama speeches in 2007 and I read his books and that Obama never stepped inside the White House. This transformation being so exquisitely executed, a suspicious mind might consider an orchestrated conspiracy. Maybe a rational mind, too, because the alternative explanation proves elusive.

    Oregoncharles , January 2, 2016 at 6:19 pm

    Alternative explanation: he's a skilled con artist.

    montanamaven , January 2, 2016 at 7:30 pm

    Long before his inauguration, he was a made man. Ken Silverstein in Harper's wrote "Barack Obama Inc" back in 2006. Black Agenda Report and Paul Street knew him from Chicago. Adolph Reed Jr wrote earlier than that and then repeated it in 2008 in The Progressive.

    He's a vacuous opportunist.I've never been an Obama supporter. I've known him since the very beginning of his political career, which was his campaign for the seat in my state senate district in Chicago. He struck me then as a vacuous opportunist, a good performer with an ear for how to make white liberals like him. I argued at the time that his fundamental political center of gravity, beneath an empty rhetoric of hope and change and new directions, is neoliberal. – See more at: http://progressive.org/mag_reed0508#sthash.hEiRFBaY.dpuf

    There was information early that he was the corporate pick, but people chose to put their fingers in their ears. It was the most frustrating time for me in my sojourn into politics. And it continues. I just had a new acquaintance tell me that Obama will go down as one of the great presidents. Sad.

    James Housel , January 2, 2016 at 9:10 pm

    There was a devastating piece in the Boston Globe http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/06/27/grim_proving_ground_for_obamas_housing_policy/ before the election that laid out the corruption…Not exactly Breitbart. The story sank w/o a trace

    sid_finster , January 2, 2016 at 12:56 pm

    I don't know how many O voters lurk here, but let me ask you this:

    When you voted for Obama in 2008, is this really what you expected?

    Steve from CT , January 2, 2016 at 1:11 pm

    Three things stand out for me from Obama's first couple of months in office that indicated what kind of President he would be.

    1. Appointments. Rahm Emanuel, Timothy Geithner, Larry Summers, Eric Holder and Arne Duncan. I would also throw in Sebelius as well. What did we expect from this crew of neoliberal thinkers. We got no prosecutions of Bush war criminals or Wall St criminals, bailout of banks but not Main St, "never let a crisis go to waste," privatization of schools, a health reform that will ultimately self destruct and many others mentioned here.
    2. Disappearance of the famed Obama multi million person mailing list which could have maybe made a huge impact on the next few Congressional and Senate elections. Why did this list go into hiding for way too many years.
    3. Despite his rhetoric to the contrary, listened too much to the neocon advisors ( including HRC) on foreign policy and Holder and Rahm on domestic issues. At that point, hope and change went out the window. What happened: prosecution of whistleblowers, more black inmates, affordable housing programs cut, Guantanamo stays open, schools turn private, environmental regs are not enforced, progressive voices are ignored. Not what most of us voted for.

    And he didn't play golf with Speaker Boehner!!!!

    Pavel , January 2, 2016 at 9:15 pm

    Well I unsubscribed from that Obama list about 3 months into his first term, already pissed off and disillusioned - Rahm's appointment and some other decision at the time was the prompt.

    However somehow Hillary's PAC got my name off it, and I got repeated donation requests from the Ready For Hillary people, without an "unsubscribe" option, which to me makes it borderline illegal spam.

    And recently I got an email from Harry Reid's group, on the same address. All very fishy, and extremely annoying.

    stinky , January 2, 2016 at 2:31 pm

    Obama is best understood as a CIA "project" since his early teens. he's been groomed

    timbers , January 2, 2016 at 4:22 pm

    I said early on in other blogs years ago that Obama is easily the most right wing President in history, and soon after said he was the worst President in history.

    Some posting here ridiculed me at the time on those other blogs for those statements. Now many comments sometimes paraphrase the same thought.

    TPP alone (Modified Feudalism. That's more right wing than even the Tea Party – am I right?) makes Obama the most right wing President in history and it's not even close. And the reason I called him the worst, is because of the Trojan Horse Affect he has being an enemy behind the oppositions lines or what Glenn Greenwald expressed by saying "Obama may not be more evil than Bush, but he is the more effective evil." By occupying the party that is supposed to be liberal when he is not, he can more effectively and quickly pass right wing change from within than could the most right wing of all right-wingers in the other party.

    Oregoncharles , January 2, 2016 at 5:41 pm

    That article reminds me of the reason I left Alternet. FWIW, I used to be a dedicated commenter there. But during the campaign in 2012, they systematically rigged their coverage (coverage is far more important than endorsements), suppressing anything that made Obama look bad – more than any other liberal site I followed. The final straw was when a good article by one of their own writers was unceremoniously removed from the front page and relegated to a cubbyhole where you wouldn't find it unless you were looking for it. That made it clear there was an editorial judgement (probably by the publisher) to censor their reporting.

    I thought that was unforgivable, so when the election was past I made a fuss in as many comments as I could and then abandoned the site. They sell ads, so clicks are worth money to them, and I was providing a lot of clicks. At this point, I visit it only when NC provides a link I want to read. I doubt the publisher has changed.

    This article goes beyond "cautious" to the sort of coverup they committed in 2012 (personally, I don't think much of Rosenfeld). I'm not criticizing Yves for posting it – it's a good example of something or other, and generated a lot of discussion. But mainly, it's an example of the difference between NC and in-the-bag sites like Alternet or Salon, where I sometimes post links to NC articles just to be difficult. Did it today, on the article on Obamacare by Paul Rosenberg. Remarkably, that elicited a plug for NC from the author (Rosenberg – boy are those names easy to confuse)!

    Lambert Strether , January 2, 2016 at 11:01 pm

    Ah yes. I remember Open Left from 2009 – 2010 very well… Just another career "progressive" site suppressing single payer advocacy because Obama. Of course, if they'd gone full on for single payer then, the ground would be prepared now for the real solution. So their tactics did real damage.

    Humanbean , January 2, 2016 at 6:11 pm

    Hi Yevs,

    Happy! New Year. How about this assessment of Obama years in the Oval Office? I agree with what Thomas Frank has to say in this piece 100%

    http://www.salon.com/2015/01/11/its_not_just_fox_news_how_liberal_apologists_torpedoed_change_helped_make_the_democrats_safe_for_wall_street/

    [Jan 06, 2016] Pray For Us Libya Issues Cry For Help As ISIS Advances On Oil Fields

    Notable quotes:
    "... "We are helpless and not being able to do anything against this deliberate destruction to the oil installations. NOC urges all faithful and honorable people of this homeland to hurry to rescue what is left from our resources before it is too late." ..."
    "... ''death pursues the native in everyplace where the european(american) sets foot' ..."
    "... You can also thank Russia for the condition of Libya. Russia voted for the no fly zone in Libya and consented to having Libya destroyed. ..."
    "... What part of no-fly zone don't you understand? Full attack was not subject of vote. you know better, but choose dishonesty ..."
    "... I mean shit the Bush family tried to over throw the US government back in the late 1930's, they were actual fascist. Rubio is a clone of Jeb (both have the same donors). Christie said he would start shooting down Russian planes (that would start nuclear war). Hillary has destroyed Libya and Syria by supporting terrorist. Not a word about that in today's corrupt press. But no, no, no Trump is the next Hitler. ..."
    "... Do you really think the US ISrael and the rest of the empire is really that stupid and incompetent. At first I thought so too. Now I'm beginning to see that creating the chaos is exactly what they want, and they return not to clean up the mess, but to seize control of the important resources. ..."
    "... ISIS is clearly the proxy army here doing the hands on cannon fodder work, once the coast is clear, "crack" forces can go in secure and guard the infrastructure, so the valuable commodities can be pilfered safely. ..."
    "... In LARGE part. The unconstitutional attack on Libya has long been known as "Hillary's War". (Of course, Syria is her second war, and she has her hands bloody with Ukraine as well). ..."
    "... Just look at her resume - ISIS in Libya, ISIS in Syria, ISIS in Iraq. If her goal was to spread ISIS, then she's the balls. If not, she's less than balls. As I say that, maybe the goal really was to spread ISIS, and she's the balls. Balls, Hill, you're the balls. ..."
    Zero Hedge

    "We are helpless and not being able to do anything against this deliberate destruction to the oil installations. NOC urges all faithful and honorable people of this homeland to hurry to rescue what is left from our resources before it is too late."

    That's from Libya's National Oil Corp and as you might have guessed, it references the seizure of state oil assets by Islamic State, whose influence in the country has grown over the past year amid the power vacuum the West created by engineering the demise of Moammar Qaddafi.

    The latest attacks occurred in Es Sider, a large oil port that's been closed for at least a year.

    Seven guards were killed on Monday in suicide bombings while two more lost their lives on Tuesday as ISIS attacked checkpoints some 20 miles from the port. "Es Sider and Ras Lanuf, Libya's biggest oil ports, have been closed since December 2014," Reuters notes . "They are located between the city of Sirte, which is controlled by Islamic State, and the eastern city of Benghazi."

    ISIS also set fire to oil tanks holding hundreds of thousands of barrels of crude. "Four tanks in Es Sider caught fire on Tuesday, and a fifth one in Ras Lanuf the day before," Ali al-Hassi, a spokesman for the the Petroleum Facilities Guard told Bloomberg over the phone.

    Ludovico Carlino, senior analyst at IHS Country Risk says the attacks are "likely diversionary operations" during Islamic State's takeover of the town of Bin Jawad, a seizure that may enable the group to expand and connect "its controlled territory around Sirte to the 'oil crescent.'"

    Islamic State is pushing east from Sirte in an effort to seize control of the country's oil infrastructure, much as the group has done in Syria and Iraq. As Middle East Eye wrote last summer, "the desert region to the south of the oil ports has been strategically cleared in a series of attacks by IS militants on security personnel and oil fields, where employees have been killed and kidnapped, and vehicles and equipment seized."

    "I expect they will try and take Sidra and Ras Lanuf and the oil fields on the west side of the oil crescent," one oil worker said. "There are few people left to protect the oil fields apart from local security from isolated towns."

    macholatte

    CHANGE YOU BETTER BEIEVE IN

    Flashback 2011: Hillary Clinton Laughs About Killing Moammar Gaddafi: "We Came, We Saw, He Died!"

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/06/19/flashback_2011_hillary...

    KnuckleDragger-X

    Libya was Hillary's special project.

    SmedleyButlersGhost

    This is good a place as any for a tale of Yale's very own John Kerry. Want to know the true measure of Kerry - Google his Cookie franchise at Faneuil Hall (David's Cookies is the guy he ripped off) before he married ketchup money. Further, way back when, an Aunt of mine had a Summer job at the airport cafe that serves Martha's Vinyard - also before Kerry got Heinz' dough.

    The fuk Congressman Kerry would be there sucking up to MA money. On the return flight he would hit the cafe - without fail he would have an order that came out to about a nickel short of an even dollar amount - say $3.95. The fuk would always throw $4 on the table when she was out of sight and slink off. Not like he couldn't afford it - the guy was a Congressman. What a cheap slime ball

    fleur de lis

    Someone once said, money doesn't make you a better or worse person. It only magnifies the personality you already have.

    John Kerry has no class an never did. He went to big schools but so what. Has anyone seen his transcript? Does he strike anyone as smart? He just got hooked into the connected circles.

    Soros is a billionaire. Does he strike anyone as refined or classy? Of course not. He was grimy riff raff all his life and today he's just riff raff with too much money and using it to drag entire societies down to his gutter level. He's what they called years ago, a beggar on horseback.

    They're all the same. Nuland/Nudelman/Neudelmann or whatever her name is brings wreck and ruin to everything she touches. For all her money she doesn't even look groomed and sometimes she looks dirty.

    No amount of money can ever polish them up. You can take them out of the slums but generations later you can't take the slums out of them. They use money and power to drag us all down to their mental levels. They were born philistines and they will die philistines.

    Lumberjack

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/libyas-water-wars-and-gaddafis-great-man-ma...

    I do not endorse anyone but...

    https://sites.tufts.edu/reinventingpeace/2012/12/19/the-african-union-an...

    __Usury__

    Darwin..

    ''death pursues the native in everyplace where the european(american) sets foot' '....

    Blankone

    You can also thank Russia for the condition of Libya. Russia voted for the no fly zone in Libya and consented to having Libya destroyed.

    It should be no surprise that now the ISIS army or the US/Israel wants to take control or the resources.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, did Russia vote FOR the no fly zone or just abstain and thus give consent for the destruction.

    Volkodav

    What part of no-fly zone don't you understand? Full attack was not subject of vote. you know better, but choose dishonesty

    froze25

    Adolf was a person with no business experience, a socialist, a bad artist, but the man had charisma. Trump has charisma but that is where the similarities stop. Not letting in Muslim Refugees with out proper vetting is reasonable, being politically correct is self enforced mind control bullshit, the boarder with Mexico needs to be controlled and immigration law needs to be enforced is also reasonable. The "he" is the next Hitler line needs to stop, I mean shit the Bush family tried to over throw the US government back in the late 1930's, they were actual fascist. Rubio is a clone of Jeb (both have the same donors). Christie said he would start shooting down Russian planes (that would start nuclear war). Hillary has destroyed Libya and Syria by supporting terrorist. Not a word about that in today's corrupt press. But no, no, no Trump is the next Hitler.

    kita27

    Do you really think the US ISrael and the rest of the empire is really that stupid and incompetent. At first I thought so too. Now I'm beginning to see that creating the chaos is exactly what they want, and they return not to clean up the mess, but to seize control of the important resources.

    ISIS is clearly the proxy army here doing the hands on cannon fodder work, once the coast is clear, "crack" forces can go in secure and guard the infrastructure, so the valuable commodities can be pilfered safely.

    Bastiat

    And central banking -- remember when in the very early days of the "revolution," the mercenaries formed a central bank? Who ever heard of such a thing? I don't supposed that central bank immediately removed all of Libya's gold? Naaaaahh.

    Hohum

    Who is responsible for this? (Hillary Clinton, in part)

    Sanity Bear

    In LARGE part. The unconstitutional attack on Libya has long been known as "Hillary's War". (Of course, Syria is her second war, and she has her hands bloody with Ukraine as well).

    Jack Burton

    First comes NATO bombers. Then Comes ISIS. Where? Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Libya. The West runs ISIS's Air Force for them, opening the invasion routes by destroying local resistance or army forces. Russia stepped in and cut short the NATO/ISIS alliance in Syria.

    Jack Burton

    Hillary Clinton's Greatest success? Clearing the way for ISIS to invade and conquer Libya, and using Libya arms to arm the ISIS in Syria. Where today, Bulgaria has stated an emergency air lift of Soviet era weapons to ISIS in Turkey and Syria. These Soviet weapons may be old, but function in perfect order, just as they were designed to. Especially the Anti Tan Guided Missiles. Bulgaria is launching an emergency airlift of 7,000 ATGM to ISIS, at the request of NATO.

    falak pema

    well played Pax Americana : you promised them Disneyland after Q-Daffy's demise.

    And they get : ISIS --

    Wow, just wow -- From Charybdis to Scylla! The Pax Americana way.

    trader1

    we came, we saw, ...

    TeaClipper

    So that is what Obama meant when he commended the Libyans on their three years of independence

    http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/09/28/obama-boasts-libya...

    replaceme

    We came, we saw, he died. Hillary C

    She was secretary of state, which makes her ever so qualified to be commander in chief. Just look at her resume - ISIS in Libya, ISIS in Syria, ISIS in Iraq. If her goal was to spread ISIS, then she's the balls. If not, she's less than balls. As I say that, maybe the goal really was to spread ISIS, and she's the balls. Balls, Hill, you're the balls.

    RevIdahoSpud3

    I don't see the problem here. It was none other than a former Secretary of State who recited, "We came, we saw, he DIED"! (cackle, cackle, cankles cackeling)That was the solution then and now, as has been shown over and over ISIS, IS, ISIL...ISOUR (US) asset! We trained, we funded, we unleashed! Our very own CIA has the plug and if they don't pull it all must be well? The new complication will be getting the oil to Turkey which would no doubt ship in Burak Erdogan's tankers. After refining in Turkey move it to Israel and blend with world supplies. Everyone gets rich! Erdogan's get rich, ISIS gets funded, Clinton Foundations get funded, Israel get rich, and special interests in the US, London, France, Germany, Switzerland...they all get rich as well. Stolen oil has higher octane!

    Duc888

    Good thing Hillary "fixed" Libya

    "We came, we saw , we killed" Yup, just the kinds of ASSHOLE we need for President.

    jldpc

    What a joke. If the US wanted to stop ISIS making money on selling oil which goes by tanker or pipeline, all they have to do is threaten destruction of same, and the insurers will shut it down overnight. No oil money = no more ISIS on the warpath. Simple. And best of all no American soldier's lives lost. Can you say CinC is a stupid shit? Or how about the oil brokers and end buyers? Even I could threaten their asses with serious shit and get them to stop. So could any of you. Guess what the USA is not serious about stopping them. Gee who could have figured that out on their own?

    BarkingCat

    Lets see if I understand the plan.

    Step 1) Secretly ferment dissent against the local government.

    Step 2) Push the dissent into armed rebellion.

    Step 3) Use governments reaction to get involve own military to protect civilians.

    Step 4) Protection of civilians as cover, the military attacks government's armed forces tipping the scales of conflict in favor of the rebellion.

    Step 5) Watch the rebells kill the leaders of the nation and take control.

    Step 6) Watch the nation fall into complete turmoil and become home to groups of terrorists and other barbarians.

    When steps above are completed and enough time has passed:

    Step 7) Use own military to bring peace to a troubled nation. Also take over anything that has value ....oil production for example.

    [Jan 05, 2016] Ukrainians say farewell to Soviet champagne as decommunisation law takes hold

    Was Shaun Walket "under influence" when he wrote this article. Renaming Soviet Champaign is necessary due to EU laws that prohibit infringement on French brand name, so "decommunization" is only part of the story.
    Of course history is written by winners and so far Galician nationalists are the winners, so they rewrite history according to their own ideology and preferences. But money for that will be paid by impoverished Ukrainians. In reality Ukraine is victim of US neoliberal push against Russia. Of course US neocons does not want to pay for the damage it inflicted. Now they own the country. Might makes right.
    Notable quotes:
    "... The achievements in a relatively short space of time once all the wars related to 1917 had ended, then in the 25 year period after the catastrophic loss following WW2 were incredible. ..."
    "... ....and it is impossible to answer if Britain would have recovered as quickly from WW2 as the Soviets if they had suffered the equivalent (10 million) or the US (25 million ) deaths during this time. ..."
    "... I'm beginning to recognise a familiar "Guardian euphmenism" touch there. Just like Syrian "moderate rebels" cause "controversy", as "some" of them call for jihad and eat people's hearts, and may have involved a massacre or two. ..."
    "... The East Ukrainians were disenfranchised with the Regime change in their country but instead of sending in negotiators, the Kiev government sent in tanks and armored personnel carriers. What a way to run a country, they must have been inspired ( or instructed) by the best Regime changers in the business, the USA. ..."
    "... Seeing as the Ukrainians hate the Communists and Lenin, I trust we can expect them to reverse measures enacted by the Communists e.g. return to Russia the regions moved into the Ukrainian Soviet Republic by Lenin in the 1920s. By the same token, they should probably give Galicia back to Poland. ..."
    "... And denounce the Communists gifting of Crimea to Ukraine in the 1950s... ..."
    "... Ukraine is a bit of the loosers aren't they.. borrow money from the EU to pay some relative or friend of those in Kyiv.. who just happens to own a sign, monument or statue company.. to bring about this ridiculously stupid change.. of 108 towns? They haven't got better things to do with whatever money they have?.. like take care of the needs of the people? ..."
    "... The old adage "patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel" comes readily to mind. Although perhaps "scoundrel" is too mild a word in this instance. ..."
    "... The subtle irony is that without suitable Stalinist role models, the mafia power-brokers running Ukraine in cahoots with their morally bankrupt western puppeteers haven't an ideological leg to stand on. Instead, Walker blathers on about how Dnipropetrovsk has, ahem, been re-branded as Dnipropetrovsk. Thanks Shaun. ..."
    "... Irrespective of whether or not its a good idea, there must be an EU grant somewhere that would compensate for the damage caused ..."
    "... ......EU does NOT want Ukraine, we can NOT afford yet another poverty stricken ex soviet country !! If our utterly useless leaders would ever consider this insanity because USA tells us to, and if EU pretends to be a democracy, there should at least be a European referendum on this matter; ..."
    "... obliterate the past and ideas by erasing the visible remnants will have the opposite effect to that desired particulary with the inquisitive youth and is so Talibanesque it's ludicrous. ..."
    "... What exactly is "the Soviet worldview"? If it means not accepting Fackelzug (torch parade) in your cities Nazi-style, then most people Russia definitely have it, and a good proportion of people in Ukraine, too. ..."
    "... If having the Soviet worldview means not accepting erasing history and collective memory and replacing it with some glorious but, unfortunately, fictitious history of the Ukrainian nation - yes, we certainly do have it. There are real achievements Ukrainians could be proud of - oh, Gosh, I forgot, they all involve Russian in one way or another, and that is, of course, unacceptable - otherwise that would be another manifestation of the Soviet worldview. Like we did it together, Russians and Ukrainians - can't get more Soviet than that. ..."
    "... The USSR and Soviet history and the Russian language no more belong to the post soviet Russian Federation than they do to Ukraine. Each country can keep or reject what it likes. ..."
    "... You want to claim the achievements - then you also claim the responsibilities as well. Ones don't go without the others. Either Ukraine, like Belorussia, is a part of the Russian/Soviet empires and is entitles to all their achievements as well as to all the faults or it is a long suffered colony of both and then it is entitled to none. Can't have it both ways. ..."
    "... In the entrance lobby to the Kiev RADA there was a portrait of Stephen Bandera - that was covered with a black silk shroud when Americans visited. Bandera was not a hero as he actively aided the NAZI in Auschwitz , Poles, Jews and Russians were his favourites. The Ukraine Government hasn't left its past behind, it's only trying to camouflage it, trying to appear civilized. ..."
    "... Ukrainian say farewall to Soviet things, but welcome Nazi stuff. Lovely. ..."
    "... Dishonest? In my visits to Ukraine after the US-instigated Nazi putsch I saw more and more Nazi symbolism sprayed all over the city. There was even a shrine to the fascist Bandera on Independence Square. ..."
    "... There is always a heavy paramilitary presence around main administrative buildings in Kiev - surprising that a regime that claims it came to power through a popular revolution should be scared of that same population. ..."
    "... It is totally bizarre that Ukrainian vandals would deface a statue of Lenin with with the motto, "I am the butcher of Ukraine" since he was the one who had made the Ukraine an independent political entity. ..."
    "... Allright democracy on the march. Overthrow elected governments with foreign backing (remember McCain at Maidan). Now you ban one of the largest opposition parties (in 2012 they got 6 percennt of the vote or 2.7 million votes) because they are traitors (that's the language they use) to the revolutionary Maidan government. While banning symbols and names they don't agree with by order of thought police and proclaiming Nazi collaborators as heroes. Just wait for the statues of Stepan Bandera to replace Lenin. The e.u and the rest of the west says nothing cause this is the kind of "democracy" they are fine with get bent hypocrites ..."
    "... In that poor retched shrinking country local street names is all the Coup Crowd in Kyiv can actually control. So they have campaigns, led by fascists, for changing the names of things. Meanwhile it has become impossible to find out if the nitwits still claim to be at war with Russia or not. ..."
    "... The author of this article neglects to mention that the Ukrainian laws are targeted both at Soviet and Nazi symbols. ..."
    "... As for the ww2 Ukrainian nationalists, most Ukrainians think of these groups poorly. The vast majority of Ukrainians fought on the Soviet side, and indeed made up more than one third of the Soviet army in ww2. Until recently, this was the source of pride and sorrow, just as in Russia. ..."
    "... I don't see anyone is stopping this, that guy on that transparent there is a nazi collaborator. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Weg-QnsTPs0 ..."
    "... The WWII history of the Ukraine is full of eye witness accounts of how the German armed forces had to step in to save Jews from Ukrainian savagery because they preferred to eliminate Jews systematically rather than by anarchistic savagery. And incidentally in Western Ukraine a greater proportion of people volunteered for Hitler's armed forces than in Germany proper. ..."
    "... You are wrong. There are numerous monuments dedicated to Stepan Bandera in Western Ukraine (at least in 20 towns). There are also numerous streets named after him. ..."
    "... Ukraine has bigger problems than street name changes! The IMF own the country it has lost it's sovereignty and has outsiders in its government as well as debts it cannot pay. ..."
    "... Ukraine wants to get rid of the Soviet past - well, then it has to be happy that Crimea is gone, for Crimea is the clearest vestige of the Soviet past having been "gifted" to Ukraine by the Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev over the objections of Crimea itself. Another vestige is as good as gone - Donbass, which agrees well with the removal of Lenin statutes, for it was Lenin himself who added Donbass to Ukraine in 1919. Stalin's legacy is next, which includes Western Ukraine and Transcarpathia. ..."
    "... Western media needs to address the economic mess in Ukraine. The name changing, marching and fist fights in Rada are a distraction. What happened in two years is an economic collapse. When is Guardian going to notice? ..."
    "... Who cares what they call their champagne----the Ukraine is dead, economically---- ..."
    "... The real issue with Ukrainian champagne is that as of Jan 1 it cannot be called "champagne". With EU Association Agreement, the word "champagne" is reserved for the French stuff. That is by far more important than some "soviet" name games. ..."
    "... Unfortunately there are many Ukrainians who think that 'restitution' will make them better off. They think that if Western people get rich (even Poles) that will be somehow good for Ukrainians as workers. It is low self-esteem combined with what can only be called servant mentality. The shouting and marching is there just to amuse, deep inside they all can't wait to serve. ..."
    Jan 04, 2016 | theguardian.com
    Benladan , 4 Jan 2016 19:12
    The Guardian is politely silent about of hundreds productions, level of education, population (52 millions in 1991, 42 in 2015), infrastructure and other "products from glorifying communism" which have heard "farewell" too...
    abecedadeda -> Benladan , 4 Jan 2016 19:42
    Like if there wasn't for communism then there wouldn't be productions, educated population or infrastructure? How did they manage do build all of that in Western Europe even without communism i am wondering...

    Communism f*cked up all natural relations and development and consequences are felt until these days.

    Also, Ukraine was Russian vassal until two years ago, so almost everything that happened after 1991 in Ukraine is in the responsibility of the same bolshevik-KGB cronies that were in power during official communism.

    Maybe it is a time to try to be a normal country like e.g. Czech republic or Slovenia are now (also ex-Bolshevik Moscow´s vassals) finally, even 25 years later, but better later than never.

    Benladan -> abecedadeda , 4 Jan 2016 20:09
    There is only little problem. Ukraine is not a Czech republic or Slovenia and even is not a Poland... Did you ever wondered why some countries live good as Germany, France, Poland, for example but some countries live bad? As South Africa when Europeans left it, Nigeria, Sudan... Why part of Ukraine was a captured by Poland but part of Poland never was captured by Ukraine? And why a you thinking that communism worse than capitalism, you even don't know how many was build in that time of communism.
    ruudvan -> abecedadeda , 4 Jan 2016 20:18
    Most of western Europe had about a 1000 year head start....so that is a nonsense comparison.

    The achievements in a relatively short space of time once all the wars related to 1917 had ended, then in the 25 year period after the catastrophic loss following WW2 were incredible.

    ....and it is impossible to answer if Britain would have recovered as quickly from WW2 as the Soviets if they had suffered the equivalent (10 million) or the US (25 million ) deaths during this time.

    abecedadeda -> Benladan , 4 Jan 2016 22:54
    Years from the end of ww2 to early 70s were golden ages of world economy and development. Almost all countries heavily affected by ww2 recovered very quickly (Northern France, Germany, Holland, Italy, Poland, Soviet union, Japan, South Korea (not North Korea though), because those were simply very good times (economically and technologically). That has nothing to do with ruling ideology.

    However, it was still much more done in capitalist countries (Japan, Germany, South Korea, Netherlands, Italy) than in communist. Just look at economically and culturally similar countries - look how much more developed was (and still is) Western Germany than Eastern Germany, Austria than Hungary, Finland than Estonia, South Korea than North Korea, Capitalist China (Taiwan) than Communist China...

    I think from just these comparisations you can conclude all. Communism (or rather bolshevik cronyism) was the break on general development. The fact that under bolshevism there were some dams constructed in Ukraine doesn't change anything.

    John Smith , 5 Jan 2016 01:10
    I'll give a simple explanation. Ukraine defaulted on Russian loan. No one would invest any monies there except IMF and they are also reluctant because they stopped their investments because of corruption
    Good luck.

    Shad O , 4 Jan 2016 23:51

    law has caused controversy, with many criticising an addendum which states that Ukrainian independence movements during the second world war some of which collaborated with the Nazis and were involved in massacres of Jews and Poles should be respected as "fighters for Ukrainian independence".

    I'm beginning to recognise a familiar "Guardian euphmenism" touch there. Just like Syrian "moderate rebels" cause "controversy", as "some" of them call for jihad and eat people's hearts, and may have involved a massacre or two.

    CommieWealth , 4 Jan 2016 23:50
    This rejection of the cultural and political heritage of the Soviet Union (and its flavour of communism) is understandable, many former soviet states have gone through a similar process. However both the timing (amidst a civil war) and the extent (banning peaceful political movements and expression) are questionable. However, I assume some nuances have been lost in translation. What is the Russian word they use for "decommunisation"? Do they say this or "desovietisation"? As for the temptation to compare with post WW2 denazification in Germany, didn't the Soviet Union undergo an equivalent process in rejection of Stalin's heritage (trial and execution of Beria for example) in the late 50s and early 60s?
    CommieWealth -> luckyjohn , 5 Jan 2016 01:20
    A civil war does not preclude Russian interference. Apologies if you are offended at my ignorance of the subtle differences between Ukrainian and Russian.

    Instead you follow events through dubious sources!!

    I only have the Guardian as my source, dubious indeed.
    HollyOldDog -> luckyjohn , 5 Jan 2016 01:20
    Ukraine = a border, no real identity at all.

    How Poroshenko wished that Russia had invaded but it never happened.

    The East Ukrainians were disenfranchised with the Regime change in their country but instead of sending in negotiators, the Kiev government sent in tanks and armored personnel carriers. What a way to run a country, they must have been inspired ( or instructed) by the best Regime changers in the business, the USA.

    gbg , 4 Jan 2016 23:35
    Seeing as the Ukrainians hate the Communists and Lenin, I trust we can expect them to reverse measures enacted by the Communists e.g. return to Russia the regions moved into the Ukrainian Soviet Republic by Lenin in the 1920s. By the same token, they should probably give Galicia back to Poland.
    Bosula -> jgbg 5 , Jan 2016 00:42
    And denounce the Communists gifting of Crimea to Ukraine in the 1950s...
    AGuenther , 4 Jan 2016 22:47
    Ukraine is a bit of the loosers aren't they.. borrow money from the EU to pay some relative or friend of those in Kyiv.. who just happens to own a sign, monument or statue company.. to bring about this ridiculously stupid change.. of 108 towns? They haven't got better things to do with whatever money they have?.. like take care of the needs of the people?
    ID125064 -> AGuenther , 4 Jan 2016 23:01

    And the longer this goes on the stronger Ukrainian identity becomes - symbolism is important.

    Bosula -> ID125064 , 5 Jan 2016 00:43
    Partially based on fascist support for Hitler in WW2 and the murder of Jews and Poles?
    hcm1975 , 4 Jan 2016 22:41
    The old adage "patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel" comes readily to mind. Although perhaps "scoundrel" is too mild a word in this instance.
    Mark Court , 4 Jan 2016 22:39
    An incredibly weak article by one of the usual suspects. Walker confuses capitalist re-branding and renaming with de-communisation, a bizarre term he has dreamt up, just like de-nazification.

    Presumably, when the Marathon brand of chocolate bars were re-baptised Snickers, they were "de-communised" in the process. The subtle irony is that without suitable Stalinist role models, the mafia power-brokers running Ukraine in cahoots with their morally bankrupt western puppeteers haven't an ideological leg to stand on. Instead, Walker blathers on about how Dnipropetrovsk has, ahem, been re-branded as Dnipropetrovsk. Thanks Shaun.

    La urence Johnson , 4 Jan 2016 22:39
    Irrespective of whether or not its a good idea, there must be an EU grant somewhere that would compensate for the damage caused . The Kiev government simply do not understand that in becoming members of the EU it is no good holding out the begging bowl. They need to become far more creative and hire in some experts to advise on the trillions of Euro's Ukraine could receive in grant aid. New railways, roads, bridges, hospitals, schools, are all simply a few forms away from becoming a reality.
    frombrussels -> Laurence Johnson , 4 Jan 2016 23:24
    ......EU does NOT want Ukraine, we can NOT afford yet another poverty stricken ex soviet country !! If our utterly useless leaders would ever consider this insanity because USA tells us to, and if EU pretends to be a democracy, there should at least be a European referendum on this matter; the answer would be clear : NO WAY jose --
    John Smith -> Laurence Johnson , 5 Jan 2016 01:14
    The latest answer from the EU was: " We aren't ready, they aren't ready"
    Optimistic one for sure ))
    DiplomaticImmunity , 4 Jan 2016 22:06
    The same coat Baroness Ashton wore in February 2014 contains the same belt that now chokes the Kiev puppet government to death. "Glory to Ukraine", yeah ? Oki Doki. No problem. Good luck --
    CapeBill , 4 Jan 2016 21:35
    I can only imagine the destruction and/or defacement of many beautiful buildings and structures that will be occurring throughout Ukraine. Many of the metro stations in Kiev will be butchered.
    Valencia1984 , 4 Jan 2016 21:32
    obliterate the past and ideas by erasing the visible remnants will have the opposite effect to that desired particulary with the inquisitive youth and is so Talibanesque it's ludicrous.

    In Spain, Italy, etc, taking down the dictators' statues, renaming streets, etc has not got rid of fascists and their thinking at all. Besides, the Ukies can't afford it and have they never heard of the sex pistols et al?

    MichaelA12 -> Valencia1984 , 4 Jan 2016 21:41
    They are just using the same methods to get rid of the Soviet names as were used to impose them in the first place, except without the shootings, torture, deportations and mass-starvation.
    EugeneGur , 4 Jan 2016 21:31

    Ersatz champagne with the "Soviet" brand name has been produced since 1937 . . . It is a popular drink on New Year's Eve and at other celebrations, and comes in sweet, semi-sweet and dry versions – and at a fraction of the price of real champagne.

    It is not ersatz at all - it is perfectly real and is made in the real methode champenoise . The best champaign is made, of course, in Crimea. There is place there, Novyi Svet (New World) where the Champaign factory makes collection Bruts that can compete with the best of them and are still inexpensive by comparison with the French stuff.

    the younger generation who were born after the Soviet Union collapsed, but they are absolutely Soviet and have a totally Soviet world view."

    What exactly is "the Soviet worldview"? If it means not accepting Fackelzug (torch parade) in your cities Nazi-style, then most people Russia definitely have it, and a good proportion of people in Ukraine, too.

    If having the Soviet worldview means not accepting erasing history and collective memory and replacing it with some glorious but, unfortunately, fictitious history of the Ukrainian nation - yes, we certainly do have it. There are real achievements Ukrainians could be proud of - oh, Gosh, I forgot, they all involve Russian in one way or another, and that is, of course, unacceptable - otherwise that would be another manifestation of the Soviet worldview. Like we did it together, Russians and Ukrainians - can't get more Soviet than that.

    Putzik -> EugeneGur , 4 Jan 2016 21:51
    The USSR and Soviet history and the Russian language no more belong to the post soviet Russian Federation than they do to Ukraine. Each country can keep or reject what it likes.

    But to claim all tsarist and Soviet achievements as somehow the property of today's Russian Federation, is nothing more than lies and theft.

    The Russian Federation is, like Ukraine, Belarus and Tajikistan, only25 years old, and just another splinter of the tsarist and Soviet empires.

    EugeneGur -> Putzik , 4 Jan 2016 22:18

    Each country can keep or reject what it likes.

    The history is the history - it's not for anybody to chose it. What happened happened, and there is nothing anybody can do about it.

    Like Germany, for example, can say that the Nazi past never happened - just reject it like that, and that it? Say, Holocaust never happened because we don't like it? It doesn't work that way, my dear.

    But to claim all tsarist and Soviet achievements as somehow the property of today's Russian Federation, is nothing more than lies and theft

    You want to claim the achievements - then you also claim the responsibilities as well. Ones don't go without the others. Either Ukraine, like Belorussia, is a part of the Russian/Soviet empires and is entitles to all their achievements as well as to all the faults or it is a long suffered colony of both and then it is entitled to none. Can't have it both ways.
    HollyOldDog -> Putzik , 5 Jan 2016 01:56
    In the entrance lobby to the Kiev RADA there was a portrait of Stephen Bandera - that was covered with a black silk shroud when Americans visited. Bandera was not a hero as he actively aided the NAZI in Auschwitz , Poles, Jews and Russians were his favourites. The Ukraine Government hasn't left its past behind, it's only trying to camouflage it, trying to appear civilized.
    Putzik -> HollyOldDog , 5 Jan 2016 02:25
    You are rehashing the contemporary Russian propaganda line. The political parties supporting Bandera erc are less popular in Ukraine than UKIP in the UK and the National Front in France.

    There may well have been, for a narrow period of time a photo of Bandera during the Maidan. So what? People have been carting around portraits of Stalin for the last 25 years.

    Are you seriously suggesting Bandera is worse than Stalin, or that the current Ukrainian govt is run by Nazis? If you are, then I respectfully suggest you are doing so in a conscious effort to discredit Ukraine in Western media.

    laticsfanfromeurope, 4 Jan 2016 21:30
    Ukrainian say farewall to Soviet things, but welcome Nazi stuff. Lovely.
    rasquera -> laticsfanfromeurope , 4 Jan 2016 22:03
    What a vile, dishonest remark. But, of course, you think the Soviets were not as bad as the Na*is.
    TomFullery -> rasquera , 4 Jan 2016 22:23
    Dishonest? In my visits to Ukraine after the US-instigated Nazi putsch I saw more and more Nazi symbolism sprayed all over the city. There was even a shrine to the fascist Bandera on Independence Square.

    There is always a heavy paramilitary presence around main administrative buildings in Kiev - surprising that a regime that claims it came to power through a popular revolution should be scared of that same population.

    Gary Robinson , 4 Jan 2016 21:16
    Probably passed the laws after "a good old book burning", nothing like the rewriting of history. Next they will be rehabilitating the Ukrainians who fought for the Nazis and staffed the concentration camps.
    Luschnig , 4 Jan 2016 20:52
    It is totally bizarre that Ukrainian vandals would deface a statue of Lenin with with the motto, "I am the butcher of Ukraine" since he was the one who had made the Ukraine an independent political entity.
    Gtardkgb , 4 Jan 2016 20:22
    Allright democracy on the march. Overthrow elected governments with foreign backing (remember McCain at Maidan). Now you ban one of the largest opposition parties (in 2012 they got 6 percennt of the vote or 2.7 million votes) because they are traitors (that's the language they use) to the revolutionary Maidan government. While banning symbols and names they don't agree with by order of thought police and proclaiming Nazi collaborators as heroes. Just wait for the statues of Stepan Bandera to replace Lenin. The e.u and the rest of the west says nothing cause this is the kind of "democracy" they are fine with get bent hypocrites
    Babeouf , 4 Jan 2016 20:20
    In that poor retched shrinking country local street names is all the Coup Crowd in Kyiv can actually control. So they have campaigns, led by fascists, for changing the names of things. Meanwhile it has become impossible to find out if the nitwits still claim to be at war with Russia or not.
    Putzik , 4 Jan 2016 20:20
    The author of this article neglects to mention that the Ukrainian laws are targeted both at Soviet and Nazi symbols.

    See: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2015/06/ukraine-anti-communist-laws-stir-controversy-150601054437645.html

    As for the ww2 Ukrainian nationalists, most Ukrainians think of these groups poorly. The vast majority of Ukrainians fought on the Soviet side, and indeed made up more than one third of the Soviet army in ww2. Until recently, this was the source of pride and sorrow, just as in Russia.

    So, It is wrong to think of Soviet past as being somehow foreign to Ukraine. But that is now all ancient history. And the Soviet past is also Ukraine's to reject.

    There is a military invasion of Ukraine by Russia. Communist symbols are actively used to mobilise Russian fighters and domestic terrorists on Ukrainian territory. with the aim of destroying the territorial integrity of Ukraine.

    I note in this regard that ISIS symbols are similarly banned in many high income liberal democracies.

    http://m.christianpost.com/news/germany-bans-islamic-state-propaganda-symbols-and-activities-126450 /

    John Smith -> Putzik , 4 Jan 2016 20:44
    I don't see anyone is stopping this, that guy on that transparent there is a nazi collaborator. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Weg-QnsTPs0
    Luschnig -> Putzik , 4 Jan 2016 21:02
    The WWII history of the Ukraine is full of eye witness accounts of how the German armed forces had to step in to save Jews from Ukrainian savagery because they preferred to eliminate Jews systematically rather than by anarchistic savagery. And incidentally in Western Ukraine a greater proportion of people volunteered for Hitler's armed forces than in Germany proper.
    mmmhhh888 -> Putzik , 4 Jan 2016 21:09
    You are wrong. There are numerous monuments dedicated to Stepan Bandera in Western Ukraine (at least in 20 towns). There are also numerous streets named after him.

    Quite a different situation is in Eastern Ukraine which hates Bandera and which has always weighed toward Russia - that's why that country cannot exist as one entity.

    slorter , 4 Jan 2016 20:19
    Ukraine has bigger problems than street name changes! The IMF own the country it has lost it's sovereignty and has outsiders in its government as well as debts it cannot pay.
    lkongo , 4 Jan 2016 19:52
    Dnipropetrovsk was Ekaterinoslav before Communist rule. Off course, Ukraine would not revert to original name, as it points to Katherine the Great.
    1917bolche , 4 Jan 2016 19:48
    Nothing about the expiration of the deadline to fulfill the Minsk agreement compromises? The Ukranian government has failed to implement two very important ones: dialogue with the rebel leaders and giving some degree of autonomy to Donetsk and Lugansk. I think that's rather more serious than the champagne news but I have hardly seen any reflection on that subject in the Press.
    wellmyword , 4 Jan 2016 19:44
    Flip, I just spent ages writing something and my computer crashed. Bloody computers.

    Haven't they got anything better to do?

    The Ukranian Communists are meant to be a small and marginalised grouping of pensioners. Why pick on them?

    Anti-Stalinism. Now, that would be much better. Anti right wing militias, that would be just as good. Saying goodbye to existing despots, that gets my vote.

    Free social health care, now that would be even better still.

    If Holly Old Dog is online, not that I've actually checked, I'm not American.

    Don't like UKIP don't like Le Penn but do like the EU.

    How controversial. No, not really.

    EugeneGur , 4 Jan 2016 19:40
    Ukraine wants to get rid of the Soviet past - well, then it has to be happy that Crimea is gone, for Crimea is the clearest vestige of the Soviet past having been "gifted" to Ukraine by the Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev over the objections of Crimea itself. Another vestige is as good as gone - Donbass, which agrees well with the removal of Lenin statutes, for it was Lenin himself who added Donbass to Ukraine in 1919. Stalin's legacy is next, which includes Western Ukraine and Transcarpathia.

    Many of those in eastern cities who are pro-Kiev are uneasy about Ukrainian nationalist heroes

    Trust the Guardian to find a very delicate turn of phrase - uneasy . Come on, those in Easter Ukraine hate their guts. Easter Ukraine hates Bandera and "banderovtsi" much more than Russia does. And for a good reason: they did not operate much in Russia but a lot in Ukraine, Belorussia and eastern Europe, where they killed thousands.

    This past New Year's Eve marked the last time Ukrainians could pop open "Soviet champagne"

    Poor Ukrainians. Now they are told what to drink, what language to speak, what songs to sing, what movies to watch, what holidays to celebrate, what fairy tales to tell their children. True European freedom finally has arrived as opposed to the Soviet totalitarian regime that somehow in Ukraine alone lasted 25 years past the existence of the Soviet Union.

    BTW Artemovsk they want to rename so much is the site of a Champaign factory that used to make famous "Artemovsky" Champaign. I am not sure it's still operational but if it is, what would it be called now? The factory is yet another soviet "vestige" and did not exist in the "Bakhmut" times.

    John Smith -> caliento , 4 Jan 2016 20:28
    Putin is busy with his Turkish friends now anyway, his current mission is to deprive Russians of all their traditional holiday destinations:

    Georgia - complete
    Ukrainian Black sea - complete
    Egypt - Done
    Turkey - In progress

    Benladan , 4 Jan 2016 19:12
    The Guardian is politely silent about of hundreds productions, level of education, population (52 millions in 1991, 42 in 2015), infrastructure and other "products from glorifying communism" which have heard "farewell" too
    Beckow , 4 Jan 2016 18:47
    Western media needs to address the economic mess in Ukraine. The name changing, marching and fist fights in Rada are a distraction. What happened in two years is an economic collapse. When is Guardian going to notice?
    vr13vr , 4 Jan 2016 18:39

    Are they removing the monuments to the same Lenin who created the first state of Ukraine? Whey are weird bunch, those Ukrainians.

    Canigou , 4 Jan 2016 18:30
    Who cares what they call their champagne----the Ukraine is dead, economically----

    http://www.unz.com/akarlin/ukraine-economic-collapse /

    eckow , 4 Jan 2016 18:26
    The real issue with Ukrainian champagne is that as of Jan 1 it cannot be called "champagne". With EU Association Agreement, the word "champagne" is reserved for the French stuff. That is by far more important than some "soviet" name games.

    In the same way Ukrainian "cognac" cannot use the term cognac. There are hundreds of others. EU AA means following the EU rules. It also means that EU can export to Ukraine at will. Given that Ukraine doesn't have much to sell to EU this will mean additional collapse in Ukr economy. The current markets in Russia are now closed.

    Who is running Kiev? Do these people know math and have map? Or is there knowledge limited to knowing where to find a ticket to get out?

    BMWAlbert -> Beckow , 4 Jan 2016 19:32
    Just wait for the PL restitution proceedings in Lviv-Lwow-Lemberg....that will be interesting.
    Beckow -> BMWAlbert , 4 Jan 2016 20:45
    Unfortunately there are many Ukrainians who think that 'restitution' will make them better off. They think that if Western people get rich (even Poles) that will be somehow good for Ukrainians as workers. It is low self-esteem combined with what can only be called servant mentality. The shouting and marching is there just to amuse, deep inside they all can't wait to serve.
    DiplomaticImmunity -> Beckow , 4 Jan 2016 22:28
    Brilliant and insightful.

    Thank you.

    Hanwell123 , 4 Jan 2016 18:11
    How does a one party state get so close to the EU? It relies on massive loans from the IMF and EU but by all accounts is regarded, not least by its own citizens, to be getting more corrupt not less. A million are seeking Nationality in Poland to escape inflation set to be 44% this year as wages and jobs crash. Visa free travel to the EU in October might ease the internal pressure. The trade agreement with the EU is another blow to European agriculture, this time in grain, as surplus products flood the market along with even cheaper Turkish fruit and vegetables following their exclusion from the Russian market. One wonders whether the EU ever regrets putting this government in power?
    Jonathan Stromberg -> Kata L , 4 Jan 2016 19:56
    Ukraine's De-communization laws were made by people with their own agenda and they are arguably a dark spot on Ukraine's striving towards some form of functional democracy. Saying that, when it comes to phony parties like the "Communist Party" of Ukraine, it is pretty hard to give a crap.

    On the plus side, this anti-Communist law will put an end to corrupt, phony parties using the Communist name and symbols for their own benefit. Any Communist-style party that exists in Ukraine now will have to be genuine.

    [Jan 05, 2016] http://www.unz.com/akarlin/new-year-predictions-for-2016/

    www.unz.com
    And make no doubt about it – a collapse is exactly what it is, and it afflicts way more of the country than just the war-wracked Donbass. Ukraine now vies with Moldova for the country with the lowest average wages in Europe.

    Gabon with snow ? Saakashvili is hopelessly optimistic. That would actually be a big improvement!

    GDP is at 60% of its 1990 Level

    ukraine-gdp-1990-2015

    As of this year, the country with the most pro-Western revolutions is also the poorest performing post-Soviet economy bar none. This is a not unimpressive achievement considering outcomes here have tended to disappoint rather than elate. Russia itself, current GDP at about 110% of its 1990 level, has nothing to write home about (though "statist" Belarus, defying neoliberal conventional wisdom, at a very respectable 200% does have something to boast about).

    Back in 2010 , although by far the worst performing heavily industrialized Soviet economy, Ukraine was still performing better relative to its position in 1990 than Moldova, Tajikistan, and Georgia. In the intervening 5 years – with a 7% GDP decline in 2014 which has widened to a projected 9% in 2015 – Ukraine has managed to slip to rock bottom .

    How does this look like on a more human level?

    Housing Construction is Similar to That of 5 Million Population Russian Provinces

    housing-construction-russia-ukraine-in-2014

    With a quarter of its population, Belarus is constructing as much new accomodation as is Ukraine. 16 million strong Kazakhstan is building more. Russia – more than ten times as much, even though it has less than four times as many people.

    The seaside Russian province of Krasnodar Krai, which hosted the Sochi Winter Olympics, with its 5 million inhabitants, is still constructing more than half as much housing as all of Ukraine. No wonder the Crimeans were so eager to leave.

    New Vehicle Sales Collapse to 1960s Levels

    ukraine-automobile-sales

    The USSR might have famously concentrated on guns over butter, yet even so, even in terms of an item as infamously difficult to acquire as cars under socialism, Ukrainian consumers were better off during the 1970-1990 period than today. Now Ukrainians are buying as few new cars as they were doing in the catastrophic 1990s, and fewer even than during the depth of the 2009 recession.

    And even so many Maidanists continue to giggle at "sovoks" and "vatniks." Well, at least they now make up for having even less butter than before with the Azovets "innovative tank." Armatas are quaking in fear looking at that thing.

    Debt to GDP Ratio at Critical Levels

    ukraine-debt-to-gdp-ratio

    And this figure would have risen further to around 100% this year.

    Note that 60% is usually considered to be the critical danger zone for emerging market economies. This is the approximate level at which both Russia and Argentina fell into their respective sovereign debt crises.

    To be fair, the IMF has indicated it will be partial to flouting its own rules to keep Ukraine afloat, which is not too surprising since it is ultimately a tool of Western geopolitical influence. And if as projected the Ukrainian economy begins to recover this year, then there is a fair chance that crisis will ultimately be averted.

    But it will be a close shave, and so long as the "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" oligarchs who rule Ukraine continue siphoning off money by the billions to their offshore accounts with impunity, nothing can be ruled out.

    Resumption of Demographic Collapse

    ukraine-crude-birth-rate-1988-2015

    Much like the rest of the post-Soviet Slavic world, Russia had a disastrous 1990s in demographic terms, when mortality rates soared and birth rates plummeted. But like Russia – if to a lesser extent – it has since staged a modest recovery, incidentally with the help of a Russian-style "maternal capital" program. In 2008, it reached a plateau in birth rates, which was not significantly uninterrupted by the 2009 recession.

    Since then, however, they have plummeted – exactly nine months after the February 2014 coup. The discreteness with which this happened together with the fact that the revolt in the Donbass took a further couple of months to get going after the coup proper implies that this fertility decline was likely a direct reaction to the Maidan and what it portended for the future.

    This collapse is very noticeable even after you completely remove all traces of Crimea, Donetsk, and Lugansk oblasts which might otherwise muddy the waters (naturally, the demographic crisis in all its aspects has been much worse in the region that bore the brunt of Maidanist chiliastic fervor). Here are the Ukrstat figures for births and deaths in the first ten months of 2013, 2014, and 2015:

    Births Deaths
    2013 350658 441331
    2014 354622 445236
    2015 329308 450763

    Furthermore, this period has seen a huge wave of emigration. Figures can only be guesstimated, but it is safe to say they are well over a million to both Russia and the EU.

    The effects of this will continue to be felt long after any semblance of normalcy returns to Ukraine.

    [Jan 04, 2016] MH17 crash: Dutch investigators to assess new study implicating Russian soldiers

    Agence-France Press an article of which that Guardian dutifully reproduced really lost their heads in anti-Russian hysteria if they cite Bellingcat as a source of information for investigators. Bellingcat is a propaganda outlet and would be discarded as a source of information by anybody with at least high school education. It would be funny if it is not so tragic. By propagating this propagna outlet nonsense they just reveal their real position and aversion to truth. Welcome to Ministry of Truth, this type in NATO incarnation.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Bellendcrap more like, a bunch of nutjobs with prejudice aforethought decide to trawl the web for claptrap that support their daft notions. The Dutch authorities should not pander to groups such as these and keep in mind that history can be a cruel judge. ..."
    "... Yep, Belling cat seems to be the Langley paper boy on this one. All their sat info and high res pics just turned out to be no match for a Google search! Uncle Sam just took their target audience to be truly dumb and dumbed down... ..."
    "... Yes US relying on Bellingcat and other social media. The US have not submitted their reports. The Kiev regime either; they sit on the records in the control tower. ..."
    "... NATO ships and aircraft had the Donetsk and Luhansk regions under total radar and electronic surveillance whilst they had a 10-day exercise code named BREEZE 2014 in Black Sea. The exercise, which included the use of electronic warfare and electronic intelligence aircraft such as the Boeing EA-18G Growler and the Boeing E3 Sentry Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS), coincided with the shoot down of Malaysian Airlines Flight 17 in eastern Ukraine, some 40 miles from the Russian border. The U.S. Army has revealed that the 10-day exercise involved commercial traffic monitoring . It can be assumed that commercial traffic monitoring included monitoring the track of MH-17. ..."
    "... The essential problem is that people say when you look at the media this is an investigation led by the Dutch. Well in fact its not led by the Dutch. Its led by Ukrainian investigation together with the Dutch people. Its delegated from Kiev to the Netherlands for a period of a year. Why is it taking so long? It is taking so long because they are not finding what they were looking for. And that must be a BUK, a rocket installation from the separatist side. And they are not finding anything truthful about it . (Joost Niemoller, Dutch journalist) ..."
    Jan 04, 2016 | theguardian.com

    jbrewster911 , 4 Jan 2016 22:20

    Clear evidence of Ukrainian compliance in this murder - however expect Ukrainian failure to admit responsibility to continue endlessly. Stare organised terrorism, sabotage, default on debts, murder of political opponents & COVER-UP is a clear part of Ukrainian strategy. Concoction of outrageous stories to cover-up the murder is a part of Bellingcat strategy as well. Not only Ukraine didn't block the war zone airspace, its air traffic control directed the liner there to be shot down by a fighter waiting in in ambush. All that to simply point the finger at Russia.

    All those "investigations" are mere window dressing, and all the involved know it. That won't be the first time Ukraine shot down a civilian airliner either. They won't get away with 15 million compensation this time though.

    TonyBlunt 4 Jan 2016 18:36 6 7 At last the Kiev Government has, reluctantly, told us why it could not provide any radar data in the MH17 investigation. Because the Ukraine's two primary radar stations were down for repairs on the day MH17 came down. So why did they not tell us that a year and a half ago? Perhaps the LangleyBots can enlighten us.

    Still no excuse forthcoming on why Ukraine cannot provide their full air traffic control recordings. The ones the Ukrainian FSB siezed. Ah well. Maybe in a year or two.

    Manolo Torres , 4 Jan 2016 18:17

    This things can hardly be named citizen journalism. From wikipedia:

    In 2015, Higgins partnered with the Atlantic Council to co-author the report Hiding in Plain Sight: Putin's War in Ukraine which examined direct Russian military involvement in Ukraine.

    . In June 2015 on the invitation of former Belgium Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt, Higgins together with his report co-author Atlantic Council's Maks Czupersk i presented Hiding in Plain Sight at the European Parliament alongside Russian opposition figure Ilya Yashin and former Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov. [11]

    From wikipedia as well:

    In February 2009, James L. Jones, then-chairman of the Atlantic Council, stepped down in order to serve as President Obama's new National Security Advisor and was succeeded by Senator Chuck Hagel.[3] In addition, other Council members also left to serve the administration: Susan Rice as ambassador to the UN ,

    and Anne-Marie Slaughter as Director of Policy Planning at the State Department.

    Four years later, Hagel stepped down to serve as US Secretary of Defense.
    The Atlantic Council has influential supporters, with former NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen calling the Council a "pre-eminent think tank" with a "longstanding reputation", [5] .

    Surely a Russian "citizen journalist working with the Eurasian Integration council whose members have worked for the Russian minister of defense and the FSB would not be referred as a citizen journalism anywhere.

    TonyBlunt -> psygone , 4 Jan 2016 18:27
    "The investigation is complete"

    No so Psygone. The criminal investigation in Australia - that will affect compensation payments - thinks the Dutch crash investigation inadequate. See below.

    TonyBlunt 4 Jan 2016 16:48
    The Australian and Dutch government now are accusing the Ukrainian FSB of hiding the radar data. Link to article in the Dutch media proving such:

    http://www.nltimes.nl/2015/12/24/mh17-investigators-ukraine-russia-refuse-to-provide-radar-images /

    According to the Dutch Safety Board, Russia and the Ukraine refuse to provide vital images of the MH17 disaster stating that they were "erased" or that are no images due to "maintenance", the Telegraaf reports.

    Safety Board spokesperson Wim van der Weegen told the newspaper that the Ukrainian authorities informed them that the primary radar stations were not working on the day of the crash, July 14th last year, due to routine maintenance.

    Refusing to hand over these images may well hamper the criminal investigation into who is responsible for the downing of the Malaysia Airlines flight.

    According to the newspaper, defense and criminal law experts call the countries actions unbelievable and suspicious.

    The headline is intentionally misleading. It is Ukraine that now says the radar data was erased due to maintenance, not Russia. Russia has complied fully already and released a fully radar data presentation on July 21st, 2014. The real story here is that Safety Board spokesperson Wim van der Weegen told the newspaper that the Ukrainian authorities informed them that the primary radar stations were not working on the day of the crash, July 14th last year, due to routine maintenance. Ukraine is hiding the truth. Link to Russian radar presentation from 4 days after MH-17 was shot down. To watch the full Russian radar presentation simply Google the phrase " Russian Ministry of Defence Briefing on MH-17 Boeing 777"

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKCaEmvhr6w

    http://investmentwatchblog.com/mh17-australia-say-russia-not-to-blame-evidence-tampered-with

    The official Australian investigation into the cause of the crash of Malaysian Airlines MH17 have accused the Dutch Safety Board (DSB) of failing to provide "conclusive evidence" of what exactly destroyed the aircraft, and say that Russia did not shoot down the plane despite accusations to the contrary from DSB.

    The senior Australian policeman investigating the MH17 crash, Detective Superintendent Andrew Donoghue, testified in an international court recently saying that a "tougher standard than the DSB report" is required before the criminal investigation can identify the weapon that caused the crash. Donoghue also testified that ten months after the crash, only half of the planes fuselage fragments were handed over for inspection and that "some fragments were not consistent with debris of the aircraft".

    technotherapy -> Alderbaran, 4 Jan 2016 16:33

    Having found a link to the heights of aircraft shot down over Eastern Ukraine prior to the downing of MH17,

    You haven't. You've found a graphic that show the service ceiling for the aircraft, not the height they were at when they were shot down. For example it shows MH17 at 43000 feet - it was shot down at FL330 (33000 ft).

    I had not realized until now that in month prior to the downing of MH17, a transport plane was shot down at nearly 40,000 feet.

    Thats because its not true. See above.

    With that sort of critical analysis and attention to detail, maybe you should consider working for bellingcat?

    John Smith -> Alderbaran , 4 Jan 2016 16:42
    You're looking at the wrong sources Alderbaran. That Ilyushin was shot down on a landing approach at the Lugansk airport. That AN-26 was also in a range of MANPADS and there is a video of that shot down and there is no characteristic BUK ( or other powerful missile) trail on it. There is also a video available with an interview with one of the survived crew members. They were delivering supplies to encircled troops at the border and you can hardly drop those from higher than 3000-4000 ft.

    You have misjudged that graphic that is showing the service ceiling of those aircraft and not an altitude where they were hit (which is also wrong, Su-25 has a ceiling of 10.000 m or 33.000 ft).

    Ian Rutherford -> truk10 , 4 Jan 2016 14:31

    "Everyone, apart from a few lost souls, now accept that a Russian BUK missile system brought down MH17 and we are at the stage of identifying the crew members."

    Everyone who had time to look into it properly now accepts that it was an old model of Buk which was manufactured in Ukraine and was no longer in possession of the Russian Army.

    It is also a common knowledge that the original "evidence" provided by "Bellingcat" amounts to nothing more than a baseless speculation.

    Nice try anyway, "truk" ..

    By the way, what is your real name ..

    LordMurphy , 4 Jan 2016 13:17

    Bellendcrap more like, a bunch of nutjobs with prejudice aforethought decide to trawl the web for claptrap that support their daft notions. The Dutch authorities should not pander to groups such as these and keep in mind that history can be a cruel judge.

    madeiranlotuseater, 4 Jan 2016 12:33

    I am still surprised that Uncle Sam has not produced some sharp, detailed images of the border. When they want to, they can but this time no. Bellingcat seems to enjoy doing this research but it all comes out like some Robert Ludlum novel.

    ID075732 -> madeiranlotuseater, 4 Jan 2016 12:45

    Yep, Belling cat seems to be the Langley paper boy on this one. All their sat info and high res pics just turned out to be no match for a Google search! Uncle Sam just took their target audience to be truly dumb and dumbed down...

    SHappens -> madeiranlotuseater, 4 Jan 2016 12:46

    Yes US relying on Bellingcat and other social media. The US have not submitted their reports. The Kiev regime either; they sit on the records in the control tower.

    Consider this:

    NATO ships and aircraft had the Donetsk and Luhansk regions under total radar and electronic surveillance whilst they had a 10-day exercise code named BREEZE 2014 in Black Sea. The exercise, which included the use of electronic warfare and electronic intelligence aircraft such as the Boeing EA-18G Growler and the Boeing E3 Sentry Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS), coincided with the shoot down of Malaysian Airlines Flight 17 in eastern Ukraine, some 40 miles from the Russian border. The U.S. Army has revealed that the 10-day exercise involved "commercial traffic monitoring". It can be assumed that commercial traffic monitoring included monitoring the track of MH-17.

    Since March 2014, NATO Boeing Awacs were over Ukraine checking every aerial and ground movements and intercepting all the communications and electronic signals. Thanks to these abilities three Boeing Awacs are enough for controlling the whole Central Europe.
    Yet they have not individualized the missile responsible for the downing of MH17. And it has not sensed the electronic wake of the radar which has hooked the flight either. As blind and deaf were the CIA satellites. Yet the same satellites had previously photographed a column of three tanks T64 and other weapons at the border between Russia and Ukraine.

    It is thus legitimate to wonder how come the Americans, so prompt to photograph and to follow the movements of three antiquated tank T64 at the time, had let escaped or had not documented the passage, strategically more remarkable, of a missile system.

    The Dutch reports says:

    "The crash of flight MH17 on 17 July 2014 was caused by the detonation of a 9N314M-type warhead launched from the eastern part of Ukraine using a Buk missile system. So says the investigation report published by the Dutch Safety Board today. Moreover, it is clear that Ukraine already had sufficient reason to close the airspace over the eastern part of Ukraine as a precaution before 17 July 2014. None of the parties involved recognised the risk posed to overflying civil aircraft by the armed conflict in the eastern part of Ukraine."

    "The essential problem is that people say when you look at the media this is an investigation led by the Dutch. Well in fact it's not led by the Dutch. It's led by Ukrainian investigation together with the Dutch people. It's delegated from Kiev to the Netherlands for a period of a year. Why is it taking so long? It is taking so long because they are not finding what they were looking for. And that must be a BUK, a rocket installation from the separatist side. And they are not finding anything truthful about it". (Joost Niemoller, Dutch journalist)

    Moreover when two countries, either part of the investigation primary panel, or of the advisory panel, both shot a civilian plane and never apologized for it, both actively participate in killing civilians in the Donbass, concerns can arise as to their reliability and impartiality in such an inquiry. And there is the infamous non disclosure deal, that is that these countries are not obliged to communicate all of their findings, and on top they neglected most Russian's material provided to them.

    The Commission demonstrated its incompetence by the fact of not having sent experts on, not having secured the area immediately to the investigation, it had not brought any of all the pieces of the plane to reconstruct and visualize how the carcass was touched. And the Ukrainian army was bombing the area.

    How can you then believe this inquiry is not biased ? You cant. The US satellite were active over the Donbass the day the flight was hit, yet the US refuse to show the images proving their claim that Russia is guilty, like the Ukrainians dont relaese their ATC.

    prayle , 4 Jan 2016 10:53

    Spiegel was bitten quoting Bellingcat - surprised TheGuardian would follow their footsteps:

    http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/spiegelblog/bellingcat-bericht-zu-mh17-was-wir-lernen-a-1037135.html

    oddballs 4 Jan 2016 10:47

    Sometimes readers comments give information that offer insight into the many questions still left unanswered into the circumstances surrounding the downing of the aircraft MA 17' The points raised by Davie Macdonald is a good example of this.

    "Some points worth noting 26 February 2014 Russian Forces in Western Military Distract put on Alert That would have triggered NATO observation and comment > Confirmed

    US Spy satellites would have been more focused on the area >obvious

    Moving forward when MH17 was shot down claims were made through audio intercepts the Separatists ( Alexander Khodakovsky of the Vostok Battalion) had done the downing and boasted.

    Then later is was claimed Strelkov admitted it. later and it was an error. . Some three days later as these transcripts was proved fake.

    Higgins and the Ukraine Government immediately claimed it was the 18 infantry Brigade. This didn't exist in the Russian Western Military District . In desperation a picture was then posted of a Russian selfie with BUK 312 by Higgins proving Russian involvement It very soon proved to be a Ukrainian soldier and Ukrainian Buk.

    By September 2014 the claims were being made that it was 53rd Brigade which is also interesting because that is not (for the forensically accurate Higgins claims he is) Is actually 53rd Anti-Aircraft Rocket Brigade.

    Now the only heresay we are given is by Higgins. It has already been clearly established that the BUK unit as claimed was 312 and in Ukraine army possession Can you really imagine this vehicle would have been driven to and from a site that was a battlefield in broad daylight ? Afterall the Ukraine has its airforce.

    As for the first claimed launch field where it was supposedly fired from on July 17 you will

    1) find no evidence of burnt grass Higgins faked a Google Earth map

    2) It was as pointed out in one of my other responses an battler field ebbing and flowing

    3) Higgins claims it was a bright sunny day to show a Buk plume when it was in fact overcast see initial and final DSB report

    4) BUK M1 cannot fire accurately at a target sight unseen and seen It still requires in simple terms the acquisition target Radar unit to guide missile....which when reaching target is designed not to hit but explode above the target.

    The DSB report does not show this and only one BUK Bowtie missile shard (there are 8,000 in missile) was found in the wreckage along with a stabilizer fin, engine exhaust manifold. Only one person found this material a Dutch Journalist Julian Borger

    None were found by site investigators and the origin of another 2 allegedly found at the site is deemed classified. Even the Malaysians have not been given this information Why keep,it secret"
    Many people are convinced that the Russians were responsible, if they could 'answer Macdonalds questions it would go a long way in convincing me that they actually 'know' the truth

    ID075732 4 Jan 2016 10:35

    Investigative journalism old and new here's what Robert Parry winner of the J.f. Stone award for independent journalism has to say on the subject. https://consortiumnews.com/2015/10/20/mh-17-case-old-journalism-vs-new/

    [Expect some catcalling, wailing and nashing of teath from the bellingcat babes]

    John Smith 4 Jan 2016 10:08

    Oh please, no Bellingcat again.

    That Atlantic Council minion doesn't even know how the Russians and Ukrainians are marking their military hardware.

    sokolnik100 4 Jan 2016 09:57

    The sources for this include photos posted on the Internet and army data about personnel deployment that was available online, NOS said.

    Of course it must be true as it was "on the internet".

    Considering the the fact that each side to this saga routinely denounces contrary internet information as complete bollocks, how can the Guardian ascribe any credibility to this "study". Clearly, whilst all information is equal, some is more equal than other!

    SeeNOevilHearNOevil 4 Jan 2016 09:34

    BUK is a complex piece of weaponry, more so than your average T60/T72 tanks requiring a lot of lengthy training. They're not the sort of equipment provided to insurgent/rebels because of the threat they pose. If they did obtain one then it was more than likely crewed by actual trained Russian troops. In either case this was a genuine mistake and a tragedy as it happens in all warzones. The US shot down the Iranian Passenger plane in the 70s in far more dubious circumstanced and refused to even apologise for the ''mistake'' (leading many to believe it wasn't a mistake). Now if you think you'll find, trial and convict anyone for this mistake...good luck with it. You'll get about the same results as those Iranian families

    John Smith , SeeNOevilHearNOevil 4 Jan 2016 10:26

    If someone uses some logic, why would they (The Russians) give that BUK to the militia? There wasn't any need for that because they're doing pretty well with MANPADS, they didn't have any needs to hit high flying aeroplanes.

    The second thing, if some aeroplane is hit at an altitude higher than MANPADS can reach it would be pretty obvious that Russia have supplied them with those advanced weapon systems.
    The third thing is, a BUK single TELAR (if they had an operational one) without an observation radar 'Kupol' (or any other) cannot find such a high and fast flying target, a radar beam on that TELAR is simply too narrow for that. A BUK is a system ( complex) with an observation radar and a command vehicle and all data that is comming to a TELAR have to come through that command vehicle and an observation radar is easy to detect

    Dimmus , John Smith 4 Jan 2016 10:46
    "if some aeroplane is hit at an altitude higher than MANPADS can reach it would be pretty obvious that Russia have supplied them"
    - obvious by feelings, but not logically obvious. As there are other possibilities, just few for example:
    1) not a BUK, but something else; 2) not separatists/Russia, but Ukrainian military/batallions; 3) if separatists, they were able to take BUK from some base there, for example, the air defense base A-1402 near Donetsk... etc.

    [Jan 03, 2016] According to a Reuters poll, Russian oil production in 2016 is expected to rise to a new post-Soviet yearly average high of 10.78 million bpd despite price falls

    peakoilbarrel.com

    AlexS , 01/02/2016 at 9:11 am

    Russian oil output hits post-Soviet record high in December, 2015

    Jan 2, 2016
    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-energy-production-idUSKBN0UG02S20160102

    Oil output in Russia, one of the world's largest producers, hit a post-Soviet high last month and in 2015 as small- and medium-sized energy companies cranked up the pumps despite falling crude prices, Energy Ministry data showed on Saturday.

    The rise shows producers are taking advantage of lower costs due to rouble devaluation and signals Moscow's resolve not to give in to producer group OPEC's request to curb oil output to support prices.

    But the rise will contribute to a global oil supply glut and exert continued downward pressure on oil prices which hit an 11-year low near $36 per barrel last month, having fallen almost 70 percent in the past 18 months.

    For the whole of 2015, Russian oil and gas condensate output rose to more than 534 million tonnes, or 10.73 million barrels per day (bpd) from 10.58 million bpd in 2014.
    In December, Russian oil output rose to 10.83 million bpd from 10.78 million bpd in November. In tonnes, oil output was 45.782 million last month versus 44.115 million in November.

    The increase in production defied many expectations of a fall in Russian oil output which has been on a steady rise since 1998 apart from a small decline in 2008.
    The Energy Ministry had expected output to fall to 525 million tonnes in 2015 due to the exhaustion of mature oilfields in Western Siberia, which account for over a half of the country's total oil production.

    But medium-sized producers, such as Bashneft, cranked up production. And Gazprom, the world's top natural gas producer, increased production of oil, mainly gas condensate, by 5.3 percent for the year.

    However, oil output at Russia's leading producers declined. Production at Rosneft edged down by 0.9 percent, while output at Lukoil's Russian assets fell by 1.1 percent last year.

    According to a Reuters poll, Russian oil production in 2016 is expected to rise to a new post-Soviet yearly average high of 10.78 million bpd despite price falls as new fields come online and producers enjoy lower costs due to rouble devaluation.
    -----------------
    Note: using 7.3 (rather than 7.33) barrels/ton ratio, C+C output in December was 10.78 mb/d

    Russian C+C production (mb/d)

    shallow sand , 01/02/2016 at 10:53 am
    AlexS. Interesting that Russian production was falling in the first half of 2014, when oil prices were very high, and then began rising once the price began to fall.

    The highest output yet came last month, with oil prices the lowest since early 2004.

    Is all Russian oil profitable on an operating basis at current prices? I suspect many conventional water floods and CO2 floods in the US are not. Doesnt Russia have quite a bit of similar mature production? Is the ruble devaluation keeping this production above water? I suspect the cost of labor in the US is much higher than in Russia, I do think we have discussed this aspect before.

    As I have stated before, I believe that US conventional onshore oil production is falling fast, the number of vertical production wells being drilled is likely the lowest in modern times (post 1970).

    It is interesting to me that Russian conventional onshore oil production is so much more resilient than US, given the similarities. Or maybe the production is not so similar?

    I appreciate all of the oil information you provide. Any detail you are able to give on Russian production is very much appreciated by me, and I suspect many other persons here.

    [Jan 02, 2016] Turkey faces big losses as Russia sanctions bite

    Notable quotes:
    "... According to the Westminster-controlled BBC, a Russian pilot "died when his SU-24 aircraft was shot down". If that is a time appreciation, it is a fairly accurate one, but he actually died after his aircraft hit the ground, and that fact was not the cause of his death. He died because he was shot full of holes from the ground while he was hanging helpless in his parachute straps and was not armed. As has been demonstrated to what should be the complete satisfaction of all, this is a war crime, illegal under international law regardless who does it. ..."
    "... But the Washington-and-Westminster-controlled western media skates adroitly around that fact, and consistently normalizes his death as just one of those unfortunate things that happens in war. ..."
    "... I can promise you that the murder of a western pilot under the same circumstances would not be soft-pedaled in the same manner, and the fact that criminal circumstances were attached to his dying would have been shouted to the skies. ..."
    marknesop.wordpress.com
    Moscow Exile, January 1, 2016 at 11:58 pm
    From the Westminster Controlled BBC:

    Turkey faces big losses as Russia sanctions bite

    marknesop, January 2, 2016 at 10:19 am
    According to the Westminster-controlled BBC, a Russian pilot "died when his SU-24 aircraft was shot down". If that is a time appreciation, it is a fairly accurate one, but he actually died after his aircraft hit the ground, and that fact was not the cause of his death. He died because he was shot full of holes from the ground while he was hanging helpless in his parachute straps and was not armed. As has been demonstrated to what should be the complete satisfaction of all, this is a war crime, illegal under international law regardless who does it.

    But the Washington-and-Westminster-controlled western media skates adroitly around that fact, and consistently normalizes his death as just one of those unfortunate things that happens in war.

    I can promise you that the murder of a western pilot under the same circumstances would not be soft-pedaled in the same manner, and the fact that criminal circumstances were attached to his dying would have been shouted to the skies.

    [Nov 23, 2015] Christmas festivities a charade with world at war

    news.yahoo.com

    http://news.yahoo.com/christmas-festivities-charade-world-war-pope-183159295.html

    Vatican City (AFP) - Christmas festivities will seem empty in a world which has chosen "war and hate", Pope Francis said Thursday.

    "Christmas is approaching: there will be lights, parties, Christmas trees and nativity scenes ... it's all a charade. The world continues to go to war. The world has not chosen a peaceful path," he said in a sermon.

    "There are wars today everywhere, and hate," he said after the worst terror attack in French history, the bombing of a Russian airliner, a double suicide bombing in Lebanon, and a series of other deadly strikes.

    "We should ask for the grace to weep for this world, which does not recognise the path to peace. To weep for those who live for war and have the cynicism to deny it," the Argentine pontiff said, adding: "God weeps, Jesus weeps". ...

    [Oct 28, 2015] IT IS 3 MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT

    Notable quotes:
    "... Meanwhile, the United States and Russia have embarked on massive programs to modernize their nuclear triads - thereby undermining existing nuclear weapons treaties. "The clock ticks now at just three minutes to midnight because international leaders are failing to perform their most important duty-ensuring and preserving the health and vitality of human civilization." ..."
    Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

    "Unchecked climate change, global nuclear weapons modernizations, and outsized nuclear weapons arsenals pose extraordinary and undeniable threats to the continued existence of humanity, and world leaders have failed to act with the speed or on the scale required to protect citizens from potential catastrophe. These failures of political leadership endanger every person on Earth." Despite some modestly positive developments in the climate change arena, current efforts are entirely insufficient to prevent a catastrophic warming of Earth.

    Meanwhile, the United States and Russia have embarked on massive programs to modernize their nuclear triads - thereby undermining existing nuclear weapons treaties. "The clock ticks now at just three minutes to midnight because international leaders are failing to perform their most important duty-ensuring and preserving the health and vitality of human civilization."

    [Sep 27, 2015] US On The Ropes China To Join Russian Military In Syria While Iraq Strikes Intel Deal With Moscow, Tehran

    Sep 27, 2015 | Zero Hedge
    What appears to have happened here is this: Vladimir Putin has exploited both the fight against ISIS and Iran's need to preserve the regional balance of power on the way to enhancing Russia's influence over Mid-East affairs which in turn helps to ensure that Gazprom's interests are protected going forward.

    Thanks to the awkward position the US has gotten itself in by covertly allying itself with various Sunni extremist groups, Washington is for all intents and purposes powerless to stop Putin lest the public should suddenly get wise to the fact that combating Russia's resurgence and preventing Iran from expanding its interests are more important than fighting terror.

    In short, Washington gambled on a dangerous game of geopolitical chess, lost, and now faces two rather terrifyingly disastrous outcomes: 1) China establishing a presence in the Mid-East in concert with Russia and Iran, and 2) seeing Iraq effectively ceded to the Quds Force and ultimately, to the Russian army.